Title
WITHDRAWN - Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of Resolution Amending the General Plan Residential and Business Park Land Use Classifications to Resolve Conflicting Language Between the Residential Density Standards in the Land Use Element with the Residential Density Standards Adopted in the Housing Element and Clarifying Business Park Development Standards. [The proposed amendments are categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3).] (Planning, Building & Transportation 481005)
Body
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: David L. Rudat, Interim City Manager
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Every city and county in the State of California is required to adopt and maintain an up-to-date General Plan, which establishes the local development and conservation policies necessary to guide physical development and protect the general health, safety and welfare of the community. The General Plan should be an “integrated, internally consistent and compatible statement of policies for the adopting agency.” (Gov. Code §65300.5.)
The proposed General Plan text amendments resolve conflicting language between the 1991 Land Use Element and the 2014 Housing Element and clarify business park development standards to ensure consistency between land use policies within the Land Use Element. The proposed amendments were unanimously recommended by the Planning Board on November 13, 2018. Staff recommends that the City Council conduct a public hearing and approve the proposed amendments.
BACKGROUND
In 2012, after approximately two years of public workshops and extensive negotiations with the State of California Department of Housing and Community Development, the City Council adopted a comprehensive update to the General Plan Housing Element, General Plan Diagram, Zoning Map and Alameda Municipal Code (AMC) to bring the City of Alameda’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance into conformance with state law. The Multi-family Residential Combining Zone Ordinance (MF Overlay Zone), adopted in 2012, permits multifamily housing by right, and is applied to specific housing opportunity sites identified by the Housing Element. The MF Overlay Zone established a 30-unit per acre density standard to comply with the requirements of Government Code section 65583.2(c)(3)(B)(iv). In July 2012, the State of California certified the City of Alameda (City) General Plan as being in compliance with state housing law for the first time in 22 years. In 2014, the City Council approved the 2015-2023 Housing Element (2014 Housing Element).
In 2018, during the public hearings on the Encinal Terminals Master Plan and Density Bonus Application, Alameda resident Mr. Paul Foreman identified an inconsistency between the residential density standards described in the land use classifications section of the Land Use Element adopted in 1991 and the residential density standards adopted in the Housing Element in 2012, which brought the General Plan into conformance with state housing law. Although the inconsistencies did not impact the Encinal Terminals decisions, staff agrees that these inconsistencies should be corrected to ensure internal consistency between General Plan elements and state law.
In 2018, during consideration of a parcel map for a hotel at 1700 Harbor Bay Parkway (which is not located on the waterfront), Unite Here (the hotel workers union) argued that the parcel map should not be approved because the proposed floor area ratio (FAR) was greater than 0.5 and, therefore, not consistent with the General Plan land use classification. The Council stated that since the language in the General Plan was not clear, the Council would be unable to make the findings for the parcel map. The Council agreed that the discrepancies between the General Plan text and other policies supported inconsistent determinations on whether the project could be constructed with a FAR greater than 0.5 on sites that are not on the water. In 2018, the City received another application for a new hotel at 1051 Harbor Bay Parkway, which is not located on the waterfront. The proposal has a proposed FAR of 0.8.
DISCUSSION
Residential Land Use Classification Amendments:
The specific language in the 1991 Land Use Element that is at issue is in Section 2.2 “Land use Classifications,” which states:
“Residential densities are expressed in housing units per net acre, exclusive of land used or to be used for public or private streets. Where new streets will be needed, the land area to be occupied by streets is to be subtracted before calculating density or ratio of floor area to site area.”
The description of the Medium-Density Residential Land Use Classification further states:
“Density range for additional units: 8.8 to 21.8 units per net acre. Projects of five or more units with 20 percent of the units affordable to lower-income households earn a state-mandated density bonus permitting up to 26.1 units per net acre.”
These three sentences from the 1991 Land Use Element are inconsistent with state law and the 2014 Housing Element, and they are out of date. State housing law and State Density Bonus Law require that the amount of housing allowed on a privately owned parcel of land be determined by the gross acreage of land owned by the property owner. State law does not allow the City to deduct lands used for streets, alleys, or driveways on the property owner’s land when calculating the total number of units allowed. For example, if a property owner owns 10 acres of land that is zoned to permit a maximum density of 30 units per acre, then the property owner is entitled to 300 units (10 acres x 30 units/acre). If the property owner constructs a street on his or her property to provide access to the 300 units, and the street occupies one acre, the City cannot require that the applicant reduce the number of units to 270 because one acre was used for a driveway or street (9 acres x 30 units/acre); in such case, the property owner is still entitled to a maximum density of 300 units.
