Santa Clar a County Assessment of Fair Housing ( 2020), and the AFFH Segregation Report: Sunnyvale (2022) prepared by UC Merced/STIR Labs in collaboration with ABAG.
A substantial amount of the analysis is based on data provided at the census tract level. The U.S. Ce nsus Bureau defines census tracts a s relatively permanent statistical subdivisions of a county. The tracts are informed by the Census Bureau’s Participant Statistical Areas Program conducted prior to each decennial census and generally have a population size between 1,200 and 8,000 people, with an optimum size of 4,000 people. The spatial size of census tracts varies widely depending on the density of settlement. Approximately 28 census tracts encompass Sunnyvale; however, not all census tracts are entirely within the City limits and some expand outside of City limits. Particularly, one census tract in the far eastern portion of the City, east of the Lawrence Station , primarily includes the City of Santa Clara; however a small portion of the census tract is within the City of Sunnyvale, in the Lawrence Station Area Plan. In addition, and more significantly, the census tract in the far northern portion of the City, north of State Route 237, shown in Figure 4-1, is a very large census tract that spans outside of the City limits into San Jose. This census tract includes the Moffett Park Specific Plan area, the Baylands, and the Alviso community in San Jose. U.S.
Census ACS 2015-2019 data estimates a total population of 2,355 in this census tract, of which only 24 are estimated to be within the portion of the census tract located in Sunnyvale. Although this area is planned for future residential and non -residential developm ent under the Moffett Park Sp ecific Plan (see discussion in Chapter 5, “Sites inventory”); at the time of the 2015-2019 estimate and the time of this assessment (2022), no residential units exist in this area, so the estimated population of 24 is likely error. As such, the demographic data shown in this area of the City is influenced by conditions outside of the City and does not reflect existing conditions in the City’s portion of the census tract.
Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach
Fair housing enforc ement and outreach capacity r elates to the ability of a locality and fair housing entities to disseminate information related to fair housing and provide outreach and education to assure community members are aware of fair housing laws and rights. In addit ion, enforcement and outreach capacity includes the ability to address compliance with fair housing laws, such as investigating complaints, obtaining remedies, and engaging in fair housing.
FAIR HOUSING COMPLAINTS
Fair housing complaints can be an indicato r of households experiencing housing discrimination. Pursuant to the California Fair Employment and Housing Act [Government Code Section 12921 (a)], the opportunity to seek, obtain, and hold housing cannot be determined by an individual’s “race, color, religion, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry, familial status, source of income, disability, veteran or military status, genetic information, or any other basis prohibited by Section 51 of the Civil Code.” The C ity of S unnyvale complies with federal and state fair housing laws, which are enforced by HUD and the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing. The City refers discrimination complaints to the California Department of Fair Employment and Housin g. The C alifornia Department of Fair Employment and Housing dual - files fair housing cases with HUD’s Region IX Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO), as part of the Fair Housing Assistance Program. HUD’s FHEO reported that 13 housing discrimination cases were filed by residents of Santa Clara County in 2020 and 34 were filed in 2019. FHEO reported data also shows that there has been an 81 percent decline in the number of cases reported annually between the period of 2006 and 2020. City level d ata is not available from FHEO.
Attachment 2
Figure 4-1: Census Tract North of State Route 237, including Moffett Park Specific Plan
Source: Data downloaded from the U.S. Census Bureau in 2021. *Note: There are no
residential units reported in
this area of Sunnyvale. Census
tract boundary includes
portions of San Jose.
*Note: There are no
residential units reported in
this area of Sunnyvale. Census
tract boundary includes
portions of San Jose.
Attachment 2
However, City-level data is available from Project Sentinel. T he Cit y of Sunnyvale provides funding to Project Sentinel for fair housing services for local residents and home-seekers who feel they may have experienced housing discrimination. Project Sentinel services are free to all and include investigating housing discrimination complaints, referring complaints to attorneys, if needed , and partnering with the Law Foundation of Silicon Valley . Table 4-1 shows data from Project Sentinel for the City of Sunnyvale for the years 20 15-2021. Project Sentinel handled 79 cases bet ween January 1, 2015 , and December 16, 2021. This data does not include the number of phone counseling and consulting contacts the agency provides, nor the number of people reached by outreach activities.
The following is a summary of the cases handled during this time period:
▪ Cases were filed most frequently by people of the following protected categories: persons with a disability (52 percent), national origin (24 percent), and familial status (10 percent). ▪ Six cases included a female head of household.
▪ Most cases were filed by individuals who identified as White (61 percent), followed by Hispanic/Latino Only (47 percent), and Asian (18 percent).
▪ 58 percent of cases filed were from individuals earning less than 30 percent of the area median income (AMI); 20 percent of cases filed were from individuals earning 31-50 percent of AMI; and 8 percent of cases filed were from individuals earning over 50 percent AMI. ▪ Reasonable accommodation was the most frequent type of complaint (44 percent) and 18 out of 41 cas es resulted in a disposition in wh ich reasonable accommodation was granted. Other frequent types of complaints include different terms/conditions (18 percent) and eviction/repairs & maintenance (13 percent). ▪ From 2019 to 2021, Project Sentinel worked with Sunnyvale Community Services to as sist 16 Hispanic households and 1 African American household displaced from their rental units by a fire. These cases included allegations of national origin discrimination resulting from severe substandard housing conditions.
Each household received assistance in locating new housing and each were given $7,500, totaling $127,500 for the case settlement.
Table 4-1: Summary of Cases by Complaint Type, January 1, 2015 – December 16, 2021 Protected
Category
Different
Terms/
Conditions
Hostile
Environment
Intimidation/
Harassment
Accessibility
Modification,
Repairs & Maint.
Reasonable
Accommodation
Refuse to
Rent/Sell
Eviction/
Repairs &
Maint.
Total
Disability 3 1 1 1 34 1 41
Familial Status 1 1 2 1 1 2 8
Gender 1 1
Immigration
Status 7 1 8
Marital Status 1 1
National Origin 1 1 2 1 7 12
Race 2 1 3
Religion 1 1
Sex 1 1 2
Source of
Income 2 2
Total 14 6 4 3 35 7 10 79
Source: Project Sentinel, 2021.
Attachment 2
FAIR HOUSING-RELATED OUTREACH
As discussed in Chapter 1, “Introduction,” the City conducted extensive community outreach throughout the Housing Element update process to obtain input from all members of the community. Meetings were held virtually, in response to public health safety measures during the coronavirus pandemic, and live interpretation services were made available to reduce language barriers. Community engagement notifications and flyers, three housing element community workshops, and online survey were all provided in English, Spanish, and Chinese. In addition, the project w ebsite enabled language translation and included accessibility features for those who are visually impaired. Recordings of the virtual meetings (including live interpretations) were uploaded to the project website.
During the housing element update process , community members expressed housing affordability concerns, discussed patterns of segregation of resources between the northern and southern portions of the City (specifically the lack of a high school in northern Sunnyvale), and special housing needs for persons with disabilities, seniors, and others on fixed incomes. Additional details on the community engagement opportunities, including the online survey results, are available in Appendix A.
In addition, the City participates in the Santa Clara Plannin g Collaborative and supported the planning collaborative’s “Let’s Talk Housing Santa Clara County” campaign. As part of the campaign, the City worked with the Planning Collaborative to conduct out reach specifically targeted to AFFH, including a community workshop , hosted by the Planning Collaborative in Spring 2022 to discuss fair housing strategies for the housing element update process. Feedback received at the workshop was used to inform each ju risdiction’s housing element. The City has also prioritized fair housing-related outreach outside of the Housing Element process. Prior to the outbreak of the coronavirus pandemic in 2020, Sunnyvale hosted workshops on fair housing annually in April. The C ity partnered with Project Sentinel to conduct workshops during the day for property management professionals and in the evening for the general public. The goal of the daytime meeting was to provide a solid foundation in fair housing for new management em ployees as well as provide updates and new case l aw relevant to Fair Housing.
Evening meetings were tailored to the general public to ensure that they knew their rights and whom to contact if they felt they were being discriminated against. The City plans to create a Santa Clara County collaborative grou p to coordinate various fair housing events throughout the County.
The City, in partnership with the County of Santa Clara’s Office of Supportive Housing and the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law , facilitated extensive outreach in 2019/2020 to prepare a Sunnyvale specific draft Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH). A broad array of outreach was conducted during a four -month community engagement process through print and social media engagement, community meetings, focus groups, surveys, and the establishment of a Santa Clara County Regional AFH Advisory Committee , in which the City participated. In preparing the AFH, the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, in partnership with each jurisdiction in Santa Clara County, held over 30 stakeholder meetings with hundreds of participants , including tenants, landlords, homeowners, public housing residents, fair housing organizations, civil rights and advocacy organizations, legal services providers, so cial services providers, and housing developers to hear directly about fair housing issues affecting residents of Santa Clara County. Robust community outreach was necessary to ensure the draft AFH truly reflects conditions in the community and that the goals and strategies are targeted and feasible.
Attachment 2
Patterns of Residential Integration and Segregation
RACE AND ETHNICITY
Sunnyvale has a diverse population, similar to the diversity of Santa Clara County and the Bay Area . The City has a higher percent of the population that is Asian/Pacific Islander than the County and the Bay Area. As shown in Figure 4-2, the percent of White residents in the City has declined resulting in a lower percent of the population than the Bay Area as a whole, whereas the percent of Asian/Pacific Islander residents has increased surpassing the percentage of the Bay Area Region. The percent of Black /African American and Hispanic/Latinx residents in Sunnyvale has remained relatively stable since 2000 and was less than the regional percentage in 2019. There is no single racial or ethnic majority in Sunnyvale—similar to Santa Clara County and the Bay Area. Most census tracts in Sunnyvale have a non-White population of 61 to 81 percent of the total population. Figure 4-3 shows that only one census tract within southwest Sunnyvale, in the De Anza neighborhood planning area, near West Fremont Avenue and Hollenbeck Avenue, has a non-White population of less than 40 percent of the total population. All other census tracts in Sunnyvale have a non-White population of greater than 40 percent of the total population.
Figure 4-2: Population by Racial Group, Sunnyvale and the Region, 2000-2019
Source: IPUMS National Historical Geographic Information System (NHGIS). Data for 2019 is from U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B03002. 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.
Although Sunnyvale has a diverse population, there are many factors that have contributed to the generation and maintenance of segregation, or uneven settlement patterns, throughout California and the United States.
Historically, racial segregation st emmed from explicit discrimination against people of color, such as restrictive covenants, redlining, and discriminat ion in mortgage lending. This history includes many overtly discriminatory policies made by federal, state, and local governments 1. Segregation patterns are also affected by policies that appear race-neutral, such as land use decisions and the regulation of housing development. 1 Rothstein, Richard. 2017. The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America. 32%
41% 47%
27%
15%
19%
16%
24%
46%
35% 31%
39%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2000 2010 2019 2019
Share of Population
Sunnyvale
Black/African American Asian/Pacific Islander Hispanic/Latinx White Other or Multiple Races Bay Area Region
Attachment 2
Figure 4-3: Percent of Total Non-White Population, Sunnyvale, 2018
Source: Data downloaded from HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool in 2021, based on U.S. Census Bureau data. *Note: There are no
residential units reported in
this area of Sunnyvale. Census
tract boundary includes
portions of San Jose.
Attachment 2
Segregation has resulted in vastly unequal access to public goods such as quality schools, neighborhood services and amenities, parks and playgrounds, clean air and water, and public s afety2. This generational lack of access for many communities, particularly people of color and lower income households, has often resulted in poor life outcomes, including lower educational attainment, higher morbidity rates, and higher mortality rates.3 The following is based on the AFFH Segregation Report prepared by UC Merced/STIR Labs for Sunnyvale and provides an analysis of regional (inter -city) and neighborhood (intra -city) segregation using a variety of indices, including the iso lation index, dissimilarity index , and Theil’s -H index. These indices are described in more detail below:
▪ Isolation index: Indicates the potential for contact between different groups. The measure ranges from 0 to 1, with higher values indicating that a particular group is more isolated from other groups. ▪ Dissimilarity index: Measure of how evenly any two groups are distributed relative to their representation in the City/region overall. This index also ranges from 0 to 1. Higher values indicate that groups are more unevenly distributed.
▪ Theil’s H Index: Measure of segregation between all groups and determines how diverse a particular area is in comparison to the City/region. The index ranges from 0 to 1. A lower index value indicates the same level of diversity as the whole City/region, while a higher value indicates each racial group lives in their own separate area.
The analysis is based on racial and ethnic groups identified by the U.S. Census. However, it is important to note that a racial group may consist of several sub-groups. For example, Asian/Pacific Islander includes a number of ethnic or origin groups including Chinese, Japanese, Indian, Filipino, Vietnamese, Pakistani, and others. The analysis included in this section is intended to be high-level but does not necessarily capture all nuances that impact fair housing.
Regional Segregation
At the regional level, segregation is measured between cities (inter-city) instead of between neighborhoods. Figure 4-4 presents a racial dot map showing the spatial distribution of racial groups in Sunnyvale as well as in nearby Bay Area cities. Similar to Cupertino, Santa Clara , and Campbell , Sunnyvale has a high proportion of Asian/Pacific Islander residents; whereas Mountain View and Palo Alto have a higher proportion of White residents, and San Jose encompasses areas of predominantly White and Hispanic/Latinx populations. 2 Trounstine, Jessica. 2015. Segregation and Inequality in Public Goods. American Journal of Political Science 60(3): 709-725. 3 Chetty, Raj and Nathanial Hendren. 2018. The Impacts of Neighborhoods on Intergenerational Mobility I: Childhood Exposure Effects. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 133(3):1107-1162
Ananat, Elizabeth Oltmans. 2011. The wrong side(s) of the tracks: The causal effects of racial segregation on urban poverty and inequality.
American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 3: 34-66.
Burch, Traci. 2014. The Old Jim Crow: Racial Residential Segregation and Imprisonment. Law and Policy 36(3): 223-255.
Cutler, David M., and Edward L. Glaeser. 1997. Are ghettos good or bad? The Quarterly Journal of Economics 112(3): 827-72.
Sampson, Robert J. 2012. Great American city: Chicago and the enduring neighborhood effect. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Sharkey, Patrick. 2013. Stuck in place: Urban neighborhoods and the end of progress toward racial equality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Attachment 2
Figure 4-4: Racial Dot Map of Sunnyvale and Surrounding Areas (2020)
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census State Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, 2020 Census of Population and Housing, Table P002. Note: The plot shows the racial distribution at the census block level for City of Sunnyvale and vicinity. Dots in each census block are randomly placed and should not be construed as actual placement of people.
Attachment 2
Figure 4-5 compares the proportion of different racial groups in Sunnyvale to those groups’ representation in other jurisdictions in the region, which can indicate the extent of segregation between Sunnyvale and the region.
Consistent with the trends shown on the racial dot map, Sunnyvale has a lower representation of White residents and a higher representation of Asian/Pacific Islander residents than the Bay Area region. Sunnyvale’s Black/African American, Latinx, and other or multiple race populations are proportionately similar to the region.
Figure 4-5: Racial Demographics of Sunnyvale Compared to All Bay Area Jurisdictions (2019)
Source U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B03002.
The map in Figure 4 -6 also illustrates regional racial segregation between Sunnyvale and other jurisdictions by showing the percentage of people of color in Sunnyvale and surrounding jurisdictions compared to the Bay Area as a whole. Sunnyvale is shown in gray, indicating that the share of people of color is more than five percentage points greater than the regional percentage of people of color. The figure also indicates that Cupertino, San Jose, an d Santa Clara have a higher share of people of color than the regional percentage , while Mountain View, Palo Alto, and Los Gatos have a lower share of people of color than the regional percentage.
Segregation between jurisdictions in the region can also b e analyzed by calculating regional values for the segregation indices discussed p reviously. Table 4 -2 presents dissimilarity and isolation index values for racial segregation for the entire nine-county Bay Area in 2019. In Table 4-2, the dissimilarity index and isolation index are calculated by comparing the racial demographics of loca l jurisdictions to the region’s racial makeup. The isolation index indicates that the average White resident in the Bay Area lives in a city that is 46 percent White, whereas the average Black/African American resident lives in a city that is just 12 perce nt Black/African American. The dissimilarity index indicates that Black/African American residents versus White residents are the most segregated, where 46 percent of Black/Af rican American or White residents would need to move to a different jurisdiction to evenly distribute Black and White residents across the Bay Area.
Attachment 2
Figure 4-6: Comparing the Share of People of Color in Sunnyvale and Vicinity to the Bay Area (2020)
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census State Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, 2020 Census of Population and Housing, Table P002. Note: People of color refer to persons not identifying as non-Hispanic White. The nine-county Bay Area is the reference region for this map.
Table 4-2: Regional Racial Segregation Measures, Bay Area Region (2019) Index Group Value
Isolation Index Regional Level
White 0.463
Black/African American 0.124
Latinx 0.284
Asian/Pacific Islander 0.358
Dissimilarity Index Regional Level
Black/African American vs. White 0.460
Latinx vs. White 0.299
Asian/Pacific Islander vs. White 0.368
People of Color vs. White 0.290
Source: IPUMS National Historical Geographic Information System (NHGIS). Data for 2019 is from U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B03002.
Attachment 2
Neighborhood Segregation
The racial dot map shown in Figure 4-7 offers a visual representation of the spatial distribution of racial groups within Sunnyvale. Although the blue and red dots indicate that Asian and White residents are generally distributed throughout the City, the higher proportion of gold dots in the northern part of the City indicate an uneven distribution of Hispanic/Latinx residents.
Figure 4-7: Distribution of Racial Groups in Sunnyvale, 2020
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census State Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, 2020 Census of Population and Housing, Table P002. Note: The plot shows the racial distribution at the census block level for City of Sunnyvale and vicinity. Dots in each census block are randomly placed and should not be construed as actual placement of people.
Predominant Population by Race/Ethnicity
Figure 4-8 shows the predominant population by racial or ethnic majority for each census tract in the City. As shown in the map, while there are c ensus tracts with Asian, White, and Hispanic majorities, none of the census tracts within the City have a predominant majority with a gap greater than 50 percent. Fourteen census tracts or approximately half of the census tracts in Sunnyvale are predominantly Asian census tracts. Ten of these tracts have a sizeable predominance of Asian population, and four have a slim predominance of Asian population. These include portions of the Lakewood, East Murphy, Ponderosa, Ortega, and Serra neighborhood planning areas.
Attachment 2
Figure 4-8: Predominant Population by Race, Sunnyvale, 2019
Source: Data downloaded from HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool in 2021, based on U.S. Census Bureau data. *Note: There are no
residential units reported in
this area of Sunnyvale. Census
tract boundary includes
portions of San Jose.
Attachment 2
Ten census tracts in Sunnyvale are predominantly White census tracts: one census tra ct in the north has sizable predominance in White population (Lakewood neighborhood planning area); eight census tracts in the southwest area of the City (Washington, De Anza, Serra neighborhood planning areas) have a sizeable or slim predominance in White population; and one census tract in the southeast (Raynor neighborhood planning area) has a slim predominance in White population.
Five census tracts in Sunnyvale are predominantly Hispanic census tracts. The census tract north of State Route 237, encompassing Moffett Park , has a sizeable predominance in Hispanic population; however, as noted above, this census tract expands beyond the City boundary into the residential community of Alviso in San Jose. The census tract only includes a small population within the City of Sunnyvale (approximately 24 residents) and is largely influenced by the residential community of Alviso in San Jose, which has over 2,000 residents, most of which are Hispanic4. One census tract in the East Murphy neighborhood planning area and two census tracts in the West Murphy neighborhood planning area are predominantly Hispanic, including one tract with a sizeable predominance in Hispanic population.
Lastly, a very small portion of the census tract on the eastern part of the City, in the Lawrence Station Area Plan, also has a sizeable predominance in Hispanic population, but most of the census tract is located in the City of Santa Clara.
No census tracts have a predominant African American or Native American population.
Diversity Index
The diversity index, shown in Figure 4 -9 for 2010 and 2018, is a generalized measure o f the diversity of the population within an area, with 100 representing perfect diversity and 0 representing no diversity. The City generally ranks high on the diversity index, with northern census tracts demonstrating slightly higher diversity compared to southern census tracts. Figure 4 -9 shows very little change between 2010 and 2018. Some tracts became less diverse while others became more diverse. Specifically, the Ortega neighborhood became less diverse during the timeframe. Diversity in other areas of the City remained relatively the same.
Isolation Index
Asian residents are the most isolated racial group within Sunnyvale, where according to the isolation index show n in Table 4-3, the average Asian resident lives in a neighborhood that is 49.3 percen t Asian. Other racial groups are less isolated, meaning they may be more likely to encounter other racial groups in their neighborhoods. Table 4 -3 shows the isolation index values for all racial groups in Sunnyvale for the years 2000, 2010, and 2019, and compares them to the Bay Area average for 2019. Among all racial groups in Sunnyvale, the isolation index for the White population has changed the most over time, becoming less segregated from other racial groups between 2000 and 2019. Conversely, the Asian/Pacific Islander population has become more isolated or segregated from other groups since 2000. In comparison to the Bay Area average isolation index, White, Black/Afri can American, and Latinx residents within Sunnyvale are less isolated than the regiona l average, while Asian/Pacific Islander residents in Sunnyvale are isolated at rates more than twice the regional average (see Figure 4-10).
Table 4-3: Racial Isolation Index Values by Race/Ethnicity, Sunnyvale, 2019 Race Sunnyvale Bay Area Average 2019 2000 2010 2019
White 0.500 0.382 0.339 0.538
Black/African American 0.027 0.025 0.027 0.060
Asian/Pacific Islander 0.348 0.437 0.493 0.234
Latinx 0.218 0.265 0.227 0.243
Source: IPUMS National Historical Geographic Information System (NHGIS). U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B03002.
4 U.S. Census Bureau, Decennial Census, 2010.
Attachment 2
Figure 4-9: Diversity Index, Block Group, Sunnyvale, 2010 and 2018
Source: Data downloaded from HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool in 2021. *Note: There are no
residential units reported in
this area of Sunnyvale. Census
tract boundary includes
portions of San Jose.
*Note: There are no
residential units reported in
this area of Sunnyvale. Census
tract boundary includes
portions of San Jose.
Attachment 2
Figure 4-10: Racial Isolation Index Values for Sunnyvale Compared to All Bay Area Jurisdictions, 2019
Source: IPUMS National Historical Geographic Information System (NHGIS). U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5- Year Data (2015-2019), Table B03002.
Dissimilarity Index
Table 4-4 provides the dissimilarity index values indicating the level of segregation in Sunnyvale be tween White residents and residents who are Black, Latinx, or Asian/Pacific Islander. The table also provides the dissimilarity index between White residents and all residents of color in the jurisdiction, and all dissimilarity index values are shown across three time periods (2000, 2010, and 2019). Figure 4-11 shows how racial dissimilarity index values in Sunnyvale compare to values in all other Bay Area jurisdictions.
Sunnyvale has an index rating of 0.198 and 0.197 in comparing Asian/Pacific Islander residents and people of color, respectively, with the base non-Hispanic White population. This indicates that roughly 20 percent of Asian/Pacific Islanders or people of color in Sunnyvale would need to move across neighborhoods to achieve perfect integration with Sunnyvale’s non-Hispanic White residents. As shown in Figure 4-11, the integration of Asian/Pacific Islander and White residents in Sunnyvale is roughly the same as the average of other Bay Area jurisdictions. The integration of all people of color with White residents is reflective of the high proportion that Asian/Pacific Islander residents make of the overall Sunnyvale population . The 2019 dissimilarity index comparing all people of color with non - Hispanic White residents ( 0.197) has declined since 2010 (0.217), suggesting that Sunnyvale is bec oming more integrated, although still slightly higher than the Bay Area average index (0.191). Figure 4-11 further shows that Sunnyvale’s dissimilarity indices for Black/African American versus White and Latinx versus White indicate higher segregation patterns than in the average of all Bay Area jurisdictions.
In Sunnyvale, the most significant difference in settlement patterns or concentrations of race (i.e., highest segregation) is between Black/African American and White residents. Sunnyvale’s Black /White dissimilarity index of 0.453 means that 45.3 percent of Black or White residents would need to move to a different neighborhood to create an even distribution of Black residents and White residents. This trend has continued to increase since 2000.
However, considering the small proportion of Black/African American residents in the total Sunnyvale population (1.5 percent), the dissimilarity index values are unreliable. However, t he proportion of Black/African American Attachment 2
residents in Sun nyvale in comparison to the pro portion of Black/African American residents in the region is low, indicating high segregation of Black/African American groups between Sunnyvale and the region.
Figure 4-11: Racial Dissimilarity Index Values for Sunnyvale Compared to All Bay Area Jurisdictions, 2019
Source: IPUMS National Historical Geographic Information System (NHGIS). U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5- Year Data (2015-2019), Table B03002.
In addition, Latinx residents in Sunnyvale are a much larger share of the population of Sunnyvale and have slightly higher dissimilarity for Latinx/ White compared to the region. Sunnyvale’s Latinx/white dissimilarity index of 0.331 means that 33.1 percent of Latinx (or White) residents would need to move to a different neighbo rhood to create perfect integration between Latinx residents and white residents.
Table 4-4: Racial Dissimilarity Index Values for Segregation within Sunnyvale, 2000-2019 Race
Sunnyvale Bay Area Average
2000 2010 2019 2019
Black/African American vs. White 0.266 0.278 0.453 0.359 Asian/Pacific Islander vs. White 0.204 0.202 0.198 0.214 Latinx vs. White 0.345 0.369 0.331 0.240
People of Color vs. White 0.216 0.217 0.197 0.191
Source: IPUMS National Historical Geographic Information System (NHGIS). U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5- Year Data (2015-2019), Table B03002.
Theil’s H Index
The Theil’s H Index can be used to measure segregation between all groups within a jurisdiction . This index measures how diverse each neighborhood is compare d to the diversity of the whole city. After a slight increase in values from 2000 to 2010, the Theil’s H Index value for racial segregation in Sunnyvale remained relatively stable with a minor decline between 2010 and 2019, suggesting that there is about the same level of neighborhood racial segregation within the jurisdiction. In 2019, the Theil’s H Index for racial segregation in Sunnyvale was near the average value for all Bay Area jurisdictions, indicating there is about the same neighborhood level racial segregation Attachment 2
in Sunnyvale as in the average Bay Area city. The Theil’s H Index values for neighborhood racial segregation in Sunnyvale for the years 2000, 2010, and 2019 can be found in Table 4-5. Figure 4-12 shows how Theil’s H index values for racial segregation in Sunnyvale compare to values in all other Bay Area jurisdictions in 2019.
Table 4-5: Theil’s H Index Values for Racial Segregation within Sunnyvale Race Sunnyvale Bay Area Average 2019 2000 2010 2019
Theil's H Multi-racial 0.052 0.057 0.056 0.054
Source: IPUMS National Historical Geographic Information System (NHGIS). Data for 2019 is from U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B03002. 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.
Figure 4-12: Theil’s H Index Values for Racial Segregation in Sunnyvale Compared to All Bay Area Jurisdictions (2019)
Source: IPUMS National Historical Geographic Information System (NHGIS). U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5- Year Data (2015-2019), Table B03002.
INCOME
Regional Income Segregation between Sunnyvale and Other Jurisdictions The “Household Characteristics” section of Chapter 3, “Housing Needs Assessment,” notes that Sunnyvale tends to have slightly higher incomes than regional averages. In addition, Figure 3-15 shows that Sunnyvale has more high- income households and fewer extremely low-income households compared to the county and region.
Although the percent of very low -income and low -income households increased and the percent of abo ve moderate-income households decreased in Sunnyvale from 2010 to 2015, Sunnyvale still had a lower percent of very low- and low-income households and a higher percent of moderate- and above moderate-income households than the Bay Area as a whole in 2015, as shown in Table 4-6. This trend of higher incomes in Sunnyvale compared to the region appears less prominent on Figure 4-13, which presents the spatial distribution of income groups in the southern portion of the Bay Area. However, the figure does indicate a higher number of very low- and low- income households in San Jose. In comparison to the entire Bay Area region, Figure 4-14 shows that Sunnyvale closely reflects the Bay Area median for very low -income and moderate -income households but has a lower Attachment 2
percentage of low-income households, ranking 75th out of 104 Bay Area jurisdictions, and a higher percent of above moderate-income households, ranking 39th.
Table 4-6: Population by Income Group, Sunnyvale and the Region Income Group
Sunnyvale Bay Area
2010 2015 2015
Very Low-Income (<50% AMI) 20.2% 23.1% 28.7%
Low-Income (50%-80% AMI) 8.3% 10.2% 14.3%
Moderate-Income (80%-120% AMI) 16.6% 17.8% 17.6%
Above Moderate-Income (>120% AMI) 54.9% 48.9% 39.4%
Source: Data for 2015 is from Housing U.S. Department of and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2011- 2015 Low- and Moderate-Income Summary Data. Data for 2010 is from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2006-2010 Low- and Moderate-Income Summary Data.
Figure 4-13: Income Dot Map of Sunnyvale and Surrounding Areas (2015)
Note: The plot shows the income group distribution at the census block group level for City of Sunnyvale and vicinity. Dots in each block group are randomly placed and should not be construed as actual placement of individuals.
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2011-2015 Low- and Moderate- Income Summary Data.
Attachment 2
Figure 4-14: Income Demographics of Sunnyvale Compared to All Bay Area Jurisdictions (2015)
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2011-2015 Low- and Moderate- Income Summary Data.
Dissimilarity and isolation indices are also used to measure income segregation between Sunnyvale and the region.
As shown in Table 4-7, very low-income and above moderate -income Bay Area households have higher isolation index scores than low -income and moderate -income households. This ind icates that very low -income and above moderate-income Bay Area households are more likely to live in jurisdictions with more households of the same income class than low -income or moderate-income Bay Area households. The dissimilarity index value indicates
19.3 percent of lower -income households would need to live in a different jurisdiction to create perfect income group integration in the Bay Area as a whole.
Table 4-7: Regional Income Segregation Measures, Bay Area, 2015 Index Group Value
Isolation Index Regional Level Very Low-Income (<50% AMI) 0.315 Low-Income (50%-80% AMI) 0.154
Moderate-Income (80%-120% AMI) 0.180
Above Moderate-Income (>120% AMI) 0.434
Dissimilarity Index Regional Level Below 80% AMI vs. Above 80% AMI 0.193 Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2011-2015 Low- and Moderate- Income Summary Data.
Attachment 2
Neighborhood Level Income Segregation within Sunnyvale
Figure 4-15 shows the 2015-2019 median household income by block group in Sunnyvale. The wealthiest areas of the City are located in the southern portion, in the Serra, Ortega, De Anza, Washington , and Ponderosa neighborhood planning areas. These areas all have White or Asian majorities. Only a handful of block groups in the northern portion of the City have median incomes greater than the 2021 Santa Clara County AMI of $151,300.
