affordable service enriched senior housing, additional sources of federal funding and vouchers will be needed.
Table 13.4-11: Housing Properties for Seniors
Property Name Number of Units Address
Active Seniors
Belovida 27 one-bedroom units for seniors age
62 and older
1820 Main Street Santa
Clara, CA 95050
Bracher Apartment 72 one-bedroom units for seniors age
62 and older
2665 South Drive Santa
Clara, CA 95051
Camino del Rey 48 one-bedroom units for seniors age
55 and older
2525 El Camino Real Santa
Clara, CA 95051
Gateway Santa Clara
40 one-bedroom units, 2 twobedroom units for seniors age 55 and older
1000 El Camino Real Santa
Clara, CA 95050
John Burns Gardens
95 one-bedroom units, 5 twobedroom units for seniors age 62 and older
820 Agnew Road Santa
Clara, CA 95054
Liberty Tower 60 studios, 41 one-bedroom units for
seniors age 62 and older
890 Main Street Santa
Clara, CA 95050
Valley Village
80 studios, 80, one-bedroom units, 140
two- bedroom units for seniors age 62
and older
390 N Winchester
Boulevard Santa Clara, CA
95050
Agrihood
(Under Construction)
109 apartments (studios, onebedroom units, 2-bedroom units) 90 N. Winchester Blvd.
Santa Clara, CA 95050
Kifer Senior Apartments
(Under Construction)
30 studios, 45 one bedrooms, and 5
two bedrooms for formerly
chronically homeless seniors and very
low income seniors
3335 Kifer Road
Santa Clara, CA 95051
Assisted Living
Pacific Gardens 21 beds for seniors age 55 and older 2384 Pacific Drive Santa Clara, CA 95051
Source: City of Santa Clara:
Tables 13.4-12 and 13.4-13 demonstrate that lower income (0-50% AMI) senior households are cost-burdened (30-50% of income used for housing) or severely cost-burdened (50%+ income used for housing) at a much higher rate compared to all other senior households. 86 percent of ELI (0-30% AMI) and 50.6% of VLI (31-50% AMI) senior households are cost-burdened or severely cost-burdened.
Table 13.4-12: Senior Households by Income and Tenure
Income Group Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
0 – 30% AMI 755 1,435
31 – 50% AMI 1,115 525
51 – 80% AMI 880 284
81 – 100% AMI 465 165
Greater than 100% AMI 1,680 380
Totals 4,895 2,789
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release
Notes: For this table, senior households are those with a householder who is aged 62 or older Table 13.4-13: Cost-Burdened Senior Households by Income Level Income Group
0 – 30%
Income Used for
Housing
30 – 50%
Income Used for
Housing
50%+
Income Used for
Housing
0 – 30% AMI 305 415 1,470
31 – 50% AMI 810 370 460
51 – 80% AMI 915 185 64
81 – 100% AMI 515 90 25
Greater than 100% AMI 1,895 145 20
Totals 4,440 1,205 2,039
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release
Notes: For this table, senior households are those with a householder who is aged 62 or older. Cost burden is the ratio of housing costs to household income. For renters, housing cost is gross rent (contract rent plus utilities). For owners, housing cost is “select monthly owner costs”, which includes mortgage payment, utilities, association fees, insurance, and real estate taxes. HUD defines cost-burdened households as those whose monthly housing costs exceed 30% of monthly income, while severely costburdened households are those whose monthly housing costs exceed 50% of monthly income.
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Large Households (5+ members)
Large households, defined by HCD as households containing five or more persons, have special housing needs due to the limited availability of adequately sized, affordable housing units.
Larger units can be very expensive; as such, large households are often forced to reside in smaller, less expensive units or double-up with other families or extended families to save on housing costs, both of which may result in unit overcrowding. There are 4,253 large households in Santa Clara representing 9.5 percent of all households. A larger percentage of renter households (5 percent) are defined as large households as compared to owner households (4.5 percent).
In Santa Clara, 3.2 percent of families are living in poverty. For large households with five or six family members 2.7 percent live in poverty, this rate goes up drastically for families with seven or more people (7.1 percent). Table 12 below shows household size by tenure in Santa Clara. Twoperson households make up the largest number of households with 32.5% being owner households and 34% being renter households.
The City’s affordable rental housing portfolio contains 99 three-bedroom units and 8 fourbedroom units for larger households with five or more persons in Santa Clara. This represents approximately 4.7% of the 2,257 large families who rent in Santa Clara as summarized in Table
13.4-14. Data is not available on how many of these large households are lower income, but community outreach has indicated there is a need for larger affordable housing units in Santa Clara as most developments tend to build studios, one- and two-bedroom units. A twenty percent increase would translate into 21 new three- or four-bedroom units.
Table 13.4-14: Household Size by Tenure
Owners Renters Total
Household
Size Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
1-Person
Household 3,822 20% 6,122 24% 9,944 22%
2-Person
Household 6,222 32.5% 8,642 34% 14,864 33%
3-Person
Household 3,946 20.6% 4,703 18.4% 8,649 19%
4-Person
Household 3,157 16.4% 3,802 14.8% 6,959 15.5%
5+ Person
Household 1,996 10.4% 2,257 9% 4,253 9.5%
Total 19,143 100% 25,526 100% 44,669 100%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community
Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25009
Farmworkers
Farmworkers are considered a special housing needs group due to their limited income and the often-unstable nature of their employment. While many traditional affordable housing programs and policies will assist farmworkers, the unique needs and circumstances for agricultural workers need to be considered and explored in the City’s Housing Element.
Although maps from the State of California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program show no farmland in Santa Clara, agriculture continues to play a role in the regional economy, including in parts of Santa Clara County.
There is no Census occupation or industry category that discretely identifies an estimated number of farmworkers in the City of Santa Clara. However, the Census does estimate that there are 122 residents working in the industry category that includes agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining. Assuming all those residents are farmworkers,, that represents approximately 0.2 percent of the City’s working population.
Since 2002, there has been a decline in the total number of farmworkers in Santa Clara County and there has also been a shift to a more permanent workforce for many farms in Santa Clara County, which has shifted the bulk of need from seasonal housing for migrant workers to permanently affordable housing for lower income working families.
Table 13.4-15: Farm Operations and Farm Labor in Santa Clara County Hired Farmworker 2002 2007 2012 2017
Permanent 1,696 2,842 2,243 2,418
Seasonal 3,760 2,747 1,994 1,757
Total 5,456 5,589 4,237 4,175
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Census of Farmworkers (2002, 2007, 2012, 2017), Table 7: Hired Farm Labor Note: farmworkers are considered seasonal if they work on a farm less than 150 days in a year, while farm workers who work on a farm more than 150 days in a year are considered to be permanent workers for that farm.
Farmworkers in the Bay Area are generally categorized as either:
1. Permanent Residents. The majority of farmworkers in Santa Clara County are permanent residents. Depending on their work and family circumstances, they may require housing which can accommodate families.
2. Migrant Farmworkers. Migrant farmworkers perform agricultural labor on a seasonal basis and tend to need housing in the form of single occupancy rooms, bunkhouses, or dormitory style living.
3. H-2A Visa Workers. These are farmworkers who enter under a federal guest worker program for limited number of months (no more than 10) before they return to their
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
country of origin. H-2A visa workers require a sponsoring employer, who provides housing, meals, and transportation to the job site. H-2A visa workers can share homes, apartments, or be housed in bunkhouses, dormitories, or single occupancy rooms. Since very few bunkhouses exist, the employers of H-2A workers compete with permanent farmworkers for scarce affordable homes and apartments.
In Santa Clara, for the 2019-20 school year, there were 46 reported students of migrant workers.
Since the 2016-17 school year, the trend for Santa Clara, the County, and the Bay Area shows a decline in the number of students of migrant workers.
Table 13.4-16: Migrant Worker Student Population
Geography 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20
Santa Clara 109 90 91 46
Santa Clara County 978 732 645 492
Bay Area 4,630 4,607 4,075 3,976
Source: California Department of Education, California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS), Cumulative Enrollment Data (Academic Years 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20) Note: Data used for this table was obtained at the school site level, matched to a file containing school locations, geocoded and assigned to jurisdiction, and finally summarized by geography.
Due to the low number of agricultural workers in the City, the housing needs of migrant workers and/or farmworkers can be met through the City’s general affordable housing programs. The City conducted specific focus group outreach to farmworker advocate groups in the City who identified that there may be a need for multi-generational housing options.
Female-Headed Households
Single-parent households require special consideration and assistance because of the greater need for day care, health care, and other services. In particular, female-headed households with children tend to have lower incomes and a greater need for affordable housing and accessible daycare and other supportive services. The relatively low incomes earned by female-headed households, combined with the increased need for supportive services, severely limit the housing options available to them. There are 3,571 female-headed households in Santa Clara, representing
7.9 percent of households. A total of 16.7 percent of female-headed households live in poverty, a much higher percentage than all households living in poverty at 6.7 percent. The largest household type in Santa Clara is married couple household (55 percent), followed by householders living alone (22 percent), and male-headed households (4.3 percent).
People Experiencing Homelessness
Population estimates for people experiencing homelessness is very difficult to quantify. Census information is often unreliable due to the difficulty of completely counting a population without
permanent residences. Given this impediment, local estimates of the homeless and anecdotal information are often the sources of population numbers. In 2022, the regional point in time count identified a total of 440 people who were unsheltered or living in emergency shelters in the City of Santa Clara. Data from Santa Clara County Office of Supportive Housing identified 769 clients in 2021. These individuals are affiliated with the City of Santa Clara, had an emergency shelter, transitional housing, or outreach enrollment during, or took a Vulnerability Index Service Prioritization Decision Assistance Tool in 2021. Of these identified clients, 58 percent were male, 42 percent were female. The most individuals indicated they were between 55 to 64 years old followed by those 25 to 44 years old. Over half of individuals (52%) identified as non-Hispanic White and 46 percent identified at Hispanic/Latinx. Of these 769 homeless clients, 43 indicated they were veterans, 453 reported to have a disabling condition, 384 had a chronically homeless status, 264 had a self-reported domestic violence background, and 82 clients self-reported currently fleeing domestic violence. In 2019 there were 326 people counted. During this same time period, Santa Clara County’s point in time count increased by 3 percent. Comparing point in time count between 2019 and 2022, the number of unsheltered individuals in the City of Santa Clara rose from 264 to 375 and the number of sheltered individuals rose from 62 to 65. This suggests that the City of Santa Clara’s overall increase in homelessness was due primarily to the growth in unsheltered homeless. Housing types for sheltered homeless individuals from 2021 can be found in table 13 below.
Table 13.4-17: Housing Inventory Count for Sheltered Individuals Project Type 2021 Housing Inventory Count
Emergency Shelter 10
Transitional Housing 65
Rapid Rehousing 151
Permanent Supportive Housing 101
Other Permanent Housing 126
Grand Total 453
Source: 2021 Housing Inventory Count (HIC) Data for City of Santa Clara The location of homeless encampments and RV parking shifts regularly. There are concentrations of overnight RV parking in the northern part of the City near Bassett Street, Hope Drive, Memorex Drive, and Richard Avenue. There are smaller concentrations in other parts of the City near De La Cruz Boulevard and Martin Avenue, Saratoga Avenue and Los Padres Boulevard, and certain portions of Stevens Creek Boulevard.
For encampments, there are concentrations on Saratoga Creek from Forbes Avenue, north along the creek to El Camino Real. Several segments of El Camino Real include unhoused residents camping near vacant buildings. On the north side of the City, the Guadalupe River trail from Highway 237 down to Trimble Road has a concentration of homeless encampments. Lastly, Calabazas Creek from Tasman Drive to Highway 101 has historically had several encampments.
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Generally, encampments are located in areas adjacent to waterways or near unoccupied/vacant buildings. Action 17 in the housing plan chapter ensures that the City adopts and implements the Homelessness Response Plan by early 2023.
Table 13.4-18 lists nine sites in the City where persons in need of emergency shelter can seek shelter and other assistance.
Table 13.4-18: Emergency Housing Providers in the City of Santa Clara Provider Target Population Capacity/ Housing Type
Bill Wilson Center, Bill Wilson
House Homeless teenagers Six-person group home
Bill Wilson Center, Homeless Teen
Parent Project
Homeless teen mothers and
dependent children
Six-person group home and
four transitional apartments
Bill Wilson Center, Runaway Youth
Shelter
Runaway, homeless and
other troubled youth Short-term transitional
Bill Wilson Center, Transitional
Housing for Foster Home Teenage
Girls
Teenage girls Six-person group home
Bill Wilson Center, Transitional
Housing for Homeless Teens Homeless teenagers Six-person group home HomeFirst, Sobrato Family Living
Center Homeless families 33-unit transitional
HomeFirst, Sobrato Family Living
Center II Homeless families 10-unit transitional and eight-unit permanent Charities Housing Homesafe Santa
Clara
Survivors of domestic
violence 24-unit transitional
Silicon Valley Independence Living
Center Persons with disabilities Four-bedroom transitional Emergency Shelters are currently a permitted use in the ML Light Industrial district, allowed without discretionary review, provided that the existing number of shelter beds is less than required in the most recent annual count of homeless persons residing within the city. If there are more beds that required by the most recent annual count of homeless persons, then Emergency Shelters are a conditional use.
The total acreage in the ML – Light Industrial district is 1,413 acres, with parcel sizes averaging
2.24 acres in size. Vacancy rates for R&D buildings in Santa Clara currently stand at 10%, and a number of industrial buildings are available for re-use as emergency shelters.
Frequent transportation options (15 minute headways) within the industrial areas of Santa Clara include the Route 57 bus that runs up Bowers Avenue, which connects to the goods and services of El Camino Real, and the VTA light rail, with connections to amenities and services in North Sunnyvale, downtown Mountain View and downtown San Jose.
Portions of the area zoned ML Light Industrial are located within the Airport Influence Area of the San Jose International Airport and are subject to noise from aircraft overflights.
Existing constraints to the permitting of emergency shelters are proposed to be removed as part of the Zoning Ordinance update with emergency shelters permitted by-right subject to the following objective development standards:
1. A minimum distance of three hundred (300) feet shall be maintained from any other emergency shelter.
2. The maximum stay at the facility shall not exceed one hundred eighty (180) total days in a three hundred sixty-five (365)-day period.
3. On-site client waiting and intake areas shall be located inside the building and shall be screened from public and private property where feasible. If not feasible, an exterior waiting area shall be provided which:
(A) Contains a minimum of ten square feet per bed provided at the facility; and (B) Shall be in a location not adjacent to the public right-of-way; and (C) Shall be visibly separated from public view by a minimum six-foot tall visual screening.
4. Hours of intake shall be between the hours of 5:00 P.M. to 9:00 P.M. Overnight occupants shall not be permitted to leave the facility on foot before 7:00 A.M. the following morning.
6. A minimum of one employee per fifteen (15) beds, in addition to security personnel, shall be on duty and remain on site during operational hours whenever occupants are on the site.
7. Security personnel shall be provided during operational hours whenever clients are on the site or when people are waiting outside the facility.
8. Exterior lighting shall be provided for the entire outdoor area of the site. Exterior lighting shall be stationary, directed away from adjacent properties and public rights-of-way, and be of an intensity compatible with the neighborhood.
9. Off-street parking shall be provided at the rate of one parking space per emergency shelter employee or as set forth in Chapter 18.74 SCCC, whichever is least restrictive.
10. The shelter may provide the following services and facilities to occupants in a designated area separate from the sleeping areas:
(A) A recreation area either inside or outside the shelter. If located outside, the area shall be screened from public view.
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
(B) A counseling center for job placement, educational, health care, legal, or mental health services.
(C) Laundry facilities to serve the number of occupants at the shelter. (D) One or more kitchens for the preparation of meals.
(E) Dining hall.
(F) Client storage areas (i.e., for the overnight storage of bicycles and personal items). (G) Similar services supporting the needs of homeless occupants.
11. The operator of the facility shall provide, at the City’s request, an annual report of the use of the facility that demonstrates that the facility is in compliance with the requirements of this chapter and the development standards for the use.
12. Deliveries of goods to the shelter shall only be made within hours that are allowed by this Code.
13. The facility shall not generate lighting at levels adversely affecting surrounding properties.
14. Professional and on-site management, with experience managing emergency shelters, shall be provided at all times.
15. The facility shall develop and implement an emergency preparedness plan, including a shelter-in-place plan.
These objective standards are consistent with the allowable objective development standards as indicated in HCDs Zoning for a Variety of Housing Types guidance document.
The key constraint is the current permitting process, which limits the number of beds that can be permitted by right in the City of Santa Clara based on the prior year’s count of people experiencing homelessness. That constraint is proposed to be removed as a part of the Zoning Ordinance Update, and the availability of potential locations for emergency shelters will be expanded with Emergency Shelters allowed by right. in the As a part of the Zoning Code Update (Action 9), the City is proposing to allow Emergency Shelters by right in the R-3 and R-4 Residential districts, the C-C and C-R Commercial districts, and the MU-VHD Mixed Use district.
This would expand the total acreage available for emergency shelters to 1,599 acres and would potentially allow emergency shelters along commercial corridors such as Stevens Creek Boulevard, proximate to amenities and transit. R-3 and R-4 Residential districts, C-C and C-R Commercial districts, and the MU-VHD Mixed Use district are generally located along arterials that are well served by transportation and are proximate to a variety of services. Average parcel sizes in the R3 and R4 districts are 0.25 acres. Approximately 59% (2,436 out of 4,133) of the
structures build in the R3 and R4 districts are 40 years old or older, indicating that new uses such as emergency shelters are potentially viable. A total of 76% of the structures built within the R3 and R4 districts are within ½-mile of transit with 15-minute headways, and 98% of R3 and R4 parcels are within ½-mile of mixed-use or commercial parcels.
Additionally, Emergency Shelters would be allowed in the LI – Light Industrial and PQP – Public/Quasi-Public districts, subject to the approval of a Minor Use Permit heard by the Director of Community Development.
In addition to the various local resources for people experiencing homelessness and on the verge of experiencing homelessness there is a County wide Emergency Assistance Network available to anyone living in Santa Clara County. Organizations through this network offer one-time rent and mortgage payment assistance, move in costs for rental deposits, information and referrals, food distributions, case management, job training, employment assistance, low-income utility programs, after school care, Veterans assistance, temporary shelter, and housing search assistance.
Table 13.4-19: Emergency Assistance Network
Organization Location
Community Services Agency of Mountain
View & Los Altos
204 Sterlin Rd. Mountain View, CA 94043
LifeMoves Georgia Travis House 260 Commercial Street San Jose, CA 95112 LifeMoves Opportunity Center 33 Encina Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Sunnyvale Community Services 725 Kifer Rd. Sunnyvale, CA 94086 Sacred Heart Community Service 1381 S. First St. San Jose, CA 95110 Salvation Army 359 North 4th Street San Jose, CA 95109
Salvation Army 3090 Homestead Road Santa Clara, CA 95051 St. Joseph's Family Center 7950 Church St., Suite A Gilroy, CA 95020 West Valley Community Services 10104 Vista Drive Cupertino, CA 95014 Source: City of Santa Clara
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Energy Conservation Opportunities
The Housing Element should analyze opportunities for energy conservation in residential development. Energy-related housing costs can directly impact the affordability of housing.
While State building code standards contain mandatory energy efficiency requirements for new development, the City and utility providers are also important resources to encourage and facilitate energy conservation and to help residents minimize energy-related expenses. Policies addressing climate change and energy conservation are integrated into the Santa Clara General Plan.
Santa Clara has two solar systems at City facilities, which have capacity to produce up to 500 kilowatts (kW) of energy combined. Pursuant to the City’s Climate Action Plan (CAP), five more solar photovoltaic (PV) projects will be installed with a total capacity of three to five megawatts (MW). To encourage residential PV units, Silicon Valley Power (SVP) offers a Neighborhood Solar Program which matches resident and business contributions to the fund for nonprofit solar facilities in the City. SVP also provides rebates for local businesses and residents for solar electric system installation and expedited solar system permitting. SVP offers free home energy audits to residents to help identify energy efficiency improvements, and rebates, including energy efficient appliances, insulation, lighting, cooling, and process changes. The City is also working with the regional energy supplier PG&E to encourage residents and businesses to retrofit their natural gas systems.
At-Risk Housing Analyses
State housing law requires an inventory and analysis of government-assisted dwelling units eligible for conversion from lower income housing to market rate housing during the next 10 years. Reasons for this conversion may include expiration of subsidies, mortgage pre-payments or pay-offs, and concurrent expiration of affordability restrictions. Currently, four affordable housing properties in Santa Clara are at risk of converting to market rate housing in the next 10 years as shown in table 15 below.
Table 13.4-20: At-Risk Housing
Project Name Address
Total
Units
Affordable
Units
Funding
Source
Date of
Affordability End
Benton House* 1885 Benton St 5 5 HCD 06/03/28
Clara Vista House* 723 Clara Vista St 6 6 HCD 06/03/28
Sobrato Family Living
Center I**
1509 Agnew Rd
33 32 Local 05/21/29
Casa Del Maestro Apts
(Phase I) 2001
3445 Lochinvar
Ave 40 2 Local 10/02/31
Total 84 45
Source(s): At Risk-Housing Report for City of Santa Clara, CHPC 2022 * zoned as single family residences
**Currently being refinanced with a possible extension of the affordability period Transferring ownership of the affordable units to a nonprofit housing organization is a viable way to preserve affordable housing for the long term and increase the number of government resources available to the project. The City will seek to establish deeper relationships with nonprofit affordable housing developers and supportive services providers (qualified entities) to identify and preserve at risk properties for preservation. Several qualified entities, including the Sobrato Family Foundation, BRIDGE Housing, and MidPen Housing have shared their interest with the City in acquisition and/or preservation of properties for affordable housing.
In Santa Clara, the estimated market value for the affordable units in the two multi-family at-risk projects is evaluated in Table 13.4-21 below. The current total market value for the 34 at-risk units in Casa del Maestro Apartments (2) and Sobrato Family Living Center (32) is estimated to be $11,313,922. The estimated replacement cost for the same units is approximately $13,005,000, with additional rent subsidies of $147,242 per year of deed restricted affordability, or $8,098,306 for the typical 55-year affordability requirement.
In order to assess the level of risk of a project converting to market rate, the expiration date of affordability covenants and the ownership structure of the project is considered. Nonprofit ownership generally indicates a lower likelihood of conversion than for-profit ownership.
Because Casa del Maestro Apartments and Sobrato Family Living Center are both owned/operated by nonprofit organizations and the expiration date of affordability covenants for both projects are at or toward the end of the 6th Housing Element Cycle, they are considered to be at low risk for conversion to market rate.
The two at-risk units at Casa del Maestro are part of a larger development that includes 20 other affordable units that will remain restricted until June 25, 2057.
The risk of the Sobrato Family Living Center’s 32 affordable units converting to market rate is further reduced because there are provisions in their affordability agreement that would continue
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
to require income limitations and rent restrictions beyond the end of their current 30-year affordability term unless the owner was able to demonstrate that the project was no longer economically feasible (revenue equal to or exceeds operating expenses) or if they provided an equal number of equivalent units off-site without public financial assistance. In addition to receiving local funding (HomeFirst), this project has received federal funding that also requires the project to remain affordable.
Additionally, Sobrato Family Living Center is currently seeking to rehabilitate its units. Any local contribution to their proposed rehabilitation work would include a requirement for modification of their agreement to extend the affordability period of their project. Other properties with affordable units seeking similar assistance would be required to do the same. HCD administers programs to finance the acquisition of at-risk projects, and there are low-income housing tax credits, and bond financing. Locally, there are HUD CDBG rehabilitation funds.
Two small at-risk properties owned by Momentum for Mental Health are operated as supportive housing for people dealing with mental health concerns, and as a smaller operation valuation comparable would be similar to a single-family residence, and the replacement cost would mirror the cost of single-family construction. However, the replacement strategy for the smaller projects would most likely be a purchase and rehabilitation project. For a five to six room unit the costs would be approximately $1,200,000 to $1,700,000 for purchase and rehabilitation or construction.
Momentum for Mental Health is a non-profit organization and will likely not be selling the properties in the coming years and will seek to refinance and rehabilitate the projects and seek subsidies to extend the affordability of the projects.
Table 13.4-21: Market Value of At-Risk Projects
Size of Unit Total Units
1-Bedroom 8
2-Bedroom 18
3-Bedroom 8
Total 34
Gross Annual Income $1,194,971
Operating Costs $252,144
Net Annual Income $942,827
Market Value $11,313,922
Source(s): zumper.com, compiled by MIG
1. Median Rent: 1-bed = $2,402, 2-bed = $2,995, 3-bed = $3,962
2. Average Unit Size: 1-bed = 700 sq.ft., 2-bed = 900 sq.ft., 3-bed = 1,100 sq.ft.
3. Annual operating costs assume 5% vacancy rate and cost per square foot is 20% based on age of the building yielding expenses per square foot = $8.24
4. Market value = Annual net project income*multiplication factor
5. Multiplication factor based on building age and rent tier = 12
Table 13.4-22: Replacement Costs of At-Risk Projects
Size of Unit Total Units Total Cost ($425 per sq.ft)
1-Bedroom (700 sq. ft.) 8 $2,380,000
2-Bedroom (900 sq. ft.) 18 $6,885,000
3-Bedroom (1,100 sq. ft.) 8 $3,740,000
Total 34 $13,500,000
Source(s): RSMeans Data, 2022, 3-Story, Stick and Stucco; regional adjustment
1. Per unit cost: 1-BR, $340,000; 2-BR, $510,000; 3-BR, $595,000
2. Additional subsidies would be required of approximately $200 per bedroom (2020 Income Limits – Fair Market Rent) Coastal Zone
The City of Santa Clara is not in a coastal zone and therefore is not subject to the requirements of Government Code 65588 (c) and (d).
Projected Housing Need (RHNA)
Housing Element law requires a quantification of each jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing need as established in the RHNA-Plan prepared by the jurisdiction’s council of governments. The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), in conjunction with the ABAG, determine a projected housing need for the region covered by ABAG. This share, known as the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), is 441,176 new housing units for the 2023- 2031 planning period throughout the ABAG region. ABAG has, in turn, allocated this share among its constituent jurisdictions, distributing to each its own RHNA divided along income levels. The City of Santa Clara has a RHNA of 11,632 housing units to accommodate in the housing element period. The income distribution is as shown in Table 13.4-18.
Table 13.4-23: Regional Housing Needs Allocation 2023-2031 Income Group % of County
AMI
Number of Units
Allocated Percent of Total Allocation
Very Low1 <50% 2,872 25%
Low 50-80% 1,653 14%
Moderate 80-120% 1,981 17%
Above Moderate >120% 5,126 44%
Total --- 11,632 100%
Note: Pursuant to AB 2634, local jurisdictions are also required to project the housing needs of extremely low-income households (0-30% AMI). In estimating the number of extremely low-income households, a jurisdiction can use 50% of the very low-income allocation or apportion the very low-income figure based on Census data. There are 5,462 extremely low- and 5,018 very low-income households. Therefore, the City’s very low-income RHNA of 2,872 units can be split into 1,436 extremely low-income and 1,436 very low-income units.
Source(s): Association of Bay Area Governments
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
This page was left intentionally blank.
Population and Employment Trends ...................................................................................................... 1 Household Characteristics ........................................................................................................................ 4 Housing Stock Characteristics .................................................................................................................. 8 Special Housing Needs ........................................................................................................................... 10 Energy Conservation Opportunities ..................................................................................................... 24 At-Risk Housing Analyses ...................................................................................................................... 24 Projected Housing Need (RHNA) ......................................................................................................... 27 List of Tables
Table 13.4-1: Population Growth and Projected Growth ..................................................................... 1 Table 13.4-2: Age, Race and Ethnicity, and Employment by Industry ............................................... 2 Table 13.4-3: 10 Principal Employers, 2020 ............................................................................................ 4 Table 13.4-4: Household Characteristics by Tenure .............................................................................. 5 Table 13.4-5: Existing Properties with Extremely Low-Income Housing Units ................................ 7 Table 13.4-6: Housing Stock Characteristics by Tenure – 2020 ............................................................ 8 Table 13.4-7: Fair Market Rents in Santa Clara County ...................................................................... 10 Table 13.4-8: Market Rents Per Unit by Bedroom – Q3 2022 ............................................................. 10 Table 13.4-9: Special Needs Groups ...................................................................................................... 10 Table 13.4-10: Housing Properties for Persons with Disabilities ...................................................... 13 Table 13.4-11: Housing Properties for Seniors ..................................................................................... 14 Table 13.4-12: Senior Households by Income and Tenure ................................................................. 15 Table 13.4-13: Cost-Burdened Senior Households by Income Level ................................................ 15 Table 13.4-14: Household Size by Tenure ............................................................................................. 16 Table 13.4-15: Farm Operations and Farm Labor in Santa Clara County ........................................ 17 Table 13.4-16: Migrant Worker Student Population ........................................................................... 18 Table 13.4-17: Housing Inventory Count for Sheltered Individuals ................................................. 19 Table 13.4-18: Emergency Housing Providers in the City of Santa Clara ........................................ 20
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Table 13.4-19: Emergency Assistance Network ................................................................................... 23 Table 13.4-20: At-Risk Housing .............................................................................................................. 25 Table 13.4-21: Market Value of At-Risk Projects ................................................................................. 26 Table 13.4-22: Replacement Costs of At-Risk Projects ........................................................................ 27 Table 13.4-23: Regional Housing Needs Allocation 2023-2031 .......................................................... 27
Chapter 13.5
Constraints Analysis
Many factors can encourage or constrain the development, maintenance, and improvement of housing stock. These factors fall into two categories ― governmental and non-governmental constraints ― and include physical constraints, land availability, development economics, and governmental regulations, all of which impact the cost and amount of housing produced. These constraints may result in housing that is not affordable to low- and moderate-income households or may render residential construction economically infeasible for developers. Constraints to housing production significantly impact households with lower incomes and special needs.
This chapter addresses both the governmental and non-governmental constraints that impact the City of Santa Clara’s housing market and production. State law requires that Housing Elements analyze potential and actual governmental and non-governmental constraints to the production, maintenance, and improvement of housing for persons of all income levels and disabilities. The constraints analysis must also demonstrate local efforts to remove or mitigate barriers to housing production and housing for persons with disabilities. Where constraints to housing production related to the City’s regulations or land use controls are identified, appropriate programs to remove or mitigate these constraints are included in the Housing Plan.
Government Constraints
Governmental constraints for affordable housing development are defined as policies, standards, requirements, or actions imposed by the various levels of government upon land and housing development. Although State and federal agencies play a role in the imposition of governmental constraints, local government’s ability to influence these agencies is generally limited. Housing constraints associated with these State and federal governmental constraints are, therefore, not significantly addressed in this document.
Municipal Boundaries
The City of Santa Clara is completely surrounded by the boundaries of other cities: San José to the north, east and south; and Cupertino and Sunnyvale to the west. Other than a small parcel on Homestead Road, there are no other developable lands potentially annexable to the City. The City’s new housing opportunities, therefore, must come from within the existing City limits, and primarily through redevelopment of existing parcels.
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Land Use Controls and Development Standards
Land use controls have helped maintain the quality of the City’s residential neighborhoods, consistent with community established goals. These land use controls, however, can be viewed as constraints in that they determine the amount of land to be developed for housing and establish a limit on the number of units that can be built on a site. These standards have not been changed substantially since 1969.
General Plan
On November 16, 2010, the Santa Clara City Council adopted the 2010-2035 General Plan. The 2010-2035 General Plan includes a range of residential land use designations and densities, from Very Low Density Residential with a maximum density of 10 dwelling units per acre, to High Density Residential with a maximum density of 50 units per acre. The new General Plan has also established three mixed use designations: Neighborhood Mixed Use, which allows residential densities up to 36 dwelling units per acre; Community Mixed Use, which allows residential densities up to 36 dwelling units per acre; and Regional Mixed Use, which allows residential densities up to 50 dwelling units per acre. The Related Santa Clara Project, Lawrence Station Area Plan, the Tasman East Specific Plan, the Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan, and the Gateway Crossings project added higher-density General Plan designations for a total of fifteen land use designations that allow for residential development, as shown in Table 13.5-1.
Because of high land costs in the City, sites that are zoned for high-density housing are typically occupied by multi-family housing developments. The City has few instances where single-family homes occupy sites that are zoned for higher density housing.
Table 13.5-1: 2010-2035 General Plan Land Use Designations (Residential) Land Use Designation Density/ FAR
Very Low Density Residential 0 to 10 du/acre
Low Density Residential 8 to 19 du/acre
Medium Density Residential 20 to 36 du/acre
High Density Residential 37 to 50 du/acre
Very High Density Residential 51 to 100 du/acre
High Density Flex 60 to 149 du/acre
Urban Village 100 to 149 du/acre
Village Residential 60 to 149 du/acre
Urban Center 120 to 250 du/acre
Urban Center/ Entertainment District 37 to 90 du/acre
Transit Neighborhood Up to 350 du/acre
Less than 1 acre, minimum 60 du/acre
Greater or equal to 1 acre, minimum 100 du/ac
Very High Density Mixed Use 50 to 120 du/acre
Table 13.5-1: 2010-2035 General Plan Land Use Designations (Residential) Land Use Designation Density/ FAR
Neighborhood Mixed Use Minimum 10 du/acre for sites < 1 acre Minimum 20 du/acre for sites >= 1 acre
Maximum 36 du/ ac
Minimum Commercial FAR of 0.10
Community Mixed Use Residential 20 to 36 du/acre
Minimum Commercial FAR of 0.10
Regional Mixed Use Residential 37 to 50 du/acre
Minimum Commercial FAR of 0.15
Source(s): Santa Clara General Plan, Lawrence Station Area Plan (LSAP), Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan (PHD), Tasman East Specific Plan, Related Santa Clara Project, Gateway Crossings Project, City of Santa Clara June 2022 Zoning Ordinance
The type, location and density of residential development are primarily regulated through the zoning ordinance. Zoning regulations serve to protect and promote the health, safety, and general welfare of the residents of a community while also serving to implement the goals and policies of the General Plan. The City began a comprehensive update to their Zoning Ordinance to reflect the goals and policies of the City’s 2010-2035 General Plan in early 2014. The City is in the process of completing an update to the Zoning Ordinance that will be implemented in early 2023, addressing California statutory requirements with regard to a variety of issues, including solar energy systems, family day care homes, affordable housing, group homes, alterations to legal non-conforming buildings, and historic resources.
Currently, residential uses are permitted in ten zoning districts and in the City’s mixed use overlay and combining districts, allowing flexibility for mixing land uses and supporting largescale and master-planned development projects.
Density Bonus
The City’s Density Bonus Ordinance was updated in 2015. The City currently provides density bonuses or equivalent financial incentives for housing projects which include affordable and/or senior housing units, consistent with State law. Modifications to the City’s Density Bonus Ordinance, in order to meet the requirements of Government Code Section 65915, were made in conjunction with the adoption of the 2015-2023 Housing Element.
The City’s Zoning Ordinance update, which will be implemented in early 2023, will bring the City into compliance with State Density Bonus Law, including recently adopted legislation that goes into effect in 2023.
Currently, requests for density bonuses and other concessions or incentives are generally processed concurrently with an application for a Planned Development rezoning. With the Zoning Ordinance update, most properties could develop under a conventional zoning district,
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
including properties that will be rezoned to one of the new high density residential or mixed use zoning districts. Under the updated Zoning Ordinance, requests for density bonuses and other concessions or incentives will generally be evaluated through the Planning permit process required for the project. Residential developments would be subject to by right approval by the Director of Community Development, including provisions for additional units allowed via density bonuses. Density bonus agreements would ultimately be approved by the City Council.
Inclusionary Housing
The City has had an “inclusionary” housing policy in place since 1992. The Affordable Housing Ordinance of 2018 requires private development projects with more than 10 units to include at least 15 percent of new housing units as affordable. For residential ownership projects with fewer than 10 units, either one dwelling at an affordable housing cost for a household earning up to 100 percent of AMI may be provided, or an in-lieu fee identified for residential ownership projects in the Affordable Housing Master Fee Schedule may be paid. Residential rental projects of 10 or more units must also provide at least 15 percent of the units at a maximum average of 100 percent AMI. Residential rental projects with fewer than 10 units may either provide an affordable unit or pay an in-lieu fee identified for residential rental projects in the Affordable Housing Master Fee Schedule. The City Council can also authorize a developer to utilize an alternate means of compliance such as a dedication of land for affordable housing, the development of affordable units at an off-site location, or some combination thereof.
The City’s Residential Density Bonus Standards make it clear that the provision of affordable units through the City’s inclusionary housing ordinance count toward units provided for the purpose of receiving benefits under the state’s density bonus law. As a part of the Action 2, Affordable Housing Ordinance, City staff will bring forward a revised affordable housing ordinance that includes deeper levels of affordability (5% at 50% AMI, 5% at 80% AMI and 5% at 120% AMI), which will make all development projects eligible for a density bonus. For nonresidential projects, affordable housing requirements may be met through the payment of impact fees identified in the Affordable Housing Master Fee Schedule, calculated on a per square foot basis for net new gross floor area. This impact fee can be mitigated through the construction of affordable residential units on an appropriate housing site. For all new construction of mixed use projects that exceed 20,000 square feet, affordable housing requirements on the residential gross floor area portion of the mixed use project shall be met in line with the provisions of SCCC
17.40.080 or SCCC 17.40.090. Affordable housing requirements applicable on the non-residential gross floor area portion of the mixed use project shall be met in line with the provision of SCCC
17.40.100. As an alternative to the payment of an impact fee, a developer or owner may construct affordable residential units on an appropriate housing site.
As of 2021, the City has exceeded its fifth cycle RHNA goals by 3,013 units and has attained 289.1% of that goal without counting units permitted in 2022. This suggests that the City’s
inclusionary housing ordinance is not impacting feasibility to the point that market rate development is not occurring to meet housing needs. In fact, staff received input during Housing Element outreach asking that the affordable housing ordinance require deeper levels of affordability because 100%AMI is no longer affordable for many households in Santa Clara. If the City does amend its required affordability, it would need to consult with market rate and affordable housing developers to balance concerns about the depth of affordability and project feasibility.
On May 5, 2022, City staff participated in a countywide listening session with market rate and affordable housing developers. Regarding inclusionary policies, developers suggested that allowing flexibility in the options available (i.e. land dedication) to market rate developers was very important and opened up possibilities to partner with affordable developers. The City’s inclusionary ordinance does offer flexibility in meeting its obligations.
Residential Development Standards
The City’s Zoning Ordinance contains development standards for each zoning district. Table 13.5- 2 outlines the residential standards under each zoning classification and specific area plans, including minimum lot sizes, setbacks, widths, and densities, as well as restrictions on building and landscape coverage.
Table 13.5-2: Residential Development Standards
Residential
Use Type
R1-
8L
R1-
6L
R2-
7L
R3-
18D
R3-
25D
R3-
36D R3-M R3-RV MU TMU LSAP TN PHD
Minimum Lot
Size (sq. ft.) 8,000 6,000 7,000 8,500 8,500 8,500 1,500 1,200 20,000 20,000 n/a n/a 8,500
–
10,00
0 Maximum
Density
(du/ac)
5 7 12 18 25 36 10 n/a 25 45 100 350 250
Minimum Lot
Width (ft.) 70 60 65 70 70 70 n/a 100 100 100 n/a n/a n/a Maximum
Height (ft.) 25 25 25 20 25 45 n/a n/a 45 50 n/a 220
32135
-
FAA2
Minimum
Front Yard
(ft.)
20 20 20 20 20 20 25 15 10 10 n/a n/a n/a
Minimum
Side Yard (ft.)
6 &
9 5 5 10 10 10 15 &
25 5 &
15 10 10 n/a n/a n/a
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Table 13.5-2: Residential Development Standards
Residential
Use Type
R1-
8L
R1-
6L
R2-
7L
R3-
18D
R3-
25D
R3-
36D R3-M R3-RV MU TMU LSAP TN PHD
Minimum
Rear Yard (ft.) 20 20 15 15 15 20 15 n/a 20 20 n/a n/a n/a Max. Building
Coverage 40% 40% 45% 35% 35% 45% n/a n/a 30% 30% n/a n/a n/a Min.
Landscape
Coverage
n/a n/a 40% 40%1 40%1 40%1 n/a n/a 30% 30% n/a n/a n/a
Source(s): Santa Clara Zoning Ordinance, (2014), Tasman East Focus Area Plan, Lawrence Station Area Plan (LSAP), Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan (PHD)
Notes:
1 Each lot greater than 22,000 square feet in size shall have not less than forty-five percent (45%) of the lot area developed into permanently maintained open space.
2 In PHD, maximum heights range from 135-feet to the maximum allowed by the FAA.
The existing and proposed development standards do not act as a constraint on development. As an example, in the case of the R3-18D and R3-36D zoning districts, the proposed height limits and setbacks do not unnecessarily constrain development in those zoning districts (assuming 1,500 square foot units with garage parking). However, when considered cumulatively in combination with required coverage maximums, unit sizes need to be reduced to 1,000 square feet to meet maximum densities. In recognition of this analysis, the City is removing coverage maximums from the R3 and R4 districts, and increasing the allowed coverage from 45% to 60% in the R2 district. the proposed height and coverage limits in those districts do not unnecessarily constrain development since sites that meet the minimum lot size requirement can develop the maximum number of units (assuming 1,00 square foot units with garage parking) allowed by the districts’ respective densities.
In addition to the residential categories identified below, the Planned Development zoning district also permits residential development. It allows flexibility in both development standards and land use mix not permitted in other zones in order to adapt to specific site constraints without reducing housing density or adding costs to affordable housing units. An analysis of Santa Clara’s development regulations compared with those of Mountain View, Sunnyvale, and San José, showed that these cities have fairly similar standards. Additionally, in 2014 the City initiated an update to its Zoning Ordinance. As part of that update, the City will establish appropriate minimum and maximum densities in residential and mixed use districts consistent with the 2010- 2035 General Plan. In sum, the City’s development standards do not substantially restrict the cost and supply of housing overall, or in particular, lower income housing Parking Standards
Parking can substantially add to the cost of housing. The City’s Zoning Ordinance currently requires two spaces per unit in both single-family and multi-family districts. However, the City has reduced parking requirements for a number of recent multi-family residential projects, including the Camino Del Rey Senior Apartments. The City’s current parking standards are summarized in Table 13.5-3 below. Over the three most recently adopted Specific Plans (in order of adoption: Lawrence Station, Tasman East (Transit Neighborhood) and Patrick Henry Drive (PHD), residential parking requirements have been progressively reduced and now stand at one parking space per unit (or less) in both Tasman East and PHD. As part of the comprehensive Zoning Ordinance update, the City will review its citywide parking standards and will reduce residential parking requirements for multi-family uses, including unbundling and additional reductions according to housing type (e.g., housing for people with developmental and other disabilities) and according to proximity to transit. In addition, see Action 3: Affordable Housing Incentives and Facilitation, which includes an objective to apply those parking reforms to parcels within the El Camino Real Specific Plan and the Santa Clara Station Area Plan areas.
Table 13.5-3: Parking Standards
Housing Type/ Zoning District Requirements
Single-Family Dwellings (R1-8L, R1-6L, and R2-7L
zones)
Two garage or carport parking spaces
Dwellings (R3-18D, R3-25D, and R3-36D zones) One garage or carport shall be provided for each dwelling unit, plus one parking space for each
dwelling unit
Multi-Family Dwellings (MU and TMU zones)1 At least one garage or carport shall be provided for each dwelling unit, plus one parking space for
each dwelling unit
Mobile Home Park2 One individually accessible and one tandem parking space per mobile home site
Recreational Vehicle Park One visitor parking space shall be provided for every fifteen (15) recreational vehicle sites or
fraction thereof
Emergency Shelters One space per shelter employee
Accessory Dwelling Unit No parking required
LSAP Studio and One Bedroom Residential Unit One parking space per unit LSAP Two or more bedroom Residential Unit Two parking spaces per unit Transit Neighborhood One parking space per unit
PHD One parking space per unit greater than 550
square feet and 0.5 spaces per unit less than 550
square feet
Source(s): Santa Clara Zoning Ordinance, 2022, Lawrence Station Area Plan (LSAP), Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan (PHD)
2. R3-M zones exist in current zoning code but are not applied anywhere in the City and won’t be used in the future.
3. R3-RV zones exist in current zoning code but are not applied anywhere in the City and won’t be used in the future.
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
In the City’s multi-family districts, the City is proposing to reduce the required parking from two spaces per unit to 1½one spaces per unit for studio and one-bedroom units and 1½ spaces per unit for larger units and to allow for unbundled parking for any additional spaces after the first parking space for each unit. Reduced parking rates of one space per unit for studio and onebedroom units are already adopted for the LSAP zoning district. For the Tasman East and Patrick Henry Drive areas, a maximum of one parking space per unit is required, with units less than 550 square feet in area required to provide 0.5 spaces per unit.
The parking standards for the MU – Mixed Use and TMU – Transit-oriented Mixed Use districts deserve a special mention here. Those zoning districts have not been used to zone any parcels within the City of Santa Clara and have not been included in the City’s Zoning Ordinance Update because there are no parcels with a corresponding General Plan Land Use designation. The impact of those parking standards on the provision of housing is therefore moot.
Provision for a Variety of Housing Types
State Housing Element law specifies that jurisdictions identify adequate sites to be made available through appropriate zoning and development standards to encourage the development of various types of housing for all economic segments of the population. This includes single-family housing, multi-family housing, factory-built or manufactured housing, emergency shelters, and transitional housing among others. Permitted housing types are described in Table 13.5-4.
Although single-family uses are permitted in multi-family zones, this rarely occurs in the City on sites large enough for multi-family housing due to the high costs of housing and limited availability of vacant land.
