HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 12162003 - C101 TO: REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Contra
Costa
FROM: JOHN SWEETEN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR n Count
DATE: December 16, 2003
SUBJECT: Bay Point Waterfront Strategic Plant
SPECIFIC;REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATIONS(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
ACCEPT the Bay Point Waterfront Strategic Plan,as a guide to the revitalization of the waterfront area.
of Bay Point; and REFER the Strategic Plan to the Redevelopment Director and the Bay Point Project
Area Committee for implementation activities as appropriate.
FISCAL IMPACT
No General Funds were utilized. Redevelopment Agency funds were used to complete the Strategic
Plan.
BACKGROUNDIREASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
A major redevelopment activity in Bay Point is to revitalize the deteriorating waterfront area. In late
2001,the Redevelopment Agency retained a consultant team to work ViththeBayPoint ommunity to
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE 1&elllt eo
G., ECOMMEN.CIATION OF EXECTUTIVE DIRECTOR
RECOMMENDATION OF AGENCY COMMITTEE
---APPROVE OTHER i
SIGNATURES : `�^
ACTION OF BO� N Deca&ez 16,'2003 APPROVED AS RECOM LADED X OT R
VOTE OF COMMISSIONERS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
X UNANIMOUS(ABSENT) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION
AYES: NOES: TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ON
THE DATE SHOWN
Contact: Maureen Toms,CDD-335-1250 ATTESTED
December lb, 2003
cc: Redevelopment Agency JOHN SWEETEN, AGENCY SECRETARY
AND COUNTY ADMININISTRATOR
Public Warks Department ,^
County Administrator BY
County Counsel
Cheri Chavez,McAvoy Harbor DE '
PG&E
Bay Point Waterfront Strategic Plan
December 16,2003
Page 2
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS(continued)
develop a Strategic Plan for the waterfront area, to prepare and evaluate the economic and market
feasibility analysis of the area;and to evaluate the condition of the marinas and the infrastructure needs
of the Bay Point waterfront. The result of this work in the Bay Point Waterfront Strategic Plan.
Central to the development of the plans to revitalize Bay Point's waterfront was a public outreach and
involvement effort to engage a task force and community members in a community based design
process. Stakeholder meetings were held which included members of the Task Force, the
Redevelopment Agency,East Bay Regional Parks District,affected landowners,planning department,
Bay Conservation and Development Commission(BCDC),the Bay Point Municipal Advisory Council,
the Bay Point Advisory Council,the Bay Point Project Area Committee,Contra Costa Fire Protection
District,Delta Diablo Sanitation District, California Cities Water Company and other individuals and
organizations in Bay Point with a stake in the waterfront. Following the Stakeholder meetings, three
public workshops were held. The first workshop focused on identifying the issues and topics
participants were most concerned with.Participants were asked to examine five general topic areas(land
use,use of open space,circulation and parking,public spaces,and other issues and ideas)and provide a
list of key issues under each topic. The second workshop involved a presentation of the economic
studies,and opportunities and constraints the site proposed,and then presented two alternative concepts
derived from the list of key issues prepared in the first workshop for publicreview and comment.
Following input from the two alternatives, certain aspects of each alternative were combined and
incorporated into the refined concept plan,which was presented and discussed at the third workshop.
The Strategic Plan includes an assessment of financial feasibility. The estimates of potential funding
sources, such as loans and grants from the Department of Boating and Waterways, tax increment,
revenue from boat slip rental and ground leases from residential uses was prepared. A comparison of
the funding sources and the Project costs,including debt payments, allow a preliminary debt coverage
ratio of 1.14.
In the Final Concept Plan a marina with 568 berths is suggested. Most of the berths(80%)would be
covered. A large parking area for trailers as well as dry storage area is proposed on the east end of the
site where it is in close proximity to a new boat launch location. Other proposed support uses consist of
a fuel dock, centrally located harbor master building, restroom laundry and showers, chandlery store
with bait and tackle, administrative offices, caf6/snack bar and yacht club. The final concept plan is
attached. The proposed land uses include:
Land Use Acreage % of area
Marina/Marina-related Uses 61.98 33%
Residential 21.34 11%
Pedestrian walks/plaza 5.6 3%
en Space 101.08 53.5%
Totals 190 100%
Bay Point Waterfront Strategic Pian
December 16,2003
Page 3
A full-scale marina on the Bay Point waterfront provides a unique location for development of
complimentary waterfront housing. The rebuilt marina proposes an amenity which creates a separate
marina-oriented neighborhood within the larger Bay Point Redevelopment Project Area. With its
proximity to the Pittsburg/Bay Point BART Station,the Bay Point Marina is ideal for medium density
housing development. This allows for an efficient pattern of development,housing development in a
high value location near the waterfront,and added safety and economic viability due to increased public
presence.
The first step to implement the plan involves a General Plan Amendment,changing the location of the
Urban Limit Line(involving no net increase of urban area),and changing the land use designations for
some portions of the site. Authorization for the General Plan Study is under consideration by the Board
of Supervisors. The General Plan Study would include the preparation of special studies associated with
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and permit applicationsubmittals for various
resource agencies. Following adoption of General Plan Amendment and CEQA document,the Army
Corps of Engineers, Bay Conservation Development Commission, Regional',Water Quality Control
Board, and the Public Utilities Commission permits would need to be obtained. The Final Concept
Plan suggests the project be developed in the following three main phases: 1.The Harbor,including the
berths,docks,and support facilities for the boating uses;2.Residential;and 3.Environmental,including
the open space and habitat restoration portion of the project, and the recreation uses.
>r sem.
t5
.fG ,�. � � ilh ,�►
fi f�
u
f / �
/
'S
f
a �, A
Bay Po'l'nt
Strategic Plan
April 21, 2003
Revise. July 8, 2003
Revised August 26, 2003
Prepared for:
Contra Costa County
Redevelopment Agency
Prepared by:
RRIM DESIGN GROUP
Cog�ev�srrnr�+,r�t��•�e� ',
1207 Vine Street,Suite G o Healdsburg,CA 95448-707.473.0620
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Bay Point Waterfront Strategic Plan
Table of Contents
I. Purpose of Report......................................................................................................1
II. Background ...............................................................................................................3
III. Existing Conditions, Opportunities and Constraints............................................6
A. General'Conditions ...................................................................................... ............................6
B. Economic Conditions................................................................................................................7
C. Intuitional..................................................................................................... ............................8
IV. The Public Engagement Process..................................................... .......................8
A. Key Stakeholder Interviews......................................................................... ............................8
B. Public Workshop#I: Issue Identification, Priority Setting, & Brainstorming..........................9
C. Public Workshop#2'. Presenting and Evaluating the Alternatives......... ................................11
D. Public Workshop#3: Focusing on a Solution.............................................. ..........................12
V. Economic Feasibility .......................................................s. ...................i✓
A. Market Analysis................................................................................................... .....15
B. Assessment of Funding Potentials and Financial Feasibility................. ..... ..........................20
VI. Final Concept Plan.................................................................................................29
A. Land Use........................................................................................................ ..29
B. Traffic and Circulation............................................................................................................30
C. Marina Configuration................................................................................... ..........................30
D. Pedestrian Circulation/Public Access......................................................................................31
E. Support Services.........................>............................................................................................31
F. Recreational Amenities................................................................................ ........................32
G. Infrastructure Needs................................................................................................................32
H. Open Space and Habitat Restoration ......................................................................................33
VII. Implementation.....................................................................................................34
A. General Plan Amendment............................................................................ ..........................34
B. Urban Limit Line Adjustment.................................................................................................34
B. Special Studies........................................................................................................................35
D. Phasing....................................................................................................................................36
E. Permitting..................................................................................................... ..........................36
iii
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Ray Point Waterfront Strategic Plan
Y. Purpose of Report
In late 2001, the Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency set out to engage the services of a consulting
team to prepare a Strategic Plan for three parcels totaling 190 acres constituting the waterfront area of
the unincorporated community of Bay Point just west of Pittsburg, California.', The purpose of this effort
was to create a plan for revitalizing a deteriorating waterfront area, connect the Bay Point Community
to its waterfront, and in so doing provide Bay Point with a special sense of place that is at once sociable,
comfortable, vital, and ecologically responsible.
In December 2001, the Redevelopment Agency contracted with a consultingteam led by RRM Design
Group to work with the Bay Point Community to develop this Strategic Plan.' Included as key members
of that team were Larry Williams of Williams-Kuebelbeck to evaluate the economic and market feasibility
analysis of the area,and Ken Johnson of Concept Marine Associates to evaluate the condition of the marinas
and the infrastructure needs of the Bay Point waterfront.
The charge to the consulting team included the following:
+ To conduct a thorough reconnaissance of the area for members of the Waterfront Task Force and
others with expertise in waterfront and marina development
+ To identify issues, opportunities and constraints to the improvement of the Bay Point waterfront
• To identify alternative approaches to waterfront revitalization efforts
• To determine whether the waterfront revitalization efforts would require adjustment of the existing the
Urban Limit Line
• To evaluate the reuse potential of existing buildings
To evaluate current regulations in light of current real estate market conditions, including possible
suggested amendments to Contra Costa County's policy framework
To address compatibility of potential proposals with the policies and practices of regional, state, and
federal regulatory agencies
• To work with stakeholders, the waterfront task force, and the greater community of Bay Point to
develop a consensus for waterfront revitalization
• To itemize specific tasks and phasing programs to achieve the desired revitalization
Working closely with the staff of the Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency and the Waterfront Task
Force, a series of three (3) public workshops were conducted in Bay Point. The results of these workshops,
in addition to extensive analysis of site conditions, market feasibility, infrastructure needs, and alternative
1
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Bay Point Waterfront Strategic Plan
development scenarios, guided the preparation of the Refined Concept Plan that is the foundation of
the Strategic Revitalization Plan for the flay Point Waterfront. This report presents that plan, its features
and implications, and a strategy for achievement for this project that is of paramount importance to the
community of Bay Point.
2
...... ............ .... ...... .................................................. ........
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Bay Point Waterfront Stratealc Plan
Background
The portions of Bay Point that are the focus of this plan are those parcels that immediately abut the
Sacramento River Delta, encompassing four (4) property holdings comprising a total of 290 acres that
include:
............................
........... ....
........ ....
...........
...... ... .... ..
gi�l .......
X
. . . ....... ......
....... ................. ............ ...
.............. -gl
g ........ .. . ..........
.................. . .............. ............
.. . .......... ............. IX-
... .............. ....
X.:
...... ....... :: :.........
..................... I ..I. ............ .................... ....
r.
X...X.
... .........
. ... .... ..
.............. .......
U- Wi
............
...........
.. .... ..
.............. ....
..... ......
............ .................
. .......... ..... . ........... .......
..... ................
.. ...........
. ............ .. .... ......
............
.................
....................... ..........................
.........................................................................................
............................
..............................
................
..........
I.
... .... ........................ ......... .
...
...
....................:............ .................
..................
... .......... ............ ..............
... .................... ............. .................
... .............
. ..... .... . ..........
.. ... . ........
...........
...........% .111"..'.I...".."." "::: ......
............ . ........
X
. . .....................
.............. ...........
.............
I
..........
.......... ...
........ . ...
...........
. ...................................
. . ............................ ..
.............
.............
....................................
...............
...........
..........
........ ......
. . .................. .. ...... ......
. ...................................... ...... .....
....... ........
. ................
.. ............ . . ......
xxx .. --------------- .............................
......... .......
... ..........
I.......... .................................
....................
. . ..................
.. .... ....
.. ................. ------
kS
.................... . .......
.................... . ....... .....
... ......
.....fr
..............
... ....... .......
. . .................... .. ...................
...................
...................
-1..............
hJ"W
ii hh1 M,
........................
.... ........
......................
Nk . ........................
. .......................
. ...................
...............
4-IfHIlk
11,tNkrk7 'k,
............
............
........... .......
........ ....
. . .......
"01110
......... .
P.q'
qk ................
)lh ...... .......
