Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press council to revisit Site 10 alternatives after consultant says single replacement site not viable
Summary
A consultant told the council that, under strict HCD criteria, no single West‑Side site fully replaces Site 10's 44 lower‑income units; the report identified one vacant parcel that could hold about 29 units. Residents urged the council to reject the report, seek creative alternatives (purchase, parcel swaps, ADU incentives) and form a working group to pursue options.
The council heard a detailed alternatives analysis for Housing Element Site 10 and an extended public outcry from neighbors who said staff and the consultant did not sufficiently explore creative options.
Ryan Lester, the housing‑element consultant, summarized technical constraints imposed by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for lower‑income sites: parcel size requirements (0.5–10 acres), minimum densities, proximity to transit and services, and the need to avoid exacerbating existing concentrations of affordable housing on the East Side. Using those rules, the consultant evaluated 16 candidate parcels. Thirteen were judged constrained (active uses, flood or fire zones, utility access, or owner disinterest). One vacant parcel adjacent to 1053 Crane ("Site L") could support about 29 units but not the 44 lower‑income units counted at Site 10; the consultant concluded replacing Site 10 on the West Side is not feasible without at least one additional site or substantial program changes.
At public comment dozens of residents — several speaking from the West Side neighborhood — challenged the study's scope and transparency, called for more creative approaches (city purchase of the parcel, resident land trusts, parcel swaps, promoting accessory dwelling units), and asked the council not to accept the report tonight. Speakers also raised concerns about neighborhood character, traffic and safety, perceived deficient notice during prior rezoning steps, and the number of affordable units a private project would actually deliver on Site 10.
Council and legal staff clarified that the city currently has a certified housing element (so "builder's remedy" is not an immediate risk) but that a preliminary application filed by the developer vests certain rights and narrows some options. Several councilmembers asked staff and legal counsel to revisit alternatives and exploring options including potential acquisition, partnerships, or a formal subcommittee to craft a focused city response. The mayor asked staff to collect volunteers and return with a scoped plan for next steps.
