Ordinance 2926 and backupCity of Alameda
Memorandum
Date:May 19,2004
To:Honorable Mayor . and
Councilmembers
From:James M. Flint
City Manager
Re:Public hearng to consider introduction of an Ordinance amending the Alameda
Municipal Code by adding Section 30-, Inclusionar Housing Requirement for
Residential Projects, to the Alameda Municipal Code.
BACKGROUN
In May 2003, the City Council adopted a new Housing Element , a mandatory element of the City
General Plan. The Housing Element contains the City s housing policies and includes a number of
implementation measures. These implementation measures range from development of assistance
programs to changes to zoning designations and regulations.
In August 2003 , the City received conditional certification of the Housing Element by the State
Deparment of Housing and Community Development. The certfication was predicated upon the
City perfonnng certain actions. In accordance with the Housing Element and State certfication
letter , the City has begun to implement the Element. The Planning Board initiated a new ordinance
for inc1usionar housing requirements on July 8 , 2003. On November 10, the Planning Board held a
public workshop to receive input on the new ordinance for inc1usionar housing requiements and on
December 8 , 2003, the Planning Board held a public hearng on the inc1usionar housing ordinance.
The final draft ordinance incorporating Planning Board diection was recommended for City Council
approval at their Januar 26, 2004 meeting. Subsequent to this action by the Planning Board minor
technical changes have been made to the draft ordinance to conform to the CIC inc1usionar housing
resolution and to areas outside of the redevelopment areas; these minor changes are shown in
underline/strkeout in the attached exhibit.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS
The Planning Board focused on the following issues during their discussion of the inclusionar
ordinance:
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Re: Hearing and Intro of
Ordinance #5-
Honorable Mayor and
Council members
Page 2
May 19,2004
In Lieu Fee.Both the public and the Planning Board were concerned about the in-lieu fee , how it
would be calculated and to what developments it would apply. Both the public and the Planning
Board expressed a desire for units to be constructed rather than fees paid. For this reason , the abilty
to pay an in-lieu fee is very narowly defined and penntted for up to 9 units; developments of 10 or
more units must constrCt the affordable housing unites). Below is a table indicating how much
would be collected, based on the size of the development.
SlZK':FEEPERuNT AMO"UT to BE PAID
5 uni ts $14 , 735.00 per unit $73,675.
6 units $14 , 735.00 per unit $88,410.
7units $14, 735.00 per unit $103 145.
8 units $14, 735.00 per unit $117,880.
9 units $14 , 735.00 per unit $132 615.
Citv Manager Discretion and Review Authority.There was public concern expressed about the
discretion of the City Manager to: 1) allow the affordable units to be constrcted off-site, 2) make
arangements for alternative performance , 3) assure acceptable documents are recorded, and 4)
consider adjustments to the requirements if the applicant believes the requirement to be a takng.
The ordinance was modified to clarfy implementation and require the approval of a Affordable
Housing Plan. The right of the City Manager to assure that any admnistrative documents are
acceptable and appropriate is set forth in Aricle vn of the City Charer. Consistent with the Zoning
Ordinance where these proposed regulations wil reside , references to the City Manager have been
changed to Planning and Building Director or Planning and Building Deparent (which act as the
City Manager ' s designee). Decisions of the Planning and Building Director or the Planning Board
can be appealed under this ordinance in the same manner as any other development requirement with
the same noticing requirements, fees and time frame.
Occupancy Standards.According to the Housing Authority Executive Director, there are occupancy
standards for Alameda Housing Authority units, which are reviewed at the time of eligibilty. Staff
is recommending that units be distrbuted using a lottery system for larger projects. In order to be
considered in the lottery, famlies must qualify in terms of eligibilty, including family size.
Improvements to Dwellngs.According to the Housing Authority Executive Director, the covenants
and agreements signed between the City and the property owner in projects of the Alameda Housing
Authority explain improvements and have provisions for equity sharng in the event of increase in
value of the unit. According to Housing Development Manager, the more recent covenants contain
a resale formula that allows owners to adjust their cost basis by the value of capital improvements
and use that adjusted basis to calculate a maximum resale price. However, homeowners could also
face loss if the value exceeds the price range for that level of income.
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
Page 3
May 19, 2004
Affordable Housing: Guidelines for Residential Development.Draft Affordable Housing Guidelines
reviewed and recommended for approval by the Planning Board are included under a separate item
for City Council adoption at the June 01 2004 meeting.
BUDGET CONSIDERA TION/FANCIA IMACT
None.
RECOlVNDATION
The City Manager recommends the City Council adopt the Ordinance adding Section 30-16,
Inclusionary Housing Requirement for Residential Projects, to the City of Alameda Municipal Code.
Respectfully submitted
Gregory Fuz
Planning and Building Director
By:
t a Eliason
.'
Planning Manager
Attachments:
1. Revised PB Resolution No. PB-04-
2. Januar 26 , 2004 Planning Board Staff Report
3. Januar 26 , 2004 Planning Board Minutes
4. December 8, 2003 Planning Board Staff Report
5. December 8 , 2003 Planning Board Minutes
Tom Matthews , Renewed Hope
Eve Bach , ARC Ecology
G:\PLANNING\CC\BPORTS\2004\k-June 01 \inc1usionarhousingord.doc
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD
RESOLUTION NO. PB-04-
RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA ADOPT
AN ORDINANCE ADDING SECTION 30-16, INCLUSIONARY
HOUSING REQUIREMENT FOR RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS, TO
THE CITY OF ALAMEDA MUNICIPAL CODE
WHEREAS, the Planing Board initiated ths amendment to the Zoning Ordinance on
July 14 2003; and
WHEREAS , the Planng Board held a public workshop on November 10 2003 to
consider the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance; and
WHREAS , the Plang Board held a du1y noticed public hearing on December 8 , 2003
to consider the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance and testimony from all interested paries;
and
WHEREAS , the Planng Board continued the public hearing to Januar 26 2004; and
WHEREAS , the Plang Board held a public hearing on Januar 26 , 2004 to consider
the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance and testimony from all interested paries; and
WHREAS , pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
(Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq.CEQA") and the State CEQA Guidelines
(Californa Code of Reguations , Title 14, section 15000 et seq.
),
the amendment to the Alameda
Municipal Code is exempt per State CEQA Guidelies Section 15305 , Minor Alterations in Land
Use Limitations;
WHEREAS , the Planng Board makes the following findings:
The proposed amendment will not effect consistency of the Zonig Ordinance
with the General Plan , as the amendment is consistent with and fuers the
Housing Element, which in tu , reflects the land use policies and other
requirements of the balance of the General Plan.
The proposed amendment will have a beneficial effect on the welfare of the
communty because it wil provide additional housing opportunties for very
low-, low- and moderate- income households.
The proposal is equitable because it wil apply to all properties outside of the
redevelopment districts; properties within redevelopment project districts areas
bear comparable affordable housing requirements under Communty
Redevelopment Law.
Attachment #1
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Planng Board of the City of Alameda
hereby resolves that the amendments to the Alameda Municipal Code are exempt from the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code section 21000
seq.CEQA") and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations , Title 14 , section15000 et seq.
),
per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15305 , Minor Alterations in Land Use
Limitations.
THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planing Board of the City of
Alameda hereby recommends to the City Council that it adopt the amendments to the Alameda
Municipal Code as follows:
Section 1 Section 30-16, "Inclusionary Housing Requirement for Residential
Projects," is hereby added to Chapter 30, Development Regulations, of the City of
Alameda Municipal Code as follows:
Section 30-Inclusionary Housing Requirement For Residential Projects
Subsection 30-16-Purpose.
Subsection 30-16-Findings.
Subsection 30-16-Definitions.
Subsection 30-16-4 Inclusionary Unit Requirements.
Subsection 30-16-Exemptions.
Subsection 30-16-Alternatives.
Subsection 30-16-Incentive.
Subsection 30-16-Compliance Procedures.
Subsection 30-16-Requirements for Inclusionary Units.
Subsection 30-16-10 Continued Affordabilty.
Subsection 30-16-11 Limted Use of Fees.
Subsection 30-16-12 Adjustments, Waivers.
Subsection 30-16-13 Community Improvement Project Areas.
Subsection 30-16-14 Enforcement.
Subsection 30-16-Purpose.
The purpose of this section is to (a) implement the goals and objectives of the
Housing Element of the City of Alameda General Plan, (b) mitigate the impacts on
housing affordabilty caused by new residential development, and (c) meet the need for
housing affordable to persons of very low-, low- and moderate-income.
Subsection 30-16-Findings.
a. California and the City of Alameda face a serious housing problem that
threatens their economic security. Persons of very low-, low- and moderate-income are
experiencing increasing difficulty in locating and maintaining adequate, safe and
sanitary affordable housing. Lack of access to affordable housing has a direct impact
upon the health, safety and welfare of the residents of Alameda. Alameda wil not be
able to contribute to the attainment of State housing goals or to retain a healthy
environment without additional affordable housing. As noted in the City's Housing
Element, a regional shortage of affordable housing is contributing to overpayment for
housing accommodations, sometimes leading to temporary or permanent homelessness.
b. A lack of new Inclusionary Units wil have a substantial negative impact
on the environment and economic climate because (i) housing wil have to be built
elsewhere, far from employment centers and therefore, commutes wil increase, causing
increased traffic and transit demand and consequent noise and air pollution, and (ii)
City businesses wil find it more difficult to attact and retain the workers they need.