�Ihvlj 1*4;i;io::iiii:i:iiiii:iiiiiiii-tiii�ii�ii�iii�
a*}tHneK'n7Nthh>ilnfhl111NrrrFnnnU. ;:
ql
k4elfl,
——-----_----------————-_-_----------—
McAvoy Harbor Property- owned by the Trost family, this site is approximately 25 acres developed
with an existing operating marina of 300 boat slips.
3
.......................................................
.........................................
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Bay Point Waterfront Strategic Plan
The PG&E Property: PG&E owns three (3) parcels in the project area totaling 126 acres. Their
property situated to the immediate north of McAvoy Harbor is an approximately 22 acre island
containing mostly marshlands.To the east is an 85 acre site that is entirely marshland with the harbor
channels surrounding three sides and the bay to the north. To the immediate east a 19 acre parcel that
until 2002 was operated as a small harbor and yacht club.
East Bay Regional Park District Property: This property on the western edge of the focus area is an
approximately 52-acre site that is devoted mostly to wetland habitat area.
...... . .....
... ................................
.................. ...
..............
..............
..................................
. ................ .. .... ..
...... ............. ...............
.. ................. ...
..........................-..............
..................
....................................
........................
.............
.............
....................
.............
...................
...... ...
................
State Lands Commission- North of the East Bay Parks site is 88 acres of marshland owned by the
state. The property hosts a number of trails leading to the bay.
The Redevelopment Agency and the Bay Point Project Area
Committee rightly recognize the key to the revitalization of
the community of Bay Point is the need to address these
parcels that hold great potential for the community. Yet,
it is an area with considerable challenges that must be met
in order to unlock its true potential. Access to the marina
area—a single road that crosses four sets of railroad tracks-
is awkward at best,and with deteriorating conditions in the
...... ........
harbor area, it is a place that lacks cohesion and connection
with the upland community.
In pursuing the development of this Strategic Plan, The
Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency empanelled
a Task Force comprised of community residents, members
of the Bay Point Municipal Advisory Council, the Bay
Point Project Area Committee, and other local citizens
with an interest in improving the community's waterfront.
The strategic planning process required working closely
kAM
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Bay Paint Waterfront Strategic Plan
with the Task Force over the period from December 2001 through September 2002 to gather information,
address issues, and create a strategic plan that will result in a compelling, economically achievable, and high-
quality environment that will be the object of civic pride for Bay Point.
5
..........................................................
................................
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Bay Point Waterfront Strategic Plan
111. Existing Conditions, Opportunities and Constraints
A. General Conditions
As mentioned above, the Bay Point waterfront is currently owned by four parties; The East Bay
Regional Parks District, The State Lands Commission, The Trost Family (owners of McAvoy
Harbor), and Pacific Gas &Electric (PG&E). Much of the area is considered marshland and the
East Bay Regional Parks District is looking to develop a passive use park on their land and the
State Lands Commission property is currently open space with traits which, due to environmental
sensitivities, is likely to remain so.
The only point of entry to the site is at Port Chicago Highway where there is a large bend in the
road, making visibility very difficult. While visibility and site access at the Port Chicago Highway/
McAvoy Road intersection has recently been improved by the Contra Costa County Public Works
Department, four (4) active rail
lines separate the waterfront area ......
..................
............ . .........
........... .........
from the rest of town with an at,
..... .... . . ...........
.................
........................... ...........
.............. .. ............
.................-..........
............................. ..........
-........... .. ........
grade crossing. On the site, there
.......................
........................
... ...........
...................... ......
..................
.............................. ........-
.... ......
...........
.....................I........... . .............
................................. ............
.......... .. ..............
.................
is little directional signage to guide ............ ... ........ ....
... ............
. .............
...........
.............................-......... .
............
.......... .............
................................ ........ .............
....... ...............I.....-........ ... .... .............
.... .........
.......... ........ ....
................................... . .......
....... ....
.......... - — --
.......... ... .. ...... ................ ..
................. ........................ ...........
. ........ ....
visitors to their destinations. The
..........I......
......................... ....... ....
... ....... ..............
....................
................ ............ .........
..................
harbor area has few buildings, ................. .............
one being a vacant and degraded
former restaurant building on the
McAvoy Harbor property. The
most distinctive building in the
area is the former Harris Yacht
Club building on the PG&E
property; a metal sided building
with considerable character that
has potential for future reuse and restoration.
R��X
...... ... The McAvoy Harbor marina occupies 25 acres of
..... .......
..........
the waterfront area. White the marina is well over
.............
............
>.. .k;; ,•<....................... .:..
I............... ........................ 40 years of age and is in generally poor condition, it
........... I......
.............
.....................
................
........................
...... remains an operable facility. The marina contains
300 boat slips, 240 which are covered and 60 open
................... slips. Boat slips range from 20 feet to 45 feet with
the covered slips averaging 28 feet and the open
slips about 26 feet.
6
.............
.............................
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Bay Point Waterfront 5trate 'lc Plan
The former Harris Yacht Harbor marina improvements on the PG&E property was closed and
fenced off in 2402 and most of the prior improvements have been demolished and removed from
the site.
Economic Conditions
Land uses in the Bay Point waterfront planning area are directly impacted by population trends in
Contra Costa County and the Pittsburg sphere of influence,which includes Bay Point. County staff
has estimated that the current population for Bay Point development area is 21,534 people. Current
2000 census information for three census tracts which cover Bay Point(3141.01, 3141..02 and 3150)
estimates a 2000 population of 28,333.
With the exception of a 23 acre "bulge" of the urban Limit Line that encroaches into the East
Bay Regional. Parks property, the remainder of the waterfront area lies outside of the Urban Limit
Line.The existing harbor site has a General Plan Designation of"Commercial Recreation" and the
remainder of the site is designated "Open Space". The site is zoned Planned-Unit (P-1) District,
which reflects the allowable uses identified in the General Man. The waterfront area is within the
Bay Point Redevelopment Project Area. The 90 acres portion of land to the east of the farmer Bay
Point Marina,owned by PG&E, is not within the Redevelopment Project Area. The boat slips range
from 20 feet to 45 feet with the covered slips averaging 28 feet and the open slips about 26 feet. The
boat berths have a current occupancy of about 90 percent.
Monthly rental rates average $4.70 per linear foot for covered slips and$3.25 for open slips. About
90 percent of the slip renters at the marina reside in Contra Costa County. In addition to the boat
slips, the marina has a capacity to dry store about 250 boats on trailers in a yard-type setting. All of
these spaces,the average size of which is an 1&foot boat,are currently occupied. The average charge
for boat storage is$35 per month.
In addition to these wet and dry boat storage facilities the marina provides a launching ramp, a
guest dock,two boat clubs,a bait shop,a small caf&and a fuel dock.Based upon current operations,
marina ownership reports gross income of about $484,404 per year. Larry Williams of Williams-
Kuebelbeck has stated that based on realistic operating expenses and capitalization rates the land
and existing marina improvements could be preliminarily valued at about$1.5 million.
The land and improvement of the Bay Point Marina, formerly known as the Harris Yacht Harbor, is
presently owned by Pacific Gas&Electric Company. This project was constructed in the late 1930's
by Henry Kaiser for the purpose of manufacturing racing boats. PG&E has owned the property
for about 30 years. In early 2002 PG&E terminated its operating arrangement with Mr. Robert
Herrenkohl, operator of the Bay Point Marina, and is in the process of cleaning up the site and
preparing it for sale.
Before operating agreement termination and clean up, the marina contained 240 boat slips, 30
which were covered and 170 were open slips. The average length for these slips was about 30 feet.
ENE 7
k k b4 :Z FStt: ti :: Q?52; P
...............................................
.....................-...
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Bay Point Waterfront Strategic Plan
The boat lengths had a current occupancy of 55 percent at the time the project closed. Monthly
rental rates averaged $3.50 to $4.00 per linear foot per month for covered slips and $2.50 for open
slips. About 90 percent of the slip renters were residents of Contra Costa County. In addition to
the boat slips, the marina had a capacity to dry store 150 boats in a yard-type facility and 100 boats
in a work yard. Yard type storage is located in a secured land area where boats have been stored on
trailers. The stored boats were launched over a ramp when they were used. While the work yard is
similar to the yard type storage this type of storage allows boat owners to undertake boat repair and
rehabilitation. The marina charged$40 per boat per month for yard-type storage and$100 to$150
per month in the work yard.
In addition to these wet and dry boat storage facilities, the marina provided a launching ramp, a
guest dock, haul out facilities, fuel, boat repair and a snack bar/bait shop.
The operator advised that the marina was producing about $500,000 per year in gross income
prior to closing. Larry Williams has indicated that based on the information provided, land and
improvements under prior operation suggest a preliminary value of about$1.0 million.
C. Intuitional
The marina provides little in the way of infrastructure. What currently exists, including roadways
and most utilities are outdated and not current with local codes and regulations. Upgrades will be
needed to commensurate site demands for redevelopment.
Sewer needs for the site are met by a line running beneath the rail lines connecting to a twenty-one
inch sewer line that runs parallel the rail lines on the north side. An eight inch lateral sewer tine
extends to the former restaurant on the Harbor Property from the main line. This size of pipe is
sufficient for projected future development according to consulting engineer's Concept Marine
Associates.
PG&E is close at hand and already services the site but will likely need to be improved.According to
Concept Marine Associates, the electricity and telephone that serves the site appears to come from
the building on the PG&E property and extends North West to a pole on a finger adjacent to the
McAvoy Harbor. Concept Marine has also noted a well on the McAvoy Habrbot property adjacent
to the former restaurant. Public roads are maintained by the Contra Costa County Public Works
Department. Public Works recently completed a project to improve the Port Chicago Highway/
McAvoy Road intersection at the entry to Bay Point Waterfront.
IV. The Public Engagement Process
Central to the development of plans to revitalize Bay Point's waterfront was a public outreach and
involvement effort to intimately engage the Task Force and community members in a community based
design process. Below is an explanation of the various components of that process and the results derived.
8
........................ .........................
..........
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Bay Point Waterfront Strategic Plan
A. Key Stakeholder Interviews
At the beginning of this planning process, a series of one-on-one candid interviews were held with
a number of stakeholders in the waterfront planning process, including members of the Task
Force, the Redevelopment Agency, East Bay Regional Parks District, affected landowners, the
Planning Department, the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), the Bay
Point Municipal Advisory Council, the Bay Point Advisory Council, the Bay Point Project Area
Committee, the Contra Costa Fire
Protection District, Delta Diablo
Sanitation District, California
Cities Water Company, and other
individuals and organizations
in Bay Point with a stake in the
waterfront. From these interviews ?"'
RRM was able to glean the issues
that would have to be addressed in
....
_. planning for the revitalization of >
the Bay Point Waterfront.
Resulting from these interviews
RRM came up with five (5) topics
that the stakeholders were most ;:;<.
concerned about.
B. Public Workshop #1r Issue Identification, Priority Setting, fix.. Brainstorming
This first workshop held on Saturday, March 23, 2002 focused on identifying the issues and topics
that participants felt were most important to be
{ addressed by the planning effort. Participants
j # were asked to examine five general topic areas
7g and provide a list of key issues under each topic.
The topics included "Land Use", "Use of Open
Space", "Circulation and Parking", "Public
Spaces", and "Other Issues and Ideas". Using a
tape dot exercises participants were then asked to
individually determine which of the general topics
and listed issues were the most important to them
and which of the topics/issues were least important
to or opposed by them.; The results were briefly
reviewed and the participants were then informed
that the results would be used in crafting a program
options for the Bay Point Marina.
9
2 H�f 'YGt:f:\ C 4 of
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Bay Paint Waterfront Strategic Plan
After hearing what the consensus was on important issues, a design charette exercise was conducted
to provide a chance for participants to map out their own ideas. Armed with a base map, a legend,
and colored markers, workshop participants were encouraged to locate the program elements they
most wanted to see at the Bay Point marina in response to the
issues identified.
