2008-10-07 6-B Submittal~MorganMillerBlair
a iaw coRaaxnnorv
VIA FACSIMILE and U.S. MAIL
Bev erly ~ ohnson, Maycr
and City Council Members
City of Alameda
2263 Santa Clara Avenue
Alameda, CA 94501
1331 NORTH CALIFQRNIA BOULEVARD, SUITE 200 WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA 94596-4544
rs~~~{~ ~~'925.937~360q~. ~2~943.1106 FAx www.mmhlaw.com
7 ~ ~`:~it w 1 ,ir.~ G 1J ~wo "~
t~~~ ~~~~~ ~'u ~ ~~ ~ ~
AATRICIA E. CUR'I'IN
(925} 979-3353
pcurtin@mmblaw,com
RECEIVEC~
October 2, 2008
Re: City Council Meeting --October 7, 2008
Alameda Towne Centre -~ Harsch Investment Corp.
Appeal of Portions of Planned Development Amendment
Our File No. 10303-001
Dear Honorable Johnson and City Council Members:
OCT 0 61008
CRY OF ALgMEpq
MAYOR'S OFFICE
This firm represents Harsch Investment Corporation with respect to its plans to revitalize
the Alameda Towne Centre. At your meeting on Tuesday, October 7, you will be considering
two actions relating to the proposed Planned Development Amendment (PDA) for the renovation
of the shopping center. The two actions are (1) certification of the Environmental Impact Report
(EIR), and (2) hours of operation and outdoor activities for the center. These two actions have
been appealed to you by a few residents. We respectfully request that the. appeal he denied.
1. Certificatian of the EIR
The EIR analyzed the potential significant environmental impacts that can occur if the
shopping center was developed with 706,650 square feet of gross leasable area GLA}. In 2003,
when the City approved a planned development amendment for the shopping center, a mitigated
negative declaration ~MND} was certified that analyzed the potential environmental impacts of a
shopping center with up to 657,000 square feet of GLA. Thus, the EIR analyzed the potential
impacts that can occur with the addition of 49,650 square feet of retail space.
The Planning Board certified the EIR at its meeting on August 1 1, 2008. In certifying the
EIR, the Planning Board found that the document adequately analyzed the potential
environmental impacts that can occur if the shopping center were to develop with 706,650 square
feet of GLA. Certification of the EIR does not grant approval for or allow Harsch to build
MM13;10303-001:94b728. I
Re: Agenda llem #fi-B
~O-O1-08
Beverly Johnson
Gctober 2, 2008
Page 2
706,650 square feet of GLA. Certification simply serves as a statement that the EIR adequately
analyzed the potential of a shopping center with 706,650 square feet of GLA. Approval of
additional square footage for the center would need to occur in a subsequent approval,
The appellant's main argument against the EIR is that it failed to adequately analyze
traffic impacts. The EIR in fact adequately analyzed traffic impacts and the analysis was
confirmed by a peer reviewer. The original traffic analysis was prepared by Omni Means. In
response to concerns raised by the appellants, the City retained Dowling Associates to perform a
peer review of the traffic analysis. Dowling also prepared the City-wide traffic analysis for the
draft EIR on the draft General Plan Transportation Element. In its peer review, Dowling
concluded that the approach and methodologies used by Cmni Means complied with the
requirements of the City in analyzing traffic impacts. Dowling also noted that the study
assumptions were overly conservative which resulted in higher predicted traffic levels and
impacts and consequently, additional or overbroad mitigation measures. These studies together
provide adequate and clear evidence that the traffic impacts were adequately analyzed in the
EIR.
2. Hours of Qperatian and outdoor Activities
Gn August 1 1, the Planning Board approved a portion of the PDA hours of operation
and outdoor activities} and the remaining portions of the PDA are still before the Planning
Board. Appellants state in their appeal, without providing any facts or evidence, that this
approval was unreasonable and inconsistent with the City's code. To the contrary, and as set
forth in the staff report, the Planning Board's approval was reasonable and consistent with the
City's Code.
