CC 08-16-2022_Late CommunicationsFrom:Aaron Klinefelter
To:Piu Ghosh (she/her); Luke Connolly; Flower@emcplanning.com
Cc:City Council; City Clerk
Subject:Re: Housing Element site inventory
Date:Wednesday, August 17, 2022 9:10:23 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Planning Staff:
My thanks to you and to the decisionmakers thus far that have included St. Jude's in the city's
site inventory for its Housing Element update.
In reviewing the materials and the most recent public hearings on the site inventory, I was
hoping to clarify two things:
1. The inclusion of housing on our parish grounds would be supplemental to our existing uses.
The church sanctuary and parish hall would both continue to operate as they have for many
decades in service to the West Valley community. We see the addition of housing on our site
as part of the fulfillment of our Christian mission.
2. I noticed that the current proposal looks only to 0.71 acres of our 3.0 acre site at a density of
30 dwelling units per acre. The commentary at joint Housing Commission/Planning
Commission from staff indicated that the reason for these figures was an assumption that we
would rely on AB 1851 to build housing in lieu of parking. Please note that St. Jude's
welcomes a broader conversation about what sort of housing to build and at what densities.
We would welcome the opportunity to open a wider discussion of what updates the BQ zoning
district on which St. Jude's sits might require in order to facilitate the best possible project for
the city and our community.
In service of our community,
Rev. Aaron
—
The Rev. Aaron Klinefelter
Rector
St. Jude’s Episcopal Church
20920 McClellan Road
Cupertino, CA 95014
aaron@saintjudes.org
408-431-3315 mobile
408-252-4166 x.303 office
pronouns: he/him/his
My days off are Friday and Saturday
From:Melissa Robertson
To:Melissa Robertson
Subject:Item 24, Discuss Priority Housing Sites for HE cycle 6 - City Council mtg August 16 2022
Date:Wednesday, August 17, 2022 8:02:49 AM
Attachments:Attachment - A - Sites Inventory Table FOR PC and HE June 28 and July 5 2022 joint meetings.pdf
Attachment A - Recommended Sites Inventory (3) for Housing Element City Council August 16 meeting - First
time coming to Council.pdf
Attachment C (does not load) Site Map entire city color coded PL, T1, T2 available in Written Communications
(Updated 08-12-2022) (2).pdf
E - EMC Memo Attachment B - Site Map (5) entire city color coded PL, T1,T2 FOR PC and HC.pdf
From: Lisa Warren <la-warren@att.net>
To: City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>; City of Cupertino Planning
Commission <planningcommission@cupertino.org>
Cc: Christopher Jensen <chrisj@cupertino.org>; Benjamin Fu
<benjaminf@cupertino.org>; Luke Connolly <lukec@cupertino.org>;
piug@cupertino.org <piug@cupertino.org>;
housingcommission@cupertino.org <housingcommission@cupertino.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 04:22:42 PM PDT
Subject: Item 24, Discuss Priority Housing Sites for HE cycle 6 - City Council
mtg August 16 2022
Good afternoon Mayor, Council and others.
I have some observations about items attached to
tonight's agenda item 24 that I will share.
This email message is not able to cover all of my
questions and needs for clarification.
Unfortunately, I have run out of time to go through all
of the material you have in your packet. I have done
quite a bit of comparing of the documents attached to
your agenda and what Planning Commission and
Housing Commission (PC/HC) received as attachments
for their June 28 and July 5 meetings. I also referred
to the notes that I have from PC/HC discussions,
decisions and requests to Staff related to the their
version of documents and site selection process.
A couple of things I do not want to forget to mention
here as I begin to listing things :
**Please consider suggesting any sites you feel are
missing. Especially in Areas on main arteries that
have been noted (for mapping exercise and in your
written packet) as Areas that have no
recommended sites. Also don’t shy away from
considering, if appropriate, Tier2 sites over Tier1
sites. You may need to review older documents if
you are looking for unused T2 sites if you are
willing to think in new ways.
**Please understand that there has been very little
satisfaction from answers to questions about Why
sites are not either Tier1 or Tier2.
I have, over many months, observed that answers
are not consistent. Often they refer to ‘property
owner’ showing no interest. However, the method
to communicate with property owners has often not
been productive.
I suggest this :
If a property owner indicated a level of interest, the
site should be given good thought.
If a property owner gave a clear written message
that they do not want their site(s) considered,
respect that, but remember they could have a
change of heart.
If a property owner was unreachable, did not
respond to inquiry, etc., do NOT take that as a no
to considering the site.
________
other comments :
I truly hope that no one expects the City Council
to finalize their thoughts about HE site selection
with this single meeting where the
subject/material is being presented.
I question why this critical discussion is on the
Aug 16 agenda as Item 24.. the last item.
Especially since there are other important agenda
items that I expect will take a significant amount
of discussion from participating parties.
It was stated that there would be a document
compiled to represent responses from the 'public'
Balancing Act map exercise and the new 31Q
Survey. There is no reference to that information
in the agenda attachments for the public to
review. And one of these is still open for public
input.
_______
In the time I did spend trying to compare PC/HC
documents and CC documents, I found some errors,
or concerns.
I will list a few here.
-- First, I believe that the edited Recommended Site
Inventory ( from what PC/HC had to what CC has )
should have been done in a way that number/letter
references should have been changed. If a site was
'removed or moved', it could have been stricken and
noted where it was moved to.
Example: Initially P8 was listed as 20865 McClellan Rd.
-- PC/HC and Staff agreed to remove it from Pipeline
and make it a Tier 1 in corresponding 'area' Jollyman
as site 6e. It is currently listed as 6a (instead of 6e)
replacing a similar parcel across the street at 20860
McClellan Rd. Super confusing. And as I remember it,
CC/HC asked for 20860 to be changed from original
Tier 2 to Tier1 in Jollyman and correcting the current
max density from 4.35 DR/Ac to something larger.
This 20860 is NOW on Pipeline as P8 with 12 units
(there is currently a unit on the site but list shows ‘0’
existing units. I do not believe it qualifies for Pipeline.
Note: I believe that Balancing Act Mapping info has street numbers
reversed for 20860 and 20865 McClellan.
Tier2 sites have seem to disappear from some areas in
the new list.
Example: North Blaney 9b.
Example: 11b T2 from PC/HC list is gone and now
what was 11c is labeled 11b
Column 6 now has the descriptor ‘Tentative’ added to
‘General Plan Designation (New)’ . There are changes
in some cases so that now there are ranges for
DU/Ac Perhaps the Staff report explains why that is ?
Part of the ‘maximum/minimum’ discussion ?
Heart of the City Crossroads initially had 2 T2 sites
and nothing else. They were the Mr Sun and Lei
Garden. There are now 5 sites added (total of 7). All
are T2. Byer Properties owner of the additional 5.
Several commissioners and residents have asked to
consider HE sites in this area but I question how some
of the 5 got included. I have heard/read anyone asking
for TJMaxx/Homegoods or DishnDash to be sites.
::::
Comparing the ‘Sites Overview’ documents (28p and
27p) there are errors.
Examples but may not be complete list:
Page 2 in July 20 (CC) version has P8 parcel# and
address that do not match. Above I mention issues
with McClellan address numbers. I believe that the
parcel number in the document is correct and that the
address number is wrong. ALSO I remember that P8
with the 20865 # was to be moved to ‘Jollyman’.
Also page 2, there is a list titled ‘Areas with NO specific
sites anticipated to accommodate housing’. The lists
differ some. It should be noted that Areas 16 and 26
included in the list on CC version DO have sites
assigned to them… one is a biggy. North Vallco Park.
Page 3 in July 20 (CC) version is missing map.
I have no time to comment on the over 20 additional
pages except this general comment :
Things I heard from PC/HC (and community
members) Maximum building height should be defined
in measured FEET, not just number of stories. I don’t
see that addition in the CC version of Overview
document.
Commission (I believe it was the Chair) asked for Max
Height in Feet to be added to the Site Inventory
‘spreadsheet’ . Also requested parking space info and
maybe something else. No columns have been added.
It would be helpful if the appropriate digit be use
(example 5, not ‘five’) when referring to max height,
wherever that info is included.
Lisa Warren
Melissa Robertson
Senior Office Assistant
City Manager's Office
MelissaR@cupertino.org
(408)777-3148
Recommended Sites Inventory
6/24/2022 1
Key Map ID
Tier 2/
Total Units
for each
Area
Assessor Parcel
Number Site Address/Intersection
General Plan
Designation
(Current)
General Plan Designation
(New)
Zoning
Designation
(Current)
Zoning
Designation
(New)
Parcel Size
(Gross Acres)
Current
Maximum
Density
(du/ac)
New
Minimum
Density
(du/ac)
Existing Units Total New
Units
P (3,536) Pipeline Projects Pipeline Project Names
P1
31620120
10101 N Wolfe Rd
10330 N Wolfe Rd
Vallco 0 (2,402)
31620121
P2 32627043 21267 Stevens Creek Blvd Westport 0 (259)
P3 34216087 10625 S. Foothill Blvd Canyon Crossing 0 (18)
P4 36610126
36610061 7357 Prospect Rd Carriage House (1655 S. De Anza)0 (34)
P5 32634066
32634043
10118-10122 Bandley Dr
10145 N. De Anza Blvd Marina Food 0 (206)
P6
34214066
34214104
34214105
22690 Stevens Creek Blvd Bateh Brothers 0 (8)
P7 35907021 10040 Bianchi Way 1 (6)
P8 35913019 20865 Mcclellan Rd 1 (3)
P9
316-06-058
316-06-059
316-06-060
19500 Pruneridge Ave The Hamptons Apartment Homes 342 (600)
PIPELINE SUB-TOTAL 344 3,536
1 (29) Creston-Pharlap
1a Tier 2 32616014 10033 Hillcrest Rd Res Low 1-5 na R1-10 na 0.64 4 4 1 (- )
1b Tier 2 32616064 10190 Hillcrest Rd Res Low 1-5 na R1-10 na 0.53 4 4 1 (- )
1c 32620034 10231 Adriana Ave Res Low 1-5 Res ML 5-10 R1-10 R1-7.5 1.42 4 8.7 1 (11)
1d 32616075 22273 Cupertino Rd Res Low 1-5 Res ML 5-10 R1-10 R1-5 1.35 4 8.7 1 (10)
