San Jose City Council
June 20, 2023

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

City of San Jose Measure E
The City’s Housing Department proposed to create a $5 million fund, using funding from a March 2020 voter-approved measure, known as Measure E, with a Notice of Funding Availability process for community access to funding. Measure E5is a real property transfer tax to provide funding for general City services, including affordable housing for seniors, veterans, disabled, and low-income families; and helping families who are homeless move into shelters and permanent housing. Measure E, which allocated up to 5% off the top of total revenues to support administrative activities, the remaining revenues from Measure E were allocated as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Housing Element Anti-Displacement Priorities from Last Year COPA and Preservation Related Programs/Policies
● COPA - Ongoing Housing Department Work
Community Opportunity to Purchase Act (COPA), including technical assistance support for Community Land Trusts, tenant/community ownership (R-4, R-2, R-9) ● Preservation Technical Assistance - Tier I Priority
Develop program to fund technical assistance for community-based acquisition/rehabilitation and affordable housing production. (R-5, R-9, R-12, N-4)

Other Tier I Priority Policies and Programs (Not in order) ● Develop a process for recognizing organized tenant associations in targeting ARO enforcement and code enforcement as part of the expanded tenant resource center, including the potential of a receivership program for chronic offenders. (S-1, S-3, S-5, S-6)

● Continue to support Permanent Supportive Housing. (P-2, H1, H-2, H-3, H-5, H-8, H-11)

● Adopt policies to ensure that opportunities for public participation are fully supported with multi-lingual material and translation, and are structured in ways to expand opportunities for concrete input. (I-7, I-8)

● Update local Ellis Act Ordinance to reflect state (SB 330) guidelines on relocation, replacement of affordable units, and right of return. (P-13)
● Create a City policy requiring the replacement of all housing units affordable to lower-income households as a condition of any development on a non vacant site consistent with Government Code section 65915(c)(3), and make permanent SB 330’s replacement housing obligations.
● Strengthen the City’s implementation of SB 330’s replacement housing requirements to preserve affordable housing opportunities, and clarify requirements for developers to speed the development process

TABLE OF

CONTENTS
3 Acknowledgements
4 Executive Summary
7 Introduction
10 Values
12 Part One: What is the Problem?
23 Part Two: Framing Solutions for Displacement
32 Part Three: What Solutions Do We Recommend?
36 Longer Descriptions of Solutions
64 Appendix
65 Community Engagement Summary and Process
73 Citywide and Council District Maps: Current
Conditions, Development Forecast
77 End notes
Community Strategy to End Displacement in San José 3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to acknowledge and thank PolicyLink for inviting San José to join and for coordinating the All-in Cities PolicyLink Anti-Displacement Policy Network (ADPN). Thanks also goes to the teams from the 10 partner cities who shared best and emerging practices.

Special thanks to those who participated on the San José ADPN team:
• City of San José Councilmember Magdalena Carrasco, and Chief of Staff, Frances Herbert
• Working Partnerships USA Executive Director Derecka Mehrens, and Jeffrey Buchanan, Asn Ndiaye
• Law Foundation of Silicon Valley Housing Program Directing Attorney Nadia Aziz and Michael Trujillo
• San José Planning Commission Chair, Shiloh Ballard
• City of San José Housing Director Jacky Morales-Ferrand, and Kristen Clements, Adam Marcus, Jacklyn Joanino
• City of San José Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Rosalynn Hughey, and Michael Brilliot
Special thank you to the community organizations, consultants, and City staff that helped host additional community events and focus groups:
• Law Foundation of Silicon Valley
• Affordable Housing Network
• SOMOS Mayfair and its Associate Director, Zelica Rodriguez-Deams • Vecinos Activos
• Eastside San José PEACE Partnership & the Anti-Displacement Work Group • International Children’s Assistance Network (ICAN)
• Services Immigrant Rights & Education Network (SIREN) • School of Arts and Culture at the Mexican Heritage Plaza • Destination: Home
• People Acting in the Community Together (PACT)
• AV Consulting Principal, Alejandro Vilchez
We would also like to acknowledge the comments and feedback received from the City of San José Office of Economic Development (Assistant Director Jeff Ruster, Vic Farlie, and Sal Alvarez), community members who attended focus groups and community forums, and all who participated in our online survey.

This is a San José Anti-Displacement Policy Network Team report, not a City of San José staff report.

6 Community Strategy to End Displacement in San José
decided to center the voice and experiences of low-income residents and residents of color as the basis of this report based on the belief that those most impacted by displacement are closest to the solutions.

This report brings together a range of viewpoints and suggestions to curb displacement in San José. ADPN team members did not agree on every aspect of this report, but they did agree on the overall approach and the need for all sectors to take meaningful actions.

We connected with several hundred residents in person and used an online survey. We learned displacement is usually caused by unaffordability, but it is also caused by flooding, fires, unsafe housing conditions, domestic violence, and more. The team heard stories about people relocating, declining enrollment at schools and places of worship, overcrowding, landlord harassment, and anxiety about being able to stay in San José.

We reviewed data and academic research on displacement and learned that most low-income people who are leaving the Bay Area are black and latinx residents. We learned from the Urban Displacement Project that displacement is concentrated in certain neighborhoods in Downtown and East and West of Downtown in City Council Districts 3, 5, 6. We learned from a literature review that residential displacement impacts education, job and commute patterns, mental health, and can lead to living in areas with higher poverty and crime.

Solutions for Displacement
In thinking about solutions, the team looked to decrease housing cost burden for low-income residents, decrease displacement from San José, decrease evictions, and increase new affordable housing opportunities. With that, we organized solutions into three categories:

1. Protect tenants

2. Preserve income restricted, rent stabilized and naturally occurring affordable housing, and

3. Produce new affordable housing to meet the high demand for affordable housing.

This report proposes short- and long-term actions that the City of San José and other community members can take. Solutions were proposed based on the team’s learning from the ADPN network, the importance stressed in community meetings, the urgency expressed by residents, the estimated impact, and the availability of current resources to carry out the action.

This report is intended to guide the City as it conducts additional outreach and prepares its own anti-displacement recommendations.

What Will it Take to Implement Bold Solutions?
To achieve bold solutions, we will need leadership from elected officials to call for and to implement policy changes. We will also need funding for community leadership development, organizational capacity building, on-going community engagement, housing services, and capital projects. Finally, we will need to set achievable goals and use metrics to track our progress in slowing the outward flow of low-income residents in San José.

8 Community Strategy to End Displacement in San José

INTRODUCTION
In 2016, a headline characterized San José as “The Place Where the Poor Once Thrived.” The author shares San José historically had been a place of upward mobility for those with the least resources due in part to low-cost housing, proximity and access to the technology industry, philanthropic support of institutions, and tight-knit communities. San José was where “kids could experience a Horatio Alger, rags-to-riches life.” According to economist Raj Chetty’s 2014 landmark study, “Where is the Land of Opportunity? The Geography of Intergenerational Mobility in the United States,”1 a child born in the early 1980s from a lowincome family in the greater San José area had over a 1 in 5 chance of becoming a high earner as an adult, the best chance of anywhere in the nation.

San José has changed from a primarily agricultural community to an urban and suburban big city anchoring Silicon Valley. During this time San José sprawled rapidly with low-density development when land was cheap and plentiful. For a time, housing was somewhat affordable. In recent years, single family development slowed and gave way to denser multifamily infill development, which is costlier and more challenging to approve politically.

State housing policies such as Proposition 13 in 1978 coupled with local slow growth sentiments around the Bay Area welcomed employers while limiting housing construction.

This decades long mismatch has led to a dramatic Statewide housing shortage. Research by the UC Berkeley Urban Displacement Project and community input tell us that this situation, layered with perpetual segregation and racial inequities, means low-income communities of color are experiencing the brunt of the negative impacts associated with gentrification and displacement.

The San José metro area housing market is considered to be one of the most expensive in the world. Renters must earn $52/hour ($108,920/year) to afford the monthly rent for a twobedroom apartment and buyers must earn $108/hour ($224,395/year) to afford a medianpriced single-family home.2 Minimum wage in San José is $15 per hour. Regional housing production lags job growth in the region, resulting in skyrocketing housing prices and rents, high levels of housing cost burden, overcrowding, long commutes, and homelessness. In fact, the homelessness population in San José grew from 4,350 in 2017 to 6,172 in 2019, an increase of forty-two percent in two years.3
San José’s housing crisis is the result of many factors and public, private, philanthropic, and nonprofit sectors all have a role to play. However, this report will focus primarily on moves the City of San José can make to protect more residents who rent, to preserve more existing housing, and to produce more affordable housing. The Envision San José 2040 General Plan is a policy document and blueprint for growth and development over the long-term. The General Plan plans for substantial growth of both jobs and housing with projected growth for 120,000 new homes and the aspiration to add 382,000 new jobs by 2040. The General Plan specifies growth areas where new development should be targeted, such as employment areas and urban villages. While San José continues to plan for growth, San José must evolve into an increasing urban form and leverage new transit investments where housing, jobs, services and amenities can be built together. This would accomplish key City goals—such as creating vibrant walkable neighborhoods and fighting climate change by meeting greenhouse gas emission reduction targets set forth in Climate Smart San José.

The General Plan plans states that, “growth has social, environmental, economic, and fiscal dimensions. There are costs associated with growth, as well as with the absence of growth.”4 San José will need to find more ways to achieve this balance if it is to continue to grow and achieve a legacy as a place for upward mobility and opportunity.

Community Strategy to End Displacement in San José 9
Overview
• Part One: “What is the problem?” This section includes in-depth communitybased research and data analysis of past, present, and future conditions influencing residential displacement in San José. This section summarizes our outreach process, what we heard from this process, where displacement is occurring or is at-risk of occuring in San José, who lives in these areas, and references to academic research on the negative impacts of displacement.
• Part Two: “Framing Solutions for Displacement” This section describes changes that resident stakeholders and the ADPN team would like to see to decrease and prevent displacement. It includes an analysis of the underlying factors which contribute to displacement.
• Part Three: “What solutions do we recommend?” This section lays out potential short-term and long-term opportunities to prevent, mitigate, and reverse residential displacement in San José.

Eagle-eye view of downtown San José
10 Community Strategy to End Displacement in San José
VALUES
Over the last year, San José’s Anti-Displacement Policy Network (ADPN) team has listened to the community about the impact of displacement on residents.

The feedback we have gathered has shaped the following values:

1. We all belong in San José, and all contribute to this community.

Above all, we heard that San José is a great place to live because of its people. We often heard that residents live in San José because it’s where they work, where they were born and raised, where their friends and family live, where their kids go to school. San José is their home.

We also noticed, however, that it has gotten harder for people of color, older adults, people with disabilities, and single mothers to live in San José. Historical inequities have led to investments in more affluent and more predominately white neighborhoods. This must change – San José must act across all sectors to address historical inequities and ongoing displacement to produce housing that will make all residents feel that they truly belong here and are welcome to come back to San José if they have been displaced.

2. We need the opportunity to stay in our homes and City.

We heard repeatedly through our focus groups, community forums, and our online survey that many people in San José work hard to make ends meet.

Some residents shared that they have faced or were facing displacement even the same day we spoke with them. Meanwhile, housing costs continue to skyrocket. Neighborhoods that once offered affordable, stable homes are now too costly for many San José residents. Some naturally affordable homes have been demolished and replaced with new market rate apartments that are unaffordable to many in San José. It is simply unfair to allow these dynamics to push people out of the city. San José must do a better job of urgently preserving the affordable housing, the communities, and the culture that exists today. Long-term solutions in the distant future are not enough.

3. All voices in our community should be heard and matter.

The City of San José must work to ensure that all members of our community are heard, including low-income renters. Going forward, the City must do a better job of listening to all members of our community. The community members should hold the City accountable for regularly making decisions that respond to the perspectives of marginalized communities into account.
“I came because I am
a worker and I believe
every human being has
a right to housing and
as workers we have the
right to let the city know
what we need, want,
and deserve.”
— Seven Trees Community
Forum Participant,
August 15, 2019

SCHOOL OF ARTS
& CULTURE

87% of today’s
displacement areas
in San José align
with historically
redlined
neighborhoods
that were rated
as “hazardous”
or “definitely
declining”
16 What is the Problem?
As seen in the Historic redlining map, the teal striped areas were designated or tend to overlap with high-income exclusive neighborhoods of today. Markedly, 87% of today’s displacement areas in San José align with historically redlined neighborhoods that were rated as “hazardous” (red) or “definitely declining” (yellow). Many of today’s housing problems, including displacement, primarily impact people of color.

It is important to recognize these policy decisions and the tradition of racial exclusion as root causes of San José’s current displacement issues
What did Residents Say?
From November 2018 to November 2019, the ADPN team took a unique approach to community engagement, which focused on groups most impacted by displacement. This included one-on-one interviews, educational events, focus groups, community forums, and a survey. The City’s Housing Department also hired a community-based nonprofit, SOMOS Mayfair, and A V Consulting as trusted community engagement consultants and facilitators to lead the series of community forums. These consultants provided deep experience in community organizing and in facilitating courageous conversations. They introduced a more inclusive approach and reached hard to reach resident populations. A more detailed summary of the community engagement process, themes from each conversation, and how the community informed the ADPN team’s recommendations is included in the Appendix of this report.

Throughout all of our engagement, we heard directly how residents are pressured to move further away from their communities, schools, and families. San José residents are concerned about displacement from their current neighborhoods and displacement from San José.

Responses to the team’s survey revealed that fifty-four percent of respondents stated they fear they will be displaced in the future. Cities that were commonly mentioned as places to which people relocated included Modesto, Madera, Los Banos, Gilroy, and Sacramento.

The team heard countless stories of how hard it is for low-income families to afford to live in San José. The team heard concerns about displacement spanning multiple generations of families, with some families having been displaced again and again. For example, some community members shared that their families or businesses were displaced from downtown redevelopment projects in the 1980s and face displacement again. Some community members shared that they were displaced from their home countries when they moved to San José. Multiple community members shared that immigrant and particularly mixed-status and undocumented families are disproportionately impacted by these housing problems.

Community members also emphasized that the issue of residential displacement is related to other challenges such as overcrowding, homelessness, and long commutes.

Community members shared both their personal experiences and their ideas for solutions throughout the process. This collaboration helped form the list of recommendations in Part 3 of this report. A full list of ideas can be found at www.sanjoseca.gov/displacement.

Impact of Displacement on Homeowners
While other ADPN cities are working to prevent the displacement of homeowners, our team found that in San José, homeowner displacement is uncommon at this time. Foreclosure activity in San José has hovered around 2% for the last 5 years in San José,14 which is relatively low compared to the height of the foreclosure crisis in 2009 when the foreclosure rate was 9%.15 Some homeowners were concerned about the impact of displacement of people they know personally, or were concerned that their adult children could not afford to live on their Forty-three percent of
census tracts in San
José are experiencing
or are at-risk of
displacement.

Community Strategy to End Displacement in San José 17
own in San José. However, the homeowners with whom the team spoke did not believe that they were impacted by the issue of residential displacement. Some homeowners said that they could financially benefit from the City’s changes because of the significant demand for housing increases the value of their properties.

What Have We Learned from Academic Research?
Although data does not exist to calculate the exact number of San José residents displaced in recent years, research from the Terner Center indicates from 2010-2016, 1.5 million residents moved out of the Bay Area.16 To put this number into context, this is roughly equal to one in five residents based on the current population in the Bay Area. This net domestic outmigration outpaced by foreign in-migration has been Silicon Valley’s pattern of population growth for decades. The study also found that for every one high-income resident that moved out of the Bay Area, six low-income residents moved out. The Terner Center report also highlights that asian and white residents represent a larger share of the region’s higherincome out-movers, whereas latinx and black residents make up a disproportionately large share of low-income out-movers.

There were also differences between high-income out-movers and low-income out-movers.

The study found high-income out-movers tended to have access to a wide range of large cities. Low-income out-movers, however, tended to move to other areas of California such as the Central Valley, that had fewer options for employment, education, and access to health care as where they had previously lived.

Where is displacement occurring in San José?
A core component of the team’s analysis of displacement in San José was based on the research by the Urban Displacement Project (UDP).17 UDP is a research and action initiative of UC Berkeley and other universities which has been conducting research and producing reports on displacement in the Bay Area since 2009. In 2015, the Urban Displacement Project developed a regional displacement warning system in collaboration with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission.

The UC Berkeley Urban Displacement Project map below shows the extent of gentrification and displacement across the Bay Area as of 2015. UDP created a webmap showing displacement risk by census tract for the entire Bay Area. The map shows the UDP map with San José Council Districts superimposed. The map shows, at the census tract level, areas in San José at different stages of gentrification, displacement, and exclusion. The dark and light purple areas are low-income areas that are undergoing gentrification/displacement or are at risk of gentrification/displacement. The light orange areas are moderate- and high-income areas that are at risk of exclusion or have ongoing exclusion. The dark orange areas represent advanced exclusion. Exclusion means rents and home prices are so high, it is very difficult for low-income residents to afford to live there. Forty-three percent of all census tracts in San José are low-income census tracts at-risk of or undergoing displacement.

A list of the San José neighborhoods the team believes are experiencing displacement or are at-risk of displacement can be found in the folowing tables. While all City Council districts are experiencing some level of displacement, Council Districts 3 and 5 have the highest number of neighborhoods undergoing or at-risk of displacement.

Community Strategy to End Displacement in San José 19
Race, Gender, and Displacement
Based on historic inequities described earlier in this report, it is not a surprise that displacement is occurring at a higher level in historically segregated non-white communities where opportunities to grow wealth are limited. Income and wealth are key factors in a household’s financial resiliency and ability to recover from financial emergencies such as a rent increase or eviction. Due to the racial wealth gap in San José, sixty-four percent of all latinx and black households are considered low-income, as compared to forty-one percent of white non-hispanic households and forty percent of asian households.18 The difference for women-headed households is even more pronounced, with seventy percent of womenheaded households earning incomes below 80% AMI.19 Neighborhoods At-Risk of Displacement
D1 Winchester/Orchard, Northlake
D2 Oakgrove
D3 Oakland Rd, Orchard Park, Luna Park, Modern Ice, Wooster/Tripp, East Ct West Ct, Locharidge/ Independence, Anne Darling—Little Portugal North, Roosevelt, Tamien D4 Hermitage, Zanker, West Tamien, East Tamien, Lamplighter, Renaissance, Northwood, Capewood D5 Baton/Rouge, N. White Rd, James Lick, Lyndale, Ryan, Markingdon, St. John Vianny, Joséph George, Kamal Spice
D6 College Park, Buena Vista, Wilshire Park, Evans
D7 Alma - Almaden, Oak Hill, Goodyear/Alma, Seven Trees, Monticello D8 None
D9 Blossom River, Almaden-Blossom Hill
D10 Playa del Rey, Berry Park, Parkview, The Woods, Avana Skyway Percentage of Households Below 80% Area Median Income by Race All
Households
Asian
Households
White NonHispanic
Households
Black/African
American
Households
Hispanic/
Latinx
Households
Women Head
of Household
Total Households 317,317 103,345 116,516 11,086 78,352 38,600 Number of
Households
below 80% AMI
150,159 41,726 47,716 7,101 50,141 27,043
Percentage of
Households
below 80^ AMI
47% 40% 41% 64% 64% 70%
“I used to be a case manager. I
remember knocking on doors
and seeing a good amount of
students who would lay in their
beds, depressed, not wanting
to go to school. Because for a
lot of them, they were living
in garages, they were living
in one bedrooms with three
or four family members. They
started to internalize and blame
themselves for that. It isn’t
their responsibility. The reality
is that for young people, these
were decisions that were made
through economics and politics.”
— Victor Vasquez, Community
Organizing Program Manager,
SOMOS Mayfair
20 What is the Problem?
Notably, Council Districts 3 and 5 are the two Council districts with the highest number of latinx residents in the City and have a higher percentage of black residents as compared to the Citywide average. Council District 3 also has the highest percentage of renters in the City (67%) and the highest number of severely cost-burdened renters.

Negative Impacts of Displacement
Research from the Urban Displacement Project states that displacement can contribute to increased housing burden and homelessness. The report “Disruption in Silicon Valley – The Impacts of Displacement on Residents’ Lives” surveyed 124 renters in Santa Clara County, including 80 renter households who had not been displaced and 44 renter households who had been displaced in the last two years. Displaced renter households were more likely to end up in precarious housing situations, such as living in a hotel, “doubling up,” or couch surfing with friends or family. Five percent of the displaced households experienced homelessness.

The researcher’s findings were consistent with the larger body of displacement research and the responses we heard from the community: households who have been displaced were more likely to be severely rent-burdened after they moved, meaning they were spending 50 percent or more of their income on rent each month.

The Urban Displacement Project’s presentation at the October 1, 2019, San José City Council Study Session on Displacement emphasized some additional impacts of residential displacement such as:
• Education: Children in displaced households have more absences, a lower likelihood of finishing school, and a greater risk of educational delays or behavior problems;20 • Job & Commute: People who have been evicted are more likely to experience job loss. Moving further away can also impact commute time and cost;21 • Mental Health: Mothers who experienced an eviction were more likely to report depression, even two years after the eviction; and22
• Neighborhoods with Fewer Opportunities: Following an eviction, people are more likely to move into communities with higher rates of poverty and crime.23 Research indicates that gentrification can improve a neighborhood through increased neighborhood amenities such as retail and schools, access to parks and transit, and increased property values. However, low- and moderate-income renters are often unable to stay and benefit from these improvements. In response, research has indicated that displacement has contributed to the increased share of low-income households of color living in segregated areas experiencing high poverty.24 Regionally, this pattern of migration is being called a resegregation of the Bay Area.25 Segregation is not good for the economy. A study for the Metropolitan Planning Council in Chicago estimates there would be significant benefits if Chicago decreased its current level of segregation. If Chicago had no segregation, the Council estimates that residents would have $4.4B more income, a 30% lower homicide rate, and 83,000 more residents with Bachelor’s degrees.26 Housing is the single largest expense for households. According to a report by Working Partnerships USA, “When Renters Rise, Our City Thrives,” if all San José renters paid “Our church
membership has
declined. Seventy
families have left in
the last three years.

I know of a family
that left for Lathrop.

They moved to
Lathrop but still
come to church and
work at the Hilton
in downtown San
José.”
— Deacon at Iglesia
Ni Cristo on Story
Road
Community Strategy to End Displacement in San José 21
only what they could afford on housing, they would have an extra $599 million to spend in the community each year. Everyone would be better off, and racial inequities by disposable income would shrink.

Where is Displacement Leading us?
San Francisco started its most recent gentrification journey in the 1990s with the coming of the dot-com boom. The City saw an influx of investment and higher-income earners, specifically from the technology sector, moving into housing in the most relatively affordable parts of the City. San Francisco is now one of the most expensive places to live in the world. There has been a consistent struggle to build affordable housing at the rate necessary to preserve and protect communities from displacement. Regardless, investments in market-rate apartments and homes, public spaces, and business districts grow. More people have continued to move to San Francisco, attracted by the new amenities. There are less and less long-time community members to protect and defend themselves from displacement against the growing demand to live in urban, but often low-income working class neighborhoods such as the Mission District. Displacement has had great impact on communities of color. For example, from 1970 to 2010, San Francisco lost 50% of its black population and is continuing to lose many of the very communities that made San Francisco the desirable and economically thriving city that it is today.

In San José, we have said goodbye to neighbors as they have moved away; we have seen the destabilization of our neighborhoods and heritage erased from spaces that were ours to gather; and we have seen our local, family-owned businesses close for good. San José has a chance to stop displacement before it reaches the extreme levels of San Francisco. From financial emergencies due to unexpected evictions to employers struggling with employee retention, to multiple elementary school closures, the team heard that displacement is occurring at a level that impacts all of us. Without additional intervention, San José is on the path to exacerbating displacement and all the negative impacts that come with it.

Community members have said San José needs housing, shelter, and economic security. They’ve shared that San José needs policies to protect people from evictions and displacement, and accessible services. The need is especially acute for extremely low-income residents and immigrants (both documented and undocumented) living in San José. Throughout this process, the ADPN team has learned from many people who are deeply embedded in the San José community that they don’t have the necessary resources and services to have all their basic needs met, let alone to thrive.

For some, this growth will mean increased economic opportunity and wealth generation.

However, for many, this transformation brings about fear and anxiety, knowing that it will exacerbate their already tenuous living and working conditions here in San José. We all must act urgently to protect residents currently living here from being pushed out of the City they call home and allow them to reap the benefits of Envision San José 2040.

In response, those most impacted by displacement in San José are active in driving forward solutions. Over the last several years, homeless and under-housed community members, renters, low-wage workers, youth, community groups, and activists have organized, convened “Many counties, including
Monterey County, San
Benito County, are becoming
bedroom communities for
San José. Because we are not
providing housing for our
construction workers, not just
our teachers, and firefighters.

I know many policemen that
commute from Gilroy. I know
a lot of construction workers
who commute everyday to
Hollister. It’s not good for our
transportation networks, it’s
not good for our environment,
and it’s not good for our
people.”
— Housing Developer
22 What is the Problem?
community dialogues and meetings, developed policy platforms, and advocated for a variety of solutions. These realities and organizing efforts have supported significant local movements forward in both production and protection efforts in the past several years.

Voters approved Santa Clara County Measure A, a $950 million bond for affordable housing, in 2016. In 2016-20, in response to significant community demand, the City passed a suite of tenant protections.

The rent stabilization program decreased allowable rent increases, tightened the definition of ‘rent,’ and required greater transparency through the creation of a rent registry. The City also passed a “Just Cause” ordinance which requires landlords to provide one of a defined set of of justified reasons before displacing a tenant.

Almost 39,000 homes are now covered by the City’s more protective rent stabilization program. In addition, the City adopted a local Ellis Act Ordinance that builds on State law provisions. And, in mid-2019, the City approved a new ordinance outlawing discrimination against housing voucher-holders. While San José continues to advance this work, we all know that we must do more.

26 Framing Solutions for Displacement
and naturally affordable housing may be lost due to demolition, expired deed restrictions, ban payoffs, vacancy decontrol, redevelopment, withdrawals from the rental market, and/or condo conversion.

San José’s General Plan preserves single family neighborhoods and directs growth into Urban Village areas near transit. The Southwest Expressway Urban Village is planned where low-density rent stabilized apartment buildings already exist. New private investment and development in Urban Villages could also contribute to gentrification and rising rents in the surrounding neighborhoods, which may lead to displacement. In addition, BART and High Speed rail projects are underway that will connect San José to the East Bay and to California’s Central Valley, respectively. Development and speculation has already begun near planned BART station areas. If nothing is done, San José may see much of its older naturally affordable or rent-stabilized housing demolished and replaced mostly with market-rate housing, which will mostly serve high-income households.

Between 1997 and 2018, California lost 15,044 deed-restricted affordable homes with HUD project-based rental assistance contracts and/or loans or Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) due to owner decisions to opt out, sell, or allow their properties to convert to market rate.32 In the last five years in San José, the affordability restrictions expired on at least 90 deed-restricted affordable units and 227 rent stabilized and naturally affordable multifamily units were demolished.33
Without further action to preserve existing affordable housing, this could be the tip of an iceberg. According to a recent California Housing Partnership report, Santa Clara County has the largest preservation problem of the nine Bay Area Counties, being at risk of losing an additional 2,059 restricted affordable units in the next ten years. CHPC estimates of those units, over 1,000 restricted homes are in San José.

There are a couple of rent strategies in place to limit the loss of deed-restricted affordable housing. The City’s ground lease policy, put in place in 2010, requires that a developer sell the land under an affordable housing development to the City in exchange for a loan to the development. The City then leases the ground for $1 per year to the affordable property, requiring ongoing affordability. Additionally, Santa Clara County has extended this policy to require ground leases held by the City or County for all affordable housing funded by Measure A funds. These policies ensure long-term affordability for new development in the City but, not permanent deep affordability. Additionally, the nature of the tax credit program incentivizes developers to often refinance or resyndicate affordable developments fifteen to twenty years into the development’s lifespan. At this time, the City requires the Villa Torino has 85 units with affordability restrictions which may expire in the next five years.

Losing rent-stabilized
apartments is
comparable to losing
60% AMI deedrestricted affordable
apartments.

Community Strategy to End Displacement in San José 27
affordability restrictions to be extended by an additional 55 years. This structure extends the term of affordability for most tax credit developments. In addition, in return for other actions on existing City-funded projects, the City negotiates extentions of existing affordability restrictions. The highest risk deed-restricted affordable housing are those developments funded with only with federal funds, bond issuances, and those created under the City’s inclusionary policies. The chart below shows the number of deed restricted units funded by each program:

Another cohort of existing affordable housing the City should focus on is Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing (NOAH). Typically, these are units that are relatively affordable as compared to new market-rate housing, because of the older age or condition of the housing and accordingly lower rents that may be affordable to low-income families.

The Ellis Act memo discussed at the November 5, 2019, San José City Council meeting, Housing Department staff analyzed the average rents of Class A, B, and C market-rate apartment rents, as well as rent stabilized and restricted affordable apartment rents to compare the potential income levels of tenants in each apartment type. Assumed income levels were calculated for each market-rate example by applying minimum income standards that market-rate property managers use to qualify households to rent their apartments. The following table on page 28 demonstrates that rent-stabilized apartments on average are affordable for some low-income families. Losing rent-stabilized apartments is comparable to losing 60% AMI deed-restricted affordable apartments.

In San José, there are also 38,867 units of rent-stabilized housing and 9,966 total units34 of NOAH housing without rent stabilization that may be repositioned to market rate with limited protections. All these situations combined may lead to San José losing more affordable housing at rate faster than new affordable housing can be built. Pursuing preservation Bestor Art Park in the Spartan Keys neighborhood, a neighborhood which is at-risk of displacement.

Restricted Affordable Housing in San José
Housing HUD Funded Bond Only Inclusionary Tax Credit City-Funded Total # of Units 3,965 1,518 1,379 23 14,253 20,714
28 Framing Solutions for Displacement
Preservation at Work
San José has the most mobilehome parks in the State of California with 59 parks and 10,850 homes. The hot housing market in San José has increased displacement pressure on some mobilehome parks, especially parks that currently have a General Plan designation for high-density residential development.. The City of San José has taken action in recent years to preserve mobilehome parks as naturally occurring affordable housing and to prevent displacement, such as placing a temporary moratorium on mobilehome conversions in 2016 and strengthening the mobilehome conversion ordinance. The City is working and continuing to build on the Winchester Ranch Model when
mobilehomes sites are seeking to redevelop. This Winchester model allows existing residents an opportunity to remain in their neighborhood and builds more housing including affordable, while allowing for better utilization of land.

The conversion of Winchester Ranch Mobilehome Park reached a landmark agreement between Winchester Mobilehome residents (represented by the Law Foundation of Silicon Valley) and Pulte homes that prevented the displacement of over 100 seniors.

After several years of negotiation and a legal battle, current solutions can ensure the City makes net progress toward building the available affordable housing stock. Because of the limited number of units that can accommodate larger families, the City should also consider focusing attention on single family homes and duplexes.

Average Effective Rents in San José and Projected Incomes 1-Bedroom Rent 1-Bedroom income
at 2.5 Factor 2-Bedroom Rent 2-Bedroom Income at 3.0 Factor Market Rent Apartments
Class A $2,678 $80,340 $3,365 $121,140
Class B $2,440 $73,200 $2,864 $103,104
Class C $1,803 $54090 $2,263 $81,468
Rent Stabilized Apartments
Average Across
Tiers $1,634 $49,020 $1,967 $70,812
Affordable Apartments
100% of the AMI $2,628 $78,840 $2,956 $106,416
80% of the AMI $2,079 $62,370 $2,339 $84,204
60% of the AMI $1,757 $52,710 $1,976 $71,136
50% of the AMI $1,464 $43,920 $1,646 $59,256
Sources: CoStar, September 30, 2019; City of San José Housing Department Rent Registry dated September 12, 2019

Community Strategy to End Displacement in San José 31
Another gap observed was the lack of knowledge of and constrained enforcement of existing laws. Some of the barriers related to enforcement the ADPN team heard were that both renters and landlords may not know laws governing housing in San José, where to learn their rights, how to enforce those rights, and if it’s even worth trying.

An example of this was heard during one of the team’s focus groups in spring 2019. A group of three tenants from the same building attended the focus group. The tenants were all long-time tenants of the building and were monolingual in Spanish. Their building was sold to a new owner within the last two years. The tenants were served a new lease in English and were told to respond in three days. They shared that they were experiencing harassment from their landlord, who would enter their apartments unannounced and demand that they leave. This harassment had already caused one of their neighbors to move out rather than stay and enforce their rights.

One neighbor reached out to a personal friend to interpret the new lease for them, who then referred them to attend the ADPN anti-displacement focus group to seek help and learn what rights they may have in this situation.

This story demonstrates how renters can face high barriers to enforce their legal rights, including short timeframes to respond, lack of knowledge of their legal rights, limited English proficiency, and the lack of time to access resources while managing everyday responsibilities.

This can also be seen through the number of unlawful detainer (eviction) cases in Santa Clara County decided by default judgments. These are cases when the tenant did not respond to the complaint and/or did not show up to trial. In these cases, the landlord automatically wins.

This may not be a matter of choice - tenants often have difficulty attending court due to work or family obligations, or may not understand the legal process.

As of September 11, 2019, about 1 in 4 unlawful detainer cases from 2017 to August 2019 were decided by default judgment.

In total, thousands of residents can avoid displacement if the City of San José and community partners act to enhance the City’s existing tools and expand resources for enforcement of its existing laws.

Unlawful Detainer Filings and Default Judgements 2017 – August 2019 2017 2018 Jan 1 – Aug 31, 2019
Unlawful Detainer
Filings 2,605 2,673 1,811
Unlawful Detainer
Default Judgments 665 745 274

“We have to start with the value
that everyone deserves to stay
in San José and we are best
if everyone gets to stay. That
means whatever policies that
we come up with, have to be
community centered and have
to focus the voices and values of
the community at it’s center. The
second thing is that we have to
move beyond just thinking about
this from the lens of production.

Yes, we need to produce more
affordable housing, but we
also need to preserve what we
already have. And protect the
people that already live here.”
– Nadia Aziz, Housing Program
Directing Attorney, Law
Foundation of Silicon Valley
Community Strategy to End Displacement in San José 33
PART 3: WHAT SOLUTIONS DO WE RECOMMEND?
The ADPN team recommends that the City and local organizations explore the following new initiatives as ways to address San José’s displacement challenges.

The team considered which solutions should be highlighted in this report based on several factors. These included the team’s learning through the Anti-Displacement Policy Network, the importance stressed during community engagement, the estimated number of residents the solution would benefit, and the availability of current resources to implement the solution including workload on City and lead organizations’ staff. These factors were reconciled through verbal discussion and decided through consensus.

The team felt strongly that all ideas be recorded and shared with the public. The complete list of ideas researched or mentioned can be found at www.sanjoseca.gov/displacement.

The short- and long-term solutions recommended to help the displacement problem are a combination of long-term and highresource major projects with less complex actions that can be accomplished more quickly. Some of these solutions could be implemented with existing staff and funding, while others may require increases to new staff, involvement of other government agencies and philanthropies, and additional funding.

The team has categorized the list of potential solutions based in part on the urgency expressed by residents to find solutions sooner than later. Therefore they are divided into solutions with near-term positive impact felt by residents (within one to two years), and those with longer-term impact (more than two years).

LONGER

DESCRIPTIONS OF

SOLUTIONS
The following pages go into detail on these recommendations.

Each solution includes a description, references to where these solutions are currently being implemented, the estimated impact, and the approximate cost to implement the solution.

38 What Solutions do we Recommend?
acknowledging some of the bills shortcomings. AB 1482 will cover some duplexes in San José, but this protection will not cover duplexes where the owner lives in one of the two units. Additionally, the Statewide protections of AB 1482 permit rent increases of 5% plus the percent increase in the cost of living (CPI-U), which together frequently top 8%. The State protections also sunset in 2030, and thus will not be a long-term solution. Therefore, extending San José’s Apartment Rent Ordinance to all duplexes will provide tenants in these units greater protection from extreme rent increases and displacement even once AB 1482 takes effect on January 1, 2020. The enforcement of this law is limited.

Additionally, adding restricted affordable housing units to the Apartment Rent Ordinance would prohibit excessive rent increases for tenants with vouchers or tenants in tax credit properties.

Lowering Apartment Rent Ordinance’s limit on rent increases from 5% to CPI: The annual allowable rent increase currently is at 5%, which is higher than inflation. In recent years, rents have risen dramatically, while median wages for renters have failed to even keep up, falling

2.8% between 2009 and 2015 when adjusted for inflation.37 Therefore, a limit that is tied to the annual increase in the Consumer Price Index would better protect tenants by addressing the growing gap between wages and rent affordability.

Expanding the Tenant Protection Ordinance to apply to all rental units: Currently, the TPO only applies to certain units and does not apply to duplexes or non-traditional housing situations such as when someone rents a room. The City could expand the TPO to all rental units, which would require the landlord to evict a tenant only for a good reason. This would prevent all tenants from evictions without a clear reason, including those who live in single family homes, duplexes, or non-traditional housing such as those tenants renting out rooms.

Maintain protections in the Ellis Act Ordinance: The Ellis Act is a State law that provides building owners a right to withdraw the building from the rental market. San José has adopted an Ellis Act Ordinance that provides tenants in ARO-covered, rent-stabilized units with certain rights to mitigate the impact of these Ellis Act conversions on displacement. The Ellis Act Ordinance provides displaced tenants with relocation assistance in an amount that roughly reflects the cost of moving based on the size of the tenant’s unit. The Ordinance also provides a right for displaced tenants to return to any new rental units constructed on the site of their former building within 10 years. Tenants have a right to return to such new units at a rent-stabilized rate reset to market-rate if the new units are rented within 5 years.

Even with these protections, over 70% of tenants displaced from ARO-covered apartments due to an Ellis Act conversion were not able to remain in San José due to a lack of affordable units. Therefore, these protections should be maintained to prevent even greater displacement as ARO-covered buildings age and Ellis Act conversions become more frequent. Additionally, maintaining these protections will help tenants displaced from AROcovered units due to Ellis Act conversions access affordable units within San José as the City implements other measures to increase the supply of affordable housing over the coming years.

Enforce Existing Tenant Protections: The City of San José currently provides support for tenants seeking to enforce their rights under the Apartment Rent Ordinance, Tenant Protection Ordinance, and Ellis Act Ordinance through its Rent Stabilization Program (RSP).

Tenants who believe their rights under the ARO have been violated can submit a petition to the RSP for an administrative hearing. However, the City does not currently enforce decisions made through the administrative hearing process, and it is up to the tenant to seek enforcement of the decision in court if the landlord does not comply. Similarly, the RSP tracks all notices issued on TPO-covered properties as well as notices of Ellis Act conversions, but does not take action on behalf of tenants who are entitled to relocation benefits or rescindment of an improper notice. The City should instead, through its City Attorney or Community Strategy to End Displacement in San José 39
Housing Department, proactively enforce the ARO, TPO, and Ellis Act Ordinance by levying administrative penalties for noncompliance or taking legal action against landlords who fail to comply with these ordinances. The City should also enforce the requirements of the California Tenant Protection Act of 2019 (AB 1482) through these measures, and seek State law changes to allow local enforcement.

Community Strategy to End Displacement in San José 41
controlled units by providing legal representation preserves the affordability of these units.

We recommend the City:
• Commission a study of the costs and benefits of implementing a tenant right to legal counsel in San José.
• Establish and fund a tenant right to legal counsel in all eviction cases. • Target new State homeless prevention funds (SB 18) toward tenant legal protection and programs.

Community Strategy to End Displacement in San José 43
The City should increase its support for know-your-rights trainings and resources, with a focus on supporting tenant organizations and tenant organizing. We recommend that the City offer, or partner with local community-based organizations to offer, technical support for tenant organizations including know-your-rights training, assistance with incorporating as a nonprofit entity, and representation of tenants who face retaliatory evictions due to their organizing activity.

During the Anti-Displacement Policy Network, the ADPN team learned about Building and Strengthening Tenant Action (BASTA), which is a program of Texas Rio Grande Legal Aid dedicated to helping renters work with their neighbors to improve housing conditions in their homes and communities. BASTA provides services such as:
• Tenant outreach
• Forming & developing tenants associations
• Strategies to improve housing conditions
• Education on tenant rights
• Training for tenant leaders.

BASTA is recognized in Austin as an effective program for improving housing quality and keeping residents in their homes, which led to the City increasing its investment into the program to nearly $500,000 in 2019.

Community Strategy to End Displacement in San José 45
level of the previous foreclosure crisis. The City should consider opening a center similar to the ForeclosureHELP center to assist residents at risk of displacement through eviction.

The City should also assess what services would be beneficial to co-locate at the center for residents. Some examples of ideas brought up by residents during the community engagement process include counselors to provide reliable and timely information regarding housing rights, interpretation of leases in languages other than English, financial planning services, homelesness prevention, and other social safety net services..

“I can’t go. I already
changed my country
when I was young.

I can’t leave here.
[If my apartment opts
out of Section 8] I will
live in my car.”
— Participant at 3/27
Renters Focus group at
Biblioteca Americana
Community Strategy to End Displacement in San José 47
We recommend the City:
• Study an impact assessment tool for planning applications requiring demolition of housing primarily occupied by women-headed households and homes with young children.
• Convene representatives of school districts, the County and philanthropic partners to:
o Identify ways to monitor young families facing displacement and homelessness. o Promote the production of affordable housing for families (ie more 2-4 bedroom units) and prioritize housing families as affordable housing becomes available. o Identify partnerships to leverage public lands and public and private resources to create more affordable housing for families with children.

Large Families: San José has 55,153 large households, which are households with five or more family members. This represents 17% of all households in the City. In San José, there are 5,971 3-bedrooms units and 444 4+ bedroom units. Larger units have lower vacancies than other unit sizes, showing that there is a great demand for larger units: 3-bedrooms (3.4%) 4-bedroom + (1.4%).51
The team also heard there are not many rental properties that fit large families. Anecdotally, latinx households and asian households are more likely to be larger and multi-generational than the general population, which may indicate this issue may disproportionally impact these populations. In one case, a latinx family who Housing staff spoke with was paying much higher than market-rate rent for their single family rental home because the house was large enough for their nine member family. The home was also close to their mother’s work and their children’s schools. The family was given a very large increase for the second time that year and was going to be evicted in a few days. They did not believe they would find replacement housing in their current neighborhood and had not yet found replacement housing with just a few days left.

The City should consider preserving the existing larger rental unit stock and encouraging the development of affordable and spacious 2-bedrooms, or units of 3-bedrooms or more to better fit the needs of large families. The City may consider requiring a minimum size for 2-bedroom units to fit the needs of larger families or incentivize and plan for family friendly housing types.

Disabled: Case managers have shared that they have trouble finding affordable and accessible housing for their physically handicapped clients. The City has funded accessibility improvements in the past for its minor repair program for low-income homeowners. The City and County should consider creating incentives programs for ADA improvements in affordable rental housing and explore ways to prioritize accessible units for handicapped clients and work with developers to prioritize ADA units for disabled tenants.

Mixed-status and Undocumented: The community shared that many housing issues, including displacement, greatly impact mixed-status and undocumented households. Due to federal restrictions, mixed-status and undocumented families face a harder path to finding and qualifying for affordable housing programs. Affordable housing projects that are fully statefunded can accommodate undocumented households but the application process and outreach can be daunting for these families. Basic application requirements like income certifications and social security numbers to perform background checks can create risks or fear for mixed-status and undocumented families. The City should partner with advocacy organizations and affordable housing organizations to create inclusive education and outreach to address this issue.
48 What Solutions do we Recommend?
The City should also survey existing programs to identify and remove unnecessary barriers to housing services for mixed-status and undocumented residents. The City could also explore partnerships with philanthropy to create new housing resources for this population as the City has done for education and financial resources for undocumented families and womenheaded households and homes with Pre-K-12 children. One possible project is to target assistance for Santa Clara County households that could be evicted if a proposed HUD rule to ban mixed-status families in federally funded affordable housing moves forward.

Criminal record: A report from the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights52 found in a survey of formerly incarcerated individuals 79% were denied or did not qualify for housing because of their own or their loved one’s conviction history. When they return to live with their family, they also sometimes put their families at risk of losing their housing. The type of conviction, the length of time that had passed since the conviction are rarely taken into consideration.

What has been called a “blanket ban” is common practice in private and public housing. The City and County should explore creating new programs to assist with sustaining housing upon reentry, such as living stipends for families or excluding the question of criminal history in affordable housing applications.

Limited English speaking: Leases and other housing documents are not required to be translated into a resident’s primary language. This leadsmany limited English speaking families to rely on their interpreter, which often ends up being children. This situation leaves these residents, especially vulnerable to fraud or other predatory business practices. Government and community organizations should support language accessibility in their own work, and support efforts require translation of important housing documents in resident’s primary language as an anti-displacement tool.

Community Strategy to End Displacement in San José 51
the required notice and relocation benefits, tenants have no means to attempt to remain in their homes unless they are able to negotiate with the new property owner. The Ellis Act Ordinance was expanded to cover all multifamily developments across the City, requiring notification of tenants prior to demolition.

Cities around the Country, facing the pressure of growing populations and increased property values, have responded by passing policies that allow tenants to come together and form a cooperative to purchase their properties themselves or to transfer this opportunity to another buyer. Tenants could have the right of first refusal to purchase properties. Generally, if tenants are unable to cover the cost of the property purchase, they partner with an affordable housing developer, a philanthropic institution, or an investor who will lower return requirements to purchase the property at market price. This would allow the tenants to stay in the places they already call home and also provide a new pathway to homeownership in neighborhoods with few homeownership opportunities.

“One the biggest issues that the City
is facing and the State has faced
is the loss of the redevelopment
agencies… We need to find a
permanent broad based solution
to backfill the loss of RDA dollars.

We can’t do it alone with the
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance
(IHO) on the back of new housing.

We need to look at other funding
sources, such as a commercial
linkage fee. It’s very important to
keep that commercial linkage fee at
a level that maintains our regions
economic competitiveness. I think
San Francisco recently doubled their
fee.”
— Housing Developer
Community Strategy to End Displacement in San José 53
implementing AB 1467.
• Passing and quickly implementing a commercial
linkage fee that includes a higher tier for a hightech office. The City is currently conducting a nexus and feasibility study as a step towards developing
a citywide commercial linkage fee. The commercial
linkage fee comes amid a boom in commercial
development activity in San José not seen since before
the Great Recession. Large developers like Urban
Catalyst, Boston Properties, Urban Community, and Jay
Paul Co. and large employers like Adobe and Google
are investing billions of dollars on developments
in downtown San José. These developments will
contribute to rising rents in San José and should pay
their fair share to help produce affordable housing.

These tech developments often include a higher level
of amenities and higher potential for revenue than
traditional commercial development, making a higher
level of fees possible, as other nearby communities like Mountain View have seen firsthand. The ADPN team
proposes including a high-tech tier to the commercial
linkage fee, acknowledging the greater impact such
projects have on rising rents (and the greater feasibility such developments have to pay impact fees) to better mitigate the impact of tech development on the city.
• Utilizing new revenue from eBay revenue capture agreement: On September 24th, 2019, the San José City Council voted to approve a new agreement with online marketplace eBay to better capture sales tax revenue from online sales. This could raise nearly $30 million a year in new revenue to the City of San José. The Council voted to approve the agreement and to recommend that these new resources be used to address affordable housing, homelessness prevention, and neighborhood services. In future budgets, the City should utilize this revenue to implement strategies highlighted in this report and to amplify the City’s existing efforts. • Creating an Enhanced Infrastructure Finance District (EIFD) in Downtown and Diridon: Transit investments and large-scale development planned at Diridon Station, East Santa Clara, Little Portugal, and North San José BART Station are likely to bring both substantial increases in property tax revenue in the City, and significant new displacement and housing cost pressures. The City should consider utilizing tax increment financing to capture some of the value generated near the stations to address housing affordability and displacement. VTA and the City are already considering Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts as an option for generating funds for infrastructure. The City should set bold goals for revenue dedication from such funds for preserving and producing affordable housing. The County of Santa Clara should support the effort to create an EIFD for affordable housing and displacement by contributing its share of tax increment in the identified areas.

With the City’s plus the County’s increment, the EIFD could be feasible and could leverage additional State funds, such as in Senator Beall’s proposed SB 5 legislation.

With respect to EIFDs, the City should study how future planned development surrounding the BART extension, including around Diridon Station, overlaps with existing redevelopment areas, since those areas, until 2035, will still be collecting the City’s share of tax increment financing to pay off the former Redevelopment Agency debt. Former redevelopment areas therefore would have limited ability to collect tax increment.
54 What Solutions do we Recommend?
• Revising the Construction and Conveyance Tax to address displacement: For largescale developments being planned in areas facing on-going displacement or risks of displacement, the City lacks sufficient policies to mitigate further displacement.

The City should consider dedicating a portion of revenue from its Construction and Conveyance taxes for large-scale commercial and mixed-use projects (over 100,000 square feet of floor area) in areas experiencing or at risk of displacement, surrounding new BART stations, or within the newly created Opportunity Zones to address affordable housing production and preservation needs generated by the projects. • Incentive Zoning Policy that prioritizes affordable housing and anti-displacement:

The tech industry’s growing footprint, especially in the South Bay, has been a primary driver of demand for housing as its growth has dramatically outpaced housing production. The purchasing power of tech’s directly employed workers has bid up the rent of new and existing housing. Recently, Google, Apple and Cisco have begun to make investments in housing. However, not all the industry members have invested in a way to help address the crisis they created at a time when the industry is experiencing record revenue and profit growth. As tech companies and other developments in San José move forward, the City should ensure if it is selling public land, granting zoning or planning changes, or otherwise assisting such projects that the City negotiate resources to assist our low-income families. Such policies should include the development of an Incentive Zoning policy at Diridon Station and in the vicinity of BART Stations and transit investments, to create avenues for the City to better capture the value of land-use changes (such as recent height increases or reductions in parking requirements) and infrastructure investment benefiting development in these areas. It would also be important to analyze how recent State law changes may impact the City’s ability to utilize this tool.

A November 21, 2019, Potential Real Property Transfer Tax Measure Memo, https://sanjose.legistar. com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4246507&GUID=F31798DE-8447-4E0A-8B4A-D0CCE1061971

56 What Solutions do we Recommend?
implications of the ruling are still to be seen, but it could create more opportunities for affordable housing development on public land.

In its 2017 report, Enterprise Community Partners, a nationally-recognized affordable housing organization, found that “In strong markets, creative use of public sites can expand opportunities for affordability in an environment in which mission-driven developers struggle to compete for sites against better-funded market-rate developers.”D Affordable housing development on public land also increases the ability of developers to improve job quality, reduce financing-driven parking requirements, and increase project density. Perhaps the greatest benefit of affordable housing development on public land is speed and certainty.

Unlike private land parcels, cities that partner with affordable housing developers can reduce bureaucratic hurdles, speed up zoning and permitting, and assist with financing. To leverage these benefits, the ADPN team recommends the City and other government entities move forward with the following:
• Partner with State to increase affordable housing development on public land:

Following statewide efforts such as AB 1486, which reemphasizes the prioritization of affordable housing in the Surplus Lands Act, the City of San José should bring its local public land disposition process in line with State standards. The City should also consider ways to leverage new State resources and tools like SB 5 and SB 6 to move more projects forward.
• Survey public land and identify opportunities for development: The City should incentivize public land housing production by identifying sites owned by public entities that are suitable for housing uses. The City should also consider moving toward cross-sector partnerships to help develop sites owned by other public agencies.
• Examine opportunities on County sites: With efforts at the County of Santa Clara to examine affordable housing at sites including land adjacent to VHC Downtown Clinic, the Hub, O’Connor Hospital, and the redevelopment of the Reid Hillview Airport, the City should partner with the County to consider necessary planning changes to add affordable housing to existing potential land uses.
• Integrate housing uses in underutilized public land sites: Many public facilities and sites (storage, warehouses, small buildings with large parking lots) are either underutilized or near the end of their use-cycle. These sites should be included in a survey of properties that could be redeveloped either as housing or as mixed-use opportunities.

B Figures are estimated from report commissioned by MTC and conducted by EPS. The report’s authors performed a survey of sites suitable for development. These sites were defined as within a ½ mile of major transit facilities, not used as parks or right of way, no smaller than 0.5 acres with standard site shapes, not a designated toxic site. The entire list of identified properties is available at this link:
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=2c67d8f071c0471dacf704b782bafb8d &extent=-13761622.6241%2C4473149.9829%2C-13468104.4355%2C4632139.0018%2C102100. The parcels have a diffuse ownership including BART, VTA, Santa Clara Valley Water District, CalTrans, and the City of San José.
https://mtc.ca.gov/sites/default/files/Public%20Lands%20Affordable%20Housing%20ActionPlan%20 Sept%202018.pdf
C http://www.pilpca.org/2019/11/27/court-rules-that-california-charter-cities-must-prioritize-surpluspublic-land-for-affordable-housing-development/ D https://www.enterprisecommunity.org/resources/public-benefit-publicly-owned-parcels-19782

Community Strategy to End Displacement in San José 59
The Fund’s goal is to support the creation and preservation of 2,000 affordable housing units by 2024 through strategic property acquisition in both current and future transit corridors.

Since the Fund was started in 2014, the Denver TOD Fund has created or preserved 1,354 affordable rental units near transit at the cost of $24,283 per unit.58

Community Strategy to End Displacement in San José 61
Due to the high cost of single family homes, developable land already zoned for housing uses, and the lack of existing cooperative housing, San José presents unique challenges to these types of models. However, a community land trust that can leverage public land or support innovative ownership models (co-ops, co-living) could lead to a flourishing of affordable housing options.

San José has an opportunity to build on the models being created in San Francisco and Oakland of successful community land trusts and limited equity co-ops that are helping tenants come together to acquire a property. These exciting models could also be an attractive way for the City of San José to partners with other local government agencies with access to surplus lands for housing production like the County of Santa Clara, VTA, or local school boards. The ADPN team recommends the City:
• Seek or provide technical assistance funds to a third-party contractor to support the development of community land trust(s) and/or limited-equity co-ops to preserve long-term availability for affordable housing and other community uses • Identify potential partnerships with other government agencies for utilizing public lands
• Consider policy changes to affordable housing programs and development fees and taxes to support these alternative affordable housing models.

Community Strategy to End Displacement in San José 63
as cost-recovery for City departments. The City Council could choose to prioritize funding for nonprofits to purchase apartments to increase the number of affordability restricted buildings. This could be proposed as part of the annual budgetary process.

Finally, the City should consider strengthening the process for receivership of properties that are health and safety dangers and owned by chronic repeat code violators. The City has yet to utilize this process, although there may be properties in the City with many code violations and/or tenant harassment where this action could be considered appropriate.

APPENDIX
Community Strategy to End Displacement in San José 65

APPENDIX
• Community Engagement Summary and Process
• Citywide and Council District Maps: Current Conditions, Development Forecast • End notes

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY
“I had a long time renting under a previous landlord for 11 years. The new landlord just enters the apartment, even without knocking. We have 2 kids, and she said that you can’t live here because you can only have 3 people in this apartment. I asked what do I do if I have 2 kids? She told me to get rid of one of the kids.”
“I was wrongfully evicted from my home in January [2019]. I lived there 14 years. I live with a friend or my son sometimes. I work in Safeway – good thing is that I was able to keep my job, but my son is always telling me to leave. It’s not a healthy situation. Its affected me, moving back and forth. I’m fortunate to have a storage for things, but rent on storage is going up. I’m living out of a suitcase, sort of living out of my car. All the important things, documents, and stuff are in the car. I have to travel extra because my PO box, work, and staying at my sons or friend are in different parts of town. Takes longer because I don’t drive the freeway, because of my poor vision.”
— Participants at 3/13 Focus group with Law Foundation of Silicon Valley Process
Experiences involving evictions and forced displacement are delicate and personal. SOMOS and AV Consulting accounted for heightened sensitivity among marginalized communities of color who are already distrustful of government institutions by employing popular education methods. They allowed for deep and authentic conversations about families and residents’ experiences about trying to find and maintain housing. Collectively, the team committed to actively engaging 200 residents from across the City through the community forums.

Interpretation and translation in Spanish and Vietnamese was provided without request, children’s activities were available, and refreshments. The team committed to intentional follow up via email to make sure everyone who got involved could stay engaged beyond the forums. All notes were shared with event organizers and those who attended.

