e. By fall 2026, the City’s Community Development Department will develop a CDBG Notice of Funding Availability that awards additional points to place-based capital improvements that improve access to opportunities in HUD designated low-income and distressed areas of the City.
Ongoing Objectives (on an annual basis, unless otherwise noted):
f. Beginning in 2025, annually explore and apply for grants such as OBAG, AHSC, and CDBG funding that support 1-2 place-based improvement projects per year in lower resourced areas and relatively lower income areas with higher concentrations of poverty.
g. As noted in Action 14, annually assist the Housing Authority with the promotion of incentives that encourage landlords to accept Housing Choice Vouchers through a social media campaign and by hosting one educational workshop for single family and multifamily landlords.
h. As noted in Action 14, develop a Fair Housing Factsheet to include in the City’s ADU and SB 9 application packets. These sheets would encourage homeowners to seek out tenants with housing choice vouchers by educating them about the process, addressing common concerns, promoting incentives offered by the Housing Authority, and informing landlords that it is illegal to discriminate against tenants with vouchers.
As noted in Action 4, continue to offer grants for the installation of ramps, grab bars and other accessibility improvements through the City’s long running Neighborhood Conservation and Improvement Program (NCIP). This program allows low-income homeowners with mobility challenges to continue living in the City’s lower-density neighborhoods.
Relevant Policies: Policy C-2, Policy C-4, Policy E-1
Quantified Objectives
Table 13.2-1 summarizes the City of Santa Clara’s quantified housing objectives for the 2023-2031 Housing Element planning period.
Table 13.2-1: Quantified Objectives
Income Level
Extremely
Low Very Low Low Moderate Above Moderate Total
Units to be
Constructed1 1,436 1,436 1,653 1,981 5,126 11,632
Units to be
Rehabilitated2 300 60 360
Units to be
Conserved3 75 12 6 93
Source(s): City of Santa Clara, 2022
Notes:
1. Corresponds to RHNA units that potentially could be constructed using public and/or private sources over the planning period, given local land resources, constraints, and programs.
2. Number of existing income-restricted and unrestricted affordable units expected to be rehabilitated during the planning period.
3. Includes preservation of the 45 existing at-risk affordable housing units throughout the planning period (see Table 13.4-15) and additional affordable units that don’t have expiring affordability restrictions but are showing signs of potential financial distress.
* The quantified objectives for units to be rehabilitated and units to be conserved are supported by the following Actions in the Housing Plan: Action 3 Affordable Housing Incentives and Facilitation; Action 4 Maintenance of Housing Stock; Action 5 Preservation of Assisted Rental Housing; Action 6 Acquisition of Multi-Family Housing; Action 7 Code Enforcement Program; Action 8 Neighborhood Relations Program.
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Beyond the RHNA - Promoting Housing Mobility, Choices and Affordability
Beyond achieving the City’s RHNA obligations (i.e. total number of units in each affordability category), many of the objectives under the City’s Housing Plan Actions 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 21, promote housing mobility and increased housing choices and affordability.
For the 2023-2031 Housing Element planning period, of the quantified objective total number of affordable units, the following are quantified metrics for affordable housing development specifically within the City’s higher income, higher resourced, and lower density neighborhoods:
• 650 units Constructed (325 units by 2028)
• 150 units Rehabilitated (75 units by 2028)
• 44 units Conserved (22 units by 2028)
As part of the goal of constructing 650 units, rehabilitating 150 units, and conserving 44 units for affordable housing development within the City’s higher income, higher resourced, and lower density neighborhoods, the City seeks to assist at least 125 individuals through actions that facilitate affordable housing development on religious/faith-based sites, adaptive reuse of hotels/motels along transit corridors in proximity to services for affordable or interim housing, affordable home sharing, increasing the density limit for Very Low Density Residential parcels from up to 10 du/ac to 14 du/ac, and through additional naturally occurring affordable units on single-family zoned properties (e.g., ADUs and SB 9 projects).
Goals and Policies ...................................................................................................................................... 1 Implementing Actions ............................................................................................................................... 3 Quantified Objectives .............................................................................................................................. 33 List of Tables
Table 13.2-1: Quantified Objectives ....................................................................................................... 33
Chapter 13.3
Affirmatively Furthering Fair
Housing
Introduction and Overview of AB 686
In January 2017, Assembly Bill 686 (AB 686) introduced an obligation to affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH) into California state law. AB 686 defined “affirmatively further fair housing” to mean “taking meaningful actions, in addition to combat discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity” for persons of color, persons with disabilities, and other protected classes.
AB 686 requires that all housing elements prepared on or after January 1, 2021, assess fair housing.
An assessment of fair housing must consider the elements and factors that cause, increase, contribute to, maintain, or perpetuate segregation, racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty, significant disparities in access to opportunity, and disproportionate housing needs.
This chapter will first identify conclusions drawn from the local knowledge summarized in Appendix A and from Chapter 13.4 Housing Needs Assessment. Next the analysis will assess fair housing issues using data and maps and analysis of the Housing Element site inventory. The chapter concludes with a prioritized list of contributing factors based on the above conclusions.
Each contributing factor is thoroughly addressed by the Goals, Policies, and Actions of the Housing Plan in Chapter 13.2.
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Local Knowledge:
Appendix A details the extensive outreach process that was conducted for this Housing Element and the feedback that was gathered. The following summarizes key themes that were noted from this local input:
• There is a clear need to build more extremely low and very low-income housing particularly for seniors, people with developmental disabilities, low wage workers, and large families to reduce housing cost burden, overcrowding, displacement, and to prevent homelessness.
• There is a need for more senior housing options that are based on actual incomes not Area Median Income.
• There is concern around rent gouging and high deposits which can lead to displacement. • There is a need to monitor naturally occurring affordable housing and deed restricted housing that is at-risk of conversion or redevelopment. • There is a need to prevent and reduce homelessness and its impacts in Santa Clara. • Residents with disabilities are having trouble getting reasonable accommodations from housing providers, there is a need for more licensed care facilities, and there is a need for more housing choices in new affordable housing for persons with disabilities. • There is a need to increase first-time homeowner opportunities and to provide more workforce housing for teachers, emergency responders, and nonprofit workers. • Seniors and others with limited access to the internet need more assistance with searching and applying for affordable housing opportunities.
• There is a need to improve outreach about affordable housing opportunities for Hispanic/Latino, Chinese, Vietnamese, Filipino and possibly other residents who have limited English proficiency.
• There is a need for ongoing education on tenant and landlord rights given recent changes to state law.
• Access to clean air is a concern for residents living near freeways and expressways and in affordable housing without air conditioning given the increase in extreme heat and wildfire pollution.
Chapter 13.4 includes a housing needs analysis. The following summarizes key themes that were noted in that chapter:
• Since 2010, the percentage of Santa Clara’s population that is White (NonHispanic/Latino) decreased by 4%, Hispanic/Latino decreased by 2% and Asian/Pacific Islander increased by 6%.
• Santa Clara’s population is younger and higher income compared with the County • Rents and home prices are higher in Santa Clara compared with the County
• Vacancy rates in Santa Clara are lower compared with the County, especially for larger housing units
• Santa Clara has a 1% higher rate of overcrowding compared with the County. • Large households, Female Headed Households, and Elderly (65+ years) are three of the largest special needs groups in Santa Clara.
• Female-headed households in Santa Clara live in poverty at a much higher rate than all households living in poverty.
• The most common type of disability in Santa Clara was ambulatory followed by difficulty living independently.
• The number of residents with developmental disabilities age 62 and older is growing Countywide. As older adults live longer and as licensed care facilities close, there will be fewer care options for such adults unless new housing options are developed. • There are insufficient shelter and transitional housing options for unhoused residents in Santa Clara and unsheltered homelessness has increased since 2019. • Overcrowding affects renter households more.
Assessment of Fair Housing
The analysis must address patterns at a regional and local level and trends in patterns over time.
This analysis compares the locality at a county level for the purposes of promoting more inclusive communities.
Sources of Information
• U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) reports
• U.S. Census Bureau’s Decennial Census (referred to as “Census”) and American Community Survey (ACS)
• HCD’s AFFH Data Viewer
• Local Knowledge
In addition, HCD has developed a statewide AFFH Data Viewer. The AFFH Data Viewer consists of map data layers from various data sources and provides options for addressing each of the components within the full scope of the assessment of fair housing. The data source and time frame used in the AFFH mapping tools may differ from the ACS data. While some data comparisons may have different time frames (often different by one year), the differences do not affect the identification of possible trends.
Fair Housing and Housing Resources
In addition to updating the Housing Element of the City of Santa Clara’s General Plan, the jurisdiction has been participating in the regional Fair Housing Assessment being prepared for
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The process has provided an initial framework for the local analysis of fair housing within the City and has been informed by additional demographic research and local knowledge that has supported the City’s Housing Plan Goals, Policies, and Actions. Starting in the 5th cycle, the City has utilized “specific plans” as an effective means addressing housing needs within the context of fair housing, as the “specific plan” process is a public process utilizing community engagement, the City’s Affordable Housing Ordinance, and increased densities to provide housing for a variety of income levels. “Specific plans” also allow for more complete communities that integrate market rate and affordable housing with park space and other amenities.
Additionally, based upon the AFFH analysis provided in this chapter, the process can be further enhanced by the application of this fair housing lens in the development of the City’s Housing Plan to increase monitoring and enforcement, increased and deeper community outreach and engagement, additional attention to protected classes, and being proactive in addressing the root causes of housing disparity before they occur or become further entrenched. In light of the increased housing activity, the City has not experienced displacement as the “specific plan” areas are transitioning into mixed-use housing developments and not redeveloping existing housing stock. Nonetheless, the City has identified displacement as an issue to monitor and develop specific actions and policies in the Housing Plan, as part of the five focus areas previously mentioned in this chapter.
Even though the City relies heavily upon “specific plan” parcels to meet it’s RHNA, additional housing development is not exclusive to the parcels identified in the Housing Element.
Additionally, engagement with the community on additional specific plan areas will continue as we prepare the jurisdiction for the 7th cycle Housing Element as the parcels identified in the Housing Element for housing development are located in or near Moderate to High Resources Areas, and not in areas of concentrated poverty. Further, the investment in and around “specific plan” areas and additional amenities in the Northern portion of the jurisdiction has resulted in a change from moderate to high resource. Additionally, the Northern portion of the jurisdiction contains approximately 74% of the units in the City’s Sites Inventory. While most of these project areas are primarily in the Northern portion of the jurisdiction, housing development has taken place, and will continue to take place, throughout the jurisdiction. This is more evident in the distribution of permitted ADUs in the City, and general interest in the El Camino Real corridor, where the City is in the process of re-evaluating the proposed specific plan for that portion of the community.
Fair Housing Enforcement, Education and Outreach
Fair housing enforcement and outreach capacity refers to the ability of a locality and fair housing entities to disseminate information related to fair housing laws and rights and provide outreach and education to community members. Enforcement and outreach capacity also includes the ability to address compliance with fair housing laws, such as investigating complaints, obtaining remedies, and engaging in fair housing testing. The Fair Employment and Housing Act and the Unruh Civil Rights Act are the primary California fair housing laws. California state law extends anti-discrimination protections in housing to several classes that are not covered by the federal Fair Housing Act (FHA) of 1968, including prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Table 13.3-1 below describes the Fair Housing service providers in Santa Clara County and the City of Santa Clara, including local housing, social, and legal services.
Table 13.3-1: Fair Housing Providers in Santa Clara County and Santa Clara Provider Services
Project Sentinel Provides education and counseling to community members and housing providers about fair
housing law. Investigates complaints and
provides advocacy for those experiencing housing
discrimination.
Bay Area Legal Aid Largest civil legal aid provider serving seven Bay Area counties. Has a focus area in housing
preservation and a homelessness task force to
provide legal services and advocacy for those in
need.
Law Foundation of Silicon Valley Provides free legal advice and representation on housing matters to low-income families and
individuals in Santa Clara County.
Senior Adults Legal Assistance Non-profit elder law office supporting residents 60 years and older in Santa Clara County to live
safely and independently. Attorneys provide legal
services from advice and referrals to legal
representation.
Asian Law Alliance A non-profit providing equal access to the justice system for Asian and Pacific-Islander low-income
populations in Silicon Valley. Providing legal
counseling and language assistance for
individuals seeking housing.
Source(s): City of Santa Clara, 2022
California’s Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) has statutory mandates to protect the people of California from discrimination pursuant to the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), Ralph Civil Rights Act, and Unruh Civil Rights Act (with regards to housing).
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
The FEHA prohibits discrimination and harassment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions), gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, marital status, military or veteran status, national origin, ancestry, familial status, source of income, disability, and genetic information, or because another person perceives the tenant or applicant to have one or more of these characteristics.
The Ralph Civil Rights Act (Civ. Code, § 51.7) guarantees the right of all persons within California to be free from any violence, or intimidation by threat of violence, committed against their persons or property because of political affiliation, or on account of sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, immigration status, or position in a labor dispute, or because another person perceives them to have one or more of these characteristics.
The Unruh Civil Rights Act (Civ. Code, § 51) prohibits business establishments in California from discriminating in the provision of services, accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges to clients, patrons and customers because of their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, or immigration status.
Table 13.3-2: Number of DFEH Housing Complaints in Santa Clara County (2020) Year Housing Unruh Civil Rights Act
2015 73 8
2016 52 7
2017 33 22
2018 28 14
2019 28 14
2020 33 10
Source(s): https://www.dfeh.ca.gov/LegalRecords/?content=reports#reportsBody Table 13.3-3 summarizes fair housing cases filed by the federal Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity Housing in Santa Clara County. The table indicates that discrimination cases based on disability were by far the most common followed by race, and familial status (households with at least one child under 18).
Table 13.3-3: Number of FHEO Filed Cases by Protected Class in Santa Clara County (2015–2020)
Year Number of Filed Cases Disability Race National
Origin Sex Familial Status
2015 53 26 20 6 6 8
2016 40 22 3 7 1 11
2017 31 16 4 3 4 7
2018 36 21 5 6 4 3
2019 38 23 7 1 2 7
2020 16 7 7 2 2 2
Total 214 115 46 25 19 38
Percentage of Total Filed Cases
*Note that cases may be filed on more
than one basis.
53.7% 21.5% 11.6% 8.8% 17.7%
Source(s): Data.Gov - Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) Filed Cases, https://catalog.data.gov/dataset/fheo-filed-cases The City funds fair housing education, investigation, enforcement, and outreach annually. In program year 2020, the area non-profit Project Sentinel received $20,000 of local funds for the provision of fair housing services. Project Sentinel provides comprehensive fair housing services including investigation, counseling, referral, and education designed to reduce the incidence of illegal discrimination in housing. In program year 2020, the agency assisted 31 individuals and conducted landlord/tenant mediation assisting 336 households, along with outreach activities to residents, service providers, and housing providers through education and information sessions on fair housing law and Project Sentinel’s services.
Services that were not provided include (2.) Case tested by phone; (4.) Case referred to HUD and (8.) Case accepted for full representation. The most common action(s) taken/services provided are providing clients with counseling, followed by sending testers for investigation, and conciliation with landlords. Regardless of actions taken or services provided, almost 45% of cases are found to have insufficient evidence. Only about 12% of all cases resulted in successful mediation.
The City of Santa Clara complies with all State and federal fair housing laws and regulations and is not aware of any fair housing findings, lawsuits, enforcement actions, settlements, or judgements.
Fair Housing Testing
Fair housing testing is a randomized audit of property owners’ compliance with local, state, and federal fair housing laws. Initiated by the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division in 1991, fair housing testing involves the use of an individual or individuals who pose as prospective
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
renters for the purpose of determining whether a landlord is complying with local, state, and federal fair housing laws.
California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) Residents may submit complaints to the DFEH, which is the statewide agency that enforces fair housing laws. The DFEH will investigate and determine whether or not the complainant has a right to sue. In 2018, DFEH received over 600 complaints from residents of Santa Clara County.
Assessment of Fair Housing Issues
The following analysis will use data and maps to analyze patterns of segregation, racial or ethnic concentrations of poverty, disparities in access to opportunity, and disproportionate housing needs. The City’s land use and development patterns have created three distinct areas to help focus this discussion. These areas will be referenced throughout the assessment:
Northern Santa Clara: Highway 237 south to Highway 101: Northern Santa Clara is a mix of industrial, office, residential, and has several large specific plan areas where new residential and mixed-use neighborhoods are beginning to take shape as industrial areas are converted.
Central Santa Clara: Highway 101 south to the Union Pacific railroad tracks. Central Santa Clara has been historically industrial with very few residential areas. Three large, mostly market-rate, residential projects have recently been approved in this area:
Lawrence Station Area Plan, Santa Clara Square, and Gateway Crossings. In addition to these, a small pocket of older single family, duplex, and apartments is located north of the railroad tracks on the west side of Lafayette Street.
Southern Santa Clara: Union Pacific railroad tracks south to Stevens Creek Boulevard.
The southern part of Santa Clara historically has been composed of older single-family neighborhoods, Santa Clara University, and the El Camino Real and Steven’s Creek commercial corridors.
Race/Ethnicity
Segregation is defined as the separation or isolation of a race/ethnic group, national origin group, individuals with disabilities, or other social group by enforced or voluntary residence in a restricted area, by barriers to social connection or dealings between persons or groups, by separate educational facilities, or by other discriminatory means.
To measure segregation in a given jurisdiction, the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) provides racial or ethnic dissimilarity trends. Dissimilarity indices are used to measure the evenness with which two groups (frequently defined on racial or ethnic characteristics) are distributed across geographic units, such as block groups within a
community. The index ranges from 0 to 100, with 0 meaning no segregation and 100 indicating complete segregation between the two groups. The index score can be understood as the percentage of one of the two groups that would need to move to produce an even distribution of racial/ethnic groups within the specified area. For example, if an index score is above 60, 60 percent of people in the specified area would need to move to eliminate segregation.
The following shows how HUD views various levels of the index:
• <40: Low Segregation
• 40-54: Moderate Segregation
• >55: High Segregation
Ethnic and racial composition of a region is useful in analyzing housing demand and any related fair housing concerns as it tends to demonstrate a relationship with other characteristics such as household size, locational preferences, and mobility. Prior studies have identified socioeconomic status, generational care needs, and cultural preferences as factors associated with “doubling up”—households with extended family members and non-kin. These factors have also been associated with ethnicity and race. Other studies have also found that minorities tend to congregate in metropolitan areas, though their mobility trend predictions are complicated by economic status (minorities moving to the suburbs when they achieve middle class) or immigration status (recent immigrants tend to stay in metro areas/ports of entry).
Regional Trends
Santa Clara County is a large, diverse jurisdiction where people of color represent a majority of the population. As of the 2019 census, 36 percent of residents were Asian, 31.5 percent of residents with non-Hispanic White, followed by Hispanic or Latino residents at 25 percent. The complete racial breakdown for the County can be seen in Table 13.3-5.
While overall rates of segregation in the County are moderate, rates have been growing since the 1990s. The most segregated group has consistently been Hispanic residents with an index score of 48.57 in 2010, up from 44.97 in 1990. The next most segregated group is Black residents with a 2010 index score of 47.67 up from 43.86 in 1990. This is followed by Asian residents with a 2010 index score of 30.21 up from 25.33 in 1990. Overall, in 2010, non-white and white residents had an index score of 31.5 which is considered low segregation, although this is up from 1990 when the score was 28.67.
