commercial businesses and upper-level office uses, as well as access to the Ferry Terminal, harbor boat slips, and the hotel’s surface parking lot for hotel guests. With closure of the at-grade crossing and fencing along the railroad corridor there would be no motor vehicle connection between these uses and the adjacent crossings even if one of the adjacent crossings were t o remain open to motor vehicle traffic.
Closure of the Broadway at-grade crossing would preclude all commercial loading serving existing land uses including the Scott’s Seafood Grill and Bar and other adjacent ground floor commercial businesses and upper-level office uses, as well as access to harbor boat slips and under-ground parking for Jack London Square. With closure of the at-grade crossing and fencing along the railroad corridor there would be no motor vehicle connection between these uses and the adjacent crossings even if one of the adjacent crossings were to remain open to motor vehicle traffic.
Closure of the Franklin Street at-grade crossing would preclude all commercial loading serving existing land uses including the Plank and other adjacent ground floor commercial businesses, as well as access to the harbor boat slips and under-ground parking for Jack London Square. With closure of the at-grade crossing and fencing along the railroad corridor there would be no motor vehicle connection between these uses and the adjacent crossings even if one of the adjacent crossings were to remain open to motor vehicle traffic.
Closure of the Webster Street at-grade crossing would preclude all commercial loading serving existing land uses including several ground floor commercial businesses, upper floor office uses, as well as access to harbor boat slips and a short-term surface parking lot. With closure of the at- grade crossing and fencing along the railroad corridor there could be a two-way motor vehicle connection via Embarcadero West between these uses and Oak Street if the Oak Street at-grade crossing remained open to motor vehicle traffic.
Closure of the Oak Street at-grade crossing would preclude the use of Embarcadero by overweight trucks as part of the Heavy Container Permit Program, as well as all motor vehicle access to residential properties such as The Landings at Jack London Square and commercial uses such as KTVU Channel 2. With closure of the at-grade crossing and fencing along the railroad corridor there could be a two-way motor vehicle connection via Embarcadero West between these uses and Webster Street if the Webster Street at-grade crossing remained open to motor vehicle traffic. The Oak Street corridor also has broader circulation implications as it, along with Embarcadero, connects several large neighborhoods (Brooklyn Basin, Jack London District, Chinatown, and Downtown), Lake Merritt BART station, and the I-880 freeway.
Noah Rosen
January 10, 2022
Note that Consolidated Response 4.6 and Consolidated Response 4.9 address grade separation at the Project site. Specific to existing land uses if both the at-grade crossings at Market Street and Martin Luther King Jr. Way were closed, along with the other at-grade crossings discussed above, there would be no motor vehicle access to existing or planned land uses between the water and railroad tracks including Howard Terminal, Schnitzer Steel, Vistra Plant, and Fire Station #2.
2185 N. California Blvd., Ste 500
Walnut Creek, CA 94596-3500
(925) 944-5411 Fax (925) 944-4732
www.moffattnichol.com
MEMORANDUM
To: Noah Rosen, Oakland Athletics
From: Dilip Trivedi
Date: January 11, 2022
Subject: Effects on Floodplains
Oakland Athletics Howard Terminal Project
M&N Job No: 10114-01
The Oakland Athletics Howard Terminal project envisions a new waterfront ballpark and a mixed-use development along the Oakland Estuary. One of the requirements for obtaining environmental and regulatory approvals for the project is to evaluate the effects on floodplains resulting from the project.
This memorandum addresses the above issue.
Existing Flood Hazards
The Flood Insurance Rate Map developed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for the project vicinity is shown on Figure 1 (M&N Coastal Memo, July 21, rev. 9/21). It shows the extent of inundation in shaded blue that is associated with the FEMA 1% Annual Chance Base Flood. It indicates that most of the site is outside of a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA or floodplain), except for the areas shown in blue shade (area between Jefferson and Clay Streets). The tan shade, which is not a SFHA, indicates areas that are potentially vulnerable to a 500-year return period flooding event.
Figure 1: Flood Insurance Rate Map, FEMA
(Map 06001C0067H, Effective 12/21/2018)
Noah Rosen, Oakland Athletics
Floodplain Effects Resulting From Project
January 11, 2022
The project proposes to elevate site grades above the FEMA 1% Annual Chance Base Flood elevation such that the area between Jefferson and Clay Street will no longer be in the floodplain (M&N Coastal Memo, July 21, rev. 9/21).
Effects on Offsite Flooding Potential
The proposed grading will not result in hydrological changes to adjacent properties because the source of flooding is San Francisco Bay overtopping the shoreline between Jefferson and Clay Street waterfront which will be raised; raising the shoreline and site grade as proposed will not displace floodwaters such that the depth of flooding on adjacent parcels would be higher.
1 January 14, 2022
Betsy Lake
Deputy City Administrator for Real Estate and Major Projects City of Oakland, City Administrator’s Office
One Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, 11th Floor
Oakland, CA 94612
Re: Oakland Waterfront Ballpark District – Alternatives and Objectives
Dear Ms. Lake,
The Howard Terminal Ballpark District EIR identifies and analyzes various alternatives to the proposed project. Those alternatives include Alternative 2 (The Off-Site (Coliseum Area) Alternative) and Alternative 4 (The Reduced Project Alternative). This letter explains why the A’s have concluded that neither alternative meets basic objectives for the project.
Each section of the letter begins by quoting one of the basic project objectives, and then discusses Alternatives 2 and 4 in relation to that objective.
1. Construct a state-of-the-art, multi-purpose waterfront ballpark and event center in Oakland that meets Major League Baseball (MLB) requirements for sports facilities, can be used year-round for sporting events and entertainment and convention purposes with events ranging in capacity up to 35,000, and expands opportunities for the City’s tourist, hotel and convention business.
Locating the ballpark on the waterfront is a key project objective, as it will greatly enhance the experience of visitors. It will also allow the venue to become an iconic part of the City’s landscape, like recent waterfront ballparks in other cities, such as San Francisco, Baltimore and Washington DC. The availability of land for the ballpark on the waterfront, in close proximity to downtown Oakland, presents a tremendous opportunity for the City. The project would also include open space and other public amenities that would greatly expand opportunities for Oakland residents and tourists to enjoy the waterfront near downtown. Such access is currently limited due to industrial uses. The waterfront location alone is expected to substantially increase the number of people that will visit and enjoy the ballpark, compared to the Coliseum site. The Coliseum area, in contrast, does not have a waterfront or any natural features that would enhance the aesthetics and experience at the ballpark. Indeed, as demonstrated by the current ballpark at the Coliseum site, the area immediately surrounding the site is largely industrial.
Opportunities to incorporate existing natural elements, or provide views of such elements, are very limited.
1 2
Furthermore, as has been widely reported by the press, MLB has stated that the Coliseum site is not a viable option for the future vision of baseball and is not viable for the future of the A’s specifically.1 Indeed, MLB has encouraged the A’s to consider relocating out of Oakland. A ballpark at the Alternative 2 site would entirely lack the appeal of a ballpark at Howard Terminal, directly on the waterfront. .
For all of these reasons, Alternative 2 does not meet project objective 1.
2. Provide sufficiently dense, complementary mixed-use development with a range of flexible uses, including residential, office/commercial, retail, and entertainment, to create a vibrant local and regional visitor-serving waterfront destination that is active year round, complements the waterfront ballpark, expands tourism and visitor activity and interest even when the ballpark is not in use, increases housing at a range of affordability levels, and provides increased business and employment opportunities.
The waterfront location at Howard Terminal is critical to allow the project to create a vibrant local and regional visitor-serving destination that is active year-round and expands tourism and visitor activity and interest even when the ballpark is not in use. The proposed project includes space on the waterfront that will be visited and used by the public year-round, which will expand tourism and visitor activity and interest even when the ballpark is not in use. This area will provide ample public access to the waterfront, and includes extending the Bay Trail through the site.
Because the Coliseum site is not located on or near the water or other open-space, both tourists and City residents would be less likely to visit and enjoy the site when the ballpark is not in use. Indeed, experience has shown that when the Coliseum or Arena are not in use, the Coliseum site is virtually vacant, as there is no reason to travel there absent an event.
While Alternative 2 would include a mix of uses and open space for public use, there are no features intrinsic to the site or its setting that would attract visitors there. The lack of
1 https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/oakland-athletics-threaten-to-relocate-if-city-does-not- approve-plans-for-new-stadium/; https://www.sportsnet.ca/mlb/article/manfred-says-athletics- fate-oakland-decided-coming-months/ https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/11/mlb-tells-oakland- athletics-to-explore-relocation-if-no-new-ballpark-.html; https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/31427293/oakland-athletics-start-looking-relocating- elsewhere-sources-say; https://www.sportico.com/leagues/baseball/2021/mlb-tells-oakland-as-to- seek-relocation-amid-stadium-approval-push-1234629533/; https://www.sfchronicle.com/sports/athletics/article/MLB-gives-A-s-approval-to-explore- moving-to-16168989.php
2 3
access to the waterfront means that Alternative 2 would not attract nearly as many visitors as would the proposed project. Accordingly, Alternative 2 does not meet project objective 2.
Alternative 4 would not provide a sufficiently dense, complementary mixed-use development. For this reason, Alternative 4 would not meet basic project objective 2.
Alternative 4 would cut the amount of housing from 3,000 units to 700 units, reduce commercial office space from 1.5 million square feet to 350,000 square feet, and reduce commercial retail space from 270,000 square feet to 63,000 square feet. The reduction of non-ballpark uses would drastically reduce the number of people who would live at or visit the project site, and would therefore limit the ability of the project to serve as a local and regional visitor-serving destination that is active year-round, when the ballpark is not in use. Indeed, optimizing non-ballpark uses is critical to the success of the project for both the A’s and the City.
In addition, Alternative 4 is not economically feasible, would not help the City address its housing crisis nearly as well as the proposed project, and would significantly reduce tax revenue for the City, as well as funding for affordable housing. 2 Finally, the proposed project will bring much-needed jobs to the city, including 25,000 union construction jobs and 7,100 permanent jobs, based on the City’s own projections. With less development and commercial space, the reduced project alternative would not provide as many business and employment opportunities. For all of these reasons, Alternative 4 does not meet project objective 2.
3. Construct a new ballpark for the Oakland Athletics on Oakland’s waterfront, designed and sited to respond to local conditions, including wind and sun and thermal conditions, while maximizing water views, with the goal of optimizing player and fan experiences of the ballpark, the waterfront and the project site.
As explained above, locating the project on the waterfront is a key project objective. A ballpark at the Coliseum site would not provide any water views and would not optimize experiences of the ballpark or waterfront. Again, this project is about more than the ballpark, or even the other uses that are being proposed. It is also about creating a place for residents and visitors to experience and enjoy Oakland’s waterfront. That simply cannot happen at the Coliseum site. In addition, the proposed ballpark must compete with other Bay Area venues for sponsors, visitors and attendees beyond its loyal A’s fan base,
2 See Memorandum from RCLCO, Opinion Letter on the Viability of the Howard Terminal Site For the Oakland Athletics’ New Stadium (January 14, 2022), and Memorandum from DPFG, Feasibility of Alternative 4: The Reduced Project Alternative (January 14, 2022).