To initiate the community forums, SOMOS and SV Consulting engaged community partners to collaborate with on hosting community forums. The partners identified venues in the City where community members feel comfortable and familiar. Four community centers were selected to host the conversations to ensure maximum participation from the surrounding community. No forums were held at City Hall.
• August 15, 2019 Seven Trees Community Center
• August 24, 2019 Alma Senior Center
• September 7, 2019 School of Arts and Culture
• September 19, 2019 Camden Community Center
“Even my son tells me, mom,
why don’t you sell the house
and move somewhere else?
You don’t need to stay here
anymore. I tell him, it’s
my choice why I stay here,
sometimes I feel committed
to my area, and people tell
me, are you an activist? I say
no I’m not an activist, I just
care about this community. I
think that we could make this
a better community if you
just really try.”
— Laura Arechiga, President of
TOCKNA, 31-year resident of
Welch Park
66 Appendix
SOMOS and AV Consulting with the community partners outreached to the community to invite them to the forums and engaged community members in Spanish and Vietnamese.

SOMOS staff and community partners mobilized with flyers and door knocking, announcements at local churches and organizations, radio appearances, and a survey booth at the Berryessa Flea Market.

The ADPN team and the consultants worked closely together to design a meeting agenda that allowed participants to share their stories safely and unobtrusively. After the first community forum, it was evident that residents were forthcoming of their stories, but had little interest in answering some of the prescriptive questions prepared to gather data and information.

However, much of the information staff was seeking was addressed during fluid conversation.

An early lesson for staff was to ensure the right balance of gathering technical information and keeping the meeting welcoming and engaging.

The community forum process included space for City staff to present the current situation of displacement in San José. The majority of the time during the two-hour community forum was allotted for small group conversations. All participants also had the opportunity to ask questions directly to City staff in attendance.

Below is a brief summary of the community engagement activities completed to form this report:
• Nearly 800 community members actively engaged through all outreach activities. • Approximately 650 community members informed of community forums through door knocking, announcements at local organizations, and a survey booth.

Community Leader Interviews from neighborhoods in Council Districts 1, 3, 6, 7, and 8.

These interviews of neighborhood association leaders in displacement hotspot areas in Council Districts 1, 3, 6, 7, and 8. All 8 interviews were conducted by City Housing staff from November 2018 – December 2018. These interviews greatly informed the ADPN team’s perspective on the impact of displacement on homeowners.

Focus Groups
11/16/18 – Anti-Displacement Policy Lunch with local nonprofit leaders “I think about 10% of my clients with vouchers move out of the City or region before they can use their voucher.”
— Case manager from Catholic Charities
The Anti-Displacement Policy Lunch was the first event hosted by the ADPN team and was held at the Martin Luther King Library in November 2018. Most attendees were nonprofit leaders and housing advocates. The event was to help primarily raise awareness of the issue of displacement and learn from the audience how displacement has impacted their work. A concern from attendees was the ADPN team seemed to initiate this discussion of displacement out of context. The team was advised to consider the Google and Diridon process, the General Plan and Urban Villages, and the recent impact of BRT in the Eastside.

Some of the key observations and suggestions from the group that are integrated into this report as recommendations include:

Community Strategy to End Displacement in San José 67
• The desire for tech companies to fund housing and anti-displacement; • Decreasing or simplifying documentation to increase access to affordable housing; • Strategies to preserve naturally affordable housing ; • Structured education campaign for renters and property owners of their legal obligations and rights;
• Exploring community land trusts;
• Acknowledging redlining policies and ensuring this legacy should not be repeated; • Increase capacity of legal organizations to represent renters; and • Surfacing community leaders to balance out voices beyond housing advocates in the process of developing recommendations.

One the recommendations from this group the City and the ADPN team can continue to work toward is convening and working across sectors to address displacement. 11/29/18 – Cafecito in collaboration with SOMOS Mayfair This Cafecito built upon a three part series called Nuesta Vision “Our Vision” where Mayfair community members worked on envisioning how they would like the neighborhood to develop in the future. The attendees were primarily Spanish speaking.

Two of the key themes from this discussion were concern for overcrowded families renting single-family homes and the vulnerability of undocumented families in housing. Multiple community members were also concerned about unannounced remodeling and construction as a form of tenant harassment. Many were interested in homeownership, but most residents rent in their neighborhood and shared many undocumented residents in the neighborhood wouldn’t be eligible to purchase a home. They shared that they are losing their long time relationships with their neighbors who have moved to places like Los Banos, Sacramento, Madera, Stockton, Washington, Tracy, and Newman. Their concerns about the lack of tenant protections for single family home renters and enforcement against tenant harassment are included in the team’s recommendations to Expand Tenant Protections and Right to Legal Counsel against evictions.
3/13/18 – Renters focus group in collaboration with Law Foundation Silicon Valley A number of residents that attended this focus group came from the same apartment building and were currently facing harassment from their landlord, urging them to move. One of the main displacement issues discussed included the lack of accountability from some landlords to comply with the Apartment Rent Ordinance (ARO). The tenants who attended were provided inaccurate information about the ARO, and were asked to pay for maintenance costs at their building, which lead to an illegal rent increase. The large takeaway from this group was the need to increase education for property owners and tenants on their legal obligations and rights and enforcement of the Apartment Rent Ordinance. 3/27/18 – Renters focus group in collaboration with Affordable Housing Network This focus group had a mix of renters mostly from the Westside of San José. The attendees shared multiple personal stories, but also had a wealth of recommendations for solutions.

The most popular ideas were to encourage more low-income family units, streamline and remove barriers from the housing application process & fees, repeal Costa-Hawkins, stronger rent control, and strengthen the Ellis Act. These ideas informed the ADPN teams 68 Appendix
recommendations to maintain and expand tenant protections and target strategies for large families, disabled residents, mixed-status and undocumented families, residents with criminal records, and limited English speaking households.
4/12/18 – Renters focus group in collaboration with Eastside PEACE This focus group was primarily a group of Spanish speaking mothers. The discussion helped illustrate some of the displacement issues they and people they know personally are going through. Overall, the attendees felt strongly that something must be done to lower rents to decrease displacement and that the City must be accountable to the community for their recommendations to address displacement.

San José Resident Survey
“I have had to move many times during the last 5 years, and had I not married into homeownership I most likely would have faced many years of continuous housing instability. I have held three jobs and worked more than 60 hours per week for last 5 years. Since marrying into homeownership I have finally been able to go back to school and work towards my long-term goals, but without the financial stability of my partner and the financial stability of her family, we would have most definitely been displaced by now. We love our family and community in San José and it is very important to both of us to stay here, as we would like to raise our children close to family, and my small business has been building clientele locally for the last 13 years. We are very involved in many community organizations and that means a lot to us. We work very hard to stay. Even as homeowners we require roommates to make ends meet and still work overtime/multiple jobs.” — Survey respondent From July – October 2019 the ADPN team collected 328 surveys of San José residents. 40% of the respondents shared they were displaced in the past. Of those respondents, 60% no longer live in San José and 50% cited the reason they were displaced was because they could no longer afford the rent. Despite having moved due to rising housing costs, 60% of respondents revealed that they pay more for housing now than they did before they were displaced. 71% still work in San José and most would like to move back to their previous neighborhood in San José in the future. Many residents also shared their personal stories about housing. Many shared they consider San José their home, but anticipate that they will have to leave. The survey helped summarize the strong sense of community and belonging for many residents who have already left San José or may be displaced in the future. It also corroborated some of the trends in the anti-displacement literature regarding outcomes for displaced residents.

Community Strategy to End Displacement in San José 69 SEVEN TREES Community Forums
August 15, 2019, Seven Trees Community Center
The Seven Trees Community Forum was conducted in 3 languages, English, Spanish, and Vietnamese. Some of common concerns across groups was that new housing currently being built is not affordable to them. Some of the more specific recommendations from participants included:
• Expand existing rent control
• Local preference for affordable housing
• Eliminate Costa Hawkins
• Protect Ellis Act Ordinance
• Build on-site for Inclusionary Housing Ordinance
• Build Bridge Housing
• Expand Rapid Re- Housing Program
These recommendations are included in the ADPN team’s recommendations Maintain and Expand Tenant Protections, and Local Preferences for Affordable Housing recommendations.

The ADPN team did not include recommendations in this report that focused on the homelessness response system to focus on solutions that may prevent homelessness. The recommendation regarding Inclusionary Housing was not included in the report due to the following: 1) The legal standing of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance was based on the ordinance providing options for compliance; 2) the City Council was already set to discuss the topic of Inclusionary Housing in fall 2019.
70 Appendix
August 24, 2019, Alma Senior Center
Displacement was an urgent issue for several attendees at this forum. Some of the participants we heard from have recently lost their housing, were about to lose their housing in a few days, or are working 3 jobs to maintain their housing. One of the topics the group was particularly interested in was Inclusionary Housing. They felt strongly that there should be affordable units included in new construction and there should not be an option to fee out.

Another interesting idea from the group was creating new housing resource centers across the city so that residents could get help right away if they are having a housing emergency.

The Housing Resource Center is included as a recommendation in this report. The recommendation regarding Inclusionary Housing was not included in the report due to the following: 1) The legal standing of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance was based on the ordinance providing options for compliance; 2) the City Council was already set discuss the topic of Inclusionary Housing in fall 2019.

ALMA
Community Strategy to End Displacement in San José 71
September 7, 2019 School of Arts and Culture
This forum had a larger turn out than the others. Many were concerned about the Alum Rock Urban Village and the ability for the community to guide development in a way that fits the needs of the community. A couple of examples were local residents concerned they would not be able to access the new affordable housing being built without a tenant preference for affordable housing. They questioned why it seemed there was more new development occurring in the Eastside, but not in neighborhoods like Willow Glen or Rose Garden. There was a large concern that all Planning Commissioners at the time were from D6 and there was no Eastside representation.

Some of the ideas suggested by attendees are integrated in the ADPN team’s list of recommendations of Maintain and Expand Tenant Protections, Right to Legal Counsel, Expand Tenant Education and Neighborhood Development Programs, Tenant Preferences for Affordable Housing, Targeted strategies for large families, disabled residents, mixed-status and undocumented families, residents with criminal records, and limited English speaking households, and Landlord incentives and Equitable Code Enforcement.

Additional anti-displacement recommendations from attendees of the Eastside Forum that are not listed in the ADPN team’s recommendations include:
• Increase the in-lieu fee for projects subject to the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance • Tie affordable housing rents to actual incomes and consumer price index, not Area Median Income (AMI)
• Broader more timely notification of new projects
• Diverse representation on planning commission
• Anti-displacement protections to retain service workers (Non-profits, teachers, nurses) providers to tenants/low -income communities
• Elimination of Single Family Home Zoning

SCHOOL OF ARTS
& CULTURE
72 Appendix CAMDEN
September 19, 2019, Camden Community Center
The forum at the Camden Community center was a smaller group, but had rich discussion.

Again, some participants had immediate needs. One of our participants was currently homeless for several years and lived in his car in the Camden Community Center parking lot.

One of the families that attended and lived off Union Ave was recently harassed by their landlord and moved out of their apartment. Their landlord told them they were over occupancy because the mother was pregnant. The family was unsure where they could reach help at the time. They decided to move to avoid a formal eviction and were currently looking for a new place to live.

This group was particularly interested in preservation. Some of the suggestions from participants included: if residents must relocate due to redevelopment, the residents should receive a right to return and live in the new apartment. A participant believed that the displaced resident should receive financial support for the expenses of deposit, cost of moving out of the apartment and to move back, the difference of rent at new apartment until they can move to back to their previous apartment, and assistance so they can choose to relocate within a ½ mile from their previous residence and in the same school district.

The conversation at this forum influenced the ADPN solutions Right to Legal Counsel, and Preservation Strategy.

Community Strategy to End Displacement in San José 77

ENDNOTES

1. “Where is the Land of Opportunity? The Geography of Intergenerational Mobility in the United States” Raj Chetty, Nathaniel Hendren, Patrick Kline, Emmanuel Saez

2. City of San José Housing Department, Housing Market Statistics Report First Quarter 2019, http://sanjoseca.gov/ DocumentCenter/View/84944

3. City of San José Homeless Census & Survey, 2019

4. Envision San José 2040 General Plan http://www.sanjoseca.gov/index.aspx?NID=1737

5. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0885412217716439

6. https://www.citylab.com/equity/2015/09/the-complicated-link-between-gentrification-anddisplacement/404161/

7. http://cityobservatory.org/how-gentrification-benefits-long-time-residents-of-low-income-neighborhoods/

8. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1078087404273341

9. Mapping Inequality Redlining in New Deal America https://dsl.richmond.edu/panorama/ redlining/#loc=13/37.328/-121.923&city=san-jose-ca&area=D11

10. Adkins, Jan Batise, Images of America: African Americans of San José and Santa Clara County.

11. SJSU Speed City, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yV4zvaxeI94

12. Smith: ‘They tried to make it a moment, but it was a movement’ https://www.indystar.com/story/opinion/ columnists/erika-smith/2015/03/18/smith-tried-make-moment-movement/24983931/

13. Case Study: Diridon Station Area, San José https://www.urbandisplacement.org/sites/default/files/san_jose_ final.pdf

14. RealQuest, July 27, 2018

15. City of San José, Status Report on Foreclosures April 13, 2010 http://www3.sanjoseca.gov/clerk/14.

CommitteeAgenda/CED/20100426/CED20100426_d7.pdf

16. Authors: Issi Romem and Elizabeth Kneebone, Disparity In Departure: Who Leaves The Bay Area And Where Do They Go? https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/disparity-in-departure

17. UC Berkeley Urban Displacement Project https://www.urbandisplacement.org/

18. Source ACS 2012-2016

19. 2017 ACS 1-Year Esimates, B19131: Family Type by Presence of own Children under 18 years by Family Income in the Past 12 Months (In 2017 Inflation-Adjusted Dollars) - Universe: Families

20. Bay Area Regional Health Inequities Initiative 2016

21. Desmond & Gershenson 2015

22. Desmond & Kimbro 2015

23. Desmond, Michael, et al. 2015

24. Rising Housing Costs and Re-Segregation in the San Francisco Bay Area (Urban Displacement Project and California Housing Partnership 2018). 78 Appendix

25. Schafran, Alex. The Road to ReSegregation: Northern California and the Failure of Politics

26. Cost of Segregation: Lost Income, Lost Lives, Lost Potential (Metropolitan Planning Council 2017)

27. Inequality and Economic Security in Silicon Valley, CA Budget Center

28. ACS 2013-17 5-year Estimates, Household Income in the Past 5-Months

29. City of San José, Housing Market Update Second Quarter 2019 http://sanjoseca.gov/DocumentCenter/ View/86262

30. Miriam Zuk Karen Chapple “Housing Production, Filtering and Displacement: Untangling the Relationships” (2016) https://www.urbandisplacement.org/sites/default/files/images/udp_research_brief_052316.pdf

31. Affordable Housing Investment Plan memo, June 2018

32. California Housing Partnership: February 2019 California’s Affordable Rental Homes At-Risk Report

33. City of San José, AR Report – Expiring and Demolitions 10/22/19

34. Costar Properties by Star Rating (10/22/2018)

35. 2017 ACS 1-year estimates; National Immigration Forum, San Jose: An Immigration Snapshot https://immigrationforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Immigration-2020-SanJose_final.pdf

36. April 11, 2019 Rent Stabilization Program Fee memo, http://www.sanjoseca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/83654

37. Working Partnerships Usa, Soaring Rents, Falling Wages (2017), available at https://www.siliconvalleyrising.org/ files/SoaringRentsFallingWages.pdf.

38. Cities of San Francisco, New York, and Philadelphia, “Economic Return on Investment of Providing Counsel in Philadelphia Eviction Cases for Low-Income Tenants” https://www.philadelphiabar.org/WebObjects/PBA.woa/ Contents/WebServerResources/CMSResources/PhiladelphiaEvictionsReport.pdf

39. The Financial Cost and Benefits of Establishing a Right to Counsel in Eviction Proceedings Under Intro 214-A https://www2.nycbar.org/pdf/report/uploads/SRR_Report_Financial_Cost_and_Benefits_of_Establishing_a_ Right_to_Counsel_in_Eviction_Proceedings.pdf

40. Community Impact Newspaper: Residents’ Advocacy Project proposed to solve problem property issues in Austin (9/27/19) https://communityimpact.com/austin/news/2015/08/27/residents-advocacy-project-proposedto-solve-problem-property-issues-in-austin/?SuperSocializerAuth=LiveJournal

41. Save Your Home Philly Hotline https://philalegal.org/saveyourhomephilly

42. Santa Clara County Rapid Response Hotline http://www.sanjoseca.gov/index.aspx?NID=5620

43. City of San José ForeclosureHELP Center Earmark, November 18, 2010

44. City of San José, Status Report on Foreclosures April 13, 2010 http://www3.sanjoseca.gov/clerk/ CommitteeAgenda/CED/20100426/CED20100426_d7.pdf

45. RealQuest, July 27, 2018

46. Number of Evictions July 2018-June 2019. City of San José Housing Department, October 21, 2019 Community Strategy to End Displacement in San José 79

47. National Immigration Law Center “Rental Housing Programs: Public housing, Section 8, rural housing, and lowincome tax credit housing” https://www.nilc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/rental_housing_1005.pdf

48. 2017 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates

49. Santa Clara County District Attorney’s office Report: Crime in Santa Clara County - 2017

50. Children Characteristics and Households and Family Categories ACS 5-year Surveys, 2010-2017

51. Costar Q3 2019 data (10/28/2019)

52. Who Pays? The True Cost of Incarceration on Families, Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, Forward Together, and Research Action Design, September 2015

53. Washington DC: Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Act https://ota.dc.gov/page/tenant-opportunity-purchaseact-topa

54. City of San Francisco: Community Opportunity to Purchase Act https://sfmohcd.org/sites/default/files/ Documents/MOH/COPA/Final%20COPA%20FAQs%20for%20Posting.pdf

55. Metropolitan Transportation Commission “2018 Public Lands Affordable Housing Action Plan” https://mtc. ca.gov/sites/default/files/Public%20Lands%20Affordable%20Housing%20ActionPlan%20Sept%202018.pdf

56. “Public Benefit from Publicly Owned Parcels: Effective Practices in Affordable Housing Development” [https:// www.enterprisecommunity.org/resources/public-benefit-publicly-owned-parcels-19782

57. Urban Institute: Urban Wire, “Preserving affordable housing: what works,” https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/ preserving-affordable-housing-what-works

58. ADPN Affordable Housing Preservation Working Group Call (9/20/18)

59. Mercury News “A home you can afford: How land trusts are changing Bay Area homeownership; https:// www.mercurynews.com/2018/07/30/a-home-you-can-afford-how-land-trusts-are-changing-bay-area-homeownership/

60. Grounded Solutions “Community Land Trusts.” https://groundedsolutions.org/strengthening-neighborhoods/ community-land-trusts

61. San Francisco Small Site Program https://sfmohcd.org/small-sites-tenants

62. Salinas Receivership Program
https://www.cityofsalinas.org/our-city-services/community-development/code-enforcement-division/news/ nuisance-property-rehabilitated-through-successful-receivership This is a San José Anti-Displacement Policy Network Team report, not a City of San José staff report.

San José Housing Element (2014‐2023)
Photo-Credits and
Acknowledgments
This Housing Element was prepared through cooperation of staff in the City of San José Department of Planning, Building & Code Enforcement and the Department of Housing. The City thanks the public and stakeholders for the input they have provided during this update process, as well as the individuals and organizations with whom the City partners to provide housing opportunities and resources for San Jose’s families, households, and individuals.

Cover Photo Credits:

Top row, from Left, Bernard André photographer provided courtesy of First Community Housing, remaining three are Dale Tan, high-rise photo.

Bottom Row: All Dale Tan except the top right, which is Jeffrey Peters of Vantage Point Photography provided courtesy of Charities Housing.

San José Housing Element (2014‐2023)
Table of Contents

CHAPTERS AND SECTIONS PAGE
Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..I-1 A. Sustainability, Resiliency and Regional Planning…………………………………………………….I-3 B. General Plan Consistency ……………………………………………………………………………………….I-5 C. Maps of Key Housing Sites in San José……………………………………………………………………I-10 D. Data Sources …………………………………………………………………………………………………………..I-12 E. Public Participation …………………………………………………………………………………………………I-12 F. Outreach Meetings (Phase 1)…………………………………………………………………………………..I-14 G. Outreach Meetings (Phase 2)……………….………………………………………………………………….I-23 Demographics………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. II-1 A. Population Growth………………………………………………………………………………………………….. II-1 B. Age of Persons……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. II-5 C. Race/Ethnicity…………………………………………………………………………………………………………. II-7 D. Households and Household Size…………………………………………………………………………… II-10 E. Household Type…………………………………………………………………………………………………….. II-13 F. Geographic Mobility………………………………………………………………………………………………. II-15 G. Housing Stock and Occupancy……………………………………………………………………………. .II-16 H. Housing Tenure…………………………………………………………………………………………………….. II-17 I. Overcrowding…………………………………………………………………………………………………………. II-18 J. Structure Type and Age…………………………………………………………………………………………. II-20 K. Conclusions…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….II-21 Needs Assessment……………………………………………………………………………………………………..…III-1 A. Regional Growth Projections and RHNA……………………………………….…………………….……III-2 B. “Jobs First” General Plan………………….………………………………………….……………………….…III-4 C. Employment………………………………………………………………………………………………………….….III-5 D. Household Income…………………………………………………………………………………………….……..III-7 E. Poverty……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….….….III-10 F. Housing Costs……………………………………………………………………………..……………….……….….III-12 G. Affordability / Housing Burden……………………………………………………..…………………..……..III-15 H. Income/Housing Cost Limits……………………………………………………………..………………….….III-20 I. Special Housing Needs Groups………………………………………………………..………………………III-21 J. Energy Conservation…………………………………………………………………………..…………………….III-39 K. Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….….III-42 San José Housing Element (2014‐2023)
Constraints and Resources…………………………………………………………………………………….….IV-1 A. General Plan Policies………………………………………………………………………………………….…IV-2 B. Zoning Regulations……………………………………………………………………………………………….IV-7 C. Design Guidelines……………………………………………………………………………………………….. IV-15 D. Building Code Requirements……………………………………………………………………………....IV-16 E. Application Review Procedures/Processing Time……………………………………………… IV-17 F. Fees, Taxes, and other Exactions……………………………………………………………………....IV-20 G. Regional Coordination………………………………………………………………………………………… IV-27 H. State and Federal Government………………………………………………………………………….IV-28 I. Price of Land……………………………………………………………………………………………………… IV-31 J. Cost of Construction………………………………………………………………………………………..… IV-32 K. Availability of Financing……………………………………………………………………………………… IV-33 L. Market Forces……………………………………………………………………………………………………. IV-34 M. Environmental Hazards and Limitations…….…………………………………………………….. IV-35 Planned Supply/Inventory……………………………………………………………………………………… V-1 A. Inventory Overview………………………………………………………………………………………………..V-2 B. Already Entitled…………………………………………………………………………………………………….V-4 C. Downtown……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..V-5 D. Planned Communities…………………………………………………………………………………………..V-5 E. Urban Villages……………………………………………………………………………………………………….V-6 F. Vacant Land…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..V-11 G. North San Jose………………………………………………………………………………………………………V-12 H. Underutilized Redevelopable Parcels…………………………………………………………………..V-13 I. Annexations……………………………………………………………………………………………………………V-14 J. Demolitions……………………………………………………………………………………………………………V-15 K. Mobile Homes Preservation………………………………………………………………………………….V-15 L. Density/Land Use Designation Requirements for Low Income Housing……………..V-16 Preservation and Equitable Development……………………………………………………………. VI-1 A. Definitions………………………..…..…………..……………………………………………………………… …..VI-1 B. Analysis of Deed-Restricted Homes At Risk of Conversion to Market Rate……… ..VI-2 C. Cost of Replacement Vs Preservation of Deed Restricted Homes…………………… … VI-3 D. Entities Qualified to Preserve At-Risk Homes…………………………………………………………VI-4 E. Growth and Potential Impacts on Existing Housing Stock and Residents……………..VI-4 F. Preservation & Equitable Development………………………………………………………………….VI-6 G. Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….VI-6 Programs and Implementation………………………………………………………………………………….VII-1 A. Summary of Key Findings………………………..…..…………..……………………………………………VII-1 B. Financing and Subsidy Resources…………………………………………………………………………VII-2 C. Policies and Programs…………………………………………………………………………………………..VII-3 D. Quantified Objectives……………………………………………………………………………………………….VII-5 Prior Element Evaluation…………………………………………………………………………………….…….VIII-1 A. Construction Cycles………………………..…..…………..……………………………………………………VIII-2 B. Meeting San José’s 2007-14 RHNA……………………………………………………………………….VIII-3 San José Housing Element (2014‐2023)
C. Effectiveness of the 2007-14 Housing Element Implementation Work Program…VIII-5 D. Element Appropriateness……………………………………………………………………………………..VIII-6 Appendix A: Adequate Sites Inventory………………………………………………………………………………………..A-1 Appendix B: List of Housing Goals, Policies, and Actions …………………………………………………………B-1 Appendix C: List of Affordable Homes At-risk of Conversion……………………………………………..……C-1 Appendix D: Implementation Work Plan ………………………………………………………………………………..….D-1 Appendix E: Evaluation of Prior Housing Element Work Program ……………………………………..……E-1 Appendix F: Public, Commission and Council Input ……………………………………………………….………...F-1 San José Housing Element (2014‐2023)
This page
intentionally
left blank
San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter I‐1

Chapter I:

Introduction
What is the Housing Element?
The Housing Element is one of seven State-required components of local general plans. Typically updated every five to eight years, cities and counties develop their Housing Element to plan for their “fair share” of the regional housing need across income levels and needs.

The determination of regional housing need begins with the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and California Department of Finance (DOF), which first calculate statewide housing needs based upon population projections and regional population forecasts used in preparing regional transportation plans. The Statewide need is then distributed to regional Council of Governments (COGs) throughout California, who work with cities and counties within their purview to assign each jurisdiction its share of the regional housing need, known as the Regional Housing Needs Allocation or RHNA. The RHNA itself is divided into five income categories that encompass all levels of housing need.

The City of San José is a member of the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), the Bay Area’s COG, which is composed of nine counties and 101 cities. For the Bay Area, this RHNA cycle covers an approximately 8.8 year projection period from January 1, 2014 to October 31, 2022. It is important to note that the programs contained in chapter VII of this document correspond to HCD’s planning period from January 31, 2015–January 31, 2023. The total RHNA for Santa Clara County in the 2014-2022 cycle is 58,836 housing units, of which 35,080 units (approximately 60%) are assigned to San José. The chart below compares the RHNA allocations for all cities in Santa Clara County.

San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter I‐2
Jurisdiction 2014‐23 RHNA Allocation
Campbell 933
Cupertino 1,064
Gilroy 1,088
Los Altos 477
Los Altos Hills 121
Los Gatos 619
Milpitas 3,290
Monte Sereno 61
Morgan Hill 928
Mountain View 2,926
Palo Alto 1,988
San Jose 35,080
Santa Clara 4,093
Saratoga 439
Sunnyvale 5,452
Total 58,559
Envision San José 2040 General Plan
The Envision San José 2040 General Plan is San José's long-term plan for economic prosperity, urban vitality, and sustainable land use and development. The General Plan Task Force comprised 37 community members and was appointed on August 7, 2007. The Task Force held 51 meetings over a four year period and over 5,000 community members actively participated in the update process. At the final meeting on September 12, 2011, the Task Force unanimously voted on the Preferred Land Use Scenario for 470,000 new jobs, 120,000 new housing units, with a goal of 1.3 jobs to employed resident ratio. The Preferred Land Use Scenario, which the Council approved unanimously in November 2011, gives clear priority to fiscal sustainability through job growth and to improve the City’s current Jobs to Employed Resident ratio, while providing sufficient densities and sites for future housing needs. San Jose’s current 0.86 J/ER ratio is not an acceptable or a fiscally sustainable option. The General Plan and its implementing policies are intended to allow San José to become a regional job center. The General Plan 2040 includes growth capacity for the development of up to 470,000 new jobs and up to 120,000 new dwelling units. Combined with the City’s current development and this additional growth capacity, San Jose could grow to 840,000 jobs and 430,000 dwelling units, supporting a residential population of 1.3 million people with a Jobs/Employed Resident Ratio of 1.3/1.

As the Capital of Silicon Valley, and home to many of the world’s most innovative technology companies, San José is also one of the most expensive places in the country for residing. To maintain and strengthen San José's objective for long-term, widely shared prosperity, The General Plan seeks to support the interrelated goals of economic development and the creation of homes that are affordable for current and future residents. When households can afford housing, they have more resources to save, invest, support the community, and spend in the local economy. Additionally, when the cost of housing is within the reach of employee buying power, businesses are able to more easily hire and retain workers. San José envisions a future land use pattern that is more efficient, equitable, urban, San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter I‐3
walkable, and dynamic than its existing, predominantly low-density and auto-centric form, and creating homes that are higher density, affordable, and built in the right locations is fundamental to helping the City reach General Plan goals. The General Plan directs housing growth to occur in a high-density mixed use format in identified growth areas including Downtown, North San José, Specific Plan Areas, Urban Villages and along transit corridors, station areas and commercial centers.

San José is well-positioned to plan for its housing needs through the Housing Element and to build on its strong record of leadership in facilitating the provision of housing needs for all segments of the population. In 2011, the General Plan was adopted by the City Council with ambitious goals to create a sustainable, prosperous, diverse, and equitable San José. The visionary goals align with and further the spirit of State law that each local agency prepares and adopts a comprehensive and long-range general plan for its physical development (Government Code section 65300).

Cities must ensure that their general plan and its component parts comprise an integrated, internally consistent, and compatible statement of development policies. Although the General Plan is an integrated general plan document, with each of the seven State-required elements addressed throughout the document, the City’s Housing Element also exists as a section of the General Plan found in Appendix 11. This stand-alone report also includes with it an Appendix B: Housing Goals, Policies, and Actions, compiling housing-related General Plan programs and policies into one easy-to-read location.

A. Sustainability, Resiliency, and Regional Planning
Local governments have for decades been required to update their housing elements to demonstrate satisfaction of community housing needs as determined by the Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) process. However, the 2014-22 RHNA is unique because it incorporates into this process for the first time a comprehensive approach towards integrating transportation, land use, and housing into planning to meet the environmental sustainability goals of The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, or Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), and the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act, or Senate Bill 375 (SB 375).

AB 32 requires the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to develop regulations and market mechanisms to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, representing a 25% reduction statewide, with mandatory caps beginning in 2012 for significant emissions sources. Three approaches were adopted to meet goals for cleaner vehicles, cleaner fuels; and more sustainable development and land use patterns. Enacted in 2008, SB 375 implements the sustainable land use goals of AB 32 by requiring that the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for each region develop a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) as part of its Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) in order to integrate transportation, land use, and housing policies towards meeting the emissions reduction target for their region.

In the Bay Area, ABAG – the Bay Area’s COG as well as its MPO – and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) have collaborated to meet the requirements of AB 32/SB 375 and the SCS through an integrated long-range plan called Plan Bay Area. The 2014-22 RHNA for Bay Area jurisdictions was developed to be consistent with Plan Bay Area, and include the following objectives:
 Increasing the supply, diversity, and affordability of housing  Promoting infill development and a more efficient land use pattern  Promoting an improved intraregional relationship between jobs and housing San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter I‐4
 Protecting environmental resources, and
 Promoting socioeconomic equity.

Additionally, the Bay Area’s sustainability strategy includes a framework called Priority Development Areas (PDAs). PDAs are locations that comprise or are adjacent to transit infrastructure, and that are nominated by local jurisdictions as appropriate places to emphasize future growth in a sustainable manner. The City of San José has 13 PDAs, which coincide with key growth locations identified in the General Plan.

Plan Bay Area is supported in part through targeted transportation investments funded by the One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) Program. OBAG is an approximately $800 million transportation program providing funding between FY 2012-13 and 2015-16 to facilitate the land use goals of SB 375. An important part of OBAG is that a portion of the funding is allocated to reward jurisdictions that accept and produce housing through the RHNA process. Santa Clara County has received the Bay Area’s largest distribution of OBAG funding to date ($88 million), facilitated in part by San José’s commitment and production of affordable housing. The OBAG program provides an innovative approach to linking important infrastructure resources to jurisdictions doing their regional fair housing share, and emphasizes the importance of planning for housing by requiring that a jurisdiction has a Housing Element certified by the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) in order to be eligible for funding.

It is important to note that OBAG is but
one example of a larger trend linking
housing policy to infrastructure
investment. At the Federal level, HUD,
DOT and EPA created the Partnership
for Sustainable Communities to
integrate planning and investment in
housing, transportation, water
infrastructure, brownfield remediation
and land use planning. In California
HCD is working on a 10-year strategic
plan emphasizing cross sector
outcomes and is also part of the Health
in All Policies Task Force.1 2 In 2006,
California passed Proposition 1C which
raised $2.9 B in bond funds for several
affordable housing programs. In
addition the Housing-Related Parks
Program (HRPP) awards grants for the
construction of new parks to cities that
have demonstrated a commitment to build affordable housing.

San José was recently awarded $2.9 M through this program.

1 California Strategic Growth Council, Health in All Policies Task Force:
http://sgc.ca.gov/s healthinallpolicies(hiap)taskforce.php 2 California Department of Housing and Community Development:
http://www hcd.ca.gov/hpd/shp/cal shp strategy042114.pdf Figure 1: HCD Strategic Plan Outcomes
San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter I‐5
California’s Cap and Trade Program uses fees charged to polluters to fund various programs that reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In 2014, Cap and Trade will raise $130 M for the development of affordable housing near transit and bike and pedestrian infrastructure. Finally, there is a movement among policy makers to invest in resiliency measures that build the local capacity of individuals, organizations and systems to adapt and survive when shocks and disasters occur. Therefore, if San José is proactive in addressing its housing needs, it may be more competitive for infrastructure funds geared toward transportation improvements, new parks, and energy efficiency projects.

B. General Plan Consistency
Internal Consistency
State law requires that local general plans be internally consistent with their housing elements.

Because general plans are typically updated every 15-20 years and housing elements are updated more frequently (generally every 5-7 years), the different update cycles create the potential for inconsistencies between the goals, policies, and programs contained in the two documents. Because a housing element affects the locality’s policies for growth and residential land uses, a city should review the entire general plan, especially land use provisions, to ensure internal consistency is maintained upon any amendment to the housing element. As mentioned above, this Housing Element includes an Appendix B that identifies housing-related goals, policies, and actions contained in the General Plan. The Housing Element also includes an implementation workplan that links each action for the 2014-23 RHNA cycle to a General Plan housing policy to ensure alignment and internal consistency between the two documents. This Housing Element will also consider additional language to strengthen and further clarify the affordable housing goals contained in the General Plan as part of the Housing Element’s implementation workplan.

General Plan Document Structure and Periodic Reviews to Maintain Internal Consistency The General Plan of the City of San José is an integrated, internally consistent and compatible statement of the official land use policy of the City. The General Plan meets the requirements and intent of the California Government Code while accommodating local conditions and circumstances. It contains each of the elements mandated by Government Code Section 65302. Since they are intrinsically interrelated and overlapping, the elements have been combined into a consistent meaningful whole, and organized in a manner designed to meet the needs of public officials, developers, neighborhood organizations and members of the community who will use it most frequently. In order to facilitate identification of the aspects of each mandatory element, the appendices include a comprehensive list of references for each of the seven mandatory elements.

The Envision General Plan establishes an ongoing program for the City to monitor and evaluate its success in implementation, fundamental elements of which include both Annual Reviews and a recurring 4-year Major Review cycle. Through these review cycles, the General Plan maintains internal consistency among all its elements.

Annual Review
The General Plan Annual Review process provides for review of site-specific proposals for possible amendment of the General Plan text and the Land Use / Transportation Diagram by both the City and San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter I‐6
private applicants on a yearly basis. To evaluate the progress in accomplishing the objectives of the General Plan and to help inform the City’s budget, Implementation Actions and Performance Measures are interspersed throughout the Goal and Policy sets. The Implementation Actions are specific directives to further the Goals and Policies. Performance Measures provide measurable standards that allow the City to track progress towards meeting objectives of the Envision General Plan.

Major Review of the General Plan
Unlike the Annual Review which provides for review of site-specific proposals for possible amendment of the Envision General Plan text and the Land Use /Transportation Diagram by both the City and private applicants on a yearly basis, a Major Review of the Envision General Plan is a periodic review by the City Council every four years, allowing an assessment of progress and mid-course adjustments toward implementation of the Envision General Plan, using key economic, fiscal, and environmental indicators identified in the General Plan. A Major General Plan Review, therefore, provides the structure and opportunity for the City Council to determine whether to move into the next growth Horizon identified in the General Plan.

As part of the periodic Major Review of the Envision General Plan, the City will specifically consider progress toward the achievement of economic, fiscal, and transportation goals, as well as the availability of infrastructure and other services to support the City’s continued residential population growth.

The approach to the periodic General Plan reviews is structured through the General Plan Major Strategy #12 – Plan Horizons and Periodic Review, that is supported by General Plan Implementation Goals, Policies, and Actions, which are summarized as follows:
 Major Strategy #12 - Plan Horizons and Periodic Major Review Ensure that the Plan addresses the current community context and values and closely monitor the achievement of key Plan goals through a periodic major review of the General Plan and the use of Plan Horizons to phase implementation of the Plan over time. The Envision General Plan establishes a 4-year Major Review cycle, which provides an opportunity for a community stakeholder taskforce and the City Council to evaluate significant changes in the planning context and the City’s achievement of:
• Planned job and J/ER goals;
• Implementation of the Urban Village concept;
• Environmental indicators, including greenhouse gas reduction and the Green Vision; and • Affordable housing needs.

Planning Horizons The Envision General Plan supports the potential development of up to 470,000 new jobs and 120,000 new housing units for the timeframe 2011 through 2040. The Envision Task Force expressed considerable concern that this large amount of growth might proceed in an imbalanced or poorly implemented fashion, undermining the overall goals of the Envision General Plan. Accordingly, the General Plan timeframe is divided into multiple “Planning Horizons” in order to:

San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter I‐7
• Allow for a periodic major review by the City Council of progress toward the achievement of General Plan economic, environmental, fiscal and/or other goals or objectives; • Guide new development to priority Growth Areas within the City to best utilize and support existing infrastructure investments, minimize environmental impacts, and achieve other General Plan goals; and
• Facilitate coordinated planning and community engagement in advance of development moving forward within new Growth Areas.

Each Horizon includes multiple goals or Objectives to be evaluated on an annual basis and as part of a Major City Council review prior to the conclusion of one Horizon and commencement of the next.

This allows the City to evaluate success in meeting goals on a near-term basis and determine if adjustments are necessary to continue progress toward ultimate achievement of General Plan Objectives.

Planning Horizon Objectives The intent is that the amount, type and location of growth supported by the General Plan be carefully evaluated on a periodic basis, annually and during a 4-year Major Review cycle, to ensure progress toward the realization of those goals, while also giving consideration to the legal requirements for General Plans within the State of California, which require local jurisdictions to provide housing growth capacity.  Implementation Action – Land Use and Employment IE-1.14 To monitor the City’s balance of land uses and resulting tax base as well as its progress towards reaching the goal of 1.3 jobs per employed resident in San José, periodically review residential construction activity and supply versus industrial and commercial job growth rates. Report results of this review to the City Council as part of the annual General Plan reviews.  Fiscally Sustainable Land Use Framework Policy - FS-3.2 Monitor residential construction, industrial and commercial job growth rates, the development of mixed-use and transit-oriented projects, the City’s fiscal balance of land uses and resulting tax base, and progress made toward General Plan targets for total jobs and the ratio of Jobs/Employed Resident. Report on the results of these analyses as part of every General Plan review process.  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.
 Implementation Policy IP-2.5 – General Plan Phasing / Planning Horizons / Major Review 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 San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter I‐8
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.  Implementation Policy IP-2.5 – General Plan Phasing / Planning Horizons / Major Review 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 Needs 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.
 Implementation Goal IP-3 – General Plan Annual Review and Measurable Sustainability Evaluate the progress of the Envision General Plan’s implementation actions and programs, and the Green House Gas (GHG) reduction strategies using its Performance Measures and the Council’s Climate Action/Green House Gas Reduction Policy and, as needed, refine Envision General Plan goals and policies and the Land Use/Transportation Diagram during Annual Review.  Implementation Policy IP-3.2 – General Plan Annual Review and Measurable Sustainability As part of the General Plan Annual Review, carefully monitor the jobs-to employed resident ratio and, as a minimum, consider the following current development trends:
• Vacant land absorption;
• Amount of residential and economic development;
• Amount and value of non-residential construction;
• Number and types of housing units authorized by building permit, including number of affordable units, and development activity level in zonings, development permits, annexations and building permits;
• Status of current capacity of major infrastructure systems which are addressed in General Plan Level of Service policies (transportation, sanitary sewers, and sewage treatment); San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter I‐9
• Transit-ridership statistics and other measures of peak-hour diversion from single occupant vehicles;
• Status and implementation of Green Vision, Envision General Plan policies, and other greenhouse gas reduction strategy measures, including greenhouse gas emission reductions compared to baseline and/or business-as usual; and
• Levels of police, fire, parks and library services being provided by the City.  IP-3.3 – General Plan Annual Review and Measurable Sustainability Consider only during Annual Review any General Plan Amendment proposals to modify the Land Use / Transportation Diagram or to make minor modifications to the Urban Growth Boundary or expansion of the Urban Service Area. Maintain the City’s total planned housing growth capacity (120,000 dwelling units) as a cumulative result of any Amendments approved during a single Annual Review. Amendments may maintain or increase, but not diminish the total planned job growth capacity for the City.
 Implementation Goal IP-4 – General Plan Annual Review Hearing Process Conduct regular open General Plan hearings that provide opportunities for involvement of the community, stakeholders and private property owners, pursuant to State law.

 Implementation Policy IP-4.1 – General Plan Annual Review Hearing Process Conduct General Plan Review hearings to consider proposed amendments to the General Plan only once per year, beginning in 2013 for privately initiated amendments, to facilitate a comprehensive review of the cumulative implications of proposed amendments.
 Implementation 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.
 Implementation Policy IP-19.1 – Housing Development
Through a Major General Plan Review or, as needed, through the Annual General Plan review process, evaluate the Plan’s consistency with housing development goals as determined by the State and regional agencies and take actions as necessary to address their requirements.

In sum, implementation of the General Plan Major Strategies, Goals, Policies, and Actions including, but not limited to those listed above maintain internal consistency within the General Plan during and well beyond the planning period of this Housing Element.

External Consistency
San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter I‐10
The City of San José’s Housing Element is intended to be consistent with other housing plans and policies, including the City’s federal 2015-20 Consolidated Plan/Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing and its local 2015-20 Housing Investment Plan.
 2015-20 Consolidated Plan/Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing: The federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requires jurisdictions that receive federal housing and community development funding to develop a Five-Year Consolidated Plan and corresponding annual action plans that identify needs, goals, actions, and funding strategies. The report is called the Consolidated Plan because it includes a comprehensive strategy for multiple federal funding sources, including the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), HOME Investment Partnership (HOME), Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG), and Housing Opportunities for Persons with Aids (HOPWA). While CDBG is a more flexible funding source that allows for investments in a variety of activities such as housing, economic development, and public service, other programs such as ESG and HOPWA are more targeted to specific housing and homelessness prevention activities.

A key component of the Consolidated Plan is the inclusion of strategies to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing (AFFH) to meet federal fair housing and civil rights laws. The current mechanism to address AFFH requirements is through the Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing (AI), which identifies barriers preventing individuals, households, and families from accessing housing opportunities and a strategy to mitigate or eliminate those barriers. In the past, this has primarily included issues related to discrimination against protected classes and landlordtenant issues. HUD is currently in the process of updating its AFFH requirements to include assessment of fair housing issues related to land use planning, equitable development, and gaps in existing infrastructure and systems. Staff is proactively planning for strategies to meet the new fair housing requirements once adopted.
 2015-20 Housing Investment Plan: San José's Housing Investment Plan (HIP) is a locallydetermined plan that aligns local, regional, State, and federal funding sources towards achieving the City’s housing and community development goals. As the name suggests, the HIP is an investment plan that comprehensively aligns strategies and all funding sources to meet the full range of housing and community development priorities. Some of the HIP policies and priorities may overlap with those found in the State and federal plans; others may be unique to San José and are locally-determined. Additionally, the alignment of the HIP with the other two plans allows for greater report streamlining.

The City’s Housing Element aligns with the goals contained in the General Plan, while also supporting the goals contained in the City’s federal and local housing plans for a range of affordable housing opportunities to low- and moderate-income workers, for an effective response to homelessness, for equitable and complete communities, and for sustainable, transit-oriented development.

C. Maps of Key Housing Sites in San José
The Housing Element contains several maps, including one that shows the location of potential housing sites showing the inventory of land suitable for residential development as required by State law. The

San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter I‐12
D. Data Sources
Governmental Sources
This Housing Element uses a number of governmental data sources to analyze San José's housing needs, including Census data from the 2010 Decennial Census as well as from the annual American Community Survey. Other data sources include those from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the Federal Reserve Bank, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR), the California Department of Finance (DOF), the California Community Care Licensing Division (CCLD), the California Department of Developmental Services (DDS), the California Energy Commission (CEC), the California Employment Development Department (EDD), the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), and the County of Santa Clara.

The City of San José’s own internal data sources, include data from the General Plan, the San José Zoning Ordinance (Title 20 of the Municipal Code), the Five-Year 2012-17 Housing Investment Plan, the 2010-15 Consolidated Plan, the 2013 Homeless Census and Survey, the Development Activity Highlights and Five-Year Forecast (2014-2018), and the Vacant Land Inventory. The City also used mapping data through Geographic Information Systems (GIS) datasets, which include information on existing and planned land uses, planning applications and entitlements, and building permits.

Non-Governmental Sources
A variety of non-governmental data sources were also used for this Housing Element, including data from the International Code Council (ICC), the National Housing Conference (NHC), the National Low Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC), the National Employment Law Project, Working Partnership USA, the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB), the Urban Land Institute (ULI), the American Planning Association (APA), Reconnecting America, the California Housing Partnership Corporation (CHPC), the Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California (NPH), Sacred Heart Community Service (SHCS), the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association (SPUR), the Tri-County Division of the California Apartment Association (CAA), the Bay Area Council, Joint Venture Silicon Valley (JVSV), the Silicon Valley Leadership Group (SVLG), the Center for Continuing Study of the California Economy (CCSCE), the Association of Realtors (California and Santa Clara County), Affordable Housing Network of Santa Clara County, Somos Mayfair, Population Reference Bureau, San José Mercury News, Bloomberg News, the Wall Street Journal, Google, RealFacts, Marcus & Millichap, Redfin, MPF Research, Trulia, Dataquick, and Zillow.

E. Public Participation
State law mandates that in preparation of a housing element, a local agency shall “include a diligent effort to achieve public participation of all economic segments of the community” and describe how public input was incorporated (Government Code section 65583(c) (8)). This section provides a detailed summary of San José’s outreach efforts, while the manner in which input has been incorporated into the document is described in Chapter VI: Programs. By way of background, the General Plan, which by definition includes this Housing Element, was clearly designed to embody community values and goals through an extensive and meaningful community based planning process. In fact, among the General San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter I‐13
Plan’s twelve Major Strategies, which strategies are considered fundamental to achievement of the City’s Vision, Major Strategy #1 is Community Based Planning.

A broad variety of community engagement activities has enabled the General Plan to both reflect the community’s values and priorities and embrace the City’s diverse social and cultural fabric. By incorporating community sentiment, the General Plan process built significant public support for the primary direction of the General Plan, improved public perception of the planning process, and, most importantly, resulted in an improved General Plan. The General Plan is a direct expression of community values, identified and developed through an extensive community engagement process, including fifty one (51) Envision Task Force meetings, over one hundred twenty five (125) outreach meetings, and involvement by over five thousand (5,000) community participants. Key decisions in the General Plan process were directly connected to the priorities expressed by Task Force and community members. The following top planning priorities for the City’s future were identified by community members:
 Promoting Economic Development
 Ensuring Fiscal Sustainability
 Providing Environmental Leadership
 Building Urban Villages and
 Promoting Transit Use.

In implementation of the General Plan, including the preparation of this Housing Element, San José has remained committed to effectively engaging representatives of all segments of the community. Upon adoption on July 18, 2013 of a Final Regional Housing Need Plan (2014-2022) for the San Francisco Bay Area, the City created a website URL (www.sanJoseca.gov/housingelementupdate) and customized project e-mail address ([email protected]) to share information and invite public feedback about the process. The URL and e-mail address were specifically mentioned during each outreach meeting identified below, and 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. Also, on February 2, 2014, Janice Rombeck, a veteran journalist and former San José Mercury News reporter, posted an article about the project (including the date/time/location of future outreach meetings), at http://www.NeighborWebSJ.com.

The demographics analysis and needs assessment contained in Chapters II and III, respectively, were prepared early in the process and thus appropriately guided and informed the City’s public outreach strategy. This strategy included a concerted, 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 (e.g., business community, developers, realtors, housing advocates, etc.). Phase 1 outreach describes those informational meetings that occurred prior to public release and submission of the administrative draft Housing Element to HCD on October 6, 2014, while phase 2 outreach are those meetings that more specifically focused on review and comment on this draft document. Consistent with the City’s Public Outreach Policy (City Council Policy 6-30), Spanish and Vietnamese translation services were made available as needed, thus encouraging participation by residents with limited English proficiency.

San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter I‐14
Outreach Meetings (Phase 1)
Who: County of Santa Clara
When: October 21, 2013, 4:00 pm
Where: San José City Hall, Room T-1239
This was an initial, staff-level coordination meeting with Rebecca Garcia, Manager of the County’s Office of Affordable Housing and Steve Ross, Planner in the County Planning Office, to discuss the housing element update process, with particular focus on the subject of homelessness and approaches to addressing Senate Bill 2 (SB 2) which pertains to emergency shelters. As later discussed in Chapters III and IV, San José is in full compliance with SB 2, but like the County has taken a more progressive approach towards meeting the special needs of persons requiring emergency shelter, focusing on a “housing first” strategy that combines permanent housing with supportive services. For example, the City has promoted development of transitional first-step housing intended to help homeless and special needs individuals break the cycle of poverty, criminal activity, violence, abuse, and dependence on public assistance. These projects provide a supportive environment where individuals can be involved in the education, personal development, and training that is necessary to thrive independently.

The County of Santa Clara is a key partner in monitoring and addressing local housing issues. In June 2013, when the Board of Supervisors approved the agency’s fiscal year 2014 budget, significant monies were allocated to a reserve fund for critical housing programs, including $4 million to the Permanent Supportive Housing Fund that serves the homeless with special needs. On October 22, 2013, immediately following this coordination meeting, the Board then approved an additional $4 million in funding to implement numerous housing-related programs. These programs include the first phase of a Reentry Housing Plan and associated Rental Assistance Program for Three Strikes offenders granted resentencing pursuant to Proposition 36, a Regional Community Re-Integration Initiative, a Custody Health High Users Initiative, and a Homeless Prevention and Emergency Assistance Program.

Subsequently, on January 28, 2014, in the County’s annual State of the County address, Mike Wasserman, President of the Board of Supervisors, reemphasized that homelessness would continue to be among the agency’s top near-term priorities.

Who: Housing and Community Development Commission (HCDC) #1 When: November 14, 2013, 6:00 pm
Where: San José City Hall, Wing Rooms W-118 & 119
The San José Housing and Community Development Commission (HCDC) is an eleven-member commission that, per the Municipal Code (Chapter 2.08, Part 28), advises the Housing Department and City Council on existing and new housing programs and policies in the City (Note: as of July 1, 2013, the former Housing and Community Development Advisory Commission (HCDAC), Mobilehome Advisory Commission (MAC), and Advisory Commission on Rents (ACR) were combined, with HCDC now charged with the duties and responsibilities of all three former commissions).

Meeting Input: although not a formal Commission action, individual Commissioners recommended outreach to a wide variety of stakeholders, exploring additional protection of mobile home parks as a source of affordable/senior housing, focusing resources on housing for the extremely low income segment of the population, and encouraging “micro” units to enhance affordability.

San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter I‐15
Twenty six (26) members of the public completed the meeting attendee sign-in sheet, and five (5) persons provided oral testimony, as follows: Crisand Giles, Building Industry Association (BIA); James Zahradka, Law Foundation of Silicon Valley; Martha O’Connell, Chair of the San José Senior Citizens Commission; and two persons speaking on behalf of the Winchester Mobile Home Park community.

Topics ranged from a discussion of the State HCD’s past and current position on the matter of inclusionary housing, suggested analysis of the impact on housing of the General Plan’s “jobs first” policy, encouraging consideration of the unique housing needs of the elderly, and ensuring protection of mobile home parks as a source of affordable/senior housing.

Who: Youth Commission
When: November 25, 2013, 6:30 pm
Where: San José City Hall, Council Chambers
The San José Youth Commission is an eleven-member commission that, per the Municipal Code (Chapter 2.08, Part 48), fosters greater involvement of youth in civic affairs, studies any problems, activities and concerns of youth as they relate to municipal policies, programs or projects, and makes recommendations to the City Council.

Meeting Input: although not a formal Commission action, individual Commissioners emphasized the need for schools, libraries, community centers, and employment centers in close proximity to planned new housing in the City. The Commission also pointed out the importance of housing affordability, and advised that homelessness among teens was a growing concern. Affordability was cited as a factor resulting in more frequent moves by families, which acts to disrupt the schooling of children. Finally, the Commission encouraged sustainable and balanced types of development, suggesting that a community comprised of longer-term owners was likely to have greater stability.

Ten (10) members of the public completed the meeting attendee sign-in sheet; however, no persons chose to provide oral testimony.

Who: Fair Housing Consortium, comprised of the Legal Aid Society (LAS) of Santa Clara County, the Law Foundation of Silicon Valley, the Asian Law Alliance (ALA), and Project Sentinel When: December 12, 2013, 10:00 am
Where: Legal Aid Society, 480 North First Street, San José The City of San José funds the Legal Aid Society (LAS) with Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) monies for the provision of fair housing services to landlords and tenants. LAS 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.

Meeting Input: the discussion group, comprised of one or more representatives of each of the abovereferenced agencies, as well as others participating on behalf of several of the Law Foundation’s five programs, including the Fair Housing Law Project (FHLP), Mental Health Advocacy Project (MHAP), and Public Interest Law Firm (PILF), expressed support for imposition of a housing impact fee to help construct and rehabilitate affordable housing units and the creation of various governmental incentives to moderate rent increases among housing units otherwise exempted from the City’s Rent Stabilization San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter I‐16
Ordinance. In addition, the group encouraged an evaluation of the process/effectiveness of various other existing housing-related City ordinances, including but not limited to Evictions (Chapter 17.23, Part 6), Mobile Home Park Conversions (Chapter 20.180), and Requests for Reasonable Accommodation (Chapter 20.160) of the San José Municipal Code. It is important to note that San José is in compliance with Federal and State fair housing laws in providing “reasonable accommodation” to persons with disabilities. Specifically, Chapter 20.160 (Requests for Reasonable Accommodation) describes the application process for making a request for reasonable accommodation, whose intent is to accommodate the housing needs of persons with disabilities to the greatest extent feasible and to evaluate individual requests on a case-by-case basis. The entire San José Municipal Code is available to the public on the City of San José webpage.

Who: San José Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce
When: January 9, 2014, 3:30 pm
Where: Chamber of Commerce, 101 West Santa Clara Street, San José The San José Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce is a non-governmental organization of nearly 1,500 dues-paying members that represent approximately 250,000 employees throughout the region. A key component of the Chamber’s mission is to represent the interests of business to government. This particular meeting brought together members of the Chamber’s Development Review Committee, Public Policy Committee, Today’s Young Professionals (TYP) network, and other interested parties.

Meeting Input: the meeting was attended by approximately fifty (50) members, involving active discussion by representatives of each of the groups identified above. Various suggestions for the City to consider included focus on “quality of life” issues (e.g., neighborhood vitality, crime, schools, etc.) to help attract additional investment, boosting the supply of owner-occupied housing to improve affordability and help contain the recent rise in rental costs, addressing 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, and bringing greater flexibility to the City’s secondary unit Zoning Code provisions.

