5.5 Realistic Capacity
First Paragraph
Add Orinda Grove and Orinda Senior Village to the listed examples of multifamily housing in Orinda.
Second paragraph
First sentence
The assumption of 60% realistic capacity for the DPP sites is very conservative and should be increased. It ignores the impact of state laws enacted in the last six years that provide multiple incentives to build more housing, to build more affordable housing and to severely limit jurisdictions’ ability to require parking, especially for areas near a BART station. It also ignores the impact of the upzoning of most of the DPP.
The assumption of the minimum density of 20 du/acre when 25 du/acre is allowed is also very conservative, having an exponential negative impact on the accuracy of the HE’s estimate of realistic capacity. The application of the most conservative assumption on every option in addition to the application of an overarching realistic capacity factor that is too low needs to be reconsidered or justified in the HE.
Table 5-2
Include all residential development within the DPP, including the 150 affordable apartments for seniors in Orinda Village Senior Center, in Table 5-2. (Orinda Village was completed in 1983.
While Orinda was unincorporated at the time, the County Planning Commission was strongly influenced by the positions taken by the County-appointed Orinda Area Planning Commission and the locally elected Board of Directors of the Orinda Association.). The built multifamily residential densities inform the acceptable degree of the realistic capacity factor. In addition, it seems safe to assume that even more housing development will occur downtown now due to both the new state laws and to the proposed changes in the DPP:
● Rezone land currently zoned DC to increase multifamily housing density from 10 du/ac to 30 du/ac
● Rezone land currently zoned DO (now office only) to allow multifamily housing H.1.i
Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: Public Correspondence (2954 : Revised Draft Housing Element & Key Housing Law Overview) Monteverdi Senior Housing has 67 apartment units reserved for seniors in the extremely low to very low income categories. So should it be described as ‘Market Rate’ in the table?
5.7.2. Downtown Precise Plan Sites
The history of how staff arrived at the final site and unit numbers in the DPP is informative, but its real value is the demonstration of how hard it was to find developable vacant or non vacant sites for new multifamily housing in the small downtown. It also is not surprising that the numbers would change for reasons that include the determination that “redevelopment was limited due to factors such as limited contact with property owners, long term leases in place, and the overall condition of the building.”
What is not clear is why, after rigorous and thorough analysis, such a low realistic capacity factor would be used on the final list of qualifying sites. A realistic capacity factor of 60% is much lower than the realistic capacity factor being used by neighboring jurisdictions in their HEs. Lafayette assumed 90% and 95%, depending on whether the site faced the main commercial corridor or not; Moraga applied a range of factors, depending on site constraints, of between 84% and 100%; and Walnut Creek assumed 95% and 100%, depending on the type of development. In addition, the most recent housing laws support the assumption of higher realistic capacity factors in that they improve the likelihood of housing developments. Some laws give greater certainty and a pathway to faster approval through the granting of “by right” authority to developers building residential units on lands zoned or intended for commercial use or if the project offers 20% affordable housing and some laws lower construction costs by restricting jurisdictions ability to require parking for residential projects within ½ mile of BART.
These new laws, among others, greatly increase the probability of residential development in the DPP.
Increasing the realistic capacity factor to a percentage that is truly realistic today would mean the city would not need to add as much density and height downtown as was done in this last revision. By increasing the realistic capacity factor from 60% to 85%, for example, the 21 remaining sites would have a realistic capacity of 503 units instead of 377, an increase of 126 units. Changing this one assumption could eliminate the need to increase the allowed density and building height on the BevMo and Country Club Plaza sites.
Considering the multiple ways used by the HE to be conservative in its evaluation of sites, and considering that the bulk of the units are assumed to be built as part of two very likely development projects, the HE has severely underestimated the City’s realistic capacity. The use of belts, suspenders and skyhooks to keep the City’s pants from falling results in overly conservative analysis and unnecessary overkill. This then has led to decisions that run contrary to the General Plan and the stated goals and values of the community. Raise the realistic capacity factor.
H.1.i
Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: Public Correspondence (2954 : Revised Draft Housing Element & Key Housing Law Overview)
Project Examples
First paragraph
Second sentence
Why aren’t Orinda’s senior housing developments and the Orinda Grove project included here as acceptable examples of residential development in the downtown? Second Paragraph
The development standards of neighboring jurisdictions are being used as justification for the HE’s proposed building heights and densities for downtown Orinda. Which neighboring jurisdictions are these? The project examples included in Section 5.75 don’t have heights or densities as high as are being proposed in this paragraph (55’ and 85 du/acre, respectively).
Last paragraph
The HE says the opportunity sites will provide capacity for at least 227 units. Table 5-7 shows they will provide 486 units. Please correct or explain.
Table 5-7
As discussed earlier, the HE’s assumption of the lowest allowable density of 20 du/ac is overly conservative if the realistic capacity factor is then also applied. If retained, such an assumption should be justified especially given the extremely supportive housing laws enacted in the last six years, along with the planned upzoning of dow.
Top of page
The use of the phrase ‘Maximum Allowable Density’ is confusing as used here and on this page.
For instance, the allowable density for Orinda Grove was 38 du/ac, but the built density, not the allowable density, was 47.9 du/ac, right?
5.7.7. Meeting the RHNA
Second paragraph, last sentence
Should the 311-unit surplus be changed to a 209-unit surplus, since it refers to only lower income units?
H.1.i
Packet Pg. 127 Attachment: Public Correspondence (2954 : Revised Draft Housing Element & Key Housing Law Overview) Table 5-8A
Eighth column, third, fourth and fifth rows
Check the numbers. I think they should be 165, 504 and 803 respectively.
H.1.i
Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: Public Correspondence (2954 : Revised Draft Housing Element & Key Housing Law Overview)