3 Ballpark (January 14, 2022), and Memorandum from DPFG, 4 including the San Francisco Giants’ ballpark which offers spectacular waterfront views and a destination experience for prospective fans and visitors. For all of these reasons, Alternative 2 does not meet project objective 3.
4. Create a lively, continuous waterfront district with strong connections to Jack London Square, West Oakland, and Downtown Oakland by extending and improving existing streets, sidewalks, bicycle facilities and multi-use trails through and near the project site to maximize pedestrian and nonmotorized mobility and minimize physical barriers and division with nearby neighborhoods.
Alternative 2 would not create a waterfront district, nor would it connect to Jack London Square, West Oakland, and Downtown Oakland.
In particular, Jack London Square is an existing, vibrant waterfront district. The proposed project is designed to integrate with, and expand, that district. The project has been designed so that the street grid represents an extension of streets serving Jack London Square and downtown Oakland. The proposed project will therefore fit seamlessly within existing, adjacent urban districts. Alternative 2, by contrast, would result in a disconnected island of urban development. The site is surrounded a highway, slough, and parking lots. Surrounding uses consist mostly of light industry. Integration into those uses would be neither possible nor desirable.
Notably, the history of planning and development at the Coliseum site bears out this analysis. The City has long planned for the transformation of the Coliseum site into a mixed-use, urban district potentially anchored by an arena or one or more ballparks.
Despite these plans, nothing has occurred at the site. While the plans remain in place, and development at some point in the future is possible, history shows that, at least to date, this transformation has not occurred.
For all these reasons, Alternative 2 would not meet project objective 4.
With less development, and reduced funding for infrastructure improvements, Alternative 4 would not meet project objective 4 as well as the proposed project. Although Alternative 4 would be adjacent to Jack London Square and downtown Oakland, and would integrate with those districts, it would do so less effectively than the proposed project.
5. Complete construction of the new ballpark, together with any infrastructure required to serve the ballpark, within a desirable timeframe and to maintain the Oakland Athletics’ competitive position within Major League Baseball.
4 5
As explained above, MLB has stated that that the Coliseum site is not a viable option for the future vision of baseball and is not viable for the future of the A’s specifically. While adopted plans allow for the development of a new ballpark for the A’s to play, the suboptimal location, lack of existing amenities, and lack of connectivity to downtown and nearby communities would diminish the A’s competitive position within Major League Baseball compared to the proposed project location.
By contrast, the waterfront location, by itself, is an attraction that will increase the number of ballpark attendees, thereby increasing revenue that the team can use to maintain its competitive position and attract fans. As noted above, the Bay Area market has another baseball team, the San Francisco Giants, that the A’s must complete with for visitors, fans, and sponsorships, and the Giants have a waterfront ballpark, thereby exacerbating the competitive disadvantage of the Coliseum site. The Giants’ waterfront ballpark also exemplifies the transformative, catalyzing effect that a waterfront ballpark can have on an area.
In addition, the lack of control over the Coliseum site jeopardizes the ability to complete the project within a desirable timeframe, assuming the A’s could even gain control over that site.3
For all of these reasons, Alternative 2 does not meet project objective 5.
6. Construct high-quality housing with enough density to contribute to year-round active uses on the project site while offering a mix of unit types, sizes, and affordability to accommodate a range of potential residents and to assist Oakland in meeting its housing demand.
Alternative 4 would cut both the number of housing units and funding for available housing. As a result, Alternative 4 would be far less effective than the proposed project in helping the City address the housing crisis or meet its housing demands. Because affordable housing requires subsidies, the reduction of the market-rate development of Alternative 4 would dramatically reduce available tax increment and other sources of funds to support affordable housing which means that this alternative would not provide as much affordable housing, and would do nothing to meet the City’s housing objectives in this regard. Accordingly, Alternative 4 does not meet project objective 6.
3 See RCLCO Memorandum.
5 6
7. Develop a financially feasible project that is responsive to market demands; has the ability to attract sources of public and private investment in an amount sufficient to fund all costs of the proposed project, including the construction and long term maintenance of required infrastructure; provide a market rate return on investment; and supports a comprehensive package of benefits, which may include local employment and job training programs, local business and small business policies, public access and open space, affordable housing, transportation infrastructure, increased frequency of public transit and transit accessibility, and sustainable and healthy development measures for the surrounding community.
Alternative 4 is not economically feasible, and therefore would not be able to secure financing for its construction. Moreover, it is unknown whether the City or the County of Alameda would agree to contribute public funds for Alternative 4, given the reduction in housing and other public benefits that this alternative would provide. Even assuming the City and Alameda County were willing to create a tax increment financing district for Alternative 4, the bonding capacity would be far less than the proposed project. 4 In any event, the reduced project alternative would provide fewer benefits for the City, including less housing, fewer jobs, and less investment in the City’s infrastructure. Accordingly, the Alternative 4 does not meet project objective 7.
While Alternative 2 would include the same mix of uses as the proposed project, locating the project at the Coliseum site would be detrimental to the project’s financial success, which would limit the benefits and return for the City, including investments in infrastructure. Evidence shows that the Howard Terminal site is far superior from a financial perspective, based in part of the existing land uses in that area and the ability of the project to provide additional connections. 5
Indeed, history demonstrates that Alternative 2 is financially infeasible. In 2015, the City adopted the Coliseum Area Specific Plan calling for a mix of residential and commercial uses, either with or without a ballpark and arena, at the Coliseum site. This plan allowed for up to three venues to serve as home venues for the then-existing home franchises (the Golden State Warriors, the Oakland Raiders, and the Oakland A’s). Despite this effort, two of these franchises have relocated.
In December 2016, the City and the County of Alameda issued a term sheet to the Oakland Raiders to provide a new stadium to serve as a home venue for the Raiders.
That term sheet, which estimated the cost of the project at $1.3 Billion, included, among other things, a proposed commitment by the City to contribute $200 Million for infrastructure costs and land valued at $150 Million in exchange for a participation
4 See DPFG Memorandum.
5 See RCLCO Memorandum.
6 7
feature to be determined. Despite this offer, the Raiders decided to move to Las Vegas.
The NFL approved the move. The Raiders played their 2021 season at a new stadium in Las Vegas.
Similarly, in December 2015 the City of San Francisco approved a new arena located in the Mission Bay area, directly on the waterfront. The Golden State Warriors moved to the new Chase Arena in 2019.
In addition to the relocation of these two teams, no mixed-use development has occurred at the Coliseum site, either before or after the City adopted the Specific Plan. At least to date, Alternative 2 has not been financially feasible. In recent months, there has been renewed interest in moving forward with a project located on the site. At this point, there is no way to know whether or when those efforts will bear fruit. To date, the Coliseum site remains isolated and – with the exception of the ballpark and arena – entirely undeveloped. In practical terms, the market has spoken. Alternative 2 therefore does not meet this objective.
8. Design a project that minimizes interference with the Port of Oakland’s existing or reasonably anticipated use, operation and development of Port facilities, or the health and safety of Port tenants and workers, and is consistent with the continued operation and future growth of the Port of Oakland.
The proposed project has been designed to minimize interference with the Port of Oakland’s existing or reasonably anticipated use, operation and development of Port facilities, and the health and safety of Port tenants and workers, and is consistent with the continued operation and future growth of the Port of Oakland. All of the alternatives meet this objective.
It is worth noting, however, that locating the project at the Howard Terminal site would benefit the Port, including improvements to City infrastructure in the area. As noted in the Port’s December 16, 2021, letter to the City Council, the Port believes the proposed project at Howard Terminal will provide “transformative value” to the Ports and the City’s waterfront to serve both commerce and people, and “will bring significantly more people to the Oakland waterfront and Jack London Square while ensuring that the seaport continues to grow its vital role in international commerce and the supply-chain.” Those benefits would not occur under Alternative 2 and would be reduced under Alternative 4.
7 8
9. Increase public use and enjoyment of the waterfront by opening the south and southwestern shores of the project site to the public with a major new waterfront park and inviting waterfront promenade featuring multiple public open spaces that are usable and welcoming in all seasons, extending access to the Oakland waterfront from Jack London Square, West Oakland and Downtown Oakland through design of a bicycle, pedestrian, and transit-oriented community with well-designed parks, pedestrian-friendly streets, walkable blocks, and links to open spaces, taking advantage of the project site’s unique proximity to Jack London Square, the waterfront and downtown.
Alternative 2 does not meet this objective because it is not on the waterfront and would not be located in proximity to the waterfront, Jack London Square, or downtown.
Alternative 4 would meet this project objective to a lesser degree than the proposed project because it would bring fewer people to the area and would generate less revenue for infrastructure improvements and other public improvements.
10. Construct a project that meets high-quality urban design and high-level sustainability standards, including but not limited green building design and construction practices, walkability features, and sea level rise adaptability standards.
All of the alternatives meet this objective to some degree; however, the Coliseum site would not be as walkable as the Howard Terminal site and would not provide connections to other existing walkable areas like Jack London Square and downtown Oakland. In fact, the Coliseum site is largely isolated from other amenities that would generate foot-traffic; indeed, the site is virtually vacant except when events are occurring at the stadium or arena.
As the EIR notes, Alternative 2 would generate more VMT than the Howard Terminal site despite its close proximity to BART. Further, with the lack of other amenities in the vicinity, it is more likely that ballpark attendees would come to a game or other event and then leave the area, whereas the Howard Terminal site would allow visitors to spend extended periods in the area visiting both on-site amenities and other establishments in Jack London Square or Downtown. Accordingly, the proposed project is more consistent with sustainable development and planning. This consistency is exemplified by the Howard Terminal site’s designation as a “Priority Development Area” in Bay Area Plan 2050, approved by the Association of Bay Area Governments and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission in October 2021.
Sustainable planning practices also encourage denser development and locating housing near jobs and other amenities to reduce vehicle travel. With less housing and less
8 9
commercial space, Alternative 4 would not meet project objective 10 as well as the proposed project. 6
11. Optimize opportunities for sustainable transportation by encouraging walking, bicycling, and transit use, and discouraging automobile use.
As explained above under objective 10, Alternative 2 would result in more automobile use than the proposed project even though there is a BART station at the Coliseum site.
Alternative 4 would also meet this project objective to a lesser degree than the proposed project because it would include less housing and commercial space, and as a result, more people would have to drive from their homes to jobs, and residents and ballpark visitors would have less opportunities to walk to other establishments both on-site and in the vicinity of Howard Terminal. Accordingly, Alternatives 2 and 4 would not meet project objective 11 as well as the proposed project.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide our perspective on the extent to which Alternatives 2 and 4 meet basic objectives for the proposed project.
Sincerely,
Dave Kaval
President
Oakland Athletics
Oakland Coliseum | 7000 Coliseum Way, Oakland, CA 94621
6 See Memorandum from Rob Rees, PE, Fehr & Peers, Benefits of Development Density (January 10, 2022).
9 Betsy Lake
Deputy City Administrator for Real Estate and Major Projects City of Oakland, City Administrator’s Office
One Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, 11th Floor
Oakland, CA 94612
January 11, 2022
Re: Oakland Waterfront Ballpark District FEIR Community Engagement Comment Dear Ms. Lake,
This letter serves to reaffirm our commitment to the Howard Terminal Community Benefits Agreement (CBA) process.
