APPENDIX A.
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION AND STAKEHOLDER
CONSULTATION
Attachment 2
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX A, PAGE 1
APPENDIX A. Citizen Participation and Stakeholder Consultation This section summarizes the primary findings from the extensive citizen participation and stakeholder consultation conducted to inform the Santa Clara County Urban County, HOME Consortia, and entitlement jurisdiction Consolidated Plans. Residents and stakeholders were invited to participate in a variety of engagement opportunities in addition to the community survey throughout the Consolidated Plan process. Findings from the survey are detailed in Appendix B. Detailed discussion notes from the citizen participation and stakeholder consultation events follow Appendix B. The events included: ¾ “Pop up” events—Booths with activities were set up at community venues and events to capture residents’ input on priority housing and community development needs and were held throughout October and December 2024. Approximately 200 residents engaged with pop up events. Ø Mountain View Dia de Los Muertos Event: November 2, 2024 Ø Gilroy and South County Open House: November 4, 2024 Ø Saratoga Library Popup: November 18, 2024 Ø Campbell Farmers Market Popup: December 1, 2024 Ø Sunnyvale Farmers Market Popup: January 18, 2025 ¾ Two regional virtual public workshops were held on November 14th and 20th 2024. Virtual public workshops were open to all residents living in and stakeholders serving residents in the County. Approximately 55 residents attended the workshops between the two sessions provided. Ø The City of Mountain View held a third local virtual public workshop on the evening of December 16, 2024. ¾ Three stakeholder consultation workshops were held on December 5th, 11th, and 17th, 2024 with stakeholders who serve and represent low and moderate income and special needs residents. Attendees represented affordable housing providers, service providers serving special needs populations, people with lived experience, legal advocates, child care service providers, public health agencies, mental health service providers, and others. A total of 72 stakeholders engaged through the workshops.
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX A, PAGE 2
Demographic surveys voluntarily completed at resident engagement events show that the demographic composition of participants broadly represents that of the county’s low and moderate income populations. Promotion. The Consolidated Plan website www.letstalkhousingscc.org was available throughout the Plan and promoted through a social media and communications toolkit. The website provided information on the Consolidated Plan process and ways for community members and stakeholders to be engaged through taking the survey and participating in events. The website’s “Events” page, pictured to the right, includes a list of upcoming and past community engagement events associated with the Consolidated Plan. Residents could view dates, times, locations, and registration information for each event on this page. Residents could also learn about upcoming engagement opportunities on City and County websites and social media pages. Regional virtual public workshops were promoted with flyers—shown below—in English, Spanish, Vietnamese, and Mandarin that included dates, times, translation information, and links to meeting registration and the letstalkhousingscc.org website.
Figure A-1. Let’s Talk Housing Santa Clara County Website Events Page Source: https://www.letstalkhousingscc.org/events
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX A, PAGE 3
Figure A-2. Virtual Public Workshop Promotional Flyers in English and Spanish Note: Flyers were also available in Vietnamese and Mandarin.
City and County staff posted flyers on official websites and social media profiles with captions from a social media toolkit, as seen in the example below from the City of Palo Alto’s website. The social media toolkit included captions in English, Spanish, Vietnamese, and Mandarin. Figure A-3. Virtual Public Workshop Promotional Page, City of Palo Alto Website Source: City of Palo Alto.
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX A, PAGE 4
Popup events were advertised locally on City websites and social media pages with flyers such as the one presented below from the Gilroy and South County Open House event. Figure A-4. Gilroy and South County Open House Promotional Flyer Stakeholders from stakeholder partner organizations and former subrecipients and grant applicants were invited through email to participate in virtual workshops, while stakeholders from other organizations could register their interest on the Let’s Talk Housing SCC website through a Google form. Figure A-5. Stakeholder Workshop Information and Registration Page, Let’s Talk Housing SCC Website Source: https://www.letstalkhousingscc.org/orgs
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX A, PAGE 5
Citizen Participation and Stakeholder Consultation Findings This section summarizes the feedback received from residents and stakeholders in pop up events, virtual public workshops, and stakeholder focus groups. It is organized around the four broad categories of need discussed at each event: ¾ Housing needs ¾ Public/supportive services needs ¾ Community development needs ¾ Economic development needs For each category of need, this section includes discussions of community concerns, consideration of residents and locations with the greatest need, and suggested solutions. Housing needs. Residents and stakeholders reported that there are shortages in shelter and support services across the county, with the most acute needs for very low income households in the South County. Special needs groups with the most acute needs include: ¾ Domestic violence survivors—for whom there are only 63 emergency shelter beds in the county—need low-barrier, safety- and trauma-informed crisis housing that helps them access childcare and services. ¾ LGBTQ+ residents who have experienced mistreatment in-specific shelters need tailored shelters. ¾ There is also a lack of sober living environments and substance-friendly housing options in transitional housing. ¾ Housing is even harder to find for groups with special needs including residents with disabilities who need accessible units and seniors who need fall prevention design and modifications to age in place. Seniors increasingly resort to living in RVs, which are often in poor condition. Geographic differences included: ¾ South County and Gilroy residents placed a priority on addressing the shelter and service gaps faced by migrant farm workers. Many county-level stakeholders and South County residents recommended allowing and funding safe parking areas as an interim solution. ¾ South County and Gilroy residents also put a very high priority on permanent supportive housing for people moving out of homelessness. ¾ South County and Gilroy residents were also unique for their prioritization of first time homeownership activities—something that other areas of the County did not prioritize due to the remarkably high cost of homes in their areas. Except for deed-restricted, Below Market Rate homeownership products, homebuying assistance programs are not realistic.
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX A, PAGE 6
¾ Unique to Mountain View was an emphasis on providing rental assistance and new rental products to help those who have middle incomes. These households have incomes that are too high to qualify for LIHTC, but too low to afford market rate rentals without being cost burdened. Overall, the housing needs most frequently cited included: Affordable rental housing, rental assistance, and affordable homeownership opportunities (South County). Income restricted units often target households at 60-80% AMI, so very low and extremely low income households often cannot afford these units. AMIs reflect the incomes of both renters and homeowners in the County and not the reality of workforce. This is compounded by a lack of rental assistance and vouchers. Further, these developments often have restrictions around renters’ histories and credit scores that make it difficult for applicants who could afford rent to qualify. Residents frequently reported that even in market rate rental units with manageable monthly rents, deposits were prohibitively expensive. There is very little naturally occurring affordable housing (NOAH) in the area, and even mobile home communities—historically NOAH—are increasingly difficult for low income households to afford due to increasing lot rents. Housing solutions. To address affordability challenges, participants recommended individualized support in the forms of emergency rental assistance, security deposit assistance, and down payment assistance and broader policy change such as zoning reform and density incentives, streamlining residential development applications and approvals, siting workforce housing near employment centers to mitigate displacement, and implementing rent control policies (suggested in Sunnyvale, Mountain View, and Campbell—with an emphasis on essential workers). Participants advocated for future development to be sited in walkable areas near transportation, ensuring access to employment, food, and essential services for low income households. Participants expressed concerns about limited parking in residential areas far from public transit. A common theme in the solutions discussion was building intentional communities, whether these be tiny home communities for people moving on from homelessness or communities for people with intellectual and development disabilities, or communities for youth moving into adulthood. Residents and stakeholders also reported that navigating housing processes is difficult due to bureaucratic and private market barriers. The process of securing rental housing is complicated, especially for groups who may struggle to qualify for a unit—including individuals without work history and individuals who face barriers to employment (e.g. undocumented residents, foster youth moving into adulthood who lack work histories, domestic violence survivors who need trauma-informed employment). Housing navigation ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX A, PAGE 7
services including application assistance and negotiation with landlords were recommended. Participants identified a need for tenant rights education, particularly for youth, families who may be illegally denied housing because they have children or a Section 8 voucher (as observed by multiple participants), and seniors who are unaware of their right to reasonable modifications. Additional legal assistance for tenants was also identified as a need as free legal services in the county are currently overwhelmed. Financial instability is a significant barrier to staying in housing, particularly for seniors and families. Social Security Income benefits for seniors have not kept pace with housing costs, causing a rise in seniors applying for Section 8 vouchers—which come with a long application and approval process—and an inability for seniors to make essential repairs to deteriorating homes. Low income families must manage expenses of both housing and childcare and may respond by living in overcrowded or substandard conditions, risking eviction and displacement when conditions are discovered. Participants recommended increasing home repair assistance and funding landlord-tenant mediation and emergency rental assistance—currently a gap in the county’s services infrastructure—to promote housing stability. Other solutions recommended in workshops and pop-up events included community land trusts (CLTs) and limited equity housing cooperatives to promote homeownership, universal basic income (UBI) to allow residents to meet their immediate housing needs, and long term (3-year) housing voucher programs and landlord partnerships to promote housing stability. Public/supportive services needs. Residents and stakeholders highlighted countywide needs for affordable and stigma-free mental health and substance abuse services, legal assistance, food programs and addressing food deserts, financial literacy education, and eviction and homelessness prevention including rental assistance and landlord-tenant mediation. Participants also identified a need for expanded access to medical, dental, and vision care, especially in Sunnyvale, Palo Alto, Mountain View, and the South County. There are also significant population specific needs: ¾ Families with children need improved access to affordable childcare and after school programming to maintain employment (also discussed in “economic development”). ¾ Immigrants and residents with limited English proficiency—who are most concentrated in the South County—need language services and classes, citizenship classes, housing assistance, navigating public transportation systems, and legal help to become economically self sufficient—and find that many service providers cannot accommodate them. ¾ Domestic violence survivors face critical geographic gaps in services (in-person services are not available in Milpitas, Campbell, Santa Clara, Mountain View, Cupertino, ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX A, PAGE 8
Palo Alto, and Saratoga), and domestic violence offices in the county have cut hours and staff capacity due to limited funding, increasing reliance on volunteers who lack expertise. Accessing domestic violence services is especially difficult for undocumented residents. Increased funding for domestic violence services is needed. ¾ Seniors need affordable and accessible transportation, home health care, and legal support for aging in place. ¾ Unhoused residents need hygiene assistance and employment navigation assistance. Participants shared that the locations of service providers—often in areas that are easiest to serve, rather than areas that have the highest need—are not pedestrian-accessible or near transit stops, complicating access for transit-dependent residents. Many service providers operate only during 9-5 business hours, conflicting with potential clients’ work schedules. New public and nonprofit facilities should be sited in high need, pedestrian-friendly, and transit-connected areas. Residents recommended convening service providers in “family resource centers” where clients can access a wide range of services. Residents are often unfamiliar with the services available to them or do not know how to access services. Further, supportive services are difficult to navigate independently: clients must locate relevant organizations, submit multiple (often complicated) applications to various organizations, and navigate long waitlists. Special needs populations face additional barriers to accessing services. Case management—where available in the county—is sporadic and insufficient due to lack of funding and high turnover among poorly paid case workers. High turnover leads to low institutional knowledge among case managers and nonprofit service providers, diminishing the quality of service available. Case management is especially critical for foster care youth, immigrants, and unhoused individuals who may be navigating support systems for the first time. Participants recommended that the County fund case management services and a consolidated search platform or drop in centers; that cities and nonprofits collaborate more frequently and fully; and that service providers design and adopt a single, straightforward application accepted by multiple organizations. Community development needs. Residents frequently reported a need for new, accessible community centers with recreational, cultural, and educational programming, access to services, reservable common spaces, and potentially subsidized meals. Residents also recommended providing community spaces with engagement opportunities in new housing developments. Multiple stakeholders reported that social isolation is a common problem for the county’s seniors and recommended increased provision of senior recreational programming and facilities such as an indoor walking track. One stakeholder reported that many senior centers are run down and need renovation.
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX A, PAGE 9
Multiple stakeholders offered ideas for how to increase community and combat loneliness through “communal social centers” and free events; this was mentioned frequently in Campbell. Participants consistently reported gaps in the availability of childcare options and youth programming including after school programs, youth sports, and teen programming, advocating for the construction of new youth centers and enhanced city collaboration with youth-serving nonprofits. One stakeholder recommended home daycares as a community-embedded, potentially affordable alternative to commercial daycares. There is also a lack of safe spaces for LGBTQ+ teens and foster care youth moving into adulthood in the county. Residents and stakeholders frequently reported that accessible, well-connected public transportation is essential for connecting residents with employment opportunities, essential services, and grocery stores. Bus service is inconsistent, bus stops are limited, and transit is difficult to navigate. There are needs for new bus stops, improvements to existing bus stops, greater reliability and frequency, improved accessibility for residents with mobility differences, an app to keep commuters updated on VTA service, and translation of navigation materials into multiple languages. Broader infrastructure improvements are also needed. There was very widespread concern that bike lanes and pedestrian infrastructure such as sidewalks and street crossings are nonexistent, unsafe, or non-ADA compliant in areas across the county, including near essential public facilities. Bike lane safety could be improved with public education on bike lane use. Road improvements including street light and intersection improvements are also needed across the county. Participants also called for improvements to trails and outdated parks, with a focus on providing safer parks with better lighting. While these needs are countywide, infrastructure improvements have not kept up with housing development especially in the South County: residents report needs to fill pot holes, improve sidewalks, and resolve frequent electricity and internet outages. Mountain View residents also emphasized safety and mobility improvements due to recent accidents and deaths. Several participants including South County and Campbell residents expressed a need for climate resilience planning, creek rise mitigation, tree planting, and expanding access to solar energy. Other miscellaneous needs discussed include new community pools, general recreation opportunities, speed bumps in residential areas, and cultural and arts facilities. As a general solution to community development needs, stakeholders recommended that the County provide jurisdictional planning departments with a centralized list of grant opportunities and capacity building resources. Economic development needs. Stakeholders and residents reported significant needs for adult education, job training, and skills development across the county and especially in East San Jose and the South County. Workforce development programs are ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX A, PAGE 10
critical to the economic mobility of residents of all ages seeking higher paying jobs, and participants noted that they are particularly important for youth entering the workforce and unhoused residents seeking gainful employment. Residents recommended trade education, and several stakeholders reported that youth would benefit from paid internship or trade apprenticeship opportunities. Workforce development programs should be offered outside of regular business hours and in English and Spanish where possible, especially in areas with large monolingual Spanish populations like the South County. There is also a need for marketing of existing programs: one low income resident expressed interest in skills development, but did not know of any programs in the county. Residents consistently reported needs for small business support including entrepreneurship support, microbusiness assistance, small business grants and loans, and technical assistance, especially for minority-owned businesses. Several residents noted a lack of affordable commercial kitchen space for emerging entrepreneurs, and while others noted that local small businesses and retail establishments are suffering due to a lack of support. Mountain View residents reported that there are many empty or closed businesses on Castro Street, recommending that the City streamline business permitting processes and lift the downtown vendor ban. Others called for more formal and traditional programs to build capacity for trades, noting that small business development comes with risk. Many participants expressed concern that essential workers cannot afford to live in the county, emphasizing that affordable rental and homeownership options are essential to workforce development and retention. Some participants recommended building designated workforce rental housing near employment centers, increasing access to vouchers, offering down payment assistance, and exploring innovative homeownership solutions including community land trusts, sweat equity programs, and limited equity housing cooperatives. Others emphasized a need for creation of and access to higher paying jobs. Participants consistently reported that access to affordable childcare and reliable, accessible public transportation—currently gaps in the county, discussed in “community development needs” above—are needed to promote economic mobility of low to moderate income households. Stakeholders and South County residents reported that immigrants struggle to access skills training and small business development resources due to immigration status and/or language needs, resulting in needs for immigration support and expanded access to English language training. South County residents with limited English proficiency reported immigration-related employment discrimination and poor working conditions. Other participants noted that domestic violence survivors need trauma-informed employment opportunities, recommending training for employers on the impact of trauma and support policies like flexible work hours and affordable childcare for survivors. Other needs discussed include support for residents starting cooperatives and nonprofit organizations, ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX A, PAGE 11
financial literacy education, and retraining, skill-building, and volunteer opportunities for recently laid-off tech workers in Mountain View.
APPENDIX B. SURVEY FINDINGS
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX B, PAGE 1
APPENDIX B. Survey Findings Santa Clara County conducted the 2024 Santa Clara County Housing and Community Needs Survey to better understand the greatest housing, community development, and economic development needs in the county. The survey was administered to both residents and stakeholders to gain an in-depth understanding of concerns from those who deliver services and those who may receive them. The survey results influenced the priority needs and goals for the 2025-2029 Five-year Consolidated Plan. Primary Findings Housing needs and outcomes ¾ Low- to moderate-income families were identified as the group with the greatest challenge finding and keeping housing in Santa Clara County, followed by persons who are currently unhoused, persons with mental illness, persons with disabilities, and seniors; ¾ Over half (52%) of residents selected homeownership opportunities for low- to moderate-income residents as the most needed housing activity. Residents in southern Santa Clara County, renter respondents, Hispanic respondents, large households, and single parents selected homeownership opportunities and rental housing for low income renters at the highest rates; ¾ More affordable rental housing was the most desired housing outcome using federal funding at 44%, followed by more affordable homeownership (37%), better distribution of affordable housing (36%), supportive housing for unhoused individuals or families (33%), and increased shelter capacity (30%); and ¾ More affordable homeownership opportunities were selected by Hispanic respondents at the highest rate of any racial or ethnic group (58%). Additionally, 56% percent of Hispanic respondents selected better distribution of affordable housing—also the highest of any race or ethnicity. Community and economic development needs and outcomes ¾ Affordable childcare was identified as the top community development need (41%), followed by mental health services (37%), services for the unhoused (35%), and youth activities (30%); ¾ Increased access to mental healthcare services was the most frequently selected community development outcome by respondents (34%), followed by additional and/or higher quality childcare centers (33%), sidewalk and streetlight improvements ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX B, PAGE 2
(32%), transportation services for seniors (31%), improved access to fresh food (29%), and new/improved community centers (29%); and ¾ Respondents selected job training programs as the most desired economic development outcome (39%), followed by more opportunities for small businesses (35%), improved transportation to areas with job opportunities (34%), and revitalization of neighborhood businesses (34%). Funding priorities for Housing Given that housing is a critical need in the county, the survey contained a subset of questions about prioritizing housing funding among eligible activities. Respondents were asked to rank items from 1, indicating strong disagreement for funding, to 10, indicating strong agreement that the item should be funded. ¾ Housing affordable to residents working in public services like public safety, librarians, and teachers received the highest average rating, followed by housing affordable to residents on fixed income, and housing for youth exiting foster care; and ¾ Hispanic respondents rated starter homes for first time buyers, housing for larger households, housing for multigenerational households, and housing for youth exiting the foster system at higher rates relative to other racial/ethnic groups. Homelessness and displacement ¾ Thirteen percent of survey respondents reported that they are currently or had been unhoused in Santa Clara County in the past year. Twenty-five percent of respondents identifying as “other” or multiple races and 16% of Hispanic respondents had experienced homelessness in the past year. A quarter (25%) of those with a disability in the household, 26% within a large household, 27% of renters with household income less than $49,999, and 31% of single parents experienced homelessness within the last year in Santa Clara County; and ¾ Twenty-three percent of survey respondents reported that they have had to move from their home/ apartment when they did not want to in the last five years. Single parents had the highest displacement rate at 51%. Increases in rent were the most frequently selected reason for displacement. Accessibility needs ¾ Twenty-four percent of respondents reported that they or someone in their household has a disability. Of those with a disability or those living with a household member who has a disability, 30% currently live in a home or apartment that does not meet their accessibility needs; and ¾ Forty-one percent of respondents whose home needed modifications said they needed a walk or roll-in shower. This was followed closely by 39% who needed grab ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX B, PAGE 3
bars, 29% who needed ramps, 28% who needed a reserved accessible parking spot by the entrance, and 26% who needed stair lifts. Stakeholder perspectives Responses from those who work in the housing and community development fields (called “stakeholders” in this section) were similar to resident responses. Stakeholders prioritized affordable rental housing and identified increased access to mental health services as a top community development need. However, stakeholders less frequently identified homeownership as a priority. Stakeholders also opined on service gaps, noting that transportation services and childcare for homeless people were the hardest resources to access, while general outreach and advocacy for homeless and counseling services for veterans were rated as the easiest to access. Methodology and Sample The survey was available online in English, Spanish, Arabic, Chinese, French, Portuguese, Russian, Somali, and Vietnamese. Paper surveys were also administered throughout Santa Clara County in English and Spanish. The survey was advertised on social media platforms, the county’s online hub for information on the Consolidated Plan (www.letstalkhousingscc.org), stakeholder lists, and county staff email lists. 1,659 people responded to the survey. 1,446 were residents only, 136 were both residents and stakeholders who work for an organization or agency that serves county residents, and 77 were stakeholders who served county residents but lived outside of Santa Clara County or in San Jose. Stakeholder perspectives are included at the end of this report. All other analysis is reflective of residents (including stakeholders within Santa Clara County) only.
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX B, PAGE 4
Figure B-1. Survey Promotion on Let’s Talk Housing Santa Clara County Source: Let's Talk Housing Santa Clara. Sampling note. The survey respondents do not represent a random sample of the county’s population. A true random sample is a sample in which each individual in the population has an equal chance of being selected for the survey. The self-selected nature of the survey prevents the collection of a true random sample. When considering the experience of members of certain groups within Santa Clara County, some sample sizes are too small (n<40 respondents) to express results quantitatively. In these cases, we describe the survey findings as representative of those who responded to the survey, but the magnitude of the estimate may vary significantly in the overall population (i.e., large margin of error). Survey data from small samples are suggestive of an experience or preference, rather than conclusive. Explanation of terms. ¾ “North County” includes respondents from Campbell City, Cupertino, Lost Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Milpitas, Monte Sereno, Mountain View, Palo Alto, Santa Clara City, San Jose, Saratoga, and Sunnyvale. Residents that did not select a city are still represented within the Santa Clara County category and results overall.
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX B, PAGE 5
¾ “South County” includes respondents from Morgan Hill, Gilroy, and respondents who selected “other unincorporated city.” ¾ “Precariously housed” includes residents who are staying with friends and family but not on lease (“couch surfing”), are staying in shelters, transitional housing, rapid rehousing, hotels/motels, and sleeping on the street or car. ¾ “Disability” indicates that the respondent or a member of the respondent’s household has a disability of some type—physical, mental, intellectual, developmental. ¾ “Single parents” are respondents living with their children without a spouse or partner. ¾ “Large households” are made up of five or more people in one housing unit. ¾ “Older adult” is a respondent older than 65. Demographics Over half (58%) of respondents resided in northern Santa Clara County and 37% lived in the southern portion of the county. Almost half (47%) of respondents were homeowners, 32% were renters, and 11% identified as precariously housed. Twenty-six percent of respondents identified as non-Hispanic White and 22% identified as Hispanic. Respondents with household income less than $49,999 made up the highest proportion of any income bracket (20%). By household type, 24% of respondents reported a disability in the household, 16% were older adults, 13% were large households, and 10% were renters with household income less than $49,999. Twenty-four percent of respondents were a couple with children and 6% were single parents. Southern Santa Clara County has more Hispanic respondents, households with income less than $49,999, and slightly more renter households compared to respondents in northern Santa Clara County.
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX B, PAGE 6
Figure B-2. Respondent Demographics
Note: n = 1,659. County numbers do not add to 100% due to non-resident stakeholders and non-answers. Some categories may not add to 100% due to non-answers. Some categories may add to more than 100% if respondents were able to select more than one answer. Source: Root Policy Research from the 2024 Santa Clara County Housing and Community Needs Survey. n % n % n %
Tot al 1,659100% 955 58% 610 37%
Respondent Type
St ak e h o l d e r an d Re si d e n t136 8% 79 8% 54 9% Resi d en t On l y 1,44687% 876 92% 556 91%
St ak e h o l d e r On l y77 5% - - - -
Tenure
Homeowner 776 47% 492 52% 279 46%
Ren t er 526 32% 305 32% 220 36%
Precariously Housed 182 11% 98 10% 84 14%
Other 175 11% 60 6% 27 4%
Race and Et hnicit y
Non-Hispanic White 428 26% 309 32% 116 19%
Asian 81 5% 77 8% 4 1%
Other/Multiple Races 186 11% 142 15% 44 7%
Hispanic 365 22% 94 10% 271 44%
Household Income
Less than $49,999 338 20% 164 17% 173 28%
$50,000 up to $99,999 241 15% 139 15% 101 17%
$100,000 up to $149,999 152 9% 95 10% 56 9%
$150,000 or more 238 14% 168 18% 70 11%
Household Characteristics
Large Households (5 or more)215 13% 80 8% 135 22%
Older Adult (Over 65) 268 16% 172 18% 95 16%
Disability 404 24% 238 25% 165 27%
Ren t er w i t h In co m e < $49,999172 10% 73 8% 99 16% Fam ily Type
No C hildren/Unspecified 1,16370% 682 71% 388 64%
Co u p l e w i t h Ch i l d r en390 24% 222 23% 167 27% Si n gl e Par e n t 106 6% 51 5% 55 9%
Sant a Clara Count yNorth CountySout h Count y
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX B, PAGE 7
Housing Needs Groups with the greatest housing challenges. Respondents were asked to identify the groups with the greatest challenge finding and keeping housing in Santa Clara County. Most respondents selected low- or moderate-income families (51%), followed by persons who are currently unhoused (47%), persons with mental illness (45%), and persons with disabilities (36%). Other responses included: ¾ “Survivors of domestic violence” ¾ “Young adults and recent graduates” ¾ “People with pets” ¾ “Unemployed people” Figure B-3. Groups with the Greatest Challenges Finding and Keeping Housing Note: n = 1,582. Source: Root Policy Research from the 2024 Santa Clara County Housing and Community Needs Survey.
