Chapter 13.4
Housing Needs Assessment
Population and Employment Trends
Housing needs are influenced by population and employment trends. This section provides a summary of changes to the population size, age, and racial/ethnic composition of the City of Santa Clara. Moreover, to gain a deeper understanding of the housing needs in the City, an evaluation of the intersection of these demographic characteristics with housing statistics such as housing type and tenure, condition, cost, and vacancy provides the necessary bases for a proper housing needs assessment.
Current Population and Population Growth
Santa Clara, incorporated in 1852, is known as “The Mission City”, reflecting its place as an early California settlement dating to 1777. Santa Clara has a rich agricultural past that extends from that early settlement period almost two centuries forward. However, the post-World War II housing boom and just as significantly, the emergence of the electronics industry in the early 1950s, rapidly transformed the community. Between 1950 to 1990, the population of Santa Clara ballooned from 11,702 to 93,000. Today, Santa Clara lies in the heart of the Silicon Valley and continues to grow as the technology industry continues to expand.
From 2010 to 2020, Santa Clara’s population grew by approximately nine percent, from 116,468 to 127,000 residents. During the same period, Santa Clara County as a whole grew by 10 percent.
The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) growth forecasts predict a steady increase in population through 2040. From 2020 to 2040, ABAG estimates that the City’s population will grow by 25.6 percent, staying relatively on track with the countywide projected growth of 31.09 percent (Table 13.4-1).
Table 13.4-1: Population Growth and Projected Growth
2010 2020 2040 % Change % Change
2010-2020 2020-2040
Santa Clara 116,468 127,647 159,500 9.6% 25 %
Santa Clara County 1,781,642 1,936,259 2,538,320 8.67% 31.09% Source(s): ACS QuickFacts
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
In addition to population projections, several other demographic characteristics and trends define housing needs. Among these characteristics are age composition, racial and ethnic composition, and employment (Table 13.4-2).
Table 13.4-2: Age, Race and Ethnicity, and Employment by Industry Demographic Profile 2010 Percentage 2019 Percentage
Age
0-4 9,092 7.8% 8,730 7%
5-14 12,410 11% 13,267 10%
15-24 15,783 13.5% 17,822 14%
25-34 23,016 20% 26,932 21%
35-44 18,860 16% 19,874 16%
45-54 14,987 13% 15,025 12%
55-64 10,641 9% 11,557 9%
65-74 5,951 5% 8,056 6%
75-84 3,950 3% 4,316 3%
85+ 1,778 2% 2,142 2%
Median Age 34.6 33.9
Total Population 116,468 127,721
Race/Ethnicity
White (non-Hispanic) 42,026 36% 40,282 32%
Hispanic 22,589 19% 22,116 17%
Black 2,929 3% 3,697 3%
Asian/Pacific Islander 44,135 38% 55,905 44%
Other 4,549 4% 5,538 7%
Total Population 116,228 127,538
Employment by Industry
Educational services, and health
care and social assistance 9,529 17% 13,420 19%
Retail trade 4,984 9% 5,004 7%
Manufacturing 11,778 21% 12,918 19%
Professional, scientific, and
management, and administrative
and waste management services
12,595 22% 19,573 28%
Construction 2,295 4% 1,997 3%
Arts, entertainment, and
recreation, and accommodation
and food services
3,963 7% 5,427 8%
Finance and insurance, and real
estate and rental and leasing 2,473 4% 2,356 3%
Table 13.4-2: Age, Race and Ethnicity, and Employment by Industry Demographic Profile 2010 Percentage 2019 Percentage
Other services, except public
administration 2,070 4% 2,036 3%
Transportation and warehousing,
and utilities 1,582 3% 2,170 3%
Public Administration 1,706 3% 1,494 2%
Wholesale Trade 1,164 2% 1,505 2%
Information 2,879 5% 4,148 6%
Agriculture, forestry, fishing and
hunting, and mining 157 0.3% 122 0.2%
Total Employment 57,175 72,170
Source(s): US Census Bureau 2010, American Community Survey 2014-2019 5-year estimate Age
Population age distribution serves as an important indicator of housing needs because housing needs and preferences change as individuals or households grow older. Young families tend to focus more on cost and the ability to become first-time homebuyers. Table 13.4-2 shows the age groups of Santa Clara residents. The largest age group in 2010 was residents aged 25 to 34 at 20 percent. In 2010, the second largest age group was residents aged 35 to 44, at 16 percent. This trend stayed consistent in 2019, with the largest percentage of residents falling in the 25 to 34 age group, at 21 percent. The second largest age group in 2019 was residents aged 35 to 44, at 16 percent
The median age in Santa Clara is 33.9 years. Compared with the County (37.4 years) and the state (36.5 years), the City’s population is younger. The large population of young adults means that demand for larger homes for families will likely continue to grow as residents move out of smaller homes and apartments and raise families.
Race and Ethnicity
Table 13.4-2 shows the racial/ethnic distribution of population in Santa Clara. Asian (43.2 percent) and White (non-Hispanic) (31.5 percent) residents make up most of the population. This breakdown is reflective of Santa Clara County, which is mostly Asian (36.5 percent) and White (31.5 percent) residents. The racial makeup of Santa Clara has stayed mostly consistent since 2010.
The two largest racial groups in 2010 were Asian (38 percent) and White (36 percent). From 2010 to 2019, the White and Hispanic populations decreased while the Asian population increased, and the other racial groups stayed consistent. For example, the City of Santa Clara’s Black or African American residents makes up 3 percent of the population, just over Santa Clara County’s Black or African American population of 2.5 percent.
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Employment
Santa Clara has 13,420 workers living within its borders who work across 13 major industrial sectors. Table 13.4-2 provides detailed employment information. Many Santa Clara residents work in professional, scientific, and management, and administrative and waste management services (19,573, 28 percent of total), reflects the predominant technology industry of Silicon Valley. The second largest industries are educational services, and health care and social assistance (19 percent) and manufacturing (19 percent). Between 2010 to 2019 the number of residents employed in educational services, health care, and social assistance and professional, scientific, and management, and administrative and waste management services increased, while the number of residents employed in manufacturing decreased.
These trends are important to understand, as certain industries are generally associated with lower median earnings. In the City, the median income for professional, scientific, and management, and administrative and waste management services is $100,235. The median income for manufacturing is $103,951, while the median income for educational services, health care, and social assistance is considerably lower at $45,931. The 10 principal employers in Santa Clara are presented in Table 13.4-3.
Table 13.4-3: 10 Principal Employers, 2020
Employer Number of Employees Percentage
Applied Materials, Inc. 8,500 22.8%
Intel Corporation 7,801 20.9%
Advanced Micro Devices Inc. 3,000 8.0%
California's Great America 2,500 6.7%
Avaya Inc. 2,000 5.4%
Santa Clara University 2,000 5.4%
City of Santa Clara 1,973 5.3%
Kaiser Foundation Hospitals 1,459 3.9%
Macy's 1,200 3.2%
Catalyst Semiconductor Inc. 1,100 2.9%
Source(s): City of Santa Clara Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, June 30, 2020 Household Characteristics
The characteristics of a community’s households impact the type and tenure of housing needed in that community. Household type, income levels, the presence of special needs populations, and other household traits are all factors that affect the housing needs of a community and the strategies that the community must deploy to meet those needs.
Characteristics for Santa Clara households are summarized in Table 13.4-4. The number of households in Santa Clara have increased by 2,346 from 42,323 in 2010 to 44,669 in 2019. Renter-
occupied households increased by 2,566 from 22,960 households in 2010 to 25,525 in 2019. Owneroccupied households decreased by 220 from 19,363 households in 2010 to 19,143 in 2019.
Table 13.4-4: Household Characteristics by Tenure
Household
Characteristic Owner Households Renter Households All Households Number of Households1 19,143 (42.8%) 25,526 (57%) 44,669 Median Household Income1 $155,718 $108,435 $126,006
Household Income Categories2
Extremely Low Income (0-
30% AMI) 1,339 (7%) 4,123 (16.7%) 5,462 (12.5%)
Very Low Income (30-50%
AMI) 1,853 (9.8%) 3,215 (13.3%) 5,068 (11.6%)
Low Income (50-80% AMI) 1,884 (10%) 2,540 (10.3%) 4,424 (10%) Moderate Income (80-100%
AMI) 1,480 (7.8%) 2,185 (9%) 3,665 (8.4%)
Above Moderate Income
(100% + AMI) 12,265 (65%) 12,544 (50.9%) 24,809 (57%)
Total 18,821 24,607 43,428
Overpayment
All Households
Overpaying for Housing 1,900 (10%) 5,365 (21%) 7,265 (16.4%) Lower Income Households
Overpaying for Housing
(*0-80%)2
1,670 (36%) 5,265 (55%) 6,935 (49%)
Source(s):
1 US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2014-2019 5-year estimates 2 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) Tables 2013-2017
Income
According to the 2019 American Community Survey (ACS), the median household income for the City of Santa Clara was $126,006, which is slightly higher than the Santa Clara County median household income of $124,055. Median household income differs by tenure; in the City, owner households have a significantly higher median income than renter households (a difference of $47,283).
Census data estimates that 6.7 percent of the Santa Clara population lives in poverty, as defined by federal guidelines. This proportion is lower than in Santa Clara County, where 7.5 percent of residents live in poverty. Poverty thresholds vary by household type. In Santa Clara, the percentage of persons living in poverty is higher for Black residents, with 9.3 percent living in poverty, and much higher for female householders with no spouse present, at 16.7 percent.
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Because poverty thresholds do not differ based on geographic differences, a better measure to understand income disparities can be to identify various percentages compared to the median income for a particular area. For housing planning and funding purposes, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) uses five income categories to evaluate housing need based on the Area Median Income (AMI) for the county:
x Extremely Low-Income Households earn 0-30 percent of AMI x Very Low-Income Households earn 30-50 percent of AMI
x Low-Income Households earn 50-80 percent of AMI
x Moderate-Income Households earn 80-100 percent of AMI (HCD uses 120%) x Above Moderate-Income Households earn over 100 percent of AMI (HCD uses 120%+) Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data provides special Census tabulations (developed for HUD) and calculates household income adjusted for family size and tenure. As shown in Table 13.4-4, in Santa Clara above moderate-income households make up the largest share of all households (57 percent), and extremely low-income households represent the second largest category (12.5 percent). Income also differs by tenure; as indicated in Table
13.4-4, more renter households are in the lower-income categories (0-80 percent AMI) than owner households.
Housing Overpayment
State and federal standards specify that households spending more than 30 percent of gross annual income on housing experience a housing cost burden. Housing cost burdens occur when housing costs increase faster than household income. When a household spends more than 30 percent of its income on housing costs, it has less disposable income for other necessities such as health care, child-care, and food. In the event of unexpected circumstances such as loss of employment or health problems, lower-income households with a housing cost burden are more likely to become homeless or double up with other households. In Santa Clara, 16.4 percent of households are overpaying for housing, with owner households and renter households overpaying 10 percent and 21 percent, respectively. Lower-income households have a much higher rate of overpayment at 49 percent whether it is an owner household or a renter household.
Extremely Low Income (ELI) Households
HCD defines ELI households as “a subset of very low income households. . . defined as 30 percent (or less) of the area median income”. As stated above, ELI households make up 12.5 percent of all households in Santa Clara with more renter households than owner households (16% and 7% respectively). Stakeholder outreach for the Housing Element and the City’s Homelessness Taskforce in 2022 indicated that ELI housing is sorely needed by a wide variety of groups including persons with disabilities, elderly adults, and persons who are at risk of becoming homeless. Many stakeholders shared that "low-income housing” isn’t affordable anymore as
income limits continue to increase with area median income. More ELI and VLI units are needed to assist residents whose income is not keeping pace with HCD income limits and inflation.
The City of Santa Clara adopted the Affordable Housing Ordinance in 2018 which required rental projects of 10 or more units to provide at least 15 percent of the units at affordable rental prices to extremely low, very low, and low income households. These units must also remain a part of the affordable rental program for fifty-five years. The distribution of affordable units must average to a maximum of one hundred percent (100%) area median income so the number of ELI units that are produced through inclusionary housing is limited.
In 2015 the City partnered with HouseKeys Inc. to create a “one stop shop” for new affordable rental and ownership opportunities in Santa Clara. The City also updates an Affordable Housing Resource Guide twice per year which provides resources for emergency housing support, organizations that provide rental assistance, homeowner programs, and a list of affordable housing properties throughout the City. A list of existing properties with ELI units is included below in Table 5. The 233 existing ELI income restricted units is far lower than the 5,462 ELI households in Santa Clara.
The City has also worked to develop actions that specifically address extremely low and very low-income households which may experience greater cost burden. Action 2 in the housing plan will look at updating the Citywide affordable ordinance to support deeper affordability requirements. Action 3 facilities the development efforts for constructing affordable housing for lower income households particularly special needs groups. Action 6 explores funding sources to support affordable housing developers with acquiring and rehabilitating multi-family structures. Action 12 explores additional resources for providing funding for affordable housing.
And Action 14 advocates for additional project and person-based vouchers for seniors and other special needs groups.
Table 13.4-5: Existing Properties with Extremely Low-Income Housing Units Property Name Number of ELI Units Address
Monroe Apartments 16 2330 Monroe Street
Calabazas Apartments 80 2904 Corvin Street
Mainline North Apartments 16 2310 Called Del Mundo
Agrihood 54 90 North Winchester Blvd.
Kifer Senior 39 3335 Kifer Road
Peacock Commons 10 3661 Peacock Ct.
Belovida Senior Apartments 9 1820 Main Street
Cypress 5 455 N. Cypress Avenue
Presidio El Camino 4 1450 El Camino Real
TOTAL 233
Source: City of Santa Clara
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Supportive and transitional housing types which often serve extremely low income households are both permitted within R1-8L single family zones, R1-6L single family zones, duplex zones, low density multiple-dwelling zones, moderate density multiple-dwelling zones, and medium density multiple-dwelling zones.
Housing Stock Characteristics
Housing Stock
In 2022, the State Department of Finance estimated that in 2020 there were 47,004 occupied housing units in the City. Compared to 2010, the City’s housing stock has increased by 3,983 units.
Most of the City’s housing stock is made up of multi-family units (55 percent) followed by single family units (40 percent). Census data indicates that 0.2 percent of owner units and four percent (see Table 13.4-6) of rental units are vacant, suggesting that the City should continue to increase housing construction to accommodate residents.
Construction of both single family homes (attached and detached) and multi-family homes has grown in Santa Clara since 2010. However, while single family homes have only grown by 125 units between 2010 and 2019, multi-family homes have grown by 2,641 units, likely due to the technology industry boom and the influx of younger adults moving to the area for jobs.
Table 13.4-6: Housing Stock Characteristics by Tenure – 2020 Housing Characteristic
Owner
Households
Renter
Households All Households
Total Housing Units 19,271 (41%) 26,792 (57%) 47,004
Single Family Detached
No data No data
19,543 (42%)
Single Family Attached 4,595 (9.8%)
Multi-Family Units 26,045 (55%)
Mobile home, other units 46 (.09%)
Average or median Household
Size 2.65
Vacancy Rate 0.2% 4.0% 6.4%
Overcrowded Units 0.9% 5.2% 6.2%
Units Needing
Replacement/Rehabilitation N/A N/A None
Housing Cost – Average purchase
price and monthly rent $1,034,000 $2,396 N/A
Note: Total housing units does not sum to 100% due to vacant units Source(s): US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2015-2019 5-year estimates, California Department of Finance E-5 Population and Housing Estimates, 2021
Overcrowding
In response to a mismatch between household income and housing costs in a community, some households may not be able to buy or rent housing that provides a reasonable level of privacy and space. According to both California and federal standards, a housing unit is considered overcrowded if it is occupied by more than one person per room (excluding kitchens, bathrooms, and halls). In Santa Clara, 6.2 percent of housing units are overcrowded, compared to 5.2 percent in the County. Overcrowding is much more prevalent in renter households (5.2 percent) than owner households (0.9 percent).
Housing Condition
The condition of housing stock can be an indicator of potential rehabilitation needs. Based upon observations and experiences of the Housing & Community Services Division, the City estimates that on average fewer than 10 housing units per year are in severe need of substantial rehabilitation due to housing conditions.
Housing Cost
The cost of housing in a community is directly correlated to the number of housing problems and affordability issues. High housing costs can price low-income families out of the market, cause extreme cost burdens, or force households into overcrowded or substandard conditions. The Santa Clara median home price according to 2019 ACS data is $1,034,000. The median home price in Santa Clara County according to ACS data is $984,000, $50,00 lower than in the City.
According to the 2019 ACS, 57 percent of Santa Clara households are living in rental housing.
Census data shows that the average rent in Santa Clara is $2,396 per month, with most (25.7 percent) paying between $2,000 and $2,499 in rent. Table 13.4-6 shows that the HUD-determined fair market rents for the City of Santa Clara fall within the range of the rents within the County.
Therefore, the rental rates in Santa Clara generally are less than the HUD-determined fair market rents, indicating that certain parts of Santa Clara County are potentially more expensive than local rents.
Table 13.4-7: Fair Market Rents in Santa Clara County
Year Efficiency
OneBedroom TwoBedroom Three-Bedroom Four-Bedroom
FY 2020 FMR $2,103 $2,458 $2,970 $3,943 $4,525
Source(s): FY2020 Fair Market Rents. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) According to Costar, the vacancy rate in Santa Clara in Q3 2022 was lower at 3.5% while the larger San Jose metro area’s vacancy was 4.9%. In Q3 2022, vacancy for 3-bedroom units was much
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
lower at 2.9% while vacancy for smaller unit types was closer to the overall average at 3.5%.
Average effective rent per unit in Santa Clara trend higher at $3,094 compared with $2,880 for the larger San Jose metro area.
Table 13.4-8: Market Rents Per Unit by Bedroom – Q3 2022 Year Efficiency One-Bedroom Two-Bedroom Three-Bedroom
Q3, 2022 $2,498 $2,898 $3,525 $3,910
Source: Costar, November 11, 2023
Special Housing Needs
Housing-element law requires local governments to include an analysis of housing needs for residents in specific special needs groups and to address resources available to address these needs.
Table 13.4-9: Special Needs Groups
Special Needs Category Count Percent
Persons with Disabilities1 8,966 7% of residents
Persons with Developmental
Disabilities2 3,246 2.7% of residents
Elderly (65+ years) 1 14,514 11.3% of residents
3,249 households 7.2% of households
Large Households (5+ members) 1 4,253 households 9.5% of households Farmworkers1 122 0.2% of labor force
Migrant Worker Student
Population 0 0% of labor force
Female Headed Households1 3,571 households 7.9% households Male Headed Households 1,924 households 4.3% households Married Couple Households 24,719 households 55% households Householder Living Alone 1,624 households 22% households People Experiencing Homelessness3 326 N/A
Source(s):
1. US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2015-2019 5-year estimates
2. California Department of Developmental Services, 2020, reflects the DDS consumer count by CA ZIP Codes 95050, 95051, 95052, 95053, 95054, 95055, 95056
3. Santa Clara County: Annual Point in Time Count Report Persons with Disabilities including persons with Developmental Disabilities
Disabled residents face housing access and safety challenges. Disabled people, in many cases, are of limited incomes and often receive Social Security income only. As such, most of their monthly income is often devoted to housing costs. In addition, disabled persons may face difficulty finding accessible housing (housing that is made accessible to people with disabilities through the positioning of appliances and fixtures, the heights of installations and cabinets, layout of unit to facilitate wheelchair movement, etc.) because of the limited number of such units.
The following is a summary of the number of people in Santa Clara with different types of disabilities according to the 2019 ACS:
4,234
3,372
3,246
1,885
Ambulatory Difficulty
Independent Living Difficulty
Cognitive Difficulty
Self-care ifficulty
Vision Difficulty 1,557
According to the 2019 ACS there are 8,966 residents with one or more of the above listed types of disabilities in Santa Clara, representing seven percent of residents. Most residents with a disability are 75 and older (47.1 percent), followed by those 65 to 74 years old (18 percent). The most commonly occurring disability amongst seniors 65 and older was an independent living difficulty, experienced by 14.5 percent of Santa Clara’s seniors. The most common disabilities for people 35-64 years old was ambulatory difficulty followed by cognitive difficulty.
For those with a developmental disability, the majority reside in the home of a parent, guardian, or family member (78 percent). The second most common living situation for individuals with a developmental disability is a community care facility (9.6 percent).
Housing Choices is a local nonprofit focused on enhancing the lives of people with developmental and other disabilities and their families by creating and supporting quality, affordable housing opportunities. Housing Choices provided the following comments relating to the needs of developmentally disabled residents in Santa Clara County:
x Between September 2015 and June 2021, the Department of Developmental Services reported that the number of Santa Clara County residents with developmental disabilities age 62 and older grew by 35 percent. This increase is generally attributable to gains in life span which likely means that more adults with developmental disabilities will outlive their parents and family members who are by far the single largest source of housing for people with developmental disabilities in the City of Santa Clara. x Because older adults currently occupying a licensed facility in Santa Clara County are living longer, this reduced rate of occupant turnover, coupled with closing facilities, will make it more difficult for middle-aged and senior adults who have been living with aging parents in the City of Santa
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Clara to transition to licensed care when their parents pass away. Notwithstanding 20 percent growth in Santa Clara County’s total population of adults with developmental disabilities, the Department of Developmental Services has documented a 15 percent decline in the age group 42 to 51 in Santa Clara County between September 2015 and June 2021. In light of gains in life expectancy, this loss can reasonably be attributed to displacement from the county because of the lack of residential living options (either licensed facilities or affordable housing) when an elderly family caregiver passes away or becomes unable to house and care for the adult. Displacement takes a particular toll on adults with developmental disabilities who depend on familiarity with transit routes and shopping and services, as well as support from community-based services and informal networks built up over years of living in Santa Clara.
Santa Clara has responded to the need for community care facilities and there are several group homes and independent living options for Santa Clara residents with disabilities, shown in table 10 below. Action 18 in the housing plan will explore ways to increase special needs housing and support the creation of new shared housing options for residents with disabilities.
Table 13.4-10: Housing Properties for Persons with Disabilities Property Name Number of Units Address
Group Homes
Briarwood Cooperative
Shared single-family home with
private bedrooms for 4 individuals
with developmental disabilities
2114 Briarwood Drive
Santa Clara, CA 95051
De La Cruz Cooperative
Shared single-family home with
private bedrooms for 4, individuals
with developmental disabilities
3779 De La Cruz Boulevard
Santa Clara, CA 95054
Various Locations Life Services
Alternative
3 five-person group homes for
persons with physical or
developmental disabilities
260 W. Hamilton Avenue
Campbell, CA 95008
Independent Living
Estancia
90 apartments (1 BR, 2 BR, 3 BD) for
individuals with developmental
disabilities
1650 Hope Drive Santa
Clara, CA 95054
Rivertown Apartment
15 apartments (2 BR, 3 BD) for
individuals with developmental
disabilities
1340 Hope Drive Santa
Clara, CA 95054
Stoney Pine Villa 12 one-bedroom units, 8 twobedroom units, 3 three-bedroom units 267 W California Street
Sunnyvale, CA 94086
Source: City of Santa Clara:
Elderly (65+ years)
Many senior-headed households have special needs due to their relatively low incomes, disabilities or limitations, and dependency needs. Specifically, many people aged 65 years and older live alone and may have difficulty maintaining their homes, are usually retired, and living on a limited income, and are more likely to have high health care costs and rely on public transportation, especially those with disabilities. The limited income of many elderly persons often makes it difficult for them to find affordable housing. There are 3,249 households headed by elderly residents, representing 7.2 percent of total households in Santa Clara. Of all the age groups in Santa Clara, elderly residents experience poverty at a lower rate (7.8 percent) than those aged 18 to 34 (8.8 percent) which is counter to trends in other cities where elderly residents are more likely to be low income. Seniors may experience specific housing needs and require special assistance in their living situations. The City of Santa Clara has several housing properties dedicated to seniors, including options for seniors who are more active and those who require assisted living. These properties are detailed in Table 13.4-11 below.
Table 13.4-11: Housing Properties for Seniors
Property Name Number of Units Address
Active Seniors
Belovida 27 one-bedroom units for seniors age
62 and older
1820 Main Street Santa
Clara, CA 95050
Bracher Apartment 72 one-bedroom units for seniors age
62 and older
2665 South Drive Santa
Clara, CA 95051
Camino del Rey 48 one-bedroom units for seniors age
55 and older
2525 El Camino Real Santa
Clara, CA 95051
Gateway Santa Clara
40 one-bedroom units, 2 twobedroom units for seniors age 55 and older
1000 El Camino Real Santa
Clara, CA 95050
John Burns Gardens
95 one-bedroom units, 5 twobedroom units for seniors age 62 and older
820 Agnew Road Santa
Clara, CA 95054
Liberty Tower 60 studios, 41 one-bedroom units for
seniors age 62 and older
890 Main Street Santa
Clara, CA 95050
Valley Village
80 studios, 80, one-bedroom units, 140
two- bedroom units for seniors age 62
and older
390 N Winchester
Boulevard Santa Clara, CA
95050
Assisted Living
Pacific Gardens 21 beds for seniors age 55 and older 2384 Pacific Drive Santa Clara, CA 95051
Source: City of Santa Clara:
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Large Households (5+ members)
Large households, defined by HCD as households containing five or more persons, have special housing needs due to the limited availability of adequately sized, affordable housing units.
Larger units can be very expensive; as such, large households are often forced to reside in smaller, less expensive units or double-up with other families or extended families to save on housing costs, both of which may result in unit overcrowding. There are 4,253 large households in Santa Clara representing 9.5 percent of all households. A larger percentage of renter households (5 percent) are defined as large households as compared to owner households (4.5 percent).
In Santa Clara, 3.2 percent of families are living in poverty. For large households with five or six family members 2.7 percent live in poverty, this rate goes up drastically for families with seven or more people (7.1 percent). Table 12 below shows household size by tenure in Santa Clara. Twoperson households make up the largest number of households with 32.5% being owner households and 34% being renter households.
Table 13.4-12: Household Size by Tenure
Owners Renters Total
Household
Size Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
1-Person
Household 3,822 20% 6,122 24% 9,944 22%
2-Person
Household 6,222 32.5% 8,642 34% 14,864 33%
3-Person
Household 3,946 20.6% 4,703 18.4% 8,649 19%
4-Person
Household 3,157 16.4% 3,802 14.8% 6,959 15.5%
5+ Person
Household 1,996 10.4% 2,257 9% 4,253 9.5%
Total 19,143 100% 25,526 100% 44,669 100%
Source: City of Santa Clara:
Farmworkers
Due to the high cost of housing and low wages, migrant farmworkers have difficulty finding affordable, safe, and sanitary housing. There are 122 residents who may work as farmworkers and live in Santa Clara, representing only 0.2 percent of the working population. Maps from the State of California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program show no farmland in Santa Clara. Due to the low number of agricultural workers in the City, the housing needs of migrant and/or farmworker housing need can be met through general affordable housing programs. The City conducted specific focus group outreach to farmworker
advocate groups in the City who identified that there may be a need for multi-generational housing options.
Female-Headed Households
Single-parent households require special consideration and assistance because of the greater need for day care, health care, and other services. In particular, female-headed households with children tend to have lower incomes and a greater need for affordable housing and accessible daycare and other supportive services. The relatively low incomes earned by female-headed households, combined with the increased need for supportive services, severely limit the housing options available to them. There are 3,571 female-headed households in Santa Clara, representing
7.9 percent of households. A total of 16.7 percent of female-headed households live in poverty, a much higher percentage than all households living in poverty at 6.7 percent. The largest household type in Santa Clara is married couple household (55 percent), followed by householders living alone (22 percent), and male-headed households (4.3 percent).
People Experiencing Homelessness
Population estimates for people experiencing homelessness is very difficult to quantify. Census information is often unreliable due to the difficulty of completely counting a population without permanent residences. Given this impediment, local estimates of the homeless and anecdotal information are often the sources of population numbers. In 2022, the regional point in time count identified a total of 440 people who were unsheltered or living in emergency shelters in the City of Santa Clara. Data from Santa Clara County Office of Supportive Housing identified 769 clients in 2021. These individuals are affiliated with the City of Santa Clara, had an emergency shelter, transitional housing, or outreach enrollment during, or took a Vulnerability Index Service Prioritization Decision Assistance Tool in 2021. Of these identified clients, 58 percent were male, 42 percent were female. The most individuals indicated they were between 55 to 64 years old followed by those 25 to 44 years old. Over half of individuals (52%) identified as non-Hispanic White and 46 percent identified at Hispanic/Latinx. Of these 769 homeless clients, 43 indicated they were veterans, 453 reported to have a disabling condition, 384 had a chronically homeless status, 264 had a self-reported domestic violence background, and 82 clients self-reported currently fleeing domestic violence. In 2019 there were 326 people counted. During this same time period, Santa Clara County’s point in time count increased by 3 percent. Comparing point in time count between 2019 and 2022, the number of unsheltered individuals in the City of Santa Clara rose from 264 to 375 and the number of sheltered individuals rose from 62 to 65. This suggests that the City of Santa Clara’s overall increase in homelessness was due primarily to the growth in unsheltered homeless. Housing types for sheltered homeless individuals from 2021 can be found in table 13 below.
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Table 13.4-13: Housing Inventory Count for Sheltered Individuals Project Type 2021 Housing Inventory Count
Emergency Shelter 10
Transitional Housing 65
Rapid Rehousing 151
Permanent Supportive Housing 101
Other Permanent Housing 126
Grand Total 453
Source: 2021 Housing Inventory Count (HIC) Data for City of Santa Clara The location of homeless encampments and RV parking shifts regularly. There are concentrations of overnight RV parking in the northern part of the City near Bassett Street, Hope Drive, Memorex Drive, and Richard Avenue. There are smaller concentrations in other parts of the City near De La Cruz Boulevard and Martin Avenue, Saratoga Avenue and Los Padres Boulevard, and certain portions of Stevens Creek Boulevard.
For encampments, there are concentrations on Saratoga Creek from Forbes Avenue, north along the creek to El Camino Real. Several segments of El Camino Real include unhoused residents camping near vacant buildings. On the north side of the City, the Guadalupe River trail from Highway 237 down to Trimble Road has a concentration of homeless encampments. Lastly, Calabazas Creek from Tasman Drive to Highway 101 has historically had several encampments.
Generally, encampments are located in areas adjacent to waterways or near unoccupied/vacant buildings. Action 17 in the housing plan chapter ensures that the City adopts and implements the Homelessness Response Plan by early 2023.
Table 13.4-14 lists nine sites in the City where persons in need of emergency shelter can seek shelter and other assistance.
Table 13.4-14: Emergency Housing Providers in the City of Santa Clara Provider Target Population Capacity/ Housing Type
Bill Wilson Center, Bill Wilson
House Homeless teenagers Six-person group home
Bill Wilson Center, Homeless Teen
Parent Project
Homeless teen mothers and
dependent children
Six-person group home and
four transitional apartments
Bill Wilson Center, Runaway Youth
Shelter
Runaway, homeless and
other troubled youth Short-term transitional
Bill Wilson Center, Transitional
Housing for Foster Home Teenage
Girls
Teenage girls Six-person group home
Bill Wilson Center, Transitional
Housing for Homeless Teens Homeless teenagers Six-person group home HomeFirst, Sobrato Family Living
Center Homeless families 33-unit transitional
Table 13.4-14: Emergency Housing Providers in the City of Santa Clara Provider Target Population Capacity/ Housing Type
HomeFirst, Sobrato Family Living
Center II Homeless families 10-unit transitional and
eight-unit permanent
Charities Housing Homesafe Santa
Clara
Survivors of domestic
violence 24-unit transitional
Silicon Valley Independence Living
Center Persons with disabilities Four-bedroom transitional Source(s): City of Santa Clara, 2022
Energy Conservation Opportunities
The Housing Element should analyze opportunities for energy conservation in residential development. Energy-related housing costs can directly impact the affordability of housing.
While State building code standards contain mandatory energy efficiency requirements for new development, the City and utility providers are also important resources to encourage and facilitate energy conservation and to help residents minimize energy-related expenses. Policies addressing climate change and energy conservation are integrated into the Santa Clara General Plan.
Santa Clara has two solar systems at City facilities, which have capacity to produce up to 500 kilowatts (kW) of energy combined. Pursuant to the City’s Climate Action Plan (CAP), five more solar photovoltaic (PV) projects will be installed with a total capacity of three to five megawatts (MW). To encourage residential PV units, Silicon Valley Power (SVP) offers a Neighborhood Solar Program which matches resident and business contributions to the fund for nonprofit solar facilities in the City. SVP also provides rebates for local businesses and residents for solar electric system installation and expedited solar system permitting. SVP offers free home energy audits to residents to help identify energy efficiency improvements, and rebates, including energy efficient appliances, insulation, lighting, cooling, and process changes. The City is also working with the regional energy supplier PG&E to encourage residents and businesses to retrofit their natural gas systems.
At-Risk Housing Analyses
State housing law requires an inventory and analysis of government-assisted dwelling units eligible for conversion from lower income housing to market rate housing during the next 10 years. Reasons for this conversion may include expiration of subsidies, mortgage pre-payments or pay-offs, and concurrent expiration of affordability restrictions. Currently, five affordable housing properties in Santa Clara are at risk of converting to market rate housing in the next 10 years as shown in table 15 below.
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Table 13.4-15: At-Risk Housing
Project Name Address
Total
Units
Affordable
Units
Funding
Source
Date of
Affordability End
Benton House* 1885 Benton Street,
Santa Clara 5 5 HCD 06/03/28
Clara Vista House* 723 Clara Vista
Street, Santa Clara 6 6 HCD 06/03/28
Sobrato Family
Living Center I**
1509 Agnew Rd,
Santa Clara 33 32 Local 05/21/29
Estancia 1650 Hope Dr 450 90 Local 06/23/29
Casa Del Maestro
Apartments (Phase
I) 2001
3445 Lochinvar Ave,
Santa Clara
40 2 Local 10/02/31
Total 534 135
Source(s): At Risk-Housing Report for City of Santa Clara, CHPC 2022 *Not included in total unit count, zoned as single family residences **Currently being refinanced with a possible extension of the affordability period Transferring ownership of the affordable units to a nonprofit housing organization is a viable way to preserve affordable housing for the long term and increase the number of government resources available to the project. The City will seek to establish deeper relationships with nonprofit affordable housing developers and supportive services providers to identify and preserve at risk properties for preservation. Additionally, Sobrato Family Living Center is currently seeking to rehabilitate its units and extend the affordability period of the project, and other properties may seek to do the same. HCD also administers programs to finance the acquisition of at-risk projects, and there are low-income housing tax credits, and bond financing. Locally, there are HUD CDBG rehabilitation funds.
In Santa Clara, the estimated market value for the 5 affordable units in the at-risk projects is evaluated in Table 13.4-16 below. The current total market value for the 124 at-risk units in Casa del Maestro Apartments, Estancia, and Sobrato Family Living Center is estimated to be $32,596,728. The estimated replacement cost is for the same units is approximately $57,800,000, with additional rent subsidies of $537,000 per year of deed restricted affordability, or $29,568,000 for the typical 55-year affordability requirement.
Two small at-risk properties owned by Momentum for Mental Health are operated as supportive housing for people dealing with mental health concerns, and as a smaller operation valuation comparable would be similar to a single-family residence, and the replacement cost would mirror the cost of single-family construction. However, the replacement strategy for the smaller projects would most likely be a purchase and rehabilitation project. For a five to six room unit the costs would be approximately $1,200,000 to 1,700,000 million for purchase and rehabilitation or construction. Momentum for Mental Health is a non-profit organization and will likely not be
selling the properties in the coming years, and seek to refinance and rehabilitate the project and seek subsidies to extend the affordability of the project.
Table 13.4-16: Market Value of At-Risk Projects
Size of Unit Total Units
1-Bedroom 40
2-Bedroom 68
3-Bedroom 16
Total 124
Gross Annual Income $4,357,584
Operating Costs $1,097,911.20
Net Annual Income $3,259,672.80
Market Value $32,596,728
Source(s): zumper.com, compiled by MIG
1. Median Rent: 1-bed = $2,402, 2-bed = $2,995, 3-bed = $3,962
2. Average Unit Size: 1-bed = 700 sq.ft., 2-bed = 900 sq.ft., 3-bed = 1,100 sq.ft.
3. Annual operating costs assume 5% vacancy rate and cost per square foot is 20% based on age of the building yielding expenses per square foot = $8.24
4. Market value = Annual net project income*multiplication factor
5. Multiplication factor based on building age and rent tier = 12 Table 13.4-17: Replacement Costs of At-Risk Projects
Size of Unit Total Units Total Cost ($425 per sq.ft)
1-Bedroom (800 sq. ft.) 40 $13,600,000
2-Bedroom (1,200 sq. ft.) 68 $34,680,000
3-Bedroom (1,400 sq. ft.) 16 $9,520,000
Total 124 $57,800,000
Source(s): RSMeans Data, 2022, 3-Story, Stick and Stucco; regional adjustment
1. Per unit cost: 1-BR, $340,000; 2-BR, $510,000; 3-BR, $595,000
2. Additional subsidies would be required of approximately $200 per bedroom (2020 Income Limits – Fair Market Rent) Coastal Zone
The City of Santa Clara is not in a coastal zone and therefore is not subject to the requirements of Government Code 65588 (c) and (d).
Projected Housing Need (RHNA)
Housing Element law requires a quantification of each jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing need as established in the RHNA-Plan prepared by the jurisdiction’s council of governments. The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), in conjunction with the ABAG, determine a projected housing need for the region covered by ABAG. This share, known as the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), is 441,176 new housing units for the 2023-
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
2031 planning period throughout the ABAG region. ABAG has, in turn, allocated this share among its constituent jurisdictions, distributing to each its own RHNA divided along income levels. The City of Santa Clara has a RHNA of 11,632 housing units to accommodate in the housing element period. The income distribution is as shown in Table 13.4-18.
Table 13.4-18: Regional Housing Needs Allocation 2023-2031 Income Group % of County
AMI
Number of Units
Allocated Percent of Total Allocation
Very Low1 <50% 2,872 25%
Low 50-80% 1,653 14%
Moderate 80-120% 1,981 17%
Above Moderate >120% 5,126 44%
Total --- 11,632 100%
Note: Pursuant to AB 2634, local jurisdictions are also required to project the housing needs of extremely low-income households (0-30% AMI). In estimating the number of extremely low-income households, a jurisdiction can use 50% of the very low-income allocation or apportion the very low-income figure based on Census data. There are 5,462 extremely low- and 5,018 very low-income households. Therefore, the City’s very low-income RHNA of 2,872 units can be split into 1,436 extremely low-income and 1,436 very low-income units.
Source(s): Association of Bay Area Governments
This page was left intentionally blank.
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Population and Employment Trends .................................................................................................. 1 Household Characteristics ................................................................................................................... 4 Housing Stock Characteristics ............................................................................................................. 8 Special Housing Needs ...................................................................................................................... 10 Energy Conservation Opportunities ................................................................................................. 17 At-Risk Housing Analyses ................................................................................................................. 17 Projected Housing Need (RHNA) ..................................................................................................... 19 List of Tables
Table 13.4-1: Population Growth and Projected Growth .................................................................. 1 Table 13.4-2: Age, Race and Ethnicity, and Employment by Industry ............................................. 2 Table 13.4-3: 10 Principal Employers, 2020 ......................................................................................... 4 Table 13.4-4: Household Characteristics by Tenure ........................................................................... 5 Table 13.4-5: Housing Stock Characteristics by Tenure – 2020 ......................................................... 8 Table 13.4-6: Fair Market Rents in Santa Clara County ..................................................................... 9 Table 13.4-7: Special Needs Groups .................................................................................................. 10 Table 13.4-8: Emergency Housing Providers in the City of Santa Clara ........................................ 16 Table 13.4-9: At-Risk Housing ........................................................................................................... 18 Table 13.4-10: Market Value of At-Risk Projects .............................................................................. 19 Table 13.4-11: Regional Housing Needs Allocation 2023-2031 ....................................................... 20
Chapter 13.5
Constraints Analysis
Many factors can encourage or constrain the development, maintenance, and improvement of housing stock. These factors fall into two categories Ȱ governmental and non-governmental constraints Ȱ and include physical constraints, land availability, development economics, and governmental regulations, all of which impact the cost and amount of housing produced. These constraints may result in housing that is not affordable to low- and moderate-income households or may render residential construction economically infeasible for developers. Constraints to housing production significantly impact households with lower incomes and special needs.
This chapter addresses both the governmental and non-governmental constraints that impact the City of Santa Clara’s housing market and production. State law requires that Housing Elements analyze potential and actual governmental and non-governmental constraints to the production, maintenance, and improvement of housing for persons of all income levels and disabilities. The constraints analysis must also demonstrate local efforts to remove or mitigate barriers to housing production and housing for persons with disabilities. Where constraints to housing production related to the City’s regulations or land use controls are identified, appropriate programs to remove or mitigate these constraints are included in the Housing Plan.
Government Constraints
Governmental constraints for affordable housing development are defined as policies, standards, requirements, or actions imposed by the various levels of government upon land and housing development. Although State and federal agencies play a role in the imposition of governmental constraints, local government’s ability to influence these agencies is generally limited. Housing constraints associated with these State and federal governmental constraints are, therefore, not significantly addressed in this document.
Municipal Boundaries
The City of Santa Clara is completely surrounded by the boundaries of other cities: San José to the north, east and south; and Cupertino and Sunnyvale to the west. Other than a small parcel on Homestead Road, there are no other developable lands potentially annexable to the City. The City’s new housing opportunities, therefore, must come from within the existing City limits, and primarily through redevelopment of existing parcels.
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Land Use Controls and Development Standards
Land use controls have helped maintain the quality of the City’s residential neighborhoods, consistent with community established goals. These land use controls, however, can be viewed as constraints in that they determine the amount of land to be developed for housing and establish a limit on the number of units that can be built on a site. These standards have not been changed substantially since 1969.
General Plan
On November 16, 2010, the Santa Clara City Council adopted the 2010-2035 General Plan. The 2010-2035 General Plan includes a range of residential land use designations and densities, from Very Low Density Residential with a maximum density of 10 dwelling units per acre, to High Density Residential with a maximum density of 50 units per acre. The new General Plan has also established three mixed use designations: Neighborhood Mixed Use, which allows residential densities up to 36 dwelling units per acre; Community Mixed Use, which allows residential densities up to 36 dwelling units per acre; and Regional Mixed Use, which allows residential densities up to 50 dwelling units per acre. The Related Santa Clara Project, Lawrence Station Area Plan, the Tasman East Specific Plan, the Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan, and the Gateway Crossings project added higher-density General Plan designations for a total of fifteen land use designations that allow for residential development, as shown in Table 13.5-1.
Because of high land costs in the City, sites that are zoned for high-density housing are typically occupied by multi-family housing developments. The City has few instances where single-family homes occupy sites that are zoned for higher density housing.
Table 13.5-1: 2010-2035 General Plan Land Use Designations (Residential) Land Use Designation Density/ FAR
Very Low Density Residential 0 to 10 du/acre
Low Density Residential 8 to 19 du/acre
Medium Density Residential 20 to 36 du/acre
High Density Residential 37 to 50 du/acre
Very High Density Residential 51 to 100 du/acre
High Density Flex 60 to 149 du/acre
Urban Village 100 to 149 du/acre
Village Residential 60 to 149 du/acre
Urban Center 120 to 250 du/acre
Urban Center/ Entertainment District 37 to 90 du/acre
Transit Neighborhood Up to 350 du/acre
Less than 1 acre, minimum 60 du/acre
Greater or equal to 1 acre, minimum 100 du/ac
Very High Density Mixed Use 50 to 120 du/acre
Table 13.5-1: 2010-2035 General Plan Land Use Designations (Residential) Land Use Designation Density/ FAR
Neighborhood Mixed Use Minimum 10 du/acre for sites < 1 acre Minimum 20 du/acre for sites >= 1 acre
Maximum 36 du/ ac
Minimum Commercial FAR of 0.10
Community Mixed Use Residential 20 to 36 du/acre
Minimum Commercial FAR of 0.10
Regional Mixed Use Residential 37 to 50 du/acre
Minimum Commercial FAR of 0.15
Source(s): Santa Clara General Plan, Lawrence Station Area Plan (LSAP), Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan (PHD), Tasman East Specific Plan, Related Santa Clara Project, Gateway Crossings Project, City of Santa Clara June 2022 Zoning Ordinance
The type, location and density of residential development are primarily regulated through the zoning ordinance. Zoning regulations serve to protect and promote the health, safety, and general welfare of the residents of a community while also serving to implement the goals and policies of the General Plan. The City began a comprehensive update to their Zoning Ordinance to reflect the goals and policies of the City’s 2010-2035 General Plan in early 2014. The City is in the process of completing an update to the Zoning Ordinance that will be implemented in early 2023, addressing California statutory requirements with regard to a variety of issues, including solar energy systems, family day care homes, affordable housing, group homes, alterations to legal non-conforming buildings, and historic resources.
Currently, residential uses are permitted in ten zoning districts and in the City’s mixed use overlay and combining districts, allowing flexibility for mixing land uses and supporting largescale and master-planned development projects.
Density Bonus
The City’s Density Bonus Ordinance was updated in 2015. The City currently provides density bonuses or equivalent financial incentives for housing projects which include affordable and/or senior housing units, consistent with State law. Modifications to the City’s Density Bonus Ordinance, in order to meet the requirements of Government Code Section 65915, were made in conjunction with the adoption of the 2015-2023 Housing Element.
The City’s Zoning Ordinance update, which will be implemented in early 2023, will bring the City into compliance with State Density Bonus Law, including recently adopted legislation that goes into effect in 2023.
Currently, requests for density bonuses and other concessions or incentives are generally processed concurrently with an application for a Planned Development rezoning. With the Zoning Ordinance update, most properties could develop under a conventional zoning district,
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
including properties that will be rezoned to one of the new high density residential or mixed use zoning districts. Under the updated Zoning Ordinance, requests for density bonuses and other concessions or incentives will generally be evaluated through the Planning permit process required for the project. Residential developments would be subject to by right approval by the Director of Community Development, including provisions for additional units allowed via density bonuses. Density bonus agreements would ultimately be approved by the City Council.
Inclusionary Housing
The City has had an “inclusionary” housing policy in place since 1992. The Affordable Housing Ordinance of 2018 requires private development projects with more than 10 units to include at least 15 percent of new housing units as affordable. For residential ownership projects with fewer than 10 units, either one dwelling at an affordable housing cost for a household earning up to 100 percent of AMI may be provided, or an in-lieu fee identified for residential ownership projects in the Affordable Housing Master Fee Schedule may be paid. Residential rental projects of 10 or more units must also provide at least 15 percent of the units at a maximum average of 100 percent AMI. Residential rental projects with fewer than 10 units may either provide an affordable unit or pay an in-lieu fee identified for residential rental projects in the Affordable Housing Master Fee Schedule. The City Council can also authorize a developer to utilize an alternate means of compliance such as a dedication of land for affordable housing, the development of affordable units at an off-site location, or some combination thereof.
For non-residential projects, affordable housing requirements may be met through the payment of impact fees identified in the Affordable Housing Master Fee Schedule, calculated on a per square foot basis for net new gross floor area. This impact fee can be mitigated through the construction of affordable residential units on an appropriate housing site. For all new construction of mixed use projects that exceed 20,000 square feet, affordable housing requirements on the residential gross floor area portion of the mixed use project shall be met in line with the provisions of SCCC 17.40.080 or SCCC 17.40.090. Affordable housing requirements applicable on the non-residential gross floor area portion of the mixed use project shall be met in line with the provision of SCCC 17.40.100. As an alternative to the payment of an impact fee, a developer or owner may construct affordable residential units on an appropriate housing site.
As of 2021, the City has exceeded its fifth cycle RHNA goals by 3,013 units and has attained 289.1% of that goal without counting units permitted in 2022. This suggests that the City’s inclusionary housing ordinance is not impacting feasibility to the point that market rate development is not occurring to meet housing needs. In fact, staff received input during Housing Element outreach asking that the affordable housing ordinance require deeper levels of affordability because 100%AMI is no longer affordable for many households in Santa Clara. If the City does amend its required affordability, it would need to consult with market rate and
affordable housing developers to balance concerns about the depth of affordability and project feasibility.
On May 5, 2022, City staff participated in a countywide listening session with market rate and affordable housing developers. Regarding inclusionary policies, developers suggested that allowing flexibility in the options available (i.e. land dedication) to market rate developers was very important and opened up possibilities to partner with affordable developers. The City’s inclusionary ordinance does offer flexibility in meeting its obligations.
Residential Development Standards
The City’s Zoning Ordinance contains development standards for each zoning district. Table 13.5- 2 outlines the residential standards under each zoning classification and specific area plans, including minimum lot sizes, setbacks, widths, and densities, as well as restrictions on building and landscape coverage.
Table 13.5-2: Residential Development Standards
Residential
Use Type
R1-
8L
R1-
6L
R2-
7L
R3-
18D
R3-
25D
R3-
36D R3-M R3-RV MU TMU LSAP TN PHD
Minimum Lot
Size (sq. ft.) 8,000 6,000 7,000 8,500 8,500 8,500 1,500 1,200 20,000 20,000 n/a n/a 8,500
–
10,00
0 Maximum
Density
(du/ac)
5 7 12 18 25 36 10 n/a 25 45 100 350 250
Minimum Lot
Width (ft.) 70 60 65 70 70 70 n/a 100 100 100 n/a n/a n/a Maximum
Height (ft.) 25 25 25 20 25 45 n/a n/a 45 50 n/a 220 32 Minimum
Front Yard
(ft.)
20 20 20 20 20 20 25 15 10 10 n/a n/a n/a
Minimum
Side Yard (ft.)
6 &
9 5 5 10 10 10 15 &
25 5 &
15 10 10 n/a n/a n/a
Minimum
Rear Yard (ft.) 20 20 15 15 15 20 15 n/a 20 20 n/a n/a n/a Max. Building
Coverage 40% 40% 45% 35% 35% 45% n/a n/a 30% 30% n/a n/a n/a Min.
Landscape
Coverage
n/a n/a 40% 40%1 40%1 40%1 n/a n/a 30% 30% n/a n/a n/a
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Table 13.5-2: Residential Development Standards
Residential
Use Type
R1-
8L
R1-
6L
R2-
7L
R3-
18D
R3-
25D
R3-
36D R3-M R3-RV MU TMU LSAP TN PHD
Source(s): Santa Clara Zoning Ordinance, (2014), Tasman East Focus Area Plan, Lawrence Station Area Plan (LSAP), Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan (PHD)
Notes:
1 Each lot greater than 22,000 square feet in size shall have not less than forty-five percent (45%) of the lot area developed into permanently maintained open space.
In addition to the residential categories identified below, the Planned Development zoning district also permits residential development. It allows flexibility in both development standards and land use mix not permitted in other zones in order to adapt to specific site constraints without reducing housing density or adding costs to affordable housing units. An analysis of Santa Clara’s development regulations compared with those of Mountain View, Sunnyvale, and San José, showed that these cities have fairly similar standards. Additionally, in 2014 the City initiated an update to its Zoning Ordinance. As part of that update, the City will establish appropriate minimum and maximum densities in residential and mixed use districts consistent with the 2010- 2035 General Plan. In sum, the City’s development standards do not substantially restrict the cost and supply of housing overall, or in particular, lower income housing Parking Standards
Parking can substantially add to the cost of housing. The City’s Zoning Ordinance currently requires two spaces per unit in both single-family and multi-family districts. However, the City has reduced parking requirements for a number of recent multi-family residential projects, including the Camino Del Rey Senior Apartments. The City’s current parking standards are summarized in Table 13.5-3 below. Over the three most recently adopted Specific Plans (in order of adoption: Lawrence Station, Tasman East (Transit Neighborhood) and Patrick Henry Drive (PHD), residential parking requirements have been progressively reduced and now stand at one parking space per unit (or less) in both Tasman East and PHD. As part of the comprehensive Zoning Ordinance update, the City will review its citywide parking standards and consider reducing residential parking requirements, including unbundling and additional reductions according to housing type (e.g., housing for people with developmental and other disabilities).
In addition, see Action 3: Affordable Housing Incentives and Facilitation, which includes an objective to analyze parking reforms as part of proposed long-range plans, including the El Camino Real Specific Plan and the Santa Clara Station Area Plan.
Table 13.5-3: Parking Standards
Housing Type/ Zoning District Requirements
Single-Family Dwellings (R1-8L, R1-6L, and R2-7L
zones)
Two garage or carport parking spaces
Dwellings (R3-18D, R3-25D, and R3-36D zones) One garage or carport shall be provided for each dwelling unit, plus one parking space for each
dwelling unit
Multi-Family Dwellings (MU and TMU zones)1 At least one garage or carport shall be provided for each dwelling unit, plus one parking space for
each dwelling unit
Mobile Home Park2 One individually accessible and one tandem parking space per mobile home site
Recreational Vehicle Park One visitor parking space shall be provided for every fifteen (15) recreational vehicle sites or
fraction thereof
Emergency Shelters One space per shelter employee
Accessory Dwelling Unit No parking required
LSAP Studio and One Bedroom Residential Unit One parking space per unit LSAP Two or more bedroom Residential Unit Two parking spaces per unit Transit Neighborhood One parking space per unit
PHD One parking space per unit greater than 550
square feet and 0.5 spaces per unit less than 550
square feet
Source(s): Santa Clara Zoning Ordinance, 2022, Lawrence Station Area Plan (LSAP), Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan (PHD)
1. MU and TMU zones exist in current zoning code but are not applied anywhere in the City and won’t be used in the Future.
2. R3-M zones exist in current zoning code but are not applied anywhere in the City and won’t be used in the future.
3. R3-RV zones exist in current zoning code but are not applied anywhere in the City and won’t be used in the future.
Provision for a Variety of Housing Types
State Housing Element law specifies that jurisdictions identify adequate sites to be made available through appropriate zoning and development standards to encourage the development of various types of housing for all economic segments of the population. This includes single-family housing, multi-family housing, factory-built or manufactured housing, emergency shelters, and transitional housing among others. Permitted housing types are described in Table 13.5-4.
Although single-family uses are permitted in multi-family zones, this rarely occurs in the City on sites large enough for multi-family housing due to the high costs of housing and limited availability of vacant land.
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Table 13.5-4: Permitted Housing Types Within Residential Zoning Classifications R1-
8L
R1-
6L
R2-
7L
R3-
18D
R3-
25D
R3-
36D
R3-
M
R3-
RV
MU TM
U
ML LSAP TN PH
D
Single-Family
Dwellings
P P P P P P P
Two-Family
Dwellings
P P P P P
Multi-Family
Housing
P P P P P P P P
Accessory
Unit
P P P P P P P P P
Manufactured
Housing
P P
Mobile Home
Park
P
Recreational
Vehicle Park
P
Residential
Care Facilities
(<6 persons)
P P P P P P P P P P P
Emergency
Shelter
P
Transitional
Housing
P P P P P P P P P P P P P
Supportive
Housing
P P P P P P P P P P P P P
Source(s): Santa Clara Zoning Ordinance, 2014, Lawrence Station Area Plan (LSAP), Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan (PHD), Tasman East Focus Area Plan
Single-Family Dwellings
The majority of the residential areas in the City are composed of single-family districts. Singlefamily dwellings are permitted in all of the City’s residential districts, with the exception of the mixed use and mobile home park zones. However, there are few instances where multi-family properties are developed with single-family homes.
Multi-Family Dwellings
Most residential construction in recent years has been for multi-family units. Multi-family dwellings are permitted in the R3-18D, R3-25D, and R3-36D districts, as well as in the City’s mixed use zones. Existing development standards have not constrained multi-family development, which typically provide a good opportunity for affordable housing in the City.
