Local Housing Allocation consider housing element compliance and/or annual reporting requirements pursuant to Government Code section 65400. With a compliant housing element, the City will meet housing element requirements for these and other funding sources.
For your information, some general plan element updates are triggered by housing element adoption. HCD reminds the City to consider timing provisions and welcomes the opportunity to provide assistance. For information, please see the Technical Advisories issued by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research at:
https://www.opr.ca.gov/planning/general-plan/guidelines.html.
We are committed to assisting the City in addressing all statutory requirements of State Housing Element Law. If you have any questions or need additional technical assistance, please contact Jose Armando Jauregui, of our staff, at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Paul McDougall
Senior Program Manager
Enclosure
City of Santa Clara’s 6th Cycle Adopted Housing Element Page 1 March 28, 2023
APPENDIX
CITY OF SANTA CLARA
The following changes are necessary to bring the City’s housing element into compliance with Article 10.6 of the Government Code. Accompanying each recommended change, we cite the supporting section of the Government Code.
Housing element technical assistance information is available on HCD’s website at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community-development/hcd-memos. Among other resources, the housing element section contains HCD’s latest technical assistance tool, Building Blocks for Effective Housing Elements (Building Blocks), available at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community-development/housing-elements/building- blocks and includes the Government Code addressing State Housing Element Law and other resources.
A. Housing Needs, Resources, and Constraints
1. Affirmatively further[ing] fair housing in accordance with Chapter 15 (commencing with Section 8899.50) of Division 1 of Title 2…shall include an assessment of fair housing in the jurisdiction. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(10)(A).)
Local Data and Knowledge and Other Relevant Factors: The element generally was not revised to address this requirement. The element must include local data, knowledge, and other relevant factors to discuss and analyze any unique attributes about the City related to fair housing issues. The element should complement federal, state, and regional data with local data and knowledge where appropriate to capture emerging trends and issues, including utilizing knowledge from local and regional advocates and service providers.
Please see HCD’s prior review for additional information.
Identified Sites and Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH): While the element generally identifies the number of units in the northeast region, it generally does not address this requirement. A full analysis should address the identified sites, including pipeline project, to accommodate the regional housing need allocation (RHNA) with respect to location (e.g., neighborhoods, planning areas, census tracts), the number of sites and units by all income groups and how that affects the existing patterns for all components of the assessment of fair housing (e.g., segregation and integration, access to opportunity). The element should also discuss whether the distribution of sites improves or exacerbates conditions such as isolating the RHNA by income group or not dispersing the RHNA by income throughout the City. If sites exacerbate conditions, the element should identify further program actions that will be taken to promote equitable quality of life throughout the community (e.g., housing mobility, new opportunities in higher resource or income areas, anti-displacement, and place-based community revitalization strategies).
Contributing Factors to Fair Housing Issues: Based on a complete analysis, the element should re-assess and prioritize contributing factors to fair housing issues.
City of Santa Clara’s 6th Cycle Adopted Housing Element Page 2 March 28, 2023
2. Include an analysis of population and employment trends and documentation of projections and a quantification of the locality's existing and projected needs for all income levels, including extremely low-income households. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(1).)
Analyze any special housing needs such as elderly; persons with disabilities, including a developmental disability; large families; farmworkers; families with female heads of households; and families and persons in need of emergency shelter. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(7).)
Include an analysis and documentation of household characteristics, including level of payment compared to ability to pay, housing characteristics, including overcrowding, and housing stock condition. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(2).)
Extremely Low-Income (ELI) Households: The element now generally describes the effectiveness of strategies, and the magnitude of the housing need for ELI housing needs, However, as noted in the prior review, the element should analyze the housing needs of ELI households, including tenure and overpayment, and add or modify programs as appropriate. This is particularly important given the disproportionate housing needs of ELI households.
Special Housing Needs: The element was revised with minimal analysis on special housing needs, it must include additional analysis to address the finding. For a complete analysis of each population group, the element should discuss challenges faced by the population, the existing resources to meet those needs (availability senior housing units, number of large units, number of deed restricted units, etc.,), an assessment of any gaps in resources, and proposed policies, programs, and funding to help address those gaps.
In addition, while the element now quantifies persons with disability by type, it still must quantify elderly households by tenure and permanent and seasonal farmworkers using USDA agricultural census data.
3. An inventory of land suitable and available for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period to meet the locality’s housing need for a designated income level, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites. (Gov.
Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(3).)
Progress in Meeting the RHNA: The element now demonstrates the anticipated affordability of approved, under construction and proposed developments through mechanisms such as affordable housing agreements and mentions approved projects are anticipated to be completed on or after June 30, 2022. However, the element must still address the availability of approved and proposed projects in the planning period and should include a program to monitor availability and take alternative action, if necessary, especially given the noted uncertainty associated with proposed projects (p. 13.6-5).
Please see HCDs prior review for additional information.
In addition, the element was not revised to address the realistic capacity of the large several specific plans that were identified. As noted in HCDs prior review, the element
City of Santa Clara’s 6th Cycle Adopted Housing Element Page 3 March 28, 2023
should discuss planned built out horizons, necessary steps to make sites available and any impediments to the availability of sites for development in the planning period.
Parcel Inventory: The element was revised to add the general plan designation of identified sites but should still describe existing uses as noted in the prior review.
Specifically, the description of existing use is generic and must include sufficient detail to facilitate an analysis of the potential for addition development on nonvacant sites. For example, many sites describe existing uses as commercial or industrial. Instead, the inventory could describe the existing use through factors such as age and condition of the existing structure expressed developer interest, low improvement to land value ratio, and other relevant factors.
Suitability of Nonvacant Sites: The element generally was not revised to address this requirement and demonstrate the potential for redevelopment of nonvacant sites. Further, the element should respond to the various site suitability issues described by comments received as part of this review. Please see HCD’s prior review for additional information.
In addition, as noted in the prior review, if the housing element relies upon nonvacant sites to accommodate more than 50 percent of the RHNA for lower-income households, the housing element must demonstrate that the existing use is not an impediment to additional residential development in the planning period. (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (g)(2).) Absent findings (e.g., adoption resolution) based on substantial evidence, the existing uses will be presumed to impede additional residential development and will not be utilized toward demonstrating adequate sites to accommodate the RHNA. Based on a cursory review, the City’s current Resolution Number 23-9189 does not appear to make the appropriate findings to demonstrate uses will likely discontinue in the planning period and any future re-adoption must address this requirement, if necessary.
Availability of Infrastructure: The element discusses infrastructure management plans and indicates infrastructure capacity is not a constraint on development but should also clearly state whether there is sufficient existing or planned total capacity to accommodate the RHNA. In addition, the element states the City has specific procedures to grant priority for water and sewer service to developments with units affordable to lower-income households, but then explains if a provision is not part of the regulatory framework the City will commit to adopting a procedure within the next year with no program provided. The element should clearly state whether a written procedure is available and, if not, add a program to establish a procedure by a specified date.
Electronic Sites Inventory: For your information, pursuant to Government Code section 65583.3, the City must submit an electronic sites inventory with its adopted housing element. The City must utilize standards, forms, and definitions adopted by HCD. While the City has submitted an electronic sites inventory, if any changes occur, the City should submit the revised inventory to HCD as part of any future re-adoption submittal.
Zoning for a Variety of Housing Types (Emergency Shelters): The element now clarifies emergency shelters are currently permitted in the ML (Light Industrial) zone and are proposed to be permitted in several zones. However, the element was not revised to address HCD’s prior finding regarding various requirements such as non-discretionary
City of Santa Clara’s 6th Cycle Adopted Housing Element Page 4 March 28, 2023
review, suitability of sites, development standards and constraints. Please see HCD’s prior review for additional information.
In addition, please be aware Chapter 654, Statues of 2022 (AB 2339), adds specificity on how cities and counties plan for emergency shelters
and ensure sufficient and
suitable capacity. Future submittals of the housing element may need to address these statutory requirements. For additional information and timing requirements, please see HCD’s memo at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and- community/ab2339-notice.pdf.
4. An analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including the types of housing identified in paragraph (1) of subdivision (c), and for persons with disabilities as identified in the analysis pursuant to paragraph (7), including land use controls, building codes and their enforcement, site improvements, fees and other exactions required of developers, and local processing and permit procedures... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(5).)
Land Use Controls: The element was generally not revised to address HCDs prior findings regarding heights and lot coverages as constraints. Please see HCD’s prior review for additional information.
In addition, Action 3 (Affordable Housing Incentives and Facilitation) and Action 9 (Zoning Ordinance) should go beyond reviewing parking standards and make specific commitment to reduce or revise parking requirements and ensure parking requirements do not constrain development.
Fees and Exaction: While the element now quantifies the fees for a large multifamily development, it was not revised to address this finding of listing all pertinent fees as part of the cumulative fees analysis. Please see HCD’s prior review for additional information.
Local Processing and Permit Procedures: The element now explains objective standards are used to demonstrate compliance with approval findings for architectural review.
However, the element was not revised to address findings regarding the City’s planned development (PD) process. While the element now includes Action 9 (Zoning Ordinance) to reduce reliance on the PD process, it should include an analysis as described in HCD’s prior review to better formulate the appropriate programmatic response. Please see HCD’s prior review for additional information.
Housing for Persons with Disabilities (Reasonable Accommodation): The element now discusses the City’s obligation to provide reasonable accommodation in zoning and land use but otherwise, provides no analysis to address HCD’s findings. For example, the element does not list or evaluate approval findings. Please see HCD’s prior review for additional information.
Inclusionary Housing: While the element describes the broader inclusionary housing policy framework, it must also provide an analysis on the relationship between the inclusionary requirement and State Density Bonus Law (SDBL). For example, the element should
City of Santa Clara’s 6th Cycle Adopted Housing Element Page 5 March 28, 2023
describe how meeting the inclusionary requirement may be used toward eligibility for benefits under SDBL.
In addition, housing element outreach conduct identified that the 100 percent area median income affordability requirement was no longer feasible for residents. In response, the City commits to “assessing the feasibility” in Action 2 (Affordable Housing Ordinance). The City should go above “assessing feasibility” of the current affordable housing ordinance and make specific commitments to also revise the City affordability requirements after the feasibility study has been conducted and include annual outreach as parts of this efforts.
5. Analyze existing assisted housing developments that are eligible to change to non-low- income housing uses during the next 10 years due to termination of subsidy contracts, mortgage prepayment, or expiration of use restrictions. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(9) through 65583(a)(9)(D).).
HCDs prior review found the element should evaluate the risk of conversion; estimate and compare total costs; identify public and private non-profits. In response, the City adds cost comparison of units at-risk; however, the City still must include analysis on the risk of conversion and identify qualified entities.
In addition, Action 5 (Preservation of Assisted Rental Housing) now includes general commitment to work with property owners “when possible”. However, the Action should make specific commitments to monitor at-risk units annually, coordinate with qualified entities annually, prioritize available funding to assist property owners and tenants at risk of conversion.
B. Housing Programs
1. Include a program which sets forth a schedule of actions during the planning period, each with a timeline for implementation, which may recognize that certain programs are ongoing, such that there will be beneficial impacts of the programs within the planning period, that the local government is undertaking or intends to undertake to implement the policies and achieve the goals and objectives of the Housing Element... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c).)
Programs must demonstrate that they will have a beneficial impact within the planning period. Beneficial impact means specific commitment to deliverables, measurable metrics or objectives, definitive deadlines, dates, or benchmarks for implementation. Deliverables should occur early in the planning period to ensure actual housing outcomes. However, the following programs must be revised to include specific commitments and definitive timeline as follows:
• Action 1 (Provision of a Variety of Housing Types): The City should commit to identifying housing opportunities and pursing funds at least annually to support ELI households and persons with disabilities.
City of Santa Clara’s 6th Cycle Adopted Housing Element Page 6 March 28, 2023
• Action 3 (Affordable Housing Incentives and Facilitation): The Program was revised to include timing; however, language such as “explore “should be removed or modified with commitment to actual housing outcomes.
• Action 4 (Maintenance of Housing Stock): The Program now commits to conducting outreach to determine interest and feasibility but should include subsequent actions toward actual housing outcomes such as funding activities. • Action 11 (Impact Fees): Timelines identified should be revised to reflect implementation during the eight-year planning period.
• Action 15 (Homeownership for First-Time Buyers): The Program should add discrete timing for action implementation for outcomes (e.g., 2025). • Action 16 (Fair Housing programs): Action items identified should be revised to include timelines.
2. Identify actions that will be taken to make sites available during the planning period with appropriate zoning and development standards and with services and facilities to accommodate that portion of the city’s or county’s share of the regional housing need for each income level that could not be accommodated on sites identified in the inventory completed pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) without rezoning, and to comply with the requirements of Government Code section 65584.09. Sites shall be identified as needed to facilitate and encourage the development of a variety of types of housing for all income levels, including multifamily rental housing, factory-built housing, mobilehomes, housing for agricultural employees, supportive housing, single-room occupancy units, emergency shelters, and transitional housing. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(1).)
As noted in Finding A3, the element does not include a complete site analysis; therefore, the adequacy of sites and zoning were not established. Based on the results of a complete sites inventory and analysis, the City may need to add or revise programs to address a shortfall of sites or zoning available to encourage a variety of housing types.
In addition, the element includes Actions 1 (Variety of Housing Types) and 9 (Zoning Ordinance) to amend zoning to allow a variety of housing types, including SROs, employee housing, emergency shelters, low barrier navigation centers and by-right permanent supportive housing. However, the element should be revised to include at least parameters or certainty for the outcome of these commitments such as comply with state law citing government code or describing requirements (e.g., permit without discretionary action). In addition, the actions should commit to amending zoning for emergency shelters as described on page 13.5-10 and remove ambiguous and non-committal language such as “as necessary”.
3. Address and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental and nongovernmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing, including housing for all income levels and housing for persons with disabilities.
The program shall remove constraints to, and provide reasonable accommodations for housing designed for, intended for occupancy by, or with supportive services for, persons with disabilities. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(3).)
City of Santa Clara’s 6th Cycle Adopted Housing Element Page 7 March 28, 2023
As noted in Finding A4, the element requires a complete analysis of potential governmental constraints. Depending upon the results of that analysis, the City may need to revise or add programs and address and remove or mitigate any identified constraints.
In addition, Action 9 (Zoning Ordinance) was not revised to address all HCDs prior findings. Specifically, the City now acknowledges group homes of seven or more; however, it must commit to amend zoning for a variety of housing types in Action 1 by a specific date and clarify
that zoning and permit procedures will be amended to permit these housing types in all zones allowing residential use with objective standards to facilitate approval certainty similar to other residential uses.
4. Promote and affirmatively further fair housing opportunities and promote housing throughout the community or communities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability, and other characteristics... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(5).)
As noted in Finding A1, the element must include a complete analysis of AFFH. Based on the outcomes of that analysis, the element must add or modify programs. Additionally, the element included Table 13.3-20 (p. 13.3-72) identifying AFFH actions the City could take to address fair housing issues.
For example, the Table notes the City could increase
housing choice voucher (HCV) mobility and acquire properties for affordable housing.
However, beyond promoting HCVs and exploring property acquisitions, the actions do not include specific commitments to addressing fair housing issues. Goals and actions must specifically respond to the analysis and to the identified and prioritized contributing factors to fair housing issues and must be significant and meaningful enough to overcome identified patterns and trends. Actions must have specific commitment, metrics, milestones, and geographic targeting and, as appropriate, must address housing mobility enhancement, new housing choices and affordability in higher opportunity and income areas, concentrated areas of affluence and place-based strategies toward community revitalization and displacement protection.
5. Develop a plan that incentivizes and promotes the creation of accessory dwelling units that can be offered at affordable rent, as defined in Section 50053 of the Health and Safety Code, for very low, low-, or moderate-income households. For purposes of this paragraph, “accessory dwelling units” has the same meaning as “accessory dwelling unit” as defined in paragraph (4) of subdivision (i) of Section 65852.2. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(7).)
Action 1 (Provision of a Variety of Housing Types) now commits to establish incentives to promote accessory dwelling units (ADU) as well as monitoring the production of ADUs.
However, the Action should also monitor affordability, specify when a plan will be presented to the City Council and specify when an alternative strategy will be implemented (e.g., within six months). In addition, the Action should clarify that rezoning may be necessary as part of alternative actions.
City of Santa Clara’s 6th Cycle Adopted Housing Element Page 8 March 28, 2023
D. Quantified Objectives
Establish the number of housing units, by income level, that can be constructed, rehabilitated, and conserved over a five-year time frame. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (b)(1 & 2).)
The element was revised to include minimal ELI objectives added for rehabilitation and conservation while also reducing overall conservation and rehabilitation objectives. The City must revise overall conservation and rehabilitation objectives to target meaningful outcomes in the planning period. As noted in HCDs previous review, conservation units should not be limited to only units at-risk and should include other activities the City has undertaken to rehabilitate and conserve housing. Please see HCD’s prior review for additional information.
E. Public Participation
Local governments shall make a diligent effort to achieve public participation of all economic segments of the community in the development of the Housing Element, and the element shall describe this effort. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd.(c)(9).)
While the City made effort to include the public through workshops and surveys, and summarized public comments received and identified how public concerns were addressed.
However, HCD received comments on this review that should be addressed, including considering and incorporating comments as appropriate. Example of issues include errantly listing small sites as aggregated sites, calculations of residential capacity and existing uses that impeded additional development in the planning period.
Public participation in the development, adoption and implementation of the housing element is essential to effective housing planning. Throughout the housing element process, the City should continue to engage the community, including organizations that represent lower- income and special needs households, by making information regularly available and considering and incorporating comments where appropriate. Please be aware, any revisions to the element must be posted on the local government’s website and to email a link to all individuals and organizations that have previously requested notices relating to the local government’s housing element at least seven days before submitting to HCD.
F. Consistency with General Plan
The Housing Element shall describe the means by which consistency will be achieved with other general plan elements and community goals. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(7).)
While the element states it has been prepared to maintain internal consistency, it still should discuss how consistency will be maintained throughout the entire planning period. For example, the element could describe internal consistency will be maintained as part of the annual progress report pursuant to Government Code section 65400 or as general plan amendments occur.
1 Planning
Commission
Item #
RTC 23-602 Adoption of a
General Plan Amendment
for the Housing Element
Update
June 14, 2023
Housing Element
Background
• One of required elements of General Plan
• Updated every 8 years. Reviewed by HCD and certified if found to be in substantial compliance
• Prior 5th Cycle Housing Element: adopted December 9, 2014; certified by HCD February 13, 2015; ended January 31, 2023 • City Council Adopted 6th Cycle Housing Element January 31, 2023 • HCD 60-day review
• March 28, 2023, the City received HCD’s findings/comment letter 2 1
2 2
Housing Element
HCD Findings (March 28, 2023)
HCD identified revisions necessary to receive HCD’s certification of compliance in the following areas:
A. Housing Needs, Resources, and Constraints
B. Housing Programs
C. Quantified Objectives
D. Public Participation
E. Consistency with General Plan
3 Housing Element
Re-Adoption / Certification Process
• April 20, 2023 – staff met with HCD staff to review comments • April-June – Staff and consultants prepared revised Housing Element • June 2. 2023 – staff met with HCD staff to review City’s response • June 14, 2023 – Planning Commission hearing
• June 27, 2023 – City Council adoption hearing
• July-August – HCD Review
4 3
4 3
Housing Element
Sites to Meet the RHNA (Sites Inventory)
• HCD asked City to respond to public comments received on proposed Sites to meet the City’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) • Public comments focused on likelihood of residential use of properties within Specific Plan areas within Housing Element timeframe • Staff response includes:
o additional information (e.g., communication with property owners to verify their willingness to redevelop) and
o additional possible sites
5 Housing Element
Sites to Meet the RHNA (Sites Inventory)
6 Site/Credit Type VLI LI Mod. Above Mod. Total Capacity RHNA 2,872 1,653 1,981 5,126 11,632
Pending & Approved Projects 668 746 512 10,218 12,144
ADU Projection 118 118 118 39 393
Available Specific Plan Sites 2,105 1,561 1,883 314 5,863 El Camino Real Rezoning Sites 497 378 366 - 1,242
Total 3,388 2,803 2,879 10,571 19,642
Surplus Units 516 1,150 898 5,445 8,010
Surplus (% Above RHNA) 18% 70% 45% 106% 69%
5 6
-
4 Housing Element
Sites to Meet the RHNA (Sites Inventory)
7 Site VLI LI Mod. Above Mod. Total Capacity
Pending & Approved Projects
(Total) 668 746 512 10,218 12,144
Tasman East SP 111 234 179 3,842 4,366
Patrick Henry Drive SP 76 75 75 1,294 1,520
Lawrence Station Area Plan - 5 57 635 697
Freedom Circle Focus Area 54 54 54 913 1,075
Other 427 378 147 3,534 4,486
Housing Element
Sites to Meet the RHNA (Sites Inventory)
8 Site VLI LI Mod. Above Mod. Total Capacity
Available Specific Plan Sites
(Total) 2,105 1,561 1,883 314 5,863
Tasman East Focus Area SP 214 156 458 295 1,123
Patrick Henry Drive SP 1,747 1,299 1,299 - 4,345
Lawrence Station Area Plan 144 106 126 19 395
7 8
---
---
5 Housing Element
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
• Additional data, analysis and conclusions related to the housing condition of various demographic groups including Race/Ethnicity, Persons with Disabilities, and Overcrowded Households
• Expanded geographic analysis of the location of lower income households throughout the City
o 82% of housing growth in Highest or High Resources Areas o 101% of Very Low Income units in High or Highest Resource Areas o 147% of Low Income units in High or Highest Resource Areas 9 Housing Element
Housing Needs
• Additional data and analysis on:
o Households experiencing a rent cost-burden
o Challenges facing special needs populations such as the elderly o Services available to the homeless
1 0
9 10
6 Housing Element
Constraints
• Additional data, clarifications and analysis on constraints related to:
o Infrastructure limitations that could affect new housing development o Zoning code sections that will be changed to streamline the development of emergency shelters
o City’s land use entitlement procedures
11 Housing Element
Housing Resources
• Additional information to provide:
o Verification of the City’s pipeline housing production data o Clarification of the City’s methodology to calculate residential capacity
1 2
11 12
7 Housing Element
Housing Plan
• Revised to reflect the additional analysis of data and local knowledge and discussion added to other chapters
• Addition of follow-up monitoring and data collection activities and planned changes to the Zoning Ordinance and other ongoing activities o For example: create an inventory and track the condition of Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing (NOAH) housing units • Housing Plan actions and objectives revised to strengthen City's commitment within more defined timelines
1 3
Housing Element
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Addendum to the 2010-2035 General Plan Environmental Impact Report for the 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Housing Element, which concluded:
o no substantial change to the General Plan that would require major revisions to the previous EIR
o no substantial change in circumstances as a result of modifications to the General Plan that would cause new or substantially more severe significant impacts
o no new information of substantial importance that identifies new or more intense significant impacts than those identified in the General Plan EIR 1 4
13 14
8 Housing Element
Recommendation
Adopt a Resolution to Recommend the City Council Amend the General Plan by Re-Adopting the 2023-2031 Housing Element with revisions incorporated to address HCD comments
1 5
Planning
Commission
Item #
RTC 23-602 Adoption of a
General Plan Amendment
for the Housing Element
Update
June 14, 2023
15 16
City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gov
@SantaClaraCity
23-602 Agenda Date: 6/14/2023
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBJECT
Amendment to the City of Santa Clara General Plan and Re-Adoption of the 2023-2031 Housing Element with Revisions
COUNCIL PILLAR
Promote and Enhance Economic, Housing and Transportation Development
BACKGROUND
The Housing Element, one of the required elements of the City’s General Plan, includes policies and programs intended to help the City meet the housing needs of all current and future Santa Clara residents. State law requires that local jurisdictions update their Housing Element every eight years and that the Housing Element be reviewed by the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). Housing Elements are then certified by HCD if found to be in substantial compliance with State Housing law.
For Bay Area towns, cities, and counties, the statutory due date for submittal of an adopted Housing Element, covering the years 2023-2031 (6th housing cycle), was January 31, 2023. Consistent with this deadline, on January 31, 2023, the City Council adopted Santa Clara’s 2023-2031 (6th Cycle) Housing Element and submitted it to HCD for their 60-day review. On March 28, 2023, the City received HCD’s findings/comment letter (Attachment 1). HCD determined that the City’s Adopted Housing Element addresses many statutory requirements but identified additional revisions that in their view were necessary for HCD to certify the City’s Housing Element as fully compliant with State Housing Element law. Staff met with HCD on April 20, 2023 to discuss those comments and on June 2, 2023 to discuss staff’s draft revisions to the adopted Housing Element to address those comments.
State leadership continues to identify efforts to address the State’s housing crisis as a top priority for both legislative and administrative efforts. As a result, the State has significantly increased the requirements placed upon each jurisdiction as they update their local Housing Elements and added more stringent State oversight for the review and approval of each Housing Element.
As of June 1, 2023, only 21 jurisdictions in the 109 jurisdiction Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) region have an adopted 6th Cycle housing element that has been found by HCD to be in compliance with State Housing Element law (i.e., certified). In Santa Clara County, 10 of 16 jurisdictions, including Santa Clara, have submitted adopted housing elements to HCD. Of those adopted housing elements, four are under review by HCD (Gilroy, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Saratoga). For three others, HCD reviewed the elements and then requested additional revisions (Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, Santa Clara). HCD found another three to be in compliance (Campbell, Milpitas, Mountain View).
City of Santa Clara Printed on 6/9/2023Page 1 of 7
powered by Legistar™
23-602 Agenda Date: 6/14/2023
Not having a certified Housing Element can negatively impact a local jurisdiction’s discretion to regulate new housing development and reduce access to State funds for as long as the jurisdiction lacks certification.
City staff is diligently working with HCD and the City’s consultant (MIG, Inc.) to complete revisions necessary to receive HCD’s certification.
State (HCD) Review
On March 28, 2023, the City received HCD’s findings/comment letter (Attachment 1) on the City’s Adopted Housing Element. HCD identified revisions necessary to receive HCD’s certification of compliance in the following areas:
A. Housing Needs, Resources, and Constraints
B. Housing Programs
D. Quantified Objectives
E. Public Participation
F. Consistency with General Plan
DISCUSSION
Staff is now bringing forward a revised draft of the City’s General Plan Housing Element for Planning Commission recommendation prior to City Council action. Planning Commission and City Council hearings are required for an Amendment to the City’s General Plan. These hearings allow the Planning Commission and City Council to review the proposed changes to the Housing Element made in response to the HCD findings/comment letter.
To facilitate review of the revisions to the Adopted Housing Element to address HCD’s comments, the Planning Commission, City Council, and HCD will be provided with a clean and redlined version of the Revised Housing Element (Attachments 2 and 3), a matrix showing each HCD comment and the City’s responses/revisions (Attachment 4), as well as a summary of proposed amendments (Attachment 5) organized by Housing Element chapter/appendix with references to HCD’s numbered comments.
Attachment 4 provides a detailed list of the City’s responses/revisions to HCD’s comments on the adopted Housing Element organized by the above topic areas. HCD’s comments from their March 28, 2023 letter are listed in the left column and the City’s response/revisions are summarized in the right column of the matrix. In cases where HCD’s current comments reference their earlier comment letter, notes in brackets have been added with the date of the earlier comment letter and the referenced comment number (e.g., [11/18/22 B.1.c]).
The redlined version of the Revised Housing Element (Attachment 3) shows all proposed changes to the adopted Housing Element.
The following is a discussion of several key revisions between the adopted and draft revised Housing Element, including changes to the Sites to Meet the RHNA (Sites Inventory), revisions to policies to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing (AFFH), and revisions to the Housing Needs, Constraints, Housing Resources, and Housing Plan sections. Notably these sections include several new work program activities for the City to undertake as follow-up actions to the Housing Element certification.
City of Santa Clara Printed on 6/9/2023Page 2 of 7
powered by Legistar™
23-602 Agenda Date: 6/14/2023
Sites to Meet the RHNA (Sites Inventory)
HCD asked the City to respond to public comments received on the proposed Sites to meet the City’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). The public comments focused on the likelihood of redevelopment for residential use of several properties located within the City’s recently adopted Specific Plan areas within the timeframe of the current Housing Element cycle. The staff response includes additional information (e.g., communication with property owners to verify their willingness to redevelop for residential use) as well as the identification of additional possible sites that could be used to meet the City’s RHNA. In some cases, the projected residential densities for specific parcels were recalculated based upon recent actual development data.
The two tables below show the sites identified to meet the City’s RHNA as adopted and revised, with the proposed revisions listed below to address HCD comments regarding the sites inventory - progress in meeting the RHNA (A.3.a), realistic capacity (A.3.b), and suitability of nonvacant sites to accommodate lower income RHNA (A.3.d/e).
Sites to Meet the RHNA - As Adopted in the Housing Element (January 31, 2023) Units in Affordability Category
Site/Credit Type VLI LI Mod. Above ModTotal Capacity
RHNA 2,872 1,653 1,981 5,126 11,632
Pending & Approved Projects 389 361 857 10,339 11,946
Tasman East SP - - 531 3,919 4,459
Patrick Henry Drive SP 75 75 75 1,288 1,516
Lawrence Station Area Plan - 5 57 635 697
Freedom Circle Focus Area 54 54 54 914 1,075
Other 261 228 141 3,569 4,199
ADU Projection 102 102 102 34 340
Available Specific Plan Sites 2,888 2,143 2,465 314 7,810 Tasman East Focus Area SP 214 156 458 295 1,123
Patrick Henry Drive SP 1,829 1,360 1,360 - 4,549
Lawrence Station Area Plan 845 627 647 19 2,138
-
Total 3,379 2,606 3,424 10,687 22,096
Surplus Units 507 953 1,443 5,561 10,464
Surplus (% Above RHNA) 18% 58% 73% 108% 73%
During the public review process, the City received a number of comments regarding the suitability of certain parcels in the Tasman East Specific Plan, Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan, and Lawrence Station Area Plan. For some of these sites, the City is providing additional evidence in support of site suitability in the adoption resolution; for some other sites, the City has removed them from the revised sites inventory (see Chapter 6 Housing Resources, Realistic Capacity and Suitability of Non- Vacant Sites section). To address this reduction in the capacity of sites, to accommodate sufficient VLI units to meet the RHNA with an adequate buffer, other sites currently designated for residential development in the City’s General Plan along the El Camino Real corridor were added to the sites City of Santa Clara Printed on 6/9/2023Page 3 of 7
powered by Legistar™
23-602 Agenda Date: 6/14/2023
inventory. For these sites to qualify, they will be rezoned as part of the Zoning Code Update to facilitate development aligned with their current General Plan designations. Additionally, pursuant to the Housing Element statutes, any sites added to the inventory along El Camino Real that were listed in both of the last two housing elements will be required to provide a minimum of 20% of the dwelling units at affordable levels.
