Agenda packet — City Council and Authorities Concurrent, June 27, 2023 (part 11 of 13)

• Citywide Affordable Housi ng Requirements . Effective February 2018, the City’s inclusionary housing ordinance (Title 17, Chapter 17.40 Citywide Affordable Housing Requirements) requires residential ownership and rental projects of ten (10) or more units to provide at least fifteen percent (15%) of the units at affordable housing costs for extremely low, very low, low and moderate income households, or some combination of those income categori es. A developer shall select income categories for each of the affordable units such that the average income of purchasers will not exceed 100 percent of AMI.
• Affordability by Design. Additionally, a ffordability by design in Specific Plan areas is encouraged, with the development of smaller units targeted for those who desire a walkable, urban lifestyle.
• General Plan. The General Plan also outlines other Affordable Housing incentives including encouraging and supporting public and private efforts to provide affordable housing, density bonuses and other financial incentives for housing projects that include affordable and/or senior housing units, consistent with State law requirements.

Page 13 ends

FIGURE 13.6-1 SITES INVENTORY

13.6 SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page 13 ends

SUNNYVALE

CUPERTINO
&la
0 '1![!.
> . I
I
...... ,
§
'
(
'
\
\
i
J
f
\
1 -: a = m
8 c:;
,(J.,1-a•
~
c:• •
.. .. 9
..

I
.._ ...

D
a.CA !IIDIBA.I. o:;:::)
llll
,,.,...,, ....
,.-...,
-· .... ,
' -... '~ .. '\.._
... ,, ·---
n
l
,9
' ·,
/
I
' r---·--- --· -- '
'~ _ v -- - --- ~-- • SJ'l.'K:JIIOUIDtam ~ ' "-- ---- - - --- -~-.

MILPITAS

SANJOSE
o.s
Miles 0
City of Santa Claral
Sites Inventory M ap
Legend
Basemap Features
[~-=._ 7 Santa Cla ra City Limits
Major Destinations
Parks and Open Spa ce
Rivers and Waterbodies
Surround ing Cities
- Unincorporate d Santa Cla ra County
Sites Inventory (by Type)
LJ Appro ved or Pend ing Projects
LJ Lawre nce Station Area Plan Sites
LJ Ta sman East Specific Plan Sites
Parti ck He rv Drive Specific Plan Sites
LJ s· es to be Rezon ed '
Niote(s): In confonnanc• with the a.rem General Plan (201oi most recom:ly amended in 2022.

Souroe{s): Esri, Coonty of Santa ct.ra OpenData
2023, Oty of s..nta Clara 2023.

Page 13 ends

13.6 SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page 13 ends

Tasman East Focus Area Specific Plan
Adopted in November 2018, the Tasman East Specific Plan regulates the development of 46.1 acres of land located near the City’s northern boundary. Approved for the development of 4,500 units, full buildout of the area will likely occur by 2038. The Specific Plan area includes 34 parcels situated east of Lafayette Street, north of Tasman Drive, west of the Guadalupe River Trail, and south of the Santa Clara Tennis and Golf Club property. Each parcel of one acre or more in size is required to accommodate a minimum density of 100 dwelling units per acre. Each parcel of less than one acre in size is required to achieve a minimum density of 60 dwelling units per acre.

There are no density maximums for individual parcels.

Approximately half of the Tasman East Specific Plan’s parcels have either been re-developed or have projects with active applications or are already under construction. This area is transitioning from a mix of light industrial and business park uses to a high density residential neighborhood with a mix of uses at the ground floor.

Eleven projects within the Specific Plan area were counted toward the sixth cycle RHNA as approved, proposed, or under construction. Fifteen remaining parcels, on approximately 8 acres, have been identified as sites and remain to be re-developed. Not Viable sites were identified and excluded based on existing uses. Assuming realistic capacity, on a parcel-level, the Tasman East Focus Area Specific Plan sites identified in this Housing Element can accommodate a total of 913 1,123 units (see Table 13.6-5). Appendix B provides a detailed list of all sites, including assumed affordability.

FIGURE 13.6-2 TASMAN EAST LAND USE DIAGRAM

-
c:::::::J
§§§§
Pump Statk>n
Tr~n~lt Nel,U,bort~
Requhld Grocnd noor
Retail
ActMI Ground noa Use
Otoicated ()pin Spacliil
<~resr·
Paseo
Greenway
To Be tmplemerted as
Oe-veloprnent OccutS
CitvE~me11t
Sltil Bourdarv
• Dedicated Op1r, Spaict1 arHs wlll
be Implemente d ~ ri0e1lh tre City's
P'tHk:la o Dedic.at.on Of<llnarce
an-a thi trms or u,e SpiCIQt Plan.

I,
0 Greerway and Pa·k lcc-atlcns FJ.etlt'e 03-5-3 l..lnd use fr;imewott deplcteo are ooreeptu,)1
City Placo
. ....

Page 13 ends

FIGURE 13.6-3 TASMAN EAST SITES

? OD1 C<.Ol
- -Mil~

0.0. 0

13.6 City of Santa Clara
Tasman East Focus Area
Specific Plan Sites
Le~end
Baiemai Fean .. res
[~~7 santa Cl¥a Cit~ limits
Surrounding Cities
M .ijor Dc:rtinotio n5
Ri'yers and Waterbod ies
Parks and Oper Space
Specific Plan Si.es
- Appro ved
- Appro ved/Und~r Comtructbn
- UnderCc-nstru<tion
- Proposec
- AvdilolJlt:

ScuaW; ~Coulty:tfS.ant1QM.11~r{),;i, t1 3l22.

CitydS..t.aOar.11202!.

IIJiD

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page 13 ends

Patrick Henry Drive Focus Area Specific Plan
In March 2022, the City Council approved the Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan. The planning area encompasses approximately 73.59 acres bounded by Sunnyvale and Calabazas Creek to the west, the southern edge of San Francisco Public Utilities Commission right -of-way to the north, Great America Parkway to the east, and Mission College to the south . As one of the Cit y’s first high-density residential neighborhoods, Patrick Henry Drive will add thousands of units to better balance the City’s jobs- housing ratio, a share of which will be income restricted to help meet regional and local affordability goals. Several regional destinations and amenities are nearby, including Levi’s Stadium, Great America Theme Park, and the Santa Clara Convention Center.

The VTA light rail station at Old Ironsides and Tasman Drive is just over one- half mile, or an approximately 10-minute walk, from the center of the Specific Plan area.

The Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan resulted from a collaborative planning effort involving the City, area property owners, and the Santa Clara community. The plan will create a 73.59 -acre high-density, residential neighborhood located near regional destinations, including job-centers, transit, and other amenities. At buildout, the project will accommodate up to 12,000 new residential dwelling units and 310,000 square feet of nonresidential uses, including 200,000 square feet of new neighborhood- serving retail and public facilities, such as libraries and community spaces. New and improved pedestrian and bicycle connections, trails, and parks will link neighborhoods and enhance connections to nearby amenities and recreation destinations. Careful planning will ensure adequate infrastructure and services to support the proposed new development. Targeted residential densities range from a minimum of 51 dwelling units per acre to a maximum of 250 units per acre. These densities will help meet the demand for housing that addresses job and retail growth in the City and region.

Three projects within the Specific Plan area were counted toward the sixth cycle RHNA as approved, proposed, or under construction. Thirteen Twelve remaining parcels, on approximately 42 39.24 acres, have been identified as sites and remain to be re -developed. Not Viable sites were identified and excluded based on existing uses. Assuming realistic capacity, on a parcel-level, the Patrick Henry Drive Focus Area Specific Plan sites identified in this Housing Element can accommodate a total of 6,1395,865 units (see Table 13.6 -5). Appendix B provides a detailed list of all sites, including assumed affordability.

High Density Flex
Only one land use designation in the Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan area allows for stand - alone nonresidential uses: High Density Flex. Six parcels are zoned High Density Flex, two of which were excluded because they are small sites and publicly owned utility parcels, owned by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) and the City of Santa Clara. APNs 104 - 04-130 and 104-04-072, respectively.

Page 13 ends

In the event that any of the four High Density Flex sites (totaling 9.6 total acres) develop with nonresidential uses only, the C ity will quantify at the time of approval the remaining unmet housing need at each income level and per law, identify and make available adequate sites to accommodate the RHNA by income level within 180 days of approving any such reduced-density project.

FIGURE 13.6-4 PATRICK HENRY LAND USE DIAGRAM

f
i
"' ... ..
> > z
z
:>
"'
..
0:
.. ...
u
.. ... z ..
"'
M11,1,l0n
Community
Col~•
FIGURE 4.3A: LAND USE PLAN
C : J Study A1ea
~ E1osting Pare~
,c,iyo«S--~o.-.1
,---,. Ex,sung Pucof L-----1 h .............. ,
- OpenSpace
Very High Density Residential (51·99 du/ac) High Density Flex 160-149 du/ac, 2.0 FAR) Urban Village (100-1-49 du/ac) Village Residential 160--149 du/ac) - Urban Center (120-250 du/ac:I - Potef"lti.al Trail and Landscape Oedieat1on ! t
i f
5 8
i E
:! : .:;

13.6 E9
' --=-= •'-

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page 13 ends

FIGURE 13.6-5 PATRICK HENRY SITES

I) 0.02 0.04 01'7 0
- - Mik,s
City of Santa Clara
Patrick Henry Drive
Specific Plan Sites
Legend
Basemop Features
[~~; Santa Clara City lim its
Surround ing Cities
Major Destinations
Rive rs and Wat erbod ies
Parks and Open Spac e
~- Railways
Specific Plan s;tes
-Approved
- Proposed
- A\failable
Scuce4~ _E,i.Countyo fSMt110au10Qef>Daa2022..

CtyclSantaO..raa'.122.

Page 13 ends

Lawrence Station Area Plan
The Santa Clara Lawrence Station Area Plan Area is located northeast of the Lawrence Caltrain Station, bounded by Central Expressway to the north, Kifer Road to the South, Lawrence Expressway to the west, and Calabazas Creek to the east, encompassing appro ximately 72 acres (65 acres of developable land area excluding existing public right -of-way). Adopted in 2016, the Lawrence Station Area Plan is largely developed and was originally approved for the development of 3,500 units. Residential uses have replaced the areas original uses: one- and two- story buildings, generally occupied by light industrial (including manufacturing and warehousing uses), office, and various other commercial uses.

Four projects within the Specific Plan area were counted toward the sixth cycle RHNA as approved, proposed, or under construction. Nine Five remaining parcels, on approximately 30

5.7 acres, have been identified as sites and remain to be re -developed. Not Viable sites were identified and excluded based on existing uses. Assuming realistic capacity, on a parcel-level, the Lawrence Station Area Plan sites identified in this Housing Element can accommodate a total of 9,808395 units (see Table 13.6- 5). Appendix B provides a detailed list of all sites, including assumed affordability.

FIGURE 13.6-6 LAWRENCE STATION LAND USE DIAGRAM
j
Legend
• Very High Density Residential
51-!000U IAC
• High Density Residential
37-50DU IAC
Medium Density Residential
20-36DUIAC
Low Density Residential
8-19 DU/AC
• Public/ Quasi Public
Floating Parx

13.6 -
=-
D
111 Notit: This dn.w~ is oonotpt\Wonl)'J spedfi:is m&ych.&np dwi~unparrwntat ion.

Parks I Open Space
(Phase t )
Parks I Open Space
(Pha .. 2)
tcon<eptuol )
- Public Righi-Of-Way
Private Right-Of-Way
11111 Grade Separated Crossing
(conceptual )
1"s 300'
O' 100' 200' 300' 500'

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page 13 ends

FIGURE 13.6-7 LAWRENCE STATION SITES
-· :1
City of Santa Clara
Lawrence Station Area Plan
Specific Plan Sites
Legend
Basemap Features
[~-=-: Santa Clara City limits
Surroundin g Cities
Major Destinations
Rivers and Wat erbod ies
Park.san d Open Space
~- Railways
Specific Plan Sites
- Appro ved
- Under Construction
- Available
Sc,..ro,4~. E,;. Counr,ofS-... 0.-a OpenOllla 2022.

Cty c:J Stmta O.ua 3'.122.

Page 13 ends

13.6 SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page 13 ends

Availability of Sites for Housing .............................................................................................................. 1 Sites Inventory Methodology and Assumptions ................................................................................... 7 Site Selection ............................................................................................................................................. 16

List of Tables
Table 13.6-1 City of Santa Clara RHNA 2023-2031 ................................................................................ 2 Table 13.6-2 Pending and Approved Projects ........................................................................................ 4 Table 13.6-3 High-Density Projects in Specific Plan Areas................................................................... 9 Table 13.6-4 Specific Plan Land Use Designations .............................................................................. 14 Table 13.6-5 Sites to Meet the RHNA .................................................................................................... 16 Table 13.6-6 2010-2035 General Plan Focus Areas ............................................................................... 19

List of Figures
FIGURE 13.6-1 Sites Inventory ............................................................................................................... 23 FIGURE 13.6-2 Tasman East Land Use Diagram ................................................................................. 26 FIGURE 13.6-3 Tasman East Sites .......................................................................................................... 27 FIGURE 13.6-4 Patrick Henry Land Use Diagram .............................................................................. 29 FIGURE 13.6-5 Patrick Henry Sites ..................................................................................................... 299 FIGURE 13.6-6 Lawrence Station Land Use Diagram ........................................................................ 31 FIGURE 13.6-7 Lawrence Station Sites .................................................................................................. 32

Page 13 ends

Chapter 13.7
Housing Element Program Accomplishments
This chapter analyzes program performance for the City of Santa Clara’s 2015-2023 Housing Element programs. State law (California Government Code Section 65588[a]) requires each jurisdiction to review its Housing Element as frequently as appropriate and evaluate:
• The appropriateness of the housing goals, objectives, and policies in contributing to the attainment of the state housing goals • The effectiveness of the Housing Element in attainment of the community’s housing goals and objectives • Progress in implementation of the Housing Element
This evaluation provides critical information on the extent to which programs have achieved stated objectives and whether these programs continue to be relevant to addressing current and future housing needs in Santa Clara. The evaluation provides the basis for recommended modifications to policies and programs and the establishment of new housing objectives. The Department of Housing and Community Development determined that the Santa Clara 2015-2023 Housing Element was in full compliance with State law.

Following adoption in 2015, the City was tasked with following through on the commitments made in the housing programs. The City has analyzed the effectiveness of the 5
th cycle Housing Plan actions, policies, and goals and has used this evaluation to inform the revised Housing Plan for the 6 th cycle. While the fair housing ana lysis conducted in Chapter 3 relied upon contemporary data , the retroactive analysis of past program accomplishments depended on data points collected during program actions that, in some cases, did not align directly with the data points collected during the fair housing analysis conducted for the 6th cycle.

Specific attention was given in the evaluation of the cumulative effectiveness of past goals, policies, and related actions in meeting the housing needs of special populations. In cases where data was not available, institutional knowledge and staff interviews were used to provide context for the program evaluation. Generally, the effectiveness of the action was evaluated in terms of the:
• number of individuals served
• cost of the program/action based on the benefit to the individual served • availability of funding and resources
• efficiency and effectiveness of the program partners and service providers

13.7 SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page 13 ends

• the ability to satisfy expressed AFFH requirements in the next cycle.

Overall, the programs that targeted households showed that services were provided to a number of special needs households such as the elderly, persons with disabilities, female-headed households, and persons experiencing homelessness. Indirectly, the jurisdiction made efforts to increase affordability via policies supporting varied types and tenures and increase the affordable housing stock that generally improved the availability of housing that variably resulted in serving special needs households. Although no specific data points exist for some of the 5
th cycle programs, it is expected that the populations served under many of the direct service actions align with those programs that did collect data, as shown in the matrix below. Overcrowded households were not identified in the 5th cycle as a targeted demographic for specific action, nor was farmworker housing as there are no active farms in the City of Santa Clara and no Agricultural Land Use Designations beyond the allowed use of community or urban gardens. However, during commu nity engagement, an effort was made to identify farmworker populations that could be commuting to other jurisdictions or retired farmworkers that would be eligible for farmworker housing.

Anecdotally and statistically, we know that overcrowding is increasing due to affordability pressures on all households and the most vulnerable special needs populations will require additional attention beyond tenant protections. Therefore, many of the new program goals, policies, and actions are informed not only by the 5 th cycle evaluation but the fair housing assessment and community input collected during the authoring of the Housing Element. Further, the City participated in a regional Assessment of Fair Housing process led by Santa Clara County - during the development of this document and facilitated a local homelessness taskforce and outreach process in 2022. Analyzing the cumulative effectiveness of the 5 th cycle Housing Plan actions, policies, and goals in conjunction with the additional anal yses conducted in this document along with community engagement , has provided clarity and focus on the development of the 6th cycle Housing Plan.

Following the evaluation table, the quantified objective performance is summarized. For the next cycle, 2023 -2031 the Actions have been reprioritized and will be reordered based on the updated goals, policies, and the integration of HCD’s new Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing requirements.

Page 13 ends

5th Cycle Housing Plan
Table 13.7-1: Goals and Policies
Goal A: Create and maintain high-quality, livable, and unique residential neighborhoods and preserve established single-family neighborhoods.

Policy A-1 Maintain and improve the quality of residential neighborhoods, eliminate housing deficiencies and prevent future blight through the encouragement of ongoing maintenance, rehabilitation and conservation of existing housing stock.

Policy A-2 Provide code enforcement support for residential neighborhoods in conformance with City Code and Zoning Ordinance regulati ons.

Policy A-3 Promote compatibility between neighborhoods while respecting differences in neighborhood character.

Policy A-4 Promote consensus with City Design Guidelines.

Goal B: Manage growth in the City by designating suitable vacant or underutilized sites for new residential development and ensuring compatibility with community goals and existing neighborhoods.

Policy B-1 Disperse affordable housing units throughout the City to avoid a concentration in any one neighborhood.

Policy B-2 Encourage the building of higher density housing on appropriate vacant or underutilized sites.

Policy B-3 Encourage the annual construction of the number of housing units necessary to meet the City’s regional housing needs determination through housing finance and reducing development constraints.

Policy B-4 Promote compatibility between neighborhoods while respecting differences in neighborhood character.

Policy B-5 Work towards the mitigation of jobs/housing ratio impacts created by developments with significant employment.

Policy B-6 Encourage higher density residential development in transit-oriented and mixed-use areas where appropriate.

Policy B-7 Encourage a mix of unit types and sizes in new housing development.

Goal C Provide housing within the community for persons of all economic levels, regardless of religion, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry, familial status, source of income, or mental or physical disability.

Policy C-1 Construct and preserve affordable housing for lower and moderate-income households through the use of public subsidies, regulatory incentives and flexible development standards.

Policy C-2 Participate in local, regional, State and federal programs that support affordable, transitional, supportive and permanent housing.

Policy C-3 Create opportunities for affordable housing and housing to support special needs populations and extremely low-income households.

Policy C-4 Ensure equitable housing opportunities for all residents.

Goal D Provide an adequate variety of individual choices of housing tenure, type and location, including higher density where possible, especially for low and moderate income and special needs households.

Policy D-1 Promote a variety of housing types, indifferent locations to maintain social and economic diversity in the City.

Policy D-2 Participate in programs that provide support services to residents in need.

Policy D-3 Increase public outreach efforts to inform residents and potential developers of available City housing programs.

13.7 SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page 13 ends

Table 13.7-1: Goals and Policies
Policy D-4 Encourage early participation from residents and other stakeholders in development of long-range plans and review of new development proposals.

Policy D-5 Ensure compliance with all State and federal regulations relating to housing opportunities and the prevention of discriminati on.

Source(s): City of Santa Clara, 2022

Table 13.7-2: Actions and Objectives
Action Program Title & Objective Achievements/Results Evaluation Recommendation Action 1 Neighborhood Conservation Improvement
Program (NCIP). Assist approximately 424
homeowners with rehabilitation assistance,
including approximately 160 extremely
low-income households (ELI). Continue to
conduct inspections of homes on a request
and complaint basis, providing referrals to
the NCIP and assistance where possible to
correct identified issues and problems.

Policy A-1
2022: The City increased funding for smaller grant
funded projects that address accessibility and
minor repairs.
2018-21: The Housing and Community Services
division increased funding for this program
(approximately $1 million annually) to assist more
low-income and senior homeowners to improve
the habitability, use and occupancy of owner-
occupied housing.
2017: A NCIP Procedure Manual was updated
and approved by the Loan Committee.
2015-16: An NCIP Procedural Manual is annually
updated and approved by the Loan Committee.

Since 2014,
the program
has assisted
over 121
low-income
households
of which 53
were
seniors, and
37 were
female
headed
households,
and 11 were
disabled.

Continue to offer
these services,
every two years
the City could
conduct
proactive
outreach to low-
income
homeowners
who are elderly,
have disabilities,
or have large
households.

Renumbered and
Renamed to
Action 4:

Maintenance of
Housing Stock
Action 2 Preservation of Assisted Rental Housing.

Continue to assist property owners of
assisted housing by providing funding to
make periodic improvements to the
property, if available. Such assistance helps
the project maintain its affordability.

Since 2014 the city has assisted with the
preservation of Riverwood Place (146 units)
by restructuring an existing City loan to
allow for improvements and to extend
affordability by 18 years. The City also
helped preserve the 42-unit Westwood
Both
projects
serve lower
income
families
Continue to
explore ways to
preserve housing
that serves a
variety of groups
pending

Page 13 ends

Table 13.7-2: Actions and Objectives
Action Program Title & Objective Achievements/Results Evaluation Recommendation Continue to monitor at risk project by
maintaining contact with the property
owner annually regarding long term plans
for the project.

Establish contact with public and nonprofit
agencies interested in purchasing and/or
managing units at risk. As necessary and
feasible, the City will provide financial and
technical assistance to these organizations.

Provide tenant education on Section 8
rental subsidies and other available
assistance through City and County
agencies as well as nonprofit
organizations. Notify tenants at least one
year in advance of potential conversion to
market rate housing. Provide information
regarding tenant rights and conversion
procedures.

Policy B-1, Policy C-1, Policy C-2, Policy C-
3, Policy D-1
Ambassador complex by restructuring our
existing loan to allow for rehabilitation and to
extend affordability by 27 years.
available CDBG
and PHLA
capital funding,
housing
vouchers,
funding for
supportive
services, and the
interest of
property owners
to collaborate.

Renumbered to
Action 5
Action 3 Acquisition of Multi-Family Housing.

Annually explore funding sources
available at the regional, State, and federal
levels to support acquisition/rehabilitation
opportunities.

Work with nonprofit entities to
acquire and rehabilitate existing multi-
family structures to be maintained
as affordable rental housing.

Seek opportunities to identify and
purchase deteriorated residential
properties during depressed rental
Multi-Family Housing Acquisition and
Rehabilitation Status:
2018-21: The City seeks opportunities to occupy
deteriorated properties that, during times of
depressed rental markets, cannot raise sufficient
capital to rehabilitate. This is an active City
program; however, market conditions have not
provided compelling opportunities. In the
meantime, the Housing and Community Services
Division has launched a multi-family energy
focused rehabilitation incentive for affordable
The City is
not well
positioned
to regularly
compete for
land on the
open
market.

Continue to
coordinate with
affordable
housing
developers and
to explore and
prioritize sites for
possible funding
assistance from
the City.

13.7 SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page 13 ends

Table 13.7-2: Actions and Objectives
Action Program Title & Objective Achievements/Results Evaluation Recommendation markets, rehabilitate units, and convert
from market rate to affordable levels.

Policy B-1, Policy C-1, Policy C-2, Policy C-
3, Policy D-1
projects in Santa Clara, with three projects
currently in the pipeline.
2019-20: The City of Santa Clara has worked with
Riverwood Place Associates, L.P. (MidPen
Housing Corporation) to extend the affordable
housing requirements for 148 rental units within
the project located at 5090 Lick Mill Boulevard.

MidPen approached the City of Santa Clara with a
proposal to fund a solar panel installation as solar
provides a great opportunity for long-term
sustainability and cost savings. The estimated
capital cost was estimated to be around $680,000.

MidPen Housing also proposed, as part of the
financing strategy, to modify the terms of the
City’s existing Promissory Note. Whereas the
original Promissory Note entitled the City to 75%
of residual cash flow receipts, the proposed
modification would entail a conventional 50/50
split of residual receipts between the City and
MidPen. In exchange for the requested
modification, the City requested to increase the
interest rate to 2% from the original 0% and to
extend the affordability covenants maturity date
from March 14, 2056 to March 14, 2074, thereby
preserving 148 studio apartments serving special
needs adults for an additional 18 years.
2015-17: The City seeks opportunities to occupy
deteriorated properties that, during times of
depressed rental markets, cannot raise sufficient
capital to rehabilitate. This is an active City
program. These units are then converted to
affordable units.

Renumbered to
Action 6

Page 13 ends

Table 13.7-2: Actions and Objectives
Action Program Title & Objective Achievements/Results Evaluation Recommendation Action 4 Code Enforcement Program -
Continue the multi-family residential
housing inspection and educational
programs.

Aggressively respond to violations of
housing codes.

Provide special attention to
maintaining the stability of residential
neighborhoods through development and
enforcement of minimum standards of
allowed use of the City’s streets, as well as
maintenance of front and other yard areas
visible from the public right-of-way.

Policy A-1, Policy A-2, Policy A-3, Policy
A-4
City has three full time code enforcement
technicians and one building inspector dedicated
to code enforcement. Program has been successful
in removing blight and substandard housing.

On-going Continue with
modification to
expand
Inspection and
Code
Enforcement
Program to
include
proactive Multi-
family
Residential
Housing
inspections and
educational
programs in a
regular cycle,
which is beyond
the current
program that
solely responds
to code
enforcement
complaints

Renumbered to
Action 7
Action 5 Neighborhood University Relations
Program.

Improve the maintenance of student-
occupied homes and behavior of the
occupants to minimize impacts on the
Improve Relationship between Santa Clara
University Students and other city residents in
neighborhoods adjacent to SCU 2015-17 Status:

The Planning Division and Police Department
continue cooperation and giving attention to this
On-going;
SCU now
requires
freshman
and
sophomore
Continue, as is

Renumbered to
Action 8

13.7 SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page 13 ends

Table 13.7-2: Actions and Objectives
Action Program Title & Objective Achievements/Results Evaluation Recommendation neighborhood surrounding Santa Clara
University (SCU).

Enhance code enforcement and special
Police patrols to address the problems in
the area.

Continue to hold meetings three times per
year with student tenants, landlords, SCU,
residents and the City to allow
opportunities for stakeholders to
discuss neighborhood issues and concerns.

Continue to work with neighbors
(residents, businesses, and institutions
such as Santa Clara University) to ensure
that development is compatible with
existing neighborhoods and that neighbors
are satisfied with the design, density, and
parking requirements of projects.

Policy A-1, Policy A-2, Policy A-3, Policy
A-4
area. Meetings of all parties involved occur at
least monthly.
students to
live on
campus,
with some
exceptions
Action 6 Zoning Ordinance.

Complete the comprehensive update to the
Zoning Ordinance by mid-2016.

Continue to monitor the Zoning Ordinance
for any potential constraints to the
development of housing, particularly
housing for persons with special needs
(including those with developmental
disabilities) and amend the Zoning
Ordinance as necessary.

Policy A-3, Policy A-4, Policy B-2, Policy C-
1, Policy C-2, Policy
C-3, Policy C-4, Policy D-1, Policy D-5
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Update 2015-
22 Status: The City is continuing to work on the
comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Update,
including the creation of more flexible mixed-use
zoning districts that will be applied in the City's
Focus Areas, including El Camino, Tasman East
and Freedom Circle/Patrick Henry Drive.

The City has
updated the
zoning
ordinance as
the Specific
Plans have
been
adopted.

The City is
currently
updated the
Zoning
Ordinance
Continue, as is

Renumbered to
Action 9

Page 13 ends

Table 13.7-2: Actions and Objectives
Action Program Title & Objective Achievements/Results Evaluation Recommendation with an
anticipated
completion
in 1Q2023.

Action 7 Adequate Sites Inventory.

Maintain an inventory of housing sites
appropriate for a range of income levels
and housing types, including supportive
housing for persons with disabilities and
developmental disabilities.

Provide information and technical
assistance on Federal and State funding
sources or referrals to appropriate
agencies.

Disperse and monitor the location of
affordable units in various areas of the
City.

Review housing sites inventory at time of
development proposal to determine
consistency with proposed density and
assumed density in Housing Element.

Maintain a zero net loss of units identified
in the opportunity sites inventory of this
Housing Element. If the assumed density
is not entitled, a finding must be made that
the displaced units can be redistributed to
other opportunity sites.

Encourage developments that are transit-
based or in close proximity to transit when
determining City affordable housing
funding decision priorities.

Identify Housing Sites (including TOD and Mixed
Use) in General Plan. Status: Sites were identified
in the General Plan and new housing has been
approved and built-in areas designated for mixed
use, including El Camino Real. The underutilized
sites inventory is used during consultations with
prospective developers.

On-going;
Lawrence
Station,
Tasman East
and Patrick
Henry Drive
specific
plans
approved
Continue, with
modification

Renumbered to
Action 10

13.7 SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page 13 ends

Table 13.7-2: Actions and Objectives
Action Program Title & Objective Achievements/Results Evaluation Recommendation Encourage Mixed Use development where
appropriate to provide increased
opportunities for housing development.

Notify owners of mixed use designated
sites through an outreach/marketing
program.

Policy B-1, Policy B-2, Policy B-3, Policy B-
5, Policy B-6, Policy B-7, Policy C-1, Policy
C-3, Policy D-1, Policy D-3, Policy D-4
Action 8 Lot Consolidation.

Provide technical assistance regarding the
lot consolidation process to interested
parties.

Provide the sites inventory to interested
developers and assist in identifying sites
with lot consolidation potential.

Process lot consolidation applications
concurrently with other applications for
development.

Policy B-2, Policy B-3, Policy C-1, Policy D-
1 Consolidate lots for development 2015-17 Status:

The City has been processing parcel maps and lot
mergers to create larger, more easily developable
sites, primarily occurring in the El Camino Real
PDA.

This process
has been
successful
when
applied
strategically
Discontinue
Action 9 Impact Fees.

Assess if impact fees are constraining
development or providing a competitive
edge for the City. If City fees deviate
significantly from those charged by
comparable communities, take actions to
adjust fees as appropriate.

Policy B-2, Policy B-3, B-5, B-6, B-7, Policy
C-3, Policy D-1
Explore Residential and Commercial Nexus
Studies Status:
2017: The City completed both a residential and
non-residential nexus study and has adopted
residential and non-residential impact fees.
2016: The City has commissioned both a
residential and non-residential nexus study and is
currently doing outreach with stakeholders and
the wider community.

