City Council and Authorities Concurrent
June 27, 2023

Background
First , for context. some backgrnwid on the drallin g of the capacit cah.:ulation portion of ' anta C lara' s Housing Element.
l11e capa ity calculations issue is not one that HCD has previously reviewed for Santa Clam , In !he c11rlier ugusl 22. 2022 drafl submitt ed l.o IICD , Siinla Clara used minimum dcnsili cs (the safo harbor und er section 65-83.2(c)(l)) lo calcuh1le lhc cap,icity ol"the sit inventory to a commoda te the RI I . . But in a comment letter on ovemher 30, 2022 , fo llowing HCD 's conunent s, Hon ing Action Coalition pointed out that a munb er of sites on the invent ory were unrealistic: they had exi ting uses that were not "'likely to di continu e" during thi;: plauuiug period.

In respon se, 'anta Clara removed a numb er of sites, includin g six: large data centers and a fire station that were unlikely to be redevelop ed as housing. But rath er than identify 11ew sites for th e inventory, Santa Clara instead added only an llpward adj ustm ent oft be n umb er of unit<; olaimed for each site and an arg ument that the remaining sites had the l:apacity to fully accommodat e the RH . A.
l11e fma l drafl of the site inventory showing the new math, was no! made publi c tmlil after 5 p.m. on Friday, Januar y 20, just days hofo re the January 24 Plannin g Commissio n meeting and City Council m eeting on Janua,y 31. 111is sharpl y limit ed the opportunit y for public analysis ~nd comment on thi. major change to th e Hou . ing Element.

We submitted a comme nt Sunday night, i11 advance of the Tue day Planning Commission hearing , but this left limlte.d ti me fo r statl' to consider that their analysis had omined important infonnation. Given the approa ching deadl ine of January 31, the Planning Conuni sion and City Com1cil quickly adopted the Housing Element v ithout furth er changes , and without taking the lime lo correct any i:rrors .

TI1c Santa Clara Housing Element discusses the ' realistic capacity ' ealculntion the methodology the City use. io estim ate the numb er of units that each parc cJ will accommoda te for purpo ·es of meeting tl1e RJI requirements - at page · 13.6-7 tbrougb 13.6-10. ·n1e approach is des',ribed at page 13.6- 10 in th e finaJ paragraph of the section:

Becau se oach Specific Pla11 has its own disti nct land use designati ons a11d affordabil ity tequi-rement s. reali tic capa ity for available $ites wru calcu lated hased on the average of percent abo e minimum density allowe d per Specific Plan of ex isting and approved projects (see Tab le 13.6-3). Perc ent above-·the minimum density allow ed was used to remain coJJServativc, rca]jstic. and to account for the wid~ rang e of Sp cific Plan deusifo::s all°" ed (from 20 du/ac in Lawren ce Stat ion to 350 dl ac maximum i11 Tasmat1 East) .. . .

I

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page A-122

Califomia Department of FAR[LLA
BRA 1 • MARTEL 11,
Housing and Community Development
f ebmary 23, 2023

"Ille folio\, ing averages were used to uaku late realistic uap:wit y per Specifiu Plan areai
• Lawrence Station u-ea Plan : mi.ninmm densities x 19 l '!b • Tasma11 East Focus Area Specific Plan: minimum densities x 215% • Patri k Henry l)ri e Specific Plan: maximum den. itie. ,c 72% (ha. ed 1)11 Specific Plan assumptions) was used as there are currently no exi ting or approved projects in the Patrick Hem-y Drive Specific Plan area.

I lousing Element at p. 13.6-10.

B. The Lawrence Station And Tas man East "Averages" Are Based On Incom plete Data .
. n "ave rage" is not an average unless it includes all of the data. nfortunate ly, for hoth the Lawrence tatiou and Tasman East areas , Santa Clara's analysis omitted key data in calcu lating the mu ltip liers of J 91% for L:n rence Station and 215%for Tasman East. The actual av1::rages are lo~ er. While these errors alone might not show that the site inventory is -insufficient to meet the RI IN it i. important to correct them because they will he used for et I ,oss calculations in the future.
l. The Tasman E~1st Average Is Actually 160-201%, Not 215%.

At table 13.6-3, Santa Clara lists six projects , ai1d calculates an average"% above allowed tninimum density." However , the average is inaccurate because anta Clara did not include all existing and approved projects from the Tasman East area . comparison with Table l3,6-2 - ~ hich li ts eleven pending and appro cd project · in the Tasman East area - reveals the e1Tor. The following cha11 shows the co!l'eet a erage , "~th bold am/ italics used to indicate the infolil1atio11 that wa~ incorrect. or- omitted from the table :

Proje,:,1 lU1le Min ./max . Acre· Units Unit s/ A Tes %of density .. nummum
[du/ac] densit
[column 5
divided h
colunm 21
2233 Calle Del Mundo 100 -350 1.22 196 160 160%
2200 Calle Del Mtmdo 100-350 2.44 580 237 237%
I
A

Page A-123

Califomia Depa rtment of
Housing and Comm unity Development
Febmary 23, 2023

2300 Calle l)e Luna 100-350
2343 Calle Del Mundo 100-350
2302 /2310 Calle Del 60-350
Mun do
2354 Calle Del Mundo 60-350
5123 Calle Del Sol 100-350
2263 Calle Del Mundo l0Oto
350
2225 Calle De Luna & 10010
2232 Calle Del M1mdo 350

5.522

2.63 0.77

0.50 2.62
l.95

2.1 FARCLLA
BR/\ • MART ELur
700 127 127%
347 131 131%
151 196 327%
89 178 297%
503 192 192 %
301 154 154~0
371 183 183°1,

AVERAGE
(mean) : 201%
AVERAGE 160%
(median):

Including all of1l1e projects in the Tasman East area sl1ows that the capacit y calc ulation in th e adopted Housing Element is in11atcd by these errors . Notl.'l. we have also excl uded two additiona l proj ec ts. U1al appear in table 13.6-2 becau se the_ am "pro posed" rather ll1.:m "appro ed"; 5185 Lafayette 100to U2 271 242 242%
350
2101 Tasman Dr. JOO to 9.03 950 105 105%
350
lf the e two additional projects were included in the List, the average percentag above minimum wo11ld go down further , Lo 196%.
ff an average (mean) percentage of201 % is app lied (instead of 215%), the total units on the inventor attributable to the Tasman East sites goes from 1,123 to 1,050, a decrea e of73 units . Not a huge differ ence , but potentia lly important to the p 'Opie who migh t Ji e in those units , as well as to dctcnnining when I o Net Loss provi sions will first apply , Alternatively , HCD shotild consider whether a "median·· is more appropriate than a · mean·· in detenuining the average. \ median avoids skewing the result based on outliers. The significant. diflercnce bet ween the mean and the median here shows that outlier., - hvo sites built at 327% and 2971l,:, oftJ1e minimum density - are lea djng to a high mean without being reflective of the data set. lJ fog the median of 160% (instead of 215%) would reduce the total unit<; 011 the inventory in Tasman East from 1,123 to 837 units, a decrease of 286 units. 2 On the City·s cha11, this is listed a 5 .02, which appears to be a typo. The City Plannin g_ Department proj ect listing lists it as 5.52, as docs the County Asse sor 's parcel m ap. We have corrected the units/acres and% of minimum dens ity calculations acco rdingl y.

I

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page A-124

Califomia Depa rtment of
Hous ing and Comm unity Development
Febmary 23, 2023

FARELLA
BRAU •MARTEL111•

2. The La"•1·mcc Station vcra~e Is Actually 134% -140% , ot 191 %.

Table l 3.6-3 list~ four sites in the Lawrence Station area, comprisiug 9.21 acres , and then cakulal s an "average'' o[ 191 %. Here too, the sitiJ inventory omits other sites dcvdoped i.J.1 the Specifi Plan area : the ones listed comprise less than 25% of the 38 acres developed 01· approved.

It is more diOiculL to calculate an "average" Lor the Lawrence Station area because a single project - lhe Summ erhill Nt11::vo project , comprising 29.4 acres and 988 units - iududed a large number ofpm ·cels, and resulted in areas of higher and lower densit y mixed i1 with other public amenities like roads and open space /park .-1 Santa Clara ba ignored the e elemen ts that lowered the o erall density of the project (which averaged ju t 33 .6 du/ac), and instea d lists only two (of the three) apartment buildings that were part of the project , as if those tw o apartment buildings were standalone projects .

Because the mi x of density mies applied to the Stunmerhill project makes the "pen.: ntage of minimum " ;,ppto a.:h chalhmgi.ng t.o app ly, we wiU p.rese-nl seven1l ideas of how it could have been properly in.:orpornt ed. Ult.imalel 1, however, the point is 1h11t Santa Clara 's cun-ent approach , by claiming a.n average that wa.~ nnt ha.~e-d on all of the. da:ta., is invalid. Each ofthese approaches shows that the c11rrent multipli er of 191 %-ol'-minimum-density overstates the typical densities in the Lawrence Station area .

Tl1e firi.t idea is, as with the Ta~man Em;t analysis above, to adjust Tab1e 13.6-3 to simply incorporate the missing data hy adding in the other Lawre.nce Sta.ti on area projects that were omitte d. including the large Summerhill project , and then deleting the1wo subcomponen ts of the Sununcrhill project that \; ere included in Table 13.6-3. The resulting hart~ ould look like this, 3 In our comment letter to Santa Clara on January 21 , 2023 , we pointed out that tl1e requirement. of open space /parks and additional public righl-of-wa s ould reduce the uel buildable acreage, and Urnt the site inventory should be adju sted accordingly . See Housing ction Coalition letter du Led January 22. 2023 at pp. 16-19 ( exp lainin g tll.1t 2.33 ucres of the Lawre nce Station sites, and 9.47 acres of the Patrick Henry sites, are designated for parks or roadways nol zone d for housing) . Al the hearing before Lhe Planning Commission, the City _ t1omey s o1Iice responded derisi \ll;)ly that this was unnecessary because , anla Clara's mini.tmun density m1es are applied to gros. acreage , inclusive of parks and road, ays . ll owe er. if gross acreage is the appropriate measure as tl1e City \ttomey·s office argued , it must be consistently applied: the City cannot cherry-pick the highly dense apartment parcels and ignore that the y were approved and built as part of a packag e with dedi.:aled open space and roadways as parl of the same project. The densities of the projects shown on table 13.6-3 a1-e inflated by omitting the "gt·o~fi acreage" of the parkland and roadwa ys that we re dedicated to the C.ity in order tn obtain approvals of the high density apartment buildi.ng.s. The City cannot use net buildable acreages for calwla ting the C-'pacity multiplier , then ;ipply that mul!iplier to gross acreages inclusiv e of parkland and roadwa_ requirements .

I
A

Page A-125

Cali fom ia Department of
Housing and Commun ity Develop ment
Pebmary 23 , 2023

FARCLLA
BRA U • MART EL ur
wjth bold and italics for the missing infonnation and 11tril,etl-:.rm1gh teid for the Summ erhill uevo ~ubcompon eni~:

Id~ 1: Substitute the entire Summerh ill project into the chart Project ~1Jin. Acres Units .Actual density %of minimum
Name density [dttlai..: l density [coh11m1
[du/ac] 5 divid ed by
column 21
290 4 Corvin 51 du/ai..: 1.08 145 134 du/ac 134/51 = 263 % 2961 Cori1i11 20 du.lac 1.69 38 22.-19 22. 49/20 = 112 % 3305 Kifer 20 lfulac 1.9} 45 23.6 23. 6120 = 118%
~ ~ l at~'ae ~ ~ HlO dt~'ae 100/~ l l9e!!'i,
~aml:!la
~ ~ l att.'ae ~ -!-U 73 ateaa 73 '~ l lqJ !!'i,
~a1'Rhla
3505.Kifer 26 dulr,c 29.4 988 33.6 c/11/ac 33.6120 = 168% (Summerl,ill
Nue,rni
35 l 7 Ryder 51 du/ac 3.92 328 81 du /ac 83/.51 = 163%

AVERAGE
(mean): 165%

AVERAGE
(median): 163%
However, Lhi first approach overweights the smaller sites to a very significant degree: n one acre si1e - and one which has very noiqu e attribut es, as will he discuss ed below - is given lhe same weight as the Summerhi ll N ucvo site, which used 29 times as mui..:h land . This i.ullates lhe perc entage-of-mini.mum, ,Uld overes timat es the site capa cities .

The second approacl1 breaks the Summ erh ill site i11to small er compo11e11ts: leaving the two a11art.tne11t building (3560 and 3578 Ram bl a) on tJ1e chart, but then adding the third '1 3505 K.ifor is lhe addr ess for the entire Sulllll1e1foll proj ei..:1 - 988 uni ts - in the Lawre m.:

Station .rea Plan . 3560 Ramhl a and 3578 Ramhla are pot1ilms of the proje t (individual buildin gs), and so are stricke n from this chrut base d on the inclu sion of the larger project . 5 Because there are three different minimum dens ities for the Summerhill Nuevo site 51 du/ai;.: \ est or Ram bl. 8 du/m: north of Do tcr and 20 du/ac casl of Rambl a - we ha · cslim iilcd the ro ugh propot1ions of each, and derive d a weig hted average minimum density. 3. • acres at 8 dt ac. 17 acres at 20 du/ac, and 7.5 acre at 51 du.lac yie ld8 a total mini.mum numb er of unit s of 750 units, divided by 28 acres . The City may have more precise information about the acreage ; (iguring i1 out is moro di.lli.ellll beca use of the subdi vision of the lots as part o§lhe proj ect whic h renders 1he curre nt Co unty A5se-ssor 's lv[a_p unhelpful for 1his PU!llOSC.

I

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page A-126

Califomia Depa rtment of
Hous ing and Commun ity De, elopmcnt
l~ebmary 23, 2023

FAR[LLA
BRAU • M ART EL m
apartme nt huilding. and three hypothetical projects that were also compone nts of the Summ erhill uevo deve.lophlent : (I) the 4 l w1it sing le famil y lot~ north of Boyton, (2) the J 14 " E-towns " in the medium density p011ion, and (3) tl1e 176 'Town Flats" in the medium density portio11. The parkland and roadwa ded i-:ations arc distributed gcogrnpbica Uy v ith t11e sit.: Uia1 they arc aclj acent to.