In a comment on the draft EIR, the State Lands Commission suggested that “The Project Sponsor should allow full opportunities for public and community engagement” as health risk reduction measures are developed for the project. (Comment A-7-54.) The Final EIR responds that Mitigation Measure AIR-3, to which this comment refers, “does not require community engagement regarding required strategies because such engagement is not required for the measure’s effectiveness.” Nonetheless, the commenter’s suggestion will be shared with City decision makers, who could elect to establish a process for community engagement throughout project implementation. (Response A-7-54.) We agree with this response. Mitigation Measure AIR-3 addresses the design and location of truck loading docks. The measure will be monitored and enforced by the City as specific building designs are submitted and reviewed. This process is public. For this reason, opportunities for public and community engagement already exist. We welcome public participation in the implementation of this measure, subject to the City’s oversight and approval authority.
In addition, we wish to reaffirm that we welcome public and community engagement, not merely with respect to this particular issue, but with respect to all aspects of the project. In particular, the Oakland Athletics remain fully committed to the CBA process, and will endorse and support the community led priorities that come out of that process.
Already, the CBA process has involved 75+ meetings with hundreds of community stakeholders. As it draws to a close, a clear list of community priorities will emerge. Funding will be directed at these priorities to address the needs identified by the people of Oakland. We look forward to folding those priories into the project.
Sincerely,
Dave Kaval
President
Oakland Athletics
Oakland Coliseum | 7000 Coliseum way, Oakland,
Betsy Lake
Deputy City Administrator for Real Estate and Major Projects City of Oakland, City Administrator’s Office
One Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, 11th Floor
Oakland, CA 94612
January 7, 2022
Re: Oakland Waterfront Ballpark District FEIR Comment – Overlapping Construction Projects Dear Ms. Lake,
This letter addresses a comment submitted on the Howard Terminal Ballpark District (Project) Draft EIR (DEIR) by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). Comment A-11-3 from BAAQMD suggests that the project sponsor should: “Work with City and Port to ensure large construction projects that overlap in time w/ Project construction do not overburden W. Oakland community” and “Adopt [a] less intensive + overlapping Project buildout schedule.” The response to this comment in the FEIR correctly notes that such a moratorium is infeasible “given the lengthy construction period of the proposed Project and other major projects in the vicinity” and the fact that each project is “subject to separate and independent construction and operational permits, construction buildout schedules, financing requirements, market demands, project objectives, mitigation measures, and other characteristics that are unknown at this time”. Implementation of a building moratorium or a gating mechanism that requires less intensive construction schedules thereby functioning as a moratorium on this or other large local projects would jeopardize these many commitments and obligations for all projects involved, and potentially impair or prevent construction of multi-family housing in the midst of a housing crisis.
Additionally, the analysis presented in the EIR conservatively assumed that construction activities would occur over seven years total, the most compressed period over which the Project could be constructed. It is likely that construction would occur over a longer time frame, which would result in average daily and maximum annual emissions that would be less than those estimated in the EIR. Through Mitigation Measures AIR-1a through d, the Project is committed to using the cleanest possible construction equipment and techniques to reduce emissions of criteria air pollutants (which have regional impacts) and toxic air contaminants (which have local impacts). As demonstrated in the EIR, toxic air contaminants do not cause local impacts in excess of BAAQMD thresholds. Similarly, for criteria air pollutants, which have broader regional impacts, Mitigation Measure AIR-2e requires the project to reduce or offset them to below significance. The BAAQMD thresholds for criteria air pollutants are determined to define a cumulatively considerable project. The reductions required by the EIR would result in the Project being below those thresholds and therefore the Project would not be cumulatively considerable.
1 Finally, it is worth noting that this suggestion by BAAQMD from comment A-11-3 is in conflict with construction schedule requirements that the Port of Oakland (Port) and City of Oakland (City) are imposing on the project. Both entities require that the start of construction of the ballpark must occur by a certain date, with severe penalties imposed for non-performance. Construction moratoria suggested by comment 11-3-A could imperil the project’s ability to meet this schedule of performance required by both the City and the Port.
While the FEIR’s response to comment 11-3-A adequately addresses the infeasibility of such a suggested measure, we wanted to provide this additional piece of information, further underscoring the infeasibility of the comment.
Sincerely,
Dave Kaval
President
Oakland Athletics
Oakland Coliseum | 7000 Coliseum way, Oakland, CA 94621
2 Betsy Lake
Deputy City Administrator for Real Estate and Major Projects City of Oakland, City Administrator’s Office
One Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, 11th Floor
Oakland, CA 94612
January 6, 2022
Re: Oakland Waterfront Ballpark District FEIR Comment – Grade Separation Dear Ms. Lake,
This letter addresses comments made on the Howard Terminal Ballpark District (Project) Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) regarding railroad grade separation. As you know, several entities submitted comments on the Project’s DEIR suggesting that multiple grade separations be provided into the project site.
The Consolidated Responses in the Final EIR (FEIR) on railroad grade separation (Consolidated Responses 4.6 and 4.9) correctly identify the factors that make multiple grade separations infeasible, including right of way impacts, utility impacts, impacts to private property, access constraints, and cost.
There is, however, an additional factor to consider that further underscores the infeasibility of multiple grade separations onto the project site: impacts to the on-site circulation network and development plan.
Exhibit A, attached to this letter and included in the BKF report already entered into the public record dated July 9, 2021, illustrates in red the geographic extent of elevated roadways on site that would result from grade separations at both Market and Martin Luther King Jr. Way. This impact on the developability of the site results from two design criteria: strict vertical clearance requirements for any grade separated structure above the railroad tracks (26’), and a limit on the grade of the slope required to ramp up/down from the required vertical clearance ( 8%). These design criteria lead to the vast network of elevated structures that would be required on site. Such a network of elevated roads and intersections on site is counter to the project’s goal of creating a safe, walkable streets. Instead of creating a pedestrian friendly extension of the existing street grid, the presence of multiple grade separations would create additional vertical barriers within the site and would also erect vertical barriers between the site and the existing neighborhoods. Some buildings would be partially or completely surrounded by vehicular causeways ramping up or down to the railroad grade separations. Entire blocks on the Project site could be hemmed in by visually abrupt and intrusive concrete ramps. Any opportunity to enliven or activate the streetscape would be lost and would run counter to pedestrian-friendly urban design principles.
The Project has always included a large set of railroad safety measures, and those measures have only been strengthened over time. The at-grade railroad safety improvements have been extended to cover the entire Jack London Square corridor. The pedestrian and bicycle grade separation has been imposed on the Project as a mitigation measure. And should the City adopt the grade separation alternative, that would further strengthen the Project’s railroad safety measures.
1 Finally, we wish to note that railroad safety issues are an existing concern in this area. The Draft EIR includes a detailed description of the existing setting as it relates to transportation and the presence of the UPRR rail line that passes through the area. (Draft EIR, pp. 4-15-39 – 4.15-42.) The Project will improve these existing conditions in a variety of ways by constructing railroad safety improvements along the Embarcadero West corridor. These improvements include increasing pedestrian queue space, installing or upgrading traffic signals, and installing fencing and safety gates. These improvements will benefit not only the Project, but also residents, businesses and visitors who already travel through the area. Thank you for considering this additional information, and we look forward to continue our work together to make this project a reality.
Sincerely,
Dave Kaval
President
Oakland Athletics
Oakland Coliseum | 7000 Coliseum way, Oakland, CA 94621
Exhibit A – Impact of Two Grade Separations on Howard Terminal Circulation Network 2 Exhibit A – Impact of Two Grade Separations on
Howard Terminal Circulation Network
Betsy Lake
Deputy City Administrator for Real Estate and Major Projects City of Oakland, City Administrator’s Office
One Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, 11th Floor
Oakland, CA 94612
January 10, 2022
Re: Oakland Waterfront Ballpark District FEIR Comment – AC Transit Funding Dear Ms. Lake,
This letter addresses certain comments received by the City of Oakland concerning expanded transit service. In particular, the City received a letter from AC Transit stating that fare revenue may not suffice to cover the cost of providing expanded bus service to the Project. (Comment A-3-9.) The Final EIR provides the following response to this comment, as well as to similar comments:
“Funding-related comments not directly related to implementation of mitigation measures do not raise specific concerns with the sufficiency of the analysis or mitigation measures contained in the Draft EIR. Comments highlighting a desire for funding new service for AC Transit are acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration during deliberations on the Project.”
(Final EIR, Consolidated Response 4.21, p. 4-246.)
We agree with this response. We wish to provide the following information concerning how expanded transit operations will be funded, and to note those aspects of the Project that will ensure that it contributes to the cost of expanded transit service.
TMP and TDM Support for Transit
The City has identified mitigation measures calling for expanded transit service to the Project. Mitigation Measure TRANS-1b provides that the Transportation Management Plan (TMP) for ballpark-related traffic must include certain, mandatory elements. Those elements include:
1. Extending transit service such as Line 6, 72, 72M, and 72R to and constructing the Transportation Hub on 2nd Street in coordination with AC Transit and the City of Oakland.
1 5. Supplemental shuttle service (provided by AC Transit or a private operator) to the 12th Street BART station using high capacity multidoor buses to increase frequency and capacity of transit connections to BART stations on event days.
15. Coordination with transit providers to provide timed transit service before and/or after the game or event, including but not limited to AC Transit, BART, Amtrak, and WETA.
The TMP includes several other, optional measures that may be implemented as necessary to achieve the Project’s trip reduction targets. These measures include:
2. Additional regular AC Transit bus service connecting the Project site to Downtown, as well as the West Oakland, 12th Street, and Lake Merritt, BART stations.
6. Supplemental shuttle service (provided by AC Transit or a private operator) to either the West Oakland and/or Lake Merritt BART stations using high capacity multidoor buses to increase frequency and capacity of transit connections to BART stations on event days.
11. Transit subsidies to provide reduced cost transit (for example equivalent to an average roundtrip BART fare at 12th Street BART station which is currently $6.70) for ballpark attendees and/or employees.
These are not the only mandatory or optional elements of the TMP that are relevant to transit, but they provide an indication of the extent to which the TMP contemplates – indeed, requires – that the Project sponsor work with the City and transit providers to provide expanded service to the site during events. For example, the shuttle service between the 12th Street BART station and the ballpark on event days may be provided by AC Transit. If so, then the Project sponsor will have to work with AC Transit to ensure that sufficient resources are available to provide this service. The TMP is unambiguous, however, that this service must be provided by either AC Transit or a private shuttle operator. For this reason, how the service will be financed is, from a CEQA perspective, irrelevant.
We recognize that how such a service will be financed is important to AC Transit, the Project sponsor, and the City. The TMP provides a mechanism for working out financial and other details. It identifies AC Transit and other transit providers as stakeholders, stating: “AC Transit provides fixed-route bus service within Inner East Bay communities in Alameda and Contra Costa County as well as transbay fixed-route bus service between the East Bay and the San Francisco Peninsula. The A’s will potentially contract with AC Transit to provide shuttle bus service on event days that will connect the Ballpark to the West Oakland, 12th Street, or Lake Merritt BART Stations.” (TMP, Table 1-1.) The TMP
2 also requires ongoing coordination to ensure that its mandatory elements are implemented, and that the optional elements are implemented as necessary to achieve the necessary trip reduction targets. (See TMP, § 16; see also Mitigation Measure TRANS-1b.)
