Title
Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of the 2023-2031 Housing Element and Related Zoning Amendments; and
Adoption of Resolution Adopting a General Plan Amendment to Update the Housing Element of the General Plan and Change the Land Use Diagram Designation for Two Properties to Accommodate the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation for the Period 2023-2031, Affirmatively Further Fair Housing, and Comply with State Housing Element Law; and
Introduction of Ordinance Amending Various Sections of Alameda Municipal Code Chapter XXX (Development Regulations) and the Citywide Zoning Map to Implement the Housing Element, as Recommended by the Planning Board.
On November 30, 2021, the City Council approved Resolution No. 15841 Certifying a Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Alameda 2040 General Plan Update. Pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines sections 15162 and 15163, none of the circumstances necessitating further CEQA review or preparation of a new EIR are present. (Planning, Building & Transportation 20962710)
Body
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Alameda (City) has completed a draft update to the Housing Element of the General Plan and a comprehensive set of zoning amendments to accommodate the 5,353 unit Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for the 2023-2031 Housing Element cycle, affirmatively further fair housing, and comply with State Housing Element Law. Both documents are available for public review at www.alameda2040.org <http://www.alameda2040.org> and www.alamedaca.gov <http://www.alamedaca.gov>.
The zoning amendments include rezoning certain sites and districts to permit multifamily housing and residential densities of at least 30 units per acre. One concern with the proposed recommendation is that certain actions identified in the Housing Element update would potentially be in conflict with City Charter Article XXVI (Article 26); however, this update is consistent with the City’s previous actions in 2012 and 2014 to comply with State Housing Element Law and staff is of the opinion that the proposed recommendation would continue to meet state law requirements.
On August 25, 2022, the State of California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) found the draft Housing Element to be in substantial compliance with State Housing Element Law. The HCD letter is attached as Exhibit 1.
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the Housing Element update, Land Use Diagram amendments, and associated Alameda Municipal Code (AMC) text and zoning map amendments, as recommended by the Planning Board.
BACKGROUND
In 1973, the voters of Alameda approved an amendment to the City Charter that added Article 26 (Measure A). Measure A added Section 26-1 that states “[t]here shall be no multiple dwelling units built in the City of Alameda.” Section 26-3 was adopted in 1991 by a subsequent ballot measure (also Measure A) which set maximum residential density of one housing unit per 2,000 square feet (21.78 dwelling units (du) per acre) throughout the City.
In 1980, the California Legislature adopted laws which required municipalities to prepare Housing Elements which contains state mandated policies and analysis to ensure that the City “facilitate[s] the improvement and development of housing to make adequate provision for the housing needs of all economic segments of the community.” (Gov. Code, Section 65580(d).) More specifically, the Legislature’s stated intent is “[t]o assure that counties and cities recognize their responsibilities in contributing to the attainment of the state housing goal…[and] [t]o assure that counties and cities will prepare and implement housing elements which…will move toward attainment of the state housing goal.” (Gov. Code, Sections 65581(a), (b).)
In a letter dated June 15, 2009, California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) concluded that the City was out of compliance with State law because of Article 26. (July 3, 2012 Staff Report, Exhibit 1.) In response, the City adopted a Multi-Family (MF) zoning overlay district in 2012 to allow multifamily housing at a density of 30 units per acre to comply with State law. (Alameda Municipal Code (AMC), Section 30-4.23; Ordinance Nos. 3054 and 3183 [2017]; Housing Element Background Report, p. 48.) “The new overlay zone [was] designed to bring the City of Alameda into compliance with Government Code Sections 65583.c (1), 65583.2 and 65583.2c.” (July 3, 2012 Staff Report, p. 7; AMC, Section 30-4.23(a).)
The City made it clear that the MF overlay zone was being implemented to comply with State law and would pre-empt Article 26. More specifically, AMC Section 30-4.23(b)(1) states, “In the event of a conflict between the provisions of the MF Combining District and the provisions of the underlying district or the Alameda Municipal Code or Alameda City Charter Article 26, the provisions of the MF District shall govern.”