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX B, PAGE 8
The following figures break down the groups identified as having the greatest challenges finding and keeping housing by county location, tenure, race and ethnicity, household income, selected household characteristics, and family type: ¾ Responses were similar across the county. Respondents in southern Santa Clara County selected low- or moderate-income families and seniors/elderly persons at higher rates than those in northern Santa Clara County; ¾ By tenure, renters selected low-or moderate-income families at a higher proportion (63%) than precariously housed respondents (53%) and homeowners (46%). Homeowners selected persons with mental illness at the highest rate (52%) and precariously housed respondents selected persons with disabilities and unhoused individuals at the highest rate (42% and 51%, respectively); ¾ Hispanic respondents selected low-or moderate-income families (69%) and seniors (39%) as those who had the greatest housing challenges finding and keeping housing at the highest rate, but selected unhoused individuals at the lowest (24%); ¾ Households with income less than $49,999 selected low- or moderate-income families at the highest rate (61%) and seniors (42%), while those with household income $150,000 or more selected persons who are unhoused and persons with mental illness at the highest rates (60% and 58%, respectively); ¾ Large households and renter households with income less than $49,999 selected low- to moderate-income families at the highest rates while older adults and respondents with a disability selected persons with mental illness and unhoused individuals at the highest rates; and ¾ Respondents with children (both couples with children and single parents) selected low-or moderate-income families and unhoused individuals at higher rates than those without children.
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX B, PAGE 9
Figure B-4. Top Five Groups with Greatest Housing Challenges, North and South Santa Clara County Note: n = 1,582. Source: Root Policy Research from the 2024 Santa Clara County Housing and Community Needs Survey. Figure B-5. Top Five Groups with Greatest Housing Challenges, Tenure Note: n = 1,582. Source: Root Policy Research from the 2024 Santa Clara County Housing and Community Needs Survey.
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX B, PAGE 10
Figure B-6. Top Five Groups with Greatest Housing Challenges, Race and Ethnicity Note: n = 1,582. Source: Root Policy Research from the 2024 Santa Clara County Housing and Community Needs Survey. Figure B-7. Top Five Groups with Greatest Housing Challenges, Household Income Note: n = 1,582. Source: Root Policy Research from the 2024 Santa Clara County Housing and Community Needs Survey.
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX B, PAGE 11
Figure B-8. Top Five Groups with Greatest Housing Challenges, Selected Household Characteristics Note: n = 1,582. Source: Root Policy Research from the 2024 Santa Clara County Housing and Community Needs Survey. Figure B-9. Top Five Groups with Greatest Housing Challenges, Family Type Note: n = 1,582. Source: Root Policy Research from the 2024 Santa Clara County Housing and Community Needs Survey.
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX B, PAGE 12
Most needed housing activities. Responses for the most needed housing activities aligned with the results regarding groups with the hardest time finding and keeping housing: The most needed housing activities were homeownership opportunities for low- or moderate-income residents (52%), followed by rental housing for low income renters (49%), supportive housing for unhoused residents (37%), rental housing for seniors (35%), and emergency shelters (35%). Figure B-10. Most Needed Housing Activities Note: n = 1,582. Source: Root Policy Research from the 2024 Santa Clara County Housing and Community Needs Survey.
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX B, PAGE 13
The following figures display the most needed housing activities by county location, tenure, race and ethnicity, household income, selected household characteristics, and family type: ¾ Respondents throughout the county selected rental housing for low income renters, supportive housing for unhoused residents, rental housing for seniors, and emergency shelters at similar rates. Those in southern Santa Clara County selected homeownership opportunities at a higher rate (59%) compared to the north (48%) and Santa Clara County overall (52%); ¾ Renter respondents selected homeownership opportunities (65%) and rental housing for low income renters (59%) at the highest rates. Precariously housed respondents selected supportive housing for unhoused residents at the highest proportion (43%); ¾ Hispanic residents selected homeownership opportunities for low- to moderate-income residents at the highest proportion (69%) compared to 52% of non-Hispanic White respondents and 57% of Asian respondents; ¾ Responses by income were mostly in parity, with the exception of respondents with household income between $50,000 and $99,999 selecting homeownership opportunities for low- to moderate-income residents at a higher rate (72%) than other income brackets; ¾ Large households selected homeownership opportunities at the highest proportion (73%) of household groups while older adults selected homeownership opportunities at the lowest (50%). Older adults instead selected rental housing for seniors and emergency shelters as their top housing needs; and ¾ Single parents selected homeownership opportunities (70%) and rental housing for low income renters (62%) at higher rates compared to couples with children and respondents with no children.
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX B, PAGE 14
Figure B-11. Top Five Most Needed Housing Activities, North and South Santa Clara County Note: n = 1,582. Source: Root Policy Research from the 2024 Santa Clara County Housing and Community Needs Survey. Figure B-12. Top Five Most Needed Housing Activities, Tenure Note: n = 1,582. Source: Root Policy Research from the 2024 Santa Clara County Housing and Community Needs Survey.
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX B, PAGE 15
Figure B-13. Top Five Most Needed Housing Activities, Race and Ethnicity Note: n = 1,582. Source: Root Policy Research from the 2024 Santa Clara County Housing and Community Needs Survey. Figure B-14. Top Five Most Needed Housing Activities, Household Income Note: n = 1,582. Source: Root Policy Research from the 2024 Santa Clara County Housing and Community Needs Survey.
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX B, PAGE 16
Figure B-15. Top Five Most Needed Housing Activities, Selected Household Characteristics Note: n = 1,582. Source: Root Policy Research from the 2024 Santa Clara County Housing and Community Needs Survey. Figure B-16. Top Five Most Needed Housing Activities, Family Type Note: n = 1,582. Source: Root Policy Research from the 2024 Santa Clara County Housing and Community Needs Survey.
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX B, PAGE 17
Housing Outcomes Respondents selected housing outcomes that aligned with their top housing needs that included low income housing for renters and affordable homeownership for low- to moderate-income households. More affordable rental housing was the outcome selected most frequently (44%), followed by more affordable homeownership (37%), better distribution of affordable housing (36%), supportive housing for unhoused individuals or families (33%), and increased shelter capacity (30%). The following figures display the top five housing outcomes by county location, tenure, race and ethnicity, household income, household characteristics, and family type: ¾ Respondents in southern Santa Clara County selected more affordable homeownership opportunities and better distribution of affordable housing at higher rates than respondents in northern Santa Clara County; ¾ Precariously housed respondents selected supportive housing for the unhoused at the highest rate of any tenure category (44%) and renters selected more affordable rental housing and more affordable homeownership opportunities at the highest rates (58% and 51%, respectively); ¾ More affordable homeownership opportunities were selected by Hispanic respondents at the highest rate (58%). Fifty-six percent of Hispanic respondents selected better distribution of affordable housing—the highest of any race or ethnicity; ¾ There was little variation between household income brackets for housing outcome items. Respondents with household income more than $150,000 selected more affordable rental housing at a slightly lower rate than lower income brackets; ¾ Sixty-three percent of large households selected more affordable homeownership opportunities—the highest of household groups; and ¾ Single parents selected more affordable rental housing, more affordable homeownership opportunities, better distribution of affordable housing, supportive housing for unhoused, and increased shelter capacity at higher rates than couples with children and respondents without children.
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX B, PAGE 18
Figure B-17. Top Housing Outcomes
Note: n = 1,582. Source: Root Policy Research from the 2024 Santa Clara County Housing and Community Needs Survey.
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX B, PAGE 19
Figure B-18. Top Five Housing Outcomes, North and South Santa Clara County Note: n = 1,582. Source: Root Policy Research from the 2024 Santa Clara County Housing and Community Needs Survey. Figure B-19. Top Five Housing Outcomes, Tenure Note: n = 1,582. Source: Root Policy Research from the 2024 Santa Clara County Housing and Community Needs Survey.
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX B, PAGE 20
Figure B-20. Top Five Housing Outcomes, Race and Ethnicity Note: n = 1,582. Source: Root Policy Research from the 2024 Santa Clara County Housing and Community Needs Survey. Figure B-21. Top Five Housing Outcomes, Household Income Note: n = 1,582. Source: Root Policy Research from the 2024 Santa Clara County Housing and Community Needs Survey.
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX B, PAGE 21
Figure B-22. Top Five Housing Outcomes, Selected Household Characteristics Note: n = 1,582. Source: Root Policy Research from the 2024 Santa Clara County Housing and Community Needs Survey. Figure B-23. Top Five Housing Outcomes, Family Type Note: n = 1,582. Source: Root Policy Research from the 2024 Santa Clara County Housing and Community Needs Survey.
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX B, PAGE 22
Funding Priorities: Housing Respondents were asked to rank items from 1, indicating strong disagreement for funding, to 10, indicating strong agreement that the item should be funded. Housing affordable to residents working in public services like public safety, librarians, and teachers, received the highest average rating, followed by housing affordable to residents on fixed income, and housing for youth exiting foster care. The following figures analyze average rankings by county location, tenure, race and ethnicity, household income, selected household characteristics, and family type: ¾ Funding for starter homes for first time buyers, apartments appealing to young adults working or starting families, housing for larger households, and housing for multigenerational households were rated higher by respondents in the southern parts of the county compared to the north. Other items were rated similarly across the county; ¾ Renters and precariously housed respondents rated funding for starter homes, apartments for young adults, housing for downsizing, permanent supportive housing for unhoused individuals, and housing for larger households substantially higher than homeowners. While renters and precariously housed respondents were mostly in parity, precariously housed respondents rated housing for larger households and housing for multigenerational households higher than renters; ¾ Hispanic respondents rated starter homes for first time buyers, housing for larger households, housing for multigenerational households, and housing for youth exiting the foster system at higher rates compared to other racial/ethnic groups; ¾ Respondents with household income less than $49,999 rated funding for housing for larger households, housing for multigenerational households, housing for people with a criminal record, and permanent supportive housing for unhoused individuals noticeably higher than other income brackets; ¾ Larger households rated starter homes and homes for multigenerational households higher than other household groups, while renters with household income less than $49,999 rated apartments for young adults, housing for those losing mobility, housing for people with a criminal record, and permanent supportive housing for unhoused individuals at noticeably higher rates than other groups. Older adults gave the lowest rating to housing for larger households; and ¾ Single parents gave substantially higher ratings to housing for larger households, more shelter beds, housing for people with a criminal record, housing for those with mental illness, and permanent supportive housing for unhoused individuals compared to couples with children and respondents with no children.
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX B, PAGE 23
Figure B-24. Rating of Importance for Funding, North and South Santa Clara County Note: n = 1,582. Source: Root Policy Research from the 2024 Santa Clara County Housing and Community Needs Survey.
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX B, PAGE 24
Figure B-25. Rating of Importance for Funding, Tenure
Note: n = 1,582. Source: Root Policy Research from the 2024 Santa Clara County Housing and Community Needs Survey.
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX B, PAGE 25
Figure B-26. Rating of Importance for Funding, Race and Ethnicity Note: n = 1,582. Source: Root Policy Research from the 2024 Santa Clara County Housing and Community Needs Survey.
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX B, PAGE 26
Figure B-27. Rating of Importance for Funding, Household Income Note: n = 1,582. Source: Root Policy Research from the 2024 Santa Clara County Housing and Community Needs Survey.
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX B, PAGE 27
Figure B-28. Rating of Importance for Funding, Selected Household Characteristics Note: n = 1,582. Source: Root Policy Research from the 2024 Santa Clara County Housing and Community Needs Survey.
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX B, PAGE 28
Figure B-29. Rating of Importance for Funding, Family Type Note: n = 1,582. Source: Root Policy Research from the 2024 Santa Clara County Housing and Community Needs Survey
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX B, PAGE 29
Homelessness and Displacement Homelessness. People experiencing homelessness can be difficult to pick up in surveys, as they face barriers to internet access, language challenges, and are moving in and out of shelters frequently. Despite these challenges, 194 individuals responded that they are or had been unhoused in the county within the past year. The figure below shows the percentage of each group of respondents indicating that they have recently or currently are experiencing homelessness. Twenty-five percent of respondents identifying as other or multiple races and 16% of Hispanic respondents had experienced homelessness in the past year. A quarter (25%) of those with a disability in the household, 26% within a large household, 27% of renters with household income less than $49,999, and 31% of single parents experienced homelessness within the last year in Santa Clara County.
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX B, PAGE 30
Figure B-30. Are you currently or have you been unhoused in Santa Clara County in the past year? Note: n = 1,459 (all county respondents). The percentage for each group is based on the total number of respondents within that group who indicate they have experienced or are experiencing homelessness. Source: Root Policy Research from the 2024 Santa Clara County Housing and Community Needs Survey.
Respondents who have experienced homelessness provided input on shelters that would most meet their needs. Answers included: ¾ “A room with parking nearby.” ¾ “Non-congregate supportive shelter.” ¾ “Safe supportive shelter for women and children.” ¾ “[A place that] accepts couples with pets.” ¾ “A tiny home.” ¾ “Natural disaster shelter.” Respondents also gave input on shelters that are most needed in Santa Clara County in general:
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX B, PAGE 31
¾ “Bigger, safer shelters.” ¾ “A partial hospitalization program.” ¾ “A place where families can stay together and have some privacy and feel secure.” ¾ “A shelter to assist people with mental illnesses and a shelter to assist people with substance abuse issues to get them treated and be able to function in the community.” ¾ “A system that handholds individuals from emergency housing to successful permanent housing.” ¾ “Affordable housing. Any and all types.” ¾ “Cold night shelter with non-prescriptive rules.” ¾ “Domestic violence shelters.” ¾ “Safe family shelters.” ¾ “Low-barrier, non-congregate shelters.” ¾ “Restrooms or showers for motor-home street dwellers.” ¾ “Permanent supportive housing for those with physical, mental, and/or addictive illnesses.” ¾ “Permanent supportive housing for those with substance abuse issues that is not combined with housing for low income seniors.” ¾ “Safe RV parking.” ¾ “Shelters for LGBT+ and senior citizens.” ¾ “Tiny home community with shower and laundry facilities.” ¾ “Transitional Aged Youth shelter with mental health support.” ¾ “More winter shelters.” Displacement experiences. To better understand the precursors to homelessness, residents were asked if they have had to move from their home or apartment in the last five years when they did not want to. Twenty-three percent of respondents reported that they had experienced displacement. The following figures displays the proportion of respondents who have experienced displacement by county location, tenure, race and ethnicity, selected household characteristics, and family type, along with the top five reasons for moving: ¾ Rent increases were the most frequently selected reason for displacement among all groups, except for respondents who identified as other or multiple races who selected eviction due to rental arrears most frequently; ¾ In northern Santa Clara County, eviction due to rental arrears was the second most common reason for displacement, while in southern Santa Clara County, landlord selling the home/ apartment was the second most common reason. Respondents in both areas of the county reported poor condition of property as a reason for moving when they did not want to; ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX B, PAGE 32
¾ Thirty-seven percent of renters and 54% of precariously housed individuals reported displacement in the past five years. Renters reported landlord selling property and utility expenses were top reasons for their displacement. Precariously housed respondents reported losing a job or reduction in hours and eviction due to rental arrears as top reasons for displacement; ¾ Hispanic respondents had the largest proportion of respondents who experienced displacement within all race and ethnicity categories (32%). Asian respondents were the only group to selected unsafe housing (e.g. domestic violence) as a top reason for displacement; ¾ By income, almost half (49%) of respondents with income less than $49,999 experienced displacement. Eviction due to rental arrears was selected second most frequently in this income bracket after increase in rent. Career moves and job changes were selected more frequently in higher income brackets; ¾ Forty-nine percent of renters with income less than $49,999, 42% of large households, and 38% of households with a disability reported displacement in the last five years. Large households reported eviction due to apartment rule violations more frequently than other groups; and ¾ Over half (51%) of single parents experienced displacement in the past five years compared to 30% of couples with children and 17% of respondents with no children.
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX B, PAGE 33
Figure B-31. Reasons for Displacement, Jurisdiction and Tenure Note: n = 1,342. Source: Root Policy Research from the 2024 Santa Clara County Housing and Community Needs Survey.
PERCENT WHO REPORTED DISPLACEM ENT
Sa n t a Cl a r a Co u n t yNorth C ounty So u t h Co u n t y Rent er Precariously Housed 23% 24% 22% 37% 54%
WHAT WERE THE REASONS YOU HAD TO MOVE? (TOP 5 ANSWERS) 1Ren t i n cr eased m or e
than I could pay
Ren t i n cr eased m or e
than I could pay
Ren t i n cr eased m or e
than I could pay
Ren t i n cr eased m or e
than I could pay
Ren t i n cr eased m or e
than I could pay
2 Lost job/ h ou rs
reduced
Evicted because I was
behind on rent
Lan dlord was sellin g
home/ apartment
Lan dlord was sellin g
home/ apartment
Lost job/ h ou rs
reduced
3Evicted because I was
behind on rent
Lost job/ h ou rs
reduced
Poor con dit ion of
property
Utilities were too
expensive/ shut off
Evicted because I was
was behind on rent
4Lan dlord was sellin g
home/ apartment
Poor con dit ion of
property
Lost job/ h ou rs
reduced
Lost job/ h ou rs
reduced
Per son al/ r elat ion sh ip
reasons
5 Poor con dit ion of
property
Career move/ job
change
Per son al/ r elat ion sh ip
reasons
Poor con dit ion of
property
Poor con dit ion of
property
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX B, PAGE 34
Figure B-32. Reasons for Displacement, Race, Ethnicity, and Household Income Note: n = 1,342. Source: Root Policy Research from the 2024 Santa Clara County Housing and Community Needs Survey.
PERCENT WHO REPORTED DISPLACEM ENT
White Asian
Other/ Multiple
Races Hispanic
Income
<$49,999
Income $50,000 -
$99,999
Income
$100,000 -
$150,000
Income
$150,000+
19% 14% 31% 32% 49% 27% 13% 6%
WHAT WERE THE REAS ONS YOU HAD TO MOVE? (TOP 5 ANS WERS ) 1 Ren t i n cr eased
more than I
could pay
Ren t i n cr eased
more than I
could pay
Evicted because
I was behind on
rent
Ren t i n cr eased
more than I
could pay
Ren t i n cr eased
more than I
could pay
Ren t i n cr eased
more than I
could pay
Ren t i n cr eased
more than I
could pay
Ren t i n cr eased
more than I
could pay
2 Landlord was
selling home/
apartment
Lost job/ hours
reduced
Ren t i n cr eased
more than I
could pay
Lost job/ hours
reduced
Evicted because
I was behind on
rent
Lost job/ hours
reduced
Career move/
job change
Utilities were too
expensive/ shut
off
3Lost job/ hours
reduced
Housing was
unsafe (e.g.
domestic
assault)
Landlord
wanted to rent
to someone else
Landlord was
selling home/
apartment
Lost job/ hours
reduced
Landlord was
selling home/
apartment
Utilities were too
expensive/ shut
off
Landlord was
selling home/
apartment
4Career move/
job change
Poor condition
of property
Evicted for no
reason
Poor condition
of property
Landlord was
selling home/
apartment
Career move/
job change
Per sonal/
relationship
reasons
Career move/
job change
5 Per sonal/
relationship
reasons
Evicted because
I was behind on
rent
Utilities were too
expensive/ shut
off
Per sonal/
relationship
reasons
Poor condition
of property
Utilities were too
expensive/ shut
off
Lost job/ hours
reduced
Per sonal/
relationship
reasons
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX B, PAGE 35
Figure B-33. Reasons for Displacement, Selected Household Characteristics and Family Type Note: n = 1,342. Source: Root Policy Research from the 2024 Santa Clara County Housing and Community Needs Survey.
PERCENT WHO HAD TO REDUCE OR GO WITHOUT
Large HouseholdOlder Adults Disability Rent er <$49,999 Couple with
Childr en Si n gl e Pa r e n tNo Children
42% 8% 38% 49% 30% 51% 17%
WHAT DID YOU REDUCE OR GO WITHOUT? (TOP 5 ANS WERS )
1 Ren t i n cr eased
more than I could
pay
Ren t i n cr eased
more than I could
pay
Ren t i n cr eased
more than I could
pay
Ren t i n cr eased
more than I could
pay
Ren t i n cr eased
more than I could
pay
Ren t i n cr eased
more than I could
pay
Ren t i n cr eased
more than I could
pay
2 Evicted because I
was behind on
rent
Landlord was
selling home/
apartment
Evicted because I
was behind on
rent
Evicted because I
was behind on
rent
Evicted because I
was behind on
rent
Lost job/ hours
reduced
Lost job/ hours
reduced
3Lost job/ hours
reduced
Lost job/ hours
reduced
Lost job/ hours
reduced
Landlord was
selling home/
apartment
Landlord was
selling home/
apartment
Evicted because I
was behind on
rent
Landlord was
selling home/
apartment
4Evicted because of
apartment rules
Health/ medical
reasons
Landlord was
selling home/
apartment
Utilities were too
expensive/ shut
off
Utilities were too
expensive/ shut
off
Poor condition of
property
Career move/ job
change
5 Landlord was
selling home/
apartment
Increased
neighborhood
crime
Per sonal/
relationship
reasons
Lost job/ hours
reduced
Poor condition of
property
Landlord was
selling home/
apartment
Per sonal/
relationship
reasons
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX B, PAGE 36
Accessibility Needs Twenty-four percent of respondents reported that they or someone in their household have a disability. Of respondents who reported a disability, the most common types were moderate physical disabilities (48%), followed by mental disabilities (34%), medical disabilities (31%), and developmental disabilities (17%). Of those with a disability or those living with a household member who has a disability, 30% currently live in a home or apartment that does not meet their accessibility needs. Figure B-34. Does your home or apartment meet your accessibility needs? Note: n = 403. Source: Root Policy Research from the 2024 Santa Clara County Housing and Community Needs Survey.
When asked what improvements or modifications they needed to better meet their household needs, 41% of respondents whose home needed modifications said they needed a walk or roll-in shower. This was followed by 39% who needed grab bars, 29% who needed ramps, 28% who needed a reserved accessible parking spot by the entrance, and 26% who needed stair lifts. Other responses included: ¾ “Cleaning crews for property.” ¾ “In-unit laundry.” ¾ “One floor. Stair lift breaks down.”
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX B, PAGE 37
Figure B-35. Improvements and Modifications Needed
Note: n = 121. Source: Root Policy Research from the 2024 Santa Clara County Housing and Community Needs Survey.
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX B, PAGE 38
Community and Economic Development Needs Community and economic development needs questions asked respondents to examine non-housing related services and resources that were missing from Santa Clara County that bolster community and economic activity. The figure on the next page shows the most frequently selected critical community and economic development needs by all survey respondents. Affordable childcare was the top need (41%), followed by mental health services (37%), services for the unhoused (35%), and youth activities (30%). The following figures break down the top community and economic development needs by county location, tenure, race and ethnicity, household income, selected household characteristics, and family type: ¾ Youth activities were selected by 46% of respondents in southern Santa Clara County compared to 20% in northern Santa Clara County; ¾ Precariously housed respondents selected services for unhoused and job training programs at higher rates than homeowners and renters; ¾ Hispanic respondents selected affordable childcare, youth activities, and job training programs at noticeably higher rates compared to other racial and ethnic groups; ¾ The rate affordable childcare was selected increased as income increased, with those with household income $150,000 with the highest proportion. Conversely, job training programs were most favored by those with household income less than $49,999 and rates decreased as income increased; ¾ Fifty-nine percent of large households selected affordable childcare as a top community and economic development need—the most of any group. Large households also selected youth activities and job training programs at the highest rates (51% and 45%, respectively). Respondents with a disability had the highest proportion who selected mental health services (51%); and ¾ Single parents and couples with children had almost equal proportions for all categories, with single parents selecting youth activities and job training programs at slightly higher rates.
