City of Albany, CA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY

[Ord. #98-04; Ord. #07-03]

Recitals and Background Information. Pursuant to the California Community Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety Code Section 33000 et seq.) (The "Redevelopment Law"), the Albany Community Reinvestment Agency (the "Agency") has prepared and submitted to the City Council for review and adoption the Cleveland Avenue/Eastshore Highway Redevelopment Plan (the "Plan"). The Plan consists of twenty (20) pages and five (5) exhibits. A copy of the Plan is on file with the City Clerk of the City of Albany (the "City Clerk") and is incorporated in this section by this reference. The Plan proposes a program of actions and accompanying legal authority to enable the Agency to remove existing blighting conditions in the proposed Cleveland Avenue/Eastshore Highway Redevelopment Project Area (the "Project Area") by public and private actions, to stimulate revitalization and new commercial expansion; and to support revitalization through several redevelopment activities including the assembly of property, rehabilitation, public improvements, owner participation programs, as well as the cooperative methods utilizing private and public resources.

The Project Area is situated in the City of Albany, County of Alameda, State of California, and is more particularly described in Appendix A attached to this section and to the Plan and incorporated in this section by this reference.[2]

The Agency has conducted studies of the impact of the Plan on the physical condition of structures, environmental influence, land use, and social, economic, and cultural conditions in the Project Area, and has determined that the program of redevelopment to be undertaken pursuant to the Plan will promote the proper redevelopment of the Project Area in accordance with the goals, objectives and policies of the Albany 2000 General Plan (the "General Plan") and the Redevelopment Law.

The Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Albany, which is the duly designated and acting official planning body of the City of Albany, on April 21, 1998 submitted to the City Council its report and recommendation for approval and adoption of the Plan and has certified that the Plan conforms to the General Plan.

The Plan incorporates the land uses for the Project Area which are determined by the City's General Plan. Implementation of the plan may require, among other things, the development of an economic strategy, the construction of certain public improvements, such as storm drain, creek and sewer and street improvements, and the provision of assistance to retain existing uses.

The Agency has prepared and submitted and the City Council has reviewed and considered the Report Accompany the Plan (the "Report to Council") pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33352, a copy of which is on file with the City Clerk. The Report to Council is hereby incorporated in this section by this reference.

The Agency's Report to Council includes a program for implementation of the projects contemplated to be undertaken pursuant to the Plan.

The City Council is cognizant of the conditions that are imposed in the undertaking and implementation of redevelopment projects under State law, including those prohibiting discrimination because of race, color, creed, religion, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry.

On May 18, 1998, the City Council and the Agency conducted a joint public hearing which was duly noticed in accordance with the requirements of the Redevelopment Law.

The City and Agency staff have prepared and submitted to the City Council for review an Initial Study, dated September 1997 (the "Initial Study") on the Plan and an Environmental Impact Report (the "EIR"). The Initial Study and EIR were prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended ("CEQA"), the Official State Guidelines as amended for the implementation of CEQA (the "State EIR Guidelines"), and the City of Albany and Agency local guidelines for administering CEQA (the "Local Guidelines"). The EIR was certified by the City Council and Agency on May 18, 1998. Copies of the EIR and the Initial Study are on file with the City Clerk.

By resolution adopted on June 1, 1998, the City Council and the Agency have adopted mitigation measures and made certain findings and statements in compliance with Sections 15091, 15093, and 15168 of the State EIR Guidelines.

At or prior to the joint public hearing on the Plan, the City Council and Agency, and staff, received written comments on the Plan. Prior to the introduction of this ordinance, by City Council resolution dated June 1, 1998, and pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33363, the City Council received responses prepared by staff and adopted its responses and findings (the "Findings") in writing to all written comments it received in connection with consideration of adoption of the Plan.

[2]

Editor's Note: Appendix is included at the end of this section.