The nexus
studies have
informed
the Zoning
Ordinance
update
Continue
Renumbered to
Action 11

Page 13 ends

Table 13.7-2: Actions and Objectives
Action Program Title & Objective Achievements/Results Evaluation Recommendation 2015: Studies have been required as part of
environmental review of new employment-
related developments, but conditioning and
funding have only been accomplished where
there were negotiations for a related Development
Agreement.

Action 10 Provision of a Variety of Housing Types.

Promote the construction of accessory
units to increase the type and size of the
City’s housing stock, with an objective of
25 units per year or 200 units over eight
years.

As part of the comprehensive Zoning
Ordinance update (to be completed by
mid-2016), reconsider, and revise if
appropriate, requirements for accessory
units.

Conduct an ongoing promotional
program, including mailings to owners of
single-family properties with adequate size
for accessory living units.

Support development of low-income
housing alternatives, such as single-room
occupancy (SRO) units, senior housing,
family housing, housing for persons with
disabilities (including developmental
disabilities) etc.

Encourage affordable, compatible one- and
two-story additions for upgrading single-
family homes.

Fund Alternative Affordable Housing Types 2017-
21 Status: The City is partnering with the
County’s Office of Supportive Housing to increase
the supply of housing that is affordable and
available to extremely low income and/or special
needs households in the City through the use of
funds from the 2016 Measure An Affordable
Housing Bond. There are four active projects in
the pipeline that total over 400 units. 165 of those
units are for seniors, 134 of those units are set-
aside for formerly homeless households, 15 units
are set-aside for individuals who are disabled or
have development disabilities, and 13 units are
homeownership units.

Encourage One- and Two-Story Additions 2015-21
Status: Almost 100% of proposed additions are
approved, subject to Architectural Review, were
consistent with zoning district standards.

Modifications are typically approved for reduced
rear yard for single story additions.

Expand very low and extremely low-income units
by following types of developments 2015-17
Status: SRO units, Senior Housing, Family
Housing, etc. Support can be in the form of City
This
program has
been
successful in
increasing
housing
types
Continue, as is

Renumbered to
Action 1

13.7 SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page 13 ends

Table 13.7-2: Actions and Objectives
Action Program Title & Objective Achievements/Results Evaluation Recommendation Provide increased flexibility for houses
built prior to the current zoning
requirements.

Continue to require the Residential Green
Checklist as part of the permit submittals
for residential construction.

Policy A-3, Policy B-1, Policy B-3, Policy C-
1, Policy C-3, Policy C-4, Policy D-1, Policy
D-3
funds to variances based on SROs unique
characteristics.

2015-16 Status: Although not designed as Mixed-
Use developments, residential units have been
approved/constructed in areas designated
Community Mixed Use. These projects will help
to bolster the viability of mixed-use projects along
the El Camino.

Accessory Dwelling Units: The City now
produces on the order of 50 ADUs/year, doubling
the 2014 estimate.

Action 11 Inclusionary Housing Policy.

Continue to implement the Inclusionary
Housing BMP and BMR programs.

Annually monitor the effectiveness of the
Inclusionary Housing Policy in expanding
the housing supply and diversity in the
community.

Policy B-1, Policy B-2, Policy B-3, Policy B-
7, Policy C-1, Policy C-2, Policy C-3, Policy
C-4, Policy D-1
Inclusionary Housing requirement 2015-21 Status:

The City's has adopted an Affordable Housing
Ordinance, which has increased the inclusionary
requirement 15% on site provision for for-sale and
rental project with 10 units or more (compared to
the previous requirement of 10% for only for-sale
projects with 10 or more units). RDA subsidies for
inclusionary housing were eliminated under the
BMP Program in 1997.

This policy
has been
applied
successfully
to housing
developmen
t projects
and has
produced
low- and
moderate-
income
housing.

Continue, with
modification

Renumbered and
renamed to
Action 2:

Affordable
Housing
Ordinance
Action 12 Affordable Housing Incentives.

Encourage and assist in efforts to combine
public and private funds in joint housing
ventures.

Develop Incentives for Affordable and Senior
Housing Projects 2015-21 Status: The Zoning Code
has been updated to reflect the current State
density bonus provisions.

On-going Continue, as is

Renumbered and
renamed to
Action 3:

Page 13 ends

Table 13.7-2: Actions and Objectives
Action Program Title & Objective Achievements/Results Evaluation Recommendation As appropriate, support and/or partner
with housing developers in the application
for affordable housing funding, such as
providing technical data, assistance in
identifying
available and appropriate sites, expediting
review and processing of affordable
housing, and providing local match as
funding is available.

Annually explore funding available at the
regional, state, and federal levels for
affordable housing development and
programs.

Continue to work with the Housing
Authority of Santa Clara County to expand
the Authority’s ability to create low- and
moderate-income housing.

Participate with other local jurisdictions to
provide affordable housing. Collaborate
with neighboring jurisdictions to pursue
funding opportunities for affordable
housing programs. CDBG and HOME
funds will continue to be used in
conjunction with other cities’ funds to
construct shelters and to provide housing
services.

Continue to provide density bonuses or
equivalent financial incentives for housing
projects which include affordable and/or
senior housing units, consistent with State
law requirements.

Affordable
Housing
Incentives and
Facilitation

13.7 SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page 13 ends

Table 13.7-2: Actions and Objectives
Action Program Title & Objective Achievements/Results Evaluation Recommendation Encourage housing developers to use the
City’s Density Bonus Ordinance and the
Planned Development Zone District,
which allow for flexibility in the zoning
regulations.

Continue to pursue opportunities to
acquire and rehabilitate existing multi-
family structures to be maintained as
affordable rental housing.

Encourage the provision of specialized
housing to meet the needs of those with
disabilities (including developmental
disabilities); or for group care, emergency
housing and foster homes, where
appropriate.

Identify situations of overcrowding and
educate families of local housing
programs.

Incentivize nonprofit developers to
develop units for very low and extremely
low households by identifying appropriate
housing sites or rehabilitation projects
and matching developers with funding
sources.

Continue to require the Residential Green
Checklist as part of the permit submittals
for residential construction.

Consider, in 2015-2016, other feasible
incentives to foster affordable housing
development in the City. These may
include fee deferral, reduction, or waivers.

Page 13 ends

Table 13.7-2: Actions and Objectives
Action Program Title & Objective Achievements/Results Evaluation Recommendation Policy B-1, Policy B-2, Policy B-3, Policy B-
7, Policy C-1, Policy C-2, Policy C-3, Policy
C-4, Policy D-1
Action 13 Housing Mitigation Fee.

Continue to require housing impact
studies as part of project- related
environmental reviews for new
developments or businesses that generate a
high number of jobs.

Continue to require Housing Impact
Studies through development agreements
with new projects, to address the impact
on the affordable housing supply.

Consider, in 2015-2016, establishing an
affordable housing mitigation fee for office
and industrial developments that propose
a significant square footage of area where
persons are to be employed.

Policy B-2, Policy B-3, Policy C-1, Policy D-
1 Requirement of Housing Impact Fee Studies for
the largest projects; Development of a Housing
Impact Fee Program Status:
2017-21: The City has adopted an Affordable
Housing Ordinance, consisting of inclusionary on-
site requirement for residential projects, impact
fees for residential projects with 9 or fewer units,
for fractional units and for nonresidential
development. These requirements became
effective on February 22, 2018.
2015-16: The City is currently in the process of
outreach with the community and stakeholder to
determine appropriate Affordable Housing
impact fees, residential and non-residential.

On-going Discontinue
Action 14 Affordable Housing Funding.

Identify a steady source of affordable
housing funds.

Pursue funding available from State,
federal, and regional housing programs.

Policy B-1, Policy B-2, Policy B-3, Policy B-
7, Policy C-1, Policy C-2, Policy C-3, Policy
C-4, Policy D-1
In 2022 the City joined the Santa Clara County
PHLA Housing Consortium and will be allocating
2019 and 2020 funding in 2023.2017-21: The City
has adopted an Affordable Housing Ordinance,
which includes a commercial linkage fee. The
ordinance became effective on February 22, 2018,
and since fall of 2021 has generated $5.6 million
since to address affordable housing needs in Santa
Clara.
2015-16: The City is currently participating in the
drafting of a multi-city nexus study for the
On-going Continue to plan
and allocate
PHLA funding
and to look for
additional
ongoing funding
sources.

Renumbered to
Action 12

13.7 SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page 13 ends

Table 13.7-2: Actions and Objectives
Action Program Title & Objective Achievements/Results Evaluation Recommendation creation of both residential and commercial
housing impact fees.

Action 15 Economic Displacement.

Evaluate programs and policies and
provide recommendations to City
Council within one years of Housing
Element adoption. As necessary and
appropriate, adopt programs and policies
to address displacement within two years
of Housing Element adoption. Monitor
programs and policies bi-annually for
effectiveness.

Policy B-4, Policy B-5, Policy C-1
The City continues to provide Tenant Based Rental
Assistance (TBRA) in the form of deposits and
rental subsidies for up to 12 months, along with
case management services, to families with
children experiencing homelessness, those fleeing
domestic violence, or families with children that
are at risk of homelessness.

Community Ownership Conversion Tenant
Protections 2018-21 Status: In the case of
condominium conversions, landlords are required
to provide tenant protections, including advance
notice requirements, right of first refusal, and
relocation assistance

2019-20 - On March 24, 2020, the Santa Clara City
Council approved Ordinances 2014 and 2015,
establishing a temporary eviction moratorium in
response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The
moratorium went into effect immediately, March
24, and the Council subsequently extended the
moratorium through August 31, 2020, at which
time AB 3088 established a statewide prohibition
on residential evictions.

Provide Relocation Assistance to Residents
Displaced by Redevelopment 2015-17: With the
closure of the RDA, the City is exploring funding
The
eviction
moratoriu
m has since
expired,
and state
and
pandemic
related
local rental
assistance
programs
have
ended.

Additional
programs
may be
needed to
respond to
displaceme
nt
pressures.

Continue to
provide TBRA
and explore
additional
programs that
respond to and
prevent
homelessness
and
displacement.

Allocate the
City’s HOME
ARP funding in
2023.

Renumbered and
renamed to
Action 13:

Residential
Displacement

Page 13 ends

Table 13.7-2: Actions and Objectives
Action Program Title & Objective Achievements/Results Evaluation Recommendation streams, including housing linkage fees, for
relocation assistance. The City actively encourages
developers to provide advance notice and
relocation assistance for displaced tenants.

Action 16 Shared Housing.

Continue to support programs designed to
create shared housing arrangements for
seniors, families, and persons with
disabilities (including developmental
disabilities).

Annually evaluate the need for shared
housing services as part of the CDBG
annual plan process.

Policy B-1, Policy C-2, Policy C-3, Policy C-
4, Policy D-1, Policy
D-2
Support Shared Living Facilities & Operations
2015-21 Status: The City encourages shared
housing arrangements and group living
arrangements for special populations who are
very low income. In 2018 there was one official
shared housing program for seniors in Santa Clara
County and it was operated by Catholic Charities.

This program ended because it was not
sustainable, as it had too few landlords, too many
renters, and it required a lot of staff facilitation.

Some Seniors have indicated to City staff that they
would prefer a 1 bedroom with support services
for privacy and safety reasons.

Home
sharing can
work well
for group
homes, but
less so for
the elderly
residents.

Continue to
support the
creation of new
shared housing
for persons with
developmental
disabilities.

Explore service
enhanced senior
housing with
rents capped at
30% of income
versus based on
AMI. Explore a
new position to
help seniors
navigate the
housing market
and to access
subsidized
housing.

Renumbered to
Action 18
Action 17 Housing Choice Voucher Program.

Continue to participate in and promote the
Housing Choice Voucher Program.

Promote Section 8 Housing Program 2015 Status:

Currently, the Housing Authority has 659
certificates/vouchers under contract within the
City, 269 of which are elderly.

On-going Continue, as is

Renumbered to
Action 14

13.7 SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page 13 ends

Table 13.7-2: Actions and Objectives
Action Program Title & Objective Achievements/Results Evaluation Recommendation Encourage apartment owners to list
properties with the Housing Authority for
individual Housing Choice Vouchers.

Policy B-1, Policy C-1, Policy C-2, Policy C-
3, Policy D-1
Action 18 Homeownership for First-Time Buyers.

Continue to collaborate with NHSSV to
implement the BMP program and provide
assistance to approximately 10 to 15 lower,
moderate-, and middle-income households
during the 2015-2023 Housing Element
planning period.

Promote homeownership, particularly for
first time buyers, through single-family,
townhouse and condominium construction
as well as conversion of rental to
condominium ownership, where
appropriate.

Encourage program participation among
moderate income households, as well as
low-income households, while interest
rates are low.

Continue to promote homebuyer
assistance programs through the Housing
Trust Silicon Valley and the County of
Santa Clara. Include links to these housing
resources on City website by 2015.

Policy B-1, Policy C-2, Policy D-1
Support and Fund First-Time Homebuyers
(FTHB) 2015 Status: The Santa Clara’s BMP
(Below Market Purchase) program produced 4
first time homebuyers this year. They were all
moderate income. There are 106 BMP owners in
the current program since 2007 through October
28, 2022.

The
current
BMP
program
does not
require
BMP
homes to
stay
affordable
for more
than five
years.

Policy
changes
could
require
resale to
income
qualified
buyers and
create
more
Continue, with
modification to
require longer
affordability
terms on BMP
homes.

Renumbered to
Action 15

Page 13 ends

Table 13.7-2: Actions and Objectives
Action Program Title & Objective Achievements/Results Evaluation Recommendation opportuniti
es.

Action 19 Fair Housing Program.

Continue to refer tenant-landlord
complaints to an agency offering
meditation.

Provide referral services and promotional
support to link those experiencing
discrimination in housing with public or
private groups who handle complaints
against discrimination.

Seek state and federal enforcement of fair
housing laws and continue to cooperate
with local agencies investigating claims of
discrimination in lending practices and
predatory lending.

Provide outreach and education materials
about fair housing services, nonprofit
partners (e.g., Project Sentinel).

Continue to hold open house events and
meetings to distribute fair housing
information and resources to tenants and
homeowners in need of assistance.

Refer disputes between property owners to
the County Human Relations
Commission’s Dispute Officer.

Policy B-1, Policy C-2, Policy D-1
Contract with Non-Profit Agency for Mediation
Services 2015 Status: Annual service contract with
Project Sentinel to provide tenant-landlord
dispute resolution service on city-wide basis

Provide Referral Services and Support for
Discrimination Concerns 2015 Status: Provision of
fair housing services by the City is essential to
meet federal and State requirements to
affirmatively further fair housing. Housing
projects funded by federal HOME funds must
develop and implement an affirmative marketing
plan.

This has
been an
important
resource
that will
continue to
expand in
outreach
Continue, with
modification

Renumbered to
Action 16
Action 20 Homeless Services.

Assist in funding locally administered
programs that provide shelter, food and
clothing for those with transitional and
supportive housing needs.

The City has invested several hundred units of
permanent supportive housing and/or ELI/VLI
housing for families, individuals, and seniors.

The City
has
invested in
a variety of
Continue to
fund services
and complete
the City’s local

13.7 SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page 13 ends

Table 13.7-2: Actions and Objectives
Action Program Title & Objective Achievements/Results Evaluation Recommendation Continue to support housing for at-risk
youth.

Policy B-1, Policy C-2, Policy D-1
The City has also invested in public services
through its CDBG and HOME programs
including Tenant Based Rental Assist ance, the
regional Homelessness Prevention System, case
management services for permanent supportive
housing, assistance for survivors of domestic
violence, and more. In 2022 the City conducted a
six-month
Homelessness Task Force and
outreach process and p ublished a draft strategic
framework.

services
and is in
the process
of writing a
local
strategic
plan to
expand its
efforts.

homelessness
response plan
and begin
implementing
new programs
that respond to
the identified
gaps.

Renumbered to
Action 17

Source(s): City of Santa Clara, 2022

Page 13 ends

Quantified Objectives
Table 13.7-2 summarizes Santa Clara’s quantified objectives for the 2015-2023 Housing Element planning period and the progress the City has made, including progress meeting the City’s fifth cycle RHNA.

Table 13.7-3: Summary of 2015-2023 Housing Element Quantified Objectives (through 2022 APR) Source(s): City of Santa Clara, 2023

Objectives
Affordability Breakdown
Totals
Extremely
Low Very Low Low Moderate
Above
Moderate
Building Permit Objectives (RHNA)
Goal - 1,050 695 755 1,593 4,093
Progress - 289474 246502 125213 4,6066,932 5,266
Single-Family Rehabilitation Objective
Goal 424 (160 ELI) - - 424
Progress 121 (24 ELI) - - 121
At-Risk Housing Units to Preserve
Goal - - - - - -
Progress - - - - - -

13.7 SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page 13 ends

This page was left intentionally blank.

Page 13 ends

5th Cycle Housing Plan ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Quantified Objectives ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 21

List of Tables
Table 13.7-1: Goals and Policies ................................................................................................................................................................................ 3 Table 13.7-2: Actions and Objectives ........................................................................................................................................................................ 4 Table 13.7-3: Summary of 2015-2023 Housing Element Quantified Objectives (through 2022 APR) ........................................................... 21

13.7 A

Page A-1

Appendix A
Outreach

Summary
As part of the Housing Element update draft a Public Engagement Plan (PEP) was developed by City staff to provide the community public participation opportunities during the development of the Housing Element under Gov. Code Section 65583 (c)(9). Additionally, the City set up a housing element webpage:
https://www.santaclaraca.gov/our-city/departments-a-f/community-development/planning- division/general-plan/housing-element-update; that provided continual updates as work on the 6th Cycle Housing Element progressed. The list-serv generated by this effort has 1,500 subscribers (as of January 3, 2023) that are notified when the page updates and notifications are posted regarding the Housing Element.

During the development of the PEP stakeholders were identified and interviewed, surveys were conducted in multiple languages, and comment on the draft element was received; all informing the final iteration of the 6
th Cycle Housing Element.

Stakeholder interviews were conducted to help build a framework for the 6th Cycle Housing Element. The interview questionnaire and summary are included in Appendix A-1: Stakeholder Interview Summary.

The stakeholders that were interviewed are a subset of interested parties that were contacted from a list of community members and organizations listed in Appendix A-2: Stakeholder List.

Shortly after the interviews were conducted, the City conducted an on-line survey to gather information about how residents were experiencing housing. The survey was conducted in English, Spanish, Vietnamese, and Chinese ( Mandarin). There were well over 1,500 responses which are summarized in Appendix A-3: Community Survey Summary. The survey results were incorporated into the formulation of the 6
th Cycle Housing Plan Goals, Policies, and Actions. Although, there was some demographic variance in the results of the survey, they were not statistically significant. Nonetheless, where there were apparent variances or interesting results, those were provided in the summary sections as additional result tables. Finally, feedback collected provided support for the Housing Plan a ctions focused on diverse outreach and engagement and services to protected classes.

Appendix A- 4: Regional Santa Clara County AFFH Related Outreach and Appendix A -5: Housing Element Specific Outreach provide numerous instances of regional and local outreach activities that the City conducted or participated in. As stated in the introduction to this 6 th Cycle Housing Element, outreach
consisted of:

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page A-2

• Community Meetings
• Stakeholders Meetings, Questionnaires, and Interviews • Digital Surveys: English, Spanish, Vietnamese, Chinese (Simple) • Community Events
• Community Pop-ups
• Tenant Listening Sessions
• Homelessness Taskforce Meetings
• Planning Commission and City Council Meetings
At a high level, the community engagement was utilized to balance and align community input with State Housing Law requirements. With, consistent themes of affordability, housing type and tenure, housing choice, tenant protections, and homelessness the o utreach process informed the Housing Plan actions, polices, and actions, and confirmed or highlighted trends identified by the demographic analysis.

Specifically outreach informed the creation of new efforts in the Housing Element as follows:
• Respondents to outreach and commentors were concerned that the designated levels of affordability in the city’s existing inclusionary ordinance are increasingly not affordable for many residents. The Housing Element includes a planned effort to update the inclusionary ordinance to increase a greater number of units in the deeper affordability categories and to redefine the City’s moderate affordability category to reflect a lower income range. Also proposed is including in the City’s Notice of Funding Availability spec ifications criteria that would prioritize City funding of Extremely Low Income and Very Low Income units.
• Consistent feedback was received through all outlets and demographics of respondents highlighting the need to better address homelessness. The City’s newly created Homelessness Task Force comprised of service providers, advocates, and individuals with lived experience of being unhoused have provided recommendations that are being pursued through the creation of a Homelessness Response Plan with implementation actions that will be adopted in early 2023. • Commentors provided feedback on the need for more displacement prevention. The Housing Plan includes the City Council’s future consideration of new policies and programs that would require no net loss of income restricted units during construction or rehabilitation of existing housing; replacement of existing affordable housing units at the same or lower affordability levels; landlord and City notification and information for tenants affected by efforts that would cause relocation; require developers to provide relocation benefits beyond State requirements.

I
A
Page A-3
• Residents of affordable and special needs housing shared at listening sessions that they have been particularly affected by heat waves and wildfire smoke. As part of the City’s CDBG program, the City will promote a Notice of Funding Availability process for installation of HVAC improvements for sensitive populations.

T
he City of Santa Clara asked for the public’s comments on the Housing Element Draft via i ts website, list-serv, social media, printed/mailed ne wsletter (Inside Santa Clara), e- newsletter (City Hall News) and public meetings. The comments were collected via Konveio , a p ublic comment platform for document review and via email. The public comments received on-line and via formal comment letter are included in Appendix A -6: Public Review Draft Comments, Figures 1 -9. Following the public comment period on the Housing Element Update, commenters and stakeholders were invited to a stakeholder mee ting to discuss the potential Housing Plan goals, policies, and actions that could address their questions and concerns.

Additionally, the City continued to engage in community outreach during the 90 -day r eview period of the Housing Element Draft by HCD. The input collected during this period is subsumed in the housing element
specific outreach mentioned above in Appendix A-5. Public and comment and formal letters continued to be addressed after the City received comments on the Housing Element Draft. Notably, the section on Housing Resources, was significantly revised based on formal comments regarding the City’s process for site selection.

Appendix A-1 Stakeholder Interview Summary
Six interviews were held via telephone, zoom, and/or email with internal and external community stakeholders between May and June 2022.

FIGURE 1: INTERVIEWS AND SCHEDULE
Santa Clara Unified School District May 9, 2022
Santa Clara Schools Foundation May 13, 2022
Santa Clara Senior Center May 13, 2022
PARS Equality Center May 18, 2021
Momentum for Health May 31, 2022
Calabazas Community Apartments, Adobe Services June 8, 2022 I

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page A-4

STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEW QUESTIONS & KEY FINDINGS

1. What are the strengths and assets that make Santa Clara a great place to live?

City of Santa Clara provides its residents with a safe, diverse, community driven environment. The public facilities and parks are a utilized asset in the community. • Weather
• Diverse population (ethnically,
economically, age)
• Safe
• Great public facilities, parks,
libraries, recreation facilities
• Great location, easily accessible to
other areas in the Bay Area
• Good transport
• Venues, entertainment options
• Small town, University/Community
College town makes it a great
location to live
• High quality schools
• Family and community oriented
• Supports its residents

2. What are the most critical challenges related to residential development in Santa Clara?

Due to the high cost of living and housing shortages, some residents are unable to afford rent or to buy homes.

A shortage of affordable and low-income housing could push residents out of the city.

• Cost of housing
• County code prohibits acquiring
homes and buildings
• Shortage of affordable and low-
income housing
• The personal home buying process is
difficult due to affordability and cash
offers
• Unable to place underhoused and
unhoused community in shelters or
affordable housing
• Lack of land for new developments
• Lack of housing and securing of
more housing
• Difficulty welcoming others, NIMBY
• Congestion in existing developed
areas
• High cost of rent and living will push
residents out of the area
• Wait list for housing vouchers,
Section 8 lottery
• Cost of construction
• Lacks character and a downtown
• Housing department is outsourcing
housing assistance as well as creating
barriers

3. What are your priorities for housing development in Santa Clara? I
A

Page A-5

The priorities for the City of Santa Clara should be t o provide affordable housing to the locals. Establishing creative housing programs is also a priority. Tackling homelessness should also be a priority. • Financial assistance and programs
for organizations to buy buildings for
services such as mental illness
facilities, homeless shelters
• Increase amount and accessibility of
affordable housing
• Partnerships with organizations to
allow for creativity
• Affordable housing for families who
work in Santa Clara and send their
children to public schools
• More affordable housing
• Subsidized housing options
• Facilities for people coming off the
streets

4. What is your definition of affordable housing and who does it serve?

The key responses include: prioritizing the service industry, seniors, police officers, teachers, and locals.

Residents should not have to pay more than 50% of their income for housing. • Subsidized housing, based on income
listed on tax returns
• Affordable housing and care for
individuals with serious mental
illnesses
• Serves people who are service
workers/blue collar as well as the
entire community
• Allows for a community to develop
in a city
• Housing that is affordable for
families to live in the city where they
work
• Two working adults can afford rent
without sacrificing food or a savings
• For teachers, seniors, police, only one
senior housing development in the
area

5. Are there housing projects (or general development trends) in oth er cities that are examples of what you would like to see in Santa Clara?

Below are examples of cities with housing projects or development trends suggested by the stakeholders. • 41 South 11
th Street house for housing
and maintaining housing for groups
of people
• Orange County Health Improvement
Plan is a nonprofit that works with
I

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page A-6

the county to train employees to
operate housing buildings
• Short term rental assistance (TBRA)
• Charities Housing in Cupertino
• The Veranda Senior Housing
• Apartments/Condominiums with
more than two bedrooms and in
large buildings
• Multigenerational housing
developments, co-ops:
https://www.cotaticohousing.org/
• San Jose, community engagement
• Permanent supportive housing
facility by PATH in San Jose: Villas
on the Park

6. How do you see Santa Clara changing over the next 8 -10 years? What role does housing play in these changes?

Providing children, elderly, and lower income residents with affordable housing options is critical to maintaining a sense of community in the City of Santa Clara. Creative and innovative housing approaches may pose challenges with locals.

• Shortage of professionals
• Something should be done about
affordable housing
• Less people will want to live in the
area if there are tents on the street
• Less taxes otherwise businesses
won’t thrive
• Give locals a reason to stay
• Expanding housing in a creative way
could make people uncomfortable
• If housing doesn’t change Santa
Clara will not grow in a diverse way
and live up to its potential
• Digitization of application processes
for affordable housing
• Reduced waiting and processing time
to meet demand
• Increased value in the area due to
new Google development
• Crime should be addressed for safety
• Equitable quality of school districts
• Multi-bedroom units are needed for
families to stay
• Increase in city policies and funding
toward creating affordable housing
for those in need

• Prioritize seniors and low income

7. Are there neighborhoods in the city that lack access to opportunities for healthy food, green space, transit, quality jobs and education?

Overall, the city provides access to opportunities for the residents of the City of Santa Clara. Some neighborhoods in the city could improve on access to food and transportation.

• Stakeholder is unfamiliar with the
area or does not live in the city
• City provides access to opportunities
• Bicycle lane improvements
• Suburban neighborhoods lack
walkability
I
A

Page A-7

• Transportation is infrequent and
does not include enough routes
• Some neighborhoods (such as
Lafayette) lacks access to nearby
grocery stores

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

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

9. How can the City, in partnership with stakeholder groups, help to ensure inclusive and equitable fair housing outreach that includes all segments of the community?

Partnering with stakeholder groups is important to the community, however inclusive and equitable outreach are key. Residents would like the city to provide outreach to residents in multiple languages and with clearer guidelines to ensure fair housing.

• Understand the residents’ needs
• Acknowledge subgroups other than
those defined by race or ethnicity
that need housing
• Ensure more affordable housing is
implemented
• Prioritize teachers, law enforcement,
nonprofit workers who want to stay
in the city
• Regular outreach meetings to share
community needs with the city
• Prioritize building multi bedroom
housing
• Provide information about housing
in multiple languages
• Provide clear guideline for who
qualifies for housing programs
• City’s emailing list does not reach all
groups
• Not realistic to buy a house in the
city of Santa Clara
I

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page A-8

10. Are there residential blocks or neighborhoods in the city that lack access to quality education and daycare, open space and parks, libraries, shopping, grocery stores, transit service, clean air, and/or other opportunities?

Below are examples of residential blocks or neighborhoods in the city that stakeholders suggest lack access to quality education and daycare, open space and parks, libraries, shopping, grocery stores, transit service, clean air, and/or other opportunities:

• Residential blocks exist in
unincorporated areas with the east
and south of the city - going towards
the foothills (White Rd) and south of
the City (Monterrey, Bernal Rd).

These areas need more
transportation.
• The state is investing resources in
BART and the light rail, but they are
not reaching those areas. There is a
need for more community health
clinics, subsidies for day cares
throughout the city.
• The northwest of the city will lack an
elementary school once all the units
are constructed
• Some neighborhoods are further
away from public amenities (such as
libraries)
• Clean air is a problem in areas like
Lawrence, Montague, Santa Moss,
and El Camino
• Lafayette and Clyde is a very
industrial block with factories and
chemical release
• Noise pollution from the nearby San
Jose airport, Levi’s stadium, and
major roads
• Not everybody has AC filters

I
A

Page A-9

11. Are there any other specific stakeholders we should be talking with?

Below is a list of suggested stakeholders to speak with:
o Teresa O’Neill – former city council member
o First community housing (https://www.firstcommunityhousing.org/), 21 major projects in Santa Clara County - experts in housing regulations and they understand the basic needs. o African American Cultural Center
o Donald, Executive Director of Pacific Clinics (Previously UpLift Family services) – he works with families, youth and can give a different perspective on other populations o Community Solutions
o Religious centers such as churches
I

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page A-10

Appendix A-2: Stakeholder List
The stakeholder list initially identified potential organizations and individuals that could be interviewed and potentially participate in a stakeholder workshop(s). The organizations and individuals were contacted by e-mail and direct phone calls to participate in a formal interview.