Some of these block groups are located in predominantly Hispanic census tra cts in the West Murphy and East Murphy neighborhood planning areas. A small proportion of block groups in the City have median incomes of less than $100,000. None of these are within predominantly White areas, three are within predominantly Hispanic areas, and the remaining four are within predominantly Asian areas.
Income isolation within Sunnyvale is similar to income isolation in the entire Bay Area region (see Figure 4-16).
Above moderate-income households are the most isolated income group in Sunnyval e and are slightly more isolated than the average Bay Area above moderate-income household. As shown in Table 4-8, Sunnyvale’s above moderate-income households became less segregated from other income groups between 2010 and 2015 .
However, all other income groups became more segregated during the same time period.
Table 4-8: Income Group Isolation Index Values for Segregation within Sunnyvale, 2010-2015 Income Group
Sunnyvale Bay Area Average
2010 2015 2015
Very Low-Income (<50% AMI) 0.233 0.267 0.269
Low-Income (50%-80% AMI) 0.103 0.127 0.145
Moderate-Income (80%-120% AMI) 0.183 0.204 0.183
Above Moderate-Income (>120% AMI) 0.576 0.536 0.507
Source: Data for 2015 is from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2011- 2015 Low- and Moderate-Income Summary Data. Data for 2010 is from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2006-2010 Low- and Moderate-Income Summary Data.
Attachment 2
Figure 4-15: Median Household Income by Block Group, Sunnyvale, 2015-2019
Source: Data downloaded from HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool in 2021, based on 2015-2019 American Community Survey data. *Note: There are no
residential units reported in
this area of Sunnyvale. Census
tract boundary includes
portions of San Jose.
Attachment 2
Figure 4-16: Income Group Isolation Index Values for Sunnyvale Compared to All Bay Area Jurisdictions (2015)
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2011-2015 Low- and Moderate- Income Summary Data.
Table 4-9 below provides the dissimilarity index values indicating the level of segregation in Sunnyvale betwee n residents who are lower -income (earning less than 80 percent of AMI) and those who are not lower -income (earning above 80 percent of AMI). Segregation in Sunnyvale between lower -income households and households who are not lower -income increased between 2010 and 2015. Additionally, Table 4-9 shows dissimilarity index values for the level of segregation in Sunnyvale between residents who are very low-income (earning less than 50 percent of AMI) and those who are above moderate income (earning above 120 percent of AMI). This index value indicates the extent to which a jurisdiction’s lowest and highest income households live in separate neighborhoods.
In 2015, the income segregation in Sunnyvale between lower-income households and other households was slightly higher than the average value for all Bay Area jurisdictions (see Table 4-9 and Figure 4-17). This means that the lower-income households are slightly more segregated from other households within Sunnyvale compared to other jurisdictions in the region and reflects the above average segregation of above moderate -income households in Sunnyvale, compared to the Bay Area region (see Figure 4-16).
Table 4-9: Income Group Dissimilarity Index Values for Segregation within Sunnyvale Income Group
Sunnyvale Bay Area Average
2010 2015 2015
Below 80% AMI vs. Above 80% AMI 0.215 0.237 0.198
Below 50% AMI vs. Above 120% AMI 0.248 0.300 0.253
Source: Data for 2015 is from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2011- 2015 Low- and Moderate-Income Summary Data. Data for 2010 is from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2006-2010 Low- and Moderate-Income Summary Data.
Attachment 2
Figure 4-17: Income Group Dissimilarity Index Values for Sunnyvale Compared to All Bay Area Jurisdictions (2015)
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2011-2015 Low- and Moderate- Income Summary Data.
Table 4-10 includes the Theil’s H Index values for n eighborhood income group segregation in Sunnyvale for 2010 and 2015. In 2015, the Theil’s H Index value for income segregation in Sunnyvale was more than it had been in 2010 and was higher than the average value for all Bay Area jurisdictions, indicating t here is now more neighborhood level income segregation in Sunnyvale than in the average Bay Area jurisdiction. This is also reflected in Figure 4- 18, which compares the Theil’s H index value for income group segregation in Sunnyvale to all other Bay Area jurisdictions.
Table 4-10: Theil’s H Index Values for Income Segregation within Sunnyvale Sunnyvale Bay Area Average
Income Group 2010 2015 2015
Theil's H Multi-income 0.041 0.055 0.043
Source: Data for 2015 is from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2011- 2015 Low- and Moderate-Income Summary Data. Data for 2010 is from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2006-2010 Low- and Moderate-Income Summary Data.
Attachment 2
Figure 4-18: Income Group Theil’s H Index Values for Sunnyvale Compared to All Bay Area Jurisdictions (2015)
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2011-2015 Low- and Moderate- Income Summary Data.
FAMILIAL STATUS
The Fair Housing Act (FHA) bans discrimination based on certain protected classes, including "familial status," which refers to the presence of at least one child under 18 years old. Under the FHA, familial status discrimination occurs when a landlord, property manager, real estate agent, or property owner treats someone differently because they have a family with one or more individuals who are under 18 years of age. A “family” also includes people who are pregnant and people who are in the process of securing le gal custody of a person under 18 years of age, including a family that is in the process of adopting a child, or foster parents. All families with children are protected by the FHA against familial status discrimination, including single-parent households and same-sex couples with children.
Rules that unreasonably restrict children or limit the ability of children to use their housing or the common facilities at the property may violate the FHA. Moreover, enforcing certain rules only against families with children may also violate the FHA. The following are the types of conduct that may violate the FHA:
▪ Refusing to rent, sell, or negotiate with a family because the family has one or more children under 18 years of age. ▪ Advertising a preference for households without children or otherwise discouraging such families. ▪ Telling an individual or family no unit is available even though a unit is in fact available. ▪ Forcing families into housing units that are larger than necessary. ▪ Designating certain floors or build ings for families with children, or encouraging families with children to reside in particular areas.
▪ Charging additional rent, security deposit, or fees because a household has children under 18 years of age.
This assessment examines the spatial distribut ion of households by familial status to determine the potential of familial status discrimination in the City. Figure 4-19 shows the percentage of children in married couple households, while Figure 4-20 shows the percentage of children in single female-headed households.
Attachment 2
Figure 4-19: Percent of Children in Married Couple Households, Sunnyvale, 2015-2019
Source: Data downloaded from HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool in 2021, based on 2015-2019 American Community Survey data. *Note: There are no
residential units reported in
this area of Sunnyvale. Census
tract boundary includes
portions of San Jose.
Attachment 2
Figure 4-20: Percent of Children in Female Headed Households, No Spouse Present, Sunnyvale, 2015-2019
Source: Data downloaded from HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool in 2021, based on 2015-2019 American Community Survey data. *Note: There are no
residential units reported in
this area of Sunnyvale. Census
tract boundary includes
portions of San Jose.
Attachment 2
Married Couple Families with Children
In 2019, married -couple f amily households represented 57 percent of households in Sunnyvale, the largest proportion of all households in Sunnyvale, which was the same as the percentage of married -couple households countywide (57 percent) and slightly higher than the Bay Area (51 percent) (see Figure 3-10). As shown in Figure 4- 19, generally over 60 percent of children live in married couple households except for one census tract in the West Murphy area, just north of the Central Expressway, where only 40 to 60 percent of children l ive in married couple households.
Female Headed Households, No Spouse Present
Single female heads -of-households have distinct housing needs, typically because they only have one potential wage earner and often have more difficulty finding adequate affordable housing than families with more than one source of income. As shown in Figure 3 -10, single female -headed households with dependents make up about 6 percent of all households in Sunnyvale, which is less than the percentage of female-headed households countywide and in the Bay Area (10 percent). As shown in Figure 4 -20, less than 20 percent of children throughout Sunnyvale live in single female-headed households. There are no census tracts within the City where more than 20 percent of children live in single female-headed households.
POPULATION WITH DISABILITIES
The U.S. Census Bureau defines disability as one of the following: hearing difficulty, vision difficulty, cognitive difficulty, ambulatory difficulty, self-care difficulty, and independent living d ifficulty. Persons with disabilities tend to have lower fixed -incomes, higher health care costs, and special ho using needs. As described in Chapter 3, 6.6 percent of people in Sunnyvale had a disability of some kind in 2019. This is slightly lower than the percentage in Santa Clara County and the Bay Area.
Figure 4-21 shows the population of persons with a disability by census tract in the City in 2014 and 2019. In 2014, only one census tract in Sunnyvale had a population of persons with disabilities over 10 percent. This census tract was in the Lakewood neighborhood planning area near the intersection of State Rou te 237 and Lawrence Expressway and includes several mobile home parks, generally more affordable for individuals on fixed incomes.
The proportion of persons with disabilities in this census tract decreased below 10 percent in 2019, but the proportion increased in two neighboring census tracts to the south and east. Mobile home parks changed from senior to mixed -age, and thereby, likely influenced t he change in areas with higher proportions of persons with disability. The census tract encompassing Lakewood Village, a single family neighborhood, and the census tract east of the Lawrence Expressway including the Adobe Wells mobile home park and adjacent single family neighborhood (also referred to as park of Lakewood Village, sometimes called Fairwood), include a high proportion of lower - income households (less than 80 percent of the AMI of $151,300). Additionally, the census tract between El Camino Real and Central Expressway, including Downtown Sunnyvale, has a population with disabilities of more than 10 percent. This census tract includes more households with moderate -incomes, is near transit, services, and employment centers, and has seen substantial new apartment growth in recent years.
Attachment 2
Figure 4-21: Population with a Disability, Sunnyvale, 2014 and 2019
Source: Data downloaded from HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool in 2021, based on 2010-2014 and 2015-2019 American Community Survey data. *Note: There are no
residential units reported in
this area of Sunnyvale. Census
tract boundary includes
portions of San Jose.
*Note: There are no
residential units reported in
this area of Sunnyvale. Census
tract boundary includes
portions of San Jose.
Attachment 2
As show n in Table 4 -11, White individuals in Sunnyvale are far more likely to have disabilities than are Asian individuals. It is likely that disparities in age (which is highly correlated with disability status) between White and Asian residents of Sunnyvale explains much of the disparity. The median age of Asian residents of Sunnyvale is 34.5 while the median age for white residents of Sunnyvale is 43.7.
Table 4-11: Disability Status by Race and Ethnicity, City of Sunnyvale Race or Ethnicity Total Population Number with a Disability Percent with a Disability Total Non-Institutionalized
Population
152,200 9,977 6.6%
White Alone, Not Hispanic
or Latino
46,601 4,638 10.0%
Black or African American
Alone*
2,413 126 5.2%
Asian Alone* 71,217 3,208 4.5%
Hispanic or Latino (of any
race)
25,043 1,507 6.0%
*As a result of how ACS Table S1810 disaggregates race and ethnicity data for persons disabilities, Black and Asian population are reflective of all persons who identify as Black or Asian alone, including those who also identify as Hispanic or Latino. In Sunnyvale, 5,983 individuals identify as both Asian and Hispanic or Latino. That is a very small proportion of the overall Asian population. It is possible that, if we could calculate disability status for the Asian Alone, Not Hispanic or Latino population, then that might vary slightly (most likely in the direction of a higher proportion of persons with disabilities) from what is reflected above.
Source: U.S. Census American Community Survey 5-year Data (2015-2019) Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Are as of Income
RACIALLY OR ETHNICALLY CONCENTRATED AREAS OF POVERTY
Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAP) are neighborhoods in which there are both racial concentrations and high poverty rates. HUD’s definition of a R/ECAP is:
▪ A census tract that has a non-White population of 50 percent or more (majority-minority) or, for non-urban areas, 20 percent, AND a poverty rate of 40 percent or more; OR ▪ A census tract that has a non-White population of 50 percent or more (majority-minority) AND the poverty rate is three times the average tract poverty rate for the county, whichever is lower.
Households within R/ECAP tracts frequently represent the most disadvantaged households within a community and often face a multitude of housing challenges. R/ECAPs are meant to identify where residents may have historically faced discrimination and continue to be challenge d by limited economic opportunity. Similar to most jurisdictions in northern Santa Clara County and the southern portion of the Bay Area, Sunnyvale does not contain any R/ECAPs.
The nearest R/ECAPs are located in San Jose (see Figure 4-22). However, the only census tract with a poverty rate over 10 percent in 2019 was predominantly Hispanic, just north of the Central Expressway between North Mathilda Avenue and Fair Oaks Avenue . In addition, the predominantly Hispanic census tract directly north of that census tract, south of U.S. Highway 101, also includes households with incomes below the statewide medi an income of $87,100. So, while there are no census tracts that meet the HUD definition of a R/ECAP, the areas of the City described above are both lower-income and have higher concentrations of Hispanic residents.
Attachment 2
Figure 4-22: Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAP), Region, 2009-2013
Source: Data downloaded from HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool in 2021, based on U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2009-2013.
Attachment 2
RACIALLY OR ETHNICALLY CONCENTRATED AREAS OF AFFLUENCE
Although HCD and HUD have not established standard definitions for Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAAs), they are generally understood to be neighborhoods in which there are both high concentrations of non -Hispanic White households and high household income ra tes. An analysis of median incomes and non - Hispanic White populations determined that none of the census tracts within Sunnyvale exceed 1.25 times the AMI for the ABAG region or 1.25 times the ABAG regional average population of non -Hispanic Whites. As suc h, it is determined that there are no RCAAs within Sunnyvale. However, the analysis identified RCAAs nearby in Mountain View, Los Altos, and San Jose.
Although there are no identified RCAAs in Sunnyvale, there are several areas of a ffluence. In 2019, 1.25 times the ABAG AMI was equal to $141,996 and 16 of Sunnyvale’s 29 census tracts were over 1.25 times the ABAG AMI. Eight of the census tracts of affluence had White majorities (although less than 1.25 times the White population percentage for the entire AB AG region) and the other eight census tracts have Asian majorities. The areas of affluence with White majorities included the Washington, De Anza, Serra, and Raynor neighborhood planning areas in the southern portion of the City.
Access to Opportunity
Across the nation, affordable housing has been disproportionately developed in minority neighborhoods with high poverty rates, thereby reinforcing the concentration of poverty and racial segregation in low opportunity and low resource areas.
OPPORTUNITY AREAS
HCD, in coordination with the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC), has developed methodologies to assess and measure geographic access to opportunity in areas throughout California. HCD and TCAC prepared opportunity m aps to identify areas wi th the highest and lowest resources. The opportunity map s created by HCD/TCAC identif y areas whose characteristics have been shown by research to support positive economic, educational, and health outcomes for low-income families—particularly long-term outcomes for children.
The primary function of TCAC is to oversee the Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) Program, which provides funding to developers of affordable rental housing. The opportunity maps play a critical role in shapin g the future distribution of affordable housing by targeting funding to increase access to high -opportunity areas for families with children.
Figure 4-23 shows the composite score of the TCAC Opportunity Areas in the Bay Area region. Sunnyvale has some of the areas with the highest resources in the region, but also has several moderate and low resource areas. Access to areas of high resource in Sunnyvale are comparable to those of other south Bay Area jurisdictions. Figure 4-24 shows that the census tracts in the southern area of Sunnyvale (including the Washington, De Anza, Serra, Ortega, Raynor, and part of the Ponderosa neighborhood planning areas) are classified as some of the highest resource areas with the most opportunity . Portions in the central and western portion of Sunnyvale, including parts of the Washington (i.e., Downtown), Ponderosa, and West Murphy neighborhood planning areas, are classified as high resource areas. Other areas in the northeast including the East M urphy and parts of the West Mu rphy and Lakewood neighborhood planning areas are classified as moderate resource. This includes several mobile home parks in the East Murphy neighborhood planning area.
Attachment 2
Lastly, the census tract north of State Route 237 is considered low resource. As described above, this census tract expands beyond the City boundary into the residential community of Alviso in San Jose and there are no residential units within Sunnyvale’s portion of the census tract. Demographic informat ion, including TCAC Opportunity measures, are largely influenced by the Alviso community, which has over 2,000 residents. Within Sunnyvale, this area includes the Moffett Park Specific Plan which is identified as a focused area of investment. Moffett Park is one of the City’s largest employm ent centers and is primarily owned by large tech firms and office developers, like Google, Lockheed Martin, and Jay Paul Company.
The City is currently working with landowners and developers of the area to prepare an update to the Moffett Park Specific Plan to guide transformation of the area into a n ecological innovation district that provides housing, jobs, and transportation – all to support the City’s sustainability and equity goals. So, while the area is currently classified as low resource, a substantial amount of future investment is planned for this area to improve infrastructure, climate resilience, transportation access, and housing opportunities. The Moffett Park Specific Plan will create complete neighborhoods with access to public amenities and a "15-Minute City” design that provides a mix of uses in a walkable environment . The Specific Plan is envisioned to provide neighborhood serving uses, including groceries, pharmacies, restaurants, childcare, and medical offices, as well as a community center and public library.
The Specific Plan will also address flooding and sea level rise through improved infrastructure . The City identifies this as a focused area of investment and anticipates that the redevelopment of this area and resulting population growth will likely result in changes to the current census tract boundaries and anticipates that the area will be classified in the future as a high resource area.
Attachment 2
Figure 4-23: TCAC Opportunity Areas, Composite Score, Region, 2022
Source: Data downloaded from the California State Treasurer in 2022.
Attachment 2
Figure 4-24: TCAC Opportunity Areas, Composite Score, Sunnyvale, 2022
Source: Data downloaded from the California State Treasurer in 2022. *Note: There are no
residential units reported in
this area of Sunnyvale. Census
tract boundary includes
portions of San Jose.
Attachment 2
Figure 4-25 shows the racial demographics within low resource/focuse d areas of investment, moderate resource, and high/highest resource areas. As of 2022, there are no residential units in Sunnyvale’s portion of the census tract north of Highway 237. However, according to 2015 -2019 ACS data, the total estimated population within Sunnyvale’s low resource areas (i.e., the cens us tract north of State Route 237, including the Moffett Park area) is 24 individuals. Of those 24 individuals, 15 are Hispanic or Latinx, making up 62 percent of the population in low resource areas, far higher than the Hispanic or Latinx proportion of th e City’s total population (16 percent). Since there are no residential units in Sunnyvale’s portion of this census tract, it is unclear what the ACS data is referring to and may be attributed to a sampli ng error. Both moderate resource areas and high/highe st resource areas in Sunnyvale more closely reflect the racial demographics of the total population (see Figure 3-3).
Figure 4-25: Racial Demographics of Population by Opportunity Area, Sunnyvale, 2019
Source: California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC)/California Housing and Community Development (HCD), Opportunity Maps (2020); U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B03002.
Educational Opportunity
Educational scores are determined based on elementary math and reading proficiency rates, high school graduation rates, and student poverty rates. Similar to the composite score, the best opportunities for positive educational outcomes are in the southern part of Sunnyvale, south of the Caltrain rail line (see Figure 4-26). North of the Caltrain rail line, the most western portions of the West Murphy neighborhood planning area and the census tract north of State Route 237 (i.e., Moffett Park) have scores higher than 0.50 indicating good access to positive education al outcomes. Conversely, the eastern portion of the West Murphy neighborhood planning area, the entire East Murphy neighborhood planning area, and the Lakewood planning area south of State Route 237 have scores of less than 0.5 indicating low access to positive educational outcomes. These areas also include most of the City’s census tracts with median household incomes below $100,000 , indicating that opportunities for positive educational outcomes for existing lower-income households is more limited in these areas of the City. 12%
42% 49%21%
25%
33%62%
27%
12%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Low Resource/Focused Area
of Investment (Total
Population 24)
Moderate Resource Area
(Total Population 47,100)
High/Highest Resource Area
(Total Population 105,970)
Percent of Population
American Indian or Alaska Native, Non-Hispanic Asian / API, Non-Hispanic Black or African American, Non-Hispanic White, Non-Hispanic Other Race or Multiple Races, Non-Hispanic Hispanic or Latinx Attachment 2
Figure 4-26: Education Score - TCAC Opportunity Areas, Sunnyvale, 2021
Source: Data downloaded from HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool in 2021. *Note: There are no
residential units reported in
this area of Sunnyvale. Census
tract boundary includes
portions of San Jose.
Attachment 2
Economic Opportunity
The HCD/TCAC opportunity maps provide census tract-level scores for the economic domain by analyzing poverty levels, adult education, employment rates, proximity to low-wage or low- to moderate-skill jobs, and median home values. Sunnyvale has many areas with economic domain s cores of greater than 0.75 indicating the most positive economic outcomes (see Figure 4 -27). Only two census tracts have economic domain scores of less than 0 .5, indicating lower access to opportunities for positive economic outcomes. Both areas are in the northern portion of the City, in the Lakewood neighborhood planning area. The census tract directly south of State Route 237, between Fair Oaks Avenue and the Lawrence Expressway, near Tasman Drive includes two large mobile home parks and has an economic score of 0.47. The second census tract includes the Moffett Park area north of State Route 23 7 and has an economic score of 0.42. As described previously, this census tract also expands beyond the City limits, has no residential units at the time of this analysis (2022), and is influenced by conditions in the residential community of Alviso in San Jose. Although the Moffett Park area provides a substantial amount of the City’s employment opportunities, these jobs tend to be high paying and require high skil l workers with college level or post graduate level educational requirements, making them unattainable for most low- to moderate-skill workers. This indicates a spatial labor market and job mismatch. In addition, both of these census tracts have lower median home values, due to the high number of mobile homes and influence of the Alviso community in San Jose.
Proximity to Jobs
HUD’s Job Proximity Index quantifies the accessibility of a given residential neighborhood to all jobs within a core - based statistical area. Index ratings (see Figure 4 -28) show the closest proximity to jobs in the norther n part of Sunnyvale, north of the Central Expressway, where there are more employment opportunities. The index scores generally decline for census tracts further to t he south. The southernmost census tracts also have a moderate proximity to jobs because of the proximity to jobs to the south in Cupertino. In comparison to the region, Sunnyvale generally has high overall job opportunity index scores, similar to other nea rby areas along U.S. Highway 101 in northern Santa Clara County. Although there are many j ob-rich areas nearby and in the larger Bay Area region, Sunnyvale still stands out as a place with higher access to jobs than many other places in the Bay Area region (see Figure 4-29).
Transportation Access
The Transportation Cost Index, developed by HUD, estimates the percentage of income that residents use to pay for transportation, measured at the census tract level on a 0 to 100 scale. The higher an index score, the lower the cost of transportation. Index scores can be influenced by factors such as acc ess to public transportation, housing density, and proximity of employment centers and other services. Similar to most south Bay Area jurisdictions, all of Sunnyvale has a very high index rating of over 90, meaning it has lower transportation costs than at least 90 percent of the nation (see Figure 4 -30). In comparison, the average score for California is 66, meaning Sunnyvale has lower costs than the statewide and nat ional average. Costs are lower because of Sunnyvale’s proximity to services and employment centers, public transportation, and higher housing densities.
Sunnyvale also has two Caltrain stations, one in Downtown, and the other in the Lawrence Station Area Plan, that provide regional rail service. Additionally, there are several light rail stations on the Valley Transit Authority (VTA) Orange Line in the City and several more just to the east of Sunnyvale. Many of the stops in Sunnyvale are located near employment centers, including the Moffett Park area. The Reamwood, Vienna, and Fair Oaks VTA l ight rail stations are located near residences and provide transit access to some of the City’s mobile home parks. The Sunnyvale Transit Center offers VTA bus connections throughout the City and is located across the street from the Downtown Caltrain station. The light rail services are also complemented by many additional VTA bus routes that traverse the City and provide additional local and regional connections.
Attachment 2
Figure 4-27: Economic Score - TCAC Opportunity Areas, Sunnyvale 2021
Source: Data downloaded from HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool in 2021. *Note: There are no
residential units reported in
this area of Sunnyvale. Census
tract boundary includes
portions of San Jose.
Attachment 2
Figure 4-28: Jobs Proximity Index, Sunnyvale, 2014-2017
Source: Data downloaded from HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool in 2021, based on U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2014-2017.
*Note: There are no
residential units reported in
this area of Sunnyvale. Census
tract boundary includes
portions of San Jose.
Attachment 2
Figure 4-29: Jobs Proximity Index, Region, 2014-2017
Source: Data downloaded from HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool in 2021, based on U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2014-2017.
Attachment 2
Figure 4-30: Transportation Cost Index, Region, 2020
Source: Data downloaded from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development in 2021.
Attachment 2
Providing access to affordable and reliable transportation allows people with disabilities a nd lower -income households more opportunities in education, employment, h ealthcare, and housing. Figure 4 -21 shows the population surrounding the Reamwood, Vienna, and Fair Oaks Stations area areas that have a higher percent of population with a disability.
Environmental Conditions
Across the country, l ower-income households and racially segregated communities are disproportionately impacted by a combination of locational factors such as proximity to landfills, freeways, industrial areas, and other toxins and pollutants. A 2016 report entitled “Poverty Concentration and the Low Income Housing Tax Credit:
Effects of Siting and Tenant Composition” studied whether nationally the LIHTC affects the concentration of poverty. The study examined who lives in LIHTC developments in different neighborhoods, and how neighborhoods and metropolitan areas change after LIHTC developments are built. The study concluded that the distribution of affordable housing has been disproportionately developed in minority neighborhoods with poor environmental conditions and high poverty rates, thereby reinf orcing poverty concentration and racial segregation in low opportunity and low resource areas.5 The links between health and housing strongly indicate that improved housing and neighborhood environments could lead to reductions in health disparities.
The TCAC/HCD opportunity map scores for the environmental domain are based on the exposure, pollution burden, and environmental effect indicators used in the California Office of Environm ental Health Hazard Assessment CalEnviroScreen 4.0 tool. Generally, much of Sunnyvale scored at 0.25 or less, indicating less positive environmental outcomes, similar to most jurisdictions in northern Santa Clara County. Several portions of northern Sunnyvale are affected by impaired (i.e., contaminated) waters and hazardous w aste at higher rates than most California jurisdictions. Some areas in the southern Sunnyvale, including portions of the Washington, De Anza, Serra, Ortega, and Ponderosa neighborhood planning areas have slightly higher environmental scores between 0.25 and 0.5 (see Figure 4 -31). These areas have better population health characteristics, including lower rates of asthma and cardiovascular disease and correlate with the areas developed for single family homes and areas of high income.
Sunnyvale faces flooding risks in a large portion of the City. Areas of flood risk are shown in Figure 4-32. The entire southern portion of the City, including the City’s wealthiest single family neighborhoo ds, is within the 500-year flood zone. In addition, portions of the Moffett Park area, proposed for future redevelopment, and some of the City’s mobile home parks in the Lakewood neighborhood planning area are within the 100-year flood zone.
The Moffett P ark Specific Plan area is identified as a focused area of investment. Adoption of t he Moffett Park Specific Plan , expected in early 2023, will result in infrastructure improvements to address stormwater runoff, flooding, and sea level rise. Additionally, the plan will establish more efficient land use patterns and is expected to include investments to transportation systems intended to reduce vehicle trips and greenhouse gas emissio ns.
These infrastructure improvements are anticipated to improve environmental scores in the Moffett Park area. 5 Ellen, I.G.; Horn, K.M.; O’Regan, K.M. 2016. Poverty concentration and the Low Income Housing Tax Credit: Effects of siting and tenant composition. Journal of Housing Economics 34 (2016) 49-59. Elsevier Inc. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhe.2016.08.001 Attachment 2
Figure 4-31: Environmental Score — TCAC Opportunity Areas, Sunnyvale, 2021
Source: Data downloaded from HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool in 2021. *Note: There are no
residential units reported in
this area of Sunnyvale. Census
tract boundary includes
portions of San Jose.
Attachment 2
Figure 4-32: Special Flood Hazard Areas, Sunnyvale, 2020
Source: Data downloaded from HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool in 2021, based on the Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2020.
Attachment 2
Disproportionate Housing Needs
An analysis of disproportionate housing needs identifies how access to the housing market differs for members of protected classes and whether such differences are related to or are the effects of discriminatory actions. For the disproportionate housing need analysis, a “housing problem” is defined as units having incomplete kitchen or plumbing facilities, more than one person per room, and households with cost burd ens greater than 30 percent (where costs include utilities, insurance, HOA fees, and property taxes). “Severe” housing problems include all of the above except that the cost burden is greater than 50 percent.
Generally, minority households are more likely to experience higher rent burdens, poor housing conditions, and an increased risk of displacement and/or homelessness. White, non-Hispanic households across the region and in each jurisdiction are the least likely to experience housing problems , while Blac k and Hispanic/Latino households experience housing problems at the highest rates.
COST BURDEN AND OVERPAYMENT
As previously described, overpayment or “housing cost burden” is defined as households paying m ore than 30 percent of their gross income on housing related expenses, including rent or mortgage payments and utilities.
Figure 4-33 shows the trends of overpayment for Sunnyvale renters between 2014 and 2019. In 2014, more than 40 percent of renters in s everal census tracts were overpaying . However, housing cost burden and overpayment for renters has generally declined in more recent years with all census tracts experiencing less than 40 percent of renters overpaying for housing in 2019. This change occurred throughout the City, including neighborhoods in south Sunnyvale (Washington, Ortega, and Raynor) as well as neighborhoods in the north (Lakewood, West Murphy, and East Murphy).
Similarly, Figure 4-34 shows overpayment trends for Sunnyvale homeowners between 2014 and 2019. There are more census tracts with homeowners overpaying for housing than with renters overpaying for housing and overpayment amongst homeowners has reduced in some areas and increased in others but has remained relatively stable since 2014. Three census tracts had more than 40 percent of homeowners overpaying for housing in 2019, including one census tract in the East Murphy neighborhood planning area, one census tract in the Ponderosa neighborhood planning area, and the census tract north of State Route 237 which is influenced by areas outside of the City. The census tract in the East Murphy neighborhood planning area, just north of E Duane Avenue is the only tract that experienced overpayment consistently between 2014 and 2019.
OVERCROWDING
Overcrowding of residential units, in which there is more than one person per room, can be a potential indicator that households are experiencing economic hardship and are struggling to afford housing. However, it can also reflect cultural differences, as some cultures are more likely to live in larger, multigenerational households. Overall, overcrowding occurs in Sunnyvale at a slightly higher rate, with 8.2 percent of households overcrowded, compared to the Bay Area as a whole, where 6.9 percent o f households are overcrowded. Figure 4-35 shows the percentage of overcrowded households in the City by census tract. All but one census tract in south Sunnyvale (south of El Camino Real) have rates of overcrowding less than or equal to the statewide average of 8.2 percent. However, more than half of the census tracts located north of El Camino Real experience rates of overcrowding higher than the statewide average, including two tracts that have between 15 and 20 percent of overcrowded households. One of t hese two tracts is predominantly Hispanic, located just south of U.S. Highway 101, between N Mathilda Ave and Fair Oaks Ave (see Figure 4-8).