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX B, PAGE 39
Figure B-36. Most Critical Community and Economic Development Needs Note: n = 1,582. Source: Root Policy Research from the 2024 Santa Clara County Housing and Community Needs Survey.
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX B, PAGE 40
Figure B-37. Top Five Most Critical Community and Economic Development Needs, Jurisdiction Note: n = 1,582. Source: Root Policy Research from the 2024 Santa Clara County Housing and Community Needs Survey. Figure B-38. Top Five Most Critical Community and Economic Development Needs, Tenure Note: n = 1,582. Source: Root Policy Research from the 2024 Santa Clara County Housing and Community Needs Survey.
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX B, PAGE 41
Figure B-39. Top Five Most Critical Community and Economic Development Needs, Race and Ethnicity Note: n = 1,582. Source: Root Policy Research from the 2024 Santa Clara County Housing and Community Needs Survey. Figure B-40. Top Five Most Critical Community and Economic Development Needs, Household Income Note: n = 1,582. Source: Root Policy Research from the 2024 Santa Clara County Housing and Community Needs Survey.
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX B, PAGE 42
Figure B-41. Top Five Most Critical Community and Economic Development Needs, Selected Household Characteristics Note: n = 1,582. Source: Root Policy Research from the 2024 Santa Clara County Housing and Community Needs Survey. Figure B-42. Top Five Most Critical Community and Economic Development Needs, Family Type Note: n = 1,582. Source: Root Policy Research from the 2024 Santa Clara County Housing and Community Needs Survey.
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX B, PAGE 43
Community and Economic Development Outcomes Desired community and economic development outcomes were selected by respondents. Outcomes reflect the tangible services or resources to meet the community and economic development needs specified in the previous section. Community development outcomes. Increased access to mental healthcare services was the most frequently selected community development outcome by respondents (34%), followed by additional and/or higher quality childcare centers (33%), sidewalk and streetlight improvements (32%), transportation services for seniors (31%), improved access to fresh food (29%), and new/improved community centers (29%). The following figures break down community development outcomes by county location, tenure, race and ethnicity, household income, selected household characteristics, and family type: ¾ Additional childcare centers, sidewalk and streetlight improvements, and improved access to fresh food were selected at higher proportions by respondents in southern Santa Clara County compared to respondents in northern Santa Clara County; ¾ Items were selected at almost equal proportions by tenure with the exception of improved access to fresh food where 42% of precariously housed respondents selected this item compared to 37% of renters and 24% of homeowners; ¾ White respondents selected increased access to mental healthcare at the highest rate while Hispanic respondents selected additional childcare centers, sidewalk and streetlight improvements, and improved access to fresh food at the highest rates; ¾ Rates of selection for transportation services for seniors and improved access to fresh food were highest for households with income less than $49,999. Rates of selection for transportation services for seniors and improved access to fresh food decreased as income increased; ¾ Over half (52%) of large households selected additional childcare centers as a desired community development outcome—the highest of any group. Fifty-two percent of older adults selected transportation services for seniors and 51% of renters with income less than $49,999 selected improved access to fresh food; and ¾ Couples with children selected sidewalk and streetlight improvements at higher rates than single parents. Almost half (49%) of single parents selected improved access to fresh food compared to 37% of couples with children and 23% of respondents without children.
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX B, PAGE 44
Figure B-43. Top Community Development Outcomes
Note: n = 1,582. Source: Root Policy Research from the 2024 Santa Clara County Housing and Community Needs Survey.
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX B, PAGE 45
Figure B-44. Top Five Community Development Outcomes, North and South Santa Clara County Note: n = 1,582. Source: Root Policy Research from the 2024 Santa Clara County Housing and Community Needs Survey. Figure B-45. Top Five Community Development Outcomes, Tenure Note: n = 1,582. Source: Root Policy Research from the 2024 Santa Clara County Housing and Community Needs Survey.
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX B, PAGE 46
Figure B-46. Top Five Community Development Outcomes, Race and Ethnicity Note: n = 1,582. Source: Root Policy Research from the 2024 Santa Clara County Housing and Community Needs Survey. Figure B-47. Top Five Community Development Outcomes, Household Income Note: n = 1,582. Source: Root Policy Research from the 2024 Santa Clara County Housing and Community Needs Survey.
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX B, PAGE 47
Figure B-48. Top Five Community Development Outcomes, Selected Household Characteristics Note: n = 1,582. Source: Root Policy Research from the 2024 Santa Clara County Housing and Community Needs Survey. Figure B-49. Top Five Community Development Outcomes, Family Type Note: n = 1,582. Source: Root Policy Research from the 2024 Santa Clara County Housing and Community Needs Survey.
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX B, PAGE 48
Economic development outcomes. Respondents selected job training programs as the most desired economic development outcome (39%), followed by more opportunities for small businesses (35%), improved transportation to areas with job opportunities (34%), revitalization of neighborhood businesses (34%), and center for seasonal and day laborers (30%). The following figures break down the top five economic development outcomes by county location, tenure, race and ethnicity, household income, selected household characteristics, and family type: ¾ Respondents in southern Santa Clara County selected job training programs and a center for seasonal and day laborers at noticeably higher rates compared to those in northern Santa Clara County; ¾ Precariously housed respondents selected a center for seasonal and day laborers and improved transportation to job opportunities at higher rates than renters and homeowners. Forty percent of homeowners selected revitalization of neighborhood businesses—the highest of any group; ¾ Hispanic respondents selected job training programs and a center for seasonal and day laborers at the highest rates at 59% and 55%, respectively; ¾ Rates of selection for revitalization of neighborhood businesses increased as household income increased, while rates for job training programs and center for seasonal and day laborers decreased as income increased; ¾ Fifty-two percent of renters with household income less than $49,999 selected improved transportation to areas with job opportunities and 61% selected more job training programs—the highest of any group; and ¾ Fifty-two percent of single parents selected job training programs as a desired economic development outcome. Couples with children selected more opportunities for small businesses, improved transportation to areas with job opportunities, and revitalization of neighborhood businesses at higher rates than single parents and respondents with no children.
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX B, PAGE 49
Figure B-50. Top Economic Development Outcomes
Note: n = 1,582. Source: Root Policy Research from the 2024 Santa Clara County Housing and Community Needs Survey. Figure B-51. Top Five Economic Development Outcomes, North and South Santa Clara County Note: n = 1,582. Source: Root Policy Research from the 2024 Santa Clara County Housing and Community Needs Survey.
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX B, PAGE 50
Figure B-52. Top Five Economic Development Outcomes, Tenure Note: n = 1,582. Source: Root Policy Research from the 2024 Santa Clara County Housing and Community Needs Survey. Figure B-53. Top Five Economic Development Outcomes, Race and Ethnicity Note: n = 1,582. Source: Root Policy Research from the 2024 Santa Clara County Housing and Community Needs Survey.
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX B, PAGE 51
Figure B-54. Top Five Economic Development Outcomes, Household Income Note: n = 1,582. Source: Root Policy Research from the 2024 Santa Clara County Housing and Community Needs Survey. Figure B-55. Top Five Economic Development Outcomes, Selected Household Characteristics Note: n = 1,582. Source: Root Policy Research from the 2024 Santa Clara County Housing and Community Needs Survey.
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX B, PAGE 52
Figure B-56. Top Five Economic Development Outcomes, Family Type Note: n = 1,582. Source: Root Policy Research from the 2024 Santa Clara County Housing and Community Needs Survey.
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX B, PAGE 53
Stakeholder Perspectives This survey included a stakeholder-specific section for service providers, city and county staff, and developers. Non-resident stakeholders were asked which groups have the greatest challenges finding and keeping housing in Santa Clara County, and desired housing, community and economic development outcomes. Stakeholders who lived within Santa Clara County and those who lived outside the county rated the ease of access for various services in the county. Stakeholder demographics. The figure below shows the industries stakeholder respondents represented. Thirty-five percent selected a government-related industry followed by 22% who provided services to the unhoused, 19% who provided supportive services to residents, 16% who selected affordable housing advocacy, 13% in affordable housing development, and 13% in K-12 or higher education.
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX B, PAGE 54
Figure B-57. Stakeholder Industries
Note: n =171. Source: Root Policy Research from the 2024 Santa Clara County Housing and Community Needs Survey. n %
Affordable housing advocacy 28 16%
Affordable housing development22 13%
Affordable housing provision 17 10%
Business ow ner/ m anager 11 6%
Civil r igh t s 10 6%
Cr im in al ju st ice 0 0%
Disability rights/advocacy 11 6%
Econ om ic de ve lopm e n t 15 9%
K-12 or higher education 22 13%
En vir on m e n t a l ju st ice 7 4%
Fair housing 16 9%
Food provision 10 6%
Governm ent 60 35%
Se r v i ce s t o u n h ou se d p op u l a t i on s37 22% Homeownership counseling or services5 3%
Insurance 5 3%
Land use planning 11 6%
Landlord/ t enant services 6 4%
Legal aid 10 6%
Lending 3 2%
Market rate hous ing development2 1%
Owner of rental property 5 3%
Propert y m anagem ent 7 4%
Public housing aut horit y 3 2%
Regional planning 6 4%
Resident ial appraisals 5 3%
Rural developm ent 2 1%
Home sales 7 4%
Se r v i ce s f or b u si n e sse s7 4%
Su p p or t i v e se r v i ce s f or r e si d e n t s33 19% Transit provider 0 0%
Transport at ion planning 2 1%
Other 20 12%
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX B, PAGE 55
Stakeholder-identified groups with greatest housing challenges. Of the stakeholders who lived outside of Santa Clara County, persons with mental illness were selected most frequently as the group with the greatest challenges finding and keeping housing at 57%. This compared to 45% of resident respondents who selected persons with mental illness. Figure B-58. Groups with the Greatest Challenges Finding and Keeping Housing, Stakeholders Note: n = 77. Source: Root Policy Research from the 2024 Santa Clara County Housing and Community Needs Survey.
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX B, PAGE 56
Stakeholder-identified housing outcomes. The top affordable housing outcome identified by stakeholders outside of Santa Clara County was more affordable rental housing (64%), followed by funding for community land trusts (47%), better distribution of affordable housing (43%), fair housing resources (43%), supportive housing for addiction recovery (43%), more affordable homeownership (42%), and housing for residents with a criminal record (42%). Residents also selected more affordable rental housing most frequently. Figure B-59. Top Housing Outcomes, Stakeholders Note: n = 77. Source: Root Policy Research from the 2024 Santa Clara County Housing and Community Needs Survey.
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX B, PAGE 57
Stakeholder-identified community development outcomes. Non-resident stakeholders selected increased access to mental healthcare services most frequently as a community development outcome (47%) followed by increased access to addiction treatment services (40%), additional and/or higher quality childcare centers (38%), counseling for landlord-tenant issues (35%), new/improved community centers (34%), and more recreational opportunities for youth/special populations (34%). Increased access to mental healthcare services was also prioritized by residents. Figure B-60. Top Community Development Outcomes, Stakeholders Note: n = 77. Source: Root Policy Research from the 2024 Santa Clara County Housing and Community Needs Survey.
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX B, PAGE 58
Stakeholder-identified economic development outcomes. Non-resident stakeholders identified more opportunities for small or start-up businesses as their top economic development outcome (51%) followed by improved transportation to areas with job opportunities (49%), center for seasonal and day laborers (38%), job training programs (29%), and revitalization of neighborhood businesses/commercial areas (29%). Other responses included: ¾ “More bus routes near affordable housing developments.” ¾ “Remove restrictions on street vending and food trucks. This creates more individual and small business opportunity while bringing vitality to neighborhoods.” ¾ “Work closely with Santa Clara County neighborhood business associations in identified low income communities to revitalize businesses in those areas, plus include start-up funds for new business opportunities.” Figure B-61. Top Economic Development Outcomes, Stakeholders Note: n = 77. Source: Root Policy Research from the 2024 Santa Clara County Housing and Community Needs Survey.
Access to resources. Stakeholders rated resource access from 1 (resource does not exist) to 10 (resource is easy to access). The figures on the next two pages display average ratings. The resources receiving the lowest average ratings, and therefore regarded as the most sparse and difficult to access, were transportation services targeted to homeless, law enforcement to help low income individuals, childcare and education services targeted to
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX B, PAGE 59
homeless, mortgage assistance, and transportation of low income families in general. The resources with the highest average ratings, and therefore rated easiest to access, were general outreach for unhoused, counseling services for veterans, advocacy for people experiencing homelessness, advocacy for homeless at-risk youth, and counseling services for homeless at-risk youth. .
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX B, PAGE 60
Figure B-62. Average Rating of Resource Access, Stakeholders Note: n = 162. Source: Root Policy Research from the 2024 Santa Clara County Housing and Community Needs Survey.
ROOT POLICY RESEARCH APPENDIX B, PAGE 61
Figure B-63. Rating of Resource Access, Stakeholders
Note: n = 162. Source: Root Policy Research from the 2024 Santa Clara County Housing and Community Needs Survey.
DETAILED NOTES AND SUMMARIES. COMMUNITY EVENTS
1 Regional Virtual Workshops Event Details ● Jurisdictions: All ● Type: Regional Virtual Workshop (Zoom) ● Date and Time: ○ Workshop 1: November 14, 2024, 6:30 - 8 PM ○ Workshop 2: November 20, 6:30 - 8 PM ● Number of attendees: ○ Workshop 1: 30 ○ Workshop 2: 25 Workshop Overview The Workshop team, composed of staff from Community Planning Collaborative (CPC) and Root Policy, facilitated two workshops to collect feedback from community members from across Santa Clara County (SCC). Attendees provided their input on how federal funds should be spent to support community development, housing, unhoused individuals, economic development and public services within the County. Approximately 30 people attended the first workshop and 25 attended the second. Attendees participated in multiple feedback activities for which a range of feedback was captured. This report contains an overview of the feedback followed by the full results and the original breakout room notes. The workshops began with an introduction to the Consolidated Plan, and an overview of the workshops’ purpose and the planned activities. Attendees participated in an online collaborative survey before moving to breakout rooms for additional questions and discussion with a facilitator. Main Room Activities The main room activity gathered feedback from participants on how and where to spend federal funding and introduced them to the Menti platform which was also used for the breakout room activity. Below is an overview of the activities and feedback received from participants of both workshops. Main Room Summarized Feedback Activity Main Room Feedback Word Cloud: How should federal funding be used for housing, homelessness and community development in Santa Clara County? Responses emphasized the need for expanded services to address housing challenges and promote long-term stability. Key priorities included increased rental assistance, affordable housing, and accessible emergency shelter, along with senior support and timely assistance. Additional suggestions ranged 2 Participants added responses for how they thought federal funding should be spent. from more apartment and senior vouchers to refurbishing hotels for housing and adding new bus routes to improve public transit. Participants also highlighted the importance of homelessness assistance, job training, rent control, evidence-based programs, enhanced community centers, and preventive services to meet ongoing community needs effectively. Mapping: Where is Funding Needed Most? Participants were asked to place a pin on a map of Santa Clara County where they felt additional investment was needed.
Only a few attendees placed pins on the map. Most pins were concentrated in downtown San José and nearby neighborhoods such as Willow Glen and Japantown. Additional locations identified during the activity included areas near the Alum Rock and Greater Santee neighborhoods in East San José, as well as areas near the airport and south of Highway 130 in Mt. Hamilton. Demographic Info: Tell Us About Yourself! Attendees were asked to self-report their demographic information.
Results can be found in the detailed results section.
Breakout Room Activities Breakout groups contributed to a series of Word Clouds and provided feedback on five key topics: housing support, community development, economic development, public/supportive services, and issue-based solutions. The first workshop included three breakout groups, while the second featured two, allowing for focused discussions in both settings. Spanish speakers were provided the opportunity to be led through the breakout room activities and feedback was provided through an interpreter. The lack of affordable housing and its overwhelming cost emerged as the primary concern across both workshop groups. Participants emphasized the severe impact on SCC residents, particularly its most vulnerable populations, including unhoused individuals, transition-age youth, domestic violence survivors, and seniors. Attendees noted that the high cost of living creates significant barriers to stability for those needing additional support. Participants identified the urgent need for new affordable housing targeted at income groups below 80% AMI, especially those earning less than 30% AMI. Proposed solutions included developing co-ops, increasing affordable housing, improving coordination among County supportive services, and enhancing transportation options to address the interconnected challenges of housing costs. 3 Breakout Room Summarized Feedback Topic Breakout Room Feedback Housing Workshop 1 Participant feedback highlighted the high cost of housing as the primary issue facing Santa Clara residents. There was strong support for affordable, high-density housing, including multifamily units and townhouses to accommodate larger families. Participants emphasized the need for permanent housing designed for seniors, as well as Below Market Rate (BMR) units tailored for transitional aged youth and individuals with intellectual or developmental disabilities. Key concerns included eviction risks, displacement, and excessive costs or stringent landlord requirements. Additionally, participants stressed the importance of creating transit-oriented-development. Workshop 2 It was noted that seniors in SCC are at heightened risk of becoming or being at risk of homelessness. Participants mentioned an increase in seniors reporting greater financial instability and wanting to be added to the Section 8 housing program. In order to address this growing issue, some suggested a need to streamline referrals to Section 8 and county services to ensure seniors are supported. Community Development Needs Workshop 1 Participants suggested taking advantage of new SB4 legislation allowing housing on faith community land, along with prioritizing developments with community spaces, social services, and energy-efficient features like solar panels. Transportation improvements via VTA and BART were mentioned as keys to connecting cities and supporting new development projects. On participant shared that electrification like more solar panels could reduce energy costs especially for senior assisted living projects. Participants also called for safer parks with better lighting, more bus stops downtown, childcare support, and enhanced street and sidewalk enforcement to improve overall accessibility and safety. Another participant mentioned the need for more small buses like in Mountain view. Warburnton Swim Center in the City of Santa Clara was mentioned as a park that needed lighting improvements. Workshop 2 Participants emphasized the need for improved community transportation that serves specific needs like senior citizens or those with disabilities. They also noted that there’s an ongoing need for affordable childcare providers that are embedded in communities, along community-oriented spaces like senior and youth centers or libraries. 4 Economic Development Needs Workshop 1 Attendees offered a variety of feedback for the types of economic development they are interested in encouraging and supporting in SCC. There was an emphasis on the need for discounts on internet service, transportation, parking, utilities, and childcare for low-income people, along with workforce development programs to improve job skills and financial security. One participant highlighted an interest in greater healthcare services and access to diverse grocers in the area. Other key needs included digital economic opportunities, small business support, and skills development. Coordination between seniors and high school students was also suggested to help seniors learn technology and foster relationship-building. Workshop 2 Participants discussed the challenges of job training, particularly for those looking to transition into new fields or seniors over 55 who struggle to find new work despite wanting to stay employed. Attendees expressed interest in supporting small businesses by providing training, business plans, and contingency strategies. To facilitate this growth, participants highlighted the need for streamlined permit processes to avoid delays, citing businesses on Castro Street in Mountain View that closed due to lengthy approval timelines. Additionally, there was a call for more English and Spanish language training to improve communication. Public/Supportive Services Workshop 1 Participants mentioned the need for free foreign language training, increased senior legal services, and expanded safety net services for older adults facing issues like elder abuse, eviction, and the need for reasonable accommodations. They emphasized transportation for seniors, education against scam calls, and rental assistance, especially for families struggling with employment and childcare. Childcare was identified as crucial for economic stability, allowing parents to work full-time. One participant expressed interest in food programs and child-focused resources but struggled to navigate services, suggesting email communications from local governments as an effective way to connect families to these programs. Access to childcare and economic development were seen as key to securing better-paying jobs and improving financial stability. Workshop 2 Community members emphasized the need for more affordable and middle-income housing, rental support for seniors, students, and transition-aged youth, and interim housing solutions. Priorities also included affordable childcare, eldercare, and support services for the unhoused, such as hygiene assistance and shelter. Participants 5 highlighted the importance of addressing tenant-landlord disputes, offering financial support for housing, and providing guidance to services. Additional feedback stressed the need for better-paid caseworkers, counseling services, mental health support for the Asian community, and expanded social services, including navigation centers for homeless families and extremely low-income households. Transportation services for seniors, access to healthy food, and just-in-time financial assistance were also identified as essential for enhancing quality of life and providing timely support. Additionally, nonprofits that can provide holistic care to community members were also desired. Other Topics and Solutions Workshop 1 Participants emphasized the need for diverse transit options beyond CalTrain. They suggested using cell phone apps to receive updates from VTA and other transit authorities and advocated for reinstating the transit day pass to help residents access services. Some suggested a goal of eliminating agency siloes to improve service delivery while expanding programs like "No Wrong Door" wrap-around services so residents can access multiple resources seamlessly at any social service site. Participants noted that many residents remain unaware of available resources, such as food banks, solar programs, and free water heaters, underscoring the need for better education and outreach. They urged the County to collaborate with cities and nonprofit organizations to compile and share program information widely. Workshop 2 Attendees mentioned how public education is essential to address misconceptions about unhoused populations and their struggles. Participants emphasized the need for better coordination among service providers and the County, as navigating multiple applications and accessing assistance is challenging due to the large number of actors involved. 6 Detailed Results Main Room Word Cloud: How Should Federal Funding be Spent? Main Room Menti Board Feedback Workshop 1 Workshop 2 ● Services (2) ● Affordable housing ● Evidence-based ● Focus ● Housing ● Improved community center ● More apartment vouchers ● New bus routes ● Prevention ● Public ● Refurbished old hotels ● Seniors/senior vouchers ● Timely ● Affordable housing (5) ● Rental assistance (3) ● Accessibility improvement ● Childcare ● Emergency shelter ● Focus ● Homelessness assistance ● Job training ● Rent control ● Preventative services ● Supportive services Main Room Mapping: Where is funding most needed? Menti Board Mapping Feedback Workshop 1 Workshop 2
1. North San José/Berryesa 1. Alum Rock 2. San José Airport 2. Rose Garden 4 3 2 1 1 3 2 4
7 3. Japantown/Northside 3. South San José 4. Willow Glen (2) 4. Henry W. Coe State Park Main Room Demographic Info: “Tell us about yourself!” Attendees were asked to take a short demographic survey to share their age, race, income, gender, household type, employment, and if someone in their household has a disability. Responses are shown below for those who agreed to take the survey. A total of 6 demographic surveys were completed in Workshop 1 and 4 surveys completed in Workshop 2. Breakout room notetakers also recorded the presumed demographics of participants. Workshop 1 Attendee Demographics (Self-reported) Note: n = 6.