Who: San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association (SPUR) When: January 16, 2014, 2:00 pm
Where: 76 South First Street, San José
The San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association (SPUR) is a member-supported non-profit organization that, through research, education, and advocacy, promotes good planning and good government throughout the Bay Area. The organization began in San Francisco in 1910, opened a San José office in 2012, and released its first San José report, “Getting to Great Places”, in December 2013 (http://www.spur.org/publications/spur-report/2013-12-12/getting-great-places). This report succinctly explains the fiscal impacts of land use as follows:
“Both jobs and housing generate property and sales taxes, but housing creates much more demand for city services such as schools, parks, health services and waste disposal. A city needs to have a balance of both jobs and housing to bring in enough income to support these vital services. Relative to its Silicon Valley neighbors, San José is housing-rich and jobs-poor. It has functioned as a bedroom community for nearby job San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter I‐17
centers, creating a fiscal imbalance in which revenues do not keep pace with the demand for city services.”
Meeting Input: this meeting was with Leah Toeniskoetter and Sarah Karlinsky, SPUR San José's Director and Deputy Director, respectively, and focused on the balance between jobs and housing and the challenges and opportunities in creation of Urban Villages. The Getting to Great Places report contains a dozen recommendations for implementation of the General Plan, and suggests that “attempts to promote a balance between jobs and housing do not in themselves present urban design problems. Housing, employment, retail and public facilities are all essential to complete urban communities, and although a diverse mixture is desirable, each of these uses may predominate in wellor poorly designed areas.” Who: Senior Citizens Commission
When: January 22, 2014, 10:30 am
Where: San José City Hall, Room T-955
The San José Senior Citizens Commission is an eleven-member commission that, per the Municipal Code (Chapter 2.08, Part 42), studies, reviews, evaluates and makes recommendations to the City Council related to any and all matters affecting elderly people in the City, including health, education, employment, housing, transportation and recreation. This meeting was with the seven-member Housing and Human Services Subcommittee of the Senior Citizens Commission, which membership includes both the Chair and former Chair of the full Commission.

Meeting Input: the meeting was attended by several members of the public. Following the staff presentation, the Subcommittee identified three critical senior housing issues and passed a motion to prepare a letter to the City Council articulating their concerns. These housing issues are: (1) displacement; (2) gentrification; and (3) preservation of low income supply. Written materials were distributed that included an HCD memo entitled, “The State of Housing in California 2009: Supply and Affordability Problems Remain” and a 2004 report called, “Preparing for the Aging Baby Boomers” from the California Strategic Plan on Aging Advisory Committee. The cover page of the HCD memo reads as follows:
“Over the next decade, the greatest population growth is projected for residents aged 55 and over. This trend is significant because older Californians have the highest housing demand per 1,000 people—the result of divorces, separations and deaths. Baby boomers are projected to dominate changes in the housing market until at least 2030. A rapid increase in one-person and older households is likely to continue for the next several decades—driving the need for more housing and different housing products.” As well, the State’s Assisted Living Waiver Program (ALWP) was cited as a potential future source of affordable housing for seniors in San José. Unfortunately, the ALWP is not currently available within Santa Clara County, and only offered in select counties within the Central Valley and Southern California. In short, the ALWP provides financial assistance to eligible Medi-Cal beneficiaries residing in skilled nursing facilities, enrolling them into licensed Residential Care Facilities for the Elderly (RCFEs) and Public Subsidized Housing (PSH), thereby allowing them to remain in a community.

San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter I‐18
Who: Downtown Planning Area Neighborhoods
When: January 22, 2014, 6:00 pm
Where: Roosevelt Community Center, 901 East Santa Clara Street, San José This was the first of several neighborhood meetings, with discussion in this meeting focused on housing issues particular to the Downtown area. The meeting was attended by a handful of local residents, all of whom had lived in Downtown for several decades and some their entire lives. Thus, these participants had unique and valuable perspectives on change they have witnessed in local housing issues over time.

Meeting Input: among the housing issues identified by participants were increased homelessness, the gradual loss of transitional housing opportunities, and the potential for increased use of Single Room Occupancy (SRO) facilities, secondary units, and “micro” units to help address affordability. On the homelessness issue, the group emphasized the ineffective nature of periodic creek clean-ups, which merely temporarily displace homeless encampments that are quickly reestablished. As well, new San José Public Library/San José State University visitor guidelines on allowable personal belongings at the Martin Luther King, Jr. and other library facilities (http://www.sjpl.org/policies-procedures/visitorguidelines-personal-belongings) was cited as having 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.

Who: Citywide Orientation
When: January 28, 2014, 6:00 pm
Where: San José City Hall, Wing Rooms W-118 & 119
Similar to the prior outreach meeting at Roosevelt Community Center, this “citywide orientation” hosted at City Hall was intended to familiarize participants with the housing element update process and, given the meeting location, focused attention on housing issues particular to the Downtown area. The meeting was attended by ten (10) members of the public and included active participation by virtually everyone present.

Meeting Input: questions and comments were primarily focused on the housing needs of persons in younger and older age groups. One attendee from the Bill Wilson Center, which each year serves more than 10,000 clients in Santa Clara County and has been providing support to runaway and homeless children since 1973, expressed concern for the ongoing housing needs of youth that have “aged out” of foster care and transitional housing programs. Regarding homelessness, the City was asked to include community members from the surrounding neighborhood when developing a response. Another attendee asked about the financial impact of rapid rent increases on senior citizens living on fixed income, and the potential expansion of rent control to enhance affordability. Another attendee provided both oral and written comments (via distributed comment cards) that San José “needs adequate parks, police, and other services. Housing needs to not have fees waived, everyone needs to pay for services,” and also expressed concern about density increases in the Spartan Keyes neighborhood. Another attendee stated that funding for affordable housing should not come from sales taxes because of their regressive nature. Yet another attendee emphasized the need to identify funding sources to help pay infrastructure costs associated with implementation of the City’s Urban Village plans.

San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter I‐19
Who: Edenvale Planning Area Neighborhoods
When: January 29, 2014, 6:00 pm
Where: Southside Community and Senior Center, 5585 Cottle Road, San José This was the second of several neighborhood meetings, with discussion focused on housing issues both citywide and particular to the Edenvale area. The meeting was attended by a handful of local residents.

Meeting Input: one attendee, a relatively new resident of the Bay Area and actively involved with Sacred Heart Community Service (SHCS), a non-profit Community Action Agency that currently helps more than 200 Santa Clara County families each month with financial assistance to prevent them from becoming homeless, commented that 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. Another attendee stated that impact fees imposed on developers were not the solution to affordable housing as these fees would simply be passed on to consumers and result in even higher costs. Another attendee suggested that the City “ask more of developers” (and that now is an opportune time given strength in the housing market). In exchange, the City could streamline review processing time, for example. Other comments concerned the walkability and connectivity of the Hitachi/iStar area, urging 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. Similarly, another attendee cited the need to 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.

Who: Alum Rock Planning Area Neighborhoods
When: February 6, 2014, 6:00 pm
Where: Mayfair Community Center, 2039 Kammerer Avenue, San José This was the third of several neighborhood meetings, with discussion focused on housing issues both citywide and particular to the Alum Rock and other areas. The meeting was attended by thirteen (13) residents of the neighborhood and elsewhere, including the Winchester area of San José. Language translation services were requested and provided to several meeting attendees.

Meeting Input: one attendee supported imposition of a housing impact fee to help address affordable housing and homelessness issues, and another suggested that an insufficient supply of affordable housing is evidenced by extensive wait lists/times for Section 8 voucher recipients to find subsidized housing. One attendee asked about plans for housing the disabled, which are an identified “special housing needs group” in State law, and another wondered if the City was seeking to promote housing types attractive to single, driving industry workers. Another attendee inquired about the State’s RHNA methodology as it pertains to demolition or displacement of existing housing (i.e., whether unit production is counted on a gross or net basis). As relates to the City’s efforts to prepare an Urban Village Plan for Valley Fair/Santana Row and Vicinity, several 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 and more generally lamenting traffic congestion and the substitution of former neighborhood retail (e.g., bookstore) by more expensive offerings at Santana Row.

San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter I‐20

Who: Willow Glen Planning Area Neighborhoods
When: February 10, 2014, 6:00 pm
Where: Willow Glen Community Center, 2175 Lincoln Avenue, San José This was the fourth of several neighborhood meetings, with discussion focused on housing issues both citywide and particular to the Willow Glen and other areas. The meeting was attended by twenty four (24) residents of the neighborhood and elsewhere, including the Winchester area of San José.

Meeting Input: numerous attendees provided oral comments, and seven written comment cards were also completed and submitted. Discussion emphasized preservation of the existing housing stock, including but not limited to mobile homes, senior housing needs, homelessness, various Urban village planning concerns, and traffic/transit issues. As to mobile homes, one attendee suggested the need to declare a moratorium on mobile home park conversions and another pointed out that the City’s rent stabilization ordinance has not been effective in containing a steady rise in costs (e.g., one mobile home resident pointed to a rise of 48% in 15 years, to what is now “equivalent to what many people pay for mortgages for a single family home”).

As to senior housing needs, multiple comment cards indicated that an 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. One attendee asked about opportunities for a neighborhood stabilization program to provide retrofit/repair services for properties that have been subject to foreclosure. Another attendee expressed concern about the trend towards rental housing construction, and the lack of upkeep that can be associated with rental properties. Similarly, a representative of the American Red Cross indicated that 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”), and that local caseworkers are routinely asked to assist in finding interim or replacement housing for low-income clients.

As relates to Urban Village planning and traffic/transit issues, several attendees expressed concern about congestion resulting from land use intensification and multi-modal roadway improvements, citing the area around Valley Fair/Santana Row as an example. One attendee referenced the City’s approach to considering an intersection “built out” and no longer requiring mitigation, but that mitigation measures are in fact still necessary. Another attendee asked if there had been any studies on transit ridership by residents in the vicinity of new, higher density development, and emphasized the importance of interagency coordination in achieving intended goals. In general, the existing transit system was criticized for being ineffective in serving people’s needs. Another attendee expressed the need for a City policy to incorporate affordable housing into Urban Village plans, with another attendee citing The Alameda as an example of where the housing supply includes a good mix of incomes.

San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter I‐21
Who: Santa Clara County Housing Action Coalition
When: February 14, 2014, 11:00 am
Where: Santa Clara Central Park Library, 2635 Homestead Road, Santa Clara The Santa Clara County Housing Action Coalition (HAC) is a broad coalition of organizations founded in 1993. It was established in response to the need for a positive voice for smart residential development that supports investment in infrastructure, places people close to jobs and services, and alleviates pressure to sprawl. It has served as a model for other communities (e.g., Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo, San Francisco Housing Action Coalition, etc.), and is a unique organization where disparate groups—labor, environmentalists, business and builders—unite under a focused agenda.

Meeting Input: the meeting included a guest panel presentation and discussion on the status of the housing element update process with staff from various local agencies, including the cities of San José, Sunnyvale, Mountain View, Santa Clara, Milpitas, and Los Gatos. As well, about forty (40) HAC members and staff from the County of Santa Clara were present to engage in a subsequent question and answer session. Questions included how housing advocacy groups can be most helpful in the process, and what key policies/programs cities have found the most and least effective from the previous cycle. Advocates were encouraged to directly participate in local update processes through attendance of outreach meetings, and to actively educate a wide variety of constituents, including State legislators, school boards, and parent-teacher associations. As relates to involvement by school administrators, there was discussion regarding a disconnect between planning for housing and schools, as school overcrowding is a growing concern in areas of population growth. Among the challenges, several cities referenced the dissolution of redevelopment agencies and a lack of State housing funds as preventing more aggressive solutions to an affordable housing problem that is shared throughout the South Bay. One attendee pointed out that 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. Another attendee indicated that ABAG’s Priority Development Areas (PDAs) would result in “systematic gentrification” of neighborhoods by funneling growth and resources into these relatively small geographic areas. The topic of regionalism came up several times as panelists and participants discussed how cities in Santa Clara County could potentially work together to pool affordable housing resources.

Who: Santa Clara County Association of Realtors
When: February 19, 2014, 10:00 am
Where: 1651 North First Street, San José
The Santa Clara County Association of Realtors (SCCAOR) is a local members-only organization that provides education, research, and leadership for licensed real estate brokers and agents operating under a strict code of ethics developed by the National Association of Realtors. This particular meeting was with the Local Government Relations (LGR) Committee of the SCCAOR.

Meeting Input: the meeting was attended by approximately twenty (20) members, and involved active discussion with numerous attendees. One attendee emphasized the 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. Several attendees expressed sentiments to the effect that “homeownership is not a right, but a privilege” and that the only viable solution to improved housing affordability is increased supply.

Several attendees indicated that international housing markets (e.g., Asia, Europe, etc.) can provide San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter I‐22
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. Similarly, one attendee suggested that live/work arrangements had potential to meet the needs of some younger persons, and another attendee said greater diversity of housing types was needed to prepare for anticipated future demographic shifts (esp. growth in the senior and young adult populations). Another attendee emphasized the need for relaxation of regulations on secondary units, and yet another attendee cautioned that the City “should not tax what it wants to build.” On this point, it was argued that higher densities require costly steel construction, and that developers must be incentivized to build at densities of eight stories or more to help overcome cost hurdles. Finally, it was suggested that the City’s dual efforts to both improve housing affordability and improve the jobs-housing ratio (by prioritizing employment) were in fundamental conflict with one another.

Who: Berryessa Planning Area Neighborhoods
When: February 20, 2014, 6:00 pm
Where: Berryessa Community Center, 3050 Berryessa Road, San José This was the fifth of several neighborhood meetings, with discussion focused on housing issues both citywide and particular to the Berryessa and other areas. The meeting was attended by five (5) residents of the neighborhood and elsewhere, including the Alum Rock area of San José.

Meeting Input: all attendees provided oral comments, and two written comment cards were also completed and submitted. One attendee from Rebuilding Together, a community non-profit whose vision is “a safe and healthy home for every person” and which has a network of 200 chapters nationwide including Rebuilding Together Silicon Valley (RTSV) located in San José, stated that some money “should be allocated to programs that do repairs and modifications to help keep the elderly and disabled in their homes.” As for new homes, the importance of “universal design” was emphasized so as to allow aging in place without need for expensive retrofits. Concerns were also expressed about the need for preservation of the City’s mobile home stock as affordable housing for seniors and other low-income persons. The point was made that many longtime residents are “housing rich, income poor” such that mobility is oftentimes limited due to cost implications. Another attendee emphasized that housing growth should be coupled with transportation improvements, citing the Evergreen area as an example where the infrastructure is insufficient to accommodate what growth has occurred in recent decades.

As well, the same attendee worried that the Berryessa BART station area was poorly served by transit, and that traffic impacts resulting from people using cars to get to and from the station could be a problem. As relates to the future Alum Rock BART station area, the attendee emphasized the need for preservation of the Church of the Five Wounds historic landmark building.

Who: West Valley Planning Area Neighborhoods
When: February 25, 2014, 6:00 pm
Where: Calabazas Library, 1230 South Blaney Avenue, San José This was the sixth of several neighborhood meetings, with discussion focused on housing issues both citywide and particular to the West Valley and other areas. The meeting was attended by fifteen (15) residents of the neighborhood and elsewhere, including the Winchester area of San José.

Meeting Input: numerous attendees provided oral comments, three written comment cards were completed and submitted, and one attendee from the Affordable Housing Network of Santa Clara San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter I‐23
County submitted a half-page document outlining six “principles for ending Silicon Valley homelessness and affordable housing crisis.” In discussion of the homelessness issue, attendees inquired about a tentative proposal reported in local media and considered by the City Council’s Community and Economic Development Committee (CEDC) the prior day for use of underutilized hotels/motels to house the homeless (for reference, see http://www.sanJoséca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/27031). In essence, a master-leasing program is proposed to provide qualified non-profits with grants for the leasing of multiple rooms from a hotel/motel owner and then sublease to homeless persons. One attendee asked why Single Room Occupancy (SRO) facilities weren’t more common, and also whether places like the former Agnews Developmental Center could be used as dormitories. An attendee with Solari Enterprises, a full service property management organization specializing in multi-family affordable housing, inquired about the status of Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC). Another attendee expressed concern that major employers were not participating in a solution to the local housing shortage. As an example, the attendee cited Apple’s new 2.82 million square foot “Campus 2” project, approved by the Cupertino City Council in October 2013, which according to the attendee generates a 6,000-unit housing supply shortfall in the area. Another attendee was interested to know if the Urban Village boundary/plan for Santana Row/Valley Fair and Vicinity could be changed to exclude the Winchester Ranch Mobile Home Park, and if the Housing Element would evaluate household income and housing affordability issues among seniors.

F. Outreach Meetings (Phase 2)
Who: Affordable Housing Developer and Lender Focus Group When: June 18, 2014
Where: San José City Hall, Room T133
City staff invited Affordable Housing Developers and lenders who have been involved in recent projects in San José to share their ideas and concerns.

Meeting Input: this meeting was attended by three representatives from EAH, Abode Services and the Santa Clara County Housing Authority. Meeting participants stated that new State funding from Cap and Trade and Proposition 41 will be helpful but a local source such as the housing impact fee would be needed. Participants asked that the City be clearer about what it values and how it will allocate resources for affordable housing development. One participant acknowledged that targeting resources to extremely low income and homeless people makes sense when resources are scarce because these groups are the neediest, but also noted that funds go further when subsidies are shallower for developments targeting 50-60% AMI. Participants indicated that subsidies are currently negotiated on a project by project basis which makes spending money on predevelopment costs difficult if development subsidies are uncertain. The City of Fremont was commended for clearly communicating its values by setting rates for different income level targeting.

One participant noted that developments of 100 or more units achieved economies of scale, and were less costly than seeking tax credit funding for smaller scattered site developments.

Participants suggested looking into using California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) provisions to submit a single application for several scattered sites within a certain radius.

For microunits, 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. Dan Woo at Charities San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter I‐24
Housing was identified as being very knowledgeable about microunits and as a resource. Another issue relates to State TCAC requirements 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 groundfloor 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.

Who: Planning Commission Hearing #1
When: August 27, 2014
Where: San José City Hall, Council Chambers
City staff presented at the first of two Planning Commission meetings during this Phase 2 of community outreach. The purpose of this first presentation was to provide the Commission and the public a highlevel overview of 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.

Staff returns to the Planning Commission on September 10, 2014 to provide a summary of the public input received, the implementation work plan as a response to identified needs, and the adequate sites inventory.

Meeting Input: 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 September10, 2014.

Who: Citywide Community Meeting #1
When: September 3, 2014
Where: San José City Hall, Room Tower 332

City staff presented an overview of the Housing Element Update process to date. Staff discussed the draft housing element, the implementation work plan, the site inventory, and fielded questions.

Meeting Input: One participant asked how to make meaningful corrections to the draft, another called for the dispersion of affordable units throughout the City. Another participant asked if staff had “ground truthed” the affordable sites in the adequate sites inventory to see if they were viable for low income housing tax credits. Another attendee asked how the City might incentivize single room occupancy (SRO) development. Some attendees expressed support for the Housing Impact Fee and the need for more ordinary citizens to get involved in the issue. A representative from the Law Foundation of Silicon Valley expressed the need to revisit Just Cause Evictions and to expand rent control. Another participant asked San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter I‐25
why property owners are allowed to raise rents as much as they want when proposition 13 does not permit raising property taxes to reflect market value rents.

Who: Citywide Community Meeting #2
When: September 6, 2014
Where: San José City Hall, Room Tower 332

City staff presented an overview of the Housing Element Update process to date. Staff discussed the draft housing element, the implementation work plan, the site inventory, and fielded questions.

Meeting Input: Attendees at this meeting were concerned about the preservation of mobile homes, the displacement of affordable non-deed restricted housing, and older apartments under rent control such as Dudley Apartments, one participant called for a commitment to inclusionary housing and to ensure there is an affordable housing component in all of the urban villages.

Who: Planning Commission Hearing #2
When: September 10, 2014
Where: San José City Hall, Council Chambers

Staff summarized public input, the Draft Housing Element’s Implementation Work Plan as a response to identified needs, and the Adequate Sites Inventory.

Meeting Input: Diane Castillo, representing the Law Foundation of Silicon Valley, recommended strategies to include in the Housing Element including those to support the preservation of existing affordable housing, to facilitate new affordable housing, and to protect renters in the City. Chair Kamkar asked clarifying questions on rent control provisions in the City. Staff summarized the City’s two sets of rent control regulations: one for apartments built through 1979; and one for mobile home parks. The Chair then suggested that the City work with the Silicon Valley Leadership Group to incentivize Silicon Valley’s high technology companies to provide funding to address the Valley’s affordable housing needs.

Commissioner Abelite read his comments on the Draft Housing Element into the record. He concluded that affordable housing fees will not meet their intended purpose and will have an opposite effect, noting that housing prices should be based on supply and demand [Planning staff notes that the Housing Element is not dependent and does not impose affordable housing fees. They are merely mentioned briefly as one of the tools that the Council may consider].

Commissioner Yob stated that the Housing Element should not penalize one segment of the community for problems that affect the whole. In particular, she mentioned concerns that some items in the Implementation Plan would be “involuntary” measures, such as a proposed housing impact fee, as well as possible revisions to the mobile home park conversion and condominium conversion regulations, which could burden owners and developers. She expressed a preference for “voluntary” measures such as motel conversions and secondary units.

Commissioner Bit Badal observed that if there had not been a Redevelopment Agency previously, that there would be no affordable housing in the City, and she stated that she supports fees to subsidize affordable units. She said the best communities are the most diverse and that San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter I‐26
technology jobs need to be supported by service jobs. She cited the Diridon Station Area Plan as a good example of a plan that supports affordable housing, and said the City should plan housing for senior citizens because they are the fastest growing population.

Commissioner Kline cautioned that laws that “feel good” such as inclusionary zoning need to be crafted to not do any harm. He stated support for the Housing Element, but noted that the City’s inclusionary zoning law still needs work, and that the best solutions are affordable by design.

Who: Housing and Community Development Commission #2
When: September 11, 2014
Where: San José City Hall, Wing Rooms 118 &119

Staff provided an overview of the Housing Element Update process to date and briefly explained the adequate sites inventory, the implementation workplan and next steps.

Meeting Input: Commissioners were concerned about the timeline of the public process and were interested in spending more time discussing the Housing Element and related issues. Several members of the public were concerned about the workplan language relating to mobile home parks and called for stronger protections claiming it is a false choice between housing and jobs. One attendee asked for a workplan to protect mobile homes, another speaker questioned if the opportunity sites were feasible for low income housing tax credits.

Commissioner Graves made the motion to agendize a possible recommendation on the Housing Element for the October HCDC meeting. The motion was seconded by Chair O’Connell. Commissioner Graves amended his motion for the meeting to include an explanation of the action taken by City Council regarding the Mobilehome Conversion.

Who: City Council Hearing #1
When: September 23, 2014
Where: San José City Hall, Council Chambers

City staff presented an overview of the housing element update process, demographic trends, needs assessment, constraints, resources, preservation and equitable development, resources for affordable housing, the adequate sites inventory, a high level summary of public input to date, the implementation work plan, and next steps.

Meeting Input (Public Comments): Several speakers expressed concern about language in Chapter 5 page 12 relating to the balancing versus the protection of mobile homes with development opportunities stating that the goal was inconsistent with several general plan policies relating to inclusive housing.

Another attendee noted that mobile home parks were not just for seniors, they were also for young families too. Another attendee spoke in support of mobile home park land owners and developers noting that redevelopment was consistent with several General Plan goals including the creation of higher density development in growth areas and that policy should not be one size fits all. Another speaker noted that low income housing tax credits favor sites near transit and other amenities and some sites in the draft site inventory are too small and are outside of Urban Village areas. A few speakers were supportive of a housing impact fee to support the creation of more low income housing. One attendee spoke about living in a homeless encampment and the need for more alternatives. A representative San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter I‐27
from the Law Foundation of Silicon Valley noted the 20 page letter they had submitted (see appendix F) stating that San José can do more to address the housing crisis. Another speaker noted that there are too many jobs in Silicon Valley and not enough homes, and called for steps toward a regional revenue strategy, stronger rent control, and action to end discrimination against Section 8 voucher holders.

Another speaker spoke about the lack of access to credit and the need for low cost loans and down payment assistance programs.

Meeting Input (City Council): Mayor Reed noted the importance of being clear on the importance of the General Plan 2040 as a long-term plan to achieve San José’s economic development and fiscal stability objectives. Mayor Reed requested that staff add more background on the General Plan update process, bolster the discussion about jobs to employed residents goals, compare RHNA allocations for all cities in Santa Clara County, discuss the need for regional housing solutions, and provide examples of jobs and housing being created simultaneously. The Mayor suggested staff include discussion of North San Jose housing capacity and asked for a more robust discussion of the homelessness response that the City has undertaken.

Councilmember Rocha asked how the council could provide more detailed comments while sticking to the timeline proposed by staff.

Councilmember Liccardo was supportive of strengthening the language related to mobile home preservation and asked why the urban village capacity included West Carlos rather than Five Wounds where BRT and BART infrastructure is now under construction. Mr. Liccardo asked for consideration of Urban Villages where infrastructure is further along.

Councilmember Kalra expressed support for protection of mobile home parks and noted that other cities in the region are not helping to solve the affordable housing problem. He encouraged advocates to put pressure on other cities, not just San José, however San José should still act. Mr. Kalra strongly encouraged the council to hold to the November 18 date for adopting the housing impact fee stating that delay is no longer an option, too many people are suffering.

Councilmember Herrera stressed the need to continue the City’s jobs first focus. She noted the importance of protecting employment lands and also for the preservation of the existing stock of affordable housing.

Councilmember Oliverio noted that cities like Los Gatos were encountering difficulties in getting affordable housing built. Mr. Oliverio asked which Cities in Santa Clara County were actually meeting their RHNA goals and asked staff on the status of Urban Village financing plans. Mr. Oliverio opposed the housing impact fee stating that it would limit future opportunities.

Councilmember Khamis was supportive of building housing near transit but noted concern with the housing impact fee and noted that government was inefficient at building housing. Mr. Khamis asked how the City could incentivize private developers to build more housing.

Councilmember Constant noted concerns about the timeline with regard to public input on staff edits to the draft.

San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter I‐28
The Council passed a motion directing staff to revise the draft. The item will be continued at the next council meeting on September 30, 2014.

Who: Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) Meeting #1
When: September 24, 2014
Where: Santa Clara County Government Center, Room 157

Meeting Input: County Planner Mark Connolly presented an overview of the housing element update and recommended that the commission find the housing element general plan amendment consistent with the policies contained within the San Jose International Airport and the Reid Hillview Airport Compatible Land Use Plan (CLUP). The commission passed a motion finding the amendment consistent with the CLUP.

Who: City Council Hearing #2
When: September 30, 2014
Where: San José City Hall, Council Chambers

Meeting Input: This meeting continued from September 23, 2014. Per council direction, staff incorporated comments from Mayor Reed and Councilmembers Rocha, Liccardo, Kalra, and Herrera. In general these comments touched on issues relating to the preservation of mobile homes, jobs housing balance, regional housing needs allocations and the need for regional solutions, and urban village funding mechanisms. Staff created a detailed index of all edits and posted them on the City’s webpage along with an updated Draft Housing Element. The Council passed a motion to move ahead with the housing element incorporating all of Mayor Reed’s changes and some of the changes proposed in Councilmember Rocha's memorandum (specifically goal #2 and #3 first bullet only). Councilmember Herrera clarified that this motion includes all other changes that staff made in response to Council (e.g mobile home language). The council asked staff to return for final approval of the element before the end of 2014.

Who: Housing and Community Development Commission #3
When: October 9, 2014
Where: San José City Hall, Wing Rooms 118-119

Meeting Input: Chair O'Connell made a motion to change the wording in the Housing Element workplan to: "Goal: Protect mobile home parks as a source of housing that can be available at an affordable rate.

Program: "Review and potentially amend the Mobile Home Conversion Ordinance, including any needed General Plan amendments. Time-frame: "2014-2015." The motion passed. Chair O'Connell made the motion to recommend that the City Council review and revise its General Plan "jobs first" strategy and it's 1.3 jobs per employed resident core objective as part of the process of adoption of the Housing Element as the only way to ensure consistency with the goals of the Housing Element and the expressed intent of the General Plan to "increase, preserve, and improve San Jose's affordable housing stock (Goal H-2)". The motion passed. Vice Chair Montez made a motion to have two comments re-added to the Housing Element: P9-28: Reduce instances of homelessness and overcrowding by stabilizing at risk tenants and P10-38: Explore the feasibility of creating a local source income Ordinance. The motion passed.

San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter I‐29

Who: Planning Commission Hearing #3
When: January 14, 2015
Where: San José City Hall, Council Chambers

Meeting Input: On January 14, 2015, City staff presented an overview of the Housing Element process to date, and next steps, with a focus on staff’s proposed revisions to the Draft Housing Element that respond to comments in the HCD letter of November 26, 2014 to the City.

The presentation was followed by Planning Commission discussion and public comment on the State requirements for the City’s Housing Element. One speaker mentioned that many people, and in particular at-risk youth, are experiencing homelessness. She thanked the City for including policies and activities to address homelessness and encouraged the City to do more to find permanent housing solutions for the homeless. Another public speaker, representing the Building Industry Association (BIA), stated that BIA had previously submitted a comment letter to the City, and that there should be more expediency by the City to update the General Plan to provide a clear and consistent path for development of the housing capacity in the Urban Villages so that the City’s portion of the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) is adequately provided for in the Housing Element. Planning Commissioners asked clarifying questions on the costs of residential development, including the City’s newly adopted Affordable Housing Impact Fee (AHIF), and availability of capacity for residential development in the Urban Villages. The Planning Commission then voted to approve staff’s recommendations.

Who: Housing and Community Development Commission #4
When: January 15, 2015
Where: San José City Hall, Wing Rooms 118-119

Meeting Input: On January 15, 2015 City staff presented the update of the Housing Element process to date to the Housing and Community Development Commission. Members of the public asked if there was a Housing Element work-plan item to protect mobile home parks, asked the Commission to further debate the Draft Housing Element, raised concerns about the ability to meet the RHNA goals under the jobs-focused General Plan and noted that parks fees in the table on pages 23-25 of Chapter IV should be updated because fees changed December 1, 2014. One speaker asked to have the AHIF included in the fees analysis tables in the Housing Element and to clarify on public record when the fee will take effect. Another member of the public asked which funding sources the City would be eligible for if the Housing Element was submitted on time and certified by HCD. A commissioner stated she was pleased with revisions that more strongly represented the needs of vulnerable communities. Another commissioner asked why there was no specific program to prevent discrimination against elderly lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community members. The Housing and Community Development Commission then voted to approve staff’s recommendations.

San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter I‐30
Who: City Council Hearing #3
When: January 27, 2015
Where: San José City Hall, Council Chambers
Meeting Input: City staff presented an update of the Housing Element process to the Council.

Councilmembers deliberated the merits of continuing or deferring an action on the Housing Element to after January 31, 2015 versus adopting the Housing Element for submittal to the State HCD by the State deadline of January 31, 2015. Mayor Liccardo noted that there was sensitivity about the timing because there are potentially grant applications, including but not limited to OBAG, that could be affected by submittal of the Housing Element to the State HCD after January 31, 2015 or by certification of the Housing Element by the State HCD more than 120 days after January 31st. Staff summarized the extensive public outreach process since the beginning of 2014 and stated that the original public draft was released to the public in August 2014 after a series of public meetings. Staff said that the State HCD and advocacy groups gave staff comments, and staff modified the draft to address these stakeholders, which brought the City close to the State’s timely submittal deadline of January 31, 2015 for certification of the Housing Element.

Some new council members stated that they had only a week to review the draft document, and wanted more time to digest it. Staff reiterated that it would be most prudent to adopt the Housing Element prior to January 31
st to avoid potential penalties and losing funding opportunities. A resident of the Winchester Ranch mobile home community thanked the City administration and Council for all the hard work done on preparing the Housing Element; he said that he had learned that participatory government works, and that he supported the document. Representatives from the Building Industry Association, the Law Foundation, and the Nonprofit Housing Association requested that there be more time to review the document and more public outreach and that additional or revised workplan items be added to the Housing Element. Some Councilmembers expressed support to explore some of the stakeholders' suggestions through City-level actions including future General Plan text amendment requests. The City Council then voted 10-0-1 (Nguyen absent) to adopt the Housing Element and submit it to the State HCD.

San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter I‐31
This page
intentionally
left blank
San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter II‐1
Chapter II:

Demographics
At just over one million residents, the City of San José is the tenth largest city in the nation, the third largest in California, and the largest in the San Francisco Bay Area region. As a big city, San José possesses a set of urban characteristics, opportunities, challenges, and responsibilities that make it unique relative to its smaller neighboring cities. San José has many important institutions and is the most transit-connected city in the South Bay Area, with significant investments planned for additional transit infrastructure and vibrant, urban communities. 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. Yet, San José remains the bedroom community for the region, providing a disproportionate supply of housing opportunities for the workforce who is employed in smaller and wealthier neighboring cities.

Additionally, San José is one of the most socioeconomically and ethnically diverse cities of any size, with Whites, Hispanics, and Asians each comprising approximately one third of the City’s total population.

Further, like most cities across the region and nation, San José’s population is aging, with the largest population growth in the elderly/senior age group (persons age 65+ years), and will therefore have increased 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 increasingly seek vibrant, walkable, urban places to live, work, and play. This trend towards urban, amenities-rich locations is increasingly driving the location preferences of employees and employers, as well as families and households. This Housing Element seeks to account for these diverse needs in its implementation program (see Chapter VI).

A. Population Growth
This chapter provides a discussion of San José’s demographic and socioeconomic characteristics in order to provide the analytic basis for identifying the City’s housing needs and for meeting the requirements of housing element law, including “promoting housing opportunities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability” (Government Code section 65583(c)(5)); preparing “an analysis of population and employment trends, analysis and documentation of household characteristics, housing characteristics, including overcrowding, and housing stock condition”; and analyzing “special housing needs” such as with the elderly, disabled, and those requiring emergency shelter (Government Code section 65583(a)). This chapter also provides a useful historical context of San José that shows its past and present trajectory of growth in order to improve our ability to understand and plan for the future.

San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter II‐2
Census 2010 placed the City’s population figure at just under one million (945,942 persons), ranking it the third largest city in California and the tenth largest city in the nation. Population growth over the 2000-2010 time period amounted to over 50,000 persons, or a total growth rate of roughly 6%. However, although the rate of change slowed with subsequent decades, the absolute population growth remained meaningful, adding well over 100,000 residents every ten years until the decade between 2000 and 2010.3 Table II-1, Population Growth, 1960-2010
The slower rate of population growth during the 2000’s is in part explained by its large population base:
it is simply more difficult for large cities to sustain high growth rates. However, San José also lost population during the economic recessions of 2001 and 2008 as employment declined. Although Silicon Valley experienced a higher unemployment rate than the State unemployment rate during the 2008 recession, its subsequent economic recovery was also stronger overall than the rest of California. This recovery has helped San José resume its population growth, bringing the city to over one million residents.

In terms of population growth, the City of San José included projections of population and household growth during the development of the General Plan. The study identified three major demographic trends likely to shape San José’s population change until 2040: 1) the largest population increases will occur in the 20-34 and 65+ (baby boomers) age groups; 2) baby boomers will affect the outlook for job growth; 3) San José will become increasingly diverse as a result of new immigrants but primarily from the children and grandchildren of recent immigrants. From these assumptions, the study projects that from 2008-2040 San José would add 173,000 net new households through the increase of 471,000 net new residents. As will be discussed in further detail later in the Housing Element, the General Plan includes residential capacity for 120,000 additional housing units. This is less than the 173,000 new units needed for the new households, based on the City’s goal to achieve a 1.3:1 jobs-to-employed resident ratio by accelerating employment growth and metering future housing supply. However, it should be noted that the General Plan analyzed and cleared housing capacity through 2035; therefore, additional housing capacity beyond 2035 would need to be analyzed and environmentally cleared prior to the end of 2035.

3 In the 1950’s, San José’s then-City Manager Dutch Hamann initiated an aggressive growth strategy that included the rapid annexation of land. As a result, between 1950 and 1965, the City grew its land area from less than 20 square miles to over 100 square miles—a fivefold increase in just 15 years. San José’s population also grew significantly during this time, more than doubling in size from 1960 to 1970.

Since the 1970’s, the population of the City of San José has grown at a much more moderate pace.

San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter II‐10
D. Households and Household Size
While population is an important part of the determining a jurisdiction’s housing needs, it is equally important to understand the characteristics of household size in order to determine the number of households and therefore the number of homes needed for those households. As indicated in the table below, almost all of San José’s residents live in households .

Table II-5, Population by Living Arrangement, 2010
The relationship between total population and households is commonly characterized by average household size as measure by persons-per-household (PPH). As mentioned above, household size helps to determine the number of homes necessary to house a jurisdiction’s population. Additionally, it is an important indicator of various interrelated housing conditions, such as whether the housing supply is sufficient, whether the level of supply is impacting the cost of housing, and whether households are living in overcrowded or substandard conditions, perhaps as a response to high housing costs.

In San José, the average household size has fluctuated over the last 40 years. In 1970, household size was 3.35 PPH, declining to 2.96 PPH in 1980, and remaining relatively stable at approximately 3.1 PPH since then.

San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter II‐16
Table II-8, Geographic Mobility, 2010
Similarly, in San José, the “mover rate” fell in recent years as job opportunities and consumer confidence were negatively impacted by the economic downturn. However, since that time, mobility has begun to recover. The table above shows that, in 2010, 16.3% of the City’s population moved in the prior year. Among young adults (age 25-29 years), the mover rate was 29.6%. Also, the number of persons who moved from abroad was 1.2%, twice the national rate and consistent with the foreign immigration and place of birth/year of entry statistics presented earlier.

G. Housing Stock and Occupancy
Over the past 50 years, San José’s housing stock increased along with a growing population, with significant growth occurring in the 1970s and 1980s and more moderate percentage growth in subsequent decades. Note that despite the economic recession that began in 2008, San José added more homes between 2000 and 2010 than it did between 1990 and 2000.

Table II-9, Housing Stock, 1960-2010

Whether or not a jurisdiction’s housing supply is sufficient to meet the demand depends on a variety of factors, including the number of persons-per-household, the rate of population growth relative to the growth in housing supply, and the affordability and diversity of the housing supply relative to incomes.

Indicators such as overcrowding, low vacancy rates, and overpayment would suggest that supply is low relative to need.

The vacancy rates in San José have generally indicated a tight rental housing market. This was especially true in 2000 during the height of the dot-com boom, with the vacancy rate at 1.9%. While the 2010 vacancy rate was somewhat higher at 4.9%, it was still below the “natural rate” of 5% generally considered to reflect a healthy balance between housing supply and demand. More recently, in fall 2013, data from real estate information firm MPF Research noted that vacancy in San José’s rental housing market stood at approximately 3%— a tight condition that suggests demand outpacing supply.

The vacancy rate includes both market rate and affordable rental homes. Because the affordable housing supply comprises only a minor percentage of the total rental stock, the above vacancy rate largely reflects that of the market-rate units. As will be discussed in chapter 3, the demand for deedrestricted affordable homes far exceeds the supply, as the cost of housing is out of reach for a

San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter II‐18
Table II-10, Housing Units by Occupancy and Tenure, 2000-2010 The recent decline in homeownership rates may be due to a combination of factors. First, the City of San José has facilitated a trend towards the construction of higher-density housing, which have thus far been predominantly rentals. Rents have steadily increased over the last ten years, and, despite the recession in 2008, rental rates are at the highest level ever. These rates have made it more profitable for developers to pursue rental rather than for-sale developments. Further, the 2008 economic downturn and associated spike in foreclosure activity displaced many former homeowners to the rental market, which increased demand for rental homes and decreased the demand to own. Finally, demand for rental homes have increased due to changing preferences resulting from demographic shifts.

Additionally, there are meaningful differences in homeownership rates by race/ethnicity. For example, while the homeownership rate among Asians remained virtually unchanged from 2000-2010, the homeownership rate among Hispanics and Blacks fell 5.8% and 8.8%, respectively. The homeownership rate among Whites experienced a more modest decline of 1.6%. These variations suggest that the economic downturn may have impacted Blacks and Hispanics or Latinos to a greater degree than other groups, making it more difficult or less desirable to own a home.

Table II-11, Rates of Homeownership by Race/Ethnicity, 2000-2010 I. Overcrowding
Overcrowding often occurs because households cannot afford the cost of housing, requiring multiple households or more persons on average to live under one roof. An overcrowded housing unit is defined by the U.S. Census Bureau as being occupied by more than one person per room (excluding bathrooms and kitchens). Households are considered severely overcrowded when there are more than 1.5 persons per room. Overcrowding may occur in, or lead to, substandard living conditions or building quality, which could cause health and safety concerns to the individuals living in a unit as well as their neighborhoods.

In San José, overcrowding occurred in approximately 30,000 housing units in 2010, with nearly threequarters of this figure composed of rental homes. Overall, this represents a 10% rate of overcrowding.

In 2010, severe overcrowding occurred in 3.2% of occupied units, 85% of which were rentals.

San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter II‐20
J. Structure Type and Age
As previously mentioned, in recent years San José has facilitated a trend towards the construction of higher-density housing. However, because of the City’s rapid growth in prior decades, the majority of the existing housing stock is still composed of single-family homes that were constructed during the 1960s and 1970s. As a result, in 2010, two-thirds of the City’s housing units were single-family homes (attached and detached). Among owner-occupied units, single-family homes represented almost 90% of the total.

Table II-13, Tenure by Structure Type, 2010
The existing housing stock demonstrates San José’s legacy of a low-density, suburban environment that the General Plan seeks to diversity through implementation of strategies for more compact, mixed-use, transit-oriented development. Indeed, this trend towards urbanization has been underway and between 2000 and 2013, more than 80% of the building permits issued for new housing units were multi-family (see Chart VII-1 in Chapter VII).

San José’s housing stock is relatively new, with approximately 80% of the stock built in 1960 and after.

San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter II‐21
Table II-14, Age of Structure, 2010
As a result, the number of homes in San José considered “substandard” is quite small, with 0.6% of all units having incomplete plumbing and 1% having incomplete kitchen facilities, some of which may be the same unit.

Table II-15, Substandard Housing by Tenure, 2010
K. Conclusions
Many of the trends identified in this chapter will be present well into the future, while others will soon emerge and represent a new direction. As the City implements the General Plan , San José’s largest population growth segment will be seniors (65+ years) and “young adults” (age 20-34 years). Both groups are increasingly locating in urban areas that are centers for jobs, services, shopping, and cultural amenities.

As illustrated by the various maps, many of the demographic characteristics and trends discussed here are closely correlated. Several of these trends suggest the need for a broader array of housing choices that appropriately respond to growing and diverse needs within the population. These housing choices might include secondary dwelling units, new urban housing types (e.g., “micro” units of approximately 200-400 square feet) as well as the adaptation of the existing housing stock to meet changed circumstances (e.g., allowing seniors to “age in place”). The next chapter builds upon this demographics overview with an analysis of employment, income, housing costs, affordability, and poverty to help identify specific housing needs, with emphasis on ensuring the availability of housing for all economic segments of the community.

San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter III‐1
Chapter III:

Needs
Assessment
As the Capital of Silicon Valley, San José is proud to be at the heart of the world’s most innovative region. The City is home to many leading multinational technology companies, such as Cisco Systems, eBay, and Adobe, as well as hundreds of smaller firms and start-ups. The strong regional economy has enabled Silicon Valley to be more resilient to the recent economic downturn, with solid post-recession job growth and one of the highest median incomes in the nation. At the same time, strong economic health can also lead to high housing costs and other challenges, including displacement, overcrowding, and a lack of housing choices for special needs and low income persons. Indeed, San José has long been one of the costliest place in the nation in which to live, Despite the prevalence of highly skilled, high-wage workers in Silicon Valley, data from the California Employment Development Department (EDD) show a divergent trend in the region: while about onethird 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.

Further, projections from EDD anticipate 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. As such, 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, the extent of affordable housing needs can likewise be expected to remain high or even rise.

This chapter provides an assessment of the existing and projected housing needs in San José. As previously discussed, regional housing needs are determined by statewide and regional population projections. The existing housing needs analysis draws on data from multiple sources to compare income levels with housing costs in order to derive measures of affordability for various households, special needs, and housing types. This analysis provides the basis for understanding the nature and extent of San José’s housing needs and issues, and, taken together with the prior demographics analysis, is used to inform the Housing Element’s implementation workplan.

San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter III‐2
A. Regional Growth Projections and RHNA
According to Plan Bay Area, a long-range integrated transportation, land use, and housing plan developed by ABAG and MTC for the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area, the region is projected to grow from 7.2 million in 2010 to 9.3 million by 2040, for an increase of 2.1 million net new residents. This equates to a 30% total increase or a 1% annual growth rate. In order to accommodate this growth during the 2010-40 time period, Plan Bay Area expects the number of housing units to increase by 24%, or almost 700,000 units, and the number of jobs to grow by 1.1 million, an increase of 33%.

As shown in the table below, the City of San José is projected to accommodate approximately 20% of the Bay Area’s regional housing growth, or almost 130,000 units by 2040. As noted previously in this Appendix, the General Plan analyzed and cleared housing capacity through 2035. Additional housing capacity beyond 2035 would need to be analyzed and environmentally cleared prior to the end of 2035.

This figure closely compares with housing growth capacity identified by the General Plan, which provides for the long-term ability to construct up to 120,000 new homes. Additionally, San José is projected to comprise approximately 60% of the Santa Clara County’s overall housing and population growth, and just under 50% of the County’s employment growth.

Table III-1, Regional Growth Projections, 2010-2040
Two primary objectives of the State’s Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) process are to increase the supply of housing at all income levels and to ensure that local governments contribute to its fair share of housing needs. Additionally, the RHNA divides a jurisdiction’s total housing responsibility into four income categories: Very Low-income (VLI), Low-Income (LI), Moderate-Income (MOD), and Above Moderate-Income (AMOD). These categories correspond to the annual income limits published by HCD and are used to determine housing affordability by the size and income of households. These categories are expressed as a percentage of Area Median Income (AMI), which is currently set at $105,500 for a four-person household in Santa Clara County and is adjusted for household size.

The table and chart below show San José’s RHNA by income category for the 2014-2022 period and compared with the City’s RHNA for the prior period (2007-2014). While the overall RHNA between the

San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter III‐4
B. “Jobs First” General Plan
San José is the largest and most urban city in Silicon Valley, and plays a key role in the continuing growth of the regional, State, and national economies. At the same time, according to data from the U.S.

Census Bureau that analyzes the relationship between where people live and where they work, San José is the only large city in the nation that acts as a net exporter of workers. Within Santa Clara County, the City has added a greater share of homes relative to other jurisdictions, and has thus become a “bedroom community” for the region. Alternatively, other cities with slower residential growth have seen strong commercial development, resulting in communities that are “jobs-rich” and “housing-poor.” One way to measure this balance between jobs and housing is to compare the number of jobs to the number of employed residents in a city. The idea is that a “balanced” city has the same number of jobs as there are employed residents, which theoretically means that there is a job for every employed resident, or a 1:1 ratio. As such, a jobs-rich city has more jobs than employed residents (for a ratio greater than 1:1), whereas a housing-rich city has fewer jobs than employed residents (for a ratio less than 1:1).

In the jobs-to-employed residents (J/ER) framework, a jobs-rich city effectively “imports” workers from outside its jurisdictional boundary because there are not enough employed residents within city limits to fill all of the employment opportunities it offers. Conversely, a housing-rich city “exports” some of its employed residents to work elsewhere because there are not enough employment opportunities within the city available for all residents in the workforce. Thus, the J/ER framework suggests that jobs-rich cities rely on other jurisdictions to build the homes and provide municipal services for their workers, while housing-rich cities do not proportionately share in the jobs available within a region.

It should be noted that J/ER is a simplified concept that masks the complexity of choices individuals make in terms of where they work and live. In reality, people make location decisions for a wide variety of reasons, and even a “balanced” community scenario does not imply that employed residents will only work within the city and not commute to jobs in other places. Nevertheless, when combined with other analyses, the jobs-housing balance can be a useful tool for understanding the dynamics of a place and potential regional inequities in terms of meeting – or not meeting – regional fair share housing needs.

Indeed, the RHNA and the Housing Element are ways that the State seeks to address regional inequities in housing that local jurisdictions may not be able to address on their own. In addition to the State’s RHNA goals, regional solutions will be critically important to meeting housing needs in the South Bay.

In response to the variations in the jobs-housing balance between cities in Santa Clara County, the General Plan was developed to be a “jobs first” general plan that uses the J/ER framework to guide the City’s vision and policies, which includes a J/ER ratio of 1.3:1 as a core objective. If achieved, San José would have 1.3 jobs for every employed resident, and would be transformed from a housing-rich to a jobs-rich city. It is important to note that if the County as a whole remains housing-poor and if the City seeks to attain that same status, housing costs in both the County and in San José could arguably be expected to increase significantly, thereby exacerbating existing affordability issues.

Table III-3 below indicates that San José is a housing-rich community, with a J/ER ratio below 1:1. In fact, the City’s J/ER ratio declined over the 2008-2012 time period, from 0.91 in 2008 to 0.85 in 2012. This is primarily attributable to the fact that San José lost more jobs during – and has recovered more slowly San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter III‐5
from – the economic downturn than any of the comparison cities. By comparison, the city of Mountain View became significantly more jobs-rich, while the city of Palo Alto achieved a J/ER ratio of 3.0 at both the beginning and end of this time period. Although the city of Sunnyvale remained relatively stable during this period, it too is a jobs-rich city. Finally, Santa Clara County as a whole is jobs-rich, with a J/ER of 1.14:1.

Table III-3, Jobs to Employed Residents Ratio, 2008-2012 C. Employment
The decline in San José’s J/ER ratio, as referenced above, was due in part to a large drop in employment (approximately 20,000 jobs) that represented over 40% of the job loss throughout the entire Bay Area, coupled with an increase of workers who live in San José, and especially an approximately 30,000 increase in employed residents between 2010 and 2012. By comparison, Santa Clara County as a whole experienced a decline in employed residents from 2008 to 2012. In summary, San José has lost jobs and added residents, whereas the reverse is true in several neighboring cities and countywide. This trend further supports the notion that a regional solution is critical to balancing housing and economic development needs.

San José is fortunate to be located in the heart of a strong regional economy, which as mentioned has been relatively resilient to the recent economic downturn and enjoyed solid post-recession job growth.

However, the current economic recovery has benefitted certain segments of the workforce more than others, particularly in higher-skill, higher-wage jobs in the technology, financial, and management sectors. For example, high tech manufacturing industry subcategories, such as computer/peripheral equipment and semiconductor/electronic component, provide about 10% of San José Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) employment and have pay average annual incomes of $150,000. However, at the other end of the spectrum, lower-skill and lower-wage segments of the workforce, including industry subcategories such as construction, retail and wholesale trade, business services, and leisure/hospitality, face a somewhat weaker labor market at risk of job loss or wage reductions. These industries together employ upwards of 50% of the local workforce, and pay average annual incomes between $30,000 and $70,000. From an occupational (rather than industry) perspective, nearly half of the jobs in the San José MSA pay median wages between $19,000 and $56,000, qualifying such workers for low-income status.

Thus, while Census data indicate that the San José metro area ranks number two in the nation for wealth concentration, by contrast the Joint Venture Silicon Valley’s annual “Index of Silicon Valley” report points out that median income fell to an 11-year low in 2011 and that the wage distribution gap is actually growing. Stephen Levy, director of the Center for Continuing Study of the California Economy San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter III‐6
(CCSCE) and a consultant for the report, indicated, “This is a tech-led recovery. But the wages at the bottom of the income ladder are stagnating.”
During 2013, the San José area outpaced the rate of job creation statewide and local jobless rates are now at their lowest level since mid-2008. However, as previously mentioned, according to the California Employment Development Department (EDD), more than half of the new jobs expected in Santa Clara County over the next five years will pay $11.00 per hour or less, which translates to annual income below the bottom end of the lower income range cited above. Separately, the Bay Area Council estimates that every high tech job added to the local economy creates four jobs in lower-paying support services fields. Finally, the linkage between jobs and housing was recently evidenced by an annual 2014 survey of CEOs by the Silicon Valley Leadership Group (SVLG), which indicated that housing was once again the most critical concern. “As with the past, the high cost of housing remains the No. 1 issue,” wrote report author and San José State University professor Larry Gerston. “Simply put, companies can’t function well without employees, and employees need affordable, adequate housing for their families.” The table below provides a breakdown of employment by industry within the San José MSA.

Table III-4, Employment by Industry, 2014
The growing divide in the workforce reinforces the need for San José’s housing strategy to provide sufficient housing opportunities for workers across incomes in order to support continued economic development. This includes housing opportunities for the working poor and lower-income workers, many of whom are employed in occupations that support “driving industries” in the local economy.

San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter III‐7
D. Household Income
Housing affordability depends on both the cost of housing as well as household income. Using a special cross-tabulation of Census data, the table below provides a comparison of income measures for 2000 and 2010 in real, (inflation-adjusted) 2010 dollars. In summary, all three household types in San José experienced a double-digit decline in real income over the 2000-2010 time period, ranging from a drop of 25% for non-family households to a 10% decline for family households. On a per capita basis, income fell slightly less (-8.7%).

Table III-5, Income by Household Type, 2000-2010
Table III-6 below provides the distribution of households by income category and tenure. Note that while these Census-derived income categories differ slightly from those in the Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA), they provide a sufficiently close approximation for meaningful comparison. As shown in the table below, approximately one-third of all San José households in 2010 (nearly 105,000 households) were lower-income, and in particular extremely low- and very low-income . In other words, the vast majority of the San José’s households fell at opposite ends of the income spectrum, being either moderate-income or above or in one of the two lowest income categories. The incidence of lowerincome status is greater in renter rather than ownership households: there were nearly four times the number of ELI renter households as ownership households, and nearly twice the number of VLI renter households as ownership households, on a percentage basis.

San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter III‐8
Table III-6, Households by Income Category and Tenure, 2010 Household income also varies significantly by race/ethnicity and over time. Table III-7 shows significant declines in income for all groups except for Asian households, who experienced a slight increase in real income between 2000 and 2010. Hispanic and Black households experienced the most significant declines in both absolute and percentage terms.

Table III-7, Household Income by Race/Ethnicity, 2000-2010 Median incomes also vary by geography. As illustrated in the map below of Census tracts in San José, higher-income households generally live away from the City center in “outer ring” tracts, while lowerincome households are located primarily in Central and East San José. This pattern correlates with other geographic patterns such as ethnic concentration and overcrowded living conditions: lowerincome areas are primarily ethnic communities that experience overcrowding. As such, programs in this Housing Element seek to realize more diverse communities throughout the City of San José.

San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter III‐10 Median
Hourly
Median
Annual
Waiters and Waitresses 9,500 $9.20 $19,137
Dishwashers 2,480 $9.21 $19,150
Counter Attendants, Cafeteria, Food Concession, and
Coffee Shop 4,130 $9.26 $19,259
Combined Food Preparation and Serving Workers, Including Fast Food 7,120 $9.29 $19,317
Food Preparation Workers 3,550 $9.39 $19,521
Retail Salespersons 11,400 $10.43 $21,694
Home Health Aides 2,030 $10.45 $21,738
Cashiers 9,620 $10.78 $22,431
Cooks, Restaurant 3,540 $11.25 $23,403
Stock Clerks and Order Fillers 3,450 $11.26 $23,427
Personal Care Aides 3,920 $12.00 $24,974
Janitors and Cleaners, Except Maids and Housekeeping
Cleaners 5,130 $12.23 $25,424
Landscaping and Groundskeeping Workers 3,390 $13.12 $27,289 Childcare Workers 2,330 $13.24 $27,528
Laborers and Freight, Stock, and Material Movers, Hand 6,290 $14.45 $30,070 Security Guards 3,460 $15.24 $31,690
Teacher Assistants 3,080 [3] $32,002
Receptionists and Information Clerks 2,750 $15.86 $32,976 Office Clerks, General 5,650 $17.30 $35,986
First-Line Supervisors of Retail Sales Workers 2,900 $18.71 $38,898 Bookkeeping, Accounting, and Auditing Clerks 2,800 $21.60 $44,924 Customer Service Representatives 4,830 $22.16 $46,101
Subtotal 103,350 48.3%
Total 214,080
Total Job
Openings
[1]
2012 First
2010-2020 Occupations with Most Openings
San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara
Source: California Employment Development Department, 2013 F. Poverty
Similar to the income categories discussed above, the term “poverty” used in this document is defined by the U.S. Census Bureau using a set of income thresholds that vary by family size and composition. If a family’s total income is less than the threshold appropriate for that family, then that family and every San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter III‐11 individual in it is considered to be in poverty. The official poverty thresholds do not vary geographically, but they are updated for inflation using the Consumer Price Index (CPI).

Table III-12, Poverty by Age, 2000-2010
The table above shows a cross tabulation of poverty with age in San José over the 2000-2010 time period. These data indicate that all age groups experienced a more than 50% increase in poverty during the last decade.

Chart III-7, Poverty by Age, 2010
The next table provides a cross tabulation of poverty with race/ethnicity over the same 2000-2010 time period. These data indicate that Hispanics and Blacks experienced an approximately 75% increase in poverty during the last decade, whereas Asians rose slightly less than 50% and Whites just under 30%.