Figure 13.3-1 geographically displays the percentage of the non-White population in the County.
The higher percentage of non-White populations are concentrated around San Jose, Milpitas, Santa Clara, and Cupertino. In these areas, the non-White population percentage is as high as 61 to 80 percent. The largest racial group in the County is made up of Asian residents (36 percent), followed by White, non-Hispanic residents (31.5 percent), and Hispanic or Latino residents (25 percent).
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Table 13.3-4: Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Trends (1990–2020) Dissimilarity Index
Santa Clara County
1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend
Current
(2020 Census Block
Group)
Non-White/White 28.67 28.49 27.28 31.50
Black/White 43.86 41.59 41.88 47.67
Hispanic/White 44.97 46.52 46.26 48.57
Asian or Pacific Islander/White 25.33 26.68 25.6 30.21
Source(s): HUD’s Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Tool (AFFH-T), Table 13.3-5 – Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Trends, Data version: AFFHT006, released July 10th, 2020.
Note: Table 13.3-4 presents Decennial Census values for 1990, 2000, 2010, all calculated by HUD using census tracts as the area of measurement. The “current” figure is calculated using block groups from the 2010 Decennial Census, because block groups can measure segregation at a finer grain than census tracts due to their smaller geographies. See https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/affh for more information.
FIGURE 13.3-1: REGIONAL RACIAL DEMOGRAPHICS (2021)
Local Trends
The demographics of Santa Clara are somewhat reflective of the County as a whole. The largest racial group in Santa Clara is Asian, Non-Hispanic at 43 percent which is also the largest racial group in the County. White, Non-Hispanic residents make up the second largest group in both the City and County at 31.5 percent. The largest difference in racial group between Santa Clara and the County is with Hispanic residents. In the County, Hispanic residents make up 25 percent of the population, while in the City they make up 17.3 percent.
Table 13.3-5: Racial Composition Santa Clara County and Santa Clara (2019) Santa Clara County Santa Clara
White, non-Hispanic 31.5% 31.5%
Black or African American, non-Hispanic 2.3% 3%
American Indian and Alaska Native, nonHispanic0.2% 0.1% Asian, non-Hispanic 36% 43%
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Table 13.3-5: Racial Composition Santa Clara County and Santa Clara (2019) Santa Clara County Santa Clara
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific
Islander, non-Hispanic
0.3% 0.6%
Some other race, non-Hispanic 0.2% 0.2%
Two or more races, non-Hispanic 3.5% 4%
Hispanic or Latino 25% 17.3%
Source(s): American Community Survey, 2015-2019
Table 13.3-6 below provides the dissimilarity index values indicating the level of segregation in Santa Clara between white residents and residents who are Black, Hispanic, or Asian/Pacific Islander. The table also provides the dissimilarity index between white residents and all residents of color in the City, and all dissimilarity index values are shown across three time periods (2000, 2010, and 2020).
In the City of Santa Clara racial and ethnic integration trends are less segregated than County trends in 2020. The highest segregation in the City is between Asian or Pacific Islander and white residents. Santa Clara’s Asian or Pacific Islander / white dissimilarity index means that 22.8% of Asian (or white) residents would need to move to a different neighborhood to create perfect integration between Asian or Pacific Islander residents and white residents.
For context and comparison, the Santa Clara County column provides the dissimilarity index values for these racial group pairings in 2020.
Table 13.3-6: Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Trends within Santa Clara Dissimilarity Index
Santa Clara County Santa Clara
2020 2000 2010 2020
Non-White/White 31.5 22.9 23.7 18.9
Black/White 47.67 19.9 21.0 22.3
Hispanic/White 48.57 21.2 21.1 17.7
Asian or Pacific Islander/White 30.21 27.6 28.6 22.8
Source(s): IPUMS National Historical Geographic Information System (NHGIS). U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census State Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, 2020 Census of Population and Housing, Table P002. Data from 2010 is from U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010, Table P4. Data for 2000 is standardized to 2010 census tract geographies and is from U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000, Table P004.
Note: If a number is marked with an asterisk (*), it indicates that the index is based on a racial group making up less than 5 percent of the jurisdiction population, leading to unreliable numbers.
Within Santa Clara there are some notable geographic differences in racial demographics. The northern and central areas of Santa Clara have a non-white population between 61 to 80 percent.
In the northern part of the city there are a few tracts where this percentage drops to 41 to 60 percent. The southern part of the city has a patchwork pattern of tracts with non-White groups between 21 to 40 percent and 41 to 60 percent. There are a few tracts where this percentage goes as low as 20 percent and below, or as high as 61 to 80 percent, but these are just small pockets.
Figure 13.3-2 further indicates that the southern portion of the City has a lower percentage of nonwhite residents than the central and northern areas. Figure 13.3-3 shows more detail on how specific racial and ethnic groups are concentrated in Santa Clara. This map shows that residents that identify as Asian alone (not Hispanic/Latino) are the predominant group through most of northern, central, and southern Santa Clara with the exception of south east Santa Clara which is predominantly white alone (not Hispanic/Latino).
Central Santa Clara, has a mix of mostly Asian/Pacific Islander, White, and Hispanic/Latino residents. Upon closer analysis, census tract 5052.02 has a disproportionate number of Hispanic/Latino residents (25% Hispanic/Latino residents compared to the citywide proportion of only 17%). The area is 38.6% Asian/Pacific Islander but the citywide proportion for those groups combined is 44%. This suggests a need to conduct outreach in Spanish as well as other languages.
FIGURE 13.3-2: RACIAL DEMOGRAPHICS OF SANTA CLARA (2021)
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
FIGURE 13.3-3: PREDOMINANT POPULATION OF SANTA CLARA (2017-2021) Source: HCD AFFH 2.0 Data Viewer (May 2023).
Note: The intensity of the color corresponds with the percentage of the predominant population compared to the total population of the Census Tract (i.e., darker colors represent a greater percentage).
Overall, according to the 2022 ABAG isolation interactive maps and reports, racial isolation in the City is low for White, Hispanic or Latino, and non-Hispanic and Black or African American populations, and high for Asian or Pacific Islander segments (Table 13.3-7).
Table 13.3-7: Racial Isolation Index Values for Segregation within Santa Clara Race
Santa Clara
2000 2010 2020
Asian/Pacific Islander 34.0 43.4 50.4
White 51.8 40.1 30.9
Hispanic/Latino 18.5 23.2 20.4
Black/African American 2.4 2.7 2.5
Source(s): IPUMS National Historical Geographic Information System (NHGIS). U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census State Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, 2020 Census of Population and Housing, Table P002. Data from 2010 is from U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010, Table P4. Data for 2000 is standardized to 2010 census tract geographies and is from U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000, Table P004.
Another approach to measuring segregation employs the Divergence Index, which measures the difference between the overall population of a group in a region and the proportion of each group in a local area within that region. The Divergence Index provides a single measure of segregation for multiple racial groups. This index ranges between 0 (no segregation) to 1 (complete segregation) with low segregation (less than approximately 0.11), high segregation (above approximately 0.21), with moderate segregation levels in between.
According to a November 18, 2020 report (updated in October 11, 2021) by the Othering and Belonging Institute at UC Berkeley, the City of Santa Clara, with an inter-municipal divergence index score of 0.0592, is one of the most diverse and integrated cities in the Bay Area.
Table 13.3-8 shows the Divergence Index scores for cities/towns in Santa Clara County and their corresponding level of segregation.
Table 13.3-8: Divergence Index Scores within Santa Clara County Cities/Towns Inter-Municipal Divergence Level of Segregation Mountain View 0.0249 Low
Campbell 0.0467 Low
Santa Clara 0.0592 Low
San Jose 0.0676 Low
Sunnyvale 0.0923 Low
Morgan Hill 0.1054 Low
Palo Alto 0.1551 Moderate
Los Altos 0.2453 High
Saratoga 0.2573 High
Los Altos Hills 0.2632 High
Los Gatos 0.2673 High
Monte Sereno 0.2919 High
Gilroy 0.3196 High
Milpitas 0.3645 High
Cupertino 0.4294 High
Source: “The Most Segregated (and Integrated) Cities in the SF Bay Area”. The Othering and Belonging Institute UC Berkeley.
November 18, 2020 (updated October 11, 2021).
Central Santa Clara has higher areas of low to moderate income levels (LMI) (Figure 13.3-12).
Central Santa Clara overlaps with LMI levels of 50 to 75 percent. There is a census tract in northern Santa Clara where LMI levels are between 75 to 100 percent. Central Santa Clara also overlaps with lower household incomes ($87,000) compared to the rest of the city (Figure 13.3-20). These lower incomes likely contribute to the higher rates of overpayment by renters in central Santa
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Clara (40 to 60 percent) (Figure 13.3-40). Central Santa Clara is also identified as a low resource area using the TCAC scoring system (Figure 13.3-22) which considers economic, educational, and environmental factors. Lastly, CalEnviroScreen scores in Central Santa Clara are between 50 to 74 percent which indicate less healthy conditions (Figure 13.3-36).
Historic Context
Although the City of Santa Clara is a racially diverse community with relatively low levels of segregation, there are only small numbers of African American residents, both in the City of Santa Clara and in the county as a whole. This is a result of systemic racism in private lending practices, federal loan guarantees, and local zoning and infrastructure decisions in the postwar years, as documented in the book, “The Color of Law” by Richard Rothstein. Among other examples, the book documents the efforts of Ford workers and their union to get housing built for African American workers at the Milpitas Ford Plant in the 1950s.
After the Ford workers discovered that no Milpitas-area developers would sell homes to African Americans, they enlisted the help of a Quaker service group devoted to racial equity who helped find a willing lender to fund an integrated subdivision in unincorporated Mountain View, and is described in the excerpt from Rothstein’s book below:
“But when the builder's intent to sell both to blacks and whites became known, the Santa Clara Board of Supervisors rezoned the site from residential to industrial use. When he found a second plot, Mountain View officials told him that they would never grant the necessary approvals. He next identified a third tract of land in another town near the Ford plant; when officials discovered that the project would not be segregated, the town adopted a new zoning law increasing the minimum lot size from 6,000 to 8,000 square feet, making the project unfeasible for working class buyers. After he attempted to develop a fourth site on which he had an option, the seller of the land canceled the option upon learning that the project would be integrated. At that point, the builder gave up.” (The Color of Law, p. 117)
The effects of those discriminatory practices and decisions linger on, both in Milpitas, and in Santa Clara County generally. Additionally, Rothstein continues to describe that “Milpitas is no longer all white - it now has many Hispanic and Asian families - but the effects of its earlier segregation remain visible: African Americans make up only 2 percent of the population.” (The Color of Law, p. 121)
The City of Santa Clara has a similar history in the sense that today’s Santa Clara is wellintegrated and does not include a majority of any race or ethnicity. However, during the 1960 census, when the City’s population exploded to 58,800, up from 11,702 in 1950, the City gained less than a thousand non-white residents, and remained 98% white. The City, which was
originally focused around downtown, Santa Clara University and the train station, initially added housing after World War II to the south of downtown. This was during the time that racial covenants and discriminatory lending practices were in full effect. Those neighborhoods south of downtown still have a significantly higher proportion of white residents (likely original purchasers of housing or their children) than other parts of Santa Clara.
More recently developed neighborhoods have been added to the north of Highway 101 and are more reflective of the City’s diversity.
In the 1930s and 1940s, a federal agency called the Home Owners’ Loan Corporation (HOLC), created maps of nearly 250 American cities, grading neighborhoods on a scale of A (Best) to D (Hazardous) for purposes of providing loan officers, appraisers, and real estate professionals with a tool for evaluating mortgage lending risk. Neighborhoods of color were far more likely to receive D or C grades with A or B grades reserved for white neighborhoods. Neighborhoods with a D (Hazardous) grade were often “redlined” by lending institutions, denying them access to credit, particularly mortgages.
The following figure shows HOLC redlining grades from 1937 indicating that portions of Santa Clara’s Old Quad neighborhood to the north and south of El Camino Real were assigned either “(D) Hazardous” or “(C) Declining” grades.
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
FIGURE 13.3-4: HOLC REDLINING MAP (1937)
Source: HCD AFFH 2.0 Data Viewer HOLC Redlining Grade (University of Richmond, 2021) Many of the same blocks that were categorized as declining or hazardous in 1937 have elevated levels of low and moderate income (LMI) households today as shown later in this chapter in Figure 13.3-12.
Persons with Disabilities
In 1988, Congress added protections against housing discrimination for persons with disabilities through the FHA, which protects against intentional discrimination and unjustified policies and practices with disproportionate effects. The FHA also includes the following unique provisions to persons with disabilities: (1) prohibits the denial of requests for reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities, if necessary, to afford an individual equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling; and (2) prohibits the denial of reasonable modification requests. With regards to fair housing, persons with disabilities have special housing needs because of the lack of accessible and affordable housing, and the higher health costs associated with their disability. In addition, many may be on fixed incomes that further limit their housing options.
Regional Trends
According to the 2015-2019 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year estimates, 154,212 residents (eight percent of Santa Clara County’s population) report having one of six disability types listed in the ACS (hearing, cognitive, ambulatory, self-care, and independent living). The percentage of residents detailed by disability are listed in Table 13.3-9. In both Santa Clara County and the City of Santa Clara, the percentage of individuals with disabilities increases with age, with the highest percentage of individuals being those 75 years or older.
In Santa Clara, seven percent of the population experiences a disability. This rate is slightly lower than that of the County. The disability rate is highest among residents who identify as White (not Hispanic or Latino) (11.4 percent) and Hispanic or Latino (of any race) (7.7 percent). In the County, the highest percentage of disabled residents by race is among American Indian and Alaska Native residents (14.4 percent) and Black or African American residents (10.7 percent). In Santa Clara, the most common disability is an ambulatory difficulty (3.6 percent) followed by an independent living difficulty (3.3 percent). In the County the same trend follows, the most common disability is those with an independent living difficulty (4.5 percent) followed by an ambulatory difficulty (4.4 percent)
Table 13.3-9: Populations of Persons with Disabilities– Santa Clara County & Santa Clara
Santa Clara County Percent
with a Disability
Santa Clara Percent
with a Disability
Civilian non-institutionalized
population
8% 7%
Race/ Ethnicity
Black or African American alone 10.7% 7.5%
American Indian and Alaska
Native alone
14.4% 2.9%
Asian alone 6.2% 3.8%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific
Islander alone
9.4% 6.7%
Some other race alone 6.7% 5.4%
Two or more races 7% 6.1%
White alone, not Hispanic or Latino 10.6% 11.4%
Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 7.5% 7.7%
Age
Under 5 years 0.7% 1.2%
5 to 17 years 3.1% 3.7%
18 to 34 years 3.9% 2.7%
35 to 64 years 6.2% 5.9%
65 to 74 years 18.2% 18.1%
75 years and over 48% 47.1%
Type
Hearing difficulty 2.3% 2.1%
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Table 13.3-9: Populations of Persons with Disabilities– Santa Clara County & Santa Clara
Santa Clara County Percent
with a Disability
Santa Clara Percent
with a Disability
Vision difficulty 1.4% 1.2%
Cognitive difficulty 3.3% 2.7%
Ambulatory difficulty 4.4% 3.6%
Self-care difficulty 2.1% 1.6%
Independent living difficulty 4.5% 3.3%
Source(s): 2019 ACS 5-year Estimates, Table S1810
In terms of geographic dispersal, there is a patchwork pattern of persons with a disability throughout the County. There does appear to be a concentration of persons with disabilities within San Jose and expanding out to Santa Clara and Campbell. These areas of concentration have percentages of the population experiencing disabilities at 10 to 20 percent. The cities of Milpitas, Sunnyvale, Mountain View, and Palo Alto appear to have fewer tracts where residents experience disabilities above 10 percent. Nowhere in the County does the percentage of residents experiencing a disability exceed 20 percent.
FIGURE 13.3-5: REGIONAL POPULATIONS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES BY TRACT (2019)
Local Trends
Within Santa Clara there is a concentration of residents with a disability between 10 to 20 percent in the central part of the city. In the northern part of the city fewer than 10 percent of residents experience a disability. In the southern part of the city there are concentrations where the percentage of residents experiencing a disability rises above 10 percent. The higher rates of poverty in central Santa Clara overlap with higher rates of Low to Moderate Income populations (50 to 75 percent) (Figure 13.3-12). This low rate of residents with disabilities may be explained in part by the young age of Santa Clara residents. According to 2019 ACS data, only 11.4 percent of residents in Santa Clara are 65 and above while 50 percent of residents are between 15 and 44 years old. Comparing rates to the nearby cities of Mountain View, Sunnyvale, and Milpitas these cities have fewer geographic areas where the population experiencing a disability is between 10 to 20 percent.
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
FIGURE 13.3-6: PERCENT OF POPULATION WITH A DISABILITY – SANTA CLARA (2021)
The California Department of Developmental Services is responsible for overseeing the coordination and delivery of services to more than 330,000 Californians with developmental disabilities including cerebral palsy, intellectual disability, Down syndrome, autism, epilepsy, and related conditions. The tables below show the population in Santa Clara County and Santa Clara with developmental disabilities by age (Table 13.3-10) and the population of adults with developmental disabilities by residence (Table 13.3-11).
Table 13.3-10: Population with Developmental Disabilities by Age Age Group Santa Clara County Santa Clara
Under 18 4,016 (37%) 204 (33%)
18 and Older 6,737 (63%) 408 (67%)
Total 10,753 612
Sources: County-California Department of Developmental Services, Consumer Count by ZIP Code and Age Group (2020).
Santa Clara-San Andreas Regional Center (November 2021)
Table 13.3-11: Adults with Developmental Disabilities by Residence Residence Type Santa Clara County Santa Clara
Home of Parent / Family / Guardian 4,362 (65%) 269 (66%) Community Care Facility 1,525 (23%) 69 (17%)
Independent / Supported Living 756 (11%) 66 (16%)
Other (includes homeless) 94 (1%) 4 (1%)
Total 6,737 408
Source: County-California Department of Developmental Services, Consumer Count by ZIP Code and Residence Type (2020) Santa Clara-San Andreas Regional Center (November 2021).
Approximately 67 percent of Santa Clara’s population with developmental disabilities are adults.
Throughout Santa Clara County, according to California Department of Development Services estimates, there has been a 20 percent increase in the adult population with developmental disabilities between 2015-2021. For that same timeframe, the number of Santa Clara County residents with development disabilities age 62 and older grew by 35 percent.
The preferred living option for children with developmental disabilities continues to be the family home, but as those children become adults, additional residential options outside the family home will be required.
In summary, Santa Clara has a slightly lower percentage of persons with disability compared with the County. The racial and ethnic groups with the highest percentage of disability in Santa Clara are white (not Hispanic or Latino) and Hispanic/Latino. There are higher concentrations of persons with disabilities living in Central Santa Clara and selected areas in Southern Santa Clara.
There is likely a need to create more supportive and accessible multifamily housing opportunities for this subpopulation as the development of single-story homes is less likely given the limited supply and high cost of land.
Familial Status
Under the Fair Housing Act, housing providers may not discriminate because of familial status.
Familial status covers the presence of children under the age of 18, pregnant persons, and any person in the process of securing legal custody of a minor child (including adoptive or foster parents). Examples of familial status discrimination include refusing to rent to families with children, evicting families once a child joins the family (through, e.g., birth, adoption, custody), or requiring families with children to live on specific floors or in specific buildings or areas. Single parent households are also protected by fair housing law.