Attachment 2
Figure 4-33: Percent of Renters Overpaying, Sunnyvale, 2014 and 2019
Source: Data downloaded from HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool in 2021, based on 2010-2014 and 2015-2019 American Community Survey data. *Note: There are no
residential units reported in
this area of Sunnyvale. Census
tract boundary includes
portions of San Jose.
*Note: There are no
residential units reported in
this area of Sunnyvale. Census
tract boundary includes
portions of San Jose.
Attachment 2
Figure 4-34: Percent of Homeowners Overpaying, Sunnyvale, 2014 and 2019
Source: Data downloaded from HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool in 2021, based on 2010-2014 and 2015-2019 American Community Survey data. *Note: There are no
residential units reported in
this area of Sunnyvale. Census
tract boundary includes
portions of San Jose.
*Note: There are no
residential units reported in
this area of Sunnyvale. Census
tract boundary includes
portions of San Jose.
Attachment 2
Figure 4-35: Overcrowded Households, Sunnyvale, 2020
Source: Data downloaded from HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool in 2021, based on California Health and Human Services, 2020. *Note: There are no
residential units reported in
this area of Sunnyvale. Census
tract boundary includes
portions of San Jose.
Attachment 2
As shown in Table 4 -12, H ispanic households have the highest rates of overcrowding, 21.1 percent, despite constituting less than 12 percent of overall households in Sunnyvale. Asian households similarly experience a high rate of overcrowding with one in te n households identified a s living in overcrowded conditions. These rates of overcrowding among Asian and Hispanic populations stands in stark contrast to the percentage of White households experiencing overcrowding (2.3 percent), given that White household s make up the second larg est population after Asians. Age likely plays some role in explaining racial and ethnic disparities in overcrowding between White, Hispanic, and Asian residents. Relatively younger adults, around the age of the median -age Asian and Hispanic households of S unnyvale, are more likely to have minor children in their households, which, in turn, increases the likelihood of overcrowding. These households are also more likely to live in multi -generational households which also contributes to overcrowded housing conditions.
Table 4-12: Occupants Per Room for Households by Race and Ethnicity, City of Sunnyvale Race or Ethnicity Total Households Percent of Households in Units with 1.00 or Fewer
Occupants Per Room
Percent of Households in
Units 1.01 or More
Occupants Per Room
Total Non-Institutionalized
Population
56,103 91.8% 8.2%
White Alone, Not Hispanic or Latino 21,256 97.7% 2.3%
Black or African American Alone 919 98.8% 1.2%
Asian Alone 25,710 89.8% 10.2%
Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 6,563 78.9% 21.1%
Source: U.S. Census American Community Survey 5-year Data (2015-2019) As with most disproportionate housing needs, renter households are more likely to experience overcrowded conditions. As shown in Table 4-13, renter households have starkly higher rates of severe overcrowding than owner- occupied households; they are 28 times more likely to be subjected to severe overcrowdin g than owner-occupied units. Although data regarding severe overcrowding by race and ethnicity is not available; in Sunnyvale, and the region, White and Asian households are relatively more likely to be homeowners while Black and Hispanic households are relatively more likely to be renters. Because the absolute number of Hispanic households living in overcrowded conditions is greater in com parison to other households, including Asian ones, and they tend to be renters, Hispanic households are most likely to live in severely overcrowded conditions than other racial or ethnic groups in Sunnyvale.
Table 4-13: Occupants Per Room for Households by Tenure, City of Sunnyvale Tenure Total Households Percent of Households in
Units with 1.50 or Fewer
Occupants Per Room
Percent of Households in
Units 1.51 or More
Occupants Per Room
Owner-Occupied 25,461 99.8% 0.2%
Renter-Occupied 30,642 94.3% 5.7%
Source: U.S. Census American Community Survey 5-year Data (2015-2019) Attachment 2
SUBSTANDARD HOUSING
High housing costs can often result in households, particularly renters, living in substandard conditions to afford housing. As is common throughout the region and the state, substandard housing conditions in Sunnyvale are more prevalent in renter households than in homeowner households. As reported in Chapter 3, “Housing Needs Assessment,” 1.9 percent of renters in Sunnyvale reported lacking a kitchen and 0.7 percent of renters lack plumbing, compared to 0.6 percent of owners who lack a kitchen and 0.6 percent of owners who lack plumbing.
Table 4-14 shows that, although very few households in the Sunnyvale and northern San Jose area reside in units that lack complete plumbing and/or kitchen facilities, to the extent that any group is more likely to live in housing lacking such facilities, Hispanic households lack such facilities at the highest rates. In addition, persons with disabilities may live in single-room occupancy buildings or congregate settings like board and care homes that may lack kitchens in individual units. Table 4-15 shows that persons with disabilities in the Sunnyvale and northern San Jose area are much more likely than people who do not have disabili ties to live in housing that lacks complete plumbing facilities and, to an even greater extent, complete kitchen facilities.
Table 4-14: Substandard Housing Conditions by Race and Ethnicity , Public Use Microdata Area – Santa Clara County (Northwest)—Sunnyvale & San Jose (North)
Race or Ethnicity Total Population Percent of Households in Units That Lack Complete
Plumbing Facilities
Percent of Households in
Units That Have Complete
Plumbing Facilities
White Alone* 61,209 1.4% 98.6%
Black or African American Alone 2,738 0.0% 100.0%
Asian Alone 74,070 0.1% 99.5%
Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 26,716 4.3% 95.7%
Race or Ethnicity Total Population Percent of Households in Units That Lack Complete
Kitchen Facilities
Percent of Households in
Units That Have Complete
Kitchen Facilities
White Alone* 61,209 0.6% 99.4%
Black or African American Alone 2,738 1.0% 99.0%
Asian Alone 74,070 0.5% 99.0%
Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 26,716 2.0% 98.0%
*White Alone population in this table is not disaggregated to exclude people who identify as both Hispanic or Latino and White.
Source: U.S. Census American Community Survey 5-year Data (2015-2019)
Attachment 2
Table 4 -15: Substandard Housing Conditions by Disability, Public Use Microdata Area – Santa Clara Co unty (Northwest)—Sunnyvale & San Jose (North)
Disability Status Total Population Percent of Households in Units That Lack Complete
Plumbing Facilities
Percent of Households in
Units That Have Complete
Plumbing Facilities
With a Disability 10,006 1.7% 98.3%
Without a Disability 148,774 1.0% 99.0%
Disability Status Total Population Percent of Households in Units That Lack Complete
Kitchen Facilities
Percent of Households in
Units That Have Complete
Kitchen Facilities
With a Disability 10,006 3.2% 96.8%
Without a Disability 148,774 0.9% 99.1%
Source: U.S. Census American Community Survey 5-year Data (2015-2019) In 2008, the City conducted a city -wide survey of housing conditions to assess the relative condition of housing throughout Sunnyvale. As part of the survey members of City staff drove around the community and recorded their observations. The survey rated housing stock conditions by recording the number of properties in each neighborhood with code violations pertaining to maintenance standards including vegetation, st orage, vehicles, structures, fences, and paving . Staff cited a total of 2 ,688 violations, with approximately 13 percent of properties with two or more code violations. Staff found poorer conditions in northern Sunnyvale, particularly in the Lakewood and East Murphy areas as well as West Murphy. The most cited violations were vegetation (30 percent), structures (24 percent), and garbage/trash cans (23 percent) . By community area , DeAnza had the highest number of violations (483 violations) followed by Lakewo od (434 violations) and West Murphy (340 violations). The Housing Element includes a program to re-establish a regularly occurring survey of housing and neighborhood conditions to identify and address building maintenance and quality of life issues in Sunnyvale. The Housing Element also includes a program to expand the Home Imp rovement Program to provide targeted assistance to low-income seniors for accessibility modifications, home repairs, and minor handyman services. This will include additional outreac h to residents throughout the city to reach homeowners in the Lakewood, East Murphy, West Murphy, and DeAnza neighborhoods.
HOMELESSNESS
The number of people experiencing homelessness has increased throughout the Bay Area region in recent years and was further exacerbated by the economic impacts of the coronavirus pandemic. As described in Chapter 3, the last homeless census and survey was conducted by the County in February 2022. The census found that Sunnyvale experienced a substantial growth in homeless population between 2017 and 2019 (147 percent) , but the number of people experiencing homelessness decreased from 2019 to 2022 (38 percent). The 2022 PIT Count estimated a total of 385 persons experiencing homelessness in Sunnyvale. Countywide, the homeless population grew a total of 3 percent from 9,706 persons in 2019 to 10,028 persons in 2020. For Santa Clara County, unhoused populations are greatest in San Jose, Gilroy, Mountain View, and the City of Santa Clara. Between 2019 and 2022, Campbell and Milpitas experienced the greatest growth in persons experiencing homelessness.
Although the rate of homelessness for White residents was proportionate to the total White population countywide, other races and/or ethnic groups experienced homelessness at disproportionate rates. Black residents made up almost 19 percent of the countywide homeless population, although Black residents only account for 2.5 percent of the total county population, and American Indian or Alaska Native residents made up 8 percent of the countywide homeless population, but only account for 0.5 percent of the total county population. Conversely, Asian Attachment 2
residents were underrepresented within the homeless population. Asian residents made up under 5 percent of the homeless population but account for almost 37 percent of the total county population (see Figure 3-26). Based on local knowledge from City staff, larger homeless encampments in Sunnyvale have developed relatively recently (i.e., within the last 5-10 years). Generally, people experiencing homelessness tend to be located in northern Sunnyvale (north of El Camino Real) , specifically near Lakewood, Fair Oaks, the Sunnyvale Public Library, and City Hall where they can more easily access services and public transportation. The main service providers for people experiencing homelessness in the city are in northern Sunnyvale, while south Sunnyvale is mostly single -family neighborhoods with fewer services available.
GENTRIFICATION AND RISK OF DISPLACEMENT
Gentrification is the process by which higher-income households move to lower-income neighborhoods, changing the essential character of that neighborhood. Gentrification is often associated with displacement, which occurs when housing costs or neighborhood conditions force people out and drive rents so high that lower-income people are excluded from moving in.
Renter occupancy and high rent burdens are the most common reasons for displacement to occur since renters may not be able to afford to stay in their homes as rents increase. Although, bo th home values and rents have increased dramatically across the Bay Area in recent years, rents in Sunnyvale have increased at a higher rate than countywide and in the region. As discussed in Chapter 3, m edian rents in Sunnyvale increased by over 80 percen t from 2009 to 2019, during the same timeframe rents increased by 39 percent county wide, and 54 percent in the region. Many renters have been priced out, evicted, or displaced, particularly communities of color. Residents finding themselves in one of these situations may have had to move out of the region, and now commute long distances to their jobs and schools. Low-income households are disproportionately at risk of displacement as rents increase and access to affordable housing decreases. When renters are displaced, there is a corresponding increase in the number of people experiencing homelessness.
The location affordability index, developed by HUD, measures standardized household housing and transportation cost estimates. As shown in Figure 4-36, the lo cation affordability index found that most of the City had median gross rents between $1,500 and $3,000 a month (based on 2012 -2016 ACS data). Southwestern Sunnyvale, including the De Anza and Serra neigh borhood planning areas, had some of the highest medi an gross rents, between $2,500 and $3,000. Lower median gross rents, between $1,500 - $2,000 tend to be near Downtown and the central portion of El Camino Real, in the Washington, De Anza, and Ortega neig hborhood planning areas; as well as near U.S. Highwa y 101, in the West Murphy and East Murphy neighborhood planning areas; and in the Moffett Park area of the Lakewood neighborhood planning area.
Displacement Risk
Figure 4-37 shows the communities in Sunnyvale that are sensitive to displacement. Sensitive communities include areas where a high proportion of residents may be vulnerable to displacement due to rising housing costs and market-based displacement pressures present in and/or near the community. I n total, 27 percent of census tracts in the state of California are identified as areas that are sensitive to displacement.
Attachment 2
Figure 4-36: Location Affordability Index, Sunnyvale, 2016
Source: Data downloaded from HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool in 2021, based on 2012-2016 American Community Survey data. *Note: There are no
residential units reported in
this area of Sunnyvale. Census
tract boundary includes
portions of San Jose.
Attachment 2
Figure 4-37: Neighborhoods at Risk of Displacement, Sunnyvale, 2017
Source: Data downloaded from HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool in 2021, based on UC Berkley Urban Displacement Project, 2017. *Note: There are no
residential units reported in
this area of Sunnyvale. Census
tract boundary includes
portions of San Jose.
Attachment 2
Communities were designated sensitive if they met the following criteria:
1. They currently have populations vulnerable to displacement in the event of increased redevelopment and drastic shifts in housing cost. Vulnerability is defined as:
▪ Share of very low-income residents is above 20 percent in 2017; and, ▪ The tract meets two of the following criteria:
▪ Share of renters is above 40 percent in 2017
▪ Share of people of color is above 50 percent in 2017
▪ Share of very low -income households that are severely rent burdened households is above the county median in 2017
2. They, or areas in close proximity, have been experiencing displacement pressures. Displacement pressure is defined as:
▪ A percent change in rent above the county median for rent increases between 2012 and 2017; or, ▪ A difference between census tract median rent and m edian rent for surrounding tracts above median for all tracts in the county (rent gap) in 2017
Based on this analysis, the areas within Sunnyvale that are sensitive to displacem ent include the Raynor neighborhood planning area in the southeast; most of the area between the El Camino Real corridor and the Caltrain rail line, including Downtown; and portions of the West Murphy, East Murphy, and Lakewood neighborhood planning areas in the northern portion of the City. These areas include the predominantly Hisp anic census tracts just south of U.S. Highway 101.
Other Relevant Factors
RATES OF HOMEOWNERSHIP
Homeownership is the largest asset of most households in the U.S. and, for many low-income households, provides an opportunity for future generations to attain homeownership by increasing the family’s wealth. One of the most prevalent consequences of residential segregation is the intergenerational inaccessibility of homeownershi p.
Homeownership is on the decline in Sunnyvale and is lower than in the county and the region. In 2019, only 45 percent of Sunnyvale residents owned their home, compared to 56 percent of Santa Clara County and Bay Area residents.
Figure 4-38 shows the distribution of renter households in Sunnyvale. The percentage of renters is higher i n the northern portion of the City than south of the El Camino Real corridor , corresponding with a higher prevalence of multifamily housing in the north and sin gle-family housing in the south. Census tracts with the lowest proportions of renter households and the highest homeowner rates, are in the southeastern portion of the City in the Serra and De Anza neighborhood planning areas. These areas also correlate wi th the predominantly White areas of the city (see Figure 4-8). Census tracts with the highest proportions of renter households and the lowest homeowner rates, are just north of El Camino Real in the Ponderosa neighborhood planning area and the most eastern portion of the Washington neighborhood planning area. In addition, homeo wnership rates are gene rally lower in the West Murphy and East Murphy neighborhood planning areas.
Attachment 2
Figure 4-38: Percent of Households in Renter-Occupied Units, Sunnyvale, 2016
Source: Data downloaded from HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool in 2021, based on 2012-2016 American Community Survey data. *Note: There are no
residential units reported in
this area of Sunnyvale. Census
tract boundary includes
portions of San Jose.
Attachment 2
Disparities in homeownership rates by race/ethnicity reflect historical federal, state, and local policies that limited access to homeownership for communities of color and the resulting generational wealth gap. In Sunnyvale, homeowner ship rates are lower amongst Black (22 percent), Hispanic or Latinx (29 percent), and American Indian or Alaska Native (32 percent) residents compared to Asian (43 percent) and White (52 percent) residents (see Figure 3 -12).
MORTGAGE LOAN ACCESS
Despite ef forts to reform long -standing practices of discrimination in the housing credit system, patterns of inequality still exist. The Great Recession and housing crisis brought to light the unusually high concentration of non-White residents with subprime mortgages and property foreclosures across the country. Subprime mortgages are a type of housing loan most often given to individuals that have weak credit history. Subprime mortgages carry higher interest rates, and are thereby more expensive, because there is a pre-determined higher risk of default.
The breakdown of subprime loans within the City is unavailable. However, f rom 2014 -2017, the number of subprime loans, or high -cost loans, in Santa Clara County was low across all racial/ethnic groups due to the extremely costly housing market (see Table 4-16). However, even at these low levels, the differences in racial/ethnic groups is apparent. In Santa Clara County, the Hispanic/Latino subprime rate, 4.79 percent, is nearly four times the rate of Asian subprime loans, 1.23 percent.
Table 4-16: Percentage of Originated Loans That Were High -Cost by Race or Ethnicity in Santa Clara County, 2014-2017
Race or Ethnicity Number of Loans Originated Percentage High-Cost White, Not Hispanic 62,431 1.80%
Black, Not Hispanic 1,689 3.37%
Asian, Not Hispanic 73,926 1.23%
Hispanic/Latino 14,275 4.79%
Source: Santa Clara County Assessment of Fair Housing Draft, 2020 (Home Mortgage Disclosure Act Data).
In 2018 and 2019 , of the 5,180 mortgage applications filed in Sunnyvale, 14 percent were denied . As shown in Figure 4-39, Asian/Pacific Islander applicants had the lowest denial rates (12 percent) and were the only race to have a lower denial rate than the Citywide rate. The denial rates within Sunnyvale for Hispanic or Latinx applicants (28 percent); Black or African American, non-Hispanic (25 percent) were significantly higher than for White applicants (17 percent), and all were above the Citywide denial rate. American Indian or Alaska Native, non-Hispanic applicants had the highest denial rate (38 percent), however only 8 applications total were submitted.
HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS
Housing choice vouchers can show patterns of concentration and integration to inform needed actions. Compared to the region, Sunnyvale has a relatively low percentage of housing choice vouchers. HUD’s 2020 fair housing data exchange showed that of the 56,120 housing units in the City, only 648 units, or 1.15 percent, were included in the housing choice voucher program. Within, Sunnyvale, the census tract with the highest percentage of renters using housing choice vouchers was 5.8 percent. This census tract is in the Ponderosa neighborhood planning area, just north of El Camino Real and west of S outh Wolfe Road , and includ es a number of older multifamily rental developments. In 12 other census tracts, less than 5 percent of renters use housing choice vouchers, and the remaining 16 census tracts have no data (see Figure 4-40).
Attachment 2
Participation in the housing choice voucher program in Sunnyvale is well distributed by race/ethnic group. As shown in Table 4-17, HUD’s 2020 fair housing data exchange shows that, in Sunnyvale, a higher proportion of program participants were White than in the northern Santa Clara County region. Appro ximately the same proportion of participants were Black or Asian/Pacific Islander as in the region. However, a substantially smaller proportion of participants in the City were Hispanic than in the region.
Table 4-17: Housing Choice Voucher Program Participants by Race/Ethnicity, 2020 Location
White, Non-Hispanic Black, Non-Hispanic Hispanic, All Races Asian or Pacific
Islander, Non-
Hispanic
# % # % # % # %
Sunnyvale 176 30.6% 69 12% 111 19.3% 213 37%
San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa
Clara Region
2,892 17.4% 2,099 12.7% 5,307 32% 6,168 37.2%
Source: HUD AFFH Database, 2020.
Figure 4-39: Determination of Mortgage Loan Applications by Race/Ethnicity
Source: Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council’s (FFIEC) Home Mortgage Disclosure Act loan/application register (LAR) files, 2018 and 2019.
6% 6%
38%
12%
25%
17%
28%
14%
12%
14%
14%
11%
13%
18%
11%
5%
8%
6%
50%
68%
44%
63%
45%
58%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
American Indian
or Alaska Native,
Non-Hispanic
Asian / API, Non-
Hispanic
Black or African
American, Non-
Hispanic
White, Non-
Hispanic
Hispanic or Latinx Unknown
Loan Applications
Application approved but not accepted Application denied Application withdrawn by applicant File closed for incompleteness Loan originated
Attachment 2
Figure 4-40: Use of Housing Choice Vouchers by Census Tract, Sunnyvale, 2021
Source: Data downloaded from HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool in 2021, based on HUD Housing Choice Voucher Program data, 2021. *Note: There are no
residential units reported in
this area of Sunnyvale. Census
tract boundary includes
portions of San Jose.
Attachment 2
LAND USE AND ZONING PRACTICES
Sunnyvale is a far different place than the agricultural land (fruit orchards, and flower, dairy, and other farms) it was just 80 years ago. During World War II, Santa Clara County shifted from agricultural production to high-tech industry. In 1930, Congress decided to place the West Coast airfield base in Sunnyvale. This naval airfield was later renamed Moffett Naval Air Station and then Moffett Federal Airfield and is commonly called Moffett Field. 6 As the tech and defense industry grew, a shortage of workers in the farm industry was created. Immigrants from Mexico came to Sunnyvale to fill this void of workers.7
Following the war, orchards and farms were cleared to build homes, factories , and offices. Two New Deal housing initiatives, the Homeowners Loan Corporation (HOLC, founded in 1933) and the Federal Housing Administration (FHA, founded in 1934), were created by the federal government to encourage homeownership and protect homeowners at risk of foreclosure during the Great Depression . In practice, these governme nt initiatives and systems of the real estate market only provided resources and protections for the White community. Through an overt practice of denying mortgages based upon race and ethnicity, the FHA played a significant ro le in the legalization and in stitutionalization of racism and segregation throughout the country , including in Sunnyvale.
Suburbanization throughout the state embedded fair housing issues into the fabric of land use and zoning practices today as many forms of housing discrimination fr om the implementation of blockbusting and redlining to discrimination against people of color, disabled groups, and members of the LGBTQ community. The pressures of real estate prices, urban renewal efforts, and aging housing stock, combined with a postwar expansion of new deed- restricted residential communities, created a significant housing gap between low -income and high -income residents. Joseph Eichler, a housing developer whose first housing subdivision was in Sunnyvale in the late 1940s, eventually built over 1,110 single -family homes in Sunnyvale. Eichler established a non-discrimination policy and offered homes for sale to anyone of any religion or race ; many other developers working in Sunnyvale did not share his perspective and recorded restrictive covenants to assist buyers in acquiring federally backed loans that primarily benefited White buyers.
Sunnyvale adopted its first General Plan in 1957 anticipating a primarily single -family housing stock. In 1962 an updated General Plan was adopted acknowledging the need for a greater range of house types and affordability. A comprehensive zoning ordinance was adopted in 1963 to implement the 1962 General Plan and more precisely establish the amount and distribution of l and allocated for different uses. Prior to 1960, the majority of the City’s land was used for industry (including farming and farming supportive industries such as canneries) and business, while the City’s future residential neighborhoods were largely in the southern part of the city (much of this land was annexed in the 1960s). By 2002, the few remaining orchards were removed and replaced with homes, shops, with numerous high-tech companies having established offices and headquarters in Sunnyvale.
In 1980, the City of Sunnyvale adopted an inclusionary housing ordinance requiring new housing development to make 10 percent of units affordable at below market rates (BMR) for developments of 10 or more units .
Developments with fewer than 20 units had the option of paying an in-lieu fee. Originally, the requirement did not apply to lower-density, single-family zoning districts, which w ere primarily being built in central south Sunnyvale (south of Central Expressway ). Although, it did apply to single-family developments built in R -2 zoning district s.
Generally, only small pockets of single-family neighborhoods were developed post-1980. Because most multifamily housing has been built in the northern part of Sunnyvale whe re the City has encouraged the redevelopment of industrial areas to housing, today the bulk of BMR units tend to be in northern Sunnyvale. South Sunnyvale had 6 https://www.nps.gov/places/u-s-naval-air-station-sunnyvale-california-historic-district.htm 7 https://sunnyvale.com/story/more-history-of-sunnyvale/395891 Attachment 2
already been zoned and almost fully developed with primarily lower density single-family housing, leaving few large parcels suitable to the development of multi -family housing. With fewer multi -family developments, fe wer BMR inclusionary units were developed in south Sunnyvale.
In 2003 the BMR requirement for rental units was increased to 15 percent and the for-sale unit requirement for BMRs units was increased to 12.5 percent; an in-lieu fee was enabled for fractional units; the time period for affordability was increased from 20 years to 30 years (for -sale) and 55 years (rental); and, provisions were included to allow a developer to apply for alternative compliance with the BMR requirement. To date, three developments have been approved for alternative compliance (an in-lieu fee was approved for all three requests, totaling about 12 low and low-medium density BMR for-sale units). In 2022 the for-sale unit BMR requirement was increased to 15 percent.
The BMR inclusionary requirement is critical for ensuring that lower-income housing continues to be developed in Sunnyvale, especially in higher resource areas in south Sunnyvale . The Housing Element inc ludes a program to create more opportunities for multifamily housing in areas of high resource, such as the southern Village Centers and other sites in south Sunnyvale. These rezoning efforts will encourage denser, mixed-income housing which will help to disperse affordable housing throughout the city and reduce historical patterns of segregation.
Public Investments
Since 2013, central and northern Sunnyvale (north of El Camino Real) has been a focal point for the City’s major capital improvement projects. As many areas of north Sunnyvale have transitioned from industrial to residential, the City has focused investment in these newly residential areas to ensure sufficient access to resources in all areas of the City. In total, nearly $100 million (or approximately 80 percent of capital im provement project funds) have been approved for projects in northern Sunnyvale. Much of the funding for capital improvement projects is generated through development impact fees such as Park Dedication In -lieu, Transportation Impact, and Sense of Place fee s. These projects have helped transform many of the formerly commercial and industrial areas to residential neighborhoods with access to high quality amenities. As northern Sunnyvale continues to add new housing during the 2023-2031 planning period, the Ci ty will continue to focus on improvements to ensure access to opportunity throughout Sunnyvale.
Parks and Recreation Improvements
The City takes pride in the availability of parks and public open spaces in its jurisdiction. Since 2013, more than $60 million has been used towards parks and recreation improvement projects throughout the City. Figure 4-41 shows parks and recreation capital improvement projects in the city categorized by TCAC Opportunity categorization.
About 58 percent of this funding went tow ards the City’s moderate resource areas in northern Sunnyvale. These projects include the creation of three new parks in moderate-resource areas, the 6.5-acre Muwékma Park, 4.3-acre Seven Seas Park, and the 0.8 -acre Wiser Park, which was a collaboration be tween the City and the developer as part of the 450-unit project called the Vale. Major renovations were also made to the existing Fair Oaks Park, which is also located in a moderate resource area. Projects in south Sunnyvale (i.e., south of the El Camino Real corridor), were primarily focused on improvements to existing facilities such as the Sunnyvale Community Center, Orchard Heritage Park, and Las Palmas Park.
Attachment 2
Figure 4-41: Parks and Recreation Investments by Opportunity Area, 2013-2023
Source: City of Sunnyvale, 2023.
Transportation Improvements
Figure 4-42 shows transportation and capital improvement projects in the city categorized by TCAC Opportunity categorization. Approximately $58 million has been approved for transportation and tr affic improvement projects since 2013. These projects include bicycle and pedestrian improvements as well as traffic signal upgrades. More than half of all funding for transportation improvements were also in low or moderate -resource areas, by TCAC Opportunity measures. These projects consisted of larger infrastructure projects, such as the Fair Oaks Bridge rehabilitation project, and smaller projects such as bike lanes, pedestrian improvements, and signal improvements that are designed to improve traffic safety for all community members.
For the 2023 -2031 planning period, northern Sunnyvale, particularly the Moffett Park Specific Plan area and Lawrence Station Plan area, will see increased investment in pedestrian, bike, and other traffic improvements. As these formerly industrial areas transition to residential use, revenue generated from Sense of Place and Transportation Impact fees will be critical in improving amenities in these areas. Not included in these totals are several major traffic improvement p rojects that wi ll help more safely connect northern and southern parts of Sunnyvale, including two grade separation projects along the Caltrain line at Mary Avenue and Sunnyvale Avenue. $35,245,721
$25,121,132
Moderate High/Highest
Attachment 2
Figure 4-42: Investments in Transportation Improvements by Opportunity Area, 2013-2023
Note: Some projects are located on the border of census tracts and may include areas with multiple opportunity scores. Additionally, some projects may include multiple improvements in different areas of the city, including areas south of the El Camino Real corridor.
Source: City of Sunnyvale, 2023.
Recent updates to specific plans such as Downtown Specific Plan, Lawrence Station Area Plan, and Moffett Park Specific Plan (planned adoption in summer 2023), are designed to transition formerly exclusively commercial and industrial areas to mixed-use (office, commercial and residential uses). As this transition continues during the 2023- 2031 planning period, new capital improvement projects will ensure access to amenities in northern and central Sunnyvale. As with prior capital improvement projects, many will be funded by revenue from development fees such as Park Dedication In -lieu, Sense of Place, and Transportation Impact fees. The Housing Element inc ludes Program H35 – Prioritize Capital Improvement Progra m to ensure the continued prioritization of public infrastructure projects in northern Sunnyvale, especially in areas of low and moderate resource.
LOCATION OF EXISTING PUBLICLY-SUPPORTED AFFORDABLE HOUSING The geographic distribution of existing publicly -supported affordable housing is an important factor in examining fair housing choice and patterns of segregation by income and race/ethnicity. Figure 4-43 and Table 4-18 show the location of existing affordable rental housing in Sunnyvale, as of 2022. This includes subsidized housing, below market rate units, and affordable rental units. Existing affordable housing is generally located in the central and northern portion s of the City, closer to the Do wntown and near transit services. Six subsidized housing developments are located south of El Camino Real , where access to opportunities tends to be higher and the proportion of non-White residents is lower.
$776,412
$33,653,510$13,381,844
$10,624,870
Low Moderate High/Highest Projects in more than one category Attachment 2
Table 4-18: Existing Affordable Rental Housing in Sunnyvale, 2022 Map Site Number Type Name Address
1 Subsidized Klee Senior Group Home 1230 Klee Court
2 Subsidized Wolfe Senior Group Home 1675 S. Wolfe Road 3 Subsidized Parkside Studios 495 North Wolfe Road
4 Subsidized Stoney Pine Villa 267 W California Street
5 Subsidized Pacific Plaza 785 Reseda Drive
6 Subsidized Lamar Group House 854 Gary Avenue
7 Subsidized Meadows Group Home 862 Hollenbeck Avenue
8 Subsidized Onizuka Crossing 620 East Maude Avenue
9 Subsidized Fair Oaks Plaza 660 S. Fair Oaks Avenue
10 Subsidized Garland Plaza 662 Garland Avenue
11 Subsidized Carroll Inn 174 Carroll Street
12 Subsidized Crescent Terrace 130 Crescent Avenue
13 Subsidized Morse Court 825 Morse Avenue
14 Subsidized Homestead Park/Moulton Plaza 1601 Tenaka Place 15 Subsidized Aster Park 1059 Reed Avenue
16 Below Market Rate Tamarind Square 1160 Morse Avenue
17 Subsidized Plaza de las Flores 233 Carroll Street
18 Subsidized Borregas Court 101 W. Weddell Drive
19 Below Market Rate Encinal Place 604 S. Fair Oaks Ave 20 Below Market Rate Lawrence Station Apartments 1271 Lawrence Station Road 21 Subsidized Orchard Gardens 245 W. Weddell Drive
22 Subsidized Eight Trees Apartments 183 Acalanes Drive 23 Subsidized Life’s Garden 450 Old San Francisco Road
24 Below Market Rate Villa Del Sol 355 E. Evelyn Avenue 25 Below Market Rate Magnolia Square 117 S. Mary Avenue 26 Below Market Rate Via 621 Tasman Drive
27 Below Market Rate Cherry Orchard 250 W. El Camino Real 28 Affordable Rental Unit Iron Works North 495 E. Evelyn Avenue 29 Affordable Rental Unit Iron Works South 394 E. Evelyn Avenue 30 Affordable Rental Unit 481 on Mathilda 481 N. Mathilda Avenue 31 Affordable Rental Unit 6 Ten East 610 E. Weddell Avenue 32 Affordable Rental Unit Encasa 520 E Weddell Drive
33 Subsidized Edwina Benner Plaza 460 Persian Drive
34 Below Market Rate The Flats 300 W. Washington Avenue 35 Below Market Rate Savoy 1120 Kifer Road
36 Below Market Rate Flats West 333 W. Iowa Avenue
37 Affordable Rental Unit Maxwell Apartments 490 W. McKinley Avenue 38 Affordable Rental Unit Redwood Place 959 Stewart Drive 39 Subsidized Murphy Station Apartments 1008 E. El Camino Real Source: City of Sunnyvale, 2023.
