County of Santa Clara Office of Affordable Housing, Housing and Community Development Program Consolidated Plan
mm
’llnSll
#r
iiffi
County of Santa Clara
Office of Affordable Housing
Housing and Community Development Program
m
#r
m
m
#r
m
CONSOLIDATED
m
PLAN
m
m
&
m
m
2005 - 2010
ilr
Approved by the
Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors
May 3, 2005
&
li
Submitted to the United States
Department of Housing and Urban Development Kegion IX
May 12, 2005
#r
m
TABLE OF CONTENTS
7
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Purpose of the Consolidated Plan
7
Resources
7
Objectives and Types of Activities to be Undertaken
The Homeless and Others with Special Needs
8
10
1. GENERAL
Summary
General Description of Santa Clara County
County Supervisor Districts Map 1
General Description of the "Urban County
Population of the Urban County
Population of the Urban County Table A ....
Entitlement Cities and Urban County Map 2
Estimate of Anticipated Resources, 2005-2010
f!
12
12
13
14
14
14
15
15
2. CONSULTATION PROCESS (91.100)
Development of the Consolidated Plan
Consolidated Plan Development Process Flow Chart
16
3. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (91.105, and 91.200)
18
4. HOUSING AND HOMELESS NEEDS ASSESSMENT (91.205)
Summary
20
17
HOUSING
Estimates of Current Housing Needs....
Urban County Housing Needs Table B.
Disproportionate Housing Need
Extremely Low Income Households
Very Low Income Households
20
Low Income Households
,22
21
21
22
22
23
Large Household Profile Table C
and
Concentrations
.23
Current Estimates of Urban County Housing, Conditions
Racial/Ethnic Concentrations
23
Race and Ethnicity Table by Persons Table D
Race and Ethnicity Table by Households Table E
Concentration of Low Income Population
24
24
24
Median Household Income Table F
25
Income Definitions
,25
HUD Income Definitions Table G
25
26
Concentrations of Minority Populations Map 5
Hispanic Population Concentration Map 4
Black Population Concentration Map 5
Asian/Pacific Islander Concentration Map 6
,27
Income Distribution
28
Household Income by Race/Ethnicity Table H
28
Lower Income Distribution Table I
28
Concentrations of Lower Income Households Map 7
ABAG Housing Needs
29
Regional Housing Needs Determination Urban County Table J
30
2
26
,27
29
HOMELESS
31
Current Estimates of Homelessness
31
Homeless Population
Urban County Homeless/Special Needs Populations TableK (HUD Table lA)..32
33
County Homeless and Special Needs Populations Table L
33
Homeless Individuals
Homeless Families
34
Homeless Subpopulations
Chronically Homeless
Special Needs Persons with Severe Mental Illness
34
Persons with Substance Abuse Problems
34
Veterans
35
Persons Infected with HIV/AIDS
35
34
34
Persons Suffering Domestic Violence
35
Youth
35
Needs of Persons Threatened with Homelessness
35
Inventory of Facilities/Services for Homeless/Threatened Homeless
36
Continuum of Care System
Continuum of Care Gap
,37
Ten Year Plan to End Chronic Homelessness
,37
37
HUD 2005 Income Limits Table M
38
Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction
39
Number of Housing Units with Lead-based Paint Table N
40
5. HOUSING MARKET ANALYSIS (91.210)
Summary
41
41
General Characteristics
General Market Conditions
41
Housing Market Conditions
Housing Growth
Housing Growth Table O
Housing Type
Housing Type Table P
Housing Tenure and Vacancy
41
41
42
42
42
42
43
Housing Tenure and Vacancy Table Q
Vacancy
Housing Costs and Affordability
Ownership Housing Cost
43
43
43
44
Median Home Prices 2003-04 Table R
Rental Housing Cost
44
Rental Rates in Urban County Cities Table S.
45
Fair Market Rents Table T.
46
Housing Affordability
46
Affordable Housing Costs by Income Table U
Housing Condition
Age of Housing Stock
Age of Housing Stock Table V.
Housing Deficiencies
Housing Stock Deficiencies Table W
46
47
47
47
47
48
50
Homeless Facilities and Services
3
HOUSING MARKET ANALYSIS (91.210) cont'd
Emergency Shelters Table X
Transitional Housing Table Y
Permanent Supportive Housing Table Z.
Special Needs Facilities and Services
Special Needs Housing
Licensed Community Care Facilities Table AA
50
51
53
54
54
54
Seniors
54
Frail Elderly
55
Persons with Disabilities
55
Location of Residential Care Facilities Map 8
55
Type of Disabilities Table BB
57
Female-Headed Households
58
Farm workers
58
Persons with HIV/AIDS
59
Location of AIDS Cases Table CC
59
Persons with Alcohol/Other Drug Addictions
59
Public and Assisted Housing
Public Housing
Tenant Based Housing Assistance
60
Section 8 Participants and Applicants Table DD
Assisted Housing Units At-Risk of Conversion
60
Barriers to Affordable Housing
62
Potential Governmental Constraints
State Government Constrains
Federal Government Constraints
63
60
60
61
62
63
Intergovernmental Constraints
64
Potential Non-Governmental Constraints
64
Economic Constraints
64
Environmental Constraints
65
Infrastructure Constraints
65
Five Year Housing Needs and Priorities HUD Table 2A
66
6. STRATEGIC PLAN (91.215)
Summary
Countywide Housing Goals
67
67
.67
Process
Priorities for Assistance
68
Affordable Housing Objectives and Strategies
68
Homelessness
74
Summary/Specific Homeless/Special Needs Objectives HUD Table 1C
74
Other Special Needs
Other Special Needs HUD Table IB
Non-Housing Community Development
74
75
75
Community Development Needs HUD Table 2B
76
Summary/Specific Housing/Community Dev. Objectives HUD Table 2C,
77
Lead-Based Paint Hazards and Reduction
77
Santa Clara County Lead Programs
Case Management/Prevention
Anti-Poverty Strategy
78
79
79
4
80
Institutional Strncture
Distribution of Funds Process
80
Request for Proposal
Urban County Housing Pool - Non-Profit Organizations
Local project Development Phase - Cities
Public Housing
Goals for Families to be Assisted with Housing
80
80
81
81
81
7. ACTION PLAN (91.220)
Applications for Federal Assistance Form SF-424
Executive Summary
...1
3
Resources
3
Managing the Process
Citizen Participation
9
10
Institutional Structure
12
Monitoring
14
Lead-based Paint
15
Specific Housing Objectives
Needs of Public Housing
Barriers to Affordable Housing
15
17
19
HOME/American Dream Down Payment Initiative(ADDI)
Specific Homeless Prevention Elements
Community Development
Commnnity Development Needs AP HUD Table 2B
Antipoverty Strategy
Non-Homeless Special Needs
Special Needs Population (Non-Homeless) Objectives APHUD Table IB
Consolidated Plan Listing of Projects - Summary HUD Table 3
Consolidated Plan Listing of Projects - CPMP Worksheets
8. CERTIFICATIONS (91.225)
Non-State Government Certifications
CDBG Certifications
HOME Certifications
Appendix to Certification
9. APPENDICES
Appendix A Glossary
Appendix B Inventory of Licensed Care Facilities
Appendix C Telephone Survey
Appendix D Citizen Participation Plan
Appendix E Inventory of Housing Resources
Appendix F Inventory of Services/Homeless/Threatened with Homelessness
Appendix G Inventory of Homeless Facilities
Appendix H Homeless Census and Survey
Appendix I Santa Clara County Housing Agencies
Appendix J Ten Year Plan to End Chronic Homelessness
Appendix K Housing Problems per City/Jurisdiction
5
20
23
24
25
,25
26
27
CROSS REFERENCES
CHART:
Consolidated Plan Development Process Flow Chart
17
MAPS:
13
Map 1 County Supervisors Districts
Map 2 Entitlement Cities and Urban County
Map 3 Concentrations of Minority Populations
Map 4 Hispanic Population Concentrations
Map 5
Map 6
Map 7
Map 8
.15
26
26
Black Population Concentrations
Asian/Pacific Islander Concentrations
Concentrations of Lower Income Households
Location of Residential Care Facilities
,27
,27
29
55
TABLES:
Table A
14
Table E
Population of the Urban County
Urban County Housing Needs
Large Household Profile
Race and Ethnicity by Persons
Race and Ethnicity by Households
Table F
Median Household Income
,25
Table G
HUD Income Definitions
25
Table H
Household Income by Race/Ethnicity
28
Table I
Lower Income Distribution
28
Table K
Regional Housing Needs Determination - Urban County
Homeless Population and Subpopulation, Urban County
30
Table B
Table C
Table D
Table J
21
23
24
24
,32
Table L
Homeless Population/Subpopulation, County {HUD Table 1A)33
Table M
HUD 2005 Income Limits
38
Table N
Number of Housing Units with Lead-based Paint
40
Table O
42
Table Q
Housing Growth
Housing Type
Housing Tenure and Vacancy
Table R
Median Home Prices 2003-04
44
Table S
Rental Rates in Urban County Cities
45
Table T
Fair Market Rents
46
Table U
Table X
Affordable Housing Costs by Income
Age of Housing Stock
Housing Stock Deficiencies
Emergency Shelters
Table Y
Transitional Housing
Table P
Table V
Table W
42
43
46
,47
48
50
51
Table Z
53
Table AA
54
Permanent Supplemented Housing
Licensed Community Care Facilities, Urban County
Table BB Type of Disabilities
Table CC
Table DD
57
Location of AIDS Cases, Santa Clara County
59
Section 8 Participants and Applicants
60
32
HUD Table IB
Homeless and Special Needs Populations
Special Needs(Non-Homeless)Populations
HUD Table 1C
Summary of Specific Homeless/Special Needs Objectives
74
Priority Needs Summary Table
Community Development Needs
66
HUD Table lA
HUD Table 2A
HUD Table 2B
75
76
HUD Table 2C
Summary of Specific Housing/Community Development Objectives...77
HUD Table 3
Consolidated Plan Listing of Projects.
6
Following Action Plan
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA CONSOLIDATED PLAN
FOR THE PERIOD JULY 1,2005 TO JUNE 30,2010
The County of Santa Clara and the smaller cities (less than 50,000 in population) in the County,
comprise an entity known as the Urban County. The Urban County refers to the unincorporated
portions of the County of Santa Clara, as well as the jurisdictions of Campbell, Los Altos, Los Altos
Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, and Saratoga. As part of the County’s Office of
Affordable Housing, the Housing and Community Development Program (HCD) oversees the
activities of the Urban County, including the receipt of funds from the United States Department of
Housing and Urban Development and distribution of those funds to local housing projects and
services. Every five years, the Urban County is required to produce the Consolidated Plan outlining
the housing and housing-related needs of the population, and presenting strategies for meeting those
needs. The most recent Consolidated Plan covers the 5-year period of 2000-2005 and was approved by
the Board of Supervisors on May 9, 2000, and subsequently approved by the Regional Office of the
United States Department of Housing and Urban Development(HUD.)
Purpose of the Consolidated Plan
Title I of the National Affordable Housing Act establishes the requirement for state and local
governments that apply for direct assistance under certain HUD programs to have a HUD-approved
Consolidated Plan. The Consolidated Plan is a comprehensive planning document that identifies a
jurisdiction's overall needs for affordable and supportive housing and outlines a strategy to address
those needs. In this case, the jurisdiction is the Urban County.
The Consolidated Plan describes the activities that the Urban County anticipates undertaking during
the five-year period of Fiscal Years 2005-2010 with funds received through the Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program and the Home Investment Partnership Act (HOME)
Program. These activities are intended to meet the Urban County's affordable housing and community
development needs and objectives. The Action Plan is an annual increment to the Consolidated Plan
and describes the specific activities that the Urban County plans to undertake to address the established
objectives.
Resources
Federal Funds
One of the largest federal grants administered by County HCD is the Community Development Block
Grant(CDBG) Program. CDBG provides funding for a wide variety of housing and housing-related
activities, including the development of new affordable housing units, the rehabilitation of affordable
housing units, construction of neighborhood facilities, the removal of architectural barriers for the
elderly and persons with disabilities, fair housing services, and a variety of public services.
HCD also manages the federal HOME Investment Partnership Program which is federally funded.
HOME funds can be used for the acquisition of land or buildings and the rehabilitation or new
construction of affordable housing. The American Dream Down-payment Initiative (ADDI) is a new
component of the HOME Program and is intended for down-payment assistance toward the purchase
of single family housing by low income households who are first-time homebuyers.
7
Estimate of Anticipated Federal Resources, 2005-2010
The primary resources for addressing housing and community development needs ofthe Urban County
are the CDBG and HOME Programs. The current year (FY 2005-2006) allocation for CDBG is
$2,018,640. The HOME Program has been allocated $870,408. To augment the HOME Program, the
Urban County has been awarded funds for the American Dream Down-Payment Initiative (ADDI) in
the amount of $28,350. The combined programs total $2,917,398. Projecting that amount over the
next five years would bring the figure to $14,586,990. However, due to the population decline of the
Urban County by the unincorporated pockets annexing to larger cities and budget cutbacks at the
Federal level, the Urban County has been steadily receiving reduced awards, making it difficult to
project an accurate figure.
Other Resources
Other resources not administered by the Urban County HCD Program are also available for housing
projects and housing-related services. These resources are from the following:
• The Local Redevelopment Agencies(RDA)of the cities of Campbell, Los Gatos, and Morgan
Hill, which are mandated to set aside 20% of their funding for low-income housing projects.
The Mortgage Credit Certificate (MCC) Program, administered by the County's Office of
Affordable Housing, which is available for eligible first-time home buyers.
Low Income Tax Credits, which are available to non-profit housing developers.
The Rental/Mortgage Assistance Loan Program created by the Housing Bond Trust Fund
Committee of Santa Clara County.
The Housing Trust Fund of Santa Clara County, which was developed by the Santa Clara
County Housing Collaborative, in association with the Silicon Valley Manufacturers Group
(SVMG)which provides a Countywide renewable resource for affordable housing projects and
homeless activities.
The County’s Affordable Housing Funds, which were set aside by the Board of Supervisors in
September, 2003. So far, allocated $7.68 million has been awarded to assist in the development
of affordable housing projects. Round Two of the Affordable Housing Fund for an amount of
$3 million will occur in the 2"^ half of 2005.
Objectives and Types of Activities to be Undertaken
Funding objectives were established for both the CDBG and HOME programs through an extensive
community review process resulting in the FY 2005-2010 5-Year Consolidated Plan. This process
included an evaluation by HCD staff, public meetings in Central and South County, public meetings
before the HCD Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) and the HCD Council Committee (CC). The
following section outlines the Urban County’s objectives with regard to the HUD priorities identified
in Table B and the known needs of the seven jurisdictions that make up the Urban County.(Objectives
are not ranked in order of importance.)
Following the objectives is a summary of the types of activities that could be funded to address each
established objective. A Request for Proposal (RFP) will be issued toward the end of each calendar
year announcing CDBG and HOME funding availability and encouraging applications to be submitted.
Once the funding cycle is completed, a detailed deseription of activities to be undertaken will be
included in the annual Action Plan and can be found in the "Listing ofProposed Projects."
8
Objective 1: Increase the available supply of housing affordable to lower income households.
There are many factors affecting the affordability of housing in the Urban County jurisdictions. One
significant factor is the shortage of affordable housing units relative to demand. This shortage
manifests itself in several ways, such as a low affordable housing vacancy rates and home prices and
rents that are very high relative to the incomes of lower income households. The lack of developable
land and local development standards are other constraints to providing housing at densities that allow
affordability.
The objective is to increase the total number of affordable housing units in the Urban County
jurisdictions in order to provide for the current and projected needs of the low and moderate-income
families living in those communities. The affordable units should be appropriate in cost and type for a
range of households earning at or below 80% ofthe countywide median.
The types of activities to be undertaken to address this objective include acquisition, acquisition with
rehabilitation, and new construction projects that can be undertaken by housing development
corporations that provide affordable housing.
Objective 2: Increase housing opportunities for special needs households and the un-housed.
Certain populations in the Urban County communities encounter extraordinary difficulty in finding
both affordable and accessible housing. These categories include disabled persons, persons with
HIV/AIDS, the elderly, lower income households, agricultural workers, lower income mobile home
residents in projects in threat of conversion, homeless (also known as the “unhoused”), veterans, youth
(youth aging out of foster care). Section 8 conversion tenants, and survivors of domestic violence.
The types of activities to be undertaken to address this objective include housing counseling to the
Urban County disabled, and handicapped access for Urban County residents. Also, battered women's
facilities, which assist in providing emergency and short term housing, food, counseling, and life skills
workshops may be funded. Shared transitional housing for homeless youth aging out of foster care
may be funded to provide a safe, secure, and positive transitional living environment in a shared
housing setting for 4 to 6 Urban County young adults between the ages of 18 and 21. These are at-risk,
young adults who have aged out ofthe foster care system and have become homeless.
Objective 3: Increase affordable housing opportunities for low to moderate income first time
homebuyers.
Santa Clara County is one of the top ten regions in the nation for high housing costs. Many potential
homebuyers are “closed out” of the housing market and denied the ability to build equity through
homeownership. This situation has serious consequences for the entire region and serves as a
disincentive for the job force to remain in the area.
The types of activities to be undertaken to address this objective include the HOME and ADDI
program funds that can be used for down-payment assistance for eligible first time homebuyers.
Objective 4: Rehabilitate and maintain existing affordable housing.
The Urban County jurisdictions, like all communities in the Bay Area, have been experiencing
significant, unprecedented increases in housing costs for at least a decade. The continuing price
increases have impacted the sales price of older and newly constructed homes. The older homes in
Santa Clara County are typically smaller, more modest units than those more recently constructed.
They were built in an era of considerably less costly construction. In the past, these houses, duplexes,
and small apartments provided affordable "starter" homes for young families. They also served as
affordable rental units for lower-income families, seniors, and those with special needs. The strategies
below are aimed at maintaining the number and diversity ofthe existing affordable housing stock.
The types of activities to be undertaken to address this objective include the local Housing
9
Rehabilitation Programs. Each participating city and the County's unincorporated area may continue to
operate their programs that provide low interest loans to lower-income households for the repair of
their homes. Also, a minor home repair program may continue serving several Urban County cities and
in the unincorporated area.
Objective 5: Preserve existing affordable housing.
In a region that has recently experienced phenomenal increases in housing costs, simply maintaining
the affordable units that are currently in the housing stock is a major task. The conversion of
apartments to condominiums, the redevelopment of former mobile home parks, the demolition of small
homes and apartments, and the "gentrification" of older, small home/small lot neighborhoods represent
serious threats to the existing affordable housing supply. Having been built and financed in an earlier
era, these older units are typically less costly to rent or buy than newer housing. This is the type of
housing young families, single people, first time homebuyers, and the fixed-income elderly can more
easily afford. It fills a very important need for many different types of households.
Unfortunately, the Urban County Jurisdictions were subject to the termination of federal mortgage
and/or rent subsidies, and their concern was that the loss of those subsidies would not result in the
conversion of affordable housing units to market-rate units. The principal objectives of Strategies 1114 are to prevent the conversion or loss of existing affordable units, and ensuring that those units
remain available to low and moderate-income households in Urban County communities.
The types of activities to be undertaken to address this objective include providing shared housing for
low income people. Persons are considered “providers” meaning they have available space in their
home are matched with “seekers” who need are searching for affordable housing opportunities.
Objective 6: Ensure equal housing opportunities.
Housing discrimination experienced by low and moderate-income households exacerbates affordability
problems by further restricting the housing options available. Despite years of effort to curtail
discrimination, it continues to occur; even though it is illegal. The objective of the strategies below is
to eliminate illegal and unwarranted discrimination in the Urban County communities. The strategies,
thus, address a broad range of activities that define discriminatory housing practices.
The types of activities to be undertaken to address this objective includes the Santa Clara County Fair
Housing Consortium, comprised of several fair-housing agencies, that may continue to provide
resources for Urban County residents with tenant/landlord, housing discrimination, and fair housing
concerns.
The Homeless and Others with Special Needs
Homeless Services
The Santa Clara County Collaborative on Affordable Housing and Homeless Issues, which was
established in 1992, represents homeless shelter providers, service providers, housing advocates, non
profit housing developers, and representatives of local governmental jurisdictions. More than 160
agencies have come together to form the Collaborative in order to obtain more funding for homeless
shelters, services, and to develop more affordable housing.
“Keys to Housing: A 10-Year Plan to End Chronic Homelessness in Santa Clara County” was
completed by a Homeless Task Force appointed by the County Board of Supervisors in October, 2004.
The final draft was accepted by the Board of Supervisors on May 3, 2005. The Office of Affordable
Housing continues to work on the priorities of this plan with all the County’s municipalities and
community groups.
10
In addition, the Collaborative supports inter-agency partnerships, and submitted funding requests from
29 agencies, totaling over $8,822,935 in the most recent McKinney funding cycle.
Special Needs
The City of San Jose has been designated by HUD as a recipient of Housing Opportunities for People
with AIDS (HOPWA)funds and therefore, administers the HOPWA Program. San Jose works with
the other entitlement cities to determine the appropriate allocation ofthese funds. Much of this money
is directed toward countywide HIV/AIDS prevention and support services.
Many of the jurisdictions in the Urban County are using CDBG funds to meet the American's with
Disability Act(ADA)requirements. These improvements include restroom access improvements, curb
cuts, ramps, automatic doors, etc.
The Housing Authority has been working with a local group called Housing Choices to provide
housing opportunities for persons with special needs and continues to explore land opportunities for
construction of additional housing for persons with special needs.
11
1. GENERAL
Summary
This section provides general information about the County of Santa Clara and describes the Urban
County. Maps illustrate the County as a whole and the cities that comprise the Urban County.
General Description of the County of Santa Clara
The County of Santa Clara, also referred to as "Silicon Valley," is unique because of its combination of
physical attractiveness and ethnic diversity. With its numerous natural amenities and one of the highest
standards of living in the country, the County has long been considered one of the best areas in the
United States in which to live and work.
The County of Santa Clara is located at the southern end of the San Francisco Bay and encompasses
1,312 square miles. The Mediterranean climate of the region remains temperate year round due to the
area’s geography and its proximity to the Pacific Ocean. The area is warm and dry much of the year.
Rarely is the humidity uncomfortable, and the thermometer seldom drops below freezing. Rain
generally confines itself to the winter and snow to the tops of the local mountains. The Diablo Range
lines the eastern border of the County and the Santa Cruz Mountains are to the west. Salt marshes and
wetlands lie in the northwestern part ofthe county, adjacent to the waters of San Francisco Bay.
Today, the County is a major employment center for the region, providing more than a quarter of all
jobs in the Bay Area. It has one of the highest median family incomes in the country, and a wide
diversity of cultures, backgrounds and talents. The County of Santa Clara continues to attract people
from all over the world.
The County’s population of nearly 1.7 million is one of the largest in the state, following Los Angeles,
San Diego, and Orange Counties, and the largest of the nine Bay Area counties. Its population
constitutes about one fourth of the Bay Area's total population. There are 15 jurisdictions
including Campbell, Cupertino, Gilroy, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Milpitas, Monte
Sereno, Morgan Hill, Mountain View, Palo Alto, San Jose, Santa Clara, Saratoga, and Sunnyvale
ranging from Palo Alto to the north, to Gilroy in the south. San Jose is the largest city in the County,
with a population of nearly 900,000, and is the administrative site of County Government. A
significant portion of the County’s land area is unincorporated ranch and farmland. Nearly 92% of the
population lives in cities.
The County of Santa Clara has a culture rich in its history, ethnic diversity (over 100 languages and
dialects are spoken), artistic endeavors, sports venues, and academic institutions.
In sports and recreation, San Jose is home to teams for professional soccer, minor league baseball, and
the San Jose Sharks, the only professional ice hockey team in Northern California. Other local sports
teams include the San Jose Earthquakes, the San Jose Sabercats, the San Jose CyberRays, and the San
Jose Giants. Numerous public and private golf courses are located throughout the County. In addition
to these recreational facilities, the County of Santa Clara operates 27 parks covering more than 50,000
acres including lakes, streams, and miles of hiking and biking trails.
The County is home to three major universities - Stanford University, Santa Clara University, and San
Jose State University - as well as excellent community colleges. Local museums and art galleries
include the Tech Museum of Innovation, the Kanter Museum, the Rosicrucian Museum, the Children's
Discovery Museum, the San Jose History Park, the San Jose Museum of Art, the Triton Museum and
many others. There are also abundant performing arts venues including opera, symphonies, musical
theatre, repertory theatre, concerts, and children’s musical theatre.
12
For more information on local entertainment at the Center for Performing Arts, Civic Auditorium, and
Montgomery Theater, visit the San Jose & Convention Visitors Bureau. For local concerts, please visit
the Compaq Center, Mountain Winery, and Villa Montalvo. Local theme parks and venues for
children and adults include Paramount’s Great America, Bonfante Gardens, Raging Waters, and
the Santa Clara County Fair.
There are five (5) Supervisorial Districts in the County of Santa Clara. The Supervisor for each district
is elected by voters that reside within the boundaries of that specific district. Each elective term of
service for County Supervisors is four years. The current Supervisors for each district are:
District 1 One: Donald F. Gage
District 2 Two: Blanca Alvarado
District 3 Three: Pete McFIugh
District 4 Four: James T. Beall, Jr.
District 5 Five: Liz Kniss
Map 1
County Supervisor Districts
13
General Description of the "Urban County
ft
Since 1975, the County of Santa Clara has qualified for funding from the United States Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) as an Entitlement Jurisdiction. A jurisdiction with a
population in excess of 50,000 persons can apply to HUD directly for funding as an Entitlement
Jurisdiction. The other Entitlement Jurisdictions in the County are the cities of Cupertino, Gilroy,
Milpitas, Palo Alto, Mountain View, San Jose, Santa Clara, and Sunnyvale. The County has entered
into Joint Powers Agreements with several local Non-Entitlement cites that are not allowed to
individually apply to HUD for funds to form the “Urban County.” As such, the Urban County has
developed a program of operation and implementation in seven of the fifteen cities in the County. The
jurisdictions that currently participate as the Urban County are the Non-Entitlement Jurisdietions of
Campbell, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, Saratoga and the
Unincorporated Area of the County.
The County of Santa Clara Office of Affordable Housing, through the Housing and Community
Development Program, administers the activities of the Urban County as the Grantee, including the
receipt of funds from HUD and the distribution ofthose funds to local housing projects and services.
Population of the Urban County
As described in Table A, the population of the Urban County is 270,954. In addition, there are
260,654 households in the Urban County.
Table A
Population of the Urban County
SANTA CLARA
COUNTY
Population
Households
CAMPBELL
38,179
37,889
LOS ALTOS
27,512
27,093
LOS ALTOS HILLS
8,355
8,290
LOS GATOS
28,750
28,048
MONTE SERENO
3,501
3,501
MORGAN HILL
35,489
34,976
SARATOGA
30,311
29,950
UNINCORP AREA
98,857
90,907
URBAN COUNTY
270,954
260,654
ENTITLEMENT JURS
1,460,468
1,441,177
COUNTY TOTAL
1,731,422
1,701,831
Source: 2000 Census
14
Map 2
Entitlement Cities and Urban County Area
Estimate of Anticipated Resources,2005-2010
The primary resources for addressing housing and community development needs ofthe Urban County
are the Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG)and Home Investment Partnerships
Act(HOME)Program. The current year(2004-2005) allocation for CDBG is $2,018,640 and the
HOME Program is allocated $870,408. In addition, the Urban County has been awarded funds for the
American Dream Down-Payment Initiative(ADDI)in the amount of $28,350, for an annual total of
$2,917,398. Projecting that amount over the next five years would bring the figure to $14,586,990.
However, due to the increase of incorporating areas in the County and budget cutbacks at the Federal
level, the Urban County has been steadily reduced in Federal awards for housing activities making it
difficult to project an accurate figure.
15
2. CONSULTATION PROCESS(91.100)
Development of the Consolidated Plan
The County of Santa Clara Office of Affordable Housing administers the Housing and Community
Development Program (HCD) which oversees the activities ofthe Urban County, including the receipt
of funds from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and
distribution of those funds to local housing projects and services. Every five years, the Urban County
is required to produce a consolidated plan outlining the housing and housing-related needs of the
population, and presenting strategies for meeting those needs.
Title I of the National Affordable Housing Act establishes the requirement for State and local
governments that apply for direct assistance under certain HUD programs to have a HUD-approved
Consolidated Plan. The Consolidated Plan is a comprehensive planning document that identifies a
jurisdiction's overall needs for affordable and supportive housing, and outlines a strategy to address
those needs. In this case, the jurisdiction is the Urban County.
The Consolidated Plan replaces the previously required Comprehensive Housing Affordability
Strategy (CHAS). The CHAS was a five-year housing plan that was updated annually by the
preparation of an Annual Plan and Annual Performance Report. Like the CHAS, the Consolidated
Plan is prepared for a five-year period and updated annually to reflect any changes in the needs or
strategies.
On December 31, 1991, HUD approved the Santa Clara County Urban County CHAS covering the
period from October 1, 1991 to September 30, 1996. The County of Santa Clara's 1995 Consolidated
Plan was primarily developed as an update and expansion of the approved CHAS. Data required in the
new Consolidated Plan that had not been required in the CHAS, such as the non-housing needs, were
collected and incorporated into the document.
On May 11, 1995, Santa Clara County submitted its Board-approved 1995 Consolidated Plan on HUD.
This document covered the period of 1995-2000, and much of the information in this plan was based
data from the 1990 Census since the 2000 Census was not available until 2003. On May 15, 2000,
Santa Clara County submitted its Board-approved 2000 Consolidated Plan to HUD. This document
covered the period of 2000-2005.
16
Office of Affordable Housing
Housing and Community Development
Consolidated Plan
Development Process
HUD
us Department of
Housing and Urban
Development
Santa Clara County
Board of Supervisors
General
>
Public
HCD Advisory
Committee
Fonnerly HCD Council
Committee and HCD Citizen's
Advisory Committee
Urban County
Staff
Private
1
Public and
Interested
Sector
Parties
Santa Clara County
Collaborative on
Affordable Housing
and Homeless Issues
Service
Non-Profits
Provider
Developers
Agencies
Entitlement and
Non-Entitlement
Cities
Con Plan Development Proc
3-05
17
Revised LCT
3. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION(PUBLIC PARTICIPATION)(91.105, and 91.200)
Public participation is an important element ofthe Consolidated Plan. The Urban County jurisdictions
want the public to be aware of the range of activities that are undertaken through the HCD program,
how those activities are selected for funding, and the amount of funding provided for each type of
project or service. The Urban County also wants to provide the public with an opportunity to articulate
any unmet needs within their jurisdiction, and to express their preferences about activities planned or
proposed to meet both the needs identified in this draft plan, as well as those which may be brought to
the attention of the Urban County through the public review process. (Note: The eomplete Public
Participation Plan can be found in Appendix B.)
The public review process included two public meetings held in the month of February specifically for
the purpose of informing the community about the Consolidated Plan Update for Federal Fiscal Years
2005-2010. Issues discussed included the needs, strategies, and priorities for the Urban County, and
how to make the best use of Community Development Block Grant(CDBG), and HOME funds.
The meeting dates and locations were as follows:
February 15, 2005
5:30 p.m.
Consolidated Plan Review
Morgan Hill Community and Cultural Center
1700 Monterey Road
Morgan Hill, CA 95037
February 17, 2005
5:30 p.m.
Consolidated Plan Review
County Government Center
Isaac Newton Senter Auditorium
70 W. Hedding Street
San Jose, CA 95110
In addition to the specific Consolidated Plan public review meetings, time was provided at meetings of
the Citizen’s Advisory Committee and the Council Committee for comment on the plan. The schedule
of those meetings was as follows:
January 20, 2005
5:30 p.m.
Joint HCD CAC/CC Meeting
County of Santa Clara
Conference and Training Room
1641 N. First Street
San Jose, CA 95112
February 24, 2005
6:30 p.m.
HCD Citizen’s Advisory Committee
County of Santa Clara
Conference and Training Room
1641 N. First Street
San Jose, CA 95112
April 7, 2005
4:30 p.m.