On July 7, 2020, the City Council submitted Measure Z for a vote of the people, which, if approved, would have fully repealed Article 26 and eliminated that conflict with State law. However, Measure Z was rejected by the electorate in November 2020.
State Housing Element Law (Article 10.6 of the Government Code) requires that the City update its General Plan Housing Element every eight (8) years. The 2023-2031 Draft Housing Element was prepared with the benefit of extensive input and discussion from the community, advisory boards and commissions, and the City Council at over 25 public workshops over the course of two years. The Planning Board held approximately seventeen (17) public workshops, and the City Council, the Commission on Persons with Disabilities, the Transportation Commission, and the Historical Advisory Board each held one or more workshops. Guidance was also provided by HCD throughout the process.
On February 16, 2021, staff requested guidance from HCD regarding reconciliation of State Housing Law with Alameda City Charter Article 26. In a letter dated November 29, 2021, consistent with its previous letter in 2009, HCD again concluded that the City was out of compliance with State law because of Article 26. (Exhibit 1.) HCD pointed out that, among other things, Article 26 conflicts with Government Code Sections 65583.2(c)(3) and 65583(c)(1), which require zoning appropriate to accommodate housing for lower-income households and zoning for a variety of housing types, and Government Code Sections 8899.50 and 65583(c)(10), in that “Article 26 provisions deny fair housing choices and are fundamentally contrary to affirmatively furthering fair housing.”
On May 25, 2022, the City submitted the draft Housing Element to HCD for its review. In July, HCD contacted the City with a number of questions and concerns about the draft Housing Element. In response, the City revised the draft Housing Element to include additional information and analysis. On August 12, 2022, the City published the changes and requested public comment on those changes. The City received three comment letters during the most recent public review period, and based upon those comments, staff made additional minor changes to the Housing Element and zoning amendments.
On August 25, 2022, HCD notified the City that the revised draft Housing Element and associated zoning amendments, if approved by the City Council, would ensure that the City remains in substantial compliance with State Housing Element Law. (Exhibit 1.)
On September 26 and October 10, 2022, the Planning Board held its final two public hearings and unanimously approved resolutions recommending that the City Council approve the Housing Element update, Land Use Element diagram amendments and associated zoning text and map amendments.
DISCUSSION
The objective of the Housing Element update and accompanying zoning amendments is to ensure that the Housing Element and Zoning Ordinance comply with State law. Failure to comply with State law subjects the City to the risk of:
• Loss of Land Use Control and the “Builder’s Remedy”. If a City Council fails to adopt a certified Housing Element, the City could lose its ability to regulate land use in Alameda, and could be required to approve an eligible housing development project that does not comply with either the zoning or the general plan under the “Builder’s Remedy”.
The legislature has placed the burden on cities to deny housing development projects, by requiring cities to adopt specific findings for denial or a reduction in density. (Gov. Code, Sections 65589.5(d) and (j), 65863.) This includes findings that (A) a city has adopted a housing element in substantial compliance with state law, (B) a city has met or exceeded its RHNA allocation, and (C) that denial of a housing project is consistent with a city’s general plan, including the housing element. (Gov. Code, Section 65589.5(d)(1).) If these findings cannot be made, a city is required to approve a housing project. The City is also explicitly precluded from relying upon a land use/zoning inconsistency as grounds for denial of a housing project where it does not have a certified housing element. (Gov. Code, Section 65589.5(d)(5)(B).)
While there is limited appellate judicial guidance on this topic, statutory and case authorities suggest that courts could enjoin local land use authority if the City fails to comply with State Housing Law. (See, e.g, California Building Industry Assoc. v. City of Oceanside (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 744, 760-761; Lesher Communications, Inc. v. City of Walnut Creek (1990) 52 Cal.3d 531, 547.) If a court finds that the City does not have a valid Housing Element, then it does not have a valid General Plan. Without a valid General Plan, it cannot determine if a project is consistent with the General Plan. Therefore, a court could suspend a local jurisdiction’s ability to issue building permits and land use entitlements for both residential and commercial projects. (Gov. Code, Section 65750 et seq.; Camp v. Mendocino (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 334.) The courts also have the ability to approve certain housing projects given the mandates under Section 65589.5, and in some cases a court may halt approval of non-residential and commercial development until the City brings its Housing Element and General Plan into compliance with State Law.