Company/Organization
Groups Served / Sector
Elderly/ Seniors
Persons Experiencing Homelessness
Families (large families, female headed
families)
Persons with disabilities
Persons with developmental disabilities
Lower income households
Farmworkers
Spanish speaking residents
Affordable Developer
Market Rate Developer
Santa Clara Housing Authority

City of Santa Clara Youth Commission Safe Place

City of Santa Clara Senior Advisory Commission x

Santa Clara Senior Center x

Heart of the Valley: Services for Seniors x

Santa Clara Lions Club

Santa Clara Libraries

West Valley-Mission Community College

Santa Clara University

x x

Mission College Santa Clara

x x

Santa Clara Historical Society

Santa Clara Unified School District

Santa Clara City Library Foundation and Friends

Santa Clara Youth Soccer League

Santa Clara Lions Youth Football & Cheer

Santa Clara Westside Little League

Briarwood El Camino Little League

Santa Clara Swim Club

Sierra Club Loma Prieta

Asian American Center of Santa Clara County x

San Jose Japanese American Citizens League

I
A

Page A-11

CAIR California San Francisco Bay Area

PARS Equity Center

Jewish Family Services of Silicon Valley x x x

Santa Clara Women’s League x

Elk’s Lodge #2347

Rotary Club of Santa Clara

Santa Clara Kiwanis Club x x x x x x

Sacred Heart Community Service x x x

Project Sentinel x x x x x x

Bill Wilson Center

SV@Home

Abode Services

Salvation Army (San Jose) x x x x x x

Homelessness Task Force

Planning Commission

Santa Clara Unified School District (McKinney
Vento homelessness prevention)

x x

City of Santa Clara Chamber of Commerce

Catholic Charities of Santa Clara County x x x x x x

Momentum for Health

x x

Roots Community Health Center x x x x x x

American Legion Santa Clara Post 419 (Veterans
Services)
x x

Working Partnerships USA

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page A-12

Appendix A-3: Community Survey Summary
FIGURE 1: HOW LONG HAVE YOU LIVED IN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA? (QUESTION 1; N=1,585)

FIGURE 2: HOW LONG HAVE YOU LIVED IN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA? (QUESTION 1; UNDER 18 – 44 YEARS OLD; N=471)
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Less
than 1
year
1 to 4
years
5 to 9
years
10 to 19
years
20 years
or more
I do not
live in
Santa
Clara
Prefer
not to
answer
• I I I ■ -
I
A

Page A-13

0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Less than 1
year
1 to 4 years 5 to 9 years 10 to 19
years
20 years or
more
18 and Under (n=4) 18-24 (n=10)
25-34 (n=192) 35-44 (n=265)
II.. II I I 11 I I 111
■ ■
■ ■
I

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page A-14

FIGURE 3: HOW LONG HAVE YOU LIVED IN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA? (QUESTION 1; UNDER 45 YEARS OLD – 65 AND ABOVE; N=842)

FIGURE 4: WHAT IS YOUR CURRENT HOUSING SITUATION? (QUESTION 2; N=1,651)

0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Less than 1
year
1 to 4 years 5 to 9 years 10 to 19 years 20 years or
more45-54 (n=238) 55-64 (n=261) 65 + (n=343)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
I own my
home
I rent my
home
I live with
friends/family
and do not
pay rent
I am
unhoused
I prefer not to
answer
Chinese (n=31) English (n=1,585)
Spanish (n=29) Vietnamese (n=6)
·- II I
■ ■ ■
■ II ·-
- ■ •--
■ ■
■ ■
I
A

Page A-15

FIGURE 5: WHAT IS YOUR CURRENT HOUSING SITUATION BY AGE GROUPING? (QUESTION 2; UNDER 18 – 44 YEARS OLD; N=471)

FIGURE 6: WHAT IS YOUR CURRENT HOUSING SITUATION BY AGE GROUPING? (QUESTION 2; UNDER 45 YEARS OLD – 65 AND ABOVE; N=1,651)

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%
100.00%
I own my
home
I rent my
home
I live with
friends/family
and do not
pay rent
I am
unhoused
I prefer not to
answer
18 and Under (n=4) 18-24 (n=10) 25-34 (n=192) 35-44 (n=265) 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
I own my home I rent my home I live with
friends/family
and do not pay
rent
I am unhoused I prefer not to
answer
45-44 (n=238) 55-64 (n=261) 65 + (n=343)
11 I._ __ I _
■ ■ ■ ■

11. -- - - - ---
■ ■ ■
I

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page A-16

FIGURE 7: DO YOU WORK AND/OR ATTEND SCHOOL IN SANTA CLARA, AND HOW MUCH TIME DO YOU SPEND TRAVELING AND BY WHICH MODE OF TRANSIT? (QUESTION 3; N=722)

0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
0-15 Minutes 16-30
Minutes
31-45
Minutes
46-60
Minutes
61+ Minutes
I Attend School in Santa Clara I work In Santa Clara

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%
Personal
Vehicle
Car Pool Van Pool Rideshare Public
Transit
Walk Bike
I Attend School in Santa Clara I work In Santa Clara
■ I -- - -
■ ■
■ _I -- -·
■ ■
I
A

Page A-17

FIGURE 8: WHAT TYPE OF HOUSING DO YOU THINK SANTA CLARA NEEDS MORE OF (PICK YOUR TOP 3 – ENGLISH SURVEY RESULTS)? (QUESTION 4; N=1,474)

FIGURE 9: WHAT TYPE OF HOUSING DO YOU THINK SANTA CLARA NEEDS MORE OF (PICK YOUR TOP 3 – ENGLISH SURVEY RESULTS BY AGE GROUPINGS)? (QUESTION 4)

0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Single Family Homes Senior Housing Townhomes
0 2
4 6
8 Apartments with 5
or more units
Interim/Transitional
housing
Single-Family Homes
18 -24 (n=28)
0 1
2 3
4 Permanent
Supportive Housing
Special Needs
Housing
Apartments with 4
Units of Less
18 and Under (n=8)
0 20
40 60
80 100
120
Single Family
Homes
Townhomes Apartments with 5
or more units
25-34 (n=441)
0 50
100
150
Single Family
Homes
Townhomes Apartments with 5
or more units
34-44 (n=585)
I

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page A-18

0 20
40 60
80 100
120
Single Family
Homes
Senior Housing Townhomes
45-54 (n=539)
0 50
100
150
Senior Housing Single-Family Homes Interim/Transitional Housing
55-65 (n=572)
0 50
100
150
200
Senior Housing Single-Family Homes Interim/Transitional Housing
65 + (n=740)
I
A

Page A-19

FIGURE 10: WHAT TYPE OF HOUSING DO YOU THINK SANTA CLARA NEEDS MORE OF (PICK YOUR TOP 3 – ALL LANGUAGES SURVEY RESULTS)? (QUESTION 4; N=1,538)

FIGURE 11: MORE HOUSING IS NEEDED FOR (ENGLISH SURVEY RESULTS): (RANK YOUR TOP 3) (QUESTION 5; N=1,452)

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%
100.00%
Chinese (n=31) English (n=1,474) Spanish (n=27) Vietnamese (n=6) 0 100
200
300
400
500
600
Seniors Single Parents Families
Top 3 #1 Rankings
Ill II. .11 II. Ill 11 111 111 II 11.
" •1\," ~ e,'> .~¢o e,'> 1\,c., -~¢o .~e" .~¢o ,e" ~ e,~ 0~ "" 0~ e,~ fi' fi' o' v t:-~ ov t:-~ o-> '{l>~ o-> /..e ~ ~ •1\," ~o s? ,,__o~
/..~ -~~ 'I>~'?; e~ i.._o'
~~
~ ·,..O ~'I>~ I:>-:. ~'?;
~v o' f$'"?' c.,e,;:; '&-0 .~¢o .~o
-~ <, -~ ~~ ~o fi' fi'
~-- -~ ~,;:; .._.::, ~~ o-> 'I>~
1\,c., ~ ..... c:.,~ o" 1\," ,,~ f
e,~ 1\,c., 00 · ◊ e,~ l> ~~
t:-~
e,~
c.f ~ ~,;:; ~fl} 1\,e
t:-~ /..~ -~ ,~ "?-~'?; ◊'?;
"?-~'?; ~e
'-,~<z;
■ ■ ■ ■
I

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page A-20

FIGURE 12: MORE HOUSING IS NEEDED FOR (SPANISH SURVEY RESULTS): (RANK YOUR TOP 3) (QUESTION 5; N=29)

FIGURE 13: MORE HOUSING IS NEEDED FOR (CHINESE SURVEY RESULTS): (RANK YOUR TOP 3) (QUESTION 5; N=31)

0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 Seniors Single Parents College
Students
Persons with
Disabilities
Top 3 #1 Rankings
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 Seniors Families Persons with
Disabilities
Top 3 #1 Rankings
I
A

Page A-21

FIGURE 14: MORE HOUSING IS NEEDED FOR (VIETNAMESE SURVEY RESULTS):
(RANK YOUR TOP 3) (QUESTION 5; N=6)

FIGURE 15: MORE HOUSING IS NEEDED FOR (ENGLISH SURVEY RESULTS): (RANK YOUR TOP 3) (QUESTION 5; BY AGE GROUPINGS 18 AND UNDER 44 YEARS OLD; N=784)

0 0.5
1 1.5
2 2.5
Persons with
Disabilities
Seniors Veterans
Top 3 #1 Rankings
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
# 1 Choices by Age Groupings
18 and Under 18-24 25-34 35-44

II I I II I II I I
~" ~" !'\." V' -~fl," ~" !'\." -~ ·O ll> 'r:f<:- ~<:- N.-q; q,<:- -~fl, ~ !'\.q; c,O <<.'~~ ~o' ~ -~ c.f ~q; c.,"'-.:s rt- ~ ~ • b'l> fl, ~ fl,
~ ~fl, Q" ~q,¢o ~~ ~¢o «.~ i,~ . .;s
cl -~ 'v
~" ~ ~" c,O
rt-~
■ ■ ■ ■
I

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page A-22

FIGURE 16: MORE HOUSING IS NEEDED FOR (ENGLISH SURVEY RESULTS): (RANK YOUR TOP 3) (QUESTION 5; BY AGE GROUPINGS 45 TO 65 AND ABOVE; N=784)

FIGURE 17: PLEASE TELL US HOW IMPORTANT THE FOLLOWING HOUSING ISSUES ARE TO YOU (0 IS UNIMPORTANT, 10 IS VERY IMPORTANT) (QUESTION 6-12) Average Answers for questions 6-12

6. Ensure that children who grow up in Santa Clara can afford to live in Santa Clara: 8 (N=1,427)

7. Provide opportunities for people who work in Santa Clara to live in Santa Clara: 8 (N=1,433)

8. Provide more options for older residents to downsize and stay in the community: 7 (N=1,410)

9. Streamline the process for new housing construction: 6 (N=1,407)

10. Provide shelters and transitional housing for homeless families and individuals, along with services that help move people into permanent housing: 6 (N=1,415)

11. Support programs to help homeowners at risk of mortgage default to keep their homes: 6 (N=1,401)

12. Establish housing near public transit: 7 (N=1,416)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
# 1 Choices by Age Groupings
45-54 55-64 65 +
I • ■ I ••• --- 1 .. --- Ill 111
~c, ~c, !<,.,c, ~ . e,'? f...c, !<,.,c, . e,'? -~o {I> 'o,<l.,~ ~<:;: -~ ~<z; <l.,~ -~ c,<l.,~ ~<z;
c,"'-..::; c,O ~1>~ ~o' ~,§- '::9" ~<z; <f. . ~'l> ~ <l., ~ ~<l., <l., ~¢o <:5' ':::,..e,¢J •!<,.,~~ ~,§- ',~ -~ 2s- 'v () $ ~" ~c,
c,O
<f.
~
■ ■ ■
I
A

Page A-23

FIGURE 18: PLEASE TELL US HOW IMPORTANT THE FOLLOWING PLANNING ISSUES ARE TO YOU (0 IS UNIMPORTANT, 10 IS VERY IMPORTANT) (QUESTION 13-15) Average Answers for questions 13-17

13. Environmental risks (e.g., wetlands, air quality, flood, etc.): 8 (N=1,287)

14. Potential traffic and congestion: 8 (N=1,393)

15. Preserving community character: 7 (N=1,386)

FIGURE 19: ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR ISSUES RELATED TO PLANNING FOR HOUSING IN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA? (QUESTION 16; N=833)

apartments building hl.gh dens1·ty hous1·ng IIIJl,d, .. 1Jll',ilt.t1. ... parking greenspace santa clara family climate change neighborhood affordable housing sing • 11 housing
single family home many people u le It public transportation city I low income lei state mandate water shortage
_ .. __., new development peop e year
..... _ _,,,_ community wateruse bar
apartments
new building res1"dents k. ot .. out., many apartments
homeless shelter homeless people
I

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page A-24

FIGURE 20: ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR ISSUES RELATED TO PLANNING FOR HOUSING IN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA? (QUESTION 16; SPANISH SURVEY; N=22)

FIGURE 21: ARE THERE ANY NEIGHBORHOODS IN SANTA CLARA THAT ARE

LACKING GOOD ACCESS TO AMENITIES LIKE PARKS, LIBRARIES, GROCERY STORES, SCHOOLS, BIKE LANES, ETC.? (QUESTION 17; N=645)

I
lack of cleanliness social wvrbn bausin( 1111
traffic
clan sut, cal!fnla
llaasa prica
11saafwlltlr
many '9ffllll<nb buiktinr
unaffardable rental unit
services
city of santa
battJt,
lillllM
..._ lllcaninollal
lidrnilpark peop Cllltrll PR. --north santa clara
r e;_.. el cam1no __
santa clara library wbia~ •• _. __
~ . ...i....... park amemt1es
... , ...
-- ne ··- ·"" prnrtym,
northside uhpark _k ___ area i or ood .... ..,. I el camino real public transit -a1n1 ... kids trader joe ■ ,,..,. '"'
school ~~. ~•ty grocery 8!!.".!! .... -.~
green space CIVIC center old quad
-~..,_
A

Page A-25

FIGURE 22: ARE THERE ANY NEIGHBORHOODS IN SANTA CLARA THAT ARE

LACKING GOOD ACCESS TO AMENITIES LIKE PARKS, LIBRARIES, GROCERY STORES, SCHOOLS, BIKE LANES, ETC.? (QUESTION 17; CHINESE SURVEY; N=10)

FIGURE 23: HOW OLD ARE YOU? (QUESTION 18; N=1,390)

0 50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Under 18 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ Prefer
not to
answer
DBW build
bike lane
1'111111111111
......
-
downtown
part .... _
local bus ess
illU ..._
I
I

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page A-26

FIGURE 24: WHAT IS YOUR GENDER? (QUESTION 19; N=1,390)

FIGURE 25: HOW DO YOU IDENTIFY YOUR RACE AND ETHNICITY? (QUESTION 20; N=1,390)

0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Female Male Non-binary Prefer not to
answer
Other
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
White or
Caucasian
Black or
African
American
Hispanic
or Latino
Asian or
Asian
American
American
Indian or
Alaska
Native
Native
Hawaiian
or other
Pacific
Islander
Another
Race
Prefer not
to answer
-
- I - - -
I
A

Page A-27

FIGURE 26: WHAT BEST DESCRIBES YOUR ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME (QUESTION 21; N=1,390)

Appendix A-4 Regional Santa Clara County AFFH Related Outreach In 2019 Santa Clara County and Cities formed a consortium and hired a consultant to develop a regional Assessment of Fair Housing to meet both HUD and HCD requirements. The consortium hired the Lawyer’s Committee for Civil Rights to conduct broad outreach, analysis, and to draft plans. The following is a summary of the interviews and meetings that were held throughout Santa Clara County as part of this early process. These meetings provided important regional context for the AFFH analysis in the Housing Element. The table below lists the meetings by category and the dates on which the meetings were held.

FIGURE 1: REGIONAL SANTA CLARA COUNTY AFFH RELATED OUTREACH (FUNDED

IN PART BY CITY OF SANTA CLARA)

Regional Assessment of Fair Housing Meetings
Meetings Date
Public Community Meetings
San José Evening Community Meeting November 13, 2019
City of Santa Clara Community Meeting November 14, 2019 San José Daytime Community Meeting November 16, 2019
0 50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
Under
$15,000
Between
$15,000
and
$29,999
Between
$30,000
and
$49,999
Between
$50,000
and
$74,999
Between
$75,000
amd
$99,999
Between
$100,000
and
$150,000
Over
$150,000
Prefer not
to answer
I

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page A-28

Urban County Community Meeting December 11, 2019
Cupertino Meeting (group with other
cities/areas) December 19, 2019
Central County January 14, 2020
South County January 15, 2020
Focus Groups
Formerly Incarcerated Individuals December 12, 2019
Homeless Individuals and Families December 12, 2019
Non-Profit Affordable Housing
Developers December 13, 2019
Women December 13, 2019
Seniors January 13, 2020
Central County January 13, 2020
Health Trust for HIV/AIDS January 14, 2020
Vietnamese Community January 15, 2020
South County January 15, 2020
Filipino Community January 26, 2020
Schools/Educators January 27, 2020
Seniors January 29, 2020
Hispanic Community January 29, 2020
Stakeholder Meetings
Project Sentinel October 1, 2019
San José NAACP October 1, 2019
Asian Law Alliance October 2, 2019
Law Foundation of Silicon Valley October 2, 2019
Latinos United for a New America October 21, 2019
California Apartment Association October 21, 2019
The Silicon Valley Organization October 21, 2019
Catalyze SV October 21, 2019
Santa Clara County Housing Authority October 21, 2019
International Children Assistance
Network October 21, 2019
Bay Area Legal Aid October 22, 2019
Housing Trust Silicon Valley October 22, 2019
Gilroy Compassion Center October 22, 2019
City of Gilroy October 22, 2019
Senior Adults Legal Assistance October 22, 2019
Day Worker Center of Mountain View October 22, 2019
Santa Clara County Association of
Realtors October 23, 2019
City of Santa Clara October 23, 2019
City of Sunnyvale October 23, 2019
I
A

Page A-29

Silicon Valley at Home October 23, 2019
Bay Area Homeowners Network October 23, 2019
Sunnyvale Community Services November 12, 2019
SOMOS Mayfair November 14, 2019
Amigos de Guadalupe November 15, 2019
West Valley Community Services November 15, 2019
Habitat for Humanity December 10, 2019
Working Partnerships USA December 11, 2019
Because of the breadth of these efforts and the diverse views of the individuals and organizations consulted, it is difficult to distill the information that these meetings yielded down to a few key themes. This summary attempts to, first, identify the range of topics that the meetings addressed and, second, to identify either consensus around those topics or the primary alternative views expressed.

Key topics addressed in the community engagement process included:
• Unlawful housing discrimination, including but not limited to racial discrimination, failures to provide reasonable accommodations, source of income discrimination, patterns and trends in housing discrimination, and barriers to effective enforcement. • Demographic and housing data, including but not limited to how community members interpret data provided by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and sources of local data.
• Zoning and land use laws, including but not limited to their impact on affordable housing development and how they interact with community opposition to affordable housing in certain areas.
• Funding and regulatory programs to create affordable housing, including but not limited to how effective they are at producing units, the income levels they reach, and the bedroom distribution of units produced.
• Supportive services programs for persons with disabilities and unhoused residents, including but not limited to how those programs are coordinated with housing programs. • The connection between access to opportunity and patterns of segregation, including but not limited to with respect to education, employment, transportation, and environmental health.
• Tenant protections and access to legal services, including but not limited to rent stabilization, just c ause eviction protections, and funding for tenant representation in eviction cases.

Housing Discrimination
Consistent with national and statewide trends, participants in the community engagement process reported that disability status is the most common al leged basis of discrimination in I

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page A-30

complaints submitted to service providers, the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing and HUD. Among disability discrimination complaints, complaints regarding alleged denials of reasonable accommodation reque sts are the most common. The fact that disability status is the most frequently complained of type of discrimination does not necessarily mean that it is the most common type of discrimination occurring in the community. Because of the nature of the reason able accommodation process, it may be more apparent to individuals with disabilities that they have been subjected to discrimination. By contrast, fair housing testing may be necessary to uncover national origin and race discrimination, in particular. Testing conducted by stakeholders confirmed that these types of discrimination remain common. Complaints of source of income discrimination also remain common despite the State’s relatively recently enacted prohibition on such discrimination against household with Housing Choice Vouchers suggesting either or both inadequate awareness of the new law and/or inadequate enforcement of it.

Demographic and Housing Data
There was broad consensus that housing costs in Santa Clara County are extremely high and have rapidly become more expensive over time. These changes have not affected all communities equally and Hispanic or Latino, Black, and Vietnamese populations, which tend to have lower income levels, being particularly vulnerable to displacement. In light of income disparities among Asian American and Pacific Islander ancestry groups, participants in the community engagement process emphasized the importance of disagg regated data, which tends to show lower income levels among Vietnamese households but also relatively high rates of homeownership.

Zoning and Land Use
Concern about the extent to which zoning and land use laws play a role in fair housing issues varies sign ificantly depending on one’s location within Santa Clara County. Additionally, because zoning and land use laws often have consequences across city boundaries, the greatest concerns that community members and stakeholders articulated tended to pertain to d ifferent jurisdictions than those where participants lived, provided services, or engaged in advocacy. In particular, many involved in the community engagement process noted concerns about exclusionary zoning in the West Valley. Developer stakeholders, both of affordable and of market rate housing, also noted that long approval timelines were often as significant of a barrier to their efforts as were underlying regulations. They noted understaffing of planning departments as a principal driver of those delays.

Affordable Housing Programs
I
A

Page A-31

There was generally consensus around the need to provide more financial support for affordable housing across jurisdictions in Santa Clara County though there were some differences of opinion about how, if at all, to use reg ulatory tools like inclusionary housing to produce affordable housing. The details of input about affordable housing funding programs varied in relation to the different landscapes of existing programs in each municipality. Some stakeholders noted the high bar to passage for bond issues, including affordable housing bond issues, reflecting that, while the passage of Measure A was a big step forward for Santa Clara County, a similar bond issue in the City of San José had failed despite a large majority of su pport. Inclusionary housing was a frequent topic of discussion but not a point on which there was consensus. Most participants who discussed inclusionary housing voiced support for the adoption of requirements in more jurisdictions, deeper affordability targeting, and higher set aside requirements. Some participants opposed these types of changes on the basis of stated concerns about deterring new development.

Supportive Services
Participants in the community engagement process noted geographic unevenness i n the availability of supportive services for persons with disabilities and unhoused populations, with communities in South County having less access than in North County. There was also criticism of the overall level of services that are available and con cern that there were more adequate services available for chronically unhoused individuals with serious mental illness and/or substance abuse disorders but that other vulnerable populations, including disproportionately Hispanic or Latino unhoused families, domestic violence survivors, and medically fragile individuals, have less access to services. For formerly unhoused individuals living in permanent supportive housing, some expressed concern about whether persons with disabilities have true provider choice.

Access to Opportunity
Many stakeholders and residents expressed concern about public transportation in Santa Clara County. Issues raised include the overall level of service, the lack of service in some areas with high performing school in the West Valley, the lack of service in South County, and high fares on CalTrain. Bus riders mentioned long headways on some bus routes as a problem. Participants reflected on the expansion of BART service into Santa Clara County as both an opportunity and an occurrence that could lead to more displacement. With regard to environmental health, the most significant concerns articulated in the community engagement process related to issues in East and North San José. The connection between patterns of segregation and access to proficient I

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page A-32

schools was clear in the data analysis conducted for the Assessment of Fair Housing but was not heavily emphasized by participants in the community engagement process.

Tenant Protections
Tenant protections were a frequent topic of discuss ion albeit one that sharply divided opinion among participants in the community engagement process. Many participants urged robust tenant protections including rent stabilization with as few exemptions as are allowed by state law, just cause eviction protections, constraints on Ellis Act conversions, and requirements that landlords pay relocation expenses for displaced tenants. Other participants, particularly trade associations representing landlords, strongly opposed most or all of these policies. Small “ mom and pop” landlords were particularly likely to express opposition to just cause eviction protections and stated more strenuous objections to that policy than they did to rent stabilization.

Legal services providers noted that they did not have the reso urces or capacity to meet the total need for tenant representation in eviction cases absent additional funding. It is important to note that this input was gathered prior to the COVID -19 pandemic, and there was no opportunity to get input on the various government interventions to prevent evictions during the pandemic.

Appendix A-5 Housing Element Specific Outreach
FIGURE 1: HOUSING ELEMENT SPECIFIC OUTREACH
Housing Element Specific Outreach
Meeting/Activity Date Meeting Type
1 Stakeholders Meeting re: Affordable Housing
Ordinance Potential Amendments March 12, 2021 Zoom
2 City Council Study Session April 6, 2021 Zoom
3 Let’s Talk Housing Community Meeting August 30, 2021 Zoom 25 attendees from Santa Clara
4 Planning Commission Study Session September 22, 2021
5 City Council Study Session on Homelessness November 9, 2021 I
A

Page A-33

6 Joint City Council/Planning Commission Study
Session 1 April 19, 2022
7 Homelessness Taskforce Meeting #1 April 28, 2022
8 Stakeholder Listening Session: Development
Constraints Panel May 5, 2022 Zoom
9 Community Survey (English, Spanish, Chinese,
Vietnamese) May - July 8, 2022 1,651 responses
10 Health and Wellness Fair May 20, 2022 • 400 attendees, 50-60 people stopped by booth
11 Homelessness Taskforce Meeting #2 May 26, 2022 Zoom
12 June 2022 City Hall News (monthly e-newsletter) June 2022 13 Library Pop-Up Meetings (Central and Northside) June 14th and 17th, 2022 In Person
14 Inside Santa Clara (summer 2022 edition) June 18-22, 2022 Mailed to over 58,000 residents and businesses
15 Homelessness Taskforce Meeting #3 June 23, 2022
16 Joint City Council/Planning Commission Study
Session 2 July 12, 2022
17 Housing Choices – Interview with Kalisha
Webster July 22, 2022
18 Homelessness Taskforce Meeting #4 July 28, 2022
19 Community Meeting August 1, 2022 Zoom
20 Community Meeting Forum on Homelessness August 9, 2022 Zoom 21 Life Services Alternatives (LSA) – Residential Care
Home visit and interview with Dana Hooper and
residents
August 12, 2022 In Person
22 Meeting with regional Equity Advisory Group August 23, 2022 Zoom 23 Homelessness Taskforce Meeting #5 August 25, 2022
I

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page A-34

24 40th Anniversary Art & Wine Festival September 17-18, 2022 In Person 25 Meeting with Riverwood Grove residents (family
housing) September 19, 2022 In Person
26 Meeting with Bill Wilson Peacock Commons
residents (Transition Age Youth) September 20, 2022 In Person 27 Meeting with Liberty Tower residents (Seniors) September 22, 2022 In Person 28 Homelessness Taskforce Meeting #6 October 27, 2022
29 Housing Stakeholders Workshop November 17, 2022 Zoom

Summaries from Select Meetings/Activities

1. March 12, 2021. Stakeholders meeting (Zoom). Approximately 30 individuals representing numerous development companies and related interests participated in a discussion regarding potential amendments to City’s Affordable Housing Ordinance. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS), the City’s consultant, presented at the beginning of the meeting and shared the housing prototypes being analyzed for feasibility with the current Affordable Housing Ordinance and potential changes that would increase the number or depth of affordability the City could consider. A summary of stakeholder
comments is available on the Housing Element Update page.

3. August 30, 2021. Let’s Talk Housing Community Meeting (Zoom). A series of countywide meetings about the Housing Element update were held from August to September 2021. Each meeting of fered Spanish-language interpretation and provided community members with an introduction the Housing Element update, why it matters, information on the Let’s Talk Housing outreach effort and countywide trends. Breakout room discussions with individual cit ies and towns followed. In total 832 registered for the series. Of those who registered for the series, the majority identified as White and over half were 50 years or older. Over sixty percent lived over 21 years within the county, and over half were homeowners.

Santa Clara was part of the August 30
th, 2021 introductory meeting, along with Milpitas, Mountain View, and Sunnyvale. This meeting offered Vietnamese interpretation in addition to Spanish, courtesy of the City of Milpitas, and outreach for the meeting was conducted in the three languages. Twenty-five people who registered for the August 30
th meeting identified as joining from Santa Clara. Of the Santa Clara participants, all indicated being homeowners and living in single family homes. In the br eakout session, participants expressed that they valued living in Santa Clara due to its tight knit community, its rich history, ample job opportunities, and its mix of older and newer neighborhoods. However, participants pointed out older housing is becoming increasingly unaffordable and the general lack of moderate and affordable housing. Older adults, especially those who are moderate or low income, struggle to find housing and many adult children can’t live close to their aging parents. Among ideas to address these I
A

Page A-35

needs were: transit-oriented development, increasing allowable densities, and developing an affordable housing program for seniors. Among programs or policies that are already working well, participants shared that specific plans have been an effective tool for development and the El Camino Real Specific Plan in particular is a good example of extensive and comprehensive community outreach.

8. May 5, 2022. Stakeholder Listening Session: Development Constraints (Zoom). The presentation and summary from this meeting is available on the Santa Clara County Planning Collaborative page and on the Housing Element Update page.

14. June 18-22, 2022. Inside Santa Clara (summer 2022 edition). Full page article on the Housing Element Update. Printed newsletter sent to over 58,000 residents and businesses.

19. August 1, 2022. Community Meeting (Zoom). Community meeting with a presentation on the Housing Plan of the draft Housing Element Update; comments were made regarding tenant protections, housing for persons with disabilities, and increased housing type and tenure. There twelve (12) members of the community that attended representing individuals and advocacy organizations.

22. August 23, 2022. Regional Equity Advisory Group (EAG) Meeting (Zoom). Provided City with general feedback on how to improve engagement with stakeholders and community members. Suggested more direct outreach and importance of going to specific locations to reach targeted populations. Specific comments about locating housing in high/highest opportunity areas of the City and that ELI households experience the highest rates of housing cost burden, making them at the highest risk of homelessness or displacement.

24. September 17-18, 2022. 40
th Annual Art & Wine Festival (In-person). 152 attendees participated in a dot exercise to identify what they felt were the biggest challenges/greatest needs facing the City of Santa Clara.

Participants were provided different colored dots if they identified as a City of Santa Clara homeowner (111), City of Santa Clara renter (24), if they work (but don’t live) in the City of Santa Clara (4), or if they don’t live or work in the City of Santa Clara (13). From a list of 13 biggest challenges/ greatest needs, the most votes were placed on 1. Addressing homelessness: programs, temporary housing/permanent supportive housing; 2. Housing that is affordable to low/minimum was earners (e.g., service/retail workers); 3. Providing more homeownership opp ortunities; and 4. Stabilizing rents (limit large rent increases and large deposit requirements).

Although Santa Clara homeowners and renters identified the same top four biggest challenges/greatest needs, the order was different. For homeowners addressing homelessness received the most votes and stabilizing rents received the fourth most votes. For renters stabilizing rents received the most votes and addressing homelessness received the fourth most votes.

Homeowners: 1. Addressing homelessness; 2. Housi ng that is affordable to low/minimum wage earners; 3. Providing more homeownership opportunities; 4. Stabilizing rents I

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page A-36

Renters: 1. Stabilizing rents; 2. Housing that is affordable to low/minimum wage earners; 3.

