NOTICE AND AGENDA
CITYOF UNION CITY
GARYSINGH, Mayor
SCOTT SAKAKIHARA, Vice Mayor (District 4)
LANCE NISHIHIRA, Councilmember (District 1)
JAIME PATIÑO,Councilmember (District 2)
JEFF WANG, Councilmember (District 3)
CITYCOUNCIL
SPECIAL MEETING
Tuesday, February 11, 2025
6:00 PM
CityCouncil Chambers | 34009Alvarado-Niles Road, Union City, CA94587
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - Comments limited to items on the Special MeetingAgenda
4. STUDYSESSION
4.a. Study Session on Proposed Station East Phases 2 and 3 Residential Development
5. ADJOURNMENT
/s/ Thai Nam Pham
Thai Nam Pham, MMC, CPMC
City Clerk
MEETING INFORMATION
Regular City Council meetings are held in person on the second and fourth Tuesday of each month at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 34009 Alvarado-Niles Road, Union City, CA 94587.
Meetings can also be observed via Zoom: http://citycouncil-live.unioncity.org Meetings are broadcast live on UCTV Channel 15 and live-streamed on the City's website:
https://www.unioncity.org/199/City-Meetings-Video.
Public Comment: Members of the public cannot provide comments via Zoom unless specifically permitted, as detailed below. Remote access is subject to technical availability. If the Zoom platform or other technology fails, the City Council will proceed with the meeting in person unless prohibited by law.
Public Records: Documents related to agenda items are available for review on the City's website (https://www.unioncity.org) or during business hours at the City Clerk's Office, 34009 Alvarado-Niles Road, Union City, CA 94587.
Accessibility: If you require special assistance to participate in the meeting, please contact the City Clerk's Office at (510) 675-5448 at least 72 hours before the meeting. Closed captioning is available for all regular City Council meetings.
ADDRESSING THE CITY COUNCIL
In-Person Public Comment:
Members of the public may address the Council on any agenda item or during the Public Input portion of the meeting.
To speak, please fill out a speaker card with your name and city of residence. If you would like a follow-up from the City, you may also provide your mailing address. Completing a speaker card and providing your name, city, or mailing address are not required to make a public comment but are requested for record-keeping purposes.
Written Comment:
To submit written comments on an agenda item or during Public Comment, please email:
[email protected]. Include "public comment" in the subject line and reference the agenda item number.
Written comments will be forwarded to the City Council and made publicly available.
Public Comment via Zoom:
As noted above, the public may not address the Council via Zoom unless required byAB 2449. If the City is required to provide this opportunity, the Mayor will announce it at the beginning of the meeting. If allowed, raise your virtual hand on Zoom to indicate that you would like to speak on a specific agenda item.
CITY COUNCIL NORMS AND GUIDELINES
(Resolution No. 6129-23;Adopted May 23, 2023)
The Union City Council abides by the following norms:
1. We conduct ourselves in a professional manner, treat everyone with respect, and act with high integrity, always putting the interests of the City of Union City ahead of self-interests in accordance with our code of ethics.
2. We respect the Council-Manager form of government, and do not interfere with the City Manager's role or any professional duties of City staff.
3. We recognize that matters of confidential nature are to be kept private and undisclosed.
4. We respect each other's opinions and are supportive of each other's work advocating for the City, and we ensure that all voices are heard. We do not criticize others for having a different point of view, and we agree to disagree respectfully.
5. We understand that the City Council acts as a body, all members are equal, and policy direction is only given by a majority vote of the City Council. Once a decision is made, all members of the City Council must respect the City Council's direction.
6. We will be prepared for City Council meetings and ask our questions of the City Manager in advance so we can avoid surprising City staff at meetings.
7. We do not criticize City staff publicly or to others and will refrain from directing them. Instead, we will take our concerns and questions privately to the City Manager.
8. We will govern on an at-large basis, although elected by districts. We will maintain a citywide perspective and consider the needs and interests of the entire community.