Findings and Determinations. In accordance with California Health and Safety Code Sections 33367, and based upon the information contained in the Report to Council, the EIR, the Initial Study, the Findings and other documents prepared in the Plan adoption process and on all comments and documents presented at the public hearing, it is hereby found and determined that:

The above recitals and background information are true and correct.

The Project Area is a blighted area, the redevelopment of which is necessary to effectuate the public purposes declared in, and it qualifies as an eligible area under, the Redevelopment Law (see particularly Chapters A, B and D of the Exhibit A to the Report to Council regarding evidence with respect to this finding).

The time limitations that are contained in the Plan are reasonably related to the proposed projects to be implemented in the Project Area and to the ability of the Agency to eliminate blight within the Project Area (see particularly Chapter E of the Report to Council, the Bay Area Economics study and the Implementation Plan, regarding evidence with respect to this finding). As indicated in Chapter E of the Report to Council, the Agency expects to have sources of revenue (including approximately twelve million six hundred seventy-five thousand ($12,675,000.00) dollars in tax increment available over a thirty (30) to forty-five (45) year period to pay the thirty million ($30,000,000.00) dollars to forty million ($40,000,000.00) dollars cost of the planned project activities. Given that this revenue is expected to be received over that period, it is reasonable for the Agency to have twenty (20) years from adoption of the Plan to undertake activities to eliminate blight and to incur debt, thirty (30) years for the effectiveness of the Plan and forty-five (45) years to repay any debt incurred to implement the Plan.

The Plan would redevelop the Project Area in conformity with the Redevelopment Law and would be in the interest of the public peace, health, safety, and welfare; and the implementation of the Plan would promote the public peace, health, safety and welfare of the City of Albany and would effectuate the purposes and policy of the Redevelopment Law (see particularly Chapters A, B, C, D, E and I-1 of the Report to Council and the EIR regarding evidence with respect to this finding).

The Plan conforms to the City of Albany General Plan, (see particularly Chapters A, H, and J of the Report to Council regarding evidence with respect to this finding).

The adoption and implementation of the Plan is economically sound and feasible (see particularly Chapters D and E of the Report to Council and the Agency's adopted Rules for Owner Participation and Business Tenant Preference regarding evidence with respect to this finding).

The Plan will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the City of Albany, as a whole, for the redevelopment of the Project Area by private enterprise (see particularly Chapter B, D and E of the Report to Council and the Agency's adopted Rules for Owner Participation and Business Tenant Preference regarding evidence with respect to this finding).

The Plan does not anticipate any relocation of families because there are no residential uses in the Project Area. The Agency does not presently anticipate relocation of existing businesses. However, if such relocation becomes necessary, it would be undertaken pursuant to an adopted relocation plan and in conformance with the CRL and other applicable State and Federal law and regulation (see particularly Chapter F of the Report to Council and the Agency's Relocation Guidelines regarding evidence with respect to this finding).

The Project Area contains approximately one hundred seven (107) acres. All areas of the Project Area are blighted or necessary for effective redevelopment, and are not included in the Project Area for the purpose of obtaining tax increment revenues from the area pursuant to Health and Safety Section 33670 without substantial justification for their inclusion. The Project Area does not contain any noncontiguous areas; therefore, the finding that all noncontiguous area of the Project Area are blighted or necessary for effective redevelopment, and are not included in the Project Area for the purpose of obtaining tax increment revenues from the area pursuant to Health and Safety Section 33670, is not relevant (see particularly Chapters A, B, D and E of and Exhibit A to the Report to Council regarding evidence with respect to this finding).

10.

The inclusion of any lands, building or improvements which are not detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare is necessary for the effective redevelopment of the Project Area of which they are a part; and these lands, buildings or improvements are not included for the purpose of obtaining the allocation of tax increment revenues from such area pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33670 without other substantial justification for their inclusion (see particularly Chapters A, B and D of the Report to Council regarding evidence with respect to this finding).

11.

