The URL can be used to link to this page

CC Staff Report 03-04-2014 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT �'' CTTY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CLTI'ERTII�TO,CA 95014-3255 C U P E RT I N O �408)777-3308 •FAX(408)777-3333 CITY COUNCIL STAFF 1ZEPORT Meetin�: March 4, 2014 SUBJECT: Study Session to review Housing Element requirements and sites to achieve the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for the upcoming 2014-2022 Housing Element RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council: 1. Review the report on potential Housing Element sites to be studied in the joint General Plan Amendment and Housing Element Environmental Impact Report (EIR); and 2. Prioritize the housing sites in order of preference,if desired. BACKGROUND: Project Descri�tion Application No.: GPA-2013-02 Applicant: City of Cupertino Location/APN: Citywide Housing Element Overview In accordance with State law, California cities must have an adopted General Plan, which rnust contain a Housing Element. Housing Element law requires that all jurisdictions facilitate housing development by creating policies and adopting land use plans and regulatory schemes that provide opporiunities for housing development, ulcluding units that could accommodate households with very low, low, moderate and higher incomes. For information on Housing Element content, please see Attachment CC-1 (Housing Commission Staff Report). State law requires that each city and county update its Housing Element on a pre-determined cycle. For the current cycle, the updated Housing Element must be adopted by January 31, 2015 (plus a 120-day grace period). If this adoption deadline is met, the planning period for this cycle extends from adoption to January 31, 2023 (or eight years). Otherwise, the City must update the Housing Element again in 2019 (every four years). The Cify Council approved the project scope of work and authorized the budget for the project on November 4,2013. 9(� Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) The RHNA is an estimate of projected needed housing units throughout the State and is based on Department of Finance population projections and regional population forecasts. The RHNA identifies Cupertino's regional housing needs by income levels: � i • � � • Ve Low (<_50% of Area Median Income(AMI)) 356 Low(51 —80% of AMI) 207 Moderate(81 - 120% of AMI) 231 Above Moderate(> 120%of AMI) 270 Total 1,064 The City is not obligated to construct the housing units identified by the RHNA. Rather, the City's responsibility is to demonstrate adequate capacity, by identifying specific sites, to satisfy the RHNA under existing zoning and land use policy. HCD generally requires jurisdictions to show a surplus of sites/units in order to guarantee that the City could realistically accommodate the RHNA allocations. General Plan Amendment In addition to the Housing Element, the City is also preparing a General Plan Amendment (GPA) for Cify Council consideration, as directed by the City Council in August 2012. The primary purpose of the GPA is to replenish, re-allocate, and increase citywide development allocations in order to plan for anticipated future development activity while keeping with the community's character, goals, and objectives. The secondary purpose of the GPA is to consolidate development requests by several property owners for amendments to the General Plan,under a comprehensive community vision. DISCUSSION: Housing Element Sites Criteria HCD Criteria HCD reviews each Housing Element's sites inventory to determine if adequate sites have been identified to meet the RHNA. Preparation of a "site suitability analysis" is an important step in addressing the adequate sites requirement. For additional details on HCD's site suitabilify requirements and criteria, please see Attachment CG1. A key point to note in HCD's criteria is that sites with a net density lower than 20 dwelling units per acre do not qualify for meeting affordable housing requirements. With Cupertino's last Housulg Element (2007-2014), HCD accepted a realistic yield of 85% of the maximum density allowed on the site, based on cify- specific historic project approval data. This means that for a one acre site, while the maximum yield at a density of 25 dwelling tulits per acre is 25 units, the realistic yield for Housing Element purposes is (25'� 85%} =21 units. Therefore, most sites discussed later in this report are in areas that are at or above this density. 9(�3 Affordab il i h�Cri teria HCD requires an additional component of the site suitability analysis for those sites identified to meet the lower income portion of the RHNA (this includes the very low-, low-, and moderate-income RHNA). Cupertino's lower income RHNA requirement for the 2014-2022 Housing Element is 794 units. To identify the sites and establish the number of units that can accommodate the RHNA for lower-income households, the Housing Element must include an analysis that demonstrates that the sites identified have zoning regulations and densities in place that encourage and facilitate the development of housing for lower-income households. Alternatively, Housing Element law allows local governments to utilize- "default" density standards determined by HCD. Per HCD's determination, suburban cities in Santa Clara County require a minimtun "realistic" density of 20 dwelling units per acre or greater to rneet lower income requirements. Additionally, if properties need to be rezoned to accommodate the RHNA on the sites identified, the zoning should be done in conjunction with the adoption of the Housing Element to avoid additional requirements that may be imposed by the HCD. The City intends to complete the necessary rezoning in conjunction with the Housing Element. Other Secondary Criteria (Sustainable Cofnsnunities Strategy/One Bay A�•ea Plan and Cupertino General Plan) In addition to the State-wide criteria that HCD uses to determine site suitability, the Sustainable Communities Strategy/One Bay Area Plan contribute additional criteria regarding what makes a desirable housing site in the ABAG region. The region's Sustainable Communities Strategy and the One Bay Area Plan focuses development in Priority Development Areas (PDA). Cupertino's PDA has been identified with a yellow outline on Attachment CC-3. The City's General Plan policies are generally consistent with the strategies in the One Bay Area Plan. For additional details on the other secondary criteria, please see Attachment CC-1. Potential Housin�;Element Sites The City has solicited public input on the selection of sites for inclusion u1 the Housing Element. Through commtanity workshops and study sessions with fl1e Housing Commission and Planning Commission;conversations with property owners and stakeholders, and review of the previous Housing Element, multiple sites have been identified. Sites in four categories have been identified on the map: ■ Existing Housing Elesnent sites — Seven sites identified in the 2007-2014 Housing Element are currently available. The others have either been redeveloped or do not meet the criteria. ■ Sites Pro�osed By Property Owners — Ten property owners have uldicated an interest in being included in the Sites Inventory. Most of the developers have indicated a density range higher than that currently allowed by the General Plan and zoning for their site. 90kD ■ Sites Proposed By Workshop Participants —Workshop participants at the January 23, 2014 and February 12, 2014 workshops identified 28 sites which could potentially be included in the Sites Inventory. ■ Lot Consolidation Potential —A few parcels indicated on the map are adjacent to existing Housing Element sites or proposed sites—these "lot consolidation potential" sites could be considered for addition with the adjacent site to facilitate a more cohesive development. The cumulative total of the realistic yield of all the sites proposed to date exceeds the City's RHNA. While several sites are discussed in the report, the City is only obligated to pick sites enough to cumulatively add up to 1,064 units (with some additional surplus to meet HCD's realistic capacity and Affordabilify criteria requirements). A map has been prepared (see Attachment CC-2) that identifies all the sites proposed to date. An accompanying table (Attachment CC-3) provides additional information about each site. Sites are listed in alphabetical order by category except lot consolidation potential sites which are listed immediately adjacent to the site for which potential has been identified. The attachments include direction and preference as indicated by the Housing Commission as well as the Planning Commission (see discussion below}. Sites that do not meet criteria or were suggested by the Planning Commission for removal have been indicated with a strikeout. The consultant has reviewed and categorized sites for their potential to meet HCD as well as the secondary criteria and listed them as Low, Moderate and High priority. It is recommended that the sites that have been categorized "low" be removed from the list of sites to ensure a manageable list of sites for study in the Environmental Impact Report. Summarv of Februarv 19,2014 Planning Commission Open House and Studv Session On February 19, 2014, the Planning Commission held an Open House and Study Session on the Housing Element, with a focus on reviewing and commenting on potential Housing Element sites identified to date. This meeting also addressed the concurrent General Plan Amendment process. (See Attachment CC-4 — Planning Commission Staff Report) During the open house, residents and stakeholders were invited to review posters to understand "What is a Housing Element" and a map indicating potential Housing Element sites identified to date. Posters showing the General Plan alternatives were also available. Staff and consultants answered questions at the Open House from several residents and stakeholders. Staff and consultants provided a presentation on the GPA and Housing Element durulg the Study Session and the Planning Commission received public testimony and provided comments on the priority of on Housing Sites. The following is a summary of comments from the Plaruzing Commission and the public. Where applicable, staff comments are noted in italics. 901�1 Cot�iments frosn the Pu�lic The following is a summary of the key points made at the meeting: ■ Building heights should reflect the character of the City and neighborhoods in which they are located ■ New housing should be distributed throughout Cupertino ■ Impacts of new housing on schools and traffic need to be carefully considered in the siting of housing (see comments on school impacts later in this staff re�ort) ■ There is a need for more affordable housing, especially rental housing ■ Smaller units are preferable over larger units Planning Commission Discussion The Planning Commission recommended that in addition to retaining existing Housing Element sites that the balance of the sites be prioritized. They also recommended that the list of potential Housing Element sites be shortened with the following criteria in mind: ■ Successful Shopping Centers - The Planning Commission noted that the existing uses on sites should be reviewed carefully to purge the list of sites that should not be considered housing element sites. Particularly, the Commission discussed that sites that are developed with currently successful commercial centers should not be priority housing sites. Specifically, the Commission discussed not considering Cupertino Village and Marketplace as good candidates for the Housing Element sites list. ■ Institutional Sites - The Plannulg Commission agreed that sites that are owned by utility companies or by the State or Federal Government should not be considered as good candidates for the Housing Element sites list since the likelihood of these properties being redeveloped in the current Housing Element cycle is minimal. ■ Small Sites with low yield or no Property Owner interest - The Planning Commission recommended that smaller sites that yield limited or marginal housing or where property owners have not indicated interest in redevelopment as a housing site be removed from the list. ■ Distribute Housing - The Planning Commission recommended that the Hamptons site and the Vallco site be reviewed as high priority Housing Element sites. In addition to these, the Planning Commission indicated their preference to include sites along Foothill Boulevard and South De Anza Boulevard to ciistribute potential housing development throughout the City. ■ Encourage Development along Priority Development Area (PDA) - The Planning Commission suggested that the City Council review densities along major mixed-use - corridors and possibly amend existing densities along the City's PDA to be consistent with existing densities along Homestead Road and Wolfe Road. This is consistent with the secondary criteria developed for the housing sites. ■ Minimize Impacts to Schools - Some Commissioners stated that the preference be that housing sites be selected based on where the school impacts might be low. Tlie City cannot 90� consider impacts on schools as a result of new housing developments. SB 50 (State Government Code sections 65995-65998 and Education Code sections 17620-17621)preempts CEQA consideration and mitigation of impacts on school facilities (such as the need for new or expanded schools due to additional enrollment caused by new development). If new development pays standard school impact fees, there is no further role for CEQA with regard to impacts on schools nor may such projects be denied based on schools impacts (See Attachment CC-5 — Memo on Application of SB 50 to Consideration of Developmer2t Applications). In addition, State law prolTibits tl�e City from using its planning and zoning powers to deny residency to, rnake housing uliavailable to, or discriminate against, families with children. However, for large projects, tlzere is the potential for negotiated Development Agreements to result in additional benefits such as contributions towards schools, pocket parks, and traffic improvement. The following table indicates the sites, in addition to the existing Housing Element sites, that the Planning Commission recommended as priority sites for study: Site Site Name and Land Use Current Size Density Realistic No. Location Desi ation Zonin (Acres) (DU/A) Capacity Lot Consolidation Sites (ad'acent to existin Housin Element sites) East of E. Estates Commercial/ P(CG, Res) 25 19541 Richwood Dr. Office/Residential L7 East of E. Estates Commercial/ P(CG, Res) 2.16'� 25 45 19550 Stevens Creek Blvd Office/Residential East of E. Estates Commercial/ P(CG,Res) 25 10055 Miller Ave Office/Residential Property Owner Development Interest Sites (Density requested indicated) P1 Bateh Brothers Commercial/ P(CG) 0.67 20-35 11 -19 22690 Stevens Creek Blvd Residential Foothill Market(@McClellan) Commercial/ P3 10625 S Foothill Blvd Residential P(CG) 1.3 20-25 22—27 P6 T�e Hamptons High Density P(Res) 12.44 65 - 110 686— 19500 Prunerid e Ave Residential (20-35) 1162 P7 Vallco Mall Commercial/ P(Regional 32.9 35 600—800 10123 N Wolfe Rd Residential Sho in ) Summerwinds& Granite Rock Commercial/ P(CG, Res P8 1471, 1491 & 1505 S De Anza Office/Residential 5-15) 4.13 25-40 87—140 Blvd '�Includes portion of E. Estates Drive 901T3 Environmental Review A combined Environmental Impact Report will be prepared for the General Plan Amendment and the 2014-2022 Housing Element projects. The preparation of the EIR will commence once the City Council provides its comments on the sites to be analyzed as part of each alternative studied in the EIR. The next step of the EIR involves a scoping meeting (scheduled for March 11, 2014), which includes a 30-day comment period, to consult with agencies, organizations or individuals on the contents of the EIR, including the range of alternatives. The final scope of the EIR, including possible additional alternatives, will be determined following completion of the scoping process. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires the EIR to discuss a "reasonable range of alternatives," and should briefly discuss alternatives that are considered but rejected for further analysis during the scoping process. A proposed alternative need not be considered if it would not avoid or substantially lessen significant impacts, would not meet most of the basic project objectives, is infeasible, or is not needed to have a "reasonable range" of alternatives. It is anticipated that preparation of the Draft EIR will take about four months, and that the Draft EIR will be released for a 45-day public review period in late Summer 2014. A community open house is planned during the public review period. Following the close of the public review period, a Final EIR and responses to comments will be prepared. The recommendation from the Environmental Review Committee, public hearing for the Planning Commission and public hearing for the Council EIR review and certification are tentatively scheduled for Fa112014. EIR Alternatives and Density Considerations for Sites At this time, the only sites proposed to be eliminated from the siudy are those that do not meet the HCD and secondary criteria ("criteria"), and those suggested by the Planning Commission for removal. In addition,each General Plan alternative will include sites as follows: ■ Alternative A - All housing sites that meet criteria will be included at densities that meet the 2005 General Plan. Sites that are proposed with minimum densities exceeding the 2005 General Plan or those that require land use changes or rezoning will be eliminated except for one site located in the South De Anza Area. The density in this area is being increased to 25 dwelling units per acre. ■ Alternative B - All housing sites that meet criteria will be included at densities that fall between Alternative A and Alfernative C. This alternative will include sites that require changes to General Plan land use and rezoning but at densities lower than the maximum densities proposed by applicants. The densities will be reviewed for building height assumptions in Alternative B to ensure that the building envelopes do not exceed the 90� assumptions. Housing Element sites proposed by property owners along major transportation corridors will be studied at 35 dwelling units per acre. ■ Alternative C-All housing sites that meet criteria will be included in this alternative. This alternative includes sites that range from those that meet the 2005 General Plan to those that require land use and increased densities. This alternative includes sites at the maximum density proposed by applicants. It should be noted that a lower density on a site will increase the number of sites that need to be picked to cumulatively reach the 1,064 units RHNA obligation. Additionally, sites that do not have densities of 25 dwelling units per acre (realistic densify of 20 dwelling units per acre) will not meet HCD's affordabilify criteria. As noted above, the final scope of the EIR, including possible additional altematives will be determined following completion of the scoping process. The final decision on the list of sites will be made in Fa112014 upon certification of the EIR. Other Housing Element Rec�uirements U�date Housing Policies The update of the Housing Element has been divided 'ulto two areas of review. The first area of review is the subject of this meeting- identification of adequate sites appropriately zoned in the City to accommodate the City's RHNA. The second area of review is an analysis and update of the existing policies and programs which will be presented at a later date (tentatively April 1, 2014 at a Joint Planr►ing Commission/City Council meeting.) Streamlined HCD Review HCD allows for streamlined review of the Housing Element if the jurisdiction meets certain criteria. Streamlined review provides for expeditious review and limits the areas of the Housing Element on which the HCD staff can comment. HCD's standard review generally takes longer, thereby potentially delaying the adoption of the Housing Element. For details on the criteria for eligibility for streamlined review of the Housing Element, please see Attachment CG2. The City currently complies with almost all of the requirements to qualify for the streamlined review except for the adoption of a Density Bonus ordinance �l1at conforms to State Law. The Cify has to comply with State Law wiflz or without an updated ordinance. However, havulg an updated ordinance will allow the CiEy to be eligible for streamlined review and needs to be completed prior to HCD review of the Draft Housulg Element. This ordinance will be available for Planning Commission review and Council adoption at the same time as fl1e Draft Housing Element in Fa112014. The Draft will be forwarded to HCD as soon as it is adopted in Fall 2014. The HCD has 60 days to comment on the document, after which �tze City has to make aizy necessary revisions to the Draft and adopt the final Housing Element. T'he due date for adoption is January 31, 2015. An additional grace period of 120 days is also provided. If fl1e City does not meet the deadlule for adoption, the Housing Element will have to be updated 90�"i every four years instead of every eight years. In addition, the City, potentially, could be subject to litigation and automatic approval of housing on identified Housing Element sites at a minimum density of 16 dwelling units per acre. Other Items for Council Consideration Gross Density vs.Net Density The Council has in the past indicated that densify should not be calculated on the gross acreage (including a portion of adjacent street area) of a property as currently allowed by the City's Zoning Code. The number of units assumed for the Housing Element sites are based only on net lot area and do not include portions of adjacent streets. The related changes to the Zoning Code will be made in conjunction with the General Plan amendment. In addition, the Heart of the City Specific Plan allows residential density to only be calculated on the acreage of a property net of the areas that service retail development. This requirement may reduce the yield and net density on a project site, which could either result in the mixed- use sites not meetulg affordability criteria and/or requiring additional sites to be rezoned due to the low yield. These issues will be analyzed and discussed in the Draft Housing Element. PUBLIC NOTICING &OUTREACH In addition to the open house and study session at the Planning Commission meeting on February 19,2014, the following outreach efforts have been undertaken on this project to date. Postcards A postcard was delivered in February 2014 to all postal addresses in the Cify to announce upcoming dates on the General Plan and Housing Element projects. The postcard also provides a brief description of the two projects and identifies the project website where 'vlterested person may sign up for project updates and further notices. Website A website has been set up for the combined General Plan and Housing Element projects at www.cu�ertinog�a.o�. All technical reports, notices and other important information are available at the website. Interested persons may also submit comments at the website. The website also has a separate tab for the Housing Element project which provides answers to Frequently Asked Questions. Meetin�s Stakeholder Interviews Stakeholder interviews were conducted on December 11 & 12, 2013 to solicit input from stakeholders ranging from community members, property owners, housing developers, service providers, School Districts and the business community. A summary of the key comments from this meeting is available in Attachment CC-2. 9'h36 Joint PC/HC Workshop On January 23, 2014 the Planning Commission and Housing Commission hosted a joint workshop to begin the Housing Element Sites discussion. Eleven participants broke into small groups and identified potential fuiure sites for housing and criteria for increased density in certain areas including community benefits. Participants drew on maps and placed stickers to identify potential housing sites.A summary of the comments is available in Attachment CC-2. February 12 Housing Cotnt�iission Worksho� On February 12, the Housing Commission hosted a workshop to continue the Housing Element Sites discussion and prioritize sites for inclusion in the Housing Element. Following a project update presentation, approximately fifteen (15) participants broke into three groups and discussed identification of new sites and prioritizing potential housing sites to meet the IZHNA of 1,064. A summary of the comments from the workshop is available in Attachment CC-2. The Housing Commission recommended forwarding all the sites highlighted by the workshop participants as priority sites to the Planning Commission for consideration. Noticing for March 4,2014 Citv Council meetin� The following table summarizes the noticing for this meetulg. : _ . ° � � ,� '' � , ;,. � M ■ Email sent to all interested parties ■ Posted on the City's official notice bulletin signed up through the project website board (one week prior to the l2earing) ■ Letters sent to current Housing Element ■ Posted on the City of Cupertino's Web site site property owners, interested (one week prior to the hearing) property owners and owners of sites ■ Posted on the project Website (one week prior identified at the worksho s to hearin ) NEXT STEPS The goal for this siudy session is for the City Council to review and provide comments on the Housing Element sites and densities to be studied in the EIR. City Council may choose to organize priority sites into tiers based on preference for inclusion or provide direction on removal of sites. The policy portion of the review of the Housing Element will be presented to the Housulg Commission on March 19, 2014 and the Planning Commission and City Council at the Joint meeting on Apri11, 2014. Upon completion of the Final EIR u1 late Summer 2014, flze Draft Housing Element will be reviewed by flze Planning Commission and presented to the Council in Fall 2014 for adoption. The approved Draft Housing Element will include: housing policies as well as the final list of housulg sites to meet t�1e RHNA (which may include sites that require General Plan Amendments and rezoning, depending on Council's selection of sites). I�Z addition, in order to comply with streamlined HCD review, a Densiiy Bonus Ordinance will be prepared for review 911TI and adoption. After Council adoption, the Draft Housing Element will be forwarded to HCD for its review. Upon HCD's review, any necessary revisions will be made and the final Housing Element will be presented for Planning Commission review and City Council decision in January 2015. Prepared b� Piu Ghosh, AICP, Senior Planner MIG, Consultant to the City of Cupertino Reviewed bv: Gary Chao, Assistant Director of Comrnunify Development and Aarti Shrivastava,Director of Community Development A�proved for Submission bv: David Brandt, Cify Manager Attachments CC-1. Housing Commission Staff Report dated February 12, 2014 CC-2. Potential 2014-2022 Housing Element Sites Map, with PC and HC Priorities Indicated CC-3. Potential 2014-2022 Housing Element Sites SLU7unary Table, with PC and HC Priorities Indicated CC-4. Planning Commission Staff Report dated February 19,2014 CC-5. Memo—Application of SB 50 to Consideration of Development Applications 9'I?a4 ATTACHMENT CC-1 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE•CUPERTIIVO,CA 95014-3255 (408)777-3308•FAX(408)777-3333 CUPERTINO �HOUSING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 1 Agenda Date: February 12, 2014 SUBJECT: 2015-2023 Housing Element Update—Sites Identification RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Housing Commission accept the report on potential Housing Element sites, host a community workshop to discuss housing site identification criteria and sites, and reconvene to provide direction to staff on priority housing sites. BACKGROUND: Housin�Element Overview The Housing Element is one of seven mandatory elements of the General Plan. The Housing Element specifies ways in which housing needs of existing and future resident populations can be met, and provides a comprehensive strategy for maintaining and expanding the City's housing supply available to all economic segments in the community, including very low, low, moderate and higher incomes. Housing Element law requires that all jurisdictions facilitate housing development by creating policies and adopting land use plans and regulatory schemes that provide opportunities for housing development. State law requires that each city and county update its Housing Element on a pre- determined cycle; for this cycle, Housing Element updates must be adopted by January 31, 2015 (plus a 120-day grace period). If this adoption deadline is met, the planning period for this cycle extends from adoption to January 31, 2023 (or eight years). Otherwise, the City must update the Housing Element again in 2019 (every four years). As required by the California legislature and codified in the Government Code, Housing Elements must include specific analysis and must meet statutory requirements regarding contents. State law mandates that all Housing Elements must: 1) identify and analyze existing and projected housing needs, 2) discuss constraints to housing development, and 3) identify resources to meet housing needs (including identification of adequate sites to accommodate housing needs of all economic segments of the community). The Housing 19 Page 2 Housing Cominission Housing Element Study Session February 12,2014 Element must include a statement of goals, policies, quantified objectives, and scheduled programs for the preservation,improvement, and development of housing. The California Departrnent of Housing and Community Development(HCD) is responsible for reviewing Housing Elements to determine compliance with Housing Element law. HCD also is the responsible body for establishing the :statewide the quantified objectives for regional housing needs—the Regional Housing Needs Allocation("RHNA"). Regional Housing Needs Allocc�tion (RHNA) The RHNA is an estimate of projected needed housing units throughout the State and is based on Department of Finance population projections and regional population forecasts. The RHNA estimates are also correlated with long-term regional transportation plans. HCD allocates the RHNA to each region. In the Bay Area, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), the regional planning agency, is tasked with the responsibility of developing a regional housing plan—with a RHNA for each jurisdiction—to meet existing and future housing needs. The RHNA identifies Cupertino's regional housing needs by income levels. The income levels are separated into four categories:very low, low, moderate, and above moderate. The City's housing needs allocation for the period of 2015-2023 is 1,064 new housing units. The City is not obligated to construct the housing units identified by the IZHNA. Rather, the City's responsibility is to demonstrate adequate capacity, by identifying specific sites, to satisfy the RHNA under existing zoning and land use policy. � � � • Ver Low 356 . Low 207 Moderate 231 Above Moderate 270 Total 1,064 HCD generally requires jurisdictions to show a surplus of sites/units in order to guarantee that the City could realistically accommodate the RHNA allocations. DISCUSSION: Housin�Element Sites Criteria HCD Criteria HCD reviews each Housing Element's sites inventory to determine if adequate sites have been identified to meet the RHNA. Preparation of a "site suitability analysis" is an important step in addressing the adequate sites requirement. This analysis must 20 Page 3 Housing Commission Housing Element Study Session February 12,2014 demonstrate that identified sites can accommodate the housing needs—by income level— within the plarululg period of the element (2015-2023). Whil.e the site suitability review has a degree of subjectivity, HCD review primarily focuses on the following criteria in determining the likelihood that a developed site will be converted to some form of housuzg over the plannuig period: existing use on the site, realistic potential for recycling, site size and ownership patterns, and development density. 