Over the last several months, Harsch and some of the adjacent residents, including
residents of the willows, have met to discuss the concerns these residents had with respect to the
PDA. Harsch and these residents have reached an agreement and Harsch is now requesting that
the approvals relating to the hours of operation and outdoor activities be revised to reflect the
agreement. These additional considerations are identified in underline on the pages attached
relating to condition of approval number 8 ~Gutdoor Activities} and condition of approval
number IO Hours of Gperation}. These pages are from the draft resolution that was included in
the Planning Board packet for its meeting on August 22, 200$. The Planning Board did not
consider these revisions at that meeting. Since these conditions were appealed to the Council it
is only appropriate that the Council consider and approve the revisions and not the Planning
Board. As a result, Harsch asks that the City Council approve not only those conditions that the
Planning Board approved relating to these items, but also the more restrictive changes shown on
the attached.
MMB: 10303-001:96728.1
Beverly Johnson
actober 2, 2008
Page 3
'L~e request that the City Council deny the appeal and in so doing, certify the EIR and
approve the hours of operation and outdoor activities that can occur at the Alameda Towne
Centre, Thank you.
Very truly yours,
GAN ILLER BLAIR
PATRICIA E. CURTIN
ATTACHMENT
cc: Doug Garrison, Supervising Planner
Farimah Faiz, Deputy City Attorney
Randy Kyte, Harsch Investments
Michael P. Corbitt, Harsch investments
MMB: I D303-001:944728. l
~~lT~~~R A~TI~'lTIE~: Thy fiallawir~g ~utd~or aivitias ~r~ pe~rrr~icl ~r~~h
~a ~lar~~ ~a~~irr~n~t ~nti~arn~nt ~n~ a:r~ n~# su~ja~ t~ a~~i~#i~n~fl ~~e Veit
a~~r+~~ral:
~~ ~I ~! It~~: ~ut~r ~Inln~ d~urir~~ p~r~itt~cl au~rn h~u rs.
~~ ALES: I~i~pf ~y ~` ma~~~~~a fir s~lla ~n ~ri~rat~ ~id~wall~s ar~~
~~ur#~~lyds end ~h~~r alr~ nit in~uding~ p~rkir~c~ fits ar ~~ ~u~fic ri~frt ~f
r~a~.
~~ ~PE~IAI... ENVY Art fi~~ra, h~lida~ t~s~tiv~ls and ~imi`lar ~~ent~ I~ta~
un pn~lt~ ~aurtye~~d~ anti ~i~ewallr,~ that ~o nit ir~~u~~ arr~~lffrf r~u~ic
are p~rirlltta~ ~uri~ 1"ular ~u~inas~ h~urs~ Evans that irti~lu~i$ arnpli~ed
rnu~~~ are p~rml~tt~d hatwn tl~ f7rs at ~:~~~lm ~n~ ~:~~~m ~ut~~~t t~
~ampiJ~n wi#h ali~~f~l~ ~ nil ~t~n~al~d~ and r~laf~r~. Tl~ u~~e
~f t~ant~, ~ similar t~mp~rary ~tnu~tiur~, ~~ ~~ant~ tad in ping
ire ~-~ ~ubjt ~ sapar~ ~~~rl b~ th~ pity,
~~ I~AkI~''EhdAN~E; R~t~na r~~lir~~l a~ti~lt, that ~d~ nit i:n~lu~~~
~utd~or c~n~trui~n a.~irritr`~, and tha# d~ nit inc~u~ #h~ u ~€ n~i
~~n~r~irrg p~v~r ~~uiprr~~f ~r~ parmit#~d ~4 h~aurs p~ dad. Tf~~ use al'
~tr~~t swa~par~' i~f b~~~r~, lawn mow~r~ and ~irnil~lr ~quiprr~~nt rrwlthi.n
~4a fit ~ ~ r~~i~ential ~~tri~t sha II nit p~rmit#~1 h~~ tf~e ~ur~
~f ~ 4:~~ pm end 7:~~ am. Thy ~~~ ~t str~~ ~~ rs ~n~ r_
~~ west of Eui~dirl ~~~ and B ildir~ ~' ~~h~~ll ~~ limit~f #~ tfr~
h~u ~ ~f ~:~~ am t~ 1 :~~
~ ~utd~nr activtt~~s r i ra~~~r ~~.f~sa~ti~ns a ~ end ~ f th~ii~
n~di.,,~+~,~hal~l „p~~hibit~l within ~~~ teat ~f ~~~ 1i~1uw~ an~furninium~.