HCD Citizen’s Advisory Committee
County of Santa Clara
Conference and Training Room
1641 N. First Street
San Jose, CA 95112
18
April 7, 2005
5:00 p.m.
HCD Council Committee
County of Santa Clara
Conference and Training Room
1641 N. First Street
San Jose, CA 95112
The draft Consolidated Plan was made available for public review on April 1, 2005. It was available at
the County Office of Affordable Housing and libraries in the cities of Campbell, Los Gatos, Los Altos,
Morgan Hill, and Saratoga. In addition, a copy of the Board-approved document will be placed on the
Office of Affordable Housing website at www.oah.sccgov.org. The final day for written public
comment was May 1, 2005. A hearing to make final recommendations on the plan, prior to forwarding
the completed text to HUD, will be:
May 4, 2005
1:30 p.m.
Public Hearing
Board of Supervisors Chambers
70 West Hedding Street
San Jose, CA 95110
19
4. HOUSING AND HOMELESS NEEDS ASSESSMENT (91.205)
Summary
This section describes the Urban County in terms of population, income, and family size and outlines
the needs of the homeless and of special populations such as the physically or mentally impaired. Also
mentioned are racial or ethnic disproportionality, and lead-based paint hazards. Information on cost
burden, overcrowding, and substandard housing can be found in this section.
Estimates of Current Housing Needs
The Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) developed by the Census for HUD
provides detailed information on housing needs by income level for different types of households.
Detailed CHAS data based on the 2000 Census is displayed in Table B. Based on CHAS, housing
problems include: 1) units with physical defects (lacking complete kitchen or bathroom); 2)
overcrowded conditions (housing units with more than one person per room); 3) housing cost burden,
including utilities, exceeding 30 percent of gross income; or 4) severe housing cost burden, including
utilities, exceeding 50 percent of gross income. The types of problems vary according to household
income, type, and tenure. Some highlights include:
■
In general, renter households had a higher level of housing problems than owner households.
■
As expected, generally the lower the group income level, the higher the proportion of
households experiencing housing problems.
■
Large family renter households tended to have the highest level of housing problems of any
subgroup, regardless of income level.
■
Elderly renter households had the next highest level of housing problems. A significant
percentage of these households experienced housing problems in every jurisdiction in the
Urban County Area, except for Los Altos Hills and Monte Sereno. Cost burden tended to be a
major component ofthese housing problems.
20
Table B
Urban County Housing Needs Table
Housing Problems Output for All Households
URBAN COUNTY
Name of Jurisdiction:
Source of Data:
URBAN COUNTY
CHAS Data Book
Data Current as of:
2000
Owners
Renters
Elderly
1 &2
Small
Large
Related
Related
All
Total
Elderly
Small Related
Large Related
(2 to 4)
(5 or
more)
Other
Renters
1 &2
(2 to 4)
(5 or more)
Household by Type, Income, & Housing
Problem
Total
Other
Owners
Households
M.
Iti
households
households
M
Total
Households
member
Households
member
All
M.
M
lEi
M.
M.
Ill
URBAN COUNTY
1. Household Income <=50% MFI
2,043
2,880
1,264
2,910
9,097
2548
872
262
576
4,258
13,355
2. Household Income <=30% MFI
1,424
1,400
559
1,633
5,016
1923
922
249
485
3,579
8,595
65%
87%
84%
76%
77%
67%
74%
89%
82%
72%
75%
3. % with any housing problems
4. % Cost Burden >30%
5.% Cost Burden >50%
6. Household Income >30% to <=S0% MFI
7. % with any housing problems
619
1480
619
1,277
3,995
2344
1019
527
443
4,333
8,328
70%
78%
95%
74%
78%
35%
72%
85%
74%
54%
65%
8. % Cost Burden >30%
9.% Cost Burden >50%
10. Household Income >50 to <=80% MFI
11.% with any housing problems
249
1,384
601
1,282
3,516
1847
1,023
450
480
3,800
7,316
54%
57%
81%
63%
63%
24%
69%
84%
69%
49%
56%
12.% Cost Burden >30%
13.% Cost Burden >50%
14. Household Income >80% MFI
15. % with any housing problems
794
6,205
1,221
7,098
15,318
10,795
31,575
6,811
6,156
55,337
70,655
44%
21%
52%
16%
22%
14%
25%
39%
32%
25%
25%
3,086
10,469
3,000
11,290
34,539
8,037
7,564
67,049
94,894
43%
72%
37%
27,845
1
45%
16,909
59%
24%
29%
46%
40%
31%
35%
16.% Cost Burden >30%
17. % Cost Burden >50%
18. Total Households
19. % with any housing problems
20. % Cost Burden >30
21. % Cost Burden >50
(—)see Appendix Kfor detail perjurisdiction
21
Disproportionate Housing Need
Disproportionate need refers to any need that is more than 10 percentage points above the need
demonstrated for all households. For example, 87.8 percent of large renter families (a subset of renter
households) in the unincorporated area of Santa Clara County experienced housing problems,
compared to 49 percent of all renter households or 39 percent of all households. Thus, large families
in the unincorporated County that are renting have a disproportionate need for housing assistance. The
basis for determination of disproportionate housing need is the CHAS tables presented in Table B.
Extremely Low Income Households (0-30 Percent MFI)
The following jurisdictions had subgroups experiencing disproportionate housing needs in this income
group, based on the number of households within the jurisdiction:
Campbell - All household subgroups except for large related owner households.
Los Altos - All household subgroups except for large related renter households.
Los Altos Hills - All household subgroups except for elderly renter households.
Los Gatos- All household subgroups except for large related owner households.
Monte Sereno - Small related and large related owner households.
Morgan Hill - All household subgroups.
Saratoga - All household subgroups except for large related and other renter households.
Unincorporated Santa Clara County - All household subgroups.
Very Low Income Households(31-50 Percent MFI)
The following jurisdictions had subgroups experiencing disproportionate housing needs in this income
group, based on the number of households within the jurisdiction:
■ Campbell - All household subgroups except for elderly owner households.
■
Los Altos - All household subgroups except for large related renter and all other owner
households.
■
■
Los Altos Hills - Other renter households, all owner households except for large related.
Los Gatos- All household subgroups.
■
Monte Sereno - Small related owner households.
■
Morgan Hill - All household subgroups except for other renter households and elderly owner
households.
■
Saratoga - All household subgroups except for large related renter households and elderly
owner households.
■
Unincorporated Santa Clara County - All household subgroups except for elderly renter and
owner households.
Low Income Households(51-80 Percent MFI)
The following jurisdictions had subgroups experiencing disproportionate housing needs in this income
group, based on the number of households within the jurisdiction:
■ Campbell - All household subgroups except for elderly renter and owner households.
■ Los Altos - All household subgroups except for elderly renter and owner households.
■
Los Altos Hills - Other renter households.
■
■
■
Los Gatos - All household subgroups except for elderly and large related owner households.
Monte Sereno - All owner households except for small related households.
Morgan Hill - All household subgroups except for elderly renter and owner households.
■
Saratoga - Small related renter households, all owner households except for elderly
households.
■
Unincorporated Santa Clara County - Elderly and large related renter households, all owner
households except for elderly.
22
While the Santa Clara Urban County Area has a large number of lower and moderate income
households requiring housing assistance, it also has a limited inventory of affordable housing,
particularly in the rental housing market. Jurisdictions within the Urban County Area have expended
substantial resources to provide affordable housing opportunities for its lower and moderate-income
residents through a variety of rental assistance, home ownership assistance, and rehabilitation
programs.
Large Households
Large households, those with five or more persons, have special housing needs due to their income and
the lack of adequately sized, affordable housing. As a result, large households often live in
overcrowded conditions. Table C shows the proportion of large households within each jurisdiction of
the Urban County Area. The comparable figure for the County in 2000 was 15.5 percent. The special
census tabulations for HUD further indicate that among the large households in the Urban County
Area, approximately 64.2 percent experienced some form of housing problems, which include
overcrowding, cost burden, or substandard housing conditions. This illustrates that the Urban County
Area has a need for affordable housing units with three or more bedrooms.
Table C
Large Household Profile of Urban County Area
Large Household Profile of
Santa C ara Urban County Area
Percent of
1
Jurisdiction
Households
Campbell
Los Altos
Los Altos Hills
Lower
Housing
Income^
Problems^
28.8%
54.3%
7.7%
7.2%
26.5%
11.3%
7.2%
31.2%
6.8%
15.1%
43.6%
Monte Sereno
11.8%
8.5%
65.2%
Morgan Hill
Saratoga
16.8%
32.2%
50.5%
10.9%
8.0%
42.2%
Unincorporated
16.2%
22.1%
65.0%
County
Santa Clara County
15.5%
34.3%
65.6%
Los Gatos
6.3%
Sources: 1)2000 Census. 2)HUD CHAS,2003
To provide affordable home ownership opportunities for low-income large households, jurisdictions
have implemented various programs to assist in the construction of family housing and provide first
time homebuyer assistance to qualified families, including the Mortgage Credit Certificate (MCC)
program. Funding sources include CDBG and HOME funds, redevelopment ageney set-aside funds
and general funds, and first time homebuyer programs.
Current Estimates of Urban County Housing Populations and Conditions and Areas of Ethnic
and Low/Moderate Income Concentration
Racial/Ethnic Concentrations
Race and ethnicity have implications on housing need in that certain demographic and economic
variables correlate with race. For example, the average household size for Santa Clara County was
2.92 in 2000. However, the average household size for Hispanics was 4.20 and for Asians was 3.35,
while for non-Hispanic Whites it was 2.55.
23
Between 1990 and 2000, the Santa Clara Urban County Area became increasingly diverse in its race
and ethnic makeup. This trend follows County, state and national trends. In California, no one ethnic
group holds a majority. In the Urban County Area, however, the White population still constitutes
substantially more than half the City residents. As shown in Table D, the population in Santa Clara
Urban County area is comprised of 64 percent non-Hispanic White persons. The Hispanic population
is the second largest racial/ethnic group in the County (22.4 percent). Black, Asian, and other
racial/ethnic groups constituted only a small proportion ofthe population. Comparing the racial/ethnic
composition of the population with that of the householders Indicates that 72 percent of households in
Santa Clara Urban County area are headed by Whites and only 16 percent by Hispanics {Table E).
This reflects the typically larger household size for Hispanic households than for White households.
Table D
Race and Ethnicity by Persons
Persons
Urban
Los
Campbell
Los Altos
Altos
Los
Monte
Hills
Gatos
Sereno
Uninc.
Morgan
Hill
Saratoga
County
County
Area
25,257
21,536
5,633
23,639
2,899
20,720
19,436
54,770
173,890
4,883
949
245
1,552
178
9,237
852
29,238
47,134
821
80
41
101
19
421
153
1,760
3,396
Asian/PI
5,737
4,234
1,821
2,370
334
2,091
8,598
1 1,665
36,850
Other
1,489
786
260
1,021
129
1,166
816
3,542
9,209
38,187
27,585
8,000
3,559
33,635
29,855
100,975
270,479
White
Hispanic
Black
Total
28,683
Source: 2000 Census
Table E
Race and Ethnicity by Households
Households
Urban
Los
Campbell
White
Hispanic
Black
Asian/PI
Other
Total
1 1,726
Los Altos
8,651
Altos
Los
Monte
Morgan
Hills
Gatos
Sereno
Hill
2,145
10,409
1,033
7,693
Saratoga
Uninc.
County
County
Area
7,576
24,654
73,887
6,235
10,761
1,420
256
63
453
39
2,091
204
387
26
12
53
0
159
30
470
1,137
1,974
1,382
500
107
668
2,495
3,079
11,026
483
153
54
304
40
250
137
875
2,296
2,774
12,013
1,219
10,861
10,464
30,889
94,678
15,990
10,468
821
Source: 2000 Census
Areas with concentrated minority residents may have different needs. Concentration is defined as
block groups with above the County average of Hispanic populations (24.0 percent) or other minority
populations (31.9 percent). Map 3 shows the concentrations of minority populations in Santa Clara
County.
Concentrations of Low Income Population
Household income is an important consideration when evaluating housing and community
development needs, because low incomes typically constrain people's ability to procure adequate
housing or services. Table F shows the median incomes in the Santa Clara Urban County Area in
comparison to the County as a whole.
24
Table F
Median Household Income
Jurisdiction
Median Househoid income
Campbell
$67,214
$126,740
$173,570
$94,319
$154,268
$81,958
$139,895
$74,439
$105,500
Los Altos
Los Altos Hills
Los Gatos
Monte Sereno
Morgan Hill
Saratoga
Unincorporated County
Santa Clara County
Source: 2000 Census
Income Definitions
For purposes of housing and community development resouree programming, HUD has established
different income definitions based on the Median Family Income (MFI) for a given Metropolitan
Statistical Area(MSA). These ineome definitions are presented in Table G. They are the same as the
definitions used in the CHAS tables.
Table G
HUD Income Definitions
%of
Area MFI
Income Group
Extremely Low Income
0-30%
Very Low Income
31-50%
Low Income
51-80%
Middle
81-95%
Upper
Above 95%
Note;
Federal housing and community development resources are typically not
available for households with above 80% of the Area MFI. Therefore, differentiating
the Middle Income group from the Upper Income group under the federal definitions
is not critical.
25
Map 3
Concentrations of Minority Populations
Map 4
Hispanic Population Concentration
T7
\
Figute X
Aisnttd* CouriTV
SF
Hispanic Population
1,-^*
T'
✓
i-
Concentration
i
r»
Mllpito*
Pole Alto
Sc fitfl Cla
<
Mountain Vimv
r
/
Legend
L
Hi»panfc Population Concentration
N.-*...
Swnnyvaio
Lo» Aitoi Hills Los.AJtoi
'
C^rsus Btoct’Group* xrtihi
t
Hespaok pop‘>lafioo gr«or<»f iIkjo
c
Cooray
V
(24%.48%)
Hisponic Populotion
High Concontration
<
■ V«
Group* Vrfth Hlrponic
populotion greotiefjhars twico
County evi»roge(48% ond above)
1
Mat*o
ji[^|j3S<jnto CloTO County Boorviary
\
County
Juri»dictic»n<jl Boufvi'jriot
t'Toowayi
1
Stani*l»o* County
^ r
V
Morgan Hill
V
■V
r
i
Santa Crm County
s,.
I
\
,r‘
\
>
*N
X
)
Gilroy.|
•>C
M«rc»d
County
I,
\
I
\
•
V-l
\
\
SonBoftito
County
Sow* Cmr-JtXE
JS
1
10
eir.
Map 5
Black Population Concentration
i
Figyu X
AUmtid* County
sk
Black Population
..Z'
Concentration
Polo Alto
/
Mllptlas
‘
Sonl<3 Cioru ICuo.iy
<
%
.1
. f
\
3lack ®opu'alion Concontralion
’S
Swtnyvcile (wj
Los ^os Hills Los.Altos
tvgond
•\
Mo^toin View*
%
^13
\i “
|H Slack
Popu'alfon
H'gh Concontralion
b»<3ch
C<*r«tw» Bloch Ortyop^
•W
popukrtion go»a»*( thon tMc* iK®
y
I
Ssn
Matte
with
(jiock fiopvIrttKN'i ytTOienihq/i
County (iv»nag» (2.S'* -
(
^ 'C»fl»erHno'' '
s*
Consul Bloci-
/
Santa Clara
Cc^r*y ov#ro9® (5.0% ood obcw^i
1
Sorotoga irl,.
i
Coonty
Cloro County Brjur^dary
\
iT^j '■ JufkdictiorHjt Boundo
Fiiwrwayi
*1
\
Slanifisus County
,-v*
A
/\
•h.
\
Hill
*v
r
J
s
5an»a C.i
I
.r'
'W
\
Mtrctd
\ County
Gilroy
>
/
.-.i
V
s.
✓
X
I
r*:
•
San Btnilo
County
Sore* Cuoir.JCa)
.
10 Min
5
»
Map 6
Asian/Pacific Islander Population Concentration
T
Figuto X
Aiamaon C<
ny
Asian/Pacific
Islander Population
Concentration
Mil(>itos
Polo Alto
■f
Mountoln^lew,^
I
Surmyvoleliw
Los Alt<
\
Hills Los.Altos
VS'
&•
ata Clara
liatrti Cistt Cevtiy
Legend
G
A*lan/PI Populo*lon
Concof'lrollon
■ * pjpi kif,
Cereut Bloci' Oroups mAS
Sait Joeo K.^
AsicMv-W populotKart B'eo'ef tKon
CoynryovwTOij* [75.7% - 5i 4%j
.i'i
|H Asian/PI Popula
<
»
*" High Concontralion
9
Cerev* 8l<x:h Groups w»h AaioneW
■.m ahw
pC'pkjki*loci Qinal-jr *hon
San
Mates
County
N.
Counly overag® (51 *1% ond ol>w«}
Saratoga
v
\
r^cinto Ckirn Couniy &<r>wfKiorY
M.
f^^l'PJufssdtcffcna! B<au»KiafJ<i
Los Gales
froowrayt
Stsrtitisui County
Ssnia Cf
County
MsresQ
County
1—r
7S
27
f.
T
\
10
Mir.
Income Distribution
Based on the ineome definitions speeified above, almost 17.8 percent of all households in the Urban
County Area in 2000 were within Extremely Low Income and Very Low Income (50 percent MFI)
levels, and 7.7 percent were within the Low Ineome level {Table H). Throughout this document, the
term "lower ineome households" refers to those with up to 80 percent of the County MFI. In the Urban
County Area, households with lower incomes (up to 80 percent of the County MFI) comprised 74.6
percent of all households. The proportion of households with Low Income or less was higher among
Hispanic (61.7 percent) and Black (63.8 percent) households than for White (49 percent) and Asian
(22.5 percent) households {Table I). Between 1990 and 2000, all households for which data are
available experienced an increase in the proportion of lower income households.
Table H
Household Income by Race/Ethnicity
% Extremely Low
and
Very Low
Total
Households
White
Hispanic
Asian/Pacific Isl.
Black
All Households
Households
% of Total
Households
Incomes
% Low Income
(0-50% MFI)
(51-80% MFI)
% Moderate/
Upper Incomes
(>80% MFI)
51.0%
24,555
25.9%
27.0%
22.0%
5,411
5.7%
38.8%
22.9%
38.3%
10,814
11.4%
16.0%
6.5%
77.5%
1,596
1.6%
35.5%
28.3%
36.2%
94,678
100%
17.8%
7.7%
74.6%
Source: HUD CHAS Data Book, based on 2000 Census.
Table I
Lower Income Households by Race/Ethnicity
1990-2000
% of Lower
Household
% of Lower
Income
Income
Households
Households
2000
1990
White
26.9%
23.4%
Hispanic
50.6%
45.8%
36.3%
Black
38.5%
Asian/Pacific Islander
30.7%
N/A
Total Households
22.8%
29.1%
N/A - not available
Source; HUD CHAS Data, 1999 and 2003
Use of CDBG funds on public improvements can only occur in income-eligible areas. The CDBG
program defines income eligibility as any block group with 51 percent or more of the population
earning incomes less than 80 percent of the Area MFI. Map 7 shows the concentration of lowerincome households within Santa Clara County.
28
Map 7
Concentrations of Lower-Income Households
Figure X
Alamfida County
Low and Moderate
V,
'h
?
iWipifas
J-^Polo>AUo
\
Mountain View
/
Sunnyv^e^
/
Safilo Cltita CaoBty
<
^^ V
Legend
{jyfi ond Fvtoderoie
/
Los Altos Hills Los,Altos
\
s
Income Population
\
?>
'4>-.
Cloia Counly Ekxindory
Jurisdictional Boondarioj
,S •'
<
tz.
San
\
County
Freeways
>
5*^
Lr
Mat«o
income Sock Groups
L\.
^Com^beli
Saratoga
•\
\
,87
jf •"
Monto Sereno
Los Gatos
\
StarJsiaus County
•fT
»
Morgg^m
N.
CDBG low authorizes on excepSon for grontiset wifh no or very fe## areas in whkh
51 percent of the resder.** orelo-w ar*d rrioderciie irvrofrie to be obJe to undertake
oreo benefit activities. Many cities in the Coorwy ore exception grantees.
Santo Claro Urban County
Includes the Cities of Compijell, Los
Palo Alto
IcM/Mod - $hck Gfwps wrfh 27.4% or
rnc-fo Low/Mod income pc^/ofton
Aitos, Los Altos Hills, ios Gatos, MontSereno, Morgan Hill, Snroiogo and oft
Sorrto Claro
unincorporated oreos.
Lcw/Mod •=* Block Groups with 41.3% or
LM/fM - Bhck Graupi t/tih 42.9% or roort lxM/^bd lncom» poptihlion
\
'S
•»
Sunnyvale
iow/Mod ■» Blocif Groups with 37.4% or
(Low/Mcd = Slock Groups wrih 23.3% or more Law/Mod tncome p<opvlat
Son Jose and Gilroy
more low/Mod Inconw population
Milpitas
Son Jose and Gilro/ ais NCtT evcepHon
County
Ji| Qlln
J-
more tow/Mod /ncome pcpufcrfion
Cupertino
i.
t
d must Qdi>&'^ to Ih-T’ Irodnionol
Low/Mod ■« Block Groups with 33. }%(v
gron/eoj
more Low/Mod Income populofjon
chfSnition c/ Low//VGden3te income areas.-
Mountain View
Low/Mod “ Block Groups with 53% or
more Low/Mod Income popuf<^ton
Low/Mod * Block G'oups wTfh 332% or
more Lfjw/Mod Income populoffon
M9rc«d
>
•
'\ J
Ssn Benito
County
SMm «1103COO
A 0
\
T
2.S
T
5
T
ABAC Housing Needs
The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) has prepared a Regional Housing Needs
Determination (RHND) for its nine member counties and the cities within them. The RHND is based
upon estimated housing need for the period from January 1, 1999 to June 30, 2006'. For the ABAG
region, the estimated housing need for the 1999-2006 period is 230,743 units. Santa Clara County's
share of this regional housing need is 57,991 units, or approximately 25.1 percent of the total need.
The Santa Clara Urban County Area, including the unincorporated County, has been allocated 6,068
units. This figure is approximately 10.5 percent of the allocation for the County, and 2.6 percent of the
total regional need. Table J shows the breakout of the RHND for the Urban County Area. Based upon
the RHND, approximately 1,714 of the future required units in the Urban County Area should be for
lower income households.
1
Subsequent to the adoption of the ABAG plan, the California Legislature extended by one year the time period
covered by that plan. For the purpose of the Consolidated Plan analysis, the original timeframe of 1999 - 2006 is
used.
29
1
)0 Mil«
Table J
Regional Housing Needs Determination,
Santa Clara Urban County Area
RHND
Jurisdiction
Units for Lower
Adjusted
Income Households
Allocation'
Allocation
Campbell
777
565
242
Los Altos
261
261
58
83
83
15
402
135
107
76
76
15
2,484
2,484
683
539
539
1 ,446
685
483
6,068
4,828
1,714
Los Altos Hills
Los Gatos
Monte Sereno
Morgan Hill
Saratoga
Unincorporated County
Total
'Allocation adjusted for housing units either constructed or approved for construction 1999-2001, where information is
available.
Sources: ABAC, 2001; local jurisdiction housing elements.
Homeownership Needs
Santa Clara County wishes to pursue increased affordable homeownership opportunities for first-time
homebuyers in Santa Clara County. The median household income of $105,500 is only enough to purchase
a home costing just over $400,000 and the Median Price of a Home in Santa Clara County hovers around
$600,000, a difference of $200,000. This means that the average household of four can only purchase
66.7% of a median priced home. The County wishes to bridge this affordability gap by encouraging the
development of affordable homeownership units and by leveraging County funds with other state and local
funds to make homeownership more affordable to County citizens.
EXAMPLE:
Purchase Price
Down payment(10%)
Amount Financed
Monthly Principal and Interest(7.0%)
Monthly Taxes and Insurance (1.2%)
Total Housing Payment
Income Needed to be Affordable at 30% GMI
Income Needed to be Affordable at 33% GMI
$600,000
$60,000
$540,000
$3,592
$600
$4,192
$167,680
$152,436
Note: GMI means Gross Monthly Income
The County Median Income is $105,500 for a household of four. A household would have to earn another
$62,180 annually (or 159% ofthe current household income) in order to be able to purchase a median priced
home in the County. Clearly, wages are not keeping pace with the dramatic rises in the cost of housing and
this affordability gap constitutes a housing crisis in Santa Clara County.
By increasing opportunities for people to be able to live where they work, the County can help attract and
30
maintain a highly skilled, educated and talented workforce and help curb the flow of lower income
households to lower-cost areas in the state. Affordable ownership housing allows the local workforce to be
able to live in the communities they serve and brings pride and economic stability to the entire region.
According to the California Association of Realtors, only 22% of households in Santa Clara County can
afford to purchase a median priced home compared to 55% nationwide. (Source, CAR, January 2005)
HOMELESSNESS
Homelessness
All the entitlement jurisdictions in Santa Clara County have long recognized that homelessness is a
regional issue. The best available data on the homeless is only available for the entire County. Data
presented in this section is thus based on statistics for the entire County, as presented in the County's
2004 Continuum of Care (CoC) application to HUD. HUD requires that each entitlement jurisdiction
identify needs and gaps in services within its boundaries. To meet those HUD requirements, the
countywide characteristics and demographics of the homeless, and the needs and gaps in facilities and
services identified in that application were allocated to each entitlement jurisdiction based on the
“2004 Santa Clara County Homeless Census and Survey”. Additional information was provided by the
Homeless Management Information—Santa Clara (HMIS)as of November 30, 2004. At that time, the
HMIS did not include client data from all agencies serving the County's homeless. The entitlement
jurisdictions in the County have determined that HMIS provided data as to where persons last resided
before becoming homeless. For that reason, that HMIS data was used as the basis for allocating the
countywide data from the CoC to each entitlement jurisdiction.
The following section summarizes the housing and supportive service needs of the homeless in the
Santa Clara Urban County Area, as well as persons and families at risk of becoming homeless. This
section also includes an inventory of services and facilities available to serve the Urban County Area's
homeless population and those who are at risk of becoming homeless. Service and facility gaps in the
Continuum of Care are also identified.
Current Estimates of Homelessness:
Homeless Population
Since homelessness is a regional issue, data presented in this section is based on statistics for the entire
County. Characterization by jurisdiction of the homeless population, the availability of facilities and
services, and gaps in service are based on the countywide data and data generated from the “2004
Santa Clara County Homeless Census and Survey” along with information derived from the County's
Homeless Management Information System (HMIS), a federally-required collaborative database that
tracks homeless clients by last reported permanent place of residence.
Tables K and L are the most recent detailed estimates of the homeless population in the Santa Clara
Urban County Area and Santa Clara County (based on the County's 2004 Continuum of Care
application to HUD). It is estimated that there are 7,646 persons who are homeless according to the
“2004 Santa Clara County Homeless Census and Survey,” of which 37.7 percent have shelter. In
the Urban County Area, 157 homeless persons (38.9 percent) have shelter.
In December of 2004, the cities of Santa Clara County and the County jointly sponsored a two-day
homeless count (conducted by a consultant who specializes in these counts) to assess the homeless
population in the County's 351 census tracts. Based on the preliminary results. Based on the results,
there were 7,646 unduplicated cases of homelessness, of which 6,432 were individual cases and 1,214
were persons in family groups.
31
Table K (HUD Table lA)
Homeless and Special Needs Populations (Urban County only)
Continuum of Care: Housing Gap Analysis Chart
Current
Inventory
Under
Unmet
Development
Need/
Gap
Individuals
Beds
Emergency Shelter
Transitional Housing
Permanent Supportive Housing
52
0
96
31
0
134
15
3
82
Total
98
3
312
Persons in Families with Children
24
0
6
64
0
14
26
0
20
114
0
40
Emergency Shelter
Transitional Housing
Permanent Supportive Housing
Beds
Total
Source: Santa Clara County 2004 Continuum of Care application to HUD.
Note: Local share of homeless is based on countywide homeless estimate from Santa Clara County's 2004
Continuum of Care application to HUD.
Continuum of Care: Homeless Population and Subpopulations Chart
Sheltered
Part 1: Homeless Population
1. Homeless Individuals
2. Homeless Families with Children
2a. Persons in Homeless Families
with Children
Unsheltered
Total
Emergency
Transitional
51
30
209
290
6
15
10
31
22
54
26
102
73
84
235
392
Sheltered
Unsheltered
Total
10
43
53
TotalJlinesJ r 2a]^
Part 2: Homeless Subpopulations
1 . Chronically Homeless
2. Seriously Mentally III
55
3. Chronic Substance Abuse
47
4. Veterans
16
5. Persons with HIV/AIDS
27
6. Victims of Domestic Violence
26
7. Youth
8
Source: Santa Clara County 2004 Continuum of Care application to HUD.
Note: Local share of homeless is based on countywide homeless estimate from Santa Clara County's 2004
Continuum of Care application to HUD.
32
Table L Homeless and Special Needs Populations (Santa Clara County)
Continuum of Care: Housing Gap Analysis Chart
Current
Under
Unmet
Inventory
Development
Need/
Gap
Individuals
Emergency Shelter
Transitional Housing
Beds
Permanent Supportive Housing
Total
906
0
1,653
576
0
2,319
260
50
1,416
1,742
50
5,388
Persons in Families with Children
Emergency Shelter
Transitional Housing
Permanent Supportive Housing
Beds
415
0
99
1,097
0
240
448
0
345
1,899
Source; Santa Clara County 2004 Continuum of Care application to HUD.
0
684
Total
Continuum of Care: Homeless Population and Subpopulations Chart
Unsheltered
Total
518
3,605
5,010
106
258
179
543
383
932
448
1,763
1,270
1,450
4,053
6,773
Sheltered
Unsheltered
Total
186
745
931
Sheltered
Part 1: Homeless Population
1. Homeless Individuals
2. Homeless Families with Children
2a. Persons in Homeless Families
with Children
Emergency
Transitional
887
TotalJlinesJ|2a|^^
Part 2: Homeless Subpopulatlons
1. Chronically Homeless
2. Seriously Mentally III
952
3. Chronic Substance Abuse
816
4. Veterans
285
5. Persons with HIV/AIDS
136
6. Victims of Domestic Violence
462
7. Youth
136
Source: Santa Clara County 2004 Continuum of Care application to HUD.
Homeless Individuals
33
As indicated in Table K, homeless individuals eomprise approximately 74 percent of the homeless
population in the Urban County Area, compared with 69.4 pereent of the homeless population in the
County. Unsheltered homeless individuals account for 53.3 percent of the total homeless population in
the Urban County Area. According to information in the Santa Clara Countywide Five-Year
Continuum of Care Plan (Countywide Five-Year Plan), approximately 74 percent of the urban
homeless are single-adults. The overwhelming majority of single homeless adults are male (about 75
percent).
Homeless Families
Members of homeless families make up slightly over one-quarter of the homeless population in the
Urban County Area. By eomparison, almost one-quarter of the urban homeless population in the
County are members of homeless families. Single mothers head the majority of homeless families -
66 percent according to the Countywide Five-Year Plan. The Countywide Five-Year Plan also stated
that 227 dependent children accompanied 284 homeless people surveyed, or approximately 44.4
pereent of the total sample. This was an increase from a 1995 study of the homeless in the County,
which indicated that children in homeless families eomprised 23 percent of the total sample.
Homeless Subpopulations
Table K also provides a breakdown of the homeless population by subpopulations. A description of
each subpopulation and their estimated number in the Santa Clara Urban County Area follows. As
with the homeless population in general, eharacterization of the homeless subpopulations are based on
the County's HMIS data, the allocation of which have been assigned according to the proportion of
clients in the HMIS database that reported any jurisdiction in the Urban County Area as his or her last
place of permanent residence. It should be noted that figures from HMIS are an undercount based on
the fact that not all agencies have fully implemented the system.
Chronically Homeless
The Interagency Council on Homelessness has defined someone who is "ehronically homeless" as
"being disabled and either being continuously homeless for a year or more or having had at least four
homeless episodes during the last three years.
There are an estimated total of 10 chronically
homeless persons in the Urban County Area. Countywide, there were 931 chronically homeless
persons, of who only one-fifth were in shelters.
