CD-4.12 For structures other than buildings, and including structures on top of buildings, such as solar panels, other energy-saving or generating devices, roof landscaping, steeples, bell towers, and wireless communication antennae, where substantial height is intrinsic to the function of the structures, consider heights above those established for structures in the area. Locate such structures to minimize public visibility and avoid significant adverse effects on adjacent properties. Incorporate visual amenities, such as landscaping, to offset potential adverse visual impacts.
San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Appendix B‐8
Actions - Compatibility
CD-4.13 Review and revise height limitations in the Zoning Ordinance to provide appropriate height limitations for various locations within San José consistent with the land use objectives of this Plan.
Goal CD-5 – Community Health, Safety, and Wellness
Create great public places where the built environment creates attractive and vibrant spaces, provides a safe and healthful setting, fosters interaction among community members, and improves quality of life.
Policies – Community Health, Safety, and Wellness
CD-5.1 Design areas to promote pedestrian and bicycle movements, to facilitate interaction between community members, and to strengthen the sense of community.
CD-5.2 Foster a culture of walking by designing walkable urban spaces; strategically locating jobs, residences and commercial amenities; providing incentives for alternative commute modes; and partnering with community groups and health services organizations to promote healthful life-styles for San José residents.
CD-5.3 Promote crime prevention through site and building designs that facilitate surveillance of communities by putting “eyes on the street.” Design sites and buildings to promote visual and physical access to parks and open space areas. Support safe, accessible, and wellused public open spaces by orienting active use areas and building facades towards them.
CD-5.5 Include design elements during the development review process that address security, aesthetics and safety. Safety issues include, but are not limited to, minimum clearances around buildings, fire protection measures such as peak load water requirements, construction techniques, and minimum standards for vehicular and pedestrian facilities and other standards set forth in local, state, and federal regulations.
CD-5.9 To promote safety and to minimize noise and vibration impacts in residential and working environments, design development that is proposed adjacent to railroad lines to provide the maximum separation feasible between the rail line and dwelling units, yards or common open space areas, offices and other job locations, facilities for the storage of toxic or explosive materials, and the like. To the extent possible, devote areas of development closest to an adjacent railroad line to use as parking lots, public streets, peripheral landscaping, the storage of non-hazardous materials and so forth. In industrial facilities, where the primary function is the production, processing or storage of hazardous materials, for new development follow the setback guidelines and other protective measures called for in the City’s Industrial Design Guidelines when such facilities are to be located adjacent to or near a main railroad line.
Goal CD-6 – Downtown Urban Design
San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Appendix B‐9
Promote and achieve the Downtown’s full potential as a regional destination and diverse cultural, recreational, civic, and employment center through distinctive and high-quality design.
Policies – Downtown Urban Design
CD-6.1 Recognize Downtown as the most vibrant urban area of San José and maximize development potential and overall density within the Downtown.
CD-6.2 Design new development with a scale, quality, and character to strengthen Downtown’s status as a major urban center.
CD-6.3 Design publicly-accessible and welcoming areas, allow easy access and facilitate movement of pedestrians and bicyclists throughout the Downtown, and provide strong physical and visual connections across potential barriers (i.e., roadways and creeks).
Promote Downtown as a focal point for community activity (e.g., festivals, parades, etc.) for the entire City.
CD-6.4 Design quality publicly-accessible open spaces at appropriate locations that enhance the pedestrian experience and attract people to the Downtown. Use appropriate design, scale, and edge treatment to define, and create publicly accessible spaces that positively contribute to the character of the area and provide public access to community gathering, recreational, artistic, cultural, or natural amenities.
CD-6.5 Promote iconic architecture and encourage and incorporate innovative, varied, and dynamic design features (e.g., appearance, function, sustainability aspects) into sites, buildings, art, streetscapes, landscapes, and signage to make Downtown visually exciting and to attract residents and visitors.
Goal CD-7 – Urban Villages Design
Create thriving, attractive Urban Villages that reflect unique urban characteristics of an area and provide complete neighborhoods for residents, workers, and visitors.
Policies – Urban Villages Design
CD-7.1 Support intensive development and uses within Urban Villages, while ensuring an appropriate interface with lower-intensity development in surrounding areas and the protection of appropriate historic resources.
CD-7.2 Designated Urban Villages should not proceed with residential development until an Urban Village Plan has been completed. Residential development that is purely ancillary to a primary employment use, such as penthouse residences in an office building, may be considered in advance of an Urban Village Plan. “Signature” projects, and other types of development expressly allowed in accordance with Envision General Plan policies may proceed prior to acceptance or approval of the Urban Village Plan.
San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Appendix B‐10
CD-7.3 Review development proposed within an Urban Village Area prior to approval of an Urban Village Plan for consistency with any applicable design policies pertaining to the proposed use. Review proposed mixed-use projects that include residential units for consistency with the Design Policies for Urban Villages. Following adoption of an Urban Village Plan, review new development for consistency with design polices included within the Urban Village Plan as well as for consistency with any other applicable design policies.
CD-7.4 Identify a vision for urban design character consistent with development standards, including but not limited to building scale, relationship to the street, and setbacks, as part of the Urban Village planning process. Accommodate all planned employment and housing growth capacity within each Urban Village and consider how to accommodate projected employment growth demand by sector in each respective Urban Village Plan.
CD-7.6 Incorporate a full range of uses in each Urban Village Plan to address daily needs of residents, businesses, and visitors in the area. Consider retail, parks, school, libraries, day care, entertainment, plazas, public gathering space, private community gathering facilities, and other neighborhood-serving uses as part of the Urban Village planning process. Encourage multi-use spaces wherever possible to increase flexibility and responsiveness to community needs over time.
CD-7.9 Build new residential development within Urban Village areas at a minimum of four stories in height with the exception that a single row of 2-3 story development, such as townhouses, should be used when building new residential development immediately adjacent to single-family residential sites that have a Residential Neighborhood designation.
Action – Urban Villages Design
CD-7.10 As described in the Implementation Chapter, develop Urban Village Plans in cooperation with the nearby community and obtain San José City Council acceptance or approval of the plans prior to issuance of land use entitlements for any new residential development within designated Urban Villages Area Boundaries. Residential uses that are purely ancillary to primary employment uses, “Signature” projects, and other types of development expressly allowed in accordance with Envision General Plan policies may proceed prior to acceptance or approval of the Urban Village Plan.
Goal CD-8 – Building Height
Regulate the height of new development to avoid adverse land use incompatibility while providing maximum opportunity for the achievement of the Envision General Plan goals for economic development and the provision of new housing within the identified Growth Areas.
Policies – Building Height
CD-8.1 Ensure new development is consistent with specific height limits established within the City’s Zoning Ordinance and applied through the zoning designation for properties San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Appendix B‐11
throughout the City. Land use designations in the Land Use/Transportation Diagram provide an indication of the typical number of stories expected for new development; however, specific height limitations for buildings and structures in San José are not identified in the Envision General Plan.
CD-8.2 Consider the Envision General Plan Community Design Goals, Policies and Implementation Actions, which provide guidance for the appropriate regulation of building heights to be implemented through the Zoning Ordinance.
CD-8.3 While the height of new development should be regulated to avoid long-term land use incompatibilities, ensure proposed Zoning Ordinance changes establish adequate maximum building heights to allow full build-out of the planned job and housing growth capacity within each of the identified Growth Areas.
Chapter 4: Quality of Life (Housing)
Goal H-1 Housing – Social Equity and Diversity
Provide housing throughout our City in a range of residential densities, especially at higher densities, and product types, including rental and for-sale housing, to address the needs of an economically, demographically, and culturally diverse population.
Policies – Housing – Social Equity and Diversity
H-1.1 Through the development of new housing and the rehabilitation of existing housing, facilitate the creation of economically, culturally, and demographically diverse and integrated communities.
H-1.2 Facilitate the provision of housing sites and structures across location, type, price and status as rental or ownership that respond to the needs of all economic and demographic segments of the community including seniors, families, the homeless and individuals with special needs.
H-1.3 Create housing opportunities and accessible living environments that allow seniors to age in place, either in the same home, assisted living facilities, continuing care facilities, or other housing types within the same community.
H-1.4 Encourage the location of housing designed for senior citizens in neighborhoods where health and community facilities and services are within a reasonable walking distance and are accessible by public transportation.
H-1.5 Facilitate the development of multi-generational housing in compact form that meets the needs of families living together.
H-1.6 Foster the production of housing to serve the “starter” housing market by leveraging financial resources such as purchasing assistance programs and by encouraging market-rate building typologies that serve the “starter” housing market.
San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Appendix B‐12
H-1.7 Comply with State and Federal laws prohibiting discrimination in housing and that support fair and equal access to housing.
H-1.8 Encourage investments in infrastructure in order to maintain high-quality living environments in existing mobile home parks.
H-1.9 Facilitate the development of housing to meet San José’s fair share of the County’s and region’s housing needs.
Actions – Housing – Social Equity and Diversity
H-1.10 Develop a program to promote the “starter” housing market that leverages all financial resources and facilitates production of “starter” housing.
H-1.11 Continue to work in close cooperation with other entities, public, private and non-profits, to foster information, techniques, and policies to achieve the Housing Goals, Policies, and Implementation Actions in this Plan and make such information readily available.
H-1.12 Continue to partner with local agencies, non-profits, and businesses to provide fair housing information, legal services, foreclosure prevention assistance, and antipredatory lending assistance.
H-1.13 Continue to monitor and participate in anti-predatory lending practices by partnering with local agencies.
Goal H-2 – Affordable Housing
Increase, preserve and improve San José’s affordable housing stock.
Policies – Affordable Housing
H-2.1 Facilitate the production of extremely low-, very low-, low-, and moderate-income housing by maximizing use of appropriate policies and financial resources at the federal, state, and local levels; and various other programs.
H-2.2 Integrate affordable housing in identified growth locations and where other housing opportunities may exist, consistent with the Envision General Plan.
H-2.3 Conserve viable housing stock through a balanced combination of housing code enforcement and complementary programs such as rehabilitation loans and grants to help maintain the supply of low-priced housing.
H-2.4 Allow affordable residential development at densities beyond the maximum density allowed under an existing Land Use/Transportation Diagram designation, consistent with the minimum requirements of the State Density Bonus Law (Government Code Section 65915) and local ordinances.
San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Appendix B‐13
H-2.5 Facilitate second units on single-family residential lots, in conformance with our City’s Secondary Unit Ordinance, to take advantage of a potential source of affordable housing and to assist our City in meeting its needs as identified in its Consolidated Plan.
H-2.6 Evaluate and incorporate, if feasible, an affordable housing component in the preparation of specific plans, master plans, or strategy plans that include plans for housing.
H-2.7 Support strategies in collaboration with other jurisdictions and agencies to end homelessness by creating permanent housing solutions combined with services such as medical, education, and job placement.
Actions – Affordable Housing
H-2.8 Coordinate and implement housing policies and goals contained in the City’s Consolidated Plan, and its 5-Year Investment Plan.
H-2.9 Explore revisions to our City’s Secondary Unit Ordinance that further support the provision of affordable housing and help achieve needs identified in its Consolidated Plan.
H-2.10 Update the City’s dispersion policy: 1) to align the location of future affordable housing developments with planned future Growth Areas identified in the Envision General Plan; 2) to be consistent with the City’s inclusionary housing ordinance; 3) to maximize the access of transit, retail, services, and amenities to affordable housing developments; and 4) to reemphasize the support for integration and complete communities.
H-2.11 Seek permanent sources of affordable housing funds.
H-2.12 Maintain our City’s Inclusionary Housing Policy and Ordinance, and provide technical assistance to the development community to ensure that residential projects conform to it.
H-2.13 Support State and federal regulations that preserve “at-risk” subsidized rental units subject to potential conversion to market rate rents and that will encourage equitable and fair policies that protect tenant and owner rights.
H-2.14 Support legislation at the State and Federal levels that: (1) facilitates private and/or public sector investment in housing affordable to households of extremely-low, very low-, low- and moderate-income; (2) provides for the greatest local autonomy in the administration of State and Federal housing programs; and (3) furthers the City’s objective of conserving and rehabilitating the existing housing stock.
H-2.15 Create and maintain a list of sites that are appropriate for meeting our City’s affordable housing needs.
Goal H-3 Housing – High Quality Housing and Great Places San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Appendix B‐14
Create and maintain safe and high quality housing that contributes to the creation of great neighborhoods and great places.
Policies – High Quality Housing and Great Places
H-3.1 Require the development of housing that incorporates the highest possible level of amenities, fit and finish, urban design and architectural quality.
H-3.2 Design high density residential and mixed residential/commercial development, particularly development located in identified Growth Areas, to:
1. Create and maintain safe and pleasant walking environments to encourage pedestrian activity, particularly to the nearest transit stop and to retail, services, and amenities.
2. Maximize transit usage.
3. Allow residents to conduct routine errands close to their residence, especially by walking, biking, or transit.
4. Integrate with surrounding uses to become a part of the neighborhood rather than being an isolated project.
5. Use architectural elements or themes from the surrounding neighborhood when appropriate.
6. Provide residents with access to adequate on- or off-site open space.
7. Create a building scale that does not overwhelm the neighborhood.
8. Be usable by people of all ages, abilities, and needs to the greatest extent possible, without the need for adaptation or specialized design.
H-3.3 Situate housing in an environment that promotes the health, safety, and wellbeing of the occupants and is close to services and amenities.
H-3.4 Promote the conservation and rehabilitation of existing viable housing stock.
H-3.5 Prioritize housing resources to assist those groups most in need, or to those geographic locations in the City that most require investment in order to improve neighborhood blight conditions.
H-3.6 Regulate conversions of rental apartments to condominium or community apartment projects to meet public health and safety standards and to assist displaced renters.
Residential rentals undergoing conversion should meet or exceed the minimum residential density in this Plan.
Action – High Quality Housing and Great Places
H-3.7 Coordinate across multiple City departments to achieve the City’s vision for creating complete, safe, high-quality living environments.
Goal H-4 Housing - Environmental Sustainability
San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Appendix B‐15
Provide housing that minimizes the consumption of natural resources and advances our City’s fiscal, climate change, and environmental goals.
Policies – Housing - Environmental Sustainability
H-4.1 Implement green building principles in the design and construction of housing and related infrastructure, in conformance with the Green Building Goals and Policies in the Envision General Plan and in conformance with the City’s Green Building Ordinance.
H-4.2 Minimize housing’s contribution to greenhouse gas emissions, and locate housing, consistent with our City’s land use and transportation goals and policies, to reduce vehicle miles traveled and auto dependency.
H-4.3 Encourage the development of higher residential densities in complete, mixed use, walkable and bikeable communities to reduce energy use and greenhouse gas emissions.
Chapter 6: Land Use and Transportation (Land Use Policies) Goal LU-2 – Growth Areas
Focus new growth into identified Growth Areas to protect the quality of existing neighborhoods, while establishing new mixed use neighborhoods with a compact and dense form that is attractive to the City’s projected demographics i.e., a young and senior population, and that supports walking, provides opportunities to incorporate retail and other services in a mixed-use format, and facilitates transit use.
Policies – Growth Areas
LU-2.1 Provide significant job and housing growth capacity within strategically identified “Growth Areas” in order to maximize use of existing or planned infrastructure (including fixed transit facilities), minimize the environmental impacts of new development, provide for more efficient delivery of City services, and foster the development of more vibrant, walkable urban settings.
LU-2.2 Include within the Envision General Plan Land Use / Transportation Diagram significant job and housing growth capacity within the following identified Growth Areas:
Downtown – The City’s Downtown Strategy plans for ambitious job and housing growth capacity in the Downtown area to reinforce its role as San Jose’s civic, cultural and symbolic center and to support key infrastructure investments, including the planned BART and High-Speed Rail systems.
Specific Plan Areas – The City’s Specific Plans provide significant residential growth capacity and opportunities for mixed-use development. Alviso Master Plan and Rincon South Specific Plan areas also include significant amounts of planned job growth. The Water Pollution Control Plant lands, currently undergoing a separate master planning process, have been identified as a significant opportunity within the San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Appendix B‐16
City to add new employment land areas, and in particular to provide an opportunity for new light industry or manufacturing activity jobs.
North San José – Because of its importance as a job center, access to transit facilities and proximity to the San José Mineta International Airport, the North San José Area is planned to accommodate up to 100,000 new jobs and 32,000 new housing units. The North San José Area Development Policy includes a phasing plan and a Traffic Impact Fee which link job and housing growth and provide funding for transportation improvements. The North San José Neighborhoods Plan and North San José Urban Design Guidelines provide additional guidance for the development of this City region.
Employment Lands – The Plan supports significant intensification of employment activity within each of the City’s major employment districts (North San José, Monterey Corridor, Edenvale, Berryessa / International Business Park, Mabury, East Gish and Senter Road and North Coyote Valley). Within the North San José, Berryessa / International Business Park and Old Edenvale areas, a centralized sub-area with strong transit access has been designated as an Employment Center to support midrise or high-rise employment development. The Employment Center in the northeast corner of the Berryessa / International Business Park area is also classified as a BART station area due to its proximity to the planned Milpitas BART station and existing Capitol Avenue Light Rail stations.
Urban Villages: BART / Caltrain Station Areas – To maximize utilization of the Caltrain and BART systems, support regional commuting and foster the City’s growth as a regional job center, significant new job growth capacity is planned for the each of the BART / Caltrain Urban Villages. Significant job and housing growth capacity is planned for the Berrryessa BART station area in order to support intensification of the station area as a regional employment destination and to achieve a level of density consistent with that planned for other BART and Light Rail station areas. Urban Villages: Transit / Commercial Corridors – A large and balanced amount of job and housing growth capacity is planned for the Transit / Commercial Corridor Urban Villages with the goal to maximize the opportunity for creating new mixed-use Urban Villages in these areas. While the BART area job capacity is planned primarily for mid-rise and high-rise offices, the Light Rail Urban Villages provide more opportunity for retail and service jobs that benefit from close proximity to residential use.
Although the BART system serves as a regional transit line that brings workers from throughout the region to employment centers within San José, the light rail system is more appropriate for shorter commute trips and is also less likely to generate land use compatibility concerns. Accordingly, it is appropriate to include more residential and retail growth capacity along the light rail system. The Oakridge Mall Light Rail station area is particularly of interest because of its size and high level of unrealized potential to support a walkable, mixed-use community owing to the amount and diversity of established commercial uses and other services already located within the area.
San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Appendix B‐17
Urban Villages: Commercial Centers – While Commercial Center Urban Villages are less directly connected to transit, they contain large parcels which may have greater potential for redevelopment and are generally located in areas with a high degree of accessibility which is advantageous for intensified commercial development.
Providing residential growth capacity in the Commercial Center Urban Villages is a potential catalyst for spurring the redevelopment and enhancement of existing commercial uses while also transforming them into Urban Village type environments.
At the same time, their typically more suburban settings may create some challenge to such revitalization. The Commercial Center Urban Villages, with closer proximity to other Growth Areas and transit (e.g., North Bascom Avenue between West San Carlos and Southwest Expressway) or in proximity to established, more intense uses (e.g., De Anza Blvd.), may have greater near-term potential for transformation into Urban Village settings. A modest and balanced amount of new housing and job growth capacity is planned for the Commercial Center Urban Villages in order to support their intensification as both employment and housing centers, while also recognizing that transit-oriented sites should be given the greatest priority for locating new growth.
Urban Villages: Neighborhood Urban Villages – To support the Envision General Plan goal of providing broad access to mixed-use Urban Villages for all areas of the City through the development of Neighborhood Urban Villages, while also accommodating the Envision General Plan’s strong jobs orientation, a small amount of housing growth capacity and a modest amount of job growth capacity is planned for Neighborhood Urban Village areas. Without more housing growth, it will be difficult to significantly enhance existing retail and service uses in Neighborhood Urban Village areas. It also will likely be difficult to attract Driving Industry type jobs to these locations given their relatively small scale and separation from other employment areas.
LU-2.3 To support the intensification of identified Growth Areas, and to achieve the various goals related to their development throughout the City, restrict new development on properties in non-Growth Areas.
Action – Growth Areas
LU-2.4 To accomplish the planned intensification of employment and residential uses at the Berryessa BART station, reconsider existing entitlements to expand the area planned for employment uses and to increase the density of employment and residential areas within the BART Station Village area if the developer / property owner has not accomplished significant infrastructure improvements on the respective side of Berryessa Road within 5 years of the adoption of the Plan.
Goal LU-3 – Downtown
Strengthen Downtown as a regional job, entertainment, and cultural destination and as the symbolic heart of San José.
San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Appendix B‐18
Policies – Downtown
LU-3.1 Provide maximum flexibility in mixing uses throughout the Downtown Area. Support intensive employment, entertainment, cultural, public/quasi-public, and residential uses in compact, intensive forms to maximize social interaction; to serve as a focal point for residents, businesses, and visitors; and to further the Vision of the Envision General Plan.
Goal LU-9 – High-Quality Living Environments
Provide high quality living environments for San José’s residents.
Policies – High-Quality Living Environments
LU-9.1 Create a pedestrian-friendly environment by connecting new residential development with safe, convenient, accessible, and pleasant pedestrian facilities. Provide such connections between new development, its adjoining neighborhood, transit access points, schools, parks, and nearby commercial areas. Consistent with Transportation Policy TR2.11, prohibit the development of new cul-de-sacs, unless it is the only feasible means of providing access to a property or properties, or gated communities, that do not provide through- and publicly-accessible bicycle and pedestrian connections.
LU-9.2 Facilitate the development of complete neighborhoods by allowing appropriate commercial uses within or adjacent to residential and mixed-use neighborhoods.
LU-9.3 Integrate housing development with our City’s transportation system, including transit, roads, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
LU-9.4 Prohibit residential development in areas with identified hazards to human habitation unless these hazards are adequately mitigated.
LU-9.5 Require that new residential development be designed to protect residents from potential conflicts with adjacent land uses.
LU-9.6 Require residential developments to include adequate open spaces in either private or common areas to partially provide for residents’ open space and recreation needs.
LU-9.7 Ensure that new residential development does not impact the viability of adjacent employment uses that are consistent with the Envision General Plan Land Use / Transportation Diagram.
LU-9.8 When changes in residential densities in established neighborhoods are proposed, the City shall consider such factors as neighborhood character and identity; historic preservation; compatibility of land uses and impacts on livability; impacts on services and facilities, including schools, to the extent permitted by law; accessibility to transit facilities; and impacts on traffic levels on both neighborhood streets and major thoroughfares.
San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Appendix B‐19
LU-9.9 In areas designated for residential use, allow parking facilities to serve adjacent nonresidential uses if such parking facilities are integrated with the non-residential use, adequately landscaped, and buffered.
LU-9.10 Discourage substantial expansion of existing nonresidential uses (e.g., major structural improvements or expansions) that are incompatible with residential uses on properties designated for residential use.
LU-9.11 Design single-family and duplex residential development with limited vehicular access to arterial streets as follows:
No direct vehicular access on six lane arterials or within 350 feet of the intersection of two arterials.
No direct vehicular access on four lane arterials.
The use of frontage roads, corner lots, or other street design solutions for vehicular access is encouraged.
Exceptions may only be made when there are no other feasible alternatives for providing access to the residential development.
LU-9.12 Consider location of bed and breakfast inns on properties designated for residential land use, regardless of density, provided that impacts on the surrounding neighborhood can be satisfactorily mitigated.
LU-9.13 Equitably distribute residential social service programs (e.g., board and care facilities) throughout the City, especially in areas with access to transit, rather than concentrating them in a few areas. Encourage the County and other social service licensing agencies to recognize and implement this policy.
LU-9.14 Allow small residential care and service facilities, supportive housing, and transitional housing for up to six persons, in residential neighborhoods of any density. Encourage facilities for more than six persons to locate in areas with access to transit, retail, services, and other amenities.
LU-9.15 New single-family flag lots may be appropriate on hillside properties but are discouraged within other parts of the City. Flag lot development in non-hillside areas should have a clear and visible relationship to the neighborhood and the street and should be consistent with the applicable Zoning district which can assure that relationship. To strengthen neighborhood preservation policies and objectives of this plan, the City Council has adopted a policy establishing criteria for the use of flag lots.
LU-9.16 Do not locate freestanding communications structures such as towers, antennae and monopoles on sites designated for residential land use unless such sites are occupied by a PG&E substation or corridor for high-tension lines exceeding 200 KV.
LU-9.17 Limit residential development in established neighborhoods that are not identified growth areas to projects that conform to the site’s Land Use / Transportation Diagram designation and meet Urban Design policies in this Plan.
San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Appendix B‐20
LU-9.18 Consider Fiscal Sustainability; Historic Preservation; Urban Design; and Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Goals, Policies, and Implementation Actions in this Plan when reviewing new residential development.
Goal LU-10 – Efficient Use of Residential and Mixed-Use Lands Meet the housing needs of existing and future residents by fully and efficiently utilizing lands planned for residential and mixed-use and by maximizing housing opportunities in locations within a half mile of transit, with good access to employment areas, neighborhood services, and public facilities.
Policies – Efficient Use of Residential and Mixed-Use Lands LU-10.1 Develop land use plans and implementation tools that result in the construction of mixed-use development in appropriate places throughout the City as a means to establish walkable, complete communities.
LU-10.2 Distribute higher residential densities throughout our city in identified growth areas and facilitate the development of residences in mixed-use development within these growth areas.
LU-10.3 Develop residentially- and mixed-use-designated lands adjacent to major transit facilities at high densities to reduce motor vehicle travel by encouraging the use of public transit.
LU-10.4 Within identified growth areas, develop residential projects at densities sufficient to support neighborhood retail in walkable, main street type development.
LU-10.5 Facilitate the development of housing close to jobs to provide residents with the opportunity to live and work in the same community.
LU-10.6 In identified growth areas, do not approve decreases in residential density through zoning change or development entitlement applications or through General Plan amendments.
LU-10.7 Encourage consolidation of parcels to promote mixed-use and high density development at locations identified in the Land use / Transportation Diagram.
LU-10.8 Encourage the location of schools, private community gathering facilities, and other public / quasi-public uses within or adjacent to Urban Villages and other growth areas and encourage these uses to be developed in an urban form and in a mixed-use configuration.
Actions – Efficient Use of Residential and Mixed-Use Lands LU-10.9 Model the federal Interagency Partnership for Sustainable Communities (HUDDOT-EPA) at the local level between Housing and other City Departments to facilitate the creation of smart growth communities.
San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Appendix B‐21
LU-10.10 Achieve 75% of residents who can access 25% of their retail/service needs within a 20- minute walk and 50% of residents who can access 50% of their retail/service needs within a 20-minute walk.
Goal LU-11 – Residential Neighborhoods
Regulate the urban form, architectural quality and contextual compatibility of new construction and uses within the City’s varied residential neighborhoods to promote a residential neighborhood environment conducive to a high quality of life for neighborhood residents and visitors.
Policies – Residential Neighborhoods
LU-11.1 Design all new single-family detached residences so that each home has a frontage on a public street or on a private street that appears and functions as a public street.
LU-11.2 Support subdivisions of residential lots if the new lots reflect the established pattern of development in the immediate area, including lot sizes and street frontages. Discourage residential developments, such as courthomes or flag lots, that increase residential densities for an area or disrupt an established neighborhood pattern. Allow new development of a parcel, including one to be subdivided, to match the existing number of units on that parcel; design such subdivisions to be compatible with and, to the degree feasible, consistent with the form of the surrounding neighborhood pattern. Consider allowing secondary units (granny or in-law units) in lieu of creating flag lots, substandard lots, or parcels that disrupt an established neighborhood pattern.
LU-11.3 Direct all significant new residential growth to identified Growth Areas to further the environmental, transit, healthy community, and other Envision General Plan objectives.
Limit infill development within areas designated as Residential Neighborhood on the Land Use / Transportation Diagram to projects that maintain the prevailing neighborhood form and density as it exists on adjoining properties, with particular emphasis upon establishing and/or maintaining a consistent streetscape form between new and existing development.
LU-11.4 Locate new commercial uses in established residential neighborhoods on busier streets or at street intersections. Discourage new commercial uses on small existing residential streets unless it can be clearly demonstrated that the commercial use can integrate with the existing residential neighborhood without creating adverse impacts. Discourage primary access to large commercial parking lots and structures through residential neighborhoods.
LU-11.5 Integrate new and existing neighborhoods and facilitate movement throughout the City by connecting streets and particularly by providing pedestrian and bicycle cross-access connections. Integrate new infill development into the existing neighborhood pattern, continuing, and where applicable extending or completing, the existing street network.
LU-11.6 For new infill development, match the typical lot size and building form of any adjacent development, with particular emphasis given to maintaining consistency with other San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Appendix B‐22
development that fronts onto a public street to be shared by the proposed new project. As an exception, for parcels already developed with more than one dwelling unit, new development may include up to the same number of dwelling units as the existing condition. The form of such new development should be compatible with and, to the degree feasible, consistent with the form of the surrounding neighborhood pattern.
LU-11.7 Permit new development to establish a unique character as defined by density, lot size and shape only in cases where the new development is completely separated from existing neighborhoods by freeways, major expressways, or a riparian corridor or other similar barrier.
Action – Residential Neighborhoods
LU-11.8 Rezone Residential Neighborhood areas with existing non-conforming zoning designations to align with the Envision General Plan, taking existing uses into consideration. For areas where the Residential Neighborhood designation supports the development of duplexes or commercial uses, a corresponding residential zoning designation that supports duplexes and/or commercial uses is appropriate. For areas where the Residential Neighborhood designation supports the development of singlefamily residences, a corresponding residential zoning designation that supports singlefamily use is appropriate. Give priority for such rezoning actions to areas with an existing neighborhood or community plan that identifies rezoning as a community goal.
Chapter 7: Implementation
Goal IP-2 – General Plan Phasing / Planning Horizons / Major Review Monitor progress toward General Plan Vision, goals and policies through a periodic Major Review.
Evaluate the success of the Envision General Plan’s implementation and consider refinement of the Land Use / Transportation Diagram and the Envision General Plan policies to ensure their achievement.
Use General Plan Major Reviews to consider increases in available residential development capacity by opening an additional Horizon for development and to assign priority to growth areas within San José for new housing.
Policies – General Plan Phasing / Planning Horizons / Major Review IP-2.1 Gradually implement the development of new Urban Village areas by dividing them into three Plan Horizons and allowing a specific portion of the Urban Village areas to be developed within each Horizon. Identify the locations of current Plan Horizon Urban Villages, presently available for residential development, on the Land Use / Transportation Diagram.
IP-2.2 Identify the Urban Villages to be made available for new housing in future Plan Horizons, and allow continued commercial and mixed use non-residential development in all Urban Villages.
San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Appendix B‐23
IP-2.3 Prepare Urban Village Plans in advance of the redevelopment of an Urban Village to facilitate coordination of infrastructure, community facilities and parks planning with planned new residential growth, including use of the City’s Capital Improvement Program.
IP-2.4 Conduct a Major Review of the Envision General Plan by the City Council every four years to evaluate the City’s achievement of key economic development, fiscal and infrastructure/service goals, greenhouse gas emission reduction goals and targets, water conservation and recycling goals, availability and affordability of housing supply, Healthful Community goals, and to review changes and trends in land use and development. Based on this review, determine the City’s readiness to begin the next Envision General Plan Horizon or to modify the number of “pool” residential units available for non-specific Urban Village areas within the current Plan Horizon. Amend the Land Use / Transportation Diagram and / or Envision General Plan goals, policies, and actions accordingly.
IP-2.5 During each Major Review of the Envision General Plan evaluate input provided by the reconvened Task Force and achievement of the following key General Plan goals to inform the City Council’s decision, regarding needed changes, to begin the next General Plan Horizon, or to increase the number of residential units available for non-specific Urban Village areas:
1. Jobs/Housing Balance – Demonstrate improvement of the City’s jobs to employed resident ratio (J/ER) consistent with achievement of 1.3 jobs per employed resident by the year 2040.
2. Fiscal Sustainability – Demonstrate sustainable improvement above 2010 levels in the level of service for City services provided to the San José community.
3. Housing Supply – Verify that the current Planning Horizon contains adequate capacity to meet San José’s Regional Housing Need Allocation for the upcoming 4-year term.
4. Infrastructure – Confirm that adequate infrastructure and service facilities, especially transit, exist or that a secure plan for them is in place to support the planned jobs and housing capacity in the current and contemplated Horizon.
IP-2.6 Encourage employment uses in all Urban Village areas identified for potential housing growth available during any Horizon. Allow intensified residential mixed use in Urban Villages in those Horizons as determined by the City Council in the sequence shown in the Table, Planned Job Capacity and Housing Growth Areas by Horizon, in Appendix 5.