9. We will continue to allocate resources based on long-term strategic priorities and efforts, with consideration of citywide service levels and financial capacity.
10. We understand customer service is the priority and each member of the City Council will help constituents regardless of the district in which they reside or from which a Councilmember themselves is elected.
11. We recognize the significant importance of attendance and participation at City Council meetings in proceeding with City business. All members of the City Council should endeavor to miss no more than two regular meetings per calendar year absent extraordinary circumstances. Members of the City Council should, absent unforeseen circumstances, provide a minimum of sixty days' notice to the City Council of planned absences during the Good of the Order or Items Referred by Council portion of the City Council agenda, as appropriate.
May these Council Norms be administered and enforced in the following manner:
1. Councilmembers have the primary responsibility to assure that ethical standards are understood and met by the Council, and that the public can continue to have full confidence in the integrity of government.
2. The Mayor and the Council have the responsibility to intervene when action of its members are in violation of Council Norms.
3. The City Council can review and revise the Council Norms as needed.
4. During City Council discussions, deliberations, and proceedings, the Mayor is designated with the primary responsibility to ensure that Councilmembers adhere to the Council Norms.
CERTIFICATION OF MEETING NOTICE AND AGENDAPOSTING
This notice and agenda were posted on the City's website and the City Hall bulletin board at least 72 hours prior to the meeting date, in compliance with the Ralph M. BrownAct. /s/Thai Nam Pham, MMC, CPMC
City Clerk/Secretary to the City of Union City Successor Agency Agenda Item
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Station East Staff Report Resolution
PowerPoint Presentation Attachment
1 Agenda Item
DATE: FEBRUARY 11, 2025
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: JOAN MALLOY, CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: STUDY SESSION ON PROPOSED STATION EAST PHASES 2 AND 3
RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
The purpose of this Study Session is to introduce the proposed Station East Phases 2 and 3 Residential Project (Project). Staff recommends the City Council accept the report and ask any clarifying questions.
No formal action will be taken at this meeting.
The Project site is owned by Integral Communities, who were the applicants for the Station East Residential / Mixed Use Project (i.e., Phase 1). The Project is proposed on two parcels (APN 87-23-14- 2 and 87-23-38) located west of Zwissig Way and south of the planned extension of Bradford Way. The
11.25-acre site is in the 7th Street Industrial Area within the boundary of the Station East subarea of the Station District. The proposal includes up to 262 for-sale, townhouse-style condominium units.
The staff report provides an overview of the policy issues associated with the Project:
1. General Plan / Station District Specific Plan Alignment
2. Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Transit Oriented Communities (TOC) Policy Alignment
3. Housing Element Compliance and Affordable Housing
4. Fiscal / Economic Development Considerations
5. Site Design / Circulation Issues
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT
The proposed change in land use was not contemplated in the Strategic Plan, although it does align with some aspects of the Strategic Plan, such as promoting housing development (Goal C, Strategy 5) and facilitating the buildout of the Station District Area (Goal C, Strategy 2). 2 BACKGROUND
Project Site
The approximately 11-acre Project site consists of two vacant parcels, APN 87-23-14-2 and 87-23-38 located west of Zwissig Way and south of the extension of Bradford Way within the 7th Street Industrial area (see Figure 1 below). The Phase 2 parcel is approximately 8 acres, and the Phase 3 parcel is approximately 3 acres. The site is bordered on the west by lands owned by Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (“District”) and Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E). APN 87- 230-15 (owned by the District) is an open flood control channel which bifurcates the two parcels for most of their length essentially creating a barrier and impeding circulation.
