Title
Boatworks Project, PLN15-0582 - 2235 Clement Avenue - Applicant: Phillip Banta. A Public Hearing to consider and take action on: 1) a request to approve Development Plan and Density Bonus applications for construction of 182 residential units and approximately two acres of open space on 9.48-acres located at 2235 Clement Avenue, 2) a request to approve Design Review for the waterfront open space, and 3) a request for a two year extension for Tentative Map #8060 originally approved in 2011. An environmental impact report has been completed for the project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act.
Body
CITY OF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable President and
Members of the Planning Board
From: Andrew Thomas, Assistant Community Development Director
Date: July 25, 2016
Re: Boatworks Project, PLN15-0582 - 2235 Clement Avenue - Applicant: Phillip Banta. A Public Hearing to consider and take action on: 1) a request to approve Development Plan and Density Bonus applications for construction of 182 residential units and approximately two acres of open space on 9.48-acres located at 2235 Clement Avenue, 2) a request to approve Design Review for the waterfront open space, and 3) a request for a two year extension for Tentative Map #8060 originally approved in 2011. An environmental impact report has been completed for the project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The project applicant is requesting: 1) Development Plan and Density Bonus approval for the development of 182 housing units and approximately two acres of waterfront open space on the property, 2) Design Review approval for the design of the waterfront open space, and 3) a two year extension to Tentative Map #8060 originally approved in 2011.
In 2011, the City Council approved the applicant’s proposed Tentative Map #8060. The Tentative Map included the applicant’s proposal to fill submerged lands to create more land to accommodate residential units and the waterfront open space, and a condition requiring Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) approval of this proposal. As described in more detail below, the applicant soon discovered that his proposal to fill submerged lands is inconsistent with BCDC policies and would not be approved by BCDC. As the result, the applicant has been unable to prepare a Final Map and construct the project as envisioned by Tentative Map #8060.
The applicant’s new plans for the site (Exhibit 1) with the conditions of approval recommended by staff are consistent with the City’s General Plan, its Housing Element, its Municipal Code, including the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, and BCDC policies. The new plans:
• Avoid the need for Bay fill consistent with BCDC policies,
• Provide a diversity of much needed housing in a variety of housing types consistent with the City of Alameda Housing Element,
• Provide 29 much needed affordable housing units, and
• Provide approximately two (2) acres of waterfront open space for the public.
The new plans correct the problems that have prevented the applicant from implementing Tentative Map #8060, but in doing so, the new plans depict a plan that differs substantially from that shown in Tentative Map #8060. To subdivide the property consistent with the new plans will require a new Tentative Map or an amended Tentative Map.
Therefore staff is recommending that Planning Board: 1) approve the new plans (Exhibit 1) and 2) deny the request to extend Tentative Map #8060.
The Development Plan along with the recommended conditions of approval establish a plan for the development of the site; and if approved, the plans and recommended conditions of approval create a “roadmap” for the applicant or a future property owner to expeditiously prepare a new Tentative Map and future Design Review applications to implement and construct the project
BACKGROUND
The subject property is a vacant 9.48-acre site located on the northern waterfront at 2229 Clement Avenue, at the intersection of Clement Avenue and Oak Street, one block from the Park Street Bridge.
In August 2010, the City Council certified a Final EIR for the redevelopment of the property, approved a General Plan amendment, and approved a residential and open space rezoning for the property. Approximately 7.5 acres of the property was zoned R-2/PD for residential use, and approximately two acres along the water was zoned for open space.
At the same meeting in 2010, the City Council adopted a Settlement Agreement to resolve a lawsuit brought by the applicant over the denial of a project with 242 housing units on the site. The settlement agreement included a number of terms related to the City’s redevelopment agency, the redevelopment of the site, a number of subsequent actions and agreements that would need to be implemented, and a conceptual site plan with 182 units including 21 affordable housing units.
In July 2011, the City Council approved a Tentative Map for a 182-unit residential project with 21 affordable housing units and a 1.8-acre waterfront open space. As is typical for a subdivision map for a project with 182 proposed units, the 2011 Tentative Map included approximately 32 conditions of approval that must be satisfied before a Final Map can be approved for the site. One of the 32 conditions required approval of the Bay fill by BCDC before submittal of a Final Map for the project. Soon after the 2011 approval, staff was notified that BCDC would not support the proposed Bay fill.
