Agenda packet — City Council and Authorities Concurrent, June 27, 2023 (part 10 of 13)

FIGURE 13.3-34: REGIONAL TCAC OPPORTUNITY AREAS – ENVIRONMENTAL SCORE (2021)

The map below displays updated scores for CalEnviroScreen 4.0 released by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, suggesting a more positive environmental outlook for the area. Much of the county has scores below 25 to 49 percent suggesting fewer adverse environmental impacts. There is a concentration in and around San Jose where scores are between 50 to 74 percent and 75 percent and higher indicating high levels of adverse environmental impacts. The eastern edge of Gilroy also reports scores of 75 percent or higher.

TCAC Opportunity Areas - Environmental Score
{ . ~ ~- \
-, fJ!».(
. ,, _; ·
SAN~OSE
', "-1-.'h'~~::?,.:~t),.:.:~~.,_~,. '>;:,; ' -
t ~ ~ '::1~ ..

Basemap Features
r :::_·; ,:_: Santa Clara County
--- Highways
Bay !Hea Waterbodies
--Open Spaces
TCAC Opportunity Areas- Environmental Score
-Tract
~ NoData
--< .25 (Less Positive Environme ntal Outcome)
.25 · .50
.50 - .75
--> .75 (Mo re Positive Envirot,me ntal Outcome)
Sou rces: U.S. Dep artment of
Ho using and Urban Deve lopment (HUD );
County of Santa Clara, 2022.

Page 13 ends

FIGURE 13.3-35: REGIONAL CALENVIROSCREEN 4.0 (2021)

Local Trends
The City of Santa Clara has the most positive CalEnviroScreen scores in the northern and southern parts of the city (25 to 49 percent and below 24 percent) while the central part of the city has scores between 50 to 74 percent. The central part of Santa Clara with less positive environmental scores is likely due to the fact that the area is predominantly industrial and is located between Highway 101 to the north, the Union Pacific Railroad Corridor to the south, and the San Jose International Airport to the east. The nearby cities of Mountain View, Sunnyvale, and Milpitas have CalEnviroScreen scores between 50 and 74 percent.

Basemap Features
r .-.:.·.·:-:_: Santa Clara County
--- Highway s
Bay Area Waterbodies
--Open Spaces
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Results
-Tract
- 24% or Lower
25%-49%
50% - 74%
- 75% or Higher

13.3 Sources : California Office of
Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, 2021;
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD); County of Santa Clara, 2022 .

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page 13 ends

FIGURE 13.3-36: CALENVIROSCREEN 4.0 – SANTA CLARA (2021)

Health and Recreation
Residents should have the opportunity to live = in healthy communities. The Healthy Places Index (HPI) is a new tool that allows local officials to diagnose and change community conditions that affect health outcomes and the wellbeing of residents. The HPI tool was developed by the Public Health Alliance of Southern California to assist in comparing community conditions across the state, and combines 25 community characteristics such as housing, education, economic, and social factors into a single indexed HPI Percentile Score, where lower percentiles indicate less healthy conditions and higher scores indicate healthier conditions.

Regional Trends
The entire County has Healthy Places Index (HPI) scores between 50 to 75 and 75 to 100, indicating healthier conditions. The areas with the slightly lower scores of 50 to 75 are in Santa Clara, Milpitas, San Jose, Morgan Hill, and Gilroy.

Basemap Features
r _-.: . .-:.':.: City of Santa Clara Boundary
--- Highways
--- Roads
Bay Area Waterbod ies
..... Open Spaces
CalEnviroS<reen 4,0 Results
-Tract
- 24% or Lower
25%-49%
50%-74%
- 75% or Higher
0 ---"--------•V.il~~ 0 0.75 1.5 3
Sou rces : California Office of
Environmental Health Hazard Assessment , 2021;
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) ; County of Santa Clara, 2022.

Page 13 ends

FIGURE 13.3-37: REGIONAL HEALTHY PLACES INDEX (2021)

Local Trends
Northern and southern parts of Santa Clara have HPI scores between 75 to 100 while central Santa Clara has scores between 50 to 75, reflecting the CalEnviroScreen scores. Mountain View and Sunnyvale have scores between 75 to 100 while Milpitas has more areas with scores between 50 to 75.

Basemap Features
( : .-_·.·::: Santa Clara County
--- Highways
Bay Area Waterbodies
--Open Spaces
Healthy Places Index
(Total Percentile Ranking)
- O - 25 (Less Healthy Condit ions)
25 -SO
SO- 75
- 75- 100 (Healthier Condit ions)

13.3 Sources: U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development ,
2009-2013 {HUD); Healthy Places lndex.org;
County of Santa Clara , 2022 .

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page 13 ends

FIGURE 13.3-38: HEALTHY PLACES INDEX – SANTA CLARA (2021)

In summary Santa Clara has a mix of CTCAC opportunity area scores. The northern part of the city has moderate and high resources, the central part of the city has low resources, and the southern part of the city has a mix of low, moderate, high, and highest resources. The areas with low resources also overlap with higher CalEnviroScreen Scores (more pollution), lower Healthy Places Index Scores, lower educational outcome scores, higher rates of LMI households, and areas with larger non-White populations. Job proximity is high for most of the city.

Disproportionate Needs
Disproportionate housing needs generally refers to a condition in which there are significant disparities in the proportion of members of a protected class experiencing a category of housing need when compared to the proportion of members of any other relevant groups, or the total population experiencing that category of housing need in the applicable geographic area. The Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) developed by the Census for HUD provides detailed information on housing needs by income level for different types of households in Contra Costa County. Housing problems considered by CHAS include:
• Housing cost burden, including utilities, exceeding 30 percent of gross income; Basemap Features
r _-_-:,_-_-_':_: City of Santa Clara Boundary
--- Highways
--- Roads
Bay Area Waterbodies
--Open Spaces
Healthy Places Index
(Total Percentile Ranking)
- O 25 (Less Healthy Conditions)
25-50
- 50-75
- 75-100 (HealthierCo nditio nsJ

0.75 Sources: U.S. Depa rt men t of
Housing and Urban Development,
2009-2013 (HUD); HealthyPlaces lndex.org ;
County of Santa C lara, 2022 .

Page 13 ends

• Severe housing cost burden, including utilities, exceeding 50 percent of gross income; • Overcrowded conditions (housing units with more than one person per room); and • Units with physical defects (lacking complete kitchen or bathroom) According to the Santa Clara A FH, a total of 252,622 households (34.5 percent) in the C ounty experience any one of the above housing problems; and 144,306 households ( 19.7 percent) experience sev ere housing problems. Based on relative percentage, Hispanic and Black households experience the highest rate of housing problems regardless of severity. Table 13.3-15 17 lists the demographics of households with housing problems in the County.

Table 13.3-17: Demographics of Households with Housing Problems in Santa Clara County
Total Number of
Households
Households with Housing
Problems
Households with Severe
Housing Problems
White 88,554 329,170 26.9% 43,381 13%
Black 8,376 16,756 49.9% 4,813 28.7%
Asian/Pacific
Islander
77,787 213,541 36.4% 44,730 20.9%
Native
American
477 3,026 15.7% 286 9.4%
Other 6,137 48,509 12.65% 3,210 6.6%
Hispanic 71,291 213,541 36.4% 47,886 39.9%
Total 252,622 731,019 34.5% 144,306 19.7%
Source(s): Contra Costa County AI (2020)

Table 13.3-18: Household Type & Size in Santa Clara County Household Type No. of Households with Housing Problems
Family Households (< 5 people) 360,406
Family Households (> 5 people) 78,571
Non-family Households 171,734
Source(s): Contra Costa County AI (2020)

Cost Burden (Overpayment)
Housing cost burden, or overpayment, is defined as households paying 30 percent or more of their gross income on housing expenses, including rent or mortgage payments and utilities.

Renters are more likely to overpay for housing costs than homeowners. Housing cost burden is considered a housing need because households that overpay for housing costs may have difficulty affording other necessary expenses , such as childcare, transportation, and medical costs.

13.3 SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page 13 ends

Regional Trends
The map below identifies concentrations of cost -burdened renters in Mountain View, San Jose, and Morgan Hill. These cities have areas with renters experiencing overpayment above 80 percent. The rest of the County mostly has rates between 20 to 40 percent, 40 to 60 percent, and 60 to 80 percent. Areas along the eastern part of the County have lower overpayment rates below 20 percent.

FIGURE 13.3-39: REGIONAL OVERPAYMENT BY RENTERS (2021)

Local Trends
As presented in T able 13.3-1519, 50.7 percent of all households in Santa Clara experience cost burdens. This rate is much higher for renters than owners (63 and 34.4 percent, respectively). The rate of cost burden for all households in the County is slightly lower at 49.7 percent, but the trend still stands with 64.2 percent of renters experiencing cost burden versus 38.6 percent of owners.

Basemap Features
·-··- : SantaCl;iraCou nty
(. _____ Highways .

Bay /\ rea Water bod 1es
11111111111 Ope n Spaces
t by Renters Overpaymen
-Tract
<20%
- 20%-40%
- 40% - 60%
- 60% - 80%
- >80%
. C mmunity Surve~, Sources; Amencan :rtment of Hous,ng of 5-2019; U.S. Dep (HUD); County 201 Deve lopment and Urban 022 Santa Clara, 2 .

Page 13 ends

Table 13.3-19: Households that Experience Cost Burden by Tenure in Santa Clara County and Santa Clara
Santa Clara County
Total Number of
Households
Cost burden >
30%
Cost burden >
50%
Percentage of Households that
Experience Cost Burden
Owners Only 360,660 98,445 40,910 38.6%
Renters Only 274,865 118,960 57,610 64.2%
All
Households
635,525 217,405 98,520 49.7%
Santa Clara
Total Number of
Households
Cost burden >
30%
Cost burden >
50%
Percentage of Households that
Experience Cost Burden
Owners Only 18,930 4,615 1,900 34.4%
Renters Only 25,150 10,505 5,365 63%
All
Households
44,080 15,125 7,625 50.7%
Source(s): https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/cp.html

FIGURE 13.3-40: OVERPAYMENT BY RENTERS – SANTA CLARA (2021)

MOUNTAIN VI
t
Basemap Features
r.·~-:_·:.~: Otyo l s.t ntaOara llound ary
--- Htyhw.tY'
--- Hwd~
B.l)' A,c~ w~1te1bodie,$
--0pe,, sP-',es
l
:,·----.. -" ~·--·--·-··, ,--1 J...,.
i
..a i
r·
~
Overpayment by Renters
- Trac:t
<20%
1~ -
- --- -80"' - ::,. 8-(N&

13.3 SourceJ; American Commun ity Sul'Vey,
2'01S-2019: U.S. Oop~ftm~o t of Hou$if'lg
and Urba n Devel opm ent (HUD): County of

5.anta Clara. 2022.

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page 13 ends

Overcrowded Households
Overcrowding is defined as housing units with more than one person per room (including dining and living rooms but excluding bathrooms and kitchen).

Regional Trends
Figure 13.3-4137 indicates that most of the County has low rates of overcrowded households. San Jose has a concentration of overcrowded homes with percentages between 8.2 percent and as high as 70 percent. The rest of the County mostly has overcrowding rates below 12 percent.

FIGURE 13.3-41: REGIONAL OVERCROWDED HOUSEHOLDS BY TRACT (2015)

Local Trends
According to the 2019 five-year ACS estimates displayed in Table 13.3-1620, 5.2 percent of County households are overcrowded, and 2.9 percent of households are severely overcrowded. These rates are higher for the City of Santa Clara with 6.2 percent of households experiencing overcrowding and 3.4 percent experiencing severe overcrowding. Across both the County and City, overcrowding and severe overcrowding rates are higher for renters than owners.

Basemap Features
f :.-:·:.:.: Santa Clara Cou nty
--- Highways
Bay tuea Waterbod ies
--Open Spaces
Overcrowded Households
(CHHS) - Tract
'
I s B.2%
:; 12%
- • 15%
- ~ 20%
- s 70%
Sources: U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Deve lopment (HUD);
Comp rehensive Housing Affordabi lity Strategy
{CHAS) & U.S. Census Amer ican Community Survey
(ACS), 2011 -2015; County of Santa Clara, 2022 .

Page 13 ends

Table 13.3-20: Overcrowded Households – Santa Clara County and Santa Clara

Santa Clara County Santa Clara
Overcrowded
(>1.0 to 1.5
persons per room)
Severely
Overcrowded
(>1.5 persons
per room)
Overcrowded
(>1.0 to 1.5
persons per room)
Severely
Overcrowded
(>1.5 persons
per room)
Owner-Occupied 1.4% 0.4% 0.9% 0.3%
Renter-Occupied 3.7% 2.4% 5.2% 3.1%
All HH 5.2% 2.9% 6.2% 3.4%
Source(s): American Community Survey, 2015-2019. Table B25014

The map below shows areas where overcrowding rates are higher in Santa Clara. The northern part of the city has overcrowding rates of 12 and 15 percent, with a small concentration in the southern part of the city with the same rates. The rest of the city has overcrowding rates below

8.2 percent. The northern part of the city has overcrowding rates of 12 and 15 percent and Asian residents are disproportionately concentrated in 3 out of 4 census tracts in this area. Hispanic and Latino residents are disproportionally concentrated in the census tract adjacent to De La Cruz Blvd. and Highway 101 and haswith overcrowding rates at 15 percent. This census tract also overlaps with higher rates of HCV use (5 to 15 percent). The rest of the city has overcrowding rates below 8.2 percent. The area with overcrowding at 12 percent overlaps with higher rates of non-white residents (61 to 80 percent), higher rates of LMI populations (75 to 100 percent), and higher gross rents ($2,000). The small section with 15 percent overcrowded households overlaps with higher rates of HCV use (5 to 15 percent).

In South Santa Clara the census tract north of El Camino Real bordered by San Tom as and Scott Blvd has an overcrowding rate of 152% and also has a disproportionatedisproportionately high number of Hispanic/Latino residents (24.5%). The census tract South of El Camino Real bounded by Kiely and San Tomas Expressway has an overcrowding rate of 12% and has a disproportionately high number of Asian residents ( 54%). The City’s highest rates of overcrowding (15%) are impacting areas that are disproportionally populated by Hispanic/Latino residents.

The n earby city of Mountain View has overcrowding rates below 8.2 percent, while both Sunnyvale and Milpitas have overcrowding rates at 12 percent. Sunnyvale also has a few areas where the rate rises to 20 percent.

13.3 SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page 13 ends

FIGURE 13.3-42: CONCENTRATION OF OVERCROWDED HOUSEHOLDS – SANTA CLARA (2021)

Substandard Conditions
Incomplete plumbing or kitchen facilities can be used to measure substandard housing conditions.

Regional Trends
According to 2015 -2019 ACS estimates, 0.2 percent of households in Santa Clara County lack complete kitchen facilities and 0.2 percent of households lack complete plumbing facilities. Renter households are more likely to lack complete facilities compared to owner households.

Local Trends
In Santa Clara, 1.3 percent of households lack complete kitchen facilities and 0.2 percent lack complete plu mbing facilities. R enter households are more likely to lack complete facilities compared to owner households. The City does not have recent citywide data on substandard conditions, however older lower rent apartment complexes are generally found along the west side of Lafayette north of Hwy 101, within the central city’s industrial belt, and in the southeastern Old Quad area south of El Camino Real. These areas may experience a higher need for rehabilitation than other parts of the City that are predominant ly single-family or newer multi- Basemap Features
( : _-_· ." _-_: O!y of SM'113 C~r., 8oondJuy
---H aghwJ~
Roads
Bay Ar~a Waterbocl.iM
--OpenSl)i'ce5,
Overcrowded Households
(CH HS) - Traci
! '!o .8.2%
<12%
- •.IS"
- -=2~
- •'""'
Source-s: U.S. Dep~rt ment of
Housing and Urba11 Do ... elopmon t (HUD):

Compr•h1m1ivil Housing Affordnb1l1ty Strjl\vgy
(CHAS ) & U.S. Cfiiln!IUS Amar ian Community Survey
(ACS), 2-011-2015; County of Santa Clara, 2022 .

Page 13 ends

family homes. The City intends to gather more consistent data on substandard conditions through a new proactive multifamily code enforcement program. Although Santa Clara does have an aging housing stock with 21 percent of homes built between 1950 and 1959, 19 percent built between 1960 and 1969, and 17 percent built between 1970 to 1979 4, rehabilitation programs
have not been widely subscribed to. This may be due in part to the fact that housing stock is well maintained due to the high value of homes based on market conditions in the area. The City does recognize that housing stock continues to age therefore monitoring and enforcement will continue to be an ongoing operation as addressed by Action 4 of the Housing Plan which aims to maintain housing stock and specifically focus on rehabilitation for households with a gross income at or below 80 percent of the County median income.

Table 13.3-21: Substandard Housing Conditions – Santa Clara County and Santa Clara
Santa Clara County Santa Clara
Owner Renter All HHs Owner Renter All HHs
Lacking
complete
kitchen
facilities

0.2% 0.7% 0.9% 0.3% 1% 1.3%
Lacking
complete
plumbing
facilities

0.1% 0.1% 0.2% 0.2% .05% 0.2%
Source(s): American Community Survey, 2015-2019, Table B25053, B25049

In summary, by percentage Hispanic and Black households experience the highest rate of housing problems regardless of severity across Santa Clara County. Based on absolute numbers, Hispanic/Latino, Asian and Pacific Islander, and White households have the largest number of people with severe housing problems in the County. Overcrowding rates in the City of Santa Clara are higher than the County rates with 6.2 percent of households experiencing overcrowding and 3.4 percent experiencing severe overcrowding. The northern part of the city and a few ar eas in Southern Santa Clara have overcrowding rates of 12 and 15 percent. Overcrowding is occurring in areas that are disproportionately populated by Asian and Hispanic/Latino residents.

4 Towncharts.com

13.3 SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page 13 ends

Displacement Risk
Displacement occurs when housing costs or neighboring conditions force current residents out and rents become so high that lower-income people are excluded from moving in. UC Berkeley’s Urban Displacement Project states that a census tract is a sensitive community if the proportion of very low income residents was above 20 percent in 2017 and the census tracts meets two of the following criteria: (1) Share of renters above 40 percent in 2017; (2) Share of Non-White population above 50 percent in 2017; (3) Share of very low -income households (50 percent AMI or below) that are also severely rent burdened households above the county median in 2017; or (4) Nearby areas have been experiencing displacement pressures.

Regional Trends
Using this methodology, there are a number of areas in Santa Clara County identified as sensitive communities. Sensitives communities primarily lie along the Highway 101 corridor ranging from Sunnyvale to Gilroy and extend out to Cupertino in the west and east San Jose in the east. Housing prices in this area have continued to rise as the technology industries boom in S ilicon Valley, explaining the high percentage of areas in the County identified as sensitive communities.

FIGURE 13.3-43: REGIONAL SENSITIVE COMMUNITIES AT RISK OF DISPLACEMENT BY TRACT (2021)

Basemap Features
·--· - : Santa Clara Cou nty r_ __ __ _ Highways
-~ Bay fu ea Water bod ies
.__ Ope n Space s
\
f Displacement Vulnerability o ertyValues due to Rising Prop EZZZZZl Vulne rable
-. ,,·--· \,,.
;·
,I :

Wiles ,---.
10 ___ ~ 220
Berkeley- Urban Plan~;:artment
Sourcesc UCnt Project , 2018;1 U.S. ent (HUD ); Displac~me and Urban Deve opm of Housmg Clara, 2022. County of Santa

Page 13 ends

Local Trends
Most of Santa Clara was identified as a sensitive community, with only a few tracts in the south not identified as sensitive communities. Mountain View, Sunnyvale, and Milpitas also have areas identified as sensitive communities, albeit fewer than Santa Clara. Despite much of the City being identified as a sensitive community, the City has not yet seen much direct displacement of current residents as a result of redevelopment. Development in the City has primarily occurred with the rezoning of existing commercial and industrial properties into higher density multi -family housing. Despite the low current rate of displacement, the City has proactively developed actions to address the potential for future displacement. Both action 6 and action 13, outlined in Table

13.3-18 23 below actively work to mitigate residential displacement by exploring funding to support affordable housing acquisition and rehabilitation and program and policy development to prevent displacement.

FIGURE 13.3-44: SENSITIVE COMMUNITIES (UCB, URBAN DISPLACEMENT PROJECT) – SANTA CLARA (2021)

In summary while direct displacement due to redevelopment has not occurred often in recent years, it is likely that indirect displacement due to risinghigh rents and home prices across the Bay Area is contributing to overcrowding and is forcing people to move away from Santa Clara.

Sensitive Communities
(UCB, Urban Displacement Project)
Basemap Features
f _-_-_·_- _:_: City of Santa Clara Boundary
--- Highway s
--- Roads
Bny Are.a Waterbodies
11111111 Open Spaces
Vulnerability of Displacement
due to Rising Property Values
F.ZZZZZ1 Vulnerable

13.3 0 -----------Wies 0 0.75 1.5 3
Sources: UC Berk eley- Urban Planning
Displacement Project , 2018; U.S. Department
of Housing and Urban Development (HUD);
County of Santa Clara, 2022.

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page 13 ends

It is possible that development pressure has been focused on the City’s specific plan areas and that once these areas are built out, developers may look to redevelop older lower density buildings that are naturally occurring affordable housing. This indicates a need to build more affordable housing, and policies that prevent a net loss of affordability if older market rate buildings are redeveloped, and to potentially require relocation assistance for displaced residents.

AFFH Analysis of the Sites Inventory
An important part of the AFFH analysis is looking at where the site inventory is directing housing growth and how that will replace segregated living patterns with integrated and balanced living patterns and convert any racially or ethnically concentrated areas that may exist into areas of opportunity for households at all income levels. The site inventory in chapter 13.3 places 82% of the City’s housing growth over the next 8 years into in HCD/TCAC Opportunity Map High or Highest Resource areas. The site inventory includes a buffer of additional units above the required RHNA allocation so the following figures exceed 100%. • 101 percent of the City’s Very Low Income RHNA units are located in High o r Highest Resource areas.
o VLI RHNA = 2,872 units.
o VLI Units in Sites Inventory: 251 in Highest Resource Areas (9% of VLI RHNA ) and 2,640 in High Resource Areas (92% of VLI RHNA).
• 147 percent of the City’s Low Income RHNA units located in High or Highest Resource areas.
o LI RHNA = 1,653 units.
o LI Units in Sites Inventory: 361 in Highest Resource Areas (22% of LI RHNA) and 2,075 in High Resource Areas (126% of LI RHNA).
• 124 percent of the City’s Moderate RHNA units located in High or Highest Resource areas. o Moderate RHNA = 1,981 units.
o Moderate Units in Sites Inventory: 108 in Highest Resource Areas (5% of Moderate RHNA) and 2,349 in High Resource Areas (119% of Moderate RHNA). • 165 percent of the City’s A bove Moderate RHNA units located in High or Highest Resource areas.
o Above Moderate RHNA = 5,126 units.
o Above Moderate Units in Sites Inventory: 161 in Highest Resource Areas (3% of Above Moderate RHNA ) and 8,294 in High Resource Areas ( 162% of Above Moderate RHNA).