In addition, if the City fails to adopt a Housing Element in substantial compliance with State law, housing developers have the “remedy” to bypass many of the City’s regulatory processes to build housing. Under the “Builder’s Remedy”, developers may propose eligible housing development projects that do not comply with either the General Plan designation or zoning for the site, and the City could be required to approve an eligible housing development project. To qualify for the Builder’s Remedy, 20% of the units in the project must be affordable to lower income households, or 100% affordable to moderate or middle income households. These limitations generally exceed the City’s current affordable housing production requirements (generally 15% including moderate units), except at Alameda Point (which is 25% including moderate units). As described in a recent Santa Monica Daily Press article (see Exhibit 2), developers in Santa Monica are seeking to bypass the City’s regulatory processes to “force 3,968 undeniable units into the city’s pipeline” which includes a 15-story tower, because the Santa Monica City Council failed to adopt a conforming Housing Element.”
Generally, while a local jurisdiction’s Housing Element is out of compliance, the local jurisdiction may only deny a qualifying housing project if:
1. The development would have a specific and objective adverse impact on public health and safety and there is no feasible method to mitigate or avoid the impact without making the development unaffordable; or
2. The denial or condition is required to meet state or federal law, and there is no feasible method of complying without making the development unaffordable; or
3. The project is proposed on land zoned for agriculture or resource preservation that is surrounded on at least two sides by land being used for agriculture or resource preservation or there are not adequate water or sewage facilities to serve the project.
• Loss of State funding for open space, transportation, and affordable housing. The City depends on State funds for a variety of projects such as Jean Sweeney Park improvements, De-Pave Park improvements, habitat restoration projects, Safe Routes to School improvements, neighborhood traffic calming projects, traffic signal improvements, Park Street and Webster Street improvements, and affordable housing improvements. If the City fails to adopt a compliant Housing Element, the City will no longer be eligible to receive these grants.
• Fines. In accordance with State Law (AB 101), HCD is required to publish a list of cities that have failed to complete a certified Housing Element consistent with State Law. HCD is also required to notify the California Office of the Attorney General that a City is out of compliance with State Law. Should the Attorney General or a housing advocate file a lawsuit and should a court find that Alameda is in violation of State Housing Law, the City could potentially be between $10,000 and $600,000 per month, until the City Council adopts a compliant Housing Element.
• Additional Housing Element Costs. If the City Council fails to adopt the Housing Element on schedule, the City Council must be prepared to revise its Housing Element more frequently in the future. Per Government Code Section 65588(e)(4), the eight-year cycle will be revised to a four-year cycle until Alameda has adopted at least two consecutive revisions by the statutory deadline. By increasing the frequency by which the City is required to update its Housing Element, Alameda will experience a substantially increased administrative burden and cost. Depending on the timing of the updates, the jurisdiction may be subject to completing as many as three updates within an eight-year period in order to realign its update schedule with the required schedule.
• Litigation Costs. If a city fails to adopt a compliant Housing Element, the city could potentially face litigation or enforcement action brought against the city. Some examples that other cities have faced are listed below.
o In 2006, local advocates filed a lawsuit against the City of Pleasanton, because the Pleasanton City Council refused to adopt a Housing Element in compliance with State law. The California Attorney General joined the suit in 2009. In its unsuccessful effort to defend itself, the Pleasanton City Council paid $1.9 million just to cover the plaintiff’s legal fees.
o The City of Folsom lost its defense and was ordered to comply with State Law.
o The City of Mission Viejo lost in its defense and was required to pay attorney’s fees of more than $800,000.
o The City of Huntington Beach lost in its defense. In addition to its legal fees, the City of Huntington Beach estimated that it missed out on the opportunity to receive as much as $625,000 in SB 2 planning grant funds.
