Letter to Council Regarding Housing Element Draft 2
December 11, 2022
Re: Item 6.1 Revised 2023-2031 Draft Housing Element To City Council: MV YIMBY appreciates the work of staff and Council in working to create a compliant Housing Element. However, we are concerned that the revised draft still does not meet the bar of being compliant and, more fundamentally, does not sufficiently address the housing crisis. We believe there is still time available to make changes, even if it may lead to delays with the EIR. It is better to take time and carefully prepare than to submit a less-than-compliant document requiring future revision.
Re: Item 6.1 Revised 2023-2031 Draft Housing Element
To City Council:
MV YIMBY appreciates the work of staff and Council in working to create a compliant Housing Element. However, we are concerned that the revised draft still does not meet the bar of being compliant and, more fundamentally, does not sufficiently address the housing crisis.
We believe there is still time available to make changes, even if it may lead to delays with the EIR. It is better to take time and carefully prepare than to submit a less-than-compliant document requiring future revision.
This letter contains our broad concerns of the revised draft Housing Element; for more detail, please look at our letter to HCD.
Site Inventory
The site inventory continues to be insufficient, given that the existing pace of development falls significantly short of our 5th cycle housing allocation (progress: 30% VLI, 43% LI, 3% MI). The new housing allocation is 3.8x larger, with our existing above moderate production just falling short (4658 permits issued, 4880 minimum next cycle). Meanwhile, existing projects are subject to tough economic conditions, with projects like Gamel Way already not moving forward.
In particular, there is not enough evidence provided to demonstrate that the site inventory will be built out to plan, especially sites along El Camino Real in their post-2014 Precise Plan regulatory conditions. Ron’s Farmhouse (2026 W ECR), for example, still remains unused since its closing in 2007. The lack of documented interest from property owners should raise concerns, as they can continue to hold underdeveloped parcels or develop a non-residential project.
We also believe that some of the projects listed in the pipeline section cannot be credited to the 6th cycle as they were occupied before June 30, 2022. Luna Vista (950 West El Camino Real), for example, has had occupancy since at least May, as evidenced by the public grand opening.
Meanwhile, there are at least two projects that have indicated development potential, 901 N Rengstorff (the “Ambra property”) and 843 W El Camino (“Castro Commons”), that remain missing in the site inventory with a purpose of “maintaining discretion.” This is not a positive sign for a process whose purpose is to ensure sufficient housing gets built.
Programs
We reiterate our concern that the actions and metrics provided in the programs are still too vague to indicate impact, with some of them scheduled too far into the future to make much impact within the 6th cycle. Despite some progress, many of our objections to the first draft remain valid.
Various programs are meant to align our local ordinances with state law (1.1, 1.3, 1.10). However, their timelines are not immediate; for example, SB478, a law that went into effect in January 2022, is scheduled in Program 1.3 to be implemented by EOY 2026 (cycle midpoint), although the state can already sue over noncompliance. Meanwhile, the program (1.3) to ensure developments can actually be feasibly built to their specified densities is also scheduled EOY 2026, although the R3 update has been underway since 2020. Given that large projects can easily take more than four years to reach approval (e.g., 555 W Middlefield), these programs, although welcome, will have little material impact within the 6th cycle.