8 Workshop 2 Attendee Demographics (Self-reported) Note: n = 4.
Workshop Attendee Demographics (presumed) Workshop 1 Workshop 2 Group 1 1 Latina female 1 Latino male 2 White woman 1 Indian woman 1 Black woman 3 women
Group 2 Generally older group with seniors and caregivers 1 affordable housing resident 2 Asian males 2 Asian females 1 Latina female Group 3 1 Latina female
9 Breakout Room Menti Word Cloud Responses Menti Board Responses Question 1: What type of housing supports are needed? Where are they most needed? Workshop 1 Workshop 2 Group 1 ● Affordable rental housing (3) ● ADUs ● Affordable housing ● BMR, ADA compliant ● Condos ● Eviction avoidance ● IDD units ● JADU ● Mixed-income ● Senior voucher assistance ● Spaces with wifi ● Transition-aged-youth housing assistance ● Tenant protections ● Affordable homeownership (2) ● Down payment assistance (2) ● Rental assistance (2) ● Affordable rental ● Community centers ● Homeless senior section 8 ● Vouchers Group 2 ● Affordable rental and housing (2) ● Affordable home ownership ● Affordable, not BMR ● Affordable ownership ● Affordable rentals ● Downpayment assistance ● Fair housing tenant help ● Housing the homeless ● Legal assistance ● Income thresholds too high ● Santa Clara ● Santa Clara City ● Santa Clara County ● Senior affordable housing ● Senior low-income rental ● Affordable housing (3) ● Countywide ● Deposit assistance ● Getting people off the street ● Help with utilities ● Housing navigation ● Preventative programs ● Rental assistance ● Supportive services Group 3 No comments – group did not use the Menti board No group 3 10 Question 2: What and where are the greatest community development needs? Workshop 1 Workshop 2 Group 1 ● Better transportation ● Centers with wifi ● Housing with community space ● Infill housing ● Mixed-use projects ● Outdoor gathering spaces ● Transit ● Transit-oriented development ● Common centers (3) ● Childcare centers (2) ● Senior centers (2) ● Community bus ● Home daycares ● Walking inside senior track ● Youth centers Group 2 ● Walking inside senior track ● After school programs ● Areas for cultural gatherings Bike lanes ● Bus service ● Focus on low-income families ● Group gathering areas ● Job training ● Localized transportation ● Medical care ● Public transportation ● Safe routes to school ● School renovations ● Supportive services ● Teen activity centers Group 3 No comments No group 3 Question 3: What and where are the greatest economic development needs? Workshop 1 Workshop 2 Group 1 ● Co-ops ● Funding for housing ● High density housing ● Livable wage job creation ● Seniors ● Job training (2) ● Job creation ● Microenterprise business ● Small business support ● Technical assistance ● Minority, women, disadvantaged business support 11 Group 2 ● Nutrition support ● Skill development ● Small business support ● Job training (2) ● Small business assistance (2) ● Apprenticeships ● English language training ● Streamline permit process Group 3 No comments No group 3 Question 4: What public/supportive services are most needed? Which residents have unmet needs? Workshop 1 Workshop 2 Group 1 ● Interim but strategically ● Middle income housing ● More affordable housing ● Rental support ● Seniors ● Students ● Transition-aged-youth 18-25 ● Affordable childcare ● Affordable eldercare ● Affordable housing ● Shelter support ● Tenant landlord disputes ● Unhoused services Group 2 ● Access to healthy food ● Rides for seniors ● Asian mental services ● Better paid caseworkers ● Childcare support ● Counseling ● Extremely low-income families ● Guidance to services ● Homeless families ● Housing problem solving support ● Hygiene support for homeless ● Just in time finance help ● More social services areas ● Navigation centers Group 3 No comments No group 3 12 Question 5: What solutions for housing, community development, economic development, public/supportive services should be explored? Workshop 1 Workshop 2 Group 1 ● Housing funding ● Interagency collaboration ● More low-income sites ● Realistic qualifications ● Childcare supply building ● HUD housing ● Job training programs Group 2 ● Low-income support ● Clear communication and action on key issues ● Emergency shelter beds ● Job training ● More everything ● Safe parking ● Educate community about unhoused population Group 3 No comments No group 3
13 Notes Appendix Virtual Workshop 1 - November 14 Breakout Room 1 Notes Public workshop date: Thursday, November 14, 2024 Breakout room number: 1 Total participants: 8 Demographics of participants: (to the best of your ability record the age, gender, race, special group for each participant) 1 Latina female 1 Latino male 2 white women 1 Indian woman Housing • Discussion notes: multifamily housing, affordable rental housing. Higher density is important. Townhouses are a great way to have multiple units in land. Changing zoning to make more housing units. • Permanent Affordable Housing with designs for ageing in place with fall prevention accommodations. To build affordable permanent housing with ageing in place and fall prevention designs. • I would suggest help for people facing eviction • Aging population over the next 25 years needs better housing designs – Aging in Place is important (like with fall prevention, walk-in tubs and showers, enhanced lighting). Falls are harmful for the residents and costly to repair the units themselves that are damaged in the residents’ falls. • What are the abbreviated words. What is IDD units or TAY? § IDD units are a type of BMR units for intellectual or development disabilities. Housing support that’s needed is just housing that meets the needs of the community § TAY (transitional aged youth) housing have a difficult time accessing housing because they’re new to the job world and may not have a ton of credit or job experiences o Help for people to avoid eviction – and then help with services when they are homeless o There used to be great housing options for residents who use wheelchairs Community Development Needs • Recent legislation is allowing housing at faith communities – we need to do this to better use land 14 • Since we have to build up there should be community commons and social sections in the housing developments. • Common spaces with social engagement opportunities could be part of housing – and have social services onsite to help • Better transportation is needed – VTA can be challenging, BART doesn’t run into the county after a certain location, the buses could be more consistent. Transit would help connect cities • Everyone’s always concerned about parking, which is very expensive to build. If we had better transit, we could reduce the impact of parking costs on new developments. • Reducing energy costs by installing solar panels to community housing, and residents’ homes o One 81-year-old resident chose her affordable senior housing because it’s well-maintained, didn’t want assisted living – but she wants it to have solar panels. If homeowners can get free solar, why can’t these projects serving 150 tenants? • Universal wifi would be helpful • SOMAH does a lot of good stuff for affordable housing • We need more small transit buses, with 10-15 passengers – Mountain View has their own – these buses should be electric Economic Development Needs • More diversity in opportunities – wants a Black grocery store in San Jose, rather than travel to Oakland or Sacramento o Another visitor asked for clarity – the answer was a Black-owned grocery store – Black-owned, Black-developed, and particularly targeted for Black customers • More kidney dialysis (jobs in this industry) • More seniors are able to work longer, if they want to – this will honor the wisdom of their job history. • Berkeley has a building with 25 nonprofits – finding a building with multiple people and groups would be a good way to spur economic development • There is already lots of guidance for startups and small businesses – but young people are interested in cooperatives and nonprofits but aren’t sure how to do that. • Digital economics Public/Supportive Services • We have to be united and present in the current moment, because the federal government is cutting back support to groups doing this work. • Ensuring funds are prioritized for lower-income people • You have to create services that are within walking distance – the degree to which people can walk to things is huge. • High-velocity rapid transit would also be helpful. • The computer industry and biomedical industry are the biggest areas for growth in the Bay Area. There are good educational programs, like nursing, to help people enter the industries • Support our community colleges 15 • SCC has silos – if someone enters one nonprofit for one specific service, but that NPO doesn’t offer that service or speak the language of that resident, and right now it’s hard to get that person to go to the correct NPO. What are the connecting doors we can create to help residents access the most-helpful nonprofits for their needs? • Home Health care workers are a good job-training program option. • We need to change how we treat and include families in health care for local seniors. Other Discussion • One resident remembers when there wasn’t any BART in SCC – CalTrain has always been the alternative. It’d be nice to have a mixture of transit options, not just one, so the community has a choice. • Using cell phone apps to allow residents to hear updates from VTA and transit authorities about their changes and updates. • Realistic qualifications as a Menti note – low-income apartments have difficult restrictions that make it hard for applicants to qualify even if they could afford the rent (renter’s history, credit score, student status) • Important to remove siloes around different agencies, no one is really looking at the whole picture for residents and their families. o The term used to be called wrap-around services, aka No Wrong Door. We’re continuing that concept for seniors and people who need physical/mental health care, we’re continuing that fight for No Wrong Door. Residents can go to any social site and the worker there that is their First Contact there can research more services they could need and will facilitate the services needed. • Bringing back the transit day pass for residents when they’re looking for services. • How do we align ourselves with different groups to ensure we have the correct priorities? We’re concerned about recent current events. Let’s try to get the best we can from the services the federal government is going to give us. • We have to stay strong. 16 Breakout Room 2 Notes Public workshop date: Thursday, November 14, 2024 Breakout room number: 2 Total participants: 9 Demographics of participants: (to the best of your ability record the age, gender, race, special group for each participant) Older group with caregivers, seniors 1 lawyer who provides services to seniors with Senior Adults Legal Assistance (SALA, she was okay with providing that info) 1 affordable housing resident Housing • Check Menti data for Menti responses. Most concerned affordable rentals, affordable ownership, fair housing, housing homeless. • Chat: Physical apartments/townhouses for larger families. Focus on low income residents. The need is scattered throughout the county. Low wage earners work throughout the county and need to get to their work locations. Build housing near transit and schools. • Need options for senior housing where caregivers and recipients can live in the same place. Currently, live-in caregivers become homeless when the recipient dies. Helping caregivers to live in separate apartments in the same building as the recipient would allow for better care to the recipient and greater stability and privacy for the caregiver. Need is geographically widespread. • Lawyer with SALA expressed that there’s been an increase in difficulty aging in place in rental housing. There’s a need to support older adults in their rental housing. They are not aware of their rights around accessibility modifications, and needing accessibility modifications makes it hard to find places to live. • Programs that help the low income homeowners keep their home safe, provide safety bars, low interest rate loans, and a new roof. etc. Community Development Needs • Widespread support for a senior center or community center that has an indoor walking track: o There’s a need for an indoor community club/rec center, possibly with pickleball/other activities and an indoor walking track, particularly for seniors. o Indoor walking site for seniors is a great idea- this is needed for seniors as well as for people in wheelchairs, • Community centers are an asset to everyone. Senior centers provide a variety of outlets for gathering/entertainment, meals, education, etc as in the city of Santa Clara - free to all senior residents. • Senior centers and community centers would allow people to build community (there’s lots of isolation especially in the senior population) and access a breadth of services. Many senior 17 center sites in the county are run down according to one representative (they provide services in 19 centers across the county) • Teen centers should be everywhere for preteens to older teens - a place to hang out, learn, be safe, make friends. Partner with larger organizations like the YMCA, local skate parks, etc. Community Centers with recreation rooms or rooms that can be rented for locals to celebrate their lives, provide educations classes. Example is the Campbell Community Center/Heritage Theater. They provide a variety of support. Easy access for everyone. Track field available for walking with groups or self safely. • Need for more bus stops downtown • Partner with local transportation companies to provide transportation to get to local workshops, community services, workshops which provide free information on what programs are available. An example of more advertisement and free residential programs that are out there through the county/city/HUD programs for residents/families. BayMec has programs through the County of Santa Clara • Chat: “We need more free parking spots in San José. I live in affordable housing downtown but it's very hard to find a place there. So, to let you know that I live in downtown” Economic Development Needs • Small business support • Skills development • There should be coordination between seniors/juniors in high school to collaborate with senior facilities/centers so they can help seniors learn to use technology. This enables relationship building. • (from affordable housing residents) Help low income people by providing discounts for internet, transportation, parking, utilities, childcare. Public/Supportive Services • Free foreign language training (just like there is free ESL training) • Senior adult legal services- there’s been an increase in needs for supportive services/safety net services/case management services for older adults. Figuring out which jurisdictions to cut services to because funding is drying up. Some clients face elder abuse, need for reasonable accommodation, clients who are facing eviction. South county continues to be underserved, though services are needed countywide. • Transportation for seniors • Protection/education around scam calls to senior citizens in a format that is accessible to them. SALA has noticed that fraud against elders is widespread. Education would be especially helpful at senior centers. 18 Other Discussion • SCC staff explained that prioritization comes from needs identified in con plan, how many NOFA applications they get. They’re limited in how they can spend on services (15% cap) but do their best to spread the money as far as possible. • Meeting chat: “Would it be possible for the County of Santa Clara to research what programs each city in the county offers its residents. Partner with them. The County, State, Federal and nonprofit organizations provide free, low overhead costs, and grants for the community. If residents don't know about the programs, they don't need to ask. From food banks, solar to free water heaters, would be a great reference for everyone to easy access. If you don't know, you don't know what to ask. Plenty of money, the problem is getting it out to the community.” Sense is that there is a need for education around the resources available. Breakout Room 3 Notes Public workshop date: Thursday, November 14, 2024 Breakout room number: Room 3 (Spanish Translation) Total participants: 1 Demographics of participants: (to the best of your ability record the age, gender, race, special group for each participant) Lives in the City of Santa Clara Spanish Speaker Hispanic or Latino (Video not on) Housing • The biggest challenge my family and I have faced was displacement—we had to move because we were sharing a place to save money on housing costs and there were too many people in the unit. • The high price of rent is a struggle especially for the size of the unit. Prices are “outrageous” compared to the size of the unit and the money they ask for upfront is unrealistic which makes it difficult/complicated for us to move in. • When we looked for housing, some landlords asked for 2x rent and for a deposit so it was too difficult to find apartments that suit our needs/in nice areas. We ended up in an unsafe area/neighborhood because that is what we could afford. (For example, people coming in and taking things/people going through trash cans.) • The main barrier we face in Santa Clara (City) is keeping up with monthly rent payments. My wife only works part-time because she has to take care of our baby in the morning/afternoon and then I have to care for him in the late afternoon so she can work. By the end of the month, we struggle to pay our bills and rent. Community Development Needs • Childcare would be a huge support because my wife could work full-time. The participant would also like better/improved activities for children. 19 • It would be nice to have streetlight improvements. There is a park near where I live but I can only go during the day—it’s too dim. We need better lighting in the streets too. (The participant specified that the park in need of streetlight/lighting improvements is located along John Way, Royal Street, and Scott Boulevard.) • There are issues in both the parks and streets which exacerbate one another as problems because you can’t go to the park too late because then you can’t see on your way back and it’s unsafe. • No issues with the sidewalks—the only issue is that some residents block the sidewalks by leaving their cars there in the middle of the sidewalk when they park in their homes. (Enforcement issues with the City?) Economic Development Needs • The participant noted that they would love to have access to workforce development programs and classes to improve job skills so I can have a higher paying job and feel more financially secure. The participant is unaware of any workforce development training programs available in the City or County but very interested. Public/Supportive Services • Rental assistance would benefit my family the most. By the end of the month, we struggle to make our payments due to our employment situation and lack of childcare. • Childcare would be especially helpful for my family—it would improve our economic stability/situation and allow my wife to work full-time versus staying home to take care of our baby. • The participant expressed interest in food programs (but is not sure where they are) and would be interested in programs for his child but doesn’t know where those are either. (The participant noted that he doesn’t even know which people/organization/system to speak with for assistance to navigate resources.) • When asked how he could be better connected to these programs, he indicated that communications via email (from the County or City) would be most effective to make him and his family aware of the programs and resources he needs. • Benefit the most from childcare and economic development to have a higher paying job/allow my wife to work. Other Discussion • When it comes to the City, the participant says he has good neighbors but feels that it is overall a healthy environment. His main concern is the park, infrastructure, low paying jobs, and lack of programming/activities for children. 20 Virtual Workshop 2 - November 20 Breakout Room 1 Notes Public workshop date: Wednesday, November 20, 2024 Breakout room number: 1 Total participants: 3 Demographics of participants: (to the best of your ability record the age, gender, race, special group for each participant) 3 women Housing • Heart of the Valley offers free services to seniors to help them live independently in the own home. They’re getting more calls from homeless seniors, self-reporting that they don’t think they’re going to survive another year and need Section 8 housing. This is going to be a growing issue, even with seniors who currently have homes. Their clients aren’t always financial savvy and can get taken advantage of. If we could make it easier and more streamlined to refer to Section 8 and the county that would be ideal. Getting Section 8 quicker for seniors needs to be prioritized. Many of their clients are also struggling with mental health care as a result of homelessness. Community Development Needs • We can have a bunch of centers, but if people can’t get to those sites, then they’re not going to be used. We need a community transportation system, like a community bus, that can have a larger route that touches on key areas so everyone can get on and off. The biggest need is to travel to the grocery store. Technology like Instacart for Seniors is hard because it requires tech savviness. • Our main focus is childcare although we’re growing into elder care. Home daycares tend to be embedded in the community, so they’re more affordable and more geographically successful. Childcare providers are making dismal wages, as well as families needing affordable childcare. • Community centers and libraries and senior centers are really great, but are often still very cost-prohibitive. We need a few more free resources supported by HUD or CDBG. There could be a community bus, free programs, subsidized lunch – and this would help with social isolation with seniors. Economic Development Needs • Job training is really great, but it takes a lot of time to get certain candidates to get up to speed to successfully finish the program — sometimes programs need more academic prep and support – i.e. the basics. 21 • Seniors can be 55+, not necessarily 90, and maybe have lost their jobs and can’t find job training or a new job while still wanting to work. • Small businesses can be great, but is still a very risky and expensive endeavor • More foundational support needs to be put into place. • It’s really important to give business owners the skills they need to succeed long term – this is helpful with daycare owners but also other industries. Specifically helpful to learn by doing, and to value lived experiences. • Important for the training to be on a schedule that accommodates small business owners Public/Supportive Services • There are a lot of services out there, but people don’t know how to get them. There used to be a referral book for services, but that became hard to maintain. 211 is a helpful way to access resources. • It’d be great if every city’s website had a page of services that residents could access in their city. It’s hard to find that information. • Palo Alto offers a service called Palo Alto Link program for free transit. • Elder care and child care, and affordable housing, all go hand-in-hand – especially for the sandwich generation who takes care of their parents and their kids. • There are landlord/tenant disputes around pest control and pesticide spraying in housing. • Free legal services are overwhelmed. • Project Sentinel is important. • We need new rules about some recurring issues around community needs – what’s being done, is it effective. Other Discussion • HUD housing is great because it only takes 30% of senior income – building more HUD housing would really help with senior homelessness in general. • Is CDBG money eligible for disabled housing services? o There’s money available for limited-clientele residents. Breakout Room 2 Notes Public workshop date: Thursday, November 20, 2024 Breakout room number: 2 Total participants: 5 Demographics of participants: (to the best of your ability record the age, gender, race, special group for each participant) 4 Asian (2 male) 1 Latina (female) 22 Housing • Housing navigation: When folks are looking for housing it’s a complicated process and they need help finding first something they can afford but also trying to find housing, working with landlords, trying to find a rental with no rental history. • Need case management around housing. How can they access help to find the right housing for them and help them apply and secure it. • From working with unhoused, we need more preventive programs. For unhoused folks, their needs are going to be housing with the various supports they need to be successful. The folks who are still housed are going to need case management/navigation because we have a very complex way of getting housing. There is no navigator to go through the required steps from the landlord, owners , etc. • Affordable housing as often a person might have a voucher but can’t use it, when people are trying to go to section 8. Where? Are there higher levels of need by geography or housing types? o My viewpoint is only from Milpitas. I have heard of needs in the county, but I work in Milpitas so give me housing in Milpitas! o Countywide because it is too hard to pinpoint certain areas. South County, definitely needed there but definitely countywide. There is always housing needs. o That can also lead to fair housing concerns, don’t want to put all poor people in one area, or vouchers where affordable housing all in the same area. o Added later: for housing support I would also add funding for safe parking sites Community Development Needs • Areas for Cultural Activities (stages, etc.) • Mobility / access is a big issue for people in being able to access services • Youth programs and spaces are needed • What are where? • Bike lanes, bus service, school renovations, teen activity centers, bus service, medical care. Safe school routes. • Transportation: for folks that we work with that are unhoused, transportation is one of the most important needs because they don’t necessarily have cars, they might have a car but its broken or out of gas. Public localized transportation is important for that particular population. In terms of the overall population in Milpitas, we have a decent transportation mechanism but it depends on where you’re at. • One resident works with youth supportive housing and prioritized youth activity programs. Also job training in order to maintain housing. Are there training opportunities available for people so they can have a job with a living wage so they can even have housing? • Cultural activities. In Milpitas, there are a number of different cultures. Outdoor stages where people can celebrate and teach others about their culture. • Medical care. In northern area of county like, Palo Alto and Sunnyvale 23 • There is only one dentist who accepts Medi-Cal and a huge backlog of services there. • Depending on how you count North County, we are on the northern border and also have the same issue. Economic Development Needs • Small biz assistance – so many are having a hard time making it; possible ways to help them cover rent; operations support? • Streamlined permit processes – a lot of businesses on Castro Street in Mountain View have shut down – have to wait a year for approvals and businesses can’t survive that long waiting for permit approvals. Seems like the process is broken. And result is a lot of empty businesses • Unfortunately many small businesses don’t have a biz plan – need support for education on how to develop a plan, have contingency plans and reserves, etc. Training may be more beneficial than assistance (need more than a great idea, passion…) • Home kitchen operations – hard to navigate regs if you’re a micro business – potential for community kitchen? • English language training – was hard to find a Spanish language translator for a recent event – need more capacity – important that we be able to listen and talk to each other • Job training. Streamline permit process. Small business assistance. Apprenticeships. English language training. • Many small businesses have trouble making it, it’s hard. What if there was some concept like they had a break on their rent or applied for special funding to help with basic operations of their business. Just seems it’s so hard for small businesses to make it these days. • Permits. I live in Mountain View. Main business street is Castro, and a lot of businesses were shut down. People apply for businesses, and it takes a year to get a permit. There have been a lot of complaints. When we had city council forums, we were asking candidates what to do to streamline the process. You go down the street and there are so many empty businesses. City just can’t get it together to streamline the process. I don’t know if it’s true for other cities. • I agree that the permit process is a challenge, especially for small businesses. I have a bit of experience in this, my view is that when small businesses go into businesses or apply to become businesses, many don’t have a business plan. I feel like before you go into business, you want to at least learn about a business plan and at least think about things about what to do if business is slow, or you can’t get supplies, or there is an unexpected competitor. Permit is an issue, but I think small business training versus assistance might be best. People put a lot into it, so would be good to get training and exposure so they have a higher probability of success versus coming in with a very specific idea versus a plan. • I also put small business; cottage operators, or home kitchen operators. County dept of health is slow to permit, but there are also fundamental issues. It’s kind of hard to navigate through the process at that income level. With home kitchens there is a limit of how much you can sell. Maybe a community kitchen sort of model but that also has permitting issues. • Recently I joined the league of women voters, and we were trying to get a Spanish translator, and it was really difficult which is so weird with so many Spanish speakers. Finally, went 24 through the school district. Shows disconnect of groups trying to reach out to different communities. How to reach out to a community that is so different than ours. Require people to be more proactive in thinking. There is something really lacking. Showed up in elections… people didn’t get registered as they didn’t think they could participate. If there was more of a way, we could speak to each other and if the county could provide funds to facilitate those communications. Public/Supportive Services • More social service offices – for something like a bus pass have to show up in person – having more physical locations would help make that easier • Guidance to services for “the sandwich generation” – families that have children as well as parents/grandparents they are caring for – unaware of services – • Just in time finance help - for cases when someone doesn’t have enough for that month’s rent and $200 would solve that near-term problem– and then work with an agency or service for a longer term solution • Navigation centers – more like drop-in centers. There are a few family resource centers and youth drop-in centers – but one-stop-shop model where people can get what they need (a hot meal, laundry, a post office) • Echo that – need more nonprofits that take a holistic view of case management – county has challenges meeting needs. If nonprofits could take on a bit more and provide more comprehensive services in each location would help a lot • Better paid caseworkers – they are the front line and provide stability – when case workers change every other month is very disruptive to service delivery – need to build in Cost of Living adjustments to contracts with nonprofits. • Asian mental services – strong stigma to keep issues to yourself. If there’s a way to normalize by having mental health forums; couched in ways that aren’t stigmatizing. See it as just a part of health care… • Second that – in Asian cultures mental illness is seen as a family weakness. Having outreach to explain and counter those stigmas is key, and how families and others can help ID symptoms and know how to respond. • Just in time financial help… Asian mental services… more social service areas. Counseling. Better paid case workers. • More social service offices. They are scattered across the county. If they need to do things in person. To get a bus pass for low income, you have to show up in person. Having more physical locations would help. Also, because those locations can be used for an address for people who don’t have one so more locations would help. • Guidance to services for the sandwich generation, families that have children as well as aging parents and they are unaware of services that they can received. They tend to be very tired, anxious, all sorts of things as they are trying to cover for their children and older adults in their family. 25 • Just in time financial help. Read somewhere in Mountain View a case where someone doesn’t have enough to pay rent and if they were able to get just 200 per month to cure that problem and find other resources going forward, some toward of service or work with an agency, community services agency, in Mountain View. Car breaks down, can’t get to work, cascading of problems where they really only needed a hundred dollars to fix the car. People living on the edge, if there was some agency or if each city adopted a plan like that, would be really helpful. • Navigation centers… drop in centers. There are a few family resource centers, but a one stop shop model. They can get a meal, take shower, and use it as an address. • We need more nonprofits that take a holistic view that are able to deal with case management because clearly our county has challenges so if there were mechanisms for nonprofits to take on more or make it location based. Hopes corner could be the local for Mountain View and so forth. • Case workers are paid peanuts and causing a lot of turnover. If you are homeless, it is not great if the case workers changes every month. • Would also put out to government funders, building in cost of living adjustments into contract s would be helpful for nonprofits so we could start to pay people a good wage. • Santa Clara County has been investing in housing problem solving the past year. So how can you help someone not become homeless if they just need emergency funding, or say they just need to get to a family‘s house in another state. Would like to see that continue. • Our small nonprofit does have a small budget for problem solving. What will get people to the next step. This is in Milpitas. The only caution I have for that, is some folks have decided that they want to be dependent on that, so we have to balance and make sure it is only for truly critical one time situation. Totally agree need to have that support, but also need to educate clients. To use it wisely. • Asian mental services; in the community there is a stigma to keep stuff to yourself. Very stigmatized to have any kind of mental issues. If there was a way to normalize having forums and maybe captured in a way that’s not stigmatized. Reaching out to communities that typically don’t ask for help in these areas. • I would second that, anything in the Asian culture, viewed as weakness in the family. so having folks do outreach to explain that it is not the case here as well as helping the family able to recognize symptoms and communicate to public servants to be sensitive and be able to look out for that. Sandwich generation is especially issue in Asian community, they don’t seek help and causes stress. • Make sure that they know there is help available and resources outside of the family. Change the language in how and what it means to help people. • Would encourage more outreach to Asian families. Make sure they know in this country there are more ways to get help. 26 Other Discussion - Solutions • Teach community about unhoused populations – who they are (people think are all drug addicts, mental health patients) – most are unhoused for many other reasons - abusive relationships, loss of a primary wage earner (loss of job, benefits), etc. • Clarity over actors - there are a lot of cooks in the kitchen. Good to know who is supposed to be doing what. For example - finding affordable housing. Everyone has different applications. Who provides rental assistance? Who can help me file for health insurance? • Huge list of providers - hard to navigate! And long waits on phone calls to find someone! • The challenge dealing with unhoused is that folks and community leaders have preconceived notions about who are the unhoused. While there is percentage that fit the stereotypes there are many other folks who are unhoused for other reason, abusive relationships, folks who were depending on one wage earner and they lost the job and benefits, now they are out on the street. Starts a cycle. Once evicted, stays on record gets impossible to rent. Downward spiral for folks. Even if they have a job, they can’t get housing. And if you’re unhoused, it is hard to keep a job. • Education/ outreach to broader community about homelessness. • One example, we have an older couple who lived in their community on fixed income. One person disabled, the other person lost their job, couldn’t find another job, became disabled. They are living in a home that is basically paid off but can’t pay PGNE bills so now they are at risk of being unhoused. A lot of our city leaders don’t realize that. • Back to the idea that there are a lot of cooks in the kitchen… government, nonprofits, etc. affordable housing for example, all have separate applications. Have to go to each separate one. Navigation assistance is needed. County publishes a book but it’s like 30 pages of addresses, daunting. Sometimes there are also disputes between jurisdictions. Safe parking for example, there are disputes between counties and towns. Ex. Background checks. • Public education is key Stakeholder Consultation Workshops Workshop Details ● Jurisdictions: All ● Date and Time: ○ Stakeholder Workshop 1: Thursday, December 5, 1 – 2:30 PM ○ Stakeholder Workshop 2: Wednesday, December 11, 2024, 12:30 – 2 PM ○ Stakeholder Workshop 3: Tuesday, December 17, 3 – 4:30 PM ● Number of attendees: ○ Workshop 1: 16 ○ Workshop 2: 24 ○ Workshop 3: 32 Workshop Overview The Santa Clara County (SCC) Consolidated Plan team, composed of staff from Community Planning Collaborative (CPC) and Root Policy, facilitated 3 separate one-and-a-half hour workshops to collect feedback from Santa Clara County (SCC) stakeholder organizations including nonprofits, affordable housing developers, community groups, supportive-services, and more. Staff from various organizations across the County attended and provided their input on how federal funds should be spent to support community development, housing, and unhoused individuals within SCC. There was a range of feedback captured with attendees both conversing with staff and the consultant team and participating in multiple feedback activities detailed below. Each workshop began with the facilitator providing the agenda for the meeting and a general overview of the Con Plan and the purpose of the stakeholder consultations. Following that introduction, CPC staff guided participants through a four-question activity on a shared Menti Board before moving to breakout rooms where a facilitator led a discussion on unaddressed needs and potential solutions for major issues in the County. Main Room Feedback Activity CPC staff led participants through a word cloud exercise and discussion on housing support, community development, economic development, public/supportive services, and issue-based solutions. Attendees provided various ideas of how federal funding should be spent by posting their ideas on the Menti Board word cloud and sometimes providing commentary on their choices. The feedback shared included a range of topics including homelessness, LBTGQ support, transportation, affordable housing, and other topics.