From the results of Workshop #I, it was clear that participants
$: overwhelmingly wanted to"enhance the marina"while"protecting
the wetland and marsh areas". The Priority Setting Exercise
established that the most important elements were to "establish
a ferry to San Francisco", "Create a Pier 39 atmosphere" with
shopping, fishing, and "provide access for hiking and biking along
the waterfront". Participants wanted Bay Point waterfront to be
environmentally responsible but with a community focus.
';�;.v... "`: While the design charette offered a wide variety of ideas, there
were some unifying elements. A ferry terminal showed up on all
the designs, albeit in a few different locations, the most popular of
a.>
which was on the western most PG&E parcel. Many participants
x also included extensive trail systems throughout the project area,
✓ `. focusing mainly on the PG&E owned lands to the east. The
former Harris Yacht Club Building was retained in many of the
drawings for some form of new use.
Commercial retail areas showed up on most of the plans in varying
quantities
but mostly nearest the
:.::.:.::.�... .
:f
Y...,
railroad tracks on the southern
:::.:::.::<
>.
most part of the project area. The
-,acant land south of the Bay Point
Waterfront propertieswas suggested .
for parking in many plans with the
notion that some treatment would
be necessary to the road/access
where it meet the railroad tracks. „ . ``:`
..........................
::::;;.:::. ....>;::>;:::
In a number of cases, participants "';:
felt that two primary roads be
created across the railroad tracks to
further connect the planning area
to the community of Bay Point.
10
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Bay Point Waterfront Strategic Plan
C. Public Workshop #2a Presenting and Evaluating the Alternatives
During Workshop #2 held on Saturday, May 11, 2002, RRM Design Group reviewed the results of
the previous workshop,the economic analysis as prepared by Larry Williams, the opportunities and
constraints posed by the site, and then presented two alternative concept plans for public review
and comment. The alternatives represented two contrasting views on what could happen with the
project site. Neither one intended to be a formal proposal. One alternative focused on "mixed-
use development" while the other focused on an "expanded marina and support facilities". Each
participant was asked to fill out a "ballot" or report card indicating what they liked and disliked
about each plan, suggesting improvements, and comment on what they final plan should look like.
Choosing between the two alternatives presented was tough for most of the participants. They
found elements in both plans that they liked.Alternative As "Mixed Use Concept"was favored for
offering two points of entry to the waterfront and for its economic viability.
-- WIF ate
in
-.
4
v:
hW
\ j
•' t }•
i }:M
{ 7N4
v
$ 'SG'SYrti(.
S
.... .. ......
After five : M xeJ Uge Concept
11 1�1/I��II�U
1J
......''I'll--,.....................................................................................
..................................... .......
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Bay Point Waterfront Strategic Plan
Alternative Bt "Expanded Marina Concept"was favored for providing a large number of boat slips
and storage and touted an environmental emphasis. Participants wanted the final plan to include
two points of access, a ferry terminal, fishing pier, and some recreation.
—1soy Point WaTerfroat Redevelopment
.... ................
..........
..........
.............
..........
-------------
Alternative B: EXPOOJed Marina Concept
D. Public Workshop #3t Focusing on a Solution
The third and final public workshop held on Saturday, September 21, 2002 focused on presenting
and evaluating a Refined Concept Plan. Results from previous workshops were summarized,
economic findings and recommendations were presented, and the Refined Concept Plan was
unveiled. Participants were again asked to provide feedback on what they liked and disliked and
what could be improved in a Final Plan.
12
............................... ........................ ............................
.............
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Bay Point Waterfront Strategic Plan
Overall, workshop participants were pleased with the Refined Plan. There were mostly positive
responses that complimented the community process and particular elements of the plan such as
marina support uses, and.circulation. A few concerns were noted about the adjacent PG&E parcel
and any future industrial growth surrounding the marina. The potential residential development
seemed to draw the most comments. While some participants were opposed to any residential and
wanted to see more commercial in its place, most thought a mix of residential and commercial uses
would be more appropriate. The overall response seemed to favor a mix of residential and preferred
ownership housing over apartments. Other items on the community's wish list were berths to
accommodate larger boats in the new marina,a fishing pier with some seating areas, an interpretive
center with boardwalks through the wetland and general environmentalawareness.
Bay Paint Waterhont Redevelopment
� {
....:{+if.4:is ffY':•::...:
kk vR•::::•:m:::::::}•+' v:y:.�:..W.v:w:::}}:}•.{v :f•r:r •:Yr..
ffF'?t •:rYi}:•}}7:??+•}:•}:•}:?•}:•}:•}}75:•}}^ .•i:�f:•. k 7:•Y.
}'•$:•}::?:};:;t:;:t;:;if:};ij;:;i:;Siff i:;#:;t.;:{;:{:%?tf:�t i?'vtfr' f.W?>?:•}:??•.
v.?Lw:::ittitfi#itt:{:fi'r:�ffffi:Y+ }4•r:'r'•tt'+....f.•r.
....?:r{4}}•{✓}:v:Yw:}::;,tr:r••.::::}•}::::., .:rw;,r r....tr..;.::::::.
::.CY':•iii:}:}:•fit} ;:.(/....J,.;.{.
:vii.•:•r}:(.;:.}?v .}i}}fY•}:??•4':•}}:?+?'4:+?..:ti+i}}:":'?^}:4":•}:'v:'v.•.•fr• r �:�ii~ti'�i:?�:' �iY':
•:f:nr?.r r.;X.}i>iy:;t}{pit.::•:•?.w:?:r•:::•+tn•w::.;.Y/..+4;.N...t:k;v.;}.;+J;f}}:4:•}:•f'Y•t:{vrr:?.:�.. .ilk` Yrv.+�} �fr{t:•'r'•tt
:•t.>i%i'•}::::•::r..r�••;k:'t ::.4:r{..::}::nb;br%rr r.;;4.:q .,.}., ..{....... 7+r•¢• �•v� :nt{•.::
.�L r.....{..;fr.;• ?.;}#tit'r';•�:'+i ::.{v'i•::4::ri.;Xr.,.,.f{:irtj•�•''r':•'•'>r'f>it'{iit✓,F+..•}:v:Y:::: 4rp {l?.3..+JJr} :j ::
r$}• f ..t,{�;rh::}•}:;}{}$j#.}• .}}.,).;t fj 4kS K ...,+/.,: .. .'•Y tit i:}
fJ
.;fh�''f'•'}{:.Y• $' 4 f ;Ar?.:}.t{+/.•:??.,., �'%i^if?Y::n::::.:::...:�4.:r:?G'•:•r. i..'.'37 �v,{t{r.�;yCJfifti:�•'? trt .. r••}:?;ry'ti'::;:::,iiii 7i ilii?}}i}Iii
+4}{{k:�t:r.22'!:i:::::::::::4:i.. .:>f$:{p•::k:4%�.:..!r.!•::..+rf:. :$:} v'Y{.�:ii2:i:�:.�.:.y.; f•.,fray v:::.�}
:rw
:i•:4r.;}.rr•2.. v.:J:: •t:'f.4Y+}�ii:ii:it:f::?:?•fr/f•.}r....;..}i}7:..r: :::?�.•;r�•.i77::�
..9}:?;Y„r:.}:'::'i}iii}Yi 4W .:.....:.1'.t .r}. tiS?r...r::w.�::�:�:�:�i::fiiii ..:. .3... ...4.:•.,r ::.�r:rs.....#........ ::�:3:�:::#�:�::�:�::�:��:�:�:�?:�:�:::.�.
}
_. :$:•rb::.::.::::.::�:::.5S:::::::.�::.:::•.r• A•:::.;ii;;....}:k».riiiit:it'ttt:.t•: 4:•)t• .:tt+''.:is?C;:33 r.
::::.:
?•}Y.}:h7}}}:.. i}:4'... :�X•}:•}}::tfifftftf i:4:ifiSffffti:::•}::
..............�:.:�::.:�.:::.:2•:is�:ii:�iiiiiiiiiiiiii:�i>iiiiiii:?.. ...:.......... .....................
::.{:rr.::::.::::::::is i}.rf.•4ii:.�:::::.�::.�.�:::.�titi�:}t:4>ii:�iSiJ:::::?:?itiiii:�>i::::n�:::::.�::n�::::::.
..........
............................F..�$j$:�:�:�:`:i::S�:�:�:�:Si:�J:�:�:�:�:�:5?:�:�:!i•:rr:::...n...::::.�:r4::�:ii:�J:�if:�:�:�Ji i:i:!!�i:i:•::::f:iii:i:i::ffftf:�ii f:4i isi:�t:i�::ii:�:i:::iiii:�:�i::fi f: .:
:i�yil':
:�t}:i
:•J'/r.':'i7:' ..�:�:�t:iiti:�Jff.`?�i:^:�:�}fifii.v%fi��:
:•i}}:}it}:i !'f:!'f.•:::::::n�:::::::::.�::.�::v:r�: �ifi:;:;:if:;:;:i;'.;:;:;:;:i::i:«:::::i::::::j::::::::j::;::;:
::�'n:a;••�ii::ai:�i iii:
}.::.
iJ?:%:�:%f:�J3:�i::}r: ...b.:v:.:�:.�:.r::$ v:�:�>?*ii:'i,:si:::?�i:i;:::�::� i:� i:i:i:::::
v:�;:ffiY...:...................? iii#:
.�: :i 3f:......if::iiJ fJift:iff:w:+•:7%4i}:?47iii}i. ? is :i}ii':' :i??7nii3iiiX:?4ii:v}}7i:47:hi i}:•}}:
v:ffyi i:q:.i:hi:47}iii.
:::}r::w:::::::.v:::::.:�:.�:.v:..F.�:f��33i:i:ii:�iiiiiiiii:S:iii iiiiiiiii::::?j;:;:;:;:;:<tiii:
::.•}.•i:iif:i::... ...ff..5......
...w.:a::iiii::;.rr ?{•:Y,iY:ii:ti:i:4:t:::?.............................
..........:..................
:.t:�ii:�>:�ii::.:?�:ai:.;.;.i'.;;:.:>:�:;.ii:�i:�ii::i:�i:i:�f:;:>:�iiii:�:�:i:�:�>:
:%:is i3..... i::i: :i:i:>::i::i:3.r:....... t ..<.....
::.{x ::.k:ir•:;;:t:i:;::fiY;:45???iifi:i:�:�iiif:
�:�:�:�:� :�:... �.<�.�..:>:�>i:�i:.>:�:�:�:;•i`}ii:'Yt:�:;moi:.:?{?•i:i:��'
:�:b:?;,.is�i:�i:.is�:�i:.is�:;.i:�i:�i:.ii:ai:�i>•.i:.7ii>:.:
'::r'4:;.>:ii is:::.;...:: ::'<::`1+.2: ::: :::5::::'r,:•• �'::: ::::::: ......} >
:.:�:::.�:::::::::::.:::.:�:<:::.:�::-.. 71w�:�:�:�i:�iii�i:�:�i;:f:i:�:=:r,:r?.:.;:.iii'::?�}'.;...•
..................... :
.......................................
............................................. .: {{ry:.}:.iiii}:h:}ii::4i:hiii:
�i:�iiiiii:%:f1:=??iiii''.•}}•ii:?•:a.?•f:•:.• ••f.4:•r.•
f:::4i :i:;#:;C:4:??:iiii}:h}iii}'.::•:v.:4:}7}:.vr:•m'
r{ .f
.............................................
:!.:�+f}}:� •{yjl..;;.i'.ib:iiViiiif.`?;�t
77�� :ii.::iii>ii:::.. 4w}:.''•iii::ia7:..
::7 tiY v.4:••:
........................... }rr k. w:::::::.n:::..nY� ....:A:• .. +�'�''�'%:i?:i`:%::iii.`.....
f;:{• 4r: ii:f:ift:
k
:� ..:•NiY�??i��:':�ii:�i'iJ:•Y�ii::i ii'%iiii... {;:{'?'i''
..... :}d,,,�:+.d •y�i::}:?iiii>i::<:4i::.`ii?ii;:i;i:;i.;?#�+• • "r � 7
..:?•:::is
�Y{{d wA.'C,yMsr 1Mw
...........:::::.
grad ct
.iiii:•
i
4ryb4 dpy�
b'}9:t �bd�7r
".i:y.•v'' }:{aoirrlJ '�•K••''Y:�M.1CY: ::
Reked C"Cqf Plan
•...w;.:a} -. .:a...: :.