Table 13.5-4: Permitted Housing Types Within Residential Zoning Classifications R1-
8L
R1-
6L
R2-
7L
R3-
18D
R3-
25D
R3-
36D
R3-
M
R3-
RV
MU TM
U
ML LSAP TN PH
D
Single-Family
Dwellings
P P P P P P P
Two-Family
Dwellings
P P P P P
Multi-Family
Housing
P P P P P P P P
Accessory
Unit
P P P P P P P P P
Manufactured
Housing
P P
Mobile Home
Park
P
Recreational
Vehicle Park
P
Table 13.5-4: Permitted Housing Types Within Residential Zoning Classifications R1-
8L
R1-
6L
R2-
7L
R3-
18D
R3-
25D
R3-
36D
R3-
M
R3-
RV
MU TM
U
ML LSAP TN PH
D
Residential
Care Facilities
(<6 persons)
P P P P P P P P P P P
Emergency
Shelter
P
Transitional
Housing
P P P P P P P P P P P P P
Supportive
Housing
P P P P P P P P P P P P P
Source(s): Santa Clara Zoning Ordinance, 2014, Lawrence Station Area Plan (LSAP), Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan (PHD), Tasman East Focus Area Plan
Single-Family Dwellings
The majority of the residential areas in the City are composed of single-family districts. Singlefamily dwellings are permitted in all of the City’s residential districts, with the exception of the mixed use and mobile home park zones. However, there are few instances where multi-family properties are developed with single-family homes.
Multi-Family Dwellings
Most residential construction in recent years has been for multi-family units. Multi-family dwellings are permitted in the R3-18D, R3-25D, and R3-36D districts, as well as in the City’s mixed use zones. Existing development standards have not constrained multi-family development, which typically provide a good opportunity for affordable housing in the City.
Accessory Units
The 2021 update to the city’s Accessory Unit Zoning Ordinance includes regulations which allow for both Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and Junior ADUs (JADUs) on a property, allowance of ADUs in multi-family zoning districts, and reduction of the required setbacks. The Zoning Ordinance defines an accessory unit as “one additional dwelling unit that includes a single kitchen, sleeping quarters, not more than one bathroom, and not more than two bedrooms. The accessory unit may be attached to or part of the existing single-family unit or may be a detached structure and shall meet all other requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.” From 2018 through 2022, 246 accessory units have been permitted in the City for an average of 49.2 units per year.
Manufactured Housing
Factory-built, modular homes constructed in compliance with the California Building Code (CBC), and mobile homes/manufactured housing units that comply with the National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974, placed on permanent
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
foundations, are considered single-family dwellings and are generally treated as such. Currently, the City permits manufactured housing in all R-1, R-2, and R-3 zones. The City also permits mobile home parks and recreational vehicle parks in the R3-M and R3-RV zones, respectively.
Residential Care Facilities
Residential care facilities can be described as any family home, group care facility or similar facility, including some transitional housing facilities, for 24-hour non-medical care of persons in need of personal services, supervision, or assistance essential for sustaining the activities of daily living. In accordance with State law (Lanterman Developmental Disability Services Act, AB 846 (1977), composed of divisions 4.1, 4.5 and 4.7 of the Welfare and Institutions Code and Title 14 of the Government Code), the City permits residential care facilities serving six or fewer persons in all residential zones. The Zoning Ordinance does not explicitly address residential care facilities for more than six persons. As part of the comprehensive Zoning Code update to be completed in early 2023, the City will include the by-right approval of residential care facilities serving seven or more residents, subject to objective standards.
Emergency Shelters
An emergency shelter is defined as “housing with minimal supportive services for homeless persons that is limited to occupancy of six months or less by a homeless person. No individual or households may be denied emergency shelter because of an inability to pay.” Emergency shelters are currently a permitted use in the ML (Light Industrial) zone, provided they meet the minimum property development standards in which they are located when, on the date that a complete shelter management plan is submitted to the City, the number of existing shelter beds within the City is fewer than the City’s most recent annual count of homeless persons residing within the City.
If the demonstrated need has already been met, additional emergency shelters may be conditionally permitted in the ML (Light Industrial) zone, subject to conditions with the issuance of a use permit pursuant to Chapter 18.110 SCCC. The determination required by this subsection shall occur on the date the operator submits the materials.
The shelter bed maximum is the key constraint in the current permitting process for emergency shelters and limits the number of beds that can be permitted by right in the City of Santa Clara based on the prior year’s count of people experiencing homelessness. That constraint is proposed to be removed as a part of the Zoning Ordinance Update, and the availability of potential locations for emergency shelters will be expanded. As a part of the Zoning Ordinance Update (Action 9), the City is proposing to allow emergency shelters by right in the R-3, and R-4, and R5 Residential districts, the C-C and C-R Commercial districts, and the MU-VHD Mixed Use district. This would expand the total area available for emergency shelters to 1,573 acres and
would potentially allow emergency shelters along commercial corridors such as Stevens Creek Boulevard, proximate to amenities and transit.
The Zoning Ordinance update would also allow emergency shelters in the LI Light Industrial and PQP Public/Quasi-Public districts with the issuance of a Minor Use Permit.
Low Barrier Navigation Centers
A Low Barrier Navigation Center is defined as “a housing first, low-barrier, service-enriched shelter focused on moving people into permanent housing that provides temporary living facilities while case managers connect individuals experiencing homelessness to income, public benefits, health services, shelter, and housing.”
State law requires low barrier navigation centers be a use permitted by right in mixed-use zones and non-residential zones permitting multi-unit uses, if specified requirements are met.
In the City’s comprehensive Zoning Ordinance update to be completed in early 2023, Low Barrier Navigation Centers will be listed as a by-right use in the R3, R4 and R5 multi-family residential districts, the MU-NC, MU-CC, MU-RC, MU-MD, and MU-VHD mixed use districts, the C-C, CR, and C-D commercial districts. Like emergency shelters, Low Barrier Navigation centers would also be allowed in the LI Light Industrial and PQP Public/Quasi-Public districts subject to a Minor Use Permit.
Transitional Housing
Transitional housing is a type of housing used to facilitate the movement of homeless individuals and families to permanent housing. Transitional housing can take several forms, including group quarters with beds, single-family homes, and multi-family apartments, and typically offers case management and support services to return people to independent living (usually between six and 24 months).
California Government Code Section 65582 (h) defines “transitional housing” and “transitional housing development” as buildings configured as rental housing developments but operated under program requirements that require the termination of assistance and recirculation of the assisted unit to another eligible program recipient at a predetermined future point in time that shall be no less than six months from the beginning of the assistance. Pursuant to SB 2 (2007), which amended Sections 65582, 65583 and 65589.5 of the Government Code, transitional housing that is a residential use should be subject only to those restrictions that apply to other residential dwellings of the same type in the same zone.
Historically, the City has shown an ability to provide transitional housing through group homes and small apartment complexes. The Zoning Ordinance was amended, in conjunction with the adoption of the 2015-2023 Housing Element, to permit transitional housing in the same manner
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
as other residential dwellings of the same type in the same zone, per applicable State law. The Ordinance amendment was approved by the City Council on December 9, 2014.
Supportive Housing
State law requires local jurisdictions to address the provisions for supportive housing. California Government Code Sections 65582 (f)(g) defines “supportive housing” as housing with no limit on length of stay, that is occupied by the target population, and that is linked to an on-site or off-site service that assists the supportive housing resident in retaining the housing, improving his or her health status, and maximizing his or her ability to live and, when possible, work in the community.
As with emergency shelters and transitional housing, the City has previously been able to provide supportive housing through group homes and small apartment complexes. The Zoning Ordinance was amended, in conjunction with the adoption of the 2015-2023 Housing Element, to permit supportive housing in the same manner as other residential dwellings of the same type in the same zone, per applicable State law. The Ordinance amendment was approved by the City Council on December 9, 2014.
The Zoning Ordinance update will add supportive housing as a by-right use in all multi-family and mixed-use zones.
Single-Room Occupancy (SRO) Housing
The City’s proposed Zoning Ordinance will allow Single-Room Occupancy (SRO) Facilities by right in the C-C Community Commercial, C-R Regional Commercial, C-D Downtown Commercial, MU-CC Mixed Use Community Commercial, and MU-RC Mixed Use Regional Commercial districts.
Employee Housing
The City’s Zoning Ordinance does not currently include provisions for employee housing.
Pursuant to the Health and Safety Code, employee housing for six or fewer employees is to be treated as a single-family structure and permitted in the same manner as other dwellings of the same type in the same zone. As part of the comprehensive Zoning Ordinance update to be completed in early 2023, the City will amend the Zoning Ordinance to be consistent with these State requirements for employee housing.
Zoning and Land Use
Restrictive land use policies and zoning provisions can constrain the development of housing for persons with disabilities. Under the State Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act (composed of divisions 4.1, 4.5 and 4.7 of the Welfare and Institutions Code and Title 14 of the Government Code), small licensed residential care facilities for six or fewer persons must be treated as regular residential uses and permitted by right in all residential districts. The City of
Santa Clara is compliant with the Lanterman Act. Furthermore, the Zoning Ordinance is being updated concurrent with the Housing Element update to address the provision of emergency shelters, transitional housing, and supportive housing – housing types that are suitable for occupancy by persons with disabilities (see discussions on the provision of a variety of housing types earlier). Specifically, the Zoning Code Update incorporates the following provisions to be consistent with State law:
AB 2221 (2022): Adds front setbacks to the list of development standards that cannot preclude the development of an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU). Added to ADUs, Section 18.60.030 of the Zoning Code Update.
SB 897 (2022): Increases the height limit to 18 feet for detached ADUs within ½ mile of transit or on lots with multifamily dwellings, and to 25 feet or the primary dwelling height for attached ADUs. Added to ADUs, Section 18.60.030 of the Zoning Code Update. SB 897 (2022): Clarifies that a Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit (JADU) can be within an attached garage; if a JADU does not have a separate bathroom, it needs to have both an interior connection to the main living unit and an exterior entry; also requires owner occupancy and deed restrictions for JADUs. Added to ADUs, Section 18.60.030 of the Zoning Code Update.
AB 682 (2022): Allows Density Bonuses to be extended to shared housing projects. Added to Density Bonuses, Chapter 18.64 of the Zoning Code Update. SB 290 (2021): Changes standard language regarding incentives to not include the physical environment. Added to Density Bonuses, Chapter 18.64 of the Zoning Code Update. Low Barrier Navigation Centers: Adds a definition, an enumerated use, and a parking standard for Low-Barrier Navigation Centers to the Zoning Code Update. Allowed by right in the same districts that emergency shelters are allowed, and in all mixed-use districts.
AB 2339 (2022): Changes where emergency shelters need to be zoned. In the proposed code update, Emergency Shelters are proposed to be allowed by right in the R-3 and R-4 Residential districts, the C-C and C-R Commercial districts, the MU-VHD Mixed Use district, and the LI Light Industrial district.
AB 2162 (2018): Added Supportive Housing as a by-right use in all multi-family and mixed-use zones.
Residential Care Facilities: Separated Residential Care Facilities from Community Care Facilities, which are non-residential in nature by adding a definition for Residential Care Facilities, and an enumerated use for residential care facilities with six or fewer residents, which are allowed by right in all residential districts, and for seven or more, which are allowed with a minor use permit, approved by the Director of Planning.
Definition of Family
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
A community’s Zoning Ordinance can potentially restrict access to housing for households failing to qualify as a “family” by the definition specified in the Zoning Ordinance. Even if the code provides a broad definition, deciding what constitutes a “family” should be avoided by jurisdictions to prevent confusion or give the impression of restrictiveness.
California court cases have ruled that a definition of “family” that: 1) limits the number of persons in a family; 2) specifies how members of the family are related (i.e., by blood, marriage or adoption, etc.), or 3) a group of not more than a certain number of unrelated persons as a single housekeeping unit, is invalid. Court rulings stated that defining a family does not serve any legitimate or useful objective or purpose recognized under the zoning and land planning powers of the jurisdiction, and therefore violates rights of privacy under the California Constitution.
The Santa Clara Zoning Ordinance defines a family as “an individual or group of persons living together as a single housekeeping unit in a dwelling unit, including State or County licensed residence programs which comply with State law. Family shall not be construed to include a fraternity, sorority, club, or other group of persons occupying a hotel, boarding house, or similar institution.” This definition is not overly restrictive and does not constrain access to, or the development of housing.
Reasonable Accommodation
Both the federal Fair Housing Amendments Act (FHAA) and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act direct local governments to make reasonable accommodations (i.e., modifications or exceptions) in their zoning laws and other land use regulations when such accommodations may be necessary to afford disabled persons an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. The City conducted an analysis of its Zoning Ordinance, permitting procedures, development standards, and building codes to identify potential constraints for housing for persons with disabilities. The City’s policies and regulations regarding housing for persons with disabilities are described below.
A request to retrofit an existing residence with accessibility equipment (i.e., a ramp, landing, lift, etc.) is typically approved “over the counter”, if the proposal does not negatively impact the neighborhood or surrounding properties. When more review is required, the request is reviewed through the City’s Development Review process. However, at times it may be reasonable to accommodate requests from persons with disabilities to waive specific standards or procedures of the Zoning Ordinance to ensure that homes are accessible to persons with disabilities. In conjunction with the adoption of the 2015-2023 Housing Element, the City adopted a reasonable accommodations ordinance. The Ordinance amendment was approved by the City Council on December 9, 2014. That ordinance is codified as Chapter 18.118 of the Zoning Code.
The required Zoning Code findings for approval or denial of a reasonable accommodation request are as follows (Section 18.118.040):
(f) Findings. A written determination to approve, approve with conditions, or deny a request for reasonable accommodation shall be based on the following factors:
(1) Whether the parcel and/or housing that is the subject of the request for reasonable accommodation will be used by an individual with a disability; (2) Whether the request for reasonable accommodation is necessary to make the specific housing available to an individual with a disability;
(3) Whether the requested reasonable accommodation would impose an undue financial or administrative burden on the City; and
(4) Whether the requested reasonable accommodation would require a fundamental alteration of the zoning or building laws, policies, and/or other procedures of the City.
Approvals of Reasonable Accommodation requests are made at staff level, by the Zoning Administrator.
The processing fee for a Reasonable Accommodation request is $846, or the equivalent of a Minor Amendment to an Approved Project. Processing times vary from less than week for over-thecounter approvals for things like a new access ramp to 2-3 months for larger projects requiring a public hearing.
The Zoning Ordinance Update also includes a staff-level Reasonable Accommodation process, approved by the Director of Community Development. The approval findings are largely the same, but include an extra consideration regarding other, different reasonable accommodations that might have an equivalent level of benefit (Finding F, below):
18.118.060 – Findings and Decision
The written decision to approve, conditionally approve, approve with modifications, or deny a request for Reasonable Accommodation shall be based on consideration of all of the following factors:
A. The physical attributes of the property and structures; B. Whether the housing, which is the subject of the request, will be used by an individual with a disability;
C. Whether the request for Reasonable Accommodation is necessary to make specific housing available to an individual with a disability;
D. Whether the requested Reasonable Accommodation would impose an undue financial or administrative burden on the City;
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
E. Whether the requested Reasonable Accommodation would require a fundamental alteration in the nature of a City program, policy, procedure, or law, including but not limited to land use and zoning; and
F. Whether alternative Reasonable Accommodations may provide an equivalent level of benefit.
Building Codes and Enforcement
The City enforces Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations that regulates the access and adaptability of buildings to accommodate persons with disabilities. Government Code Section 12955.1 requires that 10 percent of the total dwelling units in multi-family buildings without elevators, consisting of three or more rental units or four or more condominium units, are subject to the following building standards for persons with disabilities:
• The primary entry to the dwelling unit shall be on an accessible route unless exempted by site impracticality tests.
• At least one powder room or bathroom shall be located on the primary entry level served by an accessible route.
• All rooms or spaces located on the primary entry level shall be served by an accessible route. Rooms and spaces located on the primary entry level and subject to this chapter may include but are not limited to kitchens, powder rooms, bathrooms, living rooms, bedrooms, or hallways.
• Common use areas shall be accessible.
• If common tenant parking is provided, accessible parking is required.
Compliance with Building Codes and State accessibility laws and regulations (California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24) may increase the cost of housing production and impact the viability of rehabilitating older properties. These regulations are minimum Statewide standards to ensure safety and accessibility and do not significantly contribute to governmental constraints regarding housing for persons with disabilities. In addition, the City does not impose supplemental local requirements with respect to accessibility. Compliance with provisions of the Code of Regulations, California Building Standards Code, and federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is assessed and enforced by the Building Division of the Community Development Department as a part of the building permit submittal process.
Planning and Development Fees
The City and other agencies assess a number of fees that affect the development and cost of housing. Utility service connection fees; upgrade of public curb, gutter, and sidewalk (and sewer lateral(s) if necessary); permit fees; and dedication requirements are similar or lower compared
to those in other communities in Santa Clara County and the Bay Area. In some cases, fees for street trees, drainage, and traffic mitigation are also collected. Table 13.5-5 provides a breakdown of all planning, engineering, and other development fees that may be pertinent to different types of residential projects.
Table 13.5-5: Planning and Development Fees
Application Fee
Planning Fees
Architectural Review $813-$32,529
Development Agreement $10,844-$32,529
Environmental Impact Report $32,529
General Plan Amendment $2,710-$37,950
Initial Study/ Negative Declaration $21,686
Lot Line Adjustment $5,422
Mills Act Application $7,694
Rezoning $8,338-$65,058
Tentative Parcel Map $16,264 - $21,686
Tentative Subdivision Map $5,422-$21,686
Use Permit $5,725-$13,251
Variance $3,187-$9,473
Vesting Tentative Parcel Map $3,650-$4,950
Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map $6,060-$8,970
Zoning Administrator Action $463
Zoning Code Text Amendment $24,397
Development Fees
Sanitary Sewer Outlet Charge $441.07 per unit; $1,658.38 per lot; $7,510.26 per acre Sanitary Sewer Connection Fee $1,140 per unit
Sanitary Sewer Conveyance Fee $4,218 per unit
Street Improvements $105.51 per foot
Sidewalk Improvements $15.35per foot
Street Curb Improvements $38.49 per foot
Electric Varies
Storm Drain $7,510.26 per acre
Storm Drain Improvements $38.37 per foot
Recreation Tax $15 for first bedroom; $5 for each additional School Impact Fee $4.08 per sq. ft.
Traffic Impact Fee SF: $1,274.11 per unit MF: $566.27 per unit Park Impact Fee SF: $38,068 - $45,320
MF: $30,659 - $36,500
Source(s): City of Santa Clara, 2022
Notes: SF = Single Family, MF = Multi-family.
Park Impact Fee is based on type of project (SF or MF) and geographic location in the City.
Table 13.5-6 compares the planning and development fees calculated for three residential prototype projects in Santa Clara with all other jurisdictions in Santa Clara County using.
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Generally, Los Altos Hills, Cupertino, and Sunnyvale charge the highest fees in the area while San Jose, the County, and Los Gatos charge the lowest fees. The City of Santa Clara’s fees for residential projects are moderate within the County.
Table 13.5-6: Regional Comparison of Planning and Development Total Fees (includes entitlement, building permits, and impact fees) Per Unit Jurisdiction Single Family Small Multi-Family Large Multi-Family Campbell $72,556 $20,599 $18,541
Cupertino $136,596 $77,770 $73,959
Gilroy $69,219 $40,195 $39,135
Los Altos Hills $146,631 N/A N/A
Los Gatos $32,458 $5,764 $3,269
Milpitas $77,198 $74,326 $59,740
Monte Sereno $33,445 $4,815 $4,156
Morgan Hill $55,903 $41,374 $36,396
Mountain View $90,423 $69,497 $82,591
San Jose $9,919 $23,410 $23,410
Santa Clara $72,034 $64,980 $62,084
Saratoga $64,272 $17,063 $15,391
Sunnyvale $133,389 $126,673 $98,292
Unincorporated County $25,166 N/A N/A
Source(s): Century Urban Report Spring 2022
Note: Prototype project details:
Single Family = 2,600 square foot with 500 square foot garage (total development costs $2,777,000) Small Multi-Family = 10 units (total development costs $7,548,750).
Large Multi-Family = 100 units (total development costs $70,110,000).
In Santa Clara, the per dwelling unit fees are moderate when compared with other jurisdictions in the County, and the per dwelling unit fees for multi-family projects are less than for single family projects. The total fees for the three residential prototype projects represent only a small portion of total development costs (Single Family = 2.6%, Small Multi-Family = 8.6%, Large MultiFamily = 8.,8%).
Because planning and development fees in Santa Clara are moderate compared to other jurisdictions in the County and they represent a small percentage of overall development costs, they are not considered a significant constraint to the construction of market-rate or affordable housing. Lower per dwelling unit fees for multi-family projects, compared with fees for single family projects, supports the construction of more naturally affordable multi-family housing.
Planning and Development fees have not been a significant constraint to the development of housing in the City of Santa Clara as evidenced by the total of 12,216 units in 34 pending or approved housing projects throughout the City, including several under construction (see Table
13.6-2 Pending and Approved Projects). Most of these projects provide a range of units affordable to different income levels. Seven of these projects are 100-percent affordable at Low and Very Low Income levels.
On- and Off-Site Improvement Requirements
On- and off- site improvements, including public streets, curbing, sidewalks, streetlights, water, sewer, and drainage requirements, have an impact on the cost of residential development.
Improvement requirements for new developments are regulated under the Subdivision Ordinance (Chapter 17.05 of the City Code). Off-site improvement requirements are less costly in a fully developed community since infrastructure needed to serve infill development is already in place. However, the financial burden of improvements as the City’s infrastructure ages is a concern. To assist private developers and public projects in the development process, the City has published the Standard Details document which outlines construction standards for the most common improvement requirements, such as sidewalks, storm drains, and sewer connections.
This publication is updated periodically and available on the City’s website. The standards are as follows:
• Dedication of streets, alleys and other public rights-of-way or easements may be a condition of approval for a tentative, or parcel map. These requirements may be easements that are needed for streets, alleys, access, drainage, public greenways, scenic easements, public utilities, and other public purposes. In addition, these easements or dedications may include requirements for improvements.
• Required on-site street improvements can include construction of curbs, sidewalks, driveway approaches, and transitions.
• Storm drain systems must be designed to collect and convey storm water, avoid damage to adjacent properties, and support the ultimate development of the watershed. Off-site storm drain improvements may also be required to satisfy this requirement. • Projects must connect to sewer, water, gas, and electric lines. • Development located in the Utility Underground District, as designated in the current General Plan, is required to underground utility lines (or pay an in-lieu fee).
The City’s Project Clearance Committee (a development review committee made up of representatives from different departments in the City) reviews new development applications and determines, pursuant to each City department, required infrastructure improvements and conditions of approval.
Local Processing and Permit Procedures
Development review can affect housing costs. Timelines for permit processing are estimated for various permit and approval types in Table 13.5-6 and Table 13.5-7. There are no constraints to affordable housing or multi-family housing over and above requirements for single-family and
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
market rate units. Moreover, permit processing in Santa Clara is consistent with, if not faster and more effective than, permitting in comparable nearby cities. Project processing, from initial submittal through discretionary review and building permit approval, averages six months for most residential developments.
Table 13.5-7: Planning and Permit Procedures
Type of Approval/ Permit Processing Time Approval Body
Ministerial Review 0 to 2 weeks Staff
Conditional Use Permit 1 and ½ to 4 months Planning Commission Zone Change 4 to 9 months City Council
General Plan Amendments 4 to 9 months City Council
Site Plan Review 2 to 6 weeks Staff
Architectural/ Design Review 3 to 12 weeks Director of Community Development
Tentative Map (fewer than 5
parcels)
3 to 6 months City Council
Tentative Map (more than 5
parcels)
3 to 6 months City Council
Initial Environmental Study 3 to 6 months Approval Body Environmental Impact Report 12 to 18 months Approval Body Source(s): City of Santa Clara, 2022
The following review and hearing bodies would typically be involved in the approval process for a new housing or mixed use development project:
• Project Clearance Committee (PCC): The development review committee made up of representatives from different departments in the City typically including Planning, Public Works (Engineering and Traffic), Utilities (Water, Sewer, and Electric), Police, Fire, and the Building Division.
• Director of Community Development: The Director of Community Development or designee hears projects subject to the Architectural Review process. • Historical Landmarks Commission (HLC): An appointed commission of members of the public who review proposals and make recommendations related to structures on the local, State, or national register of historic places, as well as applications for Mills Act contracts.
• Planning Commission (PC): An appointed commission of members of the public who review development applications for consistency with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance of the City of Santa Clara and are the deciding body for variances and Conditional Use Permits.
• City Council (CC): A body of seven elected individuals who act as the governing body for the City of Santa Clara.
Architectural Review Process
Architectural review in Santa Clara is intended to ensure the implementation of Zoning Ordinance standards and General Plan policies. Architectural review is typically required for most residential projects, including multi-family developments, as well as single-family attached developments and developments taller than one story. This process does not provide any additional burden for affordable housing projects and therefore are not considered a constraint to development. This process is codified in Chapter 18.76 of the City’s Zoning Ordinance, which was revised in 2020 to create a streamlined process by replacing a committee structure as the approval body for Architectural Review applications with the Director of Community Development.
Under this process, an applicant submits plans and drawings for any sign, building, structure, or alteration of the exterior of a structure in a form and detail prescribed by the Director of Community Development. The Community Development Director or designee limits decisions on multifamily projects to objective standards in conformance with the State of California’s Housing Accountability Act. The following considerations are used by the Director of Community Development in rendering decisions on all Architectural Review applications, which also include commercial and industrial development proposals. • Off-street parking areas, screening strips and other facilities and improvements must meet the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan intent. Any applicable state legislation that waives or reduces parking standards are applied.
• Design and location of the proposed development and its relation to neighboring developments and traffic will not impair the desirability of the neighborhood, will not create traffic congestion or hazard, and will not be detrimental to harmonious development. For multifamily residential projects, ensuring the application of objective development standards will be used to determine if the development meets this standard. • Approval will not adversely impact the health, comfort or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood. For multifamily residential projects, ensuring the application of objective development standards will be used to determine if the development meets this standard.
• The Director of Community Development may require the applicant to modify buildings, parking areas, landscaping, signs, and other facilities and improvements to meet Zoning Ordinance and General Plan requirements.
• The granting of any architectural approval is an administrative function; therefore, the action is final and conclusive, except in the event of an appeal. • In the event the applicant or others affected are not satisfied with the decision of the Director, they may appeal the decision to the City Council. In the case of permits for single-family homes, the affected parties first appeal is to the Planning Commission, and if still not satisfied, the affected party may appeal to City Council.
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
• Any architectural review approval granted shall be automatically revoked and terminated if not used within two years of original grant or within the period of any authorized extensions.
Since the City Council adopted the streamlined Architectural Review process in 2020, no Architectural Review applications for multi-family housing have been denied.
A typical residential development project in a standard zoning district would be required to obtain approval through the Development Review Hearing process, heard by the Director of Planning. Such a project would typically be subdivided, requiring a Tentative Map as well. Prior to obtaining these entitlements, projects go through the process of review by the project planner, and by the Project Clearance Committee to work out details and conditions from each City department. The associated environmental review per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) would also be completed during this process. The time it takes to complete this process varies per project. However, from initial submittal to approval, the process typically takes four to six months, or four to 18 months if an EIR is required.
SB 35 Streamlining
In accordance with Government Code section 65913.4 (SB 35 (2017)), applications for multi-family residential development that include a minimum of 50 percent lower income units may be eligible for a streamlined, ministerial approval process if they meet objective standards as outlined in the Government Code. By March 2023, the City will create an SB 35 checklist and written procedures for processing SB 35 applications.
Planned Development
Many residential development projects in the City are processed via the Planned Development (PD) process to integrate uses, utilize imaginative planning and design concepts, subdivide land in a manner that results in units not having required frontage on a dedicated public street, or to create a community ownership project. Through the PD process, the number of units permitted is governed by the General Plan.
A development plan is required to process a PD. The plan must be designed to provide an environment of a stable and desirable character, and comply with the General plan land use designation, and justify the mixture of normally separated uses and exceptions to normal regulations (such as on-site parking, landscaping, building lot coverage, height limits, setback requirements, required distances, and buffering between residential and commercial components). An application for a planned development zoning must accompany the development plan. Construction of the project must begin within two years of the City Council approval. The time to process a PD is estimated between six and 12 months. Given that the City has created conventional/conforming zoning districts that allow densities of at least 100 DU/AC, the use of the PD zoning process is optional.
Table 13.5-8 presents the number of units applied for in the last three years, along with the permit process attached to each unit. Over the last three years a total of 2,730 residential units have been applied for with 220 units, or 8% of the total applied for using the PD zoning process. In addition, new permitting processes mandated by changes to state law such as SB 330 and AB 3194, have created alternate non-discretionary pathways for the approval of projects not consistent with the approved zoning ordinance.
Adoption of the Zoning Ordinance (Action 9 in the Housing Plan) will also eliminate barriers to the by-right non-discretionary approval of Housing projects by creating and applying mixed use zoning districts along the El Camino Real corridor, where PD zonings have typically been used to create housing projects in the absence of adopted zoning designations for the corridor, Table 13.5-8. Residential permit process, 2020-2022
Year Architectural Review PD zoning ADUs
2020 1,040 114 75
2021 529 106 83
2022 1,684 0 150
Total units applied for 2020-2022 = 2,730
All new large-scale development projects of at least 25 contiguous acres where a mixture of residential with commercial, office, research and development and/or public uses is proposed are required to be rezoned to the Planned Development-Master Community (PD-MC) zoning district.
An application for rezoning to the PD-MC district is submitted as a separate application from the site development application and must include a master community plan that, if approved by the City Council, will become a part of the zoning map of the City of Santa Clara. The master community plan must conform to the City’s General Plan and overall residential density must also conform to the City’s General Plan, though individual housing types could be greater or less than the average.
An application for development within a PD-MC district must include a development area plan, which may be submitted any time subsequent to submittal of the PD-MC district application. A development area plan must be a minimum of 20 percent of the total acreage of the project or 10 acres, whichever is less. If the development area includes property designated for a public use or is proposed for use as affordable housing, then no minimum acreage shall apply. The Director of Planning and Inspection also has the authority to waive the minimum acreage requirement under exceptional circumstances.
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Consideration of development area plans will include notification to surrounding property owners and neighbors in the same fashion as the original master community plan hearings. The Planning Commission is responsible for considering the development area plan application concurrent with or after its consideration of the master community plan application. In general, the time for the processing and review of PD-MC applications averages 12-18 months. This is an appropriate timeframe given the scale of these types of projects, which usually require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Construction in each development area must begin within two years of final development area plan approval by the City Council. The Planning Commission may also grant extensions of up to two years (per extension).
Developments in the PD-MC district are not required to undergo the Architectural Review process. However, most residential development activities in the City do not require the processing of a PD-MC, just a Planned Development (PD) permit.
The Related Santa Clara project, located just north of the stadium is only the second development to use the PC-MC process. The first development, Rivermark, on the site of the Agnews Developmental Center campus, was approved in 2000. Given the constrained nature of the city boundaries and the fact that the city is built out, it is unlikely that developers will be using the PD-MC process in the future.
In the neighboring City of Cupertino, multi-family planned development projects take approximately four months to process, assuming no Environmental Impact Reports (EIR) would be required. However, if an EIR is required, the timeframe can be extended significantly. In Mountain View, another neighboring jurisdiction, the timeframe to process and review a largescale development is approximately six to 12 months. Similarly, in Santa Clara, the timing for the processing and review of a PD or PD-MC application is largely dependent on the environmental clearance requirements.
The Zoning Ordinance update should reduce the number of projects that have historically relied on the PD process by including new high-density residential and mixed-use zoning districts that conform to the General Plan, and new provisions that streamline the permitting process for projects that meet new objective development standards.
Zoning Transparency
Per AB 1483 (2019), for purposes of zoning and fee transparency, the City of Santa Clara provides the following information online:
The Zoning Ordinance is available on the City’s website at:
https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/SantaClara/#!/SantaClara18/SantaClara18.html Zoning designations for every parcel with the City of Santa Clara is available at:
https://map.santaclaraca.gov/public/index.html?viewer=regional
The City’s Planning Fee schedule is available at:
https://www.santaclaraca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/56997/637291919770930000
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Building Codes and Enforcement
Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, also referred to as the California Building Standards Code (CBSC), governs the design and construction of buildings, facilities, and associated equipment throughout California.
The City of Santa Clara adopted the current 2019 Building Standards Code, with amendments, in November of 2018, and those standards have been in effect since January 1, 2020.
On October 18, 2022 the City Council adopted the 2022 CBSC, with local amendments, to be effective January 1, 2023. The local amendments, which are intended to address building safety concerns of relevance to the City of Santa Clara, include the following elements:
• 2022 California Building Code, Chapter 3 and Chapter 9: Additional automatic fire sprinkler requirements for Group R3 occupancies.
• 2022 California Building Code, Chapter 10: Additional requirements for safe stairway configuration and the routing of emergency exit paths to facilitate emergency egress out of multi-story buildings.
• 2022 California Building Code, Chapter 19: Additional requirements for Structural Plain Concrete in Seismic Design Category C, D, E, or F.
These amendments were found to be prudent and necessary based upon the City’s climatic, topographical, and geological conditions and are intended to promote safety for future residents in the context of Santa Clara’s urban environment, particularly as the City is increasingly granting land use entitlements for higher density Type III, and in some cases, Type I construction, including the use of towers located above podiums.
The City adopted its first “Reach Code” (optional local energy code amendments that exceed or enhance State cod standards) in November 2021, following a long public process. The 2021 Reach Code made local amendments to the 2019 version of the CBSC: specifically, the California Energy Code and the California Green Building Standards Code. The Reach Code mandates the use of electricity as a power source in new construction, limits installation of natural gas plumbing and meters, and increases requirements on new construction to install electric vehicle infrastructure.
Non-substantive changes to the 2021 Reach Code were adopted on October 18, 2022 to reflect the 2022 update of the CBSC (“2022 Reach Code”).
Existing single-family, duplex, and triplex units are inspected only when an owner seeks a permit for additional construction or when complaints are received. Certain types of major additions require the applicant to bring the building or portion thereof up to current codes. Site improvement standards for residential development in the City, with the exception of minimum parking requirements, are not more restrictive than those in surrounding jurisdictions. Parking
ratios for newer multi-family districts, including the Transit Neighborhood and the Patrick Henry Drive districts, are lower than for comparable zoning designations of neighboring cities.
Airport Noise and Use Limitations
The most significant governmental constraint in the City is the State-required airport noise and Airport Land Use Commission regulations that prohibit and limit new housing near the San José International Airport within noise and safety zones. The San José Norman Y. Mineta International Airport is located to the east of, and adjacent to, the City. Noise generated by aircraft using the Airport has a noticeable effect on Santa Clara residents in the area north of the U.S. 101. Proposed housing in these areas is potentially required to have noise limiting construction methods including specially designed windows, walls, and insulation. These additional construction requirements often burden the developer and limit new construction near the airport.
Environmental and Infrastructure Constraints
The parcels identified as housing resources in the 6th cycle Housing Element are largely located in areas with adopted Specific Plans, and those Specific Plans include infrastructure plans that document existing infrastructure and any needed infrastructure improvements to support buildout of those plans, and a strategy for funding those improvements. Further, each specific plan amendment to the General Plan has conducted and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and the Housing Element itself, upon adoption, will be CEQA compliant.
Water Supply
The City of Santa Clara receives its potable water supply from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC), the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD), and groundwater from City-owned wells. In the City’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), the City has confirmed that it is able to meet water demands under all potential hydrologic conditions, as demonstrated by the Drought Risk Assessment required by the State’s Water Code.
UWMPs, which are updated every five years, must demonstrate that the water supplier has sufficient entitlements and infrastructure to meet future water demands in their service area.
Future water demands are determined using population growth estimates from the relevant general plan. For the City of Santa Clara, water supply is not an identified constraint on housing production. This has been verified in the Environmental Impact Reports for the Specific Plan areas and other housing development projects that comprise the housing units identified in this Housing Element. The addendum to the 2010 General Plan Update for the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update consolidates this information into one place for decision-makers and the public, concluding that there is sufficient existing capacity to accommodate the City’s RHNA.
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
The City’s Water and Sewer Department is in the process of adopting specific procedures to grant priority water and sewer service to developments with units affordable to lower-income households. (Gov. Code, § 65589.7.) An implementing action (Action 20, Water and Sewer Affordable Housing Service Provisions) has been added to the Housing Plan.
The SCVWDs 2020 UWMP has also indicated that it will be able to provide all water demands for Santa Clara County (including the City of Santa Clara) through 2045.
Wastewater
Wastewater is collected by sewer systems in the cities of Santa Clara and San José and conveyed by pipeline to the San José - Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility (RWF). If existing water treatment facilities would be insufficient to service the increased population anticipated by a general plan, the UWMP must identify new or expanded water treatment facilities to meet the additional need. If a development project is compliant with its general plan, that project’s impact to water treatment facilities would be captured and planned for in the corresponding UWMP. If a development project is not compliant with its general plan designation, it will require evaluation to determine if it independently triggers a need for new or expanded facilities. The Housing Element is compliant with the City’s General Plan, as amended. As such, the project’s water demand is consistent with City of Santa Clara’s 2020 UWMP population growth projection.
Therefore, the Housing Element’s impact to water treatment facilities is captured in the City of Santa Clara’s 2020 UWMP, and the identified housing resources in the Housing Element do not trigger a need for additional water treatment facilities. This impact would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.
Energy
The City of Santa Clara owns and operates the municipal electric utility, Silicon Valley Power (SVP), which services over 57,000 residential, commercial, and industrial customers in the City of Santa Clara. It owns, operates, and participates in more than 590 megawatts of electric generating resources supplemented by purchase agreements for 261 megawatts (MW) of additional capacity.
In an average year, approximately 45 percent of SVP-owned generating capacity comes from renewable energy sources—either geothermal, hydroelectric, or wind. Residential electricity demand is low compared with the energy needs of data centers and other high-tech firms that are located in Santa Clara.
In 2022, the City updated the Santa Clara Climate Action Plan to establish GHG emissions reduction measures that the City will implement to achieve the State-recommended GHG emissions reductions which include a near term reduction in GHG emissions by 2030 (SB32). The Climate Action Plan’s primary goals include a transition to clean renewable energy, diversion of waste, and promoting energy efficiency, water conservation, and climate resiliency.
Street System
Vehicular circulation in the City includes a wide network of surface streets. With the influx of workers into the job-rich City during the day, commute patterns are northbound in the morning and southbound in the evening. Existing and perceived future traffic delays are a major concern of Santa Clara residents, as expressed by during community outreach activities. Since most of the City streets are fully improved with limited opportunity for widening, alternative travel modes, such as public transit, bicycling, and walking, offer opportunities to address traffic constraints.
The parcels identified as housing resources in the 6th cycle Housing Element are located in areas with adopted Specific Plans which identify and accommodate infrastructure needs and requirements. Any mitigation required is identified in each specific plan’s EIR.
Seismic, Geologic, and Soil Hazards
The San Francisco Bay Area is a seismically active region with numerous active faults. No active faults run through the City, although several are present in the surrounding region. Geologists with the U.S. Geological Survey and other agencies foresee a 62 percent probability of a magnitude 6.7 or greater earthquake in the San Francisco Bay region before 2032. Seismic, Geologic, and Soils Hazards are more specifically addressed in each specific plan’s EIR.
Flooding
The principal surface water drainages in the City are the San Tomas Aquino Creek, Saratoga Creek, and Calabazas Creek, which all originate in the Santa Cruz Mountains and drain northward across the urbanized Santa Clara Valley floor before discharging into the San Francisco Bay. All of these creeks have been channelized and substantially modified to reduce flood hazards in the City. The City’s storm drain system is managed by the City of Santa Clara Public Works Department and consists of curb inlets that collect and channel surface water into a series of pipelines beneath City public rights-of-way. Stormwater is conveyed through these underground pipelines to the channelized creeks within the City, which then flow into the San Francisco Bay. During severe storms, flooding can occur in localized areas along streams running through the City.
Flood zone mapping by the Federal Emergency Management Authority (FEMA) indicates that approximately ten percent of the City is located within a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA).
None of the areas identified on the sites inventory/where housing development is approved/proposed are located in a SFHA.
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Non-Governmental Constraints
Locally and regionally, there are several constraints that hinder the City’s ability to accommodate the community’s housing needs. The high cost of land, rising development costs, and neighborhood opposition make it expensive for developers to build affordable housing. These constraints may result in housing that is not affordable to low and moderate income households or may render residential construction economically infeasible for developers. While local government has little influence on larger market factors such as interest rates, its policies and regulations can act as constraints that affect both the amount of residential development that takes place and the affordability of housing.
Land Availability
In 2022, fewer than five acres of vacant parcels (including right-of-way properties) are zoned for residential or mixed use development throughout the City, including in the three focus areas for future development (El Camino Real, Lawrence Station, and Tasman East). Of those sites identified as appropriate for new housing, some are too small to accommodate higher density development unless combined with adjacent parcels. The City revised its General Plan designations in 2010, which were supplemented through the Specific Plan process, to encourage high-quality infill redevelopment that includes higher-density housing in addition to commercial businesses in some locations. According to the City of Santa Clara website, there are currently 64 development projects pending, approved, under construction or completed, with most projects clustered around El Camino Real, Lawrence Station, and Tasman East.
Community Resistance
Historically there has been community opposition to higher density residential infill development proposed along major transportation corridors, particularly when that development is located directly adjacent to long-established single-family neighborhoods. The relatively shallow depth of many of these properties can make the transition between existing low density single-family homes and proposed higher density residential challenging. Several substantial medium and high density developments have, however, been approved in spite of such opposition. Over the past 20 years, affordability for lower and moderate income households has not been the primary concern for community opposition to residential development. Instead, community resistance has been based on density, traffic impacts, and parking.
Approximately 247 acres of vacant and underutilized land has been approved, through adoption of Specific Plans, for new higher-density residential or mixed use redevelopment in three focus areas: Lawrence Station, Tasman East, and Patrick Henry Drive. Directing higher density housing to commercial areas, with convenient access to transportation and retail services, and separation from lower-density existing neighborhoods may reduce community opposition. City regulations
that require appropriate transitions between uses and densities, and adequate parking, could reduce some o community opposition to the approval of new housing.
In addition, the enactment of AB 2011 in 2022 mandates ministerial approval along commercial corridors of most residential projects that meet the minimum density requirements of that bill.
Such projects must provide an affordability component to qualify, such as 15% low-income units, but this affordability percentage is already mandated by the City’s inclusionary zoning ordinance, and so all projects with at least 10 units will meet the affordability requirement of AB 2011. Given that the City will no longer have the discretion to deny such projects, community resistance will not be able to stop such projects from going forward along commercial corridors.
National Construction Costs
Market constraints substantially influence the cost of housing and pose a challenge to providing housing affordable for all income levels. Land prices are typically the most significant component of the cost. The cost of land has increased rapidly over the past decade. Construction costs and fluctuating interest rates are also major contributors to the increasing cost of housing in the San Francisco Bay Area.
Construction costs vary widely according to the type of development, with multi-family housing generally less expensive to construct than single-family homes. However, wide variation within each construction type exists depending on the size of the unit and the number and quality of amenities provided. Construction costs can be broken down into two primary categories:
materials and labor. A major component of the cost of housing is the cost of building materials, such as wood and wood-based products, cement, asphalt, roofing materials, and pipe. The availability and demand for such materials affect prices for these goods. An indicator of construction costs is Building Valuation Data compiled by the International Code Council (ICC).
The unit costs compiled by the ICC include structural, electrical, plumbing, and mechanical work, in addition to interior finish and normal site preparation. The data is national and does not consider regional differences and does not include the price of the land upon which the building is built. The national average for development costs per square foot for apartments and singlefamily homes in the first quarter of 2022 are $150-$500 per square foot depending on size and type, with an average of approximately $200 per square foot.
For multi-family apartment buildings, the type of parking is a key variable in the overall cost of construction. For lower density buildings (2-4 story wood-frame buildings), in which surface parking is provided, construction costs are in the $175 per square foot range. For projects that include structured parking, the garage construction costs add about $20,000 per parking stall to the $175 per square foot for the units. Site-specific constraints, such as flood hazards, could add additional costs if mitigations are required. Again, depending on the size and type of construction the national average is $35,000 to $65,000 per unit.
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
These costs also exclude the cost of land and soft costs, such as entitlements and financing.
Reduction in amenities and the quality of building materials (above a minimum acceptability for health, safety, and adequate performance) could lower costs and associated sales prices or rents.
In addition, prefabricated factory-built housing may provide for lower priced housing by reducing construction and labor costs. Another factor related to construction costs is development density. As the number of units increases, overall costs generally decrease due to economies of scale. The City’s ability to mitigate high construction costs is limited without direct subsidies.
Fee Analysis
Below is a fee analysis for two single family and two multifamily scenarios that illustrate the approximate fees for the hypothetical projects. Some fees are project specific and will be calculated based on the project type, location, and narrative.
Table 13.5-8: Fee Analysis Scenarios
Single-Family
A new home on an empty lot in an existing
neighborhood; no significant grading or other
complicating factors
Multi-Family
A new multi-family project on an empty lot in an
existing neighborhood; no significant grading or
other complicating factors
Scenarios
Single-Family
Small: 2,600 residential sq ft
Large: 5,000 residential sq ft
*Assuming no parking
Multi-Family
Small: 10,000 residential sq ft + 3,750 parking sq ft;
10 units
Large: 93,750 residential sq ft + 40,000 parking sq
ft; 100 units
Table 13.5-9: Fee Analysis
Action/Activity Fee
PLANNING ENTITLEMENT FEES
Pre-Application
- Single Family
- Planning Review
- Project Clearance Committee Review
$476 + Technology Fee (3.37%)
$3,179 + Technology Fee (3.37%)
$5,442 + Technology Fee (3.37%)
Table 13.5-9: Fee Analysis
Action/Activity Fee
Architectural Review
- Over the Counter
- Single Family (that requires a Development
Review Hearing)
- New development/Non-Single Family
- Design Consultant Review
No Charge
$893 + Technology Fee (3.37%)
$32,529 + Technology Fee (3.37%)
Deposit of Consultant Estimated Costs + Citywide
Overhead + Technology Fee (3.37%)
Stormwater Management Plan Review $813
BUILDING PERMIT FEES
Single-Family/Duplex/ADU Residential Scaled Permit Fee
Plan Check
Project Size
1 to 250 sq. ft.