Figure 1: Vicinity Map
3 Station East Employment (SEE) Area Background
The Project site is in the 7
th Street Industrial area. The General Plan, Specific Plan and Zoning Ordinance envision the Station East Employment (SEE) area transforming into a higher-density employment center. The Project site is included in the Station East subarea, which is one of five subareas identified in the Station District Specific Plan (Specific Plan) adopted in 2022. See Figure 2 below for a figure from the Specific Plan showing the Station East subarea. The Specific Plan includes the following goal for this subarea:
“The Station East Subarea is planned to be a vibrant hub of innovation. The hub will include a significant cluster of technology and office uses and mixed-use housing options. New streets, bicycle/pedestrian facilities, plazas, parks, and greenways will foster a connected, urban environment that has direct access to the Intermodal Station and beyond.” The area currently accommodates several legal nonconforming industrial uses including warehouse and distribution, equipment rental, and legacy manufacturing including metal fabrication, some of which were established when the area was zoned Industrial. The SEE area was redesignated to facilitate higherintensity employment uses as part of the 2002 General Plan update. As part of that process, several parcels were granted “longevity agreements”, which allowed those sites to continue their operations allowed under the prior Industrial land use designation for a period of 30 years. These longevity agreements are set to expire in 2028 and include an optional 10-year extension.
Figure 2 also diagrams an east/west bicycle and pedestrian spine (Central Spine) that crosses properties owned by Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) and PG&E. The rail line is the Niles Subdivision that handles the current alignment of the Capitol Corridor passenger train and freight trains. High tension power lines are located on the PG&E lands that terminate at the PG&E substation located on Decoto Road.
The Central Spine has been a long-term vision for the City to link Station East to the core of the Station District and connect to the Intermodal Station (BART, bus, and future passenger rail). This proposed project would require the City to reevaluate this vision and any future alignment of the crossing.
In terms of new construction, the last development project in the area was completed in 2002 and included four industrial flex buildings totaling approximately 225,000 square feet. These buildings accommodate a variety of uses including Foxsemicon Technology, a Taiwanese company, who manufactures equipment that supports the semiconductor and medical industries. The addition of Foxsemicon to the area opens opportunities for business-to-business transactions and expansion of the semiconductor industry in Union City. The lack of new development since 2002 was part of the justification to redesignate land from industrial to residential in the area associated with Phase 1. It was with the hope that new development would facilitate redevelopment of the employment area (SEE) in a manner consistent with the economic development vision identified in the various policy documents.
Sales tax generation within the SEE area has varied over the years and is dependent upon the business mix. For several years, a business that manufactured and installed cold storage systems, located on Zwissig Way, was consistently within the City’s top 25 sales tax generators. They have since transferred their manufacturing operations to the Central Valley. Healthy Pets, an on-line retailer of pet supplies, is currently located in this area along with Safway Atlantic, a national company that provides hoist and scaffolding support to the construction industry.
4 Figure 2: Station East Subarea
Phase 1 Overview
The Station East Mixed Use Residential Project (shown as Phase 1 in Figure 3 below) was approved by the City Council in June 2021 for up to 974 multi-family units, 30,800 square feet of ground floor commercial space along Decoto Road, new parks, and a new circulation network spread throughout 11 Planning Areas (“PAs”). Project entitlements approved or certified at that time included: an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), various legislative amendments, a Development Agreement, and Tentative Tract Map. The original approvals were amended in May 2023 to allow up to 874 units, and again in July 2024 to reduce the total maximum units to 811 and the commercial square feet to 29,098 square feet. The Station East Mixed Use Residential development area includes approximately 26.5 acres that are bounded generally by Decoto Road, 7th Street, the PG&E overhead lines and railroad tracks, and Bradford Way. Station East lands were historically used for heavy industry (Air Liquide) and gladiola farming. Integral Communities purchased the Phase 2 and 3 sites at the same time they purchased the Phase 1 site.
5 Figure 3: Station East Phases, 1, 2, and 3
6 The Phase 1 area received Site Development Review approvals for PA 2, PA 3 (affordable housing site), PA 4, and PA 9/10. Site Development Review applications for PA 5/6/11A and PA 7/8 are currently under review. Integral Communities has sold the condominium sites (PA 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11A, and 11B) to Lennar, a homebuilder. USA Properties, an a multi-family developer with a focus on affordable housing, has an option to purchase PA 3.