H~ura of ~~~ra~tt~n
~0. ~ELII~E~IE: E-u~in~sa~ may ~~rve d~if~~ri tvu~nfy-fur h~ur~ ~ ~~y ~u~~~
#~ #~~ f~lf~wi~~ limi~ti~r~~;
li~r~r t~ ~uafr~ I~cat~d within ~~~ ~# of r~sidantlal ~~nin~ distris
ahalll f~~ lirnit~d t~ #h~ h~aur~ ~ ~:0~ am ~ ~~;~~ ern, ~eli~~r~s ~a~n~ thaw
l~~trr~ may I rrnitta~ ~uf~j~e~t #~ ~a p~rr~it oral. ~~t~n the h~ur~ ~f
~ ~; ~~ m and ~'.~~ ~ f ~ f true ~:hal~l u~a the pa r~ qtr ~rlv~wa t~
~~t~r ~n~ „exit the sl~nap~n~ car,~r ~i~s~l p~ww ~alf~ary trucks, ~witC~ ~~
v~t~i~l~ w~i~f~~ in ~xca ~ ~I~, p+aun~~, ~~r~ll I ~r~th tf~~ urr~tn~r~t~
~~
~f tl~~ ~ai~f~rr~i~ Air i~~~urra~ E~ard ~~,~~, which uur~ntly Limit ~n~i~~ idlln~
t~ a m~axCrnur~ of ~ minut,+e~ un.~~r t~~ ~ir~r~s#~r~c~~. h~ in c~nt~r
mangy ~r~ 11 ~~ $ rit#~n n~t~c~tio~n ~t t~~ r i n#~ t~ all
tan:a~t~, T~r~ants shall `: anm ,i a i$s of the r~ ire ,,
h~ in r .~ ri ars~nn~l sha11 m~nit~r ii~i~~~ with th~~e
~ uirernants and r~ ~i~la~ n ~ i~ ~~nt~r mar~a ~m+~nt.
MMB;103D3-OQ1:9~6728.1
Fw: Alameda City Council - Traffxe Concern - A. Akashi
Page 1 of ~
Fw: Alameda City Council -Traffic Concern - A. Akashi
From: Christine Healey <cmhealey a~earthlink,net~
To: mari9450~ @earthlink.net
Subject: Fw; Alameda City Council - Traffc Concern - A, Akashi
Gate: Oct 1, 2008 fi;24 AM
-----Original Message -----
From: AkashiAm~ a aol._c~m
To: cmhealey~aea~~link.net
Sent: Monday, October 06, 2008 5:53 PM
Subject: Alameda City Council -Traffic Concern - A, Akashi
Please szibrnit the following concern on my behalf at the upcoming Alameda City Council meeting on actober 1, 2008,
Ta: Alameda City Council
I am a concerned homeowner living an Broadway Street in Alameda, I understand that on August 1 ~, 2008, you granted
approval far extended hours of operation at the Alameda Towne Centre, 24 hour truck deliveries down rr~y street, and 24
hour maintenance. This was done with no prior notification to the residents vn the impacted streets. Had I received prior
notification, you certainly would have heard my concern and opposition to this activity,
I find this disturbing. As you sit on the council, elected by taxpayers, I must request that yc~u fully represent taxpayer
concerns. This increased noise and traffic on Broadway, brought about by your approval, will significantly impact ire in
several ways. It ~~vill negatively impact the value of my home, increase my safety concerns, and disturb my sense of
peace,
I strongly ask you tv hear the appeal that is being brought in front of you by my neighbors, and reconsider
your prior decisions,
Thank you,
Amy Akashi
~ 227 Broad~vay, Alameda.
New ~lapQueSt focal shows what's happening at your destination. Dining, Movies, Events, News & more. Try it_outl
Re: Agenda Item #6-B
~0-o7-os
htt~p:llwebmail,earthlink.netlwamlprintable.jsp?~ns~id~l5~3&x==-5472235~~ l~l?/208
Oct 7 City Council Meeting Page ~ of 1
Oct 7 City Council Meeting
From: Tom Fogarty ~fog_one@sbcglobal.net>
To: cmhealey@earthlink.net
Subject: Oct l City Council Meeting
Date: Oct 1, 200811:16 AM
Dear Christine:
I have lived at 2209 Otis Drive for the past 8112 years. My unit is on the street directly across from Towne Centre. I am
extremely interested in the appeal being heard by the City Council at the Oct. 7 meeting. I regret that I am unable to
attend the meeting because of my work schedule. I am in complete support of your efforts and the efforts of my neighbors
to make sure that we do not allow the expansion of Towne Centre to go forward without addressing certain issues. I can
vouch for the affects of traffic, noise and air pollution which has always been a problem and could get significantly worse
with the expansion plans . I am fully aware that I purchased my property with the knowledge that the shopping center was
right across the street and that there would be some advantages and some consequences as a result of this.