The following table provides additional details on which types of units are located in different HCD/TCAC opportunity Map Areas:

Page 13 ends

Table 13.3-22: Site Inventory by HCD/TCAC Opportunity Area

13.3 SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page 13 ends

Table 13.3-22: Sites Inventory Units by HCD/TCAC Opportunity Map Area HCD/TCAC Opportunity Map Areas
Affordability Category Highest Resource High Resource Moderate Resource Low Resource Site/Credit Type VLI LI Mod.

Above
Mod.

Total
Capacity VLI LI Mod.

Above
Mod. VLI LI Mod.

Above
Mod.

RHNA

2,872

1,653

1,981

5,126

11,632
Pending and Approved Projects

668

746

512

10,218

12,144 148 271 20 145 361 367 345

7,983 53 29 67 682 106 79 80

1,408
Tasman East Focus Area SP 111 234 179 3,842 4,366 111 234 179 3,842 Patrick Henry Drive SP 76 75 75 1,294 1,520 76 75 75 1,294 Lawrence Station Area Plan - 5 57 635 697 5 57 635 Freedom Circle Focus Area 54 54 54 913 1,075 54 54 54 913 Other 427 378 147 3,534 4,486 148 271 20 145 120 4 37 1,934 53 24 10 47 106 79 80 1,408 ADU Projection

118

39 393

47 47

47 16

47 47

47 16

18 18

18 6

6 6

6 2
Available Specific Plan Sites

2,105

1,561

1,883

314

5,863

1,961

1,455

1,757

295

144

106

126

19 Tasman East Focus Area SP 214 156 458 295 1,123 214 156 458 295 Patrick Henry Drive SP 1,747 1,299 1,299 - 4,345 1,747 1,299 1,299 Lawrence Station Area Plan 144 106 126 19 395 144 106 126 19 El Camino Real Rezoning Sites

497

378

366

1,242

56 43

41 -

271

206

200

170

129

125

Total

3,388

2,803

2,879

10,571

19,642

251

361

108

161

2,640

2,075

2,349

8,294

385

282

336

707

112

85 86

1,410
Surplus Units

516

1,150

898

5,445

8,010
Surplus Percentage Above RHNA 18% 70% 45% 106% 69%

4% Highest Resource 78% High Resource 9% Moderate Resource 9% Low Resource

Page 13 ends

Northern and Central Santa Clara
As shown in Figure 13.3 -45, this area has large amount s of industrial, office and commercially designated land in the western portion of this area with existing neighborhoods to the east. The site inventory includes multifamily opportunities mostly in the Lawrence Station Area, Patrick Henry Drive Specific Pla n Area, and the Tasman East Specific Plan Area where industrial and commercial land is being converted into mixed use residential areas near transit. The City assumes that accessory dwelling units (ADUs) will continue current trends and develop in single family areas throughout Northern Santa Clara. ADUs are an effective way to add lower income housing opportunities in existing single-family neighborhoods. ADUs will also help respond to higher rate s of overcrowding in North ern Santa Clara. Figure 13 .3-46 shows that the site inventory is mostly distributed in TCAC High Opportunity Areas.

FIGURE 13.3-45: NORTHERN AND /CENTRAL SANTA CLARA SITES

INVENTORY AND LAND USE

j
\
'
•••

13.3 City of Santa Clara
Sites Inventory by land Use
Legend
&.semap features
[~~7 SDllli CIDl'll c Lil'II t::

M~Jor Otttina on$
Pa,rk.5 and Op Spac,e
Rivt,rs aM wnerllod,e:

Surro11 nd,n&: 0 ~s
Unincorparart:edl Sama Cara Co n1~
Siles Inventory ,fW13t
- ii1tt 11'1\'entorv
ADU Perml~ ts.ul!d (10JB,1012 J
• A~ces~ory Dwel m1: Unit
G•n•rol Plan fond' U~ IJesignarians
, Urban Center / Ent<em mment rfistrict
~liltlbQrtiQOd M eo Us•
• Comm~MV Ml.eel Us,:

5. tj;I OflDl Ml '4 UR
• Very Hi h Den:it Mi ed uie
Very ow ~Mi!V Reiidennal
ih DenJ, ~I
eh Den~ I I / Very lt ·1'1
nsl R!sl
r/ Hli!h De ,tlenTl~I
W I~ Re-t llltf'll'lll
~:a~on Area Plan
Trans • bOrhQOd,

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page 13 ends

FIGURE 13.3-46: NORTHERN AND /CENTRAL SSANTA CCLARA SITES

INVENTORY AND TCAC OPPORTUNITY AREAS

.. -
...

Ci 1y of San a Clara
Si1tes Inventory byTCAC
Legend
&ls.mop ~Ufl!S
s lrwe _ ry (2/Ji:JJ
- Sl-:e~ nv@nw
!J ~ .I' !ss.ll'ed {21J:1B-2022J
• ZOH
0 20 9
0 2
JO:?
•
20 -
-~m (20Z.J
I

Page 13 ends

Southern Santa Clara
The site inventory includes multifamily opportunities near transit, including along the El Camino Real corridor, and near the Santa Clara Station Area, and Downtown Santa Clara Precise Plan Area. The City assumes that accessory dwelling units (ADUs) will continue current trends and develop in single family areas throughout Southern Santa Clara. ADUs are an effective way to add lower income housing opportunities in existing single -family neighborhoods which are among the highest opportunity areas in the City. Figure 13.3-48 shows that the sites inventory is distributed across highest, high, and moderate resource TCAC High Opportunity Areas.

FIGURE 13.3-47: SOUTHERN SANTA CLARA SITE INVENTORY AND LAND USE

I
I
' I
' . ,---
.,J
• II
---- -, . ,----J
I
..
•
• •: .. •
•
•
• • • ..... .

II •i •• • eft . ....
... #
• •• •• ,,,..-.. . .. • • • • • • ¥ •
• , ...
-1. ' I
• • • • • • • • ' - -.J • • ••• • r l .... ' • • • '- _J:

I___,_, I •I.• • ... :,. • l--1
--•- -•- -•- - · · - • • - ---- •• I
.. . . • •
' )
flt/
• •

13.3 City of Santa Clara
Sites Invento ry by land Use
lege nd
Ba>,mop f coiwes
[:.:...: ~ntaCleraC Li!II :

Major Oe-snnano!l.5
Parks and Op•n Spa~
RiVtn ~nd wneroO<lics
$urrwnd,ni C, es
Unintorporate<I Santa Clara Co n
Sites lnvtll'lory (20231
- $i!es 1nvtn ory
AOU P'ermirs fs:sum (:lDl B-2D22)
• Acces>ory Dw•I lni Urut
G,n,ruJ Plan food Us, Designations
orhood M oted U$<
• Co'llfflun~v Mixed u~
' ~I0<\11 Mli-:4 I.I~
Very HI h DCMitV Ml,cd u:,
Very Low D<n1itv Rte:idcn al
Low Density Res,de ti al
Med,u 0e"'lt)' lt.,lde al
IKh OeniflY R~$.ide tl~I
ieh DenJ.ftV Re1,aent1ar / V<"'I Hie~
O.,ns ReskJen
wrr H1an o,n~lY Rezi0, ~t1e1
l~h Otnl4ty It.>
v, 1 -, ~..idennal
l l Sia n Area Plan
Trans Nelji,bo rhoocl

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page 13 ends

FIGURE 13.3-48: SOUTHERN SANTA CLARA SITES INVENTORY AND TCAC

OPPORTUNITY AREAS

Cii y of San a Clara
s·:tes Inventory by TCAC
Lege d
hu op ,1ar,u~s
r--- 7 Sc ta I_ _ . ra Ci
. ADll Per, its. tss.ued {2018-202.2/
• io a

Page 13 ends

CONTRIBUTING FACTORS
Based on stakeholder outreach and the above analysis, the City has identified the following contributing factors to housing issues in Santa Clara. Table 13.3-23, prioritizes these contributing factors according to what would most limit or deny fair housing choice or access to opportunity. Meaningful actions listed in Chapter 13.2 that affirmatively further fair housing, promote housing opportunities throughout the community for protected classes, and address contributing factors are also included in the table.

Table 13.3-23: AFFH Meaningful Actions Matrix
Issues Contributing Factors Actions / Objectives
(Specific Commitments)
Timeline /
Metrics
Geographic
Targeting
Priority (Low,
Medium, High)
Segregation/Integration Patterns and Disparities in Access to Opportunity Action 1: Provision of a Variety of Housing Types
It can still be difficult to find sites for single room occupancy, emergency shelter, low barrier
navigation centers, permanent supportive
housing, and residential care facilities.

Zoning requirements that make developing a
diversity of housing types difficult. Type and size
of affordable housing units
Action 1: Provision of Variety of Housing Types
Adopt the comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Update
with revised provisions to allow a variety of housing
types by right.

Annually explore regional and state funding sources to
build more housing opportunities for persons with
disabilities and extremely low-income households.

And through the provisions of a notice of funding
availability (NOFA), prioritize loans for the development of extre mely low and very low -income housing
alternatives.

May
November
2023 and 2026
Citywide with
additional funding
prioritized in high
and highest
opportunity areas
within a half mile
of high frequency
bus and rail
corridors.

HIGH
It is difficult to find low- and moderate -income
rental housing in the City’s highest opportunity
areas.

South Santa Clara includes established single -
family neighborhoods where home prices are out
of reach for low- and moderate-income residents.

Action 7:

Monitor ADU activity and report on the production of
ADUs through the City’s Annual Progress Report (APR).

If the pace of ADU production falls below the level
necessary to achieve 392 ADUs during the 2023-2031
planning period, present a plan to City Council to remove barriers and/or further incentivize ADU production (e.g., through additional Zoning changes).

Continue participating in the development and
implementation of the Santa Clara County Planning
Collaborative ADU Program, which will include a central online r esource for making it easier to build ADUs,
including an ADU Guidebook, gallery of ADU plans,

Annually and
by end of 2025
South Santa Clara
and Citywide
HIGH

13.3 SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page 13 ends

Issues Contributing Factors Actions / Objectives
(Specific Commitments)
Timeline /
Metrics
Geographic
Targeting
Priority (Low,
Medium, High)
examples/stories of real ADUs that have been built, and an ADU cost calculator.

Action 5:

Monitor preservation and conservation opportunities in
and adjacent to South Santa Clara’s high and highest
TCAC opportunity areas.

Action 7: Code Enforcement Program
When housing is in short supply, tenants often do
not report code violations for fear of retaliation and
no cause eviction.

Private discrimination
Code enforcement violations can arise when
housing stock is not appropriately conserved and
rehabilitated in a timely manner.

Action 7: Code Enforcement Program
Establish multi-family residential housing inspection and educational programs that are self -funded and
proactively respond to housing code violations. The City will also provide special attention to maintaining the
stability of residential neighborhoods through
development 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.

By second half
of 2024
Citywide MEDIUM

Homeownership is cost prohibitive in much of the
Bay Area including Santa Clara. Low and
moderate income households ae often shut out of
the home ownership market.

Explore and present changes to the BMP program to keep
homes affor dable for longer than 5 y ears by requiring resale to inc ome el igible homeowners. Promote
homeownership for first time buyers through units that
are income restricted, encourage program participation
for households at all levels of income, and continue to promote homebuyers assistance programs through local
and regional organizations.

By the end of
2024
Citywide

Page 13 ends

Issues Contributing Factors Actions / Objectives
(Specific Commitments)
Timeline /
Metrics
Geographic
Targeting
Priority (Low,
Medium, High)
Not all tenants and lan dlords are aware of their
rights and responsibilities under state and local
law which can result in the displacement of low-
income tenants.

Fair housing issues exist everywhere but
disproportionately impact low income households
who may not have the resources to dispute unfair
housing conditions or housing discrimination.

Action 16: Fair Housing Program
Continue to provide fair housing services to residents
including referrals, mediation, investigation of claims of discrimination, outreach and translated education
materials, open house events to distribute information, and potentially setting a rent deposit limiitt.

Work with Project Se ntinel to host two open house
events per year and to distribute translated collateral in lower income census tracts explaining key landlord and
tenant rights under current law

By the end of
2024Ongoing
and annually.

Citywide with
proactive focus in
census tracts with
concentrations of
persons with
disabilities,
disproportionate
housing needs, and
overcrowding.

HIGH
Transit station access is less robust in North and
Central Santa Clara.

Industrial and commercial land uses in Central and
North Santa Clara

Action 16: Fair Housing Program
-Market the Silicon Valley Hopper ride share service
Citywide in Central and North Santa Clara once it
becomes available in 2027 or later. This service will help connect lower income residents to major employment
centers, VTA Light Rail, Caltrain and the future BART
station.

2027
Citywide and
Central and North
Santa Clara
LOW
Place based investment is needed in lower income
neighborhoods to increase access to opportunity.

Low income neighborhoods may require
additional infrastructure to improve quality of life,
access to transit, employment, health food, parks,
and other resources.

Action 16: Fair Housing Program
By June 2027, complete bike and pedestrian
improvements at various locations along Cabrillo Ave,
Lafayette St, Monroe St, Royal Dr, Scott Blvd, and
Warburton Ave in Central Santa Clara to improve safety
and mobility. Th is area overlaps with an MTC Equity
Priority Community and is considered a Low
Opportunity Area by TCAC.

By fall 2028, develop a CDBG Notice of Funding
Availability that dollars to awards additional points to fund capital projects to that improve= quality of life and access to opportunities in HUD designated low -income
and distressed areas of the City.

June 2027 for
bike
pedestrian
improvements.

Fall 2028 for
2029 NOFA
MTC Equity
Priority
Communities, and
HUD designated
low-income and
distressed areas of
the City.

MEDIUM
Disproportionate Housing Needs

13.3 SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page 13 ends

Issues Contributing Factors Actions / Objectives
(Specific Commitments)
Timeline /
Metrics
Geographic
Targeting
Priority (Low,
Medium, High)
Residents in Central Santa Clara and areas adjacent
to central Santa Clara have lower income, lower
access to opportunity, less access to parks, higher
pollution, lower educational outcomes. Central
Santa Clara has a mix of residents, but
Hispanic/Latino residents are disproportionately
concentrated in this area.

Older residential development is surrounded by
industrial uses
Lack of place -based outreach about affordable
housing opportunities elsewhere in the City
Possible need for better language access
Actions 2 and 16;
Increase mobility by conducting proactive in person
outreach in relevant languages once per year about the
City’s affordable housing opportunities and resources
such as landlord and tenant rights under state law and mediation services.

Annually Central Santa Clara
and adjacent areas
HIGH
There are not enough l icensed residential care
facilities and shared housing sites to meet future
demand for residents with developmental
disabilities and seniors.

Family members cannot care for adult children
with developmental disabilities once caregivers are
elderly.

Funding is needed to acquire and maintain single
family homes as licensed care facilities.

Multifamily development is not always designed
to accommodate the needs of developmentally
disabled tenants.

Action 1: Provision of Variety of Housing Types
Increase the stock of extremely low and very low-income rental housing designed for persons with developmental
disabilities by 35% from 56 in 2023 to 76 in 2030.

Action 18: Shared Housing
Evaluate the need for shared housing as part of the HUD Consolidated Plan Process.

Continue to support the creation of new shared housing
for lower income residents with developmental
disabilities by including those project types in future Notices of Funding Availability.
2025
Ongoing

Prior to 2026
Citywide MEDIUM
Disproportionate Housing Needs
Displacement Risk
Some landlords set very high deposits making it
difficult for lower income tenants to secure
housing or to relocate.

Landlords seek to manage financial risk.

Low income tenants are rent burdened in this high
cost market making it hard to save and give up a
large amount of money for a deposit.

Deposits are sometimes not returned to tenants
even if the unit is left in good condition.

Action 13: Residential Displacement
By the end of 2025 analyze the feasibility of setting a rent deposit limit and present findings from that analysis to the Housing Commission and City Council.

December 2025 Citywide MEDIUM

Page 13 ends

Issues Contributing Factors Actions / Objectives
(Specific Commitments)
Timeline /
Metrics
Geographic
Targeting
Priority (Low,
Medium, High)
Action 6: Acquisition of Multi-Family Housing
Naturally occurring affordable housing stock is at
risk of acquisition by for profit investor s. Such
acquisitions often result in direct displacement
once rents are increased.

As Santa Clara builds out and land values increase,
there will be increasing pressure to reposition or
redevelop older residential buildings.

Rehabilitation can sometimes be more profitable
than new construction.

Nonprofit developers don’t always have a fair
chance to make offers to purchase such properties.

Action 6: Acquisition of Multi-Family Housing
Create a database of naturally occu rring affordable
housing and annually monitor property sales and /or
permit applications to identify conversion trends early.

Present the findings on resources required to implement a Community Opportunity Purchase Act (COPA).

Continue to explore funding sources to support
affordable housing developers with acquisition/
rehabilitation properties and work with nonprofits to
acquire and rehabilitate multi -family structures to be converted into affordable rental housing. - Explore
funding sources available at the regional, state, and
federal levels to support affordable housing developers with acquisition/rehabilitation opportunities.

Work with nonprofit entities to acquire properties and
rehabilitate existing multi -family structur es to be
maintained as or converted into affordable rental
housing. Prioritize assistance for housing that is within one half mile of rail transit stations or that is in a high or highest opportunity area according to TCAC.

Early 2027 and
annually
South S anta Clara
and Citywide
MEDIUM
Action 13: Residential Displacement
Direct and indirect displacement can increase
overcrowding, displacement, longer commutes
and homelessness.

Lower income households can experience
displacement when new developments are built
that are not affordable to existing residents and
when regional housing prices rise faster th an
incomes..

High security deposits can create barriers for lower
income tenants moving between apartments.

Landlords and Tenants may not be aware of their
rights under state law.

Action 13: Residential Displacement
Evaluate and provide recommendations to the City
council on new programs and policies that prevent
displacement and as necessary adopt programs and
policies to address displacement with bi -annual
monitoringsuch as no net loss, one year notification, and relocation benefits.

Continue funding for dispute resolution services, the
regional Homelessness Prevention System, and
marketing below market rate rental and ownership
opportunities.
2025-2027 Citywide HIGH

13.3 SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page 13 ends

Issues Contributing Factors Actions / Objectives
(Specific Commitments)
Timeline /
Metrics
Geographic
Targeting
Priority (Low,
Medium, High)
Cost Burden
Affordable housing is not affordable enough. The
City needs more extremely low and ver y low -
income units to house low wage workers, seniors,
persons with disabilities and a variety of unit sizes
to accommodate singles, couples, single parent
households, and large families.

Market rate housing is out of reach for lower
income residents.

Seniors and households on fixed incomes cannot
afford rent increases that are based on escalating
HCD Income Limits.

The City has limited funds for deep subsidies.

Apartments for large families are less common
then studios, one bedroom and two-bedroom
apartments..

Action 1: Provision of Variety of Housing Types
-Increase the stock of income restricted three and four bedroom affordable rental housing units to serve large
households in Santa Clara by 20% from 107 units in 2023 to 129 units in 2030.

Increase the stock of extremely low and very low income rental housing designed for persons with developmental
disabilities by 35% from 56 in 2023 to 76 in 2030.

Action 2: Affordable Housing Ordinance
Reassess the potential of updating the Citywide
affordable ordinance to support deeper affordability
requirements (5% very low income, 5% low income, and
5% moderate income) for rental and ownership projects.

The City will also look into updating the definition of "moderate income" units from 120% AMI to 100% AMI or
a percentage of market rents.

Lastly, d Action 15: Homeownership for First- Time
Homebuyers
Determine the feasibility of keeping new Below Market
Purchase homes deed restricted for 20 -30 years vs. 5
years.

Action 14: Housing Choice Voucher Program Advocate
for additional project and person -based vouchers f or
seniors and other special needs groups through
partnerships with affordable housing developers and
local and County housing authorities. Promote incentives that encourage landlords to accept Housing Choice
Vouchers (HCV) and continue to refer households in
need to the Housing Authority’s Housing Choice
Voucher Application Portal.

By the end of
2024 and
annually
Citywide Citywide
with a proactive
focus on landlords
with multifamily
sites located in
high and highest
opportunity census
tracts.

HIGH

Page 13 ends

Issues Contributing Factors Actions / Objectives
(Specific Commitments)
Timeline /
Metrics
Geographic
Targeting
Priority (Low,
Medium, High)
It is costly to build and operate affordable housing
in Santa Clara County which limits the supply.

Affordable housing requires many sources of
subsidies and coordination and partnership with
local governments.

High land costs make development more
challenging.

Action 3: Affordable Housing Incentives and Facilitation Create an SB 35 Streamlining checklist, procedures
Proactively encourage and facilitate development efforts and identify funding sources for developers and
organizations in constructing affordable housing for
lower income households particularly special needs
groups.

Conduct public outreach and issue a re quest for
proposals to develop mixed income or 100% affordable
housing on the vacant former site of the King’s Highway Motel on El Camino Real.

June 2022
By March
20243, by end
of 2024, and
Annually

December
2024
Citywide and
proactive outreach
in the
neighborhood
surrounding the
King’s Highway
Motel on El
Camino Real.

HIGH
It is costly to build and operate affordable housing
in Santa Clara County which limits the supply.

Much more funding is needed to realize the City’s
RHNA goals for lower income units.

Action 12: Affordable Housing Funding
Explore additional funding sources for the development
of affordable housing and annually evaluate Notices of
Funding Availability (NOFA)
from state, federal, and
regional programs.

End of 2025,
and Annually
Citywide MEDIUM

Affordable housing is not affordable enough. The
City needs more extremely low and very low -
income units to house low wage workers, seniors,
and persons with disabilities.

Seniors and households on fixed incomes cannot
afford rent increases that are based on escalating
HCD Income Limits.

Action 1: Provision of Variety of Housing Types
Increase the stock of extremely low and very low income rental housing for elderly persons by 20% from 736 in
2023 to 884 in 2030.

Action 14: Housing Choice Voucher Program Advocate
for additional project and person -based vouch ers for
seniors and other special needs groups through
partnerships with affordable housing developers and
local and County housing authorities. Promote incentives that encourage landlords to accept Housing Choice
Vouchers (HCV) and continue to refer households in
need to the Housing Authority’s Housing Choice
Voucher Application Portal.

Annually Citywide with a
proactive focus on
landlords with
multifamily sites
located in high and
highest
opportunity census
tracts.

HIGH

13.3 --

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page 13 ends

Issues Contributing Factors Actions / Objectives
(Specific Commitments)
Timeline /
Metrics
Geographic
Targeting
Priority (Low,
Medium, High)
Action 4: Maintenance of Housing Stock
By fall 2025, market future CDBG capital NOFAs to
residential care facilities for repair and renovation work to begin in summer 2026. The NOFA shall include extra
points for projects that serve persons with disabilities and/or extremely low-income households.

It is d ifficult for low- and moderate -income
households to buy a home or condo in Santa Clara

Homeownership is cost prohibitive in much of the
Bay Area including Santa Clara. Low - and
moderate-income households are often shut out of
the home ownership market.

Below Market Purchase homes can be reso ld to
market rate buyers after 5 years.

Action 15: Homeownership for First-Time Buyers
Explore and present changes to the BMP program to keep
homes affor dable for longer than 5 years by requiring
resale to inc ome el igible homeowners. Promote
homeownership for first time buyers through units that
are income restricted, encourage program participation
for households at all levels of income, and continue to promote homebuyers assistance programs through local
and regional organizations.

By the end of
2024
Citywide MEDIUM
Substandard Conditions
As hous ing stock ages, it requires maintenance,
repairs, and upgrades to remain safe, healthy, cost
efficient to operate, and to conserve water and
energy.Action 4: Maintenance of Housing Stock
Lower income households and affordable housing
operators may not have the necessary funds to
rehabilitate or upgrade their homes housing thus
missing out on an opportunity to increase their
home valto meet current needsues.

Action 4: Maintenance of Housing Stock
Conduct outreach to single-family home residential care facilities to determine interest in and feasibility of
including these properties in future CDBG/HOME
Notices of Funding Availability to address rehabilitation and emergency repairs.

Assist approximately 200 low, very low, and extremely
low-income homeowners with rehabilitation and
emergency repair assistance through loans and grants.

Promote NOFA process for installation of HVAC
improvements for sensitive populations especially
seniors.

20243
Citywide MEDIUM

Page 13 ends

Issues Contributing Factors Actions / Objectives
(Specific Commitments)
Timeline /
Metrics
Geographic
Targeting
Priority (Low,
Medium, High)
Income restricted housing can be at -risk of
converting to market rate when subsidies or
affordability requirements expire leaving less
affordable housing options available.

Rising inflation, labor and material costs are
making income restricted housing more costly to
maintain and operate.

Action 5: Preservation of Assi sted and N.O.A.H. Rental Housing
Extend the affordability of at risk low income housing
units when funding is available by assisting prop erty
owners of income restricted units with capital
improvements to the property, monitoring the risk of
naturally occurring affordable housing, establishing and maintaining contact with public and nonprofit agencies
who may acquire at-risk units, and working with owners
of at -risk housing to restructure loans to extend
affordability restrictions.

Annually Citywide MEDIUM
When housing is in short suppl y, tenants are less
likely to report code violations for fear of
retaliation and eviction.

Some property owners choose to defer
maintenance costs to increase financial gain.

Code enforcement violations can arise when
housing stock is not appropriately conserved and
rehabilitated in a timely manner.

By second half
of 2024
Citywide with a
proactive focus in
census tracts with
concentrations of
persons with
disabilities,
disproportionate
housing needs, and
overcrowding.

MEDIUM
Action 7: Code Enforcement Program Code enforcement violations can arise when housing stock is not appropriately conserved and
rehabilitated in a timely manner.

Establish a pilot multi -family residential housing
inspection and educational program self-funded through
fees. Provide special attention to maintaining the stability of residential neighborhoods through development 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. And the City will proactively respond to housing code violations.

By second half
of 2024
Citywide with a
proactive focus in
census tracts with
concentrations of
persons with
disabilities,
disproportionate
housing needs, and
overcrowding.

13.3 SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page 13 ends

Issues Contributing Factors Actions / Objectives
(Specific Commitments)
Timeline /
Metrics
Geographic
Targeting
Priority (Low,
Medium, High)
Targeted Fair Housing Outreach
Action 8: Neighborhood Relations Programs A
forum is needed to gather community input on
challenges and solutions relating to fair housing,
CDBD/HOME investments, homelessness, and
neighborhood issues.

Homelessness is caused by a complex set of factors
and affects a wide variety of community members
and requires coordination among a wide range of
service providers.

University students can have specific housing
needs or living arrangements which are not always
in line with existing neighborhood development.

Action 8: Neighborhood Relations Programs
Utilize the newly formedForm a Housing Commission to
advise on CDBG and HOME grant administration for
capital projects and community services, and on the
City’s homelessness response efforts.

Improve the maintenance of student -occupied homes to
minimize impacts on neighborhoods surrounding Santa
Clara University. As well as hold meetings with student tenants, landlords the University, and the City to address neighborhood issues and concerns. And ensure that
student housing development is compatible with existing neighborhoods.

Early 2023
Citywide and in
neighborhoods
surrounding Santa
Clara University.

MEDIUM
Homelessness in Santa Clara has increased in
recent years creating hardship for unhoused
residents and quality of life impacts for the broader
community. Action 17: Homeless Services
HomelessInsufficient affordable rental housing
Insufficient interim and supportive housing
Insufficient access to health care, behavioral health
care, substance abuse programs, and other safety
net social services. residents have specific housing
needs which require a multi-faceted programmatic
response.

Action 1: Provision of a Variety of Housing Types
Increase access to interim housing units, rapid rehousing, and emergency shelter beds by 30% from 453 in 2023 to
589 in 2030.

Action 17: Homeless Services
Adopt and begin implementation of the City's
Homelessness Response Plan. Continue to provide street
outreach especially to at-risk youth, seniors, and persons with disabilities
to connect residents with VISPDAT
assessment, eme rgency shelter, case management, and
basic needs services.

Early Late 2023 Citywide with
proactive outreach
where
encampments and
RV parking is
locatedat tent and
RV/vehicle
encampments.

HighIGH

Page 13 ends

Issues Contributing Factors Actions / Objectives
(Specific Commitments)
Timeline /
Metrics
Geographic
Targeting
Priority (Low,
Medium, High)
Landlords and tenants are not always aware of
recent state law changes related to source of
income discrimination, no cause eviction, noticing
and more.

Landlord tenant laws have changed in recent
years.

Landlords and tenants are not always educated
about changes or know when they apply.

Action 16: Fair Housing Program
Bring forward a proposal for City Council consideration to write an ordinance that requires landlords to provide a City approved multilingual brochure to all tenants with every lease signing that summarizes landlord and tenant rights under state law. If the ordinance is approved,
conduct a series of educational workshops with local
landlords and tenants.

December 2025 Citywide MEDIUM

It is difficult for special needs residents to find and apply for affordable housing.

A regional “universal housing application” system
is still under development.

Housing applications are increasingly online, but a
digital divide persists.

Language access barriers,

Nonprofit staff and social workers may require
additional training to help clients navigate the
complex web of housing providers.

Action 2 and 16:

Plan in-person events to educate and assist seniors and special needs groups (including persons with limited
English proficiency) on using the City’s housing
application system and /or BAHFA’s regional housing
portal once it is available in Santa Clara County
Work with Project Sentinel to improve the City’s
webpage to include more landlord/tenant rights ,
reasonable accommodation rights, resources and contact
information in a format that is easily translatable using a web browser. c fair housing services and nonprofit
partners (e.g., Project Sentinel).

Explore the creation of an ordinance that requires
landlords to provide a City approved multilingual
brochure to all tenants with every lease signing that
summarizes landlord and tenant rights under state law.

Plan outreach to help Eevaluate the need fo r shared
housing services, explore ways to increase access to
senior housing, exwou improve staff capacity to ld help seniors and special needs groups navigate the housing
market and find subsidized housing, evaluate the need
for shared housing services, and continue to support the creation of new shared housing for lower income persons with developmental disabilities.

Two times per
year
Citywide MEDIUM

13.3 -----

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page 13 ends

This page was left intentionally blank.

Page 13 ends

Introduction and Overview of AB 686 .................................................................................................... 1 Local Knowledge: ....................................................................................................................................... 2 Assessment of Fair Housing ..................................................................................................................... 3 Fair Housing and Housing Resources .................................................................................................... 4 Assessment of Fair Housing Issues ......................................................................................................... 8 AFFH Analysis of the Sites Inventory ................................................................................................... 76 Contributing Factors ................................................................................................................................ 83

List of Tables
Table 13.3-1: Fair Housing Providers in Santa Clara County and Santa Clara ................................. 5 Table 13.3-2: Number of DFEH Housing Complaints in Santa Clara County (2020) ....................... 7 Table 13.3-3: Number of FHEO Filed Cases by Protected Class in Santa Clara County (2015–2020) ...................................................................................................................................................................... 7 Table 13.3-4: Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Trends (1990–2020) ........................................................... 10 Table 13.3-5: Racial Composition Santa Clara County and Santa Clara (2019) ............................... 12 Table 13.3-6: Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Trends within Santa Clara ............................................... 13 Table 13.3-7: Racial Isolation Index Values for Segregation within Santa Clara............................. 16 Table 13.3-8: Divergence Index Scores within Santa Clara County .................................................. 17 Table 13.3-9: Populations of Persons with Disabilities– Santa Clara County & Santa Clara ........ 21 Table 13.3-10: Population with Developmental Disabilities by Age ................................................ 24 Table 13.3-11: Adults with Developmental Disabilities by Residence ............................................. 25 Table 13.3-12: Households with Children in Santa Clara County and Incorporated Cities .......... 26 Table 13.3-13: Santa Clara County & Santa Clara Households by Income Category and Tenure 31 Table 13.3-14: White Population and Median Household Income of RCAAs in Santa Clara County .................................................................................................................................................................... 41 Table 13.3-15: Domains and List of Indicators for Opportunity Maps ............................................. 44 Table 13.3-16: Opportunity Indices by Race/ Ethnicity – Santa Clara County ................................ 49 Table 13.3-17: Demographics of Households with Housing Problems in Santa Clara County .... 67 Table 13.3-18: Household Type & Size in Santa Clara County .......................................................... 67 Table 13.3-19: Households that Experience Cost Burden by Tenure in Santa Clara County and Santa Clara ................................................................................................................................................ 69

13.3 SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page 13 ends

Table 13.3-20: Overcrowded Households – Santa Clara County and Santa Clara ......................... 71 Table 13.3-21: Substandard Housing Conditions – Santa Clara County and Santa Clara ............. 73 Table 13.3-22: Sites Inventory Units by HCD/TCAC Opportunity Map Area ................................ 78 Table 13.3-23: AFFH Meaningful Actions Matrix ................................................................................ 83

List of Figures
Figure 13.3-1: Regional Racial Demographics (2021) .......................................................................... 12 Figure 13.3-2: Racial Demographics of Santa Clara (2021) ................................................................. 15 Figure 13.3-3: Predominant population of Santa Clara (2017-2021) ................................................. 16 Figure 13.3-4: HOLC Redlining Map (1937) ......................................................................................... 20 Figure 13.3-5: Regional Populations of Persons with Disabilities by Tract (2019) .......................... 23 Figure 13.3-6: Percent of Population with a Disability – Santa Clara (2021) ................................... 24 Figure 13.3-7: Regional Percentage of Children in Married- Couple Households by Tracts (2019) .................................................................................................................................................................... 27 Figure 13.3-8: Percent of Children in Married-Couple Households – Santa Clara (2021) ............. 28 Figure 13.3-9: Regional Percent of Children in Female-Headed Households by Tract (2019) ...... 29 Figure 13.3-10: Percent of Children in Female Headed Households – Santa Clara (2021) ............ 30 Figure 13.3-11: Regional Concentrations of LMI Households by Tract (2015) ................................ 32 Figure 13.3-12: Population with Low to Moderate Income Levels – Santa Clara (2021) ............... 33 Figure 13.3-13: Regional Housing HCV Concentration by Tract (2021)........................................... 35 Figure 13.3-14: Housing Choice Vouchers – Santa Clara (2021) ........................................................ 36 Figure 13.3-15: Regional Median Gross Rent/ Affordability Index by Tract (2021) ........................ 37 Figure 13.3-16: Location Affordability Index – Santa Clara (2021) ................................................... 38 Figure 13.3 -17: Regional Raciall y and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty “R/ECAPs” (2021) .......................................................................................................................................................... 39 Figure 13.3-18: Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of P overty “R/ECAPs” – Santa Clara (2021) .......................................................................................................................................................... 40 Figure 13.3-19: Regional Median Income by Block Group (2021) ..................................................... 41 Figure 13.3-20: Median Income – Santa Clara (2021) .......................................................................... 42 Figure 13.3-21: Regional TCAC Composite Scores by Tract (2021) .................................................. 45

Page 13 ends

Figure 13.3-22: TCAC Opportunity Areas – Composite Score – Santa Clara (2021) ...................... 46 Figure 13.3-23: Sites inventory, Existing Affordable Housing, and TCAC Opportunity Areas – Composite Score – Santa Clara (2023) ................................................................................................... 47 Figure 13.3-24: Regional TCAC Education Scores (2021) ................................................................... 51 Figure 13.3-25: TCAC Opportunity Areas – Education Score – Santa Clara (2021) ....................... 52 Figure 13.3-26: Public School Rankings (2021) ..................................................................................... 52 Figure 13.3-27: Regional Public Transit Access (2021) ........................................................................ 55 Figure 13.3-28: VTA Transit Map (2023) ............................................................................................... 56 Figure 13.3-29: Valley Hopper Service Area (2023) ............................................................................. 57 Figure 13.3-30: Regional Jobs Proximity Index (2021) ........................................................................ 58 Figure 13.3-31: Regional TCAC Opportunity Areas – Economic Score (2021) ................................ 59 Figure 13.3-32: Jobs Proximity Index – Santa Clara (2021) ................................................................. 60 Figure 13.3-33: TCAC Opportunity Area – Economic Score – Santa Clara (2021) .......................... 60 Figure 13.3-34: Regional TCAC Opportunity Areas – Environmental Score (2021) ....................... 62 Figure 13.3-35: Regional CalEnviroScreen 4.0 (2021) .......................................................................... 63 Figure 13.3-36: CalEnviroScreen 4.0 – Santa Clara (2021) .................................................................. 64 Figure 13.3-37: Regional Healthy Places Index (2021) ........................................................................ 65 Figure 13.3-38: Healthy Places Index – Santa Clara (2021) ................................................................. 66 Figure 13.3-39: Regional Overpayment by Renters (2021) ................................................................. 68 Figure 13.3-40: Overpayment by Renters – Santa Clara (2021).......................................................... 69 Figure 13.3-41: Regional Overcrowded Households by Tract (2015) ............................................... 70 Figure 13.3-42: Concentration of Overcrowded Households – Santa Clara (2021) ........................ 72 Figure 13.3-43: Regional Sensitive Communities at Risk of Displacement by Tract (2021)........... 74 Figure 13.3-44: Sensitive Communities (UCB, Urban Displacement Project) – Santa Clara (2021) .................................................................................................................................................................... 75 Figure 13.3-45: Northern and Central Santa Clara Sites inventory and Land Use ......................... 79 Figure 13.3-46: Northern and Central Santa Clara Sites inventory and TCAC Opportunity Areas .................................................................................................................................................................... 80 Figure 13.3-47: Southern Santa Clara Site Inventory and Land Use ................................................. 81 Figure 13.3-48: Southern Santa Clara Sites inventory and TCAC Opportunity Areas .................. 82

13.3 SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page 13 ends

Chapter 13.4
Housing Needs Assessment
Population and Employment Trends
Housing needs are influenced by population and employment trends. This section provides a summary of changes to the population size, age, and racial/ethnic composition of the City of Santa Clara. Moreover, to gain a deeper understanding of the housing needs in the City, an evaluation of the intersection of these demographic characteristics with housing statistics such as housing type and tenure, condition, cost, and vacancy provides the necessary bases for a proper housing needs assessment.

Current Population and Population Growth
Santa Clara, incorporated in 1852, is known as “The Mission City”, reflecting its place as an early California settlement dating to 1777. Santa Clara has a rich agricultural past that extends from that early settlement period almost two centuries forward. However, the post- World War II housing boom and just as significantly, the emergence of the electronics industry in the early 1950s, rapidly transformed the community. Between 1950 to 1990, the population of Santa Clara ballooned from 11,702 to 93,000. Today, Santa Clara lies in the heart of the Silicon Valley and continues to grow as the technology industry continues to expand.

From 2010 to 2020, Santa Clara’s population grew by approximately nine percent, from 116,468 to 127,000 residents. During the same period, Santa Clara County as a whole grew by 10 percent.

The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) growth forecasts predict a steady increase in population through 2040. From 2020 to 2040, ABAG estimates that the City’s population will grow by 25.6 percent, staying relatively on track with the countywide projected growth of 31.09 percent (Table 13.4-1).

Table 13.4-1: Population Growth and Projected Growth
2010 2020 2040 % Change % Change
2010-2020 2020-2040
Santa Clara 116,468 127,647 159,500 9.6% 25 %
Santa Clara County 1,781,642 1,936,259 2,538,320 8.67% 31.09% Source(s): ACS QuickFacts

13.4 SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page 13 ends

In addition to population projections, several other demographic characteristics and trends define housing needs. Among these characteristics are age composition, racial and ethnic composition, and employment (Table 13.4-2).

Table 13.4-2: Age, Race and Ethnicity, and Employment by Industry Demographic Profile 2010 Percentage 2019 Percentage
Age
0-4 9,092 7.8% 8,730 7%
5-14 12,410 11% 13,267 10%
15-24 15,783 13.5% 17,822 14%
25-34 23,016 20% 26,932 21%
35-44 18,860 16% 19,874 16%
45-54 14,987 13% 15,025 12%
55-64 10,641 9% 11,557 9%
65-74 5,951 5% 8,056 6%
75-84 3,950 3% 4,316 3%
85+ 1,778 2% 2,142 2%
Median Age 34.6 33.9
Total Population 116,468 127,721
Race/Ethnicity
White (non-Hispanic) 42,026 36% 40,282 32%
Hispanic 22,589 19% 22,116 17%
Black 2,929 3% 3,697 3%
Asian/Pacific Islander 44,135 38% 55,905 44%
Other 4,549 4% 5,538 7%
Total Population 116,228 127,538
Employment by Industry
Educational services, and health
care and social assistance 9,529 17% 13,420 19%
Retail trade 4,984 9% 5,004 7%
Manufacturing 11,778 21% 12,918 19%
Professional, scientific, and
management, and administrative
and waste management services
12,595 22% 19,573 28%
Construction 2,295 4% 1,997 3%
Arts, entertainment, and
recreation, and accommodation
and food services
3,963 7% 5,427 8%
Finance and insurance, and real
estate and rental and leasing 2,473 4% 2,356 3%

Page 13 ends

Table 13.4-2: Age, Race and Ethnicity, and Employment by Industry Demographic Profile 2010 Percentage 2019 Percentage
Other services, except public
administration 2,070 4% 2,036 3%
Transportation and warehousing,
and utilities 1,582 3% 2,170 3%
Public Administration 1,706 3% 1,494 2%
Wholesale Trade 1,164 2% 1,505 2%
Information 2,879 5% 4,148 6%
Agriculture, forestry, fishing and
hunting, and mining 157 0.3% 122 0.2%
Total Employment 57,175 72,170
Source(s): US Census Bureau 2010, American Community Survey 2014-2019 5-year estimate

Age
Population age distribution serves as an important indicator of housing needs because housing needs and preferences change as individuals or households grow older. Young families tend to focus more on cost and the ability to become first -time homebuyers. Table 13.4-2 shows the age groups of Santa Clara residents. The largest age group in 2010 was residents aged 25 to 34 at 20 percent. In 2010, the second largest age group was residents aged 35 to 44, at 16 percent. This trend stayed consistent in 2019, with the largest percentage of residents falling in the 25 to 34 age group, at 21 percent. The second largest age group in 2019 was residents aged 35 to 44, at 16 percent
The median age in Santa Clara is 33.9 years. Compared with the County (37.4 years) and the state (36.5 years), the City’s population is younger. The large population of young adults means that demand for larger homes for families will likely continue to grow as residents move out of smaller homes and apartments and raise families.

Race and Ethnicity
Table 13.4-2 shows the racial/ethnic distribution of population in Santa Clara. Asian (43.2 percent) and White (non-Hispanic) (31.5 percent) residents make up most of the population. This breakdown is reflective of Santa Clara County, which is mostly Asian (36.5 percent) and White (31.5 percent) residents. The racial makeup of Santa Clara has stayed mostly consistent since 2010.

The two largest racial groups in 2010 were Asian (38 percent) and White (36 percent). From 2010 to 2019, the White and Hispanic population s decreased while the Asian population increased, and the other racial groups stayed consistent. For example, the City of Santa Clara’s Black or African American residents makes up 3 percent of the population, just over Santa Clara County’s Black or African American population of 2.5 percent.

13.4 SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page 13 ends

Employment
Santa Clara has 13,420 workers living within its borders who work across 13 major industrial sectors. Table 13.4-2 provides detailed employment information. Many Santa Clara residents work in p rofessional, scientific, and management, and administrative and waste management services (19,573, 28 percent of total) , reflects the predominant technology industry of Silicon Valley. The second largest industries are educational services, and health care and social assistance (19 percent) and manufacturing (19 percent). Between 2010 to 2019 the number of residents employed in educational services, health care, and social assistance and professional, scientific, and management, and administrative and waste management services increased, while the number of residents employed in manufacturing decreased.

These trends are important to understand, as certain industries are generally associated with lower median earnings. In the City, the median income for professional, scientific, and management, and administrative and waste management services is $ 100,235. The median income for manufacturing is $103,951, while the median income for educational services, health care, and social assistance is considerably lower at $45,931. The 10 principal employers in Santa Clara are presented in Table 13.4-3.

Table 13.4-3: 10 Principal Employers, 2020
Employer Number of Employees Percentage
Applied Materials, Inc. 8,500 22.8%
Intel Corporation 7,801 20.9%
Advanced Micro Devices Inc. 3,000 8.0%
California's Great America 2,500 6.7%
Avaya Inc. 2,000 5.4%
Santa Clara University 2,000 5.4%
City of Santa Clara 1,973 5.3%
Kaiser Foundation Hospitals 1,459 3.9%
Macy's 1,200 3.2%
Catalyst Semiconductor Inc. 1,100 2.9%
Source(s): City of Santa Clara Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, June 30, 2020

Household Characteristics
The characteristics of a community’s households impact the type and tenure of housing needed in that community. Household type, income levels, the presence of special needs populations, and other household traits are all factors that affect the housing needs of a community and the strategies that the community must deploy to meet those needs.

Characteristics for Santa Clara households are summarized in Table 13.4-4. The number of households in Santa Clara have increased by 2,346 from 42,323 in 2010 to 44,669 in 2019. Renter-

Page 13 ends

occupied households increased by 2,566 from 22,960 households in 2010 to 25,525 in 2019. Owner- occupied households decreased by 220 from 19,363 households in 2010 to 19,143 in 2019.

Table 13.4-4: Household Characteristics by Tenure
Household
Characteristic Owner Households Renter Households All Households Number of Households1 19,143 (42.8%) 25,526 (57%) 44,669 Median Household Income1 $155,718 $108,435 $126,006
Household Income Categories2
Extremely Low Income (0-
30% AMI) 1,339 (7%) 4,123 (16.7%) 5,462 (12.5%)
Very Low Income (30-50%
AMI) 1,853 (9.8%) 3,215 (13.3%) 5,068 (11.6%)
Low Income (50-80% AMI) 1,884 (10%) 2,540 (10.3%) 4,424 (10%) Moderate Income (80-100%
AMI) 1,480 (7.8%) 2,185 (9%) 3,665 (8.4%)
Above Moderate Income
(100% + AMI) 12,265 (65%) 12,544 (50.9%) 24,809 (57%)
Total 18,821 24,607 43,428
Overpayment
All Households
Overpaying for Housing 1,900 (10%) 5,365 (21%) 7,265 (16.4%) Lower Income Households
Overpaying for Housing
(*0-80%)2
1,670 (36%) 5,265 (55%) 6,935 (49%)
Source(s):
1 US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2014-2019 5-year estimates 2 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) Tables 2013-2017

Income
According to the 2019 American Community Survey (ACS), the median household income for the City of Santa Clara was $126,006, which is slightly higher than the Santa Clara County median household income of $ 124,055. Median household income differs by tenure; in the City, owner households have a significantly higher median income than renter households (a difference of $47,283).