To avoid the consequences of non-compliance described above, staff recommends that the City Council adopt a Housing Element and zoning amendments that:
• Accommodate the City’s RHNA by ensuring that the General Plan Housing Element and zoning ordinance enable construction of 5,353 housing units over the next 8 year Housing Element cycle; and
• Affirmatively further fair housing by removing regulatory barriers that serve to segregate the community or impose barriers to access to certain types of housing. (Gov. Code, Section 65583(c)(5).)
State housing law requires that the Housing Element provide lands that are zoned to permit multifamily housing and lands that are zoned to support affordable housing or zoned for at least 30 units per acre. A Housing Element that fails to meet these two standards will not be certified by the State. Specifically:
• Government Code Sections 65583.2 and 65583(c) state that the City must make zoning available for all types of housing, including multifamily housing.
• Article 26 prohibits construction of multifamily housing.
• Government Code Section 65583.2 states that the Housing Element and the City’s zoning must support housing for all income levels in its RHNA, and residential densities under 30 units per acre do not support construction of housing for lower income households.
• Article 26 prohibits residential densities above 21 units per acre.
HCD previously raised these concerns with Article 26 in a 2009 letter:
“Prohibiting multifamily or limiting density is a fundamental constraint with significant impacts on the cost and supply of housing and particularly a variety of housing types. In addition, Measure A severely restricts promoting higher density housing and mixed-use development near jobs and transit to maximize land resources and address climate change.”
“Pursuant to Government Code Sections 65583.2 and 65583(c), the City is required to make zoning available to encourage and facilitate multifamily development and address and remove constraints. As a result, the element must include programs to address and remove or modify the constraint, including making zoning available to allow multifamily housing.”
HCD’s 2021 letter similarly points out that Article 26 “would be deemed a constraint on development and without programs to address and remove the constraint, the housing element would not comply with State Housing Element Law” and further concludes that Measure A conflicts with Government Code Sections 8899.50 and 65583, subdivision (c)(10), as the Measure A provisions “deny fair housing choices and as a result are fundamentally contrary to [affirmatively furthering fair housing]. Without significant action to overcome the patterns caused by the Measure A Provisions, the City of Alameda will not comply with these provisions of State Housing Element Law.” HCD states that for Alameda to comply with State Housing Element Law, the City could rezone sites to permit multifamily housing at residential densities of at least 30 units per acre, similar to the previous Housing Element update, “accompanied by additional and significant actions to address constraints on housing and to affirmatively further fair housing.”
A Balanced Compromise Plan to Accommodate the RHNA. The Housing Element and zoning amendments reviewed and endorsed by HCD achieve a balance between the requirements of State Law to accommodate the RHNA and affirmatively further fair housing and the goals of the Alameda community as articulated at the Housing Element public workshops.
• NAS Alameda Priority Development Area - 39%. In response to community desires to maximize the use of Alameda Point and the former Naval lands to accommodate the RHNA, approximately 39% of the RHNA is accommodated in the City’s NAS Alameda Priority Development Area (PDA), which includes 24% of the units at Alameda Point and 15% at other surplus federal lands in the PDA such as the Housing Authority’s North Housing Project, the Habitat for Humanity project, and Carmel’s project adjacent to Coast Guard housing on Singleton Avenue.
• Northern Waterfront PDA - 24%. Vacant and underutilized lands in the Northern Waterfront PDA accommodates approximately 24% of the RHNA on sites such as Encinal Terminals, Alameda Marina, the former Pennzoil Site, the Housing Authority site on Eagle Street at Tilden Avenue, and underutilized sites on Clement Avenue and Mariner Square Drive. To accommodate the RHNA, the Housing Element requires adding the MF, Multifamily Residential Combining District zoning designation to two northern waterfront sites (2363-2433 Mariner Square Loop & Drive and 2199 Clement Avenue) and changing the General Plan Land Use Diagram designation for the property on Mariner Square Drive from Business and Employment to Mixed Use.