Attachment 2
Figure 4-43: Existing Affordable Rental Housing, Sunnyvale, 2022
Source: Data received from the City of Sunnyvale in 2022.
Attachment 2
4.3 Assessment of Sites Inventory and Fair Housing
State housing element law, Government Code Section 65583 (c)(10), r equires that the sites inventory (see Chapter 5) be analyzed with respect to AFFH to ensure that affordable housing is dispersed equitably throughout the City rather than concentrated in areas of high segregation and poverty or low resource areas that have historically been underserved. By comparing the sites inventory to the fair housing indicators in this assessment, this section analyzes whether the sites included in the Housing Element sites inventory improve or exacerbate fair housing conditions, patterns of segregation, and access to opportunity throughout the City.
SUMMARY OF SITES INVENTORY AND FAIR HOUSING
Sunnyvale was allocated a total of 11,966 new housing units to plan for during the 6th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) projection period. This RHNA includes 2,968 very low-, 1,709 low-, 2,032 moderate-, and 5,257 above moderate-income units. A full description of the City’s ability to meet the RHNA is provided in Chapter 5, Sites Inventory. Using data and research from the HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool 1.0, Table 4 -19 presents the housing unit capacity and existing conditions as they relate to indicators of fair housing analyzed in this assessment for each census tract in the city. Although this analysis is based on census tract geographies, neighborhood planning areas and specific plan areas are also included in the analysis. Please note that c ensus tract geographies do not align with neighborhood planning areas and specific plan areas. As a result, in most cases, census tracts include only a portion of a specific plan or neighborhood planning area.
As discussed in Chapter 5, m ost residential opportunity sites in Sunny vale are zoned for high density residential development. While most of the sites in the inventory meet the 30 unit-per-acre default density for lower-income housing, i t is anticipated that many of the higher density sites would provide units for moderate - and above moderate-income households in addition to low - or very low- income units. These are generally shown as “Mixed Income” sites in the maps below. With the current (2022) capacity for residential development, there is a deficit to meeting the RHNA. As shown in Table 5-19 of the Sites Inventory Chapter, the City has a shortfall of 1,535 units in the lower-income RHNA category and a shortfall of 3,2 80 units in the above moderate -income RHNA category.
Relative to all of the census tracts within the city, the inventoried capacity for new housing is highest in census tract 5046.02, which contains the entirety of the Moffett Park Specific Plan area (9,626 units, or 57 percent of the total housing capacity), followed by census tract 5087.08 of the East Murphy neighborhood where the Lawrence Station Area Plan is located (1,356 units or 8 percent of the total housing capacity) and census tract 5086.02 of the Washington neighborhood where a significant portion of the Downtown Specific Plan area is located (1,005 units or 6 percent of the total housing capacity). Figure 4-44 displays the housing capacity identified in the sites inventory relative to census tracts, neighborhood planning areas, and specific plan areas.
As described throughout this Housing Element, specific plans have proven to be successful for facilitating new infill housing development in t he city. The City has adopted several area and specific plans to incite development in a variety of districts throughout the city and there are a multitude of active planning and development projects that are underway. Most of the future housing development, as described in Chapter 5, “Sites Inventory and Funding Resources,” is anticipated to occur within specific plan areas, specifically the Downtown Speci fic Plan, Lawrence Station Area Plan, El Camino Real Specific Plan, Moffett Park Specific Plan, and Village Center Master Plan because these areas have the greatest capacity for higher density development.
Attachment 2
Figure 4-44: Housing Capacity by Census Tract and Neighborhood Planning Area, City of Sunnyvale, 2023-2031
Source: City of Sunnyvale and Ascent, 2023.
Attachment 2
Table 4-19: Distribution of Housing Capacity by Census Tract and Fair Housing Indicators, City of Sunnyvale, 2023-2031 Geography
Existing
Housing
Units Sites Inventory Capacity Integration and Segregation Indicators Access to Opportunity Disproportionate Housing Needs/Displacement Risk Census
Tract
Neighborhood
Planning Area
Specific Plan
Area
Lower
Income
Units
Moderate
Income
Units
Above
Moderate
Income
Units
Total
Capacity
Percent of
Total
Housing
Capacity
Population
Majority Median Income
Disability
Rate
TCAC
Opportunity
Designation
Jobs
Proximity
Index
Cal-
Enviroscreen
4.0 Score
Overcrowded
Households
Renter
Overpayment
Homeowner
Overpayment
Risk of
Displace-
ment
5046.02 Moffett Park Moffett Park
Specific Plan
0* 4,418 0 5,208 9,626 56.8% Hispanic* $87,100 - $100,000* < 10%* Low Resource/ Focused Area of
Investment
> 80 >60 - 70 ≤ 8.2%* 40% - 60%* 40% - 60%*
5048.02 Lakewood 1,748 0 0 0 0 0.0% Asian $100,000 - $149,000 10% - 20% Moderate > 80 >50 - 60 8.3% - 12% 40% - 60% 20% - 40% Y 5048.05 Lakewood 3,084 0 0 0 0 0.0% White $100,000 - $149,000 < 10% Moderate > 80 >40 - 50 8.3% - 12% 40% - 60% 20% - 40% 5048.06 Lakewood 819 0 77 0 77 0.5% Asian $100,000 - $149,000 10% - 20% Moderate > 80 >40 - 50 15% - 20% 40% - 60% 20% - 40% 5048.07 Lakewood 2,516 207 189 144 540 3.2% Asian $150,000 - $199,999 < 10% Moderate >80 >40 - 50 8.3% - 12% 20% - 40% 20% - 40% Y 5048.08 West Murphy Peery Park
Specific Plan
648 59 7 2 68 0.4% Asian $50,000 - $87,100 < 10% Moderate >80 >40 - 50 8.3% - 12% 20% - 40% 20% - 40% Y 5052.02 East Murphy Lawrence
Station Area
Plan
2,721 151 38 63 252 1.5% Hispanic $50,000 - $87,100 10% - 20% Low Resource/ Focused Area of
Investment
>80 >50 - 60 ≤ 8.2% 40% - 60% 20% - 40% Y
5078.05 Serra 2,200 0 0 0 0 0.0% Asian $100,000 - $149,000 < 10% Highest 60 - 80 >10 - 20 12% - 15% 40% - 60% 40% - 60% 5081.01 Ortega 2,366 0 0 0 0 0.0% Asian $150,000 - $199,999 < 10% Highest 60 - 80 >10 - 20 ≤ 8.2% 20% - 40% 20% - 40% 5082.03 Ortega 1,842 0 48 73 121 0.7% Asian $150,000 - $199,999 < 10% Highest 60 - 80 0-10 ≤ 8.2% < 20% < 20% 5082.04 Ortega 1,563 0 0 0 0 0.0% Asian $150,000 - $199,999 < 10% Highest 60 - 80 0-10 ≤ 8.2% 20% - 40% 20% - 40% 5082.05 Raynor El Camino Real
Specific Plan
1,498 0 64 0 64 0.4% White $150,000 - $199,999 < 10% Highest 40 - 60 >10 - 20 ≤ 8.2% 20% - 40% 20% - 40% Y 5082.06 Raynor 1,475 0 0 0 0 0.0% White $150,000 - $199,999 < 10% Highest 40 - 60 >10 - 20 ≤ 8.2% 20% - 40% 20% - 40% Y 5083.01 Serra 1,513 0 108 0 108 0.6% White > $200,000 < 10% Highest 40 - 60 0-10 ≤ 8.2% 20% - 40% 20% - 40% 5083.03 Serra 927 0 108 0 108 0.6% White $150,000 - $199,999 < 10% Highest 40 - 60 0-10 ≤ 8.2% 40% - 60% 20% - 40% 5083.05 Serra 2,000 0 6 0 6 0.0% Asian $100,000 - $149,000 < 10% Highest 60 - 80 >10 - 20 12% - 15% 40% - 60% 20% - 40% Y 5083.06 Serra 1,107 0 0 0 0 0.0% Asian $100,000 - $149,000 < 10% Highest 60 - 80 >10 - 20 12% - 15% 40% - 60% 20% - 40% Y 5084.01 De Anza El Camino Real
Specific Plan
2,487 245 145 102 492 2.9% White $150,000 - $199,999 < 10% Highest 40 - 60 >10 - 20 ≤ 8.2% 20% - 40% 20% - 40% 5084.03 De Anza 1036 14 91 0 105 0.6% White $150,000 - $199,999 < 10% Highest 40 - 60 0-10 ≤ 8.2% 40% - 60% 20% - 40% 5084.04 De Anza El Camino Real
Specific Plan
2,244 247 62 109 418 2.5% White $150,000 - $199,999 < 10% Highest 40 - 60 >10 - 20 ≤ 8.2% 20% - 40% 20% - 40% 5085.03 Ponderosa El Camino Real
Specific Plan
2,748 210 131 117 458 2.7% Asian $100,000 - $149,000 < 10% Highest 40 - 60 >10 - 20 ≤ 8.2% 20% - 40% < 20% 5085.05 Ponderosa 2,105 0 13 0 13 0.1% Asian $150,000 - $199,999 < 10% Highest 60 - 80 >20 - 30 ≤ 8.2% 20% - 40% 20% - 40% 5085.07 Ponderosa El Camino Real
Specific Plan
1,523 0 0 0 0 0.0% Asian $100,000 - $149,000 < 10% High 60 - 80 >10 - 20 ≤ 8.2% 40% - 60% 20% - 40% Y 5085.08 Ponderosa 2,039 0 0 0 0 0.0% Asian $100,000 - $149,000 < 10% High 60 - 80 >20 - 30 ≤ 8.2% 20% - 40% 20% - 40% Y 5085.09 Ponderosa El Camino Real
Specific Plan
2,074 165 59 68 292 1.7% Asian $100,000 - $149,000 < 10% High 60 - 80 >20 - 30 12% - 15% 20% - 40% 40% - 60% Y 5085.10 Ponderosa El Camino Real
Specific Plan
1,357 291 167 122 580 3.4% Asian $100,000 - $149,000 < 10% High 60 - 80 >20 - 30 12% - 15% 20% - 40% 40% - 60% Y 5086.01 Washington Downtown
Specific Plan
1,369 96 29 39 164 1.0% White $150,000 - $199,999 < 10% Highest 60 - 80 >30 - 40 ≤ 8.2% < 20% 20% - 40% Y 5086.02 Washington Downtown
Specific Plan
2,517 130 457 418 1,005 5.9% White $100,000 - $149,000 10% - 20% High 60 - 80 >10 - 20 8.3% - 12% 20% - 40% 20% - 40% Y 5087.05 Ponderosa 1,700 0 38 0 38 0.2% Asian $150,000 - $199,999 < 10% High >80 >30 - 40 ≤ 8.2% 20% - 40% 20% - 40% Y 5087.06 Ponderosa Lawrence
Station Area
Plan
1,604 74 211 310 595 3.5% Asian $150,000 - $199,999 < 10% High >80 >30 - 40 ≤ 8.2% 20% - 40% 20% - 40% Y Attachment 2
Geography
Existing
Housing
Units Sites Inventory Capacity Integration and Segregation Indicators Access to Opportunity Disproportionate Housing Needs/Displacement Risk Census
Tract
Neighborhood
Planning Area
Specific Plan
Area
Lower
Income
Units
Moderate
Income
Units
Above
Moderate
Income
Units
Total
Capacity
Percent of
Total
Housing
Capacity
Population
Majority Median Income
Disability
Rate
TCAC
Opportunity
Designation
Jobs
Proximity
Index
Cal-
Enviroscreen
4.0 Score
Overcrowded
Households
Renter
Overpayment
Homeowner
Overpayment
Risk of
Displace-
ment
5087.07 West Murphy Peery Park
Specific Plan
1,594 0 19 0 19 0.1% Asian $100,000 - $149,000 < 10% Moderate >80 >30 - 40 8.3% - 12% 20% - 40% 20% - 40% 5087.08 West Murphy Lawrence
Station Area
Plan
1,836 990 137 229 1,356 8.0% Asian $100,000 - $149,000 < 10% Moderate >80 >30 - 40 8.3% - 12% 20% - 40% 20% - 40% 5088 West Murphy Peery Park
Specific Plan
1,424 0 81 14 95 0.6% Hispanic $100,000 - $149,000 < 10% Moderate >80 >30 - 40 8.3% - 12% 20% - 40% 20% - 40% Y 5089 East Murphy 1,697 0 56 0 56 0.3% Hispanic $100,000 - $149,000 < 10% Moderate >80 >50 - 60 12% - 15% 20% - 40% 40% - 60% Y 5090.01 West Murphy Peery Park
Specific Plan
977 0 0 20 20 0.1% Hispanic $100,000 - $149,000 < 10% Moderate >80 >50 - 60 15% - 20% 40% - 60% 20% - 40% Y 5090.02 West Murphy 1,482 0 0 0 0 0.0% Hispanic $87,100 - $100,000 < 10% Moderate >80 >50 - 60 15% - 20% 40% - 60% 20% - 40% Y 5091.02 West Murphy Peery Park
Specific Plan
2,290 0 0 0 0 0.0% Asian $150,000 - $199,999 < 10% High >80 >20 - 30 ≤ 8.2% < 20% 20% - 40% 5091.06 Washington El Camino Real
Specific Plan
1,896 115 29 49 193 1.1% White $100,000 - $149,000 < 10% Highest 60 - 80 >10 - 20 ≤ 8.2% 20% - 40% < 20% Y 5091.07 Washington El Camino Real
Specific Plan
2,108 42 10 18 70 0.4% Asian $100,000 - $149,000 < 10% High 60 - 80 >30 - 40 8.3% - 12% 20% - 40% 20% - 40% Y * According to data from 2020 ACS Estimates, there are 603 existing housing units in census tract 5046.02. None of these units are within the City of Sunnyvale and have therefore been zeroed out for the purpose of this analysis. The demographic indicators included in the table for this census tract are based on the population of the Alviso neighborhood in San Jose, which is a significant distance from the Moffet Park Specific Plan Area.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2020), Table B25001. HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool 1.0, 2021. Adapted by City of Sunnyvale and Ascent, 2023.
Attachment 2
The Moffett Park Specific Plan update, anticipated for adoption in 2023, will provide a full buildout capacity of up to 20,000 new residential units by 2040 and has been incorporated into the sites inventory to address the City’s housing needs shortfall. As such, the anticipated capacity in the Moffett Park Specific Plan is included in this AFFH analysis. For further description of the Moffett Park Specific Plan update, refer to Chapter 5 (Sites Inventory) and the Strategy to meet RHNA Shortfall discussion. As described in the Introduction of this chapter, Moffett Par k is located in a census tract (5046.02) that extends beyond the city’s limits and into the City of San Jose. The portion of the census tract that is within the city does not currently have any existing residential units so the demographic data from this analysis is not indicative of conditions in this portion of Sunnyvale. Moffett Park is one of the City’s largest employment centers and is the newest area in the city planned for transition from industrial to residential in the city’s long history of indust rial-to-residential conversions. For context, the land area of the Moffett Park Specific Plan (1,275 acres) is nearly nine times the size of the Downtown Sunnyvale Specific Plan Area (150 acres) and more than five times the size of the Lawrence Station Area Specific Plan (230 acres). The Housing Element sites inventory counts a total of 9,626 housing units in Moffett Park during the planning period, including 4,418 lower - income and 5,280 above moderate-income units, which is less than half of the full buildout of the Specific Plan. This corresponds with the timeline of the Moffett Park Specific Plan, which was adopted in July 2023 and plans for full buildout by 2040. The City relies on Moffett Park to meet approximately 33 percent of the lower-income RHNA and 62 percent of the above moderate-income RHNA.
Currently, the land in Moffett Park is predominately being utilized for industrial and office uses with a few commercial and hotel sites; however, with the update to the Moffett Park Specific Plan (adopted in July 2023), the area is anticipated to transform into an amenity-rich area that will allow high density residential development mixed with commercial and office uses, connected by open space trails and pedestrian and bike facilities. Additionally, as noted in Chapte r 3 (Housing Needs Assessment), the Moffett Park area is one of the City’s largest employment centers and is expected to continue to add employment opportunities with the implementation of the Moffett Park Specific Plan. By increasing housing capacity in this jobs-rich area, new residents will have greater access to nearby employment opportunities and reduce vehicle miles traveled.
The Housing Element relies on Moffett Park to accommodate the shortfall of 1,535 lower-income and 3,280 above moderate-income units, which is equal to approximately 33 percent of the lower-income RHNA and 62 percent of the above moderate-income RHNA. According to data from the HCD AFFH Data Viewer 1.0, the Moffett Park Specific Plan area (census tract 5046.02) has a predominant Hispanic population and median incomes are slightly higher than the state median income ranging between $87,100 and $100,000. However, as established, this is not deemed to be indicative of the conditions of the area within city limits. The tract is also des ignated as “Low Resource” by the TCAC/HCD opportunity mapping methodology mostly because of conditions outside the Specific Plan boundary .
Through implementation of the Specific Plan, Moffett Park will achieve the vision of an ecological innovation district that will serve as a model community addressing resilience, climate protection, and equity. The Specific Plan is built around the concept of “complete neighborhoods” that provide commercial, housing, employment, parks and open space, active transportation, and social gathering. As the area develops, Moffett Park will be a high amenity area with great access to opportunity.
Figure 4-45 displays the number of existing housing units in Sunnyvale by neighborhood planning area, as reported by the 2020 ACS. Again, please note that neighborhood planning areas and specific plan areas do not align with census tract boundaries , so in some cases census data is approximate . As shown, the Ponderosa (15,150 units), West Murphy (8,415 units), and Lakewood (8 ,167 units) neighborhoods have the highest number of existing housing units in the city while the Housing Element inventories the greatest capacity in the Moffett Park (9,626 units), Ponderosa (1,976 units), and East Murphy (1,664 units) neighborhoods. While there is an obvious concentration of Attachment 2
new housing inventoried in the Moffett Park Specific Plan area, this figure show s that the capacity counted in Moffett Park aligns with the general size of other established neighborhoods in the city.
If built out at the assumed income levels, this could add to the concentration of lower-income units in the northern portion of Sunnyvale. In response, the Housing Element includes a program to increase allowed densities in other areas of the city (i.e., in the southern Village Centers and other sites south of El Camino Real) to expand the capacity for lower -income housing sites throughout the city and particularly in southern Sunnyvale ’s high resource neighborhoods. The Village Centers refer to several existing retail centers throughout the city designated for higher density mixed use commercial development. Based on the currently allowed densities, these Village Centers are inventoried as moderate-income sites; however, once implement ed, Program H3 in the Housing Plan, C hapter 2, would allow Village Centers sites and new southern Sunnyvale sites to be added to the lower-income sites inventory, which will reduce reliance on Moffett Park to meet the lower-income RHNA.
Figure 4-45: Existing Housing Units vs. Total Housing Capacity by Neighborhood Planning Area, Sunnyvale
*According to data from 2020 ACS Estimates, there are 603 existing housing units in census tract 5046.02. None of these units are within the City of Sunnyvale and have therefore been zeroed out for the purpose of this analysis.
Source: City of Sunnyvale, Ascent, 2023. Existing housing units based on 2020 ACS 5Y Estimates, Table B25001.
The Housing Element also identifies 1,976 units in the Ponderosa neighborhood planning area, which accounts for 12 percent of the total capacity identified to meet the RHNA. Ponderosa encompasses the eastern segment of the El Camino Real Specific Plan area with one census tract (5087.06) in the Lawrence Station Area Plan (595 units). As shown in Table 4 -19, the Ponderosa neighb orhood planning area is a high/highest resource area with good proximity to employment opportunities. Households i ncomes in Ponderosa range between $100,000 and $199,999.
Approximately 740 units (slightly less than 40 percent of the capacity in this neighborhood) are identified for lower- income housing. The addition of more affordable housing in this area provides the opportunity to ease the risk of displacement from changing rents in other areas of the city.
The El Camino Real Specific Plan focuses on inc reasing residential development opportunities along the El Camino Real corridor, which connects the city from east to west. While the Plan is intended to preserve important commercial 15,150
8,415 8,167 7,890 7,747
6,254 5,771 5,767
2,973
0*
1,976
202 617 1,432
222
1,664
121 1,015
64 9,626
0 2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
18,000
Ponderosa West
Murphy
Lakewood Washington Serra East
Murphy
Ortega Deanza Raynor Moffett
Park
Existing Housing Units by Neighborhood Total Capacity in Housing Element by Neighborhood Attachment 2
uses, the designations permit ting residential and mixed use development are primarily located in nodes at key intersections with transit access along the corridor. These nodes are envisioned as high-density mixed-use, pedestrian- oriented, transit supported neighborhoods. In addition to the Ponderosa neighborhood, the El Camino Real Specific Plan area also overlaps with the Washington, De Anza, and Raynor neighborhood planning areas. Sites along the El Camino Real corridor have an overall capacity for 1,204 lower -income units, 367 moderate-income units, and 502 above moderate-income units and land use controls would allow a variety of housing types to be built for a range of income levels.
The Downtown Specific Plan area is entirely located within the Washington neighborhood planning area . As previously mentioned, a portion of the El Camino Real Specific Plan is also within Washington. There are over 7,800 existing housing units in this neighborhood planning area . According to census data, t he neighborhood is predominantly White households and the median household income is in the range of $100,000 to $149,000.
Between 10 and 20 percent of the population in this tract ha s a disability of some sort. It is designated as a high resource area with close proximity to educational and employment opportunities. Through the Downtown Specific Plan, originally adopted in 1993 and then comprehensively updated in 2003, the City has been working to enhance this area from a downtown shopping mall and a large shopping center to a vibrant mixed use environment with places for people to live, work, and visit. The Housing Element inventory includes 1,432 units in th e Washington neighborhood planning area within approved projects or on available sites , including 383 lower-income units (27 percent), 525 moderate income units ( 36 percent), and 524 above moderate-income units ( 37 percent).
Approximately 1,111 units are from the remaining capacity in the Downtown Specific Plan. The inventory includes several projects that have already been approved including the mixed use development on Taaffe Street, which will result in two 12 -story residential buildings with 479 units and retail use (in the central portion of the Downtown Specific Plan, Block 18), and the Cityline redevelopment project of an existing parking lot (the northeast portion of Downtown Specific Plan Block 18) to a seven story mixed use building wit h 325 dwelling units and 36,000 square feet of retail. Both projects include a portion of deed restricted lower income units . Throughout the Housing Element period, the City will continue its efforts t o support more affordable housin g on commercial and former industrial parcels. For example, in September 2023, the City acquired 295 S. Mathilda Ave, the site of the former Wells Fargo Bank on the southern portion of Block 16. In late 2023 the City is in an exclusive negotiating agreement with MidPen Housing to develop the site as a 100 percent affordable housing development. The Housing Element inventories capacity for 52 lower-income units, 14 moderate-income units, and 20 above moderate-income units; however, the site could be developed with 100 percent affordable housing, providing significantly more lower - income units than what is included in the Housing Element inventory.
The following sections provide a more in -depth look at how the sites invent ory will impact several of the key fair housing indicators.
POTENTIAL EFFECTS ON PATTERNS OF SEGREGATION
Figures 4-44 and 4-45 shows the distribution and location of sites identified in the City’s housing element sites inventory in relation to median income by census tract and Figure 4-46 48 shows the location of sites in relation to the predominant race or ethnicity of each census tract. As previously discussed, the City is moderately segregated with Asian Sunnyvale residents being more isolated than other population groups. Most of the City is predominantly non-Hispanic White or predominantly Asian/Pacific Islander. A small portion in the northern part of the City (within the West Murphy neighborhood) is predominantly Hispanic and no ar ea of the City has a Blac k predominance.
There are no racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty or racially or ethnically concentrated areas of affluence within Sunnyvale. Only one census tract has poverty levels o f over 10 percent. This census tract is also located in the West Murphy neighborhood and has a slim predominance in Hispanic population. Affluent Attachment 2
neighborhoods include both predominantly White and predominantly Asian areas in the southern portions of the City. As described previously, there are only a few block groups in the City with median incomes of less than $100,000 in the Lakewood, West Murphy, and Ponderosa neighborhoods . These areas are also some of the most diverse neighborhoods in the city. They include the few predominantly Hispanic census tracts in t he city . The remainder of the city is either predominantly Asian or White.
As shown in Figure 4 -44 46 and Table 4-2018 below, nearly 40 percent of the total capacity identified in the sites inventory (6,511 units) is located in areas with median incomes from $100,00 to $200,000. This includes 3,842 units (22.7 percent) in census tracts with median incomes from $100,000 to $150,000 and 2,690 units (15.9 percent) in neighborhoods $150,000 to $200,000. To support housing mobility for moderate-income households and provide more workforce housing, m ost of the capacity identified in these areas are inventoried towards the moderate- income RHNA including 927 moderate -income units in census tracts with median incomes from $100,000 to $150,000 (40.6 percent of the moderate-income capacity) and 1,038 moderate-income units in neighborhoods with median incomes between $150,000 to $200,000 (45.5 percent of the moderate -income capacity). More than a third of the total lower-income capacity, 2,783 units, is also identified in the same census tracts. This demonstrates that the sites inventory creates opportunities to integrate a mixture of incomes with new development. However, some of the highest income are as (greater than $200,000) are in south Sunnyvale , which is made up o f mostly single-family neighborhoods with minimal developable vacant land . Housing opportunity sites are more limited in this area of the City. To remedy this, the Housing Element includes Program H3, which will expand housing opportunity in south Sunnyval e, as well as other programs that will help expand “missing middle” housing types and increase ADU production.
As described above, t he estimated residential capacity in the Draft Moffett Park Specific Plan accounts for 57 percent of the housing capacity in the sites inventory , including 4,418 lower-income units and 5,208 above moderate-income units. The census tract in which Moffett Park is located has a median income in the range of $87,000 to $100,000, which is low for the region. However, there are no households that currently reside in this area within the City of Sunnyvale. As described in the Introduction, this census tract spans far outside of the city limits into an area of San Jose that is not directly connected in any way to the Moffett Park area . As such, the demographic data shown in this area of the City is influenced by conditions outside of the City and does not reflect existing conditions in the City’s portion of the census tract. This is noted in Table 4 -18 and Figure 4 -44 46 below.
The addition of 5,208 above moderate-income units (72.8 percent of the capacity for above moderate-income sites identified in the Housing Element inventory) in this area has a greater likelihood to change the demographic trends in the census tract by increasing med ian incomes. While the inventoried capacity for 4,418 lower-income housing units in the Moffett Park Specific Plan area is important for ensuring a mixed-income neighborhood, it also has the potential to add to an overconcentration of lower-income units in northern Sunnyvale. As explained above, Program H3 was added to the Housing Element to increase lower -income housing opportunities in south ern Sunnyvale, to balance the distribution of lower-income opportunities throughout the city. In addition, the Housing Element aims to increase the diversity of the housing stock in single-family neighborhoods by expanding “missing middle” housing opportunities.
Attachment 2
Table 4-1820: Sites Inventory Income Distribution by Median Income of Census Tract, Sunnyvale Median Income Lower-Income Moderate-
Income
Above Moderate
-Income
Total
<$87k 210 2.8% 45 2.0% 65 0.9% 320 1.9%
$87k-$100k* 4,418 59.2% 6 0.3% 5,208 72.8% 9,632 57.0%
$100k-$150k 1,963 26.3% 927 40.6% 952 13.3% 3,842 22.7% $150-$200k 820 11.0% 1,038 45.5% 832 11.6% 2,690 15.9%
>$200k 0 0.0% 253 11.1% 73 1.0% 326 1.9%
No Data 58 0.8% 14 0.6% 24 0.3% 96 0.6%
Total 7,469 100.0% 2,283 100.0% 7,154 100.0% 16,906 100.0% * Data shown is influenced by conditions outside of the City and does not reflect existing conditions in the City’s portion of the census tract. Refer to the text for more information on the Moffett Park Specific Plan Area.
Source: Ascent, 2023.
Figure 4-4446: Sites Inventory Income Distribution by Median Income of Census Tract, Sunnyvale Source: Ascent, 2023.
0.0%
11.0%
26.3%
59.2%
2.8%
0.8%
11.1%
45.5%
40.6%
0.3% 2.0%
0.6%
1.0%
11.6%
13.3%
72.8%
0.9%
0.3%
1.9%
15.9%
22.7%
57.0%
1.9% 0.6%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
>$200k $150-$200k $100k-$150k $87k-$100k <$87k No Data
Percent of Total Lower-Income Capacity Percent of Total Moderate-Income Capacity Percent of Total Above Moderate-Income Capacity Percent of Total Housing Capacity *Note: The large percentage of housing
capacity in the $87,000-$100,000 income
range is reflective of the Moffett Park
Specific Plan Capacity. However, the data
is influenced by conditions outside of the
City and does not reflect existing
conditions in the City’s portion of the
census tract. Refer to the text for more
information on the Moffett Park Specific
Plan Area.
Attachment 2
Figure 4-4547: Sites Inventory and Median Income, Sunnyvale
Source: Data downloaded from HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool in 2021, adapted by Ascent, 2022. *Note: There are no
residential units reported in
this area of Sunnyvale. Census
tract boundary includes
portions of San Jose.
Attachment 2
Figure 4-4648: Sites Inventory and Predominant Race, Sunnyvale
Source: Adapted by Ascent in 2022 from data downloaded from HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool in 2021. *Note: There are no
residential units reported in
this area of Sunnyvale. Census
tract boundary includes
portions of San Jose.
