TO: HONORABLE MAYOR FROM: Jacky Morales-Ferrand
AND CITY COUNCIL Jon Cicirelli
SUBJECT: SEE BELOW DATE: November 16, 2022
Approved Date
11/16/2022
SUBJECT: CITY INITIATIVES ROADMAP - EMERGENCY HOUSING SYSTEM EXPANSION: QUICK-BUILD EMERGENCY INTERIM HOUSING
RECOMMENDATION
a) Accept the staff report on Site Identification and Operational Considerations for Quick- Build Emergency Interim Housing and approve the following actions:
1) Remove the Noble site from consideration for Emergency Interim Housing; 2) Pursue the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Cerone and Cottle sites while continuing to pursue other identified sites;
3) Implement a subpopulation focus at Emergency Interim Housing sites by level of care needed; and
4) Explore partnerships with healthcare providers, both public and private, to provide onsite medical and other resources for residents at the emergency interim housing co-sites.
b) As part of the 2023-2024 Proposed Budget development process, in context of the City’s budgetary position and other critical City Council priorities, consider the following approaches to maintain quality of life in neighborhoods surrounding current and future Emergency Interim Housing and Bridge Housing Community sites through the provision of dedicated monitoring, reporting, blight reduction, community engagement, and housing resources to communities within a 10 minute/~half-mile walkshed of existing Emergency Interim Housing/Bridge Housing Community sites, including:
1) Housing outreach vendors to ensure weekly case management-style homelessness outreach and associated housing resources for individuals experiencing homelessness;
2) Illegal dumping, graffiti, and vehicle abatement programs to ensure 48-hour removal of illegal dumping and graffiti, and ensure a 2-3 day response time for the vehicle abatement program;
COUNCIL AGENDA: 11/29/22
FILE: 22-1748
ITEM: 8.3
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
November 16, 2022
Subject: City Initiatives Roadmap: Emergency Housing System Expansion
3) Dedicated encampment services to maintain rights of way, provide trash service twice per week, and ensure encampments maintain a 12’x12’ or smaller footprint; 4) Dedicated staff liaison between neighborhoods, City Council Offices, and City program staff, including regular attendance at community advisory committees or neighborhood meetings in proximity to emergency interim housing locations; 5) Regularly visit surrounding neighborhoods to monitor and report any illegal dumping, graffiti, vehicle parking issues, and encampment counts; and 6) Create a dashboard reporting on illegal dumping, graffiti, occupied vehicles, police calls for service, and fire (medical, fire, and other) incidents that is updated monthly and available to members of the public, City Council Offices, and City staff.
OUTCOME
Accepting staff's recommendations as to the Emergency Interim Housing (EIH) program would a) remove the Noble Avenue site from consideration, b) direct staff to pursue the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Cerone and Cottle sites while continuing to pursue other identified sites, and c) implement a subpopulation focus at interim housing facilities by level of care needed. Accepting staff's recommendation would also consider service enhancements within a half-mile of each current and future EIH/ Bridge Housing Community (BHC) site (references to EIH or BHC throughout this memorandum are all noted as EIH only for readability) during the Proposed Budget process in order to maintain quality of life in neighborhoods by providing dedicated community engagement, monitoring, reporting, blight reduction, and housing resources to communities within the service area.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Today’s action builds on the City’s efforts to expand emergency housing options and enhance the quality of life of unhoused residents while adding dedicated quality of life and supportive services around existing and future EIH locations. After extensive community outreach and engagement, staff recommends removing the Noble Avenue site located in City Council District 4 from consideration; pursuing two specific VTA sites for the development of additional EIH sites; and directing staff to continue evaluating new potential site locations. In addition, today’s action calls for the consideration of service enhancements such as 48-hour dedicated case management and illegal dumping removal, right-of-way clearance, and graffiti removal within a half-mile from each existing EIH site to maintain quality of life in neighborhoods with an EIH site.
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
November 16, 2022
Subject: City Initiatives Roadmap: Emergency Housing System Expansion
BACKGROUND
On September 29, 2021, the Rules and Open Government Committee approved the Bold Housing Solutions memorandum from Mayor Sam Liccardo and Councilmembers Raul Peralez, Sergio Jimenez, Pam Foley, and Matt Mahan. The memorandum directed staff to pursue several initiatives aimed at increasing EIH capacity, including expanding needed services for unhoused residents in collaboration with the County of Santa Clara, 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 March Budget Message for Fiscal Year 2022- 2023. The March Budget Message directed staff 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 March 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 allocated a combined $40 million from the General Fund ($21.5 million) and the American Rescue Plan 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. The memorandum further specified the methodology by which the ongoing maintenance and operating costs for EIHs, BHCs, and converted hotel and motels that provide homeless sheltering services will be included as Committed Additions to future General Fund Five-Year Forecasts. MBA #3 and the associated funding was included as part of City Council’s approval of the Mayor’s June Budget Message for Fiscal Year 2022-2023 and approval of the 2022-23 Adopted Operating Budget.
On June 21, 2022, the City Council approved a staff recommendation to expand the capacity of the EIH system through expansions of existing EIH sites in City Council Districts 2 and 3 and through new sites in City Council Districts 4 and 10, with amendments outlined in memoranda from Mayor Liccardo, and Councilmembers Peralez and Foley, and Councilmember Mahan, including amendments on the dais to continue exploring other potential sites in City Council Districts 4 and 10, and to evaluate the potential for enhanced services and no encampment zones near EIH communities.
On August 3, 2022, the Rules and Open Government Committee approved memoranda from Mayor Liccardo, and Councilmembers Jimenez and Foley, and Councilmember David Cohen that directed staff to explore the feasibility and viability of other sites in City Council Districts 4 and 10, and any other City Council Districts, and to initiate community outreach and notification of potential sites.
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
November 16, 2022
Subject: City Initiatives Roadmap: Emergency Housing System Expansion
The August 3, 2022 approval included direction for staff to return to City Council with a proposed approach to preserve quality of life around existing and future EIH sites, including an evaluation of potential necessary service enhancements and no encampment zones. This direction further required identifying existing conditions at EIH program sites and describing the successes of these sites.
From July 2022 through October 2022, the Administration worked to follow up on the direction from the City Council on June 21, 2022 and the Rules and Open Government Committee on August 3, 2022, by initiating extensive community outreach and notification, as well as initiating additional site exploration that provided the community an opportunity to suggest sites for potential use as an EIH. In early September 2022, the Administration posted to its EIH website a list of the newly suggested sites, and sites that would be re-evaluated from the existing list included in the June 21, 2022 memorandum. In September and October 2022, staff initiated its evaluation of new sites and those being re-evaluated and posted those updates on September 30 and the second week of November.
ANALYSIS
The analysis below includes follow-up on the August 3, 2022 Rules and Open Government Committee approved memoranda from Mayor Liccardo, and Councilmembers Jimenez and Foley, and Councilmember Cohen that directed the staff to explore the feasibility and viability of other sites in City Council Districts 4 and 10 and any other City Council Districts, and to initiate community outreach and notification of potential sites. The analysis also includes responses to the approved direction for staff to return to City Council with a proposed approach to preserve quality of life around existing and future EIH sites, including an evaluation of existing conditions, service enhancements, and no encampment zones.
Recommendations
#1, #2, #4 – Provide community notification for any residents living within 1,000 feet of a site approved by City Council on June 21, 2022 and about any other sites explored by staff and work with the Mayor and affected City Council Offices regarding alternative sites considered
Staff provided notice to residents around the two new sites that were proposed and approved on June 21, 2022 – the Noble Avenue site in District 4 and the 85/Great Oaks site in District 10. In addition to providing written communication to residents, staff established an EIH outreach website and dedicated email managed out of the City Manager’s Office. Further, staff held 11 online community listening sessions, in person, and in existing encampments to gather feedback and input directly from the community. Well over 100 comments and questions were responded to via the dedicated EIH outreach email during the time since the June 21, 2022 City Council hearing.
In addition to email, and online and in person meetings, staff established an Alternative Site Form so that community members could recommend options for EIH sites within their communities. The Alternative Site Form was open to the public for 30 days ending on August
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
November 16, 2022
Subject: City Initiatives Roadmap: Emergency Housing System Expansion
15, 2022, after which time the site evaluation process continued. Dozens of public and privately owned sites were submitted. All sites for which there was sufficient information provided and that were within the Districts directed by City Council were evaluated by staff. Among the feedback provided during the community engagement sessions was a desire by members of the public to receive updates as sites were evaluated. To that end, staff published a partial progress evaluation on September 30, 2022, and again in the second week of November.
The City Council’s original direction was to work to identify EIH sites in each of the 10 City Council Districts. During the process of reviewing new sites and re-evaluating previously reviewed sites, the City Manager’s Office sought and received additional site options from various sources. The evaluation of potential sites in each District that does not have an EIH program is ongoing, and staff continues to work with City Council Offices and the community on proactive engagement before sites are moved to the stage of being proposed as options for City Council consideration.
Throughout the process, staff engaged the Mayor and City Council District Offices 2, 4, and 10, to ensure awareness and input in the process. This included feedback about community engagement, discussion of alternative sites, and necessary information sharing about the status of the process.
Recommendation #3a –
Feasibility and viability of other sites explored within City Council Districts 4 and 10
Following the City Council’s directive, staff from the Housing Department, Public Works Department, and the City Manager’s Office worked with the appropriate City Council Offices to solicit alternative sites from staff and the community members in their districts.
Between July and mid-August, staff conducted outreach within these two districts and established an online form for community members to submit alternative property locations for consideration. After narrowing the list to sites located in Districts 4 and 10, there was a list of 46 suggested properties (Attachment A). The list of suggested properties included City, other public agencies, and privately owned sites. Several of the suggested options also included sites already on the City’s list of potential EIH sites. After a feasibility evaluation was completed, a small number of sites were determined to be potentially feasible. Based on the City’s established Siting and Evaluation Guidelines and Process (Attachment B), staff identified one top site in District 4 and one top site in District 10.
District 4 - The Cerone VTA Yard
Location: The Cerone VTA site is located in District 4 and is at the southeast corner of Highway 237 and Zanker Road. Attachment C provides an aerial map of the site. The total size of the VTA-owned parcel is approximately 56 acres, much of which is currently used by VTA for its operational purposes. However, immediately adjacent to Zanker Road and Holger Way, there is approximately 16 acres of vacant land that is suitable for EIH development.
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
November 16, 2022
Subject: City Initiatives Roadmap: Emergency Housing System Expansion
Evaluation: The site meets all of the feasibility criteria. If VTA is willing to lease two to three acres of the currently vacant parcel, the site is of sufficient size, fairly flat, and physically suitable for the development of an EIH from a technical and project delivery standpoint. Site access and utilities appear to be available from Zanker Road directly to the west of the site. VTA is assessing its system wide and site based needs to determine under what conditions a lease arrangement with the City would be viable. Site viability and practicality depend on the willingness of VTA to lease the site under terms and conditions acceptable to both the City and VTA. Additional environmental review will be conducted, but staff does not anticipate finding anything that will prohibit development.
T
he site is large enough to accommodate at least 100 units as well as adequate onsite parking and site amenities. City staff met with VTA staff to discuss use of this site. During preliminary discussions between City and VTA staff, VTA expressed a willingness to consider the City’s use of the site for EIH development. However, formal approval will require approval of the VTA Board of Directors.