Project Proposal
The Project includes up to 262 for-sale townhome style condominiums on approximately 11.25 gross acres (9.99 net acres), resulting in a net density of 26.23 units per acre (see Figure 4, below). Two different product types are proposed; both of which are walk-up three- and four-story buildings with two to four bedrooms. These product types are identical to what was previously approved in Phase 1 (PA 4 and PA 5, 6, and 11). Each dwelling unit has a two-car side by side or tandem garage. The applicant has referenced the area north of the flood control channel as Phase 2 and the area south of the channel as Phase 3.
Figure 4: Station East Phases 2 and 3
The proposal will require several legislative amendments including:
• General Plan /Specific Plan Map and Text amendments to re-designate the Project site from Station East Employment to Station East Mixed Use Residential and to adjust the Central Spine connection, which is shown going through the Phase 2 parcel. General Plan amendments to the Land Use Element and Housing Element and perhaps other elements are also required; • Zoning Map Amendment to change the site’s Zoning designation from Station East Employment (SEE) to Station East Mixed Use Residential (SEMU-R); and • Zoning Text Amendment to SEMU-R to reduce the average minimum density for the Zoning district from 50 units per acre to 40 units per acre.
7 Other entitlements may include:
• Tentative Subdivision Map to facilitate block configuration and creation of condominiums; • Development Agreement (DA) to establish any City requirements that are beyond those established in the Municipal Code, which may address Project phasing, fiscal impacts, affordable housing, or other community benefits (optional); and
• Site development review approval for building and site design, which may be deferred until after approval of the legislative amendments and Tentative Map.
CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) Review
The Project is required to undergo an environmental assessment to determine if there is the potential for significant environmental impacts. Staff is evaluating the potential for tiering off of one or both of the Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs) prepared for Phase 1 of the project and/or the Specific Plan to streamline any subsequent CEQA review. As part of any future CEQA review, Public Works staff noted the need to determine if a new traffic signal would be needed at any of the nearby intersections.
DISCUSSION
General Plan/Station District Specific Plan Alignment
The Project proposes to redesignate and rezone the site from Station East Employment (SEE) to Station East Mixed Use Residential (SEMU-R) to facilitate residential development. As described above, the General Plan, Specific Plan and Zoning Ordinance envision the SEE area, including the Project site, transforming into a higher density employment center. These documents also envision the SEE area as providing lands to facilitate a healthy housing / jobs balance within the Station District, at build-out, to provide a much-needed daytime population to support the viability of commercial uses. The Project proposes to redesignate approximately 20 percent of the existing 54.7-acre SEE area, or approximately 160,000 feet of projected office/flex-industrial uses of the total buildout for the area.
Density Requirements. The applicant is seeking to reduce the density requirements included in the SEMU-R zoning district to make the project financially feasible. Amendments to the SEMU-R Zoning District are required to lower the average density from 50 dwelling units per acre to 40 dwelling units per acre. No change is proposed to the minimum density of 25 dwelling units per acre.
The purpose of including an average density in the SEMU-R Zoning District was to provide flexibility to developers to provide a mix of unit types to increase the financial feasibility of projects but to also ensure that overall developments within the area meet State and regional goals for higher densities in transit-oriented areas. For example, townhome developments are the least dense product type (20-30 dwelling units per acre) but have the lowest per square foot construction costs, while multi-story apartment buildings are the most expensive to build and typically have a density of 75 dwelling units per acre. The “average density” calculation includes the development in Phase 1 along with the development proposed in Phase 2 and 3. Phase 1 has an average density of 51.46 units per acre. The addition of the Station East Phases 2 and 3 sites, which is designed at 26.23 units per acre, would decrease the average minimum residential density of Station East to 41.67 units per acre.
Staff requested that the developer consider a higher density product type on Phase 3 to bring up the average density to avoid the need for an amendment to the SEMU-R average density. The applicant 8 expressed concerns regarding the financial feasibility of the Project if they substituted a more expensive product type. To compensate for the reduction in density, staff is exploring increasing the amount of required affordable housing or other possible community benefits.
