Public Hearing to Consider Introduction of Ordinance Amending Alameda Municipal Code (AMC) Section 30-17 Density Bonus Ordinance.  The Proposed Zoning Amendments are Exempt from CEQA Pursuant to Guideline Section 15061(b)(3). (Community Development 481005)
The carrying to consider introduction of ordinance amending Alameda Municipal Code Section 30 Dash 17 Density Bonus. Andrew Thomas. Oh, I'm sorry. Are you ready? Yes, please. Andrew Thomas, city planner. Here to present this ordinance. I'm going to make this very quick and make myself available to answer questions if you have any. Back on March 10th. Well, back in December. Thank you. I guess it was January 2014. The council asked us to really take a close look at the density bonus ordinance now that we've used it a few times over the last couple of years, five to be exact. On March 10th, we came back to the City Council with a preview of some amendments that we thought would make. We thought it would make the ordinance more effective and also just easier for people to understand at that. On March 10th, you directed staff to proceed with the public review process, which means going back to the planning board, holding hearings so that you could take final action. On May 11th, the Planning Board reviewed and held a public hearing on our proposed set of amendments to the Density Bonus Ordinance. They unanimously recommended the amendments. We are recommending them to you tonight. We think these amendments do improve the ordinance, make it a lot more clear, easier for people to understand, and will improve just public understanding and implementation of the density bonus ordinance. So we are recommending approval of this series of amendments. Okay. And does this take just one reading in front of us. Too? It takes to sort of be coming back. On July no. July 7th, yes. Okay. And can you explain what the changes are? Yes. If you'd. Like. What makes this meaningful? What we've done is we've added some text about phased submittals. This is something that we were the the the density bonus ordinance and the and our other other sections of the municipal code interface like with master plans. This allows the city to phase decisions over time, similar to this last project that you just approved, so that you can reserve the right to approve, for example, the design of buildings later in the process when they're being when they're closer to, to construction. And in terms of and that what that allows you to do is it allows the applicant to do. And we just to explain this is what pieces of the density bonus application need to be done for the very first entitlement? And which ones can you defer till later? Specifically things like elevations and floor plans. We added some explanation about waivers, concessions and incentives so that it was very, very clear. If you're asking for a waiver of a development standard, a zoning requirement, we need to know why a waiver is because it's preventing the project from physically fitting on the site. A concession or incentive under state law is because they are developers arguing that they need you to waive the requirement for financial reasons. So what? We made it very clear and we improved the definitions in the in the ordinance to say if it's a waiver because you can't physically fit, then we need drawings to show why they don't physically fit. If it's for financial reasons that we need performance and numbers so you we can understand why you financially need those concessions incentives. And then we did a series of amendments because we had a lot of redundant language around affordable housing agreements. These are things that the city has a lot of experience doing because our inclusionary housing ordinance we've had has affordable housing agreements that we've been doing for years. So we cleaned up a lot of the text and referenced the inclusionary ordinance so that we didn't have redundant or confusing texts between the two ordinances. So those are the three major issues that we we adjusted and improved. Is there any changes in regards to parking and what does when you go over the parking allocation? Well, all we did on the parking piece is to make it clear that you need to meet the parking. The city's parking ordinance. And that has you start there. And we don't even get into any changes. State law creates some opportunities for reduced parking. Pregnancy bonus projects. But what we did, all we did with this ordinance is said, Look, before you even go there, first you need to show us that you can meet our local parking ordinance. If you can't. Then we can go to state law for those waivers, but start with our local parking ordinance, because before it it was unclear. It was it sort of laid it out. Oh, you just go right to the state waivers like. No, you don't. So what we did is we we just clarified that we didn't change any of the numbers at all. And what is our local law regarding parking? Well, it's it varies from depending on where you are in the city. Typical residential projects, you start with two spaces per unit. If you're a mixed use project on Park Street or Webster Street. So it's an apartment upstairs above retail, then it's it's 1.5 as a starting point. Affordable housing projects. The parking ordinance allows the planning board to read to determine what the appropriate number of parking spaces are for the site. Based on the specifics of the project itself. So if it's senior housing, they can look, they can reduce a reduced amount of parking if it's a large, large units and they can increase the amount of parking. But basically they in a shape the parking to fit the project planning on its demand. All right. Thank you. Any other council questions? Comments. Do we have. An email. There? And just to be clear, I think there was confusion over. The actual existence of an application that's recognizable