Main Room Activity Feedback Overview Question Participant Feedback What types of housing support are needed? Where are they most needed? Input from stakeholders emphasized several recurring themes, particularly the need for affordable housing across various demographics. Beyond the overarching need for new affordable housing development across most income groups, participants repeatedly highlighted the importance of more temporary and permanent supportive housing as critical needs. Safe and inclusive housing options, such as for survivors of domestic violence, LGBTQ+ individuals, and transition aged youth (TAY) were also mentioned, alongside access to rental assistance and supportive services. Many voiced concerns about the availability of housing near public transit, addressing displacement, and ensuring equitable access to resources such as parks, libraries, and job training. What and where are the greatest community development needs? Input from stakeholders emphasized the need for nonprofit facilities, community centers, and youth centers, which were frequently mentioned as essential for fostering social connections and providing key services. Stakeholders highlighted the importance of improving childcare infrastructure, including affordable and accessible childcare options, as well as creating safe spaces for LGBTQ+ individuals, seniors, and youth. Enhancements to public spaces, such as improved trails, parks, and ecological design were also prioritized with calls for better walkability, bike and pedestrian infrastructure, and ADA-compliant facilities. What and where are the greatest economic development needs? Stakeholders highlighted the need for robust support in education access, job training, and skill development, with calls for programs that enhance economic mobility and create better job opportunities. A strong emphasis was placed on small business development, including access to microbusiness assistance, business grants, and loans, particularly for minority-owned and start-up enterprises. Stakeholders advocated for expanding resources like adult education, financial literacy, and professional development, with targeted support for underserved communities, such as Spanish-speaking programs and services for LGBTQ+ individuals and immigrants. What public/supportive services are most needed? Stakeholders highlighted the importance of mental health services, legal assistance, and homelessness prevention, particularly for seniors, Which residents have unmet needs? transition-age youth, and unhoused families. Stakeholders noted the need for expanded domestic violence services, including shelters and education programs, and support for immigrants, such as language services, citizenship classes, and navigation assistance for new arrivals. Case management, housing navigation, and rental assistance were also mentioned as critical tools to keep vulnerable populations housed. There was also a focus on senior and youth services. Broader calls included improving access to multi-language services, addressing tenant-landlord issues, and ensuring support systems for LGBTQ+ individuals and veterans. What solutions for housing, community development, economic development, public/supportive services should be explored? Stakeholder feedback highlighted the need for increased funding and creative financing strategies to address critical issues, with suggestions for allocated funding and guaranteed income programs to support vulnerable populations. Stakeholders called for stronger collaboration between cities, nonprofits, and private partners to maximize resources and build capacity for impactful programs. Breakout Room Facilitated Needs & Solutions Activity Root Policy and CPC Facilitated discussion on unaddressed needs and potential solutions for housing and community development. Questions centered on topics such as what are the major unaddressed services in Santa Clara County, how to ensure people can remain in housing, what solutions are most successful in supporting neighborhoods, and more. Breakout Room Discussion Overview by Topic Topics Participant Feedback Housing Barriers to Getting into Housing Affordability challenges make housing inaccessible for low-income individuals, with extremely high area median incomes (AMIs) and limited funding for rent assistance. There are shortages in housing and support services, particularly for domestic violence survivors, families with children, and individuals needing sober living environments or substance-friendly housing options. Additionally, navigating housing processes is difficult due to bureaucratic barriers and discrimination. These issues tend to be exaggerated with vulnerable populations such as undocumented individuals and survivors of domestic violence. Barriers to Staying in Housing Financial instability is a major barrier for seniors with limited incomes and low-income individuals. These populations experience overcrowded housing, and high childcare costs. Service gaps and discrimination exacerbate housing instability, particularly for transient populations, older adults, and LGBTQ individuals facing bias in housing and shelter spaces. Additionally, limited awareness of tenant rights, insufficient eviction protections, and a lack of emergency rent assistance further contribute to housing insecurity. Community Development Where are the largest unaddressed neighborhood needs in SCC? Services are often placed in areas that are easiest to serve, rather than those with the greatest need, highlighting the importance of using data to target high-need areas. Public education on infrastructure use, like bike lanes, is needed, alongside improved ADA compliance, particularly for sidewalks. A few major infrastructure improvements noted by stakeholders included the need for service sites to be pedestrian-friendly or near transit, outdated parks in need of rehabilitation, and bus stops lacking essential features like shade. Where are the largest unaddressed services in Santa Clara County? There’s a lack of safe spaces for LGBTQ+ youth, especially queer transition-aged-youth (TAY) and trans youth. Some services operate only during business hours, excluding working households. Transit programs can be difficult for those with language barriers to navigate which reduces reach. Case management services are sporadic and not available in all areas. Mobile home park communities face challenges with aging homes and increasing rents. Shortages in health services impact outcomes in underserved areas. Domestic violence programs are understaffed, and there is a need for specialized services for survivors, particularly for undocumented individuals.
Solutions What solutions are most successful in building healthy neighborhoods and helping people be successful in jobs, families, communities. Stakeholders suggested that community land trusts (CLTs), like South Bay Community Land Trust, should be expanded to include more diverse populations like teachers, making them more accessible and sustainable. Other programs mentioned included Universal Basic Income (UBI) that offer financial flexibility to meet immediate housing needs with minimal infrastructure, housing voucher programs, and landlord partnerships to provide housing stability. Stakeholders discussed proactive mediation between landlords and tenants to help prevent evictions and resident-centered support to improve tenant well-being. Getting People into Rental Units and Helping Them Stay There Limited Equity Housing Cooperatives were discussed which allow individuals to build equity without the financial risks of traditional homeownership, providing a pathway to transition into single-family ownership. An ongoing pilot project in San José has shown promise and could be expanded. Ensuring long-term affordability and offering financial or legal assistance were discussed as keys to the success of these cooperatives. If you could change only ONE thing to improve housing and/or neighborhoods in Santa Clara County, what would that be? Increased support for extremely low-income housing, particularly for families with young children, is crucial, as is using data on poverty and homelessness to guide decision-making. Expanding affordable housing options and increasing shelter capacity, alongside innovative funding solutions like cannabis revenue and more vouchers, can provide critical support. Programs to assist with homeownership, such as sweat equity and down payment assistance, should be promoted, with a focus on preserving affordable mobile home parks and housing for larger families. Safe, inclusive community spaces within housing developments and financial support for seniors to age in place are key components of housing solutions. Collaboration among service providers and holding developers accountable were also noted as essential steps toward addressing the housing crisis.
Breakout Room Feedback by Jurisdiction/Area Location-Based Feedback South County (Gilroy, Morgan Hill) • High need for transitional and shelter housing, particularly for families and older adults. • Housing development lacks supportive infrastructure (e.g., roads, bike lanes). • Residents face frequent utility outages. • High population of monolingual Spanish speakers; prioritize translation for legal help, housing literacy, and other services. • Increasing reliance on camper vans for housing. Milpitas • No available rental units and residents often placed on waiting lists. Other (Campbell, Santa Clara, Mountain View, Cupertino, Palo Alto, Saratoga) • Insufficient in-person support for survivors.
East San José • Large population of monolingual Spanish and Vietnamese speakers with limited access to resources due to translation issues. • Insufficient extremely low-income housing such as those making below 30% area median income (AMI) Downtown San José & SOFA • High demand for affordable housing. • Prioritize areas with food deserts and limited walkable amenities. Breakout Room Needs Discussion Feedback Needs Discussion Feedback Where are the largest unaddressed housing needs in Santa Clara County? In what geographic areas are needs most acute? • The county is still short of 50,000 housing units and a recent lottery had 10,000 applicants for 100 affordable units. • Lengthy processes and community opposition hinder housing development. Higher-density housing is necessary but difficult to implement. • Insufficient housing designed for individuals with accessibility challenges. • Many seniors resort to living in RVs, which are often in poor condition. • High demand for extremely low income (ELI) housing, especially for seniors, persons with disabilities, and individuals without work history. • Current focus on median and moderate affordable housing excludes ELI populations. • SSI recipients (4,000 in the county) face severe affordability gaps as benefits have not kept pace with housing costs. • Lack of "missing middle" housing and sufficient permanent housing for individuals unable to afford rent. • Many affordable projects prioritize 60%–80% AMI, leaving extremely-low-income and low-income populations underserved. • Only 63 emergency beds for survivors in the County and insufficient shelter and support services. • High need for affordable and permanent supportive housing for those living on the streets or at risk of homelessness, particularly in San José. What is getting in the way of people getting into and staying in housing? Barriers to Getting Into Housing Affordability Challenges: • Extremely high AMIs make affordable housing inaccessible for low-income individuals and those earning <30% AMI. • Limited funding for low-income housing and rent assistance. • Low-income housing can still be unaffordable without roommates, posing challenges for LGBTQ individuals facing potential discrimination. Supportive Housing Shortages: • Insufficient domestic violence housing and services, with few safety-focused designs and shelter options. • A lack of rental housing vouchers limits access to affordable units. • Families are often denied housing upon disclosing children in their household. • Lack of sober living environments and substance-friendly housing options. • Bureaucratic hurdles, including difficulty navigating processes and understanding required documentation. • Anti-LGBTQ+ bias and gender-specific shelters that are non-affirming. • Limited support for undocumented individuals and survivors of violence. • High cost of residential mental health care and lack of housing near partial hospitalization programs.
Barriers to Staying in Housing Financial Instability: • Seniors and low-income individuals struggle with limited incomes and overcrowding in shared housing. • Childcare costs strain household budgets. Service Gaps and Discrimination: • Limited access to supportive services for transient populations and older adults in poor housing conditions. • Housing stability often depends on trauma-informed employment opportunities. • Bias in affordable housing and shelter spaces creates unsafe environments for LGBTQ residents. • Limited awareness of tenant rights and insufficient eviction protections. • Lack of emergency rent assistance. Where are the largest unaddressed neighborhood needs in Santa Clara County? In what geographic areas are needs most acute? • Services are often established in areas that are easiest to serve rather than where the need is greatest. Using data (e.g., point-in-time counts) can help target services and build capacity in high-need areas, allowing people to stay within their communities and social networks. • Public education is needed to inform residents about new infrastructure, such as bike lanes, and how to use or interact with them properly. • Accessibility issues persist, including a lack of focus on ADA compliance, especially for sidewalks. • Many Santa Clara County resource centers are not pedestrian-accessible or near transit stops. For example, the family resource center near Los Plumas and King requires walking in traffic or over guardrails due to a lack of sidewalks. • Parks are outdated and neglected due to reduced or redirected maintenance funds. Rehabilitation is needed to restore them. • Bus stops often lack essential features like shade, leaving youth and older adults exposed to harsh conditions. What are the largest unaddressed services in Santa Clara County? Access to Services • Lack of safe spaces for LGBTQ+ youth, particularly queer transition age youth (TAY) and trans youth. • Services often operate only during 9am - 5pm hours, excluding working households. • Limited and difficult-to-navigate transit programs, with language barriers further compounding the issue. • Sporadic and insufficient case management services, often unavailable in all jurisdictions. • Connecting residents to multiple programs and services remains a significant challenge, with service coordinators often lacking necessary knowledge. • Shelters and services must cater to specific population needs (e.g., youth vs. older adults), moving away from one-size-fits-all approaches. Housing and Community Support • Mobile home park communities face challenges with aging homes, increasing space rents, and limited repair resources, risking eviction and homelessness • Shortages in dental, vision, and primary care services, especially in underserved areas like Sunnyvale, impact education and health outcomes • Lack of affordable commercial kitchens for entrepreneurs • Older adults live in deteriorating homes with limited resources for repairs • Federal and local funding (e.g., CDBG) are insufficient to meet repair and preservation needs Domestic Violence Survivors • Domestic violence offices are cutting hours and staff capacity, overburdening survivors. Programs often rely on volunteers, limiting their effectiveness. • Survivors need dedicated safety-focused and healing services. • Accessing services is difficult, particularly for undocumented individuals and those navigating bureaucratic systems. Workforce Challenges • High turnover rates in trauma-related jobs and low wages make employee retention difficult, impacting service delivery. • Low wages for daycare providers affect the availability of services for families, creating a ripple effect across the community.
Breakout Room Solutions Discussion Overview Solutions Discussion Feedback Solutions: Getting People into Rental Units and Helping Them Stay There • Community land trust (CLT) like South Bay Community Land Trust • Programs like universal basic income (UBI) provide financial flexibility for recipients to address their immediate housing needs, requiring minimal infrastructure to implement. • Programs offering 3-year housing vouchers, combined with landlord partnerships, provide stability and act as semi-permanent housing for those in need. • Proactive mediation between landlords and tenants helps prevent conflicts from escalating into evictions. • Emphasizing resident-centered support. Solutions: Getting People into Homeownership and Helping Them Stay There • Limited Equity Housing Cooperatives: allows individuals to gain equity without the financial risks of traditional homeownership. • Ensuring long-term affordability and offering financial or legal assistance.
Solutions: Building Healthy Neighborhoods • Integrate safe walking paths, accessible public transit, and affordable food access (e.g., food banks in housing spaces). • Ensure affordable housing is near essential resources like food, transit, and medical services to support daily needs. • Implement alternative homeownership models (e.g., cooperative housing, shared equity) to prevent displacement, improve neighborhood stability, and reduce mental health challenges associated with housing insecurity. • Focus on policies that support job success, family well-being, and community engagement to help individuals thrive in their neighborhoods. • Design programs and neighborhoods prioritizing social connection and offer safe spaces for seniors. • Ensure housing is part of a holistic solution, including walkable environments and access to services. • Ensure affordable housing is located near grocery stores and public transit. Consider food banks or community kitchens within housing developments to support food access. • Address the loss of essential supermarkets, especially in underserved neighborhoods. • Provide county-level resources for planning departments to help staff find and secure funding for planning needs. • Many jurisdictions need better access to grant opportunities and capacity-building resources. Solutions: Simplifying Access to Services • Develop a universal application for accessing multiple services (similar to a college Common App) to reduce administrative burden and streamline access to resources. • Create gender-neutral shelters and transitional housing, especially for trans individuals, with staff training on LGBT+ issues and inclusive practices. • Promote trauma-informed care in shelters, with a focus on supporting survivors, including policies for flexible work hours for survivors of domestic violence. • Develop low-barrier, supportive crisis housing that helps individuals access services and maintain housing stability, ensuring they are not forced into further crises. • Provide training for employers on the impact of trauma and support policies like flexible work hours and affordable childcare for survivors or vulnerable workers. If you could change only ONE thing to improve housing and/or neighborhoods in Santa Clara County, what would that be? Prevention & Early Intervention • Increase support for extremely low-income housing, particularly for families with young children (0-5 years). • Use data on poverty and homelessness to guide decision-making. • Supportive services and navigation for at-risk populations. • Emergency rental assistance and more funds for these programs. Affordable Housing & Economic Opportunities • Expand affordable housing options and increase shelter capacity. • Innovative funding solutions like cannabis revenue and increased vouchers (Section 8, LIHTC). • Homeownership solutions (e.g., sweat equity programs, down payment assistance). • Promote affordable mobile home parks and ensure preservation of these affordable housing options. • Focus on providing housing for larger families and multigenerational households.
Community & Housing Solutions • Safe, inclusive community spaces within housing developments. • Affordable housing strategies, including buying existing buildings or reducing rents. • Subsidy programs for seniors to age in place, with expanded rental assistance. • Address security deposit barriers with financial assistance. Collaboration & Accountability • Hold developers and corporations accountable for affordable housing commitments. • Encourage local leadership to be proactive in addressing housing issues before they escalate. • Strengthen homelessness prevention through collaboration among service providers. • Address supportive service staffing concerns and high turnover.
