2010-01-05 Power PointAlameda Point
Development Initiative
Election Report Presentation
Joint Meeting
Alameda Unified School District
and
City of Alameda
January 5, 2010
Presentation Goals
I. Initiative Process
II. Chronology of Process
III. Contents of Initiative
IV. School Implications
V. Executive Summary
I. Initiative Process
Initiative Process
A. Ballot Box Planning
California History of "Tax Initiatives"
Adoption, Amendment or Repeal of Land
Use Regulations
Measures Seek "Yes" or "No" for a
P articular Project, in Total
Measure B Seeks "Yes" for Project as
Defined and Described in Initiative
I. Initiative Process (cont.)
B. Process Overview
Submission of the Initiative Petition
Ballot Title and Summary
Notice to Circulate
Secure Signatures
Qualify, Certified and Set for Election
I. Initiative Process (cont.)
C. Initiative Amendments
Not Developer Specific
Approved as a Holistic Document and
Component Parts
Amendment to Initiative Submitted only
by Developer (or Significant
Landowner) to City Council
Cannot Reduce $200M Public Benefit
Expenditure
0
0
Cannot Increase Number of Units
Cannot Increase Non Residential
Building Square Footage
I. Initiative Process (cont.)
E. Election Results
If Fails, then Initiative Has No Legal
Effect
If Passes, then Law within 10 Days of
Certification of Results
Within 5 Days of Certification,
Development Agreement Must Be
Executed by a Party (Other than
Government Entity) with Legal or
Equitable Interest in Real Property
II. Chronology of Process
II. Chronology of Process
10 July 20,2007m 0 ENA Executed SunCal /ARRA
2. October 3, 2007m. Update on AP Project
3. October 16, 2007m. ARRA Establishes AP
Advisory Task Force
4. March 5, 2008m. 1St ENA Amendment
Extends Milestones
Creates Developer Consultant Account
II. Chronology of Process (cont.)
5. July 1, 2008: Update on AP Project
6. September 10, 2008: Presentation of Draft
Development Concept
7. October 6, 2008m. 2nd ENA Amendment
Transfer of Ownership Interest
SunCal to DE Shaw
Additional Performance Milestones
8. January 7, 2009m. Presentation of Draft
Master Plan to City Council
II. Chronology of Process (cont.)
9. March 26, 2009 Initiative Submitted to City
Clerk
10. Apri12`11"' 1, 2009 C -ity C ouncil D"` irects S taff
to Prepare Election Reports, Parts I and II
11. October 15, 2009 Initiative Qual'if'ies
12. November 3, 2009 -City Council Calls for
Election February 2nd
III. Contents of Initiative
rfontents of Initiative
A. Summary of Initiative
Administrative /Regulatory Provisions
Alameda Point Specific Plan
General Plan Amendments (Community
Plan)
Revised Zoning Map and Text
Amendments
Charter Amendment
Development Agreement
III. Contents of Initiative (cont.)
1
r ig
7
rt r
%=OEi
AIN
Op
ti
x
k4 Y
e
01
1
A ura 1 -2- Plan Area
N ot to Scale
Noah
B. Land Use Program
III. Contents of Initiative (cont.)
B. Land Use Program (cont.)
Housing
4,841 -Unit Cap
4,346 new housing units
186 existing low -cost housing units (Alameda Point
Collaborative)
Reuse of existing buildings for up to 309 units
III. Contents of Initiative (cont.)
B. Land Use Program (cont.)
Housing
Amends City Charter to allow.
Housing types ranging from single family detached
to multi family
Residential densities from 10 units per acre to 70
units per acre
Reuse of existing buildings for multi family
60 -foot height limit (5 stories)
III. Contents of Initiative (cont.)
B. Land Use Program (cont.)
Housing
Improves Ability to Meet Its RHNA
Affordable Housing Program
Commits minimum of 15% inclusionary housing
(approximately 700 units)
Settlement agreement requires 25% (approximately
1,160 units)
III. Contents of Initiative (cont.)
B. Land Use Program (cont.)
Housing
Density Bonus
State density bonus applies to project
Pursuant to State law, with density bonus, units
may exceed 4,841 -unit cap
III. Contents of Initiative (cont.)
B. Land Use Program (cont.)
Non Residential /Commercial
3.79 million square feet of non residential
3.18 million s.f. commercial, including 500,000 s.f.
