City Council and Authorities Concurrent
January 31, 2023

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. Single- family 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 bat hroom, 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 u nits 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, an d 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 Develop mental 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 facilit ies 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, C- R, 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 terminat ion 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 housi ng 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 f ewer 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 emergen cy 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 incorporat es 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 exteri or 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 U se 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 a re 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 Zon ing 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 sh all 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 Amendment s 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 la nd 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 Revi ew 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 Califor nia 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:
• The primary entry to the dwelling unit shall be on an accessible route unless exempted by site impracticality tests.
• At least one powder room or bathroom shall be located on the primary entry level served by an accessible route.
• All rooms or spaces located on the primary entry level shall be served by an accessible route. Rooms and spaces located on th e primary entry level and subject to this chapter may include but are not limited to kitchens, powder rooms, bathrooms, living rooms, bedrooms, or hallways.
• Common use areas shall be accessible.
• 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 r espect 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 r elatively 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, t he financial burden of improvements as the City’s infrastructur e 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, st orm drains, and sewer connections.

This publication is updated periodically and available on the City’s website. The standards are as follows:
• 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.
• Required on -site street improvements can include construction of curbs, sidewalks, driveway approaches, and transitions.

• 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. • Projects must connect to sewer, water, gas, and electric lines. • Development located in the Utility Underground Dis trict, 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 fo r 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:
• 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.
• Director of Community Develop ment: The Director of Community Development or designee hears projects subject to the Architectural Review process. • Historical Landmarks Commission (HLC): An appointed commission of members of the public who review proposals and make recommendations relate d to structures on the local, State, or national register of historic places, as well as applications for Mills Act contracts.
• 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.
• 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 Direc tor 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.

• Off-street parking areas, screening strips and other facilities and improvements must meet the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan intent. Any appli cable state legislation that waives or reduces parking standards are applied.
• 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. • Approval w ill 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.
• 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.
• The granting of a ny architectural approval is an administrative function; therefore, the action is final and conclusive, except in the event of an appeal. • 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. • 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 detail s 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 req uired 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 Ge neral 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 ap plication 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 th eses type s 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 gran t 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, i f an EIR is required , the timeframe can be extended significantly. In Mountain View, another neighboring jurisdiction, the timeframe to process and review a large - scale 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:
• 2022 California Building Code, Chapter 3 and Chapter 9: Additional automatic fire sprinkler requirements for Group R3 occupancies.
• 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.
• 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 ge nerated 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 windo ws, 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 6 th 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 build- out 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 2 020 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. T he 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 facili ties 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 202 2, 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 netwo rk 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 right s-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 F lood 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 f actors 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 appro priate 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 co mpleted, 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 cor ridors, 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 p roposed 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 c omponent 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 n ational 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 single - family 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 increase s, 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 illustr ate 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 in-
lieu 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 re sidential 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 e very 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 addre ss anticipated housing demand during the Housing Element planning period.

The sixth cycle RHNA for the ABAG region covers an eight -year planning period (J anuary 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 Ho using 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 p rojects 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 ar e 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 4,899 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 California) - - 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 California) - - 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 s ubtotal 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 s ubtotal 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 Agreement LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) - - 5 40 45 Under Construction per Affordable Housing Agreement LSAP 3517 Ryder St (Westlake Urban) - - - 328 328 Approved Exempt, no affordability component s ubtotal 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
s ubtotal 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% AMI 3035 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 App roved 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 Agreement: 42 units at 80% and 42 at 100% AMI 950 Monroe Street Mixed-Use Project - - 8 46 54 Proposed per Inclusionary Ordinance: 15% affordable at 100% AMI subtotal other project(s ) 261 228 141 3,569 4,199
Total Pending and Approved Projects 389 361 857 10,339 11,946 Remaining RHNA 2023-2031 2,483 1,292 1,124 (5,213) (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. 75642 42
8

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 lower - income households. Default density is considered by the State as 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 are 10 available site s included in the i nventory 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 site s 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 4,899 units to be achieved through the identificatio n 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 m inimum density allowed was used to remain conservative, realistic, and to account for the wide range of Speci fic Plan densities allowed (from 20 du/ac in Lawrence Station to 350 du/ac maximum in Tasman East). In every case, c laiming 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 area s 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 com ing 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. • 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 P
lan. The identified sites in these designations are non -vacant. M inimum density was used to calculate a more conservative realistic capacity.