Amend the Land Use / Transportation Diagram to identify new housing Growth Areas with each new Horizon.
IP-2.7 Allow development of residential units at the density and in the form approved in land use entitlements in place upon adoption of the Envision San José 2040 General Plan, including capacity specified in the adopted Downtown Strategy, North San José Area Development Policy, Evergreen-East Hills Development Policy, Specific Plans, and potential dwelling unit yield from residential properties identified on the City’s Vacant Land Inventory. When the City Council commences the second Horizon of the Envision General Plan, new or revised proposals for development on sites with previously San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Appendix B‐24
approved residential entitlements should conform to the Land Use / Transportation Diagram.
IP-2.8 Focus new residential development into specified Growth Areas to foster the cohesive transformation of these areas into complete Urban Villages. Allow immediate development of all residential capacity planned for the Growth Areas included in the current Plan Horizons.
IP-2.9 Open Horizons for development in planned phases to give priority for new residential growth to occur in areas proximate to Downtown, with access to existing and planned transit facilities, and adequate infrastructure to support intensification, and proximate to other Growth Areas to contribute to the City’s urban form.
IP-2.10 To facilitate the development of complete Urban Village areas, following construction of a Signature Project within a future Horizon Urban Village, move the subject Urban Village into the current Planning Horizon.
IP-2.11 Provide a “Pool” of residential unit capacity which may be allocated to allow entitlement of residential projects within Urban Village Areas not included within the current Plan Horizon. This pool is initially established as 5,000 units, and may be replenished as part of a General Plan Major Review. Projects receiving allocation must conform to the Land Use / Transportation Diagram. Preparation of an Urban Village Plan for the subject Urban Village is necessary prior to allocation of these units unless the project qualifies as a Signature Project.
IP-2.12 Reconvene the Envision San José 2040 Task Force during each Major Review of the Envision General Plan to provide community and stakeholder engagement in reviewing and evaluating success in the implementation of this General Plan and recommending any mid-course actions needed to achieve its goals.
Goal IP-5 – Urban Village Planning
Use new proposals for residential, mixed use, or employment development to help create walkable, bicycle-, and transit-friendly “Urban Villages” (also referred to as “Villages” within the Envision General Plan) at strategic locations throughout the City, and to enhance established neighborhoods. In new Village development, integrate a mix of uses including retail shops, services, employment opportunities, public facilities and services, housing, places of worship, and other cultural facilities, parks and public gathering places.
Policies – Urban Village Planning
IP-5.1 Prepare a comprehensive Urban Village Plan prior to the issuance of entitlements for residential development within any of the Urban Village areas identified on the Land Use / Transportation Diagram. Commercial projects, including those with ancillary residential uses, and “Signature Projects”, as defined in Policy IP-5.10, may proceed in advance of the preparation of a Village Plan. Use the Village Plan to clearly address:
San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Appendix B‐25
1. Job and Housing Growth Capacity: Identify suitable areas for retail and other employment uses, giving careful consideration to existing and future demand for retail space, the appropriate location and design of retail spaces, opportunities for large-scale and small-scale retail uses, and adequate and appropriate sites for other employment uses consistent with the total planned job capacity for the particular Growth Area. Identify suitable areas for residential development, capable of supporting the full amount of planned residential growth capacity.
Apply corresponding Land Use / Transportation Diagram or zoning designations to support the proposed employment and residential density ranges.
2. Urban Village Boundaries and Land Uses: Identify potential adjustments to the identified Urban Village Boundaries and potential modifications to the Land Use / Transportation Diagram as necessary to best utilize existing land use growth capacity, address neighborhood context, and promote economic development through the identification of optimal sites for retail and other employment uses.
Provide adequate job growth capacity for retail, office and other employment uses to accommodate both the existing levels of activity plus the planned amount of growth for each job type category. Identify and designate existing land uses within the Urban Village Area boundaries, if any, which should be retained rather than made available for redevelopment. Match the planned land uses for any areas within the Urban Village Area which have already been addressed through an overlapping Urban Village plan.
3. Building Heights and Densities: Identify for specific properties within the Village Planning area minimum and maximum thresholds for building heights and densities. These standards should fall within the broader ranges established in the Land Use / Transportation Diagram and be consistent with planned job and housing growth capacity for that Village area. Implement these standards through the Zoning process prior to development of new residential or mixed-use, residential projects.
4. Infrastructure: Identify locations for parks, plazas, public and quasi-public open spaces, and sites to potentially incorporate libraries, public safety facilities and other public uses, along with other infrastructure needs. A Village Plan should also consider the adequacy of public and private utilities to serve the planned growth capacity.
5. Urban Character: Include streetscape and building frontage design, pedestrian facility improvements and other urban design actions necessary to successfully implement the Village concept.
6. Greenhouse Gas Reduction: Identify locations of existing and planned transit and pedestrian and bicycle facilities and include design and implementation measures necessary to meet City goals for vehicle miles travelled (VMT) reduction and greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions.
7. Financing: Consider financing mechanisms which may be needed to deliver public improvements, amenities, and the like envisioned within the Urban Village Plan.
8. Implementation: Consider the establishment of phasing triggers or other implementation tools for specific land use changes within the context of the Urban Village Plan to support achievement of the Urban Village Plan goals consistent with other Envision General Plan goals and policies so that implementation of the Urban Village Plan over time will consistently provide San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Appendix B‐26
sufficient capacity for a number of jobs equal to planned new job growth capacity plus maintenance of existing job capacity.
IP-5.2 Develop and use an Urban Village Planning process so that each Urban Village Plan can be successfully completed within an approximately nine month planning period, followed by completion of environmental review as required for adoption of the Plan. Engage Urban Village area property owners to the fullest extent possible, along with representatives of adjacent neighborhood areas, potential developers and other stakeholders in the Urban Village Planning process.
IP-5.4 Prepare and implement Urban Village Plans carefully, with sensitivity to concerns of the surrounding community, and property owners and developers who propose redevelopment of properties within the Urban Village areas. Proceed generally in the order of the following timeline, although some steps may be taken concurrently:
1. City Council approves commencement of the Plan growth Horizon which includes the Urban Village Area during a Major General Plan Review. Completing Urban Village Plans for Urban Villages within the current Horizon is of greatest priority, but it is possible to prepare an Urban Village Plan for an Urban Village in an upcoming Horizon.
2. The City completes preparation of and Council reviews an Urban Village Plan.
3. The City or private property owners initiate rezoning for specific properties within the Urban Village as needed to implement the Urban Village Plan. Because most Urban Village sites initially have commercial zoning, rezoning will be necessary to provide for redevelopment and intensification with residential or residential mixed use projects on those sites.
4. Private property owners or developers propose individual site designs and building architecture to be reviewed and determined through a Development Permit application and review process.
IP-5.5 Employ the Urban Village Planning process to plan land uses that include adequate capacity for the full amount of planned job and housing growth, including identification of optimal sites for new retail development and careful consideration of appropriate minimum and maximum densities for residential and employment uses to insure that the Urban Village Area will provide sufficient capacity to support the full amount of planned job growth under this Envision Plan.
IP-5.6 Identify smaller, distinctive sub-areas within overall Urban Village boundaries to reflect the potential for incremental development of an Urban Village over many years. Identify a mix of land uses, accommodating proportional shares of both job and housing growth capacity, for each sub-area.
IP-5.7 Carefully consider the best land uses and urban design standards for properties located along an Urban Village periphery to minimize potential land use conflicts with adjacent properties. In particular, address interfaces with established single-family Residential Neighborhood areas.
San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Appendix B‐27
IP-5.9 Upon completion of an Urban Village Plan, update the Land Use / Transportation Diagram for the Village area to depict major new land use features established within the Village Plan, such as parks, residential mixed-use, commercial mixed-use, and employment uses. Indicate on the Diagram that the Urban Village Plan process has been completed.
IP-5.10 Allow non-residential development to proceed within Urban Village areas in advance of the preparation of an Urban Village Plan. In addition, a residential, mixed-use “Signature” project may also proceed ahead of preparation of a Village Plan. A Signature project clearly advances and can serve as a catalyst for the full implementation of the Envision General Plan Urban Village strategy. A Signature project may be developed within an Urban Village designated as part of the current Plan Horizon, or in a future Horizon Urban Village area by making use of the residential Pool capacity. A residential, mixeduse Signature project may proceed within Urban Village areas in advance of the preparation of an Urban Village Plan if it fully meets the following requirements:
1. Conforms to the Land Use / Transportation Diagram. Within the Urban Village areas, Signature projects are appropriate on sites with an Urban Village, residential, or commercial Land Use / Transportation Diagram designation.
2. Incorporates job growth capacity above the average density of jobs/acre planned for the developable portions of the entire Village Planning area and, for portions of a Signature project that include housing, those portions incorporate housing density at or above the average density of dwelling units per acre planned for the entire Village Planning area.
3. Is located at a visible, prominent location within the Village so that it can be an example for, but not impose obstacles to, subsequent other development within the Village area.
Additionally, a proposed Signature project will be reviewed for substantial conformance with the following objectives:
4. Includes public parklands and/or privately maintained, publicly-accessible plazas or open space areas.
5. Achieves the pedestrian friendly design guideline objectives identified within this General Plan.
6. Is planned and designed through a process that provided a substantive opportunity for input by interested community members.
7. Demonstrates high-quality architectural, landscape and site design features.
8. Is consistent with the recommendations of the City’s Architectural Review Committee or equivalent recommending body if the project is subject to review by such body.
IP-5.11 Allow new employment development with an incidental amount of residential use (e.g., 3 or fewer residential units) to proceed within an Urban Village area in advance of the preparation of an Urban Village Plan.
Action – Urban Village Planning
San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Appendix B‐28
IP-5.12 Develop Urban Village Plans for Village areas identified for housing growth in the current Horizon proactively, ahead of developer demand to begin residential development there.
Actively pursue outside funding opportunities for the Village planning process.
San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Appendix D‐1
Appendix C:
List of Affordable Homes
At-Risk of Conversion
At-Risk Affordable Housing Developments DRAFT City of San José Housing Element (2014-2023) Project Name Assisted Units 30% AMI 50% AMI 80% AMI 120% AMI Senior
Units
Owner/Sponsor Owner Type Funding Source Additional
Funding Source(s)
Earliest
Expiration Date
City AR Expire
Date
Guadalupe Apts. 23 12 11 First Community Housing Nonprofit TCAC TCAC 4/26/2004 9/18/2019 Dent Avenue Commons 23 23 Housing for Independent People Inc. Nonprofit TCAC TCAC 8/29/2004 3/6/2021 Timberwood Apartments 108 108 MidPen Housing Nonprofit TCAC Bond 1/20/2005 1/20/2005 Capitol Manor 33 33 Capital Manor Inc. Nonprofit No 6/1/2011 6/1/2011 Homebase 12 12 Hombase Homes, Inc. Nonprofit
HUD-8
Disabled RDA 6/7/2011 9/28/2020
Town Park Towers 216 216 No. Calif. Presbyterian Homes and Services, Inc. Nonprofit HUD-8 No 1/1/2014 1/1/2014 The Grove 40 27 13 Community Housing Developers Nonprofit RDA No 9/23/2014 9/23/2014 Mayfair Golden Manor 210 210 Mayfair Golden Manor, Inc. Nonprofit HUD-8 No 9/30/2014 10/1/2065 Emmanuel Terrace 18 18 Emmanuel Terrace LLC Nonprofit HUD-8 No 2/28/2015 3/1/2015 Casa De Los Amigos 24 24 Casa de Los Amigos, Inc. Nonprofit HUD-202-811 RDA 7/31/2015 8/1/2015 Chai House II 70 13 57 70 Chai House Inc. Nonprofit HUD-202-811 RDA 11/27/2015 3/4/2063 Chai House I 70 13 57 70 Chair House Inc. Nonprofit HUD-202-811 No 11/30/2015 Fuji Towers 28 28 Fuji Towers Nonprofit HUD-236 RAP No 2/1/2016 2/18/2016 Commercial Street Inn 55 55 Innvision of Santa Clara Nonprofit RDA No 1/30/2019 1/30/2019 1713 Ross 4 4 Abode Services Nonprofit RDA No 8/29/2020 8/29/2020 1726 Ross 4 4 Abode Services Nonprofit RDA No 8/29/2020 8/29/2020 1731 Ross 4 4 Abode Services Nonprofit RDA No 8/29/2020 8/29/2020 Calvin 1 1 Abode Services Nonprofit RDA No 8/29/2020 8/29/2020 Curtner 1 1 Abode Services Nonprofit RDA No 8/29/2020 8/29/2020 Donna 4 4 Abode Services Nonprofit RDA No 8/29/2020 8/29/2020 Minnesota 1 1 Abode Services Nonprofit RDA No 8/29/2020 8/29/2020 Barker 4 4 Abode Services Nonprofit RDA No 8/29/2020 8/29/2020 Branham 2 2 Abode Services Nonprofit RDA No 8/29/2020 8/29/2020 Homeport 15 15 Homeport, Inc. Nonprofit
HUD
Disabled RDA 9/28/2020 9/28/2020
Bridgeport(Bridgeport Court) 14 14 Community Housing Developers Nonprofit RDA No 8/15/2021 8/15/2021 Cape Cod Court 28 8 20 Community Housing Developers Nonprofit RDA No 8/15/2021 8/15/2021 Cambrian Center 150 150 150 Cambrian Inc. Nonprofit HUD-202-8 No 9/14/2021 9/15/2021 Paula Street 21 10 11 First Community Housing Nonprofit RDA No 11/27/2021 11/27/2021 Hoffman - 5629 4 4 HIP Nonprofit RDA No 10/28/2022 10/28/2022 Hoffman - 5668 4 4 HIP Nonprofit RDA No 10/28/2022 10/28/2022 Hoffman - 5684 4 4 HIP Nonprofit RDA No 10/28/2022 10/28/2022 Rincon De Los Esteros 246 135 111 First Community Housing Nonprofit TCAC TCAC 7/26/2023 7/26/2023 Ywca Villa Nueva 62 62 Bridge Housing Corp. Nonprofit RDA No 8/31/2023 8/31/2023 Lexington Apartments 32 32 KDF Communities - Lexington, LLC Profit Motivated TCAC Bond 7/25/2006 7/25/2006 Almaden Garden Apartments 36 36 Chuck Davidson Profit Motivated HUD-8 No 9/1/2011 9/1/2011 San Jose Apartments 216 216 Chuck Davidson Profit Motivated HUD-8 No 9/12/2011 9/12/2011 Moreland Apartments 160 160 Chuck Davidson Profit Motivated HUD-8 No 1/31/2014 2/1/2014 Thornbridge Apartments (The Gardens) 115 115 FF Development L.P. Profit Motivated TCAC Bond 5/12/2014 5/12/2014 Almaden Lake Village 50 50 Almaden Lake Village Associates, Ltd. Profit Motivated TCAC Bond 3/29/2015 3/29/2015 Arbor Apts 122 122 Chuck Davidson Profit Motivated HUD-8 No 8/31/2015 9/1/2015 Vendome Apartments/San Pedro Square Apts. 32 7 25 The Farmers Union Profit Motivated INCL No 8/5/2018 8/5/2018 Las Casitas 168 168 Chuck Davidson Profit Motivated HUD-8 No 2/28/2021 3/1/2021 Foxchase Drive Apartments 29 29 Unknown Profit Motivated Bond No 2/26/2024 2/26/2024 Fairway Glen 29 29 Unknown Profit Motivated Bond No 12/14/2024 12/14/2024 Kimberly Woods Apartments 42 42 Unknown Profit Motivated Bond No 12/29/2024 12/29/2024 St. Claire 26 2 24 Lyles Diversified, Inc. Profit Motivated INCL No 5/23/2025 5/23/2025 Villa Torino 85 85 Sobrato Development Company Profit Motivated INCL No 9/1/2025 9/1/2025 Totals: 2645 105 376 1103 1061 290
San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Appendix D‐1
Appendix D:
Implementation Work Plan
City of San José Housing Element (2014‐2023): Implementation Work Plan Goal GP Policy Action/Programs Entity Time- frame Funding Source Constraint Addressed (Chapter IV) 1 Continue Predevelopment Loan
and Project Development Loan Programs.
H-2.1 a. Review City's existing Income Allocation
Policy and update as necessary to provide a funding framework for income categories.b. Continue to provide predevelopment loans to assist nonprofit housing developers with funds necessary to explore feasibility of proposed affordable multifamily housing. c. Continue to provide land acquisition, construction, and permanent financing for the development of new affordable homes and the acquisition/rehabilitation of existing rental housing for affordable homes pending availability of funds.
Housing a. 2015-16
b. Annual, Ongoingc. Annual, Ongoing
Fee programs, CDBG, HOME, Cap and Trade, program income, other H. State and federal government
2 Maximize revenues from the
City's loan portfolio.
H-2.1 a. Maximize City revenues and residual
receipts when senior loans mature or are refinanced/restructured.
Housing Ongoing All loan
programs
H. State and federal government
3 Facilitate affordable housing
deals that require no City subsidies.
H-2.1 a. Facilitate mixed income deals.
b. Facilitate 9% and 4% tax credit/bond developments.
Housing Ongoing None H. State and federal
government
1. Increase, Preserve, and Improve the Supply of Affordable Housing Programs and Funding
1 City of San José Housing Element (2014‐2023): Implementation Work Plan Goal GP Policy Action/Programs Entity Time- frame Funding Source Constraint Addressed (Chapter IV) 4 Implement the City's Housing
Impact Fee Program.
H-2.11 a. Develop and implement the Housing
Impact Fee Program by the effective date.b. Utilize the fees generated to finance the development of housing that is affordable to the workforce.
Housing, PBCE
a. 2016b. 2016, Ongoing
Program will pay its own administrative costs through fee generation H. State and federal government
5 Acquire land for residential
development, especially near
transit for the development of low- and moderate- income housing.
H-2.12 a. Utilize resources to acquire land.
b. Partner with transit agencies such as VTA and BART to explore and facilitate transit-oriented development (See workplan item #15)c. Explore the creation of a land bank to ensure the creation of affordable housing within Urban Villages.d. Explore partnerships such as Community Land Trusts to facilitate acquisition of land.
Housing a. 2015,
Ongoing, Assess Annually b. 2015, Ongoing, Assess Annuallyc. 2016-17d. 2016-17 Fee programs, CDBG, HOME, Cap and Trade, program income, other L: Market forces
2 City of San José Housing Element (2014‐2023): Implementation Work Plan Goal GP Policy Action/Programs Entity Time- frame Funding Source Constraint Addressed (Chapter IV) 6 Advance Inclusionary Housing
Programs.
H-2.12 a. Continue to defend the Citywide
inclusionary housing ordinance in court.b. Continue to implement the City's existing inclusionary housing policy on for-sale projects in former redevelopment areas.
Housing Ongoing Inclusionary
housing fees
H. State and federal government
7 Increase supply of permanent
supportive housing for homeless individuals.
H-2.7 a. Explore all opportunities to create
homeless apartments with supportive services within the City.
Housing,Santa Clara County,Housing Authority
Ongoing,D3 Assess Annually
HUD Section 8, Santa Clara County Rental Subsidies, and other Federal and State Sources L: Market forces
3 City of San José Housing Element (2014‐2023): Implementation Work Plan Goal GP Policy Action/Programs Entity Time- frame Funding Source Constraint Addressed (Chapter IV) 8 Preserve existing deedrestricted multifamily rental
homes.
H-2.13H-2.14
a. Develop a funding framework to guide the allocation of resources between the production of new affordable homes or the preservation of existing affordable homes.b. Fund the extension of the affordability restrictions for existing multifamily affordable homes pending funding availability.c. Monitor at-risk units and upon notification outreach with landlord, tenants, and qualified entities to assist with funding preservation of existing homes.d. Explore and establish an outreach and tenant education program.
Housing a. 2015-16
b. Ongoingc. Ongoing
d 2015 16
Tax Credit and various Federal, State, and local sources K. Availability of Financing, L. Market Forces
9 Continue parkland fee reduction
for new affordable housing development.
H-2.1 a. Continue to charge affordable housing
developers a lower rate under the Parkland Dedication Ordinance (PDO) and Park Impact Fee (PIO) for new affordable housing developments.
Housing Ongoing Not applicable H. State and federal
government
4 City of San José Housing Element (2014‐2023): Implementation Work Plan Goal GP Policy Action/Programs Entity Time- frame Funding Source Constraint Addressed (Chapter IV) 10 Shape national, state, regional
and local programs, policies and
regulations to facilitate affordable housing development.
H-2.13H-2.14H-2.11
a. Help shape the National Housing Trust Fund, GSE reform, tax reform and other Federal policies that create funding for affordable housing development.b. Shape cap and trade implementation.c. Shape permanent source to replace lost State bond funding that was depleted.d. Support new tools that replace Redevelopment Agency Low/Moderate Income Housing Funds including Infrastructure Financing Districts.
Housing a. Ongoing
b. 2015-2016c. Ongoingd. Ongoing
Not applicable H. State and federal
government
5 City of San José Housing Element (2014‐2023): Implementation Work Plan Goal GP Policy Action/Programs Entity Time- frame Funding Source Constraint Addressed (Chapter IV) 11 Advance regional solutions to
address housing needs.
H-1.11IE-3.3
a. Work collaboratively with other City departments, local jurisdictions and working groups such as the Santa Clara CDBG Grants Management Group, Regional Housing Working Group, ABAG/MTC's One Bay Area Plan, Regional Prosperity Plan, Santa Clara Association of Planning Officials, and other initiatives.
Housing Ongoing N/A G. Regional
coordination
12 Advance regional solutions to
address housing needs.
H-1.11IE-3.3
a. Explore creation of regional body or formal collaboration to make more efficient use of limited resources, maximize the delivery of affordable housing, or respond to homelessness.b. Explore strategies to facilitate a more balanced regional distribution of affordable housing production.
Housing Ongoing Not applicable G. Regional
coordination
13 Coordinate and implement
housing policies and goals contained in the City's housing plans.
H-2.8 a. Develop a Housing Element,
Consolidated Plan and 5-Year Investment Plan with goals and measurable actions that are consistent with each other.
Housing, PBCE
2015 Not applicable A. General Plan
Policies
Coordination
Potential Actions
6 City of San José Housing Element (2014‐2023): Implementation Work Plan Goal GP Policy Action/Programs Entity Time- frame Funding Source Constraint Addressed (Chapter IV) 14 Coordinate with Valley
Transportation Authority (VTA) on transit- oriented development activities.
H-1.11IE-3.3
a. Explore ways to facilitate transitoriented affordable housing development near BART, Light Rail, and Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) stations, including identification of opportunities to develop parcels owned by either agency with affordable housing.
Housing, PBCE
a. 2015, Ongoing
Not applicable G. Regional
coordination
7 City of San José Housing Element (2014‐2023): Implementation Work Plan Goal GP Policy Action/Programs Entity Time- frame Funding Source Constraint Addressed (Chapter IV) 15 Develop and Implement Urban
Village Plans.
IP-5.1 a. Explore various funding mechanisms
and programs to help finance infrastructure and amenities for Urban Villages.b. Complete and/or implement Urban Village plans for The Alameda, West San Carlos, South Bascom, and Diridon Station.c. Develop and implement additional Horizon 1 and other Horizon Urban Village Plans as appropriate. d. Annually and as part of the Four Year Major Review of the General Plan evaluate the Urban Village Strategy and modify the Strategy as appropriate and needed, to facilitate its successful implementation, and to evaluate and address constraints.
PBCEHousingOED PW DOTDOFCMOPRNS
a. Ongoing, Assess Annuallyb. 2015c. 2016-23d. Assess Annually, 2015-16 & 2019-20 (4-year Major Review) City staff time funded by Developer Fees and other sources L. Market Forces
Housing Planning Tools
8 City of San José Housing Element (2014‐2023): Implementation Work Plan Goal GP Policy Action/Programs Entity Time- frame Funding Source Constraint Addressed (Chapter IV) 16 Maximize the City's
competitiveness for external infrastructure funding to create complete, high quality living environments.
LU-9 a. Continue to explore new funding sources
for parks, transportation, and other types of infrastructure that favor cities with a demonstrated commitment to building affordable housing.b. Such programs include OBAG, Cap and Trade and other regional, state, and Federal programs.
HousingPRNSPWDOTOED
a. Ongoingb. Ongoing, Assess Annually
Not applicable K. Availability of
financing
17 Work with the private sector to
help facilitate the development of affordable homes.
H-2.1H-2.2
a. Adopt City-wide density bonus ordinance in compliance with updated State law offering specific incentives and concessions to encourage the construction of affordable homes while remaining sufficiently flexible to respond to market conditions across the City.b. Continue to negotiate developer agreements in exchange for "extraordinary benefits" including affordable housing.
PBCE, Housing
a. 2015b. Ongoing
City staff time funded by Developer Fees or General Fund B. Zoning Regulations, L: Market forces,
9 City of San José Housing Element (2014‐2023): Implementation Work Plan Goal GP Policy Action/Programs Entity Time- frame Funding Source Constraint Addressed (Chapter IV) 18 Protect mobile home parks as a
source of naturally affordable housing.
H-2 a. Explore the efficacy of the existing
mobile home conversion requirements and potential updates/responses in order to protect an appropriate supply of mobile homes.
PBCE, Housing
a. 2015-16 To Be
Determined
L: Market forces
19 Facilitate the increase of the
supply of legal secondary units.
H-2.9 a. Consider amending the existing
secondary unit ordinance to facilitate a larger supply of compact "naturally affordable" homes. b. Develop and provide informational materials to inform homeowners of the development standards and the process for secondary unit approval and construction.
PBCE, Housing
a. 2015b. 2015-16
General Fund B. Zoning
Regulations
20 Continue to ensure that existing
redevelopment-assisted housing remains in compliance with long-term restrictions on rents and tenant incomes.
H-1.7 a. Continue to monitor redevelopment
assisted homes for compliance with restrictions and other regulations.
Housing Ongoing Housing
Department Program Income
L: Market forces
21 Continue to update the City's
Zoning Code to facilitate housing at urban densities.
H-2.1 a. Evaluate and revise as appropriate
Zoning Code to reduce parking ratios for Emergency Shelters, such as from 1 space for every 4 residents to 1 space for every 10 residents.b. Evaluate and modify existing or develop new Zoning Code to set appropriate parking ratios for developments in transitrich or in urban/infill locations.
PBCE a. 2015-16
b. 2015-17
City staff time funded by Developer Fees or General Fund I. Price of land
10 City of San José Housing Element (2014‐2023): Implementation Work Plan Goal GP Policy Action/Programs Entity Time- frame Funding Source Constraint Addressed (Chapter IV) 22 Assess development application
and review process. Consider improvements as needed.
FS-1.5H-2.1
a. Conduct an annual Customer Satisfaction Survey Study to measure satisfaction and to provide insight into how services can be improved.
PBCE a. Annual
Ongoing
City staff time funded by Developer Fees or General Fund E. Application Review Procedures/Processing Time, F. Fees, Taxes, and Other Exactions 11 City of San José Housing Element (2014‐2023): Implementation Work Plan Goal GP Policy Action/Programs Entity Time- frame Funding Source Constraint Addressed (Chapter IV)
23 Facilitate the development of
Single Room Occupancy (SRO) buildings.
H-1.2 a. Modernize development standards for
Single Room Occupancy (SRO) housing.
PBCE, Housing
a. 2015 City staff time
funded by Developer Fees or General Fund
B. Zoning Regulations
24 Minimize the impacts of condoconversions on households. H-3.6 a. Assess the rate of apartment to condominium conversions and impacts on the rental housing stock to determine if displacement is an issue. b. If displacement is identified as an issue, explore and establish policies and programs as appropriate to mitigate the potential impact on renters in the event of a condo-conversion.
Housing a. 2016-17
b. 2017-18
City staff time funded by Developer Fees or General Fund L: Market forces
25 Design, fund, and evaluate
outreach, rapid rehousing, and supportive service programs for homeless individuals and families.
H-1.2 a. Continue to fund various nonprofit
agencies that provide services to people who are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless. Funding includes but is not limited to programs geared toward preventing and ending homelessness, programs that permanently house homeless households with case management, one-time purchase of capital needs and equipment.
Housing, Santa Clara County, Housing Authority, Destination: Home a. 2016-2017, Ongoing, Assess Annually
Federal TBRA, ESG, and CDBG funds and the General Fund
L: Market forces
2. Invest In Activities To End Homelessness
Potential Actions
12 City of San José Housing Element (2014‐2023): Implementation Work Plan Goal GP Policy Action/Programs Entity Time- frame Funding Source Constraint Addressed (Chapter IV) 26 Implement master-lease
program to provide transitional housing for homeless people in existing under-occupied hotels.
H-1.2 a. Revise Zoning Code to allow Hotel
Supportive Housing as an incidental use to commercial hotels in non-residential zoning districts.b. Seek funding to begin implementation.
PBCE, Housing
2014 To Be
Determined
B. Zoning Regulations
13 City of San José Housing Element (2014‐2023): Implementation Work Plan Goal GP Policy Action/Programs Entity Time- frame Funding Source Constraint Addressed (Chapter IV) 27 Engage in regional homeless
coordination, planning efforts, and other initiatives with external partner agencies.
H-2.7 a. In cooperation with the County
Destination: Home, and other community partners prepare and implement the new Community Plan to End Homelessness in Santa Clara County that focuses both on chronic homelessness as well as family and youth homelessness.b. Continue work with the County - as the COC applicant - to develop and implement new community-wide standards to ensure compliance for funding associated with the Federal HEARTH Act.
Housing, PBCE, Santa Clara County, Destination: Home
Ongoing Federal TBRA,
ESG, and CDBG funds and the General Fund
G: Regional coordination
28 Provide an encampment
response to abate, prevent, or deter significant encampments that impact the health and safety of the community and homeless individuals.
H-2.7 a. Partner with the Water District and other
interested parties to implement a plan to consistently clean up encampments, prevent re-encampments, and responsibly address with the housing needs and belongings of homeless residents.
Housing, PRNS, Police, ESD, Santa Clara Valley Water District Ongoing Federal TBRA,
ESG, and CDBG funds and the General Fund
N/A
14 City of San José Housing Element (2014‐2023): Implementation Work Plan Goal GP Policy Action/Programs Entity Time- frame Funding Source Constraint Addressed (Chapter IV) 29 Research and explore potential
alternative homeless housing and services options.
H-2.7 a. Examine an array of alternative housing
options, including: tiny homes and other
best practice or new housing models.b. Implement overnight safe parking program.c. Implement hotel/motel master leasing and conversion.
Housing a. Ongoing
b. 2015c. 2015
Federal TBRA, ESG, and CDBG funds and the General Fund
I: Price of landJ: Cost of constructionL: Market forces 30 Inform and engage the
community around the issue of homelessness and how it impacts the City and its residents. a. Develop ongoing community outreach through social and print media to provide comprehensive and consistent messaging on current services, outcomes, challenges, and long-term goals.
Housing Ongoing Federal TBRA,
ESG, and CDBG funds and the General Fund
N/A
15 City of San José Housing Element (2014‐2023): Implementation Work Plan Goal GP Policy Action/Programs Entity Time- frame Funding Source Constraint Addressed (Chapter IV) 31 Facilitate equal access to
housing.
H-1.7H-1.12
a. Update the Assessment of Impediments to Fair Housing.b. Continue to partner with nonprofit organizations to affirmatively further Fair Housing throughout the City.c. Explore opportunities to increase public awareness of and access to fair housing information and resources. d. Review and revise as appropriate Zoning Code definition of Suppportive Housing to clarify that Supportive Housing is a residential use subject only to those restrictions that apply to other residential dwellings of the same type in the same Housing, PBCE
a. 2015b. Ongoingc. 2015-16d. 2015
CDBG and other Federal sources
L: Market forces
e. Review and revise as appropriate the
finding for Reasonable Accommodation regarding the potential impact on surrounding uses to clarify that finding is limited to how a Reasonable Accommodation could potentially undermine the basic purpose of maintaining the character of a neighborhood or how a Reasonable Accommodation could potentially impact the health or safety of neighbors. e. 2015
3. Promote Equitable Development
16 City of San José Housing Element (2014‐2023): Implementation Work Plan Goal GP Policy Action/Programs Entity Time- frame Funding Source Constraint Addressed (Chapter IV) 32 Update the City's dispersion
policy to align with the Envision 2040 General Plan.
H-2.10 a. Update the City's existing dispersion
policy: 1) to align the location of future affordable housing with residential growth areas identified in the Envision 2040 General Plan; 2) to maximize the access of transit, retail, services, and amenities to affordable housing developments; and 3) to facilitate the development of diverse and complete communities.