State Density Bonus Law was amended in 2016 to explicitly state that the law must be interpreted liberally to produce the maximum number of housing units. The law was also recently clarified to state that base density is calculated using the “otherwise maximum allowable gross residential density.” Additional information about State Density Bonus Law is available in the February 8, 2018 Housing Law Memorandum presented to the Planning Board and City Council, which is available online at <https://alamedaca.gov/residents/housing> and incorporated here by reference.
Furthermore, the language referencing a maximum density of 21.8 units per acre is inconsistent with the 2014 Housing Element and the AMC. Lands in Alameda zoned with the MF Overlay Zone allow a maximum density of 30 units per acre, not 21.8 units per acre. Finally, the sentence referencing a 20% “state-mandated density bonus,” which was consistent with state law when it was adopted, is no longer accurate. Under current state law, if a project includes specified amounts of very low-, low-, or in some cases, moderate-income housing, it is entitled to up to a 35 percent increase above the otherwise-applicable maximum density for the site.
For these reasons, the Planning Board and staff are recommending that the City Council amend and update the General Plan Residential Land Use and Mixed Use classification to conform to state law and the 2014 Housing Element to read as follows:
2.2 LAND USE CLASSIFICATIONS
The following descriptions apply to uses indicated on the General Plan Diagram. The legend on the Plan Diagram includes an abbreviated version of the descriptions.
The classifications are adopted as General Plan policy and are intentionally broad enough to avoid duplication of the City's zoning regulations. More than one zoning district may be consistent with a single General Plan use category. The development standards for a specific property are determined by the property’s zoning district regulations and must be consistent with state law, as it may be amended from time to time. The General Plan Diagram illustrates the general distribution and location of different land uses within the city. The zoning district regulations shall be consistent with the General Plan Diagram. For the purpose of the General Plan land use classifications, residential land use density is described as a ratio of units per acre, and non-residential land use density is described as the maximum gross floor area permitted in relation to the size of the site or “floor area ratio.”
RESIDENTIAL
Low-Density Residential: The Low-Density Residential land use classification identifies existing residential neighborhoods that are characterized primarily by single family detached units. These neighborhoods may also include accessory dwelling units, parks, schools, religious institutions and other nonresidential uses that serve the community. Existing residential density in these neighborhoods is typically 4 to 9 units per acre.
Medium-Density Residential: The Medium-Density Residential land use classification identifies existing residential and mixed use neighborhoods that are characterized by a mix of single family, multifamily, and community serving uses. These neighborhoods may also include parks, schools, religious institutions and other nonresidential uses that serve the community. In neighborhoods near Park Street and Webster Street, Medium-Density Residential areas may include small office buildings, medical clinics, assisted living facilities, and other commercial facilities that are compatible with a mixed use residential environment. Existing residential density in these neighborhoods range from 9 to 70 units per acre.
SPECIFIED MIXED USE
The Specified Mixed Use land use classification identifies areas that are intended for a mix of commercial, residential and open space uses that are specified in a master plan. Existing residential densities in these areas range from 10 to 30 units per acre and commercial development typically reflects a floor area ratio of 0.25 to 2.0.
Business Park Land Use Classification Amendments:
The Harbor Bay Industrial Park Development Plan, approved by Planning Board Resolution No. 1203 in 1981, and amended by Planning Board Resolution No. 1533 in 1985, establishes the development standards for the Harbor Bay Business Park. Planned Development No. PD-81-2, as amended in 1985 by PDA-85-4, established a “special” maximum FAR of 0.5 only for the portion of the business park fronting Bay Edge Road located between the lagoon and the bay. This portion of Bay Edge Road is now the portion of Harbor Bay Parkway immediately located along the bay frontage. PD-81-2 and PDA-85-4 contain the following language:
46. Special criteria for the area served by Bay Edge Road [between the lagoon and bay] shall be as follows:
b. Floor area ratio (FAR) shall not exceed a ratio of 0.5:1 with increases in gross floor area permitted proportional to the amount of required parking provided within a structure or structure(s) up to a maximum FAR of 2:1 where all required parking is enclosed in a structure.