251 to 1,000 sq. ft.
- First 250 sq. ft.
- Each additional 100 sq. ft. or fraction thereof
1,001 to 3,000 sq. ft.
- First 1,000 sq. ft.
- Each additional 100 sq. ft. or fraction thereof
3,001 to +
- First 3,000 sq. ft.
- Each additional 100 sq. ft. or fraction thereof
$656.55 +Technology Fee (3.37%)
$656.55 + Technology Fee (3.37%)
$262.62 + Technology Fee (3.37%)
$2,626.23 + Technology Fee (3.37%)
$131.31 + Technology Fee (3.37%)
$5,252.45 + Technology Fee (3.37%)
$65.66 + Technology Fee (3.37%)
Inspection
Project Size
1 to 250 sq. ft.
251 to 1,000 sq. ft.
- First 250 sq. ft.
- Each additional 100 sq. ft. or fraction thereof
1,001 to 3,000 sq. ft.
- First 1,000 sq. ft.
- Each additional 100 sq. ft. or fraction thereof
3,001 to +
- First 3,000 sq. ft.
- Each additional 100 sq. ft. or fraction thereof
$737.10
$737.10
$226.05
$2,432.42
$191.64
$6,265.31
$95.82
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Table 13.5-9: Fee Analysis
Action/Activity Fee
Commercial/Multi-Family/Industrial Scaled Permit Fee
Plan Check
Project Valuation
$1 to $1,000
$1,001 to $10,000
- First $1,000
- Each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof
$10,001 to $75,000
- First $10,000
- Each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof
$75,001 to $150,000
- First $75,000
- Each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof
$150,001 to $750,000
- First $150,000
- Each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof
$750,001 to $3,000,000
- First $750,000
- Each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof
$3,000,001 to $10,000,000
- First $3,000,000
- Each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof
$10,000,001 to +
- First $10,000,000
- Each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof
$109.42 + Technology Fee (3.37%)
$109.42 + Technology Fee (3.37%)
$18.23 + Technology Fee (3.37%)
$273.56 + Technology Fee (3.37%)
$15.99 + Technology Fee (3.37%)
$1,313.12 + Technology Fee (3.37%)
$20.34 + Technology Fee (3.37%)
$2,845.07 + Technology Fee (3.37%)
$7.10 + Technology Fee (3.37%)
$7,112.69 + Technology Fee (3.37%)
$5.00 + Technology Fee (3.37%)
$18,383.57 + Technology Fee (3.37%)
$2.93 + Technology Fee (3.37%)
$38,955.65 + Technology Fee (3.37%)
$1.46 + Technology Fee (3.37%)
Inspection Permit
$1 to $1,000
$1,001 to $10,000
- First $1,000
- Each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof
$10,001 to $75,000
- First $10,000
$92.13 + Technology Fee (3.37%)
$92.13 + Technology Fee (3.37%)
$38.90 + Technology Fee (3.37%)
$441.47 + Technology Fee (3.37%)
Table 13.5-9: Fee Analysis
Action/Activity Fee
- Each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof
$75,001 to $150,000
- First $75,000
- Each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof
$150,001 to $750,000
- First $150,000
- Each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof
$750,001 to $3,000,000
- First $750,000
- Each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof
$3,000,001 to $10,000,000
- First $3,000,000
- Each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof
$10,000,001 to +
- First $10,000,000
- Each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof
$18.15 + Technology Fee (3.37%)
$1,621.60 + Technology Fee (3.37%)
$23.10 + Technology Fee (3.37%)
$3,353.80 + Technology Fee (3.37%)
$10.07 + Technology Fee (3.37%)
$9,397.97 + Technology Fee (3.37%)
$4.01 + Technology Fee (3.37%)
$18,427.40 + Technology Fee (3.37%)
$3.72 + Technology Fee (3.37%)
$44,502.16 + Technology Fee (3.37%)
$1.85 + Technology Fee (3.37%)
Technology Fee 3.37% of Building Permit Fee, Electrical Permit Fee, Plumbing Permit Fee, Mechanical Permit Fee,
and Plan Check & Sign Fee
Building Conformance Fee Valuation x $0.00032
Plan Review Fees
Plan Review Fee (including building, mechanical,
electrical & plumbing)
75% of building permit fee
Title 24 Energy Conservation Plan Review 20% of building permit fee 3-B Electrical Permit Fees
Minimum Permit Fee
Permit Issuance
$209 + Technology Fee (3.37%)
$87 + Technology Fee (3.37%)
System Fee Schedule
New Buildings or Alterations
- Residential (per sq ft.)
- New Garages, Carports and Accessory
Buildings (per sq ft.)
$0.22/sq ft. + Technology Fee (3.37%)
$0.08/sq ft + Technology Fee (3.37%)
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Table 13.5-9: Fee Analysis
Action/Activity Fee
3-C Mechanical Permit – New Buildings
Residential $0.08/sq ft. + Technology Fee (3.37%)
3-C Plumbing Permit – New Buildings
Residential $0.08/sq ft. + Technology Fee (3.37%)
3-G Grading Plan Review Fees
50 cubic yards or less
51 to 100 cubic yards
101 to 1,000 cubic yards
1,001 to 10,000 cubic yards
10,001 to 100,000 cubic yards – base
Each additional 10,000 cubic yards
100,001 to 200,000 cubic yards – base
Each additional 10,000 cubic yards
200,001 cubic yards or more – base
Each additional 10,000 cubic yards
No Fee
$329.00 + Technology Fee (3.37%)
$875.00 + Technology Fee (3.37%)
$1,312.00 + Technology Fee (3.37%)
$2,188.00 + Technology Fee (3.37%)
$97.00 + Technology Fee (3.37%)
$3,063.00 + Technology Fee (3.37%)
$219.00 + Technology Fee (3.37%)
$5,252.00 + Technology Fee (3.37%)
$110 + Technology Fee (3.37%)
3-H Grading Permit Fees
100 cubic yards or less
101 to 1,000 cubic yards – base
Each additional 100 cubic yards – base
1,001 to 10,000 cubic yards
Each additional 1,000 cubic yards
10,001 to 100,000 cubic yards – base
Each additional 10,000 cubic yards
100,001 cubic yards or more – base
Each additional 10,000 cubic yards
$441.00 + Technology Fee (3.37%)
$441.00 + Technology Fee (3.37%)
$73.00 + Technology Fee (3.37%)
$1,106.00 + Technology Fee (3.37%)
$49.00 + Technology Fee (3.37%)
$1,547.00 + Technology Fee (3.37%)
$196.00 + Technology Fee (3.37%)
$3,316.00 + Technology Fee (3.37%)
$98.00 + Technology Fee (3.37%)
Multi-Family Monitoring Fee $119/unit
AHA Affordable Housing Agreements – For Sale $3,771/agreement Affordable Housing Application Fee $50/application
AHA Affordable Housing Agreements – MF For
Rental
$5,113/agreement
AHA Affordable Housing Agreements –
Amendments
$1,990/agreement
Table 13.5-9: Fee Analysis
Action/Activity Fee
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
Affordable Housing Fees
For Sale
- Residential
- Single Family Home
- Townhome
- Condominium
Rental Residential
Any tenure type
Fees shall be equal to the difference between the
unrestricted appraised market value (“Initial
Market Value”) of the unit and the Affordable
Sales Price of the unit, multiplied by the fractional
amount due. The Initial Market Value of the last
unit sold shall be the basis for calculating the inlieu fee $22.22/sq ft
Traffic Impact Fee
- Multi-family Residential
- Single-family Residential
$566.27/dwelling unit
$1,274.11/dwelling unit
School Fee $4.08/sq ft
Park Fee
- Multi-family Residential
- Single-family Residential
$30,659 - $36,500
$38,068 - $45,320
ELECTRIC UTILITY
Engineering Plan Check
Electric, per sheet
- 1st – 3rd check
- 4th and subsequent review
$292.48/sheet
$41.63/sheet
Time of Use Meter Installation – Residential $298.89/meter
FIRE/STATE MANDATED
Building Plans
- 30% of Building Department Fee
- Minimum: 3.5 hours
$756
Planning Application Review $865
Design Review/Consultation $216/hour
Miscellaneous Inspections/Plan Reviews $216/hour
PUBLIC WORKS
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Table 13.5-9: Fee Analysis
Action/Activity Fee
Sanitary Sewer Outlet (choose the greatest)
Residential – Single Family
- Per unit
- Per lot
- Per acre
Conveyance Fee
Condo & Planned Unit Development
- Per unit
- Per acre
Conveyance Fee
$441.07/unit
$1,658.38/lot
$7,510.26/acre
$4,218/dwelling unit
$441.07/unit
$7,510.26/acre
$4,218/dwelling unit
Recreation Tax (Bedroom) New Construction Permit
- First bedroom
- Each additional
$15
$5/bedroom
Project Clearance Committee Review:
- Preliminary application
- Architectural review
$861.44
$861.44
Cost Analysis for Development
- Minor (ADU, SFR, Up to 4 Residential Units)
- Major
$416.31
$1,011.95
Engineering Plan Review – Initial Review
- First three (3) reviews
- Fourth and subsequent review
$168/sheet
$34/sheet
WATER/SEWER
Wastewater Treatment Plant Capacity Fee Project Specific Engineering Plan Review Project Specific
Project Clearance Committee Review $601
Hard Costs
Hard costs for a hypothetical 2,600 square foot home are about $420 per square foot, while for a 5,000 square foot home they are about $525 per square. For a hypothetical small multi-family unit, the hard costs are $415 per square foot, and $425 per square foot for a large multi-family unit.
Soft Costs
Soft costs are generally assumed to be around 30% of hard costs (plus 5% contingency). Generally, single family soft costs are $133 per square foot for small and $147 per square foot for large.
Multifamily soft costs range between $165 and $159 per square foot.
Land Costs
According to the California Building Industry Association, the cost of land represents a substantial portion of the total housing development cost but has little impact on the maintenance and improvement of existing stock. In many markets, up to 25 percent of housing costs are attributable to land costs. The average land costs in California are significantly higher than land costs in other states.
Land costs for single family homes are between $210,000 and $2,510,000. Land costs for apartments and condos range between $400,000 and $1,600,000. Due in large part to limited land availability in the City, residential land has not been widely available for sale. High costs will continue to present challenges for the production of affordable housing in the City.
Availability of Financing
The availability of financing affects a person’s ability to purchase or improve a home. The primary concern in a review of lending activity is to see whether home financing is generally available in the community. Financing new residential development can be a significant cost; however, residential financing for both single family and multiple family housing is generally available.
Developers of single-family projects often secure loans for land acquisition, installation of improvements, and construction. Land acquisition and development loan rates are typically the prime rate plus 0.5 to 2 percent, which is currently, in 2022, between 3.99 to 5.4 percent. Mortgage rates were low for previous years but are now increasing. Apartment loan rates are generally lower. Developers of affordable housing face significant challenges in securing financing. Due to the limited possible return from rents or sales prices of affordable units, many private lenders are unable to finance affordable projects due to the rate of return. Thus, affordable developers must rely on community lending divisions, nonprofit institutions, grants and special loans, and local assistance.
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
This page was left intentionally blank.
Government Constraints ........................................................................................................................... 1 Environmental and Infrastructure Constraints ................................................................................... 27 Non-Governmental Constraints ............................................................................................................ 30 List of Tables
Table 13.5-1: 2010-2035 General Plan Land Use Designations (Residential) ..................................... 2 Table 13.5-2: Residential Development Standards ................................................................................ 5 Table 13.5-3: Parking Standards ............................................................................................................... 7 Table 13.5-4: Permitted Housing Types Within Residential Zoning Classifications ........................ 8 Table 13.5-5: Planning and Development Fees .................................................................................... 17 Table 13.5-6: Regional Comparison of Planning and Development Total Fees Per Unit .............. 18 Table 13.5-7: Planning and Permit Procedures .................................................................................... 20 Table 13.5-8: Fee Analysis Scenarios ..................................................................................................... 32 Table 13.5-9: Fee Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 32
Chapter 13.6
Housing Resources
This section analyzes the resources available for the development, rehabilitation, and preservation of housing in Santa Clara. This includes an evaluation of the availability of land resources, the City’s ability to satisfy its share of the region’s future housing needs, the financial resources available to support the provision of affordable housing, and the administrative resources available to assist in implementing the City’s housing programs.
Availability of Sites for Housing
A critical component of the Housing Element is the identification of land suitable for residential development including vacant sites and sites having the potential for redevelopment. Santa Clara is a highly urbanized community that has very little vacant, uncommitted land for new development. The following discussion summarizes the residential growth potential in each of these areas and concludes with an assessment of how these sites can address the City’s share of regional housing needs.
Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)
California General Plan law requires that every city and county have properties appropriately zoned to accommodate their fair share of regional housing need. The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) allocates a numeric regional housing goal to the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). ABAG is then mandated to distribute the numerical goal among the cities and counties in the region. This share is known as the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). The RHNA process’ goal is to ensure a fair distribution of new housing construction among cities and counties in the region so that every community may plan for a mix of housing types for all economic segments. The housing allocation targets are not building requirements; rather, they are planning goals for each community to accommodate through appropriate planning policies and land use regulations. Allocation targets are intended to ensure that adequate sites and zoning are made available to address anticipated housing demand during the Housing Element planning period.
The sixth cycle RHNA for the ABAG region covers an eight-year planning period (January 31, 2023 – January 31, 2031) and is divided into four income categories: very low, low, moderate, and above moderate. HCD determined that the projected housing need for the Bay Area region (including the counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma) is 444,176 new housing units for this Housing Element planning
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
period. As determined by ABAG, the City of Santa Clara’s allocation for the 2023-2031 planning period is 11,632 housing units, with the units distributed among the four income categories as shown in Table 13.6-1.
Table 13.6-1 City of Santa Clara RHNA 2023-2031
Income Group
Income Category
(% AMI)
RHNA
(Housing Units)
Percentage of
Total Housing
Units
Very Low <50% 2,872 25%
Low 50-80% 1,653 14%
Moderate 80-120% 1,981 17%
Above Moderate >120% 5,126 44%
Total 11,632 100%
Source(s): Final Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Plan: San Francisco Bay Area, 2023-2031, Updated March 2022.
Note(s):
1 AMI = Area Median Income
2 Pursuant to AB 2634, local jurisdictions are required to project the housing needs of extremely low-income households (0-30% AMI) and consider this income group a subset of the very low-income category. In estimating the number of extremely low-income households, a jurisdiction can use 50% of the very low-income allocation or apportion the very low-income figure based on Census data.
Progress Toward the RHNA
Since the RHNA uses June 30, 2022, as the baseline for growth projections for the 2023-2031 Housing Element planning period, jurisdictions may claim units approved and proposed that are anticipated to be complete (have a Certificate of Occupancy) after June 30, 2022.
Approved and proposed residential development projects credited toward the RHNA include a variety of affordable and market-rate projects in various stages of the development process. Most of these projects are concentrated within Specific Plan areas and along major thoroughfares, where residential development is expected to continue throughout the planning period. These projects are credited toward the RHNA based on the affordability and unit count of the development. Combined, a total of 11,94612,209 units are expected to be completed within the planning period, as shown in Table 13.6-2.
Approved Projects
Approved residential development projects credited toward the 2023-2031 RHNA have been reviewed by Planning and other City departments for compliance with applicable Codes and regulations and have received all required planning entitlement approvals. The next step for these projects is towill proceed through the building permit application review, issuance, and
construction process. All approved projects havewith anticipated completion and occupancy permits that willo be finalized on or after June 30, 2022 and before January 31, 2031.
Historically, the drop-out rate (percentage of projects that do not develop after receiving entitlements) in the City of Santa Clara has been extremely low. Rather than drop-out completely after receiving entitlements, it is more common that projects will delay the start of construction until presented with more favorable market conditions. After receiving entitlements, the primary barrier to development has, and will likely continue to be, the availability of financing/market conditions.
Pending or Proposed Projects
Six Five projects in various stages of planning review are included as proposed projects. These sites are included although there is no certainty those units will be achieved because the proposals have not been approved, are currently under staff review, or are pending a formal application submittal. The identified realistic capacity for these sites is the total units included in the preliminary proposals.
To help ensure that pending and proposed projects will complete the development process and result in new units, the City has included an additional ongoing objective under Action 10, Adequate Sites Inventory. The Planning Division will included a narrative and table within the City’s Annual Progress Report that describes the status of projects listed in Table 13.6-2, Pending and Approved Projects, and when an entitlement is nearing expiration, the Planning Division will proactively notify applicants to apply for an extension.
In Addition, the Zoning Code Update will allow administrative extensions for entitlements Development approvals are generally permitted for 2 years initially, and then two 1-year administrative extensions are allowed, which saves time and eliminates that possibility of adding conditions. The current process requires going through entitlement process again for extension.
The administrative time extension process has been added to Action 9, Zoning Ordinance.
Since there is no guarantee that the projects will be approved or developed, in the case a proposed development falls through, the sites are still available to accommodate those identified units and may be able to count toward the lower-income RHNA depending on site density and size.
Affordability for these projects is assumed based on the site’s location per Specific Plan requirements, the City’s inclusionary housing ordinance requirements, or a developer/affordable housing agreement. The status of the following projects is as of December 20222023.
As shown in Table 13.6-2 below, the total of all pending and approved projects is 12,216 209 units, which is 584 577 units more than the City’s total RHNA of 11,632 units. Because the majority of pending and approved projects fall within the above moderate affordability category (10,273 201
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
units), the City has a remaining RHNA of 4,563 498 units in the very low, low, and moderate affordability categories.
There are no known barriers to development of the pending and approved projects shown in Table 13.6-2 below within the planning period, including phasing and build out horizons and what is counted toward the RHNA. See Appendix C, Availability of Specific Plan Sites During the Planning Period for details on how the specific plan units identified in the Housing Element Sites Inventory relate to the capacity/phasing for each specific plan.
Table 13.6-2 Pending and Approved Projects
Site/Credit Type
AFFORDABILITY CATEGORIES
Project Status
(est. completion date) Affordability
Very Low
[0-50% AMI]
Low
[50-80% AMI]
Moderate
[80-120% AMI]
Above
Moderate
[above 120% AMI] Total Units
RHNA 2023-2031 2,872 1,653 1,981 5,126 11,632
Tasman East Focus Area Specific Plan (TE)
TE 2233 Calle Del Mundo (St. Anton) 37 158 - 1 196 Under ConstructionOccupied per Affordable Housing Agreement TE 2300 Calle De Luna (Related California) - - - 684 684 Under Construction per Sect. 17.40.115 of City Code: 12% affordable at 100% AMI5 TE 5123 Calle Del Sol (Ensemble) - Phase I & II - - - 503 503 Approved/Under Construction 1 per Sect. 17.40.115 of City Code: 12% affordable at 100% AMI5 TE 2200 Calle De Luna (Holland) - - 69 510 579 Approved/Under Construction per Sect. 17.40.115 of City Code: 12% affordable at 100% AMI TE 2225 Calle de Luna & 2232 Calle del Mundo -3 -5 4440 326322 370 Approved Under Construction per Sect. 17.40.115 of City Code: 12% affordable at 100% AMIAffordable Housing Agreement
TE 2263 Calle Del Mundo (Ensemble) - - - 301 301 Approved (2027) per Sect. 17.40.115 of City Code: 12% affordable at 100% AMI5 TE 2302/2310 Calle Del Mundo (Ensemble) 74 76 - 1 151 Approved /Under Construction per Affordable Housing Agreement TE 2343 Calle Del Mundo (Summerhill) - - 41 305 346 ApprovedUnder Construction per Sect. 17.40.115 of City Code: 12% affordable at 100% AMI TE 2354 Calle Del Mundo (Ensemble) - - 10 78 88 Approved (2026) per Sect. 17.40.115 of City Code: 12% affordable at 100% AMI TE 2101 Tasman Drive (Related California) - - - 950 950 Proposed per Sect. 17.40.115 of City Code: 12% affordable at 100% AMI5 TE 5185 Lafayette Street (Ensemble) - - 15 183 198 Proposed (2028) per Sect. 17.40.115 of City Code: 12% affordable at 100% AMI subtotal TE project(s) 111114 234239 179175 3,842838 4,366 Patrick Henry Drive Focus Area Specific Plan (PHD)
PHD Summerhill 16 15 15 261 307 Approved (2030) per adopted SP: 15% affordable - 5/5/5 split at 50%/80%/120% AMI PHD Sares Regis 40 40 40 680 800 Pre-application 2 per adopted SP: 15% affordable - 5/5/5 split at 50%/80%/120% AMI PHD Walnut Hill 20 20 20 353 413 Pre-application 3 per adopted SP: 15% affordable - 5/5/5 split at 50%/80%/120% AMI subtotal PHD project(s) 76 75 75 1,294 1,520 -
Lawrence Station Area Plan (LSAP)
LSAP 3580 Rambla Pl (Summerhill) - 5 48 233 286 Under Construction per Affordable Housing Agreement LSAP 2961 Corvin Drive (Toll Brothers) - - 4 34 38 Under Construction per Affordable Housing Agreement LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) - - 5 40 45 Under Construction per Affordable Housing Agreement LSAP 3517 Ryder St (Westlake Urban) - - - 328 328 Approved (2027) Exempt, no affordability component LSAP 3323 Kifer Road (Kifer Senior Apartments) 39 40 1 - 80 Under Construction per Affordable Housing Agreement subtotal LSAP project(s) -39 545 5758 635 697777 -
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Site/Credit Type
AFFORDABILITY CATEGORIES
Project Status
(est. completion date) Affordability
Very Low
[0-50% AMI]
Low
[50-80% AMI]
Moderate
[80-120% AMI]
Above
Moderate
[above 120% AMI] Total Units
Freedom Circle Focus Area
3905 Freedom Circle Mixed-Use Project (Greystar) 54 54 54 913 1,075 Approved (2030) per Affordable Housing Agreement: 15% affordable - 5/5/5 split at 50%/80%/120% AMI
subtotal FC project(s) 54 54 54 913 1,075 -
Other
1601 Civic Center Drive 106 2 108 Approved (10/2026) Pending Affordable Housing Agreement 80 Saratoga Avenue 40 158 2 200 Approved (12/2025) per Affordable Housing and Density Bonus Agreements 3575 De La Cruz Boulevard 5 8 2 15 Approved (1/2026) Pending Disposition and Development Agreement 2655 The Alameda - 3 3 33 39 Approved (1/2026) per Inclusionary Ordinance: 15% affordable at 100% AMI Villa Bella Residential Project - 4 4 48 56 Under Construction per Inclusionary Ordinance: 15% affordable at 100% AMIAffordable Housing Agreement
3035 El Camino Real Residential Project - - 4 44 48 Under Construction per Affordable Housing Agreement: 10% affordable at or below 100% AMI + 0.8 fractional in-lieu fee/distribution of affordable units - averages to a maximum of 100 percent Area Median Income 3945 Stevens Creek Blvd - The Meridian - 58 - 1 59 Under Construction per Density Bonus Agreement: 100% affordable at 80% AMI 2330 Monroe Street Affordable Housing Project (Freebird) 48 16 - 1 65 Under Construction per Affordable Housing Agreement: 100% affordable (minus 1 managers unit) - 50/50 split at V LOW/LOW
Agrihood Mixed-Use Development Project 108 55 18 144 325 Occupied/Under
ConstructionApproved 4
per Affordable Housing Agreement: 160 mixed-income apartments (10% affordable at 120% AMI (16 units)) and 165 affordable senior apartments (54 units at 30% AMI; 55 units at 50% AMI; 54 units at 60% AMI; 2 units at 120% AMI)
Laguna Clara II (Equity) - - 9 174 183 Under Construction Pending Affordable Housing Agreement: 5% affordable at 100% AMI
Gateway Crossings (Hunter/Storm) - Phase 1 - 37 36 652 725 Under Construction per Developer Agreement, Phase 1: 37 affordable units at 80% AMI + 36 affordable units at 100% AMI
Clara Gardens - 3550 El Camino Real 120 - - - 120 Under Construction Pending Affordable Housing Agreement: 100% affordable at 30-50% AMI
1530-1540 Pomeroy Avenue Residential Project 8 8 Approved (2025) no affordability component Related Santa Clara - Phase 1 - - 20 1,660 1,680 Approved (2027) per Development Area Plan: 20 affordable units (10% of 200) at 120% AMI [future phases, 50 affordable units at 120%]
Site/Credit Type
AFFORDABILITY CATEGORIES
Project Status
(est. completion date) Affordability
Very Low
[0-50% AMI]
Low
[50-80% AMI]
Moderate
[80-120% AMI]
Above
Moderate
[above 120% AMI] Total Units
Gateway Crossings (Hunter/Storm) - Phase 2 42 42 756 840 Proposed per Developer Agreement, Phase 2: affordability TBD 950 Monroe Street Mixed-Use Project - - 8 46 54 Proposed per Inclusionary Ordinance: 15% affordable at 100% AMI subtotal other project(s) 427 378381 147142 3,534521 4,486471 Total Pending and Approved Projects 668710 746794 529504 10,273201 12,216209 Remaining RHNA 2023-2031 2,204162 907 859 1,452477 (5,147075) (584577) Source(s): City of Santa Clara, April 2023.
Note(s): All calculations were rounded down. There are likely discrepancies due to rounding down between the row and column totals. Project Status “Approved” means a project has received all required Planning entitlements. 1 Phase I building permit issued 4/18/22 for 311 units; the remaining 192 units are approved. 2 Application expected early 20232024.
3 Application expected early 20232024.
4 165 unit affordable senior apartment occupied.
5Project’s affordable housing obligation consolidated into 2302 Calle Del Mundo
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Sites Inventory Methodology and Assumptions
Default Density Assumptions
The California Government Code states that if a local government has adopted density standards consistent with the population-based criteria set by State law (at least 30 units per acre for Santa Clara), HCD is obligated to accept sites with those density standards (30 units per acre or higher) as appropriate for accommodating the jurisdiction’s share of regional housing need for lowerincome households. Default density is considered by the State as sufficient to provide marketbased incentives for the development of housing for lower-income households.
The Santa Clara General Plan (adopted in 2010) identifies ten Focus Areas appropriate for higher density residential and mixed-use development. A detailed discussion of density assumptions and the affordability level of sites is included below.
Site Suitability and Lot Consolidation
Consistent with Housing Element law related to the suitability of small and large sites, the inventory of lower-income sites is limited to parcels between 0.5 and 10 acres in size. Due to the City’s historical parcelization pattern, the inclusion of small sites in the inventory is expected. To adhere to State law and HCD guidance, small sites (under 0.5 acres) are not used to meet the lower-income RHNA. There are 10 four available sites included in the inventory with a parcel size under 0.5 acres. All of these are located in the Tasman East Specific Plan area and range between 0.458 and 0.482 acres. Parcels of similar size have been developed with residential within the last housing element cycle in the Tasman East Specific Plan area. While these sites have densities that are appropriate for lower-income RHNA sites and meet the default density standard, they are all credited toward the moderate- and above moderate-income categories. No sites in the inventory are larger than 10 acres. Although many of the parcels identified as sites are adjacent to one another, no lot consolidation is assumed unless the adjacent parcels have the same owner.
Realistic Capacity and Suitability of Non-Vacant Sites
Housing Element law requires jurisdictions to demonstrate that the land inventory is adequate to accommodate that jurisdiction’s share of the region’s projected growth. Santa Clara has a remaining RHNA of 4,563 498 units to be achieved through the identification of sites. The City has various residential and mixed-use development opportunities on sites that are currently available, although all sites are non-vacant. All The majority of available sites are within Specific Plan areas. Each project within the Specific Plan areas shown in Table 13.6-3, demonstrates that
the project’s actual density was developed higher than the minimum density allowed. Because each Specific Plan has its own distinct land use designations and affordability requirements, realistic capacity for available sites was calculated based on the average of percent above minimum density allowed per Specific Plan of existing and approved projects (see Table 13.6-3).
Percent above the minimum density allowed was used to remain conservative, realistic, and to account for the wide range of Specific Plan densities allowed (from 20 du/ac in Lawrence Station to 350 du/ac maximum in Tasman East). In every case, claiming realistic capacity using the methodology and assumptions defined here yields total unit counts below the maximum density allowed.
State law also includes specific criteria for assessment of the realistic availability of non‐vacant sites during the planning period. If non-vacant sites accommodate half or more of the lowerincome 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, and in the supplemental analysis provided in Appendix C. 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 during the planning period, as confirmed during the Housing Element Update process through direct communication (letter, email, phone call) with the property owner and/or their representative.
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). RSee Appendix C, Table 13.C-2 for recent example commercial/office/industrial redevelopment to housing projects, including current/former use and housing redevelopment project details.:
1601 Civic Center Dr: 1.41-acre site with a 30,000 square foot 2-story office building (0.49 FAR) built in 1974. Approved with a 108 unit (76.6 du/ac) 100-percent affordable housing project.
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
80 Saratoga Ave: 1.98-acre site with 1-story and 2-story office buildings totaling 26,329 square feet (0.27 FAR) built in 1968. Approved with a 200 unit (101 du/ac) 100-percent affordable housing project.
3035 El Camino Real: 1.93-acre used car dealer with 1,456 square foot office (0.02 FAR) built in 1965. Approved with a 48-unit (24.9 du/ace) housing project. Currently under construction.
3550 El Camino Real: 1.12-acre site with 2-story motel in two buildings totaling approximately 29,356 square feet (0.6 FAR). Approved with 120 unit (107.1 du/ac) affordable housing project. Currently under construction. 3580 Rambla Pl: 2.57-acre site with 2 1-story industrial buildings totaling approximately 40,110 square feet (0.36 FAR). Approved with 286 units (111.3 du/ac). Currently under construction.
2233 Calle Del Mundo: 1.22-acre site with a 1-story industrial building approximately 15,910 square feet (0.3 FAR) built in 1983. Approved with a 196-unit (160 du/ac) housing project. Currently under construction.
2302 Calle Del Mundo: 0.77-acre site with a 1-story industrial building approximately 16,360 square feet (0.49 FAR) built in 1979. Approved with a 151-unit (196 du/ac) housing project. Currently under construction.
• 3323 Kifer Road: 0.53-acre site with a 1-story office building approximately 8,375 square feet (0.36 FAR) built in 1975. Approved with an 80-unit (151 d/ac) affordable senior housing project. Currently under construction.
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. This criterion is distinct from criterion 1 when a property owner (or their representative) participated in the Specific Plan planning process but did not provide direct communication to the City during the Housing Element Update process of their interest in redeveloping their site during the planning period.
6) Underutilized Residential Site. Property A non-vacant property that ishas a General Plan land use designation and/or zoninged district that allows redevelopmentfor with residential use at a higher density than the existing (typically industrial or commercial) use or property is zoned residential and existing use is non-conforming. Existing site utilization factors considered include building square footage, floor area ratio (FAR), number of stories, and if the existing use is entirely served by surface parking.
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 1987 (and therefore over 36 years of age) but is not a designated or eligible historic structure, indicating that properties may need substantial improvements or replacement for maximum financial return. 9) Lease: Site has no existing tenant lease(s) or lease(s) expires or lease(s) have buy-out clauses within in 6th cycle planning period (where known).
Development Trends and Realistic Capacity
Current development trends in the Specific Plan areas show that a range of medium to high residential density is feasible, realistic, and appropriate to accommodate housing for all income levels. Since the City’s adoption of the Lawrence Station Area Plan and Tasman East Specific Plan, Santa Clara has seen an uptick in development and development interest. The following projects, shown in Table 13.6-3, show examples of high-density development coming in well above the minimum densities.
Table 13.6-3 High-Density Projects in Specific Plan Areas Project
Name Zoning
Density
Range
(du/ac) Acres
# of
Units
Actual
Density Status
Included
in 6th
Cycle
% above
allowed
minimum
density
Tasman East Focus Area Specific Plan
TE 2233 Calle
Del Mundo (St.
Anton)1
Transit
Neighborhood
100 to
350 1.22 196 160
Under
Construction
Occupied
Yes 160%
TE 2200 Calle
De Luna
(Holland)
Transit
Neighborhood
100 to
350 2.44 579 237 Approved Yes 237%
TE 2300 Calle
De Luna
(Related CA)
Transit
Neighborhood
100 to
350 5.02 700 139 Under
Construction Yes 139%
TE 2343 Calle
Del Mundo
(Summerhill)
Transit
Neighborhood
100 to
350 2.63 347 131
ApprovedUn
der
Construction
Yes 131%
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Project
Name Zoning
Density
Range
(du/ac) Acres
# of
Units
Actual
Density Status
Included
in 6th
Cycle
% above
allowed
minimum
density
TE 2302/2310
Calle Del
Mundo
(Ensemble)1
Transit
Neighborhood
60 to
350 0.77 151 196
ApprovedUn
der
Construction
Yes 327%
TE 2354 Calle
Del Mundo
(Ensemble)
Transit
Neighborhood
60 to
350 0.50 89 178 Approved Yes 297%
TE 5123 Calle
Del Sol
(Ensemble)
Transit
Neighborhood
100 / 60
to 350
1.87 /
0.78 311 /
192
166 / 246
(avg. 206)
Under
Construction
/ Approved
Yes
166% /
410%
(avg. 288)
TE 2225 Calle
De Luna/2232
Calle Del
Mundo
Transit
Neighborhood
100 to
350 2.13 370 174 Under Construction Yes 174%
TE 2263 Calle
Del Mundo
(Ensemble)
Transit
Neighborhood
60 to
350 1.94 301 155 Approved Yes 258%
Patrick Henry Drive Focus Area Specific Plan
3000 Patrick
Henry Drive
(Summerhill)
Urban Village 100 to
149 2.518 307 122 Approved Yes 122%
2901 Patrick
Henry Drive
(Sares Regis)
Urban Village 100 to
149 6.497 800 123 PreApplication Yes 123%
4590 Patrick
Henry Drive
(Walnut Hill)
Urban Village 100 to
149 2.795 413 122 PreApplication Yes 148%
Lawrence Station Area Plan
2904 Corvin
Drive (Corvin
Supportive
Housing) 1
LSAP/Very
High Density
Residential
51 to 100 1.08 145 134
Building
Permit final
June 2022
No 263%
Project
Name Zoning
Density
Range
(du/ac) Acres
# of
Units
Actual
Density Status
Included
in 6th
Cycle
% above
allowed
minimum
density
3560 Rambla Pl
(Summerhill)
LSAP/Very
High Density
Residential
51 to 100 2.49 251 100
Building
Permit final
Sept 2021
No 196%
3578 Rambla Pl
(Summerhill)
LSAP/Very
High Density
Residential
51 to 100 1.72 126 73
Building
Permit final
March 2022
No 143%
3517 Ryder St
(Westlake
Urban)
LSAP/Very
High Density
Residential
51 to 100 3.92 328 83 Approved Yes 163%
3323 Kifer
Road (Kifer
Senior Apts.)
LSAP/Very
High Density
Residential
51 to 100 0.53 80 151 Under
Construction Yes 296%
Source(s): City of Santa Clara, 2022.
Note: 1. The TE 2233 Calle Del Mundo (St. Anton) and TE 2302/2310 Calle Del Mundo (Ensemble), and LSAP 2904 Corvin Dr (Corvin Supportive Housing) projects are 100% affordable Realistic Capacity Calculations
These sites show sufficient capacity to meet and exceed the identified housing need. A detailed listing of sites, consistent with State law, is included in the document Appendix B.
Consistent with HCD Guidelines, the following methodology for determining realistic capacity on each identified site must account for land use controls and site improvements. • Lower-density residential sites: realistic capacity for sites in land use designations that allow less than 30 units per acre is calculated at minimum density allowed. This includes the Medium Density Residential (20-36 du/ac) designation in the Lawrence Station Area Plan. The identified sites in these designations are non-vacant. Minimum density was used to calculate a more conservative realistic capacity. • El Camino Real rezoning sites: As part of the Zoning Ordinance Update process, sites along the El Camino Real corridor that have a Regional Mixed Use General Plan land use designation (37-50 du/ac) will be rezoned from their current commercial zoning to the new Regional Mixed Use (RMU) zoning district. These sites are non-vacant, and although there are examples of sites along Santa Clara’s commercial corridors, including recent examples along El Camino Real, redeveloping with residential uses at or above maximum densities, the minimum density was used to calculate a conservative realistic capacity for the El Camino Real rezoning sites. For Housing Element purposes, certain El Camino Real
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
rezoning sites have been excluded from the Housing Element Sites Inventory. See Appendix C for additional details. The El Camino Real rezoning sites are not required to accommodate a lower-income RHNA shortfall but have been included in the Sites Inventory for their contribution to the recommended RHNA buffer for lower-income units, particularly in the VLI affordability category.
• Specific Plan sites: All sites within adopted Specific Plan areas have been thoroughly vetted through City-led and community-focused planning processes. Specific Plan areas represent locations with opportunities for more intense development with limited impact on existing neighborhoods, per the City’s 2010-2035 General Plan. All available sites within the Specific Plan areas have been rezoned to reflect the uses and densities set forth in the respective Specific Plans. These sites were selected for inclusion in this inventory due to their location, existing zoning that accommodate and incentivize higher densities, and potential for housing production.
The following Specific Plan sites were excluded from the sites inventory because it was determined that they are unlikely to redevelop with residential uses within the timeframe of the Housing Element:
o Lawrence Station Area Plan
2960 – 3030 Corvin Drive (data centers)
3350 – 3420 Central Expressway (Gemini Rosemont industrial campus) o Tasman East Specific Plan
5101 Lafayette Street (data center)
2203 Tasman Drive (retail strip)
o Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan
4650 and 4700 Old Ironsides Drive (data centers)
4600 Patrick Henry Drive (Drawbridge parcel)
Each project shown in Table 13.6-3, demonstrates that the project’s actual density was developed higher than the minimum density allowed. Because each Specific Plan has its own distinct land use designations and affordability requirements, realistic capacity for available sites within the Lawrence Station Area Plan and Tasman East Focus Area Specific Plan were calculated based on the average of percent above minimum density allowed per Specific Plan of existing and approved projects (see Table 13.6-3). In every case, claiming realistic capacity using the methodology and assumptions defined here yields total unit counts below the maximum density allowed.
The following averages were used to calculate realistic capacity, per Specific Plan area:
o Lawrence Station Area Plan: minimum densities x 191%
The minimum density for the two one remaining LSAP parcels designated Very High Density Residential (VHDR) is 51 du/ac. 191% of 51 du/ac = 97.4 du/ac. The four five approved/under construction LSAP projects that are designated VHDR have actual densities ranging from 73 to 134 151 du/ac, with an average of 97.5108 du/ac. Although these approved, under construction, or occupied projects represent an average of 212% above minimum density, the previously calculated average of 191% above minimum density is used for determining a conservative realistic capacity. o Tasman East Focus Area Specific Plan: minimum densities x 215% The minimum density for the remaining Tasman East parcels designated Transit Neighborhood (TN) is either 60 du/ac (13 parcels < 1 ac) or 100 du/ac (one parcel ≥ 1 ac). 215% of 60 du/ac = 129 du/ac and 215% of 100 du/ac = 215 du/ac. The six nine approved, /under construction, or occupied Tasman East projects, including two 100% affordable projects, that are designated TN have actual densities that range from 160 131 to 196 237 du/ac. Although these approved, under construction, or occupied projects represent an average of 223% above minimum density, the previously calculated average of 215% above minimum density is used for determining a conservative realistic capacity.
o Patrick Henry Focus Area Specific Plan: maximum densities x 72% Based on Specific Plan assumptions about buildout phasing was used as there is currently only one approved project in the Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan area.
• Specific Plan Approved Residential Development Capacity:
between 10,300 and 12,000 units (Average 11,150 units)
• Specific Plan Buildout Estimate: 8,073 units (72% of 11,150) o Phase 1 (2025-2029): 5,839 units
o Phase 2 (2030-2034): 2,234 units
• Housing Element (2023-2031): 5,865 units (1,520 pending/approved + 4,345 sites)
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Ten remaining Patrick Henry Drive sites have maximum densities of 149 du/ac, one site has a maximum density of 250 du/ac, and one site has a maximum density of 99 du/ac.
72% of 149 du/ac = 107 du/ac. One approved Patrick Henry Drive project has a density of 122 du/ac (Summerhill). There are pre-applications on file for projects on two other sites that have proposed densities of 123 du/ac (Sares Regis) and 148 du/ac (Walnut Hill).
For the Lawrence Station area, the realistic capacity of the remaining sites is a total of 395 344 units (144 123 VLI, 106 91 LI, 126 111 Mod, and 19 Above Mod). See Table 13.6-5. The buildout horizon for these units falls within the 6th cycle.
For the Tasman East Specific Plan area, the realistic capacity of the remaining sites not tied to approved or proposed projects is 1,123903 units, per Table 13.6-5. When combined with the number of units already proposed or on file, the total number of units is 989 769 units greater than the total number of units approved as a part of the adoption of the Tasman East Specific Plan. The City is currently processing a Specific Plan amendment to increase the capacity of the plan area by an additional 1,500 units. That effort is recognized as Action 19, Tasman East Specific Plan Amendment in the Housing Plan. The buildout horizon for these the Housing Element portion of these additional units is 2030.
For the Patrick Henry Drive Plan area, sites totaling 4,345 units are available during the planning period. Additionally, 1,520 units have either been proposed or approved in the Patrick Henry Drive area.
Given the fact that housing in all the City’s Specific Plan areas and on the El Camino Real rezoning sites (with the adoption of the December 2023 Zoning Ordinance Amendment and spring 2024 Zoning Map Amendment) is allowed by right, the primary impediment to development of housing, according to feedback received from developers at stakeholder meetings, is the economic environment (construction and land costs) and the ability for developers to obtain financing and/or state funding (for affordable projects). Another potentially significant impediment is the provision of infrastructure, which has been addressed in the Tasman East and Patrick Henry Drive plan areas through the creation and administration of infrastructure fees for the respective areas. For the few remaining projects not yet built in the Lawrence Station Area, required infrastructure improvements will be addressed through the development review process.
Otherwise, there are no known barriers to development of the El Camino Real rezoning sites or the Specific Plan sites within the planning period, including, for the Specific Plan sites, phasing and build out horizons and what is counted toward the RHNA. See Appendix C, Availability of
Specific Plan Sites During the Planning Period for details on how the specific plan units identified in the Housing Element Sites Inventory relate to the capacity/phasing for each specific plan.
Densities Appropriate for Accommodating Lower-Income Housing The capacity of sites that allow development densities of at least 30 units per acre are credited toward the lower-income RHNA based on State law. The California Government Code states that if a local government has adopted density standards consistent with the population-based criteria set by State law (at least 30 units per acre for Santa Clara), HCD is obligated to accept sites with those density standards (30 units per acre or higher) as appropriate for accommodating the jurisdiction’s share of regional housing need for lower-income households. All available sites included in this inventory, except forthree sites zoned Medium Density Residential (20-36 du/ac), have density standards of 30 units per acre or higher. Located within the Lawrence Station Area Plan, the three sites zoned Medium Density Residential (20 – 36 du/ac) are credited toward the moderate- and above-moderate income categories.
To create a more conservative and realistic estimate of affordability for Santa Clara, available sites that qualify for one hundred percent affordable units based on the allowed density are split between the very low-, low-, and moderate-income categories 40 percent, 30 percent, and 30 percent, respectively, which roughly follows the RHNA split for those same affordability categories.
Table 13.6-4 Specific Plan Land Use Designations
Land Use Designation
Min./Max.
Density
Meets
Default
Density
Number of
Parcels
Included
in 6th
Cycle
Total
Acreage of
Available
Sites
Tasman East Focus Area Specific Plan
Transit Neighborhood
(parcels less than 1 acre) 60 to 350 Yes 1413 87.033
Transit Neighborhood
(parcels equal to or greater than 1 acre) 100 to 350 Yes 1 1.026 Tasman East Specific Plan Subtotal 1513 97.033.059
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Land Use Designation
Min./Max.
Density
Meets
Default
Density
Number of
Parcels
Included
in 6th
Cycle
Total
Acreage of
Available
Sites
Patrick Henry Drive Focus Area Specific Plan
Very High Density Residential 51 to 99 Yes 1 3.8
Village Residential 60 to 149 Yes 11 9.062
High Density Flex 60 to 149 Yes 4 9.568
Urban Village 100 to 149 Yes 5 12.986
Urban Center 120 to 250 Yes 1 3.821
Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan Subtotal 12 39.238
Lawrence Station Area Plan
Low Density Residential 8 to 19 No 0 0
Medium Density Residential 20 to 36 No 3 1.993
High Density Residential 37 to 50 Yes 0 0
Very High Density Residential 51 to 100 Yes 21 3.6714
Lawrence Station Area Plan Subtotal 54 5.663133
Source(s): Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan, March 2022. Lawrence Station Area Plan, Neighborhood Transit-Oriented Development Plan, Nov. 2016. Tasman East Focus Area Specific Plan, Nov. 2020.
Note: 1. The Patrick Henry Drive site designated Village Residential includes 26 parcels for each condominium unit and an approximately 6.8-acre common area parcel (shared parking/circulation).
Re-use of Sites
AB 1397 (2017) requires that specific parameters be placed on sites that were used in previous Housing Element planning cycles but did not develop and are identified in the current Housing Element to meet the lower-income RHNA. However, as noted in HCD guidance documents, due to updates in the prior planning period to the General Plan or other planning activities, such as the creation of a specific plan, some sites previously identified in the Housing Element may have been rezoned during intervening years to allow a higher density, thereby increasing the potential housing capacity of the site. Because the zoning characteristics of such a site have changed, that site can be considered a new site for the purposes of the housing element inventory.
All sites, apart from several of the El Camino Real Rezoning sites, in this Housing Element are Specific Plan parcels, including some previously identified in the fifth cycle. Parcels identified in the fifth cycle subsequently rezoned to a higher density through their respective Specific Plan processes were not rezoned to accommodate a shortfall; rather, the rezoning was conducted to
implement General Plan policy. Thus, no sites, except for those El Camino Real rezoning sites noted in Appendix B, are subject to the reuse provisions of AB 1397 (2017).