Id 2 S b titut ti ea : u s e 1e com ponen s o e, un1n1er :t t"tb S hill pro_1e mo e c 1a11 . ct. t th I Prnje t . rune Min. Acres Units ctuaJ. density % of minimum density [du/ac) density [column
[du/ac) 5 divided by
column 21
2904Corvin 51 du/ac 1-08 145 134 du.lac 134/51 = 263 %
2961 Con•in 20 du/ ac 1.69 38 22.49 22.49120 = I 12%
33ll5 Kifer 2ll d11/ ac 1.91 45 23.56 23.56/W =118%
3560 Rambla 51 du/ac 2.49 25] 100 du/ac t00 /51 = 196%
(Summerhill
N11evo)
3578 Rambla 5 1 du/ac 1.72 126 73 du /ac 73/51 = 143%
(Summerhill
Nrn~vo)
3580 Hmnbla 51 d11/ac 2.58+ 286 81. 95 d11/ ac 81.95151 = l6/% (St£mmerhill .91 =
Nuei•o) 3.4!16
S11mmethill N11evo 8 du/ ac 3.5 -41 11.71 d11/ac 11. 11s = um;, - single fami(y
north of BoI11011
Summerhill ttei•o 20d11/ac 6.5 114 17.54 du/ ac 1 7.5120 = 88%' - "E•tow11s"
6 The addit ional acreage i. for the added roadwa. and cotllmuni ty ce11te1· that is bofdered on three ides by the three aprutment buildings . Rather tl1an distiibute the acreage to all three apartment buildings (and correct the acreage for 3560 and 3578 Rambla). we here assign all of the roadway and cmnm unity center land west of Rambla lo the largest of the three apartment buildings .
- Note that here, the percentage for the. e tv,o suhcompo nents of the Summerhill uevo project is shown as Jes than the mininnun density. l11is is because the bulk of the parkland fo r the entire project is in th e area east of Rambla If a portion of the parkland pa.reels was instead prop ortiona lly aJJo<.:atcd to the apar tment buildin gs includi11g 3560 and 3578 Rambla - where the City used only the acreage oftJ1e parcels that the building.· are on - tJ1en all of the com pone11ts of the Summer hill pmject would he complia nt wit11 the mininmt11 denRity 7,oning rules. (See " Idea 3 ., below). TI1ere is m1 additional wrinkle that for a set of buildi.ngs nortb of Boyton , the Lawrence Stalio11 Area Plan zone,d the land as ''very high d nsit _ " (min immn 51 di ac) , but the I
A

Page A-127

Califomia Departm ent of
Housing and Commun ity Development
f'ebmary 23 , 2023

Summ erhill Nue1•0 20dul ac
- '"Town Flats"
3517 Ryder 5 1 du/ac

10.5 176

3.92 328

FAR CL LA
I\RA •M R l'I 11 r

16.8 du.lac 16.8/2() = 84 %
83 du/ac 83/51 163%>

AVERAGE
(mean) : ·t47%
A Vl!:RAGE 143%-'146%
(median):

A tl1ird appro ach is to limit th e analysis to those projec t. on the land zoned as high densit y, but to a i gn a propo rtionat e hare (by unit co unt) of the park.land .and roadway dedi ations tha'I v ere part of the Smnm ·rhill ue o proj cl to th · three apartment bui ldin gl! for that proje~I:

Idea 3: Hieb Densih Pro jects Onlv, But Ind ud.incr Open Space/Roadways Pn~je t 1 ame Min. cref: Units Actual density oof minimum density [du/ac ) den sity [column
[d1 ac) 5 divided by
column 21
2904 Corvin 51 du/ac 1.08 145 134 du/ac 134/51 = 263%
3560 Rambla · 1 du/ac 2.49 + 25 1 70thl/ac 70/51 = 13 7% I .OS=

3.57 3578 Ramb la 51 du/ac 1.72 f J26 Sf, dulac 56/51 =.ll0 %

0.54 =

2.26 3580Ramhla 51 di,/ac 2.58+ 286 75 tlil/ac 75/51 =14 7%

1.24=

3.82 3517 Rvder 51 du/ac 3.92 328 83 du/a.c 83/51 = 163%

AVERAGE
(mean): 164%
AVER.<\.GE
(median): 147%
One virtu ' ol'thi s last approac h is that it is limited t.o a more appks·lo -applcs com parison: all f the sit.:s had a minimum density of 51 du/a1.: rather tlrnn tryi11g to mix in with medimn or low density project . Pru1icularl y since, with one exce pti on. the site in entot'_ a11p.lies the multipli et' final appro ved project includ ed medium den ity on that po11ion of the ite. We haw not tried to adjust for that frac tional portion, but inst ad have calculated the munb ers as if it had a minimum of 20 du/ac, not 5 1. dl ac. Adju. tingto 1ake into accountin g the 51 du/ac minimum north of l3oyton and east of Copper wo uld reduce the ''perce ntagc-01:minimum '' fur ther.

I

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page A-128

Califomia Department of
Housing and Community De, elopm ent
llebmary 23, 2023

FARELLA
BRA U •MART L,,,,
to tho , e Lawrenoo Station sites with a minimum density of 51 du/ac , ihj ~ approacl1 is probahl 1he most appropriate.

However. Lherc is a last important piece to note, whic h materiall y alfocts all of the number s above . The first site on Tahle 13.6-3, included in all of the chrut s above, i.e .• 2904 Corvin , is an exceptional situat ion which is unrepre sentative of projects likel. to occur in the. sites on the inventory . As explain ed on the City ·s webs ite and in other press coverage, 8 2904 Corvin is a 144 "micro -unit " ii.lfordablc hou sing proj ect, built primaril _ as supporti ve hou sing for lliosc making a transition from hom elessnc s, and includi11g on-site support services. Because it has 144 units affor dable to tho . e with low or very low incomes (plus a two bedroom manager· s rnut) it was able to apply density bonu s s to significantly exceed the maximum zoned density for the Lawrenc e Station Specific Plan (which would have limikd it to 108 units ; 1.08 acres tim es 100 du/al'.). On compldion , ii will ha ve 80 units rese rved for the homel ess: singl e occupancy, 300 sq uare foot "micro- studio s·' with a private bathroom and kitch enette . 111e constmction was heavily subsidized by a county bond meas tu·e to build affordable hou sing specit.ca lly for the hom eless. It is not r 'pre ·eotati e ofthe likely density of a proj ect lb.at include s 30% mod erate income or eve n 30% low incom e unit s, be.cause 1nost affordable housing proje.its hnild larger units that oan acc,otnmodate families. 11 is thus not fairly consid ere d in caJculatin g a ' typi al' ' density. It should h exclud ed from the analysi to 3void distotting the capacity calculation. Without it, the averages (mean) above are signifi cantl y rcdu ·ed: 140% for idea I, 134%fo r idea 2, 139% for idea 3.9
Because Lawrence Station has a greater amount of land on the inventor y, and becau se the "'average ., was disto1ted by more sig nificant errors, the impact of adjusting the apacity multiplier is muuh higher than for Tasman East. ff a pcrccnta.ge based on "av orngc (mean) above the minimum of 139%> is applied - which we think would he the most p1incipl ed, I ecause it excludes the homeles s supporti ve housing project at 2904 Cor in, and then limit<; the analy. is to high or very high den sity sites, while taking due account of1he parkland /roadway dedication issue and other onuttcd sites - the site inventory would be reduced by 572 units : 234 in the very low income category. 169 in the low income category , and 169 in the moderate income category . 8lmps://www . antadaraca. gov/Homc/Compon ent /B usinc Directory /Bu ine Dire olory/280124 95?alpha =L; https :// nnjosespo1light.comisanta-clarn -lir t· upportive -h u ing-pro ject-brcaks­ grnuuJ.
9 "l11e medians for the 1hree are l 18-163 %. 143% , and 137-147 %: a "median" ' when calcu lating an averag based on four items in a data set is less helpful than when detivin g a median from a long er data set. But the Urrce median s her e hdp support lhc vali dity of the 139% statistic ; they do not di erge to the same significant degree , as the Tasn1ru1 Ea.<rt median and mean .

I
A

Page A-129

Califomia Department of
Housing and Community Dev~topmcut
Febrn ary 23, 2023

c. The Pah·ick Henry "\ veragc" Is Based On No Data.

FARELLA
BRAU • MART L111·
We tum next to the -Patrick Henry area, where we cannot create a cfou~ because th ere is 110 valid data at all.

Here, Santa Clara used a rnultiplier of"maximum de,t,;ities x 72%," and e ·plain s that it was used "as there are currently no existing or approved project s in the Patrick Henry Specific Plan area . Santa Clara in luded no rationale for lhc numb er in lhe Housing Elem,.ml, Conlrnr y 10 the.: requirements in Oovemment Code section 65583 ,2(c), which requires llrnt lhe ily 'dete1111ine,"" pecify." "demon trate ,'' " alcul ate." and approp,iately "adjust"' a "realistic '' muuber using "iypical densiti es of exi ting or approved residential developments .·, Absent ufficient infonnation , Santa Clara is not penuitt ed to simply imagine that 72% is an appropriate mltllipl ier. 11 should instead use 1he established mininrnm densit y. Government Code_§ 65583.2(c)(I ).

Based on the draftin g history , the apparent inspiration of the 72% statistic is a single propostld proje.cl (Pactron/Sunune .rhill) listed on tabl e 13.6-3 for the Patrick I lenry area. ln the draft circulated the. week before thi:J final Plannit1g Ommission hearin g, the draft had indi cated that it wo uld use a 119~1,-, "percentag e of minimum '' based on thi s propo sal. Tirn da before the Plmming Commission hearing, staff mad e a last-minut e change in lh, creation of ppendix B (the site inventory), !aimin g t hat lhe Pa Irick Henry area densities should be cakul afod based on a 72% "percentage of tnaxinmm " instead of al 19% ''perce ntag e, of minimum ." To the eide nt that the Pactron /Stuumerhill proposa l is in fact the basi. for tl1e 72%, it is flawed. first , this propo sal does not sho\.V au average or typical d nsity of an existing or appro ved project. It does not shO\ what eve n a single build er ha.~ sucoeeded in building at the listed perce.nta ge-of-minlmum density. ·111e statute dlrect s that "typi cal densit ies of existing or approved re idential deve lopment s at a imilar affordabilit y level in that juri diction " is the relevant data set~ a single propos ed but-not- d-approvcd proje..:t, and a mark I-rate one at that. doesn' t m 1 the minimum test for onsidcrntion . be,,;ausc it is neither "typical " nor "exi ·ting or approved ." Govemment Code § 6 5583 .2(c)( 2). Thi s rule make s good sense: propo sed proj ect may not be approved or ever built , and so has not been test d b y the real world to detcnnin e ifit reflects the "realistic '' capacity 10'; City staff may not (Wen have reviewed it for complian ce with Santa Clara ioning )a\ s. leaJl\ hile, " typical" require' more than u, handfu l. a..nd certainly more than ooe. Because no housing h3$ been buil1 in th e Patrick Henr y area at alL th e City lacks data on which to argue that the statutory directive of applying minimum density rn See Govcmm ·nl Code § 65 -83(a)(3) (ret1uiriug a site in v ntory to show th.: "'realistic.: and dem onstrated potential for redevelopment "); § 65583.2(c) (".Ille inventory sl1all spe ify for each site the number of units tliat can 1•ealistically be accommodat ed .. ."')'.§ 65583.2(c)(2)(C) ("A site may be prestuned to be realistic for deve lopm e11t to accommodate lower income housing if,, al lhc tim e offhi; adoption ofthe housing clement , a dcvelopm.:111 affordabl e 1o lower inoome households has be..,'11 propo sed and approved for development on that site.'') (emphasis added) .

I

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page A-130

Cal ifomia Department of
Housing and Commun ity Development
fobmary 23, 2023

FARELLA
BRAU • MART EL111·
based on densitj es should be ignored or adjusted b,1sed on rea l-wo rld experience. Memr.: hile. the ity 's calcula1ions fail to auommt fur the po ·sibility1hat futur e projeuts ma y u1L1lude conun e1,cial or office u, es, even though evera l oftJ1e Patrick Herny zonin g categor ies provide th.is potential. The Cit y should usi;: the minimum densiti s as the fail-safe for this area ofth City where no housing has yet been built at all.

Second , the last minute switch from a ·'perc tin1age of minimum " (the approa h used for Ta:;mm1 Eas t and Lav rcn e Station) to a 72°10 "percentage of maxim um' was used to inflat e the numbers based 011 th very high maximum s used for Patrick Heury. Thi s seemingly min or ohan,ge makes a. hig differe nce - ahout 728 units - but the CLUTent draft of th e Housing Glement does not "demo n :trat " why the "percentage of maximum ' is valid or realistic , as r quired.

Gove rnm ent Code§ 65583 .2(c) . A percentage of maximum untethers the approach from reality: a jurisdiction could choose (to Lake an extreme exampl e) a l 000 du /ac "max imum " and then claim that lower incom e housing needs are ac.commodated even tl10ugl1 no project has e er been bu/It with that d ensity. Note also th at in the 'fas mm, Ea<;t area, with arguably the most similar zonin g rules to Patrick Henry, the average ·'percentage of maxunmn ., based on built and 1ppro cd market-rate proj cds is o nly 50%, furt.h r cast ing doubt on th "72% of ma ximum " ]aim for Pat.lick Henry .

Ab ent a data-dri vet1 reason for the ' 72% of maximum· multipli er for the P atrick Henry area Santa C lara fails to justify the upwar d adjustment. it applied. Tiie mini.mum densi ty h ould b • used instea d. Tiu , m11kes a big dill erencc : 3,207 uuit s total for the Pallick Ilcnry 11rea. instead of 4.549 , and a fai lrn·e to meet tl1e very low income RHN .