Inclusionary housing policies contribute to a healthy job and housing balance by
providing more affordable housing close to employment centers.
c. Development of new market-rate housing encourages new residents to
move to the City. These new residents wil place demands on services provided by
both public and private sectors. Some of the public and private sector employees
needed to meet the needs of the new residents earn incomes only adequate to pay for
affordable housing. Employees who are unable to find affordable housing in the City
wil be forced to commute long distances. This situation adversely impacts on their
quality of life, consumes limited energy resources, increases traffic congestion and has a
negative impact on air quality.
d. Increasing the production and availabilty of affordable housing is
problematic. Prices and rents for affordable housing remain below the level needed to
attact new conStruction. At the same time, escalating land costs and rapidly
diminishig amounts of land available for development hinder the provision of
affordable housing units solely though private action. Federal and state funds for the
construction of new affordable housing are insufficient to fully address the problem of
affordable housing within the City.
e. The City wishes to retain an economically balanced community, with
housing available to very low-, low- and moderate-income households. The City'
General Plan implements the established policy of the State of California that each
community should foster an adequate supply of housing for persons at all economic
levels.
f. It is appropriate to impose some of the cost of the increased burden of
providing housing for very low-, low- and moderate-income persons directly on the
developers, and indirectly upon the occupiers, whose developments necessitate the
need for such housing. In addition to the demands on services from such
developm nts, new development without affordable units contributes to the shortage of
affordable housing. Zoning and other ordinances concerning new housing in the City
should be consistent with the community s goal to foster an adequate supply of housing
for persons at all economic levels.
Subsection 30-16-Definitions.
As used in this section:
Affordable Rent shall mean monthly rent (including utilty allowance) that does
not exceed one-twelfth of 30 percent of the maximum anual income for a Household of
the applicable income level (Very Low-, Low- or Moderate-Income).
Affordable Housing Guidelines shall mean guidelines adopted by the City Council
to specify location and design standards for Inclusionary Units.
Affordable Housing Plan shall mean a legally binding agreement between a
Developer and the City to ensure that the requirements of this Chapter are satisfied.
The Affordable Housing Plan establishes the number and location of Affordable Units,
production schedule and other standards.
Affordable Ownership Cost shall mean a sales price that results in a monthy
housing cost (including mortgage, insurance, utilties, taxes, assessments and home
owner association costs, if any) that does not exceed one-twelfth of 30 percent of the
maimum annual income for a Household of the applicable income (Very Low-, Low-
or Moderate-Income).
Household shall mean one person living alone or two or more persons sharing
residency whose income is considered for housing payments.
Inclusionary Unit shall mean a dwelling unit that must be offered at Affordable
Rent or available at Affordable Housing Cost to Very Low-, Low-or Moderate-Income
Households.
In-Lieu Fee shal mean the fee described in Subsection 30-16-6(a) that is paid to
the City as an alternative to the production of inclusionary housing, which fee shall be
used in accordance with Subsection 30-16-11.
Low-Income Household shall mean a Household whose anual income does not
exceed the qualifying limits set for "lower income households " in Section 50079.5 of the
California Health & Safety Code.
Market-Rate Unit shall mean a dwellng unit in a Residential Development that is
not an Inclusionary Unit.
Moderate-Income Household shall mean a Household whose annual income does
not exceed the qualifying limits set for "persons and familes of low or moderate
income " in Section 50093 of the California Health & Safety Code.
Residential Development shall mean any planned development district
subdivision map, conditional use permit or other discretionary land use approval that
authorizes the construction of residential dwellng units.
Very Low-Income Household shall mean a Household whose annual income does
not exceed the qualifying limits set for "very low income households " in Section 50105
of the California Health & Safety Code.
Subsection 30-16-Inclusionary Unit Requirements.
a. Unit Requirement. For all Residential Developments of five (5) or more
units, at least fifteen percent (15%) of the total units must be Inclusionary Units
restricted for occupancy by Very Low-, Low- or Moderate-Income Households. The
number of Inclusionary Units required for a particular project wil be determined only
once, at the time of project approval. If a chage in the Residential Development design
results in a change in the total number of units, the number of Inclusionary Units
required wil be recalculated to coincide with the final approved project.
b. Calculation. For purposes of calculating the number of affordable units
required by this subsection, any additional units authorized as a density bonus under
California Government Code Section 65915(b)(1) or (b)(2) wil not be counted in
determining the required number of Inclusionary Units. In determiing the number of
whole Inclusionary Units required, any decimal fraction less than 0.5 shall be rounded
down to the nearest whole number, and any decimal fraction of 0.5 or more shall be
rounded up on the nearest whole number.
c. Types ofInclusionary Units: Four percent (4%) of the total units must be
restricted to occupancy by Low-Income Households; four percent (4%) of the total units
must be restricted to occupancy by Very Low-Income Households; and seven percent
(7%) must be restricted to occupancy by Moderate-Income Households. For Residential
Developments with sixty-nine (69) or fewer total units, Inclusionary Units shall be
restricted for occupancy by very low-, low- or moderate-income households in the
following proportions, which are based upon the above calculations:
Total
Units
Inclusionary
Units Income Levels
5 to 9 1 moderate
10 to 16
17 to 23
24 to 29
30 to 36
37 to 43
44 to 49
50 to 56
57 to 63
64 to 69
1 moderate, 1 low
1 moderate, 1 low, 1 very low
2 moderate, 1 low, 1 very low
3 moderate, 1 low, 1 very low
3 moderate, 2 low, 1 very low
3 moderate, 2 low, 2 very low
4 moderate, 2 low, 2 very low
4 moderate, 3 low, 2 very low
5 moderate, 3 low, 2 very low
d. Affordable Housing Guidelines. Inclusionary Units built under this section
must conform to the Affordable Housing Guidelines adopted by the City Council.
Subsection 30-16-Exemptions.
The requirements of this section do not apply to:
a. Reconstrction. The reconstruction of any structures that have been
destroyed by fire, flood, earthquake or other act of nature provided that the
reconstruction takes place within three (3) years of the date the structures weredestroyed.
Residential Developments of four (4) units or less.
c. Residential building additions, repairs or remodels. Residential building
additions, repairs or remodels; provided, that such work does not increase the number
of existing dwellng units beyond four (4) units.
d. Affordable housing projects. Residential Developments that already have
more dwelling units that qualify as affordable to Very Low-, Low- and Moderate-
Income Households than ths Section requires.
e. Residential Developments with approved maps. Residential Developments for
which a tentative map or vesting tentative map was approved, or for which a building
permit was issued, prior to the effective date of the ordinance codified in this Section
and which continue to have unexpired permits.
Subsection 30-16-Alternatives.
a. In-Lieu Fees. For Residential Developments of nine (9) or fewer units,
including Inclusionary Units, the requirements of this section may be satisfied by
paying an In-Lieu Fee. The fee wil be set by the City Council by resolution and shall be
sufficient to make up the gap between (i) the amount of development capital typically
expected to be available based on the amount to be received by a developer or owner
from Affordable Housing Cost or Affordable Rent, and (ii) the anticipated cost of
constructing the Inclusionary Units. Fees shall be paid upon issuance of building
permits for Market-Rate Units in a Residential Development. If building permits are
issued for only part of a Residential Development, the fee amount shall be based only
on the number of units then permitted.
b. Off-site construction. Inclusionary Units may be constructed off-site if the
Planning Board can make a finding that the purposes of this section would be better
served by the construction of off-site units. In determining whether the purposes of
ths section would be better served by this alternative, consideration should be given as
to whether the off-site units would be located in an area where, based on availabilty of
affordable housing, the need for such units is greater than the need in the area of the
proposed development.
Subsection 30-16-Incentive.
The City may provide the following incentive to a developer who elects to satisfy
the inc1usionary housing requirements of this section by producing Inclusionary Units
on the site of the Residential Development.
a. Expedited Processing. Eligibility for expedited processing of development
and permit applications for the Residential Development.
Subsection 30-16-Compliance Procedures.
a. Conditions to carry out the purposes of ths section shall be imposed on
the approval of any Residential Development to which this section pertains.
b. As part of the application for a Residential Development, the applicant
shall submit an Affordable Housing Plan demonstrating compliance with this section.
The Affordable Housing Plan must include: (i) a description of the number and size of
each Market-Rate Unit and each Inclusionary Unit, including the income levels to which
each Inclusionary Unit wil be made affordable, (ii) a narrative describing how the plan
adheres to the Affordable Housing Guidelines adopted by the City Council, and (ii) a
site map, with the location of the Inclusionary Units clearly marked.
c. The Affordable Housing Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the
decision-making entity concurrently with the Residential Development in accordance
with the procedures in the Alameda Municipal Code. The Affordable Housing Plan
shall be made a condition of approval of the Residential Development and shall be
recorded by the applicant together with any implementing regulatory agreements,
resale restrictions, deeds of trust and/ or similar implementing documents as a
restriction on the parcel or parcels on which the Affordable Units wil be constructed.
d. The Planning Board shall review any applications requesting off-site
construction within their Affordable Housing Plan. The Affordable Housing Plan shall
include a site map of the off-site location, a description of the arrangements made for
construction at that site and demonstration that the proposed off-site construction
complies with Section 30-16-6(b). Off-site construction may only be approved in
accordance with Subsection 30-16-6(b).
e. No building permit shall be issued for any l\farket Rate Unit until the
applicant has obtain.ed permits for the Inclusionary Units sufficient to meet the
requirements of subsection 30 16 1., All Inclusionary Units shall be constructed and
occupied as specified in the approved Afordable Housing Plan concurrently with or
prior to the construction and occupancy of Market Rate Units unlessor received
certification is obtained from the Planning and Building Director that the applicant
has met, or made arangements satisfactory to the City to meet, an alternative
procedure set forth in subsection 30-16-6. In phased Residential Developments,
Inclusionar Units shall be constructed and occupied in proportion to the number of
units in each phase of the Residential Development.No final inspection for
occupancy for any Market-Rate Unit shall be completed for the Residential
Development or for any phase of the Residential Development until the applicant
has constructed the Inclusionar Units required in the approved Mfordable Housing
Plan for the Residential Development or for any phase of the Residential
Development by subsection 30-16-4 or completed corresponding alternative
performance under subsection 30-16-
Subsection 30-16-Requirements for Inclusionary Units.
a. Eligibility Requirements. No Household may occupy an Inclusionary Unit
unless the City or its designee has approved the Household's eligibilty in accordance
with City-approved policies. Each Household that occupies a rental Inclusionary Unit
or purchases an owner-occupied Inclusionary Unit must occupy that unit as that
Household's principal residence.
b. Initial Sales Price of Owner-Occupied Units. The initial sales price of an
owner-occupied Inclusionary Unit shall be set so that the eligible Household wil pay an
Affordable Owership Cost. Resale and other restrictions on the Inclusionary Unit wil
be governed by the regulatory agreements, resale restrictions, deeds of trust or other
recorded agreements recorded against the Inclusionary Unit as approved in the
Affordable Housing Plan per Section 30-16-
c. Rent of Rental Units. Rental Inclusionary Units shall be offered to eligible
Households at an Affordable Rent.