For Upon adoption of the Housing Element and in compliance with state law, for sites that are subject to the reuse provisions of AB 1397 (2017):, 1) nonvacant sites previously identified in the 5th Cycle Housing Element, and 2) vacant sites previously identified in both the 5th and 4th Cycle Housing Elements, the City shall allow use-by-right approval for housing developments pursuant to Government Code 65583.2(i) when 20 percent or more of the units are affordable to lower income households.
“Use-by-right” means that the City review is ministerial and therefore the project must not require a conditional use permit or other discretionary review or approval that would constitute a “project” as defined in CEQA. A local ordinance can provide that “use-by-right” does not exempt the use from design review, consistent with the City’s Zoning Ordinance requirements for design review, but the design review must be objective in accordance with Government Code 65589.5(f).
Tthe Zoning Ordinance update (Chapter 2 Housing Plan Action 9) will include a provision that any nonvacant site in the 6th Cycle Housing Element Sites Inventory that was identified in a previous (i.e., 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 rightreflects the above requirements for consistency with AB 1397 (2017).
No Net Loss Provision
Government Code Section 65863 stipulates that a jurisdiction must ensure that its Housing Element inventory can accommodate its share of the RHNA by income level throughout the 2023 to 2031 planning period. If a jurisdiction approves a housing project at a lower density or with fewer units by income category than identified in the Housing Element, it must quantify at the time of approval the remaining unmet housing need at each income level and determine whether there is sufficient capacity to meet that need. If not, the city must “identify and make available” additional adequate sites to accommodate the jurisdiction’s share of housing need by income level within 180 days of approving the reduced-density project. This provision is commonly referred to as the "no net loss” provision of Housing Element law.
Site Selection
The Housing Element sites inventory, in addition to the list of pending and approved projects, includes accessory dwelling unit (ADU) projections, underutilized sites within Specific Plan areas zoned for high-density residential and mixed-use development, and the El Camino Real rezoning sites. These latter two categories have been used to demonstrate that the RHNA for the extremely low-, very low-, low- and moderate-income categories can be accommodated during the planning
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
period. As the discussion below concludes, the sites have no identified constraints that would prevent development or reuse during the Housing Element period. Table 13.6-5 summarizes the sites inventory.
Table 13.6-5 Sites to Meet the RHNA
Site/Credit Type
Affordability Category
Total
Capacity
Lower Moderate
Above
Moderate
Very Low
[0-50%
AMI]
Low
[50-80%
AMI]
[80-120%
AMI] [> 120% AMI]
RHNA 2,872 1,653 1,981 5,126 11,632
Pending and Approved
Projects 668710 746 794 512 504 10,218201 12,144209
ADU Projection 118 118 118 39 393
Available Specific Plan Sites 2,1872,138 1,6221,586 1,9441,728 314 140 6,0675,592 Tasman East Focus Area
Specific Plan 214268 156 196 458 318 295121 1,123903
Patrick Henry Drive Focus
Area Specific Plan 1,747 1,299 1,299 - 4,345
Lawrence Station Area
Plan 144123 10691 126 111 19 395344
El Camino Real Rezoning
Sites 497319 378236 366250 - 1,242805
Total 3,3883,285 2,8032,734 2,8792,600 10,57110,380 19,64218,999 RHNA 2,872 1,653 1,981 5,126 11,632
Surplus (buffer above RHNA) 33% 4531% 106102% 6963%
Source(s): Final Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Plan: San Francisco Bay Area, 2023-2031, Updated March 2022. Technical Assistance for Local Planning, Housing – Using ADUs to Satisfy RHNA, Technical Memo, March 2022. Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan, March 2022. Lawrence Station Area Plan, Neighborhood TransitOriented Development Plan, Nov. 2016. Tasman East Focus Area Specific Plan, Nov. 2020.
Note(s): AMI = Area Median Income
ADU Projection
Since 2017, the State legislature has passed a series of laws that significantly increase the potential for the development of ADUs and Junior ADUs (JADUs) by removing development barriers, allowing ADUs through ministerial permits, and requiring jurisdictions to include programs in their housing element that incentivize ADU development. Interest in constructing ADUs is high in Santa Clara and continues to grow. In 2018, the City issued 21 ADU building permits. In 2019,
the number increased to 51 annual building permits, with similar numbers in 2020 (45 ADU building permits) and 2021 (53 ADU building permits), then increasing in 2022 to 76 ADU building permits. This represents a 262 percent increase in ADU production in Santa Clara between 2018 and 2022. The City estimates that interest will continue to increase over the next few years, given the many single-family neighborhoods citywide that create capacity for additional ADUs. As of June 2022, 53 percent (or 16,103 parcels) of total parcels were zoned for single-family housing, totaling 2,504 acres. ADUs are permitted on single-family, multi-family, and mixed-use lots, including R1, R2, and R3 zone districts, which represent a significant number of lots in Santa Clara.
As an incentive to ADU production, the City does not charge a Planning fee for review/processing ADU requests. Also, State law allows jurisdictions to charge impact fees on ADUs over 750 square feet, but the City of Santa Clara does not. The City has also exempted ADUs/JADUs from providing parking (JADUs that convert a garage space/s are required to provide replacement parking for the primary dwelling).
The slight dip in ADU production in 2020 may be due to the COVD-19 pandemic and other events of 2020. In 2022, the City had the highest number of ADU building permits to date, which is likely more representative of ADU production moving forward based on ADU trends in Santa Clara, new and pending favorable ADU legislation that created new incentives and streamlined processes to build ADUs, and the pent-up demand for additional housing in the Bay Area.
While it is impossible to predict with certainty the exact number of ADUs that will be developed during the planning period (2023-2031), the City conservatively estimates:
• An average of 49.2 ADUs per year will be constructed throughout the planning period.
This reflects the average number of building permits issued for ADUs between 2018 and 2022. Given the anticipated increase in ADUs over the near term, this is a conservative estimate.
• A total of 393 ADUs can be predicted to be constructed during the planning period.
The affordability assumptions for ADU projections are based on ABAG’s ADU affordability analysis pre-certified by HCD1.
1 ABAG estimates an affordability breakdown of ADUs as follows: 30% very low-income, 30% low-income, 30% moderate-income, and 10% above moderate-income. Technical Assistance for Local Planning, Housing – Using ADUs to Satisfy RHNA, Technical Memo, March 2022.
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
FIGURE 13.6-1 ADU PRODUCTION
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Available Specific Plan Sites
Plan Bay Area 2050 Growth Geographies
After nearly four years of technical analysis and deep engagement with Bay Area residents and partners, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and ABAG jointly adopted Plan Bay Area 2050 in October 2021. Plan Bay Area 2050 was developed in collaboration with Bay Area residents, partner agencies, and nonprofit organizations. Thirty-five strategies make up the heart of the plan to improve housing, the economy, transportation, and the environment across the Bay Area’s nine counties.
Throughout Plan Bay Area 2050, Growth Geographies are geographic areas used to guide where future growth in housing and jobs would be focused under the plan’s strategies over the next 30 years. These geographies are identified for growth either by local jurisdictions or because of their proximity to transit or access to opportunity.
All sites included in this Housing Element are considered Priority Development Areas (PDAs), defined as areas generally near existing job centers or frequent transit that are locally identified (i.e., identified by towns, cities, or counties) for housing and job growth. 2010-2035 General Plan Focus Areas, Focus Area Plans, and Related Planning Efforts
In 2010, the City of Santa Clara adopted its comprehensive 2010-2035 General Plan, which included identification of nine focus areas throughout the City, listed in Table 13.6-6. These areas were chosen for their potential to significantly define Santa Clara’s identity as a place in transition from a suburb to a regional economic center. The opportunity to develop at a higher density near transit is central to this new identity.
A comprehensive plan, such as a specific plan is a required prerequisite for new residential development within a focus area. The purpose of these plans and the prerequisite requirements ensure that new neighborhoods are self-sufficient, with easy access to retail, services, and public amenities. Specific Plans also ensure that adequate public services and facilities are provided in tandem with new development. In 2014, the City initiated updates to the Housing and Land Use Elements that identify and require future development to be comprehensively planned through the preparation of Specific Plans within the Lawrence Station and Tasman East Focus Areas.
Of the nine focus areas identified in the 2010-2035 General Plan, four have resulted in Specific Plans, three of which have been adopted. The Freedom Circle Future Focus Area was added to the General Plan in June 2022, while preparation of this sixth cycle Housing Element was well underway. A specific plan has not been drafted or adopted for this future focus area, and therefore the future focus area, with the exception of the Greystar site that had its own approved General Plan Amendment and Rezoning to allow residential development, was not included in
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
the sites inventory. However, properties within that planning area could become available during the planning period if a specific plan were adopted, helping to guard against the loss of affordable housing capacity.
Table 13.6-6 2010-2035 General Plan Focus Areas
2010-2035 General Plan
Focus Area
Related Planning Effort Status
Existing
Downtown Focus Area Santa Clara Downtown Precise
Plan
DraftAdopted, Nov.
2022Dec. 2023
Santa Clara Station Focus Area None
Stevens Creek Boulevard Focus Area None
El Camino Real Focus Area El Camino Real Specific Plan Draft, May 2021 Lawrence Station Focus Area Lawrence Station Area Plan Adopted, Nov. 2016 Tasman East Focus Area Tasman East Focus Area Specific
Plan
Adopted, Nov. 2018;
Revised, Nov. 2020
Great America Parkway Focus Area Patrick Henry Drive Focus Area Specific Plan
Adopted, Mar. 2022
Freedom Circle Focus Area Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan Adopted, June 2022 Future
Central Expressway Focus Area None
De La Cruz Focus Area None
Source(s): City of Santa Clara 2010-2035 General Plan, Nov. 2010. Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan, March 2022. Lawrence Station Area Plan, Neighborhood Transit-Oriented Development Plan, Nov. 2016. Tasman East Focus Area Specific Plan, Nov. 2020.
Mixed-Use Developments
Although opportunities for residential and mixed-use development exist throughout Santa Clara based on existing General Plan land use policy and implementing zoning, along major corridors such as along El Camino Real, the City has focused the sites inventory in areas where development of residential uses is most likely to occur within the Housing Element planning period. This is due to development standards allowing very high densities, developer interest in residential development within Specific Plan areas, site size and location (near transit, major corridors, and highways), and recent development trends in the immediate and surrounding areas. The inclusion of nonresidential uses within mixed-use developments complements a transit-oriented neighborhood and will not affect the potential capacity on site because all available sites have minimum density requirements.
Most parcels included in this sixth cycle sites inventory have zoning that allows nonresidential uses in the form of mixed-use developments. Only one land use designation/zone district allows
stand-alone nonresidential development.2 This land use policy illustrates the City’s commitment to incentivizing mixed-use districts and higher-density, transit-oriented residential development that addresses many goals: meeting the region’s housing needs, encouraging housing near employment centers, increasing transit usage, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Specific Plans
A considerable portion of Santa Clara is designated for specific plan development. The City has three approved Specific Plans with a significant number of sites and residential development capacity remaining. Combined, the sites identified in the Lawrence Station, Tasman East, and Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan areas have enough capacity to satisfy the outstanding RHNA (i.e., the remaining RHNA after pending and proposed projects, and ADUs). The Specific Plan areas provide opportunities for development of market-rate and affordable housing.
Development types authorized by the approved Specific Plans include multi-unit and mixed-use development. None of the listed Specific Plan areas have any site restrictions or governmental constraints that would impede development. Table 13.6-4 provides an overview of the City’s Specific Plan densities. Further detail is provided in the following sections.
The Specific Plan sites have a high level of certainty to develop given that:
• Through the adoption and implementation of each City-initiated Specific Plan, all parcels within each area have been re-zoned to accommodate high density residential development.
• Specific parameters for densities, uses, development standards, and minimum affordability requirements have already been established. • No recent, significant enhancements have been made to these sites. • Infrastructure is either in place, or planned for, in support of proposed land uses, addressing transportation, wet utilities, solid waste management, and energy services and systems. For both the Tasman East and Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plans, an infrastructure fee has been created to apportion costs between developers in the Plan Areas.
• Redevelopment of nonresidential uses into high density residential and mixed-use has already occurred, illustrating developer and property owner interest and the financial feasibility of site redevelopment.
• All land use designations within the Specific Plan areas have established minimum densities.
2 Only one land use designation/zone district, in the Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan area, allows stand-alone nonresidential development. See section “Specific Plan Sites” for additional detail.
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
• No land use designation in the Tasman East Specific Plan or Lawrence Station Area Plan areas allows for stand-alone nonresidential uses.
• The City has financial resources available to support the development of affordable housing.
Affordability Requirements
• Tasman East Focus Area Specific Plan. All development in the Tasman East Focus Area Specific Plan area adheres to the affordable housing requirements referenced in Section
17.40.115 of the Santa Clara City Code. For-sale and rental affordable units shall be maintained as affordable housing for not less than 20 years applicable to for-sale units and 55 years applicable to rental units. Section 17.40.115 requires that 12% of total housing units be affordable.
• Patrick Henry Focus Area Specific Plan. In recognition of the conversion of employment uses to residential land, the Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan calls for a deeper level of affordability than is required by the Citywide Affordable Housing ordinance. Affordable housing requirements for the Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan are referenced in Section
17.40.116 of the Santa Clara City Code. Developments will provide 15 percent affordable units split equally between three affordability levels of 50 percent, 80 percent, and 120 percent of Area Median Income (AMI).
• Lawrence Station Area Plan. Projects must comply with the City’s inclusionary ordinance in the Lawrence Station Area Plan area. There are some projects already developed that did not require affordable units, because the Lawrence Station Area Plan was adopted before the City’s inclusionary ordinance.
• Citywide Affordable Housing Requirements. Effective February 2018, the City’s inclusionary housing ordinance (Title 17, Chapter 17.40 Citywide Affordable Housing Requirements) requires residential ownership and rental projects of ten (10) or more units to provide at least fifteen percent (15%) of the units at affordable housing costs for extremely low, very low, low and moderate income households, or some combination of those income categories. A developer shall select income categories for each of the affordable units such that the average income of purchasers will not exceed 100 percent of AMI.
• Affordability by Design. Additionally, affordability by design in Specific Plan areas is encouraged, with the development of smaller units targeted for those who desire a walkable, urban lifestyle.
• General Plan. The General Plan also outlines other Affordable Housing incentives including encouraging and supporting public and private efforts to provide affordable
housing, density bonuses and other financial incentives for housing projects that include affordable and/or senior housing units, consistent with State law requirements.
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
FIGURE 13.6-1 2 SITES INVENTORY
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Tasman East Focus Area Specific Plan
Adopted in November 2018, the Tasman East Specific Plan regulates the development of 46.1 acres of land located near the City’s northern boundary. Approved for the development of 4,500 units, full buildout of the area will likelythe 4,366 pending and approved units listed in 13.6-2 are expected to be completed occur by 20382028. A pending amendment to the Specific Plan (Action 19) will allow an additional 1,500 units, with 903 units estimated to be completed by 2030. The Specific Plan area includes 34 parcels situated east of Lafayette Street, north of Tasman Drive, west of the Guadalupe River Trail, and south of the Santa Clara Tennis and Golf Club property.
Each parcel of one acre or more in size is required to accommodate a minimum density of 100 dwelling units per acre. Each parcel of less than one acre in size is required to achieve a minimum density of 60 dwelling units per acre. There are no density maximums for individual parcels.
Approximately half of the Tasman East Specific Plan’s parcels have either been re-developed or have projects with active applications, or are already under construction, or are recently occupied. This area is transitioning from a mix of low-intensity light industrial and business park uses to a high density residential neighborhood with a mix of uses at the ground floor.
Eleven projects on 18 parcels within the Specific Plan area were counted toward the sixth cycle RHNA as approved, proposed, or under construction. Fifteen Fourteen remaining parcels, on approximately 8 acres, have been identified as sites and remain to be re-developed. Not Viable sites were identified and excluded based on existing uses. Assuming realistic capacity, on a parcel-level, the Tasman East Focus Area Specific Plan sites identified in this Housing Element can accommodate a total of 1,123903 units (see Table 13.6-5). Appendix B provides a detailed list of all sites, including assumed affordability. Appendix C includes supplemental analysis of the sites inventory, including the availability of specific plan sites during the planning period and suitability of nonvacant sites.
There are no City-specified buildout horizons that would prevent the 9 remaining sites fifteen remaining(13 parcels) from being developed in this Housing Element cycle. Action 19 of the Housing Element, Tasman East Specific Plan Amendment will remove impediments from developing the remaining sites by creating additional capacity and providing streamlined environmental clearance through tiering for the 1,123 units recognized in for Tasman East in the sites inventory.
FIGURE 13.6-2 3 TASMAN EAST LAND USE DIAGRAM
FIGURE 13.6-3 4 TASMAN EAST SITES
Not Included on Inventory
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Patrick Henry Drive Focus Area Specific Plan
In March 2022, the City Council approved the Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan. The planning area encompasses approximately 73.59 acres bounded by Sunnyvale and Calabazas Creek to the west, the southern edge of San Francisco Public Utilities Commission right-of-way to the north, Great America Parkway to the east, and Mission College to the south. As one of the City’s first high-density residential neighborhoods, Patrick Henry Drive will add thousands of units to better balance the City’s jobs-housing ratio, a share of which will be income restricted to help meet regional and local affordability goals. Several regional destinations and amenities are nearby, including Levi’s Stadium, Great America Theme Park, and the Santa Clara Convention Center.
The VTA light rail station at Old Ironsides and Tasman Drive is just over one-half mile, or an approximately 10-minute walk, from the center of the Specific Plan area.
The Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan resulted from a collaborative planning effort involving the City, area property owners, and the Santa Clara community. The plan will create a 73.59-acre high-density, residential neighborhood located near regional destinations, including job-centers, transit, and other amenities. At buildout, the project will accommodate up to 12,000 new residential dwelling units and 310,000 square feet of nonresidential uses, including 200,000 square feet of new neighborhood-serving retail and public facilities, such as libraries and community spaces. New and improved pedestrian and bicycle connections, trails, and parks will link neighborhoods and enhance connections to nearby amenities and recreation destinations. Careful planning will ensure adequate infrastructure and services to support the proposed new development. Targeted residential densities range from a minimum of 51 dwelling units per acre to a maximum of 250 units per acre. These densities will help meet the demand for housing that addresses job and retail growth in the City and region.
Three projects within the Specific Plan area were counted toward the sixth cycle RHNA as approved, proposed, or under construction. Twelve remaining parcels, on approximately 39.24 acres, have been identified as sites and remain to be re-developed. Not Viable sites were identified and excluded based on existing uses. Assuming realistic capacity, on a parcel-level, the Patrick Henry Drive Focus Area Specific Plan sites identified in this Housing Element can accommodate a total of 5,865 units (see Table 13.6-5). Appendix B provides a detailed list of all sites, including assumed affordability. Appendix C provides supplemental sites inventory analysis including the availability of specific plan sites during the planning period and suitability of nonvacant sites.
There are no regulatory constraints or City-specified buildout horizons that would prevent the twelve remaining parcels from being developed in this Housing Element cycle. Sites that are unlikely to be developed in this Housing Element cycle have not been included and are shown in the Patrick Henry Drive plan as being in a later build-out horizon. As a result of the adoption of the Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan and the associated program EIR, regulatory impediments
to the development of those sites have been removed via a streamlined by-right approval process that includes CEQA tiering.
High Density Flex
Only one land use designation in the Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan area allows for standalone nonresidential uses: High Density Flex. Six parcels are zoned High Density Flex, two of which were excluded because they are small sites and publicly owned utility parcels, owned by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) and the City of Santa Clara. APNs 104- 04-130 and 104-04-072, respectively.
In the event that any of the four High Density Flex sites (totaling 9.6 total acres) develop with nonresidential uses only, the City will quantify at the time of approval the remaining unmet housing need at each income level and per law, identify and make available adequate sites to accommodate the RHNA by income level within 180 days of approving any such reduced-density project.
FIGURE 13.6-4 5 PATRICK HENRY DRIVE LAND USE DIAGRAM
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
FIGURE 13.6-5 6 PATRICK HENRY DRIVE SITES
Not Included on Inventory
Lawrence Station Area Plan
The Santa Clara Lawrence Station Area Plan Area is located northeast of the Lawrence Caltrain Station, bounded by Central Expressway to the north, Kifer Road to the South, Lawrence Expressway to the west, and Calabazas Creek to the east, encompassing approximately 72 acres (65 acres of developable land area excluding existing public right-of-way). Adopted in 2016, the Lawrence Station Area Plan is largely developed and was originally approved for the development of 3,500 units. Residential uses have replaced the areas original uses: one- and twostory buildings, generally occupied by light industrial (including manufacturing and warehousing uses), office, and various other commercial uses.
Four Five projects within the Specific Plan area were counted toward the sixth cycle RHNA as approved, proposed, or under construction. Five Four remaining parcels, on approximately 5.7 13 acres, have been identified as sites and remain to be re-developed. There are no regulatory constraints or City-specified buildout horizons that would prevent those parcels from being developed in this Housing Element cycle. As a result of the adoption of the Lawrence Station Area Plan and the associated program EIR, regulatory impediments to the development of those sites have been removed via a streamlined by-right approval process that includes CEQA tiering.
Not Viable sites were identified and excluded based on existing uses. Assuming realistic capacity, on a parcel-level, the Lawrence Station Area Plan sites identified in this Housing Element can accommodate a total of 395 344 units (see Table 13.6-5). Appendix B provides a detailed list of all sites, including assumed affordability. Appendix C provides supplemental sites inventory analysis, including the availability of specific plan sites during the planning period and suitability of nonvacant sites.
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
FIGURE 13.6-6 7 LAWRENCE STATION LAND USE DIAGRAM
FIGURE 13.6-7 8 LAWRENCE STATION SITES
Not Included on Inventory
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Availability of Sites for Housing .............................................................................................................. 1 Sites Inventory Methodology and Assumptions ................................................................................... 8 Site Selection ............................................................................................................................................. 19 List of Tables
Table 13.6-1 City of Santa Clara RHNA 2023-2031 ................................................................................ 2 Table 13.6-2 Pending and Approved Projects ........................................................................................ 5 Table 13.6-3 High-Density Projects in Specific Plan Areas................................................................. 11 Table 13.6-4 Specific Plan Land Use Designations .............................................................................. 17 Table 13.6-5 Sites to Meet the RHNA .................................................................................................... 20 Table 13.6-6 2010-2035 General Plan Focus Areas ............................................................................... 26 List of Figures
FIGURE 13.6-1 ADU Production ........................................................................................................... 21 FIGURE 13.6-2 Sites Inventory ............................................................................................................. 308 FIGURE 13.6-2 3 Tasman East Land Use Diagram .............................................................................. 33 FIGURE 13.6-3 4 Tasman East Sites ....................................................................................................... 31 FIGURE 13.6-4 5 Patrick Henry Land Use Diagram ........................................................................... 33 FIGURE 13.6-5 6 Patrick Henry Sites .................................................................................................... 34 FIGURE 13.6-6 7 Lawrence Station Land Use Diagram ..................................................................... 37 FIGURE 13.6-7 8 Lawrence Station Sites ............................................................................................... 38
Chapter 13.7
Housing Element Program Accomplishments
This chapter analyzes program performance for the City of Santa Clara’s 2015-2023 Housing Element programs. State law (California Government Code Section 65588[a]) requires each jurisdiction to review its Housing Element as frequently as appropriate and evaluate:
• The appropriateness of the housing goals, objectives, and policies in contributing to the attainment of the state housing goals • The effectiveness of the Housing Element in attainment of the community’s housing goals and objectives • Progress in implementation of the Housing Element
This evaluation provides critical information on the extent to which programs have achieved stated objectives and whether these programs continue to be relevant to addressing current and future housing needs in Santa Clara. The evaluation provides the basis for recommended modifications to policies and programs and the establishment of new housing objectives. The Department of Housing and Community Development determined that the Santa Clara 2015-2023 Housing Element was in full compliance with State law.
Following adoption in 2015, the City was tasked with following through on the commitments made in the housing programs. The City has analyzed the effectiveness of the 5th cycle Housing Plan actions, policies, and goals and has used this evaluation to inform the revised Housing Plan for the 6th cycle. While the fair housing analysis conducted in Chapter 3 relied upon contemporary data, the retroactive analysis of past program accomplishments depended on data points collected during program actions that, in some cases, did not align directly with the data points collected during the fair housing analysis conducted for the 6th cycle.
Specific attention was given in the evaluation of the cumulative effectiveness of past goals, policies, and related actions in meeting the housing needs of special populations. In cases where data was not available, institutional knowledge and staff interviews were used to provide context for the program evaluation. Generally, the effectiveness of the action was evaluated in terms of the:
• number of individuals served
• cost of the program/action based on the benefit to the individual served • availability of funding and resources
• efficiency and effectiveness of the program partners and service providers
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
• the ability to satisfy expressed AFFH requirements in the next cycle.
Overall, the programs that targeted households showed that services were provided to a number of special needs households such as the elderly, persons with disabilities, female-headed households, and persons experiencing homelessness. Indirectly, the jurisdiction made efforts to increase affordability via policies supporting varied types and tenures and increase the affordable housing stock that generally improved the availability of housing that variably resulted in serving special needs households. Although no specific data points exist for some of the 5th cycle programs, it is expected that the populations served under many of the direct service actions align with those programs that did collect data, as shown in the matrix below. Overcrowded households were not identified in the 5th cycle as a targeted demographic for specific action, nor was farmworker housing as there are no active farms in the City of Santa Clara and no Agricultural Land Use Designations beyond the allowed use of community or urban gardens. However, during community engagement, an effort was made to identify farmworker populations that could be commuting to other jurisdictions or retired farmworkers that would be eligible for farmworker housing.
Anecdotally and statistically, we know that overcrowding is increasing due to affordability pressures on all households and the most vulnerable special needs populations will require additional attention beyond tenant protections. Therefore, many of the new program goals, policies, and actions are informed not only by the 5th cycle evaluation but the fair housing assessment and community input collected during the authoring of the Housing Element. Further, the City participated in a regional Assessment of Fair Housing process led by Santa Clara County -during the development of this document and facilitated a local homelessness taskforce and outreach process in 2022. Analyzing the cumulative effectiveness of the 5th cycle Housing Plan actions, policies, and goals in conjunction with the additional analyses conducted in this document along with community engagement, has provided clarity and focus on the development of the 6th cycle Housing Plan.
Following the evaluation table, the quantified objective performance is summarized. For the next cycle, 2023-2031 the Actions have been reprioritized and will be reordered based on the updated goals, policies, and the integration of HCD’s new Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing requirements.
5th Cycle Housing Plan
Table 13.7-1: Goals and Policies
Goal A: Create and maintain high-quality, livable, and unique residential neighborhoods and preserve established single-family neighborhoods.
Policy A-1 Maintain and improve the quality of residential neighborhoods, eliminate housing deficiencies and prevent future blight through the encouragement of ongoing maintenance, rehabilitation and conservation of existing housing stock.
Policy A-2 Provide code enforcement support for residential neighborhoods in conformance with City Code and Zoning Ordinance regulations.
Policy A-3 Promote compatibility between neighborhoods while respecting differences in neighborhood character.
Policy A-4 Promote consensus with City Design Guidelines.
Goal B: Manage growth in the City by designating suitable vacant or underutilized sites for new residential development and ensuring compatibility with community goals and existing neighborhoods.
Policy B-1 Disperse affordable housing units throughout the City to avoid a concentration in any one neighborhood.
Policy B-2 Encourage the building of higher density housing on appropriate vacant or underutilized sites.
Policy B-3 Encourage the annual construction of the number of housing units necessary to meet the City’s regional housing needs determination through housing finance and reducing development constraints.
Policy B-4 Promote compatibility between neighborhoods while respecting differences in neighborhood character.
Policy B-5 Work towards the mitigation of jobs/housing ratio impacts created by developments with significant employment.
Policy B-6 Encourage higher density residential development in transit-oriented and mixed-use areas where appropriate.
Policy B-7 Encourage a mix of unit types and sizes in new housing development.
Goal C Provide housing within the community for persons of all economic levels, regardless of religion, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry, familial status, source of income, or mental or physical disability.
Policy C-1 Construct and preserve affordable housing for lower and moderate-income households through the use of public subsidies, regulatory incentives and flexible development standards.
Policy C-2 Participate in local, regional, State and federal programs that support affordable, transitional, supportive and permanent housing.
Policy C-3 Create opportunities for affordable housing and housing to support special needs populations and extremely low-income households.
Policy C-4 Ensure equitable housing opportunities for all residents.
Goal D Provide an adequate variety of individual choices of housing tenure, type and location, including higher density where possible, especially for low and moderate income and special needs households.
Policy D-1 Promote a variety of housing types, indifferent locations to maintain social and economic diversity in the City.
Policy D-2 Participate in programs that provide support services to residents in need.
Policy D-3 Increase public outreach efforts to inform residents and potential developers of available City housing programs.
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Table 13.7-1: Goals and Policies
Policy D-4 Encourage early participation from residents and other stakeholders in development of long-range plans and review of new development proposals.
Policy D-5 Ensure compliance with all State and federal regulations relating to housing opportunities and the prevention of discrimination.
Source(s): City of Santa Clara, 2022
Table 13.7-2: Actions and Objectives
Action Program Title & Objective Achievements/Results Evaluation Recommendation Action 1 Neighborhood Conservation Improvement
Program (NCIP). Assist approximately 424
homeowners with rehabilitation assistance,
including approximately 160 extremely
low-income households (ELI). Continue to
conduct inspections of homes on a request
and complaint basis, providing referrals to
the NCIP and assistance where possible to
correct identified issues and problems.
Policy A-1
2022: The City increased funding for smaller grant
funded projects that address accessibility and
minor repairs.
2018-21: The Housing and Community Services
division increased funding for this program
(approximately $1 million annually) to assist more
low-income and senior homeowners to improve
the habitability, use and occupancy of owneroccupied housing. 2017: A NCIP Procedure Manual was updated
and approved by the Loan Committee.
2015-16: An NCIP Procedural Manual is annually
updated and approved by the Loan Committee.
Since 2014,
the program
has assisted
over 121
low-income
households
of which 53
were
seniors, and
37 were
female
headed
households,
and 11 were
disabled.
Continue to offer
these services,
every two years
the City could
conduct
proactive
outreach to lowincome
homeowners
who are elderly,
have disabilities,
or have large
households.
Renumbered and
Renamed to
Action 4:
Maintenance of
Housing Stock
Action 2 Preservation of Assisted Rental Housing.
Continue to assist property owners of
assisted housing by providing funding to
make periodic improvements to the
property, if available. Such assistance helps
the project maintain its affordability.
Since 2014 the city has assisted with the
preservation of Riverwood Place (146 units)
by restructuring an existing City loan to
allow for improvements and to extend
affordability by 18 years. The City also
helped preserve the 42-unit Westwood
Both
projects
serve lower
income
families
Continue to
explore ways to
preserve housing
that serves a
variety of groups
pending
Table 13.7-2: Actions and Objectives
Action Program Title & Objective Achievements/Results Evaluation Recommendation Continue to monitor at risk project by
maintaining contact with the property
owner annually regarding long term plans
for the project.
Establish contact with public and nonprofit
agencies interested in purchasing and/or
managing units at risk. As necessary and
feasible, the City will provide financial and
technical assistance to these organizations.
Provide tenant education on Section 8
rental subsidies and other available
assistance through City and County
agencies as well as nonprofit
organizations. Notify tenants at least one
year in advance of potential conversion to
market rate housing. Provide information
regarding tenant rights and conversion
procedures.
Policy B-1, Policy C-1, Policy C-2, Policy C3, Policy D-1 Ambassador complex by restructuring our
existing loan to allow for rehabilitation and to
extend affordability by 27 years.
available CDBG
and PHLA
capital funding,
housing
vouchers,
funding for
supportive
services, and the
interest of
property owners
to collaborate.
Renumbered to
Action 5
Action 3 Acquisition of Multi-Family Housing.
Annually explore funding sources
available at the regional, State, and federal
levels to support acquisition/rehabilitation
opportunities.
Work with nonprofit entities to
acquire and rehabilitate existing multifamily structures to be maintained as affordable rental housing.
Seek opportunities to identify and
purchase deteriorated residential
properties during depressed rental
Multi-Family Housing Acquisition and
Rehabilitation Status:
2018-21: The City seeks opportunities to occupy
deteriorated properties that, during times of
depressed rental markets, cannot raise sufficient
capital to rehabilitate. This is an active City
program; however, market conditions have not
provided compelling opportunities. In the
meantime, the Housing and Community Services
Division has launched a multi-family energy
focused rehabilitation incentive for affordable
The City is
not well
positioned
to regularly
compete for
land on the
open
market.
Continue to
coordinate with
affordable
housing
developers and
to explore and
prioritize sites for
possible funding
assistance from
the City.
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Table 13.7-2: Actions and Objectives
Action Program Title & Objective Achievements/Results Evaluation Recommendation markets, rehabilitate units, and convert
from market rate to affordable levels.
Policy B-1, Policy C-1, Policy C-2, Policy C3, Policy D-1 projects in Santa Clara, with three projects
currently in the pipeline.
2019-20: The City of Santa Clara has worked with
Riverwood Place Associates, L.P. (MidPen
Housing Corporation) to extend the affordable
housing requirements for 148 rental units within
the project located at 5090 Lick Mill Boulevard.
MidPen approached the City of Santa Clara with a
proposal to fund a solar panel installation as solar
provides a great opportunity for long-term
sustainability and cost savings. The estimated
capital cost was estimated to be around $680,000.
MidPen Housing also proposed, as part of the
financing strategy, to modify the terms of the
City’s existing Promissory Note. Whereas the
original Promissory Note entitled the City to 75%
of residual cash flow receipts, the proposed
modification would entail a conventional 50/50
split of residual receipts between the City and
MidPen. In exchange for the requested
modification, the City requested to increase the
interest rate to 2% from the original 0% and to
extend the affordability covenants maturity date
from March 14, 2056 to March 14, 2074, thereby
preserving 148 studio apartments serving special
needs adults for an additional 18 years.
2015-17: The City seeks opportunities to occupy
deteriorated properties that, during times of
depressed rental markets, cannot raise sufficient
capital to rehabilitate. This is an active City
program. These units are then converted to
affordable units.
Renumbered to
Action 6
Table 13.7-2: Actions and Objectives
Action Program Title & Objective Achievements/Results Evaluation Recommendation Action 4 Code Enforcement Program -
Continue the multi-family residential
housing inspection and educational
programs.
Aggressively respond to violations of
housing codes.
Provide special attention to
maintaining the stability of residential
neighborhoods through development and
enforcement of minimum standards of
allowed use of the City’s streets, as well as
maintenance of front and other yard areas
visible from the public right-of-way.
Policy A-1, Policy A-2, Policy A-3, Policy
A-4
City has three full time code enforcement
technicians and one building inspector dedicated
to code enforcement. Program has been successful
in removing blight and substandard housing.
On-going Continue with
modification to
expand
Inspection and
Code
Enforcement
Program to
include
proactive Multifamily
Residential
Housing
inspections and
educational
programs in a
regular cycle,
which is beyond
the current
program that
solely responds
to code
enforcement
complaints
Renumbered to
Action 7
Action 5 Neighborhood University Relations
Program.
Improve the maintenance of studentoccupied homes and behavior of the occupants to minimize impacts on the
Improve Relationship between Santa Clara
University Students and other city residents in
neighborhoods adjacent to SCU 2015-17 Status:
The Planning Division and Police Department
continue cooperation and giving attention to this
On-going;
SCU now
requires
freshman
and
sophomore
Continue, as is
Renumbered to
Action 8
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Table 13.7-2: Actions and Objectives
Action Program Title & Objective Achievements/Results Evaluation Recommendation neighborhood surrounding Santa Clara
University (SCU).
Enhance code enforcement and special
Police patrols to address the problems in
the area.
Continue to hold meetings three times per
year with student tenants, landlords, SCU,
residents and the City to allow
opportunities for stakeholders to
discuss neighborhood issues and concerns.
Continue to work with neighbors
(residents, businesses, and institutions
such as Santa Clara University) to ensure
that development is compatible with
existing neighborhoods and that neighbors
are satisfied with the design, density, and
parking requirements of projects.
Policy A-1, Policy A-2, Policy A-3, Policy
A-4
area. Meetings of all parties involved occur at
least monthly.
students to
live on
campus,
with some
exceptions
Action 6 Zoning Ordinance.
Complete the comprehensive update to the
Zoning Ordinance by mid-2016.
Continue to monitor the Zoning Ordinance
for any potential constraints to the
development of housing, particularly
housing for persons with special needs
(including those with developmental
disabilities) and amend the Zoning
Ordinance as necessary.
Policy A-3, Policy A-4, Policy B-2, Policy C1, Policy C-2, Policy C-3, Policy C-4, Policy D-1, Policy D-5
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Update 2015-
22 Status: The City is continuing to work on the
comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Update,
including the creation of more flexible mixed-use
zoning districts that will be applied in the City's
Focus Areas, including El Camino, Tasman East
and Freedom Circle/Patrick Henry Drive.
The City has
updated the
zoning
ordinance as
the Specific
Plans have
been
adopted.
The City is
currently
updated the
Zoning
Ordinance
Continue, as is
Renumbered to
Action 9
Table 13.7-2: Actions and Objectives
Action Program Title & Objective Achievements/Results Evaluation Recommendation with an
anticipated
completion
in 1Q2023.
Action 7 Adequate Sites Inventory.
Maintain an inventory of housing sites
appropriate for a range of income levels
and housing types, including supportive
housing for persons with disabilities and
developmental disabilities.
Provide information and technical
assistance on Federal and State funding
sources or referrals to appropriate
agencies.
Disperse and monitor the location of
affordable units in various areas of the
City.
Review housing sites inventory at time of
development proposal to determine
consistency with proposed density and
assumed density in Housing Element.
Maintain a zero net loss of units identified
in the opportunity sites inventory of this
Housing Element. If the assumed density
is not entitled, a finding must be made that
the displaced units can be redistributed to
other opportunity sites.
Encourage developments that are transitbased or in close proximity to transit when determining City affordable housing
funding decision priorities.
Identify Housing Sites (including TOD and Mixed
Use) in General Plan. Status: Sites were identified
in the General Plan and new housing has been
approved and built-in areas designated for mixed
use, including El Camino Real. The underutilized
sites inventory is used during consultations with
prospective developers.
On-going;
Lawrence
Station,
Tasman East
and Patrick
Henry Drive
specific
plans
approved
Continue, with
modification
Renumbered to
Action 10
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Table 13.7-2: Actions and Objectives
Action Program Title & Objective Achievements/Results Evaluation Recommendation Encourage Mixed Use development where
appropriate to provide increased
opportunities for housing development.
Notify owners of mixed use designated
sites through an outreach/marketing
program.
Policy B-1, Policy B-2, Policy B-3, Policy B5, Policy B-6, Policy B-7, Policy C-1, Policy C-3, Policy D-1, Policy D-3, Policy D-4
Action 8 Lot Consolidation.
Provide technical assistance regarding the
lot consolidation process to interested
parties.
Provide the sites inventory to interested
developers and assist in identifying sites
with lot consolidation potential.
Process lot consolidation applications
concurrently with other applications for
development.
Policy B-2, Policy B-3, Policy C-1, Policy D1
Consolidate lots for development 2015-17 Status:
The City has been processing parcel maps and lot
mergers to create larger, more easily developable
sites, primarily occurring in the El Camino Real
PDA.
This process
has been
successful
when
applied
strategically
Discontinue
Action 9 Impact Fees.
Assess if impact fees are constraining
development or providing a competitive
edge for the City. If City fees deviate
significantly from those charged by
comparable communities, take actions to
adjust fees as appropriate.
Policy B-2, Policy B-3, B-5, B-6, B-7, Policy
C-3, Policy D-1
Explore Residential and Commercial Nexus
Studies Status:
2017: The City completed both a residential and
non-residential nexus study and has adopted
residential and non-residential impact fees.
2016: The City has commissioned both a
residential and non-residential nexus study and is
currently doing outreach with stakeholders and
the wider community.
The nexus
studies have
informed
the Zoning
Ordinance
update
Continue
Renumbered to
Action 11
Table 13.7-2: Actions and Objectives
Action Program Title & Objective Achievements/Results Evaluation Recommendation 2015: Studies have been required as part of
environmental review of new employmentrelated developments, but conditioning and funding have only been accomplished where
there were negotiations for a related Development
Agreement.
Action 10 Provision of a Variety of Housing Types.
Promote the construction of accessory
units to increase the type and size of the
City’s housing stock, with an objective of
25 units per year or 200 units over eight
years.
As part of the comprehensive Zoning
Ordinance update (to be completed by
mid-2016), reconsider, and revise if
appropriate, requirements for accessory
units.
Conduct an ongoing promotional
program, including mailings to owners of
single-family properties with adequate size
for accessory living units.
Support development of low-income
housing alternatives, such as single-room
occupancy (SRO) units, senior housing,
family housing, housing for persons with
disabilities (including developmental
disabilities) etc.
Encourage affordable, compatible one- and
two-story additions for upgrading singlefamily homes.
Fund Alternative Affordable Housing Types 2017-
21 Status: The City is partnering with the
County’s Office of Supportive Housing to increase
the supply of housing that is affordable and
available to extremely low income and/or special
needs households in the City through the use of
funds from the 2016 Measure An Affordable
Housing Bond. There are four active projects in
the pipeline that total over 400 units. 165 of those
units are for seniors, 134 of those units are setaside for formerly homeless households, 15 units are set-aside for individuals who are disabled or
have development disabilities, and 13 units are
homeownership units.
Encourage One- and Two-Story Additions 2015-21
Status: Almost 100% of proposed additions are
approved, subject to Architectural Review, were
consistent with zoning district standards.
Modifications are typically approved for reduced
rear yard for single story additions.
Expand very low and extremely low-income units
by following types of developments 2015-17
Status: SRO units, Senior Housing, Family
Housing, etc. Support can be in the form of City
This
program has
been
successful in
increasing
housing
types
Continue, as is
Renumbered to
Action 1
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Table 13.7-2: Actions and Objectives
Action Program Title & Objective Achievements/Results Evaluation Recommendation Provide increased flexibility for houses
built prior to the current zoning
requirements.
Continue to require the Residential Green
Checklist as part of the permit submittals
for residential construction.
Policy A-3, Policy B-1, Policy B-3, Policy C1, Policy C-3, Policy C-4, Policy D-1, Policy D-3
funds to variances based on SROs unique
characteristics.
2015-16 Status: Although not designed as MixedUse developments, residential units have been approved/constructed in areas designated
Community Mixed Use. These projects will help
to bolster the viability of mixed-use projects along
the El Camino.
Accessory Dwelling Units: The City now
produces on the order of 50 ADUs/year, doubling
the 2014 estimate.
Action 11 Inclusionary Housing Policy.
Continue to implement the Inclusionary
Housing BMP and BMR programs.
Annually monitor the effectiveness of the
Inclusionary Housing Policy in expanding
the housing supply and diversity in the
community.
Policy B-1, Policy B-2, Policy B-3, Policy B7, Policy C-1, Policy C-2, Policy C-3, Policy C-4, Policy D-1
Inclusionary Housing requirement 2015-21 Status:
The City's has adopted an Affordable Housing
Ordinance, which has increased the inclusionary
requirement 15% on site provision for for-sale and
rental project with 10 units or more (compared to
the previous requirement of 10% for only for-sale
projects with 10 or more units). RDA subsidies for
inclusionary housing were eliminated under the
BMP Program in 1997.
This policy
has been
applied
successfully
to housing
developmen
t projects
and has
produced
low- and
moderateincome
housing.
Continue, with
modification
Renumbered and
renamed to
Action 2:
Affordable
Housing
Ordinance
Action 12 Affordable Housing Incentives.
Encourage and assist in efforts to combine
public and private funds in joint housing
ventures.
Develop Incentives for Affordable and Senior
Housing Projects 2015-21 Status: The Zoning Code
has been updated to reflect the current State
density bonus provisions.
On-going Continue, as is
Renumbered and
renamed to
Action 3:
Table 13.7-2: Actions and Objectives
Action Program Title & Objective Achievements/Results Evaluation Recommendation As appropriate, support and/or partner
with housing developers in the application
for affordable housing funding, such as
providing technical data, assistance in
identifying
available and appropriate sites, expediting
review and processing of affordable
housing, and providing local match as
funding is available.
Annually explore funding available at the
regional, state, and federal levels for
affordable housing development and
programs.
Continue to work with the Housing
Authority of Santa Clara County to expand
the Authority’s ability to create low- and
moderate-income housing.
Participate with other local jurisdictions to
provide affordable housing. Collaborate
with neighboring jurisdictions to pursue
funding opportunities for affordable
housing programs. CDBG and HOME
funds will continue to be used in
conjunction with other cities’ funds to
construct shelters and to provide housing
services.
Continue to provide density bonuses or
equivalent financial incentives for housing
projects which include affordable and/or
senior housing units, consistent with State
law requirements.
Affordable
Housing
Incentives and
Facilitation
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Table 13.7-2: Actions and Objectives
Action Program Title & Objective Achievements/Results Evaluation Recommendation Encourage housing developers to use the
City’s Density Bonus Ordinance and the
Planned Development Zone District,
which allow for flexibility in the zoning
regulations.
Continue to pursue opportunities to
acquire and rehabilitate existing multifamily structures to be maintained as affordable rental housing.
Encourage the provision of specialized
housing to meet the needs of those with
disabilities (including developmental
disabilities); or for group care, emergency
housing and foster homes, where
appropriate.
Identify situations of overcrowding and
educate families of local housing
programs.
Incentivize nonprofit developers to
develop units for very low and extremely
low households by identifying appropriate
housing sites or rehabilitation projects
and matching developers with funding
sources.
Continue to require the Residential Green
Checklist as part of the permit submittals
for residential construction.
