The Alameda Sun recently asked candidates for mayor and city council to answer a series of questions on a number of important issues facing Alameda this election season. Below are their responses, in their own words, with only minor edits made for style and length.

What is your stance on development in Alameda?

Doug deHaan: I have always been a strong supporter of redevelopment in Alameda. All of our future developments must be reviewed with a strong emphasis on community involvement and input to determine growth that fits. While serving on the Economic Development Commission (EDC), the commission under my leadership was instrumental in developing and implementing a citywide retail plan, which included the Bridgeside Shopping Center, Park Street, Webster Street and Towne Centre. Another focus of the EDC was the recent successful build-out of the Harbor Bay Business Park.

Beverly Johnson: I support reasonably paced redevelopment of blighted areas in Alameda. I do not support uncontrolled redevelopment and never have. It is possible to redevelop areas of our city which are blighted in ways which have less impact than the former uses. With the recent decision of our master developer not to proceed with the project at Alameda Point, I believe that we now have the opportunity to reduce the number of housing units proposed for Alameda Point and to allow for the potential of more historic preservation and reduce potential traffic impacts.

Kenneth Kahn: I believe this election is about change. Change is inevitable. I want to ensure that we keep the quality of life for the people of Alameda. As nostalgic as I am, we cannot go back to the 1950s, when we really were a small town. So to me the question is how do we grow while still keeping our small town feel. I want to make sure we have the infrastructure to handle any traffic that will occur as a result of development at Alameda Point, or anywhere else on the Island.

Ashley Jones: I support the development of light industry in Alameda, and Harbor Bay should not be turned from light industry to housing in the future. At former NAS Alameda, I am opposed to the current development because I don’t see the Navy cleaning it up and I don’t think we should take the land until it is clean.

Pat Bail: I believe development is possible in Alameda, with community input. We need to be aware of the potential for traffic problems and quality of life issues. If we are careful and plan with long-range goals in mind, I believe we can improve our community without destroying it.

Frank Matarrese: Development in Alameda is really “re-development,” as the city is already developed. As we renew areas that are no longer in use or have become blighted — non-contributing drains on our community — we must approach their reuse with these considerations: we must address traffic and transportation issues, and we must assure that our transportation infrastructure, both within the Island and on and off the Island, keeps pace with increased demands.

There is tremendous potential for reuse at Alameda Point, but many tasks, directed through a community driven process, must be carefully undertaken to achieve a successful outcome.

Mike Rich: I could tell Alamedans what I want, but I couldn’t tell what Alameda would look like in four years because I would not presume to predetermine outcomes. My stance on development is the physical manifestation of Alameda should reflect a warm and respectful community spirit. The only way for that to happen is for people to work together on development issues and specific projects in a positive atmosphere with an eye toward compromises that address varied interests rather than getting stuck on for-or-against-it positions. What we feel like as a community will manifest itself in physical reality. An example of this theory is the proposed six-story parking garage; the outcome in that instance will reflect the flawed process used to get to the outcome.

Lena Tam: Decisions about redevelopment should be facilitated to maximize opportunities for community input. Our planning efforts must be balanced and take into account and be coordinated with what is happening around us. The number of dwelling units and type of business and industry at Alameda Point will be, in many respects, driven by the economics of its development. There should be density limits that preserve open space and height limits imposed.

Traffic can be reduced if there are neighborhood shops, public parks, and plenty of off-road walking and biking paths as well as public transit around neighborhood hubs.

Eugenie Thomson: Alameda is at a crossroads. The question is not whether we will grow, but how we will grow. Will we have uncontrolled growth that clogs the tubes and channels traffic through our neighborhoods, making them too congested and exposing children, pedestrians and bicyclists to traffic safety problems?

Or, will we carefully consider the impacts of proposed projects and make sure that the growth we approve is growth that fits within the Island’s infrastructure constraints? We’ve seen what uncontrolled growth has done to other cities. Alameda can do better.

Would you consider any modification to Measure A?

