12 ATTACHMENTS 5-7 - Laserfiche WebLink

This site is owned by a hospital with no clear service mission to housing. Unlike other sites in the inventory, the report does not mention that the property owner has indicated an interest in developing the property for residential uses. What evidence does the city have of interest from the property owner for development within the 6th Cycle? Site 11 This site has fractured ownership, including a commercial condominium ownership. Has the city contacted each owner, including the commercial condominium owners, regarding interest in developing these parcels? Given the difficulty of land assembly due to fractured ownership for this site, does the city plan to increase densities above the baseline 30 DUs per acre to incent land sales for redevelopment? Site 28 A & B The inventory pegs this site as between 1000-1300 units. That represents up to a 1/4 of the city's RHNA. Unfortunately Site 28B is in unincorporated Alameda County and Site B is outside of the urban growth boundary (UGB)_ Given the timelines and political risk associated with incorporation and amendment to the UGB, this site should be removed from the 6th Cycle inventory because it is unlikely to be developed within the planning period. Regarding Site B, has the city contacted Alameda County to determine whether the County is considering the site for its Housing Element? If so, this is further cause to remove it from the site inventory. Thanks, Derek Sa ehorn Click h= to report this email as spam.