Title
Consider Directing Staff to Support Removal of the US Navy Constraints Limiting Housing Development at Alameda Point. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer and Councilmember Daysog) [Not heard on September 7, 21, October 5, 19, November 2, 16, December 7, 21, 2021 or January 4, 2022]
Body
COUNCIL REFERRAL FORM
The Council can take any of the following actions:
1) Take no action.
2) Refer the matter to staff to schedule as a future City Council agenda item.
3) Take dispositive action if sufficiently noticed such that the public and Council have been provided sufficient information by the published agenda, and no formal published notice of a public hearing is required.
Name of Councilmember requesting referral: Councilmember Herrera Spencer and Councilmember Daysog
Date of submission to City Clerk (must be submitted before 5:00 p.m. on the Monday two weeks before the Council meeting requested): August 23, 2021
Council Meeting date: September 7, 2021
Brief description of the subject to be printed on the agenda, sufficient to inform the City Council and public of the nature of the referral:
Per the City Council’s July 6, 2021 direction (Agenda Item 6-D), the City of Alameda filed its 2023-2031 Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) Appeal Request, requesting a reduction from 5,353 housing units by 2,703 housing units to 2,650 housing units, on July 9, 2021, a copy of which is attached.
Pages 1 and 2 of the Appeal Letter, provide, in pertinent part:
The US Navy Constraint. Alameda largest housing opportunity site, the former Naval Air Station (NAS Alameda) is subject to a financial constraint imposed by the Federal Government and Department of the Navy (NAVY) to limit housing development. The Navy has imposed a financial impact fee on every market rate unit constructed at Alameda Point after the 1,506th. The impact fee, which is approximately $80,000 in 2021 and is projected to be over $100,000 per unit during the 2023-2031 cycle makes any additional residential development beyond the initial 1,506 units infeasible at Alameda Point. By January 2023, just over 500 of the 1,506 unit allocation will be constructed leaving less than 1,000 units available (without the fee) to accommodate Alameda's RHNA for 2023-2031. This constraint by the United States government significantly limits Alameda's ability meet the currently imposed 5,353 unit obligation. Under State Housing Law, the City of Alameda cannot accommodate its RHNA allocation on sites that are not economically feasible to develop. Additionally, development constraints imposed by external regulatory sources, such as the federal government, is a basis for RHNA reduction.
I request that the City Council give immediate (or as soon as can be agendized) direction to Staff to:
1) supplement the Appeal Letter to Association of Bay Area Governments ("ABAG") to include that the City of Alameda supports immediate removal of the US Navy Constraint in its entirety. As accurately stated by City Staff in the Appeal Letter, that Constraint by the U.S. government significantly limits the City of Alameda's ability to meet the currently imposed 5,353 obligation;
2) request in writing that the U.S. government immediately remove the US Navy Constraint;
3) request in writing that ABAG, and other pertinent governmental agencies and elected officials, join the City of Alameda's efforts to seek immediate removal of the US Navy Constraint.
Without assistance from ABAG and other elected officials, negotiations with the US government to remove the US Navy Constraint will, more than likely, go beyond the time period for which the City of Alameda is required to submit its Housing Element. Alameda Point (the former Naval Air Station Alameda) is approximately one-third of the land of the Alameda main island, and as City Staff accurately describes, Alameda's "largest housing opportunity site," thus, it's critical the US Navy Constraint be removed.
The City Council, at its July 25, 2020 Priority Setting Workshop, established the following 5 priorities for 2021:
1. Preparing Alameda for the future
2. Encouraging economic development across the Island
3. Supporting enhanced livability and quality of life, including addressing the housing crisis and homelessness
4. Protecting core services
5. Ensuring effective and efficient operations
Briefly describe which Council priority the subject falls under and how it relates:
These priorities were for the former Council, not the current Council. 1-5, especially priority 3.
Priority Ranking:
|
↑ Urgent |
2 |
3 |
|
|
1 |
4 |
|
|
Important → |
____ 1 = Not urgent, not important
____ 2 = Urgent, not important
__X_ 3 = Urgent and important
____ 4 = Not urgent, important