1e 32650062 10050 N Foothill Blvd Com/Off/Res Res Medium 10-20 P(OA)R3 0.62 15 15 1 (8)
2 0 Fairgrove: There are no sites within this area that are currently recommended
3 (22) Garden Gate
3a Tier 2 31624016 10193 Randy Ln Res MH 5-10 Res Medium 10-20 R1-7.5 R-1C 0.45 10 12 1 (- )
3b ROW Mary Ave site P/Res Res H 30>T P(Res)0.75 0 30 0 (22)
Recommended Sites Inventory
6/24/2022 2
Key Map ID
Tier 2/
Total Units
for each
Area
Assessor Parcel
Number Site Address/Intersection
General Plan
Designation
(Current)
General Plan Designation
(New)
Zoning
Designation
(Current)
Zoning
Designation
(New)
Parcel Size
(Gross Acres)
Current
Maximum
Density
(du/ac)
New
Minimum
Density
(du/ac)
Existing Units Total New
Units
4 (5) Homestead Villa
4a 32602063 10860 Maxine Ave Res ML 5-10 na R2-4.25i na 0.71 10 10 2 (5)
5 0 Inspiration Heights: There are no sites within this area that are currently recommended
6 (44) Jollyman
6a Tier 2 35920030 20860 Mcclellan Rd Res Low 1-5 Res Medium 10-20 R1-10 R1-7.5 1.27 4.35 5 0 (- )
6b 35905133 21050 Mcclellan Rd Com/Off/Res Res Medium 10-20 P P(R-3)0.78 15 30 0 (23)
6c Tier 2 35919043 7540 McClellan Rd Low Den (1-5
DU/Ac.)Res Medium 10-20 R1-6 R1-C 0.33 5 10 1 (- )
6d 35920028 20920 Mcclellan Rd Quasi-Public Res H 30>BQ P(Res)0.71 0 30 0 (21)
7 (45) Monta Vista North
7a
35606001 10857 Linda Vista Dr Res Low 1-5 Med/High (20-35
DU/Ac)R1-7.5 P(R-3)0.73 5 20 1 (13)
35606002 10867 Linda Vista Dr Res Low 1-5 Med/High (20-35
DU/Ac)R1-7.5 P(R-3)0.69 5 20 1 (12)
35606003 10877 Linda Vista Dr Res Low 1-5 Med/High (20-35
DU/Ac)R1-7.5 P(R-3)0.25 5 20 1 (4)
35606004 10887 Linda Vista Dr Res Low 1-5 Med/High (20-35
DU/Ac)R1-7.5 P(R-3)0.87 5 20 1 (16)
7b Tier 2 35705010 22381 McClellan Rd Res Low 1-5 Res Medium 10-21 R1-10 R-1C 0.44 5 5 1 (- )
8 (22) Monta Vista South
8a 36231001 20666 Cleo Ave Res Medium
10-20
Med/High (20-35
DU/Ac)P(R3)P(Res)0.25 20 30 1 (6)
8b 36231030 [no address]Res Medium
10-20
Med/High (20-35
DU/Ac)P(R3)P(Res)0.23 20 30 0 (6)
8c
35623057 21710 Regnart Rd Res Very Low
S/D
Res Low 1-5 RHS R1-5 1.46 5 1 (7)
35623001 21710 Regnart Rd None Res Low 1-5 RHS R1-5 0.15 5 0 (1)
8d 36638021 21530 Rainbow Dr Res Very Low
S/D
RHS R1-7.5 0.43 3.4 1 (2)
9 (61) North Blaney
9a 31643009 10730 N Blaney Ave Ind Res H 30>P(R2, Mini-
Stor)
P(Res)1.76 0 30 1 (51)
31643008 10710 N Blaney Ave Res Low Med
5-10 Res H 30>R-2 P(Res)0.37 10 30 1 (10)
Recommended Sites Inventory
6/24/2022 3
Key Map ID
Tier 2/
Total Units
for each
Area
Assessor Parcel
Number Site Address/Intersection
General Plan
Designation
(Current)
General Plan Designation
(New)
Zoning
Designation
(Current)
Zoning
Designation
(New)
Parcel Size
(Gross Acres)
Current
Maximum
Density
(du/ac)
New
Minimum
Density
(du/ac)
Existing Units Total New
Units
9b Tier 2
31643003 19986 Olivewood St Res Medium
10-20
Res H 30>R3 P(Res)2.93 20 30 36 (- )
31643004 10716 Rosewood Rd Res Medium
10-20
Res H 30>R3 P(Res)2.59 20 30 40 (- )
31643005 N Portal Ave Res Medium
10-20
Res H 30>R3 P(Res)1.64 20 30 32 (- )
10 0 Rancho Rincondada: There are no sites within this area that are currently recommended
11 (129) South Blaney
11a
36934053 10787 S Blaney Ave Com/Res Med/High (20-35
DU/Ac)P(CG)P(CG/Res)0.54 15 30 0 (15)
36934052 10891 S Blaney Ave Com/Res Med/High (20-35
DU/Ac)P(CG)P(CG/Res)2.70 15 30 0 (80)
11b Tier 2 36939016 20455 Silverado Ave Com/Res Med/High (20-35
DU/Ac)P[CG]P(Res)0.23 25 30 0 (- )
11c
36937028 10710 S De Anza Blvd Com/Res Res H 30>R2 P(CG/Res)0.56 25 30 0 (16)
36937022 20421 Bollinger Rd Medium (10-
20 DU/Ac)Res H 30>R3 P(Res)0.39 20 30 0 (11)
36937023 20411 Bollinger Rd Medium (10-
20 DU/Ac)Res H 30>R3 P(Res)0.22 20 30 2 (3)
36937024 20431 Bollinger Rd Medium (10-
20 DU/Ac)Res H 30>R3 P(Res)0.17 20 30 1 (4)
12 0 Oak Valley Neighborhood: There are no sites within this area that are currently recommended
13 (13) Bubb Road
13a 35720044 21431 Mcclellan Rd Ind/Res/Com Res H 30>ML-rc P(Res)0.47 20 30 1 (13)
14 0 Heart of the City - West: There are no sites within this area that are currently recommended
15 (- ) Heart of the City - Crossroads
15a Tier 2 32634047 10125 Bandley Dr Com/Off/Res Res H 30>P(CG, Res)P(Res)1.09 25 50 0 (- )
15b Tier 2 35907006 20950 Stevens Creek Blvd Com/Off/Res Res H 30>P(CG, Res)P(Res)0.32 25 50 0 (- )
16 (- ) Heart of the City - Central
16a Tier 2 36905007 19990 Stevens Creek Blvd Com/Off/Res Res H 30>P(CG, Res)P(Res)0.46 25 50 0 (- )
16b Tier 2 36903005 20010 Stevens Creek Blvd Com/Off/Res Res H 30>P(CG, Res)P(Res)0.47 25 50 0 (- )
Recommended Sites Inventory
6/24/2022 4
Key Map ID
Tier 2/
Total Units
for each
Area
Assessor Parcel
Number Site Address/Intersection
General Plan
Designation
(Current)
General Plan Designation
(New)
Zoning
Designation
(Current)
Zoning
Designation
(New)
Parcel Size
(Gross Acres)
Current
Maximum
Density
(du/ac)
New
Minimum
Density
(du/ac)
Existing Units Total New
Units
16c Tier 2 31623027 20149 Stevens Creek Blvd Com/Off/Res Res H 30>P(CG, Res)P(Res)0.64 25 50 0 (- )
17 0 City Center Node: There are no sites within this area that are currently recommended
18 (133) Heart of the City - East
18a 36906002 10065 E Estates Dr Com/Off/Res Res H 30>P(CG, Res)P(Res)0.90 25 50 0 (45)
36906003 10075 E Estates Dr Com/Off/Res Res H 30>P(CG, Res)P(Res)0.53 25 50 0 (25)
36906004 10075 E Estates Dr Com/Off/Res Res H 30>P(CG, Res)P(Res)1.29 25 50 0 (63)
18b Tier 2 36906007 19550 Stevens Creek Blvd Com/Off/Res Res H 30>P(CG, Res)P(Res)0.64 25 50 0 (- )
Recommended Sites Inventory
6/24/2022 5
Key Map ID
Tier 2/
Total Units
for each
Area
Assessor Parcel
Number Site Address/Intersection
General Plan
Designation
(Current)
General Plan Designation
(New)
Zoning
Designation
(Current)
Zoning
Designation
(New)
Parcel Size
(Gross Acres)
Current
Maximum
Density
(du/ac)
New
Minimum
Density
(du/ac)
Existing Units Total New
Units
18c
Tier 2 37506007 19220 Stevens Creek Blvd Com/Off/Res Res H 30>P(CG, Res)P(Res)0.96 25 50 0 (- )
Tier 2 37506006 19300 Stevens Creek Blvd Com/Off/Res Res H 30>P(CG, Res)P(Res)1.71 25 50 0 (- )
18d Tier 2 37501023 19400 Stevens Creek Blvd Com/Off/Res Res H 30>P(CG, Res)P(Res)1.20 25 50 0 (- )
19 (27) Homestead
19a 31604064 19820 Homestead Rd Res Low 1-5 Res M 10-20 A1-43 P(Res)0.44 5 15 1 (6)
19b 32336018 11025 N De Anza Blvd Com/Res Res H 30>P(CG)P(CG/Res)0.42 35 50 0 (21)
20 (440) Stelling Gateway
20a 32607030 [no address]Com Res H 30>BQ P(Res)0.92 15 50 0 (45)
20b
32609052 20916 Homestead Rd Com Res H 30>P(CG)P(CG/Res)0.74 35 50 0 (36)
32609061 20956 Homestead Rd Com Res H 30>P(CG)P(CG/Res)1.12 35 50 0 (55)
32609060 20990 Homestead Rd Com Res H 30>P(Rec/Enter)P(CG/Res)2.75 50 0 (137)
20c
32607036 [no address]Com Res H 30>P(CG)P(Res)1.74 15 50 0 (86)
32607022 [no address]Com Res H 30>P(CG)P(Res)1.64 15 50 0 (81)
21 (8) Monta Vista Village
21a 35719037 21730 Olive Ave Res 10-15 na P(Res)na 0.58 15 15 3 (5)
21b Tier 2 35717139 21685 Granada Ave Neigh
Com/Res Res 10-15 P[CN,ML, Res
4-12]P(Res)0.14 12 12 1 (- )
21c 35717046 10141 Pasadena Ave Res 10-15 na P(Res)na 0.30 15 15 2 (3)
22 0 North De Anza: There are no sites within this area that are currently recommended
23 (268) South De Anza
23a 35909017 10105 S De Anza Blvd Com/Res Res H 30>P(CG, Res)P(CG/Res)1.00 25 30 0 (30)
23b 35917001 10291 S De Anza Blvd Com/Res Res H 30>P(CG)P(CG/Res)1.32 25 30 0 (38)
23c Tier 2 35918044 10619 South De Anza Blvd Com/Res Res H 30>P[CG]P(CG/Res)0.26 25 30 0 (- )
23d Tier 2
36619078 [no address]Com/Res Res H 30>P(CG, Res 5-
15)P(CG/ Res)0.08 15 30 0 (- )
36619047 1361 S De Anza Blvd Com/Res Res H 30>P(CG, Res 5-
15)P(CG/Res)2.33 15 30 0 (- )
23e Tier 2 36619081 1375 S De Anza Blvd Com/Res Res H 30>P(CG, Res 5-
15)
P(CG/Res)0.30 15 30 0 (- )
Recommended Sites Inventory
6/24/2022 6
Key Map ID
Tier 2/
Total Units
for each
Area
Assessor Parcel
Number Site Address/Intersection
General Plan
Designation
(Current)
General Plan Designation
(New)
Zoning
Designation
(Current)
Zoning
Designation
(New)
Parcel Size
(Gross Acres)
Current
Maximum
Density
(du/ac)
New
Minimum
Density
(du/ac)
Existing Units Total New
Units
23f
36619053 1491 S De Anza Blvd Com/Res Res H 30>P(CG, Res 5-
15)
P(CG/Res)0.56 15 30 0 (16)
36619054 1491 S De Anza Blvd Com/Res Res H 30>P(CG, Res 5-
15)
P(CG/Res)1.75 15 30 0 (52)
23g
36619044 1451 S De Anza Blvd Com/Res Res H 30>P(CG, Res 5-
15)
P(CG/Res)0.44 15 30 0 (13)
36619045 S De Anza Blvd Com/Res Res H 30>P(CG, Res 5-
15)
P(CG/Res)0.07 15 30 0 (2)
23h 36619055 1471 S De Anza Blvd Com/Res Res H 30>P(CG, Res 5-
15)
P(CG/Res)0.40 15 30 0 (12)
23i 36610121 1505 S De Anza Blvd Com/Res Res H 30>P(CG, Res 5-
15)
P(CG/Res)1.34 15 30 0 (40)
23j 36610127 1515 S De Anza Blvd Com/Res Res H 30>P(CG, Res 5-
15)
P(CG/Res)0.86 15 30 0 (25)
23k 36610137 [no address]Com/Res Res H 30>P(CG, Res 5-
15)
P(CG/Res)0.92 15 30 0 (27)
23l 36610054 20555 Prospect Rd Com/Res Res H 30>P(CG, Res 5-
15)
P(Res)0.48 15 30 0 (13)
24 (257) Vallco Shopping District
24a 31620088 [no address]Reg Shopping Res H 30>CG P(Res)5.16 50 0 (257)
25 0 South Vallco Park: There are no sites within this area that are currently recommended
26 (368) North Vallco Park
26a
31605050 10989 N Wolfe Rd Com/Res Res H 30>P(CG, Res)P(CG/Res)1.02 25 30 0 (30)
31645017 10801 N Wolfe Rd Com/Res Res H 30>P(CG, Res)P(CG/Res)1.68 25 30 0 (50)
31605056 10805 N Wolfe Rd Com/Res Res H 30>P(CG, Res)P(CG/Res)6.94 25 30 0 (207)
31605052 10871 N Wolfe Rd Com/Res Res H 30>P(CG, Res)P(CG/Res)0.73 25 30 0 (21)
31605053 10883 N Wolfe Rd Com/Res Res H 30>P(CG, Res)P(CG/Res)0.92 25 30 0 (27)
31605051 10961 N Wolfe Rd Com/Res Res H 30>P(CG, Res)P(CG/Res)0.62 25 30 0 (18)
31605072 11111 N Wolfe Rd Com/Res Res H 30>P(CG, Res)P(CG/Res)0.54 25 30 0 (15)
Subtotal (1,871) 138 1,871
ADUs (144)
TOTAL 482 5,407
RHNA 4,588
Difference 819
Percent of RHNA 118%
Recommended Sites Inventory
8/9/2022 1
Key Map ID
Tier 2/ Total
Units for
each Area
Assessor Parcel
Number Site Address/Intersection
General Plan
Designation
(Current)
Tentative General Plan
Designation (New)
Zoning
Designation
(Current)
Zoning
Designation
(New)
Parcel Size
(Gross Acres)
Current
Maximum
Density
(du/ac)
New
Minimum
Density
(du/ac)
Existing Units Total New
Units
Color Legend
P Pipeline Project: Projects that have received approval
Neighorhood or Special Area Name
Tier 2 Tier 2: Sites that are not currently part of the Draft Sites List
Represents possible lot merges for a single project site
P (3,545) Pipeline Projects Pipeline Project Names
P1
31620120
10101 N Wolfe Rd
10330 N Wolfe Rd
Vallco 0 (2,402)
31620121
P2 32627043 21267 Stevens Creek Blvd Westport 0 (259)