Detailed Results Main Room Feedback Activity Word Cloud - How Should Federal Funding be Spent? What types of housing support are needed? Where are they most needed? Workshop 1 Workshop 2 Workshop 3 • Affordable rental housing (4) • Affordable rentals (2) • Extremely low-income housing (3) • Fair housing (2) • PSH housing (2) • Rental subsidies (2) • Rental assistance (2) • Safe housing for survivors of domestic violence (2) • Access to support service • Childcare • Downpayment assistance • Domestic violence housing – North County • Fair housing assistance • Healthy housing • Home repairs • Housing preservation • Legal service to present • Middle income housing • More built housing • More interim housing • More safe parking lots • Proximity to public trains • Renew Measure A • Safe housing • Safe parking • Senior housing • Affordable housing (4) • Transition-aged-youth housing (5) • Affordable homeownership (3) • Affordable rental housing (3) • Safe and affordable housing (3) • East San José (2) • Gender affirming care (2) • Homeless housing (3) • Permanent supportive housing (2) • Rental housing • San José • Accessible housing • Accessible sidewalks • Affordable childcare • Affordable rent - San José • Alternatives to college programs • Assistance with rent • Better crosswalks • Childcare • Improved access to grocery stores • Community land trust • Computer literacy • Easy to get business • Affordable childcare (7) • Cooperative housing (5) • Home ownership (4) • LGBTQ affirming housing (3) • Affordable and safe housing (2) • Affordable rental housing (2) • Childcare (2) • Supportive services • Transition-age-youth housing • Transit-oriented housing • Addressing displacement • Adequate lighting • Affordable homeownership • Affordable multi-bedroom apartments • Affordable senior housing • Climate resilience • Community access to housing support • Easy transit access • Emergency housing • Employment opportunities • Family housing • Help finding housing • High density near transit • Homeless housing • Shelter for domestic violence victims • Transitioned-aged youth housing • Temporary housing • Transitional housing • Universal design housing • Youth facilities • Equitable housing • Fair and affordable • Fair housing support • Financial literacy • Help for rural residents • Homeownership • Housing for LGBTQ folks • Housing for undocumented • Housing legal help • Housing near transit • Increased parks • Job readiness • Job training programs • Language services • Libraries • Lower rent for rural LGBT • Marketing small businesses • Mixed business and housing • Multi-generation rentals • Ownership in high cost • Parks • Rapid rehousing more populations • Safe sidewalks for the county • Safe streets near schools • Santa Clara • Senior centers • Senior housing • Small business loans • Support for LGBT adults • Supportive housing • Translation • Utility assistance • Youth centers • Homeownership - not renting • Just above affordable • Missing middle • Moderate • Needed in San José • No rent • Nonprofit facilities • Overall safety • Rental assistance • Rental housing vouchers • Safe homes • Safety • San José supportive housing • Services • Supportive housing throughout the Bay • Walkable amenities • Youth centers What and where are the greatest community development needs? Workshop 1 Workshop 2 Workshop 3 • Childcare (3) • Economic development (3) • Senior centers (3) • Affordable childcare (2) • Community centers (2) • Employment services (2) • Public transit (2) • Youth center (2) • Youth programs (2) • Access to shower • Accessibility to services • ADA access • ADA improvements to community center • After business hours service • Clinic • Community centers (2) • Eldercare • Flexible transportation options • More childcare options • More public restrooms • Non-profit facilities • Nonprofit services • Places to gather • Public facilities • Public showers • Public swimming pool • Resource centers • Safe space centers • Services after 5 PM • Skating rinks • Unhoused services • Nonprofit facilities (11) • Community centers (5) • Improved trails (6) • Free resource centers (3) • Free third spaces (3) • Increasing minimum wage (3) • Bike and pedestrian infrastructure (2) • Affordable childcare • Services for queer folks • Accessible walkways • Childcare business support • Clean open spaces • Economic development • Financial literacy • Improved parks in Campbell • Improved parks - San José • Improved public spaces • Libraries • Library open access • Open safe space • Peer support • Places to gather • Public parks - Los Altos • Safe routes to transit • Senior centers • Services for immigrants • Street lighting • Support for queer folks • Transitioned-age-youth internships - San José • Childcare infrastructure (5) • Community centers (5) • Youth centers (5) • Childcare (4) • Garden and parks (4) • Walkability (4) • Ecological design (3) • LGBTQ safe spaces (3) • Parking (3) • Public recreational space (2) • Access to food • After school activities • Healthy food access • Microbusiness assistance • Public transit • Accessibility • ADA • Adequate lighting • Bike lanes • Ending predatory lending • EV charging • Late night youth programs • Lighting • Microenterprise assistance • More ESL opportunities • More trees • Nonprofit facilities • Overall safety • Parking capacity • Playground improvement • Safe bike storage • Safe roads • Senior centers • Sidewalk improvements • Skate parks • Transition-age-youth services • Wellness centers • Youth centers • Small business development • Small business loans • Social enterprises • Youth center funding What and where are the greatest economic development needs? Workshop 1 Workshop 2 Workshop 3 • Job training (3) • Adult education (2) • Small business support (2) • Commercial kitchens • Construction training • Day center - Gilroy • East San José • Economic mobility center - Gilroy • Financial support • Full county • Gilroy • How to start businesses support • Interview and resume assistance • Job creation • Job training in Los Gatos • Milpitas Main Street • Minority owned businesses • More services in East San José • Morgan Hill • Senior centers • Skill development • Skill enhancement in East San José • Morgan Hill • Senior centers • Small business development (6) • Financial literacy (4) • Affordable retail space (2) • Job readiness • Services for immigrants • Business grants • Job creation • Job training • Adult education support • Black and Brown business • Business loans • Credit repair services • Discriminate legal help • Education development • Free legal support • Free professional clothes • Interview practice • Microenterprise assistance • Microloans • Paid internships • Peer support • Resume development • Services for LGBTQ folks • Skill development • Small business development • Small business grants • Education access (7) • Microbusiness assistance (6) • Adult education (3) • Community funding (3) • Job training (3) • Skill development (3) • Work life balance (3) • Job creation • Pay more • Skill training • Access to capital • Behavioral healthcare • Better paying job • Community access • Community centers • Direct cash transfers • Facilities • Guaranteed basic income • Lending circles • Livable wages • Low barrier seed funding • Low barrier transit • Multi-language support • Paid internship • Professional development • Public school investment • Reasonable percents loan • Reimagine school funding • Safe walking areas • Skill development • Skill development in East San José • Small business classes • Small business development • Small businesses investment • South County • Spanish speaking programs • Trade skill development • • Small business loans • Supporting childcare businesses • Transition-age-youth paid internships - San José • Trade centers • Training staff • Undocumented workers • Service hubs • Small business loans • Start-up for entrepreneurs • Support childcare businesses • Transition-age-youth/systems involved youth support • Trade jobs • Urban village design What public/supportive services are most needed? Which residents have unmet needs? Workshop 1 Workshop 2 Workshop 3 • Legal assistance (4) • Case management (3) • Domestic violence services (3) • Immigrant services (3) • Senior services (3) • Services for unhoused (2) • Small business (2) • Crisis intervention • East San José • Food support • Healthy homes for seniors • Homelessness • Housing navigation • Housing search assistance • Immigrants - new arrivals • In home meals for seniors • Legal aid for tenants • Legal help for seniors • LGBTQ services • Runaway youth shelters (4) • Mental health support (3) • Unhoused families (3) • Domestic violence shelters (2) • Immigrant support (2) • Unhoused individuals (2) • Transition-age-youth need support/services (2) • Affirming re-entry • Benefits navigation • Community land trust education • Domestic violence service • English classes • Eviction defense tenants • Extremely low residents • Fair housing • Fair housing support • Financial education • Mental health (6) • ADA (5) • Homeless prevention (5) • Community integration (4) • Civic engagement (3) • Legal assistance (3) • LGBTQ youth (3) • System involved youth (3) • Board and care • Low cost public transit • Navigation centers • Nonprofit youth services • Recovery services • Behavioral health • Childcare • Childcare homeless prevention • Citizenship classes • Facility staff training • Family therapy • Health • Meals for low-income seniors • Milpitas • Mountain View • Multi-language services • Older adults • Partner abuse education • RV dweller support • Senior transportation • Single parents • Transition-aged youth services • Keep people housed • Veterans housing • Food access • Free legal support • High acuity clients • Housing navigation • Imminently unhoused • Low barrier alcohol or drug abuse support • Low barrier mental health support • Non-English access • Peer support • Rental assistance • Right to counsel • Senior legal support • Service workers • Summer programs for kids • Translation services • Trauma informed counseling • Unhoused support • Youth adult shelters • Increase pay for staff • Legal assistant services • Long-term care information • Long-term services funds • Navigation services • Paratransit services • Parent workshops • Prevention services • Senior centers • Senior legal assistance • Senior nutrition centers • Senior services • Staff support in facility • Substance abuse • Tenant landlord issues • Transit • Workshop support • Youth inclusion What solutions for Housing, Community Development, Economic Development, Public/Supportive Services should be explored? Workshop 1 Workshop 2 Workshop 3 • Additional funding (2) • Collaboration between cities (2) • Guaranteed income (2) • More funding (2) • Allocated funding • Arts and culture grants • Building capacity • City and nonprofit collaboration • Entrepreneurship training • Financial literacy • Creative financing • Meals on wheels • Medical support • Senior centers • Senior services • Seniors living alone • Food and grocery • Funding • GBI • Health and wellness • Home repairs • Housing preservation • Job training program • LGBTQ services • More community benefit spaces • Preservation of housing • Private investments • Private-public partnerships • Public transportation • Home repair funding • Small business grants Breakout Room Needs & Solutions Activity Breakout Room Stakeholder Feedback Housing Needs Feedback Where are the largest unaddressed housing needs in Santa Clara County? In what geographic areas are needs most acute? What is getting in the way of people getting into and staying in housing? What solutions are most successful in: Ø Getting people into rental units; Ø Helping people stay in rental units; Ø Getting people into homeownership; Ø Keeping people in homeownership housing; Ø Building healthy neighborhoods; Ø Helping people be successful in jobs, families, communities. Dec. 5 - Room 1 • There is a need to help older individuals make repairs/accessibility repairs; there are many people trying to age in place and live independently but they cannot because they can’t afford to pay to repair their roofs. (It’s often less costly to repair homes than build new housing.) • San José State University to East San José has the largest number of people Silicon Valley Independent Living Center serves–we serve mostly low income and there is just not enough extremely low income housing. • AMIs are so high in SCC which makes general affordable housing (80-120% AMI) unable to meet the needs of persons with disabilities that don’t have work history and seniors living on extremely fixed and limited incomes. Need housing <30% AMI or mixed income housing–most success the County has seen–tax credits and higher incomes can offset. • Can often mitigate accessibility challenges through referrals and services but need to be ensuring that we are building housing from the “get go” that housing is accessibility designed. Huge issue in the County that Rebuilding Peninsula is trying to address. Very individualized but doing reasonable accommodation. Requests are /very time consuming and there needs to be more resources to help these things. • High need in South County/Gilroy. • See a lot of seniors and persons with disabilities in vulnerable housing situations. Many eviction and legal issues that these populations face. Real need for support to help older adults age in place. • Clients can’t afford to continue to live here (SCC), especially if they lose their spouse or partner and only have one income to rely on versus two. • City of Milpitas has no rental units and manages none. Always upsetting when individuals come looking for assistance but we can’t help them. They often have to get on a waitlist or reach out to different resources. • Lack of domestic violence housing and support—programs are tapped out—huge lack of housing across the County and many housing elements have in there to build domestic violence housing/increase this housing but it’s the highest need we see. • See many youths getting kicked out of their homes. • AMI is too high in our jurisdiction so we don’t get the funding we need. It's not seen as an area where people are living paycheck to paycheck and need assistance. Money has gone down for rent assistance but it is needed. • Many seniors living in RVs. This is their retirement solution. RVs are not in good condition and are difficult to make accessible, but they have no other options. Dec. 5 - Room 2 • There are only 63 emergency beds in SCC for domestic violence survivors (prioritizing safety concerns). We also provide hotel sheltering, but the need isn’t being met. We’re working with affordable housing developers to think about the safety of women and children – specifically, what safety means when you’re processing trauma. The 63 beds are spread out between different orgs (Next Door Solutions has 21 beds, YMCA has 19, the rest are hosted by different groups). Some groups have beds but don’t have emergency shelters. Emergency beds are located in Sunnyvale, Morgan Hill, Santa Clara. We’re looking at safety-related things like door-to-transit, door-to-laundry room, exterior lighting on the shelter, play shelters that aren’t accessible to the public. We’re thinking about safety designs like how many doors are between clients and the public. • There isn't enough permanent housing for people living on the street, affordable housing for people who can’t afford their rent, permanent supporting housing, Missing Middle housing. Santa Clara County has the most comprehensive support network of all the counties we work in and we can’t build enough, fast enough. We don’t have enough subsidies for low-income tenants. How do we make sure people who are 2 rent payments away from being homeless get those 2 rent payments? Tiny home villages are available, but they don’t have enough continuum of care. People are doubling up, tripling up the amount of people who live in affordable housing units. We need to speed up all the housing processes; how do you get it built faster and more efficiently? The County needs to think about what we do next, HUD’s impact in the immediate future is uncertain. Residents are stuck where they are. Waiting lists are long. • Measure A was pivotal; it helped centralize, and paid for, the services people could access. They didn’t just do housing, they did housing for residents without housing and helped people with related issues. The financial ecosystem is currently a little difficult and unusual right now, however. San José alone has 6000 people sleeping on the streets. • Every city has needs – Gilroy, Morgan Hill are more rural, so their needs are slightly different challenges to the people up north. Some people are living in their camper vans behind the Silicon Valley Community Foundation. Everywhere we’re building housing, people are coming. • Dedicated services around safety and healing are important. Housing and homelessness prevention is more utilized than emergency shelters. They’re often dealing with harassment. • Our clients often need to be transient and agile to stay safe, so it’s hard to get them services that require them to use the same regular and predictable resources. Cities w/o In-person DV support: Milpitas, Campbell, Santa Clara, Mountain View, Cupertino, Palo Alto, Saratoga Dec. 11 – Room 1 • Work with undocumented survivors, both of which creates many barriers to finding housing. • Have heard people say that if housing is not near work they can’t continue in it / doesn’t work for them. • A lot of housing stability is based on being able to find and keep employment / very challenging for people who have experienced trauma if workplace is not trauma-informed • Cost is a big obstacle; even low income housing can be unaffordable unless you have roommates / and for people who are LGBTQ that can be challenging unless roommates are accepting. • Discrimination toward LGBTQ and survivors – also an issue for visitors/guests. • People being pulled out of their community can undermine their sense of safety . • For mental health care, getting out of the hospital and going to residential care and then partial hospitalization can be hard. Residential is really expensive, going to a PHP or IOP program can be impossible if it's far away and people can't afford housing near the program site (even if they can afford the PHP program and have housing but it's far from the program location). Even worse if someone gets out of the hospital and there's nothing to help them with housing. • South Bay Community Land Trust is great – I want more community land trusts. They buy some property and then make an affordable unit that someone could buy, or rent affordably. This shouldn’t be confused with a Land Trust (something like Santa Clara Land Trust, which is about open space). What about making a community land trust that’s for teachers? It’d be helpful to expand the population to more than just extremely-low income to make the community land trust properties more familiar to people. It seems risky to provide affordable housing forever, but the Community Land Trust could take on that risk. Dec. 11 – Room 2 • Demand is higher than supply – a recent lottery had 10,000 applicants for 100 affordable units. Households working low-wage jobs are at risk of homelessness. People get into a cycle with a negative housing history that prevents them from getting future housing. By low-wage jobs, we’re thinking more about income categories instead of industries (i.e. 30% AMI tier). We’re particularly seeing people at 15% AMI dealing with housing insecurity. • We work with trans people coming out of prison who are forced to live in gender-specific transitional housing that doesn’t match their chosen identity. Domestic violence shelters, especially for trans women, are particularly challenging for gender-affirming care; sometimes trans women are moved from DV shelters to a hotel, where they have to leave earlier and don’t get helpful services. It would be helpful to have all-gender shelters and educational training for staff and new residents that are LGBT+-affirming. We’ve seen how all-gendered restrooms have improved the lives and mental health of people. • I’d also like to see facilities, like schools and homeless shelters and transitional housing, that are more trans-affirming. It’d be helpful for funds to help these sites figure out how to serve all their clients, regardless of how they identify (i.e. carrot-persuasion to give more money, or stick-persuasion to take away money) • Housing for service jobs: healthcare, fire, police, teachers, etc. Should be middle income but here they cannot afford to rent where they work. • Queer TAY are very at risk of housing insecurity — they often need supportive services on site to prevent them losing housing. It’s also important for trans youth to understand their rights under the fair housing act. • Trans youth need to understand both their own rights and where they can go to get support. • There’s been a great push for permanent supportive housing for people to help people live independently who otherwise would have trouble doing so. It’s important to focus on supportive services, and there should be more seamless ways for people to link their supportive housing site with their health care providers. The county funds both housing and health care and there’s room for coordination at the county level between those two worlds. Dec. 17 – Room 1 • Extremely low-income residents often aren’t getting their needs served by affordable housing. Median and moderate affordable housing is often the priority in the county. Sometimes an affordable housing project is for 60-80% of AMI – which is not affordable to ELI or LI. There needs to be additional attention for these people who can’t afford to live in the community where they work. No jurisdiction is doing particularly well at this, but San José does OK just by being so large and having so many options. There is a need for this type of housing across the whole county. • A lot of money is being funneled toward housing the homeless, but they need rental housing vouchers to help them get into housing. Affordable housing rents are still very high. Supportive housing needs adequate funding for services. The funding must also be reliable, and not short-term. • Lack of sober living environments is a problem – whether it’s transitional housing, or intentional developments focused on sober living. We also need options that are substance-friendly – it can be hard for unhoused people who use substances to access housing, they’re often kicked out of housing for not being sober. People need accommodation so they can be successful in staying in housing. • One of the challenges is navigating bureaucracy – who do you go to, what documents do you need, etc. Anti-trans bias, and anti-queer bias, keeps people from getting into housing. You can’t have accessible housing without supportive services. There’s a lot of challenges with gender-specific emergency shelters. • LGBTQ older adult housing is important – we have at least one LGBTQ elder housing site downtown, but there needs to be an expansion. There’s not enough enforcement of safety. We hear that residents in transitional housing are sometimes pushed back into the metaphorical closet; there can be bias from the residents and also not enough support from the staff. I’m specifically talking about affordable housing complexes with this issue – the people using affordable housing services are generally the residents who reach out to us. In market-rate housing, we do hear about bias between residents. • Shelter spaces have traditionally operated in a binary and non-affirming way – but discrimination is happening broadly and not just in these shelter spaces. It’s also hard when people don’t know what their rights are, and don’t know how to file a complaint or don’t feel safe enough to do so. Sometimes people come to us after it’s too late to make change, like after they’ve received an unlawful detainer. How do housing advocates know that people need their services, if those clients aren’t proactively approaching the advocates? It’d be nice to have a more proactive system, like mediation services. Sometimes people who work in housing are focused on the housing, and not necessarily the residents. Dec. 17 – Room 2 • Looking at limited equity housing cooperatives as a model because many people see renting as getting them nowhere except for getting them into debt—chose equity housing cooperatives so they can be the owner. We should look to leverage this as a way to get into a single family home and stay there. (Starting as a pilot project in San Jose and looking to expand outward.) • Multiple families living in one unit. • Loans for single family housing are not accessible for many families, especially for low income and undocumented families because they do not have the required documentation. These models address displacement, they don’t just “replace” it. • Often talk about displacement and homelessness without talking about the root causes that are driving the problems—it is a short-term approach versus a more permanent and long-term approach. • Try to figure out more innovative ways to find/address affordable housing for families with children between 0 and 5 years—it can take years to build affordable housing and costs millions of dollars so what happens in the interim? Need to be creative in finding solutions of how we can reduce household expenses for families which automatically makes housing more affordable for families. (Investing smaller amounts of funding for larger impacts in a shorter time period.) • Childcare is 20% of the household budget for families of 4—really important to find a way to reduce these costs for families. • Partnership with San Jose has been excellent on childcare and program results on childcare programming is a great example for showing impacts of affordability of housing and childcare on families. • San José Preservation Collaborative is different agencies working together but have heard that many residents want to be a part of it but not enough capacity to engage everyone that is interested. (Tight in what we can do.) • The average low tier ELI housing that was not tied to income was still affordable to people with SSI 15 years ago—the housing costs have doubled and tripled while benefits have not increased. (4,000 people currently on SSI in the County.) Huge gap between what is available and affordable and how many people are on SSI which are mainly elderly people and persons with disabilities. Not much data/analysis has been done on these issues. • To help cover the huge gap, which is widening, developers partner with Housing Authority for vouchers but the number of vouchers that PHA has is slowly depleting at the same time. If we could request anything, we would ask that Section 8 project based vouchers increase and same for LIHTC because otherwise we cannot build anything. • Naming specific gaps between rents and SSI levels are important. State and federal levels could partner together to address these gaps. (Waiting list is about 24,000 people and turnover is very limited.) • Populations that struggle the most to find housing—families with children who are often denied housing once they mention adding children to their lease. Dec. 17 – Room 3 • South County area has the least amount of transitional and shelter housing, especially for families. • Downtown SJ is an area of high needs; it needs to be a priority. • Extremely low income people are paying well over half of their wages for housing. • While we are making some progress, we are still short of 50k housing units. • In addition to housing, need mental health services. • We often open up services in the easiest areas to serve, which doesn’t match where the need is. Encourage us to use data (like point in time count) to target services and capacity-building in areas where need is highest. When not aligned with where need is, it forces people to leave their community where they have social networks so that they can access shelter housing. • Strong need to build more shelter capacity while also building permanent housing options so that there’s a pathway. • Oregon is doing a great job, using cannabis money to help pay for services. Does anyone know where funding is going in SCC? • As a developer, it’s challenging to build housing. The process takes a long time and people have to navigate community politics. Building up / higher density is necessary to get the number of units that are needed, but it is hard to do. • There’s pushback from residents about the house rules in shelters and transitional housing. Need to support people with the adjustment process; possibly require people participate in services (many opt out). • Concerned with homeless people going into skilled nursing facilities to get medical attention; get discharged to shelters. Becomes a cycle. • Need to tailor services to the population being served. Shelters that serve youth have different needs than shelters serving older adults or people with mental health needs. We too often have a one size fits all approach. Need individualization of services. • When people with medical needs move into permanent housing it is hard to serve them – don’t have capacity / resources / skills to deliver that. • Many young people don’t know where to look for resources, and when they find services there are often long wait lists. • Lack of safe spaces for LGBTQ+ youth.
Community and Economic Development Needs Feedback Where are the largest unaddressed neighborhood needs in Santa Clara County? Dec. 5 - Room 1 • Services operated by the County are available 9 to 5 which doesn’t help the working poor—they won’t choose to take off work to access services during work hours. Would love to see services accessible during the evenings and/or weekends at least once or twice a month so these households can access the benefits/services. • Need more transportation programs and services that are available and accessible/easy to navigate, access and use. MUST BE AVAILABLE IN MULTIPLE LANGUAGES. • Programs and services are very limited and accessing the services are very difficult/few and far between. Especially programs that are location specific and available in multiple languages. (Only available 9 to 5 during working hours.) No affordable commercial kitchens for people who want to start related businesses. Dec. 11 – Room 1 • Lack of access to transit can be a big challenge, or apartment developments without parking – if can’t get to where you need to go by transit need a place to park • In South County (Gilroy/Morgan hill) - seeing housing being built, but not the supportive infrastructure – some parts of town have smooth roads and bike lanes, while others have massive potholes – lose electricity and internet often - also, northeast part of Morgan Hill is far from everything • For mental health care, getting out of the hospital and going to residential care and then partial hospitalization can be hard. Residential is really expensive, going to a PHP or IOP program can be impossible if it's far away and people can't afford housing near the program site (even if they can afford the PHP program and have housing but it's far from the program location). even worse if someone gets out of the hospital and there's nothing to help them with housing • To help workplaces be trauma-informed: support for training for employers on the impact of trauma, employee rights and things like affordable childcare and other supports • Encouraging employers to adopt policies that support survivors, such as flexible work hours • Helping specific populations find safe housing/shelters (e.g., places specifically designed and managed to support LGBTQ, survivors, families, etc.) • Low barrier crisis residential resources that help people access services they need and stay in their housing • Low barrier housing options / look at examples in Vancouver (Portland hotel) that includes a safe consumption site in conjunction with a withdrawal management program and supportive housing (continuity – makes it easier to shift into program and housing) Community first housing, example from Austin – it’s not just housing, it’s about community – working together, creating places where people feel they belong. • Safe, inclusive community areas within or adjacent to housing (makes it into more than an apartment complex). Dec. 17 – Room 1 • SOFA neighborhood next to downtown San José is a food desert. It doesn’t have that many walkable amenities even beyond groceries. Ensure that affordable housing is near walkable amenities. Dec. 17 – Room 2 • Need pedestrian walkways that are traffic safe. • Need public education around what the City/County are installing in the community and how to act/interact around those infrastructures, etc. (For example: some people don’t know about the bike lanes and drive in them.) • Really need to think about ADA compliance too, accessibility has not been a focus especially for sidewalks. • When it comes to County resources, the transit locations and stops are not pedestrian accessible or close to the buildings. (For example, the family resource center near Los Plumas and King—you have to walk into traffic or walk over a guard rail without access to sidewalks. While there is clear transit on Center Road to get from stops to doors, no clear pedestrian paths.) • No maintenance in parks because funds have been reduced or cut and need to be rehabilitated because they are outdated and neglected. Money is no longer there and/or is getting redirected elsewhere. • See a lot of youth and older adults standing in the sun without shade because bus stops aren’t equipped with. Dec. 17 – Room 3 No comments Public/Supportive Services Needs Feedback Where are the largest unaddressed services in Santa Clara County? Dec. 5 - Room 1 • South County is an underrepresented area and not many services there for older adults. Always identify this area in plans as “major underserved area.” • Residents in Milpitas need rental assistance, especially seniors. Seniors also need assistance with utilities. Hard for them to navigate the internet and service systems/always need support finding resources and navigating resources. • Need emergency rent assistance. • Only one provider for primary care, dental, vision in Sunnyvale to help underserved families. Can barely afford to keep her housing because she primarily serves ELI families and cannot take on patients who pay. • Shortage in dental and vision care which impacts a child’s education. • Trying to find where to get help is really difficult for the adult population and for tenants. Plus, services are very different based on where you live. • Case management is critical but it is sporadic in the county and not available in all jurisdictions. • DV offices are cutting hours and staff capacity which has placed extra burden on survivors. • Many programs rely on volunteers and it limits program capacity so makes it very difficult to adequately meet needs. Dec. 5 - Room 2 • We have service coordinators to help connect tenants to services; sometimes our coordinators don’t know how to access what they need. We work closely with Abode and people who work with unhoused residents. It’s hard to hire someone to do a job that’s got a lot of trauma involved, and hard to keep them. There’s a huge amount of turnover in Santa Clara County Eden Housing – that’s common except in Marin County, where employee-retention is high. • In our niche area focused on housing preservation we are seeing as the existing housing stock is aging alongside an aging population there-air needs are extremely extensive and costly. We have older adults specifically whose homes are literally falling apart around them and have such few resources to address this need. Additionally, we have a strong mobile home park community across the county that serves as sort of the last stand for affordable home ownership, if you can even say that, and yet with increasing space rents, and park regulations, but homes built only to last 30 years the homeowners are facing eviction and homelessness without addressing critical repairs. We are fortunate to be recipients and partners in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding with each of the cities throughout the County that have access to CDBG funds however the funding is nowhere near enough to meet the needs. • Job retention is hard with low wages. 