Special Needs Persons with Severe Mental Illness
Severe mental illness ineludes the diagnoses of psychoses (e.g. schizophrenia) and the major affective
disorders (e.g. bipolar, major depression). To qualify as chronic, the illness must have existed for at
least one year. Aeeording to national estimates, approximately one percent of the adult population
meets a definition of severe mental illness based on diagnosis, duration, and disability.
In the Urban County Area, there are an estimated 55 homeless persons who are seriously mentally ill.
In the County, there are 952 such homeless persons. According to the Countywide Five-Year Plan, 90
pereent of the homeless identified as mentally ill were single. The major barrier to stable, decent
housing for the seriously mentally ill is the availability of affordable housing. A substantial majority
of persons in this population depend solely on Social Security Insurance (SSI) payments. These
payments, whieh averaged $550^ in 2004, permit very few persons in this population to afford rental
2 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Strategies for Reducing Chronic Street Homeiessness,
January 2004.
3 U.S. Social Security Administration at www.socialsecuritv.aov/Dolicv/docs/auickfacts/state stats/ca.html.
Average SSi payment for all of California, including federal SSI payment and state supplement.
34
housing on the open market.
Persons with Substance Abuse Problems
An estimated 47 homeless persons in the Urban County Area had chronic substance abuse problems,
either with alcohol or with other drugs, or sometimes with a combination of substances. Santa Clara
County had 816 homeless persons with substance abuse problems. In past surveys, substance abuse
appeared to be a major factor in the cause of homelessness. A substantial number of homeless
surveyed in 1997 (25.9 percent) stated that substance abuse had precipitated continual job loss and a
subsequent inability to pay rent, resulting in eviction from their homes.
Records have also been kept for homeless persons categorized as "dually diagnosed." This refers to
persons diagnosed with both a mental illness and a substance abuse problem. In Santa Clara County,
there are 476 homeless persons that are dually diagnosed. In the Urban County Area, the estimated
number of such homeless persons is 28.
Veterans
There are an estimated 16 homeless persons in the Urban County Area who are veterans. In the
County, there were 345 homeless veterans. According to the “2004 Santa Clara County Homeless
Census and Survey” 19.3% reported as homeless veterans of those surveyed. This was a slight
decrease from 20% found in 1999.
Persons Infected with HIV/AIDS
The National Commission on AIDS states that up to half of all Americans with AIDS are either
homeless or in imminent danger of becoming homeless due to their illness, lack of income or other
resources, and weak support networks. The Commission further estimates that 15 percent of all
homeless people are infeeted with HIV. Within Santa Clara County, 136 homeless persons reported
having HIV/AIDS, which is less than two percent of the total homeless population. In the Urban
County Area, it is estimated there are 27 homeless persons with HIV/AIDS.
In 2000, the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors provided funding to the Billy DeFrank Lesbian
and Gay Community Center to complete a social services and health services needs assessment, which
included a survey of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people. Of those surveyed, 12 percent
lived in non-permanent or unstable housing. Two percent reported living on the streets.
Persons Suffering Domestic Violence
Many single women and women with children become homeless as the result of domestic violence.
According to a study by the U.S. Conference of Mayors, 34 percent of the cities surveyed identified
domestic violence as a primary cause of homelessness. Nationally, approximately half of all women
and children experiencing homelessness are fleeing domestic violence."^ Homeless women often
require additional counseling to work through psychological impairment from physical abuse to
transition into the mainstream.
In Santa Clara County, there were 462 homeless persons who were victims of domestic violence, or
approximately 6.4 percent of the total homeless population. The estimated number of such persons in
the Urban County Area is 26. According to the Countywide Five-Year Plan, female respondents to a
survey identified fleeing from domestic violence as one of the three primary reasons for their
homelessness.
Youth
^ National Coalition for the Homeless, NCH Fact Sheet #1: Why Are People Homeless? September 2002.
35
The Countywide Five-Year Plan states that the fastest growing segment of the homeless population is
children. Approximately 25 percent of newly homeless persons in the County were children under 18.
Of the estimated homeless population in the Urban County Area, eight were youth. In the County,
there were 136 homeless youth who were not part of a homeless family. These homeless youth are
difficult to track because of their highly transient nature, their distrust of adults, and their distrust of
services, usually born out of fear of being incarcerated or institutionalized.
Needs of Persons Threatened with Homelessness
The "at-risk" population is comprised of lower income families and individuals who, upon
experiencing a major life crisis that creates severe financial distress Qob loss, medical emergency,
etc.), might lose their housing and end up becoming homeless. Extremely low income households
(those earning 30 percent or less of median family income) are considered to be at greatest risk of
becoming homeless. The overwhelming majority of these families typically experience a housing cost
burden, paying more than 30 percent of their incomes for housing. In more severe cases, such families
pay more than 50 percent of their incomes for housing.
The at-risk population also includes individuals who are in imminent danger of residing in shelters or
living on the streets. This is primarily due to the lack of access to permanent housing and the absence
of an adequate support network, such as immediate family members or relatives in whose homes they
could temporarily reside. These individuals, especially those being released from penal, mental or
substance abuse facilities, require social services that help them make the transition back into society
and remain off the streets. Based on the criteria discussed above and available data, there are probably
between 20,000 and 30,000 Santa Clara County households who are at risk of becoming homeless.^
Using the share of homeless as determined by the County's HMIS, it is estimated that there are 1,160 to
1,740 at-risk households in the Urban County Area.
Keeping people from becoming homeless requires emergency funds to pay for housing, food, deep
rental subsidies, and medical care. Homeless prevention also requires adequate planning for medical
discharges, eviction prevention and relocation assistance, and coordination with code enforcement
officials to minimize displacement of lower income households. Access and contact points for those
who become homeless include the Shelter Bed Hotline, on-line and telephone intake and referral
services, an Emergency Assistance Network (EAN) agency. Legal Services, the San Jose and County
Homeless Coordinators, and any number of homeless service and mainstream human services
agencies. These agencies will assess the needs of the homeless individual or household, and find
appropriate assistance whenever possible.
Inventory of Facilities and Services for the Homeless and Persons Threatened with Homelessness
Santa Clara County and its incorporated cities provide a variety of programs to assist homeless persons
and persons and families threatened with homelessness. Many of these programs target specific
groups, such as the mentally ill and persons with HIV/AIDS. Some of the programs operate on a
countywide basis, while others are limited to a specific geographical area.
As previously stated in this section, homelessness is a regional issue, and is not restricted to a specific
jurisdiction. Homeless individuals and families are found throughout Santa Clara County, In
acknowledgement of this, and in order to more efficiently deliver services to the homeless, the County
has been working with local jurisdictions and various homeless service and housing providers to
develop an extensive countywide Continuum of Care. For this reason, a description of homeless
facilities and services available in Santa Clara County is provided below. While not all these facilities
and services are available to City residents, some are available to homeless City residents at large.
^As an exannple of the potential homeless risk among extremely low income households, HUD reported that, in 2000, nearly
36,000 such households paid more than 50 percent of their incomes for housing expenses.
36
while others are available to specific subpopulations such as domestic violence victims.
This section presents the homeless facilities and services available in Santa Clara County under three
broad categories: 1) Housing Information and Assistance Programs, 2) Outreach Programs, and 3)
Supportive Services. Within each category are subcategories describing facilities and services that are
similar in character. In the interest of providing a thorough and comprehensive description of
homeless facilities and services, some of these programs may be described in several subcategories.
Information for County homeless facilities and services came from the County's 2004 Continuum of
Care application to HUD. The complete inventory of Facilities and Services for the Homeless and
Persons Threatened with Homelessness can be found as Appendix F.
Continuum of Care System
As indicated above, the County has an extensive array of services that assist persons and families that
are homeless or are threatened with homelessness. The following three tables list all programs in the
Continuum of Care, along with the clientele served by the programs and the number of people served
or the bed capacity. Table X lists the emergency shelters in the County. Table Y shows the County's
transitional housing facilities, and Table Zsho'xs the permanent supportive housing facilities.
Continuum of Care Gap
Although the County and its incorporated cities provide a variety of programs to serve the homeless, it
is known that not all eligible individuals and families are being served. One reason is that the
programs in the Continuum of Care have inadequate capacity to serve all their potential clients.
Table K provides an estimate of the gap between the capacity of the Urban County Area's Continuum
of Care system and the actual demand for services. As indicated by the table, there are an estimated
312 homeless individuals and 40 persons in homeless families with children in the Urban County Area
whose needs are currently not being met by the programs in the Continuum of Care. The comparable
figures for Santa Clara County are 5,388 homeless individuals and 684 persons in homeless families.
Detailed gap analysis by type of facility is not yet available. It should be noted that, due to the
methodology used in preparing the gap analysis, which is a requirement of HUD,the estimated unmet
needs of homeless individuals and families may not match the unsheltered homeless figures in Table
K.
Ten Year Plan to End Chronic Homelessness
In October 2004, the Board of Supervisors established a Homeless Task Force to create a plan to end
chronic homelessness in the County of Santa Clara. On May 3, 2005 the Task Force presented its plan
“Keys to Housing: A 10-Year Plan to End Chronic Homelessness in Santa Clara County” to the
Board of Supervisors. The Board unanimously accepted the Plan and directed the Task Force to return
on a quarterly basis with a report concerning the progress of implementation of the Plan. Key to the
Plan is a commitment to use the Housing First model as a way to quickly re-house homeless people in
permanent, supportive housing.(See Appendix J for entire Plan.)
37
HUD 2005 Income Limits
Table M
FY 2005 HUD PROGRAM INCOME LIMITS
Santa Clara County Jurisdictions
Effective Date: 01/28/04 Median Family Income: $105,500
1 PERSON HOUSEHOLD
30% OF MEDIAN
$22,300
VERY LOW INCOME
37,150
LOW INCOME
59,400
2 PERSON HOUSEHOLD
30% OF MEDIAN
$25,450
VERY LOW INCOME
42,450
LOW INCOME
67,900
3 PERSON HOUSEHOLD
30% OF MEDIAN
$28,650
VERY LOW INCOME
47,750
LOW INCOME
76,400
4 PERSON HOUSEHOLD
30% OF MEDIAN
VERY LOW INCOME
LOW INCOME
$31,850
53,050
84,900
5 PERSON HOUSEHOLD
30% OF MEDIAN
$34,400
VERY LOW INCOME
57,300
LOW INCOME
91,650
6 PERSON HOUSEHOLD
30% OF MEDIAN
$36,900
VERY LOW INCOME
61,550
LOW INCOME
98,450
7 PERSON HOUSEHOLD
30% OF MEDIAN
$39,450
VERY LOW INCOME
65,800
LOW INCOME
105,250
8 PERSON HOUSEHOLD
30% OF MEDIAN
$42,000
VERY LOW INCOME
70,050
LOW INCOME
112,050
38
Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction
Lead poisoning is the number one environmental hazard to children in America today. Approximately
434,000 children across the U.S. aged one to five years have lead blood levels greater than the Center
for Disease Control (CDC) recommendations. Lead poisoning causes IQ reductions, reading and
learning disabilities, decreased attention span and hyperactivity and aggressive behavior. Several
factors contribute to higher incidences of lead poisoning:
Children under two are especially vulnerable
Low Income children are at eight times higher risk for lead poisoning than wealthy children
Black children have five times higher risk than White children
Hispanic children are twice as likely as White children to have lead poisoning
Children in older housing are at higher risk
Up to 50 percent of children in distressed neighborhoods have some level of lead poisoning
Lead-based paint(LBP)is a major source of lead poisoning. Starting in 1978, the use of all lead-based
paint on residential property was prohibited. National studies estimated that 75 percent of all
residential structures built prior to 1978 contain LBP and that older structures have the highest
percentage of LBP. The age of the housing stock is the key variable for estimating the number of
housing units with lead-based paint. In assessing the potential LBP hazard of these older structures,
several factors must be considered. First, not all units with lead-based paint have lead-based paint
hazards. Only testing for lead in dust, soil, deteriorated paint, chewable paint surfaces, friction paint
surfaces, or impact paint surfaces provides information about hazards. Properties more at risk than
others include:
■
■
Deteriorated units, particularly those with leaky roofs and plumbing
Rehabilitated units where there was not a thorough cleanup with high-phosphate wash after the
improvements were completed
CHAS data provide the number of housing units constructed before 1970 that were occupied by lower
income households. This data can be used to approximate the extent of LBP hazards among lower
income households. While information on units constructed before 1978 is not available from CHAS,
estimates based on the pre-1970 stock provide a conservative estimate ofthe extent of LBP hazards. It
is estimated that 7,119 units in the Urban County Area occupied by lower income households (0-80
percent MFI) may contain LBP {Table N).
There have been three main thrusts to Santa Clara County's response to LBP issues. First is the
ongoing screening and treatment of children who may have been exposed to lead in their environment.
Second, the County and local jurisdictions are testing for the presence of LBP through their
rehabilitation programs, and requiring abatement as necessary. Third, the County initiated a classaction lawsuit against eight paint manufacturers and a trade group for selling LBP that they knew was
hazardous to children. The suit sought to force the paint manufacturers to pay for the removal of LBP
from buildings where it is identified, to pay for the treatment of children identified with lead poisoning,
and to fund Countywide educational programs regarding the risks associated with LBP. However, in
2003, the lawsuit was dismissed in Santa Clara County Superior Court.
40
Table N
Number of Housing Units with Lead-Based Paint
Occnpied by Lower Income Households
No. of Units Built Before 1970
Occupied by Lower Income
Estimated No. of Units with LBP and
Households
Occupied by Lower Income Households
Extremely
Very
Low
Low
(0-30%
Jurisdiction
MFI)^
Low
(31-50% (51-80%
MFI)
MFI)
1
Extremely
Low
Very Low
Low (030% MFI) (0-50% MFI) (51-80% MFI)
Campbell
194
835
1,465
146
626
1,099
Los Altos
58
175
30
44
131
23
Los Altos Hills
25
20
20
19
15
15
Los Gatos
155
278
807
116
209
605
0
0
4
0
0
3
Morgan Hill
129
258
254
97
194
191
Saratoga
138
132
65
104
99
49
Unincorporated
County
950
1,433
2,061
713
1,075
1,546
1,649
3,131
4,706
1,239
2,349
3,531
Monte Sereno
Total
I
75 percent of lower income households, based upon national studies.
^Owner-occupied units for extremely low income group not available. Figure includes only rental units.
Source: HUD CHAS Data, 2003.
41
5. HOUSING MARKET ANALYSIS (91.210)
Summary
This section of the Consolidated Plan discusses the general characteristics of the Urban County,
including housing supply and housing trends. Also described are public and assisted housing, special
needs housing, and barriers to affordable housing.
General Characteristics
General Market Conditions
The Urban County communities in Santa Clara County are diverse, ranging from affluent, established
communities consisting of primarily single family detached dwellings to traditional suburban bedroom
communities with a mix of single family housing and multi-family rentals, to relatively "new" suburbs
rapidly emerging from historically rural settings. Although there is a great deal of diversity among and
within the Urban County communities, many of the prevailing market conditions and housing trends
are common to all ofthem, and to the County as a whole.
Santa Clara County has been experiencing rapid employment and population growth over more than
four decades. As the population has grown, housing demand and the price of housing have Increased
accordingly. The sustained high demand in the county for a well educated, well paid labor force,
combined with an inadequate level of housing produetion, have escalated area housing prices to the
highest in the nation.
Housing Market Conditions
General
This section addresses characteristics of the housing supply in the Santa Clara Urban County Area,
including type, age, condition, costs, and availability. The implications of these housing characteristics
with respect to housing programs are also examined.
Housing Growth
The 2000 Census reported 97,340 housing units in the Santa Clara Urban County Area, representing an
increase of 2.2 percent since 1990 {Table O). This level of growth was significantly less than that
experienced by Santa Clara County as a whole. This is explained by the decrease in housing units in
the unincorporated County, primarily as a result of annexations into incorporated communities. The
change in the number of housing units varied considerably by jurisdiction within the Urban County
Area, from a decrease of 12.3 percent in the unincorporated County to an increase of 42.1 percent in
the City of Morgan Hill. Based on ABAC estimates, the Santa Clara Urban County Area is projected
to experience a 5.9-percent increase in housing units between 2000 and 2010. This level of increase is
less than the growth in housing units estimated for the County.
42
Table O
Housing Growth
Number of Homes
Jurisdiction
Percent Change
1990
2000
2004
2010
1990-2000
2000-2010
Campbell
15,359
Los Altos
10,168
2,573
1 1,596
1,121
7,819
10,022
16,348
10,730
2,835
12,404
1,237
11,1 10
10,667
32,099
97,340
16,444
10,748
3,016
12,544
1,254
11,839
10,871
31,932
98,648
16,470
10,640
2,860
12,470
1,330
13,160
10,960
35,170
103,060
6.4%
5.5%
0.2%
7.0%
10.3%
42.1%
6.4%
-12.3%
2.2%
0.7%
-0.8%
579,329
600,707
629,360
13.0%
8.6%
Los Altos Hills
Los Gatos
Monte Sereno
Morgan Hill
Saratoga
Unincorporated County
Total Urban County
Santo Clara County
36,593
95,251
540,240
0.9%
0.5%
7.5%
1 8.5%
2.7%
9.6%
5.9%
Sources: 1990 and 2000 Census, 2004 California Dept, of Finance E-5a Report, ABAC projections 2003
Housing Type
Single-family homes are the predominant housing type in the Santa Clara Urban County area.
According to California Department of Finance estimates, single-family housing accounted for 78.7
percent of the housing stock in the Urban County Area {Table P). Multiple-family housing
represented 19.2 percent of the housing stock. The Urban County Area includes smaller cities that
tend to have lower density residential neighborhoods, hillsides and other environmental constraints,
and other factors that limit the amount of land available and suitable for multiple-family housing.
Table P
Housing Type
Housing Type
Total
Households
Jurisdiction
Single
Family
Multiple
Mobile
Family
home
Campbell
16,444
8,990
7,197
257
Los Altos
10,748
9,548
1,184
16
2,984
26
6
3,489
123
Los Altos Hills
3,016
Los Gatos
12,544
8,932
1,254
1 ,163
Morgan Hill
11,839
9,030
Saratoga
Unincorporated County
10,871
10,200
664
7
31,932
26,826
4,423
683
98,648
77,673
18,971
2,004
600,707
384,187
196,876
19,644
Monte Sereno
Total
Santa Clara County
91
1 ,897
0
912
Source: 2004 California Dept, of Finance E-5a Report
Housing Tenure and Vacancy Tenure
The tenure of a community's housing stock (owner versus renter) influences several aspects ofthe local
housing market. Tenure preferences are primarily related to household income, composition, and age
of the householder. The stability of single-family residential neighborhoods is influenced by tenure,
with ownership housing evidencing a much lower turnover rate than rental housing. Housing
overpayment (cost burden), while faced by many households regardless of tenure, is more prevalent
among renters, because renters tend to have significantly lower incomes than homeowners in relation
to their housing costs.
43
Table Q shows the breakdown by tenure of each community in the Santa Clara Urban County Area. In
general, the Urban County Area has owner-occupied households, reflecting the predominance of
single-family housing. The exception is Campbell, where slightly over half of the housing units are
renter-occupied. This is partially explained by the relatively greater availability of multiple-family
units in Campbell - 43.7 percent of the housing units in Campbell were multiple-family.
Table Q
Housing Tenure
2000
Owner %
Renter %
%Vacant
48.2%
51.8%
2.24%
Los Altos
85.6%
14.4%
2.47%
Los Altos Hills
93.9%
6.1%
2.65%
Los Gatos
65.3%
34.7%
3.05%
Monte Sereno
94.2%
5.8%
2.07%
Morgan Hill
72.5%
27.5%
2.21%
Saratoga
90.0%
10.0%
1.87%
Jurisdiction
Campbell
Unincorporated County
69.0%
31.0%
3.96%
Santa Clara County
59.8%
40.2%
2.31%
Sources: 2000 Census; 2004 California Dept, of Finance E-5a Report
Vacancy
The availability of housing to those looking for a home primarily depends on the number of
unoccupied units for sale or rent at any one time. The percentage of such homes is the effective
vacancy rate. The effective vacancy rate varies from month to month and typically follows economic
trends. In general, a vacancy of at least five percent assures that consumers have adequate choices
when looking for housing. At that rate, vacant units are available to facilitate mobility and property
owners should be able to increase rents moderately without placing undue burden on tenants. When
vacancy rates drop below five percent, the increased demand and reduced supply allow rental rates and
housing prices to rise disproportionately to household income.
Vacancy rates in the Santa Clara Urban County Area are similar to vacancy rates throughout the
County. That is, they are in the approximate range of 2-3 percent. This is indicative of a tight market,
particularly for rental units. In part, this is due to the relative lack of multiple-family units in the
Urban County Area. As suggested previously, another explanation is the competition between
potential renters for available rental units. Although vacancy rates are less than ideal for adequate
consumer choice, they are higher than at the height of the economic boom in Santa Clara County in the
late 1990s.
Housing Costs and Affordability
Ownership Housing Cost
According to the California Association of Realtors, the median price for a home in Santa Clara
County rose 14.6 percent between 2003 and 2004 {Table R). The median home price increased from
$479,000 in 2003 to $549,000 in 2004. Among the cities in the Santa Clara Urban County Area,
median housing prices vary from $550,000 in Campbell to $1,264,250 in Los Altos. The increase in
median price also varied, from 5.6 percent in Campbell to 26 percent in Los Gatos. Overall, median
housing prices in the Urban County Area are greater than those in the County in general.
44
Every year, the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) tracks the ability of households to
afford a home in almost 2000 metropolitan areas across the country. NAHB develops an Housing
Opportunity Index (HOI) for a given area that is defined as the share of homes sold in that area that
would have been affordable to a family earning the median income. The San Jose metropolitan area
was among the least affordable areas in the nation. In 2002, only 20.1 percent of the homes sold in the
San Jose metropolitan area were affordable to families with the median income. As affordability
drops, lower income families are most acutely affected. The current prices may be attributable to a
housing shortage caused by a continuing decline in housing production during the 1990s, consistent
strong demand fueled by the boom in the high technology sector, and reasonable mortgage rates.
While the high technology sector boom has passed, housing prices have continued to increase in Santa
Clara County.
The information provided in Table R, Median Home Prices was prepared in late 2004. Updated
information through January, 2005 was only available in summary form and is presented next.
During the calendar year ending 2004, there were 30,765 home sales in the County with an average
sales price of $735,554 for new homes and $636,715 for existing homes (includes condos, townhouses,
and single-family detached homes). The median sales price for new homes was $684,421 and
$550,000 for existing. In the month of January, 2005, the median sales price for new and existing
homes combined was $600,000. Compared to March 2004 when the median sales price was $512,000,
the current median represents an increase in sales prices of 17.19% for that 9 month period.
Table R
Median Home Prices, 2003-2004
Percent
Median Home Prices
Location
September 2003
September 2004
Change
14.60%
Santa Clara County
$549,000.00
$479,000.00
Campbell
$550,000.00
$521,000.00
5.60%
Cupertino
$739,000.00
$620,000.00
19.20%
$550,000.00
$462,000.00
19.00%
$1,264,250.00
$1,120,000.00
12.90%
Los Gatos
$902,500.00
$716,000.00
26.00%
Milpitas
$515,000.00
$438,000.00
17.60%
Gilroy
Los Altos
Morgan Hill
$620,000.00
$550,000.00
12.70%
Mountain View
$600,000.00
$500,000.00
20.00%
Palo Alto
$750,000.00
$830,000.00
-9.60%
San Jose
$515,000.00
$456,000.00
12.90%
Santa Clara
$569,000.00
$462,500.00
23.00%
$1,259,000.00
$1,091,250.00
15.40%
Saratoga
$526,500.00
$550,000.00
Sunnyvale
Note: Los Altos Hills included os part of Los Altos, Monte Sereno included as part of Saratoga.
4.50%
Source: California Association of Realtors, 2003.
Rental Housing Cost
As previously stated, housing units in the Santa Clara Urban County Area are predominantly owneroccupied. However, recent trends in home prices have led to an increasing number of people being
priced out of the homeownership market. One consequence has been a shift in tenure trends, with
inereasing number of people remaining in the rental market, exacerbating the competition for scarce
affordable housing units.
45
The Housing Authority of Santa Clara conducts a survey of average gross rental rates in cities and
communities in Santa Clara County. Table S shows the average rent by selected jurisdictions, along
with the median gross rent according to the 2000 Census. Rents in the Urban County Area tend to be
higher on average than those in the HUD-designated "entitlement cities" in the County (Cupertino,
Gilroy, Milpitas, Mountain View, Palo Alto, San Jose, Santa Clara, Sunnyvale). As indicated in Table
S, rents in the Urban County Area have exceeded the Fair Market Rent(FMR)established by HUD for
the San Jose Metropolitan area {Table T), except in the City of Campbell. This indicates difficulty in
finding affordable rental housing for lower-income residents in most of the Urban County Area.
Most jurisdictions in the Urban County Area have rental assistance programs, such as Section 8 rental
assistance. Some jurisdictions also have "home sharing" programs that assist seniors in locating
roommates to share existing housing in the community. Funding for these programs include CDBG
and HOME funds and redevelopment agency set-aside funds.
Table S
Rental Rates in Santa Clara Urban County Area
Jurisdictions
2000 Median Rent
Jurisdiction
# of Rooms
2004 Average Rents
Campbell
(all units)
N/A
Studio
1 BR
$],054
2 BR
$],267
$1,708
3 BR
N/A
Studio
1 BR
$2,400
2 BR
$1,51 1
Los Altos
Studio
$1,181
1 BR
2 BR
$1,148
$1,621
3 BR
$2,089
Los Gatos
$1,331
N/A
Studio
1 BR
$1,099
2 BR
$1,552
3 BR
$1,793
$1,112
N/A
Studio
Saratoga
$1,727
N/A
3 BR
Morgan Hill
$U54
1 BR
$1,292
2 BR
N/A
3 BR
$2,158
$1,689
N/A - not available
Note: Due to limited rental units, data for Los Altos Hills and Monte Sereno are not available.
Source: 2000 Census, Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara (2003).
46
Table T
Fair Market Rents in Santa Clara County
FY 2001
FY 2005
FMR
FMR
1 BR
$886
$998
$942
$1,107
+10.9%
2 BR
$1,221
$1,313
+7.5%
3 BR
$1,673
$1,889
+6.3%
# of Rooms
HUD Fair Market
Rent (FMR) for
Santa Clara Co.
Studio
Percent Change
+6.3%
Source: Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara revised 2/28/05
Housing Affordability
Housing affordability is dependent upon income and housing costs. Using updated income guidelines,
current housing affordability in terms of home ownership can be estimated for the various income
groups. According to the HUD income guidelines for 2005, the Median Family Income (MFI) in the
San Jose metropolitan area for a family of four persons is $105,500. Based upon this MFI,the
maximum income level for an Extremely Low Income household (0-30 percent MFI) is $31,850. For a
Very Low Income household (31-50 percent MFI), the maximum level is $53,050, while for a Low
Income household (51-80 Percent MFI) it is $84,900. It should be noted that HUD income limits are
adjusted according to family size. Therefore, income levels would be different for a family of three or
a family of six.
Table U
Affordable Housing Costs by Income
Income Group
Extremely Low (0-30% MFI)
Monthly
Property
Maximum
Median
Affordable
Taxes,
Affordable
Income
Payment
Insurance
Home Price
$31,850
$650
$189
$97,560
$316
$162,630
$1,082
$53,050
Very Low (31-50% MFI)
$260,190
$504
$1,732
$84,900
Low (51-80% MFI)
Note: Calculation of affordable mortgage and home price based on a 7% interest rate, 10% down
payment, and Area Median Family Income of $105,500 for 2005.
Sources: HUD Income Levels, 2005; www.ntmortaaaelOl.com
Assuming that the potential homebuyer within each income group has sufficient credit, sufficient down
payment (10 percent), and maintains affordable housing expenses (i.e. spends no greater than 30
percent of their income on the mortgage, taxes and insurance), the maximum affordable prices for
homes within the Urban County Area are presented in Table U. Maximum affordable home prices can
be determined for a household at the top of that income category and for a household size of four.
Given the median home prices shown in Table R, home ownership is beyond the reach of most
extremely low- and very low-income households, and most low-income households may only be able
to afford condominium units or small-size single-family homes. Similarly, extremely low-income
households cannot afford the median rents in most of the Urban County Area, and very low-income
households are confined to studio and one- bedroom apartments.
47
Housing Condition
Age of Housing Stock
The age of housing is commonly used by state and federal housing programs as a factor to estimate
rehabilitation needs in communities. Typically, most homes begin to require major repairs or have
significant rehabilitation needs at 30 or 40 years of age. Approximately 57.9 percent of the housing
stock in the Urban County Area is over 30 years old, Indicating the potential need for rehabilitation and
continued maintenance for a significant portion of that stock {Table V). However, the extent which
older single-family homes need rehabilitation is largely due to the income of the owner-occupants and
their ability to pay for home maintenance and repairs. Given the relatively high incomes of residents
in the Urban County Area, the small percentage of lower-income households, and the small percentage
of deficient housing units (see below), it is likely that the housing rehabilitation need is low, at least
among owner-occupied homes.
Table V
Age of Housing Stock 2000
Number of Units
Monte
Los
Year Built
Campbell
Los Altos
Altos Hills
Los Gatos
Sereno
Morgan Hill
Saratoga
Uninc. County
466
656
166
1,313
154
256
314
3,431
1940-1949
1 ,123
1,063
89
816
81
185
482
4,571
1950-1959
3,089
4,261
578
1,761
237
332
2,914
8.676
1960-1969
4,1 15
2,326
703
3,599
264
787
3,179
4,430
1970-1979
3,996
1,264
599
3,018
285
3,676
2,230
5,193
1980-1989
2,570
598
438
1,089
100
2,583
903
3,141
1990-2000
989
562
262
808
116
3,291
645
2,566
16,348
10,730
2,835
12,404
1,237
11,1 10
10,667
32,008
1939 or earlier
Total
Source: 2000 Census
Many jurisdictions in the Urban County Area have a Code Enforcement program, which is used to
maintain and improve the condition of housing stock. Identification of potential code violations occurs
primarily through complaints received from residents. Funding for code enforcement programs comes
from local general funds and CDBG funds. Also, some jurisdictions provide housing rehabilitation
assistance to lower-income homeowners through their CDBG and HOME programs.
Housing Deficiencies
Available Census data also offers two indicators of housing stock deficiencies: the number of units
lacking complete plumbing and kitchen facilities. As indicated in Table IF, 581 housing units in the
Urban County Area lacked complete plumbing, and 809 units were without kitchen facilities. It is not
known if any units had both deficiencies. With a few exceptions, the rate of substandard units was
lower for jurisdictions within the Urban County Area than for Santa Clara County overall.
48
Table W
Housing Stock Deficiencies: 2000
Units lacking Complete
Plumbing
Units lacking Compiete
Kitchen Faciiities
Number of Units
% of Total Units
90
Los Altos Hills
7
Los Gatos
6
% of Total Units
0.47%
0.18%
0.24%
0.04%
Monte Sereno
0
0.00%
0
0.55%
0.85%
0.52%
1.26%
0.00%
Morgan Hill
Saratoga
76
56
0.50%
43
0.40%
376
0.68%
0.17%
0.76%
356
0.71%
2,867
0.50%
3,289
0.58%
Jurisdiction
Number ot Units
Campbell
77
Los Altos
20
Unincorporated County
Santa Clara County
19
92
15
157
Source: 2000 Census.
General housing stock deficiencies, and programs to deal with them, vary by jurisdiction. A summary
of housing deficiency conditions and programs by jurisdictions within the Urban County Area follows:
Campbell. Comprising the southwestern quadrant of the City, the San Tomas Area is one of
the older neighborhoods in Campbell and has the greatest rehabilitation needs. When code
enforcement violations are identified/cited. City staff encourages property owners to seek
assistance through the Homeowner Rehabilitation Program. Under this CDBG-funded program,
the City provides financial assistance to lower-income homeowners to assist them in the
improvement of their homes. The City also works with the County of Santa Clara to provide
the Rental Rehabilitation Program to facilitate the rehabilitation of units occupied by lowerincome renters. In the past, the Campbell Redevelopment Agency has also worked successfully
with non-profit housing developers to rehabilitate the Sharmon Palms and San Tomas Gardens
projects.