The changes described below are summarized in Attachment 5, captured in the revised Appendix B Sites Inventory and will be included in a revised Electronic Sites Inventory to be submitted to HCD as part of the re-adoption submittal.
Sites to Meet the RHNA - As Revised / Proposed for Adoption Units in Affordability Category
Site/Credit Type VLI LI Mod. Above Mod.Total Capacity
RHNA 2,872 1,653 1,981 5,126 11,632
Pending & Approved Projects 668 746 512 10,218 12,144
Tasman East SP 111 234 179 3,842 4,366
Patrick Henry Drive SP 76 75 75 1,294 1,520
Lawrence Station Area Plan - 5 57 635 697
Freedom Circle Focus Area 54 54 54 913 1,075
Other 427 378 147 3,534 4,486
ADU Projection 118 118 118 39 393
Available Specific Plan Sites 2,105 1,561 1,883 314 5,863 Tasman East Focus Area SP 214 156 458 295 1,123
Patrick Henry Drive SP 1,747 1,299 1,299 - 4,345
Lawrence Station Area Plan 144 106 126 19 395
El Camino Real Rezoning
Sites
497 378 366 - 1,242
Total 3,388 2,803 2,879 10,571 19,642
Surplus Units 516 1,150 898 5,445 8,010
Surplus (% Above RHNA) 18% 70% 45% 106% 69%
The above table, which tabulates the total number of housing units in the City’s Sites Inventory after making the changes summarized in Attachment 5, demonstrates that there is sufficient capacity to accommodate the City’s RHNA with an adequate buffer (15-30% recommended) at all income levels.
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
Chapter 3 AFFH includes substantial revisions and re-organization, summarized in Attachment 5, to address the identified HCD AFFH related comments. Generally, HCD was requesting that the City provide additional data if possible and analysis and conclusions related to the housing condition of various demographic groups within Santa Clara. This included information on Race/Ethnicity, Persons with Disabilities, Overcrowded Households and expanded geographic analysis of the location of lower income households throughout the City.
City of Santa Clara Printed on 6/9/2023Page 4 of 7
powered by Legistar™
23-602 Agenda Date: 6/14/2023
HCD also commented that the City should demonstrate how units are distributed based on the HCD/Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) Opportunity Map Areas (Highest, High, Moderate, Low Resource Areas). AFFH goals and best practices place housing units in areas of amenities and opportunity, such as High and Highest Resource Areas. A new section of the draft Housing Element includes AFFH analysis of the sites inventory. This analysis calls out that 82% of housing growth in Santa Clara will be in the City’s Highest or High Resources Areas with 101% of the City’s Very Low Income units (over 100% because the City has more units than Very Low Income required from the RHNA) in the High or Highest Resource Areas and 147% of Low Income units in High or Highest Resource areas.
Housing Needs
Chapter 4 Housing Needs was revised to include additional data and analysis to address the HCD housing needs related comments such as data on households experiencing a rent cost-burden, challenges facing special needs populations such as the elderly, and additional information about services available to the homeless.
Constraints
Chapter 5 was revised to include additional data, clarifications, and analysis to address the HCD constraints related comments, such as infrastructure limitations that could affect new housing development, zoning code sections that will be changed to streamline the development of emergency shelters and clarification of the City’s land use entitlement procedures.
Housing Resources
Chapter 6, Housing Resources, was revised in response to the following HCD comments seeking verification of the City’s pipeline housing production data and clarification of the City’s methodology to calculate residential capacity.
Housing Plan
Chapter 2, Housing Plan, was revised to reflect the additional analysis of data and local knowledge and discussion added to other chapters (Chapter 3, AFFH, Chapter 4 Housing Needs, Chapter 5 Constraints, and Chapter 6 Housing Resources). Chapter 2 was also revised to address HCD’s Housing Plan related comments. These revisions include the addition of several follow-up monitoring and data collection activities to be undertaken by the City, as well as planned changes to the Zoning Ordinance and other ongoing activities. For example, the City is being asked to create an inventory and track the condition of Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing (NOAH) housing units, which are units not covered by a legal agreement to restrict their affordability, but which are rented on the market at rates comparable to an affordable project because of the conditions of the property.
HCD’s comment letter also stated the City should demonstrate that programs will have a beneficial impact within the Housing Element cycle. The Housing Plan actions and objectives were revised to strengthen the City's commitment to accomplishing those programs within more defined timelines.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The City prepared an Addendum to the 2010-2035 General Plan Environmental Impact Report (Attachment 6) for the 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Housing Element, which concluded that there is no substantial change to the General Plan that would require major revisions to the previous EIR; that there is no substantial change in circumstances as a result of modifications to the General Plan that would cause new of substantially more sever significant impacts; and, that there is no new City of Santa Clara Printed on 6/9/2023Page 5 of 7
powered by Legistar™
23-602 Agenda Date: 6/14/2023
information of substantial importance that identifies new or more intense significant impacts than those identified in the General Plan EIR.
At their public hearing on January 26, 2023, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 23- 004 recommending the City Council adopt the Addendum to the General Plan EIR, for adoption of the 6th Cycle Housing Element.
With the adoption of Resolution No. 23-9188 (Attachment 7) at a public hearing on January 31, 2023, the City Council approved the Addendum to the General Plan EIR for adoption of the 6th Cycle Housing Element. Although the proposed action is to make additional revisions to the Housing Element and General Plan, there are no new policies proposed that would generate new or substantially more significant environmental impacts; moreover, the revised inventory identifies slightly fewer sites than in the January element, and so any impacts are likely to be slightly reduced.
As such, the General Plan EIR and Addendum remain sufficient for the environmental analysis of the proposed Housing Element.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this report. On January 25, 2022, the City Council approved a consultant agreement with MIG, Inc. to update the City’s Housing Element and accepted $499,150 in reimbursable grant funding from the State’s Local Early Action Planning (LEAP) grant program. Of this grant funding, $289,868 will be used to fund MIG’s work and the remaining $209,282 will be used to fund City staff expenses. All grant funds must be expended on or before December 31, 2023.
Adoption of the Housing Element, as drafted, includes new and revised City programs to implement the Housing Element goals and policies in conformance with State requirements. The potential implementation of these programs will require future City Council review, including and analysis of their potential fiscal impacts.
COORDINATION
This report was coordinated with the City Attorney’s Office.
PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made by posting the Commission agenda on the City’s official-notice bulletin board outside City Hall Council Chambers. A complete agenda packet is available on the City’s website and in the City Clerk’s Office at least 72 hours prior to a Regular Meeting and 24 hours prior to a Special Meeting. A hard copy of any agenda report may be requested by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at (408) 615-2220, email [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> or at the public information desk at any City of Santa Clara public library.
On April 20, 2023, pursuant to Government Code Section 65352(a), the City mailed referral letters to tribes and outside agencies advising them of the City’s intent to take action on a General Plan Amendment to adopt revisions to the 2023-2031 Housing Element. The referral letters also included notice of the proposed Planning Commission and City Council hearings.
On May 10, 2023, pursuant to Govern Code Sections 65353 and 65355, a notice of public hearing was published in The Weekly, a newspaper of general circulation, regarding the Planning City of Santa Clara Printed on 6/9/2023Page 6 of 7
powered by Legistar™
23-602 Agenda Date: 6/14/2023
Commission and City Council public hearings.
On May 18, 2023, a GovDelivery bulletin was emailed to the City’s 1,875 Housing Element Update topic subscribers to let them know of the continuance of the Planning Commission and City Council hearings from May 24, 2023 and June 6, 2023, respectively, with the updated hearing schedule (also posted on the Housing Element Update page).
On June 7, 2023, a GovDelivery bulletin was emailed to the City’s 1,899 Housing Element Update topic subscribers to let them know the availability of the draft revisions to the Adopted Housing Element on the Housing Element Update page.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Adopt a Resolution to Recommend the City Council Amend the General Plan by Re-Adopting the 2023-2031 Housing Element with revisions incorporated to address HCD comments
2. Adopt a Resolution to Recommend the City Council Amend the General Plan by Re-Adopting the 2023-2031 Housing Element with revisions incorporated to address HCD comments, with additional revisions
RECOMMENDATION
Alternative: 1
1. Adopt a Resolution to Recommend the City Council Amend the General Plan by Re-Adopting the 2023-2031 Housing Element with revisions incorporated to address HCD comments Reviewed by: Andrew Crabtree, Director, Community Development Approved by: Jōvan D. Grogan, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS
1. HCD Findings/Comment Letter on Adopted Housing Element
2. Revisions to Adopted Housing Element (clean)
3. Revisions to Adopted Housing Element (redlined)
4. HCD Comments/Response Matrix
5. Summary of Proposed Amendments to the Housing Element
6. Addendum
7. City Council Addendum Resolution
8. Planning Commission Resolution
City of Santa Clara Printed on 6/9/2023Page 7 of 7
powered by Legistar™
Resolution/Housing Element Update 2023 Addendum Page 1 of 4 Rev: 11/22/17
RESOLUTION NO. 23-9188
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA,
TO ADOPT AN ADDENDUM TO THE GENERAL PLAN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, FOR ADOPTION OF THE
6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT (2023-2031)
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA AS FOLLOWS:
WHEREAS, the California legislature has found that “California has a housing supply and affordability crisis of historic proportions. The consequences of failing to effectively and aggressively confront this crisis are hurting millions of Californians, robbing future generations of the chance to call California home, stifling economic opportunities for workers and businesses, worsening poverty and homelessness, and undermining the state’s environmental and climate objectives.” (Gov. Code Section 65589.5.); and
WHEREAS, the legislature has further found that “Among the consequences of those actions are discrimination against low-income and minority households, lack of housing to support employment growth, imbalance in jobs and housing, reduced mobility, urban sprawl, excessive commuting, and air quality deterioration.” (Gov. Code Section 65589.5.); and WHEREAS, the legislature recently adopted the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (SB 330) which states that “In 2018, California ranked 49th out of the 50 states i n housing units per capita… California needs an estimated 180,000 additional homes annually to keep up with population growth, and the Governor has called for 3.5 million new homes to be built over 7 years”; and WHEREAS, State Housing Element Law (Government Code Sections 65580 et seq.) requires that the City Council adopt a Housing Element for the eight-year period 2023-2031 to accommodate the City of Santa Clara (City) regional housing need allocation (RHNA) of 11,632 housing units, comprised of 2,872 very-low income units, 1,653 low-income units, 1,981 moderate- income units, and 5,126 above moderate-income units; and WHEREAS, to comply with State Housing Element Law, the City of Santa Clara has prepared its Housing Element Update for the years 2023 -2031 (the Housing Element); and Resolution/Housing Element Update 2023 Addendum Page 2 of 4 Rev: 11/22/17
WHEREAS, as provided in Government Code Section 65350 et. seq., the Housing Element constitutes a General Plan Amendment; and
WHEREAS, the Project approvals will include a resolution approving the Addendum to the General Plan EIR; and a resolution approving the General Plan Amendment (collectively, the “Approvals”); WHEREAS, the City has prepared an Addendum to the 2010- 2035 General Plan Environmental Impact Report adopted by the City Council on November 16, 2010, and to the environmental review documents that were prepared for subsequent amendments to the General Plan that affected housing development in the City, including but not limited to the December 2013 Climate Action Plan Negative Declaration; the February 2016 Mission Town Center EIR; the 2016 Related Santa Clara EIR; the November 2016 Lawrence Station Area Plan EIR; the July 2018 575 Benton Project Addendum; the July 2019 Gateway Crossings EIR; the March 2022 Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan EIR; the June 2022 Climate Action Plan Addendum; and the June 2022 Freedom Circle Future Focus Area EIR (collectively, the “Subsequent Docum ents”), all of which provide environmental clearance for all of the units in the 6th cycle Housing Sites Inventory; WHEREAS, a notice of the public hearing on the proposed General Plan Amendment was published in the Santa Clara Weekly, a newspaper of general circulation for the City, on December 11, 2022, for the January 11, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting and the January 31, 2023 City Council meeting; and
WHEREAS, on January 11, 2023, the Planning Commission opened the public hearing to consider the proposed General Plan Amendment, and then continued the hearing to January 23, 2023; and WHEREAS, on January 20, 2023, the City published a revised draft Housing Element with the changes required by HCD (see Housing Element Exhibit A – HCD Comments and Reponses) and requested public comment on the draft; and
WHEREAS, on January 23, 2023, the Planning Commission resumed the previously-opened public hearing to consider the proposed General Plan Amendment, and then subsequently continued the hearing to January 26, 2023; and
Resolution/Housing Element Update 2023 Addendum Page 3 of 4 Rev: 11/22/17
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the Addendum to the General Plan EIR , in accordance with the requirements of CEQA, along wit h t he City Staff report pertaining to the Project, and all evidence received at a duly noticed public hearing on January 26, 2023. All these documents and evidence are incorporated herein by reference into this Resolution ; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve the Addendum to the General Plan EIR, in accordance with CEQA for the Project; and WHEREAS, on January 31, 2023, the City Council conduc ted a public hearing, at which time all interested persons were given an opportunity to give testimony and provide evidence in support of and in opposition to the proposed Addendum to the General Plan EIR.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA AS FOLLOWS:
1 That the City Council hereby finds that the above Recitals are true and correct and by this reference makes them a part hereof.
2. That the City Council hereby finds that the Addendum to the General Plan EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA.
3. That the City Council hereby finds that the Addendum to the General Plan EIR has been presented to the Council, which reviewed and considered the information and analysis contained therein, and that the Addendum represents the independent judgment of the Council.
4. That the City Council hereby finds that the proposed General Plan Amendments do not involve substantial changes to the General Plan that would require major revisions to the previous EIR or Subsequent Documents.
5. That the City Council hereby finds that there is no substantial change in circumstances as a result of modifications to the General Plan that would require major revisions to the previous EIR and Subsequent Documents or cause new or substantially more sev ere significant impacts. //
//
6. That the City Council hereby finds that there is no new information of substantial importance that identifies new or more intense significant impacts than those identified in the General Plan EIR and Subsequent Documents .
7. Based on the findings set forth in this Resolution and the evidence in the City Staff Report, the City Council approves the Addendum to the General Plan EIR, in accordance with CEQA for the Project.
3. Effective date. This resolution shall become effective immediately.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THE FOREGOING TO BE A TRUE COPY OF A RESOLUTION PASSED
AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA, AT A REGULAR MEETING THEREOF HELD ON THE 31 8T DAY OF JANUARY 2023 , BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: COUNCILORS:
NOES: COUNCILORS:
ABSENT : COUNCILORS :
ABSTAINED: COUNCILORS:
Attachments incorporated by reference: None
Resolution/Housing Element Update 2023 Addendum
Rev: 11 /22/17
Becker, Chahal, Hardy, Jain, Watanabe, and
Mayor Gillmor
Park
None
None
ATTEST:~
= c ASSISTANT CITY CLERK
CITY OF SANTA CLARA
Chapter 13.1
Introduction
Background and Purpose
The City of Santa Clara continues to be a desirable place to live and in recent years the City has adopted new policies and provided funding to achieve more affordable housing opportunities in the community, as well as preparing long range plans to add ne w high-density, amenity rich neighborhoods that provide a variety of affordability options.
The historic agricultural nature of Santa Clara was forever changed with the invention of the semiconductor chip in the 1950’s. Since then, the growth of the technology industry has fueled job growth and propelled Santa Clara to the current population of about 127,000 residents. 1 Santa
Clara’s population is expected to grow by about 26 percent to 159,500 by 2040. The composition of the housing stock in Santa Clar a has shifted, with more multi -family units being built than single family homes. This trend likely reflects the limited availability of land for development , the high cost of homeownership, and the growing number of young adults moving to th is job rich area.
Demand for home ownership continues to exceed the supply and prices are increasingly out of reach even for moderate income households . As of 2019, 43 percent of homes were owner households and 57 percent were renter households, reflective of the high cost of home ownership in the area. Housing supply in general is tight with the vacancy rate of renter o ccupied homes only at 4.8 percent and owner homes at less than one percent.
The City’s motto, the “Center of What’s Possible", conveys the City’s can -do commitment to addressing housing challenges and ensuring a high quality of life for current and future residents.
In response to the daunting local and regional housing supply challenges, the City has been active in increasing housing access and choice, and removing barriers to development, as well as streamlining the development process to facilitate housing development. Additionally, the City is nearing completion of a comprehensive Zoning Code update which will further streamline processes with the inclusion of objective standards and new zoning districts that better align with the City’s General Plan. In 2018, the City began implementing an affordable housing ordinance with inclusionary requirements for new housing development. The ordinance also includes a commercial linkage fee so that office, R&D, and data centers contribute fees to support affordable
1 Census.gov
13.1 SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
housing development. Since the fall of 2021, the linkage fee has generated over $5.6 million, and those funds will be used to address affordable housing needs in the City.
The City has also partnered with affordable housing developers providing gap financing and is working expeditiously to facilitate entitlements and building permits for construction, meeting tight financing deadlines and requirements. Infill areas of the City such as El Camino Real, Stevens Creek Boulevard , Winchester Boulevard, and Homestead Road with strong access to transit, retail, schools, and services are the sites of several new affordable, supportive, and transitional housing projects under construction which have benefited from new State laws that streamline processes and, in many cases, have also been financially supported by the City. New neighborhoods in the long-range planning areas of Lawrence Station, Tasman East, Patrick Henry Drive, Freedom Circle, and Downtown will have access to high quality transit, parks, community center(s), schools, and entertainment.
Through this updated Housing Element, the City puts forth strengthened housing goals, policies and actions that will support housing opportunities for new residents and existing residents facing displacement pressures so that Santa Clara can continue to be a vital and diverse city in the heart of the Silicon Valley.
Regulatory Framework
The Housing Element is one of the required components of a General Plan and must be consistent with all other elements of the General Plan . It identifies ways in which the housing needs of existing and future residents can be met. State law describes in great detail the necessary contents of the Housing Element: 1) identifying housing needs; 2) affirmatively furthering and assessing fair housing; 3) analyzing constraints to housing production; 4) examining past accomplishments from prior housing element planning efforts; 5) understanding how past planning practices may have excluded groups of people from housing opportunities; 6) documenting how the public has been engaged in the planning process; and 7) assessing and describing how land and financial resources will be marshalled to meet all housing needs. This Housing Element responds to those requirements and responds specifically to conditions and policy directives unique to Santa Clara.
The California Legislature has identified the attainment of a decent home and suitable living environment for every Californian as the S tate’s main housing goal. Recognizing the important part that local planning programs play in pursuit of this goal, the Legislature has mandated that all cities and counties prepare a Housing Element as part of their comprehensive General Plans.
Section 65581 of the California Government Code reflects the legislative intent for mandating that each city and county prepare a Housing Element:
1. To ensure that counties and cities recognize their responsibilities in contributing to the attainment of the State housing goal.
2. To ensure that counties and cities will prepare and implement Ho using Elements which, along with federal and State programs, will move toward attainment of the State housing goal.
3. To recognize that each locality is best capable of determining what efforts are required by it to contribute to the attainment of the State housing goal, provided such a determination is compatible with the State housing goal and regional housing needs.
4. To ensure that each local government cooperates with other local governments to address regional housing needs.
Scope and Content of the Housing Element
The 2023-2031 City of Santa Clara Housing Element has been prepared to meet the intent and requirements of State law and is intended to be integrated into the City’s 2010-2035 General Plan.
The Housing Element covers the planning period that begins January 31, 2023, and ends January 31, 2031, focusing on ways to promote residential infill development, given land supply and cost constraints. The intent of this Element is to plan for an adequate variety of safe, appropriate, and well-built housing for all residents of Santa Clara.
To comply with State Housing Element Law the he Housing Element consists of:
• An overview of the housing element and its relation to other elements in the General Plan • A review and assessment of the 2015-2023 Housing Element • A summary of the housing needs assessment
• An assessment of Fair Housing
• An analysis of special housing needs
• A review of constraints to housing development
• An analysis of at-risk housing
• A sites analysis of land parcels suitable for housing • Goals, policies, and actions that support the Housing Element Acronyms
This element includes use of many acronyms to identify agencies, housing programs, funding sources, and planning terms. Commonly used acronyms are:
ABAG/MTC – Association of Bay Area Governments/Metropolitan Transportation Commission
ADU – Accessory Dwelling Unit
AFFH - Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
AI - Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing
13.1 SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
ACS - American Community Survey
AMI – Area Median Income
APR – Annual Progress Report
BMP – Below Market Purchase Program
BMR – Below Market Rental Program
CDBG – Community Development Block Grant
CEQA – California Environmental Quality Act
CHAS – Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy
CHDO – Community Housing Development Organization
COPA – Community Opportunity Purchase Act
DOF – State of California Department of Finance
HCD – State of California Department of Housing and Community Development HOME – HOME Investment Partnership Program
HOME-ARP – HOME American Rescue Plan
HPS – Homelessness Prevention System
HUD – Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development HVAC – Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning
LIHTC – Low-Income Housing Tax Credit
LMI – Low to Moderate Income
MCC – Mortgage Credit Certificate
MFI – Median Family Income
MRB – Mortgage Revenue Bonds
NCIP – Neighborhood Conservation and Improvement Program NOAH – Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing
NOFA – Notice of Funding Availability
PHLA – Permanent Local Housing Allocation
RHNA – Regional Housing Needs Allocation
SRO – Single Room Occupancy
SVP – Silicon Valley Power
TBRA – Tenant Based Rental Assistance
TCAC – California Tax Credit Allocation Committee
TOD – Transit-Oriented Development
Relationship to Other General Plan Elements
Since statutory requirements addressed in this Element overlap with other General Plan components, such as Land Use, Transportation, Environmental Quality, and Public Facilities and Services, it is necessary to look at the 2010-2035 General Plan in its entirety for an understanding of the relationship between the Housing Element and these topic areas. This Element meets the minimum standards required by State law for a housing element. Related housing issues can be found elsewhere in the General Plan. This Element is intended to be consistent with the 2010-2035 General Plan, adopted in 2010.
Public Participation
The Housing Element must reflect the values and preferences of the community; therefore, public participation in the planning pr ocess is critical to ensuring this Housing Element represents community voices. Government Co de Section 65583(c)(9) states: “Include a diligent effort by the local government to achieve public participation of all economic segments of the community in the development of the h ousing element, and the program shall describe this effort.”
At its core, a H ousing Element is an opportunity to have a community conversation about how to address local housing challenges, establish goals, develop policies, and find solutions. As such, the public engagement process for Santa Clara utilized several channels to solicit input from a variety of stakeholders. Key comments gathered from the engagement process are summarized in Appendix A: Community Outreach and a list of general outreach efforts are listed below:
• Community Meetings
• Stakeholders Meetings, Questionnaires, and Interviews • Digital Surveys: English, Spanish, Vietnamese, Chinese (Simple) • Community Events
• Community Pop-ups
• Tenant Listening Sessions
• Planning Commission and Community Council Meetings
13.1 SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
At a high level, the community engagement was utilized to balance and align community input with State Housing Law requirements. With, consistent themes of affordability, housing type and tenure, housing choice, tenant protections, and homelessness the outreach process informed the Housing Plan actions, polices, and actions, and confirmed or highlighted trends identified by the demographic analysis. Specifically, outreach informed the creation of new efforts in the Housing Element as follows:
• 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 in cludes a planned effort to update the inclusionary ordinance to increase a greater number of units in the deeper affordability categories and t o redefine the City’s moderate affordability category to reflect a lower income range. Also proposed is including in the City’s Notice of Funding Availability specifications criteria that would prioritize City funding of Extremely Low Income and Very Low Income units.
• Consistent feedback was received throug h 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 pro vided recommendations that are being pursued through the creation in a Homelessness Plan with implementation actions. • Commentors provided feedback on the need for more displacement prevention. The Housing Plan includes the City Council future consideration of new policies and programs that would require no net loss of income restricted units during construction or rehabilitation of existing housing; replacement of existing affordable housing units at the same or lower affordability levels; landlord and City notification and information for tenants affected by efforts that would cause relocation; and require developers to provide relocation benefits beyond State requirements.
• Residents of affordable and special needs housing shared at listening session s 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.
A summary of community engagement meetings and survey data are included in Appendix A:
Community Outreach.
Public Review Draft and HCD Draft Housing Element
The Draft Housing Element was posted on the City’s website on July 1, 2022. From July 1, 2022 through August 1, 2022, the draft Housing Element was advertised for public review by emails to the City's Housing Element Update email list (944 subscribers as of 8/9/2022), City's Planning
Developer Stakeholder list (110 subscribers as of 8/9/2022), Housing no n-profit agencies and developers list (282), and emails to the Planning Commission and C ity Council. An online comment form was available for the public to provide feedback on the Draft Element. During this time, 24 public comments were received, as well as formal comment letters from Housing Choices, SV@Home, Partnership for the Bay’s Future, Carpenters Local 425, Anne Paulson, Life Services Alternatives, TransForm, and Housing Action Coalition . A summary of public comments and the formal comment let ters are included in Appendix A : Community Outreach.
In response to these comments, the Housing Element was reviewed, and edits were made incorporating public comments including, but not limited to:
• additions and clarifications to the Housing Plan,
• additions and clarifications to the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing analysis and clarifications on the Housing Resources calculations
• edits to the Housing Resources parcel inventory
• and other minor edits and clarifications that were less substantive but were provided for readability.
The draft Housing Element was then submitted to HCD on August 22, 2022 for a 90-day review and formal comment. The draft Housing Element remained available on the City’s website for additional public review and comment during the HCD review period. During the HCD review period the jurisdiction conducted additional public outreach and received additional public comment that was again incorporated into the draft Housing Element. And, upon receipt of the formal HCD comment letter the draft Housing Element was edited to address the findings specified in the letter and posted for public comment.
The Housing Element was revised in response to these comments and the public was invited to attend and comment on the Housing Element at hearings held before the Planning Commission and the City Council in January 2023. The revised Draft Housing Element was available on the website and at City Hall prior to each hearing.
On January 31, 2023, the City Council adopted Santa Clara’s 2023 -2031 (6 th Cycle) Housing Element and submitted to HCD for their 60 -day review . T he City received a formal findings/comment letter on March 28, 2023 identifying additional revisions needed to comply with State Housing Element law.
The Adopted Housing Element was revised to address HCDs comments and noticed public hearings were held before the Planning Commission and City Council in June 2023. Emails were sent to the City’s Housing Element Update topic subscribers (1,899 as of 5/ 30/2023) providing updates on the hearing schedule and the availability of draft revisions to the Adopted Housing Element and supporting materials on the we bsite and through the Planning Commission and City Council agendas.
13.1 SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
General Plan Consistency
All properties and land uses in the City are governed by the City's General Plan. The General Plan describes the long -term goals for the City’s future and guides daily decision -making. The time frame of the General Plan is 2010-2035. The Plan contains the City’s official policies on land use and community design, transportation, housing, environmental resources, and health and safety.
The Housing Element is part of the General Plan but operates on a state mandated schedule. The time frame for the Housing Element is 2023 -2031, therefore it has been prepared to maintain internal consistency with the current 2035 General Plan as required by State law. Specifically, the sites inventory reflects the capacity under the land use designations of the 2035 General Plan, as amended. Internal consistency will be evaluated and maintained as part of the City’s annual progress report (APR) pursuant to Government Code section 65400 and as general plan amendments occur.
The 6th-cycle Housing Element provides an opportunity to update the goals, policies, and actions identified in the 5 th-cycle Housing Element (2015-2023), a nd with the increased focus on Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH), which has heavily influenced the document, will provide a framework for how the City evaluates future General Plan amendments and the next comprehensive General Plan update.
Background and Purpose .......................................................................................................................... 1 Regulatory Framework ............................................................................................................................. 2 Scope and Content of the Housing Element .......................................................................................... 3 Acronyms .................................................................................................................................................... 3 Relationship to Other General Plan Elements ....................................................................................... 5 Public Participation .................................................................................................................................... 5 Public Review Draft Housing Element ................................................................................................... 6 General Plan Consistency ......................................................................................................................... 8
13.1
Chapter 13.2
Housing Plan
The goals, policies, and actions delineated in this chapter serve to support the City’s vision of providing decent housing and a suitable living environment for every resident.
Goals and Policies
The Housing Plan identifies the City’s goals for neighborhood conservation, housing production, housing support, and housing opportunities. The goals are supported by policies which are implemented through a series of actions.
Goal A Create and maintain high-quality, livable, and diverse housing stock within the City of Santa Clara.
Policy A -1: Maintain and improve the quality of residential housing stock, address housing deficiencies and prevent future blight through the encouragement of ongoing maintenance, rehabilitation, and conservation of existing housing stock.
Policy A-2: Provide residential code enforcement for conformance with City Code and Zoning Ordinance regulations.
Policy A-3: Utilize objective design standards to streamline the housing development process.
Policy A -4: Seek collaborative efforts with regional entities and utility service providers to subsidize and incentivize residential energy and water conservation.
Policy A-5: Proactively plan for sufficient housing capacity through infill development that is compatible with existing neighborhoods and through the preparation of neighborhood plans that will support the development of new, complete neighborhoods.
Goal B Designate suitable vacant or underutilized sites for new residential development.
Policy B-1: Identify potential sites for affordable housing units in areas of “high opportunity” as defined by the state.
Policy B -2: Encourage the building of high -density housing on appropriate vacant or underutilized sites.
Policy B-3: Identify and facilitate the award of local, regional, state, and federal funding sources to support housing development, housing infrastructure, and amenities.
13.2 SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Policy B-4: Identify and potentially designate surplus land that can accommodate low, very-low, and extremely low-income residential development.