Accessory Units
The 2021 update to the city’s Accessory Unit Zoning Ordinance includes regulations which allow for both Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and Junior ADUs (JADUs) on a property, allowance of ADUs in multi-family zoning districts, and reduction of the required setbacks. The Zoning Ordinance defines an accessory unit as “one additional dwelling unit that includes a single kitchen, sleeping quarters, not more than one bathroom, and not more than two bedrooms. The accessory unit may be attached to or part of the existing single-family unit or may be a detached structure and shall meet all other requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.” Since 2018, approximately 170 accessory units have been permitted in the City for an average of 42.5 units per year.
Manufactured Housing
Factory-built, modular homes constructed in compliance with the California Building Code (CBC), and mobile homes/manufactured housing units that comply with the National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974, placed on permanent foundations, are considered single-family dwellings and are generally treated as such. Currently, the City permits manufactured housing in all R-1, R-2, and R-3 zones. The City also permits mobile home parks and recreational vehicle parks in the R3-M and R3-RV zones, respectively.
Residential Care Facilities
Residential care facilities can be described as any family home, group care facility or similar facility, including some transitional housing facilities, for 24-hour non-medical care of persons in need of personal services, supervision, or assistance essential for sustaining the activities of daily living. In accordance with State law (Lanterman Developmental Disability Services Act, AB 846 (1977), composed of divisions 4.1, 4.5 and 4.7 of the Welfare and Institutions Code and Title 14 of the Government Code), the City permits residential care facilities serving six or fewer persons in all residential zones. The Zoning Ordinance does not explicitly address residential care facilities for more than six persons. As part of the comprehensive Zoning Ordinance update to be completed in early 2023, the City will address the provision of residential care facilities serving seven or more residents.
Emergency Shelters
An emergency shelter is defined as “housing with minimal supportive services for homeless persons that is limited to occupancy of six months or less by a homeless person. No individual or households may be denied emergency shelter because of an inability to pay.” Emergency shelters are currently a permitted use in the ML (Light Industrial) zone, provided they meet the minimum property development standards in which they are located when, on the date that a complete shelter management plan is submitted to the City, the number of existing shelter beds within the City is fewer than the City’s most recent annual count of homeless persons residing within the City.
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
If the demonstrated need has already been met, additional emergency shelters may be conditionally permitted in the ML (Light Industrial) zone, subject to conditions with the issuance of a use permit pursuant to Chapter 18.110 SCCC. The determination required by this subsection shall occur on the date the operator submits the materials.
In the City’s Zoning Ordinance update, emergency shelters are proposed to be allowed by right in the R-3 and R-4 Residential districts, the C-C and C-R Commercial districts, the MU-VHD Mixed Use district, and the LI Light Industrial district.
Low Barrier Navigation Centers
A Low Barrier Navigation Center is defined as “a housing first, low-barrier, service-enriched shelter focused on moving people into permanent housing that provides temporary living facilities while case managers connect individuals experiencing homelessness to income, public benefits, health services, shelter, and housing.”
State law requires low barrier navigation centers be a use permitted by right in mixed-use zones and non-residential zones permitting multi-unit uses, if specified requirements are met.
In the City’s comprehensive Zoning Ordinance update to be completed in early 2023, Low Barrier Navigation Centers will be listed as a by-right use in the R3, R4 and R5 multi-family residential districts, the MU-NC, MU-CC, MU-RC, MU-MD, and MU-VHD mixed use districts, the C-C, CR, and C-D commercial districts, and the LI Light Industrial district.
Transitional Housing
Transitional housing is a type of housing used to facilitate the movement of homeless individuals and families to permanent housing. Transitional housing can take several forms, including group quarters with beds, single-family homes, and multi-family apartments, and typically offers case management and support services to return people to independent living (usually between six and 24 months).
California Government Code Section 65582 (h) defines “transitional housing” and “transitional housing development” as buildings configured as rental housing developments but operated under program requirements that require the termination of assistance and recirculation of the assisted unit to another eligible program recipient at a predetermined future point in time that shall be no less than six months from the beginning of the assistance. Pursuant to SB 2 (2007), which amended Sections 65582, 65583 and 65589.5 of the Government Code, transitional housing that is a residential use should be subject only to those restrictions that apply to other residential dwellings of the same type in the same zone.
Historically, the City has shown an ability to provide transitional housing through group homes and small apartment complexes. The Zoning Ordinance was amended, in conjunction with the adoption of the 2015-2023 Housing Element, to permit transitional housing in the same manner
as other residential dwellings of the same type in the same zone, per applicable State law. The Ordinance amendment was approved by the City Council on December 9, 2014.
Supportive Housing
State law requires local jurisdictions to address the provisions for supportive housing. California Government Code Sections 65582 (f)(g) defines “supportive housing” as housing with no limit on length of stay, that is occupied by the target population, and that is linked to an on-site or off-site service that assists the supportive housing resident in retaining the housing, improving his or her health status, and maximizing his or her ability to live and, when possible, work in the community.
As with emergency shelters and transitional housing, the City has previously been able to provide supportive housing through group homes and small apartment complexes. The Zoning Ordinance was amended, in conjunction with the adoption of the 2015-2023 Housing Element, to permit supportive housing in the same manner as other residential dwellings of the same type in the same zone, per applicable State law. The Ordinance amendment was approved by the City Council on December 9, 2014.
The Zoning Ordinance update will add supportive housing as a by-right use in all multi-family and mixed-use zones.
Single-Room Occupancy (SRO) Housing
The City’s proposed Zoning Ordinance will allow Single-Room Occupancy (SRO) Facilities by right in the C-C Community Commercial, C-R Regional Commercial, C-D Downtown Commercial, MU-CC Mixed Use Community Commercial, and MU-RC Mixed Use Regional Commercial districts.
Employee Housing
The City’s Zoning Ordinance does not currently include provisions for employee housing.
Pursuant to the Health and Safety Code, employee housing for six or fewer employees is to be treated as a single-family structure and permitted in the same manner as other dwellings of the same type in the same zone. As part of the comprehensive Zoning Ordinance update to be completed in early 2023, the City will amend the Zoning Ordinance to be consistent with these State requirements for employee housing.
Zoning and Land Use
Restrictive land use policies and zoning provisions can constrain the development of housing for persons with disabilities. Under the State Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act (composed of divisions 4.1, 4.5 and 4.7 of the Welfare and Institutions Code and Title 14 of the Government Code), small licensed residential care facilities for six or fewer persons must be treated as regular residential uses and permitted by right in all residential districts. The City of
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Santa Clara is compliant with the Lanterman Act. Furthermore, the Zoning Ordinance is being updated concurrent with the Housing Element update to address the provision of emergency shelters, transitional housing, and supportive housing – housing types that are suitable for occupancy by persons with disabilities (see discussions on the provision of a variety of housing types earlier). Specifically, the Zoning Code Update incorporates the following provisions to be consistent with State law:
AB 2221 (2022): Adds front setbacks to the list of development standards that cannot preclude the development of an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU). Added to ADUs, Section 18.60.030 of the Zoning Code Update.
SB 897 (2022): Increases the height limit to 18 feet for detached ADUs within ½ mile of transit or on lots with multifamily dwellings, and to 25 feet or the primary dwelling height for attached ADUs. Added to ADUs, Section 18.60.030 of the Zoning Code Update. SB 897 (2022): Clarifies that a Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit (JADU) can be within an attached garage; if a JADU does not have a separate bathroom, it needs to have both an interior connection to the main living unit and an exterior entry; also requires owner occupancy and deed restrictions for JADUs. Added to ADUs, Section 18.60.030 of the Zoning Code Update.
AB 682 (2022): Allows Density Bonuses to be extended to shared housing projects. Added to Density Bonuses, Chapter 18.64 of the Zoning Code Update. SB 290 (2021): Changes standard language regarding incentives to not include the physical environment. Added to Density Bonuses, Chapter 18.64 of the Zoning Code Update. Low Barrier Navigation Centers: Adds a definition, an enumerated use, and a parking standard for Low-Barrier Navigation Centers to the Zoning Code Update. Allowed by right in the same districts that emergency shelters are allowed, and in all mixed-use districts.
AB 2339 (2022): Changes where emergency shelters need to be zoned. In the proposed code update, Emergency Shelters are proposed to be allowed by right in the R-3 and R-4 Residential districts, the C-C and C-R Commercial districts, the MU-VHD Mixed Use district, and the LI Light Industrial district.
AB 2162 (2018): Added Supportive Housing as a by-right use in all multi-family and mixed-use zones.
Residential Care Facilities: Separated Residential Care Facilities from Community Care Facilities, which are non-residential in nature by adding a definition for Residential Care Facilities, and an enumerated use for residential care facilities with six or fewer residents, which are allowed by right in all residential districts, and for seven or more, which are allowed with a minor use permit, approved by the Director of Planning.
Definition of Family
A community’s Zoning Ordinance can potentially restrict access to housing for households failing to qualify as a “family” by the definition specified in the Zoning Ordinance. Even if the code provides a broad definition, deciding what constitutes a “family” should be avoided by jurisdictions to prevent confusion or give the impression of restrictiveness.
California court cases have ruled that a definition of “family” that: 1) limits the number of persons in a family; 2) specifies how members of the family are related (i.e., by blood, marriage or adoption, etc.), or 3) a group of not more than a certain number of unrelated persons as a single housekeeping unit, is invalid. Court rulings stated that defining a family does not serve any legitimate or useful objective or purpose recognized under the zoning and land planning powers of the jurisdiction, and therefore violates rights of privacy under the California Constitution.
The Santa Clara Zoning Ordinance defines a family as “an individual or group of persons living together as a single housekeeping unit in a dwelling unit, including State or County licensed residence programs which comply with State law. Family shall not be construed to include a fraternity, sorority, club, or other group of persons occupying a hotel, boarding house, or similar institution.” This definition is not overly restrictive and does not constrain access to, or the development of housing.
Reasonable Accommodation
Both the federal Fair Housing Amendments Act (FHAA) and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act direct local governments to make reasonable accommodations (i.e., modifications or exceptions) in their zoning laws and other land use regulations when such accommodations may be necessary to afford disabled persons an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. The City conducted an analysis of its Zoning Ordinance, permitting procedures, development standards, and building codes to identify potential constraints for housing for persons with disabilities. The City’s policies and regulations regarding housing for persons with disabilities are described below.
A request to retrofit an existing residence with accessibility equipment (i.e., a ramp, landing, lift, etc.) is typically approved “over the counter”, if the proposal does not negatively impact the neighborhood or surrounding properties. When more review is required, the request is reviewed through the City’s Development Review process. However, at times it may be reasonable to accommodate requests from persons with disabilities to waive specific standards or procedures of the Zoning Ordinance to ensure that homes are accessible to persons with disabilities. In conjunction with the adoption of the 2015-2023 Housing Element, the City adopted a reasonable accommodations ordinance. The Ordinance amendment was approved by the City Council on December 9, 2014.
Building Codes and Enforcement
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
The City enforces Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations that regulates the access and adaptability of buildings to accommodate persons with disabilities. Government Code Section 12955.1 requires that 10 percent of the total dwelling units in multi-family buildings without elevators, consisting of three or more rental units or four or more condominium units, are subject to the following building standards for persons with disabilities:
x The primary entry to the dwelling unit shall be on an accessible route unless exempted by site impracticality tests.
x At least one powder room or bathroom shall be located on the primary entry level served by an accessible route.
x All rooms or spaces located on the primary entry level shall be served by an accessible route. Rooms and spaces located on the primary entry level and subject to this chapter may include but are not limited to kitchens, powder rooms, bathrooms, living rooms, bedrooms, or hallways.
x Common use areas shall be accessible.
x If common tenant parking is provided, accessible parking is required.
Compliance with Building Codes and State accessibility laws and regulations (California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24) may increase the cost of housing production and impact the viability of rehabilitating older properties. These regulations are minimum Statewide standards to ensure safety and accessibility and do not significantly contribute to governmental constraints regarding housing for persons with disabilities. In addition, the City does not impose supplemental local requirements with respect to accessibility. Compliance with provisions of the Code of Regulations, California Building Standards Code, and federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is assessed and enforced by the Building Division of the Community Development Department as a part of the building permit submittal process.
Planning and Development Fees
The City and other agencies assess a number of fees that affect the development and cost of housing. Utility service connection fees; upgrade of public curb, gutter, and sidewalk (and sewer lateral(s) if necessary); permit fees; and dedication requirements are similar or lower compared to those in other communities in Santa Clara County and the Bay Area. In some cases, fees for street trees, drainage, and traffic mitigation are also collected. Table 13.5-5 provides a breakdown of planning, engineering, and other fees.
Table 13.5-5: Planning and Development Fees
Application Fee
Planning Fees
Architectural Review $813-$32,529
Development Agreement $10,844-$32,529
Environmental Impact Report $32,529
Table 13.5-5: Planning and Development Fees
Application Fee
General Plan Amendment $2,710-$37,950
Initial Study/ Negative Declaration $21,686
Lot Line Adjustment $5,422
Mills Act Application $7,694
Rezoning $8,338-$65,058
Tentative Parcel Map $16,264 - $21,686
Tentative Subdivision Map $5,422-$21,686
Use Permit $5,725-$13,251
Variance $3,187-$9,473
Vesting Tentative Parcel Map $3,650-$4,950
Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map $6,060-$8,970
Zoning Administrator Action $463
Zoning Code Text Amendment $24,397
Development Fees
Sanitary Sewer Outlet Charge $441.07 per unit; $1,658.38 per lot; $7,510.26 per acre Sanitary Sewer Connection Fee $1,140 per unit
Sanitary Sewer Conveyance Fee $4,218 per unit
Street Improvements $105.51 per foot
Sidewalk Improvements $15.35per foot
Street Curb Improvements $38.49 per foot
Electric Varies
Storm Drain $7,510.26 per acre
Storm Drain Improvements $38.37 per foot
Recreation Tax $15 for first bedroom; $5 for each additional School Impact Fee $4.08 per sq. ft.
Traffic Impact Fee SF: $1,274.11 per unit MF: $566.27 per unit Park Impact Fee SF: $38,068 - $45,320
MF: $30,659 - $36,500
Source(s): City of Santa Clara, 2022
Table 13.5-6 compares the planning and development fees of Santa Clara and several other South Bay cities. Generally, Sunnyvale charges the lowest fees in the area while Campbell’s fees skew higher. The City of Santa Clara’s fees are moderate for the region.
Table 13.5-6: Regional Comparison of Planning and Development Total Fees (includes entitlement, building permits, and impact fees) Per Unit Jurisdiction Single Family Small Multi-Family Large Multi-Family Campbell $72,556 $20,599 $18,541
Cupertino $136,596 $77,770 $73,959
Gilroy $69,219 $40,195 $39,135
Los Altos Hills $146,631 N/A N/A
Los Gatos $32,458 $5,764 $3,269
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Table 13.5-6: Regional Comparison of Planning and Development Total Fees (includes entitlement, building permits, and impact fees) Per Unit Jurisdiction Single Family Small Multi-Family Large Multi-Family Milpitas $77,198 $74,326 $59,740
Monte Sereno $33,445 $4,815 $4,156
Morgan Hill $55,903 $41,374 $36,396
Mountain View $90,423 $69,497 $82,591
San Jose $9,919 $23,410 $23,410
Santa Clara $72,034 $64,980 $62,084
Saratoga $64,272 $17,063 $15,391
Sunnyvale $133,389 $126,673 $98,292
Unincorporated County $25,166 N/A N/A
Source(s): Century Urban Report
Table 13.5-6 provides the actual development fees for recent development projects in Santa Clara.
The total fees are moderate and represent only a small portion of total development costs. Because application and building fees are relatively reasonable, they are not considered a significant constraint to the construction of market-rate or affordable housing. The Park Impact Fee Ordinance was adopted in 2014.
On- and Off-Site Improvement Requirements
On- and off- site improvements, including public streets, curbing, sidewalks, streetlights, water, sewer, and drainage requirements, have an impact on the cost of residential development.
Improvement requirements for new developments are regulated under the Subdivision Ordinance (Chapter 17.05 of the City Code). Off-site improvement requirements are less costly in a fully developed community since infrastructure needed to serve infill development is already in place. However, the financial burden of improvements as the City’s infrastructure ages is a concern. To assist private developers and public projects in the development process, the City has published the Standard Details document which outlines construction standards for the most common improvement requirements, such as sidewalks, storm drains, and sewer connections.
This publication is updated periodically and available on the City’s website. The standards are as follows:
x Dedication of streets, alleys and other public rights-of-way or easements may be a condition of approval for a tentative, or parcel map. These requirements may be easements that are needed for streets, alleys, access, drainage, public greenways, scenic easements, public utilities, and other public purposes. In addition, these easements or dedications may include requirements for improvements.
x Required on-site street improvements can include construction of curbs, sidewalks, driveway approaches, and transitions.
x Storm drain systems must be designed to collect and convey storm water, avoid damage to adjacent properties, and support the ultimate development of the watershed. Off-site storm drain improvements may also be required to satisfy this requirement. x Projects must connect to sewer, water, gas, and electric lines. x Development located in the Utility Underground District, as designated in the current General Plan, is required to underground utility lines (or pay an in-lieu fee).
The City’s Project Clearance Committee (a development review committee made up of representatives from different departments in the City) reviews new development applications and determines, pursuant to each City department, required infrastructure improvements and conditions of approval.
Local Processing and Permit Procedures
Development review can affect housing costs. Timelines for permit processing are estimated for various permit and approval types in Table 13.5-6 and Table 13.5-7. There are no constraints to affordable housing or multi-family housing over and above requirements for single-family and market rate units. Moreover, permit processing in Santa Clara is consistent with, if not faster and more effective than, permitting in comparable nearby cities. Project processing, from initial submittal through discretionary review and building permit approval, averages six months for most residential developments.
Table 13.5-7: Planning and Permit Procedures
Type of Approval/ Permit Processing Time Approval Body
Ministerial Review 0 to 2 weeks Staff
Conditional Use Permit 1 and ½ to 4 months Planning Commission Zone Change 4 to 9 months City Council
General Plan Amendments 4 to 9 months City Council
Site Plan Review 2 to 6 weeks Staff
Architectural/ Design Review 3 to 12 weeks Director of Community Development
Tentative Map (fewer than 5
parcels)
3 to 6 months City Council
Tentative Map (more than 5
parcels)
3 to 6 months City Council
Initial Environmental Study 3 to 6 months Approval Body Environmental Impact Report 12 to 18 months Approval Body Source(s): City of Santa Clara, 2022
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
The following review and hearing bodies would typically be involved in the approval process for a new housing or mixed use development project:
x Project Clearance Committee (PCC): The development review committee made up of representatives from different departments in the City typically including Planning, Public Works (Engineering and Traffic), Utilities (Water, Sewer, and Electric), Police, Fire, and the Building Division.
x Director of Community Development: The Director of Community Development or designee hears projects subject to the Architectural Review process. x Historical Landmarks Commission (HLC): An appointed commission of members of the public who review proposals and make recommendations related to structures on the local, State, or national register of historic places, as well as applications for Mills Act contracts.
x Planning Commission (PC): An appointed commission of members of the public who review development applications for consistency with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance of the City of Santa Clara and are the deciding body for variances and Conditional Use Permits.
x City Council (CC): A body of seven elected individuals who act as the governing body for the City of Santa Clara.
Architectural Review Process
Architectural review in Santa Clara is intended to ensure the implementation of Zoning Ordinance standards and General Plan policies. Architectural review is typically required for most residential projects, including multi-family developments, as well as single-family attached developments and developments taller than one story. This process does not provide any additional burden for affordable housing projects and therefore are not considered a constraint to development. This process is codified in Chapter 18.76 of the City’s Zoning Ordinance, which was revised in 2020 to create a streamlined process by replacing a committee structure as the approval body for Architectural Review applications with the Director of Community Development.
Under this process, an applicant submits plans and drawings for any sign, building, structure, or alteration of the exterior of a structure in a form and detail prescribed by the Director of Community Development. The Community Development Director or designee limits decisions on multifamily projects to objective standards in conformance with the State of California’s Housing Accountability Act. The following considerations are used by the Director of Community Development in rendering decisions on all Architectural Review applications, which also include commercial and industrial development proposals.
x Off-street parking areas, screening strips and other facilities and improvements must meet the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan intent. Any applicable state legislation that waives or reduces parking standards are applied.
x Design and location of the proposed development and its relation to neighboring developments and traffic will not impair the desirability of the neighborhood, will not create traffic congestion or hazard, and will not be detrimental to harmonious development. For multifamily residential projects, ensuring the application of objective development standards will be used to determine if the development meets this standard. x Approval will not adversely impact the health, comfort or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood. For multifamily residential projects, ensuring the application of objective development standards will be used to determine if the development meets this standard.
x The Director of Community Development may require the applicant to modify buildings, parking areas, landscaping, signs, and other facilities and improvements to meet Zoning Ordinance and General Plan requirements.
x The granting of any architectural approval is an administrative function; therefore, the action is final and conclusive, except in the event of an appeal. x In the event the applicant or others affected are not satisfied with the decision of the Director, they may appeal the decision to the City Council. In the case of permits for single-family homes, the affected parties first appeal is to the Planning Commission, and if still not satisfied, the affected party may appeal to City Council. x Any architectural review approval granted shall be automatically revoked and terminated if not used within two years of original grant or within the period of any authorized extensions.
Since the City Council adopted the streamlined Architectural Review process in 2020, no Architectural Review applications for multi-family housing have been denied.
A typical residential development project in a standard zoning district would be required to obtain approval through the Development Review Hearing process, heard by the Director of Planning. Such a project would typically be subdivided, requiring a Tentative Map as well. Prior to obtaining these entitlements, projects go through the process of review by the project planner, and by the Project Clearance Committee to work out details and conditions from each City department. The associated environmental review per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) would also be completed during this process. The time it takes to complete this process varies per project. However, from initial submittal to approval, the process typically takes four to six months, or four to 18 months if an EIR is required.
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
SB 35 Streamlining
In accordance with Government Code section 65913.4 (SB 35 (2017)), applications for multi-family residential development that include a minimum of 50 percent lower income units may be eligible for a streamlined, ministerial approval process if they meet objective standards as outlined in the Government Code. By March 2023, the City will create an SB 35 checklist and written procedures for processing SB 35 applications.
Planned Development
Many residential development projects in the City are processed via the Planned Development (PD) process to integrate uses, utilize imaginative planning and design concepts, subdivide land in a manner that results in units not having required frontage on a dedicated public street, or to create a community ownership project. Through the PD process, the number of units permitted is governed by the General Plan.
A development plan is required to process a PD. The plan must be designed to provide an environment of a stable and desirable character, and comply with the General plan land use designation, and justify the mixture of normally separated uses and exceptions to normal regulations (such as on-site parking, landscaping, building lot coverage, height limits, setback requirements, required distances, and buffering between residential and commercial components). An application for a planned development zoning must accompany the development plan. Construction of the project must begin within two years of the City Council approval. The time to process a PD is estimated between six and 12 months.
All new large-scale development projects of at least 25 contiguous acres where a mixture of residential with commercial, office, research and development and/or public uses is proposed are required to be rezoned to the Planned Development-Master Community (PD-MC) zoning district.
An application for rezoning to the PD-MC district is submitted as a separate application from the site development application and must include a master community plan that, if approved by the City Council, will become a part of the zoning map of the City of Santa Clara. The master community plan must conform to the City’s General Plan and overall residential density must also conform to the City’s General Plan, though individual housing types could be greater or less than the average.
An application for development within a PD-MC district must include a development area plan, which may be submitted any time subsequent to submittal of the PD-MC district application. A development area plan must be a minimum of 20 percent of the total acreage of the project or 10 acres, whichever is less. If the development area includes property designated for a public use or is proposed for use as affordable housing, then no minimum acreage shall apply. The Director of Planning and Inspection also has the authority to waive the minimum acreage requirement under exceptional circumstances.
Consideration of development area plans will include notification to surrounding property owners and neighbors in the same fashion as the original master community plan hearings. The Planning Commission is responsible for considering the development area plan application concurrent with or after its consideration of the master community plan application. In general, the time for the processing and review of PD-MC applications averages 12-18 months. This is an appropriate timeframe given the scale of theses types of projects, which usually require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Construction in each development area must begin within two years of final development area plan approval by the City Council. The Planning Commission may also grant extensions of up to two years (per extension).
Developments in the PD-MC district are not required to undergo the Architectural Review process. However, most residential development activities in the City do not require the processing of a PD-MC, just a Planned Development (PD) permit.
In the neighboring City of Cupertino, multi-family planned development projects take approximately four months to process, assuming no Environmental Impact Reports (EIR) would be required. However, if an EIR is required, the timeframe can be extended significantly. In Mountain View, another neighboring jurisdiction, the timeframe to process and review a largescale development is approximately six to 12 months. Similarly, in Santa Clara, the timing for the processing and review of a PD or PD-MC application is largely dependent on the environmental clearance requirements.
The Zoning Ordinance update should reduce the number of projects that have historically relied on the PD process by including new high-density residential and mixed-use zoning districts that conform to the General Plan, and new provisions that streamline the permitting process for projects that meet new objective development standards.
Zoning Transparency
Per AB 1483 (2019), for purposes of zoning and fee transparency, the City of Santa Clara provides the following information online:
The Zoning Ordinance is available on the City’s website at:
https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/SantaClara/#!/SantaClara18/SantaClara18.html Zoning designations for every parcel with the City of Santa Clara is available at:
https://map.santaclaraca.gov/public/index.html?viewer=regional The City’s Planning Fee schedule is available at:
https://www.santaclaraca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/56997/637291919770930000
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Building Codes and Enforcement
Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, also referred to as the California Building Standards Code (CBSC), governs the design and construction of buildings, facilities, and associated equipment throughout California.
The City of Santa Clara adopted the current 2019 Building Standards Code, with amendments, in November of 2018, and those standards have been in effect since January 1, 2020.
On October 18, 2022 the City Council adopted the 2022 CBSC, with local amendments, to be effective January 1, 2023. The local amendments, which are intended to address building safety concerns of relevance to the City of Santa Clara, include the following elements:
x 2022 California Building Code, Chapter 3 and Chapter 9: Additional automatic fire sprinkler requirements for Group R3 occupancies.
x 2022 California Building Code, Chapter 10: Additional requirements for safe stairway configuration and the routing of emergency exit paths to facilitate emergency egress out of multi-story buildings.
x 2022 California Building Code, Chapter 19: Additional requirements for Structural Plain Concrete in Seismic Design Category C, D, E, or F.
These amendments were found to be prudent and necessary based upon the City’s climatic, topographical, and geological conditions and are intended to promote safety for future residents in the context of Santa Clara’s urban environment, particularly as the City is increasingly granting land use entitlements for higher density Type III, and in some cases, Type I construction, including the use of towers located above podiums.
The City adopted its first “Reach Code” (optional local energy code amendments that exceed or enhance State cod standards) in November 2021, following a long public process. The 2021 Reach Code made local amendments to the 2019 version of the CBSC; specifically, the California Energy Code and the California Green Building Standards Code. The Reach Code mandates the use of electricity as a power source in new construction, limits installation of natural gas plumbing and meters, and increases requirements on new construction to install electric vehicle infrastructure.
Non-substantive changes to the 2021 Reach Code were adopted on October 18, 2022 to reflect the 2022 update of the CBSC (“2022 Reach Code”).
Existing single-family, duplex, and triplex units are inspected only when an owner seeks a permit for additional construction or when complaints are received. Certain types of major additions require the applicant to bring the building or portion thereof up to current codes. Site improvement standards for residential development in the City, with the exception of minimum parking requirements, are not more restrictive than those in surrounding jurisdictions. Parking
ratios for newer multi-family districts, including the Transit Neighborhood and the Patrick Henry Drive districts, are lower than for comparable zoning designations of neighboring cities.
Airport Noise and Use Limitations
The most significant governmental constraint in the City is the State-required airport noise and Airport Land Use Commission regulations that prohibit and limit new housing near the San José International Airport within noise and safety zones. The San José Norman Y. Mineta International Airport is located to the east of, and adjacent to, the City. Noise generated by aircraft using the Airport has a noticeable effect on Santa Clara residents in the area north of the U.S. 101. Proposed housing in these areas is potentially required to have noise limiting construction methods including specially designed windows, walls, and insulation. These additional construction requirements often burden the developer and limit new construction near the airport.
Environmental and Infrastructure Constraints
The parcels identified as housing resources in the 6th cycle Housing Element are largely located in areas with adopted Specific Plans, and those Specific Plans include infrastructure plans that document existing infrastructure and any needed infrastructure improvements to support buildout of those plans, and a strategy for funding those improvements. Further, each specific plan amendment to the General Plan has conducted and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and the Housing Element itself, upon adoption, will be CEQA compliant.
Water Supply
The City of Santa Clara receives its potable water supply from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC), the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD), and groundwater from City-owned wells. In the City’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), the City has confirmed that it is able to meet water demands under all potential hydrologic conditions, as demonstrated by the Drought Risk Assessment required by the State’s Water Code.
The 2020 UWMP must demonstrate that the water supplier has sufficient entitlements and infrastructure to meet future water demands in their service area. Future water demands are determined using population growth estimates from the relevant general plan. Water supply is not an identified constraint on housing production. This has been verified in the Environmental Impact Reports for the Specific Plan areas and other housing development projects that comprise the housing units identified in this Housing Element. The UWMP is updated every five years.
The City’s Water and Sewer Department has specific procedures to grant priority water and sewer service to developments with units affordable to lower-income households. (Gov. Code, § 65589.7.) If this provision is not a part of the City’s regulatory framework, the City commits to adopting it within the next calendar year.
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
The SCVWDs 2020 UWMP has also indicated that it will be able to provide all water demands for Santa Clara County (including the City of Santa Clara) through 2045.
Wastewater
Wastewater is collected by sewer systems in the cities of Santa Clara and San José and conveyed by pipeline to the San José - Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility (RWF). If existing water treatment facilities would be insufficient to service the increased population anticipated by a general plan, the UWMP must identify new or expanded water treatment facilities to meet the additional need. If a development project is compliant with its general plan, that project’s impact to water treatment facilities would be captured and planned for in the corresponding UWMP. If a development project is not compliant with its general plan designation, it will require evaluation to determine if it independently triggers a need for new or expanded facilities. The Housing Element is compliant with the City’s General Plan, as amended. As such, the project’s water demand is consistent with City of Santa Clara’s 2020 UWMP population growth projection.
Therefore, the Housing Element’s impact to water treatment facilities is captured in the City of Santa Clara’s 2020 UWMP, and the identified housing resources in the Housing Element do not trigger a need for additional water treatment facilities. This impact would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.
Energy
The City of Santa Clara owns and operates the municipal electric utility, Silicon Valley Power (SVP), which services over 57,000 residential, commercial, and industrial customers in the City of Santa Clara. It owns, operates, and participates in more than 590 megawatts of electric generating resources supplemented by purchase agreements for 261 megawatts (MW) of additional capacity.
In an average year, approximately 45 percent of SVP-owned generating capacity comes from renewable energy sources—either geothermal, hydroelectric, or wind. Residential electricity demand is low compared with the energy needs of data centers and other high-tech firms that are located in Santa Clara.
In 2022, the City updated the Santa Clara Climate Action Plan to establish GHG emissions reduction measures that the City will implement to achieve the State-recommended GHG emissions reductions which include a near term reduction in GHG emissions by 2030 (SB32). The Climate Action Plan’s primary goals include a transition to clean renewable energy, diversion of waste, and promoting energy efficiency, water conservation, and climate resiliency.
Street System
Vehicular circulation in the City includes a wide network of surface streets. With the influx of workers into the job-rich City during the day, commute patterns are northbound in the morning and southbound in the evening. Existing and perceived future traffic delays are a major concern
of Santa Clara residents, as expressed by during community outreach activities. Since most of the City streets are fully improved with limited opportunity for widening, alternative travel modes, such as public transit, bicycling, and walking, offer opportunities to address traffic constraints.
The parcels identified as housing resources in the 6th cycle Housing Element are located in areas with adopted Specific Plans which identify and accommodate infrastructure needs and requirements. Any mitigation required is identified in each specific plan’s EIR.
Seismic, Geologic, and Soil Hazards
The San Francisco Bay Area is a seismically active region with numerous active faults. No active faults run through the City, although several are present in the surrounding region. Geologists with the U.S. Geological Survey and other agencies foresee a 62 percent probability of a magnitude 6.7 or greater earthquake in the San Francisco Bay region before 2032. Seismic, Geologic, and Soils Hazards are more specifically addressed in each specific plan’s EIR.
Flooding
The principal surface water drainages in the City are the San Tomas Aquino Creek, Saratoga Creek, and Calabazas Creek, which all originate in the Santa Cruz Mountains and drain northward across the urbanized Santa Clara Valley floor before discharging into the San Francisco Bay. All of these creeks have been channelized and substantially modified to reduce flood hazards in the City. The City’s storm drain system is managed by the City of Santa Clara Public Works Department and consists of curb inlets that collect and channel surface water into a series of pipelines beneath City public rights-of-way. Stormwater is conveyed through these underground pipelines to the channelized creeks within the City, which then flow into the San Francisco Bay. During severe storms, flooding can occur in localized areas along streams running through the City.
Flood zone mapping by the Federal Emergency Management Authority (FEMA) indicates that approximately ten percent of the City is located within a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA).
None of the areas identified on the sites inventory/where housing development is approved/proposed are located in a SFHA.
Non-Governmental Constraints
Locally and regionally, there are several constraints that hinder the City’s ability to accommodate the community’s housing needs. The high cost of land, rising development costs, and neighborhood opposition make it expensive for developers to build affordable housing. These constraints may result in housing that is not affordable to low and moderate income households or may render residential construction economically infeasible for developers. While local government has little influence on larger market factors such as interest rates, its policies and
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
regulations can act as constraints that affect both the amount of residential development that takes place and the affordability of housing.
Land Availability
In 2022, fewer than five acres of vacant parcels (including right-of-way properties) are zoned for residential or mixed use development throughout the City, including in the three focus areas for future development (El Camino Real, Lawrence Station, and Tasman East). Of those sites identified as appropriate for new housing, some are too small to accommodate higher density development unless combined with adjacent parcels. The City revised its General Plan designations in 2010, which were supplemented through the Specific Plan process, to encourage high-quality infill redevelopment that includes higher-density housing in addition to commercial businesses in some locations. According to the City of Santa Clara website, there are currently 64 development projects pending, approved, under construction or completed, with most projects clustered around El Camino Real, Lawrence Station, and Tasman East.
Community Resistance
Historically there has been community opposition to higher density residential infill development proposed along major transportation corridors, particularly when that development is located directly adjacent to long-established single-family neighborhoods. The relatively shallow depth of many of these properties can make the transition between existing low density single-family homes and proposed higher density residential challenging. Several substantial medium-and high-density developments have, however, been approved in spite of such opposition. Over the past 20 years, affordability for lower and moderate income households has not been the primary concern for community opposition to residential development. Instead, community resistance has been based on density, traffic impacts, and parking.
Approximately 247 acres of vacant and underutilized land has been approved, through adoption of Specific Plans, for new higher-density residential or mixed use redevelopment in three focus areas: Lawrence Station, Tasman East, and Patrick Henry Drive. Directing higher density housing to commercial areas, with convenient access to transportation and retail services, and separation from lower-density existing neighborhoods may reduce community opposition. City regulations that require appropriate transitions between uses and densities, and adequate parking, could reduce some o community opposition to the approval of new housing.
In addition, the enactment of AB 2011 in 2022 mandates ministerial approval along commercial corridors of most residential projects that meet the minimum density requirements of that bill.
Such projects must provide an affordability component to qualify, such as 15% low-income units, but this affordability percentage is already mandated by the City’s inclusionary zoning ordinance, and so all projects with at least 10 units will meet the affordability requirement of AB 2011. Given that the City will no longer have the discretion to deny such projects, community resistance will not be able to stop such projects from going forward along commercial corridors.
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
National Construction Costs
Market constraints substantially influence the cost of housing and pose a challenge to providing housing affordable for all income levels. Land prices are typically the most significant component of the cost. The cost of land has increased rapidly over the past decade. Construction costs and fluctuating interest rates are also major contributors to the increasing cost of housing in the San Francisco Bay Area.
Construction costs vary widely according to the type of development, with multi-family housing generally less expensive to construct than single-family homes. However, wide variation within each construction type exists depending on the size of the unit and the number and quality of amenities provided. Construction costs can be broken down into two primary categories:
materials and labor. A major component of the cost of housing is the cost of building materials, such as wood and wood-based products, cement, asphalt, roofing materials, and pipe. The availability and demand for such materials affect prices for these goods. An indicator of construction costs is Building Valuation Data compiled by the International Code Council (ICC).
The unit costs compiled by the ICC include structural, electrical, plumbing, and mechanical work, in addition to interior finish and normal site preparation. The data is national and does not consider regional differences and does not include the price of the land upon which the building is built. The national average for development costs per square foot for apartments and singlefamily homes in the first quarter of 2022 are $150-$500 per square foot depending on size and type, with an average of approximately $200 per square foot.
For multi-family apartment buildings, the type of parking is a key variable in the overall cost of construction. For lower density buildings (2-4 story wood-frame buildings), in which surface parking is provided, construction costs are in the $175 per square foot range. For projects that include structured parking, the garage construction costs add about $20,000 per parking stall to the $175 per square foot for the units. Site-specific constraints, such as flood hazards, could add additional costs if mitigations are required. Again, depending on the size and type of construction the national average is $35,000 to $65,000 per unit.
These costs also exclude the cost of land and soft costs, such as entitlements and financing.
Reduction in amenities and the quality of building materials (above a minimum acceptability for health, safety, and adequate performance) could lower costs and associated sales prices or rents.
In addition, prefabricated factory-built housing may provide for lower priced housing by reducing construction and labor costs. Another factor related to construction costs is development density. As the number of units increases, overall costs generally decrease due to economies of scale. The City’s ability to mitigate high construction costs is limited without direct subsidies.
Fee Analysis
Below is a fee analysis for two single family and two multifamily scenarios that illustrate the approximate fees for the hypothetical projects. Some fees are project specific and will be calculated based on the project type, location, and narrative.
Table 13.5-8: Fee Analysis Scenarios
Single-Family
A new home on an empty lot in an existing
neighborhood; no significant grading or other
complicating factors
Multi-Family
A new multi-family project on an empty lot in an
existing neighborhood; no significant grading or
other complicating factors
Scenarios
Single-Family
Small: 2,600 residential sq ft
Large: 5,000 residential sq ft
*Assuming no parking
Multi-Family
Small: 10,000 residential sq ft + 3,750 parking sq ft;
10 units
Large: 93,750 residential sq ft + 40,000 parking sq
ft; 100 units
Table 13.5-9: Fee Analysis
Action/Activity Fee
PLANNING ENTITLEMENT FEES
Pre-Application
- Single Family
- Planning Review
- Project Clearance Committee Review
$476 + Technology Fee (3.37%)
$3,179 + Technology Fee (3.37%)
$5,442 + Technology Fee (3.37%)
Architectural Review
- Over the Counter
- Single Family (that require a Development
Review Hearing)
- New development – Non-SFR
- Design Consultant Review
No Charge
$893 + Technology Fee (3.37%)
$32,529 + Technology Fee (3.37%)
Deposit of Consultant Estimated Costs + Citywide
Overhead + Technology Fee (3.37%)
Stormwater Management Plan Review $813
BUILDING PERMIT FEES
Single-Family/Duplex/ADU Residential Scaled Permit Fee
Plan Check
Project Size
1 to 250 sq. ft. $656.55 +Technology Fee (3.37%)
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Table 13.5-9: Fee Analysis
Action/Activity Fee
251 to 1,000 sq. ft.
- First 250 sq. ft.
- Each additional 100 sq. ft. or fraction thereof
1,001 to 3,000 sq. ft.
- First 1,000 sq. ft.
- Each additional 100 sq. ft. or fraction thereof
3,001 to +
- First 3,000 sq. ft.
- Each additional 100 sq. ft. or fraction thereof
$656.55 + Technology Fee (3.37%)
$262.62 + Technology Fee (3.37%)
$2,626.23 + Technology Fee (3.37%)
$131.31 + Technology Fee (3.37%)
$5,252.45 + Technology Fee (3.37%)
$65.66 + Technology Fee (3.37%)
Inspection
Project Size
1 to 250 sq. ft.
251 to 1,000 sq. ft.
- First 250 sq. ft.
- Each additional 100 sq. ft. or fraction thereof
1,001 to 3,000 sq. ft.
- First 1,000 sq. ft.
- Each additional 100 sq. ft. or fraction thereof
3,001 to +
- First 3,000 sq. ft.
- Each additional 100 sq. ft. or fraction thereof
$737.10
$737.10
$226.05
$2,432.42
$191.64
$6,265.31
$95.82
Table 13.5-9: Fee Analysis
Action/Activity Fee
Commercial/Multi-Family/Industrial Scaled Permit Fee
Plan Check
Project Valuation
$1 to $1,000
$1,001 to $10,000
- First $1,000
- Each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof
$10,001 to $75,000
- First $10,000
- Each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof
$75,001 to $150,000
- First $75,000
- Each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof
$150,001 to $750,000
- First $150,000
- Each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof
$750,001 to $3,000,000
- First $750,000
- Each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof
$3,000,001 to $10,000,000
- First $3,000,000
- Each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof
$10,000,001 to +
- First $10,000,000
- Each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof
$109.42 + Technology Fee (3.37%)
$109.42 + Technology Fee (3.37%)
$18.23 + Technology Fee (3.37%)
$273.56 + Technology Fee (3.37%)
$15.99 + Technology Fee (3.37%)
$1,313.12 + Technology Fee (3.37%)
$20.34 + Technology Fee (3.37%)
$2,845.07 + Technology Fee (3.37%)
$7.10 + Technology Fee (3.37%)
$7,112.69 + Technology Fee (3.37%)
$5.00 + Technology Fee (3.37%)
$18,383.57 + Technology Fee (3.37%)
$2.93 + Technology Fee (3.37%)
$38,955.65 + Technology Fee (3.37%)
$1.46 + Technology Fee (3.37%)
Inspection Permit
$1 to $1,000
$1,001 to $10,000
- First $1,000
- Each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof
$10,001 to $75,000
- First $10,000
$92.13 + Technology Fee (3.37%)
$92.13 + Technology Fee (3.37%)
$38.90 + Technology Fee (3.37%)
$441.47 + Technology Fee (3.37%)
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Table 13.5-9: Fee Analysis
Action/Activity Fee
- Each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof
$75,001 to $150,000
- First $75,000
- Each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof
$150,001 to $750,000
- First $150,000
- Each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof
$750,001 to $3,000,000
- First $750,000
- Each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof
$3,000,001 to $10,000,000
- First $3,000,000
- Each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof
$10,000,001 to +
- First $10,000,000
- Each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof
$18.15 + Technology Fee (3.37%)
$1,621.60 + Technology Fee (3.37%)
$23.10 + Technology Fee (3.37%)
$3,353.80 + Technology Fee (3.37%)
$10.07 + Technology Fee (3.37%)
$9,397.97 + Technology Fee (3.37%)
$4.01 + Technology Fee (3.37%)
$18,427.40 + Technology Fee (3.37%)
$3.72 + Technology Fee (3.37%)
$44,502.16 + Technology Fee (3.37%)
$1.85 + Technology Fee (3.37%)
Technology Fee 3.37% of Building Permit Fee, Electrical Permit Fee, Plumbing Permit Fee, Mechanical Permit Fee,
and Plan Check & Sign Fee
Building Conformance Fee Valuation x $0.00032
Plan Review Fees
Plan Review Fee (including building, mechanical,
electrical & plumbing)
75% of building permit fee
Title 24 Energy Conservation Plan Review 20% of building permit fee 3-B Electrical Permit Fees
Minimum Permit Fee
Permit Issuance
$209 + Technology Fee (3.37%)
$87 + Technology Fee (3.37%)
System Fee Schedule
New Buildings or Alterations
- Residential (per sq ft.) $0.22/sq ft. + Technology Fee (3.37%) $0.08/sq ft + Technology Fee (3.37%)
Table 13.5-9: Fee Analysis
Action/Activity Fee
- New Garages, Carports and Accessory
Buildings (per sq ft.)
3-C Mechanical Permit – New Buildings
Residential $0.08/sq ft. + Technology Fee (3.37%)
3-C Plumbing Permit – New Buildings
Residential $0.08/sq ft. + Technology Fee (3.37%)
3-G Grading Plan Review Fees
50 cubic yards or less
51 to 100 cubic yards
101 to 1,000 cubic yards
1,001 to 10,000 cubic yards
10,001 to 100,000 cubic yards – base
Each additional 10,000 cubic yards
100,001 to 200,000 cubic yards – base
Each additional 10,000 cubic yards
200,001 cubic yards or more – base
Each additional 10,000 cubic yards
No Fee
$329.00 + Technology Fee (3.37%)
$875.00 + Technology Fee (3.37%)
$1,312.00 + Technology Fee (3.37%)
$2,188.00 + Technology Fee (3.37%)
$97.00 + Technology Fee (3.37%)
$3,063.00 + Technology Fee (3.37%)
$219.00 + Technology Fee (3.37%)
$5,252.00 + Technology Fee (3.37%)
$110 + Technology Fee (3.37%)
3-H Grading Permit Fees
100 cubic yards or less
101 to 1,000 cubic yards – base
Each additional 100 cubic yards – base
1,001 to 10,000 cubic yards
Each additional 1,000 cubic yards
10,001 to 100,000 cubic yards – base
Each additional 10,000 cubic yards
100,001 cubic yards or more – base
Each additional 10,000 cubic yards
$441.00 + Technology Fee (3.37%)
$441.00 + Technology Fee (3.37%)
$73.00 + Technology Fee (3.37%)
$1,106.00 + Technology Fee (3.37%)
$49.00 + Technology Fee (3.37%)
$1,547.00 + Technology Fee (3.37%)
$196.00 + Technology Fee (3.37%)
$3,316.00 + Technology Fee (3.37%)
$98.00 + Technology Fee (3.37%)
Multi-Family Monitoring Fee $119/unit
AHA Affordable Housing Agreements – For Sale $3,771/agreement Affordable Housing Application Fee $50/application
AHA Affordable Housing Agreements – MF For
Rental
$5,113/agreement
AHA Affordable Housing Agreements –
Amendments
$1,990/agreement
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Table 13.5-9: Fee Analysis
Action/Activity Fee
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
Affordable Housing Fees
For Sale
- Residential
- Single Family Home
- Townhome
- Condominium
Rental Residential
Any tenure type
Fees shall be equal to the difference between the
unrestricted appraised market value (“Initial
Market Value”) of the unit and the Affordable
Sales Price of the unit, multiplied by the fractional
amount due. The Initial Market Value of the last
unit sold shall be the basis for calculating the inlieu fee $22.22/sq ft
Traffic Impact Fee
- Multi-family Residential
- Single-family Residential
$566.27/dwelling unit
$1,274.11/dwelling unit
School Fee $4.08/sq ft
Park Fee
- Multi-family Residential
- Single-family Residential
$30,659 - $36,500
$38,068 - $45,320
ELECTRIC UTILITY
Engineering Plan Check
Electric, per sheet
- 1st – 3rd check
- 4th and subsequent review
$292.48/sheet
$41.63/sheet
Time of Use Meter Installation – Residential $298.89/meter
FIRE/STATE MANDATED
Building Plans
- 30% of Building Department Fee
- Minimum: 3.5 hours
$756
Planning Application Review $865
Design Review/Consultation $216/hour
Miscellaneous Inspections/Plan Reviews $216/hour
Table 13.5-9: Fee Analysis
Action/Activity Fee
PUBLIC WORKS
Sanitary Sewer Outlet (choose the greatest)
Residential – Single Family
- Per unit
- Per lot
- Per acre
Conveyance Fee
Condo & Planned Unit Development
- Per unit
- Per acre
Conveyance Fee
$441.07/unit
$1,658.38/lot
$7,510.26/acre
$4,218/dwelling unit
$441.07/unit
$7,510.26/acre
$4,218/dwelling unit
Recreation Tax (Bedroom) New Construction Permit
- First bedroom
- Each additional
$15
$5/bedroom
Project Clearance Committee Review:
- Preliminary application
- Architectural review
$861.44
$861.44
Cost Analysis for Development
- Minor (ADU, SFR, Up to 4 Residential Units)
- Major
$416.31
$1,011.95
Engineering Plan Review – Initial Review
- First three (3) reviews
- Fourth and subsequent review
$168/sheet
$34/sheet
WATER/SEWER
Wastewater Treatment Plant Capacity Fee Project Specific Engineering Plan Review Project Specific
Project Clearance Committee Review $601
Hard Costs
Hard costs for a hypothetical 2,600 square foot home are about $420 per square foot, while for a 5,000 square foot home they are about $525 per square. For a hypothetical small multi-family unit, the hard costs are $415 per square foot, and $425 per square foot for a large multi-family unit.
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Soft Costs
Soft costs are generally assumed to be around 30% of hard costs (plus 5% contingency). Generally, single family soft costs are $133 per square foot for small and $147 per square foot for large.
Multifamily soft costs range between $165 and $159 per square foot.
Land Costs
According to the California Building Industry Association, the cost of land represents a substantial portion of the total housing development cost but has little impact on the maintenance and improvement of existing stock. In many markets, up to 25 percent of housing costs are attributable to land costs. The average land costs in California are significantly higher than land costs in other states.
Land costs for single family homes are between $210,000 and $2,510,000. Land costs for apartments and condos range between $400,000 and $1,600,000. Due in large part to limited land availability in the City, residential land has not been widely available for sale. High costs will continue to present challenges for the production of affordable housing in the City.
Availability of Financing
The availability of financing affects a person’s ability to purchase or improve a home. The primary concern in a review of lending activity is to see whether home financing is generally available in the community. Financing new residential development can be a significant cost; however, residential financing for both single family and multiple family housing is generally available.
Developers of single-family projects often secure loans for land acquisition, installation of improvements, and construction. Land acquisition and development loan rates are typically the prime rate plus 0.5 to 2 percent, which is currently, in 2022, between 3.99 to 5.4 percent. Mortgage rates were low for previous years but are now increasing. Apartment loan rates are generally lower. Developers of affordable housing face significant challenges in securing financing. Due to the limited possible return from rents or sales prices of affordable units, many private lenders are unable to finance affordable projects due to the rate of return. Thus, affordable developers must rely on community lending divisions, nonprofit institutions, grants and special loans, and local assistance.
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
This page was left intentionally blank.
Government Constraints ...................................................................................................................... 1 Environmental and Infrastructure Constraints ................................................................................ 23 Non-Governmental Constraints ........................................................................................................ 25 Table 13.5-1: 2010-2035 General Plan Land Use Designations (Residential) .................................... 2 Table 13.5-2: Residential Development Standards ............................................................................. 5 Table 13.5-3: Parking Standards .......................................................................................................... 7 Table 13.5-4: Permitted Housing Types Within Residential Zoning Classifications ....................... 8 Table 13.5-5: Planning and Development Fees ................................................................................. 14 Table 13.5-6: Regional Comparison of Planning and Development Total Fees (includes entitlement, building permits, and impact fees) Per Unit ............................................................... 15 Table 13.5-7: Planning and Permit Procedures................................................................................. 17 Table 13.5-8: Fee Analysis Scenarios ................................................................................................. 29 Table 13.5-9: Fee Analysis .................................................................................................................. 29
Chapter 13.6
Housing Resources
This section analyzes the resources available for the development, rehabilitation, and preservation of housing in Santa Clara. This includes an evaluation of the availability of land resources, the City’s ability to satisfy its share of the region’s future housing needs, the financial resources available to support the provision of affordable housing, and the administrative resources available to assist in implementing the City’s housing programs.
Availability of Sites for Housing
A critical component of the Housing Element is the identification of land suitable for residential development including vacant sites and sites having the potential for redevelopment. Santa Clara is a highly urbanized community that has very little vacant, uncommitted land for new development. The following discussion summarizes the residential growth potential in each of these areas and concludes with an assessment of how these sites can address the City’s share of regional housing needs.
Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)
California General Plan law requires that every city and county have properties appropriately zoned to accommodate their fair share of regional housing need. The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) allocates a numeric regional housing goal to the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). ABAG is then mandated to distribute the numerical goal among the cities and counties in the region. This share is known as the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). The RHNA process’ goal is to ensure a fair distribution of new housing construction among cities and counties in the region so that every community may plan for a mix of housing types for all economic segments. The housing allocation targets are not building requirements; rather, they are planning goals for each community to accommodate through appropriate planning policies and land use regulations. Allocation targets are intended to ensure that adequate sites and zoning are made available to address anticipated housing demand during the Housing Element planning period.
The sixth cycle RHNA for the ABAG region covers an eight-year planning period (January 31, 2023 – January 31, 2031) and is divided into four income categories: very low, low, moderate, and above moderate. HCD determined that the projected housing need for the Bay Area region (including the counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma) is 444,176 new housing units for this Housing Element planning
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
period. As determined by ABAG, the City of Santa Clara’s allocation for the 2023-2031 planning period is 11,632 housing units, with the units distributed among the four income categories as shown in Table 13.6-1.
Table 13.6-1 City of Santa Clara RHNA 2023-2031
Income Group
Income Category
(% AMI)
RHNA
(Housing Units)
Percentage of
Total Housing
Units
Very Low <50% 2,872 25%
Low 50-80% 1,653 14%
Moderate 80-120% 1,981 17%
Above Moderate >120% 5,126 44%
Total 11,632 100%
Source(s): Final Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Plan: San Francisco Bay Area, 2023-2031, Updated March 2022.
Note(s):
1 AMI = Area Median Income
2 Pursuant to AB 2634, local jurisdictions are required to project the housing needs of extremely low-income households (0-30% AMI) and consider this income group a subset of the very low-income category. In estimating the number of extremely low-income households, a jurisdiction can use 50% of the very low-income allocation or apportion the very low-income figure based on Census data.
Progress Toward the RHNA
Since the RHNA uses June 30, 2022, as the baseline for growth projections for the 2023-2031 Housing Element planning period, jurisdictions may claim units approved and proposed that are anticipated to be complete (have a Certificate of Occupancy) after June 30, 2022.
Approved and proposed residential development projects credited toward the RHNA include a variety of affordable and market-rate projects in various stages of the development process. Most of these projects are concentrated within Specific Plan areas and along major thoroughfares, where residential development is expected to continue throughout the planning period. These projects are credited toward the RHNA based on the affordability and unit count of the development. Combined, a total of 11,946 units are expected to be completed within the planning period, as shown in Table 13.6-2.
Approved Projects
Approved residential development projects credited toward the 2023-2031 RHNA have been reviewed for compliance with applicable Codes and regulations and have received planning entitlement approval. These projects will proceed through the building permit application review, issuance, and construction process with anticipated completion and occupancy permits to be finalized on or after June 30, 2022.
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Pending or Proposed Projects
Seven projects in various stages of planning review are included as proposed projects. These sites are included although there is no certainty those units will be achieved because the proposals have not been approved, are currently under staff review, or are pending an application submittal. The identified realistic capacity for these sites is the total units included in the preliminary proposals. Since there is no guarantee that the projects will be approved or developed, in the case a proposed development falls through, the sites are still available to accommodate those identified units and may be able to count toward the lower-income RHNA depending on site density and size. Affordability for these projects is assumed based on the site’s location per Specific Plan requirements, the City’s inclusionary housing ordinance requirements, or a developer/affordable housing agreement. The status of the following projects is as of December 2022.
After credits, approved, and pending projects are considered, the City has a remaining RHNA of 4,Şşş units.