Los Altos. The recently adopted Housing Element contains a program stating that the City will
continue to assist in the provision of housing assistance in Los Altos for low-income
households with other public agencies and private non-profit organizations that offer rental
assistance, home repairs, and first-time homebuyer assistance. To minimize overlap or
duplication of services, the City will provide program information to interested individuals
through handouts available at City Hall, the Los Altos Senior Center, the Los Altos Library,
and the Woodland Branch Library. The City will also contact previous rehabilitation applicants
when new funding becomes available and post a legal notice in the newspaper when housing
rehabilitation funds become available. However, housing rehabilitation has not been identified
as a high-priority need in the City.
Los Altos Hills. Deficient and substandard housing has not been identified as a problem in Los
Altos Hills.
Los Gatos. The current Housing Element has an implementation program that proposes to
continue to provide Housing Conservation Program assistance to property owners to improve
their housing units. To increase program productivity, the Town proposes to conduct a housing
condition survey in neighborhoods with older housing stock, to redesign program goals and
objectives to respond to the results of the housing condition survey if needed, and to redesign
marketing materials and aggressively market program to potential applicants.
49
Saratoga. There are few homes in Saratoga in substandard condition. The City estimates that
less than one percent of the housing stock in Saratoga is in need of repair, and that there are no
dwelling units that have deteriorated to the point of needing replacement. The City has used
federal funds to implement the Saratoga Housing Assistance and Rehabilitation Program
(SHARP). The program consists primarily of a home improvement loan subsidy program for
low- and moderate-income homeowners to repair and bring their homes up to code standards.
In 1996, the Safety Grant Program was established to aid the rehabilitation of aging homes.
Made possible by CDBG funds, this program grants up to $10,000 to qualified residents who
need to make repairs to their homes, but do not want to take out a loan through SHARP. Funds
are granted to correct health and safety problems within homes, such as covering exposed
wires, installing stair and porch railings, and improving disabled access to homes.
Santa Clara County (unincorporated). The CDBG program of the County has as one of its
objectives the rehabilitation and maintenance of existing housing. Over the last 3-10 years,
$3,157,871 was expended rehabilitating 130 units and assisting 199 units of housing with
minor home repairs. The County intends to continue development and/or rehabilitation of
housing units and housing services for low-income families and individuals in the Urban
County. The County also utilized the HOME program to finance construction and
rehabilitation of housing for low and very low-income residents.
50
Homeless Facilities and Services
Table X
Emergency Shelters, Santa Clara County
Provider Name
HMIS
Facility Name
Geo
Code
Target Population 2004 Year-Round Units/Bed
A
B
2004 All Beds
Family
Family
Individ.
Year-
Units
Beds
Beds
Round
Seasonal
Current Inventory
Asian Amer. for Comm. Involvement
Emergency Shelter
N
063258
FC*
14
14
0
14
0
Bill Wilson Center
Bill Wilson Center
C
063354
YMF
0
0
16
16
0
063258
SM
0
0
52
52
0
DV
City Team Ministries
City Team Rescue Mission
P4/05
Clara Mateo Alliance
Clara Mateo Shelter
P9/04
069081
SMF
0
0
63
63
0
Family Wing
P9/04
069081
FC
6
18
0
18
0
C
062382
SMF
0
0
12
12
0
La Isla Pacifica
P9/05
061452
FC*
4
15
0
15
0
060930
SM
0
0
15
15
0
0
125
0
125
EFIC LifeBuilders
Rotating Shelter
Armory
Armory
C
EFIC LifeBuilders
EFIC LifeBuilders
Clara Mateo Alliance
Community Services
Community Solutions
Cupertino Community Srvcs
Alpha Omega
DV
C
063660
SMF
0
C
061452
SMF
0
0
125
0
125
OurFlouse
C
063258
YMF
0
0
10
10
0
Reception Center
Reception Center
C
063258
FC
10
40
0
40
0
C
063258
SMF
0
0
175
0
175
EHC LifeBuilders
Reception Center
C
063258
SMF
0
EFIC LifeBuilders
San Martin
C
069085
FC
Sobrato Family Living Ctr
C
063354
FC
San Jose Family Shelter
C
063258
Commercial Street Inn
C
063258
EFIC LifeBuilders
EFIC LifeBuilders
EFIC LifeBuilders
Family Supportive FIsng
InnVision
InnVision
C
Commercial Street Inn
063258
0
125
0
125
36
0
0
36
18
72
0
72
0
FC
35
143
0
143
0
SF
0
0
15
15
0
FC*
12
40
0
40
0
0
15
15
0
InnVision
Community Inns
C
063258
SM
0
InnVision
Julian Street Inn
C
063258
SMF
0
0
62
62
0
InnVision
Montgomery Street Inns
C
063258
SM
0
0
46
46
0
Jeramiah’s Promise
Shelter
0
0
3
3
0
Next Door
Next Door
5
19
0
19
0
24
24
0
8
0
Salvation Army
Hospitality Flouse
Social Advocates for Youth
Casa SAY
Support Network for Battered Women
Emergency Shelter
Urban Ministries
Hotel de Zinc
N
063258
SF
P 10/04
063258
FC*
P4/05
063258
SM
0
0
N
062382
YMF
0
0
P 10/04
062382
FC*
5
18
0
18
0
0
0
15
15
0
117
415
906
735
586
C
DV
DV
SMF
Subtotal
*Women with Children.
Source; Santa Clara County Office of Affordable Housing, Form HUD 40076 CoC-G
51
Table Y
Transitional Housing, Santa Clara County
Provider Name
HMIS
Facility Name
Geo
2004 All Beds
Target Population 2004 Year-
Code
Round Units/Bed
A
B
Family
Units
Famil
y Beds
Individ
Total
.Beds
Beds
Seasonal
Current Inventory
Bill Wilson Center
Youth Parents with
Bill Wilson Center
Transitional Housing
Shared Housing
Shared Housing
Shared Housing
Transitional Housing
C
063354
FC
C
063354
YMF
22
32
0
32
0
0
19
19
22
0
22
42
Children
Catholic Charities
Catholic Charities
Catholic Charities
Charities Housing
City Team Ministries
City Team Ministries
P 12/04
069085
FC*
6
P 12/04
069085
SMF
0
0
42
P 12/04
063258
FC
2
6
0
6
N
063258
FC
7
24
0
24
House of Grace
P4/05
063258
SF
0
0
22
22
063258
SM
0
0
74
74
25
DV
City Team Rehab
P4/05
City Team Ministries
Heritage House
P4/05
063258
SF
0
0
25
Clara Mateo Alliance
Clara Mateo
P9/04
069081
FC
6
18
0
18
Clara Mateo Alliance
Clara Mateo
P9/04
069081
SMF
0
0
34
34
Community Services Agency
Community Solutions
Graduate House
C
062382
SM
0
0
6
6
Transitional Housing
P9/05
061452
FC
3
6
0
0
Transitional
C
060930
SM
0
0
10
10
060930
FC*
6
12
0
12
063258
SMF
0
0
40
40
Cupertino Comm. Srvcs
Cupertino Comm. Srvcs
Transitional
C
EHC LifeBuilders
5* Street
C
EHC LifeBuilders
Gifford Street
C
063258
FC*
8
25
0
25
EHC LifeBuilders
Reception Center
C
063258
SMF
0
0
50
50
EHC LifeBuilders
San Martin Family
C
069085
FC
8
36
0
36
EHC LifeBuilders
(Migrant)
Reception Center
C
063258
FC
10
30
0
30
San Martin Family Living
C
069085
FC
18
81
0
81
C
063354
FC
10
40
0
40
YMF
0
0
EHC LifeBuilders
*seasonal
Ctr.
EHC LifeBuilders
Sobrato Family Living
Center
EHC LifeBuilders
Youth Transitional
C
063258
Family Supportive Hsng
C
063258
FC
N
063258
FC*
Housing Authority
Transitional Housing
Transitional Housing
Ochoa Family Shelter
P9/05
061452
InnVision
InnVision Villa
C
InnVision
InnVision Villa
C
Health Connections
52
8
9
38
0
24
86
0
86
FC
75
360
0
360
063258
SF
0
0
9
9
063258
FC*
14
46
0
46
DV
38
*seasonal
Table Y
Transitional Housing, Santa Clara County
Provider Name
HMIS
Facility Name
Geo
Code
Round Units/Bed
A
B
Family
Units
InnVision
C
Montgomery Street Inn
063258
2004 All Beds
Target Population 2004 Year-
SM
VE
Famil
Individ
Total
y Beds
.Beds
Beds
0
0
40
40
35
Seasonal
TS
InnVision
Transitional Homes
C
063258
SF
0
0
35
InnVision
Jullian Street Inn
C
063258
SM
0
0
10
10
InnVision/Catholic Charities
HomeSafe Santa Clara
C
063354
FC*
DV
24
75
0
75
InnVision and partners
Mid-Peninsula Housing
HomeSafe San Jose
C
063258
FC*
DV
24
75
0
75
Support Network
N
062382
SM
0
0
8
8
Next Door
Women with Children
P 10/04
062274
FC*
19
60
0
60
Salvation Army
P4/05
063258
SM
0
0
46
46
see Homeless Team
Hospitality House
Transitional Housing
P9/05
063258
SM
0
0
16
16
St. Joseph Cathedral
St. Joseph Worker Housing
C
063258
WC
7
25
0
25
20
DV
St. Joseph Cathedral
St. Joseph Worker Housing
C
063258
SM
0
0
20
Unity Care
Youth Transitional
P9/05
063258
YMF
0
0
12
12
302
1097
526
1623
Subtotal
'Correction from erroneous 1617 total in Table 3 in original County application to HUD. Source: Santa Clara County Office of Affordable Housing, Form HUD
40076 CoC-G
53
Table Z
Permanent Supportive Housing, Santa Clara County
Provider Name
Facility Name
HMIS
Geo
2004 All Beds
Target Population 2004 Year-Round
Units/Bed
Code
A
B
Family
Family
Individ.
Total
Units
Beds
Beds
Beds
61
0
0
Current Inventory
Sunset Square
Assisted Permanent Housing
P9/04
069085
FC
15
C
063660
SMF
0
0
24
24
EHC LifeBuilders
Monterey Glenn Inn
C
063258
SMF
0
0
95
95
EHC LifeBuilders
Markham Plaza
C
063258
SMF
0
0
50
50
Sobrato Family Living
C
063354
FC
22
88
0
88
Sunset Square(Donna Lane)
N
063258
FC
4
8
0
8
Shelter Plus Care
C
069085
SMF
0
0
87
87
Shelter Plus Care
C
069085
FC
Clara Mateo Alliance
EHC LifeBuilders
EHC LifeBuilders
Center
Hsg. for Independent
People
Housing Authority
Housing Authority
Subtotal
70
291
0
291
111
448
256
643
20
Under Development
Clara Mateo Alliance
El Paseo
P9/04
063258
SMF
0
0
20
InnVision
Julian Inn - Safe Haven
C
063258
SM
0
0
10
10
SMF
0
0
20
20
Subtotal
0
0
50
50
Charities Housing
PSH
9/05
063258
Source: Santa Clara County Office of Affordable Housing, Form HUD 40076 CoC-G
54
Seasonal
Special Needs Facilities and Services
Special Needs Housing
Certain segments of the population may have more difficulty in finding decent, affordable housing due
to their special needs. In the Santa Clara Urban County Area, these "special needs" groups include the
elderly, disabled persons, female-headed households, farm workers, persons with AIDS, and persons
with alcohol and other drug addictions. An overview of licensed community care facilities in Santa
Clara Urban County area that serve some of the special needs groups is provided in Table AA,
followed by a detailed discussion of each of the special needs groups. As shown in Table AA, 687
licensed community care facilities are located in the Urban County Area, with a capacity of 22,441
beds.
Table AA
Licensed Community Care Facilities
In Urban County Area
Capacity
(number of
Type of Facility
Small Family Home
Group Home
Number of
beds or
Facilities
persons)
Capacity by Type of
Disability
Mental
Developmental
4
20
0
0
63
579
0
0
Adult Residential
257
281
0
Elderly Residential
330
1,968
6,001
0
0
5
73
0
0
28
13,800
0
0
687
22,441
281
0
Social
Rehabilitation
Adult Day care
Total
Notes:
1. The specialized care columns are not mutually exclusive. For example, a
facility may have a total capacity of 10 beds, with 8 beds for developmentally
disabled children and 4 of the 10 beds are designed to accommodate non
ambulatory children.
2. Group homes provide specialized treatment for persons under age 18.
3. Small family homes provide care to children in licensees’ own homes. Small
family residents are usually children on probation, developmentally disabled
children, children with other special needs, and some foster children.
4. Adult residential facilities provide care for persons age 18 to 59 years
including both developmentally disabled adults and persons suffering from
mental Illness or psychiatric disorders.
5. Elderly residential facilities provide care for persons age 60 and above.
Source; State of California Department of Social Services Community Care Licensing Division, 2003.
Seniors
The 2000 Census reported that there were 32,468 residents in the Santa Clara Urban County Area age
65 and over, which represented approximately 11 percent of the population ofthe Urban County Area.
This age group increased by approximately 28.5 percent from 1990 to 2000, and also increased slightly
as a portion of the population. The senior age group will likely continue to increase in the future as the
"baby boomer" population ages and medical advances allow individuals to live longer.
55
According to special tabulations from the 2000 Census provided by HUD, just over 6,000 elderly
households needed housing assistance in the Urban County area, which represented. Many senior
housing developments have been construeted recently to meet housing needs. However, these
developments typically target seniors earning above 40-60 percent of the median income, and do not
meet the needs of many lower-income seniors. There is also a need for shared and assisted senior
housing opportunities. Senior citizens who own their homes may also have difficulty when non
housing expenses increase and their fixed income does not. When senior homeowners find themselves
in economie trouble, home maintenance needs are often deferred. According to County Housing
Department staff, a significant portion of the participants in the County’s Rehabilitation Loan
Programs have been seniors.
Frail Elderly. A significant segment of the senior population has one or more conditions that affect
major life functions, their ability to live independently, and their ability to care for themselves. These
individuals are sometimes referred to as "frail elderly." The 2000 Census indicated that 30.5 percent of
the elderly population in the Urban County Area had a disability. The Census counted 20,275
disabilities among residents in the Urban County Area who are 65 years of age or older. Of these
disabilities, 2,190 were self-care disabilities, and 4,820 were go-outside-home disabilities. It should be
noted that seniors may have more than one type of disability; therefore, the number of disabilities do
not correspond to the number of seniors with disabilities.
Persons with Disabilities
According to the 2000 Census, there were 33,223 persons in the Urban County Area age 16 to 64 that
had a disability (Table 2). The same census recorded 13,474 employment disabilities among persons
in that same age group residing in the Urban County Area. Also, there were 2,552 sensory disabilities,
5,655 physical disabilities, 3,538 mental disabilities, 1,373 self-care disabilities, and 6,631 go-outsidehome disabilities. Some persons may have more than one type of disability; therefore, the total
number of disabilities does not necessarily equal the number of persons with disabilities.
Map 8 depicts the locations of residential care facilities in Santa Clara County, including facilities
specifically for persons with disabilities. One problem many disabled individuals face regarding
housing is lack of income. Many disabled individuals rely on Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
from the Social Security Administration as their primary income. According to information provided
by the Economic and Social Opportunities, Inc.(ESO)agency, the most eommon problem eneountered
by physically disabled persons in Santa Clara County is the lack of accessible housing. Many
physically disabled persons live in housing units that have inaccessible entrance/exits, bathroom
facilities, etc. This lack of accessibility prevents the physically disabled person from living an
independent and active life.
According to the Santa Clara County Mental Health Department, mental health needs in the area
continue to exceed available support services. The Department estimates that 24,000 people in the
County need case management services (social worker assistance to obtain basic needs), yet only about
5,000 places currently exist in the inventory of services, resulting in an unmet need of 19,000 case
management places. Similarly, 29,000 people in the County need mental health care, while only
19,000 people are able to be served. This leaves a gap of about 10,000 people needing services county
wide. Data specific to the Urban County Area is not available. The total population in the Urban
County Area in 2000 is 16 percent of the County's. Based on this, it is estimated that there are
approximately 1,600 people with mental illnesses in the Urban County Area who need speeial services.
56
Map 8
Location of Residential Care Facilities (including Persons with Disabilities.
57
Table BB
Type of Disabilities
Santa
Monte
Los Altos
Clara
Hills
Los Gatos
Sereno
County
Campbell
city,
Los Altos
city,
town,
town,
city,
Morgan
Hill city,
Saratoga
city,
Area
California
California
California
California
California
California
California
55,715
8,993
4,933
1,201
5,370
547
7,231
4,276
33,223
5,788
2,151
651
2,590
405
4,984
1,941
Sensory disability
2,552
415
233
45
206
30
313
116
Physical disability
5,655
906
370
118
373
38
1,058
338
Mental disability
3,538
564
279
63
308
23
568
155
Self-care disability
1,373
207
96
57
54
0
169
68
Go-outside-home disability
6,631
1,170
404
51
455
141
944
365
Employment disability
Disabilities tallied for people 65 years
13,474
2,526
769
317
1,194
173
1,932
899
and over:
20,275
2,807
2,634
503
2,686
125
1,872
2,166
Sensory disability
3,746
508
459
88
462
39
378
412
Physical disability
6,735
985
868
172
875
29
625
813
Mental disability
2,784
352
400
39
320
13
278
275
Self-care disability
2,190
267
267
65
309
9
202
232
Go-outside-home disability
4,820
695
640
139
720
35
389
434
Urban
Total disabilities tallied:
Disabilities tallied for people 16 to 64
years:
Source: 2000 Census
58
The Housing Choices Coalition (HCC) - an agency addressing the housing needs of the
developmentally disabled - reports that at least 5,600 people of all ages in Santa Clara County
currently have mental retardation, cerebral palsy, autism or other developmental disabilities. The
San Andreas Center, a non-profit organization serving persons with developmental disabilities,
estimates that 3,100 developmentally disabled adults are over the age of 18, and 60 percent of
them are living at home with their parents. Therefore, about 1,850 developmentally disabled
Individuals in the County will likely need some kind of housing. Based on the Urban County
Area having 16 percent of the County’s total population, it is estimated that there are about 298
Urban County Area residents with developmental disabilities who are likely to need housing. In
addition, it is estimated that about 300 people (30 percent) of the 970 people who now live in
community residential facilities (i.e., group homes) in the County would also choose more
independent living, were it available. Many of the developmentally disabled live on Social
Security income with additional income from work, family or other sources. HCC reports that it
is not uncommon for a disabled adult to earn less than $10,000, making it extremely difficult to
find affordable housing.
Female-Headed Households
There were 5,471 female-headed households in the Urban County Area in 2000. Because of the
increased financial and emotional burden that female-headed households carry, they often have
difficulty finding adequate and affordable housing for themselves and their children. In addition,
female-headed households often encounter subtle (and not so subtle) forms of discrimination,
especially when trying to rent housing.
There are two available programs that address the needs of single parents. The "Shared Housing
Program", operated by Catholic Charities, helps match female-headed households for the
purpose of sharing housing and thereby reducing individual household housing costs. The second
program. Project Sentinel, provides fair-housing counseling and mediation services. The staff of
Project Sentinel has reported that child-related discrimination complaints represent the largest
number of complaints received in regards to fair housing practices.
Farm workers
Traditionally, Santa Clara County has been home to many agricultural businesses and industries.
However, changes in the Silicon Valley have reduced the role of agriculture in the County's
economy, although agricultural activity remains in the southern part of the County. ABAC
projects a drop in agricultural jobs in the County through 2020. According to the Santa Clara
County Housing Element, adopted in 2003, the number of farm workers has remained steady at
about 5,000 to 6,000 persons during the peak summer months.
Due to the seasonal nature of the work and relatively low wages, farm worker households often
have a difficult time seeuring safe, habitable, and affordable housing. The most significant
residential resources are located in the southern County, where most of the agricultural activity is
located. The Ochoa Center in Gilroy contains 100 family units and is operated as a migrant camp
by the Santa Clara County Housing Authority for a maximum 6-month period each year. The
Center was rehabilitated using funds provided by the State of California, County of Santa Clara
and the City of Gilroy. The rehabilitation work has resulted in an upgraded and modern
residential facility. Housing at the Ochoa Migrant Center is available on a seasonal basis for a
maximum of 100 families whose primary ineome is derived from agricultural-related work.
59
Persons with HIV/AIDS
According to September 2004 statistics from the California Department of Health Services, there
have been 3,548 residents in Santa Clara County recorded with AIDS. Of these, 1,554 residents
are currently alive. In addition, there have been 852 recorded cases of people with HIV in the
County. Table CC provides a breakdown of HIV/AIDS cases in the County by location, based
upon a May 2003 report prepared by the Santa Clara County Public Health Department.
Table CC
Location of AIDS Cases,
Santa Clara County
Percent of Cases
Region
North County
East Valley
18%
Central/Downtown San Jose
20%
West Valley
Narvaez(South San Jose)
South County
13%
13%
11%
2%
1%
Homeless
22%
Non-Resident, Unknown
Souree: HIV Medical Care Survey, Santa Clara County Public Health
Department, May 2003.
As indicated in Table CC, approximately 1 percent of HIV/AIDS cases were homeless.
According to the AIDS/HIV Community Services Plan for Santa Clara County, 10-15 percent of
the homeless population is HIV-infected.
Persons with Alcohol/Other Drug Addiction
Alcohol/other drug abuse(AODA) is defined as excessive and impairing use of alcohol or other
drugs, including addiction. The National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism estimates
the number of men with drinking problems (moderate or severe abuse) at 14 to 16 percent of the
adult male population, and the number of women with similar problems at 6 percent. Abusers of
alcohol and other drugs have special housing needs during treatment and recovery. Group
quarters typically provide appropriate settings for treatment and recovery. Affordable rental
units provide housing during the transition to a responsible lifestyle.
In its Annual Report FY 2003, the Santa Clara County Department of Alcohol and Drug Services
indicated that there were 9,358 adult admissions to the County's substance abuse programs from
July 2002 to June 2003. In that same time period, there were 10,236 discharges from these
programs. These figures include duplicated admissions and discharges, so the actual number of
persons admitted or discharged is less, but the precise number is unknown. The median length of
stay for those treated in residential programs was 35 days, while it was 84 days for those treated
in outpatient programs. No data are available concerning the residences or housing status of
persons admitted or discharged.
60
Public and Assisted Housing Needs
Public Housing
The Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara (HACSC) manages 555 public housing
units throughout Santa Clara County. Most ofthese units (494) are exclusively for lower-income
seniors, while only 25 units are exclusively for lower-income families. Most of these public
housing units are located in communities that are not part ofthe Santa Clara Urban County Area.
The one public housing complex in the Urban County Area is located in Campbell. The Rincon
Gardens complex offers 190 one-bedroom units and 10 two-bedroom units to low-income
seniors. In addition, there are other units managed by HACSC that are tax credit properties. The
only one ofthese properties located in the Urban County Area is the San Pedro Gardens complex
in Morgan Hill. This facility offers 36 units to low-income families. 16 of these units are "sweat
equity" units for which the occupants contribute labor for their construction.
Tenant-Based Rental Housing Assistance
The Santa Clara Urban County area offers a variety of rental assistance programs for lower
income residents in the Urban County. HACSC administer the rental assistance programs,
primarily the Section 8 program. Currently, 834 households in the Santa Clara Urban County
Area receive Section 8 vouchers through HACSC. Another 151 households are currently on the
waiting list. Table DD provides a breakdown ofthe participants in and waiting list applicants for
the voucher program in the Urban County Area, by community and by type.
Table DD
Section 8 Participants and Applicants,
Santa Clara Urban County Area
Los
Community
Los
Morgan
Campbell
Altos*
Gatos
Disabled
82
0
Elderly
Disabled and Elderly
63
0
63
Type
Participants
San
Saratoga
Total
Hill
Martin
23
50
1
2
158
17
32
1
1
114
1
10
29
0
1
104
Non-Disabled/Non190
1
28
213
21
5
458
398
2
78
324
23
9
834
Disabled
12
0
4
7
0
2
25
Elderly
Disabled and Elderly
8
1
4
1
0
3
17
1
0
0
1
0
0
2
45
1
10
29
17
5
107
66
2
18
38
17
10
151
Elderly
Total
Waiting List Applicants
Non-Disabled/Non
Elderly
Total
* Includes Los Altos Hills.
Source: Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara
61
Assisted Housing Units At-Risk of Converting to Market Rate
The State Housing Element law and HUD Consolidated Plan regulation require cities to prepare
an inventory including all assisted multi-family rental units which are eligible to convert to nonlow-income housing uses due to termination of subsidy contract, mortgage prepayment, or
expiring use restrictions. The State Housing Element law requires this inventory cover a tenyear evaluation period following the statutory due date of the Housing Element (July 1, 2004);
whereas the HUD regulation requires the inventory to cover only the five-year planning period of
the Consolidated Plan. To satisfy both state and federal requirements, this at-risk housing
analysis period covers from July 1, 2004 through June 30, 2014. This analysis represents a
review of current status and options, rather than a specific statement of County policy.
The at-risk projects identified below are considered at risk due to two aspects: 1) the expiring
Section 8 contracts; and 2) the prepayment eligibility of HUD-insured mortgage loans.
Affordable housing opportunities for low and moderate income households are available through
a variety of federal funding programs. Many projects subsidized in the past with federal funding
are at risk of converting to market rate housing.
Campbell. According to a risk assessment by California Housing Partnership
Corporation (CHPC), no assisted development in Campbell is at high risk of conversion
to market use. Of the 608 assisted units identified, 399 units in five projects are
determined to be at low risk of conversion during the 2001-2011 period. These projects
include Corinthian House, Rincon Gardens, Wesley Manor, the Hamilton Avenue
project, and Fairlands Court. All ofthese projects are subject to annual renewal under the
HUD Section 8 program, with the exception of Fairlands Court which is assisted through
CDBG funds and not expected to convert.
Los Gatos. Villa Vasona is a 107-unit elderly and handicapped development owned by
PMG Properties. It was originally financed with CDBG funds from the Town of Los
Gatos, as well as Section 8 New Construction funds. The Section 8 funding provided a
rental subsidy guarantee to all 107 tenants that will expire in November 2004. As part of
its agreement with the original owners of Villa Vasona, ownership of the development
was to be transferred to the Town 65 years after the completion of development
(approximate year 2049) for $1.00. Furthermore, the agreement specifies that there are no
rent limits set in the event that Section 8 rent subsidies expire. The agreement does state
that if the subsidy does expire, the development is to continue renting to elderly and
handicapped residents of low and moderate income, as defined by HUD regulations. As
the year 2004 approaches, the Town will need to review this agreement. Specifically,
while the agreement may specify that units have to be rented to low and moderate
households, it is unclear whether the rents will have to be affordable to low- and
moderate-income households. The affordability of the units is as important as the
occupancy of the units and should be preserved as much as possible.
Saratoga. The California Housing Partnership Corporation provides an Inventory of
federally subsidized rental units at risk of conversion. The 1999 update, which identifies
units at risk through the year 2020, identified two HUD-asslsted multi-family housing
developments with Section 8 contracts in the Saratoga. The Section 8 contract expired for
these two developments in 1999, and one development was identified as high risk for
conversion according to the 1999 update.
No other communities in the Urban County Area had any developments that were identified as
being at risk of converting to market-rate housing.
62
Barriers to Affordable Housing
Many factors influence the supply, diversity and affordability of housing in the Urban County
Area. Chief among them is the regional imbalance between jobs and housing, and the shortage
of affordable housing units. More simply put, there is an inadequate supply of housing suitable
to meet local needs, and the housing that is available is mostly unaffordable to low- and
moderate-income residents. Since these conditions are regional in character, one community
cannot correct these conditions by itself. Even all the communities in the Urban County Area
together cannot correct these problems. However, community can mitigate the local impact
within its borders. Also, by joining together in purpose and by pooling resources, the Urban
County communities can increase their individual potentials to address the housing affordability
problems of residents.
Potential Governmental Constraints
Below is a summary of governmental actions and regulations that might constrain the production
of affordable housing. These constraints are presented in a generalized manner for all Urban
County jurisdictions.
Local Government Constraints
■
The zoning ordinances of each jurisdiction designate the use, density and other
development standards, which may influence housing costs. When objectives for the
maintenance of both safe and diversified housing are considered, the zoning ordinances
of the Urban County jurisdictions do not appear to unduly constrain residential
development, when fairly applied. Several jurisdictions already allow mixed use
developments and higher densities in certain areas, and all jurisdictions are required to
make provision for secondary dwelling units.
■
Building codes and enforcement procedures may affect the cost of housing. The codes
are intended to ensure the structural integrity of housing units and the health and safety of
residents. The codes are not considered to impose onerous standards or expenses in
relation to other communities in the region.
■
Jurisdictions impose residential development fees on new development. The fees
charged by Urban County communities are comparable to those charged by other local
governments in the region. Many of the Urban County jurisdictions have programs that
waive part or all of the required fees for affordable housing units. Others contribute
assistance from low-income housing funds to cover the fees.
■ Installing and maintaining public infrastructure (e.g., roads, sewage treatment facilities) is
a significant expense to local government. In the absence of adequate funding for major
infrastructure improvements, local governments are faced with either increasing taxes or
requiring new development to pay for improvements. Governments choosing the latter
alternative include policies waiving part or all of the infrastructure fees for affordable
housing projects, or contributing low-income housing funds to cover the fees.
■
The development review process for Urban County jurisdictions contains timeconsuming steps, typically mandated by State laws. All Urban County communities have
reviewed their processes for opportunities to reduce time and expense for project
applicants. Many have established "fast track" approval procedures for affordable
housing projects.
63
■
Los Gatos imposes rent and occupancy restrictions associated with new construction and
rehabilitation loan programs. These restrictions ensure the continued availability and
affordability of housing units to low- and very low-income households.
■
Morgan Hill has a voter-approved ordinance that regulates the number of housing units
that may be added annually. Unlike many growth control programs, Morgan Hill's
ordinance assures that a pre-determined number of affordable units may be permitted
annually, commensurate with projected need. This opportunity is reinforced by the City's
low-income housing programs.
State Government Constraints
■
The State's Housing Element approval process has imposed unanticipated constraints on
the ability of local governments to jointly respond to affordable housing opportunities.
State law requires evidence that each individual community provides the full array of
affordable housing development resources, regardless of how practical or cost-effective
that strategy may be from a regional housing needs perspective. Local officials and
housing advocates are working to develop effective Countywide and regional strategies
to ensure an adequate supply of affordable housing throughout the region. This would
include working with State officials to correct counter-productive regulations.
■
Most local government agencies have been unable to compensate for the revenue losses
created by Proposition 13. By reducing and severely limiting the rate of property tax
increases, many local governments have been forced to curtail services and to defer
maintenance for facilities and infrastructure. Many communities have turned to user fees
to meet demand for services. Since these fees are imposed primarily on new residents,
these fees have added to the expense of both new and resale housing.
■
Article 34 of the California Constitution presents a number of constitutional barriers to
the development of low-income housing. Article 34 requires local voter approval for all
low-income housing developments when units are to be publicly owned or privately
owned but financed by public agencies, and more than 49 percent of the units would be
reserved for low-income occupancy. Projects not affected by the provisions of Article 34
include private developments financed by federal or private money, rehabilitation
projects financed by County-issued bonds, and cooperative projects where units are to be
owned.
■
In the past. State guidelines for agricultural worker housing have restricted the ability of
local jurisdictions to use available funding, since State funds for agricultural worker
housing are devoted exclusively to the needs of migratory workers, while housing needs
for permanent agricultural workers are not addressed. However, the State has established
the Joe Serna, Jr. Farm worker Housing Grant Program, which provides funds for the
construction of owner-occupied housing.
Federal Government Constraints
■
Revised regulations, such as the 1986 Tax Reform Bill, have had an adverse impact on
the financing of affordable housing by reducing incentives to invest in housing.