Policy B-5: Encourage high density residential development utilizing the City’s higher density and mixed-use residential designations in proximity to transit and other residential services.
Goal C Increase special needs housing opportunities for persons of all economic levels.
Policy C-1: The City shall collaborate with services agencies and community-based organizations to prioritize loans and grants toward housing for seniors, persons with disabilities, persons with mental illness, large families with children, female -headed households, victims of domestic violence, and people who are experiencing homelessness.
Policy C-2: Improve proximity and connections between special needs housing and high-quality transit stops, job centers, educational institutions, day care, open space, community services, and healthy food options.
Policy C-3: Participate in local, regional, State, an d federal programs and efforts that support affordable, transitional, supportive, and permanent housing and address the needs of disadvantaged populations and those experiencing homelessness.
Policy C -4: Ensure compliance with all State and federal regulat ions relating to housing opportunities and the prevention of discrimination based on religion, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry, familial status, source of income, or mental or physical disability and any other protected classes under federal and State law.
Goal D Promote a variety of housing types, tenure, and location, including higher density where possible, especially for lower and moderate income and special needs households.
Policy D-1: Continue to identify and apply for funding that supports the development of housing for extremely-low and very low-income residents and special needs households.
Policy D-2: Continue to utilize General Plan land use and zoning updates to provide increased opportunity and flexibility in providing a variety of housing types and tenure.
Policy D-3: Periodically review the City’s ordinances, policies, and procedures and make changes to reduce or remove constraints to housing development.
Policy D-4: Promote the use of density bonuses and development incentives to facilitate a variety of housing types and tenure.
Policy D-5: Encourage the construction of accessory and junior accessory dwelling units through outreach, education, and links to regional technical assistance.
Goal E Affirmatively further fair housing by increasing access to opportunity, reducing displacement impacts, reducing cost burden, targeting outreach to lower income residents, and rehabilitating substandard living conditions.
Policy E-1: Improve access to opportunity by working to improve the quality of life for residents of lower income communities, as well as supporting residents’ mobility and access to ‘high resource’ neighborhoods.
Policy E-2: Work to reduce d isplacement of lower income residents from Santa Clara and to reduce the impact of relocation on low-income households.
Policy E-3: Conduct proactive outreach in areas of the City with less access to opportunity, to build awareness of services including fair housing complaint investigation, landlord tenant mediation, eviction and homelessness prevention counseling, and opportunities to apply for new affordable housing through the HouseKeys application portal.
Policy E -4. Conduct regular outreach, education, and affirmative marketing with community partners that have access to populations experiencing disproportionate housing problems a nd encourage early participation from a diverse set of residents and other stakeholders in the development of long-range plans and the review of new development proposals.
Policy E-5: Increase public participation by translating public outreach documents (e.g., flyers, surveys) as part of the public participation process and when marketing the City’s affordable housing lotteries.
Policy E-6: Continue to provide, when appropriate and feasible, options for either virtual, in - person, or hybrid community meetings to allow for broader community participation.
Implementing Actions
Each Goal outlined in the Housing Plan is supported by one or more policies, which are often implemented by specific actions. Many of the identified actions below will implement multiple policies and goals. Some policies offer direction to Staff and appointed/elected officials in making decisions related to the provision of housing but are not implemented through specific housing programs.
Objectives for each action are either categorized as “Discrete” (objective to be completed during the timeframe of the Housing Element) or “Ongoing” (objective that happens throughout the timeframe of the Housing Element).
13.2 SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Action 1: Provision of a Variety of Housing Types
The City of Santa Clara supports and encourages the development of a variety of housing types to rent and to own in a variety of locations to maintain social and economic diversity in the community. During the Housing Element planning period, the Cit y will promote the development of accessory units, affordable one- and two-story additions to single-family homes, and other lower income housing alternatives.
Funding Source: Departmental Budget
Responsible Agency: Planning Division and Housing and Community Services Division Discrete Objectives:
- By November 2023, adopt the comprehensive Zoning Ordinance update with revised provisions to allow a variety of housing types through a by- right approval process using objective standards, including:
• Single-room occupancy units (SROs)
• Employee housing
• Emergency shelters
• Low barrier navigation centers
• Permanent supportive housing
• Residential care facilities
- As a part of the Zoning Ordinance Update, acknowledge group homes (residential care facilities) for 7 or more residents and separately enumerate residential care facility uses with 6 or fewer residents. - As a part of the Zoning Ordinance Update, incorporate changes to state Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) law and incentivize the creation of ADUs by removing parking requirements and providing more flexible height standards
- By January 1, 2024, the City of Santa Clara Building Division will:
• Compile and post on the Building Division page a list of information needed to approve a post entitlement phase
permit
• Post on the Building Division page an example of a complete approved application and an example of a complete set of post entitlement phase permits for at least 5 types of housing development projects: ADU, duplex, multifamily, mixed use, and townhome.
- By 2026, or as funds become available, through the provision of a notice of funding availability (NOFA), prioritize loans for the development of extremely low and very low-income housing alternatives, such as single- room occupancy (SRO) units, senior housing, family housing, housing for persons with disabilities (including developmental disabilities), licensed residential care homes, etc. (This responds to community feedback that 80-120% AMI housing is no longer affordable enough for many residents in Santa Clara).
- By 2030 increase the stock of:
• Extremely low and very low income rental housing designed for persons with developmental disabilities by 35% from 56 in 2023 to 76.
• Extremely low and very low income rental housing for
elderly persons by 20% from 736 in 2023 to 884.
• Income restricted three and four bedroom affordable rental housing units to serve large households in Santa Clara by 20% from 107 units in 2023 to 129 units.
-By 2030, increase access to interim housing units, rapid rehousing, and emergency shelter beds by 30% from 453 in 2023 to 589.
- By the end of 2026, reassess demand for urban farmworker housing (current and retired workers) and gauge the interest and feasibility among developers to utilize the Joe Serna Jr. Farmworker Housing Grant Program when funds become available.
13.2 SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Ongoing Objectives (on an annual basis, unless otherwise noted):
- E xplore regional and state funding sources to build more housing opportunities for persons with disabilities and for extremely low- income households.
- Report on the production of ADUs through the City’s Annual Progress Report (APR). If the pace of ADU production falls below the level necessary to achieve 392 ADUs during the 2023- 2031 planning period (approximately 49 ADUs/year), within six months o f acceptance of the APR, present a plan to City Council to remove barriers and/or further incentivize ADU production (e.g., through additional Zoning changes). - Continue participating in the development and implementation of the Santa Clara County Planning Collaborative ADU Program, which will include a central online resource for making it easier to build ADUs , including an ADU Guidebook, gallery of ADU plans, examples/stories of real ADUs that have been built, and an ADU cost calculator.
Relevant Policies: Policy A-3, Policy B-1, Policy B-3, Policy C-1, Policy C-2, Policy C-3, Policy C-4, Policy D-1, Policy D-2, Policy D-3, Policy D-4, Policy D-5
Action 2: Affordable Housing Ordinance
The City’s Affordable Housing Ordinance requires developers of residential developments of 10 or more units to provide the following:
• Rental projects - 15% of rental units must be affordable to renters of extremely low, very low, low, and moderate income households, as long as the distribution of affordable units averages to a maximum of 100% of AMI.
• For sale/ownership projects - 15% of units must be affordable to extremely low, very low, low, and moderate income households, a s long as the distribution of affordable units averages to a maximum of 100% of AMI.
The Affordable Housing Ordinance has two components: Below Market Rental (BMR) program and Below Market Purchase (BMP) program. The City offers BMR and BMP units to incom e- qualified households. This program is an important tool for providing very low, low and moderate income housing opportunities.
Funding Source: Inclusionary Housing
Responsible Agency: Housing and Community Services Division
Discrete Objectives:
- By the middle of 2025:
• Update the citywide affordable housing ordinance to align with recent feasibility studies and area plan approvals for the Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan and the Freedom Circle Focus Area that support deeper affordability requirements (5% very low income, 5% low income, and 5% moderate
income) for inclusionary rental and ownership projects.
Complying with the proposed affordability requirements
would entitle developers to use the Density Bonus provisions of state law.
• Assess the feasibility of updating the ordinance’s definition of “moderate income” units from 120% AMI to 100% AMI to
further distinguish the difference between “moderate
income” and market rents. This responds to stakeholder
feedback that 120% AMI is not affordable for many residents and in some cases exceeds market rents.
• Conduct community outreach to present and receive
feedback on the feasibility study and bring the study and summary of community feedback to City Council.
• Determine the feasibility and marketability of changes to the BMP program that would keep new BMP homes affordable,
or deed restricted, for 20-30 years instead of just five years.
Such changes could also make the City’s BMP program
compatible with the County’s new Below Market Rate
Partnership program which aims to assist low and very low- income first-time homebuyers. This responds to stakeholder feedback that homeownership is desired but increasingly less attainable in Santa Clara.
13.2 SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Ongoing Objectives (on an annual basis, unless otherwise noted):
- Monitor and report the effectiveness of the Affordable Housing Ordinance in expanding affordable housing choices through the City’s Annual Progress Report to HCD.
- Conduct in-person outreach once per year in low and moderate resource areas of the City to educate residents on how to use local and regional housing lottery systems and fair housing resources.
Relevant Policies: Policy B-1, Policy B-2, Policy B-3, Policy C-1, Policy C-2, Policy C-3, Policy C-4, Policy D-1, Policy D-4
Action 3: Affordable Housing Incentives and Facilitation For-profit and nonprofit developers play a significant role in providing affordable housing in Santa Clara. The City will proactively encourage and facilitate the development efforts of developers and organizations for the construction of affordable housing for lower inc ome households, particularly those with special needs including seniors, large households, extremely low income households, households with persons who have disabilities (including developmental disabilities), and licensed residential care homes.
Funding Source: CDBG; HOME; General Fund
Responsible Agency: Planning Division and Housing and Community Services Division Discrete Objectives:
- By June 2023, create and post an SB 35 checklist and written procedures for processing SB 35 applications.
- Prior to the end of 2024, the City will conduct public outreach and issue a request for proposals to develop mixed income or 100% affordable housing on the vacant former site of the King’s Highway Motel on El Camino Real.
Ongoing Objectives (on an annual basis, unless otherwise noted):
- Encourage and assist in efforts to combine public and private funds in joint housing ventures that maximize affordability.
- 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, and expediting review and processing of affordable housing. - Apply reduced parking requirements for transit-rich environments from the Zoning Ordinance Update to proposed long-range plans, including the El Camino Real Specific Plan and the Santa Clara Station Area Plan, which will positively impact housing, transportation and other plan goals.
- As appropriate, collaborate with neighboring jurisdictions to pursue funding opportunities for affordable housing programs.
- Utilize CDBG and HOME funds in conjunction with other cities’ funds to construct or rehabilitate shelters, public service facilities, and to provide housing services.
- Review best practices to identify appropriate incentives and policies to support affordable housing development in the City including fee deferral, reduction, or waivers.
Relevant Policies: Policy B-1, Policy B-2, Policy B-3, Policy B-4, Policy B-5, Policy C-1, Policy C-2, Policy C-3, Policy C-4, Policy D-1, Policy D-2, Policy D-3, Policy D-4, Policy D-5
Action 4: Maintenance of Housing Stock
Since 1976, the City of Santa Clara has assisted more than 1,000 homeowners to rehabilitate and increase the value of their homes through the Neighborhood Conservation and Improvement Program (NCIP). Under the direction of the City of Santa Clara Housing and Community Services Division and in partnership with Rebuilding Together Silicon Valley , NCIP offers technical and financial assistance to qualified homeowners. The program is designed for citywide households with gross incomes at or below 80 percent of County median income. Various types of minor and major repairs may be addressed, including accessibility improvements, re-roofing, plumbing, heating/cooling, electrical, termite damage, foundation, and weatherization. The costs for home repairs are covered through a grant or a loan depending on the size of the project.
The Multi-Family Affordable Energy Efficiency progra m allows for the City’s special revenue funds in partnership with Silicon Valley Power (SVP) to pay for energy consultants to recommend and create a scope of work for specific SVP project rebates. The program also allows for the City to provide assistance for the cost of installation and facilitates the grant administration process.
Funding Source: CDBG, HOME / Special Revenue Funds (in partnership with SVP)
13.2 SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Responsible Agency: Housing and Community Services Division Discrete Objectives:
- By the end of 2024, conduct outreach to single-family home residential care facilities that serve protected classes including persons with disabilities to determine interest in and the feasibility of including these properties in future CDBG/HOME Notices of Funding Availability to address rehabilitation and emergency repairs in these facilities. (This objective responds to feedback from Life Services Alternatives) - By fall 2025, market future CDBG capital NOFAs to residential care facilities for repair and renovation work to begin in summer 2026. The NOFA shall include extra points for projects that serve persons with disabilities and/or extremely low income households.
Ongoing Objectives (on an annual basis, unless otherwise noted):
- Assist approximately 200 low, very low, and extremely low income homeowners with rehabilitation and emergency repair assistance through loans and grants.
- 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 in both primary and secondary dwelling units.
- Through the CDBG program, to address rising average temperatures, promote NOFA process for installation of HVAC improvements for sensitive populations, including seniors in multifamily housing. (This response to feedback from seniors that live in apartments that do not have air conditioning).
Relevant Policies: Policy A-1
Action 5: Preservation of Assisted Rental Housing & NOAH To meet the housing needs of persons of all economic groups, the City is committed to guarding against the loss of housing units reserved for lower income households. Four assisted rental projects, with a total of 45 units in Santa Clara are identified to be at potential, albeit very low, risk of conversion to market rate use between June 2028 and October 2031. In addition, the City will monitor the status of naturally occurring affordable housing (NOAH)
Funding Source: Departmental Budget
Responsible Agency: Housing and Community Services Division Ongoing Objectives (on an annual basis, unless otherwise noted):
- Continue to assist property owners of income restricted housing to make periodic capital improvements to their property, to improve energy efficiency and to extend affordability.
- Continue to monitor and analyze inventory of income restricted projects/units that may be at-risk of losing affordability controls and maintain contact with the property owners regarding long-term plans for their projects.
- Maintain contact with public and nonprofit agencies (qualified entities), such as the Sobrato Family Foundation, BRIDGE Housing, and MidPen Housing that have expressed interest in purchasing, managing, or financing the acquisition of at-risk units.
- Explore new funding sources that can be used for preservation from the Bay Area Housing Finance Authority (BAHFA) and other state sources. -Work with owners of at-risk income restricted housing to restructure City loans in exchange for extended affordability restrictions. - Work with tenants of at-risk units, providing them with information regarding tenant rights and conversion procedures, including the property owner requirement to provide a minimum 12-month notice of intent if they choose to opt out of low-income use restrictions. - By the end of 2024, develop a list of naturally occurring affordable housing (NOAH) locations and meet with interested property owners to facilitate possible connections between sellers, affordable housing developers, and funding sources.
- In 2025, 2027, and 2029, monitor the risk of conversion of naturally occurring affordable housing (NOAH) by contacting owners of the highest risk properties to determine their intentions and continue to coordinate with qualified entities regarding the conversion of NOAH to income-restricted affordable housing.
Relevant Policies: Policy A-1, Policy A-2, Policy A-4, Policy B-1, Policy B-4, Policy C-4, Policy D-1, Policy D-2, Policy D-3, Policy D-4, Policy D-5
13.2 SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Action 6: Acquisition of Multi-Family Housing
As a strategy to expand the City’s affordable housing inventory, Santa Clara will continue to explore opportuni ties for the acquisition/rehabilitation of multi- family housing. As funding permits, the City will work with nonprofit organizations to acquire and rehabilitate deteriorating and distressed properties and convert them into affordable rental housing for lower income households, including those with special needs.
Funding Source: CDBG; HOME
Responsible Agency: Housing and Community Services Division Discrete Objectives:
- By end of 2025ar, present to the City Council the findings from an analysis of the need/benefit and resources required to implement a Community Opportunity Purchase Act (COPA) program in the City of Santa Clara. A COPA program gives a qualified nonprofit buyer the right to make a first offer on a residential property that is for sale covered by the program.
Ongoing Objectives (on an annual basis, unless otherwise noted):
- Create a database of naturally occurring affordable housing and annually monitor property sales and/or permit applications to identify conversion trends early.
- Explore funding sources available at the regional, state, and federal levels to support affordable housing developers with
acquisition/rehabilitation opportunities.
- Work with nonprofit entities to acquire properties and rehabilitate existing multi-family structures to be maintained as or converted into affordable rental housing. Prioritize assistance for housing that is within one half mile of rail transit stations or that is in a high or highest opportunity area according to TCAC.
Relevant Policies: Policy B-1, Policy C-1, Policy C-2, Policy C-3, Policy D-1
Action 7: Code Enforcement Program
Code enforcement is essential to ensuring housing conservation and rehabilitation. The City maintains a strong housing inspection and code enforcement program to ensure adequate maintenance of the housing stock and quality of residential neighborhoods. In an average year, the City receives several thousand complaints related to possible code enforcement violations. In many cases, the responsible party for the code violation is given the opportunity to voluntarily correct the situation and comply with current codes without a penalty.
Funding Source: CDBG, General Fund
Responsible Agency: Planning Division, Building Inspection, Police Department Discrete Objectives:
- By the second half of 2024, establish pilot multi-family residential housing inspection and educational programs that are self-funded through fees with a focus on census block groups with high concentrations of persons with disabilities, disproportionate housing needs, and overcrowding.
Ongoing Objectives (on an annual basis, unless otherwise noted):
- Proactively and systematically respond to housing code violations. - 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.
Relevant Policies: Policy A-1, Policy A-2, Policy A-3
Action 8: Neighborhood Relations Programs
Since 1990, the Neighborhood -University Relations Committee (NURC) (formerly Student Housing Committee) has been responsible for reviewing student housing issues. NURC meets regularly to facilitate on -going communication and problem solving among City officials, neighborhoods, property owners and Santa Clara University (SCU) officials and students. Santa Clara University has established a Residency Requirement for Freshman and Sophomore students, with some exceptions, to live on campus. In 2022, the City convened an ad hoc Homelessness Task Force which will be replaced in 2023 with a permanent Housing Commission.
The new commission will advise on the use of the City’s federal CDBG and HOME funds, and on the City’s homelessness response efforts.
13.2 SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Funding Source: General Fund
Responsible Agency: Housing and Community Services Division Ongoing Objectives (on an annual basis, unless otherwise noted):
- Starting in late 2023, utilize the newly formed Housing Commission to advise on CDBG and HOME grant administration for capital projects and community services, and on the City’s homelessness response efforts.
-
Improve the maintenance of student-occupied homes and behavior of the occupants via owner outreach to minimize impacts on neighborhoods surrounding 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.
Relevant Policies: Policy A-1, Policy A-2, Policy A-3, Policy C-4, Policy E-2, Policy E-3
Action 9: Zoning Ordinance
The City is currently undertaking a comprehensive update to its Zoning Ordinance to reflect the current goals and policies of the 2010-2035 General Plan. As part of this update, the City will revise its provisions for parking, including reduced parking requirements and unbundled parking for multi-family uses in transit-rich environments. The Zoning Ordinance Update will also include provisions for a variety o f housing types, including low-barrier navigation centers, residential care facilities, employee housing, and SRO housing. The update is expected to be completed in November 2023. The comprehensive Zoning update is intended to bring consistency between the Zoning Ordinance and the General Plan, implementing the General Plan goals by facilitating mixed use development and higher density residential development, protecting existing neighborhoods, and incentivizing redevelopment with appropriate development standards and streamlined procedures.
Funding Source: General Fund
Responsible Agency: Planning Division
Discrete Objectives:
- Complete the comprehensive update to the Zoning Ordinance by November 2023. The Zoning Code will include provisions that:
• Provide for by-right approval of a variety of housing types (see Action 1)
• Allow emergency shelters by right in the R-3 and R-4
Residential districts, the C-C and C-R Commercial districts, and the MU-VHD Mixed Use district, and allow emergency
shelters in the LI Light Industrial and PQP Public/Quasi- Public districts with the issuance of a Minor Use Permit. • Further reduce use of Planned Developments (PDs) by
including new high-density residential and mixed-use zoning districts that conform to the General Plan and by allowing by- right approvals thatmeet objective development standards o Any nonvacant site in the 6th Cycle Housing Element
Sites Inventory that was identified in a previous (i.e., 5th or 4th Cycle) Housing Element would need to provide a
minimum of 20 percent of the units affordable to lower
income households in order to be approved by right.
• Allow by-right expansion of single-family homes built with non-conforming side setbacks and/or one-car garages
• Bring the City into compliance with State Density Bonus Law (SDBL), including recently adopted legislation that goes into effect in 2023.
• Revamp residential parking requirements, including
unbundling and make appropriate reductions in parking
requirements according to housing type (i.e., reduced parking requirements for units for people with developmental and other disabilities)
• Apply adopted zoning designations to the City’s Zoning map, consistent with the City’s General Plan, which will add
13.2 SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
additional housing sites totaling 1,242 units to the El Camino Real corridor.
• Include the ability for the Director of Community
Development to allow up to two (2) one-year permit
extensions administratively.
Ongoing Objectives (on an annual basis, unless otherwise noted):
- Monitor the Zoning Ordinance for any potential constraints to the development of housing, particularly housing for persons with special needs (includi ng those with developmental disabilities) and amend the Zoning Ordinance to address those constraints.
Relevant Policies: Policy B-2, Policy B-4, Policy B-5, Policy C-2, Policy D-2, Policy D-3, Policy D-4, Policy D-5
Action 10: Adequate Sites Inventory
The City is committed to ensuring that adequate sites at appropriate densities remain available during the planning period, as required by law. The residential sites analysis completed for the 2023-2031 Housing Element indicates th e City can accommodate its RHNA of 11,632 units, including 2,872 very low income units, 1,653 low income units, 1,981 moderate income units, and 5,126 above moderate income units.
Funding Source: Departmental Budget
Responsible Agency: Planning Division
Discrete Objectives:
- To supplement the City’s housing sites inventory and to prepare for the 7th Housing Element cycle:
• By the end of 2025, to encourage transit- based development, complete the Santa Clara Station Area Plan.
• By the end of 2025, to encourage mixed -use development, complete the El Camino Real Specific Plan.
Ongoing Objectives (on an annual basis, unless otherwise noted):
- Monitor the stat us of approved and proposed projects on the Housing Sites Inve ntory. Include a table wi th 6 th Cycle APRs that describes the status of projects listed in Table 13.6-2 Pending and Approved Projects. - As a part of monitoring the status of approved projects, when an entitlement is nearing expiration, proactively notify applicants to apply for extension.
- In the event that proposed projects are not approved within two years of HCD certification of the Housing Element , rework the Housing Element Sites Inventory to include additional sites, as needed, to ensure sufficient capacity to meet the City’s RHNA at all income levels. - 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.
- Monitor and report on the dispersion of affordable units throughout the City.
- Review housing sites inventory at time of development proposal to determine consistency with proposed density and assumed density in the Housing Element.
- Maintain a no net loss of units identified in the 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.
Relevant Policies: Policy B-1, Policy B-2, Policy B-3, Policy B-4, Policy C-2, Policy D-1, Policy D-2, Policy D-3, Policy D-4, Policy D-5
Action 11: Impact Fees
The City charges various impact fees to provide essential services and facilities to serve new development. The City will conduct an impact fee study to compare the City’s fees with surrounding and similar jurisdictions.
13.2 SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Funding Source: Departmental Budget
Responsible Agency: Planning Division
Discrete Objectives:
- By the end of 2025 conduct and present the results of an impact fee study to the City Council to 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 for either market rate or affordable developments, take actions by July 2026 to adjust fees as appropriate.
- By the beginning of 2029 conduct and present the results of an impact fee study to the City Council to 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 for either market rate or affordable developments, take actions by July 2031 to adjust fees as appropriate.
Relevant Policies: Policy B-2, Policy B-3, Policy B-5, Policy C-3, Policy D-1
Action 12: Affordable Housing Funding
The City will continue to explore gaining access to additional re sources that provide a steady funding stream for affordable housing. These may include, funding from the Bay Area Housing Finance Authority, County, State, federal, housing or land trust funds, and private sector support, partnerships, or philanthropy.
Funding Source: Departmental Budget Planning
Responsible Agency: Planning Division and Housing and Community Services Division Discrete Objectives:
- By the end of 2025, staff will organize a City Council study session to explore new sources of funding for the development of extremely low income and very low-income affordable housing including strategies to compete for and leverage federal, state, county and philanthropic funds, financial contributions from large employers, local revenue measures and other funding sources.
Ongoing Objectives (on an annual basis, unless otherwise noted):
- Annually, staff will evaluate Notices of Funding Availability (NOFAs) from State, federal, and regional programs and pursue funding applications as appropriate.
Relevant Policies: Policy B-3, Policy C-1, Policy C-3, Policy D-1
Action 13: Residential Displacement
Development in the City has primarily occurred as the recycling of existing marginal commercial and industrial uses into higher density multi -family housing. As such, the City has not yet experienced direct displacement of lower income households due to new development. As redevelopment of existing uses continues, the City will evaluate potential displacement of residents, and develop and adopt measures, as appropriate, to address the risk of direct or indirect displacement of those existing residents. The City will monitor such measures bi- annually for effectiveness and make necessary adjustments.
Funding Source: Departmental Budget
Responsible Agency: Planning Division
Discrete Objectives:
- By the end of 2025 analyze the feasibility of setting a rent deposit limit and present findings from that analysis to the Housing Commission and City Council.
- Within one year of Housing Element adoption, evaluate and provide recommendations to City Council on new programs and policies that prevent displacement and/or facilitate soft landings when relocation is unavoidable. This evaluation will include the following policy areas at a minimum:
• Requiring no net loss of income-restricted residential units during the construction of new housing or rehabilitation of existing housing.
• Requiring the replacement of existing affordable units at the same or lower income level as a condition of development. • Requiring landlords to notify tenants and the City at least one year in advance of redevelopment and/or potential
13.2 SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
conversion to market rate housing. Provide information
regarding tenant rights and conversion procedures.
• Require developers to provide relocation benefits beyond those required by the state.
• Policies, programs and procedures that help minimize the risk of displacement caused by substandard conditions
including through local code enforcement activities.
- Within two years of Housing Element adoption, adopt programs and policies to address displacement with bi-annual monitoring and reporting of effectiveness.
Ongoing Objectives (on an annual basis, unless otherwise noted):
- Continue to fund tenant landlord resources and dispute resolution services.
- Continue to fund the regional Homelessness Prevention System (HPS) lead by Destination Home which provides emergency rent and deposit assistance and housing counseling services.
- Continue to market new below market rate rental (BMR) and ownership (BMP) opportunities broadly, and especially to residents living in lower income areas of the City.
Relevant Policies: Policy B-1, Policy B-2, Policy B-3, Policy B-4, Policy B-5, Policy C-1, Policy C-3, Policy D-2, Policy D-3, Policy D-4, Policy D-5
Action 14: Housing Choice Voucher Program
The Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program extends rental subsidies to very low income households, as well as elderly and disabled persons. The subsidy represents the difference between 30 percent of the monthly income and the allowable rent determined by the Section 8 program. Vouchers permit tenants to locate their own housing and rent units beyond the federally determined fair market rent in an area. The City’s role in this action will be to advocate for more Housing Choice Vouchers for Santa Clara residents.
Funding Source: Section 8
Responsible Agency: Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara Continue to participate in and promote the Housing Choice Voucher Program.
Ongoing Objectives (on an annual basis, unless otherwise noted):
-Advocate for additional project and person -based vouchers for seniors and other special needs groups on fixed incomes in Santa Clara through partnerships with the affordable housing developers, Santa Clara County Housing Authority, and the County’s Office of Supportive Housing. This responds to stakeholder feedback that seniors and households on fixed incomes cannot afford rent increases that are based on escalating HCD Income Limits.
- Annually assist the Housing Authority with the promotion of incentives that encourage landlords to accept Housing Choice Vouchers to ensure that voucher holders can find housing and avoid displacement or homelessness.
- Continue to refer households in need to the Housing Authority’s Housing Choice Voucher Application Portal.
Relevant Policies: Policy B-3, Policy C-1, Policy C-3, Policy D-1
Action 15: Homeownership for First-Time Buyers
The City continues to create affordable ownership units through its Inclusionary Housing Policy.
HouseKeys partners with Santa Clara staff to offer the units created through the Inclusionary Housing - Below Market Purchase (BMP) program to income-qualified households. The intent of the BMP program is to offer low and moderate income homebuyers an opportunity to purchase a home they would not ordinarily be able to afford. If a BMP homeowner wishes to sell the home between 6-20 years after purchase , they must pay back the City’s remaining note value and a share of the equity increase.
Other resources for affordable homeownership are also available to Santa Clara residents. These include the Housing Trust Silicon Valley , Mortgage Credit Certificates , Habitat for Humanity, and Santa Clara County’s Office of Supportive Housing.
The Housing Trust Silicon Valley Empower Homebuyers SCC program provides loans to low- and moderate-income homebuyers in Silicon Valley in the form of low-interest, second mortgages and down -payment assistance . Santa Clara residents are eligible for two types of assistance offered by the Housing Trust, mortgage assistance and gap assistance.
The Mortgage Credit Certificate Program (MCC), administered by the County of Santa Clara Office of Affordable Housing, provides financial assistance to first-time homebuyers. The Santa Clara County MCC tax credit reduces the federal income taxes of qualified borrowers purchasing
13.2 SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
qualified homes, thus having the effect of a mortgage subsidy. The current tax credit rate is up to 15 percent of the interest paid to the lender on the first loan.
Habitat for Humanity East Bay/Silicon Valley provides ownership opportunities for first- time homebuyers via a sweat equity and savings plan programs. Households, friends, and family contribute 250-500 hours of sweat equity into the construction of their homes.
Santa Clara County’s Measure A also sets aside funds to assist first time homebuyers. In 2023, the County will roll out new programs that help low income households attain home ownership.
Additionally, SB 9, signed into law in September of 2021 and effective January 1, 2022, allows property owners within single-family residential zones to build two units and/or to subdivide an existing lot into two parcels, for a total of four units that can each be sold as separate units, can help enable affordable home ownership for first time buyers.