District 10 – Cottle Road VTA Light Rail Station
Location: The Cottle Road VTA Light Rail Station site is in District 10, located directly on Cottle Road bounded by Highway 85 and the Highway 85 onramp from Cottle Road and directly adjacent to Kaiser Permanente San José Medical Center (Attachment D). The parcel is approximately five acres, three of which is likely suitable for EIH development.
Evaluation:
The site meets all of the feasibility criteria. If VTA is willing to lease the three acres of the currently underutilized parking area, the site is physically suitable for the development of an EIH from a technical and project delivery standpoint. Access and utilities appear to be available from Cottle Road, the site is easily accessible, and located near amenities such as medical, shopping, and transit. Site viability and practicality depends on the willingness of VTA to lease the site under terms and conditions acceptable to both the City and VTA. Additional environmental review will be conducted, but staff does not anticipate findings that would prohibit development. Due to the site slopes and established storm water diversion, the site may require innovative design and construction. Further, there are additional considerations related to Caltrans and potential infrastructure relocation that may impact this site; this issue is under investigation.
T
he site is big enough to allow for the desired capacity of at least 100 units/beds as well as adequate on-site parking and site amenities.
The Great Oaks Boulevard site was the previously recommended site that is being replaced by Cottle Road. While still viable, recent information received by City staff changes the previously recommended site at Great Oaks Boulevard to be less practical than the Cottle site. Recent changes to the Caltrans ‘clear recovery’ setbacks have increased, which will encroach on the site and may reduce the size of developable area. Additionally, since June 21, 2022, Caltrans has sold a portion of the parcel to a private buyer to use as a private utility easement. While the new owner has expressed interest in working with the City, additional coordination, cost, and time present new development challenges to the Great Oaks Boulevard site.
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
November 16, 2022
Subject: City Initiatives Roadmap: Emergency Housing System Expansion
City staff met with VTA staff to discuss use of the Cottle site. During preliminary discussions between City and VTA staff, VTA has expressed a willingness to consider the City’s use of the site for EIH development. However, formal approval will require approval of the VTA Board of Directors.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends pursuing the VTA Cerone site as the primary EIH development for District 4.
Given the recent site limitations at the Great Oaks Boulevard site, staff recommends pursuing the VTA Cottle site as the primary EIH development for District 10.
Recomm
endation #3b – Identify whether any staff recommendation has changed since the June 21, 2022 City Council hearing
Staff recommends changes to the June 21, 2022 recommendations and is presenting additional recommendations, which include:
Noble Site
After receiving additional information on the Noble site, City staff and the Administration re- evaluated the site and determined that the Noble site is no longer feasible and viable for EIH, and therefore, it should be removed from consideration.
Exploration of Other Sites in Remaining City Council Districts City staff identified preferred sites in Districts 4 and 10; the Administration is recommending that staff continue evaluating other potentially viable sites in Districts 4 and 10, in case negotiations on the VTA sites fail to come to terms. In addition to identifying alternative sites in Districts 4 and 10, partner agencies have recently shared potential opportunities that may work for development of EIH communities in one or more of the City Council Districts that do not currently have EIHs. While it is premature to list potential sites, staff will continue to explore options and evaluate potentially viable sites. Staff will report back to the City Council in approximately 120 days from the November 29, 2022 City Council meeting.
Additional Site Evaluation Considerations – Environmental Evaluation While collecting site suggestions from the community, staff recognized that a number of site suggestions fell within federally designated flood zones. Historically, sites within flood zones would be considered non-viable for EIH due to restrictions, limitations and/or mitigations associated with developing within flood zones. Given the number of community recommended sites within flood zones and the scarcity of potentially viable sites available for EIH development, staff decided to re-evaluate the feasibility of developing within flood zones. In early August, the City contracted with ELS Architecture to conduct a flood plain study with the intent to assess the major issues developing EIH within flood zones. The City tasked ELS Architecture with identifying key factors that impact the cost, timeliness, and risks resulting from developing within designated flood zones. Refer to Attachment E for specifics regarding the findings of the report. Overall, given elevated costs, extended timelines, and potential risks, staff recommends only developing EIH in designated flood zones as an absolute last resort.
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
November 16, 2022
Subject: City Initiatives Roadmap: Emergency Housing System Expansion
Staff Recommendation:
Remove the Noble site from consideration for the EIH program. Continue exploration of other sites in remaining City Council Districts and return to City Council with an updated recommendations within 120 days.
Recommendation #3c – P
rovide initial recommendations for focusing on any specific unhoused populations for service on any of the sites
Since the initial development of the program, the City’s approach for focusing on populations has evolved due to changes in the program and experience in operation.
BHC Target Population
In 2020, the City opened its first BHC under California Assembly Bill 2176, in response to the need to develop a new shelter model. Assembly Bill 2176 amended the State Crisis Act and authorized a five-year pilot program allowing the City to create BHCs to address the lack of supply of shelters and to provide a more immediate response to the growing numbers of unhoused individuals and families. Unlike traditional shelters, BHCs were designed to provide individual, non-congregate shelter with shared bathrooms, showers, kitchens, and community spaces. One of the provisions of Assembly Bill 2176 is that everyone who enters a BHC must have a housing plan with a goal to transition into permanent housing.
To meet the housing requirements of Assembly Bill 2176, the BHC targeted individuals who were recipients or eligible recipients of a Rapid Rehousing Program. A Rapid Rehousing Program connects individuals experiencing homelessness to permanent housing through time- limited rental assistance and targeted services. Rapid Rehousing Program applicants who were in the process of completing their eligibility, or individuals who had been accepted into a Rapid Rehousing Program and were in the process of searching for a rental, were invited into the BHC.
BHCs were designed to provide individuals who needed limited services in a safe, healthy, and stable environment while they conducted their housing search. BHCs do not provide shelter for chronically homeless individuals.
COVID-19 Pandemic Population of Focus
During the COVID-19 pandemic, both BHC and EIH communities were used to house medically vulnerable unhoused residents who were at risk of severe illness or death if they contracted COVID-19. As the pandemic receded, referrals to EIHs and BHCs came from multiple points, including from street outreach teams referring individuals living in nearby encampments and referrals from the City’s homeless employment programs. Most recently, the priority referrals for EIH are individuals residing in the Guadalupe Gardens 40-acre encampment area that was abated per the directive of the Federal Aviation Administration. The EIH communities are serving a variety of individuals and families with a wide range of abilities and disabilities. As a result, the level of case management and services varies, as does the potential housing solutions.
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
November 16, 2022
Subject: City Initiatives Roadmap: Emergency Housing System Expansion
Interim Housing Study
The San Francisco Foundation, in partnership with the Housing Department, is working with Homebase on a financial sustainability study of the City’s interim housing. Homebase is 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. Homebase is working directly with City staff, community partners, and BHC and EIH residents to identify improvements to services and operations of the interim housing sites. More specifically, Homebase will identify proven local and national best practices 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.
Homebase has completed the first two phases of the study. Phase one work was stakeholder engagement and feedback from the City, nonprofit service providers, and those currently living in interim housing communities. The second phase work was research and analysis of best practices locally and nationally for interim housing. The final phase, currently in progress, is a cost analysis and development of recommendations.
Population Focus Based on Level of Care Needed
Homebase study’s initial stakeholder feedback and best practice research indicated that the City should consider placing people into EIHs based on the level of care (i.e., acuity) the person needs. Placement based on acuity needs can achieve efficiencies in staffing and allow for richer services that maximize successful outcomes. Acuity refers to the level of care needs that may require greater staffing and support for persons accessing and remaining in housing. Examples of acuity measures include:
• The severity and length of time of disability or illness; • The level of services needed to support daily living activities; and • The effects of chronic health and behavioral health conditions.
a. M
oderate and Low Acuity Person
Moderate and low acuity persons need lower levels of resources and staffing than individuals with higher levels of need. Individuals may need limited services and care coordination, and referrals to community providers. The length of time support services are needed for an individual with moderate to low care needs to stabilize may be less than for people with greater needs. The original BHCs focused on moderate and low acuity individuals that could eventually become self-sufficient. This allowed the BHC to have higher staff caseloads.
b. H
igh Acuity Person s
High acuity persons need the highest levels of resources and staffing to access housing and remain stably housed. Typically, these individuals meet the definition of chronically homeless;
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
November 16, 2022
Subject: City Initiatives Roadmap: Emergency Housing System Expansion
have been living on the street for more than one year or longer, and have a disabling condition.
Staff with smaller caseloads will be able to provide higher levels of case management and coordination. Additional staff with expertise in behavioral health should be provided to better meet their needs. Individuals assessed with high acuity will most likely need a permanent supportive housing placement to support their housing stability.
There are increased numbers of high acuity persons entering the interim housing communities from abated encampments since the program’s inception. As encampments continue to be abated across San José, EIH sites are receiving more and more referred individuals who have experienced chronic homelessness and face significant mental and physical health challenges.
These challenges are magnified by the added effects of systemic racism, trauma, adverse childhood experiences, isolation from family, and a lack of a safety net. When serving individuals with complex conditions, supporting their transition into permanent housing, and continuing that support once housed requires significant time, supportive services, and highly skilled staffing.
The current referral process into interim housing communities does not take into account the acuity level of individuals being placed at the sites. As a result, staffing levels are inadequate to meet the needs of high-acuity individuals. Caseworkers at the interim housing sites have reported challenges in being able to adequately serve the needs of the residents. Developing service models plans and setting goals for each site by level of acuity will ensure that staff have adequate time to provide the level of service that is needed, with fewer EIHs understaffed or overstaffed.
The Branham and Monterey EIH will target 50% of the units for high acuity persons (such as those who are chronically homelessness) and 50% of the units for moderate and low acuity individuals.
Focus Based on Subpopulations
City Council requested an evaluation of whether to have sites dedicated to specific subpopulations.
Historically, the region’s supportive housing system targeted subpopulations that include single adults, families with minor children, transitional aged-youth, and veterans. Additional subpopulations that may benefit from access to shelters that target their specific needs include individuals with significant health conditions, senior adults, and survivors of gender-based violence. Other specializations to consider include creating culturally specific pods within sites to address feelings of isolation among residents who are monolingual non-English speakers, sites catered toward individuals seeking sober living environments, and sites centered around goals and interests to support workforce development and workshop programming.
Having subpopulation-designated sites, or some portion of a site, would allow providers to tailor program duration, site layout, supportive service provision, and staffing to better address the unique needs of distinct groups. Homeless services that are tailored specifically to subpopulations can better facilitate the right kinds of housing and support. Additionally, feedback from those currently living in City interim housing supports this recommendation. For
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
November 16, 2022
Subject: City Initiatives Roadmap: Emergency Housing System Expansion
example, some individuals who are working on sobriety expressed a desire to live in a community with others working on the same goal.
