San Jose City Council
June 21, 2022

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND FROM: Matt Cano
CITY COUNCIL Jacky Morales-Ferrand
Rosalynn Hughey

SUBJECT: QUICK-BUILD/ DATE: June 10, 2022

EMERGENCY INTERIM HOUSING

Approved Date
6/10/2022

COUNCIL DISTRICT: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10

RECOMMENDATION

(a) Accept the staff report on Quick-Build Emergency Interim Housing.

(b) Approve the following sites for Emergency Interim Housing:

(1) Expand the currently under construction Guadalupe Site (City owned) (2) Expand the existing Rue Ferrari Site (Caltrans owned) (3) Develop the new Noble Avenue Site (City owned)
(4) Develop the new 85 South @ Great Oaks Boulevard Site (Caltrans owned) (5) Prioritize for future development the 680 North @ Jackson Avenue Site (Caltrans owned); and
(6) Prioritize for future development the 85 South @ Prospect Road Site (Caltrans owned).

(c) Approve the initiation of development of Emergency Interim Housing on sites (b) 1-4 in Fiscal Year 2022-23.

(d) Direct the Administration to pursue an extension on the sunset of Assembly Bill 1745 (Shelter Crises Act) to allow for continued operation of bridge and emergency interim housing facilities beyond January 2025.

(e) Direct the Administration to report back to the Community and Economic Development Committee in spring 2023 on the progress of development on sites (b) 1-4, including estimated schedules for completion, relevant project obstacles, and estimated costs, and a preliminary projection of pre-development activities, or other assessments, for future development sites (b) 5- 6 on the recommended list for Fiscal Year 2023-2024.

COUNCIL AGENDA: 6/21/22
FILE: 22-979
ITEM: 8.6

HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
June 10, 2022
Subject: Quick Build/Emergency Interim Housing Report

OUTCOME

Approval of this report will allow staff to begin working on the development of up to four expanded/new Emergency Interim Housing (EIH) sites beginning in Fiscal Year 2022-2023.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

On September 29, 2021, the Rules and Open Government (Rules) Committee approved the Bold Housing Solutions memorandum from Mayor Liccardo and Councilmembers Peralez, Jimenez, Foley, and Mahan. The Administration green lighted the memorandum as the search for sites would focus mainly on pre-existing public property lists. The memorandum directed the Administration to pursue several initiatives aimed at increasing EIH capacity, expanding needed services for unhoused residents in collaboration with the County, and exploring ways to identify additional funding and controlling costs to support these initiatives on an ongoing basis.

On March 15, 2022, the City Council approved the Mayor’s March Budget Message for Fiscal Year 2022-2023. The Message directed the Administration to allocate a sufficient amount of one-time funding—through a combination of federal, state, and General Fund resources—to enable the development, construction, and future ongoing operations of EIH at six sites including converted motels, while also considering densifying existing EIH sites. The Budget Message included the goal of adding approximately 400 more EIH beds, beyond those projects already in the pipeline and planning stages, and an additional 300 converted motel units.

On May 10, 2022, the City Council received Manager’s Budget Addendum (MBA) #3, Fiscal Sustainability of Interim Housing Operations and Maintenance Costs. MBA #3 described that the Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Proposed Operating Budget allocates a combined $40 million from the General Fund ($21.5 million) and the American Rescue Plan (ARP) Fund ($18.5 million) to kick start the development of EIH sites and seed funding for their future operation and maintenance costs through Fiscal Year 2029-2030.

Using the existing list of 100+ sites owned by the City and other public agencies, City staff conducted an evaluation through a process of assessing potential feasibility, realistic viability, and ultimately project practicality to arrive at a recommendation to City Council of six sites for EIH.

BACKGROUND

In December 2018, the City Council approved staff recommendations to develop the first two Bridge Housing Communities (BHC) at Mabury Road in Council District 3 and Felipe Avenue in Council District 7. Serving as interim housing for our unhoused residents, these sites were designed to provide shelter with supportive services, and to provide stability and support while participants searched for permanent housing. In addition to approving the funding and development of the BHC’s, the City Council adopted an ordinance amending Title 5 of the San

HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
June 10, 2022
Subject: Quick Build/Emergency Interim Housing Report

José Municipal Code. Authorized under Assembly Bill (AB) 2176 and extended under AB 1745, Municipal Code Chapter 5.09 provides development and operating standards for current and future BHC developments and suspends several local requirements such as zoning. AB 2176 and 1745 currently expires on January 1, 2025. It will be important for the City to seek the continuation of AB 2176 and 1745 after the January 1, 2025 date as this Assembly Bill provides the City the ability to both build and operate EIHs as a shelter.

On April 7, 2020, following a series of Federal, State, and local actions responding to the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, the City Council redirected over $17 Million in State Homeless Housing Assistance and Prevention (HHAP) grant funds toward the purchase and/or construction of emergency housing, including prefabricated modular buildings. The City Council directed the Administration to “move aggressively” to build emergency housing to provide a place for our unhoused residents to shelter-in-place. On April 21, 2020, the City Council approved recommendations from staff to redirect HHAP funds as directed and authorized the construction of new EIHs. In May 2020, work began on the first of three new EIH sites at Monterey and Bernal. Between September 2020 and April 2021, the three new EIH sites were substantially completed and ready for occupancy.

On September 29, 2021, the Rules Committee approved the Bold Housing Solutions memorandum from Mayor Liccardo and Councilmembers Peralez, Jimenez, Foley, and Mahan.

The Administration green lighted the memorandum as the search for sites would focus mainly on pre-existing public property lists. The memorandum directed the Administration to pursue several initiatives aimed at increasing EIH capacity, expanding needed services for unhoused residents in collaboration with the County, and exploring ways to identify additional funding and controlling costs to support these initiatives on an on-going basis.

On March 15, 2022, the City Council approved the March Budget Message for Fiscal Year 2022- 2023. The Message directed the Administration to allocate a sufficient amount of one-time funding—through a combination of Federal, State, and General Fund resources—to enable the development, construction, and future ongoing operations of emergency and interim housing at six sites including converted motels, while also considering densifying existing EIH sites. The Budget Message included the goal of adding approximately 400 more EIH beds, beyond those projects already in the pipeline and planning stages, and an additional 300 converted motel units.

On March 28, 2022, the Community and Economic Development (CED) Committee accepted a Status Report on potential siting and development progress on the City’s EIH program. The Status Report described the goals, the method of site exploration and evaluation, the follow up actions anticipated in the Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 2022-2023, and a more detailed report that is contained in this memorandum to the full City Council in June 2022.

On May 10, 2022, the City Council received Manager’s Budget Addendum (MBA) #3, Fiscal Sustainability of Interim Housing Operations and Maintenance Costs. MBA #3 described that the Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Proposed Operating Budget allocates a combined $40 million from the General Fund ($21.5 million) and the American Rescue Plan (ARP) Fund ($18.5 million) to

HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
June 10, 2022
Subject: Quick Build/Emergency Interim Housing Report

kick start the development of EIH sites and seed funding for their future operation and maintenance costs through Fiscal Year 2029-2030.

ANALYSIS

The Bold Housing Solutions memorandum directed the Administration to meet the goal of the Community Plan to End Homelessness to add 2,000 additional interim housing or shelter beds to double shelter capacity by 2025.
1 The memorandum specifically identified a goal of 1,000 pandemic-era EIH units/beds and 300 HomeKey hotel/motel units to be under construction, acquired, or completed by December 2022; this goal includes recently completed projects. Table 1 below provides the list of interim housing developments completed, under construction, and in the pipeline during the pandemic. Table 2 provides a list of HomeKey projects, including properties acquired, approved, and in the pipeline for State funding as part of Project HomeKey.

Table 1 - EIH Developments

BHC/EIH
Development
Location City
Council
District
Number
of Units
Number of
beds/people
Target Population
Complete
Felipe Bridge
Housing
Community
928 Felipe
Avenue
7 40 40 Persons experiencing
homelessness
Monterey at Bernal
Emergency Interim
Housing
6066
Monterey
Road
2 78 78 Persons experiencing
homelessness
Rue Ferrari
Emergency Interim
Housing
5898 Rue
Ferrari
2 82 118 Persons (singles and couples)
experiencing homelessness
Evans Lane
Emergency
Housing
2078 Evans
Lane
6 49 121 Families experiencing
homelessness or at risk of
homelessness
Under Construction
Guadalupe
Emergency Interim
Housing (Lot -E)
702
Guadalupe
3 76 76 Persons experiencing
homelessness
Sub-Total 325 433
HomeKey Application Submitted – Awaiting Award Decision Branham and
Monterey
No address 2 204 204 50% for persons who are
chronically homeless, 50% for
persons who are experiencing
homelessness
Total 529 637

1 Community Plan to End Homelessness 2020-25: https://housingtoolkit.sccgov.org/take-action/santa-clara-county- community-plan-end-homelessness-2020-2025

HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
June 10, 2022
Subject: Quick Build/Emergency Interim Housing Report

Table 2 - Project HomeKey Hotel/Motel Conversions

Project HomeKey
Interim
Location City
Council
District
Number of
Units
Number of
beds/people
Target Population
Acquired
SureStay Hotel 1488 N First
Street
6 76 76 Currently a shelter and will
be converted to housing.

HomeKey Awarded - Pending City Council Acceptance of Funds Arena Hotel 817 The
Alameda
6 89 89 100% persons experiencing
homelessness
HomeKey Application Submitted – Awaiting Award Decision Pacific Motor Inn 455 S Second
Street
3 72 72 100% persons experiencing
homelessness
Pavilion Inn 1280 N 4th
Street
3 43 43 Transitional Youth and
Families
Total 280 280

Chronically homeless is defined as: 1) an unaccompanied homeless individual with a disabling condition who has been continuously homeless for a year or more, or 2) an unaccompanied individual with a disabling condition who has had at least four episodes of homelessness in the past three years.2

EIH Project Status

As illustrated in Table 1, the City currently has four pandemic-era BHC/EIH with capacity to shelter 357 people. The Guadalupe EIH (on a portion of City/Police E-Lot) will provide an additional 76 beds when completed in fall 2022, bringing the total number of beds to 433. Still in the planning phase, the Branham/Monterey project is proposed to be both an EIH and a HomeKey project if the State Housing and Community Development Department (HCD) approves the HomeKey application submitted in December 2021. Staff anticipates receiving the HCD decision in July 2022.