D. Santa Clam Failed To Analyze The .. Typical Densities Of Existing Or . pprovecl R(•siclcntial Devclopmmts At A Similar {[urtlnbiliJv Lt.'vel." If a city use th minimum density und er section 65583.2(c)( l), it can also trea t the s ite as appropriate to develop at that minimum density fo r lower income housing under section 65583.2(c)(3), which provi des that s ites w ith a zo ned d en sity of at least 30 units/acre are considered adequate for lower in<.;onic housing. Bui if the t:ity doos 1101 use tbc miuimun1 density , as the latest draft now prop oses, it must different iate between markt1t-ra1e and affordab le hou sing project <, in develop ing a realistic estim ate. Govemment Cod e§ 65583.2(c)(2). Here, the City·s Housing Element is serio usly flawed. becau se rt relic almost exclusivel y on market­ n1le. rath er than afford 11ble. housi.og projects in calc ulating the, capacity of 1he inventory .

Section 65583.2(c)(2) was amend din 2017 ( B 1397) to emph asize that "typical densities'' are not suffici ent; the rd vant eviden ce from wh.ioh to mak..: a capacity calculation higher t han minimum is b comparison to '"typical densitie s of xisting or approved res idential develo pments a( a similar ajfordabi/jty level in t/wlj11riscliction." See also Govenuw:mt Code § 65583(a)(3) (requirin g that sites have a 'realistic and demonstr ated potential for redeve lopm ent drning the planJ1ing period to meet the loca lity's housing need for a de, ignat ed income level. ' ).

I
A

Page A-131

Califomia Department of
Housing and Community Development
Febmary 23, 2023

FARELLA
BRA U • M ART L111·
A. market-rate developer may be ahle to afford to huild 300 units 011 2.51 acres , or even 800 unit-s on 6.5 acres as Sares Regis propose .s to do at Patrick llenry . But it is well-recognized that a 100% affo rdabl e income development generally caimot afford a proj e t oftbis magn.itud Lbc IICD Sile Inventory Guidebook explains :

To achieve -financial feasibility, 111m1y assisted housing developments using state or federal reso urc es are betw een 5010 150 unit s. Parcel that ar too small may not :support the munbcr of unit s ne c ·sary lo be competiti ve ,md to acc.;ss scarce funding r ·ources . Parc els that arc large may require very larg e projet:1 ·. \>Vhich may lead to m1 over concentration of affordab le hou sing in one locatio11 or may add cost to a proj ect by requiring a dcvolop cr to purchase more laud than i needed, or rend er a project ineli gible for funding .

HCD Site Inventor y Guidebook ( ray 2020) at p. 15. These limitation s are why the f..,egislature provided in . B 1397 th at sit es sm aller than 0.5 acres. or larg er than IO acre s, are u suall y ineligible , absent a specific cvidenl.iary showing, to acco11m1odate the need for low er incom e hou sing. Id. ; G vemment Cod e§ 65583.2( )(2)tA) and (B). Inde ed, the sam e law that added section 65583.2(c)(2)(A) and (B) also added the ·'similar affordability level''la nguage h) subsect ion ( c)(2); the Legis lature simultaneou sly added several provi sions to ensure that site iuventmics realistically c aluate whether aJfor dable housing will be produc ed. AB 1397 (Stats. 2017 ch. 375) .

In order to depaii: from the mini.mum dens ity, Santa Clara would therefo re need to show not just that market-rat e project s cru.1 achieve high er-than-miniurnm densities like the 139% average in Lav,rencc Stntion , or 201 % average in Tasm an East, but that ''typical densities" for a I 00% affordable housing pmject do !';O a,; we ll, including at the v ry high densities p1·oje .ted for the e ites .

Santa Clara·s Housing Elemeut fai ls lo make this ret1uired showing . Of the projed s on Table 13.6-3, ore en the m ore compl e1e lists disuu sse d above , there is only on e projec.;t that cm1 be desc ribed a,; having a "si milar' level of affordable hou . ing (i.e .. 100%, belO\ mark et rate):
the 1.08 acre project al 2904 Corvin . Tha1 proj ect fit s the general rang e of size for affordable hou sing at 145 a1fordabl e units. it is within U1e 0- l 50 unit range discusse d by HCD. But it is one-of-a-kind : the first hom eless suppotiive housing in the City, 11eav ily subsidi7 .ed with single­ occupancy micro-units " that are only 300 quare feet in size and thll only affordable hou ing proje ct built -in any of the three Spec ific Plan area _ One-of-a-kind is not ''t ypical .,. 'l11e re.maining site inventory in Tasman East, I .awre nce Station and Patrick I lenry is projected to meet the need s fo r very Im - Im -, and moderate-incomes (seep . 13.6-10 !iplitting the capacity 33.33 perce.ut each to very low-, low- and mod erate-in come s). et the data to support the claimed den sities is based ·xd usiv ly 011 market-ml · proj ·ct tbal did 1101 hnv • this mi x of affordability . ln the Tasman East area, table 13.6-2 sbow tbat of ·)even proj els, building 4 459 units of hou sing, the. m1mber of unit s ofve.ry low- and low-incom e hou sing.

I

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page A-132

Califomia Department of
Housing and Community Development
Febmary 23, 2023

FARELLA
BRA •MARTEL111•
accommodated is: zero. "[his shows that there are not "typical densities of existing or approved residential development~ a1 a similar level, of affordability" for this area. As stated above there ha~ been no housing built or approved in the Pattick Henry arna at all; there is no "t pical " nrnrkct-rate project tl1er , rnucb less a typical den ily for a project, ith the level of alfordability calculated by the invento,y.

Moreover. as fitrthcr eKplained in our letter of Januar y 21, many of the sites includ e areas that have been zoned us parkland or right-of-,. ay . Whill:! the City tlome y·s Office argued al the Plmu1i11g Commission hearing Urn1 the gro s acreage of the site could nonethele s be included because a housing developer could use the gross acreage in calculating the minimum /maximum number oJ units ponuitted by the zoning, this ignores the practical realit. ; a more dense project (i.e .. Ibo same number of units s4ui.;czed .into a smaller buildable footprint) is a much mo1·e ex1Je11, ive one. Taking PN I 04-04-124 as an example , 2.32 ofthe 4. 7 acres is zoned for a park; any development would need to put all of the unit s on the remaining 2.38 acres.

Instead ofbuikliug a 502 tmi! project on 4. 7 acres , Santa Clara appar ntly contends that an affordabl e housing developer will build 2.32 acres of park, and then build all 502 uni Ls ◊n the

2.38acre tlrnt1•emai11(abuiltdensityof211 du/ac). 'J11isspeculationi , not realistic . o affordable housing developer has ever built uch a development in Santa Clam.

If Sant.a Clara wm11s to estimate a realistic production of alfordable housing in 1hc Tasman East, La\ ronuc Station and Patriuk Henry m·e11s, where large, higl1 densi! tnark.et-ratc project s are being built (instead of using the safe harbor ofminirmun den itie, ), then it shottld eslimal how umch lower-incom hou "ing will be buiU there based on the actual daia of affordabh: housing production in market rate proj els . 11 11rn1 data s hows that housing affordable to those in 1he very low- , low-, and moderate-income categories is produced at a rate. somewhat less than th 12% inclusionary housing mandate under city law. (Which , notably , 1 ads mostly to incfusion of moderate unit<; and no vely low- or low-income units for a large number of projects , see Table 13.6-2 (Peniling and Appro ved Projects)) . l11e site invicnlory could int:lud..::
the high density project s, hut s·hould only include the realistic numher of units in the lower mcome categories tha1 are hi. t01icaJly built in projects oftJ1is type. 'll1e CutTent I lousing Element fails to make a showing sufficient to atisfy section 65583.2(c), a. amended b. AB 1397. 111c n:al data ·ho-. s that ll1e current site in eulory will never achieve the claimed production of affordable hotL~iug that Santa Clam pre ·ent in the Jlou ·ing El ·men t, or that is necessa ry to accommodate the needs of the community.
11 lf lhc City instead wants tor ·ly on statutory presumptions like the "deemed ad quute ., stahltory mle of section 65583.2(0)(3)10 olaitn that these sites can be used for lower income housing, it should limit it elf to the mini.mum densitie s that tate law compels HCD to acc.:ipt. 111e City ' s plallllers may know that even the minimum densitie ,s are not realistic for the larg st sites (given that the size oftbc proj cLs :ubslllntially exceed · what affordable developers actually build) , but 111eywo uld be able to rely on the statutory presumption, rather than speculative and unrealistic math .

I
A

Page A-133

Califomia Department of
Housing and Community Devel opment
Febmary 23, 2023

FARELLA
BRA U • MART L111·
'l11e so lution is to determine the realistic capacity of the nc, high-densi ty neighborhoods by projecting market-t·ate project ~ with thc,ir ty pical complement of affordahle units , and then to suppl ement it with small er, geographically dispersed sites to accommodate the remainder of the v ry low- , 10\• -, and mod crate-incom • need on sites that are realistic in sca le and density for affordable housing project s. 'f11e C..'ity's e:-:perience shows that affordable housing developers generally build within a half-mile of grocery stMes and that the y hui Id proje.cts in the range of 50-150 unit s. Building in the Patri ck Henry area, for example, satisfies neither of the se the area is curr ntly a food desert (more than one mile to a grocery store) - and the parcel size and minimum d n sit_ exce eds ,mything that is rcali tic and dcmon strnl ·d for a project~ ith 100% affordable housing .12 The City has numerou s other opportunities for places where affordable housing developers could realistic ally build housing, e.g ., along El Camino Real , or Stevens Creek Boulevard if onl the City would commit to rezoning to allow hou sing to be built there.

Affo rduble hou sing developers ·hould not ha ve to nm u years-long gauutlet of seeki ng special permission to build housing on realistic, underutili zed sites , as was done with the Catholic Charities project at 1601 Civic Center . Adequate. availahle. realistic sites should be rezoned throu gho ut the city lo make il possible to realist icaJJy build the requir ed aiuow1l of housing affordable to all in ome level, durin g the ne>.'1. eight yea, . 12 For example. the 1irojection s that the need for 972 unit s of housing affordable to tho . e with very low. low, or moderat e income wi ll be met by a project at 4701 Patiick Henry Drive, a 687-unit 100% affordable housing project at 3055 Patrick Henry, or a 664-unit 100% affordable housing proj ect at 33 0 cntral Exprcsswa , is simpl y not realistic . The City's c-xperience with a(fordabl oproj ects mat cbtis well the IICD guid,mce about proj ticts of50-150 units.

I

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Page A-134

Califomia Department of
Housing and Community De, elopmcnt
llebmary 23 , 2023

E. Conclusion

FARELLA
BRA • MART EL 11 ,,
Applying a minimum denstty approach to capac1t1es, as Santa lam did with in; earlier draft reviewed b_ HCD, is simple. When Santa Clara instead mad 1: ils eleventh hour addition to the I rousing Llement , projecting much larger housing production for the same sites, it was required to do so based on actual e aluation of the typica l densitie s for pr~jects with a imilar level of affordabi lity. sex-plained above, Santa Clara's Housing Element did not comply with lb.is statutory mandate. HCD should find that Santa Clara s Housing Elumunl. as adopt..:d on Jat1Uary 31, 2023 . is nol in substantial uompliance with state law.