Central Spine Connection. Another potential amendment to the Specific Plan addresses the removal of the pedestrian/bicycle Central Spine Connection through the Phase 2 site. The Central Spine alignment included in the Specific Plan is shown to extend from the future east opening of the BART station through the Core Station District and into the Station East area.
The Public Works Department hired a consultant to begin initial design work for the Central Spine connection. The preliminary design concepts indicated there are feasibility issues due to UPRR and PG&E requirements for crossing their properties, which have evolved since the original Central Spine concept was developed in the late 90s. UPRR no longer allows under-crossings, which was an early concept. The bicycle/pedestrian structure must now cross over the tracks, and PG&E restricts structures on their property. Additional challenges include a requirement to accommodate bicyclists in order to qualify for transportation funding. To meet the ramp requirements for bicycles (and pedestrians) the footprint of the structure is significantly extended. Due to these feasibility issues and the staffing demand of other capital project priorities, this work was put on hold. Based on the known information, staff is not prepared to make a recommendation on the feasibility of the overcrossing in its current location. In response to this feedback, the applicant updated their site plan to remove the pedestrian connection and plaza located on their site.
Staff recommends the General Plan reference the challenges and be less specific about the location of the potential Central Spine connection. Such a shift in policy means that the current location as envisioned may not be workable and other alignments may need to be considered.
Staff further recommends that the Project entitlements retain the City’s ability to construct a connection to the shared use pathway that would run along the western edge of Phase 2 and 3 (near the PG&E and Alameda County Flood Control District properties), consistent with the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan.
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Transit-Oriented Communities (TOC) Policy Alignment
MTC adopted their TOC Policy (MTC Resolution 4530) to support the region’s transit investments by encouraging higher density and intensity of development around transit stations and along transit corridors. Compliance with the TOC Policy is voluntary, but future One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) funding cycles will prioritize funding to jurisdictions that are compliant with the TOC policy, beginning with OBAG 4 in 2026. In the past, the City received approximately $2.5 million in OBAG funds, which have supported infrastructure and long-range planning projects.
MTC’s TOC Policy Administrative Guidance provides detailed information on requirements and the process for confirming compliance. The TOC policy requirements include various land use provisions (e.g., density, parking, etc.) and affordable housing measures. The requirements for new development vary by station “Tier.” Union City’s BART station is classified as a Tier 2 station because it has two or more BART lines that utilize the station (Richmond and SF/Daly City lines). The required density for 9 new residential development for Tier 2 is 75 units/net acre or higher. The TOC area is defined as the ½-mile area from the center point of the Intermodal/BART Station and includes the Project site.
City staff expressed concerns to MTC staff that the TOC density/FAR requirements would have a negative impact on development within the Station District in the short- to medium-term. Feedback that we have heard from the applicant and other developers is that the combination of the current interest rates coupled with the average rents/unit price anticipated for the Union City market, make development of higher density housing much harder to finance.
Staff provided feedback to the applicant that the City will be amending its regulations to comply with the TOC policy by 2026 to ensure there will be no impact on the City’s ability to receive future OBAG funding. This means that entitlements for the Project must be completed prior to staff amending the Zoning Ordinance as the Project does not meet the TOC requirements. Staff needs a minimum of two months to bring amendments through the approval process, which means staff would need to start the hearing process in October 2025. Staff continues to reach out to MTC staff requesting more information on when the new regulations need be in place for the City to be in compliance but have not gotten any additional clarification. The applicant team is aware of this issue. We have advised them that to meet this deadline the project needs to quickly move through the entitlement process and to assist with that they need to be responsive to the feedback provided by the City.
Housing Element Compliance and Affordable Housing
The adopted Housing Element did not include the Project site as a housing opportunity site due to its non-residential designation. Additional market-rate housing proposed by the Project would provide a cushion should other for-sale housing projects not move forward.