In late 2014, the applicant submitted applications for a Development Plan and Design Review application for the property. The proposed Development Plan and Design Review applications reduced the size of the open space and moved around proposed lots to avoid the required Bay fill, moved all the property lines for the other lots, moved the affordable housing to the portion of the site that was not yet cleaned for residential purposes, and changed the street and building designs. At the time, the applicant requested that staff make the finding that the new application was in “substantial conformance” with Tentative Map #8060. Staff was unable to do so because of the significant differences between the Tentative Map and the Development Plan.
On June 22, 2015, the Planning Board held a public hearing to review the 2014 applications and found that the applications did not meet the open space requirements for the site, nor did they meet the City’s affordable housing requirements. Therefore, the Planning Board recommended denial of the applications. Shortly thereafter, the applicants withdrew their applications.
Soon after the June 2015 Planning Board hearing, the applicant’s submitted an application for a two-year extension for Tentative Map #8060. The Planning Board recommended a one year extension based upon the applicant’s statement that it was his plan to proceed with the original plan as reflected in Tentative Map #8060. In September 2015, the City Council approved the one year extension to July 19, 2016.
On December 3, 2015, instead of submitting Improvement Plans or a Final Map for Tentative Map #8060, the applicant submitted a another new Development Plan application for the property. (The current application.) As shown on page 8.1 of the applicant’s Development Plan, the new Development Plan differs significantly from Tentative Map #8060 in at least 12 major ways listed by the applicant. In summary, to make the Map consistent with the Development plan requires moving the open space and homes further back from the waterfront; moving almost every property line on the map; and changing the width of every internal lane and street on Tentative Map #8060.
On December 14, 2015, the City notified the applicant that the new project plans were not in conformance with Tentative Map #8060 and that certain items were missing from the application to enable staff to complete its evaluation for Planning Board consideration. On January 27, 2016, the applicant submitted the additional items. On February 22, 2016, staff identified a single remaining item that was missing from the application. On February 29, 2016, the applicant submitted the remaining item.
On March 7, 2016, staff informed the applicant that the Development Plan application was complete for Planning Board review, that the application was not in conformance with Tentative Map #8060, and that the Tentative Map would need to be amended or replaced to implement the proposed Development Plan.
On May 9, 2016, the Planning Board held a study session to review and comment on the proposed Development Plan application. The staff report disclosed the inconsistencies between the Development Plan and the Tentative Map. The Board made a number of suggestions to improve the Plan, including requests to: increase the diversity of housing types on the site, increase the diversity of housing sizes, ensure adequate setbacks between buildings and public open spaces and paseos to preserve views through the site, distribute the affordable housing throughout the development, and provide access to the water for kayak launching and water shuttle landings. Two days later, the applicant informed staff that he would not be making any of the Planning Board’s recommended changes to the plan.
On May 10, 2016, the applicant submitted an application requesting another two year extension for the 2011 Tentative Map.
On May 20, 2016, the applicant submitted a Design Review application for the new waterfront open space design that further details the open space plan that is in the new Development Plan.
Then within the last month, the applicant submitted two agreements for City signature: an Owner Participation Agreement committing the City of Alameda to transfer Redevelopment Tax Increment funds to the applicant pursuant to the no-longer valid 2010 Settlement Agreement and an Affordable Housing Agreement that commits the project to 21 affordable housing units instead of 29 affordable housing units. The City has refused to sign these agreements.
analysis
Development Plan Application
Staff is recommending that the Planning Board conditionally approve the applicant’s 2016 Development Plan. The Development Plan and associated resolution and conditions of approval (Exhibit 2) include development standards and requirements that reflect the Planning Board’s May direction and ensure that the project is consistent with the City of Alameda General Plan and the Alameda Municipal Code. The Development Plan conditions of approval establish the necessary standards and requirements for a new or amended Tentative Map and future residential design review applications for the property that reflect the current Development Plan.