Consider, in 2015-2016, other feasible
incentives to foster affordable housing
development in the City. These may
include fee deferral, reduction, or waivers.
Table 13.7-2: Actions and Objectives
Action Program Title & Objective Achievements/Results Evaluation Recommendation Policy B-1, Policy B-2, Policy B-3, Policy B7, Policy C-1, Policy C-2, Policy C-3, Policy C-4, Policy D-1
Action 13 Housing Mitigation Fee.
Continue to require housing impact
studies as part of project- related
environmental reviews for new
developments or businesses that generate a
high number of jobs.
Continue to require Housing Impact
Studies through development agreements
with new projects, to address the impact
on the affordable housing supply.
Consider, in 2015-2016, establishing an
affordable housing mitigation fee for office
and industrial developments that propose
a significant square footage of area where
persons are to be employed.
Policy B-2, Policy B-3, Policy C-1, Policy D1
Requirement of Housing Impact Fee Studies for
the largest projects; Development of a Housing
Impact Fee Program Status:
2017-21: The City has adopted an Affordable
Housing Ordinance, consisting of inclusionary onsite requirement for residential projects, impact fees for residential projects with 9 or fewer units,
for fractional units and for nonresidential
development. These requirements became
effective on February 22, 2018.
2015-16: The City is currently in the process of
outreach with the community and stakeholder to
determine appropriate Affordable Housing
impact fees, residential and non-residential.
On-going Discontinue
Action 14 Affordable Housing Funding.
Identify a steady source of affordable
housing funds.
Pursue funding available from State,
federal, and regional housing programs.
Policy B-1, Policy B-2, Policy B-3, Policy B7, Policy C-1, Policy C-2, Policy C-3, Policy C-4, Policy D-1
In 2022 the City joined the Santa Clara County
PHLA Housing Consortium and will be allocating
2019 and 2020 funding in 2023.2017-21: The City
has adopted an Affordable Housing Ordinance,
which includes a commercial linkage fee. The
ordinance became effective on February 22, 2018,
and since fall of 2021 has generated $5.6 million
since to address affordable housing needs in Santa
Clara.
2015-16: The City is currently participating in the
drafting of a multi-city nexus study for the
On-going Continue to plan
and allocate
PHLA funding
and to look for
additional
ongoing funding
sources.
Renumbered to
Action 12
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Table 13.7-2: Actions and Objectives
Action Program Title & Objective Achievements/Results Evaluation Recommendation creation of both residential and commercial
housing impact fees.
Action 15 Economic Displacement.
Evaluate programs and policies and
provide recommendations to City
Council within one years of Housing
Element adoption. As necessary and
appropriate, adopt programs and policies
to address displacement within two years
of Housing Element adoption. Monitor
programs and policies bi-annually for
effectiveness.
Policy B-4, Policy B-5, Policy C-1
The City continues to provide Tenant Based Rental
Assistance (TBRA) in the form of deposits and
rental subsidies for up to 12 months, along with
case management services, to families with
children experiencing homelessness, those fleeing
domestic violence, or families with children that
are at risk of homelessness.
Community Ownership Conversion Tenant
Protections 2018-21 Status: In the case of
condominium conversions, landlords are required
to provide tenant protections, including advance
notice requirements, right of first refusal, and
relocation assistance
2019-20 - On March 24, 2020, the Santa Clara City
Council approved Ordinances 2014 and 2015,
establishing a temporary eviction moratorium in
response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The
moratorium went into effect immediately, March
24, and the Council subsequently extended the
moratorium through August 31, 2020, at which
time AB 3088 established a statewide prohibition
on residential evictions.
Provide Relocation Assistance to Residents
Displaced by Redevelopment 2015-17: With the
closure of the RDA, the City is exploring funding
The
eviction
moratoriu
m has since
expired,
and state
and
pandemic
related
local rental
assistance
programs
have
ended.
Additional
programs
may be
needed to
respond to
displaceme
nt
pressures.
Continue to
provide TBRA
and explore
additional
programs that
respond to and
prevent
homelessness
and
displacement.
Allocate the
City’s HOME
ARP funding in
2023.
Renumbered and
renamed to
Action 13:
Residential
Displacement
Table 13.7-2: Actions and Objectives
Action Program Title & Objective Achievements/Results Evaluation Recommendation streams, including housing linkage fees, for
relocation assistance. The City actively encourages
developers to provide advance notice and
relocation assistance for displaced tenants.
Action 16 Shared Housing.
Continue to support programs designed to
create shared housing arrangements for
seniors, families, and persons with
disabilities (including developmental
disabilities).
Annually evaluate the need for shared
housing services as part of the CDBG
annual plan process.
Policy B-1, Policy C-2, Policy C-3, Policy C4, Policy D-1, Policy D-2
Support Shared Living Facilities & Operations
2015-21 Status: The City encourages shared
housing arrangements and group living
arrangements for special populations who are
very low income. In 2018 there was one official
shared housing program for seniors in Santa Clara
County and it was operated by Catholic Charities.
This program ended because it was not
sustainable, as it had too few landlords, too many
renters, and it required a lot of staff facilitation.
Some Seniors have indicated to City staff that they
would prefer a 1 bedroom with support services
for privacy and safety reasons.
Home
sharing can
work well
for group
homes, but
less so for
the elderly
residents.
Continue to
support the
creation of new
shared housing
for persons with
developmental
disabilities.
Explore service
enhanced senior
housing with
rents capped at
30% of income
versus based on
AMI. Explore a
new position to
help seniors
navigate the
housing market
and to access
subsidized
housing.
Renumbered to
Action 18
Action 17 Housing Choice Voucher Program.
Continue to participate in and promote the
Housing Choice Voucher Program.
Promote Section 8 Housing Program 2015 Status:
Currently, the Housing Authority has 659
certificates/vouchers under contract within the
City, 269 of which are elderly.
On-going Continue, as is
Renumbered to
Action 14
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Table 13.7-2: Actions and Objectives
Action Program Title & Objective Achievements/Results Evaluation Recommendation Encourage apartment owners to list
properties with the Housing Authority for
individual Housing Choice Vouchers.
Policy B-1, Policy C-1, Policy C-2, Policy C3, Policy D-1 Action 18 Homeownership for First-Time Buyers.
Continue to collaborate with NHSSV to
implement the BMP program and provide
assistance to approximately 10 to 15 lower,
moderate-, and middle-income households
during the 2015-2023 Housing Element
planning period.
Promote homeownership, particularly for
first time buyers, through single-family,
townhouse and condominium construction
as well as conversion of rental to
condominium ownership, where
appropriate.
Encourage program participation among
moderate income households, as well as
low-income households, while interest
rates are low.
Continue to promote homebuyer
assistance programs through the Housing
Trust Silicon Valley and the County of
Santa Clara. Include links to these housing
resources on City website by 2015.
Policy B-1, Policy C-2, Policy D-1
Support and Fund First-Time Homebuyers
(FTHB) 2015 Status: The Santa Clara’s BMP
(Below Market Purchase) program produced 4
first time homebuyers this year. They were all
moderate income. There are 106 BMP owners in
the current program since 2007 through October
28, 2022.
The
current
BMP
program
does not
require
BMP
homes to
stay
affordable
for more
than five
years.
Policy
changes
could
require
resale to
income
qualified
buyers and
create
more
Continue, with
modification to
require longer
affordability
terms on BMP
homes.
Renumbered to
Action 15
Table 13.7-2: Actions and Objectives
Action Program Title & Objective Achievements/Results Evaluation Recommendation opportuniti
es.
Action 19 Fair Housing Program.
Continue to refer tenant-landlord
complaints to an agency offering
meditation.
Provide referral services and promotional
support to link those experiencing
discrimination in housing with public or
private groups who handle complaints
against discrimination.
Seek state and federal enforcement of fair
housing laws and continue to cooperate
with local agencies investigating claims of
discrimination in lending practices and
predatory lending.
Provide outreach and education materials
about fair housing services, nonprofit
partners (e.g., Project Sentinel).
Continue to hold open house events and
meetings to distribute fair housing
information and resources to tenants and
homeowners in need of assistance.
Refer disputes between property owners to
the County Human Relations
Commission’s Dispute Officer.
Policy B-1, Policy C-2, Policy D-1
Contract with Non-Profit Agency for Mediation
Services 2015 Status: Annual service contract with
Project Sentinel to provide tenant-landlord
dispute resolution service on city-wide basis
Provide Referral Services and Support for
Discrimination Concerns 2015 Status: Provision of
fair housing services by the City is essential to
meet federal and State requirements to
affirmatively further fair housing. Housing
projects funded by federal HOME funds must
develop and implement an affirmative marketing
plan.
This has
been an
important
resource
that will
continue to
expand in
outreach
Continue, with
modification
Renumbered to
Action 16
Action 20 Homeless Services.
Assist in funding locally administered
programs that provide shelter, food and
clothing for those with transitional and
supportive housing needs.
The City has invested several hundred units of
permanent supportive housing and/or ELI/VLI
housing for families, individuals, and seniors.
The City
has
invested in
a variety of
Continue to
fund services
and complete
the City’s local
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Table 13.7-2: Actions and Objectives
Action Program Title & Objective Achievements/Results Evaluation Recommendation Continue to support housing for at-risk
youth.
Policy B-1, Policy C-2, Policy D-1
The City has also invested in public services
through its CDBG and HOME programs
including Tenant Based Rental Assistance, the
regional Homelessness Prevention System, case
management services for permanent supportive
housing, assistance for survivors of domestic
violence, and more. In 2022 the City conducted a
six-month Homelessness Task Force and
outreach process and published a draft strategic
framework.
services
and is in
the process
of writing a
local
strategic
plan to
expand its
efforts.
homelessness
response plan
and begin
implementing
new programs
that respond to
the identified
gaps.
Renumbered to
Action 17
Source(s): City of Santa Clara, 2022
Quantified Objectives
Table 13.7-2 summarizes Santa Clara’s quantified objectives for the 2015-2023 Housing Element planning period and the progress the City has made, including progress meeting the City’s fifth cycle RHNA.
Table 13.7-3: Summary of 2015-2023 Housing Element Quantified Objectives (through 2022 APR) Source(s): City of Santa Clara, 2023
Objectives
Affordability Breakdown
Totals
Extremely
Low Very Low Low Moderate
Above
Moderate
Building Permit Objectives (RHNA)
Goal - 1,050 695 755 1,593 4,093
Progress - 474 502 213 6,932 5,266
Single-Family Rehabilitation Objective
Goal 424 (160 ELI) - - 424
Progress 121 (24 ELI) - - 121
At-Risk Housing Units to Preserve
Goal - - - - - -
Progress - - - - - -
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
This page was left intentionally blank.
5th Cycle Housing Plan ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Quantified Objectives ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 21 List of Tables
Table 13.7-1: Goals and Policies ................................................................................................................................................................................ 3 Table 13.7-2: Actions and Objectives ........................................................................................................................................................................ 4 Table 13.7-3: Summary of 2015-2023 Housing Element Quantified Objectives (through 2022 APR) ........................................................... 21 A
Page A-1
Appendix A
Outreach
Summary
As part of the Housing Element update draft a Public Engagement Plan (PEP) was developed by City staff to provide the community public participation opportunities during the development of the Housing Element under Gov. Code Section 65583 (c)(9). Additionally, the City set up a housing element webpage:
https://www.santaclaraca.gov/our-city/departments-a-f/community-development/planningdivision/general-plan/housing-element-update; that provided continual updates as work on the 6th Cycle Housing Element progressed. The list-serv generated by this effort has 1,500 subscribers (as of January 3, 2023) that are notified when the page updates and notifications are posted regarding the Housing Element.
During the development of the PEP stakeholders were identified and interviewed, surveys were conducted in multiple languages, and comment on the draft element was received; all informing the final iteration of the 6th Cycle Housing Element.
Stakeholder interviews were conducted to help build a framework for the 6th Cycle Housing Element. The interview questionnaire and summary are included in Appendix A-1: Stakeholder Interview Summary.
The stakeholders that were interviewed are a subset of interested parties that were contacted from a list of community members and organizations listed in Appendix A-2: Stakeholder List.
Shortly after the interviews were conducted, the City conducted an on-line survey to gather information about how residents were experiencing housing. The survey was conducted in English, Spanish, Vietnamese, and Chinese (Mandarin). There were well over 1,500 responses which are summarized in Appendix A-3: Community Survey Summary. The survey results were incorporated into the formulation of the 6th Cycle Housing Plan Goals, Policies, and Actions. Although, there was some demographic variance in the results of the survey, they were not statistically significant. Nonetheless, where there were apparent variances or interesting results, those were provided in the summary sections as additional result tables. Finally, feedback collected provided support for the Housing Plan actions focused on diverse outreach and engagement and services to protected classes.
Appendix A-4: Regional Santa Clara County AFFH Related Outreach and Appendix A-5: Housing Element Specific Outreach provide numerous instances of regional and local outreach activities that the City conducted or participated in. As stated in the introduction to this 6th Cycle Housing Element, outreach consisted of:
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page A-2
• Community Meetings
• Stakeholders Meetings, Questionnaires, and Interviews • Digital Surveys: English, Spanish, Vietnamese, Chinese (Simple) • Community Events
• Community Pop-ups
• Tenant Listening Sessions
• Homelessness Taskforce Meetings
• Planning Commission and City Council Meetings
At a high level, the community engagement was utilized to balance and align community input with State Housing Law requirements. With, consistent themes of affordability, housing type and tenure, housing choice, tenant protections, and homelessness the 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 the following new policies and efforts programs in the Housing Element as workplanfollows:
• Respondents to outreach and commentors were concerned that the designated levels of affordability in the city’s existing inclusionary ordinance are above market rate and increasingly not affordable for many residents. The Action #2 in Chapter 13.2Housing Element includes a planned effort tocalls for an update to the inclusionary ordinance to increase a greater number of units in theachieve deeper levels of affordability categories and to redefine the City’s moderate affordability category to reflect a below market rate lower income range.
In response to Housing Choices call to expand deeply affordable housing choices, the City updated Action #1 in Chapter 13.2 to include a goal to increase the stock of extremely low and very low income rental housing designated for people with developmental disabilities by 35%. Also proposed isare criteria that would prioritize City 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.
•
• In response to comments received by stakeholders, the City updated Action #1 in Chapter 13.2 to include a goal to increase the stock of three and four bedroom rental units for large households by 20%.
• In response to input from SV @ Home regarding ongoing stakeholder outreach, the city added an objective to conduct in person outreach once per year in low and moderate resources A
Page A-3
neighborhoods to educate residents about a variety of topics including upcoming housing opportunities, fair housing resources and more.
• In response to comments received from TransForm to reduce parking, the City added an objective under Action 3 to apply reduced parking requirements for transit-rich environments from the Zoning Code update to proposed long range plans such as El Camino Real Specific Plan and Santa Clara Station Area Plan.
• In response to comments from Dana Hooper at Life Services Alternatives (a housing provider for persons with developmental disabilities), the City added objectives in Action #1 and #4 to proactively market future construction and renovation program opportunities to residential care facility operators.
• Residents of affordable and special needs housing shared at listening sessions that they have been particularly affected by heat waves and wildfire smoke. In response to comments raised by residents at Riverwood Grove Apartments, the City added an action to outreach to potential housing providers who may need capital funding assistance to make HVAC improvements for sensitive populations living without air conditioning.
• In response to input on housing development, the City added an objective under Action 9 to update the zoning ordinance to grant the Director of Community Development authority to allow up to two one-year permit extensions administratively.
• 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 through all outlets and demographics of respondents highlighting the need to better address homelessness. The City’s newly created Homelessness Task Force comprised of service providers, advocates, and individuals with lived experience of being unhoused have provided recommendations. Some of these programs are already active or continuing, while others will be that are being pursued through the creation of a Homelessness Response Plan with implementatimplemented in ion actions that will be adopted in early 2023. 2024 and 2025.
• SV @ HomeCommentors provided feedback on the need for more displacement prevention. The Action 13 Chapter 13.2 Housing Plan includes the City Council’s future consideration of new policies and programs that would require no net loss of income restricted units during construction or rehabilitation of existing housing; replacement of existing affordable housing units at the same or lower affordability levels; landlord and City notification and information for tenants affected by efforts that would cause relocation; require developers to provide relocation benefits beyond State requirements.
• SV @ Home commented that the City should do more to educate tenants and landlords about their rights under new state laws. In response the City added objectives under Action 16 to propose an ordinance that requires landlords to include a City approved informational brochure with each lease signing, to improve the City’s webpage, and to do targeted outreach twice yearly.
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page A-4
• In response to comments from the Housing Action Coalition about site selection, the City significantly revised the Housing Resources chapter and added Appendix C Supplemental Sites Inventory Analysis.
• Residents of affordable and special needs housing shared at listening sessions that they have been particularly affected by heat waves and wildfire smoke. As part of the City’s CDBG program, the City will promote a Notice of Funding Availability process for installation of HVAC improvements for sensitive populations.
The City of Santa Clara asked for the public’s comments on the Housing Element Draft via its website, list-serv, social media, printed/mailed newsletter (Inside Santa Clara), e-newsletter (City Hall News) and public meetings. The comments were collected via Konveio, a public comment platform for document review and via email. The public comments received on-line and via formal comment letter are included in Appendix A-6: Public Review Draft Comments, Figures 1-9. Following the public comment period on the Housing Element Update, commenters and stakeholders were invited to a stakeholder meeting to discuss the potential Housing Plan goals, policies, and actions that could address their questions and concerns.
Additionally, the City continued to engage in community outreach during the 90-day review period of the Housing Element Draft by HCD. The input collected during this period is subsumed in the housing element specific outreach mentioned above in Appendix A-5. Public and comment and formal letters continued to be addressed after the City received comments on the Housing Element Draft.
Notably, the section on Housing Resources, was significantly revised based on formal comments regarding the City’s process for site selection.
Appendix A-1 Stakeholder Interview Summary
Six interviews were held via telephone, zoom, and/or email with internal and external community stakeholders between May and June 2022.
FIGURE 1: INTERVIEWS AND SCHEDULE
Santa Clara Unified School District May 9, 2022
Santa Clara Schools Foundation May 13, 2022
Santa Clara Senior Center May 13, 2022
PARS Equality Center May 18, 2021
Momentum for Health May 31, 2022
A
Page A-5
Calabazas Community Apartments, Adobe Services June 8, 2022
STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEW QUESTIONS & KEY FINDINGS
1. What are the strengths and assets that make Santa Clara a great place to live? City of Santa Clara provides its residents with a safe, diverse, community driven environment. The public facilities and parks are a utilized asset in the community. • Weather
• Diverse population (ethnically,
economically, age)
• Safe
• Great public facilities, parks,
libraries, recreation facilities
• Great location, easily accessible to
other areas in the Bay Area
• Good transport
• Venues, entertainment options
• Small town, University/Community
College town makes it a great
location to live
• High quality schools
• Family and community oriented
• Supports its residents
2. What are the most critical challenges related to residential development in Santa Clara? Due to the high cost of living and housing shortages, some residents are unable to afford rent or to buy homes.
A shortage of affordable and low-income housing could push residents out of the city. • Cost of housing
• County code prohibits acquiring
homes and buildings
• Shortage of affordable and lowincome housing
• The personal home buying process is
difficult due to affordability and cash
offers
• Unable to place underhoused and
unhoused community in shelters or
affordable housing
• Lack of land for new developments
• Lack of housing and securing of
more housing
• Difficulty welcoming others, NIMBY
• Congestion in existing developed
areas
• High cost of rent and living will push
residents out of the area
• Wait list for housing vouchers,
Section 8 lottery
• Cost of construction
• Lacks character and a downtown
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page A-6
• Housing department is outsourcing
housing assistance as well as creating
barriers
3. What are your priorities for housing development in Santa Clara? The priorities for the City of Santa Clara should be to provide affordable housing to the locals. Establishing creative housing programs is also a priority. Tackling homelessness should also be a priority. • Financial assistance and programs
for organizations to buy buildings for
services such as mental illness
facilities, homeless shelters
• Increase amount and accessibility of
affordable housing
• Partnerships with organizations to
allow for creativity
• Affordable housing for families who
work in Santa Clara and send their
children to public schools
• More affordable housing
• Subsidized housing options
• Facilities for people coming off the
streets
4. What is your definition of affordable housing and who does it serve? The key responses include: prioritizing the service industry, seniors, police officers, teachers, and locals.
Residents should not have to pay more than 50% of their income for housing. • Subsidized housing, based on income
listed on tax returns
• Affordable housing and care for
individuals with serious mental
illnesses
• Serves people who are service
workers/blue collar as well as the
entire community
• Allows for a community to develop
in a city
• Housing that is affordable for
families to live in the city where they
work
• Two working adults can afford rent
without sacrificing food or a savings
• For teachers, seniors, police, only one
senior housing development in the
area
5. Are there housing projects (or general development trends) in other cities that are examples of what you would like to see in Santa Clara?
A
Page A-7
Below are examples of cities with housing projects or development trends suggested by the stakeholders. • 41 South 11th Street house for housing
and maintaining housing for groups
of people
• Orange County Health Improvement
Plan is a nonprofit that works with
the county to train employees to
operate housing buildings
• Short term rental assistance (TBRA)
• Charities Housing in Cupertino
• The Veranda Senior Housing
• Apartments/Condominiums with
more than two bedrooms and in
large buildings
• Multigenerational housing
developments, co-ops:
https://www.cotaticohousing.org/
• San Jose, community engagement
• Permanent supportive housing
facility by PATH in San Jose: Villas
on the Park
6. How do you see Santa Clara changing over the next 8-10 years? What role does housing play in these changes?
Providing children, elderly, and lower income residents with affordable housing options is critical to maintaining a sense of community in the City of Santa Clara. Creative and innovative housing approaches may pose challenges with locals.
• Shortage of professionals
• Something should be done about
affordable housing
• Less people will want to live in the
area if there are tents on the street
• Less taxes otherwise businesses
won’t thrive
• Give locals a reason to stay
• Expanding housing in a creative way
could make people uncomfortable
• If housing doesn’t change Santa
Clara will not grow in a diverse way
and live up to its potential
• Digitization of application processes
for affordable housing
• Reduced waiting and processing time
to meet demand
• Increased value in the area due to
new Google development
• Crime should be addressed for safety
• Equitable quality of school districts
• Multi-bedroom units are needed for
families to stay
• Increase in city policies and funding
toward creating affordable housing
for those in need
• Prioritize seniors and low income
7. Are there neighborhoods in the city that lack access to opportunities for healthy food, green space, transit, quality jobs and education?
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page A-8
Overall, the city provides access to opportunities for the residents of the City of Santa Clara. Some neighborhoods in the city could improve on access to food and transportation. • Stakeholder is unfamiliar with the
area or does not live in the city
• City provides access to opportunities
• Bicycle lane improvements
• Suburban neighborhoods lack
walkability
• Transportation is infrequent and
does not include enough routes
• Some neighborhoods (such as
Lafayette) lacks access to nearby
grocery stores
8. Can you share any thoughts or stories about housing discrimination and/or housing segregation in Santa Clara?
Overall, there is a stigma around low-income and affordable housing, particularly with landlords. • Generally, not too prevalent in the
city
• Discrimination and stigma from
landlords regarding Section 8/lowincome applicants
• Difficulties finding landlords willing
to work with participants
• Limited supply of housing in the city
• Outdated stereotypes and stigmas
about people with housing vouchers
• Upper class residents are less
interested in providing the
community with affordable or lowincome housing developments • Low-income housing lumped into
one building
• Lower income apartments are located
near title I schools and districts
• Families in low-income, onebedroom apartments out of necessity
9. How can the City, in partnership with stakeholder groups, help to ensure inclusive and equitable fair housing outreach that includes all segments of the community? Partnering with stakeholder groups is important to the community, however inclusive and equitable outreach are key. Residents would like the city to provide outreach to residents in multiple languages and with clearer guidelines to ensure fair housing.
• Understand the residents’ needs
• Acknowledge subgroups other than
those defined by race or ethnicity
that need housing
• Ensure more affordable housing is
implemented
• Prioritize teachers, law enforcement,
nonprofit workers who want to stay
in the city
A
Page A-9
• Regular outreach meetings to share
community needs with the city
• Prioritize building multi bedroom
housing
• Provide information about housing
in multiple languages
• Provide clear guideline for who
qualifies for housing programs
• City’s emailing list does not reach all
groups
• Not realistic to buy a house in the
city of Santa Clara
10. Are there residential blocks or neighborhoods in the city that lack access to quality education and daycare, open space and parks, libraries, shopping, grocery stores, transit service, clean air, and/or other opportunities?
Below are examples of residential blocks or neighborhoods in the city that stakeholders suggest lack access to quality education and daycare, open space and parks, libraries, shopping, grocery stores, transit service, clean air, and/or other opportunities:
• Residential blocks exist in
unincorporated areas with the east
and south of the city - going towards
the foothills (White Rd) and south of
the City (Monterrey, Bernal Rd).
These areas need more
transportation.
• The state is investing resources in
BART and the light rail, but they are
not reaching those areas. There is a
need for more community health
clinics, subsidies for day cares
throughout the city.
• The northwest of the city will lack an
elementary school once all the units
are constructed
• Some neighborhoods are further
away from public amenities (such as
libraries)
• Clean air is a problem in areas like
Lawrence, Montague, Santa Moss,
and El Camino
• Lafayette and Clyde is a very
industrial block with factories and
chemical release
• Noise pollution from the nearby San
Jose airport, Levi’s stadium, and
major roads
• Not everybody has AC filters
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page A-10
11. Are there any other specific stakeholders we should be talking with? Below is a list of suggested stakeholders to speak with:
o Teresa O’Neill – former city council member
o First community housing (https://www.firstcommunityhousing.org/), 21 major projects in Santa Clara County - experts in housing regulations and they understand the basic needs. o African American Cultural Center
o Donald, Executive Director of Pacific Clinics (Previously UpLift Family services) – he works with families, youth and can give a different perspective on other populations o Community Solutions
o Religious centers such as churches
A
Page A-11
Appendix A-2: Stakeholder List
The stakeholder list initially identified potential organizations and individuals that could be interviewed and potentially participate in a stakeholder workshop(s). The organizations and individuals were contacted by e-mail and direct phone calls to participate in a formal interview.
Company/Organization
Groups Served / Sector Elderly/ Seniors Persons Experiencing Homelessness Families (large families, female headed families) Persons with disabilities Persons with developmental disabilitiesLower income householdsFarmworkersSpanish speaking residentsAffordable DeveloperMarket Rate Developer Santa Clara Housing Authority x x
City of Santa Clara Youth Commission Safe Place
City of Santa Clara Senior Advisory Commission x
Santa Clara Senior Center x
Heart of the Valley: Services for Seniors x
Santa Clara Lions Club
Santa Clara Libraries x x
West Valley-Mission Community College
Santa Clara University x x x x
Mission College Santa Clara x x x
Santa Clara Historical Society
Santa Clara Unified School District
Santa Clara City Library Foundation and Friends
Santa Clara Youth Soccer League
Santa Clara Lions Youth Football & Cheer
Santa Clara Westside Little League
Briarwood El Camino Little League
Santa Clara Swim Club
Sierra Club Loma Prieta
Asian American Center of Santa Clara County x x
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page A-12
Company/Organization
Groups Served / Sector Elderly/ Seniors Persons Experiencing Homelessness Families (large families, female headed families) Persons with disabilities Persons with developmental disabilitiesLower income householdsFarmworkersSpanish speaking residentsAffordable DeveloperMarket Rate Developer San Jose Japanese American Citizens League
Hispanic Foundation of Silicon Valley x
CAIR California San Francisco Bay Area
PARS Equity Center x
Jewish Family Services of Silicon Valley x x x x
Santa Clara Women’s League x
Elk’s Lodge #2347
Rotary Club of Santa Clara
Santa Clara Kiwanis Club x x x x x x
Sacred Heart Community Service x x x x
Project Sentinel x x x x x x x
Bill Wilson Center x
SV@Home x
Abode Services x x
Salvation Army (San Jose) x x x x x x
Homelessness Task Force x
Planning Commission
Santa Clara Unified School District (McKinney
Vento homelessness prevention)
x x
City of Santa Clara Chamber of Commerce
Catholic Charities of Santa Clara County x x x x x x
Momentum for Health x x
Roots Community Health Center x x x x x x
American Legion Santa Clara Post 419 (Veterans
Services)
x x
Working Partnerships USA x x x
A
Page A-13
Appendix A-3: Community Survey Summary
FIGURE 1: HOW LONG HAVE YOU LIVED IN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA? (QUESTION 1; N=1,585)
FIGURE 2: HOW LONG HAVE YOU LIVED IN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA? (QUESTION 1; UNDER 18 – 44 YEARS OLD; N=471)
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Less
than 1
year
1 to 4
years
5 to 9
years
10 to 19
years
20 years
or more
I do not
live in
Santa
Clara
Prefer
not to
answer
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page A-14
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Less than 1
year
1 to 4 years 5 to 9 years 10 to 19
years
20 years or
more
18 and Under (n=4) 18-24 (n=10)
25-34 (n=192) 35-44 (n=265)
A
Page A-15
FIGURE 3: HOW LONG HAVE YOU LIVED IN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA? (QUESTION 1; UNDER 45 YEARS OLD – 65 AND ABOVE; N=842)
FIGURE 4: WHAT IS YOUR CURRENT HOUSING SITUATION? (QUESTION 2; N=1,651) 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Less than 1
year
1 to 4 years 5 to 9 years 10 to 19 years 20 years or
more 45-54 (n=238) 55-64 (n=261) 65 + (n=343)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
I own my
home
I rent my
home
I live with
friends/family
and do not
pay rent
I am
unhoused
I prefer not to
answer
Chinese (n=31) English (n=1,585)
Spanish (n=29) Vietnamese (n=6)
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page A-16
FIGURE 5: WHAT IS YOUR CURRENT HOUSING SITUATION BY AGE GROUPING? (QUESTION 2; UNDER 18 – 44 YEARS OLD; N=471)
FIGURE 6: WHAT IS YOUR CURRENT HOUSING SITUATION BY AGE GROUPING? (QUESTION 2; UNDER 45 YEARS OLD – 65 AND ABOVE; N=1,651)
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
90.00%
100.00%
I own my
home
I rent my
home
I live with
friends/family
and do not
pay rent
I am
unhoused
I prefer not to
answer
18 and Under (n=4) 18-24 (n=10) 25-34 (n=192) 35-44 (n=265) 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
I own my home I rent my home I live with
friends/family
and do not pay
rent
I am unhoused I prefer not to
answer
45-44 (n=238) 55-64 (n=261) 65 + (n=343)
A
Page A-17
FIGURE 7: DO YOU WORK AND/OR ATTEND SCHOOL IN SANTA CLARA, AND HOW MUCH TIME DO YOU SPEND TRAVELING AND BY WHICH MODE OF TRANSIT? (QUESTION 3; N=722)
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
0-15 Minutes 16-30
Minutes
31-45
Minutes
46-60
Minutes
61+ Minutes
I Attend School in Santa Clara I work In Santa Clara
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
90.00%
Personal
Vehicle
Car Pool Van Pool Rideshare Public
Transit
Walk Bike
I Attend School in Santa Clara I work In Santa Clara
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page A-18
FIGURE 8: WHAT TYPE OF HOUSING DO YOU THINK SANTA CLARA NEEDS MORE OF (PICK YOUR TOP 3 – ENGLISH SURVEY RESULTS)? (QUESTION 4; N=1,474) FIGURE 9: WHAT TYPE OF HOUSING DO YOU THINK SANTA CLARA NEEDS MORE OF (PICK YOUR TOP 3 – ENGLISH SURVEY RESULTS BY AGE GROUPINGS)? (QUESTION 4)
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Single Family Homes Senior Housing Townhomes
0 2
4 6
8 Apartments with 5
or more units
Interim/Transitional
housing
Single-Family Homes
18 -24 (n=28)
0 1
2 3
4 Permanent
Supportive Housing
Special Needs
Housing
Apartments with 4
Units of Less
18 and Under (n=8)
0 20
40 60
80 100
120
Single Family
Homes
Townhomes Apartments with 5
or more units
25-34 (n=441)
0 50
100
150
Single Family
Homes
Townhomes Apartments with 5
or more units
34-44 (n=585)
A
Page A-19
0 20
40 60
80 100
120
Single Family
Homes
Senior Housing Townhomes
45-54 (n=539)
0 50
100
150
Senior Housing Single-Family Homes Interim/Transitional Housing
55-65 (n=572)
0 50
100
150
200
Senior Housing Single-Family Homes Interim/Transitional Housing
65 + (n=740)
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page A-20
FIGURE 10: WHAT TYPE OF HOUSING DO YOU THINK SANTA CLARA NEEDS MORE OF (PICK YOUR TOP 3 – ALL LANGUAGES SURVEY RESULTS)? (QUESTION 4; N=1,538) FIGURE 11: MORE HOUSING IS NEEDED FOR (ENGLISH SURVEY RESULTS): (RANK YOUR TOP 3) (QUESTION 5; N=1,452)
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
90.00%
100.00%
Chinese (n=31) English (n=1,474) Spanish (n=27) Vietnamese (n=6) 0 100
200
300
400
500
600
Seniors Single Parents Families
Top 3 #1 Rankings
A
Page A-21
FIGURE 12: MORE HOUSING IS NEEDED FOR (SPANISH SURVEY RESULTS): (RANK YOUR TOP 3) (QUESTION 5; N=29)
FIGURE 13: MORE HOUSING IS NEEDED FOR (CHINESE SURVEY RESULTS): (RANK YOUR TOP 3) (QUESTION 5; N=31)
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 Seniors Single Parents College
Students
Persons with
Disabilities
Top 3 #1 Rankings
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 Seniors Families Persons with
Disabilities
Top 3 #1 Rankings
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page A-22
FIGURE 14: MORE HOUSING IS NEEDED FOR (VIETNAMESE SURVEY RESULTS):
(RANK YOUR TOP 3) (QUESTION 5; N=6)
FIGURE 15: MORE HOUSING IS NEEDED FOR (ENGLISH SURVEY RESULTS): (RANK YOUR TOP 3) (QUESTION 5; BY AGE GROUPINGS 18 AND UNDER 44 YEARS OLD; N=784)
0 0.5
1 1.5
2 2.5
Persons with
Disabilities
Seniors Veterans
Top 3 #1 Rankings
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
# 1 Choices by Age Groupings
18 and Under 18-24 25-34 35-44
A
Page A-23
FIGURE 16: MORE HOUSING IS NEEDED FOR (ENGLISH SURVEY RESULTS): (RANK YOUR TOP 3) (QUESTION 5; BY AGE GROUPINGS 45 TO 65 AND ABOVE; N=784) FIGURE 17: PLEASE TELL US HOW IMPORTANT THE FOLLOWING HOUSING ISSUES ARE TO YOU (0 IS UNIMPORTANT, 10 IS VERY IMPORTANT) (QUESTION 6-12) Average Answers for questions 6-12
6. Ensure that children who grow up in Santa Clara can afford to live in Santa Clara: 8 (N=1,427)
7. Provide opportunities for people who work in Santa Clara to live in Santa Clara: 8 (N=1,433)
8. Provide more options for older residents to downsize and stay in the community: 7 (N=1,410)
9. Streamline the process for new housing construction: 6 (N=1,407)
10. Provide shelters and transitional housing for homeless families and individuals, along with services that help move people into permanent housing: 6 (N=1,415)
11. Support programs to help homeowners at risk of mortgage default to keep their homes: 6 (N=1,401)
12. Establish housing near public transit: 7 (N=1,416)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
# 1 Choices by Age Groupings
45-54 55-64 65 +
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page A-24
FIGURE 18: PLEASE TELL US HOW IMPORTANT THE FOLLOWING PLANNING ISSUES ARE TO YOU (0 IS UNIMPORTANT, 10 IS VERY IMPORTANT) (QUESTION 13-15) Average Answers for questions 13-17
13. Environmental risks (e.g., wetlands, air quality, flood, etc.): 8 (N=1,287)
14. Potential traffic and congestion: 8 (N=1,393)
15. Preserving community character: 7 (N=1,386)
FIGURE 19: ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR ISSUES RELATED TO PLANNING FOR HOUSING IN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA? (QUESTION 16; N=833) A
Page A-25
FIGURE 20: ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR ISSUES RELATED TO PLANNING FOR HOUSING IN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA? (QUESTION 16; SPANISH SURVEY; N=22) FIGURE 21: ARE THERE ANY NEIGHBORHOODS IN SANTA CLARA THAT ARE
LACKING GOOD ACCESS TO AMENITIES LIKE PARKS, LIBRARIES, GROCERY STORES, SCHOOLS, BIKE LANES, ETC.? (QUESTION 17; N=645)
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page A-26
FIGURE 22: ARE THERE ANY NEIGHBORHOODS IN SANTA CLARA THAT ARE
LACKING GOOD ACCESS TO AMENITIES LIKE PARKS, LIBRARIES, GROCERY STORES, SCHOOLS, BIKE LANES, ETC.? (QUESTION 17; CHINESE SURVEY; N=10) FIGURE 23: HOW OLD ARE YOU? (QUESTION 18; N=1,390)
0 50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Under 18 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ Prefer
not to
answer
A
Page A-27
FIGURE 24: WHAT IS YOUR GENDER? (QUESTION 19; N=1,390)
FIGURE 25: HOW DO YOU IDENTIFY YOUR RACE AND ETHNICITY? (QUESTION 20; N=1,390)
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Female Male Non-binary Prefer not to
answer
Other
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
White or
Caucasian
Black or
African
American
Hispanic
or Latino
Asian or
Asian
American
American
Indian or
Alaska
Native
Native
Hawaiian
or other
Pacific
Islander
Another
Race
Prefer not
to answer
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page A-28
FIGURE 26: WHAT BEST DESCRIBES YOUR ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME (QUESTION 21; N=1,390)
Appendix A-4 Regional Santa Clara County AFFH Related Outreach In 2019 Santa Clara County and Cities formed a consortium and hired a consultant to develop a regional Assessment of Fair Housing to meet both HUD and HCD requirements. The consortium hired the Lawyer’s Committee for Civil Rights to conduct broad outreach, analysis, and to draft plans. The following is a summary of the interviews and meetings that were held throughout Santa Clara County as part of this early process. These meetings provided important regional context for the AFFH analysis in the Housing Element. The table below lists the meetings by category and the dates on which the meetings were held.
FIGURE 1: REGIONAL SANTA CLARA COUNTY AFFH RELATED OUTREACH (FUNDED
IN PART BY CITY OF SANTA CLARA)
Regional Assessment of Fair Housing Meetings
Meetings Date
Public Community Meetings
San José Evening Community Meeting November 13, 2019
City of Santa Clara Community Meeting November 14, 2019 San José Daytime Community Meeting November 16, 2019
Urban County Community Meeting December 11, 2019
0 50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
Under
$15,000
Between
$15,000
and
$29,999
Between
$30,000
and
$49,999
Between
$50,000
and
$74,999
Between
$75,000
amd
$99,999
Between
$100,000
and
$150,000
Over
$150,000
Prefer not
to answer
A
Page A-29
Cupertino Meeting (group with other
cities/areas) December 19, 2019
Central County January 14, 2020
South County January 15, 2020
Focus Groups
Formerly Incarcerated Individuals December 12, 2019
Homeless Individuals and Families December 12, 2019
Non-Profit Affordable Housing
Developers December 13, 2019
Women December 13, 2019
Seniors January 13, 2020
Central County January 13, 2020
Health Trust for HIV/AIDS January 14, 2020
Vietnamese Community January 15, 2020
South County January 15, 2020
Filipino Community January 26, 2020
Schools/Educators January 27, 2020
Seniors January 29, 2020
Hispanic Community January 29, 2020
Stakeholder Meetings
Project Sentinel October 1, 2019
San José NAACP October 1, 2019
Asian Law Alliance October 2, 2019
Law Foundation of Silicon Valley October 2, 2019
Latinos United for a New America October 21, 2019
California Apartment Association October 21, 2019
The Silicon Valley Organization October 21, 2019
Catalyze SV October 21, 2019
Santa Clara County Housing Authority October 21, 2019
International Children Assistance
Network October 21, 2019
Bay Area Legal Aid October 22, 2019
Housing Trust Silicon Valley October 22, 2019
Gilroy Compassion Center October 22, 2019
City of Gilroy October 22, 2019
Senior Adults Legal Assistance October 22, 2019
Day Worker Center of Mountain View October 22, 2019
Santa Clara County Association of
Realtors October 23, 2019
City of Santa Clara October 23, 2019
City of Sunnyvale October 23, 2019
Silicon Valley at Home October 23, 2019
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page A-30
Bay Area Homeowners Network October 23, 2019
Sunnyvale Community Services November 12, 2019
SOMOS Mayfair November 14, 2019
Amigos de Guadalupe November 15, 2019
West Valley Community Services November 15, 2019
Habitat for Humanity December 10, 2019
Working Partnerships USA December 11, 2019
Because of the breadth of these efforts and the diverse views of the individuals and organizations consulted, it is difficult to distill the information that these meetings yielded down to a few key themes. This summary attempts to, first, identify the range of topics that the meetings addressed and, second, to identify either consensus around those topics or the primary alternative views expressed.
Key topics addressed in the community engagement process included:
• Unlawful housing discrimination, including but not limited to racial discrimination, failures to provide reasonable accommodations, source of income discrimination, patterns and trends in housing discrimination, and barriers to effective enforcement. • Demographic and housing data, including but not limited to how community members interpret data provided by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and sources of local data.
• Zoning and land use laws, including but not limited to their impact on affordable housing development and how they interact with community opposition to affordable housing in certain areas.
• Funding and regulatory programs to create affordable housing, including but not limited to how effective they are at producing units, the income levels they reach, and the bedroom distribution of units produced.
• Supportive services programs for persons with disabilities and unhoused residents, including but not limited to how those programs are coordinated with housing programs. • The connection between access to opportunity and patterns of segregation, including but not limited to with respect to education, employment, transportation, and environmental health.
• Tenant protections and access to legal services, including but not limited to rent stabilization, just cause eviction protections, and funding for tenant representation in eviction cases.
Housing Discrimination
Consistent with national and statewide trends, participants in the community engagement process reported that disability status is the most common alleged basis of discrimination in complaints submitted to service providers, the California Department of Fair Employment and A
Page A-31
Housing and HUD. Among disability discrimination complaints, complaints regarding alleged denials of reasonable accommodation requests are the most common. The fact that disability status is the most frequently complained of type of discrimination does not necessarily mean that it is the most common type of discrimination occurring in the community. Because of the nature of the reasonable accommodation process, it may be more apparent to individuals with disabilities that they have been subjected to discrimination. By contrast, fair housing testing may be necessary to uncover national origin and race discrimination, in particular. Testing conducted by stakeholders confirmed that these types of discrimination remain common. Complaints of source of income discrimination also remain common despite the State’s relatively recently enacted prohibition on such discrimination against household with Housing Choice Vouchers suggesting either or both inadequate awareness of the new law and/or inadequate enforcement of it.
Demographic and Housing Data
There was broad consensus that housing costs in Santa Clara County are extremely high and have rapidly become more expensive over time. These changes have not affected all communities equally and Hispanic or Latino, Black, and Vietnamese populations, which tend to have lower income levels, being particularly vulnerable to displacement. In light of income disparities among Asian American and Pacific Islander ancestry groups, participants in the community engagement process emphasized the importance of disaggregated data, which tends to show lower income levels among Vietnamese households but also relatively high rates of homeownership.
Zoning and Land Use
Concern about the extent to which zoning and land use laws play a role in fair housing issues varies significantly depending on one’s location within Santa Clara County. Additionally, because zoning and land use laws often have consequences across city boundaries, the greatest concerns that community members and stakeholders articulated tended to pertain to different jurisdictions than those where participants lived, provided services, or engaged in advocacy. In particular, many involved in the community engagement process noted concerns about exclusionary zoning in the West Valley. Developer stakeholders, both of affordable and of market rate housing, also noted that long approval timelines were often as significant of a barrier to their efforts as were underlying regulations. They noted understaffing of planning departments as a principal driver of those delays.
Affordable Housing Programs
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page A-32
There was generally consensus around the need to provide more financial support for affordable housing across jurisdictions in Santa Clara County though there were some differences of opinion about how, if at all, to use regulatory tools like inclusionary housing to produce affordable housing. The details of input about affordable housing funding programs varied in relation to the different landscapes of existing programs in each municipality. Some stakeholders noted the high bar to passage for bond issues, including affordable housing bond issues, reflecting that, while the passage of Measure A was a big step forward for Santa Clara County, a similar bond issue in the City of San José had failed despite a large majority of support. Inclusionary housing was a frequent topic of discussion but not a point on which there was consensus. Most participants who discussed inclusionary housing voiced support for the adoption of requirements in more jurisdictions, deeper affordability targeting, and higher set aside requirements. Some participants opposed these types of changes on the basis of stated concerns about deterring new development.
Supportive Services
Participants in the community engagement process noted geographic unevenness in the availability of supportive services for persons with disabilities and unhoused populations, with communities in South County having less access than in North County. There was also criticism of the overall level of services that are available and concern that there were more adequate services available for chronically unhoused individuals with serious mental illness and/or substance abuse disorders but that other vulnerable populations, including disproportionately Hispanic or Latino unhoused families, domestic violence survivors, and medically fragile individuals, have less access to services. For formerly unhoused individuals living in permanent supportive housing, some expressed concern about whether persons with disabilities have true provider choice.
Access to Opportunity
Many stakeholders and residents expressed concern about public transportation in Santa Clara County. Issues raised include the overall level of service, the lack of service in some areas with high performing school in the West Valley, the lack of service in South County, and high fares on CalTrain. Bus riders mentioned long headways on some bus routes as a problem. Participants reflected on the expansion of BART service into Santa Clara County as both an opportunity and an occurrence that could lead to more displacement. With regard to environmental health, the most significant concerns articulated in the community engagement process related to issues in East and North San José. The connection between patterns of segregation and access to proficient schools was clear in the data analysis conducted for the Assessment of Fair Housing but was not heavily emphasized by participants in the community engagement process.