Families with children often have special housing needs due to lower per capita income, the need for affordable childcare, the need for affordable housing, or the need for larger units with three or more bedrooms. Single parent households are also protected by fair housing law. Femaleheaded households are of particular consideration as they may experience greater housing affordability challenges due to typically lower household incomes compared to two-parent
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
households. Often, sex and familial status intersect to compound the discrimination faced by single mothers.
Regional Trends
In Santa Clara County, 27 percent of households have children under the age of 18. Within the County, the cities of Sunnyvale, Palo Alto, and San Jose have the highest percentages of households with children (28.6, 27.1, and 26.2 percent, respectively). Across all the cities listed below in Santa Clara County, there are higher percentages of single-parent female households than single-parent male households. Within the County, Palo Alto and San Jose have the highest percentages of single-parent female households (both 3.8 percent). While single-parent male households have a lower percentage overall, the cities of Palo Alto, San Jose, and Santa Clara have the highest percentages of single-parent male households (1.8, 1.2, and 1.2 percent respectively).
Table 13.3-12: Households with Children in Santa Clara County and Incorporated Cities
Santa
Clara
County
Santa
Clara
San Jose Sunnyvale Palo
Alto
Mountain
View
Married Couple
with Children
27% 26.1% 26.2% 28.6% 27.1% 20.9%
Single-Parent,
Male
1.1% 1.2% 1.2% 0.8% 1.8% 0.9%
Single-Parent,
Female
3.3% 2.2% 3.8% 1.8% 3.8% 2.7%
Source(s): American Community Survey, 2015-2019 (5-Year Estimates), Table DP02 Figure 13.3-7 visualizes the variety of percentages of children in Santa Clara County living in married-couple households. San Jose has the largest variety with some areas showing below 20 percent of married-couple households with children and other areas showing above 80 percent of married-couple households with children. This lower percentage is concentrated around central San Jose and gets higher as the map moves out. Cities like Palo Alto, Los Altos, Cupertino, and Saratoga along the western part of the County show some of the highest rates of marriedcouple households with children. Gilroy is another area showing low rates of married-couple households with children (between 21 to 40 percent).
FIGURE 13.3-7: REGIONAL PERCENTAGE OF CHILDREN IN MARRIED-COUPLE HOUSEHOLDS BY TRACTS (2019)
Local Trends
The northern and southern parts of Santa Clara have higher rates of married couple households (between 61 to 80 percent). The central part of Santa Clara has a lower rate of married couple households at 41 to 60 percent. Central Santa Clara also has higher rates of low to moderate income levels (50 to 75 percent), lower incomes ($87,000) (Figure 13.3-12) and higher rates of overpayment (40 to 60 percent) (Figure 13.3-40) which may all be a factor of this lower rate of married couple and likely dual-income households. The nearby cities of Mountain View, Sunnyvale, and Milpitas have similar rates of married couple households.
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
FIGURE 13.3-8: PERCENT OF CHILDREN IN MARRIED-COUPLE HOUSEHOLDS – SANTA CLARA (2021)
Regional Trends
Much of Santa Clara County shows rates of children in female-headed households below 21 to 40 percent. In San Jose there are areas where this percentage rises to 41 to 60 percent. Most cities in the County have some areas where the rate is between 21 to 40 percent, however, some cities along the western part of the County like Los Altos, Cupertino, and Saratoga appear to have rates below 20 percent for the entire city. San Jose, which has the highest concentration of single mother households also has higher rates of non-White populations (61 to 80 percent).
FIGURE 13.3-9: REGIONAL PERCENT OF CHILDREN IN FEMALE-HEADED HOUSEHOLDS BY TRACT (2019)
Local Trends
The majority of Santa Clara has below 20 percent of female headed households with children.
There is one small section in northeast Santa Clara where this percentage rises to 21 to 40 percent.
This area also overlaps with higher rates of HCV use (5 to 15 percent), higher rates of overpayment by renters (40 to 60 percent), and higher rates of household overcrowding (above 15 percent) (Figure 13.3-40). These trends may be explained in part by the higher rate of female headed households which may only be single income households. The nearby cities of Mountain View and Milpitas have rates below 20 percent for female headed households, and Mountain View has a small section where this rate rises between 21 to 40 percent, similar to Santa Clara.
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
FIGURE 13.3-10: PERCENT OF CHILDREN IN FEMALE HEADED HOUSEHOLDS – SANTA CLARA (2021)
In summary, Santa Clara has a higher percentage of single parent female parent households compared with single parent male households. Most of Santa Clara has rates of female headed households with children that are below 20% which is consistent with the rest of the County.
The central portion of the City has lower rates of married couples with children. Single parent households generally have lower income which suggests a need to build a variety of affordable unit sizes for singles, couples, single parents with children, and couples with children.
Income Level
Each year, the HUD receives custom tabulations of American Community Survey (ACS) data from the U.S. Census Bureau. Known as the "CHAS" data (Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy), it demonstrates the number of households in need of housing assistance by estimating the number of households that have certain housing problems and have incomes low enough to qualify for HUD’s programs (primarily 30, 50, and 80 percent of median income). HUD defines a Low to Moderate Income (LMI) area as a census tract or block group where over 51 percent of the population is LMI (based on HUD income definition of up to 80 percent of the Area Median Income).
Regional Trends
Table 13.3-13 lists Santa Clara County households by income category and tenure. Based on the above definition, 33.5 percent of Santa Clara County households are considered LMI, as they earn less than 80 percent of the HUD Area Median Family Income (HAMFI). About 45 percent of all renter households are considered LMI, compared to about 23 percent of owner households. In Santa Clara, about 32 percent of all households are considered LMI. Similar to the County, more renter households in the city are LMI (37.5 percent) than owner households (24 percent). Overall, Santa Clara has a slightly larger percentage of owner and renter households earning above the median area income (60.2 percent) compared to the County (58 percent).
Table 13.3-13: Santa Clara County & Santa Clara Households by Income Category and Tenure
Santa Clara County
Income Category Owner Renter Total
0%-30% of AMI 7.7% 20.1% 13%
31%-50% of AMI 5.9% 13% 10%
51%-80% of AMI 9.5% 12.4% 10.5%
81%-100% AMI 7.9% 8.9% 8.3%
Greater than 100% of
AMI
67.6% 45% 58%
Total 360,660 274,865 635,525
Santa Clara
Income Category Owner Renter Total
0%-30% of AMI 7.6% 15.6% 12.2%
31%-50% of AMI 8.4% 11.7% 10.3%
51%-80% of AMI 8% 10.2% 9.3%
81%-100% AMI 7.7% 7.9% 7.8%
Greater than 100% of
AMI
68% 54% 60.2%
Total 18,930 25,150 44,080
Source(s): HUD CHAS (based on 2014-2018 ACS), 2020.
Figure 13.3-12 shows the LMI areas in Santa Clara County by block group. There are drastic geographic differences in the percentage of LMI populations. The largest concentration of LMI populations is in City of San Jose, where the percentage rises to 50 to 75 percent, and 75 to 100 percent. There are also a few concentrations in Palo Alto, Santa Clara, Campbell, and Gilroy where the LMI population is between 75 to 100 percent. In general, the cities to the west and south of San Jose have lower percentages of LMI populations. This higher LMI percentage in San Jose and the western part of the County may be explained in part by the higher percentages of nonWhite populations in this area, ranging between 61 to 80 percent, as these populations are more likely to be economically disadvantaged and have lower incomes.
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
FIGURE 13.3-11: REGIONAL CONCENTRATIONS OF LMI HOUSEHOLDS BY TRACT (2015)
Local Trends
In Santa Clara there are a few concentrations where the LMI populations are between 75 to 100 percent and a large area where the LMI percentage is between 50 to 75 percent. The rest of the city has block groups with LMI populations between 25 to 50 percent and below 25 percent. The largest LMI concentration between 75 to 100 percent is in the northern part of the city, where these block groups overlap with higher percentages of non-White population block groups (61 to 80 percent) and overcrowded households (12 percent).The large area of LMI population between 50 to 75 percent overlaps with block groups that have higher non-White populations (61 to 80 percent), lower median incomes (below $87,000), and higher rates of overpayment by renters (40 to 60 percent). All three of these factors may provide an explanation for the higher rate of LMI populations in central Santa Clara. Additionally, this area is between Highway 101 and the Union Pacific Railroad and is predominantly industrial, likely contributing to the higher LMI rates.
Compared to the nearby cities of Mountain View, Sunnyvale, and Milpitas, Santa Clara has larger geographic areas with higher percentages of LMI populations.
FIGURE 13.3-12: POPULATION WITH LOW TO MODERATE INCOME LEVELS – SANTA CLARA (2021)
Housing Choice Vouchers
Housing Choice Vouchers (HCVs), a form of HUD rental subsidies, are issued to low-income households that promise to pay a certain amount of the household’s rent. Prices, or payment standards, are set based on the rent in the metropolitan area, and voucher households must pay any difference between the rent and the voucher amount. Participants of the HCV program are free to choose any rental housing that meets program requirements.
An analysis of the trends in HCV concentration can be useful in examining the success of the program in improving the living conditions and quality of life of its holders. One of the objectives of the HCV program is to encourage participants to avoid high-poverty neighborhoods and encourage the recruitment of landlords with rental properties in low poverty neighborhoods.
HCV programs are managed by Public Housing Agencies (PHAs), and the programs assessment structure (SEMAPS) includes an “expanding housing opportunities” indicator that shows whether the PHA has adopted and implemented a written policy to encourage participation by owners of units located outside areas of poverty or minority concentration.
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
A study prepared by HUD’s Development Office of Policy Development and Research found a positive association between the HCV share of occupied housing and neighborhood poverty concentration and a negative association between rent and neighborhood poverty1. This means that HCV use was concentrated in areas of high poverty where rents tend to be lower. In areas where these patterns occur, the program has not succeeded in moving holders out of areas of poverty.
Regional Trends
Santa Clara County Housing Authority (SCCHA) provides about 17,000 participants with housing choice vouchers, making it their largest rental assistance program. SCCHA housing choice voucher holders pay 30 percent of their monthly income toward rent. Voucher holders in the “Moving to work” program pay 32 percent of their monthly income towards rent (or a minimum of $50, whichever is higher). SCCHA pays the balance of the rent to the landlords on behalf of the household.
In the County, the cities of Santa Clara, Cupertino, Mountain View, Palo Alto, and Sunnyvale, the vast majority of Project-Based Section 8 units are 0-1 bedrooms. SCHHA generally has a very long waiting list and the average wait for a household to receive an HCV is between eight to 10 years.
HCV concentration is highest in the eastern part of Santa Clara County in the cities of San Jose, Campbell, and Milpitas. As identified earlier, these areas of the County have higher percentages of non-White populations. HCV use in these areas is between five to 15 percent, 15 to 30 percent, and 30 to 60 percent. Palo Alto, Mountain View, Santa Clara, Morgan Hill, and Gilroy also show lower percentages for HCV use while the rest of the County has rates below five percent. 1 Devine, D.J., Gray, R.W., Rubin, L., & Taghavi, L.B. (2003). Housing choice voucher location patterns:
Implications for participant and neighborhood welfare. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research, Division of Program Monitoring and Research.
FIGURE 13.3-13: REGIONAL HOUSING HCV CONCENTRATION BY TRACT (2021)
Local Trends
In Santa Clara there are 650 tenant-based vouchers in use and 129 project-based vouchers. There are three concentrations of tracts with HCV use between five to 15 percent while the rest of the City’s HCV use is below five percent. There are concentrations of higher HCV use in the northern and southern part of the city. The higher HCV concentration in northern Santa Clara overlaps with the only area in the City with higher rates of female headed households (21 to 40 percent), as well as higher rates of overpayment by renters (40 to 60 percent), and higher rates of overcrowded households (above 15 percent). The areas of higher HCV use in the southern part of the City overlaps with higher rates of LMI households (25 to 50 percent) and higher rates of overpayment by renters (40 to 60 percent).
The northern part of Santa Clara has tracts with median gross rents of $2,500. The southern part of the City has a mix of rents between $1,000 and above $3,000. Central Santa Clara has an average median rent below $1,000. This area is more affordable than the rest of the city and households in this area have lower median incomes ($87,000) than the rest of the City. Santa Clara has similar rates of affordability compared to Sunnyvale, Mountain View, and Milpitas.
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
FIGURE 13.3-14: HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS – SANTA CLARA (2021) Location Affordability
Regional Trends
Figure 13.3-15 shows the Location Affordability Index in Santa Clara County. The index was developed by HUD in collaboration with the Department of Transportation under the federal Partnership for Sustainable Communities. One objective of the partnership is to increase public access to data on housing, transportation, and land use. Before this index was established, there was no standardized national data source on household transportation expenses, which limited the ability of homebuyers and renters to fully account for the cost of living in a particular city or neighborhood.
The prevailing standard of affordability in the United States is paying 30 percent or less of a household’s income on housing. However, this prevailing standard fails to account for transportation costs, and transportation costs have grown significantly as a proportion of household income since the standard was established. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in the 1930s, American households spent just eight percent of their income on transportation. Since then, as a substantial proportion of the U.S. population has migrated from center cities to surrounding suburbs and exurbs and has come to rely more heavily (or
exclusively) on cars, that percentage has steadily increased, peaking at 19.1 percent in 2003. As of 2020, households spent on average about 17.4 percent of their annual income on transportation, second only to housing costs in terms of budget impact. 2 And for many working-class and rural households, transportation costs exceed housing costs.
In Santa Clara County, there is a mix of median gross rents. San Jose has areas with the lowest rents below $1,000 and areas with higher rents above $3,000. Most cities have a mix of rents between $2,000 to $3,000 and above. The most affordable tracts are in San Jose while the more expensive tracts are around the perimeter of the County in cities like Palo Alto, Los Altos, Cupertino, Los Gatos, and east San Jose.
Local Trends
Figure 13.3-16 shows that median gross rents are highest in Northern Santa Clara and parts of Southern Santa Clara. The lowest rents are found in and adjacent to Central Santa Clara.
FIGURE 13.3-15: REGIONAL MEDIAN GROSS RENT/ AFFORDABILITY INDEX BY TRACT (2021)
2 U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, https://data.bts.gov/stories/s/ida7-k95k, accessed 4/26/22.
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
FIGURE 13.3-16: LOCATION AFFORDABILITY INDEX – SANTA CLARA (2021) Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAP) Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs) are geographic areas with significant concentrations of poverty and minority populations. HUD developed a census-tract based definition of R/ECAP that relies on a racial and ethnic concentration threshold and a poverty test. The threshold states that an area with a non-White population of 50 percent or more would be identified as a R/ECAP; the poverty test defines areas of extreme poverty as areas where 40 percent or more of the population live below the federal poverty line or where the poverty rate is three times the average poverty rate for the metropolitan area (whichever is lower). Thus, an area that meets either the racial or ethnic concentration, and the poverty test would be classified as a R/ECAP. Identifying R/ECAPS facilitates an understanding of entrenched patterns of segregation and poverty due to the legacy effects of historically racist and discriminatory housing laws.
In Santa Clara County the only areas that meet the official definition of a R/ECAP are within San Jose and Gilroy.
Local Trends
There are no R/ECAP areas in Santa Clara nor in the nearby cities of Mountain View or Sunnyvale.
FIGURE 13.3-17: REGIONAL RACIALLY AND ETHNICALLY CONCENTRATED AREAS OF POVERTY “R/ECAPS” (2021)
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
FIGURE 13.3-18: RACIALLY OR ETHNICALLY CONCENTRATED AREAS OF POVERTY “R/ECAPS” – SANTA CLARA (2021)
Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAAs)
Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAAs) are defined by the HUD as communities with a large proportion of affluent and non-Hispanic White residents. According to a policy paper published by the HUD, non-Hispanic Whites are the most racially segregated group in the United States. In the same way neighborhood disadvantage is associated with concentrated poverty and high concentrations of people of color, distinct advantages are associated with residence in affluent, White communities. RCAAs are currently not available for mapping on the AFFH Data Viewer. As such, an alternate definition of RCAA from the University of Minnesota Humphrey School of Public Affairs is used in this analysis. RCAAs are defined as census tracts where (1) 80 percent or more of the population is white, and (2) the median household income is $125,000 or greater (slightly more than double the national median household income in 2016).
Regional Trends
Comparing Figure 13.3-1 and Figure 13.3-19 there are multiple areas where high White populations overlap with median incomes above $125,000. These areas are mostly located along
the eastern edge of the County. However, only one community qualifies as an RCAA. The unincorporated area called Lexington Hills located along the western edge of the County has a White population of 87.4 percent and a median household income of $166,932, meeting the alternate definition of a RCAA. This unincorporated area of 4.7 square miles is home to approximately 2,500 residents.
Table 13.3-14: White Population and Median Household Income of RCAAs in Santa Clara County
City White Population Median Household Income (2019)
Lexington Hills 87.4% $166,932
Source(s): DataUSA.io (2019)
FIGURE 13.3-19: REGIONAL MEDIAN INCOME BY BLOCK GROUP (2021) Local Trends
The northern part of Santa Clara has block groups that have households with a median income of $125,000 and above. The southern part of the city has a smaller section of median household incomes at $30,000, while most areas have incomes at $125,000 and above. Notably, Central Santa
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Clara has median household incomes at $87,000 which is lower than the rest of the city but is the 2020 median income for California. The central part of Santa Clara also overlaps with higher rates of non-White populations, higher rates of residents with disabilities, and higher rates of overpayment for rent, all of which likely contribute to lower median incomes for households in this area. Mountain View, Sunnyvale, and Milpitas all have larger areas with higher household incomes and only a few small concentrations with lower median incomes.
FIGURE 13.3-20: MEDIAN INCOME – SANTA CLARA (2021)
In summary, Santa Clara has a lower percentage of low and moderate income (LMI) residents compared to the County, but there are several census blocks with higher concentrations of low income residents. These areas are located within or adjacent to Central Santa Clara. These small pockets of lower income residents suggest a need for proactive outreach to connect residents with new affordable housing opportunities as well as education about City services such as landlord tenant rights according to state laws as well as mediation services, home repair, and proactive code enforcement. Such outreach, education, and services could help increase mobility and improve living conditions in these areas.
Analysis above indicates that residents in Central Santa Clara include Asian/Pacific Islander, White, and Hispanic/Latino residents who are disproportionately overrepresented in this area.
Proactive outreach in Central Santa Clara should be conducted in English, Spanish and other relevant languages to provide greater access to city programs and affordable housing opportunities throughout the City.
Access to Opportunities
Access to opportunity is a concept to approximate the link between place-based characteristics (e.g., education, employment, safety, and the environment) and critical life outcomes (e.g., health, wealth, and life expectancy). Ensuring access to opportunity means both improving the quality of life for residents of low-income communities, as well as supporting residents’ mobility and access to ‘high resource’ neighborhoods.
TCAC Opportunity Maps
TCAC Maps are opportunity maps created by the California Fair Housing Task Force (a convening of the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC)) to provide research and evidence-based policy recommendations to further HCD’s fair housing goals of (1) avoiding further segregation and concentration of poverty and (2) encouraging access to opportunity through land use policy and affordable housing, program design, and implementation. These opportunity maps identify census tracts with highest to lowest resources, segregation, and poverty, which in turn inform the TCAC to distribute funding more equitably for affordable housing in areas with the highest opportunity through the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) Program.