In order to implement and facilitate the effectuation of the Plan hereby approved and adopted, certain official actions must be taken by this City Council with reference to, among other things, the location of storm drain, creek and sewer mains, street improvements and other public facilities and other public action, and accordingly, this Council hereby (i) pledges its cooperation in helping to implement the Plan; (ii) requests the various officials, departments, boards, and agencies of the City administrative responsibilities in the Project Area likewise to cooperate to such end and to exercise their respective functions and powers in a manner consistent with the Plan; (iii) stands ready to consider and take appropriate action upon proposals and measures designed to effectuate the Plan; and (iv) intends to undertake and complete any proceedings necessary to be implemented by the community under the provisions of the plan.

12.

The elimination of blight and the redevelopment of the Project Area could not reasonably be expected to be accomplished by private enterprise acting alone without the aid and assistance of the Agency (see particularly Chapters A, B, D and E of and Exhibit A to the Report to Council regarding evidence with the respect to this finding).

13.

The Plan provides for condemnation powers in the Eastshore portion of the Project Area. That authority is necessary to assure parcel assemblage and/or reconfiguration to facilitate modern reuse and to provide adequate access, but only to the extent those goals cannot be accomplished by private transactions or Agency voluntary transactions (see particularly Chapters A, B and E of the Report to Council regarding evidence with respect to this finding). As indicated in the Findings and in Chapter E of the Report to Council, the Agency would not acquire property unless it has committed from public and private sources the funds necessary to provide full compensation for any acquisition in accordance with the requirements of law.

14.

The development of the public improvements set forth in the Plan benefit the Project Area and the immediate neighborhood in which the Project is located. No other reasonable means of financing such improvements are available to the community. The payment of funds for the acquisition of land for and the cost of such improvements will assist in eliminating one or more blighting conditions in the Project Area or provide housing for low or moderate-income persons, and is consistent with the Agency's five-year implementation plan adopted pursuant to Health and Safety Code Sections 33352(c) and 33490. Based on these findings, the Agency is authorized to pay all or a part of the value of the land for and the cost of the installations and construction of the public improvements set forth in the Plan, as permitted by Health and Safety Code Section 33445 (see particularly Chapters A, B, C and E of the Report to Council regarding evidence with respect to this finding).

15.

The Project Area is predominantly urbanized as defined by subdivision (b) of Section 33320.1 of the Redevelopment Law (see particularly Chapters A and B of and Exhibit A to the Report to Council regarding evidence with respect to this finding).

Overruling of Objections. All written and oral objections to the Plan are hereby overruled. In accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 33363, the reasons for overruling all written objections are more fully set forth in the Findings.

Approval of Redevelopment Plan. The Plan for the Project Area, having been duly received and considered, is approved and adopted, and the City Clerk is hereby directed to file a copy of the Plan with the minutes of this meeting. The Plan, which contains, among other elements, the statement of the purpose and intent of the City Council with respect to the Project Area, is incorporated in this section by reference. The Plan is hereby designated as the official Redevelopment Plan for the Project Area. A copy of this section shall be transmitted to the Agency and the Agency is vested with the responsibility of implementing the Plan.

Specific Purposes of City Council. It is the specific purpose and intent of the City Council that the Plan be implemented in order to provide for:

Elimination by public and private actions, of blighting conditions in the area.

Strengthening the economic base of the Project Area and the community in general by providing necessary assistance to stimulate revitalization and new commercial expansion.

Replanning, redesign, and further development of underdeveloped areas that are economically stagnant, physically constrained, and/or underutilized.

Rehabilitation or replacement of substandard and deteriorated public improvements in the area.

Encouragement, by the provision of assistance in appropriate instances, of the rehabilitation and seismic strengthening of commercial buildings in the area.

Attraction of additional private investment and employment into the Redevelopment Area and adjoining areas.

Provision of more adequate parking resources.

In appropriate instances, analysis of and clean up of hazardous materials that would inhibit development.