■
The active withdrawal of the federal government from housing production and housing
assistance has constrained the ability of local governments to respond to affordable
housing needs.
64
■
Inconsistent funding for CDBG (five-year plans vs. one-year allocations).
■
CDBG restrictions that prohibit the involvement offor-profit housing developers.
■
Davis-Bacon prevailing wage requirements that are incompatible with requirements
regarding use of community-based contractors.
Intergovernmental Constraints
■
Inconsistency between State and federal rehabilitation program standards.
■
Inconsistencies between federal (NEPA) and State (CEQA) environmental protection
laws and regulations.
■
Federal procurement standards conflict with County standards, adding to the cost of units.
Potential Non-Governmental Constraints
Below is a summary of non-governmental actions and conditions within the Urban County Area
that might constrain the production of affordable housing. Non-governmental constraints fall
into three general categories; economic, environmental, and infrastructure.
Economic Constraints
■
The cost of land for housing construction is high. For example, in Los Altos Hills, the
typical quoted cost for an acre of undeveloped land that has a reasonable potential for
development ranges from $350,000 to $800,000. In Saratoga, single-family residential
lots range from $200,000 to $1 million, and medium-density multifamily land costs from
$175,000 to $250,000 per dwelling unit.
■
Construction costs are high in Santa Clara County. The Los Gatos Housing Element
states that, according to the Construction Industry Research Board, the median cost for
new residential construction in Santa Clara County in 2000 (including land and overhead
costs) was $246 per square foot. In Los Altos Hills, construction costs increased from
$49.10 per square foot in 1988 to beyond $100 per square foot in 1998.
■
The availability and cost of financing can directly affect housing construction costs and
costs of purchasing a home. In general, developers have had no problems securing
financing for construction projects. The exception has been for condominium projects,
where litigation regarding construction defects has discouraged lending. Interest rates
have been at low levels over the past several years, which has encouraged housing
purchases in the Urban County Area. However, future increases in interest rates would
add to purchasing costs, which may discourage potential homeowners.
■
General economic and employment conditions can influence the housing market. The
economy of the Silicon Valley has experienced a recession as the high-technology boom
ofthe 1990s came to an end. Unemployment has also increased, although unemployment
rates for the majority ofjurisdictions in the Urban County Area are at or below the rate
for California as a whole. However, as noted previously, housing prices in Santa Clara
County have continued to increase, despite these conditions.
65
Environmental Constraints
■
Many communities in the Urban County Area are located in areas of hills, either in whole
or in part. Steep and potentially unstable slopes discourage housing construction. Where
hillsides can be developed, the additional costs of construction increase the price of
residenees.
■
The Urban County Area is located in an area with an active earthquake history, and
which contains several faults. California law discourages construetion of residential
areas within fault rupture zones. Potential seismic activity discourages construction in
areas that could be especially affected by earthquakes, such as hillsides.
■
Some areas adjacent to streams could be subject to flooding. Flood potential could
increase if development is nearby, as more runoff would remain on the surface instead of
percolating into the ground.
■
Potential development areas within or adjacent to wildland areas could be exposed to a
potential wildland fire hazard. Aside from the threat to residences, this hazard could
increase insurance costs to homeowners, as well as lead to additional assessments on new
development to support firefighting ageneies.
Infrastructure Constraints
■
In general, the cities within the Urban County Area have few infrastructure constraints.
There is adequate water, sewer and storm drainage service and street circulation in these
communities. Additional water and sewer lines, storm drainage facilities and streets can
be installed for new residential development where no such facilities currently exist. In
some cases, developers would have to install these facilities, whieh may add to the cost of
the houses being constructed.
■
In the unincorporated areas of the County, infrastructure constraints are more significant.
Many areas do not have the water and sewer systems required to support extensive
residential development. Mueh of the unincorporated area eontains hills and mountains,
where the installation of such infrastructure would be costly, if it would be feasible at all.
The jurisdictions within the Urban County Area have adopted programs applieable to their
circumstances to address the barriers to affordable housing, as part of their General Plan Housing
Elements. These programs are ineorporated into the strategy section ofthe Consolidated Plan.
66
HUD Table 2A
Five Year Housing Needs and Priorities
Income
Unmet Need
Priority Need
Goals
Level
Renter:
Small Related
Large Related
0-30%AMI
31-50% AMI
High
High
51-80% AMI
Med
0-30%AMI
High
High
High
31-50% AMI
51-80% AMI
Elderly
All Other
Owner:
Small Related
0-30%AMI
31-50% AMI
High
High
51-80% AMI
Med
0-30%AMI
25
581
100
1,111
150
911
50
427
115
479
100
1,241
25
High
944
5
51-80% AMI
Med
4,106
100
0-30%AMI
High
682
5
734
30
High
High
High
High
High
High
8,475
140
820
35
51-80% AMI
High
4,045
60
0-30%AMI
Med
398
5
31-50% AMI
Med
337
10
51-80% AMI
High
2,522
15
0-80%
High
(1)
0-30%AMI
31-50% AMI
51-80% AMI
0-30%AMI
31-50% AMI
All Other
Special Needs
200
31-50% AMI
51-80% AMI
Elderly
175
469
31-50% AMI
Large Related
20
1,218
1,154
2,049
Populations
(1) Included in
222
5
448
30
3,050
55
1288
20
Total Goals
1,475
Section 215
1,060
numbers above.
Rental Goals^
Section 215
400
Owner Goals'*
Goals are expressed in Housing Units made affordable through new construction, acquisition of market rate units,
rehabilitation of units occupied by lower income households, or rental subsidies.
^An affordable Rental Unit is considered a Section 215 Unit if it is occupied by a household earning no more than
80% of AMI and if the rent is the lesser of the Section 8 Fair Market Rent or 30% of the Annual Income for a
household earning 65% of AMI.
'‘An Owner Unit is considered a Section 215 Unit if:(1) it is purchased as the principal residence by a first-time
homebuyer earning no more than 80% of AMI and the sales price does not exceed limits set under the National
Housing Act or (2) it is owned an occupied by a household 51-80% AMI,the unit is to be rehabilitated, and the
value of the unit after rehabilitation does not exceed mortgage limits under the National Affordable Housing Act of
1990.
67
STRATEGIC PLAN (91.215)
Summary
The following section describes the affordable housing objectives and strategies of the Urban
County Program and the process by which they were developed. They are reflective of the
combined housing objectives and priorities ofthe Urban County jurisdictions. The strategies that
follow describe the concepts and techniques with which the Urban County seeks to achieve the
objectives. Specific programs and resources to be utilized will be described in the Action Plan
section.
Countywide Housing Goals
Although the specific priorities may differ, the Entitlement Jurisdictions within Santa Clara
County have very similar housing goals. As a result, several housing development projects have
been funded by multiple jurisdictions. This is especially true in eases that are considered
regional housing issues such as homelessness and housing for victims of domestic violence.
Clients for theses services may travel from one city to the next in search for safe, secure
assistance. The potential for this occurrence resulted in the adoption of regional housing issues
to address Countywide Housing Goals. The Urban County’s housing objectives and strategies
that follow below are consistent with the Countywide Housing Goals.
Process
The Urban County Program is the administrator of Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) funds and represents a consortium of eleven independent jurisdictions. It, therefore, is
bound by the policy parameters set by those jurisdictions. With this understanding, the CHAS
Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) relied heavily on the adopted Housing Elements of the
General Plans of the jurisdictions in developing its own strategies. This decision was thought
prudent for several reasons:
a. The Housing Elements were adopted by the elected officials of the jurlsdietlons following
public hearings before local residents, and, therefore, was likely to refleet the housing
priorities ofthe general public,
b. The Housing Elements generally provide a clear description of current housing needs,
objectives, policies, and implementation programs for each jurisdiction. The elements,
although distinctive in format, all contain similar state mandated Information. All were
required to have been updated within the past five year period,
c. While it is clear that the adopted Housing Elements presented a ready and reliable resource,
they also reflected substantial consensus among Urban County members. Unlike the now
obsolete Housing Assistance Plans(HAP), which detail an individual jurisdiction's approach
to resolving housing needs, the Consolidated Plan must represent a "collective" approach
acceptable to a diverse collection of communities. The following objectives and strategies
reflect that reality.
As a result of data and input gathered as part of the 1995-2000 Plan preparation process, five
major objectives emerged on which the Urban County wanted to focus their affordable housing
programs. For each of these objectives, a number of strategies were developed, aimed at helping
the jurisdictions meet their objectives. The Urban County jurisdictions have indicated that the
affordable housing objectives set out in the 1995-2000 plan continue to state their priorities, and
should be included as objectives for the 2000-2005 plan. A subcommittee ofthe Citizens
68
Advisory Committee(CAC)and the Council Committee(CC) met on March 24, 2005 to discuss
the objectives and strategies and recommended one additional objective pertaining to first-time
homebuyers and some modifications on strategies. The six primary objectives of the Urban
County program are;
Increase the supply of affordable housing to lower income households.
Increase housing opportunities for special needs households and the unhoused.
Increase affordable housing opportunities for low to moderate income first time
homebuyers.
Rehabilitate and maintain existing affordable housing.
Preserve existing affordable housing.
Ensure equal housing opportunities.
Priorities for Assistance
In 1995, the County of Santa Clara's priorities for the provision of affordable housing were
determined by a review of statistical reports and the results of a widely distributed survey to
housing agencies. Based on the 1990 Census data, a table of the Priority Needs for the Urban
County Jurisdictions has been prepared. As indicated in Table 3 (located in the Action Planj,
the areas of highest priority for assistance were those activities directed to very low-income,
small family and large family renters and low-income, large family renters. The priority list also
includes housing programs and activities to assist homeless persons and persons with very
specialized needs. All available housing data for Santa Clara County clearly and consistently
pointed to these groups as being the most in need of housing assistance, and should, therefore, be
the focus of available resources.
Of somewhat lower priority were housing activities directed toward assisting very low and lowincome elderly renters, and other very low-income renters, such as single persons without
dependents. Also within this slightly lower priority grouping were programs for very lowincome, first time homebuyers with children and very low-income homeowners. These groups
were judged as having critical housing needs, but were not given quite as high a priority as those
in the first grouping.
The final and lowest priority category included activities to assist low-income homeowners and
first time homebuyers. While the difficulties of first time homebuyers is well documented, and
continues to be a major problem in the county, the needs of very low-income renters, homeless
individuals, and those with specialized needs continue to be the highest priority for funding.
Affordable Housing Objectives and Strategies
The following sections outline the Urban County’s objectives with regard to the HUD priorities
identified in Table 3 and the known needs ofthe seven jurisdictions that make up the Urban
County. Following each objective is a list ofstrategies intended to help mitigate the identified
problem. (Objectives are not ranked in order of importance.)
OBJECTIVE 1: INCREASE THE AVAILABLE SUPPLY OF HOUSING
AFFORDABLE TO LOWER INCOME HOUSEHOLDS
69
Land Use
There are many factors affecting the affordability of housing in the Urban County Jurisdictions.
One significant factor is the shortage of affordable housing units relative to demand. This
shortage manifests itself in several ways, such as a low affordable housing vacancy rates and
home prices and rents that are very high relative to the incomes of lower income households.
The lack of developable land and local development standards are other constraints to providing
housing at densities that allow affordability.
The objective is to increase the total number of affordable housing units in the Urban County
Jurisdictions in order to provide for the current and projected needs of the low and moderateincome families living in those communities. The affordable units should be appropriate in cost
and type for a range of households earning at or below 80% of the countywide median. The
following three strategies address this objective:
Strategy 1:
Each Urban County jurisdition will seek to encourage construction of an adequate
supply of affordable housing by:
a. Ensuring adequate residential development potential commensurate with
need,
b. Periodically surveying their community’s vacant and redevelopable
acreage for residential development opportunities,
c. Encouraging shared-housing programs,
d. Encouraging jurisdictions with Redevelopment Agencies to utilize the
20% set-aside for affordable housing development.
Strategy 2:
Each Urban County jurisdiction will encourage the construction of affordable
housing in a range of types and prices by:
a. Periodically reviewing eommunity development and design guidelines to
allow for the possibility of eost-effective eonstruction methods, and by
allowing innovative, eost-saving techniques, consistent with safety and
aesthetic standards,
b. Employing land use standards that permit construction of additional
housing, with a range of types and prices reflective of the community’s
current households,
c. Allowing accessory (second) unit additions, where appropriate,
d. Eneouraging private seetor construetion of affordable housing by
removing impediments in the permit review process,
e. Permitting compatible multi-family, mixed-use (commercial/residential)
projects.
Strategy 3:
Each Urban County jurisdiction will ensure the appropriateness and effeetiveness
of community housing goals and policies by:
a. Monitoring progress ofthe jurisdiction toward meeting affordable housing
objeetives.
b. Preparing an annual housing status report to the governing body.
Financial Assistance
Even when land is available, land-purchase and development costs in the Urban County
jurisdictions generally discourage the private seetor from building housing affordable to lower
income households. Consequently, ensuring that the supply of housing affordable to these
households continues to expand commensurate with demand, will require some amount of
subsidy.
70
Public subsidies can be provided in a variety of cash grants and loans. Land cost write-downs,
density bonus program proeeeds, donation of surplus public lands, reduced or amortized
development fees, and grants for various planning and development costs represent a number of
kinds of creative financing currently being offered by Urban County communities.
The following strategies are intended to ensure that there is continuous and reliable financial
assistance for the construction of affordable housing in Urban County jurisdietions. This
assistance should be made available, under specified conditions, to both private and non-profit
builders. Toward this end. Urban County jurisdictions will:
Strategy 4:
Pursue the creation of local programs that provide financial assistance or
incentives for constructing lower ineome housing.
Strategy 5:
Review procedures that expedite applications for low and moderate-income
housing projects and work toward the goal of redueing development costs and
time delays.
Strategy 6:
Strategy 7:
Pursue continued and expanded federal and state assistance for the construction or
preservation of lower ineome housing.
Target federal, state, and local housing funds to households earning less than 80%
ofthe County median income.
Strategy 8:
Develop "clearinghouse" programs that will assist private and non-profit builders
of lower ineome housing, by informing them of all available funding and
development options.
OBJECTIVE 2:
INCREASE HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR SPECIAL NEEDS
HOUSEHOLDS AND THE UNHOUSED
Certain populations in the Urban County communities encounter extraordinary difficulty in
finding both affordable and accessible housing. These categories include disabled persons,
persons with HIV/AIDS,the elderly, lower income households, agrieultural workers, lower
income mobile home residents in projects in threat of conversion, homeless, veterans, youth
(youth aging out of foster care), Seetion 8 conversion tenants, and survivors of domestic
violence. The strategies listed below are intended to help identify special housing needs within
each ofthe Urban County Jurisdictions and ensure that sufficient resources are available to meet
those needs. Toward this end, the Urban County Jurisdictions will:
Strategy 9:
Encourage the design and construction of conveniently located housing units
meeting the needs of identified special-needs households.
Strategy 10: Encourage licensed residential eare facilities and "life cycle" housing for
independent, mobile, senior resident.
Strategy 11: Coordinate their efforts to provide permanent housing for homeless families and
chronically homeless individuals.
Strategy 12: Encourage additional appropriate housing for emancipated youth throughout the
County.
71
OBJECTIVE 3: INCREASE AFFORDABLE HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR LOW
TO MODERATE INCOME FIRST TIME HOMEBUYERS
Santa Clara County is one of the top ten regions in the nation for high housing costs. Many
potential homebuyers are “closed out” of the housing market and denied the ability to build
equity through homeownership. This situation has serious consequences for the entire region
and serves as a disincentive for the job force to remain in the area. To address this objective of
increasing opportunities to first time homebuyers, the Urban County Jurisdictions will:
Strategy 13; Pursue the goal of increased homeownership rates in the County by offering down
payment assistance to lower-income first time homebuyers.
Strategy 14: Design programs to stand alone or be combined with existing homeownership
programs in the County.
Strategy 15: Market first time homebuyer programs to the real estate and lending communities.
Strategy 16: Encourage all first-time homebuyers to attend pre-purchase homeownership
education courses.
Strategy 17: Seek additional funding from public and private sources for first-time homebuyer
programs.
OBJECTIVE 4: REHABILITATE AND MAINTAIN EXISTING AFFORDABLE
HOUSING
The Urban County Jurisdictions, like all communities in the Bay Area, have been experiencing
significant, unprecedented increases in housing costs for at least a decade. The continuing price
increases have impacted the sales price of older and newly constructed homes.
The older homes in Santa Clara County are typically smaller, more modest units than those more
recently constructed. They were built in an era of considerably less costly construction. In the
past, these houses, duplexes, and small apartments provided affordable "starter" homes for young
families. They also served as affordable rental units for lower-income families, seniors, and
those with special needs. The strategies below are aimed at maintaining the number and
diversity of the existing affordable housing stock. To this end, the Urban County Jurisdictions
will:
Strategy 18: Encourage residents to maintain and rehabilitate existing housing through
continuous code enforcement efforts and through Urban County Cooperative
Housing Rehabilitation programs. Other federal, state, and county funded
programs available for rehabilitation activities will be investigated and pursued
(i.e.. Federal Rental Rehabilitation, State CHRP-0, and County Density Bonus
programs). Note: All units more than 50 years old and/or listed on a federal,
state, or local historic inventory shall use the Secretary ofthe Interior’s Standards
for Rehabilitation, as listed below.
72
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation:
1.
A property will be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires
minimal change to the defining characteristics ofthe building and its site and
environment.
2.
The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of
historic materials or alteration offeatures and spaces that characterize a property must be
avoided.
3.
Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use.
Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural
features or architectural elements from other buildings, will not be undertaken.
4.
Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historical
significance in their own right will be retained and preserved.
5.
Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship
that characterize a historic property will be preserved.
6.
Deteriorated historic features will be repaired, rather than be replaced. Where the
severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature
shall match the old in design, texture, color, and other visual qualities and, where
possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by
documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence.
7.
Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic
materials will not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, will be
undertaken using the gentlest means possible.
8.
Significant archaeological resources affected by the project must be protected and
preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken.
9.
New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction must not destroy historic
materials that characterize the property. The new work must be differentiated from the
old, and must be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to
protect the historic integrity ofthe property and its environment.
10.
New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a
manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity ofthe historic
property and its environment would be unimpaired.
Strategy 19: In permitting new housing construction of any type, whether publicly or privately
funded. Urban County Jurisdictions will strive to ensure compatibility with the
character and scale ofthe surrounding neighborhood.
73
OBJECTIVE 5:
PRESERVE EXISTING AFFORDABLE HOUSING
In a region that has recently experienced phenomenal increases in housing costs, simply
maintaining the affordable units that are currently in the housing stock is a major task. The
conversion of apartments to condominiums, the redevelopment of former mobile home parks, the
demolition of small homes and apartments, and the "gentrification" of older, small home/small
lot neighborhoods represent serious threats to the existing affordable housing supply.
Having been built and financed in an earlier era, these older units are typically less costly to rent
or buy than newer housing. This is the type of housing young families, single people, first time
homebuyers, and the fixed-income elderly can more easily afford. It fills a very important need
for many different types of households.
Unfortunately, the Urban County Jurisdictions were subject to the termination of federal
mortgage and/or rent subsidies, and their concern was that the loss ofthose subsidies not result in
the conversion of affordable housing units to market-rate units. The principal objectives of
Strategies 11-14 are to prevent the conversion or loss of existing affordable units, and ensuring
that those units remain available to low and moderate-income households in Urban County
communities. To this end, the Urban County Jurisdictions will:
Strategy 20: Protect existing rental housing from conversion to market-rate, ownership housing
according to the needs of each community.
Strategy 21: Work with the private sector to provide replacement housing, lost through
demolition or conversion to non-residential use for low and moderate-income
households.
Strategy 22: Provide assistance and encouragement that will allow households to maintain and
continue to live in their homes.
Strategy 23: Pursue Federal and State legislation to preserve Section 8 housing assistance and
enable continued funding ofthis housing option.
OBJECTIVE 6: ENSURE EQUAL HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES
Housing discrimination experienced by low and moderate-income households exacerbates
affordability problems by further restricting the housing options available. Despite years of
effort to curtail discrimination, it continues to occur; even though it is illegal. The objective of
the strategies below is to eliminate illegal and unwarranted discrimination in the Urban County
communities. The strategies, thus, address a broad range of activities that define discriminatory
housing practices. To this end, the Urban County Jurisdictions will:
Strategy 24: Promote equal housing opportunities and strive to eliminate discriminatory
housing practices that exclude persons based on racial, ethnic, religious, age,
marital-status, or any other arbitrary characteristics.
Strategy 25: Augment and enforce Fair Housing laws to protect against arbitrary housing
discrimination; fair housing services will be available to residents in all Urban
County communities.
74
Strategy 26: Recognize and protect the right oftenants and landlords and provide opportunities
for mediation of disputes.
Strategy 27: Disperse housing for low and moderate-income households throughout Urban
County communities and will not concentrate such housing in any locations.
Homelessness
In December of 2004, the cities of Santa Clara County and the County jointly sponsored a twoday homeless count (conducted by a consultant who specializes in these counts) to assess the
homeless population in the County's 351 census tracts. Based on the preliminary results, Based
on the results, there were 7,646 unduplicated cases of homelessness, of which 6,432 were
individual cases and 1,214 were persons in family groups.
In October 2004, the Board of Supervisors established a Homeless Task Force to create a plan to
end chronic homelessness in the County of Santa Clara. On May 3, 2005 the Task Force
presented its plan “Keys to Housing: A 10-Year Plan to End Chronic Homelessness in Santa
Clara County” to the Board of Supervisors. The Board unanimously accepted the Plan and
directed the Task Force to return on a quarterly basis with a report concerning the progress of
implementation of the Plan. Key to the Plan is a commitment to use the Housing First model as
a way to quickly re-house homeless people in permanent, supportive housing.(See Appendix J
for entire Plan.)
HUD Table 1C
Summary of Specific Homeless Objectives
Specific Objective
Unmet Need
Homeless Housing Objectives
Emergency Shelter-Individuals
61
Performance
Production
Measure
Goals
Beds
50
Emergency Shelter-Families
11
Beds
0
Transitional Housing-Individuals
Transitional Housing-Families
60
Units
20
11
Units
0
Permanent Housing-Individuals
Permanent Housing-Families
245
Units
25
47
Units
0
Total
435
95
Homeless Special Needs Objectives
Chronically Homeless
Seriously Mentally 111
CofC
N/A
CofC
CofC
N/A
CofC
Chronic Substance Abuse
CofC
N/A
CofC
Veterans
CofC
N/A
CofC
HIV/AIDS
CofC
N/A
CofC
Survivors of Domestic Violence
CofC
N/A
CofC
Youth
CofC
N/A
CofC
Other Speeial Needs
The Special Needs Populations to whom the Urban County has traditionally provided funding are
Seniors, Frail Elderly, Persons with Disabilities, Persons with Mental Illness, Female Heads of
Household (Domestic Violence) and Youth. The highest needs population is Persons with Disabilities.
75
HUD Table IB
Summary of Special Needs Populations (Non-Homeless) Objectives
Speeial Needs Category
Priority
Estimated
Need
Need
Seniors
High
Frail Elderly
Youth
High
High
High
High
High
6,000
20,275
33,223
1,600
Farm workers
Estimated Dollar
8,500
415,710
77,415
2,248,830
152,790
272,020
1,111,050
Low
100
0
HIV/AIDS
Medium
136
0
Alcohol/Qther Drug Addiction
Public and Assisted Housing Needs
Tenant-Based Rental Housing
Medium
1,497
0
Medium
236
0
Medium
151
0
Units At-Risk of Conversion
Medium
Persons with Disabilities
Mental Illness
Female Head of Household
5471
Total Persons
Goals
Need
127
0
77,316
4,277,815
2,680
4,560
25,600
725
1,430
6,050
41,045
Non-Housing Community Development
General
This section of the Consolidated Plan describes the Urban County’s non-housing community
development needs including:
-Public Facilities and Improvements, services and special needs services
-Public Services Which Primarily Serve Lower Income Clients
-Infrastructure and neighborhood services
-Economic development opportunities for low income persons
Based on data obtained from five ofthe Urban County cities the existing needs in the Urban
County areas are described below.
A. Public Facilities and Improvements: Capital Project Needs
-There is a need to expand, modernize, rehabilitate, make seismic and other safety related
improvements and accessibility improvements to existing facilities which serve special
need populations (limited clientele as defined by HUD regulations).
-There is a need to complete accessibility improvements in public facilites and in public
streets and sidewalks throughout the Urban County to ensure compliance with the
Americans with Disabilities Act(ADA).
-There are needs throughout the Urban County for new facilities and capital improvement
and rehabilitation of existing facilities occupied by service programs which serve the low
income and special needs populations.
-There are needs throughout the Urban County for improved facilites for the provision of
homeless services, including showers, laundry, food distribution, drop-in counseling, etc.
-There are needs throughout the Urban County for new park facilities and improvements
for existing park and playground facilities.
-There are needs throughout the Urban County for additional childcare facilities for low
income families.
76
B. Public Services Which Primarily Serve Lower Income Clients
-There are needs for supporting the operating expenses of organizations which provide
housing related information, counseling and supportive services such as:
•Affordable housing information and referral
•Information and counseling on tenant/landlord issues
•Shared housing counseling and placement
•Counseling, shelter services and general assistance to the very low income or
homeless population
•Services which address the needs of the frail elderly or persons with disabilities
•Services which address the needs of low income children and their families
-There are needs for infrastructure improvements in the Urban County. There is a
particular need for storm drainage improvements, sewer improvements, street and
sidewalk improvements in theUnincorporated Area.
-There are needs for economic development programs which create and increase
employment opportunities for minorities, low income persons, homeless persons, and
persons with disabilities. Although it is clear that a need exists in the Urban County
communities, the utilization of insufficient housing dollars to meet that need is not a
priority at this time. Therefore, the Urban County does not plan to address those non
housing community needs during the next five years {HUD Table 2B.)
HUD Table 2B
Community Development Needs
Category
Estimated
Priority
Estimated Dollar
Goals
Need
Need
Need
High
15
800,000
5
Medium
5
Medium
20
210,000
10,000
70,000
5
PUBLIC FACILITIES
Public Facilities-Barrier
Removal
Senior Centers
Homeless Facilities
Youth Facilities
Neighborhood Facilities
10
High,
10
Medium
Parks/Recreation Facilities
High
50
Street Improvements
High
50
High
50
Sidewalks
PUBLIC SERVICES
Public Service-General
60,000
High
55,000
High
500
Disabled Services
High
700
High
Legal Services
10,000
Youth Services
High
450
Battered Women
High
500
High
Fair Housing
300
High
Tenant Landlord Counseling
Source: 2004 Santa Clara County Homeless Census and Survey
Senior Services
25,000
625,000
270,000
300,000
650,000
700,000
25,000
15,000
150,000
250,000
175,000
75,000
16.7% Emergency; 16.3% Transitional and 67% Permanent; 15.9% Families and 84% Individuals
77
1
3
2
15
20
25
40,000
25,000
50
70
6,000
125
200
100
HUD Table 2C
Summary of Specific Housing/Community Development Objectives
Performance
Objective
Goal
Section 215
Goals
Measure
HOUSING
Energy Efficiency Improvements
Housing Units
Housing Units
Housing Units
Housing Units
Housing Units
Code Enforcement
Housing Units
Acquisition
Construction of Housing
Rehabilitation - Single Unit Res.
Rehabilitation - Multi Unit Res.
Total Housing Units
50
50
237
237
100
100
25
25
200
200
500
400
1,112
1,012
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Facilities
Public Facilities-Barrier Removal
Total Public Facilities
5
N/A
5
N/A
Parks/Recreation Facilities
Persons
50
N/A
Sidewalks
Persons
5000
N/A
Persons
5000
N/A
10,060
N/A
N/A
Street Improvements
Total Persons
PUBLIC SERVICES
Public Service-General
Persons
Senior Services
Persons
40,000
25,000
Disabled Services
Persons
50
N/A
Legal Services
Persons
70
N/A
Youth Services
Persons
6,000
N/A
Battered Women
Persons
125
N/A
Fair Housing
Tenant Landlord Counseling
Persons
200
N/A
Persons
100
N/A
Health Services
Persons
2500
N/A
N/A
74,045
Total Persons
Lead-Based Paint Hazards and Reduction
Lead poisoning is the number one environmental health threat that children in the United States
face today. It is estimated that over 434,000 children nationwide aged one to five years have
blood lead levels above the Center for Disease Control(CDC)levels of concern, that is, lOug/dL
(micrograms per deciliter). Lead poisoning causes IQ reductions, reading and learning
disabilities, decreased attention span and hyperactivity and aggressive behavior. Several factors
contribute to higher incidences of lead poisoning:
• Children under two are especially vulnerable
• Low Income children are at eight times higher risk for lead poisoning than wealthy
children
• Black children have five times higher risk than White children
• Hispanic children are twice as likely as White children to have lead poisoning
• Children in older housing are at higher risk
• Up to 50 percent of children in distressed neighborhoods have some level of lead
poisoning
78
Lead-based paint(LBP)is a major source of lead poisoning. Starting in 1978, the use of all leadbased paint on residential property was prohibited. National studies estimated that 75 percent of
all residential structures built prior to 1978 contain LBP and that older structures have the
highest percentage of LBP. The age of the housing stock is the key variable for estimating the
number of housing units with lead-based paint. In assessing the potential LBP hazard of these
older structures, several factors must be considered. First, not all units with lead-based paint
have lead-based paint hazards. Only testing for lead in dust, soil, deteriorated paint, chewable
paint surfaces, friction paint surfaces, or impact paint surfaces provides information about
hazards. Properties more at risk than others include:
■
■
Deteriorated units, particularly those with leaky roofs and plumbing
Rehabilitated units where there was not a thorough cleanup with high-phosphate wash
after the improvements were completed
The Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data provide the number of
housing units constructed before 1970 that were occupied by lower income households. This
data can be used to approximate the extent of LBP hazards among lower income households.
While information on units constructed before 1978 is not available from CHAS, estimates based
on
the pre-1970 stock provide a conservative estimate of the extent of LBP hazards. It is
estimated that 7,119 units in the Urban County Area occupied by lower income households (0-80
percent MFI) may contain LBP (Table 23).
There have been three main thrusts to Santa Clara County's response to LBP issues. First is the
ongoing sereening and treatment of children who may have been exposed to lead in their
environment. Second, the County and local Jurisdictions are testing for the presence of LBP
through their rehabilitation programs, and requiring abatement as necessary. Third, the County
initiated a class-action lawsuit against eight paint manufacturers and a trade group for selling
LBP that they knew was hazardous to ehildren. The suit sought to force the paint manufacturers
to pay for the removal of LBP from buildings where it is identified, to pay for the treatment of
children identified with lead poisoning, and to fund Countywide educational programs regarding
the risks associated with LBP. However, in 2003, the lawsuit was dismissed in Santa Clara
County Superior Court.
Santa Clara County Lead Programs
The Public Health Department established a Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program
composed of a unique three way partnership including: The public Health Department,
Environmental Health Services, and Public Health Nursing. The program provides case
management, environmental surveillance, education, and outreach.
The Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention (CLPPP) which is administered by the Santa Clara
County Health Department began screening for lead levels in the blood of children in a study
conducted between September of 1991 and August of 1992. Of the estimated 434,000 children
nationwide aged one to five years to have blood lead levels above the Center for Disease Control
(CDC) levels of concern, that is, lOug/dL (micrograms per deciliter), approximately 3,600 of
those ehildren reside in Santa Clara County. The County’s Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention
Program (CLPPP) is responsible for increasing public awareness on the dangers of lead
poisoning, and providing education and prevention programs.
There were 3,627 children tested during this period and 233 children had levels that exceeded 10
micrograms of lead per deciliter of blood which is 6 1/2% of the children studied. Of that same
79
group, there were 36 children that had blood levels of lead that exceeded the level of 20. The
study found that a high percentage of children were Hispanic. Preliminary findings suggest that
the use of “azarcon” as a folkremedy within the Hispanic community may have contributed to
the problem. Leaded paint and lead contaminated soil, however, remain a principal concern with
regard to childhood lead poisoning. Further, improperly glazed pottery also may have high
levels of lead.