1. Existing Use on the Site. HCD generally does not consider the following types of sites good candidates for private residential development: ■ Sites with existing multi-family housing developments consisting of 10 or more units, due to the potential loss of existing inveshnent and revenue stream to the owner, unless the owner indicates his/her interest in redeveloping the site with additional residential uses. ■ Sites with condominium developments, since they typically have complicated ownership patterns and a developer would have to reach sales agreements with multiple owners. ■ Well-established organizations and institutions because of the difficulty such organizations and institutions would face relocating to locations, unless the owner indicates his/her interest in redeveloping the site with residential uses. HCD requires a more detailed analysis of redevelopment potential on sites with the above types of uses. However, where adjacent vacant space is available and existing uses would not be removed, HCD does not generally consider the existing use on the site a cause for concern. 2. Realistic Potential for Recycling. HCD evaluates the feasibility of redevelopment based on a variety of factors, some of which include property owner interest in redevelopment with housing, market factors related to location or site characteristics, existing uses on the site that are highly valued and anticipated to remain, the condition and age of existing development on the site, and environmental liability risks, such as land contamination. 3. Site Size and Ownership Patterns. HCD believes that larger sites provide the opportunity to uzcrease capacity potential and to provide flexibility with regard to design, public amenities, mix of housing types, and mixed use development. It also believes that lot consolidation potential of parcels can be a factor in determining site suitability. Lot consolidation potential can be based on ownership patterns (single, limited, or multiple owners), history of lot consolidation in the area, and specific knowledge of owner interest in lot consolidation. Where lot consolidation potential is likely, the time and cost associated with development is reduced and thus the likelihood of redevelopment is increased. 21 Page 4 Housing Commissiori Housing Element Study Session February 12,2014 4. Development Densit�j. HCD has identified a density of 20 units per acre as adequate to encourage the development of affordable housing in Santa Clara County due to economies of scale that a developer can achieve. Sites that permit a density of less than 20 units per acre would not be considered as appropriate for fulfilling the Iower-income RHNA requirement but could be appropriate for fulfilling the moderate and above moderate income RHNA requirement. � In addition, HCD also evaluates the realistic yield for each site proposed to be on the Housing Sites Inventory. In Cupertino, HCD has accepted a realistic yield of 85% of the maximum density allowed on the site, based on city-specific historic project approval data. This means that for a one acre site, the maximum yield at a density of 25 dwelling units per acre is 25 units. However, the realistic yield for Housing Element purposes is (25�'85%)=21 units. Other Seconda��y Criteria (Sustainable Coanmunities Strategy/One Say Area Plan and Cupertino General Plan) In addition to the State-wide criteria that HCD uses to determine site suitability, the Sustainable Communities Strategy/One Bay Area Plan contribute additional criteria regarding what makes a desirable housing site in the ABAG region. The One Bay Area Plan is a long-range integrated transportation and land-use/housing strategy through 2040 for the San Francisco Say Area. The Plan was jointly approved by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) in 2013. ABAG determined the City's and other Iocal jurisdictiori s RHNA based on the Plan. Pursuant to SB375,.the Plan includes the regiori s Sustainable Coinmunities Strategy and the 2040 Regional Transportation Plan. The Plan focuses development in Priority Development Areas (PDA). PDA's are locally designated areas withuz existing communities that have been identified and approved by local cities or counties for future growth. These areas are typically accessible to public transit, jobs, recreation, shopping and other services and absorb much of the growth anticipated in the region. In Cupertino, the Priority Development Areas are located along Stevens Creek Boulevard between Highway 85 and the City of Santa Clara and along De Anza Boulevard between Stevens Creek Boulevard and Highway 280 (see Attachment HC-1—VTA PDA Map) � The City's General Plan policies are generally consistent with the strategies in the One Bay Area Plan.Key themes include: 1. Location along major transportation �•outes witli access to transit or witliin 1/z mile of a VTA Priority Development Area (PDA) 2. Proximity to emplo�ment and activit�centers 3. Proximity to amenities 4. Corner lot(s) preferred—such parcels provide the most flexibilit�� to accommodate mixed-use developments and avoid impeding parking and connectivit�between mid-block pa�•cels. 22 Page 5 Housing Commission Housing Element Study Session February 12,2014 Potential Hoacsing Element Sites Consideration of Housing Element sites is still in the preliminary stages. No decisions regarding rezoning, density increases, or inclusion in the Housing Element has yet been made. Through this study session, the City will continue to discuss sites with the public. Additional sites may be identified via public input and Commissioner discussion. While several sites are discussed in the report, the City is only obligated to pick sites enough to cumulatively add up to 1,064 units. The cumulative total of the realistic yield of all the sites listed below, at the maximum densities proposed, is 5,426. A map has been prepared (see Attachment HC-2) which identifies all the sites discussed below. Existing Housing Element sites: The 2007-2014 Housing Element identified 13 sites (See Table 1 below.) Of these, four sites have since been developed and three sites do not meet the criteria discussed previously and have been identified in the table below with strikethroughs. For specifics on these sites, please see Attachment HC-3 (Site Criteria). Table 1: Existing Housin�Element Sites Max. Size Current Land Use Current No Sites Address Densify (acres) �DU/gr. ac.) Designation Zoning 1. �asz�� c+„t,,,,.,� �,,,�,,,,,,,.,,;.,T i n��;,,,,i � . �,,,,,,�� 7$ �5 n„�,�� } �� asz�� c+„�,,,r,. �,,,,.,,�,,,,.,,;.,iin�F;,,,,i � �4 � � r-�,,,,,,�� .�es} 2. I-Restaurant 20007 Stevens Commercial/Office/ P(CG, Creek Blvd 1.35 25 Residential Res) 3. '' �,�2 �nn�� c.,;,,t, �,,,Y,,Y,,,,,,.;.,i i n��;,,,,i �. � � e� � ' �� } 4a. �nn�zn c+„�,,,,-,� r�,,,,.,,.,.,,,,,,,;.,i i n��;,,,,i - ni� . �S r,.,,,,�-� � � n,,,.,•��a �e�} �� znn� r�,,,Y„�,,,,,,,;.,i i n��;,,,,i P��. /C(-'R R..R1.,,�,,,�,\ ��2 �� z� �� / �_ -- __ ___-_-�� T .,,,1.�,�,17r.,,� ��. (',-,,,-,,,-,.,,...;�1/rl��;..�,/ n�� -------� ---r= �� z�-�J 7��.,�� 11„�;� �I 4b. r,,,.r,,,, „�c�u �nn�n c+„�,,,,.,� r,,,,,.,,.,..,,,.,,;.,i i n�F;,,,,i ni� . r,,,,,,�� 8� � n,„.;� �es} 5. �a �aa�n c+„�,,.r� r,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,;,,i i n��;,,,,i �. &44 � � r-�,.,,,,�� f� ��es} 23 Page 6 Housing Coinmission Housing Element Study Session February 12,2014 Max. Size Current Land Use Current No Sites Address I�ensity (acres) ��U/gr. ac.) Designation Zoning n,.t,., n.,,,i.;r n �oo�ti c+„�,,,,-,� r�,,,...,,Y,,,,.�;,,i i n��;,.,,i ni� --,-- ---—o . �6� (-',..,.,�� z� 17.,�;� �J 6. cr��,,,-,,;+,,,:,, �aann c+„�.,,r� r,,,,Y,,.,.,,,,.,,;.,i i n��;,.,,i ni� �9-� �5 � �,.�� e�} 7. United 10025 E. 0.92 25 Commercial/Office/ P(CG, Furniture Estates Residential Res) United 10075 E. 0.53 25 Commercial/Office/ P(CG, Furniture Estates Residential Res) United 10075 E. Commercial/Office/ P(CG, Furniture Estates 0.86 25 Residential Res) 8. Barry Swenson 19160 Stevens Commercial/Office/ P(CG, Site Creek Blvd 0.55 25 Residential Res) 9. Loree Center 10029 Judy 0.43 25 Commercial/Office/ P(CG, Ave Residential Res) Loree Center 19060 Stevens Commercial/Office/ P(CG, Creek Blvd 0.86 25 Residential Res) 1�. TiT.,,.l.,��R,.�,� �8 p �"��+�+'��1/ n�� --� T,�� z�-tl8 z� T?., ,�ixi 1tt.�3 i Y TiT.,,.l.,.�R,-.,� ni� _._ �9488 � � � � , ----, --- �;�� es-} 11. Glenbrook 10160 11:62 2p Med/High Density R3 A t. Parkwood (10-20) Glenbrook 21297 19.72 2p Med/High Density R3 A t. Parkwood (10-20) 12. The Villages 20800 Valley 5.35 2p Med/High Density R3 A t. Green Dr. (10-20) The Villages 20975 Valley 5.49 20 Med/High Density R3 A t. Green Dr. (10-20) The Villages 20990 Valley � 78 20 Med/High Density R3 A t. Green Dr. (10-20) The Villages 20800 Valley 2.69 20 Med/High Density R3 A t. Green Dr. (10-20) The Villages 20875 Valley 6.79 2p Med/High Density R3 A t. Green Dr. (10-20) 13. Carl Berg 20705 Valley Office/Industrial/ P(CG, property Green Dr. 7.98 25 Commercial/ Residential ML, Res) 24 Page 7 Housing Coinmission Housing Element Study Session February 12,2014 Sites Proposed B�Propert� Owners Several property owners have indicated interest in being considered to be added to the Housing Element Sites Inventory list. Table 2 below identifies the sites and the current and desired development potential. Sites are listed in alphabetical order and are not in any particular order of priority.Details about the site criteria are available in Attachment HC-3. Table 2: Sites Pro�osed B�Propertv Owners Existing Desired Current Land Site Size Density Density Use Current Current Use (acres) (DU/gr. �DU/acre) Designation Zoning ac.) Bateh Brothers (S-W ±0.67 15 20—35 Commercial/ P(CG) Convenience corner of Foothill Residential store Blvd & Stevens Creek Blvd) Cupertino Village ±12 25 35—40 Commercial/ P(CG, Res) Commercial Residential stri mall Foothill Market ±1.3 15 20—25 Commercial/ P(CG) Commercial (Stevens Canyon Rd Residential strip mall at McClellan Rd) Marina Plaza ±4.35 25 25—40 Commercial/ P(CG, Res) Commercial Residential stri mall Market Place ±9.9 25 25—35 Commercial/ P(CG, Res) Three newer& Residential one aging commercial buildin Stevens Creek Office ±4.8 25 35 Commercial/ P(CG, Res) Office Center Residential buildin s The Hamptons ±12 25 65-110 High density P(Res) Apartment residentia120- complex with 35 DU/ r ac 342 units Vallco Mall ±35 35 No Commercial/ P(Regional Indoor Mall chan e Residential Sho in ) Wonderland ±1.83 None/ 1-5 20—25 Quasi-public/ BQ/R1-10 Pre-school/ Chinese School & Institutional& After-scliool& 10921 Maxine Low Density Single family Avenue Residential home Yamagami s ±2.33 15 25—40 Commercial/ P(CG, Res Commercial Nursery Office/ 5-15) strip mall and Residential nurser 25 Page 8 Housing Comulission Housing Element Study Session February 12,2014 Sites P1•oposed B�Worksliop Participants In addition to the sites that have been proposed by property owners, participants at the January 23, 2014 workshop identified several other sites as having potential for residential development or redevelopment. These sites have been provided in Table 3 below. Sites are listed in alphabetical order and are not in any particular order of priority. Details about the site criteria are available in Attachment HC-3. Table 3: Sites Proposed B�Workshop Participants Site Size Current Current Land Current Current Comments (acres) Density Use Zoning Use (DU/gr. Designation acre) 21731 Stevens 0.62 4.4—12 Neighborhood P(CN, Strip mall Martial Arts school, dry Creek Blvd (Next Commercial, ML,Res cleaners and beauty salon to Post Office) Industrial and 4.4-12) Residential 76 gas station and ±0.7 25 Commercial/ P(CG, Gas station Odd shaped site. adjacent office Residential ML, and office building (10625 N. Res) building De Anza Blvd & 20545 Valley Green Ave) Abundant Life � ±3.8 25 Commercial/ P(CG, Church This site was considered Church-(N. Residential Res) as a Housing Element site Stelling Road) in the 2007-2014 planning cycle. At that time the property owners had not ex ressed ulterest Caltrans (on Bubb ±2.9 20 Industrial/ ML-rc Service/ This property owned by Road) Residential Corp.Yard the State of CA is used as their Co .Yard. Cupertino ±14.7 25 Commercial/ P(CG, Shopping A portion of the site was Crossroads Residential Res) Center recently redeveloped and the balance of the site is mostly tenanted with the exception of one or two tenant s aces. Cupertino ±4.4 25 Commercial/ P(CG, Office This site has recently been Financial Center Residential OP, complex acquired by JP Morgan (NE corner of Res) and has an office Wolfe and SCB) buildin . 26 Page 9 Housing Com�nission Housing Element Study Session February 12,2014 Site Size Current Current Land Current Current Comments (acres) Density Use Zoning Use (DU/gr. Designation acre) Cypress Hotel ±1.3 25 Commercial/ P(CG, Hotel Site is developed with a Residential Res) hotel that has property lines contiguous with its foo rint. Evulich Ct @ Linda ±2.5 5 Low Density R1-7.5 Single Older homes on Vista Dr Residential Famil underdevelo ed lots Good Samaritan ±1.36 25 Quasi-public/ BQ Church Existing Church Church Institutional (Homestead Rd) Homestead Lanes ±4.6 35 Commercial/ P(Rec, Bowling Older shopping center and adjacent sites Residential Enter) & alley & (20990, 20956 & P(CG) adjacent 20916 Homestead) stri malls Homestead Road ±5.4 15 Commercial/ P(CG) Office May be an appropriate (21020, 21040, Residential buildings, multi-family housing site 21060, 21070 parking lot at a higher density. Homestead and and tennis APN: 326 07 036 courts and 326 07 033) Main Street (East ±11.5 25 Commercial/ P(CG, Mixed use Site is currently under of Finch Ave) Residential OP, with hotel, construction pursuant to Res) commercial entitlements that the and office property owner received in 2012. Oaks Shopping ±7.9 25 Commercial/ P(CG, Strip mall Site has entitlements for a Center Residential Res) and theater mixed use office building and hotel which expires in Se t. 2014. PG&E Service ±21.6 N/A Quasi-public/ BQ Corp.Yard PG&E has not expressed Yard (N. Blaney Institutional ulterest in redevelopment Ave) of site PG&E lower ±10.6 N/A Quasi-public/ A Power PG&E has not expressed Substation(CA Institutional Substation interest in redevelopment Oak Wa ) of site Portal Plaza ±5.22 25 Commercial/ P(CG, Strip mall Shopping Center. (Between Portal& Residential Res) Minimal vacancy at this Perimeter) site. 27 Page 10 Housing Commission Housing Element Study Session February 12,2014 Site Size Current Current Land Current Current Comments (acres) Density Use Zoning Use (DU/gr. I3esignation acre) Post Office site ±5.2 4.4—12 Neighborhood P(CN, Post Office This site is owned by the Commercial, ML, Res US Postal Service. Industrial and 4.4-12) Residential St.Joseph's Place ±2.2 25 Commercial/ P(CG, Strip mall Older shopping center (Cafe Torre site) Residential Res) Union Church of ±3 25 Commercial/ P(CG, Church, Existing Church with Cupertino Residential Res) Pre-school historic designation. This (Stevens Creek site has recently added an Blvd) annex building to increase services at the site. Village Green ±7.5 16 High Density R3 Existing Based on R3 zoning, Apartments Multi-family apartment maximum yield is 161 residential (20- complex units. For HCD's 35 DU/gross with 122 purposes, realistic yield is acre) units 137 units. Therefore, this property has the potential to add 16 more units. Very low yield. Open space availability needs to � be studied. Vivi s Falafel 0.44 4.4—12 Neighborhood P(CN, Strip mall Restaurant and shoe (21771 Stevens Commercial, ML, Res repair store. Creek Blvd/Next Industrial and 4.4-12) to Post Office) Residential PUBLIC NOTICIIVG &OUTREACH Stakeholder Interviews Stakeholder interviews were conducted on December 11 & 12, 2013 to solicit input from stakeholders ranging from community members, property owners, housing developers, service providers, School Districts and the business community. A summary of common themes from the interviews is attached as Attachment HC-4. Summar�of Januar�23 Joint PC/HC Workshop On January 23, the P1aru1ulg Commission and Housing Commission hosted a joint workshop to begin the Housing Element Sites discussion. Eleven participants broke into small groups and identified potential future sites for housing and criteria for increased 28 Page 11 Housing Commission Housing Element Study Session February 12,2014 density in certain areas including community benefits. Participants drew on maps and placed stickers to identify potential housing sites. See Attachment HC-5 for transcribed comments from the January 23rd small group discussions and Attachment HC-2 for a consolidated map of potential housing sites. The following table summarizes the noticing for this meeting: Notice A enda ■ Email sent to all interested parties ■ Posted on the City's official notice bulletin signed up through the project board (one weelc prior to the hearing) website ■ Posted on the City of Cupertino's Web ■ Letters sent to current Housing site (one week prior to the hearing) � Element site property owners and ■ Posted on the project Website (one week interested property owners prior to hearing) CONCLUSIOlV The goal for this study session is to review the sites that have been presented to date, identify any other new potential sites for consideration, to, potentially, rank the sites in order of preference with the understanding that sites must be chosen such that the cumulative yield of all the sites picked add up to a total of 1,064 units to make a recommendation to Planning Commission on priority housing sites that should be considered to meet the RHNA. Prepared by: MIG, Consultant to the City of Cupertino Piu Ghosh, AICP, Senior Planner Reviewed by: Approved by: /s/Garv Chao /s/Aarti Shrivastava Gary Chao Aarti Shrivastava City Planner Community Development Director Attachments HC-1. VTA PDA Map HC-2. Consolidated Sites Map—Potential 2015-2023 Housulg Eleinent Sites HC-3. Site Criteria Matrix HC-4. Common themes from Stakeholder interviews HC-5. Transcribed comments from January 23, 2014 meeting 29 ATTACHMENT HC-4 Common themes that emerged from December 11 &12,2013 stakeholder interviews ■ Housing Needs: o Overall housing affordability and the difference between housing demand and supply at all income levels o Need for diversity of affordable rental units at all income levels and all household types o Need to accommodate a growing aging population o Smaller units including innovative housing models (e.g. dorms/I�oarding houses, senior care homes, efficiency studios, shared &co-housing, micro units) ■ Community acceptance: o Acceptance is low due to impacts on schools,privacy,parking,noise and traffic o Support for mixed use development in the style of Santana Row and Downtown Mountain View ■ Improved local governmental transparency and community development ■ Type of development: o Developers and advocates felt that three to five story development is appropriate for adding units but community representatives are concerned about increased height of multi-family development ■ Barriers to development of affordable housing include: o Financial constraints, particularly due to the dissolution of Redevelopment Agencies and elimination of many federal and state funding sources and o Lack of community and political support for housing ■ Community and Business Groups: o Housing is a "choke point" in regional economy since it is hard to attract and retain employees in a highly competitive housing market o Several interviewees felt that private employers should be obligated to provide more resources to housing o Many felt that while employers feel concerned about schools and housing, they generally work to limit fees and taxes to businesses � School Districts: o Schools in the northern part of the City are impacted due fo higher student generation rates in existing housing while capacity in the south of the city is declining, likely due to aging households. o Capacity, where needed, is being expanded by adding new buildings or, preferably, temporary and modular units. - o Currently using programs, centers and busing to distribute students o Reluctant to re-district since homeowners purchase homes based on the school service areas o Most of the Apple Campus 2 school impact fees will be allocated to the Santa Clara Unified School District while they expect that most employees who move to the area will reside within the CUSD service area 30 ATTACHMENT CC- 2 � � '' � � � ' I � � : � ••—•. SUNNYVALE ; ., � � / �� J . � �� L O S A LT O 5 �`�„�� HOMESTEAD RD f \ �� ` � •��ti •��.�� .��• •• S.a. .��`�•�• ��• \ ^ �� : � �.• � / `_ - • �� i; �_�_ � , � 1 , j . ; � � ;� ; � �:� '" # r � : � � • j ' �--- I _ � • � ''�. �.. I___� I . 1 ..�. . • � I . ;S • � �'�. : � ,. : � ' � .i� .� �' ..� y// / � ' •_.. �•�`♦ ■ ��r��`. :• I. . � P � v� •.` . � ` r ? � � VALLE�GRFEN . � W I R�NERIDGE AVE .� L..� ''� •. ¢ a �p �� •v� �. ••� � ` � � Z o j ... .�• � Q I `1 �Z Q Q J Q � � �� `��.I � � CL Z �.I � a } . / m m ; Z, � Z I X SANTA -� a � a I �' CLARA J `••� AVE �Z � m, a 7 v •. SALEM ` � ��J+G AWES R � vALLCOp� W ., - � . wy � . . � l,.,;� , _. � � , . . `. ��_..:_ . .. ��r .� `-, , , \ . .. � � � � U l'- ' Q '�'' ` ,, � . . , ,. . � - -. _ _ � t__�_ � : W � _�_.__ , . / _._ > STEVENS CREEK BLVD ..:,..Y— � ; __L••-� - — —— — — — —— � � ` , , .-;, �w�wr�` a �'_ � �• J ' "' . .. O� � � � •� ••L..�. .� m I.,r- �. � � o � > � . . . � • •, � i �'� z m > . 1 � .� �� '� N � Q p 1 � � MCCLELLAN RD � Z � � � = ' � Q : t.. �..�..�..�..�1 O � v� z � ,....� S � _ _..._..._.._.._.__, � W '� W ii y � �' � i I i \ � � j W : I , HYANNISPORT DR A...•� J , •. �� I �•. � ' `••� ��.,�.. BO -� � . . �..�..�y '�•.��N�E�RD � •� `,,, 1 ,�� I,,.�,.�..�..^ r•,\ : � . �..�..�..�..�..�r �✓ � � m �...• m S I , ., f ` �, � ` �- > tC ,- , •\ `r Z /,.� � �, t i. + ., _., - � _ '� o i r , � \ j / � - '��` �'' °� S A N J O S E � . .. Y I..�., j' RAINBOW DR �..�....�......r••:t��..� ..�..� ��' ,�, I � 3, � _..._.._..� * � STEVENS CREEK � � ��'� . : �..._ �r Site tvote: RESERVOI R 4 I i i �--.�\ � N Previously erroneously identified as �J • � PROSPECT RD• {I the Yamagami's site i � ; •��••��..�.... .,,.�.�,��,..� ,�____—�___,_ � Prepared by: MIG, Inc. zoi3; Source: City of Cupertino GIS, zoi4 ■ I � y SARATOGA J /_'""--� 875 +JSo 3,Soo Revised. oz�z5/�4 � Fe t / �..� City Boundary Potential to Meet HCD Criteria � Priority Sites based on Planning Commission Workshop(oz�tg��4) � Site Number: Realistic Capacity Note: f - WaterFeature High _ ; Remove Site Type(examples): RealstiQ aeacit os it�e�details. P Y 5° f � Freeways � Priority Sites based on Housing Commission Workshop(oz��z��4) � Site included in zoo7 Housing Element maximum capacity,consistent Ma or Roads Moderate withtheHousingElement. 1 .... � Site Proposed by Property Owner VTA Priority Development Area (PDA) Low �� Conflicting Consensus based on Housing Commission Workshop(oz�tz/�4) � Site Proposed by Workshop Participants � Potential Housing Sites CUGE0.TIN0 Potential Housing Element Sites ATTACHMENT CC-3 Le end: Le end: rioirty Sites based on Planiung Commission Study Session Feedback(2/19/2014) Site available but not specifically identified as Prioirty site at Housin�or Plannin�Commission Workshops � '"'� I'rioirty Sites based on Housing Coinmision Workshop Feedback(02/12/14) - - - Site no longer available or does not meet criteria. � ,„,� „� � ,,,,m, ,�,,Prioirty Sites with conflicting consensus based on Housin�Commision Workshop Feedback(02/12/14) HCD's Development Secondary Criteria- Potential Criteria SCS,Plan Bay Area&GP � o o +• w � � • y O w .� � � +'�' � ^ eE Q �. . ,. � x b � a� �, � � o r � Q .��' '� a, � � � o .? ,a,,,' �- o" o c� Q � � Q o o V 3 v Current � � ,C 3 > .L'' p" a�i �� .�.i A � '-' Ll Q m °: '" � i � ° °1 e° Site Current ec> o � O d '�, W U � � � � K F„ N U �a C7 3 � � o 'y Notes,Comments and Site Name Address T e of Site Land Use � f� q No. yp Zoning �% °" � � v o ,�-'' Q � �. � i Q �n �' � � � � ° y � [-� '�. Reason For Recommendation for Removal or Inclusion Designation 'X '" ,�°J, N °� C� �, .� � ° •° � 3 E-' � � � � � � V w � .� � v v `° .� � a�, .� � .0 � d '�eo y � � Q z � 3 °: Q � � :: x a�, •� +, K � N <C � � � � o � o ¢ C. '� Q1' O � Existing Sites in the 2007-2014 Housing Element (+ Consolidation Sites) 19875 Stevens Existing HE Commercial/ _ Furniture 2000 �� _ � _ _ Office/ P(CG,Res � X _ � � � X _ � _ 1.78 25 _37 _ _ _ _ NA _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ � Residential � 1 Commercial/ — �S�o� 19855 Stevens Existing HE — �c� �� — � � _ � _ .� �5 _5 — _ _ ! I j� —CreeTc BTv�i si�e Residential Shaan Restaurant Commerczal/ � � 20007 Stevens Existing HE � 2 (Erstwhile I- Office/ P(CG,Res) � � � � � � 1.35 25 � � � Viable site based on previous review by HCD � Creek Blvd site Restaurant) Residential Commercial/ • F ormer Q-mart site and China Dance Studio. 10041 N.Blaney � L2 Q-Mart New site Office/ P(CG,Res) � � � J � � � 25 36 � J � Hi�ll •These two additional arcels one arcel owned b the ro ert owner ; Ave o P ( P Y P P Y . Residential fur Shaan Restaurant)improves site poten6al and allows for better site r Commercial/ d��i�n and integration. ; 20021 Stevens " L2 China Dance Studio New site Office/ P(CG,Res) � � J J J � 25 � � � •}las been recommended for inclusion by workshop participants,HC and� Creek Blvd Residential PC. Commercial/ 7-11 site behind Existing HE 3 10073 Saich Way Office/ P(CG,Res) � X � � � X � 0.77 25 16 NA — SernUeylJveYr - - - —s�4r - - - - - - - - -- - - - - — — - - - - � � ._ _ _ s - - - - � r � � � _ : _ Residential Commercial/ 20030 Stevens Existing HE Grand Buffet/Boas Office/ P(CG,Res 1.16 25 NA �— — — — --EreekBhzl- —site- — — — — — — — — � � � — — — — � ..,.� _ _ � � , _ � � _...� — — � � � � Residential Commercial/ Lackey Prop.(SCB& Existing HE 4a. �1 10071 S.Blaney Ave _� _ Office/ P(CG,Res) X X a � � � � � � �! 0.37 25 59 — i � � NA � � r � � � ' � � � � � � �� Residential Commercial/ Lackey Prop.(SCB& Existing HE _ �1 10031 S.B1an�Ave _5� � _ Office/ P(CG,Res _ � � �� 1.36 25 � � _ � � � NA � �� ! ! � � � __ � � `� �� Residential Corner of SCB& 20010 Stevens Existing HE Commercial/ 4�, Office/ P(CG,Res) � � X � � � � 0.47 25 9 NA — �le�+ey— -�ree�rB� —s�4e� — — — — — — — — — — — — — — -- _ _ � .__ ___ _ _. �. .�... _�� — � r ..e __._ __.. �,,.� _�_ _.e. ..a Residential Commercial/ 19930 Stevens Existing HE _Ar� _ Office/ P(CG,Res 0.44 25 9 NA �___ __ __._ .._._. .._� �.. �� ._� . __ ._ __._ ___ ._. _�. — -f'teek-Bt�]- —s'rt� , — — — — e _ _._ _. � _ _ ,_. _ � ___- --- - — — — --- -- — � Kesidential �,I J J � � ' X � Commercial/ 19936 Stevens Existing HE Arya Parking Lot --freek-Blve}- —sitr —Office/ P(CG,Res) � — — — - _ __. ___ 0.52 25 10_ - - -- — — — —NA __. ..'_ ---- — — — — — — — — — — — Residential Potential Housing Element Sites Page 2 of I1 Le end: Le end: 'rioirty Sites based on Plannin�Commission Study Session Feedback(2/19/2014) Site available but not specifically identified as Prioirty site at Housin�or Plarutin�Commission Workshops E �r o�I'rioirty Sites based on Housing Commision Warkshop Feedback(02/12/14) � - - Site no longer available or does not meet criteria. � � � � � �I'rioirty Sites with conflictin�consensus based on Housin�Commision Workshop Feedback(02/12/14) HCD's Development Secondary Criteria- Potential Criteria SCS,Plan Bay Area&GP �. � � o o w o S�. yC � '� �� R 0 w �", ,i', .�., y� 'C �' � �" .ri bt�. G. ,y, 7�-i y O +~+ �. GJ '.��. � °° a ;, � � �' o ¢' � N � � a. Q ° ° v o a°J, Current � � .� 3 > � ri' a, k ..] � �n �-+ a, .. ,� ;; ,, �a Site Current oc� p a+ •�, � U °' ,. `�° v � Q �' Q ftl ; C� � �'-' �, (� � 'G Notes,Comments and Site Name Address Type of Site Land Use ,a o �, L� � W � v F � � � � � � o � o °J No. Zoning .= �-' � � ,� a+ o ,�-'' Q � �. � -� d � ,�-'' � �, „ � � E-� 'C Reason For Recommendation for Removal or Inclusion Designation •X � � N C] � � � o .o � •3 � � � ,� � (� ,� � U � :: �. �. � U m � ¢ � Q eo W � c � Q z � 3 v C] � � � x � �X � ¢ � � � Q o ,.�y O L'� � � � Commercial/ 19900 Stevens Existing HE 6 SD Furniture Office/ P(CG,Res) � � � � � X � 1.92 25 40 NA — — — — — —Ereck�BlseH —si4r — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — - — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Residential Commercial/ _. .. _ _ _ ,,.�,,,,,.,.. Existing HE United Furniture 10025 E.Estates Office/ P(CG,Res) 0.92 25 �l � �' site Residential Commercial/ Existing HE 7 United Furniture 10075 E.Estates Office/ P(CG,Res) � � � � � � �I 0.53 25 58 � `� �' High Viable sit��based on previous rrvicw by HCD site Residential Commercial/ : Existing HE United Furniture 10075 E.Estates O(fice/ P(CG,Res) 0.86 25 � � �' � site ;� K��i�irnlinl _ ...,-��F.,,�... �,,.�,�- .m,�.��,... Cum�ncrcialJ � �� ,� L7 East of E.Estates 19541 Richwood Dr. New site Office/ P(CG,IZes) � � � � � � � 25 � � � � Residential •"]�hese three sites in conjunction with the United Purniture site could allo Commercial/ a better desi ned mixed use develo ment. 19550 Stevens g P L7 East of E.Estates New site Office/ P(CG,Res) � � � � � � � 25 45 � � � ��"h •Some of these ro erties are owned b the same ro er owner as the Creek Blvd P P Y P P �1' Residential United Furniture sites. Comxnercial/ L7 East c�f G Lstat��s ]0075 Miller Ave New site Office/ P(CG,Krs) �� 25 � � � R��id�+nFial -.. .. � _,. .., CGL1tn�etCial f 19160 Stevens Existing HE 8 13arry Swenson Site O(ficr/ P(CG,Res) � � X � � X � 0.5ti 25 ]1 � � � High Viable site based on previous review by HCD Geek Blvd site ��,y��jt,��tinl Commcrcial/ � � � Existinb HE •Stri mall with low vacan Loree Center 10029 Judy Ave Office/ P(CG,Res) 0.43 25 � � � P �Y site •Decreased vacan and site im rovements com ared with conditions in Residential �Y P � P 9 J J J J J J J 27 M�aer�te 2007 HE). Commercial/ •Site has had a minor facelift and shell is from the 1950's.HCD ma titil( 19060 Stevens Existing HE Y� Loree Center Office/ P(CG,Res) 0.86 25 � � � approve of this site as a HE site. Creek Blvd site. Residential Morley Bros. 10500 Pruneridge Existing HE Indtistrial/ P(MP,Res) 2.8 25 NA �� site Residential � X � � �_ �� ---- — �R.�_._. - --- — — — — - - ------__ __ __�_ Morley Bros. 10400 Pruneridge Existing HE Industrial/ P(MP,Res) 5.69 25 NA � � V � � � mm� � site Residential Potential Housing Element Sites Page 3 of 11 Le end: Legend: rioirty Sites based on Planning Commission Study Session Feedback(2/19/2014) Site available but not specifically identified as Prioirty site at Housin�or Planning Commission Workshops {� I'rioirty Sites based on Housing Coirunision Workshop Feedback(02/12/14) - - - Site no longer available or does not meet criteria. � � � i � ,,, „� ,,,�„ � ,,,� ,,,�.I'rioirty Sites with conflicting consensus based on Housin�Commision Workshop Feedback(02/12/14) HCD's Development Secondary Criteria- Potential Criteria SCS,Plan Bay Area&GP � � o o +' w � � R �� ° v �1 ° � � � � � o � -, �, � � � x „ �+ „ � o v � �,, � d � 3 .� �. �n :�, pp ,f, y � p m � N Q � � Q p p U � y Current a � ,C 3 > .'�' a' e, �� .� � N '-+ p b °: '" � .,,� ,°�' �, �a Site Current en o � p v •�, W V � � � � � �„ N Q U �a C� 3 �a (7 0 �� Notes,Comments and Site Name Address T e of Site Land Use � �1 � No. yP Zoning �" � � � o �' Q � �. � i Q � ,�-'„' ;p � i° � ° � v F+ '� Reason For Recommendation for Removal or Inclusion Designation W � .��i N °� (� � � � U '� i 3 � � •� Q � " � �� c �. :�:. �� Q � U �, � � � Q z � 3 v La � � a � � Cv�, °' �X � ,,�d, '�° � o in � o o � o d �, � Q o �:.., , ..,_.,,. .�„.,.. ,.x ..„..s , ... .. . .. ... ..w., ,.,,,;, � ,� .�a�,.,�, �,.u��,,��,,�,�,. .�,. . ��,�:,�.»�,�:* .:�R ��..,<M,k�F: ��,M..�.��.o�,��„�r,..,� ,�,�.�. �..�. �.,� �.��, �,�a.Fm�._ �.,�.,. �.�,�. .. � , Med/High .,, ,.. �� Existing HE Density � Glenbrook Apt. 10160 Parkwood R3 11.62 25 � � ti site Residential (10-20) 11 � � � � J J � 93 High Viable site based on previous review by HCD Med/High Existing HE Density Glenbrook Apt. 21297 Parkwood R3 19.72 25 � � � site Residential .,a��,� ��..��o-��w ��,��:�,,� d..u, .��, ....: �� W.�,.�,,,...�. , . - , r_ _ . , .. <...� �.. �.. u.. w � WaM., �-M m..� ,_,. �, , .�.�� ,�. ,� ,.�, s..r� ,� ,._�; ��m . . . ,. a, , . ,,, .,>. , , ,.� __ �, , . . .. ..., w . ... ..., .._. .... ,� ,.� �. � � � _ .�. ... _ , .. w... . ...� ..., v. �.,,� ,�.�. rr..� u ,_.. �N �, ��. � ... ... �, Med/i iigfi . .,, "'`. 20800 Valley Green Existing HE Density � •� The Villages Apt. R3 5.35 25 � � � � Dr. site Residential � (10-20) � Med/High � 20975 Valley Green Existing HE Density The Villages Apt. R3 5.49 25 �l � v' � Dr. site Residential 10-20 � Med/High � 20990 Valley Green Existing HE Density 12 The Villages Apt R3 � � � � � � X 6.78 25 62 � � v' High Viablc site based on previotis rcview by F�CD � � Dr. site Residential 10-20 � Med/High 20800 Valley Green Existing HE Density , The Villages Apt. R3 2.69 25 � � �' � Dr. site Residential � 10-20 Med/High �i 20875 Valley Green Existing HE Density � The Villages Apt. R3 6.79 25 � � v Dr. sitc IZrsidential .�„ ,�.,. , ., _ �.. �,_. ...:. .�, .� �,�, .,� � 1 n-2n1 ..�� ,� , .�,�, � ..� � — a. w,.a -- _— � — _ �., �.., ,,. ..,. �,; � .� ��;. .,,, � .,.: ,� „� ,�.. � ., �.�. a-.. ,� ,� .� : ,�� _ �_.F � �� Off�cci 20705 Valley Green Existing HE l��dustrial/ P(CG,ML, � 73 Carl Berg property � � � � � � � 7.98 25 169 � �I �� High Viablc�it��b��r�i un previ��u�rr��ir��b��HCD Dr. site Commercial/ Res) � � � � � � � � Residenti�l � � � � � � �, Potential Housing Element Sites Pnge 4 of 11 Le end: Legend: rioirty Sites based on P1amling Commission Shzdy Session Feedback(2/19/2014) Site available but not specifically identified as Prioirty site at Housin�or Planiiin�Commission Workshops � " �' �1'rioirty Sites based on Housing Conunision Workshop Feedback(02/12/14) � — Site no longer available or does not meet criteria. � i � � ,�, ,,,�, ,,,,,, ,,,,,, „�Prioirty Sites with conflicting consensus based on Housing Cominision Warkshop Feedback(02/12/14) HCD's Development Secondary Criteria- Potential Criteria SCS,Plan Bay Area&GP �. G � O `+� w t�. y G +. �in � a� Q w ..� ar rs � � ee U � � a ;? � o �' y � o y �� Q 'L�' � a'�i ,� `.1". o � o. '� 3 .o �. Current � � � 3 > � � a�, �G ,� � � � p � � v ° ° � d o � ,ro Site Current eo p a y � C� v ,. ;; �' v f� � +� Notes,Comments and Site Name Address Type of Site Land Use � � " Ll � w � a+ E. °; � �' � v � � 3 � � o .,' No. Zonin �" u �3 a, 0 1.'' � � ,, � � Q in .u' � � �' o � �n Designation g •X •� ,�°J, N '� C� � ;� � o ,o y •3 � � '� ;; � � '� y; a, � V Reason For Recommendation for Removal or Inclusion w � .'� � „ U '° v '�e Q �� Q '�eA ;, � � � �� Q z � 3 v ❑ � � � � � �, � �: � � � ° a � o Q c; � ¢ o � Property Owner Development Interest Sites (+ Consolidation sites) � ,�.�. . . _ . • Existing convenience store and undeveloped site. ;� Property •Viable site due to expressed property owner to redevelop,largely a 22690 Stevens Owner Commercial/ unimproved property conditions. � Pl Bateh Brothers P(CG) � � � X X � X 0.67 20-35 I1-19 X X � High •Will not meet affordability criteria at density of 15 du/ac(Alternative B) � Creek Blvd Development Itesidential � Interest but will meet them at 25 du/acre(Alternative C). � •Lucation on City's west site was recommended by groups to distribute � � ' , 4 ...� �.. .��.�.,,:�M_�� ,�,� :�,��. h�using throughout the City. ...,�,,,.., �,.�.�,. w�,.n ,w��,n.s .�.,��,,�.��,.�...�,�..:�. �o�. ,s.,� �» �.�. m..� ,ttKa „•,-� � ....� „n� �,� ,� .�.. ,.. � � � � � ... .�. r.. ..r .... ,� .. .�. .��. «.� .t. .�. .... .�. �.. ,.. ... ,.. .�.w� � .- � .�. � . �-,. o�" •Shopping Center with entitIements for 24,000 s.f.of commercial � � development and a parking garage. � •While this is an adequate site,it is also a successful shopping center and �' � Property an important tax generator. � 10825-10983 N Owner Commercial/ •The planned commercial additions to the site also lower its � P2 Cu�ertino Village P(CG,Res � � � � � � � 10.8 35-45 321-413 X � � Low �— — — —Vv`v�fe�t- �eveivpntettt —R�itiei7t'r� — —. — — — — — — — — — — — — — r�#velapn'tQ[rt pert2ntia'�att�e cm'tenY�I'Zt�isftp cfi25 ct[�c— — � Interest •ln order to make redevelopment viable,and rebuild a good partion of th� � existing retail,this site would require a minunum density of over 35 du/ac.� and increased building heights. Perhaps more appropriate to be included� .r � �, .,� ,.,� w,a., .�� a�,.,, �� .,o, ti.u, a��.� . �.� ��. .�.« ,�, .�. �..� �.�,o �n �.g. � �,� � ��..m .»�,� �.. . � . �< _.ce. .,..� �_ .,. ,,. �� W a ..., .��. ..,a,. ni ternahves an .,�. .,�.. ,� �«. ,�.. � �� »m.. �,_ � ,� •Strip Mall ` •Viable site due to expressed property owner to redevelop,and low Property Foothill @ McClellan intensity of usesl. 10625 S Foothill Owner Commercial/ P3 Center(Food�ill P(CG) � � � X X X X 1.3 20-25 22-27 X X � High •Will not meet affordability criteria at density of 15 du/ac(Alternative B) � Blvd Development Residential � Market) but will meet them at 25 du/acre(Alternative C). � Interest • Location on City's west site was recommended by groups to distribute '° hot�sing throughout the City. F � •Commercial center Property •Relatively viable site due to expressed property owner interest to 10118 Bandle Owner Commercial/ redevelo location at the Ci s core,and onl if hi her densifles are P4 Marina Plaza y � � � � � � � 6.86 25-40 145-232 � 35 DUA-� 40DUA-� Moderate P� ty y g Drive Development Residential allowed. However,this site will have to be combined with adjacent sites Interest along Stevens Creek and Bandley to create a mixed-use development includinb retail per City's preference. Include in Alternatives B and C. xx�.�,. ,,,,��„,.»,.��..�.�.�.rr��.� ,�� ,��.��.��,.., , ,w�.,�,.. .��„w. .. Potential Housin Element Sites g Page 5 of 11 Le end: Le end: rioirty Sites based on Planning Commission Study Session Feedback(2/19/2014) Site available but not specifically identified as Prioirty site at Housin�or PlanninK Commission Workshops � ' I'rioirty Sites based on Housing Cominision Workshop Feedback(02/12/14) - - � Site no longer available or does not meet criteria. +�i r �r+..�.,�- � �� s „� �,,, �„ ,,,� �,I'rioirty Sites with conflicting consensus based on HousinQ Commision Workshop Feedback(02/12/14) HCD's Development Secondary Criteria- Potential Criteria SCS,Plan Bay Area&GP w � � o ,. o w � • y o o s�• � � � � � a; C� � � A. >, � v o � •� Q � � ° � x � ,� � ° ,° � � a Q" � N Q ] � Q o o u 3 v Current a � G 3 > .� �' a, a ..� � y 'r Q Q � °: a. � y � o a� ,� Site Current e4 p d •�, � (� v �. ',�° v p p„ d U �c C7 m �j � '� Notes,Comments and Site Name Address Type of Site Land Use ,� � �, � C] � w� �, � �+ [-� � � d � �., � � � � o � o �°�' N o. Z o n i n � c+ Q � � ,, y N H 'C Reason For Recommen da tion for Remova l or In c lusion Designation g •X ; �6/, N °� L� �, .� � ° .° y '3 ,Hj '� � '"' � � C7 ,� � U W � a a. v v U �s y � Q,' �� Q eA � q E Q z � 3 v Ca v � c� x y .v a. � x on y � C-�' "' +, � � � ° o � � � c; � Q o � Nw... . ...... ........:.....��..,,� ,�,:��.. �. ,..�„�n .,�,«,,.... , ,w „�. ,, ... ,..,. �., ,�,.,.. e.� .�� . , � �.,.�,�,, .,,.,� �,. m ,�„rv.rvw,��,� . .. m., , , �n. .,..� �,... .. . , ... � .��,.,.� w�.��..�,��,,.. . �.. �.�,��. �.,�.....�,m..,�..w�, ��„„ . ,�< „. .,�,.,. .. :m, .��.� ..,_ ...0 _. ,_,,_ „:, � . ,.... , . :. � . Property •Office Complex $ Stevens Creek Office 20823 Stevens Owner Commercial/ � •Viable site due to expressed property owner interest to redevelop, � P5 P(CG,Res) � � � � � X � 6.31 35 241 X 35 DUA-� v Moderate � Center Creek Blvd Development Residential location at the City's core,and if higher densities are allowed. Include in .� .,,�.w..�.,��.�,..:�. Interest Alt�rna s B and . �,.�»�,��.,��.� .w�...,�.. �� .�a��n,.�..,�,,.a ..,��.m,-�. w�<w .,,.� ,.�..�«. .,..�.,,� �,„.....,� ..wv.�, .. � ,....�_. <�,„ � tive C •Existing 342 unit apartment complex on site. •Viable site only if densities and heights are increased considerably abovE Property � High Density ��xisting(from 25 du/ac to 65-110 du/ac). � 19500 Pnuleridge Owner 1 10 f�UA- P6 The Hamptons Residential P(Res) X � � � � � � 12.44 65-ll0 686-1162 X 65 DUA-� High • Expressed property owner interest to redevelop and close proximity to � Ave Development �' (20-35) major transportation route(freeway)is a plus. Interest • Fias the capacity to provide a considerable number if units if densities a increased. � • Existing indoor mall with high vacancy rate with Sears and Macy's as � � �nchor tenants. Property P(Regional •Viable site due to expressed property owner niterest to redevelop, & Owner Commercial/ Y P7 Vallco Mall 10723 N Wolfe Rd Shopping, � � � � � � � 32.9 35 600-800 � � v High developer interest in consolidation,close proximity to major transportatic� Development Residential CG) routc(frceway),and potential to provide a considerable number of units� lnterest the site. Due to size of site,density of units may not have to be increased' greatly over existing(35 du/ac)if entire site is used as a base. �� x„M �.m. •Nursery and Outdoor building supply warehouse/retail Property •Viable site due to expressed property owner interest to redevelop,the lo Commercial/ Summerwinds& 1471,1491&1505 S Owner P(CG,Res 5 intensi nature of the site(a financial incentive for redevelopment),and if P8 Office/ � � X X X � � 4.13 25-40 87-140 � 35 DUA-� 40 DUn-J ty Granite Rock* De Anza Blvd Development 15) densities are higher(25 du/ac)than currently allowed(15 du/ac.) Residential Interest •The location of the site in the southern end of the City presents an upportunity to distribute housing throughout the City. A�oderate •Jack in the Box drive-through Property •The low intensity nature of the site is a financial incentive far Commercial/ 1451 S.De Anza Owner P(CG,Res 5 � redevelopment,and if densities are higher(25 du/ac)than currendy LPS Jack in the Box Office/ � � X X X � �1 0.44 25-40 9-14 v 35 DUA-� 40 DUi1-ti Blvd Development 15) alluwed(15 du/ac.) Residential Interest •l he location of the site in the southern end of the Ci ty presents an u wrtunit to distribute housin throu hout the Ci . Potential Housing Element Sites Page 6 of I1 Le end: Legend: rioirty Sites based on Plannin�Commission Study Session Feedback(2/19/2014) Site available but not specifically identified as Prioirty site at Housing or PlanninQ Commission Workshops ��Prioirty Sites based on Housing Commision Workshop Feedback(02/12/14) — �— — Site no longer available or does not meet criteria. �„„ �, �, �, � �,Prioirty Sites with conflictinQ consensus based on Housing Coirunision Workshop Feedback(02/12/14) HCD's Development Secondary Criteria- Potential Criteria SCS,Plan Bay Area&GP � � o � ° � o o t'' y v �a � a� ••°; Q w �"i`�'i p, o � y � y '� Q ,'�' 3 � '� .T, N � °' ,o °' : � o N � m ¢ o U 3 v Site Current Current � � •C 3 a�, •y W v •� � � V �' � N A �j ,��, C7 � 3 � � o '� Notes,Comments and Site Name Address Type of Site Land Use g ,� � �, � C� � � � � � � � �a � o � � E., •� Reason For Recommendation for Removal or Inclusion No. Zonin � �-' u �?3 a� o .iJ'' Q � � � Q cn �' Designation •k � .c...�, � °� C� "' •� R ° .° .� 3 � � � a. � � (j � V � :° �' ' „ V �c � :-: Q �� d '�on w .� � � � Q Z � 3 v Q � � � x � 'x � � � � � ° o � o � � Q o � •Pre-school/After-school care and single family residence Property Quasi-public/ •Adequate site due to expressed property owner interest to redevelop an Wonderland Chinese size of site. 10931 and 10921 Owner Insritutional& P9 School and 10921 BQ/R1-10 � � X X � X X 1.83 20-25 31-38 X X 25 DUA-� Low •True viability will depend on rezoning of the site(currently surrounded Maxine Maxine Ave Development Low Density by lower density-5-7 du/ac).If rezone at a higher density(20 du/ac)is n Interest Residential realistic or deemed incompatible with the surrounding area,remove. •Whether the site meets affordability criteria depends on rezoning. •Three newer and one older commercial building. •While this is an adequate site,it is also a successful shopping center and Property an important tax generator. Marketplace 19750 and 19620 Owner Commercial/ •The recent commercial additions to the site also lower its redevelopment Pio i��cc�iz� � x � � � J J _ ,J� 9.92 �s 2�-2�, J J �l LoW : - —'ShS�ii�en'F'�'r tevens'�ee'r'Slv TJ�v�lo�r 1e �sYB�iit'�T — potentiaTs it signals t t�that—lt 1e property will probatiTy remain a Interest commercial site in the near future. •Viability depends on the realistic possibility of an approved rezone of the Sites Identified at Housing Element Workshops (1/23/14 and 2/12/14) � _�, .� .� � � w ,��. � _.. ., , .� .,.�, �� . _ � r, � . . _ _ . � � .�.... �a ..�.m k,� . , r . � , �Oifice building '"' Neighborhood •No expressed property owner to develop property. � � 21731 Stevens Creek Additional 21731 Stevens Commercial, P(CN,ML, •Will need increased density(about 20 du/ac.)to be viable,which is above� � W 1 Blvd(Next to Post Potential Site � � X � � X � 0.44 4.4-12 1-4 � � � Remove Creek Blvd Industrial& Res 4.4-12) current maximum(12 du/ac.) Office) (Workshop) � Residential •Size of site(less than 0.5 acre)will create low yield to justify inclusion in w , �r a � r . Sites Inventor� •76 Gas Station and adjacent office building 76 Gas Station/Office Additional •Less than 1 acre in size, 10625 N De Anza Commercial/ P(CG,ML, I� 1�1AeBL1za.an ._.._ �a� ��tidlsi�.� '"Res�en�r `7�s)..� � �.._ _.�.. �... , �L �. �.� r. •� �5 .....�1R� � _L ��...� em�� • �1s2.�x�eS�Pu��'�11t.�z�.�.L — , � — — — Valley Green) (Workshop) •Two separate property owners • Odd shape of site would also lend poorly for site planning purposes. •Church/Institutional site. Additional Abwidant Life Commercial/ �Unless there is expressed property owner interest to add housing to the W3 10100 NySte��R P�,�ei i�l Sit� P(C�,Res � �,_, .__ � � � X _ � _, 3.8 25 �8Q_�. _ � � � Remove �C u�rch�"" ' �2es'aen� i � siFe or re�c eveTop comTfely,Ille poten ial'o�r r�ve opment o"f'ctlur (Workshop) sites is low and HCD would be critical in reviewing this site. Additional •Caltrans Corp.Yard Caltrans Industrial/ •Institutional. W4 _ 10130.�u12h.T3 L1ltential�e_ �L-r,� �L _ �_.. .�_.� �_ ._ � , ._..... �T.._. __,_ .9.,3..� �20 ...�4� ___ �� a�_. �......�v,r e�.nv auifenance S'�Ea ion `-'1`ZesiTen i�af " ` •�sfioul�remove�Tc due to ciirrent use as aZ�altrans am—intenance (Workshop) station and its location in an industrial area. Potential Housing Element Sites Page 7 of 11 Le end: Legend: rioirty Sites based on Plaruling Commission Study Session Feedback(2/19/2014) Site available but not specifically identified as Prioirty site at Housing or Planning Commission Workshops �"� �I'rioirty Sites based on Housing Commision Workshop Feedback(02/12/14) - - - Site no longer available ar does not meet criteria. ,.. � � � � � �,,, ,,,� �1'rioirty Sites with conflicting consensus based on Housin�Commision Workshop Feedback(02/12/14) HCD's Development Secondary Criteria- Potential Criteria SCS,Plan Bay Area&GP w � � o o +- ... }, � y y 'R � � � � w� � � � � � � � V . � � �, � � o � � Q .� v w x m :�: � � � ,o :: ,. +. � o N � ro d 3 o u 3 a� Current a � � 3 > .�' �'' a�, �� °a � H : p Q � ya�, ° � ,.2 �; ° °' ,� Site Current eo .°�' ' p �+ •�, � U °' �• �° v q �, v (� m C7 �' �a (� � '; Notes,Comments and Site Name Address T e of Site Land Use � ° " C� p W � �' [-� � � � ca 3 � o No. yP Zoning '� � � � ,� v o �' Q � o � � F cn �' ;; � �' � ° � v E-� '�. Reason For Recommendation for Removal or Inclusion Designation •X �, � N Q �, ,� � � • ,� '3 � � � � �a C� ,� � U w � v V a '`'' y ��y Q �C Q bo ;; ~ v G � Q Z � � v Q � � � '� � R �' -�i � Cr �'p O � �p Q' ,� � Q�' O � •Bulk of site recenfly renovated.Rest of site mosfly tenanted with one or two vacancies. Additional •Questionable viability as a housing site due to recent improvements and Cupertino 10041 S De Anza Commercial/ W5 Potential Site P(CG,Res) � X � � � � � 14.7 25 312 � � � Low relative stability of the shopping center. Crossroads Blvd Residential (Workshop) •As there is no expressed property owner interest,the potential for redevelopment of a shopping center is very low. •Additionally,the City may want to preserve the site as a tax generatar. •Well maintained office buildings in an office park environment recently Cupertino Financial Additional acquired by JP Morgan Commercial/ P(CG,OP, •Redevelopment of this type of sites depend largely of developer/property W6 Center(NE corner of 10050 N.Wolfe Rd Potential Site � X � � � � � 4.44 25 94 � � � Low Wolfe and SCB) (Workshop) Residential Res) owner interest,which this site does not have. •While a case can be made for this site,a more in depth anaylsis and data will be re uired to illustrate redevelo ment otential. • Hotel with property lines contiguous with hotel and parking garage •Low redevelopment potential due to current use as a newer,mid level Additional hotel 10050 S De Anza Commercial/ W7 Cy�ress Hotel _ �d_ P�n ial Sit �e�n�, P(CG.Res � X � X � � X ,�� _ 1.32 25 28 _� � � Remove •Redevelonment of thgsg,sit�de,�end largelv o�velooe�ro,�ert� (Workshop) owner interest,which this site does not have. •HCD would look closely at this site and will likely not pass it since property owner interest is not there. •Church/Instihztional. Good Samaritan Additional 19624 Homestead Quasi-public/ •Unless there is expressed property owner interest to add housing to the W8 Church(Homestead Potential Site �_ � `� _ X 1� � � _� 1.36 25 28 _ � � _�_ Remove — 'ft'A � Tii st'�f�i ic�l — if�r��fSp ZSff��fel�fhe$Tc teRfi'dl'fS�i r�velS�m�R'f oF�RuF� &Wolfe) (Workshop) sites is low and HCD would be critical in reviewing this site. •Single family homes and undeveloped land •Low density nahzre of the site and current use as single family homes lowers the potential for redevelopment. 10857,10867,10877, Additional Evulich Ct @ Linda Low Density •While the parcels have common ownership,the lack of property owner W9 10�7 Linda,Vista P�ten '�al Site Itle7.5 � � � X X � X 2.49 5 10 � � _� Remove _ _ _ _ "— '�isF�'Dr —Ites7��'ntY�T —` " "" i ` � interest to intensi y�Towers t�sites potentiT Dr (Workshop) • To accept the site,HCD would require the City to prove there is some potential for redevelopment ur financial incentive to the property owner to Potential Housing Element Sites Page 8 of 11 Le end: Legend: rioirty Sites based on P1aiuliii�Commission Study Session Feedback(2/19/2014) Site available but not specifically identified as Prioirty site at Housing or P1arulin�Commission Workshops � �'� M � "'�I'rioirty Sites based on Housing Commision Workshop Feedback(02/12/14) — � -- Site no longer available ar does not meet criteria. �� ,.. ,� ,� .� � � ,,,,� � i„„ �I'rioirty Sites with conflicting consensus based on Housing Commision Warkshop Feedback(02/12/14) HCD's Development Secondary Criteria- Potential Criteria SCS,Plan Bay Area&GP � � � o � ° � o � o• °1 v 'ia � � d �1 � � b U � � a �, w v o � �� '' � a � x � � � ° c °= � a' o c� d ¢ m Q o o U 3 a Site Current Current �ep .�61. •� � a�, �' � U v � � � '� Q a, C� � °' " � � ''• � � � �, v � F,,, R C7 �a � '� Notes,Comments and Site Name Address Type of Site Land Use � � �, C] � w � v H � � v � 3 q � o ;' No. Zoning '� � � � � a o ,�-'' � � �, � � ¢ �n ,.t.'' � � �+ � ° � � F• '+: Reason For Recommendation for Removal or Inclusion Designation • �, a� C] � ,. o ,� � •3 � � �� ,� � � � U x � � � ro �' '� � V 'b � � � � `� W v � � ti z � 3 v G] � � � ,T, � .d �, � x e4 � L� a, � � � � Q o � o � C: � Q o � •Strip malls and bowling alley. •The large size of the site,lower intensity/marginal uses and the deferred maintenance on the site in addition to its comer location provide a realistic Additional P(Rec, redevelopment opportunity as a mixed-use site. Homestead Lanes+ 20916,20956,20990 Commercial/ W10 Potential Site Enter)& � � � � � � � 4.61 20-35 78-137 � � � High •Will require site assembly. Adjacency Homestead Rd Residential (Workshop) P(CG) •Corner site is a recently improved fast-food use. • Development standards at the level currendy allowed in this area of the General Plan or higher(35 du/ac.or higher)could provide a financial •Office and commercial buildings,tennis courts and parking lot(Church property). • Variety of uses(office/commercial/recreation)and multiple property Homestead IZoad- 21020,21040,21060, owners could make this site challen in to redevelo without ex ressed Additional � g p p IntraHealth/Office/ 21070 Homestead Commercial/ ro �r owner interest. wll Potential Sitc I��c�� J J J J J �I �I 5.42 �s 69 J ,� �l Moaer�te p p' ty Tennis Courts Rd&APN:326 07 �Workshop) lZesidential •Size of site could allows for development of a substantial mixed use (Homestead/Stelling) 022,326 07 036 development. •True viability will also be dependent on rezoning of the property.Current density is 15 du/ac Could be increased to 35 du/ac.to be consistent with •I'roperty has entitlements and is under construction for a mixed use office Additional and commercial development and a hotel. Main St(SCB btwn Commercial/ P(CG,OP, W12 APN:316 20 109 Potential Site � X � � � � � 11.57 25 245 � � � Remove •S�;,,sl�d�e,�v�s�s�s y�e�v�,p�t,,,�jpty�g_ —FiRZPi/T�Tft�" �'tes3�iltl�t �)�` _..�` — — �"` �" �.. — — � (Workshop) currently approved on the site does not qualify for inclusion in the 2014- -,.. . a. .�.,. �„�R � �.. �,, ,.. 2022 Housin Element. � . � , �, , ��.r �.. , . , , : ,�.. ... ,� �.,,, ,...,, a... , ,r .,. � �. � �,.,� �, ,.�. ,� �. � � �.. �. �. � �» .� • Property has entitlments for mixed use office/commercial building and a� hotel which expire in Sept.2014. Oaks Sho in> Additional •The size,density and mixed use entitlements in addition to the site's clo� 21255 Stevens Commercial/ proximity to a freeway and adjacent to residential development make this� W13 pp � Potential Site P(CG,Res) � �l � � � � � 7.9 25 167 � �l �I Moderate Center Creek Blvd IZesidential an potential housing element site. � (Workshop) • However,the development may need additional density(35 du/ac.or higher)if retail in an amount commensurate to existing conditions is to be� � °, included in the project to make it financially viable. ' «�,� �...� , .,. ,,� , a. . �,,. ,,,, R..� „�,,, �,�, �.,:, z�,,� .�, �:,,, �•�� ,.� �«� ,� •�. �,�. �� PG&E Cor oration Additional •Used by PG&E as a maintenance and corporation yard �� ]�4 p 1Q,�70�„B1 � Quasi-public/ � � � 2 R v — �d— a��'� �tential Site s�'�T-ut�onal --�Q o... r� � �L � � _ 1� �'/� ivl�Az X_ � _X_ �► •1n.�t1t�ati�1laLo�cuershi�•— � � _ � _ � — � (Worksho ) Potential Housing Element Sites Page 9 of 11 Le>end: Legend: rioirty Sites based on Plannin�Commission Study Session Feedback(2/19/2014) Site available but not specifically identified as Prioirty site at HousinQ or Plannin�Commission Workshops �� j�'rioirty Sites based on Housing Commision Workshop Feedback(02/12/14) - - - Site no longer available or does not meet criteria. � ,.. .� .� ,,,,, ,,,,,, � ,,,,, R�I'rioirty Sites with conflicting consensus based on Housing Commision Workshop Feedback(02/12/14) HCD's Development Secondary Criteria- Potential Criteria SCS,Plan Bay Area&GP �. � � o o ,� ... o pa�, � �' ° Ll " � v ia � a; .°�� a �, � � o � � � y'' r v y x �n ,° »: o � 3 'v Current a � .� 3 > y � a�, �c .°a � �n � Q a � ¢a ° ° ,� v � °°J' R Site Current eo p v •y � U °' �. `�.° v q �, �+ Q �e C� � {' � � '� Notes,Comments and Site Name Address Type of Site Land Use � � �, C] q w y � v E-� � � v 3 � � o :; No. Zonin ' F-' u � v o ¢ � �, " � d �n �' � � � �° � � N F, v Reason For Recommendation for Removal or Inclusion Designation g •X � .�°', N °� Ca y •� b ° '° y 3 � `� � '- � R C� ,� � y U f° y � �C Q e A W .� � � •� Q z � 3 v C] � � � ;� � v • � � .... � � � ° o � o � �°, � Q o � Additional PG&E Lower Califarnia Oak Way � Quasi-public/ •PG&E Substation �5 —'Su s�ation '(API�P.3�2'TZ't)� '�e�l'� �tTutronal �— � �' '� —� X — �— — 0+' —�/� ��I�@- �— � — — � R�—"'°�,-insti u�ionaTowners 1Ti — — — — — — (Workshop) p'— — — •Commercial center wifll no vacancies •The site's size,density and location in the City's core,adjacent to the Vallco property,and along the City's major thoroughfare make it a Portal Plaza Additional relatively suitable site. 19900 Steven Geek Commercial/ •May require a density of that above the currendy allowed 25 du/ac for a W16 (between Partal and Potential Site P(CG,Res) � � � � � � � 5.22 25 110 � � � Low Blvd Residential mixed-use retail ro ect to be financiall viable. Perimeter) (Warkshop) P 1 y •Without expressed interest by property owners or developers to redevelop with hosuing or mixed use,HCD will require a more in depth anaylsis and data will be required to illustrate redevelopment potential Additional Neighborhood 21701 Stevens Commercial, P(CN,ML, •U.S.Post Office Y117 U.�.PssLo�iCe P.Qte�ltial�lt� X_ _ X_ � � _ �L. _ •2� �.4- _1S�2. 1_ �L. _�L_ eu10� '�CnP.d1�Y�he Ee�ezdL�aYeil�illet�� — —CreeTc �vc "ZndusEriaTBs es�F.4�} — — — --� — (Workshop) •Is not currendy on the list to be closed. Residential •Commercial center with no vacancies •The site's size,density and location in the City's core,adjacent to the Vallco property,and along the City's major thoroughfare make it a Additional rclatively suitable site. St.Joseph's Place 20375 Stevens Commercial/ •In addition the center exhibits relatively marginal uses and lower W78 Potential Site P(CG,Res) � � � � � X � 2.2 25 46 � � � Low (Cafe Torre site) Creek Blvd Residential (Workshop) patronage than nearby centers. •Without expressed interest by property owners or developers to redevelop with hosuing or mixed use,HCD will require a more in depth anaylsis and data will be required to illustrate redevelopment potential • Church with historic designation Additional •Recent addition to site to increase services at church. Union Church of 20900 Stevens Commercial/ ��]�ZPre i � ��c�p�y ownPr in �� ,lip��,tll 1N19 I_otential Site PL,Res) � X � � � X � 3.05 25 63 � � � Remove s r t t d e —Cu�Zt`tifRr "ZPF�L�i<B1PCl — —"IZ�T.�T'detTEf�l — — — — — — — — -- (Workshup) 'site or redevelop completely,the potential for redevelopment of church sites is low. Potential Housing Element Sites Page 10 of 11 Le end: Le end: rioirty Sites based on P1aiuling Commission Study Session Feedback(2/19/2014) Site available but not specifically identified as Prioirty site at HousinQ or PlanninQ Commission Workshops ' � �I'rioirty Sites based on Housing Coinnusion Workshop Feedback(02/12/14) - -. — Site no longer available or does not meet criteria. � � .�. .� +n� ,,, �„ �,,, �, „�,,, ,�Prioirty Sites with conflictin�consensus based on Housing Conunision Workshop Feedback(02/12/14) HCD's Development Secondary Criteria- Potential Criteria SCS,Plan Bay Area&GP �, � � o o � r- ,. t.� ,�, � :: � ° a, Ll w .� C eC r. .��. a ie U O1 � C�! O '>' y � O i •.�. Q S ''' .S�"i+ G1 � �i p ++ y. p" O � �v 3 ^� *' Current a � � 3 > i � a�, �� °-i � �n � � � � Qa, ° � y a+ � °' ,� Site Current e4 °: • p v •�, � U v „ ;; ; � Q a+ �1 � � (� � � � '�, Notes,Comments and Site Name Address Type of Site Land Use � � �, Cl � w � a+ F � � � �, � o � � ° " No. Zoning F-' � � �+ o ,1-'' � � ,. " � Q v� ,�..'�' � � � N F• '� Reason For Recommendation for Removal or Inclusion Designation 'X " ,�°1, N °� C� � � ° '� .� 3 � � � "' � �a (� ,� � U w � .R :�' �� v U ^' v �� Q �� Q eA �; � a�i � � �' 2 � 3 v G] � � � ;� y v w., � oA y � � � � ° o � o � C�, � � o � • Existing 122 unit apartment complex developed at a density of-15 DUA. Additional High Density •The site's current use as higher density housing makes it unlikely to Village Green 21230 Homestead redevelop without expressed property owner interest HCD would be very W20 Potential Site Residential R3 X X � � � X � 7.5 20-35 137 � � � Remove — �4pa�E�ler�Es —Rci— — —_ i — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — c+r�§ca�ef t�s�si�e�as 3E�e w��s'tlee c�e*�ele�eci��ig�her-c�erYsi�ly— (Workshop) (20-35) •The net yield remaining on the property is too low to justify inclusion in the Sites Inventory. •Strip Mall Neighborhood •Less than 1 acre in size,only allows up to 12 du/ac Additional 1 Vivi's Falafel 21771 Stevens Commercial, P(CN,ML, �� Pa�Pc�ji�,(�yit� �)�� ,�w�y� � ne�to7 ost�ffice —CreeZcc Sfd� �e�l� naustriaT& I e�s�.4T1) J � � � � � — � — �'� � _� �z=�- �— —� — — � ��lo�•,�yll y d b ove (Workshop) current maximum(12 du/ac.) Residential •Adequate site due to expressed property owner interest to develop. � <..,�.,,�,-�,„.., �.�, .,,,.�m:,,—,.,,� �,. ,,. �:� �.—�,. ^ •Various office buildings and service uses(Jiffy Lube) � ( Jiffy Lube+Office 19376,19400,19450 •While the site is large and has the potential for significant residential ; Additional Commercial/ development,it would be challenging to convince HCD of the sites � Blds(SE of Stevens &19480 Stevens � W22 Potential Site Office/ P(CG,Res) � � � � � � � 5.21 25 ll0 � � � Low potential when there are five separate property owners and the uses on th� g Geek Blvd and Geek Blvd&10062 Worksho #2 Residential Miller) Miller Ave � p � site are successful. •Owner interest unknown. •This site is not ideal but it is not unviable. �.,.,. _ ,. �; � .,.r�. «� ,� ,� ...� � , ,,, , , �,- . a.,�� ,,., ,,.�� .. ,,..,,- _., ,,.,,. _�,,� �.� „�, �,�, � , � � � � o � � � � , .. ,.:,, ,,, .�., � �� , . � � � �. .�..� .... .� ..� •Citibank,Sunflower Learning Center,and older office blds •The site's size,density and location in the City's care and location along ; the City's major thoroughfare make it a relatively suitable site. •This site does have potential due to its size and density and being owned 19200,19220& Additional Commercial/ by two property owners.Because the site looks to be developed at a lower' � Opposite Main W23 19280 Stevens Potential Site Office/ P(CG,Res) � � � � � � � 4.98 25 105 � � ti� Moderate intensity than W22,it is possible to make the case for intensification with ' � Street Creek Blvd (Workshop#2) Residential mixed uses. � •Without expressed interest by property owners or developers to ] redevelop with housing or mixed use,HCD will require a more in depth � anaylsis and data will be required to illustrate redevelopment potential °��. ,� ��, ,� .�, and viability ',„ • , .� .� � � o �.. � «�« � ..., ... � � �.., ,... •Modern Furniture Store Modern Furniture+ Additional Commercial/ -Less than 1 acre in size,no expressed property owner interest. 20149 Stevens � � � � � g_,_ •�Sq�,}�pt�a�„tp,,,Pr�vida rPt�jjj,�1 a mi�,r]=u�„fp��jS VPr�„lp�v_�iyen W24_ Barn N�ar�r f �e�l,� _ �ic� PLC,�,Res � _ � �.... �. ..._. .�.� ,._� .X .,._ ...._ �.� __._ ��0.63 25 �13.. . _. `� .. � � R mov —Creek Sf c� SCB and Randy Ln) (Workshop#2) Residential its recent issues with tenanting. •Not suitable for onl housin alon a ma'or thorou hfare. Potential Housing Element Sites Page 11 of 11 Y Le end: Legend: rioirty Sites based on P1aiulin�Commission Study Session Feedback(2/19/2014) Site available but not specifically identified as Prioirty site at Housin�or Planning Commission Workshops �� I'rioirty Sites based on Housing Coirunision Warkshop Feedback(02/12/14) - - - Site no longer available or does not meet criteria. 1�. .,.. .�.. .�. � ,�, „�,Prioirty Sites with conflictin�consensus based on Housin�Commision Warkshop Feedback(02/12/14) HCD's Development Secondary Criteria- Potential Criteria SCS,Plan Bay Area&GP w � q o � ° ~ o o � " °�' � � :' � nU � �, d � v o �' v .°J o '��'' � Q .�' � ° � x N on q ° � m $ �, Q � �o Q o o U 3 v Current � � � 3 > y � � p ,.°� � y ; � v �, � � ° °J �a Site Current on »: ' p d •�, � U °J �• i° �, p � v �? �j o C7 � �e � � '�• Notes,Comments and Site Name Address T e of Site Land Use � � " C� � W � v E-� � � � � � � o � o :' No. yp Zonin »� �-' � � v o ,�-'' Q � �. � � Q 'v� ,�-'' ,. y N F• '�. Reason For Recommendation for Removal or Inclusion Designation g •K � .�°1, N °� C� � .,�. A ° .° � •3 F" `� � °' � � (.7 ,� � U � U R > � ' Q �� Q o0 w .� � '� � Q z � 3 v C� � � � � � � � � � � ° ° � � � �°. � � o � •JC Peiuley and Parking Lot • Kclatively viable site due to expressed property owner interest to redevelop,developer interest in consolidation,close proximity to major JC Penney+Parking transportation route(freeway),and potential to provide a considerable Additional Lot site(NE corner of 10150 N.Wolfe Rd Commercial/ P(Regional number of units at the site. Has the potential to be part of a mixed-use W25 Potential Site � �l �I � � � � 14.93 35 444 J J � Hi�h N.Wolfe Road and &APN:316 20 092 Residential Shopping) ° pr��ject combining parcels in Vallco on the west side. Increased (Workshop#2) Vallco Parkway) rc�d�:velopment potential on this site,even if this is not housing,could go a Ic>ng way to creating financial viability toward redeveloping the entire Vallco parcel on both sides. •Proximity to Rosebowl and Main Street mixed-use projects a plus. •This is a successful commercial use with high sales tax generating potential and is unlikely to redevelop with housing in the near future. Additional Commercial/ •Redevelopment potential for major/chain store/restaurant because the 20745 Stevens W26 _T�et Potential Site Offic� PjCG,Res) � X � � � X _ � _ 8 2� �2� _175 � � _ � Remove r�oval of�h�e�olyg�thg�tra�i�lanning of a,m�a',or�rp�r tion. —Creefc�d—' — � (Workshop) Residenential • Unless there is some expressed desire by a property owner or developer to redevelop with housing or mixed use,the site should be removed. •HCD would require in depth analysis on its redevelopment potential •Residential four-plexes/two duplexes •7�he site's current use as housing,in addition to the number of units Additional Park Circle 4-plexs Bound by Beardon currenfly developed,could make it challenging to redevelop without a W27 Potential Site Res MH(10-20) R3 X X � � � X � 7.52 20 127 � � � Low (North of Target) Dr.&Bandley Dr. significant density increase(35 du/ac). (W orkshop) •Site assembly could be a challenge due to multiple-ownerships. •HCD would be critical of this site without a significant density increase. Additional Commercial/ •Two story office building W2$ _K�lio_ 19330 Stevens Zreek'B v�"9c` '��Slt� _. �1�� P(�,Res � 1� _ � 1� � � � .�. �. � �.84 25 _1? __ �.. ,�... �.�.___ Remov •L�S ktldl� I..d�r�111 SIZE� — — — — — — — � t._. Worksho Residential •No ex ressed �ro ert owner interest "-Site previously erroneously listed as Yamagami's Nurscry Site ATTACHMENT CC-4 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT I)EPARTMENT CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE•CUPERTIlVO,CA 95014-3255 (408)777-3308 •FAX(408)777-3333 CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 2 Agenda Date:February 19,2014 Application No.: GPA-2013-02 Applicant: City of Cupertino Location/APN: Citywide SUBJECT: Study Session to review Housing Elemenfi requirements and sites to achieve the Regional Housing Needs Allocation(RHNA) for the upcoming 2014-2022 Housing Element RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1. Review the report on potential Housing Element sites and 2. Discuss potential housing .sites and provide comments on the priority housing sites to be studied iri the joint General Plan Amendment�and Housing Element Environmental Impact Report(EI1Z). BACKGROUND: Housing Element Overview In accordance with State law, California cities must have an adopted General Plan, which must contain a Housing Element. Housing Element law requires that all jurisdictions facilitate housing development by creating policies and adoptirig land use plans and regulatory schemes that provide opportunities for housing development, including units that could accommodate households with very low, low, moderate and higher incomes. For information on Housing Element content,please see Attachment PC-1. State law requires that each city and county update its Housing Element on a pre-determined cycle;for this cycle, Housing Element updates must be adopted by January 31, 2015 (plus a 120- day grace period). If this adoption deadline is met, the planning period for this cycle extends from adoption to January 31, 2023 (or eight years). Otherwise, the City rnust update the Housing Element again in 2019 (every four years). 43 Regional Housing Needs Allocation (IZHNA) The RHNA is an estimate of projected needed housing units throughout the State and is based on Department of Finance population projections and regional population forecasts. The RHNA identifies Cupertino's regional housing needs by income levels: � � � ` Ver Low 356 Low 207 Moderate 231 Above Moderate 270 Total 1,064 The City is not obligated to construct the housing units identified by the RHNA. Rather, the City's responsibility is to demonstrate adequate capacity, by identifying specific sites, to satisfy the RHNA under existing zoning and land use policy. HCD generally requires jurisdictions to show a surplus of sites/units in order to guarantee that the City could realistically accommodate the RHNA allocations. General Plan Amendment In addition to the Housing Element, the City is also processing a General Plan Amendment (GPA). The GPA was authorized by the City Council in August 2012 and begun in March 2013. The GPA includes an analysis of the following key topics: A. Development Allocations - The primary purpose of the GPA is to replenish, re-allocate, and increase citywide office, commercial, hotel, and residential allocations in order to plan for anticipated future development activity while keeping with the community's character, goals, and objectives. B. Consolidate Review Of Individual GPA Requests - The secondary purpose of the GPA is to consolidate development requests by several property owners for amendments to the General Plan. The community vision developed as part of the GPA process will help evaluate the development requests along with the associated General Plan amendments being requested. The consolidated General Plan amendment process also provides a unique opportunity for the community to provide input on the various requests received at a citywide level,instead of a site-by-site basis,which only looks at a limited scope. Three draft General Plan Concept Alternatives have been prepared that outline different future scenarios. The alternatives were developed to reflect community input (workshops and online input) as well as to respond to regional economic growth factors and housing needs. The alternatives range from minimal change to the current 2005 General Plan (Alternative A) to more moderate growth(Alternative B) to a greater change in development criteria which reflect the various property owners' requests (Alternative C). 44 These changes in development intensity include changes to land uses,heights and development allocation. The alternatives specifically focus these changes on five major mixed-use corridors in the core of Cupertino—Homestead, North Wolfe, Heart of the City, North De Anza, and South De Anza. DISCUSSION: Housing Element Sites Criteria HCD Criteria HCD reviews each Housing Element's sites inventory to determine if adequate sites have been identified to meet the RHNA. Preparation of a "site suitability analysis" is an important step in addressing the adequate sites requirement. For additional details on HCD's site suitabilify requirements and criteria, please see Attachment PC-1.A key point to note in HCD's criteria are that sites with a net density lower than 20 dwelling units per acre do not qualify for meeting affordable housing requirements. Therefore,most sites discussed later in this report are in areas that are at or above this density. Other Secondary Criteria (Sustainable Communities Strategy/One Bay Area Plan and Cupertino General Plan) In addition to the State-wide criteria that HCD uses to determine site suitability, the Sustainable Communities Strategy/One Bay Area Plan contribute additional criteria regarding what makes a desirable housing site in the ABAG region. The region's Sustainable Communities Strategy and the One Bay Area Plan focuses development in Priority Development Areas (PDA). The City's General Plan policies are generally consistent with the strategies in the One Bay Area Plan. For additional details on the other secondary criteria and PDA's please see Attachment PC-1. Cupertino's PDA has been identified with a yellow outline on Attachment PC-2. Potential Housin�Element Sites � Consideration of Housing Element sites is still in the preliminary stages. Through this study session,the City will continue to discuss sites with the public.Additional sites may be identified via public input and Commissioner discussion. While several sites are discussed in the report, the City is only obligated to pick sites enough to cumulatively add up to 1,064 units. T'he cumulative total of the realistic yield of all the sites proposed to date far exceeds the City's RHNA. A map has been prepared (see Attachment PC-2) that identifies all the sites proposed to date. An accompanying table (Attachment PC-3) provides additional information about each site. Sites are not in any particular order of priority. Sites in three categories have been identified on the map: ■ Existing Housing Element sites — Seven sites identified in the 2007-2014 Housing Element are currently available. The others have either been redeveloped or do not meet the criteria. o Lot Consolidation Potential—Sites adjacent to existing Housing Element sites that could be considered for addition into the Housing Element for more cohesive development. 45 ■ Sites Proposed By Property Owners — Ten property owners have indicated an interest in being included in the Sites Inventory. Most of the developers have indicated a density range higher than that currently allowed by the General Plan and zoning for their site. ■ Sites Proposed By Workshop Participants —Workshop participants at the January 23, 2014 workshop identified 21 sites which could potentially be included in the Sites Inventory. Environmental Review An Environmental Impact Report(EIR) is being prepared for this project. The preparation of the EIR will commence once the City Council provides its comments on the sites to be analyzed as part of each alternative studied in the EIR at its March 4, 2014 meeting. The 30-day Notice of Preparation (NOP) period will commence soon after the City Cotulcil meeting, with a scoping session scheduled for March 11,2014. It is anticipated that preparation of the Draft EIR will take about four months and will be released for public review in Summer 2014. A community open house is planned during the 45- day public review period. Following the close of the public review period, a Final EIR will be prepared. The recommendation from the Environmental Review Committee,public hearing for the Planning Commission and public hearing for the Council EIR review and certification are tentatively scheduled for Fall 2014. DISCUSSION: Summary of February 12 Housing Commission Worksho� On February 12, the Housing Commission hosted a workshop to continue the Housing Element Sites discussion and prioritize sites for inclusion in the Housing Element. Following a project update presentation, approximately fifteen (15) participants broke into three groups and discussed identification of new sites and prioritizing potential housing sites to meet the RHNA of 1,064. The groups generally seemed to agree that sites with multiple access points, minimal impacts to schools and generate minimal level of neighborhood concerns would be appropriate as Housing Element sites. Some of these included sites previously identified in this report. Some participants also added new sites to the list. Some of the sites were prioritized by one group but not by others and some of sites were only acceptable if new development was a mixed use one. The balance of the sites have been left on the list since there was no consensus on whether to keep or remove the sites.These have all been included in Attachments PC-2 and PC-3. Comments fi�om the Public The following is a summary of the key points made at the February 12 meeting: ■ Building heights should reflect the character of the City. � Impacts of new housing on schools and traffic need to be carefully considered in the siting of housing. ■ A balance of retail/restaurants and housing needs to be achieved. Do not eliminate places where residents shop and dine out. 46 ■ New housing should be distributed throughout Cupertino. ■ Provide opportunities for different forms of housing that may not be in Cupertino today, particularly for senior residents and recent college graduates who do not need as much living space. ■ Given that the city is virtually built out, ensure that in future RHNA processes that Cupertino is not overburdened by a commitment to accommodate even more housing. ■ The Hampton site is a good location to accommodate a large portion of the current RHNA. ■ The current stock of affordable housing needs to be preserved to the extent possible. The Housing Commission recommended forwarding the sites highlighted by the workshop participants. Attachments PC-2 and PC-3 highlight the sites that the Housing Commission recommended forwarding to the Planning Commission for consideration. EIR Alternatives and Densit�Considerations for Sites The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that alternatives to a project be studied. These must avoid or substantially lessen at least one of the significant impacts of the Proposed Project. In addition, CEQA does not permit projects to be analyzed incrementally. A combined Environmental Impact Report will be prepared for the General Plan Amendment as well as the 2014-2022 Housing Element. The EIR will analyze the following key issues: ■ The General Plan Amendznents — As mentioned earlier in this staff report, the City is currently processing a General Plan Amendment. Three draft General Plan Concept Alternatives ranging from minimal change to the current 2005 General Plan (Alternative A) to more moderate growth (Alternative B) to a greater change in development criteria which reflect the various property owners' requests (Alternative C), have been prepared for analysis in the EIR. Alternatives A and B avoid or substantially lessen at least one of the significant impacts of the Proposed Project(Alternative C). At this time, no sites are proposed to be eliminated from the study except as discussed below for each alternative. The preferred sites will be noted when a review and decision on the final list of sites is made by the City Council. The final decision on the list of sites is expected in Fall when the information on the EIR is available. It should be noted a lower density on a site will increase the number of sites that need to be picked to cumulatively reach the 1,064 units RHNA obligation. o Alternative A will include potential housing sites only within existing density ranges in the General Plan. Therefore, Alternative A will not include sites that propose a minimum density exceeding that allowed in the 2005 General Plan. The only change to this concept is in the South Sunnyvale-Saratoga area (De Anza Boulevard area south of Highway 85),which is proposed to be combined with the South De Anza Boulevard Conceptual Plan (West side of De Anza Boulevard between Stevens 47 Creek Boulevard and Bollinger Road). The density in the South Sunnyvale-Saratoga area will change from 15 dwelling units per acre to 25 dwelling units per acre to be consistent with the density in the South De Anza Boulevard Conceptual Plan Area. One site proposed by the property owner (Yamagami s Nursery) is located uz this area and will be studied in this Alternative. o Alternative B represents moderate growth along five mixed use transit corridors. Therefore, in this Alternative, sites proposed by property owners along major transit corridors, and selected by the City Council for inclusion, will be studied at a density between that in Alternative A and Alternative C (highest density alternative). In this alternative, these sites would be studied at a density of 35 dwelling units per acre instead of 25 dwelling units per acre. In general, the current General Plan allows 25 dwelling units per acre except in the South Vallco Area where it is 35 dwelling units per acre. One property owner (the Hamptons at Wolfe Road and Hwy 280) has proposed a density ranging from 65 to 110 dwelling units per acre on their site. Therefore, their site is the only one selected at the lower end of the density at 65 dwelling units per acre. The reason this site has been included at a higher density than 35 dwelling wiits per acre, is that it is located near the freeway and will cause minimal neighborhood and school � impacts (this site is served by the Santa Clara Unified School District). o Under Alternative C (the proposed project), Housing Element sites proposed by Property Owners, and selected by the City Council to satisfy the RHNA requirement, will be studied at the maximum density requested by the property owner. o Finally, CEQA requires the analysis of the No Project Alternative. The No Project Alternative assumes no change to the current General Plan. The analysis for this alternative will include buildout of the current 2005 General Plan. Therefore, only the existing housing element sites will be included in the analysis.Under this scenario, there are no changes to existing land use policies, height limits, land use designations, or any additional development allocation for office, commercial,hotel and residential units. No new sites will be studied. Other Housing Element Rec�uirements Update Housing Policies The update of the Housing Element has been divided into two areas of review. The first area of review is the subject of this meeting-identification of adequate sites appropriately zoned in the City to accommodate the City's RHNA. The second area of review is an analysis and update of the existing policies and programs which will be presented at a later date (tentatively April 1, 2014 at a Joint Planning Commission/City Council meeting.) Streamlined HCD Review 48 HCD allows for streamlined review of the Housing Element if the jurisdiction meets certain criteria. This provides for priority review for jurisdictions that are eligible over jurisdictions that are eligible for standard review and limits the areas in which the HCD staff can comment on. These criteria include the adoption of an HCD-certified Housing Element, the adoption of a Density Bonus ordinance that conforms with State Law, the completion of re- zoning of all Housing Element sites that needed re-zoning with the 2007-2014 Housing Element update, the adoption of adequate zoning to permit emergency shelters and transitional/supportive housing, and the establishment of a reasonable accommodation procedure. If a jurisdiction is not eligible for the streamlined review, HCD's review generally takes longer—up to the 60 day period they are permitted by law to review the documents, thereby potentially delaying the adoption of the Housing Element. The adoption deadline remains January 31,2015 (plus a 120-day grace period.) The City currently complies with almost all of the.requirements to qualify for the streamlined review-the City has a HCD certified Housing Element that has been adopted, all the re-zoning that was required with the last Housing Element cycle was completed at the same time as adoption of the Housing Element, completed updates to the municipal code to allow adequate emergency shelter and transitional/supportive housing and the establishment of a reasonable accommodation procedure. The final requirement-the adoption of a Density Bonus ordinance that conforms to State Law-needs to be completed prior to forwarding the draft of the Housing Element for HCD review. The City would have to comply with State Law with or without an updated ordinance.However,having an updated ordinance will allow the City to be eligible for streamlined review. Staff anticipates preparing this ordinance for Planning Commission review and Council adoption at the time of presenting the Draft Housing Element for forwarding to the HCD for its review in Fa112014. PUBLIC NOTICING &OLTTREACH In addition to the workshop at the Housing Commission meeting on February 12, 2014, the following outreach efforts have been undertaken on this project to date. Stakeliolder Interviews Stakeholder interviews were conducted on December 11 & 12, 2013 to solicit input from stakeholders ranging from community members, property owners, housulg developers, service providers, School Districts and the business community. The following is a summary of comments from the interviews: . ■ Overall housing affordability and the gap between housing demand and supply at all income levels ■ Need diversity of affordable rental units at all income levels and all household types ■ Need to accommodate a growing aging population ■ Smaller units including innovative housing models ■ Support for mixed-use similar to Santana Row or downtown Mountain View ■ Should be low impacts to schools, privacy,parking,noise and traffic ■ Significant financial constraints to affordable housing developers due to dissolution 49 of Redevelopment ■ School Districts north of the city are impacted due to higher student generation rates ■ Looking to increase capacity by adding new buildings and temporary,modular units ■ Most of the Apple Campus 2 school impact fee allocated to Santa Clara Unified District while the expectation is that most employees who move will reside within the CUSD service area. Summary of January 23 Joint PC/HC Workshop On January 23, the P1aru1ulg Commission and Housing Commission hosted a joint workshop to begin the Housing Element Sites discussion. Eleven participants broke into small groups and identified potential future sites for housing and criteria for increased density in certain areas including community benefits. Participants drew on maps and placed stickers to identify potential housing sites. The following is a summary of comments from the meeting: ■ Demand for market-rate small-sized units (limited bedrooms) to cater to people working at Apple ■ Add levels to school buildings to increase capacity ■ Concerns about: o Churches now having to be considered Housing Element sites o Sustainability of the One Bay Area Plan o Size of the City's RHNA obligation o Loss of communify amenities to housing The following table summarizes the noticing for this meeting. Notice Agenda ■ Email sent to all interested parties ■ Posted on the City's official notice bulletin signed up through the project website board (one week prior to the hearing) ■ Letters sent to current Housing ■ Posted on the City of Cupertino's Web site Element site property owners and (one week prior to the hearing) interested property owners ■ Posted on the project Website (one week rior to hearin ) NEXT STEPS The goal for this sfudy session is to review the Housing Coirur.issions' input and sites presented to date, identify any other new potential sites for consideration, to place the sites in order of preference. The City Council will meet on March 4,2014 to provide staff with final direction on the Housing Element sites and densities to be studied in the EIR. The policy portion of the review of the Housing Element will be present to the Housing Commission in March 2014 and the Planning Commission and City Council at the Joint meeting on Apri11,2014. 50 Upon completion of the Final EIIZ, the Draft Housing Element will be reviewed b.y the Planning Commission and adopted by the Council in Fall 2014 for forwarding to HCD. The Draft Housing Element will include: housing policies as well as the final list of housing sites as well as the related General Plan Amendments and rezoning for the sites. In addition, in order to comply with streamlined HCD review, a Density Bonus Ordinance, will be prepared for review and adoption. Upon HCD review and potential certification, the final Housing Element will be presented for Planning Commission review and City Council decision in early 2015. Prepared by: Piu Ghosh,AICP, Senior Planner MIG, Consultant to the City of Cupertino Reviewed by: Approved by: /s/Gar�Chao /s/Aarti Shrivastava Gary Chao Aarti Shrivastava Asst.Dir. of Community Development Director of Community Development Attachments PC-1. Housing Commission Staff Report PC-2. Poteniial 2014-2022 Housing Element Sites Map,with HC Priorities Indicated PC-3. Potential 2014-2022 Housing Element Sites Summary Table, with HC Priorities Indicated . 51 ATTACHMENT CC- 5 S �-I U T E M I I-�A L�' �i`� VC/ EINBERGER ��P 396 HAYES STREET, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102 ELLEN J. GARBER T: 415 552-7272 F: 415 552-5816 Attorney www.smwlaw.com garber@smwlaw.com MEMORAND�JM TO: Carol Korade, City Attorney FROM: Ellen J. Garber DATE: February 25, 2014 RE: Application of SB 50 to Consideration of Development Applications INT1zODUCTION and SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS The Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of 1998 ("SB 50")1 preempts the issue of impacts of new development on school facilities. Therefore, if a developer agrees to pay the fees established by SB 50, the impacts on school facilities may not be analyzed under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"�,2 no mitigation for impacts on school facilities may be required, and the project may not be denied due to impacts on schools or due to the inadequacy of school facilities. Hence, state law limits the City's discretion to (i) consider the effects of new development on the ability of schools to accommodate enrollment, (ii) require mitigation, and (iii) deny projects. A relatively recent case, Chawanakee Uni�ed School District v. County of Madera (2011) 196 Cal. App. 4th 1016, holds that development applications may be analyzed under CEQA, and mitigation may be required, if the potential impacts are indirectly caused by the operation or construction of schools on the non-school physical environment. 1 Gov. Code §§ 65995-65998 and Educ. Code §§ 17620-17621. 2 Pub. Resources Code § 21000 et seq. 52 Memo to Carol Korade, City Attorney February 25, 2014 Page 2 DISCUSSION I. SB 50 Pursuant to SB 50, which was enacted in 1998, impacts on school facilities are not to be considered in an EIR, and SB 50 fees constitute adequate mitigation of those impacts. As SB 50 states, payment of fees "shall be the exclusive method[] of considering and mitigating impacts on school facilities," and "are . . . deemed to provide full and complete school facilities mitigation. Gov. Code §§ 65996 (a) and (b). See Part II, below. In addition, A state or local agency may not deny or refuse to approve a legislative or adjudicative act, or both, involving, but not limited to, the planning, use, or development of real property, or any change in governmental organization or reorganization as defined in. Section 56021 or ,56073 on the basis of a person's refusal to provide school facilities mitigation that exceeds the amounts authorized pur.suant to this sec.tion or pursuant to Section 65995.5 or 65995.7, as applicable. Gov. Code § 65995(i). Even where applicants have agreed.to pay school impact mitigation fees, however, if the proposed development, including the school expansion it requires, would cause otlier environmental impacts—traffic or construction impacts, for example—then those impacts to non-school resources may be analyzed under CEQA. This is discussed in Part III, below. II. Impacts of New Development On School Facilities SB 50 limited the scope of CEQA analysis of impacts on school facilities, making the fees set forth in Government Code section 65995 "the exclusive means of both `considering' and `mitigating' school facilities impacts of projects. The provisions of [S.B. 50] are `deemed to provide full and complete school facilities mitigation."' Kostka & Zischke, Practice Under the California Environmental Quality Act (2012), § 14.28 . (citations omitted). According to the Kostka &Zischke treatise, SB 50 appears to transform CEQA review of impacts on school facilities into a ministerial function after the applicant agrees to pay the required mitigation fees. Id., § 14.28 (concluding that the law limits not only mitigation but also the scope of the EIR).3 No ease expressly reached 3 Cf. 9 Miller & Starr, Cal. Real Estate (3d ed. 2001) § 25.49, 25-213 to 25-214, fns. omitted ("SB 50 employs three primary means to preempt the field of development (footnote continued) S H UT E M 1 H A LY �^--WEINBERGER��P 53 Memo to Carol Korade, City Attorney February 25, 2014 Page 3 this conclusion until the Chawanakee Unified School District case, discussed below, but logic seemed to dictate this outcome based on the statutory language. Therefore, if a project applicant has agreed to pay school mitigation fees, the lead agency may not consider the following items in an EIR, nor deny the project based on these considerations: • impacts on the physical structures at the school (on school grounds, school buildings, etc.) related to the ability to accommodate enrollment; • mitigation measures above and beyond the school mitigation fee ; • other non-fee mitigation measures the school district's ability to accommodate enrollment. 3. Physical Effects on the Environment Because of School Facilities Despite the restrictions on environmental review and mitigation discussed above, SB 50 also states that "[n]othing in this section sha11 be interpreted to limit or prohibit the ability of a local agency to mitigate the impacts of land use approvals other than on the need for school facilities, as defined in this section." Gov. Code, § 65996(e). This leaves the agency free to reject a project based on impacts other than impacts on the need for "school facilities."4 Any number of impacts could fall outside of this definition; for example, impacts on wildlife in the development site, impacts on air quality, or inadequate water supply. fees and mitigation measures related to school facilities and to overturn [Mira and its progeny]. First, it provides for a cap on the amount of fees, charges, dedications or otheY requirements which can be levied against new construction to fund construction or reconstruction of school facilities. Second, SB 50 removes denial authority from local agencies by prohibiting refusals to approve legislative or adjudicative acts based on a developer's refusal to provide school facilities mitigation exceeding the capped fee amounts, or based on the inadequacy of school facilities. Third, it limits mitigation measures which can be required, under the California Environmental Quality Act or otherwise, to payment of the statutorily capped fee amounts and deems payment of these amounts `to provide full and complete school facilities mitigation [.]"' (emphasis in original). 4 SB 50 defines "school facilities" as "any school-related consideration relating to a school district's ability to accommodate enrollment." Gov. Code § 65996(c). SHUTE MIHALY ��`--WEIN6ERGER��P 54 Memo to Carol Korade, City Attorney February 25, 2014 Page 4 In 2011, the court in Chawanakee Unified School District carefully interpreted the statutory language of SB 50 and held that while an EIR need not analyze the impacts on school facilities as a result of accommodating more students, the document must consider the impacts on traffic of additional students traveling to the school and consider other impacts to the non-school physical environment from construction of additional facilities. 196 Cal. App. 4th at 1028-1029.5 Courts have found the physical activities caused by school growth to be outside the definition of"school facilities," and therefore not shielded from review by SB 50. For example, as discussed above, Chawanakee Unified School District interpreted the traffic associated with more students traveling to a school to be something other than impacts on school facilities, and therefore subject to review and mitigation under CEQA. Accordingly, traffic impacts resulting from more students traveling to the school, dust . and noise from construction of new or expanded school facilities, and any other impacts to the non-school physical environment were not impacts on "school facilities," and must be addressed in an EIR. According to the court in Chawanakee: Consequently, the ,phrase `impacts on school faciTities' used in SB 50 does not cover all possible environmental impacts that have any type of connection or relationship to schools. As a matter of statutory interpretation . . . the prepositional phrase `on school facilities' limits the type of impacts that are excused from discussion or mitigation to the adverse physical changes to the school grounds, school buildings and `any school-related consideration relating to a school district's ability to accommodate enrollment.' Therefore, the project's indirect impacts on parts of the physical environment that are not school facilities are not excused from being considered and mitigated. 196 Cal. App. 4th at 1028 (internal citation omitted). Hence, the lead agency must determine whether impacts fall outside the definition of"school facilities," thereby making them subject to environmental review. In light of the Chawanakee case, however, the agency's discretion to conduct environmental review, to require mitigation, and to consider denying the would be limited to physical effects on the non-school environment. 5 While SB 50 was not at issue in this case, in City of Long Beach v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (2009) 176 Cal. App. 4th 889 the court held that an EIR prepared in connection with the construction of a new school properly analyzed health and safety issues, air quality, traffic impacts, and land use issues. SHUTE MIHALY �,'��T--WEINBERGER��P 55 Memo to Carol Korade, City Attorney February 25, 2014 Page 5 Therefore, a lead agency may consider, in an EIR, among other factors the following impacts potentially caused by school expansion or construction: • traffic impacts associated with more students traveling to school; • dust and noise from construction of new or expanded school facilities; • effects of construction of additional school facilities (temporary or permanent) on wildlife at the construction site; o effects of construction of additional school facilities on air quality; • other "indirect effects" as defined by CEQA Guidelines § 15258 (a)(2) (growth-inducing effects, changes in pattern of land use and population density, related effects on air and water and other natural systems). See Chawa�zakee Unified School District, 196 Cal. App. 4th at 1029. CONCLUSION When it comes to arguments about the impact of a proposed development on existing school facilities and their ability to accommodate more students, the CEQA process is essentially ministerial. Agencies must accept the fees mandated by SB 50 as the exclusive means of considering and mitigating the impacts of the proposed development on school facilities. However, nothing in SB 50 or in CEQA or current case law prohibits an agency from conducting environmental review of an application that creates significant environmental impacts on non-school-facility settings or sites, regardless of whether the applicant has agreed to pay mitigation fees under SB 50. 567716.2 SHUTEj MIHALY +;T--WEINf3ERGER��P 56