Funding Source: Inclusionary Housing
Responsible Agency: Housing and Community Services Division and HouseKeys Discrete Objectives:
- By the end of 2024, present to the City Council proposed changes to the BMP program to keep homes affordable for longer than 5 years by requiring resale to income eligible homeowners in the program. This change could also make Santa Clara’s BMP program compatible with Santa Clara County subsidies that are intended to make homeownership attainable for low and very low-income households. If approved, implement the change by December 2025.
Ongoing Objectives (on an annual basis, unless otherwise noted):
- Continue to promote homeownership for first time buyers through units that are income restricted and marketed under the City’s inclusionary ordinance.
- Encourage program participation for all levels of household income that meet eligibility criteria.
- Continue to promote homebuyer assistance programs through the Housing Trust Silicon Valley, County of Santa Clara, Habitat for Humanity, and the County’s Office of Supportive Housing (Measure A).
Relevant Policies: Policy B-3, Policy C-1, Policy D-1
Action 16: Fair Housing Program
The City contracts with a qualified fair housing services provider to provide fair housing services to its residents. Currently, the City utilizes Project Sentinel, a nonprofit agency that provides information and dispute resolution services to tenants, landlords, and roommates. Since 2009, Project Sentinel has assisted over 1,000 Santa Clara households and landlords to resolve disputes through counseling, conciliation, and mediation.
Funding Source: CDBG
Responsible Agency: Housing and Community Services Division Discrete Objectives:
-By the end of 2025, bring forward a proposal for City Council consideration to write an ordinance that requires landlords to provide a City approved multilingual brochure to all tenants with every lease signing that summarizes landlord and tenant rights under state law. If the ordinance is approved, conduct a series of educational workshops with local landlords and tenants.
- By fall 2028, develop a CDBG Notice of Funding Availability that awards additional points to place-based capital improvements that improve access to opportunities in HUD designated low-income and distressed areas of the City.
- By June 2027, complete construction of 36 curb ramps, 12 curb bulb-outs, 50 feet of new sidewalk, 2 new traffic signals, 2 new Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons, 2 new Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons, upgrade 2 existing traffic signals, install 10 streetlights, and install over 5,000 ft of Class II & III bike lanes at various locations along Cabrillo Ave, Lafayette St, Monroe St, Royal Dr, Scott Blvd, and Warburton Ave in Central Santa Clara to improve safety and mobility. This area overlaps with an MTC Equity Priority Community and is considered a Low Opportunity Area by TCAC.
- By 2027, Market the Silicon Valley Hopper ride share service Citywide in Central and North Santa Clara once it becomes available. This service will help connect lower income residents to major employment centers, VTA Light Rail, Caltrain and the future BART station.
13.2 SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Ongoing Objectives (on an annual basis, unless otherwise noted):
- Continue to refer tenant-landlord complaints to an agency offering meditation, within five (5) business days of receiving the complaint. - 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.
- Work with Project Sentinel and other nonprofit organizations to improve the City’s webpage to include more landlord/tenant rights resources, rights regarding reasonable accommodation, and contact information in a format that is easily translatable using a web browser. - Partner with nonprofit organizations and hold in-person open house events and meetings at least twice per year to distribute fair housing information, resources about how to apply for affordable housing, distribute multilingual collateral (Spanish, Chinese, and Vietnamese) about landlord tenant rights under state law, rights regarding reasonable accommodation, and other forms of assistance and housing services - Refer disputes between property owners to the County Human Relations Commission’s Dispute Officer within five (5) busine ss days of the City being informed of the dispute.
Relevant Policies: Policy B-3, Policy C-1, Policy C-4, Policy D-1
Action 17: Homeless Services
In 2022 the City convened a six -month Homelessness Taskforce. The Taskforce included stakeholders with a range of perspectives and experience to help identify priorities and provide recommendations related to the development of a local plan to reduce homeles sness and its impacts. Additionally, the City’s Police Department conducts outreach through the Community Response Team and the Housing and Community Services Division administers grants to several local agencies that offer services to the homeless. The following agencies have received funding from the City:
• WeHope Dignity on Wheels Mobile Shower and Laundry Service
• Santa Clara County Homelessness Prevention System (HPS) • Santa Clara County case management for permanent supportive housing clients • Next Door Solutions to Domestic Violence
• Emergency Housing Consortium
• St. Justin Community Ministry
• Bill Wilson Center
• Abode Services
• Community Technology Alliance
• InnVision
Funding Source: CDBG, HOME, HOME ARP, PHLA
Responsible Agency: Housing and Community Services Division Discrete Objectives:
- Adopt and begin implementation the City’s Homelessness Response Plan byfall 2023. The Plan identifies the following priority areas:
• Conduct proactive street outreach with the goal of assessing people for supportive housing
• Address basic needs of people living outside, including shelter, health, and hygiene
• Build community understanding of the causes, needs, and experience of homelessness
• Reduce the impacts of unsheltered homelessness throughout the community
• Create broad based support for interim and permanent
supportive housing as well as Extremely Low Income (ELI) housing development across the City
• Prevent homelessness for at-risk City residents
13.2 SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Ongoing Objectives (on an annual basis, unless otherwise noted):
- Continue to provide street outreach through the Police Department’s Community Response Team and additional proactive strategies to ensure that people experiencing homelessness in the City are assessed as part of the Coordinated Entry System and connected to other services. - Continue to invest HOME funds into the City’s Tenant Based Rental Assistance (TBRA) program.
- Continue to invest in the regional Homelessness Prevention System to provide emergency rent assistance, deposit assistance, and case management services.
- Target services to vulnerable populations, including at-risk youth, seniors, and persons with disabilities and unhoused families with children.
Relevant Policies: Policy B-3, Policy C-3, Policy D-1
Action 18: Shared Housing
Shared housing can be an affordable alternative for lower income seniors, disabled, and special needs residents when sufficient support and property management services are included. The City can support this housing type through acquisition and rehabilitation subsidies.
Funding Source: Departmental Budget, CDBG
Responsible Agency: Housing and Community Services Division Discrete Objectives:
- In 2024, evaluate the need for shared housing services as part of the 2025-2030 HUD Consolidated Planning process.
- By 2025 explore ways to improve City staff capacity to help seniors and other special needs groups navigate the housing market and to access subsidized housing. (This objective was added in response to feedback from seniors, senior care providers, and Project Sentinel) - By 2026 explore ways to increase access to service enhanced senior housing with rents capped at 30 percent of income versus based on median income limits. Present findings to the Senior Commission and
City Council. (This objective was added in response to feedback from seniors).
Ongoing Objectives (on an annual basis, unless otherwise noted):
- Continue to support the creation of new shared housing for lower income persons with developmental disabilities by including acquisition or rehabilitation as a category in a notice of funding availability for affordable housing prior to 2026 (This objective was revised to reflect community feedback that home sharing can work well for persons with developmental disabilities, but not as well for elderly residents).
Relevant Policies: Policy B-1, Policy C-2, Policy C-3, Policy C-4, Policy D-1, Policy D-2
Action 19: Tasman East Specific Plan Amendment
The Tasman East Specific Plan , adopted in 2018, has approved and pro posed projects totaling 4,438 units, nearly the adopted capacity of 4,500 units. With approximately 10 acres of land zoned and still available for redevelopment, the City can help to facilitate the development of additional residential units by amending the Specific Plan and creating environmental cl earance for those units.
Funding Source: Departmental Budget, SB2 grant
Responsible Agency: Planning Division
Discrete Objectives:
- By the end of 2023, adopt a Specific Plan amendment and associated environmental clearance allowing an additional 1,500 dwelling units in the Tasman East plan area. The amendment will include an update to the Tasman East Infrastructure Fee, to ensure that costs are shared equitably between developers.
Relevant Policies: Policy B-1, Policy B-2, Policy B-3, Policy B-4, Policy C-2, Policy D-1, Policy D-2, Policy D-3, Policy D-4, Policy D-5
Action 20: Water and Sewer Affordable Housing Service Provisions Government Code, § 65589.7 requires Cities to have specific procedures to grant priority for water and sewer service to developments with units affordable to lower-income households.
13.2 SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Funding Source: Departmental Budget
Responsible Agency: Water and Sewer Department
Discrete Objectives:
- Within six months of certification of the Housing Element, adopt procedures to grant priority for water and sewer service to developments with units affordable to lower-income households, per Government Code, § 65589.
Relevant Policies: Policy D-2, Policy D-3
Quantified Objectives
Table 13.2-1 summarizes the City of Santa Clara’s quantified housing objectives for the 2023-2031 Housing Element planning period.
Table 13.2-1: Quantified Objectives
Income Level
Extremely
Low Very Low Low Moderate Above
Moderate Total
Units to be
Constructed1 1,436 1,436 1,653 1,981 5,126 11,632
Units to be
Rehabilitated2 300 - 300
Units to be
Conserved3 75 - - 75
Source(s): City of Santa Clara, 2022
Notes:
1. Corresponds to RHNA units that potentially could be constructed using public and/or private sources over the planning period, given local land resources, constraints, and programs.
2. Number of existing income-restricted and unrestricted affordable units expected to be rehabilitated during the planning period.
3. Includes preservation of the 45 existing at-risk affordable housing units throughout the planning period (see Table 13.4-15) and additional affordable units that don’t have expiring affordability restrictions but are showing signs of potential financial distress.
* The quantified objectives for units to be rehabilitated and units to be conserved are supported by the following Actions in the Housing Plan: Action 3 Affordable Housing Incentives and Facilitation; Action 4 Maintenance of Housing Stock; Action 5 Preservation of Assisted Rental Housing; Action 6 Acquisition of Multi-Family Housing; Action 7 Code Enforcement Program; Action 8 Neighborhood Relations Program.
Goals and Policies ...................................................................................................................................... 1 Implementing Actions ............................................................................................................................... 3 Quantified Objectives .............................................................................................................................. 28
List of Tables
Table 13.2-1: Quantified Objectives ....................................................................................................... 28
13.2
Chapter 13.3
Affirmatively Furthering Fair
Housing
Introduction and Overview of AB 686
In January 2017, Assembly Bill 686 (AB 686) introduced an obligation to affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH) into California state law. AB 686 defined “affirmatively further fair housing” to mean “taking meaningful actions, in addition to combat discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity” for persons of color, persons with disabilities, and other protected classes.
AB 686 requires that all housing elements prepared on or after January 1, 2021, assess fair housing.
An assessment of fair housing must consider the elements and factors that cause, in crease, contribute to, maintain, or perpetuate segregation, racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty, significant disparities in access to opportunity, and disproportionate housing needs.
This chapter will first identif y conclusions drawn from the local know ledge summarized in Appendix A and from Chapter 13.4 Housing Needs Assessment. Next the analysis will assess fair housing issues using data and maps and analysis of the Housing Element site inventory. The chapter concludes with a prioritized list of contributing factors based on the above conclusions.
Each contributing factor is thoroughly addressed by the Goals, Policies, and Actions of the Housing Plan in Chapter 13.2.
13.3 SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Local Knowledge:
Appendix A details the extensive outreach process that was conducted for this Housing Element and the feedback that was gathered. The following summarizes key themes that were noted from this local input:
• There is a clear need to build more extremely low and very low -income housing particularly for seniors, people with developmental disabilities, low wage workers, and large families to reduce housing cost burden, overcrowding, displacement, and to prevent homelessness.
• There is a need for more senior housing options that are based on actual incomes not Area Median Income.
• There is concern around rent gouging and high deposits which can lead to displacement. • There is a need to monitor naturally occurring affordable housing and deed restricted housing that is at-risk of conversion or redevelopment. • There is a need to prevent and reduce homelessness and its impacts in Santa Clara. • Residents with disabilities are having trouble getting reasonable accommodations from housing providers, there is a need for more licensed care facilities, and there is a need for more housing choices in new affordable housing for persons with disabilities. • There is a need to increase first -time homeowner opportunities and to provide more workforce housing for teachers, emergency responders, and nonprofit workers. • Seniors and others with limited access to the internet need more assistance with searching and applying for affordable housing opportunities.
• There is a need to improve outreach about affordable housing opportunities for Hispanic/Latino, Chinese, Vietnamese, Filipino and possibly other residents who have limited English proficiency.
• There is a need for ongoing education on tenant and landlord rights given recent changes to state law.
• Access to clean air is a concern for residents living near freeways and expressways and in affordable housing without air conditioning given the increase in extreme heat and wildfire pollution.
Chapter 13.4 includes a housing needs analysis. The following summarizes key themes that were noted in that chapter:
• Since 2010, the percentage of Santa Clara’s population that is White (Non- Hispanic/Latino) decreased by 4%, Hi spanic/Latino decreased by 2% and Asian/Pacific Islander increased by 6%.
• Santa Clara’s population is younger and higher income compared with the County • Rents and home prices are higher in Santa Clara compared with the County
• Vacancy rates in Santa Clara are lower compared with the County, especially for larger housing units
• Santa Clara has a 1% higher rate of overcrowding compared with the County. • Large households, Female Headed Households, and Elder ly (65+ years) are three of the largest special needs groups in Santa Clara.
• Female-headed households in Santa Clara live in poverty at a much higher rate th an all households living in poverty.
• The most common type of disability in Santa Clara was ambulatory followed by difficulty living independently.
• The number of residents with developmental disabilities age 62 and older is growing Countywide. As older adults live longer and as licensed care facilities close, there will be fewer care options for such adults unless new housing options are developed. • There are insufficient shelter and transitional housing options for unhoused residents in Santa Clara and unsheltered homelessness has increased since 2019. • Overcrowding affects renter households more.
Assessment of Fair Housing
The analysis must address patterns at a regional and local level and trends in patterns over time.
This analysis compares the locality at a county level for the purposes of promoting more inclusive communities.
Sources of Information
• U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) reports
• U.S. Census Bureau’s Decennial Census (referred to as “Census”) and American Community Survey (ACS)
• HCD’s AFFH Data Viewer
• Local Knowledge
In addition, HCD has developed a statewide AFFH Data Viewer. The AFFH Data Viewer consists of map data layers from various data sources and provides options for addressing each of the components within the full scope of the assessment of fair housing. The data source and time frame used in the AFFH mapping tools may differ from the ACS data. While some data comparisons may have different time frames (often different by one year), the differences do not affect the identification of possible trends.
Fair Housing and Housing Resources
In addition to updating the Housing Element of the City of Santa Clara’s General Plan, the jurisdiction has been participating in the regional Fair Housing Assessment being prepared for
13.3 SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The process has provided an initial framework for the local analysis of fair housing within the City and has been informed by additional demographic research and local knowledge that has supported the City’s Housing Plan Goals, Policies, and Actions. Starting in the 5th cycle, the City has utilized “specific plans” as an effective means addressing housing needs within the context of fair housing, as the “specific plan” process is a public process utilizing community engagement, the City’s Affordable Housing Ordinance, and increased densities to provide housing for a variety of income levels. “Specific plans” also allow for more complete communities that integrate market rate and affordable housing with park space and other amenities.
Additionally, based upon the AFFH analysis provided in this chapter, the process can be further enhanced by the application of this fair housing lens in the development of the City’s Housing Plan to increase monitoring and enforcement, increased and deeper community outreach and engagement, additional attention to protected classes, and being proactive in addressing the root causes of housing disparity before they occur or become further entrenched. In light of the increased housing activity, the City has not experienced displacement as the “specific plan” areas are transitioning into mixed -use housing developments and not redeveloping existing housing stock. Nonetheless, the City has identified displacement as an issue to monitor and develop specific actions and policies in the Housing Plan, as part of the five focus areas previously mentioned in this chapter.
Even though the City relies heavily upon “specific plan” parcels to meet it’s RHNA, additional housing development is not exclusive to the parcels identified in the Housing Element.
Additionally, engagement with the community on additional specific plan areas will continue as we prepare the jurisdiction for the 7
th cycle Housing Element as the parcels identified in the Housing Element for housing development are located in or near Moderate to High Resources Areas, and not in areas of concentrated poverty. Further, the investment in and around “specific plan” areas and additional amenities in the Northern portion of the jurisdiction has resulted in a change from moderate to high resource. Additionally, the Northern portion of the jurisdiction contains approximately 74% of the units in the City’s Sites Inventory. While most of these project areas are primarily in the Northern portion of the jurisdiction, housing development has taken place, and will continue to take place , throughout the jurisdiction. This is more evident in the distribution of permitted ADUs in the City, and general interest in the El Camino Real corridor, where the City is in the process of re-evaluating the proposed specific plan for that portion of the community.
Fair Housing Enforcement, Education and Outreach
Fair housing enforcement and outreach capacity refers to the ability of a locality and fair housing entities to disseminate information related to fair housing laws and rights and provide outreach and education to community members. Enforcement and outreach capacity also includes the ability to address compliance with fair housing laws, such as investigating complaints, obtaining remedies, and engaging in fair housing testing. The Fair Employment a nd Housing Act and the Unruh Civil Rights Act are the primary California fair housing laws. California state law extends anti-discrimination protections in housing to several classes that are not covered by the federal Fair Housing Act (FHA) of 1968, inclu ding prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Table 13.3 -1 below describes the Fair Housing service providers in Santa Clara County and the City of Santa Clara, including local housing, social, and legal services.
Table 13.3-1: Fair Housing Providers in Santa Clara County and Santa Clara Provider Services
Project Sentinel Provides education and counseling to community members and housing providers about fair
housing law. Investigates complaints and
provides advocacy for those experiencing housing
discrimination.
Bay Area Legal Aid Largest civil legal aid provider serving seven Bay Area counties. Has a focus area in housing
preservation and a homelessness task force to
provide legal services and advocacy for those in
need.
Law Foundation of Silicon Valley Provides free legal advice and representation on housing matters to low-income families and
individuals in Santa Clara County.
Senior Adults Legal Assistance Non-profit elder law office supporting residents 60 years and older in Santa Clara County to live
safely and independently. Attorneys provide legal
services from advice and referrals to legal
representation.
Asian Law Alliance A non-profit providing equal access to the justice system for Asian and Pacific-Islander low-income
populations in Silicon Valley. Providing legal
counseling and language assistance for
individuals seeking housing.
Source(s): City of Santa Clara, 2022
California’s Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) has statutory mandates to protect the people of California from discrimination pursuant to the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), Ralph Civil Rights Act, and Unruh Civil Rights A ct (with regards to housing).
13.3 SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
The FEHA prohibits discrimination and harassment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions), gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, marital status, military or veteran status, national origin, ancestry, familial status, source of income, disability, and genetic information, or because another person perceives the tenant or applicant to have one or more of these characteristics.
The Ralph Civil Rights Act (Civ. Code, § 51.7) guarantees the right of all persons within California to be free from any violence, or intimidation by threat of violence, committed against their persons or property because of political affiliation, or on account of sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, immigration status, or position in a labor dispute, or because a nother person perceives them to have one or more of these characteristics.
The Unruh Civil Rights Act (Civ. Code, § 51) prohibits business establishments in California from discriminating in the provision of services, accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges to clients, patrons and customers because of their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, or immigration status.
Table 13.3-2: Number of DFEH Housing Complaints in Santa Clara County (2020) Year Housing Unruh Civil Rights Act
2015 73 8
2016 52 7
2017 33 22
2018 28 14
2019 28 14
2020 33 10
Source(s): https://www.dfeh.ca.gov/LegalRecords/?content=reports#reportsBody
Table 13.3-3 summarizes fair housing cases filed by the federal Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity Housing in Santa Clara County. The table indicates that discrimination cases based on disability were by far the most common followed by race, and familial status (households with at least one child under 18).
Table 13.3-3: Number of FHEO Filed Cases by Protected Class in Santa Clara County (2015–2020)
Year Number of Filed Cases Disability Race National
Origin Sex Familial
Status
2015 53 26 20 6 6 8
2016 40 22 3 7 1 11
2017 31 16 4 3 4 7
2018 36 21 5 6 4 3
2019 38 23 7 1 2 7
2020 16 7 7 2 2 2
Total 214 115 46 25 19 38
Percentage of Total Filed Cases
*Note that cases may be filed on more
than one basis.
53.7% 21.5% 11.6% 8.8% 17.7%
Source(s): Data.Gov - Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) Filed Cases, https://catalog.data.gov/dataset/fheo-filed-cases
The City funds fair housing education, investigation, enforcement, and outreach annually. In program year 2020, the area non -profit Project Sentinel received $20,000 of local funds for the provision of fair housing services. Project Sentinel provides comprehensive fair housing services including investigation, counseling, referral, and education designed to reduce the incidence of illegal discrimination in housing. In program year 2020, the agency assisted 31 individuals and conducted landlord/tenant mediation assisting 336 households, along with outreach activities to residents, service providers, and housing providers through education and information sessions on fair housing law and Project Sentinel’s services.
Services that were not provided include (2.) Case tested by phone; (4.) Case referred to HUD and (8.) Case accepted for full representation. The most common action(s) taken/services provided are providing clients with counseling, followed by sending testers for investigation, and conciliation with landlords. Regardless of actions taken or services provided, almost 45% of cases are found to have insufficient evidence. Only about 12% of all cases resulted in successful mediation.
The City of Santa Clara complies with all State and federal fair housing laws and regulations and is not aware of any fair housing findings, lawsuits, enforcement actions, settlements, or judgements.
Fair Housing Testing
Fair housing testing is a randomized audit of property owners’ compliance with local, state, and federal fair housing laws. Initiated by the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division in 1991, fair housing testing involves the use of an individual or individuals who pose as prospective
13.3 SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
renters for the purpose of determining whether a landlord is complying with local, state, and federal fair housing laws.
California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) Residents may submit complaints to the DFEH, which is the statewide agency that enforces fair housing laws. The DFEH will investigate and determine whether or not the complainant has a right to sue. In 2018, DFEH received over 600 complaints from residents of Santa Clara County.
Assessment of Fair Housing Issues
The following analysis will use data and maps to analyze patterns of segregation, racial or ethnic concentrations of poverty, disparities in access to opportunity, and disproportionate housing needs. The City’s land use and development patterns have created three distinct areas to help focus this discussion. These areas will be referenced throughout the assessment:
Northern Santa Clara: Highway 237 south to Highway 101: Northern Santa Clara is a mix of industrial, office, residential, and has several large specific plan areas where new residential and mixed-use neighborhoods are beginning to take shape as industrial areas are converted.
Central Santa Clara: Highway 101 south to the U nion Pacific railroad tracks . Central Santa Clara has been historically industrial with very few residential areas. Three large, mostly market -rate, residential projects have recently been approved in this area:
Lawrence Station Area Plan, Santa Clara Square, and Gateway Crossings. In addition to these, a small pocket of older single family, duplex, and apartments is located north of the railroad tracks on the west side of Lafayette Street.
Southern Santa Clara: Union Pacific railroad tracks south to Stevens Creek Boulevard.
The southern part of Santa Clara historically has been composed of older single-family neighborhoods, Santa Clara University, and the El Camino Real and Steven’s Creek commercial corridors.
Race/Ethnicity
Segregation is defined as the separation or isolation of a race/ethnic group, national origin group, individuals with disabilities, or other social group by enfor ced or voluntary residence in a restricted area, by barriers to social connection or dealings between persons or groups, by separate educational facilities, or by other discriminatory means.
To measure segregation in a given jurisdiction, the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) provides racial or ethnic dissimilarity trends. Dissimilarity indices are used to measure the evenness with which two groups (frequently defined on racial or ethnic characteristics) are distributed across geographic units, such as block groups within a
community. The index ranges from 0 to 100, with 0 meaning no segregation and 100 indicating complete segregation between the two groups. The index score can be understood as the percentage of one of the two groups that would need to move to produce an even distribution of racial/ethnic groups within the specified area. For example, if an index score is above 60, 60 percent of people in the specified area would need to move to eliminate segregation.
The following shows how HUD views various levels of the index:
• <40: Low Segregation
• 40-54: Moderate Segregation
• >55: High Segregation
Ethnic and racial composition of a region is useful in analyzing housing demand and any related fair housing concerns as it tends to demonstrate a relationship with other characteristics such as household size, locational preferences, and mobility. Prior studies have identified socioeconomic status, generational care needs, and cultural preferences as factors associated with “doubling up”—households with extended family members and non -kin. These factors have also been associated with ethnicity and race. Other studies have also found that minorities tend to congregate in metropolitan areas, though their mobility trend predictions are complicated by economic status (minorities moving to the suburbs when they achieve middle class) or immigration status (recent immigrants tend to stay in metro areas/ports of entry).
Regional Trends
Santa Clara County is a large, diverse jurisdiction where people of color represent a majority of the population. As of the 2019 census, 36 percent of residents were Asian, 31.5 percent of residents with non-Hispanic White, followed by Hispanic or Latino residents at 25 percent. The complete racial breakdown for the County can be seen in Table 13.3-5.
While overall rates of segregation in the County are moderate, rates have been growing since the 1990s. The most segregated group has consistently been Hispanic residents with an index score of 48.57 in 2010, up from 44.97 in 1990. The next most segregated group is Black residents with a 2010 index score of 47.67 up from 43.86 in 1990. This is followed by Asian residents with a 2010 index score of 30.21 up from 25.33 in 1990. Overall, in 2010, non-white and white residents had an index score of 31.5 which is considered low segregation, although this is up from 1990 when the score was 28.67.
Figure 13.3-1 geographically displays the percentage of the non-White population in the County.
The higher percentage of non -White populations are concentrated around San Jose, Milpitas, Santa Clara, and Cupertino. In these areas, the non-White population percentage is as high as 61 to 80 percent. The largest racial group in the County is made up of Asian residents (36 percent), followed by White, non -Hispanic residents (31.5 percent), and Hispanic or Latino residents (25 percent).
13.3 SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Table 13.3-4: Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Trends (1990–2020) Dissimilarity Index
Santa Clara County
1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend
Current
(2020 Census Block
Group)
Non-White/White 28.67 28.49 27.28 31.50
Black/White 43.86 41.59 41.88 47.67
Hispanic/White 44.97 46.52 46.26 48.57
Asian or Pacific Islander/White 25.33 26.68 25.6 30.21
Source(s): HUD’s Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Tool (AFFH-T), Table 13.3-5 – Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Trends, Data version: AFFHT006, released July 10th, 2020.
Note: Table 13.3-4 presents Decennial Census values for 1990, 2000, 2010, all calculated by HUD using census tracts as the area of measurement. The “current” figure is calculated using block groups from the 2010 Decennial Census, because block groups can measure segregation at a finer grain than census tracts due to their smaller geographies. See https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/affh for more information.
FIGURE 13.3-1: REGIONAL RACIAL DEMOGRAPHICS (2021)
Local Trends
The demographics of Santa Clara are somewhat reflective of the County as a whole. The largest racial group in Santa Clara is Asian, Non -Hispanic at 43 percent which is also the largest racial group in the County. White, Non-Hispanic residents make up the second largest group in both the City and County at 31.5 percent. The largest difference in racial group between Santa Clara and the County is with Hispanic residents. In the County, Hispanic residents make up 25 percent of the population, while in the City they make up 17.3 percent.
Table 13.3-5: Racial Composition Santa Clara County and Santa Clara (2019) Santa Clara County Santa Clara
White, non-Hispanic 31.5% 31.5%
Black or African American, non-Hispanic 2.3% 3%
American Indian and Alaska Native, non-
Hispanic
0.2% 0.1%
Asian, non-Hispanic 36% 43%
I Non-Whit• P•rcenl _ofTo~lack Group Population -
::. 20%
21 -40¾
- -11 -60%
- 6 1 80%
-:. !)} %
13.3 i,I, ~,
~~~,, -~ '"'
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Table 13.3-5: Racial Composition Santa Clara County and Santa Clara (2019) Santa Clara County Santa Clara
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific
Islander, non-Hispanic
0.3% 0.6%
Some other race, non-Hispanic 0.2% 0.2%
Two or more races, non-Hispanic 3.5% 4%
Hispanic or Latino 25% 17.3%
Source(s): American Community Survey, 2015-2019
Table 13.3-6 below provides the dissimilarity index values indicating the level of segregation in Santa Clara between white residents and residents who are Black, Hispan ic, or Asian/Pacific Islander. The table also provides the dissimilarity index between white residents and all residents of color in the City, and all dissimilarity index values are shown across three time periods (2000, 2010, and 2020).
In the City of Santa Clara racial and ethnic integration trends are less segregated th an County trends in 2020. The highest segregation in the City is between Asian or Pacific Islander and white residents. Santa Clara’s Asian or Pacific Islander / white dissimilarity index means that 22.8% of Asian (or white) residents would need to move to a different neighborhood to create perfect integration between Asian or Pacific Islander residents and white residents.
For context and comparison, t he Santa Clara County column provides the dissimilarity index values for these racial group pairings in 2020.
Table 13.3-6: Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Trends within Santa Clara Dissimilarity Index
Santa Clara County Santa Clara
2020 2000 2010 2020
Non-White/White 31.5 22.9 23.7 18.9
Black/White 47.67 19.9 21.0 22.3
Hispanic/White 48.57 21.2 21.1 17.7
Asian or Pacific Islander/White 30.21 27.6 28.6 22.8
Source(s): IPUMS National Historical Geographic Information System (NHGIS). U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census State Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, 2020 Census of Population and Housing, Table P002. Data from 2010 is from U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010, Table P4. Data for 2000 is standardized to 2010 census tract geographies and is from U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000, Table P004.
Note: If a number is marked with an asterisk (*), it indicates that the index is based on a racial group making up less than 5 percent of the jurisdiction population, leading to unreliable numbers.
Within Santa Clara there are some notable geographic differences in racial demographics . The northern and central areas of Santa Clara have a non-white population between 61 to 80 percent.
In the northern part of the city there are a few tracts where this percentage drops to 41 to 60 percent. The southern part of the city has a patchwork patte rn of tracts with non -White groups between 21 to 40 percent and 41 to 60 percent. There are a few tracts where this percentage goes as low as 20 percent and below, or as high as 61 to 80 percent, but these are just small pockets.
Figure 13.3-2 further indicates that the southern portion of the City has a lower percentage of non- white residents th an the central and northern areas. F igure 13.3-3 shows more detail on how specific racial and ethnic groups are concentrated in Santa Clara. This map shows that residents that identify as Asian alone (not Hispanic/Latino) are the predominant group through most of northern, central, and southern Santa Clara with the exception of south east Santa Clara which is predominantly white alone (not Hispanic/Latino).