I have always expected that the owners and tenants of the Center would respect my rights as a homeowner and conduct
their business in a reasonable and neighborly fashion. I am not opposed to business or the improvement of the Center. I
do have reservations about the expansion allowing for more trucks rumbling up and down Otis Drive at all hours of the
day and night. I have problems with lot sweepers, leaf blowers, and power washers being allowed 24 hours a day in
providing maintenance for the center, this has always been a problem, could get worse and is just not reasonable.l've
lived with these conditions, tried to arrive at reasonable solutions in the past and certainly hope it doesn't get any worse. l
would urge the City Council to support the appeal of local residents and rethink the open ended approval of the
Environmental Impact report by the Planning Board. Please convey my support for the appeal and my sentiments about
the expansion of Towne Center to the city council.
Thank You:
Tom Fogarty
httn:llurehmail.earthlink.netlwaminrintable.isp?ms~id=364&x=857536636 101712D~S
Feedback for Alameda City Council
1. How long have you been an Alameda resident?
0 0-1 year o 1-2 years
0 2-4 years ~ Over 4 years
2. Do you rent or own? ^ Rent ~ Own
3. Is your residence located right on Otis or Broadway? 1~Yes D No
4. Have you experienced any of the following related to Alameda Towne Centre?
Yes o No Increase in traffic and congestion
Yes o No Noise or vibrations from Diesel Delivery Trucks
Yes ~ No Noise or vibrations from routine maintenance: Parking
Lot Sweeper, Power dasher, Leaf Blowers, Garbage Trucks
Yes o No Harmful Emissions or odors
5. Has your sleep, health or quality of life been affected by any of the above?
Yes D No
If yes, please describe
n ' C1
~ C ~ ~ A ! ~ r , _ 4
r `^~ r' ~
l
~ ~ ,~,~,
6. Have you ever~nade any complaints to the Alameda Towne Centre Management
or City officials regarding any of the above?
o Yes ~ No
~f yes, please describe
General Comments:
Name ~ ~ r c~ .cam
Address ~ ~ ~ ~,-~~ ~
~~ ~ Y ~ L 1
Phone _~~ ~~-.- ~ . ~ Y ~ ~ ~ ~~~
Email
__
f ~
Date ~~ ~ ~ Signature ~.r ~~~~
g~~4~zoos
Feedback for Alameda City Council
1. How long have you been an otis Drive resident?
D o-1 year D 1-2 years
~ 2-4 years ~ Gver 4 yea rs
2. Do you rent or own? ^ Rent ~' Own
3. Is your residence located right on the street (Otis Drive)? ~ Yes ^ No
4. Have you experienced any of the following related to Alameda Towne Centre?
~ Yes ^ No Increase in traffic and congestion
0 Yes D No Noise or vibrations from diesel Delivery Trucks
o Yes ~ No Noise or vibrations from routine maintenance: Parking
Lot Sweeper, Power Washer, Leaf Biowers, Garbage Trucks
D Yes ~ No Harmful Emissions or Gdors
5. Has your sleep health or quality of life been affected by any of the. above?
~ Yes o No
~f yes, please describe
fi. Have you ever made any complaints to the Alameda Towne Centre Management
or City officials regarding any of the above?
o Yes ~~ No
If yes, pi~ase describe
General Comments:
;-
Name ~ ~~~f~ ~ ~~ ~~~,~
Address , ~ y~ ~ 4 ~ ~ f ~z . _~
Phone
Email r~o~ Yy ~~ ; [~ ~}c~u~r,~~~,~%. ~~~
Date 9~~'~ ~' Signatur,~e'' ~~~
9/21/2008
Shi He Ren
2423 Rasevelt Drive
Alameda, CA 945 I
October 2, 20DS
RE: Project for redevelopment of the southeast corner of the Alameda Towne Center
Dear City Council Members:
I am a senior living within the next block to the Alameda Towne Center. This area used
to be a quiet, safe and clean place. It has been perfect far my retired life.