Doug deHaan: I’m opposed to any change of Measure A. Measure A has provided, and continues to provide, the unique quality of life Alameda offers our diverse population. Although Alameda is rated fourth in density within Alameda Country, the city still has a small town feel, while over 52 percent of its housing units are rentals. One major benefit from Measure A was the control of the unfettered development and building of apartments that occurred in the 50s and 60s. Measure A also addressed the transportation and traffic constraints facing the city. Alameda is again facing new and unconstrained development from both sides of the Estuary. Alameda Point will always have its own unique industrial attributes with adaptive reuse. Development at Alameda Point can be accomplished within Measure A guidelines. With the planned new housing units (1,700) at Alameda Point, the overall housing units will reflect over 45 percent of low and moderate housing units; this includes the vacant Coast Guard North Housing units and existing collaborative housing units. Remember, the West End has only one island access point (Posey and Webster Street tubes), and will grow by 35 percent under the existing Measure A compliant Alameda Point Preliminary Development Concept (PDC) Plan.

Beverly Johnson: No, I do not believe that modification of Measure A is in the best interest of Alameda. Additionally, the council does not have the ability to modify Measure A. Changes to Measure A can only be adopted by the voters in Alameda. Alameda has limited points of ingress and egress and I do not see additional points in the foreseeable future. All plans for Alameda must be done given the limitations of the existing transportation infrastructure. Traffic and transportation issues permeate nearly every issue before the council. When I started on the council eight years ago, one of my first accomplishments was for the establishment of the Public Transit Committee, to improve public transit in Alameda. Later, I advocated for the transition of the Public Transit Committee to the Transportation Commission, which continues to address the comprehensive needs of transportation, transit and congestion in Alameda.

Kenneth Kahn: I would consider a modification to Measure A, especially as it relates to Alameda Point. Having grown up in Alameda and living here my entire life, I believe Measure A has been very good for the city. However, Measure A is not the Bible, and I believe we need to look at a modification. In no way am I advocating for skyscrapers or any other structural eyesores to be built in the city.

Ashley Jones: No, I don’t think I would at the present time because Measure A has protected us and is adequate for our needs.

Pat Bail: Modification to Measure A is not necessary to build housing in Alameda. Marina Village is Measure A compliant and a nice development. I oppose any modification to Measure A

Frank Matarrese: Measure A serves existing Alameda neighborhoods well and should remain in place for existing neighborhoods. For planning at Alameda Point, I support presenting options for the voters of Alameda to consider. No specific proposal for modifying Measure A has been brought before the current city council. I favor an informed decision-making process, rather than one dictated by emotions, which tend to run high on both sides of this issue. I would want the following questions to be credibly analyzed and debated before any ballot measure goes to the voters, who will ultimately decide the issue: What is the objective of any modification? What limitations would be imposed on the total number of buildings at the Point (Measure A compliant and modified)? On the number of units per building? What are the height limits (Measure A imposes none)? How much open space would be required? How will traffic considerations be addressed? How would any modification affect the economics of the project?

Mike Rich: Yes, I would support a modification to Measure A. In fact, I have suggested the following idea, which I call “multiple-unit dwelling credits.” Let’s say that someone who owned a Victorian house in Alameda that was divided into six apartment units decided to convert the Victorian back into a single-family home. My idea is that the city would then give the homeowner a piece of paper conveying six multiple-unit dwelling credits to the homeowner. The homeowner could then sell the credits to a developer, who would then be allowed to build six multiple unit dwellings in a zoned area that is close to the tunnel or the bridges; in other words, closer to egress. The multiple-unit dwelling credits would have no fixed value; they would be sold to developers at market value. This idea would create an incentive to restore historic homes, while allowing for inclusion of multiple-unit dwellings in new residential development near the tunnel and bridges.

Eugenie Thomson: I understand change to Measure A is currently being discussed so that more residential units can be built at Alameda Point. I also understand the current Alameda Point development proposal includes 25 percent set aside for affordable housing out of the total 1,770 homes proposed on Alameda Point, and that this can be done within Measure A. Because the number of units or overall amount of growth in Alameda concerns me, and the affordable housing concern has already been resolved in the Alameda Point proposal and other developments, I would not support a change to Measure A.