TCAC Opportunity Maps display areas by highest to lowest resources by assigning scores between 0–1 for each domain by census tracts where higher scores indicate higher “access” to the domain or higher “outcomes.” Refer to Table 13.3-15 for a list of domains and indicators for opportunity maps. Composite scores are a combination score of the three domains that do not have a numerical value but rather rank census tracts by the level of resources (low, moderate, high, highest, and high poverty and segregation). The opportunity maps also include a measure or “filter” to identify areas with poverty and racial segregation. The criteria for these filters were:
• Poverty: Tracts with at least 30 percent of population under the federal poverty line; • Racial Segregation: Tracts with location quotient higher than 1.25 for Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, or all people of color in comparison to the County
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Table 13.3-15: Domains and List of Indicators for Opportunity Maps Domain Indicator
Economic Poverty
Adult Education
Employment
Job Proximity
Median home value
Environmental CalEnviroScreen 4.0 pollution Indicators and values
Education Math proficiency
Reading proficiency
High School graduation rates
Student poverty rates
Source(s): California Fair Housing Task Force, Methodology for the 2021 TCAC/ HCD Opportunity Maps, December 2020 High resource areas have high index scores for a variety of opportunity indicators such as high employment rates, low poverty rates, proximity to jobs, high educational proficiency, and limited exposure to environmental health hazards. High resource tracts are areas that offer low-income residents the best chance of a high quality of life, whether through economic advancement, high educational attainment, or clean environmental health. Moderate resource areas have access to many of the same resources as the high resource areas but may have fewer job opportunities, lower performing schools, lower median home values, or other factors that lower their indexes across the various economic, educational, and environmental indicators. Low resource areas are characterized as having fewer opportunities for employment and education, or a lower index for other economic, environmental, and educational indicators. These areas have greater quality of life needs and should be prioritized for future investment to improve opportunities for current and future residents.
Information from opportunity mapping can help highlight the need for housing element policies and programs that would help to remediate conditions in low resource areas or areas of high segregation and poverty, and to encourage better access for low and moderate income, and black, indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC) households to housing in high resource areas.
Regional Trends
Figure 13.3-21 provides a visual representation of TCAC Opportunity Areas in Santa Clara County based on a composite score, where each tract is categorized based on percentile rankings of the level of resources within the region. The western part of the County has cities with the highest resources such as Palo Alto, Cupertino, Saratoga, Monte Sereno, and Los Gatos. The central part of the County has a mix of resource scores of high, moderate, and low with the largest low resource areas in San Jose and Morgan Hill. The eastern part of San Jose has areas with both the lowest and highest resource scores.
Local Trends
Santa Clara has a mix of resource scores. The northern part of the city has moderate and high resources, the central part of the city has low resources, and the southern part of the city has a mix of low, moderate, high, and highest resources. The areas with low resources also overlap with higher CalEnviroScreen Scores (50 to 74 percent) (Figure 13.3-36), lower Healthy Places Index Scores (50 to 75) (Figure 13.3-38), higher rates of LMI households (50 to 75 percent) and areas with higher non-White populations (61 to 80 percent). The new TCAC opportunity area map below (Figure 13.3-23) shows a shift in resources in certain areas of the City. North of highway 101 and the San Tomas Freeway the northern part of the City which was previously moderate resource is now high resource. Since the advent of City Specific Plans, we see a trajectory towards higher resource areas with greater investment increasing amenities for neighborhoods. Figure 13.3-23 shows that the City’s site inventory (purple shapes) are generally dispersed from existing subsidized housing (red dots).
FIGURE 13.3-21: REGIONAL TCAC COMPOSITE SCORES BY TRACT (2021) TCAC Opportunity Areas (2021) Composite Score
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
FIGURE 13.3-22: TCAC OPPORTUNITY AREAS – COMPOSITE SCORE – SANTA CLARA (2021)
TCAC Opportunity Areas (2021) Composite Score
FIGURE 13.3-23: SITES INVENTORY, EXISTING AFFORDABLE HOUSING, AND TCAC OPPORTUNITY AREAS – COMPOSITE SCORE – SANTA CLARA (2023) Opportunity Indices
This section presents the HUD-developed index scores based on nationally available data sources to assess residents’ access to key opportunity assets in comparison to the County. Table 13.3-16 provides index scores or values (the values range from 0 to 100) for the following opportunity indicator indices:
• School Proficiency Index: The school proficiency index uses school-level data on the performance of 4th grade students on state exams to describe which neighborhoods have high-performing elementary schools nearby and which are near lower performing elementary schools. The higher the index value, the higher the school system quality is in a neighborhood.
• Labor Market Engagement Index: The labor market engagement index provides a summary description of the relative intensity of labor market engagement and human capital in a neighborhood. This is based upon the level of employment, labor force
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
participation, and educational attainment in a census tract. The higher the index value, the higher the labor force participation and human capital in a neighborhood. • Transit Trips Index: This index is based on estimates of transit trips taken by a family that meets the following description: a 3-person single-parent family with income at 50 percent of the median income for renters for the region (i.e., the Core-Based Statistical Area (CBSA). The higher the transit trips index value, the more likely residents in that neighborhood utilize public transit.
• Low Transportation Cost Index: This index is based on estimates of transportation costs for a family that meets the following description: a 3-person single-parent family with income at 50 percent of the median income for renters for the region/CBSA. The higher the index value, the lower the cost of transportation in that neighborhood. • Jobs Proximity Index: The jobs proximity index quantifies the accessibility of a given residential neighborhood as a function of its distance to all job locations within a region/CBSA, with larger employment centers weighted more heavily. The higher the index value, the better the access to employment opportunities for residents in a neighborhood.
• Environmental Health Index: The environmental health index summarizes potential exposure to harmful toxins at a neighborhood level. The higher the index value, the less exposure to toxins harmful to human health. Therefore, the higher the index value, the better the environmental quality of a neighborhood (where a neighborhood is a census block-group).
Table 13.3-16: Opportunity Indices by Race/ Ethnicity – Santa Clara County School
Proficiency
Index
Labor
Market
Index
Transit
Trip
Index
Low
Transportation
Cost Index
Jobs
Proximity
Index
Environmental
Health Index
Santa Clara County
Total Population
White, NonHispanic81.85 82.15 68.07 91.22 52.75 58.84
Black, NonHispanic74.05 74.24 73.41 93.10 57.03 53.45
Hispanic 58.86 61.91 64.53 91.30 43.19 54.62
Asian or
Pacific
Islander,
NonHispanic
85.32 83.26 71.35 91.36 51.68 61.59
Native
American,
NonHispanic
69.43 68.36 67.23 91.76 50.57 56.68
Population Below Federal Poverty Line
White, NonHispanic77.47 79.47 70 92.22 52.67 56.88
Black, NonHispanic55.29 63.66 64.3 90.61 41 59.89
Hispanic 50.56 54.77 64.34 92.15 43.58 53.07
Asian or
Pacific
Islander,
NonHispanic
72.77 73.73 67.96 91.39 52.68 57.31
Native
American,
NonHispanic
75.1 75.82 76.71 94.47 72.22 63.36
Note: American Community Survey Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. See page 31 for index score meanings.
Source(s): AFFHT Data Table 13.3-17; Data Sources: Decennial Census; ACS; Great Schools; Common Core of Data; SABINS; LAI; LEHD; NATA
Education
Housing and school policies are mutually reinforcing, which is why it is important to analyze access to educational opportunities when assessing fair housing. At the most general level, school districts with the greatest amount of affordable housing tend to attract larger numbers of LMI families (largely composed of minorities). As test scores are a reflection of student demographics,
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
where Black/Hispanic/Latino students routinely score lower than their White peers, less diverse schools with higher test scores tend to attract higher income families to the school district. This is a fair housing issue because as higher income families move to the area, the overall cost of housing rises and an exclusionary feedback loop is created, leading to increased racial and economic segregation across districts as well as decreased access to high-performing schools for non-White students.
Regional Trends
The 2021 TCAC Opportunity Areas Education Composite Score for a census tract is based on math and reading proficiency, high school graduation rate, and student poverty rate indicators.
The score is broken up by quartiles, with the highest quartile indicating more positive education outcomes and the lowest quartile signifying fewer positive outcomes.
Santa Clara County has 28 school districts. As of 2020, throughout the County there were 255 elementary schools, 61 middle schools, 55 high schools, 11 continuing education schools, 10 alternative schools, five junior high schools, four K-12 schools, two community day schools, and one special education school. 3 The map below shows the TCAC education score for the County with the central and southern parts of the County including San Jose, Morgan Hill, and Gilroy showing scores between 0.25 - 0.50 which are less positive education scores. The cities on the western side of the County and Milpitas have scores above 0.75 which is the more positive education outcome score. The areas with lower scores correspond to areas with higher non-White populations and the areas with higher scores correspond to areas with lower non-White populations. Table 13.3-17 indicates that index values for school proficiency are higher for White residents, indicating a greater access to high quality schools. For populations below the federal poverty line, index values for school proficiency are highest among White, Native American (Non-Hispanic), and Asian or Pacific Islander (Non-Hispanic).
Local Trends
The northern part of Santa Clara has a TCAC education score of 0.50 to 0.75 which trend toward the more positive educational outcome score. The central part of Santa Clara has a score of between 0.25 to 0.50 which trends toward the less positive educational outcome score (note there are no public schools located in the central part of the City). The southern part of Santa Clara has a mix of scores between 0.25 to 0.50, 0.50 to 0.75 and above 0.75. The nearby cities of Mountain View and Milpitas mostly have TCAC education scores above 0.75 while the city of Sunnyvale has a mix of scores similar to Santa Clara.
3 Ed-data.org
According to the National Center for Education data from 2021, there were 23 public schools in Santa Clara (Figure 13.3-26). These public school rankings reflect the TCAC Education scores with schools in the northern part of the city receiving scores below the top 30 percent and schools in the southern part of the city receiving scores in the top 10 percent and above. There are no public schools located in the central part of the city.
FIGURE 13.3-24: REGIONAL TCAC EDUCATION SCORES (2021)
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
FIGURE 13.3-25: TCAC OPPORTUNITY AREAS – EDUCATION SCORE – SANTA CLARA (2021)
FIGURE 13.3-26: PUBLIC SCHOOL RANKINGS (2021)
Transportation
Access to public transit is of paramount importance to households affected by low incomes and rising housing prices, especially because lower income households are often transit dependent.
Public transit should strive to link lower income persons, who are often transit dependent, to major employers where job opportunities exist. Access to employment via public transportation can reduce welfare usage and increase housing mobility, which enables residents to reside.in housing outside of traditionally low-income neighborhoods.
Transportation opportunities are depicted by two indices: (1) the transit trips index and (2) the low transportation cost index. The transit trips index measures how often low-income families in a neighborhood use public transportation. The index ranges from 0 to 100, with higher values indicating a higher likelihood that residents in a neighborhood utilize public transit. The low transportation cost index measures cost of transportation and proximity to public transportation by neighborhood. It too varies from 0 to 100, and higher scores point to lower transportation costs in that neighborhood.
Regional Trends
In Santa Clara County, neither transit index, regardless of poverty level, varies noticeably across racial/ethnic categories. All races and ethnicities score highly on both indices, with values close in magnitude. If these indices are accurate depictions of transportation accessibility, it might be concluded that all racial and ethnic classes have high and relatively equal access to transportation at both the jurisdictional and regional levels. If anything, both indices appear to take slightly higher values for non-Hispanic Black residents and non-Hispanic Native-American residents, suggesting greater access to and lower costs for transit for these protected groups.
Santa Clara County is served by Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) which includes bus and light rail service throughout the County. VTA runs three light rail lines, 19 rapid bus lines, 24 local bus lines, four express shuttles, and nine shuttles. The County is very well connected by public transit to the larger Bay Area region. The area is also served by Amtrak with stations in Santa Clara and San Jose. The eastern part of Santa Clara County is served by Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART). Both San Jose and Milpitas have BART stops and are served by the Green and Orange lines. The Orange line connects to Richmond and the Green line connects to San Francisco.
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
FIGURE 13.3-27: REGIONAL PUBLIC TRANSIT ACCESS (2021)
Local Trends
The City of Santa Clara is serviced by Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) including both bus and light rail service. The City of Santa Clara is serviced by two rapid bus lines, three local bus lines, two light rail line, the Altamont Corridor Express (ACE) and Amtrak rail. According to the website alltransit.cnt.org, Santa Clara has a transit performance score of seven (out of 10). This score is determined by the number of transit trips per week a household takes and the number of jobs accessible by transit for a geographic area. Nearby cities of Mountain View and Sunnyvale have higher transit scores of 7.7 and 7.2 respectively, while Milpitas has a lower score of 6.7.
Transit access is significantly better in South Santa Clara where there are two rapid bus lines, three frequent bus lines, and the Santa Clara Caltrain Station which will be expanded to also accommodate a BART station connecting to San Jose and the East Bay. Central Santa Clara has a few local bus routes and the Lawrence Caltrain Station while North Santa Clara has several light rail stations with a less robust network of local bus routes. Figure 13.3-28 shows the VTA transit map.
FIGURE 13.3-28: VTA TRANSIT MAP (2023)
The cities of Cupertino and Santa Clara have partnered on the Silicon Valley Hopper app-based ride-share program. The program will provide seamless EV ride share services with a $3.50 fare between any two points within the service zone. The service will help residents get to major employment centers, hospitals, and rail transit stations. Phase I will serve South Santa Clara and Phase II will serve Central and North Santa Clara starting in 2027. Figure 13.3-29 shows a map of the Valley Hopper service area.
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
FIGURE 13.3-29: VALLEY HOPPER SERVICE AREA (2023)
Economic Development
Employment opportunities are depicted by two indices: (1) the labor market engagement index and (2) the jobs proximity index. The labor market engagement index provides a summary description of the relative intensity of labor market engagement and human capital in a neighborhood, taking into account the unemployment rate, labor-force participation rate, and percent with a bachelor’s degree or higher. The index ranges from 0 to 100, with higher values indicating higher labor force participation and human capital. The jobs proximity index quantifies the accessibility of a neighborhood to jobs in the region by measuring the physical distances between jobs and places of residence. It too varies from 0 to 100, and higher scores point to better accessibility to employment opportunities.
Regional Trends
In Santa Clara County, Black Non-Hispanic, White Non-Hispanic, Native American NonHispanic, and Asian or Pacific Islander residents all have similar index scores around 50, while Hispanic residents have an index score of 43.19. The map below shows the spatial variability of jobs proximity in Santa Clara County. Cities in northern Santa Clara County along the southern part of San Francisco bay have the highest jobs proximity index of 60 to 80 and 80 and above. This likely reflects the fact that these cities are closer to major economic regions of Silicon Valley and San Francisco. Southern and eastern San Jose have lower jobs proximity index scores (between 40 to 60, 20 to 40, and below 20) as these areas are further away from the economic hubs to the west.
The cities of Saratoga, Los Gatos, Morgan Hill, and Gilroy have lower jobs proximity index scores as they are more residential than the surrounding cities. Morgan Hill and Gilroy are also in the southern part of the County, geographically further away from economic hubs. The TCAC scores for the region have some overlap with jobs proximity index scores. The northern and western parts of the County have the highest TCAC scores (above 75) which is the most positive economic outcome, while the eastern, central, and southern parts of the County have scores between 50 to 75, 25 to 50 and below 25 which is the least positive economic outcome. Again, eastern San Jose, Morgan Hill, and Gilroy have lower TCAC scores than other cities in the County.
FIGURE 13.3-30: REGIONAL JOBS PROXIMITY INDEX (2021)
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
FIGURE 13.3-31: REGIONAL TCAC OPPORTUNITY AREAS – ECONOMIC SCORE (2021)
Local Trends
The northern and central parts of Santa Clara have the highest jobs proximity index scores (above 80) which indicates closest proximity. The southern part of the city has a mix of scores between 60 to 80 and 40 to 60, as they are further away from economic hubs in the northern and eastern parts of the County. The TCAC scores are more variable within the central part of the city with scores between 50 to 75, nearing the more positive economic outcome. Areas in the southern part of the City have scores as low as 25 to 50. The economic score takes into account levels of poverty, adult education, employment, job proximity, and median home value for the area. While job proximity is high for most of the city, income, education, and home values are more variable.
Central Santa Clara has more LMI households and lower household median incomes, likely influencing this score. Nearby cities of Mountain, Sunnyvale, and Milpitas have similar jobs proximity index scores, while Milpitas has lower TCAC scores than the three other cities.
FIGURE 13.3-32: JOBS PROXIMITY INDEX – SANTA CLARA (2021) FIGURE 13.3-33: TCAC OPPORTUNITY AREA – ECONOMIC SCORE – SANTA CLARA (2021)
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Environment
The Environmental Health Index summarizes potential exposure to harmful toxins at a neighborhood level. Index values range from 0 to 100 and the higher the index value, the less exposure to toxins harmful to human health. Therefore, the higher the value, the better the environmental quality of a neighborhood (where a neighborhood is a census block-group).
Environmental health index scores are similar across all races, with scores in the mid-50s to 60.
For populations below the poverty line, Native American Non-Hispanic residents have the highest score, of 63.36, while other groups have scores in the mid-50s.
CalEnviroScreen was developed by the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) to evaluate pollution sources in a community while accounting for a community’s vulnerability to the adverse effects of pollution. Measures of pollution burden and population characteristics are combined into a single composite score that is mapped and analyzed. Higher valued scores o indicate higher cumulative environmental burden and population impacts.
The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) compiles these scores to help identify California communities disproportionately burdened by multiple sources of pollution. In addition to environmental factors (pollutant exposure, groundwater threats, toxic sites, and hazardous materials exposure) and sensitive receptors (seniors, children, persons with asthma, and low birth weight infants), CalEnviroScreen also considers socioeconomic factors such as educational attainment, linguistic isolation, poverty, and unemployment.
Regional Trends
The map below displays the Environmental Score for Santa Clara County based on CalEnviroScreen 3.0 Pollution Indicators and Values that identify communities in California disproportionately burdened by multiple sources of pollution and that face vulnerability due to socioeconomic factors. Much of the County received scores below 25 to 50 percent, indicating a less positive environmental outlook. While these scores suggest high levels of vulnerable communities, the data has limitations. From the CalEnviroScreen website: “Opportunity mapping also has limitations. For example, maps’ accuracy is dependent on the accuracy of the data behind them. Data may be derived from self-reported surveys of subsets of an area’s population, and sometimes may not be recorded or reliable in some areas. Further, even the most recent publicly available datasets typically lag by two years, meaning they may not adequately capture conditions in areas undergoing rapid change. The methodology described in this document attempts to address each of these limitations to the degree possible.”
FIGURE 13.3-34: REGIONAL TCAC OPPORTUNITY AREAS – ENVIRONMENTAL SCORE (2021)
The map below displays updated scores for CalEnviroScreen 4.0 released by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, suggesting a more positive environmental outlook for the area. Much of the county has scores below 25 to 49 percent suggesting fewer adverse environmental impacts. There is a concentration in and around San Jose where scores are between 50 to 74 percent and 75 percent and higher indicating high levels of adverse environmental impacts. The eastern edge of Gilroy also reports scores of 75 percent or higher.
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
FIGURE 13.3-35: REGIONAL CALENVIROSCREEN 4.0 (2021)
Local Trends
The City of Santa Clara has the most positive CalEnviroScreen scores in the northern and southern parts of the city (25 to 49 percent and below 24 percent) while the central part of the city has scores between 50 to 74 percent. The central part of Santa Clara with less positive environmental scores is likely due to the fact that the area is predominantly industrial and is located between Highway 101 to the north, the Union Pacific Railroad Corridor to the south, and the San Jose International Airport to the east. The nearby cities of Mountain View, Sunnyvale, and Milpitas have CalEnviroScreen scores between 50 and 74 percent.