P3 34216087 10625 S. Foothill Blvd Canyon Crossing 0 (18)
P4 36610126
36610061 7357 Prospect Rd Carriage House (1655 S. De Anza)0 (34)
P5 32634066
32634043
10118-10122 Bandley Dr
10145 N. De Anza Blvd Marina Food 0 (206)
P6
34214066
34214104
34214105
22690 Stevens Creek Blvd Bateh Brothers 0 (8)
P7 35907021 10040 Bianchi Way 1 (6)
P8 35920030 20860 Mcclellan Rd 0 (12)
P9
316-06-058
316-06-059
316-06-060
19500 Pruneridge Ave The Hamptons Apartment Homes 342 (600)
PIPELINE SUB-TOTAL 344 3,545
1 (31) Creston-Pharlap
1a 32620034 10231 Adriana Ave Res Low 1-5 Res ML 5-10 R1-5 R1-7.5 1.42 4 10 1 (13)
1b 32616075 22273 Cupertino Rd Res Low 1-5 Res ML 5-10 R1-10 R1-5 1.35 4 5 1 (10)
1c 32650062 10050 N Foothill Blvd Com/Off/Res Res Medium 10-20 P(OA)R3 0.62 15 15 1 (8)
2 0 Fairgrove: There are no sites within this area that are currently recommended
Recommended Sites Inventory
8/9/2022 2
Key Map ID
Tier 2/ Total
Units for
each Area
Assessor Parcel
Number Site Address/Intersection
General Plan
Designation
(Current)
Tentative General Plan
Designation (New)
Zoning
Designation
(Current)
Zoning
Designation
(New)
Parcel Size
(Gross Acres)
Current
Maximum
Density
(du/ac)
New
Minimum
Density
(du/ac)
Existing Units Total New
Units
3 (22) Garden Gate
3a ROW Mary Ave site P/Res Med/High (20-35 DU/Ac)T P(Res)0.75 0 30 0 (22)
4 (12) Homestead Villa
4a 32602063 10860 Maxine Ave Res ML 5-10 Res Medium 10-20 R2-4.25i P(Res)0.71 10 20 2 (12)
5 0 Inspiration Heights: There are no sites within this area that are currently recommended
6 (64) Jollyman
6a 35913019 20865 Mcclellan Rd Res Low 1-5 Res Medium 10-20 R1-10 R1-7.5 1.00 5 20 0 (20)
6b 35905133 21050 Mcclellan Rd Com/Off/Res Res Medium 10-20 P P(R-3)0.78 15 30 0 (23)
6c 35919043 7540 McClellan Rd Low Den (1-5
DU/Ac.)Res Medium 10-20 R1-6 R1-C 0.33 5 10 1 (- )
6d 35920028 20920 Mcclellan Rd Quasi-Public Med/High (20-35 DU/Ac)BQ P(Res)0.71 0 30 0 (21)
7 (72) Monta Vista North
7a
35606001 10857 Linda Vista Dr Res Low 1-5 Med/High (20-35 DU/Ac)R1-7.5 P(R-3)0.73 5 30 1 (21)
35606002 10867 Linda Vista Dr Res Low 1-5 Med/High (20-35 DU/Ac)R1-7.5 P(R-3)0.69 5 30 1 (20)
35606003 10877 Linda Vista Dr Res Low 1-5 Med/High (20-35 DU/Ac)R1-7.5 P(R-3)0.25 5 30 1 (7)
35606004 10887 Linda Vista Dr Res Low 1-5 Med/High (20-35 DU/Ac)R1-7.5 P(R-3)0.87 5 30 1 (25)
7b Tier 2 35705010 22381 McClellan Rd Res Low 1-5 Res Medium 10-20 R1-10 R-1C 0.44 5 5 1 (- )
8 (29) Monta Vista South
Recommended Sites Inventory
8/9/2022 3
Key Map ID
Tier 2/ Total
Units for
each Area
Assessor Parcel
Number Site Address/Intersection
General Plan
Designation
(Current)
Tentative General Plan
Designation (New)
Zoning
Designation
(Current)
Zoning
Designation
(New)
Parcel Size
(Gross Acres)
Current
Maximum
Density
(du/ac)
New
Minimum
Density
(du/ac)
Existing Units Total New
Units
8a Tier 2 36231001 20666 Cleo Ave Res Medium
10-20 Med/High (20-35 DU/Ac)P(R3)P(Res)0.25 20 30 1 (- )
8b 36231030 [no address]Res Medium
10-20 Med/High (20-35 DU/Ac)P(R3)P(Res)0.23 20 30 0 (6)
8c
35623057 21710 Regnart Rd Res Very Low
S/D
Res Low 1-5 RHS R1-5 1.46 15 1 (21)
35623001 21710 Regnart Rd None Res Low 1-5 RHS R1-5 0.15 15 0 (2)
8d Tier 2 36638021 21530 Rainbow Dr Res Very Low
S/D
TBD RHS R1-7.5 0.43 5 5 1 (- )
9 (61) North Blaney
9a
31643009 10730 N Blaney Ave Ind Med/High (20-35 DU/Ac)P(R2, Mini-
Stor)P(Res)1.76 0 30 1 (51)
31643008 10710 N Blaney Ave Res Low Med
5-10 Med/High (20-35 DU/Ac)R-2 P(Res)0.37 10 30 1 (10)
10 0 Rancho Rincondada: There are no sites within this area that are currently recommended
11 (102) South Blaney
11a
36934053 10787 S Blaney Ave Com/Res Med/High (20-35 DU/Ac)P(CG)P(CG/Res)0.54 15 20 0 (11)
36934052 10891 S Blaney Ave Com/Res Med/High (20-35 DU/Ac)P(CG)P(CG/Res)2.70 15 20 0 (54)
11b
36937028 10710 S De Anza Blvd Com/Res Med/High (20-35 DU/Ac)R2 P(CG/Res)0.56 25 30 0 (17)
36937022 20421 Bollinger Rd Medium (10-
20 DU/Ac)Med/High (20-35 DU/Ac)R3 P(Res)0.39 20 30 0 (12)
36937023 20411 Bollinger Rd Medium (10-
20 DU/Ac)Med/High (20-35 DU/Ac)R3 P(Res)0.22 20 30 2 (5)
36937024 20431 Bollinger Rd Medium (10-
20 DU/Ac)Med/High (20-35 DU/Ac)R3 P(Res)0.17 20 30 1 (4)
12 0 Oak Valley Neighborhood: There are no sites within this area that are currently recommended
13 (23) Bubb Road
13a 35720044 21431 Mcclellan Rd Ind/Res/Com High (>35 DU/Ac)ML-rc P(Res)0.47 20 50 1 (23)
14 0 Heart of the City - West: There are no sites within this area that are currently recommended
15 0 Heart of the City - Crossroads
15a Tier 2 32634047 10125 Bandley Dr Com/Off/Res High (>35 DU/Ac)P(CG, Res)P(Res)1.09 25 50 0 (- )
15b Tier 2 35907006 20950 Stevens Creek Blvd Com/Off/Res High (>35 DU/Ac)P(CG, Res)P(Res)0.32 25 50 0 (- )
15c Tier 2 35908025 20840 Stevens Creek Blvd Com/Off/Res Med/High (20-35 DU/Ac)P(CG, Res)P(CG/Res)0.83 25 30 0 (- )
Recommended Sites Inventory
8/9/2022 4
Key Map ID
Tier 2/ Total
Units for
each Area
Assessor Parcel
Number Site Address/Intersection
General Plan
Designation
(Current)
Tentative General Plan
Designation (New)
Zoning
Designation
(Current)
Zoning
Designation
(New)
Parcel Size
(Gross Acres)
Current
Maximum
Density
(du/ac)
New
Minimum
Density
(du/ac)
Existing Units Total New
Units
15d Tier 2 35908028 20730 Stevens Creek Blvd Com/Off/Res Med/High (20-35 DU/Ac)P(CG, Res)P(CG/Res)10.45 25 30 0 (- )
15e Tier 2
35908027 20830 Stevens Creek Blvd
Com/Off/Res Med/High (20-35 DU/Ac)P(CG, Res)P(CG/Res)0.81 25 30 0 (- )
15f Tier 2
35908029 20750 Stevens Creek Blvd
Com/Off/Res Med/High (20-35 DU/Ac)P(CG, Res)P(CG/Res)0.92 25 30 0 (- )
15g Tier 2
35908026 20840 Stevens Creek Blvd
Com/Off/Res Med/High (20-35 DU/Ac)P(CG, Res)P(CG/Res)0.45 25 30 0 (- )
16 0 Heart of the City - Central
16a Tier 2 36905007 19990 Stevens Creek Blvd Com/Off/Res High (>35 DU/Ac)P(CG, Res)P(Res)0.46 25 50 0 -
16b Tier 2 36903005 20010 Stevens Creek Blvd Com/Off/Res High (>35 DU/Ac)P(CG, Res)P(Res)0.47 25 50 0 -
16c Tier 2 31623027 20149 Stevens Creek Blvd Com/Off/Res High (>35 DU/Ac)P(CG, Res)P(Res)0.64 25 50 0 -
17 0 City Center Node: There are no sites within this area that are currently recommended
18 (165) Heart of the City - East
18a 36906002 10065 E Estates Dr Com/Off/Res High (>35 DU/Ac)P(CG, Res)P(Res)0.90 25 50 0 (45)
36906003 10075 E Estates Dr Com/Off/Res High (>35 DU/Ac)P(CG, Res)P(Res)0.53 25 50 0 (25)
36906004 10075 E Estates Dr Com/Off/Res High (>35 DU/Ac)P(CG, Res)P(Res)1.29 25 50 0 (63)
18b 36906007 19550 Stevens Creek Blvd Com/Off/Res High (>35 DU/Ac)P(CG, Res)P(Res)0.64 25 50 0 (32)
Recommended Sites Inventory
8/9/2022 5
Key Map ID
Tier 2/ Total
Units for
each Area
Assessor Parcel
Number Site Address/Intersection
General Plan
Designation
(Current)
Tentative General Plan
Designation (New)
Zoning
Designation
(Current)
Zoning
Designation
(New)
Parcel Size
(Gross Acres)
Current
Maximum
Density
(du/ac)
New
Minimum
Density
(du/ac)
Existing Units Total New
Units
18c Tier 2
37506007 19220 Stevens Creek Blvd Com/Off/Res High (>35 DU/Ac)P(CG, Res)P(Res)0.96 25 50 0 (- )
37506006 19300 Stevens Creek Blvd Com/Off/Res High (>35 DU/Ac)P(CG, Res)P(Res)1.71 25 50 0 (- )
18d Tier 2 37501023 19400 Stevens Creek Blvd Com/Off/Res High (>35 DU/Ac)P(CG, Res)P(Res)1.20 25 50 0 (- )
19 (27) Homestead
19a 31604064 19820 Homestead Rd Res Low 1-5 Res M 10-20 A1-43 P(Res)0.44 5 15 1 (6)
19b 32336018 11025 N De Anza Blvd Com/Res High (>35 DU/Ac)P(CG)P(CG/Res)0.42 35 50 0 (21)
20 (440) Stelling Gateway
20a 32607030 [no address]Com High (>35 DU/Ac)BQ P(Res)0.92 15 50 0 (45)
20b
32609052 20916 Homestead Rd Com High (>35 DU/Ac)P(CG)P(CG/Res)0.74 35 50 0 (36)
32609061 20956 Homestead Rd Com High (>35 DU/Ac)P(CG)P(CG/Res)1.12 35 50 0 (55)
32609060 20990 Homestead Rd Com High (>35 DU/Ac)P(Rec/Enter)P(CG/Res)2.75 50 0 (137)
20c
32607036 [no address]Com High (>35 DU/Ac)P(CG)P(Res)1.74 15 50 0 (86)
32607022 [no address]Com High (>35 DU/Ac)P(CG)P(Res)1.64 15 50 0 (81)
21 0 Monta Vista Village: There are no sites within this area that are currently recommended
22 0 North De Anza: There are no sites within this area that are currently recommended
23 (462) South De Anza
23a 35909017 10105 S De Anza Blvd Com/Res High (>35 DU/Ac)P(CG, Res)P(CG/Res)1.00 25 50 0 (50)
23b 35917001 10291 S De Anza Blvd Com/Res High (>35 DU/Ac)P(CG)P(CG/Res)1.32 25 50 0 (66)
23c Tier 2 35918044 10619 South De Anza Blvd Com/Res Med/High (20-35 DU/Ac)P[CG]P(CG/Res)0.26 25 30 0 (- )
23d
36619078 [no address]Com/Res High (>35 DU/Ac)P(CG, Res 5-
15)P(CG/ Res)0.08 15 50 0 (4)
36619047 1361 S De Anza Blvd Com/Res High (>35 DU/Ac)P(CG, Res 5-
15)P(CG/Res)2.33 15 50 0 (117)
23e Tier 2 36619081 1375 S De Anza Blvd Com/Res Med/High (20-35 DU/Ac)P(CG, Res 5-
15)
P(CG/Res)0.30 15 30 0 (- )
Recommended Sites Inventory
8/9/2022 6
Key Map ID
Tier 2/ Total
Units for
each Area
Assessor Parcel
Number Site Address/Intersection
General Plan
Designation
(Current)
Tentative General Plan
Designation (New)
Zoning
Designation
(Current)
Zoning
Designation
(New)
Parcel Size
(Gross Acres)
Current
Maximum
Density
(du/ac)
New
Minimum
Density
(du/ac)
Existing Units Total New
Units
23f Tier 2
36619053 1491 S De Anza Blvd Com/Res Med/High (20-35 DU/Ac)P(CG, Res 5-
15)
P(CG/Res)0.56 15 30 0 (- )
36619054 1491 S De Anza Blvd Com/Res Med/High (20-35 DU/Ac)P(CG, Res 5-
15)
P(CG/Res)1.75 15 30 0 (- )
23g
36619044 1451 S De Anza Blvd Com/Res High (>35 DU/Ac)P(CG, Res 5-
15)
P(CG/Res)0.44 15 50 0 (22)
36619045 S De Anza Blvd Com/Res High (>35 DU/Ac)P(CG, Res 5-
15)
P(CG/Res)0.07 15 50 0 (4)
23h 36619055 1471 S De Anza Blvd Com/Res High (>35 DU/Ac)P(CG, Res 5-
15)
P(CG/Res)0.40 15 50 0 (20)
23i 36610121 1505 S De Anza Blvd Com/Res High (>35 DU/Ac)P(CG, Res 5-
15)
P(CG/Res)1.34 15 50 0 (67)
23j 36610127 1515 S De Anza Blvd Com/Res High (>35 DU/Ac)P(CG, Res 5-
15)
P(CG/Res)0.86 15 50 0 (43)
23k 36610137 [no address]Com/Res High (>35 DU/Ac)P(CG, Res 5-
15)
P(CG/Res)0.92 15 50 0 (46)
23l 36610054 20555 Prospect Rd Com/Res High (>35 DU/Ac)P(CG, Res 5-
15)
P(Res)0.48 15 50 0 (24)
24 (257) Vallco Shopping District
24a 31620088 [no address]Reg Shopping High (>35 DU/Ac)CG P(Res)5.16 50 0 (257)
25 0 South Vallco Park: There are no sites within this area that are currently recommended
(323) (323) North Vallco Park
26a
31605050 10989 N Wolfe Rd Com/Res Med/High (20-35 DU/Ac)P(CG, Res)P(CG/Res)1.02 25 30 0 (31)
31605056 10805 N Wolfe Rd Com/Res Med/High (20-35 DU/Ac)P(CG, Res)P(CG/Res)6.94 25 30 0 (208)
31605052 10871 N Wolfe Rd Com/Res Med/High (20-35 DU/Ac)P(CG, Res)P(CG/Res)0.73 25 30 0 (22)
31605053 10883 N Wolfe Rd Com/Res Med/High (20-35 DU/Ac)P(CG, Res)P(CG/Res)0.92 25 30 0 (28)
31605051 10961 N Wolfe Rd Com/Res Med/High (20-35 DU/Ac)P(CG, Res)P(CG/Res)0.62 25 30 0 (19)