However, the current project for redevelopment of the southeast corner of the Alameda
Towne Center will ruin :my dream. This expansion will surely increase the ~afhc, noise
air pollution to the surrounding area. The busier this area gets, the higher crime rate
there will be. The neighborhood's life quality will decrease. rt will only drive the
residents away from the neighborhood and drive the pause value down.
As a resident, voter and owner of a house in this area, I am strongly against the current
expansion plan. I also will like to see you reject this plan.
Thank you.
Sincerely yours,
~`~ ~ /~-
Shi He R.en
Michael Chen
1041 Broadway
Alameda, CA 94501
~ctaber 1, 2008
RE: Project for redevelopment of the southeast corner of the Alameda Towne Center
Dear City Council Members:
Please abolish the plan for the expansion of the Alameda Towne Center. This expansion will surely
increase the traffic, noise air pollution to the surrounding area. The busier this area gets, the higher
crime rate there will be. The neighborhood's life quality will decrease.
we da Iike to see development of this area, But to build mare shopping buildings, to extend hours
of operation, or to allow 24 hour truck deliveries will only ruin the area, It will only drive the
residents away from the neighborhood.
As a resident, voter and owner of a house in this area 1 am strongly against the current expansion
plan. 1 also will like to see you reject this plan.
Thank you.
.-~
Sin e ely ~ , , ~
~,
~, <<
Michael Chen
wei wei
1041 Broadway
Alameda, CA 9450 ~
October Z, 2008
RE:Project for redevelopment of the southeast corner of the Alameda Towne Center
Dear City Council Members:
The project for redevelopment of the southeast corner of the Alameda Towne Center
should be reconsidered. This expansion will surely increase the traf~"ic, noise air
pollution to the surrounding area. The busier this area gets, the higher crime rate there
will be. The neighborhood's life quality will decrease. It will only drive the residents
away from the neighborhood and drive the house value down.
As a resident, voter and owner of a house in this areal am strongly against the current
expansion plan. ~ also will like to see you reject this current plan.
Thank you.
Sincerely yours,
wei wei
Fred Reid, Traffic Engineer, retired,
~~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,-- URS Corporation
V~ I P ~ +p
f4 I,•. ~`
11~:= '~iJ 4i:tn ~~ ' w 1220 Broadway
Alameda, CA 945 D 1
~~~~ ~~ ~ -1 ~ fit; ~~ ~ October 7, 2008
Honorable Mayor ~~~y~~~ `~~' ; ~n;~~i ", :council Members
Alameda City Hall
Alameda, CA, 94501
Subject: Appeal of Planning Board Certification of EIR PDA05-0004 DR05-0073, August 11,
2008, and "Traffic and Circulation", Chapter 10 of that 2006 DIER
This letter is a pointed expansion of basis item 2 in the subject Appeal, "The traffic study in the
EIR is seriously flawed, not reality based and technically inadequate".
"The 2006 DEIR is seriously flawed and a major underestimate ofthe project's traffic impacts
because:
^ The assumption that the study's "Existing"traffic corresponded to a 545,000 sq ft occupancy
at the site hand corresponding 657,000 baseline ~BL~ traffic estimate} was a major
underesstimate because:
The actual occupancy was substantially lower than the assumed level (1), and/or
The site's economic level of activity (shown by sales t~ revenue) was below normal for
the assumed existing space, and
The actual occupancy and the economic level of the center were not verified by the then
current realities.
^ The attached graph of daily traffic by operating size, at 300 typical U.S. shopping centers, is
the Institute of Transportation Engineers data used by this and most EIR.s. Dn it the arrows
show how much the DEIR underestimated the traffic, given that the actua12005 Existing SEX
in red} operating occupancy of the site was conservatively for impacts} 375,000 sq ft. It
shows that a 706,600 sq ft site would actually generate just under 24,000 trip ends per day.
The corresponding DEIR estimate of daily trips if based on the rea12005 occupancy would be
just over 20,000 - a 4000 trip or 19% underestimate.
The DEIR claimed that its methods were conservative in three respects: existing traffic data,
use of apass-by-trip reduction factor of 10% versus 23%, and cumulative impacts including
traffic from anticipated projects as well as regional growth. A DEIR comment letters by E.
Thomson shows that the existing traffic data used was not conservative. The pass-by factor
adjustment is appropriate engineering practice because the project is on an island with no
background tra~c on at least half its perimeter, thus not conservafive. The use of anticipated
projects in addition to regional growth is a required practice by the City of Alameda, thus is
an EIR requirement, not conservative.