Subsection 30-16-10 Continued Affordabilty.
a. Regulatory agreements, resale restrictions, deeds of trust and/ or other
documents acceptable to the City Manager, all consistent with the requirements of this
section, shall be recorded against Inclusionary Units and Residential Developments
containing Inclusionary Units. These documents shall legally restrict occupancy of
Inclusionary Units to Households of the income levels for which the units were
designed for a minimum of fifty-nine (59) years. The forms of regulatory agreements
resale restrictions, deeds of trust and other documents authorized by this subsection,
and any change in the form of any such document which materially alters any policy in
the document, shall be approved by the City Manager.
b. The resale restrictions required by subsection 30-16-10(a) shall allow the
City a right of first refusal to purchase any owner-occupied Inclusionary Unit at the
maximum price which could be charged to a qualified purchaser Household, at the time
the owner proposes a sale.
Subsection 30-16-11 Limited Uses of Fees.
a. Use and Disbursement of Fees. In-Lieu Fees collected under this section shall
be used in accordance with and in support of affordable housing as determied by the
City Manager. Expenditures of In-Lieu Fees shall be limited to direct expenditures for
capital projects or incidental non-capital expenditures related to capital projects,
including but not limited to pre-development expenses,land acquisition, construction,
rehabiltatioIl, subsidization, counseling or assistance to other governental entities,
private organizations or individuals to expand affordable housing opportunities to very
low-, low- and moderate-income households. Authorized expenditures also include,
but are not limited to, assistance to housing development corporations, equity
participation loans, grants, predevelopment loan funds, participation leases, loan or
other publici private partnership arrangements to develop affordable housing or other
public/private partnership arrangements. The In-Lieu Fees may be expended for the
benefit of either rental or owner-occupied housing. The In-Lieu Fees may not be used
to support operations, or on-going housing services not directly related to the
construction, acquisition, rehabiltation or preservation of affordable housing units.
b. Accounting of Fees. All In-Lieu Fees shall be deposited into a segregated
account and all expenditures of funds from the same shall be documented and included
in an annual report that shall be made available for public inspection.
Subsection 30-16-12 Adjustments, Waivers.
a. Adjustment. The requirements of this section may be waived, adjusted or
reduced if an applicant shows that there is not a reasonable relationship between the
impact of a proposed Residential Development on the demand for affordable housing
in the City and the requirements of this section or that applying the requirements of this
section without the requested waiver, adjustment or reduction would constitute a
taking in violation of the United States or California Constitutions or be otherwise
ilegal. Under current law, mere economic hardship or dimiution in value does not
constitute an unlawful taking of property. Such a request shall be made in writing and
fied with the Planng and Building Department at the time of initial submittal an
application for approval of a Residential Development and/ or as part of any appeal
from a decision regarding such an application. The request shall state completely and
in detail: (i) the requested waiver, adjustment or reduction of the requirements, (ii) the
factual basis for the request, and (Hi) the legal basis of this request. If the Plannng
Board determies that the requirements of ths section lack a reasonable relationship to
the impact of a proposed Residential Development on demand for affordable housing
in the City or that those requirements constitute a taking in violation of the United
States or California Constitutions, the requirements of this section shall be modified,
adjusted or waived to the extent necessary to avoid an unconstitutional result or ilegal
outcome.
b. Appeal Procedure. The applicant, a member of the public or a member of
the City Councilor Planng Board may appeal a determiation under this ordinance
with ten (10) days after the decision under subsection 30-21.11. Appeals shall be
heard pursuant to Section 30-25.
c. Fee for Adjustment Request or Appeal. The cost of the consideration of a
request for adjustment or waiver of the requirements of ths section and appeal shall be
borne by the applicant in an amount set forth in the Master Fee Resolution of the City
Council.
Subsection 30-16-13 Community Improvement Project Areas.
This section shall not apply to Residential Developments in the City'
Community Improvement Project Areas as long as the Community Improvement
Commssion adopts separate resolutions or policies pertaining to inclusionary housing
requirements in such areas.
Subsection 30-16-14 Enforcement.
a. Misdemeanor Violation. It shall be a misdemeanor to violate any provi ion
of this Section. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, it shall be a
misdemeanor for any person to sell or rent to another person an Inclusionary Unit
under this Section at a price or rent exceeding the maximum allowed under this Section
or to sell or rent an Inclusionary Unit to a Household not qualified under this Section. It
shall further be a misdemeanor for any person to provide false or materially incomplete
information to the City or to a seller or lessor of an Inclusionary Unit to obtain
occupancy of housing for which he or she is not eligible.
b. Additional Enforcement Mechanisms. In addition to the penalties provided
in this Subsection, any violation of this Section may be redressed by any enforcement
mechanism, including but not limited to a civil action, described in Section 1-5, Penalty
Provisions; Enforcement, of this Code.
Section 2 Severabilty. If any section, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase
of the Ordinance or any part thereof, is for any reason held unconstitutional, invalid, or
ineffective by any court of competent jurisdiction, said decision shall not affect the
validity or effectiveness of the remainig portions of this Ordinance, or any part
thereof. The City of Alameda City Council hereby declares that it would have passed
each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase herein,
irrespective or the fact that anyone or more sections, subsections, subdivisions,
paragraphs, sentences, clauses, or phrases be declared unconstitutional, invalid, or
ineffective.
Section 3 Publication. The City Clerk shall either (a) have this Ordinance
published once within 15 days after adoption in a newspaper of general circulation in
accordance with Section 36933(a) of the California Government Code, or (b) have a
sumary of this ordinance published twice in a newspaper of general circulation, once
five days before its adoption, and again within 15 days after adoption in accordance
with Section 36933(c) of the California Government Code.
Section 4 Effective Date. This Ordinance becomes effective thrty (30) days
after its final passage and adoption.
NOTICE. No judicial proceedings subject to review pursuant to Californa Code of Civil
Procedure Section 1094.5 may be prosecuted more than ninety (90) days following the date of
this decision or final action on any appeals plus extensions authorized by California Code of
Civil Procedure Section 1094.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 26th day of January, 2004 by the Planing Board of the
City of Alameda by the following vote:
AYES:(5)
(0)
Bard, Cook, Lynch, Mariani , Piziali
NOES:
ABSENT:(1)Cunningham
ATTEST:
Gregory Fuz, Secretary
City Planing Board
City of Alameda
Inter-department Memorandum
J anuaI"y 22 , 2004
To:Members of the Planning Board
From:Cynthia Eliason Ct:.Planning Manager
Re:ZT A-03-0006 - City of Alameda - Ordinance to add inclusionary housing
requirement forresidential projects (Citywide) and continuation ofZTA-03-
0005 (Second Units) and ZT A-03-0007 (Density Bonus Ordinance)
BACKGROUN
In May 2003 , the City Council adopted a new Housing Element , a mandatory element of
the City s General Plan. The Housing Element contains the City s housing policies and
includes a number of implementation measures. These implementation measures range
from development of assistance programs to changes to zoning designations and
regulations.
In August 2003 , the City received conditional certification of the Housing Element by the
. State Department of Housing and Community Development. The certification was
predicated upon the City performing certain actions. In accordance with the Housing
Element and State certfication letter, the City has begun to implement the Element. The
Planning Board initiated three zoning ordinance amendments on July 8 , 2003.
On November 10, the Planning Board held a public workshop to receive input on the
proposed amendments to the second unit regulations, a new ordinance for inclusionary
housing requirements and a density bonus ordinance. On December 8 2003 , the PlanningBoard held a public hearng on the second unit ordinance and inclusionary housing
ordinance (See Attachment 2). The Planning Board raised several questions about the
ordinances and directed staff to make certain changes to the second unit ordinance in
paricular to address public concerns. In order to provide more attention to each
individual ordinance , staff is separating the ordinances for Planning Board consideration.
The focus for this evening s hearng is the inclusionary housing ordinance.
Planning Board
Staff Report
Meeting of January 26 , 2004 Page 1
Attachment #2
ANAL YSIS
The Planning Board and public expressed the following concerns at the December 8
2003 meeting regarding the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (See Attachment 3):
In Lieu Fee.Both the public and the Planning Board were concerned about the in-lieufee, how it would be calculated and to what developments it would apply. Both the
public and the Planning Board expressed a desire for units to be constrcted rather than
fees paid. For this reason , the abilty to pay an tn-lieu fee is very narowly defined and
permitted. The inclusionar housing ordinance applies to residential developments of five
or more units. Only developments between 5 - 9 residential units may pay an in-lieu fee.
Developments of 10 or more units must construct the affordable housing unites).
As the December 8 , 2003 Planning Board staff report indicates, the fee is estimated at this
time to be $14 , 735.00 per project dwellng unit. Below is a table indicating how muchwould be collected , based on the size of the development.
SIZ FEE PER AMOUNT TO BE PAID
5 uni ts $14 , 735.00 per unit $73 675.
6 units $14 , 735.00 per unit $88 410.
7units $14 , 735.00 per unit $103 145.
8 units $14 , 735.00 per unit $117 880.
9 units $14 , 735.00 per unit $132 615.
Development cost of a new market rate dwellng unit is $271 000.00 per unit according to
the Keyser-Marston study (March 2002). The Keyser-Marston study is the most recent
study the City has regarding residential development costs and therefore, represents the
best available data for setting the in-lieu fee. The estimated required assistance , per unitdepends upon whether or not the unit is rental or ownership and what income level of
support is required. Very low-income ownership units require the maximum subsidy of
$183,000.00 while moderate-income ownership units require less. The fee was calculated
based on an average of the subsidies. For example, the proposed in-lieu fee for a 9-unit
development would generate sufficient funds for development of a moderate-income unit
and would almost generate sufficient funds for subsidy of a lower income unit
($133 800.00/unit).