Lena Tam: I strongly support Measure A and believe it has been effective in protecting our quality of life and the rich architectural history of Alameda. Alameda Point redevelopment presents an important challenge to our city. How do we make it a positive new part of Alameda? We seem to have agreement on what we don’t want: traffic jams and sprawling development inconsistent with our existing small town community spirit. What we need is agreement on what we do want. We will have an opportunity to converge on such a community vision and to evaluate alternatives on a mix of housing and commercial models. One thing is clear, we need to encourage neighborhoods that reduce traffic with local shops, parks, public transit and plenty of off-road walking and biking paths. We should also encourage local employment opportunities that minimize the need to drive out of Alameda to work. It is possible that in order to meet community goals such as minimizing traffic and maintaining the character of Alameda Point consistent with the rest of the Island, modifications would have to be made to Measure A as it would apply to Alameda Point, which currently restricts all new housing to one type.

Do you support or oppose more affordable housing in Alameda?

Doug deHaan: I do support affordable housing. Our new housing element, which was adopted three years ago, provides for new inclusive housing standards: 25 percent in redevelopment areas and 15 percent citywide. The city is currently performing substantial rehabilitation programs that create affordable units within existing housing. Alameda Point could provide opportunities for senior housing by reusing facilities. The ongoing challenge is the escalating price of home ownership in the Bay Area, as reflected in the last five years in which homeowner cost has doubled. High density does not equal affordable housing. The prices of the lofts in Oakland are as high as they are ugly. Alameda still has a high number of entry-level housing units available, which are relatively affordable compared to other desirable cities within the Bay Area.

Beverly Johnson: Yes, I do support affordable housing in Alameda and have voted to support affordable housing requirements. I voted to support a 25 percent affordable requirement for projects within redevelopment areas in Alameda, when only 15 percent is required by law. I also voted to support a 15 percent affordable requirement for projects in non-redevelopment areas, which is not required by law. This standard is higher than nearly all other cities in the Bay Area.

Kenneth Kahn: I support affordable housing in Alameda for hard working average income earners. This is why I support modifying Measure A. I have talked with numerous people whose dream it is to live in Alameda, but they cannot afford to purchase a home in Alameda. I have spoken to many excellent hard working school teachers who tell me that they would love to live here, but cannot afford the home prices. It is very important that we as a community make homes available at a reasonable price for those who enhance the lives of our children.

Ashley Jones: I would support an increase of affordable housing as we build out the Island. I support the 25 percent affordable units for new developments in redevelopment areas and the only way I see us keeping that requirement is through the housing authority by subsidizing those units and making them affordable.

Pat Bail: We have in place a commitment to provide 25 percent of all housing in Alameda for very low, low, and moderate income levels. As developments are proposed in various areas of Alameda, 25 percent of affordable housing will be included in the overall concept. I do not oppose affordable housing.

Frank Matarrese: As a city council member I fought for and supported setting levels of affordable housing in Alameda’s redevelopment areas that are above the State mandate of 15 percent of total housing units because this policy allows more people to enjoy the dream of home ownership. For example, the current city council required that 20 percent of the 152-unit Marina Cove Project and 25 percent of the housing units at Alameda Point to be affordable.

Mike Rich: I do support more affordable housing for average income earners in Alameda.

My suggestion for a modification to Measure A (the multiple-unit dwelling credits idea) would allow for inclusion of townhouses, condos and live-work units in new residential development close to the tunnel and bridges, which would increase affordability. Another idea I have suggested is to look at pre-fabricated houses as a component of new single-family residential development. There are new advances in pre-fabricated housing that make them aesthetically appealing, high-tech and green, and you can do a pre-fab single-family home, with the lot, for $250,000 to $300,000.

Eugenie Thomson: I would support more affordable housing if this growth fits within our Island without significant environmental impacts. And I would consider introducing size limits on residential units for the purposes of making the homes more affordable or consider other city criteria that have been successful elsewhere to improve the affordability of homes.

Lena Tam: Our community’s essential workers are often average income earners that include teachers, firefighters, nurses, police officers, city public works employees, and they increasingly cannot afford to live in Alameda. I support providing affordable housing for our workforce in Alameda. If workers are forced to endure hour-plus commutes by living far from Alameda, it produces more and more traffic and harms our land, air and water. By providing workforce housing, it also enables our emergency responders to respond more promptly in the case of an emergency/natural disaster. Similarly, the availability of affordable housing within a reasonable commuting distance is a key factor for business location decisions. To be a long-term viable community, we need to have a diversity of people and wage earners in order to accommodate sustainable economic prosperity. Alameda already requires 25 percent “affordable” housing with any new development projects. The redevelopment of Alameda Point will present a unique opportunity to plan workforce housing along with other mixed-use models.

