Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 7.1 - 3402 Housing Element Update Page 1 of 8 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL DATE: October 6, 2020 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers FROM: Linda Smith, City Manager SUBJECT: Report and Status Update on the Housing Element Update and Regional Housing Needs Allocation Prepared by: Michael P. Cass, Principal Planner EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The City Council will receive a report and status update on the Housing Element Update and Regional Housing Needs Allocation. Each California city and county must update their General Plan Housing Element every eight years to adequately plan to meet the existing and projected housing needs of all economic segments of the community. Dublin’s current Housing Element is for the 2014 -2022 planning period. State law mandates updates to the Housing Element no later than January 2023 for the 2023 - 2031 planning period. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Receive the report and provide feedback on the Housing Element Update. FINANCIAL IMPACT: In July 2020, the City Council adopted a Resolution approving a Consulting Services Agreement between the City and Kimley-Horn to assist Staff with preparation of the Housing Element Update. Kimley-Horn’s contract amount is $403,000. The City’s Fiscal Year 2020-21 Budget sufficiently covers this cost, including $55,000 from an a pproved Senate Bill 2 Planning Grant. In addition, Staff anticipates the cost will be further offset by a pending, non-competitive $300,000 grant under the Local Early Action Planning (LEAP) Grant Program. DESCRIPTION: Each local government in California is required to adopt a comprehensive, long-term General Plan for the physical development of the jurisdiction. A certified Housing Element is one of seven mandatory elements of the General Plan. Housing Element law, enacted in 1969, mandates local governments update their Housing Element every eight years to demonstrate how the jurisdiction has adequately planned to meet the existing and projected housing needs of all economic segments of the community. The community’s housing need is determined through the Regional Housing Needs Page 2 of 8 Allocation (RHNA) process. The City’s current Housing Element covers the period of 2014-2022. The Housing Element must be updated and then certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) by January 2023 for the 2023-2031 planning period. Housing Element Update Planning Process Following are the key phases of the Housing Element Update planning process, which Staff estimates will take approximately two years to complete: ▪ Baseline Analysis: Review current Housing Element policies and programs. ▪ Adequate Sites Identification: Evaluate current Housing Element sites and identify additional sites to meet RHNA. ▪ Community Engagement: Conduct online survey, stakeholder workshops, and Planning Commission and City Council meetings. ▪ Policy and Program Development: Develop policies and programs that constitute Housing Policy Plan. ▪ HCD Review: Prepare a Draft Housing Element and submit to HCD for an initial 60-day review. ▪ Public Hearings and Adoption: Hold public hearings with the Planning Commission and the City Council to consider adoption of the Housing Element Update and associated General Plan Amendments. Regional Housing Needs Allocation The Housing Methodology Committee (HMC) is an advisory committee to the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) composed of 35 members including elected officials, local jurisdiction staff members, and stakeholders, and is tasked with creating a methodology for distributing HCD’s Regional Housing Needs Determination (RHND) across the local jurisdictions in the nine-county Bay Area. Distribution of the RHND results in each jurisdiction’s RHNA, which is the total number of housing units that the jurisdiction must plan for in the next Housing Element update. State law provides a series of statutory objectives that must be met in the RHNA methodology, including increasing affordability in an equitable manner, improving the balance between low-wage jobs and lower-income housing (jobs-housing fit), and addressing equity and fair housing. The statute also requires “consistency” between the RHNA and regional plans, such as Plan Bay Area (PBA). On June 10, 2020, HCD released the RHND for the Bay Area, which identified 441,176 units (2.35 times the 187,990 units required in the current RHNA cycle). Distribution of