Case Management/Prevention
In 2002, The Office of Affordable Housing and the County Board of Supervisors established a
Lead-Based Paint Grant Program. The program funds one time grants for the cost of inspection
and mitigation of lead-based paint contamination in homes in the urban cities and unicorporated
areas of the county, for low-income homeowners who participate in the Housing Rehabilitation
Program. Every Housing Rehabilitation applicant has a mandatory Lead Paint inspections and
abatement if necessary.
Currently, the State provides funds for case management of individuals found to have high levels
of lead in their blood. Santa Clara County’s Public Health Department has been offering a
Childhood Lead Poisoning Program. Separate funding is required for programs aimed at
environmental lead abatement measures such as leaded paint and contaminated soil removal.
Anti-Poverty Strategy
The Urban County HCD Program primarily deals with issues pertaining to housing.
Currently, the program is not involved with economic development activities. Many of the
programs have impacts other than just housing. For instance, the Shelter Plus Care program
provides rental assistance and supportive services to homeless persons. The program
provides individuals with a foundation for re-entering the work force so they can be removed
from public assistance.
As noted earlier in this section, other programs that help eliminate poverty in Santa Clara
County are the Family Self-Sufficiency Program (FSS) and CalWORKs. According to
statistics gathered by the County, there has been a sharp decline (approximately 1/3 fewer) in
the number of persons requiring assistance payments over the past two years. Santa Clara
County will continue to participate in Job training programs such as GAIN, and will comply
with the CalWORKs Program.
To serve North County residents, the City of Sunnyvale initiated the North Valley Job Training
Consortium (NOVA) program. Formed in 1983 by six northern Santa Clara County cities,
NOVA is a federally funded, non profit employment and training agency. NOVA coordinates
efforts between private industry, organized labor, government, education and community-based
organizations that provide training, and employment programs at no cost to eligible applicants. It
offers programs for economically disadvantaged youth and adults, homeless, veterans,
individuals with disabilities, at-risk youth, seniors, and dislocated workers. NOVA is funded
primarily by grants from the State and federal government and by local industry. NOVA is
administered by the City of Sunnyvale. NOVA was created in response to Federal legislation,
specifically the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA). In addition, the NOVA Private Industry
Council was established to guide the agency in its mission to provide low cost and efficient job
training and employment programs for the six NOVA cities (Sunnyvale, Cupertino, Mountain
View, Los Altos, Santa Clara and Palo Alto). The council is a private/public partnership made up
of representatives from local government, business and industry, labor, education and training
systems, employment services, and community support organizations.
80
In Fiscal Year 2003-04, there were 17,271 client visits to NOVA’s “one-stop center” in Sunnyvale.
NOVA enrolled a total of 2,811 clients for program services.
Institutional Structure
The Urban County Program has operated in its existing organizational form since the inception
of the CDBG Program in 1975. Since then, the CDBG program funds have been administered
by County HCD staff, in conjunction with staff from the participating Urban County
jurisdictions. HOME funds have also been overseen by County HCD staff, in addition to
housing Rehabilitation Programs for some of the cities in the Urban County. County HCD also
provides technical assistance to the cities, as needed. In 2003, the HCD Program was placed
within the newly created Office of Affordable Housing.
Distribution of Funds Process
Annually, the Urban County receives an allocation of CDBG funds from HUD that is distributed
as follows:
• Approximately 60% of the grant (after administration and rehabilitation services have
been set aside) is divided equally between the participating non-entitlement cities
(including the County). Each participating city determines how its share of the money
will be allocated at the local level.
• Approximately 40% of the grant is placed in a competitive pool for distribution to public
and non-profit agencies for housing and housing-related projects.
Request for Proposal
The funding process is initiated at the HCD Advisory Committee each September, at which the
Committee members review the previous year’s application packet and recommend any changes
to the funding priorities or process. Upon approval, staff initiates the Application/Request for
Proposal (REP) process. Notice of the Request for Proposal, indicating how interested parties
may obtain an application, is published in the local newspaper, the San Jose Mercury News.
Notices of funding availability are also sent directly to previously funded agencies, various
housing-advocacy groups, and other interested parties.
Urban County Housing Pool - Non-Profit Organizations
Project proposals of a countywide nature, that are housing or housing-related and not normally
focused on serving one non-entitlement city, are submitted directly to the County. Immediately
following the submission deadline, an evaluation phase begins. Proposals received prior to the
deadline are screened for eligibility by County HCD staff. The applications are then distributed
among all Urban County staff members for review and recommendation. A meeting is held
approximately one week later where reviewers discuss the projects and present their individual
recommendations for funding. The entire group then prioritizes the projects according to preestablished criteria and drafts preliminary recommendations. After hearing public presentations
of the proposals and researching any outstanding questions or issues, the Urban County staff
meets again to finalize their recommendations.
Staff recommendations are then forwarded to the HCD Advisory Committee for review,
evaluation, and recommendations. Both staff and HCD Advisory Committee recommendations
are then forwarded to the County Board of Supervisors.
Throughout the funding cycle, committee meetings are open to the public. Applicants have the
opportunity to clarify the details of their projects and/or provide additional information; and
81
members of the public may ask questions or voice opinions. All public hearings on applications
for funding are publicized in the San Jose Mercury News at least 10 days prior to the hearing.
All public meeting notices and advertisements state the date, time, and location of the hearing
and/or meeting, as well as topics to be covered. Efforts are made to ensure effective notification
of the meetings through the use of flyers, public service announcements, and mail-outs to local
officials and interested citizens.
Local Project Development Phase - Cities
Project proposals for eligible CDBG activities that fall within a city's sphere of influence must be
submitted to the city and considered as a part of the city's project development process.
Running concurrently with the Urban County review process, is a series of hearings and
meetings at the local city and neighborhood level. This series of hearings and meetings,
typically held during the winter and spring months, provide information to the residents of Urban
County cities and, specifically, residents of target neighborhoods, regarding the process for
preparation, submission, and selection of project proposals. During this project development
phase, Urban County staff members or technical assistance teams may work with the residents to
assess local needs and develop project proposals. Urban County cities typically hold at least one
public meeting in targeted neighborhoods where comprehensive or concentrated neighborhood
revitalization, or the construction of public facilities or improvements, is either ongoing or
proposed.
While the cities may choose to have a number of public meetings with target groups, only one
public hearing is required. The purpose of that hearing is to recommend project proposals to be
funded by the city, from its share of the grant money. Each city then forwards all project
proposals, including those not recommended for funding, to the County for final review and
approval by the Board of Supervisors.
Public Housing
Goals for Families to be Assisted with Housing
The Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara has again been designated as a "High
Performer" by HUD for public housing administration and Section 8 program administration.
Additionally, the Housing Authority has again received the highest rating from Standard and
Poors; only the second Housing Authority in the United States to receive a rating. The rating
will be useful in financial transactions particularly affecting the Development Department.
New units under the Section 8 Rental Certificate, Rental Voucher and the Family Unification
programs, if available, are obtained through a competitive application process. The Section 8
wait list was opened in January, 1999 and over 27,000 people applied in one week. The current
wait list has 2500 names on it. In 1999, the Housing Authority received 100 certificates of
funding from HUD for persons with disabilities under the Main Stream funding. They also
received 700 vouchers which is equivalent to $7 million in housing assistance payment subsidies
for the County of Santa Clara for residents moving from welfare to work. The application was
nationally competitive. All voucher units are leased for Welfare to Work clients. The Housing
Authority received 445 Fair Share vouchers for the County of Santa Clara in 2002 and 80
Welfare to Work vouchers in 2003. The annual subsidy is $740,250. In addition, the Housing
Authority is administering tenant-based Shelter Plus Care housing assistance. Tenant-based
housing assistance is eligible for use throughout the County, including the Urban County areas.
The Family Unification Program received 100 additional certificates in October 1999. The
Housing Authority is working in partnership with the Social Services Agency of Santa Clara
County to place families in this program and has received funding through Social Services
82
Agency to fund staff positions to assist with housing counseling and search for welfare to work
recipients. This funding ends June 30, 2005. SSA has sponsored a shallow rent subsidy program
administered by the Housing Authority for up to 500 clients. This program ended June 30, 2004.
The Housing Authority and Housing Choices, a non-profit for persons with disabilities are
partnering on the development of housing at the former Agnews site. Remediation of toxics in
the soil has temporarily slowed down the progress but it is expected that progress will pick up in
the summer of 1999. John Burns Gardens and River Town Apartments are now leased. The
planned improvements for Rincon Gardens, in Campbell, took place in 1999 as planned and were
mentioned in last year’s plan. In 2000, $200,000 was expended to complete interior and exterior
work, concrete work, upgrade the fire alarm system, replace mailboxes, paint and replace
flooring in some units. In addition they will replaced the carpeting in the dining room and the
hallways as well as other improvements completed in 2003/2004, including modernization of
selected units plus replacement ofthe steam table for a cost of$67,000.
In December, 2000, the Housing Authority finished work on a new family development in San
Jose on Communication Hill. In April, 2001, work began on a 125 units development for seniors
in San Jose called El Parador. The units are fiilly occupied. The Housing Authority and the
County of Santa Clara will be developing affordable housing units at the County Fair Grounds
by 2005 if funds are available. Finally, the Housing Authority implemented Section 8
homeownership program. These are currently 5 homeowners who utilize Section 8 housing
assistance payments for homeownership.
The Shelter Plus Care (S+C) Program is authorized by the Title IV of the Stewart B. McKinney
Homeless Assistance Act. The program is intended to provide rental subsidies, linked with
coordinated supportive services, for homeless persons and their families who are either seriously
mentally ill, drug or alcohol dependent, or who have AIDS, or are HIV positive, or are dually
diagnosed.
S+C grant recipients are chosen nationwide on a competitive basis. Santa Clara County has
competed and was awarded five separate S+C grants; one in 1992, 1993, 1995, 1997, and finally
1998. The original grant awarded in 1992 expired in 1998, however, because there were funds
remaining, the grant was extended, then renewed. The Housing Authority manages $2.2 million
in Shelter Plus Care rent subsidies for approximately 200 individuals. Supportive services and
coordination are also provided for Shelter Plus Care clients as a match contribution from
government agencies such as County Public Health, Social Services and Mental Health
Departments, as well as non-profit service organizations and shelter providers, such as.
Community Care, Emergency Housing Consortium, InnVision and many others.
83
’llnSll
#r
iiffi
County of Santa Clara
Office of Affordable Housing
Housing and Community Development Program
m
#r
m
m
#r
m
CONSOLIDATED
m
PLAN
m
m
&
m
m
2005 - 2010
ilr
Approved by the
Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors
May 3, 2005
&
li
Submitted to the United States
Department of Housing and Urban Development Kegion IX
May 12, 2005
#r
m
TABLE OF CONTENTS
7
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Purpose of the Consolidated Plan
7
Resources
7
Objectives and Types of Activities to be Undertaken
The Homeless and Others with Special Needs
8
10
1. GENERAL
Summary
General Description of Santa Clara County
County Supervisor Districts Map 1
General Description of the "Urban County
Population of the Urban County
Population of the Urban County Table A ....
Entitlement Cities and Urban County Map 2
Estimate of Anticipated Resources, 2005-2010
f!
12
12
13
14
14
14
15
15
2. CONSULTATION PROCESS (91.100)
Development of the Consolidated Plan
Consolidated Plan Development Process Flow Chart
16
3. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (91.105, and 91.200)
18
4. HOUSING AND HOMELESS NEEDS ASSESSMENT (91.205)
Summary
20
17
HOUSING
Estimates of Current Housing Needs....
Urban County Housing Needs Table B.
Disproportionate Housing Need
Extremely Low Income Households
Very Low Income Households
20
Low Income Households
,22
21
21
22
22
23
Large Household Profile Table C
and
Concentrations
.23
Current Estimates of Urban County Housing, Conditions
Racial/Ethnic Concentrations
23
Race and Ethnicity Table by Persons Table D
Race and Ethnicity Table by Households Table E
Concentration of Low Income Population
24
24
24
Median Household Income Table F
25
Income Definitions
,25
HUD Income Definitions Table G
25
26
Concentrations of Minority Populations Map 5
Hispanic Population Concentration Map 4
Black Population Concentration Map 5
Asian/Pacific Islander Concentration Map 6
,27
Income Distribution
28
Household Income by Race/Ethnicity Table H
28
Lower Income Distribution Table I
28
Concentrations of Lower Income Households Map 7
ABAG Housing Needs
29
Regional Housing Needs Determination Urban County Table J
30
2
26
,27
29
HOMELESS
31
Current Estimates of Homelessness
31
Homeless Population
Urban County Homeless/Special Needs Populations TableK (HUD Table lA)..32
33
County Homeless and Special Needs Populations Table L
33
Homeless Individuals
Homeless Families
34
Homeless Subpopulations
Chronically Homeless
Special Needs Persons with Severe Mental Illness
34
Persons with Substance Abuse Problems
34
Veterans
35
Persons Infected with HIV/AIDS
35
34
34
Persons Suffering Domestic Violence
35
Youth
35
Needs of Persons Threatened with Homelessness
35
Inventory of Facilities/Services for Homeless/Threatened Homeless
36
Continuum of Care System
Continuum of Care Gap
,37
Ten Year Plan to End Chronic Homelessness
,37
37
HUD 2005 Income Limits Table M
38
Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction
39
Number of Housing Units with Lead-based Paint Table N
40
5. HOUSING MARKET ANALYSIS (91.210)
Summary
41
41
General Characteristics
General Market Conditions
41
Housing Market Conditions
Housing Growth
Housing Growth Table O
Housing Type
Housing Type Table P
Housing Tenure and Vacancy
41
41
42
42
42
42
43
Housing Tenure and Vacancy Table Q
Vacancy
Housing Costs and Affordability
Ownership Housing Cost
43
43
43
44
Median Home Prices 2003-04 Table R
Rental Housing Cost
44
Rental Rates in Urban County Cities Table S.
45
Fair Market Rents Table T.
46
Housing Affordability
46
Affordable Housing Costs by Income Table U
Housing Condition
Age of Housing Stock
Age of Housing Stock Table V.
Housing Deficiencies
Housing Stock Deficiencies Table W
46
47
47
47
47
48
50
Homeless Facilities and Services
3
HOUSING MARKET ANALYSIS (91.210) cont'd
Emergency Shelters Table X
Transitional Housing Table Y
Permanent Supportive Housing Table Z.
Special Needs Facilities and Services
Special Needs Housing
Licensed Community Care Facilities Table AA
50
51
53
54
54
54
Seniors
54
Frail Elderly
55
Persons with Disabilities
55
Location of Residential Care Facilities Map 8
55
Type of Disabilities Table BB
57
Female-Headed Households
58
Farm workers
58
Persons with HIV/AIDS
59
Location of AIDS Cases Table CC
59
Persons with Alcohol/Other Drug Addictions
59
Public and Assisted Housing
Public Housing
Tenant Based Housing Assistance
60
Section 8 Participants and Applicants Table DD
Assisted Housing Units At-Risk of Conversion
60
Barriers to Affordable Housing
62
Potential Governmental Constraints
State Government Constrains
Federal Government Constraints
63
60
60
61
62
63
Intergovernmental Constraints
64
Potential Non-Governmental Constraints
64
Economic Constraints
64
Environmental Constraints
65
Infrastructure Constraints
65
Five Year Housing Needs and Priorities HUD Table 2A
66
6. STRATEGIC PLAN (91.215)
Summary
Countywide Housing Goals
67
67
.67
Process
Priorities for Assistance
68
Affordable Housing Objectives and Strategies
68
Homelessness
74
Summary/Specific Homeless/Special Needs Objectives HUD Table 1C
74
Other Special Needs
Other Special Needs HUD Table IB
Non-Housing Community Development
74
75
75
Community Development Needs HUD Table 2B
76
Summary/Specific Housing/Community Dev. Objectives HUD Table 2C,
77
Lead-Based Paint Hazards and Reduction
77
Santa Clara County Lead Programs
Case Management/Prevention
Anti-Poverty Strategy
78
79
79
4
80
Institutional Strncture
Distribution of Funds Process
80
Request for Proposal
Urban County Housing Pool - Non-Profit Organizations
Local project Development Phase - Cities
Public Housing
Goals for Families to be Assisted with Housing
80
80
81
81
81
7. ACTION PLAN (91.220)
Applications for Federal Assistance Form SF-424
Executive Summary
...1
3
Resources
3
Managing the Process
Citizen Participation
9
10
Institutional Structure
12
Monitoring
14
Lead-based Paint
15
Specific Housing Objectives
Needs of Public Housing
Barriers to Affordable Housing
15
17
19
HOME/American Dream Down Payment Initiative(ADDI)
Specific Homeless Prevention Elements
Community Development
Commnnity Development Needs AP HUD Table 2B
Antipoverty Strategy
Non-Homeless Special Needs
Special Needs Population (Non-Homeless) Objectives APHUD Table IB
Consolidated Plan Listing of Projects - Summary HUD Table 3
Consolidated Plan Listing of Projects - CPMP Worksheets
8. CERTIFICATIONS (91.225)
Non-State Government Certifications
CDBG Certifications
HOME Certifications
Appendix to Certification
9. APPENDICES
Appendix A Glossary
Appendix B Inventory of Licensed Care Facilities
Appendix C Telephone Survey
Appendix D Citizen Participation Plan
Appendix E Inventory of Housing Resources
Appendix F Inventory of Services/Homeless/Threatened with Homelessness
Appendix G Inventory of Homeless Facilities
Appendix H Homeless Census and Survey
Appendix I Santa Clara County Housing Agencies
Appendix J Ten Year Plan to End Chronic Homelessness
Appendix K Housing Problems per City/Jurisdiction
5
20
23
24
25
,25
26
27
CROSS REFERENCES
CHART:
Consolidated Plan Development Process Flow Chart
17
MAPS:
13
Map 1 County Supervisors Districts
Map 2 Entitlement Cities and Urban County
Map 3 Concentrations of Minority Populations
Map 4 Hispanic Population Concentrations
Map 5
Map 6
Map 7
Map 8
.15
26
26
Black Population Concentrations
Asian/Pacific Islander Concentrations
Concentrations of Lower Income Households
Location of Residential Care Facilities
,27
,27
29
55
TABLES:
Table A
14
Table E
Population of the Urban County
Urban County Housing Needs
Large Household Profile
Race and Ethnicity by Persons
Race and Ethnicity by Households
Table F
Median Household Income
,25
Table G
HUD Income Definitions
25
Table H
Household Income by Race/Ethnicity
28
Table I
Lower Income Distribution
28
Table K
Regional Housing Needs Determination - Urban County
Homeless Population and Subpopulation, Urban County
30
Table B
Table C
Table D
Table J
21
23
24
24
,32
Table L
Homeless Population/Subpopulation, County {HUD Table 1A)33
Table M
HUD 2005 Income Limits
38
Table N
Number of Housing Units with Lead-based Paint
40
Table O
42
Table Q
Housing Growth
Housing Type
Housing Tenure and Vacancy
Table R
Median Home Prices 2003-04
44
Table S
Rental Rates in Urban County Cities
45
Table T
Fair Market Rents
46
Table U
Table X
Affordable Housing Costs by Income
Age of Housing Stock
Housing Stock Deficiencies
Emergency Shelters
Table Y
Transitional Housing
Table P
Table V
Table W
42
43
46
,47
48
50
51
Table Z
53
Table AA
54
Permanent Supplemented Housing
Licensed Community Care Facilities, Urban County
Table BB Type of Disabilities
Table CC
Table DD
57
Location of AIDS Cases, Santa Clara County
59
Section 8 Participants and Applicants
60
32
HUD Table IB
Homeless and Special Needs Populations
Special Needs(Non-Homeless)Populations
HUD Table 1C
Summary of Specific Homeless/Special Needs Objectives
74
Priority Needs Summary Table
Community Development Needs
66
HUD Table lA
HUD Table 2A
HUD Table 2B
75
76
HUD Table 2C
Summary of Specific Housing/Community Development Objectives...77
HUD Table 3
Consolidated Plan Listing of Projects.
6
Following Action Plan
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA CONSOLIDATED PLAN
FOR THE PERIOD JULY 1,2005 TO JUNE 30,2010
The County of Santa Clara and the smaller cities (less than 50,000 in population) in the County,
comprise an entity known as the Urban County. The Urban County refers to the unincorporated
portions of the County of Santa Clara, as well as the jurisdictions of Campbell, Los Altos, Los Altos
Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, and Saratoga. As part of the County’s Office of
Affordable Housing, the Housing and Community Development Program (HCD) oversees the
activities of the Urban County, including the receipt of funds from the United States Department of
Housing and Urban Development and distribution of those funds to local housing projects and
services. Every five years, the Urban County is required to produce the Consolidated Plan outlining
the housing and housing-related needs of the population, and presenting strategies for meeting those
needs. The most recent Consolidated Plan covers the 5-year period of 2000-2005 and was approved by
the Board of Supervisors on May 9, 2000, and subsequently approved by the Regional Office of the
United States Department of Housing and Urban Development(HUD.)
Purpose of the Consolidated Plan
Title I of the National Affordable Housing Act establishes the requirement for state and local
governments that apply for direct assistance under certain HUD programs to have a HUD-approved
Consolidated Plan. The Consolidated Plan is a comprehensive planning document that identifies a
jurisdiction's overall needs for affordable and supportive housing and outlines a strategy to address
those needs. In this case, the jurisdiction is the Urban County.
The Consolidated Plan describes the activities that the Urban County anticipates undertaking during
the five-year period of Fiscal Years 2005-2010 with funds received through the Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program and the Home Investment Partnership Act (HOME)
Program. These activities are intended to meet the Urban County's affordable housing and community
development needs and objectives. The Action Plan is an annual increment to the Consolidated Plan
and describes the specific activities that the Urban County plans to undertake to address the established
objectives.
Resources
Federal Funds
One of the largest federal grants administered by County HCD is the Community Development Block
Grant(CDBG) Program. CDBG provides funding for a wide variety of housing and housing-related
activities, including the development of new affordable housing units, the rehabilitation of affordable
housing units, construction of neighborhood facilities, the removal of architectural barriers for the
elderly and persons with disabilities, fair housing services, and a variety of public services.
HCD also manages the federal HOME Investment Partnership Program which is federally funded.
HOME funds can be used for the acquisition of land or buildings and the rehabilitation or new
construction of affordable housing. The American Dream Down-payment Initiative (ADDI) is a new
component of the HOME Program and is intended for down-payment assistance toward the purchase
of single family housing by low income households who are first-time homebuyers.
7
Estimate of Anticipated Federal Resources, 2005-2010
The primary resources for addressing housing and community development needs ofthe Urban County
are the CDBG and HOME Programs. The current year (FY 2005-2006) allocation for CDBG is
$2,018,640. The HOME Program has been allocated $870,408. To augment the HOME Program, the
Urban County has been awarded funds for the American Dream Down-Payment Initiative (ADDI) in
the amount of $28,350. The combined programs total $2,917,398. Projecting that amount over the
next five years would bring the figure to $14,586,990. However, due to the population decline of the
Urban County by the unincorporated pockets annexing to larger cities and budget cutbacks at the
Federal level, the Urban County has been steadily receiving reduced awards, making it difficult to
project an accurate figure.
Other Resources
Other resources not administered by the Urban County HCD Program are also available for housing
projects and housing-related services. These resources are from the following:
• The Local Redevelopment Agencies(RDA)of the cities of Campbell, Los Gatos, and Morgan
Hill, which are mandated to set aside 20% of their funding for low-income housing projects.
The Mortgage Credit Certificate (MCC) Program, administered by the County's Office of
Affordable Housing, which is available for eligible first-time home buyers.
Low Income Tax Credits, which are available to non-profit housing developers.
The Rental/Mortgage Assistance Loan Program created by the Housing Bond Trust Fund
Committee of Santa Clara County.
The Housing Trust Fund of Santa Clara County, which was developed by the Santa Clara
County Housing Collaborative, in association with the Silicon Valley Manufacturers Group
(SVMG)which provides a Countywide renewable resource for affordable housing projects and
homeless activities.
The County’s Affordable Housing Funds, which were set aside by the Board of Supervisors in
September, 2003. So far, allocated $7.68 million has been awarded to assist in the development
of affordable housing projects. Round Two of the Affordable Housing Fund for an amount of
$3 million will occur in the 2"^ half of 2005.
Objectives and Types of Activities to be Undertaken
Funding objectives were established for both the CDBG and HOME programs through an extensive
community review process resulting in the FY 2005-2010 5-Year Consolidated Plan. This process
included an evaluation by HCD staff, public meetings in Central and South County, public meetings
before the HCD Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) and the HCD Council Committee (CC). The
following section outlines the Urban County’s objectives with regard to the HUD priorities identified
in Table B and the known needs of the seven jurisdictions that make up the Urban County.(Objectives
are not ranked in order of importance.)
Following the objectives is a summary of the types of activities that could be funded to address each
established objective. A Request for Proposal (RFP) will be issued toward the end of each calendar
year announcing CDBG and HOME funding availability and encouraging applications to be submitted.
Once the funding cycle is completed, a detailed deseription of activities to be undertaken will be
included in the annual Action Plan and can be found in the "Listing ofProposed Projects."
8
Objective 1: Increase the available supply of housing affordable to lower income households.
There are many factors affecting the affordability of housing in the Urban County jurisdictions. One
significant factor is the shortage of affordable housing units relative to demand. This shortage
manifests itself in several ways, such as a low affordable housing vacancy rates and home prices and
rents that are very high relative to the incomes of lower income households. The lack of developable
land and local development standards are other constraints to providing housing at densities that allow
affordability.
The objective is to increase the total number of affordable housing units in the Urban County
jurisdictions in order to provide for the current and projected needs of the low and moderate-income
families living in those communities. The affordable units should be appropriate in cost and type for a
range of households earning at or below 80% ofthe countywide median.
The types of activities to be undertaken to address this objective include acquisition, acquisition with
rehabilitation, and new construction projects that can be undertaken by housing development
corporations that provide affordable housing.
Objective 2: Increase housing opportunities for special needs households and the un-housed.
Certain populations in the Urban County communities encounter extraordinary difficulty in finding
both affordable and accessible housing. These categories include disabled persons, persons with
HIV/AIDS, the elderly, lower income households, agricultural workers, lower income mobile home
residents in projects in threat of conversion, homeless (also known as the “unhoused”), veterans, youth
(youth aging out of foster care). Section 8 conversion tenants, and survivors of domestic violence.
The types of activities to be undertaken to address this objective include housing counseling to the
Urban County disabled, and handicapped access for Urban County residents. Also, battered women's
facilities, which assist in providing emergency and short term housing, food, counseling, and life skills
workshops may be funded. Shared transitional housing for homeless youth aging out of foster care
may be funded to provide a safe, secure, and positive transitional living environment in a shared
housing setting for 4 to 6 Urban County young adults between the ages of 18 and 21. These are at-risk,
young adults who have aged out ofthe foster care system and have become homeless.
Objective 3: Increase affordable housing opportunities for low to moderate income first time
homebuyers.
Santa Clara County is one of the top ten regions in the nation for high housing costs. Many potential
homebuyers are “closed out” of the housing market and denied the ability to build equity through
homeownership. This situation has serious consequences for the entire region and serves as a
disincentive for the job force to remain in the area.
The types of activities to be undertaken to address this objective include the HOME and ADDI
program funds that can be used for down-payment assistance for eligible first time homebuyers.
Objective 4: Rehabilitate and maintain existing affordable housing.
The Urban County jurisdictions, like all communities in the Bay Area, have been experiencing
significant, unprecedented increases in housing costs for at least a decade. The continuing price
increases have impacted the sales price of older and newly constructed homes. The older homes in
Santa Clara County are typically smaller, more modest units than those more recently constructed.
They were built in an era of considerably less costly construction. In the past, these houses, duplexes,
and small apartments provided affordable "starter" homes for young families. They also served as
affordable rental units for lower-income families, seniors, and those with special needs. The strategies
below are aimed at maintaining the number and diversity ofthe existing affordable housing stock.
The types of activities to be undertaken to address this objective include the local Housing
9
Rehabilitation Programs. Each participating city and the County's unincorporated area may continue to
operate their programs that provide low interest loans to lower-income households for the repair of
their homes. Also, a minor home repair program may continue serving several Urban County cities and
in the unincorporated area.
Objective 5: Preserve existing affordable housing.
In a region that has recently experienced phenomenal increases in housing costs, simply maintaining
the affordable units that are currently in the housing stock is a major task. The conversion of
apartments to condominiums, the redevelopment of former mobile home parks, the demolition of small
homes and apartments, and the "gentrification" of older, small home/small lot neighborhoods represent
serious threats to the existing affordable housing supply. Having been built and financed in an earlier
era, these older units are typically less costly to rent or buy than newer housing. This is the type of
housing young families, single people, first time homebuyers, and the fixed-income elderly can more
easily afford. It fills a very important need for many different types of households.
Unfortunately, the Urban County Jurisdictions were subject to the termination of federal mortgage
and/or rent subsidies, and their concern was that the loss of those subsidies would not result in the
conversion of affordable housing units to market-rate units. The principal objectives of Strategies 1114 are to prevent the conversion or loss of existing affordable units, and ensuring that those units
remain available to low and moderate-income households in Urban County communities.
The types of activities to be undertaken to address this objective include providing shared housing for
low income people. Persons are considered “providers” meaning they have available space in their
home are matched with “seekers” who need are searching for affordable housing opportunities.
Objective 6: Ensure equal housing opportunities.
Housing discrimination experienced by low and moderate-income households exacerbates affordability
problems by further restricting the housing options available. Despite years of effort to curtail
discrimination, it continues to occur; even though it is illegal. The objective of the strategies below is
to eliminate illegal and unwarranted discrimination in the Urban County communities. The strategies,
thus, address a broad range of activities that define discriminatory housing practices.
The types of activities to be undertaken to address this objective includes the Santa Clara County Fair
Housing Consortium, comprised of several fair-housing agencies, that may continue to provide
resources for Urban County residents with tenant/landlord, housing discrimination, and fair housing
concerns.
The Homeless and Others with Special Needs
Homeless Services
The Santa Clara County Collaborative on Affordable Housing and Homeless Issues, which was
established in 1992, represents homeless shelter providers, service providers, housing advocates, non
profit housing developers, and representatives of local governmental jurisdictions. More than 160
agencies have come together to form the Collaborative in order to obtain more funding for homeless
shelters, services, and to develop more affordable housing.
“Keys to Housing: A 10-Year Plan to End Chronic Homelessness in Santa Clara County” was
completed by a Homeless Task Force appointed by the County Board of Supervisors in October, 2004.
The final draft was accepted by the Board of Supervisors on May 3, 2005. The Office of Affordable
Housing continues to work on the priorities of this plan with all the County’s municipalities and
community groups.
10
In addition, the Collaborative supports inter-agency partnerships, and submitted funding requests from
29 agencies, totaling over $8,822,935 in the most recent McKinney funding cycle.
Special Needs
The City of San Jose has been designated by HUD as a recipient of Housing Opportunities for People
with AIDS (HOPWA)funds and therefore, administers the HOPWA Program. San Jose works with
the other entitlement cities to determine the appropriate allocation ofthese funds. Much of this money
is directed toward countywide HIV/AIDS prevention and support services.
Many of the jurisdictions in the Urban County are using CDBG funds to meet the American's with
Disability Act(ADA)requirements. These improvements include restroom access improvements, curb
cuts, ramps, automatic doors, etc.
The Housing Authority has been working with a local group called Housing Choices to provide
housing opportunities for persons with special needs and continues to explore land opportunities for
construction of additional housing for persons with special needs.
11
1. GENERAL
Summary
This section provides general information about the County of Santa Clara and describes the Urban
County. Maps illustrate the County as a whole and the cities that comprise the Urban County.
General Description of the County of Santa Clara
The County of Santa Clara, also referred to as "Silicon Valley," is unique because of its combination of
physical attractiveness and ethnic diversity. With its numerous natural amenities and one of the highest
standards of living in the country, the County has long been considered one of the best areas in the
United States in which to live and work.