Attachment 2
POTENTIAL EFFECTS ON ACCESS TO OPPORTUNITY
As shown in Figure s 4-24 through 4-31, the southern portion of the City has more high resource areas than the northern portion of the City. Approximately 49 percent of the City’s land area is highest/high resource, 25 percent is moderate resource, and 26 percent is low resource. There are no areas of high segregation and poverty identified in Sunnyvale. Figure 4-47 49 displays the percentage of the capacity for all sites by income level in the sites inventory within the various TCAC opportunity areas and Figure 4-48 50 shows the location of projects and sites in relation to the opportunity areas. As shown in Table 4-19 21 and Figure 4-4749, 28.6 percent of the total capacity for housing identified in the sites inventory is within areas of high or highest resource (4,830 units), including:
▪ 21.6 percent of lower-income unit capacity (1,615 units), ▪ 77.5 percent of moderate-income unit capacity (476 units), and ▪ 20.2 percent of above moderate-income unit capacity (1,446 units).
Figure 4-4749: Sites Inventory Income Distribution by TCAC Resource Area, Sunnyvale
Source: Ascent, 2023.
This distribution includes 2,073 units in high and highest resource areas within the El Camino Real Specific Plan area, 224 units in the Downtown Specific Plan area, as well as capacity in Lawrence Station (122 units) and the Village Centers located south of El Camino Real and some sites located outside of plan areas (963 units).
In total, only 13 percent of the housing element sites inventory capacity is within the City’s moderate resource areas (2,198 units), including:
▪ 17.2 percent of the lower-income capacity (1,285 units), ▪ 20.8 percent of the moderate-income capacity (476 units), and ▪ 6.1 percent of the above moderate-income capacity (437 units).
21.6%
17.2%
61.2%
77.5%
20.8%
1.7%
20.2%
6.1%
73.7%
28.6%
13.0%
58.4%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
High/Highest Resource Areas Moderate Resource Areas Low Resource Areas / Focused Area of Investment
Percent of Total Lower-Income Capacity Percent of Total Moderate-Income Capacity Percent of Total Above Moderate-Income Capacity Percent of Total Housing Capacity Attachment 2
Figure 4-4850: Sites Inventory and 2022 TCAC/HCD Opportunity Areas, Sunnyvale
Source: Adapted by Ascent in 2022 from data downloaded from the California State Treasurer in 2022. *Note: There are no
residential units reported in
this area of Sunnyvale. Census
tract boundary includes
portions of San Jose.
Attachment 2
The reason for this distribution is that most moderate resource areas such as the West Murphy and Lakewood neighborhood pla nning areas are already largely built out with single family neighborhoods and several mobile home parks. The deve lopment of accessory dwelling units or other units produced through Senate Bill 9 could increase housing opportunities in these developed areas.
Lastly, approximately 58.4 percent, or 9,878 units, of the City’s housing capacity is within areas of low resource/focused areas of investment. This is largely driven by the increased capacity made available through the Lawrence Station Area Plan and t he Moffett Park Specific Plan area, which are both categorized as low resource due to socioeconomic conditions of the greater census tract. However, these conditions are not representative of the conditions within city limits. These two plan areas were ori ginally developed for industrial and research & development uses and are now being updated to facilitate the produ ction of more housing in the city . Both plans support higher density residential near employment opportunities, open space, and multimodal tra nsportation infrastructure which is crucial to the City, as it supports community health and access to opportunity.
There are several strategies in the Lawrence Station Area Plan and Moffett Park Specific Plan that, when implemented, will transform the areas into areas of high opportunity. In Lawrence Station, this includes improving connectivity for bicycles and pedestrians to promote more environmentally sustainable travel options and improve access to Lawrence Caltrain Station to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, help minimize exposure to pollution in surrounding communities, and improve environmental indicators for residents. In Moffett Park, strategies include:
▪ Setting a target of 20,000 housing units mixed throughout Moffett Park in to distinct neighborhoods and mixed-use activity centers.
▪ Placing housing in proximity to employment opportunities and multimodal inf rastructure, including complete streets that provide connected paths for biking, walking, and frequent transit service. ▪ Creating a convenient and accessible open space network with universally accessible routes fr om all residential buildings to a neighborhood serving park within a half-mile walk. ▪ Prioritizing healthy food access through requiring commercial spaces large enough for grocery stores. ▪ Establishing allowances and incentives for public facilities, such as childcare and schools. ▪ Supporting the cle an-up of environmental hazard sites and locating new housing away from regional highways.
▪ Encouraging a greater level of green building and ecological-friendly development. ▪ Creating standards that build resilience into the infrastructure of Moffett Park an d protect against future hazards.
In addition to the policies included in the Moffett Park Specific Plan and Lawrence Station Area Plan, t he Housing Element includes additional policies and programs to direct future investments to these low resource areas to continue improving amenities, diversify ing the housing stock, and ensur ing housing at all income levels is built concurrent with planned investments. The sites included in this Housing Element in areas that are currently (2023) classified as "low resou rce" can expect to have high access to opportunity upon implementation of the Lawrence Station Area Plan and Moffett Park Specific Plan.
Attachment 2
Table 4-1921: Sites Inventory Income Distribution by TCAC Resource Area, Sunnyvale Lower-Income Moderate-Income Above Moderate -
Income
Total
High/Highest Resource 1,615 21.6% 1,769 77.5% 1,446 20.2% 4,830 28.6% Moderate Resource 1,285 17.2% 476 20.8% 437 6.1% 2,198 13.0% Low Resource / Focused
Areas of Investment
4,569 61.2% 38 1.7% 5,271 73.7% 9,878 58.4%
Total 7,469 100.0% 2,283 100.0% 7,154 100.0% 16,906 100.0% Source: Ascent, 2023.
POTENTIAL EFFECTS ON DISPROPORTIONATE HOUSING NEEDS
As discussed previously, renters are disproportionately affected by housing needs including overpayment, overcrowding, and displa cement risk. By increasing the supply of housing throughout t he city, future housing opportunities identified in the sites inventory have the potential to ease disproportionate housing needs and risk of displacement, as there will be more housing options a vailable for a variety of income levels. The Urban Displacement Project , a joint research and action initiative of the University of California, Berkeley, and the University of Toronto, analyzes income patterns and housing availability to determine the level of displacement risk at the census -tract level. Sensitivity to displacement is defined as areas in which the share of very low -income residents is above 20 percent, and the tract meets at least two of the following criteria:
▪ Share of renters is above 40 percent
▪ Share of people of color is above 50 percent
▪ Share of very low-income households that are severely rent burdened is above the county median, or ▪ They, or areas in close proximity, have been experiencing displacement pressures.
The Urban Displacement Project defines displacement pressures as a pe rcentage change in rent greater than the county median for rent increases. Using these metrics, several census tracts of the City are sensitive to or at risk of displacement. The City’s sensitive areas inc lude the Raynor neighborhood planning area in the s outheast; most of the area between the El Camino Real corridor and the Caltrain rail line, including Downtown; and portions of the West Murphy, East Murphy, and Lakewood neighborhood planning areas in the northern portion of the City. Using the methodology from Chapter 5, these displacement-sensitive neighborhoods have capacity for 3,753 new housing units (or 22 percent of the total inventory) , including the Downtown Specific Plan area , portions of the El Camino Real Specific Plan , and Lawrence Station Area Plan (see Table 4 -2022). As shown in Figure 4 -4951, this includes 17.6 percent of the above moderate -income capacity (1,259 units), 56.8 percent of moderate -income capacity (1,296 units), and 16.0 percent of lower-income capacity (1,198 units).
Attachment 2
Figure 4-4951: Sites Inventory Capacity by Income Distribution and Displacement Risk, Sunnyvale
Source: Ascent, 2023.
Figure 4-50 52 shows that the areas that are at risk of displacement, due to changing market conditions, are in and near Downtown and along the northern side of El Camino Real. The Housing Element includes capacity for approximately 2,073 units in the El Camino Real Specific Plan area including 1,204 lower -income units, 367 moderate-income units, and 502 above moderate-income units. More than 1,000 units of housing capacity in the El Camino Real Specific Plan area is on sites within census tracts that are at risk of displacement. Prior to the 2022 adoption of the El Camino Re al Specific Plan, these sites were zoned for commercial use only and had no existing residential uses. The recent rezoning of these sites to mixed use designation allows the City to expand residential capacity in an area that is at risk of displacement without placing existing residents at direct risk of displacement.
Since there is minimal undeveloped land in this area, providing a significant number of new lower-income units will have the greatest potential to protect vulnerable residents from being displaced under changing market pressures.
The Housing Element also includes capacity for 224 units in the Downtown Specific Plan area, including 126 lower- income units, 48 moderate-income units, and 50 above moderate-income units. Similar to the El Camino Specific Plan area, the Downtown Specific Plan area was found to be at a large risk of displacement but will include capacity for housing at a mix of household incomes with the majority being lower -income units which will assist in the mitigation of displacement risk. Also, like the El Camino Real Specific Plan area, the Downtown Specific Plan adds new housing capacity to an area that was previously zoned for commercial use and does not place existing residents at direct risk of displacement.
The Lawrence Station Area Plan will also h elp to alleviate displacement pressures in the city and could potentially provide mitigation for displacement in adjacent Santa Clara neighborhoods. About 374 units of the sites identified in Lawrence S tation are located in areas at risk of displacement in cluding 225 lower -income units, 56 moderate income units, and 93 above moderate -income units. In total, the Housing Element includes capacity for an additional 1,102 new lower income units in the plan area whi ch will provide more lower -income housing options for residents who may be at risk of displacement in the nearby Ponderosa neighborhood planning area.
16.0%
84.0%
56.8%
43.2%
17.6%
82.4%
22.2%
77.8%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
Vulnerable to Displacement Not at Risk
Percent of Total Lower-Income Capacity
Percent of Total Moderate-Income
Capacity
Percent of Total Above Moderate-Income
Capacity
Percent of Total Housing Capacity
Attachment 2
Figure 4-5052: Sites Inventory and Risk of Displacement, Sunnyvale
Source: Adapted by Ascent in 2022 from data downloaded from the HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool in 2021, based on UC Berkley Urban Displacement Project, 2017.
*Note: There are no
residential units reported in
this area of Sunnyvale. Census
tract boundary includes
portions of San Jose.
Attachment 2
As rents continue to rise in the region, displacement risk increases when a household is paying more for housing than their income can support. In Sunnyvale, overpayment is not ne cessarily linked to areas with lower median incomes. Rapidly incre asing housing costs in Sunnyvale, and throughout the Bay Area, create a high risk of displacement for lower -income households in the city . Future areas of development in the city including t he Downtown Specific Plan area, the El Camino Real Specific Plan, and the Lawrence Station Area Plan are planned to facilitate mixed-income communities, including lower-income households, with amenities and community benefits.
The City has included several programs in the Housing Element to protect vulnerable residents from displacement, including mobile home preservation, foreclosure prevention, right to lease, and affordable housing financing prioritization in areas at risk of gentrification. Refer to Tab le 4 -21 for a summary of programs to address disproportionate housing needs, including risk of displacement. As noted above, there are very few sites within the inventory with existing residential uses, with the exception of a few parcels with single -family homes. Refer to Chapter 5, Sites Inventory, for f urther details. Implementation of the Housing Element and the development of inventoried sites for new housing is not anticipated to directly displace any existing residents.
Table 4-2022: Sites Inventory Capacity by Income Distribution and Displacement Risk, Sunnyvale Lower-Income Moderate-Income Above Moderate -
Income
Total
Vulnerable to
Displacement
1,198 16.0% 1,296 56.8% 1,259 17.6% 3,753 22.2%
Not at Risk 6,271 84.0% 987 43.2% 5,895 82.4% 13,153 77.8% Total 7,469 100.0% 2,283 100.0% 7,154 100.0% 16,906 100.0% Source: Ascent, 2023.
Attachment 2
4.4 Summary of Fair Housing Issues, Contributing Factors, and Actions
Sunnyvale has a higher non-White population than most other Bay Area jurisdictions and White residents tend to be less segregated in Sunnyvale than in the Bay Area as a whole. This trend is largely driven by the high proportion of Asian residents within Sunnyvale. Sunnyvale is also an affluent City, with many areas of wealth concentrated in the southern portion of the City. Areas of wealth occur equally in both predominantly White and predominantly Asian areas. However, the City’s only area with 10 percent of the population below the poverty rate is predominantly Hispanic.
Disparities in access to opportunity also exist within the City. The wealthier predominant White and predominant Asian populations in the southern portion of the City have higher access to opportunity than the northern portion of the City, which includes lower median household incomes, some areas with predominant Hispanic populations, lower rates of homeownership, and a higher occurrence of mobile home parks . However, implementation of specific plans in the northern portion of the City are anticipated to result in more amenities, service s, and opportunities within these areas of the city in the near future.
Disproportionate housing needs resulting in overcrow ding and risk of displacement also impact residents in northern Sunnyvale at disproportionate rates. Lower-income predominantly Hispanic areas in the West Murphy neighborhood planning area, near Fair Oaks Avenue and U.S. Highway 101 have rates of overcrowding higher than the statewide average. In addition, this area is identified as at risk of displacement.
Pursuant to Government Code Section 65583 (c)(10)(A)(v), the Housing Element includes several policies and programs to proactively address fair housing issues and replace segregated living patterns with integrated and balanced communities. Table 4-21 23 summarizes the fair housing issues, contributing factors, and implementation programs included in the Housing Element to affirmatively further fair housing in Sunnyvale.
Attachment 2
Table 4-2123: Fair Housing Issues, Contributing Factors, and Meaningful Actions Assessment of Fair
Housing Identified
Issue
Contributing Factors Meaningful Actions, Objectives, and Timeframes Patterns of
segregation based
on race and income
(High Priority)
Past zoning and land use practices
separated single family homes from
industrial development supporting
the development of wealthier
neighborhoods in the southern
portion of the City. Recent adoption
of specific plans and other zoning
changes to transition industrial to
residential have resulted in more
multifamily housing in the northern
portion of the City in areas of
moderate or low resource.
The Housing Element includes the following programs to
increase affordable housing opportunities in high
resource areas:
H3. Increase Affordable Housing Opportunities in High
Resource Areas.
▪ Objective/Timeframe: Create at least 750 lower-
income units of additional capacity for high density
residential by increasing the allowed density in the
Village Centers to 30 units per acre and designating
additional non-residential sites in southern
Sunnyvale as residential with a minimum allowed
density of 30 units per acre
H4. Accessory Dwelling Units.
▪ Objective/Timeframe: Promote tools and resources
to homeowners throughout the city to increase
production of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and
dual urban opportunity housing (DUOs) to promote
mixed-income neighborhoods in areas of high and
highest resource. Target the production of at least 80
ADUs/DUOs annually and a total of 640 ADUs and/or
DUOs during the planning period.
H5. Below Market Rate (BMR) Housing Program.
▪ Objective/Timeframe: Continue to implement the
BMR Program citywide to ensure affordable housing is
built at the same rate of market rate housing
production. Target the production of 1,250 very low-,
1,250 low-, and 500 moderate-income units. Conduct
a feasibility study to analyze potential increases in the BMR requirement for affordable housing by July 2024.
H6. Affordable Housing Development Assistance.
▪ Objective/Timeframe: Provide technical assistance
for the development of 2,500 new deed-restricted
lower-income units. Target production of 500 lower-
income units in high resource areas.
H7. Local Funding Assistance for Affordable Housing
▪ Objective/Timeframe: Provide $60 million in local
and federal housing funding throughout the planning
period for the development of 2,500 lower-income
units. Target production of 500 lower-income units in
high resource areas. Evaluate progress in 2027 to
determine if additional actions are needed to
achieve funding target.
H8. New Funding Mechanisms and Partnerships for
Affordable Housing
▪ Objective/Timeframe: Implement new funding
mechanisms to support the development of 2,500
lower-income units by 2024 and continuously develop
Attachment 2
Assessment of Fair
Housing Identified
Issue
Contributing Factors Meaningful Actions, Objectives, and Timeframes relationships with partner agencies to leverage
additional funding, securing over $100 million for new
very-low and low income units by 2027.
H9. First-Time Home Buyer Programs.
Objective/Timeframe: Continue to implement the First-
Time Home Buyer Program and seek new funding
opportunities for an additional loan program for
workforce-income households. Aim to assist 5-10 low
to moderate income homebuyers per year, or as
demand warrants.
H10. Housing Choice Voucher Rental Assistance
▪ Objective/Timeframe: Provide outreach and
education to tenants and landlords/property
management regarding fair housing laws and the
Housing Choice Voucher program. Aim to increase
Housing Choice Voucher usage in highest or high
resource areas by 5 percent.
H17. El Camino Real Specific Plan Commercial
Requirement
▪ Objective/Timeframe: Remove constraints to 100%
affordable housing developments in high resource
areas along El Camino Real to facilitate a minimum of
two 100% affordable developments, while still
preserving critical resident serving, revenue
generating economic land uses in this mixed income
corridor. Continue to require inclusionary units
within market rate developments as well.
H21. Missing Middle Housing
Objective/Timeframe: Remove constraints and add
incentives to the development of smaller, cost-
effective housing options that are affordable for
workforce-income households in higher opportunity
neighborhoods. Target production of 50 new missing
middle units.
Disparities in access
to opportunities in
areas of
moderate/low
resource
(Medium Priority)
Historic lack of investments in low
and moderate resource
neighborhoods, specifically in the
northern portion of the City where
most mobile home parks are located.
Currently (2022), these areas have
lower economic opportunity and less
proficient schools, according to TCAC.
Compared to southern
neighborhoods, the northern
neighborhoods currently have fewer
amenities for residential
development because large areas
were built as industrial and research
and development parks. These areas
The City will adopt and implement the Moffett Park
Specific Plan to promote redevelopment and create
complete neighborhoods with access to public amenities, good jobs, open space, and a healthy and safe
environment.
In addition, the Housing Element includes the following program to increase investments in low and moderate
resource areas:
H39. Prioritize Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
▪ Objective/Timeframe: As part of the annual CIP
development process, prioritize funding for
neighborhood improvements, including walking and
biking infrastructure, transit service, parks, trails,
streetscape, and community amenities. Continue
Attachment 2
Assessment of Fair
Housing Identified
Issue
Contributing Factors Meaningful Actions, Objectives, and Timeframes are currently the focus of increased
investment, specifically in areas with
adopted or pending specific plans.
prioritizing public infrastructure and grant funding for projects in northern Sunnyvale, especially as population growth occurs. Open a new library, and additional City
park facilities by 2029, and collaborate with the local school districts on future school sites by 2031.
H40. Prioritize ADA and Pedestrian Infrastructure
▪ Objective/Timeframe: Prioritize construction and
maintenance of ADA curb ramps, sidewalks, and
other bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure in low
and moderate resource neighborhoods to improve
ADA accessibility and pedestrian safety and increase
access to opportunity in these areas. Construct 100
new ADA curb ramps within low and moderate
resource areas by 2025.
Disproportionate
housing needs
including risk of
displacement
(High Priority)
Rapidly increasing housing costs in
Sunnyvale, and throughout the Bay
Area, create a high risk of
displacement for lower-income
households, including residents of
the City’s many mobile home parks.
The Housing Element includes the following programs to
address disproportionate housing needs throughout the
city including displacement risk and homelessness:
H11. Home Improvement Program
▪ Objective/Timeframe: Expand program to assist 20-
35 homeowners per year with home improvements
to help prevent displacement of at-risk households.
Conduct no less than one workshop annually starting
in 2023, targeting neighborhoods with the greatest
need for housing rehabilitation.
H14. Mobile Home Park Preservation
▪ Objective/Timeframe: Continue to implement
current mobile home park protections, including the
Sunnyvale Mobile Home Park Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU), and maintain mobile home
park zoning. Maintain an MOU compliance
committee to annually enforce rent regulations and
provide resident assistance. Preservation of 3,862
mobile homes. Provide resident assistance on an
ongoing basis.
H15. Foreclosure Prevention Resources
▪ Objective/Timeframe: Provide continuous
information about available foreclosure counseling
services, warnings about foreclosure-related scams,
and available legal resources on the City’s website.
Provide materials in multiple languages and work
with community-based organizations to distribute
materials to residents most at-risk of foreclosure.
Provide foreclosure assistance to 10 homeowners.
H26. Renter’s Choice Ordinance
▪ Objective/Timeframe: Evaluate and consider
establishing an ordinance to provide alternatives to
traditional security deposit by 2026.
Attachment 2
Assessment of Fair
Housing Identified
Issue
Contributing Factors Meaningful Actions, Objectives, and Timeframes H27. Right-to-Lease Ordinance
▪ Objective/Timeframe: Provide ongoing education to
landlords and tenants about the Right to Lease
ordinance by which requires that landlords offer
renters a lease specifying a minimum one-year lease
term prior to any other term lengths.
H28. Relocation Assistance Ordinance
▪ Objective/Timeframe: Educate landlords and tenants
about the Rental Relocation Assistance ordinance
which requires landlords to provide financial
assistance to tenants who are being displaced from
rental units due to no-fault just cause factors.
H29. Emergency Rental Assistance Program
▪ Objective/Timeframe: Secure funding for emergency
rental assistance for 25 lower-income households
per year.
H30. Funding for Accessibility Improvements
▪ Objective/Timeframe: Ensure lower-income
residents can afford repairs on limited or fixed
incomes and ensure neighborhoods remain ADA
compliant. Serve up to 10 households per year.
H32. Programs to Address Homelessness
▪ Objective/Timeframe: Provide annual funding for
homeless programs and at-risk households to serve
at least 150 households per year. Implement new
rental assistance program for seniors experiencing
homelessness.
H33. Capital Projects to Address Homelessness
▪ Objective/Timeframe: Work with owners of hotels
or aging lower-density multifamily developments to
apply for Homekey (or similar) funding to create
housing for people experiencing homelessness.
Identify at least one new Homekey site in 2024 and
provide City funding in partnership with County
funds to support the creation of a total of 200 units
serving tenants experiencing homelessness.
H34. Safe RV Parking
▪ Objective/Timeframe: Support the establishment of
a safe RV parking program and identify at least one
potential site by 2025.
H38. Neighborhood Conditions Survey
▪ Objective/Timeframe: Re-establish a regularly
occurring survey of housing and neighborhood
conditions. Conduct a survey every 5 years, beginning in 2025, to preserve and improve neighborhood quality.
Source: Ascent, 2022.
Attachment 2
CHAPTER 5 Sites Inventory and Funding Resources
5.1 Regional Housing Needs
The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) determines state -wide projected housing needs and allocates new housing unit target s to regional council of governments (COGs ). Targets are set for an eight and a half-year projection period (June 30, 2022 through December 15, 2030), which differs from the Housing Element planning period (January 31, 2023 through January 31, 2031). The pr ojection period is the timeframe for which the regional housing need is calculated, whereas the planning period dictates the housing element adoption date and the timeframe for the housing element policies and programs.
For Sunnyvale, the COG is the Assoc iation of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). The regional housing needs determination (RHND) for the ABAG region for the 2022-2030 projection period is 441,176 units. This RHND is identified by HCD and is based on population projections produced by the California Department of Finance (DOF) as well as State -required adjustments that incorporate the region’s existing housing need . Adjustments focus on the region’s vacancy rate, level of overcrowding, and the share of cost -burdened households to determine how it will affect population growth and housing needs.
Regional Housing Needs Allocation
A starting point for the Housing Element Update process for every California jurisdiction is the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) – the share of the RHND assigned to each jurisdiction by ABAG. California housing element law requires that each city and county develop local housing programs to meet its “fair share” of existing and future housing needs for all income groups, as determined by the jurisdiction’s COG. This “fair share” allocation concept seeks to ensure that each jurisdiction accepts responsibility for the housing needs of not only its resident population, but also for the jurisdiction’s projected share of regional housing growth across all income categories.
ABAG is responsible for allocating the region’s projected housing needs among its jurisdictions by income category.
The RHNA represents the minimum number of housing units each community is required to provide “adequate sites” for through zoning and is one of the primary threshold criteria necessary to achieve State certification of the Housing Element.
In December 2021, ABAG approved the Final RHNA Plan. Sunnyvale must plan for a RHNA of 11,966 units, a substantial increase from the last cycle. Sunnyvale’s RHNA is broken down by the income categories (i.e., very low, low, moderate, and above moderate) shown in Table 5-1 below. The residential sites inventory, included in this chapter, identifies sites with general plan land use designations and zoning for future housing development and evaluates the adequacy of these sites in fulfilling the City’s share of regional housing needs. The RHND for the Bay Area represents an increase of approximately 135 percent from the 2015-2023 housing element cycle and the RHNA for Sunnyvale represents an increase of approximately 120 percent from the 2015 -2023 housing element cycle. This increase from the previous housing element cycl e is in response to delayed housing construction, increased housing costs, and the resulting housing shortage felt across the Bay Area and the state.
Attachment 2
Table 5-1: Regional Housing Needs Allocation (June 30, 2022 – December 15, 2030) Geography Very Low
Income (<50% of
AMI)
Low Income
(50%-80% of
AMI)
Moderate
Income (80%-
120% of AMI)
Above Moderate
Income (>120%
of AMI)
Total
Sunnyvale 2,968 1,709 2,032 5,257 11,966
Santa Clara County 32,316 18,607 21,926 56,728 129,577
Bay Area 114,442 65,892 72,712 188,130 441,176
Source: Association of Bay Area Governments, December 2021.
5.2 Residential Sites Inventory
Methodology
The Housing Element is required to identify and describe land available for residential development to meet the City’s RHNA for the June 30, 2022, through December 15, 2030, projection period. The City plans to accommodate the RHNA using a combination of:
▪ sites with planned and approved residential development; ▪ redevelopment opportunity sites in specific plan areas; ▪ underutilized sites outside of specific plan areas designated for residential and mixed-use development in the City’s General Plan Land Use and Transportation Element (LUTE); and ▪ a projection of accessory dwelling unit (ADU) construction.
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DENSITY AND INCOME LEVEL
Density can be a critical factor in the development of affordable lower-income housing. Higher density development can lower per -unit l and cost and facilitate construction in an economy of scale. The following describes the assumptions used to determine the inventoried income categories and the realistic buildout capacity for each site. ▪ Lower-Income Sites. State law (Government Code Secti on 65583.2(c)(3)) establishes a “default density standard” of 30 units per acre for Sunnyvale, which is categorized as a metropolitan jurisdiction. This is the density that is “deemed appropriate” in State law to accommodate the City’s lower -income RHNA. S ites with land use designations that allow for development at a density of at least 30 units per acre were included in the inventory as meeting the lower-income RHNA, except as described below. ▪ Moderate-Income Sites. Sites with a land use designation/zonin g district that allows for multi -family development below 30 units per acre were included in the inventory as meeting the moderate-income RHNA. ▪ Above Moderate-Income Sites. Sites with a land use designation/zoning district that only allows for single- family housing and limited attached ownership housing (e.g., duplexes, townhomes) were included in the inventory as meeting the above moderate-income RHNA.
Most residential opportunity sites in Sunnyvale are zoned for high density residential development, exceeding the 30 unit per acre default density standard for lower -income sites. In fact, over 85 percent of the sites inventory capacity is on sites that allow at least 30 units per acre. If the City were to count the capacity on all sites that meet the default density standard toward the lower -income RHNA , the City would greatly exceed the lower -income RHNA, but would not meet its moderate- and above moderate-income RHNA. However, it is anticipated that many Attachment 2
of the high -density sites will be built with projects at a mix of income levels that will provide units affordable to moderate- and above moderate-income households as well as lower-income households. In order to reflect this in the inventory and t o meet the moderate- and above mod erate-income RHNA, the inventory assigns a portion of the capacity on each of the higher density sites in the Lawrence Station Area Plan (LSAP), Downtown Specific Plan (DSP), and El Camino Real Specific Plan (ECRSP) to the moderate- and above moderate-income RHNA categories.
The inventory generally assumes 60 percent of the capacity on higher density sites in these plan areas will meet the lower-income need, 15 percent of the capacity will meet the moderate-income need, and 25 percent of the capacity will meet the above moderate-income need. This methodology is consistent with Assembly Bill 725 (2021), which requires that at least 25 percent of the above moderate-income RHNA be accommodated on sites that allow at least four (4) units of housing, and that at least 25 percent of the moderate-income RHNA be accommodated on sites that allow at least four (4) units of housing, but no more than 100 units per acre.
REALISTIC DENSITY
The inventory applies a realistic buildout density based on the development standards, market trends, and recent development to calculate capacity. The realistic buildout density varies by plan area and land use designation and is described in detail under each section describing the specific plan or additional sites outside of specific plans. The following provides a brief summary of each assumption:
▪ Downtown Specific Plan (DSP) . The DSP allocates maximum residential development by block , consistent with the plan’s development and density standards. Rather than assuming a realist ic buildout density, the inventory calculates capacity using the remaining residential development allocation for each block. ▪ Lawrence Station Area Plan (LSAP). The LSAP identifies allowable base maximum densities for each zoning designation and provides an incentive program to increase densities beyond the base maximum density. Based on development trends, described in detail in the Lawrence Station Area Plan section below, the inventory assumes a realistic buildout density of 95 percent of the zoning district’s maximum density with incentives (excluding State density bonus). This density is reflective of recent development activity in the Lawrence Station Area, as discussed in more detail later in this section. The development capacity is further reduced on several sites that are classified as Tier 2 sites to reflect redevelopment likelihood during the planning period. ▪ El Camino Real Specific Plan (ECR SP). The ECRSP identifies allowable base maximum densities for each residential mixed-use zoning designation and provides an incentive program to increase densities beyond the base maximum density. Considering that the ECRSP was adopted on June 28, 2022 (at the start of the projection period) and no development has been approved under the new standar ds, the inventory does not assume any units achieved through the Plan’s incentive program but rather assumes a realistic buildout density equal to 100 percent of the base maximum density, which is equivalent to between 73-80 percent of the maximum density with incentives. The development capacity is further reduced on several sites that are classified as Tier 2 sites to reflect redevelopment likelihood during the planning period . The assumptions are described in more detail later in this section. ▪ Village Center Mixed Use. The General Plan allows an average density of 18 units per acre for each Village Center site. The inventory assumes a conservative realistic buildout density of 80 percent of the average density, or 14 units per acre.
▪ Additional Residential Sites. The General Plan includes residential designations at varying density ranges, described under the Additional Sites Outside of Specific Plans section below. Based on buildout densities of recent projects, the inventory assumes a conservat ive buildout density of 85 percent of the maximum allowable density for sites located outside of Village Centers or specific plans.
Attachment 2
SITE SIZE
Per State law, sites smaller than half an acre or larger than 10 acres are not considered adequate to accommodate the lower income housing need unless it can be demonstrated that sites of equivalent size were successfully developed during the prior planning period or other evidence is provided that the site can be developed as lower income housing.
The lower-income sites inventory does not include sites (i.e., a parcel or group of parcels) smaller than 0.5 acre.