Census data estimates that 6.7 percent of the Santa Clara population lives in poverty, as defined by federal guidelines. This proportion is lower than in Santa Clara County, where 7.5 percent of residents live in poverty. P overty thresholds vary by household type. In Santa Clara, the percentage of persons living in poverty is higher for Black residents, with 9.3 percent living in poverty, and much higher for female householders with no spouse present, at 16.7 percent.

13.4 SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page 13 ends

Because poverty thresholds do not differ based on geographic differences, a better measure to understand income disparities can be to identify various percentages compared to the median income for a particular area. For h ousing planning and funding purposes, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) uses five income categories to evaluate housing need based on the Area Median Income (AMI) for the county:
• Extremely Low-Income Households earn 0-30 percent of AMI • Very Low-Income Households earn 30-50 percent of AMI
• Low-Income Households earn 50-80 percent of AMI
• Moderate-Income Households earn 80-100 percent of AMI (HCD uses 120%) • Above Moderate-Income Households earn over 100 percent of AMI (HCD uses 120%+) Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data provides special Census tabulations (developed for HUD) and calculates household income adjusted for family size and tenure. As shown in Table 13.4-4, in Santa Clara above moderate- income households make u p the largest share of all households (57 percent), and extremely low-income households represent the second largest category (12.5 percent). Income also differs by tenure; as indicated in Table

13.4-4, more renter households are in the lower-income categories (0-80 percent AMI) than owner households.

Housing Overpayment
State and federal standards specify that households spending more than 30 percent of gross annual income on housing experience a housing cost burden. Housing cost burdens occur when housing costs increase faster than household income. When a household spends more than 30 percent of its income on housing costs, it has less disposable income for other necessities such as health care , child -care, and food. In the event of unexpected circumstances such as loss of employment or health problems, lower-income households with a housing cost burden are more likely to become homeless or double up with other households. In Santa Clara, 16.4 percent of households are overpaying for housing, with owner ho useholds and renter households overpaying 10 percent and 21 percent, respectively. Lower-income households have a much higher rate of overpayment at 49 percent whether it is an owner household or a renter household.

Extremely Low Income (ELI) Households
HCD defines ELI households as “a subset of very low income households. . . defined as 30 percent (or less) of the area median income”. As stated above, ELI households make up 12.5 percent of all households in Santa Clara with more renter househo lds than owner households (16% and 7% respectively). Lower income households experience overpayment at a much higher rate compared to all households. While 16 percent of all households in Santa Clara experience overpayment, lower income households experien ce overpayment by almost 50 percent. Low er income owner households are overpaying by 36 perc ent while lower income renter households

Page 13 ends

are overpayment by 55 percent. Stakeholder outreach for the Housing Element and the City’s Homelessness Taskforce in 2022 indicated that ELI housing is sorely needed by a wide variety of groups including persons with disabilities, elderly adults, and persons who are at risk of becoming homeless . Many stakeholders share d that "low-income housing” isn’t affordable anymore as income limits continue to increase with area median income. More ELI and VLI units are needed to assist residents whose income is not keeping pace with HCD income limits and inflation.

The City of Santa Clara adopted the Affordable Housing Ordinance in 2018 which required rental projects of 10 or more units to provide at least 15 percent of the units at affordable rental prices to extremely low, very low, and low income households. These units must also remain a part of the affordable rental program fo r fifty -five years. The distribution of affordable units must average to a maximum of one hundred percent (100%) area median income so the number of ELI units that are produced through inclusionary housing is limited.

In 2019 the City selected HouseKeys, Inc. as the City's affordable housing administrator, to create a “one stop shop” for new affordable rental and ownership opportunities in Santa Clara and to help with compliance monitoring. The City also updates an Affordable Housing Resource Guide twice per year which provides resources for emergency housing support, organizations that provide rental assistance, homeowner programs, and a list of affordable housing properties throughout the City. A list of existing properties with ELI units is included below in Table 5. The 233 existing ELI income restricted units is far lower than the 5,462 ELI households in Santa Clara.

The City has also worked to develop actions that specifically address extremely low and very low-income households which may experience greater cost burden. Action 2 in the housing plan will look at updating the Citywide affordable ordinance to support deeper affordability requirements. Action 3 facilities the development efforts for constructing affordable housing for lower income households particularly special needs groups. Action 6 explores funding sources to support affordable housing developers with acquiring and rehabilitating multi -family structures. Action 12 explores additional resources for providing funding for affordable housing.

And Action 14 advocates for additional project and person-based vouchers for seniors and other special needs groups.

Table 13.4-5: Existing Properties with Extremely Low-Income Housing Units Property Name Number of ELI Units Address
Monroe Apartments 16 2330 Monroe Street
Calabazas Apartments 80 2904 Corvin Street
Mainline North Apartments 16 2310 Called Del Mundo
Agrihood 54 90 North Winchester Blvd.

Kifer Senior 39 3335 Kifer Road
Peacock Commons 10 3661 Peacock Ct.

Belovida Senior Apartments 9 1820 Main Street

13.4 SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page 13 ends

Cypress 5 455 N. Cypress Avenue
Presidio El Camino 4 1450 El Camino Real
TOTAL 233
Source: City of Santa Clara

Supportive and transitional housing types which often serve extremely low income households are both permitted within R1- 8L single family zones, R1- 6L single family zones, duplex zones, low density multiple -dwelling zones, moderate density multiple -dwelling zones, and medium density multiple-dwelling zones.

Housing Stock Characteristics
Housing Stock
In 2 022, the State Department of Finance estimate d that in 2020 there were 47,004 occupied housing units in the City. Compared to 2010, the City’s housing stock has increased by 3,983 units.

Most of the City’s housing stock is made up of multi-family units (55 percent) followed by single family units (40 percent). Census data indicates that 0.2 percent of owner units and four percent (see Table 13.4-6) of rental units are vacant, suggesting that the City should continue to increase housing construction to accommodate residents.

Construction of both single family homes (attached and detached) and multi-family homes has grown in Santa Clara since 2010. However, while single family homes have only grown by 125 units between 2010 and 2019, multi-family homes have grown by 2,641 units, likely due to the technology industry boom and the influx of younger adults moving to the area for jobs.

Table 13.4-6: Housing Stock Characteristics by Tenure – 2020 Housing Characteristic
Owner
Households
Renter
Households All Households
Total Housing Units 19,271 (41%) 26,792 (57%) 47,004
Single Family Detached
No data No data
19,543 (42%)
Single Family Attached 4,595 (9.8%)
Multi-Family Units 26,045 (55%)
Mobile home, other units 46 (.09%)

Average or median Household
Size 2.65
Vacancy Rate 0.2% 4.0% 6.4%
Overcrowded Units 0.9% 5.2% 6.2%
Units Needing
Replacement/Rehabilitation N/A N/A None
Housing Cost – Average purchase
price and monthly rent $1,034,000 $2,396 N/A

Page 13 ends

Note: Total housing units does not sum to 100% due to vacant units Source(s): US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2015-2019 5-year estimates, California Department of Finance E-5 Population and Housing Estimates, 2021

Overcrowding
In response to a mismatch between household income and housing costs in a community, some households may not be able to buy or rent housing that provides a reasonable level of privacy and space. According to both California and federal standards, a housing unit is considered overcrowded if it is occupied by more than one person per room (excluding kitchens, bathrooms, and halls). In Santa Clara, 6.2 percent of housing units are overcrowded, compared to 5.2 percent in the County . Overcrowding is much more prevalent in renter households (5.2 percent) than owner households (0.9 percent).

Housing Condition
The condition of housing stock can be an indicator of potential rehabilitation needs. Based upon observations and experiences of the Housing & Community Services Division, the City estimates that on average fewer than 10 housing units per year are in severe need of substantial rehabilitation due to housing conditions.

Housing Cost
The cost of housing in a community is directly correlated to the number of housing problems and affordability issues. High housing costs can price low -income families out of the market, cause extreme cost burdens, or force households into overcrowded or substandard conditions. The Santa Clara median home price according to 2019 ACS data is $1,034,000. The median home price in Santa Clara County according to ACS data is $984,000, $50,00 lower than in the City.

According to the 2019 ACS, 57 percent of Santa Clara households are living in rental housing.

Census data shows that the average rent in Santa Clara is $2,396 per month, with most (25.7 percent) paying between $2,000 and $2,499 in rent. Table 13.4-6 shows that the HUD-determined fair market rents for the City of Santa Clara fall within the range of the rents within the County.

Therefore, the rental rates in Santa Clara generally are less than the HUD-determined fair market rents, indicating that certain parts of Santa Clara County are potentially more expensive than local rents.

13.4 SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page 13 ends

Table 13.4-7: Fair Market Rents in Santa Clara County
Year Efficiency
One-
Bedroom
Two-
Bedroom Three-Bedroom Four-Bedroom
FY 2020 FMR $2,103 $2,458 $2,970 $3,943 $4,525
Source(s): FY2020 Fair Market Rents. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)

According to Costar, the vacancy rate in Santa Clara in Q3 2022 was lower at 3.5% while the larger San Jose metro area’s vacancy was 4.9%. In Q3 2022, vacancy for 3-bedroom units was much lower at 2.9% while vacancy for smaller unit types was closer to the overall average at 3.5%. Average effective rent per unit in Santa Clara trend higher at $3,094 compared with $2,880 for the larger San Jose metro area.

Table 13.4-8: Market Rents Per Unit by Bedroom – Q3 2022 Year Efficiency One-Bedroom Two-Bedroom Three-Bedroom
Q3, 2022 $2,498 $2,898 $3,525 $3,910
Source: Costar, November 11, 2023

Special Housing Needs
Housing-element law requires local governments to include an analysis of housing needs for residents in specific special needs groups and to address resources available to address these needs. The following analysis confirms public comments received indicating a particular need for more extremely low and very low income rental housing options for persons with disabilities, large families, seniors, and people experiencing homelessness at a scale that will require multifamily development. MBased on the scale of this identi fied need, ore additional resources, beyond those currently availabl e, will be requiredneeded to realize meanin gful increases in housing for people with these special needs. T he City’s Housing Plan (Chapter 2) , includes actions and objectives that will help address the gaps in resources to meet these needs.

The data and analysis below demonstrate the need to provide housing for… Table 13.4-9: Special Needs Groups
Special Needs Category Count Percent
Persons with Disabilities1 8,966 7% of residents
Persons with Developmental
Disabilities2 3,246 2.7% of residents
Elderly (65+ years) 1 14,514 11.3% of residents
3,249 households 7.2% of households
Large Households (5+ members) 1 4,253 households 9.5% of households Farmworkers1 122 0.2% of labor force

Page 13 ends

Table 13.4-9: Special Needs Groups
Special Needs Category Count Percent
Migrant Worker Student
Population 0 0% of labor force
Female Headed Households1 3,571 households 7.9% households Male Headed Households 1,924 households 4.3% households Married Couple Households 24,719 households 55% households Householder Living Alone 1,624 households 22% households People Experiencing Homelessness3 326 N/A
Source(s):

1. US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2015-2019 5-year estimates. There is no Census occupation or industry that discretely identifies an estimate for the number of farmworkers in the City of Santa Clara. This figure comes from the civilian employed population (16 years and over) in the industry that includes: agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining.

2. California Department of Developmental Services, 2020, reflects the DDS consumer count by CA ZIP Codes 95050, 95051, 95052, 95053, 95054, 95055, 95056

3. Santa Clara County: Annual Point in Time Count Report

Persons with Disabilities including persons with Developmental Disabilities
Disabled residents face housing access and safety challenges. Disabled people, in many cases, are of limited incomes and often receive Social Security income only. As such, most of their monthly income is often devoted to housing costs. In addition, disabled persons may face difficulty finding accessible housing (housing that is made accessible to people with disabilities through the positioning of appliances and fixtures, the heights of installations and cabinets, layout of unit to facilitate wheelchair movement, etc.) because of the limited number of such units.

The following is a summary of the number of people in Santa Clara with diff erent types of disabilities according to the 2019 ACS:

Ambulatory Difficulty 4,234
Independent Living Difficulty 3,372
Cognitive Difficulty 3,246
Self-care difficulty 1,885
Vision Difficulty 1,557
According to the 2019 ACS there are 8,966 residents with one or more of the above listed types of disabilities in Santa Clara, representing seven percent of residents. Most residents with a disability are 75 and older (47.1 percent), followed by those 65 to 74 years old (18 percent). The most commonly occurring disability amongst seniors 65 and older was an independent living

13.4 SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page 13 ends

difficulty, experienced by 14.5 percent of Santa Clara’s seniors. The most common disabilities for people 35-64 years old was ambulatory difficulty followed by cognitive difficulty.

For those with a developmental disability, the majority reside in the home of a parent, guardian, or family member (78 percent). The second most common living situation for individuals with a developmental disability is a community care facility (9.6 percent).

Housing Choices is a local nonprofit focused on enhancing the lives of people with developmental and ot her disabilities and their families by creating and supporting quality, affordable housing opportunities. Housing Choices provided the following comments relating to the needs of developmentally disabled residents in Santa Clara County:
• Between September 2015 and June 2021, the Department of Developmental Services reported that the number of Santa Clara County residents with developmental disabilities age 62 and older grew by 35 percent. This increase is generally attributable to gains in life span which likely means that more adults with developmental disabilities will outlive their parents and family members who are by far the single largest source of housing for people with developmental disabilities in the City of Santa Clara. • Because older adults cur rently occupying a licensed facility in Santa Clara County are living longer, this reduced rate of occupant turnover, coupled with closing facilities, will make it more difficult for middle-aged and senior adults who have been living with aging parents in the City of Santa Clara to transition to licensed care when their parents pass away. Notwithstanding 20 percent growth in Santa Clara County’s total population of adults with developmental disabilities, the Department of Developmental Services has documented a 15 percent decline in the age group 42 to 51 in Santa Clara County between September 2015 and June 2021. In light of gains in life expectancy, this loss can reasonably be attributed to displacement from the county because of the lack of residential li ving options (either licensed facilities or affordable housing) when an elderly family caregiver passes away or becomes unable to house and care for the adult. Displacement takes a particular toll on adults with developmental disabilities who depend on familiarity with transit routes and shopping and services, as well as support from community -based services and informal networks built up over years of living in Santa Clara.

Santa Clara has responded to the need for community care facilities and there are several group homes and independent living options for Santa Clara residents with disabilities, shown in table 10 below. Action 18 in the housing plan will explore ways to increase special needs housing and support the creation of new shared housing options for residents with disabilities. Table 13.3-10 indicates there are only 56 units of income restricted housing set aside for persons with developmental disabilities in the Santa Clara area. This represents approximately 1.7% of the 3,246 people who have cognitive disabilities in Santa Clara. To meet rising demand, a 35% increase would require the construction of 76 new housing units for this special needs group .

Given the scale of this need, multifamily housing options would be needed.

Page 13 ends

Table 13.4-10: Housing Properties for Persons with Disabilities Property Name Number of Units Address
Group Homes
Briarwood Cooperative
Shared single-family home with
private bedrooms for 4 individuals
with developmental disabilities
2114 Briarwood Drive
Santa Clara, CA 95051
De La Cruz Cooperative
Shared single-family home with
private bedrooms for 4, individuals
with developmental disabilities
3779 De La Cruz Boulevard
Santa Clara, CA 95054
Various Locations Life Services
Alternative
3 five-person group homes for
persons with physical or
developmental disabilities
260 W. Hamilton Avenue
Campbell, CA 95008
Independent Living
Estancia
90 apartments (1 BR, 2 BR, 3 BD) for
individuals with developmental
disabilities
1650 Hope Drive Santa
Clara, CA 95054
Rivertown Apartment
15 apartments (2 BR, 3 BD) for
individuals with developmental
disabilities
1340 Hope Drive Santa
Clara, CA 95054
Stoney Pine Villa 12 one-bedroom units, 8 two-
bedroom units, 3 three-bedroom units
267 W California Street
Sunnyvale, CA 94086
Monroe Commons
(Under Construction)
10 of the 40 apartments will be set
aside for persons with developmental
disabilities.
2330 Monroe Street
Santa Clara, CA 95050
Source: City of Santa Clara:

Elderly (65+ years)
Many senior -headed households have special needs due to their relatively low incomes, disabilities or limitations, and dependency needs. Specifically, many people aged 65 years and older live alone and may have difficulty maintaining their homes, are usually retired, and living on a limited income, and are more likely to have high health care costs and rely on public transportation, especially those with disabilities. The limited income of many elderly persons often makes it difficult for them to find affor dable housing. There are 3,249 households headed by elderly residents, representing 7.2 percent of total households in Santa Clara. Of all the age groups in Santa Clara, elderly residents experience poverty at a lower rate (7.8 percent) than those aged 18 to 34 (8.8 percent ) which is counter to trends in other cities where elderly resident s are more likely to be low income. Seniors may experience specific housing needs and require special assistance in their living situations. The City of Santa Clara has several housing properties dedicated to seniors, including options for seniors who are more active and those who require assisted living. These properties are detailed in Table 13.4-11 below. Table 13.4-11 indicates that

13.4 SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page 13 ends

there are only 73 6 housing units for lower income seniors in Santa Clara. This represents approximately 13% of th e 5,645 extremely low and very low -income seniors in Santa Clara as summarized in Table 13.4-13. The scale of need for senior housing indicates that more multifamily affordable rental housing with varying levels of support services will be needed. A twenty percent increase would translate into 148 new affor dable units for seniors. To create deeply affordable service enric hed senior housing, additional sources of federal funding and vouchers will be needed.

Table 13.4-11: Housing Properties for Seniors
Property Name Number of Units Address
Active Seniors
Belovida 27 one-bedroom units for seniors age
62 and older
1820 Main Street Santa
Clara, CA 95050
Bracher Apartment 72 one-bedroom units for seniors age
62 and older
2665 South Drive Santa
Clara, CA 95051
Camino del Rey 48 one-bedroom units for seniors age
55 and older
2525 El Camino Real Santa
Clara, CA 95051
Gateway Santa Clara
40 one-bedroom units, 2 two-
bedroom units for seniors age 55 and
older
1000 El Camino Real Santa
Clara, CA 95050
John Burns Gardens
95 one-bedroom units, 5 two-
bedroom units for seniors age 62 and
older
820 Agnew Road Santa
Clara, CA 95054
Liberty Tower 60 studios, 41 one-bedroom units for
seniors age 62 and older
890 Main Street Santa
Clara, CA 95050
Valley Village
80 studios, 80, one-bedroom units, 140
two- bedroom units for seniors age 62
and older
390 N Winchester
Boulevard Santa Clara, CA
95050
Agrihood
(Under Construction)
109 apartments (studios, one-
bedroom units, 2-bedroom units)
90 N. Winchester Blvd.

Santa Clara, CA 95050
Kifer Senior Apartments
(Under Construction)
30 studios, 45 one bedrooms, and 5
two bedrooms for formerly
chronically homeless seniors and very
low income seniors
3335 Kifer Road
Santa Clara, CA 95051
Assisted Living
Pacific Gardens 21 beds for seniors age 55 and older 2384 Pacific Drive Santa Clara, CA 95051
Source: City of Santa Clara:

Tables 13.4-12 and 13.4-13 demonstrate that lower income (0-50% AMI) senior households are cost-burdened (30- 50% of income used for housing) or sever ely cost -burdened ( 50%+ income used for housing) at a much higher rate compared to all other senior households . 86 percent of

Page 13 ends

ELI (0-30% AMI) and 50.6% of VLI (31-50% AMI) senior households are cost-burdened or severely cost-burdened.

Table 13.4-12: Senior Households by Income and Tenure
Income Group Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
0 – 30% AMI 755 1,435
31 – 50% AMI 1,115 525
51 – 80% AMI 880 284
81 – 100% AMI 465 165
Greater than 100% AMI 1,680 380
Totals 4,895 2,789
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release
Notes: For this table, senior households are those with a householder who is aged 62 or older

Table 13.4-13: Cost-Burdened Senior Households by Income Level Income Group
0 – 30%
Income Used for
Housing
30 – 50%
Income Used for
Housing
50%+
Income Used for
Housing
0 – 30% AMI 305 415 1,470
31 – 50% AMI 810 370 460
51 – 80% AMI 915 185 64
81 – 100% AMI 515 90 25
Greater than 100% AMI 1,895 145 20
Totals 4,440 1,205 2,039
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release
Notes: For this table, senior households are those with a householder who is aged 62 or older. Cost burden is the ratio of housing costs to household income. For renters, housing cost is gross rent (contract rent plus utilities). For owners, housing cost is “select monthly owner costs”, which includes mortgage payment, utilities, association fees, insurance, and real estate taxes. HUD defines cost-burdened households as those whose monthly housing costs exceed 30% of monthly income, while severely cost- burdened households are those whose monthly housing costs exceed 50% of monthly income.

13.4 SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page 13 ends

Large Households (5+ members)
Large households, defined by HCD as households containing five or more persons, have special housing needs due to the limited availability of adequately sized, affordable housing units.

Larger units can be very expensive; as such, large households are often forced to reside in smaller, less expensive units or double -up with other families or extended families to save on housing costs, both of which may result in unit overcrowding. There are 4,253 large households in Santa Clara representing 9.5 percent of a ll households. A larger percentage of renter households (5 percent) are defined as large households as compared to owner households (4.5 percent).

In Santa Clara, 3.2 percent of families are living in poverty. For large households with five or six family members 2.7 percent live in poverty, this rate goes up drastically for families with seven or more people (7.1 percent). Table 12 below shows household size by tenure in Santa Clara. Two- person households make up the largest number of households with 32.5% being owner households and 34% being renter households.

The City’s affordable rental housing portfolio contains 99 three-bedroom units and 8 four- bedroom units for larger households with five or more persons in Santa Clara. This represents approximately 4.7% of the 2,257 large families who rent in Santa Clara as summarized in Table

13.4-14. Data is not available on how many of these large households are lower income , but community outreach has indicated there is a need for larger affordable housing units in Santa Clara as most developments tend to build studios, one- and two-bedroom units. A twenty percent increase would translate into 21 new three- or four-bedroom units.

Table 13.4-1214: Household Size by Tenure
Owners Renters Total
Household
Size Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
1-Person
Household 3,822 20% 6,122 24% 9,944 22%
2-Person
Household 6,222 32.5% 8,642 34% 14,864 33%
3-Person
Household 3,946 20.6% 4,703 18.4% 8,649 19%
4-Person
Household 3,157 16.4% 3,802 14.8% 6,959 15.5%
5+ Person
Household 1,996 10.4% 2,257 9% 4,253 9.5%
Total 19,143 100% 25,526 100% 44,669 100%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community
Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25009
City of Santa Clara:

Page 13 ends

Farmworkers
Farmworkers are considered a special housing needs group due to their limited income and the often-unstable nature of their employment. While many traditional affordable housing programs and policies will assist farmworkers, the unique needs and circumstances for agricultural workers need to be considered and explored in the City’s Housing Element.

Although maps from the State of California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program show no farmland in Santa Clara, agriculture continues to play a role in the regional economy, including in parts of Santa Clara County.

