12 ATTACHMENTS 1-2 - Laserfiche WebLink

Staff notes that, just prior to publication of this agenda report, a request was submitted by Steelwave USL, expressing interest in developing approximately 1,300 housing units on properties it owns within the East Pleasanton Specific Plan area. Given the timing of the submittal, staff has not had the opportunity to incorporate this site into the list of sites presented in this Agenda Report, but will address it in a supplemental memorandum that will be provided to the Planning Commission in advance of the November 10th meeting. At the meeting, the Planning Commission can provide direction as to whether further consideration of the Steelwave proposal should be included in the Housing Element Update process, similar to other sites discussed in this agenda report. Estimate of Site Capacity and Units at Various Income Levels The overall preliminarily -estimated capacity for each site/area is shown below in Table 5, allocated into the various affordability categories. For the purposes of this analysis, all high-density sites (30+ du/ac) are assumed to generate lower-income housing units, as allowed by State law. On this basis, if all 27 initially identified sites were to be retained and move onto the CEQA consideration, they would be able to conservatively accommodate a total of 4,846 units, including 3,437 very low- and low-income units and 1,409 above moderate -income units6. Considering total units, the capacity generated by all sites exceeds the projected shortfall/gap (3,143 units), by around 1,700 units. However, as previously noted, staff recommends the initial sites inventory build in a buffer of capacity that is at least 50 percent beyond what would be needed strictly to address the existing zoning shortfall, to allow flexibility to refine the list based on future inputs. Adding this buffer would result in the need to identify sites sufficient to accommodate at least 4,715 units (3,413 plus a 1,572 unit buffer) — this narrows the surplus considering all sites, to just 131 units. Considering the various affordability categories, as shown in the table, the assumption that all higher -density housing would produce lower-income units (only) results in a significant surplus of lower income units, and shortfalls in other categories. Notwithstanding other decisions that may be made about the inventory, the above analysis suggests the following guiding parameters: • The City can, and should, assume that at least some portion of its moderate- and above - moderate RHNA will be accommodated on high-density sites. • It will likely be necessary to designate at least some lower -density sites for housing, since there is insufficient capacity to accommodate the total shortfall on higher -density sites; alternatively, additional sites could be considered for higher density housing, or densities increased on some additional high-density sites. • There is some flexibility to adjust the overall sites list at this stage (i.e. eliminate some sites from consideration), and/or adjust capacity assumptions downward, although the margin is not substantial if a buffer of sites capacity is included in the planning estimates 6 As a conservative estimate, staff is assuming the average density of all recommended density ranges at this stage in the evaluation. Housing Element Update Planning Commission 12 of 19