Item # 9 September 13, 2006

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Item # 9 September 13, 2006"

Jerome Moore
5 years ago
Views:

1 Item # 9 September 13, 2006 Planning and Development Department Land Use Planning Division To: From: Planning Commission Allan Gatzke Principal Planner Memorandum Date: September 13, 2006 Subject: Housing Element and Dutra Compliance for Proposed Zoning Amendment 4-06: Recommendation from the Joint Subcommittee on Density Bonus on mixed-use and multi-family residential projects in commercial districts Recommendation The Planning Commission make the following findings regarding the proposed zoning amendments to reduce the base building envelope for mixed use and residential only buildings: The potential net loss from the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments could be offset with the remaining and unused development potential of the existing opportunity sites in the C-1, C-T, and C-W districts or additional capacity available in new opportunity sites; and The reduction in net housing units from the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments is consistent with the Housing Element. Background 1. Housing Element Targets The Housing Element of the City s General Plan, adopted December 18, 2001, covers the reporting period from July 1, 1999 through December 31, The Housing element incorporates ABAG s Regional fair share housing production target of 1269 total units including market rate as well as below market units. The Department monitors progress towards these targets and has prepared an update through August 25, (See Attachment 1.) For the purposes of meeting housing need, HCD relies on the measure of units actually completed, recognizing that not all projects that are entitled, are ultimately built. By this measure, the city has built 581 units, or 46% of ABAG s total unit target of The mix of units falls short, however, of the targets for individual classes of below market housing. The mix of units completed to date include: 339 units or 75% of the market rate target, and 240 units or 29% of the total below market rate units, generally favoring VLI units 2120 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA Tel: TDD: Fax: planning@ci.berkeley.ca.us

2 September 13, 2006 Page 2 of 7 By including those projects that also have Building Permits, the last hurdle for entitlement, the total rises to 1245 units, virtually reaching the target for the reporting period. When including projects with Building Permits with those completed, the mix of units is closer to the regional targets: 746 units or 164% of the market rate target, and 496 units or 61% of the below market rate targets By including all projects for which zoning entitlements have been granted, the City s progress towards the ABAG s targets is very strong for all categories except Moderate Income assisted (81-120% AMI): 1715 total units or 135% of target 1061or 233% of market rate units 647 units or 79% of total below market units, though the City falls furthest from its target for Moderate Income assisted units at 37% of ABAG s target. 2. Opportunity Sites The Housing Element also identifies opportunity sites to meet the City s housing targets. These opportunity sites represent to State Housing and Community Development (HCD) future housing development potential based on a projection of zoning capacity. The opportunity sites are summarized in Table 22-2 in the Housing Element. (See Attachment 2.) These opportunity sites indicate that when the Housing element was prepared, the City was able to identify a total of 107 parcels greater than 7,000 sq. ft. in the commercial and R-4 zoning districts that were identified as potential vacant or re-developable. The housing development potential for these districts was projected to be 4781 units based on assumptions for unit density for each district. 3. Required Findings for Compliance with Gov. Code Section Regional Housing Needs Recent amendments to Gov. Code Section require a local jurisdiction must provide written findings when making a legislative action (such as the proposed Zoning Amendments) that would result in a reduction of the residential density for any parcel to a lower residential density that is below the density that was utilized by the Department of Housing and Community Development in determining compliance with housing element law, article 10.6 Discussion 1. Development Prototypes Staff has prepared development prototypes that model the development characteristics of mixeduse projects. The prototype is a typical 100 by 130 foot parcel. The prototype models the characteristics of the building program, including residential and commercial square footage, development standards such as required parking, and usable open space. The model compares the development potential and change from the current practice base case for: commercial gross floor area (GFA), residential gross floor area (GFA), as well as average unit size, and number of dwellings; and total project gross floor area (GFA) and floor area ratio (FAR). The resulting development potential is referred to as the Base Project to define an envelope for which state density bonus is calculated. (See Attachment 3.)