within existing buildings
350,000 s.f. retail
260,000 s.f. civic uses (government offices,
schools)
600 marina boat slips
60 -foot height limit (5 stories)
III. Contents of Initiative (cont.)
B. Land Use Program (cont.)
Open Space
0
145 acres total
9
0
9
Neighborhood
(12 acres)
Community
(17 acres)
Linear Open
Space (9 acres)
Seaplane
Lagoon
(23 acres)
Enterprise
Park (24 acres)
Sports
Complex
(60 acres)
Flute #-1: Conceptual Open Space Framework (ILLUSTRATIVE ONLY)
NJt�r �h
III. Contents of Initiative (cont.)
B. Land Use Program (cont.)
Environmental Impact Report
D isposition and Development A greement
III. Contents of Initiative (cont.)
B. Land Use Program (cont.)
Required Subsequent Approvals
Pattern Book
Historic Resource Design Guidelines
Transportation Demand Management Plan
(TDMP)
Master Demolition, Infrastructure and
Grading Plan
Subdivision of Land
III. Contents of Initiative (cont.)
C. Development Agreement
Parties: City and person with legal or
equitable interest in property
Term: 25 years plus extensions
Development Rights: Per Initiative
P hasing: Order, rate and time at
developer's sole discretion
III. Contents of Initiative (cont.)
C. Development Agreement (cont.)
Exactions: Waiver of development
impact fees
Public Benefits: $200M cap, public
financing contingency
Financing: 2% total cap on all taxes and
assessments
F i Neutrality: Cooperate iscal n good faith
to achieve
Transfer of Rights: Transfer rights
without City approval
III. Contents of Initiative (cont.)
D. Fiscal Impacts
Fiscal Neutrality
City resolution requires it
Initiative commits to "Good Faith Effort to
Achieve"
No guarantees in Initiative
III. Contents of Initiative (cont.)
D. Fiscal Impacts (cont.)
Impacts on Capital Budget
Public
benefits
broadly
defined
Public
benefits
include
improvements
typically considered project requirements
(e.g., neighborhood parks and on -site
streets)
III. Contents of Initiative (cont.)
D. Fiscal Impacts (cont.)
Impacts on Cap'ltal ud g et (cont.)
Public benefits capped at $200M (PV)
Contingent on 100% of available 80% non housing
tax increment financing
Contingent on Community Facilities District
assessment financing
CEQA mitigations included in this amount
All assessment financing cannot exceed 2%
levy on property
III. Contents of Initiative (cont.)
D. Fiscal Impacts (cont.)
"Public Benefits" include:
Sports complex ($50M)
Parks and open space ($34.2M)
Seaplane lagoon frontage ($24.5M)
Bay Trail extension ($3.3M)
On -site and off -site traffic and transit
improvements ($223.7M)
Ferry terminal and transit hub ($18M)
Upgrades to existing fire station ($6M)
Branch library ($12M)
III. Contents of Initiative (cont.)
Table 2
Exempted City Impact Fee /Exactions Description and Revenue
Alameda Point Development Initiative
PURPOSE AND USE OF EXEM PT ED RELEVANT ORDINANCE PROVIDED
FEE CATEGORY FEE REVENUE FEE REVENUE EXEM PTIONS /CREDITS
PROJECT RELATED
BENEFITS
Affordable Housing requirement or fee levied $10,990,000 Reduction, adjustment or w aiver subject to A minimum of 15 percent of housing in the project w ill
Housing Fee on commercial development to Director of Development Services discretion, be developed as affordable housing or approximately
(AMC 27 -1) mitigate the housing impacts based on absence of reasonable 652 units. This helps to meet a separate 25 percent
caused by new commercial and relationship between impacts of CIC inclusionary requirement, not Affordable Housing
industrial development. development and amount of fee charged. Fee requirement.
Construction
Tax on all construction to provide $29,950,000
Credits Persons w ho have entered into a
Developer agrees to cooperate in good faith in the
Improvement
General Fund revenue that may
development agreement approved by the
implementation of the City's fiscal neutrality policy.
Tax
be used to defer any of the cost
Council w herein that person agrees to
(AMC 3 -62)
of municipal services generated
contribute to any of the costs associated
by the development of property.
with development shall receive a credit
These funds have historically
against this tax as provided in the
been used to fund maintenance of
agreement.
streets, sidewalks, park faci
Dwelling Unit
Tax on all residential dwelling $6,640,000
Land Dedication In Lieu of Payment No
Included in $200 million, which is contingent on
Tax
units to fund construction of a
person shall be required to both dedicate
commitment by City of public financing, developer
(AMC 3 -60)
library facility (1/6 of funds) and
real property and also pay the tax for such
expects to construct a branch library and 145 acres
park and recreation facilities,
improvement.
of park and open space.
including real property (the
balance of funds).
III. Contents of Initiative (cont.)
Table 2 (cont.)