31605072 11111 N Wolfe Rd Com/Res Med/High (20-35 DU/Ac)P(CG, Res)P(CG/Res)0.54 25 30 0 (16)
Recommended Sites Inventory
8/9/2022 7
Key Map ID
Tier 2/ Total
Units for
each Area
Assessor Parcel
Number Site Address/Intersection
General Plan
Designation
(Current)
Tentative General Plan
Designation (New)
Zoning
Designation
(Current)
Zoning
Designation
(New)
Parcel Size
(Gross Acres)
Current
Maximum
Density
(du/ac)
New
Minimum
Density
(du/ac)
Existing Units Total New
Units
Subtotal (2,090) 21 2,090
ADUs (200)
TOTAL (Gross)5,835
TOTAL (Net)365 5,470
RHNA 4,588
Difference 882
Percent of RHNA 119%
CC 08-16-2022
Item No. 24
Attachment C -Pipeline Tier 1
Tier 2 Projects
Written Communications
i - '..."-.a.'-',,J'-.JL_,-2'Th,"-...,;-':'-<-_____-'J=-a':r.,'3.\':'::,_,?. ?,, :..:.4'-_1==" -"-..I"-=-:-:}"" -"a-"- N
U ' , } . _ " 71 . '- } l'; ,, -" . :- , ,, Ik , r " 1,., :t .. . . , , . {, . a;i" )!ffi#f, .,,a*avi- }##s-%% 0(s i:+ - r "' a # ,l 0 - ,in I -,-,,,, ,. ._ . , _ _ ., .. _..'!! :.lt,i :,,t i,a}_0 _. -. . ,, . ,
oi:-X,%%,,_-. ___,v+":::0__)'t4omveiisiatea_d. ,'Jff)'l.s,l""':HOmRedSi:affl,.Ni;}-====;-'_ - =I'=-=------ - i=___ - - ["-= 77 } - l- i
-A '-= " -. '-" ,:..'L_ - I It""-"t '.:::":J__-I ffl _ 'o -' m * i;v . - _ _J ' t ,. -a' i
'-'-= -----=.Ir,,qnpx'f-.",-"-q,,,,,,hpe -==- ,:Y"'-'a",-'
a
-,i ... _ __ _ ii li. , l: i,-i - ' -- -. 'p _- " "5 - ,:,. ..-' " ;t '=' !-' -" - i,-:o.'c'-'1: --'..NorthuBlffiney-."-,, "" p""_'....."'(,'.'.,'=l
B§ %/BllBy CrestqnJPhadap -_- " _ ':--- _ '_z - - - - ', ' - Z.i ,- .-Z ;' - ,'Za" i
l- i l(& 1 _' a - I- 'l - S& _ , i ," i - I "'; '_ _ ' - '- --" - ' - a '
._2--S 1. '- -i al: ' , _ i i ._. . -.-ll_ "'-.i. '1
q-'L-r:-'J.k.ia p '=-:-- = !,'a-l'f'J,E !9-!l
$-'i -'.. - ' a -i- EHeartofthe' _:.:" - ' a";' "' "!!!t' t -., .A - I,-_=,_,.,._7_'m;'.'_'i==-,J_..L,. :-%_t;=.;".-., -l:,_-__,,,a
J4, _ :' . _ _ _ .11,,l,,, . . ., . 1. . . r _ , , l: . . rl' N s n-ii,i (z. ().al., z n:eN l:, :l.__J ' t Hi'art.of i _4___!!@., ;-_) :).- .:J1:-jt!,7'_J: -.d_',q:_,44 ';'-;ta" . =),. ' a7
q a - i _ ..,_ _. _ - = - _ _ '11' _ ... -. -i City - Wesf.i j ', i;l:"'f a '=' - _ -- -- : . -M6m:aVista:,a, _ , ,,,,
J-'
4 _
5 . ' _ - - - - ' L ___Th ------ - - - -
, . . .1 - : . ,
_ _ . . ' " ' s. 1 j '
______ - - -- - .: ' - -MrrlrllJn TT'rl : a -- -:
u ; - ' - -_ - _ the Cit9- " - -: _ _ . . .#: -: _ _ _ . _ _ii i/ . i.. , . _ .-Central l' _ " ".. ' . '. . - ' .. i ,__--- ,_ ____ i
;" - -- - - -- - " o" o) " - - ' _ _: - " " a - '-' - l' - - - ."a"" " Il-_ _l I i _ i ' i- l
I
-!l' i ' I' ___ :_?' "- _ - ' ; ' -- "
l ,_, _ i --- _ . i. , <.. i . ., . _i , . . , . N . " i . :___ l,
i 01 ' - -.i " "a - ." -_ _ - f- _ 'RanCFIO- -' . - -' i-- "N - - a- '3 .' l_ e -' ' x.. . l'
Inspi nation. _ _ p..;7:. .1" - Q/l,oEi,s:'t-taha-. ,,._J5:.,f, :f'f.'.t:. - 'L:-. ___f_'_:-",If fJJ,""J'ii XT':J:.
i- - - ' ml-. . 5-
'kh
- Heights ; " . .8/
c'7o'a'.J'' a
_.t7 I -- - t!=: ' _ ' - - S S a ' - ' _ _ - [. "si " _ ' - :, "-..'Rb ' _ - " - . _ _ _ '# y- M'._"""a r ! :.a - --- :.- - ' R' -
____ . _ _ , , _ - - - .,' i + r ]__ ' >,J , _ --, " " - i'a__ " , _ -% ) '_ - - __ 4 0 () .- , 4 _a ti
) _ p ,
5 - " ' - --- ---'--- ---" -i- - - - - -l ' - - - o- - - . _ _ _ _ . _, - I - . . _ b-_ ' le .- la. '- _ _ ___ __ : ( _ , _ % . - , , , ( 4 _- - - -_ - I W, f _ l _ %t -a -t- - I
i --l_ [ - 0 l" " t}-if s='l, >i ;Aao'z --"l' A -a a
i _ * 7, _ 1_ i , z -_ a , + _- _ , _ -.=i + - - - - 'a , I . _ - - i 2a)a*- -if .l'ag l: a -' a } . ,,' 4'! ; l ' ' t _ 5.. __ _ - . , , [ _ a - + , _'- - -- - -- - alj _ _
I ' I < I _ _ . _ ., . . :, . _ ,. _ . _ _ ,l_%l, :_a< _ . - l':__- . .l_ : . . ., - q-. . _ _ - a+ _ - - :--- - ' $ I
11 _ _ , (= I , I __ , + l( ; . _4 } _ _ _ a _ __ I l _ l -
'i ,o ' "_ . ...,6-.J' ___' - -i" .xorita' . ....)',.;.i.. 1., - .. _ . -=, """ D" VISta _ - -RamboQ Dr- ' i S ' : a a "" "a - " - ' a
% - - g ' / I - € - - a) "a a' - I a' #' a I i= - a a
(i .l'a ' - " Sou'h-'' -- "i " 'au';,.,"a"r ,"I"a:_,"a-'ai"i,'fh"Eaoa"'+i ",t,,,"-")a-,"' 's'a - <- - .- % 11 A - % -- : , . i ( a _ y , la-, =a I '- . l _ aaia , =,, , _,-) , , ., I - , , :
a + ' t- i a
a!' a €a' < x "a _
M , , _ } _ - . , , - 0 = +_-,. . -, - ,. ,, 4 , %_ : gi s s , ;a , i,ia, . ,, v ,(, *_ ., . ,.. , ,' a - " ; ,. ,. ; _, . 1, -
; - "'==-= ["a:"==-':zA - "-l- ._-'i._n:=,_=-=:"-=-=='=+'=-q
- ' Xa I % s % a t " r ',
y a- I :,'a ' l ' _i ' I '!;:,"a;";r= - -b ,tF aJ
+ _ -4 # 1 lyl' i 'h+**&i t:::11.1"1ll':Ill,al,l,:.lal%l:01l'll;l,aZ,Rlll0%.lll>aal,l"'W..l:a%,";.:fl"hl,'a':'* ffl= a-, :f_ :a -,,,'a" s -Z ol -Ja" ; 0 ' yo '- ," :,%"-'i 'a'T "' "J,,%o"'aa:""'T":"a - " " a', _ ,'i ,' !l,%%'a;"i, ,' a a " -
i s - i - ' a S '- - - - a s- vTh - " - -
aimimttiinumxaii:imttvxiiabimmsttmmtm
Pipeline, Tier 1, and Tier 2 Projects
§ner 1 Pmjects
§Tier 2 Pmjects
§pipeline Projects € Ce"eAgteh"or,rhuoodnda/ffspaial
o 0.25 0.5 1 Miles
Reference Map for Recommended Sites
From:Vijaya Sarathy Kasi
To:City Clerk
Subject:Regarding housing on vacant land on 21670 Lomita Ave (Bubb Rd area) -- Comments City Council Meeting
Date:Tuesday, August 16, 2022 9:38:30 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Good evening Mayor Paul, council members and staff.
I would like to thank you for the opportunity to voice our opinion.
We would like to write this email as a follow-up to our discussion to plead our case and
express deep interest and commitment to build a single family residence on the vacant land at
21670 Lomita Ave Cupertino 95014 (APN 357-18-005) intersection of Lomita and Imperial ,
for our family to move in.
21670 Lomita Ave is a vacant land with approximate sq footage of 5800 sq feet, and is
currently zoned as ML and from our understanding the only impediment to us building a home
here is the zoning. We would like to plead some of our observations with regards to this
property:
1) While the property is zoned as ML, it is surrounded by a number of residential
buildings.We have townhomes opposite to the land which is a corner lot. In fact even though
the area is zoned as ML there is no clear demarcation on the zoning with the area having a
mixture of ML and residential properties next to each other. We honestly feel a single family
residence here will fit right into the neighborhood without standing out.
2) There are at least a couple of properties right next or very close to the property that are
residences on ML zoning and in some cases on an even smaller lot.
3) With the land currently being vacant land there is no fear of any kind of displacement.
4) The property is located very conveniently close to the top rated schools in Cupertino. We
have two kids aged 8 years and 2 and it would be ideal if we are able to move in here and our
kids get to attend Cupertino schools
5) We have been constantly following the housing element update, the joint planning
commission and housing commission meetings. We have noticed discussions where even
upzoning of certain areas of the Bubb Road special area were being discussed if the desired
interest from owners is seen. We would like to take this opportunity to express great interest
and commitment to build a single family home and move in here with our family.
We also feel this could be one of the building sites on the western side (Monta Vista) which
could help in a small way improve the balance of new housing on the two sides of Cupertino.
Also, we are seeing a drop in school attendance in Cupertino, as mentioned above we have
two kids who would love to attend the highly rated Cupertino schools here and we can
envision living here for a while if granted permission.
We hope you will consider our request to build a single family home on this vacant land.
We will be available through email or phone (919-332-0234) should you require any
information from our side.
Thanks and Regards
Vijay and Srinithyaa
From:Randy Ong
To:City Clerk
Subject:Evulich Property Re-zoning
Date:Tuesday, August 16, 2022 6:27:12 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Council Members,
I would like to voice my deepest concerns in the possibility of re-zoning the Evulich property, which could
result in adding approximately 72 units on Linda Vista. It would almost triple the units that are already on
this street. There already is a significant traffic problem on Linda Vista for several reasons. First, because
of the location of Kennedy Middle School, Monta Vista High School, and Lincoln Elementary School,
Linda Vista is a major traffic lane for parents and students who drive, bike, or walk to school in the
mornings and back. This is not just a congestion issue, but a safety issue. Secondly, that street is often used
as a short cut to avoid getting on the freeways if you go from Los Altos/Palo Alto to San Jose. (I have
friends that told me they do just that). Furthermore, all the streets that lead to the Freeways, not just Linda
Vista, will be dramatically affected, which includes Bubb Road, Byrne Ave, and Foothill. Traffic is already
congested in the mornings and afternoons to the point of beyond frustration.
While I appreciate the need for more affordable housing, Evulich is located too far away from major traffic
roads and freeways. This will cause more and un-necessary traffic log jams than if the affordable housing
were located somewhere where the traffic would be a less of an impact, i.e. closer to the freeways and a
smaller percent of increase in density.
Also, I think the affordable housing should be located where the property tax values of existing housing are
more similar. Homes are going for $3.5 million dollars right now on Linda Vista. The increase traffic will
significantly lower the property values which hurt not just the home owners, but the tax revenue for the
county.
Sincerely,
Randy Ong
From:Sean Hughes
To:City Clerk
Subject:Comment on City Council Agenda Items 12. and 24.
Date:Tuesday, August 16, 2022 3:57:11 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hello,
I would like to provide the following comment on the Agenda items on the CAP adoption
(Item 12) and the Housing Sites HE Update (Item 24).
I have broken my commentary into a summarized version and a more in-depth one given the
nature of Item 12. In summary:
Parts of the CAP are quite robust and I support the aim to increase public transit, but
would hope to see certain elements (detailed below) given further consideration with the
logistical implications in mind. In addition, the measures to increase public transit seem
quite weak, and without any consequence in missing the goals set in that section.