Table III-13, Poverty by Race/Ethnicity, 2000-2010
Comparing the percentage of these race/ethnicity groups living in poverty, we find that just over 20% of Hispanics were below poverty in 2010, more than double the rate of Asians and Whites (9.7% and 7.1%, respectively), with Blacks in the middle to higher end of this range (16.6%).

San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter III‐15 Source: RealFacts Q2,2014
Chart III-7, Monthly Rent by Unit Size, 2003-2014
H. Affordability / Housing Burden
A commonly accepted guideline for determining housing affordability is that costs do not exceed 30% of household income. Thus, when monthly carrying costs of a home exceed 30% of income, then the housing is considered unaffordable, or a “burden,” for that household. Further, a household is considered to be “severely overpaying” for housing when costs exceed 50% of household income. The U.S. Census provides “custom tabulations” of data known as “CHAS” (Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy) to help demonstrate housing needs. According to 2006-2010 CHAS Data, approximately 44% of all households in San José overpaid for housing of which slightly more than half were owner occupiers.

Total Households Overpaying (2010)
Households Renters Owners Total
119,545 180,565 300,110
56,235 75,475 131,710
43% 57% 44%
Source: Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) Data 2006-2010.

All Households
Number of Households Overpaying
Percent of All Households Overpaying
Of the 131,710 households that were overpaying in San Jose, 61,270 (47%) were severely overpaying. The table below illustrates that a higher number of renters suffer from severe overpayment then do owner occupier households. Thus while there are more owner occupier households overpaying in general, renter households in San José suffer disproportionately more with severe overpayment.

San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter III‐16 Total Households Severely Overpaying (2010)
Households Renters Owners Total
56,235 75,475 131,710
29,485 31,785 61,270
52% 42% 47%
*Severely Overpaying is a subset of Overpaying Households.

Source: Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) Data 2006-2010.

Number of Households Overpaying
Percent of Households Severely Overpaying*
Number of Households Severely Overpaying*
Overall during the same period, 44% of households in San José overpayed and 36% of all households were lower income. Not surprisingly of the households that overpayed, a disproportionately large number (59%) were lower income households and an even larger proportion were renters (89%).

Lower Income Households Overpaying (2010)
Households Renters Owners Total
All Households 119,545 180,565 300,110
Lower Income Households 67,235 41,890 109,125
Percent of All Households that are Lower Income 56% 23% 36% 56,235 75,475 131,710
50,150 27,485 77,635
89% 36% 59%
Source: Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) Data 2006-2010.

Percent of Households Overpaying that are Lower Income
Total Households Overpaying
Lower Income Households Overpaying
(> 30% of Income)
Extremely Low Income Households
Projected Needs:

To calculate projected housing needs, the City assumed 50 percent of its very low-income regional housing needs allocation (RHNA) would be extremely low-income households. As a result, from the very low-income need of 9,233, the City has a projected need for approximately 4,616 extremely low-income households. Extremely low-income (ELI) is defined as households with income less than 30 percent of area median income. In 2014 the area median income in Santa Clara County was $105,500 which translated into an annual ELI of $31,850 or less for a four-person household and $22,300 or less for a one-person household. As noted earlier in this chapter even San Jose’s relatively higher minimum wage ($10.15 per hour or $21,112 per year) qualifies as an extremely low-income household.

Existing Needs:

In 2010 approximately 43,470 extremely low-income households resided in San José representing

14.5% of the total households. Most (31,440) extremely low-income households are renters and experience a high incidence of housing problems as show in the table below.

San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter III‐17 Housing Needs for Extremely Low-Income Households (2010) Renters Owners Total
Total ELI Households 31,440 12,030 43,470
Percent with Any Housing Problems 82% 72% 80%
Percent with Cost Burden (30% of income) 80% 72% 78%
68% 62% 67%
Total Number of Households 119,545 180,565 300,110
*Severely Overpaying is a subset of Overpaying Households.

Source: Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) Data 2006-2010. *Percent with Severe Cost Burden (50% of Income)
Many extremely low-income households will be seeking rental housing and most likely will face housing problems including overpayment, crowding, or substandard housing conditions while others may have special needs such as mental or physical disabilities. The City of San José monitors affordability restrictions for 1,312 Extremely Low-Income renter units. This represents the bulk of Extremely LowIncome renter units in San José as the majority of the Santa Clara County Housing Authority portfolio is for residents with incomes between 50-60% of Area Median Income.

Housing Needs for Extremely Low-Income Households (2015-2023) Renters
Existing ELI Renter Households with Cost Burden (2010) 25,152 Projected ELI Households (RHNA) 4,616
Existing Deed Restricted ELI Housing Stock -1,312
Balance 28,456
Sources: Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) Data 2006-2010, City of San José.

Thus when added together, the projected and existing need for Extremely Low-Income renter housing in San José between 2015-2023 is approximately 28,456 units. While affordable housing resources are limited and Extremely Low-Income housing requires very deep public subsidies, the City will do the following to address these needs:
 Explore all opportunities to build new homeless apartments with supportive services  Promote a variety of housing types including higher density, multifamily supportive, single room occupancy, and shared housing
 Facilitate the development of Single Room Occupancy (SRO) buildings by modernizing SRO development standards
 Review the City’s income allocation policy and update as necessary to provide a framework for income categories.

Owner-Occupied Housing Burden
When analyzing owner-occupied housing burdens, it is important to distinguish between household with a mortgage versus those without a mortgage, as costs for these circumstances differ substantially. The table below indicates that the median monthly costs for a unit with a mortgage were almost $2,800 in 2010, whereas a unit without a mortgage had a median cost of approximately $500 per month.

San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter III‐18 To evaluate the extent of housing burden among owner-occupied households, the table below provides a breakdown of selected monthly owner costs as a percent of income. Of those units with a mortgage, approximately 50% of owners experienced housing burden (costs 30% or more of income) in 2010. On the other hand, among units without a mortgage, over three quarters of owners paid less than 20% of household income on housing costs.

Table III-10, Ownership Housing Affordability, 2010
Using cross-tabulated Census data, the over 32,000 owner-occupied households (19% of all owneroccupiers) experienced a severe housing burden (i.e. paying more than 50% of household income on owner costs). Additionally, 36% of lower income households (80% or less AMI) experienced a housing burden while comprising only 23% of all owners-occupier households in the City.

Renter-Occupied Housing Burden
Like San José’s owner-occupier households, renter households also experience significant housing burden. As shown in TABLE III-11, over 53% of all renters experienced a housing burden in 2010.

Additionally, renter households experienced a greater incidence of high housing burden than owneroccupier households. Even though the median monthly rent in 2010 ($1,371) was roughly half of median monthly owner costs ($2,797) for units with a mortgage in 2010, the extent of housing burden was higher among renters than owners. This aligns with the fact that lower-income households tend to live in rental homes, primarily because they cannot afford the cost of owning a home.

San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter III‐19 Table III-11, Rental Housing Affordability, 2010
Once again using data from CHAS, further identification is possible of the number of renter-occupied households that were severely overpaying, or burdened to the extent of paying more than 50% of household income on rent (i.e., a subset of the highest 35%-plus category shown above). CHAS indicated that 27,700 renters, or nearly one-quarter (23.1%) of all renter-occupied households in San José, devoted more than half of their income to housing. As well, a cross-tabulation of the standard housing burden definition (30% or more of income) with the various income categories showed that the vast majority (87.4%) of burdened renters were composed of lower income households (80% or less AMI).

San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter III‐20 I. Income / Housing Cost Limits
San José administers programs that provide assistance in facilitating the production of Extremely Low-, Very Low-, Low- and Moderate-Income housing, rehabilitation, and preservation of the existing affordable housing supply. In doing so, the City uses annually-published data from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) on household income limits. These income limits are adjusted for two variables: income levels and household size, the latter using a four-person household earning a median income (i.e., 100% of Area Median Income (AMI) as the baseline.

Table III-14, Santa Clara County Household Income Limits, 2014 Affordable Home Purchase Prices
Home purchase prices considered “affordable” based upon HCD income limits are shown in the table below. Note that Extremely Low Income (ELI) and Very Low Income (VLI) categories are not shown since it is unlikely such households could purchase property in San José without considerable subsidy from the City or another source. Further, it is challenging to create a sustainable homeownership model for these income levels when the additional costs of home repair and maintenance are considered. Indeed, the goal is not only to provide assistance such that low income families can purchase a home, but that these families can afford to stay there. The following assumptions were used to generate maximum sales prices:

1. A 5% down payment;

2. Housing cost-to-income ratio is 30%;

3. The mortgage is a 30-year fixed rate note;

4. The rate of interest on the mortgage is 5.0%;

5. Property taxes and mortgage insurance are 1.25% and 0.25%, respectively; and,

6. Homeowner association dues are $300 per month (applies to condos/townhomes only).

San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter III‐21 Table III-15, Home Purchase Price Limits, 2014
Note that the median price of a home sold in June 2014 was $795,400 for a single-family home and $457,000 for a condo/townhome. Based on the table above, this means that only a 5 or 6-person moderate-income household has the purchasing power to buy a for-sale Condominium at the median price and not experience a housing burden. This would likely be a two- or three-bedroom townhome or condominium, which would imply significant overcrowding for a 5 or 6-person household.

Affordable Rental Rates
Affordable rental rate levels, by income level and household size, are derived from HCD and shown in the table below. Rents are based on 30% of monthly income, minus an allowance for basic utilities. The City’s rental programs do not include development of Moderate-Income units, since those rents equal or exceed unrestricted market rents.

Table III-16, Rental Unit Affordability Levels, 2014
Like the circumstance above for for-sale housing, low-income renter households of any size are essentially priced out of the rental market. Those who can afford market rents are large households who would then be living in overcrowded situations.

J. Special Housing Needs Groups
Government Code section 65583(a) (7) requires an analysis of the special housing needs of specific groups of persons and families. These groups include the elderly/seniors, persons with disabilities, large families, female-headed family households, the homeless, persons in need of emergency shelter, San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter III‐22 and farm workers, as listed below. The following discussion is intended to provide both a brief qualitative description of the unique needs of these groups, as well as a quantitative analysis of their estimated size and characteristics. Information about the City’s efforts to address these needs is contained in Chapter VII of this document.

1. Elderly / Seniors
The elderly/senior (persons age 65+ years) population has a wide variety of special housing needs, depending on health status, mobility, and homecare requirements. If a senior’s medical needs are minimal and limited assistance is needed with daily activities, independent living at home is possible and, in fact, surveys suggest that most seniors prefer to “age in place.” When aging in place or living alone is no longer possible, there are a number of other housing types and services that cater to the specific needs of elderly residents. These housing types and services include, but are not limited to, shared housing, senior condos, senior residential communities, life care communities, continuing care, assisted living, residential care, nursing facilities, and hospice care.

In the prior chapter, an analysis of the San José population by age revealed that, over the 2000-2010 time period, the number of seniors rose by almost 30% to a total of nearly 100,000 persons in 2010.

Further, as to household type, while the previous chapter indicated that householders living alone accounted for a substantial 20% of the total, among the City’s seniors this percentage is nearly double (38%). In evaluating the special housing needs of the elderly, a cross tabulation can be performed between data on affordability/housing burden and age. The following table provides both median monthly owner costs and gross rent as a percent of income for persons age 65 and above in 2010.

Table III-17, Housing Affordability for the Elderly/Seniors, 2010 These data indicate a dichotomy: less than one third (32.1%) of owner-occupied households experienced housing burden (costs 30% or more of income), yet nearly two thirds (63.1%) of renter-occupied households were burdened by housing costs. In other words, elderly households present two extremes:
elderly owners are burdened at about 10% below the rate within the population as a whole, whereas elderly renters are burdened at a rate about 10% above the general population. Lower income seniors experience an even higher incidence of housing burden.

Analysis of the geographic distribution of the elderly/senior population shows neighborhoods in West San José (West Valley, Willow Glen, Cambrian, and Almaden) had relatively higher concentrations in 2010. However, only one census tract had an elderly/senior concentration that was more than double the citywide rate (10.1%), and as such these concentrations are not pronounced. Yet as indicated in the

San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter III‐24 physical or sensory limitations. Depending on the severity of the disability, people may live independently with some assistance in their own homes, or may require assisted living and supportive services in special care facilities.

The State of California passed legislation (SB 812), which took effect January 2011, amending housing element law as it relates to persons with disabilities to include an evaluation of the special housing needs of persons with a “developmental disability” as defined in Section 4512 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. A developmental disability is a disability that originates before an individual reaches 18 years of age, continues, or can be expected to continue, indefinitely, and constitutes a substantial disability for that individual. This includes mental retardation (and closely related conditions), cerebral palsy, epilepsy, and autism.

The U.S. Census Bureau collects information on disabilities and places into six categories, as follows: (1) hearing difficulty; (2) vision difficulty; (3) cognitive difficulty; (4) ambulatory difficulty; (5) self-care difficulty; and, (6) independent living difficulty. The Census Bureau does not have specific information regarding persons with developmental disabilities. However, each non-profit regional center contracted with the California Department of Developmental Services (DDS) maintains an accounting of the number of persons served, and this information is referenced below.

Census data indicate that those with one or more disability totaled approximately 78,000 persons, or about 8% of the City’s population, in 2010. Examined individually, the percent of the population in any single disability category ranged from 4.4% to 4.7%. A cross tabulation of disability data with age revealed that nearly half were seniors. In fact, over one third (37.5%) of San José’s senior population had some form of disability in 2010, by far the most common types of which were ambulatory difficulty and/or independent living difficulty (each present among approximately 60% of disabled seniors).

By way of background, the former Agnews Developmental Center (East Campus), first established at 3500 Zanker Road in San José in 1926, was closed as a residential facility in 2009. Prior to that time, individuals with developmental disabilities had since 1965 been admitted to a special rehabilitation program at the facility, and other programs serving the mentally ill were subsequently discontinued in 1972. Thus, from 1972 to up until a few years ago, the center had been used exclusively for the care and treatment of persons with developmental disabilities.

The State DDS currently provides services to persons with developmental disabilities through a statewide system of twenty one regional centers, four developmental centers, and two communitybased facilities. The San Andreas Regional Center serves four counties, including Santa Clara County.

According to information from the San Andreas Regional Center, there are 8,713 persons with developmental disabilities in Santa Clara County, or approximately

0.5% of the County’s population. According to data from the State Department of Developmentally Disabled Services (DDS) over 7,000 individuals consume services of the DDS indicating that a high percentage of the County’s developmentally disabled population resides in San José Of this total, nearly three quarters (72%) of DDS consumers are reported as living at home with a parent or guardian, with the balance residing in an independent living arrangement (7%), a community care facility (14%), an intermediate care facility (2%), or a foster home (3%). The following tables summarize the number, age, and residence type of individuals in San José who consume State DDS services.

San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter III‐25 ZIP 00-17 yrs 18+ yrs Total
95002 10 10 20
95008 125 134 259
95032 44 52 96
95037 131 148 279
95050 96 92 188
95110 74 31 105
95111 212 222 434
95112 145 187 332
95113 10 10 20
95116 215 161 376
95117 109 68 177
95118 94 162 256
95119 29 54 83
95120 61 82 143
95121 144 274 418
95122 223 214 437
95123 195 251 446
95124 149 213 362
95125 100 129 229
95126 59 73 132
95127 217 229 446
95128 80 88 168
95129 111 66 177
95130 36 41 77
95131 79 107 186
95132 133 173 306
95133 67 105 172
95134 55 17 72
95135 53 57 110
95136 127 203 330
95138 59 28 87
95139 20 9 29
95148 149 237 386
TOTAL 3,411 3,927 7,338
California Dept. of Developmental Services
Regional Center and Early Start Consumers
Quarterly Consumer Count by San José Zip Code and Age
As of March 2014
Source: California Department of Developmental Services, 2014 San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter III‐26 ZIP
Home of
Parent
/Family
/Guardian
Independent
/Supported
Living
Community
Care Facility
Intermediate
Care Facility
Foster
/Family
Home Other Total
95002 12 0 0 0 0 0 12
95008 184 25 33 10 10 10 272
95032 75 10 10 0 10 10 115
95037 231 14 29 0 0 10 284
95050 160 11 12 0 10 10 203
95110 77 10 10 0 18 10 125
95111 374 35 21 0 10 10 450
95112 243 68 16 0 10 10 347
95113 10 10 10 0 0 0 30
95116 324 12 40 0 0 0 376
95117 147 14 12 0 10 10 193
95118 153 43 53 10 10 0 269
95119 50 10 16 12 0 0 88
95120 130 10 10 0 0 0 150
95121 231 10 170 10 10 10 441
95122 378 14 41 0 10 10 453
95123 340 16 89 0 10 0 455
95124 235 26 55 41 0 10 367
95125 172 24 22 10 10 10 248
95126 99 21 12 0 0 0 132
95127 363 24 44 11 10 10 462
95128 123 13 17 10 10 10 183
95129 167 10 10 0 0 10 197
95130 58 10 15 0 0 10 93
95131 138 11 31 10 0 10 200
95132 227 13 58 10 10 0 318
95133 134 10 31 0 0 10 185
95134 66 10 0 0 0 10 86
95135 78 0 23 10 10 10 131
95136 219 11 86 13 10 0 339
95138 76 10 0 10 10 0 106
95139 21 0 10 0 10 0 41
95148 265 10 101 16 0 10 402
Total 5560 515 1087 183 198 210 7753
California Department of Developmental Services
Consumer Count by San José Zip Code and Residence Type
Regional Center and Early Start Consumers
As of March 2014
Source: California Department of Developmental Services, 2014 San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter III‐27 Of the more than 7,700 developmentally disabled individuals living in San José, the majority (79 %) reside in the home of a guardian or independently with support. There are 1,270 individuals (16%) who live in Community Care or Intermediate Care Facilities. As noted above, many of these facilitates are operated at the County level with State funding. Nevertheless, the City of San Jose does track affordability restrictions for a portion of the supportive housing units in Santa Clara County. The table below summarizes the total number of deed restricted supportive housing units that are tracked by the City of San José. Approximately 22% of these units are set aside for seniors and 2% are set aside for developmentally disabled individuals.

Affordable Deed Restricted Housing Units in San José
Seniors 4,114
Developmentally Disabled 433
Physically Disabled 138
People with AIDS 24
All other categories 14,051
TOTAL IN-SERVICE PROJECTS 18,760
Source: City of San Jose, 2014

3. Large Families
Average household size, multigenerational households, and overcrowded housing were topics presented and discussed in Chapter II. Similarly, “large families”, defined as those with five or more persons, are a special housing needs group identified in State law because they may not have sufficient housing options to adequately support their living arrangement. Large families may encounter difficulty in finding adequately-sized, affordable housing due to the limited supply of large units. Additionally, large units generally cost more to rent or buy, which may result in a disproportionate number of large families living in overcrowded conditions.

Review of Table II-6 (Household Size by Tenure) and Table II-12 (Overcrowded Housing) indicates that just over 55,000 San José households, or about 18% of the total, were composed of five or more persons in 2010. As well, nearly half of these households were in renter-occupied housing units, with about the same number of rentals reporting in excess of one person per room (i.e., the definition of “overcrowded”). Given that a four-bedroom home is generally the largest unit size available, it is safe to conclude that many of the same 5-plus person renter households are also overcrowded.

With the use of CHAS data, we can further explore the relationship between family size and income to evaluate housing burden among large families. The table below show that while three-quarters of large family owners were in the “moderate and above” (above 80% AMI) income category, more than half (54.0%) of large family renters were either “very low” or “extremely low” income. Thus, these results indicate that, among renter households, there is a strong correlation between family size and housing burden, implying that overcrowded living conditions in this group are not necessarily by choice.

San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter III‐28 Table III-18, Large Families by Income Category and Tenure, 2010

4. Female-Headed Family Households
Female-headed, single-parent households are identified among those with special housing needs because they are disproportionately represented among those living at or below the poverty level. Single mothers have a greater risk of falling into poverty than single fathers due to factors such as the wage gap between men and women, insufficient training and education for higher-wage jobs, and inadequate child support. In fact, according to census data, over 25% of single-mother households in San José were living below poverty in 2010, compared to a poverty rate of less than 10% for all family households. As well, nearly half of single-mother households below poverty contained a child in each one of two age categories (4 years and under and 5 to 17 years) provided by the U.S. Census Bureau. Overall, singlemother households comprised 30% of the total count of families living below poverty, which helps to at least partially explain the higher rate of poverty among children.

5. Homeless
A 2012 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) report on homelessness found that San José had the highest percentage of unsheltered homeless individuals (73.3%) among major cities in the nation. The report also concluded that San José had the third highest number (2,617) of chronically homeless persons among major cities, following the much larger cities of Los Angeles and New York.

The City of San José also participates in a regional homeless census that takes place every two years throughout Santa Clara County. This census provides a “point-in-time” snapshot of the homeless population (see reports online at http://www.sanjoseca.gov/index.aspx?nid=1289). Table III-19 provides several key findings from the most recent survey conducted on January 29 and 30, 2013.

San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter III‐29 Table III-19, Homeless Census and Survey, Summary of Findings, 2013 In summary:
 A total of 4,770 homeless persons were identified in this point-in-time count, an 18% increase from 2011.
 Those persons that experienced at least one episode of homelessness in the prior 12 months were estimated at 12,055 persons, a 5% decline from 2011. However, the number of persons who experienced multiple episodes of homelessness increased.  While 23% of homeless persons were “sheltered” in shelters, transitional housing, or safe havens, the remaining 77% were “unsheltered” in encampments, on the street, or other unsheltered locations.
 Encampment residents were much more likely to have been San José residents when they became homeless (95% versus 71% for the general homeless population).

San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter III‐30  Among encampment survey respondents, 96% would accept permanent housing if it were available.

In the weeks following this homeless census, a survey was administered to about 500 sheltered and unsheltered homeless persons in the City. The survey used a peer-to-peer methodology and was administered by trained survey workers who had experienced or were experiencing homelessness. The survey is the basis for estimating the demographics and other characteristics of the homeless population. It should be noted that in conduct of the 2013 survey, San José made a concerted effort to identify historically “hard to reach” populations by requesting that outreach professionals from partner nonprofit agencies seek out people living in encampments and other areas more difficult to locate. As a result, the City believes that the 2013 count provides a much more accurate depiction of the scope of homelessness, and San José was the only agency within the County to utilize these specialized teams.

Table III-20 provides a demographics overview of San José’s 2013 homeless census and survey. Age of persons is broken down by various age groups, and a cross tabulation of age by shelter type indicates that encampment residents were older (median age= mid-40’s) as compared to those not living in encampments (median age= upper-30’s). In terms of gender, males comprised nearly three quarters (73%) of the homeless population. The race/ethnic makeup of the homeless was significantly different from the City’s population as a whole. In particular, Asians comprised only 6% of the homeless, whereas they constitute one third (32%) of the general population. On the other hand, Blacks amounted to 23% of the homeless, yet only make up 3% of the San José population. The count of homeless Hispanics and Whites were in roughly equal proportion to their citywide numbers. Finally, obstacles to obtaining housing were almost solely income related, even though one third (35%) reported being employed. Two thirds (65%) of respondents reported an inability to afford rent.

San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter III‐31 Table III-20, Homeless Census and Survey, Demographics Overview, 2013 Several recent events in San José demonstrate that homelessness is an urgent and complex issue, including an increasing number and visibility of encampments and homelessness in Downtown, deaths related to cold weather, and health/safety concerns and environmental impacts due to riparian encampments. Homelessness impacts not only those experiencing it, but also the community.

Homeless encampments in particular present unsafe and unsanitary living conditions for residents and adversely affect surrounding neighborhoods, businesses, and the environment. Currently, San José is estimated to have approximately 300 individual encampments, ranging in size from one person to as many as nearly 300 persons.
 The City is currently responding to homelessness in a variety of ways: The Place-Based Rapid Re-Housing Program, which provides housing, support, and employment for up to 100 persons from a targeted encampment as well as encampment clean-up. The Program involved a commitment of $4 million over two years from the General Fund. It will leverage other funds and San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter III‐32 partner with other organizations to assist 100 additional targeted encampment residents with housing subsidies and case management support.
 The City-funded Homeless Outreach and Engagement Program, which provides a coordinated response to the community about homeless persons living on the streets and in encampments throughout San José. This program is funded by the Federal ESG and CDBG entitlement programs.
 Tenant-Based Rental Assistance Programs, which provide rental vouchers for homeless persons to assist them in relocating into housing. This program is funded by the Federal HOPWA and HOPWA SPNS entitlement programs.

In addition to these current responses, in collaboration with internal and external partners the City is exploring a continuum of new strategies to end homelessness. The strategies may include actions to meet more immediate needs or those that can be accomplished in a shorter period of time, as well as longer term strategies that require more coordination and resources to develop permanent supportive housing, which is the City’s primary goal. For example, the City is pursuing a concept that would leverage existing underutilized hotels/motels as one strategy to house homeless persons in the shorter term. In addition, the notion of converting underutilized commercial buildings into permanent supportive housing for the homeless is being explored. These and other actions are identified and discussed in more detail in Chapter VII.

6. Persons In Need Of Emergency Shelter
There are currently ten emergency shelters that serve the homeless in San Jos providing a total of 649 beds. One of these shelters, the Bill Wilson Center, is located in the City of Santa Clara but serves clients in San Jose and has thus been included in this count. It is important to note that while the number of emergency beds available is considerably lower than then number of unsheltered individuals in San Jose, many people prefer to live outdoors in encampments then to use emergency shelters.

General information about these emergency shelters can be found below:

Bill Wilson Center*
Address: 3490 The Alameda, Santa Clara, CA 95050
Total Units: 20
Telephone: 408.243.0222
Description: Short-term housing for runaway, homeless,
and other troubled youth ages 11-17
Website: http://www.billwilsoncenter.org/

City Team Ministries
Address: 1174 Old Bayshore Highway, SJ
Telephone: 408-288-2153
Total Units: 48
Description: Overnight shelter & recovery programs for single men, meals and showers Website: http://www.cityteam.org/san-jose/shelter/
City Team Heritage Home
San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter III‐33 Address: 2304 Zanker Road, San Jose, CA 95131
Total Units: 23
Telephone: (408) 232-5600
Description: Emergency Shelter for homeless pregnant women 18 and over.

Website: https://www.cityteam.org/san-jose/

EHC LifeBuilders*
Address: 2011 Little Orchard Street, San Jose, CA 95121 Telephone: 408.294.2100
Shelter with 250 beds for homeless adults and families
Website: http://www.ehclifebuilders.org/

Family Supportive Housing
Address: 692 N. King Road, San Jose, CA
Total Units: 35
Telephone: (408) 926-8885
Description: Emergency shelter for homeless families. Case management, workshops, child care, onsite tutoring and transportation services are provided.

Website: http://www.familysupportivehousing.org/

lnnVision
Address: 280 Commercial Street, San Jose, CA 95112
Telephone: 408.271.1630
Total Units: 55
Description: Emergency shelter for women and children with Iimited counseling services and classes Website: http://www.innvision.org/shelters.html

lnnVision
Address: 358 N. Montgomery Street, San Jose, CA 95110
Telephone: 4·08.271.5160
Total Units: 85
Description: Transitional housing and temporary shelter for men for 30 to 60 days Website: http://www.innvision.org/shelters.html

lnnVision
Address: 546 W. Julian Street, San Jose, CA 95110
Telephone: 408.271.0820
Total Units: 70
Description: Homeless shelter for seriously mentally ill persons for up to 90 days with rehabilitation, counseling, and housing referrals services
Website: http://www.innvision.org/shelters.html
Salvation Army
Address: 405 North 4th Street, SJ
Telephone: 408-282-1165
San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter III‐34 Total Units: 28
Description: overnight shelter and workingman’s program for homeless men. Information, referrals, meals, groceries, rental / utility assistance for residents of specific zip codes.

Website: http://www1.usw.salvationarmy.org/usw/www usw stclaracommand.nsf The Haven
Address: 937-943 Locust Street, San Jose, CA 95125
Total Units: 4 SRO and 3 family
Telephone: (650) 685-5880
Description: City owned property for families displaced due to fire and other disasters. This site is managed by Invasion.

Website: http://www.ivsn.org/

In 2007, the State of California passed 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.

To comply with this requirement, San José soon thereafter established a new Combined Industrial / Commercial (CIC) Zoning District that allows emergency shelters with 50 or fewer beds by right.

Emergency shelters are a conditionally permitted use in various other commercial and industrial zones (see Table IV-3 in Chapter IV). As well, in subsequent adoption of the General Plan in 2011, lands identified as CIC on the General Plan (which designation guides rezoning to CIC) were greatly expanded, from about 1,000 acres to over 1,800 acres. Since that time, the City Council has approved numerous conforming CIC rezoning applications.

The CIC Zoning District is predominantly developed with or otherwise encourages a mix of commercial, office, or industrial uses, and thus contains the large buildings types that can meet emergency shelter space requirements. The zoning ordinance allows emergency shelters to include various incidental uses, such as medical assistance, training, counseling, and personal services, which are essential to enabling clients to make the transition to more permanent shelter. In fact, a shelter management plan is a mandatory condition of approval to help address good neighbor issues, transportation, and client supervision/services.

In 2010, the City also amended its Zoning Code to add definitions of transitional and supportive housing, and expressly stated that these uses are, and shall be treated as, residential uses subject only to restrictions applicable to such uses or structures. Supportive housing in the form of residential care and residential service facilities serving 6 or fewer persons is allowed by right in all residential zoning districts, and for facilities serving 7 or more persons is conditionally allowed in residential and commercial zoning districts. These facilities include senior assisted living facilities and institutions that provide medical assistance, training, counseling, and personal services for special needs populations.

Title 20 of the San Jose Municipal Code (the Zoning Code), Section 20.200.1265, defines “Supportive Housing” as “housing with no limit on length of stay and that is occupied by a target population as defined in subdivision (f) of Section 65582 of the California Government Code, as San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter III‐35 the same may be renumbered or amended from time to time, and that is linked to onsite or offsite services that assist supportive housing residents in retaining housing, improving their health status, and maximizing their ability to live and, when possible, work in the residents' community. Supportive housing shall be treated under this Title as a residential use and shall be allowed in Residential, Commercial, Public/Quasi-Public, and the Downtown Zoning Districts in the same fashion as a Residential Care Facility or a Residential Service Facility.” Section 20.200.1030 of the Zoning Code defines “Residential Care Facility” as “a facility licensed by the State of California where care, services or treatment is provided to persons living in a community residential setting.”
Section 20.200.1040 of the Zoning Code defines "Residential Service Facility" as “a residential facility, other than a Residential Care Facility or Single Housekeeping Unit, where the operator receives compensation for the provision of personal services, in addition to housing, including but not limited to, protection, supervision, assistance, guidance, training, therapy or other nonmedical care.”
The Zoning Code allows many different types of residential uses in addition to Residential Care Facilities and Residential Service Facilities. Some of these other residential uses are allowed as Permitted uses and some are allowed as Special Uses or Conditional Uses depending on the zoning district in which they are located, as shown below in the excerpted Table 20-50 from Chapter 20.30 “Residential Zoning Districts”, Section 20.30.100 of the Zoning Code.

20.30.100 Allowed uses and permit requirements.

A. "Permitted" land uses are indicated by a "P" on Table 20-50.

B. "Conditional" uses are indicated by a "C" on Table 20-50. These uses may be allowed in such designated districts, as an independent use, but only upon issuance of and in compliance with a conditional use permit as set forth in Chapter 20.100.

C. "Special" uses are indicated by an "S" on Table 20-50. These uses may be allowed in such designated districts, as an independent use, but only upon issuance of and in compliance with a special use permit as set forth in Chapter 20.100.

D. Land uses not permitted are indicated by a "-" on Table 20-50. Land uses not listed on Table 20-50 are not permitted.

E. "Restricted" land uses are indicated by an "R" on Table 20-50. These uses may occur in such designated districts, as an independent use, but only upon issuance of and in full compliance with a valid and effective zoning code verification certificate as set forth in Chapter 20.100.

F. When the right column of Table 20-50 includes a reference to a section number or a footnote, the regulations cited in the section number or footnote applies to the use. In addition, all uses are subject to any other applicable provision of this Title 20 and any other title of the San José Municipal Code.

San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter III‐36 EXCERPT of Table 20-50
Residential Districts
Land Use Regulations
Use
Zoning District Applicable
Sections & Notes
R-1 R2
RM RMH
Residential Uses
One-family dwelling P P P C Note 1, Section

20.30.110
Secondary dwelling P - - - Section 20.30.150
Two-family dwelling - P P - Note 2, Section

20.30.110
Multiple dwelling - - P -
Guesthouse - - C - Section 20.30.120
Mobilehome Parks - - - P
Travel Trailer Parks - - - C
Residential Care Facility, six or fewer persons P P P P Residential Care Facility, seven or more persons - - C C Residential Service Facility, six or fewer persons P P P P Residential Service Facility, seven or more persons - - C C Servants quarters attached to a one-family dwelling or
attached to a garage structure P - - - Note 3
Sororities, fraternities and dormitories occupied
exclusively (except for administrators thereof) by
students attending college or other educational
institutions
- - C -
Single Room Occupancy Living Unit - - C - Part 15, Chapter

20.80 For example, where Supportive Housing is in compliance with the applicable provisions of the Zoning Code for One-family Dwellings, Supportive Housing is a Permitted use. A “One-family San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter III‐37 Dwelling,” is defined in Section 20.200.320 of the Zoning Code as “a detached Building of permanent character placed in a permanent location which is designed or used for residential occupancy by one Family. A single Mobile home on a foundation system on a single Lot is included within this definition. All rooms within a One-family Dwelling must be integral to each other.”
The Zoning Code defines “Family” in Section 20.200.370 as “one or more persons occupying a premises and living as a Single Housekeeping Unit.”
The Zoning Code defines "Single Housekeeping Unit" in Section 20.200.1130 as “the functional equivalent of a traditional Family; whose members are a nontransient interactive group of persons jointly occupying a single dwelling unit, including the joint use of common areas and sharing household activities and responsibilities such as meals, chores and expenses.” Where Supportive Housing is in compliance with the applicable provisions of Section 20.30.110 “Incidental Uses” in the Zoning Code for use of a dwelling as a residence, Supportive Housing is allowed as an Incidental Use. The Zoning Code provisions for Incidental Uses in residences that are listed in Section 20.30.110 are excerpted below:
“In addition to the occupancy of a dwelling as a residence, the following incidental uses are permitted:

A. The rental of rooms in a One-family Dwelling to up to three Guests and in a Twofamily Dwelling to up to two Guests, by each Family if such use is clearly incidental to the occupancy of the dwelling unit by said Family as its own residence, and such rental is for a period of time longer than thirty days and there are no more than six persons living in the dwelling.

B. State licensed Family Day Care Home.

C. The following non-commercial activities:

1. A garage sale consisting of the occupants' personal property;

2. Sale of goods hand-produced by the occupants;

3. Sales parties held for the purpose of selling goods to invited guests. Such parties shall be held inside a permanent structure or in the rear yard of the dwelling unit.

D. To qualify as a non-commercial activity:

1. No more than two such sales are allowed in any calendar year;

2. No such sale can be conducted for more than four consecutive days;

3. Such sales shall only be conducted between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m.” As an Action in the Housing Element Workplan, the City will explore amending the definition of “Supportive Housing” in the Zoning Code to more explicitly state that Supportive Housing may be provided in all residential housing types. This statement is already included in the definition of Transitional Housing.

San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter III‐38

As previously noted, while SB 2 requires jurisdictions to include by-right provisions for emergency shelters in their municipal code, the City of San José’s priority strategy for responding to homelessness is permanent supportive housing.

7. Farm Workers and Employee Housing
Farm workers are traditionally defined as persons whose primary incomes are derived from permanent or seasonal agricultural labor. Permanent farm laborers work in the fields, process plants, or support activities generally on a year-round basis. When workload increases during harvest periods, the labor force is supplemented by seasonal workers, often supplied by a labor contractor. For some crops, farms may hire migrant workers, defined as those whose travel prevents them from returning to their primary residence each evening.

According to the American Community Survey 1-year estimates, there were less than 1,000 Farmworkers living in San José in 2012. In 2013, Santa Clara County Office of Education recorded 2,142 migrant students in San José schools. City's business license records and California Employment Development Department (EDD) data, there are no active farms or agricultural uses in San Jose that would generate special housing needs for farm workers. All businesses identified as agriculturalrelated industries within the City are either offices for farm operations located in the Central Valley or industrial operations that manufacture equipment and machinery for agricultural purposes. Due to the absence of agricultural activity and the relatively low number of Farm Workers and migrant students who reside in San José it is assumed that this group has similar needs as other low income and homeless individuals within the City and that existing programs serve this population.

Employee Housing
The Employee Housing Act Section 17021 requires employee housing to be permitted by-right, in singlefamily zones for six or fewer employees. The provisions currently in the City’s Zoning Code are consistent with Section 17021.5.

Where Employee Housing is in compliance with the applicable provisions of the Zoning Code for Onefamily Dwellings, Employee Housing is a use that is allowed by-right.

A “One-family Dwelling,” is defined in Section 20.200.320 of the Zoning Code as “a detached Building of permanent character placed in a permanent location which is designed or used for residential occupancy by one Family. A single Mobilehome on a foundation system on a single Lot is included within this definition. All rooms within a One-family Dwelling must be integral to each other.” The Zoning Code defines “Family” in Section 20.200.370 as “one or more persons occupying a premises and living as a Single Housekeeping Unit.”
The Zoning Code defines "Single Housekeeping Unit" in Section 20.200.1130 as “the functional equivalent of a traditional Family; whose members are a nontransient interactive group of persons jointly occupying a single dwelling unit, including the joint use of common areas and sharing household activities and responsibilities such as meals, chores and expenses.” San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter III‐39 Title 4 of the San Jose Municipal Code defines “Transient” as “a person who exercises occupancy or is entitled to occupancy by reason of concession, permit, right of access, license, or other agreement for a period of thirty consecutive calendar days or less, counting portions of calendar days as full days.” Where Employee Housing is in compliance with the applicable provisions of Section 20.30.110 “Incidental Uses” in the Zoning Code for use of a dwelling as a residence, Employee Housing is allowed as an Incidental Use. The Zoning Code provisions for Incidental Uses in residences that are listed in Section 20.30.110 are excerpted below:
“In addition to the occupancy of a dwelling as a residence, the following incidental uses are permitted:

A. The rental of rooms in a One-family Dwelling to up to three Guests and in a Two-family Dwelling to up to two Guests, by each Family if such use is clearly incidental to the occupancy of the dwelling unit by said Family as its own residence, and such rental is for a period of time longer than thirty days and there are no more than six persons living in the dwelling.

B. State licensed Family Day Care Home.

C. The following non-commercial activities:

1. A garage sale consisting of the occupants' personal property;

2. Sale of goods hand-produced by the occupants;

3. Sales parties held for the purpose of selling goods to invited guests. Such parties shall be held inside a permanent structure or in the rear yard of the dwelling unit.

D. To qualify as a non-commercial activity:

1. No more than two such sales are allowed in any calendar year;

2. No such sale can be conducted for more than four consecutive days;

3. Such sales shall only be conducted between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m.” K. Energy Conservation
Conservation of energy is an important issue, not only because of the direct impact of energy costs on individual consumers’ ability to afford housing, but also due to broader, less direct costs borne by society as a result of inefficient development patterns. According to Jeff Speck, a city planner and author of the book “Walkable City”, the typical American spent 10% of their income on transportation in the 1970’s. Since that time, the country has doubled its number of roads, and today people spend 20% of their income on transportation. In fact, among the nation’s working families, defined as those earning between $20,000 and $50,000 a year, transportation costs now outweigh housing as the most expensive household budget item. In a local analysis of transportation costs, the Urban Land Institute (ULI), in a 2009 report entitled, “Bay Area Burden”, concluded that transportation costs in the nine-county Bay Area were highest in the South Bay, totaling nearly $17,000 per year for a typical household.

In response, there is growing interest in a variety of related topics, including sustainable development, energy independence, and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Specifically related to housing San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter III‐40 element law, the State mandates “an analysis of opportunities for energy conservation with respect to residential development” (Government Code section 65583(a)(8)).

The City’s Green Vision, a 15-year plan adopted in 2007, provides the necessary framework for addressing San José’s energy conservation needs in fulfillment of State law. The plan includes ten ambitious goals for economic growth, environmental sustainability and an enhanced quality of life for residents and businesses, including the following to be achieved by the year 2022:
 Goal 2: Reduce Per Capita Energy Use by 50%
 Goal 4: Build or Retrofit 50 Million Square Feet of Green Buildings  Goal 7: Adopt a General Plan with Measurable Standards for Sustainable Development The three goals above capture the primary strategies that San José is employing to promote energy conservation, as discussed in more detail below.

1. Integrating Land Use and Transportation
Energy conservation has long been a central priority in the planning of San José’s land uses and transportation network. By providing a range of housing types and affordability near jobs, services, and transit, the City’s planning efforts can reduce commutes, traffic congestion, and thus the number of vehicle miles and hours traveled. The General Plan includes a number of Major Strategies designed to promote the integration of land use and transportation, including Major Strategy #3—Focused Growth and Major Strategy #5—Urban Villages.

On the Focused Growth strategy, San José is largely built-out in a low-density land use pattern within its city limits, and the General Plan does not support the conversion of industrial areas to residential use or the development of Urban Reserves or lands outside the City’s Urban Growth Boundary. However, there are many opportunities in which new housing and mixed-use developments can be achieved through higher-density redevelopment within existing urbanized areas.

On the Urban Villages strategy, the General Plan establishes the “villages” concept to create a policy framework to direct most new jobs and housing growth to occur within walkable and bike friendly areas that have good access to transit and other existing infrastructure and facilities. Development of 70 Urban Villages at environmentally and fiscally beneficial locations throughout the City is a key Plan strategy that integrates housing, land use, and transportation. The Housing Element implementation program proposed strategies to facilitate residential development within Urban Villages across all income levels.

2. Building Design Standards/Practices
There are many opportunities for conserving energy in new and existing homes. While construction of energy efficient buildings does not necessarily lower the purchase price of housing, energy conservation features should result in reduced monthly costs of occupancy as consumption of water and energy is decreased. Similarly, retrofitting existing structures with energy-conserving features can result in a reduction in utility and operating costs.

San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter III‐41 The State's 2013 Building Energy Efficiency Standards improve upon the current 2008 Standards for new construction of, and additions and alterations to, residential buildings, and went into effect on January 1, 2014. According to the California Energy Commission (CEC), these standards will use 25% less energy for lighting, heating, cooling, ventilation, and water heating than the 2008 Standards, saving 200 million gallons of water per year and avoid 170,500 tons of greenhouse gas emissions per year. On average, these Standards add an additional $2,290 to the cost of constructing a new residential building, but will return $6,200 in energy savings over 30 years. In other words, when factored into a 30-year mortgage, the Standards will add approximately $11 per month for the average home, but will save $27 on monthly heating, cooling, and lighting bills.

As it relates to new homes, on October 7, 2008, the San José City Council adopted the Private Sector Green Building Policy, which requires new construction projects of 10 or more units to either score at least 50 points using the Build It Green rating system or obtain certification using the U.S. Green Building Council LEED rating system. Certification with one of these green building rating systems will yield energy and water savings, as well as numerous other environmental and health benefits.

As to retrofitting, the General Plan encourages flexibility in consideration of heights above those established for buildings, to allow rooftop structures such as solar panels, other energy-saving or generating devices, and roof landscaping (see General Plan Policy CD-4.12). Similarly, in compliance with Senate Bill 1222 (SB 1222), San José has adopted an ordinance, permit fees, and processes to streamline the submittal and approval of permits for solar energy systems per State guidelines. To date, the City has itself implemented municipal energy efficiency retrofits that will save an estimated $1 million each year, and a revolving City Energy Fund enables investment of savings in a future energy efficiency projects.

3. Promoting Energy Conservation
There are numerous financial and technical resources available to help households reduce their energy usage, and the City is committed to promoting these resources and also providing residents with the information needed to determine program eligibility and facilitate enrollment. San José has established partnerships with PG&E, the State of California, and other organizations on various energy conservation programs, regularly conducts energy efficiency training workshops for residential utility customers, and is promoting an energy efficiency tool lending library.

The Energy Upgrade California program is an unprecedented collaboration between State agencies, utilities, local governments, and contractors that provide a “one stop shop” for home improvement projects that lower energy use, conserve water and natural resources, and make homes healthier and more comfortable. Also, during 2012, the Santa Clara County/Silicon Valley Energy Watch program run by the City of San José served over 1,500 homes and small businesses countywide, saving nearly $3 million in utility bills. To date, the program has helped almost 3,000 homes and businesses. As well, the Community Energy Champion Grants program provided technical assistance and $335,000 in grants to 18 recipients. The grant recipients reached out to 19,000 people in targeted communities to increase energy efficiency awareness.

Finally, aside from these three Green Vision goals and energy conservation strategies, the City has adopted ordinances that require or promote energy efficiency in various other ways, including the following:

San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter III‐42 a. Construction and Demolition Diversion Deposit (CDDD) Program (SJMC, Chapter 9.10, Part 15):
reduces the amount of waste that goes to the landfill and the need for new/raw building materials. Green building practices referenced above can also reduce resource consumption, through material reuse, efficient framing, off-site fabrication, and panelized or pre-fabricated construction.
b. Water-Efficient Landscape Standards (SJMC, Chapter 15.11): increases outdoor water efficiency and conservation. Other water efficiency and conservation measures include the use of recycled water, rainwater harvesting, and indoor conservation measures, such as installing high efficiency toilets, faucets, showerheads, dishwashers, and clothes washers. c. Storm Water Management (SJMC, Chapter 20.95): requires storm water runoff treatment and management. Techniques include the use of permeable paving, erosion control measures for steep slopes, vegetative/landscape-based treatment measures, such as bio swales and green roofs, for the treatment of storm water and urban runoff.

L. Conclusions
With approximately 50% of owners (those with a mortgage) and an even higher percentage (53.4%) of renters experiencing housing burden in 2010, this analysis concludes that the existing housing need in San José is substantial. In fact, these results suggest that needs are not confined to lower-income residents, but extend to middle class households as well to such a degree that traditional metrics of affordability appear inadequate in high-cost areas. Similarly, concerns about the adequacy of the “official” poverty measure, developed in the early 1960’s, have increased during the past decade. Among many shortcomings, poverty thresholds do not adjust for geographic differences in housing costs across the nation, such that estimates of poverty in San José are too low.

In response, in 2011, the U.S. Census Bureau, with support from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), released the first annual report describing research on a Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM). The SPM extends the information provided by the official poverty measure by including many of the government programs designed to assist low-income persons that are not included in the current official poverty measure. For example, the latest SPM report, released on November 6, 2013, indicated that without Social Security, nearly 55% of the elderly would be in poverty nationwide, as opposed to less than 15% by official measures. In California, the SPM calculates poverty at 23.8% of the population— 8,952,000 people—by far the highest percentage of any state.

According to the California Association of Realtors, the percentage of first-time buyers who could afford a starter-priced Bay Area home fell dramatically in the 2012-2013 time period, from 66% in the first quarter of 2012 to just 45% in the second quarter of 2013. Likewise, the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) currently ranks the San José Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) near the bottom of its national housing affordability scale, with only 26% of homes affordable to median income families in the fourth quarter of 2013, down from well over 50% just a few short years ago. As well, a recent study by real estate brokerage Redfin concluded that San José was the most expensive U.S. city to have a baby, with housing contributing nearly half of the average total cost of $41,600 for a newborn’s first year (compared to a national average of $26,000). The study examined the cost of upgrading from a twobedroom home to a three-bedroom home, and in San José an additional bedroom was estimated at about $225,000, or $20,000 per year in additional mortgage payments.

San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter III‐43 This chapter has provided a basic framework for understanding the nature and extent of the City’s housing needs. The Plan Bay Area regional growth projections and the Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) each offer some quantification of the projected need for housing in San José. The City is committed to using the General Plan and various other policy tools to satisfy growth expectations in a manner that best achieves its fiscal sustainability goals while also serving all segments of the population.

San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter IV‐1
Chapter IV:

Constraints and
Resources
State law requires jurisdictions to analyze “potential and actual constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels,” and demonstrate efforts to remove these constraints (Government Code section 65583(a) (5)). These constraints fall into two main categories: governmental and non-governmental.

Governmental constraints consist of issues that are within local control or caused by public policies, programs, or actions, including General Plan policies, zoning regulations, design guidelines, building code requirements, application review procedures/processing time, fees, taxes, and other exactions.

Non-governmental constraints to residential development are primarily influenced by economic/market factors, such as the price of land, the cost of construction, the availability of financing, and other impacts caused by market forces.

In addition, State law requires “a general description of any environmental constraints to the development of housing” (Government Code section 65583.2(b)(4)). As such, various environmental hazards, such as noise, seismic, geologic/soil, flooding, and airport-related issues, which can limit or in some cases entirely preclude residential development due to human health and safety concerns, are also discussed. Finally, potential policy, programmatic, or legislative constraints to housing at the State and federal levels are also assessed in this chapter.

Consistent with State law, the identified constraints are accompanied by a discussion of resources, policies, or programs that San José has instituted, will institute, or will explore to alleviate the particular constraint. However, jurisdictions have multiple and sometimes competing policy objectives, such that in many cases a constraint cannot be entirely eliminated without creating other negative consequences.

One visible example of this trade-off are the General Plan policies emanating from the City Council’s 2007 adoption of an “Employment Lands Preservation Framework” and several other critical implementation policies that address the fiscal impacts of future land use decisions. In short, the General Plan essentially promotes a “jobs first” principle, and only supports conversion of employment lands to residential use when the jobs capacity is maintained.

Under the North San José Area Development Policy, the City approved the conversion of 285 acres of employment lands for 32,000 units of housing. 71 acres of Industrial Park designated lands have been converted to date. That equals a loss of 3.1 million square feet of office/R&D space formerly occupied by Sony, Wyse, Cadence, and Novellus. That is a loss of job capacity of 9,000 jobs. The City gained 8,000 units of high-density housing, a $2.3 billion private investment, and the ability to offer workforce housing close in the City’s premier employment center.

San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter IV‐2
In the Edenvale Hitachi/Cottle Road Urban Village the City converted more than 200 acres of Industrial Park lands formerly owned by IBM. Approximately 1,900 units of housing are under construction next to light rail, Caltrain, and existing job centers and residential neighborhoods.

GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
A. General Plan Policies
State law requires that a local agency prepares and adopts a comprehensive and long-range general plan for its physical development (Government Code section 65300). A general plan must address seven topics, including housing. The General Plan is an integrated general plan, with most elements addressed throughout the document. As such, the housing element Appendix B: Housing Goals, Policies, and Actions summarize the related policies in the General Plan.

Overly restrictive land use policies in a general plan can limit the feasibility and add to the cost of housing development. Consistent with regional Plan Bay Area growth projections and the Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) process, the General Plan provides both the near-term and long-term capacity to construct new homes for all income levels in order to meet the identified needs. However, the ongoing challenge is to sufficiently mitigate or eliminate constraints that can create barriers to realization of the identified General Plan land capacity. As such, this chapter provides much of the analytic basis for implementation programs identified in Chapter VII in order to facilitate the development of housing across incomes and needs.

Major Strategies
San Jose’s growth is guided by twelve Major Strategies in the General Plan, each of which plays an important role in ensuring continued evolution of San José into a great city. These twelve Major Strategies are as follows:

1. Community-Based Planning

2. Form-Based Plan

3. Focused Growth

4. Innovation/Regional Employment Center

5. Urban Villages

6. Streetscapes for People

7. Measurable Sustainability/Environmental Stewardship

8. Fiscally Strong City

9. Destination Downtown

10. Life Amidst Abundant Natural Resources

11. Design for a Healthful Community

12. Plan Horizons and Periodic Major Review
The Focused Growth, Urban Villages, Destination Downtown, and Plan Horizons/Periodic Major Review strategies are especially relevant to housing, and as such are each briefly summarized below.

San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter IV‐3
Focused Growth (Strategy #3)
Consistent with the objectives of Housing Element Law, AB 32, and SB 375, the General Plan focuses new growth capacity in identified growth areas. This approach reflects the City’s goal to urbanize, to support infill development in San José’s current low-density suburban form, and to reduce environmental impacts while fostering transit use and walkability. Infill developments and mixed-use redevelopment of aging and underutilized commercial centers within such neighborhoods are opportunities to help the City achieve its goal of more walkable, mixed-use, compact communities, and can be accomplished while still being sensitive to the existing neighborhood character. The Focused Growth strategy directs and promotes growth within these growth areas in order to preserve and enhance the quality of established neighborhoods, to reduce environmental and fiscal impacts, and to strengthen the City’s Urban Growth Boundary. Additionally, urban communities are increasingly attractive to the City’s projected growing demographic groups (i.e., an aging population and young workers seeking an urban experience) because they support walking, conveniently incorporate retail and other services in a compact mixed-use format, and support easy access to transit.

Urban Villages (Strategy #5)
The General Plan promotes the development of Urban Villages as a key strategy to implement the City’s Focused Growth priority in order to provide active, walkable, bicycle-friendly, transit-oriented, mixeduse urban settings for new housing and job growth attractive to an innovative workforce and consistent with the Plan’s environmental goals. The Urban Village framework directs most new job and housing growth to occur within walkable and bike friendly Urban Villages that have access to transit and other existing infrastructure and facilities. Each of the 70 Urban Villages identified within the Plan are unique, and are located at environmentally and fiscally beneficial locations throughout the city. Focusing new job and housing growth will enable families and households to more easily access amenities, jobs, and public services by walking, biking, or public transit, while lowering the City’s per capita costs of service delivery and infrastructure.

The Urban Village Strategy fosters:
 Mixing residential and employment activities
 Establishing minimum densities to support transit use, bicycling and walking  High-quality urban design
 Revitalizing underutilized properties with access to existing infrastructure  Engaging local neighborhoods through an Urban Village Planning process The importance of the Urban Village strategy cannot be overemphasized. This strategy is a key tool for San José to establish a vibrant, urban built environment that is desirable to residents, employers, and employees alike. The emphasis on placemaking and creating centers of energy is the draw for economic development. This requires attention to detail and an understanding of the component parts, such as land uses, and urban design that lead to attractive physical environments. The Urban Village strategy is a key investment in city-building, which will be critically important for a suburban San José to maximize its long-term economic potential.

Destination Downtown (Strategy #9)
San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter IV‐4
The General Plan supports continued growth in the Downtown as the City’s cultural center and as a unique and important employment and residential location. Focusing growth within the Downtown will support the Plan’s economic, fiscal, environmental, and urban design/placemaking goals. The Downtown also has valuable historic resources, buildings with distinctive architecture, and unique neighborhoods where residents have convenient access to urban activities and amenities. Between 2000 and 2010, the Downtown residential community grew by 8,000 people with the addition of new condominiums, lofts, and live-work units. This growth trend is continuing, as two high-rise residential towers have recently commenced construction, bringing a combined total of 659 new housing units into the Downtown. At the same time, to date there has been little residential development that is affordable to lower income households. Despite the efforts of the City. In fact, San Jose has been a leader in affordable housing and generated over 21,600 units (including 6,000 rehab units) with 20% redevelopment set aside funds. Nearly 1,900 affordable units were built downtown during the past three decades.

Plan Horizons and Periodic Major Review (Strategy #12)
The General Plan implementation plan includes a major review every four years to evaluate the City’s progress in achieving key General Plan goals, including the implementation of the Urban Village strategy. The major reviews allow the City Council to evaluate the timing of additional housing and population growth relative to the City’s overall economic and fiscal health. The Plan provides a tool for phasing the development of new Urban Village areas and gives highest priority to the location of new housing growth in the Downtown, connecting transit corridors, BART station areas, and North San José.

It also includes flexibility to allow the implementation of Urban Villages to be responsive to market conditions, while meeting overall Plan objectives. The first Plan Horizon, which is in the current Phase of the Plan, includes enough residential capacity to meet the City’s RHNA housing numbers. The major review cycle also provides an opportunity for a community stakeholder task force and the City Council to evaluate potential changes to current General Plan goals and policies. Finally, the review process includes an annual process for City Council to consider proposed amendments to the General Plan.

City-initiated General Plan amendments or amendments required to allow the City to meet State and federal requirements may occur on a more flexible timeline.

Residential Land Use Designations
The General Plan’s Land Use/Transportation Diagram contains a variety of residential land use designations as shown in the table below. Each designation has an allowable density, floor area ratio (FAR), and building height.