100% of the daycare owners would be considered low to moderate income. This has a rippled effect, because fewer daycare providers impact the families who use those services. If a provider encounters a family with a specific need, then we can give a list of resources to the daycare provider to give to that family. Dec. 5 - Room 3 No comments Dec. 11 – Room 1 No comments Dec. 11 – Room 2 • In East San José, there’s a high population of monolingual Spanish and Vietnamese speakers who don’t always know about resources due to translation issues. Funding with language would be super helpful – Morgan Hill and Gilroy also have a high population of monolingual Spanish speakers. For translation and interpretation, I would prioritize these issues: legal help, housing and housing literacy. • One major pain point is connecting users to multiple different programs and organizations. It’d be so great to have a single application for a range of services. Reduced-costs transit passes is a common complaint. (note from participant: This would be like a Common App for applying to colleges, it seems so do-able!) Dec. 17 – Room 1 • No comments Dec. 17 – Room 2 • Available funds for housing is always a huge help but recent election didn’t help—need to rally something similar to Measure A that will give us money again to close gaps and get projects in the pipeline again without help at the federal level. • Importance of legal services for low income households including public benefits to prevent people from destabilizing income and entering homelessness and ending up on streets due to domestic violence. Larger demand than we can meet with what we have. • Need more case management and help for people who cannot navigate systems themselves including individualized case management, support with forms, findings resources, etc. Mental health services are very important. Would really like to see how we train the community about reacting to mental health situations. • Credit services and support for businesses including how we bring in skills for the area (e.g., Amazon in East Palo Alto)—how do we bring in corporations that match the skills and education of the workforce and/or build up the workforce to qualify for those jobs? And how do we leverage colleges and institutions in providing programs to support workforce development and job training? Dec. 17 – Room 3 No comments Solutions Feedback Are there solutions/programs you know if in other places you wish Santa Clara County and the jurisdictions would implement? If you could change only ONE thing to improve housing and/or neighborhoods in Santa Clara County, what would that be? Dec. 5 - Room 1 • Would most like to see rental subsidies and assistance so seniors and older adults can stay in their current housing/age in place/live independently. The state is trying to put rental assistance into law (statewide) but keeps failing—some jurisdictions have passed local ordinances for rental subsidy programs which can be fairly light, some only need $200. OR could just be emergency rental assistance, a one time program available throughout the county not just small jurisdictions to keep people in housing once they find housing. • Assistance with security deposits—huge barrier. • Continue to fund services and programming—whatever is needed to support people staying in their homes. Whatever it takes. • “It really takes a village right now to support our seniors in SCC right now.” • Using data on poverty and homelessness to drive decisions, solutions, etc. • Emergency rent assistance—need more funds set aside for it • Wrap around services and holistic support. • Homelessness prevention is really important and all partners collaborating together is crucial. Dec. 5 - Room 2 • Give a subsidy to help people afford housing, or buy more housing stock that people can afford. Santa Clara needs an ongoing investment strategy for affordable housing (buy buildings, lower rents, funds to acquire buildings). There are 100,000 things we could do, not just one. We had to turn certain short-term housing into permanent housing because there wasn’t anywhere for the residents to go. Other housing programs in high-cost areas seem great, like Boston. How do you make it robust and consistent? We don’t have any consistent funding anymore, which doesn’t help with scaling solutions. We did modular housing and it wasn’t very successful. Regarding homeownership, I’ve seen programs that help people buy (like House Keys), focusing on getting people ready and help with down payment. It’s hard to save to buy when your rent is so expensive. The market-rate guys have zero incentive. It’s hard to keep affordable housing when the first buyer challenges the equity restrictions that they have when selling to the second buyer. We’re doing an analysis that I’ll share with you when it’s public. People buy lots for $2 mil in part of this county, or buy a house and tear it down. • We’re in preservation of affordable housing, which is a niche area. The last stand of affordable home ownership in the county is mobile home communities, but those homes are only built to last approximately 30 years. The rents for the mobile homes are very high. Safe and affordable housing is important, advocating on behalf of residents is important, keeping the parks and not selling them off is also important. • This is interesting, it’s a different type of tenure control. The Appalachian Housing Network figured out how to do coach-replacement when people’s homes are being red-tagged. Eden owns 3 mobile home parks that we converted to rentals. • We have a forgivable-loans program through the state for repairs. • Staffing concerns, and high turnover, are also a challenge for us. It’s hard for staff to afford where they’re living; only one of my staff members owns their own home. San Francisco is doing interesting work about teacher housing. Also, we need to think about larger families with more than 2 children or take care of their parents. Affordable housing needs to have larger units. • A lot of homelessness issues are focused on single adults. How do you best mix populations in housing? How do you prepare people to live in an environment they haven’t lived in in a long time, in a way that’s safe and predictable to other people who live there? Dec. 17 – Room 1 • How do we equip local leadership to be proactive instead of reactive? How do we help our communities before things become big issues? How do we work with families to ensure our young clients have safe living environments? Let’s start at the root issue of why people are displaced in the first place. • We need more extremely low-income housing. • We need reliable funding, and housing vouchers. If the project doesn’t pencil, then the project doesn’t get built. • Holding developments and corporations accountable for what they propose, and reducing their ability to back out of proposals. Especially when it comes to affordable housing. West San Jose/Saratoga Market Place and the Google Hub that was in the works and then dropped – these are specific examples. If public funds are involved, then commitments need to be kept. • Direct cash transfers or Universal Basic Income is great; less infrastructure is required, and it honors the ability of recipients to know what they need. More of those programs would be useful and would help keep people in housing. • Addressing food deserts, and ensuring that affordable housing is located near adequate public transit and cheaper food access. Include food banks, or something similar, in affordable housing spaces. Certain places in downtown San Jose are food deserts – a local supermarket turned into a Safeway that has now shut down, which took out the only major supermarket in the neighborhood. There are now only small culturally-specific food markets that aren’t necessarily accessible to people outside of that culture. Dec. 17 – Room 2 • Consider alternative homeownership models to address displacement and homelessness problems. As a result, neighborhoods will improve because people can call a place their home versus moving anywhere because it’s the cheapest rent. May also address mental health because many challenges arise when they are threatened with evictions and/or rent increases, etc. • Resources for planning departments who are looking for grant opportunities—would be great for staff to meet planning needs with County level resources to find and secure funds. Many jurisdictions have limited staff and capacity and can lack information/knowledge and/or limited ability to access information about the opportunities themselves. Dec. 17 – Room 3 • In Los Angeles, the City Council created the Bridge to Home initiative – agreement among districts that everyone would do their part to overcome NIMBYism and create transitional housing in all parts of the city. • Ensure shelter access is structured to match the needs of individuals. • For seniors, need to avoid isolation – promote socialization and safe space to access services. If you have a housing program, need to pay attention to the resources around it. Create the whole package. (safe walking connections is part of solution) • TAY population - Fostering Youth Independence for foster care youth. • 3-year vouchers and working with landlords to provide people with stable housing over time (even though temporary housing, it acts like permanent housing) • Prevention is key – need to reduce ‘the inflow’ so can better address the outflow. • Prevention (3) • Accessibility / affordability • Economic opportunities (connected to prevention) – especially opportunities where people are • More shelter capacity (while permanent housing is getting built) – outreach teams are doing great, but don’t have shelter capacity to link people to) – only have 25% shelter capacity compared to the need • Expansion of shelter capacity a must • Supportive services and navigation support • Awareness / connecting people to supports that are available • Rental assistance (for people on verge of homelessness due to inability to pay rent – incomes aren’t going up but rents are) • Getting people into homeownership (sweat equity programs, like we had in the 90s)
Campbell Farmers Market Pop-up Event Details ● Name: Urban County Campbell Farmer’s Market Pop Up ● Type: In-Person Event ● Location: E. Campbell Ave., between Central Ave and 3rd Street ● Date and Time: Sunday, December 1, 2024 from 9 am to 1 pm ● # of Attendees: approximately 40 people (only 2 reported demographic information; as such, it is not included here) Event Overview SCC Con Plan staff talked with around 40 people at the Campbell Farmers Market. The attendees included a broad swath of the community including youth, seniors, families, and more. Visitors were encouraged to interact with the comment boards by sharing examples of community improvements they would like to see funded through the Consolidated Plan. Attendees were also directed to the online survey to provide additional feedback and suggestions. Staff emphasized the importance of capturing community input and assured attendees that their feedback would be shared with the county and cities. Activities Overview Comment Boards Comment boards were displayed asking residents “What are the greatest needs in your neighborhood or community?” for housing, community development, economic development and public services. Many people interacted with the boards throughout the day, with participants ranging in age from young children to seniors, using both Spanish and English. At least 24 visitors left notes on the board. Table 2: Comment Board Responses Housing ● More social housing ● Affordable housing ● Zoning reform ● Section 8 housing expansion ● SSI recipients can’t qualify for low-income housing ● More affordable rental housing ● Low-income housing ● Don’t let developers trade a fee for an affordable housing requirement ● Affordable housing! ● Affordable housing for all income groups ● Rent control and more warming centers for houseless people ● Short-term transitional housing
1 ● Protect single resident neighborhoods. Have/maintain low density areas and make high density areas ● Support for homeless people ● Rent control ● Affordable housing ● Income-restricted housing AMI ● Housing for our unhoused people in SCC ● Access to tree canopy cover ● Access to walking distance amenities Community Development ● More car-free communal social spaces ● Restore our creeks and plan for climate change ● Special education school based services ● Cool cities and more trees ● Clean, green, public community outdoor spaces ● Recreation ● Stop urban sprawl ● Protect Coyote Valley ● Rehab services for homeless ● Burbank needs a park ● Los Gatos dog park ● Fox Tails is not cleaned up and has very little shade ● Microgrids ● Protect and fund equestrian access ● Recreation for teenagers ● Resilience hubs and extreme weather preparedness ● More outdoor shaded eating areas ● Fund public transit! More frequent and faster VTA train ● ADA improvements for sidewalks ● Improved public transit (VTA) frequency, better bus stops, etc. ● Improved bike lanes ● Countywide bike network ● Road and sidewalk improvements; cleanliness Economic Development ● Communal social centers with no expectation to spend money ● Job training for climate-related fields ● Education and training for range of opportunities and trades ● Costco ● Sustain Saratoga dog park ● Park Horse not maintained ● Job opportunities
2 ● NOVA career centers ● Strengthen small businesses ● Small business benefits ● Close Campbell Ave to car traffic and add more parklets for outdoor dining! ● Promoting jobs and local small business that actually benefit the community, not corporations like Amazon Public Services ● Better coordination with VTA ● Improved homeless services that respect unhoused neighbors and don’t dehumanize them ● Social services collaboration with cities for homeless ● Homeless services ● More efficient public transportation ● More bike lanes! ● Free community events ● Improved library hours and services and more pay for librarians! ● Public cleaning services ● Safe biking ● Restore established parks ● More bus routes!!! ● Animal shelter improvements ● Urban gardens, restorative farming, and food forests ● Climate progressive policies ● Restore and protect biodiversity ● Support mass transit ● Fix street in front of downtown Starbucks Children’s Coloring Pages Staff handed out five copies of this activity to children and parents who stopped by the table. The activity, intended to be taken home by families, asked children to reflect and focus on an important aspect of their home community.
Gilroy Open House Event Details ● Type: Open House ● Location: Gilroy Library Community Room - 350 W 6th St., Gilroy, CA ● Date and Time: November 4, 2024; 4 - 8 PM ● Number of attendees: ~ 30 ● Language: 2 Spanish Interpreters Event Overview Residents from Gilroy, San Jose, Morgan Hill, Santa Cruz, and Millbrae attended and provided feedback on how federal funds should be spent in their community. Approximately 30 attendees participated in the event and most attendees engaged with many of the activities. The Gilroy Library’s Community Room provided ample space for staff to guide participants through the Con Plan’s activities while allowing community members to talk with one another and network. During quiet times, staff went to the lobby to hand out website/survey flyers to library visitors.
Activities Overview Activities included: • Demographic Survey • Community Survey • Activity 1: What are the Greatest Needs? (Comment Boards) • Activity 2: Prioritizing Outcomes • Children’s Activity: Your Favorite Place in the Neighborhood Coloring Sheet Demographic Survey Attendees were asked to take a short demographic survey to self-report on their age, race, income, gender, household type, employment, disability, etc. Community Survey Santa Clara County residents and stakeholders were asked to complete a survey about their suggestions for improvement in the region. Attendees were asked to take the survey, which was provided in multiple languages. Flyers were handed out with a QR code to the online survey and directing people to learn more and get involved on the letstalkhousingscc.org website.
Primary Findings from Activity 1: Greatest Needs Comment Boards Activity overview: Ask participants to write on sticky notes what their greatest housing, community development, etc. needs and challenges are in their neighborhood/community and stick them on each corresponding board. Community Development Needs Community members listed the need for investments in youth centers, affordable recreational opportunities, and partnerships with nonprofits to expand services and build community resilience. They also prioritized infrastructure improvements like fixing potholes, improving street lighting, and creating safer, more accessible roads. Climate-related activities were mentioned such as developing an urban forest, investing in creek-rise mitigation, and developing a climate resilience plan. Economic Development Needs Community members highlighted the need for gainful local employment opportunities, union jobs, and training programs particularly for youth and the homeless. They also emphasized support for small businesses through low-cost loans, entrepreneurship programs, and policies to help street vendors operate. Housing Needs Community members stressed the importance of affordable housing solutions, including very low-income units, supportive housing, and shelters, alongside programs for homeownership and rental assistance. They also noted a few policy actions to help support housing challenges such as stronger tenant protections, enforcement against housing discrimination and unsafe rentals, creative solutions like tiny homes and safe parking, and expanded resources for farm workers and the unhoused. Public Services Needs Community members noted the need for expanded mental health services, substance abuse programs, and accessible healthcare, along with better support for food security and childcare. They also prioritized affordable and reliable transportation, safe parking for unhoused individuals, climate-resilient shelters, and resources to assist with rental and deposit challenges. Primary Findings from Activity 2: Prioritizing Outcomes Activity overview: Ask participants to allocate 10 paper tickets among the outcomes they would like to see prioritized by their respective jurisdiction. A series of cups is provided (corresponding with each of the respective HUD-eligible buckets) with one outcome in front of each cup. Staff worked with jurisdiction staff to determine which outcomes to include in the activity. The most popular responses for Gilroy residents are shown in the table below. The full list of outcomes is detailed later in this report.
Prioritizing Outcomes Responses Highest Priority Outcomes Number of tickets First-time homebuyers, low-income residents have more opportunities to buy an affordable home. 25 Seniors have several housing options to downsize. 9 Residents experiencing homelessness/housing instability have more access to shelters that meet their needs. 9 Residents experiencing homelessness/housing instability have more permanent housing options. 26 Residents have access to new parks and/or recreation centers in their neighborhood(s). 10 Residents experiencing homelessness benefit from increased access to services that address their housing needs. 8 Residents have more access to job training programs or job training centers in their community. 7 Residents have more access to employment opportunities in their community 7
Detailed Results Activity 1: Comment Board Responses What are the greatest needs in your neighborhood or community? Comment Board Responses Topic Feedback Community Development • Urban forest position that would educate people on planting and caring for street trees and trees in their yard • Fix potholes • Investment in creek rise mitigation • Youth center with pools, classes, art! Community center like MH has • No cost/low cost community center • Youth center • Youth center with low/no cost activities • Calles más seguras y bien iluminadas. Gilroy es muy obscuro. [Translation: Safer and well-lit streets. Gilroy is very dark.] • Funding for CARAS to expand and operate youth center • Support new community resource center (SCFHP) • Oportunida des recreativas [Translation: recreational opportunities] • Wider range of recreational opportunities for our youth! Team sports are NOT everyone’s cup of tea! Partner with Gavilan College to offer open swim in the summer! • Boys & Girls Club • Stronger partnerships with nonprofits, city, and county • Climate resilience planning & resource hub • Incorporate more lived experience in forming policies, programs • Work on securing funds collaboratively with non-profit sector • City collaborate with nonprofits • Funding for ALL agencies to expand their services • Increased funding for programs that support the youth • Más actividades para incentivar las relaciones entre vecinos [Translation: More activities to encourage relationships between neighbors] • More city money and time spent on securing funding for homeless housing services • Cover pot holes all over the city • Support and fund new youth center at old Bank of America building • More recreation activity for young children 3-5 years old • More funding for non-profit • Support for non-profit training & education • Funding for public policy and community organizing through non-profits
• Local advocacy training in English and Spanish to increase civic participation • Fondos para agencias y nonprofits para atender las problemas que afectan a la comunidad [Translation: Funds for agencies and nonprofits to address issues affecting the community] • Safer roads for those commuting on bike • Better lighting and sidewalks on Church Economic Development • Union jobs - City to work with unions so they want to do business with us • Jobs in city of Gilroy • Living wage jobs • Necesitamos mas housing accesibles para la comunidad ya que todo esta muy elevado los costos y son muchos los requisitos para renta [Translation: We need more accessible housing for the community since everything is very expensive and there are many rental requirements.] • Local jobs and fair wages for all • Programs that help with job readiness • Job training and job opportunities for youth • More job training for youth/homeless • Cursos a capacitaciones para un oficio mejor pagado [Translation: Training courses for a better paid job] • Mejores situaciones laborales (no miran los abusos laborales) [Translation: Better work situations (they do not look at labor abuses)] • Oportunidades de pequeños negocios, prestamos, capacitadon – Yacanex por ejemplo! [Translation: Small business opportunities, loans, training – Yacanex for example!] • Programas para desarrollar e incentivar el emprendimiento a todas las edades [Translation: Programs to develop and encourage entrepreneurship at all ages] • Transporte a los centros de trabajo [Translation: Transportation to work centers] • Menos discriminacion migratoria [Translation: Less immigration discrimination] • More job opportunities for youth • Programas que fortalezca pequeños negocios [Translation: Programs that strengthen small businesses] • Low-cost small business loans • Ordinance allowing local street vendors to operate without restrictive licensing requirements • Mixed-use zoning east of 101-S to increase traffic to businesses • Youth jobs programs, including trades programs • More job training • Job training for the homeless
Housing • Tenant protections • Safe parking • Way more ELI units • More permanent supportive housing in Gilroy • Affordable housing • Investment in ELI units families – 2-3 bedrooms • Affordable housing for the poorest • Necesidad básicas (es un campo de inmigrantes): colchones, frazodes, micro ondes [Translation: Basic needs (it is an immigrant camp): mattresses, blankets, microwaves, housing; from April to November we have to carry everything] • Necesitas apoyo para renta, que todo sea mas accesible en question de poder rentar, porque el deposito y renta estan muy devados [Translation: You need support for rent, for everything to be more accessible in terms of being able to rent, because the deposit and rent are very debited.] • Ser propietario de vivienda [Translation: Be a homeowner] • Menor monto deposito [Translation: Lower deposit amount] • Alquiler de manera mas urgente de un dia a otro [Translation: Rent more urgently from one day to the next] • Temporary housing for the unhoused • Ser proprietaria de vivienda/en rentas que baya bajo costo/mas oportunidades para todos!!! Gracias! [Translation: Be a homeowner/in rentals that are low cost/more opportunities for everyone!!! Thank you!] • Farmworker housing • Homeownership programs for 50-80% AMI • Low income housing (not affordable) • More home ownership programs that meet families needs • Financial discrimination enforcement - especially not taking Section 8 • Rental assistance for Gilroy residents • Investment and enforcement oversight for code enforcement • HOT team for dignified, compassionate, unhoused outreach • Creative housing solutions – tiny homes safe park (and a second post-it saying “YES” added to this one • Vivienda justa [Translation: Fair housing] • “Truly” affordable housing • Necesitamas mas apoyos para vivienda por que habeces es muy elevada la renta y piden renta y deposito y modros de las veces no hay fondos[Translation: We need more support for housing because the rent is apparently very high and they ask for rent and deposit and sometimes there are no funds] • Universal design and visitability standards in housing • Year-round family shelter
• Homelessness & affordable housing • Strict enforcement with fines for landlords renting spaces not certified for occupancy • Apoyo para comprar vivienda[Translation: Support to buy a home] • Affordable housing and temporary sites • Affordable housing • More home ownership programs • Yo creo que muchas personas quisieramos vivendas mas accesibles tomando en cuenta que todo es muy caro y la vivienda sobre pasa en todo es muy dificil calificar por el alto income que piden gracias for pensarla [Translation: I think that many people would like more accessible homes taking into account that everything is very expensive and housing is above average, it is very difficult to qualify for the high income they ask for, thank you for thinking about it] • More shelters needed • Ordinance preventing criminalization of homelessness and encampments • Affordable housing and shelters • Safe parking for RVs • Temporary shelters - tiny homes safe park • Relocation assistance at 3x rent for no-fault evictions • Re-zoning to enable more affordable housing development • Comprehensive tenant protections • Permanent supportive housing • Very very low income housing • Acceso a vivienda propia para familias e individuos. Facilidades económicas y apoyo crediticio [Translation: Access to own housing for families and individuals. Economic facilities and credit support] Public Services • More empathetic treatment facilities • Free transportation • Affordable transportation • More behavioral health professionals and clinics • Adaptar aceras y espacios públicos para personas con discapacidad (ciegos, sordos, personas en silla de ruedas) [Translation: Adapt sidewalks and public spaces for people with disabilities (blind, deaf, people in wheelchairs)] • Food for the food insecure • Safe parking for the unhoused • Fondos y equipamiento para bomberos [Translation: Funds and equipment for firefighters] • Year-round shelter for families (not congregate)
• Servicios de salud mental (depresión, ansiedad, etc.). Grupos de apoyo también [Translation: Mental health services (depression, anxiety, etc.). Support groups too] • Assistance with securing tax credits/rebates for de-carbonizing housing/appliances • Más opciones de transporte, como MoGo y más rutas de bus [Translation: More transportation options, like MoGo and more bus routes] • Safe parking for people living in vehicles • More accessible and improved mental health resources • Increased public transit and more frequent Caltrain service • Rental assistance/homeless prevention • We need a park for children with special needs • More transportation all over the city • Rental and deposit assistance • Support food access/food pantries/combat food insecurity • Cuidado de niños en un centro de salud cuando mamá asiste a citas [Translation: Childcare at a health center when mom attends appointments] • VTA going to social services • Extreme heat and extreme climate event centers (for shelter & services) • Substance abuse programs for youth • Provide more low-cost childcare • Increased access for medical/health services • Legal services to renters/mobile home owners at risk of homelessness • Social workers to work with unhoused • Mental health services for adults & youth • Presupuesto para la policía y seguridad [Translation: Budget for police and security] • More public videocameras • Rental and deposit assistance • VIP (volunteers in policing) - bring back if not still active. Community people training in conflict resolution for neighborhood situations • Services assisting mental health • One clearing house for all unhoused • RV parking options for older RVs (for people who live in RVs) • More public transportation options • Access to low-cost immunizations (COVID/flu)
Activity 2: Prioritizing Outcomes Responses What outcomes do you want prioritized? Two colors of tickets were handed out to differentiate between Gilroy and non-Gilroy residents. The most common responses are shown in bold for Gilroy residents (non-Gilroy resident responses were minimal and are only shown where comparisons are valid) Priority Outcomes for Housing Housing Outcomes Gilroy Non-Gilroy Residents living with disabilities have more accessible housing options/are able to live independently 6 First-time homebuyers, low-income residents have more opportunities to buy an affordable home. 25 Seniors have several housing options to downsize. 9 Residents experiencing homelessness/housing instability have more access to shelters that meet their needs. 9 Residents experiencing homelessness/housing instability have more permanent housing options. 26 Homeowners are living in safe and livable homes. 2 Renters are living in safe and livable homes 3 Residents have more resources to resolve housing discrimination/better awareness of fair housing rights. 1 Residents have more resources to avoid displacement. 4 Agricultural workers have access to more affordable housing. 5 Total 90 0 Priority Outcomes for Community Development Community Development Outcomes Gilroy Non-Gilroy Residents have access to new community centers in their neighborhood(s). 3 Residents benefit from improvements to existing community centers in their neighborhood(s). 2 Residents have access to new youth centers in their neighborhood(s). 3 Residents benefit from improvements to existing youth centers in their neighborhood(s). 3 Older residents have access to new senior centers in their neighborhood(s). 3 Older residents benefit from improvements to existing senior centers in their neighborhood(s). 2 Local non-profit organizations/service providers have access to space to better serve the community. 4 Local non-profit organizations/service providers can make improvements to their existing space to better serve the community. 3 1 Residents have access to new parks and/or recreation centers in their neighborhood(s). 10 Residents benefit from improvements to parks and/or recreation centers in their neighborhood(s). 3 Youth and other special populations (e.g. seniors, residents living with disabilities) have access to more recreational opportunities. 3 Residents can safely walk or roll around their neighborhood(s) on sidewalks in good condition. 0 Residents, whether walking, biking, rolling, or driving, benefit from streets that are safe, accessible, and welcoming. 3 Residents, particularly older populations and residents living with disabilities, benefit from public buildings, public facilities and/or community centers that are accessible. 1 Total 43 1 Table 6: Priority Outcomes for Public Services Public Services Outcomes Gilroy Non-Gilroy Residents benefit from increased access to mental health care services. 5 Residents benefit from increased access to substance abuse/chemical dependency services. 4 Residents benefit from increased access to affordable and/or high-speed internet. 2 Residents benefit from increased access to services related to improving educational outcomes. 1 10 Residents benefit from increased and equitable access to services that address food insecurity 5 2 Residents experiencing homelessness benefit from increased access to services that address their housing needs. 8 Residents benefit from increased access to healthcare services 4 1 Residents benefit from increased access to dental care services. 4 Vulnerable residents (e.g., low-income residents, residents living with disabilities, LGBTQIA+) have increased access to services that support their well-being. 5 1 Older residents benefit from increased access to more senior-oriented services and activities. 1 Younger residents benefit from increased access to more youth-oriented services and activities. 4 Residents with children have increased access to more affordable childcare options. 6 1 Total 49 15 Priority Outcomes for Economic Development Economic Development Outcomes Gilroy Non-Gilroy Residents have more access to job training programs or job training centers in their community. 7 Residents benefit from the revitalization of neighborhood businesses and/or commercial areas in their community. 2 Residents have more access to employment opportunities in their community 7 1 Residents have more opportunities to start small businesses, expand and/or strengthen their existing businesses, and/or relocate their businesses. 5 Residents have access to an Agricultural and Day Worker Resource Center 4 1 Total 25 2
Demographic Survey Responses A short demographic survey was offered and 28 attendees responded. Responses are shown below for those who agreed to take the survey. Demographic Survey Responses Note: n=28.