FIGURE 13.3-36: CALENVIROSCREEN 4.0 – SANTA CLARA (2021) Health and Recreation
Residents should have the opportunity to live = in healthy communities. The Healthy Places Index (HPI) is a new tool that allows local officials to diagnose and change community conditions that affect health outcomes and the wellbeing of residents. The HPI tool was developed by the Public Health Alliance of Southern California to assist in comparing community conditions across the state, and combines 25 community characteristics such as housing, education, economic, and social factors into a single indexed HPI Percentile Score, where lower percentiles indicate less healthy conditions and higher scores indicate healthier conditions.
Regional Trends
The entire County has Healthy Places Index (HPI) scores between 50 to 75 and 75 to 100, indicating healthier conditions. The areas with the slightly lower scores of 50 to 75 are in Santa Clara, Milpitas, San Jose, Morgan Hill, and Gilroy.
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
FIGURE 13.3-37: REGIONAL HEALTHY PLACES INDEX (2021)
Local Trends
Northern and southern parts of Santa Clara have HPI scores between 75 to 100 while central Santa Clara has scores between 50 to 75, reflecting the CalEnviroScreen scores. Mountain View and Sunnyvale have scores between 75 to 100 while Milpitas has more areas with scores between 50 to 75.
FIGURE 13.3-38: HEALTHY PLACES INDEX – SANTA CLARA (2021) In summary Santa Clara has a mix of CTCAC opportunity area scores. The northern part of the city has moderate and high resources, the central part of the city has low resources, and the southern part of the city has a mix of low, moderate, high, and highest resources. The area with low resources also overlap with higher CalEnviroScreen Scores (more pollution), lower Healthy Places Index Scores, lower educational outcome scores, higher rates of LMI households, and areas with larger non-White populations. Job proximity is high for most of the city.
Disproportionate Needs
Disproportionate housing needs generally refers to a condition in which there are significant disparities in the proportion of members of a protected class experiencing a category of housing need when compared to the proportion of members of any other relevant groups, or the total population experiencing that category of housing need in the applicable geographic area. The Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) developed by the Census for HUD provides detailed information on housing needs by income level for different types of households in Contra Costa County. Housing problems considered by CHAS include:
• Housing cost burden, including utilities, exceeding 30 percent of gross income; • Severe housing cost burden, including utilities, exceeding 50 percent of gross income;
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
• Overcrowded conditions (housing units with more than one person per room); and • Units with physical defects (lacking complete kitchen or bathroom) According to the Santa Clara AFH, a total of 252,622 households (34.5 percent) in the County experience any one of the above housing problems; and 144,306 households (19.7 percent) experience severe housing problems. Based on relative percentage, Hispanic and Black households experience the highest rate of housing problems regardless of severity. Table 13.3-17 lists the demographics of households with housing problems in the County.
Table 13.3-17: Demographics of Households with Housing Problems in Santa Clara County
Total Number of
Households
Households with Housing
Problems
Households with Severe
Housing Problems
White 88,554 329,170 26.9% 43,381 13%
Black 8,376 16,756 49.9% 4,813 28.7%
Asian/Pacific
Islander
77,787 213,541 36.4% 44,730 20.9%
Native
American
477 3,026 15.7% 286 9.4%
Other 6,137 48,509 12.65% 3,210 6.6%
Hispanic 71,291 213,541 36.4% 47,886 39.9%
Total 252,622 731,019 34.5% 144,306 19.7%
Source(s): Contra Costa County AI (2020)
Table 13.3-18: Household Type & Size in Santa Clara County Household Type No. of Households with Housing Problems
Family Households (< 5 people) 360,406
Family Households (> 5 people) 78,571
Non-family Households 171,734
Source(s): Contra Costa County AI (2020)
Cost Burden (Overpayment)
Housing cost burden, or overpayment, is defined as households paying 30 percent or more of their gross income on housing expenses, including rent or mortgage payments and utilities.
Renters are more likely to overpay for housing costs than homeowners. Housing cost burden is considered a housing need because households that overpay for housing costs may have difficulty affording other necessary expenses, such as childcare, transportation, and medical costs.
Regional Trends
The map below identifies concentrations of cost-burdened renters in Mountain View, San Jose, and Morgan Hill. These cities have areas with renters experiencing overpayment above 80 percent. The rest of the County mostly has rates between 20 to 40 percent, 40 to 60 percent, and 60 to 80 percent. Areas along the eastern part of the County have lower overpayment rates below 20 percent.
FIGURE 13.3-39: REGIONAL OVERPAYMENT BY RENTERS (2021)
Local Trends
As presented in Table 13.3-19, 34.3 percent of all households in Santa Clara experience cost burdens. This rate is much higher for renters than owners (41.8 and 24.4 percent, respectively).
The rate of cost burden for all households in the County is slightly lower at 34.2 percent, but the trend still stands with 43.3 percent of renters experiencing cost burden versus 27.3 percent of owners.
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Table 13.3-19: Households that Experience Cost Burden by Tenure in Santa Clara County and Santa Clara
Santa Clara County
Total Number of Households Cost burden
30% - 50%
Cost burden
> 50%
Percentage of Households that
Experience Cost Burden
Owners Only 360,660 57,535 40,910 27.3%
Renters Only 274,865 61,350 57,610 43.3%
All Households 635,525 118,885 98,520 34.2%
Santa Clara
Total Number of Households Cost burden
30% - 50%
Cost burden
> 50%
Percentage of Households that
Experience Cost Burden
Owners Only 18,930 2,715 1,900 24.4%
Renters Only 25,150 5,140 5,365 41.8%
All Households 44,080 7,500 7,625 34.3%
Source(s): https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/cp.html FIGURE 13.3-40: OVERPAYMENT BY RENTERS – SANTA CLARA (2021)
Overcrowded Households
Overcrowding is defined as housing units with more than one person per room (including dining and living rooms but excluding bathrooms and kitchen).
Regional Trends
Figure 13.3-41 indicates that most of the County has low rates of overcrowded households. San Jose has a concentration of overcrowded homes with percentages between 8.2 percent and as high as 70 percent. The rest of the County mostly has overcrowding rates below 12 percent.
FIGURE 13.3-41: REGIONAL OVERCROWDED HOUSEHOLDS BY TRACT (2015) Local Trends
According to the 2019 five-year ACS estimates displayed in Table 13.3-20, 5.2 percent of County households are overcrowded, and 2.9 percent of households are severely overcrowded. These rates are higher for the City of Santa Clara with 6.2 percent of households experiencing overcrowding and 3.4 percent experiencing severe overcrowding. Across both the County and City, overcrowding and severe overcrowding rates are higher for renters than owners.
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Table 13.3-20: Overcrowded Households – Santa Clara County and Santa Clara Santa Clara County Santa Clara
Overcrowded
(>1.0 to 1.5
persons per room)
Severely
Overcrowded
(>1.5 persons
per room)
Overcrowded
(>1.0 to 1.5
persons per room)
Severely
Overcrowded
(>1.5 persons
per room)
Owner-Occupied 1.4% 0.4% 0.9% 0.3%
Renter-Occupied 3.7% 2.4% 5.2% 3.1%
All HH 5.2% 2.9% 6.2% 3.4%
Source(s): American Community Survey, 2015-2019. Table B25014 The map below shows areas where overcrowding rates are higher in Santa Clara. The northern part of the city has overcrowding rates of 12 and 15 percent, with a small concentration in the southern part of the city with the same rates. The rest of the city has overcrowding rates below
8.2 percent. The northern part of the city has overcrowding rates of 12 and 15 percent and Asian residents are disproportionately concentrated in 3 out of 4 census tracts in this area. Hispanic and Latino residents are disproportionally concentrated in the census tract adjacent to De La Cruz Blvd. and Highway 101 with overcrowding rates at 15 percent. This census tract also overlaps with higher rates of HCV use (5 to 15 percent). The rest of the city has overcrowding rates below
8.2 percent.
In South Santa Clara the census tract north of El Camino Real bordered by San Tomas and Scott Blvd has an overcrowding rate of 15% and also has a disproportionately high number of Hispanic/Latino residents (24.5%). The census tract South of El Camino Real bounded by Kiely and San Tomas Expressway has an overcrowding rate of 12% and has a disproportionately high number of Asian residents (54%). The City’s highest rates of overcrowding (15%) are impacting areas that are disproportionally populated by Hispanic/Latino residents.
The nearby city of Mountain View has overcrowding rates below 8.2 percent, while both Sunnyvale and Milpitas have overcrowding rates at 12 percent. Sunnyvale also has a few areas where the rate rises to 20 percent.
FIGURE 13.3-42: CONCENTRATION OF OVERCROWDED HOUSEHOLDS – SANTA CLARA (2021)
Substandard Conditions
Incomplete plumbing or kitchen facilities can be used to measure substandard housing conditions.
Regional Trends
According to 2015-2019 ACS estimates, 0.2 percent of households in Santa Clara County lack complete kitchen facilities and 0.2 percent of households lack complete plumbing facilities. Renter households are more likely to lack complete facilities compared to owner households.
Local Trends
In Santa Clara, 1.3 percent of households lack complete kitchen facilities and 0.2 percent lack complete plumbing facilities. Renter households are more likely to lack complete facilities compared to owner households. The City does not have recent citywide data on substandard conditions, however older lower rent apartment complexes are generally found along the west side of Lafayette north of Hwy 101, within the central city’s industrial belt, and in the southeastern Old Quad area south of El Camino Real. These areas may experience a higher need for rehabilitation than other parts of the City that are predominantly single-family or newer multifamily homes. The City intends to gather more consistent data on substandard conditions
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
through a new proactive multifamily code enforcement program. Although Santa Clara does have an aging housing stock with 21 percent of homes built between 1950 and 1959, 19 percent built between 1960 and 1969, and 17 percent built between 1970 to 19794, rehabilitation programs have not been widely subscribed to. This may be due in part to the fact that housing stock is well maintained due to the high value of homes based on market conditions in the area. The City does recognize that housing stock continues to age therefore monitoring and enforcement will continue to be an ongoing operation as addressed by Action 4 of the Housing Plan which aims to maintain housing stock and specifically focus on rehabilitation for households with a gross income at or below 80 percent of the County median income.
Table 13.3-21: Substandard Housing Conditions – Santa Clara County and Santa Clara
Santa Clara County Santa Clara
Owner Renter All HHs Owner Renter All HHs
Lacking
complete
kitchen
facilities
0.2% 0.7% 0.9% 0.3% 1% 1.3%
Lacking
complete
plumbing
facilities
0.1% 0.1% 0.2% 0.2% .05% 0.2%
Source(s): American Community Survey, 2015-2019, Table B25053, B25049 In summary, by percentage Hispanic and Black households experience the highest rate of housing problems regardless of severity across Santa Clara County. Based on absolute numbers, Hispanic/Latino, Asian and Pacific Islander, and White households have the largest number of people with severe housing problems in the County. Overcrowding rates in the City of Santa Clara are higher than the County rates with 6.2 percent of households experiencing overcrowding and 3.4 percent experiencing severe overcrowding. The northern part of the city and a few areas in Southern Santa Clara have overcrowding rates of 12 and 15 percent. Overcrowding is occurring in areas that are disproportionately populated by Asian and Hispanic/Latino residents. 4 Towncharts.com
Displacement Risk
Displacement occurs when housing costs or neighboring conditions force current residents out and rents become so high that lower-income people are excluded from moving in. UC Berkeley’s Urban Displacement Project states that a census tract is a sensitive community if the proportion of very low income residents was above 20 percent in 2017 and the census tracts meets two of the following criteria: (1) Share of renters above 40 percent in 2017; (2) Share of Non-White population above 50 percent in 2017; (3) Share of very low-income households (50 percent AMI or below) that are also severely rent burdened households above the county median in 2017; or (4) Nearby areas have been experiencing displacement pressures.
Regional Trends
Using this methodology, there are a number of areas in Santa Clara County identified as sensitive communities. Sensitives communities primarily lie along the Highway 101 corridor ranging from Sunnyvale to Gilroy and extend out to Cupertino in the west and east San Jose in the east. Housing prices in this area have continued to rise as the technology industries boom in Silicon Valley, explaining the high percentage of areas in the County identified as sensitive communities.
FIGURE 13.3-43: REGIONAL SENSITIVE COMMUNITIES AT RISK OF DISPLACEMENT BY TRACT (2021)
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Local Trends
Most of Santa Clara was identified as a sensitive community, with only a few tracts in the south not identified as sensitive communities. Mountain View, Sunnyvale, and Milpitas also have areas identified as sensitive communities, albeit fewer than Santa Clara. Despite much of the City being identified as a sensitive community, the City has not yet seen much direct displacement of current residents as a result of redevelopment. Development in the City has primarily occurred with the rezoning of existing commercial and industrial properties into higher density multi-family housing. Despite the low current rate of displacement, the City has proactively developed actions to address the potential for future displacement. Both action 6 and action 13, outlined in Table
13.3-23 below actively work to mitigate residential displacement by exploring funding to support affordable housing acquisition and rehabilitation and program and policy development to prevent displacement.
FIGURE 13.3-44: SENSITIVE COMMUNITIES (UCB, URBAN DISPLACEMENT PROJECT) – SANTA CLARA (2021)
In summary while direct displacement due to redevelopment has not occurred often in recent years, it is likely that indirect displacement due to high rents and home prices across the Bay
Area is contributing to overcrowding and is forcing people to move away from Santa Clara. It is possible that development pressure has been focused on the City’s specific plan areas and that once these areas are built out, developers may look to redevelop older lower density buildings that are naturally occurring affordable housing. This indicates a need to build more affordable housing, and policies that prevent a net loss of affordability if older market rate buildings are redeveloped, and to potentially require relocation assistance for displaced residents.
AFFH Analysis of the Sites Inventory
An important part of the AFFH analysis is looking at where the site inventory is directing housing growth and how that will replace segregated living patterns with integrated and balanced living patterns and convert any racially or ethnically concentrated areas that may exist into areas of opportunity for households at all income levels. The site inventory in chapter 13.3 places 82.5% of the City’s housing growth over the next 8 years into in HCD/TCAC Opportunity Map High or Highest Resource areas. The site inventory includes a buffer of additional units above the required RHNA so most of the following figures exceed 100%. • 97.5 percent of the City’s Very Low Income RHNA units are located in High or Highest Resource areas.
o VLI RHNA = 2,872 units.
o VLI Units in Sites Inventory: 252 in Highest Resource Areas (9% of VLI RHNA) and 2,541 in High Resource Areas (88.5% of VLI RHNA).
• 144 percent of the City’s Low Income RHNA units located in High or Highest Resource areas.
o LI RHNA = 1,653 units.
o LI Units in Sites Inventory: 358 in Highest Resource Areas (22% of LI RHNA) and 2,017 in High Resource Areas (122% of LI RHNA).
• 113 percent of the City’s Moderate RHNA units located in High or Highest Resource areas. o Moderate RHNA = 1,981 units.
o Moderate Units in Sites Inventory: 112 in Highest Resource Areas (6% of Moderate RHNA) and 2,114 in High Resource Areas (107% of Moderate RHNA). • 161 percent of the City’s Above Moderate RHNA units located in High or Highest Resource areas.
o Above Moderate RHNA = 5,126 units.
o Above Moderate Units in Sites Inventory: 161 in Highest Resource Areas (3% of Above Moderate RHNA) and 8,116 in High Resource Areas (158% of Above Moderate RHNA).
The following table provides additional details on which types of units are located in different HCD/TCAC opportunity Map Areas:
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Table 13.3-22: Sites Inventory Units by HCD/TCAC Opportunity Map Area HCD/TCAC Opportunity Map Areas
Affordability Category Highest Resource High Resource Moderate Resource Low Resource Site/Credit Type VLI LI Mod.
Above
Mod.
Total
Capacity VLI LI Mod.
Above
Mod. VLI LI Mod.
Above
Mod. VLI LI Mod.
Above
Mod. VLI LI Mod.
Above
Mod.
RHNA 2,872 1,653 1,981 5,126 11,632
Pending and Approved
Projects 710 794 504 10,201 12,209 148 271 20 145 364 372 341 7,979 92 72 63 669 106 79 80 1,408 Tasman East Focus Area SP 114 239 175 3,838 4,366 114 239 175 3,838 Patrick Henry Drive SP 76 75 75 1,294 1,520 76 75 75 1,294 Lawrence Station Area 39 45 58 635 777 39 45 58 635
Freedom Circle Focus Area 54 54 54 913 1,075 54 54 54 913 Other 427 381 142 3,521 4,471 148 271 20 145 120 4 37 1,934 53 27 5 34 106 79 80 1,408 ADU Projection 118 118 118 39 393 47 47 47 16 47 47 47 16 18 18 18 6 6 6 6 1 Available Specific Plan Sites 2,138 1,586 1,728 140 5,592 2,015 1,495 1,617 121 123 91 111 19 Tasman East Focus Area SP 268 196 318 121 903 268 196 318 121 Patrick Henry Drive SP 1,747 1,299 1,299 - 4,345 1,747 1,299 1,299 Lawrence Station Area 123 91 111 19 344 123 91 111 19
El Camino Real Rezoning
Sites 319 236 250 - 805 57 40 45 - 133 103 109 - 129 93 96 - - - - - Total 3,285 2,734 2,600 10,380 18,999 252 358 112 161 2,541 2,017 2,114 8,116 362 274 288 694 112 85 86 1,409 Surplus Units 413 1,081 619 5,254 7,367
Surplus Percentage Above
RHNA 14% 65% 31% 102% 63%
4.65% Highest Resource 77.8% High Resource 8.5% Moderate Resource 8.9% Low Resource
Northern and Central Santa Clara
As shown in Figure 13.3-45, this area has large amounts of industrial, office and commercially designated land in the western portion of this area with existing neighborhoods to the east. The site inventory includes multifamily opportunities mostly in the Lawrence Station Area, Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan Area, and the Tasman East Specific Plan Area where industrial and commercial land is being converted into mixed use residential areas near transit. The City assumes that accessory dwelling units (ADUs) will continue current trends and develop in single family areas throughout Northern Santa Clara. ADUs are an effective way to add lower income housing opportunities in existing single-family neighborhoods. ADUs will also help respond to higher rates of overcrowding in Northern Santa Clara. Figure 13.3-46 shows that the site inventory is mostly distributed in TCAC High Opportunity Areas.
FIGURE 13.3-45: NORTHERN AND CENTRAL SANTA CLARA SITES
INVENTORY AND LAND USE
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
FIGURE 13.3-46: NORTHERN AND CENTRAL SANTA CLARA SITES
INVENTORY AND TCAC OPPORTUNITY AREAS
Southern Santa Clara
The site inventory includes multifamily opportunities near transit, including along the El Camino Real corridor, and near the Santa Clara Station Area, and Downtown Santa Clara Precise Plan Area. The City assumes that accessory dwelling units (ADUs) will continue current trends and develop in single family areas throughout Southern Santa Clara. ADUs are an effective way to add lower income housing opportunities in existing single-family neighborhoods which are among the highest opportunity areas in the City. Figure 13.3-48 shows that the sites inventory is distributed across highest, high, and moderate resource TCAC High Opportunity Areas.