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

• Specific Plan sites: All sites are within adopted Specific Plan areas and have been vetted through Ci ty-led and community-f ocused 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, a nd potential for housing production.

All
available sites are within Specific Plan areas. Ea ch 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 wa s 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 Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan: maximum densities x 72% (based on Specific Plan assumptions) was used as there are currently no existing or approved projects in the Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan area.

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 40 percent, 30 percent, and 30 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 G eneral 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 accommod ate 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 H ousing 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.

Si
te 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 with in 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, t he 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 389 361 857 10,339 11,946 ADU Projection 102 102 102 34 340
Available Specific Plan Sites 2,888 2,143 2,465 314 7,810 Tasman East Focus Area Specific Plan 214 156 458 295 1,123

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 1,829 1,360 1,360 - 4,549 Lawrence Station Area Plan 845 627 647 19 2,138
Total 3,379 2,606 3,424 10,687 22,096
Surplus 18% 58% 73% 108% 73%
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
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 program s 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 sim ilar 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 y ears, 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 provi de 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:
• 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 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 HCD

1. 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 ar e 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 Gener al 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 a s 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 a nd 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 f ocus 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 al low 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 developme nt 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:
• 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 densiti es, 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 a rea, allows stand- alone nonresidential development. See section “Specific Plan Sites” for additional detail.

• 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 Pl an 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 S pecific Plan area s 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 deve lopment of affordable housing.

Affordability Requirements
• 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.
• 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).
• 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.
• Citywide Affordable Housin g 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.
• Affordability by Design. Additionally, a ffordability by design in Specific Plan areas is encouraged, with the development of smaller units targeted for those who desire a walkable, urban lifestyle.
• 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 stand - alone 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 appro ximately 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 two- story 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:
• The appropriateness of the housing goals, objectives, and policies in contributing to the attainment of the state housing goals • The effectiveness of the Housing Element in attainment of the community’s housing goals and objectives • Progress in implementation of the Housing Element
This evaluation provides critical information on the extent to which pr ograms 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 5 th cycle Housing Plan actions, policies, and goals and has used this evaluation to inform the revised Housing Plan for the 6 th cycle. While the fair housing ana lysis 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:
• number of individuals served
• cost of the program/action based on the benefit to the individual served • availability of funding and resources
• efficiency and effectiveness of the program partners and service providers

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

• 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 specif ic 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 commu nity 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 5 th cycle Housing Plan actions, policies, and goals in conjunction with the additional anal yses 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 owner-
occupied 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 low-
income
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 C-
3, 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 multi-
family 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 C-
3, 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 Multi-
family
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 student-
occupied 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 C-
1, 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 transit-
based 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 B-
5, 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 D-
1 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 employment-
related 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 single-
family 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 set-
aside 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 C-
1, 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 Mixed-
Use 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 B-
7, 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
developmen
t projects
and has
produced
low- and
moderate-
income
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 multi-
family 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 B-
7, 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 D-
1 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 on-
site 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 B-
7, 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
moratoriu
m has since
expired,
and state
and
pandemic
related
local rental
assistance
programs
have
ended.

Additional
programs
may be
needed to
respond to
displaceme
nt
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 C-
4, 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 C-
3, 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 opportuniti
es.

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 Assist ance, 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 p ublished 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/planning- division/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 6
th 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 6 th Cycle Housing Element, outreach
consisted of:

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page A-
2 • Community Meetings
• Stakeholders Meetings, Questionnaires, and Interviews • Digital Surveys: English, Spanish, Vietnamese, Chinese (Simple) • Community Events
• Community Pop-ups
• Tenant Listening Sessions
• Homelessness Taskforce Meetings
• 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 o utreach 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:
• 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 spec ifications 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 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. • 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

• 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 mee ting 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. T he 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 A-
4 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. • Weather
• Diverse population (ethnically,
economically, age)
• Safe
• Great public facilities, parks,
libraries, recreation facilities
• Great location, easily accessible to
other areas in the Bay Area
• Good transport
• Venues, entertainment options
• Small town, University/Community
College town makes it a great
location to live
• High quality schools
• Family and community oriented
• 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.

• Cost of housing
• County code prohibits acquiring
homes and buildings
• Shortage of affordable and low-
income housing
• The personal home buying process is
difficult due to affordability and cash
offers
• Unable to place underhoused and
unhoused community in shelters or
affordable housing
• Lack of land for new developments
• Lack of housing and securing of
more housing
• Difficulty welcoming others, NIMBY
• Congestion in existing developed
areas
• High cost of rent and living will push
residents out of the area
• Wait list for housing vouchers,
Section 8 lottery
• Cost of construction
• Lacks character and a downtown
• 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 t o provide affordable housing to the locals. Establishing creative housing programs is also a priority. Tackling homelessness should also be a priority. • Financial assistance and programs
for organizations to buy buildings for
services such as mental illness
facilities, homeless shelters
• Increase amount and accessibility of
affordable housing
• Partnerships with organizations to
allow for creativity
• Affordable housing for families who
work in Santa Clara and send their
children to public schools
• More affordable housing
• Subsidized housing options
• 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. • Subsidized housing, based on income
listed on tax returns
• Affordable housing and care for
individuals with serious mental
illnesses
• Serves people who are service
workers/blue collar as well as the
entire community
• Allows for a community to develop
in a city
• Housing that is affordable for
families to live in the city where they
work
• Two working adults can afford rent
without sacrificing food or a savings
• 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 A-
6 • 41 South 11th Street house for housing
and maintaining housing for groups
of people
• Orange County Health Improvement
Plan is a nonprofit that works with
the county to train employees to
operate housing buildings
• Short term rental assistance (TBRA)
• Charities Housing in Cupertino
• The Veranda Senior Housing
• Apartments/Condominiums with
more than two bedrooms and in
large buildings
• Multigenerational housing
developments, co-ops:
https://www.cotaticohousing.org/
• San Jose, community engagement
• 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 affordabl e 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.

• Shortage of professionals
• Something should be done about
affordable housing
• Less people will want to live in the
area if there are tents on the street
• Less taxes otherwise businesses
won’t thrive
• Give locals a reason to stay
• Expanding housing in a creative way
could make people uncomfortable
• If housing doesn’t change Santa
Clara will not grow in a diverse way
and live up to its potential
• Digitization of application processes
for affordable housing
• Reduced waiting and processing time
to meet demand
• Increased value in the area due to
new Google development

• Crime should be addressed for safety
• Equitable quality of school districts
• Multi-bedroom units are needed for
families to stay
• Increase in city policies and funding
toward creating affordable housing
for those in need

• 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

• Stakeholder is unfamiliar with the
area or does not live in the city
• City provides access to opportunities
• Bicycle lane improvements
• Suburban neighborhoods lack
walkability
• Transportation is infrequent and
does not include enough routes
• Some neighborhoods (such as
Lafayette) lacks access to nearby
grocery stores

8. Can you share any thoughts or stories about housing discr imination and/or housing segregation in Santa Clara?

Overall, there is a stigma around low-income and affordable housing, particularly with landlords. • Generally, not too prevalent in the
city
• Discrimination and stigma from
landlords regarding Section 8/low-
income applicants
• Difficulties finding landlords willing
to work with participants
• Limited supply of housing in the city
• Outdated stereotypes and stigmas
about people with housing vouchers
• Upper class residents are less
interested in providing the
community with affordable or low-
income housing developments
• Low-income housing lumped into
one building
• Lower income apartments are located
near title I schools and districts
• Families in low-income, one-
bedroom 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.

• Understand the residents’ needs
• Acknowledge subgroups other than
those defined by race or ethnicity
that need housing
• Ensure more affordable housing is
implemented
• Prioritize teachers, law enforcement,
nonprofit workers who want to stay
in the city
• Regular outreach meetings to share
community needs with the city
• Prioritize building multi bedroom
housing

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page A-
8 • Provide information about housing
in multiple languages
• Provide clear guideline for who
qualifies for housing programs
• City’s emailing list does not reach all
groups
• 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:

• 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.
• 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.
• The northwest of the city will lack an
elementary school once all the units
are constructed
• Some neighborhoods are further
away from public amenities (such as
libraries)
• Clean air is a problem in areas like
Lawrence, Montague, Santa Moss,
and El Camino
• Lafayette and Clyde is a very
industrial block with factories and
chemical release
• Noise pollution from the nearby San
Jose airport, Levi’s stadium, and
major roads
• 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 A-
10 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 A-
12 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 A-
14 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
more45-54 (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 A-
16 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 A-
18 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 A-
20 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 A-
22 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 A-
24 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 A-
26 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 A-
28 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:
• 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. • 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• Supportive services programs for persons with disabilities and unhoused residents, including but not limited to how those programs are coordinated with housing programs. • The connection between access to opportunity and patterns of segregation, including but not limited to with respect to education, employment, transportation, and environmental health.
• Tenant protections and access to legal services, including but not limited to rent stabilization, just c ause 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 al leged basis of discrimination in