13
zau aFstr,V a40i; :•
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Bay Point Waterfront Strategic Plan
E. Principles for developing the Final Concept Plan
From the public process described above we derived some guiding principles that guided to the
development of the Final Concept Plan. These principals are:
• Enhance public access to waterfront areas
• Ensure the financial viability of the project
• Spur revitalization of the waterfront
• Provide marina support uses
• Provide recreational facilities
• Allow water oriented residential uses to enhance the economic viability of the project
• Maximize the environmental education opportunities
• Protect environmentally sensitive areas
• Provide adequate parking anticipating future demand
Bay Point Waterfront Redevelopment
k 'rar;{x{x}y,.3•:�..v+::ac}}:{•}:}� .;.•:!.•.2Y•r'"S?Y.:.;:,}};>;;•rY;YYr}x• r};rf. :333r:33}i3:{.;.{•}:•>:•Y:•Y:333%•:?.
i•'.;{•:33YYY:•Y:•Y.*3§ �•,••.+,.,Y"r't.rrr:',.:::;:.••{.r;Y•r ;.':3%' . 3:G•:•. r,°:K?. ••Y,•
v f,.j rL:•Y r v:.r,Y/,.'r'•r'r'r''f:;'r,'r{Yi:r rr fn}? +Nf :{•+f�•� r.kr • r:'firi$#�+G$}vrYl,.vv�v J�•r•••'rr•}'
{f /o /{�{:•%>.j•3:#,#:#:,;.3v:.:.{.;{{.r.,�l�,{.,.}fl}•: .1 t%`:: iY''Y. r r??5?.rl Y'',•?•.
4r '"+}%3#✓>3:/,',},, ?$. ,}k? }{33•? Jr '}oi:y 'nk #?••vY�,. #r,:i(.#;,};,„"• 'r� {
�} .,�`r,� rT ?3,r.,L,r.;3 � )`k•.{� {;��?r ?'�.i'•�rl.'.::t..�'?•,.
33'::3:'{�,<r� r n.{••:ti•::::::#::;::##:r:<,'.:n.,..:�n�'Y •}3.•.:'•{:•'.•}�'r,,;•:{�:�.�::L,7r;/.L, '}:#�:'�>r:�n•:%�•�: �'•.'•.%:%��:�:�:�:�3+•.
.G..;•{::x.;;•:�3•::G:•:o>:•Y:•Y}}}:c}:•}}::..:r:.,k{GY:. •r,;•:.,..::.r%;wc:3�{:,}.��•'.;;}3• };:{::•:::•:.:y,:3?:v..:::::{•::::::: .;.,. ..7...
�:�3x{{•}:::}•.3::i�}:x•}:•:.Y:{:..t.x...:Y:•:/{•:::r}::::.Y:•3:o,,..: ;•Yx{;+.:}::.;;...;;}::•333:>i•}:Y::;:>�:%33•::;
:'2;;:#%�•%� �##�:���:�:t�::;:�:;.Y::::.;;:.;{.:{,•• !!`` �•{.}},}•::•.c};::.x{•Y:{.`.<:�i:�:�;::�.:.::....ra .vY::�}•Y:.i:�>....
%;5'::Y•,5;" :.o:.,.{..rr.+•::.{}Y%?r{Y;k..{;�•:'.r,••,•J�•` {33:aYr•(..7.r 3{,;..<•::.:..w•::{�. ::n::...r :
.c,{Y,.G;..3;.::. .#•?{+.{•,y ;?,;: t }� .. rl.., �..y.:. :v�r. {
:Y.:: •vr.?4':v.::..:::r .�.�Yv'?.'{v,.•,^v.,•.•,'•.�,{.�;:i:}::'3' ::.+yr' 3i?3}:i..•.i/ •.'#:
: :•:::xv .::Y:.!v::v/•,l•.,G}Y:w.�?i .Y.:. r r:?
:..� r
.�rY:r r :�:�:�3333:�:�::�:.�:::3.::•.... ?i::{:i�3:�;:3::�:. ..G.. ...3.. ....• d'
..! :;:::: #3::::'::;:;:t.0..................:::k:::::::::::::.�>>::::::.�:::::::.:�.�,fi..•r 3r: i::::::'t............. :..
:�}}.�:,::::.}::iii:�:�::�}3:�>:..:.:...........................:...:...:....:...... .
............::::::�.�:;.;.;; :3::33<:�:i:::::33;; .............................
3:
:':t::�:�:�:#� :�:�:�:�:�:�:�:�:�:�:�:�:�:�:� :
......................
:05
i335J:�:?::!isi::: ....♦(
�r�¢ :: +�����'�•'���!:
i�`%�??`3:'?�i:�:Y::�:�?3333;C33:S53:�fiL 3<:G+•533:�:553:�:�3:�33:^:�3:�:{t�33::::33333:
333:#33:}11111}i}::::v:n�::.�:::::3 :::v.�.........
..In.......::::::::::
i}$}:iii?:iiiJ}}:::.{.:::::r:::::::::.�
?�:5{3313:5: 4'S: 3: •::ii
y�
:.:,+x,: ,..w..
:Nr. :3:53333:
.v
.:::::..�.....�::::.�.::::::::...:.........:........::{.
G.S..
:.: :::::.�.�::.�:::::::::::::.:.:.�::.i'.:�:::::::{.::.?:. .;,.,.::..,........ '.•}{'> ?.`';{'#:'..1:5.::::55
' x..
{{YY,J•.;
:':'i'.•':'�::.::`��:��:: :'5.:..x : 35
....y�,� 1:::'::::#.:.:.:.5 •:.
ry{
- "°'•eye, i . '�;i..:..::.�.:.
r }:
t
3' ;}
..5....... ..
......,.. .-
Finol Concept Plan
14
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Bay Paint Waterfront Strategic Plan
>: >;
:..:...................................................:::::..:
.............
r:. ................................:.......
;:.::<.iii. 3::::...................................................... .::::.: ii:.<.::«.;:.;:...........,.:...
::Y:::::::::::.:::::::..::
:.:.:::.::.::.:::.::<.;:.::.;:.:::.:::::.::.;;;;:......;.::.iii::;i:::. :.�:::::::;i:.::.i:<.iii::.:::::::.i:;i::.::.i:.i:.i:.i:i:.i:.i:.iii:.i:
fen 9�di '>•,
z'#;;'''
vy
.fix �i:�tz::z:::3::33::i:�i:o-:�:;�i� (
::
3.....
f
::.;;:�;:;;.:;;�;;::�ii:; >:.ii:.}:.>:� :.:. ...........,is�;:o-:�;;:;.:;�;:�> :�; t.>:.::3:.;..•,......
r..'v+w.ii:�i:o-:�.
i:i::i: ::...:• :ii:::o-iii:;.i:::i:;.
:.:}:
is :::..::::.:..
X.
;VA I { ii::?r........................:.
:>:•:i:
<...
..............
..3.................:: ..3::333::i::>::>::•:!L.>:>:>:.>:>s'.<.:{.}>:.}>:;.:.}>:;:t::::>!':
A ..{.......................3:.:
} .w:::......:: 3,::...:.:::.
'{ ...t.........................:.
.............................::::.. ........ ..:.si {:•:: ....:............ .............
............................:.:::. ::::::::. ................ f...........: :-
....... .............:: S^:J:^:•3:is:::3:::.::M'.i:^:::.::;:{:•Y:^:^:•YiY:tt^iY:•YY:O:4YhW.: .'^ :::::::::::: :.
•::.::.., +:.::•::::::::::.+.:............... A .:....•:::.::...... ........{...........................::}132:::3::332::::�"Si3::3:;;:3:;::;:3::3::3:? :.
-.:�:::::::::::::.�::::::........... vY:t;vv: .}::..: •.. .}::4:{.::::::.;:::•.::.: :.::�: +fir•:^:t333::3•i:�:::^:... .::::....:n}F4�.::n:A:::::nY:..nr. '
z..
:�::�i:�i:�i::�:s::�i:�i:�i:;.i:.i:�i::t•}:..,.;. ::..... .}:.}:.: :::.t{........... ...........�.:.:::�.:::.11st•Yit•:iY:.1:•Y1:•::{tt•}:•}:.:'.iii:;;.i:�i:.i:.i.�i:�i:�i:�ii:�i:�i:�i:.i>•
..................................................................
::. r.................................
•::..{.: .::. �>:>......1::3::.....:3::::3::3::3:<:3:;:::3:.ii:.i:.:::.::•.r:......
:.1ii:'::.:ice:}}}:Lt ii ::::::k {:::. :
:.;•.;.,..::.. :.1 ::::•::::...:::..: i:;;.ii: i:.i: ;.isiiii:i:iii:.;f•:::•::::f::::::: S
.;:�;:�;;:�:;�;;:�ii:. #.}i:•1:•:.: :;•::t.:::::•::::::v.::.....................................r::::::::::.:.::.�. ?':{tit:.}i:•1:tt•;:•r1:•Y1:•1:•>:.}>:••}r:•:E;:;.i:�;i;'::�. :�ii:;.i:�i:.i:�i:�i>} >
............................;::::n 3 :::.y:::::.•p�� ,w:.w.v:_,::�x::�:.-.riitiJ:::::n.:}::v f...... .rr::n}::.i:.f,• ,.. y......::::::::::
•w,. ..................... .0....:::.A^:•i}i}}p:^:•}::w: ...v.•r.::: ::::.::.::::is
:::.::.::.::.:i:.::::::: : ::C:::vi 133333333333}3337'•... .... ..:::.!:•YYYYYYYYY:•}: •r.: ":" Y:^3777:^Y:•Y:^
i3::£a" •..:1+�.,•.{:13::f:3::::;:3::3:•:.....................(y:::::3::3::::331: •:
�......:..... 3::3:::31:::3::1:131}:::: tat}33:i:::.Y:^:;:1•}}::t:Y'::r y,. :,v.Y.•1333333:>.:33::3'!:•:•Y::::::::::::::::::::::::::......: ..... .v................
:•:Y:. ..}..
11:;.1:11.1:.1:i:::.1:
:.�
# .. (y.::{....: ' •+: .}:•: •}:•}.. ...:. ;'•:}::::�: $may+��v
v:^:4: "yP3p':.r.':3:::.44��4331v:::'L':?:::4?:i:>::3::3:ft3>:.:55?:
::d.: .3.. .:?.:3:;:1::1::::1•:
Q:;{': .•a'K►3ti:.3333.r•1'r. !f%
::::::::::::::::::::.:::::::........ .......3:: :;: •:3; r,{. ....,
.:.��p. ..:.1•::.:.1:;.1:.1:;.1:.11:.1:.1:{::�:.;:.;:.;1:.1i;
:.11:�111:o-:.1:�1:1�11:�1:;.1>: '4:i;Fieii;i r:1}: 3:3:+:•: 13313;%:1: .'•333:1::311:$:%::1.'•:..:.�.., ,,, �, ._:
:.}:4YY}:•: :. ':'ttt}�'S:,U.:+.'3}::^::.:::.:::1::.1:.1:^t•.i:.::.:::::
:'$r: d' ' .>.SS•.:. �2 :;333
:.}:t;:�;:.111:.1:.>1:.11:.111::::•::•::•.'::: °':11'11` 'aiiaifri�::::r'�f##:r
:::3.: :•Y:�Y: :::isC''3::33:;:3::3::::33'3::3::3::;::3>:;:::
...:.....,..,..:::._::::.if:33:.Y:•::.i ..... .r:•:+ :: :: :::::... ::.}•:::. ::::::::.....:_..... "�,' .. �'iii.'35:ai:.:.:>s:.>i:.»:n:.i:.iis:.:.....