Providing more homeownership opportunities; 4. Addressing homelessness. 24, 25, 26. September 19, 2022. Riverwood Grove (family housing) Residents Meeting (In -person with 16 adults, 5 children ); September 20, 2022. Bill Wilson Peacock Commons (transition age youth) Residents Meeting (In -person with 10 adults, 5 children ); September 22, 2022. Liberty Tower (senior housing) Residents Meeting (In-person with 8 adults, 2 staff ). Residents of the thre e housing developments were asked a series of questions, including about their personal experiences /challenges finding and living in affordable/supportive housing, and what they would like to see in terms of priorities for making their housing experience better. In addition to noting specific resources needs and concerns about traffic and safety, residents consistently noted the challenges of barriers to entry (affordability and wait/availability of units).

27. November 17, 2022. Stakeholders Workshop (Zoom). Zoom meeting that reviewed the Housing Element development process using a Mural Board. The meeting was primarily attended by housing and human service providers and advocacy organizations. Attendees mentioned the need for more emergency rental assistance, that state relocation assistance is inadequate, that ELI seniors in income restricted housing are increasingly rent burdened and at risk of homelessness, that seniors need in -person housing navigation assistance that homelessness prevention is less costly than crisis response, that city and county government should work on providing holistic housing services, the need for more social workers and case managers to help clients navigate programs, the need to financially support service providers so they can retain staff, the need to bring air conditioning and filters into affordable housing in response to heat and wildfire smoke climate change, and the need to proactively reach out to Latino/a, Vietnamese, and Filipino/a populations who are disproportionately in need of affordable housing.

Appendix A-6 Public Review Draft Comments
The City of Santa Clara asked for the public’s comments on the Housing Element Update. The document to post public comments can be found here: https://santaclaraca.konveio.com/city-santa-clara-housing- element-update?cid=87#page=18. Below is a summary of the received comments.

I
A

Page A-37

FIGURE 1: HOUSING ELEMENT DRAFT PUBLIC COMMENTS
Date Name Comment
Comment
Page Sentiment Comment link Response
7/1/2022
Katherine
Lanning
I love Santa Clara and
would love to volunteer
my time helping others
in this beautiful city 18 Positive
https://santaclaraca.konveio.com/city-
santa-clara-housing-element-
update?cid=87#page=18
7/30/2022
Anne
Paulson
The Housing Element
isn't the place where the
city talks about
"exploring changes." The
Housing Element is
where the city talks
about the result of the
explorations that have
already happened, and
explains what the
changes are and when
exactly they will be
accomplished.

What changes will you
make, and when will
they be made? 22 Neutral
https://santaclaraca.konveio.com/city-
santa-clara-housing-element-
update?cid=98#page=22
7/30/2022
Anne
Paulson
These exceedingly weak
explorations do nothing
to achieve B-1 (look for
sites for affordable
housing), B-2 (encourage
high density housing),or
B-3 (look for funding for
affordable housing).

They don't do anything
for the C goals either,
which are about housing
for people with special
circumstances (disability,
female-headed, large
family).

My suggestion is that
you write objectives that
would actually achieve
your goals, and give time
deadlines for them. 22 Negative
https://santaclaraca.konveio.com/city-
santa-clara-housing-element-
update?cid=99#page=22
I

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page A-38

7/12/2022 Jennifer
Where is Action #4? I
see responsible agency
and objectives, but no
Action listed or Funding
Source. 24 Negative
https://santaclaraca.konveio.com/city-
santa-clara-housing-element-
update?cid=90#page=24
7/30/2022
Anne
Paulson
How will you improve
the maintenance of
student housing, and
when? 26 Neutral
https://santaclaraca.konveio.com/city-
santa-clara-housing-element-
update?cid=100#page=26
7/30/2022
Anne
Paulson When? 26 Neutral
https://santaclaraca.konveio.com/city-
santa-clara-housing-element-
update?cid=101#page=26
7/30/2022
Anne
Paulson When? 26 Neutral
https://santaclaraca.konveio.com/city-
santa-clara-housing-element-
update?cid=102#page=26
7/29/2022 Nick Leung
Yes, I would really like to
see more upzoning/high
density development
while being conscious of
existing transportation,
or improving/adding
more transportation to
support new
developments such that
they reduce reliance on
cars. 27 Neutral
https://santaclaraca.konveio.com/city-
santa-clara-housing-element-
update?cid=91#page=27
7/30/2022
Anne
Paulson How? 28 Neutral
https://santaclaraca.konveio.com/city-
santa-clara-housing-element-
update?cid=103#page=28
7/30/2022
Anne
Paulson How? 28 Neutral
https://santaclaraca.konveio.com/city-
santa-clara-housing-element-
update?cid=104#page=28
I
A

Page A-39

7/30/2022
Anne
Paulson
What is the action here?
I don't see any action. 33 Negative
https://santaclaraca.konveio.com/city-
santa-clara-housing-element-
update?cid=105#page=33
7/29/2022 Nick Leung
If El Camino becomes
densified, I'd like to see
dedicated BRT. 77 Neutral
https://santaclaraca.konveio.com/city-
santa-clara-housing-element-
update?cid=92#page=77
7/29/2022 Nick Leung
We should lower the
requirements for
parking. Parking is poor
land use (especially
surface parking) which
encourages more cars,
which is bad for traffic
and many reasons. In
this area, so much land
is already dedicated to
cars (4+4 lane
expressways, highways,
garages, driveways,
parking, etc.). We can
increase the
transportation
connectivity and serve
lower income residents
better by lessening the
emphasis on car-driven
development. 117 Neutral
https://santaclaraca.konveio.com/city-
santa-clara-housing-element-
update?cid=93#page=117
7/30/2022
Anne
Paulson
How can you say with a
straight face that
development standards
aren't a constraint on
building, when you
require two parking
spaces for a studio
apartment? You're
requiring more space for
the cars than for the
people. 118 Negative
https://santaclaraca.konveio.com/city-
santa-clara-housing-element-
update?cid=96#page=118
7/30/2022
Anne
Paulson
An SRO is not employee
housing; it's rooms with
or without kitchens that
are rented separately.

Why is the title SRO
Housing, when the text
doesn't talk about SRO
housing?

The Housing Element 120 Negative
https://santaclaraca.konveio.com/city-
santa-clara-housing-element-
update?cid=97#page=120
I

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page A-40

needs to explain how
Santa Clara allows Single
Room Occupancy
housing.
7/29/2022 Nick Leung
I think this is
unfortunate, but it's
obvious that this
community opposition
to densification has
created disastrous
effects for housing
affordability for
everyone.

We can fight a lot of this
community resistance
with transit oriented and
mixed use development,
though I expect the
community will find
other ways to oppose it.

We should still try. 132 Negative
https://santaclaraca.konveio.com/city-
santa-clara-housing-element-
update?cid=94#page=132
7/30/2022
Anne
Paulson
(Page 13.5-23) The
Housing Element says
that it will do a fee
analysis of the four
prototypical buildings.

And then, it just doesn't.

I'd like to know how
much the 100 unit
building would pay in
fees, and I assumed
that's what the analysis
was going to give me,
but it doesn't. Elsewhere
in the document (p 13.5-
13) it says that a large
multifamily project pays
$2156 per unit, but that
doesn't look accurate,
with all those big permit
fees.

The document needs to
tell us what the fees are
for these typical
buildings. 134 Negative
https://santaclaraca.konveio.com/city-
santa-clara-housing-element-
update?cid=95#page=134
I
A

Page A-41

7/30/2022
Anne
Paulson
Sares Regis, 800
units???? Sares Regis is a
building company, not
an address or an
identifier for a project.

What project is this? 145 Neutral
https://santaclaraca.konveio.com/city-
santa-clara-housing-element-
update?cid=106#page=145
7/31/2022
Anne
Paulson Typo 149 Positive
https://santaclaraca.konveio.com/city-
santa-clara-housing-element-
update?cid=107#page=149
7/31/2022
Anne
Paulson
This has to be 34
REMAINING parcels.

Otherwise the numbers
don't add up: half the
parcels are already built,
11 are approved or
proposed, the remaining
17 are listed for below
market housing in the
table below. 158 Negative
https://santaclaraca.konveio.com/city-
santa-clara-housing-element-
update?cid=108#page=158
7/31/2022
Anne
Paulson
"Full buildout of the area
will likely occur by
2038." So the capacity
listed in 13.6-7 should be
discounted by 50%, since
since buildout will occur
throughout the Sixth and
Seventh RHNA cycles. 158 Neutral
https://santaclaraca.konveio.com/city-
santa-clara-housing-element-
update?cid=109#page=158
7/1/2022
Katherine
Lanning
I have great experience
in developing business
and marketing 173 Positive
https://santaclaraca.konveio.com/city-
santa-clara-housing-element-
update?cid=89#page=173
7/1/2022
Katherine
Lanning
I would love to volunteer
my time to make this
city a beautiful one with
parks, museums and
individual gardens 189 Positive
https://santaclaraca.konveio.com/city-
santa-clara-housing-element-
update?cid=88#page=189
I

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page A-42

8/16/2022
Dana
Hooper
Thanks for taking the
time to visit the LSA
Cypress home. Cypress is
a licensed residential
care home.

As I mentioned I had a
chance to review
chapter 13.2 Housing
Plan and have some
comments I’d like to
share.

My general comment is
that otherwise eligible
individuals should not be
excluded because they
choose to or are already
living in a licensed
residential care home.

These individuals need
the support just as much
as there counterpart.

Here are some
additional comments to
specific section in the
Housing Plan.

Action 1: The 4th
objective – Support low-
income housing
alternatives such as
housing for persons with
disabilities should be
expanded specifically to
include licensed
residential care homes.

Action 3: Affordable
Housing Incentives and
Facilitation. The
construction of
affordable housing
should also include
residential care homes
as a type of facility and
funding to at least the
same level per person as
multiunit projects.

Action 4: Maintenance
of Housing Stock should
include residential care
homes in the definition
of who is qualified to
receive maintenance. n/a n/a
I
A

Page A-43

Appendix A-7 Formal Comment Letters
FIGURE 1: HOUSING ELEMENT DRAFT – PUBLIC FORMAL LETTER COMMENTS Date Organization From Comment(s)
7/27/2022 TransForm Kendra Ma, Housing
Policy Analyst

1. Santa Clara needs to expand on its successful programs and initiate new ones, including: 1) Planning for growth in walkable areas near transit, 2) Reducing the amount of parking mandated for housing and providing incentives and programs to drive less (Transportation Demand Management), 3) Developing sufficient programs to meet affordable home targets of RHNA

2. Action 9 - revising zoning standards and potentially reducing/eliminating parking: lacks commitment to specific changes, such as what parking strategies the city will pursue. TransForm's recommendations:
a) Fund a dedicated study of parking reforms
b) Require unbundled parking for developments in "Transit Neighborhoods" c) Expand the Transportation Demand Management program

3. TransForm applauds policy C-1: cost-effective complement to strategies focused on housing production
7/1/2022 SV@Home Matthew Reed,
Policy Director

1. Concern over the lack of understanding and attention to the broader Housing Element requirements under Affirmatively Further Fair Housing (AFFH) in this Housing Element Update process. Santa Clara should consider the work and policy efforts conducted in Palo Alto to build upon and further the community's anti-displacement goals by addressing housing instability.

See letter for specific recommendations.
7/15/2022 Housing
Choices

-The City of Santa Clara needs to adopt more programs and policies related to affordable housing with coordinated services for persons living with developmental disabilities, examples include:
a) Integration in typical affordable housing
b) Coordination of housing with onsite supportive services c) A mix of unit sizes
d) Location near public transit
c) Deeply affordable housing
-Population of adults living with developmental disabilities continues to increase in Santa Clara while beds available in licensed facilities are decreasing -Policy/Programming recommendations include:

1. Produce more extremely low-income housing

2. Establish and monitor a quantitative goal

3. Target city-owned land to dedicate to affordable housing

4. Local density bonus

5. Extremely low-income ADUs

6. Reduce parking requirements

7. Affirmative marketing of physically accessible units I

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page A-44

8/8/2022 SV@Home Matthew Reed,
Policy Director
-The City of Santa Clara’s Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element falls short of the statutory requirement at multiple levels, from its failure to elicit and reflect community input, to its deficient analysis of needs, to its absence of concrete programs with implementation details and timelines
-The sites inventory falls significantly short of the AFFH requirements for this process
-6th Cycle Housing Element Update is a unique process to fully assess the breadth of housing needs in Santa Clara and identify new tools to address housing constraints and needs
-Opportunity to engage with the full community across incomes -SV@Home does not find that the Draft Housing Element Update shows evidence of the significant public engagement and community participation required to be compliant with guidance provided by the state -Lack of sufficient outreach and notification to public/community -The Housing Element does not a) provide a summary of public comments and b) explain how the comments were considered and incorporated, including comments that were not incorporated.
-The Housing Needs Assessment does not incorporate local knowledge or analysis.
-SV@Home recommends that the City of Santa Clara conduct additional outreach and analysis of the housing needs data in the draft with the goal of better understanding the housing needs of the city as they are experienced by residents of the city
-SV@Home recommends that the assessment of the 5th Cycle Policies and Programs be incorporated into the more comprehensive assessment of housing needs, including concrete opportunities for public engagement around the lessons learned from these prior efforts.
-Lack of connection between needs and solutions in the draft -SV@Home believes the lack of detail in the policies and programs included in the draft will not prove to be compliant.
-SV@Home believes there is a general failure to substantively address housing instability and displacement experienced by protected classes under AFFH in Santa Clara.
-SV@Home recommends that the City of Santa Clara confirm and remove any sites from the inventory that received building permits prior to June 30, 2022, whether listed as “Under Construction” or “Approved”.
8/16/2022 Life Services
Alternatives
Dana Hooper,
Executive Director
General Comment: Otherwise eligible individuals should not be excluded because they choose to or are already living in a licensed residential care home. These individuals need the support just as much as there counterpart.

Action 1: The 4th objective – Support low-income housing alternatives such as housing for persons with
disabilities should be expanded specifically to include licensed residential care homes.

Action 3: Affordable Housing Incentives and Facilitation. The construction of affordable housing should
also include residential care homes as a type of facility and funding to at least the same level per person
as multiunit projects.

Action 4: Maintenance of Housing Stock should include residential care homes in the definition of who is
qualified to receive maintenance.

I
A

Page A-45

8/1/2022

Anne Paulson -The Local Processing Explanation Is Confusing and Lacks Necessary Information
-Recommendations:
• For each typical type of building (ADU, single family house, 10 unit multifamily, 100 unit multifamily, big project that requires rezoning), list each step the applicant must go through, in order, with the time it takes, the number of public meetings it requires, the approval body or bodies, and how much it costs
• Make the fees table comprehensible
'-Lack of clarity in the Local Processing Explanation Is Confusing and Lacks Necessary Information
-Recommendations:
• Be more specific about the stage of approval each project is in. • Discount pipeline project and site inventory capacity for the probability that the project doesn’t get built'
-What the Housing Element needs to do is
explain how this capacity is going to be used to build the RHNA in the next eight years. The document needs to be far more clear and explicit about the entire process—the steps, how long the process takes, how much the fees are, what the project mortality is—and where each listed project is along the way - Santa Clara is nowhere close to building below market units at a rate that would satisfy its Sixth Cycle below market RHNA. So it would make sense for the Housing Element to include programs, with deadlines and milestones, to build more affordable housing.
- The City Needs to Commit to Actual Measurable Actions and Deadlines -To further encourage all-affordable projects, the city should also • make all-affordable housing projects buildable by right, with ministerial approval
• remove parking minimums for all-affordable projects
• reduce fees for all-affordable projects
If the city cannot take these actions now for whatever reason, it should identify the reason and commit to taking the action by a certain date within the planning period.

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page A-46

FIGURE 2: FORMAL COMMENT LETTER: TRANSFORM

July 27, 2022
John Davidson, Principal Planner
1500 Waterburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
Re: Santa Clara needs transformative parking measures to eliminate development constraints Dear Mr. Davidson and City Councilmembers,
Transform is a regional non-profit focused on creating connected and healthy communities that can meet climate goals. reduce traffic, and include housing affordable for everyone .

We applaud Santa Clara's work:to date on the Dr-aft Housing Element. However, to meet housing, transportation, and climate goals, Santa Clara needs to expand on its successful programs and initiate some new ones.

In particular, there will need lo be an effective mix of:
• Planning for growth in walkable areas near transit
• Reduc ing the amount of parking mandated for housing and providing incentives and programs to drive less (Transportation Demand Management or TOM) • Developing sufficient programs to meet affordable home targets of RHNA We appreciate the consideration of parking as a massive constraint on development in Santa Clara in the Housing Element, especially related to meeting RHNA requirements. Santa Clara currently requires 1 or more spaces per unit in almost all zoning districts, and without any commitm ent to further reducing required parking , we see a disconnect between understanding parking as a constraint and taking add~ional action .

We are grateful for Santa Clara's inclvsion of Action 9 which aims to revise zoning standards and potentially reduce/eliminate parking minimums . However we worry this action lacks a commitment to specific changes, such as what parking strategies the city may pursue . The need to eliminate or greatly reduce parking minimums is more important than ever. Each new parking space costs $30,000-$80,000. 1 With inflation driving up construction costs since these bttoS' 11www sbo11 odaoo eom Mo-c;oot entli I oloadsts ;te:;1101201 fi/05/Q 1!11 oo-tbe-Cast-o[-Pack1 no-Rem i 1reme nts pdf
560 14TH STREET, SUITE 400, OAl(LAND, CA ~46:1.2 T: 510 . 7 40.3150 WWW TRANSFQRMt;A.ORG I
A

Page A-47

estimates, two spaces may now cost up to $200,000 . Beyond construction costs, parking takes up essentfal space that could provide more homes , services , or community amenities .

Transform recommends that Santa Clara consider the following policies in the Housing Element;

1. Funding a dedicated study of parking reforms . particularly how smart parking polfcies could positively impact housing . transportation , and other goals .

2. Requir ing unbundled parking for certain develo .pments in "Transit Neighborhoods" across various zones ; this is easier for building managers to implement now with new parking tech tools like Parkade .

3. Expanding the Transportation Demand Management program by requiring provision of transit pass memberships for each resident.

To show the tremendous transportation and climate benefits of these policies . as well as some of the financial savings for residents and reduced costs for development , we have used our Green TRIP Connect tool to crea te scenario s for a potential future development site at 2203-2215 Tasman Drive . This site is identified in Santa Clara 's draft Housing Element Site Inventory as a "Transit Neighborhood " and part of the Tasman East Specific Plan . The California Office of Planning and Research recommends Green TRIP Connect as a tool to use while developing General Plans and is especially useful during the development of Housing Elements (the tool is free to use and supports better planning at the site and city-wide level) .

At 2203 - 2215 Tasman Drive, Green TRIP Connect projects the following benefits from implementing smart parking . transportation , and affordability strategies :

1. Implementing unbundling and providing transit passes at this site led to a 29% decrease in parking and resident transportation savings of $4,464 per year .

2. With right-sized parking , incorporating the benefits of good location , unbundled parking and free transit passes, the development would cost $2,509 ,500 less to build relative to current parking standards .

3. V\lhen combined with 100% affordable housing , these strategies resulted in an incredible 52% reduction in driving and greenhouse gas emissions for the site , compared lo the city average .

4. If an affordable development with smart parking strategies were buill on this site each household would drive 5,373 less miles per year, creating a greener and safer community .

By eliminating the high costs of parking , homes can be offered at more affordable .prices, reducing the number of community members that face extreme housing cost burdens. getting priced out of their community, arid /or becoming unsheltered . Residents, new and old alike, will greatly benefit from the reduction in vehicle traffic and associated air pollution (see the scenarios he(e).
560 14TH SI EET, &urn: 400. OAI-\LANO, CA 94612 T. filO , 0 l !..U WWW mANSFORMCA ORG I

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page A-48

In addition to parking and transportation strategies . we applaud some of the proposed strategies to support more affordable homes , since these would have such tremendous benefits as noted in the Green TRIP scenario . One of the most important is Policy C-1 Which prioritizes collaborating with services agencies and housing developers to use grants towards more special needs and affordable housing . These programs are a cost-effective complement to strategies focused on housing production .

The Green TRIP scenarios and the chart on the fin.ii page of our Scenario document also-show the imperat ive of programs to accelerate development of affordable homes , like Policy C-1. Not only do these households use transit more and drive much less than average , but success in this area can help provide homes for unsheltered indlvidua Is and families . A commitment to these programs will show that Santa Clara is committed to planning for all levels of the 6,506" RHNA BMR units anticipated in this cycle.

Please let me know if you have any questions . TransForm hopes this information explains why Santa Clara should make parking reform a priority in the Housing Element update .

Sincerely,
Kendra Ma
Housing Polfcy Analyst
kendrama@t ransformca .org
560 14TH srnEET, 5Uff1: 400 . OAI\LANO. A 941h 2 T. 5!0 , 0 150 WWW IBANSFORMCA Qflr:j I
.J
A

Page A-49

FIGURE 3: FORMAL COMMENT LETTER: SILICON VALLEY AT HOME

Board of Directors
t(t!1Jit1 lWltk , Ch,1ir
IJ,rif~rl WoY Boy AN!O
<Sin.i O<dm~ Vkt t:Jw1'
S/fl<;.otr Volley CDflJlllflfl/ty
Fm.tm:tdtlon
( '.lnr:ilct- Gonz.1IN, Srr.r~taf'/
Snnrt ~tlll P, r;,pC'rff Campany
l\lld re.1 o~ood 1 lreosu,er
ra,-11 11n11sJn9
,Mlo h11Jl~1d
~Jiwn 1/ollt-y w,.,,1e cuuli(la11
Bl)b B1ownst1>in
Wor.Vng Alf11terJtilps Ul,A
Ame(lshma n
'101!-l'rofl flnlirlng
As~tJtitilinn nj NtNtherl'J CA
Ra n Cl(Hl,loi~
Hi\JJO,tit" FQ1Jlrdt,l liJ1J
t1[51(;con Va~
J;,vierGollZd~Z
Gnoql>
Poncho Guev;ira:

Sucred Heort Community
St!Nltt'
l:mice le1tS1'1t
Hob/rot for Humon~y
Cost Buy/S/lk:on van,y
l.trUld.1:!. KIJ:'m
J,.m Uoi.tl!nthal
ftt<KJPM HQuifoq
le nni(l;!'1 l o\ii11g
Deilin(Jlflm: llome
M•uvMmtagt,
£Ml Hou1·'11q
Chfif Nl".llr
rhc Chrt- 1·cmpo,rh•,.

Kelly 5nlde.r
Kt~ ~t1i~ ."t t'vn,),ji~lnq
rennlfe,r van LVf!ry
TtwVanFVl'l)'G1t111p
STAFF
L~ty!!C.O!'ifeHa
t,u~ruf/v'1 tJfwctur
sv(Q) home
July 1, 2022
Submitted via email
Mayor Gillmor and Councilmembers
City of Santa Clara
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
Dear Mayor GIiimor , Vice Mayor Jain, and Councilmembers Watanabe , Chaha.1, Hardy, Park and Becker:

RE: HoL1Sing Element - Anti-displacement policies to Afflnnatively Further Fair Housing For much of the Housing Element Update process, the focus has been on the scale of the Regional Housing Needs Allo cation (RHNA) and the planning process of identifying potential housing opportunity sites to meet these requi rement s. What we have observec;I through this proci;,ss is that there is relatively li;,ss understanding and atti;enlion to the broader Housing Element requirements under Affirmatively Further Fair Housing (AFFH).

Through state law, AFFH not only requires that the city plan and implementpolicie5 that give low-income families the opportunity to live in high resource and affluent areas, but also to adopt policies that address disproportionate housing needs, including displacement risks, of protected classes. In every jurisdiction in the County lower -income renters • disproportionately working families of color , and people on fixed incomes including seniors and people with disabilities · struggle with housin g instability due to ext reme rent burd en and/or overcrowdin g. In nearly all jurisdictions the impact of displacement can be tracked through changing demo graphics over time .

The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) issued guideli nes and examples of policies to Affirmat ively Furth er Fair Housing . We know that many jurisdictions throughou t the County have been lookin g at policy options to respond to these requirements. Over the last 36 months the City of Palo Alto , in partnership with SV@Home, explored and adopted a numb er of creative policies designed to prote ct renters and stabilize families and communities. Whil e the research and poli cy making proc ess in Palo Alto was pretty extensive , we believe that the Assessment of Fair Housing, and the targeted outreach through the needs assessment, and program/policy development proces s, likely provide evidence that tenant protections policies are needed, where few policies existed before .

When the policy process began in Palo Alto , the Gty already ·had a right to a one -year lease and voluntary landlord/t enant mediation pro grams. These pro grams were valuabl e in some cases, but research and community engagement found that their reach was very limited and the effective enfo rcement was difficult to assess. However , a number of policies that alone address only a small piece of the need, were actually determlned to be complimentary , and together were more likely to have real impact .
350W, fo lla11Street, 8uildlng 5, Sao ltise •~A9~110
~Ol!.lS0.84l l • www svalhtimo ,org • [email protected] I

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page A-50

July 11 2022
RE: Housing Element-Anti-displacement policies to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing

Page 2 ends

Based on the work in Pa lo Alto, and a number of other cities, below are a number of policies that the City of Santa Clara should consider, or build upon, to further the community 's anti-displacement goals by addressing housing instability .
1) Rental Survey Program
Rental survey systems collect basic information on rental housing - changes to tenancies, changes to rents - to empower cities to better understand the challenges faced by renters , and the effectiveness of state and local renter protections.
2) Tenant Relocation Ass'fstance
When tenants are displaced due to redevelopment of an existing rental property , or the conversion of that property to another use, this policy would require the property owner lo provide assistance to the tenant to help them relocate to another home .
3) Eviction Reduction Program
This expands on existing state law (AB 1482 : The Tenant Protection Act of 2019), which limits the reasons a landlord can evict a tenant, to additiona l types of rental properties otherwise not covered by the state. Local jurisdicti ons can determine which loopholes they would like to close. Currently, state law e~empts:
a) Single family homes not owned by a corporat ion
b) Rental property built within the past 15 years, including accessory dwelling units. c) Any duplex where the owner occupied the unit before the other unit's tenancy and conti nues to occupy the unit.
d) Housing restricted by a deed, regulatory restrictions , or other recorded document limiting the affordability to low or moderate income households.
e) Mobile homes.
f)
g)
h)
i)
])
Rental property subject to local ordinances that restrict rent increases to less than 5% plus CPI.

Single family homes where the owner occupies and rents at least 2 bedrooms or units (ADUs and JADUs).

Owner occupied rental properties where the tenant shares bathroom or kitchen facilities with the owner .

Hotels
Rental property provided by non-profit hospitals, organizations such as churches, extended care for the elderly , adult care facilities etc.
4) Anti Rent-Gouging Polley
This policy also expands on existing state law (AB 1482: The Tenant Protection Act of 2019), which limit s annual rent increases to 5% plus the Consumer Price Index (CPI), by including additional units exempted by state law.

Each city can determine which loopholes they would like to close. They can also adopt lower thresholds for maximum increases like San Jose (5%) and Mountain View (CPI). Currently, state law exempts:
a) Single Family homes not owned by a corporation
b) Rental property built within the past 15 years, including accessory dwelling units. c) Any duplex where the owner occupied the unit before the other unit 's tenancy ,md continues lo occupy the unit
d') Housing restricted by a deed, regulatory restrictions, or other recorded document limitin g the affordability to low or moderate income households .
e) Moblle homes.
f) Hotels
I
35fiW JullaoStreet., S<1lldlnt5, Sa• Jose, C.A 95110
402,JS0.8411 • www svathomo.o r.r. • [email protected] A

Page A-51

July 1, 2022
RE; Housing Element-Anti-displacement policies to Affirmatively Further Fair Hol!sing

Page 3 ends

5) Security Deposit limit
This policy would limit the amount that can be charged for security deposits to 1.5 times the monthly rent, and help reduce the financial obstacles to entry fur low-income households . 6) Fair Chance Ordinance
This ordinance would limit landlords' ability to ask applicants about their history of interaction with the criminal justice system, which disproportionately impacts Black and brown households . The policy would not make it illegal fur landlords to run background checks on tenants , but would make it illegal to include these questions on the initial rental application .
71 Right to Counsel
This program wou ld provide tenants with legal assistance in eviction cases. Tenants experiencing housing instability will be better able to enjoy the rights they have, feel more empowered to exercise those rights, and be more likely to stay housed more often.
8) Tenant/Community Opportunity to Purchase (TOPA/COPA) The local jurisdiction cou ld provide tenants and/or community -based organizations notice of intended s.ile of rented property, and provide a specific time period during which the tenants and/or organization have the opportunity to purnhase the property . Tenants at risk of being displaGed through the sale of a building would be provided with another option to potentially stay in their home. A version of this policy is actively being explored and studied in the City of San Jose.
9) Proactive Rental Inspection
This establishes a program for code enforcement officers to routinely inspect the rental housing Inven tory .

Through these programs tenants are more likely to be protected from living in substa ndard housing, and local jurisdic.tions may catch habitability issues before they become so large that they require "red tag" evictions. 10) Tenant Resource Center
As a response to the pandemic:, the c1ties of San Jose and Mountain View created Eviction Help Centers where tenants and landlords ct>Uld receive information on local laws, assistance to apply for rent relfef and legal aid.

These cities are now lookin g at making the centers a permanent tenant/housing resource center post-pandemic. 11) Oty-wide Affordable Rent Portals
A portal for submitting a common application for affordable housing would save the tremendous amount of time and ener&Y it currently takes to sub mit the same informa tion on separate applications for each affordable property . A clearinghouse of affordable housin g opportunities would also allow the city or county to affirmatively market to vulnerable and hard to reach populations. Current examples of these portals include San Jose Doorways and 0 alla in San Franc.isw .
12) Increase Multi-lingual engagement with dty services and housing opportunitie.s Language barriers can keep many communities from accessing the housing opportunities and services t hey need .

Taking steps to increase the city 's capacity to engage under multiple languages can improv e those outcomes. 13) Net-loss policy
SB 330 (The Housing Crisis Act of 2019) requires that protected units are replaced one -fur-one 1n cases of the redevelopment of a rental · property . These prov isions are currently mandated by state law, but local jurisdictions 350W Julian Street.. 8LJlldlng5, Sa" Jo:se, CA 95110
40!! ,780.84 11 • W\\W ivathomo.org • 1nlo@sHlconvaliev~thomo.orf I

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page A-52

July 1, 2022
RE: Housing Element-Anti-displacement policies to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing Page4of4
can adopt permanent no-net-loss ordinances. this policy would protect critical sources of housing affordable to lower -income families, and incentivize higher-density infill redevelopment when paired with land use policies to support the feasibility of this redevelopment ,
These policies have been developed with consideration of some ofthe major barriers to housing stability, and causes of displacement , which have been identified through an extensive research and engagement process in Palo Alto, and a few other jurisdictions in the county. Through the housing element , these anti-displacement policies should be <onsidered a comprehensive package of responses to address the complexity of the challenges faced by renters in Santa Clara. For further information and if you have any questions, please feel free to reach out to our Preservation and Protection Associate, fmily Ann Ramos at em ly@sfliconvalleyath ome.org .