Due to the high cost of housing and low wages, migrant farmworkers have difficulty finding affordable, safe, and sanitary housing. There is no Census occupation or industry cat egory that discretely identifies an estimated number of farmworkers in the City of Santa Clara. There areHowever, the Census does estimate that there are 122 residents working in the industry category that includes agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining. who may work asas Assuming all those residents are farmworkers, and live in Santa Clara, that representsing approximatelyonly 0.2 percent of the City’s working population.

Since 2002, there has been a decline in the total number of farmworkers in Santa Clara County and there has also been a shift to a more permanent workforce for many farms in Santa Clara County, which has shifted the bulk of need from seasonal housing for migrant workers to permanently affordable housing for lower income working families.

Table 13.4-15: Farm Operations and Farm Labor in Santa Clara County Hired Farmworker 2002 2007 2012 2017
Permanent 1,696 2,842 2,243 2,418
Seasonal 3,760 2,747 1,994 1,757
Total 5,456 5,589 4,237 4,175
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Census of Farmworkers (2002, 2007, 2012, 2017), Table 7: Hired Farm Labor Note: farmworkers are considered seasonal if they work on a farm less than 150 days in a year, while farm workers who work on a farm more than 150 days in a year are considered to be permanent workers for that farm.

Farmworkers in the Bay Area are generally categorized as either:

1. Permanent Residents. The majority of farmworkers in Santa Clara County are permanent residents. Depending on their work and family circumstances, they may require housing which can accommodate families.

2. Migrant Farmworkers. Migrant farmworkers perform agricultural labor on a se asonal basis and tend to need housing in the form of single occupancy rooms, bunkhouses, or dormitory style living.

13.4 SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page 13 ends

3. H-2A Visa Workers . These are farmworkers who enter under a federal guest worker program for limited number of months (no more than 10) before they return to their country of origin . H -2A visa workers require a sponsoring employer, who provides housing, meals, and transportation to the job site. H -2A visa work ers can share homes, apartments, or be housed in bunkhouses, dormitories, or single occupancy rooms. Si nce very few bunkhouses exist, the employers of H -2A workers compete with permanent farmworkers for scarce affordable homes and apartments.

In Santa Clara, for the 2019-20 school year, there were 46 reported students of migrant workers.

Since the 2016-17 school year, the trend for Santa Clara, the County, and the Bay Area shows a decline in the number of students of migrant workers.

Table 13.4-16: Migrant Worker Student Population
Geography 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20
Santa Clara 109 90 91 46
Santa Clara County 978 732 645 492
Bay Area 4,630 4,607 4,075 3,976
Source: California Department of Education, California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS), Cumulative Enrollment Data (Academic Years 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20) Note: Data used for this table was obtained at the school site level, matched to a file containing school locations, geocoded and assigned to jurisdiction, and finally summarized by geography.

Maps from the State of California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program show no farmland in Santa Clara . Due to the low number of agricultural workers in the City, the housing needs of migrant workers and/or farmworkers housing need can be met through the City’s general affordable housing programs. The City conducted specific focus group outreach to farmworker advocate groups in the City who identified that the re may be a need for multi-generational housing options.

Female-Headed Households
Single-parent households require special consideration and assistance because of the greater need for day care, health care, and other services. In particular, female -headed households with children tend to have lower incomes and a greater need for affordable housing and accessible daycare and other supportive services. T he relatively low incomes earned b y female -headed households, combined with the increased need for supportive services, severely limit the housing options available to them. There are 3,571 female-headed households in Santa Clara, representing

7.9 percent of households. A total of 16.7 percent of female-headed households live in poverty, a much higher percentage than all households living in poverty at 6.7 percent. The largest household type in Santa Clara is married couple household (5 5 percent), followed by householders living alone (22 percent), and male-headed households (4.3 percent).

Page 13 ends

People Experiencing Homelessness
Population estimates for people experiencing homelessness is very difficult to quantify. Census information is often unreliable due to the difficulty of completely counting a population without permanent residences. Given this impediment, local estimates of the homeless and anecdotal information are often the sources of population numbers. In 2022, the regional point in time count identified a total of 440 people who were unsheltered or living in emergency shelters in the City of Santa Clara. Data from Santa Clara County Office of Supportive Housing identified 769 clients in 2021. These individuals are affiliated with the City of Santa Clara, had an emergency shelter, transitional housing, or outreach enrollment during, or took a Vulnerability Index Service Prioritization Decision Assistance Tool in 2021. Of these identified clients, 58 percent were male, 42 percent were female. The most in dividuals indicated they were between 55 to 64 years old followed by those 25 to 44 years old. Over half of individuals (52%) identified as non -Hispanic White and 46 percent identified at Hispanic/Latinx. Of these 769 homeless clients, 43 indicated they were veterans, 453 reported to have a disabling condition, 384 had a chronically homeless status, 264 had a self -reported domestic violence background, and 82 clients self -reported currently fleeing domestic violence. In 2019 there were 326 people counted. During this same time period, Santa Clara County’s point in time count increased by 3 percent. Comparing point in time count between 2019 and 2022, the number of unsheltered individuals in the City of Santa Clara rose from 264 to 375 and the number of sheltered individuals rose from 62 to 65. This suggests that the City of Santa Clara’s overall increase in homelessness was due primarily to the growth in unsheltered homeless. Housing types for sheltered homeless individuals from 2021 can be found in table 13 below.

Table 13.4-13176: Housing Inventory Count for Sheltered Individuals Project Type 2021 Housing Inventory Count
Emergency Shelter 10
Transitional Housing 65
Rapid Rehousing 151
Permanent Supportive Housing 101
Other Permanent Housing 126
Grand Total 453
Source: 2021 Housing Inventory Count (HIC) Data for City of Santa Clara

The location of homeless encampments and RV parking shifts regularly. There are concentrations of overnight RV parking in the northern part of the City near Bassett Street, Hope Drive, Memorex Drive, and Richard Avenue. There are smaller concentrations in other parts of the City near De La Cruz Boulevard and Martin Avenue, Saratoga Avenue and Los Padres Boulevard, and certain portions of Stevens Creek Boulevard.

13.4 SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page 13 ends

For encampments, there are concentrations on Saratoga Creek from Forbes Avenue, north along the creek to El Camino Real. Several segments of El Camino Real include unhoused residents camping near vacant buildings. On the north side of the City, the Guadalupe River trail from Highway 237 down to Trimble Road has a concentration of homeless encampments. Lastly, Calabazas Creek from Tasman Drive to Highway 101 has historically had several encampments.

Generally, encampments are located in areas adjacent to waterways or near unoccupied/vacant buildings. Action 17 in the housing plan chapter ensures that the City adopts and implements the Homelessness Response Plan by early 2023.

Table 13.4-184 lists nine sites in the City where persons in need of emergency shelter can seek shelter and other assistance.

Table 13.4-14187: Emergency Housing Providers in the City of Santa Clara Provider Target Population Capacity/ Housing Type
Bill Wilson Center, Bill Wilson
House Homeless teenagers Six-person group home
Bill Wilson Center, Homeless Teen
Parent Project
Homeless teen mothers and
dependent children
Six-person group home and
four transitional apartments
Bill Wilson Center, Runaway Youth
Shelter
Runaway, homeless and
other troubled youth Short-term transitional
Bill Wilson Center, Transitional
Housing for Foster Home Teenage
Girls
Teenage girls Six-person group home
Bill Wilson Center, Transitional
Housing for Homeless Teens Homeless teenagers Six-person group home HomeFirst, Sobrato Family Living
Center Homeless families 33-unit transitional
HomeFirst, Sobrato Family Living
Center II Homeless families 10-unit transitional and
eight-unit permanent
Charities Housing Homesafe Santa
Clara
Survivors of domestic
violence 24-unit transitional
Silicon Valley Independence Living
Center Persons with disabilities Four-bedroom transitional

Emergency Shelters are currently a permitted use in the ML Light Industrial district, allowed without discretionary review, provided that the existing number of shelter beds is less than required in the most recent annual count of homeless persons residing within the city. If there are more beds that required by the most recent annual count of homeless persons, then Emergency Shelters are a conditional use.

The total acreage in the ML – Light Industrial district is 1,413 acres, with parcel sizes averaging

2.24 acres in size. Vacancy rates for R&D buildings in Santa Clara currently stand at 10%, and a number of industrial buildings are available for re-use as emergency shelters.

Page 13 ends

Frequent transportation options (15 minute headways) within the industrial areas of Santa Clara include the Route 57 bus that runs up Bowers Avenue, which connects to the goods and services of El Camino Real, and the VTA light rail, with connections to amenities and services in North Sunnyvale, downtown Mountain View and downtown San Jose.

Portions of the area zoned ML Light Industrial are located within the Airport Influence Area of the San Jose International Airport and are subject to noise from aircraft overflights.

Existing constraints to the permitting of emergency shelters are proposed to be removed as part of the Zoning Ordinance updat e with emergency shelters permitted by -right subject to the following objective development standards:

1. A minimum distance of three hundred (300) feet shall be maintained from any other emergency shelter.

2. The maximum stay at the facility shall not exceed one hundred eighty (180) total days in a three hundred sixty-five (365)-day period.

3. On-site client waiting and intake areas shall be located inside the building and shall be screened from public and private property where feasible. If not feasible, an exterior waiting area shall be provided which:
(A) Contains a minimum of ten square feet per bed provided at the facility; and (B) Shall be in a location not adjacent to the public right-of-way; and (C) Shall be visibly separated from public view by a minimum six -foot tall visual screening.

4. Hours of intake shall be between the hours of 5:00 P.M. to 9:00 P.M. Overnight occupants shall not be permitted to leave the facility on foot before 7:00 A.M. the following morning.

6. A minimum of one employee per fifteen (15) beds, in addition to security personnel, shall be on duty and remain on site during operational hours whenever occupants are on the site.

7. Security personnel shall be provided during operational hours whenever clients are on the site or when people are waiting outside the facility.

8. Exterior lighting shall be provided for the entire outdoor area of the site. Exterior lighting shall be stationary, directed away from adjacent properties and public rights-of-way, and be of an intensity compatible with the neighborhood.

9. Off-street parking shall be provided at the rate of one parking space per emergency shelter employee or as set forth in Chapter 18.74 SCCC, whichever is least restrictive.

10. The shelter may provide the following services and facilities to occupants in a designated area separate from the sleeping areas:

13.4 SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page 13 ends

(A) A recreation area either inside or outside the shelter. If located outside, the area shall be screened from public view.
(B) A counseling center for job placement, educational, health care, legal, or mental health services.
(C) Laundry facilities to serve the number of occupants at the shelter. (D) One or more kitchens for the preparation of meals.
(E) Dining hall.
(F) Client storage areas (i.e., for the overnight storage of bicycles and personal items). (G) Similar services supporting the needs of homeless occupants.

11. The operator of the facility shall provide, at the City’s request, an annual report of the use of the facility that demonstrates that the facility is in compliance with the requirements of this chapter and the development standards for the use.

12. Deliveries of goods to the shelter shall only be made within hours that are allowed by this Code.

13. The facility shall not generate lighting at levels adversely affecting surrounding properties.

14. Professional and on -site management, with experience managing emergency shelters, shall be provided at all times.

15. The facility shall develop and implement an emergency preparedness plan, including a shelter-in-place plan.

These objective standards are consistent with the allowable objective development standards as indicated in HCDs Zoning for a Variety of Housing Types guidance document.

The key constraint is the current permitting process, which limits the number of beds that can be permitted by right in the City of Santa Clara based on the prior year’s count of people experiencing homelessness. That constraint is proposed to be removed as a part of the Zoning Ordinance Update, and the availability of potential locations for emergency shelters will be expanded with Emergency Shelters allowed by right in the As a part of the Zoning Code Update (Action 9), the City is proposing to allow Em ergency Shelters by right in the R -3 and R -4 Residential districts, the C-C and C-R Commercial districts, and the MU-VHD Mixed Use district.

This would expand the total acreage available for emergency shelters to 1,599 acres and would potentially allow em ergency shelters along commercial corridors such as Stevens Creek Boulevard, proximate to amenities and transit.

Page 13 ends

Additionally, Emergency Shelters would be allowed in the LI – Light Industrial and PQP – Public/Quasi-Public districts, subject to the approval of a Minor Use Permit heard by the Director of Community Development.

In addition to the various local resources for people experiencing homelessness and on the verge of experiencing homelessness there is a County wide Emergency Assistance Network available to anyone living in Santa Clara County. Organizations through this network offer one-time rent and mortgage payment assistance, -mo ve -in costs for rental deposits, -in formation and referrals, food distributions, case management, job training , employment assistance, lo w-income utility programs, after school care, V eterans assistance, temporary shelter, and housing search assistance.

Table 13.4-19: Emergency Assistance Network
Organization Location
Community Services Agency of Mountain
View & Los Altos
204 Sterlin Rd. Mountain View, CA 94043
LifeMoves Georgia Travis House 260 Commercial Street San Jose, CA 95112 LifeMoves Opportunity Center 33 Encina Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Sunnyvale Community Services 725 Kifer Rd. Sunnyvale, CA 94086 Sacred Heart Community Service 1381 S. First St. San Jose, CA 95110 Salvation Army 359 North 4th Street San Jose, CA 95109
Salvation Army 3090 Homestead Road Santa Clara, CA 95051 St. Joseph's Family Center 7950 Church St., Suite A Gilroy, CA 95020 West Valley Community Services 10104 Vista Drive Cupertino, CA 95014 Source: City of Santa Clara

Energy Conservation Opportunities
The Housing Element should analyze opportunities for energy conservation in residential development. Energy-related housing costs can directly impact the affordability of housing.

While State building code standards contain mandatory energy efficiency requirements for new development, the City and utility providers are also important resources to encourag e and facilitate energy conservation and to help residents minimize energy -related expenses. Policies addressing climate change and energy conservation are integrated into the Santa Clara General Plan.

Santa Clara has two solar systems at City facilities, which have capacity to produce up to 500 kilowatts (kW) of energy combined. Pursuant to the City’s Climate Action Plan (CAP), five more solar photovoltaic (PV) projects will be installed with a total capacity of three to five megawatts

13.4 SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page 13 ends

(MW). To encourage residential PV units, Silicon Valley Power (SVP) offers a Neighborhood Solar Program which matches resident and business contributions to the fund for nonprofit solar facilities in the City. SVP also provides rebates for local businesses and residents for solar electric system installation and expedited solar system permitting. SVP offers free home energy audits to residents to help identify energy efficiency improvements, and rebates, including energy efficient appliances, insulation, lighting, cooling, and process changes. The City is also working with the regional energy supplier PG&E to encourage residents and businesses to retrofit their natural gas systems.

At-Risk Housing Analyses
State housing law requires an inventory and analysis of government -assisted dwelling units eligible for conversion from lower income housing to market rate housing during the next 10 years. Reasons for this conversion may include expiration of subsidies, m ortgage pre-payments or pay-offs, and concurrent expiration of affordability restrictions. Currently, five four affordable housing properties in Santa Clara are at risk of converting to market rate housing in the next 10 years as shown in table 15 below.

Table 13.4-2015: At-Risk Housing
Project Name Address
Total
Units
Affordable
Units
Funding
Source
Date of
Affordability End
Benton House* 1885 Benton St 5 5 HCD 06/03/28
Clara Vista House* 723 Clara Vista St 6 6 HCD 06/03/28
Sobrato Family Living
Center I**
1509 Agnew Rd
33 32 Local 05/21/29
Estancia 1650 Hope Dr 450 90 Local 06/23/29
Casa Del Maestro
Apts
(Phase I) 2001
3445 Lochinvar
Ave
40 22 Local 10/02/31
Total 84534 1354545
Source(s): At Risk-Housing Report for City of Santa Clara, CHPC 2022 *Not included in total unit count, zoned as single family residences **Currently being refinanced with a possible extension of the affordability period

Transferring ownership of the affordable un its to a nonprofit housing organization is a viable way to preserve affordable housing for the long term and increase the number of government resources available to the project. The City will seek to establish deeper relationships with non - profit affordab le housing developers and supportive services providers (qualified en tities) to identify and preserve at risk properties for preservation. Several qualified entities, including the Sobrato Family Foundation, BRIDGE Housing, and MidPen Housing have shared their interest with the City in acquisition and/or preservation of properties for affordable housing.

Page 13 ends

Additionally, Sobrato Family Living Center is currently seeking to rehabilitate its units and extend the affordability period of the project, and other properties may seek to do the same. HCD also administers programs to finance the acquisition of at-risk projects, and there are low-income housing tax credits, and bond financing. Locally, there are HUD CDBG rehabilitation funds.

In Santa Clara, the estimated market value for the affordable units in the two5 affordable units in themulti-family at-risk projects is evaluated in Table 13.4-2116 below. The current total market value for the 124 34 at-risk units in Casa del Maestro Apartments (2), Estancia, and Sobrato Family Living Center (32) is estimated to be $11,313,92232,596,728. The estimated replacement cost is for the same units is approximately $13,005,00057,800,000, with additional rent subsidies of $147,242537,000 per year of deed restricted affordability, or $ 8,098,30629,568,000 for the typical 55-year affordability requirement.

In order to assess the level of risk of a project converting to market rate, the expiration date of affordability covenants and the ownership structure of the project is considered. Nonprofit ownership generally indicates a lower likelihood of conversion than for-profit ownership.

Because Casa del Maestro Apartments and Sobrato Family Living Center are both owned/operated by nonprofit organizations and the expiration date of affordability covenants for both projects are at or toward the end of the 6th Housing Element Cycle, they are considered to be at low risk for conversion to market rate.

The two at-risk units at Casa del Maestro are part of a larger development that includes 20 other affordable units that will remain restricted until June 25, 2057.

The risk of the Sobrato Family Living Center’s 32 affordable units converting to market rate is further reduced because there are provisions in their affordability agreement that would continue to require income limitation s and rent restrictions beyond the end of their current 30 -year affordability term unless the owner was able to demonstrate that the project was no longer economically feasible (revenue equal to or exceeds operating expenses) or if they provided an equal number of equivalent units off -site without public financial assistance. In addition to receiving local funding (HomeFirst), this project has received federal funding that also requires the project to remain affordable.

Additionally, Sobrato Family Living Center is currently seeking to rehabilitate its units. and Any local contribution to their proposed rehabilita tion work would include a requirement for modification of their agreement to extend the affordability period of the ir project., and oOther properties with affordable may seekunits seeking similar assistance would be required to do the same. HCD also administers programs to finance the acquisition of at-risk projects, and there are low-income housing tax credits, and bond financing. Locally, there are HUD CDBG rehabilitation funds.

13.4 SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page 13 ends

Two small at-risk properties owned by Momentum for Mental Health are operated as supportive housing for people dealing with mental health concerns , and as a smaller operation valuation comparable would be similar to a single-family residence, and the replacement cost would mirror the cost of single-family construction. However, the replacement strategy for the smaller projects would most likely be a purchase and rehabilitation project. For a five to six room unit the costs would be approximately $1,200,000 to $1,700,000 million for purchase and rehabilitation or construction. Momentum for Mental Health is a non-profit organization and will likely not be selling the properties in the coming years, and will seek to refinance and rehabilitate the projects and seek subsidies to extend the affordability of the projects.

Table 13.4-2116: Market Value of At-Risk Projects
Size of Unit Total Units
1-Bedroom 840
2-Bedroom 1868
3-Bedroom 816
Total 34124
Gross Annual Income $1,194,9714,357,584
Operating Costs $252,1441,097,911.20
Net Annual Income $942,8273,259,672.80
Market Value $11,313,92232,596,728
Source(s): zumper.com, compiled by MIG

1. Median Rent: 1-bed = $2,402, 2-bed = $2,995, 3-bed = $3,962

2. Average Unit Size: 1-bed = 700 sq.ft., 2-bed = 900 sq.ft., 3-bed = 1,100 sq.ft.

3. Annual operating costs assume 5% vacancy rate and cost per square foot is 20% based on age of the building yielding expenses per square foot = $8.24

4. Market value = Annual net project income*multiplication factor

5. Multiplication factor based on building age and rent tier = 12

Table 13.4-2217: Replacement Costs of At-Risk
Projects
Size of Unit Total Units Total Cost ($425 per sq.ft)
1-Bedroom (7800 sq. ft.) 840 $213,380600,000
2-Bedroom (9001,200 sq. ft.) 1868 $634,885680,000
3-Bedroom (1,1400 sq. ft.) 816 $39,740520,000
Total 34124 $1357,5800,000
Source(s): RSMeans Data, 2022, 3-Story, Stick and Stucco; regional adjustment

1. Per unit cost: 1-BR, $340,000; 2-BR, $510,000; 3-BR, $595,000

2. Additional subsidies would be required of approximately $200 per bedroom (2020 Income Limits – Fair Market Rent)

Page 13 ends

Coastal Zone
The City of Santa Clara is not in a coastal zone and therefore is not subject to the requirements of Government Code 65588 (c) and (d).

Projected Housing Need (RHNA)
Housing Element law requires a quantification of each jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing need as established in the RHNA-Plan prepared by the jurisdiction’s council of governments. The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), in conjunction with the ABAG, determine a projected housing need for the region covered by ABAG. This share, known as the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), is 441,176 new housing units for the 2023- 2031 planning period throughout the ABAG region. ABAG has, in turn, allocated this share among its constituent jurisdictions, distributing to each its own RHNA divided along income levels. The City of Santa Clara has a RHNA of 11,632 housing units to accommodate in the housing element period. The income distribution is as shown in Table 13.4-18.

Table 13.4-2318: Regional Housing Needs Allocation 2023-2031 Income Group % of County
AMI
Number of Units
Allocated Percent of Total Allocation
Very Low1 <50% 2,872 25%
Low 50-80% 1,653 14%
Moderate 80-120% 1,981 17%
Above Moderate >120% 5,126 44%
Total --- 11,632 100%
Note: Pursuant to AB 2634, local jurisdictions are also required to project the housing needs of extremely low-income households (0-30% AMI). In estimating the number of extremely low-income households, a jurisdiction can use 50% of the very low-income allocation or apportion the very low-income figure based on Census data. There are 5,462 extremely low- and 5,018 very low-income households. Therefore, the City’s very low-income RHNA of 2,872 units can be split into 1,436 extremely low-income and 1,436 very low-income units.

Source(s): Association of Bay Area Governments

13.4 SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page 13 ends

This page was left intentionally blank.