From inception through May 15, 2022, the City sheltered over 887 individuals at the BHC/EIH (including the pre-pandemic Mabury BHC). During much of the pandemic, the BHC/EIH have been focused on sheltering unhoused people most vulnerable to the effects of COVID-19 and for people who are encamped near the facility. The increase in interim housing capacity has resulted in a more secure environment providing shelter for previously unsheltered high-risk individuals and families, yet the limited availability of affordable housing continues to affect the rate at which program participants are able to transition into permanent homes. The effects of the pandemic have made it even more challenging to find landlords who are willing to rent to people who have limited resources to withstand financial emergencies. Despite these challenges, 295 individuals moved to permanent housing through May 15, 2022. Typically, each BHC/EIH has five to 10 beds a month that become available and there is a waiting list for each site to fill the vacancies.

2 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Exchange:
https://www.hudexchange.info/homelessness-assistance/coc-esg-virtual-binders/coc-esg-homeless- eligibility/definition-of-chronic-homelessness/

HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
June 10, 2022
Subject: Quick Build/Emergency Interim Housing Report

The BHC sites were originally contemplated to be short-term shelters. Now that the City has begun constructing EIH communities that can remain in place for a longer period, and increased the number of units, yet due to the lack of nonprofit partners interested in subleasing the EIH sites, staff intends to implement a longer-term leasing strategy for these sites. As part of this strategy, staff anticipates leasing or subleasing the EIH facility sites to a separate single asset entity, such as a limited liability company or nonprofit formed by the City Housing Authority.

This is consistent with standard practice for long term housing facilities and will facilitate obtaining financing in the event a shift to permanent housing is considered in the future as well as reducing potential risks to the City related to operations. As an interim measure, it is anticipated that the City Housing Authority, under its reserved powers, may serve as the lessee or sublessee.

Project HomeKey Status

In October 2020, the Housing Department closed on the purchase of the 76-unit SureStay Hotel under the first round of State HomeKey funding (Phase I). At the time of acquisition, SureStay was occupied by formerly unhoused individuals vulnerable to serious illness from COVID-19.

These residents remained housed at SureStay during the acquisition process, and most will continue to reside there after its conversion to permanent housing which is anticipated to happen in 2023. SureStay was included in a package of City owned sites for acquisition by affordable housing developers that was released by the Housing Department on December 21, 2021. It is anticipated that a qualified developer will be selected by the end of 2022. In December 2021, the Housing Department partnered with nonprofit developers and submitted two applications to State HCD for a second round (Phase II) of HomeKey funding.

The Housing Department, in partnership with the non-profit shelter operator LifeMoves, submitted an application for the development of a 204-unit EIH project off Monterey Road at Branham Lane. Unlike previous EIH, the proposed development at Branham and Monterey will be built under the funding and regulatory relief of Project HomeKey rather than AB 2176 and AB1745. In alignment with the Project HomeKey requirements, the Branham/Monterey project will be designed to operate as an interim site for a short-term period before the development may convert to a permanent use. With this goal in mind, the site will be developed to meet long-term development standards including current California Building Code requirements rather than the temporary building and development standards adopted under the City’s Emergency Bridge Housing Ordinance (MC 5.09). The second application submitted was to acquire the 89-unit Arena Hotel.

Initially, the City received notification in early March that the Branham/Monterey and Arena Hotel HomeKey applications were not approved in the regional round of funding due to a lack of funding available to the region and they were waitlisted for funding from the statewide pool.

However, on May 10, 2021, HCD announced that the City and Urban Communities (the developer) had been awarded a HomeKey award in the amount of $25,238,236 to support the acquisition, rehabilitation, and operation costs for the Arena Hotel. Staff anticipates learning the outcome of the Branham/Monterey application in July 2022.

HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
June 10, 2022
Subject: Quick Build/Emergency Interim Housing Report

In April 2022, two additional HomeKey applications were submitted under the HomeKey funding second round. If funded, the 72-unit Pacific Motor Inn will provide shelter in the short term and will be converted to permanent housing for non-chronically unhoused persons. The Pavilion Inn is competing for the HomeKey homeless youth set-aside funds. If funded, the 43- unit Pavilion Inn will include both shelter beds and permanent housing units. In total, the Arena Hotel, the Pacific Motor Inn, and Pavilion Inn—combined with the SureStay Hotel, will contribute 280 hotel units toward the overall goal of 300.

EIH Workplan Development to Meet City Council Direction

After approval of the Bold Housing Solutions memorandum by the Rules Committee last fall, the Administration began mobilizing limited staff resources to implement the directives. A small team, consisting of staff from the City Manager’s Office and the Departments of Public Works and Housing, was established to lead the effort. The team developed a comprehensive workplan to identify the milestones and tasks required to accomplish the directives and goals outlined in the memorandum, and to return to the City Council with this report in June 2022.

In March 2022, the City Council, through the approved Mayor’s MarchBudget Message for Fiscal Year 2022-23, provided additional direction to allocate a sufficient amount of one-time funding—through a combination of Federal, State, and General Fund resources—to enable the development, construction, and future ongoing operations of EIH with the goal of adding approximately 400 more EIH units/beds to the inventory of existing sites and those under construction.

The remaining sections of this memorandum address the directed activities as follows:

1. Potential Future Site Search: Process and Method

2. Funding Capacity and Plan to Support Development, Operations, and Maintenance

3. Improving the Cost and Service Performance of Existing BHC/EIH Operations

4. Sites for Expansion and Development of EIH

5. Engage County Willingness to Support BHC/EIH and Develop Alternate Facilities

6. Explore Designated Overnight Safe Parking Site(s) (District 2/10)

7. Modifications to Building Codes Necessary to Enable Multi-Story EIH Development.

1. Potential Future Site Search: Process and Method

As discussed at the September 29, 2021 Rules Committee meeting, to efficiently use limited staff resources, the search for future sites would focus on existing public property site lists previously developed for potential BHC and EIH sites. The direction was to identify a total of six sites in the Council Districts that do not have existing BHC/EIH projects (Council Districts 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10) for consideration by the full City Council. Furthermore, staff was directed to explore additional Caltrans sites, and the potential to densify or expand existing EIH sites. Staff has outreached to each Councilmember on other potential sites in their Districts as well.

In late December 2021, staff began re-visiting the existing lists of over 100 sites owned by the City and other public agencies (Attachment 1). No privately owned sites were on the pre-

HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
June 10, 2022
Subject: Quick Build/Emergency Interim Housing Report

existing list. The most developable sites on this list have already been used to develop the initial BHC (Mabury in District 3 and Felipe in District 7) and EIH (Monterey/Bernal and Rue Ferrari in District 2, Evans Lane in District 6, and Guadalupe in District 3) projects. Many of the remaining sites on the list can be readily categorized as not feasible (< one acre) or minimally feasible at best. This categorization is understandable when considering the challenges and the obstacles of past siting efforts for BHC/EIH purposes (e.g., small/not conducive shapes, not City owned/nor easy to quickly control, cost to lease/purchase or make suitable for development, adjacency and neighborhood concerns, mostly remnant parcels from other public projects not originally intended for EIH purposes, such as roads, trails, riparian corridors, and easements). In reality, there are no perfect sites, and the City will have to exercise leadership again in the face of anticipated opposition and concerns from various stakeholders on recommended sites, if more sites are to ultimately become EIH.

Feasibility, Viability, Practicality

A City staff team, with experience in real estate, housing, development/engineering, and BHC/EIH site selection and project delivery, used a phased exploration and evaluation process for the remaining sites on the list, the current EIH sites, and additional Caltrans sites. No privately owned sites were part of this round of site exploration as they were not on existing lists, would expand the time and scope of the search substantially, and ultimately would require lease or purchase for the site that would be expected to be a much higher cost than public sites.

The process aimed to efficiently evaluate sites through a method of assessing basic feasibility, then viability (project can actually be built at the site in a relatively straightforward manner, with no significant mitigations), and ultimately project practicality to arrive at a short list of sites that compare well against other sites and that staff could recommend to City Council.

Feasibility

The method initially assesses sites for potential feasibility on basic factors such as size/shape, access, and no known or easily identifiable fatal flaws (e.g., steep slopes). In this phase, staff identified about 40+ sites worth an initial, preliminary field review. Attachment 2 lists all the sites that staff conducted an initial, preliminary field review for basic feasibility. Given the complexity and limitations of building within flood zones, and costly mitigation for the few sites that would allow development, all sites identified as A, AH, and AO (e.g., substantial mitigation and flood risk) were removed from consideration for this round of EIH site selection. It is important to note that most of the sites that received a preliminary field review were in the six Council Districts that do not currently have a BHC/EIH project. Two of the six (Districts 8 and 9), even with extensive effort to identify a site, and consultation with the Councilmembers, currently remain without feasible/viable sites based upon the current pool of sites (e.g., existing lists, public agency owned, expand existing site, other Caltrans sites). Another exception is District 2, which had numerous large Caltrans sites that have been evaluated as feasible, but further work is not occurring to determine the level of viability and practicality because District 2 already has two EIH sites, and has a practical candidate site for expansion at Rue Ferrari EIH.

HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
June 10, 2022
Subject: Quick Build/Emergency Interim Housing Report

Viability

To move to and ultimately through the viability phase, sites must pass through a more thorough field and property characteristic investigation (e.g., no identified fatal flaws emerge from the site, and the site appears to have characteristics suitable for project development). In this phase, sites receive a more detailed assessment of their size/shape/capacity, ownership/parcel assemblage needs, site and utility access, apparent development limitations/prohibitions (e.g., in flood zone, required setbacks, slopes that require mitigation), preliminary environmental concerns, and land use adjacencies. The information and field work in this phase should begin to inform a potential, initial concept layout of an EIH, if it is to move on to the practicality phase. A site being deemed viable means that it has the basic characteristics to become an EIH site, but it does not mean that it should or will become a recommended site for EIH development for a variety of reasons that are further analyzed in the practicality evaluation phase.