��%31f:11::1:3::::•`.'41{;y'::1:•::•;1..,::. :::��.;..;.{>. }
:::. ..... '' #} ... •:.::y' ,__..:4:•3:{., „,+ 7. :3%':dZ:%i;`:�Sz.;<'Et"?i�[�;i:�?S;:?:'E";:';..;'
..•3r:.
::1:1:: f{•:::::. `% :>:?>::::::1L5:15::11:>:::1:.;.1:1.11:.:13
SNn�s
11sf'
i
..
{..;y r :.;
y• 3.::•1:•}}
f
.'.t�:+:' ?i::'•3.33333::333}::3.`33>::3::3::33'
y {r
:::
.i t:v.:::' j',�p ':.' '• .rr / :•r. r •:::w:::rr:r. :''.•y':.''':.'. .
j1j1$1;Y333
}anti 4:•:'M13333333333::3::3333::.:::.:::::.#..
::.
.....::.i..S:v:1•i:
f
t::
f•'
f
.:�.. ..:
. •.'..
...... •}:•:iii}}:•7'•1:•77}}........
f
V. Economic Feasibility
For this portion of the report,Williams-Kuebelbeck&Associates, Inc.was hired for their unique specialized
focus on waterfront economics to the market feasibility analysis for the project to ensure that the plans for
the waterfront will work in the marketplace and be capable of implementation. The following information
is summarized from a Williams-Kuebelbeck&Associates, Inc. preliminary report to RRM dated March 20,
2002.
The Bay point area is in one of the fastest growing areas of Contra Costa County. Demographics on the
area characterize it as a highly diverse area with large families, relatively low income with low residential sales
and rental prices.
A. Market Analysis
It is suggested that the marina portion of the planning area should be acquired by a single
governmental entity and planned for development as a major regional marina in conjunction with
RRu
15'
..................................................................................................
..............................................
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Bay Point Waterfront Strategic Plan
EBRP's plans for the adjoining regional park. The reasoning for the property acquisition by a single
governmental agency is based upon a number of considerations. The primary reason is to assure the
public's fullest access to the water frontage for the various public recreation uses envisioned within
the project.
A second reason is that acquisition funds would seem to be more available to a qualified government
agency if the use of condemnation powers is necessary.
A third reason is that a public agency could hold the property more feasibly than a private investor
in the property. The governmental agency's public benefits would not apply to a private investor.
Finally, the major infrastructure and recreational boat storage facilities could more readily be
financed through government loans and grants. Since this type of financing for the private sector
is very high risk, the cost of capital would be far less for these major facilities for a governmental
developer than for a private developer.
This recommendation for a government agency acquisition, planning and development would not
preclude a public/private project. It is suggested that the government agency maximize private
operation, maintenance and development of the remainder of the project. The boat storage,
launching and servicing facilities, which are financed by government, should be operated by the
private sector under a property management agreement. Furthermore, the commercial retail,
restaurants and residential development should be on leased land from the governmental agency
owner to private lessees. Investment in such leasehold developments will occur when the basic
infrastructure and boating facilities are completed.
An issue was raised during the study concerning the recommendation of housing on leased land.
It was stated that it is difficult for a private lessee to finance housing on government teased land.
The alternative to this approach is for the government to sell the land for housing rather than to
lease it. Our experience shows that for-sale housing on leased government owned land has become
acceptable in California.
We recommend the ground leasing approach for two primary reasons. First, the retention of the
land by the public agency project sponsor would provide more enforceable design control and
maintenance of the improvements. Second, the public agency sponsor could benefit from receiving
land value increases more easily than if the land was sold.
If the decision is made to sell the residential land, notwithstanding the recommendations here, the
property could be sold. At the time such a policy would be adopted, property valuation would be
required to assure receipt of fair market value based upon the circumstances at that time.
This public-pri,,-ate approach is recommended as the most financially feasible approach to
implementin,p,as complex a project as is proposed here. The complexity and associated risks would,
in our opinion,diminish private sector interest in taking the project developer role suggested for the
16
..............................................
.......................
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Bay Point Waterfront Strategic Plan
government sector in this report.
- It is recommended that the two marina areas be combined and reconfigured to make best use of the
site. The marina should feature about 700 wet boat slips ranging in length from 30 to 50 feet with
75 percent of these berths being covered. This slip count would make the facility one of the largest
regional facilities in the San Francisco Bay Area. In addition,the marina should feature a full supply
of marina service and support facilities including dry boat storage, launching ramp, marine fueling,
marina-retail, cafe/restaurant and a yacht club. The project should also',feature marine educational
and social facilities.
An alternative approach to development would be to supplement the regional marina with medium
density (20 units per acre) marina-oriented residential development:as an affiliated economic
development program benefiting from the marina.
Although the two properties, referred to as the marina properties, have been serving as small fishing
boat havens with low cost storage rental rates and second class facilities,',the character and locations
of the sites still suggests continuing marina operation as the primary land use for the planning area.
The question then becomes one of is their sufficient and future demand to rebuild the marinas and
would such rebuilding be financially feasible and implementable?
The approach we took to answering this question started with an inventory of competitive marinas
in the Bay Point area. By using published California Department of Boating and Waterways reports
and prior WK&A reports, it was determined that marinas on the northern Contra Costa County
shoreline extending from the Carquinez Bridge on the west to the county line on the east would be
competitive to Bay Point. In order to determine current information on these marinas,we conducted
- in-depth interviews with operators of four marinas on the north shore of Contra Costa County and
three marinas on the south shore of Solano County. The Solano County marinas were surveyed
merely to confirm our prior conclusions on market areas served by the marinas on the Contra Costa
County side. Table 1 presents a listing of the marinas which were subject to interviews in this study.
It is noted that the table indicates seven marinas with a total slip count of 1,967. We considered
these marinas to constitute a significant enough survey to be representative for our purposes.
17
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Bay Point Waterfront Strategic Plan
�1 I_:Et"1
C'i rRREN aI ff'( -)T,. ('ti.C)CC:IA'ANC TES AND RENTAL RATES
t�f.F3-f)
1b9dE11113.::�>1u3.ri- Wet Dont 'Slips Slip Rates Current Ch;ce3txmcv
�X) cox erdd Ldel C m Bred t_pq � t�_�!d
Contra C<}SID Cotutt\
Pv¢13ri[.E3eZ MCI3'Idlii �i ! �7i`.-1•.�''..E (1/�1 >!'�i
JI/ l 11i£F
1}111713CYrLk` v irtl7iJ 5"1 �..A'. {)E) .'�'�46 `; .,�,? (r(iiiru 99"i?
Contra cosia com11?'
Litill t7en's Yacht H LVIX?3' 1 21 16
Ct7tiES'iA Costo C"<ar�a13i
}'it IFiC1if.1�'1~F3'131i'1 31 Z� i 1 S Iva tf?.j13 I3<! 100% FLiu
solano 1.'ount\
Stu18l}31 C3t1'',y1swma 150 1 1) 13/;A $484,) Ilia `)90 tl 1
SoltF3lc? count�-
4i1:i1 CcR':C Marina 189 1.32 V1,21J 1t Nri> J41":
S<:>�a3�:c> C'ot3ntt'
5aitsrce: Wi &.-mociates.hic. Mach 2002
A significant finding of our survey was that at least 85 percent of potential boat slip renters at a new
marina at Bay Point would very likely be residents of eastern and central Contra Costa County. It
was also concluded that other users of the marina for dry boat storage and launching portable boats
would also reside in that area. -
For making our projection of berths which will be required by 2010, we projected population and
registered boat ownership for the east and west areas,as shown in Table 2. We then projected berths
based upon the percentage of berths to registered boats in 2000 remaining the same as for 2010.
This approach is therefore based strictly on population growth in the east area of the County. Once
again, it should be noted that existing berths in 2000 and projected berths in 2010 would largely be
based upon East Contra Costa County growth however; these estimates also include berth renters
from the remainder of the County and elsewhere. Furthermore, we recognize that all the existing
berths in the area considered are not fully occupied. Nevertheless, the berth demand projections
under this approach are considered realistic for planning purposes.
18
:.:.
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
BaE Paint Waterfront,Hlrate 'c Plan
Table?
C31 1 t=kND FOR BOAT BERTHS [N THE BAS' POINT "OMPE.�I ITIVE AREA
?00t3-?t1 l 0
2000 2010 Increase
Population ( n thousands) j, 731erceutaue
Total County 948.8 1.074.; 1255 7 13.2°
WestArea 491.0 5.13 8 0 470 9,60'o
East Area 457.8 536.5 78.7 17.2
Re stered Boats ,
Total County 38,=135 46,740 8,305 21.6%
West Area 19,986 '3,370 w,384 16.E%
East Area 15,449 '3,3 ill 4.9_11 -£i 7%
.Berths
Total County 6, 1`� ?f 8.030 1.515 X3.3°0
West Area x,372 -1,781 409 1.7.2%
East Area 4,143 5,249 1.1 O6 26.7%
10ee .Table 3
2) RK& gf'rnai-wa,5 and ho(w berth_�.
3) Berths av a twrc:entage gftotal rt-,'gi-Veree.1 hoots are held c.onstcrlrr_Aw lir h 11,eo and east
Sour e: `1l.iams-Ktiebelbeck &Associates, tnc.
It may be concluded that approximately 1,100 new boat berths in the East Area(Bay faint)could be
developed to meet projected demand due to growth in papulation over the period, 2000 to 2010.
Bay Point could attract a significant portion of this demand.
According to the Housing Needs Assessment of the Contra Costa County General flan, the
Bay Point Redevelopment Project Area contains approximately 6,300 housing units, of which
67 percent are single-family homes, 20 percent are multi-family units, and 13 percent are mobile
homes. According to the Housing Needs Assessment, the condition of housing in the project
area has deteriorated considerably over the past decade. The overall level of dilapidation is high,
with an estimated 35 percent of the existing single-family homes (1,4$11) requiring sante level of
rehabilitation and 20 percent(846) in need of substantial rehabilitation.
It is notable that Bay Point single-family home prices are the lowest in the County, however sales
prices of condominiums are higher in Bay Point than in Antioch and Oakley. This factor is
undoubtedly due to Bay Point's location near the BART terminal.
19
4!z
.........................................................................................
.....................................................
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Bay Point Waterfront Strategic Plan
The Redevelopment Agency has tax increment revenue, bond proceeds, grants and loans available
for capital funds and housing funds necessary for implementing Bay Point waterfront improvements.
In addition to project generated tax increment funding, and since the project could be a major
region-serving recreational marina, loan and grant funds would be available to the County from
the California Department of Boating and Waterways. These grants and loans are available for
acquisition and development of launching ramps and recreational marinas. The grants are strictly
for launching ramps while the loans are for all aspects of marina development. The loans are for
both revenue producing and non-revenue producing elements of marina. Interest rates on the state
loans are currently 4.5 percent per year and repayment periods are 30 years for revenue producing
facilities and 50 years for non-revenue producing facilities infrastructure improvements such as
initial dredging,shoreline protection,main line utilities and roads. The revenue producing facilities
are usually boat slips and related improvements.
The combination of these state loans with tax increment monies will make a very powerful financing
approach to the proposed marina land acquisition and development should the decision be made to
undertake the marina development concept and the marina-housing approach.
Use of tax increment funds to help in securing state harbor development loans has precedent
in California. Two northern California cities/counties which have used this approach are San
Francisco for the South Beach Marina and Suisun City for the Suisun City Marina.
The consulting team has not yet reviewed projections of capital funds related tax increments from
the Bay Point Redevelopment Project Area. However, current FY 2002/03 tax increment revenue
is about$1.87 million.
B. Assessment of Funding Potentials and Financial Feasibility
The Final Concept Plan features a major regional marina which could be developed in conjunction
with East Bay Regional Park District's plans for the adjoining regional park. The market analysis
suggested size for the marina, about 700 boat slips, would make such a facility one of the largest
regional boating facilities in the San Francisco Bay Area. A facility as proposed would constitute
a full service marina which would feature a full supply of marina storage, services and support
facilities including wet boat slips, dry boat storage, launching ramps, marine fueling, marina-retail
space, cafe/restaurants, meeting facilities and other support facilities which are associated with a
marina development.