Housing a. 2016 Not applicable L: Market forces
33 Protect the affordability of rental
homes.
H-2H-.1.7
a. Assess the efficacy of the existing rent control ordinance as a tool for preserving the affordability of rental homes and the feasibility of strengthening the program.b. Review Rental Rights and Referral Program to determine opportunities for improvement.c. Secure voluntary agreements for at least 75% of petitions within ordinance-required 30 day period.d. Explore and establish other preservation policies, programs, or tools as appropriate.
Housing a. 2015-16
b. 2015-16c. Ongoingd. Ongoing, Assess Annually
Rental Rights and Referral Program (RRP fees).
L: Market forces
17 City of San José Housing Element (2014‐2023): Implementation Work Plan Goal GP Policy Action/Programs Entity Time- frame Funding Source Constraint Addressed (Chapter IV) 34 Consider proposed policies or
ordinances to protect low and moderate income residents in market-rate and deed-restricted affordable housing from displacement.
H-1.2 a. Explore policy requiring tenant
relocation benefits so displaced low and moderate income tenants in market-rate housing can find comparable and affordable housing in San Jose.b. Explore other anti-displacement policies or programs, including financing, land use, and acquisition strategies.
Housing a. 2017-18
b. Ongoing
Not applicable L: Market forces
35 Increase the health and
resilience of communities
VN-1.14VN-2.1
a. Develop partnerships, policies, and programs to increase access to healthy foods and health care resources, especially for lower-income and at-risk communities.b. Explore and establish as appropriate strategies to increase economic opportunities, self-sufficiency, and assetbuilding for households and communities.c. Explore a "soft story" rehabilitation program to facilitate seismic retrofits of atrisk buildings.
HousingPBCE
a. 2015-17b. Ongoingc. 2015-16
Grants and other sources
Not applicable
Potential Actions
4. Create Healthy, Sustainable, Communities and Neighborhoods 18 City of San José Housing Element (2014‐2023): Implementation Work Plan Goal GP Policy Action/Programs Entity Time- frame Funding Source Constraint Addressed (Chapter IV) 36 Enhance San Jose's placebased neighborhood strategies. H-2.3 a. Develop a strategic framework for neighborhood strategies that establishes investment criteria, priorities, goals, and metrics.b. Implement the Community Improvement Program to provide enhanced inspection services to multi-family rental properties to arrest the decline and deterioration of aging housing stock and reduce blighted conditions within lower income neighborhoods within CDBG areas.
HousingPBCE
a. 2015-16b. Ongoing
CDBG Not applicable
19 City of San José Housing Element (2014‐2023): Implementation Work Plan Goal GP Policy Action/Programs Entity Time- frame Funding Source Constraint Addressed (Chapter IV) 37 Educate rental property owners
on ways to better manage tenants and prevent crime.
H-2.3 a. Organize classes for property owners
and managers with instruction provided by
a professional property manager, crime prevention specialist, attorney, mediator, and other related experts.
PBCE Ongoing Residential
Occupancy Permit Fees
Not applicable
38 Continue robust code
enforcement.
H-2.3 a. Multiple Housing Inspection Program:
this program issues permits of occupancy for all apartments, hotels/motels, guesthouses, residential care facilities, and
fraternity/sorority houses. Code Enforcement Inspectors investigate complaints about substandard housing and conduct inspections.b. Vacant Neglected Building Program: this program monitors all identified vacant or neglected buildings so that they remain safe and secure until such time as they are rehabilitated and reoccupied. This proactive program reduces the risk of loitering, illegal occupancy, and fire hazards.
PBCE Ongoing CDBG
Residential Occupancy Fees
Not applicable
20 City of San José Housing Element (2014‐2023): Implementation Work Plan Goal GP Policy Action/Programs Entity Time- frame Funding Source Constraint Addressed (Chapter IV) 39 Continue to partner with the
Responsible Landlord Engagement Initiative (RLEI).
a. Continue to support the collaboration of landlords, tenants, community leaders, elected officials, service providers and social justice advocates to identify solutions for longstanding issues with crime, safety, nuisance, gang activities, graffiti, abandoned cars, trash and more at residential properties.b. Staff from Rental Rights and Referrals Program will continue to attend RLEI meetings.
NHSSVUnited NeighborhoodsPDPBCEHousing
Ongoing This program is
managed and funded by a nongovernmental entity
Not applicable
40 Facilitate residential
development that minimizes environmental impacts and operating costs.
H-4.1H-4.2H-4.3
a. Monitor availability of funding sources for energy and water efficiency measures.b. Explore alternate bulk energy procurement mechanisms.
Housing Ongoing Cap and Trade
and other State and Federal programs
M. Environmental Hazards and Limitations
41 Maintain the stock of existing
owner-occupied homes.
H-2.3 a. Continue to work with nonprofit partners
to provide low cost loans for emergency home repairs.b. Continue to provide minor grants and low cost loans for urgent repair needs as funds remain available.
Housing Ongoing CDBG K. Availability of
financing
42 Continue to support financial
literacy programs for potential homebuyers as funds remain available.
H-1.6 a. Continue to work with nonprofit
organizations to educate homebuyers.
Housing Ongoing Program
Income
K. Availability of financing
21 City of San José Housing Element (2014‐2023): Implementation Work Plan Goal GP Policy Action/Programs Entity Time- frame Funding Source Constraint Addressed (Chapter IV) 43 Continue to assist low- and
moderate-income first-time homebuyers as funds remain available.
H-1.6H-1.13
a. Originate 5 BEGIN second mortgages per year pending funding availability.
Housing Ongoing State BEGIN
program
L: Market forces
22 City of San José Housing Element (2014‐2023): Implementation Work Plan Goal GP Policy Action/Programs Entity Time- frame Funding Source Constraint Addressed (Chapter IV) 44 Explore providing design
guidance for convenient site accessibility for residents, workers, and visitors.
ERS-3.10 a. Explore utilization of existing accessible
homes.b. Explore partnership with organizations that provide outreach to disabled persons.c. Explore ways to encourage site accessibility design in residential development.
HousingPBCE
Ongoing, Assess Annually
CDBG, General Fund
L: Market forces
Potential Actions
23 San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Appendix E‐0 Appendix E:
Evaluation of Prior Housing
Element Work Program
San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Appendix E‐1
Housing Rehabilitation Program – Single-Family Home Loan Program: Households earning no more than 80% of the County Area Median Income (AMI) may qualify for loans up to $150,000 to rehabilitate their homes. Eligible properties within the City’s Strong Neighborhoods Initiative (SNI) Areas qualify for a 0% interest loan up to $150,000. Properties not within the SNI areas may be eligible for a 3% loan. A maximum $40,000 zero-percent loan is available to low-income (80% of AMI) owner-occupants on a City-wide basis. Qualifying rehabilitation work includes achieving compliance with the health and safety standards of the City's Housing Code, repairing or replacing structural deficiencies, and energy conservation measures. Payments on most HPP loans may be deferred until transfer or change of title.
As a goal, 50% of HPP are to be spent in Strong Neighborhood Initiative (SNI) areas of the City which are characterized by higher concentrations of lower-income households and older housing stock in the greatest need of rehabilitation. Annual goal is to complete between 20 and 30 singlefamily loan projects per year. Additional emphasis is now being given to energy conservation, and the use of recycled and Green materials in the program. Increase the number of rehabilitation loans - the goal is for the loans to exceed 50% of total rehabilitation dollars approved each year.
Ongoing Program. However, because of limited funding, fewer loans will be funded; funding limitations also require a higher concentration of loans to be targeted within the City’s SNI areas.
Due to ongoing funding challenges including the elimination of the State’s Redevelopment agencies and continued reductions in federal funding, the City has shifted its funding priorities over the last three years. Between July 2009 and June 2014 a total of 167 loans for $5,472,000 were approved. 63 out of the 167 loans were approved in the SNI areas for a total of $1,900,000 or 36% of funds approved overall. From July 2009 to June 2014 146 loan projects were completed.
Housing Rehabilitation Program – Single-Family Homeowner Grant Program: Homeowners earning up 80% of the County Area Median Income (AMI) may apply for a one-time grant from the City’s Housing Department to address health and safety needs, disabled access and energy efficiency. The City provides one-time repair grants of up to $15,000 in SNI areas and $5,000 in non-SNI areas. The maximum grant amount is graduated based on the income of the applicant household. This program is administered on a “Needs Basis” and primarily serves single-family owner-occupied homes. The grant is offered to owners with eligible repairs that are minor in nature providing all health and safety issues can be addressed Goal is to spend 50% of rehabilitation funds in SNI neighborhoods and to serve lower-income residents.
On Hold Due to ongoing
funding challenges including the elimination of the State’s Redevelopment agencies and the continued reductions in federal funds the City suspended the homeowner grant as of January 2013. Between July 2009 and June 2014, 202 grants San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Appendix E‐2
with the grant. Additional funds of up to $5,000 may be made available for energy efficiency upgrades based on the results of an energy audit. Energy efficiency funds are provided in conjunction with other rehabilitation funding only. The program also offers grants of up to $10,000 to ensure that low-income seniors and special needs clients receive adequate funding to address accessibility needs. . If more repairs are required to address health and safety needs, the applicant will be referred to the Housing Preservation Program. were approved. 63 grant were approved to unduplicated households A total of $1.6M of grants were approved, with just over $1M or 62% approved in SNI areas. Between July 2009 and June 2014, 228 grant projects were completed to assist 104 unduplicated households.
Minor Grants for Minor and Urgent Repair Needs Partially funded though the City’s Housing Department Rebuilding Together Silicone Valley provides both direct and contracted services for minor and urgent repairs to household earning below 80% of the Area’s Median Income ($75,050 for a family of 4). The Program deploys contractors to assist eligible households with urgent repair needs such as plumbing leaks, hazardous electrical, and furnace replacements in Winter.
To provide emergency contractor services to mitigate health and safety emergencies for San Jose's lowincome mobilehome and single-family property owners.
Ongoing Program
The program, once administered by the City, is currently administered through the non-profit Rebuilding Together Silicon Valley. Between July 2009 and June 2014, 177 Minor repairs were approved. 203 minor repair grants were completed.
Mobilehome Repair Loan Program: Owner occupants of mobilehomes earning up to 80% of the County Area Median Income may apply for a 0% rehabilitation loan up to $20,000. Very low-income and extremely low-income mobilehome owners may apply for a one-time grant of up to $15,000. Qualifying rehabilitation work is limited to those measures necessary to achieve compliance with State Health and Safety standards and applicable park regulations.
Completion of approximately 120 - 140 mobilehome rehabilitations is expected annually. Mobilehome budget is kept to within 25% of Rehabilitation budget.
On Hold Due to ongoing
funding challenges including the elimination of the State’s Redevelopment agencies and the continued reductions in federal funds the City suspended the Mobilehome loan Program in January 2013. Between July San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Appendix E‐3
2009 and June 2014, 266 mobilehome loans and grants were approved and 356 mobilehome projects were completed.
Mobilehome Seismic Repair Program: Owner occupants of mobile homes located in previously identified mobile home parks with a high concentration of units that are not structurally braced would qualify for seismic bracing of their mobile homes. 650 individual mobile homes will be retrofitted under this FEMA/CalEMA grant. Existing Rehabilitation Program Staff, systems and standards to ensure that the retrofit work is being properly reviewed, tracked and completed in accordance with all program requirements.
Completion of 650 mobilehome seismic retrofits prior to October 2013.
Ongoing Program
After demonstrating ongoing success of the program and cost savings over the first three years, FEMA granted the City an extension of the expenditure timeline to allow the City to retrofit an additional 200 mobilehomes. The new program goal is to retrofit 850 mobilehomes by October 2014. Since implementing the Program in October 2010 the program completed 730 mobilehome retrofits.
San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Appendix E‐5
teachers are still served through other homeownership efforts, including the BEGIN and NSP2 programs, subject to the depletion of these funds.
Project-based Second Mortgages**: The City provides 45-year second mortgages in varied amounts for low and moderate-Income homebuyers in ownership housing projects for which the City has previously provided financial assistance for development. Moving forward, the City does not intend to provide predevelopment and construction financing for for-sale projects. Instead, the City may offer second mortgages to qualified homebuyers once the project is complete.
Assist low- and moderate-Income homebuyers
Discontinued due to loss of funding from the dissolution of the Redevelopment Agency From 2009-14, 101 loans totaling $5.4 million were provided through this program. This program concluded on June 30, 2011.
The Home Venture Fund (Formerly Vernal Fund): Private lenders entered into an agreement with NHSSV, a nonprofit organization, to provide down-payment assistance loans to both lowand moderate-income homebuyers. Loan amounts range from $10,000 to $60,000 per household with an average loan amount of $40,000. Interest derived from grants is used to make interest payments on behalf of the borrower during the five-year loan deferral period. At year five, the loans are sold to NHSA and the proceeds invested into new second mortgages.
Assist low- and moderate-Income homebuyers
Ongoing Program
No new loans were provided through this funding source in calendar year 2013 American Dream Down-Payment Initiative: As part of the Federal Home Investment Partnership (HOME) subprogram, the City of San José has received over $600,000 since 2002 to be used for down-payment assistance for low-income first time homebuyers.
Assist low-Income first-time homebuyers Discontinued The City did not receive any federal allocation of ADDI funds during the 2009-14 Housing Element review period. This program is a subset of the federal HOME program. Funds for this program were deemed duplicative of the eligible uses of HOME funds so future ADDI allocations are San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Appendix E‐6
highly unlikely.
The San José State University (SJSU) Faculty and Staff Homebuyer Program**: In 2006, the City entered into an agreement with San José State University to jointly-fund and administers a homeownership program for University faculty. The program was later broadened to include all SJSU full-time permanent employees. The program offers up to $50,000 to income eligible employees in the form of a deferred repayment loan.
Assist in the recruitment and retention of university employees.
Discontinued, when San José State University decided to terminate the program From 2009-14, 7 loans for $357,000 were provided through this program. This program concluded June 30, 2010 Redevelopment Area Inclusionary Housing Program: Through the City’s Redevelopment Area Inclusionary Housing Program, housing developers in City redevelopment areas are required to provide a second mortgage to low-and/or moderate-income homebuyers to make homes affordable.
Assist low- and moderate-Income homebuyers
Ongoing Program
The City’s Inclusionary Housing Policy is in effect for ownership projects and requires 20% affordable housing in newly constructed for-sale housing projects with more than 10 units or the payment of an in-lieu fee. The inclusionary housing requirements for rental housing have been suspended until such time as the limitation in the Palmer decision is
overturned or modified by the court or by the legislature. Additionally, the program has also provided a source of funding for affordable housing through in-lieu fees collected when developers opt out of the providing affordable units by paying fees. From 2009-14, developers have opted to pay approximately $7.6 million San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Appendix E‐7
in in-lieu fees. A total of 95 affordable inclusionary units and 425 negotiated affordable units have also been created through this program.
Citywide Inclusionary Housing Program In 2010, the City of San Jose approved a Citywide Inclusionary Housing Ordinance that required affordable housing obligations on all new forsale developments of 20 or more units. The ordinance was originally expected to go into effect on January 1, 2013, and would have required that 15% of the homes built citywide be affordable.
Assist low- and moderate-Income homebuyers
On Hold As of 2014, the Citywide
Ordinance is still being litigated and its implementation has been stayed by the Court. Should the ordinance be successfully defended by the City, the ordinance will go into effect after a sixmonth noticing period. Projects will be grandfathered, based on criteria to be determined when the implementation plan is approved. ** There may be some double counting of outcomes as a single homebuyer may layer loans from multiple programs to help fund the purchase of his home.
San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Appendix E‐9
Housing Trust funds can be used for a variety of activities that support the City’s goal of ending homelessness, including personnel support, outreach and engagement services, and case management support. HTF supports the County-wide campaign to end chronic homelessness and continues to fund studies and plans that are used to implement strategies and innovative programs. permanently housed. 2012, HTF
funds were used for outreach, case management and housing financial assistance in the Downtown Core. 131 clients were served under the Destination:Home program, 7,560 homeless were contacted through Downtown Outreach and 259 individuals were provided with housing.
Homeless Encampment Program: The City is coordinating with outside agencies across sectors to address the homeless encampment issue in San Jose, including developing and implementing new clean-up protocols, deterrence, and prevention activities, as well as seeking additional opportunities to provide housing and services to the encampment residents.
Mitigate community, environmental, and health impacts of homeless encampments, while seeking alternative housing solutions for the homeless.
Ongoing Continue to implement
program. A balanced approach of enforcement and outreach has been adopted. Over 1,100 tons of garbage has been collected from the encampments.
Housing Services Partnership (HSP): The City contracts with a local homeless services provider to administer the HSP program, which is funded by the Housing Trust Fund. This program provides chronically homeless persons with financial assistance in the form of first month's rent, security deposit, and oneway greyhound tickets.
Assist chronically homeless persons to attain and maintain permanent housing.
Discontinued Program extended
through 2014 but with no additional funding. The Housing Services Partnership served 378 chronically homeless clients obtain and maintain housing.
Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program (HPRP): HPRP is funded program through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). It is designed to rapidly re-house homeless residents and prevent homelessness for at-risk residents. The program provides just enough short and medium-term financial assistance and case management to resolve the crises and re-stabilize the households.
Assist homeless and at-risk residents to become self-sufficient, and become permanently housed.
Discontinued (October 2009 - October 2012)
Program ended in July 2012 with the conclusion of the ARRA funding period. The program assisted 1,303 households with Homeless Prevention case management and San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Appendix E‐10
financial assistance; additionally, 381 households that experienced homelessness also received case management and financial assistance.
Tenant-Based Rental Assistance Program (TBRA): The City administers three TBRA programs utilizing its federal HOME program funds as described below. The program provides participants with housing search, placement, security deposit and rental assistance. The City funds a local nonprofit to provide the day to day administration of the programs.
1. TBRA I is designed to provide housing and support services to chronically homeless mentally ill residents. The City has partnered with the Santa Clara County Department of Mental Health to provide case management services to program clients.
2. TBRA II is a pilot program targeting chronically homeless households, who have substance abuse issues, and reside in and around St. James Park in San Jose. The City has partnered with the County Department of Drug and Alcohol Services to provide case management and services to program clients.
3. TBRA III is a program targeting households residing in selected San Jose homeless encampments. The City is partnering with several nonprofit homeless service agencies to provide case management to program clients.
Assist homeless persons to attain and maintain housing.
October 2009 - June 2015
Continue to implement and oversee programs. TBRA 1 served 85 clients with severe mental illness, out of which 62% transitioned to permanent housing. TBRA 2 served 15 households, all of whom are still being housed. TBRA 3 served 15 chronically homeless households, 11 of whom are still obtaining services from the program
San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Appendix E‐12
(Mayfair and Gateway East), Roundtable Drive Apartments (Edenvale/Great Oaks), and Underwood Apartments (Blackford). stock within that community. repaving and sealing,
electrical, plumbing, NG (natural gas?) safety and re-pipe, and the replacement of security lighting with LED lighting.
Neighborhood Stabilization Program: The Housing Trust of Santa Clara County (HTSCC), City of San Jose and Neighborhood Housing Services Silicon Valley (NHSSV) have formed the San Jose Consortium (Consortium) to apply for and administer a $25 million grant for the NSP, made available by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009. The main objectives of this grant are to stabilize neighborhoods in the Target Geography by reducing the number of foreclosed or abandoned homes and residential properties and to create affordable housing opportunities for very-low, low- and moderate-income households. The Consortium will provide secondary financing to income eligible purchasers of foreclosed homes and will purchase and rehabilitate foreclosed or abandoned homes in the Target Geography. The program also provides funding for rental affordable housing developments.
Acquire and rehabilitate homes that were previously foreclosed or abandoned. Then, the City’s partners sell the homes to moderate or low-income first-time buyers for owner-occupancy purposes. The goal of the Consortium is to assist in the purchase of no less than 205 foreclosed properties or units for the purpose of creating affordable homes.
All funding must be spent by February 11, 2013. However, the City is allowed to continue the program for up to 5 years using NSP2 program income (residual proceeds) After meeting the Program’s statutory expenditure deadlines, the NSP consortium continued to implement the NSP2 grant primarily utilizing Program Income generated from the sale of NSP funded homes. The Consortium re-evaluated the original implementation and program goals and realigned strategies. The new program projections include: PAL (what is PAL?) - 51 units
Dream Home 41
Units
25% set aside 175
units
Between 2009 and 2014 the NSP2 program provided a cumulative outcome of:
Assisted 51
homebuyer in the purchase of formerly foreclosed
San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Appendix E‐13
homes Through the PAL program
41 homes
purchased and rehabilitated through the San Jose Dream Home Program 39 Homes sold to
income eligible homebuyers through the San Jose Dream Home Program 58 units acquired
and rehabilitated and rented to households earning 50% or less of the Area Median Income 19 units funded and
built to house individuals with special needs earning 50% or less of the Area Median Income 75 units funded to house families earning 50% or less of the Area Median Income
San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Appendix E‐15
City as “Developer”: State law stipulates that affordable housing (along with parks and public education) have priority for surplus property owned by any public agency created under State auspices. The Housing Department seeks to purchase such properties owned by the City of San Jose, the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), CalTrans, the 19 school districts in San Jose, the Santa Clara Valley Water District and other public agencies for housing development. Properties so acquired are subsequently transferred or leased to nonprofit and for-profit developers for the construction of affordable housing projects Continue to seek opportunity sites for affordable housing with a focus on rental special needs units Ongoing Program
From. 2009-14 the City purchased one site from the General Fund for the development of 75 affordable rentals for seniors.
San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Appendix E‐16
Table VII-2, PBCE Work Program
5. Public Outreach Policy A consistent public outreach policy was needed to improve communications, alleviate concerns, and clarify misunderstandings or Involve interested parties in the development review process through early notification and Completed In 2005, the City Council adopted
the Public Outreach Policy, which includes requirements for public
1. Envision San Jose 2040 General Plan The City of San Jose had not performed a comprehensive update of its General Plan since 1994. An update was needed to address future housing needs and appropriately balance these needs with goals for job growth and improved fiscal sustainability.
Prepare a comprehensive update of the General Plan.
Completed/Ongoing
On November 1, 2011, the City Council adopted the Envision Plan, and the City’s efforts to implement the Plan are ongoing.
2. Zoning Code Amendments Title 20 of the San Jose Municipal Code, otherwise known as the Zoning Ordinance or Zoning Code, is continually reviewed to identify opportunities to reduce constraints and streamline processes without diminishing the City’s ability to achieve its overall land use goals.
Reduce constraints on housing development.
Ongoing Since State certification of the
City’s Housing Element in 2009, numerous housing-related ordinances have been adopted per this work program item.
3. Secondary Units In 2005, the City Council initiated a Secondary Unit Pilot Program to temporarily test and evaluate a set of secondary unit development standards for a period of one year. Then, in 2008, an ordinance was adopted which permanently allowed secondary units that conform to modified Zoning Code requirements.
Facilitate the production of secondary units.
Ongoing Per the Envision San Jose 2040
General Plan, the City continues to explore options to improve the effectiveness of the secondary unit provision (see Envision Policy H-2.5 and Action H-2.9).
4. California Building Standards Code The State Building Standards Commission (BSC) publishes triennial editions of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 24, also known as the California Building Standards Code. Most recently, on July 1, 2013, the BSC published the 2013 edition of the standards, which apply to any building or structure for which application for a building permit is made on or after January 1, 2014.
Protect the health, welfare, and safety of residents.
Ongoing On November 5, 2013, the City
Council approved an ordinance amending Title 24 of the San Jose Municipal Code and adopting the 2013 code editions, with local amendments.
San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Appendix E‐17
points of contention that typically arise at a public hearing occurring late in the development review process. accessibility of information. notice signage and, for larger development proposals, a community meeting.
6. Enhanced High-Rise Design Review Process A process was needed to allow staff and decision makers to apply relevant sections of the Downtown Design Guidelines, be advised by the City’s Architectural Review Committee (ARC), and receive public input on proposed high-rise development during both the Preliminary Review and entitlement phases.
Support intensification of the Downtown and other major transit corridors and employment areas.
Completed In 2007, the Enhanced High-Rise
Design Review process was introduced, and is applicable to buildings 100 feet or more in height.
7. Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) and Mid-Rise/High-Rise Residential Design Guidelines
Design guidelines were needed for TOD and mid-rise/high-rise development providing specific parameters and a common understanding of the minimum design standards necessary to conduct the review process in an efficient manner.
Streamline the development review process, promote compact urban development, and facilitate quality design.
Completed In 2007, the City adopted design
guidelines applicable to TOD and mid-rise/high-rise residential projects.
Table VII-2, PBCE Work Program
San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Appendix E‐18
8. Development Permit Reactivation/Extension As a result of the economic downturn, additional incentives and flexibility were needed to help applicants overcome various challenges in their desire to pursue the completion of entitled development projects.
Provide incentive for the implementation of projects impacted by the economic downturn.
Completed In 2009, an ordinance was
adopted to allow reactivation and/or extension of certain Development Permits for a limited time period. In 2012, an ordinance was adopted authorizing the Planning Director to extend Development Permits for small residential projects through a Permit Adjustment.
9. Discretionary Alternate Use Policy Flexibility
In 2007, the City Council approved a General Plan text amendment allowing Discretionary Alternate Use (DAU) policies to be applied via issuance of a Use Permit. Prior to approval of this measure, the use of DAU policies often required the filing of a Planned Development rezoning.
Streamline the entitlement process by avoiding need for the filing of a Planned Development (PD) rezoning.
Completed / Superceded
With City Council approval of the Envision Plan, DAU policies were effectively superseded. Instead, new land use designations were developed to provide sufficient flexibility to allow urban, mixed use development types.
10. High Density Housing/Mixed Use in Conventional Zoning Greater flexibility was needed to respond to the growing trend towards construction of high density housing/mixed use in San Jose. In particular, the City wished to avoid need for applicants to file a Planned Development rezoning, and instead allow such projects to occur in a conventional zoning district with more flexible development standards.
Streamline the entitlement process by avoiding need for the filing of a Planned Development (PD) rezoning.
Completed In 2012, a Zoning Code change
increased densities within the conventional R-M zoning district, thereby allowing high density housing / mixed use via issuance of a Development Permit.
Table VII-2, PBCE Work Program
San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Appendix E‐19
11. General Plan Designation for Commercial near Transit In 2008, the City Council approved amendments to the former General Plan 2020 that created a Transit Corridor Commercial (TCC) land use designation. The TCC designation was intended for areas with convenient transit access, including the Downtown, transit corridors, and proposed BART station areas.
Create new consumer markets in densely developed areas within a reasonable walking distance of major public transit facilities.
Completed With City Council approval of the
Envision Plan, a new Urban Village land use designations was developed to replace the TCC designation.
12. Main Street Districts Ordinance The Main Street Districts ordinance established new zoning districts for mixed residential-commercial development. The ordinance provided significant parking reductions, and allowed further parking reductions based on shared parking facilities, car share programs or unbundled parking.
Streamline the entitlement process for mixed commercialresidential projects along neighborhood "Main Street" areas throughout the City.
Completed On December 14, 2010, the City
Council approved the Main Street Districts ordinance.
13. Alum Rock Corridor Policy Direction In 2009, the City Council applied the TCC general plan land use designation to over 55 acres of land along Alum Rock. Also, a policy document was approved to guide staff in creating a form-based zoning for the Alum Rock corridor.
Facilitate mixed commercialresidential projects on select properties along Alum Rock Avenue.
Completed On October 22, 2013, the new
Main Street districts were first applied in a Director-initiated rezoning of the Alum Rock corridor.
14. Zoning District for Urban Villages To encourage a full range of uses within Urban Villages, the Commercial Pedestrian (CP) zoning district was modified to add land uses applicable to Urban Villages, and development standards were modified for sites within Urban Villages.
Facilitate urban, transitoriented development within Urban Village areas.
Completed On January 14, 2014, the City
Council approved the ordinance to modify the CP zoning district.
Table VII-2, PBCE Work Program
San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Appendix E‐20
15. Integrated Development Services Introduce a fully functional Development Services Center, with an integrated, “one-stop” first-floor location where business related to development applications can be conducted. Development Services partners should include the Planning Division, Building Division, Public Works Department, and Fire Department, among others.
Locate staff in close proximity for improved coordination and customer convenience, avoiding customer visits to departments located on various floors of the 18-story City Hall tower.
Completed A “one-stop” service approach
was tested at Old City Hall. However, not until the organization’s move to New City Hall in 2005 was a fully functional Development Center realized.
16. Application Submittal Process Evaluate opportunities to improve the process for submittal of applications at the Development Services Center without requiring an appointment.
Provide customers with expedited service and additional options for application submittal.
Completed In 2013, key staff was relocated to
the point of customer reception such that application submittals were further prioritized.
17. Online Customer Service Improve customer service by extending the reach of Development Services Center functions in making various services and resources available online. This includes scheduling appointments and inspections, obtaining general information and publications, and applying for simple permits (e.g., water heater replacement).
Provide customers with “selfhelp” opportunities to serve needs at their own convenience, without need to travel to City Hall.
Completed In 2012, the City’s website was
migrated to a new technology platform that is better organized, contains self-subscribe notifications, and an application appointment scheduling system.
18. Transitional and Supportive Housing In 2007, the State of California passed legislation (SB 2) requiring local agencies to plan for and identify areas most appropriate for emergency shelters. This bill added provisions to require identification of a zone or zones where emergency shelters are allowed as a permitted use without a conditional use or other discretionary permit.
Comply with Senate Bill 2 (SB 2).
Completed In 2010, the City Council approved
a Zoning Code change defining “Transitional Housing” and “Supportive Housing,” and clarifying associated regulations.
Table VII-2, PBCE Work Program
San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Appendix E‐21
19. Green Building Policy In October 2007, the City Council adopted the Green Vision, a 15-year plan with ten ambitious goals for economic growth, environmental sustainability, and an enhanced quality of life for San Jose’s residents and businesses. Among these goals was Goal 4: Build or retrofit 50 million square feet of green buildings.
Facilitate achievement of Green Vision Goal 4, and comply with State law as it relates to energy conservation in residential development.
Completed In 2008, the City Council approved
the “Private Sector Green Building Policy for New Construction.” More recently, on November 5, 2013, the City Council approved an ordinance adopting the 2013 edition of the State CALGreen Code.
20. Renewable Energy Use In October 2007, the City Council adopted the Green Vision, a 15-year plan with ten ambitious goals for economic growth, environmental sustainability, and an enhanced quality of life for San Jose’s residents and businesses. Among these goals was Goal 2: Reduce per capita energy use by 50%.
Facilitate achievement of Green Vision Goal 2, and comply with State law as it relates to energy conservation in residential development.
Completed In 2008, a Zoning Code
amendment allowed additional height for renewable energy resources. In a more recent example, on January 14, 2014, the City Council approved addition of a new “Fuel Cell” Zoning Code land use category.
21. Residential Reuse of Historic Structures
The “Historic Reuse” ordinance is designed to allow non-residential historic City Landmark structure to be converted to residential use with issuance of either a Conditional or Special Use Permit.
Facilitate conversion and reuse of historic structures for residential purposes.
Completed In 2010, the City Council approved
the Historic Reuse ordinance.
Table VII-2, PBCE Work Program
Melissa A. Morris
Senior Attorney, Public Interest Law Firm Law Foundation of Silicon Valley 152 North Third Street, Third Floor
San Jose, CA 95112
Direct line: (408) 280-2429
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email message is legally privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy the email after advising by reply that you erroneously received it.
From: Melissa Morris
Sent: Monday, November 11, 2013 9:32 PM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: James Zahradka; Kyra Kazantzis
Subject:
Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers,
As you consider implementation and funding strategies for its Urban Villages during the study session tomorrow, the Law Foundation of Silicon Valley urges you to ensure that the inclusion and preservation of affordable housing, as well as preventing the displacement of low-income communities and communities of color, be made priorities for the development of San Jose’s Urban Villages. The Urban Villages cannot be the livable, walkable neighborhoods that they are intended to be if no one—or no one other than the most wealthy members of our community—can afford to live in them. Just as the City should be strategic and thoughtful about the Urban Villages’ design, their relationship to local and regional transit systems, and their mix of uses, the City should implement policies to ensure that every Urban Village has housing that is affordable to residents at a variety of income levels. One available tool to facilitate the production of affordable housing citywide, a housing impact fee, will be considered by Council on December 10, but the City should also consider other means to guarantee that affordable housing is a key component in the development of the Urban Villages.