Than~ you for considering anti-displacement and tenant pmtection.s solutions to affirmatively further fair housing.

Sincerely,
~~
Mathew Reed
Policy Director
I
350W Jullao Street. BLJildlnt5, Sa• Joae, tA 95110
408.780.8411 • wwwsvathomo,o rg • [email protected] A

Page A-53

FIGURE 4: FORMAL COMMENT LETTER: HOUSING CHOICES

Housing
Choices

DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES COMMENTS FOR

CITY OF SANTA CLARA HOU SING ELEMENT
Introduction to Developmental Disabilities
California state law defines developmental d isabilit ies as a disabling condition that emerged befo re age 18, is expected to be lifelong, and is a substantial disability attrib utable to major impairment of cognitive and/or social functio ning. A substantial disability is.defined as "significant functional limitations .. . in three or more of the following areas of major life activity, as appropriate to the person's aee: Receptive and expressive laneuage; Learnine; Self-care; Mobility; Self-direction ; Capacity for independent living; and/or Economicself -sufflciency" , Developmental disabilities include intellectua l disability , autisn11 Down syndrom!), epilepsy, cerebral palsy, and other disabling conditions similar in their functional impact to an lntellectu'il'I dfsability. A developmental disability by definition does not1nclude conditions that are solely physi~ I, psychiatric or learning disabili ties (Section 4512 of the Welfare and Institutions Code and Section 54000-S4002 of the Code of Regulations). Under California 's Lanterman Developmenta l Disabilities Services Act and the U.S. Supreme Court's 1999 decision in Olmstead v. L.C., people wit h developmental disabilities are entitled to receive community-based services that allow them to live in the least restrictive community setting of their choosing. In California these services are accessed tl1rough the state's 21 Regional Centers and fu11ded by the Department of Developmenta l Disabilities.

This shift to de-inst1tutionalization has led to the closure of the most restrictive segregated settings and to the requ irement, under SB 812, that local jurisdictions in their Housine Elements assess and plan specifically for the housing needs of people with developmental disabi lities who receive supportive services from the Regional Center in order to live in their home community .

Demographic and Other Trend s Affecting the Housing Needs of People w ith Developmenta I Disabilities
Higher Proportion of Adults with Developmenta l Disabiliti es in the City of Santa Clara. The City of Santa Clara Is home to 612 people with developmental disabilities (Table _ }, Because the prev ious Housing Element 2014-i023 reported the populat ion by zip rodes the re is overlap with surro unding Jurisdictions which makes it difficult to est imate the change in popul;;tion in t he City of S;;nta Clsira alone, however th rough out Santa Clara County there has been a 14% increase in t he pop ulation with 1 I

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page A-54

developmental disabilities between 2015-20 21, much faster than the general population . The table below shows that the City of Santa Clara requires more housing options for adults with developmental disabilities than other parts of the County because a greater proportion of City of Santa Clara's residents with developmental disabilities are adults (67%) as compared to the County's total population (63%).

Table_ City of Santa Clara and Santa Clara County Population with Developmental Disabilities Age City of Santa City of Santa Clara Santa Clara County Clara Santa Clara County %of total
%of total
Underage 18 204 33% 4016 37%
18 and older 408 67% 6737 63%
Total 612 100% 10753 100%
Note: The Cffy of Santa Clara populat ion with developme ntal disab ilities was prov ided by San Andr eas Regional Center as of Novem ber 2021 .

The Santa Clara County popula tion with develop menta l disab ilities is based on county-level data published by the Departm ent of Develop menta l Services as of June 2021.

Living Arrangements of City of Santa Clara Adults with Developmental Disabilities. Assessing the housing needs of adults with developmental disabilities is of particular importance because as they age the adults will require a residential option outside the family home , whereas the family home is the preferred living option for children with developmental disabilities. As of June 2021, San Andreas Regional Center (SARC) reported that the family home is the most prevalent living arrangement for the City of Santa Clara's adults with developmental disabilities , with 66% of adults continuing to live in the family home. Only 16% of City of Santa Clara adults with developmental disabilities have successfully transitioned to living in their own apartment , more than half of whom live at inclusive properties Estancia Apartments and Rivertown Apartments where a total of 38 units are set-aside for people with developmental disabilities who receive on-site supportive services to help them remain stably housed.

As of 2021, 17% of City of Santa Clara adults were reported to be living in licensed care facilities , however , as discussed below, opportunities for adults to live in a licensed care facility are declining throughout the County. This decline is fueling the need for the City of Santa Clara to increase opportunities for adults with developmental disabilities to live in affordable housing with supportive services in order to decrease risk of homelessness or displacement when a parent or family member is no longer able to provide housing.

Decline in Licensed Care Facilities in Santa Clara County. The Department of Developmental Services reports that between September 2015 and June 2021, 5% fewer people with developmental disabilities were able to be housed in licensed care facilities (including Community Care Facilities, Intermediat e Care Facilities, and Skilled Nursing Facilities) in Santa Clara County, even as the adult population in need of residential options outside the family home grew. This trend increases the need for affordable housing options coordinated with supportive services funded by the San Andrea s Regional Center. The County 's reduced supply of licensed care facilities increases the likelihood that City of Santa Clara adults with 2 I
A

Page A-55

developmental disabilities will be forced out of the county when their parents are no longer able to house them--unless there is a significant improvement in access to affordable housing.

Table_ Living Arrangements of Adults with Developmental Disabilities in City of Santa Clara compared to Santa Clara County
Adult Living City of City of Santa Clara County Percent of Arrangements Santa Clara Percent of Total Santa Clara County Total In the family home 269 66% 4,362 65%
Own apartment with
supportive services 66 16% 7S6 11%
Licensed Facilities 69 17% 1,525 23%
Other (including
homeless) 4 1% 94 1%
Total Adults 408 100% 6,737 100%
Note: The Cffy of Santo Clara popu lation with developmental disabilities was provided by Son Andreas Regional Center as of November 2021 .

The Santo Claro County population with developmenta l disabilities is based on county-level data published by the Deportm ent of Developm enta l Services as of June 2021.

Longer Life Spans. Between September 201S and June 2021, the Department of Developmental Services reports that the number of Santa Clara County residents with developmental disabilities age 62 and older grew by 35% (Table_). This increase is generally attributable to well-documented gains in life span, rather than to migration of seniors with developmental disabilities into Santa Clara County.

Longer life spans mean 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 currently occupying a licensed facility in Santa Clara County are living longer, this reduced rate of occupant turnover , coupled with closing facilities , will make it more difficult for middle-aged and senior adults who have been living with aging parents in the City of Santa Clara to transition to licensed care when their parents pass away.

Displacement. Notwithstanding 20% growth in Santa Clara County's total population of adults with developmental disabilities , the Department of Developmental Services has documented a 15% decline in the age group 42 to S1 in Santa Clara County between September 201S and June 2021 (Table_). In light of gains in life expectancy, this loss can reasonably be attributed to displacement from the county because of the lack of residential living options (either licensed facilities or affordable housing) when an elderly family caregiver passes away or becomes unable to house and care for the adult. Displacement takes a particular toll on adults with developmental disabilities who depend on familiarity with transit routes and shopping and services, as well as support from community-based services and informal networks built up over years of living in Santa Clara.

Increase of Autism Diagnosis Reflected in Increase in Adults in their 20s and 30s. Growth in the Santa Clara County adult population with developmental disabilities correlates with a well-documented annual 3 I

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page A-56

increase in the diagnosis of autism that began in the mid-1980s and did not level out until after 2015.

The cumulative impact of this trend is already seen in the growth of the Santa Clara County population age 18 to 41 with developmental disabilities and will continue into the future . This trend has significant implications for housing needs among City of Santa Clara adults with developmental disabilities during the period of the 2023-2031 Housing Element, as the population can be expected to continue to grow at a faster rate than the general population.

Table_ Changes in Age Distribution of Adult Population in Santa Clara County Age 2015 Number 2021 Number % Change
18 to 31 2,767 3,515 27%
32 to 41 891 1,212 36%
42 to 51 833 705 -15%
52 to 61 702 744 6%
62 plus 416 561 35%
Total adults 5,609 6,737 20%
Source: Department of Deve lopmental Services Quarter ly Report by County.

Higher Rates of Physical Disabilities. People with developmental disabilities are more likely than the general population to have an accompanying physical disability . Almost 20% of Santa Clara County residents with developmental disabilities have limited mobility, and 15% have a vision or hearing impairment . The need for an accessible unit coupled with the need for coordinated supportive services compounds the housing barriers faced by those with both cognitive and physical disabilities .

Ineligibility for Many Affordable Rental Units. Some adults with developmental disabilities depend on monthly income of around $1,000 from the Supplemental Security Income (551) program , pricing them out of many of the limited number of affordable housing units in the City of Santa Clara. Those with employment tend to work part-time in the lowest paid jobs and also struggle to income-qualify for many of the affordable housing units now available for rent in the City of Santa Clara.

Transit-Dependent. Most adults with developmental disabilities do not drive or own a car and many rely on public transit as a means to integration in the larger community .

Best Practices for Inclusion of People with Developmental Disabilities in Typical Affordable Housing
The City of Santa Clara can meet the housing needs of people with developmental disabilities by adopting policies and programs to continue promoting their inclusion with coordinated services in typical affordable housing. The following considerations should guide the City of Santa Clara in this pursuit :

I
4 A

Page A-57

• Integration in typical affordable housing is a priority in order to affirmatively further fair housing for a group that has historically experienced no alternatives to segregated living and also to counter the displacement of adults with developmental disabilities out of the City of Santa Clara.
• Coordination of housing with onsite supportive services funded by the San Andreas Regional Center should be encouraged . These fully funded coordinated services provide a supported pathway for people with developmental disabilities to apply for and retain an affordable apartment and are often as essential to a person with a developmental disability as a physically modified unit is to a person with a mobility, vision , or hearing impairment . • A mix of unit sizes at inclusive housing properties would address the needs of those who require live-in aides, want to live with roommates or partners , or have children . • Location near public transit would accommodate the transit-dependency of most adults with developmental disabilities.
• Deeply affordable housing is needed by people with developmental disabilities. Per HCD guidance , the City should plan for at least 1,484 Extremely Low Income (ELI) units , or 50% of its Very Low Income RNHA allocation. ELI units are particularly important to people with developmental disabilities , and some of the City's planned production of ELI units should be subject to a preference for people with developmental disabilities.

Policy and Program Recommendations
The City of Santa Clara has a responsibility not simply to assess the housing needs of people with developmental disabilities but also to create and implement policy, zoning , program and other changes that make it more feasible for affordable housing developers to include people with developmental disabilities in their housing plans. Since its last Housing Element , the City of Santa Clara approved two new inclusive affordable housing projects , 2330 Monroe Street and The Meridian , which will create 26 new apartments subject to a preference for people with developmental disabilities who need coordinated onsite services funded by the San Andreas Regional Center. However, the city still has a long way to go in meeting the housing needs of adult residents with developmental disabilities . Over the course of the next Housing Element cycle the need for deeply affordable housing paired with coordinated supportive services will continue to increase as the population of adults with developmental disabilities continues to grow an outlive aging parents while beds available in licensed facilities continue to decline . In order to meet the increasing needs of the City's population of people with developmental disabilities , policies and programs that explicitly promote inclusion of people with developmental disabilities in affordable housing with coordinated services provided by the San Andreas Regional Center are required. Below are examples of programs and policies which can help to prevent homelessness or displacement of these vulnerable residents as well as to provide opportunities for people with developmental disabilities to live in the least restrictive setting of their choosing in line with the Olmstead Decision.
• Affirmatively Further Fair Housing by Producing More Extremely Low-Income Housing. Not only is disability the highest-ranked source of Fair Housing complaints in Santa Clara County, a 5 I

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page A-58

I
growing body of Santa Clara County data indicates that Black, Indigenous and other People of Color (BIPOC) with disabilities experience higher rates of severe rent burden than either BIPOC without disabilities or whites with disabilities . Such disparities in the experience of severe rent burden , housing instability and displacement from the City of Santa Clara are attributable to the shortage of housing priced to be affordable to Extremely Low Income (ELI) households with incomes below 30% of Area Median Income. Multiple barriers including high land and construction costs and limited funding make it difficult for developers to produce Extremely Low Income units that would help to reduce such disparities. Local zoning and other policies that lead to increased production of Extremely Low Income units , as well as city staff dedicated to implementing and overseeing those policies, will Affirmatively Further Fair Housing in the City of Santa Clara and decrease displacement and homelessness for the most at-risk residents , including people with developmental disabilities.

Sample Language: The City of Santa Clara's plans to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing for Black, Indigenous and other People of Color, particularly those with disabilities, shall include policies designed to increase the production of Extremely Low Income units, as well as adequate staff capacity to implement and monitor the impact of these policies. • Establish and monitor a quantitative goal. Tracking the City's success in housing people with developmental disabilities is essential to determine whether policies and programs are having an effect in overcoming historic patterns of discrimination and exclusion of people with developmental disabilities from affordable housing. A goal of 100 new Extremely Low-Income housing units for City of Santa Clara residents with developmental disabilities over the period of the 2023-2031 Housing Element would represent meaningful progress towards the total unmet housing need of this special needs group.

Sample Language: The City of Santa Clara shall monitor progress towards a quantitative goal of 100 new Extremely Low Income housing units that are subject to a preference for people with developmental disabilities needing the coordinated services provided by San Andreas Regional Center to live inclusively in affordable housing.
• Target City-Owned Land, Land Dedicated to Affordable Housing under the lnclusionary Ordinance and City Housing Funds to Achieve City-Specific Priorities. City-owned land, land dedicated to affordable housing in lieu of providing affordable units under the inclusionary ordinance , and city housing funds are often essential to the development of affordable housing that is financially feasible in the City of Santa Clara. In creating guidelines for the scoring of any competitive proposals for these scarce resources, the City should grant additiona I points to affordable housing projects that address the housing needs of the residents who are most difficult to house under existing state and federal housing finance programs --for example, by prioritizing proposals with a higher number of Extremely Low Income units or that make a percentage of units subject to a preference for identified categories of special needs people who would benefit from coordinated onsite services, including but not limited to people with developmental disabilities who benefit from services of the San Andreas Regional Center. 6 A

Page A-59

Sample Language : In publishing requests far competitive proposals for any city-owned land, land dedicated to affordable housing under the city's inclusionary ordinance or city housing funds , the City of Santa Clara shall grant additional points to proposals that address the city's most difficult to achieve housing priorities, by, for example , providing a greater number of Extremely Low-Income units or committing to make a percentage of the units subject to a preference for people with special needs who will benefit from coordinated onsite services, such as people with developmental disabilities who receive services from the San Andreas Regional Center. • Local Density Bonus. Like many state and federal housing finance programs, the state density bonus program incentivizes the production of housing at the Low and Very Low Income level.

But in counties like Santa Clara County, with one of the highest Area Median Incomes in the state, these incentives have the effect of making much of the available affordable housing out of reach for residents on fixed incomes (including seniors and persons with disabilities) or who are working in low wage jobs and are thus unable to meet minimum income requirements to afford the rent assigned to the Very Low Income category . The City of Santa Clara should add additional local incentives to the state density bonus law to make it more responsive to the impact of Santa Clara County's high Area Median Income on the affordability of housing for City of Santa Clara residents who are Extremely Low Income, including special needs populations, for example , people with developmental disabilities.

Sample Language: In addition to implementing the California density bonus statute , the City shall provide an additional local density bonus, incentives, and/or concessions for housing projects that include at least 5% of the units for people at the Extremely Low-Income affordability level, including special needs populations , for example, people with developmental disabilities.
• Extremely Low-Income Accessory Dwelling Units. As part of a larger plan to increase the supply of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), the City should consider creating a financing and/or incentives program for homeowners who build ADUs and rent them for at least 15 years at Extremely Low Income rent levels or that are subject to a preference for identified categories of special needs people who would benefit from coordinated onsite services, including but not limited to people with developmental disabilities who benefit from services of the San Andreas Regional Center.

Sample Language: Subject to funding availability, the City shall devise a program of financing and/or incentives for Accessory Dwelling Units subject to rent restrictions for at least 15 years at Extremely Low-Income rent levels and/or target special needs populations , such as people with disabilities who will benefit from coordinated services provided by the San Andreas Regional Center.
7 I

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page A-60

I
• Reduce Parking Requirements for People with Developmental and Other Disabilities. Because most adults with developmental disabilities do not drive or own a car, the City of Santa Clara should revise its ordinances to limit parking required for affordable units for people with developmental disabilities to .5 space for each affordable studio or 1 bedroom unit and 1 space for an affordable 2 bedroom unit or larger. A similar reduction is recommended for affordable , physically accessible units.

Sample Language: The City of Santa Clara shall encourage the inclusion of people with developmental and other disabilities in affordable housing by recognizing their transit dependence ond establishing lower parking ratios for units targeted to people with developmental and other disabilities than would otherwise be required for affordable housing. • Affirmative Marketing of Physically Accessible Units: Developers are allowed to affirmatively market accessible units to disability-serving organizations in Santa Clara County (i.e., San Andreas Regional Center, Housing Choices Coalition for Person with Developmental Disabilities, Silicon Valley Independent Living Center and others) but rarely take this step. Affirmative marketing is particularly needed by people with developmental disabilities who, because of cognitive, communication and social impairment , often rely on housing navigation services funded by the San Andreas Regional Center to learn about and apply for affordable housing .

Sample Language: As a condition of the disposition of ony city-owned land, the award of city financing, any density bonus concessions, or land use exceptions or waivers for any affordable housing project, the City of Santa Clara shall require that the housing developer implement an affirmative marketing plan for state-mandated physically accessible units which, among other measures , provides disability-serving organizations adequate prior notice of the availability of the accessible units and a process for supporting people with qualifying disabilities to apply. 8 A

Page A-61

FIGURE 5: FORMAL COMMENT LETTER: SILICON VALLEY AT HOME

Boar(! or Directors
lli'.~vit1 1Wif k, C:hrH1
tlnN~ Wa~ Bar Att!tl
Gh 1 ◄ ~~11.., Vice Chai,
511/am Volley Commu11lty
faUnr/aFbrr
lil ndlre Gon1,1~1~ ~crt!fory
sond 1-t!JI P1opt:1 r, Cr;,mr,o,.,.,
Aod1e,1 0§,£00d,. ,,oo.w,c,
c;dtm11m,tJ1)t)
St1lk1hll,1tla1d
IIJ/c,111 Volley ~/eye/<' Coo IN Ion
Bolt 010'.•.• n.gtlfn
Worki ng Pur11,eo·hJ~.s U5A
l\ml~i~hnr.m
Jo.Jnn..P1ofit ktW'Ilng
Au.nr;,,tilWP 11[ NnrlheJII CA
Hu11 Go1ual~
1fil-pu11K" Ft11111lk1ti011
o/ ~"""" Va/Jl.y
J;,vier Con~lei
Goaqtt:

Po ncho GUt-\131'.1
Sac,NJ lleod. Community
Stwk:e
1-.rnk.e 1eni.p11
HoOilulJor Humum.,y
ffo,1 IJ<Jy/lUicon Valley
Ji.1 n Undt•nl h~I
fvTJtffetonff(Jl.if111g
leunirer l ouir1g
Pe.Wnotit>n: Jk>me
M;1 1y Mor tagh
EAIIHou1J11q
ChriiN,al,
Th~ Co1 r cn,nprmlf'\
Kt•t1vsnidc1
IM>t !inl(.h:t t-t7t,,titf inr1
-tart
rtegin~ Cieilestin Williilm:s.

Exet.ulNt> Olledor
TRANSMITTED VlA EMAIL
August 8, 2022
John Davidson
Principle Planner
Community Development , Planning Division
dty of Santa Clara
1500 Warburton Avenue
Re: City of Santa Clara 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Update John Davidson,
sv@home
SV@Home is the voke for affordable housing ln the Sllkon Valley. A membership organization , SV@Home works with a broad coalition of strategic partners to address the urgent housing need by boosting produ ction of homes at a II income levels, preserving existing affordable homes, and protecting the families in them .

The City of Santa Clara has been a leader in recent years in its commitment to, and success in entitling and building much needed housing. In the current 5th RHNA Cycle the city is on track to permit over 3000/4 of their above moderate oblfgation . While the City continue s to fall short of 5th Cycle obligatrons for lower- income production , It has demonstrated stron g support for 100% affordable project,;, and has an active affordable housing pipeline . In addition , Santa Clara has been active in specific area planning, adding planned capacity for thousands of future homes. With the exception of the initial failure of the El Camino Real Specific Plan, the City is moving forward with major plannin g for the redevelopment of the downtown and the area surrounding the future BART station , The 6th Cycle Housing Element Update process is a qualitatively, as well as a quantitatively , different undertaking. This is a unique opportunity to more fully assess the breadth of housing needs in Santa Clara and to identify new tools to address these needs and constraint,,; on developing housing. This process is also an opportunity to engage deliberately with the full community across incomes - especially those representative of populations that have been historically excluded and are at risk of displacement - to share their housing needs. This unique opportunity is one that is required to adhere to the clear legal guidance as outlined by the California Department of Housing & Community Development (HCD) in multip le documents Interp retin g state law.

This is not a simple process, and we appreciate the effort that the City of Santa Clara staff, elected and appointed representatives , and members of the community have invested over the last 6-9 months . As you know, howev er, the expectations for this process are high, and jurisdictions throughout the state have struggled to generate compliant housing elements for this cycle.

During the review of the current draft, there is still time to receive public input and plan for steps to address concerns prior to the full review of the Housing Element Update by the 350 W. Julfa11 street , Building 5, Sa" Jose, CA 95110
www.svathom<,,org • (nfo@slllconvallevathom ... ori
I

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page A-62

August 8, 2022
Re : Draft Housing Element Update

Page 2 of 6 ends

state Department of Housing and Community Development. Towards that end, SV@Home is submitting the following comments .

Outreach, Community Input, and tllrgeted Affirmatively Furthering F.air Housing (AFFH) outreach as the foundation of the Housing Element Update process
We do not find that the Draft Housing Element Update shows evidence of the significant public engagement and community participation required to be compliant with guidance provided by the state. The importance of this public engagement and community participation to the development of the Housing Element Update is central to development ot each component of the document tram the assessment of needs, to the development of policies and programs to address those needs, to the strategies employed to select housing opportunity sites to fulfill the RHNA.

Community Participation means a solicitat'ion of views and recommendations from member s of the community and other interested parties, a consideration of the views and recommendations received, and a process for incorporating such views and recommendations into dedsfons and outcomes . To address these requirements , the housing element must describe meaningful , frequent , and ongoing public participation with key stakeholders. Under AB 686 (Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing) this requires going beyond simply giving the public an opportunity to provid e input and should be proactively and broadly conducted thr-ough a variety of methods to assure access and participation of those most impacle d by the City's housing needs and least likely to have access to standard modes of community input.

The summary of community engagement effo rts and community participation was not included in the Draft Update released for public comment . Clly Staff e)(plained that an on line community survey had closed after the draft was released and that stakeholder meetin gs were ongolng. During tl'le joint Planning Commission and City Council study session held on July 12th , staff described outreach efforts targeted at increasing participation in the online survey but very little about the process or substance of any additional engagement and solicitation of input , Without the detailed description of this effort it is difficult to assess, but it is dear that tl1e most robust community participation instrument , the online survey, was employed after the draft needs assessment, proposed policies and programs, and sites inventory had been completed .

SV@Home, which had established itself as an interested stakeholder in 2021, and participated in a community meeting and provided comment at an earlier counc]I study session, was notified of the on line survey through email on June 20th. I, as a resident of Santa Clara who had expressed an interest in receiving Housing Element Update process updates , received a link to th@ survey on June 27th . SV@Home was not notified that the draft harl been released on July 1. Nor were we notified that a joint Planning Commission Bnd City Council study session would take place on July 12th. We received no notifi eatior1 of earlier study ses.sions either .

While the participation in the on line survey appears to have been significant, it comes too late to i11torm the draft and is predictably skewed towards older, wealthier , whiter, homeowners. These limits of the survey instrument were discussed at some length during the study session, as was the more specific need' to understand ·the speclfic needs and priorities of lower -income renters and LatinX respondents. Lower-income, Black and LatinX, renters have been shown to have been disproportionately impacted by the multiple dimensions of the housing crisis. Their perspectives must be disaggregated in community input to reasonably understand their needs. Everybody's input is important , but this falls short of the targeted • early and often • engagement required under AFFH.

I
350W . Julla~Streel , Budd In(!>, San Jose, CA 95110
408,7!l0.84ll • www,svathom5 ,ori • ,nfo@l•ilkonvallevathome,ori A

Page A-63

August 8, 2022
Re : Draft Housing Element Update

Page 3 of 6 ends

As a result, the Housing Element does not a) provide a summary of public comments and b) explain how the comments were considered ond incorporated, including comments that were not Incorporated.

Housing Needs Assessment and Evaluation of Past Housing El'ement Performance The Housing Needs Al;sessment do~ not intorPQrate local knowledge or anal~is , The Housing Needs Assessment is almost entirely taken from the data packet of demographic information provided by the Associatfon of Bay Area Governments. Given the limited outrea ch and public engagement prior to the release of the Draft Housin g Element Update, it has been impossible for the public, or appointed and elected offida Is, to understand the assessment of needs presented in a way that allows them to comment on or expand the city 's understanding of local housing needs. As a result , there is no evidence of any analysis of need , beyond the rudimentary assessment provided by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), incorporated into the Housing Needs Assessment . ABAG's materials state that the final' step for completing the Housing Needs Assessment when usirig the provid ed data packets is to "Ma ke meanin g and find insights : Add the analy sis that (.Ontextualizes this dara for your jurisdiction and connects housing needs to polkies and pro grams." SV@Home recommends that the City of Son ta Clara conduct additional outreach and analysis of the /lousing needs data in the draft with the goal of better understanding the housing needs of the city a5 they are eJf/lerienced by re5idenb of the city. We would draw particular attention to the AFFH requirement to c,~ess the differences in experiences by race/ethnicity and across neighborhoods within the city. We find little effort to connect the data points showing that LatinX residents, and other members Qf protected clCl$5e$, face greater incidents of hQu~ing in~abillty r.md Qverlc,pping housing needs .

Lack of engagement on the assessment of the 5th Cycle Housing Element Update. The City falled to solicit and integrate public comment into the assessment of programs and policies adopted in the 5th Cycle Housing Element update . Neither was this assessment process integra ted into the study sessions befor e the Planning Commission and/or the Oty Council. Partially as a result , what is provided is a less than thorough assessment of the pro gress made and the barriers that impeded progress during this period . In most cases, as is the pattern with the draft discussion of the proposed 6th Cycle pro grams and policies , the programs are simply noted as "ongoin g'' rather than attempting to assess the impact of specific actions taken, This is both less than we believe is required of this process and a missed opportunity to learn from some of the significant successes. City staff may feel it has a handle on these details , but failure to share throu gh this process in a way that is publicly accessible (and accessible to a mostly new Plannin g Commission and City Council) is not compliant with state guidan ~e and will significantly hamper ongoing public engagement.

SV@Home recommends that the assessment of the 5th Cycle Policies and Programs be incorporated into the more comprehensive a~essment of housing needs, including concrete opportunities for pub/fc engagement around the lessons learned from these prior efforts . If most of these 110/icy actions will be continued or have yet to· be completed and are rolled over into the 6th cycle update , it is critical that their impact be carefully reviewed . We believe this is a clear process requirement of this update.

Policies and Programs• Housing Needs Constraints and AFFH. An essential component of the Housing Element Update process is makin g connections for the plan to be responsive to l ts own findin gs - assessing the e>cistlng housing needs, and those that may be specific to enumerated populations under AFFH 350 W .JullanStreel , Budd Inf 5, San Jose, Cl\ ~5110
408,7!l0.84ll • www ,svathom5,orc • ,nfo@l•illconvallevathome.ore I

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page A-64

August 8, 2022
Re : Draft Housing Element Update

Page 4 ends

requfrements, and then showing the work and dosing the loop connecting them to specific policies and programs to be imp lemented in response. We have discussed our concerns with t'he outreach and engagement meant to inform this process. We have noted the limited assessment of existing programs.

Subsequently , We struggle to track the connection between needs and solutions in the draft As with many other jurisdictions that we are tracking and reviewing across the state, we believe the lack of detail in the policies and programs included in the draft will not prove to be compliant. From our reading each of the policy and program areas presented are listed as "ongoing." There appear to be two pieces of policy work that are on a scheduled time line: the comprehensive Zoning Code update Initiated in 2014, which we understand as being part of the state mandate that there be object ive development standards in place; and the update of the lnclusiomary Housing program . With those e)rneptions , the proposed policies and programs lack ii clear definition of work to be undertaken , provide no dear prioritization , and turn to "study, " "consider," "conti nue to monitor ,"and "review, " rather than fully operationalizing the steps that will be taken.

This portlon of the update clearly falls short of the standards and guidance provided by the state and by numerous supporting documents made available from multiple sources over the past year. We have seen the lack of detail, discrete action steps, and dear timelines referenced in multiple HCD comments to another jurisdiction.

We·Would note that we believe there is a general failur e to substantively address housing instability and displacement experienced by prote cted classes under AFFH in Santa Clara, We would also note that this failure was acknowledged during the study session held on July 16th, during whi ch a number of "Potential Programs to Consider" were presented . Ideally, this is not the time to be taking the temperature of de,ision makers on key policies. These policies should be crafted in response to identified needs and public engagement. If an elected body is presented with a poltcy solution to address an identified need and chooses not to pursue that policy, this may or may not risk a non-compliant Housing Element. We believe, however, that identifying ei<isting needs and developing specific policy and programmatic responses is required as a part of this process, and it falls to city staff to show their work and explain their recommended course of action .

SV@Home recommends that the content and description of policies and programs to respond to housing needs and constraints should be made significantly more specific in order to be actionable during the 6th Cycle.

Housirig Opportunity Sites Inventory
Avoid Double-Counting 5th Cycle Completed Projects into the 6th Cycle Pipeline Inventory . The pipeline projects listed under Table 13.6--2 have sites labeled as "approved " or " Under Construction'' but they do not specify whether they have approved building permits. In an initial rev few we found major projects listed as "Approved" that were already well under construction having received building permits. Similarly, a number of projects listed as " Under Construction" were found on the Annual Progress Report (APR) lists in prior years.

