Urban County of Santa Clara - the County of Santa Clara

Urban County of Santa Clara Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 2015 99% DRAFT

Prepared for:

Prepared by:

County Of Santa Clara Office of Supportive Housing www.sccgov.org

LeSar Development Consultants

3180 Newberry Drive, Suite 150 San José, CA 95118

404 Euclid Avenue, Suite 212 San Diego, CA 92114

www.lesardevelopment.com

Acknowledgements The Urban County of Santa Clara (Urban County) includes the unincorporated communities within Santa Clara County (County), in addition to seven small jurisdictions: the cities of Campbell, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, and Saratoga. The Urban County prepared this Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI) with the assistance of LeSar Development Consultants (LDC) — a social innovation firm focused on creating physically, economically, and environmentally sustainable communities. The Urban County would like to thank the community residents and representatives of organizations, agencies, and businesses who participated in the community forums and interviews and provided thoughtful and valuable feedback to various chapters of the AI. The following City Councilmembers, City staff, and community stakeholders were instrumental in circulating information on and promoting engagement in the creation of this report: County of Santa Clara sOffice of Supportive Housing

City of Campbell Jeffrey Cristina, Mayor Jason Baker, Vice Mayor Michael Kotowski, Council Member Liz Gibbons, Council Member Paul Resnikoff, Council Member City of Los Altos Jan Pepper, Mayor Jeannie Bruins, Mayor Pro Tem Megan Satterlee, Council Member Jean Mordo, Council Member Mary Prochnow, Council Member Town of Los Altos Hills Courtenay C. Corrigan, Mayor John Harpootlian, Mayor Pro Tem Rich Larsen, Council Member John Radford, Council Member Gary Waldeck, Council Member

Town of Los Gatos Marcia Jensen, Mayor Barbara Spector, Vice Mayor Steven Leonardis, Council Member Rob Rennie – Council Member Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Urban County of Santa Clara

2

Member Marico Sayoc, Council Member City of Monte Sereno Walter Huff, Mayor Lon Allan, Vice Mayor Marshall Anstandig, Council Member Burton Craig, Council Member Susan Garner, Council Member City of Morgan Hill Steve Tate, Mayor Larry Carr, Mayor Pro Tem Rich Constantine, Council Member Marilyn Librers, Council Member Gordon Siebert, Council Member City of Saratoga Howard Miller, Mayor Manny Cappello, Vice Mayor Emily Lo, Council Member Mary-Lynne Bernald, Council Member Rishi Kumar, Council Member

Table of Contents I.

Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 8 Organization of the AI ............................................................................................................................. 8 What is Fair Housing? ............................................................................................................................... 8 Methodology........................................................................................................................................... 12 Public Engagement ................................................................................................................................. 13 Summary of Key Findings and Recommendations ............................................................................... 21

II.

Background Data ............................................................................................................................... 24 General Population Characteristics ....................................................................................................... 24 Income Characteristics .......................................................................................................................... 35 Special Needs Populations .................................................................................................................... 37 Employment Profile ............................................................................................................................... 37 Public Transportation ............................................................................................................................ 42

III. Housing Profile ................................................................................................................................... 51

Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice


3

Housing Stock ......................................................................................................................................... 51 Housing Affordability............................................................................................................................. 52 Assisted Housing .................................................................................................................................... 55 IV. Mortgage Lending Practices ............................................................................................................ 62 Legislation .............................................................................................................................................. 62 Conventional vs. Government-Backed Financing................................................................................. 63 Subprime Lending ..................................................................................................................................66 Predatory Lending ................................................................................................................................. 67 V.

Public Policies and Practices............................................................................................................. 69 Zoning Ordinance and Land Use Regulation ........................................................................................69 Variety of Housing Opportunity ............................................................................................................ 74 Community Representation and Participation ..................................................................................... 76

VI. Fair Housing Profile........................................................................................................................... 78 Fair Housing Practices: Ownership Market .......................................................................................... 78 Fair Housing Practices: Rental Housing Market ................................................................................... 79 Fair Housing Services .............................................................................................................................80 Fair Housing Statistics............................................................................................................................80 VII. Fair Housing Progress Since 2010 ..................................................................................................... 84 VIII. Key Findings and Recommendations ............................................................................................... 95 Key Findings ........................................................................................................................................... 95 Recommendations: New and Ongoing................................................................................................. 95 Appendix A: Table of Acronyms ............................................................................................................... 98



4

List of Tables and Figures Table 1.1: Regional Forums ......................................................................................................................... 13 Table 1.2: Community Forums....................................................................................................................14 Table 1.3: Key Recommendations to Reduce Impediments to Fair Housing Choice .............................. 21 Table 2.1: Unincorporated County Historical Population Trends, 1970 – 2010 ...................................... 24 Table 2.2: Santa Clara County Population by Race and Ethnicity, 2000 – 2010 ..................................... 25 Figure 2.2 Unincorporated County Minority Concentration .................................................................. 25 Figure 2.3 Campbell Minority Concentration .......................................................................................... 26 Figure 2.4 Los Altos Minority Concentration .......................................................................................... 28 Figure 2.5 Los Altos Hills Minority Concentration .................................................................................. 29 Figure 2.6 Los Gatos Minority Concentration ......................................................................................... 30 Figure 2.7 Monte Sereno Minority Concentration ................................................................................... 31 Figure 2.8 Morgan Hill Minority Concentration ...................................................................................... 32 Figure 2.9 Saratoga Minority Concentration........................................................................................... 33 Table 2.3: Santa Clara County Age Distribution, 2000 – 2010 ................................................................. 34 Table 2.4: Santa Clara County Median Age, 2000 – 2010 ........................................................................ 34 Table 2.5: Santa Clara Urban County Household Composition .............................................................. 34 Table 2.6: Santa Clara Urban County Median Income 2000 - 2011 .......................................................... 35 Table 2.7: Santa Clara County Household Income Distribution, 2000 – 2012 ........................................ 35 Table 2.8: Santa Clara Urban County Low- and Moderate-Income Households ................................... 36 Table 2.9: Santa Clara Urban County Special Needs Populations .......................................................... 37 Table 2.10: San José-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara MSA Unemployment Rates, 2000 – 2013 ......................... 37 Figure 2.1 – 2014 Unemployment Rates for Santa Clara County Jurisdictions ...................................... 38 Table 2.11: San José-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara MSA Employment by Industry, 2000 – 2013..................... 38 Figure 2.2 – Fastest Growing Occupations – San José-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara MSA ............................ 40 Table 2.12: Urban County Educational Attainment by Age – 25 and Older.............................................41 Table 2.13: Urban County Educational Attainment and Median Earnings in the Past 12 Months .........41 Figure 2.12: Urban County Bus Routes – Map 1 ........................................................................................ 44 Figures 2.13: Urban County Bus Routes – Map 2...................................................................................... 45 Figures 2.14: Urban County Bus Routes – Map 3 ..................................................................................... 46



5

Table 2.14: Santa Clara VTA Fixed-Route Transit Fares ........................................................................... 46 Figure 2.3: VTA Bus Rapid Transit Program ............................................................................................. 48 Figure 2.4: Caltrain System Map............................................................................................................... 49 Table 2.15: Caltrain Fares ........................................................................................................................... 50 Table 3.1: Urban County Residential Housing by Number of Units ......................................................... 51 Table 3.2: Urban County Residential Unit Size by Tenure ....................................................................... 51 Table 3.3: Urban County Cost of Housing ................................................................................................ 52 Table 3.4: Rent Paid in Urban County....................................................................................................... 52 Table 3.5: Urban County Low- and Moderate-Income Households by Tenure ..................................... 53 Table 3.6: Urban County Affordability by Housing Urban Development Area Median Family Income (HAMFI) ...................................................................................................................................................... 53 Table 3.7: Urban County Housing Cost Burden >30%............................................................................... 53 Table 3.8: Urban County Housing Cost Burden >50% .............................................................................. 54 Table 3.9: Urban County Disproportionately Greater Cost Burden ....................................................... 55 Table 3.10: Urban County Overcrowding Conditions (more than one person per room) ................... 55 Table 3.11: Santa Clara County Assisted Housing by Program Type....................................................... 56 Table 3.12: HACSC’s Mixed Finance D ....................................................................................................... 59 Figure 3.1: Affordable Housing Projects in the Urban County ............................................................... 59 Table 3.12: Licensed Community Care Facilities in the Urban County ....................................................61 Table 4.1 Urban County Financial Institution Community Reinvestment Act Ratings ......................... 63 Table 4.2 San José-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara MSA Approval Rate of Conventional Home Purchase Loan by Race/Ethnicity ....................................................................................................................................... 64 Table 4.3 San José-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara MSA Approval Rate of Government Backed Home Purchase Loan by Race/Ethnicity.............................................................................................................. 64 Table 4.4 San José-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara MSA Conventional Home Purchase Loan Approval Rate by Race and Income........................................................................................................................................ 64 Table 4.5 San José-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara MSA Government-Backed Home Purchase Loan Approval Rate by Race/Ethnicity and Income.......................................................................................................... 64 Table 4.6 San José-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara MSA Conventional Home Purchase Loan Originations by Race/Ethnicity and Income ....................................................................................................................... 65 Table 4.7 San José-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara MSA Government-Backed Home Purchase Loan Originations by Race/Ethnicity and Income ............................................................................................ 65 Table 4.8 San José-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara MSA Refinance Approval Rate by Race/Ethnicity............. 65 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice


6

Table 4.9 San José-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara MSA Refinance Approval Rates by Race/Ethnicity and Income ........................................................................................................................................................ 65 Table 4.10 San José-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara MSA Refinance Loan Originations by Race/Ethnicity and Income ........................................................................................................................................................ 66 Table 5.1: Santa Clara County Residential Land Use Designations ......................................................... 69 Table 5.2: Santa Clara County Residential Parking Standards ............................................................... 72 Table 5.3: Santa Clara County Handicapped Parking Standards ............................................................ 73 Table 5.4: Santa Clara County Residential Planning and Development Fees ........................................ 74 Table 5.5: Urban County Homeless Housing Inventory .......................................................................... 75 Table 6.1: Fair Housing Complaints Filed in the Urban County .............................................................. 82 Table 6.2: Closing Results of Fair Housing Complaints Filed in the Urban County ............................... 82 Table 8.1: Urban County Historical Fair Housing Funding ...................................................................... 95 Table 8.2: New and Ongoing Recommendations to Reduce Impediments to Fair Housing Choice ... 96



7

I. Introduction The Urban County of Santa Clara (Urban County) is committed to overcoming any obstacles to fair housing choice throughout the Urban County and ensuring opportunities for all residents. This Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI) draws on the Urban County’s previous AI, federal, regional, and regional and local data sources, and planning documents to provide an overview of the laws, policies, and practices that may hinder housing choice in the Urban County. The purpose of the AI is to assemble fair housing information, identify any existing impediments to fair housing choice, and recommend actions to overcome those impediments. It is intended to serve as the basis for the Urban County to evaluate and plan for fair housing needs, while providing valuable information to policymakers, fair housing advocates, service providers, and lenders and residents in their efforts to build and support fair housing policies and practices. As a recipient of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), Housing Opportunities for People with AIDS (HOPWA), Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG), and HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) funding from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the Urban County is required to develop and update an AI as needed.

Organization of the AI This AI is divided into the following eight chapters: I.

Introduction defines “fair housing” and discusses the purpose of the report

II.

Background Data provides an overview of the socio-demographic and access characteristics of the City, along with a discussion of their relationship to fair housing choice

III.

Housing Profile provides an overview of the housing characteristics of the City, along with a discussion of their relationship to fair housing choice

IV.

Mortgage Lending Practices discusses public and private lending practices that shape the ability of individuals and households to obtain housing

V.

Public Policies and Practices discusses public policies that shape the ability of individuals and households to obtain housing

VI.

Fair Housing Profile analyzes current public and private sector fair housing programs and activities, and identifies any findings regarding trends and patterns associated with discriminatory housing practices

VII.

Fair Housing Progress Since 2010 summarizes the actions and recommendations outlined in the 2010 AI and the City’s progress to date

VIII.

Key Findings and Recommendations presents a set of recommended strategies and action steps to overcome the barriers to fair housing choice identified within the report

What is Fair Housing? HUD’s Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity has played a lead role in enforcing the Fair Housing Act since its adoption in 1968. The Act prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing of Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice


8

dwellings based on race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status (presence of child under age of 18, and pregnant women) or national origin. 1 California fair housing laws advance those implemented at the federal level and forbid discrimination by reason of race, religious creed, color, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, marital status, national origin, ancestry, familial status, disability, genetic information, or sexual orientation.2 Legal Framework Fair housing choice grants individuals the opportunity to choose where they wish to live. To ensure that all individuals and families are given equal access to housing, the federal government and the State of California have enacted the following laws to prohibit subtle and overt forms of housing discrimination. Federal Fair Housing Laws 

June 25, the Supreme Court upheld the application of disparate impact under the Fair Housing Act (FHA). The Court ruled that claims of racial discrimination in housing cases shouldn't be limited by questions of intent. The court affirmed a Court of Appeals decision in a case in which a nonprofit group, the Inclusive Communities Project, said that the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs had contributed to "segregated housing patterns by allocating too many tax credits to housing in predominantly black inner-city areas and too few in predominantly white suburban neighborhoods." The 5-4 ruling endorses the notion of citing disparate impact in housing cases, meaning that statistics and other evidence can be used to show decisions and practices are discriminatory. While upholding the theory of disparate impact, the Court imposed significant limitations on its application in practice.



Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI): Title VI is intended to protect the rights of individuals regardless of race, color, or national origin in programs and activities that receive federal funding or financial assistance.3



Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (Fair Housing Act): The Fair Housing Act (adopted in 1968 and amended in 1988) prohibits housing discrimination against any of the following seven protected classes: 1.

Race

2. Color 3. Religion 4. Sex 5. National origin 6. Familial status 7. Disability4

1

http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/progdesc/title8 http://www.dfeh.ca.gov/res/docs/Publications/LegislativeSummaries/sb_1038_bill_20120627_chaptered.pdf 3 http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/FHLaws 4 Ibid 2



9



As amended in 1988, the Fair Housing Act added “familial status” and “disability” as protected classes and increased HUD’s authority to establish mandatory enforcement measures to ensure compliance with federal law.5



Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504): Section 504 established guidelines that prohibit individuals with disabilities from being denied access to housing under programs and activities that receive federal funding or financial assistance.6 Section 109 of Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (Section 109): Section 109 prohibits housing discrimination based on race, color, national origin, sex, or religion under programs and activities that receive federal funding or financial assistance.7





Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (Title II): Title II prohibits discrimination based on disability under programs, services, and activities provided by public entities. HUD is responsible for enforcement of Title II when it is associated with public housing, housing assistance, and housing referrals administered by state and local jurisdictions.8



Architectural Barriers Act of 1968 (Architectural Barriers Act): The Architectural Barriers Act mandates that buildings and facilities that received federal funding assistance after September 1969 be accessible to and functional for handicapped individuals.9



Age Discrimination Act of 1975 (Age Discrimination Act): The Age Discrimination Act prohibits programs or activities that receive federal funding from discriminating against individuals on the basis of age.10



Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972 (Title IX): Title IX prohibits educational programs or activities that receive federal funding or financial assistance from discriminating against individuals on the basis of sex.11

In addition to federal fair housing laws that guarantee equal access to housing, a number of presidential executive orders were also issued to minimize discrimination and barriers to obtaining housing. California Fair Housing Laws The California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) was established as an independent department of the State in 1980 that holds responsibility for protecting California residents from discrimination and hate violence in employment and housing and public accommodation. DFEH’s statutory mandate calls for implementation and enforcement of the following fair housing laws:12 

California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA): In addition to the protected classes identified under the federal government’s Fair Housing Act, FEHA requires that the following classes also be protected from employment discrimination in the State of California “because of:

5

http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/progdesc/title8 http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/disabilities/sect504 7 http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/FHLaws/109 8 http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/FHLaws 9 http://www.access-board.gov/guidelines-and-standards/buildings-and-sites/about-the-aba-standards 10 http://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/discrimination/agedisc.htm 11 http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/FHLaws 12 http://www.dfeh.ca.gov/About.htm 6



10

1.

Age (40 and over)

2. Ancestry 3. Color 4. Religious Creed (including religious dress and grooming practices) 5. Denial of Family and Medical Care Leave 6. Disability (mental and physical) including HIV and AIDS 7. Marital Status 8. Medical Condition (cancer and genetic characteristics) 9. Genetic Information 10. Military and Veteran Status 11. National Origin (including language use restrictions) 12. Race 13. Sex (which includes pregnancy, childbirth, breastfeeding and medical conditions related to pregnancy, childbirth or breastfeeding) 14. Gender, Gender Identity, and Gender Expression 15. Sexual Orientation”13 

Unruh Civil Rights Act (Unruh Act): The Unruh Act protects individuals from discrimination in business establishments in California, to include housing and public accommodations on the basis of “sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, or medical condition.” Specifically, the Unruh Act prohibits arbitrary discrimination associated with personal characteristics or traits in an individual or family’s efforts to obtain housing.14



Disabled Persons Act: Under California Civil Code §54(a) (1), individuals with disabilities shall be entitled to full and equal access, as other members of the general public, to all housing accommodations offered for rent, lease, or compensation in this state, subject to the conditions and limitations established by law, or state or federal regulation, and applicable alike to all persons.15



Ralph Civil Rights Act (Ralph Act): The Ralph Civil Rights Act prohibits hate violence against individuals on the basis of race, ethnicity, religious affiliation, gender, age, disability, sexual orientation, or political affiliation and provides civil and administrative remedies for victims protected under these classes. The Ralph Act is intended to protect individuals from hate and impose criminal penalties on violators. 16

As discussed below, DFEH is also responsible for administering the Bane Civil Rights Act and three California government code sections aimed at protecting individuals from housing discrimination.

13

http://www.dfeh.ca.gov/Publications_FEHADescr.htm http://www.dfeh.ca.gov/res/docs/Publications/DFEH-250.pdf 15 http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=civ&group=00001-01000&file=54-55.32 16 http://oag.ca.gov/publications/CRhandbook/ch1 14



11



Bane Civil Rights Act (Bane Act): The Bane Act prohibits violence or threat of violence against individuals on the basis of “race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, political affiliation, sex, sexual orientation, age, disability, or position in a labor dispute.” It is intended to ensure that Californians do not experience force or threat of force; protects equal access to housing for residents; and imposes criminal penalties on violators.17



California Government Code Sections 111135, 65008, and 65589.5 are also intended to protect individuals from discriminatory practices under state-funded programs and activities and landuse negotiations.18

Methodology The Urban County prepared this report with the assistance of LeSar Development Consultants (LDC) through funding provided from CDBG entitlement dollars. Data sources for this report include the 2000 and 2010 U.S. Census, along with American Community Survey (ACS) 2008-2012 five-year estimates. Additionally, this AI was drafted concurrently with the Urban County’s 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan, which utilizes 2007-2011 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data, also based on ACS five-year estimates. CHAS data from the 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan is referenced throughout the AI. While ACS one-year estimates provide the most current data, this report utilizes five-year estimates, as they reflect a larger sample size and are considered more reliable and precise.19 Data Sources A variety of data sources and planning documents were consulted in the drafting of this AI to provide a quantitative and qualitative overview of past and current housing choice conditions within the Urban County, and to ensure future compliance with fair housing regulations. Data sources include: 

U.S. Census Bureau (Census)



American Community Survey (ACS)



Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC)



California Department of Finance



Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS)

Additionally, the following documents were consulted: 

Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA): The RHNA is a state mandated process for determining how many housing units, including affordable units, each community must plan to accommodate. The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) determines the total housing need for a region, and it is the responsibility of the ABAG to distribute this need to local governments. Working with local governments, ABAG developed an allocation methodology for assigning units, by income category, to each city and county in the nine-

17

http://oag.ca.gov/publications/CRhandbook/ch1 http://www.lsnc.net/housing/fh_manual/fh_manual_all_2004.pdf 19 http://www.census.gov/acs/www/guidance_for_data_users/estimates/ 18



12

county San Francisco Bay Area. This allocation of need shows local governments the total number of housing units, by affordability, for which they must plan in their Housing Elements for the period 2014-2022.20 

Santa Clara County General Plan: The General Plan addresses from a countywide perspective the major challenges and opportunities facing Santa Clara County, particularly with regard to future growth and development. It addresses issues without regard to specific political boundaries and contains many policy recommendations that are proposed for adoption and implementation by the County's fifteen cities. The Plan includes two brief chapters that present strategies and policies applicable to the remaining pockets of unincorporated land within city urban service areas as well as Stanford University Lands.



Santa Clara County Housing Element: The Housing Element is a mandatory element, or chapter, of the General Plan that primarily addresses the housing needs of unincorporated Santa Clara County. The updated Housing Element 2015-2022 (2015 Update) is based on the Housing Element Update 2009-2014 (2009 Update), and retains its organization and strategic emphases. The most significant changes to the strategies and policies are increased focus on Extremely Low Income families, Permanent Supportive Housing, Secondary Units, and Farmworker housing.

Public Engagement The Citizen Participation Plan (CPP), located in the Five Year Consolidated Plan, sets forth the Urban County’s policies and procedures for citizen participation in the planning, execution, and evaluation of the Consolidated Plan and related documents, including the AI. The CPP provides guidelines for the Urban County to provide and encourage public participation by residents, community stakeholders, and grant beneficiaries in the process of drafting, implementing, and evaluating these documents. The citizen participation process includes outreach, public hearings, community forums, and opportunities for comment. Regional Forums The participating Entitlement Jurisdictions of Santa Clara County held three regional public forums to identify housing and community development needs and priorities for the next five years. Seventy-six people in total attended the regional forums, including community members, service providers, fair housing advocates, school district board members, housing and human services commission members, non-profit representatives, and interested stakeholders. The regional forums were held in Mountain View, San Jose, and Gilroy to engage the northern, central, and southern parts of the County. Forums were scheduled on different days of the week and at various times of day to allow maximum flexibility for participants to attend. Table 1.1: Regional Forums Community Forums

20

http://www.abag.ca.gov/planning/housingneeds/pdfs/Final%20RHNA%20(2014-2022).pdf



13

Regional Forum

Date

Time

Number of Attendees

1

Thursday, September 25, 2014

2:00pm 4:00pm

43

2

Saturday, September 27, 2014

10:00am 12:00pm

17

3

Wednesday, October 22, 2014

6:30pm 8:30pm

16

Total Attendees

Forum Address Mountain View City Hall, 500 Castro Street, 2nd Floor Plaza Conference Room Mountain View, CA 94041 San Jose City Hall, Room 118-120 200 E. Santa Clara St. San Jose, CA 95113 Gilroy Library 350 W. Sixth Street Gilroy, CA 95020

76

Local public participation plays an important role in the development of the plans. The community forums were conducted as part of a broad approach to help local jurisdictions make data-driven, placebased investment decisions for federal funds. Each of the community forums provided additional public input and a deeper understanding of housing issues at the local level. The community forums were held in the cities of Los Gatos, Morgan Hill, Saratoga, San José, and Mountain View. The workshops held in San José were located in Districts 3, 4, and 5, which are LMI census tracts. The majority of the community forums were held at neighborhood community centers or libraries at various times of day to provide convenient access for participants. Table 1.2: Community Forums Community Date Forum

Time

Number of Attendees

1

Tuesday, September 30, 2014

6:00pm8:00pm

14

2

Wednesday, October 1, 2014

10:00am12:00pm

29

3

Tuesday, October 2, 2014

6:00pm8:00pm

23

4

Tuesday, October 7. 2014

6:00pm8:00pm

26

5

Thursday, October 23, 2014

6:30pm8:30pm

14

6

Saturday, November 1, 2014

11:00am1:00pm

7



Forum Address Roosevelt Community Center, Room 1 and 2 901 E. Santa Clara St. San José, CA 95116 Seven Trees Community Center, Room 3 3590 Cas Drive San José, CA 95111 Mayfair Community Center, Chavez Hall 2039 Kammerer Ave. San José, CA 95116 Tully Community Brach Library, Community Room 880 Tully Rd. San José, CA 95111 Mountain View City Hall, 500 Castro Street, 2nd Floor Plaza Conference Room Mountain View, CA 94041 Centennial Recreation Center North Room

14

Community Forum

Date

Time

Number of Attendees

7

Wednesday, November 5, 2014

2:00pm4:00pm

11

8

Thursday, November 20, 2014

6:00pm8:00pm

9

Total Attendees

Forum Address 171 W. Edmundson Avenue Morgan Hill, CA 95037 Prospect Center Grace Room 19848 Prospect Road Saratoga, CA 95070 Neighborhood Center 208 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030

133

Outreach Approximately 4,847 entities, organizations, agencies, and persons were directly engaged via outreach efforts and asked to share materials with their beneficiaries, partners, and contacts. These stakeholders were also encouraged to promote attendance at the public forums and to solicit responses to the Regional Needs Survey. Stakeholder engagement included phone calls, targeted emails, newsletter announcements, social media posts, and personalized requests from jurisdiction staff. Through these communications, stakeholders were invited to participate in one of the forums planned throughout the County and to submit survey responses. Each participating jurisdiction also promoted the regional forums and regional survey links on their respective websites and announced the Consolidated Plan process through their electronic mailing lists. Approximately 1,225 printed flyers noticing the regional forums were distributed throughout the County, including at libraries, recreation centers, community meetings, and organizations benefiting LMI residents and areas. These flyers were available online and in print in English and Spanish. Multi-lingual, print advertisements in local newspapers were posted in the Gilroy Dispatch (English), Mountain View Voice (English), El Observador (Spanish), La Oferta (Spanish), Thoi Bao (Vietnamese), Philippine News (Tagalog), World Journal (Chinese) and San José Mercury News (English). In addition, an online display ad was placed in the San José Mercury News to reach readers electronically. Each segment of the community outreach and planning process was transparent to ensure the public was aware its input was being collected, reviewed, and considered.