the RHND includes two key components: 1) allocation of the total regional housing need across local jurisdictions; and 2) allocation of those total shares by income categories (i.e., very-low, low, moderate and above-moderate income). The HMC began meeting in October 2019 to prioritize different factors, consider weights for each factor, and develop a RHNA methodology. On September 14, 2020, the Tri- Valley communities of Dublin, Danville, Livermore, Pleasanton and San Ramon Page 3 of 8 submitted joint letters to the HMC and ABAG Executive Board expressing concerns with the RHNA methodology under consideration and recommended a methodology that: 1) focuses housing allocations in areas with the highest concentrations of jobs; 2) takes account of geographic and other constraints to housing development ; and 3) provides residents with access to viable transit and transportation options (refer to Attachments 1 and 2). On September 18, 2020, the HMC forwarded a recommendation to the AB AG Executive Committee to use Methodology Option 8A. This Option only partially addresses the concerns raised by the Tri-Valley communities. Although preliminary at this time, the recommended methodology would result in a RHNA of 3,630 total units for Dublin. Table 1 shows the City’s current and HMC’s recommended RHNA by income category. Table 1: Current and Preliminary RHNA Extremely / Very Low Low Moderate Above Moderate Total RHNA – Current 796 446 425 618 2,285 HMC Recommendation 1,090 610 550 1,410 3,630 Percent Increase 136.93% 136.77% 129.41% 228.16% 158.86% As shown in Table 2 below, the ABAG Regional Planning Committee and ABAG Executive Board will review HMC’s recommendations in October 2020 and submit the draft methodology in winter 2021 to HCD for review and approval. In spring 2021, the final methodology should be adopted and ABAG will release the draft RHNA to jurisdictions. Appeals of the draft RHNA can be submitted until summer 2021, and decisions on appeals and the final RHNA will be issued by the end of 2021. The City will then have until January 2023 to adopt a Housing Element Update. Table 2: Key Milestones Key Milestones Date 1 ABAG Regional Planning Committee reviews proposed RHNA Methodology October 1, 2020 2 ABAG Executive Board reviews proposed RHNA Methodology October 15, 2020 3 ABAG submits draft RHNA Methodology to HCD for review Winter 2021 4 Final RHNA Methodology adopted and draft allocation released to jurisdictions Spring 2021 5 Deadline for appeals Summer 2021 6 Decision on appeals and final RHNA issued to jurisdiction End of 2021 7 Deadline to adopt Housing Element Update January 2023 Adequate Sites Identification The Housing Element must include an inventory of specific sites or parcels that are available for residential development to meet the RHNA. Land suitable for residential development must be appropriate and available for residential use in the planning period. Characteristics to consider when evaluating the appropriateness of sites include physical features (e.g., susceptibility to flooding, slope instability or erosion, or environmental considerations) and location (proximity to transit, job centers, and public or community services). Land suitable for residential development includes vacant sites that are zoned for residential development, underutilized sites that are zoned for Page 4 of 8 residential development and capable of being redeveloped at a higher density or with greater intensity, and vacant and underutilized sites that are not zoned for residential development, but can be redeveloped for, and/or rezoned for, residential use (via program actions). Following is a summary of key considerations in identifying sites to meet the City’s RHNA: ▪ Density: Housing Element Law allows jurisdictions to assume that a site can be developed with housing affordable to low-income and very-low income households only if the site has the capacity to be developed at or above a certain default density. The default densities vary depending on the location and population of the jurisdiction. For Dublin, the default minimum density is 30 dwelling units per acre. ▪ Capacity: For all sites in the inventory, the jurisdiction must determine the number of units that can be realistically accommodated for all income categories. Jurisdictions cannot assume development capacity for housing at a particular level of affordability based solely on land use controls and site development requirements. Jurisdictions must now also analyze: 1) realistic development capacity of the site; 2) typical