The narrative provided on page 13.6-3 defines " Under C-0nstrudion " projects as sites with anticipated completion and occupancy permits after June 30, 2022. AC<iorc!in_g to the 5th Cycle Housing Element APR rules, however , projects that acquired their building permits within the plannin g period would count as progress I
350W Julla~Str1'et, Boddint5 , San Jose, Cl\ ~5110
408.7!!0.8411 • www.sva1»om6,ori • ,nro@oilkonvallevathome ,orr A

Page A-65

August 8, 2022
Re : Draft Housing Element Update
Page S of 6
towards a jurisdiction's RHNA. 1 As such, projects that have acqu1red their building permits would not qualify to be included In this 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element sites inventory . 5V@Home recommends that the City of Santa Claro confirm and remove any sites from the Inventory that received building permits prior to June 30, 2022, whether lined as "Under Construction" or "Approved".

Overdependence on a few Specific Plan Areas, lacking asses.sment of development e>1pectations. In general, cities should use an AFFH lens when initially reviewing sites to potentially include in the inventory and should not place too much reliance on sites in major plan areas located in lower-reso urced areas. The sites inventory places 95% (4,590 units) of its lower -income sites in three major plan areas north of El Camino Real, all within moderate resourced areas with some sites abutting low-resourced areas. The ability of affordable developments to be competitive for state and federal financing will be more limited in moderate -resource areas. Beyond the failure to plan in higher-resourced areas, this over reliance raises a number of concerns:
phasing for specific plan areas is often already planned and is subsequently better known than the potential timing for infill development sites; similarly, the developers ' intent for specific sites-commerdal , market · residential, affordable-residential -are also more generally more transparent. For these reasons the standard of evidence of likely development in these plan areas should reflect this knowledge.

Failure to incorporate AFFH requirement to spread lower- Income sites throughoutthe City, including higher-resourced areas. The sites inventory should identify and analyze the viability of placing lower -income housing units in high opportunity areas. The highest resourced areas in Santa Clara are located in the southerly sections of the city, which have the highest incomes and schools with the top ranking education scores, as shown in Figure 13.3-22 and Figure 13.3-23. Although investing in lower-resourced areas should also be a priority , the City of Santa Clara must show efforts to provide access to affordable housing options throughout the entire city. While located in more areas throu_ghout the city, the distribution of pipeline projects alone does not satisfy this AFFH requirement , as they only make up 15% of the lower -income inventory and are not predominantly located in high resourced areas. , Obvious areas of opportunities to build lower-Tnc:ome housing In higher-resourced areas would be In Santa Clara's downtown or near Stevens Creek Boulevard, which have General Plan Focus Areas. However, the sites inventory does nottake advantage of these potentral higher-resourced areas to meet AFFH, nor does the Draft Housing flernent discuss why these particula r areas should not be included. It is parlicularly ·disturbing that the prevalence of neighborhood opposition to new housing development is explicitl y 'Used as an explanation of why the sites inventory focuses entirely on plan areas where fewer people current ly live. This is explicitly contrary to the state direction that the expectation of AFFH requirements open up areas and neighborhoods that have previously been exclusive and created barriers to economic integration and expanded access to opportunlty .
.1 HCD. Housing Element Annua l Prooress Repor t Instructions (PB 91) a Site Inventory Guideboo k, Attachment:Summary of New Lews Referenced In the Guidebook (pg. 39): ''AB 686 requires jurisdictions to conduct an assessment of fair housing in the housing element, prepare the housirig element site inventory through the lens of affirmatively furthering fair housing, and include program(s) to affirmativ ely further fair housing."
350 W. Julian Street, Budd Inc 5, San Jose, CA ~5110
408,700.8411 • www .svathom5 ,0rg • ,nfo@)sillconvalleyathome ,orr I

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page A-66

August 8, 2022
Re ; Draft Housing Element Update

Page 6 of 6 ends

SV@Home recommends that the City of Santa Clara update the sites inventory to include sites in the General Plan Focus Areas located in high and highest resourced areas so as to achieve AFFH requiMments of providing qffordable housing opportunities thmughout the city. • HCD's base leve l sta ndards for the sites inventory are high. Lower-income sites mus t: 1) provide substantial evide nce, such as market con ditions and stronger development trends than what was provided, that indicate existi ng non -resid e ntial use will be di5Continued or will not be an impediment to future residential development , 2) demon stra te that there is clear developer interest in redeveloping each site within the planning period , and 3) incorp orate potential constraints (e.g. environm ental , parking , open space, etc.) into the invento ry's realistic capacity calculations consistent with HCD's Site Inventory Guidebook (per Government Code section 65583 .2(c)(2)). An explanation of the factors leading to these conclusions in the site-specific analysis should a lso be prov ided .

The policies and pro grams listed in the Draft Housing Element need to sup port the efforts to successfully build-out the sites inventory . Chapter 13.6 sho uld summar ize and be clearly reflective of the outcomes from the proposed policies and programs outlined in Chap ter 13.2 of the Housing Plan in order to make the identified sites viable for development without foreseeable constraints , within the planning period .' Closing
The City of Santa Clara's Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element falls short of the statut ory requirement: at multiple levels, from its failure to e licit and reflect community inpu t, to its deficient analysis of needs, to its absence of co ncrete programs with implementation details and timelines. We also believe the sites inventory falls significantly short of the AFFH requirements for this process. We encourage HCD to issue findings that the Draft does not substantia lly comply with Housfng Element law and dire ct the City to correct these and other deficiencies which may be identified. We would acknow ledge again , that City statfha ve made it clear that they intend to aontinue to solicit input and refine the curren t draft prior to final review and approval by the Gty Council. We believe this provides opport unities to address deficiencies , but these actions will rieed to be significant.

SinGerely1
Mathew Reed
Directo r of Policy
' Site Inventory Guldebook . Background/Purpose , Housing Element Site Inve ntory Requirements ( pg. 3) ~ ''When determining sites to include in the inventory to meet the lower incom e hou_sing need , HCD re.commends that a local government flrs1 identify development potential in high opportunity neighborhoods . This will assist the loca·I gover nment in meeting its requirements to affirmatively furth er fair housing and ensure developments are more com petiti ve for development financing ... A s ite inventory and analysis will determine wh ether program actions must be ado pted to "make sites avartable" with appropriate ioning, developm ent standards , and infrastructure capaclty to accommod ate the new development need ."
' ABAG Summa ry of Housing Ele r11ent Reviews : Sites Inventory (pg. 3): "For non-vacant sites, most jurisdictions wlll need to prov ide substantial evidence that the existing use is not a barrier to redevelopmen t . This is a high bar and will require both site -specific analysis and a summary of development t rends . Additionally, jurisdictions should summarize policies and programs that support residential development on proposed redeveloprnent sites'' I
350W .JullanStr,et . Budd In( 5, San Jose, CA 9'5110
408,7!10.8411 • www,,vathom6 ,ori • ,nro@,illconvalleyathome ,or1.

Page A-67

FIGURE 6: FORMAL COMMENT LETTER: LIFE SERVICES ALTERNATIVES

From; Dana Hooper <dhooper@ lsahomes.org>
.Sent Tuesday, August 16, 2022 1:54 PM
To; Adam Marcus ,;[email protected]>
Cc; Hadlyah Fain <[email protected] >
Subject comments to the 23-31 Housing Element
Hi Adam,
Thanks for taking the time lo visit the LSA Cypress home . Cypress is a licensed residential care home.

As I mentioned I had a chance to review chapter 13.2 Housing Plan and have some comments I'd like to share.

My general comment is tha I otherwise eligible individuals should not be excluded because they choose to or are already living in a licensed residential care home , These individuals need the support just as much as there counterpart.

Here are some additional comments to sped fie section in the Housing Plan.

Action 1; The 41~ objective - Support low-in~ome housing alternatives such as hm1sing for person~ with disabilities should be expanded specifically to include licensed residential care homes.

Action 3; Affordable Housing Incentives and Facilitation. The construction of affordable housing should also include residential care homes as a type of facility and funding to at least the same level ,per person as multiun itprojects .

Action 4: Maintenance of Housing Stock should include residential care homes in the definition of who is qualified to receive maint enance.

Dana
Dana HQQper
Executive Director
0 : 408 .728 .9573 F: 408.762 .1348
I

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page A-68

FIGURE 7: FORMAL COMMENT LETTER: ANNE PAULSON
From: Anne Paulson <[email protected] >
Sent Monday , August 01, 2022 4:11 PM
To: John Davidson <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject Clty of Santa Clara Housing Element Update: Approvals and Pfpeline~ Dear John Davidson ,
Santa Clara's Housfng 'Element shows a city that 1s aevetoping, and has a 101 of areas wnere multifamrly housing can be built. But the description of the approval process is vague and confusing, and parcels and projects are listed in the pipeline and the site inventory without regard to whether they wlll actually end up being permitted in the next eight years.

The Local Processing Explanation Is Confusing and Lacks Necessa ry Information The section on Local Processing and Permit Procedures , (p 13-5.14 ff), is cohfusing and omits information , For each kind of project-single family housing, small multifamily, large multifamily , huge multi-acre project that requires a General Plan change-the reader wahts to leam • \/\/hat are the steps, in older, from the initial approach to the city to the granting of a building permit. including General Plan amendments if those are required? • How long does each one take , and which ones can be combined? How many publfc meetings are required?
• How much does each step cost?
• \/\/hat is the avera ge and the median lime for each step, and what is the average and median time from initial approach to the granting of the permit? • What is the average/median cost for each type of project? • How many public meetings , in total , a re required for each type of project? • \/\/hat fraction of proposed projects end up getting entit led? • What fraction of proposed projects end up getting building permits? The document does not give this information .

The document talks about varfous types of review (Architectural 'Review, Planned Development. etc.) but doesn't make clear their order , and which ones can be done in parallel . Table 13.5-8 promises Fee Analysis Scenarios, but they are not provided . They need to be provided , and another scenario should be added : a huge project (like 3905 Freedom Circle) that requires a General Plan Amendment,
The fees list, Table 13.5-9 , is unclear . Since the document promises a fee analysis for a typical 100 unit project but doesn 't provide it, I tried to compute that fee, but I couldn 't. For example , the Plan Review Fee is 75% of the Building Permit Fee. but what counts as the Build[ng Permit Fee? Moreover the Santa Clara numbers in the fee table , Table 13.5-6, seem to be much smaller than the fees listed in Table 13.5-9. And it seems that the Technology Fee computations could be streamlined if the dty would just multiply the underlying numbers by 1.0337 , rather than having readers. c1ttempt to work it out.

Recommendations:

I
• For each typical type of building (ADU , single family house , 10 unit multifamily , 100 unit multifamily, big proJect that requires rezoning) , list each step the applicant must go through, in order, with the time it takes, the number of public meetings it requires , A

Page A-69

the approval body or bodies, and how much it costs. I should be able to look at that table for each building type and know how long the whole process takes and how much the whole process costs .
• Make the fees table comprehensible. Combining fees might help.

Pipeline Projects and the Site Inventory
Turning to the pipeline projects, Table 13.6-2, I find similar unclarity . A total of 6753 units are listed in Approved projects. This is confusing: if Santa Clara has 6753 approved units in multifamily projects , why did the city only issue 2403 building permits in the last 4 years according to their 2018-2021 Annual Project Report? Why are all these projects not getting building permits, when they seem ready?
The answer is Santa Clara's definition of "approved." Normally, approved means a building has been approved on that parcel or those parcels, and the applicant now has only to draw up plans and submit them for a building permit. But that's not true here; instead, approved appears to mean that the project is somewhere along the approval cycle, not that it has been fully entitled and the next step is applying for a building permit.

Santa Clara has been rezoning entire industrial areas into neighborhoods for housing .

Apparently, a project counts as approved if it's somewhere on the path from the initial General Plan change to the approval of an individual building . For an example, look at 3905 Freedom Circle (Greystar), listed as approved for 1,075 units. The Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan was only adopted in June 2022 (Table 13.6-4). Seemingly , Greystar has to go through some more approval steps before it can apply for a permit. IMlat are those steps? This is what the document should explain, but does not. It looks like there's no certainty that Greystar is going to end up putting up buildings at 3905 Freedom Circle, though.

Instead of counting each approved project for the full number of units, Santa Clara should assume a mortality rate; neighboring San Jose assumes that only 60% of proposed projects will survive to be built. Moreover, the document needs to first make explicit what the full approval path is, and then explain where each project is along that path.

For Proposed projects, the situation is worse, and the projects are even more vague. A project called "Sa res Regis" is listed for 300 units. IMlere is this project to be located? Sares Regis is a developer, not a location. The proposed projects should be listed with more specificity, and should be discounted for the substantial probability that they will not end up going forward.

The Site Inventory should also be discounting projects for the probability they won't be built. On p. 13.6-17, the document says, "full buildout of [the Tasman East Specific Plan] will likely occur by 2038." Then it proceeds to list every single available parcel in Tasman East in the Site Inventory. Since the site will be built out during the next two RHNA cycles, the capacity of those parcels should be discounted by 50%. The Site Inventory lists all the available parcels in the Lawrence State Plan and the Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan area too, again without discounting . They should be discounted since the city knows the areas will not be built out in the Sixth RHNA Cycle projection period .

Recommendations :
• Be more specific about the stage of approval each project is in.

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page A-70

• Discount pipeline project and site inventory capacity for the probability that the project doesn't get built.

Conclusion
There is plainly a lot of capacity in Santa Clara . What the Housing Element needs to do is explain how this capacity is going to be used to build the RHNA in the next eight years . The document needs to be far more clear and explicit about the entire process-the steps, how long the process takes, how much the fees are, what the project mortality is-and where each listed project is along the way . If the analysis shows that Santa Clara is not on target to make the RHNA, then the steps need to be sped up and/or the process needs to be altered so that a higher fraction of projects end up surviving the process and receiving building permits.

Sincerely,
Anne Paulson
I
A

Page A-71

From: Anne Paulson <anne .p~ub [email protected] >
Sent Monday , August 01, 2022 4:13 PM
To: John Davidson <[email protected]>; HousTngElements@h~d.c:a.gov Subject City of Santa Clara Housing Element Update : Programs for Affordable Housing Dear John Davidson ,
Like most jurisd ictions , Santa Clara has been ouilding mostly Above Moderate housing . LIJ<e other Jurisdictions, Santa Clara Is nov.tlere close to building below market units at a rate that would satisfy its Silcth Cycle below market RHNA.

So it would make sense for the Housing Element to include programs , with deadlines and milestones , to build more affordable housing . A few policies look like they might be relevant :

Policy 8 ·1: Identify potential sites for affordable housing units in areas of "high opportunity" as defined by the stale .

Policy B-4: Identify and potentfally designate surplus land that can accommodate low, very•low , and extiemely low-income residential development.

Policy D-1 : Continue to identify and apply for funding that supports the developrnenf of housing for lower-income and special needs households.

These policies look promising. But then, taking a look at the actions , they aren 't actions, just more goals . Or they are vague statements of v.tlat the city plans to "explore, " instead of'M'tat the city plans to do.

The City Needs to Commi t to Actual Measurable Actions and Deadlines The city must commfl itself to take real actions , by concrete deadlines .

In Action 2: Affordabl e Housing Ordinance (p . 13.2-4) instead of "explor[ing] changes to the affordable housing ordinance ,'' the document should make changes by a certain time. The same goes for changing the affordability requirements for moderate Income incluslonary units: ,the document should say v.tlat the change will be and when it will be made .

In Action 1: Provision of a Variety of Housing Types (p. 13.2-4) instead of saying the city will support SROs, the housing element should legalize SROs and· plan for a certain number of SRO units to be built by the end of the planning period . The same goes for homes for disabled people and seniors : the document should allow and plan for such special-need housing .

In Polley B-4 (p13.2-1) Instead of "potentially designating surplus land ," the city should designate surplus land, or commit to doing so bya dale certain .

To further encourage all-affordable profects, the city should also • make all-affordable housing projects bulldable by right, with ministerial approval • remove parking minimums for all-affordable projects
• reduce fees for all-affordable project s
If the city cannot take these actions now for whatever reason, it should identify the reason and commit to taking the action by a certain date within the planning period .

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page A-72

Santa Clara needs to build more affordable housing. The Programs part of the Housing Element needs to say how it plans to achieve this, with specific actions and deadlines.

Sincerely,
Anne Paulson
I
A

Page A-73

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

August 24, 2022
SLLbmit!ed by email lo: Adam Marcus . amarcus@SanlaC'JaraCA Jl\lY RE: Santa Clara's 6"' Cycle Housing Element Update
Dear City of Santa Clara:

THE
BAY'S
FUTURE.

T11ank you for the opportunity to provide input on the city of Santa Clara 's housing element.

Your work support ing your community tn meet its housing needs is critical in addressing the current housing affordab ility crisis. We understand that at this moment in the housing clement process, your juri sdiction is waiting for cnmmcnts from HCD. As such, we request that ynu incorporat e additiona l equitable housing policies into your draft housing element during your next revision . We offer the attached equitable policy resources as we ll as potential technical assistance from Baird + Driskell Communit y Planning ("fHD " ) if your juri sdiction is interested in Lhis level of support
Tbe Partnership for the Hay's Futm e ("Pl3F") is a p ublic-pri vate-nonprofit partnership working to create a more livable Bay Area jn which diverse people of all walks of life can afford to Live and thr ive. To do so, we address tbe challenges of housing and protecting tenants through the support of equitable policy change as well as investing in the production and preservation of affordable housin g. ·
In consultation with government leaders , housin g policy experts , and communities, we have compi led a list or equitab le housing prioritie s that we request Santa Clara incorporate into the new hous.ing element. [n some cases, these are policies that housing element law requires jurisdictions to addre ss as a polential action or recommendation in their housing elements, bul in other cases, these are suggested policies that we are raisjng tLp as PBF 's equitable planning prioritie s. We are inc.:luding the following resources for your review and rnnsideration :
• a slide deck covering each priority policy idea, with template language for your jurisdiction to consider,
• examples of places where the policy has been adopted , and • additional I inks and resources.

We believe that Santa Clara 's CUITent effo11s already include some of the listed policie s, whicb we applaud. We also believe that all 13ay Area communities can take more steps to make their housing elements more equitab le. The attached summaries can be used as resources for staff as they commnnicate w ith both decision makers and the public , and we are happy to provide furfuer assistance to incorporate these policies into your housing clement as well as help draft talking points that can be tailored for local implementation.

We believe the iollowing policie s can play an imporlanL role in meeting Lhe requirernenLs of this hoLtsing elemenl and supporting thrivmg communitie s, and we requesL that Santa Clara include them in the next housing element draft :

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page A-74

1. •avorable Zoning and Land Use
o Make muHifamil infill easier lo develop
o Allow , require or encourage multifamily housing in mon:: places o A llow or encourage missing middle housing in singlc-fami l , ne,igbbo rhoods o Provide incentives for affordable housing development o Provide incentives for affordable ADU s and ''missing middle" housing

2. Accelerating Production Timeframes
o Streamline development approvals and environmental review proce ss for multifamily housing
o Streamline pcrm illin g process for multifamil y housing

3. Reducing Construction and Development Costs
o Ensure local requirement s arc not making devclopmc.:nt more cxpensi c witl1ou1 requisite benefit s
o Actively support the use of modular and factory-built construction method s

4. Pro viding Financial Subsidies : Generate new or dedicate existing revenue for affordable housing

5. Advocating for Rent Control and Just Ca use for Eviction Policie s o Adopt or update rent stabilization policies
Adopt or 11pdate just cause eviction policies

6. Advocating for Community Land Tru sts (CLTs): Support the fonuation and operation of commw1ity land trusts

7. Advocating for lnclusionary Zoning and lmpacf Fee : Create or review /update inclusionary housing (including in-lieu fees) and commercia l linkage fee requirements

8. Inventory of Sites ; Ensure that land is equitably zoned for mullifamil y housing , especiall y in high-opporh.mity areas
If you have any questions ~ please contact me (km, so1q;$ff ora) and om colleagues at Baird t Driskell (K risty Wang , , van~1'aJbdplmming com. and Joshua Abrams , a bram s1a 1bdplannirn~ oom) We will follow up with you shortly to see ifwe can provide further support including teclmical assistance from the B+D team to further explore some of these policies.

Thank you again for the opporh.mity to provide input into Santa Clara's housing element . We appreciate your efforts to address the housing needs of Bay Area and Cal ifornia residents.

Sincerely ,
KhanhRusso
Vice President of Policy and Innovation
San Franc isco Foundation
I
A

Page A-75

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

SERVING SANTA CLARA & SAN BENITO COUNTIES
10/11/2022
Santa Clara City
Attn: John Davidson, Principal Planner
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA, 95050
Via Email John Davidson
Re: Santa Clara City Draft Housing Element Update
Dear John Davidson,
Please accept these comments on the above referenced Housing Element Update on behalf of the members of Carpenters Local 405, which represents working men and women of Santa Clara City and Santa Clara County. We appreciate the opportunity and look forward to working together on this important endeavor .

To meet the urgent need for housing units outlined in the State's Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), as well as the policy goals outlined in the Santa Clara City Housing Element and larger General Plan, it is vital that Santa Clara City support efforts to build the local construction workforce. Local 405 has long been at the forefront of training the next generation of construction workers, opening pathways to the industry for diverse and traditionally underserved populations, and embracing new technologies and delivery methods to expedite the construction of much needed housing.

Without an intervention, Santa Clara City is not likely to reach its RHNA housing allocation. The City needs to build 11,632 housing units 1 over the next 8 years. The current Draft Housing Element has higher Moderate, Low, and Very Low Income housing unit allocations than the 5th Cycle Goals, all of which were not met. Critically , since 2014, only 16% of Very Low-Income, 26% of Low-Income , and 14% of Moderate-Income housing goals were met. 2 These issues raise concerns for the City's ability to meet affordable housing goals: a top concern for various city stakeho lder s, including community members .

There are practical solutions to address Santa Clara City's housing shortages. To support the policy goals of the Housing Element, Local 405 is requesting that the City add local hire and apprenticeship requirements to the final Housing Element for all residential construction projects larger than 10 units. The standards Local 405 is proposing in this comment letter would help to ensure greater benefits fo r the broader community, help ensure that construction labor 1 Page 13.4- 14: Draft Santa Clara City 2023-2031 Hous ing Element (Table 13.4-11: Regional Housing Need s Allocation)
1 California Housing Partnership: Progress of Santa Clara County towards S'h Cycle RHNA 2102 ALMADEN ROAD, SUITE 115 •SANJOSE, CA 95125 • (408) 269-7316 FAX: (408) 264-76:i0 -e,, ...

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page A-76

needs are met, and guarantee that new residential development projects within the City are making needed investments in t he region 's skilled construct ion industry workforce .

The City Should Bar Issuance of Building Permits Unless Each Future Residential Development of 10 units or Above has a Viable Apprenticeship Program and Local Hiring Requirements The Carpenters propose the fo llowing additions to the Municipal Code of Santa Clara City for any residential project larger than 10 units
Permitting requirements in the Municipal Code of Santa Clara City.

A person, firm, corporation, or other entity applying for a bui lding permit under the relevant section of the Municipa l Code of Santa Clara City, California shall be required to comp ly with the apprent iceship, healthcare, and local hire requirements of the Housing Element and General Plan. Failure to comply with the requirements set forth in this section shall be deemed a violation of this article.

Apprenticeship:

For every apprenticeable craft , each genera l contractor and each subcontractor (at every tier for the project) wil l sign a certified statement under penalty of perjury that it participates in a Joint Apprenticesh ip Program Approved by the State of California, Division of Apprent iceship Standards OR in an apprenticeship program approved by the State of Californ ia Division of Apprenticeship Standards that has a graduati on rate of 50% or higher and has graduate d at least thirty (30) apprentices each consecutive year for the five (5) years immediatel y preced ing submission of the pre qualifi catio n documents. The contractor or subcontractor wi ll also maintain at least the ratio of apprentices required by California Labor Code section 1777.5.

Local Hire Policy:

Contractor will be requi red to provide documentat ion that the contractor will hire a minimum of twen ty-five percent (25%) of st aff for any job classification with more t han four (4) employees employed whose primary residence, which is not a post office box, is, and has been, within Santa Clara county within 180 days of the expected date of issuance of the Notice to Proceed for the project.

The housing infrastructure in Santa Clara City has not kept up with increased employment opportunit ies. From 2010-2035, there are projected to be 30% more job openings than available housing in Santa Clara County .3 Additionally, 40.3% of people who work in Santa Clara 3 Page 3-23: Santa Cl ara 2 010- 2035 Gen eral Pla n
I
A

Page A-77

County do not live in the County .4 Half of the workers who can afford to live in Santa Clara City are cost-burdened by housing expenses.5 As Santa Clara City grows, a lack of diverse and affordable housing prevents workers from being able to live and work in the City. A commitment to supporting local residential construction workers and apprenticeship programs can bridge the gap between economic opportun it ies and suitable housing options in Santa Clara City.

Local 405 has implemented many programs tha t will enable the City to meet the General Plan and Housing Element goals. These programs include a robust Joint Apprenticesh ip Training Committee, vigorous utilization of apprentices in Santa Clara City, healthcare coverage for all members and their families, and innovation within the construction industry.

Joint Apprenticeship Training Committees (JATC's), such as the Carpenters Training Committee for Northern California (CTCNC), are a proven method of career training built around a strong partnership between employers, training programs and the government . This tripartite system is financially beneficial not only for the apprentice, but is a major benefit for the employer and the overall economy of Santa Clara City. The CTCNC monitors current market conditions and adjusts the workflow of apprentices to meet the needs of the community , heading off any shortage of skilled workers . History has demonstrated that strong utilization of apprentices throughout the private sector helped California builders produce millions of units of housing.

CTCNC recruitment strategies include robust diversity and inclusionary outreach programs , such as pre-apprenticeship, with proven results in representative workplaces and strong local economies. It is imperative that our underserved populations have supportive and effective pathways to viable construction careers, while ensuring that employers are able to find and develop the best and brightest talent needed to thrive in a competitive economy .

Employer-pa id health insurance plans for our members and their families provides preventative services to stay healthy and prevent serious illness. Timely care reduces the fiscal burden for our members and their families, and significantly reduces the utilizat ion of safety-net programs administered by Santa Clara City and Santa Clara County.

Embracing new technologies and delivery systems will have a significant impact on the construction industry, particular ly the residen t ial sector . Increasing housing delivery methods reduces project durations and provides Santa Clara City residents housing sooner. Local 405 is at the forefront of ensuring that new construct ion technologies deliver those benefit s wh ile also creating work opportunities for those already in the trades as well as those looking to begin a construction career.

Local 405 is in a unique position to address many of the key ideas outline in Santa Clara City Housing Element Update. By investing in the training and utilization of apprentices, performing • United States Census Bureau: OnTheMap (Inflow/Outflow Job Count s for Santa Clara County in 2019-latest available data)
5 Page 13.3-3: Draft Santa Clara City Housing Element (2023-2031) I

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page A-78

outreach to ensure that the workforce closely mirrors the demographics of our local community, providing employer-paid healthcare for our members and their families, and promoting innovation in the residential construction sector, Local 405 is prepared to assist in closing the affordability gap in Santa Clara City and the Bay Area. We look forward to engaging City staff and elected leaders as the Housing Element moves forward and working cooperatively to bridge the needs of the City with the skills and tools of Local 405.

Thank you for your time and consideration of these comments.

Sincerely,
s~~~
Senior Field Representative
Carpenters Local 405
CC:
planning@santaclaraca .gov
[email protected]
I
A

Page A-79

FIGURE 9: FORMAL COMMENT LETTER: HOUSING ACTION COALITION

FARELLA
BRAUN+ MARTEL LLP
Nove mber 30. 2022
Via E-mail
Jolm Davidson
Principal Planner
E-M ail: JDa,~dson 1dlSa11iaC laraC . . !l.OV
Re: City of anta Clara Draft Housi11g E lement
Conm1cn1s of I lousing tion Coalition
Dear Mr. Davidson:

TIIOM /; (I. Mi\ Vlll(W
lma)'how@Jl.,m.cv m
D 41 .5.954 .494S
On behalf of the Hou$ing AL1.ion Coalition / we, rite to conunent 011 the drnft 2023-2031 Housing Element for the City of Santa Clara.

TI1e draft Housing Element does not meet the City ' obligation to plan and pro vide for aJJordable hou sing. Absent substantia l re vision5. it may be found in vi0Jalio11 of suite law.

A. 'the City Includes Sites That re Not" uitable And Available," Because They Do Not JJave A "Realis tic And Demonsh·ated Potential" Fo1· Redevelopment D111i11g The Planning l'eriod To Meei, The ced For Housiuo.

One of the most concrete aspects of an, housing element is the inventory of lm1d "suitable and available " for residential dew lopment to meet tho! city 's regional hou sing ne-ed by income level. Govenum:nt Code § 65583(a)(3) ; HCD Hou ·ing .Ekwe nt Sit.:- Invent ory Guidehook at p. I (II C Appendi x Tab 1). The list is a specific means of eva luating wh ther the City has adequately plann ed fo r development (lf housing for all in om l evels , and 10 id,mtify how much land will need to be Tezoned to make it po sible to provide for the housing needs of the co1muuni ty as it grows . Where 11onvacan1 sites are listed , ther e must be a "realistic alld demonstrated potential for redeve lopment' ' dw"ing the ne:11.1 eigh t years. Govenunent Code § 65583(a)(3) . Where nonvacant sites are nol zoned for residential development , the Ci!y must rezone them within a specifi ed tirneframe. fd. § 65583 .2(a), 65583(c).

Tite Housing Action Coalition is a nonprofit that advocates for building more homes at all levels of affordability lo a.llt:viale the 8ay J\rea and California 's housi ng short-age, di.splace,ment., aud affordability crisis.

Russ Building 235 Montgomery St,set San Francisco. CA 94104 T 415.954.4400 F 415.954.448() 0 ST IHI EI f -. Jf1
I

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page A-80

John David on
ove mber 30, 2022

Page 2 ends

FARE LLA
BRA • 1ARTEL111•
To addre ss past abuse including cities listing unrealistil.! sit es the California Legislature oreuted a high standard for listing non vacant sites parti cularl y where a city claims tllat the site is suitabl e and avai l ah le for redevelopm ent as hmL,;ing affo rdab l'e to those wit h b low average incomes. Where notwa cant sites are used to address over 50% of the need for affordabk housing for tho se with lower in ·omes _ the C1ty mus t show the realisti and demonstrat ed potential fo r rede.velopment hy making fo1mal findings that the existing use does not impede resldentlal deve-lopment "based 011 substanti al evidence that the LL'>e is li kely to he discontinu ed ' durin g the planning period . Govemment Code§ 65583. 2(g)( 2) (final senten ce) .