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page A-
30 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 reque sts 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 reason able 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 population s, 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 transp ortation 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 A-
32 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 proc ess. 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 ex penses 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 A-
34 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, informati on 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 30
th, 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 30 th 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. 40
th 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 opp ortunities; 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 A-
36 Homeowners: 1. Addressing homelessness; 2. Housi ng 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 thre e 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-housing- element-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/city-
santa-clara-housing-element-
update?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/city-
santa-clara-housing-element-
update?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/city-
santa-clara-housing-element-
update?cid=99#page=22

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page A-
38 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/city-
santa-clara-housing-element-
update?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/city-
santa-clara-housing-element-
update?cid=100#page=26
7/30/2022
Anne
Paulson When? 26 Neutral
https://santaclaraca.konveio.com/city-
santa-clara-housing-element-
update?cid=101#page=26
7/30/2022
Anne
Paulson When? 26 Neutral
https://santaclaraca.konveio.com/city-
santa-clara-housing-element-
update?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/city-
santa-clara-housing-element-
update?cid=91#page=27
7/30/2022
Anne
Paulson How? 28 Neutral
https://santaclaraca.konveio.com/city-
santa-clara-housing-element-
update?cid=103#page=28
7/30/2022
Anne
Paulson How? 28 Neutral
https://santaclaraca.konveio.com/city-
santa-clara-housing-element-
update?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/city-
santa-clara-housing-element-
update?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/city-
santa-clara-housing-element-
update?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/city-
santa-clara-housing-element-
update?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/city-
santa-clara-housing-element-
update?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/city-
santa-clara-housing-element-
update?cid=97#page=120

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page A-
40 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/city-
santa-clara-housing-element-
update?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/city-
santa-clara-housing-element-
update?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/city-
santa-clara-housing-element-
update?cid=106#page=145
7/31/2022
Anne
Paulson Typo 149 Positive
https://santaclaraca.konveio.com/city-
santa-clara-housing-element-
update?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/city-
santa-clara-housing-element-
update?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/city-
santa-clara-housing-element-
update?cid=109#page=158
7/1/2022
Katherine
Lanning
I have great experience
in developing business
and marketing 173 Positive
https://santaclaraca.konveio.com/city-
santa-clara-housing-element-
update?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/city-
santa-clara-housing-element-
update?cid=88#page=189

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page A-
42 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 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. 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 A-
44 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 A-
46 FIGURE 2: FORMAL COMMENT LETTER: TRANSFORM

A

Page A-47

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page A-
48 A

Page A-49

FIGURE 3: FORMAL COMMENT LETTER: SILICON VALLEY AT HOME

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page A-
50 A

Page A-51

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page A-
52 A

Page A-53

FIGURE 4: FORMAL COMMENT LETTER: HOUSING CHOICES

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page A-
54 A

Page A-55

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page A-
56 A

Page A-57

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page A-
58 A

Page A-59

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page A-
60 A

Page A-61

FIGURE 5: FORMAL COMMENT LETTER: SILICON VALLEY AT HOME

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page A-
62 A

Page A-63

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page A-
64 A

Page A-65

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page A-
66 A

Page A-67

FIGURE 6: FORMAL COMMENT LETTER: LIFE SERVICES ALTERNATIVES

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page A-
68 FIGURE 7: FORMAL COMMENT LETTER: ANNE PAULSON

A

Page A-69

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page A-
70 A

Page A-71

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page A-
72 A

Page A-73

FIGURE 7: FORMAL COMMENT LETTER: PARTNERSHIP FOR THE BAY’S FUTURE

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page A-
74 A

Page A-75

FIGURE 8: FORMAL COMMENT LETTER: CARPENTER’S UNION 405

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page A-
76 A

Page A-77

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page A-
78 A

Page A-79

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page A-
80 FIGURE 9: FORMAL COMMENT LETTER: HOUSING ACTION COALITION