Practicality

The project practicality phase can be characterized as the initial concept development phase, whereby some initial preliminary engineering and environmental analysis should confirm no fatal technical flaws are emerging, and some degree of site capacity is confirmed. Most importantly it aims to identify the preliminary development capacity of a site for EIH, so that initial comparisons can be made between sites, to begin making early assessments on the relative value of a site and a potential project. This includes how a site might potentially be laid out, the relative ease/challenge of utility connections, how access to and flow around a site might work, the conceptual impact of setback needs/requirements, grading requirements, slope mitigations, and an understanding of preliminary environmental considerations/flaws, leading to an initial, order of magnitude value of a site in terms of unit/bed capacity. In Section 4 below, staff identified sites that have enough practicality to be recommended for development. In the Policy Alternatives Section staff identified alternative sites that the Council can consider as well.

2. Funding Capacity and Plan to Support Development, Operations, and Maintenance

Prior to recommending actual sites for EIH development, a determination needs to be made that the construction, and future operations and maintenance can be supported from a funding standpoint. MBA #3, posted May 10, 2022, describes the funding allocations in the Fiscal Year 2022-23 Proposed Operating Budget related to EIH development, and the recommended methodology to include as Committed Additions to future Five-Year General Fund Forecasts, the costs to operate and maintain the existing and future inventory of BHC, EIH, and converted hotels and motels to shelter unhoused community members in San José.

The Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Proposed Operating Budget allocates a combined $40.0 million from the General Fund ($21.5 million) and the ARP Fund ($18.5 million) to kick-start the development of expanded and new EIH sites, and seed funding for their future operations and maintenance costs. This allocation is generally consistent with the forecast modeling provided in the memorandum recommending the change to City Council Policy 1-18, Section 22 regarding the use of Measure E Real Property Transfer Tax revenues that was approved by the City

HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
June 10, 2022
Subject: Quick Build/Emergency Interim Housing Report

Council at their meeting on April 19, 2022. That memorandum provided several scenarios on the long-term obligations the City could face with the development of additional EIH and HomeKey sites. MBA #3 focused on “Scenario 3” of the April 19, 2022 memorandum, which modeled the potential cost implications to the City through Fiscal Year 2029-2030 to operate and maintain all existing EIH and HomeKey sites, and new sites that would be initially funded with Project HomeKey applications still pending with the State, and construction of four more EIH.

That scenario used the following revenue and cost assumptions:

• Non-City, external funding, only assumes Federal and State sources that staff is relatively certain will be available in the future; it does not include any new external resources from government agencies that target homeless solutions and that might be available in future budget cycles, nor does it consider any additional philanthropic donations.

• Assumes a one-time infusion of City funding of $40 million in Fiscal Year 2022-2023.

• Assumes ongoing contributions from Measure E revenues of approximately $6.2 million (on top of the $12.2 million estimated for Fiscal Year 2021-2022).

• Assumes cost to develop, design, and construct a new EIH site is estimated at $15.0 million; the cost to operate and maintain a new EIH site is estimated at $3.5 million per year, escalated at 3.0% annually. Four new EIH projects were forecasted into this source and use scenario.

Using these assumptions, ongoing annual General Fund contributions to support future operating and maintenance costs were estimated to begin in Fiscal Year 2023-2024 at $5.0 million, escalate to $12.0 million in Fiscal Year 2024-2025, and incrementally rise to $32.0 million in Fiscal Year 2029-2030. This scenario illustrates the relative magnitude of investment required to provide sheltering options for our unhoused community in alignment with past City Council direction.

The actual costs and level of future General Fund contributions will be based on the availability of funding and approval of pending Project HomeKey applications by the State; the number, type, and design of new and expanded EIH projects authorized for construction; the availability of other funding sources and philanthropic efforts, and the results of the San Francisco Foundation study that may result in an overall reduction of operating costs for each of the sites.

It is important to note that the $40 million allocation of one-time funds and future ongoing General Fund allocations may not be sufficient to fully reach the goal of 1,000 pandemic era interim housing units and 300 converted hotel/motel rooms depending on site selection, actual site development and construction costs, and the availability of additional external funding.

Further, the scenario assumes that eligible fund balances of $20 million would be allocated to the next round of EIH development. This infusion of funds makes substantial strides to meeting the goal while still allowing other strategic investments in the Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Proposed Operating Budget important to the City Council and community. Further, it is likely that additional one-time external funding will become available in future budget cycles – such as from the State of California, philanthropic donations, and/or excess revenues from Measure E –

HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
June 10, 2022
Subject: Quick Build/Emergency Interim Housing Report

to supplement the currently identified resources. Depending upon the final approved direction by the City Council in terms of projects and funding, and the actual cost to develop approved projects once contractor proposals have been received, the Administration will be able to update the City Council, likely during the Fiscal Year 2023-2024 budget process, on the alignment between funding allocations and the delivery of the goal stated above.

Regardless of the level of one-time funding provided by City or external sources to fund EIH development and construction, the City needs to have a long-term funding strategy in place for their future operating and maintenance costs. In addition to the programmatic costs for operating the facilities, the City has also identified the need to have a staff team located in the Public Works Department who can maintain and repair the physical structures. Even though the sites are new, there have been warranty issues, ongoing site improvements to improve the livability of the communities, and repairs needed when units turn over. This will require the creation of a dedicated team to ensure that the communities are kept in good condition.

The Administration recommends treating all EIH and converted hotel/motel sites as a Committed Addition that will be incorporated into future General Fund forecasts. Committed Additions involve future operating expenses for projects that have been previously approved by the City Council and deemed relatively unavoidable. They are generally represented as new or improved capital assets that, once built, need to be operated and maintained. MBA #3 details the Administration’s recommended approach to maintaining a long-term funding strategy to support EIH and converted hotel/motel construction, operations, and maintenance. It should be noted that the majority of the HomeKey hotels will only need short-term operating support and once they are redeveloped as permanent housing will no longer need an ongoing subsidy.

3. Improving the Cost and Service Performance of Existing BHC/EIH Operations

The San Francisco Foundation, working with the Housing Department, has entered into a contract with Homebase, a collective of legal, policy, and subject matter experts who consult on data systems, provide skilled facilitation, and strategic planning focusing on addressing homelessness and its root causes. Homebase also provides support to the County of Santa Clara’s Continuum of Care Program. With over three decades of experience in the homelessness response field, Homebase will work directly with City staff, community partners, and the residents of the BHC’s and EIH’s to identify improvements to the operations of the interim housing sites. More specifically, they will identify proven best practices (local and national) for interim housing, including:

• Models of services and operations that reduce operations and service costs; • Service and operational models that engage residents in the governance and operations of their own community; and
• Service and support models that move participants to permanent housing.

It is anticipated that the consultant’s findings will be released this winter. The Administration will present the findings to the City Council for feedback. In the winter of 2023, the Housing Department will release a competitive request for proposals detailing the

HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
June 10, 2022
Subject: Quick Build/Emergency Interim Housing Report

new service models to operate and maintain the City’s interim housing sites. It is anticipated new contracts and services would be in place across all the interim housing sites some time during Fiscal Year 2023-24.

4. Sites for Expansion and New Development of EIH

This section of the memorandum identifies the sites recommended for further project development and completion of EIH projects, and the prioritization of sites for pre-planning and future project development, once funding and project delivery capacity is confirmed and allocated to the next set of prioritized sites. Sites 1 through 6 below constitute the current recommended slate of sites for EIH planning and project development to achieve the six site, 400 unit/bed Council goal:

Site Council
District
Owner Projected
Units/Beds

1. Guadalupe Expansion 3 City 20

2. 101/Rue Ferrari Expansion 2 Caltrans 100

3. Noble Ave 4 City 100

4. 85/Great Oaks 10 Caltrans 100

5. 680/Jackson 5 Caltrans 50

6. 85/Prospect 1 Caltrans 30
Total = 6 sites Goal = 400

1. Expand the currently under construction Guadalupe Site (City owned)

Location: The Guadalupe site is in District 3 carved out of the City-Police Department E Lot bounded by Mission St on the north, San Pedro St to the east, Taylor St to the south, and Guadalupe Pkwy to the west. Attachment 3 provides an aerial map of the site. The size of the area anticipated to be used for the expansion is relatively small at about 0.56 acres to accommodate an estimated 20-unit expansion.

Evaluation: Part of the site is currently under construction as a 76-unit EIH with an expected completion date of early October 2022. As a result, the site is already deemed viable from the standpoint of access to the site, utility connections, and no site based fatal flaws, etc. The determination of whether the site is practical for expansion focused on the potential impact on parking adequacy for the Police Department and Fire Department Communications, including the ability to mitigate impacts to parking adequacy; and the cost to deliver an expansion.

The most practical expansion alternative for this site would be the addition of four modular buildings equaling 20 additional sleeping units. A modest expansion can leverage existing utility and common area facilities, not requiring upsizing the capacity of those facilities (e.g. electrical, sewer, kitchen). Expanding beyond 20 units would require a redesign of and upsizing of the site utilities, including electrical and sewer capacity. The estimated range of unit cost per additional bed is about $90,000 to $100,000 compared to the estimated unit cost for the original Guadalupe EIH project of $180,000, and an even likely higher unit cost for development of new EIH

HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
June 10, 2022
Subject: Quick Build/Emergency Interim Housing Report

projects on other sites. It is anticipated that a more refined unit cost will be developed when a change order with the current contractor is negotiated, and parking mitigations and/or improvements for the Police Department campus are determined.

A 20-unit expansion also limits the amount of additional land required from the E Lot. Final land requirements for expansion will be determined during a final design phase, but one of the guiding principles of design for the expansion would be to minimize the amount of land needed to limit impact on E Lot parking capacity. The City Administration would not proceed on construction of the expansion until a corresponding plan to reduce parking impact, or accordingly expand parking access or capacity, is determined and put in motion along a parallel track with the expansion project. The parking strategy may have interim and longer-term components. As a result, the specific timing of the expansion is not precisely determined at the time, but will be determined by the City Manager’s Office, in consultation with the Departments of Public Works, Police, Fire, and Transportation, as it relates to anticipated parking impacts, and the timing of appropriate parking mitigations. The goal is to move as expeditiously as possible on the expansion project.

From an EIH operating cost standpoint, expanding a current or under construction site takes advantage of an economy of scale. It limits the number of separate sites in the EIH portfolio enabling existing management, site supervision, and other existing operational resources to be leveraged, requiring a smaller proportional investment to oversee and operate the added units/beds and serve more clients, than would be required for a completely new site.

Conclusion: Expand the currently under construction Guadalupe EIHC site by up to 20 units, with a parallel plan to reduce parking impact, or accordingly expand parking access or capacity.

2. Expand the existing Rue Ferrari Site (Caltrans owned)

Location: The Rue Ferrari site is in District 2 bounded by Rue Ferrari on the east, Bernal Rd on the south, and US 101 on the west. Attachment 4 provides an aerial map of the site. The size of the area anticipated to be used for an expansion depends on the specific alternative pursued. If expansion is limited to the existing EIH site perimeter, an additional one acre of under-developed area can be utilized. If the project is expanded beyond the existing perimeter, roughly four acres of vacant land is available on this site.

Evaluation: Part of this site (leased from Caltrans) is an existing 118 bed EIH. As a result, the site is already deemed viable from the standpoint of access to the site, utility connections, and no site based fatal flaws, etc. The site has good potential for expansion both within the existing perimeter of the EIH facility (e.g. within the fence), and/or on the remaining undeveloped land to the south and north of the existing facility. The most practical expansion alternative will depend on various factors, including:

• Negotiations with Caltrans on a lease amendment or potential purchase of site • Number of additional units/beds desired, or able to be physically accommodated, considering progress towards the overall unit/bed goal (e.g. 400), and being able to effectively operate the site, serve the clients, and remain a good neighbor

HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
June 10, 2022
Subject: Quick Build/Emergency Interim Housing Report

• Immediate EIH use of, or retention for future uses, the undeveloped portions of the site.

The final alternative would be determined from an assessment of the factors mentioned above, through negotiations with Caltrans, and exploring various design and operational alternatives.

For planning purposes, the Rue Ferrari site can accommodate an expansion up to 100 additional units/beds. The overall site has the physical size to achieve capacity beyond 100 units/beds (if the undeveloped land is included). However, from an operations standpoint, up to 100 is being counted for this site currently.

Expanding a current site has the advantage of an operational economy of scale for the Housing Department. It limits the number of separate individual sites in the overall EIH portfolio enabling existing management, site supervision, and other existing operational resources to be leveraged, requiring a smaller proportional investment to manage and operate the additional units/beds and serve the clients than would be required for a completely new site.

Conclusion: Develop various design alternatives for the Rue Ferrari site, with the goal of expanding by up to 100 beds.

3. Develop the new Noble Ave Site (City owned)

Location: The Noble Ave site is in District 4 bounded by Noble Ave on the north, Lower Penitencia Creek and percolation basins on the south, and it is east of Mira Vista Circle and west of Grossmont Dr. Attachment 5 provides an aerial map of the site. The size of the area anticipated to be used for the expansion is about 2.5 acres if the two City parcels are combined .

Evaluation: The City owned site is in District 4, which does not have an existing EIH facility and thus meets the Rules memorandum direction to identify sites in Council Districts that do not have an EIH. The site is good sized, fairly flat, and physically suitable for the development of an EIH from a technical and project delivery standpoint. Access and utilities are available from Noble Ave directly to the north of the site. The site consists of two City-owned parcels with one fronting Noble Avenue and abutting a Valley Water percolation basin on the south side, and the other also abutting a percolation basin on the south side and the back yards of eight single-family residential properties and one City facility (small PRNS community facility) on the north and east sides of the site. Penitencia Creek Reach 2 trail circles one of the properties and bisects the two parcels. Across Noble Ave is Noble Elementary School, Berryessa Branch Library, and Noble Park.

The overall site has the physical size to achieve capacity beyond 100 units/beds; however, given the adjacency to the eight single-family residential properties, planning for only up to 100 units/beds is a more realistic alternative to design towards, and still significantly support the overall goal of 400 additional units/beds. That capacity would accommodate physical setbacks (e.g., distance, fence, trees, plantings) between the eight single-family residential properties and the northeast EIH boundary. It would also enable incorporation of the Penitencia Creek Reach 2 trail access around and through the site. From a resident-serving standpoint, the site, or at least a segregated portion of it, should receive serious consideration as a site to accommodate families.

HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
June 10, 2022
Subject: Quick Build/Emergency Interim Housing Report

This site was identified as a potential BHC site in 2015, and due to strong community opposition, it was not advanced into the development stage. The reason for re-considering the site stems from current City Council direction to seek out sites in Council Districts that do not have EIH projects. Few, if any other suitable City/public sites exist in District 4 that will make a substantial contribution towards the ambitious goal to develop EIH units rapidly. In fact, this is the only City-owned site recommended for new EIH development at this time, mostly because others do not exist. It has the distinct advantage of being City owned, thus reducing the cost and time to develop and deliver an EIH project. Recognizing the likely community opposition to this site, staff has developed Policy Alternatives that include other sites in District 4 from information forwarded to staff from the Mayor’s Office and the District 4 Office. In exploring and evaluating those sites, staff determined that the sites are primarily privately owned, and as such would require lease and/or purchase negotiations with a private entity, adding cost and likely time to the delivery of a project compared to the Noble Ave site.

Conclusion: Develop various design alternatives for the Noble Ave site, taking into account setback needs, trail incorporation, and appropriate future resident focus, with the goal of up to 100 units/beds.

4. Develop the new 85 South @ Great Oaks Blvd Site (Caltrans owned)

Location: The 85 South @ Great Oaks Blvd site is in District 10 bounded by the 85 off-ramp on the north, Great Oaks Blvd to the east, and industrial properties to the south. Attachment 6 provides an aerial map of the site. The size of the area anticipated to be used for the expansion is approximately 2.5 acres of usable land.

Evaluation: The Caltrans-owned site is in District 10, which does not have an existing EIH facility and thus meets the Rules memorandum direction to identify sites in Council Districts that do not have an EIH. Staff is aware that while this site is in District 10, it is in relatively close proximity to two existing EIH sites in Council District 2. However, based on the search performed, staff has determined that this could be the most practical location in District 10, and best supports the overall goal of achieving an additional 400 units/beds. The site is large, narrow, and flat, and is anticipated to be fairly straightforward for the development of an EIH from a technical standpoint. Access and utilities are available from Great Oaks Blvd. The site is adjacent to the Great Oaks Blvd off ramp from southbound 85 and fronts Great Oaks Blvd on the east and abuts BAE Systems on the south.

While the site’s current configuration is practical for EIH development, very recent discussions with Caltrans have raised concerns that the site may have some development limitations. In a meeting on June 1, 2022, Caltrans informed the City that they are in negotiations with a private entity to sell a narrow 25-foot swath of the parcel to accommodate a private underground utility project. Caltrans also informed City staff that their setback requirements have changed since the previous EIH projects on Caltrans sites were reviewed and approved. City staff continues to work with Caltrans to understand how these new limits will impact EIH development. Alternate sites have been identified in District 10 and included in the Policy Alternatives section of the memorandum.

HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
June 10, 2022
Subject: Quick Build/Emergency Interim Housing Report

The overall site, if fully developable, has the physical size to achieve capacity up to 100 units/beds, but given its narrow character and new potential setback limitations, staff is not in a position to plan the site to accommodate capacity beyond 100 units/beds. Given this is a Caltrans owned site and is new (versus Rue Ferrari on a Caltrans site having previously gone through design approval), staff needs to represent the site and its anticipated capacity and schedule in a more conservative and preliminary manner; therefore, it is prudent to have policy and site alternatives in District 10.

Conclusion: Develop design alternatives, taking into account setback needs from the freeway off ramp and potential underground utility project, with the goal of up to 100 units/beds, and be prepared to pursue site alternatives if the unit/bed yield drops significantly below 100.

5. Prioritize for future development the 680 North @ Jackson Ave Site (Caltrans owned)

Location: The 680 North @ Jackson Ave site is in District 5 bounded by 680 on the northwest, the off-ramp on the east, and Jackson Ave and Lower Silver Creek on the north. Attachment 7 provides an aerial map of the site. The size of the area anticipated to be used for the expansion is about 1.25 acres of usable land.

Evaluation: The Caltrans-owned site is in a District 5, which does not have an existing EIH facility and thus meets the Rules memorandum direction to identify sites in Council Districts that do not have an EIH. The site is smaller with a modest flat buildable area. Due to slopes and setback requirements from the adjacent elevated 680 freeway and the Jackson Ave off ramp (previously required 30’ setbacks), and limited frontage along Jackson Ave on the north, and the Lower Silver Creek box culvert channel on the north, a creative design would be required to maximize the developable area and to make for a good EIH facility. Access and utilities are available from Jackson Ave. District 5 as a whole, and this particular area, is mostly developed, so almost no opportunities exist to develop an EIH on surplus public lands. Within the general vicinity of this site are numerous schools including Goss Elementary, Rocketship Si Se Puede Academy, and Mathson Middle School.

Given the site’s size constraints, initial concepts appear to provide capacity for up to 50 units/beds. Although larger than the original BHCs (Mabury and Felipe 40 units each), the likely capacity of this site is smaller than the existing EIH facilities (Monterey 78, Rue Fearrai 118, Evans 121). From a practical comparison standpoint, this site meets the goal of siting an EIH facility in a Council District that does not have an EIH facility. Alternatively, from a cost per unit perspective, having a capacity of up to 50 units, will typically have a higher per unit cost than sites that can accommodate higher unit capacity.

Conclusion: Prioritize the site for future EIH development with the goal of up to 50 units/beds.

Include the site in preliminary discussions with Caltrans. Hold off on development of design alternatives until sufficient progress has been made on sites 1 through 4; and a determination can be made on future funding availability, staff capacity, and the desire to deliver an up to 50-unit facility for the estimated cost to deliver in a future fiscal year (e.g. 2023-24 or 2024-25).

6. Prioritize for future development the 85 South @ Prospect Rd Site (Caltrans owned)

HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
June 10, 2022
Subject: Quick Build/Emergency Interim Housing Report

Location: The 85 South @ Prospect Rd site is in District 1 bounded by the SR85 on the east, Prospect Rd on the south, and multi-family apartments on the west. Attachment 8 provides an aerial map of the site. The size of the area anticipated to be used for the expansion is approximately 1.2 acres of usable land.

Evaluation: The Caltrans-owned site is in District 1, which does not have an existing EIH facility and thus meets the Rules memorandum direction to identify sites in Council Districts that do not have an EIH. The site is small, with an even smaller flat buildable area (at the minimum threshold), due to steep slopes down to the mainline 85 freeway on the east. A creative design would be required to maximize the developable area and to make for an acceptable EIH facility.

Access and utilities are available from Prospect Rd, including an existing driveway that would need widening. District 1 is mostly developed, so almost no opportunities exist to develop an EIH on surplus public lands. The City of Saratoga is across Prospect Rd to the south and Blue Hills Elementary School is within the general vicinity of this site (in Saratoga).

Given the site (size) constraints, initial concepts appear to provide capacity for up to 30 units/beds. This site would be smaller than the original BHCs (Mabury and Felipe 40 units each) and significantly smaller than the existing EIH facilities (Monterey 78, Rue Fearrai 118, Evans 121). From a practical comparison standpoint, this site meets the goal of siting an EIH facility in a Council District that does not have an EIH facility. District 1 has few, if any other options, for siting an EIH on public property. Alternatively, from a cost per unit perspective, having a capacity of up to 30 units, will typically have a higher per unit cost than sites that can accommodate higher unit capacity.

Conclusion: Prioritize the site for future EIH development with the goal of up to 30 units/beds.

Include the site in preliminary discussions with Caltrans. Hold off on development of design alternatives until sufficient progress has been made on sites 1 through 4 and a determination can be made on future funding availability, staff capacity, and the desire to deliver an up to 30-unit facility for the estimated cost to deliver in a future fiscal year (e.g., 2023-24 or 2024-25).

5. Engage County Willingness to Support BHC/EIH and Develop Alternate Facilities

City and County housing staff work in partnership to develop, fund, and implement primarily housing opportunities, and street-based services and programs. While the Housing Department has made efforts to engage the County in providing behavioral health services at the interim housing sites, there is a lack of County capacity to provide such services on-site both in terms of staff and programs. The County has recently begun to study their existing Behavioral Health System of care to better understand the gaps in services with a goal of improving access for all Santa Clara County residents including people who are unhoused. At the same time, the State is leading a multi-year initiative, California Advancing and Innovating Medi-Cal (CalAIM), that will improve the Medi-Cal behavioral health delivery system which should expand opportunities and access to services.

The County’s Behavioral Health system is large and complex with an annual budget of over $600 million and 749 full time equivalent positions. Due to the Housing Department’s focus on advancing affordable housing opportunities, the small size and capacity of the Homeless Response Team, and the lack of expertise or experience with the complicated Behavior Health

HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
June 10, 2022
Subject: Quick Build/Emergency Interim Housing Report

programs and system of care, it has been challenging to effectively engage with the County on these issues. As result, the City Manager’s Office has recruited a new Deputy City Manager (DCM), with executive experience in County government, to oversee, among several other items, the Ending Homelessness Enterprise Priority, including homeless response. One of the critical roles of the new DCM will be to engage and coordinate strategy, program, and service approaches with the County related to behavior health which includes both mental health and substance abuse treatment with a goal to expand County services including providing support services at BHC/EIH sites.

Additionally, the Mayor’s Office, in consultation with the City Manager’s Office and Housing Department, is exploring a State Grant Partnership Program whereby State funds could be awarded to local agencies, or other non-governmental agencies, to develop new facilities or renovate existing facilities that would shelter and serve populations that need treatment for behavioral health services including mental health and addiction services. Any proposal would likely need to have a partnership with the County to receive State funding.

6. Explore Designated Overnight Safe Parking Site(s) (District 2/10)

The Housing Department is working on establishing two safe parking sites, one focused on Recreational Vehicles (RVs) to be operated by LifeMoves, and a second site focused on automobiles to be operated by Amigos de Guadalupe. For the first site, the Housing Department is in negotiations with Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) for the use of one of their parking lots in south San José to serve 60 RV occupants. The Housing Department and VTA have met several times and have come to an agreement on the general terms of use. The Housing Department has submitted a preliminary application to VTA and is awaiting approval.

Before it can be used as a safe parking lot, the parking lot needs site preparation – specifically the installation of fencing, temporary electrical, signage and striping. The Public Works Department is in the process of developing the plans and specifications for the site preparation project and anticipates the site will be ready by fall 2022, assuming no bid protests or significant unforeseen construction related delays. Resources previously allocated in the American Rescue Plan Fund for sheltering persons experiencing homelessness and support are expected to be sufficient to facilitate this work. In the meantime, the Housing Department will finalize an agreement with VTA once the preliminary application has been approved and execute a contract with LifeMoves for services. The community outreach has begun for this site. In February, the Housing Department met with a nearby homeowner’s association. The Housing Department worked with Council District 10 to host a small group meeting in May and will host a larger community outreach meeting later in June.

The City Manager’s Office and Housing Department are also working on identifying a second safe parking site for automobiles that will be operated by Amigos de Guadalupe.

A potential City site is currently under evaluation. Additionally, in response to a Board of Supervisors referral, the Office of Supportive Housing (OSH) is searching for sites across the County for either safe parking or emergency interim housing. If a site is identified in

HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
June 10, 2022
Subject: Quick Build/Emergency Interim Housing Report

the City, OSH will develop a community outreach plan and coordinate with the City Administration.

7. Modifications to Building Codes Necessary to Enable Multi-Story EIH Development

The California Building Code (CBC) adopted by the City of San Jose allows for construction of permanent multi-story residential buildings. Whether through conventional construction or prefabricated modular design, builders are generally able to design and construct multi-story residential dwellings in San Jose. The complexity of the design requirements and the cost of construction increases significantly when erecting structures over one story. Each project must be designed and engineered to the unique site conditions and building specifications.

The regulatory relief granted under State Assembly Bill 2176, suspends many of the development requirements for the City’s EIH developments. In lieu of more rigid state and local laws, regulations, and ordinances, the legislation provides the City with the authority to adopt specific standards for the design, construction, and operation of temporary emergency bridge housing communities. The legislation requires that HCD review the City’s draft ordinance and any subsequent changes to ensure that it addresses minimum health and safety standards and includes the findings as provided by the legislation. In addition to adopting specific building standards in lieu of the CBC, the City’s Emergency Bridge Housing Communities Ordinance, suspends application of various development policies and land use requirements. The following describes some of the key regulatory requirements and development policies suspended or eased under the City’s Emergency BHC Ordinance:

• Land Use Requirements – suspends General Plan and Zoning • Development Requirements – either suspends or relaxes a number of state and local requirements such as geotechnical review, storm water permits, and public right of way improvements
• Building Construction Standards – suspends the requirements under the CBC and establishes specific building standards to allow for the design and construction of structures for temporary use while providing basic life safety • Building Use and Habitability – establishes emergency interim housing use which operates as extended non-congregate shelter in lieu of adopted occupancy standards. Also suspends certain landlord tenant laws.

Whether used as temporary or permanent dwellings, multi-story buildings require a higher level of design than single story construction to ensure the safety of the people occupying the units. At a minimum, construction of multi-story EIH buildings will require:

Structural - More robust structural reinforcement needed to handle the physical requirements of a multi-story building including:

• Structurally designed permanent foundations
• Increased seismic transfer connections
• Increased wall dimensions for weight and seismic loads.

HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
June 10, 2022
Subject: Quick Build/Emergency Interim Housing Report

Increased Fire Safety Systems - Given the higher building density and risk of fire spread, construction of multi-story EIH communities would need to follow Fire and Life Safety codes for multi-family construction and include:

• Fire sprinkler systems
• Integrated fire alarm systems
• Greater fire separation than the single-story buildings

Accessibility - All of the current BHC and EIH developments are required to meet both the Accessibility requirements under the CBC and the requirements under the Federal Americans with Disabilities Act. By elevator or other means, newly constructed multi-story units would need to include access to each level constructed for residential or public use.

Legislative options to develop multi-story EIH

1) Amend existing Emergency BHC Ordinance to permit multi-story modular building

Amending the existing ordinance will require several months or longer to evaluate new standards, draft local legislation, submit for HCD review, conduct adequate public hearings (minimum two required), and receive City Council approval. Given the permanent nature of multi-story construction, attempting to add these types of buildings to the existing ordinance appears to conflict with the State legislation to develop temporary solutions. State HCD would likely identify this as a conflict in their review of the ordinance. While multi-story development may be a more efficient use of land, the additional cost and time to design and develop seemingly run contrary to the original intent of the legislation to develop quick and cost-efficient temporary housing solutions. A sites duration of use would still be limited by the sunset dates of the legislation.

2) Build sleeping units to current CBC Standards for multi-family development

If built outside of the City’s Emergency BHC Ordinance, the EIH development would not benefit from the flexibility granted under the legislation listed above. This would require the Administration to evaluate all development and land use requirements and develop new policies for this type of development. Evaluating existing development requirements would be staff intensive, requiring input from all departments to determine what local policies can be waived and what requirements are State mandated, likely requiring further legislation.

This option will likely take over a year and would result in EIH sites that resemble permanent development not only in appearance but in cost and time. As with the first option, this option appears contrary to the goal of quick and cost-effective temporary housing solutions.

3) Seek State legislation that will provide the desired regulatory relief

The intent of AB 2176 is to provide temporary relief from state and local laws, regulations, and ordinances during a shelter crisis. The State legislation emphasized the temporary nature by establishing short term (5 years or less) durations of EBHC. The State Project HomeKey program established longer term interim uses with some limited regulatory relief like those

HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
June 10, 2022
Subject: Quick Build/Emergency Interim Housing Report

granted under AB 2176. Unlike the communities built under AB 2176, HomeKey has no set duration limit for temporary use and options to transition to permanent use. As a competitive grant, the regulatory relief only applies to projects awarded HomeKey funds. As with AB 2176, the City can lobby the State Legislature to develop legislation with regulatory relief similar to Project Homekey without the use of State funds. This would potentially provide San Jose with the ability to develop EIH communities for longer term use and benefit from relaxed development and land use requirements.

Conclusion: While there are options to develop future EIH sites using multi-story buildings, all options add layers of complexity to current EIH development that will increase timelines as well as cost of development. Additionally, to pursue any of these options would require staff capacity that currently is not available or does not exist. Lastly, given the permanent nature of the multi-story development, it is unlikely that public partners such as Caltrans will allow permanent development on their sites, limiting the locations to City owned parcels.

Next Steps: Timing, Capacity, and Sequencing of Approved EIH Sites for Delivery

It is important to understand that the likely schedule of future projects, from City Council site and funding approval to completion of construction and resident move-ins, can take up to 18 months or more for multiple projects, depending upon various factors and conditions. If the site is under full City control, the project is fully funded, no significant Council District, community, or environmental issues emerge after site selection, and no major fabrication or construction related delays occur, the schedule could be less than 18 months.

To reduce the project delivery timelines as much as possible, Public Works staff is putting in place a design-build pre-qualification process to shorten the request for proposal and award phase for EIH construction. If any significant issues emerge, the delivery schedule is likely to be longer than 18 months. Even with the appropriate allocation of staffing for these projects, recruitment of qualified staff can be a challenge. If multiple projects move forward at the same time and Public Works is unable to fill the project management positions required, then it is likely that other projects in the Department may need to be placed on temporary hold for those staff to shift towards these priority housing projects. These other projects would most likely be projects associated with new or renovated parks and buildings.

This timeline is based upon experience from 2020 and 2021, and current project development of EIH sites. This is due to the typical capacity of the project delivery team given the workload associated with each project, the current use of more normal but still expedited project delivery methods versus early pandemic era emergency operations delivery mode (e.g., suspended procurement regulations and no CEQA requirements, etc.), and an experience-based understanding of contractor capacity and performance (e.g., construction and modular fabricators). For example, the Guadalupe site, which is currently under construction, is expected to take approximately 18 months from start of design to completion.

Based upon the potential obstacles, timeline challenges, site assessments and projects recommended in this memorandum, Public Works will use a design and deliver strategy that entails a sequential and overlapping approach over a multi-year period. What that practically means is that sites 1 through 4 would be queued up in 2022-23 based upon the conditions associated with each site such as the

HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
June 10, 2022
Subject: Quick Build/Emergency Interim Housing Report

timing of site control, ownership (e.g., City versus Caltrans), nature of community notification and outreach, site conditions, environmental review completion, procurement capacity, project delivery capacity, design review, and contractor capacity.

Depending upon the readiness or challenges of sites 1 through 4, it is most practical to prioritize sites that have the most direct path to completion (e.g., timing of City control of site, community notification and/or outreach complete, and design, procurement, and construction path is programmed). Working with four sites in 2022-23 (1 through 4) provides staff with a sufficient project workload to advance projects, and to shift attention among the four projects depending upon the immediate tasks and challenges associated with each site, reducing time across program delivery.

If all four projects have smooth paths into and through design and construction delivery, staff’s capacity will need to be evaluated and potentially augmented. It is realistic to assume that some challenges will emerge on sites, and as such troubleshooting beyond Public Works will be required.

Under that situation, Public Works staff will shift focus to the sites and projects that have a more direct path to design completion and delivery.

Assuming the City Council approval of the recommendations in this memorandum, and the funding in the Fiscal Year 2022-23 Budget to support this work, the Administration will be initiating project development on the four sites and projects this summer. As progress is made, or challenges emerge over the next year, staff will be able to frame an overall picture of progress, and an estimated schedule for completion of projects (sites 1 through 4). Staff will work to deliver two of the projects by December 2023, and the other two in 2024 likely by the middle or end of 2024. The 20-unit Guadalupe expansion has the potential to move more quickly, but it is dependent upon funding and delivering enough adequate parking mitigations for the Police Administration and Emergency Dispatch Campus.

Depending upon the workload and progress associated with sites 1 through 4 as the next 12 months unfold, the Administration will assess the staff capacity and appropriateness of any pre-development activities for sites 5 and 6 (e.g., funding availability, site control, community outreach, preliminary design). That assessment will be part of any report to the CED Committee in the spring of 2023.

CONCLUSION

The City Council has laid out a program of directives to address some of the more immediate and interim aspects of the shelter crises afflicting our City. Staff has completed substantial portions of the workplan and made recommendations aimed at meeting the goals and targets included in the direction. This memorandum recaps the projects already delivered, those in the pipeline, and most importantly the tangible recommendations to identify sites and funding to deliver on the ambitious directives outlined by the City Council.

EVALUATION AND FOLLOW-UP

Staff will report back to the CED Committee in spring 2023 on the progress of planning and development on sites 1 through 4, including estimated schedules for completion, any project obstacles, and estimated costs; and a preliminary projection of pre-development activities, or other

HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
June 10, 2022
Subject: Quick Build/Emergency Interim Housing Report

assessments, for the prioritized sites (5 and 6) on the recommended list for Fiscal Year 2023-24. In addition, coordination and follow up will occur with the Mayor’s Office and affected City Council Offices as public outreach, design alternatives, and project delivery occurs. Finally, award of construction projects for individual sites will be brought forward for City Council consideration. The funding status and needs of this program will be addressed in the Fiscal Year 2023-24 Budget process. Performance, metrics for the BHCs and the EIH will be included in the annual Homeless Report. The results of the EIH financial feasibility study will be brought to the Neighborhood Services and Education Committee in winter 2023.

CLIMATE SMART SAN JOSE

The recommendation in this memorandum has no effect on Climate Smart San José energy, water, or mobility goals. However, future Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH) and Housing Element strategies may support Climate Smart goals.

POLICY ALTERNATIVES

Alternative #1: Evaluate the following two alternative sites in Council District 10:
• Highway 85 South at Santa Teresa Blvd On Ramp
• VTA Santa Teresa Light Rail Station Site
to develop the most practical site for a new EIH project in City Council District 10. Attachments 9 and 10 provide an aerial map of the respective sites. Both sites require review and approval of the respective site owners Caltrans and VTA before a project can proceed.

Pros: If the Highway 85 South at Great Oaks Blvd site proves not practical for development due to the potential setback items mentioned earlier in this memorandum, this alternative enables staff to more quickly move to the alternative locations to develop an EIH project in District 10, potentially without further City Council action and added time for delivery.

Cons: This alternative does not determine with certainty the specific site that will be developed as an EIH project in District 10.

Reason for not recommending: Staff believes that the Highway 85 South at Great Oaks Blvd site provides the best location to develop an EIH project in District 10 with the least impact on surrounding neighborhoods (farther from residential) and land uses (avoids impact on current industrial lands).

Alternative #2: Evaluate the following two alternative sites in Council District 4:
• Pectin Court near 680 and Montague Expressway
• King Road and Mabury Road near Penitencia Creek
to identify one site to develop an EIH project in City Council District 4. Attachments 11 and 12 provide an aerial map of the respective sites. These sites were not on the original list of sites; however, in communications with the Mayor’s Office and the District 4 Office, staff was asked to evaluate these sites as alternatives to the Noble Ave site.

HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
June 10, 2022
Subject: Quick Build/Emergency Interim Housing Report

Pros: If the City Council deems the City-owned site on Noble Ave not to be the preferred site for the development of an EIH project in District 4, this alternative provides staff with two sites to complete evaluation and to potentially move forward with one of those sites for EIH development.

Cons: This alternative does not determine with certainty the specific site that will be developed as an EIH project in District 4 and includes two sites in the evaluation that are not owned by the City, and in fact are privately owned. The cost and time to develop a privately-owned site is expected to be greater than the City-owned site. The King Rd site may have access and flood zone impacts that must be mitigated before a project can be developed.

Reason for not recommending: Staff determined that the Noble Ave site provides the most practical location to develop an EIH project because it is City owned and controlled, can move toward more rapid development of much needed emergency interim housing compared to continued efforts to evaluate other sites the City does not own or control. The alternatives would likely add cost and time to develop an EIH project.

PUBLIC OUTREACH

The BHC and EIH programs remain a challenging initiative for the City and community from a public notification, outreach, and support standpoint. When the City Council directed outreach as part of the original BHC effort back in 2015, outreach on potential sites in various Council Districts was met with sustained opposition and resistance. As a result, the goal to achieve one BHC or EIH in each Council District has been very challenging due to both the lack of community support and lack of available sites.

Early in the pandemic in April 2020, the City Council selected three sites for EIH facilities (two in District 2 and one in District 6). The notification and outreach approach were accelerated due to the urgent need to respond to the pandemic and the urgent need for more emergency shelter. The City Council, with a limited number of public speakers at the virtual Council meeting on April 21, 2020, approved three sites. After selection, allocation of funding, and some preliminary design of sites by staff, virtual community meetings were held in Districts 2 and 6. The purpose was primarily to explain the background on the BHC and EIH programs, to notify the community of the approved sites, and to discuss how the sites would be developed. In addition, the City aimed to convey how compatibility and good neighbor expectations of an EIH would be ensured (e.g. site operator, security, good design, perimeter fence, etc.).

Both Districts 2 and 6 initiated local Community Advisory Committee’s to discuss project concepts, delivery, and operations. To date, the BHC and EIH facilities have operated effectively, serving their purpose of keeping unhoused people safe during the pandemic and have had little to no negative impact on the surrounding neighborhoods.

Given the direction by the City Council to return with a slate of sites focused on the Council Districts that do not have EIH sites, and to do so quickly by June 2022, staff has not had the time or capacity to conduct public outreach. Based upon experience with past public outreach on BHC and EIH sites, it is reasonable to expect that much of the feedback would be in opposition to siting EIH facilities at

HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
June 10, 2022
Subject: Quick Build/Emergency Interim Housing Report

the locations recommended in this memorandum. However, based on staff observations from completing current EIH developments, much of this opposition is typically due to residents not being fully aware of what is being constructed and how it will be operated and secured. Ultimately, these are safe and secure places for residents who were previously living on our streets, including some in the vicinity of the EIH site. Providing for relocation from the streets to a secured interim housing facility generally represents an improved condition for both the residents that are sheltered and the surrounding neighborhoods throughout the City.

Staff recommends a tailored approach to public notification and outreach to match the unique needs of each site, the surrounding communities and the level of engagement desired by each Council District, and the capacity and time to conduct it. The tailored approach would be determined and developed by the Mayor’s Office, the affected Council Office, and the City Administration on such items as timing, venue, and extent, with the goal of ensuring good awareness and understanding by the community, and adequate input on projects to support compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. Staff does not recommend that public outreach be considered an opportunity to reject or veto sites.

COORDINATION

This memorandum was coordinated with the City Attorney’s Office and the City Manager’s Budget Office. Strategies will also be coordinated with multiple City departments, including Planning, Building and Code Enforcement; Transportation; Parks, Recreation and Neighborhood Services; and Office of Economic Development and Cultural Affairs.

FISCAL/POLICY ALIGNMENT

The recommendations in this memorandum and in the Fiscal Year 2022-23 Proposed Budget aims to align with the direction provided by the Rules Committee on September 29, 2021 and the City Council through approval of the March 2022-2023 Budget Message. The recommendations are also consistent with the “Community Plan to End Homelessness” endorsed by the City Council in August 2020. It advances Strategy 3 which is to improve the quality of life for unsheltered individuals by increasing the number of emergency shelter beds.

COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION/INPUT

No commission recommendation or input is associated with this action.

HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
June 10, 2022
Subject: Quick Build/Emergency Interim Housing Report

CEQA

Not a Project, File No. PP17-007, Preliminary direction to staff and eventual action requires approval from decision-making body.

/s/ /s/

MATT CANO JACKY MORALES-FERRAND
Director of Public Works Director of Housing

ROSALYNN HUGHEY
Deputy City Manager

For questions please contact Jim Ortbal, Special Projects Executive in the City Manager’s Office at [email protected] or James Stagi, Housing Development Administrator, in the Department of Public Works at [email protected].

Attachments
Attachment 1
List of Potential BHC/EIH Sites
(Updated 6/1/2022)
Address/Location Land
OwnershipAcreage Council
District Suitability
VTA Construction Staging/Storage Areas (Mabury) VTA 1.33 3 Practical SCL 280/680/101 - SW Quadrant CalTrans 2 7 Practical
E/s Monterey, N/s Bernal (inside ramp loop) CSJ 2.57 2 Practical Evans Ln, E side, btwn Almaden Rd & Almaden Ex CSJ 4.99 6 Practical SCL 101 @ Rue Ferrari Road CalTrans 5 2 Practical
708 Guadalupe (SJPD- E-Lot) CSJ 2.5 3 Practical
Monterey and Branham CSJ 2.35 2 Practical
708 Guadalupe (SJPD- E-Lot intensification) CSJ 0.5 3 Practical 101 @ Rue Ferrari Road Potential Phase 2 CalTrans 4 2 Practical Noble Av, 14630 CSJ 1.2 4 Practical
S/s Noble Av, 100' E of Mira Vista CSJ 1.3 4 Practical
85 South at Great Oaks Blvd Caltrans 2.6 10 Practical
680 Noth at South Jackson Caltrans 1.25 5 Practical
85 at Prospect Road Overpass Caltrans 1.12 1 Practical
S/s Williams Rd, approx. 350' E of Moorpark CSJ 7.84 1 Not Viable Great Oaks Blvd at 85 North Caltrans 6.1 2 Feasible
Metcalf Road at 101 Caltrans 5.55 2 Feasible
Great Oaks Drive/101 at Branham Ln East Caltrans 4.44 2 Feasible Coyote Road at Fontanelle Caltrans 5.8 2 Feasible
Bernal at 101 South Caltrans 7.59 2 Feasible
Bernal Between 85 and 101 Caltrans 10.72 2 Feasible
E/s Monterey Rd between Kirby and Burnett Aves CSJ 72.73 2 Feasible Basking Ridge Av CSJ 31.99 2 Not Viable
Coyote Alamitos Canal off Santa Teresa., San Jose Water District 10.81 2 Not Viable Coyote Alamitos Canal off Galen Dr., San Jose Water District 7.3 2 Not Viable W/s Hellyer Ave, Nly of Silicon Valley Blvd CSJ 7 2 Not Viable SCL 101 @ Hellyer Ave. (North) Caltrans 3 2 Not Viable
Bounded by Rte 880, Rte 87, Taylor & Coleman CSJ 6.03 3 Eliminated Bounded by Rte 880, Rte 87, Taylor & Coleman CSJ 5.23 3 Eliminated Bounded by Rte 880, Rte 87, Taylor & Coleman CSJ 5.23 3 Eliminated Bounded by Rte 880, Rte 87, Taylor & Coleman CSJ 4.3 3 Eliminated Bounded by Rte 880, Rte 87, Taylor & Coleman CSJ 3.67 3 Eliminated Bounded by Rte 880, Rte 87, Taylor & Coleman CSJ 3.67 3 Eliminated Bounded by Rte 880, Rte 87, Taylor & Coleman CSJ 3.67 3 Eliminated Bounded by Rte 880, Rte 87, Taylor & Coleman CSJ 3.67 3 Eliminated Bounded by Rte 880, Rte 87, Taylor & Coleman CSJ 3.67 3 Eliminated Bounded by Rte 880, Rte 87, Taylor & Coleman CSJ 3.29 3 Eliminated Bounded by Rte 880, Rte 87, Taylor & Coleman CSJ 3.28 3 Eliminated Bounded by Rte 880, Rte 87, Taylor & Coleman CSJ 3.19 3 Eliminated Bounded by Rte 880, Rte 87, Taylor & Coleman CSJ 2.85 3 Eliminated SCL 87 @ Airport Parkway Caltrans 2.5 3 Not Viable
SCL 280/87 - FLA 04-SCL-280-01 Caltrans 2.5 3 Not Viable Bounded by Rte 880, Rte 87, Taylor & Coleman CSJ 1.92 3 Eliminated Bounded by Rte 880, Rte 87, Taylor & Coleman CSJ 1.84 3 Eliminated Almaden Road, 1527 CSJ 1.8 3 Not Viable
Potential Sites
Practical
Developed or in Process
1 of 3
Attachment 1
List of Potential BHC/EIH Sites
(Updated 6/1/2022)
Address/Location Land
OwnershipAcreage Council
District Suitability
Bounded by Rte 880, Rte 87, Taylor & Coleman CSJ 1.64 3 Eliminated SCL 101 @ Oakland Road Caltrans 1.5 3 Not Viable
VTA Construction Staging/Storage Areas (Las Plumas) VTA 1.23 3 Feasible Gold Street at 237 Caltrans 2.2 4 Not Viable
Hwy 237, N of, E of Artesian Slough CSJ 10.43 4 Not Viable S/s Grand Blvd btwn Archer St & Disk Dr CSJ 6.42 4 Not Viable Grand Bl, E side, N of Los Esteros Rd CSJ 4.26 4 Not Viable Upper Pen U/S of Highway 280, San Jose (Portion of APN) Water District 3.3 4 Not Viable Los Esteros Rd, N side, E of Grand Bl CSJ 3.16 4 Not Viable N/s Story Rd, 800' W of King (on Knox Ave) CSJ 1.5 5 Not Viable Auzerais near Del Monte Park CSJ 2.25 6 Not Viable
SCL 280 @ Race Street - North Side Caltrans 1 6 Not Viable Story Rd, N side, W of Union Pacific Railroad CSJ 12.97 7 Not Viable Story Rd, N of, W of Remillard Ct CSJ 17.09 7 Not Viable Story Rd, N side, btwn Remillard Ct & Union Pacific Railroad CSJ 10.65 7 Not Viable Story Rd, N of, W of Remillard Ct CSJ 5.73 7 Not Viable Story Rd, N side, W of Remillard Ct CSJ 5.41 7 Not Viable Story Rd, N of, W of Remillard Ct CSJ 2.04 7 Not Viable W/s Roberts Ave opp. Vintage Way CSJ 10 7 Feasible
Wool Creek Dr CSJ 12.99 7 Not Viable
NW corner Tuers Rd & Capitol Expwy CSJ 1.38 7 Not Viable SE/s Yerba Buena Rd opp. Chisin St. CSJ 9 8 Not Viable
E/s Running Springs Rd opp. Hawk Crest Circle CSJ 4.03 8 Not Viable NE cor San Felipe Rd & Early Morning Lane CSJ 2.51 8 Not Viable Between Venus Dr. and Terra Brava Pl., San Jose Water District 2.37 8 Not Viable NW corner Running Springs Rd & Grand Oak Way CSJ 2.36 8 Not Viable Almaden Valley Pipeline at Single Tree Way, San Jose Water District 3.09 9 Not Viable W/s Thousand Oaks Dr. opp. 1,000 Oaks Park CSJ 1.86 9 Not Viable Along Almaden Expressway, N of Branham Lane, San JoseWater District 1.77 9 Not Viable Coleman Ave across from Sentinal (Los Capitancillo Meadow)Water District 10+ 10 Not Viable E/s Falcon Knoll Ct. & Falcon Ridge Ct. CSJ 18.8 10 Not Viable Almaden Valley Pipeline at Single Tree Way, San Jose Water District 3.25 10 Not Viable NE corner Almaden Expwy & Coleman Ave CSJ 1.61 10 Feasible Santa Teresa at Highway 85 On-Ramp Caltrans 1.49 10 Viable Pleasant Acres at Klein Rd Water District 11.41 County/8 Feasible NE corner Quito & Westmont CSJ 0.33 1 Eliminated
Former Westmont ROW btwn Westmont & Halifax CSJ 0.31 1 Eliminated N/s Silver Creek Valley Rd opp. Piercy Rd CSJ 0.68 2 Eliminated Dove Hill Rd at Deans Place Wy, SE corner CSJ 0.34 2 Eliminated W/s Hellyer Ave, Nly of Silicon Valley Blvd CSJ 0.25 2 Eliminated Woz Wy CSJ 0.83 3 Eliminated
#1 Guadalupe frontage road CSJ 0.8 3 Eliminated
Bounded by Rte 880, Rte 87, Taylor & Coleman CSJ 0.66 3 Eliminated #2 Guadalupe frontage road CSJ 0.58 3 Eliminated
Fuller Av, N side, btwn Bird Av & Delmas Av CSJ 0.54 3 Eliminated Bounded by Rte 880, Rte 87, Taylor & Coleman CSJ 0.43 3 Eliminated Bounded by Rte 880, Rte 87, Taylor & Coleman CSJ 0.42 3 Eliminated 87 Fwy/Guadalupe Py at Mission St, W, SE corner CSJ 0.41 3 Eliminated Woz Wy CSJ 0.39 3 Eliminated
Under 1 Acre
2 of 3
Attachment 1
List of Potential BHC/EIH Sites
(Updated 6/1/2022)
Address/Location Land
OwnershipAcreage Council
District Suitability
Woz Wy CSJ 0.33 3 Eliminated
Woz Wy CSJ 0.32 3 Eliminated
Old San Pedro Street at Mission CSJ 0.28 3 Eliminated
Coleman at Guadalupe River CSJ 0.25 3 Eliminated
Reed St, E, btwn 3rd St, S, & 4th St, S CSJ 0.24 3 Eliminated Nly terminus of West Court CSJ 0.24 3 Eliminated
Bird Av at Fuller Av, NE corner CSJ 0.17 3 Eliminated
Santa Teresa St at Carlysle St, NE corner CSJ 0.15 3 Eliminated Julian St, W, S side, E of Autumn St, N CSJ 0.15 3 Eliminated 6th St, N, W side, btwn Empire St, E & Washington St CSJ 0.1 3 Eliminated San Pedro St at Taylor St, NE corner CSJ 0.09 3 Eliminated Delmas Avenue CSJ 0.06 3 Eliminated
Clayton Av, S side, E of 87 Fwy/Guadalupe Py CSJ 0.03 3 Eliminated Sherwood Av, SW side, at intersection with Hamline St CSJ 0.01 3 Eliminated SCL 237 @ Gold Street CSJ 0.8 4 Eliminated
SE corner Grand Blvd & Trinity Park Dr CSJ 0.4 4 Eliminated SW corner Grand Blvd & Trinity Park Dr. CSJ 0.28 4 Eliminated Essex St at State St, SW Corner CSJ 0.07 4 Eliminated
State St at Essex St, NE Corner CSJ 0.07 4 Eliminated
Sierra Rd at Lundy Av, NW corner CSJ 0.06 4 Eliminated
Fallingtree Dr, W side, btwn Flickinger Av & Olive Tree Dr CSJ 0.05 4 Eliminated Corner of Shortridge and Sunset Ave., San Jose CSJ 0.26 5 Eliminated Saron Av, W side, btwn Sunset Ct & Lausett Av CSJ 0.01 5 Eliminated Evans Ln, E side, btwn Almaden Rd & Almaden Ex CSJ 0.94 6 Eliminated Bird Av, W side, btwn Fuller St & West Virginia St CSJ 0.67 6 Eliminated Almaden Av at Alma Av, W, SW corner CSJ 0.35 6 Eliminated Park Av, 460 CSJ 0.28 6 Eliminated
Auzerais Av at Hannah St, SW Corner CSJ 0.14 6 Eliminated San Carlos St, W, N side, W of Montgomery St CSJ 0.12 6 Eliminated Bird Av at Atlanta Av, SE corner CSJ 0.08 6 Eliminated
San Carlos St, W, S side, W of Royal Av CSJ 0.03 6 Eliminated Fuller Ave CSJ 0.02 6 Eliminated
Story Rd, N of Senter CSJ 0.38 7 Eliminated
Communications Hill CSJ 0.23 7 Eliminated
Aborn Rd at Alessandro Dr, SE corner CSJ 0.14 8 Eliminated Aborn Rd at Alessandro Dr, SW corner CSJ 0.1 8 Eliminated Etruscan Dr at Alessandro Dr, NW corner CSJ 0.07 8 Eliminated Along Almaden Expressway, N of Branham Lane, San Jose CSJ 0.74 9 Eliminated Along Almaden Expressway, N of Branham Lane, San Jose CSJ 0.47 9 Eliminated 3 of 3
Attachment 2
Potential BHC/EIH Sites
Field Reviewed
Address/Location Land
Ownership Acreage Council
District Suitability
708 Guadalupe (SJPD- E-Lot intensification) CSJ 0.5 3 Practical 101 @ Rue Ferrari Road Potential Phase 2 CalTrans 4 2 Practical Noble Av, 14630 CSJ 1.2 4 Practical
S/s Noble Av, 100' E of Mira Vista CSJ 1.3 4 Practical
85 South at Great Oaks Blvd Caltrans 2.6 10 Practical
680 Noth at South Jackson Caltrans 1.25 5 Practical
85 at Prospect Road Overpass Caltrans 1.12 1 Practical
S/s Williams Rd, approx. 350' E of Moorpark CSJ 7.84 1 Not Viable Great Oaks Blvd at 85 North Caltrans 6.1 2 Feasible
Metcalf Road at 101 Caltrans 5.55 2 Feasible
Great Oaks Drive/101 at Branham Ln East Caltrans 4.44 2 Feasible Coyote Road at Fontanelle Caltrans 5.8 2 Feasible
Bernal at 101 South Caltrans 7.59 2 Feasible
Bernal Between 85 and 101 Caltrans 10.72 2 Feasible
E/s Monterey Rd between Kirby and Burnett Aves CSJ 72.73 2 Feasible Coyote Alamitos Canal off Santa Teresa., San Jose Water District 10.81 2 Not Viable Coyote Alamitos Canal off Galen Dr., San Jose Water District 7.3 2 Not Viable SCL 87 @ Airport Parkway Caltrans 2.5 3 Not Viable
SCL 101 @ Oakland Road Caltrans 1.5 3 Not Viable
Los Esteros Rd, N side, E of Grand Bl CSJ 3.16 4 Not Viable SCL 280 @ Race Street - North Side Caltrans 1 6 Not Viable Story Rd, N side, W of Union Pacific Railroad CSJ 12.97 7 Not Viable Story Rd, N of, W of Remillard Ct CSJ 17.09 7 Not Viable Story Rd, N side, btwn Remillard Ct & Union Pacific Railroad CSJ 10.65 7 Not Viable Story Rd, N of, W of Remillard Ct CSJ 5.73 7 Not Viable Story Rd, N side, W of Remillard Ct CSJ 5.41 7 Not Viable Story Rd, N of, W of Remillard Ct CSJ 2.04 7 Not Viable W/s Roberts Ave opp. Vintage Way CSJ 10 7 Feasible
Wool Creek Dr CSJ 12.99 7 Not Viable
NW corner Tuers Rd & Capitol Expwy CSJ 1.38 7 Not Viable SE/s Yerba Buena Rd opp. Chisin St. CSJ 9 8 Not Viable
E/s Running Springs Rd opp. Hawk Crest Circle CSJ 4.03 8 Not Viable NE cor San Felipe Rd & Early Morning Lane CSJ 2.51 8 Not Viable Between Venus Dr. and Terra Brava Pl., San Jose Water District 2.37 8 Not Viable NW corner Running Springs Rd & Grand Oak Way CSJ 2.36 8 Not Viable Almaden Valley Pipeline at Single Tree Way, San Jose Water District 3.09 9 Not Viable W/s Thousand Oaks Dr. opp. 1,000 Oaks Park CSJ 1.86 9 Not Viable Coleman Ave across from Sentinal (Los Capitancillo Meadow)Water District 10+ 10 Not Viable E/s Falcon Knoll Ct. & Falcon Ridge Ct. CSJ 18.8 10 Not Viable Almaden Valley Pipeline at Single Tree Way, San Jose Water District 3.25 10 Not Viable NE corner Almaden Expwy & Coleman Ave CSJ 1.61 10 Feasible Santa Teresa at Highway 85 On-Ramp Caltrans 1.49 10 Viable Pleasant Acres at Klein Rd Water District 11.41 County/8 Feasible Cropley Avenue across from Treewood Ln SJ Water Works 4.9 4 Not Viable Along Almaden Expressway, N of Branham Lane, San JoseWater District 1.77 9 Not Viable Potential Sites
Attachment 3
Guadalupe EIH Expansion

Council District: 3
Expansion Area: .5 acres
Owner: City of San Jose

Attachment 4
Rue Ferrari Expansion

Council District: 2
Developable area:
 1 acre within existing site
 4 acres outside current project perimeter (South End)  1.2 acres outside current project perimeter (North End)

Owner: Caltrans

Attachment 5
Noble Avenue

Council District: 4
Developable Area: 2 parcels total 2.5 acres
Owner: City of San Jose

Attachment 6
85 Exit Ramp at Great Oaks Blvd

Council District: 10
Developable Area: 2.5 Acres
Owner: Caltrans

Attachment 7
South Jackson Avenue

Council District: 5
Developable Area: 1.25
Owner: Caltrans

Attachment 8
Prospect at 85

Council District: 1
Developable Area: 1.2 Acres
Owner: Caltrans

Attachment 9
Santa Teresa at Highway 85 On Ramp

Council District: 10
Developable Area: 1 Acre
Owner: Caltrans

Attachment 10
Santa Teresa LRT

Council District: 10
Developable Area: up to 4.5 Acres (site is 35 acres total) Owner: Valley Transportation Authority

Attachment 11
Pecten Ct

Council District: 4
Developable Area: 3.7 Acres
Property Owner: San Jose Water Company

Attachment 12
King Road at Mabury Road

Council District: 4
Developable:

3.5 Acres of SJW Co.

1.1 Acre of City
.5 Acres of SCVWD