FIGURE 13.3-47: SOUTHERN SANTA CLARA SITE INVENTORY AND LAND USE
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
FIGURE 13.3-48: SOUTHERN SANTA CLARA SITES INVENTORY AND TCAC
OPPORTUNITY AREAS
CONTRIBUTING FACTORS
Based on stakeholder outreach and the above analysis, the City has identified the following contributing factors to housing issues in Santa Clara. Table 13.3-23, prioritizes these contributing factors according to what would most limit or deny fair housing choice or access to opportunity. Meaningful actions listed in Chapter 13.2 that affirmatively further fair housing, promote housing opportunities throughout the community for protected classes, and address contributing factors are also included in the table.
Table 13.3-23: AFFH Meaningful Actions Matrix
Issues Contributing Factors Actions / Objectives
(Specific Commitments)
Timeline /
Metrics
Geographic
Targeting
Priority (Low,
Medium, High)
Segregation/Integration Patterns and Disparities in Access to Opportunity It can still be difficult to find sites for single room occupancy, emergency shelter, low barrier
navigation centers, permanent supportive
housing, and residential care facilities.
Zoning requirements that make developing a
diversity of housing types difficult. Type and size
of affordable housing units
Action 1: Provision of Variety of Housing Types
Adopt the comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Update
with revised provisions to allow a variety of housing
types by right.
Residential Care Facilities will be permitted in all
residential zones similar to other residential uses of the same type in the same zone.
Annually explore regional and state funding sources to
build more housing opportunities for persons with
disabilities and extremely low-income households.
And through the provisions of a notice of funding
availability (NOFA), prioritize loans for the development of extremely low and very low-income housing
alternatives.
Support shared housing opportunities for persons with
disabilities in higher income, higher resourced, and lower density neighborhoods within the northern and southern
parts of the City (See Action 18)
December 2023
and 2026
December 2023
and January
2025
By 2026
Ongoing
Citywide with
additional funding
prioritized in high
and highest
opportunity areas
within a half mile
of high frequency
bus and rail
corridors.
HIGH
It is difficult to find low- and moderate-income
rental housing in the City’s highest opportunity
areas.
South Santa Clara includes established singlefamily neighborhoods where home prices are out of reach for low- and moderate-income residents.
Action 1: Provision of a Variety of Housing Types
Monitor ADU activity and report on the production of
ADUs through the City’s Annual Progress Report (APR).
If the pace of ADU production falls below the level
necessary to achieve 392 ADUs during the 2023-2031
planning period, present a plan to City Council to remove Annually and
by end of 2025
South Santa Clara
and Citywide
HIGH
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Issues Contributing Factors Actions / Objectives
(Specific Commitments)
Timeline /
Metrics
Geographic
Targeting
Priority (Low,
Medium, High)
barriers and/or further incentivize ADU production (e.g., through additional Zoning changes).
Continue participating in the development and
implementation of the Santa Clara County Planning
Collaborative ADU Program, which will include a central online resource for making it easier to build ADUs,
including an ADU Guidebook, gallery of ADU plans,
examples/stories of real ADUs that have been built, and an ADU cost calculator.
Increase Housing Choices and Affordability in Areas of
Opportunity:
- Monitor distribution of ADUs into Opportunity Areas.
If less than 34 ADUs occur within Highest and High
Opportunity Areas within the northern and southern
parts of the City, in a given year, develop and present to City Council, as part of that year’s APR, options to further promote ADU development in targeted areas.
- Monitor lot spit and units created through
implementation of SB 9 ordinances. If less than 4 occur per year, conduct targeted outreach to single family
owners in higher resource lower density neighborhoods
within the northern and southern parts of the City to
promote more SB 9 lot splits/units.
- Religious/Faith-Based Sites:
- Create informational packet and conduct outreach
to religious/faith-based institutions about new
affordable housing development incentives that are
allowed under state law. Connect interested
landowners with experienced nonprofit affordable
housing developers.
- Through activities such as additional outreach
and contact with affordable housing developers,
By end of 2026
By 2028
High Resource,
High Opportunity,
Low Density
Neighborhoods
Issues Contributing Factors Actions / Objectives
(Specific Commitments)
Timeline /
Metrics
Geographic
Targeting
Priority (Low,
Medium, High)
supporting funding applications, providing
technical assistance, and granting incentives such
as finding funding sources to reduce permit fees
for applicants and reducing development
standards, facilitate at least 50 units proposed on
religious/faith-based sites in higher income,
higher resourced, and lower density
neighborhoods within the northern and southern
parts of the City.
- Support shared housing for persons with
developmental disabilities in targeted areas. See Action
18. Action 5: Preservation of Assisted Rental Housing & NOAH
Monitor preservation and conservation opportunities in
and adjacent to South Santa Clara’s high and highest
TCAC opportunity areas.
When housing is in short supply, tenants often do
not report code violations for fear of retaliation and
no cause eviction.
Private discrimination
Code enforcement violations can arise when
housing stock is not appropriately conserved and
rehabilitated in a timely manner.
Action 7: Code Enforcement Program
Establish multi-family residential housing inspection and educational programs that are self-funded and
proactively respond to housing code violations. The City will also provide special attention to maintaining the
stability of residential neighborhoods through
development of minimum standards of allowed use of
the City’s streets, as well as maintenance of front and other yard areas visible from the public right-of-way.
Conduct annual outreach and marketing to residential
property owners, landlords, and tenants regarding their rights, responsibilities, and resources available for
maintaining the habitability and safety of their
properties.
By second half
of 2025
Annually
starting in 2025
Citywide MEDIUM
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Issues Contributing Factors Actions / Objectives
(Specific Commitments)
Timeline /
Metrics
Geographic
Targeting
Priority (Low,
Medium, High)
Not all tenants and landlords are aware of their
rights and responsibilities under state and local
law which can result in the displacement of lowincome tenants.
Fair housing issues exist everywhere but
disproportionately impact low income households
who may not have the resources to dispute unfair
housing conditions or housing discrimination.
Action 16: Fair Housing Program
Continue to provide fair housing services to residents
including referrals, mediation, investigation of claims of discrimination, outreach and translated education
materials, open house events to distribute information, and potentially setting a rent deposit limit
Work with Project Sentinel to host two open house events per year and to distribute translated collateral in lower income census tracts explaining key landlord and tenant rights under current law
Ongoing and
annually.
Citywide with
proactive focus in
census tracts with
concentrations of
persons with
disabilities,
disproportionate
housing needs, and
overcrowding.
HIGH
Transit station access is less robust in North and
Central Santa Clara.
Industrial and commercial land uses in Central and
North Santa Clara
Action 21: Place-Based Programs
Market the Silicon Valley Hopper ride share service
Citywide in Central and North Santa Clara once it
becomes available in mid-2026 or later. This service will help connect lower income residents to major
employment centers, VTA Light Rail, Caltrain and the
future BART station.
Mid-2026
Citywide and
Central and North
Santa Clara
LOW
Place based investment is needed in lower income
neighborhoods to increase access to opportunity.
Low-income neighborhoods may require
additional infrastructure to improve quality of life,
access to transit, employment, health food, parks,
and other resources.
Action 21: Place-Based Programs
- By the end of November 2023, the City’s Library will
apply for a grant from the California State Library to fund two monthly pop-up events at Montague Park in north
Santa Clara. These events will be marketed to the
surrounding neighborhood which includes a
concentration of lower income rental housing and a high rate of foreign-born households. If funded, the pop-ups will bring the City’s bookmobile, resource partners,
activities such as live performances, as well as
information and workshops offered by Mission College,
Second Harvest of Silicon Valley and various nonprofit
service providers. The event is intended to invite
residents from this isolated and under resourced
MTC Equity
Priority
Communities, and
HUD designated
low-income and
distressed areas of
the City.
MEDIUM
Issues Contributing Factors Actions / Objectives
(Specific Commitments)
Timeline /
Metrics
Geographic
Targeting
Priority (Low, Medium, High)
neighborhood to the Northside Library and Montague
Park. If the grant is funded by January 2024, the project will begin by Spring 2024 with regularly scheduled
bookmobile stops in early 2024 to this neighborhood
- By January 2027, the City’s Department of Public
Works is planning to complete construction of
approximately 36 curb ramps, 12 curb bulb-outs, 2 new
traffic signals, 2 new Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons, 2 new Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons, upgrade 2 existing
traffic signals, install 10 streetlights, and install over 5,000 ft of Class II & III bike facilities at various locations along Cabrillo Ave, Lafayette St, Monroe St, Royal Dr,
Scott Blvd, and Warburton Ave in Central Santa Clara
to enhance safety and mobility. This area overlaps with an MTC Equity Priority Community and is considered a
Low Opportunity Area by TCAC.
- In 2024, market the Phase 1 (southern part of Santa
Clara only) of the City’s affordable on-demand
rideshare service (also known as SV Hopper) as a viable transportation option for lower income residents to
connect to nearby employment, retail services, and
transit connections to Caltrain and the future BART
Station. In mid-2026, during the planned Phase II of the SV Hopper program citywide, expand marketing of the
Silicon Valley Hopper program citywide in Central and
North Santa Clara. Phase II will provide service to other major employment centers in the northern part of Santa
Clara as well as VTA Light Rail.
- By fall 2027, the City’s Parks and Recreation Department will conduct community wide and targeted outreach as
part of the City’s Parks and Recreation Master Plan
process. Targeted outreach will focus on reaching specific communities that are not well-represented in public
decision-making. This plan will identify opportunities to expand access to quality parks, recreation facilities,
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Issues Contributing Factors Actions / Objectives
(Specific Commitments)
Timeline /
Metrics
Geographic
Targeting
Priority (Low,
Medium, High)
programs, and services in low income and under
resourced neighborhoods.
- By fall 2026, the City’s Community Development
Department will develop a CDBG Notice of Funding
Availability that awards additional points to capital
projects that improve quality of life and access to
opportunities in HUD designated low-income and
distressed areas of the City.
- Beginning in 2025, annually explore and apply for
grants such as OBAG, AHSC, and CDBG funding that
support 1-2 place-based improvement projects per year
in lower resourced areas and relatively lower income
areas with higher concentrations of poverty.
Disproportionate Housing Needs
Residents in Central Santa Clara and areas adjacent
to central Santa Clara have lower income, lower
access to opportunity, less access to parks, higher
pollution, lower educational outcomes. Central
Santa Clara has a mix of residents, but
Hispanic/Latino residents are disproportionately
concentrated in this area.
Older residential development is surrounded by
industrial uses
Lack of place-based outreach about affordable
housing opportunities elsewhere in the City
Possible need for better language access
Actions 2: Affordable Housing Ordinance and 16: Fair
Housing Program
Increase mobility by conducting proactive in person
outreach in relevant languages once per year about the
City’s affordable housing opportunities and resources
such as landlord and tenant rights under state law and
mediation services.
Annually Central Santa Clara
and adjacent areas
HIGH
There are not enough licensed residential care
facilities and shared housing sites to meet future
demand for residents with developmental
disabilities and seniors.
Family members cannot care for adult children
with developmental disabilities once caregivers are
elderly.
Funding is needed to acquire and maintain single
family homes as licensed care facilities.
Multifamily development is not always designed
to accommodate the needs of developmentally
disabled tenants.
Action 1: Provision of Variety of Housing Types
Increase the stock of extremely low and very low-income rental housing designed for persons with developmental
disabilities by 35% from 56 in 2023 to 76 in 2030.
Action 18: Shared Housing
Evaluate the need for shared housing as part of the HUD Consolidated Plan Process.
Set aside $2,000,000 from the City’s affordable housing capital fund for low interest loans to help nonprofit
2025
Ongoing
Prior to 2026
Citywide MEDIUM
Issues Contributing Factors Actions / Objectives
(Specific Commitments)
Timeline /
Metrics
Geographic
Targeting
Priority (Low,
Medium, High)
developers acquire and/or rehabilitate 4 or more single family homes for conversion into affordable residential care facilities for persons with developmental disabilities in higher resource, higher income, lower density
neighborhoods within the northern and southern parts of the City.. This relates to Action 1 and could increase
housing for persons with developmental disabilities by
35%.
By 2028
Displacement Risk
Some landlords set very high deposits making it
difficult for lower income tenants to secure
housing or to relocate.
Landlords seek to manage financial risk.
Low income tenants are rent burdened in this high
cost market making it hard to save and give up a
large amount of money for a deposit.
Deposits are sometimes not returned to tenants
even if the unit is left in good condition.
Action 13: Residential Displacement
By the end of 2025 analyze the feasibility of setting a rent deposit limit and present findings from that analysis to the Housing Commission and City Council.
December 2025 Citywide MEDIUM
Naturally occurring affordable housing stock is at
risk of acquisition by for profit investors. Such
acquisitions often result in direct displacement
once rents are increased.
As Santa Clara builds out and land values increase,
there will be increasing pressure to reposition or
redevelop older residential buildings.
Rehabilitation can sometimes be more profitable
than new construction.
Nonprofit developers don’t always have a fair
chance to make offers to purchase such properties.
Action 6: Acquisition of Multi-Family Housing
Present to the City Council the findings from an analysis of the need/benefit and resources required to implement a Community Opportunity Purchase Act (COPA).
Create a database of naturally occurring affordable
housing and annually monitor property sales and/or
permit applications to identify conversion trends early.
Explore funding sources available at the regional, state, and federal levels to support affordable housing
developers with acquisition/rehabilitation opportunities.
Work with nonprofit entities to acquire properties and
rehabilitate existing multi-family structures to be
maintained as or converted into affordable rental
housing. Prioritize assistance for housing that is within one half mile of rail transit stations or that is in a high or highest opportunity area according to TCAC.
By the end of
2025
Annually
South Santa Clara
and Citywide
MEDIUM
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Issues Contributing Factors Actions / Objectives
(Specific Commitments)
Timeline /
Metrics
Geographic
Targeting
Priority (Low,
Medium, High)
Direct and indirect displacement can increase
overcrowding, displacement, longer commutes
and homelessness.
Lower income households can experience
displacement when new developments are built
that are not affordable to existing residents and
when regional housing prices rise faster than
incomes.
High security deposits can create barriers for lower
income tenants moving between apartments.
Landlords and Tenants may not be aware of their
rights under state law.
Action 13: Residential Displacement
Evaluate and provide recommendations to the City
council on new programs and policies that prevent
displacement such as no net loss, one year notification, and relocation benefits.
Continue funding for dispute resolution services, the
regional Homelessness Prevention System, and
marketing below market rate rental and ownership
opportunities.
By the end of
2025
Citywide HIGH
Cost Burden
Affordable housing is not affordable enough. The
City needs more extremely low and very lowincome units to house low wage workers, seniors, persons with disabilities and a variety of unit sizes
to accommodate singles, couples, single parent
households, and large families.
Market rate housing is out of reach for lower
income residents.
Seniors and households on fixed incomes cannot
afford rent increases that are based on escalating
HCD Income Limits.
The City has limited funds for deep subsidies.
Apartments for large families are less common
then studios, one bedroom and two-bedroom
apartments.
Action 1: Provision of Variety of Housing Types
Increase the stock of income restricted three and four
bedroom affordable rental housing units to serve large
households in Santa Clara by 20% from 107 units in 2023 to 129 units in 2030.
Increase the stock of extremely low and very low income rental housing designed for persons with developmental
disabilities by 35% from 56 in 2023 to 76 in 2030.
Action 2: Affordable Housing Ordinance
Reassess the potential of updating the Citywide
affordable ordinance to support deeper affordability
requirements (5% very low income, 5% low income, and
5% moderate income) for rental and ownership projects.
The City will also look into updating the definition of "moderate income" units from 120% AMI to 100% AMI or
a percentage of market rents.
Action 15: Homeownership for First-Time Homebuyers
Determine the feasibility of keeping new Below Market
Purchase homes deed restricted for 20-30 years vs. 5
years.
By the end of
2024 and
annually
By the end of
2025
Citywide with a
proactive focus on
landlords with
multifamily sites
located in high and
highest
opportunity census
tracts.
HIGH
Issues Contributing Factors Actions / Objectives
(Specific Commitments)
Timeline /
Metrics
Geographic
Targeting
Priority (Low,
Medium, High)
Action 14: Housing Choice Voucher Program Advocate
for additional project and person-based vouchers for
seniors and other special needs groups through
partnerships with affordable housing developers and
local and County housing authorities. Promote incentives that encourage landlords to accept Housing Choice
Vouchers (HCV) and continue to refer households in
need to the Housing Authority’s Housing Choice
Voucher Application Portal.
It is costly to build and operate affordable housing
in Santa Clara County which limits the supply.
Affordable housing requires many sources of
subsidies and coordination and partnership with
local governments.
High land costs make development more
challenging.
Action 3: Affordable Housing Incentives and Facilitation Create an SB 35 Streamlining checklist, procedures
Proactively encourage and facilitate development efforts and identify funding sources for developers and
organizations in constructing affordable housing for
lower income households particularly special needs
groups.
Conduct public outreach and issue a request for
proposals to develop mixed income or 100% affordable
housing on the vacant former site of the King’s Highway Motel on El Camino Real.
By June 2023
March 2024,
and Annually
By end of 2025
Citywide and
proactive outreach
in the
neighborhood
surrounding the
King’s Highway
Motel on El
Camino Real.
HIGH
It is costly to build and operate affordable housing
in Santa Clara County which limits the supply.
Much more funding is needed to realize the City’s
RHNA goals for lower income units.
Action 12: Affordable Housing Funding
Explore additional funding sources for the development
of affordable housing and annually evaluate Notices of
Funding Availability (NOFA) from state, federal, and
regional programs.
End of 2025,
and Annually
Citywide MEDIUM
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Issues Contributing Factors Actions / Objectives
(Specific Commitments)
Timeline /
Metrics
Geographic
Targeting
Priority (Low,
Medium, High)
It is difficult for low- and moderate-income households to buy a home or condo in Santa Clara.
Homeownership is cost prohibitive in much of the
Bay Area including Santa Clara. Low- and
moderate-income households are often shut out of
the home ownership market.
Below Market Purchase homes can be resold to
market rate buyers after 5 years.
Action 15: Homeownership for First-Time Buyers
Explore and present changes to the BMP program to keep
homes affordable for longer than 5 years by requiring
resale to income eligible homeowners. Promote
homeownership for first time buyers through units that
are income restricted, encourage program participation
for households at all levels of income, and continue to promote homebuyers assistance programs through local
and regional organizations.
By the end of
2025
Citywide MEDIUM
Substandard Conditions
As housing stock ages, it requires maintenance,
repairs, and upgrades to remain safe, healthy, cost
efficient to operate, and to conserve water and
energy.
Lower income households and affordable housing
operators may not have the necessary funds to
rehabilitate or upgrade housing to meet current
needs.
Action 4: Maintenance of Housing Stock
Conduct outreach to single-family home residential care facilities to determine interest in and feasibility of
including these properties in future CDBG/HOME
Notices of Funding Availability to address rehabilitation and emergency repairs.
Assist approximately 200 low, very low, and extremely
low-income homeowners with rehabilitation and
emergency repair assistance through loans and grants.
Promote NOFA process for installation of HVAC
improvements for sensitive populations especially
seniors.
By the end of
2024
By 2031
Citywide MEDIUM
Income restricted housing can be at-risk of
converting to market rate when subsidies or
affordability requirements expire leaving less
affordable housing options available.
Rising inflation, labor and material costs are
making income restricted housing more costly to
maintain and operate.