Key Findings from Regional and Community Forums A combined total of 209 individuals attended both the community and regional forums, including residents, service providers, community advocates and interested stakeholders. The diversity of participants and organizations attending the regional and community forums led to a nuanced awareness of the housing and community improvement needs across the County. The following types of organizations and community stakeholders attended these forums:



15

        

Service providers for various populations, including children, elderly persons, persons with disabilities, persons with HIV/AIDS, victims of domestic violence, and homeless Organizations that provide health, education, employment, and fair housing services Housing-related organizations Public Housing Authorities Health and child welfare agencies Federal, state, county, and local government representatives Regional and planning organizations Business leaders Civic leaders

This section highlights key findings and ideas raised during the small group discussions organized by issue area. The key findings are based on the most frequently discussed needs, issues and priorities that were shared by forum participants. Primary Housing Needs Identified      

Ensure availability of affordable housing, including transitional housing Provide legal services to protect fair housing rights and to mediate tenant/landlord legal issues Address affordable housing eligibility restrictions to expand the number of residents who can qualify Provide affordable rental housing for low income families, at-risk families and individuals with disabilities Fund additional homeless prevention programs Provide rental subsidies and assistance for low income families to support rapid re-housing

Regional Needs Survey A Regional Needs Survey was conducted to solicit input from residents and workers in the County of Santa Clara. Respondents were informed that the Santa County Entitlement Jurisdictions were updating their Consolidated Plans for federal funds that primarily serve low- to moderate income residents and areas. The survey polled respondents about the level of need in their neighborhoods for various types of improvements that can potentially be addressed by entitlement funds. To give as many people as possible the chance to voice their opinion, emphasis was placed on making the survey widely available and gathering a large number of responses rather than administering the survey to a controlled, statistically representative pool. Therefore, the survey results should be views as an indicator of the opinions of the respondents, but not as representing the opinions of the County population as a group. The survey was distributed through a number of channels to gather responses from a broad sample. It was made available in printed format, as well as electronic format via Survey Monkey. Electronic responses could be submitted via smartphone, tablet, and web browsers. The survey was available online and in print in English and Spanish, and in print in simplified Chinese, Tagalog, and Vietnamese. Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice


16

Responses were solicited in the following ways: 











Links to the online survey in both English and Spanish were placed on the websites of each Entitlement Jurisdiction. English: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/SCC_Regional_Survey Spanish: https://es.surveymonkey.com/s/SCC_Regional_Survey_Spanish Approximately, 4,847 entities, organization, agencies, and persons were directly targeted in the outreach efforts and requested to share project materials with their beneficiaries, partners, and contacts. Engagement included direct phone calls and targeted emails with outreach flyers as attachments. Approximately 1,225 printed flyers noticing the regional survey were printed and distributed throughout the County, including at libraries, recreation centers, community meetings, and organizations benefiting LMI residents and areas. These flyers were available online and in print in English and Spanish. Multi-lingual, print advertisements in local newspapers were posted in the Gilroy Dispatch (English), Mountain View Voice (English), El Observador (Spanish), La Oferta (Spanish), Thoi Bao (Vietnamese), Philippine News (Tagalog), World Journal (Chinese) and San Jose Mercury News (English). In addition, an online display ad was placed in the San Jose Mercury News to reach readers electronically. The survey was widely shared on social media by elected officials, organizations, entities, and other individuals. An estimated 25,000 persons on Facebook and 11,000 persons on Twitter were engaged. (This represents the number of “Likes” or “Followers” of each person/entity that posted a message about the survey or forum.) At least 3,160 printed surveys were printed and distributed throughout the County at libraries, community meetings, and organizations benefiting LMI residents and areas.

Survey Results A total of 1,472 survey responses were collected from September 19, 2014 to November 15, 2014, including 1,078 surveys collected electronically and 394 collected on paper. The surveys were available in five languages: English, Spanish, simplified Chinese, Vietnamese, and Tagalog. Below are the results from the “Fair Housing” section of the survey: Fair Housing Respondents were asked to answer a series of questions related to Fair Housing. Four questions were used to gauge each individuals experience with housing discrimination.



17

Percent of Individuals Who Have Experienced Housing Discrimination in Santa Clara County 8%

16%

Yes No

76%

Don’t Know

Of the 1,472 total respondents, 192 (16%) said they have experienced some form of housing discrimination. The majority of discrimination occurred within an apartment complex (19%). The next highest location for discrimination was indicated by the “Other” category. Within this category, duplexes, condos, and private renters were the most commonly indicated. Many respondents who selected “Other” expressed experiencing discrimination in multiple locations. The three highest locations of discrimination were:  Apartment Complex  Other  Single-family neighborhood The figure below shows where respondents experienced discrimination.



18

Locations Where Respondents Reported Experiencing Discrimination Apartment complex Other (please specify) Single‐family neighborhood Condo development Public or subsidized housing project When applying for City/County programs Trailer or mobile home park 0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

Percent of Respondents

The majority of respondents (29%) who experienced discrimination indicated that race was the primary factor for that discrimination. Respondents selected “Other” as the next highest basis of discrimination. Within the “Other” category respondents indicated race, inability to speak English, religion, credit, and marital status as the cause for discrimination. The three highest basis of discrimination were: 1. Race 2. Other 3. Familial Status The chart below depicts what respondents believe is the basis for the discrimination they have experienced.



19

The Reason Respondents Believe They Experienced Discrimination Race Other (please specify) Familial status (families with children under 18) Don’t Know Sexual orientation National origin Disability Color Sex Religion 0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%


Respondents were then asked to identify who they felt had discriminated against them. The majority of respondents (66%) indicated they were discriminated against by a landlord or property manager. Respondents selected “Other” as the next highest category of who discriminated against them. Within the “Other” selection respondents indicated they experienced discrimination from landlords, property managers, existing residents, and home owner associations. The three highest categories that respondents believed discriminated against them were: 1. Landlord/Property Manager 2. Other 3. Don’t Know The chart on the following page illustrates who respondents believe is responsible for the discrimination they have experienced.



20

Who Respondents Believe Discriminated Against Them Landlord/Property manager Other (please specify) Don’t Know City/County staff Mortgage lender Real estate agent Mortgage insurer 0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%


Summary of Key Findings and Recommendations Historically, the Urban County has dedicated an average of [Urban County to insert percentage] of their CDBG and HOME Administration dollars to fair housing programs and projects. This ensures dollars “off the top” are dedicated to fair housing services and not relegated to competitive categories (i.e. Public Services). As a minority-majority jurisdiction, and with nearly one-third of its households earning 80 percent AMI or less, the Urban County elects “to affirmatively further the purposes and policies of the Fair Housing Act, . . . [and] to take steps proactively to overcome historic patterns of segregation, promote fair housing choice, and foster inclusive communities for all”21 by undertaking the actions outlined in Table 1.3 below. Table 1.3: Key Recommendations to Reduce Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Action

Description

Goal 1 : Expanding Access to Affordable Housing Facilitate access to below-market-rate units 1.1

The Urban County and its jurisdictions shall continue to assist affordable housing developers by advertising the availability of below-market-rate units via the jurisdictions’ websites, the 2-1-1 information and referral phone service, and other media outlets.

1.2

The Urban County and its jurisdictions shall facilitate communication between special needs service providers and affordable housing developers to ensure that home seekers with special needs have fair access to available units.

21

Department of Housing And Urban Development Proposed Rule 24 CFR Parts 5, 91, 92, 570, 574, 576, and 903



21

Action Description Improve Access to Credit 1.3

Reevaluate, update, and maintain a list of partner lenders

1.4

The Urban County and its jurisdictions shall continue to partner with agencies that provide homebuyer, down-payment, and closing cost assistance programs.

1.5

The Urban County and its jurisdictions shall continue to partner with credit counseling and education/housing counseling service providers to assist homebuyers in mitigating against the other factors that may contribute to a potential homebuyer’s ability to secure safe financing. This shall also include training on signs of potential discrimination and how to report potential discrimination.

1.6

The Urban County and its jurisdictions shall partner with qualified agencies to test for potential cases of discrimination in mortgage lending to ensure residents have optimal mortgage lending opportunities.

1.7

The Urban County and its jurisdictions shall target mortgage lending education towards Hispanic households as the HMDA data indicates that Hispanics accounted for only 4.7 percent of all conventional loan originations, despite making up 27.8 percent of the MSA’s total population.

1.8

The jurisdictions shall continue to maintain a list of lenders that can help buyers access belowmarket-rate loans and locally-sponsored down-payment and mortgage assistance programs.

Goal 2: Expanding Access to Fair Housing Services Continue formal partnerships with local fair housing service providers to conduct outreach and education to home seekers, landlords, property managers, real estate agents, and lenders 2.1

Utilize entitlement fund administrative dollars to contract and partner with local fair housing providers for services such as outreach, education, and testing.

2.2

The Urban County and its jurisdictions shall continue to provide technical assistance to service providers.

2.3

The Urban County and its jurisdictions shall continue to distribute fair housing materials in multiple languages.

Goal 3: Continue Efforts to Support Transit-Oriented Development and Further Improve Connections Between New Housing and Employment Centers Plan for and encourage transit-oriented development 3.1

The jurisdictions shall continue to plan for higher residential and employment densities where appropriate to maximize linkages between employers and affordable housing.

Facilitate safe and efficient transit routes 3.2

The jurisdictions shall continue to work with local transit agencies to facilitate safe and efficient routes for the various forms of public transit.



22



23

II. Background Data This chapter provides an overview of the demographic profile of the Urban County and contains information on the population’s characteristics, such as income, employment, and housing patterns, to help identify emerging trends that may provide insight on potential methods to address fair housing choice issues relevant to said population.

General Population Characteristics Population Trends Population growth rate serves as an indicator of the Unincorporated County’s long-term housing demand and provides information that helps the Unincorporated County determine the capacity of current resources. As shown in Table 2.1, while the total population has been decreasing, the rate of decline had decreased to 5.5 percent from 1990 to 2000, or a 0.55 percent average annual decline rate. However, the rate of decline increased again from 2000 to 2010 to a 1.0 percent average annual decline rate. This decline in population is due largely to annexations. Although the population in the Unincorporated County has been decreasing, the population of the County overall has been increasing over the same time period. From 1970 to 2010, the County’s population has grown by 67 percent, or a 6.7 percent annual growth rate, while the Unincorporated County has experienced an annual decline rate of 3.7 percent over that same time. However, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) found that from 2010 to 2014, Santa Clara County experienced both the highest household growth rate (2 percent) and numeric rate (8,000 households) in the region.22 Santa Clara County in the top spot in household growth is an indicator of efforts of households seeking locations closer to jobs and the efforts of jurisdictions in the County to provide that housing, which may put future strain on the Urban County’s capacity of resources. Table 2.1: Unincorporated County Historical Population Trends, 1970 – 2010 Year 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Population 142,415 126,823 106,193 100,300 89,960

Average Annual Decline Rate ---1.1% -1.6% -0.6% -1.0%

Source: 1970-2010 Decennial Census

Race and Ethnicity As shown in Table 2.2, in the decade between the 2000 and 2010 Census, overall population in the County grew by 6 percent, with population growth occurring among Asians (32 percent) Pacific Islanders (24 percent), Hispanic/Latinos (19 percent), and Other Non-Hispanic races (8 percent). This trend shows the diversifying population of the County, which is a “majority-minority” county, with the second and third biggest racial groups each comprising nearly one-third of the County’s population. While Non-Hispanic Whites are still the biggest racial group at 35 percent, the White population has 22

Association of Bay Area Governments. “San Francisco Bay Area State of the Region 2015.” Webpage tab. http://reports.abag.ca.gov/sotr/2015/section3-changing-population.php



24

decreased by 16 percent from 2000 to 2010. Further, Asians are at a close second at 32 percent, and are experiencing high growth. Hispanics are also experiencing high growth at 19 percent and account for 27 percent of the total population. With Hispanic/Latino families having a higher than average birth rate compared to other ethnic groups, this population is expected to experience continued growth, with Asian, Black/African American, and White populations expected to stabilize or decrease. Table 2.2: Santa Clara County Population by Race and Ethnicity, 2000 – 2010 Race/Ethnicity Asian (Non-Hispanic) American Indian, Alaska Native Black (Non-Hispanic) Hispanic White (Non-Hispanic) Pacific Islander Other (Non-Hispanic)* Total

2000 Population 426,771 5,270 44,475 403,401 744,282 5,040 53,346 1,682,585

% of Total 25% 0% 3% 24% 44% 0% 3% 100%

2010 Population 565,466 4,042 42,331 479,210 626,909 6,252 57,432 1,781,642

% of Total 32% 0% 2% 27% 35% 0 3% 100%

Growth Rate 2000 - 2010 32% -23% -5% 19% -16% 24% 8% 6%

Source: 2000 Census; 2010 Census *Some Other Race / Two or More Races Note: Totals may not add to 100% due to rounding

Figures 2.2 through 2.9 show minority concentration within the Urban County. Minority concentration is defined as census tracts whose proportion of any one racial/ethnic group is greater than that of the jurisdiction overall. Within the Urban County, minority concentration exists within the Unincorporated County and the jurisdictions of Campbell, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, and Morgan Hill.