densities of existing or approved developments at a similar affordability level; and 3) the current or planned availability and accessibility to sufficient water, sewer, and dry utilities (e.g., gas and electricity). ▪ Use of Prior Housing Element Sites: Recent State law limits a jurisdiction’s ability to reuse sites from the prior RHNA cycle. Vacant sites identified in the last two housing elements and non-vacant sites identified in a prior housing element may not be counted towards RHNA unless: 1) the site s are zoned at the “default” density of 30 dwelling units per acre; or 2) the sites allow residential use by right for housing developments in which at least 20 percent of the units are affordable to lower-income households. ▪ Use of Small and Large Sites: For a jurisdiction to count a site that is less than one-half acre or more than 10 acres towards its lower-income RHNA, the Housing Element must demonstrate that sites of equivalent size were successfully developed during the prior planning period for an e quivalent number of lower income housing units or provide other evidence that the site can be developed as lower-income housing. ▪ Use of Non-Vacant Sites: Prior to 2018, jurisdictions could rely on sites with existing uses to accommodate the RHNA to evaluate the sites development potential. Now, for non-vacant sites, jurisdictions must also: 1) demonstrate past experience with converting existing uses to higher density residential development; 2) analyze the current market demand for the existing use; and 3 ) assess any existing leases or other contracts that would perpetuate the existing use or prevent redevelopment of the site. When a jurisdiction relies on non - vacant sites to accommodate more than 50 percent or more of its lower -income RHNA, HCD presumes the existing use will impede additional residential development, so the Housing Element must include site -specific findings based Page 5 of 8 on substantial evidence that the use is likely to be discontinued during the planning period. ▪ Use of Vacant Non-Residential Sites: A jurisdiction may choose to identify vacant non-residential sites and rezone those sites to allow housing as part of the Housing Element Update or the Housing Element can include a program to accomplish the rezoning within the first three years of the planning period. The benefit of rezoning the sites as part of the Housing Element Update is that it ensures the Housing Element remains in compliance and allows environmental review of the rezoning to be accomplished as part of the Housing Element Update. ▪ Use of Sites with Current or Past Residential Uses: Sites that currently have, or in the past five years have had, deed restricted affordable housing for low - income or very-low income households, rent-controlled housing, or housing occupied by low-income or very-low income households are subject to the replacement housing requirements described in Density Bonus Law. ▪ Adequate Sites Alternatives: A jurisdiction may receive credit for up to 25 percent of the RHNA obligation for any income category through the identification of sites for accessory dwelling units, substantial rehabilitation of housing units with committed assistance from the jurisdiction, conversion of market rate housing to affordable housing with assistance from the jurisdiction, and/or for units under construction between the beginning of the Housing Element projection period and the deadline for adopting the Housing Element (June 30, 2022 to January 31, 2023). Prioritizing land use policies to enable the City to accommodate a portion of RHNA through ADUs would align with the Tri-Valley Housing and Policy Framework. No Net Loss In addition to the key considerations in identifying sites to meet the City’s RHNA, the “No Net Loss” laws (including recently adopted AB 1397 and SB 166) ensure that jurisdictions do not downzone these “opportunity sites” after HCD certifies the Housing Element. Jurisdictions also cannot approve new housing at significantly lower densities or at different income categories than was projected in the Housing Element w ithout making specific findings and identifying other sites that could accommodate these units and affordability levels “lost” as a result of the approval. Similarly, jurisdictions cannot deny a project because it does not include units at the income categ ories identified in the Housing Element. In light of these requirements, it may be prudent to “overplan” RHNA sites so that the City has some flexibility in its future project approvals. Without