The Project also includes a Transportation and Parking Demand Management (TDM) Plan for non-ballpark development. The TDM Plan also includes numerous features to encourage and support transit use. These measures must be implemented to achieve the required reduction in non-ballpark vehicle trips. Here, again, the trip reduction target is mandatory; the TDM lists various mandatory and optional elements; these elements include both capital improvements and operational support for transit use including transit subsidies that can include an AC Transit Easy Pass for residents or employees; and the TDM includes monitoring to ensure that the vehicle trip reduction target is met. (See TDM at Appendix TRA-2, Mitigation Measure TRANS-1a.) The TDM provides flexibility regarding how the VTR target is achieved, but achieving this target is mandatory. In this respect, details regarding how these transit improvements are funded do not need to be spelled out for purposes of CEQA.
Sources of Funding for Transit Operations
We understand AC Transit’s concern that passenger fares, standing alone, may not be sufficient to fund expanded transit services. We also understand AC Transit’s concerns about the impacts of COVID-19 on ridership. We wish to note, however, that passenger fares will not be the sole source of revenue available to transit providers such as AC Transit.
First, Plan Bay Area 2050 was adopted by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) in October 2021. Plan Bay Area 2050 serves as a long-term plan setting forth strategies to improve housing, the economy, transportation, and the environment throughout the nine-County Bay Area region. Among other things, the plan identifies “Priority Development Areas,” or “PDAs” – areas that are considered particularly suitable for development due to their proximity to existing development and to transportation. Plan Bay Area 2050 designates the Project site as a “PDA.” (See Plan Bay Area 2050, p. 21.) 1 This designation is carried forward from the previous plan adopted by MTC and ABAG in 2017. (See Plan Bay Area 2040 Draft EIR, pp. 4.10-15 – 4.10-16; see also Plan Bay Area 2050 Draft EIR, p. 2-37 2.) This designation is relevant to MTC and ABAG in determining how to allocate Federal and State revenue for transportation projects throughout the Bay Area. In particular, the disbursement of funds under Plan Bay Area 2050 provides the transportation investments necessary to allow PDAs to accommodate the dense land use development
1 See https://www.planbayarea.org/sites/default/files/documents/Plan_Bay_Area_2050_October_2021.pdf . 2 See https://www.planbayarea.org/sites/default/files/documents/2021-06/PBA_2050_DEIR.pdf.
3 envisioned by the Plan. 3 MTC and ABAG are also working to ensure that these funds are dedicated to restoring ridership levels to pre-pandemic levels.
Specifically, Plan Bay Area 2050 has allocated funding for two transportation projects that boost AC Transit’s service frequency: RTPID 21-T10-065 allocates $3.76B to Systemwide AC Transit Service Frequency Boost, and RTPID 21-T10-073 dedicates $2B to AC Transit Rapid Bus Modernization. 4 The funding dedicated to RTPID 21-T10-065 is directed towards implementing improvements to AC Transit’s existing local bus service and frequency upgrades to lines that are identified in the Project’s TMP, including lines 72/72M/72R and 6. Additionally, Plan Bay Area 2050 has set aside $476M in funding for boosting the frequency of local buses in PDAs (RTPID 21-T10-070). Relatedly, RTPID 21- EN09-132 devotes $500M to provide funding that supports transportation demand management programs, such as the TDM required by Mitigation Measure TRANS-1a.
Second, AC Transit relies on revenue from a variety of sources to meet its operating costs. Farebox revenue is an important component of this revenue, but it is not the only source. AC Transit’s current budget shows that AC Transit has several other sources of revenue for operating costs, including Federal and State revenue, as well as funding generated by local sales and parcel taxes. The attached excerpt from AC Transit’s current budget shows the sources and amounts of revenue over the past three years (including both before and after Covid, which has caused a dramatic decline in ridership).
This information supports AC Transit’s statement that farebox revenue does not cover its operating costs. This information also shows, however, that other sources of revenue are available, and relied upon by AC Transit, to cover at least some of these costs, particularly for an area designated as a PDA.
We do not wish to imply that securing necessary funding for expanded transit will be a simple task. Nor do we propose that AC Transit will have to absorb the entire operating costs of expanded transit service to the area. As noted above, the TMP and TDM already contemplate that expanded transit service will have to be provided to achieve the Project’s vehicle trip reduction targets. Whether and to what extent the Project contributes to transit operating costs will be determined based on discussions with AC Transit and other transit providers in addition to the benefit those providers may derive from transit subsidies from the Project’s TMP and TDM programs, against the backdrop of other potential sources of operation cost revenues (including farebox revenue). We look forward to participating in those discussions. Indeed, we recognize that, along with the City, AC Transit and BART are key partners in ensuring that we can implement successfully the TDM and TMP.
3 See, e.g., Plan Bay Area 2050, pp. 50, 54–55, 149, 151 [economic strategies]; id. at pp. 61, 62, 64, 66, 69– 72, 80–81, 154–155, 168, 172 [transportation strategies]; id. at pp. 87, 90–93, 105–107, 158–159 [environmental strategies]; id. at p. 161 [existing and new revenues].) 4 See
https://www.planbayarea.org/sites/default/files/documents/Plan_Bay_Area_2050_Transportation_Project_List _October_2021.pdf.
1 4
Sincerely,
Dave Kaval
President
Oakland Athletics
Oakland Coliseum | 7000 Coliseum way, Oakland, CA 94621
Attached: Excerpt from AC Transit Budget (FY 2020-2021) 4 5
Page | 18
OPERATING REVENUES
The coronavirus pandemic had an immediate effect on District revenues in that farebox revenues dropped significantly due to re duced ridership. Other revenues will have delayed effects, and also take some time to reach the District from their source. Sales tax revenues are delayed a few months from collection, so the reduction in spending caused sales tax revenues to drop from May/June onwards.
In the first three quarters of FY 2019-20, the District experienced ridership increases compared to the prior fiscal year, averaging 4.57 million riders per month. By March, ridership fell to 1.4 million per month and is slowly recovering due to easing of shelter-in- place and gradual re-openings of certain businesses. However, with no demand for service and health authorities even dissuading the public from riding transit, service was reduced to around 65% of pre-pandemic levels. The District has restored some service as of early August and ridership has slowly started returning. Fare collection is currently planned to resume in October.
Operating: Contract Services
The Adopted Operating budget includes the continuation of revenue associated with fare media agreements with UC Berkeley and Peralta Colleges, and the service agreement with the City of Oakland for the Broadway Shuttle. This budget also includes expected bus bridge service for BART to support unexpected outages and continued BART Early Bird service.
Operating: BART Transfer
The Adopted Operating budget includes revenues from an extension of the existing BART Feeder Service Agreement, which is currently under review.
Operating: Investment Income
Investment income revenue budget is projected to be flat from the FY 2019-20 budget, as rates have stayed low.
Operating: Advertising
Advertising revenues are projected to remain unchanged in FY 2020-21.
Operating: Other Revenue
This category includes other miscellaneous operating revenues. New in FY 2020-21 is the District’s ability to sell low carbon fuel standard (LCFS) energy credits. Revenues from Attachment: Excerpt from AC Transit Budget (FY 2020-2021) Page | 19
LCFS credits will start relatively low but will increase as the District’s zero-emission bus fleet increases. Parking citation revenue is another source of revenue in this category, and it will likely increase due to citations of par ked vehicles in the Bus Only lanes for Tempo BRT.
Operating: Rental Revenues
Rental revenues are projected to decrease by $142,000 (10%) from the prior fiscal year budget.
Sales Tax-based Subsidies: Transportation Development Act (TDA) The TDA subsidy has long been a cornerstone of transit funding and is the largest source of subsidy revenue for the District. State law allows each county to charge a ¼ cent sales tax to finance various transit services. The Adopted Operating budget reflects a $24 million (30%) decrease from prior year budget and is based upon recent fund estimate information released by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC).
Sales Tax-based Subsidies: AB1107
The AB1107 subsidy is a ½ cent sales tax with a portion that is shared between the District, BART and the San Francisco Municipal Transit Agency. The projected revenues for FY 2020-21 reflect a decrease of $13.4 million (30%) from prior fiscal year budget and are based on the MTC fund estimate.
Sales Tax-based Subsidies: Measure B
In 2000, nearly 82% of Alameda County voters approved Measure B which is a ½ cent transportation sales tax. Alameda CTC administers Measure B funds to deliver essential transportation services and improvements. The projected revenues for FY 2020-21 reflect a decrease of $9.5 million (30%) from the prior fiscal year budget.
Sales Tax-based Subsidies: Measure BB
In November 2014, the voters of Alameda County approved an additional ½ cent transportation sales tax in addition to Measure B to fund a comprehensive 30-year transportation plan. The projected revenues for FY 2020-21 reflect a decrease of $10.3 million (30%) from the prior fiscal year budget.
Page | 20
Sales Tax-based Subsidies: Measure J
Measure J is a ½ cent transportation sales tax to support essential transportation services and improvements for Contra Costa County. The projected revenues for FY 2020-21 reflect a decrease of $1.5 million (30%) from the prior fiscal year budget.
Property Taxes
The District receives a fixed portion of property taxes collected within its service area.
Property taxes are based on assessed valuations and any effects from a recession are delayed as reduced sale prices work their way through the real estate market. This revenue and its different timing than sales taxes help the District fare better during a recession. The estimate for FY 2020-21 is $2.5 million (2.2%) than FY 2019-20 budget as it is flat from the actual revenues in FY 2019-20.
Parcel Taxes: Measure VV
The Measure VV/C1 Parcel Tax subsidy is the continuation of a $96.00 per parcel in the area designated as Special District #1 that was passed in November 2016. As a flat tax based on the number of parcels, it is one of the least volatile of the District’s revenue streams.
State Transportation Assistance (STA)
STA funding is generated from the sales tax on diesel fuel, and the amount of money can fluctuate based on the direction of fuel pr ices. Funds are distributed by the MTC based on population and transit agencies’ revenues. The projected revenues for FY 2020-21 reflect a decrease of $4.9 million (18%) from prior fiscal year budget and are based on the MTC fund estimate.
State - AB 2972, OUSD
This funding category supports supplementary school service for the Oakland Unified School District (OUSD). The $1,000,000 is made up of $500,000 received under Senate Bill 856 and Assembly Bill 74.
Regional Measure 2
The District receives funding from Regional Measure 2 for Rapid Bus, Owl (late-night), and Regional Express Bus service. The District also receives funding to run the Dumbarton Express service on behalf of the Dumbarton Regional Operations Consortium. Funding amounts are normally fixed for the non-Dumbarton revenues, and Page | 21
the Dumbarton revenue is based on the cost of service operated. For FY 2020-21 MTC has had to decrease RM2 operating funds due to reduced toll collections during the pandemic. The District will receive of $3.1 million (31%) less than in FY 2019-20.
ADA Federal
Projected revenues from Feder al ADA assistance reflect an increase of $7.9 million (141%) due to timing of FTA grant awards and receipt of funds.
Other Federal, State & Local
Revenues in these categories are smaller or less regular than others. Federal funds include operating assistance through the MTC Lifeline program. State funds include Cap & Trade Low Carbon Transit Operations Program operating funds for Tempo BRT service. Local funds include funding for the Transit Information Display program and the Regional Transit Card program.