One site (APN 11012077) designated for high density residential development (i.e., up to 30 units per acre) is less than 0.5 acre in size but has been identified as appropriate to accommodate moderate-income units. The lower- income inventory includes eight sites composed of smaller parcels (0.5 acres or less) that have the potential to be consolidated to make a larger site . Five sites located in the DSP (Sites DSP -4, DSP-5, DSP-10, DSP-14, and DSP-16) are composed of two or more parcels, the majority of which are less than 0.5 acre. Small lot consolidation is typical of redevelopment under the DSP and the City has recently approved several lot consolidations for residential developments in the DSP, such as the 100 percent affordable Sunnyvale Block 15 project and DSP Block 6, and continues to receive additional development proposals requiring lot consol idations, including Site P-13 (DSP Block 20), Site P-33 (DSP Block 18), and Site P -34 (DSP Block 22), as shown in Table 5 -2. In addition, Site LSAP-5 is made of three parcels (APNs 213 01002, 21301003, and 21301004), one of which is only 0.34 acre. However, the remaining two parcels are larger than 0.5 acre and all three sites are owned by the same individual. Site LUTE-5 is made of three parcels (APNs 21120045, 21120046, and 21120047) , two of which are less than 0.5 acre (i.e., 0.48 acre and 0.38 acre). These parcels are part of the same existing medical office development and would be redeveloped as one site. Site LUTE-8 is made of two parcels, APN 21135003 is 0.29 acre and APN 21135033 is 0.32 acre. These parcels are directly adjacent to each other and are anticipated to be redeveloped as one site. Lot line adjustments are approved as a ministerial action by the City and are not considered a constraint on development.
The lower-income sites inventory includes two sites larger than 10 acres (LSAP 8 and ECR-11). However, for both sites the inventory only assumes that 60 percent of the capacity would meet the lower-income need. The remaining 40 percent capacity is assumed to meet the moderate -income and above moderate -income need. Both sites are also located within specific plan areas, which help to facilitate development on the sites. The City has recently seen residential development of large sites, including the approved project at 1155-1175 Aster Avenue (shown as Site P- 6 in Table 5-2 below) in the LSAP which is currently under construction and consists of 741 residential units and 1,500 square feet of ground commercial on a 17.48-acre site. As part of the project, the City approved a lot line adjustment to reconfigure the three existing parcels to allow for new lots for townhomes, condominiums, and apartments. Additionally, in 2019, the City approved a 1,051-unit multifamily project (including 944 apartment units and 107 townhome units) on a 32.8-acre site located at 1 AMD Place. The project is currently under construction.
The site previously consisted of three parcels which were subdivided as part of the project into seven parcels.
Site LSAP-8 (APN 21627037) is located within the LSAP and is 14.58 acres in size (see Table 5-109). The site property owner participated in the LSAP planning process and has expressed interest in residential development of the site.
However, the site is currently occupied with industrial buildings , including a data center, and will likely only redevelop later in the planning period. As such, only 25 percent residential redevelopment potential is assumed on the site, and only a quarter of the site, or 3.6 acres, is included in the inventory.
Site ECR-11 is located within the ECRSP and is 13.78 acres in size (see Table 5-1112). The site is a large shopping center made of multiple smaller parcels (APNs 21101035; 21101036; 21101038; 21101044; 21101045). The site is actively used by big box retailers; however, the property owners have participated in the specific plan update process and are interested in redevelopment. It is uncertain as to which parcels would consolidate and redevelop.
Due to the existing uses of the site, the inventory assumes a 25 percent potential for residential redevelopment of the site. As such, only a quarter of the site, or 3.4 acres, is included in the inventory.
Attachment 2
SITES IDENTIFIED IN PREVIOUS HOUSING ELEMENTS
Per statute (Government Code Section 65583.2(c)), a non-vacant site identified in the previous planning period and a vacant site that has been included in two or more previous consecutive planning periods cannot be used to accommodate the lower income RHNA unless the site is subject to a policy in the housing element requiring rezoning within three years of the beginning of the planning period to allow residential use by right for housing developments in which at least 20 percent of the units are affordable to lower-income households.
Several sites included in the inventory for lower -income housing have been included in previous housing element planning periods. These sites are identified in the inventory tables included below (Table 5-65, Table 5-109, Table 5- 1112, Table 5-1516, Table 5-1819, and Table 5-2021). The Housing Element includes a policy that commits the City to allowing residential use by right on these sites when at least 20 percent of the units are affordable to lower income households.
NON-VACANT SITES
State law allows jurisdictions with limited vacant land to rely on non-vacant and underutilized sites to accommodate the RHNA. However, non-vacant sites can present challenges for residential redevelopment and must therefore be analyzed closely to determine suitability. Jurisdictions must consider the extent to which existing uses may constitute an impediment to additional residential development, past experiences converting existing uses to higher density residential development, lease or contract requirements limiting residential redevelopment, development trends, market conditions, and regulatory or other incentives.
Due to Sunnyvale’s built out nature (meaning that all but a few sites have development on them) , the inventory relies heavily on non -vacant underutilized sites anticipated for infill development. This continues the trend of the past 30 years in which development in Sunnyvale has primarily consisted of the redevelopment of non-vacant sites.
While some new residential construction occurs on small, lower -density single family sites, most new housing has been built on former industrial/commercial sites along El Camino Real, in the Downtown area, and in fo rmer industrial and business park areas. Since the early 1980s Sunnyvale has successfully rezoned lower intensity industrial sites for residential development (most of these sites have fully transitioned to residential use) and has increased allowable dens ities in high quali ty transit areas (e.g. , Downtown Specific Plan, Lawrence Station Area Plan, and El Camino Real Specific Plan). These transitioned sites include the 32.8-acre site that formerly served as headquarters for the AMD semiconductor company. Th is site contained a Class B office building that was significantly upgraded in 1995 along with the construction of a new commons building. In 2019, the City approved a 1,051-unit multifamily project (including 944 apartment units and 107 townhome units) and a 6.5 -acre public park. Soil and groundwater contamination from prior industrial use were successfully abated on the site.
Construction on the project is nearing completion as of 2023.
Each site included in the inventory has been reviewed closely to ensure suitability of housing redevelopment and a description of e xisting uses and any impediments to residential development is provided. Th e City has a minimal amount of vacant land , yet the City continues to experience a high level of redevelopment of sites currently occupied with existing residential and non -residential uses. As shown in Table 5-2, below, all residential projects currently in the pipeline involve the redevelopment of non-vacant sites. Redevelopment sites range from existing industrial, commercial, and office space, to single family and multifamily apartment complexes.
The inventory generally does not include capacity on sites occupied with existing residences, with the exception of three sites. Two of these sites are located within the DSP (DSP-14 [N] and DSP-16), which promotes redevelopment of single family units and duplexes into higher-density residential. The Downtown area has experienced significant redevelopment in recent years, including the redevelopment of several existing residences. The potential for redevelopment is described in the Downtown Specific Plan section below. The third site (LUTE-8) is located outside Attachment 2
of specific plan areas. The existing residence located on this site is poorly maintained and appears unoccupied, with cracked driveways, broken fences, and overgrown vegetation. The site is designated for High Density Residentia l (25 to 36 units per acre). As such, this site is considered suitable for redevelopment.
Government Code Section 65915(c)(3) establishes replacement requirements for sites identified in the inventory that currently have residential uses, or within the past five years have had residential uses that have been vacated or demolished, and:
▪ Were subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, or law that restricts rents to levels affordable to persons and families of low or very low-income, or
▪ Subject to any other form of rent or price control through a public entity’s valid exercise of its police power, or ▪ Occupied by low or very low-income households.
In addition, Government Code Section 66300(d) (Senate Bill 330) is effective through 2030 and states that an affected city or county shall not approve a housing development project that will require the demolition of residential dwelling units regardless of whether the parcel was listed in the inventory unless a) the project will create at least as many residential dwelling units as will be demolished, and b) certain affordability criteria are met for the replacement of protected units.
None of the sites include units subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, or law that restricts rents to levels affordable to persons and families of low- or very low-income; or to any other form of rent or price control through a public entity’s valid exercise of its police power; or were occupied by low- or very low-income households. However, considering that the units could become occupied by low- or very low-income households prior to redevelopment, the Housing Element includes a policy to require replacement housing unit s, consistent with the replacement requirements established in Government Code Section 65915(c)(3) and Government Code Section 66300(d).
Non-Vacant Site Factors
The following factors were considered in identifying non -vacant sites to include in the inventory . The factors that apply to each site in the inventory are indicated in the tables below using the corresponding letters.
A. Transit-oriented development opportunities . The City of Sunnyvale is well served by regional transit networks, including Caltrain, light rail, and bus rapid transit systems. The majority of non -vacant sites included in the housing element sites inventory are within walking distance to major transit stops, particularly the sites within the specific plan areas. These specific plans facilitate residential development through higher densities, development incentives, and CEQA streamlining opportunities. All of the non - vacant sites within the Downtown Specific Plan are within walking distance to the Sunnyvale Transit Center and all of the non -vacant sites within the Lawrence Station Area Plan are within walking distance of the Lawrence Caltrain Station . The sites within the El Camino Real Specific Plan area are served by bus rapid transit, and the sites within the Moffett Park Specific Plan are within walking distance to the Orange Line of the light rail system. These sites were prioritized for inclusion in the housing element because of the significant opportunity for transit-oriented development.
B. Village Centers. Commercial shopping centers identified as Village Centers were prioritized for inclusion in the housing element sites inventory because of the residential mixed use redevelopment potential provided by the General Plan. The Village Center sites are currently developed as low -intensity, auto - oriented shopping centers and strip malls. The City has seen significant development interest in the Village Centers and is currently preparing a Village Centers Master Plan to provide further guidance and incentives for redeveloping these commercial shopping centers. Not all Village Center sites are included in the inventory. City staff assessed the redevelopment potential of each parcel based on the condition of the Attachment 2
shopping and interest from the development community and prioritized those with the greatest potential during the planning period.
C. Development interest. City staff prioritized certain sites for inclusion in the housing element sites inventory because they have received phone calls, emails, or meetings from property owners , developers, or real estate brokers interested in developing residential or residential mixed use on these sites. Nearly every development application for new housing that the City receives is preceded by inquiries to the P lanning Division. These inquiries are usually months or can even be years ahead of the receipt of a development application. The questions often come from a developer performing due diligence in support of a purchase agreement or design professionals working on preliminary concepts for a development proposal.
D. Occupancy status. Several of the sites included in the inventory have buildings that are vacant, for lease or for sale, or being held vacant (i.e., “mothballed”) waiting for future development opportunity. This is particularly true within the Moffett Park Specific Plan Area where several office buildings are sitting vacant with plans to redevelop with housing following adoption of the Specific Plan.
E. Structure age and poor condition. Many of the non -vacant sites in the inventory have buildings that are more than 40 years old . In many cases, buildings of this age are reaching the end of their useful life and may require costly repairs or upgrades, making redevelopment of the site more likel y. Some sites in the inventory include structures that are damaged, poorly maintained, or obsolete buildings that are likely to be demolished.
F. Low floor area ratio. In zones with high development potential (such as multifamily residential districts, mixed-use zones, and the specific plan areas) a lack of building area or excessive surface parking areas are an indicator that the site is underutilized. A floor area ratio (FAR) of less than 35 percent was utilized to identify properties that are being underuti lized. These parcels generally contain single -story office or commercial uses and/or large surface parking lots. Most of these parcels have the opportunity to develop with at least five stories of residential above structured parking.
G. Low improvement-to-land value ratio. When a parcel’s land value exceeds the value of improvements (land improvement ratio of less than 1.0), this is an indication that the property may be underutilized, and there may be a financial incentive for the property owner to redevelop. Some of the sites included in the inventory have an improvement to land value ratio of less than 1.0, as indicated in the tables below.
Table 5-2 summarizes recent trends in projects on nonvacant sites converted to residential uses. The following examples cover various project sizes in different areas with characteristics similar to inventoried sites (i.e., industrial, office, retail strip). The table also includes the non-vacant site factors that apply to these recent housing developments to demonstrate the validity of the factors used to identify non-vacant sites included in the inventory.
Attachment 2
Table 5-2: Examples of Recent Redevelopment Projects
Example 1: Redwood Place - Office to Residential (R-4)
Before:
From Duane/Indian Wells:
From Stewart/Santa Trinita:
After:
From Duane/Indian Wells:
Attachment 2
From Stewart/Santa Trinita:
Project Name: Redwood Place Project Description: Redwood Place is the redevelopment of a
20.7-acre office/R&D property (formerly the headquarters of AMD Semiconductors) into 944 apartments. This project
includes the construction of eight multifamily buildings including 57 units in four three-story buildings and 887 units in four five- story buildings.
The site is located in the East Sunnyvale Industrial to Residential area and a Zoning Amendment was required to accommodate the same number of housing units with the dedication of a public park. As part of the conversion to residential, four existing buildings were demolished and the property was subdivided to create separate lots for each multifamily building as well as lots for an adjacent ownership townhome project and a new 6.5- acre public park. The development also included the extension of Indian Wells Avenue to allow traffic which was improved with bike lanes, sidewalks, and street design components consistent with the East Sunnyvale Sense of Place Plan.
By providing 45 lower-income units and energy-efficient design, the project utilized the State Density Bonus and the City’s Green Building Program to create an additional 200 units on top of the base maximum density of 744 units.
Address: 1030 Indian Wells Ave
Prior Use: Office/R&D Campus
Planning Permit: Zoning Amendment and
Special Development Permit
Status: Under construction
Units Proposed: 944 apartments
Above Moderate: 899 units
Moderate: 0 units
Lower: 45 units
Zoning: R-4/PD
Site Area: 20.7 acres
Maximum Allowable Density:
36 du/acre
Actual Project Density: 45.7 du/acre
Percent Buildout: 127%
Usable Open Space: 428 sf/unit (380 sf/unit
required)
Parking: 1,680 spaces (1,680 required)
Non-Vacant Site Redevelopment Factors:
✓ Unoccupied office/R&D buildings
✓ Development interest
✓ Low FAR (22%)
Attachment 2
Example 2: 481 on Mathilda - DSP Office to Very High Density Residential Before:
Mathilda Avenue Frontage: Charles Street Frontage:
After:
Mathilda Avenue Frontage: Charles Street Frontage:
Project Name: 481 on Mathilda Project Description: 481 on Mathilda is a 105-unit multifamily development on a formerly office and
commercial site in Block 14 of the Downtown Specific
Plan (DSP). This project included the demolition of one office building and two commercial strips and required
the combining of two existing parcels.
Based on comprehensive updates to the DSP completed
in 2003, the site was able to convert from its former
commercial use to residential, with a maximum of 87
units allowable on site. The project utilized the State Density Bonus by providing five affordable units for very low-income households and was approved to build 105
total units, exceeding the maximum density for the site.
The project was designed to be transit-oriented (a half- mile from Sunnyvale Caltrain Station) and pedestrian
friendly. As seen in the photos above, the project
successfully transitions between a four-story, high-
density design on the busy Mathilda Avenue frontage
and two story, townhome style units along the Charles
Street frontage.
Address: 465 S Mathilda Ave
Prior Use: Office and commercial
Planning Permit: Special Development Permit
Status: Constructed 2016
Units Constructed: 105
Above Moderate: 100 units
Moderate: 0 units
Lower: 5 units
Zoning: DSP Block 14 (Very High Density Residential)
Site Area: 1.61 acres
Maximum Allowable Density: 54 du/acre
Actual Project Density: 65 du/acre
Percent Buildout: 121%
Usable Open Space: 77 sf/unit (50 sf/unit required)
Parking: 148 spaces (139 required under State
Density Bonus)
Non-Vacant Site Redevelopment Factors:
✓ TOD opportunity
✓ Development interest
✓ Unoccupied office/commercial buildings
Attachment 2
Example 3: Paloma Place - DSP Office Conversion Missing Middle Residential (Low to Medium Density) Before
After
Project Name: Paloma Place Project Description: Paloma Place is the conversion of a vacant office building into 13 detached single family
homes along a newly built, shared access drive. The
project is located in Block 13 of the Downtown Specific Plan, which is designated as low- to medium-density in
order to transition from the very high residential
densities of the commercial core area to the north and
the lower densities of historic residential neighborhoods to the south and east.
Paloma Place is designed to achieve similar densities as a cottage court, achieving a net density (excluding the access drive) of 25.3 du/acre. (Cottage courts typically achieve a net density between 13 and 44 du/acre). The
project also exceeds the City’s development standards,
with 670 square feet of usable open space per unit (500 square feet is required) and two assigned parking spaces per unit with an additional seven guest spaces.
Address: 300 W Iowa Ave
Prior Use: Office building
Planning Permit: Special Development Permit
Status: Constructed 2017
Units Constructed: 13
Above Moderate: 12 units
Moderate: 1 unit
Lower: 0 units
Zoning: DSP Block 13 (Low to Medium-Density
Residential)
Site Area: 1.16 acres
Maximum Allowable Units: 12
Percent Buildout: 100%
Usable Open Space: 670 sf/unit (500 sf/unit
required)
Parking: 33 spaces (26 required)
Non-Vacant Site Redevelopment Factors:
✓ TOD opportunity
✓ Development interest
✓ Unoccupied office/commercial buildings
✓ Low FAR (23%)
Attachment 2
Example 4: Flats West - DSP Commercial (portion of a Mall) Conversion Before:
After:
Project Name: Flats West Project Description: Flats West is the conversion of a former commercial property into a five-story, 75-unit
residential project. The project is part of the Cityline development, which is located on the southern portion
of Block 18 of the Downtown Specific Plan (DSP).
Cityline is the conversion of the former 35-acre
Sunnyvale Town Center Mall into a dense, urban
downtown with a mix of housing, retail, and office uses.
Flats West is part of the first phase of Cityline, which was made possible by the 2007 DSP. The DSP allowed a
maximum unit count of 75 for the site and a density of
96.7 du/acre. Flats West not only achieves very high
residential density; it also meets or exceeds the City’s development standards, including usable open space
(114 sf/unit provided where 50 sf/unit is required) and parking (meets the requirement for 75 assigned and 63
unassigned spaces).
The project is designed to be transit-oriented (a half
mile from Sunnyvale Caltrain Station) and pedestrian
friendly. Residents of Flats West are within a quarter- mile from a grocery and numerous retail and dining
options.
Address: 333 W Iowa Ave
Prior Use: Commercial (Demolished)
Planning Permit: Special Development Permit
Status: Constructed 2021
Units Constructed: 75
Above Moderate: 66 units
Moderate: 0 units
Lower: 9 units
Zoning: DSP Block 18 (Downtown Mixed Use)
Site Area: 0.78 acres
Maximum Allowable Units: 75 units
Percent Buildout: 100%
Usable Open Space: 114 sf/unit (50 sf/unit required)
Parking: 138 spaces (138 required)
Non-Vacant Site Redevelopment Factors:
✓ TOD opportunity
✓ Development interest
✓ Unoccupied site (buildings previously
demolished)
✓ Low FAR (0%)
Attachment 2
Example 5: 610 East - Industrial/Light Manufacturing Conversion to Residential (R-4) Before:
After:
Address: 610 E Weddell Dr Project Description: 610 East is the conversion of an unoccupied, industrial site with a new multifamily
residential development within a half-mile from the VTA Light Rail Orange Line. The project included the
demolition of an existing one-story, vacant industrial
building and construction of a four-story apartment
building containing 205 residential units. This project required a General Plan Amendment to rezone the site
from Industrial to High Density Residential (R-4/PD).
The project achieved residential densities well beyond
the base maximum density by employing the State
Density Bonus and the City’s Green Building incentive
program. These programs enabled the project to create
an additional 59 units on top of the 146 units allowable under the base maximum density.
Prior Use: Industrial
Planning Permit: General Plan Amendment and
Special Development Permit
Status: Constructed 2017
Units Constructed: 205
Above Moderate: 189 units
Moderate: 0 units
Lower: 16 units
Zoning: R-4/PD
Site Area: 4.04 acres
Maximum Allowable Density: 36 du/acre
Actual Project Density: 52 du/acre
Percent Buildout: 141%
Usable Open Space: 424 sf/unit (380 sf/unit
required)
Parking: 340 spaces (311 required by State Density
Bonus)
Non-Vacant Site Redevelopment Factors:
✓ TOD opportunity
✓ Development interest
✓ Unoccupied office/commercial buildings
✓ Low FAR (35%)
Attachment 2
Example 6: Savoy - Industrial/Light Manufacturing Conversion to Residential (R-4) Before:
After:
Project Name: Savoy Project Description: Savoy is the redevelopment of a formerly industrial site into a new mixed-use project
containing 520 residential units and 7,400 square feet of retail space. The project included the demolition of one partially occupied, single-story building and the
construction of two five-story buildings with a publicly accessible loop road providing access between the
buildings.
Submitted under the 2016 Lawrence Station Area Plan
(LSAP), the project utilized the LSAP Incentive Program to achieve increased density by providing community
benefits. Applicable community benefits for this project include the aforementioned loop road as well as the
construction of a 15,000 square foot park that is fully accessible to the public.
Under the MXD-I zoning, the maximum number of units
developable on site would be 359 units. Through the
LSAP incentive program, the project was able to achieve an additional 161 units.
Address: 1120 Kifer Rd
Prior Use: Office/R&D
Planning Permit: Use Permit
Status: Constructed 2021
Units Constructed: 520
Above Moderate: 480 units
Moderate: 0 units
Lower: 40 units
Zoning: LSAP (2016 Plan) MXD-I
Site Area: 7.99 acres
Maximum Allowable Density: 45 du/acre
Actual Project Density: 65 du/acre
Percent Buildout: 145%
Usable Open Space: 194 sf/unit (50 sf/unit required)
Parking: 766 spaces (620 required)
Non-Vacant Site Redevelopment Factors:
✓ TOD opportunity
✓ Development interest
✓ Partially occupied office/R&D building
✓ Low FAR (29%)
Attachment 2
Example 7: The Martin – High Rise, Mixed Use, Commercial Conversion Before:
After (Rendering):
Address: 200 S Taaffe Project Description: The Martin is the largest residential project in the Cityline development, which is centrally located in Block 18 of the Downtown Specific Plan (DSP).
Cityline is the conversion of the former 35-acre Sunnyvale Town Center Mall into a dense, urban downtown with a mix of housing, retail, and office uses.
The Martin is part of the second phase of the Cityline
development, which is the result of an amendment to the 2007 DSP and a subsequent Development Agreement which
increased the total number of units in the overall Cityline project from 292 to 793. The Martin’s 479 units are
included in the Housing Element’s Sites Inventory under Approved Projects (Table 5-2).
The project is designed to be transit-oriented (a quarter mile from Sunnyvale Caltrain Station) and pedestrian
friendly. Future residents of the Martin are across the street from a full-service grocery store and numerous retail and dining options.
Prior Use: Mall parking structure
Planning Permit: Special Development Permit
Status: Under construction
Units Proposed: 479
Above Moderate: 426 units
Moderate: 6 units
Lower: 47 units
Zoning: DSP Block 18 (Downtown Mixed Use)
Site Area: 3.77 acres
Maximum Allowable Units: 265
Percent Buildout: 181%
Parking: 479 spaces (996 required)
Non-Vacant Site Redevelopment Factors:
✓ TOD opportunity
✓ Development interest
Source: City of Sunnyvale, 2023.
MIXED USE SITES
State law allows jurisdictions to rely on sites zoned for non -residential uses that allow residential development, such as mixed use development. However, the inventory must consider the potential for mixed use sites to be developed with non-residential uses when estimating realistic capacity.
For mixed use designations or zones located within the DSP or LSAP, the City does not require a commercial component and permits uses configured as vertical mixed use or as single-use buildings or parcels. For mixed use developments that include both a commercial and residential component, m aximum residential densities can still be achieved. Residential capacity assumed for sites located in mixed use zones within sp ecific plan areas is calculated consistent with the projections of the specific plan.
For sites designated as residential mixed use in the E CRSP, the plan requires a commercial component. However, development standards, such as building height and lot cov erage, still allow for maximum residential densities to be achieved. The commercial requirement does not reduce the maximum number of residential units that can be Attachment 2
built. In addition, as discussed in detail in the ECRSP section below, the sites inventoried were selectively identified based on their potential for residential development.
The General Plan Village Mixed Use designation allows for an average residential density of 18 units per acre. The average residential density ac counts for a 10 to 25 percent commercial floor area ratio (commercial floor area to land area) component requirement within the Village Mixed Use designation. The inventory assumes a conservative realistic density of 14 units per acre on Village Mixed Use sites and is more than enough to accommodate the commercial requirement.
As shown in Table 5-2 below, 18 projects recently approved or currently under review are located within mixed use designations, 10 of which include mixed use developments and eight of which include stand-alone residential uses.
Only one stand-alone office project was recently approved in 2016 within a mixed use designation of the LSAP. The mixed use developments are able to achieve maximum densities, despite the inclusion of commercial uses.
FUTURE OPPORTUNITY SITES
There are several sites identified in the inventory that could potentially be redeveloped with residential development based on their zoning, but currently their redevelopment potential is unknown or assumed to be limited at this time (2022). These sites include existing residential uses or non-residential uses that have high market demand and/or high redevelopment costs, such as daycare centers, gas stations, and data centers. This list also includes sites in the East Sunnyvale Industrial to Residential area at Stewart and De Guigne Drives that are currently zoned for industrial use.
The Housing Element includes a program to rezone these sites to Medium Density Residential. Since the potential for redevelopment to occur on these sites within the planning period is unlikely, these sites are identified as “future opportunity sites” and no capacity for residential development is included in the 2023 -2031 Housing Element inventory. The reason they are identified in the Housing Element is to communicate to the public and development community that opportunity exists on the sites and to flag the sites for inclusion in a future Housing Element sites inventory if and when redevelopment is deemed feasible. Future opportunity sites are identified in the tables below and in Figure 5-1 below. These sites are not included in the inventory for this Housing Element cycle.
Attachment 2
Figure 5-1: City-Wide Inventory
Source: Adapted by Ascent in 2022 from data received from the City of Sunnyvale in 2021 and 2022 Attachment 2
Approved Projects
The City has residential development applications that have either been approved or are currently under review and are expected to be built during the RHNA projection period (June 30, 2022, through December 15, 2030). This does not include projects that are already under construction if the building permits were issued prior to June 30, 2022. Table 5-2 shows these as approved projects. For each project, the table includes the assessor parcel number (APN), address, site acreage, number of units by income category, project description, and project status. Figure 5- 1 shows the city-wide inventory, including all approved and planned projects.
Several projects include demolition or renovation of existing residences. The inventory does not count replacement units or renovated units towards the RHNA; rather, only the net new capacity is counted towards the RHNA. Units are categorized by income as follows:
▪ Projects with deed-restricted affordable units are counted toward the lower - or moderate-income RHNA, as applicable. For mixed-income projects, deed-restricted affordable units are provided per the City’s below market rate housing program described in Chapter 6, “Constraints to the Development of Housing.” ▪ Projects that include non-deed-restricted market-rate rental multifamily units are assumed to meet both the moderate -income and above moderate -income RHNA. As described in Chapter 3, “Housing Needs Assessment,” a two-person moderate-income household can afford rents up to $4,236 per month, a three- person moderate-income household can afford rents up to $4,766, and a four -person moderate-income household can afford rents up to $5,295. As shown in Table 5 -43 below, many of the units in recent multifamily development s are rented at prices considered affordable to moderate -income households, ranging from $3,055 to $4,220 for a one -bedroom apartment, $3,875 to $6,400 for a two -bedroom apartment, and $5,065 to $6,090 f or a three -bedroom apartment. As such, t he inventory assumes 50 percent of pipeline market-rate rental units meet the moderate -income need and 50 percent of pipeline market-rate rental units meet the above moderate-income need. ▪ Projects that include market-rate attached ownership (e.g., townhomes or condominiums) or single-family units are assumed to meet the above -moderate-income RHNA based on recent home sale prices that are generally only affordable to above moderate-income households.
As shown in Table 5-32, there are 38 projects that will pro vide a total of 1,842 net new units including: 220 very low-income units, 101 low-income units, 438 522 moderate-income units, and 999 above moderate-income units.
There are several additional deve lopment projects that have submitted either preliminary or formal applicatio ns and are working through the development review process. However, if the projects are not yet approved, they are not included in Table 5 -32 unless there is an executed development agreement or Specific Plan Amendment indicating a unit count for the project. Sites where there are preliminary projects that have not yet been approved are included in the vacant and underutilized sites inventory with notes indicating that there is expressed interest in developing the sites.
Attachment 2
Table 5-32: City of Sunnyvale, 2023-2031 Housing Element, Approved Projects Site
Numbe
r
Assessor
Parcel
Number
(APN)
Address/
(Plan Area, if
applicable)
Size
(Gross
Acres)
General Plan
Land Use
Designation
Zoning Total
New
Units
Net
Units1
Very
Low-
Income
Units
Low-
Income
Units
Deed-
Restricted
Moderate-
Income Units
Non-Deed-
Restricted
Moderate-
Income
Units
Above
Moderate-
Income
Units
Project Description Project Status Discretionary or
Ministerial
Review Pending?
P-1 211-25-
011, 211-
25-033,
211-25-
034, 211-
25-038
871 and 895 E
Fremont Ave
(El Camino Real
Specific Plan)
5.44 EL CAMINO REAL
SPECIFIC PLAN
(ECRSP)
R3 EL CAMINO
REAL – MEDIUM
DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL
130 128 46 82 Redevelop a 5.49-acre site previously developed for agriculture and residential uses with 39 townhomes and 91 apartments plus 6,934 square feet of retail/office use with surface and underground parking. Two existing single family homes to be demolished.
Based on the time of application, rental units are not subject to the City’s Below Market Rate (BMR) program. Based on market rents, 50 percent of rental units are inventoried as moderate. Applicant has been approved to pay in-lieu fee for ownership BMR unit requirement.
Building Permit
Issued 6/30/22;
Under Construction
No
P-2 204-04-034 421 E Washington
Ave
0.19 LOW MEDIUM
DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL
(RLM)
R2-LOW
MEDIUM
DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL
2 1 1 Subdivide existing 8,147 sq. ft. lot into two lots. Demolish an existing single-family home and build two new single-family homes.
Project Approved
(10/28/2019),
Building Permit
Under Review, Time
Extension Approved
(9/27/22)
No
P-3 204-03-
003, 204-
03-002
210 and 214 W
Ahwanee Ave
0.75 HIGH DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL
(RHI)
R4-HIGH
DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL
24 23 3 20 24 condo units in four 4-story buildings, includes 3 deed- restricted moderate-income units per the City’s BMR
ownership housing requirement.