A project such as described in the Final Concept Plan would be designed and developed under
modern marina design and operating standards. The Final Concept Plan is to change the character
of the project area's existing marina orientation from that of an aging un-planned and physically
obsolete facility to that of a modern multi-purpose regional water-oriented recreational attraction
featuring a full-service marina but also emphasizing water-access uses in a synergistic fashion.
The cost of such a major turn around of the project area would be significant. Concept Marine
20
11
_. . _..._.... ......... ...._._.__... . ...... .... .
..._ ....... ........ .......... ........ ................ . ..._... ................................ .
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Pay Point Waterfront Strategic Plan
Associates(CMA)has prepared preliminary construction cost estimates of approximately$50 million
in 2002 dollars for the Final Concept Plan. This section will examine property acquisition and
development costs for the Final Concept Plan and discuss development and operating approaches,
which seem appropriate in order to implement the Final Concept Plan.'I
This section presents recommended approaches for all aspects of project implementation. These
recommendations should be subject to more detailed feasibility study if the County decides to
proceed with the project. The level of detail presented here is to highlight both opportunities and
constraints that exist at this Final Concept Plan level of preliminary detail.
Marina Implementation and Management Considerations
The results of preliminary studies suggest that the Final Concept Plan would best be implemented
by Contra Costa County as the owner of the property necessary for the project.
The first step in the process would be to acquire the properties. As was mentioned previously, very
preliminary estimates for acquiring the property would be a minimum of$2 million. A detailed
appraisal of the property would provide a more accurate valuation for the properties.
The County, through its Redevelopment Agency,could issue tax allocation bonds for this or borrow
funds from State Department of Boating and Waterways (DBAW). If the sponsor was to borrow
$2 million for this purpose, a 30 year loan or bond issue would be about$140,000 per year at a 7
percent annual debt repayment constant. It appears that the Redevelopment Agency could easily
cover this under its existing tax increment revenue flow. Alternatives,a private develop could acquire
the property and develop the improvements with or without a partnership with the Agency.
As was previously noted, the acquisition cost must be determined by qualified property appraisers
for both parties. The public meetings on this issue have already indicated some disagreement with
the initial acquisition cost estimates given by the consulting team.
If the Agency implements the Final Concept Plan, the County must establish a marina operating
entity to operate the project. It is recommended that such operation',would be under a private
management agreement whereby professional marina managers operate the County constructed
facilities,such as the wet boat slips,dryboat storage and associated storage related project components.
The County, either itself or with assistance from the property manager, would arrange long-term
ground leases for the remainder of commercial and residential developments in the project. These
ground leases would require the selected lessees to plan, develop and ;operate such facilities and
thereby create leasehold interests. The marina boat storage operations would not create leasehold
interests and full responsibility for these elements would remain with the County and be operated
under a private management agreement. This approach allows the County to receive long-term, low
interest rate loans for the costly infrastructure and boat storage operations. For example, the State
DBAW does not provide equivalent funding for these important project components if they were
developed by the private sector.
I 1 I II
21
.................................................................................................................................-...
......................................................................................
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Bay Point Waterfront Strategic Plan
Project Funding and Financial Feasibility Considerations
Assuming the property is acquired in a timely manner, the next step is the design and construction
of the basic marina infrastructure and boat storage facilities.
Construction cost estimates and financial feasibility assessments were made to assist in determining
the preferred Final Concept Plan. These estimates were then refined for use in the summary
considerations.
Detailed preliminary estimates of construction costs were prepared for the Final Concept Plan by
Concept Marine Associates in May 8, 2003 (See Appendix A). The costs are divided into five (5)
improvement categories and are summarized in Table 3 below.
Table 3
ESTVVfATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS
BAY POINT MARINA FIli AL CONCEPT PLAN
(In 2002 Dollars)
DB AW 50 DBAW 30 DBAW
Improvement CategoriesGrant Totai S 3)
gYear Loan n Yew-Loan z�
Demolition& Earthwork All Figures In Thousands
(Landside) $4,309 so $o $4,309
Channel & Basin Dredging
& Shoreline Protection. $8,076 $o $0 $8,076
RoadNvay $4,625 $o $0 $4,625
Marina Docks (Waterside)
and Parking $o $30421 $0 $30,421
Launching Ranips $0 $0 $2,260 $2,260
Totals $17,010 $30,421 $21-260 $49,691
1) Available for non-revenue producing marina infrastructure improvein ents.
2) Available for revenue producing marina improvements,
3) Construction costs include direct and indirect costs. Indirect costs are
calculated based upon percentages of direct costs design contingencies at 20011
engineering at 10%, administration at 60/,o and CEQA and regulatory permits at 3qlb
a grand total of 3.9% of direct costs for indirect costs.
Source laic.: Wilhains-Knehelbeck&Associwes, hic.
22
........... ..............
................................. .........
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Ba Point Waterfront Strate 'c Plan
nnrr irni
The table allocates costs into most likely State DRAW funding programs: non-revenue producing
improvement 50 year loans, revenue producing improvement 30 year loans and launching ramp
grants. The two DBAW loan programs charge 4.5 percent interest per annum on the loans that
they make.
The financial feasibility of each of the loans will be assessed in the following section. Financial
feasibility assessment determines if each loan can be financially self-sustaining. In other words,
will the net income the project generates be sufficient to pay debt service (principal and interest)
required for each loan. The key element of the financial feasibility assessment is the net operating
Table 4
PR.ELLMINARY ESTIMATES OF SET OPERATING MCMNIE
UNDER. STABILIZED C'O D1TIONS
BAY POINT NEAR:NA FIN.kL COWEPT PLAN
bi 2002 Dollars
REVEhL!,ES STABILIZED OPERATING YEAR
(Figures in Thousands)
Beat Berth Rentals $2,246.1
Boat Berth Related Revenues 2214.6
Dry Boat Storaue Rentals 113.4
Restaurant Lease Income 105.0
Retail Lease hic-otne 40.0
Apartment Lease friconne 547 2
S1-B-TOTAL REVENUES S3?'6.3
EXPEtiSE&; $898.4
NET OPEI�,kTII IN('OME $23779
I) Based upon 19,572 L C. (466 covered boat slips)at $8 40 per 1.,.F per rnond with 95�o
occupancy and 4,408 L.F (116 open boat sups)at $7.I0 per L.F. per month with 950
occupancy.
2) Ten percent of Boat Berth Rentals. Includes transient berthing fees, liveaboard fees ani
marine fuel sales.
3) Based upon 150 spaces in yard type storage at $70 per 1nontli with 90%occupancy,
4) Based upon 14,044 SF of 6uilding space, $350 per SF per year gross sales at 3%of
gross sales for a vground lease.
5) Based ueon 10,000 SF of building space, $200 per SF per year gross sales at 2% of
gross sales for a ground leases.
6) Based upon a 24 acre ground lease. Density estimated at 20 unitser acre or 440 units
A$1,200 Average monthly rental $1,200 per unit at 9.5'11'0 occupancy. Grou Slease payment is
based upon 10%of mutual rents*
7) Based upon 40%of Boat Berth Rentals.
Source: Williams-Kuebelbeck& Associates. Inc.
23
1.111,11.11.11.11.....................................................................................
................................................................................
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Bay Point Waterfront Strategic Plan
income available to cover debt service. In the evaluation of alternatives it was determined that the
project costs for infrastructure were significant due to unusually large costs of channel and basin
dredging, shoreline protection and roadway improvements. These cost burdens require that the
Final Concept Plan contain a maximum number of revenue producing units, particularly berths
and residential development. Table 4 presents income and expense estimates for the Final Concept
Plan under a stabilized operating year situation.
It may be noted that the major revenue generating uses are boat berth rentals and related revenues
which constitute about$2.5 million, 75 percent of all revenues,and residential uses which constitute
about$0.5 million, 17 percent of all revenues.
It is important to note that the target number of 700 boat slips suggested in the market studies has
been reduced to 582 slips, 466 or 80% covered and 116 or 20% open slips. This reduction was
caused by the review conducted by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC)
staff. With this reduction, the financial feasibility of the project is significantly impacted in a
negative manner.
It is shown in Table 4 that boat berth rental rates are relatively high; $8.40 and$7.40 per linear foot
per month for covered and open slips respectively. The market assessment indicated strong demand
for covered boat slips for boats 30 feet and more in length. In addition, the Final Concept Plan
envisions a quality project well located to growing demand in Contra Costa County. These covered
slips would be price competitive with quality Sacramento River and Delta marinas. The rental rates
for open slips could be competitive with slip rates for open slips in Benicia Marina.
The estimated revenues for the remainder of boat berth related income and restaurant/retail
facilities are self-explanatory.
Revenue from residential use of the property suggests luxury apartments developed at median
density. We have recommended that these be developed under a ground lease arrangement with
the County leasing the land to a developer. If the County decides it wishes to have privately owned
units this could be developed as condominium units under the -round lease concept. We do not
recommend sale of the ground since we envision the residential units to have significant growth in
value as the project matures and we suggest that the County position itself to share equitably in this
value increase.
Operating expenses are calculated at 40 percent of boat berth rentals. This is essentially$1,550 per
slip per year. This would allow 35 percent for operating and maintenance costs and 5 percent for
the management agreement.
The resulting estimate of net operating income under stabilized operating conditions is about$2.4
24
U
.................... ....... ............................
.........................................
..........
CONTRA COSTA COUN'T'Y
Bay Paint Waterfront StrateOc Plan
million per year. The next step is to determine whether this net operating income would cover
debt service for the State DRAW loans suggested in Table 3. This approach, based upon CMA
construction cost estimates would require a loan of $47.4 million, $17 million for non-revenue
producing improvements over 50 years and $30.4 million for revenue producing improvements
over 30 years. The annual payment of principal and interest for each of these loan components is
calculated below.
• $17 million State loan for non-revenue producing improvements at 4.5% per year for 50 years
($17.0 million x 5.06%debt constant per year) _ $$60.2 thousand
• $30.4 million State loan for revenue producing improvements at 4.5% per year for 30 years
($30.4 million x 6.14%debt constant per year) = $1,$66.6 thousand'
The estimates of net operating income and loan debt service now allows a preliminary debt coverage
ratio to be calculated below.
Net Operating Income $2,4 million Ratio M
Debt Service $2.7 million 1.00
This obviously shows a lack of financial feasibility for the project. To break even, achieve a 1.00
to 1.00 debt coverage ratio, would require either an addition to net operating income of at least
$0.3 million, a reduction of at least $4.9 million in construction costs or a combination of these
approaches.
Review of the CMA construction cost estimates suggests that a conservative approach, (relatively
high cost estimates), was employed. This conservative approach is certainly appropriate for this
preliminary level of planning. On the basis of CMNs cost estimates a planning objective of financial
self-sufficiency for the project is not achieved.
Can the other hand, the project costs are so high that minor variations in costs per unit in the
estimate cause major variations. A good example of this is in the case of the indirect cost estimates.
For example, the $47.4 million loan requirement discussed above is based upon an estimate of
indirect costs calculated at 39 percent of direct costs. We considered this percentage attributable to
indirect costs to be relatively high. For example, State DBAW allows a maximum of 2$ percent of
direct costs for indirect costs. Table 5 shows cost estimates for the loan amounts calculated in Table
3 with the exception that indirect costs are calculated at 2$ percent of direct costs. This results in
the$47.4 million in loans required in Table 3 to be$43.7 million, a reduction of$3.7 million.
25
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Bay Paint Waterfront Strategic Plan
Table
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS
BAS'POINT MARINA F"IN.AL CONCEPT PLAN
REDUCED INDIRECT COSTS
(Ia1 200' Dollars)
DBA44 :50 DRAW 30
Improvement Cate Dries Year Loan i� Year Loan-; Totals a>
All Figures In Thousands
Demolition& Earthwork
(Land side) $3,968 $0 $3.968
Channel c4 Basin Dredging R
Shoreline Protection $7,4137 $0 $7, 137
Roadwav $4,251) $D $4,'59
:..:.