FTA CARES Act
The FTA CARES Act funds (which would normally fall into the “Other Federal” category) make up a significant part of the FY 2020-21 operating revenues. The District is receiving $114.2 million, of which $30 million was applied to FY 2019-20. The remaining $84.2 million makes up 18% of the FY 2020-21 operating revenues.
Page | 22
AC TRANSIT
FY 2020-21 ADOPTED OPERATING REVENUE AND SUBSIDIES BUDGET ($ IN THOUSANDS)
FY 2018-19 FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21
ACTUALS ADOPTED BUDGET ADOPTED BUDGET
REVENUE & SUBSIDIES
Line Operating
1 Passenger Fares 57,346 59,701 21,918
2 Contract Services 8,642 10,258 9,786
3 BART Transfers 6,185 4,595 4,824
4 Advertising 1,717 1,147 1,147
5 Other Revenue 1,327 1,353 1,364
6 Real Estate 1,250 1,572 1,385
7 Interest Income 1,292 630 630
8 Total Operating Revenues 77,759 79,256 41,053
Unrestricted Subsidies
9 State - TDA 76,795 80,958 57,056
10 State - AB1107, Sales Tax 46,776 45,501 32,057 11 Local Sales Taxes - Measure B 33,367 32,039 22,573 12 Local Sales Taxes - Measure BB 36,935 34,903 24,590 13 Local Sales Taxes - Measure J 5,064 5,125 3,611 14 Property Taxes 110,467 116,035 118,568
15 Parcel Taxes - Measure VV 29,727 29,574 28,678 16 State - STA 27,132 27,966 23,080
17 State - AB2972, OUSD 500 500 1,000
18 RM2 and DB Service 12,906 13,078 9,001
19 ADA Federal - 5,597 13,462
20 ADA State and Local - 1,776 5,121
21 Other Federal 5,690 500 85,184
22 Other Local 1,491 1,685 1,328
23 Total Unrestricted Subsidies 386,851 395,237 425,311
24 TOTAL UNRESTRICTED 464,610 474,493 466,364
25 Restricted Preventative Maintenance 2,742 - 11,451
26 TOTAL ALL REVENUE & SUBSIDIES 467,352 474,493 477,814
Page | 23
Property Taxes
$116 M
24.5%
TDA
$81 M
17.1%
Passenger Fares
$60 M
12.6%
AB 1107
$46 M
9.6%
Measure BB
$35 M
7.4%
Measure B
$32 M
6.8%
Measure VV
$30 M
6.2%
STA
$28 M
5.9%
Other Operating
$20 M
4.1%
RM2 & DB Local
$13 M
2.8%
ADA Subsidies
$7 M
1.6%
Other Subsidies
$3 M
0.6%
Measure J
$5 M
1.1%
FY 2019-20 Revenue Budget
Property Taxes
$119 M
25.4%
TDA
$57 M
12.2%
Passenger Fares
$22 M
4.7%AB 1107
$32 M
6.9%
Measure BB
$25 M
5.3%
Measure B
$23 M
4.8%
Measure VV
$29 M
6.1%
STA
$23 M
4.9%
Other Operating
$19 M
4.1%
RM2 & DB Local
$9 M
1.9%
ADA Subsidies
$19 M
4.0%
Other Subsidies
$3 M
0.7%
FTA CARES Act
$84 M
18.1%
Measure J
$4 M
0.8%
FY 2020-21 Revenue Budget
Presented to:
City of Oakland
July 2, 2021
235 Montgomery Street, Suite 1042 | San Francisco, CA 94104 | 415.358.1218 | www.centuryurban.com Century | Urban
Fiscal Impacts of the
Waterfront Ballpark District
at Howard Terminal
AATTACHMENT D
PAGE 2
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................... 4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ......................................................................................................................... 4 Site Plan ........................................................................................................................................... 5 Table 1. Project Program .............................................................................................................. 6 METHODOLOGY AND APPROACH ....................................................................................................... 6 Limitations of the Analysis ............................................................................................................... 7 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ....................................................................................................................... 8 Fiscal Revenues ................................................................................................................................ 8 Other Community and Employment Benefits .................................................................................. 9 Table 2. Fiscal Impact Summary ................................................................................................ 10 ASSUMPTIONS AND METHODOLOGY................................................................................................. 11 One-Time Revenue ......................................................................................................................... 11 Table 3. Public Art Requirements by Use .................................................................................. 11 Table 4. One-Time General Fund Fiscal Revenue ...................................................................... 12 Net One-Time Revenue to General Fund ....................................................................................... 13 Table 5. One-Time Fiscal Revenue Net of Contributions ........................................................... 13 Recurring Revenue ......................................................................................................................... 13 Table 6. Assessed Value Assumptions ........................................................................................ 14 Table 7. Annual Property Taxes ................................................................................................. 14 Table 8. Property Tax In-Lieu of VLF ........................................................................................ 15 Table 9. Utility Consumption Taxes .......................................................................................... 15 Table 10. Business License Revenue ........................................................................................... 16 Table 11. Parking Program and Revenue ................................................................................... 16 Table 12. Sales Tax Revenue ....................................................................................................... 17 Table 13. Transfer Tax Revenue ................................................................................................. 18 Table 14. Recurring Revenue by Use to General Fund .............................................................. 19 Recurring Expenditures ................................................................................................................. 19 Table 15. City-Wide Service Population Estimate ..................................................................... 20 Table 16. New Service Population by Use .................................................................................. 20 Table 17. Expenditures per Service Population .......................................................................... 20 Table 18. Estimation of General Government Expenditures ...................................................... 21 Table 19. Police Department Expenditures ................................................................................ 21
PAGE 3
Table 20. Fire Department Expenditures ................................................................................... 22 Table 21. Community & Human Resources Expenditures ........................................................ 22 Table 22. Parks and Recreation Expenditures ............................................................................ 23 Table 23. Recurring Expenditures .............................................................................................. 23 Net Recurring Revenue .................................................................................................................. 23 Table 24. Net Recurring Revenue ............................................................................................... 24
PAGE 4
INTRODUCTION
The City of Oakland (the “City”), Economic & Workforce Development has engaged Century Urban, LLC (“Century | Urban”) to prepare a fiscal impa ct analyses related to the proposed Waterfront Ballpark District project located on an approxim ately 55-acre site commonly known as Howard Terminal in Oakland, California. The site is owne d by the Port of Oakland and is planned to be conveyed to the Oakland Athletic s (“the Oakland A’s” or “A’s”) through a combination of ground lease and fee-simple sale. The City Council is the legislative body that has been tasked with negotiating the community benefits and public financing plan. The City has requested that Century | Urban prepare a fiscal impact analysis of the proposed Major League Ba seball Park (“Ballpark”) and ancillary development (described in the Project Description section below) to evaluate the net fiscal impact of the proposed project.
Century | Urban is a privately he ld full-service, real estate ec onomic consulting, investment, advisory firm headquartered in San Francisco and founded in 2010. The firm’s Principals have over 40 years of experience in develo pment, acquisition, disposition, financing and public-private partnership negotiations for all major property type s including residential, office, hotel, industrial and retail. The firm has significant and meaningfu l experience preparing fiscal impact analyses, economic feasibility studies, and development pr o forma evaluations, al ong with an extensive database of pro forma underwriting criteria. Century | Urban has longstanding and seasoned relationships within the land us e, development, and broader investment community. This affords access to “real time” market information.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Oakland A’s have proposed to construct an approximately 35,000-person capacity Ballpark for its use. In addition to the Ballpark, the project would include other commercial uses adjacent to the proposed new Ballpark (“Ancillary Developmen t”). Combined, the Ballpark and Ancillary Development are referred to as “the Project”. In addition to the Ballpark, when completed, the Project will include:
• Up to 1.77 million square feet of commercial development, • Up to 3,000 residential dwelling units,
• Two new hotels with approximately 400 rooms, and
• A new performance venue with a capacity of approximately 3,500 individuals.
The project site consists of approximately 55 acre s that comprise the Charles P. Howard Terminal and adjacent parcels, located at the Port of Oakland along the Inner Harbor of the Oakland-Alameda Estuary. The site is bound generally by the Oa kland Estuary Middle Harbor on the south; Jack London Square on the east; Union Pacific railroad tracks and Embarcadero West on the north; and the heavy metal recycling center, Schnitzer Steel, on the west.
PAGE 5
The Oakland A’s have applied to the City for a Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Planned Unit Development, and associated environmental review. In February 2020, the A’s submitted an application for a Development Ag reement to the City, and shortly thereafter, in April 2020, City and A’s staff and attorneys began negotiating a Development Agreement term sheet for the proposed Project. The Oakland A’s released a proposed term sheet on April 23, 2021, which included a financial plan (Exhibit F to the A’s proposed term sheet). The terms of the financial plan have not been mutually agreed upon and negotiatio ns are continuing. It is anticipated that a new term sheet and financial plan will be presented to the City Council on July 20, 2021. This fiscal impact analysis reflects the City staff’s recommended package of community benefits. Table 1 below presents the A’s proposed program for the Project.
Site Plan
PAGE 6
Table 1. Project Program
Use GSF/ Units
/Hotel Rooms
Apartments - Market Rate 1,416 Units
Apartments - Below Market Rate 450 Units
Condominium - Market Rate 1,134 Units
Office 1,497,000 GSF
Retail 252,600 GSF
Hotel 400 Rooms
Performance Center 39,000 GSF
Ballpark 1,200,000 GSF
METHODOLOGY AND APPROACH
The fiscal impact analysis measures the impact of proposed new development on the City of Oakland’s budget. While a new project is expected to generate additional revenue to the City through increased property taxes, sales taxes, trans fer fees, parking taxes an d other fiscal revenue, residents and businesses also generate increased demand for City services, which include public safety, library services, and recreation programs and the need for additional capital investments.
This analysis measures the net fiscal impact, whic h accounts for the increa sed revenue generation and increased costs by way of additional City services. This analysis is intended to serve as a tool to understand the net impact of the Project on the Ci ty’s General Fund revenues and is provided as a point-in-time analysis based on the most current available information, the A’s proposed program and the City’s proposal for community benefits . As the terms of the community benefits and financial plan are currently being negotiated wi th the A’s and the development program may change, this analysis is also subject to change. In addition, while the fiscal impact analysis measures net fiscal revenue to the City’s General Fund, it does not quantify additional community or economic benefits that the project may provide such as a ffordable housing, parks and recreational space, cultural spaces and public art. This analysis also does not directly reflect the cost of one-time capital improvements which may be funded in whole or in part by the A’s. Finally, as the fiscal impact analysis focuses on examining the impacts to the Ci ty’s General Fund, it does not include revenues generated to specific purposes such as Measure Q, which funds a substantial portion of the Oakland Public Library’s operating expenses.
As noted previously, the fiscal impact analysis re lied on information provided by various sources, which are noted throughout this analysis. Most notably, this analysis relied on the development program provided by the A’s, which established the number of residential units and commercial gross square footage on which the projected fiscal revenue and expenditures are based. In addition, Century | Urban relied on information containe d in the City’s Compre hensive Annual Financial Report for the year ended June 30, 2020, the City’s Summary of City of Oakland Impact Fees, discussions with City st aff and other publicly available inform ation. Finally, the analysis utilized Century | Urban’s economic analysis expertis e in validating or determining appropriate underwriting assumptions.