Page 13 ends

Population and Employment Trends ...................................................................................................... 1 Household Characteristics ........................................................................................................................ 4 Housing Stock Characteristics .................................................................................................................. 8 Special Housing Needs ........................................................................................................................... 10 Energy Conservation Opportunities ..................................................................................................... 23 At-Risk Housing Analyses ...................................................................................................................... 24 Projected Housing Need (RHNA) ......................................................................................................... 27

List of Tables
Table 13.4-1: Population Growth and Projected Growth ..................................................................... 1

Table 13.4-2: Age, Race and Ethnicity, and Employment by Industry ............................................... 2 Table 13.4-3: 10 Principal Employers, 2020 ............................................................................................ 4 Table 13.4-4: Household Characteristics by Tenure .............................................................................. 5 Table 13.4-5: Existing Properties with Extremely Low-Income Housing Units ................................ 7 Table 13.4-6: Housing Stock Characteristics by Tenure – 2020 ............................................................ 8 Table 13.4-7: Fair Market Rents in Santa Clara County ...................................................................... 10 Table 13.4-8: Market Rents Per Unit by Bedroom – Q3 2022 ............................................................. 10 Table 13.4-9: Special Needs Groups ...................................................................................................... 10 Table 13.4-10: Housing Properties for Persons with Disabilities ...................................................... 13 Table 13.4-11: Housing Properties for Seniors ..................................................................................... 14 Table 13.4-12: Senior Households by Income and Tenure ................................................................. 15 Table 13.4-13: Cost-Burdened Senior Households by Income Level ................................................ 15 Table 13.4-14: Household Size by Tenure ............................................................................................. 16 Table 13.4-15: Farm Operations and Farm Labor in Santa Clara County ........................................ 17 Table 13.4-16: Migrant Worker Student Population ........................................................................... 18 Table 13.4-17: Housing Inventory Count for Sheltered Individuals ................................................. 19 Table 13.4-18: Emergency Housing Providers in the City of Santa Clara ........................................ 20

13.4 SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page 13 ends

Table 13.4-19: Emergency Assistance Network ................................................................................... 23 Table 13.4-20: At-Risk Housing .............................................................................................................. 24 Table 13.4-21: Market Value of At-Risk Projects ................................................................................. 26 Table 13.4-22: Replacement Costs of At-Risk Projects ........................................................................ 26 Table 13.4-23: Regional Housing Needs Allocation 2023-2031 .......................................................... 27

Page 13 ends

Chapter 13.5
Constraints Analysis
Many factors can encourage or constrain the development, maintenance, and improvement of housing stock. These factors fall into two categories ― g overnmental and non- governmental constraints ― and include physical constra ints, land availability, developmen t economics, and governmental regulations, all of which impact the cost and amount of housing produced. These constraints may result in housing that is not affordable to low- and moderate-income households or may render r esidential construction economicall y infeasible for developers. Constraints to housing production significantly impact households with lower incomes and special needs.

This chapter addresses both the governmental and non-governmental constraints that impact the City of Santa Clara’s housing market and production. State law requires that Housing Elements analyze potential and actual governmental and non-governmental constraints to the production, maintenance, and improvement of housing for persons of all in come levels and disabilities. The constraints analysis must also demonstrate local efforts to remove or mitigate barriers to housing production and housing for persons with disabilities. Where constraints to housing production related to the City ’
s regulations or land use controls are identified, appropriate programs to remove or mitigate these constraints are included in the Housing Plan.

Government Constraints
Governmental constraints for affordable housing development are defined as policies, standards, requirements, or actions imposed by the various levels of government upon land and housing development. Although State and federal agencies play a role in the imposition of governmental constraints, local government’s ability to influence these agencies is generally limited. Housing constraints associated with these State and federal governmental constraints are, therefore, not significantly addressed in this document.

Municipal Boundaries
The City of Santa Clara is completely surrounded by the boundaries of other cities: San José to the north, east and south; and Cupertino and Sunnyvale to the west. Other than a small parcel on Homestead Road, there are no other developable lands potentially annexable to the City. The City’s new housing opportunities, therefore, must come from within the existing City limits, and primarily through redevelopment of existing parcels.

13.5 SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page 13 ends

Land Use Controls and Development Standards
Land use controls have helped maintain the quality of the City’s residential neighborhoods, consistent with community established goals. These land use controls, however, can be viewed as constraints in that they determine the amount of land to be developed for housing and establish a limit on the number of units that can be built on a site. These standards have not been changed substantially since 1969.

General Plan
On November 16, 2010, the Santa Clara City Council adopted the 2010- 2035 General Plan . The 2010-2035 General Plan includes a range of residential land use designations and densities, from Very Low Density Residential with a maximum density of 10 dwelling units per acre , to High Density Residential with a maximum density of 50 units per acre. The new General Plan has also established three mixed use designations: Neighborhood Mixed Use, whi ch allows residential densities up to 36 dwelling units per acre; Community Mixed Use, which allows residential densities up to 36 dwelling units per acre; and Regional Mixed Use, which allows residential densities up to 50 dwelling units per acre. The Related Santa Clara Project, Lawrence Station Area Plan, the Tasman East Specific Plan, the Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan , and the Gateway Crossings project added higher-density General Plan designations for a total of fifteen land use designations that allow for residential development, as shown in Table 13.5-1.

Because of high land costs in the City, sites that are zoned for high-density housing are typically occupied by multi-family housing developments. The City has few instances where single-family homes occupy sites that are zoned for higher density housing.

Table 13.5-1: 2010-2035 General Plan Land Use Designations (Residential) Land Use Designation Density/ FAR
Very Low Density Residential 0 to 10 du/acre
Low Density Residential 8 to 19 du/acre
Medium Density Residential 20 to 36 du/acre
High Density Residential 37 to 50 du/acre
Very High Density Residential 51 to 100 du/acre
High Density Flex 60 to 149 du/acre
Urban Village 100 to 149 du/acre
Village Residential 60 to 149 du/acre
Urban Center 120 to 250 du/acre
Urban Center/ Entertainment District 37 to 90 du/acre
Transit Neighborhood Up to 350 du/acre
Less than 1 acre, minimum 60 du/acre
Greater or equal to 1 acre, minimum 100 du/ac
Very High Density Mixed Use 50 to 120 du/acre

Page 13 ends

Table 13.5-1: 2010-2035 General Plan Land Use Designations (Residential) Land Use Designation Density/ FAR
Neighborhood Mixed Use

Minimum 10 du/acre for sites < 1 acre
Minimum 20 du/acre for sites >= 1 acre
Maximum 36 du/ ac
Minimum Commercial FAR of 0.10
Community Mixed Use Residential 20 to 36 du/acre
Minimum Commercial FAR of 0.10
Regional Mixed Use Residential 37 to 50 du/acre
Minimum Commercial FAR of 0.15
Source(s): Santa Clara General Plan, Lawrence Station Area Plan (LSAP), Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan (PHD), Tasman East Specific Plan, Related Santa Clara Project, Gateway Crossings Project, City of Santa Clara June 2022

Zoning Ordinance
The type, location and density of residential development are primarily regulated through the zoning ordinance. Zoning regulations serve to protect and promote the health, safety, and general welfare of the residents of a community while also serving to implement the goals and policies of the General Plan. The City began a comprehensive update to their Zoning Ordinance to reflect the goals and policies of the City’s 2010-2035 General Plan in early 2014. The City is in the process of completing an update to the Zoning Ordinance that will be implemented in early 2023, addressing California statutory requirements with regard to a variety of issues, including solar energy systems, family day care homes, affordable housing, group homes, alterations to legal non-conforming buildings, and historic resources.

Currently, residential uses are permitted in ten zoning districts and in the City’s mixed use overlay and combining districts, allowing flexibility for mixing land uses and supporting large - scale and master-planned development projects.

Density Bonus
The City’s Density Bonus Ordinance was updated in 2015. The City currently provides density bonuses or equivalent financial incentives for housing projects which incl ude affordable and/or senior housing units, consistent with State law. Modifications to the City’s Density Bonus Ordinance, in order to meet the requirements of Government Code Section 65915, were made in conjunction with the adoption of the 2015-2023 Housing Element.

The City’s Zoning Ordinance update, which will be implemented in early 2023, will bring the City into compliance with State Density Bonus Law, including recently adopted legislation that goes into effect in 2023.

Currently, requests for density bonuses and other concessions or incentives are generally processed concurrently with an application for a Planned Development rezoning. With the Zoning Ordinance update, most properties could develop under a conventional zoning district,

13.5 SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page 13 ends

including properties that will be rezoned to one of the new high density residential or mixed use zoning districts. Under the updated Zoning Ordinance, requests for density bonuses and other concessions or incentives will generally be evaluated through the Planning permi t process required for the project. Residential developments would be subject to by right approval by the Director of Community Development, including pr ovisions for additional units allowed via density bonuses. Density bonus agreements would ultimately be approved by the City Council.

Inclusionary Housing
The City has had an “inclusionary” housing policy in place since 1992. The Affordable Housing Ordinance of 2018 requires private development projects with more than 10 units to include at least 15 percent of new housing units as affordable. For residential ownership projects with fewer than 10 units, either one dwelling at an affordable housing cost for a household earning up to 100 percent of AMI may be provided, or an in-lieu fee identified for residential ownership projects in the Affordable Housing Master Fe e Schedule may be paid. Residential rental projects of 10 or more units must also provide at least 15 percent of the units at a maximum average of 100 percent AMI. Residential rental projects with fewer than 10 units may either provide an affordable unit or pay an in -lieu fee identified for residential rental projects in the Affordable Housing Master Fee Schedule. The City Council can also authorize a developer to utilize an alternate means of compliance such as a dedication of land for affordable housing, the development of affordable units at an off-site location, or some combination thereof.

The City’s Residential Density Bonus Standards make it clear that the provision of affordable units through the City’s inclusionary housing ordinance count t oward units provided for the purpose of receiving benefits under the state’s density bonus law. As a part of the A ction 2 , Affordable Housing Ordinance, City staff will bring forward a revised affordable ho using ordinance that includes deeper levels of affordability (5% at 50% AMI, 5% at 80% AMI and 5% at 120% AMI), which will make all development projects eligible for a density bonus.

For non-residential projects, affordable housing requirements may be met through the payment of impact fees identified in the Affordable Housing Master Fee Schedule, calculated on a per square foot basis for net new gross floor area. This impact fee can be mi tigated through the construction of affordable residential units on an appropriate housing site. For all new construction of mixed use projects that exceed 20,000 square feet, affordable housing requirements on the residential gross floor area portion of the mixed use project shall be met in line with the provisions of SCCC 17.40.080 or SCCC 17.40.090. Affordable housing requirements applicable on the non-residential gross floor area portion of the mixed use project shall be met in line with the provision o f SCCC 17.40.100. As an alternative to the payment of an impact fee, a developer or owner may construct affordable residential units on an appropriate housing site.

As of 2021, the City has exceeded its fifth cycle RHNA goals by 3,013 units and has attaine d 289.1% of that goal without counting units permitted in 2022. This suggests that the City’s

Page 13 ends

inclusionary housing ordinance is not impacting feasibility to the point that market rate development is not occurring to meet housing needs. In fact, staff received input during Housing Element outreach asking that the affordable housing ordinance require deeper levels of affordability because 100%AMI is no longer affordable for many households in Santa Clara. If the City does amend its required affordability, it would need to consult with market rate and affordable housing developers to balance concerns about the depth of affordability and project feasibility.

On May 5, 2022, City staff participated in a countywide listening session with market rate and affordable housing developers. Regarding inclusionary policies, developers su ggested that allowing flexibility in the options available (i.e. land dedication) to market rate developers was very important and opened up possibilities to partner with affordable developers. The City’s inclusionary ordinance does offer flexibility in meeting its obligations.

Residential Development Standards
The City’s Zoning Ordinance contains development standards for each zoning district. Table 13.5- 2 outlines the residential stand ards under each zoning classification and specific area plans, including minimum lot sizes, setbacks, widths, and densities, as well as restrictions on building and landscape coverage.

Table 13.5-2: Residential Development Standards
Residential
Use Type
R1-
8L
R1-
6L
R2-
7L
R3-
18D
R3-
25D
R3-
36D R3-M R3-

RV MU TMU LSAP TN PHD
Minimum Lot
Size (sq. ft.) 8,000 6,000 7,000 8,500 8,500 8,500 1,500 1,200 20,000 20,000 n/a n/a 8,500
–
10,00
0 Maximum
Density
(du/ac)
5 7 12 18 25 36 10 n/a 25 45 100 350 250
Minimum Lot
Width (ft.) 70 60 65 70 70 70 n/a 100 100 100 n/a n/a n/a Maximum
Height (ft.) 25 25 25 20 25 45 n/a n/a 45 50 n/a 220 32 Minimum
Front Yard
(ft.)
20 20 20 20 20 20 25 15 10 10 n/a n/a n/a
Minimum
Side Yard (ft.)
6 &
9 5 5 10 10 10 15 &
25 5 &
15 10 10 n/a n/a n/a
Minimum
Rear Yard (ft.) 20 20 15 15 15 20 15 n/a 20 20 n/a n/a n/a

13.5 SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page 13 ends

Table 13.5-2: Residential Development Standards
Residential
Use Type
R1-
8L
R1-
6L
R2-
7L
R3-
18D
R3-
25D
R3-
36D R3-M R3-

RV MU TMU LSAP TN PHD
Max. Building
Coverage 40% 40% 45% 35% 35% 45% n/a n/a 30% 30% n/a n/a n/a Min.

Landscape
Coverage
n/a n/a 40% 40%1 40%1 40%1 n/a n/a 30% 30% n/a n/a n/a
Source(s): Santa Clara Zoning Ordinance, (2014), Tasman East Focus Area Plan, Lawrence Station Area Plan (LSAP), Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan (PHD)
Notes:
1 Each lot greater than 22,000 square feet in size shall have not less than forty-five percent (45%) of the lot area developed into permanently maintained open space.

In add ition to the residential categories identified below, the Planned Development zoning district also permits residential development. It allows flexibility in both development standards and land use mix not permitted in other zones in order to adapt to specific site constraints without reducing housing density or adding costs to affordable housing units. An analysis of Santa Clara’s development regulations compared with those of Mountain View, Sunnyvale, and San José , showed that these cities have fairly similar standards. Additionally, in 2014 the City initiated an update to its Zoning Ordinance. As part of that update, the City will establish appropriate minimum and maximum densities in residential and mixed use districts consistent with the 2010- 2035 General Plan. In sum, the City’s development standards do not substantially restrict the cost and supply of housing overall, or in particular, lower income housing Parking Standards
Parking can substantially add to the cost of housing. The City’s Zoning Ordina nce currently requires two spaces per unit in both single -family and multi-family districts. However, the City has reduced parking requirements for a number of recent multi -family residential projects, including the Camino Del Rey Senior Apartments. The Ci ty’s current parking standards are summarized in Table 13.5-3 below. Over the three most recently adopted Specific Plans (in order of adoption: Lawrence Station, Tasman East (Transit Neighborhood) an d Patrick Henry Drive (PHD), residential parking requirements have been progressively reduced and now stand at one parking space per unit (or less) in both Tasman East and PHD. As part of the comprehensive Zoning Ordinance update, the City will review its citywide parking standards and consider reducingwill redu ce residential parking requirements for multi -family uses , including unbundling and additional reductions according to housing type (e.g., housing for people with developmental and other disabilities) and according to proximity to tran sit. In addition, see Action 3: Affordable Housing Incentives and Facilitation, which includes an objective to analyze

Page 13 ends

apply those parking reforms as part of proposed long-range plans, includingto parcels within the El Camino Real Specific Plan and the Santa Clara Station Area Plan areas.

Table 13.5-3: Parking Standards
Housing Type/ Zoning District Requirements
Single-Family Dwellings (R1-8L, R1-6L, and R2-7L
zones)
Two garage or carport parking spaces
Dwellings (R3-18D, R3-25D, and R3-36D zones) One garage or carport shall be provided for each dwelling unit, plus one parking space for each
dwelling unit
Multi-Family Dwellings (MU and TMU zones)1 At least one garage or carport shall be provided for each dwelling unit, plus one parking space for
each dwelling unit
Mobile Home Park2 One individually accessible and one tandem parking space per mobile home site
Recreational Vehicle Park One visitor parking space shall be provided for every fifteen (15) recreational vehicle sites or
fraction thereof
Emergency Shelters One space per shelter employee
Accessory Dwelling Unit No parking required
LSAP Studio and One Bedroom Residential Unit One parking space per unit LSAP Two or more bedroom Residential Unit Two parking spaces per unit Transit Neighborhood One parking space per unit
PHD One parking space per unit greater than 550
square feet and 0.5 spaces per unit less than 550
square feet
Source(s): Santa Clara Zoning Ordinance, 2022, Lawrence Station Area Plan (LSAP), Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan (PHD)

1. MU and TMU zones exist in current zoning code but are not applied anywhere in the City and won’t be used in the Future.

2. R3-M zones exist in current zoning code but are not applied anywhere in the City and won’t be used in the future.

3. R3-RV zones exist in current zoning code but are not applied anywhere in the City and won’t be used in the future.

In the City’s multi-family districts, the City is proposing to reduce the required parking from two spaces per unit to 1½ spaces per unit and to allow for unbundled parking for any additional spaces after the first parking space for each unit.

The parking standards for the MU – Mixed Use and TMU – Transit-oriented Mixed Use districts deserve a special mention here. Those zoning districts have not been used to zone any parcels within the City of Santa Clara and have not been included in the City’s Zoning Ordinance Update because there are no parcels with a corresponding General Plan Land Use designation. The impact of those parking standards on the provision of housing is therefore moot.

13.5 SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page 13 ends

Provision for a Variety of Housing Types
State Housing Element law specifies that jurisdictions identify adequate sites to be made available through appropriate zoning a nd development standards to encourage the development of various types of housing for all economic segments of the population. This includes single-family housing, multi-family housing, factory-built or manufactured housing, emergency shelters, and transitional housing among others. Permitted housing types are desc ribed in Table 13.5-4.

Although single-family uses are permitted in multi-family zones, this rarely occurs in the City on sites large enough for multi -family housing due to the high costs of housi ng and limited availability of vacant land.

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

Page 13 ends

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 re quired setbacks. The Zoning Ordinance defines an accessory unit as “one additional dwelling unit that includes a single kitchen, sleeping quarters, not more than one bathroom, and not more than two bedrooms. The accessory unit may be attached to or part of the existing single-family unit or may be a detached structure and shall meet all other requirements of the Zoning Ordina nce.” Since From 2018 through 2022, approximately 170 246 accessory units have been permitted in the City for an average of 4249.5 2 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 permanen t foundations, are considered single-family dwellings and are generally treated as such. Currently, the City permits manufactured housing in all R -1, R -2, and R -3 zones. The City also permits mobile home parks and recreational vehicle parks in the R3-M and R3-RV zones, respectively.

Residential Care Facilities
Residential care facilities can be described as any family home, group care facility or similar facility, including some transitional housing facilities, for 24-hour non-medical care of persons in need of personal services, supervision, or assistance essential for sustaining the activities of daily living. In accordance with State law (Lanterman Developmental Disability Services Act, AB 846 (1977), composed of divisions 4.1, 4.5 and 4.7 of the Welfare and Institutions Code and Title 14 of the Government Code), the City permits residential care facilities serving six or fewer persons in all residential zones. The Zoning Ordinance does not explicitly address residential care facilities for more than six persons. As part of the comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Code update to be completed in early 2023, the City will address the provision of include the by-right approval of residential care facilities serving seven or more residents, subject to objective standards.

13.5 SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page 13 ends

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.

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.

The shelter bed maximum is the key constraint in the current permitting process for emergency shelters and limits the number of beds that can be permitted by right in the City of Santa Clara based on the prior year’s count of people experiencing homelessness. That constraint is proposed to be removed as a part of the Zoning Ordinance Update, and the availability of potential locations for emergency shelters will be expanded. with Emergency Shelters allowed by right in the As a part of the Zoning Ordinance Update (Action 9), the City is proposing to allow emergency shelters by right in the R-3 and R-4 Residential districts, the C-C and C-R Commercial districts, and the MU-VHD Mixed Use district. This would expand the total acreagearea available for emergency shelters to 1,573 acres and would potentially allow emergency shelters along commercial corridors such as Stevens Creek Boulevard, proximate to amenities and transit.

The Zoning Ordinance update would also allow emergency shelters in the LI Light Industrial and PQP Public/Quasi-Public districts subject towith the issuance of a Minor Use Permit.

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-

Page 13 ends

R, and C-D commercial districts., and Like emergency shelters, Low Barrier Navigation centers would also be allowed in the LI Light Industrial and PQP Public/Quasi-Public districts subject to a Minor Use Permit.

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 peop le to independent living (usually between six and 24 months).

California Government Code Section 65582 (h) defines “transitional housing” and “transitional housing development” as buildings configured as rental housing developments but operated under program requirements that require the termination of assistance and recirculation of the assisted unit to another eligible program recipient at a predetermined future point in time that shall be no less than six months from the beginning of the assistance. Pursuant to SB 2 (2007) , which amended Sections 65582, 65583 and 65589.5 of the Government Code, transitional housing that is a residential use should be subject only to those restrictions that apply to other residential dwellings of the same type in the same zone.

Historically, the City has shown an ability to provide transitional housing through group homes and small apartment complexes. The Zoning Ordinance was amended, in conjunction with the adoption of the 2015-2023 Housing Element, to permit transition al housing in the same manner as other residential dwellings of the same type in the same zone, per applicable State law. The Ordinance amendment was approved by the City Council on December 9, 2014.

Supportive Housing
State law requires local jurisdictions to address the provisions for supportive housing. California Government Code Sections 65582 (f)(g) defines “supportive housing” as housing with no limit on length of stay, that is occupied by the target population, and that is linked to an on-site or off-site service that assists the supportive housing resident in retaining the housing, improving his or her health status, and maximizing his or her ability to live and, when possible, work in the community.

As with emergency shelters and transitional housing, the City has previously been able to provide supportive housing through group homes and small apartment complexes. The Zoning Ordinance was amended, in conjunction with the adoption of the 2015-2023 Housing Element, to permit supportive housing in the same manner as other residential dwellings of the same type in the same zone, per applicable State law. The Ordinance amendment was approved by the City Council on December 9, 2014.

13.5 SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page 13 ends

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 is compliant with the Lanterman Act. Furthermore, the Zoning Ordinance is being updated concurrent with the Housing Element update to address the provision of emergency shelters, transitional housing, and supportive housing – housing types that are suitable for occupancy by persons with disabilities (see discussions on the provision of a variety of housing types earlier). Specifically, the Zoning Code Update in corporates 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 f eet for detached ADUs within ½ mile of transit or on lots with multifamily dwellings, and to 25 feet or the primary dwelling height for attached ADUs. Added to ADUs, Section 18.60.030 of the Zoning Code Update.  SB 897 (2022): Clarifies that a Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit (JADU) can be within an attached garage; if a JADU does not have a separate bathroom, it needs to have both an interior connection to the main living unit and an exterior entry; also requires owner

Page 13 ends

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 enumer ated use, and a parking standard for Low -Barrier Navigation Centers to the Zoning Code Update. Allowed by right in the same districts that emergency shelters are allowed, and in all mixed -use districts.
 AB 2339 (2022) : Changes where emergency shelters need to be zoned. In the proposed code update, Emergency Shelters are proposed to be allowed by right in the R -3 and R-4 Residential districts, the C -C and C -R Commercial districts, the MU -VHD Mixed Use district, and the LI Light Industrial district.
 AB 2162 (2018) : Added Supportive Housing as a by -right use in all multi- family and mixed-use zones.
 Residential Care Faci lities: Separated Residential Care Facilities from Community Care Facilities, which are non-residential in nature by adding a definition for Residential Care Facilities, and an enumerated use for residential care facilities with six or fewer residents, which are allowed by right in all residential districts, and for seven or more, which are allowed with a minor use permit, approved by the Director of Planning.

Definition of Family
A community’s Zoning Ordinance can potentially restrict access to housing for households failing to qualify as a “family” by the definition specified in the Zoning Ordinance. Even if the code provides a broad definition, deciding what constitutes a “family” should be avoided by jurisdictions to prevent confusion or give the impression of restrictiveness.

California court cases have ruled that a definition of “family” that: 1) limits the number of persons in a family; 2) specifies how members of the family are related (i.e., by blood, marriage or adoption, etc.), or 3) a group of n ot 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, includin g State or County licensed residence programs which comply with State law. Family shall not be construed to include a fraternity, sorority, club, or other group of persons occupying a hotel, boarding house, or similar institution.” This definition is not o verly restrictive and does not constrain access to, or the development of housing.

13.5 SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page 13 ends

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 land use regulations when such accommodations may be necessary to afford disabled persons an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. The City conducted an analysis of its Zoning Ordinance, permitting procedures, development standards, and building codes to identify potential constraints for housing for persons with disabilities. The City’s policies and regulations regarding housing for persons with disabilities are described below.

A request to retrofit an existing residence with accessibility equipment (i.e., a ramp, landing, lift, etc.) is typically approved “over the counter”, if the proposal does not negatively impact the neighborhood or surrounding properties. When more review is required, the request is reviewed through the City’s Development Review process. However, at times it may be reasonable to accommodate requests from persons with disabilities to waive specific standards or procedures of the Zoning Ordinance to ensure that homes are accessible to persons with disabilities. In conjunction with the adoption of the 2015-2023 Housing Element, the City adopted a reasonable accommodations ordinance. The Ordinance amendment was approved by the City Council on December 9, 2014. That ordinance is codified as Chapter 18.118 of the Zoning Code.

The required Zoning Code findings for approval or de nial of a reason able accommodation request are as follows (Section 18.118.040):
(f) Findings. A written determination to approve, approve with conditions, or deny a request for reasonable accommodation shall be based on the following factors:
(1) Whether the parcel and/or housing that is the subject of the request for reasonable accommodation will be used by an individual with a disability; (2) Whether the request for reasonable accommodation is necessary to make the specific housing available to an individual with a disability;
(3) Whether the requested reasonable accommodation would impose an undue financial or administrative burden on the City; and
(4) Whether the requested reasonable accommodation would require a fundamental alteration of the zoning or building laws, policies, and/or other procedures of the City.

Approvals of Reasonable Accom modation requests are made at staff level, by the Zoning Administrator.

The processing fee for a Reasonable Accommodation request is $846, or the equivalent of a Minor Amendment to an Approved Project . Processing times vary from less than week for over -the-

Page 13 ends

counter approvals for things like a new access ramp to 2-3 months for larger projects requiring a public hearing.

The Zoning Ordinance Update also includes a staff- level Reasonable Accommodation process, approved by the Director of Community Developmen t. The approval findings are largely the same, but include an extra consideration regarding other, different reasonable acco mmodations that might have an equivalent level of benefit (Finding F, below):

18.118.060 – Findings and Decision
The written decision t o approve, conditionally approve, approve with modifications, or deny a request for Reasonable Accommodation shall be based on consideration of all of the following factors:

A. The physical attributes of the property and structures; B. Whether the housing, which is the subject of the request, will be used by an individual with a disability;
C. Whether the request for Reasonable Accommodation is necessary to make specific housing available to an individual with a disability;
D. Whether the requested Reasonable Accommodation would impose an undue financial or administrative burden on the City;
E. Whether the requested Reasonable Accommodation would require a fundamental alteration in the nature of a City program, policy, procedure, or law, including but not limited to land use and zoning; and
F. Whether alternative Reasonable Accommodations may provide an equivalent level of benefit.

Building Codes and Enforcement
The City enforces Ti tle 24 of the California Code of Regulations that regulates the access and adaptability of buildings to accommodate persons with disabilities. Government Code Section 12955.1 requires that 10 percent of the total dwelling units in multi -family buildings without elevators, consisting of three or more rental units or four or more condominium units, are subject to the following building standards for persons with disabilities:
• 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.

13.5 SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page 13 ends

• All rooms or spaces located on the primary entry level shall be served by an accessible route. Rooms and spac es located on the primary entry level and subject to this chapter may include but are not limited to kitchens, powder rooms, bathrooms, living rooms, bedrooms, or hallways.
• 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 respect to accessibility. Compliance with provisions of the Code of Regulations, California Building Standards Code, and federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is assessed and enforced by the Building Division of the Community Develop ment 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 all planning, engineering, and other development fees that may be pertinent to different types of residential projects.

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
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

Page 13 ends

Table 13.5-5: Planning and Development Fees
Application Fee
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
Notes: SF = Single Family, MF = Multi-family.

Park Impact Fee is based on type of project (SF or MF) and geographic location in the City.

Table 13.5-6 compares the planning and development fees calculated for three residential prototype projects of in Santa Clara with all other jurisdictions in Santa Clara Countyand several other South Bay cities using. Generally, Los Altos Hills, Cupertino, and Sunnyva le charges the lowest highest fees in the area while Campbell’s San Jose, the County, and Los Gatos charge the lowest feesfees skew higher. The City of Santa Clara’s fees for residential projects are moderate for the regionwithin the County.

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
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

13.5 SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page 13 ends

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 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 Spring 2022
Note: Prototype project details:

Single Family = 2,600 square foot with 500 square foot garage (total development costs $2,777,000) Small Multi-Family = 10 units (total development costs $7,548,750).

Large Multi-Family = 100 units (total development costs $70,110,000).

Table 13.5-6 provides the actual development fees for recent development projects in Santa Clara.

The In Santa Clara, the total per dwelling unit fees are moderate when compared with other jurisdictions in the County, and the per dwelling unit fees for multi-family projects are less than for single family projects. and The total fees for the three residential prototype projects represent only a small portion of total development costs (Single Family = 2.6%, Small Multi-Family = 8.6%, Large Multi-Family = 8.,8%).

Because application and building feesplanning and development fees in Santa Clara are relatively reasonablemoderate compared to other jurisdictions in the County and they represent a small percentage of overall development costs , they are not considered a significant constraint to the construction of market-rate or affordable housing. Lower per dwelling unit fees for multi-family projects, compared with fees for single family projects, supports the construction o f more naturally affordable multi-family housing. The Park Impact Fee Ordinance was adopted in 2014.

Planning and Development fees have not been a significant constraint to the development of housing in the City of Santa Clara as evi denced by the total of 12,216 units in 34 pending or approved housing projects throughout the City, including several under construction (see Table

13.6-2 Pending and Approved Projects). Most of these projects provide a range of units affordable to different income levels . Seven of these projects are 100- percent affordable at Low and Very Low Income levels.

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

Page 13 ends

in place. However, the financial burden of improvements as the City’s infrastructure ages is a concern. To assist private developers and public projects in the development process, the City has published the Standard Details document which outlines construction standards for the most common improvement requirements, such as sidewalks, storm drains, and sewe r 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 District, as designated i n 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 effe ctive than, permitting in comparable nearby cities. Project processing, from initial submittal through discretionary review and building permit approval, averages six months for most residential developments.

Table 13.5-7: Planning and Permit Procedures
Type of Approval/ Permit Processing Time Approval Body Ministerial Review 0 to 2 weeks Staff
Conditional Use Permit 1 and ½ to 4 months Planning Commission Zone Change 4 to 9 months City Council
General Plan Amendments 4 to 9 months City Council

13.5 SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page 13 ends

Table 13.5-7: Planning and Permit Procedures
Type of Approval/ Permit Processing Time Approval Body 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

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 Development: 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 related to structures on the local, State, or national register of historic places, as well as applications for Mills Act contracts.
• Planning Co mmission (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 Gen eral 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 no t 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

Page 13 ends

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 th e exterior of a st ructure in a form and detail prescribed by the Director of Community Development. The Community Development Director or designee limits decisions on multifamily projects to objective standards in conformance with the State of California’s Housing Accountability Act. The following considerations are used by the Director of Community Development in rendering decisions on all Architectural Review applications, which also include commercial and industrial development proposals. • Off-street parking areas, screening strips and other facilities and improvements must meet the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan intent. Any applicable state legislation that waives or reduces parking standards are applied.
• 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, ensur ing the a pplication of objective development standards will be used to determine if the development meets this standard. • Approval will not adversely impact the health, comfort or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood. For multifamily re sidential 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 any 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 dis trict would be required to obtain approval through the Development Review Hearing process, heard by the Director of

13.5 SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page 13 ends

Planning. Such a project would typically be subdivided, requiring a Tentative Map as well. Prior to obtaining these entitlements, projects go through the process of review by the project planner, and by the Project Clearance Committee to work out details and conditions from each City department. The associated environmental review per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) would also be completed during this process. The time it takes to complete this process varies per project. However, from initial submittal to approval, the process typically takes four to six months, or four to 18 months if an EIR is required.

SB 35 Streamlining
In accordance with Government Code section 65913.4 (SB 35 (2017)), applications for multi-family residential development that include a minimum of 50 percent lower income units may be eligible for a streamlined, ministerial approval process if they meet objective standards as outlined in the Government Code. By March 2023, the City will create an SB 35 checklist and written procedures for processing SB 35 applications.

Planned Development
Many residential development projects in the City are processed via the Planned Development (PD) process to integrate uses, utilize imaginative planning and design concepts, subdivide land in a manner that results in units not having required frontage on a dedicated public street, or to create a community ownership project. Through the PD process, the number of units permitted is governed by the General Plan.

A development plan is required to process a PD. The plan must be designed to provide an environment of a stable and desirable character, and comply with the General pl an 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 re sidential 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. Given that the City has created conventional/conforming zoning districts that allow densities of at least 100 DU/AC, the use of the PD zoning process is optional.

Table 13.5-8 presents the number of units applied for in the last three years, along with the permit process attached to each unit. Over the last three years a total of 2,730 residential units have been applied for with 220 units, or 8% of the total applied for using the PD zoning process. In addition, new permitting processes mandated by changes to state law such as SB 330 and AB 3194, have created alternate non-discretionary pathways for the approval of projects not consistent with the approved zoning ordinance.

Page 13 ends

Adoption of the Zoning Ordinance (Action 9 in the Housing Plan) will also eliminate barriers to the by-right non-discretionary approval of Housing projects by creating and applying mixed use zoning districts along the El Camino Real corridor, where PD zonings have typically been used to create housing projects in the absence of adopted zoning designations for the corridor, Table 13.5-8. Residential permit process, 2020-2022
Year Architectural Review PD zoning ADUs
2020 1,040 114 75
2021 529 106 83
2022 1,684 0 150
Total units applied for 2020-2022 = 2,730

All new large -scale development projects of at least 25 contiguous acres where a mixture of residential with commercial, office, research and development and/or public uses is proposed are required to be rezoned to the Planned Development-Master Community (PD-MC) zoning district.

An application for rezoning to the PD-MC district is submitted as a separate application from the site development application and must include a master community plan that, if approved by the City Council, will become a part of the zoning map of the City of Santa Clara. The master community plan must conform to the City’s General Plan and overall residential density must also conform to the City’s General Plan, though individual housing types could be greater or less than the average.

An application for development within a PD-MC district must include a development area plan, which may be submitted any time subsequent to submittal of the PD -MC district application. A development area plan must be a minimum of 20 percent of the total acreage of the project or 10 acres, whichever is less. If the development area includes property designated for a public use or is proposed for use as affordable housing, then no minimum acreage shall apply. The Director of Planning and Inspection also has the authority to waive the minimum acreage requirement under exceptional circumstances.

Consideration of development area plans will include notification to surrounding prope rty owners and neighbors in the same fashion as the original master community plan hearings. The Planning Commission is responsible for considering the development area plan application concurrent with or after its consideration of the master community pla n 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 types of projects, which usually require the

13.5 SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page 13 ends

preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Construction in each development area must begin within two years of final development area plan approval by the City Council. The Planning Commission may also grant extensions of up to two years (per extension).

Developments in the PD -MC district are not required to undergo the Architectural Review process. However, most residential d evelopment activities in the City do not require the processing of a PD-MC, just a Planned Development (PD) permit.

The Related Santa Clara project, located just north of the stadium is only the second development to use the PC-MC process. The first development, Rivermark , on the site of the Agnews Developmental Center campus, was approved in 2000. Given the constrained nature of the city boundaries and the fact that the city is built out, it is unlikely that dev elopers will be using the PD-MC process in the future.

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 exte nded 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

Page 13 ends

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 c odes. 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.

13.5 SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page 13 ends

Airport Noise and Use Limitations
The most significant governmental constraint in the City is the State- required airport noise and Airport Land Use Commission regulations that prohibit and limit new housing near the San José International Airport within noise and safety zones. The San José Norman Y. Mineta International Airport is located to the east of, and adjacent to, the City. Noise generated by aircraft using the Airport has a noticeable effect on Santa Clara residents in the area north of the U.S. 101. Proposed housing in these areas is potentially required to have noise limiting construction methods including specially de signed windows, walls, and insulation. These additional construction requirements often burden the developer and limit new construction near the airport.

Environmental and Infrastructure Constraints
The parcels identified as housing resources in the 6th cycle Housing Element are largely located in areas with adopted Specific Plans, and those Specific Plans include infrastructure plans that document existing infrastructure and any needed infrastructure improvements to support 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 2020 Urban Wate r 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 UWMPs, which are updated every five years, 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 For the City of Santa Clara, 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 addendum to the 2010 General Plan Update for the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update consolidates this information into one place for decision-makers and the public, concluding that there is sufficient existing cap acity to accommodate the City’s RHNA . The UWMP is updated every five years.

The City’s Water and Sewer Department has is in the process of adopting 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

Page 13 ends

framework, the City commits to adopting it within the next calendar year.A n imp lementing action (Action 20, Water and Sewer Affordable H ousing Service Provisions) h as been added to the Housing Plan.

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 projec t is not compliant with its general plan designation , it will require evaluation to determine if it independently triggers a need for new or expanded facilities. The Housing Element is compliant with the City’s General Plan, as amended. As such, the projec t’s water demand is consistent with City of Santa Clara’s 2020 UWMP population growth projection.

Therefore, the Housing Element’s impact to water treatment facilities is cap tured in the City of Santa Clara’s 2020 UWMP, and the identified housing resources in the Housing Element do not trigger a need for additional water treatment facilities. This impact would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.

Energy
The City of Santa Clara owns and operates the municipal electric utility, Silicon Valley Power (SVP), which services over 57,000 residential, commercial, and industrial customers in the City of Santa Clara. It owns, operates, and participates in more than 590 megawatts of electric generating resources supplemented by purchase agreements for 261 megawatts (MW) of additional capacity.

In an average year , approximately 45 percent of SVP -owned generating capacity comes from renewable energy sources —either geothermal, hydroelectric, or wind. Residential electricity demand is low compared with the energy needs of data centers and other high -tech firms that are located in Santa Clara.

In 2022, the City updated the Santa Clara Climate Action Plan to establish GHG emissions reduction measures that the City will implement to achieve the State -recommended GHG emissions reductions which include a near term reduction in GHG emissions by 2030 (SB32). The Climate Action Plan’s primary goals include a transition to clean renewable energy, diversion of waste, and promoting energy efficiency, water conservation, and climate resiliency.

13.5 SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page 13 ends

Street System
Vehicular circulation in the City includes a wide network of surface streets. With the influx of workers into the job-rich City during the day, commute patterns are northbound in the morning and southbound in the evening. Existing and perceived future traffic delays are a major concern of Santa Clara residents, as expressed by during community outreach activities. Since most of the City streets are fully improved with limited opportunity for widening, alternative travel modes, such as public transit, bicycling, and walking, offer opportunities to address traffic constraints.

The parcels identified as housing resources in the 6
th cycle Housing Element are located in areas
with adopted Specific Plans which iden tify 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 C ity’s storm drain system is managed by the City o f Santa Clara Public Works Department and consists of curb inlets that collect and channel surface water into a series of pipelines beneath City public rights- of-way. Stormwater is conveyed through these underground pipelines to the channelized creeks within the City, which then flow into the San Francisco Bay. During severe storms, flooding can occur in localized areas along streams running through the City.

Flood zone mapping by the Federal Emergency Manage ment Authority (FEMA) indicates that approximately ten percent of the City is located within a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA).

None of the areas identified on the sites inventory/where housing development is approved/proposed are located in a SFHA.

Page 13 ends

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 inf luence on larger market factors such as interest rates, its policies and regulations can act as constraints that affect both the amount of residential development that takes place and the affordability of housing.

Land Availability
In 2022, fewer than five acres of vacant parcels (including right-of-way properties) are zoned for residential or mixed use development throughout the City, including in the three focus areas for future development (El Camino Real, Lawrence Station, and Tasman East). Of those sites identified as appropriate for new housing, so me 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, u nder construction or completed, with most projects clustered around El Camino Real, Lawrence Station, and Tasman East.

Community Resistance
Historically there has been community opposition to higher density residential infill development proposed along m ajor transportation corridors , particularly when that development is located directly adjacent to long -established single-family neighborhoods. The relatively shallow depth of many of these properties can make the transition between existing low density si ngle-family homes and proposed higher density res idential 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 thre e 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

13.5 SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page 13 ends

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.

National Construction Costs
Market constraints substantially influence the cost of housing and pose a challenge to providing housing affordable for all income levels. Land prices are typically the most significant component of the cost. The cost of land has increased rapidly over the past decade. Construction costs and fluctuating interest rates are also major contributors to the increasing cost of housing in the San Francisco Bay Area.

Construction costs vary widely according to the type of development, with multi-family housing generally less expensive to construct than single-family homes. However, wide variation within each construction type exists depending on the size of the unit and the number and quality of amenities provided. Construction costs can be broken down into two primary categories:
materials and labor. A major component of the cost of housing is the cost of building materials, such as wood and w ood-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 pr eparation. The data is national and does not consider regional differences and does not include the price of the land upon which the building is built. The national average for development costs per square foot for apartments and single - family homes in th e 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 lo wer 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.

Page 13 ends

These costs also exclude the cost of land and soft costs, such as entitlements and financing.

Reduction in amenities and the quality of building materials (above a minimum acceptability for health, safety, and adequate performance) could lower costs and associated sales prices or rents.

In addition, prefabricated factory -built housing may provide for lower priced housing by reducing construction and labor costs. Another factor related to construction costs is development density. As the number of units increases, overall costs generally decrease due to economies of scale. The City’s ability to mitigate high construction costs is limited without direct subsidies.

Fee Analysis
Below is a fee analysis for two single family and two multifamily scenarios that illustrate the approximate fees for the hypothetical projects. Some fees are project spec ific 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%)

13.5 SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page 13 ends

Table 13.5-9: Fee Analysis
Action/Activity Fee
Architectural Review
- Over the Counter
- Single Family (that requires a Development
Review Hearing)
- New development/ – Non-Single FamilySFR
- 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.

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%)

$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

Page 13 ends

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
- Each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof

$92.13 + Technology Fee (3.37%)

$92.13 + Technology Fee (3.37%)
$38.90 + Technology Fee (3.37%)

$441.47 + Technology Fee (3.37%)
$18.15 + Technology Fee (3.37%)

13.5 SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page 13 ends

Table 13.5-9: Fee Analysis
Action/Activity Fee

$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

$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.)
- New Garages, Carports and Accessory
Buildings (per sq ft.)

$0.22/sq ft. + Technology Fee (3.37%)
$0.08/sq ft + Technology Fee (3.37%)

Page 13 ends

Table 13.5-9: Fee Analysis
Action/Activity Fee
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

13.5 SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page 13 ends

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

Page 13 ends

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.

13.5 SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page 13 ends

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 existin g 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. Financi ng new residential development can be a significant cost; however, residential financing for both single family and multiple family housing is generally available.

Developers of single- family projects often secure loans for land acquisition, installation o f 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 previou s 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.

Page 13 ends

This page was left intentionally blank.

13.5 SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page 13 ends

Government Constraints ........................................................................................................................... 1 Environmental and Infrastructure Constraints ................................................................................... 26 Non-Governmental Constraints ............................................................................................................ 29

List of Tables
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 .................................................................................... 16 Table 13.5-6: Regional Comparison of Planning and Development Total Fees Per Unit .............. 17 Table 13.5-7: Planning and Permit Procedures .................................................................................... 19 Table 13.5-8: Fee Analysis Scenarios ..................................................................................................... 31 Table 13.5-9: Fee Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 31

Page 13 ends

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 ha ve properties appropriately zoned to accommodate their fair share of regional housing need. The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) allocates a numeric regional housing goal to the Association of Bay Area Governments ( ABAG). ABAG is then mandated to distribute the numerical goal among the cities and counties in the region. This share is known as the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). The RHNA process’ goal is to ensure a fair distribution of new housing construction among cities and counties in the region so that every community may plan for a mix of housing types for all economic segments. The housing allocation targets are not building requirements; rather, they are planning goals for each community to accommodate through appropriate planning policies and land use regulations. Allocation targets are intended to ensure that adequate sites and zoning are made available to address anticipated housing demand during the Housing Element planning period.

The sixth cycle RHNA for the ABAG region covers an eight -year planning period (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

13.6 SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page 13 ends

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 extrem ely 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.

Page 13 ends

Pending or Proposed Projects
Seven Six projects in various stages of planning review are included as proposed projects. These sites are included although there is no certainty those units will be achieved because the proposals have not been approved, are currently under staff review, or are pending an formal application submittal. The identified realistic capacity for these sites is the total units included in the preliminary proposals.

To help ensure that pendingipeline and proposed projects will complete the development process and result in new units, the City has included an additional sub-actionongoing objective forunder Action 10, Provide a Variety of Housing TypesAdequate Sites Inventory. The Planning Division will included a narrative and table within the City’s Annual Progress Report that describes the status of projects listed in HE Table 13.6-2, Pending and Approved Projects, and will monitor status of the projects; when an entitlement is nearing exp iration, the Planning Division will proactively notify applicants to apply for an extension.

In Addition, the Zoning Code Update will allow administrative extensions for entitlements Development approvals are generally permitted f or 2 years initial ly, and then two 1 -year administrative extensions are allowed, which saves time and eliminates that possibility of adding conditions. The current process requires going through entitlement process again for extension.

The administrative time extension process has been added to Action 9, Zoni ng Code AmendmentsOrdinance.

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.

As shown in Table 13.6-2 below, the total of all pending and approved projects is 12,216 units , which is 584 units mor e than the City’s total RHNA of 11,632 units. Because the majority of pending and approved projects fall within the above moderate affordability category (10,273 units), the After credits, approved, and pending projects are considered, the City has a remaining RHNA of 4,899 563 units in the very low, low, and moderate affordability categories..