3 September 13, 2006 Page 3 of 7 The development prototypes compare the current practice base case to two alternative cases: The Joint Subcommittee August 30, 2006 recommendations and Staff Recommendations from August 30, Two Zoning districts were modeled because of their differing development standards: C-1 and C-W. The development standards for the C-T district are similar to the C-1 district and this prototype is also used to determine the Base Project for mixed use projects in the C-T district. The Prototypes are also illustrated by the accompanying graphics illustrating a cross-section through the development prototypes. The cross sections indicate the adjacent residential building envelope in the abutting rear-yard. (See Attachment 4.) The modeling provides the following key comparisons for potential residential development summarized in Table 1. Table 1. A 30-unit project on a.298-acre site, under Current Practice, would be reduced in residential density to yield the following: Committee Recommendations Staff Recommendations District Base Project Reduction Base Project Reduction C-1 23 units 23% 25 units 17% C-W 19 units 37% 26 units 13% 2. UASP Overlay Amendments The Council adopted zoning amendments in December 2004 to implement the University Avenue Strategic Plan height and bulk standards. These amendments, which utilize similar setbacks and commercial standards to those proposed by the Joint Subcommittee and staff, effectively reduced the potential housing yield in the C-1 District area of University Avenue. For the opportunity sites affected, the resulting loss of units was 87 to 108 units if state density bonus were utilized. As part of the Dutra compliance analysis prepared by staff, additional development sites in the University Avenue corridor were identified and evaluated to determine the potential to offset the net reduction in housing capacity. The proposed Subcommittee amendments affect only those remaining C-1 district parcels that are not in the UASP overlay. Of the total of 17 parcels identified as opportunity sites, only five are not subject to the UASP amendments. 3. Developed Opportunity Sites A total of five Housing Element opportunity sites identified in the C-1, C-T, and C-W districts have been developed during the reporting period. See Table 2.

4 September 13, 2006 Page 4 of 7 Table 2: July 1, 1999 to August 25, 2006, Opportunity Site With Projects Status Units DU/AC SF District Address Five ,375 C University Ave* Five ,340 C Shattuck Ave One ,800 C-T 2501 Haste St Four ,890 C-W 2700 San Pablo Ave Four ,543 C-W 2577 San Pablo Ave TOTAL ,948 * Site within the UASP Overlay District Status One: Use Permit Pending Two: No Activity Three: Building Permit Pending Four: Building Permit Issued Five: Construction Complete They account for only 175 units out of the total of 1715 units that have been developed or have zoning approvals during the reporting period. This indicates that, to date, in these districts only about 10 percent of the entitled projects were included in the identified opportunity sites in the Housing Element. 4. Remaining Opportunity Sites The remaining opportunity sites in the C-1, C-T and C-W districts have been identified in order to determine how the proposed zoning amendments would affect the development capacity of the remaining opportunity sites. See Table 3.

5 September 13, 2006 Page 5 of 7 Table 3. Remaining Development Capacity in Opportunity Sites C-1 District # of Parcel Area Assumed Estimated Acted Parcels (SF) (AREA) (Actual) Average DU Density (DU/AC) Zoning Capacity Units All Opportunity Sites , UASP Rezoning , Developed 1 19,340 (146) 65 Remaining Opportunity Sites 4 47, C-T District # of Parcels Parcel Area Assumed (Actual) Average DU Density (DU/AC) Estimated Zoning Capacity (SF) (AREA) All Opportunity Sites , Developed 1 8,800 (124) 25 Remaining Opportunity Sites , C-W District # of Parcels Parcel Area Assumed (Actual) Average DU Density (DU/AC) Estimated Zoning Capacity (SF) (AREA) All Opportunity Sites , Developed Sites 2 24, (104) 58 Remaining Opportunity Sites , Acted Units Acted Units Since the proposed amendments do not affect the UASP overlay area (because the amendments adopted in December 2004 accomplish a comparable effect as the proposed amendments), there are only 4 remaining opportunity sites in the C-1 district. The C-T district retains 12 of the original 13 opportunity sites, and the C-W district retains 32 of the original 34 opportunity sites. Utilizing the estimated zoning capacity employed in the Housing Element for each of these districts, the following estimated zoning capacity remains available for housing: C-1 district opportunity sites will yield 108 units,