• Shopping Centers, Park Street and Webster Street Commercial Corridors - 27%. Shopping center sites, such as South Shore Center, Harbor Bay, and Alameda Landing accommodate 19% of the RHNA, and the Park Street District and Webster Street District commercial corridors accommodate approximately 8% of the RHNA. To accommodate the RHNA, the Housing Element requires adding the CMU, Community Mixed Use Combining District zoning designation to the Alameda Landing Shopping Center; the Harbor Bay Shopping Center; the South Shore Shopping Center and adjacent shoreline properties; and the Marina Village Shopping Center and changing the zoning designation for this property at Webster Street Plaza property at Atlantic Avenue from M Manufacturing to CC Community Commercial and changing the Land Use Diagram designation from Medium Density Residential to Community Mixed Use.
• Residential Districts - 10%. In response to community desires to minimize development within existing neighborhoods, only 10% of the RHNA (approximately 67 units per year) is accommodated through accessory dwelling units and in-fill development in the R-1 through R-6 Districts. These districts include over 16,000 parcels and over 2,500 acres or residentially zoned land.
A Fair Housing Plan. Fair housing requirements require that the City affirmatively further fair housing by taking meaningful actions that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity. To affirmatively further fair housing, the draft Housing Element and zoning amendments include:
• Form Based Regulations. Emphasize and reinforce form based regulations (e.g. height limits, lot coverage limits, etc.) and remove provisions that act to create barriers to access to housing for lower income and middle income households or to individuals that may require daily assistance or a specific housing type.
• Equal Regulation. Apply the form-based requirements (e.g. height, lot coverage, and setback) equally to all housing types (e.g. single family, multifamily, supportive, assisted living, etc.) so that people who need these different housing types are treated equally.
• Remove Barriers to Affordable Housing. Remove regulations that prohibit the most affordable housing types, such as the prohibition of construction of multifamily housing (three or more units in a building) and the citywide density limitation on residential densities over 21 units per acre (three or more units on a 5,000 square foot lot). These prohibited housing types are the most affordable housing types. Prohibiting them creates a barrier to access to housing in Alameda for households with lower incomes.
Conclusions and Recommendations.
With the benefit of over 25 public workshops and the participation of a wide spectrum of Alameda residents and interest groups, the City Council is in the position to approve the necessary General Plan and Zoning amendments to remain in compliance with State law and avoid the financial and land use consequences of being in violation of State Law and potentially subject the City to loss of funding, fines, lawsuits, enforcement actions, and “Builder’s Remedy” applications for housing that may ignore the City’s General Plan, Zoning, height limits or other regulations that ensure the livability and quality of life in Alameda.
Staff is of the opinion that the proposed Housing Element update and zoning amendments would enable the City to continue to meet State law requirements. Staff does not recommend that the City Council modify the Housing Element or the zoning amendments to further constrain housing development as recommended by the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society (AAPS) and Alameda Citizens Task Force (ACT) for the following reasons:
• Risk of Non-Compliance: Increasing constraints on housing development as recommended by AAPS and ACT will jeopardize HCD certification of the Housing Element and subject the City and its residents to the consequences of non-compliance. During the 90-day HCD review period, HCD questioned whether the zoning amendments will in fact be sufficient to ensure 5,353 units in 8 years. The City was able to reassure HCD that the Housing Element was in substantial compliance with State Law by adding the additional program revisions publicly reviewed in August. Any decision by the City Council to “retreat” from the commitments made in Housing Element and associated zoning amendments could jeopardize certification.
• Meeting the RHNA: The AAPS and ACT argument that the current draft Housing Element will cause the City to exceed its RHNA (build more than 5,353 units in 8 years) and result in widespread demolition of historic buildings and cause mass displacement of low income tenants in the residential neighborhoods is unfounded and contrary to all evidence on the record:
o To exceed the 5,353 unit RHNA, Alameda will need to construct over 670 units each year for the next 8 years. Based upon current building activity, it appears that Alameda could issue less than 300 building permits for housing units in 2023, the first year of the eight year cycle.
o As of January 1, 2022 and the passage of Senate Bill 9, all 9,000+ property owners in the R-1 Zoning District were granted the right to split their lot and/or add new housing units without public hearing or discretionary review. As of the date of this report, not a single one of those 9,000+ property owners have chosen to take advantage of those new zoning changes indicating that most Alameda residential property owners prefer to keep their property just the way it is.
o Accessory dwelling unit production in the R-1 through R-6 Districts in 2022 is on a pace to be less than it was in 2021 indicating that the demand among residential property owners to add an additional unit on their property is lessening, not increasing.