Table 13.6-2 Pending and Approved Projects
Site/Credit Type
AFFORDABILITY CATEGORIES
Project Status Affordability Very Low [30-50% AMI] Low [50-80% AMI] Moderate [80-120% AMI] Above
Moderate
[above 120% AMI] Total Units
RHNA 2023-2031 2,872 1,653 1,981 5,126 11,632 Tasman East Focus Area Specific Plan (TE) TE 2233 Calle Del Mundo (St. Anton) - - 23 172 196 Under Construction per Sect. 17.40.115 of City Code: 12% affordable at 100% AMI TE 2300 Calle De Luna (Related) - - 84 616 700 Under Construction per Sect. 17.40.115 of City Code: 12% affordable at 100% AMI TE 5123 Calle Del Sol (Ensemble) - Phase I & II - - 60 442 503 Approved/Under Construction 1 per Sect. 17.40.115 of City Code: 12% affordable at 100% AMI TE 2200 Calle De Luna (Holland) - - 69 510 580 Approved per Sect. 17.40.115 of City Code: 12% affordable at 100% AMI TE 2225 Calle de Luna & 2232 Calle del Mundo - - 44 326 371 Approved per Sect. 17.40.115 of City Code: 12% affordable at 100% AMI TE 2263 Calle Del Mundo (Ensemble) - - 36 264 301 Approved per Sect. 17.40.115 of City Code: 12% affordable at 100% AMI TE 2302/2310 Calle Del Mundo (Ensemble) - - 18 132 151 Approved per Sect. 17.40.115 of City Code: 12% affordable at 100% AMI TE 2343 Calle Del Mundo (Summerhill) - - 41 305 347 Approved per Sect. 17.40.115 of City Code: 12% affordable at 100% AMI TE 2354 Calle Del Mundo (Ensemble) - - 10 78 89 Approved per Sect. 17.40.115 of City Code: 12% affordable at 100% AMI TE 2101 Tasman Drive (Related) - - 114 836 950 Proposed per Sect. 17.40.115 of City Code: 12% affordable at 100% AMI TE 5185 Lafayette (Ensemble) - - 32 238 271 Proposed per Sect. 17.40.115 of City Code: 12% affordable at 100% AMI subtotal TE project(s) - - 531 3,919 4,459 Patrick Henry Drive Focus Area Specific Plan (PHD) PHD Summerhill 15 15 15 255 300 Proposed per adopted SP: 15% affordable - 5/5/5 split at 50%/80%/120% AMI PHD Sares Regis 40 40 40 680 800 Pre-application 2 per adopted SP: 15% affordable - 5/5/5 split at 50%/80%/120% AMI PHD Walnut Hill 20 20 20 353 416 Pre-application 3 per adopted SP: 15% affordable - 5/5/5 split at 50%/80%/120% AMI subtotal PHD project(s) 75 75 75 1,288 1,516 - Lawrence Station Area Plan (LSAP) LSAP 3580 Rambla Pl (Summerhill) - 5 48 233 286 Under Construction per Affordable Housing Agreement LSAP 2961 Corvin Drive (Toll Brothers) - - 4 34 38 Under Construction per Affordable Housing AgreementLSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) - - 5 40 45 Under Construction per Affordable Housing AgreementLSAP 3517 Ryder St (Westlake Urban) - - - 328 328 Approved Exempt, no affordability component subtotal LSAP project(s) - 5 57 635 697 - Freedom Circle Focus Area 3905 Freedom Circle Mixed-Use Project (Greystar) 54 54 54 914 1,075 Approved per Affordable Housing Agreement: 15% affordable - 5/5/5 split at 50%/80%/120% AMI subtotal FC project(s) 54 54 54 914 1,075 -
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Site/Credit Type
AFFORDABILITY CATEGORIES
Project Status Affordability
Very Low
[30-50% AMI]
Low
[50-80% AMI]
Moderate
[80-120% AMI]
Above
Moderate
[above 120% AMI] Total Units
Other Villa Bella Residential Project - 4 4 48 56 Under Construction per Inclusionary Ordinance: 15% affordable at 100% AMI3035 El Camino Real Residential Project - - 4 44 48 Under Construction per Affordable Housing Agreement: 10% affordable at or below 100% AMI + 0.8 fractional in-lieu fee/distribution of affordable units - averages to a maximum of 100 percent Area Median Income 3945 Stevens Creek Blvd - The Meridian - 59 - - 59 Under Construction per Developer Agreement: 100% affordable at 80% AMI 2330 Monroe Street Affordable Housing Project (Freebird) 32 32 - 1 65 Under Construction per Affordable Housing Agreement: 100% affordable (minus 1 managers unit) - 50/50 split at V LOW/LOW Agrihood Mixed-Use Development Project 109 54 18 180 361 Under Construction per Affordable Housing Agreement: 160 mixed-income apartments (10% affordable at 120% AMI (16 units)) and 165 affordable senior apartments (54 units at 30% AMI; 55 units at 50% AMI; 54 units at 60% AMI; 2 units at 120% AMI) Laguna Clara II (Equity) - - 9 174 183 Under Construction per Affordable Housing Agreement: 5% affordable at 100% AMI Gateway Crossings (Hunter/Storm) - Phase 1 - 37 36 652 725 Under Construction per Developer Agreement, Phase 1: 37 affordable units at 80% AMI + 36 affordable units at 100% AMI Clara Gardens - 3550 El Camino Real 120 - - - 120 Approved/Under Construction 4 per Affordable Housing Agreement: 100% affordable at 30-50% AMI 1530-1540 Pomeroy Avenue Residential Project 8 Approved no affordability component Related Santa Clara - Phase 1 - - 20 1,660 1,680 Approved per Development Area Plan: 20 affordable units (10% of 200) at 120% AMI [future phases, 50 affordable units at 120%] Gateway Crossings (Hunter/Storm) - Phase 2 840 Proposed per Developer Agreement͗ϰϮƵŶŝƚƐĂƚϴϬйĂŶĚϰϮĂƚϭϬϬйD/950 Monroe Street Mixed-Use Project - - 8 46 54 Proposed per Inclusionary Ordinance: 15% affordable at 100% AMI subtotal other project(s) 261 ϮϮϴ ϭϰϭ ϯ,ϱϲϵ 4,199
Total Pending and Approved Projects 3ϴϵ 3ϲϭ 8ϱϳ ϭϬ,ϯϯϵ 11,946 Remaining RHNA 2023-2031 2,48ϯ 1,ϮϵϮ 1,1Ϯϰ (ϱ,Ϯϭϯ) (314) Source(s): City of Santa Clara, June 2022. Note(s): All calculations were rounded down. There are likely discrepancies due to rounding down between the row and column totals. 1 Phase I building permit issued 4/18/22 for 311 units; the remaining 192 units are approved. 2 Application expected Dec 2022. 3 Application expected early 2023. 4 Building permit issued for interior work (8/4/22); building permit for exterior work pending corrections, for 43 units. The remaining 77 units are approved. ϰϮ ϰϮ ϳϱϲ
ϴ
Sites Inventory Methodology and Assumptions
Default Density Assumptions
The California Government Code states that if a local government has adopted density standards consistent with the population-based criteria set by State law (at least 30 units per acre for Santa Clara), HCD is obligated to accept sites with those density standards (30 units per acre or higher) as appropriate for accommodating the jurisdiction’s share of regional housing need for lowerincome households. Default density is considered by the State as sufficient to provide marketbased incentives for the development of housing for lower-income households.
The Santa Clara General Plan (adopted in 2010) identifies ten Focus Areas appropriate for higher density residential and mixed-use development. A detailed discussion of density assumptions and the affordability level of sites is included below.
Site Suitability and Lot Consolidation
Consistent with Housing Element law related to the suitability of small and large sites, the inventory of lower-income sites is limited to parcels between 0.5 and 10 acres in size. Due to the City’s historical parcelization pattern, the inclusion of small sites in the inventory is expected. To adhere to State law and HCD guidance, small sites (under 0.5 acres) are not used to meet the lower-income RHNA. There are 10 available sites included in the inventory with a parcel size under 0.5 acres. All of these are located in the Tasman East Specific Plan area and range between
0.458 and 0.482 acres. Parcels of similar size have been developed with residential within the last housing element cycle in the Tasman East Specific Plan area. While these sites have densities that are appropriate for lower-income RHNA sites and meet the default density standard, they are all credited toward the moderate- and above moderate-income categories. No sites in the inventory are larger than 10 acres. Although many of the parcels identified as sites are adjacent to one another, no lot consolidation is assumed.
Realistic Capacity and Suitability of Non-Vacant Sites
Housing Element law requires jurisdictions to demonstrate that the land inventory is adequate to accommodate that jurisdiction’s share of the region’s projected growth. Santa Clara has a remaining RHNA of 4,Şşş units to be achieved through the identification of sites. The City has various residential and mixed-use development opportunities on sites that are currently available, although all sites are non-vacant. All available sites are within Specific Plan areas. Each project shown in Table 13.6-3, demonstrates that the project’s actual density was developed higher than the minimum density allowed. Because each Specific Plan has its own distinct land
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
use designations and affordability requirements, realistic capacity for available sites was calculated based on the average of percent above minimum density allowed per Specific Plan of existing and approved projects (see Table 13.6-3). Percent above the minimum density allowed was used to remain conservative, realistic, and to account for the wide range of Specific Plan densities allowed (from 20 du/ac in Lawrence Station to 350 du/ac maximum in Tasman East). In every case, claiming realistic capacity using the methodology and assumptions defined here yields total unit counts below the maximum density allowed.
Development Trends and Realistic Capacity
Current development trends in the Specific Plan areas show that a range of medium to high residential density is feasible, realistic, and appropriate to accommodate housing for all income levels. Since the City’s adoption of the Lawrence Station Area Plan and Tasman East Specific Plan, Santa Clara has seen an uptick in development and development interest. The following projects, shown in Table 13.6-3, show examples of high-density development coming in well above the minimum densities.
Table 13.6-3 High-Density Projects in Specific Plan Areas Project
Name Zoning
Density
Range
(du/ac) Acres
# of
Units
Actual
Density Status
Included
in 6th
Cycle
% above
allowed
minimum
density
Tasman East Focus Area Specific Plan
TE 2233 Calle
Del Mundo (St.
Anton)
Transit
Neighborhood
100 to
350 1.22 196 160 Under
Construction Yes 160%
TE 2200 Calle
De Luna
(Holland)
Transit
Neighborhood
100 to
350 2.44 580 237 Approved Yes 237%
TE 2300 Calle
De Luna
(Related)
Transit
Neighborhood
100 to
350 5.02 700 139 Under
Construction Yes 139%
TE 2343 Calle
Del Mundo
(Summerhill)
Transit
Neighborhood
100 to
350 2.63 347 131 Approved Yes 131%
TE 2302/2310
Calle Del
Mundo
(Ensemble)
Transit
Neighborhood 60 to 350 0.77 151 196 Approved Yes 327%
Project
Name Zoning
Density
Range
(du/ac) Acres
# of
Units
Actual
Density Status
Included
in 6th
Cycle
% above
allowed
minimum
density
TE 2354 Calle
Del Mundo
(Ensemble)
Transit
Neighborhood 60 to 350 0.50 89 178 Approved Yes 297%
Lawrence Station Area Plan
2904 Corvin
Drive (Corvin
Supportive
Housing)
LSAP/Very
High Density
Residential
51 to 100 1.08 145 134
Building
Permit final
June 2022
No 263%
3560 Rambla Pl
(Summerhill)
LSAP/Very
High Density
Residential
51 to 100 2.49 251 100
Building
Permit final
Sept 2021
No 196%
3578 Rambla Pl
(Summerhill)
LSAP/Very
High Density
Residential
51 to 100 1.72 126 73
Building
Permit final
March 2022
No 143%
3517 Ryder St
(Westlake
Urban)
LSAP/Very
High Density
Residential
51 to 100 3.92 328 83 Approved Yes 163%
Source(s): City of Santa Clara, 2022.
Realistic Capacity Calculations
These sites show sufficient capacity to meet and exceed the identified housing need. A detailed listing of sites, consistent with State law, is included in the document Appendix B.
Consistent with HCD Guidelines, the following methodology for determining realistic capacity on each identified site must account for land use controls and site improvements. x Lower-density residential sites: realistic capacity for sites in land use designations that allow less than 30 units per acre is calculated at minimum density allowed. This includes the Medium Density Residential (20-36 du/ac) designation in the Lawrence Station Area Plan. The identified sites in these designations are non-vacant. Minimum density was used to calculate a more conservative realistic capacity.
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
x Specific Plan sites: All sites are within adopted Specific Plan areas and have been vetted through City-led and community-focused planning processes. Specific Plan areas represent locations with opportunities for more intense development with limited impact on existing neighborhoods, per the City’s 2010-2035 General Plan. All available sites have been rezoned to reflect the uses and densities set forth in the respective Specific Plans.
These sites were selected for inclusion in this inventory due to their location, existing zoning that accommodate and incentivize higher densities, and potential for housing production.
All available sites are within Specific Plan areas. Each project shown in Table 13.6-3, demonstrates that the project’s actual density was developed higher than the minimum density allowed. Because each Specific Plan has its own distinct land use designations and affordability requirements, realistic capacity for available sites was calculated based on the average of percent above minimum density allowed per Specific Plan of existing and approved projects (see Table 13.6-3). Percent above the minimum density allowed was used to remain conservative, realistic, and to account for the wide range of Specific Plan densities allowed (from 20 du/ac in Lawrence Station to 350 du/ac maximum in Tasman East). In every case, claiming realistic capacity using the methodology and assumptions defined here yields total unit counts below the maximum density allowed.
The following averages were used to calculate realistic capacity, per Specific Plan area:
o Lawrence Station Area Plan: minimum densities x 191%
o Tasman East Focus Area Specific Plan: minimum densities x 215% o ȱ
¢ȱȱȱDZȱ¡ȱȱ¡ȱŝŘƖȱǻȱȱȱ ȱǼȱ ȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱ¡ȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱ
¢ȱȱȱȱǯ
Densities Appropriate for Accommodating Lower-Income Housing The capacity of sites that allow development densities of at least 30 units per acre are credited toward the lower-income RHNA based on State law. The California Government Code states that if a local government has adopted density standards consistent with the population-based criteria set by State law (at least 30 units per acre for Santa Clara), HCD is obligated to accept sites with those density standards (30 units per acre or higher) as appropriate for accommodating the jurisdiction’s share of regional housing need for lower-income households. All available sites included in this inventory, except for three sites zoned Medium Density Residential (20-36 du/ac), have density standards of 30 units per acre or higher. Located within the Lawrence Station Area Plan, the three sites zoned Medium Density Residential (20 – 36 du/ac) are credited toward the moderate- and above-moderate income categories.
To create a more conservative and realistic estimate of affordability for Santa Clara, available sites that qualify for one hundred percent affordable units based on the allowed density are split
evenly between the very low-, low-, and moderate-income categories ŚŖ percent, řŖ percent, and řŖ percent, respectively.
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Table 13.6-4 Specific Plan Land Use Designations
Land Use Designation
Min./Max.
Density
Meets
Default
Density
Number of
Parcels
Included
in 6th
Cycle
Total
Acreage of
Available
Sites
Tasman East Focus Area Specific Plan
Transit Neighborhood
(parcels less than 1 acre) 60 to 350 Yes 14 8.033
Transit Neighborhood
(parcels equal to or greater than 1 acre) 100 to 350 Yes 0 0 Tasman East Specific Plan Subtotal 14 8.033
Patrick Henry Drive Focus Area Specific Plan
Very High Density Residential 51 to 99 Yes 2 6.660
Village Residential 60 to 149 Yes 1 9.062
High Density Flex 60 to 149 Yes 4 9.568
Urban Village 100 to 149 Yes 5 12.986
Urban Center 120 to 250 Yes 1 3.821
Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan Subtotal 13 42.098
Lawrence Station Area Plan
Low Density Residential 8 to 19 No 0 0
Medium Density Residential 20 to 36 No 3 1.993
High Density Residential 37 to 50 Yes 0 0
Very High Density Residential 51 to 100 Yes 6 27.534
Lawrence Station Area Plan Subtotal 9 29.528
Source(s): Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan, March 2022. Lawrence Station Area Plan, Neighborhood Transit-Oriented Development Plan, Nov. 2016. Tasman East Focus Area Specific Plan, Nov. 2020.
Re-use of Sites
AB 1397 (2017) requires that specific parameters be placed on sites that were used in previous Housing Element planning cycles but did not develop and are identified in the current Housing Element to meet the lower-income RHNA. However, as noted in HCD guidance documents, due to updates in the prior planning period to the General Plan or other planning activities, such as the creation of a specific plan, some sites previously identified in the Housing Element may have been rezoned during intervening years to allow a higher density, thereby increasing the potential housing capacity of the site. Because the zoning characteristics of such a site have changed, that site can be considered a new site for the purposes of the housing element inventory.
All sites in this Housing Element are Specific Plan parcels, including some previously identified in the fifth cycle. Parcels identified in the fifth cycle subsequently rezoned to a higher density through their respective Specific Plan processes were not rezoned to accommodate a shortfall; rather, the rezoning was conducted to implement General Plan policy. Thus, no sites are subject to the reuse provisions of AB 1397 (2017).
No Net Loss Provision
Government Code Section 65863 stipulates that a jurisdiction must ensure that its Housing Element inventory can accommodate its share of the RHNA by income level throughout the 2023 to 2031 planning period. If a jurisdiction approves a housing project at a lower density or with fewer units by income category than identified in the Housing Element, it must quantify at the time of approval the remaining unmet housing need at each income level and determine whether there is sufficient capacity to meet that need. If not, the city must “identify and make available” additional adequate sites to accommodate the jurisdiction’s share of housing need by income level within 180 days of approving the reduced-density project. This provision is commonly referred to as the "no net loss” provision of Housing Element law.
Site Selection
The Housing Element sites inventory, in addition to the list of pending and approved projects, includes accessory dwelling unit (ADU) projections and vacant and underutilized sites within Specific Plan areas zoned for high-density residential and mixed-use development. These latter two categories have been used to demonstrate that the RHNA for the extremely low-, very low-, low- and moderate-income categories can be accommodated during the planning period. As the discussion below concludes, the sites have no identified constraints that would prevent development or reuse during the Housing Element period. Table 13.6-5 summarizes the sites inventory.
Table 13.6-5 Sites to Meet the RHNA
Site/Credit Type
Affordability Category
Total
Capacity
Very
Low
[30-50%
AMI]
Low
[50-80%
AMI]
Moderate
[80-120%
AMI]
Above
Moderate
[above
120%
AMI]
RHNA 2,872 1,653 1,981 5,126 11,632
Pending and Approved Projects 3ϴϵ 3ϲϭ 8ϱϳ ϭϬ,ϯϯϵ 11,946 ADU Projection 102 102 102 34 340
Available Specific Plan Sites Ϯ,ϴϴϴ Ϯ,ϭϰϯ Ϯ,ϰϲϱ 3ϭϰ ϳ,8ϭϬ Tasman East Focus Area Specific Plan Ϯϭϰ 1ϱϲ ϰϱϴ 2ϵϱ ϭ͕ϭϮϯ
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Site/Credit Type
Affordability Category
Total
Capacity
Very
Low
[30-50%
AMI]
Low
[50-80%
AMI]
Moderate
[80-120%
AMI]
Above
Moderate
[above
120%
AMI]
RHNA 2,872 1,653 1,981 5,126 11,632
Patrick Henry Drive Focus Area Specific Plan ϭ,ϴϮϵ ϭ,ϯϲϬ ϭ,ϯϲϬ - ϰ,ϱϰ9 Lawrence Station Area Plan 8ϰ5 ϲϮϳ ϲϰ7 ϭϵ 2,ϭϯϴ
Total 3,ϯϳϵ Ϯ,ϲϬϲ ϯ,ϰϮϰ ϭϬ,ϲϴϳ 22,09ϲ
Surplus ϭϴ% ϱϴ% ϳϯ% ϭϬϴ% ϳϯ%
Source(s): Final Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Plan: San Francisco Bay Area, 2023-2031, Updated March 2022. Technical Assistance for Local Planning, Housing – Using ADUs to Satisfy RHNA, Technical Memo, March 2022. Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan, March 2022. Lawrence Station Area Plan, Neighborhood TransitOriented Development Plan, Nov. 2016. Tasman East Focus Area Specific Plan, Nov. 2020.
Note(s): AMI = Area Median Income
ADU Projection
Since 2017, the State legislature has passed a series of laws that significantly increase the potential for the development of ADUs and Junior ADUs (JADUs) by removing development barriers, allowing ADUs through ministerial permits, and requiring jurisdictions to include programs in their housing element that incentivize ADU development. Interest in constructing ADUs is high in Santa Clara and continues to grow. In 2018, the City issued 21 ADU building permits. In 2019, the number increased to 51 annual building permits, with similar numbers in 2020 (45 ADU building permits) and 2021 (53 ADU building permits). This represents a 152 percent increase in ADU production in Santa Clara between 2018 and 2021. The City estimates that interest will continue to increase over the next few years, given the many single-family neighborhoods citywide that create capacity for additional ADUs. As of June 2022, 53 percent (or 16,103 parcels) of total parcels were zoned for single-family housing, totaling 2,504 acres. ADUs are permitted on single-family, multi-family, and mixed-use lots, including R1, R2, and R3 zone districts, which represent a significant number of lots in Santa Clara.
As an incentive to ADU production, the City does not charge a Planning fee for review/processing ADU requests. Also, State law allows jurisdictions to charge impact fees on ADUs over 750 square feet, but the City of Santa Clara does not. The City has also exempted ADUs/JADUs from providing parking (JADUs that convert a garage space/s are required to provide replacement parking for the primary dwelling).
The slight dip in ADU production in 2020 may be due to the COVD-19 pandemic and other events of 2020. In 2021, the City had the highest number of ADU building permits to date, which is likely more representative of ADU production moving forward based on ADU trends in Santa Clara,
new and pending favorable ADU legislation that created new incentives and streamlined processes to build ADUs, and the pent-up demand for additional housing in the Bay Area.
While it is impossible to predict with certainty the exact number of ADUs that will be developed during the planning period (2023-2031), the City conservatively estimates:
x An average of 43 ADUs per year will be constructed throughout the planning period. This reflects the average number of building permits issued for ADUs between 2018 and 2021.
Given the anticipated increase in ADUs over the near term, this is a conservative estimate. x A total of 340 ADUs can be predicted to be constructed during the planning period.
The affordability assumptions for ADU projections are based on ABAG’s ADU affordability analysis pre-certified by HCD1.
Available Specific Plan Sites
Plan Bay Area 2050 Growth Geographies
After nearly four years of technical analysis and deep engagement with Bay Area residents and partners, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and ABAG jointly adopted Plan Bay Area 2050 in October 2021. Plan Bay Area 2050 was developed in collaboration with Bay Area residents, partner agencies, and nonprofit organizations. Thirty-five strategies make up the heart of the plan to improve housing, the economy, transportation, and the environment across the Bay Area’s nine counties.
Throughout Plan Bay Area 2050, Growth Geographies are geographic areas used to guide where future growth in housing and jobs would be focused under the plan’s strategies over the next 30 years. These geographies are identified for growth either by local jurisdictions or because of their proximity to transit or access to opportunity.
All sites included in this Housing Element are considered Priority Development Areas (PDAs), defined as areas generally near existing job centers or frequent transit that are locally identified (i.e., identified by towns, cities, or counties) for housing and job growth. 2010-2035 General Plan Focus Areas, Focus Area Plans, and Related Planning Efforts
In 2010, the City of Santa Clara adopted its comprehensive 2010-2035 General Plan, which included identification of nine focus areas throughout the City, listed in Table 13.6-6. These areas were chosen for their potential to significantly define Santa Clara’s identity as a place in transition 1 ABAG estimates an affordability breakdown of ADUs as follows: 30% very low-income, 30% low-income, 30% moderate-income, and 10% above moderate-income. Technical Assistance for Local Planning, Housing – Using ADUs to Satisfy RHNA, Technical Memo, March 2022.
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
from a suburb to a regional economic center. The opportunity to develop at a higher density near transit is central to this new identity.
A comprehensive plan, such as a specific plan is a required prerequisite for new residential development within a focus area. The purpose of these plans and the prerequisite requirements ensure that new neighborhoods are self-sufficient, with easy access to retail, services, and public amenities. Specific Plans also ensure that adequate public services and facilities are provided in tandem with new development. In 2014, the City initiated updates to the Housing and Land Use Elements that identify and require future development to be comprehensively planned through the preparation of Specific Plans within the Lawrence Station and Tasman East Focus Areas.
Of the nine focus areas identified in the 2010-2035 General Plan, four have resulted in Specific Plans, three of which have been adopted. The Freedom Circle Future Focus Area was added to the General Plan in June 2022, while preparation of this sixth cycle Housing Element was well underway. A specific plan has not been drafted or adopted for this future focus area, and therefore the future focus area, with the exception of the Greystar site that had its own approved General Plan Amendment and Rezoning to allow residential development, was not included in the sites inventory. However, properties within that planning area could become available during the planning period if a specific plan were adopted, helping to guard against the loss of affordable housing capacity.
Table 13.6-6 2010-2035 General Plan Focus Areas
2010-2035 General Plan
Focus Area
Related Planning Effort Status
Existing
Downtown Focus Area Santa Clara Downtown Precise
Plan
Draft, Nov. 2022
Santa Clara Station Focus Area None
Stevens Creek Boulevard Focus Area None
El Camino Real Focus Area El Camino Real Specific Plan Draft, May 2021 Lawrence Station Focus Area Lawrence Station Area Plan Adopted, Nov. 2016 Tasman East Focus Area Tasman East Focus Area Specific
Plan
Adopted, Nov. 2018;
Revised, Nov. 2020
Great America Parkway Focus Area Patrick Henry Drive Focus Area Specific Plan
Adopted, Mar. 2022
Freedom Circle Focus Area Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan Adopted, June 2022 Future
Central Expressway Focus Area None
De La Cruz Focus Area None
Source(s): City of Santa Clara 2010-2035 General Plan, Nov. 2010. Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan, March 2022. Lawrence Station Area Plan, Neighborhood Transit-Oriented Development Plan, Nov. 2016. Tasman East Focus Area Specific Plan, Nov. 2020.
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Mixed-Use Developments
Although opportunities for residential and mixed-use development exist throughout Santa Clara based on existing General Plan land use policy and implementing zoning, along major corridors such as along El Camino Real, the City has focused the sites inventory in areas where development of residential uses is most likely to occur within the Housing Element planning period. This is due to development standards allowing very high densities, developer interest in residential development within Specific Plan areas, site size and location (near transit, major corridors, and highways), and recent development trends in the immediate and surrounding areas. The inclusion of nonresidential uses within mixed-use developments complements a transit-oriented neighborhood and will not affect the potential capacity on site because all available sites have minimum density requirements.
Most parcels included in this sixth cycle sites inventory have zoning that allows nonresidential uses in the form of mixed-use developments. Only one land use designation/zone district allows stand-alone nonresidential development.2 This land use policy illustrates the City’s commitment to incentivizing mixed-use districts and higher-density, transit-oriented residential development that addresses many goals: meeting the region’s housing needs, encouraging housing near employment centers, increasing transit usage, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Specific Plans
A considerable portion of Santa Clara is designated for specific plan development. The City has three approved Specific Plans with a significant number of sites and residential development capacity remaining. Combined, the sites identified in the Lawrence Station, Tasman East, and Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan areas have enough capacity to satisfy the outstanding RHNA (i.e., the remaining RHNA after pending and proposed projects). The Specific Plan areas provide opportunities for development of market-rate and affordable housing. Development types authorized by the approved Specific Plans include multi-unit and mixed-use development. None of the listed Specific Plan areas have any site restrictions or governmental constraints that would impede development. Table 13.6-4 provides an overview of the City’s Specific Plan densities.
Further detail is provided in the following sections.
The Specific Plan sites have a high level of certainty to develop given that:
x Through the adoption and implementation of each City-initiated Specific Plan, all parcels within each area have been re-zoned to accommodate high density residential development.
x Specific parameters for densities, uses, development standards, and minimum affordability requirements have already been established. 2 Only one land use designation/zone district, in the Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan area, allows stand-alone nonresidential development. See section “Specific Plan Sites” for additional detail.
x No recent, significant enhancements have been made to these sites. x Infrastructure is either in place, or planned for, in support of proposed land uses, addressing transportation, wet utilities, solid waste management, and energy services and systems. For both the Tasman East and Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plans, an infrastructure fee has been created to apportion costs between developers in the Plan Areas.
x Redevelopment of nonresidential uses into high density residential and mixed-use has already occurred, illustrating developer and property owner interest and the financial feasibility of site redevelopment.
x All land use designations within the Specific Plan areas have established minimum densities.
x No land use designation in the Tasman East Specific Plan or Lawrence Station Area Plan areas allows for stand-alone nonresidential uses.
x The City has financial resources available to support the development of affordable housing.
Affordability Requirements
x Tasman East Focus Area Specific Plan. All development in the Tasman East Focus Area Specific Plan area adheres to the affordable housing requirements referenced in Section
17.40.115 of the Santa Clara City Code. For-sale and rental affordable units shall be maintained as affordable housing for not less than 20 years applicable to for-sale units and 55 years applicable to rental units. Section 17.40.115 requires that 12% of total housing units be affordable.
x Patrick Henry Focus Area Specific Plan. In recognition of the conversion of employment uses to residential land, the Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan calls for a deeper level of affordability than is required by the Citywide Affordable Housing ordinance. Affordable housing requirements for the Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan are referenced in Section
17.40.116 of the Santa Clara City Code. Developments will provide 15 percent affordable units split equally between three affordability levels of 50 percent, 80 percent, and 120 percent of Area Median Income (AMI).
x Lawrence Station Area Plan. Projects must comply with the City’s inclusionary ordinance in the Lawrence Station Area Plan area. There are some projects already developed that did not require affordable units, because the Lawrence Station Area Plan was adopted before the City’s inclusionary ordinance.
x Citywide Affordable Housing Requirements. Effective February 2018, the City’s inclusionary housing ordinance (Title 17, Chapter 17.40 Citywide Affordable Housing
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Requirements) requires residential ownership and rental projects of ten (10) or more units to provide at least fifteen percent (15%) of the units at affordable housing costs for extremely low, very low, low and moderate income households, or some combination of those income categories. A developer shall select income categories for each of the affordable units such that the average income of purchasers will not exceed 100 percent of AMI.
x Affordability by Design. Additionally, affordability by design in Specific Plan areas is encouraged, with the development of smaller units targeted for those who desire a walkable, urban lifestyle.
x General Plan. The General Plan also outlines other Affordable Housing incentives including encouraging and supporting public and private efforts to provide affordable housing, density bonuses and other financial incentives for housing projects that include affordable and/or senior housing units, consistent with State law requirements.
FIGURE 13.6-1 SITES INVENTORY
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Tasman East Focus Area Specific Plan
Adopted in November 2018, the Tasman East Specific Plan regulates the development of 46.1 acres of land located near the City’s northern boundary. Approved for the development of 4,500 units, full buildout of the area will likely occur by 2038. The Specific Plan area includes 34 parcels situated east of Lafayette Street, north of Tasman Drive, west of the Guadalupe River Trail, and south of the Santa Clara Tennis and Golf Club property. Each parcel of one acre or more in size is required to accommodate a minimum density of 100 dwelling units per acre. Each parcel of less than one acre in size is required to achieve a minimum density of 60 dwelling units per acre.
There are no density maximums for individual parcels.
Approximately half of the Tasman East Specific Plan’s parcels have either been re-developed or have projects with active applications or are already under construction. This area is transitioning from a mix of light industrial and business park uses to a high density residential neighborhood with a mix of uses at the ground floor.
Eleven projects within the Specific Plan area were counted toward the sixth cycle RHNA as approved, proposed, or under construction. Fifteen remaining parcels, on approximately 8 acres, have been identified as sites and remain to be re-developed. Not Viable sites were identified and excluded based on existing uses. Assuming realistic capacity, on a parcel-level, the Tasman East Focus Area Specific Plan sites identified in this Housing Element can accommodate a total of 913 units (see Table 13.6-5). Appendix B provides a detailed list of all sites, including assumed affordability.
FIGURE 13.6-2 TASMAN EAST LAND USE DIAGRAM
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
FIGURE 13.6-3 TASMAN EAST SITES
Patrick Henry Drive Focus Area Specific Plan
In March 2022, the City Council approved the Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan. The planning area encompasses approximately 73.59 acres bounded by Sunnyvale and Calabazas Creek to the west, the southern edge of San Francisco Public Utilities Commission right-of-way to the north, Great America Parkway to the east, and Mission College to the south. As one of the City’s first high-density residential neighborhoods, Patrick Henry Drive will add thousands of units to better balance the City’s jobs-housing ratio, a share of which will be income restricted to help meet regional and local affordability goals. Several regional destinations and amenities are nearby, including Levi’s Stadium, Great America Theme Park, and the Santa Clara Convention Center.
The VTA light rail station at Old Ironsides and Tasman Drive is just over one-half mile, or an approximately 10-minute walk, from the center of the Specific Plan area.
The Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan resulted from a collaborative planning effort involving the City, area property owners, and the Santa Clara community. The plan will create a 73.59-acre high-density, residential neighborhood located near regional destinations, including job-centers, transit, and other amenities. At buildout, the project will accommodate up to 12,000 new residential dwelling units and 310,000 square feet of nonresidential uses, including 200,000 square feet of new neighborhood-serving retail and public facilities, such as libraries and community spaces. New and improved pedestrian and bicycle connections, trails, and parks will link neighborhoods and enhance connections to nearby amenities and recreation destinations. Careful planning will ensure adequate infrastructure and services to support the proposed new development. Targeted residential densities range from a minimum of 51 dwelling units per acre to a maximum of 250 units per acre. These densities will help meet the demand for housing that addresses job and retail growth in the City and region.
Three projects within the Specific Plan area were counted toward the sixth cycle RHNA as approved, proposed, or under construction. Thirteen remaining parcels, on approximately 42 acres, have been identified as sites and remain to be re-developed. Not Viable sites were identified and excluded based on existing uses. Assuming realistic capacity, on a parcel-level, the Patrick Henry Drive Focus Area Specific Plan sites identified in this Housing Element can accommodate a total of 6,139 units (see Table 13.6-5). Appendix B provides a detailed list of all sites, including assumed affordability.
High Density Flex
Only one land use designation in the Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan area allows for standalone nonresidential uses: High Density Flex. Six parcels are zoned High Density Flex, two of which were excluded because they are small sites and publicly owned utility parcels, owned by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) and the City of Santa Clara. APNs 104- 04-130 and 104-04-072, respectively.
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
In the event that any of the four High Density Flex sites (totaling 9.6 total acres) develop with nonresidential uses only, the City will quantify at the time of approval the remaining unmet housing need at each income level and per law, identify and make available adequate sites to accommodate the RHNA by income level within 180 days of approving any such reduced-density project.
FIGURE 13.6-4 PATRICK HENRY LAND USE DIAGRAM
FIGURE 13.6-5 PATRICK HENRY SITES
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Lawrence Station Area Plan
The Santa Clara Lawrence Station Area Plan Area is located northeast of the Lawrence Caltrain Station, bounded by Central Expressway to the north, Kifer Road to the South, Lawrence Expressway to the west, and Calabazas Creek to the east, encompassing approximately 72 acres (65 acres of developable land area excluding existing public right-of-way). Adopted in 2016, the Lawrence Station Area Plan is largely developed and was originally approved for the development of 3,500 units. Residential uses have replaced the areas original uses: one- and twostory buildings, generally occupied by light industrial (including manufacturing and warehousing uses), office, and various other commercial uses.
Four projects within the Specific Plan area were counted toward the sixth cycle RHNA as approved, proposed, or under construction. Nine remaining parcels, on approximately 30 acres, have been identified as sites and remain to be re-developed. Not Viable sites were identified and excluded based on existing uses. Assuming realistic capacity, on a parcel-level, the Lawrence Station Area Plan sites identified in this Housing Element can accommodate a total of 9,808 units (see Table 13.6-5). Appendix B provides a detailed list of all sites, including assumed affordability.
FIGURE 13.6-6 LAWRENCE STATION LAND USE DIAGRAM
FIGURE 13.6-7 LAWRENCE STATION SITES
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
This page was left intentionally blank.
Availability of Sites for Housing ......................................................................................................... 1 Sites Inventory Methodology and Assumptions ............................................................................... 7 Site Selection ....................................................................................................................................... 13 List of Tables
Table 13.6-1 City of Santa Clara RHNA 2023-2031 ............................................................................ 2 Table 13.6-2 Pending and Approved Projects .................................................................................... 5 Table 13.6-3 High-Density Projects in Specific Plan Areas ................................................................ 8 Table 13.6-4 Specific Plan Land Use Designations ........................................................................... 12 Table 13.6-5 Sites to Meet the RHNA ................................................................................................ 13 Table 13.6-6 2010-2035 General Plan Focus Areas............................................................................ 16 List of Figures
FIGURE 13.6-1 Sites Inventory .......................................................................................................... 21 FIGURE 13.6-2 Tasman East Land Use Diagram ............................................................................. 23 FIGURE 13.6-3 Tasman East Sites ..................................................................................................... 24 FIGURE 13.6-4 Patrick Henry Land Use Diagram ........................................................................... 26 FIGURE 13.6-5 Patrick Henry Sites ................................................................................................... 27 FIGURE 13.6-6 Lawrence Station Land Use Diagram ..................................................................... 28 FIGURE 13.6-7 Lawrence Station Sites.............................................................................................. 29
Chapter 13.7 Housing Element Program Accomplishments This chapter analyzes program performance for the City of Santa Clara’s 2015-2023 Housing Element programs. State law (California Government Code Section 65588[a]) requires each jurisdiction to review its Housing Element as frequently as appropriate and evaluate:
x The appropriateness of the housing goals, objectives, and policies in contributing to the attainment of the state housing goals x The effectiveness of the Housing Element in attainment of the community’s housing goals and objectives x Progress in implementation of the Housing Element This evaluation provides critical information on the extent to which programs have achieved stated objectives and whether these programs continue to be relevant to addressing current and future housing needs in Santa Clara. The evaluation provides the basis for recommended modifications to policies and programs and the establishment of new housing objectives. The Department of Housing and Community Development determined that the Santa Clara 2015-2023 Housing Element was in full compliance with State law.
Following adoption in 2015, the City was tasked with following through on the commitments made in the housing programs. The City has analyzed the effectiveness of the 5th cycle Housing Plan actions, policies, and goals and has used this evaluation to inform the revised Housing Plan for the 6th cycle. While the fair housing analysis conducted in Chapter 3 relied upon contemporary data, the retroactive analysis of past program accomplishments depended on data points collected during program actions that, in some cases, did not align directly with the data points collected during the fair housing analysis conducted for the 6th cycle.
Specific attention was given in the evaluation of the cumulative effectiveness of past goals, policies, and related actions in meeting the housing needs of special populations. In cases where data was not available, institutional knowledge and staff interviews were used to provide context for the program evaluation. Generally, the effectiveness of the action was evaluated in terms of the:
x number of individuals served
x cost of the program/action based on the benefit to the individual served x availability of funding and resources x efficiency and effectiveness of the program partners and service providers
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
x the ability to satisfy expressed AFFH requirements in the next cycle.
Overall, the programs that targeted households showed that services were provided to a number of special needs households such as the elderly, persons with disabilities, female-headed households, and persons experiencing homelessness. Indirectly, the jurisdiction made efforts to increase affordability via policies supporting varied types and tenures and increase the affordable housing stock that generally improved the availability of housing that variably resulted in serving special needs households. Although no specific data points exist for some of the 5th cycle programs, it is expected that the populations served under many of the direct service actions align with those programs that did collect data, as shown in the matrix below. Overcrowded households were not identified in the 5th cycle as a targeted demographic for specific action, nor was farmworker housing as there are no active farms in the City of Santa Clara and no Agricultural Land Use Designations beyond the allowed use of community or urban gardens. However, during community engagement, an effort was made to identify farmworker populations that could be commuting to other jurisdictions or retired farmworkers that would be eligible for farmworker housing. Anecdotally and statistically, we know that overcrowding is increasing due to affordability pressures on all households and the most vulnerable special needs populations will require additional attention beyond tenant protections. Therefore, many of the new program goals, policies, and actions are informed not only by the 5th cycle evaluation but the fair housing assessment and community input collected during the authoring of the Housing Element. Further, the City participated in a regional Assessment of Fair Housing process led by Santa Clara County -during the development of this document and facilitated a local homelessness taskforce and outreach process in 2022. Analyzing the cumulative effectiveness of the 5th cycle Housing Plan actions, policies, and goals in conjunction with the additional analyses conducted in this document along with community engagement, has provided clarity and focus on the development of the 6th cycle Housing Plan.
Following the evaluation table, the quantified objective performance is summarized. For the next cycle, 2023-2031 the Actions have been reprioritized and will be reordered based on the updated goals, policies, and the integration of HCD’s new Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing requirements.
5th Cycle Housing Plan
Table 13.7-1: Goals and Policies
Goal A: Create and maintain high-quality, livable, and unique residential neighborhoods and preserve established single-family neighborhoods.
Policy A-1 Maintain and improve the quality of residential neighborhoods, eliminate housing deficiencies and prevent future blight through the encouragement of ongoing maintenance, rehabilitation and conservation of existing housing stock. Policy A-2 Provide code enforcement support for residential neighborhoods in conformance with City Code and Zoning Ordinance regulations.
Policy A-3 Promote compatibility between neighborhoods while respecting differences in neighborhood character.
Policy A-4 Promote consensus with City Design Guidelines.
Goal B: Manage growth in the City by designating suitable vacant or underutilized sites for new residential development and ensuring compatibility with community goals and existing neighborhoods.
Policy B-1 Disperse affordable housing units throughout the City to avoid a concentration in any one neighborhood. Policy B-2 Encourage the building of higher density housing on appropriate vacant or underutilized sites. Policy B-3 Encourage the annual construction of the number of housing units necessary to meet the City’s regional housing needs determination through housing finance and reducing development constraints. Policy B-4 Promote compatibility between neighborhoods while respecting differences in neighborhood character. Policy B-5 Work towards the mitigation of jobs/housing ratio impacts created by developments with significant employment.
Policy B-6 Encourage higher density residential development in transit-oriented and mixed-use areas where appropriate.
Policy B-7 Encourage a mix of unit types and sizes in new housing development.
Goal C Provide housing within the community for persons of all economic levels, regardless of religion, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry, familial status, source of income, or mental or physical disability.
Policy C-1 Construct and preserve affordable housing for lower and moderate-income households through the use of public subsidies, regulatory incentives and flexible development standards. Policy C-2 Participate in local, regional, State and federal programs that support affordable, transitional, supportive and permanent housing.
Policy C-3 Create opportunities for affordable housing and housing to support special needs populations and extremely low-income households.
Policy C-4 Ensure equitable housing opportunities for all residents.
Goal D Provide an adequate variety of individual choices of housing tenure, type and location, including higher density where possible, especially for low and moderate income and special needs households.
Policy D-1 Promote a variety of housing types, indifferent locations to maintain social and economic diversity in the City. Policy D-2 Participate in programs that provide support services to residents in need. Policy D-3 Increase public outreach efforts to inform residents and potential developers of available City housing programs.
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Table 13.7-1: Goals and Policies Policy D-4 Encourage early participation from residents and other stakeholders in development of long-range plans and review of new development proposals. Policy D-5 Ensure compliance with all State and federal regulations relating to housing opportunities and the prevention of discrimination.
Source(s): City of Santa Clara, 2022
Table 13.7-2: Actions and Objectives
Action Program Title & Objective Achievements/Results Evaluation Recommendation Action 1 Neighborhood Conservation Improvement
Program (NCIP). Assist approximately 424 homeowners with rehabilitation assistance, including approximately 160 extremely low-income households (ELI). Continue to conduct inspections of homes on a request and complaint basis, providing referrals to
the NCIP and assistance where possible to correct identified issues and problems.
Policy A-1
2022: The City increased funding for smaller grant funded projects that address accessibility and minor repairs. 2018-21: The Housing and Community Services division increased funding for this program (approximately $1 million annually) to assist more low-income and senior homeowners to improve the habitability, use and occupancy of owneroccupied housing. 2017: A NCIP Procedure Manual was updated and approved by the Loan Committee. 2015-16: An NCIP Procedural Manual is annually updated and approved by the Loan Committee.
Since 2014, the program has assisted over 121 low-income households of which 53 were seniors, and 37 were female headed households, and 11 were disabled.
Continue to offer these services, every two years the City could conduct proactive outreach to lowincome homeowners who are elderly, have disabilities, or have large households. Renumbered and Renamed to Action 4: Maintenance of Housing Stock Action 2 Preservation of Assisted Rental Housing.
Continue to assist property owners of assisted housing by providing funding to make periodic improvements to the property, if available. Such assistance helps the project maintain its affordability.
Since 2014 the city has assisted with the preservation of Riverwood Place (146 units) by restructuring an existing City loan to allow for improvements and to extend affordability by 18 years. The City also helped preserve the 42-unit Westwood Both projects serve lower income families
Continue to explore ways to preserve housing that serves a variety of groups pending
Table 13.7-2: Actions and Objectives
Action Program Title & Objective Achievements/Results Evaluation Recommendation Continue to monitor at risk project by maintaining contact with the property owner annually regarding long term plans for the project. Establish contact with public and nonprofit agencies interested in purchasing and/or managing units at risk. As necessary and feasible, the City will provide financial and technical assistance to these organizations. Provide tenant education on Section 8 rental subsidies and other available assistance through City and County agencies as well as nonprofit organizations. Notify tenants at least one year in advance of potential conversion to market rate housing. Provide information regarding tenant rights and conversion procedures.
Policy B-1, Policy C-1, Policy C-2, Policy C3, Policy D-1 Ambassador complex by restructuring our existing loan to allow for rehabilitation and to extend affordability by 27 years. available CDBG and PHLA capital funding, housing vouchers, funding for supportive services, and the interest of property owners to collaborate. Renumbered to Action 5 Action 3 Acquisition of Multi-Family Housing.
Annually explore funding sources available at the regional, State, and federal levels to support acquisition/rehabilitation opportunities. Work with nonprofit entities to acquire and rehabilitate existing multifamily structures to be maintained as affordable rental housing. Seek opportunities to identify and purchase deteriorated residential properties during depressed rental Multi-Family Housing Acquisition and Rehabilitation Status: 2018-21: The City seeks opportunities to occupy deteriorated properties that, during times of depressed rental markets, cannot raise sufficient capital to rehabilitate. This is an active City program; however, market conditions have not provided compelling opportunities. In the meantime, the Housing and Community Services Division has launched a multi-family energy focused rehabilitation incentive for affordable The City is not well positioned to regularly compete for land on the open market.
Continue to coordinate with affordable housing developers and to explore and prioritize sites for possible funding assistance from the City.
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Table 13.7-2: Actions and Objectives
Action Program Title & Objective Achievements/Results Evaluation Recommendation markets, rehabilitate units, and convert from market rate to affordable levels. Policy B-1, Policy C-1, Policy C-2, Policy C3, Policy D-1 projects in Santa Clara, with three projects currently in the pipeline. 2019-20: The City of Santa Clara has worked with Riverwood Place Associates, L.P. (MidPen Housing Corporation) to extend the affordable housing requirements for 148 rental units within the project located at 5090 Lick Mill Boulevard. MidPen approached the City of Santa Clara with a proposal to fund a solar panel installation as solar provides a great opportunity for long-term sustainability and cost savings. The estimated capital cost was estimated to be around $680,000. MidPen Housing also proposed, as part of the financing strategy, to modify the terms of the City’s existing Promissory Note. Whereas the original Promissory Note entitled the City to 75% of residual cash flow receipts, the proposed modification would entail a conventional 50/50 split of residual receipts between the City and MidPen. In exchange for the requested modification, the City requested to increase the interest rate to 2% from the original 0% and to extend the affordability covenants maturity date from March 14, 2056 to March 14, 2074, thereby preserving 148 studio apartments serving special needs adults for an additional 18 years. 2015-17: The City seeks opportunities to occupy deteriorated properties that, during times of depressed rental markets, cannot raise sufficient capital to rehabilitate. This is an active City program. These units are then converted to affordable units.
Renumbered to Action 6
Table 13.7-2: Actions and Objectives
Action Program Title & Objective Achievements/Results Evaluation Recommendation Action 4 Code Enforcement Program -
Continue the multi-family residential housing inspection and educational programs. Aggressively respond to violations of housing codes. Provide special attention to maintaining the stability of residential neighborhoods through development and enforcement of minimum standards of allowed use of the City’s streets, as well as maintenance of front and other yard areas visible from the public right-of-way. Policy A-1, Policy A-2, Policy A-3, Policy A-4
City has three full time code enforcement technicians and one building inspector dedicated to code enforcement. Program has been successful in removing blight and substandard housing.
On-going Continue with
modification to expand Inspection and Code Enforcement Program to include proactive Multifamily Residential Housing inspections and educational programs in a regular cycle, which is beyond the current program that solely responds to code enforcement complaints Renumbered to Action 7 Action 5 Neighborhood University Relations
Program. Improve the maintenance of studentoccupied homes and behavior of the occupants to minimize impacts on the Improve Relationship between Santa Clara University Students and other city residents in neighborhoods adjacent to SCU 2015-17 Status:
The Planning Division and Police Department continue cooperation and giving attention to this On-going; SCU now requires freshman and sophomore
Continue, as is Renumbered to Action 8
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Table 13.7-2: Actions and Objectives
Action Program Title & Objective Achievements/Results Evaluation Recommendation neighborhood surrounding Santa Clara University (SCU). Enhance code enforcement and special Police patrols to address the problems in the area. Continue to hold meetings three times per year with student tenants, landlords, SCU, residents and the City to allow opportunities for stakeholders to discuss neighborhood issues and concerns. Continue to work with neighbors (residents, businesses, and institutions such as Santa Clara University) to ensure that development is compatible with existing neighborhoods and that neighbors are satisfied with the design, density, and parking requirements of projects. Policy A-1, Policy A-2, Policy A-3, Policy A-4 area. Meetings of all parties involved occur at least monthly. students to live on campus, with some exceptions
Action 6 Zoning Ordinance.
Complete the comprehensive update to the Zoning Ordinance by mid-2016. Continue to monitor the Zoning Ordinance for any potential constraints to the development of housing, particularly housing for persons with special needs (including those with developmental disabilities) and amend the Zoning Ordinance as necessary. Policy A-3, Policy A-4, Policy B-2, Policy C1, Policy C-2, Policy C-3, Policy C-4, Policy D-1, Policy D-5 Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Update 2015-22 Status: The City is continuing to work on the comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Update, including the creation of more flexible mixed-use zoning districts that will be applied in the City's Focus Areas, including El Camino, Tasman East and Freedom Circle/Patrick Henry Drive.
The City has updated the zoning ordinance as the Specific Plans have been adopted. The City is currently updated the Zoning Ordinance Continue, as is Renumbered to Action 9
Table 13.7-2: Actions and Objectives
Action Program Title & Objective Achievements/Results Evaluation Recommendation with an anticipated completion in 1Q2023.
Action 7 Adequate Sites Inventory.
Maintain an inventory of housing sites appropriate for a range of income levels and housing types, including supportive housing for persons with disabilities and developmental disabilities.
Provide information and technical assistance on Federal and State funding sources or referrals to appropriate agencies. Disperse and monitor the location of affordable units in various areas of the City. Review housing sites inventory at time of development proposal to determine consistency with proposed density and assumed density in Housing Element. Maintain a zero net loss of units identified in the opportunity sites inventory of this Housing Element. If the assumed density is not entitled, a finding must be made that the displaced units can be redistributed to other opportunity sites.
Encourage developments that are transitbased or in close proximity to transit when determining City affordable housing funding decision priorities.
Identify Housing Sites (including TOD and Mixed Use) in General Plan. Status: Sites were identified in the General Plan and new housing has been approved and built-in areas designated for mixed use, including El Camino Real. The underutilized sites inventory is used during consultations with prospective developers.
On-going; Lawrence Station, Tasman East and Patrick Henry Drive specific plans approved Continue, with modification Renumbered to Action 10
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Table 13.7-2: Actions and Objectives
Action Program Title & Objective Achievements/Results Evaluation Recommendation Encourage Mixed Use development where appropriate to provide increased opportunities for housing development. Notify owners of mixed use designated sites through an outreach/marketing program. Policy B-1, Policy B-2, Policy B-3, Policy B5, Policy B-6, Policy B-7, Policy C-1, Policy C-3, Policy D-1, Policy D-3, Policy D-4 Action 8 Lot Consolidation.
Provide technical assistance regarding the lot consolidation process to interested parties. Provide the sites inventory to interested developers and assist in identifying sites with lot consolidation potential. Process lot consolidation applications concurrently with other applications for development. Policy B-2, Policy B-3, Policy C-1, Policy D1 Consolidate lots for development 2015-17 Status: The City has been processing parcel maps and lot mergers to create larger, more easily developable sites, primarily occurring in the El Camino Real PDA.
This process has been successful when applied strategically Discontinue
Action 9 Impact Fees.
Assess if impact fees are constraining development or providing a competitive edge for the City. If City fees deviate significantly from those charged by comparable communities, take actions to adjust fees as appropriate. Policy B-2, Policy B-3, B-5, B-6, B-7, Policy C-3, Policy D-1 Explore Residential and Commercial Nexus Studies Status: 2017: The City completed both a residential and non-residential nexus study and has adopted residential and non-residential impact fees. 2016: The City has commissioned both a residential and non-residential nexus study and is currently doing outreach with stakeholders and
the wider community.
The nexus studies have informed the Zoning Ordinance update Continue Renumbered to Action 11
Table 13.7-2: Actions and Objectives
Action Program Title & Objective Achievements/Results Evaluation Recommendation 2015: Studies have been required as part of environmental review of new employmentrelated developments, but conditioning and funding have only been accomplished where there were negotiations for a related Development Agreement.
Action 10 Provision of a Variety of Housing Types.
Promote the construction of accessory units to increase the type and size of the City’s housing stock, with an objective of 25 units per year or 200 units over eight years. As part of the comprehensive Zoning Ordinance update (to be completed by mid-2016), reconsider, and revise if appropriate, requirements for accessory units. Conduct an ongoing promotional program, including mailings to owners of single-family properties with adequate size for accessory living units. Support development of low-income housing alternatives, such as single-room occupancy (SRO) units, senior housing, family housing, housing for persons with disabilities (including developmental disabilities) etc. Encourage affordable, compatible one- and two-story additions for upgrading singlefamily homes.
Fund Alternative Affordable Housing Types 2017-21 Status: The City is partnering with the County’s Office of Supportive Housing to increase the supply of housing that is affordable and available to extremely low income and/or special needs households in the City through the use of funds from the 2016 Measure An Affordable Housing Bond. There are four active projects in the pipeline that total over 400 units. 165 of those units are for seniors, 134 of those units are setaside for formerly homeless households, 15 units are set-aside for individuals who are disabled or
have development disabilities, and 13 units are homeownership units.
Encourage One- and Two-Story Additions 2015-21
Status: Almost 100% of proposed additions are approved, subject to Architectural Review, were consistent with zoning district standards. Modifications are typically approved for reduced rear yard for single story additions.
Expand very low and extremely low-income units by following types of developments 2015-17 Status: SRO units, Senior Housing, Family Housing, etc. Support can be in the form of City This program has been successful in increasing housing types Continue, as is Renumbered to Action 1
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Table 13.7-2: Actions and Objectives
Action Program Title & Objective Achievements/Results Evaluation Recommendation Provide increased flexibility for houses built prior to the current zoning requirements. Continue to require the Residential Green Checklist as part of the permit submittals for residential construction. Policy A-3, Policy B-1, Policy B-3, Policy C1, Policy C-3, Policy C-4, Policy D-1, Policy D-3
funds to variances based on SROs unique characteristics. 2015-16 Status: Although not designed as MixedUse developments, residential units have been approved/constructed in areas designated Community Mixed Use. These projects will help to bolster the viability of mixed-use projects along the El Camino.
Accessory Dwelling Units: The City now produces on the order of 50 ADUs/year, doubling the 2014 estimate.
