Laserfiche WebLink
The preliminary estimated capacity for each site/area is shown in Table 4, allocated into the <br />various affordability categories. <br />For the purposes of this analysis, all high-density sites (30+ du/ac) are assumed to generate <br />lower-income housing units, as allowed by state law. On this basis, if all 29 initially -identified <br />sites were to be retained and move onto the CEQA consideration, they would be able to <br />conservatively accommodate a total of 6,629 units, including 4,109 very low- and low-income <br />units (high-density sites) and 2,520 above moderate -income units3. Compared just to the <br />baseline "gap," using all of the sites would yield more than twice the total number of units <br />needed, including more high density units than needed to meet the lower-income RHNA. <br />However, as previously noted, the Planning Commission supported the inclusion of a "capacity <br />buffer" in the initial inventory of at least 50 percent, to provide a conservative basis for the <br />CEQA analysis and allow flexibility to refine the list based on future inputs. Inclusion of this <br />buffer would result in the need to identify sites sufficient to accommodate at least 4,715 units <br />3,413 plus a 1,572 -unit buffer). Therefore, considering all 29 sites, estimated to yield a total of <br />6,629 units, there would be a surplus even beyond the "50 percent capacity buffer" of <br />approximately 1,914 units. For high-density sites, the yield of units would also exceed that <br />needed to accommodate the lower-income RHNA. <br />Based on the above capacity analysis, staff suggested, and the Planning Commission <br />concurred, the following guiding parameters in developing the initial inventory: <br />The City can, and should, assume that at least some portion of its moderate- and <br />above -moderate RHNA will be accommodated on high-density sites, not just lower- <br />income RHNA. <br />Although high density sites alone could accommodate the entire RHNA4 (exclusive of <br />the buffer), having at least some sites designated at densities below 30 du/ac would <br />provide more flexibility in building the inventory and accommodate a greater diversity of <br />housing types for different household types and sizes. <br />There is considerable flexibility, with a surplus of over 1,500 units (even when <br />accounting for the buffer) to adjust the overall sites list at this stage - i.e. eliminate some <br />sites from consideration; and/or adjust density/capacity assumptions downward. <br />3 As a conservative estimate, staff is assuming the average density, for the low and medium density sites rather than the <br />maximum or top of a density range and a minimum 30 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) for the high density sites. <br />High density sites could accommodate 4,109 units, 966 units above the projected shortfall/gap. <br />11 of 18