6 September 13, 2006 Page 6 of 7 C-T district opportunity sites will yield 339 units, and C-W district opportunity sites will yield 1722 units. 5. Reduction in Housing Yield The review of development opportunity sites indicates that there is a combined total of 2129 units of estimated housing capacity in the remaining opportunity sites in the C-1, C-T, and C-W districts. See Table 4. Table 4. Comparative Reduction in Housing Yield Current Practice Base Case Committee Recommendations Available 2001 Housing State Density Opp. Sites Element Bonus Staff Recommendations State density Bonus Capacity Ac DU/Ac Units DU/Ac Units Units DU/Ac Units Units C C-T C-W Net Reduction in units (-1090) (-767) (-794) (-382) Percent Reduction in units 50% 35% 37% 18% Prototype simulation:.298 Ac site Units Units C C-T similar to C C-W Reduction in Total Unit Targets The proposed amendments recommended by the Joint subcommittee would reduce the base project to 1079 units and would provide up to 1402 units if all opportunity sites employed state density bonus. This represents a reduction of 767 (35%) to 1090 units (50%) compared to the current practice Base Project. The proposed amendments recommended by Staff would reduce the base project to 1375 units and would provide up to 1787 units if all opportunity sites employed state density bonus. This represents a reduction of 382 units (18%) to 794 units (37%) compared to the current practice Base Project. Analysis 1. Effect on Total Unit Yield The reductions identified are large, reflecting the scope of the transitions to the residential neighborhoods, new open space and parking criteria, and protections for ground floor commercial

7 September 13, 2006 Page 7 of 7 uses. With respect to Gov Code Section 65863(c), the reduction still retains a substantial housing development capacity in the opportunity sites in these the corridors: up to 1402 units with the Joint subcommittee recommendations, and up to 1787 units with Staff s recommendations. So while the reduction in housing yield cuts across the entire districts, beyond the opportunity sites in the City s Housing Element, the remaining capacity in the reduced envelope is still substantial when compared with the total housing target of 1269 units in the entire previous reporting period. To replace the reduced housing yield in these districts, would require finding approximately 25 new 30 unit project sites with the Joint subcommittee recommendations and approximately 13 new 30 unit project sites with Staff s recommendations. Given the City s experience to date, in which so much of the development has occurred on sites that are not identified opportunity sites in the C-1, C-T, and C-W districts, it is evident that the Housing opportunity sites significantly underestimate the capacity of the Avenue Commercial corridors. The Housing element also identifies housing opportunities in other portions of the City. In fact the City is currently reviewing the Downtown Plan that is predominantly C-2 and not subject to the proposed amendments. 2. Effect on Below Market Rate Yield Achieving the targets for BMR units is understandably more difficult. The City s strong support for BMR units has achieved remarkably high percentages of BMR units to market rate: 496 units out of 1245 units or 40% of total units for the category of completed and Building permits issues; and 647 units out of 1715 units or 38% of total units for all projects with zoning approval. (See Attachment 1.) Much of this success may be attributed to the vitality of the non-profit housing developers and the City s proactive participation. Still, the total BMR unit production is also constrained by the capital sources available to the non-profit developers. 3. Conclusions The analysis of available opportunity sites illustrates: There remains substantial housing development capacity with the reduced base project zoning envelopes recommended by the Joint subcommittee and Staff. There is sufficient development opportunity to meet the city s share of the regional housing need as defined in the current Housing Element. Attachments: Housing Production City of Berkeley Use Permit & Building Permit Status, Based on Units Approved after Zoning July 1, 1999 to Table 22-2, Summary of Redevelopable Parcels (Equal to or greater than 7,000 SF) by Zoning District, City of Berkeley, Housing Element, adopted December 18, Prototype Comparison of Base Case with Subcommittee and Staff Recommendations for Base Project Mixed use Developments, September 6, Illustrations of Prototype Comparisons, September 6, 2006.

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

AGENDA ITEM I-1 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Council Meeting Date: June 3, 2014 Agenda Item #: I-1 INFORMATIONAL ITEM: Update on Multi-City Affordable Housing Nexus Study and Impact Fee Feasibility