Planning Board
Staff Report
Meeting of January 26 2004 Page 2
City Manager Discretion and Review Authority.There was public concern expressed
about the discretion of the City Manager to: 1) allow the affordable units to be
constructed off-site, 2) make aIangements for alternative performance , 3) assure
acceptable documents are recorded , and 4) consider adjustments to the requirements if the
applicant believes the requirement to be a taking.
The ordinance has been modified to clarify implementation and require the approval of a
Affordable Housing Plan. The Affordable Housing Plan is typically presented with the
development proposal and is evaluated by staff alongside the development. Since most
development projects would require review by the Planning Board and/or City Council,
their review and approval is specified. Any use of these alternative provisions would be
noted in the staff report to the Planning Board and/or City Council. The Planning Board
must approve any off-site construction.
The right of the City Manager to assure that any administrative documents are acceptable
and appropriate is set forth in Article vn of the City Charer. Consistent with the Zoning
Ordinance where these proposed regulations wil reside , references to the City Manager
have been changed to Planning and Building Director or Planning and Building
Deparment (which act as the City Manager s designee). Decisions of the Planning and
Building Director or the Planning Board can be appealed under this ordinance in the same
manner as any other development requirement with the same noticing requirements , fees
and time frame. The appeals section has been modified to reference the existing appeal
provisions in the Zoning Ordinance.
Occupancv Standards.Planning Board member Cunningham questioned whether there
were guidelines for unit occupancy to prevent over-crowding. According to the Housing
Authority Executive Director , there are occupancy standards for Alameda Housing
Authority units, which are reviewed at the time of eligibilty. Staff is recommending that
units be distributed using a lottery system for larger projects. In order to be considered in
the lottery, familes must qualify in terms of eligibilty, including famly size.
Improvements to Dwellngs.Planning Board member Cunningham had questioned
whether or not modifications to the affordable housing units would be permitted.
According to the Housing Authority Executive Director , the covenants and agreements
signed between the City and the property owner in projects of the Alameda Housing
Authority explain improvements and have provisions for equity sharing in the event of
increase in value of the unit. According to Housing Development Manager, the more
Planning Board
Staff Report
Meeting of January 26, 2004
Page 3
recent covenants contain a resale fonnula that allows owners to adjust their cost basis by
the value of capital improvements, and use that adjusted basis to calculate a maximum
resale price. Similar covenants wil be used in implementation of this ordinance.
However , homeowners could also face loss if the value exceeds the price range for that
level of income.
Affordable Housing Guidelines for Residential Development.Staff is continuing to work
on the draft Affordable Housing Guidelines referenced in the Ordinance. These guidelines
wil serve to provide guidance to developers of inclusionar housing projects both within
and outside of redevelopment areas. The guidelines specify location and design standards
for affordable units. The guidelines wil address public comments regarding the abilty to
cluster or disperse inclusionar units. The guidelines are proposed for adoption Citywide
and wil be brought back to the Planning Board for public review prior to adoption at a
later date.
RECOMMNDA TION
Staff recommends the Planning Board hold a public hearng, review pertinent information
and documents , then act to:
Recommend approval of Zoning Text Amendment , ZT A-03-0006 , based upon
the findings contained in the attached Draft Resolution; and
Continue ZTA-03-0005 and ZTA-03-0007 until the Planning Board meeting of
February 9,2004.
Attachments:
1. Draft Resolution - Inclusionar Housing Ordinance
2. Planning Board Staff Report dated December 8, 2003
3. Planning Board Minutes of December 8 2003
G:\PLANNING\PB\REPORTS\2004\Januar 26\incIusionar housing ord.DOC
Planning Board
Staff Report
Meeting of Januar 26 , 2004 Page 4
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
ZT A-03-0006 - City of Alameda - (CE) Ordinance to add inclusionary housing
requirement for residential projects (Cityde) and consideration of the Draf
Affordable Housing Guidelines for Residential Development; and continuation of
ZTA-03-0005 (Second Units) and ZTA-03-0007 (Density Bonus Ordinance)
(Continued from the Planning Board meeting of December 8, 2003.
Planing Manager Cynthia Eliason summarized the staff report, and requested continuation
of the Draf Affordable Housing Guidelines for Residential Development and ZT A-03-0005
(Second Units) andZTA-03-0007 (Density Bonus Ordinance). The Second Unit Ordinance
would be brought before the Board during the next regularly schedu1ed meeting, and the
Density Bonus Ordinance would be heard during the following meeting.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Edward Murhy noted that he had inquired about the agenda for this meeting before
Januar 16 , 2004 , and was informed by Mr. Valeska that it wou1d be only the Second Unit
Ordinance. He noted that the agenda had all three ordinances on it, and that he had directed
all of his attention on the details ofthe Second Unit Ordinance. He did not believe that ths
item was properly agendized, and requested that the item be continued. He inquired when the
agenda was revised, and did not believe it shou1d be changed at the last minute. He noted that
Mr. Valeska was no longer in attendance , and could not provide more information regarding
ths issue.
In response to an inquiry by President Piziali , Mr. Fuz confirmed that the thee ordinances
were on the previous agenda , and were all continued to ths date. Staff focused on one
ordinance each night, so that sufficient time may be allocated for the Board's and the public
attention. He noted that the agenda had been revised the previous week to make minor
corrections , and emphasized that the agenda was not revised the same day as the meeting.
Mr. Murphy inquired whether the Second Unit had ever been a single agenda item.
Ms. Eliason replied that as Mr. Fuz indicated , all of the items had been continued to this
meeting, and staff requested that Board examine only one of them. She advised that at no
time was the Second Unit Ordinance the only item on the agenda.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Ms. Eliason noted that staff received two pieces of correspondence , one from Mr. Murhy
and another letter regarding second units. Staff did not provide those letters this evening
because the Second Unit Ordinance was to be continued; they wil be provided to the Board
when the Second Unit Ordinance is discussed.
Planing Board Minutes
Januar 26 , 2004
Attachment #3
In response to an inquiry by Mr. Lynch, Ms. Eliason advised that the Second Unit Ordinance
should be heard on Februar 9 , 2004 , and the Density Bonus Ordinance should be heard on
Februar 23 2004. The Housing Element was adopted in May 2003 , and these Ordinance
should have a 30-day notice for an April or early May City Council meeting.
Mr. Fuz advised that staffs recommendation was to continue the other two ordinances to
Februar 9, 2004.
MIS Bard/Cook and unanmous to adopt Planing Board Resolution No. PB-04-14 to
(recommend to City Council) Ordinance to add inclusionar housing requirement for
residential projects (Citywide), and to continue of the Draft Affordable Housing Guidelines
for Residential Development, andZTA-03-0005 (Second Units) andZTA-03-0007 (Density
Bonus Ordinance) to the Planng Board meeting of Februar 9 2004.
AYES - 5 (Cunnngham absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAI - 0
Plannng Board Minutes
Januar 26 2004
Page 11
Cit of Alanleda
Int.er-department Memorandum
December 8,2003
To:President Piziali and
Members of the Planning Board
From:Cynthia Eliason
Advanced Planning Manager
Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch
Planner il
Re:Zoning Ordinance Amendments to: 1) construct second units , 2)
administer land use controls to make the construction of affordable
housing feasible , and 3) to provide density bonus and other incentives to
developers who propose to construct affordable housing.
BACKGROUND
On November 10 , 2003 , the Planning Board held a study session to consider
implementation of ordinances pertaining to second dwelling units , inclusionary housing
outside of redevelopment areas and density bonus regulations. Input provided by the
public and members of the Board is reflected in this staff report and in the attached draft
ordinances.
ANALYSIS
Second Unit Ordinance.
At the work session , the Planning Board provided direction on the size , location , andstandards. The Board cautioned that second units should not have a negative impact on
urban design and aesthetic of the R-l zone. Staff has integrated these changes into the
attached draft ordinance.
Planning Board
Staff Report
Meeting of December 8 , 2003
Page 1
Attachment #4
Criterion Existing Proposed Mandated by
State?Minimum Size
.. .
May be established 350 sq ft 150 sq. ft.Maximum size through conversion of Lesser of 1.000 sq ft or Not specifiedexisting floor space 25%
within the living area of
a single family residence
or additio n to an existing
single family residence
not to exceed ten (l 0('*,)
percent of the existing
living area.
A ttached to Main unit Yes Yes YesDetached from Main Yes Yesunit
Attached second unit Yes, but unclear about Yes , administrative N/Aconforms setbacks of non-conforming Variance tor residencesmain buildings of residences.with non-conformingdistrictsetbacksDetached second unit N/A Yes N/Aconforms setbacks of
main buildings of
district
Height (attached unit)As specified by the As specified by the N/A
district and subject district and subject
Design Review Design ReviewHeight (detached unit)N/A One story N/ARental only Yes Yes N/AParkingOne space per bedroom One space per bedroom Max standard: One
max 2 spaces -max :2 spaces space per bedroom -
max 2 spacesDesign Review Yes Yes N/ARequired
This amendment win create a definition for Second Unit which will take the place of
Servants Quarters in the Glossary. The outdated definition of Servants Quarters will be
removed.
Planning Board
Staff Report
Meeting of December 8 , 2003
Page 2
Second Unit all attached or a derached re.'Iidemial dwelling IInir ll'lzich
provides complere independel1 livil/g faciliries for one or 11ort' persons. Ir shall
include penncl1ent provisionsfor, cooking and sanitatioll on the saT/e parcel as
the prillClY dwelling is situated.
The intent is to treat Second Units as a class of dwelling units that will be subservient
the pJimary dwelling in size and use. This restriction is consistent with the spirit and
intent of Government Code Section 65852.150, which states:
The Legislature.fnds and declares that .econd units are a valuable form of housing
ill Cal(fornia. Second units provide housing for family members, students , rheelderly, in-home health care providers, the disabled, and others. at below market
prices within existing neighborhoods. Homeowners who create second Ifnits benefit
.Ii"011 added income , and an increased sense of security.
Inclusionarv Ordinance.
The Planning Board requested additional information about how other cities have
implemented similar ordinances. Attached is a report entitled "Inclusionary Housing in
California: A Decade of Progress " prepared by the California Coalition for Rural Housing
to provide comparative information. The Planning Board provided specific direction
regarding in-lieu fees in teJms of applicability, calculation and unit distJibution.