Action 5: Preservation of Assisted and N.O.A.H. Rental
Housing
Extend the affordability of at risk low income housing
units when funding is available by assisting with capital improvements to the property, establishing and
maintaining contact with public and nonprofit agencies
who may acquire at-risk units, and working with owners
of at-risk housing to restructure loans to extend
affordability restrictions.
Annually Citywide MEDIUM
Issues Contributing Factors Actions / Objectives
(Specific Commitments)
Timeline /
Metrics
Geographic
Targeting
Priority (Low,
Medium, High)
When housing is in short supply, tenants are less
likely to report code violations for fear of
retaliation and eviction.
Some property owners choose to defer
maintenance costs to increase financial gain.
Code enforcement violations can arise when
housing stock is not appropriately conserved and
rehabilitated in a timely manner.
Action 7: Code Enforcement Program
Establish multi-family residential housing inspection and educational programs that are self-funded and
proactively respond to housing code violations. The City will also provide special attention to maintaining the
stability of residential neighborhoods through
development of minimum standards of allowed use of
the City’s streets, as well as maintenance of front and other yard areas visible from the public right-of-way.
By second half
of 2025
Citywide with a
proactive focus in
census tracts with
concentrations of
persons with
disabilities,
disproportionate
housing needs, and
overcrowding.
MEDIUM
Targeted Fair Housing Outreach
A forum is needed to gather community input on
challenges and solutions relating to fair housing,
CDBD/HOME investments, homelessness, and
neighborhood issues.
Homelessness is caused by a complex set of factors
and affects a wide variety of community members
and requires coordination among a wide range of
service providers.
University students can have specific housing
needs or living arrangements which are not always
in line with existing neighborhood development.
Action 8: Neighborhood Relations Programs
Form a Housing Commission or a community meeting
outreach format, to advise on CDBG and HOME grant
administration for capital projects and community
services, and on the City’s homelessness response efforts.
The City will convene at least three public meetings per year.
Improve the maintenance of student-occupied homes
and behavior of occupants via owner outreach at the
beginning of each school year to minimize impacts on
neighborhoods surrounding Santa Clara University. As
well as hold meetings with student tenants, landlords the University, and the City to address neighborhood issues and concerns. And ensure that student housing
development is compatible with existing neighborhoods.
Late 2024
Citywide and in
neighborhoods
surrounding Santa
Clara University.
MEDIUM
Homelessness in Santa Clara has increased in
recent years creating hardship for unhoused
residents and quality of life impacts for the broader
community.
Insufficient affordable rental housing
Insufficient interim and supportive housing
Insufficient access to health care, behavioral health
care, substance abuse programs, and other safety
net social services.
Action 1: Provision of a Variety of Housing Types
Increase access to interim housing units, rapid rehousing, and emergency shelter beds by 30% from 453 in 2023 to
589 in 2030.
Action 17: Homeless Services
By 2030
By Spring 2024
Citywide with
proactive outreach
at tent and
RV/vehicle
encampments
HIGH
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Issues Contributing Factors Actions / Objectives
(Specific Commitments)
Timeline /
Metrics
Geographic
Targeting
Priority (Low,
Medium, High)
Adopt and begin implementation of the City's
Homelessness Response Plan. Continue to provide street
outreach especially to at-risk youth, seniors, and persons with disabilities to connect residents with VISPDAT
assessment, emergency shelter, case management, and
basic needs services
Landlords and tenants are not always aware of
recent state law changes related to source of
income discrimination, no cause eviction, noticing
and more.
Landlord tenant laws have changed in recent
years.
Landlords and tenants are not always educated
about changes or know when they apply.
Action 16: Fair Housing Program
Bring forward a proposal for City Council consideration to write an ordinance that requires landlords to provide a City approved multilingual brochure to all tenants with every lease signing that summarizes landlord and tenant rights under state law. If the ordinance is approved,
conduct a series of educational workshops with local
landlords and tenants.
By the end of
2025
Citywide MEDIUM
It is difficult for special needs residents to find and apply for affordable housing.
A regional “universal housing application” system
is still under development.
Housing applications are increasingly online, but a
digital divide persists.
Language access barriers,
Nonprofit staff and social workers may require
additional training to help clients navigate the
complex web of housing providers.
Actions 2: Affordable Housing Ordinance and 16: Fair
Housing Program
Plan in-person events to educate and assist seniors and special needs groups (including persons with limited
English proficiency) on using the City’s housing
application system and/or BAHFA’s regional housing
portal once it is available in Santa Clara County
Work with Project Sentinel to improve the City’s
webpage to include more landlord/tenant rights,
reasonable accommodation rights, resources and contact
information in a format that is easily translatable using a web browser.
Explore the creation of an ordinance that requires
landlords to provide a City approved multilingual
brochure to all tenants with every lease signing that
summarizes landlord and tenant rights under state law.
Plan outreach to help Evaluate the need for shared
housing services, explore ways to increase access to
Two times per
year
Citywide MEDIUM
Issues Contributing Factors Actions / Objectives
(Specific Commitments)
Timeline /
Metrics
Geographic
Targeting
Priority (Low,
Medium, High)
senior housing, improve staff capacity to help seniors and special needs groups navigate the housing market and
find subsidized housing, evaluate the need for shared
housing services, and continue to support the creation of new shared housing for lower income persons with
developmental disabilities.
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
This page was left intentionally blank.
Introduction and Overview of AB 686 .................................................................................................... 1 Local Knowledge: ....................................................................................................................................... 2 Assessment of Fair Housing ..................................................................................................................... 3 Fair Housing and Housing Resources .................................................................................................... 3 Assessment of Fair Housing Issues ......................................................................................................... 8 AFFH Analysis of the Sites Inventory ................................................................................................... 73 Contributing Factors ................................................................................................................................ 79 List of Tables
Table 13.3-1: Fair Housing Providers in Santa Clara County and Santa Clara ................................. 5 Table 13.3-2: Number of DFEH Housing Complaints in Santa Clara County (2020) ....................... 6 Table 13.3-3: Number of FHEO Filed Cases by Protected Class in Santa Clara County (2015–2020) ...................................................................................................................................................................... 7 Table 13.3-4: Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Trends (1990–2020) ........................................................... 10 Table 13.3-5: Racial Composition Santa Clara County and Santa Clara (2019) ............................... 11 Table 13.3-6: Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Trends within Santa Clara ............................................... 12 Table 13.3-7: Racial Isolation Index Values for Segregation within Santa Clara............................. 14 Table 13.3-8: Divergence Index Scores within Santa Clara County .................................................. 15 Table 13.3-9: Populations of Persons with Disabilities– Santa Clara County & Santa Clara ........ 19 Table 13.3-10: Population with Developmental Disabilities by Age ................................................ 22 Table 13.3-11: Adults with Developmental Disabilities by Residence ............................................. 23 Table 13.3-12: Households with Children in Santa Clara County and Incorporated Cities .......... 24 Table 13.3-13: Santa Clara County & Santa Clara Households by Income Category and Tenure 29 Table 13.3-14: White Population and Median Household Income of RCAAs in Santa Clara County .................................................................................................................................................................... 39 Table 13.3-15: Domains and List of Indicators for Opportunity Maps ............................................. 42 Table 13.3-16: Opportunity Indices by Race/ Ethnicity – Santa Clara County ................................ 47 Table 13.3-17: Demographics of Households with Housing Problems in Santa Clara County .... 64 Table 13.3-18: Household Type & Size in Santa Clara County .......................................................... 64 Table 13.3-19: Households that Experience Cost Burden by Tenure in Santa Clara County and Santa Clara ................................................................................................................................................ 66
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Table 13.3-20: Overcrowded Households – Santa Clara County and Santa Clara ......................... 68 Table 13.3-21: Substandard Housing Conditions – Santa Clara County and Santa Clara ............. 70 Table 13.3-22: Sites Inventory Units by HCD/TCAC Opportunity Map Area ................................ 74 Table 13.3-23: AFFH Meaningful Actions Matrix ................................................................................ 79 List of Figures
Figure 13.3-1: Regional Racial Demographics (2021) .......................................................................... 11 Figure 13.3-2: Racial Demographics of Santa Clara (2021) ................................................................. 13 Figure 13.3-3: Predominant population of Santa Clara (2017-2021) ................................................. 14 Figure 13.3-4: HOLC Redlining Map (1937) ......................................................................................... 18 Figure 13.3-5: Regional Populations of Persons with Disabilities by Tract (2019) .......................... 21 Figure 13.3-6: Percent of Population with a Disability – Santa Clara (2021) ................................... 22 Figure 13.3-7: Regional Percentage of Children in Married-Couple Households by Tracts (2019) .................................................................................................................................................................... 25 Figure 13.3-8: Percent of Children in Married-Couple Households – Santa Clara (2021) ............. 26 Figure 13.3-9: Regional Percent of Children in Female-Headed Households by Tract (2019) ...... 27 Figure 13.3-10: Percent of Children in Female Headed Households – Santa Clara (2021) ............ 28 Figure 13.3-11: Regional Concentrations of LMI Households by Tract (2015) ................................ 30 Figure 13.3-12: Population with Low to Moderate Income Levels – Santa Clara (2021) ............... 31 Figure 13.3-13: Regional Housing HCV Concentration by Tract (2021)........................................... 33 Figure 13.3-14: Housing Choice Vouchers – Santa Clara (2021) ........................................................ 34 Figure 13.3-15: Regional Median Gross Rent/ Affordability Index by Tract (2021) ........................ 35 Figure 13.3-16: Location Affordability Index – Santa Clara (2021) ................................................... 36 Figure 13.3-17: Regional Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty “R/ECAPs” (2021) .......................................................................................................................................................... 37 Figure 13.3-18: Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty “R/ECAPs” – Santa Clara (2021) .......................................................................................................................................................... 38 Figure 13.3-19: Regional Median Income by Block Group (2021) ..................................................... 39 Figure 13.3-20: Median Income – Santa Clara (2021) .......................................................................... 40 Figure 13.3-21: Regional TCAC Composite Scores by Tract (2021) .................................................. 43
Figure 13.3-22: TCAC Opportunity Areas – Composite Score – Santa Clara (2021) ...................... 44 Figure 13.3-23: Sites inventory, Existing Affordable Housing, and TCAC Opportunity Areas – Composite Score – Santa Clara (2023) ................................................................................................... 45 Figure 13.3-24: Regional TCAC Education Scores (2021) ................................................................... 49 Figure 13.3-25: TCAC Opportunity Areas – Education Score – Santa Clara (2021) ....................... 50 Figure 13.3-26: Public School Rankings (2021) ..................................................................................... 50 Figure 13.3-27: Regional Public Transit Access (2021) ........................................................................ 52 Figure 13.3-28: VTA Transit Map (2023) ............................................................................................... 53 Figure 13.3-29: Valley Hopper Service Area (2023) ............................................................................. 54 Figure 13.3-30: Regional Jobs Proximity Index (2021) ........................................................................ 55 Figure 13.3-31: Regional TCAC Opportunity Areas – Economic Score (2021) ................................ 56 Figure 13.3-32: Jobs Proximity Index – Santa Clara (2021) ................................................................. 57 Figure 13.3-33: TCAC Opportunity Area – Economic Score – Santa Clara (2021) .......................... 57 Figure 13.3-34: Regional TCAC Opportunity Areas – Environmental Score (2021) ....................... 59 Figure 13.3-35: Regional CalEnviroScreen 4.0 (2021) .......................................................................... 60 Figure 13.3-36: CalEnviroScreen 4.0 – Santa Clara (2021) .................................................................. 61 Figure 13.3-37: Regional Healthy Places Index (2021) ........................................................................ 62 Figure 13.3-38: Healthy Places Index – Santa Clara (2021) ................................................................. 63 Figure 13.3-39: Regional Overpayment by Renters (2021) ................................................................. 65 Figure 13.3-40: Overpayment by Renters – Santa Clara (2021).......................................................... 66 Figure 13.3-41: Regional Overcrowded Households by Tract (2015) ............................................... 67 Figure 13.3-42: Concentration of Overcrowded Households – Santa Clara (2021) ........................ 69 Figure 13.3-43: Regional Sensitive Communities at Risk of Displacement by Tract (2021)........... 71 Figure 13.3-44: Sensitive Communities (UCB, Urban Displacement Project) – Santa Clara (2021) .................................................................................................................................................................... 72 Figure 13.3-45: Northern and Central Santa Clara Sites inventory and Land Use ......................... 75 Figure 13.3-46: Northern and Central Santa Clara Sites inventory and TCAC Opportunity Areas .................................................................................................................................................................... 76 Figure 13.3-47: Southern Santa Clara Site Inventory and Land Use ................................................. 77 Figure 13.3-48: Southern Santa Clara Sites inventory and TCAC Opportunity Areas .................. 78
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Chapter 13.4
Housing Needs Assessment
Population and Employment Trends
Housing needs are influenced by population and employment trends. This section provides a summary of changes to the population size, age, and racial/ethnic composition of the City of Santa Clara. Moreover, to gain a deeper understanding of the housing needs in the City, an evaluation of the intersection of these demographic characteristics with housing statistics such as housing type and tenure, condition, cost, and vacancy provides the necessary bases for a proper housing needs assessment.
Current Population and Population Growth
Santa Clara, incorporated in 1852, is known as “The Mission City”, reflecting its place as an early California settlement dating to 1777. Santa Clara has a rich agricultural past that extends from that early settlement period almost two centuries forward. However, the post-World War II housing boom and just as significantly, the emergence of the electronics industry in the early 1950s, rapidly transformed the community. Between 1950 to 1990, the population of Santa Clara ballooned from 11,702 to 93,000. Today, Santa Clara lies in the heart of the Silicon Valley and continues to grow as the technology industry continues to expand.
From 2010 to 2020, Santa Clara’s population grew by approximately nine percent, from 116,468 to 127,000 residents. During the same period, Santa Clara County as a whole grew by 10 percent.
The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) growth forecasts predict a steady increase in population through 2040. From 2020 to 2040, ABAG estimates that the City’s population will grow by 25.6 percent, staying relatively on track with the countywide projected growth of 31.09 percent (Table 13.4-1).
Table 13.4-1: Population Growth and Projected Growth
2010 2020 2040 % Change % Change
2010-2020 2020-2040
Santa Clara 116,468 127,647 159,500 9.6% 25 %
Santa Clara County 1,781,642 1,936,259 2,538,320 8.67% 31.09% Source(s): ACS QuickFacts
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
In addition to population projections, several other demographic characteristics and trends define housing needs. Among these characteristics are age composition, racial and ethnic composition, and employment (Table 13.4-2).
Table 13.4-2: Age, Race and Ethnicity, and Employment by Industry Demographic Profile 2010 Percentage 2019 Percentage
Age
0-4 9,092 7.8% 8,730 7%
5-14 12,410 11% 13,267 10%
15-24 15,783 13.5% 17,822 14%
25-34 23,016 20% 26,932 21%
35-44 18,860 16% 19,874 16%
45-54 14,987 13% 15,025 12%
55-64 10,641 9% 11,557 9%
65-74 5,951 5% 8,056 6%
75-84 3,950 3% 4,316 3%
85+ 1,778 2% 2,142 2%
Median Age 34.6 33.9
Total Population 116,468 127,721
Race/Ethnicity
White (non-Hispanic) 42,026 36% 40,282 32%
Hispanic 22,589 19% 22,116 17%
Black 2,929 3% 3,697 3%
Asian/Pacific Islander 44,135 38% 55,905 44%
Other 4,549 4% 5,538 7%
Total Population 116,228 127,538
Employment by Industry
Educational services, and health
care and social assistance 9,529 17% 13,420 19%
Retail trade 4,984 9% 5,004 7%
Manufacturing 11,778 21% 12,918 19%
Professional, scientific, and
management, and administrative
and waste management services
12,595 22% 19,573 28%
Construction 2,295 4% 1,997 3%
Arts, entertainment, and
recreation, and accommodation
and food services
3,963 7% 5,427 8%
Finance and insurance, and real
estate and rental and leasing 2,473 4% 2,356 3%
Table 13.4-2: Age, Race and Ethnicity, and Employment by Industry Demographic Profile 2010 Percentage 2019 Percentage
Other services, except public
administration 2,070 4% 2,036 3%
Transportation and warehousing,
and utilities 1,582 3% 2,170 3%
Public Administration 1,706 3% 1,494 2%
Wholesale Trade 1,164 2% 1,505 2%
Information 2,879 5% 4,148 6%
Agriculture, forestry, fishing and
hunting, and mining 157 0.3% 122 0.2%
Total Employment 57,175 72,170
Source(s): US Census Bureau 2010, American Community Survey 2014-2019 5-year estimate Age
Population age distribution serves as an important indicator of housing needs because housing needs and preferences change as individuals or households grow older. Young families tend to focus more on cost and the ability to become first-time homebuyers. Table 13.4-2 shows the age groups of Santa Clara residents. The largest age group in 2010 was residents aged 25 to 34 at 20 percent. In 2010, the second largest age group was residents aged 35 to 44, at 16 percent. This trend stayed consistent in 2019, with the largest percentage of residents falling in the 25 to 34 age group, at 21 percent. The second largest age group in 2019 was residents aged 35 to 44, at 16 percent
The median age in Santa Clara is 33.9 years. Compared with the County (37.4 years) and the state (36.5 years), the City’s population is younger. The large population of young adults means that demand for larger homes for families will likely continue to grow as residents move out of smaller homes and apartments and raise families.
Race and Ethnicity
Table 13.4-2 shows the racial/ethnic distribution of population in Santa Clara. Asian (43.2 percent) and White (non-Hispanic) (31.5 percent) residents make up most of the population. This breakdown is reflective of Santa Clara County, which is mostly Asian (36.5 percent) and White (31.5 percent) residents. The racial makeup of Santa Clara has stayed mostly consistent since 2010.
The two largest racial groups in 2010 were Asian (38 percent) and White (36 percent). From 2010 to 2019, the White and Hispanic populations decreased while the Asian population increased, and the other racial groups stayed consistent. For example, the City of Santa Clara’s Black or African American residents makes up 3 percent of the population, just over Santa Clara County’s Black or African American population of 2.5 percent.
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Employment
Santa Clara has 13,420 workers living within its borders who work across 13 major industrial sectors. Table 13.4-2 provides detailed employment information. Many Santa Clara residents work in professional, scientific, and management, and administrative and waste management services (19,573, 28 percent of total), reflects the predominant technology industry of Silicon Valley. The second largest industries are educational services, and health care and social assistance (19 percent) and manufacturing (19 percent). Between 2010 to 2019 the number of residents employed in educational services, health care, and social assistance and professional, scientific, and management, and administrative and waste management services increased, while the number of residents employed in manufacturing decreased.
These trends are important to understand, as certain industries are generally associated with lower median earnings. In the City, the median income for professional, scientific, and management, and administrative and waste management services is $100,235. The median income for manufacturing is $103,951, while the median income for educational services, health care, and social assistance is considerably lower at $45,931. The 10 principal employers in Santa Clara are presented in Table 13.4-3.
Table 13.4-3: 10 Principal Employers, 2020
Employer Number of Employees Percentage
Applied Materials, Inc. 8,500 22.8%
Intel Corporation 7,801 20.9%
Advanced Micro Devices Inc. 3,000 8.0%
California's Great America 2,500 6.7%
Avaya Inc. 2,000 5.4%
Santa Clara University 2,000 5.4%
City of Santa Clara 1,973 5.3%
Kaiser Foundation Hospitals 1,459 3.9%
Macy's 1,200 3.2%
Catalyst Semiconductor Inc. 1,100 2.9%
Source(s): City of Santa Clara Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, June 30, 2020 Household Characteristics
The characteristics of a community’s households impact the type and tenure of housing needed in that community. Household type, income levels, the presence of special needs populations, and other household traits are all factors that affect the housing needs of a community and the strategies that the community must deploy to meet those needs.
Characteristics for Santa Clara households are summarized in Table 13.4-4. The number of households in Santa Clara have increased by 2,346 from 42,323 in 2010 to 44,669 in 2019. Renter-
occupied households increased by 2,566 from 22,960 households in 2010 to 25,525 in 2019. Owneroccupied households decreased by 220 from 19,363 households in 2010 to 19,143 in 2019.
Table 13.4-4: Household Characteristics by Tenure
Household
Characteristic Owner Households Renter Households All Households Number of Households1 19,143 (42.8%) 25,526 (57%) 44,669 Median Household Income1 $155,718 $108,435 $126,006
Household Income Categories2
Extremely Low Income (0-
30% AMI) 1,339 (7%) 4,123 (16.7%) 5,462 (12.5%)
Very Low Income (30-50%
AMI) 1,853 (9.8%) 3,215 (13.3%) 5,068 (11.6%)
Low Income (50-80% AMI) 1,884 (10%) 2,540 (10.3%) 4,424 (10%) Moderate Income (80-100%
AMI) 1,480 (7.8%) 2,185 (9%) 3,665 (8.4%)
Above Moderate Income
(100% + AMI) 12,265 (65%) 12,544 (50.9%) 24,809 (57%)
Total 18,821 24,607 43,428
Overpayment
All Households
Overpaying for Housing 1,900 (10%) 5,365 (21%) 7,265 (16.4%) Lower Income Households
Overpaying for Housing
(*0-80%)2
1,670 (36%) 5,265 (55%) 6,935 (49%)
Source(s):
1 US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2014-2019 5-year estimates 2 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) Tables 2013-2017
Income
According to the 2019 American Community Survey (ACS), the median household income for the City of Santa Clara was $126,006, which is slightly higher than the Santa Clara County median household income of $124,055. Median household income differs by tenure; in the City, owner households have a significantly higher median income than renter households (a difference of $47,283).
Census data estimates that 6.7 percent of the Santa Clara population lives in poverty, as defined by federal guidelines. This proportion is lower than in Santa Clara County, where 7.5 percent of residents live in poverty. Poverty thresholds vary by household type. In Santa Clara, the percentage of persons living in poverty is higher for Black residents, with 9.3 percent living in poverty, and much higher for female householders with no spouse present, at 16.7 percent.
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Because poverty thresholds do not differ based on geographic differences, a better measure to understand income disparities can be to identify various percentages compared to the median income for a particular area. For housing planning and funding purposes, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) uses five income categories to evaluate housing need based on the Area Median Income (AMI) for the county:
• Extremely Low-Income Households earn 0-30 percent of AMI • Very Low-Income Households earn 30-50 percent of AMI
• Low-Income Households earn 50-80 percent of AMI
• Moderate-Income Households earn 80-100 percent of AMI (HCD uses 120%) • Above Moderate-Income Households earn over 100 percent of AMI (HCD uses 120%+) Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data provides special Census tabulations (developed for HUD) and calculates household income adjusted for family size and tenure. As shown in Table 13.4-4, in Santa Clara above moderate-income households make up the largest share of all households (57 percent), and extremely low-income households represent the second largest category (12.5 percent). Income also differs by tenure; as indicated in Table
13.4-4, more renter households are in the lower-income categories (0-80 percent AMI) than owner households.
Housing Overpayment
State and federal standards specify that households spending more than 30 percent of gross annual income on housing experience a housing cost burden. Housing cost burdens occur when housing costs increase faster than household income. When a household spends more than 30 percent of its income on housing costs, it has less disposable income for other necessities such as health care, child-care, and food. In the event of unexpected circumstances such as loss of employment or health problems, lower-income households with a housing cost burden are more likely to become homeless or double up with other households. In Santa Clara, 16.4 percent of households are overpaying for housing, with owner households and renter households overpaying 10 percent and 21 percent, respectively. Lower-income households have a much higher rate of overpayment at 49 percent whether it is an owner household or a renter household.
Extremely Low Income (ELI) Households
HCD defines ELI households as “a subset of very low income households. . . defined as 30 percent (or less) of the area median income”. As stated above, ELI households make up 12.5 percent of all households in Santa Clara with more renter households than owner households (16% and 7% respectively). Lower income households experience overpayment at a much higher rate compared to all households. While 16 percent of all households in Santa Clara experience overpayment, lower income households experience overpayment by almost 50 percent. Lower income owner households are overpaying by 36 percent while lower income renter households
are overpayment by 55 percent. Stakeholder outreach for the Housing Element and the City’s Homelessness Taskforce in 2022 indicated that ELI housing is sorely needed by a wide variety of groups including persons with disabilities, elderly adults, and persons who are at risk of becoming homeless. Many stakeholders shared that "low-income housing” isn’t affordable anymore as income limits continue to increase with area median income. More ELI and VLI units are needed to assist residents whose income is not keeping pace with HCD income limits and inflation.
The City of Santa Clara adopted the Affordable Housing Ordinance in 2018 which required rental projects of 10 or more units to provide at least 15 percent of the units at affordable rental prices to extremely low, very low, and low income households. These units must also remain a part of the affordable rental program for fifty-five years. The distribution of affordable units must average to a maximum of one hundred percent (100%) area median income so the number of ELI units that are produced through inclusionary housing is limited.
In 2019 the City selected HouseKeys, Inc. as the City's affordable housing administrator, to create a “one stop shop” for new affordable rental and ownership opportunities in Santa Clara and to help with compliance monitoring. The City also updates an Affordable Housing Resource Guide twice per year which provides resources for emergency housing support, organizations that provide rental assistance, homeowner programs, and a list of affordable housing properties throughout the City. A list of existing properties with ELI units is included below in Table 5. The 233 existing ELI income restricted units is far lower than the 5,462 ELI households in Santa Clara.
The City has also worked to develop actions that specifically address extremely low and very low-income households which may experience greater cost burden. Action 2 in the housing plan will look at updating the Citywide affordable ordinance to support deeper affordability requirements. Action 3 facilities the development efforts for constructing affordable housing for lower income households particularly special needs groups. Action 6 explores funding sources to support affordable housing developers with acquiring and rehabilitating multi-family structures. Action 12 explores additional resources for providing funding for affordable housing.
And Action 14 advocates for additional project and person-based vouchers for seniors and other special needs groups.
Table 13.4-5: Existing Properties with Extremely Low-Income Housing Units Property Name Number of ELI Units Address
Monroe Apartments 16 2330 Monroe Street
Calabazas Apartments 80 2904 Corvin Street
Mainline North Apartments 16 2310 Called Del Mundo
Agrihood 54 90 North Winchester Blvd.
Kifer Senior 39 3335 Kifer Road
Peacock Commons 10 3661 Peacock Ct.
Belovida Senior Apartments 9 1820 Main Street
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Cypress 5 455 N. Cypress Avenue
Presidio El Camino 4 1450 El Camino Real
TOTAL 233
Source: City of Santa Clara
Supportive and transitional housing types which often serve extremely low income households are both permitted within R1-8L single family zones, R1-6L single family zones, duplex zones, low density multiple-dwelling zones, moderate density multiple-dwelling zones, and medium density multiple-dwelling zones.
Housing Stock Characteristics
Housing Stock
In 2022, the State Department of Finance estimated that in 2020 there were 47,004 occupied housing units in the City. Compared to 2010, the City’s housing stock has increased by 3,983 units.
Most of the City’s housing stock is made up of multi-family units (55 percent) followed by single family units (40 percent). Census data indicates that 0.2 percent of owner units and four percent (see Table 13.4-6) of rental units are vacant, suggesting that the City should continue to increase housing construction to accommodate residents.
Construction of both single family homes (attached and detached) and multi-family homes has grown in Santa Clara since 2010. However, while single family homes have only grown by 125 units between 2010 and 2019, multi-family homes have grown by 2,641 units, likely due to the technology industry boom and the influx of younger adults moving to the area for jobs.
Table 13.4-6: Housing Stock Characteristics by Tenure – 2020 Housing Characteristic
Owner
Households
Renter
Households All Households
Total Housing Units 19,271 (41%) 26,792 (57%) 47,004
Single Family Detached
No data No data
19,543 (42%)
Single Family Attached 4,595 (9.8%)
Multi-Family Units 26,045 (55%)
Mobile home, other units 46 (.09%)
Average or median Household
Size 2.65
Vacancy Rate 0.2% 4.0% 6.4%
Overcrowded Units 0.9% 5.2% 6.2%
Units Needing
Replacement/Rehabilitation N/A N/A None
Housing Cost – Average purchase
price and monthly rent $1,034,000 $2,396 N/A
Note: Total housing units does not sum to 100% due to vacant units Source(s): US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2015-2019 5-year estimates, California Department of Finance E-5 Population and Housing Estimates, 2021 Overcrowding
In response to a mismatch between household income and housing costs in a community, some households may not be able to buy or rent housing that provides a reasonable level of privacy and space. According to both California and federal standards, a housing unit is considered overcrowded if it is occupied by more than one person per room (excluding kitchens, bathrooms, and halls). In Santa Clara, 6.2 percent of housing units are overcrowded, compared to 5.2 percent in the County. Overcrowding is much more prevalent in renter households (5.2 percent) than owner households (0.9 percent).
Housing Condition
The condition of housing stock can be an indicator of potential rehabilitation needs. Based upon observations and experiences of the Housing & Community Services Division, the City estimates that on average fewer than 10 housing units per year are in severe need of substantial rehabilitation due to housing conditions.
Housing Cost
The cost of housing in a community is directly correlated to the number of housing problems and affordability issues. High housing costs can price low-income families out of the market, cause extreme cost burdens, or force households into overcrowded or substandard conditions. The Santa Clara median home price according to 2019 ACS data is $1,034,000. The median home price in Santa Clara County according to ACS data is $984,000, $50,00 lower than in the City.
According to the 2019 ACS, 57 percent of Santa Clara households are living in rental housing.
Census data shows that the average rent in Santa Clara is $2,396 per month, with most (25.7 percent) paying between $2,000 and $2,499 in rent. Table 13.4-6 shows that the HUD-determined fair market rents for the City of Santa Clara fall within the range of the rents within the County.
Therefore, the rental rates in Santa Clara generally are less than the HUD-determined fair market rents, indicating that certain parts of Santa Clara County are potentially more expensive than local rents.
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Table 13.4-7: Fair Market Rents in Santa Clara County
Year Efficiency
OneBedroomTwoBedroom Three-Bedroom Four-Bedroom
FY 2020 FMR $2,103 $2,458 $2,970 $3,943 $4,525
Source(s): FY2020 Fair Market Rents. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) According to Costar, the vacancy rate in Santa Clara in Q3 2022 was lower at 3.5% while the larger San Jose metro area’s vacancy was 4.9%. In Q3 2022, vacancy for 3-bedroom units was much lower at 2.9% while vacancy for smaller unit types was closer to the overall average at 3.5%. Average effective rent per unit in Santa Clara trend higher at $3,094 compared with $2,880 for the larger San Jose metro area.
Table 13.4-8: Market Rents Per Unit by Bedroom – Q3 2022 Year Efficiency One-Bedroom Two-Bedroom Three-Bedroom
Q3, 2022 $2,498 $2,898 $3,525 $3,910
Source: Costar, November 11, 2023
Special Housing Needs
Housing-element law requires local governments to include an analysis of housing needs for residents in specific special needs groups and to address resources available to address these needs. The following analysis confirms public comments received indicating a particular need for more extremely low and very low income rental housing options for persons with disabilities, large families, seniors, and people experiencing homelessness. Based on the scale of this identified need, additional resources, beyond those currently available, will be required to realize meaningful increases in housing for people with special needs. The City’s Housing Plan (Chapter 2), includes actions and objectives that will help address the gaps in resources to meet these needs.
Table 13.4-9: Special Needs Groups
Special Needs Category Count Percent
Persons with Disabilities1 8,966 7% of residents
Persons with Developmental
Disabilities2 3,246 2.7% of residents
Elderly (65+ years) 1 14,514 11.3% of residents
3,249 households 7.2% of households
Large Households (5+ members) 1 4,253 households 9.5% of households Farmworkers1 122 0.2% of labor force
Migrant Worker Student
Population 0 0% of labor force
Table 13.4-9: Special Needs Groups
Special Needs Category Count Percent
Female Headed Households1 3,571 households 7.9% households Male Headed Households 1,924 households 4.3% households Married Couple Households 24,719 households 55% households Householder Living Alone 1,624 households 22% households People Experiencing Homelessness3 326 N/A
Source(s):
1. US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2015-2019 5-year estimates. There is no Census occupation or industry that discretely identifies an estimate for the number of farmworkers in the City of Santa Clara. This figure comes from the civilian employed population (16 years and over) in the industry that includes: agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining.
2. California Department of Developmental Services, 2020, reflects the DDS consumer count by CA ZIP Codes 95050, 95051, 95052, 95053, 95054, 95055, 95056
3. Santa Clara County: Annual Point in Time Count Report Persons with Disabilities including persons with Developmental Disabilities
Disabled residents face housing access and safety challenges. Disabled people, in many cases, are of limited incomes and often receive Social Security income only. As such, most of their monthly income is often devoted to housing costs. In addition, disabled persons may face difficulty finding accessible housing (housing that is made accessible to people with disabilities through the positioning of appliances and fixtures, the heights of installations and cabinets, layout of unit to facilitate wheelchair movement, etc.) because of the limited number of such units.
The following is a summary of the number of people in Santa Clara with different types of disabilities according to the 2019 ACS:
Ambulatory Difficulty 4,234
Independent Living Difficulty 3,372
Cognitive Difficulty 3,246
Self-care difficulty 1,885
Vision Difficulty 1,557
According to the 2019 ACS there are 8,966 residents with one or more of the above listed types of disabilities in Santa Clara, representing seven percent of residents. Most residents with a disability are 75 and older (47.1 percent), followed by those 65 to 74 years old (18 percent). The most commonly occurring disability amongst seniors 65 and older was an independent living difficulty, experienced by 14.5 percent of Santa Clara’s seniors. The most common disabilities for people 35-64 years old was ambulatory difficulty followed by cognitive difficulty.
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
For those with a developmental disability, the majority reside in the home of a parent, guardian, or family member (78 percent). The second most common living situation for individuals with a developmental disability is a community care facility (9.6 percent).
Housing Choices is a local nonprofit focused on enhancing the lives of people with developmental and other disabilities and their families by creating and supporting quality, affordable housing opportunities. Housing Choices provided the following comments relating to the needs of developmentally disabled residents in Santa Clara County:
• Between September 2015 and June 2021, the Department of Developmental Services reported that the number of Santa Clara County residents with developmental disabilities age 62 and older grew by 35 percent. This increase is generally attributable to gains in life span which likely means that more adults with developmental disabilities will outlive their parents and family members who are by far the single largest source of housing for people with developmental disabilities in the City of Santa Clara. • Because older adults currently occupying a licensed facility in Santa Clara County are living longer, this reduced rate of occupant turnover, coupled with closing facilities, will make it more difficult for middle-aged and senior adults who have been living with aging parents in the City of Santa Clara to transition to licensed care when their parents pass away. Notwithstanding 20 percent growth in Santa Clara County’s total population of adults with developmental disabilities, the Department of Developmental Services has documented a 15 percent decline in the age group 42 to 51 in Santa Clara County between September 2015 and June 2021. In light of gains in life expectancy, this loss can reasonably be attributed to displacement from the county because of the lack of residential living options (either licensed facilities or affordable housing) when an elderly family caregiver passes away or becomes unable to house and care for the adult. Displacement takes a particular toll on adults with developmental disabilities who depend on familiarity with transit routes and shopping and services, as well as support from community-based services and informal networks built up over years of living in Santa Clara.
Santa Clara has responded to the need for community care facilities and there are several group homes and independent living options for Santa Clara residents with disabilities, shown in table 10 below. Action 18 in the housing plan will explore ways to increase special needs housing and support the creation of new shared housing options for residents with disabilities. Table 13.3-10 indicates there are only 56 units of income restricted housing set aside for persons with developmental disabilities in the Santa Clara area. This represents approximately 1.7% of the 3,246 people who have cognitive disabilities in Santa Clara. To meet rising demand, a 35% increase would require the construction of 76 new housing units for this special needs group.
Given the scale of this need, multifamily housing options would be needed.
Table 13.4-10: Housing Properties for Persons with Disabilities Property Name Number of Units Address
Group Homes
Briarwood Cooperative
Shared single-family home with
private bedrooms for 4 individuals
with developmental disabilities
2114 Briarwood Drive
Santa Clara, CA 95051
De La Cruz Cooperative
Shared single-family home with
private bedrooms for 4, individuals
with developmental disabilities
3779 De La Cruz Boulevard
Santa Clara, CA 95054
Various Locations Life Services
Alternative
3 five-person group homes for
persons with physical or
developmental disabilities
260 W. Hamilton Avenue
Campbell, CA 95008
Independent Living
Stoney Pine Villa 12 one-bedroom units, 8 twobedroom units, 3 three-bedroom units 267 W California Street
Sunnyvale, CA 94086
Monroe Commons
(Under Construction)
10 of the 40 apartments will be set
aside for persons with developmental
disabilities.
2330 Monroe Street
Santa Clara, CA 95050
Source: City of Santa Clara:
Elderly (65+ years)
Many senior-headed households have special needs due to their relatively low incomes, disabilities or limitations, and dependency needs. Specifically, many people aged 65 years and older live alone and may have difficulty maintaining their homes, are usually retired, and living on a limited income, and are more likely to have high health care costs and rely on public transportation, especially those with disabilities. The limited income of many elderly persons often makes it difficult for them to find affordable housing. There are 3,249 households headed by elderly residents, representing 7.2 percent of total households in Santa Clara. Of all the age groups in Santa Clara, elderly residents experience poverty at a lower rate (7.8 percent) than those aged 18 to 34 (8.8 percent) which is counter to trends in other cities where elderly residents are more likely to be low income. Seniors may experience specific housing needs and require special assistance in their living situations. The City of Santa Clara has several housing properties dedicated to seniors, including options for seniors who are more active and those who require assisted living. These properties are detailed in Table 13.4-11 below. Table 13.4-11 indicates that there are only 736 housing units for lower income seniors in Santa Clara. This represents approximately 13% of the 5,645 extremely low and very low-income seniors in Santa Clara as summarized in Table 13.4-13. The scale of need for senior housing indicates that more multifamily affordable rental housing with varying levels of support services will be needed. A twenty percent increase would translate into 148 new affordable units for seniors. To create deeply
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
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. 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. R-3 and R-4 Residential districts, C-C and C-R Commercial districts, and the MUVHD 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 220 135-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.
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 one space 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 R3, R4, and R-5 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.
SANTA CLARA
HOUSING ELEMENT
Definition of Family
A community’s Zoning Ordinance can potentially restrict access to housing for households failing to qualify as a “family” by the definition specified in the Zoning Ordinance. Even if the code provides a broad definition, deciding what constitutes a “family” should be avoided by jurisdictions to prevent confusion or give the impression of restrictiveness.
California court cases have ruled that a definition of “family” that: 1) limits the number of persons in a family; 2) specifies how members of the family are related (i.e., by blood, marriage or adoption, etc.), or 3) a group of 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.