Marina hocks (Waterside) and
Parkin- S0 528.014 $28,014
Totals $13,664 $28,014 $43,678
1) Available for non-reveiTue producing marina infrastructure improvements
2) Available for revenue producing marina improvements.
3) Construction costs include direct and indirect costs. Same direct
costs as in Table 1 with indirect costs shown at 28%of direct costs to
reflect reduced indirect costs.
Source: t one ept iViarine Axsor:icr es, hw.; W711huns-Kitebelheck&Assoc ictle , Inc.
In addition to a possible reduction in indirect costs as described above, it may be possible to delete or
reduce some of the costs of project components. In order to test this possibility we reviewed the unit
costs used on two major components of the Marina Docks (Waterside) and Parking improvement
category. For example, we reduced the direct costs of docks from $60 to $50 per square foot and
the direct cost of dock covers from $20 to $I0 per square foot. In addition, we assumed that the
proposed pier shown in the cost estimates would be funded by a grant. The impact on estimated
construction costs caused by these adjustments is shown in Table 6.
26
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Bay Point Waterfront Strategic Plan
Table 6
ESTIMATED C ONSTR.LMON COSTS
BAY POWT MARINA FINAL CONCEPT PLA
REDUCED INDIRECT COSTS AND MARINA COMPONENT COSTS
(In 20021 Dollars)
DRAW 50 DBAVt% 30
Improseinent Cate'-ories Year Loam; Year Loan--) Totals
All Figures In . 5san s
Demolition & Earthwork
(Landside) 53,968 $t3 $3.968
Channel & Basin T)redinj�
Shoreline Protection � $7,437 $0 $7.437
Roadway $4>'_50 $0 $=1,259
Marina Docks (Waterside)and
Parkin- � s0 $21 710 4 $2L71,0
Totals $15,664 521.710 $37.374
1) Available for non-revenue producing marina infrastructure unproveinents.
2) Available for revenue producing marina improvements,
3) Construction costs include direct and indirect costs shown 'at 28".x.of
direct costs.
4) Reduction of dock costs, $2,048 thousan& marina cover casts. $:3,200
thousand, and assuming pier-at $1.,056 thousand is covered by a grant.
These casts include a 28% indirect cost burden.
:Source: Associates, hie,; II'illiams-Knebelb ek &Associates, Inc.
It may be noted that the$47,4 million loan amount under CMA preliminary estimates could possibly
be reduced to$37.4 million as shown in Table 6. This total reduction of$10.0 million includes$3.7
million from reduction of indirect costs from 39 to 28% and $6.3 million from marina component
cost reduction and deletions,
The annual payments of principal and interest for each of these loan components is calculated
below.
$15.7 million. State loan for non-revenue producing improvements at 4.5%per year for 50
years ($15.7 million x 5.06%debt constant per year) �, $794.4 thousand
01 inn m�iwNrrrrrr�ww�
27'
............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Bay Point Waterfront Strategic Plan
* $21.7 million State loan for revenue producing improvements at 4.5% per year for 30 years
($21.7 million x 6.14%debt constant per year) = $1,332.4 thousand
* Annual Debt Service for$37.4 million in Loan Proceeds = $2.1 million
The estimates of net operating income and loan debt service allow a preliminary debt coverage ratio
to be calculated below.
Net Operating Income $2.4 million Ratio 1,14
Debt Service $2.1 million 1.00
This obviously improves the financial picture for the project substantially. Although the debt
coverage ratio does not reach the L25 to 1.00 State loan target, it does suggest, in our judgment,
that the Final Concept Plan has sufficient financial strength to be considered in further detail.
The analyses included above have evaluated net operating income and debt repayment for the project
based primarily on capital improvement loans from state DBAW. The public agency owner-operator
receives gross income from operating the boat berths, related facilities and dry boat storage. The
ownenoperator also receives ground lease revenue from private lessee developers of the restaurants,
retail stores and residential developments. As mentioned before, the only additional funding is
the use of Redevelopment Agency tax increment funds for acquisition of the required land for the
project.
These analyses are primarily in nature and for the purpose of determining the feasibility of moving
forward to the next phase of program implementation. For these preliminary analyses we therefore
did not assume additional use of tax increment financing other than for the land acquisition.
Tax increment revenues will be generated by the project. These tax increment revenues will come
from both land and improvements. All land and improvements under ground teases will include
a property tax on possessory interest in the land plus the value of the leasehold improvements.
Those improvements, owned and operated by the public agency, will also be subject to a form of
property taxes. In the case of the boat berths the users of the berths will pay both berth rentals to
the operating entity and a possessory interest tax on the use of the berth. This property tax applies
even though the improvements involved are owned by governments. In addition,property taxes will
be paid by the boat owners on the value of the boat. This tax is also subject to the tax increment
calculations.
The analyses conducted in this Strategic Plan suggest it is appropriate to move forward to the next
phase of project implementation. Furthermore, such future planning should include the detailed
policy considerations and calculations for tax increment revenues which will be generated by the
project. It is clear that although the preliminary analyses show potential, more project generated
revenue could provide additional financial cushion.
28
e a 0
.................. .........................
.......... ..........
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Bay Point Waterfront Strategic Plan
V1. Final Concept Ilan
The Final Concept Plan was derived from the results of our research and;the public input received
throughout the public engagement process. The plan is broken into eight (8) elements for presentation
purposes. Those elements are:
• Land Use
• Traffic& Circulation ;{,•;}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}:};};:.}:.:;.:;.:;}::;;:.}}:;.::;:::;}:}}::}}}::}}}}}}}}}}}}.}:.;r.;r v
Marina Configuration
• Pedestrian Circulation
......
• Support Services
...:
• Recreational Amenities k
• Infrastructure Needs �..r
• Open Space & Habitat Restoration
In the Refined Concept
Plan
the proposed land
use remains mostly marina with
568 berths
approximately 80010 ..N.:.:::
of are covered. A Targe �,,,:<
parking area for trailers as well as dry storage area :::::;::::;::: ::::.:.�:::::::. � •.
is proposed on the east end of the site where it
is in close proximity to a new boat launch location. Other proposed support uses consist of a fuel dock,
centrally located harbor master building, restroom laundry and showers, chandler= store with bait and
tackle, administrative offices, ca€e/snack bar and yacht club.
A. Land Use
Land Use Acreage %of area
Covered Berths 9.45 5%'
Uncovered Berths 2.16 1%
Residential 21.34 11%
Marina Support Buildings .65 .6%
Parking 4.03 2%
Beat Storage/Pkg 4.76 2.5%
Pedestrian walks/plaza 5.6 2.9%
Open Space 101.08 53.5%
Marina 40 93 21.5°l0
Totals 190 100%
A full-scale marina on the Bay Point waterfront provides a unique ;location for development
of complimentary waterfront housing. The rebuilt marina proposes an amenity which creates
a separate marina-oriented neighborhood within the larger Bay Point Redevelopment Project
Area. Such a marina-oriented residential cluster provides the opportunity to create a synergistic
relationship similar to the Richmond: waterfront area, Pittsburg's marina area, and the Benicia
29'
........................................................................................................................................................................................-.................... ...........-...
.............
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Bay Point Waterfront Strategic Plan
Marina development. With its close proximity to the Pittsburg/Bay Point BART Station, the Bay
Point Marina is ideal for medium density ownership housing development. This allows for an
efficient pattern of development, home ownership in a high value location near the waterfront, and
added safety and economic-viability due to increased public presence.
The environmental center proposed at the north east end of the site would allow for a unique
learning experience about the history and role of the marina as well as a variety of wildlife that
depend on the natural resources of the area. Further east of the environmental education center a
recreational area is proposed, including two baseball fields and two soccer fields. Parking would be
located immediate west of the ball fields and would serve as a trailhead for boardwalk traits to the
bay.
B. Traffic and Circulation
The main entry will continue to be off Port Chicago Highway with an improved intersection at
the existing bend in the road. A proposed round-a-bout north of the rail lines will allow free flow
of traffic and create a visual gateway to the marina. From the round-a-bout visitors will be able to
head west to the East Bay Regional Park site, northwest to upper edge of the marina and fuel dock,
or west to the residential area and terminating at another round,a-bout with parking area for the
recreational park. Access to the boat launch, dry storage, and environmental educational area will
be from this eastern round-a-bout.A new entry to the site is also proposed at the eastern portion of
the site. This new entry would help relieve congestion during peak travel times but would require
an at-grade or separated grade crossing over the four(4)existing rail lines.
Parking is located throughout the site with the largest area being for boat trailer parking near the
boat launch. Significant parking areas are also located at all support facilities and public areas.
C. Marina Configuration
Based upon the historic boat slip counts of 500 berths at McAvoy and Bay Point marinas,and viewing
the current demand for slips, it would seem appropriate to design a rebuilt marina approaching 600
berths on the Bay Point waterfront.
A rebuilt marina at Bay Point should be sized to better reflect a slip size distribution reflective of
the current market. During research by Williarns-Kuebelbeck &Associates, Inc it became quite clear
that demand for longer, covered slips is the current market preference. Based upon this research
we suggest that slip sizes range from 30 to 50 feet with 75 percent of these slips being covered. The
average slip length should be 35 feet.
The same research determined a need for covered berths in Contra Costa County. Based on this
perceived demand, 80 percent of the berths in the Refined Concept Plan are proposed to be
covered. The two columns of berths at the main entry are proposed to remain uncovered to allow
an unobstructed view of the marina creating a strong visual draw to the water. The majority of the
berths are located on the south end of the marina with the largest berths to the east nearest the main
channel. The harbor master building on the far west of the marina is centrally located between the
30
o au nr sr.s r'.it n:; !,
...........
CONTRA COSTA.COUNTY
Bay Faint Waterfront Strategic Plan
north and south clusters of berths with a clear view across the marina to the environmental center.
The marina layouts are in conformance with Department of Boating and Waterway Guidelines.The
assumed depths of the basins based on dredging and reconfiguration are -k?MLLW datum.While
exact materials have not been called out in this plan, they will be designed: for the Delta marine
environment. The improvements are intended to be attractive, sensitive to the environment, and
durable to last 2.5 to 30 years. Parking for the marina areas will be 1 space for every 1.67 berths.The
parking and berths will be in conformance with ADA access requirements.
All shoreline areas within the development will be protected from erosion by rip-rap, geotextile
fabrics, planting,or some combination of all three.
D. Pedestrian Circulation/Public Access
Public access is emphasized in this plan with a large continuous boardwalk along the entire marina
waterfront. Starting with a plaza and overlook area in front of the environmental education center
the pedestrian promenade continues south and runs adjacent to the residential area on the east
of the marina. There the promenade narrows following the oval beach area. Overlooks from the
promenade provide views of the beach and main channel of the marina. A large overlook located
on the northwest edge of the beach could serve as a future ferry terminal. From the Ferry Terminal
heading west, the promenade narrows again slightly before opening into a central landscaped plaza
area at the main gateway to the marina. The promenade continues west to the edge of the marina
and then travels north past the harbor master up to the fuel dock and north berths.
E. Support Services
Two buildings on the south west end of the site house the majority of the proposed support uses.
Uses such as restroom laundry and showers, chandlery store with bait and tackle, administrative
offices, cafe/snack bar and yacht club will be easily accessible with close proximity to the entry
gateway, berths and parking.
The harbor master is proposed to be located between the north and south berths with a clear line of
site across the marina to the environmental education center. At the north west end of the site on
the secondary channel is the fuel dock with easy access for those entering or leaving the marina.
A restaurant is proposed opposite other proposed support uses nearest the main entry and. plaza.
This location allows patrons picturesque views of the marina while providing close proximity and
access for boaters. bear the beach area sharing the site of a potential future ferry terminal is a small
gazebo that can serve as a gathering/meeting space for the public.