Exempted City Impact Fee /Exactions Description and Revenue
Alameda Point Development Initiative
PURPOSE AND USE OF EXEM PT ED RELEVANT ORDINANCE PROVIDED
FEE CATEGORY FEE REVENUE FEE REVENUE EXEM PT I ONS /CREDITS
PROJECT RELATED
BENEFITS
Cityw ide
Fees charged to mitigate the
Development
impact of new and expanded
Fee
development to pay for specific
(AMC 27 -3)
(1) traffic /safety and
21 -21.1-
transportation; (2) parks and
21.21.3)
recreation facilities, (3) public
facilities, and (4) public safety
projects listed in Exhibit B of the
Nexus Stud
Construction
Fee required to haul construction
Demolition
and demolition debris, w hich helps
Hauler Fee
City fund recycling programs and
(AMC 21 -20.3;
impacts to streets due to hauling.
21 -21.1-
21.21.3)
TOTAL*
$34 Credit Whenever a developer constructs a Included in the $200 million cap on public benefits, the
public facility described in Exhibit B to the Initiative identifies construction of the Alameda Point
CDF Nexus Study, w hich is determined by Sports Complex, and renovation of the Alameda Point
the City to have supplemental size, length or Gym as public benefit projects; both facilities are on
capacity over that needed for the impacts of Exhibit B of the CDF Nexus Study.
that development, a reimbursement ag
$650,000
$82
NONE There is insufficient information in the Initiative to
determine w hether the project w ill fund the off -site
reconstruction of any streets affected by the hauling
of construction and demolition debris related to the
development of the project.
Developer eligible for credits for some portion of these fees in accordance with the City's existing ordinances, estimates to be approximately $30 million.
III. Contents of Initiative (cont.)
D. Fiscal I m P ac t s (cont.)
Impacts on Operational Budget
Estimated negative impact to Citywide
operations and maintenance at buildout
($4.8M annually)
2% cap on all taxes and assessments limits
capacity to achieve fiscal neutrality
1. Public safety services
2. Maintenance and operations of public
infrastructure, including on -and off-site public
benefits
3. Landscape and lighting
4. Existing ad valorem and special taxes (e.g.,
hospital, school, sewer)
III. Contents of Initiative (cont.)
E. Traffic
Traffic Analysis Components
Alameda County Congestion Management
Agency (ACCMA) travel demand model
SYNCHRO operational model
URBEMIS model
III. Contents of Initiative (cont.)
E. Traffic (cont.)
ACCMA Model
Input
Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ)
Street &Transit Networks
ABAG Housing Socioeconomic data
Proposed Land Uses
Street Capacity
III. Contents of Initiative (cont.)
E. Traffic (cont.)
TA Map
III. Contents of Initiative (cont.)
E. Traffic (cont.)
0
TA Map
III. Contents of Initiative (cont.)
E. Traffic (cont.)
ACCMA Model
Output
Traffic volumes
Travel Time
Speed
III. Contents
Initiative
Traffic
ACCMA Model
4 Step Model for Traffic Assignment
III. Contents of Initiative (cont.)
E. Traffic (cont.)
SYNCHRO
Operational simulation model
Level of Service (LOS)
Queues
Delays
III. Contents of Initiative (cont.)
E. Traffic (cont.)
UR EMIS
Traffic Model
Transportation Demand Management
(TDM) program inputs
Calculates trip reductions for site specific
TDM program
III. Contents of Initiative (cont.)
E. Traffic (cont.)
T raffic Impact Analysis
Three Scenarios of 2035 Conditions.
1. Existing General Plan (GP)
(2,000 HHs 2.3M commercial s-f-)
2. Initiative Proposed Project without TDM
Measures
3. Initiative Proposed Project with TDM Measures
III. Contents of Initiative (cont.)
E. Traffic (cont.)
Studied Locations
Gateways
1. Webster /Posey Tubes
2. Park Street
30 High Street
4. Miller- Sweeney Bridge
III. Contents of Initiative (cont.)
E. Traffic (cont.)
Studied Locations
Intersections
1. Webster Street/Ralph Memorial Appezzato
Parkway
2. Park Street /Clement Avenue
3. Tilden Avenue /Fernside /Blanding
4. Constitution Way /Marina Village Parkway
5. Sherman Street/Buena Vista Avenue
6. Park Street/Blanding Avenue
7. Stargell Avenue /Webster Street
8. Mariner Square Drive /Constitution Way
III. Contents of Initiative (cont.)
E. Traffic (cont.)
Performance Indicators
Gateways
Traffic Volume
Volume -to- Capacity Ratio
Speed
Travel Time
Intersections
LOS
Delay
Queue Length
III. Contents of Initiative (cont.)
E. Traffic (cont.)
Traffic Volumes from AP (2035)
Existing (2007) 10,284 vehicles per day (vpd)