such headroom, the City may often be forced to find additional sites each time it approves a residential project that does not meet the requirements at the lower income levels. Preliminary Sites Inventory Staff has done an initial review of sites that may be able to accommodate the potential RHNA under HMC’s recommended methodology where 3,630 units must be planned for in the next Housing Element update. A complete sites inventory and a more in-depth analysis will be completed as Staff delves further into the Housing Element Update and Page 6 of 8 reports back to the City Council. The following is initial information for illustrative purposes. The current Housing Element includes 10 remaining vacant sites with a development capacity of 2,456 units. These residential sites are located predominantly in Eastern Dublin with a development capacity of 965 units, and Downtown Dublin with a capacity of 1,491 units. These sites may be reused in the Housing Element update if density is a minimum of 30 units per acre or if housing is permitted by right with a minimum of 20 percent lower-income affordable units. Only the Downtown Transit Oriented District (TOD) currently meets the minimum density requirement of 30 units per acre and has a capacity to provide 891 units. The current Housing Element sites can accommodate approximately 6,952 units (including the 891 units in the TOD) if all sites were “up zoned” to ensure a minimum density of 30 units per acre. Alternatively, if housing is permitted by right with a minimum of 20 percent lower-income affordable units provided, then the development capacity of current Housing Element sites is 2,456 units with no required modifications to existing permitted density. Refer to Attachment 3 for a map and table of existing Housing Element sites. In addition to reusing prior Housing Element sites, the City could evaluate using other vacant residential sites, underutilized non-residential sites, and vacant non-residential sites. Vacant residential sites with existing residential land uses include a portion of At Dublin, and Dublin Transit Center Site D-1 which could accommodate 456 units, based upon current permitted density. Refer to Attachment 4 for a map and table of vacant residential sites. The City could evaluate existing underutilized non-residential sites for redevelopment potential (i.e. sites with existing underutilized commercial and industrial uses). For example, based upon a preliminary analysis, approximately 13.59 acres on the north side of Dublin Boulevard between Dublin Court and Clark Avenue could be rezoned to accommodate housing and encourage redevelopment. Additionally, Hacienda Crossing could be rezoned to allow housing to supplement the existing commercial development within the shopping center. Also, based upon preliminary analysis, Staff identified 10 vacant (i.e. undeveloped) non- residential sites, totaling approximately 110.13 acres, that the City could consider rezoning to permit housing. Refer to Attachment 5 for a map and table of existing vacant non-residential sites. Based upon this initial review, it appears likely that the City will not have enough undeveloped residential sites to accommodate the RHNA without having to reuse prior Housing Element sites and/or rezone non-residential sites to accommodate residential uses. Therefore, Staff is seeking feedback from the City Co uncil to help guide this analysis and the identification of potential sites to accommodate the RHNA. Staff will return to the City Council to further discuss the sites inventory analysis once completed. Questions for the City Council Staff seeks preliminary feedback from the City Council on the following questions regarding the adequate sites’ identification: Page 7 of 8 ▪ Prioritize Existing Sites or Study Non-Residential Sites: Prior Housing Element sites will not be able to be reused with the Housing Element Update unless they are rezoned to allow a minimum density of 30 units/acre or if housing is allowed by right with a minimum of 20 percent lower-income affordable units provided. Should the City prioritize the reuse of prior Housing Element sites (Attachment 3) or convert non-residential sites to residential use? ▪ Prioritize Higher Densities or Housing-By-Right: If reusing prior Housing Element sites, should the City prioritize higher densities or by-right development? ▪ Prioritize Vacant or Underutilized Non-Residential Sites: If the City does not have an adequate supply of undeveloped sites or prior Housing Element sites to accommodate the