Action 11 Inclusionary Housing Policy.
Continue to implement the Inclusionary Housing BMP and BMR programs. Annually monitor the effectiveness of the Inclusionary Housing Policy in expanding the housing supply and diversity in the community. Policy B-1, Policy B-2, Policy B-3, Policy B7, Policy C-1, Policy C-2, Policy C-3, Policy C-4, Policy D-1
Inclusionary Housing requirement 2015-21 Status: The City's has adopted an Affordable Housing Ordinance, which has increased the inclusionary requirement 15% on site provision for for-sale and rental project with 10 units or more (compared to the previous requirement of 10% for only for-sale projects with 10 or more units). RDA subsidies for inclusionary housing were eliminated under the BMP Program in 1997.
This policy has been applied successfully to housing development projects and has produced low- and moderateincome housing.
Continue, with modification Renumbered and renamed to Action 2: Affordable Housing Ordinance Action 12 Affordable Housing Incentives.
Encourage and assist in efforts to combine public and private funds in joint housing ventures.
Develop Incentives for Affordable and Senior Housing Projects 2015-21 Status: The Zoning Code has been updated to reflect the current State density bonus provisions.
On-going Continue, as is
Renumbered and renamed to Action 3:
Table 13.7-2: Actions and Objectives
Action Program Title & Objective Achievements/Results Evaluation Recommendation As appropriate, support and/or partner with housing developers in the application for affordable housing funding, such as providing technical data, assistance in identifying available and appropriate sites, expediting review and processing of affordable housing, and providing local match as funding is available. Annually explore funding available at the regional, state, and federal levels for affordable housing development and programs. Continue to work with the Housing Authority of Santa Clara County to expand the Authority’s ability to create low- and moderate-income housing. Participate with other local jurisdictions to provide affordable housing. Collaborate with neighboring jurisdictions to pursue funding opportunities for affordable housing programs. CDBG and HOME funds will continue to be used in conjunction with other cities’ funds to construct shelters and to provide housing services.
Continue to provide density bonuses or equivalent financial incentives for housing projects which include affordable and/or senior housing units, consistent with State law requirements.
Affordable Housing Incentives and Facilitation
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Table 13.7-2: Actions and Objectives
Action Program Title & Objective Achievements/Results Evaluation Recommendation Encourage housing developers to use the City’s Density Bonus Ordinance and the Planned Development Zone District, which allow for flexibility in the zoning regulations. Continue to pursue opportunities to acquire and rehabilitate existing multifamily structures to be maintained as affordable rental housing. Encourage the provision of specialized housing to meet the needs of those with disabilities (including developmental disabilities); or for group care, emergency housing and foster homes, where appropriate. Identify situations of overcrowding and educate families of local housing programs. Incentivize nonprofit developers to develop units for very low and extremely low households by identifying appropriate housing sites or rehabilitation projects and matching developers with funding sources. Continue to require the Residential Green Checklist as part of the permit submittals for residential construction. Consider, in 2015-2016, other feasible incentives to foster affordable housing development in the City. These may include fee deferral, reduction, or waivers.
Table 13.7-2: Actions and Objectives
Action Program Title & Objective Achievements/Results Evaluation Recommendation Policy B-1, Policy B-2, Policy B-3, Policy B7, Policy C-1, Policy C-2, Policy C-3, Policy C-4, Policy D-1 Action 13 Housing Mitigation Fee.
Continue to require housing impact studies as part of project- related environmental reviews for new developments or businesses that generate a high number of jobs. Continue to require Housing Impact Studies through development agreements with new projects, to address the impact on the affordable housing supply. Consider, in 2015-2016, establishing an affordable housing mitigation fee for office and industrial developments that propose a significant square footage of area where persons are to be employed.
Policy B-2, Policy B-3, Policy C-1, Policy D1
Requirement of Housing Impact Fee Studies for the largest projects; Development of a Housing Impact Fee Program Status: 2017-21: The City has adopted an Affordable Housing Ordinance, consisting of inclusionary onsite requirement for residential projects, impact fees for residential projects with 9 or fewer units, for fractional units and for nonresidential development. These requirements became effective on February 22, 2018. 2015-16: The City is currently in the process of outreach with the community and stakeholder to determine appropriate Affordable Housing impact fees, residential and non-residential.
On-going Discontinue
Action 14 Affordable Housing Funding.
Identify a steady source of affordable housing funds. Pursue funding available from State, federal, and regional housing programs. Policy B-1, Policy B-2, Policy B-3, Policy B7, Policy C-1, Policy C-2, Policy C-3, Policy C-4, Policy D-1
In 2022 the City joined the Santa Clara County PHLA Housing Consortium and will be allocating 2019 and 2020 funding in 2023.2017-21: The City has adopted an Affordable Housing Ordinance, which includes a commercial linkage fee. The ordinance became effective on February 22, 2018, and since fall of 2021 has generated $5.6 million since to address affordable housing needs in Santa Clara. 2015-16: The City is currently participating in the drafting of a multi-city nexus study for the On-going Continue to plan
and allocate PHLA funding and to look for additional ongoing funding sources. Renumbered to Action 12
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Table 13.7-2: Actions and Objectives
Action Program Title & Objective Achievements/Results Evaluation Recommendation creation of both residential and commercial housing impact fees.
Action 15 Economic Displacement.
Evaluate programs and policies and provide recommendations to City Council within one years of Housing Element adoption. As necessary and appropriate, adopt programs and policies to address displacement within two years of Housing Element adoption. Monitor programs and policies bi-annually for effectiveness. Policy B-4, Policy B-5, Policy C-1 The City continues to provide Tenant Based Rental Assistance (TBRA) in the form of deposits and rental subsidies for up to 12 months, along with case management services, to families with children experiencing homelessness, those fleeing domestic violence, or families with children that are at risk of homelessness.
Community Ownership Conversion Tenant Protections 2018-21 Status: In the case of condominium conversions, landlords are required to provide tenant protections, including advance notice requirements, right of first refusal, and relocation assistance 2019-20 - On March 24, 2020, the Santa Clara City Council approved Ordinances 2014 and 2015, establishing a temporary eviction moratorium in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The moratorium went into effect immediately, March 24, and the Council subsequently extended the moratorium through August 31, 2020, at which time AB 3088 established a statewide prohibition on residential evictions. Provide Relocation Assistance to Residents Displaced by Redevelopment 2015-17: With the closure of the RDA, the City is exploring funding The eviction moratorium has since expired, and state and pandemic related local rental assistance programs have ended. Additional programs may be needed to respond to displacement pressures.
Continue to provide TBRA and explore additional programs that respond to and prevent homelessness and displacement. Allocate the City’s HOME ARP funding in 2023. Renumbered and renamed to Action 13: Residential Displacement
Table 13.7-2: Actions and Objectives
Action Program Title & Objective Achievements/Results Evaluation Recommendation streams, including housing linkage fees, for relocation assistance. The City actively encourages developers to provide advance notice and relocation assistance for displaced tenants.
Action 16 Shared Housing.
Continue to support programs designed to create shared housing arrangements for seniors, families, and persons with disabilities (including developmental disabilities). Annually evaluate the need for shared housing services as part of the CDBG annual plan process. Policy B-1, Policy C-2, Policy C-3, Policy C4, Policy D-1, Policy D-2 Support Shared Living Facilities & Operations 2015-21 Status: The City encourages shared housing arrangements and group living arrangements for special populations who are very low income. In 2018 there was one official shared housing program for seniors in Santa Clara County and it was operated by Catholic Charities. This program ended because it was not sustainable, as it had too few landlords, too many renters, and it required a lot of staff facilitation. Some Seniors have indicated to City staff that they would prefer a 1 bedroom with support services for privacy and safety reasons.
Home sharing can work well for group homes, but less so for the elderly residents.
Continue to support the creation of new shared housing for persons with developmental disabilities. Explore service enhanced senior housing with rents capped at 30% of income versus based on AMI. Explore a new position to help seniors navigate the housing market and to access subsidized housing. Renumbered to Action 18 Action 17 Housing Choice Voucher Program.
Continue to participate in and promote the Housing Choice Voucher Program.
Promote Section 8 Housing Program 2015 Status: Currently, the Housing Authority has 659 certificates/vouchers under contract within the City, 269 of which are elderly.
On-going Continue, as is
Renumbered to Action 14
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Table 13.7-2: Actions and Objectives
Action Program Title & Objective Achievements/Results Evaluation Recommendation Encourage apartment owners to list properties with the Housing Authority for individual Housing Choice Vouchers. Policy B-1, Policy C-1, Policy C-2, Policy C3, Policy D-1 Action 18 Homeownership for First-Time Buyers.
Continue to collaborate with NHSSV to implement the BMP program and provide assistance to approximately 10 to 15 lower, moderate-, and middle-income households during the 2015-2023 Housing Element planning period. Promote homeownership, particularly for first time buyers, through single-family, townhouse and condominium construction as well as conversion of rental to condominium ownership, where appropriate. Encourage program participation among moderate income households, as well as low-income households, while interest rates are low. Continue to promote homebuyer assistance programs through the Housing Trust Silicon Valley and the County of Santa Clara. Include links to these housing resources on City website by 2015. Policy B-1, Policy C-2, Policy D-1 Support and Fund First-Time Homebuyers (FTHB) 2015 Status: The Santa Clara’s BMP (Below Market Purchase) program produced 4 first time homebuyers this year. They were all moderate income. There are 106 BMP owners in the current program since 2007 through October 28, 2022.
The current BMP program does not require BMP homes to stay affordable for more than five years. Policy changes could require resale to income qualified buyers and create more Continue, with modification to require longer affordability terms on BMP homes. Renumbered to Action 15
Table 13.7-2: Actions and Objectives
Action Program Title & Objective Achievements/Results Evaluation Recommendation opportunities.
Action 19 Fair Housing Program.
Continue to refer tenant-landlord complaints to an agency offering meditation. Provide referral services and promotional support to link those experiencing discrimination in housing with public or private groups who handle complaints against discrimination. Seek state and federal enforcement of fair housing laws and continue to cooperate with local agencies investigating claims of discrimination in lending practices and predatory lending. Provide outreach and education materials about fair housing services, nonprofit partners (e.g., Project Sentinel). Continue to hold open house events and meetings to distribute fair housing information and resources to tenants and homeowners in need of assistance. Refer disputes between property owners to the County Human Relations Commission’s Dispute Officer. Policy B-1, Policy C-2, Policy D-1 Contract with Non-Profit Agency for Mediation Services 2015 Status: Annual service contract with Project Sentinel to provide tenant-landlord dispute resolution service on city-wide basis Provide Referral Services and Support for Discrimination Concerns 2015 Status: Provision of fair housing services by the City is essential to meet federal and State requirements to affirmatively further fair housing. Housing projects funded by federal HOME funds must develop and implement an affirmative marketing plan.
This has been an important resource that will continue to expand in outreach Continue, with modification Renumbered to Action 16
Action 20 Homeless Services.
Assist in funding locally administered programs that provide shelter, food and clothing for those with transitional and supportive housing needs.
The City has invested several hundred units of permanent supportive housing and/or ELI/VLI housing for families, individuals, and seniors.
The City has invested in a variety of
Continue to fund services and complete the City’s local
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Table 13.7-2: Actions and Objectives
Action Program Title & Objective Achievements/Results Evaluation Recommendation Continue to support housing for at-risk youth. Policy B-1, Policy C-2, Policy D-1 The City has also invested in public services through its CDBG and HOME programs including Tenant Based Rental Assistance, the regional Homelessness Prevention System, case management services for permanent supportive housing, assistance for survivors of domestic violence, and more. In 2022 the City conducted a six-month Homelessness Task Force and outreach process and published a draft strategic framework. services and is in the process of writing a local strategic plan to expand its efforts. homelessness response plan and begin implementing new programs that respond to the identified gaps.
Renumbered to Action 17
Source(s): City of Santa Clara, 2022
Quantified Objectives Table 13.7-2 summarizes Santa Clara’s quantified objectives for the 2015-2023 Housing Element planning period and the progress the City has made, including progress meeting the City’s fifth cycle RHNA. Table 13.7-3: Summary of 2015-2023 Housing Element Quantified Objectives (through 2021 APR) Source(s): City of Santa Clara, 2022 Objectives
Affordability Breakdown
Totals
Extremely
Low Very Low Low Moderate
Above
Moderate
Building Permit Objectives (RHNA) Goal - 1,050 695 755 1,593 4,093 Progress - 289 246 125 4,606 5,266 Single-Family Rehabilitation Objective Goal 424 (160 ELI) - - 424 Progress 121 (24 ELI) - - 121 At-Risk Housing Units to Preserve Goal - - - - - - Progress - - - - - -
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
This page was left intentionally blank.
5th Cycle Housing Plan ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Quantified Objectives ........................................................................................................................................................................................21 List of Tables Table 13.7-1: Goals and Policies ......................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Table 13.7-2: Actions and Objectives ................................................................................................................................................................. 4 Table 13.7-3: Summary of 2015-2023 Housing Element Quantified Objectives (through 2021 APR) .........................................................21 A
Page A-1
Appendix A
Outreach
Summary
As part of the Housing Element update draft a Public Engagement Plan (PEP) was developed by City staff to provide the community public participation opportunities during the development of the Housing Element under Gov. Code Section 65583 (c)(9). Additionally, the City set up a housing element webpage:
https://www.santaclaraca.gov/our-city/departments-a-f/community-development/planningdivision/general-plan/housing-element-update; that provided continual updates as work on the 6th Cycle Housing Element progressed. The list-serv generated by this effort has 1,500 subscribers (as of January 3, 2023) that are notified when the page updates and notifications are posted regarding the Housing Element.
During the development of the PEP stakeholders were identified and interviewed, surveys were conducted in multiple languages, and comment on the draft element was received; all informing the final iteration of the 6th Cycle Housing Element.
Stakeholder interviews were conducted to help build a framework for the 6th Cycle Housing Element. The interview questionnaire and summary are included in Appendix A-1: Stakeholder Interview Summary.
The stakeholders that were interviewed are a subset of interested parties that were contacted from a list of community members and organizations listed in Appendix A-2: Stakeholder List.
Shortly after the interviews were conducted, the City conducted an on-line survey to gather information about how residents were experiencing housing. The survey was conducted in English, Spanish, Vietnamese, and Chinese (Mandarin). There were well over 1,500 responses which are summarized in Appendix A-3: Community Survey Summary. The survey results were incorporated into the formulation of the 6th Cycle Housing Plan Goals, Policies, and Actions. Although, there was some demographic variance in the results of the survey, they were not statistically significant. Nonetheless, where there were apparent variances or interesting results, those were provided in the summary sections as additional result tables. Finally, feedback collected provided support for the Housing Plan actions focused on diverse outreach and engagement and services to protected classes.
Appendix A-4: Regional Santa Clara County AFFH Related Outreach and Appendix A-5: Housing Element Specific Outreach provide numerous instances of regional and local outreach activities that the City conducted or participated in. As stated in the introduction to this 6th Cycle Housing Element, outreach consisted of:
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page A2
x Community Meetings
x Stakeholders Meetings, Questionnaires, and Interviews x Digital Surveys: English, Spanish, Vietnamese, Chinese (Simple) x Community Events
x Community Pop-ups
x Tenant Listening Sessions
x Homelessness Taskforce Meetings
x Planning Commission and City Council Meetings
At a high level, the community engagement was utilized to balance and align community input with State Housing Law requirements. With, consistent themes of affordability, housing type and tenure, housing choice, tenant protections, and homelessness the outreach process informed the Housing Plan actions, polices, and actions, and confirmed or highlighted trends identified by the demographic analysis.
Specifically outreach informed the creation of new efforts in the Housing Element as follows:
x Respondents to outreach and commentors were concerned that the designated levels of affordability in the city’s existing inclusionary ordinance are increasingly not affordable for many residents. The Housing Element includes a planned effort to update the inclusionary ordinance to increase a greater number of units in the deeper affordability categories and to redefine the City’s moderate affordability category to reflect a lower income range. Also proposed is including in the City’s Notice of Funding Availability specifications criteria that would prioritize City funding of Extremely Low Income and Very Low Income units.
x Consistent feedback was received through all outlets and demographics of respondents highlighting the need to better address homelessness. The City’s newly created Homelessness Task Force comprised of service providers, advocates, and individuals with lived experience of being unhoused have provided recommendations that are being pursued through the creation of a Homelessness Response Plan with implementation actions that will be adopted in early 2023. x Commentors provided feedback on the need for more displacement prevention. The Housing Plan includes the City Council’s future consideration of new policies and programs that would require no net loss of income restricted units during construction or rehabilitation of existing housing; replacement of existing affordable housing units at the same or lower affordability levels; landlord and City notification and information for tenants affected by efforts that would cause relocation; require developers to provide relocation benefits beyond State requirements.
A
Page A-3
x Residents of affordable and special needs housing shared at listening sessions that they have been particularly affected by heat waves and wildfire smoke. As part of the City’s CDBG program, the City will promote a Notice of Funding Availability process for installation of HVAC improvements for sensitive populations.
The City of Santa Clara asked for the public’s comments on the Housing Element Draft via its website, list-serv, social media, printed/mailed newsletter (Inside Santa Clara), e-newsletter (City Hall News) and public meetings. The comments were collected via Konveio, a public comment platform for document review and via email. The public comments received on-line and via formal comment letter are included in Appendix A-6: Public Review Draft Comments, Figures 1-9. Following the public comment period on the Housing Element Update, commenters and stakeholders were invited to a stakeholder meeting to discuss the potential Housing Plan goals, policies, and actions that could address their questions and concerns.
Additionally, the City continued to engage in community outreach during the 90-day review period of the Housing Element Draft by HCD. The input collected during this period is subsumed in the housing element specific outreach mentioned above in Appendix A-5. Public and comment and formal letters continued to be addressed after the City receive comments on the Housing Element Draft.
Notably, the section on Housing Resources, was significantly revised based on formal comments regarding the City’s process for site selection.
Appendix A-1 Stakeholder Interview Summary
Six interviews were held via telephone, zoom, and/or email with internal and external community stakeholders between May and June 2022.
FIGURE 1: INTERVIEWS AND SCHEDULE
Santa Clara Unified School District May 9, 2022
Santa Clara Schools Foundation May 13, 2022
Santa Clara Senior Center May 13, 2022
PARS Equality Center May 18, 2021
Momentum for Health May 31, 2022
Calabazas Community Apartments, Adobe Services June 8, 2022
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page A4
STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEW QUESTIONS & KEY FINDINGS
1. What are the strengths and assets that make Santa Clara a great place to live? City of Santa Clara provides its residents with a safe, diverse, community driven environment. The public facilities and parks are a utilized asset in the community. x Weather
x Diverse population (ethnically,
economically, age)
x Safe
x Great public facilities, parks,
libraries, recreation facilities
x Great location, easily accessible to
other areas in the Bay Area
x Good transport
x Venues, entertainment options
x Small town, University/Community
College town makes it a great
location to live
x High quality schools
x Family and community oriented
x Supports its residents
2. What are the most critical challenges related to residential development in Santa Clara? Due to the high cost of living and housing shortages, some residents are unable to afford rent or to buy homes.
A shortage of affordable and low-income housing could push residents out of the city. x Cost of housing
x County code prohibits acquiring
homes and buildings
x Shortage of affordable and lowincome housing
x The personal home buying process is
difficult due to affordability and cash
offers
x Unable to place underhoused and
unhoused community in shelters or
affordable housing
x Lack of land for new developments
x Lack of housing and securing of
more housing
x Difficulty welcoming others, NIMBY
x Congestion in existing developed
areas
x High cost of rent and living will push
residents out of the area
x Wait list for housing vouchers,
Section 8 lottery
x Cost of construction
x Lacks character and a downtown
x Housing department is outsourcing
housing assistance as well as creating
barriers
A
Page A-5
3. What are your priorities for housing development in Santa Clara? The priorities for the City of Santa Clara should be to provide affordable housing to the locals. Establishing creative housing programs is also a priority. Tackling homelessness should also be a priority. x Financial assistance and programs
for organizations to buy buildings for
services such as mental illness
facilities, homeless shelters
x Increase amount and accessibility of
affordable housing
x Partnerships with organizations to
allow for creativity
x Affordable housing for families who
work in Santa Clara and send their
children to public schools
x More affordable housing
x Subsidized housing options
x Facilities for people coming off the
streets
4. What is your definition of affordable housing and who does it serve? The key responses include: prioritizing the service industry, seniors, police officers, teachers, and locals.
Residents should not have to pay more than 50% of their income for housing. x Subsidized housing, based on income
listed on tax returns
x Affordable housing and care for
individuals with serious mental
illnesses
x Serves people who are service
workers/blue collar as well as the
entire community
x Allows for a community to develop
in a city
x Housing that is affordable for
families to live in the city where they
work
x Two working adults can afford rent
without sacrificing food or a savings
x For teachers, seniors, police, only one
senior housing development in the
area
5. Are there housing projects (or general development trends) in other cities that are examples of what you would like to see in Santa Clara?
Below are examples of cities with housing projects or development trends suggested by the stakeholders.
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page A6
x 41 South 11th Street house for housing
and maintaining housing for groups
of people
x Orange County Health Improvement
Plan is a nonprofit that works with
the county to train employees to
operate housing buildings
x Short term rental assistance (TBRA)
x Charities Housing in Cupertino
x The Veranda Senior Housing
x Apartments/Condominiums with
more than two bedrooms and in
large buildings
x Multigenerational housing
developments, co-ops:
https://www.cotaticohousing.org/
x San Jose, community engagement
x Permanent supportive housing
facility by PATH in San Jose: Villas
on the Park
6. How do you see Santa Clara changing over the next 8-10 years? What role does housing play in these changes?
Providing children, elderly, and lower income residents with affordable housing options is critical to maintaining a sense of community in the City of Santa Clara. Creative and innovative housing approaches may pose challenges with locals.
x Shortage of professionals
x Something should be done about
affordable housing
x Less people will want to live in the
area if there are tents on the street
x Less taxes otherwise businesses
won’t thrive
x Give locals a reason to stay
x Expanding housing in a creative way
could make people uncomfortable
x If housing doesn’t change Santa
Clara will not grow in a diverse way
and live up to its potential
x Digitization of application processes
for affordable housing
x Reduced waiting and processing time
to meet demand
x Increased value in the area due to
new Google development
x Crime should be addressed for safety
x Equitable quality of school districts
x Multi-bedroom units are needed for
families to stay
x Increase in city policies and funding
toward creating affordable housing
for those in need
x Prioritize seniors and low income
7. Are there neighborhoods in the city that lack access to opportunities for healthy food, green space, transit, quality jobs and education?
Overall, the city provides access to opportunities for the residents of the City of Santa Clara. Some neighborhoods in the city could improve on access to food and transportation.
A
Page A-7
x Stakeholder is unfamiliar with the
area or does not live in the city
x City provides access to opportunities
x Bicycle lane improvements
x Suburban neighborhoods lack
walkability
x Transportation is infrequent and
does not include enough routes
x Some neighborhoods (such as
Lafayette) lacks access to nearby
grocery stores
8. Can you share any thoughts or stories about housing discrimination and/or housing segregation in Santa Clara?
Overall, there is a stigma around low-income and affordable housing, particularly with landlords. x Generally, not too prevalent in the
city
x Discrimination and stigma from
landlords regarding Section 8/lowincome applicants
x Difficulties finding landlords willing
to work with participants
x Limited supply of housing in the city
x Outdated stereotypes and stigmas
about people with housing vouchers
x Upper class residents are less
interested in providing the
community with affordable or lowincome housing developments x Low-income housing lumped into
one building
x Lower income apartments are located
near title I schools and districts
x Families in low-income, onebedroom apartments out of necessity
9. How can the City, in partnership with stakeholder groups, help to ensure inclusive and equitable fair housing outreach that includes all segments of the community? Partnering with stakeholder groups is important to the community, however inclusive and equitable outreach are key. Residents would like the city to provide outreach to residents in multiple languages and with clearer guidelines to ensure fair housing.
x Understand the residents’ needs
x Acknowledge subgroups other than
those defined by race or ethnicity
that need housing
x Ensure more affordable housing is
implemented
x Prioritize teachers, law enforcement,
nonprofit workers who want to stay
in the city
x Regular outreach meetings to share
community needs with the city
x Prioritize building multi bedroom
housing
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page A8
x Provide information about housing
in multiple languages
x Provide clear guideline for who
qualifies for housing programs
x City’s emailing list does not reach all
groups
x Not realistic to buy a house in the
city of Santa Clara
10. Are there residential blocks or neighborhoods in the city that lack access to quality education and daycare, open space and parks, libraries, shopping, grocery stores, transit service, clean air, and/or other opportunities?
Below are examples of residential blocks or neighborhoods in the city that stakeholders suggest lack access to quality education and daycare, open space and parks, libraries, shopping, grocery stores, transit service, clean air, and/or other opportunities:
x Residential blocks exist in
unincorporated areas with the east
and south of the city - going towards
the foothills (White Rd) and south of
the City (Monterrey, Bernal Rd).
These areas need more
transportation.
x The state is investing resources in
BART and the light rail, but they are
not reaching those areas. There is a
need for more community health
clinics, subsidies for day cares
throughout the city.
x The northwest of the city will lack an
elementary school once all the units
are constructed
x Some neighborhoods are further
away from public amenities (such as
libraries)
x Clean air is a problem in areas like
Lawrence, Montague, Santa Moss,
and El Camino
x Lafayette and Clyde is a very
industrial block with factories and
chemical release
x Noise pollution from the nearby San
Jose airport, Levi’s stadium, and
major roads
x Not everybody has AC filters
A
Page A-9
11. Are there any other specific stakeholders we should be talking with? Below is a list of suggested stakeholders to speak with:
o Teresa O’Neill – former city council member
o First community housing (https://www.firstcommunityhousing.org/), 21 major projects in Santa Clara County - experts in housing regulations and they understand the basic needs. o African American Cultural Center
o Donald, Executive Director of Pacific Clinics (Previously UpLift Family services) – he works with families, youth and can give a different perspective on other populations o Community Solutions
o Religious centers such as churches
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page A10
Appendix A-2: Stakeholder List
The stakeholder list initially identified potential organizations and individuals that could be interviewed and potentially participate in a stakeholder workshop(s). The organizations and individuals were contacted by e-mail and direct phone calls to participate in a formal interview.
Company/Organization
Groups Served / Sector Elderly/ Seniors Persons Experiencing Homelessness Families (large families, female headed families) Persons with disabilities Persons with developmental disabilities Lower income households Farmworkers Spanish speaking residents Affordable Developer Market Rate Developer Santa Clara Housing Authority x x
City of Santa Clara Youth Commission Safe Place
City of Santa Clara Senior Advisory Commission x
Santa Clara Senior Center x
Heart of the Valley: Services for Seniors x
Santa Clara Lions Club
Santa Clara Libraries x x
West Valley-Mission Community College
Santa Clara University x x x x
Mission College Santa Clara
x x x
Santa Clara Historical Society
Santa Clara Unified School District
Santa Clara City Library Foundation and Friends
Santa Clara Youth Soccer League
Santa Clara Lions Youth Football & Cheer
Santa Clara Westside Little League
Briarwood El Camino Little League
Santa Clara Swim Club
Sierra Club Loma Prieta
Asian American Center of Santa Clara County x x
A
Page A-11
Company/Organization
Groups Served / Sector Elderly/ Seniors Persons Experiencing Homelessness Families (large families, female headed families) Persons with disabilities Persons with developmental disabilities Lower income households Farmworkers Spanish speaking residents Affordable Developer Market Rate Developer San Jose Japanese American Citizens League
Hispanic Foundation of Silicon Valley
x
CAIR California San Francisco Bay Area
PARS Equity Center
x
Jewish Family Services of Silicon Valley x x x x
Santa Clara Women’s League x
Elk’s Lodge #2347
Rotary Club of Santa Clara
Santa Clara Kiwanis Club x x x x x x
Sacred Heart Community Service x x x x
Project Sentinel x x x x x x x
Bill Wilson Center x
SV@Home
x
Abode Services x x
Salvation Army (San Jose) x x x x x x
Homelessness Task Force
x
Planning Commission
Santa Clara Unified School District (McKinney
Vento homelessness prevention)
x x
City of Santa Clara Chamber of Commerce
Catholic Charities of Santa Clara County x x x x x x
Momentum for Health
x x
Roots Community Health Center x x x x x x
American Legion Santa Clara Post 419 (Veterans
Services)
x x
Working Partnerships USA
x x x
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page A12
Appendix A-3: Community Survey Summary
FIGURE 1: HOW LONG HAVE YOU LIVED IN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA? (QUESTION 1; N=1,585)
FIGURE 2: HOW LONG HAVE YOU LIVED IN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA? (QUESTION 1; UNDER 18 – 44 YEARS OLD; N=471)
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Less
than 1
year
1 to 4
years
5 to 9
years
10 to 19
years
20 years
or more
I do not
live in
Santa
Clara
Prefer
not to
answer
A
Page A-13
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Less than 1
year
1 to 4 years 5 to 9 years 10 to 19
years
20 years or
more
18 and Under (n=4) 18-24 (n=10)
25-34 (n=192) 35-44 (n=265)
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page A14
FIGURE 3: HOW LONG HAVE YOU LIVED IN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA? (QUESTION 1; UNDER 45 YEARS OLD – 65 AND ABOVE; N=842)
FIGURE 4: WHAT IS YOUR CURRENT HOUSING SITUATION? (QUESTION 2; N=1,651) 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Less than 1
year
1 to 4 years 5 to 9 years 10 to 19 years 20 years or
more 45-54 (n=238) 55-64 (n=261) 65 + (n=343)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
I own my
home
I rent my
home
I live with
friends/family
and do not
pay rent
I am
unhoused
I prefer not to
answer
Chinese (n=31) English (n=1,585)
Spanish (n=29) Vietnamese (n=6)
A
Page A-15
FIGURE 5: WHAT IS YOUR CURRENT HOUSING SITUATION BY AGE GROUPING? (QUESTION 2; UNDER 18 – 44 YEARS OLD; N=471)
FIGURE 6: WHAT IS YOUR CURRENT HOUSING SITUATION BY AGE GROUPING? (QUESTION 2; UNDER 45 YEARS OLD – 65 AND ABOVE; N=1,651)
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
90.00%
100.00%
I own my
home
I rent my
home
I live with
friends/family
and do not
pay rent
I am
unhoused
I prefer not to
answer
18 and Under (n=4) 18-24 (n=10) 25-34 (n=192) 35-44 (n=265) 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
I own my home I rent my home I live with
friends/family
and do not pay
rent
I am unhoused I prefer not to
answer
45-44 (n=238) 55-64 (n=261) 65 + (n=343)
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page A16
FIGURE 7: DO YOU WORK AND/OR ATTEND SCHOOL IN SANTA CLARA, AND HOW MUCH TIME DO YOU SPEND TRAVELING AND BY WHICH MODE OF TRANSIT? (QUESTION 3; N=722)
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
0-15 Minutes 16-30
Minutes
31-45
Minutes
46-60
Minutes
61+ Minutes
I Attend School in Santa Clara I work In Santa Clara
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
90.00%
Personal
Vehicle
Car Pool Van Pool Rideshare Public
Transit
Walk Bike
I Attend School in Santa Clara I work In Santa Clara
A
Page A-17
FIGURE 8: WHAT TYPE OF HOUSING DO YOU THINK SANTA CLARA NEEDS MORE OF (PICK YOUR TOP 3 – ENGLISH SURVEY RESULTS)? (QUESTION 4; N=1,474) FIGURE 9: WHAT TYPE OF HOUSING DO YOU THINK SANTA CLARA NEEDS MORE OF (PICK YOUR TOP 3 – ENGLISH SURVEY RESULTS BY AGE GROUPINGS)? (QUESTION 4)
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Single Family Homes Senior Housing Townhomes
0 2
4 6
8 Apartments with 5
or more units
Interim/Transitional
housing
Single-Family Homes
18 -24 (n=28)
0 1
2 3
4 Permanent
Supportive Housing
Special Needs
Housing
Apartments with 4
Units of Less
18 and Under (n=8)
0 20
40 60
80 100
120
Single Family
Homes
Townhomes Apartments with 5
or more units
25-34 (n=441)
0 50
100
150
Single Family
Homes
Townhomes Apartments with 5
or more units
34-44 (n=585)
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page A18
0 20
40 60
80 100
120
Single Family
Homes
Senior Housing Townhomes
45-54 (n=539)
0 50
100
150
Senior Housing Single-Family Homes Interim/Transitional Housing
55-65 (n=572)
0 50
100
150
200
Senior Housing Single-Family Homes Interim/Transitional Housing
65 + (n=740)
A
Page A-19
FIGURE 10: WHAT TYPE OF HOUSING DO YOU THINK SANTA CLARA NEEDS MORE OF (PICK YOUR TOP 3 – ALL LANGUAGES SURVEY RESULTS)? (QUESTION 4; N=1,538) FIGURE 11: MORE HOUSING IS NEEDED FOR (ENGLISH SURVEY RESULTS): (RANK YOUR TOP 3) (QUESTION 5; N=1,452)
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
90.00%
100.00%
Chinese (n=31) English (n=1,474) Spanish (n=27) Vietnamese (n=6) 0 100
200
300
400
500
600
Seniors Single Parents Families
Top 3 #1 Rankings
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page A20
FIGURE 12: MORE HOUSING IS NEEDED FOR (SPANISH SURVEY RESULTS): (RANK YOUR TOP 3) (QUESTION 5; N=29)
FIGURE 13: MORE HOUSING IS NEEDED FOR (CHINESE SURVEY RESULTS): (RANK YOUR TOP 3) (QUESTION 5; N=31)
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 Seniors Single Parents College
Students
Persons with
Disabilities
Top 3 #1 Rankings
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 Seniors Families Persons with
Disabilities
Top 3 #1 Rankings
A
Page A-21
FIGURE 14: MORE HOUSING IS NEEDED FOR (VIETNAMESE SURVEY RESULTS):
(RANK YOUR TOP 3) (QUESTION 5; N=6)
FIGURE 15: MORE HOUSING IS NEEDED FOR (ENGLISH SURVEY RESULTS): (RANK YOUR TOP 3) (QUESTION 5; BY AGE GROUPINGS 18 AND UNDER 44 YEARS OLD; N=784)
0 0.5
1 1.5
2 2.5
Persons with
Disabilities
Seniors Veterans
Top 3 #1 Rankings
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
# 1 Choices by Age Groupings
18 and Under 18-24 25-34 35-44
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page A22
FIGURE 16: MORE HOUSING IS NEEDED FOR (ENGLISH SURVEY RESULTS): (RANK YOUR TOP 3) (QUESTION 5; BY AGE GROUPINGS 45 TO 65 AND ABOVE; N=784) FIGURE 17: PLEASE TELL US HOW IMPORTANT THE FOLLOWING HOUSING ISSUES ARE TO YOU (0 IS UNIMPORTANT, 10 IS VERY IMPORTANT) (QUESTION 6-12) Average Answers for questions 6-12
6. Ensure that children who grow up in Santa Clara can afford to live in Santa Clara: 8 (N=1,427)
7. Provide opportunities for people who work in Santa Clara to live in Santa Clara: 8 (N=1,433)
8. Provide more options for older residents to downsize and stay in the community: 7 (N=1,410)
9. Streamline the process for new housing construction: 6 (N=1,407)
10. Provide shelters and transitional housing for homeless families and individuals, along with services that help move people into permanent housing: 6 (N=1,415)
11. Support programs to help homeowners at risk of mortgage default to keep their homes: 6 (N=1,401)
12. Establish housing near public transit: 7 (N=1,416)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
# 1 Choices by Age Groupings
45-54 55-64 65 +
A
Page A-23
FIGURE 18: PLEASE TELL US HOW IMPORTANT THE FOLLOWING PLANNING ISSUES ARE TO YOU (0 IS UNIMPORTANT, 10 IS VERY IMPORTANT) (QUESTION 13-15) Average Answers for questions 13-17
13. Environmental risks (e.g., wetlands, air quality, flood, etc.): 8 (N=1,287)
14. Potential traffic and congestion: 8 (N=1,393)
15. Preserving community character: 7 (N=1,386)
FIGURE 19: ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR ISSUES RELATED TO PLANNING FOR HOUSING IN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA? (QUESTION 16; N=833)
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page A24
FIGURE 20: ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR ISSUES RELATED TO PLANNING FOR HOUSING IN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA? (QUESTION 16; SPANISH SURVEY; N=22) FIGURE 21: ARE THERE ANY NEIGHBORHOODS IN SANTA CLARA THAT ARE
LACKING GOOD ACCESS TO AMENITIES LIKE PARKS, LIBRARIES, GROCERY STORES, SCHOOLS, BIKE LANES, ETC.? (QUESTION 17; N=645) A
Page A-25
FIGURE 22: ARE THERE ANY NEIGHBORHOODS IN SANTA CLARA THAT ARE
LACKING GOOD ACCESS TO AMENITIES LIKE PARKS, LIBRARIES, GROCERY STORES, SCHOOLS, BIKE LANES, ETC.? (QUESTION 17; CHINESE SURVEY; N=10) FIGURE 23: HOW OLD ARE YOU? (QUESTION 18; N=1,390)
0 50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Under 18 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ Prefer
not to
answer
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page A26
FIGURE 24: WHAT IS YOUR GENDER? (QUESTION 19; N=1,390)
FIGURE 25: HOW DO YOU IDENTIFY YOUR RACE AND ETHNICITY? (QUESTION 20; N=1,390)
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Female Male Non-binary Prefer not to
answer
Other
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
White or
Caucasian
Black or
African
American
Hispanic
or Latino
Asian or
Asian
American
American
Indian or
Alaska
Native
Native
Hawaiian
or other
Pacific
Islander
Another
Race
Prefer not
to answer
A
Page A-27
FIGURE 26: WHAT BEST DESCRIBES YOUR ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME (QUESTION 21; N=1,390)
Appendix A-4 Regional Santa Clara County AFFH Related Outreach In 2019 Santa Clara County and Cities formed a consortium and hired a consultant to develop a regional Assessment of Fair Housing to meet both HUD and HCD requirements. The consortium hired the Lawyer’s Committee for Civil Rights to conduct broad outreach, analysis, and to draft plans. The following is a summary of the interviews and meetings that were held throughout Santa Clara County as part of this early process. These meetings provided important regional context for the AFFH analysis in the Housing Element. The table below lists the meetings by category and the dates on which the meetings were held.
FIGURE 1: REGIONAL SANTA CLARA COUNTY AFFH RELATED OUTREACH (FUNDED
IN PART BY CITY OF SANTA CLARA)
Regional Assessment of Fair Housing Meetings
Meetings Date
Public Community Meetings
San José Evening Community Meeting November 13, 2019
City of Santa Clara Community Meeting November 14, 2019 San José Daytime Community Meeting November 16, 2019
0 50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
Under
$15,000
Between
$15,000
and
$29,999
Between
$30,000
and
$49,999
Between
$50,000
and
$74,999
Between
$75,000
amd
$99,999
Between
$100,000
and
$150,000
Over
$150,000
Prefer not
to answer
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page A28
Urban County Community Meeting December 11, 2019
Cupertino Meeting (group with other
cities/areas) December 19, 2019
Central County January 14, 2020
South County January 15, 2020
Focus Groups
Formerly Incarcerated Individuals December 12, 2019
Homeless Individuals and Families December 12, 2019
Non-Profit Affordable Housing
Developers December 13, 2019
Women December 13, 2019
Seniors January 13, 2020
Central County January 13, 2020
Health Trust for HIV/AIDS January 14, 2020
Vietnamese Community January 15, 2020
South County January 15, 2020
Filipino Community January 26, 2020
Schools/Educators January 27, 2020
Seniors January 29, 2020
Hispanic Community January 29, 2020
Stakeholder Meetings
Project Sentinel October 1, 2019
San José NAACP October 1, 2019
Asian Law Alliance October 2, 2019
Law Foundation of Silicon Valley October 2, 2019
Latinos United for a New America October 21, 2019
California Apartment Association October 21, 2019
The Silicon Valley Organization October 21, 2019
Catalyze SV October 21, 2019
Santa Clara County Housing Authority October 21, 2019
International Children Assistance
Network October 21, 2019
Bay Area Legal Aid October 22, 2019
Housing Trust Silicon Valley October 22, 2019
Gilroy Compassion Center October 22, 2019
City of Gilroy October 22, 2019
Senior Adults Legal Assistance October 22, 2019
Day Worker Center of Mountain View October 22, 2019
Santa Clara County Association of
Realtors October 23, 2019
City of Santa Clara October 23, 2019
City of Sunnyvale October 23, 2019
A
Page A-29
Silicon Valley at Home October 23, 2019
Bay Area Homeowners Network October 23, 2019
Sunnyvale Community Services November 12, 2019
SOMOS Mayfair November 14, 2019
Amigos de Guadalupe November 15, 2019
West Valley Community Services November 15, 2019
Habitat for Humanity December 10, 2019
Working Partnerships USA December 11, 2019
Because of the breadth of these efforts and the diverse views of the individuals and organizations consulted, it is difficult to distill the information that these meetings yielded down to a few key themes. This summary attempts to, first, identify the range of topics that the meetings addressed and, second, to identify either consensus around those topics or the primary alternative views expressed.
Key topics addressed in the community engagement process included:
x Unlawful housing discrimination, including but not limited to racial discrimination, failures to provide reasonable accommodations, source of income discrimination, patterns and trends in housing discrimination, and barriers to effective enforcement. x Demographic and housing data, including but not limited to how community members interpret data provided by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and sources of local data.
x Zoning and land use laws, including but not limited to their impact on affordable housing development and how they interact with community opposition to affordable housing in certain areas.
x Funding and regulatory programs to create affordable housing, including but not limited to how effective they are at producing units, the income levels they reach, and the bedroom distribution of units produced.
x Supportive services programs for persons with disabilities and unhoused residents, including but not limited to how those programs are coordinated with housing programs. x The connection between access to opportunity and patterns of segregation, including but not limited to with respect to education, employment, transportation, and environmental health.
x Tenant protections and access to legal services, including but not limited to rent stabilization, just cause eviction protections, and funding for tenant representation in eviction cases.
Housing Discrimination
Consistent with national and statewide trends, participants in the community engagement process reported that disability status is the most common alleged basis of discrimination in
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page A30
complaints submitted to service providers, the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing and HUD. Among disability discrimination complaints, complaints regarding alleged denials of reasonable accommodation requests are the most common. The fact that disability status is the most frequently complained of type of discrimination does not necessarily mean that it is the most common type of discrimination occurring in the community. Because of the nature of the reasonable accommodation process, it may be more apparent to individuals with disabilities that they have been subjected to discrimination. By contrast, fair housing testing may be necessary to uncover national origin and race discrimination, in particular. Testing conducted by stakeholders confirmed that these types of discrimination remain common. Complaints of source of income discrimination also remain common despite the State’s relatively recently enacted prohibition on such discrimination against household with Housing Choice Vouchers suggesting either or both inadequate awareness of the new law and/or inadequate enforcement of it.
Demographic and Housing Data
There was broad consensus that housing costs in Santa Clara County are extremely high and have rapidly become more expensive over time. These changes have not affected all communities equally and Hispanic or Latino, Black, and Vietnamese populations, which tend to have lower income levels, being particularly vulnerable to displacement. In light of income disparities among Asian American and Pacific Islander ancestry groups, participants in the community engagement process emphasized the importance of disaggregated data, which tends to show lower income levels among Vietnamese households but also relatively high rates of homeownership.
Zoning and Land Use
Concern about the extent to which zoning and land use laws play a role in fair housing issues varies significantly depending on one’s location within Santa Clara County. Additionally, because zoning and land use laws often have consequences across city boundaries, the greatest concerns that community members and stakeholders articulated tended to pertain to different jurisdictions than those where participants lived, provided services, or engaged in advocacy. In particular, many involved in the community engagement process noted concerns about exclusionary zoning in the West Valley. Developer stakeholders, both of affordable and of market rate housing, also noted that long approval timelines were often as significant of a barrier to their efforts as were underlying regulations. They noted understaffing of planning departments as a principal driver of those delays.
Affordable Housing Programs
A
Page A-31
There was generally consensus around the need to provide more financial support for affordable housing across jurisdictions in Santa Clara County though there were some differences of opinion about how, if at all, to use regulatory tools like inclusionary housing to produce affordable housing. The details of input about affordable housing funding programs varied in relation to the different landscapes of existing programs in each municipality. Some stakeholders noted the high bar to passage for bond issues, including affordable housing bond issues, reflecting that, while the passage of Measure A was a big step forward for Santa Clara County, a similar bond issue in the City of San José had failed despite a large majority of support. Inclusionary housing was a frequent topic of discussion but not a point on which there was consensus. Most participants who discussed inclusionary housing voiced support for the adoption of requirements in more jurisdictions, deeper affordability targeting, and higher set aside requirements. Some participants opposed these types of changes on the basis of stated concerns about deterring new development.
Supportive Services
Participants in the community engagement process noted geographic unevenness in the availability of supportive services for persons with disabilities and unhoused populations, with communities in South County having less access than in North County. There was also criticism of the overall level of services that are available and concern that there were more adequate services available for chronically unhoused individuals with serious mental illness and/or substance abuse disorders but that other vulnerable populations, including disproportionately Hispanic or Latino unhoused families, domestic violence survivors, and medically fragile individuals, have less access to services. For formerly unhoused individuals living in permanent supportive housing, some expressed concern about whether persons with disabilities have true provider choice.
Access to Opportunity
Many stakeholders and residents expressed concern about public transportation in Santa Clara County. Issues raised include the overall level of service, the lack of service in some areas with high performing school in the West Valley, the lack of service in South County, and high fares on CalTrain. Bus riders mentioned long headways on some bus routes as a problem. Participants reflected on the expansion of BART service into Santa Clara County as both an opportunity and an occurrence that could lead to more displacement. With regard to environmental health, the most significant concerns articulated in the community engagement process related to issues in East and North San José. The connection between patterns of segregation and access to proficient
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page A32
schools was clear in the data analysis conducted for the Assessment of Fair Housing but was not heavily emphasized by participants in the community engagement process.
Tenant Protections
Tenant protections were a frequent topic of discussion albeit one that sharply divided opinion among participants in the community engagement process. Many participants urged robust tenant protections including rent stabilization with as few exemptions as are allowed by state law, just cause eviction protections, constraints on Ellis Act conversions, and requirements that landlords pay relocation expenses for displaced tenants. Other participants, particularly trade associations representing landlords, strongly opposed most or all of these policies. Small “mom and pop” landlords were particularly likely to express opposition to just cause eviction protections and stated more strenuous objections to that policy than they did to rent stabilization.
Legal services providers noted that they did not have the resources or capacity to meet the total need for tenant representation in eviction cases absent additional funding. It is important to note that this input was gathered prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, and there was no opportunity to get input on the various government interventions to prevent evictions during the pandemic.
Appendix A-5 Housing Element Specific Outreach
FIGURE 1: HOUSING ELEMENT SPECIFIC OUTREACH
Housing Element Specific Outreach
Meeting/Activity Date Meeting Type
1 Stakeholders Meeting re: Affordable Housing
Ordinance Potential Amendments March 12, 2021 Zoom
2 City Council Study Session April 6, 2021 Zoom
3 Let’s Talk Housing Community Meeting August 30, 2021 Zoom 25 attendees from Santa Clara
4 Planning Commission Study Session September 22, 2021
A
Page A-33
5 City Council Study Session on Homelessness November 9, 2021 6 Joint City Council/Planning Commission Study
Session 1 April 19, 2022
7 Homelessness Taskforce Meeting #1 April 28, 2022
8 Stakeholder Listening Session: Development
Constraints Panel May 5, 2022 Zoom
9 Community Survey (English, Spanish, Chinese,
Vietnamese) May - July 8, 2022 1,651 responses
10 Health and Wellness Fair May 20, 2022 • 400 attendees, 50-60 people stopped by booth
11 Homelessness Taskforce Meeting #2 May 26, 2022 Zoom
12 June 2022 City Hall News (monthly e-newsletter) June 2022 13 Library Pop-Up Meetings (Central and Northside) June 14th and 17th, 2022
In Person
14 Inside Santa Clara (summer 2022 edition) June 18-22, 2022 Mailed to over 58,000 residents and businesses
15 Homelessness Taskforce Meeting #3 June 23, 2022
16 Joint City Council/Planning Commission Study
Session 2 July 12, 2022
17 Housing Choices – Interview with Kalisha
Webster July 22, 2022
18 Homelessness Taskforce Meeting #4 July 28, 2022
19 Community Meeting August 1, 2022 Zoom
20 Community Meeting Forum on Homelessness August 9, 2022 Zoom 21 Life Services Alternatives (LSA) – Residential Care
Home visit and interview with Dana Hooper and
residents
August 12, 2022 In Person
22 Meeting with regional Equity Advisory Group August 23, 2022 Zoom
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page A34
23 Homelessness Taskforce Meeting #5 August 25, 2022
24 40th Anniversary Art & Wine Festival September 17-18, 2022 In Person 25 Meeting with Riverwood Grove residents (family
housing) September 19, 2022 In Person
26 Meeting with Bill Wilson Peacock Commons
residents (Transition Age Youth) September 20, 2022 In Person 27 Meeting with Liberty Tower residents (Seniors) September 22, 2022 In Person 28 Homelessness Taskforce Meeting #6 October 27, 2022
29 Housing Stakeholders Workshop November 17, 2022 Zoom Summaries from Select Meetings/Activities
1. March 12, 2021. Stakeholders meeting (Zoom). Approximately 30 individuals representing numerous development companies and related interests participated in a discussion regarding potential amendments to City’s Affordable Housing Ordinance. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS), the City’s consultant, presented at the beginning of the meeting and shared the housing prototypes being analyzed for feasibility with the current Affordable Housing Ordinance and potential changes that would increase the number or depth of affordability the City could consider. A summary of stakeholder comments is available on the Housing Element Update page.
3. August 30, 2021. Let’s Talk Housing Community Meeting (Zoom). A series of countywide meetings about the Housing Element update were held from August to September 2021. Each meeting offered Spanish-language interpretation and provided community members with an introduction the Housing Element update, why it matters, information on the Let’s Talk Housing outreach effort and countywide trends. Breakout room discussions with individual cities and towns followed. In total 832 registered for the series. Of those who registered for the series, the majority identified as White and over half were 50 years or older. Over sixty percent lived over 21 years within the county, and over half were homeowners.
Santa Clara was part of the August 30th, 2021 introductory meeting, along with Milpitas, Mountain View, and Sunnyvale. This meeting offered Vietnamese interpretation in addition to Spanish, courtesy of the City of Milpitas, and outreach for the meeting was conducted in the three languages. Twenty-five people who registered for the August 30th meeting identified as joining from Santa Clara. Of the Santa Clara participants, all indicated being homeowners and living in single family homes. In the breakout session, participants expressed that they valued living in Santa Clara due to its tight knit community, its rich history, ample job opportunities, and its mix of older and newer neighborhoods. However, participants pointed out older housing is becoming increasingly unaffordable and the general lack of moderate and A
Page A-35
affordable housing. Older adults, especially those who are moderate or low income, struggle to find housing and many adult children can’t live close to their aging parents. Among ideas to address these needs were: transit-oriented development, increasing allowable densities, and developing an affordable housing program for seniors. Among programs or policies that are already working well, participants shared that specific plans have been an effective tool for development and the El Camino Real Specific Plan in particular is a good example of extensive and comprehensive community outreach.
8. May 5, 2022. Stakeholder Listening Session: Development Constraints (Zoom). The presentation and summary from this meeting is available on the Santa Clara County Planning Collaborative page and on the Housing Element Update page.
14. June 18-22, 2022. Inside Santa Clara (summer 2022 edition). Full page article on the Housing Element Update. Printed newsletter sent to over 58,000 residents and businesses.
19. August 1, 2022. Community Meeting (Zoom). Community meeting with a presentation on the Housing Plan of the draft Housing Element Update; comments were made regarding tenant protections, housing for persons with disabilities, and increased housing type and tenure. There twelve (12) members of the community that attended representing individuals and advocacy organizations.
22. August 23, 2022. Regional Equity Advisory Group (EAG) Meeting (Zoom). Provided City with general feedback on how to improve engagement with stakeholders and community members. Suggested more direct outreach and importance of going to specific locations to reach targeted populations. Specific comments about locating housing in high/highest opportunity areas of the City and that ELI households experience the highest rates of housing cost burden, making them at the highest risk of homelessness or displacement.
24. September 17-18, 2022. 40th Annual Art & Wine Festival (In-person). 152 attendees participated in a dot exercise to identify what they felt were the biggest challenges/greatest needs facing the City of Santa Clara.
Participants were provided different colored dots if they identified as a City of Santa Clara homeowner (111), City of Santa Clara renter (24), if they work (but don’t live) in the City of Santa Clara (4), or if they don’t live or work in the City of Santa Clara (13). From a list of 13 biggest challenges/greatest needs, the most votes were placed on 1. Addressing homelessness: programs, temporary housing/permanent supportive housing; 2. Housing that is affordable to low/minimum was earners (e.g., service/retail workers); 3. Providing more homeownership opportunities; and 4. Stabilizing rents (limit large rent increases and large deposit requirements).
Although Santa Clara homeowners and renters identified the same top four biggest challenges/greatest needs, the order was different. For homeowners addressing homelessness received the most votes and stabilizing rents received the fourth most votes. For renters stabilizing rents received the most votes and addressing homelessness received the fourth most votes.
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page A36
Homeowners: 1. Addressing homelessness; 2. Housing that is affordable to low/minimum wage earners; 3. Providing more homeownership opportunities; 4. Stabilizing rents Renters: 1. Stabilizing rents; 2. Housing that is affordable to low/minimum wage earners; 3.
Providing more homeownership opportunities; 4. Addressing homelessness. 24, 25, 26. September 19, 2022. Riverwood Grove (family housing) Residents Meeting (In-person with 16 adults, 5 children); September 20, 2022. Bill Wilson Peacock Commons (transition age youth) Residents Meeting (In-person with 10 adults, 5 children); September 22, 2022. Liberty Tower (senior housing) Residents Meeting (In-person with 8 adults, 2 staff). Residents of the three housing developments were asked a series of questions, including about their personal experiences/challenges finding and living in affordable/supportive housing, and what they would like to see in terms of priorities for making their housing experience better. In addition to noting specific resources needs and concerns about traffic and safety, residents consistently noted the challenges of barriers to entry (affordability and wait/availability of units).
27. November 17, 2022. Stakeholders Workshop (Zoom). Zoom meeting that reviewed the Housing Element development process using a Mural Board. The meeting was primarily attended by housing and human service providers and advocacy organizations. Attendees mentioned the need for more emergency rental assistance, that state relocation assistance is inadequate, that ELI seniors in income restricted housing are increasingly rent burdened and at risk of homelessness, that seniors need in-person housing navigation assistance that homelessness prevention is less costly than crisis response, that city and county government should work on providing holistic housing services, the need for more social workers and case managers to help clients navigate programs, the need to financially support service providers so they can retain staff, the need to bring air conditioning and filters into affordable housing in response to heat and wildfire smoke climate change, and the need to proactively reach out to Latino/a, Vietnamese, and Filipino/a populations who are disproportionately in need of affordable housing.
Appendix A-6 Public Review Draft Comments
The City of Santa Clara asked for the public’s comments on the Housing Element Update. The document to post public comments can be found here: https://santaclaraca.konveio.com/city-santa-clara-housingelement-update?cid=87#page=18. Below is a summary of the received comments.
FIGURE 1: HOUSING ELEMENT DRAFT PUBLIC COMMENTS
A
Page A-37
Date Name Comment
Comment
Page Sentiment Comment link Response
7/1/2022
Katherine
Lanning
I love Santa Clara and
would love to volunteer
my time helping others
in this beautiful city 18 Positive
https://santaclaraca.konveio.com/citysanta-clara-housing-elementupdate?cid=87#page=18 7/30/2022
Anne
Paulson
The Housing Element
isn't the place where the
city talks about
"exploring changes." The
Housing Element is
where the city talks
about the result of the
explorations that have
already happened, and
explains what the
changes are and when
exactly they will be
accomplished.