Along the same lines, the City should adopt policies to prevent the displacement of lowincome and minority residents from the Urban Villages. While the Urban Village strategy has the potential to revitalize neighborhoods and to utilize the City’s land resources more efficiently, it will likely lead to the large-scale displacement of lowerincome residents who currently live and work in the Urban Village areas unless the City includes proactive anti-displacement policies in its Urban Village implementation. Some families may face the actual loss of their homes through redevelopment—e.g., they will be evicted so that their homes can be replaced with new uses; others may be economically displaced as land values rise and they can no longer afford to remain in their neighborhoods. Such displacement has already begun. For example, the owners of Winchester Ranch Mobile Home Park, located in the Valley Fair/Santana Row and Vicinity Urban Village Boundary Area, have notified park residents of their intention to close the park so that the land can be sold to a developer and redeveloped. The closure of this park would mean the loss of over 100 affordable homes and the displacement of over 100 seniors, many of whom have disabilities. Likewise, the redevelopment of the Flea Market Urban Village has already caused the closure of a portion of the San Jose Flea Market, limiting economic opportunities for the local vendors who rely on the Flea Market for their livelihood.
Proactive affordable housing and anti-displacement strategies can also help the City to meet its legal obligations. As you know, San Jose’s Housing Element for the next revision will be due to the State in January 2015, and its share of the Regional Housing Needs Allocation is substantial (9,233 units affordable to very low-income households, 5,428 units affordable to low-income households, 6,188 units affordable to moderateincome households, and 14,231 units affordable to above-moderate income households). Because the General Plan envisions much of the City’s development during the cycle occurring in the Urban Villages, the City must ensure that such development includes homes that are affordable to lower-income households to meet the requirements of state housing element law.
Along the same lines, exclusion—whether by action or inaction—of affordable housing from Urban Villages will have serious fair housing implications for the City. The City’s Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice identified the lack of affordable housing as one of the most significant barriers to housing choice for racial minorities and other groups protected by federal fair housing law. The Urban Villages are designed to be areas of “high opportunity,” but, if they do not have affordable housing, then racial minorities, people with disabilities, and other groups who disproportionately need affordable housing will be effectively excluded. As such, the inclusion of affordable housing in the Urban Villages will be essential for San Jose to fulfill its federal mandate to affirmatively further fair housing.
Finally, a thoughtful approach to affordable housing and anti-displacement will make the Urban Villages—and San Jose—more competitive for certain funding sources. For example, VTA’s current OBAG funding criteria award points for proximity to affordable housing, and, based on the language of Plan Bay Area, future OBAG funds are likely to be tied to affordable housing and anti-displacement goals.
For these reasons, we urge the Council to make affordable housing development and anti-displacement strategies key aspects of the City’s Urban Village implementation. We look forward to the Council’s discussion tomorrow and to working with the City on an ongoing basis to ensure that the Urban Villages are developed in an equitable manner.
Thank you,
Melissa A. Morris
Senior Attorney, Public Interest Law Firm Law Foundation of Silicon Valley 152 North Third Street, Third Floor
San Jose, CA 95112
Direct line: (408) 280-2429
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email message is legally privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy the email after advising by reply that you erroneously received it.
September 29th, 2014
Mayor and Council
City of San Jose
200 E. Santa Clara Street
San Jose, CA 95113
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council,
On behalf of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, I am writing to comment on the proposed General Plan text amendments, file number GP14-004 regarding policies to strengthen the jobs orientation of urban villages.
The Silicon Valley Leadership Group, founded in 1978 by David Packard of HewlettPackard, represents more than 390 of Silicon Valley's most respected employers on issues, programs and campaigns that affect the economic health and quality of life in Silicon Valley, including energy, transportation, education, housing, health care, tax policies, economic vitality and the environment. Leadership Group members collectively provide nearly one of every three private sector jobs in Silicon Valley.
As a stakeholder group that served on the General Plan Task Force, we are deeply committed to the success of San Jose and the approved General Plan. San Jose’s growth is critical to the regional success of our economy, and we appreciate the opportunity to participate in the vision and blueprint for San Jose’s future development.
We are strong believers in the importance of planning documents. They set the overall vision and direction for an organization. However, we are uncomfortable when planning documents apply broad policies at the site level, or in this case, urban villages that have unique and different characteristics. It is important to maintain an overall direction and goal, but we must also recognize the need to bend when necessary, and specifically to allow housing given the overall context of the City. We respectfully ask the Council to be thoughtful about an approach that may inadvertently tie our hands and limit our ability to approve good projects that can meet our long term objectives.
We also want to underscore that a strong and focused general plan is only one way for a city to meet its goals. In the case of San Jose, this General Plan has widespread support and there is a deeply held belief by those who developed the Plan that the City needs to focus on attracting jobs. Equally important is the need for policy makers to hold that line, something that additional General Plan language can help with but cannot guarantee. It is up to policy makers to maintain the integrity of the general plan as projects are proposed.
Thank you for your consideration of our comments and for your commitment to serving San Jose and Silicon Valley.
Sincerely,
Carl Guardino
President and CEO
Silicon Valley Leadership Group
2001 Gateway Place, Suite 101E
(408)501-7864 svlg.org
CARL GUARDINO
President & CEO
Board Officers:
STEVE BERGLUND, Chair
Trimble Navigation
GREG BECKER, Vice Chair
SVB Financial Group
JOHN ADAMS, Secretary/Treasurer
Wells Fargo Bank
TOM WERNER, Former Chair
SunPower
AART DE GEUS, Former Chair
Synopsys
MICHAEL SPLINTER, Former Chair
Applied Materials, Inc.
Board Members:
MARTIN ANSTICE
Lam Research
SHELLYE ARCHAMBEAU
MetricStream, Inc.
ANDY BALL
Suffolk Construction
GEORGE BLUMENTHAL
University of California, Santa Cruz
JOHN BOLAND
KQED
TOM BOTTORFF
Pacific Gas & Electric
CHRIS BOYD
Kaiser Permanente
TORY BRUNO
Lockheed Martin Space Systems
BRADLEY J. BULLINGTON
Bridgelux
DAVID CUSH
Virgin America
CLAUDE DARTIGUELONGUE
BD Biosciences
MICHAEL ENGH, S.J.
BRANT FISH
Chevron Corporation
Santa Clara University
TOM FALLON
Infinera Corp.
TOM GEORGENS
NetApp, Inc.
KEN GOLDMAN
Yahoo!
RAQUEL GONZALEZ
Bank of America
LAURA GUIO
IBM
KEN KANNAPPAN
Plantronics
GARY LAUER
eHealth
ENRIQUE LORES
HP
MATT MAHAN
Causes
KEN MCNEELY
AT&T
KEVIN MURAI
Synnex
JES PEDERSEN
Webcor
KIM POLESE
ClearStreet
VIVEK RANADIVÉ
TIBCO
STEVE ROSSI
Bay Area News Group
ALAN SALZMAN
VantagePoint Capital Partners
RON SEGE
Echelon Corporation
ROSEMARY TURNER
UPS
RICK WALLACE
KLA-Tencor
JED YORK
DAN WARMENHOVEN
NetApp, Inc.
San Francisco 49ers
Established in 1978 by
DAVID PACKARD
changing the base zoning, the application of AHOZs could provide the City with a path towards certification of the housing element under its jobs first focus.
With an AHOZ, the base zoning designations stay intact and development allowed within the underlying zones (e.g. commercial or industrial) can proceed as a permitted use. If applied to urban villages or Priority Development Areas (PDAs), an AHOZ provides for development flexibility and maximizes the potential uses within these special planning areas without the need for any rezoning or reduction in the number of parcels available for commercial and industrial uses. This unique planning approach also increases opportunities for synergistic mixed-use developments. The AHOZ can also be used as an incentives-based tool for residential development that encourages the provision of affordable housing through incentives (e.g. increased building height or density) or concessions (e.g. reduced parking requirements).
We thank Councilmember Rocha for his continued leadership on the issue of affordable housing and for the comprehensive set of proposed amendments included in his memorandum.
NPH is committed to being a helpful partner and advisor to the City of San Jose.
We would be happy to provide additional technical assistance for any affordable housing tools and policies of interest to you.
Thank you for your strong commitment to public service and for the opportunity to provide additional comments on the City’s housing element.
Sincerely,
Pilar Lorenzana-Campo
Regional Policy Manager
Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California
[email protected]
408.215.8925
cc
Jenny Nusbaum, Senior Planner, [email protected] Wayne Chen, Policy Director, [email protected]
Paul McDougall, [email protected]
September 29, 2014
Mayor Reed and San Jose City Council
City of San Jose
200 East Santa Clara Street
San Jose, CA 95113
RE: September 30, 2014 Council Agenda Item 10.7, San Jose Housing Element Honorable Mayor Reed and Members of the City Council,
Greenbelt Alliance appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the City Council discussion regarding urban villages and the Housing Element. We have long recognized San Jose as a housing leader and understand the Council’s drive to ensure more quality jobs are provided to residents.
Greenbelt Alliance signed onto the Housing Element letter drafted by the Law Foundation of Silicon Valley and we support Councilmember Don Rocha’s memo which addresses many of our concerns.
In particular, we want to call attention of our support to the following:
Jobs-Housing Fit: Developing the right fit between available housing types and the income level of residents is an important part of regional planning and development. Focusing solely on the number of jobs to the number of employed residents fails to tell the whole story. San Jose can add hundreds of new jobs, but if those jobs pay only slightly more than minimum wage and current rents are starting at $1,400 for one-bedroom apartments, we are not creating a strong city.
According to a new report by the Bay Area Council Economic Institute, “For each job created in the hightech sector, approximately 4.3 jobs are created (multiplier effect) in other local goods and services sectors across all income groups, including lawyers, dentists, schoolteachers, cooks and retail clerks, among many others.” In other words, the region is creating many jobs that don’t pay enough to afford to live here, unless we take action to address this need. And one of the first steps in taking action is having a better understanding of the current situation by collecting good data.
Affordable housing on publicly-owned land: It is becoming highly desirable to live near public transportation. This can push out lower-income households who have traditionally lived near transit stations and who tend to have higher rates of public transit use. Lower-income households are more likely to be dependent on public transportation to access jobs, school and other opportunities. Ensuring that
transit-oriented neighborhoods are mixed-income neighborhoods helps address San Jose’s climate change, air quality, vehicle miles traveled and quality of life goals.
The Valley Transportation Authority owns land near transit stations which addresses one of the main obstacles to providing affordable homes- high land costs. As VTA (and any other jurisdiction with land holdings) moves to develop these lands, it makes sense to ensure that an affordable housing component is a part of new development. The community must benefit when publicly owned lands are developed.
Implement urban village plans: As urban village plans are crafted, the number one question on people’s minds is how to pay for the various amenities. San Jose has some policy tools at its disposal already, such as the Parkland Dedication Ordinance. Others went away with the demise of redevelopment agencies.
New tools must be considered and Greenbelt Alliance supports expanding those identified in the Diridon Station Area Plan for urban villages citywide.
Housing Overlay Zones and a community benefits program are two zoning tools San Jose must consider. In the case of the latter, a community benefits program allows for specific incentives or bonuses to be granted to a developer or landowner in exchange for certain benefits or amenities for the community. Other cities, including Redwood City, are exploring such tools as a way to ensure new development is benefiting existing residents. There are many residents in San Jose who live in over-crowded and unsafe situations due to a lack of affordable housing.
Establish a citywide goal for affordable housing: This is a laudable goal that deserves discussion. It takes what was established for Diridon Station and expands it citywide. This can be accomplished by employing a variety of tools, including those mentioned above, and new funding streams, like a Housing Impact Fee.
By ensuring that at least 15% of the City’s housing stock is available to those earning low to moderate income, San Jose is demonstrating a commitment to every person who works in the city. We recognize that this is something San Jose has long been good at, and we encourage city leaders to continue the work of ensuring the market is providing for all.
Greenbelt Alliance is actively working around the region and more locally to ensure other cities are stepping up to the plate to provide their fair share of homes, including Mountain View and Sunnyvale which are engaged in precise plans for their portion of the El Camino Real corridor. We have endorsed Measure N in San Bruno to undo a restrictive 1977 ordinance that limited building heights and densities near their Caltrain station. We have brought back our endorsement program to shepherd good housing projects in cities throughout San Mateo and Santa Clara counties through to council approval. Greenbelt Alliance agrees that other cities need to do more to provide housing near their job centers and are working to build support for such projects.
If we, as a region, fail to provide sufficient housing, our economy cannot thrive. The goal is to increase supply to meet demand- basic economics- but to do so in the right places. Paving farmland and building homes far from public transportation, jobs and services comes with external costs we cannot afford.
Building more homes affordable to a range of incomes in the right locations can make better use of existing infrastructure, create a built-in customer base for new retail and allow people to meet and generate ideas that can lead to the next big thing, right here in San Jose.
We applaud staff for their work to date on the Housing Element and urban village plans and look forward to continued collaboration on these many difficult issues.
Sincerely,
Michele Beasley
Regional Director
1 September 22, 2014
Sent via email: [email protected]
To: Mayor Reed, Vice-Mayor Nguyen, and Councilmembers
cc: Housing & Community Development Commission
Re: City of San Jose City Council Meeting, September 23, 2014, Agenda Item 10-2 Dear Mayor, Vice-Mayor, Councilmembers, and Commissioners:
On behalf of Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California (NPH) and our 700 member organizations, I respectfully submit the following comments on the City’s draft housing element (HE) for your consideration.
A. Housing Needs Assessment
As acknowledged in Chapter IV: Constraints and Resources of the draft, the adopted General Plan was developed with a “jobs first” approach and includes associated policies and implementation strategies which prioritize growing the number of jobs within the City and effectively serve to prohibit the conversion of land zoned as non-residential toward residential uses.
While we certainly support the City’s economic development efforts, increasing the number of highpaying jobs will undoubtedly be accompanied by an increase in lower-wage jobs due to the large multiplier effect of high-wage jobs particularly in the tech sector. In fact, well-known UC Berkeley economist Enrico Moretti has written that for each new high-tech job in a metropolitan area, five additional local jobs are created outside of high tech. Three of the five jobs created by this multiplier effect are non-professional jobs that pay low wages. These lower-wage workers provide the goods and services demanded by the highly compensated employees in the innovation sector. For more on this research please consult the book titled The New Geography of Jobs published by Professor Moretti in 2012.
Data collected by the UC Davis Center for Regional Change1 demonstrates the extent of the mismatch between existing low-wage jobs and the housing that is available to these workers. Specifically, UC Davis analyzed the mismatch between the number of low-wage jobs paying $15,000 per year2 versus the number of homes affordable to these workers, which at 30% of income amounts to $750 per month for rent.
The resulting jobs to housing fit (JHFIT) ratio shows that San Jose has 3.98 low paying jobs for every affordable home in the City. Although 20% of jobs within the City pay very-low income wages, only 10% of the current housing stock is affordable to these workers.
Since the end of 2011, when this data was analyzed, the City of San Jose has seen a strong but uneven economic recovery as indicated by the draft HE which shows a 3 percent increase in jobs between the years 2010 and 2012 (Table III-3). Given the run-up in rents and stagnant wages, forthcoming analysis by
1 UC Davis data and methodology available at http://bit.ly/1p40cws 2 Data utilized originated from the Longitudinal Employer Household Dynamics (LEHD) Origin-Destination Employment Statistics Dataset (LODES) collected and disseminated by the US Census tracks this data via the Workplace Area Characteristics file. This data can be downloaded here - http://lehd.ces.census.gov/data/ 2 UC Davis using 2012 data will likely show that the JHFIT mismatch has become even greater and will continue to increase, especially given the City’s jobs-first focus.
Assuming that two very-low wage earners reside in a single apartment, fair market rent for a 1-bedroom apartment would be $1,500, well below the average rent for a 1-bedroom in San Jose, pegged at $1,834 per month as of August 2014. As of the end of 2012, nearly 1/3 of the households within the SunnyvaleSan Jose-Santa Clara Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) are “severely housing cost burdened” defined as households that spend more than 50 percent of their income towards rent or mortgage costs. Given the insufficient amounts of affordable housing produced in this MSA, we expect that the number of households experiencing severe housing cost burden to increase dramatically.
NPH strongly suggests the City include the following programs in the draft housing element:
• A program to monitor jobs housing fit (JHF) in the City for renters and homeowners. JHF is defined as the ratio of low-‐wage jobs (those paying $1,250 per month or less) to affordable rental (apartments that cost $750 per month or less) or affordable homes (owner-‐occupied or vacant for sale housing units at $150,000 or less).
• A program to improve low wage jobs and affordable housing fit currently pegged at 3.98.
B. RHNA Progress
Based on our review of the City’s Annual Progress Reports, it appears that the City’s performance during the 2007-2014 planning period fell short of meeting the City’s housing need across all income levels although the highest percentage was achieved in the category for Above Moderate Income. Performance values shown as % of total RHNA for each affordability level:
• Very low income (0-50% AMI) - 23%
• Low income (51-80% AMI) - 41%
• Moderate (81-120% AMI) - 19%
• Above moderate income (120% AMI+) - 86%
Because of the existing deficit of homes available to those earning less than 80% of the Area Median Income (AMI), the shortage of available land, and the continued employment growth in the coming decades, the City must incentivize and prioritize the production of housing affordable to all income segments and particularly those households with incomes at 60% of AMI and below especially within the established Priority Development Area (PDA), Urban Villages, and key transportation corridors.
C. Housing Resources
Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) Scoring
Prior to their dissolution in 2011, cities relied on Redevelopment Agencies (RDA) to provide a key source of funding for affordable housing production. Since the dissolution of RDAs, non-profit housing developers have had to rely on very competitive federal Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC), to finance housing developments affordable to those making less than 80% AMI. In order to successfully compete for the LIHTC, projects must be consistent with site location criteria for public transportation, resident services and amenities.
3 Site Inventory
It is reasonable to assume that the best opportunities for developing affordable housing utilizing tax credits can be found within transit-rich Urban Villages and Priority Development Areas (PDAs).
Appendix A of the draft HE contains an exhaustive list of opportunity sites designed to accommodate 35,117 units, slightly exceeding the City’s RHNA allocation of 35,080 units by 37 units.
However, as demonstrated by the key map (Figure 1) and spreadsheet (Table 1) included in this packet, a significant portion of the identified sites, amounting to approximately 530 acres, lay outside established PDAs or Urban Villages. Additionally, many of the sites identified range from 0.05 to 0.99 acres. Smaller parcels such as these are likely infeasible for affordable housing development.
Additionally, at least two of the projects included in the inventory will likely prove to be unaffordable.
Among properties listed within the Downtown Growth Area is the 234-unit Pierce Apartments project, noted as luxury residences in a Silicon Valley Business Journal article from March of this year (http://bit.ly/1udzxjw). The site inventory also lists Phase 2 of the 88 Condos project, totaling 204-units, however, listings for available units within Phase 1 of the 88 Condos project show that a 1 bedroom/1 bath, 848-square foot unit townhome as available for purchase at $525,000.
With the exception of utilizing default densities as a proxy for affordability, does the City have additional information that will ensure that these projects will indeed be affordable? If so, please quantify the number of units and anticipated levels of affordability for these projects and reflect this information in the site inventory.
Given the fact that the site inventory has a very slim margin of error (+37 units), the cumulative total number of units for these two projects – 438 – will likely mean that the City has not identified an adequate supply of land to accommodate projected growth for units at lower-income levels.
NPH strongly suggests the City undertake the following:
• Conduct additional analysis of development viability for sites outside of the Priority Development Areas (PDAs) and Urban Villages.
• Include a program to adopt an affordable overlay zone for all identified opportunity sites that ties incentives and concessions to affordable housing production.
Financing Tools
The loss of redevelopment funds and legal challenges to inclusionary zoning ordinances have severely limited the development of affordable housing across the region. Given the high cost of land and the overall market strength in the City, it is very challenging for affordable housing developers to compete against market-rate for-profit developers for a finite amount of available land.
We commend the City for its work on the residential nexus study for housing impact fee. Many local jurisdictions, such as Mountain View, Emeryville, Santa Rosa and Daly City, have already adopted this approach. A housing impact fee provides a continuous local funding source for the development of affordable housing and is a critical tool for the City to adopt in the near future. 4 Land Use Tools
Research published by the Urban Land Institute demonstrates that there is an increased demand, across all affordability categories, to live closer to work and mass transit. 3 Given the increased demand, it is highly
unlikely that any housing built without affordability covenants will be affordable to those earning very- or low-income wages.
Given the high need, affordable housing should be the first and highest priority community benefit received in return for any incentives or concessions provided to market-rate developers. This policy should not be limited to specific plan or precise plan areas but instead should be broadly applied across all developments within the jurisdiction.
In addition to exploring creative land use solutions, the City should identify publicly owned parcels, properties owned by the redevelopment Successor Agency, and brownfield sites that may be suitable for redevelopment and prioritize these for housing affordable to those earning 80% AMI or less.
NPH strongly suggests the city include the following programs in the draft housing element:
• A program to conduct further research and a public meeting on a potential housing overlay zone, community benefits policy, or other creative land use and zoning solutions. • A program to identify all publicly owned parcels and brownfield sites. • A program to develop a policy to prioritize, require, or incentivize housing affordable to those making 80% AMI or less on surplus land currently held by local government including special districts.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the City’s housing element. Please feel free to contact me regarding any questions. I look forward to the City’s response to the feedback and suggested revisions included in this letter.
Sincerely,
Pilar Lorenzana-Campo
Regional Policy Manager
Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California
[email protected]
408.215.8925
cc
Jenny Nusbaum, Senior Planner, [email protected] Adam Marcus, Development Officer, [email protected] Wayne Chen, Policy Director, [email protected]
Paul McDougall, [email protected]
3 Jonathan D. Miller, 2012 Emerging Trends in Real Estate (Washington, D.C.: PwC and the Urban Land Institute, 2011), 1, http://chicago.uli.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/ET US2012.pdf .
San_Jose_Opportunity_Sites_Outside_UV_PDA.xlsx 1
530.81
1,182.44
45%
OID
APN
acre_use
0 67652001 0.05
1 01512032 0.06
2 43423085 0.11
3 48801046 0.12
4 48441090 0.13
5 41936131 0.13
6 59901087 0.13
7 01505137 0.14
8 01505138 0.14
9 24911077 0.14
10 26121066 0.15
11 23509018 0.15
12 24916066 0.16
13 27457040 0.16
14 68403037 0.16
15 27918052 0.17
16 59518030 0.17
17 48417035 0.17
18 09233038 0.17
19 26442109 0.17
20 58708028 0.18
21 43410073 0.18
22 28201014 0.19
23 48119055 0.19
24 24913012 0.19
25 29946023 0.20
26 43407016 0.21
27 43422069 0.21
28 48446047 0.22
29 47230049 0.23
30 30332041 0.23
31 67912057 0.23
32 59514068 0.24
33 24925020 0.24
34 30330013 0.24
35 42942014 0.24
36 58115047 0.26
37 42951044 0.26
38 70611021 0.26
39 68016024 0.26
40 44204011 0.27
41 24912048 0.27
42 59916116 0.27
Total_Acreage_Outside
_Urban_Villages_and_
PDAs
Total_Acreage_All_
Percentage of
Opportunity Sites
Outside of Urban
Villages and PDAs
San_Jose_Opportunity_Sites_Outside_UV_PDA.xlsx
2 OID
APN
acre_use
43 29946021 0.28
44 68034010 0.29
45 58343043 0.29
46 68403042 0.29
47 48143017 0.30
48 59538014 0.30
49 68033033 0.31
50 69511039 0.32
51 46704020 0.32
52 59538009 0.33
53 30341018 0.33
54 68022017 0.34
55 67633014 0.34
56 56723027 0.34
57 68014022 0.35
58 69503043 0.35
59 69514014 0.36
60 59501101 0.36
61 69511031 0.37
62 60106045 0.38
63 58343038 0.38
64 67818037 0.38
65 48123072 0.39
66 69503032 0.39
67 65210005 0.39
68 59112047 0.39
69 24918010 0.39
70 26403007 0.40
71 27718034 0.43
72 27719012 0.43
73 69511047 0.44
74 59510066 0.44
75 47236017 0.45
76 28820041 0.45
77 48145039 0.45
78 47711051 0.46
79 58720017 0.47
80 48411082 0.47
81 56925023 0.47
82 67633009 0.47
83 48145001 0.48
84 43403093 0.49
85 59501041 0.49
86 58125024 0.53
87 01502012 0.53
88 47715003 0.54
89 67606015 0.55
90 69511022 0.56
91 58311079 0.57
92 49447004 0.57
93 58368031 0.59
94 69511046 0.61
95 58129005 0.62
96 58372015 0.62
San_Jose_Opportunity_Sites_Outside_UV_PDA.xlsx
3 OID
APN
acre_use
97 27903020 0.64
98 27718031 0.67
99 68066009 0.68
100 48433071 0.68
101 59535007 0.69
102 42920054 0.70
103 68066002 0.72
104 58308031 0.72
105 67623012 0.74
106 70117016 0.77
107 09243013 0.77
108 24439042 0.77
109 47212086 0.79
110 58311029 0.81
111 69402002 0.81
112 58308037 0.82
113 49919029 0.84
114 58311094 0.84
115 58706061 0.84
116 28206024 0.85
117 48122067 0.88
118 58371017 0.89
119 44201043 0.89
120 45545005 0.89
121 47766004 0.90
122 25405046 0.91
123 64707074 0.93
124 69511051 0.93
125 09243027 0.93
126 37224011 0.94
127 58372002 0.95
128 29938082 0.96
129 43917009 0.96
130 48402049 0.97
131 49137106 0.98
132 38122001 0.98
133 66005001 0.99
134 68404002 0.99
135 74235141 1.04
136 59515069 1.05
137 58618055 1.08
138 69601002 1.09
139 45514006 1.09
140 67616020 1.10
141 47720148 1.13
142 56935049 1.16
143 58619042 1.16
144 49103049 1.16
145 47776002 1.20
146 59526045 1.21
147 25429026 1.22
148 45812025 1.23
149 70101006 1.27
150 59514080 1.30
San_Jose_Opportunity_Sites_Outside_UV_PDA.xlsx
4 OID
APN
acre_use
151 58311017 1.41
152 68443030 1.43
153 58146019 1.60
154 60131054 1.73
155 70411009 1.76
156 68456028 1.80
157 56918058 1.89
158 59924008 1.95
159 60129009 2.07
160 58311099 2.09
161 66023015 2.16
162 61268002 2.16
163 67637012 2.22
164 59927011 2.25
165 59504071 2.27
166 67680001 2.35
167 66072020 2.36
168 24543017 2.37
169 42136007 2.39
170 67013004 2.46
171 25429025 2.47
172 59511014 2.49
173 65211010 2.51
174 68503002 2.64
175 47723021 2.86
176 70122004 2.90
177 65214012 2.94
178 57502027 3.01
179 70121019 3.22
180 49741098 3.49
181 47201021 3.50
182 58351018 3.58
183 59510013 3.69
184 47719060 3.85
185 68402010 3.87
186 61236027 3.90
187 47720047 4.03
188 59512020 4.03
189 67911001 4.05
190 58919063 4.19
191 61223056 4.24
192 66008010 4.51
193 59510005 4.88
194 61234061 5.13
195 67624001 5.31
196 67910005 5.55
197 57501003 5.68
198 49466003 5.75
199 59928001 5.92
200 68002008 5.98
201 65201008 6.70
202 57754013 6.88
203 66058001 7.40
204 45545007 8.17
San_Jose_Opportunity_Sites_Outside_UV_PDA.xlsx 5
OID
APN
acre_use
205 25415072 9.74
206 59504067 13.58
207 67638035 17.49
208 66002013 17.78
209 69601025 200.79
LAW FOUNDATION OF SILICON VALLEY
152 North Third Street, 3rd Floor
San José, California 95112
Fax (408) 293-0106 • Telephone (408) 280-2435 • TDD (408) 294-5667 September 22, 2014
Transmitted via email to Office of the Mayor, Office of the Vice Mayor, Members of the City Council, and City Clerk
Re: Comments to the Draft San Jose Housing Element; City of San José City Council Meeting, September 23, 2014, Agenda Item 10.2
Dear Mayor, Vice-Mayor, Councilmembers:
On behalf of a coalition of organizations concerned about preserving and creating affordable housing in the City of San José, we respectfully submit the following comments on the City’s Housing Element Administrative Draft (“Draft”) released for public review on August 29, 2014.
The contributors to this comment letter are non-profit organizations that primarily serve extremely-low to moderate-income San José residents with housing-related issues. As follows is a high-level list of our comments, followed by a more detailed narrative explaining those comments.
Overall Comments
1. The implementation work plan must be more detailed with measurable timelines and outcomes;
2. The housing impact fee should be included as a vital and necessary affordable housing funding program;
3. A more robust and diverse array of anti-displacement programs should be included;
4. The City’s “Jobs-First” policy should be analyzed as a housing production constraint;
5. The City has not satisfied its public participation obligations; Comments on Specific Aspects of Housing Element
6. The shortfalls of the prior housing element planning period should be more adequately addressed;
7. The causes and impacts of overcrowding should be analyzed and addressed;
8. Enhancements to Code Enforcement should be included as a goal;
9. The data supporting the list of at-risk housing developments should be made available;
10. A stronger program of preserving affordable units should adopted;
11. The City should work to fund the qualified entities that are identified in the Housing Element;
12. Funds that are available for preservation should be identified;
13. The analysis for constraints to and the array of programs for housing for persons with disabilities should be more robust and specific;
14. The Zoning Code’s Reasonable Accommodation Ordinance should be analyzed as a constraint to housing production;
15. A program to reduce parking needs to encourage affordable and special needs housing should be adopted;
16. Waivers for fees, taxes & other exactions should be considered for affordable housing;
17. Adequate sites must be identified and constraints removed for emergency shelters and SROs; Letter to Mayor, Vice Mayor, and City Council Regarding Housing Element
2 18. Minimum density for new development on vacant multi-family sites should be considered;
19. More substantiation and analyses are required regarding the goal to facilitate production or preservation of 17,636 units;
20. The City should preserve at-risk units by instituting vigorous anti-displacement goals and programs;
21. The goals and programs for extremely-low, very-low and moderate-income housing should be expanded; and
22. The City should promote housing opportunities for all persons by updating its dispersion policy.
Overall Comments
1. The Implementation Work Plan Must Be More Detailed With Measurable Timelines and Outcomes
The section entitled “Appendix D: Implementation Work Plan” is one of the most important sections contained in the Draft. The Work Plan sets out the City’s goals and the related programs (or schedule of actions) that it will undertake during the 2014-2023 planning period to achieve its goals. Programs should set forth a schedule of actions and have a beneficial impact during the planning period. In general, the programs included in the City’s Work Plan lack detail and clarity, and detailed and measurable programs.
The Draft contains programs that are vague and not easily implementable. A good example of the City’s lack of a detailed and measureable program is included under its goal to Implement Urban Villages.1 The City has been exploring financing tools for Urban Villages for at least one year, but the City’s expressed program, to “Explore various funding mechanisms and programs to help finance infrastructure and amenities for Urban Villages” lacks any detail (e.g. whether value capture and/or infrastructure financing districts will be explored and assessed) so that it has a beneficial impact over the next decade.
The programs are not associated with specific steps and measurable timelines. The Draft contains a program to “Explore the creation of a land bank to ensure the creation of affordable housing within Urban Villages” with an “on-going” timeline.2 Without an associated timeline (e.g. within the next 12 months) it will be virtually impossible for the public to determine what, if any, progress has been made towards this goal. Similarly, the program lacks specific actions for the proposed land banking program (e.g. City will convene a public meeting with a panel of experts to identify potential next steps in a land banking program).3 These details are necessary to evaluate whether there is a beneficial impact over the planning period.
The City Council should direct staff to revise the programs included in the Work Plan so that they contain specific programs and timeframes; the City’s present Work Plan fails to comply
1 Draft, Work Plan, p. 5.
2 Id., p. 2.
3 Id.
Letter to Mayor, Vice Mayor, and City Council Regarding Housing Element
3 with State law because it fails to set forth a schedule of actions, with timelines, that will have a beneficial impact in the planning period.
2. The Housing Impact Fee Should be Included As a Vital and Necessary Affordable Housing Funding Program
Given San José’s residents’ dire need for affordable housing, it is critical that the Council take action to adopt a housing impact fee at the highest possible amount justified by its Residential Nexus Study for each housing type—$28/s.f. for apartments and $27/s.f. for high-rise apartments. For more information, please see the August 6, 2014, letter to the Mayor, ViceMayor, and City Council regarding the impact fee sent by the Law Foundation and other signatories.