RHNA, should the City prioritize the conversion of undeveloped non-residential sites or the conversion of developed but underutilized non-residential sites to accommodate a portion of the RHNA? Prioritize ADUs: Up to 25 percent of the RHNA for each income category may be satisfied by ADUs under certain circumstances. These units would likely require a deed restriction to ensure they are rented to lower income households (which could require the City to offer programs such as financial incentives to encourage homeowners to deed restrict their ADUs). Should the City prioritize land use policies that would enable the City to accommodate a portion of the RHNA through ADUs? Identify Surplus Sites: Due to the “No Net Loss” laws, should the City identify more sites than are required to accommodate RHNA to maintain flexibility should properties be developed without the required number of deed restricted affordable units? The City Council will have more in-depth discussion about potential Housing Element sites with site-specific data in early 2021. Next Steps A tentative project schedule for the Housing Element Update is included as Att achment 6. Table 3 provides a summary of next steps: Table 3: Next Steps Next Steps Date 1 Launch Housing Element Update Webpage on the City’s Website Fall 2020 2 Evaluate Current Housing Element Fall 2020 - Winter 2021 3 Analyze/Identify Adequate Housing Sites Fall 2020 - Winter 2021 4 Check-In Meeting #2 – Review Adequate Sites Analysis Winter/Spring 2021 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The informational report on the Housing Element Update is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE: Strategy 3: Create More Affordable Housing Opportunities. Page 8 of 8 Objective E: Update the City’s General Plan Housing Element in accordance with state law and to ensure an adequate supply of sites to accommodate the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation for the period 2023-31. NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH: None. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Tri-Valley Cities Letter to Housing Methodology Committee, dated September 14, 2020 2. Tri-Valley Cities Letter to ABAG Executive Board, dated September 14, 2020 3. Map and Table of Existing Housing Element Sites 4. Map and Table of Vacant Residential Sites Not Identified in Current Housing Element 5. Map and Table of Vacant Non-Residential Sites 6. Housing Element Update Tentative Schedule Tri-Valley Cities DANVILLE • DUBLIN • LIVERMORE • PLEASANTON • SAN RAMON September 14, 2020 Mayor Jesse Arreguín, Chair Housing Methodology Committee Association of Bay Area Governments 375 Beale Street, Suite 700 San Francisco, CA 94105-2066 Dear Chair Arreguín: On behalf of the Tri-Valley cities of Danville, Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton, and San Ramon, we are writing to express our concern about the methodology options that will be considered by the Housing Methodology Committee on September 18. The Tri-Valley Cities (TVC) appreciate the urgency of the statewide housing crisis and the responsibility of local jurisdictions to address this important issue. Each of our five cities has taken significant steps over recent years to facilitate the construction of both market-rate and affordable housing – evidenced by the construction of more than 10,300 new housing units since the start of the last Housing Element cycle – these efforts have made the Tri-Valley one of the fastest-growing regions in the Bay Area and the State. Through dedicated affordable housing projects, application of inclusionary ordinances, and policies to encourage ADUs, we have also made progress towards fulfilling our affordable housing needs, although, as has been experienced by most cities, the lack of funding for lower-income housing continues to present a significant challenge. We very much appreciate the efforts and dedication of the HMC in addressing the significant challenges presented by the upcoming 6th Cycle RHNA process. Although we commend the HMC’s prior decision to utilize the Plan Bay Area 2050 Households Baseline in the methodology, we would urge reconsideration of the currently proposed methodologies and factors, in order to more appropriately balance the RHNA Statutory Objectives identified in State Law including equity and fair housing goals, as well as those related to efficient growth patterns and GHG reductions. Methodology options 5A and 6A that will be under consideration by the HMC on September 18, have significant flaws. In particular, both