Neither the list of purposes set forth above nor the lists of goals and objectives set forth in the Plan and the Report to Council are intended to reflect a particular priority order. Rather, it is the intention of the City Council that the Plan be implemented in a manner that will achieve an appropriate balance of the listed purposes, goals, and objectives taking into account redevelopment needs and opportunities that arise from time to time.

APPENDIX A
Legal Description: Cleveland Avenue/Eastshore Highway Redevelopment Plan
A parcel of land situate in the City of Albany, County of Alameda, State of California described as follows:
Beginning at the intersection of the boundary line between the cities of Albany and Berkeley with the westerly line of the Eastshore Freeway (04 ALA 80). As said lines are shown on the map entitled R/S No. 829 filed June 7, 1988 in Book 13 at page 79 of Records of Surveys in the office of the Alameda County Recorder, which point of beginning bears N 76° 48 02 E, 51.73 feet from a brass disk set in concrete labeled Wilsey & Ham LS 4818; thence, from said point of beginning along the westerly line of the Interstate 80 (Eastshore Freeway) as said westerly line is shown on said map (RS BK 13 P6 79) the following courses: N 8° 46 33 W, 307.80 feet; thence N 10° 41 10 W, 367.34 feet; thence northerly along a tangent curve concave westerly, having a radius of 9,948 feet, an arc length of 202.56 feet; thence N 11° 51 10 W, 33.08 feet; thence northerly along a tangent curve concave easterly having a radius of 5,052 feet, an arc length of 263.46 feet; thence N 10° 54 14 W, 100.61 feet; thence northerly along a curve, concave easterly having a radius of 3,060 feet, an arc length of 203.42 feet; thence N 10° 41 14 W, 598.79 feet; thence northwesterly along a tangent curve to the left, having a radius of 765 feet, an arc length of 326.67 feet; thence crossing Buchanan Street N 54° 50 48 E, 111.00 feet, thence along the westerly line of interstate freeway 580 the following courses: S 35° 08 35 E, 72.68 feet; thence easterly along a curve to the left, having a radius of 253 feet, an arc length of 53.59 feet; thence northeasterly along a curve to the left having a radius of 56 feet, an arc length of 75.71 feet; thence northerly along a curve to the left having a radius of 253 feet, an arc length of 57.12feet; thence, N 9° 56 56 E, 235.55 feet; thence, N 14° 20 00 W, 60.02 feet; thence S 88° 52 37 E, 24.05 feet; thence N 9° 56 36 E, 350.82 feet; thence northerly along a curve to the left, having a radius of 1,941 feet, an arc length of 290.72 feet; thence northerly along a curve to the left, having a radius of 3,441 feet, an arc length of 220.01 feet, thence northerly along a curve to the left, having a radius 3,415 feet, an arc length of 99.57 feet; thence S 80° 21 00 W, 39.38 feet; thence northeasterly along a curve to the left having a radius of 2,926.20 feet, an arc length of 341.02 feet; thence northwesterly along a curve to the left, having a radius of 1,911.13 feet, an arc length of 563.46 feet; thence N 33° 13 08 W, 665.23 feet; thence N 37° 39 02 W, 403.86 feet; thence N 34° 43 06 W, 133.29 feet to the line between the cities of Albany and Richmond; thence, leaving said westerly line of Interstate 580, along the line common to the cities of Albany and Richmond, N 74° 11 18 E, 209.06 feet to a concrete monument marking the point of beginning of the Joint County Survey dated July 1932; thence continuing along the line common to the cities of Albany and Richmond N 81° 49 06 E, 938.09 feet to the west line of Pierce Street; thence southerly along the west line of Pierce Street the following courses: S 16° 42 49 E, 1,300.28 feet; thence southeasterly along a tangent curve to the left, having a radius of 1,017 feet, an arc length of 81.19 feet; thence S 21º 17 15 E, 492.43 feet; thence, southerly along a curve to the right having a radius of 483 feet, an arc length of 244.99 feet; thence S 7° 46 26 W, 96.79 feet; thence, southerly along a curve to the left having a radius of 317 feet, an arc length of 116.60 feet; thence S 13° 18 02 E, 237.80 feet; thence S 14° 17 00 E, 67.88 feet; thence S 11 ° 24 17 E, 100 feet to an angle point of the Eastshore Freeway right of way; thence along the south line of the Eastshore Freeway S 76° 50 00 W, 80 feet more or less to the easterly line of the Eastshore Freeway; thence along the easterly line of the Eastshore Freeway, S 24° 54 56 W, 319 feet more or less to an angle point; thence S 14° 11 00 E, 150 feet more or less to the south line of Washington Avenue; thence along the south line of Washington Avenue S 75° 49 00 W, 105.37 feet to the east line of Cleveland Avenue; thence along the east line of Cleveland Avenue, S 10° 28 17 E, 609.55 feet; thence leaving the east line of Cleveland Avenue, S 78° 32 30 W, 50.00 feet to the east line of the Southern Pacific Railroad Company Right of Way; thence along the east line of the Southern Pacific Railroad Company Right of Way the following courses: S 9° 46 51 E, 942.73 feet to the beginning of a curve; thence southerly along a curve to the left having a radius 11,332.12 feet, an arc length of 831.33 feet; thence S 14° 20 05 E, 300.06 feet to the line common to the Cities of Albany and Berkeley; thence along the line common to the Cities of Albany and Berkeley the following courses: N 83° 00 00 W, 100.82 feet; thence S 80° 30 00 W, 264.82 feet; thence S 78° 58 08 W, 224.35 feet; thence N 78° 21 35 W, 165.98 feet; thence N 11° 36 05 E, 134.80 feet; thence N 73° 21 15 W, 75.00 feet; thence S 28° 06 00 W, 21.49 feet; thence S 75° 39 55 W, 82 feet more or less to the point of beginning.
Containing 107 acres more or less.