What changes will you
make, and when will
they be made? 22 Neutral
https://santaclaraca.konveio.com/citysanta-clara-housing-elementupdate?cid=98#page=22 7/30/2022
Anne
Paulson
These exceedingly weak
explorations do nothing
to achieve B-1 (look for
sites for affordable
housing), B-2 (encourage
high density housing),or
B-3 (look for funding for
affordable housing).
They don't do anything
for the C goals either,
which are about housing
for people with special
circumstances (disability,
female-headed, large
family).
My suggestion is that
you write objectives that
would actually achieve
your goals, and give time
deadlines for them. 22 Negative
https://santaclaraca.konveio.com/citysanta-clara-housing-elementupdate?cid=99#page=22
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page A38
7/12/2022 Jennifer
Where is Action #4? I
see responsible agency
and objectives, but no
Action listed or Funding
Source. 24 Negative
https://santaclaraca.konveio.com/citysanta-clara-housing-elementupdate?cid=90#page=24 7/30/2022
Anne
Paulson
How will you improve
the maintenance of
student housing, and
when? 26 Neutral
https://santaclaraca.konveio.com/citysanta-clara-housing-elementupdate?cid=100#page=26 7/30/2022
Anne
Paulson When? 26 Neutral
https://santaclaraca.konveio.com/citysanta-clara-housing-elementupdate?cid=101#page=26 7/30/2022
Anne
Paulson When? 26 Neutral
https://santaclaraca.konveio.com/citysanta-clara-housing-elementupdate?cid=102#page=26 7/29/2022 Nick Leung
Yes, I would really like to
see more upzoning/high
density development
while being conscious of
existing transportation,
or improving/adding
more transportation to
support new
developments such that
they reduce reliance on
cars. 27 Neutral
https://santaclaraca.konveio.com/citysanta-clara-housing-elementupdate?cid=91#page=27 7/30/2022
Anne
Paulson How? 28 Neutral
https://santaclaraca.konveio.com/citysanta-clara-housing-elementupdate?cid=103#page=28 7/30/2022
Anne
Paulson How? 28 Neutral
https://santaclaraca.konveio.com/citysanta-clara-housing-elementupdate?cid=104#page=28 A
Page A-39
7/30/2022
Anne
Paulson
What is the action here?
I don't see any action. 33 Negative
https://santaclaraca.konveio.com/citysanta-clara-housing-elementupdate?cid=105#page=33 7/29/2022 Nick Leung
If El Camino becomes
densified, I'd like to see
dedicated BRT. 77 Neutral
https://santaclaraca.konveio.com/citysanta-clara-housing-elementupdate?cid=92#page=77 7/29/2022 Nick Leung
We should lower the
requirements for
parking. Parking is poor
land use (especially
surface parking) which
encourages more cars,
which is bad for traffic
and many reasons. In
this area, so much land
is already dedicated to
cars (4+4 lane
expressways, highways,
garages, driveways,
parking, etc.). We can
increase the
transportation
connectivity and serve
lower income residents
better by lessening the
emphasis on car-driven
development. 117 Neutral
https://santaclaraca.konveio.com/citysanta-clara-housing-elementupdate?cid=93#page=117 7/30/2022
Anne
Paulson
How can you say with a
straight face that
development standards
aren't a constraint on
building, when you
require two parking
spaces for a studio
apartment? You're
requiring more space for
the cars than for the
people. 118 Negative
https://santaclaraca.konveio.com/citysanta-clara-housing-elementupdate?cid=96#page=118 7/30/2022
Anne
Paulson
An SRO is not employee
housing; it's rooms with
or without kitchens that
are rented separately.
Why is the title SRO
Housing, when the text
doesn't talk about SRO
housing?
The Housing Element 120 Negative
https://santaclaraca.konveio.com/citysanta-clara-housing-elementupdate?cid=97#page=120
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page A40
needs to explain how
Santa Clara allows Single
Room Occupancy
housing.
7/29/2022 Nick Leung
I think this is
unfortunate, but it's
obvious that this
community opposition
to densification has
created disastrous
effects for housing
affordability for
everyone.
We can fight a lot of this
community resistance
with transit oriented and
mixed use development,
though I expect the
community will find
other ways to oppose it.
We should still try. 132 Negative
https://santaclaraca.konveio.com/citysanta-clara-housing-elementupdate?cid=94#page=132 7/30/2022
Anne
Paulson
(Page 13.5-23) The
Housing Element says
that it will do a fee
analysis of the four
prototypical buildings.
And then, it just doesn't.
I'd like to know how
much the 100 unit
building would pay in
fees, and I assumed
that's what the analysis
was going to give me,
but it doesn't. Elsewhere
in the document (p 13.5-
13) it says that a large
multifamily project pays
$2156 per unit, but that
doesn't look accurate,
with all those big permit
fees.
The document needs to
tell us what the fees are
for these typical
buildings. 134 Negative
https://santaclaraca.konveio.com/citysanta-clara-housing-elementupdate?cid=95#page=134 A
Page A-41
7/30/2022
Anne
Paulson
Sares Regis, 800
units???? Sares Regis is a
building company, not
an address or an
identifier for a project.
What project is this? 145 Neutral
https://santaclaraca.konveio.com/citysanta-clara-housing-elementupdate?cid=106#page=145 7/31/2022
Anne
Paulson Typo 149 Positive
https://santaclaraca.konveio.com/citysanta-clara-housing-elementupdate?cid=107#page=149 7/31/2022
Anne
Paulson
This has to be 34
REMAINING parcels.
Otherwise the numbers
don't add up: half the
parcels are already built,
11 are approved or
proposed, the remaining
17 are listed for below
market housing in the
table below. 158 Negative
https://santaclaraca.konveio.com/citysanta-clara-housing-elementupdate?cid=108#page=158 7/31/2022
Anne
Paulson
"Full buildout of the area
will likely occur by
2038." So the capacity
listed in 13.6-7 should be
discounted by 50%, since
since buildout will occur
throughout the Sixth and
Seventh RHNA cycles. 158 Neutral
https://santaclaraca.konveio.com/citysanta-clara-housing-elementupdate?cid=109#page=158 7/1/2022
Katherine
Lanning
I have great experience
in developing business
and marketing 173 Positive
https://santaclaraca.konveio.com/citysanta-clara-housing-elementupdate?cid=89#page=173 7/1/2022
Katherine
Lanning
I would love to volunteer
my time to make this
city a beautiful one with
parks, museums and
individual gardens 189 Positive
https://santaclaraca.konveio.com/citysanta-clara-housing-elementupdate?cid=88#page=189
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page A42
8/16/2022
Dana
Hooper
Thanks for taking the
time to visit the LSA
Cypress home. Cypress is
a licensed residential
care home.
As I mentioned I had a
chance to review
chapter 13.2 Housing
Plan and have some
comments I’d like to
share.
My general comment is
that otherwise eligible
individuals should not be
excluded because they
choose to or are already
living in a licensed
residential care home.
These individuals need
the support just as much
as there counterpart.
Here are some
additional comments to
specific section in the
Housing Plan.
Action 1: The 4th
objective – Support lowincome housing
alternatives such as
housing for persons with
disabilities should be
expanded specifically to
include licensed
residential care homes.
Action 3: Affordable
Housing Incentives and
Facilitation. The
construction of
affordable housing
should also include
residential care homes
as a type of facility and
funding to at least the
same level per person as
multiunit projects.
Action 4: Maintenance
of Housing Stock should
include residential care
homes in the definition
of who is qualified to
receive maintenance. n/a n/a
A
Page A-43
Appendix A-7 Formal Comment Letters
FIGURE 1: HOUSING ELEMENT DRAFT – PUBLIC FORMAL LETTER COMMENTS Date Organization From Comment(s)
7/27/2022 TransForm Kendra Ma, Housing
Policy Analyst
1. Santa Clara needs to expand on its successful programs and initiate new ones, including: 1) Planning for growth in walkable areas near transit, 2) Reducing the amount of parking mandated for housing and providing incentives and programs to drive less (Transportation Demand Management), 3) Developing sufficient programs to meet affordable home targets of RHNA
2. Action 9 - revising zoning standards and potentially reducing/eliminating parking: lacks commitment to specific changes, such as what parking strategies the city will pursue. TransForm's recommendations:
a) Fund a dedicated study of parking reforms
b) Require unbundled parking for developments in "Transit Neighborhoods" c) Expand the Transportation Demand Management program
3. TransForm applauds policy C-1: cost-effective complement to strategies focused on housing production
7/1/2022 SV@Home Matthew Reed,
Policy Director
1. Concern over the lack of understanding and attention to the broader Housing Element requirements under Affirmatively Further Fair Housing (AFFH) in this Housing Element Update process. Santa Clara should consider the work and policy efforts conducted in Palo Alto to build upon and further the community's anti-displacement goals by addressing housing instability.
See letter for specific recommendations.
7/15/2022 Housing
Choices
-The City of Santa Clara needs to adopt more programs and policies related to affordable housing with coordinated services for persons living with developmental disabilities, examples include:
a) Integration in typical affordable housing
b) Coordination of housing with onsite supportive services c) A mix of unit sizes
d) Location near public transit
c) Deeply affordable housing
-Population of adults living with developmental disabilities continues to increase in Santa Clara while beds available in licensed facilities are decreasing -Policy/Programming recommendations include:
1. Produce more extremely low-income housing
2. Establish and monitor a quantitative goal
3. Target city-owned land to dedicate to affordable housing
4. Local density bonus
5. Extremely low-income ADUs
6. Reduce parking requirements
7. Affirmative marketing of physically accessible units
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page A44
8/8/2022 SV@Home Matthew Reed,
Policy Director
-The City of Santa Clara’s Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element falls short of the statutory requirement at multiple levels, from its failure to elicit and reflect community input, to its deficient analysis of needs, to its absence of concrete programs with implementation details and timelines
-The sites inventory falls significantly short of the AFFH requirements for this process
-6th Cycle Housing Element Update is a unique process to fully assess the breadth of housing needs in Santa Clara and identify new tools to address housing constraints and needs
-Opportunity to engage with the full community across incomes -SV@Home does not find that the Draft Housing Element Update shows evidence of the significant public engagement and community participation required to be compliant with guidance provided by the state -Lack of sufficient outreach and notification to public/community -The Housing Element does not a) provide a summary of public comments and b) explain how the comments were considered and incorporated, including comments that were not incorporated.
-The Housing Needs Assessment does not incorporate local knowledge or analysis.
-SV@Home recommends that the City of Santa Clara conduct additional outreach and analysis of the housing needs data in the draft with the goal of better understanding the housing needs of the city as they are experienced by residents of the city
-SV@Home recommends that the assessment of the 5th Cycle Policies and Programs be incorporated into the more comprehensive assessment of housing needs, including concrete opportunities for public engagement around the lessons learned from these prior efforts.
-Lack of connection between needs and solutions in the draft -SV@Home believes the lack of detail in the policies and programs included in the draft will not prove to be compliant.
-SV@Home believes there is a general failure to substantively address housing instability and displacement experienced by protected classes under AFFH in Santa Clara.
-SV@Home recommends that the City of Santa Clara confirm and remove any sites from the inventory that received building permits prior to June 30, 2022, whether listed as “Under Construction” or “Approved”.
8/16/2022 Life Services
Alternatives
Dana Hooper,
Executive Director
General Comment: Otherwise eligible individuals should not be excluded because they choose to or are already living in a licensed residential care home. These individuals need the support just as much as there counterpart.
Action 1: The 4th objective – Support low-income housing alternatives such as housing for persons with
disabilities should be expanded specifically to include licensed residential care homes.
Action 3: Affordable Housing Incentives and Facilitation. The construction of affordable housing should
also include residential care homes as a type of facility and funding to at least the same level per person
as multiunit projects.
Action 4: Maintenance of Housing Stock should include residential care homes in the definition of who is
qualified to receive maintenance.
A
Page A-45
8/1/2022 Anne Paulson -The Local Processing Explanation Is Confusing and Lacks Necessary Information
-Recommendations:
• For each typical type of building (ADU, single family house, 10 unit multifamily, 100 unit multifamily, big project that requires rezoning), list each step the applicant must go through, in order, with the time it takes, the number of public meetings it requires, the approval body or bodies, and how much it costs
• Make the fees table comprehensible
'-Lack of clarity in the Local Processing Explanation Is Confusing and Lacks Necessary Information
-Recommendations:
• Be more specific about the stage of approval each project is in. • Discount pipeline project and site inventory capacity for the probability that the project doesn’t get built'
-What the Housing Element needs to do is
explain how this capacity is going to be used to build the RHNA in the next eight years. The document needs to be far more clear and explicit about the entire process—the steps, how long the process takes, how much the fees are, what the project mortality is—and where each listed project is along the way - Santa Clara is nowhere close to building below market units at a rate that would satisfy its Sixth Cycle below market RHNA. So it would make sense for the Housing Element to include programs, with deadlines and milestones, to build more affordable housing.
- The City Needs to Commit to Actual Measurable Actions and Deadlines -To further encourage all-affordable projects, the city should also • make all-affordable housing projects buildable by right, with ministerial approval
• remove parking minimums for all-affordable projects
• reduce fees for all-affordable projects
If the city cannot take these actions now for whatever reason, it should identify the reason and commit to taking the action by a certain date within the planning period.
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page A46
FIGURE 2: FORMAL COMMENT LETTER: TRANSFORM
A
Page A-47
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page A48
A
Page A-49
FIGURE 3: FORMAL COMMENT LETTER: SILICON VALLEY AT HOME
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page A50
A
Page A-51
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page A52
A
Page A-53
FIGURE 4: FORMAL COMMENT LETTER: HOUSING CHOICES
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page A54
A
Page A-55
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page A56
A
Page A-57
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page A58
A
Page A-59
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page A60
A
Page A-61
FIGURE 5: FORMAL COMMENT LETTER: SILICON VALLEY AT HOME
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page A62
A
Page A-63
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page A64
A
Page A-65
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page A66
A
Page A-67
FIGURE 6: FORMAL COMMENT LETTER: LIFE SERVICES ALTERNATIVES
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page A68
FIGURE 7: FORMAL COMMENT LETTER: ANNE PAULSON
A
Page A-69
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page A70
A
Page A-71
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page A72
A
Page A-73
FIGURE 7: FORMAL COMMENT LETTER: PARTNERSHIP FOR THE BAY’S FUTURE
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page A74
A
Page A-75
FIGURE 8: FORMAL COMMENT LETTER: CARPENTER’S UNION 405
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page A76
A
Page A-77
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page A78
A
Page A-79
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page A80
FIGURE 9: FORMAL COMMENT LETTER: HOUSING ACTION COALITION A
Page A-81
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page A82
A
Page A-83
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page A84
A
Page A-85
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page A86
A
Page A-87
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page A88
A
Page A-89
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page A90
A
Page A-91
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page A92
A
Page A-93
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page A94
APPENDIX B: Santa Clara Housing Element 2023Ͳ2031 Available Sites Inventory last updated 1Ͳ20Ͳ23
APN Site Address Site Status SP Name
General Plan
Designation
ZoningDesignation SP Land Designation
MinDensity
MaxDensity Acreage Realistic Capacity Assumption_Details TotalCapacity VLOW LOW MODERATE ABOVEMOD Affordability Split Affordability Split_Details Existing Use_Category 216Ͳ33Ͳ036 3051 Corvin Drive Available LSAP (Nov 2016) MDRE LSAP Medium Density Residential 20 36 0.603888 (min density * acreage)
does not meet default density 12 0 0 6 6 0 / 0 / 50 / 50 does not meet default density
cannot claim for lower income commercial
216Ͳ33Ͳ022 3031 Corvin Drive Available LSAP (Nov 2016) MDRE LSAP Medium Density Residential 20 36 0.609543 (min density * acreage)
does not meet default density 12 0 0 6 6 0 / 0 / 50 / 50 does not meet default density
cannot claim for lower income commercial
216Ͳ33Ͳ037 3071 Corvin Drive Available LSAP (Nov 2016) MDRE LSAP Medium Density Residential 20 36 0.780375 (min density * acreage)
does not meet default density 15 0 0 8 7 0 / 0 / 50 / 50 does not meet default density
cannot claim for lower income commercial
216Ͳ34Ͳ083 3350 Central Expressway Available LSAP (Nov 2016) VHDR LSAP High Density Residential 37 50 1.677414 ((min density * 191%) * acreage) 118 48 35 35 0 40 / 30 / 30 / 0 commercial 216Ͳ33Ͳ035 3323 Kifer Road Available LSAP (Nov 2016) VHDR LSAP Very High Density Residential 51 100 0.531195 ((min density * 191%) * acreage) 51 21 15 15 0 40 / 30 / 30 / 0 commercial 216Ͳ60Ͳ045 3450 Copper Place Available LSAP (Nov 2016) VHDR LSAP Very High Density Residential 51 100 3.139213 ((min density * 191%) * acreage) 305 123 91 91 0 40 / 30 / 30 / 0 commercial 216Ͳ34Ͳ084 3410 Central Expressway Available LSAP (Nov 2016) VHDR LSAP Very High Density Residential 51 100 4.542125 ((min density * 191%) * acreage) 442 178 132 132 0 40 / 30 / 30 / 0 commercial 216Ͳ34Ͳ085 3420 Central Expressway Available LSAP (Nov 2016) VHDR LSAP Very High Density Residential 51 100 5.330071 ((min density * 191%) * acreage) 519 209 155 155 0 40 / 30 / 30 / 0 commercial 216Ͳ34Ͳ083 3350 Central Expressway Available LSAP (Nov 2016) VHDR LSAP Very High Density Residential 51 100 6.81741 ((min density * 191%) * acreage) 664 266 199 199 0 40 / 30 / 30 / 0 commercial 104Ͳ04Ͳ122 4598 Patrick Henry Drive Available PHD (Mar 2022) VHDR VHDR Very High Density Residential 51 99 2.864726 ((max density * 72%) * acreage) 204 82 61 61 0 40 / 30 / 30 / 0 industrial 104Ͳ04Ͳ131 3105 Patrick Henry Drive Available PHD (Mar 2022) VHDR VHDR Very High Density Residential 51 99 3.795996 ((max density * 72%) * acreage) 270 108 81 81 0 40 / 30 / 30 / 0 industrial 104Ͳ04Ͳ138 4699 Old Ironsides Drive Available PHD (Mar 2022) HDF HDF High Density Flex 60 149 1.734805 ((max density * 72%) * acreage) 186 76 55 55 0 40 / 30 / 30 / 0 commercial 104Ͳ04Ͳ139 4677 Old Ironsides Drive Available PHD (Mar 2022) HDF HDF High Density Flex 60 149 2.531554 ((max density * 72%) * acreage) 271 109 81 81 0 40 / 30 / 30 / 0 commercial 104Ͳ04Ͳ141 4633 Old Ironsides Drive Available PHD (Mar 2022) HDF HDF High Density Flex 60 149 2.60243 ((max density * 72%) * acreage) 279 113 83 83 0 40 / 30 / 30 / 0 commercial 104Ͳ04Ͳ140 4655 Old Ironsides Drive Available PHD (Mar 2022) HDF HDF High Density Flex 60 149 2.699689 ((max density * 72%) * acreage) 289 117 86 86 0 40 / 30 / 30 / 0 commercial 104Ͳ53Ͳ016 4701 Patrick Henry Drive Available PHD (Mar 2022) VR VR Village Residential 60 149 9.062373 ((max density * 72%) * acreage) 972 390 291 291 0 40 / 30 / 30 / 0 industrial 104Ͳ04Ͳ089 3200 Patrick Henry Drive Available PHD (Mar 2022) HDR UV Urban Village 100 149 1.285564 ((max density * 72%) * acreage) 137 55 41 41 0 40 / 30 / 30 / 0 commercial 104Ͳ04Ͳ095 2900 Patrick Henry Drive Available PHD (Mar 2022) HDR UV Urban Village 100 149 1.983616 ((max density * 72%) * acreage) 212 86 63 63 0 40 / 30 / 30 / 0 civic_institutional 104Ͳ04Ͳ094 2950 Patrick Henry Drive Available PHD (Mar 2022) HDR UV Urban Village 100 149 2.517905 ((max density * 72%) * acreage) 270 108 81 81 0 40 / 30 / 30 / 0 industrial 104Ͳ04Ͳ128 3100 Patrick Henry Drive Available PHD (Mar 2022) HDR UV Urban Village 100 149 2.519292 ((max density * 72%) * acreage) 270 108 81 81 0 40 / 30 / 30 / 0 commercial 104Ͳ04Ͳ124 3200 Patrick Henry Drive Available PHD (Mar 2022) HDR UV Urban Village 100 149 4.679705 ((max density * 72%) * acreage) 502 202 150 150 0 40 / 30 / 30 / 0 commercial 104Ͳ04Ͳ136 3055 Patrick Henry Drive Available PHD (Mar 2022) UC UC Urban Center 120 250 3.821098 ((max density * 72%) * acreage) 687 275 206 206 0 40 / 30 / 30 / 0 industrial 097Ͳ46Ͳ003 2346 Calle Del Mundo Available TE (Nov 2020) TN TN Transit Neighborhood 60 350 0.458668 ((min density * 215%) * acreage) 59 0 0 30 29 0 / 0 / 50 / 50 small siteͲcannot claim for lower income industrial 097Ͳ46Ͳ004 2338 Calle Del Mundo Available TE (Nov 2020) TN TN Transit Neighborhood 60 350 0.458805 ((min density * 215%) * acreage) 59 0 0 30 29 0 / 0 / 50 / 50 small siteͲcannot claim for lower income industrial 097Ͳ46Ͳ007 2301 Calle De Luna Available TE (Nov 2020) TN TN Transit Neighborhood 60 350 0.459185 ((min density * 215%) * acreage) 59 0 0 30 29 0 / 0 / 50 / 50 small siteͲcannot claim for lower income industrial 097Ͳ46Ͳ008 2309 Calle De Luna Available TE (Nov 2020) TN TN Transit Neighborhood 60 350 0.459186 ((min density * 215%) * acreage) 59 0 0 30 29 0 / 0 / 50 / 50 small siteͲcannot claim for lower income industrial 097Ͳ46Ͳ005 2330 Calle Del Mundo Available TE (Nov 2020) TN TN Transit Neighborhood 60 350 0.459186 ((min density * 215%) * acreage) 59 0 0 30 29 0 / 0 / 50 / 50 small siteͲcannot claim for lower income industrial 097Ͳ46Ͳ006 2322 Calle Del Mundo Available TE (Nov 2020) TN TN Transit Neighborhood 60 350 0.459186 ((min density * 215%) * acreage) 59 0 0 30 29 0 / 0 / 50 / 50 small siteͲcannot claim for lower income industrial 097Ͳ46Ͳ009 2317 Calle De Luna Available TE (Nov 2020) TN TN Transit Neighborhood 60 350 0.460984 ((min density * 215%) * acreage) 59 0 0 30 29 0 / 0 / 50 / 50 small siteͲcannot claim for lower income industrial 097Ͳ46Ͳ010 2325 Calle De Luna Available TE (Nov 2020) TN TN Transit Neighborhood 60 350 0.472659 ((min density * 215%) * acreage) 60 0 0 30 30 0 / 0 / 50 / 50 small siteͲcannot claim for lower income industrial 097Ͳ46Ͳ025 2272 Calle Del Mundo Available TE (Nov 2020) TN TN Transit Neighborhood 60 350 0.481745 ((min density * 215%) * acreage) 62 0 0 31 31 0 / 0 / 50 / 50 small siteͲcannot claim for lower income industrial 097Ͳ46Ͳ026 2262 Calle Del Mundo Available TE (Nov 2020) TN TN Transit Neighborhood 60 350 0.482545 ((min density * 215%) * acreage) 62 0 0 31 31 0 / 0 / 50 / 50 small siteͲcannot claim for lower income industrial 097Ͳ46Ͳ001 5191 Lafayette Street Available TE (Nov 2020) TN TN Transit Neighborhood 60 350 0.512947 ((min density * 215%) * acreage) 66 28 19 19 0 40 / 30 / 30 / 0 industrial 097Ͳ46Ͳ021 2271 Calle De Luna Available TE (Nov 2020) TN TN Transit Neighborhood 60 350 0.929071 ((min density * 215%) * acreage) 119 49 35 35 0 40 / 30 / 30 / 0 industrial 097Ͳ46Ͳ023 2281 Calle De Luna Available TE (Nov 2020) TN TN Transit Neighborhood 60 350 0.939815 ((min density * 215%) * acreage) 121 49 36 36 0 40 / 30 / 30 / 0 industrial 097Ͳ46Ͳ030 2203 Tasman Drive Available TE (Nov 2020) TN TN Transit Neighborhood 100 350 1.026134 ((min density * 215%) * acreage) 220 88 66 66 0 40 / 30 / 30 / 0 commercial TOTALS 7810 2888 2143 2465 314
City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gov
@SantaClaraCity
23-148 Agenda Date: 1/26/2023
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBJECT
Amendment to the City of Santa Clara General Plan by Adopting an Updated Housing Element for the 2023-2031 Housing Element Cycle - Continued from the January 23, 2023 Planning Commission Special Meeting
COUNCIL PILLAR
Promote and Enhance Economic, Housing and Transportation Development
BACKGROUND
The Housing Element, one of the required elements of the City’s General Plan, includes policies and programs intended to help the City meet the housing needs of all current and future Santa Clara residents. State law requires that local jurisdictions update their housing elements every eight years and that the housing element be reviewed by the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). Housing elements are certified by HCD if found to be in substantial compliance with State Housing law.
The City’s current (5th housing cycle) Housing Element, which was adopted on December 9, 2014 and certified by HCD on February 13, 2015, covers the planning period that began on January 31, 2015 and ends on January 31, 2023. For Bay Area towns, cities, and counties, the statutory due date for submittal of an adopted Housing Element, covering the years 2023-2031 (6th housing cycle), is January 31, 2023.
The Housing Element update process begins with the assignment to each jurisdiction of a Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), establishing a particular number of housing units at various affordability levels that must be accommodated by the local jurisdiction. On January 12, 2022, HCD approved the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Plan for distributing a share of the region’s housing need to each of the Bay Area’s towns, cities, and counties. Santa Clara’s RHNA for 2023-2031 is 11,632 units, with more than half of these units distributed into three categories of designated affordability as shown in the table below.
City of Santa Clara 2023-2031 RHNA
Very Low
Income (<50%
AMI)
Low Income
(50-80% AMI)
Moderate
Income
(80-120% AMI)
Above Mod.
Income (>120%
AMI)
Total
2,872 1,653 1,981 5,126 11,632
AMI = Area Median Income
Santa Clara, with help from the City’s planning consultant MIG, Inc., prepared a comprehensive City of Santa Clara Page 1 of 9 Printed on 1/25/2023
powered by Legistar™
23-148 Agenda Date: 1/26/2023
update of the City’s Housing Element and posted a Public Review Draft Housing Element online from July 1 through August 1, 2022.
The Draft Housing Element was revised to address comments received during the 30-day public review period and on August 22, 2022, the City’s Initial Draft Housing Element was submitted to HCD for their 90-day review. Staff had an introductory meeting with HCD on October 12, 2022 to discuss their preliminary feedback on the Initial Draft. HCD provided their formal findings/comments (Attachment 1) on November 18, 2022 and City staff met subsequently with HCD staff on November 29, 2022 to discuss those comments.
A revised Draft Housing Element (Attachment 3) addressing HCDs comments and incorporating community feedback from the earlier drafts will be reviewed by Santa Clara’s Planning Commission and City Council, and after adoption by the City Council will be sent to HCD for review and certification.
DISCUSSION
State leadership continues to identify efforts to address the State’s housing crisis as a top priority for both legislative and administrative efforts. As a result, the State has significantly increased the requirements placed upon each jurisdiction as they update their local Housing Elements and added more stringent State oversight for the review and approval of each Housing Element. Local jurisdictions follow a staggered schedule for submittal to the State, and based on areas of the state with an earlier submittal deadline, a small minority of local jurisdictions have been able to complete the Housing Element update process, including State approval, prior to the assigned deadline. The lack of a certified Housing Element can reduce the ability of the local jurisdiction to regulate new housing development and also reduce access to State funds for as long as the City remains out of compliance.
City staff is working with the City’s consultant to complete the City’s Housing Element update in conformance with State requirements prior to the State’s deadline of January 31, 2023. To reach this goal, staff is asking that the Planning Commission review the proposed General Plan amendment, “draft Housing Element” (Attachment 3), provide input, and recommend approval to the City Council.
Staff will then place the Housing Element update on the January 31, 2023 City Council meeting agenda to complete the City adoption process. Staff is working concurrently with the State to obtain their determination of substantial conformance. The intended goal for these efforts is for the City to have a State certified Housing Element in place by the State’s deadline.
Based on State law and guidance provided by HCD, the overall intent of the City’s Housing Element is to demonstrate that the City is capable of providing for the housing needs of the local community, both in terms of programs and development capacity. Housing element law requires local governments to assess the housing needs within the community and to adequately plan to meet their existing and projected housing needs, including their RHNA share. The Housing Element also includes a description of the programs operated by the City to support community housing needs. A complete analysis should include a quantification and a descriptive analysis of the specific needs and resources available to address these needs. More recently the State has added an Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) requirement to address potential historic inequalities in the local provision of housing. The State is also very interested in the community outreach that the City undertook to inform its Housing Element. These required components are further discussed below.
City of Santa Clara Page 2 of 9 Printed on 1/25/2023
powered by Legistar™
23-148 Agenda Date: 1/26/2023
Housing Capacity
In assessing the City’s housing capacity, the City must identify constraints, as well as provide an inventory of sites that can be used to meet the City’s RHNA. The following discussion summarizes the information that is being provided within the Draft Housing Element to meet the legal requirements.
Constraints
The housing element must identify and analyze potential and actual governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including housing for people with disabilities. The analysis should identify the specific standards and processes of these constraints and evaluate their impact on the supply and affordability of housing. The analysis should determine whether local, regulatory standards pose an actual constraint and must also demonstrate local efforts to remove constraints that hinder a jurisdiction from meeting its housing needs.
Site Inventory
Local governments are required to prepare an inventory of land within the jurisdiction that is suitable for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having the potential for redevelopment, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites. The assessment of land parcels is based on current land use, zoning, and other factors that could affect its redevelopment to produce housing and/or affordable housing during the Housing Element time period. HCD has indicated that they will carefully review these sites, particularly when they are not currently vacant, to determine if they are in fact likely to be available for redevelopment in the next eight years. As Santa Clara is a built-out city, our inventory sites will require significant amounts of redevelopment.
Santa Clara has taken concrete steps, such as the recent adoption of multiple Specific Plans, to support housing development within the City and as a result is in the process of producing a significant amount of new housing. Jurisdictions may count pipeline projects toward their RHNA and the City’s current pipeline is thus very helpful towards this requirement. Pipeline projects include units that are approved, proposed, or under construction that are anticipated to be complete (i.e. have a Certificate of Occupancy) after June 30, 2022 (note this is six months before the beginning of the 2023-2031 Housing Element cycle). Staff has determined that Pipeline projects in Santa Clara can conservatively accommodate 11,946 total units, as shown in the table below. As is to be expected, the majority of these units will be market rate, with a percentage of affordable units brought forward either because of the City’s inclusionary requirements or the development of 100% affordable projects. The latter require public subsidy and so are constrained by the availability of funds for this purpose from either the local jurisdiction, the County or the State. Although the current pipeline exceeds the City’s total RHNA target, it does not fully meet the RHNA requirement within the affordable housing categories for very low, low, and moderate income categories.
In addition to the current housing production pipeline, the City’s housing inventory includes a projection for the construction of new Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) based on historic production of these units. The City participated with other Santa Clara County jurisdictions in a survey to determine the typical rent and affordability levels for ADUs. Based on this historic data, new ADU production over the next eight years can be expected to fulfill a significant portion of the City’s RHNA obligation, particularly for affordable housing units.
Thirdly, the City prepared a site inventory that identifies other sites within Santa Clara that are th
City of Santa Clara Page 3 of 9 Printed on 1/25/2023
powered by Legistar™
23-148 Agenda Date: 1/26/2023
anticipated to be developed with new housing units over the 6th housing cycle time period. Following HCD criteria, this capacity can be allocated to different income categories based on factors such as density.
To ensure that sufficient capacity exists in the housing element to accommodate the RHNA throughout the planning period, HCD recommends jurisdictions create a buffer in the inventory of between 15 to 30 percent more capacity than required, especially for capacity to accommodate the lower income RHNA. As shown in the table below, the combination of pipeline projects, ADU units and site identification are sufficient to meet the City’s RHNA requirements.
Total VLI LI Moderate Above
Moderate
Pipeline 11,946 389 361 857 10,339
ADUs 340 102 102 102 34
Sites 7,810 2,888 2,143 2,465 314
Total 22,096 3,379 2,606 3,424 10,687
RHNA 11,632 2,872 1,653 1,981 5,126
Surplus 8,464 507 953 1,443 5,561
Buffer 73% 18% 58% 73% 108%
Housing Programs
Each jurisdiction must identify specific pro-housing programs in its housing element that will allow it to implement the City’s stated policies and achieve the City’s stated goals and objectives for the provision of housing. Programs must include specific action steps the locality will take to implement its policies and achieve its goals and objectives. Programs must also include a specific timeframe for implementation, identify the agencies or officials responsible for implementation, describe the jurisdiction’s specific role in implementation, and (whenever possible) identify specific, measurable outcomes.
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
The AFFH is a new requirement for the current Housing Element cycle and is receiving considerable attention from HCD in the review process. An assessment of fair housing must identify and analyze patterns, trends, conditions, and practices that result in less fair housing choice and must address all of the following assessment components:
1. Summary of fair housing enforcement and outreach: This section describes the ability of a locality and fair housing entities to disseminate information related to fair housing and provide outreach and education to assure community members are well aware of fair housing laws and rights. In addition, enforcement and outreach capacity includes the ability to address compliance with fair housing laws, such as investigating complaints, obtaining remedies, and engaging in fair housing testing.
2. Integration and segregation patterns and trends related to people with protected characteristics: Housing elements must include an analysis of integration and segregation, City of Santa Clara Page 4 of 9 Printed on 1/25/2023
powered by Legistar™
23-148 Agenda Date: 1/26/2023
including patterns and trends, related to people with protected characteristics.
3. Racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty: Housing elements must include an analysis of racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty.
4. Disparities in access to opportunity for people with protected characteristics including persons with disabilities: Housing elements must identify and analyze significant disparities in access to opportunity. Access to opportunity means both improving the quality of life for residents of low-income communities, as well as supporting mobility and access to “high resource” neighborhoods.
5. Disproportionate housing needs within the jurisdiction, including displacement risk: Housing elements must include an assessment of disproportionate housing needs, including displacement risk, on people with protected characteristics and households with low incomes.
Categories of need are based on such factors as cost burden (housing cost, including utilities, exceeding 30 percent of gross income) and severe cost burden (housing cost, including utilities, exceeding 50 percent of gross income), overcrowding, homelessness, and substandard housing conditions. Displacement can be caused by disinvestment, investmentfueled gentrification, or a process combining the two.
Outreach
Jurisdictions are required to make diligent efforts to include all economic segments of the community and/or their representatives in the development and update of their housing elements. Based upon comments received from HCD, unlike in prior Housing Element cycles, this is a focus area for HCD.
Below is a list of outreach meetings and activities that helped promote and inform the development of the City of Santa Clara’s Housing Element Update. This outreach is described in more detail in Appendix A of the Adoption Draft Housing Element (Attachment 3). 2021
· March 12 - Stakeholders Meeting: Affordable Housing Ordinance · April 6 - City Council Study Session
· August 30 - Community Meeting
· September 22 - Planning Commission Study Session
· November 9 - City Council Study Session: Homelessness 2022
· April 19 - Joint City Council & Planning Commission Study Session · April 28 - Homelessness Taskforce Meeting #1
· May 5 - Stakeholder Listening Session: Development Constraints · May 20 - 6th Annual “Be Strong, Live Long” Health & Wellness Fair · May 26 - Homelessness Taskforce Meeting #2
· May-August - Stakeholder Interviews
· May-July - Housing Element Update Survey
· June - City Hall News
· June 14 - Library Pop-up Meeting (Central)
· June 17 - Library Pop-up Meeting (Northside)
· June - City of Santa Clara Inside Newsletter
· June 23 - Homelessness Taskforce Meeting #3
City of Santa Clara Page 5 of 9 Printed on 1/25/2023
powered by Legistar™
23-148 Agenda Date: 1/26/2023
· July 12 - Joint City Council & Planning Commission Study Session · July 22 - Interview with Housing Choices
· July 28 - Homelessness Taskforce Meeting #4
· August 1 - Community Meeting
· August 9 - Community Meeting/Forum on Homelessness
· August 12 - Residential Care Home Visit/Interview with Life Services · August 23 - Regional Equity Advisory Group Meeting
· August 25 - Homelessness Taskforce Meeting #5
· September 17/18 - Art & Wine Festival
· September 19 - Meeting with Riverwood Grove Residents (family housing) · September 20 - Meeting with Peacock Commons Residents (transition age youth) · September 22 - Meeting with Liberty Tower Residents (seniors) · October - Affordable Housing Developer Follow-up Questionnaire · October - Farmworker Advocate Questionnaire
· October 27 - Homelessness Taskforce Meeting #6
· November 17 - Stakeholders Workshop
The City’s Housing Element Update GovDelivery topic currently has 1,535 subscribers. Subscribers have received updates throughout the Update process. In addition to the above, the City participated in the countywide HUD Assessment of Fair Housing from September 2019 through January 2020 to obtain input from community members and stakeholders through a series of community meetings, focus groups, and stakeholder meetings. These meetings provided important regional context for the required Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) analysis in the Housing Element.
The City also received comment letters on the Draft Housing Element posted during the public review period (July 1-August 1) from SV@Home; Housing Choices; Transform; Anne Paulson; Life Services Alternatives; Partnership for the Bay’s Future; Carpenters Local Union 405; and Housing Action Coalition. The comment letters have been posted on the Housing Element website (Housing Element Update (2023-2031) | City of Santa Clara (santaclaraca.gov) <https://www.santaclaraca.gov/ourcity/departments-a-f/community-development/planning-division/general-plan/housing-elementupdate>). Staff has met with many commentors to earnestly incorporate feedback as feasible.
Specifically, input received through all outreach informed the creation of new efforts in the Housing Element including the following:
· Respondents to outreach and commentors were concerned that the designated levels of affordability in the city’s existing inclusionary ordinance are increasingly not affordable for many residents. The Housing Element includes a planned effort to update the inclusionary ordinance to increase a greater number of units in the deeper affordability categories and to redefine the City’s moderate affordability category to reflect a lower income range. Also proposed is including in the City’s Notice of Funding Availability specifications criteria that would prioritize City funding of Extremely Low Income and Very Low Income units.
· Consistent feedback was received through all outlets and demographics of respondents highlighting the need to better address homelessness. The City’s newly created Homelessness Task Force composed of service providers, advocates, and individuals with lived experience of being unhoused have provided recommendations that are being pursued through the creation in a City of Santa Clara Page 6 of 9 Printed on 1/25/2023
powered by Legistar™
23-148 Agenda Date: 1/26/2023
Homelessness Plan with implementation actions.
· Commentors provided feedback on the need for more displacement prevention. The Housing Plan includes the City Council future consideration of new policies and programs that would require no net loss of income restricted units during construction or rehabilitation of existing housing; replacement of existing affordable housing units at the same or lower affordability levels; landlord and City notification and information for tenants affected by efforts that would cause relocation; require developers to provide relocation benefits beyond State requirements. · Residents of affordable and special needs housing shared at listening sessions (September 19, 20, 22) that they have been particularly affected by heat waves and wildfire smoke. As part of the City’s CDBG program, the City will promote a Notice of Funding Availability process for installation of HVAC improvements for sensitive populations.
Consistency with General Plan
All properties and land uses in the City are governed by the City's General Plan. The General Plan describes the long-term goals for the City’s future and guides daily decision-making. The time frame of the General Plan is 2010-2035. The Plan contains the City’s official policies on land use and community design, transportation, housing, environmental resources, and health and safety.
The Housing Element is part of the General Plan, but operates on a state mandated schedule. The time frame for the Housing Element is 2023-2031, therefore it has been prepared to maintain internal consistency with the current 2010-2035 General Plan, as required by State law. Specifically, the sites inventory reflects the capacity under the General Plan Phase III land use designations, as amended.
The 6th-cycle Housing Element provides an opportunity to update the goals, policies, and actions identified in the 5th-cycle Housing Element 2015-2023, and with the increased focus on Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing, which has heavily influenced the document, will provide a framework for how the City evaluates future General Plan amendments and the next comprehensive General Plan update.
State (HCD) Review
On November 18, 2022 the City received HCD’s comment letter (Attachment 1) on the City’s Draft Housing Element. In general, HCD’s comments requested that the City provide additional analysis for specific topics within the Housing Element. HCD determined that the City’s Initial Draft Housing Element addresses many statutory requirements, but revisions are necessary to comply with State Housing Element law, in the following six areas:
A. Cumulative effectiveness of past goals, policies, and related actions in meeting the housing needs of special needs populations
B. Housing needs, resources, and constraints
C. Housing programs
D. Quantified objectives
E. General Plan consistency
F. Public participation
HCD staff also asked that the City follow up with community stakeholders that had submitted their own comments on the draft Housing Element. During and after HCDs 90-day review of the Initial City of Santa Clara Page 7 of 9 Printed on 1/25/2023
powered by Legistar™
23-148 Agenda Date: 1/26/2023
Draft Housing Element, the City conducted additional outreach and received feedback that further informed revisions that are also captured in the Adoption Draft Housing Element (Attachment 3).
To facilitate their review, HCD will be provided a redlined version of the Adopted Housing Element, as well as a matrix showing each HCD comment and the City’s responses/revisions (Attachment 2).
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The City has prepared an Addendum to the 2010-2035 General Plan Environmental Impact Report (Attachment 4), which concluded that there is no substantial change to the General Plan that would require major revisions to the previous EIR; that there is no substantial change in circumstances as a result of modifications to the General Plan that would cause new or substantially more severe significant impacts; and, that there is no new information of substantial importance that identifies new or more intense significant impacts than those identified in the General Plan EIR.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this report. On January 25, 2022, the City Council approved a consultant agreement with MIG, Inc. to update the City’s Housing Element and accepted $499,150 in reimbursable grant funding from the State’s Local Early Action Planning (LEAP) grant program. Of this grant funding, $199,968 will be used to fund MIG’s work and the remaining $299,182 will be used to fund City staff expenses. All grant funds must be expended on or before December 31, 2023.
COORDINATION
This report was coordinated with the City Attorney’s Office.
PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made by posting the Council agenda on the City’s official-notice bulletin board outside City Hall Council Chambers. A complete agenda packet is available on the City’s website and in the City Clerk’s Office at least 72 hours prior to a Regular Meeting and 24 hours prior to a Special Meeting. A hard copy of any agenda report may be requested by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at (408) 615-2220, email [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> or at the public information desk at any City of Santa Clara public library.
On July 1, 2022, pursuant to Government Code Section 65352.3(a)(1), the City mailed letters to a list of tribes provided by the Native American Heritage Commission that included project information on the proposed Housing Element Update and offered an opportunity for the tribes to provide comment on the Draft Housing Element or request a consultation regarding historical resources or tribal cultural resources important to their community that could be impacted by the project. The City did not receive comments or requests for consultation.
On December 16, 2022, pursuant to Government Code 65352(a), the City mailed referral letters to tribes and outside agencies advising them of the City’s intent to take action on a General Plan Amendment to adopt the 2023-2031 Housing Element. The referral letters also included notice of the proposed Planning Commission and City Council Hearings.
On January 16, 2023, a GovDelivery bulletin was emailed to the City’s 1,535 Housing Element Update topic subscribers to let them know the availability of the Adoption Draft Housing Element on City of Santa Clara Page 8 of 9 Printed on 1/25/2023
powered by Legistar™
23-148 Agenda Date: 1/26/2023
the Housing Element Update page and to remind subscribers of the proposed hearing schedule.
This update was also posted on the City’s social media outlets.
On January 24, 2023, a GovDelivery bulletin was emailed to the City’s 1,576 Housing Element Update topic subscribers to let them know the continuance of the Planning Commission hearing from January 23rd to January 26, 2023.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Adopt a Resolution to Recommend the City Council Adopt the Addendum to the 2010-2035 General Plan Environmental Impact Report
2. Adopt a Resolution to Recommend the City Council Amend the General Plan by Adopting an Updated Housing Element for the 2023-2031 Cycle.
3. Adopt a Resolution to Recommend the City Council Amend the General Plan by Adopting an Updated Housing Element for the 2023-2031 Cycle with revisions.
RECOMMENDATION
Alternative: 1 & 2
1. Recommend the City Council Adopt the Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
2. Adopt a Resolution to Recommend the City Council Amend the General Plan by Adopting an Updated Housing Element for the 2023-2031 Cycle.
Reviewed by: Andrew Crabtree, Director, Community Development Reviewed by: Alexander Abbe, Assistant City Attorney
Approved by: Rajeev Batra, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS
1. HCD Findings/Comment Letter on Draft Housing Element
2. HCD Comments/Response Matrix
3. Adoption Draft Housing Element
4. Addendum
5. Addendum Resolution
6. Planning Commission Resolution
City of Santa Clara Page 9 of 9 Printed on 1/25/2023
powered by Legistar™
Planning
CommissionItem # 1RTC 23-148 (previously 23-42)Adoption of a General Plan Amendment for the Housing Element Update January 26, 2023(Continued from January 23, 2023)
Housing Element
Presentation Outline1. Background2. Required Components3. State (HCD) Review4.Environmental Review5. Next Steps6. Recommendation HCD = California Department of Housing and Community Development 2 Housing Element
1. Background• One of required elements of General Plan• Updated every 8 years. Reviewed by HCD and certified if found to be in substantial compliance
• Current 5th Cycle Housing Element: adopted December 9, 2014; certified by HCD February 13, 2015; ends January 31, 2023 • Adopted 6th Cycle Housing Element due January 31, 2023; HCD 90-day review
3 Housing Element
1. Background – RHNA Process (2019-2023)• State (HCD) identified total number of homes by affordability level for Bay Area (441,176)
• Region (ABAG) developed methodology for
allocating units to all Bay Area jurisdictions: RHNA plan approved by HCD January 2022 • Local (City of Santa Clara) Oct. 2019 - May
2021 participated in development of RHNA methodology/plan; Santa Clara’s 6th Cycle RHNA is 11,632 units
4 Housing Element
1. Background – City of Santa Clara 6th Cycle RHNA
5 Very Low
Income
$0,
Low
Income
-$0,
Moderate
Income
-$0,
Above Mod.
Income
!$0,
Total
2,872 1,653 1,981 5,126 11,632
• Very Low Income (VLI) includes Extremely Low Income (ELI) • 1,436 ELI + 1,436 VLI = 2,872 units
• AMI = Area Median Income. FY 2022 $168,500 (4 persons) • ELI $50,550
Æ VLI $84,250
Æ LI $134,800
• ELI/VLI/LI Workers: Home Health Aide
Æ Grocery Stocker
Æ Mail Carrier
Æ Bus Driver
Housing Element
2. Required Components
6 • Housing Capacity – Constraints and Sites Inventory• Housing Program –5th Cycle Æ
6th Cycle
• Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)• Outreach• General Plan Consistency Housing Element
2. Required Components – Constraints
7 • Governmental
• Policies, standards, requirements• Environmental
• Non-Governmental
• Land costs and availability• Construction costs• Availability of financing Housing Element
2. Required Components – Sites Inventory
8 Strategies for Meeting City’s RHNA
• Continue to:
• Implement City’s long-range plans• Support development on other sites with existing capacity• Support and facilitate creation of ADUs • Adopt Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Update• Monitor and report progress toward meeting RHNA through General Plan/Housing Element Annual Progress Report (APR)
Housing Element
2. Required Components – Sites Inventory
9 Pending and Approved Projects (Pipeline)
Total VLI LI Moderate Above Moderate
TE SP 4,459 531 3,928PHD SP 1,516 75 75 75 1,291
/6$3 697 5 57 635Freedom Cir 53 53 53 916
Other 4,199 261 228 141 3,569
Total 11,946 389 361 857 10,339
7(63 7DVPDQ (DVW6SHFLILF3ODQ3+'63 3DWULFN+HQU\'ULYH 6SHFLILF3ODQ/6$3 /DZUHQFH 6WDWLRQ$UHD3ODQ Housing Element
2. Required Components – Sites Inventory
Sites Inventory and Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)
7(63 7DVPDQ (DVW6SHFLILF3ODQ3+'63 3DWULFN+HQU\'ULYH 6SHFLILF3ODQ/6$3 /DZUHQFH 6WDWLRQ$UHD3ODQ Total VLI LI Moderate Above Moderate
TE SP 1,123 214 156 458 295PHD SP 4,549 1,829 /6$3 2,138 845 627 647 19 $'8V 34
Total 8,150 2,990 2,245 2,567 348
Housing Element
2. Required Components – Sites Inventory
11 Total VLI LI Moderate Above Moderate
Pipeline 11,946 389 361 857
$'8V 34Sites 2,888 2,143 2,465 314 Total 20,096 3,379 2,606 3,424 10,687
5+1$ 11,632 2,872 1,653 1,981 5,126
Surplus 8,464 953 1,443 5,561
Buffer 73%
Sites to Meet the 2023-2031 RHNA
p , , ,
Buffer 73
%
Housing Element
2. Required Components – Housing Program
12 5th Cycle RHNA Progress (2015-2021)
Total VLI LI Moderate Above Moderate
$OORFDWLRQ
695 755 1,593Progress 5,266 289 246 125 Remaining 761 449 630 5th Cycle Housing Plan Evaluation of Effectiveness • Goals, Policies, Implementing Actions and Objectives Note: 5th &\FOH5+1$3URJUHVVGRHVQRWLQFOXGHXQLVLVVXHG%XLOGLQJ3HUPLWVLQ Housing Element
2. Required Components – Housing Program
13 6th Cycle Housing Plan• Goals & Policies
• A – D same as 5th Cycle Housing Element
• E added to address AFFH
• Implementing Actions and Objectives
• 18 Actions• Objectives: “Discrete” (to be completed during timeframe of the Housing Element) and “Ongoing” (happens throughout timeframe of Housing Element) Housing Element
2. Required Components – 6th Cycle Housing Plan
14 Implementing Actions and Objectives - Examples• Action 1: Provision of a Variety of Housing Types • By May 2023, adopt the comprehensive Zoning Ordinance update with revised provisions to allow a variety of housing types
• By 2026, or as funds become available, through the provision of a NOFA, prioritize the development of ELI and VLI housing alternatives • On an annual basis, report on production of ADUs through City’s APR. If pace of production falls below level necessary to achieve 340 ADUs (2023-2031), present plan to City Council to remove barriers/further incentivize ADUs Housing Element
2. Required Components – 6th Cycle Housing Plan
15 Implementing Actions and Objectives - Examples• Action 2: Affordable Housing Ordinance • By end of 2024, Assess feasibility of:
• Updating Ordinance to align with recent studies supporting deeper affordability (5% VLI, 5% LI, 5% Mod.) for inclusionary projects. • Updating definition of “moderate income” units from 120% AMI to 100% AMI• Changes to keep new BMP homes affordable for 20-30 years instead of 5 years Housing Element
2. Required Components – 6th Cycle Housing Plan
16 Implementing Actions and Objectives - Examples• Action 3: Affordable Housing Incentives and Facilitation • Prior to end of 2024, City will conduct a public outreach and issue RFP to develop mixed income or 100% affordable housing on vacant former King’s Hwy Motel • By end of 2024, establish relationship and meet with interested property owners of naturally occurring affordable housing (NOAH) to facilitate connection between sellers, affordable housing developers, and funding sources • In 2025, 2027, and 2029, monitor risk of conversion of NOAH by contacting owners of highest risk properties to determine intentions and explore options Housing Element
2. Required Components – 6th Cycle Housing Plan
17 Implementing Actions and Objectives• Action 4: Maintenance of Housing Stock• Action 5: Preservation of Assisted Rental Housing• Action 6: Acquisition of Multi-Family Housing• Action 7: Code Enforcement Program• Action 8: Neighborhood Relations Program• Action 9: Zoning Ordinance• Action 10: Adequate Sites Inventory• Action 11: Im pact Fees
Housing Element
2. Required Components – 6th Cycle Housing Plan
18 Implementing Actions and Objectives (cont.)• Action 12: Affordable Housing Funding• Action 13: Residential Displacement• Action 14: Housing Choice Voucher Program• Action 15: Homeownership for First-Time Buyers• Action 16: Fair Housing Program• Action 17: Homeless Services• Action 18: Shared Housing Housing Element
2. Required Components – AFFH Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing 19 New/Expanded Requirements:• Program that promotes and affirmatively furthers fair housing opportunities throughout the community for all persons • Detailed assessment of fair housing (AFH)• Enhanced public outreach, site inventory analysis, and identification/prioritization of contributing factors through AFFH lens Housing Element
2. Required Components – AFFH
TCAC Opportunity Areas 2021
TCAC Opportunity Areas 2022
021
Housing Element
2. Required Components – AFFH
21 TCAC Opportunity Areas 2022
Housing Sites Distribution• North (High Resource)
• Tasman East, Patrick Henry Drive, Greystar
• Central (Moderate Resource)
• Lawrence Station
• South (Moderate, High/Highest Resource)
• 2,500+ units in pipeline• Majority of ADUs• Long-range Plans in Development (ECR, DT, SCSA)* • Zoning Code Update & New Housing Laws*
8QLWVQRWLQFOXGHGLQ+RXVLQJ(OHPHQW6LWHV,QYHQWRU\
Housing Element
2. Required Components – AFFH
22 Meaningful Actions Matrix• Segregation/Integration Patterns & Disparities in Access to Opportunity
• Disproportionate Housing Needs &
Displacement Risk
• Cost Burden• Substandard Conditions• Targeted Fair Housing Outreach Housing Element
2. Required Components – Outreach
23 Meetings & Activities
• Study Sessions w/ PC & CC• Library Pop-ups• Health & Wellness Fair• Art & Wine Festival• City Hall News (e-newsletter)• Inside Santa Clara (summer 2022)• Community Survey (1,651 responses)• Community Mt gs.