San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter IV‐5
Table IV-1, General Plan Residential Land Use Designations (move title above the table) Note that most General Plan land use designations allow a residential density of 30 units or more per acre. This aligns with State law (AB 2348) adopted in 2004 that established “default” density standards appropriate to accommodate housing for lower income households, and which requires that cities considered a “metropolitan jurisdiction” “shall include sites allowing at least 30 units per acre” (Government Code section 65583.2(c)(2)(B)(iv)).

Note that while San José has the capacity to meet its Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) through existing General Plan densities, this capacity may impair the efficacy of some land use planning tools.

For example, because there is ample density already contained in the General Plan, a density bonus represents a smaller incremental incentive to housing development.

As previously indicated in Chapter III, the General Plan was developed to be a “jobs first” general plan that uses a jobs-to-employed residents (J/ER) framework to guide the vision and policies, which includes a J/ER ratio of 1.3:1 as a core objective. If achieved, San José would have 1.3 jobs for every employed resident, and would be transformed from a housing-rich to a jobs-rich city. It is once again important to note that if the County as a whole remains housing-poor and the City does not continue to serve as the bedroom community for the County, then housing costs in both the County and in San José could arguably be expected to increase, thereby possibly exacerbating existing affordability issues if jobs created are not well paying.

Resources to Alleviate Constraints
As it relates to an evaluation of housing constraints, the General Plan contains two key policies to ensure sufficient flexibility and ongoing compliance with State law, as follows:

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:

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.

San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter IV‐6

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 remaining 7 ½ year portion of the current 8 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-2.11 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.

The first General Plan Major Review is not scheduled to occur until 2015 (i.e., four years from Plan adoption in 2011), and thus the housing supply provision of Policy IP-2.5 will be considered at that time.

Meanwhile, Policy IP-2.11 enables satisfaction of the City’s Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) for the 2014-2023 time period (see Table V-1 in Chapter V).

At the same time, the City’s first General Plan Annual Review, held on October 22, 2013, included additional City Council policy guidance to balance the achievement of various Plan goals. In essence, the Council reaffirmed the objectives of Employment Lands preservation, giving direction for preparation of a General Plan text amendment specifying the following:

1. An Urban Village is not a mechanism to convert employment lands to non-employment uses.

2. Other City policy goals (e.g., raising revenues), which could occur through the conversion of employment lands to non-employment uses shall not take precedence over the General Plan’s “jobs first” principle.

3. The “jobs first” principle applies to Urban Villages, and conversions of non-residential to residential land uses are not allowed to proceed ahead of the job creation that is necessary to balance the residential components of a Village Plan.

The jobs focus of the General Plan is also intended to create enough jobs in the City so that households who have residents who are unemployed or under-employed may find work and afford housing in the City. As discussed in more detail in Chapter III, the “jobs first” principle is considered a fiscal imperative, and the General Plan seeks a delicate balance of various interests by providing the long-term ability to construct up to 120,000 new housing units.

The City has recent real world, market driven, and privately financed development projects that show that housing and employment related development can successfully occur concurrently. Three examples are as follows:

San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter IV‐7
The Alameda Chandler-Pratt Project: The project proposes 22,600 square feet of retail (ground floor) and office (2nd floor) along with 140 residential units, including affordable housing units.

The Chiem Property on West San Carlos: The proposal is to develop 22,000sf of office/retail square footage and 315 units of housing.

The Edenvale Transit Village – (Hitachi Campus) Cottle Road: Jobs and housing are being built at the same time.

B. Zoning Regulations
Title 20 of the San José Municipal Code, hereafter referred to as the Zoning Ordinance or Zoning Code, promotes and protects the public peace, health, safety, and general welfare by:
 Guiding, controlling, and regulating future growth and development in the City in a sound and orderly manner, and promoting the achievement of the goals and purposes of the General Plan  Protecting the character and economic and social stability of agricultural, residential, commercial, industrial, and other areas in the City
 Providing light, air, and privacy to property
 Preserving and providing open space and preventing overcrowding of the land  Appropriately regulating the concentration of population  Providing access to property and preventing undue interference with and hazards to traffic on public rights-of-way
 Preventing unwarranted deterioration of the environment and promoting a balanced ecology The Zoning Code defines a family as being “one or more persons occupying a premise and living as a single housekeeping unit” (Section 20.200.370). This definition is sufficiently broad, and therefore does not constrain development of unique housing types, such as those for special needs populations and unrelated individuals. Further, San José is in compliance with federal and state fair housing laws in providing “reasonable accommodation” to persons with disabilities. Specifically, Chapter 20.160 (Requests for Reasonable Accommodation) describes the application process for making a request for reasonable accommodation, whose intent is to accommodate the housing needs of persons with disabilities to the greatest extent feasible and to evaluate individual requests on a case-by-case basis.

The City’s Reasonable Accommodation process provides flexibility in the application of the City’s Zoning Code regulations for housing. Unlike the City’s use permit processes and variance process, the City’s Reasonable Accommodation criteria are set up specifically to provide a factspecific inquiry as to whether an accommodation is necessary for relief from Zoning regulations in order to afford individuals with disabilities equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. In making a determination regarding the reasonableness of a requested accommodation, the following factors shall be considered by the City:

1. Special need created by the disability;

2. Potential benefit that can be accomplished by the requested modification;

3. Potential impact on surrounding uses;
San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter IV‐8

4. Physical attributes of the property and structures;

5. Alternative accommodations which may provide an equivalent level of benefit;

6. In the case of a determination involving a One-family Dwelling, whether the household would be considered a Single Housekeeping Unit if it were not using special services that are required because of the disabilities of the residents;

7. Whether the requested accommodation would impose an undue financial or administrative burden on the City; and

8. Whether the requested accommodation would require a fundamental alteration in the nature of a program.

Consideration of the potential impact on surrounding uses in determining the reasonableness of a requested accommodation helps the City identify and disclose how a requested accommodation could potentially undermine the basic purpose of maintaining the character of a neighborhood or impact the health and safety of surrounding occupants who may have special needs and whose special needs could potentially be impacted if the City grants a requested accommodation. For example, a requested accommodation could be for installation of equipment within a minimum required setback , where the equipment could emit fumes or odors that could unduly impact a neighboring occupant with a respiratory disability. In such a situation, the City could look for mitigation measures to be included in the requested accommodation to address such a potential impact to a surrounding use. This review helps to maintain compliance with fair housing laws. The Housing Element includes a Work Plan item to review and revise as appropriate the wording of this finding in the Zoning Code to clarify the intent of the finding as described above.

Chapter 20.30 addresses residential land use and development regulations. These regulations include parameters for the size of lots/buildings and the location/use of structures in accordance with the City’s “conventional” (i.e., non-Planned Development) zoning districts. Importantly, as of 2012, the City’s R-M Multi-Family Residential District has no density limit and provides for building height exceptions, and can thus accommodate development of higher density, lower income housing (i.e., at least 30 units per acre, per Government Code section 65583.2(c)(2)(B)(iv)), without the need for a PD zoning/permit.

Zoning
District
Height
(ft.) Front Side Rear
Min. Lot
Area (sq.ft.)
Lot Area per
Unit (sq.ft.)
Net Density
(Units per Acre)
R-1-RR 35 50 20 30 5 acres N/A Up to 0.2
R-1-1 35 30 20 25 1 acre N/A Up to 1.0
R-1-2 35 30 15 25 20,000 N/A Up to 2.0
R-1-5 35 25 5 20 8,000 N/A Up to 5.0
R-1-8 35 25 5 20 5,445 N/A Up to 8.0
R-2 35 20 5 25 5,445 N/A Up to 14.5
R-M 45* 15 5 25 6,000 N/A No Limit
R-MH 45 15 5 25 6,000 N/A N/A
Source: City of San Jose
*Note: except as provided in Chapter 20.85 (Specific Height Restrictions).

CONVENTIONAL RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS
Min. Setback/Yard (ft.)
San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter IV‐9
Table IV-2, Conventional Residential Zoning Districts
In some cases, residential development may also be allowed in commercial and industrial zoning districts. In the Downtown Commercial (DC) zoning districts, multi-family residential is allowed by right as a stand-alone use or when mixed with commercial uses. The DC zoning districts are the least restrictive for residential development in the City, as no minimum setbacks are required and maximum allowable building height is limited only by Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations (Note: see the discussion of airport issues in the Environmental Hazards section of this chapter).

The following table shows the non-residential zoning districts where specified residential uses can occur. Aside from the DC zones, commercial zoning districts generally allow various residential uses through obtainment of a use permit. However, residential uses are incompatible with industrial uses, and therefore are not permitted in industrial zones. One exception to this is with regard to Emergency Residential Shelters, which are permitted by right in the Combined Industrial/Commercial (CIC) zoning district and are conditionally allowed in other industrial districts.

Table IV-3, Residential Uses in Non-Residential Zoning Districts One example of a residential use allowed in commercial zoning districts with a use permit are Single Room Occupancy (SRO) Facilities. SROs offer a housing option to low income segments of the population, filling a gap between traditional apartments and homeless shelters, as well as an alternative to those who prefer the flexibility and dormitory lifestyle that can be found in SROs. Since 1987, San José has strengthened the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and other City policies to facilitate the development of SROs. The Zoning Code defines two types of SROs: an SRO Hotel and an SRO Living Unit.

An SRO Hotel is conditionally allowed in all commercial zoning districts, while an SRO Living Unit is conditionally allowed in commercial zoning districts and the R-M Multi-Family Residential District.

The table below provides a summary comparison of planning permit processes, including individual process components and the decision maker involved. Process types include use of the previously referenced conventional zoning districts or the Planned Development zone, as well as various San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter IV‐10
Development Permit types as described in Chapter 20.100 of the Zoning Code. These development permits include the following:
 Site Development Permit
 Conditional Use Permit
 Special Use Permit
 Planned Development Permit
In addition, since 2000, the City of San José has had a separate Single-Family House Permit (not shown) that applies only in limited circumstances. These circumstances include new construction that exceeds 30 feet or 2 stories in height, a floor area ratio (FAR) in excess of 0.45, or if a house or site is designated as historic. Finally, a Permit Adjustment is an administrative level permit that allows the Planning Director sole discretion to approve minor modifications to an approved permit. More details on application review/processing time are provided later in this chapter.

Table IV-4, Planning Permit Process Comparison
Parking Requirements
The Zoning Code also contains provisions relating to off-street parking and loading (Chapter 20.90).

These requirements are intended to promote adequate parking to meet the needs generated by a San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter IV‐11
specific use or uses, promote effective circulation, reduce congestion, increase safety and aesthetics within off-street parking areas, and encourage the use of alternative modes of transportation and other trip reduction methods.

For one-family dwellings, two covered parking spaces are generally required. For two-family and multifamily units, required parking may be uncovered, and the number of required parking spaces is derived from the living unit size (i.e., number of bedrooms) and the type of parking facility, as indicated in the table below. However, parking requirements are less in the Downtown zoning districts and for sites that meet certain other location criteria (e.g., within 2,000 feet of a Light Rail Transit station or within a Neighborhood Business District).

Table IV-5, Two-Family and Multi-Family Parking Requirements A reduction from parking requirements may be appropriate provided that the modification is granted pursuant to applicable Zoning Code provisions. Qualifying projects must incorporate Travel Demand Management (TDM) program elements, such as transit pass subsidies, parking cash-out, ride sharing, carpools/vanpools, shared parking, or other reasonable measures. Parking reductions are especially applicable to senior housing, Single Room Occupancy (SRO) facilities, Emergency Residential Shelters, residential care/service facilities, and convalescent hospitals, for example. Finally, the Planned Development zone provides opportunity to determine parking requirements appropriate for an individual development proposal.

The additional summary parking tables on the following page are provided given the complex nature of requirements for various other specific residential use types (i.e., besides one-family, two-family, and multi-family dwellings). The tables effectively merge much of the contents of separate tables contained in Chapter 20.90 (Parking and Loading) and Chapter 20.70 (Downtown Zoning Regulations) of the Zoning Code.

Through a grant from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), data is currently being gathered from one hundred residential sites around the Bay Area, including San José, to better estimate parking use in transit-rich neighborhoods. Data collection is being administered by TransForm, an advocacy non-profit organization, and will be shared via an online searchable database with customizable reports. The data are broadly expected to result in more efficient use of parking, avoid the time and cost associated with the preparation of parking studies, and help cities update their zoning San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter IV‐12
codes to better reflect local parking demand and use. City staff will conduct an analysis of these data once they become available.

Table IV-6, Summary of Parking Requirements in Conventional Zoning Districts

San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter IV‐14
Table IV-8, Secondary Unit Development Standards in Conventional Zoning Districts Resources to Alleviate Constraints
The City considers various amendments to the Zoning Code on a regular, ongoing basis. These changes frequently relate to reducing constraints on housing development, and more recent amendments have been designed to align the Zoning Ordinance with policy direction established by the General Plan. For example, in early 2012, Ordinance No. 29012 inserted a new Zoning Code chapter (Chapter 20.85) that regulates building heights. This revision was necessary to align Title 20 with the General Plan, as former General Plan text on maximum building heights for specific properties/uses was intentionally removed.

This revision also incorporated exceptions to height restrictions for specific geographic areas or specific uses identified within the General Plan.

The following additional housing-related ordinances (listed in chronological order) have been approved since adoption and certification of the prior Housing Element (2007-2014) in 2009:
 Ordinance No. 28448 (effective 1/2/09): reduced costs for expansions to two-family dwellings, by simplifying the process for permitting small additions to this building type.  Ordinance No. 28576 (effective 7/3/09): authorized the Planning Director to extend, for a limited time period, the term of previously-approved Development Permits as an incentive for implementation of projects impacted by the economic downturn.

San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter IV‐15
 Ordinance No. 28680 (effective 1/5/10): defined Transitional Housing and Supportive Housing, and clarified the regulations applicable to these housing types, per Senate Bill 2 (SB 2).  Ordinance No. 29011 (effective 2/10/12): allowed more medium to high density housing projects to obtain a Site Development Permit instead of a Planned Development zoning/permit by increasing densities within the conventional R-M Multi-Family Residential District.  Ordinance No. 29054 (effective 6/1/12): authorized the Planning Director to extend, for a limited time period, the term of previously-approved Development Permits for small residential projects through issuance of a Permit Adjustment.
 Ordinance No. 29217 (effective 4/5/13): reduced parking requirements for residential development near transit and provided Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures.

As relates to secondary units, per the General Plan, San José continues to explore options to improve the effectiveness of this code provision (see Policy H-2.5 and Action H-2.9 in Appendix B). As of April 7, 2014, the ordinance has resulted in the construction of only 150 secondary units, and thus has not yet had a meaningful impact on the supply of affordable housing. In response, the City is currently exploring options for relaxing certain development standards (e.g., minimum lot size and minimum setbacks) in the hopes of encouraging greater use, preserving the character of existing neighborhoods, and supporting infill development which minimizes City service costs. While there are several possible areas of exploration, the primary constraint currently is the parking requirement of one additional space located outside the front and side setback areas.

C. Design Guidelines
The City of San José has adopted design guidelines to assist those persons involved in the design, construction, review and approval of residential development. By defining criteria for new residential development occurring within the City, the design guidelines benefit the development community and reduce soft costs of producing housing. Developers can incorporate standards from the guidelines into a project during the early stages of design rather than having to revise plans significantly later during the review process.

The Residential Design Guidelines and the Single Family House Design Guidelines provide a common understanding of the minimum design standards to be applied to various land uses, development types, and locations to facilitate efficient design. Additionally, the City has Design Guidelines for some key areas in the City including Downtown and North San José. The intent of the guidelines is to define the City’s expectations for the design of new residential development. Design quality focuses on the functional aspects of a development (e.g., buildings, parking, setbacks, etc.) rather than requirements for expensive materials. The guidelines are primarily concerned with the relationship of new residential development to its surroundings. The guidelines also address specific issues within a project itself, such as internal circulation and common open space, to establish standards of livability for the residential development. In 2007, the Residential Design Guidelines were updated to reflect new trends in housing type and design, including transit-oriented development and high-rise residential construction.

Resources to Alleviate Constraints
The development standards used in the design guidelines are intended to allow residential projects to achieve the maximum densities permitted in the various General Plan residential land use designations.

The setback and landscaping requirements are not excessive and do not require inordinate development San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter IV‐16
expenditures, and they can in fact contribute to a quality living environment. Affordable and market rate housing are subject to the guidelines, resulting in high quality affordable housing acceptable to neighborhoods throughout the City. Thus, the design guidelines do not unduly constrain housing development in San José.

D. Building Code Requirements
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 these standards, which apply to any building or structure for which application for a building permit is made on or after January 1, 2014. The State allows local governments to modify the standards to make them more restrictive (not less), provided certain express findings are made that the proposed modifications are necessary due to special local geologic, topographic, or climatic conditions that can affect the health, welfare, and safety of local residents. Any local amendments must be made prior to the effective date of the State codes.

On November 5, 2013, the City Council approved an ordinance amending Title 24 of the San José Municipal Code and adopting the 2013 editions of the California Building, Residential, Electrical, Mechanical, and Plumbing Codes, the Historical Building Codes, and the California Green Building Standards (“CALGreen”) Code. This ordinance included a staff proposal to adopt local amendments for certain structural design requirements, fire sprinkler regulations, and other building requirements based on the following findings:

1. The San Francisco Bay Area region is densely populated and located in an area of high seismic activity. San José is bounded by the Hayward and San Andreas faults capable of producing major earthquakes.

2. Concern for fire/life safety associated with a structural failure due to a seismic event, considering the increasing number of buildings in the region, the use of new structural systems, the poor performance of certain materials, and the quality of construction.

3. Severe seismic events could disrupt communications, damage gas mains, cause extensive electrical hazards, and place extreme demands on limited and widely dispersed fire prevention resources to meet the fire and life safety needs of the community.

4. The local geologic, topographic, or climatic conditions pose an increase hazard in acceleration, spread, magnitude, and severity of potential fires in San José, and may cause a delayed response from emergency responders, allowing further growth of the fire.

Resources to Alleviate Constraints
The City of San José is in the forefront of identifying the need for code amendments, assumes a leadership role at the regional and State levels to reduce individual differences between cities and counties, and informs and educates the public about new requirements. To establish uniformity in adopting code amendments, the City is an active participant in the Tri-Chapter Uniform Code Program, whose membership stretches from Contra Costa County in the north to San Benito County in the south.

City staff conducted free training sessions in late-2013 to introduce various stakeholders to the significant changes between the 2010 and 2013 California Building Codes as well as the local amendments.

San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter IV‐17
The 2013 Building Codes and amendments do not unduly constrain residential development or the City’s ability to accommodate special housing needs groups in San José, including persons with disabilities. In fact, the codes and amendments contain design elements that address limited lifting or flexibility (e.g., roll-in showers, grab bars, etc.), limited mobility (e.g., push/pull lever faucets, wide swing hinges, etc.), and limited vision (e.g., additional stairwell and task lighting, etc.) that are consistent with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards, as implemented under Title 24.

E. Application Review Procedures/Processing Time
Application review procedures and processing time can increase the carrying costs of property under consideration for residential development. Application review/processing time is dependent on a number of factors, including adherence to municipal and State government regulations, community outreach and noticing requirements associated with public hearings and meetings, and an applicant’s own ability to coordinate effectively with various project stakeholders. Recognizing the need to simplify application review procedures and minimize processing time to the greatest extent possible, the City of San José is committed to considering and implementing continuous process improvements in the delivery of development services. Some of the most noteworthy process improvements in recent years are briefly described below.

Integrated Services
Since the organization’s move to a new City Hall facility in 2005, San José has offered a fully functional Development Services Center, an integrated, “one-stop” first-floor location where the public can conduct business related to development applications handled by various City departments. Key partners in operation of the Development Services Center include the Planning Division, Building Division, Public Works Department, Fire Department, and Office of Economic Development. This service brings key staff together for coordination and customer convenience.

Preliminary Review
Preliminary Review is a voluntary, fee-based service that is tailored to an applicant’s needs and familiarity with City codes, policies, and development review processes. It is intended to be a timesaving process for prospective applicants to meet San José standards before they submit a formal Planning application. There are several different options for the level of review and associated fees, including a Focused Review, Enhanced Review, and Comprehensive Review. .

Project Facilitation
Staff located in the Development Services Center and elsewhere within City Hall has been strategically assigned to a “project facilitator” role to help navigate more complex project coordination issues and ultimately achieve better customer service. Project assignments are generally limited to those with the highest potential to accomplish General Plan goals, and the role reserved for more senior staff members that have gained experience in complicated review processes. Examples of such projects include, for example, high-rise development in Downtown and projects with sensitive environmental issues that require detailed knowledge of CEQA.

Concurrent Processing
San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter IV‐18
Since 2004, the City has enabled concurrent processing of a Development Permit with a request to rezone property, prezone/annex property, or with other permits (e.g., Tentative Map) required by the Zoning Code. This concurrent processing is especially important to residential development, as most such projects are processed pursuant to a Planning Development zoning/permit that might otherwise require considerably more time if processed sequentially.

Universal Application Form
In 2013, the City introduced a “Universal Application Form” for the submission of most Planning applications. This new application form essentially took the place of over a dozen former and separate applications for different types of requests that had substantially similar submittal requirements. The application includes a matrix identifying specific documents to be included in the application package based on permit type, and a matrix that identifies the type of sheets that must comprise the required plan set. The Universal Application Form is expected to be a substantial improvement by clarifying the application submittal process for project applicants.

Deployment of Technology
The City of San José deploys a variety of technology tools to speed access to information and improve development-related customer service. Examples of these tools include an Integrated Development Tracking System (also known as “AMANDA”), and associated public-facing web portal (https://www.sjpermits.org/permits/) where customers can perform property research and apply for simple permits. Further, in 2012, the City’s entire website (http://www.sanJoséca.gov) was migrated to a new technology platform that is better organized, contains a self-subscribe notification (via e-mail or text message) for content updates, and features an online application appointment scheduling system.

As well, the City uses Geographic Information Systems (GIS) to manage spatial data and provide parcelspecific property information via the above tools.

Standard Permit Conditions
In 2013, the City developed extensive master and customized lists of standard permit conditions in a centralized location that are applicable to almost every type of permit application. These conditions should facilitate greater permit consistency and streamline the review and issuance of more complete permits by essentially allowing “cut-and-paste” of standard permit language into draft permits. More specifically, standard permit conditions have been incorporated into AMANDA “document merge” functionality, such that relevant permit conditions can be included in a relatively automated fashion.

Processing Timeline Goals
In its commitment to processing development applications in an expeditious manner, the City of San José has established various timeline goals as summarized in the table below. These goals vary by project type and the extent of environmental review as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In general, and depending upon project complexity, these goals help to ensure that most residential projects are completed in 180 days or less from the time an application is filed. For smaller projects, the timeline can be as short as 30 days or less.

San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter IV‐19
Table IV-9, Residential Project Processing Timeline Goals In addition, to facilitate the streamlining of application review, the City has implemented numerous project “milestone” processing goals, which goals are published and included in application filing materials. These milestone goals are as follows:
 Comments for major projects sent in 30 days (95%)
 Comments for other applications sent in 30 days (70%)  Second-round comments for major projects sent in 14 days (75%)  Draft permit to applicant one week prior to public hearing (95%)  Permit signed within 3 days of public hearing (95%)
 Projects with 2 or fewer reviews to public hearing (90%) Resources to Alleviate Constraints
As mentioned, San José is committed to considering and implementing continuous process improvements. These improvements could range from informal, staff-initiated changes that are assigned or authorized by Department Directors, or more formal changes that require review and adoption of an ordinance by the City Council. This willingness and flexibility to change will enable the City to remain competitive in the delivery of development services, and ensure that any constraints to housing are minimized to the greatest extent possible. For example, the City responded effectively to new challenges brought about by the recent economic downturn, including allowing an extension of the San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter IV‐20
term of previously-approved Development Permits and suspending the collection of a portion of construction taxes for qualified projects (as discussed in the next section).

In a commitment to provide high quality services that meet the needs of its customers, the Development Services Partners conduct an annual Customer Satisfaction Study (http://www.sanJoséca.gov/index.aspx?NID=3499). This study is designed to provide reliable measures of satisfaction among the Partners' customer base, thus providing insight into how services can be improved. In fiscal year 2012-13, the Partners collectively responded to an estimated 100,000 phone inquiries at the Development Center, processed 700 planning applications, issued 26,500 building permits, and conducted 183,000 field inspections. When looking at specific aspects of service, the latest survey found that 13 of 14 statistically significant changes recorded between the 2011 and 2012 studies moved in a positive direction.

F. Fees, Taxes, and other Exactions
The fees, taxes, and other exactions applicable to residential development in San José fall into four main categories: (1) entitlement fees; (2) construction fees; (3) impact/capacity fees, and (4) development taxes. In short, entitlement fees include fees for land use approval and environmental clearance, construction fees include the various permit, plan check, and inspection fees related to the construction process, impact/capacity fees mitigate the costs that new development imposes on community infrastructure or to fund quality of life enhancements, and development taxes are assessed by the City to finance capital projects (esp. roadway improvements) or otherwise required to be collected for subsequent transmittal to the State.

For processing and impact fees, State law specifies procedural and nexus requirements, as follows:
 Planning and permit processing fees cannot exceed the reasonable cost of providing the service, unless approved by the voters; agencies collecting fees must provide project applicants with a statement of amounts and purposes of all fees at the time of fee imposition or project approval (Government Code section 66020).
 The Mitigation Fee Act sets forth procedural requirements for adopting and collecting capital facilities fees and exactions, and requires they be supported by a report establishing the relationship between the amount of any capital facilities fee and the use for which it is collected (Government Code section 66000).

The City of San José remains in compliance with these State requirements. Further, since 2003, the City has participated in a study of development fees across eight cities in the South Bay (including Cupertino, Gilroy, Morgan Hill, Mountain View, Palo Alto, San José, Sunnyvale, and Salinas). Each city calculates entitlement and construction fees, impact/capacity fees, and development taxes based on five sample project types. In summary, the South Bay Area Cost of Development Survey (http://www.sanJoséca.gov/index.aspx?NID=4100) has consistently concluded that San José’s fees/taxes for single- and multi-family development project types are lower than the average of eight study cities.

Entitlement Fees
The City imposes entitlement fees based on a cost-recovery model. These fees cover City staff time necessary to process permits, including completing internal review, conducting community meetings San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter IV‐21
and public hearings, and performing inspections consistent with the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Building Code, and other applicable laws such as the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The table below provides a summary of entitlement fees associated with the processing of a residential project pursuant to the Planned Development zoning/permit process.

Table IV-10, Planning Fees for Residential Projects Requiring a Planned Development Zoning Fee Schedule as of June 2014
Construction Fees
Construction fees cover permit, plan check, and inspection fees for services primarily provided by the City’s Building Division, Public Works Department, and Fire Department. Initial fees are charged based on an historical analysis of time required to perform the services and/or the number of inspections typically required based on project type. When the value of the services provided (based on an hourly rate) exceeds the initial fee, additional service time must be purchased.

Impact/Capacity Fees
Impact/capacity fees are established to provide essential public improvements necessary to support new residential development. For example, the City’s Public Works Department collects a fee to fund anticipated improvements at the San José-Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility based on capacity and projected future expansion needs. Other examples include fees for parks, libraries, and street trees.

The most significant of the impact/capacity fees is the fee in lieu of parkland dedication, as briefly discussed below.

In 1988, the City Council adopted the Parkland Dedication Ordinance (PDO) to help meet the demand for neighborhood and community parks generated by new residential development. In 1992, the City Council adopted the Park Impact Fee (PIO), which applied parkland dedication requirements to new units in nonsubdivided residential projects. Both the PDO and PIO require that new housing projects either dedicate land for public parks, pay an in lieu fee, construct new park facilities, or a combination of these. The San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter IV‐22
PDO is consistent with the requirements and procedures set forth in State law (Government Code section 66477).

On June 4, 2013, the City Council directed staff to study the potential imposition of an Affordable Housing Impact Fee (AHIF), which would place a per square foot assessment on new residential development to help fund the creation of affordable housing. In response, the City has retained a consultant (Keyser Marston) to facilitate the public process and to conduct the required nexus study.

Housing Department staff has sought and received a range of input from the community and stakeholders. Some have expressed concern that a fee might be passed onto households – which would increase the cost of housing – and create an impediment to residential development. Others have noted that market-rate housing is already priced at what the market can bear – so the fee should not be passed onto households and should not increase the cost of housing to households – and could be managed provided the policy should be clear, consistent, and predictable for the development community, and not unduly burden them. On November 18, 2014, the City Council adopted a resolution creating a rental housing impact fee of $17 per square foot.

Under the Affordable Housing Impact Fee (AHIF), all new market-rate multi-family housing developments seeking entitlements will be subject to the fee, unless the project receives all building permits by June 30, 2016. In an effort to minimize negative financial impacts on development projects in the pipeline, the AHIF does include a grandfathering (and other) exemption(s) for developments if certain conditions are met. The fee will increase by 2.4% percent annually to account for inflation and this rate will be reevaluated in 5 years.

Development Taxes
San José imposes a series of residential development taxes that are generally used to finance the construction and improvement of facilities and infrastructure systems. These taxes include the Building and Structure Construction Tax, the Construction Excise Tax, and the Residential Construction Tax.

These taxes are either restricted or have historically been used to finance traffic capital improvements, such as the construction, replacement, widening, and modification (but not maintenance) of City roadways.

The City also collects taxes for regional or statewide programs/funds, which fees are collected at the time of issuance of a building permit and subsequently transmitted to other agencies. These programs/funds include the California Strong Motion Instrumentation Program (CSMIP) that pertains to geologic analysis and the Building Standards Administration Special Revolving Fund related to implementation of green building standards. As well, the newly formed Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency, a Joint Powers Authority composed of the cities of San José, Morgan Hill, and Gilroy along with the County of Santa Clara, initiated the collection of Habitat Conservation Plan fees in October 2013.

Finally, while not collected directly by the City, State law grants authority to school districts to raise revenue from all new development through imposition of a school impact fee. These fees are collected by the school districts, and the City requires proof of payment as part of the building permit issuance process.

Examples of Fees for Housing Projects

San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter IV‐25
Development Taxes
Building & Structure Construction Tax $226,243 $2,357
Construction Excise Tax
Const Tax Dist X $7,920
Construction Excise Tax Res. $355,531

$7,920
$355,531

$83
$3,703
Residential Construction Tax $9,504 $99
Other:

SMIPA - Residential
BSASRF
$1,469
$592
$15
$6
Total Development Taxes $601,259 $6,263
TOTAL FEES PER UNIT $20,358 (CITY-CONTROLLED) +$4,850 (SCHOOL DISTRICT)= $25,208
Assumptions: - Located in San Jose Muni Water Area.
- Project Generates 72 Peak Hour Trips.
- Significant Grading Work (5,000CY), Type 1 Erosion/Sediment - Existing Public Street Frontage, Need $400,000 of Frontage - Improvements (half street reconstruction)
- Construction of New Private Streets
- $600,000 in Private Improvements
- No Public Landscaping
- No Traffic Signal Work
- Streets Public / Private
- Total Square Footage of units is 145,500 s.f.
- BSASRF=Building Standards Administrative Special Revolving Funds - SMIP=strong motion instrumentation programs
On-Site and Off-Site Improvements
New residential development in San José may be responsible for both on-site (private) and off-site (public) improvements that are directly related to the impacts associated with a particular project. Aside from the construction of the buildings themselves, on-site improvements may include such items as public roads, private driveways/walkways, fencing, landscaping, drainage systems, etc. These improvements are either required by the Zoning Code or negotiated through the development review process as conditions of approval. Off-site improvements can include, for example, standard curb, gutter, and sidewalk, landscaping, street lighting, and the installation of underground utilities (including the undergrounding of existing overhead utilities). Depending on the extent of project impacts, such public improvements may be required not only for the subject property but also for areas not located on the development site (e.g., a traffic signal to address nearby vehicle circulation).

The City has many Design Guideline documents that can be viewed or downloaded from the Planning Division’s webpage that illustrate site improvement standards and requirements for the full range of housing types and for mixed-use development in different areas of the City including but not limited to Growth Areas identified in the General Plan. As these guidelines explain, the actual dimensions of site standards and improvements and specific species of trees required for street trees for each proposed development depend on where a development is proposed, what types of streets are planned or located within or adjacent to the development, and what site improvements are required as mitigation measures for environmental clearance under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Although the costs of site improvements can vary greatly based on the location, type, and scale of development, site San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter IV‐26
improvements generally impact the cost of housing for specific development proposals more in areas of the City where existing infrastructure such as streets, sewers, curbs, gutters, utilities, bus stops, and parks are not already in place, or where the existing infrastructure is already at capacity and needs to be expanded or replaced. For example, more and costlier site improvements would generally be required towards the edge of the Urban Growth Boundary/Urban Service area, than on an infill site in Downtown.

Identification of specific improvements for a proposed development is often determined in conjunction with environmental analysis of the project.

Design Guideline documents include:
 Residential Design Guidelines
 Downtown Design Guidelines
 San José Downtown Historic Design Guidelines
 Downtown San José Historic District Design Guidelines  Saint James Square Historic District Design Guidelines  Your Old House: Guide for Preserving San José Homes
 North San José Design Guidelines
 Fencing
 Parking
 Trash Enclosures
 Lighting
These documents can be viewed and downloaded at the following web address:
http://www.sanjoseca.gov/index.aspx?NID=1734
The primary mechanism for funding public improvements is the Residential Construction Tax Contribution Fund. In essence, housing developers pay contributions to this fund and, in turn, reimbursements are made from the fund once eligible improvements are completed. Similarly, Underground Utility Districts are established using fees from developers. Undergrounding projects are prioritized within a five-year plan based on several criteria, the most important of which is the amount of fees collected within the Underground District. Other criteria include whether or not the underground work can be coordinated with other capital improvement projects (e.g., street widening) and equity in the amount of undergrounding proposed in various areas of the City. Finally, a new Contingent Lien District Fund was established as part of the 2013-2014 budget process. This fund is used to facilitate cost sharing agreements through special districts between private parties in regards to the construction of significant public improvements as required by the City for development projects. As funds are collected, projects are constructed as specified by the original district agreements.

Resources to Alleviate Constraints
The City has been active on a number of fronts to alleviate constraints with the payment of constructionrelated fees and taxes. These actions have amounted to targeted incentives designed to further the goals and policies of the General Plan. For example, in 2010, the City Council amended the schedule of parkland fees charged under the PDO and PIO specifically for low income housing units, setting the rate at 50% of the fees normally applicable to each housing type. Previously the entire fee was waived for affordable housing developments but was raised to generate additional parkland fees, while continuing San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter IV‐27
to provide some incentive for the construction of affordable housing in San José. However, options for other former construction-related fee waivers applicable to affordable housing expired several years ago.

In 2013, the City Council expanded and extended the Downtown High Rise Development Incentive Program, temporarily suspending the collection of 50% of the construction taxes for qualified projects.

This program recognizes that a completed high-rise tower adds $150 million or more in assessed value to a site, thereby increasing tax rolls and providing a net-positive financial impact to the City, and constitutes the most environmentally sensitive means of accommodating substantial anticipated population growth, resulting in a net reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and vehicle-miles-traveled (VMT) over any alternative. However, once again, to date the incentive has yielded little residential development that is affordable to lower income households.

In summary, the fees, taxes, and other exactions applicable to residential development in San José are comparable, and on average lower, than other cities within the South Bay region, and thus are not an undue constraint. This is also true for affordable housing, since as mentioned the parkland fees applicable to such projects are set at a reduced rate. As to on-site and off-site improvements, the City has well-established infrastructure standards that are communicated to developers at the earliest stages of the development review process, so that these costs can be appropriately factored into the design of a project.

G. Regional Coordination
The location of jobs and housing, and where people choose to work and live, has regional impacts. The recognition of this fact is a fundamental reason for the existence of Housing Element law, which seeks to provide a mechanism for jurisdictions to provide their regional fair share of housing. As well, the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act (SB 375) yielded a new set of complimentary incentives and consequences to promote compliance with State housing goals. Specifically, SB 375 prescribes those local governments on an eight-year planning cycle (including San José) must adopt a housing element within 120 days of the statutory due date. Failure to meet this timeline triggers a provision, referred to as the “four-year consequence,” mandating update of a housing element every four years (instead of every eight years) until adopting at least two consecutive updates by applicable due dates. In addition, as cited in Chapter I, a new framework for sustainability and regional planning will support RHNA through targeted transportation investments funded under the incentive-based One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) Program.

The RHNA process and this more recent system of “sticks and carrots” are a useful first step to furthering regional coordination on housing issues of statewide concern, but regions and cities for the most part still lack mechanisms to effectively ensure that fair share housing production targets are met.

For one, cities that choose to prioritize growth and meaningfully address housing issues may not be sufficiently incentivized by the availability of grant funds targeted primarily for non-housing purposes. As such, during this RHNA period, City staff will continue to work with agencies and organizations in Santa Clara County and throughout the Bay Area to explore partnerships and strategies to facilitate a more equitable distribution of responsibility on these matters.

San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter IV‐28
H. State and Federal Government
Dissolution of San José Redevelopment Agency
In 1945, the California Community Redevelopment Act was created to give local governments tools to address urban problems such as blight, degraded buildings, and a lack of affordable housing.

Redevelopment is a process enabling revitalization of deteriorated and blighted areas, whereby redevelopment agencies develop a plan and provide the initial funding to encourage and attract private investment that otherwise wouldn’t occur. Then, in 1952, this law was enacted, authorizing the distribution of tax increment to agencies with the goal of relieving taxpayers of the costs of redevelopment by making projects self-supporting.

In 1976, the California Legislature took action requiring that 20% of all tax increment generated through redevelopment be set aside to create, preserve, and improve housing for low- and moderate-income persons. Known as the Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund or “inclusionary housing”, this source of funding became the single most effective tool for development of affordable housing in California. In San José, Low and Moderate Income Housing funds administered by the former San José Redevelopment Agency helped create thousands of new affordable units, provided homeownership opportunities for teachers and other workers key to our community’s success, and assisted lower income households to improve their houses and neighborhood conditions.

In 2011, in response to State budget deficits, Governor Jerry Brown proposed and the State Legislature approved legislation that dissolved redevelopment agencies, and with that action the Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund. According to the League of California Cities, this action “fundamentally changed substantive municipal, housing, and tax laws, in addition to rendering the Community Redevelopment Law inoperative” and “fundamentally shifted decisions concerning the financing and funding of redevelopment obligations from the local level to the State, and comprehensively changed how low and moderate income housing is funded.”
On June 28, 2011, Assembly Bill x1 26 (ABx1 26) was signed by the Governor, and required the creation of Successor Agencies to oversee the dissolution process. For affordable housing, however, the legislation allowed the cities and counties that created the redevelopment agency to choose to retain the housing assets and to continue to enforce the housing covenants and restrictions, and to exercise all other rights, powers, duties and obligations of the former redevelopment agency as it related to the Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund. The City of San José took action in January 2011 to become the Successor Housing Agency and to retain the housing assets of the former San José Redevelopment Agency. Subsequently, Assembly Bill 1484 (AB 1484), signed in June 2012, clarified some portions of the original legislation, including more detailed language on the assets that could be retained. The dissolution date for all redevelopment agencies throughout the State was February 1, 2012.

Without the San José Redevelopment Agency, an estimated $40 million annually is no longer available to fund affordable housing, with statewide monies reduced by approximately $1 billion annually. As of this writing, there has not been a new permanent source of funding identified to fill this gap.

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Reform
San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter IV‐29
In 1970, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was passed, requiring every city, county, and public agency in the State to analyze and disclose environmental impacts of proposed projects and adopt feasible measures to mitigate those impacts. But in recent years, CEQA has too often been invoked for reasons other than environmental concerns by those, including governments, land owners, rival businesses, and labor unions, who see the law as a convenient way to delay or prevent a project or to gain negotiating leverage.

In response, in 2013, nearly 30 CEQA reform bills were introduced, but only one bill, Senate Bill 743 (SB 743), of any real significance was passed. However, SB 743 does not completely overhaul CEQA in the ways that many advocates had hoped, including simplifying the law’s provisions, removing legal duplications, restricting late and frivolous legal challenges, and improving transparency. Yet, as it relates to minimizing constraints to housing production, SB 743 is a meaningful step in the right direction, as discussed below.

While SB 743’s primary objective was to streamline approval of an arena for the Sacramento Kings professional basketball team, the legislation also provides new rules of general applicability that could significantly benefit select housing and mixed use residential/commercial projects. SB 743 provides that if a project is on an “infill site” and within a “transit priority area”, the scope of CEQA’s impact analysis is reduced and the standard for traffic evaluation may also change. For reference, an “infill site” refers to a lot that is essentially surrounded on three sides by urban uses, and a “transit priority area” includes any area within a half-mile of an existing or planned major transit stop.

On reduced impact analysis, SB 743 provides that the lead agency cannot consider either aesthetic or parking impacts as significant under CEQA. Accordingly, for certain projects, impacts which would otherwise require mitigation or even the adoption of a statement of overriding considerations cannot be considered significant environmental impacts. On traffic evaluation standards, SB 743 requires that the State Office of Planning and Research (OPR) establish new thresholds of significance for noise and transportation impacts for certain projects. Whereas CEQA traffic analyses have traditionally focused on whether a project would increase traffic congestion, SB 743 calls for the OPR to develop new guidelines which would deemphasize traffic congestion, and instead focus on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, promoting multi-modal transportation, and ensuring land use diversity within transit priority areas.

As of August 1, 2014, most housing projects that consist of seven (7) or more multi-family attached dwelling units are subject to CEQA analysis, which can add significant costs in terms of time and consultant expenses to affordable housing proposals.5
Inclusionary Housing Challenges
In 2007, the City of San José initiated a process to study the economic feasibility of expanding “inclusionary housing” provisions citywide, which were then applicable only to Redevelopment Project Areas. The inclusionary study process was accompanied by significant public outreach, with nearly 25 stakeholder and educational meetings and more than 30 one-on-one meetings with developers. This outreach was designed to develop an ordinance that met the City’s inclusionary goals while providing

5 http://resources.ca.gov/ceqa/docs/2014 CEQA Statutes and Guidelines.pdf San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter IV‐30
various options to help mitigate potential constraints to residential development. In December 2008, the City Council adopted a policy to create a citywide inclusionary housing ordinance.

However, in July 2009, a California Court of Appeals—in a case known as Palmer/Sixth Street Properties L.P. v. City of Los Angeles (“Palmer”)—ruled that the requirements for rental housing set forth in the City of Los Angeles Inclusionary Housing Program violated the Costa-Hawkins Act, which was approved by the California Legislature in 1995. The Costa-Hawkins Acts provides that landlords otherwise subject to rent control may set rents at market-rate whenever units are leased to a new tenant (known as “vacancy decontrol”). The ruling in Palmer called into question the validity of inclusionary housing requirements on rental housing projects.

On June 22, 2010, in response to Palmer, the City Council/Redevelopment Agency Board amended the inclusionary policy to temporarily suspend the applicability of affordable housing requirements for new rental housing developments until such time as the Palmer decision is reversed or modified by another court or by the State Legislature. On September 11, 2013, the California Supreme Court agreed to review separate, pending litigation regarding the City’s efforts to create a citywide inclusionary housing ordinance, and a decision on this case will likely be rendered in late 2014. Note that inclusionary requirements for for-sale housing were not impacted by the Palmer ruling, and remain in place in Redevelopment Project Areas.

On October 13, 2013, Governor Jerry Brown vetoed legislation (AB 1229) that would have authorized cities to establish inclusionary housing requirements and effectively overturned the Court of Appeals ruling. The Governor indicated that the California Supreme Court is currently weighing whether cities may require inclusionary housing and that he’d “like the benefit of the Supreme Court’s thinking before we make adjustments in this area.”
State Funding Limitations
Funding at the State level, such as Proposition 1C, has been all but depleted. Additionally, the process of obtaining 9% Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) is extremely competitive, with demand far exceeding supply in each funding round. Although the value of tax credits have essentially returned to pre-recession highs, with a $1 tax credit often valued at more than $1, there is simply not enough to go around. For example, given the competition, one or two applications is the realistic maximum number of housing projects per round that could receive funding in Santa Clara County. Besides the former San José Redevelopment Agency tax increment financing mechanism, tax credits are the most valuable tool for funding the construction and preservation of lower income housing.

Federal Funding Limitations
Funds made available for housing and community development by the federal government have experienced significant cutbacks in recent years. For example, funding to the City of San José for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program, the HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) have declined by approximately 30% to 40% since 2007-2008. Additionally, cuts to the Housing Choice Voucher (“Section 8 “) Program have had a deleterious impact on housing authorities across the nation, including the San José Housing Authority and Santa Clara County Housing Authority. Funds committed to these programs provide much-needed resources to support affordable housing. Recent San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter IV‐31
funding limitations represent a key constraint on the City’s ability to address local housing and homelessness issues.

NON-GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
I. Price of Land
The price of land is a significant factor in the financial feasibility of housing development, and this is especially true for affordable housing. In San José, as it is in Santa Clara County and throughout the Bay Area, the cost of land is high, comprising a large percentage of the overall cost of development. Of course, the cost of land is determined by numerous factors, most importantly neighborhood location and proximity to various amenities, including jobs, schools, parks, retail uses, public transit, etc. Thus, it is difficult to generalize about land prices, especially in a place the size and diversity of San José.

However, some insight on land prices can be found from a few common information sources. First, the Santa Clara County Assessor’s Office separately itemizes the value of land and improvements in its annual assessment of property taxes. Review of several sample residential property tax statements indicates that land constitutes approximately two-thirds of the total assessed valuation. So, for example, a typical $750,000 single-family home is comprised of roughly $500,000 in land value and $250,000 in improvements value. Thus, while assessed value is not the same as market value, this ratio gives a good indication of the relative significance of land prices in the total cost of development.

In addition, Zillow, an online real estate database that in conjunction with Yahoo! Real Estate has become the largest real estate advertising network on the web, features a price estimate for properties based on a range of publicly available information, including sales of comparable properties in the neighborhood. A scan of San José properties currently listed on Zillow demonstrates the degree of diversity mentioned above. For example, a 1-acre estate lot in the exclusive Almaden or Evergreen neighborhoods are priced as high as $1 million. On the other hand, a 5,000-square foot lot in the mixed residential/commercial areas around Downtown is priced around $300,000.

It is also interesting to consider how the concentration of Bay Area jobs and housing growth into Priority Development Areas (PDAs), as referenced in Chapter I, may accelerate an increase in land values and gentrification. Once again, the City of San José has several dozen PDAs which have been nominated and formally approved in furtherance of the region’s integrated long-range plan, Plan Bay Area, and these PDAs coincide with growth locations identified in the City’s own General Plan, including Urban Villages.

However, due to their strategic location and planned future investments, these same areas may be where upward pressure on land prices could be the greatest, thereby making the creation of affordable housing even more challenging. As such, the implementation program of this Housing Element seeks to explore mechanisms for equitable development in Urban Villages that can provide a range of housing opportunities in higher cost locations.

Resources to Alleviate Constraints
Since 2011, with the adoption of the Envision San José 2040 General Plan, and subsequently with changes to the Zoning Code, the City has implemented policies and ordinances to facilitate taller, higher density development with fewer required parking spaces. In addition to increasing maximum allowable San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter IV‐32
building heights through new Zoning Code provisions, probably the broadest approach the City has taken to alleviate the impact of land costs is in reduction of parking requirements. As briefly mentioned earlier, Ordinance No. 29217 (effective 4/5/13) reduced parking requirements for residential development near transit and provided Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures. More specifically, the ordinance increased an already existing Zoning Code provision, which had allowed up to a 10% to 15% reduction in parking for projects in Downtown, Transit-Oriented Development Corridors, and other designated Special Strategy and Growth Areas in the General Plan to now as much as a 50% reduction. Also, regardless of location, certain specific residential uses were provided with a 20% parking reduction, including senior housing, SROs, efficiency living units, emergency residential shelters, and residential care/service facilities. As well, other more general changes to parking requirements were implemented to support more urbanized development, including reduced setbacks and allowance of up to 50% of parking spaces in a tandem arrangement (with certain findings). These parking reductions and flexibility reduce site requirements, especially for affordable housing types, and can thus result in land acquisition cost savings.

J. Cost of Construction
The International Code Council (ICC) publishes biannual Building Valuation Data (BVD) that provide “average” construction costs per square foot for various occupancy groups and construction types, including for single- and multi-family residential development. These costs include everything from foundation work to the roof structure, as well as structural and nonstructural building components, electrical, plumbing, mechanical, and interior finishes. The data cited below are a national average and do not take into account any regional cost differences. Due to high local costs, a Regional Cost Modifier that adds an approximately 15% premium to these figures would be appropriate for San José.

The latest BVD data were published in August 2013, and indicate a construction cost range of approximately $105 to $120 per square foot for R-2 Residential (multi-family) and R-3 Residential (oneand two-family) occupancy groups for the most common construction types (Type IIIA or Type VA for multi-family and Type VB for single-family). Translating these figures into more general terms, the City very roughly estimates construction costs at approximately $300,000 for a typical single-family residence and at about $150,000 to $200,000 for a typical multi-family residence.

Construction costs are comprised of both “hard” costs, such as labor and materials, and “soft” costs, such as architectural and engineering services, project management, and insurance. Taken together with the price of land, hard costs and soft costs cumulatively represent the total cost for a construction project. For construction of most homes in San José, hard costs account for the largest share, but these shares differ by occupancy group. For single-family homes, hard costs and land costs each amount to roughly 40% of the total cost (with soft costs comprising the 20% remainder), whereas for multi-family homes, hard costs account for as much as two-thirds of the total.

It is important to note that construction costs have been quite volatile in recent years. During the economic downturn, construction costs declined by approximately 10% as the demand for both labor and materials waned. Since that time, however, costs have rebounded along with the overall economy.

For example, according to the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB), framing lumber prices have risen rather dramatically, doubling from a low of $200 per 1,000 board feet in 2009 to $400 per 1,000 board feet in 2014. Not surprisingly, the NAHB also reports that the share of a new home sales price going to a builder’s profit dropped from 8.9% in 2009 to an all-time low of 6.8% in 2011.

San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter IV‐33
As suggested by the prior needs assessment, without subsidies, new market-rate housing is unlikely to be affordable to low-income households, as well as many middle-income households. To some extent, reductions in amenities and lower-quality building materials can reduce sales and rental prices, but minimum building and safety standards are mandatory. The trend towards increased densities in San José can help improve affordability by reducing per-unit costs, and the City’s willingness to consider reduced parking requirements in certain circumstances can also make housing more affordable.

Resources to Alleviate Constraints
The actions that San José can take to reduce construction costs are somewhat limited given that the City does not currently implement any programs or policies that reduce labor or materials costs. Note that while labor rates vary by trade and construction method, these higher paid skilled and semi-skilled positions are generally unaffected by the City’s imposition of a Minimum Wage Ordinance (MWO) as discussed in Chapter III. In terms of construction related fees/taxes, as previously mentioned, in 2010, and through Council extension through 2014, the City Council amended the schedule of parkland fees charged under the Parkland Dedication Ordinance (PDO) and Park Impact Fee (PIO) specifically for low income housing units, setting the rate at 50% of the fees normally applicable to each housing type. As well, in 2013, the City Council expanded and extended the Downtown High Rise Development Incentive Program, temporarily suspending the collection of 50% of the construction taxes for qualified projects.

The Downtown High Rise Development Incentive Program also provides exemptions to the inclusionary housing ordinance within three areas of Downtown and reduces in-lieu fees to 50% in the rest of downtown. Since these fees/taxes contribute to the total cost of construction, their reduction for select housing types and/or locations is a meaningful attempt to alleviate this constraint.

K. Availability of Financing
During the depths of the 2008-2009 financial crisis the availability of financing was clearly among the biggest constraints to housing. Caused by imprudent and excessive lending practices, financial institutions significantly reduced loans to potential homebuyers as well as to developers for construction financing. With the more recent economic recovery, developers and consumers alike have in general had less difficulty in obtaining financing. This is evidenced by the fact that the number of residential building permits issued in San José reached a nine-year high of almost 3,500 dwelling units in calendar year 2012. Indeed, with the possibility that the current housing market rebound reflects yet another housing bubble, there is legitimate reason for concern that another wave of risky lending and foreclosures could occur in the relative near term.

However, several caveats are in order. First, in an effort to better manage risk, banks’ willingness to provide construction financing is now much more dependent on product type. In particular, rental housing is experiencing unusually high demand, and is thus looked upon more favorably than housing intended for ownership. Similarly, market-rate housing has had relatively little difficulty obtaining financing, whereas affordable housing projects remain an ongoing challenge. This is especially true given the previously discussed decline in State and federal sources. Finally, construction in San José is dominated by a handful of very large publicly-traded or privately-held development companies or Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs), which entities have greater access to funds located outside the traditional banking system or the ability to finance projects themselves.

San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter IV‐34
Limited for-sale inventory, strong regional job growth and the emergence of all-cash domestic and foreign real-estate investors has made it difficult for individual consumers to purchase homes with a mortgage.

Resources to Alleviate Constraints
There are limited actions that San José can take to improve the availability of financing. The City has no role or authority in the financial markets and therefore no influence over financing mechanisms.

However, by providing limited public resources for residential development, the City helps developers leverage private resources and spread the risk for private financial institutions investing in residential development. This encourages the availability of financing for affordable housing developments in which the City and other public entities invest.

L. Market Forces
Strong markets are a reflection of healthy economies. On the other hand, absent governmental intervention, a robust free market economy tends to incite various unhealthy conditions that challenge the creation and maintenance of affordable and other specialized housing types, the provision of healthy and safe living conditions, and the existence of balanced and equitable communities, as described below.
 Displacement—efforts to maximize investment returns by replacing lower-value land uses with higher-value ones cause increasing redevelopment pressures. This natural, profit-seeking behavior on the part of individual property owners can result in the steady elimination of existing affordable housing and, as a consequence, displacement of lower income households.  Product Uniformity—specialized housing types are designed to match the unique needs of persons comprising a relatively small share of the overall market. As a result, these housing types carry higher investment risk making them more difficult to finance. Product uniformity is the outcome, at least until demographic trends or changing preferences alter supply/demand and the associated risk profile.
 Overcrowding—the inability of lower income households to afford housing can result in overcrowding as multiple or extended families are forced to live together. This overcrowding increases health and safety concerns and stresses the condition of the housing stock and infrastructure. As well, overcrowding stifles household formation and thus market demand that would otherwise trigger increasing supply.
 Labor/Housing Imbalances—the labor and housing markets operate somewhat differently, and as a result communities can become imbalanced and inequitable. While both markets seek to maximize profits, the (private) housing market does so by pricing homes according to what the market will bear. Alternatively, the labor market naturally includes workers across a full range of incomes, while generally seeking to keep costs low. As a result, the cost of market rate housing will tend to be affordable for only a (higher income) segment of the workforce, even though a broader range of housing types/prices are needed to match the full income spectrum.

As relates to the homelessness issue, according to San José’s recent survey discussed in Chapter III, obstacles to obtaining housing were almost solely income related: one third (35%) of respondents reported being employed, another 42% reported job loss as the reason for becoming homeless, and two thirds (65%) reported an inability to afford rent. Further, there are a lack of available housing units and San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter IV‐35
landlords willing to lease units to homeless persons. At this time, there are more than 100 homeless individuals in San José with a housing subsidy who are actively seeking housing but cannot locate a home to rent. Thus, there is not only a lack of income to afford market rate housing, but also sometimes an inability for market participants to gain access to available supply even when there is willingness and ability to pay.

In this Housing Element implementation program, City staff will explore strategies to facilitate the housing market while simultaneously addressing the issues that market conditions may cause. The current inability to work productively with market forces is one of the key barriers for affordable housing production and equitable communities. Facilitating the market and creating equitable communities are not mutually exclusive goals—addressing only one or the other is a “false choice.” The implementation program seeks to avoid this outcome and develop strategic responses that result in a “win-win.” M. Environmental Hazards and Limitations
San José’s Sphere of Influence includes many areas subject to varying degrees of naturally occurring and man-made environmental hazards and limitations. Historically, as land becomes scarce, there is increased pressure to develop land with a higher hazard potential. However, development in hazardous areas can result in significant costs to the community, including major property damage as well as potential loss of life.

For new development, the emphasis of the General Plan is to regulate construction so as to minimize identifiable risks. The hazards policies in the Plan are based on substantial background data and analysis from various sources about existing conditions in San José and Santa Clara County. These sources document many hazards, including noise, seismic, geologic/soil, flooding, and airport-related hazards, as briefly described below.