TI1c curr nt draft doc not meet tl1e requirement that it idt ntif s1iJJicic11t ·it ·s that arc reafatic , suitabl e and availab le. The City relies heavi ly on the speculative and unlikel y as umption that existing uses of building s in Santa Clara by the technology indu stry will. cease during the neJl.1 eight years, with research facilities and data cc11ters being tom down to con. trnct affordable housing . II relies on sites loo small for practical de e lopmeut by affordable housing deve lopers, and even list s a fire station that it ha<;; no plan s to move. 1t also fails to address the fact that many of the sites are being re-listed , because they were not deve loped or appro ved for housing during the lasl eight yean; , without a 1.:olllJilllment Lo rezone them for ''by right" approval.

1. The Six Data Center Sites Are Not Likely To Be Redeveloped As Ilousin,; Dudn~ The ext mght Ye:tr-s.
(AP 216-33-0 33, 216-33-045 , 216-33-025 , 097-46-015 104-04-076 , and 104-04-077 )
Several sites on the site inventory - those located at 2960 Corvi.ti, 2970 -300 0 Corvin. 3030 Corvin, 5101 I ,a:fa_ ette , 4650 Old Iron, ides, and 4 700 Old Ironsides - are cun-ently used as large-scale data centers .1 Santa Clara is a favored location, for data centers becau e its muni cipal electr ic utilit y provide s pow er at less ex-pensive rates than PG& E, and because its location in , ilicon Valley reduces signal trnnsmis sion times bct\vec11 U1e data center ustmner and the data center . See H C Appendi x Tab 2 ("In particuJar, Sant.1 Clara has becomi.' the valley 's prin cipal data ce11ter hub ... 'l11e municipal utility, Silicon Valley Power, offet. slightl y lowe r mtes in Santa Clara than its competitor, PG& E and this has attrnd ed mun ero us data cenkr deve loper s."); HAC Appendi x Tab . Santa Clara 's optimal location and ut ility rak s make it 2 'th e ites were list don the August 22, 2022 draft of the inventory using P numb ers 216-33-033, 216-33 -045 , 2 16-33-025, 097-46-015 , 104-04-07 6, and 104-04-077 . TI1e current use was not identifi ed, which if not corrected in the final draft would vio late Gownuuent Code section 6558 3.2(b)(3) . We note tlrnt the use of AP numb ers throughou t the housing inventory, witJ1out also statb1g the addre • a11d ctuwnt use make s it considerab ly more difficult fol' state reviewers and the public to ee what the City plan s and to comment on its feasibility. Including both th e current use and tbc evidence of why the current use is x p ecte d to be disco ntinu ed are required by sl,1te law, and we hope that the City will address thjs iss ue i111he next draft by adding all of the requir ed infonnation.

I
A

Page A-81

John Da vidson
ovember 30, 2022

Page 3 ends

FARELLA
BRA • MART EL,, ,,
particularl y unlikely that an existi ng data center will slop operations and sell to an affordable hmtsing de eloper for oonstruotion of low income bousing .

Indeed, each of these data centers \ ere the ubj ect of relativel y recent , high dolla r acqui it ions. The sit es were not acqu in:d by m;i dcntial de dop ers as wo1tld be expected if the prop erty were soon to he developed for housin g. hut hy data center operal ors, making it unrealistic to conclud e that they will be demoli shed dwi ng the ne ct, eight years to build affordable housing:
• 4650 Old Ironsides (AP 104-04-077 ) is a 124,400 square foot. two 'tory data center. and was m.:quircd by Menlo Equities in cplcm bcr 2021 for $35 .8 million . Menlo Equities fo uses on acquiring data centers i111d describes the acquisition on their \I ebsite as " Prop erty is situated in a strong in.fill location that is lhe most desira ble dala center submarkcl in Silicon Va Ucy." H C Appendix T,ib 4.
• The prope1ty next door, 4700 Old Ironsides( . Pt 104-04-07 6), wa al. o acqui red by Menlo Eqt1ities in September 2021. It is a 90, 100 qua.re feet data center, and was acquired fo r $28 milli on. A partner with Menlo Eq uities was quoted as c,xplainin g tha1 the pu17Jose of the acquisi1jon was ''because of" lhc increase in the demand for data.'' HAC Appendi , Tab 5.3
• Tue data center al 5101 Lafaye tte (APN 097-46-015) was a quired in overnber 201G for $1 2.8 million. ll AC ppendix Tab 6. 11,e purchaser bou ght it to continue its use m, a data center; th e acquirer wa<; a telecommun icat ions pro ider, (I IAC Appe ndi ;,. Tab 7). and it has been used as a data center in the six years since then, w ith no pi-oposal for redevelopment as housing . The purchaser describe d their intention for the property as:
" We have long targeted orlhem Califomia as an expansio n oppo rtunity for our t.Co lo data ce.nter business." ; "'111e quality and high-power density of this faci lity is pedectly matched to the requirement of our Jeadi.ng-edge , Bay Area customers . ' HAC Appenctix Tab 6.

Notah] _, this data center was 011 Sa11ta Clam 's 2015-2023 Housing Eleme nt. and despite the Ta nru1 East Specific Plan, the prope11.y was acquired durin g the last I lousing Element period for continued use a a data center , not for redevelo pment a housing . four parcels bordering it were Combin ed for the 2300 Calle De Luna projcc1 by housi11g de olopur Re-lated, bu:t Related was apparen tly unabl e lo acquire 510 l Lafaye tte lo square off the project site, as wou ld otdinaril y be expected if th site we re available for residential deve lopment.
3 s rece ntly as Septemher 2022 , the Santa Chu-a building depa rtment approved re-roofi ng 4700 Old Ironsides for ils ex.isling i.::om.n1 rcia l l1sc, with a project cos l of $150,000. Santa Clam Bui lding Penuit umber BLD22-66735 .

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page A-82

John David on
Nove mber 30, 2022

Page 4 ends

FARELLA
BRA •• ~ARTEL111•
• 1l1e dl'lta Centers at 2960 Corvin, 2970 Corvin , 3000 orvin. imd 3030 Cor in (APN 21 - 33-033, 216-33-045 , 216 -33-025) w1:re also included in the 201 --2023 Housing Elcme-nl.. and were not 1,edeve loped. ·11iey wete instead sold in a transaction that continues their existing u e, even after the 2016 rezo ning ofth Lawrence Station area. In May 2017, data center company Equinix acquir d them as part of a $3.6 billion acquisition of a 11umber of data centers . See ILA.C Append ix Tab 3. 1l1e president for the Americas at Equinix explained that the acquisitions in Santa Iara were an attractive part of the package . given the high cost to construct new data center in Silicon Valley.

The planning dcparlm ·nt is uudoubkdly familiar with the continuing i.ntcn1iou to use this site as 11 data center: there ha c been <1 numb r of planlling projects involving installation of additional power systems and energy servers at 2960 Corvin and 2970 Corvin , tiled in 2021 and stiJI pcndiDg. Sec Sanla Clara Plamiing Depiu1mcllt Record Numbers PLN2021-14844 PLN2021-14845 , CEQ2021-01085 and -01086 . .nder stat hou sing law, when nonvacant , ites m'e used to meet over 50% of the need for affordable housing - as is the case , ith Santa Ciara · s draft Housing f:lement - the city mu t meet a hfgh sta ndard : nonvacant sites are presumed tmdc;;rthe law to imped residential development , and the City cannot rely on them without finding , based 011 subs1antial i:.wid nee, 1bat the property is likely to beoome housing in lhe next eigh t years . Government Code~ 65583.2(g)(2) (fina l entence) . Patti ularly given the recent acqu i itions of the data centers by data center companies, aud their declared business plans to use tbem as data ccuters ntlherthan to n:-scll th m for development of affordab le housing , Sauta Cb,ra lacks substantial evideuce that these , properties will meet the affordab le housin g needs of the next eight ye.ars, and cannot cred ihl onclude that it is '"likely " that the data centers will stop operation _ 111e do not count towards the Cily's obligation Lo plan for very low and low income housing devdop1m:nt.

Without these si . data center sites, the City 's Housing Element is inadequate becau se it does not identif y suffic ient sites to meet the projected regional housing need for very low and low income housing . The draft J-fousing Element relies heavily on the unsuitable and unavailable da1a center sites to create the impression lhat it will meet lhe housing needs of thos e who can least afford hou , ing:
\P r; \.ddr ss ery Lo\ Low Mod ' rate
2960 Corvin 22 12 12
A.PN 216 -33-033
2970-3000 Corvin 79 39 39
APN 216-33-045
3030 Corvin 25 13 13
APN 216-33-025
510 I Lafayette 71 35 35
A.PN 097-46-015
4650 Ironsides 390 195 195
I
A

Page A-83

Jolu1 Davidson
ove mber 30, 2022
P.ige 5
APN 104-04-077
4 700 Ironsid s
A PN 104-04-076
Totals:
326
913
FA[<CLLA
I\RI\ 1 •M R fl 11,
164 164
458 458
See Draft: (lousing El ment P./22/22 at tahles 13.6-9, 13.6-10, and 13.6 -11 . W1'thout these sites . the City's claimed ''RHNA Surplu ·, becomes a deficit :

Very Low Low Modera te
Claim ed In entory4 3.592 1~972 2,781
Data Centers Not (9 13) (458) (458)
Approp riately lncluded iJ)
Inventor y
Tota l Without Data Centers 2,679 1,514 2,323
RHN Requirement 2,872 1,653 1,981
RHNA (Oeficit) /Surplu s (193) (139) 342 surp lus
See draft at Tab le 13.6-5. The final Hou sing Element will need to identify additional, rnalist k sit· , for very low and low income housing in ord ·r to mee t U1e requircm ·nts of slat· law.

Z. The Gemiui Rosemont Technology Pink Is iof L ikdy To lk Redeveloped As Affordable Housing Thuing The Next Eight Years (AP 216-34-079. -083. -084. and -085)
Nex1, we address four other parcel from the inventory in the Lawrence Station area :

PN 2 16-34-079 , -083 ,.5 -084, and -085 . These parcels are curren tly used as a research and development office park under long term leases lo Affyme lrix (a subsid iary ofTI1cnno Fisher) , loudinary. Nis an North Ametica. and lntuiti e Su1·g.icol. 4 Ba. ed on comhi nation of " ppro ved and Proposed Project,;_·, "Total AD Projec tions.·· and "To ta.I Capacit y - Specific Plan Sites· ' iu tahle 13.6-5 . 5 To avoid confusion. note that -083 i listed t\ ice on the in ventory ( ·econd, and ninth, oo the Lawre nce Station t:ible 13.6-1 0), wi1h !he acreage spli t between "high density residentiar and " very high de-nsit y reside ntial. "
I

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page A-84

Jolm David son
ove mber 30, 2022

Page 6 ends

FARELLA
BRAU • MART EL111•
As ofth 1ime ofthe pass age of the Lav rence Station ea Plan in ovember 2016 , 11lere hacl b tm no propo sa l by the then-0W11er of these fo ur parcels, Sobraio Organization , to de el.op any of1 hem as residentjal. As the plan itself stated, "To date, this entit y has not submitt ed a proposal for deve lopm ent ; therefore, commencement of deve loptn ent of these prop etties i. expeck d lo occur subseq uent lo the propo sals described in phase one. " LSAP at sectio n l l. 4.6 Indeed, six years later, there s-till has been no propo sal for redevelopment of these sites as hou sing. To th e contrary, unti I 2019 8obrato continu ed to lease out the space as a rese arch and development ollice park, and spen t ne arly $62 niiJli on on rcnov,\ tion s. RAC Appendix Tab 8, Iu 2018. Sobrato ,mt red into a new ten. car lease with issan orth Ameri ca, for an expansion of th eir No,them California technology research , and a six. ear lease with Cloudiuury . ln early 2019 , shortl y before selling the prop erty, Sohrato entered into a long-term lease for 210,000 square feet to Intuiti ve Surgical_ See H C Appendix Tab 8. 1n May 20 I 9, three of tbe parc els - AP 216-34-083 -084 :md -085 - were theu so ld for a whopping $ 170.52 million to G<lmini Rose mon t.8 Gentin i Rosemont snows ,no intention of redeveloping the properties as residential horn:ing. To the contrar y, in announcing the deaJ, i1s 'EO explain ed Umt this was an offiol:l sec tor acqui sition: "We 'n:. ·11tering Lhe next pha se of our mult i-pronged initiati ve lo acquire lass i\ ass ts iu the office sec tor in targete d, tech-eentri coastal and gateway mark ets, and opp01tunisti ca lly in selec t target marke.ts act'oss the .S.,'" said Tan Brownlow , chief exec utiv e office r for Gemini Rosemont at the tim e of the compan ·s relocation. ·'We will leve rage our deep mark et knowledge and our impre ssive 25-year track record to identify and acquin: lhose ollii..:1: buildin gs in whi ch we an unlo k value pro vide superi or tenant service s a nd deliver e11hanced returns to our investo rs." Meanwhile , ten ant impr ovements continue to he mad e, eve n after the Sobrato ·ale to Gemjni Rosemon t. See. e.g., BLD21-63262 (building permit for an estimat ed $300 ,000 oflenUJJl improv em ents on the second 1100.r or a 5,733 s4uan.: fool space a.t 3410 Central E1'.1Jressv a "). ·mese ate not dilapidated pro pertie whel'e the existing use is ab()ut to he disco ntinu ed; this is a vibrant and modem research and teclmol ogy park where the tenant· plan to remain .

In light of the current own r ·s · »'Press · d conunitm ent to the orri e cdor, the long-tenn leases with technology tenant s headquartered in Santa Cl ara, the tens of million s of dolhu-s rece ntly spe,nt on renovations, and tl1e lack of c\ny indication during th e last eight years that a11yone wants to rede elop the propert y as residential , the Cit cannot Cl'edihl claim that there is "substa ntial evidence· • that the prope11y is "likel. "to be rede eloped for hou sing. TI1is propert y is nol go ing to meet the 111:eds of1hose with very low, low, and mod cra(e incomes for hou sing over t he ne x'l. eight years , a11d should not be counted as likely to meet t.he Rl IN A need. l11e City"s invento ry indicates that it e~11ects the technology park to ~uppl y 497 very low income , 249 low incom , and 249 moderat e income alfo.rdablc uni.ts. TI1e City w ill need to add 6 TI1e Lawre nce Station Area Plan, a appro ed, is at IL C i\ppendi.'< Tab 9. 7 See lIAC ppcndi x Tab 10, Tab 11.
8 See IIAC pp ndi x Tab 8; see also Assesso r Records at JIAC . ppendi x Tab 12, 13, 14.

I
A

Page A-85

Jolm Davidson
ove mber 30, 2022

Page 7 ends

FARE LLA
BRA • MART EL111•
additio nal invento ry to med the needs for aifoniabl e housing on sites thal are rea listic, suitable , and availab le 1o meet the need in these categories.

3. The Pearlman/Himy Ofljce Buildings At 4633, 4655, 4677, and 4699 Old Ironsides Are ot Likely To Be Redev eloped~ Affordable I lousing.
( P 104-04-138 , -139 , -140 , and -141 )
Tiw fo ur four- story office bujJding s bdw ecn Old lron ides and Great Amer ica Parkwa y ut the addr esses 4633, 46-55. 4677, imd 4699 Old [ron ides - parcels lllm1bered 104-04-138 . -139. - 140, and -141 , owned h Pearlman /Him y- should not he cons idered "likel y" to he redev eloped for affordable housing during the nex1: eight years . During the Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan planning proc ess. the owne r of those sites specificall asked for a zoning designation lhAf wo uld auth01ize lmilding of complete ly 11011-residentiaJ uses: taller office buildin gs. The City accede d to thi , reque st b creating a new 7.oning designation , " 1 ligh Density Flex. '' By claiming that thc prop erties have bi:;en rezo ned so that it is lheorelicall _ possible Lo build housing on these four par ·els the Cit attempts to claim credit for meetin g a large portion of its RI f A obligatio n: togeth r, these parc els are claimed to meet the nec,d for 286 "ve-ry low" incom e unit. , 144 10\ income units, and 144 units affo rdabl e forthose with mod erate incom e. s with other nonvacant sites, the C ity has the burd en of citin g substanti al evidence that the prop erty is "likely" to be use d for housing . Herc. the owner express d a desire for '·flexibilit y' - rejecting the City's initial propo sal of housing-onl y zoning. and requesting creation of a special zonin g de,.,/gnation that wou ld alrow the owner to build no housing at all. fndeed , at the owne-r·s request, the Environmental Impact Repott studied au altemative refe1nd t o as '·Maximum Office ," 1l1e Cit.y·s study of"M aximum Offic " altenrntivc applies only to these parcels, sin..:c the other i:mrccls in the Patiick. I Icnry Dri e pecific Plan area ar • ;coned fo r residential witl1 only fit:;t floor retail/office allowed. Given the tmng signals from Pearlman /Hi.my tl1at it does not have a current imention of building hou sing on these four parcels , the City does not meet the requir ement of showing that it i. "likely' that the prop erty will be red evelo ped for affo rdable housmg during the ne xt eight _ e11rs. Mcanwhjle, the existing use ulso juciudcs ten ants with long tenn leases. but the City has done 11othing to analyze or investigat e when these leases expire , whether the leases contain renewa l rights. or wl1etherthe existing use would otherw i. e be an obstacle to the building of housi ng during tltc 2023-2031 period . 9 Indeed, the City's dratl I loosing Element eO"cctively concedes 1hc City'. doubt that fbc Pearlman /Him y prope11ie, will be deve loped as hou sing during the 2023-20 31 period. lf the Pcarl man/Himy sites are develop d as high density offic s and ther is every indication that they will be the City promise s that six months after the appro ·al of the office dev elopment, it , ill then identify adequate sites fot housing deve lopment. 111is seems to be an ordinary 9 Tn fact, puhlicl y avai lahle info1mation shows that the four office buildings continu e to be markeced for oflice leases . HAC Appendi x Tab 15. The owner conlinU1.:s to sign n ew oilic e leases. includin g during 2022 . HAC Appendix Tab 16 and 17.

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page A-86

John David on
ovember 30, 2022

Page 9 ends

FARELLA
BRA ••MART L111•
43 560 square foct, and 0.5 acre is 21 ,780 sqwire foet. County record . show thal these pan.;e)s are in fac.t smaller than 0.5acres :11
Addre /APN Recorded Size (Assessor C mputed Size (Santa Clam Databas e) County GIS)
2346 Calle Del Mundo 20,038 sq. n 20,042 sq . H.

APN 097-46-003
2338 Calle Del Mundo 19,602 sq. H 19,509 sq. 1l
APN 097-46-004
2330 Cal k Del Mundo 20,038 sq. il 20,042 sq. 1l
APN 097-46-005
2322 Calle Del Mundo 20,038 sq. n 20.046 sq. fl
APN 097-46-006
2301 Calle D , Luna 20,038 sq. ft 20,002 sq. 1l
APN 097-46-007
2309 Calle De Luna 20,038 sq. Jl 20,003 sq. 1l
APN 097-46-008
2317 Calle De Luna 20,038 sq. Jl 19,706 sq . .ll
APN 097-46-009
2325 Calle De Luna 20,473 sq. il 21,662 sq. 1l
APN 097-46-0Hl
2272 Calle De Luna 21,344 sq. ft 21 064 sq. 11
APN 097-46-025
2262 Calle De Luna 21,344 sq. ll 21,880*12 sq. fl
APN 097-46-026
Indeed, the City ' s own 20 1 S-2023 I lousing Element whic h listed these same sites , des cribe-cl mosl of 1hem (all bul -025 and -026) as either 0.45 acres or 0.46 acres . See 2015-2023 Housing Element at table 8.12-6-4.

Parcels like lhc c, which are smaller lhan 0.5 acres. cannot be used as. part of ilie site inve11to1-y to sati. 1)1 the 've1-y low' and ·'low·' categorie. w ithout a concrete show ing , based 011 prior e.i,.-porience, of why ii is realistic to expect that it wil I be deveJoped for low in ome housin g.

TI1e City's Housing_ Element contains no proof that affordable housing has successfu lly been 11 This infonnation is available on the ounty of Santa Clara GIS map onlinc, a ai labk al hllps:1/ges.sucgo\'. rg1disco cr¥,isl ·ccmap : the sq uare footage i a aiJabl b. clicking on the individual parc el, then choosing "Shov Planning ' s Properiy Profil " to obtain this pub licly avai lable infonnatiou from th Santa Clara Count Department of Planning and D<1velopm ent. 12 Note, the GIS Computed ize shows that -026 is slightly larger than 0.5 acres. In order to include it. the city, o uld need to detenniu , as piu·t oflhe Housing Element , that the Counl . GIS -yste m is more accurate than the county assesso r's official reco rds which ret1ect that the p1·ope.1ty is smaller than 0.5 acres.

I
A

Page A-87

Jolu1 Davidson
ovember 30, 2022

Page 10 ends

FARELLA
BRAU • MART EL111·
developed on sites of1his size. The cily 's RH)JA 'surplu s" is ilrns overstated hy 142 e1 _ low, 70 low and 70 moder ;1te affordable units (and as explained above, is actually a deficit) . ·111e City should identify ,1dditional sites that are likd to be redeveloped as hou sing in the next eight ea.rs, and which are suitable as sites for affordable housing.

5. The City lfa · Inappropriately Listed Oth<!r Sites As Well. (1) 3011 01vin ( PN 216-33-021).

Santa Clara City Fire Depatiment Station # 9 serve tJ1e Lawre.11ce Station area of the city .

It is locat ·d at 3011 Cor in Drive . TI1e parcel number is 216-33-02 l. Tue City has listed it ou its housing inventmy , and claims that it will meet paM of the RHN nee.d, because it cou ld be used to build 12 units of affordable housing for those with moderat e incomes. However, as far as we arc awar , th.:: City has no present intention of selling this property or developing it for affonluble housing . I.ndeed, 1he Lawrence Station Spei.:ific Plan show s that the City intends that the fire station will remain as a public use. 111 City al ·o listed lhi parcel on the 2015-2023 Housing Elem ent inventory , and took no steps fo make it available for housing. It is not likely to be used for housing in the nexl cigbt. ears , given its existing use:. II should be remo ved, or al least cxclud 0 d from the totals. This will also help ;\void it bt1.i.ng u cd i.ncorrectly a · a builer as part of an. "no net loss·· a11alysis during the 2023-2031 period . (2) 2343 alle Ocl Mundo ( PN 097-05-111).

Parcel 097-05-111 in the Tasman fat'>I area app ars to be part of the 2343 Calle Del Mun do proj c.,1 by Summerhill . TI1c rest of the 2343 Calle Del Mundo proj ect site is not listed in the site inventory , presumahly because it is already under construction . 'Ine Ci-ty may \.\~sh to reevaluate its d~-signation of -111 based on the apparent conunon ownership witb parcel 097-05- 110. It should probably be removed. or at least excluded, to avoid being used as part ofa "no net loss" a1mly is du,;ng the 2023-2031 period .

8. The Kxtcmsivc Re- se 01' .. ites· Rcqnil'es A cw "Use Hy Right" Zoning Overlay.

In Go emment Code seclion 65583 .2(..::), nouvacant land listed in <1 prior housing elemen t but not approved for development must be rezone d with in thre e yean; so that any housing development in which at least 20 percent of the units arc affordable to low.:-r incom e hou eholds is entitled to 'residential use by right." (i.e., no requirement for oonditional u e pennit, planned development pem1it, or other discn:tionar y Joi:al go cnuncnt review) . TI1is would pre ent subjective and discretionary pem1it processes - for e.:.ample.. "architectural review" - from being used to block housing projects that provide affordable housing .

TI1e draft Housing Elcmeut for 2023-2031 lists oonvacant land listed in a prior housing clcm enl but uol approved for development: AJI of the. Tasman East sites on tlw drall for 2023- 2031 were already used on the site inventory for 2015-2023, and all of the Lawrence Station sites on ihe draft for 2023-2031 were already u s ct on the site inventory for 2015-2023. Compare I

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page A-88

John Davidson
ovember 30, 2022

Page 11 ends

FA RELLA
BRAU •MARTEL111•
2015-2023 Housing El mcnl al table s 8.12-6-4 and 8.12-6-5 with drail 2023-2031 Hou sing Element atiahles 13.6-9 and 13.6-10. Under sectio n 65583.2(c) , the City is therefore required to implem ent a program to rezone all. of these site,-, by uo late.r than ihree ears from the adopliol) of the element, to pe11nit ''use by 1ight" for hom:ing deve lopm ents if20°A, of the unit s 3J'e affordabl e lo low or very low income resident s.
'Jl1e City is aware of this requir ment , but tries lo argue around it, at page 13.6-7 ofthe draft., titled " Re-Use of Si1es_·, The City argu e~ that becau se it rezoned the Tasman F.ast and Lawre nce Station sites during [h 2015 -2023 eycfo for a higher density to conli:mn lo the Genera l Plan. it can count the s ites as ''new " for purpo ses of the 2023-2031 c. cle and ignore that they were identified in a prior housin g element. "Ille argument will not hold up in coutt. The statut e tmambi guousl y states that if the site is nonvaca nt, was "identifi ed" in a prior hou sing element. and was not approved for development , it •·shall not be deemed adequ ate to accommodate a portioll oftJ1c housing need for lower incomes househo lds ... " 11nless rezoned in th · new hou sing eletnetit for "use hy right."
Nor doe the City's "rezo ning for high ar densit y '' argi.unent fit the facts: 111e site. were rezone d as parl of a Gov num:nt Code section 65583(c) program (albeit late, as expfain ·din the next ection) . Indeed. i.ft hey had not been r ezo ned, the city otherwi e had a short.fall of sites lo addre s!; the 2015-2023 RI f A. Moreove "r, some of them are zoned at the e act same density stated in the 2015-2023 Housing Element . See, e.g. . APN 216-33-037 .

If lhe ily docs not wish Lo implement a "use b_ rigbL" overla y, i1 should remove the Tasman East and Lawrence Station , :ite, from the inventory ; almo st all of them are being (re-)used to ~atisfy the ery low and low i11come need s that they were de ignated to meet in the last Housing E lement, and in the absence of a "use by right " rezoning, the y do not meet the criteria under 655 83.2(c) for beuJg re -useq.

C. The City lust Add1·es. The nacconunodated Need From The 2015 Regional Housing eeds Allocation.
1he City also failed lo ,impl en1eul foJI its 20 l --2023 Housing Elcmen l. Ilic co11 equence of its failure is that it must addre ", both the unaccommodat ed 2015-2023 need and the new 2023-2031 need.

Wher e a cit fail s to impl em ent a housing elcm..:nl, the unac ommodatcd need must be quickly accommodated dnring lhe neJo.1 period. Qovc nm1c11t Code § 65-84 .09(a), Herc, Santa Clara failed to tim ely implement what it promi . ed in its 2015 Housing P.letnent. ·11ie tmaccommodatcd need from that period the failure to provide adequate sites for lower income hou sing cruTies o, er, and the city crumot u e the same sites to meet both the 2015 need and the 2023 n~ed.

We tru1 with a description of the City's failure to mak e available adequat e site to accommodate the regional nc~d identified in 201 4. In the 2015 -2023 Housing Element, the City slated 1.haC it believe d the housing need could be auoommodat ed on sites in the El Camino Real, I
A

Page A-89

Jolui Davidson
ovember 30, 2022

Page 12 ends

FARELLA
BRA U •M ART L111·
Tasman East and Lawrence Station "focus area ·•: ureas that the Cit y's gcncrul plan projected as suitable for rezoning as medium or high densit y residen1ial or mixed use, but, hich, ere not yet zoned to permit residen1ial development. 'Ihe Tasmau East focus area aud Lawrence Station focus area were zoned .light industrial . The El Camino Real . ites were zoned "thoroughfare conunercial' ' or "community commercial ': zoning that did uot penujt residet1lja.J constmction . o one could build housing on any of the sites in the inventory without rtizoning . nder G5583.02(a) , the inventory can only include . ites that are (1) vacant and zoned for residential use, (2) vacant and zoned to allow n::sidential dcvelopmenl , (3) residentially zoned and capable of being developed al a higher densit y, or (4) "zoned for nonn:sid ential use Lhat CUD be redeveloped for residential use and for which 1he housing element includes a program to rezone the site as necessary , to permit residential use .. .'' The 2015 inventory wa valid, if at all. because of a planned program to fi:'zone all ofthe sites on th.e list under 65583 .2(a)(4) and

65.-83(c).

A program to rezone sites to make them avai lahle is governed in part hy Government Code section 65583(c)(l). That subsection required the Cit. to "identify actions that will be t.akcn to make sites a.vrulable during the phuming period with appropriate :.::oning and development ·tandards and with services and facilitic 10 aucommodatc that portion ofth • cit. ·s .. _ share of the regional housing need fol' ea.oh income level that could not be acoomn1odated on sites in the inventory . .. without rezoning . . . .' 11der 65583(c). the City was required to ·'set forth a schedule of action s during the planning period , c,uch with a hmelinc for implementation .. . such that there will bc bcneft efa.l in1pact , of the programs within the pliumiug period . .. .'' 'l'he City·s 2015-2023 Housing Element e;\.l)lained how it would comply wi-tb the law : it would engage in a comprehensive rezoning of the entire city to confonn with the gen ral plan. "to bring cou ·istenc y between U1e Zoning Ordimmce and the Genernl Plan, implementing the General Phm goal · by facilitating mi xed use development und higher density re:idential development, protecting existing 11eighborhoods and incentivizing redevefopment by appropriate development standards and streamlined procedures ." 1hc City slated that it would comp lute lms action b_ imd-2016 . See 201- -2023 Housing Element al pp. 8.12-122 8.12-123 ('" cl.ion 6; 7,011i11g Ordi11ru1ce").
l11e mid-2016 deadline was impmtant: the action needed to be scheduled "such that there will be beneficial impacts of U1c program s within th planning p~riOll." and also kept th plan for rezo11i11g on track to take place \ itbin the required tlu·ee years . Govenunent Code § 65583( )( 1 )(A). llou ing cm~ld not he con. tructed unless it were approved ; hou sing would face more hurdles to approval until the rezoning took place ; and ·o removing the obstacle of light iudustriaJ or commercial dislriut zoning ne.:ded lo take place early in the planning period to provide duvelopcrs U1c ability lo propo se and proceed with housing built to mecl the needs during the 2015-2023 time period.

By mid-2016, the City still had not completed the comprehensive rezoning that it idcntilied as ctiou 6. TI1e Cit I blamed probl ems with its outside Consullan1 for not completing I

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page A-90

John David on
ov1::mber 30, 2022

Page 13 ends

FARELLA
13RA •MART EL111•
it in 2016 and promised il wo uld be done in 2017. Bul cv n then, it didn 'l co mplel e ii. The draft was fi nally c irculated for public comment in summer 2022 - whifo tl1.;, City wa. working on th e 2023 !l ousi ng Element - and won 't be voted on by tb City Council until sometime in 2023.