Central Santa Clara, has a mix of mostly Asian/Pacific Islander, White, and Hispanic/Latino residents. Upon closer analysis, census tract 5052.02 has a disproportionate number of Hispanic/Latino residents (25% Hispanic/Latino residents compared to the citywide proportion of only 17% ). The area is 38.6% Asian/Pacific Islander but the citywide proportion for those groups combined is 44%. This suggests a need to conduct outreach in Spanish as well as other languages. .
FIGURE 13.3-2: RACIAL DEMOGRAPHICS OF SANTA CLARA (2021)
Bas em ap F<eatures
r:_:_·:::.: :·r-~·ot 'i..1,,-r., :·1.,,.,,r Rr, m'1.11'i --- l'-'i9h~•1.J)''>
Road,
Perc;;ent of Total Non-Whit11
Population - Block Group
::.20%
21 -100.-b
- 4160%
- 61 - 0()%
-::- fi1%
13.3 0
__ .,. ________ /V il:.!,;
(1 f,;'f,
Scu-c.~s: U.S. Dep2rt m l:!1t oi
Hcusit'IQ ~nd Ur~M D.;iveJop,mart CHL.D>.
20·13 2021 1 f"...ouol~ o f Scr1 l..:tCbr'.:1, 2:J22
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
FIGURE 13.3-3: PREDOMINANT POPULATION OF SANTA CLARA (2017-2021)
Source: HCD AFFH 2.0 Data Viewer (May 2023).
Note: The intensity of the color corresponds with the percentage of the predominant population compared to the total population of the Census Tract (i.e., darker colors represent a greater percentage).
Overall, according to the 2022 ABAG isolation interactive maps and reports, racial isolation in the City is low for White, Hispanic or Latino, and non -Hispanic and Black or African American populations, and high for Asian or Pacific Islander segments (Table 13.3-7).
Table 13.3-7: Racial Isolation Index Values for Segregation within Santa Clara Race
Santa Clara
2000 2010 2020
Asian/Pacific Islander 34.0 43.4 50.4
White 51.8 40.1 30.9
Hispanic/Latino 18.5 23.2 20.4
Black/African American 2.4 2.7 2.5
Source(s): IPUMS National Historical Geographic Information System (NHGIS). U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census State Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, 2020 Census of Population and Housing, Table P002. Data from 2010 is from U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010, Table P4. Data for 2000 is standardized to 2010 census tract geographies and is from U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000, Table P004. f'redorninant Popu'lation (ACS, 2017-2021) - Tract
Predom nar1t category
1111111
~
1111111
11111
H ,oe..,corlatno
iJ.lac.: CY ,-.fr csn ... rrer can 41ore 'lo,
H soen corLe: n,o
An-e"can l.,d !n e-,,a A.ask.a Na_::.,~ a Ion!!
'lot H spo- .c or l e: no
NaI ve - a1Ya ·;s.- a·,d o.~~e• Pacf,c 1, e.~d .. r
61ore, not 1-t .p,o11.c or Lo'11r-o
So,ne o:•¢t rtce • one no; H spt~ c 0t
c.Ot 00
Another approach to measuring segregation employs the Divergence Index, which measures the difference between the overall population of a group in a region and the proportion of each group in a local area within that region. The Divergence Index provides a single measure of segregation for multiple racial groups . This index ranges between 0 (no segregation) to 1 (comple te segregation) with low segregation (less than approximately 0.1 1), high segregation (above approximately 0.21), with moderate segregation levels in between.
According to a November 18, 2020 report (updated in October 11, 2021) by the Othering and Belonging Institute at UC Berkeley, the City of Santa Clara, with an inter -municipal divergence index score of 0.0592, is one of the most diverse and integrated cities in the Bay Area.
Table 13.3-8 shows the Divergence Index scores for cities/towns in Santa Clara County and their corresponding level of segregation.
Table 13.3-8: Divergence Index Scores within Santa Clara County Cities/Towns Inter-Municipal Divergence Level of Segregation Mountain View 0.0249 Low
Campbell 0.0467 Low
Santa Clara 0.0592 Low
San Jose 0.0676 Low
Sunnyvale 0.0923 Low
Morgan Hill 0.1054 Low
Palo Alto 0.1551 Moderate
Los Altos 0.2453 High
Saratoga 0.2573 High
Los Altos Hills 0.2632 High
Los Gatos 0.2673 High
Monte Sereno 0.2919 High
Gilroy 0.3196 High
Milpitas 0.3645 High
Cupertino 0.4294 High
Source: “The Most Segregated (and Integrated) Cities in the SF Bay Area”. The Othering and Belonging Institute UC Berkeley.
November 18, 2020 (updated October 11, 2021).
Central Santa Clara has higher areas of low to moderate income levels (LMI) (Figure 13.3-12).
Central Santa Clara overlaps with LMI levels of 50 to 75 percent. There is a census tract in northern Santa Clara where LMI levels are between 75 to 100 percent. Central Santa Clara also overlaps with lower household incomes ($87,000) compared to the rest of the city (Figure 13.3-20). These lower incomes likely contribute to the higher rates of overpayment by renters in central Santa
13.3 SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Clara (40 to 60 percent) ( Figure 13.3-40). Central Santa Clara is also identified as a low resource area using the TCAC scoring system (Figure 13.3-22) which considers economic, educational, and environmental factors. Lastly, CalEnviroScreen scores in Central Santa Clara are between 50 to 74 percent which indicate less healthy conditions (Figure 13.3-36).
Historic Context
Although the City of Santa Clara is a racially diverse community with relatively low levels of segregation, there are only small numbers of African American residents, both in the City of Santa Clara and in the county as a whole. This is a result of systemic racism in private lending practices, federal loan guarantees, and local zoning and infrastructure decisions in the postwar years, as documented in the book, “The Color of Law” by Richard Rothstein. Among other examples, the book documents the efforts of Ford workers and their union to get housing built for African American workers at the Milpitas Ford Plant in the 1950s.
After the Ford workers discovered that no Milpitas-area developers would sell homes to African Americans, they enlisted the help of a Quaker service group devoted to racial equity who helped find a willing lender to fund an integrated subdivision in unincorporated Mountain View, and is described in the excerpt from Rothstein’s book below:
“But when the builder's intent to sell both to blacks and whites became known, the Santa Clara Board of Supervisors rezoned the site from residential to industrial use. When he found a second plot, Mountain View officials told him that they would never grant the necessary approvals. He next identified a third tract of land in another town near the Ford plant; when officials discovered that the project would not be segregated, the town adopted a new zoning law increasing the minimum lot size from 6,000 to 8,000 square feet, making the project unfeasible for working class buyers. After he attempted to develop a fourth site on which he had an option, the seller of the land canceled the option upon learning that the project would be integrated. At that point, the builder gave up.” (The Color of Law, p. 117)
The effects of those discriminatory practices and decisions linger on, both in Milpitas, and in Santa Clara County generally. Additionally, Rothstein continues to describe that “Milpitas is no longer all white - it now has many Hispanic and Asian families - but the effects of its earlier segregation remain visible: African Americans make up only 2 percent of the population.” (The Color of Law, p. 121)
The City of Santa Clara has a similar history in the sense that today’s Santa Clara is well- integrated and does not include a majority of any race or ethnicity. However, during the 1960 census, when the City’s population exploded to 58,800, up from 11,702 in 1950, the City gained less than a thousand non-white residents, and remained 98% white. The City, which was
originally focused around downtown, Santa Clara University and the train station, initially added housing after World War II to the south of downtown. This was during the time that racial covenants and discriminatory lending practices were in full effect. Those neighborhoods south of downtown still have a significantly higher proportion of white residents (likely original purchasers of housing or their children) than other parts of Santa Clara.
More recently developed neighborhoods have been added to the north of Highway 101 and are more reflective of the City’s diversity.
In the 1930s and 1940s, a federal agency called the Home Owners’ Loan Corporation (HOLC), created maps of nearly 250 American cities, grading neighborhoods on a scale of A (Best) to D (Hazardous) for purposes of providing loan officers, appraisers, and real estate professionals with a tool for evaluating mortgage lending risk. Neighborhoods of color were far more likely to receive D or C grades with A or B grades reserved for white neighborhoods. Neighborhoods with a D (Hazardous) grade were often “redlined” by lending institutions, denying them access to credit, particularly mortgages.
The following figure shows HOLC redlining grades from 1937 indicating that portions of Santa Clara’s Old Quad neighborhood to the north and south of El Camino Real were assigned either “(D) Hazardous” or “(C) Declining” grades.
13.3 SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
FIGURE 13.3-4: HOLC REDLINING MAP (1937)
Source: HCD AFFH 2.0 Data Viewer HOLC Redlining Grade (University of Richmond, 2021) Many of the same blocks that were categorized as declining or hazardous in 1937 have elevated levels of low and moderate income (LMI) households today as shown later in this chapter in Figure 13.3-12.
Persons with Disabilities
In 1988, Congress added protections against housing discrimination for persons with disabilities through the FHA, which protects against intentional discrimination and unjustified policies and practices with disproportionate effects. The FHA also includes the following unique provisions to persons with disabilities: (1) prohibits the denial of requests for reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities, if necessary, to afford an individual equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling; and (2) prohibits the denial of reasonable modification requests. With regards to fair housing, persons with disabilities have special housing needs because of the lack o f accessible and affordable housing, and the higher health costs associated with their disability. In addition, many may be on fixed incomes that further limit their housing options.
HOLC Red lining Grade
A (Best)
lilllliiia B (Still Desirable )
C (Declining)
lilllliiia D (Hazardous)
bb·BliwJ
~
~
~
Regional Trends
According to the 2015 -2019 American Community Survey (ACS ) 5 -year estimates, 154,212 residents (eight percent of Santa Clara County’s population) report having one of six disability types listed in the ACS (hearing, cognitive, ambulatory, self -care, and independent living). The percentage of residents detailed by disability are listed in Table 13.3-9. In both Santa Clara County and the City of Santa Clara, the percentage of individuals with disabilities increases with age, with the highest percentage of individuals being those 75 years or older.
In Santa Clara, seven percent of the population experiences a disability. This rate is slightly lower than that of the County. The disability rate is highest among residents who identify as White (not Hispanic or Latino) (11.4 percent) and Hispanic or Latino ( of an y race) (7.7 percent). In the County, the highest percentage of disabled residents by race is among American Indian and Alaska Native residents (14.4 percent) and Black or African American residents (10.7 percent). In Santa Clara, the most common disability is an ambulatory difficulty (3.6 percent) followed by an independent living difficulty (3.3 percent). In the County the same trend follows, the most common disability is those with an independent living difficulty (4.5 percent) followed by an ambulatory difficulty (4.4 percent)
Table 13.3-9: Populations of Persons with Disabilities– Santa Clara County & Santa Clara
Santa Clara County Percent
with a Disability
Santa Clara Percent
with a Disability
Civilian non-institutionalized
population
8% 7%
Race/ Ethnicity
Black or African American alone 10.7% 7.5%
American Indian and Alaska
Native alone
14.4% 2.9%
Asian alone 6.2% 3.8%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific
Islander alone
9.4% 6.7%
Some other race alone 6.7% 5.4%
Two or more races 7% 6.1%
White alone, not Hispanic or Latino 10.6% 11.4%
Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 7.5% 7.7%
Age
Under 5 years 0.7% 1.2%
5 to 17 years 3.1% 3.7%
18 to 34 years 3.9% 2.7%
35 to 64 years 6.2% 5.9%
65 to 74 years 18.2% 18.1%
75 years and over 48% 47.1%
Type
Hearing difficulty 2.3% 2.1%
13.3 SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Table 13.3-9: Populations of Persons with Disabilities– Santa Clara County & Santa Clara
Santa Clara County Percent
with a Disability
Santa Clara Percent
with a Disability
Vision difficulty 1.4% 1.2%
Cognitive difficulty 3.3% 2.7%
Ambulatory difficulty 4.4% 3.6%
Self-care difficulty 2.1% 1.6%
Independent living difficulty 4.5% 3.3%
Source(s): 2019 ACS 5-year Estimates, Table S1810
In terms of geographic dispersal, there is a patchwork pattern of persons with a disability throughout the County. There does appear to be a concentration of persons with disabilities within San Jose and expanding out to Santa Clara and Campbell. These areas of concentration have percentages of the population experiencing disabilities at 10 to 20 percent. The cities of Milpitas, Sunnyvale, Mountain View, and Palo Alto appear to have fewer tracts where residents experience disabilities above 10 percent. Nowhere in the County does the percentage of residents experiencing a disability exceed 20 percent.
FIGURE 13.3-5: REGIONAL POPULATIONS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES BY TRACT (2019)
Local Trends
Within Santa Clara there is a concentration of residents with a disability between 10 to 20 percent in the central part of the city. In the northern part of the city fewer than 10 percent of residents experience a disability. In the southern part of the city there are concentrations where the percentage of residents experiencing a disability rises above 10 percent. The higher rates of poverty in central Santa Clara overlap with higher rates of Low to Moderate Income populations (50 to 75 percent) (Figure 13.3-12). This low rate of residents with disabilities may be explained in part by the young age of Santa Clara residents. According to 2019 ACS data, only 11.4 percent of residents in Santa Clara are 65 and above while 50 percent of residents are between 15 and 44 years old. Comparing rates to the nearby cities of Mountain View, Sunnyvale, and Milpitas these cities have fewer geographic areas where the population experiencing a disability is between 10 to 20 percent.
Basemap Features
--- lllghways
0.Jy Ail!< Wuk-rOOdh!~
llliaBII Oi~u :S~""''-~~
Percent of Population wrth I Di1abllity
L___,.: IC,qf
· 1)% - 20%
- 10% 30'/2
- jl,)% - /(1¼
- ,-1c%
13.3 Sources: ..,me ri-cer- Com-nunit~• Sr -,ey. :.::o i 5-201'1; U.S.)a;::,~r:'l'l& r"lt et t-ous ·r,~ Md !Abar DeveloFment •:HUD):.
COL-fly l)r $,) Ol;,; Clo.-..:,, 2022 ,
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
FIGURE 13.3-6: PERCENT OF POPULATION WITH A DISABILITY – SANTA CLARA (2021)
The California Department of Developmental Services is responsible for overseeing the coordination and delivery of services to more than 330 ,000 Californians with developmental disabilities including cerebral palsy, intellectual disability, Down syndrome, autism, epilepsy, and related conditions. The tables below show the population in Santa Clara County and Santa Clara with developmental disabilities by age (Table 13.3-10) and the population of adults with developmental disabilities by residence (Table 13.3-11).
Table 13.3-10: Population with Developmental Disabilities by Age Age Group Santa Clara County Santa Clara
Under 18 4,016 (37%) 204 (33%)
18 and Older 6,737 (63%) 408 (67%)
Total 10,753 612
Sources: County-California Department of Developmental Services, Consumer Count by ZIP Code and Age Group (2020).
Santa Clara-San Andreas Regional Center (November 2021)
Basemap Features
(: -~·-·::_: ( ry r:f C:.,im,, n~ir,1 P.r-1mi:i~r~1
--- Hig hWilj'i
t.:oads
B.::;,· 4r~ W,1teti o~'Jie~
--Qr,.-n Sr,,c-e~
Percentof Populalion with a Disability
L____J < I 0%
10%-2:) ½,i:
_ ,0%-1~::f
_ ,0% 4~'<
- ~"-00-~J
0 So cir<"es: An1:! rio:1n (orim .mity S ,in:e v, 2015-2:)19; U.$. Je-:..artment of Hous ·, '£ anc u.-oan O~•~G>lo Fment (-IUD;:
Cou nty of SJnt ~ CIJr,1, 2{]22.
Table 13.3-11: Adults with Developmental Disabilities by Residence Residence Type Santa Clara County Santa Clara
Home of Parent / Family / Guardian 4,362 (65%) 269 (66%) Community Care Facility 1,525 (23%) 69 (17%)
Independent / Supported Living 756 (11%) 66 (16%)
Other (includes homeless) 94 (1%) 4 (1%)
Total 6,737 408
Source: County-California Department of Developmental Services, Consumer Count by ZIP Code and Residence Type (2020) Santa Clara-San Andreas Regional Center (November 2021).
Approximately 67 percent of Santa Clara’s population with developmental disabilities are adults.
Throughout Santa Clara County , according t o California Department of Development Services estimates, there has been a 20 percent increase in the adult population with developmental disabilities between 2015-2021. For that same timeframe , the number of Santa Clara County residents with development disabilities age 62 and older grew by 35 percent.
The preferred living option for children with developmental disabilities continues to be the family home , but as those children become adults, additional residential options outside the family home will be required.
In summary, Santa Clara has a slightly lower percentage of persons with disability compared with the County. The racial and ethnic groups with the highest percentage of disability in Santa Clara are white (not Hispanic or Latino) and Hispanic/Latino. There are higher concentrations of persons with disabilities living in Central Santa Clara and selected areas in Southern Santa Clara.
There is likely a need to create more supportive and accessible multifamily housing opportunities for this subpopulation as the development of single -story homes is less likely given the limited supply and high cost of land.
Familial Status
Under the Fair Housing Act, housing providers may not discriminate because of familial status.
Familial status covers the presence of children under the age of 18, pregnant persons, and any person in the process of securing legal custody of a minor child (including adoptive or foster parents). Examples of familial status discrimination include refusing to rent to families with children, evicting families once a child joins the family (through, e.g., birth, adoption, custody), or requiring families with children to live on specific floors or in specific buildings or areas. Single parent households are also protected by fair housing law.
Families with children often have special housing needs due to lower per capita income, the need for affordable childcare, the need for affordable housing, or the need for larger units with three or more bedrooms. Single parent households are also protected by fair housing law. Female - headed households are of particular consideration as they may experience greater housing affordability challenges due to typically lower household incomes compared to two -parent
13.3 SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
households. Often, sex and familial status intersect to compound the discrimination faced by single mothers.
Regional Trends
In Santa Clara County, 27 percent of households have children under the age of 18. Within the County, the cities of Sunnyvale, Palo Alto, and San Jose have the highest percentages of households with children (28.6, 27.1, and 26.2 percent, respectively). Across all the cities listed below in Santa Clara County, there are higher percentages of single -parent female households than single-parent male households. Within the County, Palo Alto and San Jose have the highest percentages of single- parent female households (both 3.8 percent). While single -parent male households have a lower percentage overall, the cities of Palo Alto, San Jose, and Santa Clara have the highest percentages of single-parent male households (1.8, 1.2, and 1.2 percent respectively).
Table 13.3-12: Households with Children in Santa Clara County and Incorporated Cities
Santa
Clara
County
Santa
Clara
San Jose Sunnyvale Palo
Alto
Mountain
View
Married Couple
with Children
27% 26.1% 26.2% 28.6% 27.1% 20.9%
Single-Parent,
Male
1.1% 1.2% 1.2% 0.8% 1.8% 0.9%
Single-Parent,
Female
3.3% 2.2% 3.8% 1.8% 3.8% 2.7%
Source(s): American Community Survey, 2015-2019 (5-Year Estimates), Table DP02
Figure 13.3-7 visualizes the variety of percentages of children in Santa Clara County living in married-couple households. San Jose has the largest variety with some areas showing be low 20 percent of married-couple households with children and other areas showing above 80 percent of married -couple households with children. This lower percentage is concentrated around central San Jose and gets higher as the map moves out. Cities like Palo Alto, Los Altos, Cupertino, and Saratoga along the western part of the County show some of the highest rates of married - couple households with children. Gilroy is another area showing low rates of married -couple households with children (between 21 to 40 percent).
FIGURE 13.3-7: REGIONAL PERCENTAGE OF CHILDREN IN MARRIED-COUPLE HOUSEHOLDS BY TRACTS (2019)
Local Trends
The northern and southern parts of Santa Clara have higher rates of married couple households (between 61 to 80 percent). The central part of Santa Clara has a lower rate of married couple households at 41 to 60 percent. Central Santa Clara also has higher rates of low to moderate income levels (50 to 75 percent), lower incomes ($87,000) (Figure 13.3 -12) and higher rates of overpayment (40 to 60 percent) (Figure 13.3-40) which may all be a factor of this lower rate of married couple and likely dual -income households. The nearby cities of Mountain View, Sunnyvale, and Milpitas have similar rates of married couple households.
Bas em ap Featul',es
--- h iylMd:,'~
6':y .'1rea 'iYaterl;,o:iie~
.... CIJ>(:11)1-J,.l~L:~
Percenta9e of Children in
Married-Co uple Households - Tract
L__ <.]l1~
21-401.
-11 · UlHb
- 61-30%
- ,-,0%
13.3 0 ------------ "" ' "'
So,L'f"Vi: A.mcri'.,ln Co-rmun rty S11n1c-r , 2015 :ii)1Y:
U.S.Depa1m e rt ot Hous ir s and Urbar Oe-,,el::.pment (HUD):
County ct 5~nta C la~a, 2022.
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
FIGURE 13.3-8: PERCENT OF CHILDREN IN MARRIED-COUPLE HOUSEHOLDS – SANTA CLARA (2021)
Regional Trends
Much of Santa Clara County shows rates of children in female-headed households below 21 to 40 percent. In San Jose there are areas where this percentage rises to 41 to 60 percent. Most cities in the County have some areas where the rate is between 21 to 40 percent, however, some cities along the western part of the County like Los Altos, Cupertino, and Saratoga appear to have rates below 20 percent for the entire city. San Jose, which has the highest concentration of single mother households also has higher rates of non-White populations (61 to 80 percent).
8asem ap Features
--- hlgh""1a:,,,s
tro.:id~
f?.;· 'f:,, rto 1,\';1t~rhn i1 iP~
- ~n'.ipa:P. ~
Percantage of Chlldr~n In
Matried-Coupl• Hou••hold<-Tl'll<t
., 20%
71 --10~
- 41·oi>%
- •:.il-.:10%
- :;,~11%
SOJ'Ce.s: A merican CoT munity Sur ... ay, 2015-2-: 19; U.S.Dq:,.:l'lrocrl of Hou.sir'~ .:1rrd UrlMf' D~~h:.,pmi.::nl (HUD:•, Count-1 of $anta Cle'a, :z(;•2£.
FIGURE 13.3-9: REGIONAL PERCENT OF CHILDREN IN FEMALE-HEADED HOUSEHOLDS BY TRACT (2019)
Local Trends
The majority of Santa Clara has below 20 percent of female headed households with children.
There is one small section in northeast Santa Clara where this percentage rises to 21 to 40 percent.
This area also overlaps with higher rates of HCV use (5 to 15 percent) , higher rates of overpayment by renters (40 to 60 percent), and higher rates of househol d overcrowding (above 15 percent) (Figure 13.3-40). These trends may be explained in part by the higher rate of female headed households which may only be single income households. The nearby cities of Mountain View and Milpitas have rates below 20 percent for female headed households, and Mountain View has a small section where this rate rises between 21 to 40 percent, similar to Santa Clara.
Basem ap Features
--- I lgh.,.,a::,,s
R."=,'f .'1 ~;i 'i'il;:itprl;o d iP~
--•:ipc n S.p.1::-c:;
Percentage of Children in Female Headed-Households
NoSpouse/Partnel' Households -T,ac.t
L__ <20%
21-40%
- 41 60%
- 6 1 ao:1o
- :. rm%
13.3 $o J'ces: A merican Co-rmu nity Sur\l~J', 2U15-2·'..:PJ; U.S.D1:-p.a1mert ot Howir s Md Urb.at" De--..:lopme,, t •:HUD):
County ofS;mta Clara, 2022.
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
FIGURE 13.3-10: PERCENT OF CHILDREN IN FEMALE HEADED HOUSEHOLDS – SANTA CLARA (2021)
In summary, Santa Clara has a higher percentage of single parent female parent households compared with single parent male households. Most of Santa Clara has rates of female headed households with children that are below 20% which is consistent with the rest of the County.
The central portion of the City has lower rates of married couples with children. Single parent households generally have lower income which suggests a need to build a variety of affordable unit sizes for singles, couples, single parents with children, and couples with children.
Income Level
Each year, the HUD receives custom tabulations of American Community Survey (ACS) data from the U.S. Census Bureau. Known as the "CHAS" data (Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy), it demonstrates the number of households in need of housing assistance by estimating the number of households that have certain housing problems and have incomes low enough to qualify for HUD’s programs (primarily 30, 50, and 80 percent of median income).
HUD defines a
Low to Moderate Income (LMI) area as a census tract or block group where over 51 percent of the population is LMI (based on HUD income definition of up to 80 percent of the Area Median Income).
Percent of Children in Female Headed Households ~1 -=:~tsr:;"T""-< (No Spouse/ Partner)
lla<~m ap fi!atu,.,.
(."::.-_·:::_: ::1wotSa 1..-r.z :.:l.?1'.:1 60.Jr'tda1y --- !loads
8.:'( ArE<rJ'iYilt~rboj1i;is
- :Jp,,en.Spii:e~
Peramtage of Children in Female Headed-Households
No Spouse/Partner Households -T,ac.t
~ <20%
21 · 40\u
- 41 6ll%
- 61-31)%
- :. :)1)%
So J'ces: A merican Co-rmun ity Sur\l~J•, ~U15-2-'..:•1'1; U.S.D~pa1mert of Hou.sir s Md Urb.!ir D~:lopme iit ~HUD); Counly ors ,:111ld Cli:J(d, 2022.
Regional Trends
Table 13.3-13 lists Santa Clara County households by income category and tenure. Based on the above definition, 33.5 percent of Santa Clara County households are considered LMI, as they earn less than 80 percent of the HUD Area Median Family Income (HAMFI). About 45 percent of all renter households are considered LMI , compared to about 23 percent of owner households. In Santa Clara, about 32 percent of all households are considered LMI. Similar to the County, more renter households in the city are LMI (37.5 percent) than owner households (24 percent). Overall, Santa Clara has a slightly larger percentage of owner and renter households earning above the median area income (60.2 percent) compared to the County (58 percent).
Table 13.3-13: Santa Clara County & Santa Clara Households by Income Category and Tenure
Santa Clara County
Income Category Owner Renter Total
0%-30% of AMI 7.7% 20.1% 13%
31%-50% of AMI 5.9% 13% 10%
51%-80% of AMI 9.5% 12.4% 10.5%
81%-100% AMI 7.9% 8.9% 8.3%
Greater than 100% of
AMI
67.6% 45% 58%
Total 360,660 274,865 635,525
Santa Clara
Income Category Owner Renter Total
0%-30% of AMI 7.6% 15.6% 12.2%
31%-50% of AMI 8.4% 11.7% 10.3%
51%-80% of AMI 8% 10.2% 9.3%
81%-100% AMI 7.7% 7.9% 7.8%
Greater than 100% of
AMI
68% 54% 60.2%
Total 18,930 25,150 44,080
Source(s): HUD CHAS (based on 2014-2018 ACS), 2020.
Figure 13.3-12 shows the LMI areas in Santa Clara County by block group. There are drastic geographic differences in the percentage of LMI populations. The largest concentration of LMI populations is in City of San Jose , where the percentage rises to 50 to 75 percent, an d 75 to 100 percent. There are also a few concentrations in Palo Alto, Santa Clara, Campbell, and Gilroy where the LMI population is between 75 to 100 percent. In general, the cities to the west and south of San Jose have lower percentages of LMI populatio ns. This higher LMI percentage in San Jose and the western part of the County may be explained in part by the higher percentages of non - White populations in this area, ranging between 61 to 80 percent, as these populations are more likely to be economically disadvantaged and have lower incomes.
13.3 SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
FIGURE 13.3-11: REGIONAL CONCENTRATIONS OF LMI HOUSEHOLDS BY TRACT (2015)
Local Trends
In Santa Clara there are a few concentrations where the LMI populations are between 75 to 100 percent and a large area where the LMI percentage is between 50 to 75 percent. The rest of the city has block groups with LMI populations between 25 to 50 percent and below 25 percent. The largest LMI concentration between 75 to 100 percent is in the northern part of the city, where these block groups overlap with higher percentages of non-White population block groups (61 to 80 percent) and overcrowded households (12 percent).The large area of LMI population between 50 to 75 percent overlaps with block groups that have higher non -White populations (61 to 80 percent), lower median incomes (below $87,000), and higher rates of overpayment by renters (40 to 60 percent). All three of these factors may provide an explanation for th e higher rate of LMI populations in central Santa Clara. Additionally, this area is between Highway 101 and the Union Pacific Railroad and is predominantly industrial, likely contributing to the higher LMI rates.
Compared to the nearby cities of Mountain View, Sunnyvale, and Milpitas, Santa Clara has larger geographic areas with higher percentages of LMI populations. --~,
Population with Low to Moderate Income Levels , \ _____ :-:.. .. _ _, _, ____ _____ _ sasem ap Features
H.'.y .'HJ"il 1iY.'ltf>tho:"!iP~
l!lllmlil ;:',pen )l)tl ce:i
Percent of Low-Moderate
Income Population - Block Group
c::=== , ,,,,.
Zi'O· SO'_.
- 50:)o 75 %
-7,; ~.·o c(io
.,
0 __ .,/ _________ _,"
:) 1'.> 2(,
$,oun:es : Arne'icar Ccn m.Jl'I l)' S.1''.'ey. 2011 •201 : .; U.5.)a-=iartm,:i, t el t-ousi, 9 a:"le l..,roa, DevieloFm~rit (H.,.ID):.
Cucrly d S.c1nLa Cla,a. 2022.
FIGURE 13.3-12: POPULATION WITH LOW TO MODERATE INCOME LEVELS – SANTA CLARA (2021)
Housing Choice Vouchers
Housing Choice Vouchers (HCV s), a form of HUD rental subsidies, are issued to low- income households that promise to pay a certain amount of the household’s rent. Prices, or payment standards, are set based on the rent in the metropolitan area, and voucher households must pay any difference between the rent and the voucher amount. Participants of the HCV program are free to choose any rental housing that meets program requirements.
An analysis of the trends in HCV concentration can be useful in examining the success of the program in improving the living conditions and quality of life of its holders. One of the objectives of the HCV program is to encourage participants to avoid high -poverty neighborhoods and encourage the recruitment of landlords with rental properties in low poverty neighborhoods.