13.6 SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page 13 ends

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) 37- -158 23 1721 196 Under Construction per Sect. 17.40.115 of City Code: 12% affordable at 100% AMI per Affordable Housing Agreement
TE 2300 Calle De Luna (Related California) - - 84 616700684 700684 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 503442 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 580579 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 371370 Approved per Sect. 17.40.115 of City Code: 12% affordable at 100% AMI TE 2263 Calle Del Mundo (Ensemble) - - 0-36 301264 301 Approved per Sect. 17.40.115 of City Code: 12% affordable at 100% AMI TE 2302/2310 Calle Del Mundo (Ensemble) -74 -76 18 1321 151 Approved /Uunder
Cconstruction
per Affordable Housing Agreementper Sect. 17.40.115 of City Code:
12% affordable at 100% AMI
TE 2343 Calle Del Mundo (Summerhill) - - 41 305 347346 Approved per Sect. 17.40.115 of City Code: 12% affordable at 100% AMI TE 2354 Calle Del Mundo (Ensemble) - - 10 78 8988 Approved per Sect. 17.40.115 of City Code: 12% affordable at 100% AMI TE 2101 Tasman Drive (Related California) - - 114 836950 950 Proposed per Sect. 17.40.115 of City Code: 12% affordable at 100% AMI TE 5185 Lafayette Street (Ensemble) - - 3215 238183 271198 Proposed per Sect. 17.40.115 of City Code: 12% affordable at 100% AMI subtotal TE project(s) -111 -234 531179 3,919842 4,459366 Patrick Henry Drive Focus Area Specific Plan (PHD)
PHD Summerhill 165 15 15 255261 300307 Proposed Approved 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 416413 Pre-application 3 per adopted SP: 15% affordable - 5/5/5 split at 50%/80%/120% AMI subtotal PHD project(s) 7576 75 75 1,288294 1,516513 - 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 subtotal LSAP project(s) - 5 57 635 697 - Freedom Circle Focus Area
3905 Freedom Circle Mixed-Use Project (Greystar) 54 54 5454 914913 1,075075 Approved per Affordable Housing Agreement: 15% affordable - 5/5/5 split at 50%/80%/120% AMI

Page 13 ends

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
subtotal FC project(s) 54 54 5454 914913 1,075075 - Other
1601 Civic Center Drive 106 2 108 Approved
80 Saratoga Avenue 40 158 2 200 Approved
3575 De La Cruz Boulevard 5 8 2 15 Approved
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 - 5859 - -1 59 Under Construction per Developer Density Bonus Agreement: 100% affordable at 80% AMI
2330 Monroe Street Affordable Housing Project (Freebird) 4832 1632 - 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 1089 554 18 144180 325361 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 Pending 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 Pendingper Affordable Housing Agreement: 100% affordable at 30- 50% AMI
1530-1540 Pomeroy Avenue Residential Project 8 8 Approved no affordability component Related Santa Clara - Phase 1 - - 20 1,660 1,680 Approved per Development Area Plan: 20 affordable units (10% of 200) at 120% AMI [future phases, 50 affordable units at 120%]
Gateway Crossings (Hunter/Storm) - Phase 2 42 42 756 840 Proposed per Developer Agreement, Phase 2: affordability TBD 950 Monroe Street Mixed-Use Project - - 8 46 54 Proposed per Inclusionary Ordinance: 15% affordable at 100% AMI subtotal other project(s) 261427 228378 141147 3,569534 4,199486 Total Pending and Approved Projects 389668 361746 857529 10,5339273 11,94612,216

13.6 SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page 13 ends

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
Remaining RHNA 2023-2031 2,483 204 1,292 907 1,124 452 (5,213147) (314584) Source(s): City of Santa Clara, June April 20232.

Note(s): All calculations were rounded down. There are likely discrepancies due to rounding down between the row and column t otals. 1 Phase I building permit issued 4/18/22 for 311 units; the remaining 192 units are approved. 2 Application expected Dec early 20232.
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.

Page 13 ends

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 inventory with a parcel size under 0.5 acres. All of these are located in the Tasman East Specific Plan area and range between

0.458 and 0.482 acres. Parcels of similar size have been developed with residential within the last housing element cycle in the Tasman East Specific Plan area. While these sites have densities that are appropriate for lower-income RHNA sites and meet the default density standard, they are all credited toward the moderate- and above moderate-income categories. No sites in the inventory are larger than 10 acres. Although many of the parcels identified as 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 4,899 563 units to be achieved through the identifi cation 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, demo nstrates that the project’s actual density was developed higher than the minimum density allowed. Because each Specific Plan has its own distinct land

13.6 SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page 13 ends

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 S pecific 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.

State law also includes specific criteria for assessment of the realistic availability of non ‐vacant sites during the planning period. If non -vacant sites accommodate half or more of the lower - income need, the Housing Element must present “substantial evidence” that the existing use does not constitute an impediment to additional residential use on the site. Due to the built-out nature of Santa Clara, most sites have existing uses. Non -vacant sites included in the invento ry have been selected using the following criteria, which are indicated for each non -vacant site in the detailed sites matrix included in Appendix B. A site identified under criterion 1, 2, or 3 requires no further factors. These criteria have been applie d to all available sites (this does not include pending project sites).
1) Interest: Developer interest or property owner interest to redevelop the site. 2) Vacant Lots: Completely vacant lot.
3) City or County Ownership: Property is under City or County ownership, with defined intent to redevelop the site with a residential use at a higher density. 4) Redevelopment Trend for Existing Use: Uses that are similar to those that have been previously recycled in Santa Clara (e.g., industrial uses, small shopping centers, offices, stand-alone restaurants and retail uses, properties zoned exclusively for residential use that are currently developed well below the zoning capacity). 5) Participation in Specific Plan planning process: Property is located within a defined Specific Plan area and/or the property owner participated in the Specific Plan planning process. 6) Underutilized Residential Site. Property is zoned for residential use at a higher density than existing use or property is zoned residential and existing use is non-conforming. 7) Building/Land Value: Property improvement value is less than half of the land value (ratio is less than 1.00), indicating substantial underinvestment and the ability of a property owner to achieve financial gain through redevelopment.
8) Year: Structure was built prior to 1985 (and therefore over 36 years of age) but is not a designated or eligible historic structure, indicating that properties may need substantial improvements or replacement for maximum financial return.

Page 13 ends

9) Lease: Site has no existing tenant lease(s) or lease(s) expires or lease(s) have buy-out clauses within in 6th cycle planning period (where known).

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 coming in well above the minimum densities.

Table 13.6-3 High-Density Projects in Specific Plan Areas Project
Name Zoning
Density
Range
(du/ac) Acres
# of
Units
Actual
Density Status
Included
in 6th
Cycle
% above
allowed
minimum
density
Tasman East Focus Area Specific Plan
TE 2233 Calle
Del Mundo (St.

Anton)
1 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
580579 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)
1 Transit
Neighborhood
60 to
350 0.77 151 196 Approved Yes 327%
TE 2354 Calle
Del Mundo
(Ensemble)
Transit
Neighborhood
60 to
350 0.50 89 178 Approved Yes 297%
Patrick Henry Drive Focus Area Specific Plan

13.6 SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page 13 ends

Project
Name Zoning
Density
Range
(du/ac) Acres
# of
Units
Actual
Density Status
Included
in 6th
Cycle
% above
allowed
minimum
density
3000 Patrick
Henry Drive
(Summerhill)
Urban Village 100 to
149 2.518 307 122 Approved Yes 122%
2901 Patrick
Henry Drive
(Sares Regis)
Urban Village 100 to
149 6.497 800 123 Pre-
Application Yes 123%
4590 Patrick
Henry Drive
(Walnut Hill)
Urban Village 100 to
149 2.795 413 122 Pre-
Application Yes 148%
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.

Note: 1. The TE 2233 Calle Del Mundo (St. Anton) and TE 2302/2310 Calle Del Mundo (Ensemble) projects are 100% affordable 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.

Page 13 ends

• Lower-density residential sites: realistic capacity for sites in land use designations that allow less than 30 units per acre is calculated at minimum density allowed. This includes the Medium Density Residential (20-36 du/ac) designation in the Lawrence Station Area Plan. The identified sites in these designations are non -vacant. Minimum density was used to calculate a more conservative realistic capacity. • El Camino Real rezoning sites: As part of the Zoning Ordinance Update process, site s along the El Camino Real corridor that have a Regional Mixed Use General Plan land use designation (37-50 du/ac) will be rezone d from their current commerci al zoning to the new Regional Mixed Use (RMU) zoning district. These sites are non-vacant, and the minimum density was used to calculate realistic capacity. • Specific Plan sites: All sites are within adopted Specific Plan areas and have been thoroughly vetted through City-led and community-focused planning processes. Specific Plan areas repres ent locations with opportunities for more intense development with limited impact on existing neighborhoods, per the City’s 2010 -2035 General Plan. All available sites within the Specific Plan areas have been rezoned to reflect the uses and densities set forth in the respective Specific Plans. These sites were selected for inclusion in this inventory due to their location, existing zoning that accommodate and incentivize higher densities, and potential for housing production.

The following Specific Plan sit es were excluded from the sites inven tory because it was determined that they are unlikely to redevelop with residential uses within the timeframe of the Housing Element:
o Lawrence Station Area Plan
 2960 – 3030 Corvin Drive (data centers)
 3350 – 3420 Central Expressway (Gemini Rosemont industrial campus) o Tasman East Specific Plan
 5101 Lafayette Street (data center)
o Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan
 4650 and 4700 Old Ironsides Drive (data centers)
 4600 Patrick Henry Drive (Drawbridge parcel)
All available sites are within Specific Plan areas. Each project shown in Table 13.6 -3, demonstrates that the project’s actual density was developed higher than the minimum density allowed. Because each Specific Plan has its own distinct land use designations and affordability requirements, realistic capacity for available sites within the Lawrence

13.6 SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page 13 ends

Station Area Plan and Tasman East Focus Area Spec ific Plan wereas calculated based on the average of percent above minimum density allowed per Specific Plan of existing and approved projects (see Table 13.6 -3). Percent above the minimum density allowed was used to remain conservative, realistic, and to account for the wide range of Specific Plan densities allowed (from 20 du/ac in Lawrence Station to 350 du/ac maximum in Tasman East). In every case, claiming realis tic 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%
 The minimum density for the two remaining LSAP parcels designated Very High Density Residential (VHDR) is 51 du/ac. 191% of 51 du/ac = 97.4 du/ac. The four approved/ under construction LSAP projects that are designated VHDR have actual densities ranging from 73 to 134 du/ac, with an average of 97.5 du/ac.
o Tasman East Focus Area Specific Plan: minimum densities x 215%  The minimum density for the remaining Tasman East parcels designated Transit Neighborhood (TN) is either 60 du/ac ( 13 parcels < 1 ac) or 100 du/ac (one parcel ≥ 1 ac). 215% of 60 du/ac = 129 du/ac and 215% of 100 du/ac = 215 du/ac. The six approved/under construction Tasman East projects, including two 100% affordable projects, that are designated TN have actual densities that range from 131 to 237 du/ac. o Patrick Henry Focus Area Specific Plan: maximum densities x 72% (  Bbased on Specific Plan assumptions about buildout phasing) was used as there are is currently no existing oronly one approved project s in the Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan area.
• Specific Plan Approved Residential Development Capacity:
between 10,300 and 12,000 units (Average 11,150 units)
• Specific Plan Buildout Estimate: 8,073 units (72% of 11,150) o Phase 1 (2025-2029): 5,839 units
o Phase 2 (2030-2034): 2,234 units
• Housing Element (2023-2031): 5,865 units (1,520 pending/approved + 4,345 sites)

Page 13 ends

 Ten remaining Patrick Henry Drive sites have maximum densities of 149 du/ac, one site has a maximum density of 250 du/ac, and one site has a maximum density of 99 du/ac.
 72% of 149 du/ac = 107 du/ac . One approved Patrick Henry Drive project has a density of 122 du/ac (Summerhill). There are pre-applications on file for projects on two other sit es that have proposed densities of 123 du/ac (Sares Regis) and 148 du/ac (Walnut Hill).

For the Lawrence Station area, the realistic capacity of the remaining sites is a total of 395 units (144 VLI, 106 LI, 126 Mod, and 19 Above Mod). See Table 13.6-5. The buildout horizon for these units falls within the 6th cycle.

For the Tasman East Specific Plan area, the realistic capacity of the remaining sites not tied to approved or proposed projects is 1,123 units, per Table 13.6-5. When combined with the number of units already proposed or on file, the total number of units is 989 units greater than the total number of units approved as a part of the adoption of the Tasman East Specific Plan. The City is currently processing a Specific P lan amendment to increase the capacity of the plan area by an additional 1,500 units. That effort is recognized as Action 19, Tasman East Specific Plan Amendment in the Housing Plan. The buildout horizon for these units is 2030.

For the Patrick Henry Drive Plan area, sites totaling 4,345 units are available during the planning period (Phase 1 of the Specific Plan estimated 5,839 units) areamostly (2030-2034). Additionally, 1,520 units have either been proposed or approved in the PHDatrick Henry Drive area.

Given the fact that housing in all the City’s Specific Plan areas is allowed by right, the primary impediment to development of housing , according to feedback received from developer s at stakeholder meetings, is the economic environment (construction and land costs) and the ability for dev elopers to obtain financing and/or state funding (for affordable projects) . Another potentially significant impediment is the provision of infrastructure, which has been addr essed in the Tasman East and Patrick Henry Drive plan areas through the creation and administration of infrastructure fees for the respective areas. For the few remaining projects not yet built in the Lawrence Station Area , required infrastructure improvements will be addressed through the development review process.

13.6 SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page 13 ends

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 between the very low -, low -, and moderate -income categories 40 percent, 30 percent, and 30 percent, respectively., which roughly follows the RHNA split for those same affordability categories.

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 01 01.026 Tasman East Specific Plan Subtotal 1415 89.033059
Patrick Henry Drive Focus Area Specific Plan
Very High Density Residential 51 to 99 Yes 21 6.6603.8
Village Residential 60 to 149 Yes 11 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 1312 42.09839.238

Page 13 ends

Land Use Designation
Min./Max.

Density
Meets
Default
Density
Number of
Parcels
Included
in 6th
Cycle
Total
Acreage of
Available
Sites
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 62 27.5343.67 Lawrence Station Area Plan Subtotal 95 29.5285.663
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.

Note: 1. The Patrick Henry Drive site designated Village Residential includes 26 parcels for each condominium unit and an approximately 6.8-acre common area parcel (shared parking/circulation).

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, apart from several of the El Camino Real Rezoning sites, in this Housing Element are Specific Plan parcels, including some previously identified in the fifth cycle. Parcels identified in the fifth cycle subsequently rezoned to a higher density through their respective Specific Plan processes were not rezoned to accommodate a shortfall; rather, the rezoning was conducted to implement General Plan policy. Thus, n o sites, except for those El Camino Real r ezoning sites noted in Appendix B, are subject to the reuse provisions of AB 1397 (2017).

For sites that are subject to the reuse provisions of AB 1397 (2017), the Zoning Ordinance update (Chapter 2 Housing Plan Action 9) will include a provision that any nonvacant site in the 6th Cycle Housing Element Sites Inventory that was identified in a previous (i.e., 5 th or 4th Cycle) Housing Element would need to provide a minimum of 20 percent of the units affordable to lower income households in order to be approved by right.

13.6 SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page 13 ends

No Net Loss Provision
Government Code Section 65863 stipulates that a jurisdiction must ensure that its Housing Element inventory can accommodate its share of the RHNA by income level throughout the 2023 to 2031 planning period. If a jurisdiction approves a housing project at a lower density or with fewer units by income category than identified in the Housing Element, it must quantify at the time of approval the remaining unmet housing need at each income level and determine whether there is sufficient capacity to meet that need. If not, the city must “identify and make available” additional adequate sites to accommodate the jurisdiction’s share of housing need by income level within 180 days of approving the reduced -density project. This provision is commonly referred to as the "no net loss” provision of Housing Element law.

Site Selection
The Housing Element sites inventory, in addition to the list of pending and approved projects, includes accessory dwelling unit (ADU) projections , and vacant and underutilized sites within Specific Plan areas zoned for high -density residential and mixed-use development, and the El Camino Real rezoning sites. These latter two categories have been used to demonstrate that the RHNA for the extremely low -, very low -, low - and moderate -income categories can be accommodated during the planning period. As the discussion below concludes, the sites have no identified constraints that would prevent development or reuse during the Housing El ement 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
[300-
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
389 668 361746 857 512 10,339
218
1112,946144
ADU Projection 102118 11802 11802 394 340393
Available Specific Plan Sites
2,888
187

2,1431,622

2,4651,944
314 7,8106,067
Tasman East Focus Area Specific Plan 214 156 458 295 1,123 Patrick Henry Drive Focus Area Specific
Plan
1,829
747
1,360 299 1,360 299 - 4,549345
Lawrence Station Area Plan 845 144 627 106 647 126 19 2,138395 El Camino Real Rezoning Sites 497 378 366 - 1,242

Page 13 ends

Site/Credit Type
Affordability Category
Total
Capacity
Very
Low
[300-
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
Total
3,379
388
2,606
803
32,424
879
10,687
571
2219,096642
Surplus 18% 5870% 7345% 108106% 7369%
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 programs in their housing element that incentivize ADU development. Interest in constructing ADUs is high in Santa Clara and continues to grow. In 2018, the City issued 21 ADU building permits. In 2019, the number increased to 51 annual building permits, with similar numbers in 2020 ( 45 ADU building permits ) and 2021 (53 ADU building permits ), then i ncreasing in 2022 to 76 ADU building permits. This represents a 152 262 percent increase in ADU production in Santa Clara between 2018 and 20212022. The City estimates that interest will continue to increase over the next few years , given t he many single-family neighborhoods citywide that create capacity for additional ADUs. As of June 2022, 53 percent (or 16,103 parcels) of total parcels were zoned for single-family housing, totaling 2,504 acres. ADUs are permitted on single-family, multi-family, and mixed-use lots, including R1, R2, and R3 zone districts, which represent a significant number of lots in Santa Clara.

As an incentive to ADU production, the City does not charge a Planning fee for review/processing ADU requests. Also, State law allows jurisdictions to charge impact fees on ADUs over 750 square feet, but the City of Santa Clara does not. The City has also exempted ADUs/JADUs from providing parking (JADUs that convert a garage space/s are required to provide replacement parking for the primary dwelling).

The slight dip in ADU production in 2020 may be due to the COVD-19 pandemic and other events of 2020. In 20221, 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

13.6 SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page 13 ends

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 49.2 ADUs per year will be constructed throughout the planning period.

This reflects the average number of building permits issued for ADUs between 2018 and 20221. Given the anticipated increase in ADUs over the near term, this is a conservative estimate.
• A total of 340 393 ADUs can be predicted to be constructed during the planning period.

The affordability assumptions for ADU projections are based on ABAG’s ADU affordability analysis pre-certified by HCD1.

Available Specific Plan Sites
Plan Bay Area 2050 Growth Geographies
After nearly four years of technical analysis and deep engagement with Bay Area residents and partners, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and ABAG jointly adopted Plan Bay Area 2050 in October 2021. Plan Bay Area 2050 was developed in collaboration with Bay Area residents, partner agencies, and nonprofit organizations. Thirty-five strategies make up the heart of the plan to improve housing, the economy, transportation, and the environment across the Bay Area’s nine counties.

Throughout Plan Bay Area 2050, Growth Geographies are geographic areas used to guide where future growth in housing and jobs would be focused under the plan’s strategies over the next 30 years. These geographies are identified for growth either by local jurisdictions or because of their proximity to transit or access to opportunity.

All sites included in this Housing Element are considered Priority Development Areas (PDAs), defined as areas generally near existing job centers or frequent transit that are local ly identified (i.e., identified by towns, cities, or counties) for housing and job growth. 2010-2035 General Plan Focus Areas, Focus Area Plans, and Related Planning Efforts
In 2010, the City of Santa Clara adopted its comprehensive 2010 -2035 General Plan , which included identification of nine focus areas throughout the City, listed in Table 13.6-6. These areas were chosen for their potential to significantly define Santa Clara’s identity as a place in transition

1 ABAG estimates an affordability breakdown of ADUs as follows: 30% very low-income, 30% low-income, 30% moderate-income, and 10% above moderate-income. Technical Assistance for Local Planning, Housing – Using ADUs to Satisfy RHNA, Technical Memo, March 2022.

Page 13 ends

from a suburb to a regional economic center. The opportunity to develop at a higher density near transit is central to this new identity.

A comprehensive plan, such as a specific plan is a required prerequisite for new residential development within a focus area. The purpose of these plans and the prerequisite requirements ensure that new neighborhoods are self-sufficient, with easy access to retail, services, and public amenities. Specific Plans also ensure that adequate public services and facilities are provided in tandem with new development. In 2014, the City initiated updates to the Housing and Land Use Elements that identify and require future development to be comprehensively planned through the preparation of Specific Plans within the Lawrence Station and Tasman East Focus Areas.

Of the nine 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 allow residential development, was not included in the sites inventory. However, properties within that planning area could become available during the planning period if a specific plan were adopted, helping to guard against the loss of affordable housing capacity.

Table 13.6-6 2010-2035 General Plan Focus Areas
2010-2035 General Plan
Focus Area
Related Planning Effort Status
Existing
Downtown Focus Area Santa Clara Downtown Precise
Plan
Draft, Nov. 2022
Santa Clara Station Focus Area None
Stevens Creek Boulevard Focus Area None
El Camino Real Focus Area El Camino Real Specific Plan Draft, May 2021 Lawrence Station Focus Area Lawrence Station Area Plan Adopted, Nov. 2016 Tasman East Focus Area Tasman East Focus Area Specific
Plan
Adopted, Nov. 2018;
Revised, Nov. 2020
Great America Parkway Focus Area Patrick Henry Drive Focus Area Specific Plan
Adopted, Mar. 2022
Freedom Circle Focus Area Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan Adopted, June 2022 Future
Central Expressway Focus Area None
De La Cruz Focus Area None
Source(s): City of Santa Clara 2010-2035 General Plan, Nov. 2010. Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan, March 2022. Lawrence Station Area Plan, Neighborhood Transit-Oriented Development Plan, Nov. 2016. Tasman East Focus Area Specific Plan, Nov. 2020.

13.6 SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page 13 ends

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 develop ment within Specific Plan areas , site size and location (near transit, major corridors, and highways), and rece nt development trends in the immediate and surrounding areas. The inclusion of nonresidential uses within mixed -use developments complements a transit-oriented neighborhood and will not affect the potential capacity on site because all available sites have minimum density requirements.

Most parcels included in this sixth cycle sites inventory have zoning that allows nonresidential uses in the form of mixed-use developments. Only one land use designation/zone district allows stand-alone nonresidential development.
2 This land use policy illustrates the City’s commitment to incentivizing mixed-use districts and higher-density, transit-oriented residential development that addresses many goals: meeting the region’s housing needs, encouraging housing near employment centers, increasing transit usage, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Specific Plans
A considerable portion of Santa Clara is designated for specific plan development. The City has three approved Specific Plans with a significant number of sites and residential development capacity remaining. Combined, the sites identified in the Lawrence Station, Tasman East, and Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan areas have enough capacity to satisfy the outstanding RHNA (i.e., the remaining RHNA after pending and proposed projects, and ADUs). 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 r esidential development.

2 Only one land use designation/zone district, in the Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan area, allows stand-alone nonresidential development. See section “Specific Plan Sites” for additional detail.

Page 13 ends

• Specific parameters for densities, uses, development standards, and minimum affordability requirements have already been established. • No recent, significant enhancements have been made to these sites. • Infrastructure is either in place , or planned for, in support of proposed land uses, addressing transportation, wet utilities, solid waste management, and energy services and systems. For both the Tasman East and Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plans, an infrastructure fee has been created to apportion costs between developers in the Plan Areas.
• Redevelopment of nonresidential uses into high density residential and mixed -use has already occurred, illustrating developer and property owner interest and the finan cial feasibility of site redevelopment.
• All land use designations within the Specific 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 development 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 Statio n Area Plan was adopted before the City’s inclusionary ordinance.

13.6 SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page 13 ends

City Council and Authorities ConcurrentJune 27, 2023

City Council and Authorities Concurrent
June 27, 2023