I urge the Council and staff to adjust their HE approach, which currently over-relies on
pipeline projects. While this was dismissed as non-factual by the sitting Planning
Commissioner chair, a recent HCD letter to San Francisco validates previous
commenters' concerns around Cupertino's current reliance on pipeline projects for HE
compliance. I hope that the council can begin to start thinking about more robust
solutions (zoning for increased density, Heart of the City focus, removal of parking
requirements, etc.) for building more housing for all.
Regards,
Sean
For more detailed commentary on the CAP Update, please see below:
Measure TR-2 is overly reliant on Via. Compared to even the slowest days on the VTA,
Via doesn't come close to the magnitudes of adoption. It is a good compliment, but the
Via shuttle service should not be the cornerstone of our "transit" adoption strategy.
Moreover a private ride request app using a small ICE shuttle is hardly a green
alternative, and is arguably not even mass transit (all VTA buses can carry double if not
more than the number of passengers a Via shuttle can)
TR-2.7: Requiring e-scooters or rideshare for multi-family housing will only ensure that
the cost of multi-family housing will rise, making it less likely for affordable, high-
density projects to pencil out. This measure could be written in a technology agnostic
way, or could be a carrot rather than a stick type of policy - as a requirement is going to
have unintended consequences of raising the cost of future housing projects.
I strongly support BE 2.4 and hope the council keeps it as part of the CAP update
I think BE 2.5 should be developed in coordination with other groups, agencies and/or
regional bodies. We don't need a "Cupertino-specific" definition of equity - equity
metrics have already been created. In addition this is a flawed measurement - of course,
electrification may result in raised costs, but in those cases, that is exactly where the
gov't should step in. If we just reject all projects where electrification raises costs
compared to the status quo, there won't be change in precisely the communities and for
the people who need it most; esp if you consider the public health benefits and new
research around the effects of gas stoves (even when turned off) on asthma rates and
other respiratory health issues.
CC 08-16-2022
Item No. 24
Attachment C -Pipeline Tier 1
Tier 2 Projects
Written Communications
i - '..."-.a.'-',,J'-.JL_,-2'Th,"-...,;-':'-<-_____-'J=-a':r.,'3.\':'::,_,?. ?,, :..:.4'-_1==" -"-..I"-=-:-:}"" -"a-"- N
U ' , } . _ " 71 . '- } l'; ,, -" . :- , ,, Ik , r " 1,., :t .. . . , , . {, . a;i" )!ffi#f, .,,a*avi- }##s-%% 0(s i:+ - r "' a # ,l 0 - ,in I -,-,,,, ,. ._ . , _ _ ., .. _..'!! :.lt,i :,,t i,a}_0 _. -. . ,, . ,
oi:-X,%%,,_-. ___,v+":::0__)'t4omveiisiatea_d. ,'Jff)'l.s,l""':HOmRedSi:affl,.Ni;}-====;-'_ - =I'=-=------ - i=___ - - ["-= 77 } - l- i
-A '-= " -. '-" ,:..'L_ - I It""-"t '.:::":J__-I ffl _ 'o -' m * i;v . - _ _J ' t ,. -a' i
'-'-= -----=.Ir,,qnpx'f-.",-"-q,,,,,,hpe -==- ,:Y"'-'a",-'
a
-,i ... _ __ _ ii li. , l: i,-i - ' -- -. 'p _- " "5 - ,:,. ..-' " ;t '=' !-' -" - i,-:o.'c'-'1: --'..NorthuBlffiney-."-,, "" p""_'....."'(,'.'.,'=l
B§ %/BllBy CrestqnJPhadap -_- " _ ':--- _ '_z - - - - ', ' - Z.i ,- .-Z ;' - ,'Za" i
l- i l(& 1 _' a - I- 'l - S& _ , i ," i - I "'; '_ _ ' - '- --" - ' - a '
._2--S 1. '- -i al: ' , _ i i ._. . -.-ll_ "'-.i. '1
q-'L-r:-'J.k.ia p '=-:-- = !,'a-l'f'J,E !9-!l
$-'i -'.. - ' a -i- EHeartofthe' _:.:" - ' a";' "' "!!!t' t -., .A - I,-_=,_,.,._7_'m;'.'_'i==-,J_..L,. :-%_t;=.;".-., -l:,_-__,,,a
J4, _ :' . _ _ _ .11,,l,,, . . ., . 1. . . r _ , , l: . . rl' N s n-ii,i (z. ().al., z n:eN l:, :l.__J ' t Hi'art.of i _4___!!@., ;-_) :).- .:J1:-jt!,7'_J: -.d_',q:_,44 ';'-;ta" . =),. ' a7
q a - i _ ..,_ _. _ - = - _ _ '11' _ ... -. -i City - Wesf.i j ', i;l:"'f a '=' - _ -- -- : . -M6m:aVista:,a, _ , ,,,,
J-'
4 _
5 . ' _ - - - - ' L ___Th ------ - - - -
, . . .1 - : . ,
_ _ . . ' " ' s. 1 j '
______ - - -- - .: ' - -MrrlrllJn TT'rl : a -- -:
u ; - ' - -_ - _ the Cit9- " - -: _ _ . . .#: -: _ _ _ . _ _ii i/ . i.. , . _ .-Central l' _ " ".. ' . '. . - ' .. i ,__--- ,_ ____ i
;" - -- - - -- - " o" o) " - - ' _ _: - " " a - '-' - l' - - - ."a"" " Il-_ _l I i _ i ' i- l
I
-!l' i ' I' ___ :_?' "- _ - ' ; ' -- "
l ,_, _ i --- _ . i. , <.. i . ., . _i , . . , . N . " i . :___ l,
i 01 ' - -.i " "a - ." -_ _ - f- _ 'RanCFIO- -' . - -' i-- "N - - a- '3 .' l_ e -' ' x.. . l'
Inspi nation. _ _ p..;7:. .1" - Q/l,oEi,s:'t-taha-. ,,._J5:.,f, :f'f.'.t:. - 'L:-. ___f_'_:-",If fJJ,""J'ii XT':J:.
i- - - ' ml-. . 5-
'kh
- Heights ; " . .8/
c'7o'a'.J'' a
_.t7 I -- - t!=: ' _ ' - - S S a ' - ' _ _ - [. "si " _ ' - :, "-..'Rb ' _ - " - . _ _ _ '# y- M'._"""a r ! :.a - --- :.- - ' R' -
____ . _ _ , , _ - - - .,' i + r ]__ ' >,J , _ --, " " - i'a__ " , _ -% ) '_ - - __ 4 0 () .- , 4 _a ti
) _ p ,
5 - " ' - --- ---'--- ---" -i- - - - - -l ' - - - o- - - . _ _ _ _ . _, - I - . . _ b-_ ' le .- la. '- _ _ ___ __ : ( _ , _ % . - , , , ( 4 _- - - -_ - I W, f _ l _ %t -a -t- - I
i --l_ [ - 0 l" " t}-if s='l, >i ;Aao'z --"l' A -a a
i _ * 7, _ 1_ i , z -_ a , + _- _ , _ -.=i + - - - - 'a , I . _ - - i 2a)a*- -if .l'ag l: a -' a } . ,,' 4'! ; l ' ' t _ 5.. __ _ - . , , [ _ a - + , _'- - -- - -- - alj _ _
I ' I < I _ _ . _ ., . . :, . _ ,. _ . _ _ ,l_%l, :_a< _ . - l':__- . .l_ : . . ., - q-. . _ _ - a+ _ - - :--- - ' $ I
11 _ _ , (= I , I __ , + l( ; . _4 } _ _ _ a _ __ I l _ l -
'i ,o ' "_ . ...,6-.J' ___' - -i" .xorita' . ....)',.;.i.. 1., - .. _ . -=, """ D" VISta _ - -RamboQ Dr- ' i S ' : a a "" "a - " - ' a
% - - g ' / I - € - - a) "a a' - I a' #' a I i= - a a
(i .l'a ' - " Sou'h-'' -- "i " 'au';,.,"a"r ,"I"a:_,"a-'ai"i,'fh"Eaoa"'+i ",t,,,"-")a-,"' 's'a - <- - .- % 11 A - % -- : , . i ( a _ y , la-, =a I '- . l _ aaia , =,, , _,-) , , ., I - , , :
a + ' t- i a
a!' a €a' < x "a _
M , , _ } _ - . , , - 0 = +_-,. . -, - ,. ,, 4 , %_ : gi s s , ;a , i,ia, . ,, v ,(, *_ ., . ,.. , ,' a - " ; ,. ,. ; _, . 1, -
; - "'==-= ["a:"==-':zA - "-l- ._-'i._n:=,_=-=:"-=-=='=+'=-q
- ' Xa I % s % a t " r ',
y a- I :,'a ' l ' _i ' I '!;:,"a;";r= - -b ,tF aJ
+ _ -4 # 1 lyl' i 'h+**&i t:::11.1"1ll':Ill,al,l,:.lal%l:01l'll;l,aZ,Rlll0%.lll>aal,l"'W..l:a%,";.:fl"hl,'a':'* ffl= a-, :f_ :a -,,,'a" s -Z ol -Ja" ; 0 ' yo '- ," :,%"-'i 'a'T "' "J,,%o"'aa:""'T":"a - " " a', _ ,'i ,' !l,%%'a;"i, ,' a a " -
i s - i - ' a S '- - - - a s- vTh - " - -
aimimttiinumxaii:imttvxiiabimmsttmmtm
Pipeline, Tier 1, and Tier 2 Projects
§ner 1 Pmjects
§Tier 2 Pmjects
§pipeline Projects € Ce"eAgteh"or,rhuoodnda/ffspaial
o 0.25 0.5 1 Miles
1
2
3
4
5
12
13
14 15
16
19
23
24
26
18
1011
67
8
21
9
20
From:Rashi Sharma
To:City Clerk
Subject:Item 12 Comment (to be read into the record)
Date:Tuesday, August 16, 2022 9:00:36 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Good evening Mayor Paul, Vice-Mayor Chao, Councilmembers, and City Manager.
My name is Rashi Sharma and I am a high school student. I am also an intern with
the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society and am concerned about our climate and
biodiversity crises, which continue to impact us on a both global and local scale. In
Cupertino Climate Action Plan 2.0, SCVAS supports the CS-1 and CS-2 Actions,
which includes actions such as ensuring the sustainability of the urban forest (as
detailed in 1.3), and creating new natural areas in existing open spaces (as described
in 2.1). We are concerned, however, about impacts of trail connections in ecologically
sensitive areas, especially the open space along Stevens Creek Corridor. Please
prioritize wildlife and habitat connectivity in Action CS-2, as suggested in the letter
Audubon sent earlier today.
We hope to see a future centered around sustainability that includes the urban forest,
wildlife habitats and the preservation of ecological corridors.
Thank you.
From:Don Halsey
To:City Clerk
Date:Tuesday, August 16, 2022 7:24:19 PM
Attachments:Slides for CCC on 8-16-22.pptx
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
I wanted to have these slides presented at the 8/16 meeting, and I replied to the email that told
me I had been scheduled. I see now that that email was a noreply email. So my presentation
was somewhat crippled by the lack of these slides. So here they are.
Public Comments to Cupertino City Council
about
Blackberry Farm Golf vs. Natural Habitat
8/16/22
Don Halsey
650 996 3021
Two emails sent to CCC 7/19/22
•Greens fees (an economic analysis)
•Homeless (a risk analysis)
$2 million advantage to keeping BBF open
Could be $4.6 million if fees are raised.
My 7/19 email to CCC
Blackberry fees are at least 20% less than other nearby 9 hole courses
Pruneridge
Deep Cliff
Coyote Creek runs along the
Southwest side of San Jose Muni
Golf Course.
Riparian widths: Red avg
298’, Blue avg 160’
Detail view of
three E sites.
Satellite photo
does not reveal
encampments
where width is
narrow.
Markers = homeless
encampments
Addendum:
Consider another creekside golf course: San Jose Muni
City Council
City of Cupertino
Re: Council Meeting of August 16, 2022
Item No. 24 - Housing Element Site Inventory
Mayor Paul and Members of the City Council:
I write to you this evening on behalf of Cupertino for All, which seeks to create a more inclusive, sustainable,
and vibrant Cupertino now and into the future. Key to our mission is education and advocacy in relation to how
the city uses the land in its jurisdiction.
We thank staff and the city's outside consultant, EMC Planning, for a much improved proposed site inventory
and analysis. We maintain a number of the concerns our organization, members, and individuals in the public
raised at the Planning Commission's April 26, 2022 discussion of the site inventory, and at the joint Planning
Commission and Housing Commission meeting of June 28, 2022. Indeed, few of our key concerns were
addressed at that meeting and the Commissions appear to have reinforced their support for a number of
problematic policy choices that we believe are out of step with the spirit of the Regional Housing Needs
Assessment (RHNA) process, and which will lead the California Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD) to reject Cupertino’s draft Housing Element when it is submitted for review.
In particular, we note the experience of San Francisco, which has already had the benefit of an initial round of
review with HCD and whose draft Housing Element was rejected in part based on its approach to pipeline
projects–an approach on which Cupertino even more heavily relies. We have attached a copy of HCD’s letter
rejecting San Francisco’s draft Housing Element in the hope that examining it will allow you to recalibrate
Cupertino’s site inventory accordingly. You will find HCD’s analysis of San Francisco’s reliance on pipeline
projects beginning on page 2 of the letter proper. We offer the following comments for your consideration
tonight:
1. The site inventory remains overly reliant on pipeline projects.
As the staff report notes, 77% of the homes planned to account for Cupertino's 6th Cycle RHNA continue to
come from pipeline projects. Two pipeline projects in particular account for the bulk of that figure: 2402 homes
in Vallco/The Rise, and 600 net new homes in The Hamptons. Combined, these two projects constitute some
84% of all pipeline project homes. Both have been approved for a number of years (2018 and 2016,
respectively), but, to date, neither has built a single new home.