Do you support or oppose large retailers like Target in Alameda?

Doug deHaan: For 20 years the South Shore Center (Towne Centre) has been under-performing and not fulfilling the community’s aspirations. A new life for the Centre was realized in 2003, with the addition of Trader Joe’s. The Centre is now undergoing complete renovation, which includes 113,000 square feet of new entitlement. It shows new life that reflects Alameda’s retail lifestyle. Having said this, I strongly believe that Target (a mega-box, high-volume discount merchandiser) is not the best fit. It represents over 35 departments averaging 4,000 square feet each, and the plans are for a 145,000 square-foot, double-deck store/parking structure. The very nature of a Target store that will draw customers from over a five to seven mile radius would additionally impact all traffic corridors leading to Towne Centre. The draft environmental impact report (DEIR) is flawed and underestimates traffic impacts. Thus, this would further deteriorate our quality of life in an effort to capture minimal sales tax leakage.

Beverly Johnson: The proposal for a Target is currently before the planning board for review of the environmental impact report. The planning board is considering the impacts and potential mitigations of locating the Target at Alameda Towne Centre. I would not support a location for a Target if the impacts could not be mitigated. With regard to other large retailers, I would not support a Wal-Mart in Alameda.

Kenneth Kahn: I have mixed feelings when it comes to large retailers like Target coming to Alameda. Overall, I have to say I’m in support of them coming to Alameda. It’s clear that the trend in retail is big-box developments like Target. People are actually voting for Target by taking their money out of Alameda to purchase their goods, to the tune of $40 million dollars a year. The city can use that money to pay for our parks, police and fire departments, etc.

Ashley Jones: I oppose them. They hurt small local businesses, they don’t pay a living wage to their workers and the amount of traffic that would be generated would make the project unfeasible. It would destroy our quality of life.

Pat Bail: I don’t oppose Target as a retailer, but I don’t believe the location and size is appropriate for Alameda Towne Centre. It draws too much traffic through the Island and will cause problems for the adjacent residents with pollution, noise and safety issues. As far as other large retailers, it would depend on location.

Frank Matarrese: Such proposals should be analyzed on a case by case basis because not all “big-box” operations are appropriate for Alameda. I am generally favorable toward the proposed Target store at Towne Centre to continue the revitalization of the former South Shore Center, but there are still major concerns such as increased traffic which must be addressed before the planning board makes a decision. The former South Shore Shopping Center steadily declined over the years since it was built in the late 1950s, but has seen a recent revival, starting with the arrival of Trader Joe’s. Target has the potential to continue that revival, both by its presence and by attracting other quality retailers and restaurants. It would also capture lost sales tax revenue from Alamedans who leave the Island for much of their shopping.

Mike Rich: Personally, I do not think that big-box retailers like Target or Wal-Mart are a good retail fit for Alameda. That is my subjective view. Personally, I would like to see more upscale retailers come to Alameda. However, I would not presume to impose my subjective views on everyone in town. For that reason, I would support a Target, for example, if a valid environmental impact report (EIR) adequately addressed traffic impacts, and if the valid concerns of citizens are taken into account. I do not support the current proposal for a Target store because the EIR is flawed, the size of the proposed store is out of character with our community, and the proposed site is absurdly close to residential housing.

Eugenie Thomson: I would support a Target or other large retailers in Alameda if located at the right location and if the significant environmental impacts such as traffic are mitigated.

Lena Tam: Alameda residents appreciate being able to have a full-service community. Time and again, they have shown that they would like to do their shopping, dining, entertainment and receive their medical care within our city as much as possible. Families should have options in Alameda, from small neighborhood stores to mid-sized stores that provide lower-priced, larger amounts of standard household goods and foods. There is no need to unnecessarily send retail dollars (and associated sales taxes) out of Alameda if we can provide those services and retail opportunities here. I would support a Target store placed among other existing shopping services at the Towne Centre if a traffic mitigation plan is in place. I do not support some big-box retail, particularly supersized Wal-Marts, in Alameda.