In-Lieu Fee.
The in-lieu fee is intended to subsidize the difference between the total development cost
of a unit and the average affordable sales price of a unit. For the sake of establishing a
baseline , both the sales price and the total development cost per unit are based on the
Keyser-Marston Memorandum dated March 29 , 2002 and adjusted for inflation. Legal
Counsel has advised staff that an Inclusionary Ordinance is more legally defensible if a
viable in-heu option is identified. The Planning Board suggested that only a small
window be created for the allowance of an in-lieu fee , consistent with the Housing
Element goal of the construction of affordable housing, not the collection of monies , to bea top priority of the City of Alameda. Staff reviewed these different criteria when
establishing the new threshold. It was determined that a threshold couJd be set that would
only allow for use of the in-lieu fee option for projects that are calculated to require up to
one affordable unit. The new standard would be implemented as follows: An appJicantwishing to buiJd five to nine new dwellings would be eligible to pay an in-lieu fee or
Planning Board
Staff Report
Meeting of December 8 2003 Page 3
build one affordabJe unit. However, an applicant wishing to build ten units would lose the
choice to pay the in-lieu fee and would be required to build two affordabJe units as a part
of the project.
The Planning Board raised questions as to the method of caJculation of the affordable
units to be provided. The following is a table which iJlustrates the number and
distlibution of affordable units , based upon the number to be developed. This table is
included in the draft ordinance.
Total
Units
Developed
Incl usionary
Units Income Levels
5 to 9
10 to 16
17 to 23
24 to 29
30 to 36
37 to 43
44 to 49
50 to 56
57 to 63
64 to 69
1 moderate
1 moderate , 1 low
1 moderate, 1 low, 1 very low
2 moderate , 1 low, 1 very low
3 moderate, 1 low, 1 very low
3 moderate , 2 low, 1 very low
3 moderate , 2 low, 2 very low
4 moderate , 2 low, 2 very low
4 moderate, 3 low , 2 very low
5 moderate , 3 low, 2 very low
For projects of more than 69 units , the ordinance provides for a percentage alJocation of
affordable units aI10cated for each applicable income category.
The Planning Board also expressed concern about how to ensure that the City of Alameda
is' utilizing a process for calculating the in-lieu fee that results in an amount that is legally
defensible and is reflective the true high cost of constructing the necessary unit. The onlyfiscal analysis that the City of Alameda has on affordable housing construction is the
Keyster Marston memorandum, cited in our current Housing Element. Therefore, these
numbers , adjusted for inflation , are the best legally defensible source of information for
setting the in-lieu fee for the construction of a dwelling.
Planning Board
Staff Report
Meeting of December 8 , 2003 Page 4
As discussed in the report included as Attachment 4 , the amount collected via in-lieu feesdiffer greatly throughout the state. The example given on page 12 compares Patterson '
fee of $7 340 per affordable unit required with Santa Cruz County which charges
$272 889 per affordable unit. Within this range , the in-lieu fee of $14 735 per dwelling
unir constructed falls between the two extremes. If , for example , the construction of nine
nev.o' dwelling units were proposed , this approach would resuh in a total in-lieu fee
payment of $132.615.00.
In-lieu fees co!1ected in the implementation of this ordinance wiJl be kept in a dedicated
account and expended only in the support of affordable housing. Examples
appropriate uses of the monies include: direct expenditures for capital projects or
incidental non-capital expenditures related to capital projects , including but not limited to
land acquisition , construction , rehabilitation , subsidization , counseling or assistance to
other govemmental entities , private organizations or individuals to expand affordable
housing opportunities to very low-, low- and moderate-income households. Specificlanguage to this effect is included in the draft ordinance.
Unit Distribution
The Planning Board suggested adding wording that would aHow the clustering of units
opposed to the even distribution of inclusionary units , if efficiency is created. This
language has been noted and wil be considered in the discussion of the Inclusionary Unit
standards cU1Tently being Co-wl;tten by the Planning and Building Department and
Development Services staff and will be brought to the Planning Board in the late winter.
Density Bonus Ordinance.
Staff is continuing to work on refining the State Model Ordinance to reflect Alameda
unique requirements. Additionally, staff is reviewing recent Jegislation (Assembly Bill 305)
regarding availability of a density bonus for projects with childcare facilities to ensure
compliance. This ordinance wil be presented to the Planning Board for consideration at a
later date.
RECOMMENDA TION
Staff recommends the Planning Board hold a public hearing, consider all pertinent
infonnation then act to recommend to the City Council to:
Planning Board
Staff Report
Meeting of December 8 , 2003 Page 5
1) Adopt Zoning Text Amendment ZA03-0005, a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to
allow the construction of second units: and
2) Adopt Zoning Text Amendment ZA03-0006 , a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to
create an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance.
Staffs further recommends the Planning Board continue the discussion of the Density
Bonus Ordinance to January 26 2004.
A TT ACHMENTS
1. Draft Resolution - Second Unit Ordinance
2. Draft Resolution - Inc1usionary Housing Ordinance
3. Planning Board Staff Report Dated November 5, 2003
4. Inclusionary Housing in California: A Decade of Progress (Included for Planning Board
and available on file in the Planning and Building DepaJ1ment)
G ;\PLAN N ING\SPECPROJ\Murgarel\i ndusionary-ufforduble-2nd\Dccem bel' 8 1'13 .DOC
Planning Board
Staff Report
Meeting of December 8 , 2003 Page 6
ZA03-0005/ZA03-0006/ZA03-0007 - City of Alameda - Citywide (MKL).Consideration of amending the Zoning Ordinance to: 1) construct second units, 2)
administer land use controls to make the construction of affordable housing feasible
and 3) to provide density bonus and other incentive to developers who propose to
construct affordable housing.
President Piziali noted that the public hearing would be held at this meeting, and that no
Board action would be taken. This item will be continued to the Planning Board meeting of
Januar 26 , 2003.
Mr. Fuz advised that staff would like the Board to consider all three ordinances as a package;the draft ordinance relating to density bonus was not completed yet. The other twoordinances were available to the Board in ordinance form for the first time. The public
hearng would be reopened on January 26, 2004.
President Piziali advised that 13 speaker slips had been received.
MIS CunninghamIynch and unanimous to reduce the speakers ' time to three minutes.
A YES - 6 (Bard absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
The public hearng was opened.
Mr. Tom Matthews, Renewed Hope , thanked staff for the forward movement regarding these
ordinances, paricular with respect to inclusionary housing. He was pleased they would be
presented as a package in January, and added that Renewed Hope would recommend some
changes to the ordinance. He noted that regarding the in lieu fee , they did not receiveAttachment 4 which addressed in lieu fees in a variety of cities. Renewed Hope did not
understand how the in lieu fee of $14 735 was set. He noted that the Keyster Marston study
stated that $47 000 was adequate for a moderate income unit , $147 000 for rental units forvery low income residents , and $73 000-183,000 for a for-sale unit. He did not believe the
fee was strong enough to encourage people to construct , as opposed to paying the fee. He
noted that the requirements set for different numbers of units at various income levels did notaIlow a developer to build more low and very low income units.
Mr. Matthews noted that the ordinance allowed the affordable units to be developed off-site
Planning Board Minutes
December 8,2003
Page 12
Attachment #5
with the City Manager s authorization. Renewed Hope was concerned about that part of the
ordinance , and would Iike to see the affordable housing integrated with the rest of the
housing in the community.
Ms. Eve Bach , ARC Ecology, concurred with Mr. Matthew s comments. She expressedconcern about the discretion given to the City Manager to either waive or reduce therequirements. ARC Ecology believed that would create constitutional problems for thisordinance. She cited case law for inclusionary ordinances that judges relied on when they
found the ordinances not to be a taking, and noted that they must be applied uniformly. The
discretion given in Sections 30-16-6(b), 30-16-7(c), 30-16-1O(a), and 30-16-12 would givethe City Manager the discretion to apply this in a way that would subject the ordinance to
heightened scrutiny if it were chaIIenged as a taking. She believed that would make the
ordinance vulnerable , and suggested .that the City attorneys examine the ordinance very
carefuIIy. She added that the Section 30-16-12 also provided for appeal if the managerexercised discretion because someone believed the ordinance was already a taking. She notedthat it was unclear whether anyone would know that the decision had been made
, and thatnotification of the City Manager s decision was not required. She noted that it would be
difficult to meet the ten day appeal period , and suggested that a section be added to require
public notification of such decisions.
Mr. Christopher Buckley wished to address the second unit ordinance , and noted that he hadsent a letter to the Board. He noted that under State law , the City was required to aIIowsecond units by right; currently, second units were aIIowed with a Use Permit. He wasconcerned that the ordinance should be written to meet the requirements of State law
, whilesti)) preserving the character of Alameda s neighborhoods , paricular the R -1 neighborhoods.He believed the standards set forth in the draft ordinance should be strengthened to help
preserve that character. He included several examples of other cities ' ordinances that weresIightly stronger. He noted that with respect to the minimum lot sizes that would include a
by-right second unit , Paragraph D of the Zoning regulations set forth various requirements
for development in that zone , including minimum height , bulk , space , and lot sizes. Hebelieved those provisions did apply to the second units , and would take precedence over item1 of his letter.
Mr. Buckley beIieved that having an owner/occupancy requirement for each unit would be
important in order to maintain a high level of proprietorship for the units
, and added thatthere was ample precedent for that requirement. He agreed with staff's detel1ination that the
City could perfonn discretionary Design Review for second units. However , the State law
Planning Board Minutes
December 8 2003 Page 13
was drafted somewhat ambiguously. Other cities had made determinations that the Design
Review must be ministerial , and determined by standards. He believed that distinction should
be clarified with the City Attorney.
Mr. Don Patterson agreed with Mr. Buckley s comments, and requested that the size of the
units be examined more carefully. He noted that Alameda was the third most dense
community in the Bay Area, behind San Francisco and Daly City. He did not believe that a
suburb like Orinda would apply to Alameda, and added that their average lot sizes
constituted a very large lot in Alameda. He believed that the detached units were very
important, and added that design issues , open space , pervious surfaces , parking turnaround
and functionality were equally important. He believed that a lot between 6 000-500 square
feetwould be required for second units. He requested that the Board address tandem parking.