PAGE 7
Per the A’s development program, the Project w ill be constructed in multiple phases over an approximately 10-year period. For clarity and ease of comparison, this analysis provides fiscal revenues and expenditures as if the Project were bu ilt as of 2020. That is, all estimates are provided in 2020 constant dollars as if the project were fully built and stabilized.
The City and A’s contemplate that an Infrastructure Financing District (“IFD”) will be formed over the Project site and certain project-generated re venues will be contributed to the Project. Any revenues that are contributed to the Project wo uld thus be deducted from the total amounts projected in this analysis and would reduce the amount of net fiscal benefits from the Project for the duration of the IFD term, which is typically 45 years. Furthermore, a majority of the Howard Terminal site is part of a former Redevelopment Agency area (“RDA”) and, as a result, property tax increment is captured by the RDA to fulfill certain obligations be fore any remaining tax increment is passed through to taxing entities. Based on th e projections provided by the A’s property tax consultant and reviewed by Century | Urban, an average of 37% of annual property taxes generated by the new proposed development would be captur ed by the RDA to fulfill its obligations. The remaining 63% would be passed through to taxing entities including the City’s portion, which could be contributed to the Project. The RDA’s obligatio ns are projected to be fully satisfied in 2039.
Thereafter, all tax increment would flow to the taxing entities, and if an IFD has been formed would be captured for the benefit of the Project for the remaining duration of the IFD term.
Finally, while this report has been prepared as the Bay Area recovers from a 15-month long pandemic and resulting recession, the fiscal impact analysis reflected herein assumes normal market conditions where occupancy, rents and construction costs are at pre-pandemic levels. This approach is appropriate given the long-term nature of this project, which is anticipated to be constructed over a 10-year period.
This fiscal impact study incorporates two components:
• An examination of one-time fiscal impacts su ch as impact fees, property taxes during construction, etc. associated with seven dist inct uses: multifamily residential apartments, multi-family residential condominiums, office , retail, hotel, performance center and the Ballpark.
• An analysis of recurring annual City revenues and expenses associated with the seven distinct uses noted above.
Limitations of the Analysis
This analysis relies on Fiscal Year 2019/2020 City -wide departmental expenditures to estimate future expenditures resulting from the Project. Actual departmental expenditures may be higher than anticipated when the Project is completed, and actual fiscal revenue may be lower depending on market conditions. Furthermore, the results pres ented in this report are intended to provide the fiscal impacts on a relative, order-of-magnitude basis. The actual net fiscal benefits will vary depending on numerous factors including (i) the final development program, which would affect the amount of fiscal revenue generated by the Project as well as the City service demand associated with specific building occupants; (ii) economic factors such as rents, vacancy and construction costs and (iii) property valuation assessment by the Alameda County Assessor’s office.
PAGE 8
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Following is a summary of the fiscal impacts of the project.
Fiscal Revenues
• The Project is anticipated to generate appr oximately $79.9 million in one-time revenues during the construction period of which $60.1 million would be contributed to the General Fund net of amounts captured by the RDA and Public Art fees, which would be earmarked for a specific use. This includes:
o $5.6 million in transfer fees
o $12.1 million in property taxes during cons truction (before allocation of amounts captured by RDA)
o $39.8 million of sales tax revenue from construction spending o $7.1 million of business license tax (i.e., gr oss receipts taxes) from construction spending
• The Project is anticipated to generate a pproximately $41.4 millio n in recurring annual revenues of which $34.5 million would be contri buted to the General Fund after deduction of amounts captured by the RDA, and Meas ure C Transient Occupancy Tax and Measure Z Parking Tax allocations. This includes:
o $11.6 million of new property taxes (before allocation of amounts captured by RDA) o $3.1 million of property tax in-lieu of vehicl e license fees (VLF) (before allocation of amounts captured by RDA)
o $1.8 million in utility consumption taxes
o $4.0 million in business license taxes
o $1.9 million in parking taxes net of the Measure Z allocation o $3.1 million in sales taxes
o $3.5 million in transient occupancy tax net of the Measure C allocation o $9.8 million of annualized transfer taxes from resales of completed buildings
• The Project is anticipated to generate an additional $1.4 million in annual net parking revenues from offsite parking and parking me ter revenue collected within the Waterfront Ballpark District site. This excludes one-time costs needed to set up reservation systems, install meters and signage and staffing costs, which are estimated at $13.5 million.
• Recurring expenditures are estimated at $10.3 million and include:
o $0.8 million in general government expenditures
o $5.7 million in police services and related capital expenditures o $3.0 million in fire services and related capital expenditures o $0.2 million in parks and recreation services
o $0.6 million in neighborhood and human services
•
Net recurring fiscal revenues are estimated at $25.6 million.
PAGE 9
Other Community and Employment Benefits
While not the focus of this fiscal impact analysis, the Project is anticipated to produce the following additional community benefits, which have not been quantified in this analysis.
• 15% of all residential units are anticipated to be affordable rental units based on the City’s proposal.
• The Project is estimated to generate over 7,100 full-time equivalent jobs after full buildout. • The Project is estimated to generate nearly 25,000 full-time equivalent jobs during construction.
Table 2. Fiscal Impact Summary
PAGE 10
ONE-TIME REVENUE Office Apartments Condominiums Retail/Civic Hotel Performance
Center Ballpark Total Project
1.) Impact Fees 3,040,000 $ 1,580,000 $ 1,610,000 $ 450,000 $ 2,160,000 $ 300,000 $ 6,200,000 $ 15,340,000 $
2.) Transfer Tax 580,000 2,770,000 2,220,000 - - - - 5,570,000
3.) Property Taxes During Construction 2,650,000 2,770,000 3,130,000 420,000 690,000 90,000 2,380,000 12,130,000
4.) Sales Taxes During Construction 8,780,000 11,060,000 9,900,000 1,380,000 2,160,000 300,000 6,200,000 39,780,000
5.) Business License (Gross Receipts During Construction) 1,580,000 1,990,000 1,780,000 250,000 390,000 50,000 1,020,000 7,060,000
6.) Total One-Time Revenue 16,630,000 20,170,000 18,640,000 2,500,000 5,400,000 740,000 15,800,000 79,880,000
7.) Less: Allocation to RDA (980,000) (1,020,000) (1,160,000) (160,000) (260,000) (30,000) (880,000) (4,490,000)
8.) Total One-Time Revenue to General Fund 12,610,000 $ 17,570,000 $ 15,870,000 $ 1,890,000 $ 2,980,000 $ 410,000 $ 8,720,000 $ 60,050,000 $
9.) School Facilities Impact Fees to OUSD 840,000 6,900,000 5,410,000 140,000 170,000 - - 13,460,000
RECURRING REVENUE PER YEAR
10.) Property Taxes New Development 2,810,000 $ 2,330,000 $ 4,010,000 $ 350,000 $ 360,000 $ - $ 1,720,000$ 11,580,000 $
11.) Property Taxes Existing Howard Terminal Basis 73,000
12.) Property Taxes Existing Howard Terminal Basis to GF 5,000
13.) Property Tax In-Lieu of Vehicle License Fees (VLF) 780,000 650,000 1,110,000 98,000 99,000 - 370,000 3,107,000
14.) Utility Consumption Tax 480,000 540,000 430,000 81,000 86,000 12,000 170,000 1,799,000
15.) Business License Tax 1,060,000 1,130,000 NA 137,000 576,000 6,000 1,100,000 4,009,000
16.) Parking Tax 1,572,000 286,000 - 306,100 96,000 93,000 1,090,000 3,443,100
17.) Sales Taxes 300,000 380,000 500,000 1,160,000 240,000 9,900 510,000 3,099,900
18.) Transient Occupancy Tax - - - - 4,460,000 - - 4,460,000
19.) Transfer Tax Upon Resale 3,140,000 2,610,000 3,250,000 388,000 380,000 20,000 - 9,788,000
20.) Total Recurring Revenue 10,142,000 $ 7,926,000 $ 9,300,000 $ 2,520,100 $ 6,297,000 $ 140,900 $ 4,960,000 $ 41,364,000 $
21.) Less: Allocation to RDA (1,040,000) (860,000) (1,480,000) (130,000) (130,000) - (640,000) (4,280,000)
22.) Less: Measure C Transient Occupancy Tax - - - - (960,000) - - (960,000)
23.) Less: Existing Howard Terminal Property Taxes (73,000)
24.) Less: Measure Z Parking Tax (722,000) (131,000) - (141,000) (44,000) (43,000) (501,000) (1,582,000)
25.) Total Recurring Revenue to General Fund 8,380,000 $ 6,935,000 $ 7,820,000 $ 2,249,100 $ 5,163,000 $ 97,900 $ 3,819,000 $ 34,469,000 $ PARKING REVENUE [8]
26.) One-Time Parking Costs 13,500,000$
27.) Ongoing Parking Revenues 12,520,000$
28.) Ongoing Parking Expenses 11,170,000
29.) Net Parking Revenues to the City 1,350,000$
RECURRING EXPENDITURES PER YEAR
30.) General Government 750,000$
31.) Police Services 5,720,000
32.) Fire Services 2,970,000
33.) Parks & Recreation 220,000
34.) Community & Human Services 590,000
35.) Total Recurring Expenses 10,250,000$
36.) Net Recurring Revenue to the City 25,569,000$
PAGE 11
ASSUMPTIONS AND METHODOLOGY
One-Time Revenue
One-time revenue reflects fees or revenues that ar e paid once or are due to construction activity, which has a limited duration. As these revenues are temporary, their impacts are distinguished from the ongoing impacts associated with the operations of commercial or residential buildings or tenants inhabiting those businesses and units. The one-ti me estimated fiscal impacts are summarized in Table 2 above and described in greater detail in the following section.
Impact Fees
As a new development, the Project is subject to impact fees per the Summary of City of Oakland Impact Fees schedule. Generally, the City anticipat es that the Project will satisfy the impact fee payment requirement through in-kind contributions. Vertical development projects would also be subject to the City’s Public Art requirements.
The Public Art requirement is estimated as 0.5% of construction hard costs for residential uses and
1.0% of construction hard costs for all other uses , generally based on a permit valuation schedule prepared by the City’s Building Department. For the hotel, performance center and Ballpark, the projected construction hard cost was used to estima te the fee as these uses are not included in the valuation table. The projected Public Art requirement amounts by use are listed in Table 3 below.
Table 3. Public Art Requirements by Use
Use Per GSF $ Amount
Office $2.05 $3,040,000
Apartments1 $1.05 $1,580,000
Condominiums $1.05 $1,610,000
Retail/Civic $1.75 $450,000
Hotel $7.05 $2,160,000
Performance Center $0.00 $300,000
Ballpark $5.15 $6,200,000
Total Project $2.32 $15,340,000
1. Only assessed on market rate units.
One-Time Revenue to the General Fund
Transfer tax is assessed on the sale of land or transfer of a leasehold interest after completion of entitlements. Certain parcels will be transferred on a fee-simple ba sis to a vertical developer who will construct the building improvements while ot her parcels will be transferred to a vertical developer through a ground lease. The applicable tax rate is 2.5% of the sale price or leasehold value.