Data from the County of Santa Clara’s Continuum of Care supports a recommendation to target additional subpopulations and suggests there is enough demand to serve specialized needs at certain EIH sites. There are approximately 5,389 unsheltered individuals in the community housing queue. The City and County of Santa Clara use coordinated entry for housing, using the same housing queue. Coordinated entry is a consistent, community-wide intake process that matches people experiencing homelessness to existing community resources that are best fit for their situation. In this region, the most vulnerable individuals are prioritized for housing. Some data on those individuals in the housing queue:
• 72% have a disabling condition
• 50% are age 45 and older
• 36% have chronic health issues
• 7% are families with children
• 5% are transitional aged-youth
• 3% are veterans
Data from YWCA confirms a significant need for shelter and interim housing for survivors of gender-based violence. From July 2021 to July 2022, YWCA received 700 requests for emergency housing with the following results:
• 166 people were placed in emergency housing (23.7%);
• YWCA was not able to accommodate 408 requests for housing because it did not have motel/hotel or staffing capacity (58.2%); and
• The remaining requests were not placed because the requestors did not want to be in a motel/hotel or could not meet program requirements to be in a motel/hotel (18.1%).
Homebase is currently completing its assessment of the EIHs. It is anticipated that the consultant’s findings will be released this winter. Staff will present the findings and EIH subpopulation recommendations to the City Council for feedback at that time. In the winter of 2023, the Housing Department will release a competitive request for proposals detailing the 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 sometime during Fiscal Year 2023-2024.
Understanding Trade-Offs of Focused Enrollment by Acuity or Sub-Population Currently, the Housing Department prioritizes housing for those unhoused residents in the neighborhoods surrounding EIH sites to ensure that local neighborhoods – including unhoused residents in those neighborhoods – directly benefit from the presence of EIH communities.
Approximately three to six months prior to the opening of a new interim housing community, the Housing Department works with nonprofit outreach teams to conduct outreach in the surrounding area to invite unhoused residents to participate in the EIH program. The outreach is
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
November 16, 2022
Subject: City Initiatives Roadmap: Emergency Housing System Expansion
done proactively prior to opening and then reactive once the site is open. Although this is the current approach, City Council should be aware of the inherent trade-off in the direction to target specific individuals experiencing homelessness populations by EIH location.
There are clear reasons to consider providing support based on acuity level or for certain vulnerable populations in a given EIH. However, as an example, if an EIH is reserved for women with children, but most of the unhoused people in the immediate area are single males, the EIH would not be able to focus solely on reducing the unhoused population in the specific community. Another trade-off may be that having only people with high health care needs in a given location may result in a higher service cost or higher need for emergency medical services response than an EIH that did not have such a composition.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends modifying the EIH program to focus on specific subpopulations and coordinating with the City Attorney’s Office on addressing any potential fair housing issues that may be implicated by such changes. Staff will return to City Council after Homebase completes its assessment of the EIH communities and releases its findings this winter. Staff will present the findings and recommendations for EIH subpopulation to the City Council for feedback in February 2023. Any changes in subpopulation would likely occur gradually based on site availability, the needs of the specific subpopulation, and any changes in service providers.
Recommendation #3e – S
uccess of existing quick-build communities, including safety and quality of life issues
Functioning of Existing EIH Sites
The Housing Department contracts with nonprofits HomeFirst and PATH for the services and operations of each of the five EIH sites
1. In total, the existing sites have the capacity to shelter 397 people. The Guadalupe EIH will provide an additional 76 beds when completed in winter 2023, bringing the total number of beds to 493. The EIH programs provide every individual an opportunity to stabilize their life and find housing. The primary outcome of the service contracts for each site is transitioning individuals to stable housing. From inception through October 31, 2022, the City sheltered 1,157 individuals at the EHI/BHC communities, with 47% leaving for permanent housing and 22% for successful temporary housing (Table 1). Emergency interim housing is far more successful than traditional congregate shelters in connecting residents to long-term housing, largely in part due to the investment in services and support staff.
Table 1: Success of EIHs and BHCs in connecting residents to long-term housing Timeframe Total
individuals
sheltered
Individuals
connected to
permanent housing
Individuals
connected to
temporary housing
January 1, 2020 - October 31,
2022
1,157 47% 22%
1 The five EIH/BHCs are 1) Mabury Road; 2) Felipe Avenue; 3) Evans Lane; 4) Rue Ferrari; and 5) Monterey and Bernal.
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
November 16, 2022
Subject: City Initiatives Roadmap: Emergency Housing System Expansion
The safety of staff and guests at every EIH community is a priority. Residents greatly value how safe they feel at the sites and largely attribute this sense of safety to having a private unit with a lockable door. All five of the current sites use private security stationed at the main entrances to monitor the entrance/exit. Residents also expressed that the private security added value to their sense of safety. Police calls for service data showed that calls to each EIH site ranged from 20-30 total calls over a nine-month period, with the Mabury location being at the high end of the range (
Table 2). This averages to approximately 2.5 police calls for service per month, per site. Fire Department call data demonstrated that there were calls for health needs at the Monterey and Bernal and Rue Ferrari locations, however there is not sufficient data at this time to compare the rate of calls at a location to City-wide rates of such calls. Residents and staff alike expressed that there is a significant need to connect residents to health care to prevent many of the costly health-related emergency calls and hospital visits that are currently occurring. The Homebase study will make recommendations about providing onsite healthcare to reduce emergency medical calls.
Table 2: Overview of Fire and Police calls made to each of the occupied EIH locations over a nine-month period (January 2022- September 2022)
Fire
Medical
Incidents
Fire “Fire”
Incidents
Fire Other
or
Cancelled
Incidents
Police Calls
for Service
Total
Incidents
(Fire and
Police)
Felipe BHC 14 3 10 23 50
Mabury BHC 19 1 4 30 54
Monterey and
Bernal EIH
69 0 13 20 102
Rue Ferrari EIH 97 19 0 20 136
Evans Lane EIH 4 1 5 21 31
Staff Recommendation:
Explore partnerships with healthcare providers, both public and private, to provide onsite medical resources for residents at the EIHs.
Recommendation #3d – City Manager’s proposed approach to preserving the quality of life in surrounding neighborhoods, and to ensuring the safe functioning of any existing or future quick-build community, including evaluation of existing conditions, necessary service enhancements, and possible “no-encampment zones”
On August 13, 2022, the Rules and Open Government Committee directed the Administration to propose an approach to preserving the quality of life in neighborhoods surrounding EIH locations. The direction further included the evaluation of existing conditions surrounding EIH sites, service enhancements, and possible “no-encampment zones.”
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
November 16, 2022
Subject: City Initiatives Roadmap: Emergency Housing System Expansion
Evaluation of Quality-of-Life Conditions Surrounding BHC and EIH Locations Staff completed analyses of quality-of-life conditions surrounding the five existing EIH locations. The term “quality of life” encompasses a broad range of areas including health, civic engagement, housing conditions, income, economic opportunity, safety, etc. For the purposes of this analysis, though, quality of life was limited to blight issues such as trash and graffiti, and safety as determined by the number of police and fire department calls for service. Without specific direction regarding how much area surrounding EIH locations should be considered, staff first identified a boundary within which to conduct the analysis. Staff defined the boundary for analysis using a 10-minute or ~half-mile walkshed (Attachment F). Staff chose to use a walkshed instead of a circular buffer for multiple reasons which are explained in Attachment G.
One primary reason is that the walkshed accounts for physical boundaries, such as freeway sound walls, that limit the sphere of influence of an EIH location. Second, the 10 minute or ~half-mile walkshed distance is an objective standard used within City planning strategies because it is considered the typical distance a person of average, unhindered mobility is likely willing to walk from their home to surrounding amenities. This makes the walkshed a reasonable approximation for the maximum area around an EIH that might be impacted by increased foot traffic from the EIH.
After selecting the walkshed boundary, staff applied data obtained from the departments of Fire, Police, Transportation, Parks, Recreation, and Neighborhood Services, and Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement. To provide a point of comparison for existing conditions, staff analyzed the requests for safety and quality of life reports one year before and one year after each EIH site was opened (Attachment H). The same information is also provided for the month of September 2022 compared to the average monthly requests for each site after the site opened as a representation of recent conditions (Attachment I). The reason staff included data for the month ending September 30, 2022, was to ensure the City Council direction to evaluate “existing” conditions could be met while providing the necessary context of those conditions in relation to what existed before any sites were opened.
Results of Analysis
The data analyzed regarding neighborhood conditions surrounding EIH sites before and after each site opened is included in Attachment H. Key findings include:
• When requests for service (graffiti, illegal dumping, fire, police, vehicle abatement, code enforcement) are compared one year before each EIH site opened versus one year after, a majority of requests stayed the same or decreased after each site opened. 2 The data analyzed regarding neighborhood conditions surrounding EIH sites in September 2022 is included in Attachment I. Key findings include:
2 The exception to this trend is Fire Department medical calls involving suspected individuals experiencing homelessness, which underscores the need for the staff recommendation to pursue healthcare partnerships at EIH/BHC community locations.
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
November 16, 2022
Subject: City Initiatives Roadmap: Emergency Housing System Expansion
• The requests for graffiti and fire services were higher (range of 1-3 requests) at most sites compared to the monthly average since each site opened. • The requests for all other services including illegal dumping, police, occupied vehicles/vehicle abatement, and code enforcement were lower at most sites when compared to the monthly average since each site opened.
The housing encampment outreach data was not reported specific to EIH or BHC locations because the Housing Department outreach data is currently not captured with specific coordinates or addresses. The upcoming procurement to replace this database along with the Encampment Trash Program database will allow for specific location data to be collected. Staff will explore and implement interim strategies to resolve this challenge until the new database can be procured.
Evaluation of Encampment Conditions Surrounding BHC and EIH sites Staff assessed the EIH locations
3 for encampments in early November 2022. A high-level
summary of the encampment conditions found within a half-mile of each EIH site are included below.
• M
abury R oad: No visible recreational vehicles (RVs), occupied vehicles, or encampments.4
• F elipe Avenue : Approximately 17 tents/structures in nearby Caltrans property and three RVs on a public street.5
• M onterey and Bernal: T wo tents/structures.
• Rue Ferrari: Two observed RVs.
Evaluation of Service Enhancements and No Encampment Zones City Council directed staff to evaluate the potential for service enhancements and no encampment zones as part of developing further strategies for preserving quality of life in communities. Staff evaluated the potential implementation of both service enhancements and no encampment zones. The scenarios evaluated, discussed in greater detail below, were:
1) Implementation of Service Enhancements only
2) Implementation of No Encampment Zones only
3) Implementation of Service Enhancements and No Encampment Zones
3 Evans Lane was not assessed for this report due to capacity. 4 While no encampments were observed within the half-mile walkshed area, encampments were observed beyond that distance in the Watson Park area.
5 Caltrans property encampments highlight the reality that any strategies require ongoing collaboration and support of partners for success. Issues regarding RV parking are addressed in the staff response to RV Parking Action on November 29, 2022. (Item 8.2)
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
November 16, 2022
Subject: City Initiatives Roadmap: Emergency Housing System Expansion
Defining the Operational Boundary
As noted in the section above regarding existing conditions, any changes in operations for either service enhancements or no encampment zones requires defining a boundary for those operations. Absent a boundary, there would be no mechanism to design operational support, staff needs, defining locations for which conduct may not be permitted, and so forth. To provide a thorough evaluation, staff considered service enhancements and no encampment zones for four boundary options (Attachment G). The major takeaways are summarized in the table below (
Table 3).
Table 3: Potential operational boundaries to implement service enhancements and no encampment zones Zone Option Major Takeaways
1-mile uniform radius from
the center of the EIH
A one mile or greater distance is likely to include areas that are not directly impacted by the EIH or BHC locations, and the boundaries start to overlap across existing EIH locations.
Half mile uniform radius
from the center of the EIH
The radius does not account for natural boundaries such as freeways and creeks.
Half-mile walkshed from
EIH
Best option to reflect actual or perceived impacts of the EIH sites. The boundary edges will be adjusted to align with existing streets.
150-feet around the
perimeter of the EIH
Provides services to a limited area which is easiest to monitor, enforce, and maintain. This is consistent with the current school buffer zone.
Service Enhancements Operational Boundary
The inclusion of service enhancements should be a well-defined area with boundaries that are easily identifiable by residents and City staff. Staff recommends the 10-minute or ~half-mile walkshed adapted with boundaries that align with existing streets to implement service enhancements. This boundary is recommended because it is the boundary most likely to include perceived neighborhood impacts around EIH locations, given that it accounts for natural boundaries such as creeks and freeway sound walls. However, walkshed boundaries, as generated by geographic information system software, do not always align with existing streets.
These boundary edges would need to be adjusted slightly to operationalize this approach to ensure the boundary edges are clear for both residents and City staff to interpret. An example is available in Attachment J.
Staff recommends focused service enhancements within neighborhoods surrounding EIH locations. These service enhancements include:
• Dedicated case management homeless outreach with 48-hour response time. • Dedicated illegal dumping removal within 48-hours of notification (current City-wide response time is 72 hours).
• Vehicle abatement response time reduction to within two to three days of notification.
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
November 16, 2022
Subject: City Initiatives Roadmap: Emergency Housing System Expansion
• Dedicated encampment trash service and maintenance of clear rights-of-way. • Dedicated team to ensure ongoing compliance with 12’x12’ ‘Good Neighbor’ policy. • Dedicated staff resources to attend neighborhood meetings or community advisory committees near EIH locations, and regularly monitor the service areas.
City programs currently dedicate service levels for property owned or controlled by the City.
Within the potential boundary areas, there are properties owned or controlled by entities other than the City. As noted in the Other Considerations section below, if the City Council approves the recommended service enhancements, it will be critical to work with other property owners to establish agreements necessary to address any issues that arise on those non-City properties within the service enhancement zones. Other zone options for implementing these services are detailed in Attachment G, but these approaches are not recommended, most notably due to the high cost associated with servicing a larger area.
No Encampment Zone Operational Boundary
Staff does not recommend a “no encampment zone” for several reasons, including:
1. There is a lack of available affordable housing and shelter. When encampments or occupied vehicles are abated, individuals experiencing homelessness often are pushed to other areas of the City instead of directly moved into housing or shelter.
2. With over 2,200 emergency beds in San José, it is inequitable to prioritize neighborhoods with these newer BHC/EIH over the neighborhoods that have had existing emergency housing for much longer or over neighborhoods with no shelter availability for which both unhoused and housed residents need support.
3. No encampment zones require defined and clearly identified boundaries for enforcement that eliminate the flexibility of neighborhood service enhancements, which can be tailored for each area based on need and geography.
A zone of any size would likely force individuals experiencing homelessness to move to other areas of the City, such as nearby streets, creeks, trails, and neighborhoods. Staff will still maintain current abatement procedures including abating right-of-way blockages, Good Neighbor violations, and clearing of encampments due to documented safety concerns. Staff has included a no encampment zone option under the Policy Alternative section of this memorandum.
Defining Encampments
Before staff can provide a sufficiently detailed analysis of the pros and cons of implementing no encampment zones, it is necessary to define an encampment. The base definition of encampment for these purposes includes:
• At a minimum, an encampment is a place occupied by 1) at least one person, 2) including at least one structure, vehicle or living area, that is 3) present for at least 72 hours.
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
November 16, 2022
Subject: City Initiatives Roadmap: Emergency Housing System Expansion
Staff continues to work on a robust, tiered definition that will strengthen analyses and coordination across all City departments.
Equity Considerations
The implementation of no encampment zones requires the constant abatement of individuals experiencing homelessness. The process of abatement is traumatic for unsheltered individuals because they may lose their sense of safety and material belongings that can cause unintended repercussions to their ability to recover from homelessness. Abating individuals experiencing homelessness also disproportionately affects minority populations. According to the 2019 point- in-time count, Black or African American, American Indian or Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander individuals disproportionately experience homelessness when compared to the general population of San José. Pedestrian traffic fatalities are also more likely to be experienced by an individual experiencing homelessness as compared to the general population. From January 2022 to early November 2022, of 30 total pedestrian traffic deaths, 11 were likely to be individuals experiencing homelessness. Creating no encampment zones could push individuals experiencing homelessness to areas of the City that were not planned or designed for pedestrian safety. Overall, traffic safety considerations should be evaluated before moving individuals from one encamped area to another.
Providing additional service enhancements and no encampment zones to all current and future BHC and EIH locations could lead to equity concerns. This is due to an additional amount of funding and resources being dedicated to specific areas of the City over others. The needs of each EIH location and surrounding neighborhood are unique. Adopting a standardized policy and approach for all locations may result in an equal rather than equitable approach that has the potential to dedicate some resources where they are not needed, leaving other areas with a gap in need. Although this is an important consideration when applying additional services to future sites, if historical placement trends for EIH sites continue, providing additional services such as no encampment zones and service enhancements could benefit lower income and minority populations (Attachment K).
Key summary points from Attachment K:
• The current EIH locations are disproportionately placed in areas where the median household income is lower than the City-wide average, and areas where the Hispanic population is higher than the City-wide average.
• Notably, a majority of EIH locations have not been placed in areas where the white and Asian populations are higher than the City-wide average.
It is also important to consider that the first BHC location was constructed in February 2020. If additional services are provided in surrounding neighborhoods moving forward as the City branches into potentially wealthier and less diverse neighborhoods and City Council districts, this could be seen as inequitable treatment of those neighborhoods who have already accepted EIH communities for the past two years.
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
November 16, 2022
Subject: City Initiatives Roadmap: Emergency Housing System Expansion
Another equity consideration is the City-wide distribution of resources for people experiencing homelessness. Understanding where emergency options are available, how they are distributed, and the service levels at a location are important considerations. Figure 1 below shows a breakdown of all emergency housing options – group shelters, safe havens, transitional housing, and EIH – that are included in the Housing Inventory Count, a federally mandated annual report of housing and shelter for people experiencing homelessness. These locations are also mapped across San José in Attachment L. Having access to emergency housing is an equity issue for people in need.
Figure 1: Emergency Housing beds by City Council District (group shelters, safe havens, transitional housing, and EIH)
With the implementation of no encampment zones and service enhancements surrounding EIH sites only, there is potential to create inequitable circumstances even within a given City Council District. For example, residents and businesses within a half-mile of the Monterey and Bernal EIH location may receive enhanced services and encampment abatements, while residents just outside the boundary would need to wait for the standard service levels that the City is able to provide.
Other Considerations
There is not enough available housing for the at least 5,031 unsheltered individuals in San José.
Permanent homes with supportive services are solutions that end homelessness. Nevertheless, the City must manage impacts of homelessness while the supportive housing system continues to produce more homes and increases further prevention efforts. These impacts are felt most acutely by unhoused residents who often must live in unsafe conditions, are victimized by criminal actors, face harmful weather, and have difficulty accessing basic sanitation. Further, there are also impacts to people who live in homes, on City services, and on the environment.
Neither enhanced services nor no encampment zones address the issue of where unhoused people are allowed to live outside while awaiting housing options. Clearing people from no encampment zones does not end their homelessness and does not manage its impacts. It merely shifts them to a different location outside of the no encampment zone when other housing options are not readily available.
709
619
496
214
128
20 16 6 0 0
0 200
400
600
800
3 6 7 2 5 8 10 9 1 4
Total Emergency Beds
Available
City Council District
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
November 16, 2022
Subject: City Initiatives Roadmap: Emergency Housing System Expansion
Each no encampment zone that is implemented limits the safe places individuals experiencing homelessness can go. In addition, if no encampment zones grow in size or number, they become more complex to manage. This is because there are fewer places for people to encamp which can lead to people re-encamping in set-back areas or creating larger encampment locations that need additional management and resources. A recent example of this is the Coleman/Guadalupe River Park abatement that resulted in many individuals moving to nearby Columbus Park. Abatements also scatter individuals experiencing homelessness away from known areas which adds to challenges in providing resources and maintaining continuity of services for people at encampments. After Guadalupe Gardens was abated, individuals moved to the riverbank or trail areas within the Guadalupe River Park which impacts the public’s use of natural space and are more difficult to access to provide trash collection and other resources.
Occupied Vehicle Considerations
If City Council directs a no encampment zone that includes occupied vehicles, the Administration will need to evaluate the ability to enforce the policy due to existing challenges and legal considerations for towing occupied vehicles and RVs.
Sleeping in non-oversized vehicles (e.g., cars, vans, or trucks) can only be prohibited under the current San José Municipal Code, such as through no overnight parking restrictions (i.e., no parking from 10 pm to 6 am). Occupied or unoccupied vehicles can be ticketed or cited for violating parking restrictions, but neither can be towed without the adoption of a local towing ordinance (California Vehicle Code section 22651(n)). Violation of a posted parking restriction is not a towable offense.
When Parking and Traffic Control Officers under the Vehicle Abatement Program encounter occupied vehicles, they refer the reported vehicles and associated issues to the Housing Department for follow up so services can be offered and/or provided. Upon referring an occupied vehicle to Housing, the Department of Transportation temporarily pauses the vehicle abatement investigation until notification is received from the Housing Department that services have been offered and/or provided and outreach efforts have been completed. Once Housing indicates that the inhabitant(s) have received services and no additional action on Housing’s part will occur, the Department of Transportation reengages the investigation and conducts a follow up visit to the vehicle. If the vehicle is in violation (i.e., has not moved from the original location) and the vehicle is not occupied, the Department of Transportation staff can tow the vehicle. Oftentimes, a vehicle is in violation but occupied, so a tow cannot be initiated. In this situation, the case remains open and the Department of Transportation staff will periodically return to the vehicle to check its status. Investigations can remain open and in this non-enforcement cycle for months. (Attachment M)
Additional challenges are that vehicles must have either a valid and visible vehicle identification number or license plate to facilitate citation issuance. Occasionally, staff come across vehicles or RVs that do not have a visible identification number or plates. Further, parking citations are not always effective in changing driver or vehicle owner’s behavior. This is especially true when a vehicle is not registered or is not owned by the user; the consequence to accumulating citations
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
November 16, 2022
Subject: City Initiatives Roadmap: Emergency Housing System Expansion
in these cases is not impactful (e.g., placing a DMV hold on the registration or accumulating late fees and risking tax refund garnishment through the Franchise Tax Board).
Restricting the parking of large vehicles such as RVs can only be implemented in circumstances due to safety concerns. Each location must be assessed according to San José Municipal Code Chapter 11.98 – Large Vehicle Parking; this chapter provides guidance on how to evaluate safety problems occurring within the affected zone to establish restricted parking areas for large vehicles. This includes pedestrian and vehicular visibility from intersecting streets or driveways, width of the street(s) in the affected zone, number of vehicles parked on the streets in the affected zone at the time of the study, or other relevant data including, but not limited to, volume and speed of traffic, and the size of vehicles parked in the affected zone.
There is also the potential that implementing no parking rules will impact both residents and businesses within no encampment or service enhancement zones. For example, no overnight parking would be enforced for residents and businesses in the area in addition to occupied vehicles.
Non-City Property Collaboration
For current and future EIH program locations, any proposed enhanced service or no encampment zone would need to be coordinated with other entities. Within any boundary, there may be property owned by other government entities or private individuals on which the City has no authority to act nor dedicated resources such as staff and equipment to support. To ensure success of any implementation, the City would need to coordinate efforts and obtain approvals from property owners that detail how these enhanced services would be managed as to those properties.
Enforcing no encampments on private property is completed through the Code Enforcement Program. However, private property owners are cited, not the individual experiencing homelessness when enforcement actions are taken for encampment issues on private property.
Staff Recommendation:
To preserve quality of life in neighborhoods surrounding a half-mile walkshed from EIH locations, staff recommends the following enhanced services, as noted above:
• Dedicated case management homeless outreach with 48-hour response time. • Dedicated illegal dumping removal within 48 hours of notification. Current City-wide response time is 72 hours.
• Vehicle abatement response time reduction to within two to three days of notification. • Dedicated trash service and maintenance of clear rights-of-way. • Dedicated team to ensure ongoing compliance with 12’x12’ ‘Good Neighbor’ policy. • Dedicated staff resources to attend neighborhood meetings or community advisory committees near EIH locations and to regularly monitor the service areas.
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
November 16, 2022
Subject: City Initiatives Roadmap: Emergency Housing System Expansion
The recommended service enhancements for the five existing BHC/EIH sites and the pending Guadalupe EIH would have an approximate cost of $2.5 million annually, which would increase as additional BHC/EIH sites are added. The new program would take approximately six months to fully deploy, as time is needed to hire staff and procure the necessary equipment and contractual services. The timeline could extend past six months due to challenges with availability of candidates for new positions and supply chain constraints.
As these would be ongoing services, the recommended enhancements would need to be considered in the development of the 2023-2024 Proposed Budget, in alignment with City Council budgeting policies and principles, so as to evaluate the City’s budgetary position and tradeoffs with other City services. Additional detail and discussion are included in the Cost Summary/Implications later in this memorandum.
CONCLUSION
This action will expand emergency housing options and enhance the quality of life of unhoused residents while adding dedicated quality of life and supportive services around existing and future EIH locations. After extensive community outreach and engagement, staff recommends removing the Noble Avenue site located in District 4 from consideration, pursuing two specific VTA sites for the development of additional EIH, and directing staff to continue evaluating new potential site locations. In addition, this report recommends consideration for service enhancements to maintain quality of life in neighborhoods, including 48-hour dedicated case management and illegal dumping removal, right-of-way clearance, and graffiti removal within a half-mile from each existing EIH site.
EVALUATION AND FOLLOW-UP
Staff intends to return to City Council within 120 days with a report of progress.
CLIMATE SMART SAN JOSE
The recommendation in this memorandum has no effect on Climate Smart San José energy, water, or mobility goals.
POLICY ALTERNATIVES
EIH
Siting
Alternative #1: Evaluate the following two alternative sites in City Council District 10:
• Highway 85 South at Great Oaks Boulevard Off Ramp
• Highway 85 South at Santa Teresa Boulevard On Ramp
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
November 16, 2022
Subject: City Initiatives Roadmap: Emergency Housing System Expansion
Attachment N provides an aerial map of these sites. The sites require review and approval of the respective site owners and Caltrans before a project can proceed.
Pros:
If the VTA-owned Cottle Road at Highway 85 site proves not viable, both the Highway 85 South at Great Oaks Boulevard Off Ramp and Highway 85 South at Santa Teresa Boulevard (adjacent to the on ramp) sites remain as potential alternatives. Both sites appear feasible from a concept layout standpoint, but further design detail is needed to confirm that a practical site can be developed.
Cons: Both sites have significant limitations in terms of the size, shape, and viability of site layout that makes development of a practical project with sufficient units not guaranteed.
Reason for not recommending: Staff believes that the Highway 85 South at Cottle Road site
remains the best location to develop a sufficiently sized and practical EIH project in City Council District 10.
Maintain Quality of Life in Surrounding Neighborhoods
Alternative #1: Fund all enhanced services included in the staff recommendation with the addition of encampment hygiene services (showers, restrooms, hand washing), litter clean-ups, Cash4Trash, dedicated code enforcement resources and police and illegal dumping monitoring within one half-mile of current EIH locations.
Cost: Approximately $5.1 million
annually, with proportional increases needed as additional EIH sites open.
Pros:
High level of dedicated services provided to communities with EIH sites. Dedicated police patrols to promote feeling of safety for neighborhoods. Encampment hygiene services provided to encampment residents.
Cons:
High cost.
Reason for not recommending:
Very high cost for enhanced services when data did not show an impact to quality of life conditions and safety as a result at EIH sites, although some existing neighborhood conditions could still benefit from enhanced services.
A
lternative #2: Implement staff recommended service enhancements and City-wide policy for no encampments within 150 feet of the perimeter of current and future EIH locations. Tent and or structure abatement services include weekly outreach to individuals experiencing homelessness, three outreach interactions with individuals prior to abatement, and dedicated Police Secondary Employment Unit (SEU) officers at all abatements. Vehicle abatement services include the establishment no overnight parking zones and enforcement/citation of parking rules biweekly. Quality of life related services include 48- hour illegal dumping and graffiti response, neighborhood engagement, dashboard, and neighborhood monitoring
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
November 16, 2022
Subject: City Initiatives Roadmap: Emergency Housing System Expansion
Cost: Approximately $3.8 million a nnually, with proportional increases needed as additional EIH sites open.
Pros: A 150 feet setback around the perimeter of EIH locations matches the current approach taken to abate encampments within 150 feet of schools. Starting with a smaller no encampment area also provides an opportunity to try out a smaller zone which can be expanded later if needed.
Cons:
The 150 feet zone would only impact a small area adjacent to the EIH sites
Reason for not recommending: Without adequate housing available, the outcome of enforcing no encampment zones will most likely result in people moving to other areas of the City. Code changes may be required to establish no encampment zones for occupied vehicles.
Staff recommendation and alternative costs are compared in the table below Option Area Enhanced
Services will be
Provided
Area of No
Encampment
Zone
Key Services Key
Drawback
Estimated
Cost
Recommendation
(Service
Enhancements)
10 minute/~half-
mile walkshed of
EIH location
N/A Weekly outreach to individuals
experiencing homelessness, 48
hour illegal dumping and graffiti
response, vehicle abatement
response within 2-3 days,
biweekly encampment trash
services, neighborhood
engagement, dashboard creation,
and neighborhood monitoring
High Cost $2.5
million
annually
Alternative 1
(Service
Enhancements)
10 minute/~half-
mile walkshed of
EIH location
N/A Items included in
recommendation plus proactive
Police SEU patrols, Cash4Trash,
litter clean-up, illegal dumping
cameras, encampment hygiene,
dedicated code enforcement
resources
Very High
Cost
$5.1
million
annually
Alternative 2
(Service
Enhancements
and No
Encampment
Zone)
10 minute/~half-
mile walkshed of
EIH Location
150 feet Weekly outreach to individuals
experiencing homelessness, three
outreach interactions with
individuals prior to abatement,
48- hour illegal dumping and
graffiti response, abate
tent/structure encampments,
dedicated police SEU officers at
all abatements, establish no
overnight parking zones and
enforce parking rules biweekly,
neighborhood engagement,
dashboard, and neighborhood
monitoring
The small area
may not match
expected
outcomes as
communicated
by
neighborhoods
$3.8
million
annually
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
November 16, 2022
Subject: City Initiatives Roadmap: Emergency Housing System Expansion
PUBLIC OUTREACH
City Council provided specific direction with regard to public outreach and communication.
Details of that outreach is provided in the body of this report. This memorandum will be posted on the City’s Council Agenda website for the November 29, 2022 City Council meeting.
COORDINATION
This memorandum was coordinated with the Fire Department; Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement; the Police Department; the Public Works Department; the Department of Transportation; the City Attorney’s Office; and the City Manager’s Budget Office.
COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION/INPUT
No commission recommendation or input is associated with this action.
COST SUMMARY/IMPLICATIONS
The recommendation in this memorandum related to EIH site identification and operational considerations do not have any cost implications. The 2022-2023 Adopted Operating Budget includes $40.0 million from the General Fund ($21.5 million) and the American Rescue Plan Fund ($18.5 million) for the construction and future operation of EIH sites, and future operating and maintenance costs will be included in future General Fund Five-Year Forecasts.
The recommendation in this memorandum to maintain quality of life in neighborhoods surrounding EIH in accordance with previous City Council direction has a preliminarily estimated cost of $2.5 million annually. A brief description and cost for new services is provided in the table below (Table 4). As these would be ongoing services, the recommended enhancements would need to be considered in the development of the 2023-2024 Proposed Budget, in alignment with City Council budgeting policies and principles, to evaluate the City’s budgetary position and tradeoffs with other City services. Though the $2.5 million figure is useful for initial planning purposes, it is likely that the additional discussion and analysis between departments and the City Manager’s Budget Office would result in revisions to the structure of the identified staffing and contractual services listed in the table below.
It is important to note that, while City Council’s approval of the 2022-2023 Adopted Operating Budget ensured that the Beautify San José Consolidated Model has its currently authorized staffing funded ongoing, nearly all of the contractual services related to encampment trash collection and enhanced abatement and clean-up activities, is funded on a one-time basis in the American Rescue Plan Fund in 2022-2023. Preliminary estimates of the ongoing need in 2023- 2024 and beyond is $7-$10 million, though this figure will be thoroughly evaluated by Parks, Recreation, and Neighborhood Services and the City Manager’s Budget Office during the budget
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
November 16, 2022
Subject: City Initiatives Roadmap: Emergency Housing System Expansion
development process. The ongoing addition of up to another $2.5 million would provide even more pressure to the City’s constrained General Fund budget.
Table 4: Recommended service levels, resources, and costs to maintain the quality of life in neighborhoods surrounding EIH locations
Enhanced Service and
Dedicated Service Level
Cost Item Description Annual Cost
Attend neighborhood meetings; liaison
between neighborhoods, City Council
offices, and City departments; assess
surrounding neighborhoods; and report
issues.
Community Engagement Liaisons
(2.0 Community Coordinator)
$365,000
Vehicles $ 60,000
Create dashboard to report quality of life
and safety data to City Council Offices and
the public monthly
Create dashboard leveraging existing
staff
-
Resolve reported graffiti within 48 hours on
the City's jurisdiction, and privately owned
property within five days
Increase funding for graffiti
abatement vendor
$15,000
Address illegal dumping within 48 hours 2.0 Maintenance Worker II $315,000 Vehicle $30,000
Conduct proactive vehicle abatement and
safety parking compliance patrols at least
once a month
Respond to SJ311 requests within 2-3 days
instead of 3-5 days
Proactive vehicle abatement
enforcement one time per month for
five locations
$13,000
Expand vehicle abatement contract
staffing by 0.5 FTE
$40,000
1.0 Sr. Parking Control Officer $150,000
1.0 Parking Control Officer $115,000
Vehicle and Equipment $42,000
Disposal fees for junk vehicles $35,000
Encampments receive trash service two
times per week (to be started in fall 2023)
12’x12’ encampment footprint/good
neighbor policy maintained
Keep right of way clear of encampments
1.0 Community Coordinator $183,000
1.0 Maintenance Worker II $159,000
Vehicle $30,000
Materials/Supplies $35,000
Vendor Support $140,000
Weekly proactive outreach and street-based
case management at encampments
Expand outreach contract to add 2.0
additional outreach workers
$500,000
Housing options and flexible funds
for outreach teams
$250,000
Total $2,477,000
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
November 16, 2022
Subject: City Initiatives Roadmap: Emergency Housing System Expansion
CEQA
Not a Project, File No. PP17-009, Staff Reports, Assessments, Annual Reports, and Informational Memos that involve no approvals of any City action.
/s/ /s/
JACKY MORALES-FERRAND JON CICIRELLI
Director, Housing Director, Parks Recreation
and Neighborhood Services
For questions, please contact Omar Passons, Deputy City Manager, at [email protected].
Attachments: A – District 4 and 10 Alternate Sites
B – EIH Siting Guidelines
C – Cerone EIH Site
D – Cottle Aerial Map
E – ELS Architecture Report Findings
F – GIS Generated Walkshed Buffers
G – Zone Boundary Options
H – Quality of Life Conditions: Before and After
I – Quality of Life Conditions: Month of September 2022 J – Walkshed Adjusted Boundaries
K – Demographic Information
L – Map of Emergency Housing
M – Historical Movement of Occupied Vehicles
N - Santa Teresa and 85 Aerial
1 ATTACHMENT A
Emergency Interim Housing (EIH) Alternative Suggested Sites for Evaluation and Sites for Re-Evaluation - Council Districts 4 and 10 Important: This list is a collection of potential Emergency Interim Housing sites suggested by the community, elected officials, other public agencies, and City staff as possible alternatives to sites originally approved by the City Council on June 21, 2022. This list was originally posted September 7, 2022 after collecting stakeholder suggestions and prior to site evaluation, including sites for re-evaluation, and was updated on September 30, 2022 after an initial evaluation of certain sites was completed. Each site on this list has been or is in the process of being evaluated and/or re-evaluated through the City’s EIH feasibility, viability and practicality process, and only those passing the evaluation can be recommended for EIH development. Being on this list only means that a site will go through evaluation. This updated list indicates the current status of each site evaluation. Most sites will not pass the evaluation process and will not be recommended for EIH development; only the most viable and practical sites would be considered for recommendation. Sites with strikethrough have been determined to be not feasible, viable, or practical at this time under the current Siting Guidelines and Evaluation Process. (Updated November 14, 2022)
Council
Districts
Location of Suggested Sites
Sites for Re-Evaluation
Source of
Suggestion
Owner of
Site
New Evaluation/Re-Evaluation of Site Based Upon Siting
Guidelines and Evaluation Process (link below)
https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/87 923/637938200907570000
4 King Rd near Penitencia Cr
King Rd near Penitencia Cr
CD4
CD4
City
Valley
Water
Re-evaluation
A1 – Small size limits practicality of EIH development
B6 – Ownership - SCVWD confirmed the site is not available for EIH use, and is required as part of a flood protection project 4 Mabury Flag Lot near King &
Penetencia Cr
CD4 Private
SJWCo
Re-evaluation
B6 – Ownership - SJWCo confirmed again site not available 4 Cropley Station
(across from TreewoodLn)
Staff
Community
Private
SJWCo
Re-evaluation
A2 – Current site access insufficient for emergency vehicle access A4 – Environmental and flood zone designations
B3 – Site configuration limits capacity
B6 - SJWCo offered to lease or sell property to City
2 4 Pectin Ct near 680/Montague Mayor’s
Office
Private
Re-evaluation
B6 – Private ownership. Outreach by Council District 4 did not result in owner indicating willingness to use site for EIH 4 Capitol Ave @ Penetencia Cr
Capitol Ave @ Penetencia Cr
Staff
CD4
&
Community
Valley
Water
County
Re-evaluation
A4 - Flood Zone (AO and X - EL 1’ and 2’)
B3 – Developable area is too small without use of adjacent parcel B5 & B6 City-County-Valley Water Agreement
A4 - Flood Zone (AO – EL 1’ and 2’)
B5 & B6 – City-County-Valley Water Agreement. County has confirmed site is not available – designated County parkland. 4 Commodore Dr and
Cape Colony
Mayor’s
Office
Berryessa
USD
B6 – Outreach by Council District 4 did not result in owner indicating willingness to use site for EIH
4 Berryessa USD Offices Community Berryessa
USD
B6 – Active BUSD District Offices
4 Mabury (1565) &
Berryessa Station Wy
Community VTA B1 – Across from current Mabury BHC community B6 – Part of Berryessa BART Station Area. VTA has plans for undeveloped portions of BART/Transit Station
4 Los Esteros Rd N side,
E of Grand Blvd
Staff Tributary
Agencies
Re-evaluation
A4 - Flood Zone (AE - EL 12’)
B4 - Development not legally permissible due to Burrowing Owl Habitat Zone (Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency
B5 – Regional Wastewater Facility (RWF) buffer lands - residential use prohibited.
4 Grand Blvd E side,
N side of Los Esteros Rd
Staff Tributary
Agencies
Re-evaluation
A4 - Flood Zone (AE - EL 12’)
B4 – Active – ZWED Recycling facility ground lease area. Not available for use as an EIH.
B5 – RWF buffer lands - residential use prohibited.
B5 - Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge 3 4 Los Esteros Rd Public NA Site suggestion not specific - Insufficient information to evaluate 4 S/s Grand Blvd btw Archer St and
Disk Dr
Staff
&
Community
Tributary
Agencies
Re-evaluation
A4 - Flood Zone (AE - EL 12)
B4 - Park expansion area has high-water table and experiences regular ponding
B5 – RWF buffer lands - residential use prohibited.
PRNS controlled Alviso park expansion area
4 Grand Blvd & Disk Dr (East side of
Disk)
Community Tributary
Agencies
Listed above as S/s Grand Blvd btw Archer St and Disk Dr 4 Hwy 237 NE Artesian Slough Staff
&
Community
Tributary
Agencies
A4 - Flood Zone (AE - EL 12)
B5 – RWF buffer lands - residential use prohibited.
State HCD approved development consistent with buffer use only.
Residential incompatible with plant operations and regulatory issues (BAAQMD regulatory requirements to limit noxious odor complaints, where complaints can have regulatory penalties). 4 Gold St Connector Staff Caltrans
Re-evaluation
A4 - Flood Zone (AE -EL 12). Habitat Area
4 Gold St at 237 Staff
&
Community
Caltrans
Re-evaluation
A4 - Flood Zone (AE - EL 12)
4 SE Corner Berryessa and
N Jackson Ave
CD4
&
Community
Private A4 - Flood Zone (AO - EL 2’)
B6 – Private ownership. Outreach by Council District 4 did not result in owner indicating willingness to use site for EIH 4 NE Corner 1st and Tasman CD4 Private A4 - Flood Zone (AH - EL12) 4 B6 – Private ownership. Outreach by Council District 4 did not result in owner indicating willingness to use site for EIH
4 SW Corner Tasman
and Zanker
CD4
Private
A4 - Flood Zone X, no mitigation required
B6 – Private ownership. Outreach by Council District 4 did not result in owner indicating willingness to use site for EIH
4 NE Corner of Baypointe Pkwy and
Baypointe Dr
CD4
Private
A4 - Flood Zone (AH -EL12) and X
B6 – Private ownership. Outreach by Council District 4 did not result in owner indicating willingness to use site for EIH
4 Old Agnews Site
Staff
City
A4 - Flood Zone AE 50% and Flood Zone X, no mitigation required B5 – Site restrictions no shelter on acquired land from State.
Possible Charter Park restrictions
4 SE Corner Zanker at 237
Staff
&
Community
VTA
B6 – VTA Ownership (Cerone Yard). VTA evaluating long term use of site, including potential light rail yard on portion of site long term (beyond 10 years).
4 NW Corner Zanker at 237
CD4
&
Community
Tributary
Agencies
A4 - Flood Zone (AE - EL 12 and Zone X)
B5 – RWF buffer lands - residential use prohibited.
State HCD approved development consistent with buffer use only.
Residential incompatible with plant operations and regulatory issues (BAAQMD regulatory requirements to limit noxious odor complaints, where complaints can have regulatory penalties).
4 First St and Liberty St
Community
Private
A4 - Flood Zone (AE - EL 12)
B6 – Owned by Top Golf developers with plans to use for something different than EIH
4 Northside 101/Zanker Rd
Staff
City
B3 and C2 – Sewer interceptors and the planned 101/Zanker interchange project create conflicts that make the project impractical.
5 4
931 Zanker Rd, SJ 95134
Community
Private
B6 – Private commercial buildings with active current use
4 Montague Exp at
Guadalupe River
(3101 N 1st Street)
CD4
Private
A4 – Flood Zone (AH - EL 17)
B6 – Private ownership. Outreach by Council District 4 did not result in owner indicating willingness to use site for EIH
4 521 Charcot Ave
Community
NA
• Site suggestions not specific - Insufficient information provided to evaluate.
• Address appears to be a functioning/occupied private building of business condominiums.
4 Seaboard Ave
Community
NA
• Site suggestions not specific - Insufficient information provided to evaluate
4 Devcon Ct & Bering Dr
Community
Private
• Site suggestions not specific - Insufficient information provided to evaluate.
• All parcels at intersection are privately owned and developed.
4 Charcot Ave & Hartog Dr
Community
Private
• Insufficient information provided to evaluate
• All parcels at intersection are privately owned and developed.
4 101, Oakland Rd into 13th St
Community
Private
• Insufficient information provided to evaluate
• All parcels at intersection are privately owned and developed.
4 Berryessa/Commercial
Community
Private
A4 – History of salvage and other recycling uses – likely requiring significant hazard mitigation. Flood Zone AE
B6 - Private ownership. No indication owner would agree to change in use.
6 4 Berryessa across from
Graniterock Company
Community Private Listed above as Berryessa/Commercial
4 Capital/Gilchrist
Old School Bus Depot
Community
EUSHSD
A1 – Bus Depot portion too small
A4 – Partial Flood Zone AO – Depth 2
B6 – Active District facility
4 1505 Schallenberger Rd
Public
County
B6 –Active County Facility
4 River Oaks
Storm Detention Basin
CD4
City
A4 and B5 – Current use as Storm Detention Basin and Storm Pump Station. Future Green Stormwater Infrastructure Project.
10 85 South On Ramp at
Santa Teresa Blvd
Staff
Caltrans
Re-evaluation
A1 – Smaller site unlikely to accommodate adequate number of units (less than 60)
A2 – Site Access challenges – would require long driveway A3 – Excessive slopes at Glenburry Way limits buildable area B6 – Caltrans open to exploring site, but initial indication site will not accommodate desirable number of EIH units, with setback requirements and slopes
10 Light Rail Station at Santa Teresa
Blvd
Staff
VTA
Re-evaluation
B1 – Safe parking facility planned for another part of site, desire not to have two facilities on one site.
B6 – VTA Ownership – requires additional coordination
10 Cottle Light Rail Station
Park and Ride Lot
Public
VTA
B6 – VTA Ownership – requires additional coordination.
Resolution of Caltrans’ expectation of On ramp relocation at time of permanent development
10 Snell Park and Ride Lot
VTA
VTA
A1 and A2 – size and shape will limit EIH unit yield
7 B6 – VTA Ownership – requires additional coordination
10 Coleman Rd across from Sentinel
St
Staff
Valley
Water
A4 – Flood Zone A. Currently no development allowed.
B6 – Valley Water Owned
10 Valley Water District HQ Parking
Lots of Almaden Exp
Community
Valley
Water
B6 – Valley Water Owned. Active use – SCVWD HQ Parking
10 5905 Winfield Blvd
Community
Valley
Water
B6 - Valley Water Owned. Active use – Maintenance Yard
10 Large Lot Coleman and Meridian
Community
Valley
Water
A4 – Flood Zone A. Currently no development allowed.
B6 – Valley Water Owned
10 272 Curie Dr adjacent to Santa
Teresa County Park
Staff
County
B6 – County owned. Part of Santa Teresa County Park.
Not available for EIH
10 Almaden LRT Station Closed
CD10
&
Community
VTA
B6 – VTA owned. VTA indicated site is used as Park & Ride Lot for Bus Line 64A and as Light Rail Operations Center after the Guadalupe Light Rail Operations Center closed.
Site is not available for EIH.
City of San Jose - Emergency Interim Housing (EIH)
Siting and Evaluation Guidelines & Process – Identifying the Most Practical Sites The following guidelines and process aim to effectively and efficiently evaluate potential EIH sites by assessing numerous considerations to establish initial feasibility, actual viability (project can be built in a relatively straightforward manner, with no significant mitigations), and ultimately project practicality (viable site compares well vs other sites in a Council District on ownership/control, cost, rapid development, # of units/beds, compatibility, etc). This process allows the City to be as thoughtful as possible with taxpayer dollars while also planning for effective solutions across neighborhoods.
A. Feasibility Considerations
This step involves the initial site review to determine site characteristics versus minimum requirements. This high-level review may include a preliminary field visit. This initial assessment uses readily available parcel/property information, and aerial and street maps.
1. Size: Sites must be a minimum of one acre – one acre is the minimum size to accommodate an approximate 40-unit EIH with limited parking and support services. Sites of two or more acres are better suited to build a more adequate number of sleeping units (e.g. 60 to 100), and the necessary support/shared facilities (e.g. parking, kitchen, laundry).
2. Site Access: Sites must be accessible to the City street system to enable people staying and working at the site, as well as emergency response personnel and vehicles, to access the site. Landlocked sites with little or no vehicular access are not feasible.
3. Grades and Slopes: Sites need to be fairly flat for efficient EIH development. As “Quick- Build” interim facilities the goal is to efficiently develop sites (e.g. control cost, rapid construction) to quickly shelter people living on the streets, and avoid more expensive, permanent site mitigations. Steeper slopes result in higher costs and longer development timeframes. Even sites with mild slopes present grading and utility installation challenges.
4. Environmental: Potential environmental factors that can affect any development may be numerous and complex. Environmental factors typically vary by site and project. During feasibility evaluation, environmental research focuses on readily accessible information that may impact interim housing development such as flood zone designation, riparian corridors, and previous land uses (e.g. dump sites).
5. Shape: Sites need suitable shapes to effectively configure an EIH. For example, some sites may meet the minimum acreages, but the entire site may not be useable enough to support all facilities, and achieve adequate setbacks from adjacent uses. For example, long narrow sites may have ample acreage, but may be challenged to accommodate all requirements.
Square/rectangular parcels are more practical, but various shapes may be considered.
ATTACHMENT B
1 6. Access to Basic Services: While access to basic services such as groceries and transit are important, potential sites lacking proximity are not necessarily infeasible. Sites that meet all or most of the other considerations may be advanced for further review for viability and practicality. Sites with public transit located ½ mile or less are preferred. However, in lieu of public transit, the City and its site operators may provide other transportation options.
B. Viability Considerations
In the viability phase, sites must pass through a more detailed field and property characteristic investigation. It needs to indicate potential for development, have no fatal flaws emerge, be in a priority location (e.g. City Council District that does not have a project), or have the capacity for expansion of an existing EIH community.
1. Location in the City: The City Council directed that at least one EIH site be developed in each of the 10 City Council Districts. The City has EIH projects in four of the 10 City Council Districts (e.g. 2, 3, 6, 7) and is pursuing sites and projects in the remaining six districts (e.g. 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10) to ensure shared responsibility for sites across the entire City and provide multiple access locations. Potential sites in all City Council Districts can be evaluated to determine feasibility, viability, and practicality. The priority focus directed by City Council is for staff to develop EIH sites in Council Districts that do not have current EIH communities.
2. Access to Utilities: During the field review, sites are informally surveyed to identify access and proximity to utilities including power, water, sewer, and storm water systems.
3. Site Configuration and Capacity: Sites that are advancing through the viability phase are more thoroughly evaluated for how they may be configured and the potential capacity for development. Field visits are conducted to evaluate site conditions and developable space, to identify enough open flat areas that enable sufficient layout for access and circulation, site control/security, and buildings, versus sites that have limited space, greater variation of terrain, including sloped areas, or odd shapes that are not as useable. Gathering the following preliminary information is an essential component of determining viability:
• Where can buildings be placed on a site
• Approximately how many units/beds can a site accommodate (towards the City Council goal in this phase of EIH development)
• How will the site be accessed and circulated, including emergency fire lanes • Are there undocumented site conditions such as utility poles, vaults, etc. • Are there limitations to site access due to unknown site factors or topography
4. Preliminary Environmental Constraints: In this viability evaluation phase, potential environmental constraints are researched that may limit development and/or require mitigations at a particular site. Sites are screened for various environmental constraints commonly encountered at development sites in San Jose such as:
2 a. Hazardous materials/contaminants
b. Geologic Hazards
c. Flooding
d. Habitat
e. Noise
f. Air Quality
g. Historic Culture
Additional environmental review and/or analysis is completed for sites that are advanced and approved by City Council for project design and construction.
5. Site Restrictions: Research is conducted to understand potential land or use restrictions such as deed restrictions, recorded covenants, or certain land use designations. The City’s General Plan and Zoning requirements are suspended for the duration of the City’s Shelter Crisis Declaration under the State Legislation that allows Bridge Housing and Emergency Interim Housing development and operation in the City of San Jose.
6. Ownership/Ability to Control: To build and operate EIH, the City must legally own or control the property through a lease as required by the enabling legislation. With limited funding available and the urgent need to develop EIH communities to shelter people on the street, using City owned land is usually the most practical and efficient path to developing these communities. The City does partner with other public agencies to use their land (e.g.
VTA, Caltrans, County, Valley Water). Purchasing or leasing property from private owners usually makes a project impractical for cost and timing reasons, unless it is donated or leased at a nominal cost. Each potential site is evaluated on its own merit, however for sites the City does not already control, the willingness for urgent and timely participation by the property owner is essential.
C. Practicality Considerations
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 preliminary development capacity for an EIH site, to enable initial comparisons between sites, to begin making early assessments on the relative value of a site (e.g. cost, capacity of site, other qualitative considerations) versus other sites that are viable.
1. Preliminary Concepts & Capacity: Only a small number of potential EIH sites are advanced for further consideration based on the factors identified in the previous evaluation’s phases.
During the practicality phase, preliminary site concepts are formulated to evaluate a site’s potential capacity. Early site concepts consider setbacks, access points, emergency access needs, proximity to utility connections, site grades, potential environmental constraints that may impact development, alternative site and building configurations, and buffers. 3 2. Site Comparison and Evaluation: Given the limited pool of sites available due to funding limitations, cost, and available public property, very few sites make it through all phases of evaluation. The limited number of sites that do are evaluated and compared on their ability to accommodate a desirable number of units/beds (e.g. 60 to 100), the cost effectiveness to deliver the project, the ability to rapidly design and build the project, and other qualitative factors that may be deemed relevant by the City Council, City staff, and the community.
The Mayor and City Council consider and decide whether to develop an EIH community. 4 ATTACHMENT C
AERIAL MAP OF THE CERONE VTA SITE IN DISTRICT 4 LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 237 AND ZANKER ROAD. DEVELOPABLE AREA: APPROX. 17 ACRES (CITY WOULD REQUIRE 2-3 ACRES). OWNER:
VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
ATTACHMENT D
AERIAL MAP OF THE COTTLE ROAD VTA LRT SITE IN DISTRICT 10, LOCATED DIRECTLY ON COTTLE ROAD BOUNDED BY HIGHWAY 85 AND THE HIGHWAY 85 ONRAMP FROM COTTLE ROAD AND DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO KAISER PERMANENTE SAN JOSE MEDICAL CENTER DEVELOPABLE AREA: APPROX. 3 ACRES. OWNER: VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
1 ATTACHMENT E
ELS ARCHITECTURE FLOOD PLAIN STUDY HIGH LEVEL TAKEAWAYS OF REPORT TO
ASSESS THE MAJOR ISSUES DEVELOPING EMERGENCY INTERIM HOUSING WITHIN FLOOD ZONES.
In early August, the City contracted with ELS Architecture to conduct a flood plain study with the intent to assess the major issues developing emergency interim housing within flood zones.
The City tasked ELS with identifying key factors that impact the cost, timeliness, and risks resulting from developing within designated flood zones.
Due to the significant number of variables associated with developing within a flood zone, such as flood designation, environmental impacts, and construction types, staff directed ELS to fully evaluate two sites on the original list of potential EIH sites within flood zones at each end of the designated flood hazard spectrum. While both sites are located in FEMA designated flood zones, the flood designations differ, triggering significantly different site analysis, potential flood mitigations, and construction standards. Site 1, located on Los Esteros Road is an example of a coastal flood hazard area with a flood elevation of 12 feet below the base flood elevation, representing the extreme end of the spectrum. Site 2, is located on North Capital adjacent to Penitencia Creek and is an example of the riverine flood hazard area with a flood depth of 2 feet, representing the other end of the flood development spectrum.
To fully understand the costs, timelines, and risks associated with these two sites, ELS had to factor all elements in the development and construction of an EIH community.
For this analysis, ELS used previous EIH developments to benchmark and compare. Analysis considered a range of factors such as potential flood designations and sources, environmental and biological impacts, structural design and construction requirements, and the range of surveys and reports required before considering EIH development within a flood plain. ELS also considered the temporary vs. permanent nature of EIH development. Due to the temporary nature of these EIH development, rather than import soils to build up the site above the designated flood levels, it would be more efficient and cost effective to elevate the residential buildings to the requisite 1 foot above the flood.
The report concludes that the cost difference to develop an EIH community drastically differs between the two sample sites. Working with civil and structural engineers, ELS determined that the rough order of magnitude cost to develop at the Los Esteros site would be near $6 Million more for the exact same development outside of the flood zone. In contrast, the North Capital site would require fairly minimal mitigation and deviation from standard construction, costing an estimate $30,000 to $40,000 above and beyond the communities built outside a flood zone. It is important to note that the North Capital site is only partially within a flood zone. As a result, utilities, and some of the buildings would be placed outside of the flood zone on the parcel or at the street to reduce cost and risk. This also does not factor in the required cost of supplemental flood insurance the City would be required to carry for the duration of the EIH. The North Capital site is partially owned by Santa Clara County Parks and is planned for future park development and not available for EIH.