Ms. Jean Sweeney spoke in opposition to this item. She realized that the State requires that
the ordinance be enacted , but noted that because Alameda was a charer city, and not a
general law city, that the City may not be required to go forward with the ordinance. She
believed that single family zoning in town was under attack. She disagreed with the abilty of
the City Manager to make decisions about inclusionary housing. She believed the ministerial
nature of that action took away the public s right to review , and inquired whether it would
affect the homeowners associations.
Mr. Ed Murphy noted that the comments of previous speakers highlighted the potential for
future litigation , and believed that the Board would face a Solomon-like decision. He was
pleased that there would be more time to consider this decision. He noted that he owned R-
andR-5 property, which had primarily single famly homes; he inquired whether he would be
able to place a second unit on those lots. He was unfamiliar with ministerial land use
controls, and inquired how that would be administered; he was concerned that people would
not be treated equally under the law. He inquired whether the developers would receive
incentives to provide affordable housing irrespective of Article XXVI of the City Charer. He
noted that he had opposed Measure A , but never suggested that it should be bypassed.
Ms. Pat Baile expressed concern about the possibilty of Measure A being usurped by this
ordinance. She noted that there had been movement in the community that Measure A should
be either abolished or amended. She strongly opposed the abolition of Measure A. She
inquired whether this new rule would apply to homeowners association; if it did not , that
would leave Old Alameda to be subject to these rules. The lot size requirements for the
second units would apply only to the older homes in town , which would put the older
Planning Board Minutes
December 8 , 2003
Page 14
structures in jeopardy. She did not wish to see additional square , boxy apartments with no
provision for off-street parking in town. She inquired whether the beneficiaries of this
ordinance would be CUITent or future residents of Alameda , and noted that this was a quality
of life issue. She understood the need for more housing and low cost housing, but she did not
believe this was the COITect approach to take.
Mr. Jim Sweeney believed strongly that this ordinance should not be approved , and believed
that it would kil many of Alameda s neighborhood. He noted that it would adversely impact
traffic , and that more green space would be paved over.' He believed this would adversely
affect the quality of life in Alameda , and was disappointed to find that there were already so
many second units in town. He did not believe the ministerial application of the ordinance
was an appropriate addition.
Mr. Tom Bilings, 1607 High Street , spoke in support of this item. He noted that since his
wife passed away, he has wished to build a cottage behind his home so that he could live in a
more manageable and easy-to-navigate house. He noted that the implementation of the
second unit ordinance would enable him to rent the main house and stay in Alameda.
Mr. Robert Chasse noted that he was a long-time resident Alameda , and believed that the
City s leaders wished to turn Alameda into a low-income community. He did not believe his
neighbors would support the increase in density and traffic , which would make life more
difficult for older people.
Ms. Arlene Ken" spoke in opposition to this item , and noted that she had lived in Alameda for
most of her life. She was dismayed to see the increase in density, and understood that there
was sufficient low-income and Section 8 housing in town. She believed that more market-
rate housing would bring more income to the City. She was strongly opposed to any change
to Measure A.
Mr. Ray Bolton spoke in opposition to this item. He believed that this ordinance would be
end run around Measure A , and believed thatit provided incenti ve for more densi ty in town.
He noted that traffic and parking were already seriously impacted, and that higher density
would exacerbate those problems.
The public hearing was closed.
Planner il Kavanagh-Lynch advised that staff was available to answer questions.
Planning Board Minutes
December 8,2003
Page 15
Mr. Lynch believed that part of the Housing Element issue was a matter for Ci ty Council aselected policy-makers , not for the Planning Board. He noted that conformance with State
law , and the decision whether to litigate , fell within the purview of the Council. He refelTedto the December 8 , 2003 , letter from ARC Ecology and Renewed Hope , and requested that
staff clarify the computation of the in lieu fee at the next meeting.
Mr. Fuz advised that the $14 735 in lieu fee applied for each unit; a nine unit project would
require an in lieu fee of $132 615. The in lieu fee did not apply to projects larger than nine
units, and that the developer would be required to actually provide the affordable units.
Mr. Lynch noted that Alamedans were not residents of only a homeowners association, but of
the City, and believed that major policy decisions affected every resident. He noted that it
appeared on the surface that residents were being separated with respect to quantifiable
aspects of their homes and uses, and requested clarification from staff.
Ms. Han-yman advised that she would research that issue before the next meeting. She
. believed that , for instance , if the hot tub/gazebo applicant had requested a second unit , thatwould be an acceptable use. If the CC&Rs stated that was not a permitted use , she believedthat State law would trump the CC&Rs. She believed that the law would apply tohomeowners associations , and would give a more detailed response at the next meeting.
In response to President Pi zi ali ' s question regarding a general law city, Ms. Kavanagh-Lynchadvised that documentation distributed by HCD addressed that issue. It was HCD's stancethat this ordinance specificaIJy applied to charer cities, as well as general law cities.
Ms. Kavanagh-Lynch advised that the State did not set a maximum square footage for an
efficiency unit; the model language suggested 1 200 square feet. Guidance from the Board at
the previous meeting set the square footage at 1 000 square feet or 25% of the size of the
primar dwelling on the lot.
Ms. Kavanagh-Lynch advised that conformance to the setbacksof attached second units from
the main buildings in the district was not stipulated in the State regulations. The draft
Ordinance included an administrative Varance for residences of nonconfOlming setbacks
which was in line with the existing (k) & (1) standards.
Planning Board Minutes
December 8 , 2003 Page 16
With respect to height in an attached unit , Ms. Kavanagh-Lynch stated that it was specified
in the district in existing regulations , and was subject to Design Review. The proposed draft
Ordinance echoed that same language; the State does not speak specifically to that issue.
Staff proposed in the Draft Ordinance that detached second units be limited to one-story; the
State was silent on that issue as well.
With respect to the unit being a rental-only unit, both the existing and proposed Code state
that it would be; State Code was silent on this issue.
Ms. Kavanagh-Lynch further stated existing second units must have one parking space per
bedroom, with a maximum of two spaces. That language was echoed in the proposed
ordinance , and that reflected the maximum State standard for off-street parking for the
second uni 1.
Ms. Kavanagh-Lynch addressed Mr. Buckley s inquiry regarding Design Review. The City
of Alameda believed that the use was ministerially permitted, but the design required a
Design Review. Staff did not find a specific statement by the State one way or the other.
Mr. Fuz advised that the City was required by law to submit the ordinance to HCD for their
review and comment. He noted that the Housing Element review was still pending final
action by HCD.
Mr. Cunningham believed that criteria in the Inclusionary Ordinance should be set by family
size as well as income. He believed that the smallest units would not be appropriate for a
family of four people or more , and did not wish to exclude them.
Ms. Eliason noted that staff would be presenting at the next meeting development guidelines
for the inclusionary units. Some of the ordinance language being suggested reflected the
concern that the low and moderate income units not be identifiable as such. She noted that
issue would be addressed at the next meeting.
Mr. Cunningham inquired whether expansion or modification of those units would be
alIowed to accommodate a larger family. Ms. Eliason advised that the Inc1usionary
Ordinance and the guidelines were currently silent to that issue. Staff believed that the
residents of those units would have the right of any homeowner to add on to their home in
conformance with the Municipal Code.
Planning Board Minutes
December 8 2003
Page 17
In response to an inquiry by Mr. Cunningham, Ms. Eliason replied that the units were deed
restricted as far as the income levels. If a homeowner made an addition that increased the
value of the home , they would not necessarily be able to recoup that expense upon sale of the
unit. She noted that some cities in California had a way of balancing equity and the length of
ownership. Staff suggested a 59 year cap that could be renewed at the City s discretion, and
added that keeping affordable units affordable was a primary concern.
In response to an inquiry by Ms. Cook, Ms. Eliason noted that those examples did not match
. and added that the State held the City to a per bedroom standard not a square footage
standard. If a second unit were to be added , the homeowner would be required to add one
parking space for the first bedroom , and one parking space for a second bedroom.
Ms. Cook noted that she would rather encourage development of new space within the
existing historic buiJding envelope , rather than put an additional unit in the back.
Mr. Lynch suggested that staff examine the existing policy, and make it consistent what
would be adopted. Ms. Eliason noted that staff would do that to the extent that was possible.
No action was taken. This item wil be continued to the Planning Board meeting of January
2004.
Planning Board Minutes
December 8,2003
Page 18
CITY OF ALAMEDA ORDINANCE NO. 292
New Series
AMENDING THE ALAMEDA MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING NEW SECTION 30-
(INCLUSIONARY HOUSING REQUIREMENT FOR RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS) TO
CHAPTER XXX (DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS)
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Alameda that:
Section 1 The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding a new
Section 30-16, "Inclusionary Housing Requirement for Residential Projects," to Chapter
30, Development Regulations, thereof to read:
30-Inclusionar Housing Requirement For Residential Projects
Subsection 30-16-Purpose.
Subsection 30-16-Findings.
Subsection 30-16-Defintions.
Subsection 30-16-4 Inclusionar Unit Requirements.
Subsection 30-16-Exemptions.
Subsection 30-16-Alternatives.
Subsection 30-16-Incentive.
Subsection 30-16-Compliance Procedures.
Subsection 30-16-Requirements for Inclusionar Units.
Subsection 30-16-10 Contiued Mfordabilty.
Subsection 30-16-11 Limted Use of Fees.
Subsection 30-16-12 Adjustments, Waivers.
Subsection 30-16-13 Communty Improvement Project Areas.
Subsection 30-16-14 Enforcement.
30-16-Purpose.
The purpose of ths section is to (a) implement the goals and objectives of the
Housing Element of the City of Alameda General Plan, (b) mitigate the impacts onhousing affordabilty caused by new residential development, and (c) meet the need for
housing affordable to persons of very low-, low- and moderate-income.