place a disproportionate emphasis on factors that allocate RHNA to high opportunity areas, without consideration of the negative consequences of the resultant land use patterns. The following points reflect our specific concerns regarding the proposed methodology options: • The options do not adequately address factors related to transit and jobs proximity, and fail to take into account the lack of high-quality transit within the Tri-Valley, and distance from the major employment centers of the South Bay, Oakland, and San Francisco. The methodologies allocate growth in a manner that will promote auto dependency and longer commute times, exacerbate GHG impacts, and run counter to the goals and objectives well-formulated and strongly articulated in the recently released Plan Bay Tri-Valley Cities DANVILLE • DUBLIN • LIVERMORE • PLEASANTON • SAN RAMON Area Blueprint. This is also counter to RHNA Statutory Objective 2: Promoting infill development and socioeconomic equity, the protection of environmental and agricultural resources, and the encouragement of efficient development patterns. • The options push significant housing allocations into the outer ring of Bay Area suburbs, including the Tri-Valley, exacerbating the jobs/housing imbalance, and compelling long commutes to distant jobs centers. Even in our relatively jobs-rich Tri-Valley cities, data shows that many of our residents, today, commute significant distances to work. This comes at a significant cost: not just in negative environmental consequences, but as time spent away from families, and a further strain on household finances, particularly for lower-income households. • Our smaller cities have limited land area and sites that are candidates for re-zoning. Significant RHNA allocations may have the unintended consequence of causing speculative increases in land values, and create pressure to develop agricultural and open space lands, areas subject to natural hazards, and other sensitive resources. Given these concerns, we would urge the Committee to reject the current options 5A and 6A, and consider methodology options that emphasize factors and factor weightings that 1) focus housing allocations in areas most proximate to the highest concentrations of jobs, and particularly where jobs growth has outpaced recent housing production (e.g jobs proximity factors); 2) provide realistic allocations that take account of geographic and other constraints to housing development (e.g. urbanized land area factors); and 3) provide residents with access to viable transit and transportation options that do not add to regional congestion, commute times, and household transportation costs (e.g. transit proximity factors). Thank you for your consideration of these important concerns. Respectfully, Tri-Valley Cities DANVILLE • DUBLIN • LIVERMORE • PLEASANTON • SAN RAMON September 14, 2020 Mayor Jesse Arreguín, President Association of Bay Area Governments, Executive Board 375 Beale Street, Suite 700 San Francisco, CA 94105-2066 Dear Board President Arreguín: On behalf of the Tri-Valley cities of Danville, Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton, and San Ramon, we are writing to express our concern about the methodology options that will be considered by the Housing Methodology Committee on September 18. The Tri-Valley Cities (TVC) appreciate the urgency of the statewide housing crisis and the responsibility of local jurisdictions to address this important issue. Each of our five cities has taken significant steps over recent years to facilitate the construction of both market-rate and affordable housing – evidenced by the construction of more than 10,300 new housing units since the start of the last Housing Element cycle – these efforts have made the Tri-Valley one of the fastest-growing regions in the Bay Area and the State. Through dedicated affordable housing projects, application of inclusionary ordinances, and policies to encourage ADUs, we have also made progress towards fulfilling our affordable housing needs, although, as has been experienced by most cities, the lack of funding for lower-income housing continues to present a significant challenge. We very much appreciate the efforts and dedication of the HMC in addressing the significant challenges presented by the upcoming 6th Cycle RHNA process. Although we commend the HMC’s prior decision to utilize the Plan Bay Area 2050 Households Baseline in the methodology, we would urge reconsideration of the currently proposed methodologies and factors, in order to more