Project Approved
(8/10/2020);
Comments provided
Jan 2023, Pending
Building Permit
Resubmittal
No
P-4 213-01-
034, 213-
01-032,
213-01-033
1155-1175 Aster
Ave (Lawrence
Station Area Plan)
17.48 TRANSIT MIXED
USE (TMIX)
MXD-III 329 329 41 288 Demolish 7 existing industrial buildings, 2 commercial buildings, and construct a new mixed use project consisting of a 4-to-5-story apartment/commercial building with
wrapped above-grade parking structure (412 rental units); (2) 2-to-7-story condo buildings above podium parking
structures (189 ownership units); and (20) 2-to-3-story townhome buildings with individual unit garages (140
ownership units). Includes 41 deed-restricted moderate
income ownership units. The 412-unit apartment building is under construction and not counted towards the 6th cycle RHNA. The remaining 329-unit condo and townhome
buildings will be developed after the start of the 6th cycle projection period (June 30, 2022).
Apartment Project
Under Construction
(Building Permit
Issued 12/3/2021);
Comments provided
on condo/townhome
project Nov 2022,
Pending Building
Permit Resubmittal
for Townhomes and
Condos
No
P-5 165-12-083 606 W McKinley
Ave
0.2 LOW MEDIUM
DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL
(RLM)
R2-LOW
MEDIUM
DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL
2 0 0 Demolish existing duplex and create two lots and construct two new single-family homes.
Under Construction
(Building Permits
Issued 3/1/23)
No
P-6 204-38-
008, 009,
and 010
475 N Fair Oaks Ave
585, 595 Columbia
Ave
0.86 MEDIUM
DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL
(RMED)
R3-MEDIUM
DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL
18 16 2 14 Redevelop a 35,903 sq. ft. lot multi-family property.
Demolish 2 single family homes, a rectory, 2 accessory
structures and construct 2 structures resulting in a total of 18 townhomes and a density of 22 du/acre. The project
includes 2 deed-restricted moderate-income units per the City’s BMR ownership housing requirement.
Under Construction
(Building Permits
Issued 8/11/22)
No
P-7 209-29-
057, 209-
29-067
562-566 S Mathilda
Ave (Downtown
Specific Plan)
0.44 TRANSIT MIXED
USE (TMIX)
DSP- BLOCK 20 25 24 1 2 11 10 Redevelop an existing residence and medical office with 25 residential rental units and 4,240 square feet of commercial.
Project is subject to the City’s 15% BMR rental inclusionary Specific Plan
Amendment
approved 1/10/2023;
Number of units
has been
approved;
Attachment 2
Site
Numbe
r
Assessor
Parcel
Number
(APN)
Address/
(Plan Area, if
applicable)
Size
(Gross
Acres)
General Plan
Land Use
Designation
Zoning Total
New
Units
Net
Units1
Very
Low-
Income
Units
Low-
Income
Units
Deed-
Restricted
Moderate-
Income Units
Non-Deed-
Restricted
Moderate-
Income
Units
Above
Moderate-
Income
Units
Project Description Project Status Discretionary or
Ministerial
Review Pending?
requirement for 3 deed-restricted lower-income units.
Based on market rents, 50 percent of remaining rental units are inventoried as moderate.
Pending Formal
Application Submittal
Discretionary –
Requires Special
Development
Permit with
Planning
Commission
review based on
Objective Design
Guidelines
P-8 110-14-197 1139 Karlstad Dr 5.05 HIGH DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL
(RHI)
R4-HIGH
DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL
135 135 20 115 Demolish an existing industrial building and construct 135 townhome units at a density of 27 du/acre. Includes 20
deed-restricted moderate-income units based on City’s BMR ownership housing requirement.
Project Approved
(5/24/21), Building
Permit Under Review
as of Jan 2023
No
P-9 209-35-023 200 S Taaffe St
(Downtown Specific
Plan)
3.77 TRANSIT MIXED
USE (TMIX)
DSP – BLOCK 18 479 479 16 31 6 213 213 Mixed use development including two 12-story residential buildings with 479 units and 37,300 sf retail use in DSP Block 3 (southern portion). Includes 53 deed-restricted BMR units per the approved development agreement. Based on market rents, 50 percent of remaining rental units are inventoried as moderate.
Under Construction
(Building Permit
Issued 8/26/2022)
No
P-10 205-50-013 1178 Sonora Ct
(Lawrence Station
Area Plan)
1.33 TRANSIT MIXED
USE (TMIX)
MXD-I 176 176 131 43 2 Redevelop a 1.26-acre industrial property within the LSAP.
Demolish an existing 19,440 sq. ft. one-story industrial building and construct 176 apartment units (174 affordable units and two managers’ units). Deed-restricted units per applicant project proposal.
Project Approved
(11/8/21);
Comments provided
Jan 2023, Pending
Building Permit
Resubmittal;
Applicant Seeking
Financing (CDLAC in
2023)
No
P-11 165-12-057 664 W. McKinley
Ave
0.17 LOW MEDIUM
DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL
(RLM)
R2-LOW
MEDIUM
DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL
2 1 1 To allow a two-lot subdivision of a R-2 property and two new two-story single family residences. One existing home to be demolished.
Project Approved
(1/10/22), Building
Permit Under Review
as of Jan 2023
No
P-12 309-01-006 166 E Fremont Ave
(Village Center)
2.8 VILLAGE MIXED
USE (VMIX)
C1-
NEIGHBORHOOD
BUSINESS
50 50 7 43 Redevelop portion (2.77 ac) of a shopping center with a mixed use project that includes demolishing 10,500 sq. ft. of commercial space, retain 8,094 sq. ft. commercial space, and construction of 50 residential condo units in four, 4-story buildings with associated parking and common public open space and 5-lot subdivision (SB 330 Submittal). Includes 7 deed-restricted moderate-income units based on City’s BMR ownership housing requirement.
Project Approved
(9/8/2021), Building
Permit Under Review
as of Jan 2023
No
P-13 110-12-093 245 W Weddell Dr 1.81 HIGH DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL
(RHI)
R4-HIGH
DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL
123 61 59 2 To redevelop an existing 62-unit affordable housing development including demolition of one apartment
building with 32 apartment units and construction of a new six-story, 93-unit building, and rehabilitating an existing apartment building with 30 affordable apartment units
resulting in a total of 123 units. Lower-income units based on project application.
Project Approved
(11/8/21), Building
Permit Under Review
as of Jan 2023;
Applicant Seeking
Financing (Tax
Credits in 2023)
No
Attachment 2
Site
Numbe
r
Assessor
Parcel
Number
(APN)
Address/
(Plan Area, if
applicable)
Size
(Gross
Acres)
General Plan
Land Use
Designation
Zoning Total
New
Units
Net
Units1
Very
Low-
Income
Units
Low-
Income
Units
Deed-
Restricted
Moderate-
Income Units
Non-Deed-
Restricted
Moderate-
Income
Units
Above
Moderate-
Income
Units
Project Description Project Status Discretionary or
Ministerial
Review Pending?
P-14 309-01-002 102 E Fremont Ave
(Village Center)
1.82 VILLAGE MIXED
USE (VMIX)
C1-
NEIGHBORHOOD
BUSINESS
35 35 5 30 Redevelop portion (1.87 acre) of a shopping center with a mixed use project that includes demolishing 19,852 sf.
commercial, retaining 8,048 sf. commercial, and
construction of 35 residential condo units in three, 4-story building(s) and 5-lot subdivision (SB 330 submittal). Includes 5 deed-restricted moderate-income units based on City’s BMR ownership housing requirement.
Project Approved
(8/9/2022), Pending
Building Permit
Application Submittal
No
P-15 209-35-
019, 209-
35-018,
209-35-
017, 209-
35-016
100 E Washington
Ave
230, 240 S Murphy
Ave
301 S Sunnyvale
Ave
(Downtown Specific
Plan)
3.88 TRANSIT MIXED
USE (TMIX)
DSP – BLOCK 18 325 325 11 21 4 145 144 Cityline Subblock 6 proposal to redevelop the existing parking lot for 7 story mixed use building with 325 dwelling units and 36,000 square feet of retail. Includes 36 deed- restricted BMR units per development agreement. Based on market rents, 50 percent of remaining rental units are
inventoried as moderate.
Development
Agreement approved
and executed;
Pending Formal
Application Submittal
Number of units
has been
approved;
Discretionary –
Requires Special
Development
Permit with
Planning
Commission
review based on
Objective Design
Standards in the
DSP
P-16 209-29-
060; 209-
29-061
510-528 S Mathilda
Ave (Downtown
Specific Plan)
0.75 TRANSIT MIXED
USE (TMIX)
DSP – BLOCK 20 46 38 2 4 16 16 Redevelop existing commercial and office space and an 8- unit apartment to allow a 46-unit residential apartment building with 10,230 sq. ft. of ground floor commercial.
Project is subject to the City’s 15% BMR inclusionary
requirement for 3 deed-restricted lower-income units.
Based on market rents, 50 percent of remaining rental units are inventoried as moderate.
Project Under
Review, Pending
Approval. Specific
Plan Amendment
Approved
(1/10/2023); Pending
Formal Application
Submittal
Number of units
has been
approved;
Discretionary –
Requires Special
Development
Permit with
Planning
Commission
review based on
Objective Design
Standards in the
DSP
P-17 209-35-
024; 209-
35-013
221 W Iowa Ave,
379 S Sunnyvale
Ave
(Downtown Specific
Plan)
0.92 TRANSIT MIXED
USE (TMIX)
DSP – BLOCK 18 21 21 3 18 Modification to previously approved Sunnyvale Town Center project for eight three-story townhomes on DSP Subblock 4, and 13 three-story townhomes on Subblock 5. Includes 3
deed-restricted moderate-income units per the
development agreement.
Project Approved
(12/12/2022);
Pending Building
Permit Application
Submittal
No
Total 50.99 1,922 1,842 220 101 84 438 999
Notes:
1 Net units removes any existing residential units proposed for demolition.
DSP = Downtown Specific Plan
Source: City of Sunnyvale, 2023.
Attachment 2
Table 5-43: Listed Rents for Recent Multi-family Developments Project Minimum Rent Maximum Rent
One-Bedroom Unit Rents
Stewart Village Apartment Homes $3,055 $3,665
Lakeside $3,500 $4,000
Ironworks $3,506 $3,506
Savoy $3,520 $4,180
The Murphy Station $3,550 $3,760
Cityline Flats $4,173 $4,220
Two-Bedroom Unit Rents
Stewart Village Apartment Homes $3,875 $4,425
Cityline Flats $4,452 $5,204
Lakeside $4,500 $4,900
Ironworks $4,511 $5,117
The Murphy Station $4,600 $6,400
Savoy $4,765 $5,815
Three-Bedroom Unit Rents
Ironworks $5,065 $5,336
Cityline Flats $5,622 $5,968
Stewart Village Apartment Homes $6,090 $6,090
Source: Apartments.com, 2022. ForRent.com, 2022.
Specific Plans
The City has approved several specific plans to spur development in a variety of districts throughout Sunnyvale. The following plans have recently been updated to increase residential development capacity near jobs and transit. An analysis of the land use controls of each specific plan is included in Chapter 6, “Constraints to the Development of Housing.”
▪ Downtown Specific Plan. The DSP was originally adopted in 1993 and was comprehensively updated in 2003. The DSP encompasses approximately 150 acres and envisions an enhanced, traditional downtown serving the community with a variety of destinations in a pedestrian -friendly environment. The plan was updated in 2013 to add parcels north of Evelyn Avenue to the plan area (including the Ironworks site) and was most recently updated in September 2020 to increase residential and office capacity in the Commercial Core and North of Washington districts. Full buildout of the specific plan is anticipated to occur over a 10 to 15 year-period, following the 2020 update, based on market conditions. ▪ Lawrence Station Area Plan . The LSAP was adopted in 2016 and amended in September 2021 to increase the housing capacity by an additional 3,600 units (for a total of 5,900 units). The LSAP is intended to guide transit-oriented development within a one-half-mile radius of the Lawrence Caltrain Station encompassing approximately 229 acres (without roads). Redevelopment here is planned to consist of transit-oriented uses to promote greater use of the station. Full buildout of the plan is anticipated to occur by 2040.
Attachment 2
▪ El Camino Real Specific Plan (ECRSP). The ECRSP was adopted on June 28, 2022 , and replaces the 2007 Precise Plan for El Camino Real. The ECR SP is intended to refine and guide development of the El Camino Real corrido r as a vibrant, mixed use corridor with improved streetscapes and safer environments for alternative transportation modes. The 201 7 LUTE planned for 4,200 new units and the 2022 plan adds capacity for an additional 2,700 housing units, for a total capacity of 6,900 housing units.
The following sections describe the residential capacity for each of the specific plan areas.
DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN
The DSP designates areas within the downtown for commercial, office, mixed use, and residential uses. Residential uses range from low density (up to 7 units per acre) to very high density (up to 58 units per acre). The DSP identifies maximum development levels for each block and accounts for both residential and non-residential development, as shown in Table 5-54 below. Additional residential development, beyond that identified in the DSP, is permitted through State and local density b onus programs (i.e., the Green Building Program) or through a development agreement.
Table 5-54: Downtown Land Uses and Development Capacity Block # Area
(Acres) Land Use Maximum
Density
Residential
Units per Block
Maximum
Office Sq.
Ft.
Maximum
Commercial
Sq. Ft.
Maximum
Building
Height
Commercial Core District
18 37.92 Downtown Mixed
Use n/a 817 709,000 642,000
75 ft. except 80
ft. for movie
theater
Subtotal 37.92 817 709,000 642,000
North Washington District
1 5.87 Office n/a - 480,600 10,000 100 ft.
1a 4.35 Downtown Mixed
Use n/a 407 - 41,000 85 ft.
2 6.36 Commercial n/a - 80,000 171,000 36 ft.
21 2.35 Downtown Transit
Center n/a - - - 85 ft.
22 1.46 Office and
Commercial n/a - 56,200 85 ft.
Subtotal 20.39 407 616,800 222,000
Sunnyvale/Carroll District
3 2.95 Commercial n/a - - 62,000 50 ft.
4 3.8 Downtown Very
High Density Res.
58 160
- -
40 ft. except
58 30 ft. on
Washington
and McKinley
0.58 Medium Density
Res. 24 13
5 1.13 Downtown Very
High Density Res. 58 46 - - 40 ft.
Attachment 2
Block # Area
(Acres) Land Use Maximum
Density
Residential
Units per Block
Maximum
Office Sq.
Ft.
Maximum
Commercial
Sq. Ft.
Maximum
Building
Height
6 2.33 High Density Res.
36 85
- -
40 ft. except
36 30 ft. on
Washington
and McKinley
1.16 Medium Density
Res. 24 27
7 5.92 Downtown Mixed
Use n/a 100 36,000 14,000 50 ft.
23 5.27 High Density Res. 36 191 - - 50 ft.
Subtotal 23.14 622 36,000 76,000
South of Iowa District
8 1.14 Low-Medium
Density Res. 14 15 - - 30 ft.
8a 0.57 Medium Density
Res. 24 12 - - 30 ft.
8b 1.6 Low Density Res. 7 12 - - 30 ft.
9 1.77 Low-Medium
Density Res. 14 20 - - 30 ft.
9a 1.17 Low Density Res. 7 8 - - 30 ft.
10 1.92 Low-Medium
Density Res. 14 47 - - 30 ft.
11 3.68 Low-Medium
Density Res. 14 49 - - 30 ft.
12 3.79 Low-Medium
Density Res. 14 51 - - 30 ft.
13 4.71 Commercial n/a -
176,100 21,000
50 ft.
2.16 Low-Medium
Density Res. 14 25 30 ft.
20 1.49 High Density Res. 36 51
16,400 -
40 ft.
0.93 Office n/a - 30 ft.
Subtotal 24.93 290 192,500 21,000
West of Mathilda District
14 2.83 Downtown Very
High Density Res. 58 173 - 10,000
30 ft. on
Charles St;
50 ft. on
Mathilda
15 2.8 Downtown Very
High Density Res. 58 152 - 10,000
30 ft. on
Charles St;
50 ft. on
Mathilda
Attachment 2
Block # Area
(Acres) Land Use Maximum
Density
Residential
Units per Block
Maximum
Office Sq.
Ft.
Maximum
Commercial
Sq. Ft.
Maximum
Building
Height
16 3.12 Downtown Very
High Density Res. 58 173 - 10,000
30 ft. on
Charles st;
50 ft. on
Mathilda
17 4.65 Low-Medium
Density Res. 14 48 - - 30 ft.
Subtotal 13.40 546 - 30,000
TOTAL 119.78 2,682 1,554,300 991,000
Source: City of Sunnyvale, Downtown Specific Plan, 2020.
For the DSP sites that are included in the Housing Element sites inventory, the housing unit capacity number included in the inventory is equal to the development potential assigned to the specific block. Nearly all developments in the Downtown in the past 15 years have been built at or in excess of the assigned development per block using the State Density Bonus, Green Building Incentive program, and/or other incentives provided by the City. Table 5 -65 shows the density of developments in the Downtown sinc e 2007 compared to the assigned unit allocation per block. Overall, development projects exceeded the assigned unit counts by over 30 percent. This evidence supports the Housing Element assumption that blocks within the Downtown will build at their assigne d unit capacities.
Attachment 2
Table 5-65: Recent Developments in Downtown Specific Plan Area Development Name Address Block # Acres Year
Approved
Construction
Completion
Date
Assigned
Units in
DSP
Units
Approved/
Built
Difference Density Bonuses
481 on Mathilda 481 S Mathilda Ave DSP-14 1.61 2013 2016 87 105 18 20% State Density Bonus Classics at Town Plaza 238-258 Carroll St DSP-6 0.87 2014 2016/2017 32 24 -8 None Classics at Paloma Place Polaris Terrace DSP-13 1.16 2014 2016/2017 12 13 1 5% Green Building Incentive 437-441 S Sunnyvale Ave 437-441 S Sunnyvale Ave DSP-10 0.28 2014 2016 4 4 0 None Sunnyvale Block 15
(Related Affordable)
380 Charles Street
397 S Mathilda Ave DSP-15 1.44 2020 Under
Construction 67 90 23 35% State Density Bonus
Ironworks North
(Prometheus) 457 E Evelyn Ave DSP-23 2.31 2013 2017 83 117 34 35% State Density Bonus + 5% Green Building Incentive
Ironworks South
(Prometheus) 388 E Evelyn Ave DSP-23 0.98 2013 2017 47 67 20 35% State Density Bonus + 5% Green Building Incentive
220-228 Carroll 220 and 228 Carroll St DSP-6 0.58 2020 Under Construction 20 16 -4 None
The Maxwell
(Lane Partners) 311 S Mathilda Ave DSP-15 1.01 2018 2022 54 75 21 35% State Density Bonus + 5% Green Building Incentive
The Flats
CityLine Phase 1A (sub-
blocks 1 & 2)
320 W Washington Ave
350 W McKinley Ave
345 W McKinley Ave
DSP-18 ~2.44 2007 2018 197 197 0 None
Flats West
CityLine Phase 1B (sub-
block 1)
333 W Iowa Ave DSP-18 0.78 2018 2021 75 75 0 None
CityLine Phase 1C (sub-
blocks 4 & 5)
221 W Iowa Ave
379 S Sunnyvale Ave DSP-18 0.92 2018 N/A 21 21 0 None
CityLine Phase 2A (sub-
block 3S) 200 S Taaffe St DSP-18 3.77 2021 Under
Construction 313 479 166 Development Agreement
The Flats
CityLine Phase 2A (sub-
block 2)
320 W Washington Ave DSP-18 N/A 2020 2021 0 1 1
Development Agreement (Unit
Added to Existing Apartment
Building, the Flats)
CityLine Phase 2B (sub-
block 6)
100 E Washington Ave
230, 240 S Murphy Ave
301 S Sunnyvale Ave
DSP-18 ~4.64 2020* N/A 212 325 113
*Development Agreement
Executed 2020, Pending
Planning Permit Application
Submittal
TOTAL 23.94 1,223 1,608 385
Attachment 2
Residential Development Potential
The 2020 DSP Update provided an additional residential capacity of 550 units; through a combination of density bonus programs 750 net new units were approved through the
recently approved CityLine Sunnyvale project on Block 18 , as shown in Table 5-32 above. Most of the blocks within the DSP are built on. Sites with remaining residential capacity under the DSP are shown on Figure 5-2 and are described below.
Block 4
As shown in Figure 5-3 below, the inventory includes o ne 1.2- acre site within Block 4 composed of t hree parcels (APNs 20905017, 20905018, and 20905036). APN 20905017 contains a self -storage building built in 1960 and no recent site improvements or building renovations have occurred. APN 20905018 contains one unoccupied small retail building built in 1957 that is listed for lease as of October 2022 . APN 20905036 is listed for sale , as of April 2022, and includes a retail building built in 1970 and is occupied by several users, including Walt ’s Cycle. These uses are considered legal non -conforming. Based on current sales, building age, building vacancy status, TOD potential, and site conditions, this site is considered to have redevelopment potential during the planning period . The surrounding sites within Block 4 have been recently
redeveloped with multifamily residential and residential redevelopment is anticipated to continue in this area. The site is designated as Very High Density Residential and has a capacity of 50 units under the DSP. The inventory assumes redevelopment within the planning period and includes capacity for 30 lower-income units, 8 moderate -income units, and 12 above moderate-income units at this site.
Block 10
As shown in Figure 5-4, one 0.67-acre site, consisting of two parcels (APNs 20926041 and 20926063) in Block 10, is designated for low-medium density residential and has a capacity for 16 units under the DSP. The site is currently occupied by offices and other non -residential uses, including a hair salon . The commercial service and retail uses are considered legal non -conforming. The building located on APN 20926041 was built in 1942 and the building located on APN 20926063 was built in 198 7. The site is within a residential neighborhood and adjacent to an apartment complex. Current market trends resulting in high residential demand in the Downtown are expected to continue. Considering the redevelopment potential under the residential land u se designation, the age of the structures, the market demand for the existing uses , and recent redevelopment trends in the Downtown , redevelopment is likely to occur within the planning period and the inventory identifies capacity for 16 moderate- income units at the site based on allowed densities.
Walt’s Cycle located at 120 Carroll St (APN 20905036).
Sunnyvale Self Storage located at 360 E Evelyn Ave (APN 20905017).
Attachment 2
Figure 5-2: Downtown Specific Plan Sites
Source: Adapted by Ascent in 2021 from data received by the City of Sunnyvale in 2021.
Attachment 2
Figure 5-3: Downtown Specific Plan - Block 4
Source: Adapted by Ascent in 2021 from data received from the City of Sunnyvale in 2021
Figure 5-4: Downtown Specific Plan - Block 10
Source: Adapted by Ascent in 2021 from data received from the City of Sunnyvale in 2021
Block 14
As shown in Figure 5-5 below, two sites identified in Block 14 are included in the inventory. One site on the northern end of the block (i.e., DSP-14 (N)) consists of three parcels (APNs 16503001, 16503002, and 16503003), totals 1.03 acres, and includes two single family homes and a vacant for-sale (as of April 2022) non-residential building previously occupied by a bank . The City has been contacted by a developer interested in building housing on this site. The second site on the southern end of the block consists of one parcel (APN 16503006), is 0.54 acre in size, and is occupied by another bank built in 1975. The sites are separated by a residential apartment complex built in 2016. Both sites are designated as Very High Density Residential, and the block has a remaining capacity of 73 units under the specific plan. The City has seen a lot of development activity in the past 20 years on sites previously occupied by banks. Many banks in Sunnyvale have closed their physical locations and these sites have redeveloped with housing or other non-residential uses. Examples of this trend within the Downtown Specific Plan Area include:
▪ Crocker Bank (corner of Taaffe and Iowa), demolished in 2015 and redeveloped with residential; ▪ Bank of America (390 McKinley Way), demolished and replace with offices; ▪ HomeFed Bank (480 S. Mathilda), replaced with a commercial use and approved in 2022 to demolish and redevelop with offices;
▪ Security National (300 S. Mathilda), demolished in 2003 with approval to redevelop as office; ▪ Security National Bank (296 Mathilda), demolished in 2000 and approved in 2022 for future office/retail building
Attachment 2
Directly across the street (and north) from the Block 14 site, t he southern portion of Block 15 is included in a recently approved redevelopment proposal (see P-14 on Figure 5-2). Six parcels owned by the City of Sunnyvale were consolidated and are currently under construction for an affordable housing project to be completed in late 2023. In addition, a project to redevelop a commercial site (Denny’s restaurant) into a mixed use building with mixed-income apartments is under construction on the northern portion of Block 15 and was completed in summer 2022. Based on the vacancy status of the existing structure on the largest parcel, the redevelopment potential under the land use designations of the DSP, and recent redevelopment trends on adjacent blocks it is anticipated that the sites within Block 14 would likely be redeveloped within the planning period. Development on Site DSP - 14(N) could proceed on the larger 0.73-acre parcel (APN 16503003) occupied by the vacant , closed bank without the two smaller parcels. The sites inventory includes capacity for 44 lower-income units, 10 moderate-income units, and 18 above moderate-income units in Block 14.
Block 16
As shown in Figure 5-6 below, Block 16 consists of 14 parcels (APNs 16513051 through 64) totaling 3.12 acres. The entire block is designated as Very High Density Residential and has capacity for 164 additional residential units. Four of the parcels contain are occupied byan unoccupied Wells Fargo Bank building that was purchased by the City in September 2023 Wells Fargo Bank (APNs 16513051, 16513052, 16513053, and 16513064), seven are occupied by residences (APNs 16513054, 16513055, 16513056, 16513057, 16513058, 16513060, and 16513061), and the remaining consist of various commercial uses, including a travel agency, guitar school, shoe repair shop, and similar uses. The Wells Fargo Bank on the southern portion of the site issued a letter stating that they will be closing in May 2023. The former Wells Fargo Bank site was purchased by the City in September 2023. The City entered into an exclusive negotiating agreement with the affordable housing developer, MidPen Housing, to develop the site with very high density 100 percent affordable housing. Similar to the redevelopment occurring on Block 15, the City anticipates that Block 16 will be redeveloped with residential units and mixed use developments. The City processes lot line adjustments as a ministerial action and does not consider lot consolidation to be a constraint on development. While the entire block could be redeveloped, it is more realistic that within the timeframe of the Housing Element the 1.58-acre southern portion of the block containing the Wells Fargo Bank and adjacent properties will develop. The portion of the block included in the sites inventory has capacity for 52 lower-income units, 14 moderate-income units, and 20 above moderate-income units.
Attachment 2
Figure 5-5: Downtown Specific Plan - Block 14
Source: Adapted by Ascent in 2021 from data received from the City of Sunnyvale in 2021
Figure 5-6: Downtown Specific Plan - Block 16
Source: Adapted by Ascent in 2021 from data received from the City of Sunnyvale in 2021
Block 5 (Future Opportunity Site)
As shown in Figure 5-8, one site consisting of three parcels (APNs 20904036, 20904037, 20904052) is designated for Very High Density Residential, totals 0.58 acres, and has a remaining capacity for 22 units under the DSP. The site is currently occupied by low density residential units and a preschoo l. Although the City has experienced a number of low-density residential units that have been sold and replaced with higher density residential, it is less likely that the site would be redeveloped within the planning period. The sites inventory identifies the site as a future opportunity site and does not include capacity for housing during the planning period. However, potential for housing does exist and, if redeveloped, the site could help meet the City’s RHNA.
Summary of Capacity
The residential devel opment potential described is in addition to the amount of commercial development permitted in each block; in other words, development of commercial uses does not reduce the amount of residential permitted under the Specific Plan. Table 5-76 shows the inventoried residential capacity for sites within the DSP, including 126 lower-income units, 48 moderate-income units, and 50 above moderate-income units.
Attachment 2
Table 5-76: City of Sunnyvale, 2023-2031 Housing Element, Downtown Specific Plan Site Number
Assessor Parcel
Number (APN) Address
Size (Gross
Acres)
General Plan Land
Use Designation Zoning Specific Plan Land Use Designation Remaining
Capacity (per
Specific Plan)
Inventoried
Capacity
Lower-
Income
Units
Moderate-
Income
Units
Above
Moderate-
Income Units
Subject to AB
1397 by-right
policy?
Non-vacant Site Factors 1
A B C D E F G
DSP-4
20905017 360 E Evelyn Ave 0.46 Transit Mixed Use DSP Block 4 Downtown Very High Density Residential 19 19 12 3 4 Yes A E F 20905018 380 E Evelyn Ave 0.26 Transit Mixed Use DSP Block 4 Downtown Very High Density Residential 10 10 6 2 3 Yes A D E F G 20905036 120 Carroll St 0.49 Transit Mixed Use DSP Block 4 Downtown Very High Density Residential 21 21 12 3 5 Yes A D E Subtotal Block 4 1.21 50 50 30 8 12 Detailed description on p. 5-20 DSP-5
Future
opportunity
site
20904036 152 S Bayview Ave 0.15 Transit Mixed Use DSP Block 5 Downtown Very High Density Residential 6 0 20904037 140 S Bayview Ave 0.15 Transit Mixed Use DSP Block 5 Downtown Very High Density Residential 6 0 20904052 404 E Evelyn Ave 0.28 Transit Mixed Use DSP Block 5 Downtown Very High Density Residential 10 0 Subtotal Block 5 0.58 22 0 Detailed description on p. 5-24 DSP-10
20926041 422 S Murphy Ave 0.15 Transit Mixed Use DSP Block 10 Low-Medium Density Residential 3 3 3 A E F 20926063 438 S Murphy Ave 0.52 Transit Mixed Use DSP Block 10 Low-Medium Density Residential 13 13 13 A G Subtotal Block 10 0.67 16 16 16 Detailed description on p. 5-20 DSP-14 (N)
16503001 414 Charles St 0.15 Transit Mixed Use DSP Block 14 Downtown Very High Density Residential 8 8 5 1 2 Yes A E G 16503002 410 Charles St 0.15 Transit Mixed Use DSP Block 14 Downtown Very High Density Residential 8 8 5 1 2 Yes A E G 16503003 425 S Mathilda Ave 0.73 Transit Mixed Use DSP Block 14 Downtown Very High Density Residential 20 20 12 3 5 Yes A C D E F G Subtotal Block 14 – North 1.03 36 36 22 5 9 Detailed description on p. 5-22 DSP-14 (S) 16503006 495 S Mathilda Ave 0.54 Transit Mixed Use DSP Block 14 Downtown Very High Density Residential 36 36 22 5 9 Yes A E F Subtotal Block 14 – South 0.54 36 36 22 5 9 Detailed description on p. 5-22 DSP-16
16513051 495 W McKinley Ave 0.10 Transit Mixed Use DSP Block 16 Downtown Very High Density Residential 5 5 3 1 1 Yes A D F G 16513052 475 W McKinley Ave 0.46 Transit Mixed Use DSP Block 16 Downtown Very High Density Residential 25 25 15 4 6 Yes A D F G 16513053 260 Charles St 0.17 Transit Mixed Use DSP Block 16 Downtown Very High Density Residential 9 9 6 1 2 Yes A D F G 16513062 241 S Mathilda Ave 0.44 Transit Mixed Use DSP Block 16 Downtown Very High Density Residential 24 24 14 4 6 Yes A 16513063 259 S Mathilda Ave 0.10 Transit Mixed Use DSP Block 16 Downtown Very High Density Residential 5 5 3 1 1 Yes A G 16513064 295 S Mathilda Ave 0.32 Transit Mixed Use DSP Block 16 Downtown Very High Density Residential 18 18 11 3 4 Yes A D F G Subtotal Block 16 1.58 87 87 52 14 20 Detailed description on p. 5-23 TOTAL 5.63 247 224 126 48 50
Source: Ascent, 2021.