The Development Plan and recommended conditions of approval provide for:
Open Space: As shown on the applicant’s submittal on page OS-4, the Development Plan includes approximately 2.16 acres of publically accessible open space, which exceeds the 2011 proposal for 1.8 acres. Public access to the proposed park is provided by a pedestrian connection from the intersection of Oak Street and Blanding Street, across the street from the Little House Café; a pedestrian connection from Clement Avenue through the center of the project; and automobile and bicycle access from the extensions of Oak Street and Elm Street. Per the conditions of approval, the open space will include a water access for kayak launching and water taxi landing. In addition, in compliance with the AMC 30-5.4.2 d.9 Usable Open Space Requirements, each single-family home and town home with direct access to the ground will include a minimum of 120 square feet of private open space. Multifamily units, apartments and condominiums on upper floors will have a minimum of 60 square feet of private open space.
Housing: The Development Plan and conditions of approval provide for 182 units, including 29 units affordable to very low-, low-, and moderate-income households, which exceeds the 2011 proposal, which had 21 units. Consistent with AMC 30-17 Density Bonus Ordinance, 182 units are permitted due to a 30% density bonus of 42 units. A base project of 140 units represents the maximum number of units that is permissible on the property under the site’s R-2/PD zoning. Pursuant to State Density Bonus Law and AMC 30-17 Density Bonus Ordinance, the Development Plan qualifies for a 30% density bonus because the applicant has offered to include 13 very low-income units. The Inclusionary Housing Ordinance requires only six (6) very low-income units for a project of 140 units. Pursuant to the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, a base project of 140 units must also provide six (6) low-income units and 10 moderate-income units. Therefore, to qualify for a 30% density bonus and meet the requirements of AMC 30-16, the project must include a total of 29 affordable units (13 very low-, six low-, and 10 moderate-income units). The conditions of approval also require that the affordable units be distributed throughout the project and that they be comparable in size, (i.e. number of bedrooms), construction quality, and exterior design to the market-rate units as required by AMC Affordable Housing Density Bonus Section 30-17.8.
The requirements described above and included in the attached resolution are consistent with the Municipal Code and are consistent with every other development plan incorporating a density bonus approved by the City of Alameda, since the 2011 decision on the original Boatworks project, which was the City’s first experience with a density bonus project. The Del Monte project, the project at 2100 Clement Street, the TriPointe project, and every other density bonus project approved by the City has been required to meet the Inclusionary Housing requirements in each of the three affordable housing categories. If a density bonus is requested, then the applicant must add additional affordable units above the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance requirements in one of the three income categories to qualify for a density bonus.
The applicant has objected to staff’s determination of the number of affordable units necessary to both qualify for a density bonus and satisfy the City’s inclusionary housing ordinance, instead proposing 13 very low-income units, no low-income units, and only eight moderate-income units. The applicant argues that the 2010 Settlement Agreement and the 2011 Tentative Map prevent the City from requiring different affordable housing numbers. The Community Development Department and the City Attorney’s Office have considered his argument carefully and respond as follows:
• The 2010 Settlement Agreement is no longer in effect and neither party has any further commitments or obligations under the expired agreement.
• Tentative Map #8060 is not a Vesting Tentative Map. Furthermore, the 21 affordable units is a condition of approval on Tentative Map #8060. In five years, the applicant has been unable to acquire BCDC approval to fill the Bay as required by Tentative Map #8060. If the applicant is unable to final Tentative Map #8060 or if Tentative Map #8060 expires, then the condition of approval for 21 affordable units will also expire.
Thus, staff recommends conditions on the Development Plan that would bring it into conformance with the City’s Code.
Diversity of Building Types and Unit Sizes: As requested by the Planning Board in May, the Development Plan and conditions of approval ensure that the project will include a variety of housing types and unit sizes to accommodate a variety of household needs, including accessibility needs, sizes, and incomes. The conditions permit a variety of building types including multifamily stacked flats (apartments and condominiums), attached single-family homes (townhomes) and detached single family homes. The conditions also permit senior assisted living and live-work units. The conditions include the following requirements:
• The applicant has requested a waiver from the multifamily prohibition to accommodate the additional 42 housing units on the site. To ensure adequate space between the buildings and the public open spaces, at least 30% of the units shall be in multifamily stacked flat buildings.
• To provide for a variety of housing needs and accommodate the additional bonus units on the site, at least 40% of the units shall be 1,100 square feet or less in size and at least 70% of the units shall be 2,000 square feet in size or less.