TBM :tb
J6Gl 5\15W791G.I
With uopi s to :
l{espectfnlly submitted,
~ L-
TI1omc1s B. Mc1yhc . 1
~ 7~
Char1es .I. Jligley
Reen a Brilliot, ssistant Direc:tor Santa Clara Community Development Department E-Mail: RBriJlol({!.SantaCliua A.gov
John David son. Principal Planner. Santa Clara Planning Division E- fail : [email protected]
I
HCD Electronic Sites Inventory Table A
Jurisdiction
Name Site Address/Intersection
5 Digit
ZIP
Code
Assessor
Parcel
Number
Consolidated
Sites
General Plan
Designation
(Current)
Zoning
Designation
(Current)
Minimum Density
Allowed
(units/acre)
Max Density
Allowed
(units/acre)
Parcel Size
(Acres) Existing Use/Vacancy Infrastructure Publicly-
Owned Site Status Identified in Last/Last Two Planning
Cycle(s)
Lower
Income
Capacity
Moderate
Income
Capacity
Above
Moderate
Income
Capacity
Total
Capacity
Optional Information1
[Notes]
Optional Information2
[Project Status]
Optional Information3
[Project Name]
SANTA CLARA 2101 Tasman Drive 95054 097-05-056 I DHRE TN 100 350 6.635837 Vacant Building - Office (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-Ow Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Proposed TE 2101 Tasman Drive (Related California) SANTA CLARA 2101 Tasman Drive 95054 097-05-057 I DHRE TN 100 350 2.3864 Light Industrial / Manufacturing (previous use) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 950 950 Proposed TE 2101 Tasman Drive (Related California) SANTA CLARA 2200 Calle De Luna 95054 097-05-058 DHRE TN 100 350 3.699773 Vacant Lot (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 69 510 579 Approved TE 2200 Calle De Luna (Holland) SANTA CLARA 2233 Calle Del Mundo 95054 097-05-059 DHRE TN 100 350 1.164296 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 195 0 1 196 Under Construction TE 2233 Calle Del Mundo (St. Anton) SANTA CLARA 2263 Calle Del Mundo 95054 097-05-060 J DHRE TN 60 350 0.955107 Low Intensity Office (previous use) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Approved TE 2263 Calle Del Mundo (Ensemble) SANTA CLARA 2263 Calle Del Mundo 95054 097-05-061 J DHRE TN 60 350 0.98725 Low Intensity Office (previous use) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 301 301 Approved TE 2263 Calle Del Mundo (Ensemble) SANTA CLARA 2343 Calle Del Mundo 95054 097-05-110 DHRE TN 100 350 2.666977 Vacant Lot (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 41 305 346 Prior APNs: 097-05-064, -063, and -062 Approved TE 2343 Calle Del Mundo (Summerhill) SANTA CLARA 5191 Lafayette Street 95054 097-46-001 TN TN 60 350 0.512947 Low Intensity Office / Light Industrial / Manufacturing YES - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 47 19 0 66 Available SANTA CLARA 2354 Calle Del Mundo 95054 097-46-002 DHRE TN 60 350 0.458703 Light Industrial / Manufacturing (previous use) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 10 78 88 Approved TE 2354 Calle Del Mundo (Ensemble) SANTA CLARA 2346 Calle Del Mundo 95054 097-46-003 TN TN 60 350 0.458668 Low Intensity Office / Light Industrial / Manufacturing YES - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 30 29 59 Available SANTA CLARA 2338 Calle Del Mundo 95054 097-46-004 TN TN 60 350 0.458805 Low Intensity Office / Light Industrial / Manufacturing YES - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 30 29 59 Available SANTA CLARA 2330 Calle Del Mundo 95054 097-46-005 TN TN 60 350 0.459186 Low Intensity Office / Light Industrial / Manufacturing YES - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 30 29 59 Available SANTA CLARA 2322 Calle Del Mundo 95054 097-46-006 TN TN 60 350 0.459186 Low Intensity Office / Light Industrial / Manufacturing YES - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 30 29 59 Available SANTA CLARA 2301 Calle De Luna 95054 097-46-007 TN TN 60 350 0.459185 Low Intensity Office / Light Industrial / Manufacturing YES - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 30 29 59 Available SANTA CLARA 2309 Calle De Luna 95054 097-46-008 TN TN 60 350 0.459186 Low Intensity Office / Light Industrial / Manufacturing YES - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 30 29 59 Available SANTA CLARA 2317 Calle De Luna 95054 097-46-009 TN TN 60 350 0.460984 Low Intensity Office / Light Industrial / Manufacturing YES - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 30 29 59 Available SANTA CLARA 2325 Calle De Luna 95054 097-46-010 TN TN 60 350 0.472659 Low Intensity Office / Light Industrial / Manufacturing YES - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 30 30 60 Available SANTA CLARA 5185 Lafayette Street 95054 097-46-011 DHRE TN 60 350 0.897176 Low Intensity Office (previous use) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 15 183 198 Proposed TE 5185 Lafayette (Ensemble) SANTA CLARA 2300 Calle De Luna 95054 097-46-016 K DHRE TN 100 350 1.287041 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction TE 2300 Calle De Luna (Related California) SANTA CLARA 2300 Calle De Luna 95054 097-46-017 K DHRE TN 100 350 1.531507 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction TE 2300 Calle De Luna (Related California) SANTA CLARA 2300 Calle De Luna 95054 097-46-018 K DHRE TN 100 350 1.173241 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 684 684 Under Construction TE 2300 Calle De Luna (Related California) SANTA CLARA 5123 Calle Del Sol 95054 097-46-019 M DHRE TN 100 350 1.865499 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction TE 5123 Calle Del Sol (Ensemble) - Phase I & II SANTA CLARA 2225 Calle De Luna 95054 097-46-020 N DHRE TN 100 350 1.067009 Low Intensity Office (previous use) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Approved TE 2225 Calle de Luna & 2232 Calle del Mundo SANTA CLARA 2271 Calle De Luna 95054 097-46-021 TN TN 60 350 0.929071 Low Intensity Office / Light Industrial / Manufacturing YES - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 84 35 0 119 Available SANTA CLARA 2281 Calle De Luna 95054 097-46-023 TN TN 60 350 0.939815 Low Intensity Office / Light Industrial / Manufacturing YES - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 85 36 0 121 Available SANTA CLARA 2302/2310 Calle Del Mundo 95054 097-46-024 DHRE TN 60 350 0.987249 Light Industrial / Manufacturing (previous use) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 150 0 1 151 Approved/Under Construction TE 2302/2310 Calle Del Mundo (Ensemble) SANTA CLARA 2272 Calle Del Mundo 95054 097-46-025 TN TN 60 350 0.481745 Low Intensity Office / Light Industrial / Manufacturing YES - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 31 31 62 Available SANTA CLARA 2262 Calle Del Mundo 95054 097-46-026 TN TN 60 350 0.482545 Low Intensity Office / Light Industrial / Manufacturing YES - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 31 31 62 Available SANTA CLARA 2232 Calle Del Mundo 95054 097-46-027 N DHRE TN 100 350 1.066643 Light Industrial / Manufacturing (previous use) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 44 326 370 Approved TE 2225 Calle de Luna & 2232 Calle del Mundo SANTA CLARA 2300 Calle De Luna 95054 097-46-028 K DHRE TN 100 350 1.609845 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction TE 2300 Calle De Luna (Related California) SANTA CLARA 5123 Calle Del Sol 95054 097-46-029 M DHRE TN 60 350 0.782628 Vacant Building - Fast Food Drive Through (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 503 503 Approved/Under Construction TE 5123 Calle Del Sol (Ensemble) - Phase I & II SANTA CLARA 2203 Tasman Drive 95054 097-46-030 TN TN 100 350 1.026134 Low Intensity Retail / Commercial (strip mall) YES - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 154 66 0 220 Available SANTA CLARA 3575 De La Cruz Boulevard 95054 101-15-049 VLDR B 1 18 0.696784 Vacant Lot (pending project) YES - Current YES - City-OwnePending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 13 2 0 15 Approved using AB 3194 (PLN22-00518) Approved 3575 De La Cruz Boulevard SANTA CLARA 5155 Stars & Stripes Drive 95054 104-01-102 L UCED PD-MC 37 90 35.853211 Vacant - Golf Course (pending project) YES - Current YES - City-OwnePending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Approved Related Santa Clara - Phase 1 SANTA CLARA 5155 Stars & Stripes Drive 95054 104-03-036 L UCED PD-MC 37 90 86.154927 Vacant - Golf Course (pending project) YES - Current YES - City-OwnePending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Approved Related Santa Clara - Phase 1 SANTA CLARA 5155 Stars & Stripes Drive 95054 104-03-038 L UCED PD-MC 37 90 4.401292 Vacant - Parking Lot (pending project) YES - Current YES - City-OwnePending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Approved Related Santa Clara - Phase 1 SANTA CLARA 5155 Stars & Stripes Drive 95054 104-03-039 L UCED PD-MC 37 90 2.990044 Vacant - Parking Lot (pending project) YES - Current YES - City-OwnePending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 20 1660 1680 Approved Related Santa Clara - Phase 1 SANTA CLARA 2901 Patrick Henry Drive 95054 104-04-078 HDR UV 100 149 6.496663 Low Intensity Office (previous use) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 80 40 680 800 Proposed PHD Sares Regis SANTA CLARA 3200 Patrick Henry Drive 95054 104-04-089 HDR UV 100 149 1.285564 Medium / High Intensity Office YES - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 96 41 0 137 Available SANTA CLARA 3000 Patrick Henry Drive 95054 104-04-093 HDR UV 100 149 2.518497 Low Intensity Office (previous use) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 31 15 261 307 Approved PHD Summerhill SANTA CLARA 2950 Patrick Henry Drive 95054 104-04-094 HDR UV 100 149 2.517905 Low Intensity Office YES - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 189 81 0 270 Available SANTA CLARA 2900 Patrick Henry Drive 95054 104-04-095 HDR UV 100 149 1.983616 Church YES - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 149 63 0 212 Available SANTA CLARA 4590 Patrick Henry Drive 95054 104-04-123 HDR UV 100 149 2.795228 Low Intensity Office (previous use) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 40 20 353 413 Proposed PHD Walnut Hill SANTA CLARA 3200 Patrick Henry Drive 95054 104-04-124 HDR UV 100 149 4.679705 Medium / High Intensity Office YES - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 352 150 0 502 Available SANTA CLARA 3100 Patrick Henry Drive 95054 104-04-128 HDR UV 100 149 2.519292 Low Intensity Office YES - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 189 81 0 270 Available SANTA CLARA 3105 Patrick Henry Drive 95054 104-04-131 VHDR VHDR 51 99 3.795996 Low Intensity Office YES - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 189 81 0 270 Available SANTA CLARA 3055 Patrick Henry Drive 95054 104-04-136 UC UC 120 250 3.821098 Light Industrial / Manufacturing YES - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 481 206 0 687 Available SANTA CLARA 4699 Old Ironsides Drive 95054 104-04-138 HDF HDF 60 149 1.734805 Medium / High Intensity Office YES - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 131 55 0 186 Available SANTA CLARA 4677 Old Ironsides Drive 95054 104-04-139 HDF HDF 60 149 2.531554 Medium / High Intensity Office YES - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 190 81 0 271 Available SANTA CLARA 4655 Old Ironsides Drive 95054 104-04-140 HDF HDF 60 149 2.699689 Medium / High Intensity Office YES - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 203 86 0 289 Available SANTA CLARA 4633 Old Ironsides Drive 95054 104-04-141 HDF HDF 60 149 2.60243 Medium / High Intensity Office YES - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 196 83 0 279 Available SANTA CLARA 3905 Freedom Circle 95054 104-40-021 H VHDR PD 51 100 8.224978 Vacant Lot (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Approved 3905 Freedom Circle Mixed-Use Project (Greystar) SANTA CLARA 3905 Freedom Circle 95054 104-40-036 H VHDR PD 51 100 5.136416 Vacant Lot (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 108 54 913 1075 Approved 3905 Freedom Circle Mixed-Use Project (Greystar) SANTA CLARA 4701 Patrick Henry Drive 95054 104-53-001 O VR VR 60 149 0.091117 Low Intensity Office (condo units) YES - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Available SANTA CLARA 4701 Patrick Henry Drive 95054 104-53-002 O VR VR 60 149 0.113874 Low Intensity Office (condo units) YES - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Available SANTA CLARA 4701 Patrick Henry Drive 95054 104-53-003 O VR VR 60 149 0.091121 Low Intensity Office (condo units) YES - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Available SANTA CLARA 4701 Patrick Henry Drive 95054 104-53-004 O VR VR 60 149 0.07811 Low Intensity Office (condo units) YES - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Available SANTA CLARA 4701 Patrick Henry Drive 95054 104-53-005 O VR VR 60 149 0.113879 Low Intensity Office (condo units) YES - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Available SANTA CLARA 4701 Patrick Henry Drive 95054 104-53-006 O VR VR 60 149 0.091122 Low Intensity Office (condo units) YES - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Available SANTA CLARA 4701 Patrick Henry Drive 95054 104-53-007 O VR VR 60 149 0.078107 Low Intensity Office (condo units) YES - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Available SANTA CLARA 4701 Patrick Henry Drive 95054 104-53-008 O VR VR 60 149 0.078105 Low Intensity Office (condo units) YES - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Available SANTA CLARA 4701 Patrick Henry Drive 95054 104-53-009 O VR VR 60 149 0.069394 Low Intensity Office (condo units) YES - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Available SANTA CLARA 4701 Patrick Henry Drive 95054 104-53-010 O VR VR 60 149 0.069385 Low Intensity Office (condo units) YES - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Available SANTA CLARA 4701 Patrick Henry Drive 95054 104-53-011 O VR VR 60 149 0.078101 Low Intensity Office (condo units) YES - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Available SANTA CLARA 4701 Patrick Henry Drive 95054 104-53-012 O VR VR 60 149 0.078106 Low Intensity Office (condo units) YES - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Available SANTA CLARA 4701 Patrick Henry Drive 95054 104-53-013 O VR VR 60 149 0.078114 Low Intensity Office (condo units) YES - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Available SANTA CLARA 4701 Patrick Henry Drive 95054 104-53-014 O VR VR 60 149 0.078105 Low Intensity Office (condo units) YES - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Available SANTA CLARA 4701 Patrick Henry Drive 95054 104-53-015 O VR VR 60 149 0.078107 Low Intensity Office (condo units) YES - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Available SANTA CLARA 4701 Patrick Henry Drive 95054 104-53-016 O VR VR 60 149 0.078105 Low Intensity Office (condo units) YES - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Available SANTA CLARA 4701 Patrick Henry Drive 95054 104-53-017 O VR VR 60 149 0.078107 Low Intensity Office (condo units) YES - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Available SANTA CLARA 4701 Patrick Henry Drive 95054 104-53-018 O VR VR 60 149 0.078108 Low Intensity Office (condo units) YES - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Available SANTA CLARA 4701 Patrick Henry Drive 95054 104-53-019 O VR VR 60 149 0.069387 Low Intensity Office (condo units) YES - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Available SANTA CLARA 4701 Patrick Henry Drive 95054 104-53-020 O VR VR 60 149 0.078105 Low Intensity Office (condo units) YES - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Available SANTA CLARA 4701 Patrick Henry Drive 95054 104-53-021 O VR VR 60 149 0.113878 Low Intensity Office (condo units) YES - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Available SANTA CLARA 4701 Patrick Henry Drive 95054 104-53-022 O VR VR 60 149 0.090637 Low Intensity Office (condo units) YES - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Available SANTA CLARA 4701 Patrick Henry Drive 95054 104-53-023 O VR VR 60 149 0.078111 Low Intensity Office (condo units) YES - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Available SANTA CLARA 4701 Patrick Henry Drive 95054 104-53-024 O VR VR 60 149 0.113885 Low Intensity Office (condo units) YES - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Available SANTA CLARA 4701 Patrick Henry Drive 95054 104-53-025 O VR VR 60 149 0.113872 Low Intensity Office (condo units) YES - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Available SANTA CLARA 4701 Patrick Henry Drive 95054 104-53-026 O VR VR 60 149 0.091121 Low Intensity Office (condo units) YES - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Available SANTA CLARA 3615 El Camino Real 95051 213-34-004 RMU CC 37 50 3.576865 Fitness Gym Yes - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 93 40 0 133 rounding error Sites to be Rezoned SANTA CLARA 3725 El Camino Real 95051 213-34-008 RMU CC 37 50 0.5646 Gas Station Yes - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 15 6 0 21 Sites to be Rezoned SANTA CLARA 3705 El Camino Real 95051 213-34-010 P RMU CC 37 50 4.47703 High Intensity Retail / Commercial (big box store) Yes - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 116 50 0 166 rounding error Sites to be Rezoned SANTA CLARA 3735 El Camino Real 95051 213-34-012 P RMU CC 37 50 1.840153 High Intensity Retail / Commercial (big box store) Yes - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 47 20 0 67 rounding error Sites to be Rezoned SANTA CLARA 3755 El Camino Real 95051 213-35-032 RMU CC 37 50 1.16069 Bank Yes - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 30 13 0 43 Sites to be Rezoned SANTA CLARA 3775 El Camino Real 95051 213-35-035 RMU CC 37 50 2.185194 Low Intensity Retail / Commercial (strip mall) Yes - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 34 15 0 49 Sites to be Rezoned SANTA CLARA 4341 El Camino Real 95051 213-37-015 RMU RT 37 50 1.005848 Hotel/Motel Yes - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 23 10 0 33 Sites to be Rezoned SANTA CLARA 2725 El Camino Real 95051 216-01-040 RMU CT 37 50 1.137447 Low Intensity Retail / Commercial (strip mall) Yes - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 30 13 0 43 Sites to be Rezoned SANTA CLARA 2775 El Camino Real 95051 216-01-058 RMU CT 37 50 1.244815 Low Intensity Retail / Commercial (strip mall) Yes - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 32 14 0 46 Sites to be Rezoned SANTA CLARA 2789 El Camino Real 95051 216-01-059 RMU CT 37 50 0.884352 Low Intensity Retail / Commercial (strip mall) Yes - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 37 16 0 53 rounding error Sites to be Rezoned SANTA CLARA 3031 Corvin Drive 95051 216-33-022 MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.609543 Light Industrial / Manufacturing YES - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 6 6 12 Available SANTA CLARA 3323 Kifer Road 95051 216-33-035 VHDR LSAP 51 100 0.531195 Low Intensity Office YES - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 36 15 0 51 Available SANTA CLARA 3051 Corvin Drive 95051 216-33-036 MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.603888 Light Industrial / Manufacturing YES - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 6 6 12 Available SANTA CLARA 3071 Corvin Drive 95051 216-33-037 MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.780375 Low Intensity Office YES - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 8 7 15 Available SANTA CLARA 3069 Lawrence Expressway 95051 216-34-052 DHRE LSAP 51 100 3.82527 Low Intensity Office (previous use) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 328 328 Approved LSAP 3517 Ryder Street (Westlake Urban) SANTA CLARA 3450 Central Expressway 95051 216-34-079 VHDR LSAP 51 100 3.139213 Low Intensity Office YES - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 214 91 0 305 Previously 3450 Copper Place (APN 216-60-045) Available SANTA CLARA 3580 Rambla Place 95051 216-59-001 DHRE LSAP 51 100 2.57464 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 5 48 233 286 Under Construction LSAP 3580 Rambla Place (Summerhill) SANTA CLARA 2907 Corvin Drive 131 95051 216-63-009 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.016664 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2907 Corvin Drive 129 95051 216-63-010 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.015172 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2907 Corvin Drive 127 95051 216-63-011 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.014778 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2907 Corvin Drive 125 95051 216-63-012 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.015288 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2907 Corvin Drive 123 95051 216-63-013 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.014773 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2907 Corvin Drive 121 95051 216-63-014 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.016597 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2903 Corvin Drive 119 95051 216-63-015 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.015922 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2903 Corvin Drive 117 95051 216-63-016 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.015883 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2903 Corvin Drive 115 95051 216-63-017 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.017325 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 3303 Kifer Road 113 95051 216-63-018 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.017273 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 3303 Kifer Road 111 95051 216-63-019 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.014865 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 3303 Kifer Road 109 95051 216-63-020 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.015487 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 3303 Kifer Road 107 95051 216-63-021 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.014859 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 3303 Kifer Road 105 95051 216-63-022 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.015484 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 3303 Kifer Road 103 95051 216-63-023 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.014864 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 3303 Kifer Road 101 95051 216-63-024 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.017486 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2905 Noyce Place 179 95051 216-63-025 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.016271 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2905 Noyce Place 177 95051 216-63-026 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.015246 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2905 Noyce Place 175 95051 216-63-027 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.014767 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2905 Noyce Place 173 95051 216-63-028 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.015128 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2905 Noyce Place 171 95051 216-63-029 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.014648 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 5 40 45 Under Construction LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2905 Noyce Place 169 95051 216-63-030 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.016189 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2909 Corvin Drive 143 95051 216-63-031 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.01721 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2909 Corvin Drive 141 95051 216-63-032 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.015482 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2909 Corvin Drive 139 95051 216-63-033 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.015091 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) Appendix B: Housing Element Sites Inventory
Jurisdiction
Name Site Address/Intersection
5 Digit
ZIP
Code
Assessor
Parcel
Number
Consolidated
Sites
General Plan
Designation
(Current)
Zoning
Designation
(Current)
Minimum Density
Allowed
(units/acre)
Max Density
Allowed
(units/acre)
Parcel Size
(Acres) Existing Use/Vacancy Infrastructure Publicly-
Owned Site Status Identified in Last/Last Two Planning
Cycle(s)
Lower
Income
Capacity
Moderate
Income
Capacity
Above
Moderate
Income
Capacity
Total
Capacity
Optional Information1
[Notes]
Optional Information2
[Project Status]
Optional Information3
[Project Name]
SANTA CLARA 2909 Corvin Drive 137 95051 216-63-034 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.015456 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2909 Corvin Drive 135 95051 216-63-035 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.015076 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2909 Corvin Drive 133 95051 216-63-036 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.016486 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2911 Noyce Place 189 95051 216-63-037 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.016692 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2911 Noyce Place 187 95051 216-63-038 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.015251 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2911 Noyce Place 185 95051 216-63-039 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.015603 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2911 Noyce Place 183 95051 216-63-040 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.01509 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2911 Noyce Place 181 95051 216-63-041 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.016675 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2913 Corvin Drive 155 95051 216-63-042 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.017455 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2913 Corvin Drive 153 95051 216-63-043 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.015695 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2913 Corvin Drive 151 95051 216-63-044 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.015311 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2913 Corvin Drive 149 95051 216-63-045 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.015696 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2913 Corvin Drive 147 95051 216-63-046 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.015283 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2913 Corvin Drive 145 95051 216-63-047 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.016728 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2915 Corvin Drive 167 95051 216-63-048 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.01766 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2915 Corvin Drive 165 95051 216-63-049 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.015871 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2915 Corvin Drive 163 95051 216-63-050 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.015453 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2915 Corvin Drive 161 95051 216-63-051 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.015863 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2915 Corvin Drive 159 95051 216-63-052 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.015462 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2915 Corvin Drive 157 95051 216-63-053 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.016921 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2961 Corvin Drive 95051 216-66-001 F MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.018175 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 2961 Corvin Drive (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2961 Corvin Drive 95051 216-66-002 F MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.014359 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 2961 Corvin Drive (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2961 Corvin Drive 95051 216-66-003 F MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.013386 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 2961 Corvin Drive (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2961 Corvin Drive 95051 216-66-004 F MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.013386 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 2961 Corvin Drive (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2961 Corvin Drive 95051 216-66-005 F MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.014359 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 2961 Corvin Drive (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2961 Corvin Drive 95051 216-66-006 F MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.018212 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 2961 Corvin Drive (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2961 Corvin Drive 95051 216-66-007 F MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.018166 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 2961 Corvin Drive (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2961 Corvin Drive 95051 216-66-008 F MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.017487 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 2961 Corvin Drive (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2961 Corvin Drive 95051 216-66-009 F MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.014832 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 2961 Corvin Drive (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2961 Corvin Drive 95051 216-66-010 F MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.013556 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 2961 Corvin Drive (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2961 Corvin Drive 95051 216-66-011 F MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.017488 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 2961 Corvin Drive (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2961 Corvin Drive 95051 216-66-012 F MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.018203 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 2961 Corvin Drive (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2961 Corvin Drive 95051 216-66-013 F MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.018174 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 2961 Corvin Drive (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2961 Corvin Drive 95051 216-66-014 F MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.01436 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 2961 Corvin Drive (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2961 Corvin Drive 95051 216-66-015 F MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.013388 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 2961 Corvin Drive (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2961 Corvin Drive 95051 216-66-016 F MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.01339 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 2961 Corvin Drive (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2961 Corvin Drive 95051 216-66-017 F MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.014365 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 2961 Corvin Drive (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2961 Corvin Drive 95051 216-66-018 F MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.018157 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 2961 Corvin Drive (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2961 Corvin Drive 95051 216-66-019 F MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.017459 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 2961 Corvin Drive (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2961 Corvin Drive 95051 216-66-020 F MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.014843 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 2961 Corvin Drive (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2961 Corvin Drive 95051 216-66-021 F MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.01355 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 2961 Corvin Drive (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2961 Corvin Drive 95051 216-66-022 F MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.017479 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 2961 Corvin Drive (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2961 Corvin Drive 95051 216-66-023 F MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.018039 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 2961 Corvin Drive (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2961 Corvin Drive 95051 216-66-024 F MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.018147 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 2961 Corvin Drive (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2961 Corvin Drive 95051 216-66-025 F MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.017469 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 2961 Corvin Drive (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2961 Corvin Drive 95051 216-66-026 F MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.014816 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 2961 Corvin Drive (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2961 Corvin Drive 95051 216-66-027 F MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.013542 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 2961 Corvin Drive (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2961 Corvin Drive 95051 216-66-028 F MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.017469 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 2961 Corvin Drive (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2961 Corvin Drive 95051 216-66-029 F MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.019411 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 2961 Corvin Drive (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2961 Corvin Drive 95051 216-66-030 F MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.01386 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 2961 Corvin Drive (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2961 Corvin Drive 95051 216-66-031 F MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.013029 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 2961 Corvin Drive (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2961 Corvin Drive 95051 216-66-032 F MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.019274 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 2961 Corvin Drive (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2961 Corvin Drive 95051 216-66-033 F MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.012775 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 4 34 38 Under Construction LSAP 2961 Corvin Drive (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2961 Corvin Drive 95051 216-66-034 F MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.014202 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 2961 Corvin Drive (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2961 Corvin Drive 95051 216-66-035 F MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.014205 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 2961 Corvin Drive (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2961 Corvin Drive 95051 216-66-036 F MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.012779 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 2961 Corvin Drive (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2961 Corvin Drive 95051 216-66-037 F MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.016811 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 2961 Corvin Drive (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2961 Corvin Drive 95051 216-66-038 F MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.017874 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction LSAP 2961 Corvin Drive (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 3035 El Camino Real 95051 220-32-059 CMU PD 20 36 1.879895 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 4 44 48 Previously Zoned CT Under Construction 3035 El Camino Real Residential Project SANTA CLARA 2213 El Camino Real 95050 224-15-029 RMU CT 37 50 1.231422 Low Intensity Retail / Commercial (strip mall) Yes - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 32 14 0 46 rounding error Sites to be Rezoned SANTA CLARA 2065 El Camino Real 95050 224-15-037 RMU CC 37 50 6.363758 Low Intensity Retail / Commercial (strip mall) Yes - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 167 71 0 238 Sites to be Rezoned SANTA CLARA 2330 Monroe Street 95050 224-37-068 MDR R1-6L 20 36 2.690116 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current YES - City-OwnePending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 64 0 1 65 R1-6L zoning approved using AB 3194 Under Construction 2330 Monroe Street Affordable Housing Project (Freebird) SANTA CLARA 1601 Civic Center Drive 95050 224-49-006 HDR PD 37 50 1.495874 Vacant Building - Office (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 106 2 0 108 53 ELI + 53 VLI Approved 1601 Civic Center Drive SANTA CLARA 1205 Coleman Avenue 95050 230-60-001 A VHDMU VHDMU 51 120 3.695906 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 37 36 652 725 Under Construction Gateway Crossings (Hunter/Storm) - Phase 1 SANTA CLARA 1205 Coleman Avenue 95050 230-60-002 A VHDMU VHDMU 51 120 4.025557 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction Gateway Crossings (Hunter/Storm) - Phase 1 SANTA CLARA 1205 Coleman Avenue 95050 230-60-003 B VHDMU VHDMU 51 120 2.758509 Vacant Lot (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 42 42 756 840 Proposed Gateway Crossings (Hunter/Storm) - Phase 2 SANTA CLARA 1205 Coleman Avenue 95050 230-60-004 B VHDMU VHDMU 51 120 3.958583 Vacant Lot (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Proposed Gateway Crossings (Hunter/Storm) - Phase 2 SANTA CLARA 940/950 Monroe Street 95050 269-20-086 C CMU CC 20 36 0.516498 Vacant Building - Low intensity Retail / Commercial (pending projectYES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Rezoning Pending to PD (PLN2020-14457) Proposed 950 Monroe Street Mixed-Use Project SANTA CLARA 930 Monroe Street 95050 269-20-087 C CMU OG 20 36 0.174445 Single-family residential (previous use) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 8 46 54 Rezoning Pending to PD (PLN2020-14457) Proposed 950 Monroe Street Mixed-Use Project SANTA CLARA 906 Monroe Street 95050 269-20-095 C CMU HT 20 36 0.175619 Single-family residential (previous use) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Rezoning Pending to PD (PLN2020-14457) Proposed 950 Monroe Street Mixed-Use Project SANTA CLARA 1890 El Camino Real 95050 269-63-001 D CMU PD 20 36 0.025297 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction Villa Bella Residential Project SANTA CLARA 1890 El Camino Real 95050 269-63-002 D CMU PD 20 36 0.025305 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction Villa Bella Residential Project SANTA CLARA 1890 El Camino Real 95050 269-63-003 D CMU PD 20 36 0.016387 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction Villa Bella Residential Project SANTA CLARA 1890 El Camino Real 95050 269-63-006 D CMU PD 20 36 0.016403 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction Villa Bella Residential Project SANTA CLARA 1890 El Camino Real 95050 269-63-007 D CMU PD 20 36 0.03199 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction Villa Bella Residential Project SANTA CLARA 1890 El Camino Real 95050 269-63-008 D CMU PD 20 36 0.018925 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction Villa Bella Residential Project SANTA CLARA 1890 El Camino Real 95050 269-63-009 D CMU PD 20 36 0.025576 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction Villa Bella Residential Project SANTA CLARA 1890 El Camino Real 95050 269-63-010 D CMU PD 20 36 0.025567 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction Villa Bella Residential Project SANTA CLARA 1890 El Camino Real 95050 269-63-011 D CMU PD 20 36 0.032992 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction Villa Bella Residential Project SANTA CLARA 1890 El Camino Real 95050 269-63-012 D CMU PD 20 36 0.016357 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 4 4 48 56 Under Construction Villa Bella Residential Project SANTA CLARA 1890 El Camino Real 95050 269-63-013 D CMU PD 20 36 0.032972 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction Villa Bella Residential Project SANTA CLARA 1890 El Camino Real 95050 269-63-015 D CMU PD 20 36 0.016629 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction Villa Bella Residential Project SANTA CLARA 1890 El Camino Real 95050 269-63-019 D CMU PD 20 36 0.025282 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction Villa Bella Residential Project SANTA CLARA 1890 El Camino Real 95050 269-63-021 D CMU PD 20 36 0.016367 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction Villa Bella Residential Project SANTA CLARA 1890 El Camino Real 95050 269-63-027 D CMU PD 20 36 0.023183 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction Villa Bella Residential Project SANTA CLARA 1890 El Camino Real 95050 269-63-031 D CMU PD 20 36 0.032001 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction Villa Bella Residential Project SANTA CLARA 1890 El Camino Real 95050 269-63-036 D CMU PD 20 36 0.032908 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction Villa Bella Residential Project SANTA CLARA 1890 El Camino Real 95050 269-63-039 D CMU PD 20 36 0.016617 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction Villa Bella Residential Project SANTA CLARA 1890 El Camino Real 95050 269-63-041 D CMU PD 20 36 0.020715 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction Villa Bella Residential Project SANTA CLARA 1890 El Camino Real 95050 269-63-042 D CMU PD 20 36 0.016625 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction Villa Bella Residential Project SANTA CLARA 1890 El Camino Real 95050 269-63-044 D CMU PD 20 36 0.025699 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction Villa Bella Residential Project SANTA CLARA 1890 El Camino Real 95050 269-63-048 D CMU PD 20 36 0.025322 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction Villa Bella Residential Project SANTA CLARA 1890 El Camino Real 95050 269-63-049 D CMU PD 20 36 0.02526 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction Villa Bella Residential Project SANTA CLARA 1890 El Camino Real 95050 269-63-051 D CMU PD 20 36 0.028544 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction Villa Bella Residential Project SANTA CLARA 1890 El Camino Real 95050 269-63-052 D CMU PD 20 36 0.025676 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Under Construction Villa Bella Residential Project SANTA CLARA 3550 El Camino Real 95051 290-01-113 RMU CT 37 50 1.147904 Hotel/Motel (previous use) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 120 0 0 120 CT zoning approved using AB 3194 / SB 35 Approved/Under Construction Clara Gardens - 3550 El Camino Real SANTA CLARA 3590 El Camino Real 95051 290-01-115 Q RMU CT 37 50 0.679788 Hotel/Motel Yes - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 17 7 0 24 rounding error Sites to be Rezoned SANTA CLARA 3580 El Camino Real 95051 290-01-116 Q RMU CT 37 50 1.566176 Hotel/Motel Yes - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 40 17 0 57 rounding error Sites to be Rezoned SANTA CLARA 3570 El Camino Real 95051 290-01-117 Q RMU CT 37 50 0.403388 Hotel/Motel Yes - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 10 4 0 14 Sites to be Rezoned SANTA CLARA 1540 Pomeroy Avenue 95051 290-02-096 E CMU PD 20 36 0.207086 Multi-family residential (previous use) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 8 8 Rezoned to PD (PLN2016-12053) Approved 1530-1540 Pomeroy Avenue Residential Project SANTA CLARA 1530 Pomeroy Avenue 95051 290-02-097 E VLDR PD 1 18 0.257028 Multi-family residential (previous use) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Rezoned to PD (PLN2016-12053) Approved 1530-1540 Pomeroy Avenue Residential Project SANTA CLARA 2120 El Camino Real 95050 290-10-028 RMU CC 37 50 0.966028 Drugstore / Pharmacy Yes - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 25 11 0 36 Sites to be Rezoned SANTA CLARA 2200 El Camino Real 95050 290-10-078 RMU CC 37 50 0.945156 Bank Yes - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 23 10 0 33 Sites to be Rezoned SANTA CLARA 3131 Homestead Road 95051 290-24-071 MDR R3-25D 20 36 12.522892 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 9 174 183 R3-25D zoning approved using AB 3194 Under Construction Laguna Clara II (Equity) SANTA CLARA 80 Saratoga Avenue 95051 294-36-018 CMU OG 20 36 0.409406 Vacant Building - Office (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 198 2 0 200 Approved 80 Saratoga Avenue SANTA CLARA 3941 Stevens Creek Boulevard 95051 294-39-010 CMU CT 20 36 0.589208 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 58 0 1 59 CT zoning approved using AB 3194 Under Construction 3941 Stevens Creek Blvd - The Meridian SANTA CLARA 1834 Worthington Circle/90 N. W 95117 303-17-053 MDR PD 20 36 5.791808 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current NO - Privately-OPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 163 18 144 325 Under Construction Agrihood Mixed-Use Development Project SANTA CLARA 3750 El Camino Real 95051 313-05-010 RMU CC 37 50 0.679786 Fast Food Drive Through Yes - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 17 7 0 24 rounding error Sites to be Rezoned SANTA CLARA 1484 Halford Avenue 95051 313-05-011 RMU CC 37 50 1.289905 Restaurant Yes - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 33 14 0 47 rounding error Sites to be Rezoned SANTA CLARA 1460 Halford Avenue 95051 313-05-012 RMU CC 37 50 1.181981 Liquor Store Yes - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 31 13 0 44 Sites to be Rezoned SANTA CLARA 3740 El Camino Real 95051 313-06-003 RMU CC 37 50 0.671808 Gas Station / Car Wash Yes - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 17 7 0 24 Sites to be Rezoned SANTA CLARA 4701 Patrick Henry Drive 95054 See note O VR VR 60 149 6.814311 Parking / Shared Common Space YES - Current NO - Privately-OAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 681 291 0 972 Common area does not have an assigned APN Available SANTA CLARA 0
SANTA CLARA 0
SANTA CLARA 0
SANTA CLARA 0
SANTA CLARA 0
SANTA CLARA 0
SANTA CLARA 0
SANTA CLARA 0
SANTA CLARA 0
SANTA CLARA 0
HCD Electronic Sites Inventory Table B: Candidate Sites Identified to be Rezoned to Accommodate Shortfall Housing Need Jurisdiction
Name Site Address/Intersection 5 Digit ZIP
Code
Assessor
Parcel
Number
Very Low-
Income
Low-
Income
Moderate-
Income
Above
Moderate-
Income
Type of Shortfall Parcel
Size
(Acres)
Current
General Plan
Designation
Current
Zoning
Proposed
General Plan
(GP)
Designation
Proposed
Zoning
Minimum
Density
Allowed
Maximum
Density
Allowed
Total
Capacity
Vacant/
Nonvacant
Description
of Existing
Uses
Infrastructure Optional
Information1
Optional
Information2
SANTA CLARA 4341 El Camino Real 95051 213-37-015 13 10 10 0 Shortfall of Sites 0.9 RMU CT RMU RMU 37 50 33 Non-Vacant Commercial YES - Current 1973 0.72 SANTA CLARA 3775 El Camino Real 95051 213-35-035 20 15 15 0 Shortfall of Sites 1.32 RMU CC RMU RMU 37 50 49 Non-Vacant Commercial YES - Current 1980 0.81 SANTA CLARA 3755 El Camino Real 95051 213-35-032 17 13 13 0 Shortfall of Sites 1.16 RMU CC RMU RMU 37 50 43 Non-Vacant Commercial YES - Current 1978 0.37 SANTA CLARA 3725 El Camino Real 95051 213-34-008 8 6 6 0 Shortfall of Sites 0.56 RMU CC RMU RMU 37 50 21 Non-Vacant Commercial YES - Current 1971 0.24 SANTA CLARA 3735 El Camino Real 95051 213-34-012 27 20 20 0 Shortfall of Sites 1.83 RMU CC RMU RMU 37 50 68 Non-Vacant Commercial YES - Current 1972 0.16 SANTA CLARA 3705 El Camino Real 95051 213-34-010 66 50 50 0 Shortfall of Sites 4.47 RMU CC RMU RMU 37 50 165 Non-Vacant Commercial YES - Current 1972 0.43 SANTA CLARA 3615 El Camino Real 95051 213-34-004 53 40 40 0 Shortfall of Sites 3.58 RMU CC RMU RMU 37 50 132 Non-Vacant Commercial YES - Current 1972 0.25 SANTA CLARA 1460 Halford Avenue 95051 313-05-012 17 13 13 0 Shortfall of Sites 1.18 RMU CC RMU RMU 37 50 44 Non-Vacant Commercial YES - Current 1973 0.63 SANTA CLARA 1484 Halford Avenue 95051 313-05-011 19 14 14 0 Shortfall of Sites 1.29 RMU CC RMU RMU 37 50 48 Non-Vacant Commercial YES - Current 1973 0.12 SANTA CLARA 3750 El Camino Real 95051 313-05-010 10 7 7 0 Shortfall of Sites 0.67 RMU CC RMU RMU 37 50 25 Non-Vacant Commercial YES - Current 1976 0.17 SANTA CLARA 3740 El Camino Real 95051 313-06-003 10 7 7 0 Shortfall of Sites 0.66 RMU CC RMU RMU 37 50 24 Non-Vacant Commercial YES - Current 1968 0.17 SANTA CLARA 3590 El Camino Real 95051 290-01-115 10 7 7 0 Shortfall of Sites 0.67 RMU CT RMU RMU 37 50 25 Non-Vacant Commercial YES - Current 1967 0.11 SANTA CLARA 3580 El Camino Real 95051 290-01-116 23 17 17 0 Shortfall of Sites 1.56 RMU CT RMU RMU 37 50 58 Non-Vacant Commercial YES - Current 1970 0.37 SANTA CLARA 3570 El Camino Real 95051 290-01-117 6 4 4 0 Shortfall of Sites 0.39 RMU CT RMU RMU 37 50 14 Non-Vacant Commercial YES - Current 1968 0 SANTA CLARA 2789 El Camino Real 95051 216-01-059 21 16 16 0 Shortfall of Sites 1.41 RMU CT RMU RMU 37 50 52 Non-Vacant Commercial YES - Current 1991 0.52 SANTA CLARA 2775 El Camino Real 95051 216-01-058 19 14 14 0 Shortfall of Sites 1.25 RMU CT RMU RMU 37 50 46 Non-Vacant Commercial YES - Current 1991 0.44 SANTA CLARA 2725 El Camino Real 95051 216-01-040 17 13 13 0 Shortfall of Sites 1.15 RMU CT RMU RMU 37 50 43 Non-Vacant Commercial YES - Current 1987 0.26 SANTA CLARA 2213 El Camino Real 95050 224-15-029 18 14 14 0 Shortfall of Sites 1.22 RMU CT RMU RMU 37 50 45 Non-Vacant Commercial YES - Current 1962 0.43 SANTA CLARA 2065 El Camino Real 95050 224-15-037 95 71 71 0 Shortfall of Sites 6.43 RMU CC RMU RMU 37 50 238 Non-Vacant Commercial YES - Current 1952 0.48 SANTA CLARA 2200 El Camino Real 95050 290-10-078 13 10 10 0 Shortfall of Sites 0.89 RMU CC RMU RMU 37 50 33 Non-Vacant Commercial YES - Current 1979 0.2 SANTA CLARA 2120 El Camino Real 95050 290-10-028 14 11 11 0 Shortfall of Sites 0.97 RMU CC RMU RMU 37 50 36 Non-Vacant Commercial YES - Current 2013 0.67 1 Notes:

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

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 incorporates and 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 as necessary to reduce or remove constraints to housing development.

Policy D-4: Promote the use of density bonuses and development incentives to facilitate a variety of housing types and tenure.

Policy D-5: Encourage the construction of accessory and junior accessory dwelling units through outreach, education, and links to regional technical assistance.

Goal E Affirmatively further fair housing by increasing access to opportunity, reducing displacement impacts, reducing cost burden, targeting outreach to lower income residents, and rehabilitating substandard living conditions.

Policy E-1: Improve access to opportunity by working to improve the quality of life for residents of lower income communities, as well as supporting residents’ mobility and access to ‘high resource’ neighborhoods.

Policy E-2: Work to reduce 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 May 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. - Complying 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
- As a part of the Zoning Code Update, include the ability for the Director of Community Development to allow up to two (2) one-year permit extensions administratively.

- 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):
- Annually eExplore regional and state funding sources to build more housing opportunities for persons with disabilities and for extremely low-income households.
- On an annual basis, r 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 340 392 ADUs during the 2023- 2031 planning period (approximately 43 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 end middle of 20254:
• Assess the feasibility of updatingUpdate 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.
• By the end of 2024, dDetermine 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):
- On an annual basis, mMonitor 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 March 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.
- By the end of 2024, establish a relationship and meet with interested property owners of naturally occurring affordable housing (NOAH) to facilitate possible connections between sellers, affordable housing developers, and funding sources.

Ongoing Objectives (on an annual basis, unless otherwise noted):
- 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 to explore options forcontinue to coordinate with qualified entities regarding the conversion of NOAH to income-restricted affordable housing. - 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. - Analyze parking reforms as partApply reduced parking requirements for transit-rich environments from the Zoning CodeOrdinance Update to of 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.,
including transit pass requirements, and particularly how updated parking policies could positively impact housing, transportation, and other 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

13.2 SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

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) Responsible Agency: Housing & and Community Services Division Discrete Objectives:
- By the end of 20234, 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. Five 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 in 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):
- When funding is available, cContinue 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 at-risk income restricted projects/units that may be at-risk of losing affordability controls andby maintaining contact with the property owners annually regarding long- term plans for their projects.
- Establish and mMaintain contact with public and nonprofit agencies (qualified entities), such as the Sobrato Family Foundation, BRIDGE Housing, and MidPen Housing that have expressed interested 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.

13.2 SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

-When possible, 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

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 2025early 2027, present to the future Housing CommissionCity 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..

13.2 SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

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. - Explore using CDBG dollars to fund proactive code enforcement and place-based capital improvements to improve access to opportunities in HUD designated low-income and distressed areas of the City.

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.

Funding Source: General Fund
Responsible Agency: Housing and Community Services Division Ongoing Objectives (on an annual basis, unless otherwise noted):
- Starting in early 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 reconsider, and revise, if appropriate,revise its provisions for parking, including reduced parking requirements and unbundled parking for multi-family uses in transit-rich environments. mixed use developments,The Zoning CodeOrdinance Update will also include provisions for a variety of housing types, including low-barrier navigation centers, residential care facilities, employee housing, and SRO housing. The update is expected to be completed in early 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 early 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,

13.2 SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

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. • Reduce Further reduce dependence onuse of Planned
Developments (PDs) by including new high-density
residential and mixed-use zoning districts that conform to the General Plan and streamline the permitting process for
projectsby allowing by-right approvals thatthat meet
newmeet 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 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):
- On an annual basis, mMonitor the Zoning Ordinance for any potential constraints to the development of housing, particularly housing for persons with special needs (including those with developmental

disabilities) and amend the Zoning Ordinance as necessary 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 the City can accommodate its RHNA of 11,632 units, including 2,872 very low income units, 1,653 low income units, 1,981 moderate income units, and 5,126 above moderate income units.

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 with 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.

13.2 SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

- 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.

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 202930 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

13.2 SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

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
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, as necessary and appropriate, 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. T his 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

13.2 SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

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 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 Valle y 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, explore and present to the Housing Commission 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

13.2 SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Discrete Objectives:
- By the end of 2024 analyze the feasibility of setting a rent deposit limit and present findings from that analysis to the Housing Commission and City Council.
-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.
- Explore usingBy fall 2028, develop a CDBG Notice of Funding Availability that dollars to awards additional points to fund place-based capital improvements to 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.

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.
- Provide outreach and education materials about fair housing services and nonprofit partners (e.g., Project Sentinel). 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 hHold in-person open house events and meetings at least twice per year to distribute fair housing information, and 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 to tenants and homeowners in need of 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

13.2 SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

• 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 in byearly fall 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
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 the creation of a new City position 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

13.2 SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

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 enviro nmental clearance 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.

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

Units to be
Constructed
(RHNA)
Units to Be
Rehabilitated
Units to Be
Conserved
Extremely Low Income 1,436 2 5
Very Low Income 1,436 148 30
Low Income 1,653 50 45
Moderate Income 1,981 0 0
Above Moderate Income 5,126 0 0
Total 11,632 200 80
Source(s): City of Santa Clara, 2022

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.

13.2 SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Goals and Policies ...................................................................................................................................... 1 Implementing Actions ............................................................................................................................... 3 Quantified Objectives .............................................................................................................................. 29

List of Tables
Table 13.2-1: Quantified Objectives ....................................................................................................... 29

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 occuring occurring affordable housing and deed restricedrestricted housing that is at-risk of conversion or redevelpomentredevelopment. • 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 smoke 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 had 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 ishas increased since 2019. • Overcrowding affects renter households more.

Assessment of Fair Housing:

A summary of fair housing issues and assessment of the City’s fair housing enforcement and outreach capacity; an analysis of segregation patterns and disparities in access to opportunities; an assessment of contributing factors; and identification and prioritization of fair housing goals and actions.

A sites inventory that accommodates all income levels of the City’s share of the RHNA that also serves the purpose of furthering more integrated and balanced living patterns.

Responsive housing programs that affirmatively further fair housing, promote housing opportunities throughout the community for protected classes, and address contributing factors identified in the 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.

13.3 SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

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.

AFFH and the Housing Plan

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 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 7490% of the identified units designated to satisfy the RHNAin the City’s Sites Inventory. The jurisdiction intentionally avoided areas of low-resource (see Figure 13.3-20:

TCAC Opportunity Areas) and concentrations of poverty (see Figure 13.3-16: “R/ECAPS”) in the “specific plan” process. While most of these project areas are primarily in the Northern half 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 13.3-2 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

13.3 SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

Table 13.3-1: Fair Housing Providers in Santa Clara County and Santa Clara Provider Services
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).

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 13.3-43 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

13.3 SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

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 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.

Central Santa Clara has generally low socio-economic standards for residents. This area has been historically industrial with very few residential areas. The few residential areas require proactive outreach program s to connect with residents, market progra ms, and inclusionary housing opportunities available elsewhere in the city.

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

13.3 SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

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 13.3-55.

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 13.3-31 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 Lati no residents (25 percent).

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 13.3-5 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.

13.3 SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

FIGURE 13.3-11: 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%
Basemap Features
r .·.~·:;~: Santa Clara County
--- Highways
Bay /\rea Wate rbo dies
--Ope n Spaces
Percent of Total Non-White
Population - Block Group
:S20%
21-40%
--4 1 - 60%
--61 - 80%
-- >8 1%
Sources : U.S. Department of
Hous ing and Urba n Developmen t (HUD),
2013-202 1; County of Santa Clara , 2022.

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 13.3-76 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. Tthe 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 within the city. The northern and central areas of Santa Clara have a non -white population between 61

13.3 SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

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 pattern 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 13.3-42 further indicates that the south ern portion of the City has a lower percentage of non-white residents than the central and northern areas. Figure 13.3-53 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) residents 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 number of fair housing concerns and aa 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. and located adjacent to Santa Clara University and the Santa Clara Caltrain commuter rail station and future BART station. Note there is a second Caltrain Station in Central Santa Clara at Lawrence Expressway near Kifer Road.

FIGURE 13.3-2: RACIAL DEMOGRAPHICS OF SANTA CLARA (2021)

Basemap Features
f :::.-:::.: City of Santa Clara Bou ndary
--- Highways
--- Roads
Bay Area Waterbod ies
--Open Spaces
Percent of Total Non-White
Population - Block Group
~20%
- 21-40%
- 41 - 60%
-61 - 80%
- >81%

13.3 0 --J--------•V.ilE!s 0 0.75 1.5 3
Sources: U.S. Dep artment of
Housing and Urban Developmen t (HUD),
2013-202 1; County of Santa Clara, 2022 .

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

FIGURE 13.3-33: PPREDOMINANT 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.

rredomina ,l'lt Popu1atlon (ACS, 20 7-202 1 )- Tract
sdo na cate-g ory
'IJ ~e ~lo',I!·, t i&pa c or La 1r o
H spa., cor t o
mericen ~lore n-ot
Na::i,e alone
T"''° o r ore races, no. I-' spa ,c or i..at
ic I~ do:cr
Some 0~,.e, r oe, lone not ef~p.e c. or
L!it1f1-0

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).

These There are areas of the City with a higher non -White population have that overlap with a number of other variables that likely impact and influence one another . Central Santa Clara has higher areas of low to moderate income levels (LMI) (Figure 13.3 -152). 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 13.3-1920). These lower incomes likely

13.3 SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

contribute to the higher rates of overpayment by renters in central Santa Clara (40 to 60 percent) (Figure 13.3-3640). Central Santa Clara is also identified as a low resource area using the TCAC scoring system ( Figure 13.3-2122) 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 13.3-3236).

Santa Clara is to the East of both Sunnyvale and Mountain View and to the West of Milpitas.

These cities have similar population numbers so will serve as a comparison points. Directly to the east of Santa Clara is North San Jose which is a part of the city of San Jose, a much larger city and thus will not serve as a comparison for Santa Clara.

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 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

13.3 SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

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 HWYHighway 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 (year)1937 indicatingshows that the portions of Santa Clara’s Old Quad neighborhood to the north and south of El Camino Real were consideredassigned either “(D) Hazardous” or “(C) Declining” grades.

FIGURE 13.3-4: HOLC REDLINING MAP (1937)
HO ILC Red lin'ing Grade
A (Bes )
B (St ill Desirable)
C (Declining}
D (Hazardous)

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 13.3-152.

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.

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 T able 13.3-79. 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 Black or African AmericanHispanic or Latino (of any race) (7.75 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 San ta 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

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
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 orf 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%
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 waterfront 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 13.3-1012). 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.

e .

Popul · · isability '
Basemap Features
(."_-_·:.-_: Santa Clara County
--- Highways
Bay Area Waterbodies
--Open Spaces
Percent of Population with a Disability
c::==::J < 10%
- 10% - 20%
- 20% -30%
- 30%- 40%
- > 40%

13.3 Sources: American Community Survey, 2015 -2019;
U.5.Dep artment of Hous ing and Urban Development (HUD); County of Santa Clara, 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)

~
~ ~\:,. __ ,_ ..:/ 1,
Basemap Features
r_-_-_-_-_-:_: City of Santa Clara Bounda ry
--- Highways
--- Roads
Bay Area Waterbod ies
--Open Spaces
Percent of Population with a Disability
c::==:::J < 1 0%
- 10%-20%
- 20%-30%
- 30% - 40%
- >40%
0 Sources : American Commun ity Survey , 2015 •2019;
U.S.Department of Hous ing and Urban Developmen t (HUD) ; County of Santa Clara, 2022,

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 secur ing 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

13.3 SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

affordability challenges due to typically lower household incomes compared to two -parent 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). Acros s 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 househol ds (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 13.3-97 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 below 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 -1812) and higher rates of overpayment (40 to 60 percent) (Figure 13.3-34240) 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.

Basemap Features
r.·.-:·:::: Santa Clara Cou nty
--- Highways
Bay /\ rea Wate rbodi es
.... Open Spaces
Percentage of Children in
Married-Couple Households - Tract
c::==:=J <20%
21 -40%
- 41-60%
- 61-80%
- >80%

13.3 Sources : Ame rican Community Survey , 2015 -2019; U.S.Department c f Housing and Urban Deve lopment (HUD) ; County of Santa Clara, 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).

Basemap Features
f:.~·:.~: City of Santa Clara Boundary
--- Highways
--- Roads
B;iy Area Waterbod ie~
lllmlll Open Spaces
Percentage of Children in
Married-Couple Households -Tract
L..=:=J <20%
21 -40%
- 41-60%
- 61-80%
- >80%

0.75 Sources : Ame rican Community Survey , 2015 -2019 ; U.S.Departmen t cf Housing and Urban Deve lopmen t (HUD); County of Santa Clara, 2022.

FIGURE 13.3-9: REGIONAL PERCENT OF CHILDREN IN FEMALE-HEADED HOUSEHOLDS BY TRACT (2019)

Local Trends
The majority of Santa Clara has bel ow 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 household overcrowding (above 15 percent) (Figure 13.3-3740). 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.

Percent of Children in Female Head ed Households
(No Spouse / Partner)
0·~: 'l .}
r ,:::-.... /
(_ NTAI
\ ~ .. \ .
~;;:
[ ____;:;;:;;;._\ ' .
1\ '· ,, '·· .
""\ \ AcRuz,e::0u
~ '­\,
0 I..

Basemap Features
f:.-_·_-_:_: Santa Clara County
--- Highways
Bay /\ rea Waterbodies
--Open Spaces
Percentage of Children in Female Headed-Households
No Spouse/Partner Households - Tract
C=::::J < 20%
- 21 - 40%
- 41 -60%
- 61 - 80%
- > 80%
,_, .... /\.~ ­
>
< rl
(~
(.

13.3 (_1
si urces: Esri, USG$ , NOAA
Sources: Amer ican Community Survey, 2015-2019;
U.S.Department of Housin g and Ul'ban Deve lopment (HUD); County of Santa 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
Basemap Features
f ::::: ::_: City of Santa Clara Boundary
--- Highways
--- Roads
Bay Area Waterbod ies
--Open Spaces
Percentage of Children in Female Headed-Households
No Spouse/Partner Households -Tract
i====i <20%
21 -40%
--41 - 60%
--61 -80%
-- >80%
Sources : Ame rican Community Survey , 2015-2019 ;
U.S.Department of Housing and Urban Deve lopment (HUD ); County of Santa Clara, 2022.

Regional Trends
Table 13.3-9 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 13.3-9 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. ,,
Popul at ion with Low to Moderate Income Levels l
Basemap Features
r :.-:·:.:.: Santa Clara Cou nty
--- Highways
Bay Area Waterbod ies
--Open Spaces
Percent of Low-Moderate
Income Population - Block Group
c===J < 25%
- 25%- 50%
- 50% -75 %
- 75%- 100%
0 ---'---------■ 1/ il es 0 10 W
Sources : Ame rican Commun ity Survey , 2011 -2015;
U.$.Department of Hous ing and Urban Development (HUD ); County of Sant a Clara, 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
Basemap Features
f :.-_·: _-_: City of Santa Clara Boundary
--- Highways
--- Roads
Bay Area Waterbod ies
--Open Spaces
Percent of Low-Moderate
Income Population - Block Group
c::==::J < 25%
- 25% -50%
- 50% -75 %
- 75%- 100%

13.3 0 __ .., _________ V ilas
0 0 .75 1.5 3
Source s: American Commun ity Survey , 2011-2015 ;
U.S.Department of Hous ing and Urban Development (HUD); County of Sant a Clara, 2022.

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

A study prepared by HUD’s Development Office of Policy Development and Research found a positive association between the HCV share of occupied housing and neighborhood poverty concentration and a negative association between ren t and neighborhood poverty 1. This means that HCV use was concentrated in areas of high poverty where rents 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 vouchers, 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.

Housing Choice Vouchers
/r1. , ,I . ' ,.,,..,,,.V'<J '- (I;_ .,'
i(~ ~··> ,
LOSfAeT0S~ t L
"'\) .L,;
') I
'"' '')~
.
\
Basemap Features
r :.-:·:.:.: Santa Clara Cou nty
--- Highways
Bay Area Waterbod ies
--Open Spaces
Percent of Renter Units
with Housing Choice Voucher -Tract
- 60% -100 %
- 30% -60%
- 15% -30%
- 5% -15 %
c:=:J 0-5 %
L. . l .
./
-~
]
;
1~
~.,
~ JJ
. y \
:·:~.( ·-..:"'- (' - "--·--- ----~
/ (,

13.3 -.-Y S~rces : Esri, USGS, NOAA
0 ------------■ V il l'ls o 10 m
Sources: U.S. Depart ment of
Housing and Urban Developmen t (HUD),
2013-2021; County of Santa Clara, 2022.

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

FIGURE 13.3-14: HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS – SANTA CLARA (2021)

AFFORDABILITY BY CENSUS TRACT
Regional Trends
Figure 13.3-13 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 Housing Choice Vouchers
' } 1-
Basemap Features
f _-_-_-_- _-:_: City of Santa Clara Boundary
--- Highways
--- Roads
Bay Area Waterbodies
--- Open Spaces
Percent of Renter Units
with Housing Choice Voucher -Tract
- 60%-100%
- 30%-60%
- 15%-30%
- 5%-15%
C===:".J 0 - 5%
0 __ ,.. _________ \-1iles
0 0.75 1.5 3
Sources: U.S. Department of
Housing and Urba n Develop ment (HUD),
2013-202 1; County of San ta Clara , 2022.

exclusively) on cars, that percentage has steadily increased, peaking at 19.1 percent in 2003. As of 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 affordable 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 13.3-196 shows that median gross rents are highest in Northern 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.

Basemap Features
f.·.-:·:.:.: Santa Clara County
--- Highways
Bay flrea Waterbod ies
--Open Spaces
Median Gross Rent - Tract
c::==J< Sl,000
<Sl,500
- <$2,000
- <$2,500
- <$3,000
- Greatert han$3,000

13.3 \
\y
Sources: American Commun ity Survey ,
2015-20 19; U.S. Dep art me nt of Hous ing
and Urban D eve lopment (HUD) ; County of
Santa Clara, 2022.

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.

Basemap Features
r _-_-:_-_-_:_: City of Santa Clara Boundary
--- Highways
--- Roads
Bay Area Waterbod ies
--Open Spaces
Median Gross Rent - Tract
c:::::::J <S 1,000
<Sl.500
- <$2,000
- <$2,500
- <$3,000
- Greater than $3,000

0.75 Sources: Amer ican Comm unity Survey,
2015-2019; U.S. Departmen t of Housing
and Urban Development (HUD); County of
San ta Clara, 2022,

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)

Racially or Ethnically Concentrated
Areas of Poverty "R/ECAPs"
\_
Basemap Features
( _-_-_·:::: Santa Clara Count y
--- Highways
Bay Area Waterbodies
--Open Spaces
Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty
(R/ECAPs) - Tract
c::::==:J 0
l2Z1ZZI 1

13.3 0 ------------■ Vi l os o 10 m
Sources : U.S. Department of
Housin g and Urban Dev elopm ent , 2009-20 13
(HUD); County of Santa Clara , 2022 .

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 residenc e 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 Fig ure 13.3-18,19 there are multiple areas where high White populations overlap with median incomes above $125,000. These areas are mostly located along Racially or Ethnically Concentrated
Areas of Poverty "R/ECAPs"
~. C .I
rqr,. '=I ~
Basemap Features
f _-_-:,_-_-_-:_; City of Santa Clara Boundary
--- Highways
--~ Roads
Bay Area Waterbod ies
--Open Spaces
Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty
(R/ECAPs) - Tract
c::::::::=Jo
IZZZZZI 1
0 -----------\A iles 0 0.75 1.5 3
Sources : U.S. Department of
Hous ing and Urban Deve lopment. 2009-20 13
(HUD); County of Santa Clara, 2022.

the eastern edge of the County. However, only one community qualifies as an RCAA. The unincorporated area called Lexington Hills located along the western edge 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 mil es 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 Basemap Features
r:.-:_·:.-:: Santa Clara Cou nty
--- Highways
Bay /\ rea Waterbod ies
..... Open Spaces
Median Household Income - Block Group
< $30,000
- < $55,000
- < $87,000 (HCD 2020 CA Median Income)
- <$ 125,000
- Greaterthan$125,000
~NoData

13.3 Sources : American Commun ity Survey, 2015-2019;
U.5.Dep artment of Hous ing and Urban Develop ment (HUD); County of Santa Clara, 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.

Basemap Features
r _-_.:_-_-_:_: City of Santa Clara Boundary
--- Highways
--- Roads
Bay Area Waterbod ies
--Open Spaces
Median Household Income - Block Group
< $30,000
- < $55,000
- < $87,000 (HCD 2020 CA Median Income)
- < $125,000
- GreaterthanS125,000
0 __ .., _________ \,Hies
0 0.75 1.5 3
Sources : Ame rican Commun ity Survey , 2015 -2019;
U.S.Department of Hous ing and Urban Development (HUD ); Cou nty of Santa Clara , 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.which are dispproritionately represented. Outreach in Central Santa Clarawould benefit from
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- 11 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 13.3-20 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- 396), lower Healthy Places Index Scores (50 to 75) (Figure 13.3-4138), 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 13.3-263 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
□
Bas~map Featurei
( : _-_· ." _-_: Sanu Cl a rill (ou nty
--Highw:iy~
R.iiylt.11-«w,.c .. rl)Qdit,i,
_ Op,i!,15.p,;iClllS
- Hight~l Rno u1<:e
- Mi9hRlii(Ylmtt
c::::::::::J Mr)(!.,Htf' R"1QV1( .. (R.ipldly (h11n9in9) Mode,ate fte10u,u
low RcM>uu.e
C7 Hjgh Stg.-egatlon & PoVf't'ty
M.ls:s.ing/lnsufflden1 Oattl
Soutcos;: U.S, O(1p~rtmcnt of
Hous.iri9 arxt u,b.ain Oo,,,('lopmont (H'-10),
Cour'll)' ,of Senta Ciani, 2022.

13.3 SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

FIGURE 13.3-22: TCAC OPPORTUNITY AREAS – COMPOSITE SCORE – SANTA CLARA (2021)

TCAC Opportunity Areas (2021) Composite Score
TCAC Opportunity Areas - Composi te Score ,.\-
,:r··""· '-.
\
\
/
r··' •·.-,
··-··---j
I', :
' , ·-1
~
'·
•
·,.
!
i ..

I
i
' )
··-- "
~
' .

Basemap Features 1,1,1n
, _. _-_·:.:.: Otyo r S.intaCl.lr.1Bounctary - High,e)l~)() UIC: .. --HIQhw,1"' - HlghR,-$()llr(.,.

Ro.Id'. ~ Modf'r;,tf' R,-$Ollfc:? (Rapid ly ( h;,n9tr\9! Bay Are;i W;iwtbodkls Moderate Resource
1111111:1 ~ n Sp.1ces lowR@~U fCI!
C,____) High 'Seqr"9flti()n R. Pov•rty
M.istj mJ}lns 1,1ffi¢i~n! 0•1.-
•
Source-s: U.S. O<!-,pwtmoot of
Hous ing and Urbiln Oe ... ielop,ment (HUD}.

County of Santa Cla1a, 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 t he County. Table 13.3-12 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 neighborhood. This is based upon the level of employment, labor force (

SUNNYVALE
.. it.
<_ •\ )
'., ., .,,
r
·-~,
~
.,,..~
• •• .,...

CUPERTINO

MILPITAS

SANJOSE
" .-,
/
0 ..o.s ' 0
- --Miles

13.3 City of Santa Clara
TCAC Opportunity Areas
Legend
Basemap Features
[~.=,_7 Santa Clara City Limits
Major Destinati ons
Parks and Open Space
Rivers and Waterbodie:s
Surround ing Cities
1111 Unincorp orate d Santa Clara County
Sites Inventory (202 3)
- Sites Inventory
CHPC Subsidi zed Housing (2013)
• Up to SO Affo rd able Units
• 51 to 100 Affordabl e Units
- 101 to 150 Affordab le Units
• 151 to 200 Affordable Units
CTCAC/ HCD Opportunity Areas (2023)
- Highest Reso urc e
- High Resource
Mod erate Resource
LJ Low Resource
LJ High Segregation & Povert y
LJ NoDa ta
Source(s): Esri. County of 5.rY.il Oiiri!()pen[lm
2023 , Oty cl~ 0ara 2023.

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 t hat 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 accessibility 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 t oxins harmful to human health. Therefore, the 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 13.3-1572; 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 ar e 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 the areas with higher scores correspond to areas with lower non -White populations. Table 13.3-12 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 s chools in Santa Clara (Figure 13.3-2426). These public school rankings reflect the TCAC Education scores with schools in the northern and central 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
r..-
Basemap Features
f :.:..·: .:.: Santa Clara Cou nty
--- Highways
Bay Area Waterbod ies
.... Open Space s
...
r_._ \
.· \
I t l
\
.\
TCAC Opportunity Areas - Education Score
-Tract
~ No Data
11111111111111 < .25 (Less Positive Education Outcome ) c:::::=:J .25 · .50
.50 - .75
11111111111111 > .75 (Mo re Positive Educatio n Outcome )

13.3 Sources: U.S. Department of
Hous ing and Urban Deve lop ment (HUD);
County of Santa Clara , 2022.

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

FIGURE 13.3-25: TCAC OPPORTUNITY AREAS – EDUCATION SCORE – SANTA CLARA (2021)

FIGURE 13.3-26: PUBLIC SCHOOL RANKINGS (2021)

Basemaip Featur es
(."::. ·:.-_: C1t:,nf$nn111 c 1.,r,1 8ounr:lruy
--H'9 hways
"°""' BayAte.1oWacetbod1es
- Open Sl)<'t.U
TCAC Opportun ity Areas- Education Score
-Tra ct
l----=:J No0<1ld
- < 2:5 tl~) PD!-llhrt' Educ:.idon Outcome/
.25 - .50
.so .75
- >.7S(MorePoslhvl" tduc~110110ukoml"f
Ba1emap Feature-s California School Rankings based on StuctentTe.:n Scores ( ." -~· _" _-:_: Cit)' r;;il S,.nnt,1 C:l,,r., Boundary Open 5pa,~s
ft.iji.Al .. "-~ (t"!bc;Jd if')
--t11ghways
RQ.dd~
• • •
0 0
0 •
loµ l'i
TopS%
Toµ 109b
Top209ri
Top :309ii-
Top"i O'MI
8ortom50Clfi
Sourc:H: U.S, Oep-!!rtm•nt of
Housing and Urba n Oo-voloptnont (HUD),
County of Sante Cler.e,, 2022.
•
• ' ..
0 0 0
• 11111
0 0
0 __ .,..-.._ ____ MS,
0 0.1:i ~
Soufc•:s: Pub lic ~ I Revill'W, 2021 ;
U.S. O,apart men t of ll01Ji:ing ai nd Urban
0 11v11li=tpmmt (HUD);
Cou nty of Santa Clar,11_ 2022,

13.3 SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

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.

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 Sunnyvale 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
Basemap Features
( _-_-_-_-_:_: Santa Clara Coun ty
--- Highways
Bay Area Waterbod ies
Open Spaces
Public Transit Routes
~~ Bus Routes
--- Rait Lines

13.3 Sources: Urban Footprint Pub lic Transit;
U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Devel opme nt (HUD);
Cour1ty of Santa Clar a, 2022 .

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

FIGURE 13.3-28: VTA TRANSIT MAP (2023)

The citiets 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 employement 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.

....... ,
B.y lE.l<I .,_. - -,-
r f , .... : C:-- ■ _!,~_, _ _..-
~ ,•£ -,-.::: -- "'
/.I ----- """" ... "16 ... -, .--- " '_..., ,. I,
?ST
,-ff 5a:
...
j
11<-rm ....
11---=--=-..ai:'-b j

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.
ii
" I

13.3 Popular destinations:
0 ApplePark
f) Kai~r Perrnanen.t.e Hospital
8 Main Street OJpertfno
Q De Anza College
C, Rancho San Antonio
C, West Vall~ Medical
8 Elcamino Health
Mountafn View Hospital
bs:

Sunnyvale Caltrain Sta.tion
Lawrence CalTrain Station
Santa Clara catTtai'n St-abion
Mountain View
Caffrain Station
Phases ohon e expansion:

Phasel
- Phase.2

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

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
(:.:..· : .:.: Santa Clara Coun ty
--- Highways
Bay /\ rea Water bodies
--Open Spaces
Residential Proximity to Job Locations
within a Region - Block Group
--< 80 (Closest Proximit y)
--60 - 80
40 - 60
c::===J 20 - 40
c::===J < 20 (Furthest Proximity)
Sources: U.S. Department of
Housing and Utban Developmen t (HUD),
2014-20 17; Count y of Santa Clara , 2022.

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 with in 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 variable.

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.

TCAC Opportunity Areas - Economic Score
Basemap Features
r .·.-:_·.·.-:: Santa Clara County
--- Highways
Bay /1.rea Waterbodies
.... Open Spaces
TCAC Opportunity Areas- Economic Score
-Tract
r===J NoData
--< .25 (Less Positive Econom ic Outcome)
i::::::::I .25-.50
.50 - .75
--> .75 (Mo re Positive Economic Outcome)

13.3 Sources: U.S. Dep artme nt of
Hous ing and Urban Deve lopment (HUD );
County of Santa Clara, 2022.

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT

FIGURE 13.3-32: JOBS PROXIMITY INDEX – SANTA CLARA (2021)

FIGURE 13.3-33: TCAC OPPORTUNITY AREA – ECONOMIC SCORE – SANTA CLARA (2021)

( :_-_·_-_-_: Cnyot Sanu ( l,a1,18oundary
--- Hl9hways
Roods
Bay AfN Wi!itll!rbod ill!1
- Open Spates
Basil!map FHturil!-5
(: _-_·; .:.: City oi SanLl Clar., 8ounda,y
--- H!,ghwa)'S
Roadi
~ A~ W;Jt@rbod lPS
- Opt!n Sp;,,i:@~
Reiidential Proximity to Job Location.s
within ii Region - Block Gro1.1p
- <80 (0osestPro rlmlzyl
- 60 - 80
- •0- 60
20 40
~ < 20 (Funhest Proximity)
TCAC Opportunity Areas- Economic Score
-Tract
Nol):, u.
< ..2.~ {les1 Positive Econo mic Outcoml'!)
2S - .S0
.so .75
- > .7S (Ma ril' Poml.,.e Economk Ouicome)
Sourca1 : U, S. D&partmant of
Hou,in9 and Urban Dava1opmant (HUD),
2014-2011 : Coun1y ol Santa Clara , 202:2.

SouP"(;eJ; U.S. Oep o!!r ent of
Ho1,1:.in9 i:md u , b~n Ol)Vof.opmcnt (HUO);
Cou.nty of ~nu, Cloro. 2022.

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 Office 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.”

13.3 SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT