Letters from the Public - 1 of 2 — San Jose City Council, June 20, 2023

FW: Letter regarding 2023–2031 Draft Housing Element
City Clerk <[email protected]>
Thu 6/15/2023 2:21 PM
To:Agendadesk <[email protected]>
1 attachments (90 KB)
Housing Element letter Justin Lardinois.pdf;

From: Planning Commission 5 <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2023 2:20 PM
To: The Oﬃce of Mayor Ma Mahan <[email protected]>; District1 <[email protected]>; District2 <[email protected]>; District3 <[email protected]>; District4 <[email protected]>; District5 <[email protected]>; District 6 <[email protected]>; District7 <[email protected]>; District8 <[email protected]>; District9 <[email protected]>; District 10 <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>; Housing Element <[email protected]> Cc: PlanningSupportStaﬀ <PlanningSupportStaﬀ@sanjoseca.gov>; Cueto, Ruth <[email protected]>; Clements, Kristen <[email protected]>; Ishimatsu, Joshua <[email protected]>; Brilliot, Michael <[email protected]>; Planning Commission 2 <[email protected]>; Planning Commission 6 <[email protected]>; Planning Commission CW <[email protected]>; Planning Commission 3 <[email protected]>; Planning Commission 9 <[email protected]>; Planning Commission 7 <[email protected]>; Planning Commission 10 <[email protected]>; Planning Commission 1 <[email protected]>; Planning Commission 4 <[email protected]> Subject: Leer regarding 2023–2031 Dra Housing Element

Please see the aached leer expressing concerns about the 2023–2031 Dra Housing Element process.

Sincerely,
Jusn Lardinois
Vice Chair, San José Planning Commission
JustinLardinoisViceChair, SanJoséPlanningCommission
1 [email protected]
June15,2023
RE:2023–2031DraftHousingElement
DearHonorableMayorandCityCouncil:

I amwritingtoexpressdeepconcernsabouttheprocesssurroundingtheseconddraftoftheCityofSanJosé’s2023–2031HousingElement.WhilethePlanningCommissionrecommendedapprovalofthedraft,Idonotbelievewehadadequatetimetoreviewit,andasaresultourrecommendationwasmoreofaformalitythanmeaningfulfeedback.

I knowthatyouallrecognizetheimportanceoftheHousingElement;itcomplementsourGeneralPlanbyenumeratinghowandwherewearegoingtopromotetheproductionofnewhousing.AdoptingacompliantHousingElementisrequiredbystatelaw, andfailingtodosohasahostofsevereconsequences.

I understandthatpreparingaHousingElementisadaunting,years-longeffort,andIappreciatethatcitystaff hasputatremendousamountofworkintoit,muchofwhichwasmadeallthemorechallengingbytheCOVID-19pandemic.I wanttobeclearthatI havetheutmostrespectforcitystaff,andmycriticismsthatfollowarenotmeanttoimpugnthem.

Asyouknow, SanJosésubmittedthefirstdraftoftheHousingElementtotheCaliforniaDepartmentofHousingandCommunityDevelopment(HCD)latelastyearandreceiveda17-pageletterinresponse,detailingdozensofchangesthatwouldneedtobemadeforourHousingElementtobecertified.

Betweenthenandwhenstaff publishedtheseconddraftonMay17,2023,therewaslittleinsightintohowHCD’sfeedbackwasbeingaddressed.Nopublicengagementmeetingswereheldafterthefirstdraftwassubmitted,despiteaclearlegalrequirementtohaveacontinuouspublicengagementprocess. 2 2
CaliforniaGovernment Code, Section65583(c)(9)
1 Titleusedfor identificationpurposesonly; I amsubmittingthisletter inmyindividual capacity.

ThePlanningCommissionhearingontheseconddraftwasheldonMay24,2023,onlyaweekafterthedraftwassubmitted.ThoughitisnormalprocessforPlanningCommissionreportstobeprovidedaweekinadvanceofthemeeting,theHousingElementisanearly1,000-pagedocument,makingaweekaveryconstrainedtimelineforreview. Thiswascompoundedbythefactthatthetrackedchangesversionofthedocument(whichspecificallyhighlightswhatchangedfromthefirstdraft)wasonlypublishedthedaybeforethePlanningCommissionhearing.TherewasalsonotamatrixdetailinghowtheCityaddressedeachindividualchangemandatedbyHCD.Whilestaff toldusamatrixwouldbeprovidedtotheCouncilinadvanceofitshearing,ithasyettobepublishedasofthiswriting,lessthantwobusinessdaysbeforetheCouncilmeeting.

Forthesereasons,thePlanningCommissiondidnothavethetimeorresourcestoreviewtheseconddraftandgivefeedbackonwhatchangesshouldbemadebeforeitissubmittedtoHCDforapproval,andassuchwasunabletomakeameaningfulrecommendation.Thelackofpublicengagementmeetingsfortheseconddrafthasleftthepublicunabletoengagewiththeprocess.Andnow, withtheseconddraftcomingtoCityCouncilonJune20,2023,withoutastudysession(whichcouncilmembersrequested)andwithacriticaldocumentstillunpublished,thecouncilisleftwithouttheabilitytomeaningfullyaddressoutstandingissueswiththeseconddraftbeforemakingitsdecision.

Staff’srecommendationisthatthecouncilsubmittheseconddraftofthe2023–2031HousingElementtoHCDforapproval.SubmittingadraftforapprovalonlyallowstheCitytomakenon-substantivechangestothedraftafterthefact.Iamconcernedthatifthishappens,theCityriskshavingtheseconddraftrejectedbyHCD,whichwillsignificantlydelaytheCity’spathtocompliance.Giventheupcomingsummerbreak,I understandthatit’snotfeasibleforthecounciltoaskformoretime,soI insteadrecommendthefollowing:

1. TheCitysubmitstheseconddrafttoHCDsolelyasadraft. ThiswillallowHCDtoreviewthedraft,whilemaintainingtheCity’sabilitytomakesubstantivechangestothedraftinresponsetothatfeedback.2. Thecouncildirectsstafftopublishanyfurtherrevisionstothe2023–2031HousingElementmultipleweeksinadvanceofanycommissionorcouncilhearing,andprovidesatrackedchangesversionandamatrixofpublicandHCDfeedbackandhowtheywereaddressed,atthesametimeasthepublicationofthedraft.CouncilshouldalsocodifythisasarequirementforfutureHousingElementcycles.3. Councildirectsstafftoholdpublicengagementmeetingsforanyfurtherrevisionstothe2023–2031HousingElement.CouncilshouldalsocodifythisasarequirementforfutureHousingElementcycles.

I thank staff for their hard work on the Housing Element, and thank the council for reviewing and considering the feedback and recommendations in this letter.

Sincerely,
Justin Lardinois
Vice Chair, San José Planning Commission

You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important [External Email]
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

FW: City Council Agenda Item 10.2/23-938 - San Jose's Housing Failure in Graphs- City Clerk <[email protected]>
Tue 6/20/2023 7:53 AM
To:Agendadesk <[email protected]>
1 attachments (701 KB)
SanJoseHousing trends-2.pptx;

From: Robert Wood <
Sent: Monday, June 19, 2023 10:55 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Cc: Jonathan Karpf
Subject: City Council Agenda Item 10.2/23-938 - San Jose's Housing Failure in Graphs-

To the City Clerk and City Council -
The aached graphs document San Jose's housing failure. The city staﬀ's failure to appropriately seek public comment, communicate city constraints on housing, and provide a credible site inventory analysis and policies in the current General Plan Housing Element dra would perpetuate this if the dra were approved by the city and cerﬁed by the state department of Housing and Community Development.

This supplements my comments to be made in person at the City Council meeng.

Robert Wood
Robert Chapman WOOD
School of Management

San Jose vs. Seattle
Housing permits/year
Seattle
San Jose
Source: US Census Bureau via housingdata.app
Graphs prepared by Robert Chapman Wood,
Chair, Housing Committee, SJSU chapter of
California Faculty Association, [email protected]. 2008 financial crisis,
developments stop
1960-2006, San Jose is
consistently a key site
for Bay area housing,
though production
varies with the economy
2011 General Plan
requires development
focused in 55 unit-per
acre ‘urban villages’
2012-17, units in
pipeline from before
2011 receive permits
2018-Mayor Liccardo
seeks to promote
25,.000 homes in 5
years. But construction
declines sharply
despite strong
demand.

Results of 55-unit-
per-acre density
minimum in San Jose
[External Email]
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

FW: Letter from LWV on Housing Element. Item 10.2; File#23-938 City Clerk <[email protected]>
Tue 6/20/2023 8:01 AM
To:Agendadesk <[email protected]>
1 attachments (92 KB)
2023-6-18 SJCC CA HCD Housing Element.pdf;

From: Martha Butzier Diane McNu
Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2023 8:22 PM
To: Torres, Omar <[email protected]>; Cohen, David <[email protected]>; Foley, Pam <[email protected]>; Batra, Arjun <[email protected]>; Doan, Bien <[email protected]>; Jimenez, Sergio <[email protected]>; Mahan, Ma <Ma[email protected]>; Candelas, Domingo <[email protected]>; Orz, Peter <Peter.Or[email protected]>; Davis, Dev <[email protected]>; Kamei, Rosemary <[email protected]>
Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject:

Leer from LWV on Housing Element. Item 10.2; File#23-938

Please read our aached leer with recommendaons for improving the process on the important issue of our Housing Element. Vote YES to send the element to the California Department of Housing and Community Development.

Thank you for your service to the public.

Martha Butzier, Co-President, League of Women Voters of San Jose/Santa Clara lwvsjsc.org
votersedge.org/ca

P.O.Box5374SanJose,CA95150www.lwvsjsc.orgJune18,2023
To:MayorMahan,ViceMayorKamei,andCouncilmembersJimenez,Torres,Cohen,Ortiz,Davis,Doan,Candelas,Foley, andBatra cc:CityClerk,AgendaDesk
Subject: Item10.2;File#23-938.GPT22-001&ER21-032- City-InitiatedGeneral PlanTextAmendment toRevisetheEnvisionSanJosé2040General PlanHousingElement for the2023-2031Regional HousingNeedAllocation(RHNA) CycleProjectionPeriodPursuant toStateLawandRelatedAmendment toChapter 7of theGeneral Plan HonorableMayorandCouncilmembers,
TheLeagueofWomenVotersofSanJose/SantaClarareluctantlyrecommendsthattheCityCouncilforwardtheHousingElementtothestateHousingandCommunityDevelopmentdepartmentforcompliancereview.

TheLeaguehastrackedthedevelopmentofthisplanfromthebeginning.Wenotethattherearesomeseriousdeficiencies,butthattheimplicationsofnotsubmittingatthistimeoutweighthosedeficiencies.Wewouldencouragethecitytomakeeveryefforttoaddresstheseinfutureupdatestothisplan,possiblyduringtheannualreviewnowrequiredbylaw.

NumerousLeaguepositionsandactionpoliciesarepredicatedontheconvictionthat“everypersonandfamilyshouldhavedecent,safe,andaffordablehousing.”TheLeagueofWomenVotersofSanJose/SantaClaranamesaffordablehousingandhomelessnessasapriorityforeducationandadvocacy.

WesubmitthefollowingcommentsregardingtheHousingElementwithafocusontheLeague’scorevalueoftransparencyingovernmentandthefirmbeliefthat“democraticgovernmentdependsuponinformedandactiveparticipationingovernment.” Webelievetherewereseveralissuesduringtheprocessthatweakenthefinalplan:
● InsufficientengagementandinputoftheCityCouncilthroughouttheprocess.TheHousingElementisaverycomplexplanwhichaddressesmajorissuesrelatedtoinequitieswithinourcity. Itisessentialthatcouncilmemberspossessin-depthknowledgeoftheHousingElementtoeffectivelyvoteonthistopic,andassureitisinthebestinterestoftheir

constituencies. Ideally, the City Council would have had more opportunities to review, ask questions, and provide comments. ● Inadequate engagement of the community.

City staff has stated that public engagement was conducted at the beginning of the process. While we applaud that, we note that there were ongoing changes made to this document. Planning Commissioners had only one day to review track changes. We believe it was important to involve the community at multiple points of the development of the Housing Element.
● The program metrics.

We recognize that there will be continuing work to improve and measure progress toward achieving the program metrics. We recommend that the City Council direct city staff to ensure a progress report is made public on a regular basis. All segments of our community should have opportunities to review and comment.

We acknowledge that city staff in multiple departments worked very hard to develop the Housing Element and the EIR. We are grateful for their dedication. We urge the City Council to discuss the constraint of staff shortages particularly in Planning and Housing.

This must be addressed soon if we are to achieve any success in meeting the goals set forth in the Housing Element.

Lastly, the League of Women Voters encourages the City Council to request an independent review or audit of the planned programs and strategies to remove constraints to success and to assure that constraints are addressed. We would like to see solutions that address root causes and not just provide short-term bandaids.

Thank you for your service to the residents of the City of San Jose.

Regards,
Martha Butzier
Co-President, LWV San Jose/Santa Clara
[email protected]

FW: Letter regarding draft Housing Element
City Clerk <[email protected]>
Tue 6/20/2023 8:01 AM
To:Agendadesk <[email protected]>
1 attachments (372 KB)
Housing Element Letter - Anthony Tordillos.pdf;

From: Planning Commission 1 <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, June 16, 2023 5:05 PM
To: The Oﬃce of Mayor Ma Mahan <[email protected]>; District1 <[email protected]>; District2 <[email protected]>; District3 <[email protected]>; District4 <[email protected]>; District5 <[email protected]>; District 6 <[email protected]>; District7 <[email protected]>; District8 <[email protected]>; District9 <[email protected]>; District 10 <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>; Housing Element <[email protected]> Cc: PlanningSupportStaﬀ <PlanningSupportStaﬀ@sanjoseca.gov>; Cueto, Ruth <[email protected]>; Clements, Kristen <[email protected]>; Ishimatsu, Joshua <[email protected]>; Brilliot, Michael <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Leer regarding dra Housing Element

Dear Mayor Mahan and City Council,

Please see the aached leer expressing my concerns with the dra 2023–2031 Housing Element.

Sincerely,

Anthony Tordillos
Planning Commissioner, District 3
AnthonyTordillosSanJoséPlanningCommission, District 3
1 [email protected]
June16, 2023
RE: Concernsregardingthe2023–2031 Draft HousingElement
Dear Mayor andCityCouncil,
I amwritingtoexpresssevereconcernsaroundtheadequacyof thedraft HousingElementscheduledtocomebeforetheCouncil inthecomingdays. WhileI amwritinginmypersonalcapacity, I hopethisletter will expandupontheconcernsI voicedduringtheCommission’sdiscussionof thedraft HousingElement onMay24th. I wouldalsoliketoendorsetheproceduralconcernsraisedbymyfellowCommissionersLardinois, Cantrell, Casey, andRosarioregardingtheCommission’sconsiderationof theElement, particularlythelimitedtimeaﬀordedtoreviewtheupdateddraft, absenceof publicengagement, lackof clear explanationastohowtheupdateddraft addressedpreviouscommentsfromHCD, andunduepressurefromstaﬀtoapprovethedraft inspiteof theconcernsvoicedduringthesession. Rather thanreiteratingthoseconcernshere, I will insteadfocusthisletter onoutliningtheareaswhereI believethecurrentdraft failstomeet therequirementsset out byHCDandenshrinedinStatelaw.

Myprimaryfeedbackiscenteredaroundshortcomingsof thedraft SiteInventory. After reviewingtheinventory, I identiﬁedseveral areasof concern, includingmethodological issuesresultingintheinﬂationof capacityestimatesfor manyOpportunitySitesinDistrict 3andDistrict 6, failuretoanalyzetherealisticdevelopment potential of non-vacant sitesandsiteswithnon-residentialzoning, andshortcomingsintheCity’sanalysisof the“PipelineProjects”creditedtowardsSanJosé’sRHNAallocation. Takentogether, I believethereissubstantial evidencethat thecurrentdraft overstatestherealisticresidential development capacityof theSiteInventorybyat least20,000units. Inﬂationof residential capacityprojectionsonthisscaledirectlyimpactsthecomplianceof thedraft Element, andI believeaddressingtheseconcernswill requiretheCitytoupdatetheSiteInventorywithadditional OpportunitySitesor includeaprogramtorezoneadditional sitestosatisfytheCity’sRHNAallocation. I expandupontheseconcernsintheproceedingsectionsof thisletter, andI havemademyunderlyingsourcesandanalysesavailablefor reviewinthefootnotes. 1 Titleusedfor identiﬁcationpurposesonly, inaccordancewithCouncil Policy0-36. Commentscontainedinthisletter aremadeinmypersonal capacityandnot onbehalf of thePlanningCommission.

CapacityAnalysis
Government Code§65583.2(c) aﬀordsjurisdictionstwooptionsfor calculatingtherealisticresidential development capacityof sitesintheSiteInventory—minimumdensitiesor useofadjustment factors—withSanJoséoptingfor thelatter. AB1397, passedin2017, strengthenedthestandardfor “adequatesites”andintroducedadditional factorstobeconsideredwhencalculatingrealisticresidential development capacityincluding: thetypical densitiesof existingresidential developmentsat comparableaﬀordabilitylevelsandtherealisticresidentialdevelopment capacityof non-vacant or non-residential sites. Thecurrent draft Element doesnotsuﬃcientlyanalyzeeither of thesefactorsasrequiredbyGovernment Code§65583.2(c)(2).

Analysisof Typical Residential DensitiesHCD’sSiteInventoryGuidebooknotesthat whiletypicallybuilt densitieshavelongbeenusedtodeterminerealisticcapacity, withthepassageof AB1397jurisdictionsarenowrequiredtobasethisanalysisoncomparabledevelopmentsat asimilar aﬀordabilitylevel 2 . Thisanalysisappearstobemissingfromthedraft element, andthelist of comparablesitesreferencedintheTolemiSiteExplorer makesnoreferencetotheaﬀordabilitylevel of sitecomparables. Furtherinspectionof sitecomparablesintheSiteExplorer revealsmanyinstancesof “Abovemoderateincome”residential developmentsbeingusedascomparableswhencalculatingtheprojectedcapacityof sitesintendedtoaccommodate“Moderateincome”andeven“Lowincome”units,seeminglyindirect contradictiontoHCDguidanceandtherequirementscodiﬁedinAB1397.

Methodological Shortcomingsof ‘Typical Densities’ AnalysisInadditiontotheshortcomingsmentionedabove, myreviewof theSiteInventoryrevealedsigniﬁcant issueswiththedraft Element’smethodologyfor calculating“typical densities”of sitecomparables. Speciﬁcally, thedraft Element’srelianceonmeandensityof selectedsitecomparablesmakesitsprojecteddensitycalculationssensitivetooutliersthat cansigniﬁcantlyskewtheprojectedcapacity. Figure1 showsonesuchexample, whereasingle“capacityestimatecomparable”at 605S2ndSt isnearly5xdenser thanthenext highest-densitycomparable. Theinclusionof thissinglepropertyintheset of comparablessingle-handedlyincreasesthesite’sprojecteddensityby94%. Furthermore, thedevelopment at 605S2ndSt hasonlybeenentitled,but not constructed, andcomesfromadeveloper withnotrackrecordof actuallyconstructingprojectswithintheCity. Inother words, theprojectedcapacityof thisOpportunitySitewasnearlydoubledbytheinclusionof asingleoutlier comparablethat hasn’t actuallybeenconstructedandthereforedoesnot speaktothefeasibilityof residential development at thisdensity. 2 HCDSiteInventoryGuidebook, pp. 21
Figure1. Ascreenshot of theCapacityEstimateComparablesfor OpportunitySite146N4thSt. Thedraftelement projectsadensityof 400dwellingunitsper acre(DU/AC), higher thanthemaximumzoneddensityof 350DU/ACandsubstantiallyhigher thanthedensityof anyof thecomparablesconstructedwithinthepreviousplanningcycle. Asingleoutlyingcomparable, highlightedinred, isresponsiblefor inﬂatingtheprojectedcapacityof theOpportunitySiteby94%.

As605S2ndSt isincludedasacapacityestimatecomparablefor manysitesintheInventory,thisoutlier eﬀect canhaveasigniﬁcant impact inartiﬁciallyinﬂatingtheprojectedcapacityof theSiteInventory. Thiseﬀect ismost pronouncedamongst theOpportunitySiteswiththehighestprojecteddensities, manyof whicharelocatedinDistrict 3whichencompassesDowntownandCentral SanJosé.

Thecumulativeinﬂationaryimpact of thiseﬀect isexploredinFigure2, whichcomparestheprojecteddensitiesof 46OpportunitySitesinDistrict 3accordingtothreediﬀerent capacityprojectionheuristics. Thedeltabetweenthebluedots(representingthedraft Element’sprojecteddensities) andtheorangeandgraydotsrevealssubstantial inﬂationof capacityprojectionsfor atleast 24siteswithinDistrict 3. Thisresult overstatestherealisticcapacityof thesesitesrelativetotypical built densitiesbyapproximately1,200unitsinDistrict 3alone 3 . Basedontheseresultsfor District 3, afollow-upanalysiswasperformedfor OpportunitySitesinDistrict 6, whichincludestheportionof Downtownwest of SR87 4 . Thisanalysisshowedthat thesamecapacityinﬂationissueobservedinDistrict 3wasalsowidespreadamongst District 6OpportunitySites. Ofthe49OpportunitySitesinDistrict 6withprojecteddensitiesabove200DU/AC, 44showedevidenceof signiﬁcant capacityinﬂation(seeFigure3). BetweenDistrict 3andDistrict 6sites,thisanalysissuggeststhedraft Element isoverstatingtherealisticdevelopment capacityoftheanalyzedOpportunitySitesby2,500-2,800unitsrelativetotypical built densities. 4 SitesInventorySupplementaryAnalysis, ‘District 6SitesAnalysis>200DU/AC’;https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10aHbz4X9zllrAuB_J7sAcMoZPZF-ksbH/edit#gid=1090815607 3 SitesInventorySupplementaryAnalysis, ‘District 3SitesAnalysis’;https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10aHbz4X9zllrAuB_J7sAcMoZPZF-ksbH/edit#gid=1611834302

Figure2. Achart that comparestheprojecteddensitiesof the46OpportunitySitesinDistrict 3withthehighest projecteddensitiesinthedraft Element. Thebluedotsreﬂect theCity’sdraft capacitymethodology: themeandensityof ‘CapacityEstimateComparables’. Theorangeandgraydotsreﬂectpotential alternativedensityprojectionheuristics: themediandensityof sitecomparablesandthemeandensityof sitecomparablessuccessfullyconstructedduringthepreviousplanningcycle, respectively.

Figure3. Achart that comparestheprojecteddensitiesof the49OpportunitySitesinDistrict 6withprojecteddensitiesgreater than200DU/AC.

Toaddresstheinﬂationaryimpact of outlyingsitecomparables, theCityshould, at aminimum,consider removing605S2ndSt fromtheCapacityEstimateComparablesof all OpportunitySites. Moreholistically, I’dencouragetheCitytoconsider either constrainingtheir CapacityEstimateComparablesanalysistoresidential developmentsthat havebeensuccessfullyconstructedduringthepreviousplanningcycleor, alternatively, switchtoamedian-baseddensityprojectioninorder tomaketheir analysismorerobust totheeﬀectsof signiﬁcant outliers.

RealisticDevelopment Capacityfor Non-Residential or Non-Vacant SitesWhenevaluatingsitesthat arenon-vacant or that arezonedtoallownon-residential uses, theSiteInventoryGuidebookisclear that theCity’scapacitycalculations“must beadjustedtoreﬂecttherealisticpotential for residential development” 5 . Appropriateadjustment factorscitedintheGuidebookinclude:
● Local trackrecords, productiontrends, or net unit yieldsfor siteredevelopment ● Local residential development trendsinthesamenonresidential zoningdistrict Morespeciﬁcally, theGuidebookdirectsjurisdictionstobasetheseestimatesoneither:

1. Therateat whichsimilar parcelsweredevelopedduringthepreviousplanningperiod, or,if that dataisunavailable

2. Theproportionof parcelsintheprevioushousingelement’sSiteInventorythat weredevelopedduringthepreviousplanningperiod Thedraft HousingElement doesnot appear toapplyanyadjustment factorstonon-vacant &non-residential sites, nor doesit includerelevant dataonpast development trendsthat couldbeusedtoestimatetheappropriateadjustment factor. Asaresult, therealisticresidentialdevelopment capacitiesof theSiteInventoryareartiﬁciallyinﬂatedindirect contradictiontoHCDguidance. Absent additional datafromtheCity, it isimpossibletoascertainthedegreeof capacityinﬂationcausedbythisomission, but giventhelargeproportionof sitesintheInventorythat areeither non-vacant (375of 474sites) or inzoningdistrictsthat allownon-residential development,thenet impact couldresult inaninﬂationof realisticresidential development capacitybythousandsor tens-of-thousandsof units.

WhiletheElement doesincludesomediscussionof theredevelopment of non-vacant sitesinthepreviousplanningcycle 6 , it doesnot addressthecentral questionof therateof residentialredevelopment of non-vacant sitesnor theproportionof parcelsdevelopedduringthepreviouscycle. Ineﬀect, thedraft appearstoassume, without basis, that all OpportunitySitesinnon-residential zoningdistrictswill bedevelopedwithresidential useandthat noneof thenon-vacant sitesidentiﬁedhaveexistingusesthat couldposeimpedimentstoredevelopment 6 Chapter 5: AdequateSitesfor Housing, Section5.4Non-Vacant Sites 5 HCDSiteInventoryGuidebook, pp. 20-21
withintheplanningcycle. TheseshortcomingswerepreviouslyidentiﬁedbyHCDintheirformal Letter of Reviewof theCity’sinitial draft Element 7 , but donot appear tohavebeenaddressedinsubsequent revisions.

Non-Vacant SitesAnalysisInorder todemonstratethepotential for residential redevelopment of non-vacant siteswithintheplanningperiod, Government Code§65583.2(g)(1) requiresjurisdictionstodocument thespeciﬁcexistingusesof non-vacant sitesandthedegreetowhichthoseusesmayimpederedevelopment. Additionally, AB1397introducedadditional requirementsfor theanalysisofnon-vacant sites, includingarequirement that jurisdictionsanalyzeexistingleasesor contractsthat wouldperpetuateexistingusesor prevent siteredevelopment 8 . Thisanalysisappearstobemissingfromthecurrent draft.

RelianceonNon-Vacant SitestoAccommodateLower IncomeRHNAAsnotedinHCD’sLetter of ReviewfromDecember 2022, thedraft Element reliesonnon-vacantsitestoaccommodatemorethan50%of theRHNAallocationfor lower-incomehouseholds, andthereforeissubject toadditional requirementspursuant toGovernment Code§65583.2(g)(2) 9 .Speciﬁcally, thestatutespeciﬁesthat non-vacant sites’ existinguseswill bepresumedtoimpederesidential development, absent speciﬁcﬁndings“basedonsubstantial evidencethattheusewill likelybediscontinuedduringtheplanningperiod” 10 . TheSiteInventoryGuidebookprovidesseveral examplesof appropriateevidencetosupport suchﬁndings, including:
● Theexistenceof adevelopment agreement toredevelopthesitewithintheplanningperiod● Aletter fromthepropertyowner statinganintentiontoredevelopthesitewithresidentialuseduringtheplanningperiod● Theexistenceof ademolitionpermit for theexistinguse, or other evidencethat thestructureislikelytoberemovedearlyenoughintheplanningperiodtoaccommodateredevelopment Thisanalysisappearstobemissingfromthecurrent draft. Until suchﬁndingscanbeincorporatedintothedraft Element, thesenon-vacant sitesmaynot beutilizedtodemonstrateadequatesitestoaccommodatetheCity’slower incomeRHNA. 10 HCDSiteInventoryGuidebook, pp. 27
9 HCDLetter of Review, December 15, 2022, AppendixA, pp. 4 8 HCDSiteInventoryGuidebook, pp. 25
7 HCDLetter of Review, December 15, 2022, AppendixA, pp. 3-4 PipelineProjects
PipelineProject Discount FactorsInadditiontotheOpportunitySitesdocumentedintheSiteInventory, thedraft Element reliesonapproximately20,000pendingandapprovedresidential unitsinthedevelopment pipelinetomeet theCity’sRHNAallocation. Withregardstopending&approvedprojects, theSiteInventoryGuidebookprovidesclear directionstatingthat “For projectsyet toreceivetheir certiﬁcateofoccupancyor ﬁnal permit, theelement must demonstratethat theproject isexpectedtobebuiltwithintheplanningperiod.” 11 Toitscredit, theCityhasappliedadiscount factor of 40%tothetotalunit count for PipelineProjects. 12 Thecityderivedthisdiscount factor froma2019analysisthatfoundthat 60%of residential unitsentitledbetweenApril 2014andApril 2019wereunderconstructionbySeptember 2019. However, thesamestudyalsoreportedsigniﬁcant disparitiesinthelikelihoodof constructionacrossdiﬀerent constructiontypes, withonly25%ofapprovedhigh-riseprojectsproceedingtoconstructioncomparedto70%of mid-riseprojectsand50%of low-riseprojects 13 (seeFigure4). Thestudywent ontonotethat becauseentitlement costsconstituteonlyasmall fractionof overall development costsfor high-riseprojects, suchprojectsproceedfromentitlement toconstructionat signiﬁcantlylower ratesthanother buildingforms.

Figure4. AtabletakenfromtheCity’s2019HousingCrisisWorkplanUpdate, showingthepercentageofapprovedprojectsthat successfullymovedfromentitlement toconstruction, accordingtoconstructiontype.

Inorder todiscernamorerealisticestimateof thenumber of unitsfromapprovedandpendingprojectslikelytobeconstructedwithintheplanningperiod, I reviewedtheproposalslistedintheCity’sPipelineProjectsandcategorizedthemaccordingtoconstructiontype. I thenappliedtheconstruction-typespeciﬁcdiscount factorscitedinthe2019studytocometoamorerealisticestimate 14 . Thisﬁne-grainedanalysissuggeststhat, at most, approximately16,570pendingandapprovedunitsarelikelytobecompletedintheplanningperiod, about 3,500fewer unitsthaninthedraft Element’sanalysis. 14 PipelineProjectsAnalysis;https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1KsyMgW4CTfdX-uVap3ynWAZF4MciwFbSGgdzw38Vx_s/edit 13 CityCouncil Agenda, Sept. 24, 2019, Item4.2, HousingCrisisWorkplanUpdate 12 Chapter 5: AdequateSitesfor Housing, Section5.3.1 PipelineApprovedUnits, pp. 5-6 11 HCDSiteInventoryGuidebook, pp. 5

Inadditiontoconsideringconstructiontypewhenapplyingdiscountstounitsinthedevelopmentpipeline, theCityshouldalsoconsider applyingadditional discountstoreﬂect thesubstantialchangestomarket conditionsthat haveoccurredsincethe2019HousingCrisisWorkplanstudy.Speciﬁcally, theElement shouldreﬂect thefact that theFederal interest rateisover 2xhigherthanit wasin2019, severelylimitingtheavailabilityof constructionﬁnancingandimpactingthefeasibilityof manyprojectsinthedevelopment pipeline. Likewise, theCityshouldfactor inthesigniﬁcant increasestoconstructioncostsover thelast 4years, andthedegreetowhichsuchincreasesimpact thelikelihoodof completionof pendingandapprovedunits.

Project-speciﬁcDiscountsInadditiontothegenericdiscount factorsoutlinedabove, acloser reviewof theCity’sPipelineProjectsrevealsanumber of project-speciﬁccircumstancesthat warrant additional discountstothenumber of unitsthat canreasonablybeexpectedtobeconstructedwithintheplanningperiod:

1. PD18 ‐ 016- 121units: Thedeveloper of thisproposal (SiliconSage) declaredbankruptcyin2021 &wassubsequentlyunder federal investigationfor defraudinginvestors. Thisproject isthereforehighlyunlikelytobedeliveredwithintheplanningperiod&shouldberemovedfromthedraft Element.

2. SPA17 ‐ 023 ‐ 01- 501units: Thedeveloper of thisproposal (Starcity) isdefunct, andthesitehasbeenforeclosedupon&seizedbythelender. Thisproject isthereforehighlyunlikelytobedeliveredwithintheplanningperiod&shouldberemovedfromthedraftElement.

3. PD17 ‐ 014- 582units: Thisproposal wassubsumedbyarevisedproposal fromthesamedeveloper, PD20-012. Thedraft element includesbothproposals, eﬀectivelydoublecountingthese582units. Thisproposal shouldberemovedfromthedraft Element.

4. H20 ‐ 040- 220units: Thisproject isaduplicateof SP21 ‐ 044. Thedraft element includesbothproposals, eﬀectivelydoublecountingthese220units. Thisproposal shouldberemovedfromthedraft Element.

5. H20 ‐ 026- 192units: VTAisintheprocessof seizingthissiteviaeminent domainaspartof theconstructionof theDowntownBARTstation. Inastatement tothepress, VTADirector of TODRonGolemsaid, “Either therecanbeadowntownSanJoseBARTstation,or therecanbeanEternaTower. Therecannot beboth.” 15 Assuch, theCityshouldremovethisproject fromthedraft Element. 15 https://sanjosespotlight.com/san-jose-housing-residential-apartment-tower-sees-opposition-from-vta-public-transit-transportation-agency-station/

6. SP18 ‐ 033- 40units: TheCityhaspreviouslyreportedthat thisproposal hasstalled. Itshouldberemovedfromthedraft Element.

7. SP19 ‐ 065- 27units: ThesiteinquestionwassoldtoKTUrban, andthenewowner isabandoningthepreviously-approvedresidential development infavor of ahotel proposal(SP23-005). Assuch, thisproject shouldberemovedfromthedraft Element.

8. PD19-029- 5,000units: Thisproject encompassestheresidential unitsplannedaspartof Google’sDowntownWest campus. However, theclaimedunit count (5,000units) ishigher thanwhat Googlehaspubliclyforecasted(4,000units). Moreimportantly, thedraftElement doesnot includeanyevidencesupportingtheassertionthat all of theseunitsarelikelytobecompletedwithintheplanningperiod. Google’sdevelopment agreement withtheCityextends30years, andGooglehasnot madeanypubliccommitmentstodeliver aspeciﬁcnumber of unitswithintheplanningperiod, soit isnot appropriatetocount all5,000unitstowardstheCity’sRHNAallocation. Aconservativeestimatethat half of theplannedunitswill becompletedwithintheplanningcyclewouldresult inadiscount of2,500units.

ProjectedADUs
Thedraft Element reliesonprojectedADUproductiontosatisfy2,888unitsof theCity’sRHNAallocation. However, theSiteInventoryGuidebookspeciﬁcallydirectsjurisdictionstoconsider“theavailabilityof ADUsandJADUsfor occupancy, rather thanusedasoﬃcesor guest houses” 16 .Thisfactor appearstobeabsent fromtheCity’sADUanalysis, resultinginaninﬂationof therealisticnumber of ADUsthat shouldbecreditedagainst theRHNAallocation.

Conclusion
Insummary, thisletter providessubstantial evidencethat thecurrent draft Element doesnotsatisfytherequirementslaidout inStatelawandisnot likelytobecertiﬁedbyHCD. Concretely, Ihaveprovidedevidencedemonstratingthat therealisticresidential development capacityof theSiteInventoryisinﬂatedbyat least 10,000units(2,500+unitsfromunrealisticcapacityprojectionsfor District 3andDistrict 6opportunitysites, andapproximately7,500unitsfromshortcomingsintheanalysisof pendingandapprovedPipelineProjects). Furthermore, thedraftElement’sfailuretoanalyzeandapplyadjustment factorstonon-residential andnon-vacant sitesinaccordancewithAB1397suggestsfurther overestimationof therealisticcapacityof theSiteInventorybypotentiallytens-of-thousandsof units. Takentogether, theseshortcomingsresult inanoverstatement of therealisticcapacityof thedraft SiteInventorybyupwardsof 20,000units. 16 HCDSiteInventoryGuidebook, pp. 30
I want to be clear that my critiques of the draft Housing Element are in no way intended to assail or invalidate the years of hard work from City Sta ﬀ required to get to this point. I recognize that planning for 62,200 units of new housing would be a herculean task under any circumstances, and has been made all the more di ﬃcult due to recent changes to State law, the ongoing impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, and persistent resource constraints for our Planning Department sta ﬀ.

It is with a spirit of respect and deference to City Sta ﬀ that I believe we owe it to them to provide the appropriate time and resources to continue to iterate on the current draft and bring it into full compliance with the requirements laid out by HCD.

T o Mayor Mahan & City Council, I hope you will take these concerns seriously and direct sta ﬀ to continue to improve the draft Element prior to voting on its adoption. I understand that the City is concerned about the potential consequences of continued non-compliance, but voting to adopt a ﬂawed plan is not the solution. Critically, adopting the draft Element will not, in itself, bring the City into compliance. If the City proceeds to adopt the current draft and HCD review ultimately ﬁnds the current draft to not be substantially compliant, then the City will ﬁnd itself in the unenviable position of having an adopted Housing Element that cannot be certi ﬁed by HCD, while also having wasted precious weeks or months that could have been spent addressing the concerns raised here and in HCD’s December review letter.

Finally, and most importantly, I believe the residents of San José, present and future, deserve better than this current draft is able to provide. As Mayor Mahan has said on numerous occasions, the status quo is simply not good enough. We deserve a Housing Element that directly addresses the historic crisis we face, that seriously reckons with the consequences wrought from decades of underproduction, and that recognizes that continued inaction will further the patterns of displacement and despair that have seen the City’s population contract for three consecutive years. We deserve a Housing Element that gives the City its absolute best shot at meeting our housing needs over the next 8-years. The current draft is not that document, but with Council’s support and Staﬀ’s continued eﬀorts I believe that it can be.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Anthony T ordillos
San José Planning Commission, District 3

[External Email]
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

FW: Letter from San Jose Community Member on San Jose's Housing Element City Clerk <[email protected]>
Tue 6/20/2023 8:01 AM
To:Agendadesk <[email protected]>
1 attachments (60 KB)
June 2023 Letter to State on SJ Housing Element.pdf;

From: Alex Shoor <
Sent: Monday, June 19, 2023 11:31 PM
To: [email protected]; Clements, Kristen <[email protected]>; Ishimatsu, Joshua <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]; Cueto, Ruth <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>; Housing Element <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject:

Leer from San Jose Community Member on San Jose's Housing Element

Dear Melinda, Kristen, & Josh,

Please find attached a letter from me on San Jose's Housing Element. My regrets that it's coming in at this figurative and literal late hour.

In community betterment,
Alex

--
Alex Shoor

June19, 2023
Tosummarizemymainmessagebelow, mytoprecommendationistoincludecommunityeducationasastrategyintheSanJoseHousingElement.

I writetoyoutodayasaSanJosehousingadvocatewhohasworkedonhousingissuesintenselyinSanJosefor thelast 8years. Inthat time, I haveseenCityof SanJosestaff saildeterminedlyintothestormywindsof our state’shousingcrisis. Wehavesailedagreatdistance, yet it sometimesfeelsliketheshoreisgettingfarther away.

Oneof thereasonsiscontinuedcommunityoppositiontoour housingcrisis. Asexceptional asour housingpoliciescanbe, if therearen’t electedofficialstoapprovethem, staff toimplementthem, andacommunitytosupport them, I fear thestatusquowill continuetodrownout change.

I’veattendedhundredsof communitymeetingsabout development projectsandseenoppositiononnearlyeveryone. Muchof theoppositioninvolvesthesamefewargumentsineveryneighborhood. Sixyearsago, I co-foundedanonprofit organizationtodirectlyaddressthisissue. It engageswiththecommunityabout whyhousingissoimportant andhowwecanfindconsensusondevelopment that worksfor our wholecommunity.

But it’satall order for asmall organization. Our effortsaren’t enough. Morecommunityeducationandengagement areneeded. Andit can’t just beaneducationof thefactsandfiguresvariety.

Weneededucationinthebroadest sense, includingeffortssuchas:● Puttingthepeoplemost affectedbyour housingcrisisfront andcenter,● Usingstorytellingtosharetheir livedexperiencesinacompellingmanner,● Employingreal-world, tangible, visual exampleslikesitevisitsandvideos● Enablingcommunitymemberstoworkthroughandpast their fearsof housing● Activatingempathyamongcurrent residents● Encouragingcurrent residentstothinkof hownewhousingfor someoneelsecanhelpthemandtheir existingneighborhoodtooStrategieslikethesecanmoveevenhardenedskeptics, leadingtomorehousing, better policy,andbetter development projectsbroadly.

It’sessential that weengagethosemost affectedbyanissue–inthiscase, folksstrugglingtoaffordhousing–tocomecloser tothesolutions.

That’swhyI amhighlyencouragedbyanumber of thecommunityengagement strategiesinSanJose’s6thCycleHousingElement. Theyinclude:● H-12: Neighborhoodoutreachandeducationonhomelesshousingandother housingtopics[myemphasisadded].● I-7: Inclusive&equitablecommunityengagement. ● I-8: Promotores-basedoutreach.● I-9: EquitableRepresentationof HistoricallyUnderrepresentedCommunitiesonCityBodies That beingsaid, I’dliketoseecommunityeducationbeaspecific, namedcomponent of thisHousingElement too.

We’vegot totalkdirectlytothosefearful or opposedtohousingreformsif we’regoingtosuccessfullyimplement thesepoliciesandprevent hardening, risingcommunityopposition. Itshouldbeapriorityover thenext eight years. SoI recommendaddingthat asastrategy. Ibelieveit will alsoassist withensuringthenumber of homesidentifiedinour RHNAgoalsandthroughtheSiteInventoryactuallyget built.

Meanwhile, I’dliketoechowhat othershavesaid–includingtheMay24Greenbelt AllianceandHousingActionCoalitionletter –about theimportanceof daylightingthecommunity’sinput ontheHousingElement, includinghowcommunitycommentsledtochanges.

TheHousingDepartment didagoodjobonthisat twopoints:1. IntheJune8, 2023, Housing&CommunityDevelopment Commissionmeeting, staffincludedanAttachment called, “Summaryof Commissioner andPublicCommentsonDraft HousingElement.”2. Inthe“Tables” portionof theHousingElement, staff includedwhichstakeholder groupsweighedinonparticular policyideasunder the“Citedby” section.

WhenI spokewithHousingDepartment staff about this, theymentionedhowintensiveandtime-consumingit wastodotheformer.

Asacommunityengagement professional, I cantell youit isbest practicefor governmentstoprovideatransparent feedbackloopat eachstageof solicitingthecommunity’sinput. Thisway,thecommunityunderstandshowitsinput impactsdecisions. Amatrixisafantasticwaytodothis. Thematrixessentiallysays: “Herearetheideasyou, thecommunity, sharedwithus, thegovernment. Here’showwecanimplement someof your ideas, andhere’swhywecan’timplement theseother ones.” Acoupleof other additional pointsI’dliketoraiseabout thisHousingElement:● I suggest theCityof SanJoseincludeanemptyhomestaxinitsHousingElement. Ibelievethisstrategycombinestheprioritiesof productionandpreservation.Homeownerscanopt-out of thistaxandthusquicklybringhundredsof newhomessittingemptyfor nogoodreasonbackontothemarket. All of thiswithout havingtowaitfiveyearsor spendmillionsof dollarsfor thesehomestobebuilt becausethey’realreadyhere. Furthermore, for thosechoosingtopaythetax, themoneyraisedcanbededicated, asit isinother jurisdictions, tothebuildingof affordablehousing. I havesuggestedit totheCity. I havesharedextensiveresearchonthisideawiththeCity. IwouldliketoseetheCityincludethisaspart of theHousingElement. ● On Strategy I-16: Advocacy to Close the Racial Homeownership Gap. I support this goal yet I wonder how we can implement it at the state and local level. I’d like to see the City of San Jose support providing more opportunities for communities of color at the highest risk of displacement to stay in our community, including homeownership. For instance, African American homeownership has plummed in Santa Clara County from 40% to 26% in the last 21 years while San Jose has lost 17% of its black population in the last 30 years. As I’ve heard African American community leaders in San Jose say recently, “Black folks are going to be extinct here in a few years if we don’t do more.” This issue also affects our Latino community and our Asian community. San Jose is renowned for our diversity and I don’t want to see us lose that. Is there something HCD can do to support local efforts?
Thank you very much for considering these ideas as San Jose approaches a completed and state-certified Housing Element.

Sincerely,
Alex Shoor

You don't often get email from Learn why this is important [External Email]
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

FW: Public Comment, City of San Jose Council Agenda Item 10.2, 6/20/2023 City Clerk <[email protected]>
Tue 6/20/2023 8:02 AM
To:Agendadesk <[email protected]>
1 attachments (196 KB)
14june23 csj mayor council re housing element cover ltr sspc.pdf;

From: Gabriel Hernandez
Sent: Monday, June 19, 2023 3:39 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Cc: The Oﬃce of Mayor Ma Mahan <[email protected]>; District1 <[email protected]>; District2 <[email protected]>; District3 <[email protected]>; District4 <[email protected]>; District5 <[email protected]>; District 6 <[email protected]>; District7 <[email protected]>; District8 <[email protected]>; District9 <[email protected]>; District 10 <[email protected]> Subject: Public Comment, City of San Jose Council Agenda Item 10.2, 6/20/2023

Mayor and City Councilmembers,

Please receive the attached letter as part of public comment for the above-named Item this coming Tuesday, 6/20/2023.

Thank you,

Gabriel

Gabriel Hernandez
¡Sí Se Puede! Collecve Director
Facebook | Twier | Instagram

June 14, 2023

Mayor and City Councilmembers
City of San Jose
200 East Santa Clara Street
San Jose, CA 95113

Sent via emails

RE: City Council Agenda Item 10.2, 6/20/2023, 3rd Draft City of San Jose Housing Element 2023 – 2031 as proposed by the City of San Jose

C: Melinda Coy
Proactive Housing Accountability Chief
State of California Housing & Community Development Department

Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers:

We are disappointed at the recent actions of the current San Jose City Council (City) and a pattern of actions that has us concerned about the years of work we have done and collaborated with the City to develop many anti-displacement strategies to address the housing crisis that we have experienced for decades and that were included in the first draft of the City Housing Element 2023 – 2031.

We will be following up with a letter to the State of California Housing & Community Development Department outlining our concerns with the City’s currently proposed Housing Element 2023 – 2031 as of June 20, 2023.

City Council Agenda Item 10.2, Memorandum from the Planning Commission, File No.

GPT22-001 & ER212-032, dated 6/20/2023

On page 4 of 21, File No. GPT22-001 & ER212-032, of the Memorandum from the Planning Commission to you, dated 6/20/2023, City Council Meeting Agenda Item 10.2, among the newly required components introduced as part of the Sixth Cycle, Assembly Bill 686 (AB 686, 2018) created new requirements for jurisdictions to affirmatively further fair housing. You are supposed to take “meaningful actions, in addition to combating discrimination, which overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics” and is Federally mandated by the 1968 Fair Housing Act. “The four main goals are to:

• Address significant disparities in housing needs and in access to opportunity, and • Replace segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns, and • Transform racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity, and
• Foster and maintain compliance with civil rights and fair housing laws.”

We assert that the City’ s 3rd Draft of the Housing Element is deficient because it does not provide our communities with enough “access to opportunity” to address the disparities our communities have faced for decades.

In addition, another item “required” as part of the Housing Element Update process includes:

• Public Comment on Draft Revisions. Assembly Bill 215 (AB 215, 2021) requires local governments to make the first draft revision of their housing element update available for public comment for at least 30 days. Further, if any comments are received, a local government must take at least 10 additional business days to consider and incorporate public comments into the draft revision before submitting to HCD. HCD must review the draft and report its written findings to the planning agency within 90 days of receiving the first draft submittal for each housing element revision or within 60 days of its receipt for a subsequent draft amendment or adoption.

We assert that procedurally the City has attempted to comply with AB 215, but we assert that the City has failed to “incorporate” our public comments into the draft revision and, in fact, has eliminated substantial strategies and work products developed between the community and the City, before submitting to HCD.

On page 9 of 21, Policies and Programs, the City includes five goals, including goal #3:
“Housing stability and opportunities to build wealth for all residents. Strategies focus on ensuring that all forms of tenure, including ones not common today, can provide households with stability and the foundation for a better life. These strategies address renter stability and access, fair housing, tenant protections, and wealth building.” Goal #5 states, “Racially and socially inclusive neighborhoods that overcome past and present discrimination. Strategies focus on housing for special populations. They also include systems-oriented strategies such as equity- focused outreach, decision-making bodies, and planning and advocacy structures…”

We assert that the City Housing Element is deficient with little or no strategies for Goal #3 to “create housing stability and opportunities to build wealth for all residents,” specifically our communities in the East Side San Jose and other neighborhoods that have been historically redlined and underinvested.

We note that in Goal #5, the City claims that it has system-oriented strategies such as equity- focused outreach, decision-making bodies, and planning and advocacy structures,” but makes no mention about structural changes or strategies to build community wealth to achieve Goal #3.

Finally, on page 18 of 21, Table 5: City’s Assessment of Fair Housing, Goal/Action Area – Housing stability & abundant and affordable housing stock, Action – Anti-displacement programs and policies, Fair Housing Issue – Racially disparate impacts of displacement, Contributing Factor – Displacement disproportionately impacts communities of color, Implementation with Housing Element Policy Number – R-7, extend affordable housing restrictions, R-2, establish a Preservation NOFA.

We assert that the City will make no mention in the Housing Element or to HCD that it attempted to raid the Measure E funds that the City lists as R-2 – establishing a Preservation NOF A fund to address the goal of housing stability & abundant and affordable housing stock. And the City will not confirm that it will protect Measure E funds for its preservation and/or community wealth- building strategies in the next coming years.

We do request that the City Council support the Ortiz & Torres Memo, 6/16/23, and the Jimenez Memo, 6/16/23 for City Council Agenda Item 10.2, 06/20/2023.

Thank you for your consideration,

Gabriel Hernandez
Director, Si Se Puede Collective

We write as a coalition of housing advocates who have engaged in Housing Element update processes across Santa Clara County. The Housing Element update represents a key opportunity for San José to improve its housing policies in a way that promotes abundant, affordable, and secure housing opportunities for all its residents. We commend the work city staff have put into this process. Unfortunately, San José’s Draft Housing Element has several important deficiencies that make it unlikely to receive certification from HCD. We recommend that San José fix the following issues:

1.Inadequate Methodology for the Site Inventory
Housing Element Law has been meaningfully reformed in recent years to ensure that the commitments a city makes in its Housing Element are not merely words on paper but rather binding commitments to meet the city’s fair share of the regional need for housing. As HCD has put it, “[a] housing element is no longer a paper exercise – it’s a contract with the state of housing commitments for eight years . …” This requires a city to commit not just to plan for housing, but also to actually approve the housing for which it has planned. See Martinez v. City of Clovis (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 193, 244 (“The goal is not just to identify land, but to pinpoint sites that are adequate and realistically available for residential development targets for each income level”)
One of the most concrete aspects of any housing element is the inventory of land “suitable and available” for residential development to meet the city’s regional housing need by income level. Government Code § 65583(a)(3); HCD Housing Element Site Inventory Guidebook at p.1 (https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing element/docs/sites_inventory_memo_final06102020.pdf). The list is a specific means of evaluating whether the City has adequately planned for development of housing for all income levels.

Where non vacant sites are listed on the sites inventory, there must be a “realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment” during the next eight years. Government Code § 65583(a)(3). To address past abuses – including where cities list unrealistic sites in order to avoid required rezoning – the California Legislature created a high standard for listing sites that are currently being used for something other than housing. Where non vacant sites are used to address over 50% of the need for affordable housing for those with lower incomes, the City must show the realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment by making formal findings that the existing use does not impede residential development “based on substantial evidence that the use is likely to be discontinued” during the planning period. Government Code § 65583.2(g)(2) (final sentence). The City must analyze the evidence: existing leases, market demand for the existing uses, and anything else that would indicate whether existing uses will continue. Government Code § 65583.2(g)(1).

A) The comparables used in the methodology are not comparable In order to determine whether a site is likely to be redeveloped, cities have to provide substantial evidence that the current use of a site is likely to be discontinued, and that it has realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment. A common practice to provide evidence is to find sites that have previously been developed that are comparable to those listed on the site inventory. Unfortunately, the comparables in the site inventory are flawed. Many of the comparables in the site inventory analysis are sites that are in the downtown corridor, and don’t face design constraints like heights and density, which are common constraints in other parts of the city. We observe that these are flawed assumptions that imply that geography and the conditions around land use designations are comparable everywhere, meanwhile the sites on the inventory are places where there has been little development. We recommend that the city provide better evidence when justifying why sites are listed in the site inventory, and provide better comparables, and if those better comparables do not exist we recommend the city adds better sites to the site inventory.

B) The City should make use of The Feasibility Analysis The conceptual feasibility analysis indicates that none of the prototypes support positive estimated residual land value in any of the submarkets. These results suggest a challenging environment for ground-up residential development projects similar to the prototype projects in the selected submarkets. The conceptual feasibility assumptions and resulting residual land values for each prototype are shown in Exhibit B.
(See Feasibility Analysis at p. 12, attached to 11/22 City Council memo here). The Feasibility Analysis noted that:
“The residual land value represents the amount that a developer estimates that it can pay for a development site and still achieve its target return. If the residual land value is greater than the market price of land, then this is an indication that new development projects are feasible, land for development is more likely to transact, and new projects are more likely to be developed. If residual land value is less than the market price of land, then this is an indication that new development projects are not feasible, land for development is less likely to transact, and new projects are less likely to be developed.”
The draft housing element does not have a detailed analysis of costs of construction The Engineering News Record (“ENR”) and TBD Consultants publish indices which track construction costs quarterly in the Bay Area. “The chart below shows the change in these indices since 2014. Both indices reflect major increases in cost since 2014 and even more significant increases since 2020. Since 2014, the total increase has been 76%. Between the first quarter of 2020, when the COVID-19 pandemic began, and the second quarter of 2022, the latest available data, TBD estimates an increase of 17%. To some extent, these hard cost increases have been offset by rental rate and sale price growth, but construction cost growth has outpaced rental rate and sale price growth.” (Id. at p. 13-14.)
Real world conditions differ from the prototypes, but the city assumes an "average project" built with "open shop labor" on a flat on a flat or relatively flat site and no unusual environmental, soils, infrastructure, or off-site conditions" with no transportation fees assessed, affordable housing requirements satisfied through an in-lieu fee or waiver of the requirements by the City Council. (Id. at pp. 8, 10.) These optimistic assumptions still yielded projects that - on average - have large feasibility gaps.

The Feasibility Analysis is expected to be updated in Fall 2023. We recommend that the draft housing element summarizes the conclusions of the Feasibility Analysis and include a much more detailed analysis of how the city will reduce the gap substantially.

A) Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
The goal of Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) is to combat housing discrimination, eliminate racial bias, undo historic patterns of segregation, and lift barriers that restrict access in order to foster inclusive communities and achieve racial equity, fair housing choice, and opportunity for all Californians.

In 2018, the California State Legislature passed AB 686 to expand upon the fair housing requirements and protections outlined in the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). The law:
● requires all state and local public agencies to facilitate deliberate action to explicitly address, combat, and relieve disparities resulting from past patterns of segregation to foster more inclusive communities.
● creates new requirements that apply to all housing elements due for revision on or after January 1, 2021.

The passage of AB 686 protects the requirement to affirmatively further fair housing within California state law, regardless of future federal actions. It also preserves the strong policy in the U.S. Department of Housing and Community Development’s (HUD) Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Rule as published in the Federal Register in 2015.

As of January 1, 2019, AB 686 proactively applies
the
obligation to affirmatively further fair
housing to all public agencies in California. Public agencies must now examine existing and future policies, plans, programs, rules,
practices, and
related activities and make proactive
changes to promote
more inclusive communities. More information on AB 686’s new obligations can be found in Part 1 of the AFFH Guidance Memo (PDF).

In regards to affirmatively furthering fair housing (AFFH) we have concerns about the percentage of low income housing in high resource areas.

The housing element currently identifies:
● Low/V ery Low: 13.4% in Highest Resource, 23.6% in High Resource, 56% in Moderate Resource, 6.2% in Low Resource
● Moderate: <1% in Highest Resource, 4.5% in High Resource, 53% in Moderate Resource, 41.5% in Low Resource
● Above Mod: 0 in Highest Resource, ~0 in High Resource, 97% in Moderate Resource, 3% in Low Resource
We recommend that staff increase the amount of affordable housing development occurring in high resource areas, and provide clarification on what percent of the population is in those income categories to ensure the element complies with AFFH.

2. The Draft Housing Element’s analysis of constraints is incomplete on zoning & construction costs
San Jose’s General Plan and zoning confine housing growth to only a narrow subset of the city’s land, yet the Draft Housing Element does not analyze whether this constrains housing growth within the city. The various zoning districts of the city are listed, but their standards such as setbacks are not assessed for whether they act as constraints. Nor is the relative proportion of different zoning districts considered. San Jose has a particularly high share of its land zoned exclusively for single family homes, covering 84-94% of the city’s residentially zoned land and a majority of all non-agricultural land within the urban growth boundary. Does this abundance of land with the most restrictive zoning designation constrain housing growth in San José? The document does not say. We recommend the city provide this clarification in the housing element.

The Draft Housing Element also notes construction costs as a constraint, but does not consider policy solutions within the city’s power to bring down those costs. For example, San José’s design guidelines emphasize “articulating the facade,” requiring multiple plane changes and additional corners that add complexity and cost to the construction process. Moreover, the relative lack of multifamily zoned land leads San José to plan for all housing growth through fairly high density development (above 50 du/acre). We celebrate and welcome high density development, but in planning for it exclusively, San Jose leaves out the possibility of lower-cost moderate density construction (~30 du/acre). This moderate density development can be built more cheaply, without structured parking, and we believe opening up more of the city to it is an essential part of San José meeting its housing needs. We are encouraged by the inclusion of programs to enable additional neighborhood scale “missing middle” housing opportunities in more of San Jose.

Lastly, the Draft Housing Element’s analysis of existing uses as a constraint on development is inconsistent. In Chapter 4: Constraints on Housing, the city notes that “Long-term landholders may be unlikely to sell because they maintain a low tax base on the property”, and also that “In urban village areas, of which many are transitioning from primarily commercial to mixed-use or residential, there may be properties already occupied by businesses that are paying good rent, and the owner is thus reluctant to sell.” However, in the Sites Inventory, the city claims that “existing prior uses such as retail… do not significantly impede additional residential development on a site” because the value of the land for residential use is greater. These claims conflict with one another. Since some landholders will be unlikely to sell or redevelop such properties, and since the Sites Inventory includes many locations which currently have stable or successful businesses, We recommend the city identifies additional sites and rezonings in order to meet its housing needs.

3. Policies & Programs
Programs to support affordable housing development on faith institution lands and school district lands were removed; does that mean that San Jose is abandoning plans to pursue housing opportunities on such sites? We are also concerned that the eligibility standards for the ministerial infill approval ordinance, one of the most important programs in the Housing Element, appear to have been made more restrictive. The city’s goal should be for ministerial approval to cover as high a share of housing development as possible, not to make it an exclusive process accessible only to a handful of qualifying developments.

A) Ministerial Development Standards
The city should make concrete commitments to create a predictable, permissive, lower-cost environment that actually makes development feasible. It should not set standards at a level that is - on average - infeasible and lower it on a case-by-case basis through discretionary approvals that add time, risk, and uncertainty to the process. That is exactly the misguided logic that made prior Housing Elements a paper exercise and created the current housing shortage. We urge the City to commit to ministerial development standards that make a much higher share of projects economically feasible, and provide objective, ministerial incentives that reward projects that voluntarily provide specified public benefits. The rezoning program should be analyzed when the Feasibility Analysis is updated this fall and adjusted as needed to achieve the fundamental goal of the Housing Element Law: actual housing production.

A) Urban Villages
We are encouraged that the city is planning to evaluate its Urban Villages framework to assess how well it is working. HCD asked several pointed questions about Urban Villages in their review. Recent scholarship from Michael Kevane, CJ Gabbe, and William Sundstrom has also raised serious concerns, finding that San Jose’s Urban Villages had no discernible effect on either residential or commercial development. It is unclear, however, what metrics the city will use to assess the Urban Village policy framework, or what actions will be taken following the review.

Some metrics we suggest: number of plans approved per year, average time in planning process, net increase in zoned capacity upon plan adoption, and the degree to which development occurs in Urban Villages. Following the review, the city should commit to adopting policies that will lead to improvements (faster plan timelines, greater plan capacities, and most importantly more development within plan areas) on these metrics.

It will be important for the City to generally monitor housing production over the course of the Housing Element and adopt additional pro-housing programs and rezonings as needed if production is not on pace to meet the city’s needs. This is particularly important given how far short of needed levels the current rates of housing production are within San Jose, and how much housing growth the city is counting on from highly uncertain neighborhood-scale redevelopment in North San Jose and Downtown West. If those projects are not moving forward by the midpoint of the planning cycle, the city will need to identify alternate sites and strategies . If staff need additional capacity in order to fully implement and track the success of the Housing Element, we urge them to make this clear to Council, and would support additional resources needed to ensure the city can properly plan for its housing needs.

B) Preservation Programs
Council’s rejection of a Community Opportunity to Purchase (COPA) policy leaves a hole in the Housing Element’s anti-displacement framework that must be filled by a robust commitment to alternate strategies for preservation of both restricted-affordable and naturally-occurring affordable housing. We recommend that the city incorporates additional anti-displacement strategies in the draft housing element.

C) Encourage Local Hire
Development provides a range of short- to long-term employment opportunities for local and diverse individuals and businesses, including union labor. However, the number of people employed in multi-family construction in California has never recovered to pre-2008 levels. This is the result of long-term neglect of vocational education by public schools, and the cost of living outstripping wages for many workers. Many construction workers commute from distant, more affordable locations to work in the Bay Area. Put simply, more workers are needed for housing to be produced at the scale needed in San Jose and throughout the state.

Private developers and contractors who hire local labor, contribute to apprenticeship programs, pay living wages, or commit resources for labor law compliance programs are providing public benefits needed to attract, train, and retain new construction workers. The city should incentivize developers and contractors to evaluate providing these public benefits through voluntary contributions to the above workforce programs and/or labor practices. This should include clear information about the range of incentives provided to developers under state law who meet labor and other standards for streamlined ministerial approvals and the city should work to provide financial incentives such as mitigating some of the cumulative fees and other requirements of development to ensure projects are still feasible.

In order to make labor unions accessible to developers and contractors, we recommend the city establish a local labor program list, and post the list of local labor unions and apprenticeship programs on the City’s website to provide the opportunity for developers and contractors to hire local labor.

4. Lack of Public Transparency
In order to have a housing element that will be accepted by HCD it is critical that the public, community advocates, HCDC, the Planning Commission, and council have enough time to adequately weigh in on the housing element and offer feedback that staff can incorporate into a final draft for HCD. Unfortunately, the most recent draft of the housing element was not made available for public consumption until last week. This timeline gives pretty significant constraints for all parties to read and evaluate staff’s recommendations. Additionally, until 5/23 the city did not publish a version of the housing element with track changes, which has made it arduous to discern what changes staff has made since the original draft. We recommend the city submit a second draft to HCD, and wait to certify the housing element until adequate feedback from the public, the commissions, and the council with adequate staff response.

It is also unclear how staff has responded to HCD concerns raised in their previous letter, and how staff has responded to letters from the community who have raised concerns. In other cities there has been a standard of the city publishing a matrix of how staff is responding to all HCD’s concerns as well as community concerns. We have attached a copy of a matrix from the City of San Mateo for reference. As of Thursday, June 15th, the city has finally made a matrix publically available, noting that the council hearing falls on Tuesday June 20th, and June 19th is a Holiday.

We believe this is a good start, however, we recommend the city creates a matrix with responses to all the concerns raised both by HCD and the community and we recommend that the city provides more time for the council, the commissions, and the community to review this matrix. This will help ensure the city is responding to every issue that will enable the city to produce a compliant housing element.

Finally, there has been a lack of public meetings on the housing element, there has not been any public hearings or community meetings (to our knowledge) on the element in this calendar year since January. We recommend the city does everything in its power to be as transparent to the public on the draft housing element and allow time for feedback by providing a study session on the draft housing element.

5. HCD has provided guidance regarding “Self Certification” HCD has provided guidance regarding the adoption of housing elements. Specifically that “a jurisdiction does not have the authority to determine that its adopted element is in substantial compliance but may provide reasoning why HCD should make a finding of substantial compliance.In addition, a jurisdiction is “in compliance” as of the date of HCD’ s letter finding the adopted element in substantial compliance. Any other letters are not a finding of substantial compliance.HCD recommends that a jurisdiction adopt only after receiving a letter from HCD finding the draft meets statutory requirements.”
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/memos/HousingEleme ntComplianceMemo03162023.pdf
We recommend that if the commission recommends that the city council submits this housing element to HCD, that the commission requests that the city does not self certify and allows HCD to make the final determination.

Ali Sapirman
South Bay & Peninsula Organizer / Affordable Housing Advocate Housing Action Coalition
Jordan Grimes
Resilience Manager
Greenbelt Alliance

South Bay Community Land Trust
525 W. Alma Ave.

San Jose, CA 95125

July 16, 2023

Melinda Coy, Proactive Housing Accountability Chief
State of California Housing & Community Development Department Via email Chelsea Lee@hed ca gov and HousingElements@hed ca gov

Dear Ms Coy,

Since we wrote you on May 12, we continue to be deeply distressed by San Jose City Council actions on housing production and preservation, and feel that the San Jose Housing Department’s most recent draft of the Housing Element that is going to City Council on June 20 is unacceptably weak.

We continue to feel that recent City actions, including recent revisions of the draft Housing Element, cause it to fail to comply with state law. These actions reject and repudiate the years of input from the low income community and people of color that we documented in our earlier communication with you.

Our first concern, as we wrote you earlier , was the City Council’s vote on April 25 to not accept staff’s status report on the draft Community Opportunity to Purchase Act (COPA) that would have provided Qualified Nonprofits a right to make a first and final offer on rental properties up for sale.

Implementing a COPA program would have proactively prevented displacement and promoted community stability, community control, tenant empowerment, and ownership opportunities for people who otherwise would not be able to afford to purchase their homes. The COPA plan was the centerpiece of the City’s Anti Displacement Strategy adopted in September 2020, in response to community outcry over the horrific displacement and homelessness crisis in San Jose Until the April 25 vote, it was the centerpiece of the City’s preservation plan outlined in Housing Element Table 3 2 “Preservation of Market Rate and Affordable Housing” .

Of the five recommendations for scaling up a preservation program outlined by Enterprise Community Partners, one in particular is within the jurisdiction of local governments: “Pass Complementary Policies” (page 3). “Examples include policies to facilitate easier property acquisitions, including a right of first offer and/or refusal and policies that link housing code compliance with acquisition rehab Other opportunities include tax treatment improvements and protecting the existing stock of unsubsidized affordable housing through regulatory measures.” With the removal of COPA from the new draft Housing Element, not a single one of these suggested policies will now be pursued by the City of San Jose.

Our second concern is the near miss we just experienced on June 13, when the City Council only narrowly rejected the current Mayor’s proposal to drastically divert Measure E resources away from permanent affordable housing. Measure E was a real property transfer tax passed by voters in 2020, based on ballot measure arguments that it would address both homelessness and affordable housing issues, and help not only unhoused people but “the middle class workers who keep San Jose running” .

The City Council’s previous Measure E allocation plan called for 75% of it to be spent on affordable housing, including creation of deed restricted permanent affordable housing through preservation The other 25% was to be spent on homelessness prevention, rental assistance, and unhoused support programs. This is about the right balance, because interim housing and shelters are effective temporary measures, but do not work if people have no permanent housing to move to afterward However , the Mayor s latest budget proposal issued on June 7 called for diverting $43 million of Measure E funds away from permanent affordable housing and into interim solutions. In particular , the Mayor proposed reducing preservation funds to zero.

The Mayor s proposal was fortunately defeated, but only by the narrowest of margins, by 6 votes to

5. It is true that under City rules, changing the Measure E allocation would have required a two thirds vote. But he wrote a memo saying that if he could not win a two thirds vote, he would make a motion to reduce the two thirds requirement to a simple majority a motion which could have passed with only a majority vote So if only one Councilmember had voted differently, we would most likely have ended up with the loss of $43 million in affordable housing funds and with zero preservation funds.

Of further concern, the Mayor projected after the June 13 vote that he would return next year to try to take away the affordable housing funds again. It is reasonable to assume that he would attempt to zero out funds for preservation once again. Under these circumstances, the Housing Element provision to establish a Preservation NOFA with four NOFAs for $5 million a year between 2023 2031, with a projected metric of 110 units overall, is simply not credible (Strategy R2)

It should be noted that even this $5 million proposed allocation is significantly lower than the $20 million a year for preservation repeatedly advocated by community members during City outreach meetings around the COPA program

As we wrote last month, the diversion of Measure E affordable housing funds puts all the Housing Element’s affordable housing goals at risk, but especially those related to preservation. Because of heavy community lobbying, the City Council rejected the Mayor s proposal to eliminate preservation funds and allocated a significant amount for 2023 24. But with no assurance that preservation will be funded in future years, the Housing Element’s projection of issuing a Preservation NOFA every other year through 2031 is not only inadequate, but unrealistic.

Even aside from the COPA issue, the City’s inability to guarantee use of Measure E funds for preservation makes it impossible to reliably project a Preservation NOFA beyond 2023 24. Failure

June 14, 2023
Melinda Coy
Proactive Housing Accountability Chief
State of California Housing & Community Development Department Via email:[email protected] and [email protected] Re: 3rd Draft City of San Jose Housing Element 2023 - 2031, Anti-Displacement Coalition Demand Letter
This letter has been written and supported by the Anti-Displacement Coalition, Si Se Puede Collective, and housing justice advocates. We write to provide comments on the third draft of the City of San Jose’s (City) 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element, 2023-2031 (attached to this cover letter).We want to express our outrage by recent actions taken over the past several months by certain members of San Jose City Council, who have aligned themselves with real estate interests over those of tenants and working-class community members. They have been dismantling more than half a decade of work between the City and the community to address gentrification, displacement, racial and social equity and that we have worked to include in this new Housing Element.

We believe that in otherareas of the Housing Element, the City still needs to include more detail in advancing housing programs and policies that will recognize historic inequities and advance racial justice and equity in measurable ways and we have included those comments as well.

For example, our group of grassroots organizations used the City of San Jose’s 2014-2023 Housing Element1 as a beginning basis to develop a list of strategies with the City to address gentrification, displacement, and many other housing related issues. The City’s 2014-2023 Housing Element included several anti-displacement strategies that the City had yet to implement when that Element was approved. Several of our organizations mobilized our communities to request the City implement the anti-displacement strategies outlined in the 2014-2023 Housing Element that had laid dormant for years, including the Tenant Preference Policy. We want to highlight several important pieces of community-led anti-displacement work that are at risk of being excluded from this new Housing Element 2023 -2031 — they include the City’s Anti-Displacement Strategy Priorities established in 2020 and the newly voter-approved Measure E funding. 1 Copy of City of San Jose 2014-2023 Housing Element, adopted by City Council, January 27, 2015, attached.

City of San Jose’s Anti-Displacement Strategy Priorities On June 12, 2018, the San Jose City Council prioritized the issue of displacement within the “Housing Crisis Response Work Plan” under Item #9: Develop Anti-Displacement Strategies (the work plan is a document that the City of San Jose uses to set City priorities).

In January 2020, the City and the San Jose community developed a community strategy report, “Ending Displacement in San Jose.”2 This effort was a 14-month learning cohort of 10 U.S. cities working to address urban displacement, made up of local government and nonprofit staff who participated in the PolicyLink Anti-Displacement Network (ADPN). This was a robust, inclusive and deeply engaged process led by historically marginalized communities of color. It engaged over 800 City residents in high-risk displacement neighborhoods. In terms of resident-led solutions, this was a huge leap forward for the City. To discard these efforts is inequitable policymaking and calls into question the ability of the City to meet its mandate to affirmatively further fair housing.

The ADPN team assessed the gaps in San Jose’s current housing policies in 2020 and studied new anti-displacement tools outlined in this report. The research confirmed that “San Jose has been shaped in part by racially restrictive policies such as redlining and restrictive housing covenants preventing people of color from buying homes or living in certain neighborhoods.” The team also confirmed that many of the San Jose neighborhoods that have “suffered from disinvestment are now experiencing gentrification/displacement,” according to research by the UC Berkeley Urban Displacement Project.3 City and nonprofit staff, along with community members, used this report to begin advocating for significant policy changes the City would later consider.

In August 2020, the City adopted 10 new recommended anti-displacement strategies (ranked in priority order) in the San Jose Citywide Residential Anti-Displacement Strategy,4 including the Community Opportunity to Purchase Act (COPA), listed as Priority #3 in the Strategy. Below is the direction the City was tasked to take on exploring a Right of First Offer to Purchase, COPA Program:
● Explore a policy that would require advance notice and a right of first offer on the sale of multifamily residential properties to nonprofits and public agencies. ● Develop a Preservation Investment Fund for San Jose.
● Target the use of subsidies on existing apartment buildings. 4 City of San Jose, Capital of Silicon Valley, San Jose Citywide Residential Anti-Displacement Strategy, August 2020 attached.
3 UC Berkeley Urban Displacement Project https://www.urbandisplacement.org/ 2 San Jose Anti-Displacement Policy Network T eam, Ending Displacement in San Jose, Community Strategy Report, January 2020 attached.
● Determine new affordable housing development partners to work on small building acquisition and rehabilitation projects.

City of San Jose Measure E
The City’s Housing Department proposed to create a $5 million fund, using funding from a March 2020 voter-approved measure, known as Measure E, with a Notice of Funding Availability process for community access to funding. Measure E5 is a real property transfer tax to provide funding for general City services, including affordable housing for seniors, veterans, disabled, and low-income families; and helping families who are homeless move into shelters and permanent housing. Measure E, which allocated up to 5% off the top of total revenues to support administrative activities, the remaining revenues from Measure E were allocated as follows:

Creation of New Affordable Housing for Extremely Low-Income Households 40% Creation of New Affordable Housing for Low-Income Households 30% Creation of New Affordable Housing for Moderate-Income Households 5% Homeless prevention, gender-based violence programs, legal services, rent asst. 10% Homeless Support Programs Including Shelter Construction and Operations 15%.

Our Concerns and Request
In November 2022, we experienced a change in our City Mayor and a number of City Councilmembers elected to office. A real estate interest-aligned majority of this new group of elected officials has largely ignored much of this multi-year culmination of work, research, studies, and community input to address gentrification, displacement and racial and social equity in San Jose.

In April 2023, the Mayor and City Council voted to no longer pursue a Community Opportunity to Purchase Act policy (COPA) as one of its preservation strategies despite hundreds of community members speaking at various City Council meetings to establish the policy. The Council also instructed City staff to eliminate it from the Housing Element as well.
5 City of San Jose website, Measure E - Real Property Transfer T ax page.

In March 2023, the Mayor proposed to shift Measure E funds allocated for affordable housing to homeless prevention strategies. We strongly believe this proposal is an attempt to pit homeless and affordable housing community advocates against one another. Changing the current percentage of Measure E allocations could put new affordable housing projects currently in the pipeline to acquire, restore, and/or build at risk. Thankfully, many homeless community and affordable housing advocates joined forces and have spoken against the Mayor’s Measure E proposals at City Council hearings. As of this writing, we were able to limit how much the Mayor attempted to shift from the original allocations.

The recent pattern of the Mayor’s and City Council’s actions make it extremely difficult to implement many of the anti-displacement strategies enumerated in the Draft 2023-2031 City Housing Element. In turn, we are asking the State of California Housing & Community Development Department (HCD) to intercede on behalf of all of our community members, nonprofit organizations, and allies and stop the City of San Jose from removing the Community Opportunity to Purchase Act policy and program from the proposed 2023-2031 City Housing Element. We are also demanding that the City strengthen the proposed preservation strategies to protect funding for permanent affordable housing solutions, including a robust preservation fund. Also, the City needs to be inclusive and responsive to our community input that we have provided for this new Housing Element 2023 -2031. Including these provisions in the Housing Element ensures that our community input and needs will be heard and met.

Our community members and organizational staff and allies are willing to meet with you and attend or testify at any procedural or relevant meetings you may have with the City of San Jose to adopt the City’s Housing Element 2023 -2031.

This current group of elected officials have the ability and power to ignore a body of work led by the community for years. Considering the Housing Element spans eight years, the current makeup of the San Jose City Council will likely change throughout this planning period. Keeping these critical policies and programs presented to your Department months ago will enable us and our partners to advocate for community-vetted priorities and provisions in the 6th Cycle Housing Element.

We express our gratitude for considering the input provided by our organizations and the thousands of community members that have participated in our activities to develop strategies to address gentrification, displacement, and many other housing related issues. Recognizing the significant effort city staff and the San Jose community have invested in this draft, we eagerly anticipate finalizing the San Jose City Housing Element with HCD and the City Council so that we can implement these crucial strategies over the next eight years.

Sincerely,
Gabriel Hernandez
Director, Si Se Puede Collective
Maritza Maldonado
Executive Director, Amigos de Guadalupe Center for Justice & Empowerment Jessica Paz-Cedillos
Co-Executive Director, School of Arts and Culture
Vanessa Shieh
Co-Executive Director, School of Arts and Culture
Saul Ramos
Co-Executive Director, SOMOS Mayfair
Victor Vasquez
Co-Executive Director, SOMOS Mayfair
Cayce Hill
Executive Director, Veggielution
Veronica Goei
Executive Director, Grail Family Services
Sandy Perry
South Bay Community Land Trust
Thao Le
Member, VietUnity
Huascar Castro
Director of Housing and Transportation Justice, Working Partnerships, USA cc: City of San Jose Mayor and Councilmembers
City of San Jose Housing Department
[email protected]
June 14, 2023

Mayor and City Councilmembers
City of San Jose
200 East Santa Clara Street
San Jose, CA 95113

Sent via emails

RE: City Council Agenda Item 10.2, 6/20/2023, 3rd Draft City of San Jose Housing Element 2023 – 2031 as proposed by the City of San Jose

C: Melinda Coy
Proactive Housing Accountability Chief
State of California Housing & Community Development Department

Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers:

City Council Agenda Item 10.2, Memorandum from the Planning Commission, File No.

GPT22-001 & ER212-032, dated 6/20/2023

In addition, another item “required” as part of the Housing Element Update process includes:

We do request that the City Council support the Ortiz & Torres Memo, 6/16/23, and the Jimenez Memo, 6/16/23 for City Council Agenda Item 10.2, 06/20/2023.

Thank you for your consideration,

Gabriel Hernandez
Director, Si Se Puede Collective

June 5, 2023
City of San José
Housing & Community Development Commission
200 East Santa Clara Street
San José, CA 95113
Sent via email to: [email protected]
Dear Commissioners:

Re: Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element, REAL Coalition Comment Letter This letter was prepared by the Housing Justice Workgroup of the nonprofit Race Equity Action Leadership (REAL) Coalition on behalf of the Coalition. We write to provide comments on the City of San José’s Draft Housing Element, 2032-2031.

The REAL community of nonprofit leaders and allies was created in June 2020 to use our positional power to advocate for a more racially-just and equitable society; to establish a peer network of leaders committed to fighting white supremacy and systemic racism in ourselves and our institutions; and to hold each other accountable to the promises we made in the Nonprofit Racial Equity Pledge.

The REAL coalition is broadly representative of the nonprofit community including human and community services, behavioral health and health, arts and culture, domestic violence, older adults, food distribution, education, environmental, farming, legal, disability rights, LGTBQ rights, ethnic, immigrant rights, housing and homelessness, criminal justice reform, urban planning, and intermediary organizations, and others. Over 125 organizations have participated in the REAL Coalition.

Our comments, described in the attached spreadsheet, are centered around priorities related to:
● Wealth-Building for Historically Disadvantaged Communities ● Racial Justice, Equity, and Fair Housing
● Tenant Rights
We would like to draw the Commission’s attention to the fact that the City greatly diminished its comprehensive anti-displacement strategy adopted in August 2020 when it failed to pursue a Community Opportunity to Purchase Act policy (COPA) as one of its preservation strategies–despite hundreds of community members speaking at various City Council meetings in favor of establishing such a policy. We are asking the City to reinstate COPA as a housing element program so that the City can continue evaluating COPA as part of its long-term anti-displacement and preservation strategy. Just because the current Council chose not to move forward does not mean that future Councils should not consider the policy over the next 8 years of planning and response to our ongoing housing crisis. We also want to highlight that we are asking that the City strengthen the proposed preservation strategies to protect funding for permanent affordable housing solutions, including a robust preservation fund.

In framing our comments, we consulted with Sacred Heart Housing Action Committee (SHHAC) and the COPA Coalition.

Thank you for considering these comments. Please direct any questions you might have to Yvonne [email protected] Matt King
[email protected].

Submitted by the Racial Equity Action Leadership (REAL) coalition. cc:

[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Members of the City Council and Mayor

Letter to City Council from REAL Coalition, June 20, 2023 6/20/2023
City Council
City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara Street
San José, CA 95113
Sent via email
Re: Comments on the 3rd Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element Dear Mayor Mahan and Members of the City Council:

This letter was prepared by the Housing Justice Workgroup of the nonprofit Race Equity Action Leadership (REAL) Coalition. We write to provide comments on the third draft of the City of San José’s (City) 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element, 2023-2031.

Background of the Racial Equity Action Leadership (REAL) Coalition Since June 2020, the REAL coalition, composed of nonprofit organizations and allies in Santa Clara County, has actively worked together to leverage our influence in advocating for a racially just and equitable society. The REAL coalition is diverse and encompasses various sectors such as housing, homelessness, community development, human and community services, healthcare, arts and culture, domestic violence, education, environmental causes, legal advocacy, LGBTQ+ rights, immigrant rights, and more. Over 125 nonprofits have participated.

REAL’s Housing Justice Priorities
Our comments, described in the attached spreadsheet and in this cover letter, are centered around priorities related to:
● Wealth-Building for Historically Disadvantaged Communities ● Racial Justice, Equity and Fair Housing
● Tenant Rights
Although we appreciate the work that has gone into creating the City of San José’s draft Housing Element, and appreciate the progress that has been made on it, we would like to highlight several concerns our coalition has with the proposed Housing Element.

Inadequate Anti-Displacement Strategy
First, we are concerned with the abandonment of a major anti-displacement strategy, rooted in the City of San José’s 2014-2023 Housing Element, that had the support of a 3 1 of 3
Letter to City Council from REAL Coalition, June 20, 2023 broad coalition of organizations and community members. Specifically, we are referring to the fact that in April, the San José City Council decided to forego any future consideration of adopting a Community Opportunity to Purchase Act (COPA) program.

This program would have given a qualified nonprofit buyer the right to make a first offer on a residential property that is up for sale. The purpose of COPA is to enable more properties to be owned by mission-oriented nonprofit organizations that would cooperate with the City to keep them permanently affordable.

The potential COPA strategy that the City Council rejected was grounded in years of community advocacy, cross-sector collaboration, and research, as described in the Anti-Displacement Coalition’s and Sí Se Puede Collective’s sign-on letter to HCD, attached. It’s important to note that this is in the context of the City’s failure to champion and uphold anti-displacement and affordable housing preservation policies and measures. For example, the City fell short in adopting or even considering a community-supported local preference policy listed in the previous Housing Element.

The City Council also seriously considered adopting a discriminatory siting policy in December 2022 (which the community successfully fought) and most recently, the Mayor attempted to change the allocation of the City’s transfer tax fund (Measure E) away from funding permanent affordable housing, thereby threatening the local affordable housing pipeline — a critical strategy for City’s anti-displacement efforts (which the community also successfully fought).

Rather than seeing the City advance community-supported anti-displacement strategies, the San José community feels that the strategies it has collaborated on for years are under attack, and that our low-income, Black, Indigenous, People of Color (BIPOC) neighborhoods are at greater risk of the segregative effects of gentrification and displacement.

Considering that the Housing Element spans eight years, it makes no sense for such an important, community-driven, and community-empowering anti-displacement tool, such as COPA to be completely eliminated from the City’s Housing Element. Future Councils may very well want to reconsider that policy during the planning period.

Additionally, it is concerning that the City has not proposed any additional or replacement anti-displacement strategies in its Housing Element. We believe the City must effectively fill the gap of addressing the San José community’s anti-displacement needs by affirmatively furthering fair housing and finding an adequate alternative(s) to one of the pillars of the anti-displacement strategies previously set forth by the City. 2 of 3
Letter to City Council from REAL Coalition, June 20, 2023 Additional Comments
Additionally, we believe the City still needs to include more detail in advancing housing programs and policies that will recognize historic inequities and advance racial justice and equity in measurable ways, as outlined in the attached comments. The policies and programs discussed in the attachment include the City’s Local Tenant Preference Policy, Tenant Right to Council, Permanent Supportive Housing, and decriminalization of the unhoused.

Lastly, we support the Sí Se Puede Collective’s letter to City Council calling on certain changes in the Housing Element and supporting two memoranda from Council.

Thank you for considering our input.

Sincerely,
REAL Coalition, Housing Justice Workgroup
cc: [email protected]
3 of 3

San Jose City CouncilJune 20, 2023

San Jose City Council
June 20, 2023