appropriately balance the RHNA Statutory Objectives identified in State Law including equity and fair housing goals, as well as those related to efficient growth patterns and GHG reductions. Methodology options 5A and 6A that will be under consideration by the HMC on September 18, have significant flaws. In particular, both place a disproportionate emphasis on factors that allocate RHNA to high opportunity areas, without consideration of the negative consequences of the resultant land use patterns. The following points reflect our specific concerns regarding the proposed methodology options: • The options do not adequately address factors related to transit and jobs proximity, and fail to take into account the lack of high-quality transit within the Tri-Valley, and distance from the major employment centers of the South Bay, Oakland, and San Francisco. The methodologies allocate growth in a manner that will promote auto dependency and longer commute times, exacerbate GHG impacts, and run counter to the goals and objectives well-formulated and strongly articulated in the recently released Plan Bay Area Blueprint. This is also counter to RHNA Statutory Objective 2: Promoting infill Tri-Valley Cities DANVILLE • DUBLIN • LIVERMORE • PLEASANTON • SAN RAMON development and socioeconomic equity, the protection of environmental and agricultural resources, and the encouragement of efficient development patterns. • The options push significant housing allocations into the outer ring of Bay Area suburbs, including the Tri-Valley, exacerbating the jobs/housing imbalance, and compelling long commutes to distant jobs centers. Even in our relatively jobs-rich Tri-Valley cities, data shows that many of our residents, today, commute significant distances to work. This comes at a significant cost: not just in negative environmental consequences, but as time spent away from families, and a further strain on household finances, particularly for lower-income households. • Our smaller cities have limited land area and sites that are candidates for re-zoning. Significant RHNA allocations may have the unintended consequence of causing speculative increases in land values, and create pressure to develop agricultural and open space lands, areas subject to natural hazards, and other sensitive resources. Given these concerns, we would urge the Executive Board to reject the current options 5A and 6A, and consider methodology options that emphasize factors and factor weightings that 1) focus housing allocations in areas most proximate to the highest concentrations of jobs, and particularly where jobs growth has outpaced recent housing production (e.g jobs proximity factors); 2) provide realistic allocations that take account of geographic and other constraints to housing development (e.g. urbanized land area factors); and 3) provide residents with access to viable transit and transportation options that do not add to regional congestion, commute times, and household transportation costs (e.g. transit proximity factors). Thank you for your consideration of these important concerns. Respectfully, (1)(1)(6) (8)(2)(3) (10) (5) (9) (4) (7) (12) (13) (11) C O N T R A C O S T A C O U N T Y A L A M E D A C O U N T Y S A N R A M O N P L E A S A N T O N C A M P P A R K S(P a r k s R F T A )TASSAJARARDTASSAJARARD D U B LIN B L D UBLINBLS T A GECOACHRD BRODER BLDOUGHERTYRD ARNOLD RDV OMACR DPEPP ERTREER D AMADORVALLEYB L BARNETBLAMARI LLORDWV OMACRD FALLONRDFALLONRDDUBLINBL DUBLIN BLSANRAM ONRDCENTRA L P W CENTRA L P WIR ONHORSEPWV I L LAGEPWA M A D O R P L A ZA R DGLEASON DR P O S ITA NOPW CROAKRDMADIGAN RD/ C i t y o f D u b l i n Camp Parks RFTA City of Dublin City of Dublin, Sphere of Influence Right of Ways Existing H ousing Elem ent Sites 2015-2023 Housing Element 0 0.5 1 1.50.25 Miles E x i s t i n g H o u s i n g E l e m e n t S i t e s Table of Existing Housing Element Sites No. Project Min. Units Max. Units Potential Units Potential Affordability GP Land Use APN Lot Size (Acres) Zoning Min. Density Max. Density Potential Density Existing Use (1) Croak 104 692 346 Above Moderate Low Density 905-0002- 002 905-0002- 001-01 115.4 PD 0.9 6.0 3.0 Vacant (2) Righetti 59 134 77 Above Moderate Medium Density 905-0001- 005-02 9.6 PD 6.1 14.0 8.0 Vacant (3) Branaugh 59 136 78 Above Moderate Medium Density 905-0001- 004-04 9.7 PD 6.1 14.0 8.0 Vacant (4) Kobold 12 28 16 Above Moderate Medium Density 985-0072- 002 2.0 PD 6.1 14.0 8.0 Rural Homesite (5) McCabe 6 14 10 Moderate Medium Density 986-0028- 002 1.0 PD 6.1 14.0 10.0 Single- Family