The County of Santa Clara is located at the southern end of the San Francisco Bay and encompasses
1,312 square miles. The Mediterranean climate of the region remains temperate year round due to the
area’s geography and its proximity to the Pacific Ocean. The area is warm and dry much of the year.
Rarely is the humidity uncomfortable, and the thermometer seldom drops below freezing. Rain
generally confines itself to the winter and snow to the tops of the local mountains. The Diablo Range
lines the eastern border of the County and the Santa Cruz Mountains are to the west. Salt marshes and
wetlands lie in the northwestern part ofthe county, adjacent to the waters of San Francisco Bay.
Today, the County is a major employment center for the region, providing more than a quarter of all
jobs in the Bay Area. It has one of the highest median family incomes in the country, and a wide
diversity of cultures, backgrounds and talents. The County of Santa Clara continues to attract people
from all over the world.
The County’s population of nearly 1.7 million is one of the largest in the state, following Los Angeles,
San Diego, and Orange Counties, and the largest of the nine Bay Area counties. Its population
constitutes about one fourth of the Bay Area's total population. There are 15 jurisdictions
including Campbell, Cupertino, Gilroy, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Milpitas, Monte
Sereno, Morgan Hill, Mountain View, Palo Alto, San Jose, Santa Clara, Saratoga, and Sunnyvale
ranging from Palo Alto to the north, to Gilroy in the south. San Jose is the largest city in the County,
with a population of nearly 900,000, and is the administrative site of County Government. A
significant portion of the County’s land area is unincorporated ranch and farmland. Nearly 92% of the
population lives in cities.
The County of Santa Clara has a culture rich in its history, ethnic diversity (over 100 languages and
dialects are spoken), artistic endeavors, sports venues, and academic institutions.
In sports and recreation, San Jose is home to teams for professional soccer, minor league baseball, and
the San Jose Sharks, the only professional ice hockey team in Northern California. Other local sports
teams include the San Jose Earthquakes, the San Jose Sabercats, the San Jose CyberRays, and the San
Jose Giants. Numerous public and private golf courses are located throughout the County. In addition
to these recreational facilities, the County of Santa Clara operates 27 parks covering more than 50,000
acres including lakes, streams, and miles of hiking and biking trails.
The County is home to three major universities - Stanford University, Santa Clara University, and San
Jose State University - as well as excellent community colleges. Local museums and art galleries
include the Tech Museum of Innovation, the Kanter Museum, the Rosicrucian Museum, the Children's
Discovery Museum, the San Jose History Park, the San Jose Museum of Art, the Triton Museum and
many others. There are also abundant performing arts venues including opera, symphonies, musical
theatre, repertory theatre, concerts, and children’s musical theatre.
12
For more information on local entertainment at the Center for Performing Arts, Civic Auditorium, and
Montgomery Theater, visit the San Jose & Convention Visitors Bureau. For local concerts, please visit
the Compaq Center, Mountain Winery, and Villa Montalvo. Local theme parks and venues for
children and adults include Paramount’s Great America, Bonfante Gardens, Raging Waters, and
the Santa Clara County Fair.
There are five (5) Supervisorial Districts in the County of Santa Clara. The Supervisor for each district
is elected by voters that reside within the boundaries of that specific district. Each elective term of
service for County Supervisors is four years. The current Supervisors for each district are:
District 1 One: Donald F. Gage
District 2 Two: Blanca Alvarado
District 3 Three: Pete McFIugh
District 4 Four: James T. Beall, Jr.
District 5 Five: Liz Kniss
Map 1
County Supervisor Districts
13
General Description of the "Urban County
ft
Since 1975, the County of Santa Clara has qualified for funding from the United States Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) as an Entitlement Jurisdiction. A jurisdiction with a
population in excess of 50,000 persons can apply to HUD directly for funding as an Entitlement
Jurisdiction. The other Entitlement Jurisdictions in the County are the cities of Cupertino, Gilroy,
Milpitas, Palo Alto, Mountain View, San Jose, Santa Clara, and Sunnyvale. The County has entered
into Joint Powers Agreements with several local Non-Entitlement cites that are not allowed to
individually apply to HUD for funds to form the “Urban County.” As such, the Urban County has
developed a program of operation and implementation in seven of the fifteen cities in the County. The
jurisdictions that currently participate as the Urban County are the Non-Entitlement Jurisdietions of
Campbell, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, Saratoga and the
Unincorporated Area of the County.
The County of Santa Clara Office of Affordable Housing, through the Housing and Community
Development Program, administers the activities of the Urban County as the Grantee, including the
receipt of funds from HUD and the distribution ofthose funds to local housing projects and services.
Population of the Urban County
As described in Table A, the population of the Urban County is 270,954. In addition, there are
260,654 households in the Urban County.
Table A
Population of the Urban County
SANTA CLARA
COUNTY
Population
Households
CAMPBELL
38,179
37,889
LOS ALTOS
27,512
27,093
LOS ALTOS HILLS
8,355
8,290
LOS GATOS
28,750
28,048
MONTE SERENO
3,501
3,501
MORGAN HILL
35,489
34,976
SARATOGA
30,311
29,950
UNINCORP AREA
98,857
90,907
URBAN COUNTY
270,954
260,654
ENTITLEMENT JURS
1,460,468
1,441,177
COUNTY TOTAL
1,731,422
1,701,831
Source: 2000 Census
14
Map 2
Entitlement Cities and Urban County Area
Estimate of Anticipated Resources,2005-2010
The primary resources for addressing housing and community development needs ofthe Urban County
are the Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG)and Home Investment Partnerships
Act(HOME)Program. The current year(2004-2005) allocation for CDBG is $2,018,640 and the
HOME Program is allocated $870,408. In addition, the Urban County has been awarded funds for the
American Dream Down-Payment Initiative(ADDI)in the amount of $28,350, for an annual total of
$2,917,398. Projecting that amount over the next five years would bring the figure to $14,586,990.
However, due to the increase of incorporating areas in the County and budget cutbacks at the Federal
level, the Urban County has been steadily reduced in Federal awards for housing activities making it
difficult to project an accurate figure.
15
2. CONSULTATION PROCESS(91.100)
Development of the Consolidated Plan
The County of Santa Clara Office of Affordable Housing administers the Housing and Community
Development Program (HCD) which oversees the activities ofthe Urban County, including the receipt
of funds from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and
distribution of those funds to local housing projects and services. Every five years, the Urban County
is required to produce a consolidated plan outlining the housing and housing-related needs of the
population, and presenting strategies for meeting those needs.
Title I of the National Affordable Housing Act establishes the requirement for State and local
governments that apply for direct assistance under certain HUD programs to have a HUD-approved
Consolidated Plan. The Consolidated Plan is a comprehensive planning document that identifies a
jurisdiction's overall needs for affordable and supportive housing, and outlines a strategy to address
those needs. In this case, the jurisdiction is the Urban County.
The Consolidated Plan replaces the previously required Comprehensive Housing Affordability
Strategy (CHAS). The CHAS was a five-year housing plan that was updated annually by the
preparation of an Annual Plan and Annual Performance Report. Like the CHAS, the Consolidated
Plan is prepared for a five-year period and updated annually to reflect any changes in the needs or
strategies.
On December 31, 1991, HUD approved the Santa Clara County Urban County CHAS covering the
period from October 1, 1991 to September 30, 1996. The County of Santa Clara's 1995 Consolidated
Plan was primarily developed as an update and expansion of the approved CHAS. Data required in the
new Consolidated Plan that had not been required in the CHAS, such as the non-housing needs, were
collected and incorporated into the document.
On May 11, 1995, Santa Clara County submitted its Board-approved 1995 Consolidated Plan on HUD.
This document covered the period of 1995-2000, and much of the information in this plan was based
data from the 1990 Census since the 2000 Census was not available until 2003. On May 15, 2000,
Santa Clara County submitted its Board-approved 2000 Consolidated Plan to HUD. This document
covered the period of 2000-2005.
16
Office of Affordable Housing
Housing and Community Development
Consolidated Plan
Development Process
HUD
us Department of
Housing and Urban
Development
Santa Clara County
Board of Supervisors
General
>
Public
HCD Advisory
Committee
Fonnerly HCD Council
Committee and HCD Citizen's
Advisory Committee
Urban County
Staff
Private
1
Public and
Interested
Sector
Parties
Santa Clara County
Collaborative on
Affordable Housing
and Homeless Issues
Service
Non-Profits
Provider
Developers
Agencies
Entitlement and
Non-Entitlement
Cities
Con Plan Development Proc
3-05
17
Revised LCT
3. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION(PUBLIC PARTICIPATION)(91.105, and 91.200)
Public participation is an important element ofthe Consolidated Plan. The Urban County jurisdictions
want the public to be aware of the range of activities that are undertaken through the HCD program,
how those activities are selected for funding, and the amount of funding provided for each type of
project or service. The Urban County also wants to provide the public with an opportunity to articulate
any unmet needs within their jurisdiction, and to express their preferences about activities planned or
proposed to meet both the needs identified in this draft plan, as well as those which may be brought to
the attention of the Urban County through the public review process. (Note: The eomplete Public
Participation Plan can be found in Appendix B.)
The public review process included two public meetings held in the month of February specifically for
the purpose of informing the community about the Consolidated Plan Update for Federal Fiscal Years
2005-2010. Issues discussed included the needs, strategies, and priorities for the Urban County, and
how to make the best use of Community Development Block Grant(CDBG), and HOME funds.
The meeting dates and locations were as follows:
February 15, 2005
5:30 p.m.
Consolidated Plan Review
Morgan Hill Community and Cultural Center
1700 Monterey Road
Morgan Hill, CA 95037
February 17, 2005
5:30 p.m.
Consolidated Plan Review
County Government Center
Isaac Newton Senter Auditorium
70 W. Hedding Street
San Jose, CA 95110
In addition to the specific Consolidated Plan public review meetings, time was provided at meetings of
the Citizen’s Advisory Committee and the Council Committee for comment on the plan. The schedule
of those meetings was as follows:
January 20, 2005
5:30 p.m.
Joint HCD CAC/CC Meeting
County of Santa Clara
Conference and Training Room
1641 N. First Street
San Jose, CA 95112
February 24, 2005
6:30 p.m.
HCD Citizen’s Advisory Committee
County of Santa Clara
Conference and Training Room
1641 N. First Street
San Jose, CA 95112
April 7, 2005
4:30 p.m.
HCD Citizen’s Advisory Committee
County of Santa Clara
Conference and Training Room
1641 N. First Street
San Jose, CA 95112
18
April 7, 2005
5:00 p.m.
HCD Council Committee
County of Santa Clara
Conference and Training Room
1641 N. First Street
San Jose, CA 95112
The draft Consolidated Plan was made available for public review on April 1, 2005. It was available at
the County Office of Affordable Housing and libraries in the cities of Campbell, Los Gatos, Los Altos,
Morgan Hill, and Saratoga. In addition, a copy of the Board-approved document will be placed on the
Office of Affordable Housing website at www.oah.sccgov.org. The final day for written public
comment was May 1, 2005. A hearing to make final recommendations on the plan, prior to forwarding
the completed text to HUD, will be:
May 4, 2005
1:30 p.m.
Public Hearing
Board of Supervisors Chambers
70 West Hedding Street
San Jose, CA 95110
19
4. HOUSING AND HOMELESS NEEDS ASSESSMENT (91.205)
Summary
This section describes the Urban County in terms of population, income, and family size and outlines
the needs of the homeless and of special populations such as the physically or mentally impaired. Also
mentioned are racial or ethnic disproportionality, and lead-based paint hazards. Information on cost
burden, overcrowding, and substandard housing can be found in this section.
Estimates of Current Housing Needs
The Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) developed by the Census for HUD
provides detailed information on housing needs by income level for different types of households.
Detailed CHAS data based on the 2000 Census is displayed in Table B. Based on CHAS, housing
problems include: 1) units with physical defects (lacking complete kitchen or bathroom); 2)
overcrowded conditions (housing units with more than one person per room); 3) housing cost burden,
including utilities, exceeding 30 percent of gross income; or 4) severe housing cost burden, including
utilities, exceeding 50 percent of gross income. The types of problems vary according to household
income, type, and tenure. Some highlights include:
■
In general, renter households had a higher level of housing problems than owner households.
■
As expected, generally the lower the group income level, the higher the proportion of
households experiencing housing problems.
■
Large family renter households tended to have the highest level of housing problems of any
subgroup, regardless of income level.
■
Elderly renter households had the next highest level of housing problems. A significant
percentage of these households experienced housing problems in every jurisdiction in the
Urban County Area, except for Los Altos Hills and Monte Sereno. Cost burden tended to be a
major component ofthese housing problems.
20
Table B
Urban County Housing Needs Table
Housing Problems Output for All Households
URBAN COUNTY
Name of Jurisdiction:
Source of Data:
URBAN COUNTY
CHAS Data Book
Data Current as of:
2000
Owners
Renters
Elderly
1 &2
Small
Large
Related
Related
All
Total
Elderly
Small Related
Large Related
(2 to 4)
(5 or
more)
Other
Renters
1 &2
(2 to 4)
(5 or more)
Household by Type, Income, & Housing
Problem
Total
Other
Owners
Households
M.
Iti
households
households
M
Total
Households
member
Households
member
All
M.
M
lEi
M.
M.
Ill
URBAN COUNTY
1. Household Income <=50% MFI
2,043
2,880
1,264
2,910
9,097
2548
872
262
576
4,258
13,355
2. Household Income <=30% MFI
1,424
1,400
559
1,633
5,016
1923
922
249
485
3,579
8,595
65%
87%
84%
76%
77%
67%
74%
89%
82%
72%
75%
3. % with any housing problems
4. % Cost Burden >30%
5.% Cost Burden >50%
6. Household Income >30% to <=S0% MFI
7. % with any housing problems
619
1480
619
1,277
3,995
2344
1019
527
443
4,333
8,328
70%
78%
95%
74%
78%
35%
72%
85%
74%
54%
65%
8. % Cost Burden >30%
9.% Cost Burden >50%
10. Household Income >50 to <=80% MFI
11.% with any housing problems
249
1,384
601
1,282
3,516
1847
1,023
450
480
3,800
7,316
54%
57%
81%
63%
63%
24%
69%
84%
69%
49%
56%
12.% Cost Burden >30%
13.% Cost Burden >50%
14. Household Income >80% MFI
15. % with any housing problems
794
6,205
1,221
7,098
15,318
10,795
31,575
6,811
6,156
55,337
70,655
44%
21%
52%
16%
22%
14%
25%
39%
32%
25%
25%
3,086
10,469
3,000
11,290
34,539
8,037
7,564
67,049
94,894
43%
72%
37%
27,845
1
45%
16,909
59%
24%
29%
46%
40%
31%
35%
16.% Cost Burden >30%
17. % Cost Burden >50%
18. Total Households
19. % with any housing problems
20. % Cost Burden >30
21. % Cost Burden >50
(—)see Appendix Kfor detail perjurisdiction
21
Disproportionate Housing Need
Disproportionate need refers to any need that is more than 10 percentage points above the need
demonstrated for all households. For example, 87.8 percent of large renter families (a subset of renter
households) in the unincorporated area of Santa Clara County experienced housing problems,
compared to 49 percent of all renter households or 39 percent of all households. Thus, large families
in the unincorporated County that are renting have a disproportionate need for housing assistance. The
basis for determination of disproportionate housing need is the CHAS tables presented in Table B.
Extremely Low Income Households (0-30 Percent MFI)
The following jurisdictions had subgroups experiencing disproportionate housing needs in this income
group, based on the number of households within the jurisdiction:
Campbell - All household subgroups except for large related owner households.
Los Altos - All household subgroups except for large related renter households.
Los Altos Hills - All household subgroups except for elderly renter households.
Los Gatos- All household subgroups except for large related owner households.
Monte Sereno - Small related and large related owner households.
Morgan Hill - All household subgroups.
Saratoga - All household subgroups except for large related and other renter households.
Unincorporated Santa Clara County - All household subgroups.
Very Low Income Households(31-50 Percent MFI)
The following jurisdictions had subgroups experiencing disproportionate housing needs in this income
group, based on the number of households within the jurisdiction:
■ Campbell - All household subgroups except for elderly owner households.
■
Los Altos - All household subgroups except for large related renter and all other owner
households.
■
■
Los Altos Hills - Other renter households, all owner households except for large related.
Los Gatos- All household subgroups.
■
Monte Sereno - Small related owner households.
■
Morgan Hill - All household subgroups except for other renter households and elderly owner
households.
■
Saratoga - All household subgroups except for large related renter households and elderly
owner households.
■
Unincorporated Santa Clara County - All household subgroups except for elderly renter and
owner households.
Low Income Households(51-80 Percent MFI)
The following jurisdictions had subgroups experiencing disproportionate housing needs in this income
group, based on the number of households within the jurisdiction:
■ Campbell - All household subgroups except for elderly renter and owner households.
■ Los Altos - All household subgroups except for elderly renter and owner households.
■
Los Altos Hills - Other renter households.
■
■
■
Los Gatos - All household subgroups except for elderly and large related owner households.
Monte Sereno - All owner households except for small related households.
Morgan Hill - All household subgroups except for elderly renter and owner households.
■
Saratoga - Small related renter households, all owner households except for elderly
households.
■
Unincorporated Santa Clara County - Elderly and large related renter households, all owner
households except for elderly.
22
While the Santa Clara Urban County Area has a large number of lower and moderate income
households requiring housing assistance, it also has a limited inventory of affordable housing,
particularly in the rental housing market. Jurisdictions within the Urban County Area have expended
substantial resources to provide affordable housing opportunities for its lower and moderate-income
residents through a variety of rental assistance, home ownership assistance, and rehabilitation
programs.
Large Households
Large households, those with five or more persons, have special housing needs due to their income and
the lack of adequately sized, affordable housing. As a result, large households often live in
overcrowded conditions. Table C shows the proportion of large households within each jurisdiction of
the Urban County Area. The comparable figure for the County in 2000 was 15.5 percent. The special
census tabulations for HUD further indicate that among the large households in the Urban County
Area, approximately 64.2 percent experienced some form of housing problems, which include
overcrowding, cost burden, or substandard housing conditions. This illustrates that the Urban County
Area has a need for affordable housing units with three or more bedrooms.
Table C
Large Household Profile of Urban County Area
Large Household Profile of
Santa C ara Urban County Area
Percent of
1
Jurisdiction
Households
Campbell
Los Altos
Los Altos Hills
Lower
Housing
Income^
Problems^
28.8%
54.3%
7.7%
7.2%
26.5%
11.3%
7.2%
31.2%
6.8%
15.1%
43.6%
Monte Sereno
11.8%
8.5%
65.2%
Morgan Hill
Saratoga
16.8%
32.2%
50.5%
10.9%
8.0%
42.2%
Unincorporated
16.2%
22.1%
65.0%
County
Santa Clara County
15.5%
34.3%
65.6%
Los Gatos
6.3%
Sources: 1)2000 Census. 2)HUD CHAS,2003
To provide affordable home ownership opportunities for low-income large households, jurisdictions
have implemented various programs to assist in the construction of family housing and provide first
time homebuyer assistance to qualified families, including the Mortgage Credit Certificate (MCC)
program. Funding sources include CDBG and HOME funds, redevelopment ageney set-aside funds
and general funds, and first time homebuyer programs.
Current Estimates of Urban County Housing Populations and Conditions and Areas of Ethnic
and Low/Moderate Income Concentration
Racial/Ethnic Concentrations
Race and ethnicity have implications on housing need in that certain demographic and economic
variables correlate with race. For example, the average household size for Santa Clara County was
2.92 in 2000. However, the average household size for Hispanics was 4.20 and for Asians was 3.35,
while for non-Hispanic Whites it was 2.55.
23
Between 1990 and 2000, the Santa Clara Urban County Area became increasingly diverse in its race
and ethnic makeup. This trend follows County, state and national trends. In California, no one ethnic
group holds a majority. In the Urban County Area, however, the White population still constitutes
substantially more than half the City residents. As shown in Table D, the population in Santa Clara
Urban County area is comprised of 64 percent non-Hispanic White persons. The Hispanic population
is the second largest racial/ethnic group in the County (22.4 percent). Black, Asian, and other
racial/ethnic groups constituted only a small proportion ofthe population. Comparing the racial/ethnic
composition of the population with that of the householders Indicates that 72 percent of households in
Santa Clara Urban County area are headed by Whites and only 16 percent by Hispanics {Table E).
This reflects the typically larger household size for Hispanic households than for White households.
Table D
Race and Ethnicity by Persons
Persons
Urban
Los
Campbell
Los Altos
Altos
Los
Monte
Hills
Gatos
Sereno
Uninc.
Morgan
Hill
Saratoga
County
County
Area
25,257
21,536
5,633
23,639
2,899
20,720
19,436
54,770
173,890
4,883
949
245
1,552
178
9,237
852
29,238
47,134
821
80
41
101
19
421
153
1,760
3,396
Asian/PI
5,737
4,234
1,821
2,370
334
2,091
8,598
1 1,665
36,850
Other
1,489
786
260
1,021
129
1,166
816
3,542
9,209
38,187
27,585
8,000
3,559
33,635
29,855
100,975
270,479
White
Hispanic
Black
Total
28,683
Source: 2000 Census
Table E
Race and Ethnicity by Households
Households
Urban
Los
Campbell
White
Hispanic
Black
Asian/PI
Other
Total
1 1,726
Los Altos
8,651
Altos
Los
Monte
Morgan
Hills
Gatos
Sereno
Hill
2,145
10,409
1,033
7,693
Saratoga
Uninc.
County
County
Area
7,576
24,654
73,887
6,235
10,761
1,420
256
63
453
39
2,091
204
387
26
12
53
0
159
30
470
1,137
1,974
1,382
500
107
668
2,495
3,079
11,026
483
153
54
304
40
250
137
875
2,296
2,774
12,013
1,219
10,861
10,464
30,889
94,678
15,990
10,468
821
Source: 2000 Census
Areas with concentrated minority residents may have different needs. Concentration is defined as
block groups with above the County average of Hispanic populations (24.0 percent) or other minority
populations (31.9 percent). Map 3 shows the concentrations of minority populations in Santa Clara
County.
Concentrations of Low Income Population
Household income is an important consideration when evaluating housing and community
development needs, because low incomes typically constrain people's ability to procure adequate
housing or services. Table F shows the median incomes in the Santa Clara Urban County Area in
comparison to the County as a whole.
24
Table F
Median Household Income
Jurisdiction
Median Househoid income
Campbell
$67,214
$126,740
$173,570
$94,319
$154,268
$81,958
$139,895
$74,439
$105,500
Los Altos
Los Altos Hills
Los Gatos
Monte Sereno
Morgan Hill
Saratoga
Unincorporated County
Santa Clara County
Source: 2000 Census
Income Definitions
For purposes of housing and community development resouree programming, HUD has established
different income definitions based on the Median Family Income (MFI) for a given Metropolitan
Statistical Area(MSA). These ineome definitions are presented in Table G. They are the same as the
definitions used in the CHAS tables.
Table G
HUD Income Definitions
%of
Area MFI
Income Group
Extremely Low Income
0-30%
Very Low Income
31-50%
Low Income
51-80%
Middle
81-95%
Upper
Above 95%
Note;
Federal housing and community development resources are typically not
available for households with above 80% of the Area MFI. Therefore, differentiating
the Middle Income group from the Upper Income group under the federal definitions
is not critical.
25
Map 3
Concentrations of Minority Populations
Map 4
Hispanic Population Concentration
T7
\
Figute X
Aisnttd* CouriTV
SF
Hispanic Population
1,-^*
T'
✓
i-
Concentration
i
r»
Mllpito*
Pole Alto
Sc fitfl Cla
<
Mountain Vimv
r
/
Legend
L
Hi»panfc Population Concentration
N.-*...
Swnnyvaio
Lo» Aitoi Hills Los.AJtoi
'
C^rsus Btoct’Group* xrtihi
t
Hespaok pop‘>lafioo gr«or<»f iIkjo
c
Cooray
V
(24%.48%)
Hisponic Populotion
High Concontration
<
■ V«
Group* Vrfth Hlrponic
populotion greotiefjhars twico
County evi»roge(48% ond above)
1
Mat*o
ji[^|j3S<jnto CloTO County Boorviary
\
County
Juri»dictic»n<jl Boufvi'jriot
t'Toowayi
1
Stani*l»o* County
^ r
V
Morgan Hill
V
■V
r
i
Santa Crm County
s,.
I
\
,r‘
\
>
*N
X
)
Gilroy.|
•>C
M«rc»d
County
I,
\
I
\
•
V-l
\
\
SonBoftito
County
Sow* Cmr-JtXE
JS
1
10
eir.
Map 5
Black Population Concentration
i
Figyu X
AUmtid* County
sk
Black Population
..Z'
Concentration
Polo Alto
/
Mllptlas
‘
Sonl<3 Cioru ICuo.iy
<
%
.1
. f
\
3lack ®opu'alion Concontralion
’S
Swtnyvcile (wj
Los ^os Hills Los.Altos
tvgond
•\
Mo^toin View*
%
^13
\i “
|H Slack
Popu'alfon
H'gh Concontralion
b»<3ch
C<*r«tw» Bloch Ortyop^
•W
popukrtion go»a»*( thon tMc* iK®
y
I
Ssn
Matte
with
(jiock fiopvIrttKN'i ytTOienihq/i
County (iv»nag» (2.S'* -
(
^ 'C»fl»erHno'' '
s*
Consul Bloci-
/
Santa Clara
Cc^r*y ov#ro9® (5.0% ood obcw^i
1
Sorotoga irl,.
i
Coonty
Cloro County Brjur^dary
\
iT^j '■ JufkdictiorHjt Boundo
Fiiwrwayi
*1
\
Slanifisus County
,-v*
A
/\
•h.
\
Hill
*v
r
J
s
5an»a C.i
I
.r'
'W
\
Mtrctd
\ County
Gilroy
>
/
.-.i
V
s.
✓
X
I
r*:
•
San Btnilo
County
Sore* Cuoir.JCa)
.
10 Min
5
»
Map 6
Asian/Pacific Islander Population Concentration
T
Figuto X
Aiamaon C<
ny
Asian/Pacific
Islander Population
Concentration
Mil(>itos
Polo Alto
■f
Mountoln^lew,^
I
Surmyvoleliw
Los Alt<
\
Hills Los.Altos
VS'
&•
ata Clara
liatrti Cistt Cevtiy
Legend
G
A*lan/PI Populo*lon
Concof'lrollon
■ * pjpi kif,
Cereut Bloci' Oroups mAS
Sait Joeo K.^
AsicMv-W populotKart B'eo'ef tKon
CoynryovwTOij* [75.7% - 5i 4%j
.i'i
|H Asian/PI Popula
<
»
*" High Concontralion
9
Cerev* 8l<x:h Groups w»h AaioneW
■.m ahw
pC'pkjki*loci Qinal-jr *hon
San
Mates
County
N.
Counly overag® (51 *1% ond ol>w«}
Saratoga
v
\
r^cinto Ckirn Couniy &<r>wfKiorY
M.
f^^l'PJufssdtcffcna! B<au»KiafJ<i
Los Gales
froowrayt
Stsrtitisui County
Ssnia Cf
County
MsresQ
County
1—r
7S
27
f.
T
\
10
Mir.
Income Distribution
Based on the ineome definitions speeified above, almost 17.8 percent of all households in the Urban
County Area in 2000 were within Extremely Low Income and Very Low Income (50 percent MFI)
levels, and 7.7 percent were within the Low Ineome level {Table H). Throughout this document, the
term "lower ineome households" refers to those with up to 80 percent of the County MFI. In the Urban
County Area, households with lower incomes (up to 80 percent of the County MFI) comprised 74.6
percent of all households. The proportion of households with Low Income or less was higher among
Hispanic (61.7 percent) and Black (63.8 percent) households than for White (49 percent) and Asian
(22.5 percent) households {Table I). Between 1990 and 2000, all households for which data are
available experienced an increase in the proportion of lower income households.
Table H
Household Income by Race/Ethnicity
% Extremely Low
and
Very Low
Total
Households
White
Hispanic
Asian/Pacific Isl.
Black
All Households
Households
% of Total
Households
Incomes
% Low Income
(0-50% MFI)
(51-80% MFI)
% Moderate/
Upper Incomes
(>80% MFI)
51.0%
24,555
25.9%
27.0%
22.0%
5,411
5.7%
38.8%
22.9%
38.3%
10,814
11.4%
16.0%
6.5%
77.5%
1,596
1.6%
35.5%
28.3%
36.2%
94,678
100%
17.8%
7.7%
74.6%
Source: HUD CHAS Data Book, based on 2000 Census.
Table I
Lower Income Households by Race/Ethnicity
1990-2000
% of Lower
Household
% of Lower
Income
Income
Households
Households
2000
1990
White
26.9%
23.4%
Hispanic
50.6%
45.8%
36.3%
Black
38.5%
Asian/Pacific Islander
30.7%
N/A
Total Households
22.8%
29.1%
N/A - not available
Source; HUD CHAS Data, 1999 and 2003
Use of CDBG funds on public improvements can only occur in income-eligible areas. The CDBG
program defines income eligibility as any block group with 51 percent or more of the population
earning incomes less than 80 percent of the Area MFI. Map 7 shows the concentration of lowerincome households within Santa Clara County.
28
Map 7
Concentrations of Lower-Income Households
Figure X
Alamfida County
Low and Moderate
V,
'h
?
iWipifas
J-^Polo>AUo
\
Mountain View
/
Sunnyv^e^
/
Safilo Cltita CaoBty
<
^^ V
Legend
{jyfi ond Fvtoderoie
/
Los Altos Hills Los,Altos
\
s
Income Population
\
?>
'4>-.
Cloia Counly Ekxindory
Jurisdictional Boondarioj
,S •'
<
tz.
San
\
County
Freeways
>
5*^
Lr
Mat«o
income Sock Groups
L\.
^Com^beli
Saratoga
•\
\
,87
jf •"
Monto Sereno
Los Gatos
\
StarJsiaus County
•fT
»
Morgg^m
N.
CDBG low authorizes on excepSon for grontiset wifh no or very fe## areas in whkh
51 percent of the resder.** orelo-w ar*d rrioderciie irvrofrie to be obJe to undertake
oreo benefit activities. Many cities in the Coorwy ore exception grantees.
Santo Claro Urban County
Includes the Cities of Compijell, Los
Palo Alto
IcM/Mod - $hck Gfwps wrfh 27.4% or
rnc-fo Low/Mod income pc^/ofton
Aitos, Los Altos Hills, ios Gatos, MontSereno, Morgan Hill, Snroiogo and oft
Sorrto Claro
unincorporated oreos.
Lcw/Mod •=* Block Groups with 41.3% or
LM/fM - Bhck Graupi t/tih 42.9% or roort lxM/^bd lncom» poptihlion
\
'S
•»
Sunnyvale
iow/Mod ■» Blocif Groups with 37.4% or
(Low/Mcd = Slock Groups wrih 23.3% or more Law/Mod tncome p<opvlat
Son Jose and Gilroy
more low/Mod Inconw population
Milpitas
Son Jose and Gilro/ ais NCtT evcepHon
County
Ji| Qlln
J-
more tow/Mod /ncome pcpufcrfion
Cupertino
i.
t
d must Qdi>&'^ to Ih-T’ Irodnionol
Low/Mod ■« Block Groups with 33. }%(v
gron/eoj
more Low/Mod Income populofjon
chfSnition c/ Low//VGden3te income areas.-
Mountain View
Low/Mod “ Block Groups with 53% or
more Low/Mod Income popuf<^ton
Low/Mod * Block G'oups wTfh 332% or
more Lfjw/Mod Income populoffon
M9rc«d
>
•
'\ J
Ssn Benito
County
SMm «1103COO
A 0
\
T
2.S
T
5
T
ABAC Housing Needs
The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) has prepared a Regional Housing Needs
Determination (RHND) for its nine member counties and the cities within them. The RHND is based
upon estimated housing need for the period from January 1, 1999 to June 30, 2006'. For the ABAG
region, the estimated housing need for the 1999-2006 period is 230,743 units. Santa Clara County's
share of this regional housing need is 57,991 units, or approximately 25.1 percent of the total need.