HCV programs are managed by Public Housing Agencies (PHAs), and the programs assessment structure (SEMAPS) includes an “expanding housing opportunities” indicator that shows whether the PHA has adopted and implemented a written policy to encourage participation by owners of units located outside areas of poverty or minority concentration.
Population with Low to Moderate Income Levels
Bas em ap Features
(."_-_·.-.~: ::: t~·ofS,mrA ::1~1·.i Bo.mJc.1r;·
--- r"igh~•1l)IS
--- ~1th
B.: 'f A rE-a V~ate-rboj les
Brllllll Jix:n Sp,K.L.~
Percent of Low-Moderate
lr1come-Populatio11 - Block Gl'oup
<" l.l%
l==:::J 2''.• SO'J.
- 50::()-75%
-:~-:o· LM..·•~
13.3 Sou((C.:'.:, . . •:)..rnc·icor Cor11nu·1 ly S.n cy, 2011 2015; U.S. ,~'.1:trlm,: 'lt d t-r,u~i, ,g ;inn l~rn;::i-, Dm1r!lo r,mf"-nt (H ~_II)); Co1..rty ct Santa Clare . 2022.
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
A study prepared by HUD’s Development Office of Policy Development and Resear ch found a positive association between the HCV share of occupied housing and neighborhood poverty concentration and a negative association between rent and neighborhood poverty 1. This means that HCV use was concentrated in areas of high poverty where r ents tend to be lower. In areas where these patterns occur, the program has not succeeded in moving holders out of areas of poverty.
Regional Trends
Santa Clara County Housing Authority (SCCHA) provides about 17,000 participants with housing choice vouche rs, making it their largest rental assistance program. SCCHA housing choice voucher holders pay 30 percent of their monthly income toward rent. Voucher holders in the “Moving to work” program pay 32 percent of their monthly income towards rent (or a minimum of $50, whichever is higher). SCCHA pays the balance of the rent to the landlords on behalf of the household.
In the County, the cities of Santa Clara, Cupertino, Mountain View, Palo Alto, and Sunnyvale, the vast majority of Project-Based Section 8 units are 0-1 bedrooms. SCHHA generally has a very long waiting list and the average wait for a household to receive an HCV is between eight to 10 years.
HCV concentration is highest in the eastern part of Santa Clara County in the cities of San Jose, Campbell, and Milpitas. As identified earlier, these areas of the County have higher percentages of non-White populations. HCV use in these areas is between five to 15 percent, 15 to 30 percent, and 30 to 60 percent. Palo Alto, Mountain View, Santa Clara, Morgan Hill, and Gilroy also show lower percentages for HCV use while the rest of the County has rates below five percent.
1 Devine, D.J., Gray, R.W., Rubin, L., & Taghavi, L.B. (2003). Housing choice voucher location patterns:
Implications for participant and neighborhood welfare. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research, Division of Program Monitoring and Research.
FIGURE 13.3-13: REGIONAL HOUSING HCV CONCENTRATION BY TRACT (2021)
Local Trends
In Santa Clara there are 650 tenant-based vouchers in use and 129 project-based vouchers. There are three concentrations of tracts with HCV use between five to 15 percent while the rest of the City’s HCV use is below five percent. There are concentrations of higher HCV use in the northern and southern part of the city. The higher HCV concentration in northern Santa Clara overlaps with the only area in the City with higher rates of female headed households (21 to 40 percent), as well as higher rates of overpayment by renters (40 to 60 percent) , and higher rates of overcrowded households (above 15 percent). The areas of higher HCV use in the southern part of the City overlaps with higher rates of LMI households (25 to 50 percent) and higher rates of overpayment by renters (40 to 60 percent).
The northern part of Santa Clara has tracts with median gross rents of $2,500. The southern part of the City has a mix of rents between $1,000 and above $3,000. Central Santa Clara has an average median rent below $1,000. This area is more affordable than the rest of the city and households in this area have lower median incomes ($87,000) than the rest of the City. Santa Clara has similar rates of affordability compared to Sunnyvale, Mountain View, and Milpitas.
13.3 R ter Units Tract Percent of_ enChoiceVoucher-with HouS1n9 o, - ofJ<o- 00'!>
- :!.l•·Jo 'Ji.>%
- ·,-.-30'>,
- 5%- 15'½
c== o-5:-1i
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
FIGURE 13.3-14: HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS – SANTA CLARA (2021)
AFFORDABILITY BY CENSUS TRACT Regional Trends
Figure 13.3-15 shows the Location Affordability Index in Santa Clara County. The index was developed by HUD in collaboration with the Department of Transportation under the federal Partnership for Sustainable Communities. One objective of the p artnership is to increase p ublic access to data on housing, transportation, and land use. Before this i ndex was established, there was no standardized national data source on household transportation expenses, which limited the ability of homebuyers and renters to fully account for the cost of living in a particular city or neighborhood.
The prevailing standard of affordability in the United States is paying 30 percent or less of a household’s income on housing. However, this prevailing standard fails to account for transportation co sts, and transportation costs have grown significantly as a proportion of household income since th e standard was established. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in the 1930s, American households spent just eight percent of their income on transportation. Since then, as a substantial proportion of the U.S. population has migrated from center cities to surrounding suburbs and exurbs and has come to rely more heavily (or exclusively) on cars, that percentage has steadily increased, peaking at 19.1 percent in 2003. As of Housing Choice Vouchers
.. -
I ~
11',: w
1. - .L--z:~~-c
'11 J_
)- . • =-1
/~ ::_, -..,--=-•· ~ ~'-I ,
I, -· f ' - '.
tr-= ---;-n
. ".' ·:i!.,~r,i'f½!i;i~:,;,.-'4-r,.C-
~ tL . t?~(Al-0 ~~[ j- 'l ~ r t:=-1
,J' ,~1,• &r f-l I 'r,J'1 ;- ..... 1;1-~ .._ ,,,·. ..~~ rth ·<-. ,~ ~ ··,=1111 Z~Y~:; "~·t.c~;_., ~7-- '1~~tJ<
::, / ri,, ~,, L'" ';:!,.. SUP.ERTINO J ' •~•:.:t,~4~~--~:• ~ • ~- I ~• ' __ ,... ~.._ . !!J..;(~t -:I r- -·~- 'er~ T__:~ :1/{~
Basemep Featurll!-s
f:.:..·:::.: CltyotS::irita Clara 1301.nd~t)
--- Hiq l1w,ri•~
--- 11Mds
(,i,)y.-..1i-...._0 'N,)--c-'lw1iii('(,
--Op~ri Spac:~~
Percent of Renter Units
with Hou$ing Choice Voucher -Tr~ct
- 60:lo - ·oo:Jo
- ,OX>-60?,
- -~~ -~I)%
Sou~ces: L1.S. De-p.ar'tr'"h~•nt ot
Hc~s.in!!I a,d U rb,11 Dtrrt9l~·pm&., t ;t-uo:,.
20'13 2021; Cuur~l:, o f 5 ~1(11.;) C kif;.1, 2022 .
2020, households spent on average about 17.4 percent of their annual income on transportation, second only to housing costs in terms of budget impact. 2 And for many working-class and rural households, transportation costs exceed housing costs.
In Santa Clara County, there is a mix of median gross rents. San Jose has areas with the lowest rents below $1,000 and areas with higher rents above $3,000. Most cities have a mix of rents between $2,000 to $3,000 and above. The most affordab le tracts are in San Jose while the more expensive tracts are around the perimeter of the County in cities like Palo Alto, Los Altos, Cupertino, Los Gatos, and east San Jose.
Local Trends
Figure 13.3-16 shows that median gross rents are highest in North ern Santa Clara and parts of Southern Santa Clara. The lowest rents are found in and adjacent to Central Santa Clara.
FIGURE 13.3-15: REGIONAL MEDIAN GROSS RENT/ AFFORDABILITY INDEX BY TRACT (2021)
2 U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, https://data.bts.gov/stories/s/ida7 -k95k, accessed 4/26/22.
Bas.em ap F,eatul'es
--- H9tw1J~~
~'f .'1rea 'Natert•o:lie~
llilllall C1J.M.:11'>1J,.1~i.:~
Media" Gros~ Rent -Tr'act
c:==::J <> 1,CC:O
c:::::::::::::: .-s1.5:o
--·zS~.c,:o
--,5'·'"" .... .. s:;:,o:I)
- (~1-oe"lltP.r t h ;m ~1,(•f,:)
13.3 Sour.: G~ : Ar·1.:riw ·1 Coftml LJ"Jily Sur·~L'Y,
2()15 20 111; U $. Dc:1.:,rtri c rr: o f Ho,,!'.i™J
Eind Urber Dwveloomwnt (HUD:: County of
Sa1ta Clar.so, 2-:22.
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
FIGURE 13.3-16: LOCATION AFFORDABILITY INDEX – SANTA CLARA (2021)
Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAP) Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs) are geographic areas with significant concentrations of poverty and minority populations. HUD developed a census-tract based definition of R/ECAP that relies on a racial and ethnic concentration threshold and a poverty test. The threshold states that an area with a non-White population of 50 percent or more would be identified as a R/ECAP; the poverty test defines areas of extreme poverty as areas where 40 percent or more of the population live below the federal poverty line or where the poverty rate is three times the average poverty rate for the metropolitan area (whichever is lower). Thus, an area that meets either the racial or ethnic concentration, and the poverty test would be classified as a R/ECAP. Identifying R/ECAPS facilitates an understanding of entrenched patterns of segregation and poverty due to the legacy effects of historically racist and discriminatory housing laws.
In Santa Clara County the only areas that meet the official definition of a R/ECAP are within San Jose and Gilroy.
11.asemap Features
(."_-_·_-:~: ::.. t)·ot S..in t..: ::J~1·.:i l:10J1Klcir•; --- ~lgh"",•a.::.,,:
--- Ktkld ~
B.: "f A rt:-rl 1N;1t~rt,o :J ie~
- Jp,en~pa:P.~
Median Gross Rent -Tract
c:::::::J , 11.0~0
l====:1 <$1,:5:>0
- ~5~.0:)0
- ·=SlSJI)
- <.:$'::i:,fl:)ll
.... Gri!!!aterchat1 'SJ,Oc:)
Sour ~es: Aneri,;a-, Commu1ity Survey,
2015-201 9; U.S. Da-p"rtM9n1: -::if I lou~i~
,nt.l Urb ,m D1:-wlou:mml ,:HUD;; Cuu11ty (A
Se•n.;1 Clar~. t:·):l:l.
Local Trends
There are no R/ECAP areas in Santa Clara nor in the nearby cities of Mountain View or Sunnyvale.
FIGURE 13.3-17: REGIONAL RACIALLY AND ETHNICALLY CONCENTRATED AREAS OF POVERTY “R/ECAPS” (2021)
Bas em ap Features
(:_-_·:.-=.: Sallti! :::1a-a (O.Jll: '.:"
--- HqhW,'\)'~
B.:' y 1~ re;:i W::it.:-rbo:l lcs
- :,P.n ,po ;e,
Racially or Ethnica lly Concentrated Areas of Poverty
[R/ECAP<) - T"'ct
,--- 0
IZZZ2Zl .
13.3 0 ---..1---------,~ 2~
' " ,.
Soul"Ca.t: U.S. Depa.rtn,u"lt of
H<"ln.:.ir,'.·: ,.:1r1:l lfrh.:,,, l'J,· .... ,~l,·i1,.-),,,~1, ,on"¥-"'11~ IHJD;; Count~ ofS.Snt.a -:.;Iara, ~i.:•22.
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
FIGURE 13.3-18: RACIALLY OR ETHNICALLY CONCENTRATED AREAS OF POVERTY “R/ECAPS” – SANTA CLARA (2021)
Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAAs)
Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAAs) are defined by the HUD as communities with a large proportion of affluent and non -Hispanic White residents. According to a policy paper published by the HUD, non-Hispanic Whites are the most racially segregated group in the United States. In the same way neighborhood disadvantage is associated with concentrated poverty and high concentrations of people of color, distinct advantages are associated with residence in affluent, White communities. RCAAs are currently not available for mapping on the AFFH Data Viewer. As such, an alternate definition of RCAA from the University of Minnesota Humphrey School of Public Affairs is used in this analysis. RCAAs are defined as census tracts where (1) 80 percent or more of the population is white, and (2) the median household income is $125,000 or greater (slightly more than double the national median household income in 2016).
Regional Trends
Comparing Figure 13.3 -1 and Figure 13.3-19 there are multiple areas where high White populations overlap with median incomes above $125,000. These areas are mostly located along . I ' ~-- _ __.. w ·,-. , "' ,,;:s ·· ~ 1r·· -;;•
=~ -;.-~ ,_, ~' . ,: ~/ I,---- )_ ~--%~~;'f:i ~.J.i~!}s;?-,r' Racially or Ethnically Concent rated Areas of Poverty "R/ECAPs"
.I< - ' . ' y .,. ' . .C-i<,:'tt<. - - .. ,-j.~~A_ .... - ,- ,, ' , '> t -~ ~ .-.s,:-.~, .>.~~, t'\3''.~j
I
B.asem ap Features
(_■_-_·:::.: ::. t~·o1 Scmix ::Jil·u ~o JrKi.irt
--- Hgh"'13)1S
- -- Kc>..,d~
~ y A ~;i \'Yi;lterbo:! ie~
llllll!l.il Jf.1€ 11 )pd ::P. ~
Rac::ially or Ethnic:"'lly Conrttntrat•d Ar@as of Povf:!rty {R/ECAPs ) - Tract
i-o
l22ZZZl.
Sourc;;i.s.: U.S. Dvp.o1rln-.iol or
. .,~-. ;~
:{:,~\,
,:.;:,
r
1·~
-:~
1-klu ~ir'lS: ,.:,,·d lfrh,'lr' l),·•y1~ li"J\11")0"!1-1, ;:;rn1..;.?'()1:! lHJD;: f..:ounty of$.e nt.a Ciera, :.::~•22.
the eastern edge of the County. However, only one community qualifies as an RCAA. The unincorporated area called Lexington Hills located along the western e dge of the County has a White population of 87.4 percent and a median household income of $166,932, meeting the alternate definition of a RCAA . This unincorporated area of 4.7 square miles is home to approximately 2,500 residents.
Table 13.3-14: White Population and Median Household Income of RCAAs in Santa Clara County
City White Population Median Household Income (2019)
Lexington Hills 87.4% $166,932
Source(s): DataUSA.io (2019)
FIGURE 13.3-19: REGIONAL MEDIAN INCOME BY BLOCK GROUP (2021)
Local Trends
The northern part of Santa Clara has block groups that have households with a median income of $125,000 and above. The southern part of the city has a smaller section of median household incomes at $30,000, while most areas have incomes at $125,000 and above. Notably, Central Santa Ba!emap Feature!
K..'.y:1rt-,4'JY,!lt-'1br:dil-'•.
--:,p.en.S.pi!;e;
Median Household Income - Block Group
< ):s,r:,.o,:.it•
I=:! , $;5.000
- ,; )37.0•)0(-iCD 2(120 c;.. i',lt:!dian ln<:or1i!!)
.... <$125,00::
- Gr@aterthan~llS,::,OC
l::::=\lc-,D,1 t,1
13.3 S.oul"Ct.S: A.me-icar Cerim .J" ty S.1,,:ecy, 2015-2019; U.S.:ie~a rtmei ': e,f t-oush~ ane t.roa, DaveloFme rit (H~1D>: Co'- rt_y d S~1nL.:i Clo,·.:i. 2022.
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Clara has median household incomes at $87,000 which is lower than the rest of the city but is the 2020 median income for California. The central part of Santa Clara also overlaps with higher rates of non -White populations, higher rates of residents with disabilities, and higher rates of overpayment for rent, all of which likely contribute to lower median incomes for households in this area. Mountain View, Sunnyvale, and Milpitas all have larger areas with higher household incomes and only a few small concentrations with lower median incomes.
FIGURE 13.3-20: MEDIAN INCOME – SANTA CLARA (2021)
In summary, Santa Clara has a lower percentage of low and moderate income (LMI) residents compared to the County, but there are severa l census blocks with higher concentrations of low income residents. These areas are located within or adjacent to Central Santa Clara. These small pockets of lower income residents suggest a need for proactive outreach to connect residents with new affordable housing opportunities as well as education about City services such as landlord tenant rights according to state laws as well as mediation services, home repair, and proactive code enforcement . Such outreach, education, and services could help increase mobility and improve living conditions in these areas.
Bas em ap f.eatures
(."_-:.·:.:.: ::-r·~•l"lf'-..v1;., :"'1Ni1 Rn mrl.11)·
--- ~iijlW1..l)' '.>
Roads
Medi•n Household Income - Block Group
c:::::=:::J , ~30.000
·'. $55.000
- -:. ).~!.UoJU(-i::.D2(J:,!IJCA 1\'1i:!c.Ji1111h1w1·1o:!) - ., ; 12,,0,,0
- Gr-!:at@rthan ~1 2~_:)(IC S.oul'Ct.S: A.me-icar Cer"'lm..1"1 ty S..1":t£y, 2015-2019; U.S.::)e:;iart.m,ei': of 1-oush~ ane l.r oa, DaveloFmerit CHJD ):.
C ut. rl_y d S~1nL.:i Clof.:i. 2022.
Analysis above indicates that residents in Central Santa Clara include Asian/Pacific Islander, White, and Hispanic/Latino residents who are disproportionately overrepresented in this area.
Proactive outreach in Central Santa Clara should be conducted in English, Spanish and other relevant languages to provide greater access to city programs and affordable housing opportunities throughout the City.
Access to Opportunities
Access to opportunity is a concept to approximate the link between place -based characteristics (e.g., education, employment, safety, and the environment) and critical life outcomes (e.g., health, wealth, and life expectancy). Ensuring access to opportunity means both improving the quality of life for residents of low -income communities, as well as support ing residents’ mobility and access to ‘high resource’ neighborhoods.
TCAC Opportunity Maps
TCAC Maps are opportunity maps created by the California Fair Housing Task Force (a convening of the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC)) to provide research and evidence -based policy recommendations to further HCD’s fair housing goals of (1) avoiding further segregation and concentration of poverty and (2) encouraging access to opportunity through land use policy and affordable housing, program design, and implementation. These opportunity maps identify census tracts with highest to lowest resources, segregation, and poverty, which in turn inform the TCAC to distribute funding more equitably for affordable housing in areas with the highest opportunity through the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) Program.
TCAC Opportunity Maps display areas by highest to lowest resources by assigning scores between 0–1 for each domain by census tracts where higher scores indicate higher “access” to the domain or higher “outcomes.” Refer to Table 13.3-15 for a list of domains and indicators for opportunity maps. Composite scores are a combination score of the three domains that do not have a numerical value but rather rank census tracts by the level of resources (low, moderate, high, highest, and high poverty and segregation). The opportunity maps also include a measure or “filter” to identify areas with poverty and racial segregation. The criteria for these filters were:
• Poverty: Tracts with at least 30 percent of population under the federal poverty line; • Racial Segregation: Tracts with location quotient higher than 1.25 for Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, or all people of color in comparison to the County
13.3 SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Table 13.3-15: Domains and List of Indicators for Opportunity Maps Domain Indicator
Economic Poverty
Adult Education
Employment
Job Proximity
Median home value
Environmental CalEnviroScreen 4.0 pollution Indicators and values
Education Math proficiency
Reading proficiency
High School graduation rates
Student poverty rates
Source(s): California Fair Housing Task Force, Methodology for the 2021 TCAC/ HCD Opportunity Maps, December 2020
High resource areas have high index scores for a variety of opportunity indicators such as high employment rates, low poverty rates, proximity to jobs, high educational proficiency, and limited exposure to environmental health hazards. High resource tracts are areas that offer low- income residents the best chance of a high quality of life, whether through economic advancement, high educational attainment, or clean environmental health. Moderate resource areas have access to many of the same resources as the high resource areas but may have fewer job opportunities, lower performing schools, lower median home values, or other factors that lower their indexes across the various economic, educational, and environmental indicators. Low resource areas are characterized as having fewer opportunities for employment and education, or a lower index for other economic, environmental, and educational indicators. These areas have greater quality of life needs and should be prioritized for future investment to improve opportunities for current and future residents.
Information from opportunity mapping can help highlight the need for housing element policies and programs that would help to remediate conditions in low resource areas or areas of high segregation and poverty, and to encourage better access for low and moderate income, and black, indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC) households to housing in high resource areas.
Regional Trends
Figure 13.3-21 provides a visual representation of TCAC Opportunity Areas in Santa Clara County based on a composite score, where each tract is categorized based on percentile rankings of the level of resources within the region . The western part of the County has cities with the highest resources such as Palo Alto, Cupertino, Saratoga, Monte Sereno, and Los Gatos. The central part of the County has a mix of resource scores of high, moderate, and low with the largest low resource areas in San Jose and Morgan Hill. The eastern part of San Jose has areas with both the lowest and highest resource scores.
Local Trends
Santa Clara has a mix of resource scores. The northern part of the city has moderate and high resources, the central part of the city has low resources, and the southern part of the city has a mix of low, moderate, high, and highest resources. The areas with low resources also overlap with higher CalEnviroScreen Scores (50 to 74 percent) (Figure 13.3 -36), lower Healthy Places Index Scores (50 to 75) (Figure 13.3-38 ), higher rates of LMI households (50 to 75 percent) and areas with higher non- White populations (61 to 80 percent). The new TCAC opportunity area map below (Figure 13.3 -23) sho ws a shift in resources in certain areas of the City. North of highway 101 and the San Tomas Freeway the northern part of the City which was previously moderate resource is now high resource. Since the advent of City Specific Plans , we see a trajectory towards higher resource areas with greater investment increasing amenities for neighborhoods. Figure 13.3-23 shows that the City’s site inventory (purple shapes) are generally dispersed from existing subsidized housing (red dots).
FIGURE 13.3-21: REGIONAL TCAC COMPOSITE SCORES BY TRACT (2021)
TCAC Opportunity Areas (2021) Composite Score
TCAC Opportunity Areas - Composite Score
r':;j
\_
Basl!map ~atures
r:.-_-.-.-_: Santa CtaraCc>unty
--HK)hw.,y~
RilyA ri!'J!~t .. rbQdil!'\
-Op.! nS.p;i,tH
- Highest f«!i()Uf'-'t
- Hi<JhR4'-S¢!.mit
c::::::J Mii.>d.,1~1.-R...,Qurc• (Rilpid ly (hm9ir'l9)
Mod~•iltf! R:~ou rl:'t!
llliillliil LC'.7w'Res.c:>U1C:t
r----:J High Segfegat!on & Pove<ty
- Mls.sJngJlnsuffkh•nt Data
...
. (r-.:--~.,~·-·~---~
"
Sou1cos.; U.S. Oep;:irtmont of
H0u$in9 aM Vl'b.an Qo,v('lopmont (HVO).
Count y (If Sar"lt a Cla(a, 202:2.
13.3 SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
FIGURE 13.3-22: TCAC OPPORTUNITY AREAS – COMPOSITE SCORE – SANTA CLARA (2021)
TCAC Opportunity Areas (2021) Composite Score Bau!map Features ,:.::: .~: Gtyof S.inta Cl,Hol Bound..l,y - H19h~)I l!eWU•~ --Hi9hw.a~ - Hlgh~k:l~lr(l'-
Ro;,ds C:=:J PI.Qt:ler,,ie R,e,$OIIF(f' {Rapl,dl)' (h;Jn91r191 - Modetate ke-sourct!'
~ LowRl!'~Ul(I!'
L--...J H19h Seqr"9ll!ti()O 8, Pov.,r,y
- PAlsdngftns"ffic l@nl 1)~1~
Sourcm.: U.S. Dopa..-lmoll! el
1-iou:5.iJ\9 and U rt:iar\ Oe\l~lopmanl (HUD},
County of Santa Clara. 2022.
FIGURE 13.3-23: SITES INVENTORY, EXISTING AFFORDABLE HOUSING, AND TCAC OPPORTUNITY AREAS – COMPOSITE SCORE – SANTA CLARA (2023)
Opportunity Indices
This section presents the HUD-developed index scores based on nationally available data sources to assess residents’ access to key opportunity assets in comparison to the County. Table 13.3-16 provides index scores or values (the values range from 0 to 100) for the following opportunity indicator indices:
• School Proficiency Index: The school proficiency index uses school -level data on the performance of 4th grade students on state exams to describe which neighborhoods have high-performing elementary schools nearby and which are near lower performing elementary schools. The higher the index value, the higher the school system quality is in a neighborhood.
• Labor Market Engagement Index: The labor market engagement index provides a summary description of the relative intensity of labor market engagement and human capital in a neighbor hood. This is based upon the level of employment, labor force
MILPITAS
SAN JOS:
cun P."l'IN::J
!~ . I
0 13.3
City of '~anta Clara
TCAC Oppurlu11 ily Arec1~
Legend
3aserociF Features
[~~7 :ianta ll.:r.:1 C1t1 Lm 1t5
W'alor Dest1nn1ons
Parks and Open soace
R v: ·:t c:11U W ::ih:1 I.HJUi -:)
3urrouncing Citic~
1111 Un r c::>rJ:cr .itc::l&i, :.i Cb10 CClunty
; ;ti?'s /:'Jver,tory (2013 )
- ;r.e~ !n•1enbry
c,·tttt: S11b11drred HousmQ (2.UB.t
• up t:) ~u Affordable units
e 51 to 100 Aff,Jrcab 1E Unit!
- 10: Lo 150 AffuuJd !J e Unib
• 15: to 200 A:fordub c Unib
c rc.t.C/HCO O/JDCrtL·nttv Areas {2023!
- Highest P.esource
- ll1gh P.c::;01.u-cc:
t-lcdcr.:it~ flc:;.ourcc:
l7 Lowflc:;.our::c:
l7 High ~ec ·ei;:atio"'\ & Poverty
LJ NoD~t.l
~ );&~ C..,~rlJ \f )<111,..0.,, ,. Q.,.,,044
,lll.;~,..:ri:vof::ait..U;r",!Ul..:~
era
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
participation, and educational attainment in a census tract. The higher the index value, the higher the labor force participation and human capital in a neighborhood. • Transit Trips Index: This index is based on estimates of transit trips taken by a family that meets the following description: a 3-person single-parent family with income at 50 percent of the median income for renters for the region ( i.e., the Core -Based Statistical Area (CBSA). The higher the transit trips index value, the more likely residents in that neighborhood utilize public transit.
• Low Transportation Cost Index: This index is based on estimates of transportation costs for a family that meets the following description: a 3- person single-parent family with income at 50 percent of the median income for renters for the region/CBSA. The higher the index value, the lower the cost of transportation in that neighborhood. • Jobs Proximity Index: The jobs proximity index quantifies the ac cessibility of a given residential neighborhood as a function of its distance to all job locations within a region/CBSA, with larger employment centers weighted more heavily. The higher the index value, the better the access to employment opportunities for residents in a neighborhood.
• Environmental Health Index: The environmental health index summarizes potential exposure to harmful toxins at a neighborhood level. The higher the index value, the less exposure to toxins harmful to human health. Therefore, th e higher the index value, the better the environmental quality of a neighborhood ( where a neighborhood is a census block-group).
Table 13.3-16: Opportunity Indices by Race/ Ethnicity – Santa Clara County
School
Proficiency
Index
Labor
Market
Index
Transit
Trip
Index
Low
Transportation
Cost Index
Jobs
Proximity
Index
Environmental
Health Index
Santa Clara County
Total Population
White, Non-
Hispanic
81.85 82.15 68.07 91.22 52.75 58.84
Black, Non-
Hispanic
74.05 74.24 73.41 93.10 57.03 53.45
Hispanic 58.86 61.91 64.53 91.30 43.19 54.62
Asian or
Pacific
Islander,
Non-
Hispanic
85.32 83.26 71.35 91.36 51.68 61.59
Native
American,
Non-
Hispanic
69.43 68.36 67.23 91.76 50.57 56.68
Population Below Federal Poverty Line
White, Non-
Hispanic
77.47 79.47 70 92.22 52.67 56.88
Black, Non-
Hispanic
55.29 63.66 64.3 90.61 41 59.89
Hispanic 50.56 54.77 64.34 92.15 43.58 53.07
Asian or
Pacific
Islander,
Non-
Hispanic
72.77 73.73 67.96 91.39 52.68 57.31
Native
American,
Non-
Hispanic
75.1 75.82 76.71 94.47 72.22 63.36
Note: American Community Survey Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. See page 31 for index score meanings.
Source(s): AFFHT Data Table 13.3-17; Data Sources: Decennial Census; ACS; Great Schools; Common Core of Data; SABINS; LAI; LEHD; NATA
Education
Housing and school policies are mutually reinforcing, which is why it is important to analyze access to educational opportunities when assessing fair housing. At the most general level, school districts with the greatest amount of affordable housing tend to attract larger numbers of LMI families (largely composed of minorities). As test scores are a reflection of student demographics,
13.3 SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
where Black/Hispanic/Latino students routinely score lower than their White peers, less diverse schools with higher test scores tend to attract higher income families to the school district. This is a fair housing issue because as higher income families move to the area, the overall cost of housing rises and an exclusionary feedback loop is created, leading to increased racial and economic segregation across districts as well as decreased access to high-performing schools for non-White students.
Regional Trends
The 2021 TCAC Opportunity Areas Education Composite Score for a census tract is based on math and reading proficiency, high school graduation rate, and student poverty rate indicators.
The score is broken up by quartiles, with the highest quartile indicating more positive education outcomes and the lowest quartile signifying fewer positive outcomes.
Santa Clara County has 28 school districts. As of 2020, throughout the County there were 255 elementary schools, 61 middle schools, 55 high schools, 11 continuing education schools, 10 alternative schools, five junior high schools, four K-12 schools, two community day schools, and one special education school.
3 The map below shows the TCAC education score for the County with the central and southern parts of the County including San Jose, Morgan Hill, and Gilroy showing scores between 0.25 - 0.50 which are less positive education scores. The cities on the western side of the County and Milpitas have scores above 0.75 which is the more positive education outcome score. The areas with lower scores correspond to areas with higher non-White populations and th e areas with higher scores correspond to areas with lower non -White populations. Table 13.3-17 indicates that index values for school proficiency are higher for White residents, indicating a greater access to high quality schools. For populations below the federal poverty line , index values for school proficiency are highest among White, Native American (Non-Hispanic), and Asian or Pacific Islander (Non-Hispanic).