Home (6) Croak 63 146 104 Moderate Medium Density 905-0002- 001-01 10.4 PD 6.1 14.0 10.0 Vacant (7) Tipper 50 115 82 Moderate Medium Density 986-0004- 01 8.2 PD 6.1 14.0 10.0 Agricultural (8) Anderson 99 175 108 Moderate Medium- High Density 905-0001- 006-03 7.0 PD 14.1 25.0 15.4 Vacant (9) Beltran / Sperfslage 45 80 64 Moderate Medium- High Density 986-0003- 001-02 3.2 PD 14.1 25.0 20.0 Vacant (10) Chen 56 100 80 Moderate Medium- High Density 985-0027- 002 4.0 PD 14.1 25.0 20.0 Vacant (11) Village Parkway - - 200 Above Moderate Downtown Dublin – Village Parkway District - - DDZD None 15.0 - Varies (12) Retail - - 400 Lower Income Downtown Dublin – Retail District - - DDZD 22.0 - - Varies (13) Transit- Oriented - - 891 Lower Income Downtown Dublin – Transit- Oriented District - - DDZD 30.0 85.0 - Varies C O N T R A C O S T A C O U N T Y A L A M E D A C O U N T Y S A N R A M O N P L E A S A N T O N C A M P P A R K S(P a r k s R F T A ) DUBLIN BL TASSAJARA RDS T A GECOACHRDBRODER BLDOUGHERTYRD ARNOLD RDA MADORVA LLE Y B LBARNETBLFALLON RDDUBLIN BL CENTRA L PW IR ONHORSEPWV I L LAGEPWA M A D O R P L A ZA R D GLEA SON DR PO S IT A NO PW CROAKRDMADIGAN RDCROAKRD / C i t y o f D u b l i n Camp Parks RFTA City of Dublin City of Dublin, Sphere of Influence Right of Ways Vacant Residential Sites (Not Identified in Current Housing Element) 2015-2023 Housing Element 0 0.5 1 1.50.25 Miles Vacant Residentia l Sites (N ot Ide ntified in Current Ho using Element) Table of Vacant Residential Sites (Not Identified in Current Housing Element) No. Address or Name APN Lot Size (Acreage) Potential Units GP Land Use Zoning (1) At Dublin 985-0051-006-00 985-0052-024-00 985-0052-025-00 12.8 261 Medium Density Residential Medium-High Density Residential High Density Residential PD (2) Dublin Transit Center, Site D-1 986-0034-013-01 2.46 195 Campus Office PD C O N T R A C O S T A C O U N T Y A L A M E D A C O U N T Y S A N R A M O N P L E A S A N T O N C A M P P A R K S(P a r k s R F T A )TASSAJARARDDUBLIN BL S TAGECOACHRD BRODER BLDOUGHERTYRD ARNOLD RDAMADORVALLEYB L BARNETBLFALLON RDDUBLIN BL CENTRALPW IR ONHORSEPWV I L LAGEPWA M A D O R P L A ZA R DG L E ASONDRP O S ITA NO PW CROAKRDMADIGAN RDCROAKRD / C i t y o f D u b l i n Camp Parks RFTA City of Dublin City of Dublin, Sphere of Influence Right of Ways Vacant Non-Residential Sites 2015-2023 Housing Element 0 0.5 1 1.50.25 Miles V a c a n t N o n -R e s i d e n t i a l S i t e s Table of Vacant Non-Residential Sites No. Address or Name APN Lot Size (Acreage) GP Land Use Zoning (1) At Dublin 985-0051-005-00 985-0051-006-00 985-0052-024-00 985-0052-025-00 67.3 General Commercial Neighborhood Commercial PD (2) Gleason Drive 986-0005-038-01 12.79 Public/Semi-Public Facility PD (3) Dublin Blvd. 985-0061-012-00 8.14 General Commercial PD (4) 4020 Grafton Street 985-0061-015-00 2.08 General Commercial PD (5) Dublin Transit Center, Site D-2 986-0034-014-00 6.43 Campus Office PD (6) Dublin Transit Center, Site E-2 986-0034-012-00 7.66 Campus Office PD (7) 5751 Arnold Road 986-0014-013-00 5.73 Campus Office PD City of Dublin Housing Element Update Project Schedule TASK Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun 1 PROJECT INITIATION Kick-off Meeting Contract Approval On-going Project Coordination 2 REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT Document Review Evaluate Current Housing Element Housing Needs, Constraints, Resources and Profile Housing Policy Plan 3 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT Community Outreach Plan Online Community Survey Stakeholder Workshops (2) Planning Commission Study Session City Council Check-ins (4) 4 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT Screencheck Draft Public Review Draft HCD Submittal Draft Response to HCD Comments Final Draft Housing Element 5 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS Land Use Element Revisions Codes Amendments - Rezones Safety Element Revisions Environmental Justice Policies 6 PLAN ADOPTION CEQA Compliance Public Hearings HCD Certification General Plan Consistency Amendments Kimley-Horn / City Staff Public Meetings 2020 20222021 9/24/2020 City of Dublin Housing Element Update Project Schedule TASK Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun 1 PROJECT INITIATION 2 REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 3 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT 4 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT 5 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS 6 PLAN ADOPTION 2020 2021 2022 9/24/2020