^ A truly conservative approach would have used: 1}the above lower Existing occupancy, and
2} data as the ~s above the flitted solid curve which is the typical trip generation} an the
attached graph, which shows that many U.S. shopping centers in the range of 700,000 sq ft
generate mare like 30,000 trips per day,.
^ Alameda City staff were negligent in agreeing with the consultant on the assumed site
occupancy, off-island trip distibution, and cumulative data that disagreed with existing
evidence and data from regional transportation agencies.
Re; Agenda Item #6-B
~o-a7-oa
1
a
a
.~
W
0
._
0
L`
r
0
._
N
C
a
0
0
r
4f
0
1_
r~
V
.~
L
a
.~
0
z
~ r 1 1 1 1
1 1 . . 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 f
1 I ~. 1 1 i
.,, . . . 1• . . . . ~. . .,. . . . . . , . x.... r ........ 1. . . . . . .1 r ... .
~ , ~~ \ 1 1
~ 1 ~ 1 i 1
~, 1 ~ . i 1 ~
1 1 i 1 1 1
• , 1 1 1 1 ^
1
1 1 1 1
1 ` 1 t 1 i 1
i ~ 1 . 1 • 1
r
i ~ 1 ~ , 1 , /
1 ` ! 1 ~ 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
~ ~ 1 1
.. . . . .. ~. .. . . 1 .~. . . . . .. •1 .. . . r .. . .. . 1.. .. . . .1.. _ . . . . ,
`1 1 ~ 1 1
L 1\ 1 1 1 1
r 1 ~ 1 1 ~ ~
1 1 ,~ 1 1 1 1
• . Ir a . • • a . 1 . r ~ • • • • ^ •1 • • • • ^ ^ ~ • • • • • • • . 1• r • . . . ` r r r . w • .
1 ~xx 1 x 1
1 n , 1 ~ 1
1 1 , 1 1 1 1
1 , ~ 1 - 1
1 1 r / ~
1 1 !\ 1 1 1
1 1 ` ~ 1
1 1 X ` ! 1
1 ` 1 y ~ / 1
1 1 \/1 ,t X { /` Z 1 1
_ . . . . . . . . ~ _YL~ . . . . • r . • . ~\. . . . . . r . . . r
.'. 1 , 1 .`. 1. .1
1 1 1 \ 1 /YY''~` !~ 1 1
1 1 1 ~ \ 7 ~1 1 -~
1 1 1 „ ,, 1 ~1 ~ ~ 1
--...... ......•..r...... .....r.. .r. ..._--~-------- --
Ir 1 rl
l' •
1 1 1 ~ 1 y ! ~ J
/~\ .
1 1 1 1 Y 1 1
1 1• 1 1 \ • 1• _ _ •, •
1 1 ~~ 1 x 1 ~
~ 1 1 ~~
1 1 1 }~ ~~ 1 o w
1 , 1 1 . • 1 .~ . - - - - J~
1 1 , ~ . 1 m
~ 1 •
~ 1 1 7 • 1• / 1
1 ~ Y
1 1 1 ~ ~ 1 1 r> ~/
. /\
1 1 1 . 1
1 1 L 1 1 ~
1 ~ ~
1 1 1 1 I 1, X
1 1 1 1 •
1 1 1 , • ~ Y
1 1 1 . . /t
1 1 1 f 1
~ 1 1 t i 1
1 , , 1 ~ • 1
°o
Q
0
w
0 0 0 0 o v
o° ~ ~ °o
0 0 o a a ~
r~ u~ ~r M cv r
spu3 dial a~~iye~ eBe~any =1
S
r
D
r
v
r
r•
8
d
}
1
~~
i
I
r C~
L
o ~
T •~
~7
J ~
~ ~
~ ~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~.