• Stakeholder Workshops• Public Review Draft• HCD Review Draft• Stakeholder/Advocate Interviews• Housing Action Coalition• Affordable Housing Tennant Mtgs.• 1,500+ HE Update Topic Subscribers
Housing Element
2. Required Components – Outreach
24 • SV@Home• Housing Choices• Transform• Anne Paulson• Life Services Alternatives • Partnership for the Bay’s
Future
• Carpenters Local Union 405• Housing Action Coalition
Written Comments Received
Housing Element
2. Required Components – Outreach
25 • Prioritize homelessness response• “Affordable Housing” not affordable enough for many (e.g., 120% AMI is no longer affordable)
• Prioritize ELI/VLI housing opportunities for seniors, families, persons with disabilities (including developmental disabilities) • Build housing near retail, transit, parks, schools, in walkable areas• Establish programs to support displacement prevention Consistent Feedback
Housing Element
2. Required Components – General Plan Consistency
26 General Plan (2010 – 2035)•
6th Cycle Housing Element (2023 – 2031)
• Sites Inventory reflects capacity under General Plan Phase III land use designations, as amended
• Updated 5th Cycle Housing Plan (Goals, Policies, Actions, Objectives) • Future General Plan Amendments will be evaluated through Housing Element and AFFH lens
Housing Element
3. State (HCD) Review – Initial Draft
27 Findings/Comment Letter (November 18, 2022)
a) Cumulative effectiveness of past Housing Plan in meeting housing needs of special needs populations
b) Housing needs, resources, and constraintsc) Housing programsd) Quantified objectivese) General Plan consistencyf) Public participation Housing Element
3. State (HCD) Review – Comment / Response Matrix
28 Housing Element
4. Environmental Review
29 Addendum to 2010-2035 General Plan EIR, as addended• No substantial change• No new or substantially more severe significant impacts Housing Element
5. Next Steps
• January 31, 2023 – City Council Adoption Hearing and deadline to submit adopted Housing Element to HCD
• HCD 90-day Review of Adopted Housing Element
• Certify Housing Element, or• Identify additional corrections • Potential consequences of late adoption/certification:
• Loss of permitting authority, “Builder’s Remedy”, Litigation/Attorney Fees, Lose eligibility for funding (grants and loans)
Housing Element
6. Recommendation
31 a) Adopt a Resolution to Recommend City Council adopt Addendum to the 2010-2035 General Plan EIR
b) Adopt a Resolution to Recommend City Council amend the General Plan by Adopting an Updated Housing Element for the 2023-2031 Cycle Planning
CommissionItem # 1RTC 23-148 (previously 23-42)Adoption of a General Plan Amendment for the Housing Element Update January 26, 2023(Continued from January 23, 2023)
City of Santa Clara 2023-2031 6th Cycle
Housing Element Update
Addendum to the City of Santa Clara General Plan
Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency:
City of Santa Clara
Planning Division
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, California 95050
Prepared by:
MIG, Inc.
1650 Spruce Street, Suite 106
Riverside, California 92507
December 21, 2022
- This document is designed for double-sided printing - Santa Clara 2023-2031 6th Cycle Housing Element Update i City of Santa Clara
Table of Contents
1 Introduction.............................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 – Purpose and Authority............................................................................................. 1
1.2 – Addendum Analysis and CEQA Guidelines ............................................................. 2
1.3 – Tiering ..................................................................................................................... 3
1.4 – Organization and Scope.......................................................................................... 5
1.5 – Conclusions............................................................................................................. 5 2 Project Description................................................................................................................... 7
2.1 – Project Title ............................................................................................................. 7
2.2 – Lead Agency Name and Address ............................................................................ 7
2.3 – Contact Person and Phone Number........................................................................ 7
2.4 – Project Location....................................................................................................... 7
2.5 – Environmental Setting ............................................................................................. 7
2.6 – General Plan Land Use Designations...................................................................... 7
2.7 – Zoning Districts........................................................................................................ 8
2.8 – Project Description .................................................................................................. 8
2.9 – Required Approvals............................................................................................... 23
2.10 – Other Public Agency Whose Approval is Required ................................................ 24 3 Determination ........................................................................................................................ 29
3.1 – Environmental Categories Potentially Affected ...................................................... 29
3.2 – Determination........................................................................................................ 29 4 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts..................................................................................... 31
4.1 – Aesthetics.............................................................................................................. 33
4.2 – Agriculture and Forest Resources ......................................................................... 37
4.3 – Air Quality.............................................................................................................. 40
4.4 – Biological Resources............................................................................................. 45
4.5 – Cultural Resources................................................................................................ 52
4.6 – Energy................................................................................................................... 56
4.7 – Geology and Soils ................................................................................................. 59
4.8 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions.................................................................................. 65
4.9 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials......................................................................... 68
4.10 – Hydrology and Water Quality................................................................................. 74
4.11 – Land Use and Planning ......................................................................................... 80
4.12 – Mineral Resources ................................................................................................ 82
4.13 – Noise..................................................................................................................... 84
4.14 – Population and Housing ........................................................................................ 89
4.15 – Public Services...................................................................................................... 92
4.16 – Recreation............................................................................................................. 97
4.17 – Transportation ....................................................................................................... 99
4.18 – Tribal Cultural Resources .................................................................................... 104
4.19 – Utilities and Service Systems .............................................................................. 107
4.20 – Wildfire ................................................................................................................ 111
4.21 – Mandatory Findings of Significance..................................................................... 114 5 Applicable General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures............................................................... 117 6 References .......................................................................................................................... 121
6.1 – List of Preparers.................................................................................................. 121
6.2 – Persons and Organizations Consulted ................................................................ 121
6.3 – Bibliography ........................................................................................................ 122 Table of Contents
ii Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Admin Draft December 21, 2022
List of Tables
Table 1 City of Santa Clara RHNA 2023-2031............................................................................ 9 Table 2 Approved and Proposed Projects................................................................................. 10 Table 3 Sites to Meet the RHNA............................................................................................... 14 Table 4 General Plan Focus Areas........................................................................................... 15 List of Exhibits
Exhibit 1 Regional Context Map................................................................................................ 25 Exhibit 2 Existing General Plan Land Use Map......................................................................... 27 Appendices
Appendix A 2010-2035 General Plan EIR
Appendix B 2023-2031 Housing Element Update
Appendix C Subsequent Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measures Santa Clara 2023-2031 6th Cycle Housing Element Update 1 City of Santa Clara
1 Introduction
This document has been prepared to serve as an addendum to the previously certified Santa Clara 2010-2035 General Plan Integrated Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH # 2008092005), which was certified in January 2011, and subsequent environmental documents prepared for General Plan amendments made for the various focus areas, Specific Plan areas, and Climate Action Plans.
The City's Housing Element was last updated in 2014 in compliance with State Housing Element Law.
The adoption of the proposed Housing Element update is consistent with the state law requirement that each city and county update the housing element of its general plan every eight years in order to establish and update housing and land use strategies reflective of changing needs, resources, and conditions. The City of Santa Clara (City) is the lead agency for the environmental review of the proposed City of Santa Clara General Plan Housing Element Update (project) for the 2023-2031 planning period.
1.1 – Purpose and Authority
Pursuant to CEQA, the proposed Housing Element Update constitutes a “project” that is subject to analysis and determination of environmental effects under CEQA (Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations Section 15000, et. seq.).
This Addendum, its appendices, and related supporting environmental documents have been prepared to determine whether and to what extent the General Plan EIR and associated amendments prepared for the General Plan EIR are sufficient to address the potential impacts of the proposed Housing Element, or whether additional documentation is required under CEQA. The proposed project requires discretionary approval by the City of Santa Clara and review by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). As the project initiator, and because of the legislative approvals involved, the City of Santa Clara is the Lead Agency with respect to this Addendum pursuant to §15367 of the CEQA Guidelines. Specifically, the Project requires the City of Santa Clara’s approval of a General Plan Amendment. No other governmental agencies have discretionary permitting authority with respect to approval of the proposed Project, and no Trustee Agencies, as defined in §21070 of the CEQA Statutes, has jurisdiction over resources such that Trustee agency approval is required for entitlement approval.
Under CEQA, the City must determine whether the proposed changes would require a new or supplemental EIR, or whether an addendum would suffice. Section 2, Project Description, provides detailed description of the proposed changes. In determining whether an addendum is the appropriate document to analyze the modifications to the project and its approval, State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 (addendum to an EIR or Negative Declaration) states:
a) The lead agency or a responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. b) An addendum to an adopted negative declaration may be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred. c) An addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the final EIR or adopted negative declaration.
d) The decision-making body shall consider the addendum with the final EIR or adopted negative declaration prior to making a decision on the project.
1 – Introduction
2 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Admin Draft December 21, 2022
e) A brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162 should be included in an addendum to an EIR, the lead agency’s required findings on the project, or elsewhere in the record. The explanation must be supported by substantial evidence.
1.2 – Addendum Analysis and CEQA Guidelines
This Addendum has been prepared pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, 15164, and 15168(c). This Addendum evaluates the project’s potential environmental effects in light of those effects previously disclosed in the 2010 General Plan EIR and CEQA documents related to subsequent General Plan amendments to determine whether any of the conditions described in Guidelines Section 15162 calling for subsequent CEQA review have occurred.
The General Plan EIR is available for review at the City’s Planning Division, 1500 Warburton Avenue, Santa Clara, California 95050. CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(a) provides that the lead agency “shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred.” Sub-Section (c) further provides that an “addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the final EIR,” and Sub-Section (e) states that a “brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162 should be included” in the addendum, the agency’s findings, or elsewhere in the administrative record.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c)(2) provides that “if the agency finds that pursuant to Section 15162, no subsequent EIR will be required, the agency can approve the activity as being within the scope of the project covered by the EIR” and that “[w]hether a later activity is within the scope of an EIR is a factual question that the lead agency determines based on substantial evidence in the record.” SubSection (c)(4) further provides that “[w]here the later activities involve site-specific operations, the agency should use a written checklist or similar device to document the evaluation of the site and the activity to determine whether the environmental effects of the operation were within the scope of the EIR.” According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, once an EIR has been certified, no subsequent or supplemental EIR shall be prepared for a project unless the lead agency determines that one or more of the following occurs:
1. Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
2. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or
3. New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
a. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;
b. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;
1 – Introduction
Santa Clara 2023-2031 6th Cycle Housing Element Update 3 City of Santa Clara
c. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or d. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.
An addendum may be prepared if some changes or additions are necessary to a certified EIR and none of the above-stated conditions apply (CEQA Guidelines Section 15164). Per the above, this Addendum functions as both an “addendum” and a “written checklist,” as called for in CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(a) and 15168(c)(4). As such, this Addendum analyzes the proposed project’s potential environmental effects in light of those effects disclosed in General Plan EIR consistent with Guidelines Section 15162. Based on a review of the proposed project (as described in Section 2, Project Description) and surrounding circumstances (i.e., the Environmental Setting), this addendum concludes that there is no substantial change proposed that would require major revisions to the previous EIR; that there is no substantial change in circumstances as a result of project modifications that would cause new or substantially more severe significant impacts (see Section 3, Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures); and, that there is no new information of substantial importance that identifies new or more intense significant impacts (CEQA Guidelines Section 15162).
1.3 – Tiering
Section 15152 et al of the CEQA Guidelines describes “tiering” as a streamlining tool as follows:
(a) "Tiering" refers to using the analysis of general matters contained in a broader EIR (such as one prepared for a general plan or policy statement) with later EIRs and negative declarations on narrower projects; incorporating by reference the general discussions from the broader EIR; and concentrating the later EIR or negative declaration solely on the issues specific to the later project. (b) Agencies are encouraged to tier the environmental analyses which they prepare for separate but related projects including general plans, zoning changes, and development projects. This approach can eliminate repetitive discussions of the same issues and focus the later EIR or negative declaration on the actual issues ripe for decision at each level of environmental review. Tiering is appropriate when the sequence of analysis is from an EIR prepared for a general plan, policy, or program to an EIR or negative declaration for another plan, policy, or program of lesser scope, or to a site-specific EIR or negative declaration. Tiering does not excuse the lead agency from adequately analyzing reasonably foreseeable significant environmental effects of the project and does not justify deferring such analysis to a later tier EIR or negative declaration. However, the level of detail contained in a first tier EIR need not be greater than that of the program, plan, policy, or ordinance being analyzed.
(c) Where a lead agency is using the tiering process in connection with an EIR for a large-scale planning approval, such as a general plan or component thereof (e.g., an area plan or community plan), the development of detailed, site-specific information may not be feasible but can be deferred, in many instances, until such time as the lead agency prepares a future environmental document in connection with a project of a more limited geographical scale, as long as deferral does not prevent adequate identification of significant effects of the planning approval at hand. 1 – Introduction
4 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Admin Draft December 21, 2022
(d) Where an EIR has been prepared and certified for a program, plan, policy, or ordinance consistent with the requirements of this section, any lead agency for a later project pursuant to or consistent with the program, plan, policy, or ordinance should limit the EIR or negative declaration on the later project to affects which:
(1) Were not examined as significant effects on the environment in the prior EIR; or (2) Are susceptible to substantial reduction or avoidance by the choice of specific revisions in the project, by the imposition of conditions, or other means. (e) Tiering under this section shall be limited to situations where the project is consistent with the general plan and zoning of the city or county in which the project is located, except that a project requiring a rezone to achieve or maintain conformity with a general plan may be subject to tiering. (f) A later EIR shall be required when the initial study or other analysis finds that the later project may cause significant effects on the environment that were not adequately addressed in the prior EIR.
A negative declaration shall be required when the provisions of Section 15070 are met. (1) Where a lead agency determines that a cumulative effect has been adequately addressed in the prior EIR that effect is not treated as significant for purposes of the later EIR or negative declaration and need not be discussed in detail.
(2) When assessing whether there is a new significant cumulative effect, the lead agency shall consider whether the incremental effects of the project would be considerable when viewed in the context of past, present, and probable future projects. At this point, the question is not whether there is a significant cumulative impact, but whether the effects of the project are cumulatively considerable. For a discussion on how to assess whether project impacts are cumulatively considerable, see Section 15064(i).
(3) Significant environmental effects have been "adequately addressed" if the lead agency determines that:
(A) they have been mitigated or avoided as a result of the prior environmental impact report and findings adopted in connection with that prior environmental report; or (B) they have been examined at a sufficient level of detail in the prior environmental impact report to enable those effects to be mitigated or avoided by site specific revisions, the imposition of conditions, or by other means in connection with the approval of the later project.
(g) When tiering is used, the later EIRs or negative declarations shall refer to the prior EIR and state where a copy of the prior EIR may be examined. The later EIR or negative declaration should state that the lead agency is using the tiering concept and that it is being tiered with the earlier EIR. (h) There are various types of EIRs that may be used in a tiering situation. These include, but are not limited to, the following:
(1) General Plan EIR (Section 15166)
(2) Staged EIR (Section 15167)
(3) Program EIR (Section 15168)
(4) Master EIR (Section 15175)
1 – Introduction
Santa Clara 2023-2031 6th Cycle Housing Element Update 5 City of Santa Clara
(5) Multiple-family residential development/residential and commercial or retail mixed-use development (Section 15179.5)
(6) Redevelopment project (Section 15180)
(7) Projects consistent with community plan, general plan, or zoning (Section 15183) This Addendum for the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update has been prepared to tier from the General Plan “Program” EIR of the City of Santa Clara dated January 2011 (See Appendix A), and subsequent environmental documents prepared for subsequent General Plan amendments. For the City of Santa Clara, documents by which the analysis recorded herein has been tiered from are available for public review at:
City of Santa Clara
Planning Division
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
1.4 – Organization and Scope
Although this document is not an initial study, in the interest of thorough disclosure this document has been organized to comply with Section 15063 of the State CEQA Guidelines, which sets forth the required contents of an Initial Study. These include:
A description of the project, including the location of the project (see Section 2) Identification of the environmental setting (see Section 2.8) Identification of environmental effects by use of a checklist, matrix, or other methods, provided that entries on the checklist or other form are briefly explained to indicate that there is some evidence to support the entries (see Section 3)
Examination of whether the project is compatible with existing zoning, plans, and other applicable land use controls (see Sections 2.6 and 2.7) The name(s) of the person(s) who prepared or participated in the preparation of the Initial Study (see Section 5.1)
1.5 – Conclusions
The City of Santa Clara may approve the proposed project based on this Addendum. The impacts of the proposed project remain within the impacts previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR and associated amendments (CEQA Guidelines Section 15164). The proposed project does not require any major revisions to the General Plan EIR. No new significant information or changes in circumstances surrounding the proposed project have occurred since the approval of the General Plan EIR and EIR’s related to subsequent specific plans and area plans that amended the General Plan. Therefore, the previous CEQA analyses completed for the General Plan EIR and associated amendments remain adequate. The applicable mitigation measures and/or conditions of approval from the General Plan EIR and associated amendments would be imposed on the proposed project as described herein. The proposed project does not require preparation of a new subsequent or supplemental EIR, due to either the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. As illustrated herein, the proposed project is consistent with the findings of the General Plan EIR and associated amendments and would involve only minor changes; therefore, an Addendum is appropriate CEQA compliance for the proposed project. 1 – Introduction
6 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Admin Draft December 21, 2022
This Page Intentionally Left Blank.
2 – Project Description
Santa Clara 2023-2031 6th Cycle Housing Element Update 7 City of Santa Clara
2 Project Description
2.1 – Project Title
City of Santa Clara 2023-2031 6
th Cycle Housing Element Update
2.2 – Lead Agency Name and Address
City of Santa Clara
Planning Division
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, California 95050
2.3 – Contact Person and Phone Number
John Davidson, Principal Planner
(408) 615-2478
2.4 – Project Location
The City of Santa Clara is located in north-central Santa Clara County (See Exhibit 1, Regional Context Map). Santa Clara is at the southern end of the San Francisco Bay, approximately 40 miles south of the City of San Francisco. The Planning Area encompasses all incorporated areas located within the boundaries of the City of Santa Clara.
2.5 – Environmental Setting
The City of Santa Clara is essentially built out and the existing land use pattern is predominantly characterized by single family neighborhoods, retail commercial corridors, and industrial/office employment centers (See Exhibit 2, Existing General Plan Land Use Map). These uses are largely separated by major transportation facilities located in the City. U.S. Highway 101 traverses east-west through the center of the City, while State Route 237 is located to the north and Interstates 880 and 280 skirt the southeast and southwest corners of the City, respectively. Existing transit lines include Caltrain, Altamont Commuter Express (ACE), Capitol Corridor, and Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) bus and light rail. The City of Santa Clara covers approximately 18.4 square miles of land, and is completely surrounded by neighboring cities: San José to the north, east and south, and Sunnyvale and Cupertino to the west. The City is located at the center of the Santa Clara Valley, between the Santa Cruz Mountains to the southwest and the Diablo Range to the northeast. Three seasonal creeks run through the City and empty into the southern portion of the San Francisco Bay: the San Tomas Aquino, Saratoga and Calabazas Creeks. Additionally, the City is bordered by the Guadalupe River to the northeast.
2.6 – General Plan Land Use Designations
Existing General Plan residential and mixed-use land use designations that support housing development within the City of Santa Clara include: Very Low Density Residential, Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, High Density Residential, Very High Density Residential, Neighborhood Mixed Use, Community Mixed Use, Regional Mixed Use, Downtown Core, Santa Clara Station Area, Urban Center/Entertainment, Transit Neighborhood, Village Residential, Urban Village, Urban Center, and High Density Flex.
2 – Project Description
8 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Admin Draft December 21, 2022
2.7 – Zoning Districts
Existing zoning districts that support housing development within the City of Santa Clara include: R1- 8L – Single-Family Larger Lot Area, R1-6L – Single-Family, R2-7L – Duplex, R3-18D – Low-Density Multiple-Dwelling, R3-25D – Moderate-Density Multiple-Dwelling, R3-36D – Medium-Density multipleDwelling, R3-M – Mobile Home Park, MU – Mixed Use, TMU – Transit-Oriented Mixed Use, VHDMU – Very High Density Mixed Use, TN – Transit Neighborhood, LSAP – Lawrence Station Area Plan, PHR5-100 – Patrick Henry Very-High-Density Residential Zone, UV-149D – Urban Village, VR-149D – Village Residential, UC-250D – Urban Center, and HD Flex – High Density Flex.
2.8 – Project Description
The proposed Project would amend the 2010-2035 City of Santa Clara General Plan. The City Council adopted the General Plan on November 16, 2010, and concurrently certified an Environmental Impact Report. Since that time, the Council has adopted a series of General Plan amendments, for which each one was accompanied by either an addendum to the General Plan EIR, a negative declaration, or a subsequent EIR. The most significant of these amendments are listed below:
December 3, 2013: Adoption of 2013 Climate Action Plan and Negative Declaration December 4, 2014: Adoption of 2015 – 2023 Housing Element and revisions to land use policies and EIR Addendum
June 28, 2016: Related Santa Clara Project and EIR
February 23, 2016: Mission Town Center EIR
November 29, 2016: Lawrence Station Area Plan and EIR July 17, 2018: 575 Benton Project and Addendum to Mission Town Center EIR July 9, 2019: Gateway Crossings Project and EIR
March 22, 2022: Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan and EIR June 7, 2022: Adoption of 2022 Climate Action Plan and EIR Addendum June 7, 2022: Freedom Circle Future Focus Area Plan, 3905 Freedom Circle Mixed-Use Project, and EIR
References in this document to the “Subsequent EIRs” include all of the environmental documents listed above.
The specific amendments contemplated include the adoption of the 2023–2031 Housing Element of the Santa Clara General Plan, implementation of identified programs and polices set forth in the draft Housing Element, and General Plan text amendments that would allow for zoning code standards to align with current uses (See Appendix B). The State of California has mandated that all local jurisdictions within the Bay Area have approved updated Housing Elements to reflect current “fair share” housing allocations for each City and County. The State Housing and Community Development Department (HCD) reviews all Housing Elements to determine compliance with State Law governing the content of these Elements.
Housing Element Requirements
The Housing Element is one of seven required elements of the General Plan. It addresses existing and future housing needs of persons in all economic segment groups and serves as a tool for decisionmakers and the public in understanding and meeting housing needs in Santa Clara. While the law does not require local governments to actually construct housing to meet identified needs, it does require that the community address housing needs in its discretionary planning actions by creating opportunities for 2 – Project Description
Santa Clara 2023-2031 6th Cycle Housing Element Update 9 City of Santa Clara
housing in the land use plan and facilitating housing development through policy. Housing Elements are legal documents, included within a community’s General Plan, that identify housing related conditions, provide an assessment of housing needs for the next eight-year period of time, identify housing resources, identify housing opportunities and constraints, and establish policies, programs, and quantified housing objectives to achieve City housing needs.
Statutory Requirements
State law requires that all housing elements address four key topics: 1) housing needs, 2) constraints to housing development, 3) housing resources, and 4) a housing plan. Analysis of these topics provides the foundation for the preparation of a housing element. Article 10.6, Section 65580 – 65589.11, Chapter 3 of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code sets forth the legal requirements for a housing element and encourages the provision of affordable and decent housing in suitable living environments for all communities to meet statewide goals. The 2023-2031 Housing Element update is a policy document of the City of Santa Clara regarding current and projected future housing needs, and the City’s goals, policies, and programs to address those identified needs, and represents a focused update to the City’s adopted 2015-2023 Housing Element, which was found to be fully in compliance with State law by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).
Housing Needs Assessment
Several factors influence the demand for housing in Santa Clara. The four major needs categories considered in the Housing Element include: 1) current population and population growth, including age, race, ethnicity, and employment; 2) household characteristics, including household type, income levels, and the presence of special needs populations; 3) housing stock characteristics, including overcrowding, housing condition, and housing cost; and 4) housing needs of "special needs groups" such as persons with disabilities, the elderly, large households, farmworkers, female-headed households, and people experiencing homelessness.
The City of Santa Clara 2023-2031 Housing Element profiles key community demographics and examines the related housing needs of various groups, including owners versus renters, lower-income households, overcrowded households, elderly households, special needs groups, and homeless persons. This information is detailed in the Housing Element Update (See Appendix B). California Housing Element law requires a quantification of each jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing need as established in the RHNA-Plan prepared by the jurisdiction’s council of governments. The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), in conjunction with the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), determine a projected housing need for the region covered by ABAG. This share, known as the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), is 441,776 new housing units for the 2023-2031 planning period throughout the ABAG region. ABAG has, in turn, allocated this share among its constituent jurisdictions, distributing to each its own RHNA divided along income levels. The City of Santa Clara has a RHNA of 11,632 housing units to accommodate in the housing element period, with the units distributed among the four income categories shown in Table 1 (City of Santa Clara RHNA (2023-2031)).
Table 1
City of Santa Clara RHNA 2023-2031
Income Group
Income Category
(%AMI)
RHNA (Housing
Units)
Percentage of Total
Housing Units
Very Low <50% 2,872 25%
Low 50-80% 1,653 14%
2 – Project Description
10 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Admin Draft December 21, 2022
Moderate 80-120% 1,981 17%
Above Moderate >120% 5,126 44%
Total 11,632 100%
Source(s): Final Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Plan: San Francisco Bay Area, 2023-2031, Updated March 2022.
Note(s):
1 AMI = Area Median Income
2 Pursuant to AB 2634, local jurisdictions are required to project the housing needs of extremely low-income households (0-30% AMI) and considers this income group a subset of the very-low income category. In estimating the number of extremely low-income households, a jurisdiction can use 50% of the very low-income allocation or apportion the very low-income figure based on Census data.
Progress Towards the RHNA
Since the RHNA uses June 30, 2022, as the baseline for growth projections for the Housing Element planning period of 2023 to 2031, jurisdictions may count units approved, proposed, or under construction that are anticipated to be complete (have a Certificate of Occupancy) after June 30, 2022.
Proposed and approved residential development projects credited toward the RHNA include a variety of affordable and market rate projects in various stages of the development process. Many of these projects are concentrated within Specific Plan areas and along major thoroughfares. Approved and proposed projects are credited toward the RHNA based on the affordability and unit count of the development. A total of 12,712 units from the following approved and proposed project list are expected to be completed within the planning period. Combined, these pipeline projects can accommodate 12,712 total units as shown in Table 2 (Approved and Proposed Projects). Although there is a surplus of above moderate units, the City has a remaining RHNA of 1,033 moderate-income units and 3,698 lower-income units to be addressed through ADU projections and site identification.
Table 2
Approved and Proposed Projects
Site/Credit Type Total Units Project Status
Tasman East Focus Area Specific Plan
TE 2233 Calle Del Mundo (St. Anton) 196 Under Construction TE 2300 Calle De Luna (Related) 700 Under Construction
TE 5123 Calle Del Sol (Ensemble) - Phase I & II 503 Approved/Under Construction TE 2200 Calle De Luna (Holland) 580 Approved
TE 2225 Calle de Luna & 2232 Calle del Mundo 371 Approved TE 2263 Calle Del Mundo (Ensemble) 301 Approved
TE 2302/2310 Calle Del Mundo (Ensemble) 151 Approved
TE 2343 Calle Del Mundo (Summerhill) 347 Approved
TE 2354 Calle Del Mundo (Ensemble) 89 Approved
TE 2101 Tasman Drive (Related) 950 Proposed
TE 5185 Lafayette (Ensemble) 271 Proposed
Patrick Henry Drive Focus Area Specific Plan
PHD Summerhill 300 Proposed
PHD Sares Regis 800 Pre-application 1
PHD Walnut Hill 416 Pre-application 2
Lawrence Station Area Plan
LSAP 3580 Rambla Pl (Summerhill) 286 Under Construction LSAP 2961 Corvin Drive (Toll Brothers) 38 Under Construction LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) 45 Under Construction LSAP 3517 Ryder St (Westlake Urban) 328 Approved
Freedom Circle Focus Area
2 – Project Description
Santa Clara 2023-2031 6th Cycle Housing Element Update 11 City of Santa Clara
3905 Freedom Circle Mixed-Use Project (Greystar) 1,075 Approved Other
Villa Bella Residential Project 56 Under Construction
3035 El Camino Real Residential Project 48 Under Construction 3945 Stevens Creek Blvd - The Meridian 59 Under Construction 2330 Monroe Street Affordable Housing Project (Freebird) 65 Under Construction Agrihood Mixed-Use Development Project 361 Under Construction Laguna Clara II (Equity) 183 Under Construction
Gateway Crossings (Hunter/Storm) - Phase 1 725 Under Construction Clara Gardens - 3550 El Camino Real 120 Approved/Under Construction 1530-1540 Pomeroy Avenue Residential Project 8 Approved Related Santa Clara - Phase 1 1,680 Approved
Gateway Crossings (Hunter/Storm) - Phase 2 840 Proposed 950 Monroe Street Mixed-Use Project 54 Proposed
TOTAL PENDING AND APPROVED PROJECTS 11,946
Source(s): City of Santa Clara, June 2022.
Note(s): All calculations were rounded down. There are likely discrepancies due to rounding down between the row and column totals.
1 Application expected Dec 2022
2 Application expected early 2023
Approved Projects
Approved projects have been reviewed for compliance with applicable Codes and regulations and have received planning entitlement approval. Projects will proceed through the building permit application review, issuance, and construction process within the planning period.
Projects Under Construction
These projects are under construction, with anticipated completion and occupancy permits to be finalized after June 30, 2022.
Pending/Under Review Projects
Approved projects have been reviewed for compliance with applicable Codes and regulations and have received planning entitlement approval. Projects will proceed through the building permit application review, issuance, and construction process within the planning period.
Default Density Assumptions
The California Government Code states that if a local government has adopted density standards consistent with the population-based criteria set by State law (at least 30 units per acre for Santa Clara), HCD is obligated to accept sites with those density standards (30 units per acre or higher) as appropriate for accommodating the jurisdiction’s share of regional housing need for lower-income households. Default density is considered by the State sufficient to provide market-based incentives for the development of housing for lower-income households.
The Santa Clara General Plan (adopted in 2010) identifies ten Focus Areas appropriate for higher density residential and mixed-use development. A detailed discussion of density assumptions and the affordability level of sites is included below.
Site Suitability and Lot Consolidation
Consistent with Housing Element law related to the suitability of small and large sites, the inventory of lower-income sites is limited to parcels between 0.5 and 10 acres in size. Due to the City’s historical parcelization pattern, the inclusion of small sites in the inventory is expected. To adhere to State law and HCD guidance, small sites (under 0.5 acres) are not used to meet the lower-income RHNA. There 2 – Project Description
12 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Admin Draft December 21, 2022
are 10 available sites included in the inventory with a parcel size under 0.5 acres. All of these are located in the Tasman East Specific Plan area and range between 0.458 and 0.482 acres. Parcels of similar size have been developed with residential within the last housing element cycle in the Tasman East Specific Plan area. While these sites have densities that are appropriate for lower-income RHNA sites and meet the default density standard, they are all credited toward the moderate- and above moderateincome categories. No sites in the inventory are larger than 10 acres. Although many of the parcels identified as sites are adjacent to one another, no lot consolidation is assumed.
Realistic Capacity and Suitability of Non-Vacant Sites
Housing Element law requires jurisdictions to demonstrate that the land inventory is adequate to accommodate that jurisdiction’s share of the region’s projected growth. Santa Clara has a remaining RHNA of 4,985 units to be achieved through the identification of sites. The City has various residential and mixed-use development opportunities on sites that are currently available, although all sites are non-vacant. All available sites are within Specific Plan areas. Each project demonstrates that the project’s actual density was developed higher than the minimum density allowed. Because each Specific Plan has its own distinct land use designations and affordability requirements, realistic capacity for available sites was calculated based on the average of percent above minimum density allowed per Specific Plan of existing and approved projects. Percent above the minimum density allowed was used to remain conservative, realistic, and to account for the wide range of Specific Plan densities allowed (from 20 du/ac in Lawrence Station to 350 du/ac maximum in Tasman East). In every case, claiming realistic capacity using the methodology and assumptions defined here yields total unit counts below the maximum density allowed.
Development Trends and Realistic Capacity
Current development trends in the Specific Plan areas show that a range of medium to high residential density is feasible, realistic, and appropriate to accommodate housing for all income levels. Since the City’s adoption of the Lawrence Station Area Plan and Tasman East Specific Plan, Santa Clara has seen an uptick in development and development interest.
Densities Appropriate for Accommodating Lower-Income Housing The capacity of sites that allow development densities of at least 30 units per acre are credited toward the lower-income RHNA based on State law. The California Government Code states that if a local government has adopted density standards consistent with the population-based criteria set by State law (at least 30 units per acre for Santa Clara), HCD is obligated to accept sites with those density standards (30 units per acre or higher) as appropriate for accommodating the jurisdiction’s share of regional housing need for lower-income households. All available sites included in this inventory, except for three sites zoned Medium Density Residential (20-36 du/ac), have density standards of 30 units per acre or higher. Located within the Lawrence Station Area Plan, the three sites zoned Medium Density Residential (20 – 36 du/ac) are credited toward the moderate- and above-moderate income categories.
To create a more conservative and realistic estimate of affordability for Santa Clara, available sites that qualify for one hundred percent affordable units based on the allowed density are split evenly between the very low-, low-, and moderate-income categories 33.33 percent, 33.33 percent, and 33.33 percent, respectively.
Re-use of Sites
AB 1397 (2017) requires that specific parameters be placed on sites that were used in previous Housing Element planning cycles but did not develop and are identified in the current Housing Element to meet 2 – Project Description
Santa Clara 2023-2031 6th Cycle Housing Element Update 13 City of Santa Clara
the lower-income RHNA. However, as noted in HCD guidance documents, due to updates in the prior planning period to the General Plan or other planning activities, such as the creation of a specific plan, some sites previously identified in the Housing Element may have been rezoned during intervening years to allow a higher density, thereby increasing the potential housing capacity of the site. Because the zoning characteristics of such a site have changed, that site can be considered a new site for the purposes of the housing element inventory.
All sites in this Housing Element are Specific Plan and focus area parcels, including some previously identified in the fifth cycle. Parcels identified in the fifth cycle subsequently rezoned to a higher density through their respective Specific Plan processes were not rezoned to accommodate a shortfall; rather, the rezoning was conducted to implement General Plan policy. Thus, no sites are subject to the reuse provisions of AB 1397 (2017).
No Net Loss Provision
Government Code Section 65863 stipulates that a jurisdiction must ensure that its Housing Element inventory can accommodate its share of the RHNA by income level throughout the planning period (2023-2031). If a jurisdiction approves a housing project at a lower density or with fewer units by income category than identified in the Housing Element, it must quantify at the time of approval the remaining unmet housing need at each income level and determine whether there is sufficient capacity to meet that need. If not, the city must “identify and make available” additional adequate sites to accommodate the jurisdiction’s share of housing need by income level within 180 days of approving the reduceddensity project. This provision is commonly referred to as the "no net loss” provision of Housing Element law.
ADU Projections
Since 2017, the State legislature has passed a series of laws that significantly increase the potential for development of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and Junior ADUs (JADUs) by removing development barriers, allowing ADUs through ministerial permits, and requiring jurisdictions to include programs in their housing element that incentivize ADU development. Interest in constructing ADUs is high in Santa Clara and continues to grow. In 2018, the City issued 21 ADU building permits. In 2019, the number increased to 51 annual building permits, with similar numbers in 2020 (45 ADU building permits) and 2021 (53 ADU building permits). This represents a 152 percent increase in ADU production in Santa Clara between 2018 and 2021. The City estimates that interest will continue to increase over the next few years, given the many single-family neighborhoods citywide that create capacity for additional ADUs. As of June 2022, 53 percent (or 16,103 parcels) of total parcels were zoned for single-family housing, totaling 2,504 acres. ADUs are permitted on single-family, multi-family, and mixed-use lots, including R1, R2, and R3 zoning districts, which represent a significant number of lots in Santa Clara.
As an incentive to ADU production, the City does not charge a Planning fee for review/processing ADU requests. Also, State law allows jurisdictions to charge impact fees on ADUs over 750 square feet, but the City of Santa Clara does not. The City has also exempted ADUs/JADUs from providing parking .
The slight dip in ADU production in 2020 may be due to the COVD-19 pandemic and other events of 2020. In 2021, the City had the highest number of ADU building permits to date, which is likely more representative of ADU production moving forward based on ADU trends in Santa Clara, new and pending favorable ADU legislation that created new incentives and streamlined processes to build ADUs, and the pent-up demand for additional housing in the Bay Area. While it is impossible to predict with certainty the exact number of ADUs that will be developed during the planning period (2023-2031), the City conservatively estimates:
2 – Project Description
14 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Admin Draft December 21, 2022
An average of 43 ADUs per year will be constructed throughout the planning period. This reflects the average number of building permits issued for ADUs between 2018 and 2021. Given the anticipated increase in ADUs over the near term, this is a conservative estimate. A total of 344 ADUs can be predicted to be constructed during the planning period.
The affordability assumptions for ADU projections are based on ABAG’s ADU affordability analysis endorsed by HCD.1
Site Selection
The Housing Element sites inventory, in addition to the list of pending and approved projects, includes accessory dwelling unit (ADU) projections and vacant and underutilized sites within Specific Plan areas zoned for high-density residential and mixed-use development. These latter two categories have been used to demonstrate that the RHNA for the extremely low-, very low-, low- and moderate-income categories can be accommodated during the planning period. As the discussion below concludes, the sites have no identified constraints that would prevent development or reuse during the Housing Element period. Table 3 (Sites to Meet the RHNA), below, summarizes the sites inventory.
Table 3
Sites to Meet the RHNA
Site
Affordability Category
Total
Very Low Low Moderate Capacity
Above
Moderate
Pending and Approved Projects 390 320 811 9,566 11,946
ADU Projection 102 102 102 34 340
Available Specific Plan Sites 3,049 3,049 3,354 305 9,808 Total 3,541 3,471 4,267 9,905 22,094
RHNA 2,872 1,653 1,981 5,126 11,632
Difference +669 +1,818 +2,286 +4,779 +10,462
Source(s): Final Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Plan: San Francisco Bay Area, 2023-2031, Updated March 2022. Technical Assistance for Local Planning, Housing – Using ADUs to Satisfy RHNA, Technical Memo, March 2022.
Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan, March 2022. Lawrence Station Area Plan, Neighborhood Transit- Oriented Development Plan, Nov. 2016. Tasman East Focus Area Specific Plan, Nov. 2020.
Note(s): AMI = Area Median Income
Available Specific Plan Sites
Plan Bay Area 2050 Growth Geographies
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and ABAG jointly adopted Plan Bay Area 2050 in October 2021. Thirty-five strategies make up the heart of the plan to improve housing, the economy, transportation, and the environment across the Bay Area’s nine counties. Throughout Plan Bay Area 2050, Growth Geographies are geographic areas used to guide where future growth in housing and jobs would be focused under the plan’s strategies over the next 30 years. These geographies are identified for growth either by local jurisdictions or because of their proximity to transit or access to opportunity. All sites included in the Housing Element are considered Priority Development Areas (PDAs), defined as areas generally near existing job centers or frequent transit that are locally identified (i.e., identified by towns, cities, or counties) for housing and job growth.
1 ABAG estimates an affordability breakdown of ADUs as follows: 30% very low-income, 30% low-income, 30% moderate-income, and 10% above moderate-income. Technical Assistance for Local Planning, Housing – Using ADUs to Satisfy RHNA, Technical Memo, March 2022. 2 – Project Description
Santa Clara 2023-2031 6th Cycle Housing Element Update 15 City of Santa Clara
2010-2035 General Plan Focus Areas, Focus Area Plans, and Related Planning Efforts In 2010, the City of Santa Clara adopted its comprehensive 2010-2035 General Plan, which included identification of nine focus areas throughout the City, listed in Table 4 (General Plan Focus Areas).
These areas were chosen for their potential to significantly define Santa Clara’s identity as a place in transition from a suburb to a regional economic center. The opportunity to develop at a higher density near transit is central to this new identity. A comprehensive plan, such as a specific plan, is a required prerequisite for new residential development within a focus area. The purpose of these plans and the prerequisite requirements ensure that new neighborhoods are self-sufficient, with easy access to retail, services, and public amenities. Specific Plans also ensure that adequate public services and facilities are provided in tandem with new development. In 2014, the City initiated updates to the Housing Element and Land Use policies that identify and require future development to be comprehensively planned through the preparation of Specific Plans within the Lawrence Station and Tasman East Focus Areas. Of the nine focus areas identified in the 2010-2035 General Plan, four have resulted in Specific Plans, three of which have been adopted. The Freedom Circle Future Focus Area was added to the General Plan in June 2022, while preparation of this sixth cycle Housing Element was well underway.
A specific plan has not been drafted or adopted for this focus area, and therefore the focus area, with the exception of the Greystar site that had its own approved General Plan Amendment and Rezoning to allow residential development, was not included in the sites inventory. However, properties within that planning area could become available during the planning period if a specific plan were adopted, helping to guard against the loss of affordable housing capacity.
Table 4
General Plan Focus Areas
2010-2035 General Plan Focus Area Related Planning Effort Status Downtown Focus Area Santa Clara Downtown Precise
Plan Draft, Nov. 2022
Santa Clara Station Focus Area None N/A
Stevens Creek Boulevard Focus Area None N/A
El Camino Real Focus Area El Camino Real Specific Plan Draft May 2021 Lawrence Station Focus Area Lawrence Station Area Plan Adopted Nov. 2016 Tasman East Focus Area Tasman East Focus Area Specific
Plan
Adopted Nov. 2018; Revised,
Nov. 2020
Great America Parkway Focus Area Patrick Henry Drive Focus Area Specific Plan Adopted, Mar. 2022
Freedom Circle Focus Area Freedom Circle Future Focus
Area Plan Adopted, June 2022
Central Expressway Focus Area None N/A
De La Cruz Focus Area None N/A
Source(s): City of Santa Clara 2010-2035 General Plan, Nov. 2010. Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan, March 2022. Lawrence Station Area Plan, Neighborhood Transit-Oriented Development Plan, Nov. 2016. Tasman East Focus Area Specific Plan, Nov. 2020.
Focus Areas and Specific Plans
A considerable portion of Santa Clara is designated for specific plan development. The City has three approved Specific Plans with a significant number of sites and residential development capacity remaining. Combined, the sites identified in the Lawrence Station, Tasman East, and Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan areas have enough capacity to satisfy the outstanding RHNA (i.e., the remaining RHNA after pending and proposed projects in Table 2), with 6,336 total units distributed among the four income categories as shown in Tables 3 and 4. The Specific Plan areas provide opportunities for development of market-rate and affordable housing. Development types authorized by the approved 2 – Project Description
16 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Admin Draft December 21, 2022
Specific Plans include multi-unit and mixed-use development. None of the listed Specific Plan areas have any site restrictions or governmental constraints that would impede development. Further detail is provided in the following sections. The Specific Plan sites have a high level of certainty to develop given that:
Through the adoption and implementation of each City-initiated Specific Plan, all parcels within each area have been re-zoned to accommodate high density residential development. Specific parameters for densities, uses, development standards, and minimum affordability requirements have already been established.
No recent, significant enhancements have been made to these sites. Infrastructure is either in place, or planned for, in support of proposed land uses, addressing transportation, wet utilities, solid waste management, and energy services and systems. For both the Tasman East and Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plans, an infrastructure fee has been created to apportion costs between developers in the Plan Areas. Redevelopment of nonresidential uses into high density residential and mixed-use has already occurred, illustrating developer and property owner interest and the financial feasibility of site redevelopment.
All land use designations within the Specific Plan areas have established minimum densities. No land use designation in the Tasman East Specific Plan or Lawrence Station Area Plan areas allows for stand-alone nonresidential uses.
The City has financial resources available to support the development of affordable housing. All developments in the Tasman East Specific Plan area adhere to the affordable housing requirements referenced in Section 17.40.115 of the Santa Clara City Code. For-sale and rental affordable units shall be maintained as affordable housing for not less than 20 years applicable to for-sale units and 55 years applicable to rental units. In recognition of the conversion of employment uses to residential land, the Patrick Henry Specific Plan calls for a higher level of affordability than is required by ordinance. Affordable housing requirements for the Patrick Henry Specific Plan will provide 15 percent affordable units split equally between three affordability levels of 50 percent, 80 percent, and 120 percent of Area Median Income (AMI).
Additionally, affordability by design in Specific Plan areas is encouraged, with the development of smaller units targeted for those who desire a walkable, urban lifestyle.
Tasman East Focus Area Specific Plan
Adopted in November 2018, the Tasman East Specific Plan regulates the development of 46.1 acres of land located near the City’s northern boundary. Approved for the development of 4,500 units, full buildout of the area will likely occur by 2038. The Specific Plan area includes 34 parcels situated east of Lafayette Street, north of Tasman Drive, west of the Guadalupe River Trail, and south of the Santa Clara Tennis and Golf Club property. Each parcel of one acre or more in size is required to accommodate a minimum density of 100 dwelling units per acre. Each parcel of less than one acre in size is required to achieve a minimum density of 60 dwelling units per acre. There are no density maximums for individual parcels. Approximately half of the Tasman East Specific Plan’s parcels, on 31 acres, have been redeveloped from a mix of light industrial and business park uses to a high density residential neighborhood with a mix of uses at the ground floor. Eleven projects within the Specific Plan area were counted toward the sixth cycle RHNA as approved, proposed, or under construction. The area’s remaining parcels, on 10 acres, have been identified as sites and remain to be re-developed.
Assuming the realistic capacities, on a parcel-level, the remaining Tasman East Specific Plan area sites identified in this Housing Element can accommodate a total of 913 units. 2 – Project Description
Santa Clara 2023-2031 6th Cycle Housing Element Update 17 City of Santa Clara
Lawrence Station Area Plan
The Santa Clara Lawrence Station Area Plan Area is located northeast of the Lawrence Caltrain Station, bounded by Central Expressway to the north, Kifer Road to the South, Lawrence Expressway to the west, and Calabazas Creek to the east, encompassing approximately 72 acres (65 acres of developable land area excluding existing public right-of-way). Adopted in 2016, the Lawrence Station Area Plan is largely developed. Residential uses have replaced the areas original uses: one- and two-story buildings, generally occupied by light industrial (including manufacturing and warehousing uses), office (including R&D and data centers), and various other commercial uses. Originally approved for the development of 3,500 residential units, 13 parcels, on approximately 30 acres, remain to be developed and are included in this Housing Element’s site selection. Assuming realistic capacities, on a parcel-level, the remaining Lawrence Station Area Plan sites identified in this Housing Element can accommodate a total of 2,756 units.
Patrick Henry Drive Focus Area Specific Plan
In March 2022, the City Council approved the Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan. The planning area encompasses approximately 73.59 acres bounded by Sunnyvale and Calabazas Creek to the west, the southern edge of San Francisco Public Utilities Commission right-of-way to the north, Great America Parkway to the east, and Mission College to the south. As one of the City’s first high-density residential neighborhoods, Patrick Henry Drive will add thousands of units to better balance the City’s jobs-housing ratio, a share of which will be income restricted to help meet regional and local affordability goals.
Several regional destinations and amenities are nearby, including Levi’s Stadium, Great America Theme Park, and the Santa Clara Convention Center. The VTA light rail station at Old Ironsides and Tasman Drive is just over one-half mile, or an approximately 10-minute walk, from the center of the Specific Plan area. The Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan resulted from a collaborative planning effort involving the City, area property owners, and the Santa Clara community. The plan will create a 73.59- acre high-density, residential neighborhood located near regional destinations, including job-centers, transit, and other amenities. At buildout, the project will accommodate up to 12,000 new residential dwelling units and 310,000 square feet of nonresidential uses, including 200,000 square feet of other new neighborhood-serving retail and public facilities, such as libraries and community spaces. New and improved pedestrian and bicycle connections, trails, and parks will link neighborhoods and enhance connections to nearby amenities and recreation destinations. Careful planning will ensure adequate infrastructure and services to support the proposed new development. Targeted residential densities range from a minimum of 51 dwelling units per acre to a maximum of 250 units per acre. These densities will help meet the demand for housing that addresses job and retail growth in the City and region.
Assuming the realistic capacities, on a parcel-level, the Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan sites identified in this Housing Element can accommodate a total of 6,139 units.
General Plan Amendment
The proposed Housing Element Update includes amendments to the General Plan removing the following three Future Focus Areas: Lawrence Station Phase II, De La Cruz, and Central Expressway. ( These Future Focus Areas were determined internally to have limited value for residential uses based on existing uses both in and around the to-be-deleted Future Focus Areas. None of these future focus areas were included in the inventory of sites for potential future housing element, in either the proposed housing element or any prior housing element. The project also amends the General Plan to make the High-Intensity Office District more relevant to current business practices by removing the 10% cap on manufacturing uses in the High-Intensity Office/Research and Development designation and removing the 20% manufacturing cap from the Low-Intensity Office/Research and Development designation. The General Plan Amendment also proposes to allow medical facilities on a limited basis in the Low- and High-Intensity Office/Research and Development designations. 2 – Project Description
18 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Admin Draft December 21, 2022
Proposed Housing Element Update Goals and Policies
The Housing Element Update’s goals and policies have been established to meet state law housing requirements and support the City’s vision of providing decent housing and a suitable living environment for every resident. The Housing Plan identifies the City’s goals for neighborhood conservation, housing production, housing support, and housing opportunities. The goals are supported by policies which are implemented through a series of actions. To make adequate provision for the housing needs for people of all income levels, the Housing Element Update includes the following goals and policies:
Goal A Create and maintain high-quality, livable, and diverse housing stock within the City of Santa Clara.
Policy A-1: Maintain and improve the quality of residential housing stock, address housing deficiencies and prevent future blight through the encouragement of ongoing maintenance, rehabilitation, and conservation of existing housing stock.
Policy A-2: Provide residential code enforcement for conformance with City Code and Zoning Ordinance regulations.
Policy A-3: Utilize objective design standards to streamline the housing development process.
Policy A-4: Seek collaborative efforts with regional entities and utility service providers to subsidize and incentivize residential energy and water conservation.
Policy A-5: Proactively plan for sufficient housing capacity through infill development that is compatible with existing neighborhoods and through the preparation of neighborhood plans that will support the development of new, complete neighborhoods.
Goal B Designate suitable vacant or underutilized sites for new residential development.
Policy B-1: Identify potential sites for affordable housing units in areas of “high opportunity” as defined by the state.
Policy B-2: Encourage the building of high-density housing on appropriate vacant or underutilized sites.
Policy B-3: Identify and facilitate the award of local, regional, state, and federal funding sources to support housing development, housing infrastructure, and amenities.
Policy B-4: Identify and potentially designate surplus land that can accommodate low, very-low, and extremely low-income residential development.
Policy B-5: Encourage high density residential development utilizing the City’s higher density and mixed-use residential designations in proximity to transit and other residential services.
Goal C Increase special needs housing opportunities for persons of all economic levels.
Policy C-1: The City shall collaborate with services agencies and community-based organizations to prioritize loans and grants toward housing for seniors, persons with disabilities, persons with mental illness, large families with children, female-headed households, victims of domestic violence, and people who are experiencing homelessness. 2 – Project Description
Santa Clara 2023-2031 6th Cycle Housing Element Update 19 City of Santa Clara
Policy C-2: Improve proximity and connections between special needs housing and high-quality transit stops, job centers, educational institutions, day care, open space, community services, and healthy food options.
Policy C-3: Participate in local, regional, State, and federal programs and efforts that support affordable, transitional, supportive, and permanent housing and address the needs of disadvantaged populations and those experiencing homelessness.
Policy C-4: Ensure compliance with all State and federal regulations relating to housing opportunities and the prevention of discrimination based on religion, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry, familial status, source of income, or mental or physical disability and any other protected classes under federal and State law.
Goal D Promote a variety of housing types, tenure, and location, including higher density where possible, especially for lower and moderate income and special needs households.
Policy D-1: Continue to identify and apply for funding that supports the development of housing for extremely-low and very low-income residents and special needs households.
Policy D-2: Continue to utilize General Plan land use and zoning updates to provide increased opportunity and flexibility in providing a variety of housing types and tenure.
Policy D-3: Periodically review the City’s ordinances, policies, and procedures and make changes as necessary to reduce or remove constraints to housing development.
Policy D-4: Promote the use of density bonuses and development incentives to facilitate a variety of housing types and tenure.
Policy D-5: Encourage the construction of accessory and junior accessory dwelling units through outreach, education, and links to regional technical assistance.
Goal E Affirmatively further fair housing by increasing access to opportunity, reducing displacement impacts, reducing cost burden, targeting outreach to lower income residents, and rehabilitating substandard living conditions.
Policy E-1: Improve access to opportunity by working to improve the quality of life for residents of lower income communities, as well as supporting residents’ mobility and access to ‘high resource’ neighborhoods.
Policy E-2: Work to reduce displacement of lower income residents from Santa Clara and to reduce the impact of relocation on low-income households.
Policy E-3: Conduct proactive outreach in areas of the City with less access to opportunity, to build awareness of services including fair housing complaint investigation, landlord tenant mediation, eviction and homelessness prevention counseling, and opportunities to apply for new affordable housing through the HouseKeys application portal.
Policy E-4: Conduct regular outreach, education, and affirmative marketing with community partners that have access to populations experiencing disproportionate housing problems and 2 – Project Description
20 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Admin Draft December 21, 2022
encourage early participation from a diverse set of residents and other stakeholders in the development of long-range plans and the review of new development proposals.
Policy E-5: Increase public participation by translating public outreach documents (e.g., flyers, surveys) as part of the public participation process and when marketing the City’s affordable housing lotteries.
Policy E-6: Continue to provide, when appropriate and feasible, options for either virtual, in-person, or hybrid community meetings to allow for broader community participation.
Housing Element Update Implementing Actions
Each Goal outlined in the Housing Plan is supported by one or more policies, which are often implemented by specific actions. Many of the identified actions below will implement multiple policies and goals. Some policies offer direction to Staff and appointed/elected officials in making decisions related to the provision of housing but are not implemented through specific housing programs.
Action 1: Provision of a Variety of Housing Types
The City of Santa Clara supports and encourages the development of a variety of housing types to rent and to own in a variety of locations to maintain social and economic diversity in the community. During the Housing Element planning period, the City will promote the development of accessory units, affordable one- and two-story additions to single-family homes, and other lower income housing alternatives.
Action 2: Affordable Housing Ordinance
The City’s Affordable Housing Ordinance requires developers of residential developments of 10 or more units to provide the following:
Rental projects - 15% of rental units must be affordable to renters of extremely low, very low, low, and moderate income households, as long as the distribution of affordable units averages to a maximum of 100% of AMI.
For sale/ownership projects - 15% of units must be affordable to extremely low, very low, low, and moderate income households, as long as the distribution of affordable units averages to a maximum of 100% of AMI.
The Affordable Housing Ordinance has two components: Below Market Rental (BMR) program and Below Market Purchase (BMP) program. The City offers BMR and BMP units to income-qualified households. This program is an important tool for providing very low, low, and moderate income housing opportunities.
Action 3: Affordable Housing Incentives and Facilitation For-profit and nonprofit developers play a significant role in providing affordable housing in Santa Clara.
The City will proactively encourage and facilitate the development efforts of developers and organizations for the construction of affordable housing for lower income households, particularly those with special needs including seniors, large households, extremely low income households, households with persons who have disabilities (including developmental disabilities), and licensed residential care homes.
Action 4: Maintenance of Housing Stock
Since 1976, the City of Santa Clara has assisted more than 1,000 homeowners to rehabilitate and increase the value of their homes through the Neighborhood Conservation and Improvement Program (NCIP). Under the direction of the City of Santa Clara Housing and Community Services Division and 2 – Project Description
Santa Clara 2023-2031 6th Cycle Housing Element Update 21 City of Santa Clara
in partnership with Rebuilding Together Silicon Valley, NCIP offers technical and financial assistance to qualified homeowners. The program is designed for citywide households with gross incomes at or below 80 percent of County median income. Various types of minor and major repairs may be addressed including accessibility improvements, re-roofing, plumbing, heating/cooling, electrical, termite damage, foundation, and weatherization. The costs for home repairs are covered through a grant or a loan depending on the size of the project. The Multi-Family Affordable Energy Efficiency program allows for the City’s special revenue funds in partnership with Silicon Valley Power (SVP) to pay for energy consultants to recommend and create a scope of work for specific SVP project rebates.
The program also allows for the City to provide assistance for the cost of installation and facilitate the grant administration process.
Action 5: Preservation of Assisted Rental Housing
To meet the housing needs of persons of all economic groups, the City is committed to guarding against the loss of housing units reserved for lower income households. Five assisted rental projects in Santa Clara are identified to be at potential low risk of conversion to market rate use in 2028-2031.
Action 6: Acquisition of Multi-Family Housing
As a strategy to expand the City’s affordable housing inventory, Santa Clara will continue to explore opportunities for the acquisition/rehabilitation of multi-family housing. As funding permits, the City will work with nonprofit organizations to acquire and rehabilitate deteriorating and distressed properties and convert them into affordable rental housing for lower income households, including those with special needs.