In multiple places, the staff report underscores that pipeline projects have a high likelihood of development
because their fundamental entitlements have been approved. However, as HCD’s Site Inventory Memo
emphasizes at page 5, consistent with AB 1397, “[f]or projects yet to receive their certificate of occupancy or
final permit, the element must demonstrate that the project is expected to be built within the planning period.”
Simply stating that approved projects have a high likelihood of development reduces this rule to mere
surplussage. The city must still make appropriate findings supported by substantial evidence in the record that
these two projects (and all other pipeline projects, for that matter) will be built during the planning period. The
large size of these two projects and the length of time since they were approved militates against either being
fully built during the 6th Cycle production period--if at all. Moreover, per documents responsive to Public
Records Act requests, neither property owner has yet communicated a letter of intent that would support a
100% buildout of either site’s expected housing within the next planning period.
The unsupported assumption that recently approved projects will be built during the planning period likewise
proved to be a fatal error in San Francisco’s draft Housing Element. There, HCD rejected San Francisco’s
reliance on pipeline projects for only one quarter of all affordable housing in the city for lack of supporting
evidence demonstrating that they will be fully built during the 8-year planning period, for lack of supporting
programs intended to facilitate a full build out, and for lack of a concrete back-up plan in case a full buildout
fails to materialize.Cupertino should not repeat San Francisco’s mistake.
We therefore encourage staff and EMC Planning to demonstrate how the city will facilitate the full build-out of
these homes over the 6th Cycle if Cupertino wishes to count these sites to HCD's satisfaction. We reincorporate
and reiterate our comments of April 26, 2022, to the Planning Commission with respect to these two projects.
The development agreement for The Hamptons is long and now stale. We question whether the economics that
underpinned this project application at the time it was brought still prevail today and we encourage the city to
undertake an economic feasibility study if it wishes to include The Hamptons. Given that its development
agreement will expire early in the production period, Commissioners should consider recommending
alternative back-up sites or expanding the buffer accordingly. Similarly, Vallco/The Rise now approaches four
years since its original approval date. Given the unusually large size of this project, and the regulatory hurdles
it has encountered, the city should discount the number of units it proposes to include by how many are likely
to be built by 2031. In particular, we encourage you to reopen Tier 2 sites for consideration to ensure a
sufficient back up plan of additional sites in the city to satisfy the analysis HCD will employ when examining
Cupertino’s reliance on pipeline projects.
2. Insufficient buffer.
With so much of the site inventory relying on its two least likely pipeline projects, we are concerned that the
buffer is too low to meet HCD's requirements and may implicate the No Net Loss Law. Cupertino's 5th Cycle
buffer was considerably more ambitious and ultimately helped generate project applications for each Housing
Element site, even if not all such sites produced said housing during the production period. We therefore
encourage Council to consider a greater buffer (either through higher permissible densities on strategic sites or
the inclusion of more sites), or the establishment of an alternative set of back-up sites akin to Cupertino's 5th
Cycle Scenario B. Doing one or both will minimize the likelihood of HCD's rejection of the 6th Cycle Housing
Element as well as the probability of needing to revise the Housing Element mid-cylce if one or the other major
pipeline project is unable to be built.
3. Misdirection of policy priority.
We are concerned by the policy direction with respect to "up-zoning." The Housing Element's policy priorities
should focus on feasibility so that the plan developed through this process will result in actual production of
much-needed homes at all income levels. To the extent that the policy direction minimizing up-zoning reflects
an aesthetic preference for smaller structures, Council should refocus is attention on permissible building
envelopes and regulations that contribute to building bulk (such as excessive minimum parking requirements)
so as to achieve that aim without removing an important tool for producing more affordable housing.
In addition to the above, we remain concerned that Cupertino is missing an opportunity to create a more
sustainable and vibrant city through this process by virtue of its avoidance of reform of the Heart of the City
Special Area. We strongly endorse the principles of spreading housing opportunity throughout the city and
avoiding sites with existing homes that might provoke displacement. At the same time, it is important that we
avoid reinforcing our dependence on the automobile. Placing too many homes in sites far from transit or
alternative mobility options increases the city's carbon footprint and limits the efficiency of public services. We
also note the continuing progress of AB 2011 through the Legislature. Since this bill would effect a generalized
upzoning and rezoning of commercial corridors like The Heart of the City, it would behoove us to pay
additional attention to planning principles in this area so that we can foster housing development responsive to
Cupertino’s needs, rather than surrendering more local control to developer preferences. We therefore
encourage Council to focus its attention on transportation-oriented development opportunities--such as in The
Heart of the City--that bring homes closer to where people work, shop, and play.
Many thanks for the opportunity to comment,
J.R. Fruen
Policy Director
Cupertino for All
Enc. Letter from HCD to City of San Francisco re: San Francisco’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing
Element, dated August 8, 2022
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500
Sacramento, CA 95833
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov
August 8, 2022
Rich Hillis, Director
San Francisco Planning Department
City and County of San Francisco
49 South Van Ness Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94103
Dear Rich Hillis:
RE: San Francisco’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element
Thank you for submitting the City and County of San Francisco’s (City) draft housing
element received for review on May 10, 2022. Pursuant to Government Code section
65585, subdivision (b), the California Department of Housing and Community Development
(HCD) is reporting the results of its review. Our review was facilitated by a conversation on
June 17, 2022 with you, Miriam Chion, James Pappas, Maia Small, Rich Hillis, Lisa
Gluckstein, Malena Leon-Farrera, Audrey Pearson, Andrea Ruiz-Esquide, Reanna Tong,
and Shelley Caltagirone. In addition, HCD considered comments from Kevin Burke,
Christopher Elmendorf, Heidi Petersen, Forge Development Partners, San Francisco
YIMBY, Greenbelt Alliance, YIMBY Law, David Broockman, Scott Pluta, Nanditha
Ramachandran, Meghan Warner, Riley Avron, and Maggie Pace.
The draft element addresses many statutory requirements; however, revisions will be
necessary to comply with State Housing Element Law (Article 10.6 of the Gov. Code).
The enclosed Appendix describes the revisions needed to comply with State Housing
Element Law.
HCD applauds San Francisco’s several aspects of the approach to the housing element
update. The element places a strong emphasis on acknowledging and repairing the
harms of decades of inequitable and discriminatory land use and planning policies that
resulted in exclusionary and disinvested communities. The City has proposed bold and
meaningful actions to both reduce barriers to higher-opportunity neighborhoods while
simultaneously reinvesting in historically underserved neighborhoods. For example, the
element is focusing on creating new housing opportunities for lower- and moderate-
income families in well-resourced communities to increase access to quality parks,
schools, jobs, transportation, etc. Additionally, the element includes actions to reinvest
in communities of color by providing high-quality neighborhood amenities and housing
opportunities that will foster positive economic, social, and health outcomes.
Rich Hillis, Director
Page 2
This includes prioritizing local funds to create affordable housing opportunities; develop
culturally responsive community amenities; and improve neighborhoods, schools, parks,
and infrastructure. HCD appreciates San Francisco’s leadership in affirmatively
furthering fair housing (AFFH) and looks forward to continuing to work with the City in
meeting all statutory requirements.
For your information, pursuant to Assembly Bill 1398 (Chapter 358, Statutes of 2021), if
a local government fails to adopt a compliant housing element within 120 days of the
statutory deadline (January 31, 2023), then any rezoning to accommodate the regional
housing needs allocation (RHNA), including for lower-income households, shall be
completed no later than one year from the statutory deadline. Otherwise, the local
government’s housing element will no longer comply with State Housing Element Law,
and HCD may revoke its finding of substantial compliance pursuant to Government
Code section 65585, subdivision (i). Please be aware, if the City and County fails to
adopt a compliant housing element within one year from the statutory deadline, the
element cannot be found in substantial compliance until rezones to accommodate a
shortfall of sites pursuant to Government Code section 65583, subdivision (c),
paragraph (1), subparagraph (A), and Government Code section 65583.2, subdivision
(c), are completed.
Public participation in the development, adoption, and implementation of the housing
element is essential to effective housing planning. Throughout the housing element
process, the City and County should continue to engage the community, including
organizations that represent lower-income and special needs households, by making
information regularly available and considering and incorporating comments where
appropriate. Please be aware, any revisions to the element must be posted on the local
government’s website and a link to the element must be emailed to all individuals and
organizations that have previously requested notices relating to the local government’s
housing element at least seven days before submitting to HCD.
Several federal, state, and regional funding programs consider housing element
compliance as an eligibility or ranking criteria. For example, the CalTrans Senate Bill
(SB) 1 Sustainable Communities grant, the Strategic Growth Council and HCD’s
Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities programs, and HCD’s Permanent
Local Housing Allocation consider housing element compliance and/or annual reporting
requirements pursuant to Government Code section 65400. With a compliant housing
element, San Francisco will meet housing element requirements for these and other
funding sources.
For your information, some general plan element updates are triggered by housing
element adoption. HCD reminds the City and County to consider timing provisions and
welcomes the opportunity to provide assistance. For information, please see the
Technical Advisories issued by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research at:
https://www.opr.ca.gov/planning/general-plan/guidelines.html.
Rich Hillis, Director
Page 3
HCD appreciates the hard work and dedication the housing element team provided
during the review. We are committed to assisting the City and County in addressing all
statutory requirements of State Housing Element Law. If you have any questions or
need additional technical assistance, please contact Sohab Mehmood, of our staff, at
sohab.mehmood@hcd.ca.gov.
Sincerely,
Paul McDougall
Senior Program Manager
Enclosure
City and County of San Francisco’s 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 1
August 8, 2022
APPENDIX
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
The following changes are necessary to bring the housing element into compliance with Article
10.6 of the Government Code. Accompanying each recommended change, we cite the
supporting section of the Government Code.
Housing element technical assistance information is available on HCD’s website at
http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/housing-element-memos.shtml.
Among other resources, the housing element section contains HCD’s latest technical assistance
tool, Building Blocks for Effective Housing Elements (Building Blocks), available at
http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/building-blocks/index.shtml and includes the
Government Code addressing State Housing Element Law and other resources.
A. Housing Needs, Resources, and Constraints
1. Affirmatively further[ing] fair housing in accordance with Chapter 15 (commencing with
Section 8899.50) of Division 1 of Title 2…shall include an assessment of fair housing in
the jurisdiction. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(10)(A).)
Identified Sites and Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH): The element must
identify sites to accommodate the regional housing need allocation (RHNA) throughout
the community in response to all components of the analysis of AFFH. This analysis
should consider all income groups for the RHNA. To address this requirement, the
element (p. F-19) lists the number of units in the development pipeline and non-site-
specific means (e.g., accessory dwelling units (ADUs), SB 9, at-risk preservation) by
income group and whether sites are in well-resourced areas. However, this listing and
analysis should also include underutilized and vacant sites and candidate sites for
rezoning. In addition, the analysis is limited to “well-resourced” or higher opportunity
areas but should address all the components of the analysis of AFFH (e.g., segregation
and integration, concentrated areas of poverty and affluence, and disproportionate
housing need, including displacement risk). Finally, the analysis should evaluate the
impact of the RHNA by income group on the socio-economic patterns on a locational
basis (e.g., neighborhood, census tract, district), including addressing any isolation of
the RHNA. Based on the outcomes of this analysis, the element should re-evaluate the
appropriateness of targets (e.g., increase lower-income targets in well-resourced areas)
and add or modify programs to better improve fair housing conditions, including
equitable quality of life throughout the community (e.g., anti-displacement and place-
based community revitalization strategies).
Strategies, Actions, Metrics, and Milestones: To facilitate meaningful change and
achieve beneficial impact during the planning period, programs must have specific
commitments, metrics or numerical targets, geographic targeting, and definitive
timelines such as deadlines, dates, or benchmarks for implementation. While the
element has included many meaningful and significant policies and actions that address
City and County of San Francisco’s 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 2
August 8, 2022
the identified fair housing issues, programs or actions should be modified with definitive
timelines and metrics, as follows:
• Timelines: The element includes many programs with three general timelines:
short (0-5 years), medium (6-15 years), and long (16 plus years). However,
actions should have timelines more appropriate for an eight-year planning period,
including earlier and within the planning period, as well as more specific to the
intended actions and housing or people outcomes. For example, many of the
identified policies and actions included implementation timelines range from 6 to
15 years. The element must be revised to include timelines that are within the
eight-year planning period. Also, some actions have short-term timing (0-5
years), over halfway through the planning period. Instead, these actions should
occur earlier in the planning period (1-2 years). Finally, some actions do not have
timing that commits to how often an action will be taken and should be revised
with specific commitment and timing to complete steps toward housing
outcomes. For example, Policy 17, action b (Investment in Priority Equity
Geographies) should commit to how often the City will prioritize investment and
what steps with dates will be taken to prioritize investment toward outcomes.
• Metrics: The element must revise its fair housing policies and actions to include
metrics or numerical targets toward significant and meaningful AFFH outcomes.
Additionally, where appropriate, metrics should be targeting impacts for people,
households, and neighborhoods (e.g., number of people or households assisted,
number of housing units built, number of parks or infrastructure projects
completed).
2. An inventory of land suitable and available for residential development, including vacant
sites and sites having realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the
planning period to meet the locality’s housing need for a designated income level, and
an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites.
(Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(3).)
Progress in Meeting the RHNA: The element indicates 47,738 units, of which 11,996
units will be affordable to lower-income households, are pending approvals, approved,
or under construction (p. F-8). To count these units as progress towards RHNA, the
element must analyze and demonstrate the likelihood and availability of these units
during the planning period. The element lists an estimated percentage of development
capacity in the planning period, but as noted in the element (p. F-9), it must include
analysis to support those assumptions or utilize different assumptions. For example, the
element could discuss infrastructure schedules and commitments, outreach with project
developers, timelines for final approvals, and the timing of any remaining steps prior to
building permits. In addition, the element should only count net new units unless
meeting statutory requirements pursuant to Government Code section 65583.1 (see
below). Lastly, given the element’s reliance on pipeline projects, the element must
include programs with actions that commit to facilitating development and monitoring
approvals of the projects (e.g., coordination with applicants to approve remaining
entitlements, supporting funding applications, commitment to expedite approvals, etc.)
with a commitment to alternative actions (e.g., rezoning) if assumptions are not realized.