A

Page A-81

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page A-
82 A

Page A-83

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page A-
84 A

Page A-85

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page A-
86 A

Page A-87

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page A-
88 A

Page A-89

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page A-
90 A

Page A-91

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page A-
92 A

Page A-93

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page A-
94 APPENDIX B: Santa Clara Housing Element 2023‐2031 Available Sites Inventory last updated 1‐20‐23
APN Site  Address Site  Status SP  Name
General Plan
Designation
Zoning
Designation SP  Land Designation
Min
Density
Max
Density Acreage Realistic Capacity Assumption_Details
Total
Capacity VLOW LOW MODERATE ABOVEMOD Affordability Split Affordability Split_Details Existing  Use_Category 216‐33‐036 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
216‐33‐022 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
216‐33‐037 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
216‐34‐083 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 216‐33‐035 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 216‐60‐045 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 216‐34‐084 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 216‐34‐085 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 216‐34‐083 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 104‐04‐122 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 104‐04‐131 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 104‐04‐138 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 104‐04‐139 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 104‐04‐141 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 104‐04‐140 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 104‐53‐016 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 104‐04‐089 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 104‐04‐095 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 104‐04‐094 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 104‐04‐128 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 104‐04‐124 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 104‐04‐136 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 097‐46‐003 2346  Calle Del Mundo Available TE  (Nov 2020) TN TN Transit  Neighborhood 60 350 0.458668 ((min  density * 215%) * acreage) 5 9 003 0 2 9 0 / 0 / 50 / 50 small site ‐ cannot claim for lower income industrial 097‐46‐004 2338  Calle Del Mundo Available TE  (Nov 2020) TN TN Transit  Neighborhood 60 350 0.458805 ((min  density * 215%) * acreage) 5 9 003 0 2 9 0 / 0 / 50 / 50 small site ‐ cannot claim for lower income industrial 097‐46‐007 2301  Calle De Luna Available TE  (Nov 2020) TN TN Transit  Neighborhood 60 350 0.459185 ((min  density * 215%) * acreage) 5 9 003 0 2 9 0 / 0 / 50 / 50 small site ‐ cannot claim for lower income industrial 097‐46‐008 2309  Calle De Luna Available TE  (Nov 2020) TN TN Transit  Neighborhood 60 350 0.459186 ((min  density * 215%) * acreage) 5 9 003 0 2 9 0 / 0 / 50 / 50 small site ‐ cannot claim for lower income industrial 097‐46‐005 2330  Calle Del Mundo Available TE  (Nov 2020) TN TN Transit  Neighborhood 60 350 0.459186 ((min  density * 215%) * acreage) 5 9 003 0 2 9 0 / 0 / 50 / 50 small site ‐ cannot claim for lower income industrial 097‐46‐006 2322  Calle Del Mundo Available TE  (Nov 2020) TN TN Transit  Neighborhood 60 350 0.459186 ((min  density * 215%) * acreage) 5 9 003 0 2 9 0 / 0 / 50 / 50 small site ‐ cannot claim for lower income industrial 097‐46‐009 2317  Calle De Luna Available TE  (Nov 2020) TN TN Transit  Neighborhood 60 350 0.460984 ((min  density * 215%) * acreage) 5 9 003 0 2 9 0 / 0 / 50 / 50 small site ‐ cannot claim for lower income industrial 097‐46‐010 2325  Calle De Luna Available TE  (Nov 2020) TN TN Transit  Neighborhood 60 350 0.472659 ((min  density * 215%) * acreage) 6 0 003 0 3 0 0 / 0 / 50 / 50 small site ‐ cannot claim for lower income industrial 097‐46‐025 2272  Calle Del Mundo Available TE  (Nov 2020) TN TN Transit  Neighborhood 60 350 0.481745 ((min  density * 215%) * acreage) 6 2 003 1 3 1 0 / 0 / 50 / 50 small site ‐ cannot claim for lower income industrial 097‐46‐026 2262  Calle Del Mundo Available TE  (Nov 2020) TN TN Transit  Neighborhood 60 350 0.482545 ((min  density * 215%) * acreage) 6 2 003 1 3 1 0 / 0 / 50 / 50 small site ‐ cannot claim for lower income industrial 097‐46‐001 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 097‐46‐021 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 097‐46‐023 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 097‐46‐030 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