Existing GP 49,552 vpd
Proposed Project w/o TDM 74,548 vpd
Proposed Project w /TDM 61,560 vpd
III. Contents of Initiative (cont.)
E. Traffic (cont.)
Commute Traffic Volume: Gateways
Morning Conditions
Increases 6.3 %for "Project with TDM"
Increases 8.1% for "Project w/o TDM"
Exceeds capacity for all scenarios except Miller
Sweeney bridge (Fruitvale)
Congestion in Tubes, diverts traffic to crossings,
especially Park Street
III. Contents of Initiative (cont.)
E. Traffic (cont.)
Commute Traffic Volume: Gateways
Evening Conditions
Increases by 4.2 for "Project with TDM"
Increases by 5.3% for "Project w/o TDM"
Exceeds capacity for all scenarios except Miller
Sweeney bridge (Fruitvale)
Congestion in Tubes, diverts traffic to crossings,
especially Park Street
III. Contents of Initiative (cont.)
E. Traffic (cont.)
LOS: Intersections
Morning Conditions
Same for "Existing GP" and "Project with TDIVI 55
Increased delays for "Project with TDIVI" scenario
may require additional TDIVI
Evening Conditions
Unacceptable at 2 intersections for "Project with
TDIVI"
Increased delays for "Project with TDIVI" scenario
III. Contents of Initiative (cont.)
E. Traffic (cont.)
Queues
Morning Conditions
Overall, no significant increase in queue lengths
Exceptions Increased queues at 3 locations
Exception Decreased queues at 1 intersection
III. Contents of Initiative (cont.)
E. Traffic (cont.)
Queues
Evening Conditions
Increased queue lengths at 4 intersections
Reduced queues at Constitution Way /Marina
Village Parkway
III. Contents of Initiative (cont.)
E. Traffic (cont.)
Travel Times
Greater for both peak hours for "Project
with TDM"
Greatest for "Project without TDM"
is Reverse commute stays the same or
improves with "Project with TDM"
III. Contents of Initiative (cont.)
E. Traffic (cont.)
Other F'ind'ings
For all performance indicators, "Project
without TDM" generates greatest traffic
M
mpacts
"Project with TDM" reduces impacts, but
has greater impacts than "Existing GP"
TDM program is essential to address
project's traffic impacts
No specific TDM program or monitoring is
M
dentified
III. Contents of Initiative (cont.)
E. Traffic (cont.)
Other F'ind'ings
Undefined development phasing affects
ability to develop an effective TDM
program
TDM elements by future approvals of EIR
and TDMP
$200M public benefit cap may be
insufficient to meet TDM needs
TDM operations and maintenance limited
by 2% tax rate cap and may be insufficient
to cover full costs
III. Contents of Initiative (cont.)
F. Schools
Two Potential School Sites Shown in
Illustrative Plan
Public Schools Are Permitted o r
Conditionally Permitted
in All Land Use
Categories, except Public Trust Areas
Spec'if'ic Plan, Chapter 1 States Civic
Uses Include a School
Specific Plan, Chapter 8 States the Plan
Allows for an Elementary School
III. Contents of Initiative (cont.)
F. Schools con t.)
ai i ad i. ff 4- i.. WIN= VAR
a
4T
tr=
t
P 0
AL-L'.
i l k
111
Y
r
11 f�
r
.4
III. Contents of Initiative (cont.)
F. Schools con t.)
Construction Costs
Planning, Design and Construction AUSD
Potential Construction Funding Sources
1. School mitigation fees (statutory requirement)
2. Property assessments (within 2% cap)
3. State match (only with increasing enrollment)
4. General Obligation Bonds (AUSD debt service)
III. Contents of Initiative (cont.)
F. Schools (cont.)
Operation Costs
Operations and Maintenance AUSD
Potential O &M Funding Sources:
1. State funding
2. AUSD budget
3. Property assessments (within 2% cap)
IV. School Implications
IV. School Implications
is AUSD Held Several Meetings with
SunCal to Address School Impacts
Given Preliminary Estimate of 1,650
Students (K -12) Generated by Project
AUS and SunCal Unable to Reach
Agreement to Date
V 9 ns
Implications of Initiative
No guarantee that any schools will be built
Does not address how potential school sites
will be determined
Sites shown may not be appropriate
Unclear how phasing and funding shortfalls
for new facility construction W'111 be
addressed
School Mitigation Fees $25M (est.)
Total School Improvement Cost $90M (est.)
Potential Gap $65M
V. Executive Summary
V. Executive Summary
Initiative Multi- Faceted
in Components
Land use program
Financing restrictions
Development approval process
Voters Approve Initiative as Written
V. Executive Summary
Side Agreements /Amendments Do Not
"Trump" the Initiative
Unclear as to Whether any RDA Provisions
Can Be Legally Included in Development
Initiatives
Negotiated DA vs. Approved Voter
Initiative