• To provide for families with a disabled family member and seniors aging in place, at least 15% of the single family homes and 8% of the townhome units shall provide the kitchen, the main common area, and at least one bedroom and one full bathroom on the ground floor or the floor with the main entry to the unit. The 8% of the townhome units with ground floor living may provide a single parking space and may be one of the smaller units on the site.
Building Height, Setback, and Architectural Design: The conditions of approval require a future Design Review application for the architectural design of the buildings for review and approval of the Planning Board. As requested by the Planning Board, the conditions of approval establish height and setback standards for the development to ensure adequate space between buildings and a visually appealing development that is compatible with adjacent properties and provides a pleasant living environment for project occupants. The conditions establish:
• Setback standards for buildings facing public streets and common open space.
• A four-story height limit for multifamily stacked flat buildings.
• A three-story height limit for townhomes and single-family homes.
• Provisions for a “penthouse” or reduced size additional floor on certain buildings provided the “penthouse” floor is setback to be hidden from public view from the adjacent right-of-way and to ensure that the additional floor does not shade adjacent homes or public paseos or open spaces.
• A two story height limit for units facing onto public paseos of 35 feet or less. Penthouses may be added on the third floor.
• A requirement that 25% of the single family homes and townhomes be two stories or less in height.
Transportation and Parking: Consistent with the requirements of the Environmental Impact Report mitigation measures for the Boatworks project, the conditions of approval require that the future homeowners association join a Transportation Management Association to ensure that the project is serviced by 20-minute headway transit services. To support those services, the project residents shall be assessed an annual fee consistent with other projects in the Northern Waterfront and all project occupants shall be provided with AC Transit Easy Passes.
The conditions of approval require a minimum of 1.5 parking spaces per unit for a total of 273 parking spaces for the 182 units. Parking in the multifamily buildings is required to be leased separately from the cost of the housing unit. In addition, the conditions of approval require at least 30 guest parking spaces on the property for visitors and park users.
In summary, the Development Plan and associated resolution and conditions of approval include development standards and requirements that reflect the Planning Board’s May direction and ensure that the project is consistent with the City of Alameda General Plan and the Alameda Municipal Code. The Development Plan conditions of approval also establish a “roadmap” for the preparation of a new or amended Tentative Map and future residential design review applications for the property. To further assist the applicant or future developer in the next steps in the process, Exhibit 5 provides an illustrative development plan for the property and an example of how the project may be designed to meet the conditions of approval included in the recommendation of approval for the Development Plan.
2011 Tentative Map #8060 Extension Request
The applicant has requested a two-year extension of Tentative Map #8060. Staff recommends denying this request for the following reasons.
The requested extension is not permitted by the City of Alameda Subdivision Ordinance. AMC Section 30-81.1 states that the City may grant a one-year extension for a Tentative Map, but that “extensions shall not exceed one (1) year in aggregate.” The applicant has already been granted one one-year extension.
Tentative Map #8060 does not reflect or support development of the site consistent with the applicant’s current plans for the site. As shown on page 8.1 of the applicant’s Development Plan, the new Development Plan differs from Tentative Map #8060 in at least 12 major ways. To make the Map consistent with the Development Plan requires moving the open space and homes further back from the waterfront; moving almost every property line on the map; and changing the width of every internal lane and street on Tentative Map #8060.
Over the last five years, the applicant has submitted a Tentative Map Amendment and two different Development Plans for the property, all three of which proposed changing all of the lot lines on Tentative Map #8060. The applicant’s actions demonstrate that the applicant does not wish to construct the project as shown on the 2011 Map, but instead wishes to construct the project with a different arrangement of lots. Lot design and arrangement is critical to the overall design of the project. The primary purpose of a Tentative Map is to establish the arrangement and size of the lots.
The applicant would like the City to determine that the new Development Plan is in substantial conformance with Tentative Map #8060. Staff cannot make this finding due to the significant and material differences between the two plans. Furthermore, staff does not believe that a two-year time extension will enable the applicant to final the Tentative Map, due to the inherent conflicts between Tentative Map #8060 and BCDC Bay Plan policies.