• Annual Reports: State law and the draft Housing Element require an annual review to monitor progress toward meeting the RHNA. If those Annual Reports show that Alameda is in fact on pace to exceed its RHNA, the City Council can at that time consider zoning amendments to increase constraints on housing development.
• Historic Preservation. The draft Housing Element and zoning amendments do not include any amendments to lessen or weaken the City’s’ Historic Preservation Ordinance, which regulates the demolition of historic structures.
• Displacement. The draft Housing Element and zoning amendments do not include any amendments to lessen or weaken the City’s Fair Housing and Anti-Displacement Ordinance.
ALTERNATIVES
The City Council may consider a range of alternatives, including:
• Adopting the Housing Element update and approving the zoning amendments as recommended to ensure compliance with State Law.
• Adopting the Housing Element update and approving the zoning amendments with changes to further reduce constraints on housing development in Alameda. Changes to further reduce constraints will be considered favorably by HCD and will further ensure compliance with State Law.
• Adopting the Housing Element update and approving the zoning amendments with changes to increase constraints on housing development in Alameda. Changes to further increase constraints will be considered negatively by HCD, will jeopardize certification by HCD, and will place Alameda at risk to financial and other consequences of non-compliance, including “Builder’s Remedy” applications.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
Approval of the Housing Element and the necessary AMC amendments does not have a fiscal impact on the General Fund or other City funds.
Failure to approve a Housing Element and the necessary AMC amendments to comply with State Law will subject the City to a significant and immediate risk of financial impacts, including but not limited to:
• Loss of State funding, which averaged $5.5 million annually over the last five years, for open space, transportation, and affordable housing projects in Alameda;
• State mandated fines, which escalate in size to up to $600,000 per month, until the City adopts a conforming Housing Element (Gov. Code, Sections 65589.5(k)(1)(B) and 65589.5(l)); and
• The costs to defend the City in lawsuits brought against the City for failure to comply with State law.
MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
As described in this report, the proposed action is specifically intended to ensure consistency between State Law, the Alameda General Plan, and the Alameda Municipal Code.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
On November 30, 2021, the City Council approved the 2021 General Plan Update, and the City Council approved Resolution No. 15841 certifying a Final Environmental Impact Report for the Alameda 2040 General Plan Update (State Clearinghouse No. 2021030563) in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, and adopted written findings, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
The General Plan Update approved by the City Council included, and the General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) evaluated, the environmental impacts of the Housing Element update, which was well underway by 2020 when work on the EIR began. The EIR transportation, air quality, greenhouse gas, housing and population, and historical resource analysis evaluated the environmental impacts of:
• 12,000 additional housing units in Alameda over 20 years, including 5,353 housing units to accommodate the RHNA between 2023 through 2031.
• Placing approximately 64% of the 5,353 units at Alameda’s two PDAs at Alameda Point and the Northern Waterfront as proposed by the Housing Element.
• Placing approximately 27% of the units along Park Street and Webster Street commercial corridors and at shopping centers, as proposed by the Housing Element.
• Placing approximately 10% of the units in the residential districts, as proposed by the Housing Element.
• Removing exclusionary and discriminatory housing policies as required by Land Use Element Policy LU-1 Actions a. and b. adopted in 2021 read as follows
a. Equitable Plans. Ensure that citywide and neighborhood plans are inclusive, nondiscriminatory, and culturally responsive. Plans should reduce disparities, promote equitable access, minimize the impacts of income disparity, minimize displacement and promote fair access to affordable housing.
b. Exclusionary and Discriminatory Policies. Rescind existing policies, programs, or development standards that are exclusionary or discriminatory.