A
Page A-33
Tenant Protections
Tenant protections were a frequent topic of discussion albeit one that sharply divided opinion among participants in the community engagement process. Many participants urged robust tenant protections including rent stabilization with as few exemptions as are allowed by state law, just cause eviction protections, constraints on Ellis Act conversions, and requirements that landlords pay relocation expenses for displaced tenants. Other participants, particularly trade associations representing landlords, strongly opposed most or all of these policies. Small “mom and pop” landlords were particularly likely to express opposition to just cause eviction protections and stated more strenuous objections to that policy than they did to rent stabilization.
Legal services providers noted that they did not have the resources or capacity to meet the total need for tenant representation in eviction cases absent additional funding. It is important to note that this input was gathered prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, and there was no opportunity to get input on the various government interventions to prevent evictions during the pandemic.
Appendix A-5 Housing Element Specific Outreach
FIGURE 1: HOUSING ELEMENT SPECIFIC OUTREACH
Housing Element Specific Outreach
Meeting/Activity Date Meeting Type
1 Stakeholders Meeting re: Affordable Housing
Ordinance Potential Amendments March 12, 2021 Zoom
2 City Council Study Session April 6, 2021 Zoom
3 Let’s Talk Housing Community Meeting August 30, 2021
Zoom 25 attendees from
Santa Clara
4 Planning Commission Study Session September 22, 2021
5 City Council Study Session on Homelessness November 9, 2021 6 Joint City Council/Planning Commission Study
Session 1 April 19, 2022
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page A-34
7 Homelessness Taskforce Meeting #1 April 28, 2022
8 Stakeholder Listening Session: Development
Constraints Panel May 5, 2022 Zoom
9 Community Survey (English, Spanish, Chinese,
Vietnamese) May - July 8, 2022 1,651 responses
10 Health and Wellness Fair May 20, 2022 • 400 attendees, 50-60 people stopped by booth
11 Homelessness Taskforce Meeting #2 May 26, 2022 Zoom
12 June 2022 City Hall News (monthly e-newsletter) June 2022 13 Library Pop-Up Meetings (Central and Northside) June 14th and 17th, 2022
In Person
14 Inside Santa Clara (summer 2022 edition) June 18-22, 2022 Mailed to over 58,000 residents and businesses
15 Homelessness Taskforce Meeting #3 June 23, 2022
16 Joint City Council/Planning Commission Study
Session 2 July 12, 2022
17 Housing Choices – Interview with Kalisha
Webster July 22, 2022
18 Homelessness Taskforce Meeting #4 July 28, 2022
19 Community Meeting August 1, 2022 Zoom
20 Community Meeting Forum on Homelessness August 9, 2022 Zoom 21 Life Services Alternatives (LSA) – Residential Care
Home visit and interview with Dana Hooper and
residents
August 12, 2022 In Person
22 Meeting with regional Equity Advisory Group August 23, 2022 Zoom 23 Homelessness Taskforce Meeting #5 August 25, 2022
24 40th Anniversary Art & Wine Festival September 17-18, 2022 In Person A
Page A-35
25 Meeting with Riverwood Grove residents (family
housing) September 19, 2022 In Person
26 Meeting with Bill Wilson Peacock Commons
residents (Transition Age Youth) September 20, 2022 In Person 27 Meeting with Liberty Tower residents (Seniors) September 22, 2022 In Person 28 Homelessness Taskforce Meeting #6 October 27, 2022
29 Housing Stakeholders Workshop November 17, 2022 Zoom Summaries from Select Meetings/Activities
1. March 12, 2021. Stakeholders meeting (Zoom). Approximately 30 individuals representing numerous development companies and related interests participated in a discussion regarding potential amendments to City’s Affordable Housing Ordinance. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS), the City’s consultant, presented at the beginning of the meeting and shared the housing prototypes being analyzed for feasibility with the current Affordable Housing Ordinance and potential changes that would increase the number or depth of affordability the City could consider. A summary of stakeholder comments is available on the Housing Element Update page.
3. August 30, 2021. Let’s Talk Housing Community Meeting (Zoom). A series of countywide meetings about the Housing Element update were held from August to September 2021. Each meeting offered Spanish-language interpretation and provided community members with an introduction the Housing Element update, why it matters, information on the Let’s Talk Housing outreach effort and countywide trends. Breakout room discussions with individual cities and towns followed. In total 832 registered for the series. Of those who registered for the series, the majority identified as White and over half were 50 years or older. Over sixty percent lived over 21 years within the county, and over half were homeowners.
Santa Clara was part of the August 30th, 2021 introductory meeting, along with Milpitas, Mountain View, and Sunnyvale. This meeting offered Vietnamese interpretation in addition to Spanish, courtesy of the City of Milpitas, and outreach for the meeting was conducted in the three languages. Twenty-five people who registered for the August 30th meeting identified as joining from Santa Clara. Of the Santa Clara participants, all indicated being homeowners and living in single family homes. In the breakout session, participants expressed that they valued living in Santa Clara due to its tight knit community, its rich history, ample job opportunities, and its mix of older and newer neighborhoods. However, participants pointed out older housing is becoming increasingly unaffordable and the general lack of moderate and affordable housing. Older adults, especially those who are moderate or low income, struggle to find housing and many adult children can’t live close to their aging parents. Among ideas to address these needs were: transit-oriented development, increasing allowable densities, and developing an affordable
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page A-36
housing program for seniors. Among programs or policies that are already working well, participants shared that specific plans have been an effective tool for development and the El Camino Real Specific Plan in particular is a good example of extensive and comprehensive community outreach.
8. May 5, 2022. Stakeholder Listening Session: Development Constraints (Zoom). The presentation and summary from this meeting is available on the Santa Clara County Planning Collaborative page and on the Housing Element Update page.
14. June 18-22, 2022. Inside Santa Clara (summer 2022 edition). Full page article on the Housing Element Update. Printed newsletter sent to over 58,000 residents and businesses.
19. August 1, 2022. Community Meeting (Zoom). Community meeting with a presentation on the Housing Plan of the draft Housing Element Update; comments were made regarding tenant protections, housing for persons with disabilities, and increased housing type and tenure. There twelve (12) members of the community that attended representing individuals and advocacy organizations.
22. August 23, 2022. Regional Equity Advisory Group (EAG) Meeting (Zoom). Provided City with general feedback on how to improve engagement with stakeholders and community members. Suggested more direct outreach and importance of going to specific locations to reach targeted populations. Specific comments about locating housing in high/highest opportunity areas of the City and that ELI households experience the highest rates of housing cost burden, making them at the highest risk of homelessness or displacement.
24. September 17-18, 2022. 40th Annual Art & Wine Festival (In-person). 152 attendees participated in a dot exercise to identify what they felt were the biggest challenges/greatest needs facing the City of Santa Clara.
Participants were provided different colored dots if they identified as a City of Santa Clara homeowner (111), City of Santa Clara renter (24), if they work (but don’t live) in the City of Santa Clara (4), or if they don’t live or work in the City of Santa Clara (13). From a list of 13 biggest challenges/greatest needs, the most votes were placed on 1. Addressing homelessness: programs, temporary housing/permanent supportive housing; 2. Housing that is affordable to low/minimum was earners (e.g., service/retail workers); 3. Providing more homeownership opportunities; and 4. Stabilizing rents (limit large rent increases and large deposit requirements).
Although Santa Clara homeowners and renters identified the same top four biggest challenges/greatest needs, the order was different. For homeowners addressing homelessness received the most votes and stabilizing rents received the fourth most votes. For renters stabilizing rents received the most votes and addressing homelessness received the fourth most votes.
Homeowners: 1. Addressing homelessness; 2. Housing that is affordable to low/minimum wage earners; 3. Providing more homeownership opportunities; 4. Stabilizing rents Renters: 1. Stabilizing rents; 2. Housing that is affordable to low/minimum wage earners; 3.
Providing more homeownership opportunities; 4. Addressing homelessness.
A
Page A-37
24, 25, 26. September 19, 2022. Riverwood Grove (family housing) Residents Meeting (In-person with 16 adults, 5 children); September 20, 2022. Bill Wilson Peacock Commons (transition age youth) Residents Meeting (In-person with 10 adults, 5 children); September 22, 2022. Liberty Tower (senior housing) Residents Meeting (In-person with 8 adults, 2 staff). Residents of the three housing developments were asked a series of questions, including about their personal experiences/challenges finding and living in affordable/supportive housing, and what they would like to see in terms of priorities for making their housing experience better. In addition to noting specific resources needs and concerns about traffic and safety, residents consistently noted the challenges of barriers to entry (affordability and wait/availability of units).
27. November 17, 2022. Stakeholders Workshop (Zoom). Zoom meeting that reviewed the Housing Element development process using a Mural Board. The meeting was primarily attended by housing and human service providers and advocacy organizations. Attendees mentioned the need for more emergency rental assistance, that state relocation assistance is inadequate, that ELI seniors in income restricted housing are increasingly rent burdened and at risk of homelessness, that seniors need in-person housing navigation assistance that homelessness prevention is less costly than crisis response, that city and county government should work on providing holistic housing services, the need for more social workers and case managers to help clients navigate programs, the need to financially support service providers so they can retain staff, the need to bring air conditioning and filters into affordable housing in response to heat and wildfire smoke climate change, and the need to proactively reach out to Latino/a, Vietnamese, and Filipino/a populations who are disproportionately in need of affordable housing.
Appendix A-6 Public Review Draft Comments
The City of Santa Clara asked for the public’s comments on the Housing Element Update. The document to post public comments can be found here: https://santaclaraca.konveio.com/city-santa-clara-housingelement-update?cid=87#page=18. Below is a summary of the received comments.
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page A-38
FIGURE 1: HOUSING ELEMENT DRAFT PUBLIC COMMENTS
Date Name Comment
Comment
Page Sentiment Comment link Response
7/1/2022
Katherine
Lanning
I love Santa Clara and
would love to volunteer
my time helping others
in this beautiful city 18 Positive
https://santaclaraca.konveio.com/citysanta-clara-housing-elementupdate?cid=87#page=18 7/30/2022
Anne
Paulson
The Housing Element
isn't the place where the
city talks about
"exploring changes." The
Housing Element is
where the city talks
about the result of the
explorations that have
already happened, and
explains what the
changes are and when
exactly they will be
accomplished.
What changes will you
make, and when will
they be made? 22 Neutral
https://santaclaraca.konveio.com/citysanta-clara-housing-elementupdate?cid=98#page=22 7/30/2022
Anne
Paulson
These exceedingly weak
explorations do nothing
to achieve B-1 (look for
sites for affordable
housing), B-2 (encourage
high density housing),or
B-3 (look for funding for
affordable housing).
They don't do anything
for the C goals either,
which are about housing
for people with special
circumstances (disability,
female-headed, large
family).
My suggestion is that
you write objectives that
would actually achieve
your goals, and give time
deadlines for them. 22 Negative
https://santaclaraca.konveio.com/citysanta-clara-housing-elementupdate?cid=99#page=22 A
Page A-39
7/12/2022 Jennifer
Where is Action #4? I
see responsible agency
and objectives, but no
Action listed or Funding
Source. 24 Negative
https://santaclaraca.konveio.com/citysanta-clara-housing-elementupdate?cid=90#page=24 7/30/2022
Anne
Paulson
How will you improve
the maintenance of
student housing, and
when? 26 Neutral
https://santaclaraca.konveio.com/citysanta-clara-housing-elementupdate?cid=100#page=26 7/30/2022
Anne
Paulson When? 26 Neutral
https://santaclaraca.konveio.com/citysanta-clara-housing-elementupdate?cid=101#page=26 7/30/2022
Anne
Paulson When? 26 Neutral
https://santaclaraca.konveio.com/citysanta-clara-housing-elementupdate?cid=102#page=26 7/29/2022 Nick Leung
Yes, I would really like to
see more upzoning/high
density development
while being conscious of
existing transportation,
or improving/adding
more transportation to
support new
developments such that
they reduce reliance on
cars. 27 Neutral
https://santaclaraca.konveio.com/citysanta-clara-housing-elementupdate?cid=91#page=27 7/30/2022
Anne
Paulson How? 28 Neutral
https://santaclaraca.konveio.com/citysanta-clara-housing-elementupdate?cid=103#page=28 7/30/2022
Anne
Paulson How? 28 Neutral
https://santaclaraca.konveio.com/citysanta-clara-housing-elementupdate?cid=104#page=28
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page A-40
7/30/2022
Anne
Paulson
What is the action here?
I don't see any action. 33 Negative
https://santaclaraca.konveio.com/citysanta-clara-housing-elementupdate?cid=105#page=33 7/29/2022 Nick Leung
If El Camino becomes
densified, I'd like to see
dedicated BRT. 77 Neutral
https://santaclaraca.konveio.com/citysanta-clara-housing-elementupdate?cid=92#page=77 7/29/2022 Nick Leung
We should lower the
requirements for
parking. Parking is poor
land use (especially
surface parking) which
encourages more cars,
which is bad for traffic
and many reasons. In
this area, so much land
is already dedicated to
cars (4+4 lane
expressways, highways,
garages, driveways,
parking, etc.). We can
increase the
transportation
connectivity and serve
lower income residents
better by lessening the
emphasis on car-driven
development. 117 Neutral
https://santaclaraca.konveio.com/citysanta-clara-housing-elementupdate?cid=93#page=117 7/30/2022
Anne
Paulson
How can you say with a
straight face that
development standards
aren't a constraint on
building, when you
require two parking
spaces for a studio
apartment? You're
requiring more space for
the cars than for the
people. 118 Negative
https://santaclaraca.konveio.com/citysanta-clara-housing-elementupdate?cid=96#page=118 7/30/2022
Anne
Paulson
An SRO is not employee
housing; it's rooms with
or without kitchens that
are rented separately.
Why is the title SRO
Housing, when the text
doesn't talk about SRO
housing?
The Housing Element
needs to explain how 120 Negative
https://santaclaraca.konveio.com/citysanta-clara-housing-elementupdate?cid=97#page=120 A
Page A-41
Santa Clara allows Single
Room Occupancy
housing.
7/29/2022 Nick Leung
I think this is
unfortunate, but it's
obvious that this
community opposition
to densification has
created disastrous
effects for housing
affordability for
everyone.
We can fight a lot of this
community resistance
with transit oriented and
mixed use development,
though I expect the
community will find
other ways to oppose it.
We should still try. 132 Negative
https://santaclaraca.konveio.com/citysanta-clara-housing-elementupdate?cid=94#page=132 7/30/2022
Anne
Paulson
(Page 13.5-23) The
Housing Element says
that it will do a fee
analysis of the four
prototypical buildings.
And then, it just doesn't.
I'd like to know how
much the 100 unit
building would pay in
fees, and I assumed
that's what the analysis
was going to give me,
but it doesn't. Elsewhere
in the document (p 13.5-
13) it says that a large
multifamily project pays
$2156 per unit, but that
doesn't look accurate,
with all those big permit
fees.
The document needs to
tell us what the fees are
for these typical
buildings. 134 Negative
https://santaclaraca.konveio.com/citysanta-clara-housing-elementupdate?cid=95#page=134
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page A-42
7/30/2022
Anne
Paulson
Sares Regis, 800
units???? Sares Regis is a
building company, not
an address or an
identifier for a project.
What project is this? 145 Neutral
https://santaclaraca.konveio.com/citysanta-clara-housing-elementupdate?cid=106#page=145 7/31/2022
Anne
Paulson Typo 149 Positive
https://santaclaraca.konveio.com/citysanta-clara-housing-elementupdate?cid=107#page=149 7/31/2022
Anne
Paulson
This has to be 34
REMAINING parcels.
Otherwise the numbers
don't add up: half the
parcels are already built,
11 are approved or
proposed, the remaining
17 are listed for below
market housing in the
table below. 158 Negative
https://santaclaraca.konveio.com/citysanta-clara-housing-elementupdate?cid=108#page=158 7/31/2022
Anne
Paulson
"Full buildout of the area
will likely occur by
2038." So the capacity
listed in 13.6-7 should be
discounted by 50%, since
since buildout will occur
throughout the Sixth and
Seventh RHNA cycles. 158 Neutral
https://santaclaraca.konveio.com/citysanta-clara-housing-elementupdate?cid=109#page=158 7/1/2022
Katherine
Lanning
I have great experience
in developing business
and marketing 173 Positive
https://santaclaraca.konveio.com/citysanta-clara-housing-elementupdate?cid=89#page=173 7/1/2022
Katherine
Lanning
I would love to volunteer
my time to make this
city a beautiful one with
parks, museums and
individual gardens 189 Positive
https://santaclaraca.konveio.com/citysanta-clara-housing-elementupdate?cid=88#page=189 A
Page A-43
8/16/2022
Dana
Hooper
Thanks for taking the
time to visit the LSA
Cypress home. Cypress is
a licensed residential
care home.
As I mentioned I had a
chance to review
chapter 13.2 Housing
Plan and have some
comments I’d like to
share.
My general comment is
that otherwise eligible
individuals should not be
excluded because they
choose to or are already
living in a licensed
residential care home.
These individuals need
the support just as much
as there counterpart.
Here are some
additional comments to
specific section in the
Housing Plan.
Action 1: The 4th
objective – Support low-
income housing
alternatives such as
housing for persons with
disabilities should be
expanded specifically to
include licensed
residential care homes.
Action 3: Affordable
Housing Incentives and
Facilitation. The
construction of
affordable housing
should also include
residential care homes
as a type of facility and
funding to at least the
same level per person as
multiunit projects.
Action 4: Maintenance
of Housing Stock should
include residential care
homes in the definition
of who is qualified to
receive maintenance. n/a n/a
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page A-44
Appendix A-7 Formal Comment Letters
FIGURE 1: HOUSING ELEMENT DRAFT – PUBLIC FORMAL LETTER COMMENTS Date Organization From Comment(s)
7/27/2022 TransForm Kendra Ma, Housing
Policy Analyst
1. Santa Clara needs to expand on its successful programs and initiate new ones, including: 1) Planning for growth in walkable areas near transit, 2) Reducing the amount of parking mandated for housing and providing incentives and programs to drive less (Transportation Demand Management), 3) Developing sufficient programs to meet affordable home targets of RHNA
2. Action 9 - revising zoning standards and potentially reducing/eliminating parking: lacks commitment to specific changes, such as what parking strategies the city will pursue. TransForm's recommendations:
a) Fund a dedicated study of parking reforms
b) Require unbundled parking for developments in "Transit Neighborhoods" c) Expand the Transportation Demand Management program
3. TransForm applauds policy C-1: cost-effective complement to strategies focused on housing production
7/1/2022 SV@Home Matthew Reed,
Policy Director
1. Concern over the lack of understanding and attention to the broader Housing Element requirements under Affirmatively Further Fair Housing (AFFH) in this Housing Element Update process. Santa Clara should consider the work and policy efforts conducted in Palo Alto to build upon and further the community's anti-displacement goals by addressing housing instability.
See letter for specific recommendations.
7/15/2022 Housing
Choices
-The City of Santa Clara needs to adopt more programs and policies related to affordable housing with coordinated services for persons living with developmental disabilities, examples include:
a) Integration in typical affordable housing
b) Coordination of housing with onsite supportive services c) A mix of unit sizes
d) Location near public transit
c) Deeply affordable housing
-Population of adults living with developmental disabilities continues to increase in Santa Clara while beds available in licensed facilities are decreasing -Policy/Programming recommendations include:
1. Produce more extremely low-income housing
2. Establish and monitor a quantitative goal
3. Target city-owned land to dedicate to affordable housing
4. Local density bonus
5. Extremely low-income ADUs
6. Reduce parking requirements
7. Affirmative marketing of physically accessible units A
Page A-45
8/8/2022 SV@Home Matthew Reed,
Policy Director
-The City of Santa Clara’s Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element falls short of the statutory requirement at multiple levels, from its failure to elicit and reflect community input, to its deficient analysis of needs, to its absence of concrete programs with implementation details and timelines
-The sites inventory falls significantly short of the AFFH requirements for this process
-6th Cycle Housing Element Update is a unique process to fully assess the breadth of housing needs in Santa Clara and identify new tools to address housing constraints and needs
-Opportunity to engage with the full community across incomes -SV@Home does not find that the Draft Housing Element Update shows evidence of the significant public engagement and community participation required to be compliant with guidance provided by the state -Lack of sufficient outreach and notification to public/community -The Housing Element does not a) provide a summary of public comments and b) explain how the comments were considered and incorporated, including comments that were not incorporated.
-The Housing Needs Assessment does not incorporate local knowledge or analysis.
-SV@Home recommends that the City of Santa Clara conduct additional outreach and analysis of the housing needs data in the draft with the goal of better understanding the housing needs of the city as they are experienced by residents of the city
-SV@Home recommends that the assessment of the 5th Cycle Policies and Programs be incorporated into the more comprehensive assessment of housing needs, including concrete opportunities for public engagement around the lessons learned from these prior efforts.
-Lack of connection between needs and solutions in the draft -SV@Home believes the lack of detail in the policies and programs included in the draft will not prove to be compliant.
-SV@Home believes there is a general failure to substantively address housing instability and displacement experienced by protected classes under AFFH in Santa Clara.
-SV@Home recommends that the City of Santa Clara confirm and remove any sites from the inventory that received building permits prior to June 30, 2022, whether listed as “Under Construction” or “Approved”.
8/16/2022 Life Services
Alternatives
Dana Hooper,
Executive Director
General Comment: Otherwise eligible individuals should not be excluded because they choose to or are already living in a licensed residential care home. These individuals need the support just as much as there counterpart.
Action 1: The 4th objective – Support low-income housing alternatives such as housing for persons with
disabilities should be expanded specifically to include licensed residential care homes.
Action 3: Affordable Housing Incentives and Facilitation. The construction of affordable housing should
also include residential care homes as a type of facility and funding to at least the same level per person
as multiunit projects.
Action 4: Maintenance of Housing Stock should include residential care homes in the definition of who is
qualified to receive maintenance.
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page A-46
8/1/2022 Anne Paulson -The Local Processing Explanation Is Confusing and Lacks Necessary Information
-Recommendations:
• For each typical type of building (ADU, single family house, 10 unit multifamily, 100 unit multifamily, big project that requires rezoning), list each step the applicant must go through, in order, with the time it takes, the number of public meetings it requires, the approval body or bodies, and how much it costs
• Make the fees table comprehensible
'-Lack of clarity in the Local Processing Explanation Is Confusing and Lacks Necessary Information
-Recommendations:
• Be more specific about the stage of approval each project is in. • Discount pipeline project and site inventory capacity for the probability that the project doesn’t get built'
-What the Housing Element needs to do is
explain how this capacity is going to be used to build the RHNA in the next eight years. The document needs to be far more clear and explicit about the entire process—the steps, how long the process takes, how much the fees are, what the project mortality is—and where each listed project is along the way - Santa Clara is nowhere close to building below market units at a rate that would satisfy its Sixth Cycle below market RHNA. So it would make sense for the Housing Element to include programs, with deadlines and milestones, to build more affordable housing.
- The City Needs to Commit to Actual Measurable Actions and Deadlines -To further encourage all-affordable projects, the city should also • make all-affordable housing projects buildable by right, with ministerial approval
• remove parking minimums for all-affordable projects
• reduce fees for all-affordable projects
If the city cannot take these actions now for whatever reason, it should identify the reason and commit to taking the action by a certain date within the planning period.
A
Page A-47
FIGURE 2: FORMAL COMMENT LETTER: TRANSFORM
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page A-48
A
Page A-49
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page A-50
FIGURE 3: FORMAL COMMENT LETTER: SILICON VALLEY AT HOME A
Page A-51
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page A-52
A
Page A-53
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page A-54
FIGURE 4: FORMAL COMMENT LETTER: HOUSING CHOICES
A
Page A-55
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page A-56
A
Page A-57
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page A-58
A
Page A-59
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page A-60
A
Page A-61
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page A-62
FIGURE 5: FORMAL COMMENT LETTER: SILICON VALLEY AT HOME A
Page A-63
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page A-64
A
Page A-65
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page A-66
A
Page A-67
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page A-68
FIGURE 6: FORMAL COMMENT LETTER: LIFE SERVICES ALTERNATIVES A
Page A-69
FIGURE 7: FORMAL COMMENT LETTER: ANNE PAULSON
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page A-70
A
Page A-71
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page A-72
A
Page A-73
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page A-74
FIGURE 7: FORMAL COMMENT LETTER: PARTNERSHIP FOR THE BAY’S FUTURE A
Page A-75
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page A-76
FIGURE 8: FORMAL COMMENT LETTER: CARPENTER’S UNION 405
A
Page A-77
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page A-78
A
Page A-79
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page A-80
FIGURE 9: FORMAL COMMENT LETTER: HOUSING ACTION COALITION A
Page A-81
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page A-82
A
Page A-83
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page A-84
A
Page A-85
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page A-86
A
Page A-87
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page A-88
A
Page A-89
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page A-90
A
Page A-91
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page A-92
A
Page A-93
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page A-94
A
Page A-95
FIGURE 10: FORMAL COMMENT LETTER: HOUSING ACTION COALITION
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page A-96
A
Page A-97
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page A-98
A
Page A-99
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page A-100
A
Page A-101
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page A-102
A
Page A-103
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page A-104
A
Page A-105
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page A-106
A
Page A-107
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page A-108
A
Page A-109
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page A-110
A
Page A-111
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page A-112
A
Page A-113
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page A-114
A
Page A-115
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page A-116
A
Page A-117
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page A-118
A
Page A-119
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page A-120
FIGURE 11: FORMAL COMMENT LETTER: HOUSING ACTION COALITION A
Page A-121
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page A-122
A
Page A-123
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page A-124
A
Page A-125
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page A-126
A
Page A-127
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page A-128
A
Page A-129
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page A-130
A
Page A-131
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page A-132
A
Page A-133
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page A-134
A
Page A-135
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page A-136
FIGURE 12: FORMAL COMMENT LETTER: HOUSING ACTION COALITION A
Page A-137
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page A-138
A
Page A-139
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page A-140
A
Page A-141
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page A-142
A
Page A-143
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page A-144
A
Page A-145
FIGURE 13: FORMAL COMMENT LETTER: HOUSING ACTION COALITION
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page A-146
A
Page A-147
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page A-148
A
Page A-149
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page A-150
A
Page A-151
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page A-152
A
Page A-153
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page A-154
Table A: 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 Optional Information2 Optional Information3
SANTA CLARA 1601 Civic Center Drive 95050 224-49-006 DHRE PD 37 50 1.495874 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 106 2 0 108 Rezoned to PD (PLN21-15206) / 53 ELI + 53 VLI 1601 Civic Center Drive SANTA CLARA 1834 Worthington Circle/90 N. Winchester Blvd 95117 303-17-053 MDRE PD 19 36 5.791808 Agricultural/open space YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 163 18 144 325 Rezoned to PD (PLN2016-12389) / Prior APNs: 303-17-055, -056, -057, -058, -059 Agrihood Mixed-Use Development Project SANTA CLARA 2200 Calle De Luna 95054 097-05-058 DHRE TN 100 350 3.699773 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 69 510 579 TE 2200 Calle De Luna (Holland) SANTA CLARA 2233 Calle Del Mundo 95054 097-05-059 DHRE TN 100 350 1.164296 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 195 0 1 196 TE 2233 Calle Del Mundo (St. Anton) SANTA CLARA 2302/2310 Calle Del Mundo 95054 097-46-024 DHRE TN 60 350 0.987249 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 150 0 1 151 TE 2302/2310 Calle Del Mundo (Ensemble) SANTA CLARA 2330 Monroe Street 95050 224-37-068 MDRE PD 19 36 2.690116 Under Construction (pending project) YES - Current YES - City-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 64 0 1 65 Rezoned to PD (PLN2019-13723) 2330 Monroe Street Affordable Housing Project (Freebird) SANTA CLARA 2343 Calle Del Mundo 95054 097-05-110 DHRE TN 100 350 2.666977 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 41 305 346 Prior APNs: 097-05-064, -063, and -062 TE 2343 Calle Del Mundo (Summerhill) SANTA CLARA 2354 Calle Del Mundo 95054 097-46-002 DHRE TN 60 350 0.458703 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 10 78 88 TE 2354 Calle Del Mundo (Ensemble) SANTA CLARA 2901 Patrick Henry Drive 95054 104-04-078 UBVG UV 100 149 6.496663 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 80 40 680 800 1 PHD Sares Regis SANTA CLARA 3000 Patrick Henry Drive 95054 104-04-093 UBVG UV 100 149 2.518497 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 31 15 261 307 PHD Summerhill SANTA CLARA 3035 El Camino Real 95051 220-32-059 CMU PD 19 36 1.879895 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 4 44 48 Rezoned to PD (PLN2018-13265) 3035 El Camino Real Residential Project SANTA CLARA 3069 Lawrence Expressway 95051 216-34-052 VHDR LSAP 51 100 3.82527 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 328 328 LSAP 3517 Ryder Street (Westlake Urban) SANTA CLARA 3131 Homestead Road 95051 290-24-071 MDRE R3-25D 19 36 12.522892 Residential YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 9 174 183 Pending project / higher densities approved per AB 3194 Laguna Clara II (Equity) SANTA CLARA 3550 El Camino Real 95051 290-01-113 RMU CT 37 50 1.147904 Hotel/motel YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 120 0 0 120 Pending project / higher densities approved per AB 3194 / SB 35 (PRE21-00023) Clara Gardens - 3550 El Camino Real SANTA CLARA 3575 De La Cruz Boulevard 95054 101-15-049 VLDR B 1 18 0.696784 Vacant YES - Current YES - City-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 13 2 0 15 Pending project / higher densities approved per AB 3194 (PLN22-00518) 3575 De La Cruz Boulevard SANTA CLARA 3580 Rambla Place 95051 216-59-001 VHDR LSAP 51 100 2.57464 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 5 48 233 286 LSAP 3580 Rambla Place (Summerhill) SANTA CLARA 3941 Stevens Creek Boulevard 95051 294-39-010 CMU CT 19 36 0.589208 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 58 0 1 59 Pending project / higher densities approved per AB 3194 (PLN21-15213) 3941 Stevens Creek Blvd - The Meridian SANTA CLARA 4590 Patrick Henry Drive 95054 104-04-123 UBVG UV 100 149 2.795228 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 40 20 353 413 1 PHD Walnut Hill SANTA CLARA 5185 Lafayette Street 95054 097-46-011 DHRE TN 60 350 0.897176 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 15 183 198 TE 5185 Lafayette Street (Ensemble) SANTA CLARA 80 Saratoga Avenue 95051 294-36-018 CMU OG 19 36 0.409406 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 198 2 0 200 Pending project / higher densities approved per SB 35 (PLN21-15214) 80 Saratoga Avenue SANTA CLARA 1205 Coleman Avenue 95050 230-60-001 A VHDMU VHDMU 50 120 3.695906 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 37 36 652 725 Gateway Crossings (Hunter/Storm) - Phase 1 SANTA CLARA 1205 Coleman Avenue 95050 230-60-002 A VHDMU VHDMU 50 120 4.025557 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Gateway Crossings (Hunter/Storm) - Phase 1 SANTA CLARA 1205 Coleman Avenue 95050 230-60-003 B VHDMU VHDMU 50 120 2.758509 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 42 42 756 840 Gateway Crossings (Hunter/Storm) - Phase 2 SANTA CLARA 1205 Coleman Avenue 95050 230-60-004 B VHDMU VHDMU 50 120 3.958583 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Gateway Crossings (Hunter/Storm) - Phase 2 SANTA CLARA 0
SANTA CLARA 0
SANTA CLARA 0
SANTA CLARA 1890 El Camino Real 95050 269-63-012 D CMU PD 19 36 0.016357 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 4 4 48 56 Rezoned to PD (PLN2015-11361) Villa Bella Residential Project SANTA CLARA 1890 El Camino Real 95050 269-63-021 D CMU PD 19 36 0.016367 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Rezoned to PD (PLN2015-11361) Villa Bella Residential Project SANTA CLARA 1890 El Camino Real 95050 269-63-003 D CMU PD 19 36 0.016387 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Rezoned to PD (PLN2015-11361) Villa Bella Residential Project SANTA CLARA 1890 El Camino Real 95050 269-63-006 D CMU PD 19 36 0.016403 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Rezoned to PD (PLN2015-11361) Villa Bella Residential Project SANTA CLARA 1890 El Camino Real 95050 269-63-039 D CMU PD 19 36 0.016617 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Rezoned to PD (PLN2015-11361) Villa Bella Residential Project SANTA CLARA 1890 El Camino Real 95050 269-63-042 D CMU PD 19 36 0.016625 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Rezoned to PD (PLN2015-11361) Villa Bella Residential Project SANTA CLARA 1890 El Camino Real 95050 269-63-015 D CMU PD 19 36 0.016629 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Rezoned to PD (PLN2015-11361) Villa Bella Residential Project SANTA CLARA 1890 El Camino Real 95050 269-63-008 D CMU PD 19 36 0.018925 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Rezoned to PD (PLN2015-11361) Villa Bella Residential Project SANTA CLARA 1890 El Camino Real 95050 269-63-041 D CMU PD 19 36 0.020715 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Rezoned to PD (PLN2015-11361) Villa Bella Residential Project SANTA CLARA 1890 El Camino Real 95050 269-63-027 D CMU PD 19 36 0.023183 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Rezoned to PD (PLN2015-11361) Villa Bella Residential Project SANTA CLARA 1890 El Camino Real 95050 269-63-049 D CMU PD 19 36 0.02526 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Rezoned to PD (PLN2015-11361) Villa Bella Residential Project SANTA CLARA 1890 El Camino Real 95050 269-63-019 D CMU PD 19 36 0.025282 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Rezoned to PD (PLN2015-11361) Villa Bella Residential Project SANTA CLARA 1890 El Camino Real 95050 269-63-001 D CMU PD 19 36 0.025297 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Rezoned to PD (PLN2015-11361) Villa Bella Residential Project SANTA CLARA 1890 El Camino Real 95050 269-63-002 D CMU PD 19 36 0.025305 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Rezoned to PD (PLN2015-11361) Villa Bella Residential Project SANTA CLARA 1890 El Camino Real 95050 269-63-048 D CMU PD 19 36 0.025322 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Rezoned to PD (PLN2015-11361) Villa Bella Residential Project SANTA CLARA 1890 El Camino Real 95050 269-63-010 D CMU PD 19 36 0.025567 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Rezoned to PD (PLN2015-11361) Villa Bella Residential Project SANTA CLARA 1890 El Camino Real 95050 269-63-009 D CMU PD 19 36 0.025576 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Rezoned to PD (PLN2015-11361) Villa Bella Residential Project SANTA CLARA 1890 El Camino Real 95050 269-63-052 D CMU PD 19 36 0.025676 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Rezoned to PD (PLN2015-11361) Villa Bella Residential Project SANTA CLARA 1890 El Camino Real 95050 269-63-044 D CMU PD 19 36 0.025699 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Rezoned to PD (PLN2015-11361) Villa Bella Residential Project SANTA CLARA 1890 El Camino Real 95050 269-63-051 D CMU PD 19 36 0.028544 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Rezoned to PD (PLN2015-11361) Villa Bella Residential Project SANTA CLARA 1890 El Camino Real 95050 269-63-007 D CMU PD 19 36 0.03199 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Rezoned to PD (PLN2015-11361) Villa Bella Residential Project SANTA CLARA 1890 El Camino Real 95050 269-63-031 D CMU PD 19 36 0.032001 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Rezoned to PD (PLN2015-11361) Villa Bella Residential Project SANTA CLARA 1890 El Camino Real 95050 269-63-036 D CMU PD 19 36 0.032908 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Rezoned to PD (PLN2015-11361) Villa Bella Residential Project SANTA CLARA 1890 El Camino Real 95050 269-63-013 D CMU PD 19 36 0.032972 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Rezoned to PD (PLN2015-11361) Villa Bella Residential Project SANTA CLARA 1890 El Camino Real 95050 269-63-011 D CMU PD 19 36 0.032992 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Rezoned to PD (PLN2015-11361) Villa Bella Residential Project SANTA CLARA 1530 Pomeroy Avenue 95051 290-02-097 E VLDR PD 1 18 0.257028 Residential YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Rezoned to PD (PLN2016-12053). 1 existing residential unit 1530-1540 Pomeroy Avenue Residential Project SANTA CLARA 1540 Pomeroy Avenue 95051 290-02-096 E CMU PD 19 36 0.207086 Residential YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 8 8 Rezoned to PD (PLN2016-12053). 1 existing residential unit 1530-1540 Pomeroy Avenue Residential Project SANTA CLARA 2961 Corvin Drive 95051 216-66-033 F MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.012775 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 4 34 38 LSAP 2961 Corvin Drive (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2961 Corvin Drive 95051 216-66-036 F MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.012779 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 LSAP 2961 Corvin Drive (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2961 Corvin Drive 95051 216-66-031 F MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.013029 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 LSAP 2961 Corvin Drive (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2961 Corvin Drive 95051 216-66-003 F MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.013386 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 LSAP 2961 Corvin Drive (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2961 Corvin Drive 95051 216-66-004 F MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.013386 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 LSAP 2961 Corvin Drive (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2961 Corvin Drive 95051 216-66-015 F MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.013388 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 LSAP 2961 Corvin Drive (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2961 Corvin Drive 95051 216-66-016 F MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.01339 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 LSAP 2961 Corvin Drive (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2961 Corvin Drive 95051 216-66-027 F MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.013542 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 LSAP 2961 Corvin Drive (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2961 Corvin Drive 95051 216-66-021 F MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.01355 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 LSAP 2961 Corvin Drive (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2961 Corvin Drive 95051 216-66-010 F MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.013556 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 LSAP 2961 Corvin Drive (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2961 Corvin Drive 95051 216-66-030 F MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.01386 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 LSAP 2961 Corvin Drive (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2961 Corvin Drive 95051 216-66-034 F MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.014202 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 LSAP 2961 Corvin Drive (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2961 Corvin Drive 95051 216-66-035 F MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.014205 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 LSAP 2961 Corvin Drive (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2961 Corvin Drive 95051 216-66-005 F MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.014359 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 LSAP 2961 Corvin Drive (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2961 Corvin Drive 95051 216-66-002 F MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.014359 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 LSAP 2961 Corvin Drive (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2961 Corvin Drive 95051 216-66-014 F MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.01436 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 LSAP 2961 Corvin Drive (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2961 Corvin Drive 95051 216-66-017 F MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.014365 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 LSAP 2961 Corvin Drive (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2961 Corvin Drive 95051 216-66-026 F MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.014816 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 LSAP 2961 Corvin Drive (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2961 Corvin Drive 95051 216-66-009 F MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.014832 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 LSAP 2961 Corvin Drive (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2961 Corvin Drive 95051 216-66-020 F MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.014843 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 LSAP 2961 Corvin Drive (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2961 Corvin Drive 95051 216-66-037 F MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.016811 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 LSAP 2961 Corvin Drive (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2961 Corvin Drive 95051 216-66-019 F MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.017459 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 LSAP 2961 Corvin Drive (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2961 Corvin Drive 95051 216-66-025 F MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.017469 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 LSAP 2961 Corvin Drive (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2961 Corvin Drive 95051 216-66-028 F MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.017469 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 LSAP 2961 Corvin Drive (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2961 Corvin Drive 95051 216-66-022 F MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.017479 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 LSAP 2961 Corvin Drive (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2961 Corvin Drive 95051 216-66-008 F MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.017487 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 LSAP 2961 Corvin Drive (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2961 Corvin Drive 95051 216-66-011 F MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.017488 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 LSAP 2961 Corvin Drive (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2961 Corvin Drive 95051 216-66-038 F MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.017874 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 LSAP 2961 Corvin Drive (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2961 Corvin Drive 95051 216-66-023 F MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.018039 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 LSAP 2961 Corvin Drive (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2961 Corvin Drive 95051 216-66-024 F MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.018147 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 LSAP 2961 Corvin Drive (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2961 Corvin Drive 95051 216-66-018 F MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.018157 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 LSAP 2961 Corvin Drive (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2961 Corvin Drive 95051 216-66-007 F MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.018166 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 LSAP 2961 Corvin Drive (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2961 Corvin Drive 95051 216-66-013 F MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.018174 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 LSAP 2961 Corvin Drive (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2961 Corvin Drive 95051 216-66-001 F MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.018175 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 LSAP 2961 Corvin Drive (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2961 Corvin Drive 95051 216-66-012 F MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.018203 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 LSAP 2961 Corvin Drive (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2961 Corvin Drive 95051 216-66-006 F MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.018212 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 LSAP 2961 Corvin Drive (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2961 Corvin Drive 95051 216-66-032 F MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.019274 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 LSAP 2961 Corvin Drive (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2961 Corvin Drive 95051 216-66-029 F MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.019411 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 LSAP 2961 Corvin Drive (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2903 Corvin Drive 115 95051 216-63-017 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.017325 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2903 Corvin Drive 117 95051 216-63-016 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.015883 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2903 Corvin Drive 119 95051 216-63-015 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.015922 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2905 Noyce Place 169 95051 216-63-030 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.016189 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2905 Noyce Place 171 95051 216-63-029 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.014648 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 5 40 45 LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2905 Noyce Place 173 95051 216-63-028 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.015128 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2905 Noyce Place 175 95051 216-63-027 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.014767 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2905 Noyce Place 177 95051 216-63-026 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.015246 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2905 Noyce Place 179 95051 216-63-025 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.016271 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2907 Corvin Drive 121 95051 216-63-014 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.016597 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2907 Corvin Drive 123 95051 216-63-013 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.014773 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2907 Corvin Drive 125 95051 216-63-012 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.015288 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2907 Corvin Drive 127 95051 216-63-011 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.014778 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2907 Corvin Drive 129 95051 216-63-010 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.015172 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2907 Corvin Drive 131 95051 216-63-009 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.016664 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2909 Corvin Drive 133 95051 216-63-036 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.016486 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2909 Corvin Drive 135 95051 216-63-035 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.015076 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2909 Corvin Drive 137 95051 216-63-034 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.015456 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2909 Corvin Drive 139 95051 216-63-033 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.015091 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2909 Corvin Drive 141 95051 216-63-032 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.015482 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2909 Corvin Drive 143 95051 216-63-031 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.01721 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2911 Noyce Place 181 95051 216-63-041 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.016675 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2911 Noyce Place 183 95051 216-63-040 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.01509 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2911 Noyce Place 185 95051 216-63-039 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.015603 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2911 Noyce Place 187 95051 216-63-038 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.015251 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2911 Noyce Place 189 95051 216-63-037 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.016692 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2913 Corvin Drive 145 95051 216-63-047 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.016728 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2913 Corvin Drive 147 95051 216-63-046 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.015283 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2913 Corvin Drive 149 95051 216-63-045 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.015696 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2913 Corvin Drive 151 95051 216-63-044 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.015311 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2913 Corvin Drive 153 95051 216-63-043 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.015695 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2913 Corvin Drive 155 95051 216-63-042 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.017455 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2915 Corvin Drive 157 95051 216-63-053 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.016921 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2915 Corvin Drive 159 95051 216-63-052 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.015462 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2915 Corvin Drive 161 95051 216-63-051 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.015863 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2915 Corvin Drive 163 95051 216-63-050 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.015453 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 2915 Corvin Drive 165 95051 216-63-049 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.015871 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) Appendix B - Electronic 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 Optional Information2 Optional Information3
SANTA CLARA 2915 Corvin Drive 167 95051 216-63-048 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.01766 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 3303 Kifer Road 101 95051 216-63-024 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.017486 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 3303 Kifer Road 103 95051 216-63-023 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.014864 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 3303 Kifer Road 105 95051 216-63-022 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.015484 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 3303 Kifer Road 107 95051 216-63-021 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.014859 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 3303 Kifer Road 109 95051 216-63-020 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.015487 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 3303 Kifer Road 111 95051 216-63-019 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.014865 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 3303 Kifer Road 113 95051 216-63-018 G MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.017273 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 LSAP 3305 Kifer Road (Toll Brothers) SANTA CLARA 3905 Freedom Circle 95054 104-40-036 H VHDR PD 51 100 5.136416 Vacant YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 108 54 913 1075 Rezoned to PD (PLN2017-12516) 3905 Freedom Circle Mixed-Use Project (Greystar) SANTA CLARA 3905 Freedom Circle 95054 104-40-021 H VHDR PD 51 100 8.224978 Vacant YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Rezoned to PD (PLN2017-12516) 3905 Freedom Circle Mixed-Use Project (Greystar) SANTA CLARA 2101 Tasman Drive 95054 097-05-057 I DHRE TN 100 350 2.3864 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 950 950 TE 2101 Tasman Drive (Related California) SANTA CLARA 2101 Tasman Drive 95054 097-05-056 I DHRE TN 100 350 6.635837 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 TE 2101 Tasman Drive (Related California) SANTA CLARA 2263 Calle Del Mundo 95054 097-05-060 J DHRE TN 60 350 0.955107 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 TE 2263 Calle Del Mundo (Ensemble) SANTA CLARA 2263 Calle Del Mundo 95054 097-05-061 J DHRE TN 60 350 0.98725 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 301 301 TE 2263 Calle Del Mundo (Ensemble) SANTA CLARA 2300 Calle De Luna 95054 097-46-018 K DHRE TN 100 350 1.173241 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 684 684 Prior APNs: 097-46-031, 032, -033 TE 2300 Calle De Luna (Related California) SANTA CLARA 2300 Calle De Luna 95054 097-46-016 K DHRE TN 100 350 1.287041 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Prior APNs: 097-46-031, 032, -033 TE 2300 Calle De Luna (Related California) SANTA CLARA 2300 Calle De Luna 95054 097-46-017 K DHRE TN 100 350 1.531507 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Prior APNs: 097-46-031, 032, -033 TE 2300 Calle De Luna (Related California) SANTA CLARA 2300 Calle De Luna 95054 097-46-028 K DHRE TN 100 350 1.609845 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Prior APNs: 097-46-031, 032, -033 TE 2300 Calle De Luna (Related California) SANTA CLARA 5155 Stars & Stripes Drive 95054 104-03-039 L UCED PD-MC 37 90 2.990044 Vacant YES - Current YES - City-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 20 1660 1680 Rezoned to PD-MC (PLN2014-10554) Related Santa Clara - Phase 1 SANTA CLARA 5155 Stars & Stripes Drive 95054 104-03-038 L UCED PD-MC 37 90 4.401292 Vacant YES - Current YES - City-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Rezoned to PD-MC (PLN2014-10554) Related Santa Clara - Phase 1 SANTA CLARA 5155 Stars & Stripes Drive 95054 104-01-102 L UCED PD-MC 37 90 35.853211 Vacant YES - Current YES - City-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Rezoned to PD-MC (PLN2014-10554) Related Santa Clara - Phase 1 SANTA CLARA 5155 Stars & Stripes Drive 95054 104-03-036 L UCED PD-MC 37 90 86.154927 Vacant YES - Current YES - City-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 Rezoned to PD-MC (PLN2014-10554) Related Santa Clara - Phase 1 SANTA CLARA 5123 Calle Del Sol 95054 097-46-029 M DHRE TN 60 350 0.782628 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 503 503 TE 5123 Calle Del Sol (Ensemble) - Phase I & II SANTA CLARA 5123 Calle Del Sol 95054 097-46-019 M DHRE TN 100 350 1.865499 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 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 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 TE 2225 Calle de Luna & 2232 Calle del Mundo SANTA CLARA 2232 Calle Del Mundo 95054 097-46-027 N DHRE TN 100 350 1.066643 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 8 40 322 370 TE 2225 Calle de Luna & 2232 Calle del Mundo SANTA CLARA 0
SANTA CLARA 2262 Calle Del Mundo 95054 097-46-026 TN TN 60 350 0.482545 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 31 31 62 4, 5, 7, 8 SANTA CLARA 2271 Calle De Luna 95054 097-46-021 TN TN 60 350 0.929071 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 84 35 0 119 4, 5, 8 SANTA CLARA 2272 Calle Del Mundo 95054 097-46-025 TN TN 60 350 0.481745 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 31 31 62 4, 5, 8 SANTA CLARA 2281 Calle De Luna 95054 097-46-023 TN TN 60 350 0.939815 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 85 36 0 121 4, 5, 8 SANTA CLARA 2301 Calle De Luna 95054 097-46-007 S TN TN 60 350 0.459185 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 124 53 0 177 4, 5, 8 SANTA CLARA 2309 Calle De Luna 95054 097-46-008 S TN TN 60 350 0.459186 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 4, 5, 8 SANTA CLARA 2317 Calle De Luna 95054 097-46-009 S TN TN 60 350 0.460984 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 4, 5, 8 SANTA CLARA 2322 Calle Del Mundo 95054 097-46-006 R TN TN 60 350 0.459186 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 124 53 0 177 4, 5, 8 SANTA CLARA 2325 Calle De Luna 95054 097-46-010 TN TN 60 350 0.472659 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 30 30 60 4, 5, 8 SANTA CLARA 2330 Calle Del Mundo 95054 097-46-005 R TN TN 60 350 0.459186 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 4, 5, 8 SANTA CLARA 2338 Calle Del Mundo 95054 097-46-004 R TN TN 60 350 0.458805 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 4, 5, 7, 8 SANTA CLARA 2346 Calle Del Mundo 95054 097-46-003 TN TN 60 350 0.458668 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 30 29 59 4, 5, 7, 8 SANTA CLARA 2900 Patrick Henry Drive 95054 104-04-095 UBVG UV 100 149 1.983616 Educational/institutional/religious YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 149 63 0 212 4, 5, 8 SANTA CLARA 2950 Patrick Henry Drive 95054 104-04-094 UBVG UV 100 149 2.517905 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 189 81 0 270 4, 5, 7, 8 SANTA CLARA 3031 Corvin Drive 95051 216-33-022 MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.609543 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 6 6 12 4, 5, 7, 8 SANTA CLARA 3051 Corvin Drive 95051 216-33-036 MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.603888 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 6 6 12 4, 5, 8 SANTA CLARA 3055 Patrick Henry Drive 95054 104-04-136 UC UC 120 250 3.821098 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 481 206 0 687 4, 5, 7, 8 SANTA CLARA 3071 Corvin Drive 95051 216-33-037 MDRE LSAP 20 36 0.780375 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 8 7 15 4, 5, 7, 8 SANTA CLARA 3100 Patrick Henry Drive 95054 104-04-128 UBVG UV 100 149 2.519292 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 189 81 0 270 4, 5, 7, 8 SANTA CLARA 3105 Patrick Henry Drive 95054 104-04-131 VHDR VHDR 51 100 3.795996 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 189 81 0 270 4, 5, 7, 8 SANTA CLARA 3200 Patrick Henry Drive 95054 104-04-089 T UBVG UV 100 149 1.285564 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 96 41 0 137 4, 5, 7, 8 SANTA CLARA 3200 Patrick Henry Drive 95054 104-04-124 T UBVG UV 100 149 4.679705 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 352 150 0 502 4, 5, 7, 8 SANTA CLARA 3323 Kifer Road 95051 216-33-035 VHDR LSAP 51 100 0.531195 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 79 1 0 80 LSAP 3323 Kifer Road (Kifer Senior Apartments) SANTA CLARA 3450 Central Expressway 95051 216-34-079 VHDR LSAP 51 100 3.139213 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 214 91 0 305 Previously 3450 Copper Place (APN 216-60-045) 1 SANTA CLARA 4633 Old Ironsides Drive 95054 104-04-141 HDF HDF 60 149 2.60243 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 196 83 0 279 1, 4, 5, 7, 8 SANTA CLARA 4655 Old Ironsides Drive 95054 104-04-140 HDF HDF 60 149 2.699689 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 203 86 0 289 1, 4, 5, 7, 8 SANTA CLARA 4677 Old Ironsides Drive 95054 104-04-139 HDF HDF 60 149 2.531554 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 190 81 0 271 1, 4, 5, 7, 8 SANTA CLARA 4699 Old Ironsides Drive 95054 104-04-138 HDF HDF 60 149 1.734805 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 131 55 0 186 1, 4, 5, 8 SANTA CLARA 5191 Lafayette Street 95054 097-46-001 TN TN 60 350 0.512947 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 47 19 0 66 4, 5, 7, 8 SANTA CLARA 4701 Patrick Henry Drive 95054 See note O VR VR 60 149 6.814311 Parking YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 681 291 0 972 Common area does not have an assigned APN / Common area assessed with units 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9 SANTA CLARA 4701 Patrick Henry Drive Unit 1001 95054 104-53-007 O VR VR 60 149 0.078107 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 4, 5, 8 SANTA CLARA 4701 Patrick Henry Drive Unit 101 95054 104-53-001 O VR VR 60 149 0.091117 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 4, 5, 8 SANTA CLARA 4701 Patrick Henry Drive Unit 1101 95054 104-53-009 O VR VR 60 149 0.069394 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 4, 5, 7, 8 SANTA CLARA 4701 Patrick Henry Drive Unit 1201 95054 104-53-008 O VR VR 60 149 0.078105 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 4, 5, 8 SANTA CLARA 4701 Patrick Henry Drive Unit 1301 95054 104-53-010 O VR VR 60 149 0.069385 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 4, 5, 7, 8 SANTA CLARA 4701 Patrick Henry Drive Unit 1401 95054 104-53-011 O VR VR 60 149 0.078101 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 4, 5, 8 SANTA CLARA 4701 Patrick Henry Drive Unit 1501 95054 104-53-019 O VR VR 60 149 0.069387 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 4, 5, 8 SANTA CLARA 4701 Patrick Henry Drive Unit 1601 95054 104-53-018 O VR VR 60 149 0.078108 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 4, 5, 8 SANTA CLARA 4701 Patrick Henry Drive Unit 1701, Unit 1702 95054 104-53-021 O VR VR 60 149 0.113878 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 4, 5, 8 SANTA CLARA 4701 Patrick Henry Drive Unit 1801 95054 104-53-020 O VR VR 60 149 0.078105 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 4, 5, 8 SANTA CLARA 4701 Patrick Henry Drive Unit 1901 95054 104-53-022 O VR VR 60 149 0.090637 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 4, 5, 7, 8 SANTA CLARA 4701 Patrick Henry Drive Unit 2001 95054 104-53-023 O VR VR 60 149 0.078111 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 4, 5, 7, 8 SANTA CLARA 4701 Patrick Henry Drive Unit 201 95054 104-53-014 O VR VR 60 149 0.078105 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 4, 5, 8 SANTA CLARA 4701 Patrick Henry Drive Unit 2101 95054 104-53-024 O VR VR 60 149 0.113885 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 4, 5, 7, 8 SANTA CLARA 4701 Patrick Henry Drive Unit 2201 95054 104-53-017 O VR VR 60 149 0.078107 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 4, 5, 8 SANTA CLARA 4701 Patrick Henry Drive Unit 2301 95054 104-53-025 O VR VR 60 149 0.113872 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 4, 5, 8 SANTA CLARA 4701 Patrick Henry Drive Unit 2401 95054 104-53-016 O VR VR 60 149 0.078105 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 4, 5, 8 SANTA CLARA 4701 Patrick Henry Drive Unit 2501 95054 104-53-026 O VR VR 60 149 0.091121 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 4, 5, 8 SANTA CLARA 4701 Patrick Henry Drive Unit 2601 95054 104-53-015 O VR VR 60 149 0.078107 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 4, 5, 8 SANTA CLARA 4701 Patrick Henry Drive Unit 301 95054 104-53-002 O VR VR 60 149 0.113874 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 4, 5, 8 SANTA CLARA 4701 Patrick Henry Drive Unit 401 95054 104-53-013 O VR VR 60 149 0.078114 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 4, 5, 7, 8 SANTA CLARA 4701 Patrick Henry Drive Unit 501 95054 104-53-003 O VR VR 60 149 0.091121 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 4, 5, 7, 8 SANTA CLARA 4701 Patrick Henry Drive Unit 601 95054 104-53-012 O VR VR 60 149 0.078106 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 4, 5, 8 SANTA CLARA 4701 Patrick Henry Drive Unit 701 95054 104-53-005 O VR VR 60 149 0.113879 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 4, 5, 8 SANTA CLARA 4701 Patrick Henry Drive Unit 801 95054 104-53-004 O VR VR 60 149 0.07811 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 4, 5, 8 SANTA CLARA 4701 Patrick Henry Drive Unit 901 95054 104-53-006 O VR VR 60 149 0.091122 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 4, 5, 7, 8 SANTA CLARA 2655 The Alameda 95050 230-12-012 VHDR PD 50 100 0.39 Vacant YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 3 3 33 39 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
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
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
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
SANTA CLARA 0
SANTA CLARA 0
SANTA CLARA 0
SANTA CLARA 0
SANTA CLARA 0
SANTA CLARA 0
SANTA CLARA 0
Table B: Candidate Sites Identified to be Rezoned to Accommodate Shortfall Housing Need Note: These sites are not required to meet a RHNA shortfall, but have been included in the Housing Element to meet the recommended buffer for lower income units.
Jurisdiction
Name
Site
Address/Intersection
5 Digit
ZIP
Code
Assessor
Parcel
Number
Very LowIncomeLowIncomeModerateIncome
Above
ModerateIncome
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
[Consolidated
Sites]
Optional
Information2
[Site
Suitability]
Optional
Information3
SANTA CLARA
SANTA CLARA
SANTA CLARA
SANTA CLARA
SANTA CLARA
SANTA CLARA 3775 El Camino Real 95051 213-35-035 32.00 24.00 25.00 0.00 Shortfall of Sites 2.185194 RMU CC RMU MU-RC 37 50 81 Non-Vacant Commercial Yes - Current 6, 8
SANTA CLARA
SANTA CLARA
SANTA CLARA
SANTA CLARA 2789 El Camino Real 95051 216-01-059 14.00 9.00 10.00 0.00 Shortfall of Sites 0.884352 RMU CT RMU MU-RC 37 50 33 Non-Vacant Commercial Yes - Current 6 SANTA CLARA 2213 El Camino Real 95050 224-15-029 19.00 13.00 14.00 0.00 Shortfall of Sites 1.22 RMU CT RMU MU-RC 37 50 46 Non-Vacant Commercial Yes - Current 6, 8 SANTA CLARA 2065 El Camino Real 95050 224-15-037 96.00 71.00 72.00 0.00 Shortfall of Sites 6.438 RMU CC RMU MU-RC 37 50 239 Non-Vacant Commercial Yes - Current 6, 7, 8 SANTA CLARA 3590 El Camino Real 95051 290-01-115 10.00 7.00 8.00 0.00 Shortfall of Sites 0.67 RMU CT RMU MU-RC 37 50 25 Non-Vacant Commercial Yes - Current Q 6, 7, 8 SANTA CLARA 3580 El Camino Real 95051 290-01-116 23.00 17.00 18.00 0.00 Shortfall of Sites 1.56 RMU CT RMU MU-RC 37 50 58 Non-Vacant Hotel/motel Yes - Current Q 6, 7, 8 SANTA CLARA 3570 El Camino Real 95051 290-01-117 6.00 4.00 5.00 0.00 Shortfall of Sites 0.39 RMU CT RMU MU-RC 37 50 15 Non-Vacant Commercial Yes - Current Q 6, 7, 8
SANTA CLARA
SANTA CLARA 2200 El Camino Real 95050 290-10-078 14.00 10.00 11.00 0.00 Shortfall of Sites 0.945156 RMU CC RMU MU-RC 37 50 35 Non-Vacant Commercial Yes - Current 6, 7, 8 SANTA CLARA 3750 El Camino Real 95051 313-05-010 10.00 7.00 8.00 0.00 Shortfall of Sites 0.67 RMU CC RMU MU-RC 37 50 25 Non-Vacant Commercial Yes - Current 6, 7, 8 SANTA CLARA 1484 Halford Avenue 95051 313-05-011 19.00 14.00 15.00 0.00 Shortfall of Sites 1.29 RMU CC RMU MU-RC 37 50 48 Non-Vacant Commercial Yes - Current 6, 7, 8 SANTA CLARA 1460 Halford Avenue 95051 313-05-012 18.00 12.00 14.00 0.00 Shortfall of Sites 1.18 RMU CC RMU MU-RC 37 50 44 Non-Vacant Commercial Yes - Current 6, 8 SANTA CLARA 3740 El Camino Real 95051 313-06-003 10.00 7.00 8.00 0.00 Shortfall of Sites 0.66 RMU CC RMU MU-RC 37 50 25 Non-Vacant Commercial Yes - Current 6, 7, 8 SANTA CLARA 3530 El Camino Real 95051 290-01-114 8.00 6.00 6.00 0.00 Shortfall of Sites 0.54 RMU CT RMU MU-RC 37 50 20 Non-Vacant Commercial Yes - Current 6, 7, 8 SANTA CLARA 2232 El Camino Real 95050 290-10-091 30 22 23 0 Shortfall of Sites 2.03 RMU CT RMU MU-RC 37 50 75 Non-Vacant Commercial YES - Current U 6, 7, 8 SANTA CLARA 2240 El Camino Real 95050 290-10-090 10 13 13 0 Shortfall of Sites 0.7 RMU CT RMU MU-RC 37 50 36 Non-Vacant Commercial YES - Current U 6, 7, 8
SANTA CLARA
SANTA CLARA
SANTA CLARA
SANTA CLARA
SANTA CLARA
SANTA CLARA
SANTA CLARA
SANTA CLARA
SANTA CLARA
SANTA CLARA
SANTA CLARA
SANTA CLARA
SANTA CLARA
SANTA CLARA
SANTA CLARA
SANTA CLARA
SANTA CLARA
SANTA CLARA
SANTA CLARA
SANTA CLARA
SANTA CLARA
SANTA CLARA
SANTA CLARA
SANTA CLARA
SANTA CLARA
SANTA CLARA
SANTA CLARA
SANTA CLARA
SANTA CLARA
SANTA CLARA
SANTA CLARA
SANTA CLARA
SANTA CLARA
SANTA CLARA
SANTA CLARA
SANTA CLARA
SANTA CLARA
SANTA CLARA
SANTA CLARA
SANTA CLARA
5 Table C: Land Use, Table Starts in A2
Zoning Designation
From Table A, Column G
and Table B, Columns L and N (e.g.,
"R-1")
General Land Uses Allowed (e.g.,
"Low-density residential")
A Low-density residential (see Ch. 18.08) / Lowto moderate-density residential (per PD) B
Pulbic Quasi-Public, and Public Park or
Recreation
CC Shopping centers (see Ch. 18.36) / Moderatedensity residential (per PD) CT Large-scale and auto-oriented commercial (see
Ch. 18.38) / High-density residential (per PD)
HT Low-density residential (see Ch. 18.58) /
Moderate-density residential (per PD)
OG Administrative and business office centers (see
Ch. 18.32) / Moderate-density residential (per
PD)
PD Any and all uses are permitted in this district /
The density of the proposed project shall
determine the corresponding zone (see Ch.
18.54)
PD-MC Large-scale mixed-use development including
residential with commercial, office, research
and development, and/or public uses / Density
determined per master community plan and
development area plan. (see Ch. 18.56)
R3-18D Low- to moderate-density residential (see Ch.
18.16)
R3-25D Multi-unit housing at a moderate medium
density (see Ch. 18.18)
VHDMU Very high-density mixed-use: 50-120 du/ac
(see Ch. 18.22, Article III)
TN High-density, transit-oriented residential
district with supportive retail services (see Ch.
18.25)
LSAP High-density, transit-oriented residential
district with supportive retail services (see Ch.
18.23)
HDF PHD - Transit-oriented, multi-family residential
development interspersed with office: 60-149
du/ac (see Ch. 18.27)
Zoning Designation
From Table A, Column G
and Table B, Columns L and N (e.g.,
"R-1")
General Land Uses Allowed (e.g.,
"Low-density residential")
UC PHD - Transit-oriented, multi-family residential
development at very high densities: 120-250
du/ac (see Ch. 18.27)
UV PHD - Urban-scale, transit-oriented, multifamily residential development at very high densities: 100-149 du/ac (see Ch. 18.27)
VHDR PHD - Very high-density residential: 51-100
du/ac (see Ch. 18.27)
VR PHD - Multi-family residential development at
very high densities: 60-149 du/ac (see
Ch.18.27)
MU-RC
Regional Commercial and High Density
Residential Uses: 37-50 du/ac (see GP Table
8.3-1: Matrix of Comparison of Land Use
Designations)
C
Page C-1
Appendix C
Supplemental Sites Inventory
Analysis [NEW]
Sites to Meet the RHNA
Santa Clara has taken concrete steps, including the recent adoption of multiple specific plans, to support a significant amount of new housing development within the City. There are 12,209 units in pending and approved projects with a status of either: proposed (i.e. awaiting Planning approval), approved (all required Planning entitlements secured), under construction, or occupied (See Table 13.6-2 Pending and Approved Projects).
The majority of pending and approved projects are market rate with the conservative assumption that assigns the 10,201 units from those projects into the Above Moderate (above 120% AMI) affordability category. The remaining pending and approved projects include over 2,000 restricted affordable units, because of the City’s inclusionary requirements and/or the development of 100% affordable projects.
Although the total number of pending and approved units (12,209) exceeds the City’s total RHNA of 11,632 units, as shown in the below table, these projects do not fully meet the City’s RHNA requirement within the Very Low (0-50% AMI), Low (50-80% AMI), and Moderate (80-120% AMI) affordability categories.
In addition to the City’s pending and approved projects (12,209 units) and projected ADU production (393 units), the Housing Element Sites Inventory includes redevelopment of available specific plan sites (5,592 units) and certain rezoning sites along the El Camino Real corridor (805 units).
The sites to meet the City’s RHNA includes a surplus of units (buffer beyond the minimum RHNA target) in all affordability categories (i.e. Lower, Moderate, Above Moderate) above the 15 to 30-percent buffer recommended by HCD to comply with “no net loss” provisions of State Housing Element law, which requires jurisdictions to maintain a sufficient capacity to accommodate their RHNA throughout the planning period at all income levels.
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page C-2
Table 13.C-1 Sites to Meet the RHNA
Site/Credit Type
Affordability Category
Total
Capacity
Lower Moderate
Above
Moderate
Very Low
[0-50%
AMI]
Low
[50-80%
AMI]
[80-120%
AMI]
[> 120%
AMI]
Pending and Approved Projects 710 794 504 10,201 12,209 Tasman East Focus Area 114 239 175 3,838 4,366
Patrick Henry Drive Focus 76 75 75 1,294 1,520
Lawrence Station Area Plan 39 45 58 635 777
Freedom Circle Focus Area 54 54 54 913 1,075
Other 427 381 142 3,521 4,471
ADU Projection 118 118 118 39 393
Available Specific Plan Sites 2,138 1,586 1,728 140 5,592 Tasman East Focus Area 268 196 318 121 903
Patrick Henry Drive Focus Area 1,747 1,299 1,299 - 4,345 Lawrence Station Area Plan 123 91 111 19 344
El Camino Real Rezoning Sites 319 236 250 - 805
Total 3,285 2,734 2,600 10,380 18,999
RHNA 2,872 1,653 1,981 5,126 11,632
Surplus (buffer above RHNA) 33% 31% 102% 63%
Note: The El Camino Real rezoning sites are not required to accommodate a lower-income RHNA shortfall but have been included in the Sites Inventory for their contribution to the recommended RHNA buffer for lower-income units, particularly in the VLI affordability category.
C
Page C-3
Availability of Specific Plan Sites During the Planning Period Planned Buildout Horizons
Tasman East Focus Area
• Specific Plan (6,000-unit capacity)
o Phase 1 (4,500 units)
o Phase 2 (1,500 units) *Action 19
• Housing Element (5,269 units):
o Pending and Approved (4,366 units, estimated completion 2028) 196 units occupied
2,441 units under construction
581 units approved (all Planning entitlements secured) 1,148 units pending Planning approval
o Available Sites (903 units, estimated completion 2030) Patrick Henry Drive Focus Area
• Specific Plan (10,300 to 12,000-unit capacity)
o Phase 1 (5,839 units, estimated completion 2025-2029) o Phase 2 (2,234 units, estimated completion 2030-2034) • Housing Element (5,865 units, estimated completion 2030) o Pending and Approved (1,520 units)
307 units approved (all Planning entitlements secured) 1,213 units pending Planning approval
o Available Sites (4,345 units)
Lawrence Station Area
• Specific Plan (3,500-unit capacity)
• Housing Element (846 units) completed in 5th Cycle
• Housing Element (1,121 units)
o Pending and Approved (777 units, estimated completion 2024-2027) 449 units under construction
328 units approved (all Planning entitlements secured) o Available Sites (344 units, estimated completion 2030)
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page C-4
Suitability of Nonvacant Sites
Per California Government Code Sections 65583.2(b)(2) and 65583.2(g)(1), and Part D of HCDs Housing Element Site Inventory Guidebook, the City’s inventory of land suitable for residential development shall, for nonvacant sites:
• Include a description of the existing use of each property, including additional details, such as whether the use is discontinued, land to value information, age and condition of the structure, known leases, developer or owner interest, whether the property is currently being marketed, degree of underutilization, etc.; and
• Specify the additional development potential for each site within the planning period and provide an explanation of the methodology used to determine the development potential.
Because non-vacant sites accommodate 50 percent or more of the City’s lower income RHNA, the Housing Element must present “substantial evidence” that the existing use does not constitute an impediment to additional residential uses on the site. As part of the resolution adopting the housing element, findings are included, stating the uses on the identified nonvacant sites included in the Sites Inventory to accommodate the City’s lower income RHNA are likely to be discontinued during the planning period and the factors used to make that determination.
Supplementing the information provided in Chapter 6 Housing Resources and Appendix B Sites Inventory, this section includes additional supporting information that demonstrate , based on the site evaluation criteria described below, how nonvacant sites in the City’s available specific plans and on certain rezoning sites along the El Camino Real corridor are suitable candidates for housing redevelopment.
This section also includes an evaluation of the extent existing uses impede potential redevelopment of certain nonvacant sites. As noted below, and in Chapter 6, after this evaluation, certain sites were removed from consideration if, for example, structures were recently built, or if the site/building underwent recent substantial improvements, or if there are no recent examples of similar redevelopments.
Site Evaluation Criteria
Each site on the sites inventory (not including pending projects) has been evaluated against the following criteria to determine if the existing use constitutes an impediment to residential redevelopment of the sites.
See Chapter 6 Housing Resources for descriptions of each criterion.
A site identified under criterion 1, 2, or 3 requires no further factors/evaluation.
1. Interest: Developer interest or property owner interest to redevelop the site during the planning period, as confirmed during the Housing Element Update process through direct communication (letter, email, phone call) with the property owner and/or their representative.
2. Vacant Lot: Completely vacant lot.
C
Page C-5
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: 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). Recent examples of redevelopment trends in the City of Santa Clara are described in the Redevelopment Trends section and listed in Table 13.C-2 Prior Uses/Details of Pending/Approved/Constructed Projects below.
5. Specific Plan Process: Property is located within a defined Specific Plan area and/or the property owner participated in the Specific Plan planning process. This criterion is distinct from criterion 1 when a property owner (or their representative) participated in the Specific Plan planning process but did not provide direct communication to the City during the Housing Element Update process of their interest in redeveloping their site during the planning period.
6. Underutilized Site: A non-vacant property that has a General Plan land use designation and/or zoning district that allows redevelopment with residential use at a higher density that the existing (typically industrial or commercial) use. Existing site utilization factors considered include low floor area ratio (FAR under 0.5 industrial/office/R&D), number of stories (under 2), tenant vacancies, and if the existing use is entirely served by surface parking.
7. Building/Land Value: Property improvement value is less than 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 Built/Age: Structure was built prior to 1987 (and therefore over 36 years of age) but is not a designated or eligible historic structure, indicating that properties may need substantial improvements or replacement for maximum financial return.
9. Lease: Site has no existing tenant lease(s) or lease(s) expire(s) or lease(s) have buy-out clauses within planning period.
Impediments to the Availability of Sites for Development During Planning Period All of the Housing Element sites identified in the City’s Tasman East Focus Area, Patrick Henry Drive Focus Area, and Lawrence Station Area Specific Plans currently have General Plan land use designations and Zoning districts that support residential development at levels (i.e. number of units) that exceed those anticipated in the City’s Housing Element (Criterion 6).
All of the El Camino real rezoning sites, that have a Regional Mixed Use (37-50 du/ac) General Plan land use designation will be rezoned as part of the Zoning Ordinance Update from their current commercial zoning districts, which do not allow residential, to a new mixed use zoning district that allows by-right residential redevelopment consistent with the General Plan (Criterion 6).
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page C-6
Redevelopment Trends
The following table includes details (square footage, stories, FAR, year built) of prior non-residential uses (e.g., industrial, retail, offices) for pending, approved, and constructed projects that will be or have recently redeveloped with residential. These example projects provide supporting evidence that existing industrial, office, and commercial uses have not been an impediment to residential redevelopment and that this redevelopment trend will continue for similar properties identified on the sites inventory (Criterion 4).
C
Page C-7
Table 13.C-2 Prior Uses/Details of Pending/Approved/Constructed Projects Site
Site
(acres) Use(s)
Building
(sq. ft.) Stories FAR Year Built Use Units
Density
(du/ac) FAR Status
2233 Calle Del Mundo 1.22 Industrial 15,910 1 0.30 1983 Residential (100% Affordable) 196 160 3.37 Occupied 2300 Calle De Luna 5.52 Industrial 97,964 1 0.41 1979 Residential 684 124 3.53 Under Construction 5123 Calle Del Sol (1) 1.87 Industrial 29,000 1 0.36 1978 Residential 311 166 3.64 Under Construction 2200 Calle De Luna 3.91 Industrial 20,160 2 0.12 1978 Residential 579 148 2.97 Under Construction 2225 Calle De Luna 2.02 Industrial 27,000 1 and 2 0.31 1977/84 Residential 370 183 5.36 Under Construction 2302 Calle Del Mundo 0.77 Industrial 16,360 1 0.49 1979 Residential (100% Affordable) 151 196 4.7 Under Construction 2343 Calle Del Mundo 3.06 Industrial 54,558 1 0.41 1977/81/82 Residential 346 113 4.66 Under Construction 5123 Calle Del Sol (2) 0.75 Commercial 3,700 1 0.11 1997 Residential 192 256 7.53 Approved 2263 Calle Del Mundo 1.94 Industrial 33,960 1 0.40 1977/80 Residential 301 155 5.04 Approved 2354 Calle Del Mundo 0.46 Industrial 6,640 1 0.33 1979 Residential 88 191 4.69 Approved 2101 Tasman Dr 9.02 Industrial/Office 125,500 1 and 2 0.32 1980/84 Residential 950 105 3.17 Proposed 5185 Lafayette St 0.90 Industrial 14,200 1 0.36 1979 Residential 198 220 10 Proposed 3000 Patrick Henry Dr 2.52 Industrial/Office 32,480 1 0.30 1980 Residential 307 122 2.87 Approved 2901 Patrick Henry Dr 6.50 Industrial/Office 50,500 1 0.18 1978 Residential 800 123 TBD Pre-application 4590 Patrick Henry Dr 2.80 Industrial/Office 42,821 1 0.35 1990 Residential 413 148 4.98 Pre-application 2904 Corvin Dr 1.08 Office/Warehouse 18,000 1 0.38 1975 Residential (100% Affordable) 145 135 1.88 Completed (5th C.) 2961 Corvin Dr 1.69 Industrial 29,100 1 0.40 1963 Residential 38 22 1.1 Under Construction 3305 Kifer Rd 1.91 Industrial 35,818 1 0.43 1964-79 Residential 45 24 1.13 Under Construction 3580 Rambla Pl 2.57 Industrial 40,110 1 0.36 1975 Residential 286 113 4 Under Construction 3323 Kifer Rd 0.53 Office 8,375 1 0.46 1975 Residential (100% Affordable) 80 151 2.57 Under Construction 3517 Ryder St 3.80 Industrial 63,375 1 0.38 1975 Residential 328 86 3.74 Approved 3945 Stevens Creek Bl 0.58 Retail/Car Wash 4,040 1 0.16 1996 Residential (100% Affordable) 59 102 3.5 Under Construction 3035 El Camino Real 1.93 Used Car Dealer 1,456 1 0.02 1965 Residential 48 25 1 Under Construction 3550 El Camino Real 1.12 Motel 29,356 2 0.60 1975 Residential (100% Affordable) 120 107 2.74 Under Construction 1601 Civic Center Dr 1.41 Office 30,000 2 0.49 1974 Residential (100% Affordable) 108 77 2.16 Approved 80 Saratoga Ave 1.98 Office 26,329 1 and 2 0.27 1968 Residential (100% Affordable) 200 101 3.18 Approved Other
Current/Former Use Details Redevelopment Details
Tasman East Focus Area Specific Plan
Patrick Henry Drive Focus Area Specific Plan
Lawrence Station Area Specific Plan
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page C-8
Tasman East Focus Area
Housing Element Action 19 Tasman East Specific Plan Amendment will remove impediments to the availability and development of the remaining 9 sites (13 parcels) in the Tasman East Focus area by allowing 1,500 units of additional capacity within the Specific Plan and providing streamlined environmental clearance.
Two sites in the Tasman East Focus Area, 5101 Lafayette Street, which is an existing data center, and 2203 Tasman Drive, which is a retail strip center built in 1998, were excluded from the available sites inventory since they are unlikely to redevelop in the timeframe of the 6th cycle Housing Element.
Eleven projects on 18 parcels (58 percent of the parcels on the Sites Inventory) in the Tasman East Focus Area are pending or approved for redevelopment of low intensity light industrial/office uses to high density residential. This is an indicator of trends within the City’s specific plans as they relate to redevelopment of nonvacant sites and that the market demand for new higher density residential development is greater than the demand for existing low-intensity industrial and office development.
These redevelopments are facilitated by the City’s adoption of the Tasman East Specific Plan (and the pending amendment to allow additional residential capacity), the Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan, and the Lawrence Station Area Plan.
The remaining nine Tasman East Focus Area Specific Plan sites on 13 parcels (Criterion 5) are all nonvacant, and similarly developed with low intensity one-story industrial buildings and surface parking built between 1979 and 1984 with Floor Area Ratios (FARs) ranging from 0.34 to 0.47 (Criteria 6 and 8).
Five of the sites have improvement to land value ratios that are less that 1.0 (Criterion 7). All nine remaining sites share similar characteristics with the prior uses and intensity of development on the 18 parcels that have been or are currently being redeveloped with high density housing (Criterion 4). Specific details for each of the nine remaining sites is provided below with each site evaluated for its potential for redevelopment within the timeframe of the Housing Element.
C
Page C-9
1. 5191 Lafayette Street (APN: 097-46-001)
Criteria 6 (Existing Site Utilization) Criteria 7 Criteria 8 Acres
Min.
Density
Max.
Density
Building
Size (sf) FAR Stories
Surface
Parking
Improvement
Ratio
Year
Built
0.51 60 350 7,928 0.35 1 All 0.2 1979
Use(s): Electronics manufacturing; likely unoccupied.
This 0.51-acre industrial site was developed with an approximately 7,928 square foot one-story building (0.35 FAR) with surface parking in 1979.
The following factors were used to determine that the existing use does not constitute an impediment to additional residential uses on the site and that the existing use is likely to be discontinued during the planning period.
• The low FAR (less than 0.5), 1-story building, all surface parking, indicate that the property is underutilized, particularly in comparison to the high density residential allowed on the site. • The low improvement ratio (less than 1.0) indicates substantial underinvestment in the property and the potential for financial gain through redevelopment. • The existing building is almost 45 years old, indicating the building may need substantial improvements or replacement for maximum financial return. • Adjacent to and nearby this site are properties that are in various stages of redevelopment from similar low-intensity industrial uses to high density residential projects including:
o Approved - 2354 Calle del Mundo (east of site)
o Proposed - 5185 Lafayette St (south of site)
o Under construction - 2343 Calle del Mundo (north across street)
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page C-10
2. 2203 Tasman Drive (APN: 097-46-030) Site is Available for Redevelopment, but Not Included on Sites Inventory for Purposes of RHNA
Criteria 6 (Existing Site Utilization) Criteria 7 Criteria 8 Acres
Min.
Density
Max.
Density
Building
Size (sf) FAR Stories
Surface
Parking
Improvement
Ratio
Year
Built
1.03 100 350 7,210 0.16 1 All 0.77 1998
Use(s): Restaurants (six).
Although the site is underutilized (low FAR, one-story, surface parking) with a low improvement ratio, and can be redeveloped with high density residential per the Tasman East Specific Plan, because the existing building is only about 25 years old, this site is less likely to redevelop during the planning period and has been excluded from the Sites Inventory.
C
Page C-11
3. 2262 Calle Del Mundo (APN: 097-46-026)
Criteria 6 (Existing Site Utilization) Criteria 7 Criteria 8 Acres
Min.
Density
Max.
Density
Building
Size (sf) FAR Stories
Surface
Parking
Improvement
Ratio
Year
Built
0.48 60 350 9,850 0.47 1 All 0.77 1980
Use(s): Plating service.
This 0.48-acre industrial site was developed with an approximately 9,850 square foot one-story building (0.47 FAR) with surface parking in 1980.
The following factors were used to determine that the existing use does not constitute an impediment to additional residential uses on the site and that the existing use is likely to be discontinued during the planning period.
• The low FAR (less than 0.5), 1-story building, all surface parking, indicate that the property is underutilized, particularly in comparison to the high density residential allowed on the site. • The low improvement ratio (less than 1.0) indicates substantial underinvestment in the property and the potential for financial gain through redevelopment. • The existing building is almost 44 years old, indicating the building may need substantial improvements or replacement for maximum financial return. • Adjacent to and nearby this site are properties that are in various stages of redevelopment from similar low-intensity industrial uses to high density residential projects including:
o Approved - 2263 Calle del Mundo (north across street) o Occupied - 2233 Calle del Mundo (north across street) o Under construction - 2232 Calle del Mundo/2225 Calle del Luna (east of site)
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page C-12
4. 2271 Calle De Luna (APN: 097-46-021)
Criteria 6 (Existing Site Utilization) Criteria 7 Criteria 8 Acres
Min.
Density
Max.
Density
Building
Size (sf) FAR Stories
Surface
Parking
Improvement
Ratio
Year
Built
0.93 60 350 15,530 0.38 1 All 6.0 1979
Use(s): Warehouse.
This 0.93-acre industrial site was developed with an approximately 15,530 square foot one-story building (0.38 FAR) with surface parking in 1979.
The following factors were used to determine that the existing use does not constitute an impediment to additional residential uses on the site and that the existing use is likely to be discontinued during the planning period.
• The low FAR (less than 0.5), 1-story building, all surface parking, indicate that the property is underutilized, particularly in comparison to the high density residential allowed on the site. • The existing building is almost 45 years old, indicating the building may need substantial improvements or replacement for maximum financial return. • Adjacent to and nearby this site are properties that are in various stages of redevelopment from similar low-intensity industrial uses to high density residential projects including:
o Under construction - 2232 Calle del Mundo/2225 Calle del Luna (east of site) and 5123 Calle del Sol (south across street)
C
Page C-13
5. 2272 Calle Del Mundo (APN: 097-46-025)
Criteria 6 (Existing Site Utilization) Criteria 7 Criteria 8 Acres
Min.
Density
Max.
Density
Building
Size (sf) FAR Stories
Surface
Parking
Improvement
Ratio Year Built
0.48 60 350 9,850 0.47 1 All 1.38 1980
Use(s): Auto repair shop.
This 0.48-acre industrial site was developed with an approximately 9,850 square foot one-story building (0.47 FAR) with surface parking in 1980.
The following factors were used to determine that the existing use does not constitute an impediment to additional residential uses on the site and that the existing use is likely to be discontinued during the planning period.
• The low FAR (less than 0.5), 1-story building, all surface parking, indicate that the property is underutilized, particularly in comparison to the high density residential allowed on the site. • The existing building is almost 44 years old, indicating the building may need substantial improvements or replacement for maximum financial return. • Adjacent to and nearby this site are properties that are in various stages of redevelopment from similar low-intensity industrial uses to high density residential projects including:
o Approved - 2263 Calle del Mundo (north across street) o Under construction – 2202/2310 Calle del Mundo (west of site)
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page C-14
6. 2281 Calle De Luna (APN: 097-46-023)
Criteria 6 (Existing Site Utilization) Criteria 7 Criteria 8 Acres
Min.
Density
Max.
Density
Building
Size (sf) FAR Stories
Surface
Parking
Improvement
Ratio Year Built
0.94 60 350 14,420 0.35 1 All 2.36 1984
Use(s): Medical equipment manufacturing.
This 0.94-acre industrial site was developed with an approximately 14,420 square foot one-story building (0.35 FAR) with surface parking in 1984.
The following factors were used to determine that the existing use does not constitute an impediment to additional residential uses on the site and that the existing use is likely to be discontinued during the planning period.
• The low FAR (less than 0.5), 1-story building, all surface parking, indicate that the property is underutilized, particularly in comparison to the high density residential allowed on the site. • The existing building is almost 40 years old, indicating the building may need substantial improvements or replacement for maximum financial return. • Adjacent to and nearby this site are properties that are in various stages of redevelopment from similar low-intensity industrial uses to high density residential projects including:
o Under construction – 2202/2310 Calle del Mundo (west of site) and 2300 Calle de Luna (south across street)
C
Page C-15
7. 2301, 2309, 2317 Calle De Luna (APNs: 097-46-007, -008, 009) Consolidated Site “S” (same owner) Criteria 6 (Existing Site Utilization) Criteria 7 Criteria 8 Acres
Min.
Density
Max.
Density
Building
Size (sf) FAR Stories
Surface
Parking
Improvement
Ratio Year Built
1.38 60 350 23,670 0.39 1 All 2.84 1979
Use(s): Flooring sales, unoccupied, metal manufacturing.
This 1.38-acre industrial site (three parcels) was developed with approximately 23,670 square feet in three one-story buildings (0.39 FAR) with surface parking in 1979.
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page C-16
The following factors were used to determine that the existing use does not constitute an impediment to additional residential uses on the site and that the existing use is likely to be discontinued during the planning period.
• The low FAR (less than 0.5), 1-story building, all surface parking, indicate that the property is underutilized, particularly in comparison to the high density residential allowed on the site. • The existing buildings are almost 45 years old, indicating the buildings may need substantial improvements or replacement for maximum financial return. • Adjacent to and nearby this site are properties that are in various stages of redevelopment from similar low-intensity industrial uses to high density residential projects including:
o Under construction – 2300 Calle de Luna (south across street) • The entire site (properties must be sold together) is listed available for sale (Cushman & Wakefield) and marketed for residential redevelopment.
8. 2338, 2330, 2322 Calle Del Mundo (APNs: 097-46-004, -005, -006) Consolidated Site “R” (same owner) Criteria 6 (Existing Site Utilization) Criteria 7 Criteria 8 Acres
Min.
Density
Max.
Density
Building
Size (sf) FAR Stories
Surface
Parking
Improvement
Ratio Year Built
1.38 60 350 20,740 0.34 1 All 1.59 1979
Use(s): Unoccupied, unoccupied, glass manufacturing.
C
Page C-17
This 1.38-acre industrial site was developed with three one-story buildings totaling approximately 20,740 square feet (0.34 FAR) with surface parking in 1979.
The following factors were used to determine that the existing use does not constitute an impediment to additional residential uses on the site and that the existing use is likely to be discontinued during the planning period.
• The low FAR (less than 0.5), 1-story buildings, all surface parking, indicate that the property is underutilized, particularly in comparison to the high density residential allowed on the site. The approved and under construction project on the adjacent 0.77-acre site to the east is an 8-story 151-unit 100% affordable project with a 4.7 FAR. In the Tasman East Specific Plan area, the 12 approved, under construction, or occupied projects have FARs ranging from 2.97 to 10.0 with an average FAR of 4.88.
• The existing buildings are almost 45 years old, indicating the buildings may need substantial improvements or replacement for maximum financial return. • Adjacent to and nearby this site are properties that are in various stages of redevelopment from similar aged low-intensity industrial uses to high density residential projects including:
o Under construction – 2202/2310 Calle del Mundo (east of site) and 2343 Calle del Mundo (north across street)
• The owner has been in conversations with real estate brokers about marketing their property for sale for residential redevelopment.
• Total Taxable Value of Site (land and improvements) vs. Comparable Sale Adjacent Site o $4.07M ($2.95M/acre) Total Taxable Value of Site
o $9.65M ($9.75M/acre) Comparable Sale December 2022 adjacent project site to the east for residential redevelopment (under construction).
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page C-18
9. 2325 Calle De Luna (APN: 097-46-010)
Criteria 6 (Existing Site Utilization) Criteria 7 Criteria 8 Acres
Min.
Density
Max.
Density
Building
Size (sf) FAR Stories
Surface
Parking
Improvement
Ratio Year Built
0.47 60 350 6,920 0.34 1 All 1.78 1979
Use(s): Unoccupied.
This 0.47-acre industrial site was developed with an approximately 6,920 square foot one-story building (0.34 FAR) with surface parking in 1979.
The following factors were used to determine that the existing use does not constitute an impediment to additional residential uses on the site and that the existing use is likely to be discontinued during the planning period.
• The low FAR (less than 0.5), 1-story building, all surface parking, indicate that the property is underutilized, particularly in comparison to the high density residential allowed on the site. • The existing building is almost 45 years old, indicating the building may need substantial improvements or replacement for maximum financial return. • Adjacent to and nearby this site are properties that are in various stages of redevelopment from similar low-intensity industrial uses to high density residential projects including:
o Under construction –2300 Calle de Luna (south across street) o Proposed – 5185 Lafayette St (west of site)
C
Page C-19
10. 2346 Calle Del Mundo (APN: 097-46-003)
Criteria 6 (Site Utilization) Criteria 7 Criteria 8
Acres
Min.
Density
Max.
Density
Building
Size (sf) FAR Stories
Surface
Parking
Improvement
Ratio Year Built
0.46 60 350 7,190 0.36 1 All 0.01 1979
Use(s): General contractor.
This 0.46-acre industrial site was developed with an approximately 7,190 square foot one-story building (0.36 FAR) with surface parking in 1979.
The following factors were used to determine that the existing use does not constitute an impediment to additional residential uses on the site and that the existing use is likely to be discontinued during the planning period.
• The low FAR (less than 0.5), 1-story building, all surface parking, indicate that the property is underutilized, particularly in comparison to the high density residential allowed on the site. • The low improvement ratio (less than 1.0) indicates substantial underinvestment in the property and the potential for financial gain through redevelopment. • The existing building is almost 45 years old, indicating the building may need substantial improvements or replacement for maximum financial return. • Adjacent to and nearby this site are properties that are in various stages of redevelopment from similar low-intensity industrial uses to high density residential projects including:
o Under construction – 2343 Calle del Mundo (north across street) o Approved - 2354 Calle del Mundo (east of site)
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page C-20
Patrick Henry Drive Focus Area
Three sites in the Patrick Henry Drive Focus Area, 4650 and 4700 Old Ironsides Drive (existing data centers), and 4600 Patrick Henry Drive were excluded from the available sites inventory since they are unlikely to redevelop in the timeframe of the 6th cycle Housing Element.
Three projects in the Patrick Henry Drive Focus Area are pending or approved for redevelopment of low intensity light industrial to high density residential. See Table 13.C-2 above for prior use and redevelopment details and status for each project.
The remaining 11 Patrick Henry Drive Focus Area Specific Plan sites are all nonvacant, developed with mostly low intensity industrial buildings and surface parking built between 1978 and 1984 with Floor Area Ratios (FARs) ranging from 0.13 to 0.67 (Criteria 6 and 8). Eight of the sites have improvement to land value ratios that are less that 1.0 (Criterion 7). All 11 remaining sites share similar characteristics with the prior uses and intensity of development on the 18 parcels that have been or are currently being redeveloped with high density housing in the nearby Tasman East Focus Area and with the three pending or approved projects in the Patrick Henry Drive Focus Area (Criterion 4).
The development of the Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan included regular, consistent participation on a monthly basis by 11 separate ownership groups representing 100% of the Patrick Henry Drive parcels included in the Housing Element sites inventory (Criterion 5).
Regarding 4633-4699 Old Ironsides Drive, the City received a letter dated April 24, 2023 from the planning consultant representing the property owners (Pearlman) noting their participation in the Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan process, and their continued interest in developing residential uses on the property within the timeframe of the Housing Element (Criterion 1).
At the end of 2023 the overall vacancy rate in Silicon Valley for all classes of office space was 22.6%; an increase from 18.2% in the first quarter of 2023. For the City of Santa Clara, the overall office vacancy rate at the end of 2023 was 28.4%. (Cushman & Wakefield Q4 2023 Report).
Specific details for each of the 11 remaining sites is provided below with each site evaluated for its potential for redevelopment within the timeframe of the Housing Element.
C
Page C-21
1. 2900 Patrick Henry Drive (APN: 104-04-095)
Criteria 6 (Existing Site Utilization) Criteria 7 Criteria 8 Acres
Min.
Density
Max.
Density
Building
Size (sf) FAR Stories
Surface
Parking
Improvement
Ratio
Year
Built
1.98 100 149 27,430 0.32 1 All 1.01 1978
Use(s): Church.
This 1.98-acre industrial site was developed with an approximately 27,430 square foot one-story building (0.32 FAR) with surface parking in 1978.
The following factors were used to determine that the existing use does not constitute an impediment to additional residential uses on the site and that the existing use is likely to be discontinued during the planning period.
• The low FAR (less than 0.5), 1-story building, all surface parking, indicate that the property is underutilized, particularly in comparison to the high density residential allowed on the site. • The existing building is almost 46 years old, indicating the building may need substantial improvements or replacement for maximum financial return. • The owners of this site (San Jose New Hope Christian) were participants in the Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan process.
• As an alternative to selling the property for residential redevelopment, the owner could partner with a housing developer to redevelop the property with a mix of residential uses and a new church facility that is sized to accommodate their total membership, which has been relatively stable for the past 19 years.
• The Urban Village Zoning District for this site has flexible development standards to facilitate redevelopment of this site, including a gross density maximum of 149 du/ac, height up to 160- feet and 12-stories, with no FAR maximum.
• The City has included a new program in the Housing Plan under Action 1 Provision of a Variety of Housing Types, Objective n.3 to increase housing choices and affordability in areas of opportunity on religious/faith-based sites. This program will include biennial outreach to religious/faith-based institutions, including New Hope Church, to inform them about recent
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page C-22
state law changes to facilitate affordable housing development on land owned by religious institutions. The City will also connect interested landowners with experienced nonprofit affordable housing developers. Additionally, the City will support funding applications, provide technical assistance, and grant incentives such as finding funding sources to reduce permit fees for applicants and providing relief from development standards under the City’s density bonus provisions.
2. 2950 Patrick Henry Drive (APN: 104-04-094)
Criteria 6 (Existing Site Utilization) Criteria 7 Criteria 8 Acres
Min.
Density
Max.
Density
Building
Size (sf) FAR Stories
Surface
Parking
Improvement
Ratio
Year
Built
2.52 100 149 32,580 0.3 1 All 0.54 1978
Use(s): Office.
This 2.52-acre industrial site was developed with an approximately 32,580 square foot one-story building (0.30 FAR) with surface parking in 1978.
The following factors were used to determine that the existing use does not constitute an impediment to additional residential uses on the site and that the existing use is likely to be discontinued during the planning period.
• The low FAR (less than 0.5), 1-story building, all surface parking, indicate that the property is underutilized, particularly in comparison to the high density residential allowed on the site. • The low improvement ratio (less than 1.0) indicates substantial underinvestment in the property and the potential for financial gain through redevelopment. • The existing building is almost 46 years old, indicating the building may need substantial improvements or replacement for maximum financial return. • The Urban Village Zoning District for this site has flexible development standards to facilitate redevelopment of this site, including a gross density maximum of 149 du/ac, height up to 160- feet and 12-stories, with no FAR maximum.
C
Page C-23
3. 3055 Patrick Henry Drive (APN: 104-04-136)
Criteria 6 (Existing Site Utilization) Criteria 7 Criteria 8 Acres
Min.
Density
Max.
Density
Building
Size (sf) FAR Stories
Surface
Parking
Improvement
Ratio
Year
Built
3.82 120 250 70,520 0.42 2 All 0.99 1981
Use(s): unoccupied.
This 3.82-acre industrial site was developed with an approximately 70,520 square foot two-story building (0.42 FAR) with surface parking in 1981.
The following factors were used to determine that the existing use does not constitute an impediment to additional residential uses on the site and that the existing use is likely to be discontinued during the planning period.
• The low FAR (less than 0.5), all surface parking, indicate that the property is underutilized, particularly in comparison to the high density residential allowed on the site. • The low improvement ratio (less than 1.0) indicates substantial underinvestment in the property and the potential for financial gain through redevelopment. • The existing building is almost 43 years old, indicating the building may need substantial improvements or replacement for maximum financial return. • The property has been unoccupied and was advertised for sale in February 2023; marketed for residential redevelopment.
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page C-24
4. 3100 Patrick Henry Drive (APN: 104-04-128)
Criteria 6 (Existing Site Utilization) Criteria 7 Criteria 8 Acres
Min.
Density
Max.
Density
Building
Size (sf) FAR Stories
Surface
Parking
Improvement
Ratio
Year
Built
2.52 100 149 32,800 0.3 1 All 0.86 1979
Use(s): Office.
This 2.52-acre industrial site was developed with an approximately 32,800 square foot one-story building (0.30 FAR) with surface parking in 1979.
The following factors were used to determine that the existing use does not constitute an impediment to additional residential uses on the site and that the existing use is likely to be discontinued during the planning period.
• The low FAR (less than 0.5), one-story building, all surface parking, indicate that the property is underutilized, particularly in comparison to the high density residential allowed on the site.
• The low improvement ratio (less than 1.0) indicates substantial underinvestment in the property and the potential for financial gain through redevelopment. • The existing building is almost 45 years old, indicating the building may need substantial improvements or replacement for maximum financial return. • The owner of this property (O2Micro Global) was a very active participant in the Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan process, including providing public comment at all public hearings and community meetings, and requested/agreed to the redesignation of their property to allow residential redevelopment.
• The Urban Village Zoning District for this site has flexible development standards to facilitate redevelopment of this site, including a gross density maximum of 149 du/ac, height up to 160- feet and 12-stories, with no FAR maximum.
• The adjacent 2.52-acre property to the west (3000 Patrick Henry Drive) was approved for the demolition of the existing approximately 32,480 square foot one-story industrial building (0.30 FAR) built in 1980 to be replaced with a 307-unit high density residential project (122 du/ace and 2.87 FAR).
C
Page C-25
• A 2.8-acre property to the northwest (4590 Patrick Henry Drive) is nearing Planning approval for the demolition of the existing approximately 42,821 square foot one-story industrial building built in 1990 to be replaced with a 413-unit high density residential project (148 du/ac and 4.98 FAR).
5. 3105 Patrick Henry Drive (APN: 104-04-131)
Criteria 6 (Existing Site Utilization) Criteria 7 Criteria 8 Acres
Min.
Density
Max.
Density
Building
Size (sf) FAR Stories
Surface
Parking
Improvement
Ratio
Year
Built
3.8 51 100 51,610 0.31 1 All 0.82 1978
Use(s): Manufacturing.
This 3.8-acre industrial site was developed with an approximately 51,610 square foot one-story building (0.31 FAR) with surface parking in 1978.
The following factors were used to determine that the existing use does not constitute an impediment to additional residential uses on the site and that the existing use is likely to be discontinued during the planning period.
• The low FAR (less than 0.5), one-story building, all surface parking, indicate that the property is underutilized, particularly in comparison to the high density residential allowed on the site.
• The low improvement ratio (less than 1.0) indicates substantial underinvestment in the property and the potential for financial gain through redevelopment. • The existing building is almost 46 years old, indicating the building may need substantial improvements or replacement for maximum financial return.
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page C-26
6. 3200 Patrick Henry Drive (APN: 104-04-089 and -124) Consolidated Stie “T” (Same owner) Criteria 6 (Existing Site Utilization) Criteria 7 Criteria 8 Acres
Min.
Density
Max.
Density
Building
Size (sf) FAR Stories
Surface
Parking
Improvement
Ratio
Year
Built
5.97 100 149 105,120 0.4 2 All 0.23 1978
Use(s): Office.
This 5.97-acre industrial site was developed with an approximately 105,120 square foot two-story building (0.40 FAR) with surface parking in 1978.
The following factors were used to determine that the existing use does not constitute an impediment to additional residential uses on the site and that the existing use is likely to be discontinued during the planning period.
• The low FAR (less than 0.5), all surface parking, indicate that the property is underutilized, particularly in comparison to the high density residential allowed on the site. • The low improvement ratio (less than 1.0) indicates substantial underinvestment in the property and the potential for financial gain through redevelopment. • The existing building is almost 46 years old, indicating the building may need substantial improvements or replacement for maximum financial return. • Currently the building is approximately 48% unleased. An auction sale is scheduled for April 2024 (Kidder Mathews).
C
Page C-27
7. 4633 Old Ironsides Drive (APN: 104.04-141)
Criteria 6 (Existing Site Utilization) Criteria 7 Criteria 8 Acres
Min.
Density
Max.
Density
Building
Size (sf) FAR Stories
Surface
Parking
Improvement
Ratio
Year
Built
2.6 60 149 49,500 0.44 4 All 0.78 1983
Use(s): Office.
This 2.6-acre industrial site was developed with an approximately 49,500 square foot four-story building (0.44 FAR) with surface parking in 1983.
The following factors were used to determine that the existing use does not constitute an impediment to additional residential uses on the site and that the existing use is likely to be discontinued during the planning period.
• A letter from Eric Morley, planning consultant for the Pearlman Family, owners of the Pearlman sites located at 4633-4699 Old Ironsides Drive, dated April 24, 2023, indicates their participation throughout the Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan process and their continued interest in redeveloping their property with residential uses within the timeframe of the Housing Element.
• This building is part of the Parkway Plaza development that includes a total of four multitenant Class B office buildings and approximately 198,000 square feet of leasable space. As of early 2024, there was approximately 26,280 square feet of office space available for lease. • Per a follow-up email with Eric Morley, each of the four multi-tenant office buildings have a range of service and other business within them and all leases include a 24-month termination clause by the landlord to facilitate future redevelopment.
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page C-28
8. 4655 Old Ironsides Drive (APN: 104-04-140)
Criteria 6 (Existing Site Utilization) Criteria 7 Criteria 8 Acres
Min.
Density
Max.
Density
Building
Size (sf) FAR Stories
Surface
Parking
Improvement
Ratio
Year
Built
2.7 60 149 47,500 0.40 4 All 0.75 1983
Use(s): Office.
This 2.7-acre industrial site was developed with an approximately 47,500 square foot four-story building (0.40 FAR) with surface parking in 1983.
The following factors were used to determine that the existing use does not constitute an impediment to additional residential uses on the site and that the existing use is likely to be discontinued during the planning period.
• A letter from Eric Morley, planning consultant for the Pearlman Family, owners of the Pearlman sites located at 4633-4699 Old Ironsides Drive, dated April 24, 2023, indicates their participation throughout the Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan process and their continued interest in redeveloping their property with residential uses within the timeframe of the Housing Element.
• This building is part of the Parkway Plaza development that includes a total of four multitenant Class B office buildings and approximately 198,000 square feet of leasable space. As of early 2024, there was approximately 26,280 square feet of office space available for lease. • Per a follow-up email with Eric Morley, each of the four multi-tenant office buildings have a range of service and other business within them and all leases include a 24-month termination clause by the landlord to facilitate future redevelopment.
C
Page C-29
9. 4677 Old Ironsides Drive (APN: 104-04-139)
Criteria 6 (Existing Site Utilization) Criteria 7 Criteria 8 Acres
Min.
Density
Max.
Density
Building
Size (sf) FAR Stories
Surface
Parking
Improvement
Ratio
Year
Built
2.53 60 149 49,000 0.44 4 All 0.8 1983
Use(s): Office.
This 2.53-acre industrial site was developed with an approximately 49,000 square foot four-story building (0.44 FAR) with surface parking in 1983.
The following factors were used to determine that the existing use does not constitute an impediment to additional residential uses on the site and that the existing use is likely to be discontinued during the planning period.
• A letter from Eric Morley, planning consultant for the Pearlman Family, owners of the Pearlman sites located at 4633-4699 Old Ironsides Drive, dated April 24, 2023, indicates their participation throughout the Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan process and their continued interest in redeveloping their property with residential uses within the timeframe of the Housing Element.
• This building is part of the Parkway Plaza development that includes a total of four multitenant Class B office buildings and approximately 198,000 square feet of leasable space. As of early 2024, there was approximately 26,280 square feet of office space available for lease. • Per a follow-up email with Eric Morley, each of the four multi-tenant office buildings have a range of service and other business within them and all leases include a 24-month termination clause by the landlord to facilitate future redevelopment.
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page C-30
10. 4699 Old Ironsides Drive (APN: 104-04-138)
Criteria 6 (Existing Site Utilization) Criteria 7 Criteria 8 Acres
Min.
Density
Max.
Density
Building
Size (sf) FAR Stories
Surface
Parking
Improvement
Ratio
Year
Built
1.73 60 149 50,820 0.67 4 All 1.3 1984
Use(s): Office.
This 1.73-acre industrial site was developed with an approximately 50,820 square foot four-story building (0.44 FAR) with surface parking in 1983.
The following factors were used to determine that the existing use does not constitute an impediment to additional residential uses on the site and that the existing use is likely to be discontinued during the planning period.
• A letter from Eric Morley, planning consultant for the Pearlman Family, owners of the Pearlman sites located at 4633-4699 Old Ironsides Drive, dated April 24, 2023, indicates their participation throughout the Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan process and their continued interest in redeveloping their property with residential uses within the timeframe of the Housing Element.
• This building is part of the Parkway Plaza development that includes a total of four multitenant Class B office buildings and approximately 198,000 square feet of leasable space. As of early 2024, there was approximately 26,280 square feet of office space available for lease. • Per a follow-up email with Eric Morley, each of the four multi-tenant office buildings have a range of service and other business within them and all leases include a 24-month termination clause by the landlord to facilitate future redevelopment.
C
Page C-31
11. 4701 Patrick Henry Drive (APN: 104-53-001 through -026) Consolidated Site “O” Criteria 6 (Existing Site Utilization) Criteria 7 Criteria 8 Acres
Min.
Density
Max.
Density
Building
Size (sf) FAR Stories
Surface
Parking
Improvement
Ratio
Year
Built
9.06 60 149 52,920 0.13 1 & 2 All 1.67 1981
Use(s): Office.
This 9.06-acre industrial site was developed with approximately 52,920 square feet in multiple, mostly one-story, with some two-story office buildings (0.13 FAR) with surface parking in 1981.
The following factors were used to determine that the existing use does not constitute an impediment to additional residential uses on the site and that the existing use is likely to be discontinued during the planning period.
• The low FAR (less than 0.5), mostly one-story, all surface parking, indicate that the property is underutilized, particularly in comparison to the high density residential allowed on the site.
• The existing buildings are almost 43 years old, indicating they may need substantial improvements or replacement for maximum financial return. • The Village Residential Zoning District for this site has flexible development standards to facilitate redevelopment of this site, including a gross density maximum of 149 du/ac, height up to 160-feet and 12-stories, with no FAR maximum.
• This site (Great America Technology Park / Marriott Center) is currently made up of 26 separate condominium map parcels (and 1 common area parcel) with 10 separate owners.
Although there are multiple owners, several of them, including one property owner who own a majority of the parcels, actively participated in the drafting of the Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan, which has as one of its primary purposes the redevelopment of sites like 4701 Patrick Henry Drive.
• In a March 2024 conversation between the City and the majority property owner and a follow-up conversation with the broker representing the majority owners, they expressed keen interest in redeveloping their site with residential uses and noted that their existing
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page C-32
leases have termination clauses that would facilitate redevelopment within the planning period. About half of the units are owner occupied and half are rented to tenants. Leases with a limited duration/termination clauses are typical for this property and provide the flexibility to accommodate residential redevelopment within the timeframe of the Housing Element. • The Marriott Center Owners Association participated in the Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan process and committed considerable time and resources, including changing their CC&R’s, with approval by the Santa Clara City Council on November 17, 2022, to make future redevelopment of their site easier.
• As of early 2024 there were advertisements for leases totaling over 20,000 square feet of Class B office space in six buildings.
• Gross direct rent/square foot estimates for this site range from $1.80-$2.20 to $2.30-$2.80. One building recently (2024) advertised as available for $2.25/square foot; less than what the same space leased for in 2019 ($2.43/square foot). The rents for this site are below market asking rents for similar properties in the northern Santa Clara submarket at $3.61/square foot. (CoStar 2024)
• The vacancy rate for similar properties in the northern Santa Clara submarket is approximately 19% (2024) but is forecast to increase to over 25% in 2025. (CoStar 2024).
Lawrence Station Area
Four sites in the Lawrence Station Area, 2960, 2970 and 3030 Corvin Drive (existing data centers), and 3350-3420 Central Expressway (Gemini Rosemont industrial campus), designated Very High Density Residential (51-100 du/ac) on approximately 19 acres and High Density Residential (37-50 du/ac) on approximately 2.8 acres, were excluded from the available sites inventory since they are unlikely to redevelop in the timeframe of the 6th cycle Housing Element.
Five projects in the Lawrence Station Area are pending or approved for redevelopment of low intensity light industrial to medium and high density residential. See Table 13.C-2 above for prior use and redevelopment details and status for each project.
The remaining four available Lawrence Station Area Specific Plan sites (Criterion 5) are all nonvacant, developed with low intensity industrial buildings and surface parking built between 1970 and 1981 with Floor Area Ratios (FARs) ranging from 0.25 to 0.6 (Criteria 6 and 8). Four of the sites have improvement to land value ratios that are less that 1.0 (Criterion 7). All five remaining sites share similar characteristics with the prior uses and intensity of development on the parcels that have been or are currently being redeveloped with medium and high density housing in the balance of the Lawrence Station Area, including sites that were completed in the 5th Housing Element cycle (Criterion 4). Specific details for each of the four remaining available sites is provided below with each site evaluated for its potential for redevelopment during the timeframe of the Housing Element.
C
Page C-33
1. 3031 Corvin Drive (APN: 216-33-022)
Criteria 6 (Existing Site Utilization) Criteria 7 Criteria 8 Acres
Min.
Density
Max.
Density
Building
Size (sf) FAR Stories
Surface
Parking
Improvement
Ratio
Year
Built
0.61 20 36 15,730 0.59 1 All 0.86 1970
Use(s): Light manufacturing.
This 0.61-acre industrial site was developed with an approximately 15,730 square foot one-story building (0.59 FAR) with surface parking in 1970.
The following factors were used to determine that the existing use does not constitute an impediment to additional residential uses on the site and that the existing use is likely to be discontinued during the planning period.
• The one-story building with all surface parking, indicates that the property is underutilized, particularly in comparison to the higher density residential allowed on the site. • The low improvement ratio (less than 1.0) indicates substantial underinvestment in the property and the potential for financial gain through redevelopment. • The existing building is almost 54 years old, indicating the building may need substantial improvements or replacement for maximum financial return.
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page C-34
2. 3051 Corvin Drive (APN: 216-33-036)
Criteria 6 (Existing Site Utilization) Criteria 7 Criteria 8 Acres
Min.
Density
Max.
Density
Building
Size (sf) FAR Stories
Surface
Parking
Improvement
Ratio
Year
Built
0.60 20 36 15,660 0.6 1 All 1.13 1973
Use(s): Light manufacturing.
This 0.60-acre industrial site was developed with an approximately 15,660 square foot one-story building (0.60 FAR) with surface parking in 1973.
The following factors were used to determine that the existing use does not constitute an impediment to additional residential uses on the site and that the existing use is likely to be discontinued during the planning period.
• The one-story building with all surface parking, indicates that the property is underutilized, particularly in comparison to the higher density residential allowed on the site. • The existing building is almost 51 years old, indicating the building may need substantial improvements or replacement for maximum financial return.
C
Page C-35
3. 3071 Corvin Drive (APN: 216-33-037)
Criteria 6 (Existing Site Utilization) Criteria 7 Criteria 8 Acres
Min.
Density
Max.
Density
Building
Size (sf) FAR Stories
Surface
Parking
Improvement
Ratio
Year
Built
0.78 20 36 11,440 0.34 1 All 0.74 1979
Use(s): Office.
This 0.78-acre industrial site was developed with an approximately 11,440 square foot one-story building (0.34 FAR) with surface parking in 1979.
The following factors were used to determine that the existing use does not constitute an impediment to additional residential uses on the site and that the existing use is likely to be discontinued during the planning period.
• The low FAR (under 0.50), one-story building with all surface parking, indicates that the property is underutilized, particularly in comparison to the higher density residential allowed on the site.
• The low improvement ratio (less than 1.0) indicates substantial underinvestment in the property and the potential for financial gain through redevelopment. • The existing building is almost 45 years old, indicating the building may need substantial improvements or replacement for maximum financial return.
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page C-36
4. 3450 Central Expressway (APN: 216-34-079)
Criteria 6 (Existing Site Utilization) Criteria 7 Criteria 8 Acres
Min.
Density
Max.
Density
Building
Size (sf) FAR Stories
Surface
Parking
Improvement
Ratio
Year
Built
3.14 51 100 34,320 0.25 1 All 0.32 1981
Use(s): Office.
This 3.14-acre industrial site was developed with an approximately 34,320 square foot one-story building (0.25 FAR) with surface parking in 1981.
The following factor was used to determine that the existing use does not constitute an impediment to additional residential uses on the site and that the existing use is likely to be discontinued during the planning period.
• In a phone conversation with the City’s Community Development Director on April 25, 2023, the owner of this site (Sobrato Organization) expressed their continued interest in redeveloping the site with residential uses noting that the existing industrial tenant has a buyout provision in their lease that would allow redevelopment of the site to move forward at any time in the next eight years.
El Camino Real Rezoning Sites
In the June 27, 2023 adopted Housing Element, the City expanded its Sites Inventory by adding select properties along the El Camino Real corridor that are between 0.5 and 10 acres in size, have a Regional Mixed Use General Plan land use designation, but are currently zoned only for commercial uses. These sites are proposed to be rezoned through the Zoning Ordinance update process (Action 9) to a new mixed use zoning district that will facilitate redevelopment of these commercial sites to residential uses consistent with the General Plan.
Although there are recent examples of residential development of properties along the City’s commercial corridors, including El Camino real, that have been approved at or above maximum residential densities, for the purposes of the Housing Element, the minimum density was used to calculate a conservative realistic capacity for the El Camino Real rezoning sites.
C
Page C-37
Redevelopment of the El Camino Real rezoning sites is generally consistent with recent trends seen on commercial corridors in neighboring communities and throughout the City of Santa Clara, including on commercial properties along the El Camino Real Corridor (Criterion 4). See Table 13.C-2 above for prior use and redevelopment details and status for each example project listed in the “Other” category.
All of the El Camino Real rezoning sites are underutilized in that they have a General Plan land use designation that allows redevelopment of the existing low intensity commercial uses (FARs ranging from
0.05 to 0.57, all surface parking) with higher density residential uses (Criterion 6).
Eleven of the sites have improvement ratios less than 1.0 (Criterion 7) and sixteen of the sites were built 36 or more years ago (Criterion 8).
Specific details for each of the 20 El Camino Real rezoning sites is provided below with each site evaluated for its redevelopment potential
After evaluation, eight of the sites have been excluded from the available sites inventory since they are unlikely to redevelop in the timeframe of the 6th cycle Housing Element.
1. 4341 El Camino Real (APN: 213-37-015) Site is Available for Redevelopment, but Not Included on Sites Inventory for Purposes of RHNA
Criteria 6 (Existing Site Utilization) Criteria 7 Criteria 8 Acres
Min.
Density
Max.
Density
Building
Size (sf) FAR Stories
Surface
Parking
Improvement
Ratio
Year
Built
1.01 37 50 18,393 0.42 2 All 2.54 1973
Use(s): Hotel/motel.
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page C-38
2. 3775 El Camino Real (APN: 213-35-035)
Criteria 6 (Existing Site Utilization) Criteria 7 Criteria 8 Acres
Min.
Density
Max.
Density
Building
Size (sf) FAR Stories
Surface
Parking
Improvement
Ratio
Year
Built
2.19 37 50 43,638 0.46 1 All 4.31 1980
Use(s): Strip commercial (3 buildings) – unoccupied, restaurants, salons, laundry.
This 2.19-acre commercial site was developed with approximately 46,638 square feet of one-story buildings (0.46 FAR) with surface parking in 1980.
C
Page C-39
The following factors were used to determine that the existing use does not constitute an impediment to additional residential uses on the site and that the existing use is likely to be discontinued during the planning period.
• The low FAR (under 0.50), one-story buildings with all surface parking, indicates that the property is underutilized, particularly in comparison to the higher density residential allowed on the site.
• The existing buildings are almost 44 years old, indicating the building may need substantial improvements or replacement for maximum financial return. • One of the three buildings has remained unoccupied for almost three years.
3. 3755 El Camino Real (APN: 213-35-032) Site is Available for Redevelopment, but Not Included on Sites Inventory for Purposes of RHNA
Criteria 6 (Existing Site Utilization) Criteria 7 Criteria 8 Acres
Min.
Density
Max.
Density
Building
Size (sf) FAR Stories
Surface
Parking
Improvement
Ratio
Year
Built
1.16 37 50 12,600 0.25 2 All 0.58 1978
Use(s): Standalone bank.
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page C-40
4. 3725 El Camino Real (APN: 213-34-008) Site is Available for Redevelopment, but Not Included on Sites Inventory for Purposes of RHNA
Criteria 6 (Existing Site Utilization) Criteria 7 Criteria 8 Acres
Min.
Density
Max.
Density
Building
Size (sf) FAR Stories
Surface
Parking
Improvement
Ratio
Year
Built
0.56 37 50 1,690 0.07 1 All 0.4 1971
Use(s): Gas station.
5. 3735 and 3705 El Camino Real (APN: 213-34-012 and -010) Consolidated site “P” (same owner) Site is Available for Redevelopment, but Not Included on Sites Inventory for Purposes of RHNA Criteria 6 (Existing Site Utilization) Criteria 7 Criteria 8 Acres
Min.
Density
Max.
Density
Building
Size (sf) FAR Stories
Surface
Parking
Improvement
Ratio
Year
Built
6.3 37 50 77,050 0.28 1 All 0.56 1972
Use(s): Grocery store, discount store.
This 6.3-acre commercial site was developed with an approximately 77,050 square foot one-story building (0.28 FAR) with surface parking in 1972.
C
Page C-41
The following factors were used to determine that the existing use does not constitute an impediment to additional residential uses on the site and that the existing use is likely to be discontinued during the planning period.
• The low FAR (under 0.50), one-story building with all surface parking, indicates that the property is underutilized, particularly in comparison to the higher density residential allowed on the site.
• The low improvement ratio (less than 1.0) indicates substantial underinvestment in the property and the potential for financial gain through redevelopment. • The existing building is almost 52 years old, indicating the building may need substantial improvements or replacement for maximum financial return. • This 6.3-acre site with a small 0.28 FAR and large surface parking area has the potential for a residential mixed-use redevelopment that could provide housing while retaining the existing grocery store and discount store. The site is also large enough to allow multiple reconfigurations that would preserve access to parking for the adjacent site currently occupied by 24-hour fitness and the small site currently occupied by Starbucks if those sites choose not to participate in a larger redevelopment plan for the entire shopping center. • The Mixed-Use Regional Commercial Zoning District for this site has flexible development standards to facilitate redevelopment of this site, including a density maximum of 50 du/ac, small or no setbacks, height up to 60-feet and 6-stories, with no FAR maximum.
6. 3615 El Camino Real (APN: 213-34-004) Site is Available for Redevelopment, but Not Included on Sites Inventory for Purposes of RHNA
Criteria 6 (Existing Site Utilization) Criteria 7 Criteria 8 Acres
Min.
Density
Max.
Density
Building
Size (sf) FAR Stories
Surface
Parking
Improvement
Ratio
Year
Built
3.58 37 50 40,700 0.26 1 All 0.34 1972
Use(s): Fitness gym. Recently completed (summer 2022) renovations.
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page C-42
7. 1460 Halford Avenue (APN: 313-05-012)
Criteria 6 (Existing Site Utilization) Criteria 7 Criteria 8 Acres
Min.
Density
Max.
Density
Building
Size (sf) FAR Stories
Surface
Parking
Improvement
Ratio
Year
Built
1.18 37 50 11,600 0.23 1 All 1.69 1973
Use(s): Strip commercial – liquor store, clinic, paint store, restaurant.
This 6.3-acre commercial site was developed with an approximately 11,600 square foot one-story building (0.23 FAR) with surface parking in 1973.
The following factors were used to determine that the existing use does not constitute an impediment to additional residential uses on the site and that the existing use is likely to be discontinued during the planning period.
• The low FAR (under 0.50), one-story building with all surface parking, indicates that the property is underutilized, particularly in comparison to the higher density residential allowed on the site.
• The existing building is almost 51 years old, indicating the building may need substantial improvements or replacement for maximum financial return.
C
Page C-43
8. 1484 Halford Avenue (APN: 313-05-011)
Criteria 6 (Existing Site Utilization) Criteria 7 Criteria 8 Acres
Min.
Density
Max.
Density
Building
Size (sf) FAR Stories
Surface
Parking
Improvement
Ratio
Year
Built
1.29 37 50 9,700 0.17 1 All 0.13 1973
Use(s): Strip commercial – restaurant, bakery, bar.
This 1.29-acre commercial site was developed with an approximately 9,700 square foot one-story building (0.17 FAR) with surface parking in 1973.
The following factors were used to determine that the existing use does not constitute an impediment to additional residential uses on the site and that the existing use is likely to be discontinued during the planning period.
• The low FAR (under 0.50), one-story building with all surface parking, indicates that the property is underutilized, particularly in comparison to the higher density residential allowed on the site.
• The low improvement ratio (less than 1.0) indicates substantial underinvestment in the property and the potential for financial gain through redevelopment. • The existing building is almost 51 years old, indicating the building may need substantial improvements or replacement for maximum financial return.
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page C-44
9. 3750 El Camino Real (APN: 313-05-010)
Criteria 6 (Existing Site Utilization) Criteria 7 Criteria 8 Acres
Min.
Density
Max.
Density
Building
Size (sf) FAR Stories
Surface
Parking
Improvement
Ratio
Year
Built
0.67 37 50 2,760 0.09 1 All 0.2 1976
Use(s): Fast food drive through.
This 0.67-acre commercial site was developed with an approximately 2,760 square foot one-story building (0.09 FAR) with surface parking in 1976.
The following factors were used to determine that the existing use does not constitute an impediment to additional residential uses on the site and that the existing use is likely to be discontinued during the planning period.
• The low FAR (under 0.50), one-story building with all surface parking, indicates that the property is underutilized, particularly in comparison to the higher density residential allowed on the site.
• The low improvement ratio (less than 1.0) indicates substantial underinvestment in the property and the potential for financial gain through redevelopment. • The existing building is almost 48 years old, indicating the building may need substantial improvements or replacement for maximum financial return.
C
Page C-45
10. 3740 El Camino Real (APN: 313-06-003)
Criteria 6 (Existing Site Utilization) Criteria 7 Criteria 8 Acres
Min.
Density
Max.
Density
Building
Size (sf) FAR Stories
Surface
Parking
Improvement
Ratio
Year
Built
0.66 37 50 1,570 0.05 1 All 0.34 1968
Use(s): Gas station/car wash.
This 0.66-acre commercial site was developed with an approximately 1,570 square foot one-story building (0.05 FAR) with surface parking in 1968.
The following factors were used to determine that the existing use does not constitute an impediment to additional residential uses on the site and that the existing use is likely to be discontinued during the planning period.
• The low FAR (under 0.50), one-story building with all surface parking, indicates that the property is underutilized, particularly in comparison to the higher density residential allowed on the site.
• The low improvement ratio (less than 1.0) indicates substantial underinvestment in the property and the potential for financial gain through redevelopment. • The existing building is almost 56 years old, indicating the building may need substantial improvements or replacement for maximum financial return.
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page C-46
11. 3590, 3580, and 3570 El Camino Real (APN: 290-01-115, -116, and -117) Consolidated site “Q” (same owner)
Criteria 6 (Existing Site Utilization) Criteria 7 Criteria 8 Acres
Min.
Density
Max.
Density
Building
Size (sf) FAR Stories
Surface
Parking
Improvement
Ratio
Year
Built
2.62 37
50 4,200
22,224
1,830
0.14 0.33
0.11 1
2 1
All
0.23 1967
1970
1968
Use(s): Standalone restaurant, hotel/motel, auto service/repair.
This 2.62-acre commercial site (three parcels) was developed with an approximately 4,200 square foot one-story building (0.14 FAR) in 1967, a 22,224 square foot two-story motel building (0.33 FAR) in 1970, and a 1,830 square foot building (0.11 FAR) in 1968, all with surface parking.
C
Page C-47
The following factors were used to determine that the existing use does not constitute an impediment to additional residential uses on the site and that the existing use is likely to be discontinued during the planning period.
• The low FARs (under 0.50), one-story buildings with all surface parking, indicates that the property is underutilized, particularly in comparison to the higher density residential allowed on the site.
• The low improvement ratio (less than 1.0) indicates substantial underinvestment in the property and the potential for financial gain through redevelopment. • The existing buildings are between 53 and 57 years old, indicating the buildings may need substantial improvements or replacement for maximum financial return.
12. 3530 El Camino Real (APN: 290-01-114)
Criteria 6 (Existing Site Utilization) Criteria 7 Criteria 8 Acres
Min.
Density
Max.
Density
Building
Size (sf) FAR Stories
Surface
Parking
Improvement
Ratio
Year
Built
0.54 37 50 2,512 0.11 1 All 0.26 1972
Use(s): Standalone restaurant.
This 0.54-acre commercial site was developed with an approximately 2,512 square foot one-story building (0.11 FAR) with surface parking in 1972.
The following factors were used to determine that the existing use does not constitute an impediment to additional residential uses on the site and that the existing use is likely to be discontinued during the planning period.
• The low FAR (under 0.50), one-story building with all surface parking, indicates that the property is underutilized, particularly in comparison to the higher density residential allowed on the site.
• The low improvement ratio (less than 1.0) indicates substantial underinvestment in the property and the potential for financial gain through redevelopment.
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page C-48
• The existing building is almost 52 years old, indicating the building may need substantial improvements or replacement for maximum financial return.
13. 2789 El Camino Real (APN: 216-01-059)
Criteria 6 (Existing Site Utilization) Criteria 7 Criteria 8 Acres
Min.
Density
Max.
Density
Building
Size (sf) FAR Stories
Surface
Parking
Improvement
Ratio
Year
Built
0.88 37 50 11,750 0.31 1 All 1.07 1991
Use(s): Strip commercial – restaurants.
This 0.88-acre commercial site was developed with an approximately 11,750 square foot one-story building (0.31 FAR) with surface parking in 1991.
The following factors were used to determine that the existing use does not constitute an impediment to additional residential uses on the site and that the existing use is likely to be discontinued during the planning period.
• The low FAR (under 0.50), one-story building with all surface parking, indicates that the property is underutilized, particularly in comparison to the higher density residential allowed on the site.
• The lower improvement ratio (close to 1.0) indicates underinvestment in the property and the potential for financial gain through redevelopment.
C
Page C-49
14. 2775 El Camino Real (APN: 216-01-058) Site is Available for Redevelopment, but Not Included on Sites Inventory for Purposes of RHNA
Criteria 6 (Existing Site Utilization) Criteria 7 Criteria 8 Acres
Min.
Density
Max.
Density
Building
Size (sf) FAR Stories
Surface
Parking
Improvement
Ratio
Year
Built
1.25 37 50 15,920 0.29 1 All 1.74 1991
Use(s): Strip commercial – restaurants, pet store.
15. 2725 El Camino Real (APN: 216-01-040) Site is Available for Redevelopment, but Not Included on Sites Inventory for Purposes of RHNA
Criteria 6 (Existing Site Utilization) Criteria 7 Criteria 8 Acres
Min.
Density
Max.
Density
Building
Size (sf) FAR Stories
Surface
Parking
Improvement
Ratio
Year
Built
1.15 37 50 15,250 0.30 1 All 1.03 1987
Use(s): Strip commercial – restaurants, bakery, dentist.
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page C-50
16. 2213 El Camino Real (APN: 224-15-029)
Criteria 6 (Existing Site Utilization) Criteria 7 Criteria 8 Acres
Min.
Density
Max.
Density
Building
Size (sf) FAR Stories
Surface
Parking
Improvement
Ratio
Year
Built
1.22 37 50 30,255 0.57 1 All 1.0 1962
Use(s): Grocery store.
This 1.22-acre commercial site was developed with an approximately 30,255 square foot one-story building (0.57 FAR) with surface parking in 1962.
The following factors were used to determine that the existing use does not constitute an impediment to additional residential uses on the site and that the existing use is likely to be discontinued during the planning period.
• The one-story building with all surface parking, indicates that the property is underutilized, particularly in comparison to the higher density residential allowed on the site. • The lower improvement ratio (1.0) indicates underinvestment in the property and the potential for financial gain through redevelopment.
• The existing building is almost 62 years old, indicating the building may need substantial improvements or replacement for maximum financial return.
C
Page C-51
17. 2065 El Camino Real (APN: 224-15-037)
Criteria 6 (Existing Site Utilization) Criteria 7 Criteria 8 Acres
Min.
Density
Max.
Density
Building
Size (sf) FAR Stories
Surface
Parking
Improvement
Ratio
Year
Built
6.44 37 50 66,300 0.24 1 All 0.62 1952
Use(s): Strip commercial – grocery, auto parts, shipping.
This 6.44-acre commercial site was developed with an approximately 66,300 square foot one-story building (0.24 FAR) with surface parking in 1952.
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page C-52
The following factors were used to determine that the existing use does not constitute an impediment to additional residential uses on the site and that the existing use is likely to be discontinued during the planning period.
• The low FAR (under 0.50), one-story building with all surface parking, indicates that the property is underutilized, particularly in comparison to the higher density residential allowed on the site.
• The low improvement ratio (less than 1.0) indicates substantial underinvestment in the property and the potential for financial gain through redevelopment. • The existing building is almost 72 years old, indicating the building may need substantial improvements or replacement for maximum financial return.
18. 2200 El Camino Real (APN: 290-10-078)
Criteria 6 (Existing Site Utilization) Criteria 7 Criteria 8 Acres
Min.
Density
Max.
Density
Building
Size (sf) FAR Stories
Surface
Parking
Improvement
Ratio
Year
Built
0.95 37 50 6,618 0.16 1 All 0.25 1979
Use(s): Standalone bank.
This 0.95-acre commercial site was developed with an approximately 6,618 square foot one-story building (0.16 FAR) with surface parking in 1979.
The following factors were used to determine that the existing use does not constitute an impediment to additional residential uses on the site and that the existing use is likely to be discontinued during the planning period.
• The low FAR (under 0.50), one-story building with all surface parking, indicates that the property is underutilized, particularly in comparison to the higher density residential allowed on the site.
C
Page C-53
• The low improvement ratio (less than 1.0) indicates substantial underinvestment in the property and the potential for financial gain through redevelopment. • The existing building is almost 45 years old, indicating the building may need substantial improvements or replacement for maximum financial return.
19. 2120 El Camino Real (APN: 290-10-028) Site is Available for Redevelopment, but Not Included on Sites Inventory for Purposes of RHNA
Criteria 6 (Existing Site Utilization) Criteria 7 Criteria 8 Acres
Min.
Density
Max.
Density
Building
Size (sf) FAR Stories
Surface
Parking
Improvement
Ratio
Year
Built
0.97 37 50 12,180 0.29 1 All 2.05 2013
Use(s): Standalone drug store.
20. 2232 and 2240 El Camino Real (APN: 290-10-091 and -190) Consolidated site “U” (same owner) Criteria 6 (Existing Site Utilization) Criteria 7 Criteria 8 Acres
Min.
Density
Max.
Density
Building
Size (sf) FAR Stories
Surface
Parking
Improvement
Ratio
Year
Built
2.73 37 50 24,725 0.21 1 All 0.0 1959/81
Use(s): Three vacant commercial/retail buildings.
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page C-54
This 2.73-acre commercial site was developed with approximately 24,725 square feet of one-story buildings (0.21 FAR) with surface parking in 1959 and 1981.
The following factors were used to determine that the existing use does not constitute an impediment to additional residential uses on the site and that the existing use is likely to be discontinued during the planning period.
• The low FAR (under 0.50), one-story building with all surface parking, indicates that the property is underutilized, particularly in comparison to the higher density residential allowed on the site.
• The low improvement ratio (less than 1.0) indicates substantial underinvestment in the property and the potential for financial gain through redevelopment. • The existing buildings is almost 65 and 43 years old, indicating the buildings may need substantial improvements or replacement for maximum financial return. • All three buildings are unoccupied, and the site has been fenced-off since at least July 2019.
C
Page C-55
Table 13.C-2 Sites to Meet the RHNA - Hypothetical
with 4701 Patrick Henry Drive Site Removed
Site/Credit Type
Affordability Category
Total
Capacity
Lower Moderate
Above
Moderate
Very Low
[0-50%
AMI]
Low
[50-80%
AMI]
[80-120%
AMI]
[> 120%
AMI]
Pending and Approved Projects 710 794 504 10,201 12,209 Tasman East Focus Area 114 239 175 3,838 4,366
Patrick Henry Drive Focus 76 75 75 1,294 1,520
Lawrence Station Area Plan 39 45 58 635 777
Freedom Circle Focus Area 54 54 54 913 1,075
Other 427 381 142 3,521 4,471
ADU Projection 118 118 118 39 393
Available Specific Plan Sites 1,748 1,295 1,437 140 4,911 Tasman East Focus Area 268 196 318 121 903
Patrick Henry Drive Focus Area 1,357 1,008 1,008 - 3,664 Lawrence Station Area Plan 123 91 111 19 344
El Camino Real Rezoning Sites 319 236 250 - 805
Total 2,895 2,443 2,309 10,380 18,318
RHNA 2,872 1,653 1,981 5,126 11,632
Surplus (buffer above RHNA) 18% 16.5% 102.5% 57.5%
The City received public comment from the Housing Action Coalition on the adopted Housing Element objecting to the inclusion of several sites, including 4701 Patrick Henry Drive, on the sites inventory (see Appendix A Public Outreach).
Although the City continues to believe that 4701 Patrick Henry Drive is prime for redevelopment within the timeframe of the Housing Element (see evaluation criteria above), even if this site was removed from the inventory, the City would still have sufficient sites in its inventory to achieve its RHNA targets with a buffer at all affordability levels (see Table 13.C-2).
As described in Chapter 6 Housing Resources and reflected in Appendix B Electronic Sites Inventory and Appendix C Supplemental Sites Inventory Analysis, the following sites were also identified through public comments (see Appendix A Public Outreach) and have been excluded from the Sites Inventory since they are unlikely to redevelop with residential uses within the timeframe of the Housing Element:
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page C-56
• Tasman East Specific Plan
o 5101 Lafayette Street (data center)
• Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan
o 4650 Old Ironsides Drive (data center)
o 4700 Old Ironsides Drive (data center)
o 4600 Patrick Henry Drive (Drawbridge parcel)
• Lawrence Station Area Plan
o 2960 – 3030 Corvin Drive (data centers)
o 3350 – 34420 Central Expressway (Gemini Rosemont industrial campus) • El Camino Real Rezoning Sites
o 3615 El Camino Real (24-hour Fitness)
o 3735 and 3705 El Camino Real (Big Lots/Lucky)
As noted above (Appendix C), six additional El Camino Real rezoning sites and one Tasman East Specific Plan site were also excluded from the inventory because it was determined that they are less likely to redevelop in the planning period.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500
Sacramento, CA 95833
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov
April 11, 2024
Reena Brilliot, Acting Director
Community Development Department
City of Santa Clara
1500 Warburton Ave
Santa Clara, CA 95050
Dear Reena Brilliot:
RE: City of Santa Clara’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Revised Draft Housing Element Thank you for submitting the City of Santa Clara’s (City) revised draft housing element received for review on March 27, 2024. Pursuant to Government Code section 65585, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is reporting the results of its review. The review was facilitated by various conversations in January and March 2024. In addition, HCD considered comments from Housing Action Coalition, Charities Housing, Silicon Valley at Home, The Core Companies and Freebird Development, pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (c).
HCD is pleased to find the revised draft housing element meets the statutory requirements of State Housing Element Law (Gov. Code, § 65580 et seq.). However, the housing element cannot be found in substantial compliance until the City has completed necessary rezones as described below. The housing element will comply with State Housing Element Law (Article 10.6 of the Gov. Code) when rezoning is complete and the element is adopted, submitted to and approved by HCD, in accordance with Government Code section 65585.
For your information, pursuant to Assembly Bill 1398 (Chapter 358, Statutes of 2021), as the City did not adopt a compliant housing element within 120 days of the statutory deadline (January 31, 2023), programs (e.g., Action 9(a)(4) (Zoning Ordinance)) to make prior identified sites available or address a shortfall of capacity to accommodate the regional housing need allocation (RHNA), pursuant to Government Code sections 65583, subdivision (c)(1)(A) and 65583.2, subdivision (c), must be completed no later than one year from the statutory deadline. As this year has passed and Action 9(a)(4) (Zoning Ordinance) has not been completed, the housing element is out of compliance and will remain out of compliance until the rezoning has been completed.
Public participation in the development, adoption and implementation of the housing element is essential to effective housing planning. Throughout the housing element Reena Brilliot, Acting Director