The public will also be able to benefit from the environmental education center where classes can
be held on the ecosystem that surrounds it.The plaza out front allows for outdoor activities and the
close proximity to the boat launch will prove useful for launching any tours they may hold.
31
R a � yrs e tt: x x; 3 r5 c :•
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Bay Point Waterfront Strategic Plan
F. Recreational Amenities
The land use designation for the waterfront area is mainly open space with the existing marina area
designated commercial recreation. In order to provide much needed ball fields to Bay Point the
Refined Concept Plan proposes two(2)baseball field and two(2)soccer fields nearest the residential
area on the east side of the property with a parking area off the round-a-bout to support these
facilities.
Through the public engagement process it became clear that Bay Point Residents wanted to see
hiking/nature trails through out the area. There are a few well worn trails existing on the site and
while the plan shows two potential trails a biological study must be done to determine where they
might be installed having the lowest impact their sensitive surroundings.
A small beach area is proposed at the end of the main channel. This area provides for waterfront
activities in a more protected setting,where residents can enjoy watching the boats pass by in a beach
setting.
The East Bay Regional Park District owns the land to the west, adjacent to the study area of this
report. The opportunity to tie the two areas together with shared trails and or facilities should be
explored.
A view pier will be constructed adjacent to the water for viewing and passive recreation.The pier will
be concrete construction supported on concrete piling, all designed to last 50 years with minimal
maintenance. Appropriate handrails will be placed around the waterside edges of the pier.
A launch ramp will be constructed to serve the needs of area fishermen and trailerable boat owners.
The facility will be constructed in conformance with Department of Boating and Waterways
Guidelines. It will be a four-lane ramp with boarding floats to service ingress and egress of trailered
boats. The adjacent parking is designed to handle 15 truck/trailer rigs per launch lane, or a
minimum of 60 spaces.
An adjacent area will be designed to allow for launching of car-top boats such as sunfish, kayaks,
canoes, etc. This will be a sandy area, allowing for user friendly launching for boat and feet into
the harbor. An area will be set aside as a shore-side ready area to set-up and breakdown boats as
required.
G. Infrastructure Needs
The basic infrastructure needs exist at the south edge of the site on the south side of the railroad
tracks at Port Chicago Highway. Extension of that infrastructure to the Bay Point waterfront is
required to provide adequate urban services and meet fire flow requirements, necessitation the
adjustment of the current Urban.Limit Line to embrace all developed land areas associated with the
revitalized waterfront. Utilities are as follows.
32
_..._. ... ......... ....._..... ..._..
...... ........ ........ ...................._. _...._. ...._....
.....-_... _........... ..._...........__.
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Bay Paint Waterfront Strategic Pian
+ Water - Water supplied by California Cities Water Company.While the existing line will he
sufficient to serve the planned site, it will need to be extended to the site under the railroad
right of way.
;: ..:
•
Sewer - i '
,.:.
The site rscu rr Y Y an entl served b eight
inch sewer line.e This n
e connects
to a twenty-
.......................
e
tY-
n
one inch lineP
r
e
a all 1
to thei
railroad lro
ad tracks
and continues north t to the former restaurant.
While the capacity should be sufficent for
projected uses the state of repair is uncertain.
+ Gas and Electricity - PG&E presently services
the site, and service needs to be upgraded.
• Communication - Upgraded telephone
service will need to be installed to serve the
planned development.
+ Roadways -- Contra Costa County Public
- Works Department has completed a roadway
project at the intersection of Port Chicago
Highway and'McAvoy Road,just south of the
railroad tracks. This is sufficient to support %^�?"�•'•t:«:;:;::w'...
the traffic to the planned improvements at the
site.
• Secondary Access -A secondary access is
recommended to meet current fire safety regulations.
Within the site, utilities and roadways will be constructed to local codes and requirements and
commensurate with site demands.
H. Open Space and Habitat Restoration
Bay Point has a unique setting where the city meets the sea. The sensitivity of this setting should
be protected and enhanced where possible. The majority of the Bay Point Waterfront is designated
commercial recreation and open space with marshland leading out to the bay. One large pond
exists on the eastern PG&E portion of the site north of proposed improvements. This pond and
surrounding areas provide opportunity for habitat restoration and for environmental awareness
education. Biological studies must be done before the extent of restoration required can be
determined.
33''
........... ..............................................................
..................................................
........................
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Bay Point Waterfront Strategic Plan
VII. Implementation
There are many facets to moving the Bay Point Waterfront Redevelopment project from concept to reality.
While the current General Plan Designation of Commercial Recreation (CR) permits the marina support
uses proposed in the Bay Point Waterfront Redevelopment Plan(such as a restaurant and laundry facilities)
it does not allow residential uses.
The location of the proposed residential development is also outside of the Urban Limit Line(ULL)which
would have to be amended in order to move forward with the residential element of the project.The zoning
of the marina property was recently changed from Heavy Industrial (HI) to Planned-Unit (P-1) District
to better reflect the allowed uses in the General Plan and would be more sensitive to wetland and marsh
areas.
A. General Plan Amendment
The land use designation for the Bay Point Marina is currently Commercial Recreation(CR)which
allows for a range of privately operated water oriented recreational uses. The proposed Bay Point
Waterfront Redevelopment Plan with its emphasis on marine support uses fits into this designation
rather well for the most part. The housing component of the plan however, is not consistent with
this land use designation which does not allow residential units. In order for the proposed plan
to be implemented, an amendment to the General Plan to change approximately 20 acres of land
currently designated as Commercial Recreation to either a mixed-use designation or a multiple,
family residential designation will be necessary. The residential area of the proposed project has
recently been rezoned to a Planned-Unit(P-1) District and the allowed uses are consistent with the
General Plan. As part of the General Plan Amendment process an Environmental Impact Report
(EIR)will probably be required.
B. Urban Limit Line Adjustment
The Urban Limit Line (ULL) is intended to preserve non-urban agriculture, open space and other
pristine areas by establishing a boundary within which urban growth can occur.Contra Costa County
has limited their urban growth to 35 percent of land in the County. The non-residential portions
of the Bay Point Waterfront Redevelopment Plan can be achieved without changin"',the ULL. The
complete Bay Point Waterfront Redevelopment Plan, including the residential component, can be
achieved by reallocating the 22.9 acres within the ULL from the East Bay Regional Parks land to the
proposed residential development near the Bay Point Marina. This approach would result in no net
gain or toss of land outside the urban growth boundary.
In order to make this adjustment to the ULL a public hearing and a 4/5 vote of the Board of
Supervisors will be necessary. In order to approve that adjustment, the Board will need to make at
least one of the following seven(7) findings:
1. A natural or man-made disaster or public emergency has occurred which warrants the
provision of housing and/or other community needs within land located outside the ULL;
34
\4 n r r.N is A 11 t:
............................
...................................
_. .. 1111... .. _1111..._1111... .. _1111.. _111.1. ....._... _........ 1_..111
... .. ....... ....... _ .. ....... ........ ......... ......._..... ......__.
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Bay Paint Waterfront Strategic Plan
2. An objective study has determined that the ULL is preventing the County from providing its
fair share of affordable housing or regional housing as required by State law, and the Board of
Supervisors finds that a change to the ULL is necessary and the only feasible means to enable
the County to meet these requirements of State law;
3. A majority of the cities that are party to a preservation agreement and the County have
approved a change to the ULL affecting all or any portion of the land covered by the
preservation agreement;
4. A minor change to the ULL will more accurately reflect topographical characteristics or legal
boundaries;
5. An objective study has determined that a change to the ULL is necessary or desirable to further
the economic viability of the east Contra Costa County Airport, and.either(i) mitigate adverse
aviation or related to environmental or community impacts attributable to Buchanan Field, or
(ii) further the County's aviation related needs;
6. A change is required to conform to applicable California or federal law;
7. A five(5)year periodic review of the ULL has determined, based on the criteria and factors for
establishing the ULL set forth above, that new information is available(from city or County
growth management studies or otherwise)or circumstances have changed, warranting a change
to the ULL.
C. Special Studies
To move the proposed project forward a few special studies will be needed in order to better assess
the property, environment, and proposed improvements before moving forward with permitting.
1. Appraisal-A detailed appraisal of the McAvoy marina property would provide an accurate
valuation upon which loan and grant requests could be derived.
2. Environmental Assessment-An environmental assessment by a biologist is needed to examine
the sensitivity of shoreline areas,wetland marsh areas, species and habitats of special concern.
It will also be necessary to provide a defined edge of the bay,wetland and marsh areas which
will determine the boundary of BCDC's influence and the ability of the plan to meet BCDC
standards.
3. Traffic Analysis - A traffic analysis will be necessary in addressing the issues of the existing
access to the site over four(4)active railroad tracks. This analysis will also need to look at the
potential traffic and public safety impacts of the proposed second access point to determine if
an at-grade crossing is possible.
35'
a ltV `)L'-iFt':
.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. ...................
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Bay Point Waterfront Strategic Plan
D. Phasing
One way to ease the strain of implementing such a complex and expensive project is to separate it
into phases. For example, a grant from the Department of Boating and Waterways can fund the
harbor but not residential development.The Bay Point Waterfront project can be phased into three
(3) main phases.
1. Phase 1.The Harbor
The harbor consists of berths,docks, and support facilities for the boating uses. Being the
central focus of the project, it makes sense to develop this as one phase. If desired the County
may consider breaking the commercial portions of this phase out into separate phases.
2. Phase 2:Residential
Since the residential portion is likely to be done by a developer and will help spur much of
the commercial development at the waterfront, this phase could either be built simultaneously
with the harbor facilities or subsequent to their installation.
3. Phase 3: Environmental
The open space and habitat restoration portion of the proposed project will be a large
undertaking and affect all phases of this project. An environmental assessment will provide
more information on the extent of work and mitigation needs to be done, if any. The proposed
Environmental Center and recreation area can be implemented as part of this phase.
E. Permitting
The most challenging and lengthy part of this process will be the permitting.After the completion of
the environmental assessment, the next step as described above is to complete the County General
Plan Amendment process. Once this has been processed the permitting can begin.
1. Public Utilities Commission (PUC) - The PUC is in charge of the development and
enforcement of uniform safety standards, analyzing data for crossing closure, reviewing
environmental impact assessments, apportioning costs for maintenance of grade crossing
warning devices, and analyzing rail accident data for the Commission's Annual Rail Accident
Report. The PUC will need to approve the proposed secondary access to the site. This
proposed access crosses four(4)active rail lines will need to meet their guidelines for rail safety.
Since we think the PUC is likely to oppose an at-grade secondary access to the Bay Point
waterfront the County should be prepared to require all new buildings and facilities on the
waterfront to be equipped with fire sprinklers and to issue an exception to its fire regulations
to allow only one point of access into the Bay Point waterfront.
2. Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)-Construction activity that disturbs an
area of land that is one acre or more in size must obtain a Construction Activities Storm Water
General Permit. Construction activity includes cleaning,grading, excavation, stockpiling,and
reconstruction of existing facilities involving removal and replacement.
36
Q R V n P 1Z f R 0:1
....................................................... ....
.......................................
...............................1111.1.1.11111111.111111.1.......
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Bay Point Waterfront Strategic Plan
3. Bay Conservation Development Commission(BCDC) - The BCDC governs development
within a one hundred foot setback of the bay's edge. They will need to be involved throughout
the entire implementation of the proposed project. Once the above policy changes and permits
are underway BCDC will begin their permit process. The BCDC board will perform their
review of the Bay Point Waterfront Redevelopment about the same time as the draft EIR is
circulating for the General Plan Amendment. Once BCDC has filed their applications they
have 90 days to act. Following that the Corps of Engineers will act on the plan.
4. US Army Corps of Engineers (COE) -The Army Secretary may issue permits, after notice and
opportunity for public hearings for the discharge of dredged or fill material into the navigable
waters at specified disposal sites. Not later than the fifteenth day after the date an applicant
submits all the information required to complete an application for a permit under this
subsection, the Secretary shall publish the notice required by this subsection.
37
< ;f %I r C V A[;:,