City and County of San Francisco’s 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 3
August 8, 2022
Candidate Sites for Rezoning: The element identifies a current shortfall in
accommodating the 6th cycle RHNA for lower- (16,766 units) and moderate-income
households (8,535 units), including a 15-percent buffer. As a result, the element must
identify and analyze the candidate sites for rezoning, including meeting all components
of Government Code section 65583.2. The components generally include a parcel
listing, analysis of capacity, size of parcels, and the extent existing uses impede
additional development (redevelopment potential). The element may utilize a
methodology similar to underutilized sites to meet requirements for calculating capacity
and demonstrating redevelopment potential.
Sites Identified in Prior Planning Periods: Sites identified in prior planning periods shall
not be deemed adequate to accommodate the housing needs for lower-income
households unless a program, meeting statutory requirements, requires rezoning within
specified time periods. The element should clarify if sites were identified in prior planning
periods and if so, which sites and include a program if utilizing previously identified sites
in the current planning period. The program rezoning sites must commit to appropriate
densities as specified in statute and allow residential uses by-right for housing
developments in which at least 20 percent of the units are affordable to lower income
households. By-right is generally defined as permitting uses without discretionary action.
Finally, rezoning must be complete within three years. However, if the element is not
adopted and found in compliance within 120 days of the statutory deadline, rezoning
must be complete in one year. For more information on program requirements, please
see HCD’s Housing Element Sites Inventory Guidebook at
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/housing-element-
memos.shtml.
Suitability of Novacant Sites: The housing element relies upon nonvacant sites to
accommodate more than 50 percent of the RHNA for lower-income households. The
element must demonstrate existing uses are not an impediment to additional residential
development (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (g)(2).). Absent findings (e.g., adoption
resolution) based on substantial evidence, the existing uses will be presumed to impede
additional residential development and will not be utilized toward demonstrating
adequate sites to accommodate the RHNA.
In addition, if the sites inventory identifies sites with existing residential uses, it must
identify whether the current residential uses are affordable to lower-income households
or describe whether the additional residential development on the site requires the
demolition of the existing residential use. For nonvacant sites with existing, vacated, or
demolished residential uses and occupied by, or subject to an affordability requirement
for, lower-income households within the last five years, there must be a replacement
housing program for units affordable to lower-income households. (Gov. Code, §
65583.2, subd. (g)(3).) Absent a replacement housing program, these sites are not
adequate sites to accommodate lower-income households. The replacement housing
program has the same requirements as set forth in Government Code section 65915,
subdivision (c)(3). The housing element must be revised to include such analysis and a
program, if necessary.
City and County of San Francisco’s 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 4
August 8, 2022
Small Sites: Sites smaller than half an acre are deemed inadequate to accommodate
housing for lower-income households unless it is demonstrated, with sufficient
evidence, that sites of equivalent size with affordability were successfully developed
during the prior planning period or other evidence demonstrates the suitability of these
sites. For example, the element could discuss past trends such as examples of
affordable housing projects on small sites and relate it to the sites inventory. The
element must also address these requirements for candidate rezoning sites to
accommodate the RHNA for lower-income households.
Adequate Sites Alternatives: The element is counting roughly 4,125 units under the
alternative adequate sites (Gov. Code, § 65583.1, subd. (c)) through preservation,
conversion, and rehabilitation (pipeline and projected), including HOPE SF and
Homekey programs. Of the 4,125 units, 3,625 units will be affordable to lower-income
households, and 500 units will be affordable to moderate-income households. To utilize
this potential for converting existing units toward the RHNA, the element must
demonstrate how these units will meet the requirements of Government Code section
65583.1, subdivision (c), including but not limited to identifying sources of committed
assistance and various other requirements. For additional guidance, please see
Building Blocks at Adequate Sites Alternative | California Department of Housing and
Community Development.
Senate Bill 9 (Statutes of 2021) Projections: The element mentions multiple challenges
regarding the anticipated results of SB 9 given the unique circumstances of residential
patterns in the City and County. Yet, the element assumes 1,500 units in the planning
period that does not appear to be based on recent trends. For these reasons, the
element should consider not utilizing these units toward the RHNA or significantly
reducing assumptions in the planning period. If utilizing SB 9 toward the RHNA, the
element must 1) include a site-specific inventory of sites where SB 9 projections are
being applied; 2) include a nonvacant sites analysis demonstrating the likelihood of
redevelopment and that the existing use will not constitute an impediment for additional
residential use; and 3) include programs and policies that establish zoning,
development standards, and incentives early in the planning period and monitor
production and affordability and adjust as appropriate (e.g., additional rezoning).
Publicly-Owned Sites: The element must include additional discussion on publicly-
owned sites identified to accommodate the RHNA. Specifically, the analysis should
address general plan designations, allowable densities, support for residential capacity
assumptions, existing uses, and any known conditions that preclude development in the
planning period and the potential schedule for development. If zoning does not currently
allow residential uses at appropriate densities, then the element must include programs
to rezone sites pursuant to Government Code section 65583.2, subdivisions (h) and (i).
In addition, the housing element must include a description of whether there are any
plans to sell the property during the planning period and how the jurisdiction will comply
with the Surplus Land Act (Article 8 (commencing with Section 54220) of Chapter 5 of
Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5).
City and County of San Francisco’s 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 5
August 8, 2022
Availability of Infrastructure: The element must discuss whether sufficient total water
and sewer capacity (existing and planned) can accommodate the regional housing need
and include programs if necessary.
In addition, water and sewer service providers must establish specific procedures to
grant priority water and sewer service to developments with units affordable to lower-
income households. (Gov. Code, § 65589.7.) Local governments are required to
immediately deliver the housing element to water and sewer service providers. The
element should discuss compliance with these requirements and, if necessary, add or
modify programs to establish a written procedure by a date early in the planning period.
For additional information and sample cover memo, see the Building Blocks at
http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/building-blocks/other-
requirements/priority-for-water-sewer.shtml.
Environmental Constraints: The element must describe any known environmental
constraints or other conditions that could preclude development on the identified sites
(including candidate rezoning sites) during the planning period. (Gov. Code, § 65583.2,
subd. (b).) For additional information and sample analysis, see the Building Blocks at
http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/building-blocks/site-inventory-
analysis/analysis-of-sites-and-zoning.shtml#environmental.
Electronic Sites Inventory: For your information, pursuant to Government Code section
65583.3, the City must submit an electronic sites inventory with its adopted housing
element. The City must utilize standards, forms, and definitions adopted by HCD.
Please see HCD’s housing element webpage at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-
development/housing-element/index.shtml#element for a copy of the form and
instructions.
Zoning for a Variety of Housing Types:
• Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU): HCD’s records indicate that the City and County
has not submitted its adopted ADU ordinance for review and compliance with
State ADU Law. The City and County must submit its ADU ordinance at
adu@hcd.ca.gov.
• Emergency Shelters: While the element stated that emergency shelters are
defined as a residential use and are allowed in most zones, pursuant to
Government Code section 65583, the element must clarify if at least one zone
allows emergency shelters without discretionary action. Additionally, the element
should discuss and evaluate any development standards (e.g., parking, spacing,
etc.) as potential constraints. Lastly, the element should determine whether
parking requirements comply with AB 139 (Chapter 335, Statutes of 2019), which
limits parking requirements to employee parking and add or modify programs as
appropriate.
City and County of San Francisco’s 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 6
August 8, 2022
• Low Barrier Navigation Centers (LBNC): Government Code section 65660
requires LBNC be a use by-right (without discretionary action) in areas zoned for
mixed use and nonresidential zones permitting multifamily uses. The element
should demonstrate compliance with this requirement or add or modify programs
as appropriate.
• Transitional and Supportive Housing: Transitional housing and supportive
housing must be permitted as a residential use in all zones allowing residential
uses and only subject to those restrictions that apply to other residential
dwellings of the same type in the same zone. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(5).)
The element must demonstrate compliance with Government Code section
65583, subdivision (a)(5), or add or revise programs as appropriate.
• Permanent Supportive Housing: Supportive housing shall be a use by-right
(without discretionary action) in zones where multifamily and mixed uses are
permitted, including nonresidential zones permitting multifamily uses pursuant to
Government Code section 65651. The element must demonstrate compliance
with this requirement or add or modify programs as appropriate.
• Employee Housing: Section 17021.5 requires employee housing for six or fewer
employees to be treated as a single-family structure and permitted in the same
manner as other dwellings of the same type in the same zone. The element must
demonstrate zoning in compliance with the Employee Housing Act (Health and
Safety Code, § 17000 et seq.) or add or modify programs as appropriate.
• Manufactured Housing: Manufactured homes that are built on a permanent
foundation must be allowed in the same manner and in the same zones as
conventional or stick-built structures. Specifically, manufactured homes on a
permanent structure should only be subject to the same development standards
that a conventional single-family residential dwelling would be subject to. The
element must demonstrate compliance with this requirement or add or modify
programs as appropriate.
3. An analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance,
improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including the types of
housing identified in paragraph (1) of subdivision (c), and for persons with disabilities as
identified in the analysis pursuant to paragraph (7), including land use controls, building
codes and their enforcement, site improvements, fees and other exactions required of
developers, and local processing and permit procedures. The analysis shall also
demonstrate local efforts to remove governmental constraints that hinder the locality
from meeting its share of the regional housing need in accordance with Government
Code section 65584 and from meeting the need for housing for persons with disabilities,
supportive housing, transitional housing, and emergency shelters identified pursuant to
paragraph (7). (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(5).)
City and County of San Francisco’s 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 7
August 8, 2022
Land-Use Controls (Heights): The element must identify and analyze the impact of all
relevant land use controls as potential constraints on a variety of housing types. The
analysis should analyze land use controls independently and cumulatively with other
land use controls. Specifically, the element noted the height limits for moderate and
high-density developments vary by zone (Attachment G, p. 15). The element should
identify and analyze height limits as they relate to reaching allowable densities (without
exception). The analysis should address any impacts on cost, supply, housing choice,
affordability, timing, approval certainty, and ability to achieve maximum densities and
include programs to address identified constraints.
Fees and Exaction: The element includes some information on planning and impact
fees, such as environmental impact report and Transportation Sustainability Fee.
However, given in some cases that cumulative fees can well exceed $60,000 per unit,
the element should list all planning (e.g., rezones, conditional use permit (CUP),
variance) and impact fees, evaluate the impacts on the cost of development and, if
necessary, include programs to address identified constraints.
Local Processing and Permit Procedures: HCD has received several public comments
and has active enforcement cases and complaints related to the local permit process
that have indicated a complex, untimely, and cumbersome process with little certainty to
applicants. There are also indications of potential violations of various state laws,
including the Permit Streamlining Act, Housing Accountability Act, Housing Crisis Act,
and State Density Bonus Law. As stated in HCD’s February 1, 2022, Technical
Assistance Letter, the element must 1) analyze potential and actual governmental
constraints on housing development pursuant to State Housing Element Law (Gov.
Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(5)), and 2) specifically address potential violations with state
housing laws.
While the element includes some information about the permit process and processing
time (Attachment G, pgs. 22-36), a complete analysis must evaluate the processing and
entitlement procedures for potential constraints on housing supply, cost, timing, financial
feasibility, approval certainty and ability to achieve maximum densities. Specifically, the
element must describe the procedures for a typical single-family and multifamily
development. As most projects require discretionary approvals, the analysis must
describe the decision-making framework for discretionary approvals related to all
permits and entitlements, including but not limited to building permits, design review,
CUPs, lot splits/consolidations, variances, site plans, environmental review, etc. The
analysis must include the approval bodies, the number of public hearings, the actual
approval findings, and all relevant information. Examples of processes that could
constrain development include the discretionary review application for building permits
(p. G-22). The element indicates that a member of the public can request that a building
permit that would normally be reviewed and approved at the staff level be evaluated by
the planning commission, which could result in impacts to the cost of the project, timing,
and certainty for approval. Based on the outcomes of a complete analysis, the element
must add or modify programs as appropriate.
City and County of San Francisco’s 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 8
August 8, 2022
Compliance with State Housing Element Laws: The element must discuss how it
currently implements and complies with state housing laws and include programs as
appropriate. The element should specifically address processes related to SB 35
Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process (Gov. Code, § 65913.4), Housing Crisis Act
(Gov. Code, § 66300), Housing Accountability Act (Gov. Code, § 65589.5), Permit
Streamlining Act (Gov. Code, §§ 65941.1 and 65943), and CEQA timelines.
Locally Adopted Ordinances: The element must identify and analyze any locally
adopted ordinances that impact the cost and supply of housing, e.g., short-term rentals,
inclusionary, growth controls, Senate Bill 9, etc.
Additionally, through initial review of recent enforcement cases, HCD is aware of potential
constraints associated with the inclusionary program in relationship to other state laws
such as State Density Bonus Law (SDBL) (Gov. Code, § 65915) and SB 35 Streamlined
Ministerial Approval Process (Gov. Code, § 65913.4). Specifically, while the element
generally describes the local inclusionary housing program (pp.s. G-18 and G-46) and a
brief discussion of its overall impact on project feasibility, it must also include additional
information and analysis about how the inclusionary housing program is implemented in
relationship to these other state laws. For example, the element should identify and
analyze how affordable units provided through SDBL and/or SB 35 are accounted for in
relation to the inclusionary requirement, how density bonus units are considered when
applying the inclusionary requirement, and the availability of clear written implementation
guidelines for establishing a project’s on-site affordability requirement. Based on the
information and analysis provided, the element must add or modify programs as
appropriate.
On/Off-Site Improvements: While the element included some information on required
improvements, including public-rights-of-way and general requirements imposed by
other agencies related to fire, transit, and parks (p. G-33), it must identify and evaluate
actual site improvement standards on typical projects for impacts on the cost of
development.
Codes and Enforcement: The element describes adoption of building codes and
includes some information on local amendments related to the Green Building Code (p.
G-41); however, it must identity and analyze all local amendments for impacts on the
cost and supply of housing.
Zoning, Development Standards, and Fees: The element must clarify its compliance
with new transparency requirements for posting all zoning, development standards, and
fees on the City and County’s website and include programs if appropriate.
Constraints on Housing for Persons with Disabilities:
• Reasonable Accommodation: While the element briefly described the reasonable
accommodation process, it must describe the written procedure and evaluate the
process, including approval findings. Additionally, the element indicates two
separate processes to request a reasonable accommodation and that one of
City and County of San Francisco’s 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 9
August 8, 2022
these processes requires the use of a standard variance process. However,
reasonable accommodation should be a unique exception process from
discretionary permits, especially given its importance in addressing barriers to
housing for persons with disabilities. The element should evaluate these
requirements as constraints and include programs as appropriate.
• Definition of Family: The element states the planning code includes a definition of
family as a group of five unrelated individuals (p. G-61); however, the element
also indicates zoning does not restrict occupancy of unrelated individuals in
group homes, define family, or enforce a definition (p. G-63). The element must
reconcile this discussion to be clear on the implementation of a family definition
or include a program that clearly commits to address the constraint, if necessary.
• Group Homes for Six or Fewer and Seven or More: While the element included
some general information on how group housing and residential care facilities (p.
G-63) are allowed, it must specifically clarify whether group homes of six or fewer
are treated as a single-family use and allowed in all zones allowing single-family
uses. Additionally, the element must discuss how and where group homes of
seven or more are permitted. For your information, zoning should simply
implement a barrier-free definition of family instead of potentially subjecting
persons with disabilities to special regulations such as the number of persons,
population types, and licenses. The element should include specific analysis of
these constraints for impacts on housing for persons with disabilities and include
clear commitments to allow these uses with objectivity and certainty.
Governmental Constraint (General): The cumulative impact of governmental constraints
can impact the feasibility of development as well as costs and supply. Given the
complexity of the regulatory and political environment, the element should include an
analysis of the combination of potential governmental constraints, including but not
limited to land use controls, discretionary actions, permit and entitlement procedures,
fees and exactions, and any other ordinances or requirements affecting development
and add or modify programs as appropriate to address constraints.
4. An analysis of potential and actual nongovernmental constraints upon the maintenance,
improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including… …requests to
develop housing at densities below those anticipated in the… …and the length of time
between receiving approval for a housing development and submittal of an application
for building permits for that housing development that hinder the construction of a
locality’s share of the regional housing need in accordance with Government Code
section 65584... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(6).)
Approval Time and Requests Lesser Densities: The element must include an analysis of
requests to develop housing at densities below those identified in the sites inventory,
and the length of time between receiving approval for a housing development and
submittal of an application for building permits. The analysis should address any
hinderances on the jurisdiction’s ability to accommodate RHNA by income category and
include programs as appropriate.
City and County of San Francisco’s 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 10
August 8, 2022
5. Analyze existing assisted housing developments that are eligible to change to non-low-
income housing uses during the next 10 years due to termination of subsidy contracts,
mortgage prepayment, or expiration of use restrictions. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd.
(a)(9) through 65583(a)(9)(D).).
While the element lists an inventory of at-risk units utilizing federal and state funding,
the element must also include and analyze any deed-restricted affordable housing units
using local governmental assistance such as density bonus or inclusionary program that
are at-risk of converting to market-rate within the next ten years. In addition, while the
element included an inventory of units at-risk of converting in the next ten years, it must
estimate and analyze the cost of replacing versus preserving the units and identify
qualified entities to assist with maintaining its affordability. For additional information,
please see: Assisted Housing Developments at Risk of Conversion | California
Department of Housing and Community Development. For a list of qualified entities
serving San Francisco and the broader region, please see:
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/preserving-existing-affordable-housing.shtml.
B. Housing Programs
1. Include a program which sets forth a schedule of actions during the planning period,
each with a timeline for implementation, which may recognize that certain programs are
ongoing, such that there will be beneficial impacts of the programs within the planning
period, that the local government is undertaking or intends to undertake to implement
the policies and achieve the goals and objectives of the Housing Element through the
administration of land use and development controls, the provision of regulatory
concessions and incentives, and the utilization of appropriate federal and state financing
and subsidy programs when available. The program shall include an identification of the
agencies and officials responsible for the implementation of the various actions. (Gov.
Code, § 65583, subd. (c).)
The element identifies three implementation timeframes: short (0-5 years), medium (6-15
years), and long term (15+ years). Programs must demonstrate that they will have a
beneficial impact within the planning period. Beneficial impact, among other things,
means specific commitment with definitive timelines such as deadlines, dates, or
benchmarks for implementation. Deliverables should occur early in the planning period to
ensure actual housing outcomes. However, in many cases, program should be revised
with specific commitment and definitive timing. Further, program timelines must be
revised to reflect implementation during the 8-year planning period and where
appropriate earlier in the planning period. For example, the “short” timeframe should be
adjusted to 0-2 years and the “medium” and “long” timeframes should be replaced with
timeframes of 3-5 and 6-8 years, respectively. The element may indicate aspirational and
complex programs with timelines beyond the planning period. However, these programs
should be ancillary and denoted in some manner.
City and County of San Francisco’s 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 11
August 8, 2022
In addition, the element includes many complex and challenging strategies that are
essential to the City’s approach in addressing its housing needs. As a result, the
element should include a program to evaluate the effectiveness of these approaches
and commit to making adjustments, as appropriate, to continue working toward the
housing element’s goals and objectives. Specifically, the element could include a
program to conduct an in-depth mid-term evaluation of programs, including
effectiveness, and commit to make adjustments withing a specified time period. Topics
could include AFFH, pipeline projects, nonvacant sites, rezoning, SB 9 sites, ADUs, and
governmental constraints.
2. Identify actions that will be taken to make sites available during the planning period with
appropriate zoning and development standards and with services and facilities to
accommodate that portion of the city’s or county’s share of the regional housing need
for each income level that could not be accommodated on sites identified in the
inventory completed pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) without rezoning, and
to comply with the requirements of Government Code section 65584.09. Sites shall be
identified as needed to facilitate and encourage the development of a variety of types of
housing for all income levels, including multifamily rental housing, factory-built housing,
mobilehomes, housing for agricultural employees, supportive housing, single-room
occupancy units, emergency shelters, and transitional housing. (Gov. Code, § 65583,
subd. (c)(1).)
As noted in Finding A2, the element does not include a complete site analysis;
therefore, the adequacy of sites and zoning were not established. Based on the results
of a complete sites inventory and analysis, the element may need to add or revise
programs to address a shortfall of sites or zoning available to encourage a variety of
housing types. In addition, the element should be revised as follows:
Shortfall of Sites: The element identifies a shortfall of sites to accommodate the RHNA
for lower- and moderate-income households and includes Policy 20, Actions A-D to
implement rezoning efforts. However, the element must revise programs to specifically
commit to acreage, allowable densities, and anticipated units. In addition, to
accommodate the housing needs of lower-income households, the program should
specifically commit to rezoning pursuant to Government Code section 65583.2,
subdivisions (h) and (i).
The rezone program must be revised to include all the provisions of Government Code
section 65583.2, subdivisions (h) and (i), as follows:
• permit owner-occupied and rental multifamily uses by-right for developments in
which 20 percent or more of the units are affordable to lower-income households.
By-right means local government review must not require a CUP, planned unit
development permit, or other discretionary review or approval;
• accommodate a minimum of 16 units per site;
• require a minimum density of 20 units per acre; and
City and County of San Francisco’s 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 12
August 8, 2022
• at least 50 percent of the lower-income need must be accommodated on sites
designated for residential use only or on sites zoned for mixed uses that
accommodate all of the very low- and low-income housing need, if those sites:
o allow 100 percent residential use, and
o require residential use to occupy 50 percent of the total floor area of a
mixed-use project.
Sites Identified in Prior Planning Periods: As noted in Finding A2, if the element
identified vacant sites in two of more consecutive planning periods’ housing elements or
nonvacant sites in a prior housing element, that are currently identified to accommodate
housing for lower-income households, the element must include a program. The
program must be implemented within the first three years of the planning period and
commit to zoning that will meet the density requirements for housing for lower-income
households and allow by-right approval for housing developments that include 20
percent or more of its units affordable to lower-income households (Gov. Code, §
65583.2, subd. (c).). Please also note, rezoning must be implemented within the first
year of the planning period if the element is not adopted in compliance in a timely
manner as described in Finding A2.
Replacement Program: As noted in Finding A2, for nonvacant sites with existing,
vacated, or demolished residential uses and occupied by, or subject to an affordability
requirement for, lower-income households within the last five years, there must be a
replacement housing program for units affordable to lower-income households (Gov.
Code, § 65583.2, subd. (g)(3)).
Publicly-Owned Sites: The element identified several publicly-owned sites to
accommodate a portion of the RHNA. While the element included Policy 24, Action E
and F committing to building public-private partnerships and prioritizing local resources,
these actions should be revised with timelines that will occur during the planning period.
Additionally, the element should include a schedule of actions to facilitate development
and ensure compliance with the Surplus Land Act. Actions could include annual
outreach with developers, rezoning and financial assistance, issuing requests for
proposals, facilitating any subsequent entitlements, and numerical objectives by
affordability.
3. Address and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental and
nongovernmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of
housing, including housing for all income levels and housing for persons with
disabilities. The program shall remove constraints to, and provide reasonable
accommodations for housing designed for, intended for occupancy by, or with
supportive services for, persons with disabilities. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(3).)
As noted in Finding(s) A3 and A4, the element requires a complete analysis of potential
governmental and nongovernmental constraints. Depending upon the results of that
analysis, the element may need to revise or add programs and address and remove or
mitigate any identified constraints. In addition, the element should be revised as follows:
City and County of San Francisco’s 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 13
August 8, 2022
Compliance with State Housing Laws: The element must include a program to comply
with all state housing laws. This program must include steps for implementing (e.g.,
develop processes, standard procedures, forms, etc.), definitive timelines, specific
commitments, and quantified objectives, where appropriate.
Policy 25, Action A-C and E (Reduce Development Constraints…): The element
included Policy 25 to reduce development constraints, including lengthy entitlement
processes. Actions under this policy include establishing streamlined approvals for
housing development that meet specific criteria, including specific housing types (small
and multifamily developments), affordability requirements, and community benefits. The
element indicates an implementation timeline of 0-15 years. In efforts to address the
City’s well documented lengthy permit process, the element should revise these
timelines to complete these actions earlier in the planning period (e.g., 0-2 years).
Additionally, the element could also include quantified objectives to measure program
effectiveness throughout the planning period.
4. Promote and affirmatively further fair housing opportunities and promote housing
throughout the community or communities for all persons regardless of race, religion,
sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability, and other
characteristics protected by the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Part 2.8
(commencing with Section 12900) of Division 3 of Title 2), Section 65008, and any other
state and federal fair housing and planning law. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(5).)
As noted in Finding A1, the element must include a complete analysis of AFFH. The
element must be revised to add goals and actions based on the outcomes of a complete
analysis. Additionally, policies and actions must be revised to include definitive timelines
during the planning period and quantifiable metrics to measure program effectiveness.
5. The housing program shall preserve for low-income household the assisted housing
developments identified pursuant to paragraph (9) of subdivision (a). The program for
preservation of the assisted housing developments shall utilize, to the extent necessary,
all available federal, state, and local financing and subsidy programs identified in
paragraph (9) of subdivision (a), except where a community has other urgent needs for
which alternative funding sources are not available. The program may include strategies
that involve local regulation and technical assistance. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd.
(c)(6).)
Policy 2, Action B-D, and H: While the element included policies and actions to preserve
deed restricted units at-risk of converting to market rate, these actions must be revised
to occur during the planning period. Additionally, actions must be revised with specific
commitment to comply with noticing requirements and to coordinate and outreach with
qualified entities to purchase properties and provide education and support to tenants.
City and County of San Francisco’s 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 14
August 8, 2022
C. Quantified Objectives
Establish the number of housing units, by income level, that can be constructed,
rehabilitated, and conserved over a five-year time frame. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (b)(1
& 2).)
The element must include quantified objectives estimating the number of housing units by
income category that can be constructed, rehabilitated, and conserved over a five-year time
period. This requirement could be addressed by utilizing a matrix like the one illustrated
below:
Income
New
Construction Rehabilitation
Conservation/
Preservation
Extremely
Low-
Very Low-
Low-
Moderate-
Above
Moderate-
TOTAL
D. Coastal Zone Analysis
Coastal localities shall document the number of low- and moderate-income units converted
or demolished, and the number of replacement units provided. (Gov. Code, § 65588, subd.
(d).)
The element does not meet the statutory requirements. To determine whether the
affordable housing stock in the coastal zone is being protected and provided as required by
Government Code section 65588, the element must be revised to include the following:
1. The number of new housing units approved for construction within the coastal zone
since January 1982.
2. The number of housing units for persons and families of low- and moderate-income
required to be provided in new housing developments either within the coastal zone
or within three miles.
3. The number of existing residential dwelling units occupied by low- and moderate-
income households either within the coastal zone or three miles of the coastal zone
that have been authorized to be demolished or converted since January 1982.
4. The number of residential dwelling units for low- and moderate-income households
that have been required for replacement.