The resolution findings for PD-81-2 provide that the special conditions imposed for the Bay Edge Road are “necessary and appropriate to assure that sensitivity to the shoreline is maintained in all development which occurs in that area;” similarly, the resolution findings for PDA-85-4 refer to the special FAR for the waterfront properties and state that it is necessary to “retain sufficient control of the sensitive aesthetic environment in the area between the lagoon and the bay….”
In 1991, the City Council approved the new citywide General Plan update. The new Land Use Element included Land Use Element Policy 2.8.a which states: “Support development of Harbor Bay Business Park consistent with existing approvals and agreements.”
The 1991 Land Use Element also included a new Business Park Land Use classification, which states:
Harbor Bay Business Park and portions of Marina Village consist primarily of offices, but also may include research and development space, manufacturing, and distribution. Harbor Bay plans include a small amount of retail space and a conference-oriented hotel. Maximum FAR is 0.5, with increases up to a maximum of 2 permitted, proportional to the amount of required parking enclosed in a structure.
The General Plan land use classification states that the 0.5 FAR standard applies to the entire Harbor Bay Business Park and Marina Village Business Park, which is in conflict with Policy 2.8.a and the “existing approvals and agreements.” However, close examination of the FAR limit in the development standards of PD-81-2 and PDA-85-4 demonstrate that the 0.5 FAR limit is only applicable to the portion of the Business Park along the edge of the Bay.
Between 1991 and 2018, City staff and the Planning Board interpreted these policies to mean that the 0.5 FAR only applies to the portion of Harbor Bay Business Park along the waterfront, consistent with the existing 1981 and 1985 entitlements, and the 1989 Development Agreement.
However, in 2018, during consideration of a parcel map for a hotel at 1700 Harbor Bay Parkway, which is not located on the waterfront, Unite Here argued that the parcel map should not be approved because the proposed FAR was greater than 0.5 and therefore not consistent with the General Plan land use classification. The Council stated that since the language in the General Plan was not clear, they would be unable to make the findings for the parcel map. The City Council disapproved the parcel map, but the property owner was able to proceed with their hotel expansion without the parcel map.
In 2018, the City received another application for a new hotel at 1051 Harbor Bay Parkway, which is not located on the waterfront. The proposal has a proposed FAR of 0.8.
Staff and the Planning Board are recommending that the General Plan land use classification be amended to clarify that the 0.5 FAR only applies to the land within the Business Park that fronts on the Bay. The recommended language provides clear direction as to which portions of the Business Park front on the Bay.
Business Park
The Business Park land use classification identifies areas for business development including but not limited to offices, research and development space, hotels, manufacturing, and distribution uses. These business park areas are characterized by mostly two to four story buildings with surface parking with a floor area ratio of between 0.25 and 2.0. Within the Harbor Bay Business Park, the maximum FAR for new development located on waterfront properties adjacent to Shoreline Park between 3195 McCartney and 1660 Harbor Bay Parkway shall be limited to an FAR of 0.5, with increases up to a maximum of 2 permitted, proportional to the amount of required parking enclosed in a structure.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
The proposed amendments clarify existing General Plan, State Law, and Zoning Code policies and standards. Adoption of the recommended amendments will have no financial impact on the General Fund.
MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
As described above, the proposed amendments clarify the existing General Plan, State Law, and Zoning Code policies and standards.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed amendments are statutorily exempt from further review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3), the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. The proposed amendments do not establish new General Plan policies that could cause an effect on the environment. They simply eliminate out of date information and language from the 1991 Land Use Element that conflict with language within the 2014 Housing Element; therefore the proposed amendments do not establish new land use policy that could have a new significant impact on the environment.
RECOMMENDATION
Hold a public hearing and approve a Resolution Amending the General Plan Residential and Business Park Land Use Classifications to resolve conflicting language between the residential density standards in the 1991 Land Use Element with the residential density standards in the 2014 Housing Element and clarify business park development standards.
Respectfully submitted,
Andrew Thomas, Acting Planning Building and Transportation Director
Financial Impact section reviewed,
Elena Adair, Finance Director