Local Trends
The northern part of Santa Clara has a TCAC education score of 0.50 to 0.75 which trend toward the more positive educational outcome score. The central part of Santa Clara has a score of between 0.25 to 0.50 which trends toward the less positive educational outcome score (note there are no public schools located in the central part of the City). The southern part of Santa Clara has a mix of scores between 0.25 to 0.50, 0.50 to 0.75 and above 0.75. The nearby cities of Mountain View and Milpitas mostly have TCAC education scores above 0.75 while the city of Sunnyvale has a mix of scores similar to Santa Clara.
3 Ed-data.org
According to the National Center for Education data from 2021, there were 23 public schools in Santa Clara (Figure 13.3-26). These public school rankings reflect the TCAC Education scores with schools in the northern part of the city receiving scores below the top 30 percent and schools in the southern part of the city receiving scores in the top 10 percent and above. There are no public schools located in the central part of the city.
FIGURE 13.3-24: REGIONAL TCAC EDUCATION SCORES (2021)
TCAC Opportunity Areas - Education Score
:"_;;~ \
' . ,. __ ~ \
\
, .............. - -L __ L ••
-. .,.,. ....
. ~~- '') .-,~~
r~, 6R'u..•11-J'HILl!.l '\,
•-.1L..~ tf:·:••A \ ~, ,;:- t;:),_\ ...
. '14 \ F" ?0,,-,· . ,
'-""\ \ ~ ) \
\ \ . :-- -~:\\. r\.,' '-
--., ' :ll7 .(0lJI\Tyl./ L~\ i
' , ·~-. ~-- ~ t' >.JC' ,, • __ r ~ . ··i ___ ,:t~N/: )1> .. , . . _.,_,':r ~ ' . _,, i 'I·. ,, --.... 1 ,•
Basemap Features
C.:::.:.: ~,nt,1 ( tw-1 C.,L1n·y
---High¼•ay:;
Di~• A1c-a v~·at,;-rbojies
--Qa::-cr, S.pxc:;
\ ••J ""I._ T , / •,?'',. ~,/
\
• ~ ' X ..;.;',•,,, :.-:y:~-✓•-, . -,) ,,J
- -- . \ ~-
____ ...___
TCAC Opportunity Areas- Education Score
-Tract
~Jo Dota
c:::::::::I < .25 (less f'o~iti1i'e Edu-:"3t on Outcor1e:
.25 - .50
___ .su - .75
13.3 0 ------------■ fl.iii ~, :, ·o ~'-'
Sources: U.S. Cepcrtn~1-: ,:,f
Hol.':;inl] ::inrl U..-hr.n l),a.vpk·,:,m~nt (I-Ill(";); C.Our'1Lya f Si.JnL.aCl.:iro, 2l•:.!2.
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
FIGURE 13.3-25: TCAC OPPORTUNITY AREAS – EDUCATION SCORE – SANTA CLARA (2021)
FIGURE 13.3-26: PUBLIC SCHOOL RANKINGS (2021)
TCAC Opportunity Areas - Education .Scor
Ba:.:emap Feature-s
r:::..·::: .. : Crtyt>f~nvi Cl.cir.18ound111y
--H;g hways
.... ,
Say Area WaterbodM'!s
- Open Spa,ces
Basemap Feature-1
r _' _-:_· _" _:_: Cit)' ol s.tnt-i Cl,lrn Bound-i,y
Open:S~c es
fl.tyt., ..... w-..it 1bQdii,)
--tf~ hways
""""'
I
:,··-··-··J
---- _____ _L
TA CCARA
TCACOppottunity Ar'eas - Education Scote
-Tra ct
c..........::i No0,lld
- < 25 (le.s Posh~c- Eduai uon Outcomc-J
[===:11 .2.s-..so
.50 .75
- > .1$ (Mo,e Po$ilrw &iu(ft1M)r"l0 utc,011H•I
Californ ia School Rankings based on S1udentTe:st Scores • lo1,1T~
• TopS'W.
"
Top \Cf.lb
0 Top2~
0 Top3Mt.
0 Top~O'lit-
• sonom50%
0 - •--------•Vil~ i> 07S I~ J
Sourc95; U.S. Oeparim•ni of
Hou~ing dn"ld Urbal'I Oo-ve!-lopmont (HUD),
County of Sa"t& Clara, 2022.
"
,o
\.-: ~:,VI<
lt.i,q, 1:.1.ll ust;s NI:>~
0 __ ,-------• '-'le•
0 0./=:i :I
Sou,c•J;: Publiie Sthoo t Rlilviliw, 202'1;
U.S. DepartrnlM'lt of Hou-'ing a,nd Ud>a.n
Chllv11lopm1ttnl (HUO);
County of Sainta Clar~. 2022,
Transportation
Access to public transit is of paramount importance to households affected by low incomes and rising housing prices, especially because lower income households are often transit dependent.
Public transit should strive to link lower income persons, who are often transit dependent, to major employers where job opportunities exist. Access to employment via public transportation can reduce welfare usage and increase housing mobility, which enables residents to reside .in housing outside of traditionally low-income neighborhoods.
Transportation opportunities are depicted by two indices: (1) the transit trips index and (2) the low transportation cost index. The transit trips index measures how often low-income families in a neighborhood use public transportation. The index ranges from 0 to 100, with higher values indicating a higher likelihood that residents in a neighborhood utilize public transit. The low transportation cost index measures cost of transportation and proximity to public transportation by neighborhood. It too varies from 0 to 100, and higher scores point to lower transportation costs in that neighborhood.
Regional Trends
In Santa Clara County, neither transit index, regardless of poverty level, varies noticeably across racial/ethnic categories. All races and ethnicities score highly on both indices, with values close in magnitude. If these indices are accurate depictions of transportation accessibility, it might be concluded that all racial and ethnic classes have high and relatively equal access to transportation at both the jurisdictional and regional levels. If anything, both indices appear to take slightly higher values for non -Hispanic Black residents and non-Hispanic Native-American residents, suggesting greater access to and lower costs for transit for these protected groups.
Santa Clara County is served by Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) which includes bus and light rail service throughout the County. VTA runs three light rail lines, 19 rapid bus lines, 24 local bus lines, four express shuttles, and nine shuttles. The County is very well connected by public transit to the larger Bay Area region . The area is also served by Amtrak with stations in Santa Clara and San Jose. The eastern part of Santa Clara County is served by Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART). Both San Jose and Milpitas have BART stops and are served by the Green and Orange lines. The Orange line connects to Richmond and the Green line connects to San Francisco.
13.3 SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
FIGURE 13.3-27: REGIONAL PUBLIC TRANSIT ACCESS (2021)
Local Trends
The City of Santa Clara is serviced by Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) including both bus and light rail service. The City of Santa Clara is serviced by two rapid bus lines, three local bus lines, two light rail line, the Altamont Corridor Express (ACE) and Amtrak rail. According to the website alltransit.cnt.org, Santa Clara has a transit performance score of seven (out of 10). This score is determined by the number of transit trips per week a household takes and the number of jobs accessible by transit for a geographic area. Nearby cities of Mountain View and Sun nyvale have higher transit scores of 7.7 and 7.2 respectively, while Milpitas has a lower score of 6.7.
Transit access is significantly better in South Santa Clara where there are two rapid bus lines, three frequent bus lines , and the Santa Clara Caltrain Station which will be expanded to also accommodate a BART station connecting to San Jose and the East Bay. Central Santa Clara has a few local bus routes and the Lawrence Caltrain Station while North Santa Clara has several light rail stations with a less robust network of local bus routes. Figure 13.3-28 shows the VTA transit map.
Publ ic Transit Access
' 1
,)
I
Bas em ap Features
r:.:.·:.:.: 5.ant.! ::::1;ii·a C~JrY:)'
---1- ii_JhY",,t:,ii
~ y /1 rE-a 'Naterbo: les
:i[M::n S.pa=F.;
Public Transit Routes
[UsFtoutes
--- K,;illin :.,
\
\
\
0 ------------:... ~--.) 1) :.-0
So1,,rc.es: Uroa1 rootprint F.Jtlic. T'ansi1:
U.S. D8pctt'I.J)l'::l')l d Housing ,:!'lo
\J·b ,m D(:jl\'112lup-r y•1l (HUD):
C::i.J'l":Y o+ Sant.p Cler;1, 2-02.2.
FIGURE 13.3-28: VTA TRANSIT MAP (2023)
The cities of Cupertino and Santa Clara have partnered on the Silicon Valley Hopper app-based ride-share program. The program will provide seamless EV ride share services with a $3.50 fare between any two points within the service zone. The service will help residents get to major employment centers, hospitals, and rail transit stations. Phase I will serve South Santa Clara and Phase II will serve Central and North Santa Clara starting in 2027. Figure 13.3-29 shows a map of the Valley Hopper service area.
..
]
!
.. 1 -~-
i
J
C-M (
--------- ~ ~~
SJC ----~ '•/ -,
i=... ', 5~~ Jose'
- ...... ,,._ t.·
_..., ,._
a..
c-.,w;.~ ~
o,===: ~
... -,:J l
XIIIC i -■{.J
13.3 SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
FIGURE 13.3-29: VALLEY HOPPER SERVICE AREA (2023)
Economic Development
Employment opportunities are depicted by two indices: (1) the labor market engagement index and (2) the jobs proximity index. The labor market engagement index provides a summary description of the relative intensity of labor market engagement and human capital in a neighborhood, taking into account the unemployment rate, labor -force participation rate, and percent with a bachelor’s degree or higher. The index ranges from 0 to 100, with higher values indicating higher labor force participation and human capital. The jobs proximity index quantifies the accessibility of a neighborhood to jobs in the region by measuring the physical distances between jobs and places of residence. It too varies from 0 to 100, and higher scores point to better accessibility to employment opportunities.
-....
..
,I
·-
Popular destinations:
• Apple Park
8 Kaiser Permanente Hospital
f) Main Street Cupertino
Q De Anza CoUege
C, Rancho San Antonio
0 West VaUey Medical
8 El camino Health
Mountain v,ew Hospital
Sunnyvale caLtrain station
Lawrence CalTrain Station
Santa Clara catTrain Station
Mountain View
CatTrain Station
Phases of zone expansion:
Phase l
Phase 2
Regional Trends
In Santa Clara County, Black Non -Hispanic, White Non -Hispanic, Native American Non - Hispanic, and Asian or Pacific Islander residents all have similar index scores around 50, while Hispanic residents have an index score of 43.19. The map below shows the spatial variability of jobs proximity in Santa Clara County. Cities in northern Santa Clara County along the southern part of San Francisco bay have the highest jobs proximity index of 60 to 80 and 80 and above. This likely reflects the fact that these cities are closer to major economic regions of Silicon Valley and San Francisco. Southern and eastern San Jose have lower jobs proximity index scores (between 40 to 60, 20 to 40, and below 20) as these areas are further away from the economic hubs to the west.
The cities of Saratoga, Los Gatos, Morgan Hill, and Gilroy have lower jobs proximity index scores as they are more residential than the surrounding cities. Morgan Hill and Gilroy are also in the southern part of the County, geographically further away from economic hubs. The TCAC scores for the region have some overlap with jobs proximity index scores. The northern and western parts of the County have the highest TCAC scores (above 75) which is the most positive economic outcome, while the eastern, central, and southern parts of the County have scores between 50 to 75, 25 to 50 and below 25 which is the least positive economic outcome. Again, eastern San Jose, Morgan Hill, and Gilroy have lower TCAC scores than other cities in the County.
FIGURE 13.3-30: REGIONAL JOBS PROXIMITY INDEX (2021)
Basemap Features
(. -• ·-; ~,ml,I ( .l,:1-1( D.1 11 '/
··-··- llg hways
~ Ea:,,· .A,re.:i "Nlterbo die-~
--Opi_•1,'S1Jo.1r.i .. ·:..
. . Job Locations . I Pr0>am1ty ta R&sidantla . n - Block Group ·thin• Regio WI ·u~e:-~L P'1 :.:,:irniL:,·) _ ,_sc_
- <J·EJ
)[.l .l]
===:=J :::'.l- 4'.l hMtf-to)(Yllt~: ====:J < 2c :Fun
13.3 IS D .-·p,)r"lll1~·1L d P.nt i'HlJl) j. s.,,, ,c,>< .. I. .•. ,can l)e,;e lc rm. .2022. l-tn1.-.in1J ;nrl U t S:enta Cl.are, 2014-2017: County o
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
FIGURE 13.3-31: REGIONAL TCAC OPPORTUNITY AREAS – ECONOMIC SCORE (2021)
Local Trends
The northern and central parts of Santa Clara have the highest jobs proximity index scores (above 80) which indicates closest proximity. T he southern part of the city has a mix of scores between 60 to 80 and 40 to 60, as they are further away from economic hubs in the northern and eastern parts of the County. The TCAC scores are more variable within the central part of the city with scores between 50 to 75, nearing the more positive economic outcome. Areas in the southern part of the City have scores as low as 25 to 50. The economic score takes into account levels of poverty, adult education, employment, job proximity, and median home value for the area. While job proximity is high for most of the city, income, education, and home values are more variabl e.
Central Santa Clara has more LMI households and lower household median incomes, likely influencing this score. Nearby cities of Mountain, Sunnyvale, and Milpitas have similar jobs proximity index scores, while Milpitas has lower TCAC scores than the three other cities.
8,uem ap Features
• -- • - : Sanui :Jr1•a CoJn:;"'
(, •-,,_ 1 lghe,•~•
K.a.y:1rf-A'JY:-tlt-'1bn:1il-'\
--:,pen .)~:;:e ~
·iyArea~TCAC Opportan,
-Tract
Economic Sc:ore
t:== 'k,Dot.:1 cOJt< o rre'.• --- -,,:;_ i'.Les5 Positive Eco,om i:::::::::I ·,., c::::::::::J " '"
~ .SO ."J; ~. Y"" Em Km· ic ,Jut cc 1· c >
- ~.75 •Wo1ef'1ut -
'}f ~~ ~---;,~,-- ,,,..
LIS. D~partTf:'nt ot 6r,t CHUD): Sources: · U ban Davelopm h:L.5ing n~ ~ Cl.:i·iJ 2022. CuurHy o f S~1f1L;; '
FIGURE 13.3-32: JOBS PROXIMITY INDEX – SANTA CLARA (2021)
FIGURE 13.3-33: TCAC OPPORTUNITY AREA – ECONOMIC SCORE – SANTA CLARA (2021)
Basemap Feature-s
r .-.-:_·_-.-:.; City ol Santa Clar,1 Bounda.y
--H!g hwt1ys
Rood,
Bay AnNI ~lerbod les
- Open SpatH
Basemap F~aturu
(."::.·:::.: CltyotS.>1n.1C:1-,r.,8ound,uy
--"1!,ghwa)'S
Roads
~y ArN W111terbodie:i.
- OpenS~te!o
L.,,
·---- ··- ··---- ·----·· - "j
!Residential Proximity to Job Location .s
within a Region - Bloc:k Group
- <80(0oses1P'foJdmltY)
- 60-8()
- •0-60
20 40
l===:::J < 10 (Furchest Proxlmhyl
TCAC Opportunity Areas- Economic: Store
-Tract
l:=:J NoO~a
- < .lS {Len Positive Economic Outcome)
-===::;a .:ZS· .SO
C-U .SO .7S
- > .7S (MOie Pos1t!ve Economk Ou1come)
13.3 Sources: U.S. O&partm ent of
Housi ng and Urban Deve lopment (HUD),
2014'2017 ; County of Santa Cla,a, 2022.
_______ ,,,,..,, _____ .,
\
l PfTAS .,,,/
( ,,, ~~
•, .,.,
~
41 Sourc:es; U.S. Department of
!lill
Hou::;tl'l9 i!lnd Urbi, n Dcvciopmon t (HUO};
County of S.lf'lt.l Cl.lrtl. 2022.
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Environment
The Environmental Health Index summarizes potential exposure to harmful toxins at a neighborhood level. Index values range from 0 to 100 and the higher the index value, the less exposure to toxins harmful to human health. Therefore, the higher the value, the better the environmental quality of a neighborhood ( where a neighborhood is a cen sus block -group).
Environmental health index scores are similar across all races, with scores in the mid -50s to 60.
For populations below the poverty line , Native American Non -Hispanic residents have the highest score, of 63.36, while other groups have scores in the mid-50s.
CalEnviroScreen was developed by the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) to evaluate pollution sources in a community while accounting for a community’s vulnerability to the adverse effects of pollution. Measures of pollution burden and population characteristics are combined into a single composite score that is mapped and analyzed. Higher value d scores o indicate higher cumulative environmental burden and population impacts.
The California O ffice of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) compiles these scores to help identify California communities disproportionately burdened by multiple sources of pollution. In addition to environmental factors (pollutant exposure, groundwater threats, toxic sites, and hazardous materials exposure) and sensitive receptors (seniors, children, persons with asthma, and low birth weight infants), CalEnviroScreen also considers socioeconomic factors such as educational attainment, linguistic isolation, poverty, and unemployment.
Regional Trends
The map below displays the Environmental Score for Santa Clara County based on CalEnviroScreen 3.0 Pollution Indicators and Values that identif y communities in California disproportionately burdened by multiple sources of pollution and that face vulnerability due to socioeconomic factors. Much of the County received scores below 25 to 50 percent, indicating a less positive environmental outlook. While these scores suggest high levels of vulnerable communities, the data has limitations. From the CalEnviroScreen website: “Opportunity mapping also has limitations. For example, maps’ accuracy is dependent on the accuracy of the data behind them. Data may be derived from self -reported surveys of subsets of an area’s population, and sometimes may not be recorded or reliable in some areas. Further, even the most recent publicly available datasets typically lag by two years, meaning they may not adequately capture conditions in areas undergoing rapid change. The methodology described in this document attempts to address each of these limitations to the degree possible.”
FIGURE 13.3-34: REGIONAL TCAC OPPORTUNITY AREAS – ENVIRONMENTAL SCORE (2021)
The map below displays updated scores for CalEnviroScreen 4.0 released by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, suggesting a more positive environmental outlook for the area. Much of the county has scores below 25 to 49 percent suggesting fewer adverse environmental impacts. There is a concentration in and around San Jose where scores are between 50 to 74 percent and 75 percent and higher indicating high levels of adverse environmental impacts. The eastern edge of Gilroy also reports scores of 75 percent or higher.
Bas em •P Featu,es
Dl)" ,1\ rE-a 'Not~rbo-::: les
- :)pf::n~pa=F.~
TCAC Opp<>rtunity Areas- Em,i,onmentol s,,.,e
-Tract
l===='i .2$ · .IO
l_'i(l - 7-i
- -i- .75 ,Nori:f'o ~if Vo;! £mhoTrt;n-;a l Outcomo:'.
13.3 ,,
Sou,c.c:.. U.S. Di:.-p.::fl·r crll oi
t-r.1,.c;ing -:i'lrl Urh ~n llr.·.•<'ln-rmr.nt (HUD);
Coum:- QT So,nte Cl.e's, 2022.
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
FIGURE 13.3-35: REGIONAL CALENVIROSCREEN 4.0 (2021)
Local Trends
The City of Santa Clara has the most positive CalEnviroScreen scores in the northern and southern parts of the city (25 to 49 percent and below 24 percent) while the central part of the city has scores between 50 to 74 percent. The central part of Santa Clara with less positive environmental scores i s likely due to the fact that the area is predominantly industrial and is located between Highway 101 to the north, the Union Pacific Railroad Corridor to the south, and the San Jose International Airport to the east. The nearby cities of Mountain View, Su nnyvale, and Milpitas have CalEnviroScreen scores between 50 and 74 percent.
Bas em ap Features
(:.·:.-:::.: '-,,ml.; U,n ( (J.111 V
--- I l9h'r'1'.J~S
B.!y AN:>n 1i\'aterbo::!ie~
--:)pen )pa ::-e,
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Result,;
-Ttad
- 24)o orLcw,·: r
1=-::1 2:>v-49%
I )L•->o :-+%
--7,;~ orHigher
Suu,<:G~: CJliro111i~, Orfi<:c..: l>f
E·wironme,tal Ho:!alth Ha~ard Asse!.Sm!!nt. 2021;
,.,1,S. DepQrt T1~n1 of H~u:: ing and Urbain
Jrt:1'1,11::1 up,tw,ml •:HUDi; CcJJoL:, o · S,rnl.i Cl.ilrfl, 2022 ,
FIGURE 13.3-36: CALENVIROSCREEN 4.0 – SANTA CLARA (2021)
Health and Recreation
Residents should have the opportunity to live = in healthy communities. The Healthy Places Index (HPI) is a new tool that allows local officials to diagnose and change community conditions that affect health outcomes and the wellbeing of residents. The HPI tool was developed by the Public Health Alliance of Southern California to assist in comparing community conditions across the state, and combines 25 community characteristics such as housing, education, economic, and social factors into a single indexed HPI Percentile Score, where lower percentiles indicate less healthy conditions and higher scores indicate healthier conditions.
Regional Trends
The entire County has Healthy Places Index (HPI) scores between 50 to 75 and 75 to 100, indicating healthier conditions. The areas with the slightly lower scor es of 50 to 75 are in Santa Clara, Milpitas, San Jose, Morgan Hill, and Gilroy.
Basem ap Ni!a tu res
f _-_-_-_-::.: :: t'f of S21nt2 Cirri D::,u1dary
--- Hi~hw.J;,·:,
--- Roads
B.:'t Pt1"~ Vi'::it2rbol'.he~
--:)pen Sp;i::e ~
:,··-·---J
-··- ··- ••-'••-,
- ; .
13.3 - --..---· I r,·.
' -~ ; 1.. \
~ I '\
CalEnviroSc,..,n 4,0 Results
-Tract
I ~H ''"~
--75% or Hi9her
A : • • •~~
•'
. -.;;
,; n ~ ,(q
' J~
1 _,
o ,--, .. l",,--. .. ,---- i;il,.
Sc.tu1t:(.:~; C~,lilo1 r1i;., Offii.:i.; l>I
En•;ironmenta l He-.alth -ia.=ard J..sse!iSm!!nt. 2021; U.S. Oepc<rt Tent of -lou~ ing and Urban
Dtc-voi! cp1·1~f1t •:HUDi; Cou11Ly o· Se:1nl.i Cl;;ir,1, 2022.
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
FIGURE 13.3-37: REGIONAL HEALTHY PLACES INDEX (2021)
Local Trends
Northern and southern parts of Santa Clara have HPI scores between 75 to 100 while central Santa Clara has scores between 50 to 75, reflecting the CalEnviroScreen scores. Mountain View and Sunnyvale have scores between 75 to 100 while Milpitas has more areas with scores between 50 to 75.
Ba$em ap Features
--- I 'lgh\o',1)'5
ll.!y ArP.r11Naterbo::i1e~
--- :.)a:.i€n ~pi!::"1~
Healthy Places lndeic
(Total Percentile Ranking)
~ 0 - 2>'.LE!~sl·faalt1;· Ccrd 1ti::ms·1
2, -so
)(, /:,
- 7; - · OC (Health if' Conditiors)
Sour:,o-;.: L..S. Dco.:i ·tmc-rt of
H:.us ir19 and U•oa'l Devefo pTent,
~-:)09-2013 {H~lD); He.::lt ~yPlacesl 1d2x .ar9;
Ccu··,Ly ar S.:ar1lu Cl..ir,), 2022.
FIGURE 13.3-38: HEALTHY PLACES INDEX – SANTA CLARA (2021)
In summary Santa Clara has a mix of CTCAC opportunity area scores. The northern part of the city has moderate and high resources, the central part of the city has low resources, and the southern part of the city has a mix of low, moderate, high, and highe st resources. The area with low resources also overlap with higher CalEnviroScreen Scores (more pollution), lower Healthy Places Index Scores, lower educational outcome scores, higher rates of LMI households, and areas with larger non-White populations. Job proximity is high for most of the city.
Disproportionate Needs
Disproportionate housing needs generally refers to a condition in which there are significant disparities in the proportion of members of a protected class experiencing a category of housing need when compared to the proportion of members of any other relevant groups, or the total population experiencing that category of housing need in the applicable geographic area. The Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) developed by the Census for HUD provides detailed information on housing needs by income level for different types of households in Contra Costa County. Housing problems considered by CHAS include:
• Housing cost burden, including utilities, exceeding 30 percent of gross income; • Severe housing cost burden, including utilities, exceeding 50 percent of gross income; Bas~m ap F,oatu,,..
--- !loads
B.:y ArE-rl 'iYo1terbo::!112~
--:)a>enS.pu::::e~
Heal thy Place, Index
[Total Percentile Ranking)
- 0 ~'.!> '.L~~:o.Healt1;·Cord ition~1
2~-5,(1
.:)(, /~.
- 7'=.-100 (H~lthi~ ·Cor1citicm)
13.3 0, ---'..,,_, ...... , ~-,--,., "
S our:.:1..-'",: L,.S. D1..•1).:d r'rti::f"l uf
H:.us irlg and U•o a'l 01:!\.'e-lopTent,
2009-2013 {HJD>: He,ltry Pla-;eshdex.org;
Cc u·1L·,1 orS<1nlc:1 Clc1r..:.,. 202.'.i'.
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
• Overcrowded conditions (housing units with more than one person per room); and • Units with physical defects (lacking complete kitchen or bathroom) According to the Santa Clara A FH, a total of 252,622 households (34.5 percent) in the C ounty experience any one of the above housing problems; and 144,306 households ( 19.7 percent) experience severe housing problems. Based on relative percentage, Hispanic and Black households experience the highest rate of housing problems regardless of severity. Table 13.3-17 lists the demographics of households with housing problems in the County.
Table 13.3-17: Demographics of Households with Housing Problems in Santa Clara County
Total Number of
Households
Households with Housing
Problems
Households with Severe
Housing Problems
White 88,554 329,170 26.9% 43,381 13%
Black 8,376 16,756 49.9% 4,813 28.7%
Asian/Pacific
Islander
77,787 213,541 36.4% 44,730 20.9%
Native
American
477 3,026 15.7% 286 9.4%
Other 6,137 48,509 12.65% 3,210 6.6%
Hispanic 71,291 213,541 36.4% 47,886 39.9%
Total 252,622 731,019 34.5% 144,306 19.7%
Source(s): Contra Costa County AI (2020)
Table 13.3-18: Household Type & Size in Santa Clara County Household Type No. of Households with Housing Problems
Family Households (< 5 people) 360,406
Family Households (> 5 people) 78,571
Non-family Households 171,734
Source(s): Contra Costa County AI (2020)
Cost Burden (Overpayment)
Housing cost burden, or overpayment, is defined as households paying 30 percent or more of their gross income on housing expenses, including rent or mortgage payments and utilities.
Renters are more likely to overpay for housing costs than homeowners. Housing cost burden is considered a housing need because households that overpay for housing costs may have difficulty affording other necessary expenses , such as childcare, transportation, and medical costs.
Regional Trends
The map below identifies concentrations of cost -burdened renters in Mountain View, San Jose, and Morgan Hill. These cities have areas with renters experiencing overpayment above 80 percent. The rest of the County mostly has rates between 20 to 40 percent, 40 to 60 percent, and 60 to 80 percent. Areas along the eastern part of the County have lower overpayment rates below 20 percent.
FIGURE 13.3-39: REGIONAL OVERPAYMENT BY RENTERS (2021)
Local Trends
As presented in T able 13.3-19, 50.7 percent of all households in Santa Clara experience cost burdens. This rate is much higher for renters than owners (63 and 34.4 percent, respectively). The rate of cost burden for all households in the County is slightly lower at 49.7 percent, but the trend still stands with 64.2 percent of renters experiencing cost burden versus 38.6 percent of owners.
Table 13.3-19: Households that Experience Cost Burden by Tenure in Santa Clara County and Santa Clara
Santa Clara County
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Table 13.3-19: Households that Experience Cost Burden by Tenure in Santa Clara County and Santa Clara
Total Number of
Households
Cost burden >
30%
Cost burden >
50%
Percentage of Households that
Experience Cost Burden
Owners Only 360,660 98,445 40,910 38.6%
Renters Only 274,865 118,960 57,610 64.2%
All
Households
635,525 217,405 98,520 49.7%
Santa Clara
Total Number of
Households
Cost burden >
30%
Cost burden >
50%
Percentage of Households that
Experience Cost Burden
Owners Only 18,930 4,615 1,900 34.4%
Renters Only 25,150 10,505 5,365 63%
All
Households
44,080 15,125 7,625 50.7%
Source(s): https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/cp.html
FIGURE 13.3-40: OVERPAYMENT BY RENTERS – SANTA CLARA (2021)
t &
'I
~OS ALTOS
, GU~ERTINO a
Basemap Features
r :.-:.-:.-:.: Cltyol 5anta C:lard 8ound;uy
--- H.ghw•Y'
HOJd~
BJ)' Af(:;, Watetbodr~
- Oper\Spa,e$
Overpayment by Renters
- Tract
<20'!0
20,, -
- --- --- :>8~
~ fTAS
Sources: Ame,.cari Commun ity Survey,
2015--2019: U.S. Ocpa,trric-iH or Hou$ing
and Urban Developme nt (HUD); Count)' of
Sarna Clata, 2022 .
Overcrowded Households
Overcrowding is defined as housing units with more than one person per room (including dining and living rooms but excluding bathrooms and kitchen).
Regional Trends
Figure 13.3-41 indicates that most of the County has low rates of overcrowded households. San Jose has a concentration of overcrowded homes with percentages between 8.2 percent and as high as 70 percent. The rest of the County mostly has overcrowding rates below 12 percent.
FIGURE 13.3-41: REGIONAL OVERCROWDED HOUSEHOLDS BY TRACT (2015)
Local Trends
According to the 2019 five-year ACS estimates displayed in Table 13.3-20, 5.2 percent of County households are overcrowded, and 2.9 percent of households are severely overcrowded. These rates are higher for the City of Santa Clara with 6.2 percent of households experiencing overcrowding and 3.4 percent experiencing severe overcrowding. Across both the County and City, overcrowding and severe overcrowding rates are higher for renters than owners.