Action 7: Code Enforcement Program
Code enforcement is essential to ensuring housing conservation and rehabilitation. The City maintains a strong housing inspection and code enforcement program to ensure adequate maintenance of the housing stock and quality of residential neighborhoods. In an average year, the City receives several thousand complaints related to possible code enforcement violations. In many cases, the responsible party for the code violation is given the opportunity to voluntarily correct the situation and comply with current codes without a penalty.
Action 8: Neighborhood Relations Programs
Since 1990, the Neighborhood-University Relations Committee (NURC) (formerly Student Housing Committee) has been responsible for reviewing student housing issues. NURC meets regularly to facilitate on-going communication and problem solving among City officials, neighborhoods, property owners and Santa Clara University (SCU) officials and students. Santa Clara University has established a Residency Requirement for Freshman and Sophomore students, with some exceptions, to live on campus. In 2022 the City convened an ad hoc Homelessness Task Force which will be replaced in 2023 with a permanent Housing Commission. The new commission will advise on the use of the City’s federal CDBG and HOME funds, and on the City’s homelessness response efforts.
Action 9: Zoning Ordinance
The City is currently undertaking a comprehensive update to its Zoning Ordinance to reflect the current goals and policies of the 2010-2035 General Plan. As part of this update, the City will reconsider, and revise, if appropriate, its provisions for parking, mixed use developments, shared housing and residential care facilities, employee housing, and SRO housing. The update is expected to be completed in early 2023. The comprehensive Zoning update is intended to bring consistency between the Zoning Ordinance and the General Plan, implementing the General Plan goals by facilitating mixed use development and higher density residential development, protecting existing neighborhoods, and incentivizing redevelopment with appropriate development standards and streamlined procedures. 2 – Project Description
22 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Admin Draft December 21, 2022
Action 10: Adequate Sites Inventory
The City is committed to ensuring that adequate sites at appropriate densities remain available during the planning period, as required by law. The residential sites analysis completed for the 2023-2031 Housing Element indicates the City can accommodate its RHNA of 11,632 units, including 2,872 very low income units, 1,653 low income units, 1,981 moderate income units, and 5,126 above moderate income units.
Action 11: Impact Fees
The City charges various impact fees to provide essential services and facilities to serve new development. The City will conduct an impact fee study to compare the City’s fees with surrounding and similar jurisdictions.
Action 12: Affordable Housing Funding
The City will continue to explore gaining access to additional resources that provide a steady funding stream for affordable housing. These may include, funding from the Bay Area Housing Finance Authority, County, State, federal, housing or land trust funds, and private sector support, partnerships, or philanthropy.
Action 13: Residential Development
Development in the City has primarily occurred as the recycling of existing marginal commercial and industrial uses into higher density multi-family housing. As such, the City has not yet experienced direct displacement of lower income households due to new development. As redevelopment of existing uses continues, the City will evaluate potential displacement of residents, and develop and adopt measures, as appropriate, to address the risk of direct or indirect displacement of those existing residents. The City will monitor such measures biannually for effectiveness and make necessary adjustments.
Action 14: Housing Choice Voucher Program
The Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program extends rental subsidies to very low income households, as well as elderly and disabled persons. The subsidy represents the difference between 30 percent of the monthly income and the allowable rent determined by the Section 8 program.
Vouchers permit tenants to locate their own housing and rent units beyond the federally determined fair market rent in an area. The City’s role in this action will be to advocate for more Housing Choice Vouchers for Santa Clara residents.
Action 15: Homeownership for First-Time Buyers
The City continues to create affordable ownership units through its Inclusionary Housing Policy.
HouseKeys partners with Santa Clara staff to offer the units created through the Inclusionary Housing - Below Market Purchase (BMP) program to income-qualified households. The intent of the BMP program is to offer low and moderate income homebuyers an opportunity to purchase a home they would not ordinarily be able to afford. If a BMP homeowner wishes to sell the home between 6-20 years after purchase, they must pay back the City’s remaining note value and a share of the equity increase.
Other resources for affordable homeownership are also available to Santa Clara residents. These include the Housing Trust Silicon Valley, Mortgage Credit Certificates, Habitat for Humanity, and Santa Clara County’s Office of Supportive Housing.
The Housing Trust Silicon Valley Empower Homebuyers SCC program provides loans to low- and moderate-income homebuyers in Silicon Valley in the form of low-interest, second mortgages and down-payment assistance. Santa Clara residents are eligible for two types of assistance offered by the Housing Trust, mortgage assistance and gap assistance. The Mortgage Credit Certificate Program (MCC), administered by the County of Santa Clara Office of Affordable Housing, provides financial assistance to first-time homebuyers. The Santa Clara County MCC tax credit reduces the federal 2 – Project Description
Santa Clara 2023-2031 6th Cycle Housing Element Update 23 City of Santa Clara
income taxes of qualified borrowers purchasing qualified homes, thus having the effect of a mortgage subsidy. The current tax credit rate is up to 15 percent of the interest paid to the lender on the first loan.
Habitat for Humanity East Bay/Silicon Valley provides ownership opportunities for first-time homebuyers via a sweat equity and savings plan programs. Households, friends, and family contribute 250-500 hours of sweat equity into the construction of their homes.
Santa Clara County’s Measure A also set aside funds to assist first time homebuyers. In 2023, the County will roll out new programs that help low income households attain home ownership.
Additionally, SB 9, signed into law in September of 2021 and effective January 1, 2022, allows property owners within single-family residential zones to build two units and/or to subdivide an existing lot into two parcels, for a total of four units that can each be sold as separate units, can help enable affordable home ownership for first time buyers.
Action 16: Fair Housing Program
The City contracts with a qualified fair housing services provider to provide fair housing services to its residents. Currently, the City utilizes Project Sentinel, a nonprofit agency that provides information and dispute resolution services to tenants, landlords, and roommates. Since 2009, Project Sentinel has assisted over 1,000 Santa Clara households and landlords to resolve disputes through counseling, conciliation, and mediation.
Action 17: Homeless Services
In 2022 the City convened a six-month Homelessness Taskforce. The Taskforce included stakeholders with a range of perspectives and experience to help identify priorities and provide recommendations related to the development of a local plan to reduce homelessness and its impacts. Additionally, the City’s Police Department conducts outreach through the Community Response Team and the Housing and Community Services Division administers grants to several local agencies that offer services to the homeless. The following agencies have received funding from the City:
WeHope Dignity on Wheels Mobile Shower and Laundry Service Santa Clara County Homelessness Prevention System (HPS) Santa Clara County case management for permanent supportive housing clients Next Door Solutions to Domestic Violence
Emergency Housing Consortium
St. Justin Community Ministry
Bill Wilson Center
Abode Services
Community Technology Alliance
InnVision
Action 18: Shared Housing
Shared housing can be an affordable housing alternative for seniors and other lower income seniors, disabled, and special needs residents when sufficient support and property management services are included. The City can support this housing type through acquisition and rehabilitation subsidies.
2.9 – Required Approvals
The project would require the following approvals:
2 – Project Description
24 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Admin Draft December 21, 2022
General Plan Amendment to adopt the Housing Element and text amendments to remove the square footage limitations on manufacturing in the low- and high-intensity office districts. General Plan Amendment to remove the De La Cruz, Central Expressway and Lawrence Station Phase II Future Focus Areas.
General Plan Text Amendment to remove the square footage limitations on manufacturing and to allow medical facilities in limited circumstances in the low- and high-intensity office districts. Adoption of the Zoning Code Update to implement Action 1 (provision of a variety of housing types) and Action 9 (Zoning Code Update) in the Implementing Actions section of the Housing Element document.
2.10 – Other Public Agency Whose Approval is Required
None.
2 – Project Description
Santa Clara 2023-2031 6th Cycle Housing Element Update 25 City of Santa Clara
Exhibit 1
Regional Context Map
2 – Project Description
26 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Admin Draft December 21, 2022
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
2 – Project Description
Santa Clara 2023-2031 6th Cycle Housing Element Update 27 City of Santa Clara
Exhibit 2
Existing General Plan Land Use Map
2 – Project Description
28 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Admin Draft December 21, 2022
This Page Intentionally Left Blank.
Santa Clara 2023-2031 6th Cycle Housing Element Update 29 City of Santa Clara
3 Determination
3.1 – Environmental Categories Potentially Affected
The environmental categories checked below were identified in the General Plan EIR and subsequent amendments as being a ‘Potentially Significant Impact,’ and the following Sections of this Addendum identify to what degree the proposed project contributes to these previously identified significant impacts.
□ Aesthetics □ Agriculture Resources Air Quality
Biological Resources □ Cultural Resources □ Energy
□ Geology /Soils Greenhouse Gas
Emissions □
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
□
Hydrology / Water
Quality □ Land Use / Planning □ Mineral Resources
Noise Population / Housing □ Public Services
□ Recreation Transportation/Traffic □
Tribal Cultural
Resources
Utilities / Service
Systems □ Wildfire □
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
3.2 – Determination
□
The project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
□
Although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. □
The project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
□
The project MAY have a ‘potentially significant impact’ or ‘potentially significant unless mitigated’ impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
The project could have a significant effect on the environment, but all of its potentially significant effects (a) have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION. As such, no further environmental documentation (e.g., a subsequent EIR) is required.
3 – Determination
30 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Admin Draft December 21, 2022
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Santa Clara 2023-2031 6th Cycle Housing Element Update 31 City of Santa Clara
4 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
The purpose of this Addendum is to evaluate the CEQA environmental checklist categories in terms of any changed conditions from the approved General Plan EIR and subsequent amendments to the proposed project (e.g., project changes, changed circumstances, or new information of substantial importance) that may produce a changed environmental result (e.g., a new significant impact or substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant effect) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, 15164, and 15168(c). As such, the Addendum’s checklist analysis uses the standard environmental categories provided in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines but provides answer columns for evaluation consistent with the considerations listed in Guidelines Section 15162(a).
Mitigation measures identified in the General Plan EIR and applicable to the proposed project are discussed under each environmental Section and are listed in Section 5 – Applicable Mitigation Measures. As discussed in the following Sections, the proposed project would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of impacts previously identified by the General Plan EIR and subsequent amendments.
EXPLANATION OF CHECKLIST EVALUATION CATEGORIES (COLUMNS) Effect Not Examined in the General Plan EIR?
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c)(1), this column indicates whether the project would have effects that were not previously examined by the General Plan EIR and subsequent EIRs, which new effects could necessitate subsequent CEQA review.
Conclusion in the General Plan EIR and Subsequent EIRs? This column summarizes the conclusion of the General Plan EIR and subsequent EIRs concerning the environmental issue listed under each topic.
Proposed Changes Involving New or More Severe Impacts?
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(1), this column indicates whether any changes represented by the proposed project would result in new significant environmental impacts not previously identified or mitigated by the General Plan EIR and subsequent EIRs or whether the changes would result in a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact.
New Circumstances Involving New or More Severe Impacts? Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(2), this column indicates whether there have been substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the project would be undertaken that would require major revisions to the General Plan EIR and subsequent EIRs due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.
New Information Showing New or More Severe Impacts?
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3), this column indicates whether new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the General Plan EIR and subsequent EIRs were certified, shows any of the following:
4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
32 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Admin Draft December 21, 2022
(A) The project would have one or more significant effects not discussed in the General Plan EIR and subsequent amendments;
(B) Significant effects previously examined would be substantially more severe than shown in the General Plan EIR and subsequent amendments;
(C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (D) Mitigation measures or alternatives that are considerably different from those analyzed in the General Plan EIR and subsequent amendments would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.
If the additional analysis completed as part of this environmental review were to find that the conclusions of the General Plan EIR and subsequent EIRs remain the same and no new significant impacts are identified, or identified impacts are not found to be substantially more severe, or additional mitigation is not necessary, then the question would be answered “No,” and no subsequent environmental review would be required.
DISCUSSION FOLLOWING CHECKLIST EVALUATION
A discussion of the elements of the checklist is provided under each environmental category in order to clarify the answers regarding the proposed project in relation to the General Plan EIR and subsequent EIRs. The discussion provides information about the particular environmental issue, how the project relates to the issue, and the status of any mitigation that may be required or that has already been implemented. Applicable mitigation measures from the General Plan EIR and subsequent EIRs that apply to the proposed project are listed under each environmental category. The text of the General Plan EIR mitigation measures are included at the end of each of the topical sections. The summary of each of the subsequent Specific Plan EIR’s has been excerpted and are included in Appendix C, and each of the summaries includes the mitigation measures for each of the subsequent Specific Plan EIR’s.
Conclusion
Each Section ends with a summary of the conclusion of the preceding analysis. 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Santa Clara 2023-2031 6th Cycle Housing Element Update 33 City of Santa Clara
4.1 – Aesthetics
Would the project:
Effect
Examined
in General
Plan EIR?
Conclusion in
General Plan
EIR?
Proposed
Changes
Involving
New or
More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
or More Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Showing
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
a) Have a substantial adverse
effect on a scenic vista? Yes
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
b) Substantially damage scenic
resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic
buildings within view from a state
scenic highway?
Yes
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
c) In non-urbanized area,
substantially degrade the existing
visual character or quality of
public views of the site and its
surroundings? (Public views are
those that are experienced from
publicly accessible vantage
point). If the project is in an
urbanized area, would the project
conflict with applicable zoning
and other regulations governing
scenic quality?
Yes
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
d) Create a new source of
substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
Yes
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
Proposed Project in Relation to the General Plan EIR and Subsequent Amendments (a) Scenic Vistas. The General Plan EIR noted that there are no scenic vistas within the City, but the City of Santa Clara offers many views of the community and surrounding natural features, including panoramic views of the Santa Cruz Mountains and the Diablo Range and stretches of open space and undeveloped land in the Ulistac Natural Area. It was further noted that these scenic vistas can be viewed from the system of roadways and formal and informal public trails throughout the City, but private views of these resources from residential neighborhoods are currently obstructed by adjacent development.
The General Plan EIR found that development and redevelopment under the 2010-2035 General Plan could obstruct views of these scenic vistas from the system of roadways and formal and informal public trails throughout the City. However, it was noted that the 2010-2035 General Plan includes a range of policies that provide program-level mitigation for effects to the scenic vistas and ensure high quality design that maintains the quality of these scenic vistas and ensures their importance in the City’s future. 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
34 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Admin Draft December 21, 2022
Therefore, it was determined that implementation of General Plan policies and existing programs would minimize effects to the existing scenic vistas and impacts would be less than significant.
Since the proposed Housing Element Update does not include any changes to general plan land use designations or policies that would increase the growth capacity of the General Plan, including subsequent EIRs related to specific plans or area plans, project impacts would be similar to the General Plan EIR. Therefore, the proposed Housing Element would have a less than significant effect on scenic vistas.
(b) Scenic Resources within a State Scenic Highway. The General Plan EIR noted that development under the 2010-2035 General Plan has the potential to alter the City’s scenic resources. It was also noted that the El Camino Real Focus Area would serve as a gateway into the City and help define the boundary of the City’s historic core, and transition goals and policies, in conjunction with the El Camino Real Focus Area policies require that this development respect the existing historic character and development patterns of the surrounding area. It was further noted that the Downtown Focus Area offers opportunities for place-making and for a unique destination in the City to serve both local and regional interests, and that revitalization will support the Major Strategies for City identity and community vitality.
The General Plan EIR found that policies related to Areas of Historic Sensitivity and to transitions would also apply in order to respect the existing character and development patterns of the surrounding area.
It was found that most development would go through the City’s architectural review process prior to issuance of building permits, and would be reviewed for consistency with the City’s Design Guidelines.
It was further found that the City’s scenic resources would be managed consistent with City adopted regulations and policies, in combination with State regulations. Implementation of proposed policies and existing programs would minimize effects to the existing scenic resources. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that implementation of General Plan policies and existing programs would minimize effects to the existing scenic resources and impacts would be less than significant.
Since the proposed Housing Element Update does not include any changes to general plan land use designations or policies that would increase the growth capacity of the General Plan, including subsequent EIRs related to specific plans or area plans, project impacts would be similar to the General Plan EIR. Therefore, the proposed Housing Element would have a less than significant effect on scenic resources within a State Scenic Highway.
(c) Degrade Existing Visual Character. The General Plan EIR noted that new development and redevelopment under the General Plan would be substantial enough, and would occur at key locations throughout the City, such that it could have the potential to degrade the visual character of the City without appropriate planning and oversight. However, the General Plan EIR noted that most development would go through the City’s architectural review process prior to issuance of building permits, and would be reviewed for consistency with the City’s Design Guidelines. In addition, it was noted that Focus Areas within which much of the changes would occur are strategically designed to protect the integrity of residential neighborhoods, and changes to public spaces, including roadways, would be designed to upgrade the aesthetic environment. The General Plan EIR found that the City’s visual character would be maintained consistent with City adopted regulations and policies, in combination with State regulations. It was further noted that the General Plan includes a range of policies to ensure high quality design that supports and enhances the aesthetic qualities and character of the City and minimize or avoid adverse effects on the existing visual character. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that implementation of General Plan policies and existing programs would minimize effects to the existing visual character and impacts would be less than significant.
Since the proposed Housing Element Update does not include any changes to general plan land use designations or policies that would increase the growth capacity of the General Plan, including 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Santa Clara 2023-2031 6th Cycle Housing Element Update 35 City of Santa Clara
subsequent EIRs related to specific plans or area plans, project impacts would be similar to the General Plan EIR. Therefore, the proposed Housing Element would have a less than significant effect on the existing visual character of the area.
(d) Light and Glare. The General Plan EIR noted that new development and redevelopment under the 2010-2035 General Plan has the potential to create additional light or glare in the City, and sources of light and glare would include external housing lights, street-lights, parking lot lights, security lights, vehicular headlights, internal building lights, and reflective building surfaces and windows. It was also noted that most new development would go through the City’s architectural review process prior to issuance of building permits, and would be reviewed for consistency with the City’s Design Guidelines.
The General Plan EIR found that the City’s light and glare would be reduced and managed consistent with City adopted regulations and policies, in combination with State regulations. It was also found that the 2010-2035 General Plan includes a range of policies to provide program-level mitigation for effects to the neighborhoods from new light and glare resources and ensure high quality design that maintains the quality of existing neighborhoods and reduces light and glare. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that implementation of General Plan policies and existing programs would minimize effects of light and glare and impacts would be less than significant.
Since the proposed Housing Element Update does not include any changes to general plan land use designations or policies that would increase the growth capacity of the General Plan, including subsequent EIRs related to specific plans or area plans, project impacts would be similar to the General Plan EIR. Therefore, the proposed Housing Element would have a less than significant effect related to light and glare.
Cumulative Impacts
The General Plan EIR noted that visual and scenic resources are generally localized, although specific resources can be regional in nature, such as vistas of a mountain range. It was also noted that buildout of the General Plan would be limited to redevelopment of existing urbanized areas within Santa Clara, as there are only a small number of vacant undeveloped parcels remaining in the City. Further, it was noted that cumulative development within Santa Clara by other public agencies (i.e., the public school districts), or in adjacent communities (i.e., San Jose), would also largely consist of ‘recycling’ of existing developed parcels for new urban land uses or intensification of existing land uses. The General Plan EIR determined that implementation of the General Plan, including implementation of design review process and incorporation of applicable policies regulating the appearance of new development, would not result in impacts to regional visual and scenic resources, such as the Valley’s surrounding hillsides, in that new and redevelopment would not be of a scale or density to affect regional visual and scenic resources. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that the City’s contribution to cumulative regional visual and scenic resource impacts would be less than significant.
The Planning Area is completely urbanized and cumulative impacts related to aesthetics were analyzed in the General Plan EIR and were determined to be less than significant. The proposed Housing Element Update would be required to implement General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures 4.10-1 and
4.10-2. Therefore, the cumulative aesthetic impact from the proposed Housing Element Update would be less than significant.
Conclusion
The General Plan EIR determined that implementation of the 2010-2035 General Plan in accordance with proposed policies and actions would result in less than significant aesthetic and visual character impacts and no mitigation measures were required. The proposed Housing Element Update would 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
36 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Admin Draft December 21, 2022
implement General Plan policies and existing programs and would not substantially impact the aesthetic or visual character of the Planning Area. The RHNA allocation described in the proposed Housing Element Update would be within the amount of residential development potential analyzed in the General Plan EIR and subsequent EIRs, and would result in similar less than significant aesthetic impacts. The proposed project would be within the scope of what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR and subsequent amendments and would not produce new or substantially more severe environmental impacts. As such, no subsequent environmental analysis and no new mitigation are required.
Applicable General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
No applicable General Plan EIR mitigation measures.
4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Santa Clara 2023-2031 6th Cycle Housing Element Update 37 City of Santa Clara
4.2 – Agriculture and Forest Resources
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment Project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board.
Would the project:
Effect
Examined
in General
Plan EIR?
Conclusion in
General Plan
EIR and
Subsequent
EIRs?
Proposed
Changes
Involving
New or
More Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
or More Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Showing
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
a) Convert Prime Farmland,
Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California
Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use?
No Not Examined No No No
b) Conflict with existing
zoning for agricultural use, or
a Williamson Act contract?
No Not Examined No No No
c) Conflict with existing
zoning for, or cause rezoning
of, forest land (as defined in
Public Resources Code
Section 12220(g)), timberland
(as defined by Public
Resources Code Section
4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as
defined by Government Code
Section 51104 (g))?
No Not Examined No No No
d) Result in loss of forest land
or conversion of forest land to
non-forest use?
No Not Examined No No No
e) Involve other changes in
the existing environment
which, due to their location or
nature, could result in
No Not Examined No No No
4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
38 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Admin Draft December 21, 2022
conversion of Farmland to
non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to
non-forest use?
Proposed Project in Relation to the General Plan EIR and Subsequent Amendments (a) Designated Farmland. The General Plan EIR did not analyze impacts related to conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. The City of Santa Clara is almost completely urbanized and there are very few undeveloped parcels in the Planning Area. While there are locations in the City designated (A) Agricultural, there are no lands designated by the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program as being Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. Therefore, the proposed Housing Element Update would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural use. (b) Williamson Act. The General Plan EIR did not analyze impacts related to Williamson Act contracts.
The City of Santa Clara is almost completely urbanized and there are very few undeveloped parcels in the Planning Area. There are no lands within the City under a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, the proposed Housing Element Update would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract.
(c) Forest Zoning. The General Plan EIR did not analyze conflicts with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104 (g)). There are no areas of the City zoned as forest land or timberland resources. Therefore, the proposed Housing Element Update would not conflict with existing zoning for forest land or timberland.
(d) Loss or Conversion of Forestland. The General Plan EIR did not analyze impacts related to the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. However, there are no areas of the City zoned as forest land, and the Planning Area and does not contain any forest land resources.
Therefore, the proposed Housing Element Update would not result in the loss or conversion of forest land.
(e) Other Changes. The General Plan EIR did not analyze impacts related to the conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. The Housing Element Update does not re-zone or re-designate any parcel within the City from agricultural uses or zones to other uses. In addition, the Housing Element Update does not propose any specific development that would result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use; Inventory Sites identified within the Housing Element Update are located within urban areas. There are no parts of the City designated as timberland, forest land, or farmland; as such, implementation of the Housing Element Update would not result in a conversion of these land uses to another use. Development associated with implementation of the Housing Element Update would not result in the conversion of any agricultural or forest land to non-agricultural or non-forest uses. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant.
Cumulative Impacts
The General Plan EIR did not analyze cumulative impacts related to the loss of agricultural or forest land. The City of Santa Clara is almost completely urbanized and is designated in Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program as “Urban and Built-Up Land”. Implementation of the proposed Housing 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Santa Clara 2023-2031 6th Cycle Housing Element Update 39 City of Santa Clara
Element Update would not result in the loss or conversion of agricultural or forest uses. Therefore, the cumulative agriculture and forest resources impact from the proposed Housing Element Update would be less than significant.
Conclusion
No new significant impacts and no substantial increase in the severity of previously identified impacts associated with the proposed Housing Element Update would occur. Likewise, there is no new information of substantial importance requiring new analysis or verification. The project does not propose substantial changes that require major revisions to the General Plan EIR, and no new mitigation measures are required.
Applicable General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
No applicable General Plan EIR mitigation measures.
4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
40 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Admin Draft December 21, 2022
4.3 – Air Quality
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.
Would the project:
Effect
Examined
in General
Plan EIR?
Conclusion in
General Plan
EIR and
Subsequent
EIRs?
Proposed
Changes
Involving
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
or More Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Showing
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
a) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the
applicable air quality plan? Yes
Significant
and
Unavoidable
Impact
No No No
b) Result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of
any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is
non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard?
Yes
Significant
and
Unavoidable
Impact
No No No
c) Expose sensitive
receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations? Yes
Significant
and
Unavoidable
Impact
No No No
d) Result in other emissions
(such as those leading to
odors) adversely affecting a
substantial number of
people?
Yes
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
No No No
Proposed Project in Relation to the General Plan EIR and Subsequent Amendments (a) Conflict with AQMP. The General Plan EIR noted that population projections under the General Plan are slightly above the Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy and the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan.
However, it was also noted that the rate of VMT growth is less than half the rate of population growth.
Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that the 2010-2035 General Plan would be consistent with the CAP and project impacts would be less than significant.
The General Plan EIR also noted that the Air District has a long history of implementing control measures to reduce ozone precursor emissions from stationary, area, mobile and transportation sources, and transportation control measures (TCMs) were designed to reduce emissions from motor vehicles by reducing vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled. The General Plan EIR also noted that TCMs may also reduce vehicle use, vehicle idling or traffic congestion, and that the TCMs address State ozone planning requirements for the Bay Area. The General Plan EIR found that the policies under the 2010-2035 General Plan support and reasonably implement the applicable Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy and the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan TCMs. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that the 2010-2035 General Plan would be consistent with the TCMs and project impacts 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Santa Clara 2023-2031 6th Cycle Housing Element Update 41 City of Santa Clara
would be less than significant. However, the subsequent Specific Plan EIR for the Lawrence Station Area Plan found that implementation of the Specific Plan would result in a significant and unavoidable impact and there are no feasible mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than significant.
Since the proposed Housing Element Update does not include any changes to general plan land use designations or policies that would increase the growth capacity of the General Plan, including subsequent EIRs related to specific plans or area plans, project impacts would be similar to and no greater than those evaluated in the General Plan EIR and subsequent EIRs. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Housing Element Update would also conflict with the applicable AQMP and have a significant and unavoidable impact.
(b) Cumulatively Considerable Net Increase in Criteria Pollutant Emissions. The General Plan EIR noted that new development and redevelopment allowed under the 2010- 2035 General Plan could increase the concentration of air pollutants. However, the General Plan EIR found that implementation of General Plan policies and existing regulations and programs would substantially reduce air pollutants.
Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that implementation of the General Plan would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in any criteria pollutant emission and impacts would be less than significant. However, subsequent EIRs for the Tasman East SP, the Patrick Henry Drive SP, and the Freedom Circle Future Focus Area (FFA) found that construction related impacts would require implementation of mitigation measures to reduce impacts to less than significant and operational impacts would be significant and unavoidable even with incorporation of mitigation. Therefore, this impact is significant and unavoidable and the following subsequent EIR mitigation measures will apply to the proposed Housing Element Update:
Tasman East SP EIR – See Mitigation Measures AQ-1.1, AQ-1.2, AQ-2.1, AQ-2.2, and AQ-2.3. Patrick Henry Drive SP EIR – See Mitigation Measures 5-2A, 5-2B, 5-2C, and 5-2D. Lawrence Station SP EIR – See Mitigation Measures AQ-4, AQ-5, AQ-6, and AQ-7. Freedom Circle FFA EIR – See Mitigation Measures 5-3A, 5-3B, 5-3C, and 5-3D.
Since the proposed Housing Element Update does not include any changes to general plan land use designations or policies that would increase the growth capacity of the General Plan, including subsequent EIRs related to specific plans or area plans, the impacts related to implementation of the Housing Element Update would be similar to the General Plan EIR and subsequent EIRs. Therefore, the proposed Housing Element would not result in a more significant impact than has been previously analyzed.
(c) Exposure of Sensitive Receptors Substantial Pollutant Concentrations. The General Plan EIR found that new development and redevelopment allowed under the 2010- 2035 General Plan could result in construction dust emissions that could affect local and regional air quality. However, the General Plan EIR found that implementation of General Plan policies and existing regulations and programs would substantially reduce construction dust emissions and impacts would be less than significant. The General Plan EIR also found that implementation of the 2010-2035 General Plan may involve the placement of sensitive receptors (e.g., new residences) near localized sources of Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs). The General Plan EIR subsequently found that the 2010-2035 General Plan does not provide adequate buffers between existing sources of TAC and new residences or sensitive receptors. As such, the General Plan EIR determined that incorporation of Mitigation Measure 4.10-1 would reduce this impacts to less than significant. The subsequent EIR for the Lawrence Station SP also found implementation of mitigation measures would reduce impacts to less than significant.
However, subsequent EIRs for the Patrick Henry Drive SP and the Freedom Circle FFA found that impacts would be significant and unavoidable even with incorporation of mitigation measures. 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
42 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Admin Draft December 21, 2022
Therefore, subsequent EIRs have determined that this impact is significant and unavoidable and the following subsequent EIR mitigation measures will apply to the proposed Housing Element Update:
Lawrence Station SP EIR – See Mitigation Measures AQ-1, AQ-2, and AQ-3 Patrick Henry Drive SP EIR – See Mitigation Measures 5-3A and 5-2B. Freedom Circle FFA EIR – See Mitigation Measures 5-3A, 5-3B, 5-3C, and 5-3D.
Since the proposed Housing Element Update does not include any changes to general plan land use designations or policies that would increase the growth capacity of the General Plan, including subsequent EIRs related to specific plans or area plans, the impacts related to implementation of the Housing Element Update would be similar to the General Plan EIR and subsequent EIRs. Therefore, the proposed Housing Element would not result in a more significant impact than has been previously analyzed.
(d) Other Emissions Such as Odors. The General Plan EIR noted that implementation of the 2010- 2035 General Plan may involve the placement of sensitive receptors (e.g., new residences) near localized sources of odors. The General Plan EIR subsequently found that the 2010-2035 General Plan does not provide adequate buffers between sources of odors and new residences or sensitive receptors. As listed in the Mitigation Measures section below, the General Plan EIR found that the addition of Policy 5.1.1-P25 to the Prerequisite section and Policy 5.10.5-P34 to the Safety section would require minimum screening or buffer distances between emissions sources and sensitive receptors. As such, the General Plan EIR included incorporation of Mitigation Measures 4.10-2.
Additional mitigation measures have been incorporated in subsequent EIRs and are included here by reference. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that impacts from implementation of the General Plan would be less than significant with incorporation of mitigation measures. Subsequent EIRs also determined that this impact would be less than significant.
Since the proposed Housing Element Update does not include any changes to general plan land use designations or policies that would increase the growth capacity of the General Plan, including subsequent EIRs related to specific plans or area plans, project impacts would be similar to the General Plan EIR. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Housing Element would have a less than significant effect.
Cumulative Impacts
The General Plan EIR noted that air pollution is a regional issue affected by climate, land uses, and topography. The General Plan EIR also noted that Section 4.10, Air Quality includes a detailed analysis of the cumulative air quality conditions related to build-out of the 2010-2035 General Plan, as well as the General Plan’s conformance with the existing Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy and the draft 2010 Bay Area Clear Air Plan, which have been based on regional ABAG projections. The General Plan EIR found that the 2010-2035 General Plan would conform with the current and proposed long-range air quality plans for the Bay Area. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that implementation of the General Plan would result in a less than cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative air quality impacts.
The Planning Area is completely urbanized and cumulative impacts related to air quality were analyzed in the General Plan EIR and were determined to be less than significant. The proposed Housing Element Update would be required to implement General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures 4.10-1 and
4.10-2 as well as subsequent Specific Plan EIR mitigation measures incorporated by reference.
Therefore, the cumulative air quality impact from the proposed Housing Element Update would be less than significant.
4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Santa Clara 2023-2031 6th Cycle Housing Element Update 43 City of Santa Clara
Conclusion
The proposed Housing Element Update would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan and would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant. The RHNA allocation described in the Housing Element Update would be within the amount of residential development analyzed within the General Plan EIR and subsequent EIRs. Future housing developed in accordance with the goals and policies of the Housing Element Update would have the effect of contributing incrementally to the mobile, energy, and area sources that cumulatively contribute to criteria pollutant levels and associated air pollution in the Basin. Development of future housing would be subject to environmental review pursuant to CEQA upon application for entitlement permits. Projects found to be not exempt from CEQA would be subject to analysis and mitigation, if required. General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures 4.10-1 and 4.10-2, as described below, would also be applicable to the development associated with implementation of the Housing Element Update. No new significant impacts and no substantial increase in the severity of previously identified impacts associated with the proposed Housing Element Update would occur, nor would the significant unavoidable impacts identified in the General Plan EIR be worsened. Likewise, there is no new information of substantial importance requiring new analysis or verification. The Housing Element Update does not propose substantial changes that require major revisions to the General Plan EIR, and no new mitigation measures are required.
Applicable General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
MM 4.10-1: Policy 5.1.1-P25 should be added to the Prerequisite section as follows:
Policy 5.1.1-P25: Prior to the implementation of Phase II,ii the City will include a Community Risk Reduction Plan (CRRP) for acceptable TAC concentrations consistent with the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, including risk and exposure reduction targets, measures to reduce emissions, monitoring procedures, and a public participation process.
Policy 5.10.5-P34 should be added to the Safety section as follows:
Policy 5.10.5-P34: Include minimum setbacks of 500 feet for roadways with average daily trips of 100,000 or more and 100 feet for railroad tracks for new residential or other uses with sensitive receptors, unless a project-specific study identifies measures such as, site design, tiered landscaping, air filtration systems, windows design to reduce exposure, demonstrating that the potential risks can be reduced to acceptable levels.
MM 4.10-2: Policy 5.10.5-P35 should be added to the Safety section as follows:
Policy 5.10.5-P35: Establish minimum buffers between odor sources and new residential or other uses with sensitive receptors, consistent with the BAAQMD guidelines, unless a project-specific study demonstrates that these risks can be
ii Note that Policy 5.1.1-P25 was modified as part of the 2014 General Plan Update, which was adopted with a MND. As modified, the Policy now directs the preparation of the CRRP prior to implementation of Phase III, rather than Phase II.
4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
44 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Admin Draft December 21, 2022
reduced to acceptable levels.
4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Santa Clara 2023-2031 6th Cycle Housing Element Update 45 City of Santa Clara
4.4 – Biological Resources
Would the project:
Effect
Examined
in General
Plan EIR?
Conclusion in
General Plan
EIR and
Subsequent
EIRs?
Proposed
Changes
Involving
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
or More Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Showing
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
a) Have a substantial
adverse effect, either directly
or through habitat
modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations,
or by the California
Department of Fish and
Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
Yes
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
No No No
b) Have a substantial
adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified
in local or regional plans,
policies, regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish
and Game or US Fish and
Wildlife Service?
Yes
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
No No No
c) Have a substantial
adverse effect on state or
federally protected wetlands
(including, but not limited to,
marsh, vernal pool, coastal,
etc.) through direct removal,
filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
Yes
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
No No No
d) Interfere substantially
with the movement of any
native resident or migratory
fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites?
Yes
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
No No No
e) Conflict with any local
policies or ordinances
protecting biological
resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or
Yes
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
No No No
4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
46 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Admin Draft December 21, 2022
ordinance?
f) Conflict with the
provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or
state habitat conservation
plan?
Yes
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
Proposed Project in Relation to the General Plan EIR and Subsequent Amendments (a) Listed or Sensitive Species. The General Plan EIR found that new development under the 2010- 2035 General Plan would result in minimal direct impacts due to habitat loss since there are very few vacant, undeveloped parcels left in the City proposed for urban development that provide habitat value.
The General Plan EIR noted that the vast majority of new development anticipated under the 2010- 2035 General Plan would occur on parcels already developed with an urban use. However, the General Plan EIR found that future development of vacant parcels containing ruderal grasslands has the potential to impact the Congdon’s tarplant, should the tarplant be present at the time of development.
Further, the General Plan EIR found that development of vacant parcels could result in impacts to individual burrowing owls if owls moved onto the site prior to project construction. In addition, it was noted that if owls are using active nests when construction activity commences, grading of the site could result in destruction of nests and individual owls. The General Plan EIR found that development under the 2010-2035 General Plan would be required to comply with State and federal regulations regarding special-status species. In addition, it was found that General Plan policies would reduce the potential for impacts on the special-status species considered most likely to use habitat in the City. As such, mitigation measures 4.9-1 and 4.9-2 were incorporated into the General Plan EIR to ensure avoidance of Congdon’s tarplant and burrowing owl. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that impacts to species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species would be less than significant with incorporation of mitigation. Subsequent EIRs for the Tasman East SP, the Patrick Henry Drive SP, the Lawrence Station Area Plan, and the Freedom Circle FFA also found that impacts to special status species would be less than significant with incorporation of mitigation measures. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant with incorporation of the following subsequent EIR mitigation measures, which will apply to the proposed Housing Element Update:
Tasman East SP EIR – See Mitigation Measures BIO-1.1, BIO-2.1, BIO-2.2, BIO-2.3, BIO-2.4, BIO-3.1, BIO-5.1, BIO-5.3, and BIO-5.4.
Patrick Henry Drive SP EIR – See Mitigation Measures 6-3 and 6-4. Lawrence Station SP EIR – See Mitigation Measures BIO-1a, BIO-1b, BIO-1c, and BIO-2. Freedom Circle FFA EIR – See Mitigation Measures 6-3 and 6-4.
Since the proposed Housing Element Update does not include any changes to general plan land use designations or policies that would increase the growth capacity of the General Plan, including subsequent EIRs related to specific plans or area plans, the impacts related to implementation of the Housing Element Update would be similar to the General Plan EIR and subsequent EIRs. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Housing Element Update would result in less than significant impacts with mitigation incorporated.
(b) Riparian or Sensitive Habitat. The General Plan EIR found that redevelopment of urban parcels adjacent to riparian corridors along Calabazas Creek, San Tomas Aquino Creek, and Guadalupe River 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Santa Clara 2023-2031 6th Cycle Housing Element Update 47 City of Santa Clara
has the potential to indirectly affect the habitat value of the riparian corridor. It was further noted that the De La Cruz and Tasman East Focus Areas are each immediately west of the Guadalupe River riparian corridor, separated by an earthen levee, and future redevelopment of each Focus Area, in particular, could affect wildlife movement along the Guadalupe River. Additionally, it was noted that the east bank of the Guadalupe River adjacent to Santa Clara is under the jurisdiction of the City of San Jose and is included within the draft Valley HCP boundary, and the Valley HCP’s conservation strategy to ensure urban development on the east side of the Guadalupe River doesn’t further degrade the riparian corridor’s habitat value is to apply the City of San Jose’s Riparian Corridor Policy. In addition, the General Plan EIR found that the 2010-2035 General Plan includes updated biological policies that address impacts to riparian habitats. As described in the General Plan EIR, the City of Santa Clara has adopted the Water Collaborative’s Guidelines and Standards for Land Uses Near Streams, and the two riparian protection policies (5.10.1-P2 and 5.10.1-P5) are functionally equivalent and will ensure that new and redevelopment on either bank of the Guadalupe River doesn’t significantly impact wildlife movement along the Guadalupe River. Finally, it was found that there are no other sensitive natural communities present in the City. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that impacts to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities would be less than significant. However, subsequent EIRs for the Tasman East SP, the Patrick Henry Drive SP, and the Freedom Circle FFA found that mitigation is required to reduce potential impacts to sensitive habitat to less than significant. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant with incorporation of the following subsequent EIR mitigation measures, which will apply to the proposed Housing Element Update:
Tasman East SP EIR – See Mitigation Measure BIO-4.1.
Patrick Henry Drive SP EIR – See Mitigation Measure 6-2. Freedom Circle FFA EIR – See Mitigation Measure 6-2.
Since the proposed Housing Element Update does not include any changes to general plan land use designations or policies that would increase the growth capacity of the General Plan, including subsequent EIRs related to specific plans or area plans, the impacts related to implementation of the Housing Element Update would be similar to the General Plan EIR and subsequent EIRs. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Housing Element Update would result in less than significant impacts with mitigation incorporated.
(c) Riparian/Wetlands. The General Plan EIR noted that wetlands and other waters are protected under the federal Clean Water Act and the State’s Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, and are under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. It was further noted that Federal and State regulations require avoidance of impacts to the extent feasible, and compensation for unavoidable losses of jurisdictional wetlands and waters. The General Plan EIR found that development along the City’s watercourses would have some potential to affect jurisdictional waters and wetlands. The General Plan EIR determined that compliance with existing regulations and proposed General Plan policies would ensure impacts on state or federally protected wetlands would be less than significant. However, subsequent EIRs for the Tasman East SP found that mitigation is required to reduce potential impacts to wetlands to less than significant.
Therefore, this impact would be less than significant with incorporation of the following subsequent EIR mitigation measures, which will apply to the proposed Housing Element Update:
Tasman East SP EIR – See Mitigation Measure BIO-6.1, BIO-6.2, BIO-7.1, BIO-8.1, BIO-8.2, BIO-9.1, BIO-9.2, and BIO-9.3.
Since the proposed Housing Element Update does not include any changes to general plan land use designations or policies that would increase the growth capacity of the General Plan, including 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
48 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Admin Draft December 21, 2022
subsequent EIRs related to specific plans or area plans, the impacts related to implementation of the Housing Element Update would be similar to the General Plan EIR and subsequent EIRs. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Housing Element Update would result in less than significant impacts with mitigation incorporated.
(d) Wildlife Movement. The General Plan EIR noted that the creeks that flow through the City provide the primary wildlife movement corridors, and therefore future development near the creeks has the potential to disrupt or disturb wildlife movements along the creek corridors. However, the General Plan EIR found that the City’s implementation of the Water Collaborative’s Guidelines and Standards for Land Uses Near Streams would minimize the potential for impacts to wildlife movement. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined impacts to the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species would be less than significant. The subsequent EIR for the Tasman East SP also found that mitigation is required to reduce potential impacts to wildlife movement to less than significant. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant with incorporation of the following subsequent EIR mitigation measures, which will apply to the proposed Housing Element Update:
Tasman East SP EIR – See Mitigation Measure BIO-3.1.
Since the proposed Housing Element Update does not include any changes to general plan land use designations or policies that would increase the growth capacity of the General Plan, including subsequent EIRs related to specific plans or area plans, the impacts related to implementation of the Housing Element Update would be similar to the General Plan EIR and subsequent EIRs. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Housing Element Update would result in less than significant impacts with mitigation incorporated.
(e) Local Policies. The General Plan EIR noted that there is a City ordinance currently in effect to protect trees on public property, and the General Plan proposes a new policy that would afford protection to specified trees on private property. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that Development under the 2010-2035 General Plan would not conflict with the existing tree ordinance and impacts would be less than significant. However, the subsequent EIRs for the Tasman East SP and the Lawrence Station SP found that mitigation is required to reduce potential impacts from tree removal to less than significant. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant with incorporation of the following subsequent EIR mitigation measures, which will apply to the proposed Housing Element Update:
Tasman East SP EIR – See Mitigation Measures BIO-10.1 and BIO-10.2. Lawrence Station SP EIR – See Mitigation Measures BIO-3a and BIO-3b.
Since the proposed Housing Element Update does not include any changes to general plan land use designations or policies that would increase the growth capacity of the General Plan, including subsequent EIRs related to specific plans or area plans, the impacts related to implementation of the Housing Element Update would be similar to the General Plan EIR and subsequent EIRs. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Housing Element Update would result in less than significant impacts with mitigation incorporated.
(f) Habitat Conservation Plans. The General Plan EIR found that the City is not located within the study area, but rather adjacent to, the Valley Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). It was also found that future nitrogen emissions attributable to the General Plan’s net new development in 2035 would constitute approximately 1.5 percent of total emissions and would represent a less than cumulatively considerable contribution to nitrogen deposition impacts to the serpentine grassland special status flora and fauna being addressed in the Valley HCP. Therefore, the General Plan EIR and subsequent EIRs 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Santa Clara 2023-2031 6th Cycle Housing Element Update 49 City of Santa Clara
determined that conflicts with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan would be less than significant.
Since the proposed Housing Element Update does not include any changes to general plan land use designations or policies that would increase the growth capacity of the General Plan, including subsequent EIRs related to specific plans or area plans, the impacts related to implementation of the Housing Element Update would be similar to the General Plan EIR and subsequent EIRs. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Housing Element Update would result in less than significant impacts and no mitigation is required.
Cumulative Impacts
The General Plan EIR noted that there is minimal vacant, undeveloped land within Santa Clara that provides suitable habitat for rare, threatened, or endangered flora or fauna, and that most suitable habitat in the City is concentrated along the several creek corridors. It was also noted that the predominant biologic impacts associated with implementation of the 2035 General Plan would occur to common, urban-adapted species. In the rare instances where future development would involve a site with a special status species, appropriate mitigation, including avoidance, would be implemented to reduce the impacts to a less than significant level. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that new construction and redevelopment within the City of Santa Clara would not contribute to cumulative impacts to special status plants and animals present within the City. As further discussed in Section 4.9 Biology of the General Plan EIR, regional nitrogen deposition impacts to serpentine habitat in southern San Jose is a cumulative issue being addressed by the Local Partner agencies participating in the Valley HCP. However, for the reasons provided in Section 4.9, Santa Clara’s NOx contribution from new development allowed under the 2035 General Plan was determined to be less than cumulatively considerable. Finally, it was also determined that Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) emissions associated with the City’s electrical utility, Silicon Valley Power, would be mitigated on an ongoing basis through management of serpentine habitat on Coyote Ridge in San Jose. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that cumulative biological impacts would be less than significant.
The Planning Area is an almost completely urbanized area and most of the Planning Area is designated in the City’s General Plan and Zoning Code for urban development. Cumulative impacts related to the Housing Element Update in conjunction with other similar projects in the area were analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the City of Santa Clara 2010-2035 General Plan and subsequent EIRs and were determined to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Therefore, the cumulative biological resources impact from the proposed Housing Element Update would be less than significant.
Conclusion
The proposed Housing Element Update would not have a substantial adverse effect on any sensitive species or habitat, on any wetlands, with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, and will not conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources or with a habitat conservation plan. The RHNA allocation described in the Housing Element Update would be within the amount of residential development analyzed within the General Plan EIR and subsequent EIRs. Future housing developed in accordance with the goals and policies of the Housing Element Update would have the effect of contributing incrementally to biological resources impacts.
Development of future housing would be subject to environmental review pursuant to CEQA upon application for entitlement permits. Projects found to be not exempt from CEQA would be subject to analysis and mitigation, if required. General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures 4.9-1 and 4.9-2, as described below, would also be applicable to the development associated with implementation of the Housing 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
50 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Admin Draft December 21, 2022
Element Update. No new significant impacts and no substantial increase in the severity of previously identified impacts associated with the proposed Housing Element Update would occur. Likewise, there is no new information of substantial importance requiring new analysis or verification. The Housing Element Update does not propose substantial changes that require major revisions to the General Plan EIR, and no new mitigation measures are required. As such, no subsequent environmental analysis and no new mitigation are required.
Applicable General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
MM 4.9-1: Congdon’s Tarplant Program Mitigation: On parcels with ruderal grasslands, surveys will be conducted prior to future development to document the presence/absence of Congdon’s tarplant. In the event the species is present, the project design will incorporate an adequate buffer, as determined by a qualified biologist, to ensure the Congdon’s tarplant is not threatened by development.
MM 4.9-2: Burrowing Owl Program Mitigation: Future development on parcels with ruderal grasslands will include the following standard measures to reduce potential WBO impacts to a less than significant level:
1. Determine Burrowing Owl Presence
a. Breeding Season Surveys
Standardized surveys are necessary to determine presence (or presumed absence) of burrowing owls for the purposes of inventory, monitoring, avoidance of take, and determining appropriate mitigation. In California the breeding season begins as early as February 1 and continues through August 31. The California Burrowing Owl Consortium (Consortium) survey protocol specifies a multi-phase approach, which is recommended in order to adequately evaluate burrowing owl use of an area and to inform the CEQA process. The Department recommends that the Consortium survey protocol for breeding season surveys be adhered to (4 survey visits spread evenly (roughly every 3 weeks) during the peak of the breeding season, from April 15-July 15) The habitat assessment, intensive burrow surveys and burrowing owl surveys should include the area within 150 meters of the project boundaries (approximately 500 feet). b. Non-Breeding Season Surveys (Including Winter)
Surveys during the non-breeding season (September 1- January 31) are recommended by the Department but are not generally required because burrowing owls are much more difficult to detect during the non-breeding season, and the number or type of surveys that would be needed to detect presence then has not been studied or quantified. Negative results during any nonbreeding season surveys are not conclusive proof that owls do not use the site. Because of this complication, the DFG recommends breeding season surveys as the first step, but project applicants should consult with the Department if burrowing owls have been documented on the project site during the nonbreeding season.
2. Avoid Impacts (destruction, disturbance) to Individual Owls a. Pre-Construction Surveys for Owl Presence
4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Santa Clara 2023-2031 6th Cycle Housing Element Update 51 City of Santa Clara
Pre-construction surveys (usually initiated during the non-breeding season) are necessary for assessing owl presence at a site within a short time period before site modification is scheduled to begin. Pre-construction surveys are supplemental to the existing breeding season survey protocol (4 survey visits spread evenly during the peak of the breeding season, from April 15- July 15). Initial pre-construction surveys should be conducted no more than 30 days prior to ground-disturbing activities (for example, disking, clearing, grubbing, grading). Generally, at a minimum, 4 survey visits on at least 4 separate days will be necessary, The time lapse between surveys and site disturbance should be as short as possible and will be determined by DFG based on specific project conditions but generally should not exceed 7 days. Additional surveys are necessary when the initial disturbance is followed by periods of inactivity or the development is phased spatially and/or temporally over the project area. Biologists conducting preconstruction surveys should expend enough effort, based on the above criteria, to assure with a high degree of certainty that take of owls will not occur once site modification and grading activities begin. The report should be submitted to the DFG for review. b. Buffer Zones Around Occupied Burrows (Year-Round)
Buffer zones to protect burrowing owls from direct disturbance should be implemented pursuant to the Consortium Guidelines and the Department’s Staff Report (1995).
Generally, the buffers recommended in these reports for protecting burrowing owls from disturbance is 75 meters (250 feet) from occupied burrows during the breeding season and 50 meters (160 feet) from occupied burrows during the non-breeding season.
Consultation with the Department may result in site-specific buffer specifications, on a case-by-case basis.
c. Passive Relocation
If construction will directly impact occupied burrows, eviction of owls should occur outside the nesting season to prevent injury or mortality of individual owls. No burrowing owls will be evicted from burrows during the nesting season (1 February through 31 August) unless evidence indicates that nesting is not actively occurring (e.g., because the owls have not yet begun nesting early in the season, or because young have already fledged late in the season). Relocation of owls during the non-breeding season will be performed by a qualified biologist using one-way doors, which should be installed in all burrows within the impact area and left in place for at least two nights. These one-way doors will then be removed and the burrows backfilled immediately prior to the initiation of grading. Furthermore, should the Valley HCP, once adopted, include a regional WBO mitigation program that would be available to future projects in Santa Clara, future projects may have a feasible option to mitigate for their individual impacts to loss of WBO foraging and/or nesting habitat by participating in the Valley HCP’s program. 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
52 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Admin Draft December 21, 2022
4.5 – Cultural Resources
Would the project:
Effect
Examined
in General
Plan EIR?
Conclusion in
General Plan
EIR and
Subsequent
EIRs?
Proposed
Changes
Involving
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
or More Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Showing
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
a) Cause a substantial
adverse change in the
significance of a historical
resource pursuant to
Section15064.5?
Yes
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
No No No
b) Cause a substantial
adverse change in the
significance of an
archaeological resource
pursuant to
Section15064.5?
Yes
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
No No No
c) Disturb any human
remains, including those
interred outside of dedicated
cemeteries?
Yes
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
No No No
Proposed Project in Relation to the General Plan EIR and Subsequent Amendments (a) Historical Resources. The General Plan EIR noted that future development under the 2010-2035 General Plan has the potential to impact, either directly or indirectly, historic resources, both those that are currently listed, and those that have yet to be identified and evaluated. It was also noted that the General Plan’s Phase III prerequisite policy to conduct a citywide survey prior to Phase III (2025)iii would encompass buildings constructed prior to 1975 (i.e., buildings constructed prior to 1975 would be at least 50 years of age in 2025), and would identify whether additional buildings have achieved historic significance over time. Further it was noted that buildings over 50 years of age would be evaluated prior to demolition or substantial alteration on a case-by-case basis. The General Plan EIR found that implementation of General Plan policies and programs, including application of the California Historic Building Code and the City’s Combining Historic Districts, the City’s design review process, and referral of projects involving historic resources to the Historical and Landmarks Commission, would serve to minimize historic resources impacts. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that implementation of proposed policies and existing programs would reduce potential historical resources impacts to less than significant. However, the subsequent EIRs for the Patrick Henry Drive SP, the Lawrence Station SP, and the Freedom Circle FFA found that mitigation is required to reduce potential impacts to historical resources to less than significant. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant with incorporation of the following subsequent EIR mitigation measures, which will apply to the proposed Housing Element Update:
iii In the 2014 General Plan Update, the Phases of the General Plan were shifted to line up with the housing element update schedule. Phase III is now slated to commence in 2023. 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Santa Clara 2023-2031 6th Cycle Housing Element Update 53 City of Santa Clara
Patrick Henry Drive SP EIR – See Mitigation Measure 7-1. Lawrence Station SP EIR – See Mitigation Measure CUL-1. Freedom Circle FFA EIR – See Mitigation Measure 7-1.
Since the proposed Housing Element Update does not include any changes to general plan land use designations or policies that would increase the growth capacity of the General Plan, including subsequent EIRs related to specific plans or area plans, the historic resources impacts related to implementation of the Housing Element Update would be similar to the General Plan EIR and subsequent EIRs. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Housing Element Update would result in less than significant impacts with mitigation incorporated. (b) Archaeological Resources. The General Plan EIR found that future development and redevelopment and construction activities under the 2010-2035 General Plan may result in direct or indirect impacts to both prehistoric and historic archaeological resources. It was also noted that construction activities such as grading and excavation may result in the accidental destruction or disturbance of archaeological sites. Further, it was found that all areas of the City hold potential for the presence of prehistoric archaeological resources, with the exception of current and former stream channels and areas with artificial fill. However, the General Plan EIR found that 2010-2035 General Plan includes a range of policies to ensure the protection of archaeological resources. The General Plan EIR found that existing federal, State, and local regulations address the provision of studies to identify archaeological and paleontological resources; application review for projects that would potentially involve land disturbance; provide a project-level standard condition of approval that addresses unanticipated archaeological and or paleontological discoveries; and requirements to develop specific mitigation measures if resources are encountered during any development activity.
Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined implementation of General Plan policies and existing programs would reduce the impact to archaeological resources to less than significant. However, the subsequent EIRs for the Tasman East SP, the Patrick Henry Drive SP, the Lawrence Station SP, and the Freedom Circle FFA found that mitigation is required to reduce potential impacts to archaeological resources to less than significant. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant with incorporation of the following subsequent EIR mitigation measures, which will apply to the proposed Housing Element Update:
Tasman East SP EIR – See Mitigation Measures CUL-1.1, CUL-1.2, and CUL-1.3 Patrick Henry Drive SP EIR – See Mitigation Measure 7-2. Lawrence Station SP EIR – See Mitigation Measure CUL-2 and CUL-3. Freedom Circle FFA EIR – See Mitigation Measure 7-3.