The Station East Phases 2 and 3 Development Proposal Summary states. “The proposed project would look at various alternatives for satisfying the city’s affordable housing ordinance including the provision of additional income restricted units within the Station East project.” The applicant discussed with staff potentially using a similar arrangement to what was approved for Phase 1 to satisfy their affordable housing requirement by providing deed-restricted affordable rental units developed and managed by a third-party affordable housing developer. The City’s Affordable Housing Ordinance does allow for this arrangement subject to City Council approval. Staff is supportive of the approach as it provides much needed housing for low- and very low- income households.
The applicant discussed utilizing a portion of rental units approved in Phase 1 and located on PA 2 (a parcel fronting Decoto Road between 8th and 9th Streets), to satisfy the City’s affordable housing requirement for Phase 2 and 3. The development approved on PA 2 includes 47 rental units and ground floor commercial along Decoto Road. Due to the small size of the site, the development includes less than one parking space per unit, which is allowed per State law.
Fiscal / Economic Development Considerations
Requirement for Fiscal Analysis. As part of the 2040 General Plan update when the Phase 1 lands were re-designated to allow residential uses, the decision makers added Policy ED-1.4 and a related Implementation Program, which requires “Any re-designation of industrial or commercial lands to alternative uses shall be considered in a comprehensive manner that evaluates the impact on public 10 services (i.e., parks, police, and fire), sales tax, property tax, and the reduction of land that is dedicated to business activities, with the exception of sites identified as part of the Housing Element.” In response, the applicant is preparing a Fiscal Impact Analysis for their Project that will be peerreviewed by the City’s consultant. The applicant is still working on the Fiscal Impact Analysis. Staff will provide this information at a future meeting.
Station East CFD. The Phase 1 Development Agreement included details regarding the formation of a new Community Facilities District (CFD) for the Station East development. A CFD is an annual assessment levied on new development, which can cover a variety of items. The City has an existing CFD (“2006-01”), which pays for emergency services and park maintenance. The Station East area was part of a former Redevelopment project area that requires repayment of bonds until 2033 for the 2017 Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds and 2038 for the 2015 Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds. This temporarily reduces the amount of property tax that will be received by the City until the bonds are paid off. The Phase 1 Development Agreement required that the priority for the use of the CFD generated funds was to offset this deficit. The developer was also interested in using some of the CFD funds to pay for the construction of infrastructure to support Phase 1. Staff is currently in the process of working with the applicant on the CFD formation for Phase 1. Staff provided feedback to the applicant that the Phase 2/3 Project would be conditioned to require annexation into the newly formed CFD.
EDA Grant. The property is subject to a joint Financial Assistance Award from the federal Economic Development Administration (“EDA”) and, as such, are restricted to require employment generating uses on the property. To release the restriction, a portion of the Financial Assistance Award (the “Federal Share”) associated with the property must be repaid to the satisfaction of EDA. This was the arrangement included in the Phase 1 DA and is anticipated to also be required for the Phase 2 and 3 properties.
Community Benefits Package. The applicant provided feedback regarding the potential for a community benefit package to be included as part of the Project. To date, the applicant has not submitted a proposal. These funds could be used for a variety of things including capital projects, equipment, or staffing.
Potential for Land Use Conflicts. In areas where industrial uses are located adjacent to residential uses, there is potential for conflicts. Recent examples where the residential/industrial conflict has been problematic include Union City Labs at Whipple Road and Union City Boulevard and Bettencourt Way, which is a truck route. Nearby residents complain of truck and equipment noise generated by the businesses. As residential uses are proposed deeper into the 7th Street Industrial area (i.e., Phases 2 and 3), the potential for conflicts increases. Many of our businesses operate 24 hours and have the potential to generate noise in the late evening / early morning as well as odors and dust. As residential uses encroach further into industrial areas, there is potential for businesses to relocate to avoid dealing with complaints regarding their operations. There are also safety concerns regarding residential traffic sharing the same streets that large trucks utilize.
