Tonight the Del Monte project will come before the Planning Board and the Planning Board will vote to adopt five distinct parts crucial to the Del Monte project moving forward:
A.) Adopt the draft Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt the Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration.
B.) Adopt the draft Resolution recommending that the City Council approve the Del Monte Master Plan and Density Bonus Application.
C.) Approve by motion a recommendation that the City Council approve the Development Agreement.
D.) Adopt the Draft Resolution approving the Del Monte Transportation Demand Management Program.
E.) Adopt the draft Resolution approving Del Monte Development Plan and Design Review for the Del Monte Plan.
Right now the developer still hasn’t decided on whether they want to put up the units for sale or for rent, but they will be subdividing the building in anticipation that they condos will be for sale. Given the state of the current housing market, if everything still holds the way it is now, they can probably sell for a nice chunk of change given the low supply of housing for sale in Alameda. The affordable units will not be for sale and will be for rent. The affordable housing units will be spread within the Del Monte building and another site will house the remainder of the units in a Shinsei Garden and Breakers at Bayport model. This allows for a skilled non profit developer to come in who has an understanding of cobbling together tax credits to successfully build affordable housing in the most cost effective way with necessary supportive services on-site.
In addition to the $2 million in cash and labor that will be directed toward the Beltline Park, the developer will need to pay $3.5 million in impact fees as well for open space as well as a 0.25% transfer fee every time a residential unit changes owners.
An additional $1.2 million in impact fees will be paid toward off-set public safety and infrastructure payments and the developer intends to build the Clement extension separate to the infrastructure impact fees including the cost of securing the necessary land from the current landowners.
The development will attempt to meet LEED Silver standards and…solar panels.
So here are the sticking points for most people because they either don’t understand or don’t believe that the plans will work even though they have proven successful in many many other developments, I’m just going to cut and paste from the staff report because it’s pretty well described:
Provision of Transit Services. Each housing unit in the project is provided with transportation services, provided by a non-profit Transportation Management Association (TMA). The TMA transportation services are funded through required annual assessments on each housing unit. In other words, the costs of transit services are “bundled” with the cost of the housing unit.
An annual fee of $350 will be accessed on each housing unit. The fee will increase annually with the cost of living. Commercial tenants will pay $0.55 per square foot per year, which will increase annually. These funds will be transferred to the TMA, which will provide the project residents and tenants with a variety of transportation services, including but not limited to:
· An AC Transit Easy Pass for use on all AC Transit routes. The Del Monte building is within a three block walk of the AC Transit O Line which provides excellent express service to downtown San Francisco, and the AC Transit Line 51 which provides service to Downtown Oakland BART, Fruitvale BART, Downtown Berkeley BART and a variety of other destinations in Alameda County.
· A Northern Waterfront TMA “Easy Pass” for use on all TMA provided bus, shuttle, and water taxi services.
And
Provision of On-Site Car Share Facilities. To minimize the need for residents to own multiple automobiles and reduce the need for parking, the project will provide a minimum of three (3) car share vehicles. As demand increases, the number of vehicles will increase. The vehicles will also be available for use by neighbors in the area, to reduce their need for multiple private automobiles.
And to address neighbor concerns and neighbor proposals on how to “fix” the project but simply increasing the number of parking spaces and bundling parking in with the cost of the housing:
1. Traffic and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Increasing the number of parking spaces and requiring that every household purchase at least two spaces will increase vehicle trips, increase traffic, and increase greenhouse gas emissions from the project. The State of California recently released recommended mitigations to reduce vehicle trips and greenhouse gas emissions from residential development projects. The State of California finds that reducing parking spaces and unbundling the cost of parking from the cost of housing reduces vehicle miles travelled and greenhouse gas emissions.
2. Amount of Parking. Staff believes the 415 spaces for 308 units is the correct number of spaces for this project. Given that the residents will be required to pay for transportation services and will have access to transit, car share, and bicycle facilities, the need for, and the desire to pay for, extra personal cars will be reduced. However, if every household in a one bedroom or studio unit owns one car (126 cars), every household in a three bedroom unit owns two cars (40 cars), and about half the households in the two bedroom units own one car (81 cars) and the other half own two cars (162 cars), there will be a need for 409 parking spaces for the 308 units. The project is providing 415 spaces. [emphasis added]
3. Car Ownership and the Adjacent Neighborhood. The average size of the units in the Del Monte building is significantly smaller than the average size of a home in the adjacent neighborhood. According to the US Census, households in the adjacent neighborhoods own approximately 1.6 cars per household. The Del Monte Building is parked to accommodate approximately 1.35 cars per household.
4. Car Ownership in East Bay Transit Oriented Developments. A 2009 study by University of California researchers Cervero, Adkins, and Sullivan of nine existing, occupied transit oriented residential projects in the East Bay communities of Walnut Creek, Pleasant Hill, San Leandro, and Union City found that actual demand for parking in these existing projects ranged from 0.92 to 1.23 spaces per unit.
5. Unbundled Parking Cost and Bundling Transit Costs. The trip reduction strategy for the project “bundles” the cost of transit with each unit, and “unbundles” the cost of parking, thereby making transit a required cost and parking and car ownership an optional cost. Unbundling parking costs can significantly reduce vehicle ownership, and therefore, reduce the need for parking. As shown in the figure below, as parking costs increase, car ownership rates decrease. Therefore charging for the parking will reduce traffic and reduce the need for parking spaces on the site.
Predictions: some neighbors will come to continue to lodge their objections about the project. Planning Board will approve, I’m guessing a maybe a 6 to 1 vote in favor, possibly 5 to 2 in favor. Even if it passes the Planning Board, the neighbors still have the City Council to bring their concerns to.
Personally I think it’s the best project of all the iterations that we have seen floated for this site. And I really liked the whole Asian market idea. The thing is if there was any way for any developer to develop a low impact, no housing, commercial only development for this site, it would have already been done a long time ago. If folks would be okay with a wholesale leveling of the Del Monte building I’m pretty sure that a low impact, no housing, commercial only development might be possible. (See Red Brick building as reference) But I don’t think anyone is advocating for that building to be bulldozed. Historic preservation is difficult and costly but for this particular site it is much valued and desired. It’s easy for all of us to sit back and say “why can’t it only be 100 units” or “why can’t there be three spaces for each of the units”, but that doesn’t pencil out for the developer. At this point, it’s a decision between this or continuing to have the Del Monte building as a warehouse with a daily dose of big rig exhaust.