30-16-Findings.
a. California and the City of Alameda face a serious housing problem that
threatens their economic security. Persons of very low-, low- and moderate-income are
experiencing increasmg difficulty in locating and maintaing adequate, safe and
sanitary affordable housing. Lack of access to affordable housing has a direct impact
upon the health, safety and welfare of the residents of Alameda. Alameda wil not be
able to contribute to the attainent of State housing goals or to retain a healthy
environment without additional affordable housing. As noted in the City's Housing
Element, a regional shortage of affordable housing is contributig to overpayment for
housing accommodations, someties leading to temporar or permanent homelessness.
b. A lack of new Inclusionary Units wil have a substantial negative impact
on the environment and economic climate 'because (i) housing wi have to be built
elsewhere, far from employment centers and therefore, commutes wil increase, causing
increased traffic and transit demand and consequent noise and air pollution, and (ii)
City businesses wil find it more difficult to attact and retai the workers they need.
Inclusionar housing policies contribute to a healthy job and housing balance by
providing more affordable housing close to employment centers.
c. Development of new market-rate housing encourages new residents to
move to the City. These new residents wi place demands on services provided by
both public and private sectors. Some of the public and private sector employees
needed to meet the needs of the new residents ear incomes only adequate to pay for
affordable housing. Employees who are unable to fid afordable housing in the City
wi be forced to commute long distances. Ths situation adversely impacts on their
quality of life, consumes limted energy resources, increases trafc congestion and has a
negative impact on air quality.
d. Increasing the production and avaiabilty of afordable housing is
problematic. Prices and rents for affordable housing remai below the level needed to
attact new constrction. At the same tie, escalatig land costs and rapidly
dimshig amounts of land avaiable for development hider the provision of
affordable housing unts solely though private action. Federal and state fuds for the
constrction of new affordable housing are inufficient to fuly address the problem of
affordable housing withi the City.
e. The City wishes to retain an economicaly balanced community, with
housing available to very low-, low- and moderate-income households. The City'
General Plan implements the established policy of the State of Californa that each
community should foster an adequate supply of housing for persons at all economic
levels.
f. It is appropriate to impose some of the cost of the increased burden of
providing housing for very low-, low- and moderate-income persons directly on the
developers, and indirectly upon the occupiers, whose developments necessitate the
need for such housing. In addition to the demands on services from such
developments, new development without affordable units contributes to the shortage of
affordable housing. Zonig and other ordinnces concerning new housing in the City
should be consistent with the community's goal to foster an adequate supply of housingfor persons at all economic levels.
30-16-Definitions.
As used in this section:
Affordable Rent shall mean monthy rent (including utiity allowance) that does
not exceed one-twelfth of 30 percent of the maximum anual income for a Household of
the applicable income level (Very Low-, Low- or Moderate-Income).
Affordable Housing Guidelines shal mean guidelies adopted by the City Council
to specif location and design standards for Inclusionar Units.
Affordable Housing lan shal mean a legaly binding agreement between
Developer and the City to ensure tht the requirements of ths Chapter are satified.
The Affordable Housing Plan establishes the number and location of Afordable Units,
production schedule and other standards.
Affrdable Ownership Cost shal mean a sales price tht results in a monthy
housing cost (including mortgage, inurance, utities, taxes, assessments and home
owner association costs, if any) that does not exceed one-twelfh of 30 percent of themaxum anual income for a Household of the applicable income (Very Low-, Low-
or Moderate-Income).
Household sha mean one person living alone or two or more persons sharing
residency whose income is considered for housing payments.
Inclusionary Unit shal mean a dwellg unt that must be offered at Affordable
Rent or available at Afordable Housing Cost to Very Low-, Low- or Moderate-Income
.Households.
In-Lieu Fee shal mean the fee described in Subsection 30-16-6(a) that is paid to
the City as an alternative to the production of inclusionar housing, which fee shal be
used in accordance with Subsection 30-16-11.
Low-Income Household shall mean a Household whose annual income does not
exceed the qualifing limts set for "lower income households " in Section 50079.5 of theCaliforna Health & Safety Code. '
Market-Rate Unit shall mean a dwelling unt in a Residential Development that is
not an Inclusiona Unit.
Moderate-Income Household shall mean a Household whose anual income does
not exceed the qualifying limits set for "persons and families of low or moderate
income " in Section 50093 of the Californa Health & Safety Code.
Residential Development shall mean any planed development district,
subdivision map, conditional use permt or other discretionary land use approval that
authorizes the construction of residential dwelling unts.
Very Low-Income Household shal mean a Household whose anual income does
not exceed the qualifing limts set for livery low income households " in Section 50105
of the California Health & Safety Code.
30-16-4 Inclusionar Unit Requirements.
a. Unit Requirement. For all Residential Developments of five (5) or more
units, at least fieen percent (15%) of the total unts must be Inclusionar Units
restrcted for occupancy by Very Low-, Low- or Moderate-Income Households. The
number of Inclusionar Units required for a parcular project wil be determed only
once, at the tie of project approval. If a change in the Residential Development design
results in a change in the total number of unts, the number of Inclusionar Units
required wil be recalculated to coincide with the fial approved project.
b. Calculation. For purposes of calculatig the number of affordable units
required by ths subsection, any additional units authorized as a density bonus under
Californa Governent Code Section 65915(b)(1) or (b)(2) wi not be counted in
determg the required number of Inclusionar Units. In determg the number of
whole Inclusionar Units required, any decimal fraction less than 0.5 shal be rounded
down to the nearest whole number, and any decimal fraction of 0.5 or more shal be
rounded up on the nearest whole number.
c. Types ofInclusionary Units: Four percent (4%) of the total units must be
restricted to occupancy by Low-Income Households; four percent (4%) of the total
must be restricted to occupancy by Very Low-Income Households; and seven percent
(7%) must be restricted to occupancy by Moderate-Income Households. For Residential
Developments with sixty-nie (69) or fewer total units, InclusionarUnits shal be
. restricted for occupancy by very low-, low- or moderate-income households in the
following proportions, which are based upon the above calculations:
Total
Units
Inclusionar
Units Income Levels
5t09
10 to 16
17 to 23
24 to 29
30 to 36
37 to 43
44 to 49
50 to 56
57 to 63
64 to 69
1 moderate
1 moderate, 1 low
1 moderate, 1 low, 1 very low
2 moderate, 1 low, 1 very low
3 moderate, 1 low, 1 very low
3 moderate, 2 low, 1 very low
3 moderate, 2 low, 2 very low
4 moderate, 2 low, 2 very low
4 moderate, 3 low, 2 very low
5 moderate, 3 low, 2 very low
d. Affrdable Housing Guidelines. Inclusionar Units built under ths section
must conform to the Affordable Housing Guidelines adopted by the City Council.
30-16-Exemptions.
The requirements of th section do not apply to:
a. Reconstrction. The reconstrction of any strctues that have been
destroyed by fie, flood, earthquake or other act of nature provided that the
reconstrction takes place with thee (3) years of the date the strctues were'
destroyed.
Residential Developments of four (4) units or less.
c. Residential building additions, repairs or remodels. Residential building
additions, repais or remodels; provided, that such work does not increase the number
of existing dwellg unts beyond four (4) unts.
d. Affrdable housing projects. Residential Developments that already have
more dwelling unts that qualif as affordable to Very Low-, Low- and Moderate-
Income Households than ths Section requires.
e. Residential Developments with approved maps. Residential Developments for
which a tentative map or vestig tentative map was approved , or for which a building
permit was issued, prior to the effective date of the ordinance codified in this Section
and which contiue to have unexpired permts.
30-16-Alternatives.
a. In-Lieu Fees. For Residential Developments of nie (9) or fewer units,
including Inclusionary Units, the requirements of this section may be satisfied by
paying an In-Lieu Fee. The fee wil be set by the City Council by resolution and shall be
sufficient to make up the gap between (i) the amount of development capital typically
expected to be available based on the amount to be received by a developer or owner
from Affordable Housing Cost or Affordable Rent, and (ii) the anticipated cost of
constrctig the Inclusionar Units. Fees shall be paid upon issuance of building
permits for Market-Rate Units in a Residential Development. If building permts are
issued for only par of a Residential Development, the fee amount shall be based only
on the number of units then permtted.
b. Offsite constrction. Inclusionar Units may be constrcted off-site if thePlang Board can make a finding that the purposes of ths section would be better
served by the constrction of off-site units. In determg whether the purposes of
ths section would be better served by ths alterntive, consideration should be given as
to whether the off-site units would be located in an area where, based on avaiabilty of
affordable housing, the need for such units is greater than the need in the area of the
proposed development.
30-16-Incentive.
The City may provide the following incentive to a developer who elects to satify
the inclusiona housing requirements of th section by producing Inclusionar Unitson the site of the Residential Development.
a. Expedited Processing. Eligibilty for expedited processing of development
and permt applications for the Residential Development.
Subsection 30-16-Compliance Procedures.
a. Conditions to car out the purposes of ths section shal be imposed on
the approval of any Residential Development to which ths section pertai.
b. As part of the application for a Residential Development, the applicant
shall submit an Affordable Housing Plan demonstratig compliance with ths section.
The Affordable Housing Plan must include: (i) a description of the number and size of
each Market-Rate Unit and each Inclusionar Unit, including the income levels to which
each Inclusionar Unit wil be made affordable, (ii) a narative describing how the plan
adheres to the Affordable Housing Guidelines adopted by the City Council, and (ii)
site map, with the location of the Inclusionar Units clearly marked.
c. The Affordable Housing Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the
decision-making entity concurrently with the Residential Development in accordance
with the procedures in the Alameda Municipal Code. The Affordable Housing Plan
shall be made a condition of approval of the Residential Development and shal berecorded by the applicant together with any implementig regulatory agreements,
resale restrictions, deeds of trust and/ or simar implementing documents as a
restriction on the parcel or parcels on which the Affordable Units wil be constructed
d. The Planng Board shall review any applications requestig off-siteconstruction withi their Affordable Housing Plan. The Affordable Housing Plan shall
include a site map of the off-site location, a description of the arrangements made for
constrction at that site and demonstration that the proposed off-site construction
complies with Section 30-16-6(b). Off-site construction may only be approved in
accordance with Subsection 30-16-6(b).
e. Al Inclusionar Units shal be constrcted and occupied as specifed
the approved Affordable Housing Plan concurrently with or prior to the constrction
and occupancy of Market Rate Units uness certication is obtaied from the Plang
and Building Director that the applicant has met, or made arangements satisfactory to
the City to meet, an alternative procedure set fort in subsection 30-16-6. In phased
Residential Developments, Inclusionar Units sha be constrcted and occupied in
. proportion to the number of units in each phase of the esidential Development. No
final inpection for occupancy for any Market-Rate Unit shal be completed for the
Residential Development or for any phase of the Residential Development untilthe
applicant has constrcted the Inclusionar Units required in the approved Affordable
Housing Plan for the Residential Development or for any phase of the Residential
Development by subsection 30-16-4 or completed corresponding alternative
performance under subsection 30-16-6.