as an application. And the the timing of when. That document has to be approved or that set of documents has to be approved. And I think you address the timing issue by separating concessions from wafer. Is it is it interpreted that there's actually going to be an application that is recognizable by the public? Who reviews these as an application? Yes. What we are doing and I think this is one of the. We didn't the the ordinance where he said you need to submit an application. I think what we learned through the Del Monte was it's and we've been doing this now with every single project. If the project is approved, we have another one that recently went or is going to the planning board. We've basically just said, you know what, that's an important point. And we there needs to be a separate document, which is the application for the bonus and or waiver if they're asking for one, so that everybody the you know , the community, you know, has to come into the planning department and we need to attach it to the project so that everybody can see. All right, what are you asking for? How are you justifying it if it's a whether it's a waiver or a concession? And it's it's the way we're treating this is, you know, in the in the in the in the property owner applicants, it's their application. So they need to write it. They need to make their case. And then it becomes part of the the public packet. And we don't take action. I mean, right now what we're doing is we're bringing those to the planning board as part of the original application proposal. So the scenario of having deficiencies in an application won't be an issue because I think the the previous explanation was that we just don't issue the permits. The project is already in title, but it's held up at the permit stage. This is this is now in the frontend. So the project doesn't get entitled without a complete application. That's right. And what we're doing and just have just to clarify that. So what we want to do is with the very first time we go public with anything and typically it's either to the to a neighborhood meeting or to the planning board for the very first hearing. We're attaching that application and we're making staff making a termination. We believe it's complete. But, you know, if anybody questions. Let's talk about that. Let's let's get that out. Because if there's something that's not quite done right, just like whether it's the landscape plan or the parking plan, same standard for the application. We think there's something missing. Let's, let's let's get it fixed before we approve a project. Thank you. Other questions and comments. BRODY Oh. And do we have a motion? Aloof. Second. I'm sorry. Do you have a second? ASecond. All those in favor. I wish and passes unanimously. Thank you. Thank you. I think this will really improve. The ordinance. Next 60. Public hearing to consider introduction of ordinance amending Alameda Municipal Code Section 30 Dash 4.17 G Special Government. Combining District and Zoning. Map to ensure consistency between City of Alameda Municipal Code and Zoning Map and the Enhanced Alameda Reuse Plan for 37.36 acres of federal property located on Singleton Street at the former Naval Air Station. Andrew Thomas, city planner. Also make this one. Quick evening. And make myself available to answer your questions. A couple of you just mentioned this actually on your last item. This is the sort of almost a companion piece to your decision on Alameda Point. And we have on your up at the dais there, you should see actually a recent adjustment we made to the actual ordinance in the findings. And it's just this underlined text where we just, um, it was really, uh, uh, the mayor was sort of asked us about, you know, really let's, we should make this relationship explicit, you know, in the future, some future council wants to know, you know, Oh, we're dealing with this site. Well, what was the logic of what happened in 2014? Let's make that explicit. So you'll see. We added a sentence about the relationship between the decision and Alameda Point and this decision, as many of you or a couple of you mentioned at the last hearing, what we are doing here with this proposal. It's a result of your discussion once again on March 10th, when you asked us to look at this, you know, the fact that our main point was moving forward and or housing element and the capacity and the city's ability to to absorb all these units while still making sure we, our transportation system can handle these changes and the need for the community to really be able to clearly manage growth. And we agree with you, this is important. We have to be able to manage these changes well. And so what this does is there is a site it's called North Housing. It is some people know it is the former Coast Guard housing. It's currently vacant. It used to be approximately 240 units. It's on 37 acres of land on Singleton Street. It's part of the former Naval Air Station. There was a the city worked with the Navy to do what's called a reuse plan, just like we did for Army to point that determine the appropriate number of units for that site. That reuse plan, which was done in 2009, stated the right number was 435. So that was sort of the what we were all working on. The current zoning allows much more than that. And just the base zoning alone, it's the zoning would allow up to 1121 units and that the total number of units with maximum state density bonuses could go as high as 1500 units. So what this zoning does is it puts a cap on the base zoning to 435. There's a table in the in the on page four of the staff report which basically lays out, you know, well, what would this do to the city's housing capacity in the northern waterfront? And it gets a little complicated because you have to make assumptions about density bonuses, which we don't know yet.