~•
o (/)
~ o
0
0
~ T
~ ~~
00
o°
~°~
N
o ~'
N
C
o a°
~ ~
~.
v
~ ~
GRe~~ ~°~~o~
City of Alameda: EFMHome
https:llclients.comcate.comlrepslcaseDetail.php
>,::c:::aucuwuz u,:o.wuawoxw;wra;w:wxa;,uawaw.~vnnr.~x~~;aunwa:axo•a:a+wro,,,x»;; a;,:~z;;axahaav.,wwonvawcaoraa,:r.•,x.:n~:.'.~µ~a~::maacowwmew;;;»xrancxwc;:o:~...~M;.:aw,wno;~:wmwwamw.w;.w,.as<•wx•
autaw.awww,: ~wxa:::~xa~auincrawo;:w%•.u:• arxvaaorra;w::awa.~~rr,»uwo;:::rm%m-:uiy„»Murur:.r~:a~:v,;v,: xwnoH;.,,n.,o,owoavrrur:,>xwwa,.~w~aa,~~,;~wn
Case Details
Prin# Close
Case Number; 17531
Customer; howard, david
external customer
925 taylor ave
Alameda CA 94501
ma
510-673-0998
mowster@sbcg lobal. net
Status: Resolved
Location of Request:
Preferred Contact Methad: Email
Request Type: Complaint
Submitted By: howard, david
customer
Primary owner: Baines, Christina
Topic; Mayor and
Councilmembers>E-mail
the Mayor and
Councilmembers City
Manager}
original Reques#
DatelTime Created; 10/06/2005
20:43
Date/Time Closed: 10/D7/2005
15:55
For Qctober 7th City Council Meeting, Regarding Alameda Towne Center Expansion
I can predict what we will hear from the dais during the ATC appeal - we need the retail at
ATC to generate sales tax revenue, blah, blah, blah.
Stop fooling yourselves -you aren't going to retail-sales-tax your way out of this current
financial crisis.
The current $5 million per year roughly} of retail sales tax revenue relies on $500 million of
retail spending in Alameda. Qur share of sales tax is only 1°/o That's based on 30,000 homes
and 75,000 residents.
To get another $5 million in retail sales tax would require another $5D0 million of retail
spending in Alameda -and probably another 30,000 homes and 75,000 people. That just
isn't going to happen, not any time soon, and probably never. The best estimates of taxable
retail sales leakage from Alameda are around $41 million - yr $410,000 per yearty the
general fund. From where do you imagine the other $459 million in taxable retail sales
spending is going to come from?
I stood before the council about a year ago and advocated a program that would boost
business-to-business sales tax revenue -bring in mere light industry like Peet's Coffee and
Dunsmere that don't rely on retail. So far as I can tell, neither council or City Staff have
made any effort in this direction.
And don't fool yourself about Emeryville's high per-capital sales tax revenue figure -
Emeryville has less than 10,000 residents, and their big-box retail stores draw on
neighboring cities like Berkeley, Oakland etc. Emeryville's retail sales-tax revenue should be
measured against the residents of the neighboring cities. Emeryville is smack-dab in the
middle of several cities, and beside a major freeway junction to-boot. Alameda is no
Emeryville -we're off to the side, and not in the middle of any other cities, and nowhere near
the freeway. It's foolish to try to reach for their per-capita retail sales tax figures.
Instead of fighting with the Navy about cleanup at Alameda Point, and letting the buildings
out there rot away empty, you could be making an honest effort to get those buildings filled
Re; Agenda Item #6-B
~ 0.07-48
1 of 2
City of Alameda: EFMHome
https:Ilclients.comcate.comlrepslcaseDetail.php
with businesses that will generate B2B sales tax revenue. It's not tva late to get started,
Customer Communications
Na records of communication activities found
* Customer Communications are visible on the customer's case status page.
Internal Activity
Internal Notes
No records far internal activities found
Tasks
Complete Due Subject Assigned 6y Assigned To Status
Case Contacts
Role Name Email Pfrane
Primary Owner Baines, Christina cbaines@ci.alameda.ca.us 510-747-4701
Secondary Owner Ilacqua, Tiffany tilacqua@ci.alameda.ca.us
Collaborator Kurita, Debra dkurita@ci.alameda.ca.us 510-747-4700
Collaborator Weisiger, Lara Iweisige@ci.alameda.ca.us 747-4801
Collaborator Woodbury, Cathy coodbury@ci.alameda.ca.us
A#tachments
No attachments found
Activity History
Date Event Who Description
10/07/2008 15:59 Add Collaborator Baines, Christina Added Debra Kurita as a case
collaborator.
10/07/Z008 15:59 Add Collaborator Baines, Christina Added Lara Weisiger as a case
collaborator.
10/07J2008 15:59 Add Collaborator Baines, Christina Added Cathy Woodbury as a case
collaborator.
10/07/2008 15:55 Change Status Baines, Christina Change status from: New to:
Resolved
2of2 10171200$4:19 PM