Affordable apartment units, hotel, performance center and Ballpark uses are assumed to support no land value. The retail land value is reflected in the land value of the office and residential uses as it
PAGE 12
is anticipated that retail will be integrated in to other uses. Land values were estimated by performing residual land value analysis and examining historical land sale comparables.
Property taxes during construction are estimated based on the construction cost estimates for new development. As noted above, some of the parcel s are anticipated to be transferred through a fee- simple transaction while other parcels will be transferred under a ground lease, which will be subject to possessory interest taxes. The City currently receives 26.41% of the 1% ad valorem rate or 0.2641% of assessed value on all taxable property. Property taxes are assumed to be payable over a two-year construction period as each building is constr ucted and assessed based on incurred cost. A 90% factor is applied to cost to reflect an assessed va lue that would be 10% less than total incurred cost.
This is appropriate given the high construction cost environment and the possibility that County Assessor’s Office may exclude certain development costs from its assessment basis.
Estimated construction costs were provided by the A’s and reviewed and validated by Century | Urban for reasonableness. Century | Urban create d development budgets by use, which included typical development costs to form the basis for total development costs.
Sales taxes during construction are equal to 1% of taxable sales. Sales taxes during construction are estimated based on construction costs by use.
Business license tax is equal to $1.80 per $1,000 of gross receipts and is applied to construction costs.
Table 4. One-Time General Fund Fiscal Revenue
Use Transfer Tax Property
Taxes
Sales Taxes Business
License
Taxes
Total
Revenue
Office $580,000 $2,650,000 $8,780,000 $1,580,000 $13,590,000 Apartments1 $2,770,000 $2,770,000 $11,060,000 $1,990,000 $18,590,000 Condominiums $2,220,000 $3,130,000 $9,900,000 $1,780,000 $17,030,000 Retail/Civic $0 $420,000 $1,380,000 $250,000 $2,050,000 Hotel $0 $690,000 $2,160,000 $390,000 $3,240,000
Performance Center $0 $90,000 $300,000 $50,000 $440,000 Ballpark $0 $2,380,000 $6,200,000 $1,020,000 $9,600,000 Total Project $5,570,000 $12,130,000 $39,780,000 $7,060,000 $64,540,000
1. Below market rate units are assumed to be affordable to households earning an average of 60% of area median income and would be exempt from property taxes under the State’s Welfare Tax Exemption rule.
Contributions of One-Time Revenue to RDA
As noted previously, a majority of the Howard Terminal site is part of a former RDA and, as a result, an average of 37% of annual property tax revenu e is captured by the RDA to fulfill certain obligations, which are projected to be fully satisfied in 2039. Until the RDA obligations are fulfilled, the City will receive a portion of the remaining 63% that is passed through to taxing entities. After 2039, the City is projected to receive its full share of property tax revenue. All parcels are anticipated
PAGE 13
to be developed prior to fulfillment of RDA obligati ons, so one-time property tax projections in the fiscal impact analysis reflect the 63% pass through portion. The total one-time property tax revenue allocated to the RDA is estimated at $4.5 million.
Net One-Time Revenue to General Fund
Net one-time revenue to the General Fund includes all fiscal revenues shown in Table 4 above, which excludes the Public Art requirements. In addition, Table 5 below deducts the allocation to the RDA for a net one-time fiscal revenue estimate of approximately $60.1 million.
Table 5. One-Time Fiscal Revenue Net of Contributions
Use Gross One-Time
Fiscal Revenue
Office $13,590,000
Apartments $18,590,000
Condominiums $17,030,000
Retail/Civic $2,050,000
Hotel $3,240,000
Performance Center $440,000
Ballpark $9,600,000
Total Project $64,540,000
Less: Allocation to RDA ($4,490,000)
Total One-Time Revenue to General Fund $60,050,000
Recurring Revenue
Recurring fiscal revenue are revenues that are collected on an annual or ongoing basis. These revenues are collected as user fees or transactional charges such as sales taxes, transient occupancy taxes and utility consumption taxes or as property taxes and VLF based on assessed values. As such, recurring revenues will vary year -to-year based on the assessed values by building and economic activity such as retail sales and hotel occupancy. Century | Urban performed extensive research to determine the most appropriate assumptions to estimate each recurring revenue source as described in greater detail below.
Property Taxes
Property taxes are estimated based on the projected assessed value for each use. Per a conversation with the County Assessor’s Office, the most common valuation method for income-producing properties is the income approach. Therefore, the income approach is utilized for all income- producing uses to estimate the assessed value. The sales price assumption is utilized for residential condominiums, as is customary for this property type.
PAGE 14
As noted above, some of the parcels are antic ipated to be transferred through a fee-simple transaction while other parcels will be transferre d under a ground lease and will be subject to possessory interest taxes. In all cases, it is antic ipated that the valuation method will be consistent between parcels that incur possessory interest ta xes and those that incur property taxes for fee simple interests. The City currently receives 0.2641% of assessed value on all taxable property. Table 6 below summarizes the assessed value basis for each use and the assessed value by gross square footage.
Table 6. Assessed Value Assumptions
Use Assessed Value Basis Assessed Value per GSF
Office Income Approach $710
Apartments1 Income Approach $577
Condominiums Sale Price $976
Retail/Civic Income Approach $527
Hotel Income Approach $438
Performance Center2 Tax Exempt $0
Ballpark Income Approach $440
1. Excludes affordable units that would be exempt from property taxes.
2. The Performance Center is anticipated to be operated by a non-profit with a property tax exempt status.
Table 7 below summarizes the projected annual prop erty taxes by use per the assessed valuation assumptions shown in Table 6.
Table 7. Annual Property Taxes
Use Revenue per Year
Office $2,810,000
Apartments $2,330,000
Condominiums $4,010,000
Retail/Civic $350,000
Hotel $360,000
Performance Center2 $0
Ballpark $1,720,000
Total Project $11,580,000
Property Tax In-Lieu of Vehicle License Fees (VLF)
Property tax in-lieu of VLF is a portion of ad valo rem taxes that are reimbursed to the City by the State. This is estimated by applying the proporti onal increase in the city-wide assessed value and reimbursing the same proportional increase in VLF to the City.
PAGE 15
The City-wide assessed value per the 2019-2020 Fiscal Year is estimated as $68.5 billion and the City’s property tax in-lieu of VLF was approximately $50. 2 million for the same period. At full buildout, the Project is anticipated to increase the City-wid e assessed value by approximately 6%. Therefore, the property tax in-lieu of VLF would increase by the equivalent percentage as shown in Table 8 below.
Table 8. Property Tax In-Lieu of VLF
Total City-wide Assessed Value (FY 2019-2020) $68.5 million City-wide Increase to Assessed Value from Project 6%
Total Property Tax In Lieu of VLF Revenue (FY 2019-2020) $50.2 million Increase to Property Tax In Lieu of VLF Revenue $3.1 million
Utility Consumption Tax
Utility consumption tax is assessed on the utility bill of any business or residence in the City at a rate of 7.5% of the utility cost. The total utility co nsumption tax revenue is estimated based on the projected typical annual utility cost by use. Cent ury | Urban analyzed actu al utility expenses for commercial buildings to estimate the utility cost fo r office, retail and performance center uses and prepared an estimate of utility costs for residentia l tenants based on research for a typical monthly bill for the various applicable taxable utilities. Similarly, Century | Urban prepared an estimate for utility costs for hotel use. Table 9 below summari zes the utility consumption taxes estimated per use.
Table 9. Utility Consumption Taxes
Use Revenue per Year
Office $480,000
Apartments $540,000
Condominiums $430,000
Retail/Civic $81,000
Hotel $86,000
Performance Center $12,000
Ballpark $170,000
Total Project $1,799,000
Business License Tax
Business license taxes are assessed on the revenue collected by businesses operating in the City. The tax is assessed as $13.95 per $1,000 (or 1.40%) of gross income for residential and commercial rental properties. The tax is assessed at $4.50 per $1,000 or 0.45% of entertainment gross receipts. For income-producing properties, the tax rate was applied to the projected net revenue by use. For the Ballpark, the tax rate was applied to projected re venues including ticket sales, concession and
PAGE 16
restaurant sales, advertising revenues, corpor ate sponsorships and publications and in-park merchandise sales. Table 10 below summarizes the business license tax revenue by use.
Table 10. Business License Revenue
Use Tax Rate Revenue per Year
Office 1.40% $1,060,000
Apartments1 1.40% $1,130,000
Condominiums NA NA
Retail/Civic 1.40% $137,000
Hotel 1.40% $576,000
Performance Center 1.40% $6,000
Ballpark
2 0.45% $1,100,000
Total Project $4,009,000
1. Excludes affordable units that would be exempt from business license taxes.
2. Estimated revenue sources for the Ballpark provided by Crossroads Consulting Group.
Parking Tax
A parking tax of 18.5% is applied to projected parking revenue by use. Of the 18.5% parking tax, the 10% of parking revenue is allocated to the City’s General Fund and the remaining 8.5% is allocated to Measure Z programs. The office component will have 2,784 dedicated parking spaces for its tenants. However, given that office tenants may not utilize all parking spaces during the workday and that most parking spaces will be vacant af ter work hours, Century | Urban has estimated transient parking revenue assuming that 10% of parking spaces will be occupied by transient parkers during daytime and evening hours.
Table 11. Parking Program and Revenue
Use Parking Spaces Revenue per Year
Office 2,784 $850,000
Apartments 933 $155,000
Condominium2 1,134 $0
Retail 700 $165,100
Hotel 200 $52,000
Performance Center
3 0 $50,000
Ballpark 2,000 $589,000
Total 7,751 $1,861,100
1. Reflects parking tax revenue net of Measure Z allocations.
2. Office dedicated parking is assumed to generate additional parking tax through transient/daily parkers.
3. Condominium parking spaces are anticipated to be sold to condominium buyers and would not be assessed a parking tax.
4. The Performance Center is not anticipated to have dedicated parking but will generate event parking revenue from parking within the Project site.
PAGE 17
Sales Taxes
The City receives 1% of all taxable sales. Sales taxes is estimated in two components: (a) the amount of taxable spending per resident, employee or gues t; and (b) tax on retail sales. Century | Urban estimated that the City of Oakland would capture 65% of all taxable spending from residents and tenants within the Project. The underlying assumptions for sales taxes are provided below. • Employee Spending - Assumes approximatel y $7,600 of annual taxable spending per employee.
• Residential Occupants - Estimated household in come based on apartment rental rate or condominium sales price and of the estimate d household income, approximately 23% is allocated to taxable spending.
• Hotel/Retail - Retail spending assumed to be $450 per GSF. Assumes $185 average taxable guest spending per night based on a Visit Oakland report. • Ballpark - Includes in-park concessions, merchandise and other taxable sales and restaurant sales. Taxable sales projections provided by Crossroads Consulting Group.
Table 12. Sales Tax Revenue
Use Revenue per Year
Office $300,000
Apartments $380,000
Condominium $500,000
Retail $1,160,000
Hotel $240,000
Performance Center $9,900
Ballpark $510,000
Total $3,099,900
Transient Occupancy Tax
The City collects a transient occupancy tax on all hotel stays at a rate of 14% of the hotel room rate of which 11% is allocated to the City’s General Fund and the remaining 3% is allocated to Measure C. The project will have two hotels with a total of 400 hotel rooms. The analysis assumes a weighted average daily rate of approximately $260 for both hotels resulting in a transient occupancy tax of approximately $4.5 million per year, of which approximately $3.5 million would be allocated to the City’s General Fund.
Transfer Tax Upon Resale
PAGE 18
The City imposes a transfer tax upon the conveyance of any real estate to a new owner. Transfer taxes are estimated based on assumed average hold periods for large income-generating assets of 10 years and for individual residential condominium units of 7 years.
The market value at which income-producing real estate assets would transact is based on an income capitalization approach. For purposes of this analysis and to reflect annual recurring revenue, average transfer tax revenue that would be collected in a single year is estimated by dividing the total payable transfer tax for an income-producing asset by 10 and for a residential condominium unit by 7. The Ballpark shows no transfer tax revenue as it is assumed that the Ballpark is unlikely to transact in the future given the highly specific use of the facility.
Table 13. Transfer Tax Revenue
Use Transfer Tax
Rate
Hold Period Revenue per Year
Office 2.50% 10 Years $3,140,000
Apartments 2.50% 10 Years $2,610,000
Condominiums 1.50% 7 Years $3,250,000
Retail/Civic 2.50% 10 Years $388,000
Hotel 2.50% 10 Years $380,000
Performance Center 2.50% 10 Years $20,000
Ballpark 2.50% 10 Years $0
Total Project $9,788,000
Other Parking Revenue
Other parking revenue reflects revenue from o ffsite event parking and parking meter revenue collected within the Waterfront Ballpark District site. All estimates were prepared by Primus Consulting. The estimate includes one-time costs to set up reservation systems, install meters and signage and staffing costs. Total one-time costs are estimated at $13.5 million. Ongoing revenue is projected at approximately $12.5 million per year and ongoing parking expenses are estimated at approximately $11.2 million per year, resulting in net revenue of approximately $1.4 million per year.
Summary of Recurring Revenues
Provided in Table 14 below is a summary of the recurring revenues by use to the General Fund. The totals include all revenue catego ries described above and exclude any portions that would be allocated to Measure C or Measure Z.
PAGE 19
Table 14. Recurring Revenue by Use to General Fund
Use Revenue
Office $8,380,000
Apartments
$6,935,000
Condominiums
$7,820,000
Retail/Civic $2,249,100
Hotel $5,163,000
Performance Center
$97,900
Ballpark $3,819,000
Subtotal $34,464,000
Offsite Net Recurring Revenues $ 1,350,000 Total Recurring Revenues $35,814,000
Recurring Expenditures
The City provides a range of services to existing residents, employees and visitors. These services include general government, public safety, community and human resources, parks and recreation and public works and transportation. As the City’s population, employment and number of visitors increases, the cost to provide these services also increase. A typical approach for estimating fiscal expenditure resulting from new development is to apply a “service population” factor to increase current expenditures in proportion to the increased service popula tion. The service population is separated into three categories, which include ne w residents, new employees and new visitors. As each of these categories of population generate different levels of service demand, each is weighted differently. For example, residents are weighted at 100% of new residents, employees are weighted at 50% of new employment counts, and visitors ar e weighted at 25% of new yearly visitors. In addition, certain expenditure categories are not anticip ated to increase in cost in proportion to the increase in service population. For example, ge neral government, which includes expenditures related to the Mayor, City Council, City Administrator, City Clerk, City Attorney, and City Auditor are assumed to increase at a fraction of the service population increase.
Methodology and Approach
Recurring expenditures is based on deriving a pe r service population cost for each General Fund expenditure line item by taking the greater of the total actual General Fund expenditures or budgeted General Fund expenditures in Fiscal Year 2019/20 and dividing it by the estimated total service population in the City. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the City imposed hiring freezes and cost cutting measures. The hiring freezes and cost cutting measures are anticipated to be temporary with service levels returning to normal following the pandemic recovery; thus the greater of actual or budget was utilized to account for any temporary reduction in services.
The total new service population is estimated as 100% of the projected new residential population plus 50% of full-time employment and 25% of yearly hotel visitors. As there is an existing ballpark located at the Oakland Coliseum site, the Ballpark’s projected annual visitors are not included in the
PAGE 20
new service population estimates. Table 15 belo w shows the total City-wide service population estimate; Table 16 below illustrates the estimated new service population by proposed use; and Table 17 below lists the projected annual expenditures pe r service population for each expenditure line item. It should be noted that expenditures are pr ovided for illustrative purposes and do not reflect actual projected additional expenditures by the City for each use. The estimates are intended to show the potential impact on existing services under each use.
Table 15. City-Wide Service Population Estimate
Type Total Number Factor Service Population
Population 432,897 100.00% 432,897
Full-Time Employment 206,200 50.00% 103,100
Yearly Visitors 3,800,000 25.00% 2,603
Total Service Population 538,600
Sources: CA Department of Finance; City of Oakland, Visit Oakland.
Table 16. New Service Population by Use
Type Residents,
Guests, Visitors
Factor Employees Factor Service
Population
Office 0 NA 5,990 50.00% 2,995
Apartments 3,323 100.00% 60 50.00% 3,353
Condominiums 2,019 100.00% 35 50.00% 2,037
Retail/Civic 0 NA 505 50.00% 253
Hotel1 335 25.00% 290 50.00% 229
Performance Center 0 NA 200 50.00% 100
Ballpark 4,833 0.00% 95 50.00% 48
Total 10,511 7,175 9,014
Table 17. Expenditures per Service Population
Government Service Expenditure per
Service Population
General Government Cost per Service Population $ 83
Police Cost per Service Population 635
Fire Cost per Service Population 329
Human Services Cost per Service Population 65
Parks/ Open Space Cost per Acre 12,260
General Government Expenditures
General Government includes the costs associated with maintaining a functioning governmental
PAGE 21
body and includes expenditures related to the Ma yor, City Council, City Administrator, City Attorney, City Auditor and other administrative functions. The total expenditures for General Government for Fiscal Year 2019/20 were approximately $163.1 million and the budgeted expenditures was $179.9 million thus budgeted expenditures were used in the estimate. Given that government functions would largely remain unchanged following the development of the Project, a 25% factor is applied to the per service popula tion estimate to derive the projected annual expenditures.
Table 18. Estimation of General Government Expenditures Budgeted Expenditures FY 19/20 179,853,000
Existing Service Population 538,600
Expenditure per Service Population 334
Factor 25%
Expenditure per Service Population After 25% Factor 83
New Service Population 9,014
Expenditure 750,000
Police Services
The City’s FY 2019/20 General Fund actual expe nditures for the Police Department was $342.2 million, or $635 per service population. Unlike other service departments that imposed hiring freezes and cost reduction strategies due to the pandem ic, the Police Department’s actual expenditures exceeded its final budget, reflecti ng the continual need for public safety services. Therefore, the Police Department actual expenditures are used in deriving the projected expenditures related to the Project.
Table 19. Police Department Expenditures
Actual Expenditures FY 19/20 342,173,433
Existing Service Population 538,600
Expenditure per Service Population 635
New Service Population 9,014
Expenditure 5,720,000
Fire Services
The City’s FY 2019/20 General Fund actual expenditures for the Fire Department was $177.3 million, or $329 per service population. Century | Urban sp oke with the Fire Department Deputy Chief of Operations to assess the potential impacts of the pr oposed Project to existing service levels and the
PAGE 22
necessary staffing, equipment and engine compani es to maintain adequa te service levels. The Deputy Chief of Operations indicated that it woul d be necessary to reopen Station 2 in order to provide adequate service levels and response times. The total annual cost of reopening and operating Station 2 including the cost of equipm ent and staffing exceeded $3 million of which approximately $2.7 million would be allocable to the Project based on the estimated new households the station would service as compared to the total projected households that would be serviced by the station. A higher amount of $3.0 million of a dditional expenditures is estimated using the per service population approach; therefore, the service population approach was utilized.
Table 20. Fire Department Expenditures
Actual Expenditures FY 19/20 177,264,440
Existing Service Population 538,600
Expenditure per Service Population 329
New Service Population 9,014
Projected Expenditure 2,970,000
Community & Human Services
Community & Human Services includes the Human Se rvices and Library functions. The City’s FY 2019/20 General Fund actual ex penditure for these functions was $28.3 million and budgeted expenditure was $35.2 million. Budgeted expend itures are utilized in estimated projected expenditures resulting in a cost of $65 per service population.
Table 21. Community & Human Resources Expenditures
Budgeted Expenditures FY 19/20 35,206,000
Existing Service Population 538,600
Expenditure per Service Population 65
New Service Population 9,014
Projected Expenditure 590,000
Parks and Recreation
The A’s proposed program includes approximately 18 acres of new, publicly-accessible open space.
The City currently has approximately 2,500 acres of public parks and open space and budgeted expenditures for Fiscal Year 2019/20 were approximately $30.7 million or approximately $12,300 per acre. Parks and Recreation projected expenditures we re estimated by applying the cost per acre to the projected new open space acreage as shown in Table 22.
PAGE 23
Table 22. Parks and Recreation Expenditures
Budgeted Expenditures FY 19/20 30,650,000
Existing Open Space (Acres) 2,500
Expenditure per Acre 12,260
New Open Space (Acres) 18
Projected Expenditure 220,000
Summary of Recurring Projected Expenditures
Based on the projected expenditures described ab ove, the Project would incur estimated recurring expenditures per year of approximately $10.3 million as summarized in Table 23 below.
Table 23. Recurring Expenditures
Expenditure Category Annual Expenditure
General Government $750,000
Police Services $5,720,000
Fire Services $2,970,000
Community & Human Services $590,000
Parks & Recreation $220,000
Total Project $10,250,000
Net Recurring Revenue
The Project at completion will encompass up to 1.77 million square feet of commercial development, up to 3,000 residential dwelling units, approx imately 400 new hotel rooms, a new performance venue with a capacity of approximately 3,500 individuals and a 35,000-capacity ballpark. The project is also estimated to generate over 7,100 full-time equivalent jobs after full buildout and nearly 25,000 full-time equivalent jobs during construction. The Project will generate revenues to the City in the form of both one-time fees and taxes as well as ongoing, recurring annual revenues. However, as the Project is anticipated to increase the City’s po pulation, employment and visitors, service demand will also increase resulting in higher projec ted expenditures. Table 24 below summarizes the projected net recurring revenue to the General Fund, which excludes one-time revenues. As shown below, the Project is projected to generate approximately $25.6 million of recurring annual revenues net of estimated annual expenditures. As noted previously, property taxes and property taxes in lieu of VLF are eligible sources to be contributed to an IFD. If the City elects to contribute these revenues to an IFD, the net recurring revenue would be reduced by an amount commensurate with the amount of the City’s IFD contribution.
PAGE 24
Table 24. Net Recurring Revenue
Category Annual Revenue/Expenditures
Recurring On-Site Revenues $34,469,000
Recurring Off-Site Parking Net Revenue $1,350,000
Less: Recurring Expenditures ($10,250,000)
Total Project Net Recurring Revenues $25,569,000