The draft 2023-2031 Housing Element acknowledge that Action 6 is incomplete , and nO\ list. the 1;ompreh nsiv ioning ordinnncc update as Action 9 in the nc, phU1: "cxpc..:tcd lo be complet ed in late 2022 /early 2023· , See 2023 -2031 draft Housing E.lement see p. 13. 7-5 ("'f11e Clty is continuing to work on the comprehensive . 7,oning Ordinance Upda te" ); and p . 13.2-10 (''. ct.ion 9: Zonin g Ordinance '')· see also p. 13.1-1 ('' \dditi onaUy, the City i. nearing completi on of a comprehens ive Zoning Code update wl1id1 will further stream line procc es ~ iLh the indusiou of objective standard ' and new zon ing di ·tricts that bett er align with the City 's Genera l Plan_"); P- 13.2-4.

Til.:- City thus did not implement the 2015 Housing Elenunt, and did not rezone as promis d, the sites listed in its 2015 -2023 inventory . While the City listed 158 parce ls along El Camino Real in its 2015-2023 p lan as having th e abi lity to sati sfy th e hou sing nee ds of the communi ty, it left. the commercial district zoning in pla ce for the e ntire 2014-2022 period . To th.is day. auyoue wan ting to bui Id housing on most of those parcel ( excluding the fow that went through the City'. discretion ary process for a rezoning) need, to appl for a zoning varia11ce. contr ary to state, law wh ich requ ited not just an expectatio n of potential re;,:oning to match the general plan, but actual impl eme ntation of the Housing Element by the City. Meanwhile the Cit phumiug sta.(f proposed 11 re.zoning of these sites repeatedly as part. of the Bl Cami no Real Specific Plan, but the City Council still has not taken ~1ction, and has dcfom ,d further discussion . ·n1e program actions in the 2015-202 3 Hou: ing Element to rezo ne OJ" pro ide adequate sites were thus not fully impleme nted.

Having fai led to implement the rezoning as requ.ired by state housing law and promised in the 2015-2021 Housing Bleme nt 10 take place by mid-201 6 the City i now subject 10 sect ion 65584 .09 which provides :
[1 If a city or county i.n the prior pl armin g perio d failed io identiJ or make available ade qua1e sites to acco mm od:1k that portion ofU1e regional housing need allocated pursuant to Sect ion 65584 , then the city or.· county shall , within the first . car of the planning period of th:: new hou ·u1g element , zon1:: or rezon e adeq uat sit s Lo acco mm odate the unaccommoda.ted po11ion of the regional hou u1g ne d allocation from tl1e prior planning period .

Santa Clara eas ily acconm1odated th need for abo e-mo derate incom housing durin g the 2015- 2023 period: it is ·ued build ing p nnit · for 4.606 units. It appe,,rs to have acconun odated the 2015-2023 need for moderate iocome housing, at least if project approvals, rathe.r than actually constructed units are counted. But it foll seriously short fo r the "very low" and " low" i_ncome categoric. . TI1e City grant ed building penuit s for ottl 289 "'very low 'h1come unit , 246 low incrn:nc units , and 125 tmit aITordablc to those with moderate incomes . This leaves a subsl,mtial shorlfa11 lo be addrcs ·cd .from the last perio d, u1 11ddition lo the substan tiat t1ew ueed for U1e new period _
I
A

Page A-91

Jolu1 Davidson
ovember 30, 2022

Page 15 ends

Approva ls of Affordable Housing:
160 1 Civic Center
Unaccommodated Portion 01'2015-2023 RHNA:

FAR CLLA
BRA U • M ART Lur
106
358 236
In detennining the affordable housing requirements for it 2023-2031 Housing Eleme nt. the City is not allowed to use the. ame sites or projects to counttoward hoth the 2015-2023 need and the 2023-2031 need. It must instead plan for both the 1macconunodat ed need and the newl allocated ne.ed. See Gowmmen1 Code§ 65-84 .09(b) . l11is means that the City 's anaJ sis at page 13.6-2 is flawed because it engages in double~cmrn1ing: 1be City is claiming1haJ the building pem1its and approval s from 2015-2023 accommodated a port ion oftJie housing need for lhal period and that the ·a.me buildi11g pem1its and appro als from 2015-2023 addrc tbc m:wly uUocakd need r. r 2023-2031.

Again,, tbe City ' s failure to follow thtougb on its 2015 Housing E leme11t ha a consequence: the ity is now obliged 10 m et the unaccommodated need from the 2015-2022 p ·riod a · wen as th· regional n ed identified for the 2023 -2031 period . Adequate itci,; must. b · rezoned within one year to add ress this unaccommodated portion of the 2015-2023 RH . need. the calcu lation itself using 1he information available to ii; this calculation sbm~d be viewed as ii lustrative.

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page A-92

John David on
ov1::mber 30, 2022

Page 16 ends

FA H CLLA
!\RA '• ~ RTrl 11,
D. Conclusion: The City's ~ite Inventory eeds A Program To Rezone Jany Mol'e Suihlblc And Available Sites To Accommodate Its Sh1u-c Ol'The Regional Need.

A .recap of the issues above, in chart form :

Ve1-;i1 Low Low Moderate
Draft fn entory 1 · 3,592 i ,972 2,781
Data Centers -913 -458 -458
Gemini Ro emont Technology Park -497 -249 -249
Sites Smaller Tb:m 0.5 Acres -142 -70
4633 , 4655 , 4677 , 4699 Old I.ronsides -286 -144 -144 Fire Station # 9 and Tasman Parcel -011 - 5
'Total Inventory Without lnvaUd Sites 1,754 1,051 '1,895 RI II A I eed for A ffordahle I.lousing 2,872 1 653 1 981 + lJnaccommodated Need from 2015-2023 + 3 ·g + 236
- Required Need For Affordab le I lousing Jn - 3,230 - 1,889 J 98) 2023-2031 Housing Element
Additiona l Rezoning Reqoh ·ed 1,476 8.38 86
1n addition , the City needs to ,tdd a plan to rezone the remaining Tasman Ea~t and f ,awrenc Station propertie for re idential ''L1 e by right" for an housing de dopment propo ing 20% 11ffordabl units , or find addiliom, 1 sit ·s to cover an additional shortfall . 'l11e City is not without potentia l so lutions: the Plarn1ing Department ha alread prepared a specific plan for El Camino Real that would rezone a large number of sites that may he suitab le for housing (this would have inoluded, for example the 100% afforda:hle housing prqject at 1601 Civic Ce-nler Drive, which wou ld nol have then requirnd rezoning aller a co11tentious and years -long process) .
11 Based on combination of ''Approved and Proposed Proje t , ""Total ADU Projections " and ''Tota l Capacity Specific Plan Sites '' in table 13.6-5 .

I
A

Page A-93

Jolm Davidson
ovemb<::r 30, 2022

Page 17 ends

FAR ELLA
BRA U • M ART L,,,,
Looking at sites else, here in the City would also help addn1ss lhc requirem ent, noted in S ·@llome 's comment , to afftmiativel y further fair l1oming. ·11,e City 's concentration of site inventory i.11 the industrial park:; oi1 the furthest boundari es of the city far awa y from the better resourc ed school s and park s of res idential Santa Clru,.a , outh of El Camino Real , appears to violate this obligation , and we hope Llmt the next drafl of the s ite inventory will show a greater dispers al of propo sed housi11g sites.
'J'UM:tb
36615\15158787 1
Respectfull y , uhmitted ,
/AJ/:M1/J_ 1-
te:uffn:rl~~/:j
I

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page A-94

I
A

Page A-95

FIGURE 10: FORMAL COMMENT LETTER: HOUSING ACTION COALITION

FARELLA
BRAUN + MARTEL LLr
January 22, 2023
Via .H-mail
Santa Clara City Council and
Santa Clam Plmmi.ng Commission
1500 Warburton vemte
Santa Clara C 95050
Mavo rAudCounci11a \ antac laraca.goY
P !amt ingComm ission(a),santaclarnca, goy
Re: City of Santa Clara Draft Housing Els:me11t
Comments of Housing ction Coalition
THOMAS B. MA YHllW
[email protected]
D -11 5.954.49•18
CHARLESJ. HIGL EY
c;j)[email protected]
D 4 15.95.t .4942
Dear Mayor Vice Mayor, .Members oftbe Cit Council and Pl:mning Commissioners :

On behalf of the Housing A tion Coalition, 1 we write to provide comments on th e most roceul drafi of the 2023-2031 Housing Element for the City of Santa Clara.

The current draft does not comply w ith state law. Amo ng other problems , it over.itates the inventory of rea listi and available sites to meet Santa Clara 's fair share of the regional need, particularly for lower income units, in two significant ways , First, the draft continues to include sit1>.s that are-not vacant. without. prooJthat the existing use is likely lo di .• coDtinue during lhi.: next eight years. Second , the draft overestimates the development potential, by selecti ve use of data and a miscalculation of the average den. ities deve loped. The draft also fail. to take constraint into account such as the rezoning of po11ions of certain parcels as open space /parks or public righl-ol:way , which\ ould precl ude de eloping housing on thal portion . For these and other rcaso11s described below and in our earlier letter, the drntl docs not comply with state- la-,; . TI1e Planning Commission hould not recommend it 1o the City Cmmcil , and the City Council ·hould not adopt ii. TI1c Council sh01.1ld instead direct stnffto revise it by ideutif.'Ying additional realistic and avaj lab le sites to include on the inventory 0 geographically disp ersed throughol1t th Ciiy , comply with the sit inventory requir men1s and the legal duly to aff'mnative ly further fair housing.
111e Housing ction Coalition is a nonprofit that advocates for building morn horn sat all level of affordability to alleviate the Bay rea and California ·s housi ng shottage , displacement and aITordabiliLy crisis .
'111ese comments supplement the:: earlier comme)lt letter on bc::half of I lm1sing Aotion Coalition dated ovember 30, 2022.

Russ Building 235 Montgomery Street San Francisco, CA 94104 • T 415.954.4400 F 415.954.44<10 N
I

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page A-96

Santa Clara City Collncil and
Santa Clara Planning Commis sion
January 22. 2023

FARELLA
BRA • MARTEL 111•

Page 2 ends

Tile City lncludcs Sites That Are ot "Suitable \.nd Available,'' And Do ot Have . "Realistic And Demonstrated Potential" For Redevelopment Dming The Planning Period To Meet The Need For Housing.
'l11e City Council is called upon to make a special finding hefore adt1pting the llou sing Element, and to do o based on evidence. Where, as here , the City claim that lower-income housing will be ac ommodatcd by sites that anal current ly used for other purposes , the City musl ''demonstrate that the ex.isling use . .. docs not conslilule an impediment 1o additional residentia l development during the period oovei-ed by the h011sing element.'' And mo, significant!_. state law require · a specific sei of findings:

An 1::xisting use shall be preswned io impede addit ional Tcsidentia l dtwelopmcnl , absent findings based on sub tantial evidence that the use is likel y to be discontinued dwing tl1e. planning period .

Govenunent ode§ 65583.2(g)(2) . The Council should tl1erefore ask itself, for each and every site on the inventory : \ hat is the existing use? And what is the evidence that the use is like.ly to be discontinued during the nex1: eight yea1. ?
HCD has provided hdpfol guidance of what kinds of evidence th..: City Council should look: for:

Examples of substantial evidence that an exi ting use will likely be discontinued in the current plaiming period inc lude, but arc not limited to:
- 'T11e lease for the existi ng use e,,._-pires early withln the planning period. - ·r11e building is dilapidated. and tl1e structure -is likely to he removed , or a demolition pen nit has been issued for the exi ting use , - 1l1crc i a de dopmcnt agreement that exi 'ls lo de ·lop the site within the plmming period
- The entity ope-rating the existing use has agreed to move to another location early enough within the planning period to allow resid ential development within the plruming period.
- '111e prOp<:!rty ow11er pro ides a letter stating its inten tion lo devdop U1e prope riy witb_ residences during the planning period _" HCD further }..'plained:

I
I I 11 acant ites with differing existing u es and lacking 111 co,nrnoni owne1 hi-p, whether contig uous or located .in the same general area, may not rely on a generalized anaJysis. While the sites may be 101.:alcd in an area with i.:ommon economic issues, indjvidual owners may not wish to scU their property or redevelop their-site with residential uses. In addition each site 's existing use, A

Page A-97

Santa Clara City Coun il and
Santa Clara Plruming Commi ssion
January 22, 2023

Page 3 ends

FARELLA
BRA U • MART L ill'
e.g., grocery store, reta il shop , parking lot ,Uld ofJioes , may have lease agreements of diffe renl length s of time or the o" ner may not wish to relo cate or redevelop the site with a more inten sive re idential use. In this type of sihiati on, use oftbe ·ame findings for lht multiple sites would nol be appropriate . rJCD Site Inventor y Guidehook (May 2020) at pp. 27-28 .

Un.lortunately the Ltrrcnl draft of the Housing Element does not meet any of the standard s explain d by HCD for the sites on the inventory :
• '111ere are leases that extend well into the planning period. • Then.: are buildings that ar not dilapid ated, and in fad, some of them ha ve been significantl y remodeled and impro ved within tl1e last ten or even -five years. • ·111ere are no demolition permits for existing uses.
• There are no de velopment ag-rccments for auy silo on tbo inv entor y. • None oflh e existing uses have agre ed lo mov · to 0U1er loealions ear ly e nough within the planning period to allow residential deve lopment witbin the planning period. • ·11,e draft does 11ot indicate tJ1at prope,t y owners have provided letters stating their intention to develop the property with residences during the planning period. • 'llle onl y anal is pro v-id d is genera lized: that all of the properti es are in areu that ha e been rezoned - in the ca c of Lawrence St.at.ion and Tasman E11 t, mauy years tigo - and others have chosen to deve lop tl1eir properties beca use of market demru1d. • There arc differ ent owners :w.d diffcr..:nt use.-;: the-re arc- lease agrccnumls with different lengths of time.
• There is no evidence presented that the owners wish lo relocate or redeve lop Uu: sites with a more intensive residential u e.
·r,,e lack of evidence or anal ysis on a site-by-site basis doom s the dmft: Housing Element:
it does not comp ly with the law because the City Council lacks proof that e.xis1ing use s are likely to di continue at each of the site on th inventory.

To illu strate thi: point further , we des.;ribe four spedfi c ex,unples to shoy that the City ha.<S fai led to complywitl1 its obligation~ under Govemment Code section 6558:l.2(c) and (g)(J) a.1.1d (2) to ana lyze the evidence and dctenninc wbjcb sites are n :alistic and likd y to re develop .

Tho City Council should not sign oIT on lindi.u&s lbai a.re not bas ed on substti.ntial c idenc o.

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page A-98

Santa Clara City Co1111cil and
Santa Clara Planning Commission
Januar y 22, 2023

Page 4 ends

FARELLA
BRA U •MART L,,,,

1. The Gemini Rosemont Technohnrr Park Is ot Lil,ely To De Redeveloped As Atlordable Ilousin~ ))ming The Next Eight Years (AP 216-34-079, -083 -084, and -085)
1n the heart oftbe Lawrence Station rea Plan is a set of parcels - APN 216-34-079 , - 083 ,2 -084, and -085 cum~ntly used as a research and developm ent office park , tmder .l ong tenn leases to A.tiymetrix (a subsidiary of1l 1cm10 Fisher) , Cloudinary , issau No11h America, aud Intuiti ve Surgical. nder Government Code section 65583 .2(g)(l) , the Housing Element is required to engage in an "analysis of any exis ting leases or other contracts that would perpetuate the existing use or prevent rndeve lopm e11t of the it..i . . . '' De pite th.i legal r..iquirement, th draft does not mention , much less analyze, the exis ting lea es.

As of the time of the passage of the I ,awrence Station Area Plan in ovemher 2016. tl1ere had be en no proposa l b the then- owner ofthe!;e four parcel , Sobrato Orga11i1.ation, to de elop any of them as residenti al. · the plan it elf stated, ''To date, this entity has not submitted a prop os,11 for dcvc lop,m :nl· therefore , co1mrnm c¢mcn t of develo pm ent of these prop erties is expecte d to occur subsequent to the propos;-iJs described in phase on· ." LSAP :ii sec tion 11.4.3 Indeed, over i x year later, tJ1ere till ha been no plan for redevelopment of the e ites a hou sing . To th contrar y, until 2019 Sobrato continued to lease out the space as a research and de elopmonl office park, lllld sp1..1ll ne;irly $62 m.illiou ou renovation shortly before the sal f-1AC Appe ndi x Tab 8. In 2018, Sohrato entered into a new ten-year lease with issan I orth me,ica for an expans ion of their orthem California technology re,search. and a six-year leas;e with Cloudinary.'1 In early 2019 , sho11ly before selling the property. Sobrato entered into a long tcnn leas · for 210 000 square f~t with Intuitive Surgical. See IJAC ppendix Tab 8.

In I a 2019 , three of the parce ls - . P r 216-34-083, -084. and -085 - were then . old for a whopping $170.52 milli on to Gemini Rosemont. 5 Gemini Ro e mont shows no intention of rede, elopin g the prope11ies as residential hous ing, and its tenants Nissa n, Clouttinary , lnn1itive Surgical , and Affymctrix show no signs ofreloq1ling. To the contrary in announ cing the deal, Gemini Rosemont ·s CEO exl)la.ined that thi . was an office sector acquisition: "We ' re ente,in g U1e nex1 phase of our mult i-pron ged initiati ve 1o acquire Clas;s , assets in the office sector in largck d, toch- cnlric coas tal and gate, a · markds , and oppo11unisticaJLy in select targe t markets across the 0 .S.," said Ian Bro wnlow, chief exec utive ofticer for Gemini Rosemo nt at the tim e of the company 's relocation . '"We wil l leverage our deep market kn owledge and ouritn pressive 25- To avoid confu ion, not e that -083 was li.ted twice on the inventory sul'imitted to HCO {secon d, and ninth, on the Lawrence Station table 13.6-10) , with the acreage split between "high density resi dential" and "very high density residential." Tiie Lawrence Station Ar~ Plan, as approv ed, is at IlAC pp(mdix: Tab 9. 4 See HAC Appe11dix: Tab l 0, Tab 1 L
s see HA' Appe ndix Tab 8; .'lee also ssesso r Records at H. C Appendi x Tah 1.2, 13, 14.

I
A

Page A-99

Santa Clara City Coun il and
Santa Clara Plruming Commission
January 22. 2023

FARELLA
BRAU • MARTEL 111·

Page 5 ends

year track record to identify and acquire those office buildings in whioh we can unlock value provide superior tena.nt $ervioes and deliver enhanced retums to our ir1vestors ." Meanwhile , tenant .improvem ents continue to be made , evo u aller the Sobrnto sale to Gemini Rosemont. See. e . . , BLC)21-63262 (building pei111it for an estimated 300,000 of tenant improvements on the econd floor of a 5,733 square foot space at 3410 Central Expressway).

TI1ese are not dilapidated properties where the existing_ use is about to be d.isc-onti.Jrned; thi s is a vi brant and modem research :md technology park where Lhc lemmts pla:n to remain . 111 assertion at page 13,6-18 of1he doption Drafi tha1 ''No recent, signilica:nt enhan cements hav , bee11 mad e to the, e sites" is imply not true of the G~nini Rosemo nt Technolog y Offic Park_ where $62 million i.J1 renovations ha taken place duri.J1g the last five yea r . Site-by-site anal sis, rather than blanket assertions, i r equired to comply with Government Code sec tion 65583.2(g)(2) , but lhe City does uot shm: that ii has done so here.

In light of the curTe11tm.vner·s ex'Pressed commitment to the office sec.tor rather that rede velopment , the lo1lg-tenn leases with technology fonants hcadqurui ered in Santa Clara. th tens of millions of dollars recently pent on reuo ations , the lack of any indication during the last cigl1t years that th· owner ~ ants to rcd e clop the property as residential , and the lack of imy cuffent information showing that the owner intends to evict the tenants hefore the end of the housing cycle and build housmg on these parcels , the City Council cannot make a finding bascd on ·'subSl.'mlial evidence· , thal 1hc existing use i1, ''likel " to discontinue . This propcrt_ is not likel y to meet the needs for 1,743 tmits of hou sing affordable to tho se with very lo\; . low and mod erate income s for housing ove r the next eight years , and should not be counted as such on the site inventory _

2. The Pearlman/llimy Otlice Buildin~s \t 4633, 4655, 4677, and 4699 Ohl Ironsides A1·e . 1ot Likely To Ile Redeveloped As Affordable Housing.
(AP 104-04-138 , -139 , -140 , and -141)
The four four-sto,. office bttildings between Old Ironsides and Great America Parkwa at the addrnsses 4633 , 4655, 4677, and 4699 Old [ronsides parcel numb ered 104-04-138 - 139, - 140, and-141 , owned by Pearlman/Himy - should no1 be considered "like ly" to be red v loped for affordable housing du,ing the ne rt eighty ars. During the Pat.Jick Memy Drive, Specific Plan plann ing proce.'>S unlike the other owne~ responding to the Specific Plan proposal. the owner of tho e sites spec ificall y asked for a zoning designation that would authorize buildi.J1g of complet ·ly non-residential u ·cs: t11llcr office building ·, Th' Cit acced d to this r.-::qtlest by creatiug a new ioning de 0 1girntion. "High Density Flex." By claiming that the prop erties have been rezoned so that it is theoreticall y possible to build housing 011 these four parcels, the City a:ttempts to clai.J11 credit for meeting_ a large portion of its RJINA obligation: Together , thes~ parcels are claimed to m.,et the nel:ld for 1,025 units affordable to tho se in the vel'y low-, lo -, m1d moderate-income categories. s ~ ith other I

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page A-100

Santa Clara City Co1111cil and
Santa Clara Planning Commis sion
Janua ry 22, 2023

Page 6 ends

FARELLA
BRAU •MARTEL 111•
nonvacant site,<; the City has the burdeo of citing substantia l evidence that tl1e propert y is ·'likely " to he used for housing .

Here, lhe owner expressed a desire for "flexibilit y" - rejecting the City s initial proposal of housing-onl y z oning, and reque. ting creatio n of a special 7.oning de. -ignatio11 that would allm the owner to htdld no horn ing at all. Indeed at the owner 's reque st, the Environmental Impact Report then studied an alternative refen-ed to a "Maxi mum Office .-' The City·· study of "Ma~-i.mum O{]ice" allumative applies only lo lhese parcels , since the 01.her parcels in lhc Patri k Hen . Dri. ve peci lie Plan area are zoned for residential dcvelopm.:nt with onJy first floor retail /office allowed. Given the strong -ig11als from Pearltm1n/Ilim_ that it does not have a ct1n-ent commitment to b11ilding housing on these fom parcels , the City does not meet the requirement of showing that it is "likel y" that the prope1iy wi ll be redeveloped for affordable housing during the nex1 eight years . C laiming tbai redc elopm c11i is likely to occur sim ply because the property has been re1.oned to pe11nit re idential development , in the face of an owner request to rezone to pe11nit a higher densit y office use , lack sub ta.ntial evide11ce.

Meauv hile, the existing us· al ·o indud s tenant · iU1 long-lcnu leases , but the Cily has done nolhing to analy:i: · or investigate when these leases expire , whc:ther the leases conl.ain renewa l rights , or whether the existing use wou ld otherv,ise he an obstacle to the building of housing during the 2023-2031 period .6 This fails to meet the City·s obligation under Govcnm1ent Code section 65583 .2(g)( 1 ).

Jndeed , the City"s draft Housing F.lement effectively concedes the City 's doubt that the Pearlman /Himy prope11ie. will be developed as housing during the 2023-2031 period . If the Pcarlman/Himy sites an. develop ed as high-densit y offices and there is every indi ation that tl1t.~y will be - the City promises that six monU1s afl.er the approval oftbe office developmenl ii will /hen iden1ify adet1uate sites for housing developme11i. 11,is seems to be an ordinary appl ication of the 110 net loss mle , but the Planning DepaJtment de. c1ibes it as the plan forthi ' set of parcels alone . instead of identiiyiug adequate , avaiJable sites 1 the City i.uclud s the Pcarlman /Himy sites despit .e the owner·s unc rtaiu intention so it can ·heck th ~ box ou affordable housing. and asks those. who need housing now to "wa it a11d see. " Affordab le housing can't wait while the ity use the Pearlman /Himy sites as a placeholder. 7 The City caimot make 6 In facl, publicly available information shows that lbc fo ur ollice buildings continue lo be marketed for office lea. es. and new tena11t~ continue to move 111. See II AC Ap-pendi · Tabr; I 5-

18. Indeed, in the less-tlian -two months si nce our ovember comment letter , it appear s that fotu office spaces in these bwldings that were on the market have recently been leased. Compare II C Appendix Tab l-, itb new IlAC Appendix Tab !8 (attached) (Suites 230 aud 355 in 4655 Old Ironside ·, and Suites 304 and 438 in 4699 Old lmn sides, marketed for lea, e in ovember 2022 but not in January 2023).
7 TI1e City is already seriously behind in meeting its fair share of the regional need. \lvhile it promised in 2014 to rewrit e it.s outdat ed zoning la.w by 2016 , the process dnigge<l on for years I
A

Page A-101

Santa Clara Ci1y Cotm il and
Santa Clara Plruming Commission
January 22, 2023

Page 7 ends

FARELLA
BRA U • MART L ,,,,
the required findings and should not count the office buildings at 4633 , 4655. 4677 , and 4699 as meeting the ne.ed for suitable and availabl e housing sites.

3. National Iost,mments Silicon Valley Headqm1rters Is ot Likely To Be Redeveloped As Affordable Housing In The ·ext Eight Years. ( P 104-04- 122)
In May 2013 , Drawbridge Realt y acqujrcd 4600 Patrick Hetu-y D1i.vc, a 50,000 squar~ fool Class A offi c building on 3.2 acres , al AP 104-04-122 . Based on its website, Drawbridge Realty specializes exclusive ly in commercial and office lease s. and does not develop residential projects . H C Appendix Tah 19.
111e long-tenn occupimt ut 4600 Patrick Henry was already in place when Drawbridge bougl1t the property : 'l11e site is the Silicon alley headqunrters of National .Instruments . ational Instruments wa<; fonnerl y known as Texas Instrument s (which acquired long-time Santa Clara semiconductor Company ·a1i01ml Scmjconductor) . 1l1e prnpe1ty was full y remodeled , inside and out , loss than t n yow-sago . See HAC Appcndj x Tab 20 (slmwing photo s- dosc1ibing "Complete interior. exterior. and site renovations completed in Ma 2013 '').

Th draft Housing Element does nol onlain uny infonnalion about the lease betwe en ational IJ1strument-; and .Drawbridge , or about whether Nationa l Instrument~ intends to continue occupan cy on Patrick I lenry. 'fl1is is not a dilapidated huilding ; it was complete ly renovated less tJ1ru1 ten years ago . Rezoning and hoping for r developm ent does not satisfy Gov ernment Code section 65583 .2(g)(l) or (g)(2). Poiuting lo redevelopment of other siles by residential developers doesn 't show lhal this particular site's existing use is "likely to discontinue " during the ne)l.'1 dght years. Absent subst antial evidence tl1at the existing use is likel y to discontinue , the ational In tmments facilit y should not be listed as meeting the need fo r very low- and low income housing .
and. eight years later_ is still incomplete. The City was supposed to plan for 1.745 low and very low income units during the last eight years; instead , onl 535 actuall y obtained a building pcrnul.

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page A-102

Santa Clara City Collncil and
Santa Clara Planning Commis sion
January 22. 2023

FARELLA
BRA U •MART L, ,,,

Page 8 ends

-1. G1·eat Ame,_ica Technoloe_y Park.
(AP 104-53-1.-2 , -3. -4, -5, -6 -7, -8, -9 -10, -11.-12 , -13, -14. - 15, -16, -17. -18, -19, -20, -2 l, -22. -23. -24, -25, -26, and -27) At 4701 'Patrick Hem1' Drive i a larg_e office park that has been subdivided into 27 separate parcels , known as the Great America Technology Park.. Separate buildings inelud a. range of uses from technol ogy companies to law tim,s to non-profit organi;c,atio11s. The City does not analy.,:e ea h parcel. onhe Lt es on eac h, as requ .ired by Govetnment Code section 65583.2(g)(l) .
111e earlier drall subm itted to UCD corredly showed , ai. Figure 13.6-7, tbal there "'tas 11 large number of sma ller parcels , as a result of earlier subdi vi ion. We have included the parcel map from the Santa Clarn C\m11ty sse . o.-· Office. which show tJ1at there ai:e 27 parcels : 26 inctividual buildings , each wi{h its own parcel number , plus a 211' parcel consisting of the S"vis - cl1eese common area surface parking lot 1hat surrounds parcels APN 104-53-1 1hrough -26. See IIAC Appendix Tab 21.

In the doplion Draft al Fig ure 13.6- -, parcel 104-53-016 is shown as a very large, single parcel. Il1is is imm1Tecl. As lhc parcel map shows , 104-53-016 is Pared 24 in the sequence and consists of just ~,408 square fed. By listing a sing le 3 ,408 square foot building paroel ru; covering 9·1 acres , the draft serious} e.rrs in providing information for the City Council to make au infonued de i ion about the likelihood that the 26 buildings , each witJ1 their own business ocwpau ts, owners. and uses , will someho~ 1.:oordiuatc and jointly develop their properties , and the common area, during the ne:\1 eight years. [t can be difficult for two adjacent owners to work togethe .r to combine parcels and pursue a joint development . Absent substantial evidence that the 27 parcels here have been united under common owners hip and/or have a joint plan to cease all ollicc /comme rcial uses in favor of residential development during the next eight years, this set of parcel · should not be included 111 the site in entory , be ausc the existing u 'cs arc presumed to continue and are an impedirnentto residential use . Oovemmem Code§ 655S3 .2(g)(2).

B. The Density Calculations Overstate The Extent To Wh.idt The Existing ite Ihventory Satisfie · '111c RH A Need.

Govemment Code ection 65583 .2(c) regulate how the number ofhou ing unit accommodated ou each site is detero1ined :

I
111e inventory sha ll specify fore .a.ch site the number of units that can realistica ll be accommodated on that s ite and whet her the site is adequate to accommodate lower-income hous ing, moderate-income hou sing , or above moderate-income housing . . . . The city or cotully shall detem1inc the numb er of housing _ LUlits that can be accommodated 011 eaoh sit as fo llows:

Page A-103

Santa Clara City Coun il and
Santa Clara Plruming Commis sion
January 22. 2023

FARE LLA
BRA t MART EL, 11·

Page 9 ends

City Council and Authorities ConcurrentJune 27, 2023

City Council and Authorities Concurrent
June 27, 2023