[1]

Editor's Note: Ordinance No. 98-04, codified herein as subsection 2-19.1 was repealed in its entirety by Ordinance No. 00-03. Pursuant to a stipulated judgment of the Superior Court on November 29, 2001, Ordinance No. 00-03 has been rendered null and void and Ordinance No. 98-04 has been reinstated. See subsection 2-19.2 for reinstatement provisions.

[1]

Editor's Note: Exhibit A is found at the end of this subsection.

EXHIBIT A JUDGMENT
Good cause appearing from the foregoing stipulation of the parties, is hereby ordered and adjudged as follows
1.	The Court previously entered Judgment in this case on February 28, 2000 requiring the City and Agency to reconsider adoption of the Cleveland Avenue/Eastshore Highway Redevelopment Plan (the "Plan") in light of Petitioners' objections and evidence and retaining jurisdiction to review further actions of the City and Agency.
2.	The City and Agency have reconsidered their actions with respect to adoption of the Plan in light of Petitioners' objections and concluded that the Plan should be implemented without use of eminent domain authority.
3.	The Judgment previously entered in this action dated February 28, 2000, as well as the Writ of Mandate dated March 1, 2000, are hereby vacated and replaced with this Judgment.
4.	As modified by this Judgment, the Plan as adopted by Ordinance No. 98-04 of the City Council is hereby adjudged and determined to be a valid redevelopment plan under the Community Redevelopment Law.
5.	Ordinance No. 00-03 of the City Council adopted pursuant to the previously issued Writ and Judgment in this action shall be null and void and of no force and effect in light of the vacation of that Judgment and Writ.
6.	Section 306 of the Plan shall be deemed to eliminate the power of eminent domain from the entire Plan Area, and the City and/or Agency shall not exercise the power of eminent domain under the Plan with respect to any privately-owned property within the Project Area.
7.	Petitioners are entitled to costs and have already filed a cost bill; the Agency has paid those costs.
	JAMES A. RICHMAN /s/ JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
Dated: 11/29/01