Noise Hazards
City policy encourages locating new development in areas where noise levels are appropriate for the proposed use. For interior noise levels, San José’s residential standard is 45 dBA DNL. Appropriate site and building design, building construction, and noise attenuation techniques are included in new development to meet this standard. For exterior noise levels, the City’s residential standard is 60 dBA DNL or less, and an acoustical analysis following protocols in the City-adopted California Building Code is required to demonstrate compliance. For new multi-family residential projects, the 60 dBA DNL standard applies to usable outdoor activity areas, excluding balconies and stoops/porches facing existing roadways. For single-family residential uses, the 60 dBA DNL standard applies to private usable outdoor activity areas, such as backyards.

Seismic Hazards
San José is located in a region of very high seismic activity. The major earthquake faults in the area are the San Andreas, near the crest of the Santa Cruz Mountains, and the Hayward and Calaveras fault system located in the Diablo Range. Numerous other faults are located in the hills and throughout the valley. As a result, the City has numerous policies to help minimize the risk of injury, loss of life, property damage, and community disruption from seismic shaking, fault rupture, ground failure (liquefaction and lateral spreading), earthquake-induced landslides, and other earthquake-induced San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter IV‐36
ground deformation. For example, within seismic hazard zones identified under the Alquist-Priolo Fault Zoning Act, the California Seismic Hazards Mapping Act, and/or by the City of San José, geotechnical and geological investigations are required, and approval of development proposals granted only when the severity of seismic hazards have been appropriately evaluated and mitigated.

Geologic/Soil Hazards
Hazards related to geologic and soil conditions include erosion, landslides, expansive soils (subject to shrink and swell behavior), weak soils (subject to failure), and land subsidence. Soils with varying degrees of expansivity are present throughout the San José area, as are weak soils. Also, soils on some sites throughout the valley floor have been contaminated by chemicals which were used in conjunction with former heavy industrial or agricultural uses. Depending on concentrations, these materials can pose health risks for residential development. As such, City policy stresses the need for identification and awareness of geologic hazards and soils contamination issues in the planning of residential uses.

Compliance with the San José Geologic Hazards Ordinance is required for all new development, and such proposals within hazard areas shall not be endangered by, nor contribute to, the hazardous conditions on the site or on adjoining properties.

Flooding Hazards
Information on areas subject to flood hazards in San José is based on several sources. Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) have been prepared in conjunction with the Federal Flood Insurance Program showing areas projected to be flooded to a depth of one foot or more in the event of a “1%” or “100-year” flood occurrence. Information on areas subject to the “0.5%” or “200-year” flood are provided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the California Department of Water Resources (DWR). The California Emergency Management Agency (Cal EMA) also provides information on areas subject to inundation due to dam failure. The Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) has the primary responsibility for flood protection through the construction, operation, and maintenance of flood protection capital projects. Meanwhile, the City of San José has jurisdiction over, and responsibility for, development and floodplain management such that development is protected from flooding and does not induce flooding on other properties.

Airport-Related Hazards
The City of San José contains two airports: (1) Norman Y. Mineta San José International Airport (SJC), located near Downtown, which serves as the primary commercial airport for Silicon Valley, and (2) ReidHillview Airport, located in east San José, which serves primarily small piston aircraft and general aviation demand. To minimize the public’s exposure to airport-related hazards (safety, noise, etc.), Airport Influence Areas (AIAs) have been established to protect public health, safety, and welfare. In some cases, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations and land use controls applicable to AIAs limit the potential for sites within these areas from being developed with residential uses. These regulations are necessary to maintain land use compatibility between airports and their surroundings.

Water Limitations
In 2014, California experienced one of the worst droughts in recent history, with more frequent (and severe) droughts expected in coming years. To the extent that droughts become more common in the San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter IV‐37
State and region, water supply may become a constraint to future development in San José. Staff has recently engaged in discussions regarding the potential impact of the current drought on the City’s growth plans in North San José.

Environmental Constraints and Infrastructure
At a program level, all the parcels listed in the Housing Element Adequate Sites Inventory have received environmental clearance through adoption of the Envision San Jose 2040 Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR). The PEIR long term analysis for General Plan capacity build-out through 2035 addresses infrastructure requirements including but not limited to water supply, sewer capacity, and transportation for a much larger capacity and longer timeframe than that of the 2014-2023 Housing Element period. The General Plan PEIR is viewable at http://www.sanjoseca.gov/index.aspx?NID=2435 Already entitled parcels have received project-level environmental clearance, and their environmental constraints have already been addressed through project design and/or permit conditions. Parcels in Downtown, North San Jose, or Planned Communities, as well as parcels in areas with other approved area plans including but not limited to the Diridon Station Plan area and approved Urban Village Plan areas, have environmental clearance at the level of zoning and development standards with near-term infrastructure impacts and mitigation measures already identified within these environmental clearance documents. Development approvals within these sub-areas can often be streamlined and can tier off the previous environmental clearance documents if development proposals conform to the applicable area plan.

Some areas of San Jose are potentially subject to impacts from floods and seismic activity. There are also some areas in the City that could contain cultural artifacts, particularly areas near creeks. There are also several sites in the City that could provide habitat for various protected species of flora or fauna. There are other sites in the City that could contain hazards including but not limited to naturally occurring asbestos or soil contamination from previous agricultural practices onsite. These areas are referenced in the environmental clearance documents that cover the sites in the Adequate Sites Inventory, including but not limited to the General Plan PEIR, and environmental clearance documents for area plans within the City as described above. The existence of these environmental features will not preclude development of the sites identified in the inventory at the projected residential densities and capacities stated in the Housing Element, which are conservatively calculated at the lower to mid-range of that density allowed under the General Plan land use designations for each parcel listed in the Adequate Sites Inventory. Numerous residential developments over several decades successfully addressed these types of environmental features, which are not unusual environmental features within the region in which the City of San Jose is situated.

Resources to Alleviate Constraints
The environmental hazards and limitations discussed above are largely beyond governmental control, but nonetheless do not unduly constrain residential development needed to achieve San José’s Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA). The City’s Urban Service Area (USA) totals approximately 140 square miles, defining the area where services and facilities provided by the City of San José and other public agencies are generally available and where urban development requiring such services should be located, in large part to avoid unnecessary conflict with hazards situated outside the USA. Within the USA, hazards apply only to limited geographic areas and, in any event, these are generally not planned San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter IV‐38
Growth Areas. A primary exception is Downtown, portions of which fall within the southernmost extent of the Mineta Airport AIA, yet adherence to FAA regulations has clearly not been a constraint to construction of Downtown high-rise residential projects.

San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter IV‐39
This page
intentionally
left blank
San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter V‐1
Chapter V:

Planned Supply/
Inventory
State law requires that a housing element contain “an inventory of land suitable for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having potential for redevelopment” (Government Code section 65583(a) (3)). The law clarifies that the phrase “land suitable for residential development” includes: (1) vacant sites zoned for residential use; (2) vacant sites zoned for nonresidential use that allows residential development; (3) residentially zoned sites that are capable of being developed at a higher density; and, (4) sites zoned for nonresidential use that can be redeveloped for, and as necessary, rezoned for, residential use (Government Code section 65583.2(a)).

This chapter serves as an introductory overview to San José’s planned supply/inventory of lands suitable for residential development, with a detailed, parcel-specific inventory and methodology discussion separately contained in Appendix A: Adequate Sites Inventory. Further, the chapter addresses several additional provisions of State law related to inventory methodology, and in particular the calculation of units to satisfy the lower income households portion of RHNA.

Two observations might be made about the applicability of these legal requirements to San José. First, the law places emphasis on the importance of zoning in evaluating the suitability of land for residential development. San José, however has long recognized the General Plan as the primary regulatory tool in the practice of city planning and as a charter city, San José is exempt from the statutory requirement that zoning be consistent with its General Plan. A general plan has been called the “constitution” for land use to emphasize its value in the decision-making process, with the General Plan and its maps, diagrams, and development policies forming the basis for the City’s zoning and other regulations.

Second, the law implies that vacant land is likely a major contributor to planned housing supply within a community. However, as previously mentioned, San José is largely built-out in a low-density land use pattern within its city limits, and the General Plan does not support the conversion of industrial areas to residential use or the development of Urban Reserves or lands outside the City’s Urban Growth Boundary. As such, most new housing development will be achieved through higher-density redevelopment within existing urbanized areas. In other words, as shown in this chapter, vacant land comprises a relatively small and declining share of the City’s planned supply of housing.

San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter V‐2
A. Inventory Overview
Aside from the aforementioned general provisions of State law, an explanation of methodology used to determine development potential of identified lands is also required. As indicated in the General Plan, “zoning will become more consistent as the Plan is implemented over time.” This charter city status means that the General Plan is of paramount importance in determining the suitability of lands for future residential development in San José, and that existing zoning is not necessarily the best indicator of the City’s longer-term land use plans as further detailed in this chapter.

Table V-1, which follows this paragraph, identifies seven major location/status categories of housing units planned during the current RHNA period, plus a “pool” allocation as previously described in Chapter IV. An explanation of these categories and associated methodology is provided below. These categories are as follows:

1. Already Entitled

2. Downtown

3. Planned Communities

4. Urban Villages

5. Vacant Land

6. North San José

7. Underutilized Parcels

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 he Hitachi mixed use village project, but o herw ise excludes projects in o her 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 an icipated during he RHNA period. 5Allocation of units per Policy IP-2.11 of he Envision San Jose 2040 General Plan.

DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSING UNITS
PLANNED DURING THE RHNA PERIOD (2014-2022)
San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter V‐3
Table V-2, Distribution of Housing Units
The Already Entitled, Downtown, and Planned Communities categories cumulatively yield over 28,500 housing units, or approximately 80% of the current RHNA allocation. Due to phased implementation, Urban Villages and North San José account for a relatively small amount of housing during the current RHNA period. However, the next phase of housing including up to 8,000 units in North San José could be initiated during this Housing Element planning period if expected commercial and industrial development occurs as intended.(Note: see detailed discussion later in this chapter). Vacant land amounts to about 5% of the City’s planned supply of housing. Finally, Policy IP-2.11 of the General Plan allows an initial “pool” allocation of up to 5,000 housing units not included within the current Horizon to be used currently in a Plan area that is in a future Horizon. Ten (10) percent or 500 units from this pool of 5,000 units are included in the Planned Housing Units inventory. These 500 units can be used in approved Urban Villages that are in future horizons, such as the South Bascom Urban Village Plan, which is scheduled to be approved by the end of 2014 but is planned to be implemented in a future Horizon (Horizon III).

To consider the environmental impacts that result from development allowed under the General Plan, the City prepared a Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This PEIR, addressed a series of actions that can be characterized as one large project, and provided an exhaustive consideration of cumulative effects and alternatives.

It is also useful to visualize this planned supply of housing geographically, as illustrated in the map below. Consistent with the General Plan’s Focused Growth Major Strategy, primary locations for planned housing represent a combined total of approximately 3,500 acres of land, or just 4% of the City’s Urban Service Area (USA), which locations are concentrated in areas with good access to transit and other existing infrastructure and facilities. Further, a comparison of these planned housing locations with the household income by census tract map (Map III-1) presented in Chapter III indicates that San José’s RHNA housing supply is well distributed across the full income spectrum (e.g., North San José is “high income,” Downtown and Alum Rock are “low income”, etc.).

San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter V‐4
Map V-1, Primary Locations for Planned Housing during the RHNA Period B. Already Entitled
The City of San José estimates that as of April 4, 2014 there are 11,474 units that have already received entitlements. This means that the units have been issued planning approval but have not yet obtained a building permit for construction. These entitled units are primarily composed of multi-family units, with concentrations located on several large mixed-use development sites, such as the “Hitachi site” at Highway 85 and Cottle Road, the San José Flea Market site along Berryessa Road adjacent to the new Berryessa BART station currently under construction, and in North San José (Note: remaining Phase 1 only of the North San José Area Development Policy as indicated in Table V-1 and Map V-1, and discussed in more detail later in this chapter).

The City of San José maintains an extensive Geographic Information Systems (GIS) database of residential development projects that have received planning entitlements. The database tracks projects throughout the entire process, from the time of planning application submittal to the issuance of building permits and eventual completion of construction.

This database serves several purposes. For example, it enables the City’s preparation of an annual Development Activity Highlights and Five-Year Forecast of construction-related tax revenues, spatial analysis of population and housing growth, and fulfillment of annual Congestion Management Program (CMP) land use monitoring reporting requirements pursuant to State law (Government Code section 65089). The CMP mandates inclusion of data on all development project applications that result in a change in the number of entitled dwelling units. As to the mapping of entitled sites, the forecast report (available online at http://www.sanJoséca.gov/index.aspx?nid=2050) provides individual maps by San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter V‐5
Planning Area of all recent “major” projects (i.e., 50 or more housing units). However, please note that data contained in Appendix A: Adequate Sites Inventory are inclusive of all entitled projects, regardless of size.
(Note: for the purposes of this Housing Element, the entitled database was queried to exclude projects in other identified location/status categories. This “hierarchy” among location/status categories ensures no double-counting of units tallied in satisfaction of the City’s RHNA requirement, and supports ongoing tracking and comparison of stated yields with housing capacity figures (by area and horizon) contained in Appendix 5 of the General Plan (http://www.sanJoséca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/7541)).

C. Downtown
One Major Strategy (Strategy #9) of the General Plan is to support continued growth Downtown. The Downtown Growth Area is depicted in Map V-1, and is bounded by Julian Street, North 4th Street, East St.

John Street, 7th Street, East San Fernando Street, South 4th Street, Interstate 280, the Union Pacific Railroad line, Stockton Avenue, Taylor Street, and Coleman Avenue. The General Plan maintains and augments the City’s “Downtown Strategy 2000,” an action guide for development and redevelopment of the Downtown based on a broad, multidisciplinary consideration of the issues of economics, transportation, urban design, urban landscape, historic resources, cultural resources, and events as they apply to Downtown.

The Downtown Strategy was initially prepared in 2000, but updated and adopted in June 2005 to support additional job and housing growth in Downtown (Note: even before the General Plan, the City was committed to the potential construction of approximately 8,330 new housing units in Downtown). At the same time, the City Council adopted a new Multi-Modal Transportation Policy that provided a process for the analysis and consideration of overall conformance of a proposed development with the City’s various General Plan multi-modal transportation policies. By allowing a means for development to proceed in key areas even when traffic mitigation is not feasible or desirable, the Multi-Modal Transportation Policy plays an important role in supporting the Downtown Strategy.

As a result of the General Plan, the capacity of the Downtown Growth Area was increased from 8,330 new housing units to 10,360 units. While well over a dozen planning entitlements have been granted for construction of new housing in Downtown since the collection of “baseline” data for the General Plan in 2008, only two projects have been issued building permits, to date. These construction projects are two high-rise residential towers with a combined total of 659 housing units. Thus, the bulk of Downtown capacity remains available and has been applied in full to the current RHNA period (i.e., 10,360 – 659 = 9,701 units). Planning application activity for residential projects in Downtown has increased dramatically in recent months.

D. Planned Communities
Since 1980, San José has adopted a total of ten (10) Specific Plans or Master Plans for certain limited geographic areas, which areas are referred to as Planned Communities. In general, these Planned Communities have been designed to facilitate infill residential development/redevelopment; however, each Plan is unique and has other objectives beyond housing. These ten Planned Communities are:
 Alviso (1999)  Martha Gardens (2003)
San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter V‐6
 Berryessa (1980)  Midtown (1992)
 Communications Hill (1992)  Rincon South (1999)
 Evergreen (1991)  Silver Creek (1982)
 Jackson-Taylor (1992)  Tamien Station (1995)
Each of these Specific Plans, including detailed maps illustrating plan boundaries and planned land use changes, are available online at http://www.sanJoséca.gov/index.aspx?nid=1741. The General Plan contains most of these Planned Communities, but select others were recently retired with adoption of the Plan. Retired plans include Berryessa, Evergreen, Rincon South, and Silver Creek, with elements of the Rincon South Plan having been incorporated into the Urban Village Plan for corresponding Urban Village areas. As well, given the fairly limited housing growth potential of the Alviso Plan, it has been omitted from the following Table V-2.

Table V-2, Housing Capacity by Planned Community
All five identified Planned Communities have witnessed some amount of new housing construction in recent years, which reduces potential future yield but also demonstrates the viability of these areas for ongoing housing production. In fact, the Planned Community with the largest remaining capacity, Communications Hill, contains pending land use applications filed in spring 2013 for the construction of up to 2,200 housing units. In summary, significant capacity remains in each of these Planned Communities, such that a combined total of approximately 7,500 additional housing units are available for development during the current RHNA period.

E. Urban Villages
Urban Village Housing Capacity
The General Plan promotes the development of Urban Villages (Major Strategy #5), yet also closely monitors the achievement of key Plan goals through a periodic major review of the Plan and the use of Plan Horizons to phase implementation of housing development over time (Major Strategy #12). As San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter V‐7
such, while there are a total of 70 Urban Villages identified within the Plan (see the City’s Planned Growth Areas Diagram at http://www.sanJoséca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/7463) , only three Urban Villages, totaling 2,666 housing units, are within “Horizon 1”, and anticipated to be available for new housing development in 2015, and are thus considered planned during the current RHNA period (see the following Table V-3).

Urban Village Village ID
Planned
Housing Units
Alum Rock Avenue CR29 1,010
West San Carlos Street** CR31 1,245
The Alameda VT4 411
Totals 2,666
Source: City of San Jose
*Note: Horizon 1 only of the Envision 2040 General Plan. **Note: capacity reduced by ten units per GP13-005, approved 11/19/13. ***Note: capacity for this village w as constructed in 2012-2013.

ENVISION 2040 GENERAL PLAN
HOUSING CAPACITY BY URBAN VILLAGE*
Table V-3, Housing Capacity by Urban Village
The General Plan Policy IP-2.11 states that “preparation of an Urban Village Plan is necessary prior to allocation of these units unless the project qualifies as a Signature Project.” The City is working diligently to prepare Urban Village Plans for Horizon 1 and other Urban Villages. For example, on October 22, 2013, the City Council approved the Alum Rock rezoning (C13-035) which serves as the Urban Village for this corridor. As of this writing, the following seven Urban Villages are in the planning stages for preparation of an Urban Village Plan:
 The Alameda (East)
 East Santa Clara Street
 South Bascom (North)
 West San Carlos Street
 Stevens Creek
 Valley Fair/Santana Row and Vicinity
 Winchester Boulevard
Of the seven Urban Village Plans above, West San Carlos and The Alameda are anticipated to be considered for approved by the City Council by March 2014. Upon approval by Council, residential development could move forward in these Urban Villages, consistent with the given Plan. While not a Horizon I Urban Village, the South Bascom Plan is also anticipated to be approved by the City Council by March 2014, and would be available for new housing construction through the use of the 5,000 unit pool, as discussed above in section A. Inventory Overview.

San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter V‐8
Please note that the RHNA period extends to year 2022, whereas the first General Plan Major Review will occur in 2015, at which time (and again in 2019) the City Council, per Policy IP-2.5, will “verify that the current Planning Horizon contains adequate capacity to meet San José’s Regional Housing Need Allocation for the upcoming 4-year term.” Meanwhile, the capacity of Horizon 1 Urban Villages, along with 500 units from an initial 5,000-unit “pool” of residential capacity allowing entitlement of residential projects within Urban Villages not included within the current Plan Horizon (per Policy IP-2.11), is sufficient to satisfy the City’s RHNA allocation.

Urban Village Implementation and Financing Strategies
Each Plan will establish an implementation strategy that identifies how housing development can move forward in parallel with the planned jobs or commercial development, without precluding the achievement of the planned commercial capacity. On September 30, 2014 the City Council approved a General Plan Text Amendment that said that an “Urban Village Plan should be consistent with the following objectives:

1. The Urban Village planning process is not a mechanism to convert employment lands to nonemployment uses, but is the process by which to plan for the full amount of planned job and housing growth.

2. City goals and policies aimed at raising revenues that would require the conversion of employment lands to non-employment uses shall not take precedent over the jobs first principle of this General Plan.

3. This General Plan's job first principles apply to Urban Villages and residential conversions are not allowed to proceed ahead of the job creation that is necessary to balance the residential elements of the Village Plan. This policy means that jobs and housing can move together on a case by case basis”
In the Alameda, West San Carlos and South Bascom Urban Villages all of the land that would be available for new residential development is presently designated in the General Plan for commercial uses. In order to accommodate the planned residential capacity established by the General Plan, the Urban Village Plans must and propose to convert some portion of the commercial land to a General Plan land use designation that would allow residential uses. To be consistent with the above General Plan text amendment, new residential development would need to be mixed-use and include a commercial component in either a vertical or horizontal mixed-use format; however, residential development within the portions of West San Carlos, and The Alameda planned for high density residences would only need to include ground floor retail fronting the major commercial street. There is no minimum amount of commercial space proposed to be required, either through a square foot or floor area ratio minimum. To accommodate the significant planned commercial capacity, the South Bascom Urban Village is proposed to require more substantial commercial square footage, with the requirements varying by subarea within the Village.

San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter V‐9
In addition to an implementation strategy, each Plan will include a financing strategy to fund the development of identified infrastructure and amenities. The financing strategy proposed for the West San Carlos and South Bascom is to fund streetscape and pedestrian circulation improvements through the establishment of an impact fee on new development. For these two Villages, as well as The Alameda, the proposed strategy to fund other identified improvements and needs will be to negotiate contributions toward these improvements and/or needs as part of process to rezone property from a commercial land zoning district to a district that allows residential mixed-use development. One of the improvements or identified needs that are proposed to be negotiated as part of the rezoning process is the inclusion of affordable housing to low income households within residential mixed-use developments.

The Alum Rock Urban Village does not have a financing strategy. The absence of such strategy is due in part to the fact that zoning development process was completed a year prior to the adoption of the Envision San Jose 2040 General Plan and the process did not include the identification of needed infrastructure and amenities. The development of a financing strategy is not currently planned for the Alum Rock Urban Village. As a result, new development within this Village would not be asked to contribute towards improvements beyond what would normally be required as part of the entitlement process.

Residential Entitlement Process in Urban Villages
The entitlement process for residential development within the West San Carlos, South Bascom and The Alameda Urban Villages is proposed to include first a rezoning, followed by a site development permit, and then building permits. To facilitate affordable housing projects, the Plans propose to allow mixeduse projects affordable to low income households with a conditional or special use permit, without the need for a rezoning.

As noted above, the City Council approved Alum Rock Rezoning (C13-035) serves as the Urban Village Plan for the Alum Rock corridor. The pedestrian oriented zoning districts established for Alum Rock Urban Village consists of two zoning districts, the MS-G Main Street ground floor commercial district and the MS-C main street commercial district. Below is description of each zoning district:
 MS-G main street ground floor commercial district. The MS-G main street ground floor district is intended to provide a mix of commercial and residential uses integrated in a pedestrian-oriented design with a focus on active commercial uses at the ground level along the main street frontage.
 MS-C main street commercial district. The MS-C main street commercial district is intended to provide a concentration of primarily commercial uses within a pedestrian-oriented design, and allows a mix of commercial and residential uses only where such uses can be integrated on a large site in a pedestrian-oriented design that maximizes commercial opportunities.

The vast majority of this Alum Rock Urban Village is zoned MS-G. Presently new mixed-use residential development within the MS-G district would be required to include ground floor commercial uses along adjacent commercial streets, such as Alum Rock Avenue. The entitlement process does not require a rezoning. Development would only need to obtain a conditional use permit followed by a building permit.

San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter V‐10
Residential uses in the MS-C district are also allowed with a conditional use permit, but are only allowed in a vertical mixed-use configuration under a single development permit covering a minimum site area of eight acres. Because of this zoning code provision, the residential development is anticipated to occur in area zoned MS-G, and this MS-G area has the capacity to accommodate significantly more than the 1,010 planned housing units.

Potential Barriers to Residential Development within Urban Villages The requirement that residential development include a mixed-use commercial component could be considered a potential barrier to residential development because the market for commercial mixeduses is historically not as strong as the market for residential uses; the residential development often has to subsidize the cost of developing the commercial space and the vacancy rates on the commercial space are often higher and the rent obtained per square foot much lower. As noted above, however, the requirements for a commercial component in the West San Carlos, and The Alameda Urban Villages are proposed to be minimal, as are the current zoning code requirements within the Alum Rock Urban Village’s MS-G zoning district.

Past and recent development trends have shown that, given the extremely strong demand for housing in San Jose and Silicon Valley, requirements for including ground floor commercial uses have not been a barrier to new residential development. As an example, a high density residential project that includes ground floor retail was recently completed at the corner of Meridian Avenue and West San Carlos Street. Another mixed-use residential project, which includes 20,000 square feet of commercial space, was recently approved at the intersection of West San Carlos and Sunol Streets, just east of the Urban Village.

The proposed financing strategies to pay for identified infrastructure and improvements could be a barrier to the development of new residential development in the given Urban Villages. In the case of West San Carlos and South Bascom, a nexus study would need to be prepared to determine how much of an impact fee could legally be charged for streetscape and pedestrian circulation improvements. To help the City establish a fee level that would not discourage residential development, the study would also determine at what fee level an impact fee could make residential development financially infeasible and/or discourage redevelopment.

The proposed strategy in the West San Carlos, South Bascom and The Alameda Urban Village Plans to obtain additional funding for identified needs and improvements through voluntary contributions could also perceived as a cost constraint; however, since these contributions would be negotiated and could not be required, it is not anticipated that a developer would voluntarily contribute an amount that would make their project financially infeasible.

The other fees and tax costs associated with the development in the Alum Rock, West San Carlos and South Bascom Urban Village Plan areas are comparable to other development cost elsewhere in the City. These fees and taxes are outlined in Chapter 4.

The entitlement process and the uncertainty of approval could be a barrier to residential development in Urban Villages. Residential development in an Urban Village would require a discretionary planning permit. For the West San Carlos, The Alameda and South Bascom Urban Villages, the first step in the entitlement process for market rate mixed-use residential development is proposed to be a rezoning San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter V‐11
which is considered by the City Council; for an affordable mixed-use project it is proposed to be a conditional or special use permit. Within the City of San Jose, however, all high density residential and mixed-use projects require discretionary approval and, outside of the Downtown zoning districts, high density residential and/or mixed-use projects often require a rezoning. The entitlement process in the Urban Villages will not be significantly different than elsewhere in the City, excluding Downtown.

Because only a conditional use permit is required, the Alum Rock Urban Village offers a more streamlined entitlement process for market rate residential development.

Community concerns with new high density mixed-use development could impede the acquisition of entitlements for such projects within the Urban Villages; however, the Urban Village planning processes included extensive community and stakeholder engagement. Given that the proposed Plans or established zoning districts reflect community input and buy-in, and will be/have been approved by the City Council, there is less entitlement risk for residential projects that conform to the approved plans/zoning than for projects in other parts of the City that do not have an approved plan/zoning.

Through-out the timeframe of this Housing Element, the City will need to evaluate how successfully the Urban Village strategy is being implemented and identify whether modifications to this Strategy are necessary. As part of this process, the City will evaluate the degree to which The Envision San Jose 2040 General Plan, the individual Urban Village Plans , as well as other city ordinances and the zoning code impede or facilitate achievement of the planned housing capacities within the Urban Villages. As mentioned above, one of the primary vehicles to conduct this evaluation is the Four Year Major Review of the General Plan. The first Four Year Major Review is scheduled to begin in the fall of 2015, with the subsequent Major Review scheduled for the fall of 2019.

F. Vacant Land
For several decades, the City of San José has periodically prepared a Vacant Land Inventory. At times, the report has been an invaluable tool in measurement of the rate, type, and location of development activity in the City. This was most certainly true in the mid-1980’s and late-1990’s, when activity levels were not only extremely high, but the majority of development was still taking place on vacant lands. The situation today is quite different, as development activity has moderated since the end of the “dot com” era. But equally important, infill development patterns and land use intensification trends, along with a rapidly diminishing supply of vacant lands, have resulted in most new construction today occurring via land redevelopment.

The City’s latest Vacant Land Inventory was prepared through interpretation of aerial photographs obtained from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) taken in April 2011 (see report available online at http://www.sanJoséca.gov/index.aspx?nid=2054). The inventory generally includes only those lands that are within the Urban Service Area (USA) and which are designated for urban development on the General Plan. Note that additional development potential ultimately exists on vacant lands within the City’s Urban Reserves (South Almaden Valley and Coyote Valley), that are within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) but outside the USA and thus not planned for urbanization in the General Plan.

For the purposes of this Housing Element, the Vacant Land Inventory database was queried for residential lands and then further refined to exclude lands in other identified location/status categories.

The resulting list, summarized in the following Table V-4, comprises a total of 2,125 units as of April 4, San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter V‐12
2014. Estimates of housing unit yield were derived using General Plan designations and conservative estimates within the density range specified for the associated land use category. Additionally, because the majority of San José’s vacant residential lands are in peripheral locations within a half-mile of the USA boundary, the expected number of housing units from vacant lands will mostly take the form of single-family detached development on lower density designations.

Table V-4, Housing Capacity of Vacant Lands

ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION ON HOUSING SUPPLY
G. North San José
North San José generally refers to the area north and west of Interstate 880 and south of State Route 237, and is San José’s largest employment district, home to many leading technology companies and a key growth area for the City. Due to its economic importance, several key policy documents have been prepared to guide the ongoing growth and development of the area, including the North San José Area Development Policy. Although San José had enjoyed unprecedented job growth during the “dot com” boom of the late 1990’s, the City experienced sustained job loss from 2001 through the early part of the new millennium. In response, the City launched multiple economic development initiatives, including preparation of an Economic Development Strategy and a series of stakeholder panel discussions under San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter V‐13
the name Getting Families Back to Work. The latter served as impetus for an update to the North San José Development Policy in 2005.

The North San José Development Policy update established a plan for the expansion of the area, allowing for the addition of 26.7 million square feet of new industrial development, 32,000 housing units, and 1.7 million square feet of supporting commercial uses (the Policy is available online at http://www.sanJoséca.gov/index.aspx?nid=1744). Consistent with San José’s Smart Growth principles, this growth capacity was focused primarily into higher density development at transit-oriented sites, which the subsequent General Plan considers as already planned Urban Villages. The plan includes a new grid street system to create more walkable, urban blocks within the central part of North San José, new urban, mixed-use housing, parks and services to build neighborhoods in close proximity to employment growth, the City’s first Traffic Impact Fee to fund $570 million in transportation improvements, and a phasing plan that links job and housing growth to the construction of those improvements.

This phasing plan explains why no housing, beyond those remaining entitled and unbuilt units allocated in the 8,000-unit Phase 1 of the North San José Development Policy, are anticipated during the RHNA period. In essence, while additional residential development of 24,000 units is proposed to support new job growth, it would be contrary to the City’s planning goals and objectives to encourage or facilitate a substantial conversion of industrial land to residential uses too far in advance of new job growth due to the resulting service costs, implications, and impacts. The Policy therefore limits the number of dwelling units that can be developed in advance of new industrial development. Conversely, development of too much industrial square footage without associated residential development would quickly overload the roadway system, and limit the internalization of commute trips and utilization of other transportation modes. The Policy therefore limits the amount of industrial development that could occur without some residential development in the area.

It is important to highlight that delivery of affordable housing will be a key area of focus in future Phase 2 of the Policy, as it originally anticipated a delivery of 1,600 affordable units in Phase 1. However, as the City made adjustments in 2011-12 to increase the allocation of market-rate units in Phase 1, it unilaterally reduced the amount of affordable housing that could be built. Phase 2 will be critical to achieving the affordable unit capacity to ensure there is an appropriate range of affordability to match all income groups. Further, based on current industrial development activity and recent trends, estimates are that it will be five to ten years before the City can consider new residential development as a part of Phase 2 (i.e., not until the next RHNA period beginning in 2022).

H. Underutilized Redevelopable Parcels
There are parcels scattered throughout the City that are designated for residential use such as Transit Residential, Urban Residential, Mixed Use Neighborhood, or Residential Neighborhood, but are either vacant or developed with low intensity non-residential uses such as storage warehouses, surface parking lots, and single-story buildings with FARs well below the maximum allowed, or with one singlefamily house. Many of these parcels are clustered, and could be combined for redevelopment. These parcels are underutilized. Staff has inventoried such parcels where they do not have historic resources.

This inventory is exclusive of the other categories of adequate sites.

San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter V‐15
Map V-2, Residential Land Annexations per County Island Annexation Program, 2007-2010 Aside from potential future City-initiated annexation activity, per longstanding policy agreement between the County of Santa Clara and the City of San José, privately-initiated annexation is the mechanism that will enable new development to occur on unincorporated lands. For example, the previously referenced pending land use applications in the Communications Hill Planned Community, for construction of up to 2,200 housing units, is contingent upon annexation of these lands. Similarly, a small number (about 10%) of the residential lands contained in the Vacant Land Inventory are unincorporated, which lands are primarily concentrated in the Alum Rock Planning Area near other recently-approved annexations.

These sites will require annexation as a pre-condition to development.

J. Demolitions
One final consideration in an assessment of planned housing supply is the potential impact associated with demolition of existing housing units. For example, per Article XIIIB of the California Constitution, the State Department of Finance conducts an annual housing unit survey to calculate population-based appropriations limits for governmental agencies, and the survey requires provision of information on, among other items, the number of housing units lost “from demolition, fire, or natural disaster.” As discussed in Chapter II: Demographics, the San José housing stock is relatively new, with only about 20% of the City’s housing units dating to the pre-1960 period. As a result, demolition activity in recent years has been negligible, with an average of just 16 units per year having been demolished over the 2010-2013 time period—typical of demolition activity levels over the past several decades6. Over the longer-term 30-year timeframe of the General Plan, demolition activity will presumably increase as the housing stock steadily ages and residential redevelopment pressures rise. However, at least during the near-term planning period of this Housing Element (2014-2022), demolition activity is expected to remain minimal.

Regardless, out of concern about the potential loss of housing supply, the City has enacted provisions in the Zoning Code that require review and consideration of demolition impacts. More specifically, Chapter

20.80 (Specific Use Regulations) requires that “no demolition permit shall be issued unless and until a Development Permit which specifically approves such demolition has been issued.” Further, prior to the issuance of any Development Permit which allows for demolition, the City must determine whether the benefits of permitting the demolition outweigh the impacts, and consider that “the approval of the permit should maintain the supply of existing housing stock in the City of San José.” Finally, while the Zoning Code provides for limited exemptions from the required obtainment of a Development Permit, as it relates to the demolition of a single-family home this exemption is contingent upon a determination that “building permits have been issued for a replacement single-family house.” K. Mobile Homes Preservation
Mobile homes are a critical source of affordable housing in the City. As indicated in Chapter II, census data show well over 10,000 mobile home units in San José, by far the largest number of any California city (for reference, Los Angeles and San Diego have approximately 8,250 and 6,500 mobile homes, respectively). To help address preservation of these units, Chapter 20.180 (Mobile Home Park

6 Based on analysis by the City of San José Department of Planning Building and Code Enforcement San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter V‐16
Conversions to Resident Ownership or to Any Other Use) of the Zoning Code ensures that the approval of any proposed mobile home park conversions is consistent with City policy. The ordinance explicitly states a goal “to provide a variety of individual choices of tenure, type, price, and location of housing and to maintain the supply of mobile home housing for low and moderate income persons and families.” In response to public inquiries, a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) document has been prepared (http://www.sanJoséca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/27913). Additionally, staff will explore the possibility of updating the Mobile Home Park Conversions Ordinance as part of the Housing Element implementation program in order to assess and potentially address concerns about displacement and the likely inability of affected persons to find affordable replacement housing and, more generally, the continued preservation of the mobile home housing stock.

Separately, in July 1979, the City Council adopted a Rent Stabilization Ordinance, Chapter 17.22 (Mobile Home Rent Ordinance) of the San José Municipal Code, which regulates rent increases on mobile homes and mobile home lots for which plumbing, electrical, and sewer permits were issued prior to September 1979. While certain exemptions and exceptions apply, the ordinance generally limits annual rent increases to 75% of the Consumer Price Index (CPI) as reported by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).

One recent example of the workings of this ordinance was in regards to Colonial Mobile Manor Mobilehome Park, a 200-unit park in the South Planning Area that houses mostly low-income seniors. A petition sought to increase monthly rents by $85.01, which would have resulted in rent increases of 6.9% to 17.8% per space, depending on the resident’s base rent. After a thorough review process that included a pre-hearing conference, a walk-through at the park, and a series of administrative hearings last summer, on December 4, 2013 a decision was rendered by the City’s contract Administrative Hearing Officer (AHO) denying any rent increase in excess of the 3% already allowed by the ordinance (http://www.piersystem.com/external/content/document/1914/2000178/1/12-11-13Housing.PDF).

However, while the Rent Stabilization Ordinance can assist with mitigating significant rent increases, it does not prevent the conversion of mobile home parks.

L. Density/Land Use Designation Requirements for Low Income Housing As discussed in Chapter IV, some provisions of State law specifically pertain to methodology for calculation of units to satisfy the lower income household’s portion of RHNA. These State law provisions are as follows:

1. Density—“for the number of units calculated to accommodate the regional housing need for lower income households, jurisdictions in metropolitan counties shall [include] sites allowing at least 30 units per acre.” (Government Code section 65583.2(c)(3)(B)(iv)).

2. Land Use Designation—“at least 50% of the very low and low-income housing need shall be accommodated on sites designated for residential use and for which nonresidential uses or mixed uses are not permitted.” (Government Code section 65583.2(h)) As relates to the first provision, San José is located within a Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) with a population under 2 million persons, yet is a city with a population over 100,000 persons, and as such is considered a “metropolitan jurisdiction” subject to the minimum 30 units per acre requirement per State law. As previously indicated, most of the City’s General Plan land use designations allow a density San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter V‐17
of 30 units or more per acre, and some as much as 8 to 10 times this figure. Further, as of 2012, the City’s R-M Multi-Family Residential Zoning District has no density limit and also provides for building height exceptions, and thus can accommodate development of higher density, lower income housing without need for a Planned Development zoning/permit. While these high densities provide flexibility to developers, as briefly cited in Chapter IV in many cases they represent “excess” capacity that renders a density bonus a marginalized tool for affordable housing. Given this context, staff will explore ways to create and implement a density bonus ordinance that could be effective in incentivizing the development of affordable housing
Given the redevelopment and intensification envisioned by Planned Communities, the Downtown Strategy, and the North San José Development Policy, for example, housing projects entitled and/or constructed since 2010 have registered an overall average of 40-50 units per acre—well in excess of the 30 units per acre requirement. Further, affordable projects in particular have generally been built at higher-than-average densities. Examples of this with affordable projects currently under construction or completed in 2013 include the Rosemary Family/Senior Apartments (290 units at 54 units per acre), the Mayfair Court Apartments (93 units at 61 units per acre), the San Carlos Senior Apartments (95 units at 71 units per acre), and the Japantown Senior Apartments (75 units at 136 units per acre).

As for planned housing sites, Appendix A includes an “affordable” yes/no data field to itemize compliance with State law for individual projects or parcels. According to a 2013 communication from the Northern California Chapter of the American Planning Association (APA), as a result of recent Housing Element streamlining efforts on this topic, “HCD has now agreed that in most instances it will consider [sites designated or approved for 30 units per acre and above] to be suitable for lower income housing until a building permit is issued, unless it receives comments showing that the site is being marketed to higher incomes.” A query of the Adequate Sites Inventory indicates that approximately 22,500 units are to be developed at 30 units per acre or more, well in excess of (about 50% above) the City’s RHNA allocation for lower income households.

As relates to the second provision, this Housing Element provides sufficient capacity on solely residential sites to accommodate at least 50% of the City’s low and very low income housing needs.

Specifically, San José’s RHNA allocation is composed of 5,428 low income units and 9,233 very low income units, for a combined total of 14,661 units. This figure translates to a minimum of 7,331 low and very low income units (50% of the above total) on residential-only sites. The only sources of planned housing identified in Table V-1 where exclusively nonresidential uses and/or mixed uses could theoretically displace planned housing production are the Downtown and Urban Villages, which areas allow and encourage a variety of uses.

In reality, however, the longstanding trend is quite the opposite—the conversion of employment lands to residential uses. For example, as noted in a recent report on San José from the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association (SPUR), “there has been some concern about letting key sites in Downtown be developed as housing rather than office space, especially near future BART stations, which could limit a resurgent commercial sector—and limit BART ridership—in the future.” In any case, since the Downtown and Urban Villages cumulatively amount to well less than half (about 35%) of the City’s RHNA allocation, compliance with State law is readily apparent.

San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter VI‐1
Chapter VI:

Preservation and Equitable
Development
Chapters II and III illustrated the significant need to increase the net supply of affordable housing in San José. 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).

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. This chapter analyzes the deed-restricted housing stock that is at risk of conversion to market-rate housing and compares the costs of replacement versus preservation.

Finally, the issue of housing preservation is especially important as the General Plan seeks to focus growth into Priority Development Areas, Urban Villages, and Downtown. These growth locations are rich in transit infrastructure and amenities, and are increasingly desirable for employers, the workforce, and households. As a result, the City anticipates that these locations will become prime development and redevelopment opportunities, which may cause significant price increases and potential displacement of existing households. Thus, the replacement and preservation of existing affordable housing becomes a key tool to ensure that, as San José evolves into an urban center, there remains a variety of housing options for San José’s residents and workforce.

A.Definitions
The following terminologies are used in this chapter and the implementation workplan to delineate and clarify the various types of preservation strategies that may be used:

Replacement: When new low or very low income deed-restricted homes are constructed to replace deed-restricted homes that have converted to market rate or that have been demolished.

Preservation: When existing deed-restricted affordable housing is at-risk of converting to other uses in 5 years or less and is preserved through one of the following methods depending on the condition of the housing:

San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter VI‐2
A. Acquisition and Rehabilitation: The development is acquired, rehabilitated, and a new deed-restriction is created. It is anticipated that the majority of preservation projects will fall under this category.

B. Financing: When deed-restriction is extended through financial restructuring but rehabilitation is not required.

Market Rate Acquisition/Rehabilitation: When market rate homes are acquired, rehabilitated, and deed-restricted for low or very-low income residents.

B. Analysis of Deed-Restricted Homes At Risk of Conversion to Market-Rate Deed-restrictions are a vital tool for ensuring that affordable homes remain affordable for a significant period of time. The longevity and continuity that deed-restricted homes provide are especially important in places where housing is expensive or where costs are expected to rise, such as in San José, as such housing gives lower-income households the ability to remain in their community. Thus, preserving existing deed-restricted affordable housing is an important strategy to ensure there are a variety of residential options for lower-income households in strong markets.

California housing element law requires all jurisdictions to identify assisted rental housing that is eligible to change from low-income housing uses within ten years from the beginning of the new cycle.

The following analysis assesses conversion risk for developments with expiring affordability restrictions prior to June 30, 2025. In 2013, the City of San José hired the California Housing Partnership Corporation (CHPC) to research deed restricted HUD and Tax Credit financed properties that were atrisk of conversion. CHPC analyzed data, conducted outreach to property owners, and identified properties with high or moderate risk of conversion. In addition, City staff conducted analysis on City funded, bond funded, and inclusionary funded developments. These lists were combined and sorted by owner type (profit-motivated and nonprofit) and can be found in Appendix C.

In San José, there are 236 affordable deed-restricted housing developments (19,244 homes) of which 47 developments (2,645 homes) have one or more affordability restrictions expiring within the next 10 years. These at-risk homes account for approximately 14% of all deed-restricted homes in San José.

Further, of the 47 developments, 36 of them consisting of 1,927 homes have only one affordability restriction and are thus more likely to convert to market rate than homes with multiple affordability restrictions. This subset of at-risk homes contains over 247 ELI and VLI homes.

Another key indicator of risk is ownership type. Of the 47 at-risk developments, 14 have profit-motivated owners consisting of 1,142 homes (43%). Of these, 108 are ELI and VLI homes. The remaining 33 developments consist of 1,503 homes (57%) but are owned by non-profits who are typically interested in preserving affordability status and are thus considered to be lower risk.

Finally it is important to breakdown the types of affordability restrictions to better understand the likelihood of these restrictions being extended. Nearly half of the 2,645 at-risk homes identified above have expiring HUD affordability restrictions. City affordability restrictions and tax credits are the second and third largest respectively.

San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter VI‐3
This analysis has identified 290 senior homes that are at risk of conversion. Of these homes, 220 have only one affordability restriction but all are controlled by nonprofit owners, which reduces the risk of conversion to market-rate housing upon expiration.

Homes By Earliest Expiring Affordability Restriction
Expiration‐HUD 1,464 55%
Expiration‐City AR 484 18%
Expiration‐Bond 405 15%
Expiration‐TCAC 292 12%
Total: 2,645 100%

C. Costs of Replacement versus Preservation of Deed Restricted Homes The preservation of existing deed-restricted homes is one method for continuing the long-term affordability of the City’s affordable housing stock. The City of San José’s preservation strategy is to partner with non-profit developers by providing subsidies in order to make the project financially feasible. The following analysis assumes that the majority of preservation deals will require some level of rehabilitation in order to extend the affordability restriction. Using data from recent developments requiring significant rehabilitation, it is estimated that total development cost for rehabilitation are slightly less than total development cost for new construction as detailed in the table below.

Replacement Costs(New Construction) Low Range High Range Cost/Fee Type Cost Per Unit Cost Per Unit
Land Acqusition $35,800 $46,700
Construction $221,800 $250,700
Financing/Other $31,500 $49,600
Total Development Cost $289,100 $347,000
Total Subsidy Required $76,600 $135,600
Preservation Costs Low Range High Range
Fee/Cost Type Cost Per Unit Cost Per Unit
Acquisition $59,100 $120,900
Rehabilitation    $101,900 $243,700
Financing/Other $24,300                         $21,300* Total Development Cost $185,200 $385,900
Total Subsidy Required $97,100 $105,400
*This particular project had approximately $505,000 in permanent and temporary The total amount of subsidy needed varies by project type, asset condition, affordability level, and the amount of non-city subsidies. It is estimated that the cost to rehabilitate 2,645 at-risk homes could require between $256-278 million in total subsidies. The costs of rehabilitation can be unpredictable and depending on the location and condition of the homes may in fact be equally or more expensive than replacing at-risk homes with new construction. New construction increases the overall housing supply and generally results in higher quality buildings that are less costly to operate, and are generally more San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter VI‐4
resource efficient. It is for these reasons that the City will prioritize funding new construction in the quantified objectives section of Chapter VII.

D. Entities Qualified to Preserve At-Risk Homes
All housing corporations are legally capable of acquiring "at-risk" housing developments. The following is a list of all entities that have self-identified as having the capacity or the interest in managing assisted homes. Many of these developers have completed replacement and preservation projects in Santa Clara County.
 Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition
 BRIDGE Housing Corporation
 First Community Housing
 Mercy Housing
 EAH
 Eden housing
 Charities Housing Development Corporation
 Satellite Affordable Housing Associates (SAHA)
 Resources for Community Development
 USA Properties
 ROEM (For profit)
 CORE (For profit)
If a nonprofit purchases an "at-risk" development but lacks adequate project management capabilities based on the City’s assessment, the nonprofit may be required to contract with an outside professional management firm.

E. Growth and Potential Impacts on Existing Housing Stock and Residents Previous chapters of this Housing Element discussed the local and regional policies to channel future growth into Urban Villages and Priority Development Areas, as well as the shifting trend of employers and households towards locating in vibrant, urban communities. Additionally, significant new transit infrastructure investments, including the BART extension to San José, the addition of new Bus Rapid Transit lines, the electrification of Caltrain, and the proposed High Speed Rail, are being, and will be, made in the same future growth locations. The trend towards urbanization means that the land, property values, and rents in such locations will likely increase significantly. As land values increase, so does the economic feasibility of new infill development or redevelopment of existing parcels and properties. New residential developments will likely be highly amenitized and command premium pricing given their proximity to services, employment, and infrastructure. These premiums can already be seen in San José, where new homes in locations such as Santana Row, The Alameda, and North San José are priced at the top of the market.

While the strengthening of these markets fully aligns with the General Plan and its vision for creating great urban places, 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. Without concomitant policies to ensure a diverse housing San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter VI‐5
supply, higher housing costs may price existing residents out of their community and lower-priced existing homes may be lost to redevelopment into luxury housing.

A joint study by California Housing Partnership Corporation and Reconnecting America confirms that Central San José is at the greatest risk of residential displacement and loss of naturally affordable housing stock. This study, funded by a federal grant through the Bay Area’s HUD Regional Prosperity Plan, uses data and spatial analysis to identify locations that may experience increasing market pressures as a result of transit infrastructure enhancements and other factors.7 (See map below) The report identifies potential priority preservation areas in and around downtown San José and neighborhoods immediately to the East and West that also correspond to several Urban Villages. These areas have both vulnerable populations of low-income residents and a concentration of strong transit connections and future transit investment.

Transit Investment and Affordable Housing Preservation Needs:

Source: California Housing Partnership Corporation and Reconnecting America, 2013 Besides providing affordable housing opportunities in strong market locations, there are additional benefits of preserving and building affordable housing near transit. In California, transportation is often the largest cost of living after housing. According to the HUD Location Affordability Index, a low income family of three in San José spends 20% of household income on transportation while the San José-

7 This grant was funded through the Metropolitan Transportation Commission by the Housing the Workforce Initiative of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Regional Prosperity Plan.

San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter VI‐6
Santa Clara-Sunnyvale area average is only 13%8. Transportation costs are largely determined by the distance between home and work, and as housing prices increase low income households have no choice but to crowd or live further from job centers resulting in longer and more costly commutes.

Locating affordable housing near jobs and quality transit infrastructure can help lower transportation costs for low income workers freeing up resources for housing, health care, education and other important expenses. In addition studies have shown that low income residents tend to use transit more than middle and high income residents so locating affordable housing near transit may increase transit ridership and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by curtailing long automobile commutes.

F. Preservation & Equitable Development
Lower-income residents in neighborhoods with strong housing markets are most susceptible to displacement, particularly those living in market-rate housing that may be naturally affordable but without deed-restrictions to protect those affordability levels. As the City facilitates its Urban Village strategy, the Diridon Station Area Plan, and development in Priority Development Areas and Downtown, the market strength that will induce development in those locations may also lead to displacement and the lack of affordable housing options if not proactively addressed.

The City will assess the issue of displacement and the potential loss of affordable housing stock in its growth locations, and will explore policies and programs to mitigate those impacts. This includes “naturally affordable” market-rate homes as well as mobilehomes. As indicated in Chapter II, San José as more than 10,000 mobilehomes, by far the largest number of any California city (for reference, Los Angeles and San Diego have approximately 8,250 and 6,500 mobile homes, respectively). The City has an existing Mobilehome Park Conversion Ordinance as well as a Mobilehome Rent ordinance and will review the effectiveness of these ordinances.

In addition to preserving the existing housing stock, the City will develop policies, programs, and tools to create diverse, equitable communities in priority growth areas in order to ensure that housing opportunities are available across incomes in amenities-rich locations. This includes development of an implementation/finance strategy for Urban Villages, the exploration of new housing types such as micro-units, and other potential strategies.

G. Conclusion
The above analysis finds that nearly 14% of the City’s deed-restricted housing stock is at risk of conversion within the next ten years. Given that replacement and preservation are relatively similar in cost, the City will prioritize new construction over preservation to increase the overall supply of housing and to create modern buildings that are less costly to operate and more resource efficient. For preservation projects, the City will focus on developments that have affordability restrictions expiring within ten years, a profit-motivated owner, and developments that have deeply affordable ELI and LI homes. While less data is available on the stock of “naturally affordable” homes, it is also important to consider market rate acquisition and rehabilitation to maintain the net supply of affordable homes.

Finally it is important to consider the location of replacement and preservation efforts as Urban Villages and Priority Development Areas may become highly susceptible to displacement pressures.

8 www.locationaffordabilty.info
San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter VI‐7
This page
intentionally
left blank
San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter VII‐1
Chapter VII:

Programs and
Implementation
In 1987 San José Mayor Tom McEnery created a Task Force on Housing, formed the City’s current housing department, and established a set of housing policy goals in response to the need for high quality affordable housing. Since that time the City of San José has been a leader in facilitating the production of affordable housing for its residents and workforce. However, the affordable housing supply is still not enough to keep up with demand. The need for affordable housing continues as land values and rents rise increasing the likelihood of crowding, displacement, and homelessness.

Significant cuts to Federal and State funding sources have resulted in a loss of more than $50M annually compared to the years leading up to 2012. In addition, legal challenges on inclusionary housing policies have left local governments with very few tools to expand the supply of affordable housing. This chapter builds on the previous analysis of needs and constraints and provides quantitative objectives and an implementation work plan that responds to these needs.

A. Summary of Key Findings
In order to frame the context for the implementation work plan, this section summarizes the key findings from the public outreach process and the analysis covered in the first five chapters of this document.

Chapter 1 - Introduction: The broader economic downturn had a significant impact on the for-sale housing market, while the rental market has grown more robust. Rents are now at their highest rates ever in San José, and the for-sale market is near or at pre-recession highs. Separately, State and regional programs and policies over the last few years have advanced efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by encouraging more compact and sustainable development patterns. Similarly, the General Plan seeks to direct future growth into Priority Development Areas, Urban Villages, and other locations to create more compact, walkable, equitable, and complete neighborhoods that are also more environmentally and fiscally sustainable. The following key themes emerged from the City’s public process: (1) prioritize housing for those most in need, especially the homeless; (2) preserve the existing affordable housing supply, and mobile homes in particular; (3) update the City’s secondary units provisions in the City’s Zoning Code; (4) develop strategies for affordable housing in Urban Villages; and (5) develop new partnerships and funding sources to increase the stock of affordable homes.

San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter VII‐2
Chapter 2 – Demographics: The largest city in the Bay Area, San José, has a combination of socioeconomic diversity and urban characteristics, opportunities, and challenges that make it unique relative to its neighboring cities. San José’s two fastest growing age groups are seniors aged 65 and over and young adults age 20-35. In terms of race/ethnicity, San José’s population is gradually becoming less white and more Latino and Asian. The ratio of owner-occupied and renter-occupied units was 58% and 42% respectively in 2010 and two-thirds of the City’s housing units were single family homes.

However, since 2000, the vast majority of new housing permits were for multi-family rental projects.

These demographic characteristics, shifting preferences, and market trends suggest continued demand for new, diverse, and innovative housing types that serve all economic segments of the community and that support sustainable, long-term economic growth.

Chapter 3-Needs Assessment: The demand for affordable housing in San José far exceeds the supply.

For-sale housing costs have increased rebounded to near pre-recession levels, while rents have far surpassed previous highs. As a result, approximately 50% of owners and 53.4% of renters (nearly half a million San José residents) have experienced a housing burden. While Silicon Valley as a whole is housing-poor as residential production lags behind job growth, San José is jobs-poor, thus creating regional inequity in the provision of housing in Santa Clara County for the region’s workforce. As such, addressing local housing conditions means, in part, that a regional response to Silicon Valley’s significant housing needs is required: housing is not just a local issue. Finally, there are approximately 4,770 homeless persons in San José on any given day, many of whom live on the street or in encampments along local waterways. San José’s unhoused homeless population is one of the largest in the United States, further signaling the severity of the housing problem in the city.

Chapter 4- Constraints & Resources: There are a variety of both governmental and non-governmental constraints in San José. Governmental constraints include the lack of regional coordination on fair shares of housing production and the fiscal impacts of this imbalance, the dissolution of all Redevelopment Agencies in California and the loss of the 20% Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund, deep cuts to Federal and State funding programs, and systems (particularly State and County systems) that create homelessness and the demand for low-cost housing upon discharge. Non-governmental constraints to housing production include high land values, high cost of construction, limited availability of financing, and strong market forces that can result in displacement, product uniformity, overcrowding, and jobs/housing imbalances.

Chapter 5-Planned Supply/Inventory: While much of San José is built out, there are ample opportunities to build up and within infill and key growth areas. This chapter identifies the geographic locations in San José to accommodate San José’s RHNA in the following eight categories: already entitled, Downtown, Planned Communities, Urban Villages, vacant land, North San José, a citywide “pool” allocation, and Underutilized Redevelopable Parcels.

B. Financing and Subsidy Resources
The City facilitates housing construction, rehabilitation and other programs funded through a variety of state, federal, and local resources. Subsidies for the rehabilitation and replacement of affordable deedrestricted housing come from loan repayments, State grants and bond proceeds, tax credits, inclusionary housing in-lieu fees, negotiated fee payments, and federal programs such as HOME and CDBG. The City of San José’s federal Consolidated Plan identified priority housing and community development goals and strategies, and includes Annual Action Plans identifying expected funding San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter VII‐3
commitments to meet those goals and strategies. In the previous Housing Element cycle the Housing Department received over $169 million of 20% Funds for the creation and preservation of affordable housing, but with the closing of California’s redevelopment agencies this significant source of funding has been eliminated.

It is a challenge to predict precise housing needs over an eight-year period, especially given changes in the availability of affordable housing resources and tools in the recent past. Over the last few years San José has seen more than a 40% cut in federal entitlement funding, along with the elimination of redevelopment agencies, reductions in State funding, and challenges to inclusionary housing programs.

The implementation work plan and the quantified housing objectives section below is based on the current availability of resources. However, the City has a loan portfolio of affordable housing assets that generates robust income to fund programs and activities. Additionally, the City is in the process of exploring a housing impact fee, which would create a local source of funding for affordable housing. The City seeks to implement such a fee in a clear, consistent, and predictable manner that would not deter development.

At the State level, the Cap and Trade program, which generates revenues by auctioning emissions permits in order to invest in greenhouse gas reduction activities, may provide a meaningful source of affordable housing funding in the future. The State’s FY 2014-15 includes a one-time $65 million allocation for transit-oriented and infill affordable housing developments Statewide, with a provision to allocate 10% of future auction proceeds annually. Should these and other programs or policies materialize, the City may be in a position to increase the number of policies and programs it can explore or implement, as well as the number of affordable homes it can facilitate.

C. Policies and Programs:

The implementation work plan responds to the needs and constraints identified in the prior section and in accordance with General Plan goals that are highlighted in Appendix B. The work plan includes existing as well as proposed or potential new policies, programs, and partnerships to meet San José’s housing needs. The implementation work plan contains four primary components:

1. Increase, preserve, and improve the supply of safe, livable, and affordable housing for low and moderate income residents.
 Programs and Funding
 Coordination
 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 Appendix D.

Additionally, this work plan identifies “Potential Actions” that the City has identified as important but may not currently have the staffing or resources to explore. City staff will monitor these items and will explore or undertake those items pending resources and if those items escalate in importance.

D. Quantified Objectives
San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter VII‐4
Table VII-1 identifies the City’s quantified housing objectives for new construction, acquisition/rehabilitation, and preservation based on the needs identified in prior chapters as well as the capacity and resources to carry them out. Over the time period of the Housing Element from January 31, 2015 to December 31, 2023, the City seeks to facilitate the development of up to 3,405 homes with an emphasis on Extremely Low- and Very Low-income households. Then quantified objectives assume that the City will need to leverage its subsidies with other resources such as low income housing tax credits and other sources to fill the affordability gap.

The quantified objectives include housing goals in three categories:

 New construction: The quantified objectives for new ELI, VLI and LI are based primarily on the existing pipeline of development projects and the current resources available to facilitate the development of affordable multifamily rental housing. If new housing programs and resources become available in the future, there may be the potential to exceed these objectives. While some moderate-income homes may be built without subsidies, it will become increasingly difficult to do so if prices continue to rise. While the need for moderate income housing is important given current resources, the City will continue to prioritize housing resources for those who have the greatest housing needs. An analysis of historic production levels shows that in the 1999-2006 RHNA cycle approximately 1,170 ELI/VLI/LI multifamily homes were permitted each year while in the 2007-2014 RHNA cycle the average dropped to approximately 400 lower-income homes permitted each year. This steep decline in affordable housing production underscores the effects of the economic downturn and steep reductions in federal, state, and local funding sources. To meet San José’s 2014-2023 RHNA allocation for below market rate homes, approximately 1,830 ELI/VLI/LI homes would need to be permitted annually for eight years.

It is important to note that the actual construction of these affordable units is largely dependent on the availability of new subsidy sources.
 Acquisition and Rehabilitation: Historically the City has prioritized funding for new construction over acquisition and rehabilitation. The cost/benefit of using public resources to rehabilitate older building stock versus building new homes depends on many factors but especially the quality and condition of the existing structure. For this planning period a small number of acquisition and rehabilitation projects have been identified and they will serve ELI residents. If additional funds become available it may be possible for the City to exceed the quantified objective in the table below.
 Preservation: Chapter VI identifies 2,645 at-risk units of which 1,142 are owned by profitmotivated companies and are thus at greater risk of conversion in the next ten years.

Looking five years out, there are 1,733 at-risk units of which 763 are owned by profit motivated companies. If more funds become available it may be possible for the City to exceed the quantified objective in the table below.

San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter VII‐5
Targeting
New
Construction
Acquisition /
Rehabilitation Preservation
Eight-Year
Total
ELI 788 20 40 848
VLI 290 50 34 374
LI 2,048 29 106 2,183
Moderate - - - -
Market 14,231 - - 14,231
Totals 17,357 99 180 17,636
Source: City of San Jose
*This number represents the 2014-2022 RHNA goal and is subject to market conditions.

Table VII-1.

EIGHT-YEAR QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES, JULY 1, 2014 TO JUNE 30, 2022 San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter VII‐6
This page
intentionally
left blank
San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter VIII‐1 Chapter VIII:

Prior Element
Evaluation
The City of San José is committed to providing housing opportunities across a range of needs and incomes for its families and households. As the largest city in the Bay Area and the third largest in California, San José has a leadership role in providing housing opportunities as well as addressing governmental and non-governmental constraints to housing in meaningful and innovative ways. While the City was significantly challenged in reaching its 2007-14 RHNA goals, it nearly met its 2009-14 quantified objectives in spite of the elimination of redevelopment agencies and the significant reduction in other funding sources.

Chapter VII reviews the City’s prior Housing Element to evaluate the efficacy of its programs as required by State law. This “review and revise” evaluation is a three-step process:

1. Effectiveness: evaluate “the effectiveness of the housing element in attainment of the community’s housing goals and objectives” (Government Code section 65588(a)(2)).

2. Implementation: evaluate “the progress of the city in implementation of the housing element” (Government Code section 65588(a)(3)).

3. Appropriateness: evaluate “the appropriateness of the housing goals, objectives, and policies in contributing to the attainment of the State housing goal” (Government Code section 65588(a)(1)).

This chapter provides a summary evaluation of the effectiveness, implementation, and appropriateness of San José’s Housing Element and quantified objectives for the prior 2007-2014 RHNA planning period.

A more detailed evaluation of the work plan can be found in Appendix E.

San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter VIII‐3 Table X-1.

Units Produced between 1999-2006
* RHNA goals for the time period beginning January 1999 to June 2006.

Note: Includes acquisition and rehabilitation
On the other hand, with onset of the global financial crisis in 2007-2008, the Great Recession spanned about 18 months near the beginning of the 2007-2014 RHNA planning period. Activity in calendar year 2009 fell to an all-time low of approximately 300 housing units. While the initial economic recovery was relatively weak, it has since strengthened into a more sustained recovery. On the other hand, the recovery in market rate housing has seen strong increases in the past two years in the resale of single family homes and condos/townhomes, while significant new construction has concentrated almost exclusively in multi-family rental housing. In fact, calendar years 2012 and 2013 taken together accounted for San José’s highest rate of rental housing production in any 24-month period since 1980.

Yet, construction of for-sale housing continues to be impacted by a myriad of issues as discussed previously in this document. Aside from market impacts, affordable housing production has been significantly impacted by the elimination, mitigation, or depletion of several key public policy tools. In summary, due to negative conditions affecting the economy and the housing market in particular, as well as public policy and legal decisions that have highly impacted affordable housing production, the City was unable to achieve its RHNA for the 2007-2014 planning period (see next section).

B. Meeting San José’s 2007-14 Regional Housing Needs Allocation As shown in the table and chart below, the City issued 16,029 building permits since the start of the 2007 RHNA period through calendar year 2013, equaling 48% of the overall allocation. However, the income categories in which production occurred vary significantly: while the City has met nearly 85% of its AMOD allocation, it has only met 15% of its lower- and moderate-income housing needs. The most challenging income category is the MOD category, as market-rate developers typically build at higher price points in the AMOD category, while affordable housing programs typically target deeper affordability levels. However, note that some market-rate housing developments in the 2007-14 RHNA cycle, particular rental homes, may be affordable at moderate-income income levels but are not deedrestricted as such, although exact numbers are not known. 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
As of
June
2006
Very Low 5,337 420 560 928 849 686 277 695 255 4,670 88% Low 2,364 199 707 1,303 383 386 469 439 359 4,245 180%
Moderate 7,086 68 163 46 92 271 129 7 173 949 13%
Above Moderate 11,327 2,919 3,663 2,391 1,254 3,416 1,961 1,982 1,262 18,848 166% TOTAL 26,114 3,606 5,093 4,668 2,578 4,759 2,836 3,123 2,049 28,712 110% 1999-
2006
RHNA*
Units Added - By Calendar Year
%
RHNA Affordability
Categories
Total
Units
Added
1999-2006

San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter VIII‐5 Although significant challenges exist for meeting the total RHNA, San José is proud of the nearly 3,000 affordable homes it has helped finance during the challenging 2007-14 RHNA cycle. This level of production aligns much more closely to the five-year quantified objectives identified in the City’s 2009-14 Housing Element. Note that the due date for the Housing Element that covers the 2007-14 RHNA cycle was June 2009. As a result, the quantified objectives were forward looking objectives that began in 2009 rather than in 2007 at the start of the RHNA cycle.

The table below shows that the City had a new construction goal of 2,250 affordable homes for the July, 1, 2009 and June 30, 2014 period. The table below shows that while the City has produced less than its VLI goal, it nearly achieved its ELI and exceeded its LI and MOD goals for new production. For acquisition and rehabilitation activities, the City exceeded its goals for all income categories except for VLI.

July 1, 2009 to June 30, 2014 Quantified Objectives
Income
Category
5- Year New
Construction Goal
Actual
Permitted
5-Year
Acquisition/Rehab
Goal
Actual
Acquisition/Rehab
Completed
ELI 563 474 125 137
VLI 1,462 745 325 211
LI 225 538 50 479
MOD 0 7 0 7
TOTAL 2,250 1,764 500 834
Additionally, the City achieved the following goals for its housing rehabilitation programs for owners of single family and mobilehomes in need of repair. These programs are restricted to lower-income households and are awarded per application on a first come first served basis, subject to income and asset criteria. As such, these programs provide an overall objective without quantifying goals by income categories.

Housing Rehabilitation Production Goals July 1, 2009 to June 30, 2014 Income Category 5-Year Goal Actual
Single Family Grants/Loans 625 246
Mobilehome Grants/Loans 750 1,086
Project Alliance 242 282
TOTAL 1,614
C. Effectiveness of the 2007-14 Housing Element Implementation Work Program Please see Appendix E for a more detailed evaluation of the City’s work program. In summary:
 The Planning, Building & Code Enforcement Department’s 2007-14 Housing Element work program totaled twenty one (21) programs, objectives, status, and implementation items. All items were successfully completed during the RHNA period. Most importantly, in 2011, the San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter VIII‐6 Envision San José 2040 General Plan was adopted—the first comprehensive update of the City’s General Plan since 1994.
 Note that the item for the Secondary Units program (item #3) will be included in the 2014-22 work program as staff explores additional opportunities to revise the ordinance in order to better facilitate secondary units. As of April 7, 2014, the program has resulted in the construction of approximately only 150 secondary units, and thus has not yet had a meaningful impact on the supply of affordable housing. In response, per guiding policy in the Envision Plan (see Policy H-2.5 and Action H-2.9 in Appendix B), San José is currently exploring options to revise certain development standards in order to facilitate greater use of this code provision by providing greater flexibility to interested homeowners, while at the same time preserving the character of existing neighborhoods.
 The Housing Department’s 2007-14 Housing Element work program totaled twenty nine (29) programs, objectives, status, and implementation items. The Housing Department, in collaboration with internal and external partners, successfully implemented those programs.

During this time period, several of the programs initially identified continued to be in operation, while others, such as the Strong Neighborhoods Initiative, discontinued due to the elimination of the City’s Redevelopment Agency, or were scaled down, such as the City’s Homebuyer program, to invest resources towards meeting other priorities. On the other hand, responding effectively to homelessness increased in priority as the economic recession and the subsequent uneven recovery led to an increase in homelessness and made this important issue even more visible. The programs identified in the 2007-14 Housing Element provided important resources and programs. The 2014-23 will continue to build on that effort through extensive collaboration with internal and external program to provide resources while seeking to create real systems change.summary of achievements from during the 2007-2014 RHNA cycle:

D. Element Appropriateness
To evaluate the appropriateness of the 2007-2014 Housing Element it is important to acknowledge several major changes that occurred during the RHNA cycle. In 2011 the City adopted Envision San José 2020, a new general plan. According to Envision San José 2040 General Plan and the former San José 2020 General Plan, most new housing development in the City will be achieved through higher density redevelopment within existing urbanized areas. This policy approach is appropriate and essential to achievement of a variety of long-term goals, including the State housing goal, which as identified in the introductory chapter has the following objectives:
 Increasing the supply, diversity, and affordability of housing  Promoting infill development and a more efficient land use pattern  Promoting an improved intraregional relationship between jobs and housing  Protecting environmental resources, and
 Promoting socioeconomic equity
On the issue of housing diversity, RHNA methodology includes a “fair share” component intended to promote socioeconomic equity by expanding the range of housing choices available in all jurisdictions throughout the Bay Area. By promoting higher density redevelopment within existing urbanized areas, the City has clearly had success in furthering housing diversity (and related goals above) during the prior RHNA period. As evidence, the table below examines the change in housing units by structure type in San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Chapter VIII‐7 San José over the 2000-2010 time period. While traditional single-family detached housing still accounted for a majority (53.8%) of housing units in 2010, growth in this structure type was greatly exceeded by the five-plus-unit structure (i.e., apartments) category and even slightly surpassed by an increase in single-family attached townhomes and condos. In percentage terms, single-family detached housing grew just 3.8% in the last decade, whereas many higher-density forms of housing experienced growth rates of about 25% or more.

Table VII-3, Housing Units by Structure Type, 2000-2010 On the issue of an improved intraregional relationship between jobs and housing, adoption of the Envision Plan establishes achievement of a jobs-to-employed residents ratio (J/ER) of 1.3 as a core objective. Unfortunately, as described in Chapter III, San José’s J/ER ratio declined over the 2008-2012 time period, from 0.91 in 2008 to 0.85 in 2012. In summary, the City lost jobs and added residents during much of the prior RHNA period, and thus continued emphasis on the topic of “jobs-housing balance” is appropriate to ensure an improved intraregional relationship and San José’s own fiscal health. However, achievement of a 1.3:1 jobs-to-employed resident ratio could worsen the City’s and the region’s housing affordability crisis, assuming that the County as a whole continues to be jobs rich and housing poor.

Another key change during the 2007-2014 RHNA cycle, was the end of the Strong Neighborhoods Initiative (SNI); a partnership between the City of San José, The Redevelopment Agency, residents, and local business owners to build clean, safe, and strong neighborhoods. This initiative ended in 2011 due to funding constraints. In February 2012 all Redevelopment Agencies in California were dissolved eliminating one of the largest funding sources for affordable housing development and neighborhood revitalization in San José. Finally in 2013, San José adopted several Urban Village Plans in an effort to implement to policies in the Envision San José 2020.

San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Appendix A‐1
Appendix A:

Adequate Sites Inventory
San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Appendix A‐2
Appendix A:

Adequate Sites
Inventory
As cited in Chapter V, State law requires that a housing element contain “an inventory of land suitable for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having potential for redevelopment” (Government Code section 65583(a) (3)). As relates to non-vacant sites, the inventory shall include “a description of the use of each property.” The methodology used to determine the development potential of non-vacant sites shall consider “the extent to which existing uses may constitute an impediment to additional residential development, development trends, market conditions, and regulatory or other incentives or standards to encourage development” (Government Code section 65583.2(g)).

Recognizing HCD’s longstanding concern about the extent to which existing uses may present an impediment to redevelopment, and the agency’s frequent desire for additional information from local jurisdictions to support their determination of a housing element’s “substantial compliance” with State law, the City of San José initially inquired on this and other specific provisions during the first Bay Area housing element training workshop conducted by HCD/ABAG on January 15, 2014. Subsequently, on February 26, 2014, San José personally met with HCD staff at City Hall to further discuss this issue. In response, Appendix A provides a methodology discussion and detailed inventory data to demonstrate current and ongoing compliance with various legal requirements.

San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Appendix A‐3
A. Methodology Overview
A summary description of the process and methodology used in creation of the inventory dataset of adequate sites is provided below.

Inventory Process: Step 1
Using Geographic Information Systems (GIS), parcels located within one of the major location/status categories identified in Chapter V were queried and assigned various characteristics, including the property’s Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN), General Plan, and Zoning, among others. Contiguous parcels with identical attributes were then merged into a single record and assigned a “tracking APN” taken from one of the former parcels. The size of this new land area was calculated by GIS and populated into an acres field.

Inventory Process: Step 2
A detailed evaluation of development/redevelopment potential was performed on this GIS dataset. The evaluation included, but was not limited to, the following:
a. Analysis of the dataset using high-resolution aerial and street-level photos using imagery obtained from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and also available via Google’s various webbased geographic products (i.e., Earth, Maps, Street View); b. Overlay of the dataset with GIS layers depicting various public and private land uses and property investments over the past several decades, so as to exclude sites for which no additional development is planned or upon which redevelopment is infeasible or unlikely. c. Comparison of the dataset against a GIS database of properties listed on San José’s Historic Resources Inventory. This analysis sought to minimize potential conflict between assumptions about redevelopment and policies intended to promote preservation of existing historic structures.

Inventory Process: Step 3
The GIS dataset was analyzed in terms of applying conservative assumptions of housing density based upon a combination of Envision San José 2040 General Plan policies and past development trends. The Envision Plan contains a range of allowable density for all residential land use designations (as cited in Table IV of Chapter IV), and the City closely monitors citywide and neighborhood development trends on an ongoing basis. Each area of San José has unique development potential as determined by the City’s extensive neighborhood-level planning efforts. These efforts have resulted in specific and realistic assumptions of housing capacity, which figures are monitored via a GIS-based tracking system of planning entitlements and building permits. For the North San José Development Policy and Urban Villages, this planned capacity is metered out in the previously described phases or “horizons,” with some flexibility for the City Council to allow implementation to be responsive to market conditions. For Urban Villages, inventory methodology sought to evenly distribute the Envision Plan yield for each Urban Village across all parcels resulting from the previously described screening process.

San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Appendix A‐4
Vacant lands exclude such parcels that fall within other identified location/status categories, and assumptions of density are independent of any area capacity figures. Instead, vacant land yield relies on conservative estimates within the density range specified by a parcel’s General Plan designation. For example, Urban Residential lands are assumed at 50 units per acre and Transit Residential lands at 100 units per acre, whereas the Envision Plan allows up to 95 units per acre and 250 units per acre, respectively, for these designations.

The underutilized lands that can be redeveloped or intensified are lands that contain individual parcels with residential General Plan land use designations that are located in non-residential zoning districts.

This list of underutilized parcels excludes parcels in the other above-mentioned categories in this Appendix.

Some of these parcels are vacant or too small to likely yield 50 or more net dwelling units per parcel. In some locations, however, these parcels may be adjacent to other vacant or underutilized parcels that may be potentially combined to create larger sites that potentially can be developed or redeveloped with larger yields of units. Several of these parcels were designated in the General Plan for residential uses as a result of private-party initiated General Plan amendment requests that were approved by the City Council. Other parcels in the underutilized category are currently used for industrial warehouses or other low intensity uses and are surrounded by residential development.

Another type of underutilization can be seen in the listing of parcels that have low or no floor area ratio (FAR) and are developed with surface parking lots used for automobile-related uses in central urban locations in proximity to transit. The attributes for each underutilized parcel are described in the listing of such parcels that are in the inventory of adequate sites.

Non-residentially zoned sites: Likelihood of residential development Except for sites in Urban Villages, all of the sites listed in the Housing Element Adequate Sites Inventory that are non-residentially zoned are designated in the Envision San Jose 2040 General Plan to allow 100% residential uses. The City of San Jose is a Charter City, and, therefore, the City’s zoning on sites does not have to be consistent with the City’s General Plan land use designations on such sites. Market trends covering several decades show that sites in the City of San Jose that are designated in the General Plan to allow 100% residential uses are either rezoned and redeveloped with residential units, or, within existing commercial zoning districts, the sites are developed or redeveloped, with approval of a use permit, to allow a mix of residential and commercial uses. Common practice over several decades has been for developers or property owners of sites with residential land use designations in the General Plan to rezone such sites from nonresidential zoning districts, to zoning districts that allow residential uses.

The non-residentially zoned sites in the Adequate Sites Inventory include a variety of undeveloped (vacant) lots and lots that are developed with low-intensity uses such as warehouses, used car lots, parking lots, or one single-family residence, whereas the General Plan land use designation allows medium or high density residential development, and where the existing developments’ floor-area ratios (FARs) are well below the maximum FARs (often less than 50% of the maximum FAR) allowed under their current General Plan residential land use designations. All of the sites are within the City’s Urban Service Area (USA), with urban infrastructure and services already in place, and many of the sites are adjacent to or surrounded by existing residential development. Additionally, many of the sites are San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Appendix A‐5
within the central area of the City. Preliminary applications and previous developer-initiated General Plan amendments for several of the parcels are documentation that support the likelihood of residential development.

To facilitate rezoning from non-residential to residential for these sites that have residential land use designations in the General Plan, the City’s Zoning Code (Title 20 of the San Jose Municipal Code), contains provisions for a Conforming Rezoning process that is streamlined to allow such rezoning applications to be heard directly by the City Council without the need first to be heard by the Planning Commission. Alternatively, mixed residential/commercial use development may be allowed in Commercial Zoning Districts upon issuance of a use permit.

The Work Plan in the Housing Element identifies actions for the City to amend the Zoning Code to add flexibility to development standards in the R-M (Multiple Residence) Zoning District to facilitate higher density housing by potentially allowing lesser minimum required setbacks and greater allowable heights in the development standards for this zoning district.

Non-vacant Sites
San Jose has experienced population growth and development since its founding in 1777. It is the third largest city in California, and the largest city in the San Francisco Bay Area. As such, the City has developed almost all of its land within its Urban Service Area (USA), and there is, therefore, very little vacant land available for development at urban densities, which require City services and infrastructure (i.e., land within the City’s USA). Regionally, the demand for housing far exceeds the supply.

The City’s General Plan includes a Land Use/Transportation Plan, Major Strategies, Goals, Policies, and Actions to accommodate population growth. As a result, redevelopment and intensification of nonvacant sites within the City have occurred over several decades to absorb the regional demand for housing. Given this context, there are many examples of housing developments that are the result of redevelopment of sites that previously had existing development of similar low intensity scale and type of use to the Non-vacant Sites that are listed in the Housing Element Adequate Sites Inventory. The attributes of these already-built redevelopment projects are summarized in the City’s database of development permits, which can be viewed by address or permit file number at www.sjpermits.org A sampling of these previously built projects is summarized in the following table:

PREVIOUSLY REZONED SITES REDEVELOPED WITH RESIDENTIAL UNITS Rezoning
File No.
and
Address
Project
Description
Gross
Acreage
Existing
Development
on Site

Development
Permit for
Redevelopment
PDC99-026
Hudson
Fruitdale
1445-1451
Fruitdale
Rezoned from
C-2
Commercial to
A(PD) Planned
Development

1.88 Two
commercial
buildings.

PD06-016 -
Fruitdale/Southwest
Expressway
Planned
Development
San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Appendix A‐6
Avenue Zoning District
for 75 multifamily
attached
residences.

Rezoned again
in 2006 to
increase
height to 65
feet and add
16 units.

Permit to construct
91 multi-family
residential units. All
existing
development
demolished and
community center
relocated.

Constructed in
2006-2008.

PDC00-008
Northside
Senior
Housing
488 North
6th Street
Rezoned from
C-2
Commercial to
A(PD) Planned
Development
Zoning District
for 96 senior
attached
residential
units and a
community
center.

1.71 City-owned
corporation
yard including
portable
building and
large metal
storage
building with
Northside
Community
Center
including a
3,250 s.f.
community
center
building, a
small portable
building, a
greenhouse,
and small
surface
parking lot.

PD00-036
Planned
Development
permit to demolish
all existing
development and
redevelop site with
96 affordable senior
residential units
and 16,000 square
feet of community
center. Constructed
2000-2002.

PDC00-022
Betty Anne
Gardens
955 North
King Road
Rezoned from
A-Agricultural
to A(PD)
Planned
Development
Zoning District
for 80 multifamily units.

4.49 Two single
family
residences
approximately
800 and 2,160
square feet in
area, two
greenhouse
structures
approximately
PD00-096 - Betty
Anne Gardens
Planned
Development
Permit to demolish
all existing
development and
develop 80
affordable multifamily residential
San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Appendix A‐7
55,000 square
feet and 33,700
square feet in
floor area, and
nine accessory
structures.
units and
community building,
and landscape a
riparian setback.

Constructed 2000-
2002.

PDC00-061
North 2nd
Street Lofts,
342 North
2nd Street
Rezoned from
M-1
Manufacturing
to A (PD)
Planned
Development
Zoning District
for 62
residential
units.

0.96 An auto repair
industrial
building and
paved parking
lot.

PD01-029 – North
2nd Street Lofts
Planned
Development
Permit to demolish
all existing
development and
develop 62
residential units.

Constructed 2003-
2004.

PDC01-060
Morrison
Lofts, 925
The
Alameda
and 80
North
Morrison
Street
Rezoned from
CGCommercial
General and
COCommercial
Office to A
(PD) Planned
Development
Zoning District
for 40 units.

1.12 Office building
and two
single-family
detached
residences
built in 1917
and 1925.

PD03-011 –
Morrison Lofts
Planned
Development
Permit to demolish
two existing
residences re-use
office building and
develop 40 live/work
loft units.

Constructed 2005-
2007.

PDC07-002
1010 South
3rd Street
Rezoned from
HI-Heavy
Industrial to A
(PD) Planned
Development
Zoning District
for 37 units.

0.71 One
warehouse
approximately
10,920 s.f. in
floor area.

PD12-050 Planned
Development
Permit to demolish
warehouse and
develop 37
residential units.

Demolition of
existing warehouse
and grading permits
issued 2012.

The above-listed built projects are similar to a sampling of projects in the “Entitled” category of the Housing Element’s Adequate Sites Inventory that required either a rezoning from a non-residential to a residential zoning district or approval of a San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Appendix A‐8
conditional use permit on non-residentially zoned parcels, demolition of previous development, and redevelopment of parcels. These examples are listed in the following table:

PREVIOUSLY REZONED SITES ENTITLED TO BE REDEVELOPED WITH

RESIDENTIAL UNITS IN ADEQUATE SITES INVENTORY (NOT BUILT AS OF APRIL 2014)
Rezoning File
No. and
Address
Project
Description
Gross
Acreage
Existing
Development
on Site

Development
Permit for
Redevelopment
PDC07-086
South 2nd Street
Studios, 1140
South 2nd Street
Rezoned from
CPCommercial
Pedestrian to
A(PD) Planned
Development
Zoning District
for 139
residential
units and up
to 11,383 s.f.
of commercial
space.

1.16 Pizza Hut
Restaurant
and surface
parking lot.

PD07-094
Planned
Development
Permit
approved to
demolish
existing
structures,
develop 135
attached
affordable
housing units
approximately
11,101 square
feet ground
floor retail,
retail parking,
and one level of
below-grade
residential
parking garage.

PDC07-083
Leigh
Apartments,
1030 Leigh
Avenue
Rezoned from
CPCommercial
Pedestrian to
A(PD) Planned
Development
Zoning District
for 64
residential
units and up
to 7,500 s.f.

0.97 Gas service
station with
surface
parking area.

SP07-018
Special Use
Permit
approved to
demolish an
existing gas
station and all
associated
structures.

PD07-083
Planned
San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Appendix A‐9
commercial
space.

Development
Permit to
develop 64 units
for senior
affordable
housing over a
7,500 squarefoot dental
office and a
podium garage.

PDC08-010
Japantown
Senior
Apartments
675 North 6th
Street
Rezoned from
LI-Light
Industrial to
A(PD) Planned
Development
Zoning District
for 75
residential
units.

0.55 Paved surface
parking lot.

PD08-015
Planned
Development
Permit
approved to
remove existing
pavement and
develop 75
attached units
for senior
affordable
housing.

PDC08-035
Edwards Mixed
Use South First
Street Mixed
Use
Planned
Rezoned from
LI-Light
Industrial and
R-M Multiple
Family
Residence to
A(PD) Planned
Development
Zoning District
to allow:
demolition of
four existing
residential
buildings, one
commercial
building,
relocation of
one National
Registereligible

1.07 Five
residential
buildings and
one
commercial
building
PD09-039
Planned
Development
Permit to
demolish five
existing
structures, two
of which qualify
for the Historic
Resources
Inventory as
Structures of
Merit, relocate
one National
Registereligible singlefamily
residence, and
allow
development of
50 residential
San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Appendix A‐10
single-family
residence, up
to 50
residential
units and
approximately
5350 s.f. of
commercial
space.
units and
approximately
5350 sq. ft of
commercial
space.

C09-009
Donner Lofts
156-160 East
St. John Street
Rezoned from
CGCommercial
General to
DC-Downtown
Primary
Commercial
Zoning
District.

0.44 Fire-damaged
historic
residence and
surface
parking lot.

H09-004 Site
Development
Permit
approved to
demolish
remnants of
historic
landmark
residence
destroyed by
fire and develop
156 multi-family
attached
residential units
(90% of units as
affordable
housing), 2,684
s.f. of
commercial
space, and a 2-
level sub-grade
parking garage.

PDC09-019
8th and William
Condominiums,
346 East
William Street
Rezoned from
CNCommercial
Neighborhood
and RMMultiple
Residence to
A(PD) Planned
Development
Zoning District
for mixed use
with up to 28

0.57 Three 2-story
single-family
detached
residences
and an
approximately
1,300 s.f.
restaurant.

PD13-016
application for a
Planned
Development
Permit is
pending.

San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Appendix A‐11
multi-family
residential
units, 1,780
s.f. of
commercial
space, and
conversion of
historic
single-family
residence to
private
community
space.

The above-listed built and entitled projects are similar to a sampling of projects in the “Non-residentially Zoned and Underutilized” category of the Housing Element’s Adequate Sites Inventory that required either a rezoning from a non-residential to a residential zoning district or approval of a conditional use permit on non-residentially zoned parcels, demolition of previous development, and redevelopment of parcels.

These examples are listed in the following table:

NONRESIDENTIALLY ZONED, RESIDENTIALLY DESIGNATED PARCELS

WITH EXISTING DEVELOPMENT IN ADEQUATE SITES INVENTORY
Existing
Address and
Zoning
District
Existing
General Plan
Land Use
Designation
Gross
Acreage
Existing
Development
on Site

Net
Residential
Units if
Redeveloped
3880 San
Felipe Road
located in the
A-Agricultural
Zoning
District.

Residential
Neighborhood
(8-16 du/ac)

2.46 AT&T office
building with
equipment. .35
FAR. Adjacent
to Vacant
parcel listed in
inventory.
20 16601
Almaden
Expressway
located in the
CPCommercial
Pedestrian
Zoning
District.

Urban
Residential
(30-95 du/ac)

0.80 SP12-004
Special Use
Permit
approved to
demolish gas
station. Corner
site.

Surrounded by
low density
40 San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Appendix A‐12 residential.
2438 Almaden
Road located
in the CPCommercial
Pedestrian
Zoning
District.

Urban
Residential
(30-95 du/ac)

0.47 One-story
restaurant
(Super
Taqueria) and
associated
surface
parking lot,
less than .35
FAR. Corner
site.
24 1860-1868
Almaden
Road located
in the HIHeavy
Industrial
Zoning
District.

Urban
Residential
(30-95 du/ac)

0.59 One-story
industrial
warehouse
and associated
paved surface
parking lot.

One of several
parcels.
30 1199 South
1st Street
located in the
CPCommercial
Pedestrian
Zoning
District
Transit
Residential
(50-250 du/ac)

0.90 One-story
autosales and
repair
commercial
building and
associated
surface
parking lot.

FAR .10
Adjacent to
another parcel
in inventory.
90 935 South 1st
Street
Transit
Residential
(50-250 du/ac)

0.39 One-story
restaurant
(Wienersnitzel)
with surface
parking.

Corner lot.
39 In sum, a comparison of the three tables shows that rezoning and redevelopment of nonresidentially zoned and underutilized sites that have existing development have been occurring in the City of San Jose for more than a decade. This approach to residential development is still occurring now, with density of redevelopment increasing, mixed-use San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Appendix A‐13
development intensifying, and substantial redevelopment occurring on sites that are two acres or smaller in area. Therefore, based on these trends, it is reasonable to conclude that nonresidentially zoned sites and sites with existing development listed in the Adequate Sites Inventory could redevelop with the residential capacity stated in this Housing Element.

B. “No-Net-Loss” Provision
In 2002, the California Legislature amended housing element law in passage of Assembly Bill 2292 (AB 2292), otherwise commonly referred to as the “no-net-loss” provision. In essence, AB 2292 imposed a new requirement on local agencies to continually ensure that an adequate sites inventory accommodates its RHNA allocation.

The law provides that “no city shall, by administrative, quasi-judicial, legislative, or other action, reduce the residential density for any parcel” that is relied upon by HCD in determining housing element compliance “to a lower residential density” unless written findings are made. Such findings “shall be supported by substantial evidence of both of the following: (1) the reduction is consistent with the adopted general plan, including the housing element; and, (2) the remaining sites identified in the housing element are adequate to accommodate the jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing need” (Government Code section 65863).

In response, upon State certification of this Housing Element, San José will implement a parcel-based tracking system that leverages existing use of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and associated relational database and web-based technologies to proactively inform City staff, prospective applicants, and the public about applicability of the “no-net-loss” provision and, where applicable, include written findings in relevant actions. In short, the City’s Integrated Development Tracking System (“AMANDA”) and associated public-facing web portal (https://www.sjpermits.org/permits/) will include data fields to indicate if a property is listed in the Adequate Sites Inventory and the implications of this listing.

Adequate Sites Inventory (2014-2023)
ID
Land Type* Project Name File Number
Tracking
APN
Planned
Units
Units
Issued Density Affordable
General
Plan** Zoning*** Existing Use Acres
Downtown1 DT The 88 Condos (Phase 2) HA04-038-04 46722156 204 0 152.2 Yes DT DC Commercial 1.34 2 DT The Pierce Apts H13-021 26432087 234 0 117.6 Yes DT DC-NT1 Commercial 1.99 3 DT Silvery Towers Apts H13-041 25932004 643 0 349.5 Yes DT DC Commercial 1.84 4 DT Post/San Pedro Apts PRE13-189 25940088 156 0 339.1 Yes DT DC Commercial 0.46 5 DT San Pedro Square H12-020 25932044 408 0 190.7 Yes DT DC Industrial 2.14 6 DT Balbach Condos PDC13-027 26430067 101 0 64.3 Yes DT A(PD) Commercial 1.57 7 DT N/A N/A 25951006 70 0 175.0 Yes DT DC None 0.40
8 DT N/A N/A 25924020 375 0 175.0 Yes DT DC None 2.14 9 DT North San Pedro Townhomes 1 H14-002 25933017 43 0 33.1 Yes DT DC Commercial 1.30 10 DT N/A N/A 25932040 228 0 175.0 Yes DT DC None 1.30 11 DT N/A N/A 25933007 138 0 175.0 Yes DT DC Commercial 0.79 12 DT N/A N/A 46701029 119 0 175.0 Yes DT CG Commercial 0.68 13 DT N/A N/A 25935026 320 0 175.0 Yes DT DC Commercial 1.83 14 DT N/A N/A 25935042 117 0 175.0 Yes DT DC Commercial 0.67 15 DT Marshall Squares H14-010 46721030 195 0 137.3 Yes DT DC Commercial 1.42 16 DT N/A N/A 46721011 110 0 175.0 Yes DT DC Commercial 0.63 17 DT N/A N/A 46720075 207 0 175.0 Yes DT CG Commercial 1.18 18 DT N/A N/A 46720060 77 0 175.0 Yes DT CG Commercial 0.44 658 DT N/A N/A 25940016 29 0 175.0 Yes DT DC None 0.17 19 DT N/A N/A 46720081 170 0 175.0 Yes DT CG Commercial 0.97 20 DT N/A N/A 25935055 61 0 175.0 Yes DT DC None 0.22
21 DT N/A N/A 46722142 175 0 175.0 Yes DT DC Commercial 1.00 22 DT N/A PRE07-277 25943076 131 0 175.0 Yes DT DC Commercial 0.75 23 DT City Front Square H06-040 25942080 359 0 175.0 Yes DT DC Commercial 2.05 24 DT N/A N/A 46746082 380 0 175.0 Yes DT DC Commercial 2.17 25 DT N/A N/A 46746068 317 0 175.0 Yes DT DC Commercial 1.81 26 DT Riverpark PDC06-117 25943072 187 0 175.0 Yes DT CG(PD) Commercial 1.07 San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Appendix A‐14
Adequate Sites Inventory (2014-2023)
ID
Land Type* Project Name File Number
Tracking
APN
Planned
Units
Units
Issued Density Affordable
General
Plan** Zoning*** Existing Use Acres
27 DT N/A N/A 46747019 131 0 175.0 Yes DT DC Commercial 0.75 28 DT N/A N/A 26430089 88 0 175.0 Yes DT DC Commercial 0.50 29 DT N/A PDC06-125 26426006 144 0 175.0 Yes DT LI Residential 0.82 30 DT N/A N/A 47226010 180 0 175.0 Yes DT DC Commercial 1.03 31 DT N/A N/A 47226070 51 0 175.0 Yes DT DC None 0.29
32 DT N/A N/A 25931070 158 0 175.0 Yes DT DC Commercial 0.90 33 DT N/A N/A 25934025 683 0 175.0 Yes DT DC Commercial 3.90 34 DT 4th Street Live/Work PD08-024 46701034 2 0 25.0 No DT A(PD) None 0.08 35 DT N/A N/A 25946109 294 0 175.0 Yes DT DC None 1.68 36 DT N/A N/A 25946097 287 0 175.0 Yes DT LI Commercial 1.64 37 DT Delmas Housing PDC02-046 25938036 325 0 145.0 Yes DT A(PD) None 2.79 38 DT Donner Lofts H09-004 46720018 156 0 354.5 Yes DT DC Commercial 0.44 39 DT N/A N/A 46745033 84 0 175.0 Yes DT DC Commercial 0.48 40 DT N/A N/A 47227054 168 0 175.0 Yes DT CG/R-M Commercial 0.96 41 DT N/A N/A 46724110 406 0 175.0 Yes DT CG Commercial 2.32 42 DT N/A N/A 46720079 124 0 175.0 Yes DT DC Commercial 0.71 43 DT North San Pedro Townhomes 3 H14-004 25932079 14 0 46.6 Yes DT DC None 0.30 44 DT North San Pedro Townhomes 2 H14-003 25932034 21 0 48.8 Yes DT DC None 0.43 45 DT N/A N/A 26428160 241 0 175.0 Yes DT DC None 1.38
46 DT Fountain Alley Mixed Use RCP02-013 46722121 120 0 96.0 Yes DT DC Commercial 1.25 47 DT North San Pedro Apts CP11-034 25923016 135 0 184.9 Yes DT DC Commercial 0.73 48 DT Park View Towers H14-009 46701118 216 0 140.3 Yes DT DC Commercial 1.54 49 DT San Jose Student Apts H13-023 46757080 119 0 101.7 Yes DT DC Commercial 1.17 Subtotals 9,701 - 58.42
Entitled50 ENT 13th Street Homes PD04-073 46704020 4 0 12.2 No RN A(PD) Residential 0.33 51 ENT 15th Street Homes PD08-065 24912048 4 0 16.0 No RN A(PD) Residential 0.26 San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Appendix A‐15
Adequate Sites Inventory (2014-2023)
ID
Land Type* Project Name File Number
Tracking
APN
Planned
Units
Units
Issued Density Affordable
General
Plan** Zoning*** Existing Use Acres
52 ENT 24th Street Duplex H06-008 46732065 2 0 16.7 No RN R-2 Residential 0.12 53 ENT 26th Street Homes PD06-037 46706090 3 0 13.0 No RN A(PD) None 0.12 54 ENT 33rd Street Duplex H08-020 48101087 2 0 8.7 No RN R-2 None 0.23 55 ENT 34th Street Homes PDC04-033 48145001 5 0 11.1 No RN A(PD) None 0.48 56 ENT 34th Street Homes PDC03-021 48145039 3 0 11.1 No RN A(PD) Residential 0.74 660 ENT Adamo Homes PDC13-020 45812025 13 0 11.2 No MUN A(PD) Residential 1.21 57 ENT Almaden and Oak PDC01-080 26438053 4 0 25.0 No MUC A(PD) Residential 0.16 58 ENT Almaden Duplex H13-012 43410073 2 0 10.8 No RN R-2 Residential 0.19 59 ENT Almaden Homes PD07-056 69601002 6 0 6.9 No RN A(PD) Residential 1.13 60 ENT Almaden Homes PD07-051 74235141 6 0 6.9 No RN A(PD) Commercial 1.03 61 ENT Almaden Crossing PDA07-064-01 70117016 13 0 6.9 No RN A(PD) None 1.22 62 ENT Almaden Townhomes PD04-079 26434046 10 0 21.3 No MUC A(PD) Residential 0.48 63 ENT Almaden/Goodyear Homes SP07-059 43407016 4 0 18.4 No RN R-M Residential 0.21 64 ENT Bark Condos PDC06-005 37224011 45 0 50.0 Yes UR A(PD) Residential 0.91 65 ENT Bascom Senior Assisted Living CP07-101 41224009 69 0 135.3 Yes NCC CP None 0.51 66 ENT Berryessa Crossing (Phase 1) PD08-027 25417084 242 43 20.0 No UV A(PD) None 12.50 67 ENT Berryessa Crossing (Phase 2) PD12-031 25417084 494 0 30.0 Yes UV A(PD) None 13.70 68 ENT Berryessa Crossing Mixed Use PDC09-006 25417084 2,082 0 20.0 No UV A(PD) Commercial 19.09 69 ENT Blackford Townhomes PD07-017 29938082 20 0 20.6 No MUN A(PD) Residential 0.97 70 ENT Boynton Homes PD07-029 29946023 4 0 15.3 No MUN A(PD) Residential 0.25 71 ENT Brandon Park Apts PD07-090 9706038 1,579 620 73.2 Yes IP A(PD) Industrial 22.77 72 ENT Brookside Homes PD10-024 57502027 89 52 5.9 No RN A(PD) Commercial 15.48 73 ENT Bundy Homes PD13-026 30333035 4 0 13.8 No MUN A(PD) Residential 0.28 657 ENT Cambrian Center PD14-011 42136007 10 0 68.0 Yes UR A(PD) Residential 2.28 74 ENT Camden Homes PDC12-024 57501003 5 0 0.9 No RN A(PD) Residential 7.32 75 ENT Catherine Homes PD08-016 1502012 4 0 8.7 No MUN A(PD) Residential 0.49 76 ENT Centered on Capitol Townhomes PD11-023 58919063 94 55 24.9 No NCC A(PD) Residential 3.78 77 ENT Century Center Mixed Use PD13-048 23029022 378 0 191.6 Yes CIC A(PD) Commercial 2.42 78 ENT Cottle Station Mixed Use (Hitachi) PD12-028 70604013 234 0 30.0 Yes UV A(PD) None 5.83 San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Appendix A‐16
Adequate Sites Inventory (2014-2023)
ID
Land Type* Project Name File Number
Tracking
APN
Planned
Units
Units
Issued Density Affordable
General
Plan** Zoning*** Existing Use Acres
79 ENT Creekside Townhomes PD06-038 28403009 19 0 39.6 Yes NCC A(PD) Residential 0.49 80 ENT Dent Homes PD07-038 56925023 20 0 40.0 Yes UR A(PD) Residential 0.50 81 ENT Douglas Homes PDC07-089 27719012 6 0 14.0 No MUN A(PD) Residential 0.43 82 ENT Dove Hill Homes PD13-037 67911001 16 0 4.2 No RN A(PD) None 3.88 83 ENT Edwards Mixed Use PD09-039 26437060 50 0 46.8 Yes MUC A(PD) Residential 1.07 84 ENT Elden Glen Housing PD09-010 41221046 4 0 7.8 No RN A(PD) Residential 0.82 85 ENT Entrada Cedros Homes PDC07-012 46414017 8 0 15.7 No RN A(PD) Residential 0.52 86 ENT Epic Apts PD08-056 9715026 769 569 75.0 Yes IP A(PD) Industrial 10.27 87 ENT Essex Homes PD06-031 1512032 3 0 9.1 No RN A(PD) Residential 0.34 88 ENT Falling Tree Homes PD13-029 24439042 7 0 9.1 No RN A(PD) Residential 0.79 89 ENT Fruitdale Station (Phase 2) PD07-007 28402008 256 80 39.5 Yes NCC A(PD) None 6.73 90 ENT Gibson Girl Homes PD07-077 65214012 5 0 1.8 No LH A(PD) Residential 3.04 91 ENT Grand Duplex H08-033 1505138 2 0 14.3 No RN R-M Residential 0.15 92 ENT Grand Duplex H07-042 1505137 2 0 13.3 No RN R-M Residential 0.15 93 ENT Grand Oak Homes PD10-019 66003013 3 0 1.9 No RR A(PD) Residential 2.35 656 ENT Greenbriar Homes T09-002 27918052 4 0 6.6 No RN R-1-8 Residential 0.61 94 ENT Heritage Estates II PD07-047 66002013 6 0 1.8 No RR A(PD) None 2.48 95 ENT Hyundai Site Mixed Use PDA06-048-01 9706055 528 0 67.0 Yes IP A(PD) None 11.55 96 ENT Japantown Senior Apts PD08-015 24939011 75 0 136.0 Yes MUN A(PD) None 0.54 97 ENT La Pala Homes PD06-033 60106045 9 0 25.0 No UR A(PD) None 0.40 98 ENT Leigh Senior Housing PD07-089 28432014 64 0 66.0 Yes NCC A(PD) None 0.94 99 ENT Livery Lane Homes PD13-008 66058001 7 0 1.2 No OSPH A(PD) Residential 3.27 100 ENT Lucretia and Owsley PD05-046 47715003 15 0 15.0 No MUN A(PD) None 1.01 101 ENT Lucretia Development PDA06-030-01 47766004 20 0 14.4 No RN A(PD) None 1.82 102 ENT Lucretia Homes PDC06-131 47711051 10 0 10.0 No RN A(PD) None 0.96 103 ENT Mayfair Village Apts H11-006 48402049 4 0 45.0 Yes MUN R-M Residential 1.01 104 ENT Metropolitan Apts PD11-011 47723021 102 0 36.4 Yes CIC A(PD) None 2.92 105 ENT Michigan Homes PD09-037 1505082 4 0 8.7 No RN A(PD) Residential 0.48 106 ENT Moitozo Ranch Site PDC03-043 9707068 637 0 26.0 No TR A(PD) Agriculture 27.14 San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Appendix A‐17
Adequate Sites Inventory (2014-2023)
ID
Land Type* Project Name File Number
Tracking
APN
Planned
Units
Units
Issued Density Affordable
General
Plan** Zoning*** Existing Use Acres
107 ENT Monterey Homes PD11-032 68402010 38 0 7.6 No CIC A(PD) None 4.09 108 ENT Moorpark Homes PD06-010 27903020 2 0 4.9 No RN A(PD) Residential 0.65 109 ENT Morrill Homes PDC09-011 58720017 2 0 4.3 No RN A(PD) Residential 0.46 110 ENT Neilson Homes PD07-015 68456028 3 0 2.3 No RR A(PD) Residential 1.67 111 ENT Newbury Park Mixed Use PD13-023 25404076 230 0 80.0 Yes UV A(PD) Industrial 3.08 112 ENT Newbury Park Mixed Use PDC07-015 25404076 742 0 80.0 Yes UV A(PD) Industrial 16.36 113 ENT Oak Knoll Homes PD05-088 68002008 25 19 2.9 No RN A(PD) None 3.42 114 ENT Olga Homes PD12-034 29936048 5 0 13.8 No NCC A(PD) Residential 0.37 115 ENT Olsen Homes PD09-027 30330013 3 0 12.5 No RN A(PD) Residential 0.23 116 ENT Orchard Park PDA11-007-02 23703070 240 0 25.0 No UR A(PD) None 13.38 117 ENT Oyama Site PD08-063 24142103 34 2 11.3 No RN A(PD) Residential 2.84 118 ENT Page Homes PD06-053 27721016 7 0 17.5 No MUN A(PD) Residential 0.41 119 ENT Page Street Homes PD08-032 27719032 4 0 13.0 No MUN A(PD) Residential 0.31 120 ENT Palm Street Housing PD08-020 43412067 3 0 15.0 No MUN A(PD) Residential 0.20 121 ENT Parc 22 Townhomes PDA07-013-01 47201021 67 28 20.6 No CIC A(PD) Industrial 3.31 122 ENT Pepper Lane Mixed Use PD08-001 25415072 371 285 19.7 No MUN A(PD) None 17.46 123 ENT Piedmont Homes PDC07-021 59112047 3 0 7.5 No RN A(PD) Residential 0.41 124 ENT Pinn Brothers PDC04-110 68002008 13 0 2.9 No RN A(PD) Residential 1.92 125 ENT Quimby Homes PDC10-002 65925002 7 0 4.1 No LH A(PD) None 1.93 126 ENT Race Street Housing PDC06-024 26409051 293 0 50.0 Yes TR A(PD) Commercial 5.67 127 ENT Race Street Terrace PDC13-037 26142072 80 0 35.0 Yes UR A(PD) Commercial 2.27 128 ENT Rachaella Homes PDC06-104 66072020 3 0 1.6 No RR A(PD) None 2.34 129 ENT Rosemar Court Homes PD10-021 61268002 13 0 0.6 No LH A(PD) None 25.69 130 ENT Ruby Estates PD11-012 65211010 10 0 4.0 No RR A(PD) None 2.50 131 ENT Sabatino Homes PD12-037 25405046 18 0 16.4 No MUN A(PD) Residential 3.16 132 ENT San Felipe Homes PD09-029 66002013 14 0 1.8 No RR A(PD) None 6.51 133 ENT San Felipe Homes PD11-029 66005001 4 0 1.8 No RR A(PD) Residential 2.10 134 ENT Santa Teresa Transit Village PD13-044 70604013 664 0 45.0 Yes UR A(PD) None 14.77 135 ENT Senter Court Homes PD13-041 49447004 5 0 8.9 No RN A(PD) None 0.55 San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Appendix A‐18
Adequate Sites Inventory (2014-2023)
ID
Land Type* Project Name File Number
Tracking
APN
Planned
Units
Units
Issued Density Affordable
General
Plan** Zoning*** Existing Use Acres
136 ENT Senter Road Family Apts PDC09-033 49741098 102 0 29.5 No PQP A(PD) Commercial 3.51 137 ENT Sierra Creek Homes PD05-069 58706061 6 0 9.1 No RN A(PD) Residential 0.78 138 ENT Skylark Housing PD13-020 45514006 24 0 29.0 No NCC A(PD) None 1.10 139 ENT South Village (Hitachi) PD14-010 70604013 845 10 17.0 No UV A(PD) None 40.43 140 ENT Springbrook Homes PD13-003 65403022 12 0 1.9 No RR A(PD) Residential 6.88 141 ENT Summerwind Apts (annex) PDC08-067 47719060 103 0 30.3 Yes UR A(PD) Residential 3.74 142 ENT Sycamore Terrace Townhomes PD13-032 69402002 27 0 22.5 No OSPH A(PD) None 1.42 143 ENT Tasman Apts PD11-030 9752028 554 0 79.6 Yes IP A(PD) Industrial 7.32 144 ENT Taylor Homes PDC07-003 24925020 2 0 8.6 No RN A(PD) Residential 0.23 145 ENT Vendome Place PDC05-101 25905024 433 0 178.5 Yes TR A(PD) Commercial 1.90 146 ENT Venetian Terrace Condos PD04-024 45532012 170 86 50.0 Yes TR A(PD) Residential 3.12 147 ENT Vine Homes PD07-074 43411008 3 0 11.8 No RN A(PD) Residential 0.32 148 ENT Willard Housing PD06-027 27718034 6 0 17.0 No MUN A(PD) None 0.43 149 ENT Williams Mixed Use PD13-016 47228054 28 0 49.0 Yes RN A(PD) Residential 0.57 150 ENT Willow Street Homes PD13-035 43403093 3 0 8.2 No NCC A(PD) Residential 0.50 151 ENT Boynton Homes II PDC13-033 29946021 10 0 13.9 No RN A(PD) Residential 0.72 152 ENT 10th Street Homes PD07-096 47223004 3 0 15.0 No RN A(PD) Residential 0.22 Subtotals 13,323 1,849 414.40
Planned Communities153 PC Vicenza at Montecito Vista PD13-027 45509062 162 0 33.0 Yes CIC A(PD) None 2.17 154 PC KB Home (Townhomes) PDC13-009 45509057 1,575 0 22.0 No UR County None 70.00 155 PC KB Home (Condos/Apts) PDC13-009 45528017 625 0 68.0 Yes UR County None 9.00 156 PC Murano at Montecito Vista PD12-008 45509060 100 0 33.0 Yes CIC A(PD) None 4.97 157 PC Sorrento at Montecito Vista PD13-034 45509058 36 0 33.0 Yes CIC A(PD) None 2.05 158 PC Verona at Montecito Vista PD12-009 45509062 277 0 33.0 Yes CIC A(PD) None 3.86 159 PC Corporation Yard GP13-007 24939039 360 0 100.0 Yes TR LI Industrial 5.28 160 PC Libitzky Mixed Use PDC08-036 24909001 403 0 35.4 Yes MUN A(PD) Industrial 11.61 San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Appendix A‐19
Adequate Sites Inventory (2014-2023)
ID
Land Type* Project Name File Number
Tracking
APN
Planned
Units
Units
Issued Density Affordable
General
Plan** Zoning*** Existing Use Acres
161 PC Taylor Street Rowhomes PD06-035 24905055 5 0 19.2 No MUN A(PD) Residential 0.26 162 PC Westmount Homes PD09-030 24909009 60 15 18.8 No MUN A(PD) Residential 3.16 163 PC N/A N/A 47218062 27 0 100.0 Yes TR A(PD) Commercial 0.27 164 PC N/A N/A 47227105 86 0 100.0 Yes TR LI Industrial 0.86 165 PC N/A N/A 47216064 4 0 50.0 Yes UR CP Commercial 0.08 166 PC N/A N/A 47214024 13 0 50.0 Yes UR CP Commercial 0.25 167 PC N/A N/A 47215023 62 0 50.0 Yes UR HI Industrial 1.23 168 PC N/A N/A 47701073 10 0 35.0 Yes MUC CP Commercial 0.29 169 PC South 2nd Mixed Use PD07-094 47701082 134 0 116.4 Yes MUC A(PD) None 1.18 170 PC Virginia Terrace Apts PDA08-029-01 47218051 238 0 66.0 Yes TR A(PD) Industrial 3.68 171 PC N/A N/A 47214025 71 0 50.0 Yes UR LI Industrial 1.41 172 PC N/A N/A 47701077 20 0 35.0 Yes MUC CP Commercial 0.57 173 PC N/A N/A 47217002 27 0 35.0 Yes MUC CP Commercial 0.76 174 PC N/A N/A 47217094 14 0 25.0 No MUN CN Commercial 0.56 175 PC N/A N/A 47216025 477 0 100.0 Yes TR LI Industrial 4.77 176 PC N/A N/A 47216039 31 0 25.0 No MUN LI Industrial 1.24 177 PC N/A N/A 47216017 52 0 50.0 Yes UR LI Industrial 1.00 178 PC N/A N/A 47218061 55 0 100.0 Yes TR A(PD) None 0.55 179 PC N/A N/A 47227087 30 0 100.0 Yes TR R-M Residential 0.30 180 PC N/A N/A 47218007 104 0 100.0 Yes TR LI Industrial 1.04 181 PC N/A N/A 47218058 86 0 100.0 Yes TR LI Industrial 0.86 182 PC N/A N/A 47214055 42 0 100.0 Yes TR LI Industrial 0.42 183 PC N/A N/A 47215027 20 0 100.0 Yes TR HI Industrial 0.20 184 PC N/A N/A 47225092 123 0 100.0 Yes TR A(PD) Commercial 1.23 186 PC Ohlone Mixed Use PDC08-061 26414131 775 0 94.2 Yes TR A(PD) Industrial 8.23 659 PC Cheim Lumber Site PDC14-007 26415062 315 0 67.3 Yes TR HI Industrial 4.68 187 PC Park Family/Senior Apts PDC13-012 26136062 181 0 95.3 Yes TR A(PD) None 1.90 190 PC N/A N/A 43405079 7 0 25.0 No MUN LI Industrial 0.28 191 PC N/A N/A 43404081 15 0 25.0 No MUN LI Industrial 0.59 San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Appendix A‐20
Adequate Sites Inventory (2014-2023)
ID
Land Type* Project Name File Number
Tracking
APN
Planned
Units
Units
Issued Density Affordable
General
Plan** Zoning*** Existing Use Acres
192 PC N/A N/A 43420023 358 0 50.0 Yes UR LI Industrial 7.15 193 PC N/A N/A 43405078 8 0 25.0 No MUN R-2/LI Industrial 0.33 194 PC N/A N/A 43413040 354 0 50.0 Yes UR LI Industrial 7.07 195 PC N/A N/A 43412101 11 0 25.0 No MUN LI Industrial 0.43 196 PC Almaden Road Apts (Phase 2) PDC98-089 43426032 90 0 50.0 Yes UR A(PD) Industrial 2.43 197 PC Skyline Condos (Phase 2) PD04-021 43413015 119 0 76.0 Yes TR A(PD) None 1.36 Subtotals 7,562 15 169.56
Urban Villages Specific Urban Village198 UV Alum Rock Ave (East of 680) N/A 48419032 2 0 12.1 No NCC R-1-8 Residential 0.14 199 UV Alum Rock Ave (East of 680) N/A 48420079 2 0 12.1 No NCC CP Commercial 0.18 200 UV Alum Rock Ave (East of 680) N/A 48420035 5 0 12.1 No NCC CP(PD) Commercial 0.40 201 UV Alum Rock Ave (East of 680) N/A 48420053 8 0 12.1 No NCC A(PD) Commercial 0.66 202 UV Alum Rock Ave (East of 680) N/A 48445117 2 0 12.1 No NCC R-2 Residential 0.14 204 UV Alum Rock Ave (East of 680) N/A 48444063 3 0 12.1 No NCC A(PD) Residential 0.24 205 UV Alum Rock Ave (East of 680) N/A 48443120 37 0 12.1 No NCC A(PD) Commercial 3.02 207 UV Alum Rock Ave (East of 680) N/A 48442014 8 0 12.1 No NCC CN Commercial 0.69 208 UV Alum Rock Ave (East of 680) N/A 48442011 9 0 12.1 No NCC A(PD) Commercial 0.74 209 UV Alum Rock Ave (East of 680) N/A 48444061 23 0 12.1 No NCC A(PD) Residential 1.89 210 UV Alum Rock Ave (East of 680) N/A 48456050 14 0 12.1 No NCC A(PD) Commercial 1.18 211 UV Alum Rock Ave (NBD) N/A 48109049 22 0 12.1 No UV MS-G Commercial 1.78 212 UV Alum Rock Ave (NBD) N/A 48109022 23 0 12.1 No UV MS-G Commercial 1.87 213 UV Alum Rock Ave (NBD) N/A 48108015 23 0 12.1 No UV MS-G Commercial 1.89 214 UV Alum Rock Ave (NBD) N/A 48106021 42 0 12.1 No UV MS-G Commercial 3.45 215 UV Alum Rock Ave (NBD) N/A 48106016 7 0 12.1 No UV MS-G Commercial 0.54 216 UV Alum Rock Ave (NBD) N/A 48401020 27 0 12.1 No UV MS-G Commercial 2.22 217 UV Alum Rock Ave (NBD) N/A 48401037 22 0 12.1 No UV MS-G Commercial 1.84 218 UV Alum Rock Ave (NBD) N/A 48441147 6 0 12.1 No UV MS-G Commercial 0.49 San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Appendix A‐21
Adequate Sites Inventory (2014-2023)
ID
Land Type* Project Name File Number
Tracking
APN
Planned
Units
Units
Issued Density Affordable
General
Plan** Zoning*** Existing Use Acres
219 UV Alum Rock Ave (NBD) N/A 48441151 22 0 12.1 No UV MS-G Commercial 1.79 220 UV Alum Rock Ave (NBD) N/A 48122033 33 0 12.1 No UV MS-G Commercial 2.71 221 UV Alum Rock Ave (NBD) N/A 48121009 93 0 12.1 No UV MS-G Commercial 7.74 222 UV Alum Rock Ave (NBD) N/A 48119011 17 0 12.1 No UV MS-G Commercial 1.38 223 UV Alum Rock Ave (NBD) N/A 48121152 3 0 12.1 No UV MS-G Commercial 0.28 224 UV Alum Rock Ave (NBD) N/A 48119003 31 0 12.1 No UV MS-G Commercial 2.59 225 UV Alum Rock Ave (NBD) N/A 48107042 185 0 12.1 No UV MS-C Commercial 15.53 233 UV Alum Rock Ave (East of 680) N/A 48421038 7 0 12.1 No NCC CP Commercial 0.61 234 UV Alum Rock Ave (East of 680) N/A 60111089 20 0 12.1 No NCC CP Commercial 1.62 235 UV Alum Rock Ave (East of 680) N/A 60111026 15 0 12.1 No NCC CP Commercial 1.26 236 UV Alum Rock Ave (East of 680) N/A 60110077 30 0 12.1 No NCC CP Commercial 2.45 237 UV Alum Rock Ave (East of 680) N/A 60111002 18 0 12.1 No NCC County Commercial 1.47 238 UV Alum Rock Ave (East of 680) N/A 60111024 7 0 12.1 No NCC County Residential 0.60 239 UV Alum Rock Ave (East of 680) N/A 48420032 144 0 12.1 No NCC CN Commercial 12.06 240 UV Alum Rock Ave (East of 680) N/A 48419001 4 0 12.1 No NCC CN Commercial 0.34 241 UV Alum Rock Ave (East of 680) N/A 48419033 6 0 12.1 No NCC CN Commercial 0.49 242 UV Alum Rock Ave (East of 680) N/A 48452029 24 0 12.1 No NCC CN Commercial 1.99 245 UV Alum Rock Ave (East of 680) N/A 48443045 12 0 12.1 No NCC CG Commercial 0.96 246 UV Alum Rock Ave (East of 680) N/A 48443119 58 0 12.1 No NCC CG Commercial 4.85 247 UV Alum Rock Ave (East of 680) N/A 48444066 7 0 12.1 No NCC CG Commercial 0.55 248 UV Alum Rock Ave (East of 680) N/A 48403043 4 0 12.1 No NCC R-1-8 Residential 0.36 249 UV Alum Rock Ave (East of 680) N/A 48419029 2 0 12.1 No NCC R-1-8 Residential 0.14 250 UV Alum Rock Ave (East of 680) N/A 48445061 7 0 12.1 No NCC R-2 Residential 0.54 253 UV Alum Rock Ave (NBD) N/A 48118064 22 0 12.1 No UV MS-G Commercial 1.85 254 UV Alum Rock Ave (NBD) N/A 48118047 8 0 12.1 No UV MS-G Commercial 0.65 261 UV Alum Rock Ave (East of 680) N/A 48403044 3 0 12.1 No NCC CN Commercial 0.28 262 UV WSC West N/A 27457009 3 0 12.4 No UV R-2 Residential 0.23 263 UV WSC East N/A 26142051 2 0 12.4 No UV CN(PD) Commercial 0.14 264 UV WSC East N/A 26142005 2 0 12.4 No UV CN Commercial 0.15 San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Appendix A‐22
Adequate Sites Inventory (2014-2023)
ID
Land Type* Project Name File Number
Tracking
APN
Planned
Units
Units
Issued Density Affordable
General
Plan** Zoning*** Existing Use Acres
265 UV WSC West N/A 27417075 11 0 12.4 No PQP CP Commercial 0.88 266 UV WSC East N/A 27414063 3 0 12.4 No UV CO Commercial 0.28 267 UV WSC East N/A 27414081 1 0 12.4 No UV R-2 Residential 0.09 268 UV WSC Mid N/A 27415112 21 0 12.4 No UV CP Commercial 1.66 269 UV WSC West N/A 27441115 2 0 12.4 No UV CP Commercial 0.16 270 UV WSC West N/A 27441074 3 0 12.4 No UV County Commercial 0.22 271 UV WSC Mid N/A 27713027 4 0 12.4 No UV County Commercial 0.31 272 UV WSC Mid N/A 27715056 4 0 12.4 No UV A Commercial 0.29 273 UV WSC East N/A 27414153 40 0 12.4 No UV A(PD) Commercial 3.32 274 UV WSC West N/A 27417087 11 0 12.4 No UV R-1-8 Residential 0.88 275 UV WSC East N/A 27720016 6 0 12.4 No UV CP Commercial 0.45 276 UV WSC West N/A 27704019 3 0 12.4 No UV CP Commercial 0.24 277 UV WSC West N/A 27705012 7 0 12.4 No UV CG Commercial 0.56 278 UV WSC West N/A 27705007 7 0 12.4 No UV A(PD) Commercial 0.57 279 UV WSC Mid N/A 27715028 4 0 12.4 No UV CP Commercial 0.29 280 UV WSC West N/A 27709027 1 0 12.4 No UV CG Commercial 0.09 281 UV WSC West N/A 27709028 2 0 12.4 No UV CP Commercial 0.18 282 UV WSC Mid N/A 27718018 6 0 12.4 No UV CP Commercial 0.46 283 UV WSC Mid N/A 27718020 3 0 12.4 No UV CP Commercial 0.25 284 UV WSC West N/A 27701001 5 0 12.4 No UV CO Commercial 0.40 285 UV WSC West N/A 27701002 5 0 12.4 No UV CP Commercial 0.43 286 UV WSC West N/A 27704028 3 0 12.4 No UV County Commercial 0.21 287 UV WSC Mid N/A 27714028 2 0 12.4 No UV County Commercial 0.14 288 UV WSC West N/A 27702020 14 0 12.4 No UV CP Commercial 1.16 289 UV WSC West N/A 27457022 8 0 12.4 No UV CP Commercial 0.65 290 UV WSC West N/A 27457008 13 0 12.4 No UV CP Commercial 1.07 291 UV WSC West N/A 27441098 8 0 12.4 No UV CP Commercial 0.63 292 UV WSC West N/A 27703018 15 0 12.4 No UV CP Commercial 1.20 293 UV WSC West N/A 27704020 33 0 12.4 No UV CP Commercial 2.73 San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Appendix A‐23
Adequate Sites Inventory (2014-2023)
ID
Land Type* Project Name File Number
Tracking
APN
Planned
Units
Units
Issued Density Affordable
General
Plan** Zoning*** Existing Use Acres
294 UV WSC West N/A 27441089 29 0 12.4 No UV CP Commercial 2.33 295 UV WSC West N/A 27417065 10 0 12.4 No UV CP Commercial 0.82 296 UV WSC West N/A 27706023 7 0 12.4 No UV CP Commercial 0.53 297 UV WSC West N/A 27416029 11 0 12.4 No UV CP Commercial 0.86 298 UV WSC West N/A 27711027 6 0 12.4 No UV CP Commercial 0.47 299 UV WSC Mid N/A 27416010 14 0 12.4 No UV CP Commercial 1.10 300 UV WSC Mid N/A 27713029 4 0 12.4 No UV CP Commercial 0.31 301 UV WSC Mid N/A 27714055 9 0 12.4 No UV CP Commercial 0.71 302 UV WSC Mid N/A 27415145 83 0 12.4 No UV CP Commercial 6.88 303 UV WSC Mid N/A 27716028 6 0 12.4 No UV CP Commercial 0.52 304 UV WSC Mid N/A 27717026 16 0 12.4 No UV CP Commercial 1.33 305 UV WSC Mid N/A 27415150 15 0 12.4 No UV CP Commercial 1.20 306 UV WSC East N/A 27414079 6 0 12.4 No UV CP Commercial 0.51 307 UV WSC East N/A 27720019 5 0 12.4 No UV CP Commercial 0.39 308 UV WSC East N/A 27414067 17 0 12.4 No UV CP Commercial 1.35 309 UV WSC East N/A 26142032 32 0 12.4 No UV CP Commercial 2.62 310 UV WSC East N/A 26142004 23 0 12.4 No UV CP Commercial 1.88 311 UV WSC East N/A 26141005 29 0 12.4 No UV CP Commercial 2.37 312 UV WSC East N/A 26140089 25 0 12.4 No UV CP Commercial 2.05 313 UV WSC West N/A 27441101 17 0 12.4 No UV County Commercial 1.39 314 UV WSC West N/A 27705001 27 0 12.4 No UV County Commercial 2.18 315 UV WSC West N/A 27705008 10 0 12.4 No UV County Commercial 0.77 316 UV WSC West N/A 27706020 9 0 12.4 No UV County Commercial 0.75 317 UV WSC West N/A 27417039 10 0 12.4 No UV County Commercial 0.83 318 UV WSC West N/A 27707024 8 0 12.4 No UV County Commercial 0.63 319 UV WSC West N/A 27708029 6 0 12.4 No UV County Commercial 0.46 320 UV WSC West N/A 27417018 7 0 12.4 No UV County Commercial 0.56 321 UV WSC West N/A 27709029 3 0 12.4 No UV County Commercial 0.28 322 UV WSC West N/A 27416050 11 0 12.4 No UV County Commercial 0.89 San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Appendix A‐24
Adequate Sites Inventory (2014-2023)
ID
Land Type* Project Name File Number
Tracking
APN
Planned
Units
Units
Issued Density Affordable
General
Plan** Zoning*** Existing Use Acres
323 UV WSC West N/A 27710025 7 0 12.4 No UV County Commercial 0.56 324 UV WSC West N/A 27416068 6 0 12.4 No UV County Commercial 0.52 325 UV WSC Mid N/A 27712029 6 0 12.4 No UV County Commercial 0.50 326 UV WSC West N/A 27459001 25 0 12.4 No UV CO Commercial 1.98 327 UV WSC Mid N/A 27718023 9 0 12.4 No UV CN Commercial 0.74 328 UV WSC East N/A 27720035 10 0 12.4 No UV CN Commercial 0.79 329 UV WSC Mid N/A 27717031 12 0 12.4 No UV R-M Residential 0.99 330 UV WSC Mid N/A 27718019 27 0 12.4 No UV R-M Residential 2.16 331 UV WSC East N/A 27720034 34 0 12.4 No UV R-M Residential 2.78 332 UV WSC East N/A 27414141 20 0 12.4 No UV R-2 Residential 1.62 333 UV WSC East N/A 27720017 5 0 12.4 No UV LI Industrial 0.44 334 UV WSC West N/A 27416049 2 0 12.4 No UV R-M Residential 0.13 335 UV WSC West N/A 27416051 3 0 12.4 No UV CP Commercial 0.21 336 UV WSC East N/A 26141103 5 0 12.4 No UV CP Commercial 0.40 337 UV
Lincoln Avenue Mixed Use in WSC East PD07-016 26141096 41 0 45.0 Yes UV A(PD) Commercial 0.91 338 UV WSC West N/A 27457047 3 0 12.4 No UV CO Commercial 0.21 406 UV The Alameda N/A 26133022 2 0 12.2 No UV CN Commercial 0.15 407 UV The Alameda N/A 26101023 4 0 12.2 No MUC A(PD) Commercial 0.32 408 UV The Alameda N/A 26101007 17 0 12.2 No MUC CG Commercial 1.39 409 UV The Alameda N/A 26126065 3 0 12.2 No UV CN Commercial 0.23 410 UV The Alameda N/A 26102036 1 0 12.2 No UV CO Commercial 0.09 411 UV The Alameda N/A 26124053 4 0 12.2 No UV CG Commercial 0.30 412 UV The Alameda N/A 26130019 1 0 12.2 No RN R-1-8 Residential 0.08 413 UV The Alameda N/A 26130020 1 0 12.2 No RN R-M Residential 0.09 414 UV The Alameda N/A 26132072 8 0 12.2 No UV A(PD) Commercial 0.65 415 UV The Alameda N/A 26101106 12 0 12.2 No UV A(PD) Commercial 0.95 416 UV The Alameda N/A 26133052 5 0 12.2 No UV LI Industrial 0.39 417 UV The Alameda N/A 26133053 4 0 12.2 No UV CG Commercial 0.36 San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Appendix A‐25
Adequate Sites Inventory (2014-2023)
ID
Land Type* Project Name File Number
Tracking
APN
Planned
Units
Units
Issued Density Affordable
General
Plan** Zoning*** Existing Use Acres
418 UV The Alameda N/A 26102064 7 0 12.2 No UV CP Commercial 0.59 419 UV The Alameda N/A 26102017 12 0 12.2 No UV CG Commercial 0.95 420 UV The Alameda N/A 26102032 25 0 12.2 No UV CG Commercial 2.09 421 UV The Alameda N/A 26129023 10 0 12.2 No UV CG Commercial 0.86 422 UV The Alameda N/A 26129056 17 0 12.2 No UV CG Commercial 1.41 423 UV The Alameda N/A 26102045 9 0 12.2 No UV CG Commercial 0.70 424 UV The Alameda N/A 26130021 9 0 12.2 No UV CG Commercial 0.72 425 UV The Alameda N/A 26130054 8 0 12.2 No UV CG Commercial 0.66 426 UV The Alameda N/A 26132019 9 0 12.2 No UV CG Commercial 0.72 427 UV The Alameda N/A 26102046 50 0 12.2 No UV CO Commercial 4.20 428 UV The Alameda N/A 26102063 40 0 12.2 No UV CO Commercial 3.24 429 UV The Alameda N/A 26133020 3 0 12.2 No UV LI Industrial 0.27 430 UV The Alameda N/A 26129017 19 0 12.2 No UV CN Commercial 1.58 431 UV The Alameda N/A 26129027 12 0 12.2 No UV R-M Residential 0.97 432 UV The Alameda N/A 26124008 13 0 12.2 No UV A(PD) Commercial 1.08 433 UV The Alameda N/A 26101089 9 0 12.2 No MUC LI Industrial 0.76 434 UV The Alameda N/A 26101091 4 0 12.2 No MUC A(PD) Commercial 0.35 435 UV The Alameda N/A 26101068 5 0 12.2 No UV CG Commercial 0.43 436 UV The Alameda Mixed Use PDC13-007 26101003 70 0 67.3 Yes MUC A(PD) Commercial 1.04 437 UV Sunol Mixed Use in The Alameda PDC07-020 26132058 9 0 30.0 Yes UV A(PD) Commercial 0.32 Subtotals Planned Units per site 2,391 - 188.62
275
2,666
Total capacity allocated for West San Carlos, the Alameda, and Alum Rock Urban Village PlansWest San Carlos (Horizon I): 1,245 units Alum Rock Rezoning (Horizon I): 1,010 units
The Alameda (Horizon): 411 units
Total: 2,666
Additional Capacity in approved Urban Village Plan areas in Horizon 1.