The applicant has not satisfied the conditions of approval on Tentative Map #8060. Of the approximately 32 conditions that must be fulfilled prior to approval of a Final Map, the applicant has partially completed three conditions, and those three submittals were for a project that is not in conformance with Tentative Map #8060. In five years (July 2011 to June 2016), the applicant has not:
§ Prepared and submitted a Final Map for City Council consideration. (Condition #3)
§ Prepared and submitted Improvement Plans to support Tentative Map 8060 for City consideration. (Condition #30)
§ Executed a subdivision improvement agreement.(Condition #35)
§ Acquired BCDC approval of the open space plan proposed in Tentative Map 8060. (Condition #8)
§ Acquired Army Corps of Engineers approval for the improvements along the waterfront proposed on Tentative Map 8060. (Condition #8)
§ Acquired East Bay Municipal Utility District approval of the yet-to-be designed storm water and waste water systems to support the subdivision (Condition #36)
§ Created the necessary easements for the park and infrastructure. (Condition #37)
§ Prepared and submitted a Storm Water Treatment Operations and Maintenance Plan. (#66)
§ Executed a Storm Water Maintenance Agreement. (#67)
§ Established a maintenance finance mechanism for the park. (Condition #9)
§ Establish a maintenance finance mechanism for the streets and public areas. (#60)
§ Executed an Affordable Housing Agreement. (Condition #10) Within the last month, the applicant has submitted a request for an agreement, but their request includes the incorrect number of affordable housing units.
The most significant conditions on the 2011 Tentative Map are those conditions requiring the preparation of the infrastructure improvement plans and an associated subdivision improvement agreement and securing adequate surety necessary to support the proposed development. A property owner/applicant typically prepares the infrastructure improvement plans within six months of the approval of the Tentative Map. Once the improvement plans are completed and the necessary Subdivision Improvement Agreements in place, the property owner/applicant typically prepares the Final Map for City Council approval. This entire process is typically completed in less than one year.
In addition, as noted above, the applicant has not been able to obtain BCDC approval to develop in accordance with Tentative Map #8060 because the Bay fill proposal is inconsistent with BCDC policies.
In sum, the applicant has not prepare detailed infrastructure improvement plans for the site, posted the necessary bonds, or signed the necessary agreements to final Tentative Map #8060, apparently in recognition that he cannot build the project as shown on that map, due to the BCDC Bay fill issues. Given this history, extending Tentative Map #8060 for another two years would almost certainly not result in the applicant submitting a Final Map that is in substantial conformance with the Tentative Map.
Tentative Map #8060 is not consistent with AMC 30-16 Inclusionary Housing Requirements. As described in more detail above, a base project of 140 units and a 30% density bonus must provide 29 affordable units. Tentative Map #8060 provides only 21 units and is inconsistent with AMC 30-16. The Inclusionary Housing Ordinance requirements implement Housing Element policies and standards to provide affordable housing for each segment of the population including low, very-low, and moderate income households. Despite the City’s decision to extend the map for one more year in 2015, the applicant has refused to make the changes to comply with the code.
For these reasons, staff recommends denial of the requested extension. However, as noted above, with the approved Development Plan, the applicant can easily move forward with the next steps in the process, including the preparation of a new Tentative Map for the subdivision and improvement of the property and infrastructure and a Design Review application for design of the buildings that reflect the approved Development Plan. To further assist the applicant or future developer in the next steps in the process, Exhibit 5 provides an illustrative development plan for the property and an example of how the project may be designed to meet the conditions of approval included in the recommendation of approval for the Development Plan.
Based upon the experience of other developers in Alameda over the last 10 years, once the Development Plan is approved, most development companies have been able to return for Tentative Map and Design Review approval within one to three months of Development Plan approval.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
In September 2010, the City Council completed and certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) evaluating the impacts of a 242-unit project on the site. The EIR also included a reduced density alternative of approximately 182 units. The Development Plan is conditioned to implement all of the mitigations required for the reduced density alternative.
RECOMMENDATION
Hold a Public Hearing to consider and adopt:
§ Resolution approving 2016 Development Plan and Density Bonus application (PLN15-0582) and design review plans for the public open space, and
§ Resolution recommending that the City Council deny the request for a two-year extension for Tentative Map #8060 originally approved in 2011
Respectfully Submitted By:
Andrew Thomas
Assistant Community Development Director
Exhibits:
1. Development Plan and Open Space Design Plans
2. Setback Standards and Sections
3. Resolution of Approval for Development Plan
4. Resolution Denying Extension for Tentative Map 8060.
5. Illustrative Development Plans