Housing-site study finds one feasible replacement site short of required affordable capacity; council asks staff to convene small working group

The council received a report on alternative sites for Housing Element "Site 10" (the Spring Street vineyard parcel) and heard extensive public comment. The consultant found one vacant parcel (referred to in the report as "Site L," adjacent to 1053 Crane Avenue) that could realistically accommodate about 29 lower‑income units under Housing and Community Development (HCD) methodology but concluded that no combination of readily available west‑side parcels in the city would, without additional actions, replace the 44 lower‑income units credited to Site 10.

Ryan Lester of the housing consulting firm explained that HCD sets strict criteria for sites used to provide capacity for lower‑income housing. Sites typically must be between 0.5 and 10 acres, be zoned for at least 20 dwelling units per acre, be able to facilitate a minimum realistic capacity (the consultant used HCD’s realistic capacity formula), and be located near transit and services. The consultant also noted the city’s obligation under fair‑housing rules not to exacerbate concentrations of affordable housing on the east side; because Site 10 is on the west side, replacement sites should also be located west of the identified dividing line.

The consultant and staff described the site search process: they reviewed citizen‑suggested parcels, a GIS analysis of underutilized properties, a 2015 feasibility study and the housing‑element sites inventory. Of 16 candidate parcels examined, 13 were judged too constrained for use in the current planning cycle because they were actively used (parking lots, school playing fields), had physical access or utility limitations, lay in flood zones or were otherwise unlikely to be redeveloped within the housing‑element planning period without extensive, costly off‑site improvements.

The report singled out three sites for closer review. Two — a Sager Ford parking area and a bank parking lot — were actively used and therefore judged unlikely to redevelop into housing in the next planning period. Site L, a vacant parcel adjacent to 1053 Crane Avenue, could support about 29 units by the consultant’s realistic‑capacity calculation but would not by itself replace the 44 lower‑income units allocated to Site 10.

Public comment at the hearing was lengthy and strongly contested. Speakers urged the council to pause the upzoning of Site 10, seek creative alternatives and explore options that include acquiring the parcel, partnering with local land trusts, pooling private and philanthropic funds, or subdividing the housing obligation across multiple sites and strategies (including incentives for ADUs). Several residents said they support affordable housing in principle but object to either the site selection, the scale of development proposed for the vineyard parcel, or the process by which the upzone occurred.

City staff reminded the council that the April 2024 rezoning of the parcel and a preliminary application now on file complicate immediate options: current state housing laws allow some applications to vest rights under the zoning and objective standards in place at the time of application submission. Legal counsel explained that if a developer proceeds with a ministerial (objective‑standards) application that complies with code, administrative approval could follow without discretionary council review; an application that requires subdivision or discretionary approvals would proceed differently. Staff and the consultant emphasized that a city‑owned site or an active public acquisition strategy could provide additional options but would require explicit council direction and funding decisions.

Council members and staff agreed to collect volunteers and council members to form a small working group to pursue creative approaches and to compile council feedback for submittal to HCD or to use in continued discussions with the applicant. The mayor and council members invited interested residents to share names and contact information with staff.

Ending

Staff will coordinate a small group of council members and community volunteers to explore alternatives, solicit creative proposals and report back to the council. No formal amendment to the certified housing element was made tonight; the city remains under the existing element while staff and the consultant continue analysis and community outreach.