30-16-Requirements for Inclusionar Units.
a. Eligibility Requirements. No Household may occupy an Inclusionar Unit
unless the City or its designee has approved the Household's eligibilty in accordance
with City-approved policies. Each Household that occupies a rental Inclusionar Unit
or purchases an owner-occupied Inclusionar Unit must occupy that unit as that
Household's principal residence.
b. Initial Sales Price of Owner-Occupied Units. The intial sales price of an
owner-occupied Inclusionar Unit shal be set so that the eligible tfousehold wil pay anAffordable Owership Cost. Resale and other restrctions on the Inclusionar Unit wil
be governed by the reguatory agreements, resale restrictions, deeds of trst or other
recorded agreements recorded againt the Inc1usionary Unit as approved in the
Affordable Housing Plan per Section 30-16-
c. Rent of Rental Units. Rental Inclusionar Units shall be o#ered to eligible
Households at an Affordable Rent.
30-16-Continued Mfordability.
a. Regulatory agreements, resale restrictions, deeds of trust and/ or other
documents acceptable to the City Manager, all consistent with the requirements of this
section, shal be recorded agait Inc1usionar Units and Residential Developments
containg Inclusionary Units. These documents shal legally restrict occupancy of
Inclusionar Units to Households of the income levels for which the unts were
designed for a mium of fity-nie (59) years. The fonn of reguatory agreements,
resale restrictions, deeds of trst and other documents authorized by this subsection,
and any change in the form of any such document which materialy alters any policy in
the document, shall be approved by the City Manager.
b. The resale restrictions required by subsection 30-16-10(a) shall allow the
City a right of fist refual to purchase any owner-occupied Inclusionar Unit at the
maximum price which could be charged to a qualified purchaser Household, at the tie
the owner proposes a sale.
30-16-11 Limited Uses of Fees.
a. Use and Disbursemet of Fees. In-lieu Fees collected under ths section sha
be used in accordance with and in support of affordable housing as determed by the
City Manager. Expenditues of In-lieu Fees shal be limted to direct expenditues for
capital projects or incidental non-capital expenditues related to capital projects,
including but not limted to pre-development expenses, land acquiition, constrction,
rehabiltatipn, subsidization, counseling or assistance to other goverental entities,
private organations or individuals to expand affordable housing opportnities to very
low-, low- and moderate-income households. Authorized expenditues also include,
but are not limted to, assistance to housing development corporations, equity
participation loan, grants, predevelopment loan fuds, participation leases, loan or
other public/private parership arangements to develop afordable housing or other
publici private partnership arrangements. The In-lieu Fees may be expended for the
benefit ()f either rental or owner-occupied housing. The In-lieu Fees may not be used
to support operations, or on-going housing services not directly related to the
constrction, acquisition, rehabiltation or preservation of affordable housing unts.
b. Accounting of Fees. AIl In-Lieu Fees shall be deposited into a segregated
account and all expenditures of funds from the same shall be documented and included
in an anual report that shall be made available for public inpection.
30-16-Adjustments, Waivers.
a. Adjustment. The requirements of ths section may be waived, adjusted or
reduced if an applicant shows that there is not a reasonable relationship between the
impact of a proposed Residential Development on the demand for affordable housing
in the City and the requirements of ths section or that applying the requirements of this
section without the requested waiver, adjusbnent or reduction would constitute a
takg in violation of the United States or California Constitutions or be otherwse
ilegal. Under current law, mere economic hardship or dimution in value does not
constitute an unawfu takg of propert. Such a request shal be made in wrtig andfied with the Plang and Building Deparent at the tie of intial submittal an
application for approval of a Residential Development and/ or as par of any appeal
from a decision regardig such an application. The request shal state completely and
in detai: (i) the requested waiver, adjusbnent or reduction of the requirements, (ii) the
factual basis for the request, and (ii) the legal basis of ths request. If the Plang
Board determies tht the requirements of th section lack a reasonable relationship to
the impact of a proposed Residential Development on demad for afordable housing
in the City or that those requirements constitute a takg in violation of the United
States or Californa Constitutions, the requirements of ths section shal be modifed,
adjusted or waived to the extent necessar to avoid an unconstitutiona result or ilegaloukome.
b. Appeal Procedure. The applicant, a member of the public or a member of
the City Council or Plang Board may appeal a determiation under this ordinancewith ten (10) days after the decision under subsection 30-21.11. Appeals sha be
heard pursuant to Section 30-25.
c. Fee for Adjustment Request or Appeal. The cost of the consideration of a
request for adjusbnent or waiver of the requirements of ths section and appeal shall be
borne by the applicant in an amount set forth in the Master Fee Resolution of the CityCouncil.
30-16-Community Improvement Project Areas.
Ths section shall not apply to Residential Developments in the City'
Communty Improvement Project Areas as long as the Communty Improvement
Commssion adopts separate resolutions or policies pertaig to inclusionary housing
requirements in such areas.
30-16-Enforcement.
a. Misdemeanor Violation. It shall be a misdemeanor to violate any provision
of this Section. Without limtig the generality of the foregoing, it shall be a
misdemeanor for any person to sell or rent to another person an Inclusionary Unit
under this Section at a price or rent exceeding the maximum allowed under this Section
or to sell or rent an Inclusionar Unit to a Household not qualified under ths Section. It
shall further be a misdemeanor for any person to provide false or materially incomplete
inormation to the City or to a seller or lessor of an Inclusionar Unit to obtain
occupancy of housing for which he or she is not eligible.
b. Additional Enforcement Mechanisms. In addition to the penalties provided
in ths Su section, any violation of th Section may be redressed by any enforcement
mechansm, including but not limted to a civil action, described in Section 1-5, Penaty
Provisions; Enorcement, of ths Code. '
Section 2 Severabilty. If any section, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase
of the Ordince or any part thereof, is for any reason held unconstitutiona, invald, or
ineffective by any cour of competent jursdiction, said decision shal not affect the
validity or effectiveness of the remaing portions of thi Ordiance, or any par
thereof. The City of Alameda City Council hereby declares that it would have passed
each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase herein,
irespective or the fact that anyone or more sectons, subsections, subdivU?ions,
paragraphs, sentences, clauses, or phrases be declared unconstitutional, invalid, or
ineffective.
Section 3 Publication. The City Oerk shal either (a) have ths Ordinance
published once with 15 days after adoption in a newspaper of general circulation in
accordance with Section 36933(a) of the Californa Governent Code, or (b) have a
sumar of thi ordinance published twce in a newspaper of general circulation, once
five days before its adoption, and agai with 15 days afer adoption in accordance
with Section 36933(c) of the Californa Governent Code.
Section 4 Effective Date. Ths Ordinance sha be in full force and effect
from and after the expiration of thty (30) days from the date of its fial, passage.
NOTICE.. No judicial proceedigs subject to review pursuat to Calforna Code of Civil
Procedure Section 1094.5 may be prosecuted more than niety (90) days following the' date of
ths decision or fial action on any appeals plus extensions authoried by Californa Code ofCivil Procedure Section 1094.6. .
Attest:
Cui1?JL
Lara Weisiger, City c(k
City of Alameda
*****
I, the undersigned, hereby certfy that the foregoing Ordiance was duly and reguarly
adopted and passed by the C uncil of the City of Alameda in a reguar meetig assembled 0:0 the 15
day of June, 2004 by the followig vote to wit:
AYES:Councilembers Giore , Mataese, and Mayor Johnon - 3.
NOES:Councilmembers Daysog and Ken - 2.
. ABSENT:None.
ABSTENTIONS:None.
IN WITNSS , WHREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and afed the offcial seal of said City ths
16th day of June, 2004.
Wti;
Lara Weisiger, City Cler
City of Alameda
PUBLIC NOTICE
CITY OF ALAMEDA
NonCE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Alameda CI Council wil hold Public Hearings In
rJ%I
~~~~~~~
l.s288I,:l
g: ~~~~~~~~~~~~
k Street, Alameda,
1) adoption of a resolution confirming the Business Improvement Area
Business Imp
~~~~~
lgnh: gl
~~~~
:os e"nJ on the Alameda2) Introduction of an ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by
')'t ectlon 30-16, Incluslonary Housing Requirement for Residential
Interested persons are Invited to attend and be heard on the matter.
LARA WEISIGER
City Clerk
Legal Alameda Journal #2283
Publish May 11, 200
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
(2015.5 C.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of Alameda
I am a citzen of the United States, I am over the age of
eighteen years, and I am not a part to or interested In the
above-entitled matter. I am a foreman or principle clerk ofthe printer and publisher of the Alameda Journal, a
newspaper published in the English language In Alameda
County, State of California.
I declare that the Alameda Journal is a newspaper of general
circulation as defined by the laws of the State of California
as detennlned by the order of the Superior Court of the
County of Alameda. dated August 25, 1992 , in the action
entitled "In the Matter of the Petition of the Alameda Journal
to Have the Standing of the Alameda Journal as a
Newspaper of General Circulation Ascertined and
Established," Case Number 702515-6. Said order provides
that: "Petitioner's prayer for an order ascertining and
establishing The Alameda Journal as a newspaper of
general circulation...withln the City of Alameda. County of
Alameda , State of California, is granted." Said order has not
been revoked.
I declare that the notice, a printed copy of which is annexed
hereto, has been published in each regular and entire issue
of the Alameda Journal and not in any supplement thereof
on the following dates to wit:
Mav 11.
all in the year of 2004
I certfy (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the
foregoing is tre and correct.
Signatur
Proof of Publication of:
(attched is a copy of the legal advertsement that published)