3. A More Robust and Diverse Array of Anti-Displacement Programs Should Be Included Rising rents and a lack of affordable housing are all factors driving low- to moderate-income families out of San José. Other factors, like speculation for redevelopment in Planned Development and Planned Growth Areas, including Urban Villages, will likely contribute to displacement of existing residents who live in subsidized and unsubsidized affordable housing.
The City’s Work Plan should include detailed anti-displacement goals and related programs, which include specified timeframes, to keep San José affordable for its low- and moderateincome residents. The following anti-displacement goals and programs that further these goals—some of which are discussed in more detail below—should be included in the City’s Work Plan.
A. Preserve existing mobilehome parks as a source of unsubsidized affordable housing throughout San José;
B. Expand the City’s existing Rent Stabilization Ordinance to the maximum extent allowed under state law;
C. Enact a Just Cause Eviction Ordinance;
D. Adopt Source of Income protections for Section 8 voucher holders; E. Fund financial education programs; emergency cash assistance programs, which offer deposit and first month’s rent assistance and rapid re-housing resources; and eviction defense programs that seek to aid residents, including those who are elderly and disabled, to retain their housing;
F. Enact a condominium conversion ordinance; and
G. Identify temporary sites for housing the homeless.
Although the City’s current Work Plan goals and programs encompass some of the preceding requests, the Work Plan wrongly focuses on mitigation instead of on proactive and preventative measures that aid low- and moderate-income residents and fails to provide a specific timeline for when programs and activities will be undertaken and completed.
Letter to Mayor, Vice Mayor, and City Council Regarding Housing Element
4 4. The City’s “Jobs-First” Policy Should Be Analyzed As a Housing Production Constraint
As acknowledged in Chapter IV: Constraints and Resources of the Draft, the adopted General Plan was developed under a jobs-first principle and includes associated policies and implementation strategies which prohibit the conversion of lands zoned as non-residential towards residential uses.
The General Plan allows for a maximum population growth of 120,000 residents whereas the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) estimates that the City will likely grow by 130,000 residents by the year 2040. ABAG’s regional housing need growth numbers were distributed based the following criteria:
Availability of existing transit infrastructure;
Lack of sufficient affordable housing to accommodate low-income commuters; and Job-rich cities.
As adopted, the restrictive land use policies in the General Plan are detrimental to the provision of affordable by rendering affordable housing development infeasible due to a lack of viable sites that can qualify for tax credit financing.
The City must analyze its jobs-housing principle as a governmental constraint and include detailed and measurable programs for mitigating this constraint.
Comments on Specific Aspects of Housing Element
The pages that follow provide detailed feedback on specific portions of the Draft. The comments are based on the Completeness Checklist published by the California Department of Housing and Community Development.4
5. The City Has Not Satisfied Its Public Participation Obligations We appreciate staff’s hard work on the draft to date but have encountered difficulties in providing adequate and constructive feedback given the timeline established by the City.
Prior to the release of the public draft in August 2014 the City conducted a fairly intensive outreach process over a period of 10 months, beginning with outreach meetings in October 2013.
Understandably, given where they were in the process, these meetings were intended to solicit general ideas from the public regarding pertinent affordable housing issues. These meetings did not offer any information on the potential programs or policies being considered by the City.
In April of 2014, the City submitted an administrative draft to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) without soliciting feedback or comments from the broader public.
4 See http://www.hcd.ca.gov/hpd/HE%20Guidance%20Complete%20package.pdf Letter to Mayor, Vice Mayor, and City Council Regarding Housing Element
5 The Draft containing all the components required of a housing element, was released to the public late in the afternoon of August 29, 2014, a Friday that was immediately followed by a three-day weekend. What followed is a very quick succession of public meetings and hearings within a span of three weeks. The pace set between the release of the draft and the various public meetings have severely impeded in our ability to conduct a comprehensive review of the entire 220-plus page highly technical draft.
The first public outreach sessions was scheduled only one business day after release of the draft. This first meeting did not describe the Draft’s Work Plan in any detail. The subsequent public outreach session, held on Saturday, September 6, 2014, at City Hall, was poorly attended given that San José is a City with a population of about one million people. Although we appreciated meeting with staff on a Saturday, access to City Hall was made difficult by residents’ lack of access to the City’s parking structures.
The City’s presentation to Planning and HCDC Commissioners did not include an in-depth discussion of the City’s Work Plan, which sets out the City’s goals and the related programs (or schedule of actions) that it will undertake during the 2014-2023 planning period. Also noteworthy was the fact that the Planning Commission did not hear comments on the Housing Element until 11 p.m. in the evening on September 10, 2014. This last-minute, rushed release and outreach schedule was reflected in the anemic participation that we saw in the sessions that coalition members attended.
For all of these reasons, robust public participation and comment subsequent to the release of the Draft have been difficult to provide. Despite the above, we reviewed several sections and identified areas where the Draft should be improved to aid the City in developing more housing to meet its residents’ needs. We reserve the right to augment and change our comments as we are able to review the Draft more thoroughly and/or if additional public comment sessions are offered.
6. The Shortfalls of the Prior Housing Element Planning Period Should be More Adequately Addressed
As the Draft indicates, a comprehensive evaluation of the previous housing element is a required component of the housing element revision.5
The review allows the City to measure the progress
made toward its goals and analyze areas where additional efforts must be made to make necessary progress in the next planning period. The City does a comprehensive job of calculating the overall housing production in each income category during the course of the 2007-2014 planning period as well as what appears to be a thorough review of which programs were implemented during the last planning period. Where additional analysis is required is in determining whether the policies were effective and how these programs could have been more effective in meeting the State’s housing goals.
5 Gov’t Code section 65588(a)(1)-(3).
Letter to Mayor, Vice Mayor, and City Council Regarding Housing Element
6 There were several objectives and goals that the City was unable to meet during the last planning period. As indicated in the Draft, the City’s efforts and policies to meet the needs of moderateand very-low income households fell short of the housing needs in these income categories. This acknowledgment should be followed by an evaluation of the programs that were designed to meet the needs of these income groups and why those programs failed to meet the need when other programs clearly accomplished their goals—such as for above moderate income housing.
This evaluation is necessary because without this analysis the next housing element cannot make corrections or improve those programs in order to improve upon the performance of the last housing element. For instance, the tenant-based rental assistance programs had widely varying impact (85 clients for TBRA 1 and only 15 clients for TBRA 3).6 However, no information was
provided to ascertain why one form of the program was so much more successful than another.
It could be due to the cost of the program, more intense outreach in that particular model, or some other factor. But, it is unclear from the Appendix E which factors contributed to the program and what factors need to be improved if this program continues during the 2015-2023 planning period.
7. The Causes and Impacts of Overcrowding Should be Analyzed and Addressed In terms of Housing and Household characteristics, the City identified that over-crowding occurred in approximately 30,000 housing units in 2010, most of which are rental homes.7 The
City also found that this figure represented an overall overcrowding rate of 10% and a severe overcrowding rate of 3.2%.8 The City also acknowledged that while it is difficult to determine which of many factors lead to overcrowding, the high cost of housing plays a key role but that an element of overcrowding may result from “cultural preferences.”9 Coalition members routinely serve clients who live in severely overcrowded housing, and in our experience San José’s severe overcrowding rate likely exceeds 3.2%. Although “cultural preferences” in some instances may lead to overcrowding, this is not a frequently expressed consideration by clients who seek coalition members’ services. Our observations are that the following factors contribute to local overcrowding:
Limited housing stock and diversity of housing type;
Lack of foreclosure intervention resources/support for homeowners with unaffordable mortgages who need to rent out rooms and garages to make ends meet each month; Other costs, like daycare/childcare/medical care, leave struggling families with insufficient funds to pay for housing costs;
Lack of mid-/entry-level jobs with potential for growth; Lack of adult education to create access to jobs with growth; and Temporary or permanent loss of employment.
6 Draft, Appendix E-10.
7 Draft, Overcrowding, II-18.
8 Id.
9 Id., II-19.
Letter to Mayor, Vice Mayor, and City Council Regarding Housing Element
7 Although the Draft cannot address all of these issues, dedicated funding to address the impacts that result from these conditions is needed in San José. Our clients need financial counseling services to economize and budget to, in many cases, preserve their existing affordable housing.
In addition, faced with a temporary loss in income and likely loss of housing, our clients need aid in overcoming these temporary short-falls to maintain their housing. As is described further below, the City can help residents retain their housing by providing financial education programs; emergency cash assistance programs that offer deposit and first month’s rent assistance and rapid re-housing resources; and eviction defense programs that seek to aid residents, including those who are elderly and disabled, to retain their housing. Our city’s highcost housing market makes programs like these essential, which would prevent further overcrowding, residence in substandard housing, and homelessness.
8. Enhancements to Code Enforcement Should be Included as a Goal In terms of Existing Housing Stock, while a vast majority, 80% of homes, are relatively newer in San José (built between the 60’s and 70’s) and less than 1% are substandard, many neighborhoods experience “quality of life” issues including blight, crime, and deteriorated schools pointing to serious disinvestment.10 In many neighborhoods, some rental properties are not managed well and become a source of overcrowding, gang activity, and blight. According to a recent study conducted by the City Auditor on the Code Enforcement activity in the city, there was no correlation between the age of the property and the problem properties. This points to an increased need for Code Enforcement action to ensure properties do not become neighborhood scale problems.
Due to loss of funding in the last decade, in FY 2010-11 the City’s Code Enforcement Department determined that it would not be able to provide an inspection for some types of “routine” cases. Instead, the responsible party is sent a letter informing them of the complaint and giving them time to fix the problem. Complaints that do not currently generate an inspection include:
Early set out of garbage/yard waste;
Fence violations;
Graffiti, illegal dumping;
Inadequate landscaping;
Illegal garage sales;
Lawn parking; and
Overgrown weeds.
This type of service reduction has an adverse impact on the quality of life of City residents and neighborhoods. Code Enforcement is intended to be the first responder to basic neighborhood health and safety concerns. City leaders have repeatedly emphasized the need to reduce the “broken window” syndrome (i.e., that smaller neighborhood problems like the above can be indicative of, or lead to, bigger problems).
10 Id., II-21.
Letter to Mayor, Vice Mayor, and City Council Regarding Housing Element
8 The City Auditor’s Report in November 2013 provided 22 recommendations to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of Code Enforcement. We understand that Code Enforcement is currently implementing an enhanced inspection and fine structure and hiring new officers; we encourage the Department to include the community in getting feedback about and implementing these changes and in making continued efforts to meet the City Auditor’s recommendations.
Code Enforcement should also consider ways to activate the community in making complaints about substandard housing and blight in the community, including conducting multi-lingual outreach to the community, improving customer service, translating key documents, making the website more user friendly, and educating the community about their right against being retaliated for making a complaint and their rights to relocation assistance when severe Code Enforcement violations exist.
We appreciate the City’s stated intent to continue to engage property owners as part of the Responsible Landlord Engagement Initiative, place-based initiatives, and other community engagement strategies to improve the physical and social conditions that stem from housing that is substandard or creates blight.
9. The Data Supporting the Inventory Should be Publicly Available State law requires that cities analyze their existing assisted housing developments that are eligible to change from low-income housing uses during the next 10 years due to termination of subsidy contracts, mortgage prepayment, or expiration of restrictions on use.11 Whether staff analyzed all “assisted housing developments” as defined in Government Code section 65863.10 is unclear, since staff relied on a report prepared by the California Housing Partnership Corp. (CHPC), which is not cited or readily accessible by the public. Because we cannot independently verify that all assisted housing developments were analyzed, advocates request that the Draft state that the City has complied with its obligation under these Government Code sections and include CHPC’s report at the appendix or cite to it in the Draft and make it available at the City’s Planning or Housing Department website.
10. A Stronger Program of Preserving At-Risk Affordable Units Should Adopted In terms of the inventory of at-risk units12 nine housing developments (that contain 968 units), which are owned by non-profit and profit-motivated housing providers, have subsidies that have expired or very soon will expire. The Draft fails to discuss whether these nine developments have extended their affordability restrictions, whether they must now be stricken from the inventory of affordable developments, or what specific steps the City and/or housing providers will take in the very near term to keep these developments affordable. This discussion is necessary and must be included in the Draft.
Finally, we applaud the City for acknowledging that affordable developments in Urban Villages and Priority Development Areas may become highly susceptible to displacement pressures and
11 Gov’t Code section 65583(a)(9).
12 Draft, Appendix “C-1,” “At-Risk Affordable Housing Developments.” Letter to Mayor, Vice Mayor, and City Council Regarding Housing Element
9 its commitment to assessing this issue and exploring policies and programs to mitigate these impacts.13 However, the Draft should include specific statements about the studies and the assessment measures that City staff plans to take, the stakeholders that it will involve, and the timeframe for conducting the study and assessment. As part of its assessment, we urge the City to inventory all existing affordable units, including those that are unsubsidized and/or subject to the City’s rent control ordinances, in Planned Development Areas, Urban Villages, and other Planned Growth Areas so that it is aware of all sources of affordable housing that may be permanently lost. Further, the City must explore anti-displacement measures, not solely mitigation measures, since the Draft clearly identifies a lack of funding to replace or rehabilitate existing deed restricted housing let alone unsubsidized housing.
The Draft states that it plans to prioritize new construction over preservation to increase the overall supply of housing.14 Without citing to studies or providing analysis that can be independently reviewed, the City estimates that all of the 2,645 units that it identifies as being at risk of conversion in the next eight years will require substantial rehabilitation and that it is only slightly less costly (or perhaps even more costly in some instances) to rehabilitate these units versus constructing new units that are higher in quality and less costly to operate.15 The City’s analysis does not consider other studies that analyze “lifecycle costs,”16 which find that new construction can be more costly than rehabilitating existing units.17 Further, the City’s analysis fails to identify the known benefits that preservation encompasses.
For example, in gentrifying neighborhoods that may exist in and around Urban Villages and other planned growth areas, preserving affordable rental housing promotes economic diversity and creates mixed-income neighborhoods. Helping residents stay in their neighborhoods through measures that invest in retaining existing developments helps avoid displacement and enables these existing residents to remain in their long-term neighborhoods.
The Draft should contain a more in-depth analysis in determining whether to fund preservation or replacement, particularly because prioritizing replacement over preservation may mean that, 1) affordable housing may not be replaced on a one-to-one basis; 2) replacement housing will be concentrated in growth areas versus being dispersed throughout the City; and 3) an approach that focuses on replacement alone does not take into account that disabled and/or senior residents are familiar and have ready access to existing supportive services, and displacing these residents may cause them to lose important resources that aid them in living independently.
13 Draft, Chapter VI.
14 Draft, Chapter VI-3 and -4.
15 Id.
16 “Lifecycle costs,” estimate the costs of both developing a property and maintaining it in decent condition over a full 50-year lifecycle for new construction. 17 Maya Brennan, Amy Deora, Anker Heegaard, Albert Lee, Jeffrey Lubell, and Charlie Wilkins, Center for Housing Policy, 2013, “Comparing the Costs of New Construction and AcquisitionRehab In Affordable Multifamily Rental Housing: Applying a New Methodology for Estimating Lifecycle Costs,” p. 1.
Letter to Mayor, Vice Mayor, and City Council Regarding Housing Element
10 Finally, if any existing assisted housing developments must be redeveloped, the City should require a one-to-one replacement of the number of affordable units that will be razed, removed from stock, or converted to condominiums. The City should also require a platform for public input (such as public hearings or comment period) during the 12 months after an owner gives notice with intent to discontinue subsidies or expiration of rent restriction.
11. The City Should Work to Fund the Qualified Entities that Are Identified in the Housing Element
The City identified several non-profit and profit-motivated entities in San José that have the capacity and interest in managing assisted homes and/or that have experience in completing replacement and preservation projects in Santa Clara County.18 As we discuss in more detail in the following section, the City’s plans, including the Consolidated Plan, should include the funding of nonprofits to acquire and rehabilitate our existing affordable housing stock.
The Draft notes that some of these nonprofits may need to contract with professional management firms if they lack the adequate project management capabilities.19 If these nonprofits must contract with management firms, these firms should have extensive backgrounds and experience in managing properties that have deed restricted developments, including issues that pertain to fair housing and reasonable accommodation.
12. Funds That Are Available for Preservation Should Be Identified The Draft fails to comply with State law because it neglects describing the amount of funds under each available program that have not been legally obligated for other purposes and that could be available for use in preserving assisted housing developments.20 The City should comply with State law and include this information in the Draft as it is required to do. Without this information, residents and advocates are unable to assess the City’s analysis and determination about the number of units that it predicts that it can replace and preserve.
The City should bolster funding, from HOME and CDBG by creating local measures, like instituting a Housing Impact Fee; taking early action to coordinate and identify the above and other sources of financing to enable non-profit ownership; and waiving permit fees for affordable housing rehabilitation conducted through CDBG or other Santa Clara County programs to expand its replacement and preservation efforts.
13. The Analysis for Constraints to and the Array of Programs for Housing for Persons with Disabilities Should be More Robust and Specific
The Draft fails to thoroughly analyze potential and actual governmental constraints that hinder meeting the need for housing for disabled individuals and local efforts to remove constraints.
Persons with disabilities have a number of housing needs related to accessibility of dwelling
18 Draft, Chapter VI-4.
19 Id.
20 Gov’t Code section 65583(a)(9)(D).
Letter to Mayor, Vice Mayor, and City Council Regarding Housing Element
11 units, transportation and supportive services. Because of these unique needs, it is particularly important that disabled individuals not be unduly burdened with inessential regulatory constraints. The Draft does not specify whether the City has reviewed its zoning laws, policies and practices for accessibility. Accordingly, additional information is needed to verify that the City’s zoning regulations, parking requirements and building codes do not negatively impact disabled individuals.
The Draft contains useful information regarding the demographics of disability in San José, but it fails to outline proactive strategies to address the increasing shortage of housing opportunities for individuals with disabilities in our community. Advocates have noted through our work with clients and government agencies, like the Santa Clara County Public Guardian’s Office, that the extremely high cost of housing in San José combined with other factors has led to a decrease in available housing for individuals living with disabilities, including licensed board and care facilities and unlicensed room and board homes. The Draft should include more specific and robust strategies to maintain and create safe, affordable housing opportunities for persons with disabilities, including but not limited to shelters, residential care facilities, group homes, and sober living environments. Further, the City must consider and plan for diverse housing opportunities to meet the needs of persons with disabilities outlined in Chapter III, Section I of the Draft (“Special Needs Housing Needs Groups”).
14. The Zoning Code’s Reasonable Accommodation Ordinance Should be Analyzed as a Constraint to Housing Production
The Draft includes the Zoning Code’s reasonable accommodation ordinance in the Constraints and Resources section, but fails to analyze the ordinance itself as a constraint. The City’s reasonable accommodation process as outlined in the Municipal Code Chapter 20.160 also needs revisiting to ensure that it is satisfying the intent to “accommodate the housing needs of persons with disabilities to the greatest extent feasible and to evaluate individual requests on a case-bycase basis.”21 Advocates have previously expressed concern regarding the City’s current reasonable accommodation process, which includes written notice of a reasonable accommodation request to the owners of property immediately adjacent to the property at question, combining the request with any other planning permit approval process, and the opportunity for a director’s hearing upon the request of any person who receives notice of the reasonable accommodation proposed.22 In fact, HUD policies and established best practices specifically caution cities and other jurisdictions from regulations that “are counterproductive to fair housing choice, such as “NIMBYism” including those which allow for “community resistance to the siting of housing facilities for people with disabilities in residential neighborhoods based on their disabilities.”23 The City’s process, which allows neighbors to request hearings on reasonable accommodation requests, has a discriminatory effect because it can stigmatize prospective residents with disabilities and engender hostility that future residents with disabilities will have to face in the neighborhood.
21 Draft, Chapter IV-7.
22 San José Municipal Code 20.160.040; 20.160.060; 20.160.070. 23 HUD Fair Housing Planning Guide (March 2006) at 4-4.
Letter to Mayor, Vice Mayor, and City Council Regarding Housing Element
12 15. A Program to Reduce Parking Needs to Encourage Affordable and Special Needs Housing Should be Adopted
The Draft accurately identifies parking requirements as a constraint on development and production of housing. It should further acknowledge that this constraint unfairly impacts lower income and special need households. Lower income households own fewer vehicles than higher income households.24 The same is true of senior households.25 In addition, the higher development costs that result from parking requirements cannot be passed along to affordable housing tenants in the form of higher rent prices. Instead, these higher costs result in fewer units being available.26 Other cities have reduced parking requirements for affordable housing units and senior housing.27 The Draft should be revised to include programs to assess the actual needs by type of housing and revise the Zoning Code provisions to reflect parking ratios that more accurately reflect the project type’s need.
The Draft Implementation Work Plan includes the following Program: “Consider changing Zoning Code to reduce parking ratios for Emergency Shelters from 1 space for every 4 residents to 1 space for every 10 residents.”28 The time-frame is set as “ongoing.”29 The Draft has met the first Housing Element requirement of identifying a potential constraint, yet it fails to adopt an adequate program to eliminate or mitigate this constraint. Ongoing consideration of this measure is insufficient. The Draft should be revised to state the specific action step of changing the Zoning Code to reduce parking ratios for Emergency Shelters. It should also establish a precise plan for identifying other forms of special needs housing that generate low parking requirements, such as SROs and senior housing developments, and implementing similar reductions in parking ratios. The Draft must also be revised to include a specific time frame for execution of these Zoning Code revisions.
In addition, the Draft should be revised to permit consideration of a reduction in parking requirements based on information provided by the project developer. Presently, the Draft permits reduction from parking requirements only when the project incorporates Travel Demand Management (TDM) program elements.30 We support transit-oriented development initiatives and recognize the need to plan for travel needs of new developments. However, the Draft does not acknowledge that TDM program elements can also be onerous and expensive constraints on housing production.
24 Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California (NPH). Rethinking Residential Parking: Myths and Facts. San Francisco, CA; April 2001. Available at http://nonprofithousing.org/wpcontent/uploads/2014/Toolkits/Original%20Toolkit/mythsandfacts.pdf. 25 Id.
26 Id.
27 City of San Diego. San Diego Affordable Housing Parking Study. December 2011. Available at
http://www.sandiego.gov/planning/programs/transportation/mobility/pdf/111231sdafhfinal.pdf. 28 Draft, Appendix “D,” p. 8.
29 Id.
30 Draft, IV-10.
Letter to Mayor, Vice Mayor, and City Council Regarding Housing Element
13 The cost of meeting the parking requirement or TDM program elements is a constraint that especially impacts affordable and special-need housing developments. The Draft recognizes that “[p]arking reductions are especially applicable to senior housing, Single Room Occupancy (SRO) facilities, Emergency Residential Shelters, residential care/service facilities, and convalescent hospitals.”31 Yet it does not recognize that while TDM program elements may be an alternative to the parking requirement, this substitution does not remove the cost constraints that would impede development of certain necessary forms of housing. The Draft should be revised to permit reductions in parking requirements for projects that serve the special housing needs of San José and can demonstrate a reduced need for parking without requiring the alternate TDM program elements. Programs should be permitted to demonstrate who the project is geared towards and why the parking and transit needs of the target residents do not necessitate compliance with Zoning Code parking requirements. Replacing parking requirements with TDM program requirements simply substitutes one constraint for another. The adopted Housing Element should remove this constraint on the development of housing for persons with disabilities, supportive housing, transitional housing, and emergency shelters where a proponent for the program can demonstrate a reduced need for parking.
16. Waivers for Fees, Taxes & Other Exactions Should Be Considered for Affordable Housing
The Draft does not provide for sufficient fee exemptions for affordable housing developers.
According to The Draft, low-income housing units were not subject to parkland fees until 2010, when the City Council amended the rate of parkland fees for low-income units 50% of the normally applicable fees. This amendment was implemented to generate additional parkland fees. Because of the acute need for low-income housing, and the availability of parkland fees from other types of construction, the City should consider amending the parkland fee schedule to reinstate the exemption for low-income housing units. The Draft further references that several fee waivers expired several years ago but does not reference any consideration or attempt to reinstate these fee waivers. Accordingly, the Draft fails to identify how the government constraint of construction-related fees and taxes can be removed by renewing these fee waivers or permitting deferral of fees for low-income housing developments. The Draft should be revised to include a program that will propose to City Council the reinstatement of the expired fee waivers and the complete parkland fee exemption for low-income housing units.
17. Adequate Sites Must Be Identified and Constraints Removed for Emergency Shelters and SROs
The Draft does not adequately identify available sites for emergency shelters. The Draft indicates that there is at least one zone that allows emergency shelters without any conditional use permits. However, the Draft fails to acknowledge the constraint on the development of shelters if sites within that designated zone are not available. Accordingly, the Draft should undertake to identify sites that are available for emergency shelters without the requirement for conditional use permits.
31 Id.
Letter to Mayor, Vice Mayor, and City Council Regarding Housing Element
14 The Draft lists facilitating the development of Single Room Occupancy (SRO) buildings as a goal, but it does not adequately provide for removal of constraints to development of SROs. The Draft recognizes the importance of SROs as a source of affordable housing. However, the Draft does not provide for any zone where SROs can be a permitted use without a Special Use Permit or Conditional Use Permit. These permits require additional time and expense, which constitute constraints to the development of SROs. Removal of the special use permit requirement would require amending the zoning code. Accordingly, the Draft should be revised to include a Program to lift this restriction.
18. Minimum Density for New Development on Vacant Multi-family Sites Should Be Considered
The Draft fails to identify at least one strategy to ensure that the City’s limited supply of residential multi-family land is efficiently used. For example, the City should consider minimum density standards for new developments in addition to maximum standards in the residential multi-family district. This would prohibit the development of vacant multi-family sites with low-density single-family detached homes to preserve these sites for higher density housing.
19. More Substantiation and Analyses Are Required Regarding the Goal to Facilitate Production or Preservation of 17,636 Units
In its quantified objectives section, the Draft identifies 17,636 units that can be constructed, acquired/rehabilitated or preserved through its facilitation between 2014-2023. It estimates that only 279 of its 2,64532 at-risk units, or about 10.5%, can be acquired/rehabilitated or preserved.
Although we praise the City for its robust prediction that it will facilitate the construction of 17,357 new units over between 2014 and 2023, we must note that it fails to specify how it will facilitate this production other than broadly stating that it will draw from federal and state programs.33 State law requires that the City provide the basis for its conclusion about the number of units that it can reasonably develop, rehabilitate, and conserve over the planning period.34 The City’s analysis should, but does not, specify the total funds available and funding sources to facilitate such robust production, acquisition/rehabilitation or preservation.35 This
32 Of the 2,645 units in deed restricted affordable housing developments that were classified as being at-risk in the next 10 years, 968 of these units’ affordability restrictions have or will soon expire, and no further discussion regarding the status of these projects’ affordability was provided. It is important to note that nearly 1,000 affordable housing units may have already been permanently lost. We continue to urge the City to inventory all existing affordable units, including those that are unsubsidized and/or subject to the City’s rent control ordinances, in Planned Development Areas, Urban Villages, and other Planned Growth Areas so that it is aware of all sources of affordable housing that may be permanently lost. 33 Draft, Chapter IV and Work Plan.
34 Hoffmaster v. City of San Diego, 55 Cal.App.4th 1098, 1108 (1997). 35 Gov’t Code section 65583(c).
Letter to Mayor, Vice Mayor, and City Council Regarding Housing Element
15 detail is particularly critical because the City facilitated only 15% of its lower- and moderateincome housing needs during the 2007-2014 Housing Element period.36 As we understand it, most of the City’s planned programs are contained in its Work Plan.37 Programs, like a Housing Impact Fee and several anti-displacement programs, are briefly described in the Work Plan. Although we support their inclusion in the Work Plan, the Draft is thin on specifics about the programs it will undertake and fails to provide a timeframe for implementation of these and other programs (other than stating that the time-frame is “ongoing”). Although stating that a program is “on-going” is permissible for certain programs, like those that pre-date the Draft, to state that nearly all programs in the Work Plan are “on-going” fails to identify the beneficial impact that these programs will have in the planning period, does not move our City towards attainment of its housing goal, and fails to comply with State law.38 For example, one City action/program will be “assessing the efficacy of the existing rent control ordinance… and the feasibility for strengthening the program.” This is a prospective antidisplacement strategy that is not being carried over from the 2007-2014 Housing Element. This action/program is new and will promote long-term tenancies and stabilize neighborhoods.
Failing to provide any specific actions, like what form of assessment will occur, the length of time that the City will take to assess its rent control ordinance, fails to move the City to attaining its housing goals and fails to comply with State law requirements.
20. The City Should Preserve At-Risk Units by Instituting Vigorous Anti-displacement Goals and Programs
The Draft should include a goal to institute various anti-displacement policies and specific programs to preserve at-risk units. This goal, which can be achieved through a host of programs, must be rapidly instituted and applied given the progressing planning for the City’s Planned Growth Areas, which include Urban Villages, and Priority Development Areas. This goals and programs, which should also be applied on a City-wide basis, must be instituted to protect against the displacement of low- and moderate-income residents, especially in light of the City’s very modest plans to preserve our existing supply of subsidized and unsubsidized housing, per the present Draft, prior inability to fund the production of low- and moderate-income housing in the 2007-2014 Housing Element, and failure to include programs that will facilitate a variety of housing types that include factory-built housing and mobilehomes.39
36 Draft, Chapter VIII-3.
37 Other planned goals and programs or policies that will be evaluated between 2014 and 2023 appear elsewhere in the Draft. For example, the Draft speaks about strengthening markets and that growth will be channeled into Urban Villages and other Planned Growth Areas. Because of this the City notes that “public policies must also accompany this vision in order to mitigate the negative impacts that may result from these same market forces, such as displacement, overcrowding, and lack of housing opportunities across incomes.” (Draft, Chapter IV). Though this policy is described in the Draft, it is not specifically identified in the City’s Work Plan. So that it is not overlooked, it should be contained in the City’s anti-displacement and Urban Village goals and programs. 38 Gov’t Code sections 65583(c) and (c)(7). 39 Gov’t Code section 65583(c)(1).
Letter to Mayor, Vice Mayor, and City Council Regarding Housing Element
16 We suggest that the City further an anti-displacement (of existing subsidized and unsubsidized housing) goal through programs that contain a specified timeline for action that:
A. Preserve San José’s 59 mobilehome parks and nearly 11,000 unsubsidized housing units.
Given State law requirements, San José’s Draft should contain a plan to preserve this vital, unsubsidized housing stock, a more robust goal and program, than, respectively, “balancing the protections of mobilehome parks and development opportunities” and “exploring the efficacy of the existing mobilehome conversion ordinance” is required.40 Further, the City fails to provide any timeline for its program activities other than stating that the timeframe is “on-going.” The Draft’s present language is unacceptable for several reasons:
1) It fails to reflect Council’s very recent action at its Priority Setting Session, where Council voted 8-3 to direct staff to “review and potentially amend the Mobile Home Conversion Ordinance to address the protection of health, safety and welfare of mobilehome park residents, including any needed General Plan amendments.” This was the only item to receive even the needed 6, still less 8, votes to gain a position on the priority list. The goal above does not align with this priority.
2) The stated goal—to “balance” protection of mobilehome parks with development opportunities—is inappropriate because it implies that preservation of mobilehomes is inconsistent with development and will be overridden when it is perceived to stand in the way of development.
3) Mobilehome preservation strategies need to be undertaken on a city-wide basis, not solely in “identified growth areas.”
4) Staff fails to identify any specific actions it plans to take or a timeframe for conducting its actions/program. Given Council’s directive discussed above, the matter should be prioritized for the upcoming year.
5) Given a dearth of available financing options, San José continues to struggle to facilitate the creation of affordable housing to meet residents’ needs and should do all that it can to preserve its existing supply of unsubsidized affordable housing, including these irreplaceable mobilehomes.
Therefore, the City should approve and direct staff to incorporate the following replacement language in the Administrative Draft:
Goal - “In furtherance of the protection of the health, safety and welfare of residents, preserve existing mobilehome parks as a source of unsubsidized affordable housing throughout San José.
Action/Program - “Review and potentially amend the Mobile Home Conversion Ordinance, including any needed General Plan amendments.” Timeline - “2014-2015”
40 Gov’t Code section 65583(c)(4); Draft, Work Plan, p. 6.
Letter to Mayor, Vice Mayor, and City Council Regarding Housing Element
17 The City can initiate other programs to preserve San José’s 59 mobilehome parks by complying with its State law requirements by analyzing its existing housing stock, including homes in mobilehome parks that are at risk of closure. (Government Code section 65583(a).) B. Monitor and prevent substantial rent increases, through expanded rent stabilization measures. The Draft’s present action/program to “assess the efficacy of the existing rent control ordinance” is a weak response to San José’s exorbitant housing costs and fails to provide a specific timeframe for when this assessment will occur within the 2014-2023 Draft period. (Work Plan, p. 13.) The type of assessment and review that the City will conduct of its Rent Control Ordinance and Rental Rights and Referral program is not described. Therefore, we ask that stakeholders, including affordable and fair housing advocates, be interviewed during the assessment and that the City expand application of the Ordinance to the maximum extent allowed under state law. We have provided our views on how the Ordinance may legally be extended to Housing Department in the past and would welcome the chance to engage with them on this further.