1 Non-vacant site factors: A) TOD Opportunity, B) Village Center, C) Development Interest, D) Occupancy Status, E) Structure Age and Condition, F) Low FAR, G) Low ILV Ratio (see page 5-6 for more information).
Attachment 2
LAWRENCE STATION AREA PLAN
The LSAP is an incentive -based plan that provides density bonuses in exchange for community benefits such as affordable housing, new circulation routes, structured/below-grade/podium parking, or sustainable building. The LSAP requires that, at a minimum, 85 percent of the base maximum density is achieved for all new residential developments. Developers can use the City’s Green Building Program to receive a five (5) percent density bonus before using the LSAP incentive program. In addition, developers may apply for a State density bonus beyond the Green Building Program and LSAP Incentive Program.
Table 5-87 shows the development standards for land use designations permitting residential uses and outlines the base maximum density and additional LSAP density incentive points allowed under each land use designation. Sites zoned for Flexible Mixed Used I (MXD-I), Flexible Mixed Use I/Sonora Court (MXD-I/S), Flexible Mixed Use II (MXD-II), or High-Density Residential (R-5) meet the default density standard for lower-income housing of 30 units per acre.
Sites zoned for MXD-III or MXD-IV also meet the default density standard through the LSAP incentive program. The FAR does not apply to residential development. It only applies to non-residential development.
Table 5-87: Lawrence Station Area Plan Development Standards Land Use/ Zoning Office/R&D/Industrial Retail Residential Maximum Height
(feet) Base
maximum
FAR
Maximum
FAR with
incentives1
Minimum
FAR
Base
maximum
density
(du/ac)2,3
Incentive
points
available
(du/ac)
Maximum
Density w/ LSAP
Incentives
(du/ac)
Flexible Mixed Use I (MXD-I) 35% 150% N/A 45 35 80 100
Flexible Mixed Use I/Sonora
Court (MXD-I/S)
35% 150% N/A 54 26 80 100
Flexible Mixed Use II (MXD-II) 35% 150% N/A 36 32 68 100 Flexible Mixed Use III (MXD-III) 35% 100% N/A 28 17 45 55 Flexible Mixed Use IV (MXD-IV) 35% 50% 25% 28 17 45 55
High-Density Residential (R-5) N/A N/A N/A 45 N/A 45 55 1 A Development Agreement is required for additional FAR above the base maximum through the LSAP Incentives Program.
Development agreements are not required for projects consistent with the additional FAR allowed through participation in the City’s Green Building Program.
2 New residential development in the LSAP is required to build to at least 85 percent of the zoning district’s base maximum zoning density.
3 Additional densities may be achieved above the base maximum density or density obtained through the City’s Green Building Program and/or the LSAP Incentives Program by providing affordable housing consistent with State Density Bonus Law. Additional densities above the base maximum density are calculated in the following order: apply the density bonus percentage through the City’s Green Building Program, add the incentive points gained through the LSAP Development Incentives Program, then apply the State Density Bonus percentage achieved by the project.
4 Maximum density with LSAP incentives does not include incentives provided through the City’s Green Building Program or the State density bonus.
Source: City of Sunnyvale, Lawrence Station Area Plan, 2021.
The 2021 LSAP Update provided an additional estimated residential capacity of 3,612 units, resulting in a total buildout capacity of 5,935 units. As of November 2021, 1,261 residential units have been approved since adoption of the plan and a residential capacity of 4,674 units remains. This residential capacity assumes that developers would utilize the density bonuses provided through the plan’s incentive program, the City’s Green Building Program, and the State density bonus.
Attachment 2
Realistic Density
Recent projects within the plan area have been approved at densities surpassing the base maximum density and often surpassing even densities provided through the LSAP incentive program by also applying State density bonus.
As shown in Table 5-98, recent projects have been built at approximately 80 to 205 percent of the LSAP incentive maximum density.
Table 5-98: Buildout Densities Proposed Under Recent Developments Project
Address
Zoning Acres Units
Proposed
/Built
Base
Density
Max.
Density
w/
Incentives
Actual
Project
Density
Percent
of
Maximum
Density
Income
Level
Project Status
Approved under 2016 LSAP (Prior to 2021 LSAP Update)
1120
Kifer
Road
MXD-I 7.99 520 36-45 68 65 96% Mixed
Income
Approved,
constructed
1155-
1175
Aster
Avenue
MXD-III 16.80 741 24-36 54 44 81% Mixed
Income
Approved, under
construction
(2022)
1178
Sonora
Court
MXD-I 1.26 177 36-45 68 140 206% Lower-
Income
Approved
Submitted under 2021 LSAP Update
1170
Sonora
Court
MXD-
I/S
1.09 106 54 80 98 123% Mixed
Income
Formal
application
received
1154
Sonora
Court
MXD-
I/S
1.89 172 54 80 90 113% Mixed
Income
Formal
application
received
1150-
1170 Ki
fer Rd
MXD-I 2.00 225 45 80 112 140% Mixed
Income
Project Under
Review, Pending
Approval
Average Percent of Maximum Density w/ Incentives 127%
Average Percent of Maximum Density w/ Incentives (excl. State density bonus)1
96%
1 Gross acreage of the site is 5.82 acres. The project includes a lot line adjustment resulting in a 2 acre residential parcel and a 3.82 acre parcel for the existing office buildings to remain.
2 For projects utilizing State density bonus (1178, 1170, and 1154 Sonora Court and 1150-1170 Kifer Road), 100 percent of maximum density is assumed to have been achieved without State density bonus.
Source: City of Sunnyvale, 2021.
For example, a 741-unit project was recently approved on 16.8-acre site located at 1155-1175 Aster Avenue. At the time of project approval, prior to the 2021 LSAP Update, the site was zoned MXD -III which allowed a base density range of 24 to 36 units per acre and a maximum density with incentives of 54 units per acre. The project utilized the LSAP incent ive program and provided several community benefits in exchange for density bonus points, resulting in a buildout density of 44 units per acre, 122 percent of the base density and 81 percent of the maximum density with incentives.
Attachment 2
Three projects along Sonora Court and one at 1150-1170 Kifer Road have also utilized the LSAP incentive program as well as the State density program, exceeding the maximum density with incentives by up to 206 percent.
High land costs in the LSAP area incentivize developers to build at the highest achievable density to increase project feasibility. Based on these recent trends, it is anticipated that most new residential developments would utilize the LSAP incentive program. Excluding State density bonus units , recent developments have been built at an average of 96 percent of the maximum density with incentives. Therefore, the sites inventory assumes a realistic density of 95 percent of the zoning district’s maximum density with incentives (excluding State density bonus). All of the sites in the inventory exceed the minimum lot size requirement of 22,500 sq uare feet and the minimum lot width requirements ranging from 1 00 to 200 feet. Even if the sites did not comply with the lot size requirements, they would not be a constraint on development since the Zoning Code would consider them to be legal, non-conforming and would allow them to develop with the prescribed use. In addition, the setback, lot coverage, open space, and landscaping requirements do not preclude development from achieving maximum densities . See Chapter 6, Constraints for more analysis of land use controls in the LSAP.
Residential Development Potential and Summary of Capacity Sites were selected and categorized into different tiers based on market demand for existing uses, conversations with property owners and real estate brokers, and recent development trends on adjacent parcels in the Lawrence Station Area. Each site has been reviewed to consider the proportion of residential development to non-residential development as well as the redevelopment potential within the 2023 -2031 planning period. Table 5-109 below details the residential capacity for each site based on the realistic density, redevelo pment likelihood, and site characteristics. Sites within the LSAP that are included in the Housing Element inventory are shown in Figure 5-7 below and provide capacity for 1,096 lower-income units, 227 moderate-income units, and 379 above moderate- income units. This total inventoried capacity of 1,703 units during the 2023-2031 housing element planning period in addition to the 505 units in pipeline projects within the plan area represents about 37 percent of the total buildout (5,935 units) estimated over the approximately 20 year planning horizon of the LSAP (i.e., 2040).
1155 -1165 Reed Avenue and 1164 Willow Avenue (LSAP-5)
are currently occupied with retail and restaurant uses.
However, the three parcels are under common ownership,
existing buildings are outdated, and the property owner has expressed interest in mixed-use redevelopment. This site is with 0.5 mile of the Lawrence Station providing excellent access to transit for lower-income housing.
1135 Sonora Court (LSAP-7) is currently developed as office space. However, several recent approved projects have
triggered redevelopment of Sonora Court into a residential mixed use district. The building was built in 1977 and no recent significant improvements have occurred. The property owner has expressed interest in mixed-use redevelopment of the site.
Attachment 2
Figure 5-7: Lawrence Station Area Plan Sites
Source: Adapted by Ascent in 2021 from data received by the City of Sunnyvale in 2021.
Attachment 2
Table 5-109: City of Sunnyvale, 2023-2031 Housing Element, Lawrence Station Area Plan Site
Number
Assessor
Parcel
Number
(APN)
Address Size
(Gross
Acres)
General Plan
Land Use
Designation
Zoning Maximum
Achievable
Density 1
Maximum
Potential
Units 1
Realistic
Density 2
Tier Redevelop-
ment
Likelihood
Inventoried Units Subject
to AB
1397
by-right
policy?
Description of Existing Use/Status Non-Vacant Site
Factors 3
Total
Units
Lower-
Income
Units
Moderate
-Income
Units
Above
Moderate
-Income
Units
A B C D E F G
LSAP-1 20550024 1171 Sonora Ct 1.3 Transit Mixed
Use
MXD-I/S 80 104 148 (with
state density
bonus)
1 100% 192 190 2 No Site includes existing low-rise office building built in 1976. Several entities including the City and
Facebook provided funding to MidPen Housing
that purchased the site in June 2021. MidPen has
indicated plans to build 192 units on the site,
including 40% set aside as permanent supportive
housing or housing for those earning up to 30%
AMI. The project is not yet entitled (as of 2022)
and is therefore treated as a vacant site at this
time. However, the unit count and realistic density
assumptions are based on MIdPen’s application for
the City’s 2022 NOFA and preliminary plans, which
intend to utilize State Density Bonus.
A C D E F G
LSAP-2 21627068 1382-1388 Kifer Rd 3.56 Transit Mixed
Use
MXD-II 68 242 65 2 25% 57 34 9 14 Research and development building, built in 1999, City has received interest from brokers, who have
indicated that residential redevelopment is likely in
2nd half of planning period. The existing building
could be demolished or could remain, with
residential development built on the large surface
parking lot. Based on this information, the site is
identified as a Tier 2 site with only 25%
redevelopment likelihood. The site capacity has
been reduced to reflect this (i.e., 57 units vs. 242
maximum allowable units).
A C F
LSAP-3 21627069 1400 Kifer Rd 6.34 Transit Mixed
Use
MXD-II 68 431 65 2 25% 102 61 15 26 Existing data center built in 1992. City has received interest from brokers, who have indicated that
residential redevelopment is likely in 2nd half of
planning period. Based on this information, the
site is identified as a Tier 2 site with only 25%
redevelopment likelihood. The site capacity has
been reduced to reflect this (i.e., 102 units vs. 431
maximum allowable units).
A C F G
LSAP-4 21627047 111 Uranium Dr 5.79 Transit Mixed
Use
MXD-II 68 393 65 2 25% 94 56 14 23 Existing data center. Built in 1970. Most recently sold in 2019. City has received interest from
brokers, who have indicated that residential
redevelopment is likely in 2nd half of planning
period. Based on this information, the site is
identified as a Tier 2 site with only 25%
redevelopment likelihood. The site capacity has
been reduced to reflect this (i.e., 94 units vs. 393
maximum allowable units).
A C E F G
LSAP-5 21301002 1165 Reed Ave 0.96 Transit Mixed
Use
MXD-IV 45 43 43 1 100% 41 25 6 10 Yes Existing one-story grocery store, restaurant, auto repair and print shop. Constructed from 1961-
1972. Across the street from recently built 5-story
Montecello development. All three parcels under
same ownership. The property is for sale and the
property owner has expressed interest in mixed-
use redevelopment.
A C D E F
21301003 1155 Reed Ave 1.54 Transit Mixed
Use
MXD-IV 45 69 43 1 100% 66 40 10 16 Yes A C D E F
21301004 1164 Willow Ave 0.34 Transit Mixed
Use
MXD-IV 45 15 43 1 100% 15 9 2 4 Yes A C D E F
Site Total 2.84 127 122 74 18 30
Attachment 2
Site
Number
Assessor
Parcel
Number
(APN)
Address Size
(Gross
Acres)
General Plan
Land Use
Designation
Zoning Maximum
Achievable
Density 1
Maximum
Potential
Units 1
Realistic
Density 2
Tier Redevelop-
ment
Likelihood
Inventoried Units Subject
to AB
1397
by-right
policy?
Description of Existing Use/Status Non-Vacant Site
Factors 3
Total
Units
Lower-
Income
Units
Moderate
-Income
Units
Above
Moderate
-Income
Units
A B C D E F G
LSAP-6 20550019 1175 Sonora Ct 1.31 Transit Mixed
Use
MXD-I/S 80 104 76 2 25% 25 15 4 6 Existing one-story office space for lease. Built in 1976. Because there has not been expressed
interest in redevelopment of the site, the potential
for mixed-use development is more likely in 2nd
half of planning period. The site capacity has been
reduced to reflect this (i.e., 25 units vs. 104
maximum allowable units).
A D E F
LSAP-7 20550028 1135 Sonora Ct 1.47 Transit Mixed
Use
MXD-I/S 80 117 76 1 100% 112 67 17 28 Existing office space. Built in 1977. Property owner expressed interest in mixed-use redevelopment.
A C E F G
LSAP-8 21627037 1360 Kifer Rd 14.58 Transit Mixed
Use
MXD-I 80 1,166 76 2 25% 277 166 42 69 Existing industrial space and data center. Constructed in 1979. Fully leased. Property owner interested in
residential conversion, however given the size of the
site it is assumed that development would be phased
and only 25% of the site is assumed to develop during
the planning period. The inventory assumes 277 total
units compared to the 1,166 maximum unit capacity of
the site.
A C E F G
LSAP-9 216-27-018 1202 Kifer Rd 0.62 TRANSIT MIXED
USE (TMIX)
MXD-I 80 50 76 1 100% 47 28 7 12 Existing office building. Built in 1985. Developer has submitted plans to demolish office building
and construct residential
A C D F G
LSAP-10 20550014 1170 Sonora Ct 1.09 TRANSIT MIXED
USE (TMIX)
MXD-I/S 80 87 76 1 100% 83 50 12 21 Existing office building. Built in 1974. Developer has submitted plans to redevelop office space with
apartments.
A C D E F
LSAP-11 20550016 1154 Sonora Ct 1.89 TRANSIT MIXED
USE (TMIX)
MXD-I/S 80 151 76 1 100% 144 86 22 36 Existing office building. Built in1975. Developer has submitted plans to redevelop office space with
apartments.
A C D E F G
LSAP-12 20550034 1150 Kifer Rd 2.67 TRANSIT
MIXED USE
(TMIX)
MXD-I 80 214 76 1 100% 203 122 30 51 Existing surface parking lot area at the rear of two existing office buildings. Developer has submitted
plans to demolish the surface parking area and
construct apartments.
A C F G
20550035 1170 Kifer Rd 3.23 TRANSIT
MIXED USE
(TMIX)
MXD-I 80 258 76 1 100% 245 147 37 61 A C F G
Site Total 5.89 466 76 1 100% 448 269 67 112
TOTAL 46.7 1,7023 1,096 227 379
1 Maximum achievable density and maximum achievable units includes density bonus points received through the LSAP incentive program but excludes density bonus points available through the City’s Green Building Program and the State density bonus. 2 Realistic densities are calculated at 95 percent of maximum achievable density. 3 Non-vacant site factors: A) TOD Opportunity, B) Village Center, C) Development Interest, D) Occupancy Status, E) Structure Age and Condition, F) Low FAR, G) Low ILV Ratio (see page 5-6 for more information).
Source: Ascent, 2023.
Attachment 2
EL CAMINO REAL SPECIFIC PLAN
The El Camino Real Specific Plan (ECRSP) was adopted by the City Council on June 28, 2022. The plan replaces the City’s Precise Plan for El Camino Real and focuses on increasing residential development opportunities along the corridor, while preserving important retail and commercial sites.
The plan designates the corridor for Public Facilities, Office, Commercial, Residential Mixed Use, Medium Density Residential, and High Density Residential. Designations permitting residential mixed use development are primarily located in nodes located at key intersections with transit access along the corridor. These nodes are envisioned for transit-oriented development and are surrounded by uses compatible with high density residential. The remaining portions of the corridor are identified as segments. These segments are anticipated to be developed with more auto-oriented commercial uses. As shown in Figure 5-8 below, a large portion of the corridor is designated for Commercial and does not permit residential uses. This is intended to preserve important commercial uses but also to support residential development in select areas.
Mixed Use designations require that a portion of the site be developed with commercial uses. However, maximum residential densities could still be achieved on the site. The plan permits building heights up to 6 stories in nodes and up to 4 stories in segments. Residential densities vary by zone as shown in Table 5-110.
Table 5-110: El Camino Real Specific Plan Density Standards Land Use/ Zoning Residential
Base maximum
density (du/ac)
Incentive points
available (du/ac)
Maximum Density w/
Incentives (du/ac) 1
Commercial (ECR-C) N/A N/A N/A
Mixed Use -24 (ECR-MU24) 24 6 30
Mixed Use - 28 (ECR-MU28) 28 10 38
Mixed Use - 33 (ECR-MU33) 33 12 45
Mixed Use - 42 (ECR-MU42) 42 14 56
Mixed Use - 54 (ECR-MU54) 54 20 74
Office (ECR-O) N/A N/A N/A
Public Facilities (ECR-PF) N/A N/A N/A
Medium Density Residential (ECR-R3) 24 N/A N/A
High Density Residential (ECR-R4) 36 N/A N/A
1 Maximum density with incentives does not include additional incentives provided through the City’s Green Building Program or the State density bonus.
Source: City of Sunnyvale, 2022.
Realistic Density
There are five market rate or mixed income projects located within the ECRSP area that are either under construction or preliminary applications have been submitted and reviewed (see Table 5 -121). Most of these applications were submitted prior to adoption of the Specific Plan and were therefore based on the development standards of the prior Precise Plan for El Camino Real . Nevertheless, the development applications reflect an average density equal to 109 percent of the base density and 86 percent of the maximum density with incentives allowed under the updated Specific Plan. Similarly, the sites inventory assumes capacity based on 100 percent of the base maximum density and does not assume any units achieved through the Plan’s incentive program. Assuming the base maximum density is the equivalent of assuming between 73 and 80 percent of the maximum density with incentives. These density assumption s are supported by the past development applications submitted within the ECRSP area. However, similar to recent development activity in other plan areas, such as the LSAP, the City Attachment 2
anticipates residential buildout densities beyond the base maximum density through use of the incentive program.
As such, the capacity included in the sites inventory is conservative.
Table 5-121: Analysis of Density for Recently Proposed Projects in El Camino Real Specific Plan Area Proposed Project
Location
Site
Area
(Acres)
Total
Units
Project
Density Zoning
Base
Max
Density
Max Density
with
Incentives
% of Base
Max
Density
% of Max
Density with
Incentives Notes
871 and 895 E
Fremont Ave 5.44 130 24 R3 24 24 100% 100%
Under
construction
610 Grape Ave, 1088
W El Camino Real 2.29 108 47
ECR-
MU42 42 56 112% 84%
Prelim. app.
in 2018
1100 and 1124 W El
Camino Real 3.56 116 33
ECR-
MU33 33 45 99% 72%
Formal
Application
Under
review
777 Sunnyvale-
Saratoga Rd 5.32 417 78
ECR-
MU54 54 74 145% 106%
Prelim. app.
in 2022
665, 681, 683, 685 E
El Camino Real 3.08 114 37
ECR-
MU42 42 56 88% 66%
Prelim. app.
in 2022
Average 109% 86%
Source: City of Sunnyvale, 2022.
Redevelopment Potential
Table 5-132 below identifies sites included in the Housing Element inventory within the ECRSP. These sites have been selected based on the proposed designations of the plan, existing uses, site location, and the other non-vacant factors described earlier . A brief des cription of current site conditions is included in the table along with an identification of the non-vacant site factors used to determine the feasibility of development. Sites are categorized into different tiers based on conversations with property owners, City staff knowledge of the sites, locations within nodes, and compatibility with surrounding uses. A redevelopment potential of 100 percent is applied to sites in the Tier 1 category, which have been assessed to have the greatest likelihood of developing during the planning period.
While a redevelopment potential of only 25 percent is applied to s ites in the Tier 2 category . Sites in the Tier 2 category are assumed to be less likely to redevelop or may only redevelop later in the planning period.
Future Opportunity Sites
Additional sites are designated for mixed use residential within the plan and are suitable for redevelopment.
However, based on site conditions, lack of expressed property owner development interest, and existing uses, these sites are assumed to be unlikely to redevelop within the planning period. These sites are identified as future opportunity sites.
Summary of Capacity
As shown in Figures 5-119a through 5-9c and Table 5-1213, sites within the ECRSP included in the Housing Element inventory provide capacity for 1,204 lower-income units, 367 moderate-income units, and 502 above moderate- income units. This inventoried capacity of 2,073 units on non-vacant sites during the 2023-2031 housing element planning period in addition to the 128 units in pipeline projects within the plan area represents about 32 percent of the total buildout (6,900 units) estimated over the approximately 20 to 30 year planning horizon of the El Camino Real Specific Plan.
Attachment 2
Figure 5-8: El Camino Real Specific Plan Residential vs. Non-Residential Sites
Source: Adapted by Ascent in 2022 from data received by the City of Sunnyvale in 2022.
Attachment 2
Figure 5-9a: El Camino Real Specific Plan Sites (Western Section)
Source: Adapted by Ascent in 2022 from data received by the City of Sunnyvale in 2022.
Attachment 2
Figure 5-9b: El Camino Real Specific Plan Sites (Central Section)
Source: Adapted by Ascent in 2022 from data received by the City of Sunnyvale in 2022.
Attachment 2
Figure 5-9c: El Camino Real Specific Plan Sites (Eastern Section)
Source: Adapted by Ascent in 2022 from data received by the City of Sunnyvale in 2022.
Attachment 2
Table 5-1312: City of Sunnyvale, 2023-2031 Housing Element, El Camino Real Specific Plan Site
Number APN Address
Size
(Gross
Acres)
General Plan
Land Use
Designation Zoning
Max.
Base
Density
Max.
Density w/
Incentives1
Max.
Potential
Units
Realistic
Density Tier
Redevelop-
ment
Likelihood
Inventoried Units
Subject to
AB 1397
by-right
policy?
Non-vacant Site Factors2
Total
Units
Lower-
Income
Units
Moderate-
Income
Units
Above
Moderate-
Income
Units Description of Site Conditions/Existing Use A B C D E F G ECR-1 16122008 1255 W El
Camino Real 0.86 ECRSP ECR-
MU42 42 56 48 42 1 100% 36 22 5 9 YES
Vacant. The previous building burned down, and the
site has been cleared. Food trucks temporarily
occupy the site. The property owner has expressed
interest in mixed use development.
A C D E F G
ECR-2 16122007 1247-1254 W El
Camino Real 2.23 ECRSP ECR-
MU42 42 56 125 42 2 25% 23 14 3 6 YES
Shopping center built in 1980, well maintained, and
has multiple tenants. No property owner interest
has been received but specific plan supports mixed
use redevelopment. Site is similar to others being
proposed for redevelopment in the plan area.
A F G
ECR-3
16122004
16122005
16122006
1193-1241 W El
Camino Real 1.09 ECRSP ECR-
MU42 42 56 61 42 2 25% 11 6 2 3 YES
Three separate parcels under separate ownership
currently occupied by a motel, restaurant, and
dance studio. The retail buildings on APN 16122004
and APN 16122006 were built in 1970. The motel on
APN 16122005 was built in 1948, previously suffered
from a fire and is in poor condition. Lot
consolidation would be required and no property
owner interest has been received. Specific plan
supports mixed use redevelopment.
A D E F G
ECR-4 19816007
19816008
1234-1238 W El
Camino Real 1.86 ECRSP ECR-
MU54 54 74 138 54 1 100% 100 60 15 25 YES
Two parcels under single ownership. Three-unit
shopping center built in 1986 in need of minor
repair. Currently occupied by retail uses and bank
with one vacant unit. Large surface parking lot.
Directly adjacent to VTA Rapid 522 bus stop.
A D E F
ECR-5
19816002
part of
19816004
601-663 S
Bernardo Ave 1.76 ECRSP ECR-
MU54 54 74 130 54 1 100% 95 57 14 24 YES
Two parcels under single ownership. Fast food
restaurant with drive-thru built in 1968. Directly
adjacent to VTA Rapid 522 bus stop. Auto-oriented
uses including drive-thrus would be limited by the
specific plan. The specific plan supports transit
oriented mixed use redevelopment.
A E F G
ECR-6 16123001 1111 W El
Camino Real 2.74 ECRSP ECR-
MU33 33 45 123 33 1 100% 90 54 14 23
Portion of large shopping center built in 1984,
occupied by a variety of retail, restaurant, and
service uses. The City has received developer
interest for residential redevelopment of the site.
A C F G
ECR-7 16141009 1027-1035 W El
Camino Real 2.42 ECRSP ECR-
MU42 42 56 136 42 1 100% 102 61 15 26
Existing auto sale and office uses. Buildings
constructed in 1971. The City has received developer
interest for mixed use and residential
redevelopment of the site.
A C E F G
ECR-8
20121005
20121006
20121007
804-844 W El
Camino Real 4.91 ECRSP ECR-
MU42 42 56 275 42 1 25% 52 31 8 13
Shopping center, built in 1996, occupied by retail
and restaurant uses with some vacancy. Three
parcels with two separate owners. Property owner
interest in mixed use redevelopment.
A C F
ECR-9 20137011
20137012
144-154 W El
Camino Real 5.38 ECRSP ECR-
MU54 54 74 398 54 2 25% 73 44 11 18 YES
Existing retail uses constructed in 1964. Adjacent to
existing multifamily apartments. Directly adjacent to
VTA Rapid 522 bus stop. Two separate property
owners. No property owner interest has been
received but specific plan supports mixed use
redevelopment.
A E F G
Attachment 2
Site
Number APN Address
Size
(Gross
Acres)
General Plan
Land Use
Designation Zoning
Max.
Base
Density
Max.
Density w/
Incentives1
Max.
Potential
Units
Realistic
Density Tier
Redevelop-
ment
Likelihood
Inventoried Units
Subject to
AB 1397
by-right
policy?
Non-vacant Site Factors2
Total
Units
Lower-
Income
Units
Moderate-
Income
Units
Above
Moderate-
Income
Units Description of Site Conditions/Existing Use A B C D E F G ECR-10
20930048
20930049
20930050
20930044
20930045
20930046
20930047
101-105 E El
Camino Real,
564-566 S
Murphy Ave,
569-575 S
Sunnyvale Ave
2.00 ECRSP ECR-
MU42 42 56 112 42 2 25% 21 13 3 5 YES
Existing shopping center built in 1947 occupied with
retail, fitness gym, and service uses. Parcels are
under single ownership. No property owner interest
has been received but redevelopment potential later
in the planning period.
A E F G
ECR-11
21101035
21101036
21101038
21101044
21101045
107-161 E El
Camino Real 13.78 ECRSP ECR-
MU54 54 74 1,020 54 2 25% 186 112 28 46 YES
Large shopping center, built in 1977-1979, occupied
by big box retail. Four separate property owners for
the five parcels. One of the parcels is for sale as of
February 2023. Property owner engaged in specific
plan process. Redevelopment potential later in the
planning period.
A C D E F G
ECR-12 21117003 150-170 E El
Camino Real 2.04 ECRSP ECR-
MU42 42 56 114 42 2 25% 21 13 3 5
Existing auto parts and tire shop built in 1995. No
property owner interest has been received but
redevelopment potential later in the planning
period.
A F
ECR-13 21101029 411-433 E El
Camino Real 3.76 ECRSP ECR-
MU54 54 74 278 54 2 25% 51 30 8 13
Shopping center with 10 units built in 1978.
Overhead powerlines cross the site. Directly
adjacent to bus stop. No property owner interest
has been received but redevelopment potential later
in the planning period.
A E F
ECR-14 21101039
21101040
561-595 E El
Camino Real 2.85 ECRSP ECR-
MU54 54 74 211 54 2 25% 38 23 6 9 YES
Shopping center with 9 units built in 1980. Parcels
are under separate ownership. Directly adjacent to
VTA Rapid 522 bus stop. Redevelopment potential
later in the planning period.
A E F G
ECR-15
21120029
21120032
21120033
21120036
21120039
556-598 E El
Camino Real 8.98 ECRSP ECR-
MU54 54 74 665 54 2 25% 121 73 18 30 YES
Shopping center with 8 units built in 1973, including
a pharmacy, discount stores, restaurant, bank, and
optometry store. Large surface parking lot. Parcels
are under common ownership. No property owner
interest has been received but redevelopment
potential later in the planning period.
A E F G
ECR-16 21110034 725 E El Camino
Real 0.56 ECRSP ECR-
MU24 24 30 17 24 2 25% 3 3
Existing auto repair use. Built in 1972. Small site near existing residential with development potential later
in the planning period.
A E F G
ECR-17
21115035
21115028
21115034
21115033
21115032
751-783 E El
Camino Real 5.15 ECRSP ECR-
MU54 54 74 381 54 1 100% 279 167 42 70
Portion of large shopping center built between 1960
and 1995, occupied by a variety of retail, restaurant,
and service uses. Five parcels with two property
owners. The City has received developer interest for
residential redevelopment of the site.
A E F G
ECR-18 21116008 805 E El Camino
Real 1.33 ECRSP ECR-
MU42 42 56 74 42 1 100% 56 34 8 14
Existing hotel built in 1999. Property owner
previously expressed interest in residential
conversion.
A C
ECR-19 21116026 813-819 E El
Camino Real 2.08 ECRSP ECR-
MU42 42 56 116 42 2 25% 22 13 3 6
Occupied by auto service uses, built in 1968.
Developer owned. Redevelopment potential later in
the planning period.
A C E F G
Attachment 2