2 In terms of timelines, both sites would require a range of studies or surveys to be conducted that would range from 6 to 18 months to complete. Based on the findings from that work, mitigation measures may take an additional 6-12 months to complete. In extreme circumstances, findings may prohibit new development altogether. Lastly, there are potential life and safety risks associated with building elevated structures within any type of designated flood zone. During a flood event, emergency services would be challenged to evacuate or service these communities.
1 ATTACHMENT F
10 MINUTE OR ~HALF-MILE WALKSHED BOUNDARIES GENERATED BY GEOGRPAHIC
INFORMATION SYSTEMS SOFTWARE AROUND EACH EIH/BHC LOCATION
Mabury Rd
Felipe Ave
2 Evans Ln
Rue Ferrari & Monterey and Bernal
1 ATTACHMENT G
BENEFITS AND DRAWBACKS OF DIFFERENT BOUNDARY/ZONE OPTIONS FOR SERVICE ENHANCEMENT IMPLEMENTATION
1-mile uniform radius Benefits
• More neighborhood areas and potential encampment
impacts are included
• Ease of communication to the public since 1 mile from the site is easy to understand
Drawbacks
• A 1 mile or greater distance has the potential to include areas that are not directly impacted by the EIH or BHC
locations
• As seen in the map to the left, zones will overlap for locations that are constructed near each other (Monterey and Bernal and Rue Ferrari locations)
• Neighborhoods and areas are arbitrarily cut-off which causes difficulty in recognizing where the boundaries
start and stop for housed and unhoused residents and city staff
• The amount of resources needed to implement no
encampment zones or service enhancements for this size
area is large
• If people are abated from an area without an offer of housing, they have no choice but to move to a different area of the City. The bigger the area they are not allowed to encamp, the more housing is needed, or the larger
impact it will have to the surrounding neighborhoods
2 Half mile uniform radius
Benefits
• More neighborhood areas and potential encampment
impacts are included
• Ease of communication to the public since 0.5 mile from the site is easy to understand
Drawbacks
• As seen in the map to the left, zones will overlap for locations that are constructed near each other
• Neighborhoods and areas are arbitrarily cut-off which causes difficulty in recognizing where the boundaries
start and stop for housed and unhoused residents and city staff
• The amount of resources needed to implement no
encampment zones or service enhancements for this size
area is large
• If people are abated from an area without an offer of housing, they have no choice but to move to a different area of the City. The bigger the area they are not allowed to encamp, the more housing is needed, or the larger
impact it will have to the surrounding neighborhoods
3 10-minute walkshed from EIH/BHC Benefits
• The walkshed accounts for natural boundaries such as
freeways, sound walls and creeks
• As seen in the map to the left, zones have less areas of overlap between sites that are near each other
• Neighborhoods and areas are arbitrarily cut-off which causes difficulty in recognizing where the boundaries
start and stop for housed and unhoused residents and city staff
• Effective way to distribute resources to ensure that they are distributed to what is relevant to the site
• 10 min or half mile addresses where people are willing to travel
Drawbacks
• Less neighborhood areas and potential encampment
impacts are included
• More difficult to communicate to the public
• The walkshed as generated by geographic information
systems software does not have boundary lines which
align with existing streets
4 150-foot setback around EIH/BHC Benefits
• Aligns with current policy for 150 ft school setbacks • Easier to implement and manage, and monitor
operationally
Drawbacks
• Less benefit to the surrounding neighborhoods
• If individuals are abated from within the 150ft buffer, they could relocate within the surrounding
neighborhoods if they do not have housing options
ATTACHMENT H
QUALITY OF LIFE TYPE CALLS/REQUESTS FOR SERVICE ONE YEAR BEFORE AND ONE YEAR AFTER EACH
BHC/EIH SITE OPENED
Graffiti
All Service
Requests
Illegal
Dumping
All Service
Requests
Fire Calls
for Service
(Fire)
Involving
Suspected
Individuals
Experienci
ng
Homelessn
ess
Fire Calls
for Service
(Medical)
Involving
Suspected
Individuals
Experienci
ng
Homelessn
ess
Fire Calls
for Service
(Other)
Involving
Suspected
Individuals
Experienci
ng
Homelessn
ess
Police
Calls for
Service
Quality of
Life
Calls*
Occupied
Vehicles
Reported
to Vehicle
Abatement
Program
Code
Enforceme
nt
Incidents
Involving
Suspected
Individuals
Experienci
ng
Homelessn
ess
Evans
Ln
(EIH)
Opened
April
2021
Before
(4/1/2020 -
3/31/2021)
23 41 6 23 14 213 0 0
After
(4/1/2021 -
3/31/2022)
29 31 6 23 9 199 0 0
Difference 6 -10 0 0 -5 -14 0 0
Monter
ey &
Bernal
(EIH)
Opened
October
2020
Before
(10/1/2019 -
9/30/2020)
13 37 5 1 4 44 0 0
After
(10/1/2020 -
9/30/2021)
10 55 6 80 6 33 0 0
Difference -3 18 1 79 2 -11 0 0
Rue
Ferrari
(EIH)
Opened
Februar
y 2021
Before
(2/1/2020 -
1/31/2021)
13 33 3 7 2 55 0 0
After
(2/1/2021 -
1/31/2022)
1 28 1 52 3 47 8 0
Difference -12 -5 -2 45 1 -8 8 0
Felipe
Ave
(BHC)
Opened
October
2021
Before
(10/1/2020 -
9/30/2021)
58 121 40 45 19 149 3 0
After
(10/1/2021 -
9/30/2022)
11 12 18 30 11 99 0 0
Difference -47 -109 -22 -15 -8 -50 -3 0
Mabury
Rd
(BHC)
Opened
Februar
y 2020
Before
(2/1/2019 -
1/31/2020)
50 35 4 6 3 45 0 1
After
(2/1/2020 -
01/31/2021)
42 43 8 11 3 60 0 0
Difference -8 8 4 5 0 15 0 -1
* Police Calls for Service quality of life categories analyzed Suspicious person (10-66), Drinking in public 10.12.010 SJMC, Public Nudity 10.12.030 SJMC, Urinating/Defecating in public 10.12.110 SJMC, Drunk in Public 647f PC, Under the influence of drugs 11550 HS, Drug possession 11300 (possession of illegal drugs, could include several sections), Possess drug paraphernalia 11364 HS, Possess hypodermic needles 4140 BP, Unlawful disposal of needles 4147 BP, "Property crimes" to include theft, shoplifting, burglary, auto burglary, Assaults (to include simple 240/242 PC through 245 PC), Person down 10-53 (Both "pd" and "medical"), Trespassing 602 PC
ATTACHMENT I
QUALITY OF LIFE CALLS FOR MONTHLY SERVICE CALLS/REQUESTS DURING THE MONTH OF SEPTEMBER 2022 COMPARED TO THE AVERAGE MONTHLY SERVICE CALLS/REQUESTS ONE YEAR
BEFORE EACH SITE OPENED
Graffiti
All
Service
Requests
Illegal
Dumping
All Service
Requests
Fire Calls for
Service
Involving
Suspected
Individuals
Experiencing
Homelessness
Police
Calls for
Service
Quality of
Life Calls
Occupied
Vehicles
Reported
to Vehicle
Abatement
Program
Code
Enforcement
Incidents
Involving
Suspected
Individuals
Experiencing
Homelessness
Evans
Ln (EIH)
Opened
April
2021
(4/1/2021 –
8/31/2022)
2 2 3 15 0 0
September 2022 3 0 4 7 0 0
Difference
1 -2 1 -8 0 0
Monterey
& Bernal
(EIH)
Opened
October
2020
(10/1/2020 –
8/31/2022)
1 4 7 3 0 0
September 2022 0 0 1 5 0 0
Difference -1 -4 -6 2 0 0
Rue
Ferrari
(EIH)
Opened
February
2021
(2/1/2021 –
8/31/2022)
0 3 6 4 1 0
September 2022 1 5 7 3 0 0
Difference 1 2 1 -1 -1 0
Felipe
Ave
(BHC)
Opened
October
2021
(10/1/2021 –
8/31/2022)
1 1 5 8 0 0
September 2022 3 0 5 11 0 0
Difference 2 -1 0 3 0 0
Mabury
Rd
(BHC)
Opened
February
2020
(2/1/2020 –
8/31/2022)
3 3 3 5 0 0
September 2022 4 1 4 2 0 0
Difference 1 -2 1 -3 0 0
1 ATTACHMENT J
EXAMPLE OF 10-MINUTE WALKSHED BOUNDARIES WHICH HAVE BEEN EDITED TO ALIGN WITH EXISTING STREETS, COMPARED TO A NON-EDITED WALKSHED BOUNDARY.
Felipe Ave
Mabury Rd
2 Monterey and Bernal
Rue Ferrari
3 Evans Ln
ATTACHMENT K
DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION FOR THE CENSUS TRACTS OF EACH EIH/BHC SITE
Race
Hispanic
Origin
Percent
Race
White Not
Hispanic
Origin
Percent
Race
Black Not
Hispanic
Origin
Percent
Race
Asian Not
Hispanic
Origin
Percent
Race
Other
Percent
Median
Household
Income
San Jose
City
Limits
City-Wide 31% 27% 3% 35% 4% $121,900
Evans
Ln (EIH)
Census Tract
5031.23
46% 26% 4% 18% 7% $47,417
Difference
(compared to
city-wide)
15% -1% 1% -17% 3% -$74,483
Monterey
& Bernal
(EIH)
Census Tract
5120.38
20% 33% 12% 33% 2% $102,240
Difference
(compared to
city-wide)
-11% 6% 9% -2% -2% -$19,660
Rue
Ferrari
(EIH)
Census Tract
5120.01
23% 24% 0% 48% 4% $191,641
Difference
(compared to
city-wide)
-8% -3% -3% 13% 0% $69,741
Felipe
Ave
(BHC)
Census Tract
5031.1
66% 5% 2% 26% 2% $58,438
Difference
(compared to
city-wide)
35% -22% -1% -9% -2% -$63,462
Mabury
Rd
(BHC)
Census Tract
5036.01
52% 20% 2% 23% 4% $72,206
Difference
(compared to
city-wide)
21% -7% -1% -12% 0% -$49,694
ATTACHMENT L
MAP OF EMERGENCY HOUSING BY COUNCIL DISTRICT BASED ON HOUSING INVENTORY COUNT (GROUP SHELTERS, SAFE HAVENS, AND
TRANSITIONAL HOUSING AND EIH/BHC)
ATTACHMENT M
EXAMPLE OF CONTINUOUS MOVEMENT OF OCCUPIED VEHICLE WHEN HOUSING OPTIONS ARE NOT PROVIDED OR ACCEPTED. CONTINUOUS REPORTING AND MOVEMENT OF OCCUPIED VEHICLE TO THE VEHICLE ABATEMENT PROGRAM ACROSS THE CITY OF SAN JOSÉ OVER A YEAR AND A HALF PERIOD.
1 ATTACHMENT N
AERIAL MAP OF PROPOSED EIH SITE, SANTA TERESA AT HIGHWAY 85 ON-RAMP COUNCIL DISTRICT: 10
DEVELOPABLE AREA: 1 ACRE
OWNER: CALTRANS
2 AERIAL MAP OF PROPOSED EIH SITE, 85 EXIT RAMP AT GREAT OAKS BLVD COUNCIL DISTRICT: 10
DEVELOPABLE AREA: 2.5 ACRES
OWNER: CALTRANS