Mountain View Dia de Los Muertos Festival Event Details ● Type: Tabling at Community Event ● Location: Mountain View City Hall ● Date and Time: Saturday, November 2, 2024, 9:30 am - 4 pm ● # of Attendees: ~ 40-50 Pop-Up Overview The Dia de Muertos event was well attended throughout the day. Staff engaged with about 40 to 50 event attendees and people who were passing through. Staff spoke with people of all ages, from families with young children to seniors. We also interacted with people from a variety of ethnic backgrounds and languages, primarily those who spoke English, Spanish, and Mandarin or other Chinese languages. Staff spoke at length with many attendees about their hopes and priorities for their community, and staff emphasized contributing to the comment boards and filling out the survey as a key opportunity for residents to share their goals with city and county leaders. Activities Overview Comment Boards Comment boards were displayed asking attendees: “What are the greatest needs in your neighborhood or community?” The boards were frequently interacted with throughout the day, with participants ranging in age from young children to seniors, using both Spanish and English. Even those who chose not to write responses were interested in looking at the ideas people shared. Community Survey & Website Flyers The most common level of engagement was sharing the online survey with event attendees through both the QR code and hard copy fliers, with residents of both Mountain View and the larger County. Throughout the event, staff handed out about 100 English and 75 Spanish survey/ website flyers for people to take home to complete the survey or share with family, friends or neighbors. Children’s Coloring Pages This event was attended by many families with young children, and staff handed out coloring pages and crayons to take home. 1 Detailed Results What are the greatest needs in your neighborhood or community? ● Community Development Responses ○ Life transformation support (for those interested) ○ Financial education (how to budget, stay out of debt) ○ Accessible & multicultural art programs ○ Personal finance ed for kids ○ Recreation: create opportunities for broader community to access ○ Recreation: please yes! ○ More hobby shops? ○ Immigration help (another post-it adding onto this one and saying “in as many languages as possible”) ○ Less gasoline cars ○ Speed humps in residential areas ○ More ADA accessibility by the parks ○ Biking safety ○ Car speed reductions and noise regulation ○ Bike lanes and FIX EL CAMINO! ○ Pedestrian activated signal by parks ○ Bike lanes ○ Bike lanes (someone else added “yes please!”) ○ Fix potholes ● Economic Development Responses ○ More job training programs for skilled workers ○ More accountability for how public funds are spent ○ Programas para comprar casa los de bajas recursos ○ Leadership opportunities for “low” and “middle” class ○ Capacity building with childcare and different HRs ○ Trade school programs ○ Cheaper flight schools ○ Small business grants ○ Women and small biz as the engine ● Housing Responses ○ Broader down payment assistance programs for low income ○ Rent control ○ Vacancy tax ○ Más estacionamientos/more parking spots ○ What about support for “middle class” not low income but those can’t afford things but don’t qualify because they make too much 2 ○ For homeless people: have mini food booths in parks and convenient locations for them to get healthy food so they don’t have to travel so far for meals ○ Rental cap for essential workers (teacher, firefighter, grocery, health care) [ someone added another post-it that said “Yes!!! Essential workers”] ○ Affordable housing ○ Affordable housing ○ Make developers assign 20-30% housing for low income and essential workers ○ Incentive programs for 1st time home buyers ○ Home discounts ○ BMR housing for people other than 1st time home buyers ○ Mixed-use developments ○ Tax tech companies to provide housing for essential workers ○ BMR - mixed use - tech housing for essential workers (and someone else wrote “yes!” on this post-it) ○ Housing for disabled to be provided at no cost/minimal cost ○ Rent control on new buildings ○ Rent control and youth programs after school ○ Affordable housing & rent caps! ○ Rent control ○ Control de renta ○ Less broken houses (kind of like fixing) ○ Affordable housing ● Public Services Responses ○ Youth programs ○ Healthy food prep (why is junk food cheaper than healthy food?) ○ Trains! ○ Game developing programs ○ Accessible counseling in multiple languages ○ Mental health services ○ Public health services ○ Easy access to mental health services and training ○ Sport opportunities “low” and “middle” class ○ Bring back the Rotodyne ○ Affordable child care services ○ Child care for working families that don’t meet low income ○ Yes! Child care w/ education ○ Medical loan forgiveness programs ○ Children's programming ○ Adult education and career development ○ Homeless folks ○ Adult education and hobby classes ○ Luxury home - less shelters 3 ○ Free after school programs K-12 ○ Pool in homeless shelters ○ For homeless people: love to see mini tiny house for them to sleep and rest for their wellness and healthy being 1 Demographic Survey Responses Attendees that engaged with the activity boards were given a demographic survey. A total of 21 participants took the survey, and responses are shown below. Demographic Survey Responses Note: n=21
Mountain View Public Workshop Event Details ● Jurisdictions: Mountain View ● Type: Mountain View Public Workshop (Zoom) ● Date and Time: Monday, December 16, 6 pm - 7 pm ● Number of attendees: 12 ● Demographics of attendees: ○ Event attendees primarily consisted of middle-aged to older adults, with a demographic largely composed of women. The group included individuals who were predominantly White and Asian, along with representation from a Latina and Indian community member.
Workshop Overview The Workshop team, composed of staff from CPC and Root Policy, facilitated an online workshop to collect feedback from residents of Mountain View. Attendees provided their input on how federal funds should be spent to support community development, housing, unhoused individuals, economic development and public services within the County. Approximately 38 people attended the workshop and they participated in multiple activities for which a range of feedback was captured.
Activities Overview and Primary Findings The workshops began with an introduction to the Consolidated Plan, and an overview of the workshop’s purpose and the planned activities. Attendees participated in an online collaborative survey before moving to breakout rooms for additional questions and discussion with a facilitator. Activities included: Main Room ● Word Cloud: How should federal funding be used for housing, homelessness and community development in Santa Clara County? ● Demographic Survey: Tell Us About Yourself Breakout Room ● Needs, Challenges, and Solutions Discussion Main Room Activities The Menti activity gathered feedback from participants on how and where to spend federal funding and introduced them to the Menti platform which was also used for the breakout room activity. Below is an overview of the activities and feedback received from participants of both workshops. 1 Activity Main Room Feedback Word Cloud: How should federal funding be used for housing, homelessness and community development in Santa Clara County? Participants added responses to the Menti board about how they thought federal funding should be spent.
Responses emphasized the need for expanded services to address housing challenges and promote long-term stability. Key priorities included increased rental assistance, affordable housing, and accessible emergency shelter, along with senior support and timely assistance. Additional suggestions ranged from more apartment and senior vouchers to refurbishing hotels for housing and adding new bus routes to improve public transit. Participants also highlighted the importance of homelessness assistance, job training, rent control, evidence-based programs, enhanced community centers, and preventive services to meet ongoing community needs effectively.
Demographic Info: Tell Us About Yourself! Attendees were asked to self report their demographic information.
The group was primarily composed of middle-aged to older individuals, with women making up the majority. The participants reflected a mix of backgrounds, predominantly White and Asian, with some added diversity in representation Breakout Room Activities Breakout groups contributed to a series of Word Clouds and provided feedback on five key topics: housing support, community development, economic development, public/supportive services, and issue-based solutions. The attendees were separated into two breakout groups. Topic Needs, Challenges, and Solutions Housing Housing Affordability and Accessibility Participants emphasized the need for more low-income housing and programs to assist residents, particularly seniors and people with disabilities, in securing stable housing. Mountain View’s case management programs were praised, but similar support is lacking in other areas. Housing for teachers and firefighters near their workplaces was also highlighted as a priority. 2 Challenges with Current Housing Development Concerns included new developments with reduced parking, insufficient amenities, and unwelcoming designs. Small landlords with outdated units were identified as both a challenge and an opportunity, with suggestions to support upgrades or buyouts. Converting duplexes into apartments was noted as a potential strategy for increasing housing stock. Barriers to Affordable Housing Strict eligibility criteria for affordable housing often exclude families just over income thresholds, adding to their financial stress. Mobile home residents and RV-dwelling families face significant struggles, with calls for down payment assistance, job support, and safe, permanent housing solutions. Programs and Solutions Mountain View programs like land trusts, emergency funds, and displacement subsidies were praised but need broader adoption. Participants stressed the importance of keeping residents rooted in their communities through targeted affordability measures and community-focused development. Community Development Safety Concerns Participants highlighted significant safety issues in Mountain View, including inadequate street lighting, dangerous intersections, and poor bicycle path signage. Fatal accidents at Rengstorff and Montecito, Calderon Street, and near the RV park underscore the urgency of these concerns. Improvements like better lighting, visible crosswalks, and pedestrian-friendly designs are needed to enhance road safety, especially for elderly residents and children. Youth and Community Facilities There is a call for expanded youth facilities, such as a larger sports complex similar to Sunnyvale’s, where children and teenagers can congregate after night. Participants also emphasized the need for modernized police and fire department facilities to better meet community needs. Public Spaces and Community Engagement Suggestions include improving common spaces and creating safe, walkable streets for residents to access parts of the community. More vibrant downtown programming for diverse audiences, and common spaces for people to connect was another request. Ideas such as 3 hummingbird feeders, community gardens, and more gathering areas were proposed to combat isolation. Age-Friendly Design Participants stressed the importance of designing infrastructure to support aging in place. This includes improving sidewalks, crosswalks with flashing signals, and spaces accessible to people with disabilities, as well as creating opportunities for intergenerational interactions. Economic Development Utilizing Local Expertise Participants suggested tapping into the expertise of recently laid-off tech workers to benefit the community. Many individuals have valuable skills and could contribute by teaching others or volunteering. Retail and Economic Growth There is a strong desire for more retail options in Mountain View, particularly clothing and shoe stores, to reduce reliance on Amazon and improve shopping convenience. Participants noted that downtown retail is struggling due to limited parking, Castro Street closures, and a focus on restaurants. Suggestions include ending the downtown vendor ban, supporting food truck businesses, and utilizing empty storefront spaces more effectively. Ideas like public food halls and commercial kitchens could also stimulate economic growth and create opportunities for entrepreneurs. Programs and Accessibility Participants acknowledged valuable city programs, such as scholarships and technical support for families starting businesses. However, barriers like immigration status and complex application processes limit access for some residents. Expanding financial counseling and credit education, especially in high schools, could empower youth to support their families and strengthen financial literacy across the community. Community-City Relationship The feedback highlighted appreciation for Mountain View’s strong relationship with its residents. Participants emphasized the importance of continuing to identify and address community needs, particularly through programs that support financial stability, education, and business development.
Public/Supportive Services Community members highlighted diverse needs to improve safety, access, and support systems in Santa Clara. Suggestions included 4 enhancing transportation options, such as safer biking infrastructure for youth and improved microtransit services for seniors. Key issues requiring additional public support included rental assistance, abuse case management, and helping low-income residents with disabilities overcome various barriers. Participants also emphasized the importance of improving financial literacy by integrating updated curricula into classrooms.
Other Topics and Solutions Participants emphasized the importance of creative funding and community-based solutions to address local needs. Suggestions included implementing quick fixes like phone buddy programs to provide immediate support and leveraging volunteers through asset-based community development to maximize existing resources. Additionally, they proposed engaging local tech companies to invest in initiatives or create structures that encourage employees to actively participate in community development efforts.
5 Detailed Results Attendee Demographics Group 1 Mostly women Middle to older age group White and, Asian Group 2 1 male 4 woman Group 3 1 Latina Main Room Word Cloud: How should federal funding be used for housing, homelessness and community development in Mountain View? ● Affordable housing (2) ● Rent to own (2) ● Teacher housing (2) ● Common housing issues ● Community engagement ● Community land trust ● Convert unused offices ● Diversity ● Evaluate current zoning ● Eviction prevention ● Fair housing help ● Financial assistance ● Low-income down payment ● New extremely-low-income units ● Participation ● Rental assistance 6 Breakout Room Activity: Word Cloud and Feedback Menti Board Original Feedback Question 1: What type of housing supports are needed? Where are they most needed? Group 1 Group 2 ● Low income housing (2) ● Adjacent to work ● Affordable rental housing ● Assistance w/ down payment ● Case management ● Eviction defense ● First-time homeowners ● Essential workers support ● Homelessness transition ● Housing selections ● Program opportunities ● Reasonable accommodations ● Rent-to-own ● Rental assistance ● Transition ● Affordable housing (2) ● ADH support ● Affordable ownership ● Building rehabilitation ● Buy out small landlords ● Deposit assistance ● Legal assistance ● More Section 8 money ● Prioritize current tenant ● Rental assistance ● Support downsizing Question 2: What and where the greatest community development needs? Group 1 Group 2 ● ADA upgrades ● Leverage expertise ● More community engagement ● More retail ● Safe routes to school ● Senior center updates ● Spaces to congregate ● Transportation ● Walkable neighborhoods ● Walkable safe streets ● Art in vacant storefronts ● Art spaces ● Bike overpass over tracks ● Bike trail beside train ● Community centers ● Green spaces ● Homeless storage ● Local business support ● Medical services ● Pedestrian safety ● Protected bike lanes ● Public art gallery ● Require safe bike parking 7 ● RV repair ● Secure bike parking ● Slow streets ● Supportive services ● Walkability Question 3: What and where are the greatest economic development needs? Group 1 Group 2 ● Leverage expertise ● Mental healthcare for teens ● More retail ● Addressing senior poverty ● Allow bikes downtown ● Art in vacant storefronts ● Art walk ● Attractions for young adults ● Bike parking garage ● Cheaper rental rents ● Childcare assistance ● Clear simple permitting ● Commercial kitchens ● End downtown vendor ban ● More transit options ● More vendors on pedestrian mall ● Public food hall ● Strong culture Question 4: What public/supportive services are most needed? Which residents have unmet needs? Group 1 Group 2 ● Activities for underprivileged ● Case management ● Help locating services ● Homeless ● Kids ● Low income legal aid ● Mental health for teens ● Seniors ● Services for seniors ● Medical services (2) ● More public restrooms ● Basic income ● City owned housing ● Community gardens ● Displaced residents ● House the unhoused ● Job training ● Long-lasting case workers ● Psychiatric assistance 8 ● Public housing ● RV sewage electric hookup ● Teacher support Question 5: What solutions for housing, community development, economic development, public/supportive services should be explored? Group 1 Group 2 ● Community spaces ● Leveraging volunteers ● More funding for services ● Quick fixes ● Mixed-use development (2) ● Bridge digital devise ● Cargo bike parking ● Cheap ownership housing ● City mural walk ● City owned housing ● End single family zoning ● More car charging ● Museums ● Public ebike charging ● Public housing ● Public sculpture garden ● Prioritize bikes and pedestrians first ● Rent to own opportunities ● Small business support ● Teacher housing 9 Breakout Room Original Feedback Breakout Room 1 Notes Breakout room number: 1 Total participants: 4 Demographics of participants: (to the best of your ability record the age, gender, race, special group for each participant) Mostly women Middle to older age group White and, Asian Housing ● Low income housing upvoted ● Finding programs for getting people into housing ● Case management ○ low income seniors who are facing eviction because they can’t pay or have a disability ○ Need reasonable accommodation ○ Need ongoing assistance to address the needs they have ○ Mountain View has great case management through City dept but not true for many other jurisdictions ● Teachers, firefighter housing close to work - seconded ● Developers planning places cut back on parking first - not enough amenities - new housing is monstrous and not friendly feeling Community Development Needs ● More community engagement ● Redesign outdated common - Refresh and redesign public spaces ○ Downtown needs some improvement ○ The current design is a little reactive ○ How to use the downtown more effectively more well used, more engaging ○ Programming is targeted to a certain audience ● Safe, walkable streets ○ Support people to age in place 10 ○ Safer sidewalks, crosswalks and crossings that are more visible, flashing crossings ○ Design to accommodate people with disabilities, hearing and visual impairments ○ Drivers don’t seem to pay attention, pedestrians also especially elderly ● Spaces to congregate ○ People are very isolated since covid ○ Not a lot of common safe spaces where they can be involved in the community ○ Hummingbird feeders as places to come together and share experiences ○ Community gardens that people actually use ● Heard that the City won’t be doing anything other than public services so might not be anything for Community Development Economic Development Needs ● Leveraging expertise ○ Lots of tech layoffs ○ People have a lot of knowledge and wish they would get involved and teach others their skills ○ Let these people know that they are valued and have great things to share ○ Maybe they just don’t know about volunteer opportunities but would be involved if they knew and were pushed a little ● More retail ○ Not so much about Mountain View ○ I use amazon more than I’d like ○ Can’t always find what I need ○ More clothing and shoe stores ○ We used to go downtown to San Jose - there used to be a lot downtown but then the Mall killed it - things were getting better in the 80’s but now it’s struggling again - Santana Row killed downtown again ○ Some of us don’t feel safe downtown ○ Castro Street streets are closed and retail is struggling, only restaurants are doing well - hard to get to, can’t find parking, can’t find the stores you’re looking for Public/Supportive Services ● Kids and Teens ○ Want kids to be able to go bike around safely without being hit by cars ● Seniors ○ Older Americans Act - critical needs, transportation, referrals ○ Rental assistance ○ Case management for abuse especially ○ Layering disabilities and low income ● Mental Health Services 11 Solutions ● Funding ● Quick fixes - phone buddies ● Leveraging volunteers - asset based community development (ABCD) ● Tech money or structures that encourages employees to get involved Breakout Room 2 Notes Breakout room number: 2 Total participants: 5 Demographics of participants: (to the best of your ability record the age, gender, race, special group for each participant) 1 male 4 women
Housing ● Buy out small landlords ○ Many of the small mom and pop landlords - some of the more outdated units and need improvements ○ Biggest potential for new units - convert a duplex into apartment units Economic Development Needs ● End downtown vendor ban - no way for people with food trucks/vans to sell their stuff downtown (people do it anyway) ● City has spaces in front of storefronts already zoned out for people to rent ● Businesses can rent out space but it’s on them to rent it out/abandoned storefronts just remain vacant ● Commercial kitchens - help make owning a food truck more viable in Mountain View ● Public food halls - great next step 12 Breakout Room 3 Notes Breakout room number: 3 Total participants: 1 Demographics of participants: (to the best of your ability record the age, gender, race, special group for each participant) Senior Latina
Housing Been in Mountain View for over 24 years and have noticed as a community member that there are different types of focuses needed for housing. For example, whenever there is community development, there is just a small amount of affordable housing. When families move to this type of housing and are able to get benefit from these housing, there is a criterion for them to qualify. In order to qualify for affordable housing, you can be just over the limit. You can see those families go through so much stress because the cost of living is so much higher on top of housing. So that would be one type of issue. Another issue that I see is I live in a mobile park. I am speaking on behalf of seniors, people who are 70 or 80 years old. We are so grateful that the city council has direct control of our benefit. I notice that all these people spend all of their money from social security in order to pay rent. I would say most of them. So, the question is how they cover the missing amount in order to cover the full rent. Many are lucky because they have worked all their lives and have some savings. But it’s very stressful for them to see how the little savings they have are going down and decreasing. The majority have CalFresh. It’s really powerful for them to use that card on a daily basis because then they can use the rest of the savings, they have to cover the rent and not live on the street. The other problem that I have noticed in the city: We are so lucky that the county of Santa Clara has given funds to MV in order to have parks so RVs can park in safe places. It’s really heartbreaking to see these RVs, there are families that have 3 or 4 children, and these places are tiny and cold. Families are the core of society, so the question is how the city can support these families. Most effective way to use funding to help them? I believe that when we are talking about housing crisis, we are also talking about territorial spaces. For example, when we talk about seniors, I noticed 13 that most of these people live by themselves in 900 square feet. They are so happy because it’s something they have worked to live this way. But whenever they want to request affordable housing for seniors, they don’t qualify because of the low income. In regard to people who live in RV. I would say it would be good to give them the opportunity to help them with downpayment, it’s less than 3k and also to open opportunities for employment, because once they have an apartment to have a job to keep paying those rents. And also to provide opportunities to take advantage of the wonderful resources that the city has. I really believe that’s how we can keep advancing as a community. There is a doctor in Stanford who did research about the fact that one or two people are living in huge spaces. We also have to pay respect to our elders they have been through a lot and it’s important to listen to them. Programs that are good in MV or are needed? I think all the programs are really good, one is really good, the land trust in MV. The benefit of this is that if the landlord wants to sell, the tenants living there have the opportunity to own the land. Also to have an emergency fund, in case someone has an emergency, to make sure people can stay in their house. This is the meaning of community. We can give opportunities for these residents to enjoy living in Mountainview with its high quality of living without stress of thinking if owner sells, they have nowhere to go. So, what we have also noticed is that the city of MV has subsidies to help people who are displaced, but then they leave MV because of the high cost in the city. Community Development Needs We have some public forums where we have expressed some of the needs in our neighborhood. One issue is lack of lighting, which of course is very dangerous. We have been lobbying for this. We have also been lobbying for better signage for bicycle paths. Accidents happen. Also, for sake of safety, road intersections are dangerous, we have been working on this but there have been some federal laws around feet. It’s something we can improve upon. I also want to mention the teen center. I would like to see a much bigger sports complex. Like Sunnyvale. I visited Sunnyvale and saw they have a much better facility for sports and are able to play there at night. I would like to see that in Mountain View, it would be nice to have a place to have our youth play at all times. Also, in MV we have a program called ambassadors that I participate in which shows us how the American government systems work. I had a chance to visit the police department, and they really need improvements to be more modern, better meet the needs of the community, and same thing with the fire department. For accidents, a high school student was killed near the RV park, which happened during the day in the morning. He was riding his bike and car was making a turn, and didn't die immediately but on transit. They are now working on the road to make it better, but it doesn’t seem to be completed yet. 14 Grant and El Camino Road: so, we had another death because of lack of lighting on the corner of Rengstorff and Montecito. The driver said he could not see. And not sure what was the outcome of that. Don’t know if he passed or if he ended up being ok. There’s another case on Calderon Street in the same neighborhood: Cuesta Park. There’s a school named Benjamin Bubb. The city has worked on it and there is better light and a stop sign, but unfortunately a person passed away there before that happened. So, I think the city is working on it, but continuing to reach out to the community to fix these problems is excellent to make sure we have a safe and nice living environment. Economic Development and Public/Supportive Services A couple of years ago the city offered scholarships for training, and a few families participated, and now one family just received a license to start selling food. And also, there are some very good programs, but some families are not able to access them because of immigration status. For example, for construction. And also, to be able to get funds to purchase units. There are certain applications that pertain to the government that are very complicated, so hopefully the city could provide technical support so that they can take advantage of these opportunities. In regard to financial counseling, I believe they are fully teaching those programs in high school and with that knowledge the young people acquire, they are able to help their families and their parents. I really believe the fact that the city has money for different programs, that really can meet the needs in different areas in different categories, for example financially, credit counseling, we sometimes don’t have knowledge on how credit works and creates leakage of money that people have. I want to emphasize that the city has a really good relationship with its residents, and I really believe that they can locate the different needs that are important.
Sunnyvale Farmers’ Market Event Details ● Type: Tabling at Community Event ● Location: Sunnyvale ● Date and Time: Saturday, January 18, 9 AM - 1 PM ● # of Attendees: ~ 30 (only 2 reported demographic information; as such, it is not included here) Pop-Up Overview SCC Con Plan staff spoke with about 30 people at the City’s Farmers’ Market. The event attracted a diversity of demographics, and staff spoke with people of all ages, from families with young children to seniors. Staff spoke at length with many attendees about their hopes and priorities for their community, and staff emphasized contributing to the comment boards and filling out the survey as a key opportunity for residents to share their goals with city and county leaders. Activities Overview Comment Boards Comment boards were frequently interacted with throughout the day, with participants ranging in age from young children to seniors. Surveys, Fliers a. The most common level of engagement was sharing the online survey with event attendees through both the QR code and physical fliers, with residents of both Mountain View and the larger county. b. Throughout the event staff handed out about 3 English flyers and 2 Spanish flyers. Children’s Coloring Pages This event was attended by many families with young children, and staff handed out coloring pages and crayons to take home.
1 Detailed Results Activity 1: What are the greatest needs in your neighborhood or community? ● Community Development Responses ○ Better highlighted bike lanes ○ Free laundry at local schools ○ Join hopper microtransit system ○ Lawrence is dangerous for bikers. This is a class issue. ○ More 24/7 open facilities ○ More walkability ○ More community building ○ More community pools ○ More sidewalks ● Economic Development Responses ○ Better communication to the public on how to apply/access fair housing ○ Fair housing (rent control) ○ Fill vacant businesses/1st floor empty space in mixed-used buildings ○ More fair housing (subsidized for people with disabilities or on SSI) ○ More neighborhood businesses ● Housing Responses ○ More affordable housing near transit ○ Need more affordable housing options to have vibrant community ○ More “Missing Middle” ○ Single family homes ○ Support for Sunnyvale community services to keep people in their homes ● Public Services Responses ○ City subsidized electricity for electric vehicles ○ Job training for neurodivergent Sunnyvale residents ○ More changing station and lighted sidewalks ○ More job training programs ○ More lighting sidewalks ○ More staffing at community pool ○ Wildfire prevention