Brentwood

⁠

Brentwood Public Review Draft of the 2023-2031 Housing Element⁠

⁠

Housing Constraints:

Doesn’t mention community opposition.

Infrastructure capacity. Have others listed this?

Enviro constraints list fire hazard. Aren’t they sprawling out?

General Plan uses:

Residential High Density (R-HD). Density Range: 11.1 – 20 units/acre. Mid-Range: 15.5 units/acre

Residential Very High Density (R-VHD). Density Range: 20.1 – 30 units/acre. Mid-Range N/A.

Figure 3-3: Brentwood Zoning Map – Planned Development 38 Zoning District (PD-38) - Source is City of Dublin Zoning Map. (Why?)

Zoning District PD-38 is noted by CalEnviroscreen to be contaminated by the big box retailers not disposing of waste properly and “As of May 2022, the potential contaminants of concern are Benzene, Bromodichloromethane, and Chloroform in the soil and soil vapor. The site was an orchard from 1939 to the 1970s. The Sun Recycling Center was formerly located on the western portion of the site but has since been demolished.”

Section 3 Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing

Summary of constraints notes that none of the environmental concerns should impact the city’s ability to accommodate their RHNA obligations.

Transportation

According to AllTransit, an online source of transit connectivity, access, and frequency data, 81.3% of jobs in Brentwood are located within half a mile of transit. However, only 3.26% of commuters use transit. AllTransit states that 0% of the population live near high-frequency transit, which may contribute to the low percentage of commuters who use public transit.

House Cost Burden: “In Brentwood, almost 40% of all households experience cost burden. Similar to Contra Costa County, renters experience higher rates of cost burdens than owners (55.30% to 34.62%) at a higher rate than the county. Refer to Table 3-33 below for households that experience cost burden by tenure. “

Section 4 Housing Plan

H.1 Housing Goal: Facilitate a diversity of housing opportunities to enhance the City’s living environment and to satisfy the shelter needs of all Brentwood residents.

ADU section is good due to streamlining and education. Timing of years seems too long. I also appreciate their efforts to check the gap between their goals and actual ADUs permitted in order to make policy changes.

What are the Residential Design Guidelines, have they been helpful or harmful to housing production?

H.1k: Condo conversions are a good tool to create low cost property ownership opportunities and its commendable to see it paired with anti-displacement efforts.

H.2 - Affordability Goal: Encourage housing that is affordable to all socio-economic segments of Brentwood’s population.

H.2b: Additional Development Incentives for Affordable Housing - Great proposals to streamline and reduce financial costs on the city’s side.

H2.i: Density Bonus Ordinance

H2l: Development Fees: addresses constraints on affordable housing by monitoring development fees for AH and revising if deemed necessary.

H3 Equitable Distribution of Affordable Housing Goal Encourage an equitable distribution of housing for all economic groups throughout the community.

Policy H.3-1: would integrate low income housing across the community but it was also in the 5th cycle so how effective was it?

H.4 - Housing Opportunities Goal Promote equal housing opportunities for all residents of Brentwood.

H.4j: SRO Units. New - they plan to permit SRO housing for people who previously experienced homelessness. This is good.

Appendix A: Review of Past Performance

Senior Housing

No one took advantage of the condo to multi-family unit conversion. Why?

Community Engagement

The Community survey in C-5 shows that there is some resistance to building new homes. the highest response to desired housing was “affordable” followed by single-family homes.

Many respondents shared a common interest in the development of all housing types at all income levels for both sale and rent. Many respondents believe that there is a need for more dense, affordable housing throughout the City.

A lot of people support development of higher densities in downtown. Some are okay with new development as long as it protects the open space and farmland. There are typical NIMBY responses but overall it does appear that the community is supportive of new housing.

Appendix B: Candidate Sites Analysis

B-5 ADU Table B-3 estimates that 60% of ADUs will be Low- and Very Low-Income. They point to their Program H.1b to explain why they think it’ll help them meet theses income categories.

B-8: Their affordability assumptions of 35% of all units being very low- and low-income household seems off. Their Affordable Housing Ordinance sets the affordability requirement at 13%. They claim “the City has identified sufficient land to accommodate the 2023-2031 RHNA for all income levels.”

Note: More than half of their estimated units are in PA-1 which is the Innovation Center area. A lot of people at the last planning commission were concerned about that because the original intent was to create a job center that would allow people to work closer to home.

Want to print your doc?
This is not the way.

Try clicking the ⋯ next to your doc name or using a keyboard shortcut (

CtrlP

) instead.