San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Appendix A‐26
Adequate Sites Inventory (2014-2023)
ID
Land Type* Project Name File Number
Tracking
APN
Planned
Units
Units
Issued Density Affordable
General
Plan** Zoning*** Existing Use Acres
500 - N/A
Vacant Land438 VAC N/A N/A 59924008 1 0 0.2 No LH A(PD) None 3.57 439 VAC N/A N/A 59931015 1 0 0.2 No LH County None 1.64 440 VAC N/A N/A 59527049 2 0 0.2 No LH A(PD) None 8.20
441 VAC N/A N/A 67623018 1 0 0.2 No LH A(PD) None 3.76
442 VAC N/A N/A 70122004 1 0 0.2 No LH R-1-1 None 2.93
443 VAC N/A N/A 68033033 1 0 2.0 No RR A(PD) None 0.28
444 VAC N/A N/A 68016024 1 0 2.0 No RR A(PD) None 0.26
445 VAC N/A N/A 68014022 1 0 2.0 No RR A(PD) None 0.37
446 VAC N/A N/A 67638035 35 0 2.0 No RR A(PD) None 18.79 447 VAC N/A N/A 68022017 1 0 2.0 No RR A(PD) None 0.33
448 VAC N/A N/A 68034010 1 0 2.0 No RR A(PD) None 0.59
449 VAC N/A N/A 61211036 1 0 2.0 No RR County None 0.46 450 VAC N/A N/A 61209016 1 0 2.0 No RR County None 0.74 451 VAC N/A N/A 61217038 2 0 2.0 No RR County None 0.96 452 VAC N/A N/A 61216047 2 0 2.0 No RR County None 1.14 453 VAC N/A N/A 61266015 7 0 2.0 No RR County None 3.38 454 VAC N/A N/A 61236027 1 0 0.2 No LH R-1-5 None 5.03
455 VAC N/A N/A 65210005 1 0 2.0 No RR R-1-2 None 0.38
456 VAC N/A N/A 9243013 2 0 2.0 No RR A(PD) None 0.80
457 VAC N/A N/A 59538009 1 0 2.0 No RR R-1-5(PD) None 0.27 458 VAC N/A N/A 59538014 1 0 2.0 No RR R-1-5(PD) None 0.47 459 VAC N/A N/A 59512020 15 0 2.0 No RR R-1-1 None 7.68 460 VAC N/A N/A 59535007 1 0 2.0 No RR R-1-2(PD) None 0.67 461 VAC N/A N/A 59511014 3 0 2.0 No RR R-1-2 None 1.70
462 VAC N/A N/A 68403042 1 0 2.0 No RR R-1-5 None 0.25
"Pool" Allocation for South Bascom Urban Village Horizon III (per Envision Policy IP-2.11)
San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Appendix A‐27
Adequate Sites Inventory (2014-2023)
ID
Land Type* Project Name File Number
Tracking
APN
Planned
Units
Units
Issued Density Affordable
General
Plan** Zoning*** Existing Use Acres
463 VAC N/A N/A 68443030 5 0 2.0 No RR A(PD) None 2.63
464 VAC N/A N/A 67818037 1 0 2.0 No RR A(PD) None 0.35
465 VAC N/A N/A 67680001 5 0 2.0 No RR A(PD) None 2.52
466 VAC N/A N/A 67624001 9 0 2.0 No RR R-1-5 None 4.63
467 VAC N/A N/A 44201043 8 0 8.0 No RN R-1-5 None 0.94
468 VAC N/A N/A 59527049 10 0 2.0 No RR A(PD) None 6.00 469 VAC N/A N/A 59527049 25 0 2.0 No RR A(PD) None 12.95 470 VAC N/A N/A 69601025 25 0 2.0 No RR County None 13.15 471 VAC N/A N/A 59512026 25 0 2.0 No RR County None 12.46 472 VAC N/A N/A 9243027 1 0 2.0 No RR A(PD) None 0.69
473 VAC N/A N/A 59510005 65 0 2.0 No RR R-1-8 None 33.48 474 VAC N/A N/A 58311099 5 0 2.0 No RR R-1-2 None 2.35
475 VAC N/A N/A 58146019 3 0 2.0 No RR R-1-8 None 1.40
476 VAC N/A N/A 66008010 5 0 2.0 No RR
A None 2.37
477 VAC N/A N/A 58371017 2 0 2.0 No RR A(PD) None 0.90
478 VAC N/A N/A 58308031 1 0 2.0 No RR A(PD) None 0.74
479 VAC N/A N/A 58368031 1 0 2.0 No RR A(PD) None 0.58
480 VAC N/A N/A 58308037 2 0 2.0 No RR A(PD) None 0.81
481 VAC N/A N/A 58372015 1 0 2.0 No RR A(PD) None 0.50
482 VAC N/A N/A 58351018 2 0 0.2 No LH A(PD) None 8.01
483 VAC N/A N/A 58343038 1 0 2.0 No RR A(PD) None 0.38
484 VAC N/A N/A 58311029 2 0 2.0 No RR R-1-2 None 0.94
485 VAC N/A N/A 58311094 4 0 2.0 No RR R-1-2(PD) None 1.80 486 VAC N/A N/A 58311017 2 0 2.0 No RR R-1-2 None 0.85
487 VAC N/A N/A 58343043 1 0 2.0 No RR A(PD) None 0.28
488 VAC N/A N/A 58311079 1 0 2.0 No RR R-1-2 None 0.35
489 VAC N/A N/A 68066002 3 0 2.0 No RR A(PD) None 1.42
490 VAC N/A N/A 68066009 1 0 2.0 No RR A(PD) None 0.70
491 VAC N/A N/A 65909015 1 0 0.2 No LH A(PD) None 6.41
San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Appendix A‐28
Adequate Sites Inventory (2014-2023)
ID
Land Type* Project Name File Number
Tracking
APN
Planned
Units
Units
Issued Density Affordable
General
Plan** Zoning*** Existing Use Acres
492 VAC N/A N/A 66023015 20 0 8.0 No RN
A None 2.80
493 VAC N/A N/A 67637012 3 0 2.0 No RR R-1-5 None 1.58
494 VAC N/A N/A 28820041 3 0 8.0 No RN R-1-5 None 0.43
495 VAC N/A N/A 44204011 2 0 8.0 No RN R-1-8 None 0.28
496 VAC N/A N/A 59928001 39 0 8.0 No RN County None 4.90 497 VAC N/A N/A 59515069 25 0 8.0 No RN R-1-8 None 3.30 498 VAC N/A N/A 61219026 9 0 2.0 No RR County None 4.30 499 VAC N/A N/A 70121019 12 0 8.0 No RN R-1-1 None 1.54 500 VAC N/A N/A 58115047 2 0 8.0 No RN R-1-8 None 0.26
501 VAC N/A N/A 58129005 5 0 8.0 No RN R-1-8 None 0.60
502 VAC N/A N/A 58125024 4 0 8.0 No RN R-1-8 None 0.55
503 VAC N/A N/A 59927011 10 0 8.0 No RN R-1-5 None 1.52 504 VAC N/A N/A 59926047 2 0 8.0 No RN County None 0.21 505 VAC N/A N/A 59930036 4 0 8.0 No RN County None 0.51 506 VAC N/A N/A 58708028 2 0 8.0 No RN R-1-5 None 0.19
507 VAC N/A N/A 59510066 4 0 8.0 No RN R-1-5 None 0.47
508 VAC N/A N/A 59510013 4 0 2.0 No RR
A None 2.13
509 VAC N/A N/A 70411009 35 0 8.0 No RN OS None 4.37
510 VAC N/A N/A 69605001 25 0 8.0 No RN
A None 3.33
511 VAC N/A N/A 69511046 9 0 8.0 No RN R-1-5 None 1.08
512 VAC N/A N/A 69511039 10 0 8.0 No RN R-1-5 None 1.45 513 VAC N/A N/A 69511022 4 0 8.0 No RN R-1-5 None 0.55
514 VAC N/A N/A 69511051 7 0 8.0 No RN R-1-8 None 0.91
515 VAC N/A N/A 69503043 10 0 8.0 No RN R-1-5 None 1.50 516 VAC N/A N/A 69503032 3 0 8.0 No RN R-1-5 None 0.38
517 VAC N/A N/A 67623012 2 0 2.0 No RR A(PD) None 0.80
518 VAC N/A N/A 48446047 2 0 8.0 No RN R-1-8 None 0.22
519 VAC N/A N/A 48433071 4 0 8.0 No RN R-1-8 None 0.50
520 VAC N/A N/A 48801046 3 0 8.0 No RN CP None 0.42
San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Appendix A‐29
Adequate Sites Inventory (2014-2023)
ID
Land Type* Project Name File Number
Tracking
APN
Planned
Units
Units
Issued Density Affordable
General
Plan** Zoning*** Existing Use Acres
521 VAC N/A N/A 58618055 7 0 8.0 No RN R-1-8 None 0.90
522 VAC N/A N/A 58619042 7 0 8.0 No RN R-1-8 None 0.91
523 VAC N/A N/A 9233038 11 0 8.0 No RN R-1-8 None 1.52
524 VAC N/A N/A 59518030 1 0 8.0 No RN R-1-5 None 0.16
525 VAC N/A N/A 59514080 4 0 8.0 No RN R-1-8 None 0.52
526 VAC N/A N/A 59514068 3 0 8.0 No RN R-1-8 None 0.39
527 VAC N/A N/A 59501041 4 0 8.0 No RN R-1-8 None 0.48
528 VAC N/A N/A 59501101 3 0 8.0 No RN R-1-8 None 0.34
529 VAC N/A N/A 59526045 30 0 8.0 No RN R-1-5 None 3.90 530 VAC N/A N/A 24912097 1 0 8.0 No RN R-2 None 0.12
531 VAC N/A N/A 24916066 1 0 8.0 No RN R-2 None 0.18
532 VAC N/A N/A 24918010 1 0 8.0 No RN R-1-8 None 0.15
533 VAC N/A N/A 24965018 2 0 8.0 No RN CP None 0.20
534 VAC N/A N/A 24962007 1 0 8.0 No RN R-2 None 0.15
535 VAC N/A N/A 24924081 1 0 8.0 No RN R-1-8 None 0.13
536 VAC N/A N/A 24913012 2 0 8.0 No RN R-2 None 0.20
537 VAC N/A N/A 24911077 1 0 8.0 No RN R-2 None 0.13
538 VAC N/A N/A 23508083 2 0 8.0 No RN R-2 None 0.23
539 VAC N/A N/A 46705059 1 0 8.0 No RN R-2 None 0.10
540 VAC N/A N/A 46729028 5 0 8.0 No RN R-1-8 None 0.67
541 VAC N/A N/A 26121066 1 0 8.0 No RN R-1-8 None 0.15
542 VAC N/A N/A 47230049 2 0 8.0 No RN R-1-8 None 0.23
543 VAC N/A N/A 27457040 1 0 8.0 No RN R-1-8 None 0.16
544 VAC N/A N/A 27459054 2 0 8.0 No RN CO None 0.24
545 VAC N/A N/A 27729032 1 0 8.0 No RN County None 0.15 546 VAC N/A N/A 43423085 1 0 8.0 No RN R-2 None 0.12
547 VAC N/A N/A 43422069 2 0 8.0 No RN R-1-8 None 0.22
548 VAC N/A N/A 56935049 3 0 8.0 No RN R-1-8 None 0.36
549 VAC N/A N/A 41936131 5 0 8.0 No RN R-1-8 None 0.62
San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Appendix A‐30
Adequate Sites Inventory (2014-2023)
ID
Land Type* Project Name File Number
Tracking
APN
Planned
Units
Units
Issued Density Affordable
General
Plan** Zoning*** Existing Use Acres
550 VAC N/A N/A 56723027 3 0 8.0 No RN R-1-8 None 0.35
551 VAC N/A N/A 68403037 2 0 8.0 No RN R-1-5 None 0.20
552 VAC N/A N/A 68404002 3 0 8.0 No RN R-1-5 None 0.35
553 VAC N/A N/A 68404002 2 0 8.0 No RN R-1-5 None 0.27
554 VAC N/A N/A 70611021 2 0 8.0 No RN
A None 0.27
555 VAC N/A N/A 69514014 20 0 8.0 No RN R-1-5 None 2.63 556 VAC N/A N/A 69511047 3 0 8.0 No RN R-1-5 None 0.39
557 VAC N/A N/A 69511031 5 0 8.0 No RN R-1-5 None 0.61
558 VAC N/A N/A 49137106 4 0 8.0 No RN
A None 0.51
559 VAC N/A N/A 67633009 4 0 8.0 No RN R-1-5 None 0.48
560 VAC N/A N/A 67013028 2 0 8.0 No RN R-1-8 None 0.19
561 VAC N/A N/A 67616020 8 0 8.0 No RN R-1-8 None 1.04 562 VAC N/A N/A 47776002 7 0 8.0 No RN R-1-8 None 0.92 563 VAC N/A N/A 47720047 13 0 8.0 No RN
A None 1.63
564 VAC N/A N/A 49919029 4 0 8.0 No RN R-1-8 None 0.52
565 VAC N/A N/A 45545005 6 0 8.0 No RN
A None 0.73
566 VAC N/A N/A 26417103 2 0 8.0 No RN R-2 None 0.24
567 VAC N/A N/A 26443018 4 0 8.0 No RN R-2 None 0.56
568 VAC N/A N/A 26443071 4 0 8.0 No RN R-2 None 0.56
569 VAC N/A N/A 26442109 1 0 8.0 No RN R-2 None 0.18
570 VAC N/A N/A 28201014 2 0 8.0 No RN County None 0.22 571 VAC N/A N/A 28206024 21 0 25.0 No MUN R-M None 0.84 572 VAC N/A N/A 42951044 4 0 8.0 No RN R-1-8 None 0.56
573 VAC N/A N/A 43917009 4 0 8.0 No RN R-1-8 None 0.45
574 VAC N/A N/A 30341018 3 0 8.0 No RN R-1-8 None 0.36
575 VAC N/A N/A 30332041 2 0 8.0 No RN R-1-8 None 0.24
576 VAC N/A N/A 38122001 7 0 8.0 No RN R-1-8 None 0.92
577 VAC N/A N/A 67013004 2 0 8.0 No RN R-1-8 None 0.19 578 VAC N/A N/A 59514080 1 0 8.0 No RN R-1-8 None 0.18 San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Appendix A‐31
Adequate Sites Inventory (2014-2023)
ID
Land Type* Project Name File Number
Tracking
APN
Planned
Units
Units
Issued Density Affordable
General
Plan** Zoning*** Existing Use Acres
579 VAC N/A N/A 46705048 15 0 8.0 No RN R-2 None 1.99
580 VAC N/A N/A 70101006 7 0 8.0 No RN R-1-8 None 0.82
581 VAC N/A N/A 45928001 65 0 8.0 No RN
A None 9.02
582 VAC N/A N/A 59916116 2 0 8.0 No RN R-1-8 None 0.28
583 VAC N/A N/A 48411082 10 0 8.0 No RN R-1-8 None 1.40 584 VAC N/A N/A 67633014 3 0 8.0 No RN
A None 0.41
585 VAC N/A N/A 60107066 9 0 8.0 No RN County None 1.14 586 VAC N/A N/A 60108128 2 0 8.0 No RN County None 0.31 587 VAC N/A N/A 60107075 6 0 8.0 No RN County None 0.70 588 VAC N/A N/A 61223056 45 0 8.0 No RN County None 5.87 589 VAC N/A N/A 61221120 10 0 8.0 No RN County None 1.26 590 VAC N/A N/A 60129009 20 0 8.0 No RN County None 2.71 591 VAC N/A N/A 26448106 1 0 8.0 No RN R-1-8 None 0.11 592 VAC N/A N/A 64707074 4 0 8.0 No RN
A None 0.53
593 VAC N/A N/A 60125121 3 0 8.0 No RN County None 0.36 594 VAC N/A N/A 60122050 2 0 8.0 No RN County None 0.22 595 VAC N/A N/A 60122118 1 0 8.0 No RN County None 0.14 596 VAC N/A N/A 48417035 1 0 8.0 No RN R-1-8 None 0.16
597 VAC N/A N/A 48114130 1 0 8.0 No RN R-1-8 None 0.11
598 VAC N/A N/A 48143017 2 0 8.0 No RN R-2 None 0.20
599 VAC N/A N/A 24543017 14 0 8.0 No RN
A None 1.73
600 VAC N/A N/A 46733034 2 0 8.0 No RN R-M None 0.25
601 VAC N/A N/A 47206090 1 0 8.0 No RN R-1-8 None 0.12
602 VAC N/A N/A 47236017 6 0 8.0 No RN A(PD) None 0.70
603 VAC N/A N/A 43404071 2 0 8.0 No RN A(PD) None 0.20
604 VAC N/A N/A 43411063 1 0 8.0 No RN R-2 None 0.17
605 VAC N/A N/A 68503002 20 0 8.0 No RN LI None 2.78
606 VAC N/A N/A 49103049 7 0 8.0 No RN A(PD) None 0.89
607 VAC N/A N/A 67606015 4 0 8.0 No RN A(PD) None 0.50
San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Appendix A‐32
Adequate Sites Inventory (2014-2023)
ID
Land Type* Project Name File Number
Tracking
APN
Planned
Units
Units
Issued Density Affordable
General
Plan** Zoning*** Existing Use Acres
608 VAC N/A N/A 47711020 20 0 8.0 No RN R-1-8 None 2.49 609 VAC N/A N/A 45545007 35 0 8.0 No RN
A None 4.52
610 VAC N/A N/A 49466003 45 0 8.0 No RN A(PD) None 5.81 611 VAC N/A N/A 42920054 5 0 8.0 No RN R-1-8 None 0.59
612 VAC N/A N/A 48403036 1 0 8.0 No RN R-1-8 None 0.14
613 VAC N/A N/A 46701120 3 0 8.0 No RN CG None 0.43
614 VAC N/A N/A 25412011 9 0 8.0 No RN R-M None 1.08
615 VAC N/A N/A 48119055 2 0 8.0 No RN R-1-8 None 0.19
616 VAC N/A N/A 48123072 3 0 8.0 No RN R-1-8 None 0.38
617 VAC N/A N/A 48441090 2 0 8.0 No RN R-2 None 0.26
618 VAC N/A N/A 46720020 4 0 8.0 No RN CG None 0.45
619 VAC N/A N/A 48122067 6 0 8.0 No RN R-1-8 None 0.74
620 VAC N/A N/A 23509018 5 0 8.0 No RN R-2 None 0.64
621 VAC N/A N/A 24941032 1 0 8.0 No RN R-M None 0.14
622 VAC N/A N/A 24941024 1 0 8.0 No RN R-M None 0.14 623 VAC N/A N/A 24941022 1 0 8.0 No RN R-M None 0.14 624 VAC N/A N/A 24947009 2 0 8.0 No RN R-M None 0.19
625 VAC N/A N/A 24947018 1 0 8.0 No RN CN None 0.10
626 VAC N/A N/A 24947025 1 0 8.0 No RN R-M None 0.16
627 VAC N/A N/A 46706089 1 0 8.0 No RN R-2 None 0.12
628 VAC N/A N/A 26402045 15 0 25.0 No MUN R-M None 0.65 629 VAC N/A N/A 27718031 49 0 25.0 No MUN R-M None 1.97 630 VAC N/A N/A 25922059 4 0 8.0 No RN R-1-8 None 0.47
631 VAC N/A N/A 26448037 6 0 25.0 No MUN R-2 None 0.23
632 VAC N/A N/A 56918058 13 0 8.0 No RN R-M(PD) None 1.63 633 VAC N/A N/A 46214004 30 0 25.0 No MUN
A None 1.23
634 VAC N/A N/A 26403007 5 0 25.0 No MUN R-1-8 None 0.20 635 VAC N/A N/A 47720148 58 0 50.0 Yes UR IP None 1.16
636 VAC N/A N/A 25429026 137 0 100.0 Yes TR R-M None 1.35 San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Appendix A‐33

Adequate Sites Inventory (2014-2023)
ID
Land Type* Project Name File Number
Tracking
APN
Planned
Units
Units
Issued Density Affordable
General
Plan** Zoning*** Existing Use Acres
Tracking
APN
Planned
Units
(new
minus
existing)
Units
Issued Density Affordable
General
Plan** Zoning*** Existing Use Acres
642 66023003 20 0 8.0 No RN A Commercial 2.46
582 60106041 17 0 50.0 No UR CP Commercial 0.34779 57715014 40 0 50.0 No UR CP Commercial 0.804 47729057 18 0 50.0 No UR CP Commercial 0.365 47729056 26 0 50.0 No UR CP Commercial 0.51560 47720147 99 0 50.0 No UR IP Government 1.971 1870 Senter Road GP03-07-09 changed to res by DDD 47720133 157 0 50.0 No UR IP Government 3.13 717 47720030 11 0 50.0 No UR LI
Residential (one single-family) 0.23
447 46720040 20 0 100.0 No TR CG Vacant 0.20448 Corner 4th & E St John. Vacant next to APN 48720040. 46720019 10 0 100.0 No TR CG Vacant 0.10 1888 Senter Road GP03-07-09 changed to res by DDD. Next to APN 47720148, which is vacant.

Nonresidentially zoned residentially designated underutilized or vacant parcels outside of Downtown, Planned Communities, and Urban Villages Address/Description 1960 Senter Road. SFR surrounded on 3 sides by multifamily affordable housing (Paseo Senter). In PDA and Tully Senter SNI.North side E St. John approx 50 feet east of corner. Vacant next to vacant corner N 4th. 3880 San Felipe. AT&T Office Bldg with equipment. .35 FAR. In Evergreen DPA 642 next to APN 66023015 which is already listed in inventory as vacant.242 La Pala single story office bldg 4,100 s.f. FAR .28 Surface parking. Max allowable height 45 feet. Next to RM Zoning District. 16601 Almaden Expressway SP12-004 Special Use Permit approved to demolish gas station. Corner site. Surrounded by low density residential.1704 Senter Road. Happy Hollow Market. Corner lot with surface parking and one-story liquor store. In Tully Senter SNI next to APN 47729056 Retail Building. Existing FAR .25Retail building next to res in Tully-Senter SNI next to APN 47729057.

San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Appendix A‐35
Adequate Sites Inventory (2014-2023)
ID
Land Type* Project Name File Number
Tracking
APN
Planned
Units
Units
Issued Density Affordable
General
Plan** Zoning*** Existing Use Acres
786 45908088 30 0 25.0 No MUN A Commercial 1.20
791 45811020 75 0 100.0 No TR
A
Government/ Transit Parking 0.75
251 45531008 14 0 50.0 No UR CO
Commercial used for Religious 0.27
175 45525062 24 0 50.0 No UR CP Commercial 0.47125 45520057 23 0 50.0 No UR HI Industrial
Warehouse 0.45
124 45520056 22 0 50.0 No UR HI Industrial 0.43
118 45520048 16 0 50.0 No UR HI Industrial 0.32115 45520047 17 0 50.0 No UR HI Industrial 0.34117 45520046 30 0 50.0 No UR HI Industrial 0.60116 45520045 39 0 50.0 No UR HI Industrial 0.78119 45520042 36 0 50.0 No UR HI Industrial 0.72123 45520038 11 0 50.0 No UR HI Industrial 0.21122 45520037 11 0 50.0 No UR HI Industrial 0.21120 45520036 11 0 50.0 No UR HI Industrial 0.21114 45520029 30 0 50.0 No UR HI Industrial Warehouse 0.59
54 43408086 90 0 100.0 No TR CP Commercial 0.90
53 43408085 26 0 100.0 No TR CP Commercial 0.2652 43408084 15 0 100.0 No TR CP Commercial 0.15 1141 S 1st St. Lot used for wholesale used car sales next to APN 43408086 Wash SNI Max allow height 320 feet.1199 S 1st Street Washington SNI Autosales and repair, one story commercial FAR .10 Max allow height 320 feet. PDA next to APN 43408085. Code Case.1141 S 1st St. Lot used for wholesale used car sales next to APN 43408086 Washington SNI Max allow height 320 feet.1860-1868 Almaden Rd btwn Canoas & SR 87. 1-story industrial warehouse. One of several parcels. Developed wih LI Almaden Rd btwn Canoas & SR 87. One of several parcels. Almaden Rd btwn Canoas & SR 87. One of several parcels. Almaden Rd btwn Canoas & SR 87. One of several parcels. 2438 Almaden Road Corner site. Developed with commercial restaurant (Super Taqueria).1810 Almaden Rd btwn Canoas & SR 87. One of several
parcels. Developed wih LI & HI uses.Almaden Rd btwn Canoas & SR 87. One of several parcels. Almaden Rd btwn Canoas & SR 87. One of several parcels. Almaden Rd btwn Canoas & SR 87. One of several parcels. Almaden Rd btwn Canoas & SR 87. One of several parcels. Almaden Rd btwn Canoas & SR 87. One of several parcels. Almaden Rd btwn Canoas & SR 87. One of several parcels. 955 Branham Lane PRE14-027 for 25 townhomes. Existing one story day care facility.Ohlone LRT lot bounded by Chynoweth Ave., Terner Way, and SR 87.2180 Canoas Garden Ave. Open Bible Faith Community Church built prior to annexation (pre-1978). One story commercial bldg .35 FAR. Max allow height 120 feet near LRT. In PDA.

San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Appendix A‐36
Adequate Sites Inventory (2014-2023)
ID
Land Type* Project Name File Number
Tracking
APN
Planned
Units
Units
Issued Density Affordable
General
Plan** Zoning*** Existing Use Acres
51 43408083 15 0 100.0 No TR CP Commercial 0.15331 26437075 39 0 100.0 No TR CP Commercial 0.39180 26407071 11 0 25.0 No MUN A
Residential (one
single-family) 0.47
179 26103015 13 0 100.0 No TR LI
Residential (one single-family) 0.14
178 26103014 13 0 100.0 No TR LI
Residential (one single-family) 0.14
177 26103013 6 0 100.0 No TR LI
Residential (one single-family) 0.07
182 26103012 6 0 100.0 No TR LI
Residential (one single-family) 0.07
181 26103005 6 0 100.0 No TR LI
Residential (one single-family) 0.07
185 26103004 8 0 100.0 No TR LI
Residential (one single-family) 0.09
184 26103003 7 0 100.0 No TR LI
Residential (one single-family) 0.08
183 26103002 11 0 100.0 No TR LI
Residential (one single-family) 0.12
310 26101047 8 0 100.0 No TR LI
Residential (one
single-family) 0.09
308 26101045 8 0 100.0 No TR LI
Residential (one
single-family) 0.09
309 26101046 8 0 100.0 No TR LI
Residential (one single-family) 0.09
307 26101044 8 0 100.0 No TR LI
Residential (one single-family) 0.09
909 Cinnabar SFR built 1900. Maximum allowable height 120 feet in Priority Dev Area. 850 Cinnabar SFR built 1900, Max allowable height 120 feet, Priority Dev Area.
890 Cinnabar SFR built 1935. Max allowable height 120 feet Priority Dev Area.935 S 1st St. NW corner Edwards Ave. 1-story Wiener Snitzel with surface parking in Washington SNI. Corner lot. 120 feet 1369 Pedro St. SFR built in 1918 Next to APN 26407023 apts on Pedro.1127 S 1st St. Lot used for wholesale used car sales next to APN 43408086 Washington SNI Max allow height 320 feet.870 Cinnabar SFR bungalow built 1900. Max allowable height 120 feet. Priority Dev Area.910 Cinnebar SFR bungalow built 1924. Max allowable height 120 feet Priority Dev Area434 N Morrison Ave SFR built 1915. Maximum allowable height 120 feet in Priority Dev Area. 945 Cinnabar corner lot with SFR built 1905. Maximum allowable height 120 feet in Priority Dev Area. 963 Cinnabar SFR built 1900. Maximum allowable height 120 feet in Priority Development Area. 959 Cinnabar SFR built 1925. Max allowable hieght 120 feet in Priority Dev Area. 955 Cinnabar corner lot with SFR. Maximum allowable height 120 feet in Priority Dev Area. 433 N Morrison Ave SFR built 1900. Max height 120 feet in Priority Dev Area. 927 Cinnabar SFR built 1918. Maximum allowable height 120 feet in Priority Development Area.

San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Appendix A‐37

San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Appendix A‐14
This page
intentionally
left blank
San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Appendix B‐1
Appendix B:

List of Housing Goals,
Policies, and Actions
San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Appendix B‐2
Appendix B:

Housing Goals,
Policies, and Actions
California law requires that general plans address seven topics or “elements,” one of which is housing (Government Code section 65302). The Envision San José 2040 General Plan is an integrated general plan, with elements addressed throughout the document. As such, Appendix B summarizes the policies in the General Plan related to housing. However, due to the interrelated nature of the City’s General Plan policies and their potentially complex influences, additional policies not included here may also contribute towards housing issues.

Chapter 4: Quality of Life (Vibrant Neighborhoods)
Goal VN-1 – Vibrant, Attractive, and Complete Neighborhoods Develop new and preserve and enhance existing neighborhoods to be vibrant, attractive and complete.

Policies – Vibrant, Attractive, and Complete Neighborhoods VN-1.1 Include services and facilities within each neighborhood to meet the daily needs of neighborhood residents with the goal that all San José residents be provided with the opportunity to live within a half mile walking distance of schools, parks and retail services.

VN-1.2 Maintain existing and develop new community services and gathering spaces that allow for increased social interaction of neighbors, (i.e., parks, community centers and gardens, libraries, schools, commercial areas, churches, and other gathering spaces).

VN-1.3 Encourage the development and maintenance of compatible neighborhood retail and services within walking distance of residences as a means to promote the creation of “complete” neighborhoods.

VN-1.4 Distribute neighborhood-oriented services and facilities equitably throughout the City’s neighborhoods, to the extent feasible.

VN-1.5 Continue to work with neighborhoods on the planning and provision of City services and facilities to meet their specific needs.

San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Appendix B‐3
VN-1.6 Design new development to contribute to the positive identity of a neighborhood and to encourage pedestrian activity.

VN-1.7 Use new development within neighborhoods to enhance the public realm, provide for direct and convenient pedestrian access, and visually connect to the surrounding neighborhood. As opportunities arise, improve existing development to meet these objectives as well.

VN-1.10 Promote the preservation of positive character-defining elements in neighborhoods, such as architecture; design elements like setbacks, heights, number of stories, or attached/detached garages; landscape features; street design; etc.

VN-1.11 Protect residential neighborhoods from the encroachment of incompatible activities or land uses which may have a negative impact on the residential living environment.

VN-1.12 Design new public and private development to build upon the vital character and desirable qualities of existing neighborhoods.

VN-1.13 Encourage the maintenance of private property within the city’s neighborhoods. Actively enforce the City’s codes related to blight.

Actions – Vibrant, Attractive, and Complete Neighborhoods VN-1.14 Continue to work with community and neighborhood groups on the development and implementation of policies and initiatives to enhance community identity and to foster pride in the City’s neighborhoods.

VN-1.15 Develop and implement policies, design guidelines and regulations to facilitate the development of compatible small scale neighborhood-serving retail in appropriate locations within or adjacent to existing neighborhoods.

VN-1.16 Develop and implement policies, design guidelines and regulations to promote the preservation of positive character-defining elements within neighborhoods.

Goal VN-2 – Community Empowerment
Empower communities to improve the quality of life in their neighborhoods.

Policies – Community Empowerment
VN-2.1 Proactively engage neighborhood groups in the decision-making process as a regular component of City government activities.

VN-2.2 Abide by the City’s Community Outreach Policy and update the Policy, as needed, to reflect changing technology and improved techniques.

San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Appendix B‐4
VN-2.3 Ensure that community members have the opportunity to provide input on the design of public and private development within their community.

Action – Community Empowerment
VN-2.4 Work with neighborhood and community leaders to educate them on the City’s decision making processes and to empower them with the knowledge to participate in those processes.

Goal VN-3 – Access to Healthful Foods
Ensure that all residents have sufficient access to healthful food, as defined by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Policies – Access to Healthful Foods
VN-3.1 Encourage the location of full service grocery stores within or adjacent to neighborhoods with limited access to healthful foods with the goal that all San José residents be able to live within a half mile walking distance of a full service grocery store.

VN-3.4 Ensure that the Envision General Plan Land Use/Transportation Diagram continues to designate appropriate lands for full-service grocery stores in low-income and nutrition deficient neighborhoods.

VN-3.5 Encourage the location of healthful food retail, including farmers markets, in neighborhoods with high concentrations of fast food outlets compared to full service grocery stores and fresh produce markets.

Actions – Access to Healthful Foods
VN-3.7 Collaborate with the Santa Clara County Public Health Department to measure the accessibility of healthful foods by neighborhood including both the percentage of residents living near full-service grocery stores or fresh produce markets and the relative concentration of fast food restaurants and convenience stores to healthful food retailers. Use this data to identify nutrition deficient neighborhoods in the City.

VN-3.8 Collaborate with the Santa Clara County Public Health Department and the non-profit health sector to develop an economic development strategy to attract full-service grocery stores, fresh produce markets, and other healthful food retailers to low-income and nutrition deficient neighborhoods in the City. Also work collaboratively to develop an economic development strategy to attract healthful food options near schools.

VN-3.9 Collaborate with the Santa Clara County Public Health Department and the non-profit health sector to explore the potential to develop an incentive program to encourage existing liquor stores, neighborhood markets or convenience stores in nutrition deficient neighborhoods to sell fresh fruits and vegetables. Incentives could include, but are not San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Appendix B‐5
limited to increases in density, reductions in parking requirements, or grants to purchase refrigeration units or other equipment necessary to sell fresh produce.

VN-3.10 Identify potential new locations for farmers’ markets in low-income and nutrition deficient neighborhoods, including joint use opportunities on publicly owned land.

Chapter 4: Quality of Life (Community Design)
Goal CD-1 – Attractive City
Create a well-designed, unique, and vibrant public realm with appropriate uses and facilities to maximize pedestrian activity; support community interaction; and attract residents, business, and visitors to San José.

Policies – Attractive City
CD-1.1 Require the highest standards of architectural and site design, and apply strong design controls for all development projects, both public and private, for the enhancement and development of community character and for the proper transition between areas with different types of land uses.

CD-1.3 Further the Major Strategies of this Plan to focus growth in appropriate locations; design complete streets for people; promote Grand Boulevards, Main Streets, and Downtown; support transit; and foster a healthful community.

CD-1.13 Use design review to encourage creative, high-quality, innovative, and distinctive architecture that helps to create unique, vibrant places that are both desirable urban places to live, work, and play and that lead to competitive advantages over other regions.

CD-1.14 Use the Urban Village Planning process to establish standards for their architecture, height, and massing.

Goal CD-2 – Function
Create integrated public and private areas and uses that work together to support businesses and to promote pedestrian activity and multi-modal transportation.

Policies – Function
CD-2.4 Incorporate public spaces (squares, plazas, etc.) into private developments to encourage social interaction, particularly where such spaces promote symbiotic relationships between businesses, residents, and visitors.

CD-2.10 Recognize that finite land area exists for development and that density supports retail vitality and transit ridership. Use land use regulations to require compact, low-impact development that efficiently uses land planned for growth, especially for residential San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Appendix B‐6
development which tends to have a long life-span. Strongly discourage small-lot and single-family detached residential product types in Growth Areas.

Goal CD-3 – Connections
Maintain a network of publicly accessible streets and pathways that are safe and convenient for walking and bicycling and minimize automobile use; that encourage social interaction; and that increase pedestrian activity, multi-modal transit use, environmental sustainability, economic growth, and public health.

Policies – Connections
CD-3.6 Encourage a street grid with lengths of 600 feet or less to facilitate walking and biking.

Use design techniques such as multiple building entrances and pedestrian paseos to improve pedestrian and bicycle connections.

CD-3.7 Encourage development to maximize pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular connections to adjacent existing and planned neighborhoods and community facilities. Use cul-de-sacs only when no current or future options exist to connect one area to another, or if such design would help preclude development from extending to areas where it is not planned.

CD-3.8 Provide direct access from developments to adjacent parks or open spaces, and encourage residential development to provide common open space contiguous to such areas.

CD-3.9 Minimize driveway entrances to enhance pedestrian safety and decrease the area of paved surfaces. Encourage shared vehicular access points that serve multiple uses and/or parcels, including shared access for commercial and residential uses. Avoid driveways that break up continuous commercial building frontages. Position vehicular access to minimize negative impacts to aesthetics and to pedestrian and bicycle safety.

CD-3.10 Increase neighborhood connectivity in new development by providing access across natural barriers (e.g., rivers) and man-made barriers (e.g., freeways).

CD-3.11 Encourage new development to connect with the surrounding community and continue the existing street grid to integrate with the neighborhood.

Goal CD-4 – Compatibility
Provide aesthetically pleasing streetscapes and new development that preserves and builds on the unique characteristics of the local area and contributes to a distinctive neighborhood or community identity.

Policies – Compatibility
CD-4.1 Maintain and update design guidelines adopted by the City and abide by them in the development of projects.

San José Housing Element (2014‐2023) Appendix B‐7
CD-4.2 Develop and propose for City Council or Commission approval development review policies to address specific land uses, structures, development types, or other urban design factors that would benefit from more specific criteria than those identified in this Plan.

CD-4.3 Promote consistent development patterns along streets, particularly in how buildings relate to the street, to promote a sense of visual order, and to provide attractive streetscapes.

CD-4.4 In non-growth areas, design new development and subdivisions to reflect the character of predominant existing development of the same type in the surrounding area through the regulation of lot size, street frontage, height, building scale, siting/setbacks, and building orientation.

CD-4.5 For new development in transition areas between identified Growth Areas and nongrowth areas, use a combination of building setbacks, building step-backs, materials, building orientation, landscaping, and other design techniques to provide a consistent streetscape that buffers lower-intensity areas from higher intensity areas and that reduces potential shade, shadow, massing, viewshed, or other land use compatibility concerns.

CD-4.9 For development subject to design review, ensure the design of new or remodeled structures is consistent or complementary with the surrounding neighborhood fabric (including but not limited to prevalent building scale, building materials, and orientation of structures to the street).

CD-4.10 When development is proposed adjacent to existing or planned parks or along park chains, include frontage roads along the public park in that development in order to maximize access to park lands, to provide separation between urban land uses and park lands without the use of “back-up” design, and to maximize public exposure and view of park lands for scenic and security purposes.

CD-4.11 Accomplish sound attenuation for development along City streets through the use of setbacks and building design rather than sound attenuation walls. When sound attenuation walls are located adjacent to expressways or freeways, or railroad lines, landscaping, public art, and/or an aesthetically pleasing and visually interesting design should be used to minimize visual impacts.