' ' 2¾
:....:..")%
- s. 21)%
_ , N %
13.3 SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Table 13.3-20: Overcrowded Households – Santa Clara County and Santa Clara
Santa Clara County Santa Clara
Overcrowded
(>1.0 to 1.5
persons per room)
Severely
Overcrowded
(>1.5 persons
per room)
Overcrowded
(>1.0 to 1.5
persons per room)
Severely
Overcrowded
(>1.5 persons
per room)
Owner-Occupied 1.4% 0.4% 0.9% 0.3%
Renter-Occupied 3.7% 2.4% 5.2% 3.1%
All HH 5.2% 2.9% 6.2% 3.4%
Source(s): American Community Survey, 2015-2019. Table B25014
The map below shows areas where overcrowding rates are higher in Santa Clara. The northern part of the city has overcrowding rates of 12 and 15 percent, with a small concentration in the southern part of the city with the same rates. The rest of the city has overcrowding rates below
8.2 percent. The northern part of the city has overcrowding rates of 12 and 15 percent and Asian residents are disproportionately concentrated in 3 out of 4 census tracts in this area. Hispanic and Latino residents are disproportionally concentrated in the census tract adjacent to De La Cruz Blvd. and Highway 101 with overcrowding rates at 15 percent. This census tract also overlaps with higher rates of HCV use (5 to 15 percent). The rest of the city has overcrowding rates below
8.2 percent.
In South Santa Clara the census tract north of El Camino Real bordered by San Tom as and Scott Blvd has an overcrowding rate of 1 5% and also has a disproportionately high number of Hispanic/Latino residents (24.5%). The census tract South of El Camino Real bounded by Kiely and San Tomas Expressway has an overcrowding rate of 12% and has a disproportionately high number of Asian residents (54%). The City’s highest rates of overcrowding (15%) are impacting areas that are disproportionally populated by Hispanic/Latino residents.
The n earby city of Mountain View has overcrowding rates below 8.2 percent, while both Sunnyvale and Milpitas have overcrowding rates at 12 percent. Sunnyvale also has a few areas where the rate rises to 20 percent.
FIGURE 13.3-42: CONCENTRATION OF OVERCROWDED HOUSEHOLDS – SANTA CLARA (2021)
Substandard Conditions
Incomplete plumbing or kitchen facilities can be used to measure substandard housing conditions.
Regional Trends
According to 2015 -2019 ACS estimates, 0.2 percent of households in Santa Clara County lack complete kitchen facilities and 0.2 percent of households lack complete plumbing facilities. Renter households are more likely to lack complete facilities compared to owner households.
Local Trends
In Santa Clara, 1.3 percent of households lack complete kitchen facilities and 0.2 percent lack complete plumbing facilities. R enter households are more likely to lack complete facilities compared to owner households. The City does not have recent citywide data on substandard conditions, however older lower rent apartment complexes are generally found along the west side of Lafayette north of Hwy 101, within the central city’s industrial belt, and in the southeastern Old Qu ad area south of El Camino Real. These areas may experience a higher need for rehabilitation than other parts of the City that are predominantly single -family or newer multi- family homes. The City intends to gather more consistent data on substandard condi tions Basemap Featutes
i :.:.:: .:.:: Ch:y of c;M,_, Cbr., 8ound.,ay
--- H.ghWJ)'~
Rood,
Day Are-a Waterbodin
- OpenSp,itCt-i
Overcrowded Households
ICHHS) -Traci
~ 8.2%
S-12%
- .,,s,.
- ,s;20'4r&
- •7""
13.3 0 --J"'-------•v11i11 0 OlS I! 3
So utces: U.S. Depa rt ment of
Housing and Urban Ocvclopmont (HUD);
Compr eh11nsiv1r Housing Affordability Slrat~y
(CHAS) & U.S. Can!l.us Am1trican Community Surv ey
(ACS), 2011-201 S; County of Santa Cfara, 2022.
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
through a new proactive multifamily code enforcement program. Although Santa Clara does have an aging housing stock with 21 percent of homes built between 1950 and 1959, 19 percent built between 1960 and 1969, and 17 percent built between 1970 to 19794, rehabilitation programs have not been widely subscribed to. This may be due in part to the fact that housing stock is well maintained due to the high value of homes based on market conditions in the area. The City does recognize that housing stock c ontinues to age therefore monitoring and enforcement will continue to be an ongoing operation as addressed by Action 4 of the Housing Plan which aims to maintain housing stock and specifically focus on rehabilitation for households with a gross income at or below 80 percent of the County median income.
Table 13.3-21: Substandard Housing Conditions – Santa Clara County and Santa Clara
Santa Clara County Santa Clara
Owner Renter All HHs Owner Renter All HHs
Lacking
complete
kitchen
facilities
0.2% 0.7% 0.9% 0.3% 1% 1.3%
Lacking
complete
plumbing
facilities
0.1% 0.1% 0.2% 0.2% .05% 0.2%
Source(s): American Community Survey, 2015-2019, Table B25053, B25049
In summary, by percentage Hispanic and Black households experience the highest rate of housing problems regardless of severity across Santa Clara County. Based on absolute numbers, Hispanic/Latino, Asian and Pacific Islander, and White households have the largest number of people with severe housing problems in the County. Overcrowding rates in the City of Santa Clara are higher than the County rates with 6.2 percent of households experiencing overcrowding and 3.4 percent experiencing severe overcrowding. The northern part of the city and a few ar eas in Southern Santa Clara have overcrowding rates of 12 and 15 percent. Overcrowding is occurring in areas that are disproportionately populated by Asian and Hispanic/Latino residents.
4 Towncharts.com
Displacement Risk
Displacement occurs when housing costs or neighboring conditions force current residents out and rents become so high that lower-income people are excluded from moving in. UC Berkeley’s Urban Displacement Project states that a census tract is a sensitive community if the proportion of very low income residents was above 20 percent in 2017 and the census tracts meets two of the following criteria: (1) Share of renters above 40 percent in 2017; (2) Share of Non-White population above 50 percent in 2017; (3) Share of very low -income households (50 percent AMI or below) that are also severely rent burdened households above the county median in 2017; or (4) Nearby areas have been experiencing displacement pressures.
Regional Trends
Using this methodology, there are a number of areas in Santa Clara County identified as sensitive communities. Sensitives communities primarily lie along the Highway 101 corridor ranging from Sunnyvale to Gilroy and extend out to Cupertino in the west and east San Jose in the east. Housing prices in this area have continued to rise as the technology industries boom in S ilicon Valley, explaining the high percentage of areas in the County identified as sensitive communities.
FIGURE 13.3-43: REGIONAL SENSITIVE COMMUNITIES AT RISK OF DISPLACEMENT BY TRACT (2021)
Sensitive omD_ placement ProJec , ,
C munities . t) l-·-U ban is ~ -i,.
(UCB, r_'-._,'. _ _ .• . . - ! /'. j '.-;-, /. '.,,.;,n, ··-··-- ......
r a.· -. ~~;.!_'~,:·_ ·.-,;,. 77v.-:e;. . , ... - ---~, ? ' O JMT .. 1t;cv1E,,-J:j • \\ii..~ .. l1f.•,1;",t,.~ -l . ..,, 1., P .,. ). .. oN-'7s~"' - A ·='h· l5 Losiu,:- 1~· LO:, ..... :- .,.-:. ~"· . '\ . -•· ~ :UrCRTI! . ,
-~- i 'it -~:ti. ' ' A'SCH - I •' ;osi':;'
\ ·· ..:,,~m;;;~~ ., ... -~ ·• ·.
,, . ,,'-;',:'"."";,, -c:', ,
'(I~ (;AT~('~"''. : .. ,_' ~ ~ ,. A ""'~· . ·_. ~ . :,,°"' ~ \. y .. _, ,. B •,;,.«1~~,;7'" \
·----.. , .. __ <_; ·'t.',~ -'--- '., '~ ~ . '··~-- .
t. :i'j ·--.. _\___ ~
• • • ' •,, s · '
\1 • /;, -.....
'
'••tj . : •,' , - '·--- -· ----
• -~<.t>, ~ . ,/
"'- ~ \ ::,J.,
\.
f Displacement Vulnerability O '"'Y Valut• due-to Ri!!li"g Prop f2ZZZ2l V.,iherabl-e
o.,
13.3 SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Local Trends
Most of Santa Clara was identified as a sensitive community, with only a few tracts in the south not identified as sensitive communities. Mountain View, Sunnyvale, and Milpitas also have areas identified as sensitive communities, albeit fewer than Santa Clara. Despite much of the City being identified as a sensitive community, the City has not yet seen much direct displacement of current residents as a result of redevelopment. Development in the City has primarily occurred with the rezoning of existing commercial and industrial properties into higher density mu lti-family housing. Despite the low current rate of displacement, the City has proactively developed actions to address the potential for future displacement. Both action 6 and action 13, outlined in Table
13.3-23 below actively work to mitigate residential displacement by exploring funding to support affordable housing acquisition and rehabilitation and program and policy development to prevent displacement.
FIGURE 13.3-44: SENSITIVE COMMUNITIES (UCB, URBAN DISPLACEMENT PROJECT) – SANTA CLARA (2021)
In summary while direct displacement due to redevelopment has not occurred often in recent years, it is likely that indirect displacement due to high rents and home prices across the Bay Sensitive Communities
(UCB, Urban Displacement Project)
-
j
I
~
'
I\· ")-....!}._
(,J ~f(:'
?,' ~,_:,\]·' , -,._~r ,c 1..(1 J.
~ ................ ~
Bas em ap Features
iJ1. ,, ·1[-J~.J
(:_-_·:.:.: ::r~•ofSanu ::t,'J·a 1:-:i.md:,ty
--- t--.i'lh~•i~y~
Vulnerability of Displacemer,t
due to Ri<ing Property Value<
rzzzz.21 'v.11 \t"r11hll"
02:y AN:>;'J V-"?ite-lbo:ile~
11111111 :)pc"'tl ~1:,;, ~c~
Suu,c1:1s. UC Stt,hlii:iy- J,Lc111 Plc111ui111-1
Di::.p 1,1,:( •rn•~ l P.-oj::;;l, ;i:[11 H, U.S Dt:·r; ,;,f l,•n('r1l of Housi'IS and Urber Dli1,,·~lop11,e.nt (HlJDJ:
County ?t S11nu Cla "a, 2022.
Area is contributing to overcrowding and is forcing people to move away from Santa Clara. It is possible that development pressure has been focused on the City’s specific plan areas and that once these areas are built out, developers may look to redevelop older lower density buildings that are naturally occurring affordable housing. This indicates a need to build more affordable housing, and policies that prevent a net loss of affordability if older market rate buildings are redeveloped, and to potentially require relocation assistance for displaced residents.
AFFH Analysis of the Sites Inventory
An important part of the AFFH analysis is looking at where the site inventory is directing housing growth and how that will replace segregated living patterns with integrated and balanced living patterns and convert any racially or ethnically concentrated areas that may exist into areas of opportunity for households at all income levels. The site inventory in chapter 13.3 places 82% of the City’s housing growth over the next 8 years into in HCD/TCAC Opportunity Map High or Highest Resource areas. The site inventory includes a buffer of additional units above the required RHNA so the following figures exceed 100%.
• 101 percent of the City’s Very Low Income RHNA units are located in High o r Highest Resource areas.
o VLI RHNA = 2,872 units.
o VLI Units in Sites Inventory: 251 in Highest Resource Areas (9% of VLI RHNA ) and 2,640 in High Resource Areas (92% of VLI RHNA).
• 147 percent of the City’s Low Income RHNA units located in High or Highest Resource areas.
o LI RHNA = 1,653 units.
o LI Units in Sites Inventory: 361 in Highest Resource Areas (22% of LI RHNA) and 2,075 in High Resource Areas (126% of LI RHNA).
• 124 percent of the City’s Moderate RHNA units located in High or Highest Resource areas. o Moderate RHNA = 1,981 units.
o Moderate Units in Sites Inventory: 108 in Highest Resource Areas (5% of Moderate RHNA) and 2,349 in High Resource Areas (119% of Moderate RHNA). • 165 percent of the City’s A bove Moderate RHNA units located in High or Highest Resource areas.
o Above Moderate RHNA = 5,126 units.
o Above Moderate Units in Sites Inventory: 161 in Highest Resource Areas (3% of Above Moderate RHNA ) and 8,294 in High Resource Areas ( 162% of Above Moderate RHNA).
The following table provides additional details on which types of units are located in different HCD/TCAC opportunity Map Areas:
13.3 SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Table 13.3-22: Sites Inventory Units by HCD/TCAC Opportunity Map Area HCD/TCAC Opportunity Map Areas
Affordability Category Highest Resource High Resource Moderate Resource Low Resource Site/Credit Type VLI LI Mod.
Above
Mod.
Total
Capacity VLI LI Mod.
Above
Mod. VLI LI Mod.
Above
Mod. VLI LI Mod.
Above
Mod. VLI LI Mod.
Above
Mod.
RHNA
2,872
1,653
1,981
5,126
11,632
Pending and Approved Projects
668
746
512
10,218
12,144 148 271 20 145 361 367 345
7,983 53 29 67 682 106 79 80
1,408
Tasman East Focus Area SP 111 234 179 3,842 4,366 111 234 179 3,842 Patrick Henry Drive SP 76 75 75 1,294 1,520 76 75 75 1,294 Lawrence Station Area Plan - 5 57 635 697 5 57 635 Freedom Circle Focus Area 54 54 54 913 1,075 54 54 54 913 Other 427 378 147 3,534 4,486 148 271 20 145 120 4 37 1,934 53 24 10 47 106 79 80 1,408 ADU Projection
118
118
118
39 393
47 47
47 16
47 47
47 16
18 18
18 6
6 6
6 2
Available Specific Plan Sites
2,105
1,561
1,883
314
5,863
1,961
1,455
1,757
295
144
106
126
19 Tasman East Focus Area SP 214 156 458 295 1,123 214 156 458 295 Patrick Henry Drive SP 1,747 1,299 1,299 - 4,345 1,747 1,299 1,299 Lawrence Station Area Plan 144 106 126 19 395 144 106 126 19 El Camino Real Rezoning Sites
497
378
366
-
1,242
56 43
41 -
271
206
200
-
170
129
125
-
-
-
-
-
Total
3,388
2,803
2,879
10,571
19,642
251
361
108
161
2,640
2,075
2,349
8,294
385
282
336
707
112
85 86
1,410
Surplus Units
516
1,150
898
5,445
8,010
Surplus Percentage Above RHNA 18% 70% 45% 106% 69%
4% Highest Resource 78% High Resource 9% Moderate Resource 9% Low Resource
13.3 SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Northern and Central Santa Clara
As shown in Figure 13.3 -45, this area has large amount s of industrial, office and commercially designated land in the western portion of this area with existing neighborhoods to the east. The site inventory includes multifamily opportunities mostly in the Lawrence Station Area, Patrick Henry Drive Specific Pla n Area, and the Tasman East Specific Plan Area where industrial and commercial land is being converted into mixed use residential areas near transit. The City assumes that accessory dwelling units (ADUs) will continue current trends and develop in single family areas throughout Northern Santa Clara. ADUs are an effective way to add lower income housing opportunities in existing single-family neighborhoods. ADUs will also help respond to higher rate s of overcrowding in North ern Santa Clara. Figure 13.3 -46 shows that the site inventory is mostly distributed in TCAC High Opportunity Areas.
FIGURE 13.3-45: NORTHERN AND CENTRAL SANTA CLARA SITES
INVENTORY AND LAND USE
I t ·-- \
i
~--·-, -·---- -_ _._I_ __
1 City of Santa Clara
Sites Inventory by Land Use
legend
Baumap F~alurB
[ :_:__: se~i& c1111 Citv um,u
M•JOr 0~n"'1nons
Park,; and Open SpKe
RJ1,t<1 and Wetert>Od,e~
Surrovnd1ni. C1ne1
unincorpo•atoa Sar>ta Cara Counr,,
s,m 1nv~n10,y (1023/
- $11~ ln,entol'I'
AOU Pmnlrs lssutd /101/1-1011/
• Accos,;ory Owol 1ni Urin
Geneml Pion Landu~ O,.signao·on,
Urban Ceoter / Entertall\l'l'ent Dmr,ct
l\e'811Domood M0<~ Use
co,rununflV Mlxe<I U~
ReEIOO!l Mi-ft<' U~e
Very Hl£n Den~ily Mi,ed Ult
Verv tow O,,rmtv Reitdent'II
Low Density R~""'•nDal
MIOCIIU'II 0onsrcy ltesidennal
H!ih Oen11ty ~stdenna
t11en DenillV Res;aentte / Vt"I Hlill
Density Rosldennai
Very Hirn Dens.iv RH;Gent11
Hien oen$<1v ~ 1e <
Vi 1a,e lle!tdtflt:11
S:,mon Arn Plan
Tran,r. HeliObort>ood
- •)IElll."""'Y<IISOlftC..
lGZl, Oty.,SOftt> OM IOD,
FIGURE 13.3-46: NORTHERN AND CENTRAL SANTA CLARA SITES
INVENTORY AND TCAC OPPORTUNITY AREAS
f
I
I
.a.I
I
.. --·-·•·· ! _________ ..(._ __
........ 4 r
r
"I'· •
!·. \
' ' . \,_ \,._
.
13.3 City of Santa Clara
Sites Inventory by TCAC
Legend
kUmop '-ta:ur~J.
[=.: s. r t2clarac i71Limits
MoJQr Ocrtin1t'~~$
?ar,,1 ll'ld ope"' ~pace
~rs ;;nd wa:Erl)odies
surro .. ndlnc Cr.:ru
unL"'C'Crporate~ Santa CJ,;, .. Cour t/
Sires 1nvenr,o,y (20?:S}
- Situ IIWt ntor,
.ADU Permits ISS41ed {2018-2022 )
• 2015
0 2019
o 2020
e 2022
H1gr.est ReSOUKe
- High ;;i~ uro;
MO(!l-.11 RHOU,,CI
Low ~esourc:e
7 Hig11 Segr,2~oon & Po·, .,':)'
~ CQU
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Southern Santa Clara
The site inventory includes multifamily opportunities near transit, including along the El Camino Real corridor, and near the Santa Clara Station Area, and Downtown Santa Clara Precise Plan Area. The City assumes that accessory dwelling units (ADUs) will continue current trends and develop in single family areas throughout Southern Santa Clara. ADUs are an effective way to add lower income housing opportunities in existing single -family neighborhoods which are among the highest opportunity areas in the City. Figure 13.3-48 shows that the sites inventory is distributed across highest, high, and moderate resource TCAC High Opportunity Areas.
FIGURE 13.3-47: SOUTHERN SANTA CLARA SITE INVENTORY AND LAND USE
' I
'
' . ·---,
• •
•
i ___ .._.
i • ..
I •c;;- ••• -~· . ~ . . .
cf I • • •
I ·:
Q.25
City of Santa Clara
.Sites Inventory by Land Use
Legend
&,,emop Ft oturcs
[ :.:.. : S,anta Clara Coty U'Ml
lhJo< Desnn•nons
P1r'<s •nd Open Space
R,i,itf"S and W&terl)Odi~
s .. rrouna,ne c,~ .. s
Unncorpont.fd s.arna Qua Coon:y
Silr• ll?Vt nror, (202J)
- Site, tn,oentory
ADU />t tmll< /sJutd /2018-1022)
e ACCH,O,Y Dwel 1ng UM
Gtntn,J Plan Lam! UR O..s,gnanons
llrl>an c, nter / Enttrta,n'11•nt Da>tnct
UtlC)IOO<hOO<I M-Uu
CO'MIUftltV Ml~CI Use
l!tiiO<'III Ml•t<I USt
• Vtry Hi0n Dtnl,ty Ml,td Ult
Very tow Dtn,rtv Reo•~•ntol
Low 0,n,11y R.-...a,~n•I
M•d lum D•n, l:y lttsld •-.:111
Hlih D•ns,ty Rts.id•nTial
""" Ctn~ Res.Otftllll / Ytrv H"l'I
Oe-nsity fle~l-d@nna:I
Vtry Hirn DtnSIIV Rel1Cltnl1al
H1ih Dtnv.y f ltX
Vi 1a,e Re::ident'el
, StatDn Ar .. Plan
TtaMr. Ue1&hbort100<1
IL71
FIGURE 13.3-48: SOUTHERN SANTA CLARA SITES INVENTORY AND TCAC
OPPORTUNITY AREAS
0 • 0
0 -·-- . • ol o .c,
00 -
a o <19~ •
00 8 O (}
.. ~
•• 0 0
--- ~~-
---i--
1·. \\ :,
'· \.1 .
13.3 Cit y of Santa Clara
Sites Invent ory by TCAC
Legend
aaumap ,,an,rv
[:...=_: sa.n.a ciara ci~ Limits
M ii,OtDUO"t a~cnt
~art.$ a!'d Oj)@"I spac~
Riv;;rs a.nd w at:;;nbodi es
surroui,dinc ci~u
Ui,hca-po ,ated 5.a'1ta C ata Cc~rtt
Sires lrwenrof)I (20231
- Situ lrh t n:ory
ADU Permits tsswd ( 201.s-2022 1
• l011
0 W19
o 2020
o lOH
e 2022
CTO.C/HCD Opporruniry Areo1 (JOU)
fl 1g ~est Re::o urc,?
rti5 lle!iOurce
, iodt ~ tt Ruo..inc•
Low.te:.i urce
Hig,., se;greg.ncn Sc l'O, er:y
"ICCUI
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
CONTRIBUTING FACTORS
Based on stakeholder outreach and the above analysis, the City has identified the following contributing factors to housing issues in Santa Clara. Table 13.3-23, prioritizes these contributing factors according to what would most limit or deny fair housing choice or access to opportunity. Meaningful actions listed in Chapter 13.2 that affirmatively further fair housing, promote housing opportunities throughout the community for protected classes, and address contributing factors are also included in the table.
Table 13.3-23: AFFH Meaningful Actions Matrix
Issues Contributing Factors Actions / Objectives
(Specific Commitments)
Timeline /
Metrics
Geographic
Targeting
Priority (Low,
Medium, High)
Segregation/Integration Patterns and Disparities in Access to Opportunity It can still be difficult to find sites for single room occupancy, emergency shelter, low barrier
navigation centers, permanent supportive
housing, and residential care facilities.
Zoning requirements that make developing a
diversity of housing types difficult. Type and size
of affordable housing units
Action 1: Provision of Variety of Housing Types
Adopt the comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Update
with revised provisions to allow a variety of housing
types by right.
Annually explore regional and state funding sources to
build more housing opportunities for persons with
disabilities and extremely low-income households.
And through the provisions of a notice of funding
availability (NOFA), prioritize loans for the development of extremely low and very low -
income housing
alternatives.
November
2023 and 2026
Citywide with
additional funding
prioritized in high
and highest
opportunity areas
within a half mile
of high frequency
bus and rail
corridors.
HIGH
It is difficult to find low- and moderate -income
rental housing in the City’s highest opportunity
areas.
South Santa Clara includes established single -
family neighborhoods where home prices are out
of reach for low- and moderate-income residents.
Action 7:
Monitor ADU activity and report on the production of
ADUs through the City’s Annual Progress Report (APR).
If the pace of ADU production falls below the level
necessary to achieve 392 ADUs during the 2023-2031
planning period, present a plan to City Council to remove barriers and/or further incentivize ADU production (e.g., through additional Zoning changes).
Continue participating in the development and
implementation of the Santa Clara County Planning
Collaborative ADU Program, which will include a central online resource for making it easier to build ADUs,
including an ADU Guidebook, gallery of ADU plans,
Annually and
by end of 2025
South Santa Clara
and Citywide
HIGH
Issues Contributing Factors Actions / Objectives
(Specific Commitments)
Timeline /
Metrics
Geographic
Targeting
Priority (Low,
Medium, High)
examples/stories of real ADUs that have been built, and an ADU cost calculator.
Action 5:
Monitor preservation and conservation opportunities in
and adjacent to South Santa Clara’s high and highest
TCAC opportunity areas.
When housing is in short supply, tenants often do
not report code violations for fear of retaliation and
no cause eviction.
Private discrimination
Code enforcement violations can arise when
housing stock is not appropriately conserved and
rehabilitated in a timely manner.
Action 7: Code Enforcement Program
Establish multi-family residential housing inspection and educational programs that are self -funded and
proactively respond to housing code violations. The City will also provide special attention to maintaining the
stability of residential neighborhoods through
development of minimum standards of allowed use of
the City’s streets, as well as maintenance of front and other yard areas visible from the public right-of-way.
By second half
of 2024
Citywide MEDIUM
Not all tenants and lan dlords are aware of their
rights and responsibilities under state and local
law which can result in the displacement of low-
income tenants.
Fair housing issues exist everywhere but
disproportionately impact low income households
who may not have the resources to dispute unfair
housing conditions or housing discrimination.
Action 16: Fair Housing Program
Continue to provide fair housing services to residents
including referrals, mediation, investigation of claims of discrimination, outreach and translated education
materials, open house events to distribute information, and potentially setting a rent deposit limit
Work with Project Sentinel to host two open house events per year and to distribute translated collateral in lower income census tracts explaining key landlord and tenant rights under current law
Ongoing and
annually.
Citywide with
proactive focus in
census tracts with
concentrations of
persons with
disabilities,
disproportionate
housing needs, and
overcrowding.
HIGH
Transit station access is less robust in North and
Central Santa Clara.
Industrial and commercial land uses in Central and
North Santa Clara
Action 16: Fair Housing Program
Market the Silicon Valley Hopper ride share service
Citywide in Central and North Santa Clara once it
becomes available in 2027 or later. This service will help connect lower income residents to major employment
2027
Citywide and
Central and North
Santa Clara
LOW
13.3 SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Issues Contributing Factors Actions / Objectives
(Specific Commitments)
Timeline /
Metrics
Geographic
Targeting
Priority (Low,
Medium, High)
centers, VTA Light Rail, Caltrain and the future BART
station.
Place based investment is needed in lower income
neighborhoods to increase access to opportunity.
Low income neighborhoods may require
additional infrastructure to improve quality of life,
access to transit, employment, health food, parks,
and other resources.
Action 16: Fair Housing Program
By June 2027, complete bi ke and pedestrian
improvements at various locations along Cabrillo Ave,
Lafayette St, Monroe St, Royal Dr, Scott Blvd, and
Warburton Ave in Central Santa Clara to improve safety
and mobility. This area overlaps with an MTC Equity
Priority Community and is considered a Low
Opportunity Area by TCAC.
By fall 2028, develop a CDBG Notice of Funding
Availability that awards additional points to capital
projects that improve quality of life and access to
opportunities in HUD designated low -income and
distressed areas of the City.
June 2027 for
bike
pedestrian
improvements.
Fall 2028 for
2029 NOFA
MTC Equity
Priority
Communities, and
HUD designated
low-income and
distressed areas of
the City.
MEDIUM
Disproportionate Housing Needs
Residents in Central Santa Clara and areas adjacent
to central Santa Clara have lower income, lower
access to opportunity, less access to parks, higher
pollution, lower educational outcomes. Central
Santa Clara has a mix of residents, but
Hispanic/Latino residents are disproportionately
concentrated in this area.
Older residential development is surrounded by
industrial uses
Lack of place -based outreach about affordable
housing opportunities elsewhere in the City
Possible need for better language access
Actions 2 and 16;
Increase mobility by conducting proactive in person
outreach in relevant languages once per year about the
City’s affordable housing opportunities and resources
such as landlord and tenant rights under state law and mediation services.
Annually Central Santa Clara
and adjacent areas
HIGH
There are not enough l icensed residential care
facilities and shared housing sites to meet future
demand for residents with developmental
disabilities and seniors.
Family members cannot care for adult children
with developmental disabilities once caregivers are
elderly.
Funding is needed to acquire and maintain single
family homes as licensed care facilities.
Action 1: Provision of Variety of Housing Types
Increase the stock of extremely low and very low-income rental housing designed for persons with developmental
disabilities by 35% from 56 in 2023 to 76 in 2030.
Action 18: Shared Housing
Evaluate the need for shared housing as part of the HUD Consolidated Plan Process.
2025
Ongoing
Prior to 2026
Citywide MEDIUM
Issues Contributing Factors Actions / Objectives
(Specific Commitments)
Timeline /
Metrics
Geographic
Targeting
Priority (Low,
Medium, High)
Multifamily development is not always designed
to accommodate the needs of developmentally
disabled tenants.
Continue to support the creation of new shared housing
for lower income residents with developmental
disabilities by including those project types in future Notices of Funding Availability.
Displacement Risk
Some landlords set very high deposits making it
difficult for lower income tenants to secure
housing or to relocate.
Landlords seek to manage financial risk.
Low income tenants are rent burdened in this high
cost market making it hard to save and give up a
large amount of money for a deposit.
Deposits are sometimes not returned to tenants
even if the unit is left in good condition.
Action 13: Residential Displacement
By the end of 2025 analyze the feasibility of setting a rent deposit limit and present findings from that analysis to the Housing Commission and City Council.
December 2025 Citywide MEDIUM
Naturally occurring affordable housing stock is at
risk of acquisition by for profit investor s. Such
acquisitions often result in direct displacement
once rents are increased.
As Santa Clara builds out and land values increase,
there will be increasing pressure to reposition or
redevelop older residential buildings.
Rehabilitation can sometimes be more profitable
than new construction.
Nonprofit developers don’t always have a fair
chance to make offers to purchase such properties.
Action 6: Acquisition of Multi-Family Housing
Create a database of naturally occu rring affordable
housing and annually monitor property sales and /or
permit applications to identify conversion trends early.
Present the findings on resources required to implement a Community Opportunity Purchase Act (COPA).
Explore funding sources available at the regional, state, and federal levels to support affordable housing
developers with acquisition/rehabilitation opportunities.
Work with nonprofit entities to acquire properties and
rehabilitate existing multi -family
structures to be
maintained as or converted into affordable rental
housing. Prioritize assistance for housing that is within one half mile of rail transit stations or that is in a high or highest opportunity area according to TCAC.
Early 2027 and
annually
South Santa Clara
and Citywide
MEDIUM
13.3 SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT