Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC 06-23-2026 Searchable PacketCITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA 10350 Torre Avenue, Council Chamber and via Teleconference Tuesday, June 23, 2026 6:45 PM IN-PERSON AND TELECONFERENCE / PUBLIC PARTICIPATION INFORMATION OPTIONS TO OBSERVE: Members of the public wishing to observe the meeting may do so in one of the following ways: 1) Attend in person at Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue. 2) Tune to Comcast Channel 24 or Channel 26 and U-Verse Channel 99 on your TV. 3) Watch a live stream online at www.Cupertino.gov/youtube and www.Cupertino.gov/webcast 4) Attend in person at a remote Teleconference Location noticed pursuant to Gov. Code 54953(b)(2), which location, if noticed, would be stated on the cover page of this agenda. OPTIONS TO PARTICIPATE AND COMMENT: Members of the public wishing to address the Planning Commission may do so in the following ways: 1) Appear in person at Cupertino Community Hall: a. During “Oral Communications”, the public may comment on matters not on the agenda, and for agendized matters, the public may comment during the public comment period for each agendized item. b. Speakers are requested to complete a Speaker Card. While completion of Speaker Cards is voluntary and not required to attend the meeting or provide comments, it is helpful for the purposes of ensuring that all speakers are called upon. c. Speakers must wait to be called, then proceed to the lectern/podium and speak into the microphone when recognized by the Chair. d. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. However, the Chair may reduce the speaking time depending on the number of people who wish to speak on an item. A speaker representing a group of 2 to 5 or more people who are present may have up to 2 minutes per group member, up to 10 minutes maximum. e. Please note that due to cyber security concerns, speakers are not allowed to connect any personal devices at the lectern/podium. However, speakers that wish to share a document Page 1 1 PC 06-23-2026 1 of 19 Planning Commission Agenda June 23, 2026 (e.g. presentations, photographs or other documents) during oral comments may do so in one of the following ways: i. At the overhead projector at the podium or ii. E-mail the document to planningcommission@cupertino.gov by 3:00 p.m. and staff will advance the slides/share the documents during your oral comment. 2) Written communications as follows: a. E-mail comments to planningcommission@cupertino.gov b. Regular mail or hand delivered addressed to the: Cupertino Planning Commission, City Hall, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014 c. Comments addressed to the Planning Commission received by 5:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting will be included in written communications published and distributed before the beginning of the meeting. d. Comments addressed to the Planning Commission received after the 5:00 p.m. deadline, but through the end of the Planning Commission meeting, will be posted to the City’s website by the end of the following business day. 3) Teleconference in one of the following ways: a. Online via Zoom on an electronic device (Audio and Video): Speakers must register in advance by clicking on the link below to access the meeting: https://cityofcupertino.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_HlWvNvvvTS-6ZKucoVYE9Q i. Registrants will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the webinar. ii. Speakers will be recognized by the name they use for registration. Once recognized, speakers must click ‘unmute’ when prompted to speak. iii. Please read the following instructions about technical compatibility carefully: One can directly download the teleconference (Zoom) software or connect to the meeting in their internet browser. If a browser is used, make sure the most current and up-to-date browser, such as the following, is used: Chrome 30+, Firefox 27+, Microsoft Edge 12+, Safari 7+. Certain functionality may be disabled in older browsers, including Internet Explorer. b. By Phone (Audio only): No registration is required in advance and speakers may join the meeting as follows: i. Dial 669-900-6833 and enter WEBINAR ID: 871 4551 0506 ii. To “raise hand” to speak: Dial *9; When asked to unmute: Dial *6 iii. Speakers will be recognized to speak by the last four digits of their phone number. c. Online via the teleconferencing device (Audio and Video) being used to provide access Page 2 2 PC 06-23-2026 2 of 19 Planning Commission Agenda June 23, 2026 to the meeting from a remote Teleconference Location noticed pursuant to Gov. Code 54953(b)(2), which location, if noticed, would be stated on the cover page of this agenda. i. Speakers are required to notify the City Clerk via email to cityclerk@cupertino.gov prior to noon on the date of the meeting during which they plan to participate and comment from the remote location noticed to ensure the City Clerk is prepared to accept their comment. ii. If the teleconferencing device malfunctions impeding access to the meeting from the remote location, the speaker may alternatively participate via the other options for remote participation provided above. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1.Subject: Approval of the May 26, 2026 Planning Commission Minutes. Recommended Action: Approve the May 26, 2026 Planning Commission Minutes. 1 - Draft Minutes POSTPONEMENTS ORAL COMMUNICATIONS This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the Commission on any matter within the jurisdiction of the Commission and not on the agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes. In most cases, State law will prohibit the Commission from making any decisions with respect to a matter not on the agenda. OLD BUSINESS - None NEW BUSINESS - None STUDY SESSION 2.Subject: Study Session on Housing Element update to add capacity at all income levels. Receive staff’s presentation and provide direction on housing site selection strategies to add capacity to accommodate the City’s moderate- and lower-income Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), as required by state law. Staff Report 1 - Map 1 - Central, Eastern and Northern parts of City 2 - Map 2 - Western part of City 3 - Map 3 - Southern part of City STAFF AND COMMISSION REPORTS Page 3 3 PC 06-23-2026 3 of 19 Planning Commission Agenda June 23, 2026 FUTURE AGENDA SETTING ADJOURNMENT In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), anyone who is planning to attend this meeting who is visually or hearing impaired or has any disability that needs special assistance should call the City Clerk's Office at 408-777-3223, at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting to arrange for assistance. In addition, upon request in advance by a person with a disability, meeting agendas and writings distributed for the meeting that are public records will be made available in the appropriate alternative format. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the members after publication of the agenda will be made available for public inspection. Please contact the City Clerk’s Office in City Hall located at 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014, during normal business hours. IMPORTANT NOTICE: Please be advised that pursuant to Cupertino Municipal Code section 2.08.100 written communications sent to the City Council, Commissioners or staff concerning a matter on the agenda are included as supplemental material to the agendized item. These written communications are accessible to the public through the City website and kept in packet archives. Do not include any personal or private information in written communications to the City that you do not wish to make public, as written communications are considered public records and will be made publicly available on the City website. Page 4 4 PC 06-23-2026 4 of 19 CITY OF CUPERTINO Agenda Item Subject: Approval of the May 26, 2026 Planning Commission Minutes. Approve the May 26, 2026 Planning Commission Minutes. CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 6/18/2026Page 1 of 1 5 PC 06-23-2026 5 of 19 DRAFT MINUTES CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, May 26, 2026 At 6:45 p.m. Chair Tracy Kosolcharoen called the regular Planning Commission meeting to order and led the Pledge of Allegiance in the Cupertino Community Hall Council Chamber, 10350 Torre Avenue and via teleconference; and Teleconference Location Pursuant to Gov. Code 54953(b)(2): C-174 Anand Vihar, Delhi, Delhi 110092, India ROLL CALL Present: Chair Tracy Kosolcharoen, Vice Chair Steven Scharf and Commissioners Seema Lindskog (participated remotely) and Santosh Rao. Absent: Commissioner David Fung. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Subject: Approval of the May 12, 2026 Planning Commission Minutes. Recommended Action: Approve the May 12, 2026 Planning Commission Minutes. MOTION: Rao moved and Scharf seconded to approve the May 12, 2026, Planning Commission Minutes. The motion carried with the following vote: Ayes: Kosolcharoen, Scharf, Lindskog, Rao. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent: Fung. POSTPONEMENTS – None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS – None OLD BUSINESS – None NEW BUSINESS – 2. Subject: Capital Improvement Programs Fiscal Year 2026-2027 and Five-year Plan. Recommended Action: Receive presentation and provide input on the proposed Capital Improvement Programs Fiscal Year 2026-2027 and Five-year Plan as related to the City’s General Plan. Written communications for the item included a staff presentation. 6 PC 06-23-2026 6 of 19 Planning Commission Minutes May 12, 2026 Commissioners made ex-parte disclosures. Planning Manager Piu Ghosh introduced Senior Planner Gian Martire, who gave a presentation. Commissioners asked questions which staff responded to. Chair Kosolcharoen opened the public comment period and the following people spoke: • Robert George • Fred Drinkwaiver • Rhoda Fry • Jean Bedord • David Hou • Hank • Jennifer G • Jeff Ronne Chair Kosolcharoen closed the public comment period. MOTION: Rao moved and Kosolcharoen seconded to approve all proposed projects by Public Works with a special recommendation to look at expediting the pickleball sound attenuation. MODIFIED MOTION: Rao modified his motion to endorse staff recommendation on the 2026/2027 CIP Funding, with a special recommendation to expedite pickleball if possible. FRIENDLY AMENDMENT: Lindskog made a friendly amendment to the motion to expedite as long as they still do the work of exploring multiple options and doing the noise measurements to make sure it is the best possible solution (Rao did not accept this friendly amendment and the motion was not voted on). SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Lindskog moved to expedite the pickleball courts as long as we explore all possible options and look at the noise impact of each option and pick the best possible one with the cost impact ratio in mind (This motion did not receive a second and was not voted on). FRIENDLY AMENDMENT: Kosolcharoen made a friendly amendment to the motion that all neighboring residents be notified of the pilot and be asked for feedback. (Rao and Kosolcharoen accepted the friendly amendment). The motion, as amended, carried with 7 PC 06-23-2026 7 of 19 Planning Commission Minutes May 12, 2026 the following vote: Ayes: Kosolcharoen, Scharf, Lindskog, Rao. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent: Fung. STAFF AND COMMISSION REPORTS Commissioner Rao reported on the concern from residents around the evacuation study and what actions the City will take on fire evacuation given the concerns around the four hours to evacuate some of the higher traffic corridors and more projects being proposed in that area. FUTURE AGENDA SETTING - None ADJOURNMENT At 8:03 p.m. Chair Kosolcharoen adjourned the regular Planning Commission Meeting. Minutes prepared by: Lindsay Nelson, Administrative Assistant 8 PC 06-23-2026 8 of 19 CITY OF CUPERTINO Agenda Item Subject: Study Session on Housing Element update to add capacity at all income levels. Receive staff’s presentation and provide direction on housing site selection strategies to add capacity to accommodate the City’s moderate- and lower-income Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), as required by state law. CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 6/18/2026Page 1 of 1 9 PC 06-23-2026 9 of 19 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3308 CUPERTINO.GOV PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Meeting: June 23, 2026 Subject Study Session on Housing Element update to add capacity at all income levels Recommended Actions Receive staff’s presentation and provide direction on housing site selection strategies to add capacity to accommodate the City’s moderate- and lower-income Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), as required by state law. Discussion Background The Housing Element is a State-mandated General Plan element that identifies and quantifies the City’s housing needs and establishes strategies, including identification of prospective housing sites, to address the City’s obligations under State law. The City’s current Housing Element was adopted in May 2024 to address a Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) of 4,588, of which 57.5% were assigned to affordable income levels, including Moderate income or Lower income households. The City’s Below Barket Rate (BMR) housing requirements for new development are 15 to 20%, depending on the type of occupancy. The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) recommends, but does not require, that jurisdictions maintain a buffer of 15 to 30% above their RHNA to ensure an adequate housing capacity exists at all income levels, as required by Government Code Section 65863 (SB166). Accordingly, the City’s adopted Housing Element includes a total residential capacity of 5,881 units, representing an overall buffer of 28%. However, the buffer is much smaller in the affordable categories: only 8% (157 units) in the Very low- and Low-income category and 12% (92 units) in the Moderate-income category. By contrast, the above moderate/market rate income category had a 53% buffer (1,044 units). There are 58 individual properties in the Priority Housing Sites Inventory, 40 of which have an adopted minimum residential density greater than 50 dwelling units per acre. 10 PC 06-23-2026 10 of 19 However, several residential developments on Priority Housing Sites have recently been proposed and approved at lower densities and with proportionally fewer Low- and Moderate-income units than anticipated in the Housing Element (SummerHill I, Dividend I, Toll Brothers, Harvest Properties). In addition, modifications to State law allowed the City’s largest pipeline project, Vallco Town Center/Rise Development, to modify its affordability requirements. Additionally, the Hamptons entitlement for 600 new rental units is approaching expiration. As a result, the City is reviewing its Priority Housing Sites inventory to ensure continued compliance with State law. Under Government Code Section 65589.5, the City has 180 days from the date that it was initially unable to make the required housing inventory findings to identify additional sites and/or upzone existing Priority Housing sites. An informational memo was provided to the City Council in January 2026 as background on this issue and a Study Session was held with the City Council on March 3, 2026. The identification and rezoning of new housing sites and/or upzoning of existing sites requires an amendment to the Priority Housing Sites Inventory in the Housing Element of the General Plan. Pursuant to Government Code section 65585(b), the amended document must be reviewed and certified by HCD, similar to the process the City followed for its 2024 Housing Element update. Analysis The City has three sources of credit for housing units developed at specified income levels: 1. Deed-restricted units through State or County programs in affordable housing projects – Since adoption of the Housing Element, only two projects on Priority Housing Sites have been proposed as entirely affordable housing developments – Mary Ave Villas (entitled on property owned by the City) and the Wolfe Road Teacher Housing (under review on property controlled by the County). At the same time, the approval and development of townhome ownership units , on both Priority Housing Sites and non-Priority Housing Sites, have consistently added Moderate-income units through the City’s BMR program. As a result, the City has less of a concern meeting Moderate-income housing goals than its Lower-income housing goals, which remain the primary ongoing concern. 2. Deed-restricted units through the City’s Below Market Rate (BMR) Housing Mitigation Program - The City’s BMR housing requirements are 15% Lower income units, including Very Low-income units, for new rental developments, such as apartments, and 20% Moderate income units, including Median- and Moderate-income units, for new owner-occupied developments, such as townhomes and condominiums. However, the City’s RHNA requires the City to 11 PC 06-23-2026 11 of 19 plan for 57.5% of the 6th Cycle Housing Element units to be affordable to Very Low, Low and Moderate income households. This mismatch between RHNA affordability targets and the City’s BMR requirements creates an inevitable gap as sites develop, unless projects on Priority Housing sites develop largely as affordable housing projects or provide affordable units at percentages greater than the City’s BMR Program, both of which are unlikely. 3. Non-deed restricted units which are available at income levels akin to deed- restricted levels. An example of non-deed restricted units for which the City could get credit is higher-density apartment units which rent at levels verifiably affordable to Low or Moderate income households - essentially, units that are affordable by design due their smaller size and higher density. At present, the City has only one project (Hanover, located at Stevens Creek/Finch Avenue) under review that potentially meets these criteria. However, this type of development project offers the best opportunity to add a greater number of both total and affordable housing units. Current Development Patterns To date, the City has not seen any interest in 100% affordable housing projects, despite ongoing efforts in outreach with affordable housing developers, other than the two affordable housing projects described above. Both Mary Avenue Villas and Wolfe Road Teacher Housing are proposed right at the 50-unit per acre density, which is the minimum for their land use designations. Prior discussions with other affordable housing developers suggest that development at a substantially higher density would be necessary for competitive applications for tax credit programs beyond what is typically available. The City has seen a significant interest in ownership townhome projects at or below the 20-unit per acre density, which is currently the most lucrative and prevalent project type in the South Bay Area. Examples include Dividend II, Dividend III (Pacific Resources Center), SummerHill II (Evulich), SummerHill III (Bandley). The City has additionally seen the use of State law (SB330) by developers to lock in densities lower than anticipated on Priority Housing Sites in order to develop this more lucrative building type (Toll Brothers (United Furniture), SummerHill I (Fontana/Staples), Dividend I). This housing type has effectively become the modern, vertical equivalent of a single-family subdivision. On the other end of the spectrum, Hanover is proposing 363 units on a 2.67 acre site (~136 du/ac) (19220 and 19300 Stevens Creek Blvd). Due to the small size of the proposed units (e.g., the majority of the units are either studios or one-bedroom), the potential future rents at this development may allow the City to claim lower income level categorization for some or many of these units, even though these not deed restricted affordable housing. This affordability determination would be subject to HCD’s agreement, but other jurisdictions have successfully used this approach. 12 PC 06-23-2026 12 of 19 Policy Considerations Based on current development patterns and other related policy efforts underway in the City, several key considerations emerge: 1) There are enough sites in Cupertino (much of the City already allows residential development through existing land use designations) to accommodate new townhome- style development outside the City’s Priority Housing Sites Inventory. Since the City approved several townhome projects over the last year, it continues to maintain a buffer at the Moderate income level. Although not necessary, the City could consider adding a limited number of housing sites to help maintain an adequate buffer across all income categories. 2) Although the City cannot control the use of state law, one important factor in affordable housing production is that, while the Housing Element establishes minimum residential density standards for Priority Housing Sites, the City does not currently require minimum residential densities on sites that are not designated as Priority Housing Sites. This creates an incentive to develop at the density that is most financially attractive for certain project types, which is currently townhomes at roughly 20 units per acre. These owner-occupied projects are only required to provide moderate-income units under the City’s BMR program, not lower-income units, and they do not add a meaningful number of total units toward the City’s RHNA targets. State law, specifically AB 2011, already allows residential development at specified minimum densities along defined, major commercial corridors. However, because that law includes labor requirements, developers have used it infrequently. The City could consider adopting a local version of similar regulations — without the labor requirements — to allow higher-density residential development along major transportation corridors, while excluding selected commercial sites that the City wishes to retain as retail or service centers. The City could also consider establishing minimum densities along these corridors, as well as higher maximum densities on some sites, to encourage this type of development. 3) Continued development at 20 units per acre is not productive for lower-income housing and would require the City to identify substantially more sites and land area for residential development. For example, the City could upzone a minimum of 20 acres in the 65-80 units per acre range (this is the City’s most dense land use range) to get to an adequate buffer of lower-income units. By contrast, if sites were developed at only 20 units per acre, the City would need more than 80 acres to produce the same number of units. In addition, because the City’s BMR requirements for ownership housing do not require lower-income units, simply establishing a minimum density of 20 units per acre on Priority Housing Sites would not ensure any lower-income production. For these 13 PC 06-23-2026 13 of 19 reasons, the City should consider densities of at least 65 units per acre to better support lower-income housing production. 4) With proposed projects on two Priority Housing Sites within neighborhoods, one on a neighborhood connector (Linda Vista Drive) and the other on a minor collector (McClellan Road), there has been heavy neighborhood opposition. Similar, and sustained opposition has continued due to the upzoning of a site at the terminus of Adriana Avenue within the Pharlap neighborhood. To reduce future neighborhood opposition, the City should focus on sites located along or adjacent to major transportation corridors and avoid adding new Priority Housing Sites within neighborhoods. Corridor sites can generally support greater density and make a stronger contribution toward the City’s RHNA targets. At the same time, the City continues to implement Housing Element policies and state laws that allow more modest increases in neighborhood density. 5) A State mandated evacuation study prepared as part of an ongoing Health and Safety Element update has indicated that, in the event of a catastrophic emergency, the evacuation network is capacity-constrained in several west-side neighborhoods, primarily west of Highway 85. The City should therefore avoid increasing density within these neighborhoods or along the following evacuation routes: Bubb Road north of Hyannisport Drive, McClellan Road up to Bubb Road, Foothill Blvd, and Stevens Creek Boulevard west of Highway 85. 6) State law requires cities to offer an in-lieu BMR fee option that allows developers of rental projects to pay a fee instead of providing BMR units on site. This could further reduce the actual production of lower-income housing units. To offset this risk, the City should have an in-lieu fee that is high enough to compensate for the lost unit production, which it currently does not have. The City will be commencing an update to its BMR fees shortly to ensure that adequate fees are established. Taken together, these considerations support the following actions: 1. Identify new or upzone existing Priority Housing Sites at minimum densities of 65 units per acre or higher; 2. Site selection: a. Focus on or adjacent to arterials and avoid neighborhoods; b. Avoid streets that have existing capacity constraints in the event of emergencies; 3. Establish a minimum density of 20 dwelling units per acre, or a similar density, for non-Priority Housing Sites along major corridors; 4. Adopt a local program to allow higher density residential development on non- Priority Housing Sites, with exclusions for commercial properties, akin to AB2011. 14 PC 06-23-2026 14 of 19 Retention of Retail Considerations Since 2014, the City has experienced an ongoing loss of retail uses, which historically generated significant sales tax revenue. As a result, the City has faced declining sales tax revenue over that period. A notable example is the former Vallco Mall, which was once the single largest sales tax generator for the City, but became increasingly vacant in the years following Valley Fair Mall’s expansion and the development of Santana Row in west San Jose and Santa Clara, which accelerated with the broader rise of internet sales and retailers. Although there remains steady interest in personal services1 and in food uses2, there is currently limited demand for traditional retail stores that generate sales tax revenue for the City. In addition, some retail businesses may not choose to locate in Cupertino because established, successful, mid-size retail nodes located outside the City, such as West Gate Shopping Center in San Jose and Sunnyvale Downtown, already serve the broader “trade area3.” Finally, although the City has historically retained office uses, since 2024 it has seen several office and retail buildings proposed for housing redevelopment due to changes in state housing law, including SB 330, and reduced office demand following COVID. If all the office buildings approved for housing redevelopment through June 2026 are demolished, the City would lose approximately 238,000 square feet of office space. Similarly, since 2022, the City has approved housing development which would demolish 87,000 square feet of retail/commercial space. This equates to a loss of nearly 1,000 jobs.4 As a result, the City Council added a Work Program item in 2025 to identify strategies to retain retail development within the City. With respect to using residential densities as a tool to retain retail uses within the City, the City could consider a strategy that concentrates allowable residential density to one portion of the site while maintaining commercial development on another portion. This approach could support the long-term viability of on-site retail by pairing it with higher- density housing. More directly, existing commercial sites could be rezoned or redesignated to eliminate the potential of residential development. This approach, however, would have to occur in conjunction with upzoning related to Priority Housing Sites to maintain compliance with State laws designed to prevent the overall loss of residential development. While residential development on commercial sites can help the City meet its RHNA targets, allowing residential development without minimum density requirements may instead result in widespread townhome development that neither 1 Examples include foot spa, massage, childcare, specialized schools (such as karate, martial arts, etc.), beauty uses (botox and other clinics) 2 These include specialty food (boba tea), fast food/casual restaurants (mainly take out) and sit-down restaurants 3 A trade area in real estate is the geographic region from which a business or property draws the majority of its customers. 4 The 2014 General Plan EIR assumed an office occupancy of 300 square feet per employee and a commercial occupancy of 450 square feet per employee in the analysis. 15 PC 06-23-2026 15 of 19 meaningfully advances RHNA compliance — particularly for lower-income units — nor preserves retail and service uses for the community. Potential Sites Over the past several months, City staff has been contacted by several property owners interested in adding sites to the Priority Housing Sites Inventory. These include: • Kimco Property (Cupertino Village) for some portions of their site (e.g. existing hotel site) at much higher densities – Recommended to be upzoned. • Marina Plaza – increased density requested for the entire site to a minimum density of 65 du/ac across the 5.03-acre site to accommodate 300+ units – Recommended to be upzoned. • AlphaX – four sites on the northeast corner of the intersection of N. Foothill Blvd and Stevens Creek Blvd, including three parcels which allow residential development at an existing density of 15 units per acre and one parcel with a land use density and zoning that allows single family (R-1) uses – This, however, is not recommended due to proximity to constrained evacuation routes and limited number of units generated. • The Villages/Prometheus – verbally indicated an interest to allow development on the parcel containing the clubhouse and amenity space for the apartment complex – There is no recommendation on this site at this time. Staff has prepared maps showing a broad range of sites that could potentially be added to the Priority Housing Sites Inventory, upzoned as existing Priority Housing Sites, and/or considered for retail retention strategies (See Attachments 1, 2 and 3). The range of sites is intentionally broad because this is the beginning of the discussion regarding where additional housing sites should be identified and where existing capacity should be increased. Next Steps Staff will prepare a list of sites based on these strategies for the Commission’s consideration. Prepared by: Piu Ghosh, Planning Manager Reviewed and Approved for Submission by: Luke Connolly, Assistant Director of Community Development Attachments: 1 – Map 1 (East, Central and Northern parts of City) 2 – Map 2 (Western part of City) 3 – Map 3 (Southern part of City) 16 PC 06-23-2026 16 of 19 17 PC 06-23-2026 17 of 19 18 PC 06-23-2026 18 of 19 19 PC 06-23-2026 19 of 19