Prevent mass residential evictions and demolitions, by instituting just cause eviction that protect tenants and promote neighborhood stability. Since the City’s rent control ordinance currently allows landlords to evict tenants without cause, landlords can circumvent the ordinance’s rent control protections simply by serving their tenants with no-cause notices to quit the premises. Adding a just-cause eviction provision to the ordinance would make its rent control provisions more meaningful and would likely be very effective in preventing the displacement of lower-tenants due to economic pressures.
Additionally, the City could enact a just-cause ordinance that would include units not covered by rent control.
C. Prohibit discrimination by instituting a local source of income ordinance. As identified in the Housing Element, many extremely low-income and low-income residents in San José rely on the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program to remain in San José.
Unfortunately, many voucher holders have difficulty realizing the portability and flexibility that the voucher program is supposed to offer as many landlords refuse to rent to Section 8 voucher holders. As there are no protections against this type of discrimination, many Section 8 voucher holders are forced to move out of highopportunity areas in San José. Other local cities, like East Palo Alto, have enacted ordinances that include participation in Section 8 and other voucher programs as a prohibited source of income discrimination. Our City should enact such an ordinance so that low-income Section 8 voucher holders are able to find stable, rental housing.
D. Fund a variety of programs that stabilize tenancies for residents at-risk of homelessness.
By quickly assessing and instituting programs that provide financial education; emergency cash assistance, which offer deposit and first month’s rent and rapid rehousing resources; and eviction defense that seek to aid residents, including those who are elderly and disabled, are vital to aiding residents retain their housing and preventing homelessness. The City can have immediate impact by funding these programs. One specific suggestion is to institute a program and assists with landlord-tenant issues to prevent unneeded evictions of low-income tenants, which can often lead to homelessness.
Letter to Mayor, Vice Mayor, and City Council Regarding Housing Element
18 Notably, San José had a $100,000 CDBG grant to provide such services which it lost some time ago; the City could make it a priority to regain this funding. Such impact furthers the City’s existing goals and programs to end homelessness.
E. Institute strict condominium conversion policies. The City’s present goal to minimize the impacts of condo conversions and its action is limited to assessment of this impact and mitigation of the impact without any specification of what measures would be considered. There are a host of opportunities, like limiting the number of conversions per year and requiring that a percentage of converted units be sold at affordable rates, to prevent displacement instead of being reactive and later mitigating loss that is preventable.
F. Require the one-for-one replacement of any housing removed from the supply.
G. If existing affordable housing must be removed from the supply, require payment of adequate temporary relocation benefits and a first right of return benefit. The Draft’s present goal of considering policies or ordinances to protect low and moderate income residents in market-rate and deed-restricted affordable housing from displacement is insufficient, especially in light of the fact that the suggested action/program only considers provision of relocation benefits instead of programs that prevent displacement.41
H. Prevent the removal of cultural centers (including retail, entertainment and services) that lead to displacement, especially in Planned Growth Areas and Priority Development Areas. As higher income populations enter into existing neighborhoods, we anticipate that cultural displacement will occur in Urban Villages, like those that encompass Burbank and Alum Rock/Five Wounds, which the City must examine and work to prevent. The City’s Urban Village Plans, which the City seeks to implement per its Work Plan, fails to describe any programs to preserve cultural centers. The Urban Village planning process is underway, and its planning process must be amended to include timely and specific programs that address anti-displacement goals.
21. Conserving and Improving Existing Affordable Housing Stock Should be a Primary Goal
As we described previously, the City should conduct a more in-depth analysis before determining that it will prioritize replacement over preservation and rehabilitation. The City should recognize the benefit of rehabilitating and conserving the existing housing stock because, at present, affordable housing may not be replaced on a one-to-one basis; replacement housing will be concentrated in growth areas versus being dispersed throughout the City; and an approach that focuses on replacement alone does not take into account that disabled and/or senior residents are familiar and have ready access to existing supportive services, and displacing these residents may cause them to lose important resources that aid them in living independently.
41 Draft, Work Plan, p. 14, emphasis added.
Letter to Mayor, Vice Mayor, and City Council Regarding Housing Element
19 The City can further its conservation and rehabilitation of the existing housing stock by implementing programs that waive permit fees for affordable housing rehabilitation and construction through CDBG and other programs.
22. The Goals and Programs for Extremely-low, Very-low and Moderate-Income Housing Should be Expanded
The City can expand upon existing goals by including more programs to facilitate housing for ELI, VLI and moderate income households pursuant to its obligations under Government Code section 65583(c)(2). Programs the City can adopt are:
A. Expanding programs that assess development application and review processes.
Presently, the Work Plan states that it will “Assess development application and review process. Consider improvements as needed,” as a goal, and its related program is that the City will, “conduct an annual Customer Satisfaction Survey Study to measure satisfaction and to provide insight into how services can be improved.” We urge the City to include a program that will be immediately solicit feedback from non-profit housing developers to determine, more rapidly and specifically than an annual survey, the hurdles these developers face so that they may be addressed. Feedback that we recently received while we prepared these comments is that City staff’s design feedback can be overly subjective and require significant resources to address. This is distressing if it unduly prevents the timely creation of affordable housing.
B. Waiving fees or defer for non-profit housing developers.
C. Adopting anti-NIMBY programs. The opposition of community members to housing development, and, in particular, affordable housing development, should be more thoroughly analyzed as a constraint and programs should be developed to educate community members about the myths surrounding and importance of affordable housing.
D. Reassessing the City’s “Jobs First” General Plan policies. (See above.) E. Adopting programs to remove constraints on housing for persons w/disabilities and provide reasonable accommodation for housing for persons w/disabilities. We encourage the City to outline more detailed, specific, and robust strategies to address the increasing shortage of affordable housing opportunities for persons with disabilities, to consider and plan for diverse housing opportunities for these individuals, and to modify the current reasonable accommodation process which unnecessarily risks stigmatizing persons with disabilities.
F. Offering robust affordable development incentives, especially in planned development and Planned Growth Areas. In addition to instituting a host of anti-displacement goals and programs, the City must also create robust incentives to expand our affordable housing supply. San José’s housing need in the next 8 years of nearly 21,000 units of very-low, low-, and moderate-income units still demands that City take vital steps to facilitate production of these units.
Letter to Mayor, Vice Mayor, and City Council Regarding Housing Element
20 G. Facilitating development in transit-oriented development areas. This is described in the City’s Work Plan, and we commend the City for its efforts, though a more specific timeframe for action must be provided. We note, however, that all proposed development must avoid displacing existing residents and destroying our existing affordable housing stock.
H. Instituting a density bonus. Although the Draft describes an action/program that calls for the adoption of a city-wide density bonus ordinance that complies with State law, the program does not provide a time-frame for adopting said ordinance. (Draft, Work Plan, p.
6.) A defined timeframe is needed.
I. Expanding the existing Housing Trust Fund opportunities by adopting commercial linkage fees and a Housing Impact Fee. We applaud the City for including this program but ask that it include a projected timeline for when it will be implemented.
J. Creating a land bank (donate sites, acquire sites) throughout San José. Although the City includes a program to explore the creation of a land bank within Urban Villages, it provides no timeline for this program. Urban Village planning continues to progress and creation of a land bank must immediately commence. In addition to this, the City is projecting a very modest level of affordable housing units that it can facilitate.
Therefore, the City should incorporate this program in the Planned Growth and Planned Development Areas, including in Urban Villages, and provide a specific timeframe for implementing this program.
K. Rezoning affordable housing overlays, super density bonuses. While avoiding policies that displace low- and moderate-income residents and destroy existing affordable housing stock, consider, for example, the implementation of a Housing Overlay Zone over locally designated Priority Development Areas (PDAs), and transit-accessible areas, to incentivize affordable housing inclusion in areas close to amenities and transit alternatives.
23. The City Should Promote Housing Opportunities for all Persons By Updating Its Dispersion Policy
The City’s Work Plan calls for updating its existing dispersion policy to align the location of future affordable housing with resident growth areas identified in the Envision 2040 General Plan; maximize access to transit and other amenities to affordable housing developments; and facilitate the development of diverse and complete communities. Critical to this study is to ensure that housing opportunities for households with all income types are dispersed throughout the city and not confined to the anticipated growth areas. Also, a timeline for conducting this study should be included.
Letter to Mayor, Vice Mayor, and City Council Regarding Housing Element
21 Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback on the draft. We look forward to the City’s response to our suggested revisions. For any questions, please contact Diana Castillo at 408- 280-2448 or via email at [email protected].
Sincerely,
/s/
Diana Castillo, Law Foundation of Silicon Valley
/s/
Stephanie Little, Bay Area Legal Aid
/s/
Matt Huerta, Neighborhood Services of Silicon Valley
/s/
Michele Beasley, Greenbelt Alliance
/s/
Valerie Feldman, Public Interest Law Project
/s/
Charisse Ma Lebron, Working Partnerships USA
/s/
Poncho Guevara, Sacred Heart Community Services
/s/
Chad Bojorquez, Downtown Streets Team
/s/
Dayana Salazar, CommUniverCity
cc:
Housing Department
Planning Department
Members of the San José Housing and Community Development Commission California Housing and Community Development Department 9/15/2014 FW: Are you proposing rent control - Marcus, Adam https://pod51045.outlook.com/owa/projection.aspx 1/1
FW: Are you proposing rent control
Note ever-expanding font size.
Jenny Nusbaum
City of San José, Dept. of PBCE
Planning Division
200 East Santa Clara Street, 3rd Floor Tower
San José, CA 95113
[email protected]
408-535-7872
From: Myron Crawford <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, September 12, 2014 6:24 PM
To: District5
Cc: The Office of Mayor Chuck Reed; Nusbaum, Jenny
Subject: Are you proposing rent control
Xavier Campos
If the below indicates you are proposing rent control you have to ask yourself:
a. Why did the Russians have to stand in line hours to get a pound of beef or a loaf of bread – It was due to price controls b. If you want higher rents put in price controls – you’ll stop development and push rents higher c. If you want poor property maintenance and more social problems put in price controls – there will be less incentive to maintain property d. If you want to lower rents let the developers run free and they be giving free rent when they over build Capitalism works, socialism does not.
Nusbaum, Jenny
Fri 9/12/2014 6:43 PM
Inbox
To:Marcus, Adam <[email protected]>; Brilliot, Michael <[email protected]>; 9/15/2014 FW: Are you proposing rent control - Marcus, Adam https://pod51045.outlook.com/owa/projection.aspx 1/1
FW: Are you proposing rent control
Note ever-expanding font size.
Jenny Nusbaum
City of San José, Dept. of PBCE
Planning Division
200 East Santa Clara Street, 3rd Floor Tower
San José, CA 95113
[email protected]
408-535-7872
From: Myron Crawford <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, September 12, 2014 6:24 PM
To: District5
Cc: The Office of Mayor Chuck Reed; Nusbaum, Jenny
Subject: Are you proposing rent control
Xavier Campos
If the below indicates you are proposing rent control you have to ask yourself:
a. Why did the Russians have to stand in line hours to get a pound of beef or a loaf of bread – It was due to price controls b. If you want higher rents put in price controls – you’ll stop development and push rents higher c. If you want poor property maintenance and more social problems put in price controls – there will be less incentive to maintain property d. If you want to lower rents let the developers run free and they be giving free rent when they over build Capitalism works, socialism does not.
Nusbaum, Jenny
Fri 9/12/2014 6:43 PM
Inbox
To:Marcus, Adam <[email protected]>; Brilliot, Michael <[email protected]>; P.C. Agenda: 09/10/14
Item No.: 7.b.
Continued from 8/27/14
SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
FILE NO.: GPT14-001 Submitted: Director initiated, 02/28/14 (Housing Element Update
2014-2022 Projection Period /
2015-2023 Planning Period)
LOCATION: Citywide Existing Zoning N/A
Proposed Zoning N/A
General Plan Text Amendment
Council District Citywide
Annexation Date N/A
Historic Resource N/A
CEQA Final Program EIRs and Addenda
thereto for Envision San José 2040
General Plan, Downtown Strategy
2000, North San José Development
Policies, and Diridon Station Area
Plan
TEXT REFERENCE: Envision San José
2040 General Plan, Chapter 7
“Implementation”; proposed new Appendix
entitled “Appendix 11: Housing Element for
2014-2022 Projection Period / 2015-2023
Planning Period”; and San José 2020 General
Plan Appendix C: Housing
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Director-initiated request to amend the Envision San José 2040 General Plan (General Plan) Text to incorporate the Housing Element for the 2014-2022 Projection Period / 2015-2023 Planning Period (Draft Housing Element), including the following text amendments among other changes:
Revisions to Chapter 7 “Implementation;”
Addition of new Appendices including Appendix 11 “Housing Element for 2014-2023” to update demographic and housing data, goals, policies, and implementation actions, and to make other minor technical, clarifying and clerical revisions, as necessary, to comply with State Housing Element Law (Government Code sections 65580-65589.8); and Revision and deletion of references to the previous housing element (Appendix C “Housing Element Update 2007-2014” of the San José 2020 General Plan) as appropriate.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommend that the City Council approve submittal of the Draft Housing Element of the General Plan to the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for review, comment, or approval within sixty (60) days of receipt for the following reasons:
1. The Housing Element is a mandatory element of the General Plan with periodic updates required by State law (Government Code sections 65580-65589.8);
2. The Draft Housing Element aligns with the existing Major Strategies in the General Plan regarding the future growth and development of the City;
GPT14-001 Housing Element Update
Planning Commission Staff Report
3. The Draft Housing Element strengthens the existing goals and policies related to meeting the housing needs of all economic segments of the community, including persons with special needs;
4. The Draft Housing Element establishes a comprehensive strategy that include goals, policies, and programs that encourage and facilitate development of housing to achieve the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) fair share for the 2015-2023 planning period; and
5. Adoption of the Draft Housing Element by the City is required in order to receive certification by HCD, which maintains the City’s eligibility for State funds that support existing housing programs and infrastructure projects. HCD certification also creates a rebuttable presumption of validity of the Housing Element in any action to challenge the validity of the Housing Element (Government Code section 65589.3).
BACKGROUND
On August 27, 2014 staff presented an overview of the Housing Element process to the Planning Commission at a public hearing that covered the legal requirements and purpose of the Housing Element, the analytical and content requirements, the context of housing needs, a review of the update process to-date, and next steps. The presentation was followed by Planning Commission discussion and public comment, which addressed the State requirements for the City’s Housing Element, and the number of units by income category that are assigned to the City through the RHNA process. The Commissioners and one public speaker focused their comments on the percentage of affordable housing units assigned to the City, noting the large number of units allocated for Extremely Low Income (ELI) and Very Low Income (VLI) households. The Planning Commission then voted to continue the discussion of the Housing Element item to the Planning Commission hearing scheduled for September 10, 2014. On August 29, 2014 staff released a Draft Housing Element document for public review and comment, and has scheduled community meetings for September 3 and September 6, 2014 at City Hall.
The staff presentation scheduled for Planning Commission on September 10th is intended to focus on the Draft Housing Element’s Implementation Work Plan as a response to identified needs, and the Adequate Sites Inventory. After the Planning Commission considers the Draft Housing Element at the September public hearing, the City’s Housing and Community Development Commission (HCDC) is scheduled to consider the item at a hearing on September 11, 2014.
The Council’s first public hearing for this item is scheduled for the evening of September 23, 2014.
Once Council considers the Draft and approves submittal of it to the State HCD, and the State HCD receives the Draft, HCD has up to sixty (60) days to review the Draft Element document and provide a written response or certify it. Following this 60-day period, City staff will release a final draft based on State HCD and public comments, which City staff anticipates to submit for Council to consider adoption by December of this year. Staff will then submit the adopted Housing Element to HCD for certification.
ANALYSIS
The Envision San José 2040 General Plan currently contains the Housing Element for 2007-2014 as Appendix C, which references the San José 2020 General Plan. The Envision San José 2040 General Plan also contains a summary of how the Housing Element is implemented in Chapter 7, “Implementation”. The proposed General Plan text amendment would replace the Housing Element for 2007-2014 with the Draft Housing Element for 2014-2023, by deleting references to Appendix C in the GPT14-001 Housing Element Update
Planning Commission Staff Report
Envision San José 2040 General Plan (see Attachment 1) and adding a new Appendix 11 to the General Plan that contains the Draft Housing Element for 2014-2023. Chapter 7 text would also be updated to reference current housing trends and summarize the implementation of the Housing Element for 2014- 2023 (see Attachment 2).
To explain how the City will plan for its RHNA goals, the Draft Housing Element (Appendix 11) includes: a summary of public input; discussion of demographics of the City; an assessment of housing needs; constraints and resources affecting housing production; an Adequate Sites Inventory listed by Assessor’s Parcel Number; policies, programs, and actions to preserve housing; an Implementation Work Plan; and evaluation of the prior housing element.
Public Input
The demographics analysis and needs assessment contained in the Draft Housing Element informed the City’s public outreach strategy that included a multi-phase effort to obtain feedback from a broad spectrum of stakeholders representing different City neighborhoods, various age and race/ethnic group categories, and special interests including neighborhood leaders, the business community, developers, realtors, and housing advocates.
From the fall of 2013 through January 2014, City staff facilitated numerous community meetings.
Stakeholder groups included the County of Santa Clara administrative staff; the City’s HCDC, Youth Commission, Fair Housing Consortium; San José Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce, San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association (SPUR), Senior Citizens Commission, Downtown Planning Area Neighborhoods, Edenvale Planning Area Neighborhoods, Alum Rock Planning Area Neighborhoods, Willow Glen Planning Area Neighborhoods, Santa Clara County Housing Action Coalition, Santa Clara County Association of Realtors, Berryessa Planning Area Neighborhoods, and West Valley Planning Area Neighborhoods. Language translation services were requested and provided to several meeting attendees. Stakeholder comments generally related to the following themes:
Affordable Housing for Low Income Households including the Homeless ̶ Targeting resources to Extremely-Low-Income and homeless people makes sense when resources are scarce because these groups are the neediest, but funds go further when subsidies are shallower for developments targeting 50-60% AMI. Developments of 100 or more units achieve economies of scale, and can be less costly than seeking tax credit funding for smaller scattered site developments. Look into using California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) provisions to submit a single application for several scattered sites within a certain radius. For micro-units, State TCAC unit size minimums may need to be changed because all bathrooms must be built to larger ADA specifications adding to the cost of the development. State TCAC requires that 30% of assisted units be three bedrooms for large families. Developers noted that demand for such units is less in urban areas, and developers have trouble renting large units in San José although they are required to build them. For mixed use Urban Villages, participants noted that ground floor retail is a burden for affordable housing developers.
One possible solution is to master lease the ground-floor space to the City at 50% of market rate for municipal offices, libraries, or community centers. This allows the developer to underwrite the space and places the responsibility for leasing on the City.
Address increased homelessness. Include community members from the surrounding neighborhood when developing a response. Address ineffective periodic creek clean-ups, which merely temporarily displace homeless encampments that are quickly reestablished. San José Public GPT14-001 Housing Element Update
Planning Commission Staff Report
Library/San José State University visitor guidelines on allowable personal belongings at the Martin Luther King, Jr. and other library facilities have potential to worsen the Downtown homelessness situation. In essence, to promote safe access for all library patrons, large or oversize items (e.g., bedrolls, duffle bags, large suitcases, etc.) are generally not allowed. Focus resources on housing for the extremely low income segment of the population; local caseworkers are routinely asked to assist in finding interim or replacement housing for low-income clients. Address the gradual loss of transitional housing opportunities and the potential for increased use of Single Room Occupancy (SRO) facilities and secondary units. Encourage “micro” units to enhance affordability. The insufficient supply of affordable housing is evidenced by extensive wait lists/times for Section 8 voucher recipients to find subsidized housing. There is a need for a City policy to incorporate affordable housing into Urban Village plans. The Alameda is an example of where the housing supply includes a good mix of incomes. The region is at risk of being competitively “priced out” due to high housing costs. These costs are detrimental to residents’ quality of life and the ability for multiple generations to maintain close ties in establishing separate, affordable living arrangements in the area.
Jobs/Housing Ratio ̶ Analyze the impact on housing of the General Plan’s “jobs first” policy. Focus on the balance between jobs and housing, and the challenges and opportunities in creation of Urban Villages. The City’s dual efforts to both improve housing affordability and improve the jobs-housing ratio (by prioritizing employment) are in fundamental conflict with one another. The affordable housing gap has grown in recent years, as Silicon Valley has been an engine for job growth but without a commensurate increase in housing. There is a concern that major employers are not participating in a solution to the local housing shortage. Quality of Life ̶ Focus on “quality of life” issues (e.g., neighborhood vitality, crime, schools, etc.) to help attract additional investment.
Density and Intensification ̶ ABAG’s Priority Development Areas (PDAs) would result in “systematic gentrification” of neighborhoods by funneling growth and resources into these relatively small geographic areas. International housing markets (e.g., Asia, Europe, etc.) can provide guidance on ways to improve our local housing supply and to effectively plan Urban Villages, including higher densities, smaller living spaces (“micro” units), and shared housekeeping facilities. Higher densities require costly steel construction. Developers must be incentivized to build at densities of eight stories or more to help overcome cost hurdles. Concerns were expressed about density increases in the Spartan Keyes neighborhood. Concerns were also expressed about congestion resulting from land use intensification and multi-modal roadway improvements, citing the area around Valley Fair/Santana Row as an example.
Transportation ̶ The existing transit system was criticized for being ineffective in serving people’s needs. Conduct studies on transit ridership by residents in the vicinity of new, higher density development. The City has an approach to considering an intersection “built out” and no longer requiring mitigation, but mitigation measures are in fact still necessary. Housing growth should be coupled with transportation improvements; the Evergreen area is an example where the infrastructure is insufficient to accommodate what growth has occurred in recent decades. The Berryessa BART station area is poorly served by transit, and traffic impacts resulting from people using cars to get to and from the station could be a problem.
GPT14-001 Housing Element Update
Planning Commission Staff Report
Community Services ̶ San José needs adequate parks, police, and other services. Provide schools, libraries, community centers, and employment centers in close proximity to planned new housing in the City. There is a disconnect between planning for housing and schools, as school overcrowding is a growing concern in areas of population growth.
Special Needs and the Disabled Plan for housing the disabled, ̶ who are an identified “special housing needs group” in State law. Some money “should be allocated to programs that do repairs and modifications to help keep the elderly and disabled in their homes.” Housing Needs of Senior Citizens Greater diversity of housing t ̶ ypes is needed to prepare for anticipated future demographic shifts (especially growth in the senior and young adult populations).
Evaluate household income and housing affordability issues among seniors. Concerns of seniors include displacement, gentrification, and preservation of low income supply; additional protection of mobile home parks as a source of affordable/senior housing; and financial impact of rapid rent increases on senior citizens living on fixed income. Many longtime residents are “housing rich, income poor” such that mobility is oftentimes limited due to cost implications. Ability to “age in place” will require home retrofits and repairs, such as wheelchair ramps/lifts, grab bars, stair replacement, and proper lighting, along with maintenance and repair of heating, electrical, and plumbing systems, hot water heaters, roofing, etc. Representatives from the Winchester Orchard Neighborhood Association sought to ensure they have a voice in future decisions about revitalization efforts, expressing concern about the potential loss of affordable housing at the Winchester Mobile Home Park. Revise the Urban Village boundary/plan for Santana Row/Valley Fair and Vicinity to exclude the Winchester Ranch Mobile Home Park. Incorporate specific design features, such as benches, small green spaces, and shade elements, to ensure that walkability meets the unique needs of the senior population. There is a concern about the walkability and connectivity of the Hitachi/iStar area, and desire for construction of a pedestrian overcrossing and reopening of the old IBM tunnel under Highway 85 to provide a connection to various public amenities (e.g., hospital, library, farmers market, etc.) in the adjacent neighborhood to the south. Housing for the Young ̶ Recognize that homeless teens are a growing concern. Lack of affordability is a factor resulting in more frequent moves by families, which disrupt the schooling of children.
Address the ongoing housing needs of youth that have “aged out” of foster care and transitional housing programs. Live/work arrangements have potential to meet the needs of some younger persons.
Housing for the Workforce ̶ Promote housing types attractive to single, driving industry workers. Renting and Owning ̶ Sentiments that “homeownership is not a right, but a privilege,” and that the only viable solution to improved housing affordability is increased supply. There is a concern about the trend towards rental housing construction, and the lack of upkeep that can be associated with rental properties. Boost the supply of owner-occupied housing to improve affordability and help contain the recent rise in rental costs. A community comprised of longer-term owners is likely to have greater stability. The City’s rent stabilization ordinance has not been effective in containing a steady rise in costs. Create various governmental incentives to moderate rent increases among housing units otherwise exempted from the City’s Rent Stabilization Ordinance. Expand rent control to enhance affordability.
GPT14-001 Housing Element Update
Planning Commission Staff Report
Preservation of Housing Stock ̶ Preserve the existing housing stock, including but not limited to mobile homes. Declare a moratorium on mobile home park conversions. Create opportunities for a neighborhood stabilization program to provide retrofit/repair services for properties that have been subject to foreclosure. Structures that are aging and/or subject to neglect are more prone to fire (“we respond to an average of three single-family house or apartment fires per week”). Re-use of Public Lands ̶ There is a need for innovative, “out of the box” thinking to address the housing issue, including the potential use of idle public lands for housing and soliciting interest from non-profit organizations (e.g., churches) for more intense development of these land holdings.
Consider using the former Agnews Development Center for dormitories. Fees ̶ Housing development should not have fees waived; everyone needs to pay for services.
Consider imposing a housing impact fee to help construct and rehabilitate affordable housing units.
Given the strength in the housing market, is it now an opportune time to ask developers to pay impact fees, or are impact fees not the solution to affordable housing, because these fees would simply be passed on to consumers and result in even higher costs? The City “should not tax what it wants to build.”
City Ordinances ̶ Evaluate the process and effectiveness of housing-related City ordinances.
Streamline review processing time. Bring greater flexibility to the City’s secondary unit Zoning Code provisions.
Funding Sources ̶ Dissolution of redevelopment agencies and a lack of State housing funds prevent more aggressive solutions to affordable housing. This is a problem that is shared throughout the South Bay. Funding for affordable housing should not come from sales taxes because of their regressive nature. Identify funding sources to help pay infrastructure costs associated with implementation of the City’s Urban Village plans.
Regional Coordination ̶ cities in Santa Clara County could potentially work together to pool affordable housing resources. Inter-agency coordination is important in achieving intended goals.
Address the housing issue from a broader regional perspective, thereby spreading the costs in imposition of any affordable housing fees/taxes/bonds over a larger area with smaller expense to individual households/businesses. Actively educate a wide variety of constituents, including State legislators, school boards, and parent-teacher associations.
Demographics
With approximately one million residents, the City of San José is the 10th largest city in the nation, the 3rd largest in California, and the largest in the San Francisco Bay Area region. San José is the most transit-connected city in the South Bay Area, with significant investments planned for additional transit infrastructure. As a city that has regionally important employment centers in the South Bay, San José is composed of many high tech, manufacturing, and service jobs. However, San José remains the bedroom community for the region, providing a disproportionate supply of housing opportunities for a workforce that is employed in smaller and wealthier neighboring cities.
Additionally, San José is one of the most socioeconomically and ethnically diverse cities of any size in the country, with Whites, Hispanics, and Asians each comprising approximately one third of the City’s total population. Like most cities in the United States, San José’s population is aging, with the largest GPT14-001 Housing Element Update
Planning Commission Staff Report
population growth in the elderly/senior age group (persons age 65+ years), increasing the need for senior housing solutions. At the same time, “young adults” (persons age 20-35 years) will comprise the age group with the second largest projected growth in San José over the next 25 years, and they seek vibrant, walkable, urban places to live, work, and play.
This trend towards urban, amenities-rich areas is increasingly driving the location preferences of employees and employers, as well as families and households. The Draft Housing Element seeks to account for these diverse needs for a broader array of housing choices in its Implementation Work Plan.
These housing choices may include secondary dwelling units, new urban housing types such as “micro” units of approximately 200-400 square feet) as well as the adaptation of the existing housing stock to meet changed circumstances such as allowing seniors to “age in place”.
Needs Assessment
The Draft Housing Element provides an assessment of the existing and projected housing needs in San José. Regional housing needs are determined by Statewide and regional population projections. The housing needs analysis draws on data from multiple sources to compare income levels with housing costs to derive measures of affordability for various households, special needs, and housing types. This analysis provides the basis for understanding the attributes and extent of San José’s housing needs and issues, and, taken together with the demographics analysis, is used to inform the Housing Element’s Implementation Work Plan.
San José has long been one of the costliest places in the nation for living. Although about one-third of Santa Clara County’s workforce command high salaries in the range of approximately $86,000 to $144,000 per year, nearly half of all jobs pay low-income wages between $19,000 and $52,000 annually.
Projections from the State show that more than half of the new jobs created in the County over the next few years will pay $11.00 per hour or less. These working-class wages are not enough to pay for housing costs without creating a housing burden, defined as housing costs that exceed 30% of income.
The market has not produced housing that is naturally affordable to low-income households, and public resources for affordable housing have been significantly diminished in recent years. Consequently, both the existing and future need for affordable housing in San José is considerable and far exceeds available supply. To the extent that this trend of income disparity continues, affordable housing needs can likewise be expected to remain high or even rise.
Constraints and Resources
As required by State law, the Housing Element must identify both governmental and non-governmental constraints to housing. Governmental constraints are government policies that may impede housing production in pursuit of other important public goals, while non-governmental constraints are those impediments created through market forces. “Constraints” is not used in the Housing Element as a pejorative, but rather as a neutral term to describe factors that may potentially make it more difficult or costly to develop housing. For example, a policy that requires housing to be developed in areas with existing City services is necessary for more sustainable development although, depending on circumstances, it may also make housing more costly to build due to higher land costs. However, the purpose of identifying specific policies and regulations as potential constraints is not necessarily to eliminate them, but to develop and implement other programs to mitigate housing costs while simultaneously balancing all City goals and policies.
GPT14-001 Housing Element Update
Planning Commission Staff Report
Governmental Constraints
Governmental constraints refer to government regulations and policies that can limit development by adding regulatory constraints including development permit requirements, processing time, and/or development costs. These can potentially include constraints such as:
1. Zoning Regulations – The City’s Zoning Ordinance includes conventional zoning districts established for residential uses. Alternatively, the Planned Development zoning process can establish a unique zoning district for a site, including use and development standards, which may otherwise not be found in a conventional zoning district. For example, the absence of a conventional zoning district that allows residential development at a minimum density of 30 dwelling units per acre as a permitted use could be described as a constraint because of the requirement of an application for PD zoning and PD permit for the City to consider approval of that density.
2. Processing Time – Processing times for zonings and development permits can increase the carrying costs of a property under consideration for development. Processing time is dependent on a number of factors, including the enforcement of State laws and City ordinances, the ability of the applicant to coordinate with City staff and community members to address project issues, and the need to ensure that the general public is fully informed through required notices, meetings and hearings.
3. Fees and Taxes – The fees and taxes applicable to a development project include application/entitlement fees, construction fees, impact/capacity fees, and development taxes.
Application/entitlement fees include fees for consideration of the application for a land use approval and environmental clearance. Construction fees include the various building permit, plan check, and public improvement fees related to the construction process. Impact/capacity fees are charged to mitigate the costs that new development places on community infrastructure or other required improvements. Development taxes are tax assessments on development projects commonly based on project valuation.
4. Onsite and Offsite Improvements – New residential development is responsible for both public and private improvements directly associated with the development. The City has established both public and private infrastructure standards so that developers can factor in those costs during the development design stage.
5. Level of Service (LOS) Policies – The General Plan includes LOS policies for transportation, sanitary sewers, storm drainage, flood control, police, fire, and parks. Development proposals are also reviewed to ensure that the Water Pollution Control Plant (WPCP) capacity is not exceeded.
6. Building Code Requirements – The City of San José uses the California Building Code (CBC) as the standard for all new construction. San José also encourages the use of the State Historic Building Code for designated historical properties to facilitate the rehabilitation and reuse of important historic resources. The City has also adopted local amendments regarding certain structural design requirements, compliance with FEMA regulations, fire sprinkler regulations, and other building and plumbing requirements.
The General Plan is a “jobs first” plan to increase the jobs per employed resident ratio from below 1 to above 1 so that the City is no longer housing rich and jobs poor. So that this approach does not create a constraint to housing, the General Plan contains key Policies for sufficient flexibility to meet State housing requirements, including the following:
GPT14-001 Housing Element Update
Planning Commission Staff Report
IP-2.5 During each Major Review of the General Plan evaluate input provided by the reconvened Task Force and achievement of the following key General Plan goals to inform the City Council’s decision, regarding needed changes, to begin the next General Plan Horizon, or to increase the number of residential units available for non-specific Urban Village areas, verify that the current Planning Horizon contains adequate capacity to meet San José’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation for the remaining 7 ½ year portion of the current 8 year term; and Confirm that adequate infrastructure and service facilities, especially transit, exist or that a secure plan for them is in place to support the planned jobs and housing capacity in the current and contemplated Horizon.
IP-2.11 Provide a “Pool” of residential unit capacity which may be allocated to allow entitlement of residential projects within Urban Village Areas not included within the current Plan Horizon.
This pool is initially established as 5,000 units, and may be replenished as part of a General Plan Major Review. Projects receiving allocation must conform to the Land Use / Transportation Diagram. Preparation of an Urban Village Plan for the subject Urban Village is necessary prior to allocation of these units unless the project qualifies as a Signature Project.
Non-governmental Constraints
Non-governmental constraints refer to the impediments to housing production that result from market factors. The primary non-governmental constraints identified in the Draft Housing Element are:
1. Production Costs – The cost of housing production is a significant non-governmental constraint. This is especially true for projects that seek deeper affordability requirements (for example, including more ELI units rather than VLI- or LI units) because a greater amount of subsidy is required to ensure that the project is financially feasible. The major components of production costs include construction, labor, and land. The cost of basic construction materials has increased significantly over the past several years. Additionally, land in San José continues to be expensive relative to other regions in the State and compared with many areas in the rest of the United States.
2. Financing – The ability to produce housing depends on the ability of developers to borrow money in order finance construction. For both market-rate and not-for profit developers, this depends largely on the willingness of banks to provide loans for such development. For affordable housing, this also generally depends on the availability of local, state, and federal subsidies that non-profit housing developers can access to make their projects financially feasible. In the current economy, financing for affordable projects is difficult to obtain from any of these sources. Additionally, the State has eliminated many funding sources for affordable housing including the City’s Redevelopment Agency, resulting in the loss of a major primary source of funding for affordable housing in the City.
These factors have profoundly impacted the City’s ability to provided assistance to affordable housing developers.
3. Environmental – Environmental constraints to residential development within the City typically relate to the presence of one or more of the following physical factors that affect the development of housing including sites located in areas subject to severe flooding, riparian corridors, and geological hazards. The types of constraints vary in different areas of the City.
4. Public Opposition – Existing residents may be against new affordable residential development.
Opposition can lead to a protracted planning process to solicit and respond to public opinion, which adds to the time and cost of development.
GPT14-001 Housing Element Update
Planning Commission Staff Report
Adequate Sites Inventory
State law requires an Adequate Sites Inventory as part of a jurisdiction’s Housing Element.
The Inventory must demonstrate that the housing potential on land suitable for residential development is adequate to accommodate the City’s RHNA of 35,080 total dwelling units available for development between 2014 and 2022. The City must assess the land capacity available within its jurisdiction to meet its RHNA and perform a parcel-by-parcel site inventory identifying where housing can be located and how many units each parcel may yield.
As of April 2014, the City has identified an Adequate Sites Inventory designated for approximately 35,117 new dwelling units based on a conservative estimate at the lower end of the density range of dwelling units allowed under the existing applicable land use designations for the subject sites on the General Plan Land Use/Transportation Diagram. This Inventory assumes at least 2,666 units in Urban Villages in Horizon 1 and allocation of 500 units from the pool of 5,000 units for Urban Villages in future Horizons. All of the units that are counted in the Inventory in Urban Villages must be part of Urban Village Plans that are approved by January 2015.
This figure represents the General Plan residential holding capacity and approved residential projects minus the residential development anticipated in future phases of the North San José Area Development Policy beyond 2014. For purposes of calculating the Adequate Sites Inventory, future phases of residential development in North San José are not assumed to occur prior to 2023. To further describe the residential capacity for the Draft Housing Element, the inventory divides the residential capacity in the following categories:
1. Sites Already with Planning Entitlements1
;
2. Planned Downtown Residential Development;
3. Residential capacity in Planned Communities;
4. Residential capacity in Urban Villages that are anticipated to have approved Urban Village Plans by January 2015;
5. Vacant sites that are designated for residential development in the General Plan;
6. Sites entitled for residential development in the North San José Development Policy Area;
7. Allocation from a pool of 5,000 units available for Urban Villages beyond the current Horizon (Horizon I); and
8. Underutilized Redevelopable Parcels with residential land use designations. 1 Units with a Planned Development (PD) zoning, PD permit, or other development permit that have not been issued building permits.
GPT14-001 Housing Element Update
Planning Commission Staff Report
Table 1. Existing Residential Capacity
Location/Status Category
Planned Housing
Units
Percent of
Total
Already Entitled1 32.7% 11,474
Downtown 9,701 27.6%
Planned Communities 7,547 21.5%
Urban Villages2 7.6% 2,666
Vacant Land3 6.1% 2,125
North San Jose4 N/A N/A
"Pool" Allocation5 1.4% 500
Underutilized Redevelopable Parcels 1,104 3.1%
Totals 35,117 100.0%
RHNA Allocation (2014-2022) 35,080
Source: City of San Jose
Notes:
1Includes unbuilt units in Phase 1 of the North San Jose Area Development Policy (NSJADP) and in the Hitachi mixed use village project, but otherw ise excludes projects in other identified categories. 2Horizon 1 only of the Envision San Jose 2040 General Plan. 3To avoid double-counting, excludes vacant lands in other identified categories. 4Phases 2-4 of the NSJADP, allow ing an additional 24,000 units, are not anticipated during the RHNA period. 5Allocation of units per Policy P-2.11 of the Envision San Jose 2040 General Plan.
DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSING UNITS
PLANNED DURING THE RHNA PERIOD (2014-2022)
Based on existing General Plan Goals and Policies and the escalating depletion of vacant lands in San José, future development will consist primarily of higher density housing in strategic infill locations, including Downtown and other identified Growth Areas in the General Plan in urban locations predominantly close to transit. Most of the sites are already developed, but are underutilized, so the majority of sites in the inventory will need to be redeveloped or have their existing development intensified with additional buildings. Vacant lands represent just a small fraction of the yield from residentially zoned lands, because these are generally small or lower density sites at the edges of the City’s Urban Service Area.
The Adequate Sites Inventory’s holding capacity for approximately 35,117 new dwelling units is currently available for development during the 2015-2023 RHNA planning period. This means the City of San José is able to accommodate potential development of approximately 35,117 additional dwelling units without needing to amend the General Plan Land Use/Transportation Diagram to designate additional sites for residential use. Therefore, no changes to land use designations on the sites identified in the Adequate Sites Inventory are currently proposed in the Draft Housing Element.
Preservation
In the past, San José facilitated its affordable housing supply primarily through the production of new deed-restricted multifamily housing. In addition, a portion of San José’s market-rate and mobile homes are considered “naturally affordable” because of their location, condition, and physical characteristics (although the exact number of naturally affordable homes is unknown).
GPT14-001 Housing Element Update
Planning Commission Staff Report
Because affordable homes may be lost over time due to expiring deed-restrictions or be redeveloped (if naturally affordable), it is important for the City to include policies and programs that seek to preserve the existing affordable housing stock. Chapter 7 of the Draft Housing Element analyzes the deedrestricted housing stock that is at risk of conversion to market-rate housing and compares the costs of replacement versus preservation.
Implementation Work Plan
Challenges to meeting the 2014-2022 RHNA goals include: the reduction in funding from government sources particularly as a result of the dissolution of redevelopment agencies, the high costs of land and construction locally; difficulties in obtaining financing; and the need for more funding sources to meet affordable housing goals. Some of these challenges may be met with process improvements and housing programs, which are part of the Implementation Work Plan in the Draft Housing Element. The Draft Housing Element Work Plan includes existing as well as proposed or potential new policies, programs, and partnerships to meet San José’s changing housing needs. The Work Plan also includes specific actions intended to comply with State law, as well as “Potential Actions” that the City has identified as important but may not currently have the staffing or resources to explore for implementation. City staff will monitor these potential actions and will explore or undertake these items pending sufficient resources and if these items escalate in importance. The Implementation Work Plan is organized around four primary components:
1. Increase, preserve, and improve the supply of safe, livable, and affordable housing for low and moderate income residents.
a. Programs and Funding
b. Coordination
c. Housing Planning Tools
2. Invest in activities to end homelessness.
3. Promote equitable development.
4. Support healthy, sustainable communities and neighborhoods.
Specific descriptions and timeframes for proposed policies and programs can be found in the Implementation Work Plan located in Appendix D of the Draft Housing Element.
CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN
The twelve Major Strategies of the General Plan provide guiding principles for its goals and policies.
These strategies include: Community Based Planning; a Form Based Plan; Focused Growth; Innovation/Regional Employment Center; Urban Villages; Streetscapes for People; Measurable Sustainability / Environmental Stewardship; Fiscally Strong City; Destination Downtown; Life Amidst Abundant Natural Resources; Design for a Healthful Community; and Plan Horizons and Periodic Major Review.
GPT14-001 Housing Element Update
Planning Commission Staff Report
The Draft Housing Element is consistent with all of these Major Strategies. By promoting housing opportunities for all economic segments of the community, the Housing Element is consistent with the Design for a Healthful Community and Innovation/Regional Employment Center Major Strategies by facilitating development of workforce housing to support driving industries. The Focused Growth and Fiscally Strong City Major Strategies address the need to balance the urban facilities and services demands of new development with the need to balance the City’s budget. Infill development within urbanized areas is identified as an important means of controlling service costs through increased efficiency, and the Draft Housing Element identifies housing opportunities located primarily on urban infill sites, near jobs centers, transit, and areas with existing neighborhood services. These sites support the Destination Downtown Major Strategy as well as the Urban Villages Major Strategy, which underscores the importance of enhancing San José’s neighborhoods by promoting Downtown development and critical density in mixed-use development in identified Growth Areas. All these sites are located within the Greenline/Urban Growth Boundary, which is consistent with the Focused Growth, Sustainability / Environmental Stewardship, and Life Amidst Abundant Natural Resources Major Strategies in preserving the scenic backdrop of the hillsides surrounding San José, preserving habitat, agricultural resources, and recreational opportunities. By promoting the efficient use of land and infrastructure resources through higher density development in urbanized areas and strategic locations, the Draft Housing Element is consistent with all the General Plan Major Strategies in maintaining San José’s ability to meet its future service needs while preserving a healthy living environment.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Envision San José 2040 General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Resolution No. 76041, and Addenda thereto; Downtown Strategy 2000 EIR, Resolution No. 72767, and Addenda thereto; North San José Development Policies EIR, Resolution No. 72768, and Addenda thereto; and Diridon Station Area Plan EIR, Resolution No. 77096 and Addenda thereto (collectively, the “Final Program EIRs”).
Pursuant to Section 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of San José has determined that this activity is within the scope of the earlier approved programs and the Final Program EIRs adequately describe the activity for purposes of CEQA. The project does not involve new significant effects beyond those analyzed in the Final Program EIRs.
PUBLIC OUTREACH/INTEREST
The City created a website URL (www.sanjoseca.gov/housingelementupdate) and customized project email address ([email protected]) to share information and invite public feedback about the process. On January 15, 2014 an introductory “e-blast” was sent to a list of more than 3,000 persons and organizations with a demonstrated interest in the topic. The wide distribution of this e-blast was then further extended by subsequent communication from individual City Council District offices to their respective constituents and forwarding by the City Manager’s Office to a list of more than 200 community groups. The Draft Housing Element was posted on the website on August 29, 2014, and staff sent an e-mail blast to subscribers, including the general public, Council District offices, and other interested parties, to provide the public an opportunity to submit comments on the draft.
GPT14-001 DRAFT TEXT AMENDMENT
ENVISION SAN JOSE 2040 GENERAL PLAN
CHAPTER 7 “Implementation”
Section on Housing Element
Housing Development
The Land Use / Transportation Diagram and the Housing goals and policies contained in the Envision General Plan, in concert with its other Goals, Policies and Implementation Actions, are intended to address several concerns related to the supply of housing within San José and the region. These concerns are closely related, so that one strategy may address multiple objectives. At the same time, housing supply is a regional issue for Santa Clara County and the Bay Area. Without a cooperative regional approach, San José will not be able to fully meet its housing, economic development, and fiscal sustainability goals. By providing adequate housing growth capacity at strategic locations, San José will do its part to address the concerns of housing affordability, reducing commute demand by providing housing supply in close proximity to employment and service uses, and creating high quality, complete urban neighborhoods by focusing new housing growth into higher-density, compact areas around transit facilities.
San José has traditionally provided the bulk of housing in Santa Clara County with a large range in price and the largest number of affordable units. Much of this housing is in the form of low-density neighborhoods. A shortage of commercial and industrial activity and relatively low residential property values have negatively impacted the City’s revenue while the inefficient form of its housing supply has raised service costs. This has resulted in fiscal challenges for the City as it attempts to provide services to its resident population. In order to provide and maintain high-quality residential areas, the City must pursue opportunities to improve its fiscal health through the implementation of its policies related to housing.
Goal IP-19 – Housing Development
Implement the Envision General Plan Land Use / Transportation Diagram and Envision General Plan Goals, Policies and Implementation Actions related to housing development (Housing Program) to meet San José’s housing needs and to address State and regional housing production requirements.
Policies – Housing Development
IP-19.1 Through a Major General Plan Review or, as needed, through the Annual General Plan review process, evaluate the Plan’s consistency with housing GPT14-001 DRAFT TEXT AMENDMENT Chapter 7 Section on Housing Element Page 2 of 10 development goals as determined by the State and regional agencies and take actions as necessary to address their requirements.
IP‐19.2 In determining an appropriate Housing Program, maximize City resources towards the area of greatest need and to utilize available State and Federal programs.
Housing Element1
The City’s Housing Element aligns with the General Plan goals and the City’s federal and local housing plan goals to include a range of affordable housing opportunities for low- and moderate-income households, an effective response to homelessness, equitable and complete communities, and sustainable, transit-oriented communities.
San José’s Local Housing Elements 2007-2014 was adopted in June 2009 and was subsequently are periodically required to be certified that year by the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). State certification creates a legal presumption that the Housing Element complies with State law. Housing Element certification maintains San José’s eligibility for key infrastructure and housing funds from Federal, State, and regional sources.
State law requires cities to update their Housing Element generally every fivefour to seveneight years. The current Housing Element is the result of community input and the analysis of demographic data, housing needs, constraints, and resources for housing development, planned housing supply, and housing preservation needs. The Housing Element addresses housing needs for the period between January 1, 2007 and June 30, 2014. It serves as a starting point for developing includes strategies and actions for implementing the housing goals and policies fofr the Envision San José 2040 General Plan.
San José has been a leader in providing housing for a growing regional population. The San José 2020 General Plan had capacity for approximately 60,000 new housing units. As currently proposed, the Envision San José 2040 General Plan will provide capacity for approximately 48,000 new housing units through the conclusion of Horizon 1. For 2007 2014, the 2014-2022 San José’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) projection period, the City’s share of housing for the Bay Area Region is 34,721 35,080 new housing units. O of those 34,721 new housing units, which13,0739233 units should serve low-, very-low, and extremely-low and very-low income households, 5,428 units should serve low-income households, and 6,1988 units should serve moderate-income households, and 14,231 units should serve above moderate-income households. Although the City will have adequate capacity to meet the overall RHNA number of housing units, production of the affordable homes will be very challenging because of the loss of affordable housing funding from the City’s former Redevelopment Agency, the depletion of State housing resources, reduced federal housing and community development funding, legal challenges to inclusionary housing programs, and the lack of other tools. The Housing Element for 2007 2014 addresses how the City can facilitate development of adequate these new housing for each income group homes consistent with affordability requirementswhile alsoplanning providing for neighborhoods with parks, schools, and access to transportation, jobs, shopping, and other services.
GPT14-001 DRAFT TEXT AMENDMENT Chapter 7 Section on Housing Element Page 3 of 10 Housing Element Implementation Program
In the development of the Land Use/ Transportation Diagram, the maps of which are available on the City’s web site, those residential and housing goals and policies having spatial or locational dimensions were considered and are, to a large extent, implemented by land use designations and through the process of reviewing development proposals. Other housing goals and policies cannot be effectuated through land use decisions and require program responses as outlined in the following sectionsAppendix 11.
Quantified objectives for housing programs are for the revisedplanning time frame of the Housing Element (January 31, 200715 through June 30January 31, 201423)rather than the 1994-2020 time frame of the San José 2020 General Plan.
The following discussion is integrally linked with the goals and policies stated in this Plan. The implementation of the housing and other related goals and policies occurs, in part, through the development review process, as described earlier in this chapter.
TechnicalDetailed information regarding housing issues in San José is provided in Appendix 511, which also includes a detailed description of the housing programslisted below , policies, and actions to implement during the Housing Element planning period in order to address the needs and constraints identified in Appendix 11.
The Housing Element implementation work plan carries over some of the programs from the prior RHNA cycle and also includes new initiatives to address new needs and constraints, to build new partnerships, and to identify new funding opportunities. It also includes potential actions to explore by the City, pending the availability of staff capacity and resources. The implementation work plan is organized according to the following Housing Element goals:
1. Increase, preserve, and improve the supply of affordable housing.
2. Invest in activities to end homelessness.
3. Promote equitable development.
4. Support healthy, sustainable communities and neighborhoods.
This work plan includes items that are already in progress as well as potential new policies and programs to explore as funding becomes available. Funding sources have been noted when plausible, but the ongoing scarcity of housing subsidies, recent legal challenges to inclusionary housing programs, and the uncertainty of timing on new sources make it difficult to project through January 2023. 1 Legislation recently enacted (ABX1 26 and 27, Blumenfeld 2011) could significantly impact the viability of redevelopment throughout the state which, in turn, may affect public funding of affordable housing. The current Housing Element, including Appendix C (Housing) is scheduled to be updated in 2014 and should reflect resolution of legilation and litigation relating to redevelopment agencies and funding.
GPT14-001 DRAFT TEXT AMENDMENT Chapter 7 Section on Housing Element Page 4 of 10 Summary of Housing Needs Analysis
In support of the 2007 2014 update of the Housing Element, the City applied available data to build on previous updates. The conclusions of the update indicate a continuation of the trends identified five years earlier. Housing costs remain high in San José and the County as a whole, relative to the State. According to the Santa Clara County Association of Realtors, the median value of a single family home in San José was $560,000 and $350,000 for condominium and townhomes as of August 2008. Clearly such high prices, coupled with high financing costs, can severely constrain the ability of even moderate income families and households to purchase a home. Because of spatial correlations between housing cost and employment centers, the spiraling of prices has also caused an even longer commute time for many households searching for cheaper housing both inside and outside of the region. Such commutes impact the transportation network and degrade the environment.
San José’s population grew from 894,943 in 2000 to 989,496 in 2008- an increase of 94,553 residents. The City of San José includes over half of the county’s population, and has grown slightly faster than the county as a whole over the past decade, and accounts for two thirds of the residential growth in the county. During the last decade the City’s population increased 18% while the county’s increased by 17%. This growth is expected to continue into the next decade but at a much slower rate.
Average household size in San José has experienced ups and downs over the last thirty years, but has exhibited relative stability in recent years. According to the 2006 American Community Survey, the average household size in San José is 3.12 persons, compared to 2.92 in the State and 2.6 nationwide. This figure represents a decrease from the average household size in 2000 and a slight increase over the 1990 figure of
3.08 persons per household. The average household size in San José is relatively higher compared to the State and nationwide average. This is partially due to the increase in the number of larger families as well as rising housing costs. According to the 2006 American Community Survey, approximately eight percent of all occupied dwelling units (23,530 units) could be classified as overcrowded with a higher percentage of renters living in overcrowded conditions than owners. As greater numbers of families and households are unable to enter the ownership housing market, they turn to the rental market. The tight housing market has caused vacancy rates to range between 1.0% and 3.6% over the past several years. As further detailed in Appendix C, 53,205 renter households and 81,699 home owner households in San José spent more than 30% of their gross incomes on housing in 2006. Of these households, 18,714 were extremely low income renter households (incomes less than 30% of the area median income); 14,877 were very low income renter households (incomes between 30% and 60% of area median); and 10,579 were low income renter households (incomes between 60% and 80% of area median). These numbers do not include those families who are living doubled-up or who are forced to live in outlying areas and commute to jobs in San José.
Under State law, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) determines the fair share allocation of housing need for all Bay Area communities. For San José, the housing need is 34,721 dwelling units between January 2007 and June 2014. Of this GPT14-001 DRAFT TEXT AMENDMENT Chapter 7 Section on Housing Element Page 5 of 10 number, 3,876 are needed for extremely low income households, 3,875 for very low income households, 5,322 for low income households, 6,198 for moderate income households and 15,450 for above moderate income households. This fair share allocation is limited to the projection of future housing need; it does not take into account households living “doubled-up” or who have been forced to live in outlying areas due to the lack of affordable housing in San José due to limitations of official data sources. However, the City’s housing programs are intended to address needs of lower income households. The City’s housing programs also seek to create affordable housing opportunities at the deepest affordability. In addition, the City’s Housing Department, under its current Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) for project developments has a requirement that affordable housing financed by the City must incorporate a minimum of 25% ELI units. Moreover, in accordance with the adopted Five Year Housing Investment Plan, the Housing Departments must target 30% of its Low and Moderate Income Housing Funds (20% funds) to ELI households.
Determining an Appropriate Program Response
The City of San José has traditionally provided the bulk of housing in Santa Clara County with a large range in price variation including the largest number of affordable units. The needs analysis contained in the Housing Appendix, however, clearly indicates a large and complex housing need which exceeds the resources of the City to meet.
In determining an appropriate program response, the City seeks to maximize its resources towards the area of greatest need and to utilize available State and Federal programs. Recently, however, Federal and State resources which address housing needs have diminished, while needs have increased, particularly for low income rental apartments.
In order to implement the City’s housing programs more effectively, the City Council consolidated the Housing and Neighborhood Development Division of the Department of Neighborhood Preservation with the Housing Development section of the Redevelopment Agency in the fall of 1987 and created the Housing Department. A Mayor’s Task Force on Housing was created to develop housing policies to guide the City in addressing affordable housing needs. A comprehensive Housing Needs Assessment was prepared by a consultant and reviewed by the Task Force; together with input from the community, the Housing Needs Assessment formed the basis for the five- year Housing Program. The Mayor’s Final Report outlines the following City housing policy goals:
Goal 1: Increase the supply of affordable housing, preserve the housing stock and reduce the cost of developing affordable housing.
Goal 2: Utilize available resources to address priority needs for housing.
Goal 3: Increase the funds available for the preservation and development of affordable housing.
Goal 4: Disperse low income housing throughout the City to avoid concentrations of low income households and to encourage racial and economic integration.
GPT14-001 DRAFT TEXT AMENDMENT Chapter 7 Section on Housing Element Page 6 of 10 Goal 5: Encourage greater involvement of public and private sectors to increase and preserve the stock of affordable housing in San José.
Based on these policy goals, a series of recommendations was made relating to land use planning, site acquisition, residential development tax exemptions, Single Room Occupancy housing, the conversion of assisted units to market rate rentals, long- term affordability requirements, targeting of funds by income level and need for new or rehabilitated housing, development policies for rental and ownership housing, last resort housing and other issues.
The City has systematically addressed these issues and has implemented the individual recommendations outlined in the Final Report. These goals continue to shape the program directions implemented as a part of the City’s Consolidated Plan.
The Housing Assistance Program objectives outlined below include the City’s funding resources (numerically identified in the text) as well as available Federal and State monies. Because of uncertainties in dollar projections and recent legislative action at the Federal level, these objectives can only be considered as numerical representations of what the City anticipates can be achieved for low and moderate income housing.
The housing program objectives set forth below represent the results of a number of analyses. The construction activity projections are based on the City’s annual construction activity forecasts used in the development of the Capital Improvement Program.
The other program objectives are based on: 1) the City’s experience with affordable housing programs which will be monitored annually and updated in conjunction with the Consolidated Plan goal setting process; 2) the rates of success in implementing the Housing Element program goals incorporated into the General Plan in 1978, 1981, 1983, 1984, 1988, 1989, 1994, and 2003; and, 3) State and Federal Government funding resources available to the City. The objectives for the “Additional Programs” listed on the following pages are based on the need to promote additional housing opportunities and to expand existing programs.
Housing Assistance Program Objectives
Construction Activity Projections. The City of San José has projected a total dwelling unit production of approximately 24,700 units for the January 2007- June 2014 time frame of the Housing Element. These figures assume an average of 3,800 new building permits approved each year, reflecting the recent trend of housing construction in San José. The City projects approximately 7,300 units of affordable housing production for the fiscal year 2000/ 01 - 2005/06 time frame. Between January 1999 and June 2006, approximately 8,900 affordable housing units were produced.
Local Assisted Housing Programs Objectives. The City of San José’s extremely low, very low, low and moderate income housing goals for the 2005 2010 Consolidated Plan are summarized in Table HE 1 and 2 (see following pages). In addition to the five year housing production goals shown in Talbe HE-1, the City has goals for the conservation of existing affordable housing units. For example, there are 10,585 mobilehome units in GPT14-001 DRAFT TEXT AMENDMENT Chapter 7 Section on Housing Element Page 7 of 10 San José as of 2006 and all but about 200 of these units are located on sites zoned RM H Park District) or are under a Planned Development zoning which allows only mobilehome parks as a permitted use. These zoning districts are designed to encourage the preservation of mobilehome parks and give them some continued protection from speculative conversion to other units during the 2007-2014 planning period because of the increased stability provided for mobilehome parks through these zoning districts.
Table HE 1 indicates that the goals for new construction of assisted housing units includes the acquisition/rehabilitation of “at- risk” units (federally assisted rental units that could be converted to market rate rents). The City’s Housing Department will use a variety of programs identified in the Housing Appendix to conserve these units. Over the time period of the Housing Element from July 1, 2009 to June 30, 2014, the City anticipates funding commitments for 2,750 units with an emphasis on Extremely Low and Very Low-income households. The City does not anticipate allocating funding in order to preserve its at-risk housing units, as this housing stock is primarily owned and managed by non profit organizations that are committed to preserving the affordability restrictions. Table HE 2 breaks down the production goals according to income levels for identified priority groups.
In 2009, the City Council adopted an updated Inclusionary Housing Policy that requires that 15% of the residential units built city-wide be affordable. The ordinance will go into effect when the City issues 2,500 residential permits in a rolling 12 month period or in 2013, whichever comes first.
Table HE 1: Proposed Five Year Production Goals 2009 2014
TARGETI
NG
NEW
CONSTRU
CTION
ACQUISITI
ON/
REHABILI
TATION
PRESERV
ATION
5 YEAR
TOTAL
ELI 563 125 0 688
VLI 1,462 325 0 1,787
LI 225 50 0 275
Mod 0 0 0 0
Market 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 2,250 500 0 2,750
Source: City of San José Housing Department, 2008
Table HE 2: Affordable Housing Production Priority
Existing and New Programs
The following actions will be taken in implementing the goals of the City of San José’s Five Year Housing Strategy:
The Use of the City’s 20% Redevelopment Housing Fund
GPT14-001 DRAFT TEXT AMENDMENT Chapter 7 Section on Housing Element Page 8 of 10 Under the requirements of California Community Redevelopment Law, as provided in Section 33334.2 of the Health and Safety Code, 20% of the tax increment funds from merged, amended, or newly created redevelopment areas utilizing tax increment financing must be set aside for housing purposes for low and moderate income households. These funds may be used for a variety of purposes such as land or building acquisition, construction financing, subsidies, land improvements, development of plans and paying the principal or interest on bonds and loans. Given the economic downturn, the Housing Department anticipates that its 20% funds will stay even with its FY 2008 09 amount of $37,000,000, and does not expect an increase. The 20% funds are used to finance all aspects of the Housing
PRIORITY
HOUSING
NEEDS
HOUSEHO
LDS
INCOME
LEVELS
# OF
HOUSEHO
LDS
PRIORITY
NEED
LEVEL
HIGH,
MEDIUM,
AND LOW
UNMET
NEED
BASED
ON COST
BURDEN
GOALS
0 30%MFI
(7,470)
H 6,125 316
31-
50%
MFI
(7,3
65)
H 5,523 700
Small
Related
Renters
(0-80%) -
20,974
51-
80%
MFI
(6,1
39)
M 2,701 440
0-30%MFI
(4,600)
H 3,956 200
31 50%
MFI
(4,7
15)
H 2,923 600
Large
Related
Renters
(0 80%)
12,968
51 80%
MFI
(3,6
53)
M 876 330
Elderly
Renters
0 30%MFI H 3,723 200
GPT14-001 DRAFT TEXT AMENDMENT Chapter 7 Section on Housing Element Page 9 of 10 (5,659)
31 50%
MFI
(1,6
85)
H 1,078 249
(0 80%)
8,182
51 80%
MFI
(838
)
M 444 150
0 30%MFI
(4,955)
H 3,518 59
31-
50%
MFI
(3,4
54)
H 2,798 500
Other
Renter
Households
(12,533)
51-
80%
MFI
(4,1
24)
M 2,557 90
0-30%MFI
(10,755)
H 7,528 591
31 50%
MFI
(4,7
15)
H 7,118 620
Total
Owner
House
holds
(0 80%)
(19,123)
51 80%
MFI
(3,6
53)
M 8,190 719
TOTAL 59,058 5,764
Source: City of San José Department of Housing Consolidated Plan, 2005 2010
Small Households = Four persons or fewer
Large Households = Five persons or more
GPT14-001 DRAFT TEXT AMENDMENT Chapter 7 Section on Housing Element Page 10 of 10 • Transit Oriented Development/Mid and High Rise Residential Design Guidelines • Enhanced High Rise Design Review Process
• 2007 California Standards Code Outreach and Training
• Live Telephone Customer Service
• Preliminary Review Application Process
• Housing Department Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) Process and Underwriting Guidelines
• Improvements in the Building Division to facilitate streamlining of the permitting process
• Elimination of the Planned Development Zoning process requirement for certain Mixed Use Development projects
• Option to Use Discretionary Alternate Use Policies through a Use Permit • 2008 Zoning Ordinance Streamlining Amendments
In addition, implementation of the 2007-2014 Housing Element will require the City to update existing land use policies in the General Plan as well as adopt new ordinances and revisions to the Zoning Ordinance in order to comply with State law. These actions include adopting a Density Bonus Ordinance, establishing a higher density multi family residential zoning district, and revising several General Plan land use designations to establish a minimum density of 30 dwelling units per acre. Descriptions of these programs and the relevant General Plan policies that guide their implementation are listed in Figure 23 of the 2007 2014 Housing Element.
Equal Housing Opportunities
The City of San José is committed to providing equal housing opportunities for all persons wishing to reside in San José. City policy is to distribute housing units affordable to various income levels throughout the City to create economically diverse neighborhoods. The City has a variety of programs to avoid discrimination and to resolve discrimination complaints.
The City of San José encourages equal housing opportunities through its rent relief/stabilization program. Apartment tenants and mobilehome residents seeking relief from rent increases may request a public hearing.
The City funds the Legal Aid Society of Santa Clara County’s Housing Project with CDBG monies for the provision of fair housing services to landlords and tenants. Legal Aid provides help with evictions, rental repairs, deposits, rental agreements, leases, rental disputes, mortgage delinquency, home purchase counseling, housing discrimination and other housing related issues. Legal Aid staff is responsible for fair housing counseling, conciliation, fair housing education, referrals, investigations and audits. These responsibilities may extend to monitoring of HUD subsidized complexes on a request basis.
P.C. AGENDA: 9-10-14
ITEM: 7.b.
Continued from 8/27/14
Attachment B, Draft 2014-2023 Housing Element, is available on the web:
http://www.sanjoseca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/34553
9/10/2014 FW: Reuest for Change to Housing Element Update - Marcus, Adam https://pod51045.outlook.com/owa/projection.aspx 1/2
FW: Reuest for Change to Housing Element Update
Jenny Nusbaum
City of San José, Dept. of PBCE
Planning Division
200 East Santa Clara Street, 3rd Floor Tower
San José, CA 95113
[email protected]
408-535-7872
From: James Reyner <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 6:24 AM
To: Nusbaum, Jenny
Cc: Brilliot, Michael
Subject: Reuest for Change to Housing Element Update
City Planning Team:
Last evening’s (9/9/2014) city council vote in favor of reviewing the mobile home conversion ordinance supports the public opinion that mobile homes are a good source of affordable housing. It certainly affirms the wisdom of the statement in the 2014- 2023 Housing Element Update, Chapter V-12 (pg121 of 244) “Mobile homes are a critical source of affordable housing in the city”. Consistent with this wise statement, Appendix D: Implementation Work Plan (pg 6 of 14) contained the goal “ Protect mobile home parks as a source of housing that can be available at an affordable rate.”
I say “contained the goal” because, at the community review held 9/6/2014, the planning staff was embarrassed to admit that this goal had just been revised to state “Balance the protection of mobile home parks as a source of naturally affordable housing with the development opportunities in identified growth areas.” The reason given was a lack of funding to support the previous goal statement Nusbaum, Jenny
Wed 9/10/2014 12:04 PM
Inbox
To:Marcus, Adam <[email protected]>;
9/10/2014 FW: Reuest for Change to Housing Element Update - Marcus, Adam https://pod51045.outlook.com/owa/projection.aspx 2/2
This equivocation is unacceptable and the previous wording should be reinstated.
The city needs to stop the bleeding of affordable housing, which has been going on for some time. There are 10,000 units of mobile home affordable housing in the city. These homeowners can’t even sell their units if the city policies are driven solely by development considerations. We need the city to just say no to mobile home park conversions, and find a source of funding to make it happen.
I hope you can restore the previous wording in Appendix D: Implementation Work Plan before Council Hearing #1 scheduled for 9/23/2014, as the new wording is totally out of tune with the rest of the document and in conflict with the inclusionary housing policies in the city’s general plan.
Sincerely,
Emily Holton
3361 Olsen Drive
9/10/2014 FW: Reuest for Change to Housing Element Update - Marcus, Adam https://pod51045.outlook.com/owa/projection.aspx 1/2
FW: Reuest for Change to Housing Element Update
Jenny Nusbaum
City of San José, Dept. of PBCE
Planning Division
200 East Santa Clara Street, 3rd Floor Tower
San José, CA 95113
[email protected]
408-535-7872
From: James Reyner <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 6:24 AM
To: Nusbaum, Jenny
Cc: Brilliot, Michael
Subject: Reuest for Change to Housing Element Update
City Planning Team:
Last evening’s (9/9/2014) city council vote in favor of reviewing the mobile home conversion ordinance supports the public opinion that mobile homes are a good source of affordable housing. It certainly affirms the wisdom of the statement in the 2014- 2023 Housing Element Update, Chapter V-12 (pg121 of 244) “Mobile homes are a critical source of affordable housing in the city”. Consistent with this wise statement, Appendix D: Implementation Work Plan (pg 6 of 14) contained the goal “ Protect mobile home parks as a source of housing that can be available at an affordable rate.”
I say “contained the goal” because, at the community review held 9/6/2014, the planning staff was embarrassed to admit that this goal had just been revised to state “Balance the protection of mobile home parks as a source of naturally affordable housing with the development opportunities in identified growth areas.” The reason given was a lack of funding to support the previous goal statement Nusbaum, Jenny
Wed 9/10/2014 12:04 PM
Inbox
To:Marcus, Adam <[email protected]>;
9/10/2014 FW: Reuest for Change to Housing Element Update - Marcus, Adam https://pod51045.outlook.com/owa/projection.aspx 2/2
This equivocation is unacceptable and the previous wording should be reinstated.
The city needs to stop the bleeding of affordable housing, which has been going on for some time. There are 10,000 units of mobile home affordable housing in the city. These homeowners can’t even sell their units if the city policies are driven solely by development considerations. We need the city to just say no to mobile home park conversions, and find a source of funding to make it happen.
I hope you can restore the previous wording in Appendix D: Implementation Work Plan before Council Hearing #1 scheduled for 9/23/2014, as the new wording is totally out of tune with the rest of the document and in conflict with the inclusionary housing policies in the city’s general plan.
Sincerely,
Emily Holton
3361 Olsen Drive
9/10/2014 Comments on the Draft Housing Element - Marcus, Adam https://pod51045.outlook.com/owa/projection.aspx 1/2
Comments on the Draft Housing Element
Affordable Housing Network of Santa Clara County, P.O. Box 5313, San Jose, CA 95150 September 8, 2014
Dear Commissioners and Councilmembers,
As noted in the draft, our organization submitted a list of recommendations for policies and programs to be included in San Jose’s 2014-23 Housing Element. We feel that the August draft Housing Element fails to adequately consider these recommendations and request that the document be revised to address them as follows.
1) First of all, deliberately planning to make the affordable housing crisis worse is not an intelligent or acceptable strategy, yet that is exactly what our General Plan sets out to do. As the HE draft notes on page III-4, achieving the GP goal of 1.3 jobs per employed resident will result in “significantly” increasing housing costs and “exacerbating” affordability issues. This “core objective” literally undermines and subverts every single affordable housing measure proposed throughout the entire Housing Element. This is the appropriate time to correct the error of the “jobs first” general plan strategy. According to the draft, state law requires revision of the General Plan to ensure internal consistency with the Housing Element. We cannot have an HE goal of creating affordable housing while we have a GP goal of sending housing costs through the roof. 2) Regarding homelessness, we support the outreach, rapid rehousing, supportive services, hotel supportive housing, regional planning, alternative housing options, tiny homes, and safe parking programs that are included in the draft. What we do not support is the “encampment response to abate, prevent, or deter significant encampments.” Encampments are not a law enforcement problem, they are a housing program. If the City ensured provision of affordable housing, the encampments would empty out immediately.
The Housing Element should include specific plans to house the almost 4000 San Jose residents who live outside, including providing shelter from the winter cold. Sweeps, arrests, citations, and jails are cruel, an enormous waste of resources, and have no place in a Housing Element. 3) The draft contains no mention of the commercial impact fees we proposed and which are a typical measure in numerous localities for funding affordable housing. It is common knowledge that the driving force behind the housing crisis in Silicon Valley is the jobs-housing imbalance, which is caused by irresponsible expansion of local technology corporations without regard for their social impact. A commercial impact fee would link the solution of the crisis with the cause.
The failure to address this is clearly related to the wrong-headed “jobs first” strategy noted above. [email protected]
Mon 9/8/2014 7:23 AM
Inbox
To:Chen, Wayne <[email protected]>; Nusbaum, Jenny <[email protected]>; Marcus, Adam <[email protected]>; housingelementupdate <[email protected]>; 9/10/2014 Comments on the Draft Housing Element - Marcus, Adam https://pod51045.outlook.com/owa/projection.aspx 2/2
4) The draft fails to include our proposal to relieve the stress of the disabled and/or part-time, temporary, and low-wage workers who live under constant threat of eviction by establishing a new income category to fund construction of housing for families that earn 15% of median income or below ($11,000 or below for a single individual and $16,000 or below for a family of four).
Affordable housing funds should be allocated to the various income categories based on greatest need.
5) The draft must be changed to include positive language committing the City to extend and strengthen San Jose’s rent control ordinance to the maximum extent permitted by Costa-Hawkins, including a genuine just cause eviction provision, and to campaign to protect California renters by overturning Costa-Hawkins.
There is no need whatsoever for the “assessment” of the rent control ordinance called for in the draft. The evidence is already in, much of it in the tables of Chapter III of the draft. The ordinance as written has dramatically failed to contain the crisis and requires revision. In addition to adding a serious just cause provision, the allowable rent increases should be reduced from the current 8% to no more than the cost of living, and the apartments covered should be expanded to those built up until 1995, as advocated in a recent memo by Councilmember Campos.
Finally, the City should adopt an ordinance forbidding landlords from discriminating against tenants with Section 8 or other subsidized housing vouchers. Recent Housing Authority cuts have caused numerous landlords to abandon the program, and many avoid it especially during times of a low vacancy rate. In addition, the City relies heavily on vouchers for its programs to house the homeless. The City’s failure to end this form of landlord discrimination is creates a major obstacle to our plans to house the homeless..
6) Finally, this was not included in our original proposals, but developments around the Winchester Ranch Mobile Home Park have made it clear that the City must revise its Mobile Home Ordinance to prevent any closure and conversion of mobile home parks whatsoever. We have an affordable housing crisis in this city. The language in the draft to “balance the protection of mobile home parks as a source of naturally affordable housing with the development opportunities in identified growth areas” must be explicitly rejected. What possible “opportunity” could justify throwing our elderly and low-income residents out in the streets? The Housing Element must contain a provision committing the City to permanently bar all mobile home park conversions.
Thank you for considering these recommendations.
Sincerely,
Sandy Perry, Organizer
1 FAIR HOUSING LAW PROJECT
Law Foundation of Silicon Valley
152 North Third Street, 3rd Floor
San José, California 95112
Fax (408) 293-0106 • Telephone (408) 280-2435 • TDD (408) 294-5667 September 9, 2014
Via email to: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; and [email protected]
Re: 2014-2023 Housing Element Administrative Draft, Comments September 10, 2014, Planning Commission meeting, Item 7-B Dear Planning Commissioners:
The Fair Housing Law Project (a program of the Law Foundation of Silicon Valley), Bay Area Legal Aid, and Neighborhood Housing Services of Silicon Valley are non-profit organizations that primarily serve extremely-low to moderate-income San José residents with housing-related issues.
Thank you for considering our comments regarding San José’s 2014-2023 Draft Housing Element Administrative Draft (Administrative Draft). We appreciate staff’s hard work on this document, which is the blueprint for the City’s housing policy for the next decade.
In particular, we appreciate the inclusion of several measures to help increase the availability of affordable housing in San José and look forward to assisting with the implementation of those measures. For example, the Housing Impact Fee, affordable housing land banking near transit and in Urban Villages, rent control, and relocation assistance for tenants displaced from low-income housing are worthy, important proposals that we support.
However, we have been severely impeded in our ability to conduct a comprehensive review of the entire 220-plus page, highly technical draft. This document was only provided to the public late on August 29, a Friday before a three-day weekend. The first public outreach sessions was scheduled only one business day after release of the draft.
This last-minute, rushed release and outreach schedule was reflected in the anemic participation that we saw in the session our staff attended.
Despite the above, we reviewed several sections and identified areas where the draft should be improved to aid the City in developing more housing to meet its residents’ needs. We request that the Planning Commission direct City staff to address the deficiencies and/or issues identified below. We reserve the right to augment and change our comments as we are able to review the Administrative Draft more thoroughly.
Housing Needs Assessment
In terms of Housing and Household characteristics, the City identified that that overcrowding occurred in approximately 30,000 housing units in 2010, most of which are rental homes. The City also found that this figure represented an overall overcrowding 2 rate of 10% and a severe overcrowding rate of 3.2%. The City also acknowledged that while it is difficult to determine which of many factors lead to overcrowding, the high cost of housing plays a key role but that an element of overcrowding may result from “cultural preferences.”
Our offices routinely serve clients who live in severe overcrowded housing, and in our experience San José’s severe overcrowding rate likely exceeds 3.2%. Although “cultural preferences” in some instances may lead to overcrowding, this is not a frequently expressed consideration by clients who seek our services. Our observations are that the following factors contribute to local overcrowding:
Limited housing stock and diversity of housing type;
Lack of foreclosure intervention resources/support for homeowners with unaffordable mortgages who need to rent out rooms and garages to make ends meet each month;
Other costs, like daycare/childcare/medical care, leave struggling families with insufficient funds to pay for housing costs;
Lack of mid-/entry-level jobs with potential for growth; Lack of adult education to create access to jobs with growth; and Temporary or permanent loss of employment.
Although the Administrative Draft cannot address all of these issues, dedicated funding to address the impacts that result from these conditions is needed in San José. Our clients need financial counseling services to economize and budget to, in many cases, preserve their existing affordable housing. In addition, faced with a temporary loss in income and likely loss of housing, our clients need aid in overcoming these temporary short-falls to maintain their housing. The City of San José can help residents retain their housing by funding local, non-profit entities to provide financial education programs; emergency cash assistance programs that offer deposit and first month’s rent assistance and rapid rehousing resources; and eviction defense programs that seek to aid residents, including those who are elderly and disabled, to retain their housing. San José’s high-cost housing market makes programs like these essential, which would prevent further overcrowding, residence in substandard housing, and homelessness.
In terms of Existing Housing Stock, while a vast majority, 80% of homes, are relatively newer in San José (built between the 60’s and 70’s) and less than 1% are substandard, many neighborhoods experience “quality of life” issues including blight, crime, and deteriorated schools pointing to serious disinvestment. In many neighborhoods, some rental properties are not managed well and become a source of overcrowding, gang activity, and blight. According to a recent study conducted by the City Auditor on the Code Enforcement activity in the city, there was no correlation between the age of the property and the problem properties. This points to an increased need for Code Enforcement action to ensure properties do not become neighborhood scale problems.
Due to loss of funding in the last decade, in FY 2010-11 the City’s Code Enforcement Department determined that it would not be able to provide an inspection for some types of “routine” cases. Instead, the responsible party is sent a letter informing them of the complaint and giving them time to fix the problem. Complaints that do not currently generate an inspection include:
3 Early set out of garbage/yard waste;
Fence violations;
Graffiti, illegal dumping;
Inadequate landscaping;
Illegal garage sales;
Lawn parking; and
Overgrown weeds.
This type of service reduction has an adverse impact on the quality of life of City residents and neighborhoods. Code Enforcement is supposed to be the first responder to basic neighborhood health and safety concerns. City leaders have repeatedly emphasized the need to reduce the “broken window” syndrome (i.e., that smaller neighborhood problems like the above can be indicative of, or lead to, bigger problems).
The City Auditor’s Report in November 2013 provided 22 recommendations to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of Code Enforcement. These recommendations should be implemented as soon as possible, including changes to the Municipal Code to allow inspectors to issue misdemeanor citations for extreme cases.
The City should continue to work with nonprofits and neighborhood leaders to engage property owners as part of the Responsible Landlord Engagement Initiative and other community engagement strategies to improve the physical and social conditions that stem from longstanding problem properties.
Potential Governmental Constraints
We found that identification of potential governmental constraints was insufficient. We also found that the Administrative Draft failed to adequately address the removal of governmental constraints. By way of example:
Waiver of Parkland Fees. The Administrative Draft discusses how parkland fees were previously waived in whole or in part for low-income housing units. It then acknowledges that these fee waivers expired several years ago. The Administrative Draft fails to identify how the government constraint of construction-related fees and taxes can be removed by renewing these fee waivers or permitting deferral of fees for low-income housing developments. Emergency Shelters. There is at least one zone that allows emergency shelters without any conditional use permits. But the Administrative Draft fails to acknowledge the constraint on the development of shelters if sites within that designated zone are not available. The Administrative Draft should identify sites that are available for emergency shelters without a CUP requirement. SRO Housing. The Administrative Draft recognizes the importance of SROs as a source of affordable housing, but it does not provide for any zone where SROs can be a permitted use without a Special Use Permit or Conditional Use Permit.
These permits require additional time and expense. Removal of this constraint would require amending the zoning code.
Quantified Objectives and Housing Programs
San José’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) for the 2014-2022 period is substantial at about 35,000 units. Of this amount during the 2014-2022 period, Horizon 1 of the Envision San José 2040 General Plan states that 2,666 planned units will be located 4 within the City’s 70 Urban Villages. Of this amount, San José is projected to need about 11,750 units that serve very low, low and moderate income households. For the January 31, 2015 to December 31, 2023 period, the City seeks to facilitate the development of up to 3,405 homes with emphasis on development of housing for extremely low- and very low-income households.
Although the City recognizes that it will need to leverage its subsidies with other resources, like low income housing tax credits and other sources to fill the affordability gap, the City’s Administrative Draft and expressed work plan needs to be more robust to meet the City’s substantial housing need. To this end, the City should more fully define the work it will perform under the programs and funding opportunities staff identified in its Administrative Draft, including specifying the work it will perform in the coming seven to eight years in its draft Implementation Work Plan for the following items:
Housing Impact Fee/Nexus Study. We applaud the City staff for including this program, but ask that it include a projected timeline for when it will be implemented.
Land Banking within Urban Villages. Given the modest level of units the city projects that it will be able to facilitate in the coming 7 to 8 years and that the Urban Villages planning process is underway, we request that City staff incorporate this item in its present Urban Village planning process. We encourage the City to expand land banking exploration to areas that extend beyond the Urban Village areas.
Preserve existing deed-restricted multifamily rental homes. Although the City identifies in its work plan that it will fund the extension of the affordability restrictions for existing multifamily affordable homes pending funding availability, elsewhere in the draft it states that it plans to prioritize new construction over preservation to increase the overall supply of housing. The City argues that modern buildings are less costly to operate and more resource efficient. The City states that most housing units at risk of conversion will require acquisition and rehabilitation versus financing alone.
Advocates request that the City balance its approach by recognizing the value in preserving existing housing because: 1) failing to preserve existing affordable housing substantially impacts residents who may have limited transportation means and depend on critical supportive, medical and other services in their existing neighborhoods; and 2) replacement housing will be concentrated in certain areas of the City versus being dispersed throughout the City of San José. Facilitate Affordable Housing in Transit Oriented Development. This item is extremely important and we are glad to see it in the work plan. However, no specific plan or timeline is provided.
Implement Urban Village Plans. Provide timelines for action and expand plans, like the Diridon Station Area Plan, to other areas to require minimum affordable housing within other plan areas. At the same time, include anti-displacement measures so that existing affordable housing is not lost in the Urban Village planning areas.
Mobilehome Preservation. Include a more affirmative statement of the City’s commitment to preserving this unsubsidized affordable housing type to include:
adopting a General Plan Designation, rezoning mobile home parks, and amending 5 the mobile home park conversion ordinance to be consistent with the City’s policy of mobile home park preservation in identified growth areas.
The implementation plan’s goal to “balance” protection of mobilehome parks with development opportunities is inappropriate and needs substantial revision. It implies that preservation of mobilehomes is inconsistent with development and will be overridden when it is perceived to stand in the way of development. Further, mobilehome preservation strategies should be explored on a city-wide basis, not in presently designated growth areas alone, given the City’s pressing need for affordable housing.
Invest in Activities to End Homelessness. It is good to see the commitment to a variety of programs to address the high rate of homelessness in San José.
However, we believe that these programs should include assistance with landlordtenant issues to prevent unneeded evictions of low-income tenants, which can often lead to homelessness. Notably, San José had a $100,000 CDBG grant to provide such services which it lost some time ago; the City could make it a priority to regain this funding.
Development application and review process assessment. In addition to creating an annual customer satisfaction survey, include outreach to affordable and market rate housing developers to identify and alleviate the burdens to bringing housing units to the market.
Updating Dispersion Policy. The City’s work plan calls for updating its existing dispersion policy to align the location of future affordable housing with resident growth areas identified in the Envision 2040 General Plan; maximize access to transit and other amenities to affordable housing developments; and facilitate the development of diverse and complete communities. Critical to this study is to ensure that housing opportunities for households with all income types are dispersed throughout the city and not confined to the anticipated growth areas.
Also, a timeline for conducting this study should be included. Rent Control and Rental Rights and Referral. Although this item is identified in the City’s work plan, the type of assessment and review that the City will conduct of its Rent Control Ordinance and Rental Rights and Referral program is not described. We ask that stakeholders, including affordable and fair housing advocates, be interviewed during the assessment.
Further, we request that the City expand application of the Ordinance to the maximum extent allowed under state law. We have provided our views on how the Ordinance may legally be extended to Housing Department in the past and would welcome the chance to engage with them on this further. Educating Landlords on How to Better Manage Tenants and Reduce Crime/RLEI.
We are appreciative of the planned efforts to educate landlords and tenants about their rights and responsibilities with respect to criminal activity by tenants and its impact on their tenancy. As stated above, we believe that the City should continue its participation in RLEI. However, it is critical that such efforts be undertaken with a keen understanding of the potentially severe consequences of evicting tenants, and in a manner that ensures that the legal rights of tenants (including their due process and fair housing rights) are respected.
To further enhance development of housing units in the planning period, we also request that the City expand its work plan to include:
6 Implementation of Just Cause provision for tenant evictions. Since the City’s rent control ordinance currently allows landlords to evict tenants without cause, landlords can circumvent the ordinance’s rent control protections simply by serving their tenants with no-cause notices to quit the premises. Adding a justcause eviction provision to the ordinance would make its rent control provisions more meaningful and would likely be very effective in preventing the displacement of lower-tenants due to economic pressures. Additionally, the City could enact a just-cause ordinance that would include units not covered by rent control.
Consider the implementation of a Housing Overlay Zone over locally designated Priority Development Areas (PDAs), and transit-accessible areas, to incentivize affordable housing inclusion in areas close to amenities and transit alternatives; Commercial Linkage Fees;
Consider an ordinance similar to East Palo Alto’s Source of Income Ordinance EPAMC § 14.16.010.A.4 which prohibiting Income-Based Rental Housing Discrimination; and
Universal Design Standards for apartments.
Conclusion
Thank you for considering these comments. I may be contacted at 408-280-2448 to discuss the contents of this letter.
Sincerely,
/s/
Diana E. Castillo
Senior Attorney
cc: Pilar Lorenzana-Campo, Non-Profit Housing Assoc. of N. California ([email protected])
Stephanie Little and Lauren DeMartini, Bay Area Legal Aid ([email protected] and [email protected])
Matt Huerta, Neighborhood Housing Services of Silicon Valley ([email protected])
9/10/2014 Comments on the Draft Housing Element - Marcus, Adam https://pod51045.outlook.com/owa/projection.aspx 1/2
Comments on the Draft Housing Element
Affordable Housing Network of Santa Clara County, P.O. Box 5313, San Jose, CA 95150 September 8, 2014
Dear Commissioners and Councilmembers,
As noted in the draft, our organization submitted a list of recommendations for policies and programs to be included in San Jose’s 2014-23 Housing Element. We feel that the August draft Housing Element fails to adequately consider these recommendations and request that the document be revised to address them as follows.
1) First of all, deliberately planning to make the affordable housing crisis worse is not an intelligent or acceptable strategy, yet that is exactly what our General Plan sets out to do. As the HE draft notes on page III-4, achieving the GP goal of 1.3 jobs per employed resident will result in “significantly” increasing housing costs and “exacerbating” affordability issues. This “core objective” literally undermines and subverts every single affordable housing measure proposed throughout the entire Housing Element. This is the appropriate time to correct the error of the “jobs first” general plan strategy. According to the draft, state law requires revision of the General Plan to ensure internal consistency with the Housing Element. We cannot have an HE goal of creating affordable housing while we have a GP goal of sending housing costs through the roof. 2) Regarding homelessness, we support the outreach, rapid rehousing, supportive services, hotel supportive housing, regional planning, alternative housing options, tiny homes, and safe parking programs that are included in the draft. What we do not support is the “encampment response to abate, prevent, or deter significant encampments.” Encampments are not a law enforcement problem, they are a housing program. If the City ensured provision of affordable housing, the encampments would empty out immediately.
The Housing Element should include specific plans to house the almost 4000 San Jose residents who live outside, including providing shelter from the winter cold. Sweeps, arrests, citations, and jails are cruel, an enormous waste of resources, and have no place in a Housing Element. 3) The draft contains no mention of the commercial impact fees we proposed and which are a typical measure in numerous localities for funding affordable housing. It is common knowledge that the driving force behind the housing crisis in Silicon Valley is the jobs-housing imbalance, which is caused by irresponsible expansion of local technology corporations without regard for their social impact. A commercial impact fee would link the solution of the crisis with the cause.
The failure to address this is clearly related to the wrong-headed “jobs first” strategy noted above. [email protected]
Mon 9/8/2014 7:23 AM
Inbox
To:Chen, Wayne <[email protected]>; Nusbaum, Jenny <[email protected]>; Marcus, Adam <[email protected]>; housingelementupdate <[email protected]>; 9/10/2014 Comments on the Draft Housing Element - Marcus, Adam https://pod51045.outlook.com/owa/projection.aspx 2/2
4) The draft fails to include our proposal to relieve the stress of the disabled and/or part-time, temporary, and low-wage workers who live under constant threat of eviction by establishing a new income category to fund construction of housing for families that earn 15% of median income or below ($11,000 or below for a single individual and $16,000 or below for a family of four).
Affordable housing funds should be allocated to the various income categories based on greatest need.
5) The draft must be changed to include positive language committing the City to extend and strengthen San Jose’s rent control ordinance to the maximum extent permitted by Costa-Hawkins, including a genuine just cause eviction provision, and to campaign to protect California renters by overturning Costa-Hawkins.
There is no need whatsoever for the “assessment” of the rent control ordinance called for in the draft. The evidence is already in, much of it in the tables of Chapter III of the draft. The ordinance as written has dramatically failed to contain the crisis and requires revision. In addition to adding a serious just cause provision, the allowable rent increases should be reduced from the current 8% to no more than the cost of living, and the apartments covered should be expanded to those built up until 1995, as advocated in a recent memo by Councilmember Campos.
Finally, the City should adopt an ordinance forbidding landlords from discriminating against tenants with Section 8 or other subsidized housing vouchers. Recent Housing Authority cuts have caused numerous landlords to abandon the program, and many avoid it especially during times of a low vacancy rate. In addition, the City relies heavily on vouchers for its programs to house the homeless. The City’s failure to end this form of landlord discrimination is creates a major obstacle to our plans to house the homeless..
6) Finally, this was not included in our original proposals, but developments around the Winchester Ranch Mobile Home Park have made it clear that the City must revise its Mobile Home Ordinance to prevent any closure and conversion of mobile home parks whatsoever. We have an affordable housing crisis in this city. The language in the draft to “balance the protection of mobile home parks as a source of naturally affordable housing with the development opportunities in identified growth areas” must be explicitly rejected. What possible “opportunity” could justify throwing our elderly and low-income residents out in the streets? The Housing Element must contain a provision committing the City to permanently bar all mobile home park conversions.
Thank you for considering these recommendations.
Sincerely,
Sandy Perry, Organizer
9/10/2014 2014-23 Housing Element Update - Questions (Affordable Housing) - Marcus, Adam https://pod51045.outlook.com/owa/projection.aspx 1/2
2014-23 Housing Element Update - Questions (Affordable
Housing)
Planning Folks,
Thanks for your presentation on Wednesday evening. As I listened to the discussion, I left with six questions that I would really like you to answer. I know you have a busy schedule on this update, but - if possible - I would appreciate a response by September 8th so that I can take the news to my neighborhood association board of directors' meeting that evening.
1. There are 58 mobile home parks in the city, many offering affordable housing for seniors. What is Planning’s position with respect to placing a moratorium on their conversion?
2. An Urban Village should include affordable housing for the working poor (e.g., cooks, janitors, retail sales, tellers)? How is the Housing Element plan linked to the Urban Village planning efforts?
3. We are lagging in trying to meet ABAG affordable housing goals. Does Planning track the number of affordable housing units lost during a year? If the answer is yes, is this number added to next year’s allocation?
4. We were told on 8/27/ 2014 that, because of the “bifurcated wage situation,” there is a need to counterbalance market forces, if affordable housing is to survive in the city. What actions are in the works to counterbalance these market forces?
5. The public seems to support the idea of improving city senior housing opportunities. What are some of the ways that neighborhood associations can partner with the city to work toward this goal?
6. The Housing Element plan should be updated “as frequently as appropriate”. Given that the current revision is to be submitted to HCD by James Reyner <[email protected]>
Fri 8/29/2014 2:34 PM
Inbox
To:Nusbaum, Jenny <[email protected]>;
Cc:Chen, Wayne <[email protected]>; Marcus, Adam <[email protected]>; Emily Holton <[email protected]>;
9/10/2014 2014-23 Housing Element Update - Questions (Affordable Housing) - Marcus, Adam https://pod51045.outlook.com/owa/projection.aspx 2/2
January 31, 2015, what is the target date for the next update? Emily Holton, District 1
3361 Olsen Drive
95117
9/10/2014 2014-23 Housing Element Update - Questions (Affordable Housing) - Marcus, Adam https://pod51045.outlook.com/owa/projection.aspx 1/2
2014-23 Housing Element Update - Questions (Affordable
Housing)
Planning Folks,
Thanks for your presentation on Wednesday evening. As I listened to the discussion, I left with six questions that I would really like you to answer. I know you have a busy schedule on this update, but - if possible - I would appreciate a response by September 8th so that I can take the news to my neighborhood association board of directors' meeting that evening.
1. There are 58 mobile home parks in the city, many offering affordable housing for seniors. What is Planning’s position with respect to placing a moratorium on their conversion?
2. An Urban Village should include affordable housing for the working poor (e.g., cooks, janitors, retail sales, tellers)? How is the Housing Element plan linked to the Urban Village planning efforts?
3. We are lagging in trying to meet ABAG affordable housing goals. Does Planning track the number of affordable housing units lost during a year? If the answer is yes, is this number added to next year’s allocation?
4. We were told on 8/27/ 2014 that, because of the “bifurcated wage situation,” there is a need to counterbalance market forces, if affordable housing is to survive in the city. What actions are in the works to counterbalance these market forces?
5. The public seems to support the idea of improving city senior housing opportunities. What are some of the ways that neighborhood associations can partner with the city to work toward this goal?
6. The Housing Element plan should be updated “as frequently as appropriate”. Given that the current revision is to be submitted to HCD by James Reyner <[email protected]>
Fri 8/29/2014 2:34 PM
Inbox
To:Nusbaum, Jenny <[email protected]>;
Cc:Chen, Wayne <[email protected]>; Marcus, Adam <[email protected]>; Emily Holton <[email protected]>;
9/10/2014 2014-23 Housing Element Update - Questions (Affordable Housing) - Marcus, Adam https://pod51045.outlook.com/owa/projection.aspx 2/2
January 31, 2015, what is the target date for the next update? Emily Holton, District 1
3361 Olsen Drive
95117
LAW FOUNDATION OF SILICON VALLEY
152 North Third Street, 3rd Floor
San José, California 95112
Fax (408) 293-0106 • Telephone (408) 280-2435 • TDD (408) 294-5667 January 26, 2015
Transmitted via email to Office of the Mayor, Office of the Vice Mayor, Members of the City Council, and City Clerk
Re: Agenda Item 4.2, January 27, 2015 Council Meeting: Draft Housing Element Dear Mayor, Vice-Mayor, and Councilmembers:
On behalf of a coalition of organizations concerned about preserving and creating affordable housing in the City of San José, we respectfully submit the following comments on the City’s 2014 – 2023 Housing Element Administrative Draft (“Draft”), initially released for public review on August 29, 2014. The Law Foundation of Silicon Valley serves San José’s extremely low- to moderate-income residents with housing-related issues—including tenants’ rights, fair housing, and habitability—and advocates for affordable housing to affirmatively further fair housing in our community.
In collaboration with other non-profit organizations, the Law Foundation has commented on prior drafts at public outreach meetings and Commission and Council meetings, and has met with Housing and Planning Department staffs. We also submitted a comprehensive comment letter to Council and staff on September 22, 2014,1and subsequently highlighted certain comments from this letter in our October 31, 2014, letter to Paul McDougall of the Housing and Community Development Department (HCD), who evaluated the City’s October 3, 2014, draft to determine whether it met the minimum requirements of state housing element law. We documented a number of significant shortcomings in the housing element in these communications and meetings.
On November 28, 2014, HCD formally recommended that the City of San José revise its housing element so that it complies with housing element law. Many of HCD’s comments echoed our earlier recommendations. In response, the City of San José published its January 7, 2015, Draft, which will be presented for Council’s consideration and approval on January 27, 2015.
The City of San José addressed HCD’s comments by amending several sections of its Draft.
Some of these amendments, rather than substantively improving the City’s plans to address its identified affordable housing need, instead consisted of justifications of the City’s existing processes, procedures and reporting requirements, arguing that these addressed HCD’s comments. As to these issues, therefore, the City did not propose any additional programs or substantive changes to extant programs. Other amendments were more substantive and addressed some of the concerns that HCD and we raised. The City also amended the Draft to update its Work Plan, which contains programs and actions, including analyzing and ameliorating governmental and non-governmental constraints, to achieve the City’s goals and
1 Coalition letter to City Council, September 22, 2014, http://www.sanjoseca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/35982, p. 365.
Letter to Mayor, Vice Mayor, and City Council Regarding Housing Element January 26, 2015