Staff provided some suggestions for minimizing the potential for conflicts between the Project and the adjacent industrial uses. These included utilizing the Bradford Way extension as the primary access to the development for the Phase 2 site to minimize the mixing of residential and industrial truck traffic.
Staff also recommended providing a land use buffer between the residential uses and the industrial uses across Zwissig Way like the Special Industrial zoning district along Alvarado-Niles Road and Whipple Road. Staff suggested the applicant consider providing for-sale industrial condominiums as a land use 11 buffer along the Zwissig Way frontage, which would be an effective buffer and provide a unique ownership opportunity for small business owners.
Site Design / Circulation Issues
Preliminary feedback from the City’s Development Review Committee (DRC) surfaced several concerns related to site design and circulation including:
• Roadway alignment with Phase 1 circulation system;
• Bicycle and pedestrian connectivity consistent with the adopted Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan;
• Compliance with Fire Department and Waste Management access requirements; • Need for amenities (i.e., tot lot, club house, and pool, etc.); • Provide adequate guest parking; and
• Coordination with the Flood Control District regarding public access and/or landscape treatment of the facility, which bifurcates the Project site.
Staff proposes to work with the developer to find acceptable solutions to these issues and any others that surface during review of the Project.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact to the general fund to accept the staff report. A fiscal impact study will be required to assess the long-term fiscal impacts of a change in land use on the Project site.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council accept the staff report and ask any clarifying questions. No formal action will be taken at this meeting.
Prepared by
Carmela Campbell, Economic and Community Development Director Leslie Carmichael, Consulting Planner
Submitted by
Carmela Campbell, Economic and Community Development Director Item 4.a
Station East Residential Project
Phases 2 & 3 Study Session
Purpose
Project Background
Project
Site
2040 General Plan – Station East
Station District
Specific Plan Phase 2
-3 Site
Station East Employment (SEE)
• SEE area envisioned as a higherdensity employment area – hub of innovation
• Central Spine – long term vision to
connect with BART
• Sales tax generation has varied
depending on uses
• Little new employment development in
the area since 2002
Longevity Agreements
Phase 1
Station East Phase 1 Phase 2-3 Site
Project Proposal
Architecture
Architecture
Project Entitlements - Initial
• General Plan / Specific Plan Map and Text amendments to change land use designation from SEE to SEMU-R and adjust average density and Central Spine alignment; other related amendments (i.e., Housing and Mobility Elements)
• Zoning Map Amendment from SEE to SEMU-R
• Zoning Text amendment to add reduce minimum average density for SEMU-R from 50 to 40 units per acre
• CEQA document – streamline based on previous EIRs
Project Entitlements - Subsequent
• Tentative Tract Map to facilitate block configuration and subsequent creation of condominiums
• Development Agreement to address fiscal impact, project phasing, etc.
• Site Development Review approval for building and site design (Will occur after above entitlements are obtained)
Project Considerations
General Plan (GP)/ Specific Plan (SP) Alignment
• SEMU-R Density Requirement – Average of 50
units/ac across all phases
• Project providing 41.67 units/ac
• Considerations of appropriate public
benefit
• Central Spine Connection
• Proposal to update GP/SP to remove from
Project Site
• Add language regarding feasibility issues,
need for additional study
MTC Transit Oriented Communities (TOC) Policy
• Part of Plan Bay Area 2050 implementation
• Tied to One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) Program
beginning in 2026
• TOC Policy for Tier 2 requires:
• Density of 75 units/net acre or higher
• Parking capped at 0.5 spaces/unit
• Policies regarding affordable housing,
commercial stabilization, parking
management, transit station access
• Requires City to amend zoning regulations
Housing Element and
Affordable Housing
• Phase 2/3 site not included in
Housing Element
• Would provide additional buffer for
RHNA
• Applicant has discussed using PA 2 -
47 rental units to satisfy affordable
housing for Phase 2/3
Fiscal / Economic Development
• Fiscal analysis
• Station East CFD
• EDA Grant
• Community Benefits
Considerations
• Potential for Land Use Conflicts
Site Design / Circulation Issues
Questions?