• Permitting accessory dwelling units and a wide variety of housing types in all residential districts as required by Policy LU-2 actions d. e. and f. adopted in 2021 which read as follows:
d. Accessory Units. Permit accessory dwelling units in all residential and mixed-use zoning districts to increase the supply of small, more affordable housing units.
e. Affordable Housing. Permit rental and ownership housing opportunities for all income levels, ages and family types and sizes in all residential and mixed-use zoning districts.
f. Multi-family and Shared Housing. Permit well designed multi-family and shared housing opportunities, including co-housing, congregate housing, senior assisted living, single room occupancy housing, transitional housing, emergency warming shelters, and shelters for the homeless in all residential zoning districts and in all mixed-use zoning districts.
• Permitting higher density multifamily development within walking distance of transit, on shopping center sites, and within existing buildings when it evaluated the impacts of Land Use Policy LU-16 adopted in 2021, which reads as follows:
Permit higher-density, multi-family and mixed-use development on sites within walking distance of commercial and transit-rich areas to reduce automobile dependence, automobile congestion, greenhouse gas emissions, and energy use; provide for affordable housing; make efficient use of land; and support climate friendly modes of transportation, such as walking, bicycling, and transit use.
a. Transit-Oriented Zoning. To support additional ferry service, bus service, and future heavy rail service in Alameda, amend the zoning code to allow for higher-density, mixed-use, multifamily housing in transit-rich locations.
b. Mixed-Use Shopping Centers. Amend the zoning code to facilitate the redevelopment and reinvestment in Alameda’s single-use retail shopping centers and large open parking lots with higher density mixed-use development with ground floor commercial, service, and office uses, and upper floor multifamily housing.
c. Adaptive Reuse for Housing. To increase the supply of smaller, more affordable housing opportunities and preserve existing urban scale and character, consider exempting the adaptive reuse of existing buildings from zoning district residential density limitations.
The General Plan EIR concludes that adoption of housing supportive policies and increasing the supply of housing in Alameda will not result in displacement that would require construction of significant new replacement housing.
The General Plan EIR also concludes that adoption of housing supportive policies and increasing the supply of housing in Alameda will not result in significant impacts on historic resources due to the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance, which requires a Certificate of Approval to demolish a historic building. The Housing Element and zoning amendments do not remove or alter the Historic Preservation Ordinance.
Pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines sections 15162 and 15163, none of the circumstances necessitating further CEQA review or preparation of a new EIR are present with respect to the General Plan EIR and the Housing Element General Plan amendment and associated zoning changes. The proposed project to amend the Housing Element and amend the AMC to implement the policies and goals of the Housing Element of the General Plan would not require major revisions to the General Plan EIR due to new significant impacts or due to a substantial increase in the severity of the significant environmental effects. There have been no substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the project would be undertaken that would require major revisions of the General Plan EIR due to new or substantially increased significant environmental effects. Further, there has been no discovery of new information of substantial importance that would trigger or require major revisions to the General Plan EIR due to new or substantially increased significant environmental effects. No further environmental review with respect to the General Plan EIR is required
CLIMATE IMPACT
Accommodating the RHNA supports the region’s Sustainable Communities Strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. A decision by the City to not meet the RHNA would likely have a negative impact on the region’s ability to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
RECOMMENDATION
Hold a Public Hearing and 1) adopt the resolution approving a General Plan Amendment to Update the Housing Element of the General Plan and change the Land Use Diagram designation for two properties, and 2) approve the first reading of an ordinance to amend the Alameda Municipal Code and Zoning Map designations for seven properties to accommodate the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation for the period 2023-2031, affirmatively further fair housing, and maintain consistency with State Law.
Respectfully submitted,
Andrew Thomas, Director of Planning, Building and Transportation
Financial Impact section reviewed,
Margaret O’Brien, Finance Director
Exhibits:
1. Letters from Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) - November 29, 2021 and August 25, 2022
2. Santa Monica Article about Builder’s Remedy.
cc: Erin Smith, City Manager