SUMMARY: Public Hearing to consider rezoning certain property bounded by Mosely Avenue and Singleton Street at the Former Naval Air Station. Public Hearing to Consider Introduction of Ordinance Amending Alameda Municipal Code (“AMC”) Section 30-4.17 G, Special Government Combining District and Zoning Map to Ensure Consistency between the City of Alameda Municipal Code and Zoning Map and the NAS Alameda Reuse Plan for 37.36 Acres of Federal Property Located on Singleton Street at the Former Naval Air Station. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, No Further Environmental Review is Required. (Community Development 481005)
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. And we won't know until a developer comes forward to develop that site at a future date, which will only happen when the Navy finishes cleaning it and then auctions it off. And that sites different than at any point in the land will not come through the city. It'll go straight from the Navy to a private owner. But anyway, assuming there will be some density bonus request because most of these large sites do now get them or request them, and the typical density bonus that we get, the sweet spot seems to be right around 20% for the private development interests. It essentially removes eight. It removes 824 units. If they go for the maximum Darcy bonus requests, then the savings or the reduction in capacity is as much as 927 units. If there's no density bonus requests at all. If you assume that, then it's closer to 700 units. But we think this is a good move. We think it's it's consistent with our housing element. It creates consistency during the zoning and the reuse plan. And that's always good is it was send a very clear message to any future buyer of this property. What is the city expecting? And we don't have conflicting documents. And it maintains it. We remain consistent with our housing element because we are doing as a community a great job of providing our regional fair share. As you know, from March 10th hearing and I'll say it one more time if we continue with the projects that you have approved and now with Alma, a point we not only have provided the land to meet our regional fair share, it looks like we're going to actually produce the units for our regional fair share in this ten year period. And that's a major accomplishment and it will make a difference to the housing crisis. Are we going to solve it? No, but it's definitely a step in the right direction. So we support this. Your planning board recommended it unanimously. I'm available to answer any questions. I do have one speaker. But that's fine. I'll call the speaker. The Natalie. Good morning, Mayor Spencer and members of the City Council. My name is Lynnette Lee and I'm a member of Renewed Hope Steering Committee and also of Buena Vista United Methodist Church. First of all, congratulations and thank you for moving forward city. I think that the city of Alameda will be rejoicing along with Warriors fans. I do want to say that I appreciate the safeguards to ensure the development of affordable housing with this ordinance, and I appreciate that staff did not feel that a moratorium would be feasible at this time. However, I am concerned that any down zoning of the 24 sites listed in the housing element should be carefully considered because according to an attorney who knows state housing law, if down zoning goes and I hope I understand this right, if down zoning goes below the density required by the state for that site, even though you still will have affordable housing sites at north, housing is the city does not meet the state requirement for the minimum units per acre. Then those units that are remaining may not be counted. So I think I'm trying to understand what he's saying to me, but I just wanted to raise that concern that the city count carefully all the units for all the 24 sites so that we do meet the winning numbers and meet the state law on density. Thank you. Thank you. As a staff. Would you like to respond to that? You don't. Have to. You won't even get in all the nuances of state law and all. But yes we did check we and of was you know from us from March 10th. We do not want to do anything that is going to put you out of compliance with state law. So you had a huge surplus in your current housing element. You still have a surplus even with this down zoning. Thank you. And I really appreciate Steph adding the sentence paragraph to that. That speaks to us adding the 800 new residents residential units. Allow me to point out any comments. Vice Mayor I just have a couple of comments. I in the original reuse plan of the 2009 agreement, there's a ten acre park which makes that parcel actually that tucked in 37 acres livable at the densities that are going to be there. And they're also 90 units of homeless housing, which are sorely needed. And those don't go away with this action. So I think this is a very good move, delivering 90 more very low income unit house housing and then also meeting our agreement with the Navy. And I believe there was a HUD buy in on this as well. So I think it was a good trade. Three. Yes, I remember already. Quick question. So the 800 units for a, are those. Is there a plan to put those in the housing element or. I think I heard you correctly were not out of compliance without right. You what the housing element does is it identified a whole list of sites and then it said we also have a couple other sites in addition to that. One of those was site A at the time when we were doing the housing element, we weren't quite sure we didn't have the zoning done for site, so technically we couldn't count it right. But we told it's in the right there in the housing element, it says it, hey, we also have site A which and now only a point which should be also available during this period. But we can't technically count it right now as soon as the so just it was a weird timing so essentially site is already in the housing element as part of this huge surplus. So all we're doing is. Changing some of the zoning and the staff report includes the the justification and the rationale for why we are still in conformance with our with the state. I mean a numbers. Thanks. Just. Just a quick comment. I mean, I think I talked about this twice, twice before. I think that this proposal, which I think was was generated from the vice mayor, you know, it put us in a position where we were able to ultimately approve Side A without adding any housing to our housing element, without adding any additional housing. You know, people have asked for more time. We know that's not happening. And people have asked for no housing and we know that's not possible. What we have done is, in my mind, the next best thing, as we've said, we have this number, we have this target, we have this commitment. We're not going above this commitment. And thanks to this. This proposal, this ordinance that we have today, it allowed us to. You cite a and still keep that commitment. So I really appreciate, you know, the leadership displayed by the vice mayor when we were together in the fall. You know, you said you will listen and lead. And sitting here, you know, I'm trying to take that to heart. And from you I listen and I learn and then try to lead. So thank you very much for doing this. Its idea. We have a motion. I'll move. The ordinance amended municipal code section 30 oh oh. That was what we just did. I'm sorry. I'm reading my wrong notes here. I'm a can rezoning certain property bounded by mostly affluent new and Singleton Street, the former Naval Air Station. I'll second that. All those in favor. I wish it passed unanimously. Thank you. Seven. City Manager Communications.