Figure 2.2 Unincorporated County Minority Concentration



25

Figure 2.3 Campbell Minority Concentration



26



27

Figure 2.4 Los Altos Minority Concentration



28

Figure 2.5 Los Altos Hills Minority Concentration



29

Figure 2.6 Los Gatos Minority Concentration



30

Figure 2.7 Monte Sereno Minority Concentration



31

Figure 2.8 Morgan Hill Minority Concentration



32

Figure 2.9 Saratoga Minority Concentration



33

Age Characteristics The age characteristics of the County provide insight regarding current and projected housing demands, as different age groups have diverse housing needs and preferences. Table 2.3 demonstrates several important factors, both in the distribution of age groups and growth among age groups within the County. Most significantly, while the populations that are 55-64 and 65 and older represent the proportionately smallest age groups, they are also the fastest growing group. The 5564 age group is especially growing at a large clip, with a 37 percent growth rate. This increase mirrors nationwide trends, as the increased longevity of baby boomers has led to the 50-and-over population becoming the fastest-growing age group, with projections that one in five Americans will be aged 65 and older by 2030.23 Table 2.3: Santa Clara County Age Distribution, 2000 – 2010 Age Under 20 Years 20-34 Years

2000 459,612

% of Total 27%

2010 474,506

% of Total 27%

Growth Rate 2000-2010 3%

411,830

24%

382,683

21%

-7%

35-54 Years

515,598

31%

541,963

30%

5%

55-64 Years

135,018

8%

185,546

10%

37%

65 and Over

160,527

10%

196,944

11%

23%

1,682,585

100%

1,781,642

100%

6%

Total

Source: 2000 Census; 2010 Census Note: Totals may not add to 100% due to rounding

Even with the growing senior population, 79 percent of the County’s population is under 55 years of age. However, as shown in Table 2.4 below, the median age has increased by approximately 2 years from 2000-2010. The pace of growth is faster than that of the State, which has also had a lower median age in both 2000 and 2010. Table 2.4: Santa Clara County Median Age, 2000 – 2010

Median Age

Santa Clara County 2000 34.0

California 2000 33.3

Santa Clara County 2010 36.2

California 2010 35.2

Source: 2000 Census; 2010 Census

Household Composition As shown in Table 2.5, nearly half of the Urban County’s households are comprised of small families containing two to four members. Additionally, nearly one third (32 percent) of households contain at least one person over the age of 62, 11 percent contain children 6 years old or younger, and 9 percent are large families comprised of five or more members. Table 2.5: Santa Clara Urban County Household Composition 23

http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/research/housing_americas_older_adults



34

Household Small Family Households (2-4 members)

Total Households 44,403

% of Total 48%

Large Family Households (5+ members)

8,312

9%

Household Contains At Least One Person 62-74 Years of Age

17,874

19%

Household Contains At Least One Person Age 75 or Older

11,696

13%

Households with One or More Children 6 Years Old or Younger

9,887

11%

Total Households

92,639

Source: 2007-2011 CHAS Note: Totals do not add to 100%, as households may fall into more than one category

Income Characteristics Household income is a strong indicator of socio-economic status and a household’s ability to meet the costs of living, such as housing, transportation, and the basic necessities of life. As a determinant of the financial resources available, the median household income of a jurisdiction plays a significant role in predicting the type of housing households can afford. It is also one of the factors taken into account when households apply for mortgage loans or rental housing. Median Income Table 2.6 shows the change in median income for Urban County households between 2000 and 2011. While the median income for households appears to have increased by 20 percent in current dollars (unadjusted for inflation), when translated to constant or real-dollar values, the median household income for the Urban County actually decreased by 8 percent in 2011, compared to the adjusted median income in 2000. Table 2.6: Santa Clara Urban County Median Income 2000 - 2011 Unadjusted Median Income Adjusted Median Income*

2000 Median Income $74,335 $97,101

2011 Median Income $89,064 $89,064

% Change 20% -8%

Source: 2000 Census (Base Year), 2007-2011 ACS (Most Recent Year) *Real 2011 dollars, adjusted for inflation

Income Distribution Table 2.7 shows the distribution of household income in the County. The total number of households increased 7 percent between 2000 and 2012 and the County also became more of an “hourglass economy,” with growing populations at the higher and lower ends of the income spectrum and a reduced number in the middle, a trend that is expected to continue into the future. For example, from 2000 to 2012 the number of households earning between $10,000 and $25,000 rose 10 percent, with those in the $10,000-$14,999 income category increasing by 18 percent. During the same time period, those earning $150,000 and above rose by 78 percent, with those earning $200,000 or more increasing by 110 percent, making it the fastest growing income group. In sharp comparison, middle-wage earners in the $35,000-$75,000 income category decreased by 19 percent. Table 2.7: Santa Clara County Household Income Distribution, 2000 – 2012 Household Income

2000 Households

% of Total

2012 Households

% of Total

Less than $10,000

25,418

5%

23,543

4%



% Change 2000-2012 -7%

35

Household Income $10,000 to $14,999 $15,000 to $24,999 $25,000 to $34,999 Under $35,000 $35,000 to $49,999 $50,000 to $74,999 $35,000 - $75,000 $75,000 to $99,999 $100,000 to $149,999 $75,000 - $150,000 $150,000 to $199,999 $200,000 or more $150,000 and above Total

2000 Households

% of Total

2012 Households

% of Total

16,344 34,094 39,417 115,273 63,431 106,536 169,967 85,163 105,937 191,100 45,940 44,205 90,145 566,485

3% 6% 7% 20% 11% 19% 30% 15% 19% 34% 8% 8% 16% 100%

19,358 36,363 36,024 115,288 53,843 84,187 138,030 74,428 116,440 190,868 67,566 92,703 160,269 604,455

3% 6% 6% 19% 9% 14% 23% 12% 19% 32% 11% 15% 27% 100%

% Change 2000-2012 18% 7% -9% 0% -15% -21% -19% -13% 10% 0% 47% 110% 78% 7%

Source: 2000 Census; 2008-2012 ACS Estimates Note: Totals may not add to 100% due to rounding

Low Income Households The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program is primarily concerned with activities that benefit Low- and Moderate-Income (LMI) households whose incomes do not exceed 80 percent of the median family income for the area, as established by HUD, with adjustments for smaller or larger families.24 HUD utilizes three income levels to define LMI households: 

Extremely Low Income: Households earning 30 percent or less than the AMI (subject to specified adjustments for areas with unusually high or low incomes)



Very Low Income: Households earning 50 percent or less than the AMI (subject to specified adjustments for areas with unusually high or low incomes)



Low and Moderate Income: Households earning 80 percent or less than the AMI (subject to adjustments for areas with unusually high or low incomes or housing costs)

Table 2.8 shows that nearly one-third (27 percent) of households in the Urban County are LMI, with incomes ranging from 0-80 percent AMI. Table 2.8: Santa Clara Urban County Low- and Moderate-Income Households Household Household Income 0-30% AMI Household Income 30% - 50% AMI Household Income 50% - 80% AMI Total LMI Households (0-80% AMI) Household Income 80% - 100% AMI Household Income >100% AMI Total Households

Total 9,369 7,884 7,818 25,071 6,913 60,655 92,639

% of Total 10% 9% 8% 27% 7% 65% 100%

Source: 2007-2011 CHAS 24U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development, Glossary of CPD Terms - L http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/comm_planning/library/glossary/l



36

Note: Totals may not add to 100% due to rounding

Special Needs Populations Certain sub-populations often require special accommodations due to their unique characteristics and/or needs. These characteristics may include age, family characteristics, or disability, and can affect their accessibility to decent and affordable housing. For example, elderly individuals are often reliant on a fixed income, and experience higher health care costs. Large households require a greater number of bedrooms. Persons with disabilities have physical or mental impairments that may substantially limit major life activities, and may require accessible housing accommodations. Table 2.9 provides an overview of several special needs populations within the Urban County. The biggest representation of special needs populations are elderly households, which make up nearly one-third of households in the Urban County. Table 2.9: Santa Clara Urban County Special Needs Populations Population

Total

% of Total

Elderly Households (62+)

29,570

32%

8,312

9%

137,074

8%

Large Households (5+ members) Disabled Persons* Source: 2007-2011 CHAS; 2008-2012 ACS Estimates

*Current Census and ACS data does not document disability characteristics within the unincorporated County areas. Therefore, estimating the number of persons with disabilities for the Urban County areas specifically is not feasible. According to the 2008-2012 ACS, eight percent of the County population as a whole is affected by one or more disabilities.

Employment Profile Unemployment Rates Overall, as shown in Table 2.10, unemployment rates in the San José-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) increased by 8 percentage points from 2000 to 2010 and dropped by 4.2 percentage points from 2010 to 2013. While decreasing, this suggests that unemployment rates in the City still have not yet reached pre-recession levels. High unemployment rates contribute to the demand for low-cost housing and the need for housing assistance. Table 2.10: San José-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara MSA Unemployment Rates, 2000 – 2013 Year Annual Average Unemployment Rate

2000 3.2%

2005 5.4%

2010 11.2%

2013 7.0%

Source: California Employment Development Department (EDD) Historical Civilian Labor Force, San José-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara MSA

Figure 2.1 shows the 2014 unemployment rates for the individual Santa Clara County jurisdictions.



37

Figure 2.1 – 2014 Unemployment Rates for Santa Clara County Jurisdictions 12.8%

San Martin CDP Gilroy City Morgan Hill City East Foothills CDP San Jose City Milpitas City Santa Clara City Sunnyvale City Campbell City Mountain View City Los Gatos Town Cupertino City Palo Alto City Saratoga City Los Altos City

7.9% 6.8% 6.5% 5.8% 5.3% 4.7% 4.4% 4.4% 3.8% 3.4% 3.3% 2.7% 2.6% 2.6% 0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

Source: California Employment Development Department

The cities of Campbell, Los Altos, Los Gatos, Morgan Hill, and Saratoga have lower unemployment rates than the San José-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara MSA, indicating a downward trajectory for unemployment in the Urban County. Employment Trends Table 2.11 shows historical employment rates within the San José -Sunnyvale-Santa Clara MSA by major industry categories. Overall, nonfarm jobs account for 99 percent of employment within the MSA (961,900 jobs), compared to 1 percent of on-farm jobs (5,000 jobs). Within the nonfarm category, the 768,100 service providing jobs account for the majority of employment opportunities (79 percent), with the greatest percentage found in professional and business services (20 percent). From 2000 to 2013, nonfarm jobs have decreased by 8 percent while farm jobs have decreased by 28 percent. Within the nonfarm category, goods producing jobs decreased by 36 percent; however service providing jobs increased by 3 percent. The greatest job growth was seen in the education/health services field (65 percent increase), followed by information (36 percent increase) and leisure and hospitality (20 percent increase). The largest employment shrinkage was seen in the good producing industries (36 percent decrease): manufacturing (38 percent decrease); mining and logging (25 percent decrease); and, construction (24 percent decrease). Table 2.11: San José-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara MSA Employment by Industry, 2000 – 2013 2000 Jobs by Industry of Employment Service Providing Professional & Business Services


Number 744,600 227,500

2013 % of Total 71% 22%


Number 768,100 191,200

% of Total 79% 20%

% Change 3% -16%

38

2000 Jobs by Industry of Employment Educational & Health Services Government Leisure & Hospitality Retail Trade Information Wholesale Trade Financial Activities Other Services Transportation, Warehousing & Utilities Goods Producing Manufacturing Construction Mining and Logging Total Nonfarm Total Farm Total Jobs by Industry of Employment

Number 87,400 98,700 72,800 93,400 43,100 42,700 34,200 27,000 17,800 301,000 251,100 49,500 400 1,045,600 6,900 1,052,500

2013 % of Total 8% 9% 7% 9% 4% 4% 3% 3% 2% 29% 24% 5% 0% 99% 1% 100%

Number 144,500 91,900 87,300 85,100 58,700 36,500 33,500 25,400 14,000 193,800 156,000 37,500 300 961,900 5,000 966,900

% of Total 15% 10% 9% 9% 6% 4% 3% 3% 1% 20% 16% 4% 0% 99% 1% 100%

% Change 65% -7% 20% -9% 36% -15% -2% -6% -21% -36% -38% -24% -25% -8% -28% -8%

Source: California Employment Development Department (EDD) Industry Employment & Labor Force by Annual Average, San José -Sunnyvale-Santa Clara MSA, 2013

Figure 2.2 shows the fastest growing occupations for the San José -Sunnyvale-Santa Clara MSA in 2010.



39

Figure 2.2 – Fastest Growing Occupations – San José-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara MSA

Source: California Employment Development Department

As shown in the table, 65 percent of the fastest growing occupations in the MSA in 2010 and projected for 2020 requires a bachelor's degree or higher. Education



40

As shown in Table 2.12 below, the educational attainment for Urban County residents 25 years of age and older is as follows: 

Nine percent have not graduated high school



Thirteen percent have graduated high school (including equivalency), but no further education



Seventeen percent have some college but no degree



Seven percent have an associate’s degree



Twenty-nine percent have a bachelor’s degree



Twenty-five percent have a graduate or professional degree

Overall, 91 percent of Urban County residents over the age of 25 have at least a high school diploma or higher, and 54 percent have a bachelor’s degree or higher. In comparison, less than one third of the entire population of California has a bachelor’s degree or higher, and 11 percent have a graduate or professional degree.25 Table 2.12: Urban County Educational Attainment by Age – 25 and Older Educational Attainment Less Than 9th Grade 9th to 12th Grade, No Diploma High School Graduate, GED, or Alternative Some College, No Degree Associate's Degree Bachelor's Degree Graduate or Professional Degree Total

Age 45–65 yrs

Total

% of Total

2,174 1,895

7,300 7,825

4% 4%

8,636

6,499

22,699

13%

5,073 2,457

12,664 6,033

6,624 2,197

30,161 12,719

17% 7%

11,532 10,301 36,145

21,563 22,051 76,239

8,983 8,765 37,137

51,297 45,012 177,013

29% 25% 100%

25–34 yrs

35–44 yrs

1,159 1,400

1,360 1,845

2,607 2,685

3,987

3,577

5,800 2,032 9,219 3,895 27,492

65+ yrs

Source: 2007-2011 CHAS Note: Totals may not add up to 100% due to rounding

Table 2.13 shows that those residents with advanced and professional degrees have significantly higher median incomes, with holders of bachelor’s degrees having approximately 72 percent higher median incomes than those with only an associate’s degree, and those with a graduate or professional degree have a 142 percent higher median income. Table 2.13: Urban County Educational Attainment and Median Earnings in the Past 12 Months Educational Attainment Less than High School Graduate High School Graduate (Includes Equivalency) Some College or Associate's Degree Bachelor's Degree Graduate or Professional Degree 25

Median Earnings in the Past 12 Months $21,827 $31,558 $42,009 $72,290 $101,495

2008-2012 ACS



41

Source: 2007-2011 CHAS

Public Transportation Public transit is critical for linking those without access to private transportation to job centers and services. The Urban County has access to several transit services that link jurisdictions within the Urban County to commercial centers, parks, cultural amenities, public institutions, and job sites. In fact, a University of Minnesota study has ranked the San José-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara metropolitan area 10th in the nation for the total number of jobs workers are able to access by public transportation within 60 minutes.26 However, the Urban County remains highly car-centric, with many low-density residential areas that are difficult to serve with transit. In addition, the County has built several new freeways that have undermined transit ridership. The following transit options are available in the Urban County: Fixed-Routes The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) operates over 50 fixed-routes that offer access to affordable public transit to residents of the County. There is a Regional Transit Connection Discount Card ID (RTC Discount Card) program that is available to qualified persons with disabilities and to senior citizens, 65 years of age or older for reduced fares on fixed-route transit bus, rail, and ferry systems throughout the San Francisco Bay Area. The RTC Discount Card costs $3.00 and is good for up to three years. Figures 2.11 through 2.14 show the public transit routes within the County and to the jurisdictions of the Urban County.

26University

of Minnesota. “Access Across America.” Webpage tab. http://www.access.umn.edu/research/america/



42

Figure 2.11: Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Light Rail Routes VTA light rail runs every 10 minutes weekdays, and every 15 minutes on weekends and holidays, making several stops in downtown areas of various jurisdictions in the County. The Urban County jurisdiction of Campbell is serviced by the VTA light rail.

\ Source: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority



43

Figure 2.12: Urban County Bus Routes – Map 1

Source: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority



44

Figures 2.13: Urban County Bus Routes – Map 2




45

Figures 2.14: Urban County Bus Routes – Map 3


Table 2.14 shows the fare rates offered to fixed-route riders. Table 2.14: Santa Clara VTA Fixed-Route Transit Fares Fare Adult Ages 18-64 Single Ride Express Single Ride Community Bus 8-Hour Light Rail Pass Day Pass Express Day Pass Monthly Pass Express Monthly Pass Annual Pass Subscription Youth Ages 5-17 (children under 5 ride free when traveling with a paying adult) Single Ride Community Bus 8-Hour Light Rail Pass Day Pass



Cost $2.00 $4.00 $1.25 $4.00 $6.00 $12.00 $70.00 $140.00 $770.00 $1.75 $0.75 $3.50 $5.00

46

Fare Monthly Pass Annual Pass Subscription Disabled/Seniors Ages 65+ Single Ride Community Bus 8-Hour Light Rail Pass Day Pass Monthly Pass Annual Pass Subscription

Cost $45.00 $495.00 $1.00 $0.50 $2.00 $2.50 $25.00 $275.00

Source: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority as of November 2014

VTA Bus Rapid Transit Program The VTA is upgrading transit service along the County's three busiest transit corridors to Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) status. These projects consist of improvements in technology and infrastructure as well as new vehicles that will allow riders on the Rapid 522 and Limited 323 routes to travel faster and more comfortably with more frequent service and better on-time reliability. The new routes would serve jurisdictions within the County, including Los Altos and Campbell, and would connect to the VTA light rail, Caltrain, and the Altamont Corridor Express. The BRT program consists of the following three projects: Santa Clara-Alum Rock BRT Project This project will upgrade the eastern portion of the Rapid 522 corridor between Downtown San José and the Eastridge Transit Center. The project will install new, bus-only lanes that will allow the BRT vehicles to bypass automobile congestion as well as rail-like stations that allow for fast, all-door boarding. The project began construction in 2013 and new BRT vehicles will start operating in early 2015. El Camino Real BRT Project This project will upgrade the western portion of the Rapid 522 corridor between the Palo Alto Transit Center and Downtown San José. The VTA has proposed converting one vehicle lane in each direction into a bus-only lane as well as installing bicycle lanes in some cities along the corridor. This project is on target to be operational in 2018. Stevens Creek BRT Project This project will upgrade the Limited 323 service that currently travels along Stevens Creek Boulevard and San Carlos Street between De Anza College in Cupertino and the Downtown San José Transit Mall. This project is on target to be operational in 2017.



47

Figure 2.3: VTA Bus Rapid Transit Program


Caltrain Caltrain provides commuter rail service along the San Francisco Peninsula, through the South Bay to San José and Morgan Hill. Most stations offer both parking and bicycle access. There is also shuttle service that operates between Caltrain stations and employers' work sites or is operated by cities. Employer Shuttles are funded by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District Transportation Fund for Clean Air, the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board, The Transportation Authority, and participating employers. Most shuttles are free and open to the public.



48

Figure 2.4: Caltrain System Map

Source: Caltrain



49

Table 2.15: Caltrain Fares Adult Full Fare* Ticket Type One Way Day Pass Zone Upgrade 8-Ride Monthly Pass Eligible Discount Fare** Ticket Type One Way Day Pass Zone Upgrade 8-Ride Monthly Pass

Travel Within 1 Zone $3.25 $2.75

2 Zones $5.25 $4.75

3 Zones $7.25 $6.75

4 Zones $9.25 $8.75

5 Zones $11.25 $10.75

6 Zones $13.25 $12.75

$2.00 $20.25

$35.25

$50.00

$64.75

$79.50

$94.25

$73.00

$126.00

$179.00

$232.00

$285.00

$338.00

4 Zones $4.50 $4.25

5 Zones $5.50 $5.25

6 Zones $6.50 $6.25

Travel Within 1 Zone $1.50 $1.25

2 Zones $2.50 $2.25

3 Zones $3.50 $3.25 $1.00

$10.00

$17.50

$25.00

$32.25

$39.75

$47.00

$36.50

$63.00

$89.50

$116.00

$142.50

$169.00

Source: Caltrain *Adult ages 18-64 **Senior/Disabled/Youth/Medicare Cardholder

Amtrak Amtrak also services the Santa Clara County area. Within a 20-mile radius, there are three Amtrak stations (San José, Santa Clara University, and Santa Clara Great America) and one Thruway bus service location in Morgan Hill. Prices vary depending on which station the rider departs from and arrives at. However, Amtrak offers SmartFares, limited-time offers, and everyday discounts for American Automobile Association (AAA) members, students, military, seniors, children, and more. 511 Regional Rideshare Program The 511 Regional Rideshare Program is a free service that introduces commuters to people who live and work nearby to carpool, vanpool, or bicycle to work together. Ridesharing benefits include access to the Bay Area's growing network of carpool lanes, free park-and-ride lots, and a host of commute incentives. The program's goal is to help travelers save time and money on the road.



50

III. Housing Profile Housing Stock A diverse and balanced housing stock will provide a greater range and flexibility of housing options for households in the Urban County. Tables 3.1 and 3.2 below reflect the distribution of housing found throughout the Urban County. The Urban County contains approximately 97,035 total units, over three quarters of which are single-family attached or detached structures (78 percent). Multifamily developments units comprise 20 percent of the Urban County’s housing stock. Owner occupied units make up 72 percent of the stock (65,751) while 28 percent (26,204 units) are renter occupied. As the Urban County is primarily a jurisdiction of owner occupied, single-family housing units, this may stand as an impediment to fair housing choice for households seeking a source of affordable housing, as multifamily units are often less expensive to rent or purchase. Additionally, as only 9 percent of households are large households and 87 percent of owner households are 3 or more bedrooms, this could be an impediment for smaller family households or individuals looking to own a home. Table 3.1: Urban County Residential Housing by Number of Units Property Type 1-Unit Detached 1-Unit Attached 2-4 Units 5-19 Units 20+ Units Other (Mobile Home, RV, etc.) Total

Owner

% of Total

Renter

% of Total

Total Units

% of Total

57,250

87%

7,850

30%

67,896

70%

5,247

8%

2,573

10%

8,168

8%

743 495 436 1,580

1% 1% 1% 2%

4,470 4,780 6,168 363

17% 18% 24% 1%

5,643 5,842 7,301 2,185

6% 6% 8% 2%

65,751

100%

26,204

100%

97,035

100%

Source: 2007-2011 CHAS Note: Totals may not add to 100% due to rounding Note: Owner + Renter units do not add to total units due to vacancies

Table 3.2: Urban County Residential Unit Size by Tenure Owner Households Number % No Bedroom 1 Bedroom 2 Bedrooms 3 Or More Bedrooms Total

63 921 7,608 57,159 65,751

0% 1% 12% 87% 100%

Renter Households Number % 1,633 6,367 10,859 7,345 26,204

6% 24% 41% 28% 100%

Source: 2007-2011 CHAS Note: Totals may not add to 100% due to rounding



51

Housing Affordability Housing is often one of the most significant expenses for households and can be one of the most significant factors in evaluating a housing market. This section provides an overview of housing affordability in the Urban County. Cost of Housing Table 3.3 shows the median home value and contract rent for housing units in the Urban County. This data demonstrates that from 2000 to 2012 there has been a 55 percent increase in median home values and a 35 percent change in median contract rent. However, as was seen in Table 2.6, during the same time period the median household income increased by only 20 percent. This indicates that the median household income in the Urban County is not keeping pace with the cost of housing, which may pose financial challenges for households seeking to purchase or rent a home. With 2012 median home values at more than double 2000 rates, families may experience a greater difficulty finding affordable owner units. Rental units are not faring much better with the median contract rent over a third higher in 2012 than it was in 2000. Table 3.3: Urban County Cost of Housing Median Home Value Median Contract Rent

Base Year: 2000 $422,600 $1,114

Most Recent Year: 2012 $656,600 $1,508

% Change 55% 35%

Source: 2000 Census (Base Year), 2008-2012 ACS (Most Recent Year) Note: ACS Data for Median Home Value and Median Contract Rent is aggregate for the County

Table 3.4 provides further information on rental data. The data shows that more than one-third (36 percent) of renter households pay above the median contract rent, further adding to the impediments renter households may face in finding affordable rental units. Table 3.4: Rent Paid in Urban County Rent Paid No Cash Rent $0-499 $500-999 $1,000-1,499 $1,500-1,999 $2,000+ Total

Number 984 1,626 4,055 9,984 5,302 4,253 26,204

% of Total 4% 6% 15% 38% 20% 16% 100%

Source: 2007-2011 CHAS Note: Totals may not add to 100% due to rounding

Housing Affordability Housing affordability is an important factor for evaluating the housing market, as well as quality of life, as many housing problems relate directly to the cost of housing. There is a clear disparity between need and availability of affordable housing in the Urban County. As seen in Table 3.5, approximately 21 percent (5,774) of rental households are at 0-30 percent AMI, yet as seen in Table 3.6 there are only Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice


52

1,563 rental units available that are affordable to these households (no data is available for household owner units). In total, there are 16,673 units affordable for LMI households earning 80 percent or less AMI, and yet there are 25,093 households within this income bracket in need of housing. Further, this data displays the “hourglass economy” of the Urban County, with the majority of renter households either earning over 100 percent AMI (42 percent) or less than 30 percent AMI (21 percent). Additionally, three-fourths (75 percent) of household owners earn over 100 percent AMI, which could imply that households earning less than 100 percent AMI may face impediments to owning a home. Table 3.5: Urban County Low- and Moderate-Income Households by Tenure Household 30% AMI 50% AMI 80% AMI 100% AMI >100% AMI Total

Renter 5,774 3,728 3,765 2,669 11,459 27,395

% of Total 21% 14% 14% 10% 42% 100%

Owner 3,619 4,149 4,058 4,248 49,191 65,265

% of Total 6% 6% 6% 7% 75% 100%

Total 9,393 7,877 7,823 6,917 60,650 92,660

% of Total 10% 9% 8% 7% 65% 100%

Source: 2007-2011 CHAS Note: Totals may not add to 100% due to rounding.

Table 3.6: Urban County Affordability by Housing Urban Development Area Median Family Income (HAMFI) % Affordable Units 30% HAMFI 50% HAMFI 80% HAMFI 100% HAMFI Total

Renter 1,563 3,433 9,057 No Data 14,053

% of Total 11% 24% 64% n/a 100%

Owner No Data 967 1,653 2,356 4,976

% of Total n/a 19% 33% 47% 100%

Total 1,563 4,400 10,710 2,356 19,029

% of Total 8% 23% 56% 12% 100%

Source: 2007-2011 CHAS Note: Totals may not add to 100% due to rounding.

Housing Cost Burden A household is considered to be cost burdened if the household is spending more than 30 percent of its monthly income on housing costs (including utilities) and severely cost burdened if the household is spending more than 50 percent of its monthly income on housing costs (including utilities). Tables 3.7 and 3.8 demonstrate the degree of housing cost burden for renter and owner households within the Urban County. Overall, nearly one-third (31 percent) of households in the Urban County are LMI and cost burdened. Among owners, 14 percent are LMI and cost burdened. Among renter households, 17 percent are LMI and cost burdened. In terms of severe cost burden, 12 percent of households (11,541) in the Urban County are LMI and severely cost burdened. Among owners, 6 percent of households (5,627) in the Urban County are LMI and severely cost burdened. Among renter households, six percent of households (5,914) in the Urban County are LMI and severely cost burdened.

Table 3.7: Urban County Housing Cost Burden >30% Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice


53

0-30% AMI NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS Small Related 1,435 Large Related 525 Elderly 1,223 Other 1,392 Total Need by 4,575 Income

Renter Households >30-50% >50AMI 80% AMI 1,304 198 615 1,023 3,140

1,020 145 275 975 2,415

Total

3,759 868 2,113 3,390 10,130

0-30% AMI

720 75 1,304 338 2,437

Owner Households >30-50% >50AMI 80% AMI 640 239 1,223 304 2,406

964 298 789 243 2,294

Total

2,324 612 3,316 885 7,137


Table 3.8: Urban County Housing Cost Burden >50% 0-30% AMI NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS Small Related 1,295 Large Related 365 Elderly Other Total Need by Income

899 1,218 3,777

Renter Households >30>5050% 80% AMI AMI

Total

0-30% AMI

Owner Households >30>5050% 80% AMI AMI

Total

505 84

195 0

1,995 449

685 75

540 199

695 204

1,920 478

515 533 1,637

110 195 500

1,524 1,946 5,914

1,100 278 2,138

879 239 1,857

500 233 1,632

2,479 750 5,627


Data for all households in the Urban County shows even higher rates of cost burden. Table 3.9 shows the housing cost burden for all Urban County households, broken down by race/ethnicity. Per HUD definition, a disproportionate housing need exists when any racial/ethnic group experiences a housing need that is ten percent or greater than the total population. The data indicates that, as a whole, 40 percent of households in the Urban County are cost burdened and paying more than 30 percent of their income toward housing costs. In terms of severe cost burden, 18 percent of households in the Urban County are paying more than 50 percent of their income toward housing costs. Among cost burdened households paying 30 to 50 percent of their income toward housing costs, there is not any one group that experiences a disproportionate need compared to the jurisdiction as a whole. However, Hispanics (28 percent) and Asians (25 percent) do experience cost burden at slightly higher rates than the jurisdiction as a whole (22 percent). Among severely cost burdened households paying more than 50 percent of their income toward housing costs, Black/African American households (37 percent) and American Indian, Alaska Native households (32 percent) experience a disproportionate need compared to 18 percent of the jurisdiction as a whole. Hispanics (27 percent) and Pacific Islanders (25 percent) also experience severe cost burden at higher rates than the jurisdiction as a whole.



54

Table 3.9: Urban County Disproportionately Greater Cost Burden 50%

# 53,961

% 60%

# 19,728

% 22%

# 16,211

% 18%

39,140 480 7,673 130

64% 51% 57% 59%

12,269 119 3,399 20

20% 13% 25% 9%

9,805 345 2,298 69

16% 37% 17% 32%

138 5,745

75% 45%

0 3,544

0% 28%

45 3,478

25% 27%

Source: 2007-2011 CHAS Note: Households with no/negative income are not counted in the analysis, as they cannot by definition have a cost burden, although they still may require housing assistance.

Overcrowding A household is considered overcrowded if there is more than one person per room and severely overcrowded if there are more than 1.5 people per room. Table 3.10 shows overcrowding conditions by AMI for renter and owner households within the Urban County. Overall, two percent of all households (1,926) are LMI and overcrowded. The problem is more prevalent for rental households, which make up 88 percent of all LMI households that are overcrowded. Further, the majority (44 percent) of these rental households are extremely low income. These numbers may be even higher as overcrowding is often underreported. Table 3.10: Urban County Overcrowding Conditions (more than one person per room)

NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS Single Family Households Multiple, Unrelated Family Households Other, Non-Family Households Total Need by Income

030% AMI

Renter Household >30- >50- >8050% 80% 100% AMI AMI AMI

Total

030% AMI

Owner Household >30- >50- >8050% 80% 100% AMI AMI AMI

Total

554 160

374 55

295 110

79 55

1,302 380

45 0

35 10

49 89

60 59

189 158

25 739

0 429

125 530

0 134

150 1,832

0 45

0 45

0 138

0 119

0 347


Assisted Housing The Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara (HACSC) provides rental housing assistance to LMI households throughout the County. The HACSC provides rental subsidies and develops affordable housing for low income households, seniors, veterans, persons with disabilities, and the formally homeless across the County.27 Additionally, the HACSC owns or controls over 2,200 affordable housing 27

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. “Santa Clara/San José Housing Authorities.” Webpage tab. http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/public_indian_housing/programs/ph/mtw/sclarasjose



55

units throughout the County, with 325 in Campbell and 20 in Morgan Hill. The HACSC is responsible for offering various affordable housing opportunities to provide housing and support services to eligible families while ensuring that the unique needs of these individuals and households are met. Additionally, the HACSC has used Low Income Housing Tax Credit financing to transform and rehabilitate 535 units of public housing into HACSC-controlled properties. The agency is an active developer of affordable housing and has either constructed, rehabilitated, or assisted with the development of more than 30 housing developments that service a variety of households, including special needs households.28 Table 3.11 displays the public housing inventory and housing vouchers maintained by the HACSC throughout the County. Specific HACSC data on the number of units or vouchers available is not available for the Urban County, only the City of San José (through the Housing Authority of the City of San José, administered by the HACSC) and the County as a whole. Table 3.11: Santa Clara County Assisted Housing by Program Type Program Type Certificate

ModRehab

Public Housing

Total

Projectbased

Tenantbased

Vouchers Special Purpose Voucher Veterans Family Disabled* Affairs Unification Supportive Program Housing 740 100 63

# of 0 42 0 10,931 666 9,362 units in use Source: HACSC *includes Non-Elderly Disabled, Mainstream One-Year, Mainstream Five-year, and Nursing Home Transition

Section 8 Housing Programs Housing Choice Voucher Program (HCV): The Section 8 HCV program is designed to help families secure rental housing in the private market and provide them with greater control and choice over where they live. Under the Section 8 HCV program, a subsidy is granted to landlords to cover the gap between 30 percent of the voucher recipient’s monthly income and the payment standard approved by the federal government. “Tenant-based vouchers” provide rental subsidies for very low income households who locate and reside in privately-owned rental units and pay about 30 percent of their income towards rent. The balance of the rent is paid by the HACSC directly to the property owner. “Project-based vouchers” are assigned to specific properties to ensure their ongoing affordability. Currently, there are about 17,546 assisted households in the HACSC voucher programs. However, the Section 8 waiting list contains 21,256 households. This results in a 10-year waiting list and the list has been closed since 2006.29

28

Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara. “Welcome to HACSC.” http://www.hacsc.org/

29

Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara. “Housing Authority Facts.” Webpage tab. http://www.hacsc.org/assets/1/6/HACSC_Fact_sheet_5.5.12-med.pdf



56

Public Housing Programs In addition to providing rental assistance through the Section 8 HCV program, the HACSC also administers additional programs30 that assist low income families throughout the County: Chronically Homeless Direct Referral (CHDR) HACSC’s Chronically Homeless Direct Referral (CHDR) program is a locally designed voucher referral program for the chronically homeless population in the County. A partnership between the HACSC and the County ensures that chronically homeless families who receive vouchers are connected to supportive programs and case management services. Family Unification Program (FUP) The Family Unification Program (FUP) is a partnership between the HACSC and the County through its Social Services Agency, Department of Family and Children Services (DFCS). FUP provides rental assistance for families whose lack of adequate housing is a primary factor in the placement of their children in out-of-home care or in the delay of their children returning home. The HACSC administers FUP Housing Choice Vouchers (HCV) rental assistance. The DFCS refers FUPeligible families to the HACSC and provides case management and supportive services before and after the family is housed. Family Self-Sufficiency (FSS) The Family Self Sufficiency (FSS) program provides case management and advocacy to current program participants in order to help them attain self-sufficiency goals. Families enroll and sign a fiveyear contract to participate in the program. After enrolling in the program, participants set goals such as finishing their education, obtaining job training, and/or employment. During the contract term, participants who increase their earned income can receive cash bonuses. When the family reports an increase in earned income, the HACSC calculates a monthly bonus amount that is deposited into an ‘escrow’ account which the family can receive upon program graduation. Homeownership The Homeownership program is an optional HUD program that permits housing authorities to assist HCV households in the purchase of their first homes. Participants in this program receive Housing Assistance Payments to use toward their ownership expenses. The HACSC administers this program for current participants but no longer accepts new applications. Mainstream Voucher The Mainstream Voucher program provides vouchers for low income households that include a person(s) with disabilities. The program is designed to help tenants with disabilities live independently in the community. Moderate Rehabilitation (Mod Rehab)

30

Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara. “Other Housing Programs/Types.” Webpage tab. http://www.hacsc.org/section-8housing-programs/other-housing-programs-types/



57

The Moderate Rehabilitation (Mod Rehab) program attaches HCV rental assistance to privately owned units that are rehabilitated. Under the Mod Rehab program, the HACSC enters into a Housing Assistance Payment contract with the property owner for a specified unit and for a specified term. The HACSC administers this program for current Mod Rehab properties but no longer accepts new/additional units under this program. Mod Rehab assistance is tied to the unit, as opposed to the tenant. A family who moves from a Mod Rehab unit is not eligible to receive tenant-based HCV assistance. Moving to Work (MTW) In 2008 the HACSC was selected by HUD to be part of the Moving to Work (MTW) demonstration program. Created by Congress in 1996, the MTW designation provides the HACSC the flexibility to develop local approaches to meet the specific needs of low income families in the County. The three MTW statutory goals established by Congress are: 

Decrease administrative costs and increase cost effectiveness in housing program operations;



Promote participants’ economic self-sufficiency; and,



Expand participants’ housing choices.

Non-Elderly Disabled (NED) The Non-Elderly Disabled (NED) program provides assistance to non-elderly persons with disabilities who are currently residing in long-term care facilities. This voucher program is intended to help participants leave the long-term care facility and live independently. The NED program is a partnership between the HACSC and the Silicon Valley Independent Living Center (SVILC). The SVILC provides NED program applicant referrals, case management, and supportive services. Project Based Voucher (PBV) The Project Based Voucher (PBV) program attaches the rental assistance voucher to private (including HACSC-owned/operated) housing units. Under the PBV program, the HACSC enters into a Housing Assistance Payment contract with the property owner for specified units and for a specified term. PBV units are leased to eligible low income tenants from the HACSC’s PBV Waiting List or in some cases referred by the property owner. PBV rental assistance is contractually tied to the unit, as opposed to the tenant. A family who moves from the project-based unit may be eligible to receive HCV (tenant-based) assistance, if available. Continuum of Care (CoC) The HACSC’s Continuum of Care (CoC) grants provide rental assistance in conjunction with supportive services for homeless and chronically homeless individuals and families with long-term disabilities resulting primarily from serious mental illness, alcohol and/or drug abuse, or an HIV positive medical condition. Case management and supportive services are provided by the HACSC’s partner agencies in order to help participants maintain stability in permanent housing. These agencies also identify and refer participants to the program.



58

Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (VASH) The HUD-VASH program provides assistance to homeless veterans by combining rental assistance with case management and clinical services. The HUD-VASH program is a partnership between the Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System (VA Palo Alto) and the HACSC. The VA Palo Alto refers homeless veterans to the HUD-VASH program and provides case management, while the HACSC administers rental assistance to eligible veterans. Affordable Housing Developments Affordable housing developments in the Urban County receive funding from various sources to ensure that the rental costs of the units within these developments remain affordable for LMI households. Owners of these developments often attempt to offset the costs and ensure the affordability of the units by applying for and using Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC). The LIHTC is an incentive program that encourages private investors to develop low income affordable housing by granting federal tax credits to investors. Additionally, in some instances, owners request public assistance and are often required to devote a share of the units for low income households. Table 3.12 lists the HACSC’s mixed finance developments in the Urban County. Table 3.12: HACSC’s Mixed Finance Developments in the Urban County31 Facility Name Rincon Gardens Apartments San Pedro Gardens Apartments Total # of Units

Jurisdiction

Clientele

# of Units

Campbell Morgan Hill

Seniors Families

200 20 220

Source: Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara

Figure 3.1 below shows the distribution of affordable housing throughout the Urban County. As seen on the map, most of the affordable housing is located in the cities of Campbell and Morgan Hill.

Figure 3.1: Affordable Housing Projects in the Urban County

31

Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara. “HACSC Properties.” Webpage tab. http://www.hacsc.org/overview-of-hacsc-realestate/hacsc-properties/



59

Community Care Facilities Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice


60

Community care facilities are designed to provide shelter and assistance to individuals and groups who are unable to live on their own but do not require extensive medical services. Services offered at these facilities are catered to meet the needs of the specific groups which they serve and can include assistance with medications and personal hygiene. Community care facilities ensure that children, disabled adults, and the elderly receive the support that they need with day-to-day living. Table 3.12 provides a list of licensed community care facilities for adults, children, and the elderly in the Urban County.32 Table 3.12: Licensed Community Care Facilities in the Urban County Jurisdiction 24-Hour Residential Care For Children Los Gatos Morgan Hill Adult Residential Facilities And Day Programs Campbell Los Gatos Morgan Hill Saratoga Elderly Assisted Living and Residential Care Facilities Campbell Los Altos Los Gatos Morgan Hill Saratoga Total Units

# of Units 20 12 87 30 191 30 414 295 788 229 509 2,605

Source: California Department of Social Services

32

California Department of Social Services. “Residential Care.” Webpage tab. http://www.cdss.ca.gov/cdssweb/pg12.htm



61

IV. Mortgage Lending Practices “Without investment in mortgage and home improvement loans, residential areas decline rapidly.” – U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Fair Housing Planning Guide Volume 1 pg. 5-10 Equal access to fair and safe credit is essential to fair housing choice. Mortgage lending policies and practices impact the economic stability and viability of individual borrowers, as well as the entire nation. This chapter provides legislative background and review of the practices of lending institutions as they apply to fair housing choice.

Legislation Fair Housing Act 1968 “Discrimination in mortgage lending is prohibited by the federal Fair Housing Act and HUD's Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity actively enforces those provisions of the law. The Fair Housing Act makes it unlawful to engage in the following practices based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status, or handicap (disability): 

Refuse to make a mortgage loan



Refuse to provide information regarding loans



Impose different terms or conditions on a loan, such as different interest rates, points, or fees



Discriminate in appraising property



Refuse to purchase a loan or set different terms or conditions for purchasing a loan”33

Home Mortgage Disclosure Act The Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA), enacted by Congress in 1975, requires that mortgage lenders make loan data public. The HMDA tracks information to ensure that fair and safe home financing is available in all geographic areas including urban neighborhoods. This information is made available to highlight whether or not lending institutions are servicing the neighborhoods and communities in which they are located. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau oversees HMDA compliance. Data collected and reported on includes applications, approvals and denials, loan amount, type of loan, applicant demographic information, property type, and census tract. This information is released annually each September. Community Reinvestment Act In response to reports of discriminatory and/or denial of lending, Congress passed the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) in 1977. The CRA encourages “depository institutions to help meet the credit needs of the communities in which they operate, including LMI neighborhoods, consistent with safe

33

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. “Fair Lending.” Webpage tab. http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/topics/fair_lending



62

and sound operations.”34 The CRA requires periodic evaluation of the depository institutions. These evaluations are conducted by the Federal Reserve System (FRB), the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). The CRA Lending Test considers the institution’s record of helping to meet the credit needs of its assessment area through home mortgage, small business, small farm, and community development lending.35 Institutions receive a rating of "outstanding," "satisfactory," "needs to improve," or "substantial noncompliance.” Table 4.1 lists the latest available CRA ratings of financial institutions serving the Urban County. Based on this information, these financial institutions have been given at least a satisfactory rating. Table 4.1 Urban County Financial Institution Community Reinvestment Act Ratings Exam Date

Jurisdiction

9/11/2006 11/1/1998 8/26/2002 4/23/2001 9/30/1993 4/16/1996

Campbell Los Altos Los Altos Morgan Hill Saratoga Saratoga

Bank Name Legacy Bank, N.A. Bank of Los Altos Bank of Los Altos Heritage Bk S Valley Saratoga National Bank Saratoga National Bank

CRA Rating Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory

Source: FFIEC Interagency CRA Rating Search Note: Any banks not listed are not publicly available or are not reported by the FFIEC

Understanding of the Data The data presented in this chapter attempts to demonstrate if a relationship exists between a borrower’s race, ethnicity and/or income and his/her ability to secure a loan. However, many factors contribute to a potential homebuyer’s ability to secure safe financing. Credit history, savings, and education regarding the home‐buying process all affect financing opportunities. It is critical to understand that FFIEC HMDA data does not provide insight into these other factors. The raw data does not prove that protected class status were factors in loan approval rates and loan originations. The data does indicate that the Urban County jurisdictions should partner with qualified agencies to continue to test for potential cases of discrimination in mortgage lending to ensure all residents have optimal mortgage lending opportunities.

Conventional vs. Government-Backed Financing Conventional loans are made by the private sector (banks, mortgage companies, etc.) and are not guaranteed or insured by the U.S. government. Conventional loans are more risk averse and typically have more stringent credit score and down payment requirements along with lower debt acceptance and loan maximums. Conversely, government-backed loans, such as those issued by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), and the Rural Housing Services/Farm Service Agency

34

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. “Community Reinvestment Act (CRA).” http://www.federalreserve.gov/communitydev/cra_about.htm 35 Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System “Regulation BB Community Reinvestment.” Webpage tab. June 2007. http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/supmanual/cch/cra_disc.pdf



63

(RHA/FSA), are completely or partially insured by the U.S. government. Due to the less strict lending guidelines, government-backed loans were historically more popular with LMI borrowers. Table 4.2 San José-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara MSA Approval Rate of Conventional Home Purchase Loan by Race/Ethnicity Applicant Race/Ethnicity

American Indian

Asian

Approval Rate

73%

80%

Black Or African American 73%

Hispanic Or Latino

Pacific Islander

White

69%

71%

80%

Source: FFIEC HMDA Aggregate Reports, San José-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara MSA, 2013 Note: Approval rate includes loans originated and applications approved but not accepted

Table 4.3 San José-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara MSA Approval Rate of Government Backed Home Purchase Loan by Race/Ethnicity Applicant Race/Ethnicity

American Indian

Asian

Approval Rate

53%

63%


Hispanic Or Latino

Pacific Islander

White

64%

61%

71%


Table 4.4 San José-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara MSA Conventional Home Purchase Loan Approval Rate by Race and Income Applicant Race/Ethnicity

American Indian

Asian

Hispanic Or Latino

Pacific Islander

White

63%


Less than 50% Median Income 50-79% 80-99% 100-119% 120%+

40%

49%

50%

59%

75% 75% 75% 82%

73% 79% 82% 81%

64% 42% 92% 80%

66% 73% 75% 77%

59% 70% 75% 83%

74% 79% 81% 83%


Table 4.5 San José-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara MSA Government-Backed Home Purchase Loan Approval Rate by Race/Ethnicity and Income Applicant Race/Ethnicity

American Indian

Asian

Hispanic Or Latino

Pacific Islander

White

25%

Black Or African American n/a

Less than 50% Median Income 50-79% 80-99% 100-119% 120%+

n/a

49%

100%

54%

29% 100% 100% 25%

54% 49% 76% 69%

57% 100% 50% 60%

66% 69% 62% 61%

67% 33% 67% 57%

68% 74% 71% 74%




64

The total number of loan originations as shown below in tables 4.6 and 4.7 may paint a clearer picture of race and income opportunities. Table 4.6 San José-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara MSA Conventional Home Purchase Loan Originations by Race/Ethnicity and Income Applicant Race/Ethnicity

American Indian

Asian

Hispanic Or Latino

Pacific Islander

White

Total by Income

152

Black Or African American 3

Less than 50% Median Income 50-79% 80-99% 100-119% 120%+ Total by Race

2

48

2

111

318

3 4 3 15 27

589 683 957 4,773 7,154

10 5 11 41 70

182 113 77 210 630

9 6 8 24 49

638 574 622 3,602 5,547

1,431 1,385 1,678 8,665 13,477

Source: FFIEC HMDA Aggregate Reports, San José-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara MSA, 2013

Table 4.7 San José-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara MSA Government-Backed Home Purchase Loan Originations by Race/Ethnicity and Income Applicant Race/Ethnicity

American Indian

Asian

Hispanic Or Latino

Pacific Islander

White

Total by Income

1

Black Or African American n/a


n/a

17

1

26

45

2 4 2 1 9

21 27 41 111 201

4 2 2 9 17

117 75 51 95 355

4 1 4 3 13

178 155 133 404 896

326 264 233 623 1,491


The HMDA data indicates that Asians accounted for the majority (53.1 percent) of all conventional loan originations while Whites accounted for the majority (60.1 percent) of government-backed loan originations, despite Asians comprising only 32.4 percent and Whites only 34.4 percent of the MSA’s total population. Hispanics make up 27.8 percent of the MSA’s total population yet only accounted for 4.7 percent of all conventional loan originations. However, Hispanics were more proportionally represented in government-backed loans with 23.8 percent of total originations. Table 4.8 San José-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara MSA Refinance Approval Rate by Race/Ethnicity Applicant Race/Ethnicity Approval Rate

American Indian 68%

Asian 77%


Hispanic Or Latino 66%

Pacific Islander 64%

White 74%


Table 4.9 San José-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara MSA Refinance Approval Rates by Race/Ethnicity and Income



65

Applicant Race/Ethnicity Less than 50% Median Income 50-79% 80-99% 100-119% 120%+

American Indian 61%

Asian

Hispanic Or Latino 59%

Pacific Islander 55%

White

59%


69% 71% 57% 75%

71% 74% 77% 80%

62% 60% 73% 69%

68% 68% 69% 69%

64% 67% 69% 64%

70% 73% 74% 78%

61%


As with Home Purchase Originations, Table 4.10 Refinance Loan Originations by Race/Ethnicity and Income shows that Whites accounted for more than half (50.5 percent) of all refinance originations while Hispanics accounted for only 7.0 percent. This is in spite of Whites accounting for 34.4 percent of the total population and Hispanics accounting for 27.8 percent. Table 4.10 San José-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara MSA Refinance Loan Originations by Race/Ethnicity and Income Applicant Race/Ethnicity

American Indian

Asian

Hispanic Or Latino

Pacific Islander

White

Total by Income

821

Black Or African American 40


28

563

24

1,664

3,140

28 22 20 66 164

2,036 1,777 2,211 13,135 19,980

80 47 48 171 386

987 553 401 906 3,410

56 46 35 110 271

3,599 2,914 2,685 13,874 24,736

6,786 5,359 5,400 28,262 48,947


The information in Tables 4.1 through 4.10 does not in and of itself point to wrongdoing. However, the Urban County jurisdictions should monitor application and approval rates across race/ethnicity as it eliminates impediments to fair housing choice. County actions have included supporting providers, such as Project Sentinel, Housing Trust of Santa Clara County, Housing Trust Silicon Valley, and Neighborhood Housing Services Silicon Valley, who provide credit and education/housing counseling services, first-time homebuyer education, and down payment assistance. The County also uses a portion of HOME funds to provide down payment and closing cost assistance for first-time homebuyers. The jurisdictions of Los Gatos and Morgan Hill also have their own first time homebuyer programs. Additional County actions could include programs that further increase access to financing.

Subprime Lending Subprime lending is usually targeted to borrowers with “blemished or limited credit histories.” 36 Subprime loans are characterized by high interested rates and fees. Unlike the prime market (e.g. conventional and government-backed loans), subprime lending institutions are not regulated. While subprime loans are not predatory by definition, they were often provided to borrowers who could not afford their repayment in the housing boom of the 2000s. Today, new subprime regulations are



66

enforcing stricter requirements such as tightened credit standards and income verification. The regulations are intended to create a safer subprime market while providing household ownership options for those with less than perfect credit.

Predatory Lending While no governing or statutory institutions have one definition of predatory lending, HUD describes the loans as having “outrageous terms and conditions, often through deception.”37 The US Department of Treasury provides, “Predatory lending -- whether undertaken by creditors, brokers, or even home improvement contractors – involves engaging in deception or fraud, manipulating the borrower through aggressive sales tactics, or taking unfair advantage of a borrower’s lack of understanding about loan terms. These practices are often combined with loan terms that, alone or in combination, are abusive or make the borrower more vulnerable to abusive practices.”38 Available through the subprime market and characterized by excessive fees, disregard for credit worthiness or ability to repay, a subprime loan “drains wealth from families, destroys the benefits of homeownership, and often leads to foreclosure.”39 Effective January 2014, Regulation Z, “which implements the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), requires creditors to make a reasonable, good faith determination of a consumer’s ability to repay any consumer credit transaction secured by a dwelling.”40 The final rule also implements limits prepayment penalties - a red flag of predatory loans. There is collective agreement that education and reform are the best protectors against predatory lending. The Silicon Valley Community Foundation (SVCF) is one of the nation’s biggest advocates against predatory lending. As part of its broader strategy of promoting economic security, the SVCF aims its efforts at curbing predatory lending. The organization incorporates a multipronged grant making strategy to target the problem that includes both hands-on work to increase financial literacy and advocacy work to regulate payday lending. The SVCF awards these grants to local organizations that work to pass ordinances curtailing predatory payday lending. Some of these County-based organizations include the Center for Responsible Lending, which works to enact state policy reforms to inhibit predatory payday lending, and the Law Foundation of Silicon Valley, which works to limit the reckless financial practices of payday lenders in Santa Clara County through ordinance advocacy, public education, and development of alternatives. There is also a unique partnership between Bay Area Legal Aid, the California Association of Mortgage Brokers (CAMB), Fair Housing Law Project, Freddie Mac, Neighborhood Housing Services Silicon Valley, Pro Bono Project Silicon Valley, Project Sentinel, the Santa Clara County Association of Realtors (SCCAOR), Silicon Valley/South Bay Saves (a local financial literacy campaign), and Working Partnerships USA that has developed an outreach and education campaign to protect residents against harmful predatory mortgage lending practices.

37

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. “Fair Lending.” Webpage tab. http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/topics/fair_lending 38 U.S. Department of the Treasury. http://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Documents/treasrpt.pdf 39 National Association of Consumer Advocates. “Predatory Lending.” Webpage tab. http://www.naca.net/issues/predatory-lending 40 Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. “Ability to Repay and Qualified Mortgage Standards Under the Truth in Lending Act (Regulation Z).” http://www.consumerfinance.gov/regulations/ability-to-repay-and-qualified-mortgage-standards-under-the-truth-in-lending-actregulation-z/ - date



67

The Urban County jurisdictions could further protect against predatory lending by supporting providers and programs that increase access to A-Paper41 financing, credit counseling and education, down payment assistance, closing costs assistance, and first-time home buyer education, especially for those targeted by predatory lenders such as senior citizens, people of color, lower income families, and people with disabilities.

41

“A-Paper” mortgages are available to low-risk borrowers and offer the best (lowest) interest rates



68

V. Public Policies and Practices This chapter identifies various public policies and practices at the local and regional level that may affect housing development and fair housing choice within the Urban County. While the Urban County has reviewed all of its zoning laws, policies, and practices for compliance with fair housing law, this section contains additional analysis of potential and actual public sector constraints on the development of housing. The following documents were reviewed in the preparation of this chapter: •

Santa Clara County General Plan Land Use Element

•

County of Santa Clara 2015 Housing Element Update

•

County of Santa Clara Ordinance Code

Zoning Ordinance and Land Use Regulation Zoning Ordinance Zoning ordinances and other land use controls have a direct effect on the availability and range of housing choices within a community. The zoning ordinance establishes the densities and intensities for all new development within the jurisdiction and determines requirements such as lot size, number of dwelling units per acre, setback needs, and building height. The County’s Zoning Ordinance facilitates the governing of the County, promotes equal justice, and enables elected and appointed officers to meet the social, economic, physical, and environmental needs and goals of the people.42 Exclusionary zoning practices, such as those that limit where, how, or if affordable housing can be developed, or that restrict development such as small-lot homes, mobile homes, or group homes, can decrease the number of affordable housing opportunities. As seen in Table 5.1, the County’s zoning ordinance includes residential, rural, and urban districts that allow for a variety of housing types for residential development by-right or with a special permit, use permit, or architecture and site approval. Table 5.1: Santa Clara County Residential Land Use Designations Housing Type Use Classification Zoning Districts Multi-family rental housing Residences - MultiR1S, R3, R3S family Multi-family rental housing Residences - MultiCN, CG, OA family

Permit Requirements ASA UP, UP/ASA for mixed use projects

Agricultural Employee (seasonal, includes mobile homes)

Ag-Employee Housing A, AR, HS, RR, - Short Term rural A1 (temporary)

SP, with time limits, 4.10.040 Suppl. Use Regs.

Agricultural Employee (permanent)

Ag-Employee Housing A, AR, HS, RR, A1 in - Long Term rural areas (permanent)

UP, additional SFR by right in AR

42

Santa Clara County. “Code of Ordinances.” Webpage Tab. https://www.municode.com/library/ca/santa_clara_county/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=COCH



69

Housing Type Use Classification Zoning Districts Group quarters up to 36 beds Ag-Employee Housing A, AR, HS, RR, A1 in – Long Term rural areas (permanent)

Permit Requirements UP

Single-family/HH units up to 12 units

Ag-Employee Housing A, AR, HS, RR, A1 in – Long Term rural areas (permanent)

UP, additional SFR by right in AR

Emergency shelters

Residences – Single Family, Two-Family, or Multi-Family

R1, R2, R3

By right, or ASA in applicable urban zoning districts

Transitional and Supportive housing in structures designed for families and households of six or fewer people.

Residential: Single Family, Two Family, Multi-Family

-All (single family dwellings) -R2, R3 (duplexes) -R3 (apartments)

By Right for structures designed as single family dwellings, otherwise with ASA).

Transitional and Supportive housing in structures designed with communal dining and living facilities.

Residential Communal Institutional

All Urban zones UP. except R1S & R3S, All Rural zones, A1.

Single-room occupancy

Rooming Houses, Fraternities & Sororities

R1, R1E, R2, R3, A1

Mobile homes / Factory-built housing

Residences –Single Family

All where permitted By right

Second dwellings

Secondary Dwellings

A, AR, HS, RR, RS, & A1 in rural areas; R1, R1E, RHS, R1S, A1 urban zones.

UP, except ASA in R3

By right, or by Special permit under particular circumstances per Suppl. Use Regs., 4.10.340

Source: County of Santa Clara 2015 Housing Element Update Note: Permit Type abbreviations are: SP = Special Permit, UP = Use Permit, ASA = Architecture and Site Approval.

General Plan Land Use Element The creation of a General Plan is mandated for every city and county within the State by the California Housing and Community Development Department and provides the long-term vision, goals, and policies for a jurisdiction. The County’s latest plan is the Santa Clara County General Plan, 1995-2010, which was adopted in 1994. The General Plan contains goals, strategies, and policies for three major focus areas:



70

  

as a countywide general plan as a plan for the rural unincorporated areas outside cities, and as a plan for the remaining unincorporated areas (called pockets and islands) within cities' urban service areas.

The Land Use Element is based on the urban development policies around countywide growth management and the accommodation of urban development. The Land Use policies further define allowable land uses and development potential for all unincorporated lands. Inside urban service areas, the policy of the County General Plan is to defer to the policies of the applicable city's land-use plan in defining (a) allowable uses and (b) densities of development. Outside urban service areas, all lands are assigned a land use designation. Principal designations for privately-owned lands are Hillside, Ranchlands, Agriculture, and Rural Residential. Typical densities of development range from 20 to 160 acres per parcel, depending on the designation, for lots created by subdivision. One primary dwelling is allowed per legal lot. General Plan Housing Element Under California State Housing Law, every city and county must adopt a Housing Element as part of its General Plan. The Housing Element 2015-2022 identifies and analyzes existing and future housing needs for all economic segments of the community and the resources and constraints relative to addressing those needs – regardless of income. The County’s Housing Element was adopted in June 2014, and was certified by the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) in July 2014 for compliance with State Housing Law. The Housing Element Update primarily addresses the housing needs of unincorporated Santa Clara County and places an increased focus on Extremely Low Income families, Permanent Supportive Housing, Secondary Units, and Farmworker housing. In order to demonstrate the capacity to accommodate the need projected for the community and for each income category, the County allows relaxed zoning for secondary dwellings, higher density student housing on Stanford lands, and overall capacity for homes in rural areas. Definition of Family/Occupancy Standards The Fair Housing Act forbids discrimination on the basis of familial status, which protects families with children and large households. A city must avoid occupancy standards that may be limiting and violate fair housing regulations that contain a restrictive definition of family. When the definition of family in a zoning ordinance is too rigid, it may be exclusive of certain segments of the population that do not completely match its classification. For instance, zoning ordinances that distinguish between related or unrelated individuals lead to the exclusion of nontraditional families and households comprised of individuals that are not biologically related to one another. The County’s current zoning ordinance (Section 1.20.020) defines “family” as one or more persons occupying a premises and living as a single, nonprofit household, as distinguished from a group occupying a hotel, club, fraternity, or sorority house. A family shall be deemed to include necessary domestic help.



71

Density Bonuses Local jurisdictions have the authority to implement policies and programs that promote the development and integration of affordable housing units, such as density bonuses. A density bonus is a zoning tool that is designed to encourage and grant developers exceptions to zoning and development standards in exchange for providing a public benefit to the community, such as funding for affordable housing or construction of affordable housing units.43 The County’s Zoning Ordinance (Section 4.20.030) allows for applicants for housing development proposals to be eligible for a density bonus or other incentives to produce and maintain housing affordable to low and very low income households pursuant to the provisions and requirements of California Government Code Sections 65915 through 65918. Other incentives, such as reductions in standards, parking requirements, mixed use development, or other concessions which effectively reduce the cost of housing units targeted for low and very low income housing may also be provided. The number of additional lots or dwelling units permitted by means of a density bonus allocation shall be achieved by making the appropriate and commensurate reduction in the applicable standards or regulations establishing minimum lot size or minimum lot area per dwelling unit for multi-family zoning districts. Parking Requirements Parking standards for housing units may stand as a limitation to the development of affordable housing, as these requirements increase development costs and diminish the availability of land for additional units. Tables 5.2 and 5.3 illustrate the County’s off-street parking requirements for residential uses and show that multi-family units require at least 1.5 parking spaces per unit. According to Zoning Ordinance Section 4.30.100, the approving authority may allow a reduction in required parking spaces if it finds that one or more of the following circumstances apply: 

The use or building is situated in an area characterized by older buildings which historically have not provided off-street parking consistent with current requirements.



The use or building is in close proximity to public transit facilities, or the client base is demonstrably less inclined to use automobiles than the general public.



The nature or design of a specific use or facility is uniquely different from more standard examples of uses or facilities within the use classification, such that a reduction in required parking is warranted.



The lot size and configuration, as well as the existing or potential building size, do not allow a reasonable use of the lot unless parking requirements are modified.

Parking reductions may only be allowed if the impacts of such reduced parking are not significantly contrary to the findings required under the applicable permitting process. Table 5.2: Santa Clara County Residential Parking Standards Residential Use

Minimum Parking Requirement

Single Family Dwelling

2 spaces / dwelling unit

43

Puget Sound Regional Council. “Featured Tool: Density Bonuses*.” Webpage tab. http://www.psrc.org/growth/hip/alltools/densitybonus/



72

Residential Use

Minimum Parking Requirement

Duplexes Multi-Family Dwelling Secondary Dwelling Units Rooming Houses, Fraternities, and Sororities

2 spaces / dwelling unit 1.5 spaces / dwelling unit 1 space / dwelling unit plus 1 space / additional bedroom 1 space / guest room plus 1 space / employee

Source: County of Santa Clara 2015 Housing Element Update

Table 5.3: Santa Clara County Handicapped Parking Standards Total Number of Parking Spaces

Number of Handicapped Spaces Required

1-25 26-50 51-75 76-100 101-150 151-200 200-300 301-400 401-500 501-1,000 1,001+

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 percent of total 20, plus 1 per 100 over 1,000

Source: County of Santa Clara 2015 Housing Element Update

Building Codes Building codes set guidelines that identify minimum standards to ensure that building and non-building structures protect the health and safety of the community. Local building codes, however, often mandate that costly improvements be made to meet regulation requirements. The County adopted the 2013 California Building Code (CBC), which is grounded on the 2012 International Building Code promulgated by the International Code Council, to ensure that buildings are compliant in order to maintain a safe community standard. Further, the County approved a Green Building Ordinance that establishes Green Building certification requirements for most new single-family residences. The residential component of the ordinance went into effect on January 15, 2009, and the nonresidential component went into effect on January 1, 2011. The new California Green Building Code provisions apply to all new buildings except for residential accessory structures and high-rise residential buildings. The County’s building codes prove to be in line with those of other California jurisdictions and do not have negative consequences on the development of affordable housing in the County. Growth Management Jurisdictions often use growth management techniques to control the rate of growth and may use a building moratorium as a strategy to reach this goal. A building moratorium is an initiative intended to regulate growth by pausing or reducing the construction of housing. The most fundamental policy of the County’s General Plan pertains to countywide growth management and the accommodation of urban development. These “Fundamental Urban Development Policies” stipulate that urban types and densities of development be located only within Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice


73

cities' urban service areas (areas planned for urbanization), in locations suitable for such development. Outside cities' urban service areas, only non-urban uses and development densities are allowed, to preserve natural resources, rural character, and minimize population exposure to significant natural hazards, such as landslides, earthquake faults, and wildfire. As a whole, these countywide growth management policies are held in common by the cities, County, and County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), which controls city formation and expansion. Planning and Development Fees The County collects planning and development fees to offset the administrative and service costs generated from these projects, such as processing permits and building inspections. California Law requires that enforced fees be reasonable and relative to the cost of providing specific services. These fees, however, may limit the supply of affordable housing produced due to the additional costs associated with housing construction. Table 5.4 demonstrates the estimated residential planning and development fees in the County, which appear to be comparable with other jurisdictions in the County. Table 5.4: Santa Clara County Residential Planning and Development Fees Application Type Architecture & Site Approval Building Site Approval (inside USA) Building Site Approval (outside USA) Certificate of Compliance Design Review Design Review Exemption Environmental Assessment Geologic Report Review (Letter Report) Geologic Report Review (In-Depth Report) Grading Approval Grading Approval Filed Concurrently With Other Land Development Permit Septic Tank Permit (Slopes