Since the proposed Housing Element Update does not include any changes to general plan land use designations or policies that would increase the growth capacity of the General Plan, including subsequent EIRs related to specific plans or area plans, the archaeological resources impacts related to implementation of the Housing Element Update would be similar to the General Plan EIR and subsequent EIRs. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Housing Element Update would result in less than significant impacts with mitigation incorporated. (c) Human Remains. The General Plan EIR noted that implementation of the 2010-2035 General Plan would allow development and redevelopment, including grading, of sensitive areas, possibly disturbing human remains, including those outside of formal cemeteries. However, it was found that existing regulations, including the California Public Resources Code. Section 5097.98, would afford protection for human remains discovered during development activities. In addition, review and protection are afforded by CEQA for those projects subject to discretionary action, particularly for activities that could 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
54 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Admin Draft December 21, 2022
potentially disturb human remains. Further, it was noted that SB 18 requires consultation regarding Native American sites and artifacts, but the potential for project-level impacts to unidentified and unrecorded tribal cultural places remains moderate to high. As such, it was found that future excavation and grading activities could result in impacts to human remains. However, it was determined that Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 mandates the process to be followed in the event of a discovery of any human remains, and would mitigate all potential impacts. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that implementation existing programs would reduce the impact to human remains to less than significant. However, the subsequent EIRs for the Tasman East SP, the Patrick Henry Drive SP, the Lawrence Station SP, and the Freedom Circle FFA found that mitigation is required to reduce potential impacts to buried human remains to less than significant. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant with incorporation of the following subsequent EIR mitigation measures, which will apply to the proposed Housing Element Update:
Tasman East SP EIR – See Mitigation Measures CUL-1.1, CUL-1.2, and CUL-1.3. Patrick Henry Drive SP EIR – See Mitigation Measure 7-2. Lawrence Station SP EIR – See Mitigation Measure CUL-5. Freedom Circle FFA EIR – See Mitigation Measure 7-3.
Since the proposed Housing Element Update does not include any changes to general plan land use designations or policies that would increase the growth capacity of the General Plan, including subsequent EIRs related to specific plans or area plans, the buried human remains impacts related to implementation of the Housing Element Update would be similar to the General Plan EIR and subsequent EIRs. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Housing Element Update would result in less than significant impacts with already identified mitigation incorporated.
Cumulative Impacts
The General Plan EIR found that projects in the City and other cumulative projects in the area would implement mitigation that avoids or substantially lessens potentially significant impacts to cultural resources, as required by State law. These mitigation strategies would typically involve pre-construction identification surveys; significance evaluations; consultation with tribal descendant communities; culturally and legally appropriate treatment of human remains; archaeological construction monitoring; resource documentation; and data recovery for unavoidable impacts. These mitigation strategies would generally avoid or substantially lessen the severity of impacts to cultural resources. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that the City’s contribution to cumulative effects associated with cultural resources is less than cumulatively considerable and impacts would be less than significant.
The Planning Area is an almost completely urbanized area and most of the Planning Area is designated in the City’s General Plan and Zoning Code for urban development. Cumulative impacts related to the Housing Element Update in conjunction with other similar projects in the area were analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the City of Santa Clara 2010-2035 General Plan and subsequent EIRs and were determined to be less than significant with incorporation of mitigation measures. Therefore, the cumulative cultural resources impact from the proposed Housing Element Update would be less than significant.
Conclusion
The proposed Housing Element Update would not have a substantial adverse effect on any historical resources, archaeological resources, or buried human remains. The RHNA allocation described in the Housing Element Update would be within the amount of residential development analyzed within the 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Santa Clara 2023-2031 6th Cycle Housing Element Update 55 City of Santa Clara
General Plan EIR and subsequent Specific Plan SP EIRs. Future housing developed in accordance with the goals and policies of the Housing Element Update would have the effect of contributing incrementally to cultural resources impacts; however, development of future housing would be subject to environmental review pursuant to CEQA upon application for entitlement permits. Projects found to be not exempt from CEQA would be subject to analysis and mitigation, if required. The mitigation measures of the subsequent EIRs, as referenced above, would also be applicable to development associated with implementation of the Housing Element Update. No new significant impacts and no substantial increase in the severity of previously identified impacts associated with the proposed Housing Element Update would occur. Likewise, there is no new information of substantial importance requiring new analysis or verification. The Housing Element Update does not propose substantial changes that require major revisions to the General Plan EIR, and no new mitigation measures are required. As such, no subsequent environmental analysis and no new mitigation measures are required.
Applicable General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
No applicable General Plan EIR mitigation measures.
4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
56 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Admin Draft December 21, 2022
4.6 – Energy
Would the project:
Effect
Examined
in General
Plan EIR?
Conclusion in
General Plan
EIR and
Subsequent
EIRs?
Proposed
Changes
Involving
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
or More Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Showing
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
a) Result in potentially
significant environmental
impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy
resources, during project
construction or operation?
Yes
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
b) Conflict with or obstruct a
state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy
efficiency??
Yes
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
Proposed Project in Relation to the General Plan EIR and Subsequent Amendments (a-b) Energy Consumption. The General Plan EIR found that while the substantial new residential, commercial, and industrial development allowed under the 2010-2035 General Plan would result in increased overall consumption of energy compared to existing levels, the new development would not consume energy in a manner that is wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary. Policies in the General Plan will serve to reduce growth in energy consumption to the extent feasible. It was also found that new construction would be required to meet Title 24 building energy efficiency standards, including the new CALGreen requirements. In addition, the General Plan EIR noted that the Climate Action Plan (discussed in Section 4.16 Climate Change of the General Plan EIR) would focus on efforts to increase energy conservation and efficiency as a means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that the 2010-2035 General Plan would result in less than significant impacts. Similarly, the subsequent EIRs for the Tasman East SP, the Patrick Henry Drive SP, the Lawrence Station SP, and the Freedom Circle FFA also found that impacts would be less than significant.
Since the proposed Housing Element Update does not include any changes to general plan land use designations or policies that would increase the growth capacity of the General Plan, including subsequent EIRs related to specific plans or area plans, the energy impacts related to implementation of the Housing Element Update would be similar to the General Plan EIR and subsequent EIRs.
Therefore, implementation of the proposed Housing Element Update would result in less than significant impacts.
Cumulative Impacts
The General Plan EIR noted that the geographic area for cumulative energy impacts is the State of California, which includes the areas serviced by electrical and natural gas utility providers. The General Plan EIR also noted that Section 4.16 Climate Change of the General Plan EIR provides Plan-level analysis that places the 2010-2035 General Plan’s growth within the cumulative context for California’s 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Santa Clara 2023-2031 6th Cycle Housing Element Update 57 City of Santa Clara
2020 and 2050 climate change goals. As discussed in the Climate Change section of the General Plan EIR, the City was committed to the preparation and implementation of a Climate Action Plan to ensure the proposed General Plan would be consistent with the state’s 2020 emissions targets, and would contribute a less than cumulatively considerable amount toward future GHG levels. Achieving 2020 emissions levels would necessarily entail increased energy conservation and efficiency, and utilization of renewable sources. In addition to Santa Clara, it was noted that the cities of San Jose and Sunnyvale were (at the time) each developing Climate Action Plans to address their respective 2020 emissions. In addition, all other projects constructed within Santa Clara, including projects under subsequent Specific Plans, are required to comply with the policies of the General Plan, plus existing local, state and federal regulations to prevent the inefficient use of energy. Finally, it was found that future development within the electrical and natural gas utility providers’ service area would also be required to adhere to applicable local regulations, including the provisions of Title 24, designed to prevent use of energy.
Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that cumulative impacts to energy from development under the General Plan would be less than significant with compliance to relevant legislative regulations and General Plan policies.
Subsequent program EIRs, including Lawrence Station Area Plan EIR, the Tasman East Specific Plan EIR, the Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan EIR, and the Freedom Circle Focus Area EIR all indicate that the implementation of the respective plans would be expected to result in replacement of older, less energy-efficient structures with newer structures built to the latest building code standards, which would increase the efficiency of electricity consumed within the City. The proposed higher density land uses would result in more efficient energy use compared to energy use for lower density land uses (e.g., “sprawl”) due to more residents being close to transit, which would reduce the amount of transportation energy spent on commuting. The proposed increase in residential development overall would be expected to result in a reduction in outcommuting and a decrease in the associated expenditure of transportation energy. Therefore, by ensuring the buildings are energy efficient, placing the buildings in a low VMT area, and providing space for a mix of uses and amenities that promote non-automobile transportation options, the project would use resources in a non-wasteful and efficient manner. In addition, implementation of the City’s 2022 Climate Action Plan would reduce natural gas consumption and increase electricity demand by incentivizing conversion of existing buildings to all electric energy use. Proposed actions relating to improving energy efficiency action would reduce the amount of energy used by new and existing development throughout the City by retrofitting existing municipal facilities, and incentivizing home energy upgrades. Therefore, the conclusions of the General Plan EIR regarding energy usage, as amended by subsequent program EIRs and the Climate Action Plan addendum remain less than significant.
The Planning Area is an almost completely urbanized area and cumulative impacts related to climate change and energy were analyzed in the General Plan EIR and subsequent EIRs and were determined to be less than significant. The City of Santa Clara has an adopted Climate Action Plan which ensures individual projects incorporate measures to reduce their energy use to less than significant levels. The state appears to have adequate supplies of energy and is implementing state policies intended to reduce energy use and greenhouse gas emissions. Thus, there is no cumulative impact related to wasteful use of energy or adequate supply of energy. Therefore, the proposed Housing Element Update would not contribute towards any significant cumulative energy impact and the impact would be less than significant.
Conclusion
The proposed Housing Element Update would not result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources and would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. The RHNA allocation described in the Housing Element Update 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
58 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Admin Draft December 21, 2022
would be within the amount of residential development analyzed within the General Plan EIR and subsequent EIRs. Future housing developed in accordance with the goals and policies of the Housing Element Update would have the effect of contributing incrementally to energy resources impacts.
Development of future housing would be subject to environmental review pursuant to CEQA upon application for entitlement permits. Projects found to be not exempt from CEQA would be subject to analysis and mitigation, if required. No new significant impacts and no substantial increase in the severity of previously identified impacts associated with the proposed Housing Element Update would occur. Likewise, there is no new information of substantial importance requiring new analysis or verification. The Housing Element Update does not propose substantial changes that require major revisions to the General Plan EIR, and no new mitigation measures are required. As such, no subsequent environmental analysis and no new mitigation are required.
Applicable General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
No applicable General Plan EIR mitigation measures.
4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Santa Clara 2023-2031 6th Cycle Housing Element Update 59 City of Santa Clara
4.7 – Geology and Soils
Would the project:
Effect
Examined
in General
Plan EIR?
Conclusion in
General Plan
EIR and
Subsequent
EIRs?
Proposed
Changes
Involving
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
or More Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Showing
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
a) Directly or indirectly
cause potential substantial
adverse effects, including
the risk of loss, injury, or
death involving:
i) Rupture of a known
earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by
the State Geologist for
the area or based on
other substantial
evidence of a known
fault? Refer to Division
of Mines and Geology
Special Publication 42.
Yes
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
ii) Strong seismic
ground shaking? Yes
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
iii) Seismic-related
ground failure, including
liquefaction?
Yes
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
iv) Landslides?
Yes
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
b) Result in substantial soil
erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
Yes
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
c) Be located on a
geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would
become unstable as a result
of the project, and
potentially result in on- or
off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
Yes
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
60 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Admin Draft December 21, 2022
d) Be located on
expansive soil, as defined in
Section 1803.5.3 of the
California Building Code
(2022), creating substantial
direct or indirect risks to life
or property?
Yes
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
e) Have soils incapable of
adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water
disposal systems where
sewers are not available for
the disposal of waste water?
No Not Examined No No No
f) Directly or indirectly
destroy a unique
paleontological resource or
site or unique geologic
feature?
Yes
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
No No No
Proposed Project in Relation to the General Plan EIR and Subsequent Amendments (a.i) Fault Rupture. The General Plan EIR noted that the City does not contain any faults mapped as Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault zones. There are also no other faults that extend through the City.
Because there are no known active earthquake faults within the limits of the City of Santa Clara, the risk for surface fault rupture is considered low within the City. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that this impact would be less than significant.
Since the proposed Housing Element Update does not include any changes to general plan land use designations or policies that would increase the growth capacity of the General Plan, including subsequent EIRs related to specific plans or area plans, the potential fault-related impacts related to implementation of the Housing Element Update would be similar to the General Plan EIR and subsequent EIRs. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Housing Element Update would result in less than significant impacts.
(a.ii) Strong Seismic Ground Shaking. The General Plan EIR noted that because the city is in relatively close proximity to several major fault zones, the California Building Code, as adopted by the City of Santa Clara, requires that seismic design features be incorporated in construction and redevelopment projects in Santa Clara. The primary purpose of the seismic design requirements of the building code is to avoid loss of life. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that this impact would be less than significant with adherence to existing regulations.
Since the proposed Housing Element Update does not include any changes to general plan land use designations or policies that would increase the growth capacity of the General Plan, including subsequent EIRs related to specific plans or area plans, strong seismic ground shaking impacts related to implementation of the Housing Element Update would be similar to the General Plan EIR and subsequent EIRs. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Housing Element Update would result in less than significant impacts with adherence to existing regulations. (a.iii) Seismic-Related Ground Failure/Liquefaction. The General Plan EIR noted that under the County of Santa Clara Hazard Mapping, most of Santa Clara is considered susceptible to liquefaction 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Santa Clara 2023-2031 6th Cycle Housing Element Update 61 City of Santa Clara
hazards (refer to Figure 4.5-3), and development and redevelopment allowed under the 2010-2035 General Plan would occur within these areas. In addition, it was noted that there are areas near creeks, such as along the Guadalupe River, where lateral spreading could occur. As such, it was found that future projects approved under the 2010-2035 General Plan within the liquefaction hazard area would be required under the Seismic Hazard Mapping Program and building code and City Code requirements to evaluate site-specific liquefaction and ground failure hazards and mitigate those hazards to an acceptable level. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that this impact would be less than significant with adherence to existing regulations.
Since the proposed Housing Element Update does not include any changes to general plan land use designations or policies that would increase the growth capacity of the General Plan, including subsequent EIRs related to specific plans or area plans, the potential seismic-related ground failure impacts related to implementation of the Housing Element Update would be similar to the General Plan EIR and subsequent EIRs. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Housing Element Update would result in less than significant impacts with adherence to existing regulations. (a.iv) Landslides/Seismically-Induced Waves. The General Plan EIR noted that because the City is located on gently sloping and nearly flat valley floor topography, it is not subject to risk of landslides; and the landslide hazard mapping compiled by the County of Santa Clara shows the City is outside the landslide hazard zone. Therefore, it was determined that there are no areas within the City susceptible to landslides. The General Plan EIR also noted that because the City is not located within a tsunami inundation area, development and redevelopment anticipated under the General Plan would not be exposed to substantial risks associated with tsunamis. Locally, the General Plan EIR found that seiches due to seismic shaking could occur in shallow lakes, reservoirs, or percolation ponds in Santa Clara and the surrounding area, and sloshing of water out of a lake or basin onto the surrounding area could result in water damage, erosion and some slope failure. However, it was found that there are no lakes or reservoirs within the City, but several ponds, including the City’s two retention basins, (located near State Route 237 and the Union Pacific Railroad Line, and the Great America Parkway and San Tomas Aquino Creek). It was also found that Lexington Reservoir is located approximately nine miles from the City. However, the potential for loss of life from this hazard is low. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that this impact would be less than significant.
Since the proposed Housing Element Update does not include any changes to general plan land use designations or policies that would increase the growth capacity of the General Plan, including subsequent EIRs related to specific plans or area plans, the potential landslide and seismically-induced wave impacts related to implementation of the Housing Element Update would be similar to the General Plan EIR and subsequent EIRs. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Housing Element Update would result in less than significant impacts with adherence to existing regulations. (b) Soil Erosion. The General Plan EIR noted that grading and ground disturbance increases the potential for accelerated erosion by removing protective vegetation or cover and changing natural drainage patterns. However, it was also noted that for future development over one acre in size, erosion hazards would be minimized through implementation of site-specific erosion measures in SWPPPs under the NPDES General Construction Permit and grading and excavation requirements in the City’s City Code. Given that many future development projects would be on properties less than one acre, it was further noted that requirements for BMPs under the City’s NPDES Municipal Permit, urban runoff policies, and the City Code would be the primary means of enforcing erosion control measures through the grading and building permit process. Therefore, with the regulatory programs currently in place, the General Plan EIR determined that possible impacts of accelerated erosion during construction associated with development and redevelopment would be less than significant. 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
62 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Admin Draft December 21, 2022
Since the proposed Housing Element Update does not include any changes to general plan land use designations or policies that would increase the growth capacity of the General Plan, including subsequent EIRs related to specific plans or area plans, the potential erosion impacts related to implementation of the Housing Element Update would be similar to the General Plan EIR and subsequent EIRs. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Housing Element Update would result in less than significant impacts with adherence to existing regulations. (c) Unstable Geologic Unit. The General Plan EIR found that development under the 2010-2035 General Plan would be required to incorporate the seismic design features of the California Building Code in construction and redevelopment projects in Santa Clara. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that the impact would be less than significant. However, the subsequent EIRs for the Patrick Henry Drive SP and the Freedom Circle FFA found that mitigation is required to reduce potential impacts to less than significant. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant with incorporation of the following subsequent EIR mitigation measures, which will apply to the proposed Housing Element Update:
Patrick Henry Drive SP EIR – See Mitigation Measure 8-3. Freedom Circle FFA EIR – See Mitigation Measure 8-6.
Since the proposed Housing Element Update does not include any changes to general plan land use designations or policies that would increase the growth capacity of the General Plan, including subsequent EIRs related to specific plans or area plans, the ground instability impacts related to implementation of the Housing Element Update would be similar to the General Plan EIR and subsequent EIRs. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Housing Element Update would result in less than significant impacts with mitigation incorporated. (d) Expansive Soils. The General Plan EIR noted that soil and geologic hazards of concern in the City of Santa Clara are primarily related to expansive soils, weak soils, and artificial fill and the City primarily consists of well-drained loamy soils formed on alluvial sediments. It was also noted that soils include loam and clay loam at the surface and in the very shallow subsurface, overlying gravelly sandy clay loam and fine sandy clay loam present at depth and such units are typically moderate to very highly expansive. It was further noted that in general, alluvial fan sediments become increasingly finer grained with greater distance from the mountains and because of this expansion potential is generally moderate in the southern City’s alluvial fan and plain soils and high in the alluvial plain/valley floor soils of the northern City. The General Plan EIR also found that where expansive soils are present, foundations and pavements can be damaged when solids go through cycles of wetting and drying. Weak compressible soils are located at the City’s northernmost edge and weak soils can compress, collapse, or spread laterally under the weight of buildings and fill. It was also noted that artificial fill has been placed under buildings throughout the City, and non-engineered fill can result in excessive settlement of structures, pavement, and utilities. It was found that because the City is located on gently sloping and nearly flat valley floor topography, it is not subject to risk of landslides; landslide hazard mapping compiled by the County of Santa Clara shows the City is outside the landslide hazard zone. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that there are no areas within the City susceptible to landslides. The General Plan EIR found that new development under the 2010-2035 General Plan would occur primarily as intensification of previously developed areas throughout the City and hazards associated with expansive soils, weak soils, and artificial fill would be reduced and managed consistent with City adopted regulations and policies, in combination with State building regulations. In addition, it was noted that the 2010-2035 General Plan includes updated hazards policies that address geologic and seismic hazards and provide program-level mitigation for geologic, soil and landslide hazards within the City.
While the General Plan EIR determined that new development and redevelopment allowed under the 2010- 2035 General Plan could occur in areas with identified soil hazards, implementation of General 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Santa Clara 2023-2031 6th Cycle Housing Element Update 63 City of Santa Clara
Plan policies and existing regulations and programs would substantially reduce hazards to people and property. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined this impact would be less than significant.
Since the proposed Housing Element Update does not include any changes to general plan land use designations or policies that would increase the growth capacity of the General Plan, including subsequent EIRs related to specific plans or area plans, the potential soil expansion impacts related to implementation of the Housing Element Update would be similar to the General Plan EIR and subsequent EIRs. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Housing Element Update would result in less than significant impacts with adherence to existing regulations. (e) Septic Systems. The General Plan EIR did not analyze impacts related to septic systems. The proposed Housing Element Update does not include provisions permitting use of septic systems and future development resulting from implementation of the Housing Element Update would be required to connect to the existing municipal wastewater conveyance and treatment system provided by the City of Santa Clara. Therefore, impacts related to the ability of soils to adequately support the use of septic systems would not occur as a result of the proposed project. (f) Paleontological Resources. The General Plan EIR found that new development and redevelopment under the 2010-2035 General Plan has the potential to directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or unique geologic feature. However, the General Plan EIR found that implementation of General Plan policies and existing programs would minimize this effect. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that impacts would be less than significant. However, the subsequent EIRs for the Tasman East SP, the Patrick Henry Drive SP, the Lawrence Station Area Plan, and the Freedom Circle FFA found that mitigation is required to reduce potential impacts to paleontological resources to less than significant. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant with incorporation of the following subsequent EIR mitigation measures, which will apply to the proposed Housing Element Update:
Tasman East SP EIR – See Mitigation Measure CUL-2.1.
Patrick Henry Drive SP EIR – See Mitigation Measure 8-4. Lawrence Station SP EIR – See Mitigation Measure CUL-4. Freedom Circle FFA EIR – See Mitigation Measures 8-7 and 8-8 Since the proposed Housing Element Update does not include any changes to general plan land use designations or policies that would increase the growth capacity of the General Plan, including subsequent EIRs related to specific plans or area plans, the paleontological resources impacts related to implementation of the Housing Element Update would be similar to the General Plan EIR and subsequent EIRs. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Housing Element Update would result in less than significant impacts with mitigation incorporated.
Cumulative Impacts
The General Plan EIR found that geologic conditions are highly localized and implementation of the 2010-2035 General Plan would generally not result in cumulative geologic impacts, unless growth under the Plan would exacerbate a regional cumulative geologic issue (e.g., fault zone, massive landslide) affecting an extensive area covering multiple jurisdictions. There are no such regional geologic features in Santa Clara. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that the City’s contribution to regional cumulative impacts related to geology and soils, would be less than significant. 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
64 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Admin Draft December 21, 2022
The Planning Area is an almost completely urbanized area and most of the Planning Area is designated in the City’s General Plan and Zoning Code for urban development. Cumulative geology and soils impacts related to the Housing Element Update in conjunction with other similar projects in the area were analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the City of Santa Clara 2010-2035 General Plan and subsequent EIRs and were determined to be less than significant with incorporation of mitigation measures. Therefore, the cumulative geology and soils impact from the proposed Housing Element Update would be less than significant.
Conclusion
The proposed Housing Element Update would not have a substantial adverse effect related to fault rupture, strong seismic ground shaking, seismic-related ground-failure and liquefaction, landslides and seismically-induced waves, soil erosion, expansive soils, and septic systems and would require mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts to paleontological resources to less than significant.
The RHNA allocation described in the Housing Element Update would be within the amount of residential development analyzed within the General Plan EIR and subsequent Specific Plan SP EIRs.
Future housing developed in accordance with the goals and policies of the Housing Element Update would have the effect of contributing incrementally to geology and soils impacts; however, development of future housing would be subject to environmental review pursuant to CEQA upon application for entitlement permits. Projects found to be not exempt from CEQA would be subject to analysis and mitigation, if required. The paleontological resources mitigation measures of the subsequent EIRs, as referenced above, would also be applicable to development associated with implementation of the Housing Element Update. No new significant impacts and no substantial increase in the severity of previously identified impacts associated with the proposed Housing Element Update would occur.
Likewise, there is no new information of substantial importance requiring new analysis or verification.
The Housing Element Update does not propose substantial changes that require major revisions to the General Plan EIR, and no new mitigation measures are required. As such, no subsequent environmental analysis and no new mitigation are required.
Applicable General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
No applicable General Plan EIR mitigation measures.
4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Santa Clara 2023-2031 6th Cycle Housing Element Update 65 City of Santa Clara
4.8 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Would the project:
Effect
Examined
in General
Plan EIR?
Conclusion in
General Plan
EIR and
Subsequent
EIRs?
Proposed
Changes
Involving New
or More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
or More Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Showing New
or More
Severe
Impacts?
a) Generate greenhouse
gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that
may have a significant
impact on the
environment?
Yes
Significant
and
Unavoidable
No No No
b) Conflict with an
applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the
purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse
gases?
Yes
Significant
and
Unavoidable
No No No
Proposed Project in Relation to the General Plan EIR and Subsequent Amendments a) Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The General Plan EIR determined that the City’s projected 2020 GHG emissions, without further reduction via a Climate Action Plan, would constitute a cumulatively considerable contribution to global climate change by exceeding the average carbon-efficiency standard necessary to meet statewide 2020 goals as established by AB 32. It was also determined that Citywide 2035 GHG emissions are projected to exceed efficiency standards necessary to maintain a trajectory to meet long-term 2050 state climate change reduction goals. However, achieving the substantial emissions reductions will require policy decisions at the federal and state level and new and substantially advanced technologies that cannot today be anticipated, and are outside the City’s control, and therefore cannot be relied upon as feasible mitigation strategies. Therefore, given the uncertainties about the feasibility of achieving the substantial 2035 emissions reductions, the General Plan EIR determined that the City’s contribution to climate change for the 2035 timeframe is significant and unavoidable.
In 2022, the City adopted a Climate Action Plan that included measures and actions that would reduce overall citywide GHG emissions by approximately 550,553 MTCO2e per year, resulting in citywide GHG emissions of 946,487 MTCO2e in 2030, below the 2030 target of 950,040 MTCO2e per year.
The 2022 Climate Action Plan addendum indicated that the 2022 CAP would not generate GHG emissions that may have a significant impact on the environment or conflict with a plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. With the adoption of the 2022 Climate Action Plan, impacts from greenhouse gas emissions would be less than significant, and would have less impact than the adopted 2010 General Plan EIR.
Impacts from greenhouse gas emissions described in the Lawrence Station Area Plan EIR, the Tasman East Specific Plan EIR, and the Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan EIR all found that the proposed projects would meet the City’s efficiency metric threshold, and would be consistent with policies from the 2013 Climate Action Plan.
4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
66 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Admin Draft December 21, 2022
Emissions from the Freedom Circle Focus Area were determined to be greater than the City’s efficiency metric threshold, and as a result the EIR included two mitigation measures (9-1A and 9-1B) for projects in the plan area. These measures included the requirement for individual projects to implement transportation demand management programs, and to use GHG-free electricity sources. With the incorporation of the required mitigation measures, impacts from greenhouse gas emissions would be less than significant, and would have less impact than the adopted 2010 General Plan EIR.
Since the proposed Housing Element Update does not include any changes to general plan land use designations or policies that would increase the growth capacity of the General Plan, including subsequent EIRs related to specific plans or area plans, the greenhouse gas emissions impacts related to implementation of the Housing Element Update would be similar to the General Plan EIR, subsequent EIRs, and to the 2022 Climate Action Plan addendum. Therefore, similar to the General Plan EIR as addended by the Climate Action Plan, implementation of the proposed Housing Element Update would result in less than significant greenhouse gas emissions impacts. b) Conflict with Applicable Plan. The General Plan EIR determined that the City’s projected 2035 GHG emissions would constitute a cumulatively considerable contribution to global climate change by exceeding the average carbon-efficiency standard necessary to maintain a trajectory to meet statewide 2050 goals as established by EO S-3-05. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that this impact would be significant and unavoidable.
Since the proposed Housing Element Update does not include any changes to general plan land use designations or policies that would increase the growth capacity of the General Plan, including subsequent EIRs related to specific plans or area plans, the impacts related to implementation of the Housing Element Update would be similar to the General Plan EIR, subsequent EIRs and the Climate Action Plan addendum.
Therefore, similar to the General Plan EIR as addended by the Climate Action Plan, implementation of the proposed Housing Element Update would result in less than significant greenhouse gas emissions impacts.
Cumulative Impacts
The General Plan EIR found that Citywide 2035 GHG emissions are projected to exceed efficiency standards necessary to maintain a trajectory to meet long-term 2050 state climate change reduction goals. However, it was found that achieving the substantial emissions reductions will require policy decisions at the federal and state level and new and substantially advanced technologies that cannot today be anticipated, and are outside the City’s control, and therefore cannot be relied upon as feasible mitigation strategies. Therefore, given the uncertainties about the feasibility of achieving the substantial 2035 emissions reductions, the General Plan EIR determined that the City’s contribution to climate change for the 2035 timeframe is conservatively determined to be cumulatively considerable.
The Planning Area is an almost completely urbanized area and cumulative impacts related to climate change and energy were analyzed in the General Plan EIR, and subsequent EIRs, and were determined to be significant and unavoidable. Similarly, the cumulative greenhouse gas emissions impact from the proposed Housing Element Update would be significant and unavoidable.
Conclusion
4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Santa Clara 2023-2031 6th Cycle Housing Element Update 67 City of Santa Clara
The proposed Housing Element Update would result in significant and unavoidable greenhouse gas emission impacts. However, the RHNA allocation described in the Housing Element Update would be within the amount of residential development analyzed within the General Plan EIR and subsequent EIRs. Future housing developed in accordance with the goals and policies of the Housing Element Update would have the effect of contributing incrementally to greenhouse gas emissions impacts.
Development of future housing would be subject to environmental review pursuant to CEQA upon application for entitlement permits. Projects found to be not exempt from CEQA would be subject to analysis and mitigation, if required. No new significant impacts and no substantial increase in the severity of previously identified impacts associated with the proposed Housing Element Update would occur. Likewise, there is no new information of substantial importance requiring new analysis or verification. The Housing Element Update does not propose substantial changes that require major revisions to the General Plan EIR, and no new mitigation measures are required. As such, no subsequent environmental analysis and no new mitigation are required.
Applicable General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
No feasible mitigation exists to mitigate the significant unavoidable impact. 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
68 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Admin Draft December 21, 2022
4.9 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Would the project:
Effect
Examined
in General
Plan EIR?
Conclusion in
General Plan
EIR and
Subsequent
EIRs?
Proposed
Changes
Involving
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
or More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Showing
New or
More
Severe
Impacts?
a) Create a significant
hazard to the public or the
environment through the
routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous
materials?
Yes
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
No No No
b) Create a significant
hazard to the public or the
environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions
involving the release of
hazardous materials into the
environment?
Yes
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
No No No
c) Emit hazardous emissions
or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within
one-quarter mile of an existing
or proposed school?
Yes
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
No No No
d) Be located on a site which
is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant
hazard to the public or the
environment?
Yes
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
No No No
e) For a project located
within an airport land use plan
or, where such a plan has not
been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the
project result in a safety
hazard or excessive noise for
people residing or working in
the project area?
Yes
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Santa Clara 2023-2031 6th Cycle Housing Element Update 69 City of Santa Clara
f) Impair implementation of
or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
Yes
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
g) Expose people or
structures, either directly or
indirectly, to a significant risk
of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires?
Yes No Impact No No No
Proposed Project in Relation to the General Plan EIR and Subsequent Amendments (a-c) Hazardous Materials Use/Potential for Accidental Releases. The General Plan EIR noted that the 2010-2035 General Plan allows for a greater mix of uses, including location of residential uses in proximity to businesses which could expose sensitive receptors to hazardous materials used, stored or disposed of as waste by industrial or in some cases, commercial, operations. It was also noted that hazardous materials presently stored and used in Santa Clara include flammable liquids, acids, and similar substances, and that some of these substances are routinely transported and kept in large enough amounts that improper handling or an accidental spill or leak could result in off-site consequences that could adversely impact nearby workers or the public. It was further noted that placement of additional sensitive receptors near facilities that could have an accidental release of a hazardous substance that would have off-site consequences, or conversely, location of a new industrial, commercial or institutional use that uses or stores toxic substances near sensitive receptors, including within ¼ mile of schools, could increase the risk of adverse health effects in the event of an accidental release. In addition to housing, it was found that new sensitive receptors such as schools and day care centers will be developed within the General Plan Focus Areas. As such, it was determined that new development and redevelopment allowed under the 2010- 2035 General Plan could place sensitive uses in proximity to industrial, commercial or institutional hazardous materials users, and an accidental release of hazardous materials that travels off-site could pose health or safety risks to these sensitive land uses. However, it was found that the 2010-2035 General Plan includes updated hazards policies that address proper hazardous materials use and storage and the proximity of sensitive uses to substantial hazards from accidental release of hazardous materials and provide program-level mitigation for risks associated with the use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials within the City. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that implementation of General Plan policies for adequate mitigation or separation buffers between uses and existing regulations and programs would substantially reduce hazards to people and the environment to less than significant. However, the subsequent EIRs for the Tasman East SP and the Lawrence Station SP found that mitigation is required to reduce potential impacts from hazardous materials to less than significant. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant with incorporation of the following subsequent EIR mitigation measures, which will apply to the proposed Housing Element Update:
Tasman East SP EIR – See Mitigation Measures HAZ-1.1, HAZ-1.2, HAZ-1.3, HAZ-1.4, HAZ1.5, and HAZ-1.6.. Lawrence Station SP EIR – See Mitigation Measure HAZ-1, HAZ-2, and HAZ-3.
Since the proposed Housing Element Update does not include any changes to general plan land use designations or policies that would increase the growth capacity of the General Plan, including subsequent EIRs related to specific plans or area plans, the hazardous materials impacts related to implementation of the Housing Element Update would be similar to the General Plan EIR and 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
70 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Admin Draft December 21, 2022
subsequent EIRs. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Housing Element Update would result in less than significant impacts with mitigation incorporated. (d) Government Code Section 65962. The General Plan EIR found that the presence of hazardous materials on future development and redevelopment sites could result in hazardous materials exposure of construction workers during site preparation, demolition, and/or construction of new structures.
Contaminated airborne dust could also migrate off-site during demolition or construction activities and affect adjacent land uses if improperly controlled. It was further found that within Santa Clara a variety of chemical compounds associated with fuels, oil, flammable liquids, metals, pesticides or other hazardous substances originating from historical and/or current land uses may be found in soils that will be disturbed by future development or redevelopment. It was also noted that releases of hazardous materials, such as volatile organic compounds and metals, into the environment could affect future residents or users through direct contact or, in the case of volatile organic compounds, inhalation of soil vapors. The General Plan EIR noted that contaminated groundwater, where encountered during site redevelopment activities, could also result in potential health risks to construction workers or the public, and if excavations extend to the groundwater table, dewatering could be required and extracted contaminated groundwater would require on-site management and/or treatment. Additionally, it was found that potentially hazardous environmental conditions from reported hazardous materials spills and releases are found in virtually all of the Focus Areas of the City. While a number of these reports represent cases considered closed by Responsible Agencies such as the Regional Water Quality Control Board, where there are changes in land uses or excavation into contaminated areas, a reevaluation of potential hazards and soil or groundwater management may be warranted. It was also found that development and redevelopment allowed under the 2010-2035 General Plan could occur on or near contaminated properties located throughout the City, and localized contamination of soil, soil vapor and ground water could adversely impact human health or the environment if not appropriately addressed and/or mitigated. Finally, the General Plan EIR found that there are no DTSC sites within the City included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.
The General Plan EIR went on to note that remodel and repair activity, and demolition work in residential and commercial structures that disturbs asbestos-containing building materials may cause the release of asbestos fibers into the air, resulting in health impacts to workers, building occupants and the general public. It was also noted there is no known health threat if asbestos-containing materials are in generally good condition and are left undisturbed, and friable asbestos-containing material (i.e., material that can be crumbled, crushed or reduced to powder by hand pressure when dry) and non-friable asbestoscontaining material that will be made friable during renovation or demolition are subject to regulation.
As such, it was found that the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) guidelines require the removal of potentially friable asbestos-containing material prior to building demolition or renovation that may disturb these materials. In addition, the General Plan EIR found that demolition and renovation of buildings also have the potential to release lead particles to the air, resulting in health impacts to workers, building occupants and the general public. As such, it was determined that applicable OSHA regulations must be followed; these include requirements for worker training, air monitoring and dust control, among others, and any debris or soil containing lead must be disposed appropriately. Finally, the General Plan EIR found that new development and redevelopment allowed under the 2010- 2035 General Plan could occur in areas with soil or groundwater contamination or involve demolition of buildings containing hazardous building materials. However, it was determined that implementation of General Plan policies and existing regulations and programs would substantially reduce hazards to people and the environment to less than significant. Similarly, the subsequent EIRs for the Tasman East SP and the Lawrence Station SP found that mitigation is required to reduce potential impacts from hazardous materials to less than significant. Therefore, this impact would be less 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Santa Clara 2023-2031 6th Cycle Housing Element Update 71 City of Santa Clara
than significant with incorporation of the following subsequent EIR mitigation measures, which will apply to the proposed Housing Element Update:
Tasman East SP EIR – See Mitigation Measures HAZ-1.1, HAZ-1.2, HAZ-1.3, HAZ-1.4, HAZ1.5, and HAZ-1.6.. Lawrence Station SP EIR – See Mitigation Measure HAZ-1, HAZ-2, and HAZ-3.
Since the proposed Housing Element Update does not include any changes to general plan land use designations or policies that would increase the growth capacity of the General Plan, including subsequent EIRs related to specific plans or area plans, the hazardous materials impacts related to implementation of the Housing Element Update would be similar to the General Plan EIR and subsequent EIRs. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Housing Element Update would result in less than significant impacts with existing mitigation measures incorporated. (e) Airport Land Use Plan. The General Plan EIR found that new development and redevelopment allowed under the 2010- 2035 General Plan could occur in localized areas with identified building height and safety restrictions for Mineta San Jose International Airport. However, the General Plan EIR determined that implementation of General Plan policies and existing regulations and programs would substantially reduce aviation hazards to people and property. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that impacts would be less than significant.
Since the proposed Housing Element Update does not include any changes to general plan land use designations or policies that would increase the growth capacity of the General Plan, including subsequent EIRs related to specific plans or area plans, the potential airport land use impacts related to implementation of the Housing Element Update would be similar to the General Plan EIR and subsequent EIRs. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Housing Element Update would result in less than significant impacts.
(f) Emergency Plans. The General Plan EIR noted that the City of Santa Clara Hazardous Materials Division responds to emergency calls related to hazardous materials within the City, and the City also participates in the ABAG Local Hazards Plan and also has adopted a City of Santa Clara Emergency Plan (2008). The General Plan EIR also noted that the City does not maintain formal evacuation routes, as the most appropriate routes away from an area that may have been affected by a major disaster would be determined by the location and type of incident. It was determined that it may be necessary to restrict travel on certain roadways within the redevelopment and development areas under the 2010- 2035 General Plan to facilitate construction activities such as demolition, material hauling, construction, staging, and modifications to existing infrastructure, and such restrictions could include lane closures, lane narrowing, and detours, which would be temporary but could continue for extended periods of time.
As such, it was found that lane restrictions, closures, and/or detours could cause an increase in traffic volumes on adjacent roadways, which could affect emergency response routes. However, the General Plan EIR determined that redevelopment and development under the 2010- 2035 General Plan would include preparation a Traffic Management Plan, which would demonstrate where construction activities could interfere with emergency response routes and other traffic. With this information, the City is able to adequately plan around potential blocks in emergency right-of-way and would have the right to deny or halt construction activities if they would result in an adverse impact on public safety. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that implementation of General Plan policies and existing regulations and programs, would substantially reduce the impairment of emergency response plans to less than significant.
Since the proposed Housing Element Update does not include any changes to general plan land use designations or policies that would increase the growth capacity of the General Plan, including 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
72 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Admin Draft December 21, 2022
subsequent EIRs related to specific plans or area plans, the potential impacts related to implementation of the Housing Element Update would be similar to the General Plan EIR and subsequent EIRs.
Therefore, implementation of the proposed Housing Element Update would result in less than significant impacts.
(g) Wildfire Risks. The General Plan EIR noted that the California Department of Forestry and Fire Hazard Protection is responsible for the identification of very high fire hazard severity zones and transmission of these maps to local government agencies, and found that there are no wildfire hazards in the City of Santa Clara. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined there would be no project impacts related to wildland fires.
Since the proposed Housing Element Update does not include any changes to general plan land use designations or policies that would increase the growth capacity of the General Plan, including subsequent EIRs related to specific plans or area plans, the potential wildfire impacts related to implementation of the Housing Element Update would be similar to the General Plan EIR and subsequent EIRs. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Housing Element Update would result in no impacts.
Cumulative Impacts
The General Plan EIR noted that hazardous materials and other public health and safety issues are generally site-specific or affect localized areas and would not be significantly affected by other development in northern Santa Clara County. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that the City’s contribution to regional cumulative impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials would be less than significant.
The Planning Area is an almost completely urbanized area and most of the Planning Area is designated in the City’s General Plan and Zoning Code for urban development. Cumulative hazards and hazardous materials impacts related to the Housing Element Update in conjunction with other similar projects in the area were analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the City of Santa Clara 2010- 2035 General Plan and subsequent EIRs and were determined to be less than significant with incorporation of mitigation measures. Therefore, the cumulative hazards and hazardous materials impact from the proposed Housing Element Update would be less than significant.
Conclusion
The proposed Housing Element Update would not have a substantial adverse effect related to airport land use plans and wildfire but would require mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts related to hazardous materials transport, use, or accidental release and hazardous materials waste sites to less than significant. The RHNA allocation described in the Housing Element Update would be within the amount of residential development analyzed within the General Plan EIR and subsequent Specific Plan SP EIRs. Future housing developed in accordance with the goals and policies of the Housing Element Update would have the effect of contributing incrementally to hazards and hazardous materials impacts; however, development of future housing would be subject to environmental review pursuant to CEQA upon application for entitlement permits. Projects found to be not exempt from CEQA would be subject to analysis and mitigation, if required. The hazards and hazardous materials mitigation measures of the subsequent EIRs, as referenced above, would also be applicable to development associated with implementation of the Housing Element Update. No new significant impacts and no substantial increase in the severity of previously identified impacts associated with the proposed Housing Element Update would occur. Likewise, there is no new information of substantial importance requiring new analysis or verification. The Housing Element Update does not propose substantial 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Santa Clara 2023-2031 6th Cycle Housing Element Update 73 City of Santa Clara
changes that require major revisions to the General Plan EIR, and no new mitigation measures are required. As such, no subsequent environmental analysis and no new mitigation are required.
Applicable General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
No applicable General Plan EIR mitigation measures.
4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
74 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Admin Draft December 21, 2022
4.10 – Hydrology and Water Quality
Would the project:
Effect
Examined
in General
Plan EIR?
Conclusion in
General Plan
EIR and
Subsequent
EIRs?
Proposed
Changes
Involving
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
or More Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Showing
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
a) Violate any water quality
standards or waste
discharge requirements or
otherwise substantially
degrade surface or ground
water supply?
Yes
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
No No No
b) Substantially decrease
groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such
that the project may impede
sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?
Yes
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
c) Substantially alter the
existing drainage pattern of
the site or area, including
through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river,
or through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a
manner which would:
i) result in substantial
erosion or siltation onor off-site;
Yes
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
ii) substantially
increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff
in a manner which
would result in flooding
on- or off-site;
Yes
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
No No No
iii) create or contribute
runoff water which
would exceed the
capacity of existing or
planned stormwater
drainage systems or
provide substantial
additional sources of
polluted runoff; or
Yes
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Santa Clara 2023-2031 6th Cycle Housing Element Update 75 City of Santa Clara
iv) impede or redirect
flood flows? Yes
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
d) In flood hazard,
tsunami, or seiche zones,
risk release of pollutants
due to project inundation?
Yes
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
e) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of a water
quality control plan or
sustainable groundwater
management plan?
Yes
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
Proposed Project in Relation to the General Plan EIR and Subsequent Amendments (a) Violate Water Quality Standards or Degrade the Water Supply. The General Plan EIR found that ground-disturbing activities related to construction under the 2010-2035 General Plan could result in accelerated erosion on work sites including increased input of fine sediments into the City’s storm drains and ultimately into area creeks and the Bay. It was also found that construction would use various hazardous substances such as vehicle fuels and lubricants, paving media, paints, solvents, etc.; accidental release or discharge of any of these substances could adversely affect water quality, endanger aquatic life, and/or result in violation of water quality standards. The General Plan EIR noted that all construction on sites of one acre or larger is required to manage discharge of storm water runoff under the Clean Water Act, through the preparation and implementation of a SWPPP. It was also noted that for future development over one acre in size, erosion hazards would be minimized through implementation of site-specific erosion measures in SWPPPs under the NPDES General Construction Permit and grading and excavation requirements in the City Code. However, given that many future development projects would be on properties less than one acre in size, it was noted that requirements for BMPs under the City’s NPDES Municipal Permit, urban runoff policies, and the City Code would be the primary means of enforcing erosion control measures through the grading and building permit process. Additionally, it was noted that the City is committed to ensuring that construction-related grading complies with the erosion and sediment control BMPs set forth in the California Storm Water Quality Association’s (CASQA) Storm Water Best Management Practice Handbook for Construction and with the erosion and sediment control plan recommendations of the ABAG Manual of Standards for Erosion and Sediment Control Measures. With regulatory programs currently place, it was determined that the possible impacts of accelerated erosion during construction associated with development and redevelopment would be less than significant.
The General Plan EIR noted that new impervious surfaces can increase the delivery of polluted runoff to area storm drains and ultimately to San Francisco Bay, and this is especially true during the “first flush” at the beginning of the storm season, when urban pollutants that have accumulated during the dry season are washed from paved surfaces. However, the General Plan EIR also noted that the City adheres to the terms of the NPDES permitting, which requires all developments that create one acre or more of impervious surface to incorporate design measures to reduce pollutant discharge to the maximum extent practicable, including site design measures, source controls, and storm water treatment measures that municipalities are to require of developments to ensure water quality. Given that many future development projects would be on properties less than one acre, requirements under the City’s NPDES Municipal Permit, urban runoff policies, and the City Code would be the primary means of enforcing control measures after development is complete. With regulatory programs currently in place, the General Plan EIR determined that the possible impacts of accelerated runoff and decrease 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
76 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Admin Draft December 21, 2022
in water quality after construction is complete for the development and redevelopment would be less than significant. Therefore, it was determined that implementation of General Plan policies and existing programs would minimize water quality hazards to be less than significant. However, the subsequent Specific Plan EIR for the Lawrence Station SP found that mitigation is required to reduce potential impacts to water quality to less than significant. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant with incorporation of the following subsequent EIR mitigation measure, which will apply to the proposed Housing Element Update:
Lawrence Station SP EIR – See Mitigation Measure HYD-1.
Since the proposed Housing Element Update does not include any changes to general plan land use designations or policies that would increase the growth capacity of the General Plan, including subsequent EIRs related to specific plans or area plans, the water quality impacts related to implementation of the Housing Element Update would be similar to the General Plan EIR and subsequent EIRs. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Housing Element Update would result in less than significant impacts with mitigation incorporated. (b) Groundwater Supplies. The General Plan EIR found that new development and redevelopment under the 2010-2035 General Plan would have the potential to add new areas of impervious (paved or hardscaped) surface to the City, potentially decreasing infiltration and local recharge of shallow groundwater. However, it was also found that only a very small portion of the City (about 26 acres at the City’s southwest corner) is within the recharge area for the potable water aquifer, and this area is developed as residential. It was further found that some regional commercial development was planned for this area, but it would be infill and redevelopment in areas that have previously been developed. As such, the net addition of impervious surface area was expected to be small, and would be further reduced by the minimization of paved and impervious surfaces and the promotion of measures to facilitate infiltration in conformance with the requirements under section C.3 of the NPDES Permit.
Therefore, given the City’s existing developed and extensively hardscaped character, limited overall influence on potable aquifer recharge, and the 2010-2035 General Plan commitment to minimize hardscape and promote infiltration, the General Plan EIR determined that impacts related to interference with groundwater recharge would be less than significant.
Since the proposed Housing Element Update does not include any changes to general plan land use designations or policies that would increase the growth capacity of the General Plan, including subsequent EIRs related to specific plans or area plans, the groundwater supply impacts related to implementation of the Housing Element Update would be similar to the General Plan EIR and subsequent EIRs. Therefore, impacts from implementation of the proposed Housing Element Update would be similar to the General Plan EIR and would result in less than significant impacts. (c.i-c.iv) Alter Drainage Patterns. The General Plan EIR noted that development often requires grading that alters natural drainage patterns. It was also noted that in the City, as in other densely developed Bay Area communities, natural drainage patterns have already been substantially modified to accommodate existing development. It was further noted that additional infill and redevelopment under the 2010-2035 General Plan could entail further modification, and both the City’s industrial and commercial areas are expected to change from lower to higher intensity development. The General Plan EIR found that new development within the Planning Area would result in some potential for increased erosion and siltation both on- and off-site because grading and ground disturbance associated with development in these areas could increase the potential for accelerated erosion by changing natural drainage patterns. As such, the General Plan EIR found that for all future development and redevelopment on sites that are one acre or greater in size, erosion hazards would be minimized through implementation of site-specific erosion measures in SWPPPs under the NPDES General 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Santa Clara 2023-2031 6th Cycle Housing Element Update 77 City of Santa Clara
Construction Permit and grading and excavation requirements in the City Code. It was further found that future development projects on properties of less than one acre would be subject to requirements for BMPs under the City’s NPDES Municipal Permit, urban runoff policies, and the City Code, and the primary means of enforcing erosion control measures are through the grading and building permit process. Finally, it was found that the City also implements the "Guidelines and Standards for Lands Near Streams" in the City's entitlement and permitting functions, where applicable. Therefore, with regulatory programs currently in place, the General Plan EIR determined that possible impacts of accelerated erosion during construction associated with development and redevelopment would be less than significant.
The General Plan EIR went on to note that development proposed under the 2010-2035 General Plan would occur adjacent to water courses throughout the City, which has the potential to alter the course of the drainage pattern near the stream or river and increase flooding. It was also noted that extensive site modifications would have some potential to increase local site runoff and/or contribute to localized flooding, particularly where high density and mixed uses generally increases the percentage of impermeable surfaces. However, the General Plan EIR found that these hazards would be minimized through implementation of site-specific measures in SWPPPs under the NPDES General Construction Permit and by grading and excavation requirements in the City Code. Given that many future development projects would be on properties less than one acre, it was noted that requirements for BMPs under the City’s NPDES Municipal Permit, urban runoff policies, and the City Code would be the primary means of enforcing control measures through the grading and building permit process.
Therefore, with regulatory protections in place, the General Plan EIR determined that impacts related to increases in surface runoff would be less than significant.
The General Plan EIR noted that although the City is largely built out, development under the 2010- 2035 General Plan would add quantities of impervious surface (including both buildings and pavement), potentially decreasing infiltration and increasing runoff. However, it was noted that for future development over one acre in size, storm water runoff would be minimized through implementation of site-specific measures in SWPPPs under the NPDES General Construction Permit and grading and excavation requirements in the City Code. In addition, given that many future development projects would be on properties less than one acre, it was noted that requirements for BMPs under the City’s NPDES Municipal Permit, urban runoff policies, and the City Code would be the primary means of enforcing control measures through the grading and building permit process. The General Plan EIR further noted that the City Code and building code include provisions for postconstruction effective management of storm water runoff. Therefore, with regulatory programs currently in place, the General Plan EIR determined that potential impacts of additional runoff to the storm water drainage system associated with development and redevelopment would be less than significant. However, the subsequent Specific Plan EIR for the Tasman East found that mitigation is required to reduce potential impacts from on- or off-site flooding to less than significant. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant with incorporation of the following subsequent EIR mitigation measures, which will apply to the proposed Housing Element Update:
Tasman East SP EIR – See Mitigation Measures HYD-1.1.
Since the proposed Housing Element Update does not include any changes to general plan land use designations or policies that would increase the growth capacity of the General Plan, including subsequent EIRs related to specific plans or area plans, the drainage pattern impacts related to implementation of the Housing Element Update would be similar to the General Plan EIR and subsequent EIRs. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Housing Element Update would result in less than significant impacts with existing mitigation incorporated. 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
78 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Admin Draft December 21, 2022
(d) Other Water-Related Risks or Pollution. The General Plan EIR found that new development and redevelopment under the 2010-2035 General Plan would have the potential to expose people or structures to increased risk of loss, injury, or death related to flooding, mudflow, debris flow, sea level rise, tsunami, or seiche. However, the General Plan EIR determined that implementation of General Plan policies and existing programs would reduce impacts to less than significant.
Since the proposed Housing Element Update does not include any changes to general plan land use designations or policies that would increase the growth capacity of the General Plan, including subsequent EIRs related to specific plans or area plans, other water-related risks related to implementation of the Housing Element Update would be similar to the General Plan EIR and subsequent EIRs. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Housing Element Update would result in less than significant impacts with implementation of General Plan policies and existing programs. (e) Conflict with Water Quality or Groundwater Management Plans. The General Plan EIR did not analyze impacts related to conflicts with water quality or groundwater management plans. Since the proposed Housing Element Update does not include any changes to general plan land use designations or policies that would increase the growth capacity of the General Plan, including subsequent EIRs related to specific plans or area plans, the impacts related to implementation of the Housing Element Update would be similar to the General Plan EIR and subsequent EIRs. Therefore, the proposed Housing Element Update would not exacerbate a conflict with any water quality or groundwater management plans.
Cumulative Impacts
The General Plan EIR noted that new development in the City and surrounding jurisdictions sharing the same watersheds (Guadalupe River, Calabazas Creek, and San Thomas Aquino Creek) may alter local drainage and runoff characteristics. It was also noted that storm water drainage systems are generally provided by local governments for areas within their jurisdictions, and are not provided on a regional basis. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that the City’s contribution to cumulative regional impacts associated with storm water drainage systems would be less than significant. In terms of water quality, the General Plan EIR found that increased cumulative urbanization would be expected to increase vehicle traffic and related releases of automobile-related pollutants, including petroleum hydrocarbons, metals, and sediment, drain from roads into surface waters and which could have a cumulative impact to local watersheds. As such, it was noted that development in Santa Clara and adjacent cities would be required to comply with applicable NPDES permits, as discussed in Section
4.4, Hydrology and Water Quality, which would require that projects implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) to treat storm water runoff, prior to its discharge, to the maximum extent practicable.
Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that compliance with applicable NPDES permits, as the permits are amended over the course of the General Plan’s 25 year planning horizon, would reduce cumulative hydrology and water quality impacts to a less than significant level.
The Planning Area is an almost completely urbanized area and most of the Planning Area is designated in the City’s General Plan and Zoning Code for urban development. Cumulative hydrology and water quality impacts related to the Housing Element Update in conjunction with other similar projects in the area were analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the City of Santa Clara 2010-2035 General Plan and subsequent EIRs and were determined to be less than significant with incorporation of mitigation measures. Therefore, the cumulative hydrology and water quality impact from the proposed Housing Element Update would be similar to the impacts analyzed in the General Plan EIR and less than significant.
4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Santa Clara 2023-2031 6th Cycle Housing Element Update 79 City of Santa Clara
Conclusion
The proposed Housing Element Update would not have a substantial adverse effect related to violations of water quality standards or degradation of the water supply, groundwater supplies, altered drainage patterns, other water-related risks, or conflicts with the applicable water quality plan. The RHNA allocation described in the Housing Element Update would be within the amount of residential development analyzed within the General Plan EIR and subsequent Specific Plan SP EIRs. Future housing developed in accordance with the goals and policies of the Housing Element Update would have the effect of contributing incrementally to hydrology and water quality impacts; however, development of future housing would be subject to environmental review pursuant to CEQA upon application for entitlement permits. Projects found to be not exempt from CEQA would be subject to analysis and mitigation, if required. The hydrology and water quality mitigation measures of the subsequent EIRs, as referenced above, would also be applicable to development associated with implementation of the Housing Element Update. No new significant impacts and no substantial increase in the severity of previously identified impacts associated with the proposed Housing Element Update would occur. Likewise, there is no new information of substantial importance requiring new analysis or verification. The Housing Element Update does not propose substantial changes that require major revisions to the General Plan EIR. As such, no subsequent environmental analysis and no new mitigation are required.