The Santa Clara Urban County Area, including the unincorporated County, has been allocated 6,068
units. This figure is approximately 10.5 percent of the allocation for the County, and 2.6 percent of the
total regional need. Table J shows the breakout of the RHND for the Urban County Area. Based upon
the RHND, approximately 1,714 of the future required units in the Urban County Area should be for
lower income households.
1
Subsequent to the adoption of the ABAG plan, the California Legislature extended by one year the time period
covered by that plan. For the purpose of the Consolidated Plan analysis, the original timeframe of 1999 - 2006 is
used.
29
1
)0 Mil«
Table J
Regional Housing Needs Determination,
Santa Clara Urban County Area
RHND
Jurisdiction
Units for Lower
Adjusted
Income Households
Allocation'
Allocation
Campbell
777
565
242
Los Altos
261
261
58
83
83
15
402
135
107
76
76
15
2,484
2,484
683
539
539
1 ,446
685
483
6,068
4,828
1,714
Los Altos Hills
Los Gatos
Monte Sereno
Morgan Hill
Saratoga
Unincorporated County
Total
'Allocation adjusted for housing units either constructed or approved for construction 1999-2001, where information is
available.
Sources: ABAC, 2001; local jurisdiction housing elements.
Homeownership Needs
Santa Clara County wishes to pursue increased affordable homeownership opportunities for first-time
homebuyers in Santa Clara County. The median household income of $105,500 is only enough to purchase
a home costing just over $400,000 and the Median Price of a Home in Santa Clara County hovers around
$600,000, a difference of $200,000. This means that the average household of four can only purchase
66.7% of a median priced home. The County wishes to bridge this affordability gap by encouraging the
development of affordable homeownership units and by leveraging County funds with other state and local
funds to make homeownership more affordable to County citizens.
EXAMPLE:
Purchase Price
Down payment(10%)
Amount Financed
Monthly Principal and Interest(7.0%)
Monthly Taxes and Insurance (1.2%)
Total Housing Payment
Income Needed to be Affordable at 30% GMI
Income Needed to be Affordable at 33% GMI
$600,000
$60,000
$540,000
$3,592
$600
$4,192
$167,680
$152,436
Note: GMI means Gross Monthly Income
The County Median Income is $105,500 for a household of four. A household would have to earn another
$62,180 annually (or 159% ofthe current household income) in order to be able to purchase a median priced
home in the County. Clearly, wages are not keeping pace with the dramatic rises in the cost of housing and
this affordability gap constitutes a housing crisis in Santa Clara County.
By increasing opportunities for people to be able to live where they work, the County can help attract and
30
maintain a highly skilled, educated and talented workforce and help curb the flow of lower income
households to lower-cost areas in the state. Affordable ownership housing allows the local workforce to be
able to live in the communities they serve and brings pride and economic stability to the entire region.
According to the California Association of Realtors, only 22% of households in Santa Clara County can
afford to purchase a median priced home compared to 55% nationwide. (Source, CAR, January 2005)
HOMELESSNESS
Homelessness
All the entitlement jurisdictions in Santa Clara County have long recognized that homelessness is a
regional issue. The best available data on the homeless is only available for the entire County. Data
presented in this section is thus based on statistics for the entire County, as presented in the County's
2004 Continuum of Care (CoC) application to HUD. HUD requires that each entitlement jurisdiction
identify needs and gaps in services within its boundaries. To meet those HUD requirements, the
countywide characteristics and demographics of the homeless, and the needs and gaps in facilities and
services identified in that application were allocated to each entitlement jurisdiction based on the
“2004 Santa Clara County Homeless Census and Survey”. Additional information was provided by the
Homeless Management Information—Santa Clara (HMIS)as of November 30, 2004. At that time, the
HMIS did not include client data from all agencies serving the County's homeless. The entitlement
jurisdictions in the County have determined that HMIS provided data as to where persons last resided
before becoming homeless. For that reason, that HMIS data was used as the basis for allocating the
countywide data from the CoC to each entitlement jurisdiction.
The following section summarizes the housing and supportive service needs of the homeless in the
Santa Clara Urban County Area, as well as persons and families at risk of becoming homeless. This
section also includes an inventory of services and facilities available to serve the Urban County Area's
homeless population and those who are at risk of becoming homeless. Service and facility gaps in the
Continuum of Care are also identified.
Current Estimates of Homelessness:
Homeless Population
Since homelessness is a regional issue, data presented in this section is based on statistics for the entire
County. Characterization by jurisdiction of the homeless population, the availability of facilities and
services, and gaps in service are based on the countywide data and data generated from the “2004
Santa Clara County Homeless Census and Survey” along with information derived from the County's
Homeless Management Information System (HMIS), a federally-required collaborative database that
tracks homeless clients by last reported permanent place of residence.
Tables K and L are the most recent detailed estimates of the homeless population in the Santa Clara
Urban County Area and Santa Clara County (based on the County's 2004 Continuum of Care
application to HUD). It is estimated that there are 7,646 persons who are homeless according to the
“2004 Santa Clara County Homeless Census and Survey,” of which 37.7 percent have shelter. In
the Urban County Area, 157 homeless persons (38.9 percent) have shelter.
In December of 2004, the cities of Santa Clara County and the County jointly sponsored a two-day
homeless count (conducted by a consultant who specializes in these counts) to assess the homeless
population in the County's 351 census tracts. Based on the preliminary results. Based on the results,
there were 7,646 unduplicated cases of homelessness, of which 6,432 were individual cases and 1,214
were persons in family groups.
31
Table K (HUD Table lA)
Homeless and Special Needs Populations (Urban County only)
Continuum of Care: Housing Gap Analysis Chart
Current
Inventory
Under
Unmet
Development
Need/
Gap
Individuals
Beds
Emergency Shelter
Transitional Housing
Permanent Supportive Housing
52
0
96
31
0
134
15
3
82
Total
98
3
312
Persons in Families with Children
24
0
6
64
0
14
26
0
20
114
0
40
Emergency Shelter
Transitional Housing
Permanent Supportive Housing
Beds
Total
Source: Santa Clara County 2004 Continuum of Care application to HUD.
Note: Local share of homeless is based on countywide homeless estimate from Santa Clara County's 2004
Continuum of Care application to HUD.
Continuum of Care: Homeless Population and Subpopulations Chart
Sheltered
Part 1: Homeless Population
1. Homeless Individuals
2. Homeless Families with Children
2a. Persons in Homeless Families
with Children
Unsheltered
Total
Emergency
Transitional
51
30
209
290
6
15
10
31
22
54
26
102
73
84
235
392
Sheltered
Unsheltered
Total
10
43
53
TotalJlinesJ r 2a]^
Part 2: Homeless Subpopulations
1 . Chronically Homeless
2. Seriously Mentally III
55
3. Chronic Substance Abuse
47
4. Veterans
16
5. Persons with HIV/AIDS
27
6. Victims of Domestic Violence
26
7. Youth
8
Source: Santa Clara County 2004 Continuum of Care application to HUD.
Note: Local share of homeless is based on countywide homeless estimate from Santa Clara County's 2004
Continuum of Care application to HUD.
32
Table L Homeless and Special Needs Populations (Santa Clara County)
Continuum of Care: Housing Gap Analysis Chart
Current
Under
Unmet
Inventory
Development
Need/
Gap
Individuals
Emergency Shelter
Transitional Housing
Beds
Permanent Supportive Housing
Total
906
0
1,653
576
0
2,319
260
50
1,416
1,742
50
5,388
Persons in Families with Children
Emergency Shelter
Transitional Housing
Permanent Supportive Housing
Beds
415
0
99
1,097
0
240
448
0
345
1,899
Source; Santa Clara County 2004 Continuum of Care application to HUD.
0
684
Total
Continuum of Care: Homeless Population and Subpopulations Chart
Unsheltered
Total
518
3,605
5,010
106
258
179
543
383
932
448
1,763
1,270
1,450
4,053
6,773
Sheltered
Unsheltered
Total
186
745
931
Sheltered
Part 1: Homeless Population
1. Homeless Individuals
2. Homeless Families with Children
2a. Persons in Homeless Families
with Children
Emergency
Transitional
887
TotalJlinesJ|2a|^^
Part 2: Homeless Subpopulatlons
1. Chronically Homeless
2. Seriously Mentally III
952
3. Chronic Substance Abuse
816
4. Veterans
285
5. Persons with HIV/AIDS
136
6. Victims of Domestic Violence
462
7. Youth
136
Source: Santa Clara County 2004 Continuum of Care application to HUD.
Homeless Individuals
33
As indicated in Table K, homeless individuals eomprise approximately 74 percent of the homeless
population in the Urban County Area, compared with 69.4 pereent of the homeless population in the
County. Unsheltered homeless individuals account for 53.3 percent of the total homeless population in
the Urban County Area. According to information in the Santa Clara Countywide Five-Year
Continuum of Care Plan (Countywide Five-Year Plan), approximately 74 percent of the urban
homeless are single-adults. The overwhelming majority of single homeless adults are male (about 75
percent).
Homeless Families
Members of homeless families make up slightly over one-quarter of the homeless population in the
Urban County Area. By eomparison, almost one-quarter of the urban homeless population in the
County are members of homeless families. Single mothers head the majority of homeless families -
66 percent according to the Countywide Five-Year Plan. The Countywide Five-Year Plan also stated
that 227 dependent children accompanied 284 homeless people surveyed, or approximately 44.4
pereent of the total sample. This was an increase from a 1995 study of the homeless in the County,
which indicated that children in homeless families eomprised 23 percent of the total sample.
Homeless Subpopulations
Table K also provides a breakdown of the homeless population by subpopulations. A description of
each subpopulation and their estimated number in the Santa Clara Urban County Area follows. As
with the homeless population in general, eharacterization of the homeless subpopulations are based on
the County's HMIS data, the allocation of which have been assigned according to the proportion of
clients in the HMIS database that reported any jurisdiction in the Urban County Area as his or her last
place of permanent residence. It should be noted that figures from HMIS are an undercount based on
the fact that not all agencies have fully implemented the system.
Chronically Homeless
The Interagency Council on Homelessness has defined someone who is "ehronically homeless" as
"being disabled and either being continuously homeless for a year or more or having had at least four
homeless episodes during the last three years.
There are an estimated total of 10 chronically
homeless persons in the Urban County Area. Countywide, there were 931 chronically homeless
persons, of who only one-fifth were in shelters.
Special Needs Persons with Severe Mental Illness
Severe mental illness ineludes the diagnoses of psychoses (e.g. schizophrenia) and the major affective
disorders (e.g. bipolar, major depression). To qualify as chronic, the illness must have existed for at
least one year. Aeeording to national estimates, approximately one percent of the adult population
meets a definition of severe mental illness based on diagnosis, duration, and disability.
In the Urban County Area, there are an estimated 55 homeless persons who are seriously mentally ill.
In the County, there are 952 such homeless persons. According to the Countywide Five-Year Plan, 90
pereent of the homeless identified as mentally ill were single. The major barrier to stable, decent
housing for the seriously mentally ill is the availability of affordable housing. A substantial majority
of persons in this population depend solely on Social Security Insurance (SSI) payments. These
payments, whieh averaged $550^ in 2004, permit very few persons in this population to afford rental
2 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Strategies for Reducing Chronic Street Homeiessness,
January 2004.
3 U.S. Social Security Administration at www.socialsecuritv.aov/Dolicv/docs/auickfacts/state stats/ca.html.
Average SSi payment for all of California, including federal SSI payment and state supplement.
34
housing on the open market.
Persons with Substance Abuse Problems
An estimated 47 homeless persons in the Urban County Area had chronic substance abuse problems,
either with alcohol or with other drugs, or sometimes with a combination of substances. Santa Clara
County had 816 homeless persons with substance abuse problems. In past surveys, substance abuse
appeared to be a major factor in the cause of homelessness. A substantial number of homeless
surveyed in 1997 (25.9 percent) stated that substance abuse had precipitated continual job loss and a
subsequent inability to pay rent, resulting in eviction from their homes.
Records have also been kept for homeless persons categorized as "dually diagnosed." This refers to
persons diagnosed with both a mental illness and a substance abuse problem. In Santa Clara County,
there are 476 homeless persons that are dually diagnosed. In the Urban County Area, the estimated
number of such homeless persons is 28.
Veterans
There are an estimated 16 homeless persons in the Urban County Area who are veterans. In the
County, there were 345 homeless veterans. According to the “2004 Santa Clara County Homeless
Census and Survey” 19.3% reported as homeless veterans of those surveyed. This was a slight
decrease from 20% found in 1999.
Persons Infected with HIV/AIDS
The National Commission on AIDS states that up to half of all Americans with AIDS are either
homeless or in imminent danger of becoming homeless due to their illness, lack of income or other
resources, and weak support networks. The Commission further estimates that 15 percent of all
homeless people are infeeted with HIV. Within Santa Clara County, 136 homeless persons reported
having HIV/AIDS, which is less than two percent of the total homeless population. In the Urban
County Area, it is estimated there are 27 homeless persons with HIV/AIDS.
In 2000, the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors provided funding to the Billy DeFrank Lesbian
and Gay Community Center to complete a social services and health services needs assessment, which
included a survey of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people. Of those surveyed, 12 percent
lived in non-permanent or unstable housing. Two percent reported living on the streets.
Persons Suffering Domestic Violence
Many single women and women with children become homeless as the result of domestic violence.
According to a study by the U.S. Conference of Mayors, 34 percent of the cities surveyed identified
domestic violence as a primary cause of homelessness. Nationally, approximately half of all women
and children experiencing homelessness are fleeing domestic violence."^ Homeless women often
require additional counseling to work through psychological impairment from physical abuse to
transition into the mainstream.
In Santa Clara County, there were 462 homeless persons who were victims of domestic violence, or
approximately 6.4 percent of the total homeless population. The estimated number of such persons in
the Urban County Area is 26. According to the Countywide Five-Year Plan, female respondents to a
survey identified fleeing from domestic violence as one of the three primary reasons for their
homelessness.
Youth
^ National Coalition for the Homeless, NCH Fact Sheet #1: Why Are People Homeless? September 2002.
35
The Countywide Five-Year Plan states that the fastest growing segment of the homeless population is
children. Approximately 25 percent of newly homeless persons in the County were children under 18.
Of the estimated homeless population in the Urban County Area, eight were youth. In the County,
there were 136 homeless youth who were not part of a homeless family. These homeless youth are
difficult to track because of their highly transient nature, their distrust of adults, and their distrust of
services, usually born out of fear of being incarcerated or institutionalized.
Needs of Persons Threatened with Homelessness
The "at-risk" population is comprised of lower income families and individuals who, upon
experiencing a major life crisis that creates severe financial distress Qob loss, medical emergency,
etc.), might lose their housing and end up becoming homeless. Extremely low income households
(those earning 30 percent or less of median family income) are considered to be at greatest risk of
becoming homeless. The overwhelming majority of these families typically experience a housing cost
burden, paying more than 30 percent of their incomes for housing. In more severe cases, such families
pay more than 50 percent of their incomes for housing.
The at-risk population also includes individuals who are in imminent danger of residing in shelters or
living on the streets. This is primarily due to the lack of access to permanent housing and the absence
of an adequate support network, such as immediate family members or relatives in whose homes they
could temporarily reside. These individuals, especially those being released from penal, mental or
substance abuse facilities, require social services that help them make the transition back into society
and remain off the streets. Based on the criteria discussed above and available data, there are probably
between 20,000 and 30,000 Santa Clara County households who are at risk of becoming homeless.^
Using the share of homeless as determined by the County's HMIS, it is estimated that there are 1,160 to
1,740 at-risk households in the Urban County Area.
Keeping people from becoming homeless requires emergency funds to pay for housing, food, deep
rental subsidies, and medical care. Homeless prevention also requires adequate planning for medical
discharges, eviction prevention and relocation assistance, and coordination with code enforcement
officials to minimize displacement of lower income households. Access and contact points for those
who become homeless include the Shelter Bed Hotline, on-line and telephone intake and referral
services, an Emergency Assistance Network (EAN) agency. Legal Services, the San Jose and County
Homeless Coordinators, and any number of homeless service and mainstream human services
agencies. These agencies will assess the needs of the homeless individual or household, and find
appropriate assistance whenever possible.
Inventory of Facilities and Services for the Homeless and Persons Threatened with Homelessness
Santa Clara County and its incorporated cities provide a variety of programs to assist homeless persons
and persons and families threatened with homelessness. Many of these programs target specific
groups, such as the mentally ill and persons with HIV/AIDS. Some of the programs operate on a
countywide basis, while others are limited to a specific geographical area.
As previously stated in this section, homelessness is a regional issue, and is not restricted to a specific
jurisdiction. Homeless individuals and families are found throughout Santa Clara County, In
acknowledgement of this, and in order to more efficiently deliver services to the homeless, the County
has been working with local jurisdictions and various homeless service and housing providers to
develop an extensive countywide Continuum of Care. For this reason, a description of homeless
facilities and services available in Santa Clara County is provided below. While not all these facilities
and services are available to City residents, some are available to homeless City residents at large.
^As an exannple of the potential homeless risk among extremely low income households, HUD reported that, in 2000, nearly
36,000 such households paid more than 50 percent of their incomes for housing expenses.
36
while others are available to specific subpopulations such as domestic violence victims.
This section presents the homeless facilities and services available in Santa Clara County under three
broad categories: 1) Housing Information and Assistance Programs, 2) Outreach Programs, and 3)
Supportive Services. Within each category are subcategories describing facilities and services that are
similar in character. In the interest of providing a thorough and comprehensive description of
homeless facilities and services, some of these programs may be described in several subcategories.
Information for County homeless facilities and services came from the County's 2004 Continuum of
Care application to HUD. The complete inventory of Facilities and Services for the Homeless and
Persons Threatened with Homelessness can be found as Appendix F.
Continuum of Care System
As indicated above, the County has an extensive array of services that assist persons and families that
are homeless or are threatened with homelessness. The following three tables list all programs in the
Continuum of Care, along with the clientele served by the programs and the number of people served
or the bed capacity. Table X lists the emergency shelters in the County. Table Y shows the County's
transitional housing facilities, and Table Zsho'xs the permanent supportive housing facilities.
Continuum of Care Gap
Although the County and its incorporated cities provide a variety of programs to serve the homeless, it
is known that not all eligible individuals and families are being served. One reason is that the
programs in the Continuum of Care have inadequate capacity to serve all their potential clients.
Table K provides an estimate of the gap between the capacity of the Urban County Area's Continuum
of Care system and the actual demand for services. As indicated by the table, there are an estimated
312 homeless individuals and 40 persons in homeless families with children in the Urban County Area
whose needs are currently not being met by the programs in the Continuum of Care. The comparable
figures for Santa Clara County are 5,388 homeless individuals and 684 persons in homeless families.
Detailed gap analysis by type of facility is not yet available. It should be noted that, due to the
methodology used in preparing the gap analysis, which is a requirement of HUD,the estimated unmet
needs of homeless individuals and families may not match the unsheltered homeless figures in Table
K.
Ten Year Plan to End Chronic Homelessness
In October 2004, the Board of Supervisors established a Homeless Task Force to create a plan to end
chronic homelessness in the County of Santa Clara. On May 3, 2005 the Task Force presented its plan
“Keys to Housing: A 10-Year Plan to End Chronic Homelessness in Santa Clara County” to the
Board of Supervisors. The Board unanimously accepted the Plan and directed the Task Force to return
on a quarterly basis with a report concerning the progress of implementation of the Plan. Key to the
Plan is a commitment to use the Housing First model as a way to quickly re-house homeless people in
permanent, supportive housing.(See Appendix J for entire Plan.)
37
HUD 2005 Income Limits
Table M
FY 2005 HUD PROGRAM INCOME LIMITS
Santa Clara County Jurisdictions
Effective Date: 01/28/04 Median Family Income: $105,500
1 PERSON HOUSEHOLD
30% OF MEDIAN
$22,300
VERY LOW INCOME
37,150
LOW INCOME
59,400
2 PERSON HOUSEHOLD
30% OF MEDIAN
$25,450
VERY LOW INCOME
42,450
LOW INCOME
67,900
3 PERSON HOUSEHOLD
30% OF MEDIAN
$28,650
VERY LOW INCOME
47,750
LOW INCOME
76,400
4 PERSON HOUSEHOLD
30% OF MEDIAN
VERY LOW INCOME
LOW INCOME
$31,850
53,050
84,900
5 PERSON HOUSEHOLD
30% OF MEDIAN
$34,400
VERY LOW INCOME
57,300
LOW INCOME
91,650
6 PERSON HOUSEHOLD
30% OF MEDIAN
$36,900
VERY LOW INCOME
61,550
LOW INCOME
98,450
7 PERSON HOUSEHOLD
30% OF MEDIAN
$39,450
VERY LOW INCOME
65,800
LOW INCOME
105,250
8 PERSON HOUSEHOLD
30% OF MEDIAN
$42,000
VERY LOW INCOME
70,050
LOW INCOME
112,050
38
Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction
Lead poisoning is the number one environmental hazard to children in America today. Approximately
434,000 children across the U.S. aged one to five years have lead blood levels greater than the Center
for Disease Control (CDC) recommendations. Lead poisoning causes IQ reductions, reading and
learning disabilities, decreased attention span and hyperactivity and aggressive behavior. Several
factors contribute to higher incidences of lead poisoning:
Children under two are especially vulnerable
Low Income children are at eight times higher risk for lead poisoning than wealthy children
Black children have five times higher risk than White children
Hispanic children are twice as likely as White children to have lead poisoning
Children in older housing are at higher risk
Up to 50 percent of children in distressed neighborhoods have some level of lead poisoning
Lead-based paint(LBP)is a major source of lead poisoning. Starting in 1978, the use of all lead-based
paint on residential property was prohibited. National studies estimated that 75 percent of all
residential structures built prior to 1978 contain LBP and that older structures have the highest
percentage of LBP. The age of the housing stock is the key variable for estimating the number of
housing units with lead-based paint. In assessing the potential LBP hazard of these older structures,
several factors must be considered. First, not all units with lead-based paint have lead-based paint
hazards. Only testing for lead in dust, soil, deteriorated paint, chewable paint surfaces, friction paint
surfaces, or impact paint surfaces provides information about hazards. Properties more at risk than
others include:
■
■
Deteriorated units, particularly those with leaky roofs and plumbing
Rehabilitated units where there was not a thorough cleanup with high-phosphate wash after the
improvements were completed
CHAS data provide the number of housing units constructed before 1970 that were occupied by lower
income households. This data can be used to approximate the extent of LBP hazards among lower
income households. While information on units constructed before 1978 is not available from CHAS,
estimates based on the pre-1970 stock provide a conservative estimate ofthe extent of LBP hazards. It
is estimated that 7,119 units in the Urban County Area occupied by lower income households (0-80
percent MFI) may contain LBP {Table N).
There have been three main thrusts to Santa Clara County's response to LBP issues. First is the
ongoing screening and treatment of children who may have been exposed to lead in their environment.
Second, the County and local jurisdictions are testing for the presence of LBP through their
rehabilitation programs, and requiring abatement as necessary. Third, the County initiated a classaction lawsuit against eight paint manufacturers and a trade group for selling LBP that they knew was
hazardous to children. The suit sought to force the paint manufacturers to pay for the removal of LBP
from buildings where it is identified, to pay for the treatment of children identified with lead poisoning,
and to fund Countywide educational programs regarding the risks associated with LBP. However, in
2003, the lawsuit was dismissed in Santa Clara County Superior Court.
40
Table N
Number of Housing Units with Lead-Based Paint
Occnpied by Lower Income Households
No. of Units Built Before 1970
Occupied by Lower Income
Estimated No. of Units with LBP and
Households
Occupied by Lower Income Households
Extremely
Very
Low
Low
(0-30%
Jurisdiction
MFI)^
Low
(31-50% (51-80%
MFI)
MFI)
1
Extremely
Low
Very Low
Low (030% MFI) (0-50% MFI) (51-80% MFI)
Campbell
194
835
1,465
146
626
1,099
Los Altos
58
175
30
44
131
23
Los Altos Hills
25
20
20
19
15
15
Los Gatos
155
278
807
116
209
605
0
0
4
0
0
3
Morgan Hill
129
258
254
97
194
191
Saratoga
138
132
65
104
99
49
Unincorporated
County
950
1,433
2,061
713
1,075
1,546
1,649
3,131
4,706
1,239
2,349
3,531
Monte Sereno
Total
I
75 percent of lower income households, based upon national studies.
^Owner-occupied units for extremely low income group not available. Figure includes only rental units.
Source: HUD CHAS Data, 2003.
41
5. HOUSING MARKET ANALYSIS (91.210)
Summary
This section of the Consolidated Plan discusses the general characteristics of the Urban County,
including housing supply and housing trends. Also described are public and assisted housing, special
needs housing, and barriers to affordable housing.
General Characteristics
General Market Conditions
The Urban County communities in Santa Clara County are diverse, ranging from affluent, established
communities consisting of primarily single family detached dwellings to traditional suburban bedroom
communities with a mix of single family housing and multi-family rentals, to relatively "new" suburbs
rapidly emerging from historically rural settings. Although there is a great deal of diversity among and
within the Urban County communities, many of the prevailing market conditions and housing trends
are common to all ofthem, and to the County as a whole.
Santa Clara County has been experiencing rapid employment and population growth over more than
four decades. As the population has grown, housing demand and the price of housing have Increased
accordingly. The sustained high demand in the county for a well educated, well paid labor force,
combined with an inadequate level of housing produetion, have escalated area housing prices to the
highest in the nation.
Housing Market Conditions
General
This section addresses characteristics of the housing supply in the Santa Clara Urban County Area,
including type, age, condition, costs, and availability. The implications of these housing characteristics
with respect to housing programs are also examined.
Housing Growth
The 2000 Census reported 97,340 housing units in the Santa Clara Urban County Area, representing an
increase of 2.2 percent since 1990 {Table O). This level of growth was significantly less than that
experienced by Santa Clara County as a whole. This is explained by the decrease in housing units in
the unincorporated County, primarily as a result of annexations into incorporated communities. The
change in the number of housing units varied considerably by jurisdiction within the Urban County
Area, from a decrease of 12.3 percent in the unincorporated County to an increase of 42.1 percent in
the City of Morgan Hill. Based on ABAC estimates, the Santa Clara Urban County Area is projected
to experience a 5.9-percent increase in housing units between 2000 and 2010. This level of increase is
less than the growth in housing units estimated for the County.
42
Table O
Housing Growth
Number of Homes
Jurisdiction
Percent Change
1990
2000
2004
2010
1990-2000
2000-2010
Campbell
15,359
Los Altos
10,168
2,573
1 1,596
1,121
7,819
10,022
16,348
10,730
2,835
12,404
1,237
11,1 10
10,667
32,099
97,340
16,444
10,748
3,016
12,544
1,254
11,839
10,871
31,932
98,648
16,470
10,640
2,860
12,470
1,330
13,160
10,960
35,170
103,060
6.4%
5.5%
0.2%
7.0%
10.3%
42.1%
6.4%
-12.3%
2.2%
0.7%
-0.8%
579,329
600,707
629,360
13.0%
8.6%
Los Altos Hills
Los Gatos
Monte Sereno
Morgan Hill
Saratoga
Unincorporated County
Total Urban County
Santo Clara County
36,593
95,251
540,240
0.9%
0.5%
7.5%
1 8.5%
2.7%
9.6%
5.9%
Sources: 1990 and 2000 Census, 2004 California Dept, of Finance E-5a Report, ABAC projections 2003
Housing Type
Single-family homes are the predominant housing type in the Santa Clara Urban County area.
According to California Department of Finance estimates, single-family housing accounted for 78.7
percent of the housing stock in the Urban County Area {Table P). Multiple-family housing
represented 19.2 percent of the housing stock. The Urban County Area includes smaller cities that
tend to have lower density residential neighborhoods, hillsides and other environmental constraints,
and other factors that limit the amount of land available and suitable for multiple-family housing.
Table P
Housing Type
Housing Type
Total
Households
Jurisdiction
Single
Family
Multiple
Mobile
Family
home
Campbell
16,444
8,990
7,197
257
Los Altos
10,748
9,548
1,184
16
2,984
26
6
3,489
123
Los Altos Hills
3,016
Los Gatos
12,544
8,932
1,254
1 ,163
Morgan Hill
11,839
9,030
Saratoga
Unincorporated County
10,871
10,200
664
7
31,932
26,826
4,423
683
98,648
77,673
18,971
2,004
600,707
384,187
196,876
19,644
Monte Sereno
Total
Santa Clara County
91
1 ,897
0
912
Source: 2004 California Dept, of Finance E-5a Report
Housing Tenure and Vacancy Tenure
The tenure of a community's housing stock (owner versus renter) influences several aspects ofthe local
housing market. Tenure preferences are primarily related to household income, composition, and age
of the householder. The stability of single-family residential neighborhoods is influenced by tenure,
with ownership housing evidencing a much lower turnover rate than rental housing. Housing
overpayment (cost burden), while faced by many households regardless of tenure, is more prevalent
among renters, because renters tend to have significantly lower incomes than homeowners in relation
to their housing costs.
43
Table Q shows the breakdown by tenure of each community in the Santa Clara Urban County Area. In
general, the Urban County Area has owner-occupied households, reflecting the predominance of
single-family housing. The exception is Campbell, where slightly over half of the housing units are
renter-occupied. This is partially explained by the relatively greater availability of multiple-family
units in Campbell - 43.7 percent of the housing units in Campbell were multiple-family.
Table Q
Housing Tenure
2000
Owner %
Renter %
%Vacant
48.2%
51.8%
2.24%
Los Altos
85.6%
14.4%
2.47%
Los Altos Hills
93.9%
6.1%
2.65%
Los Gatos
65.3%
34.7%
3.05%
Monte Sereno
94.2%
5.8%
2.07%
Morgan Hill
72.5%
27.5%
2.21%
Saratoga
90.0%
10.0%
1.87%
Jurisdiction
Campbell
Unincorporated County
69.0%
31.0%
3.96%
Santa Clara County
59.8%
40.2%
2.31%
Sources: 2000 Census; 2004 California Dept, of Finance E-5a Report
Vacancy
The availability of housing to those looking for a home primarily depends on the number of
unoccupied units for sale or rent at any one time. The percentage of such homes is the effective
vacancy rate. The effective vacancy rate varies from month to month and typically follows economic
trends. In general, a vacancy of at least five percent assures that consumers have adequate choices
when looking for housing. At that rate, vacant units are available to facilitate mobility and property
owners should be able to increase rents moderately without placing undue burden on tenants. When
vacancy rates drop below five percent, the increased demand and reduced supply allow rental rates and
housing prices to rise disproportionately to household income.
Vacancy rates in the Santa Clara Urban County Area are similar to vacancy rates throughout the
County. That is, they are in the approximate range of 2-3 percent. This is indicative of a tight market,
particularly for rental units. In part, this is due to the relative lack of multiple-family units in the
Urban County Area. As suggested previously, another explanation is the competition between
potential renters for available rental units. Although vacancy rates are less than ideal for adequate
consumer choice, they are higher than at the height of the economic boom in Santa Clara County in the
late 1990s.
Housing Costs and Affordability
Ownership Housing Cost
According to the California Association of Realtors, the median price for a home in Santa Clara
County rose 14.6 percent between 2003 and 2004 {Table R). The median home price increased from
$479,000 in 2003 to $549,000 in 2004. Among the cities in the Santa Clara Urban County Area,
median housing prices vary from $550,000 in Campbell to $1,264,250 in Los Altos. The increase in
median price also varied, from 5.6 percent in Campbell to 26 percent in Los Gatos. Overall, median
housing prices in the Urban County Area are greater than those in the County in general.
44
Every year, the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) tracks the ability of households to
afford a home in almost 2000 metropolitan areas across the country. NAHB develops an Housing
Opportunity Index (HOI) for a given area that is defined as the share of homes sold in that area that
would have been affordable to a family earning the median income. The San Jose metropolitan area
was among the least affordable areas in the nation. In 2002, only 20.1 percent of the homes sold in the
San Jose metropolitan area were affordable to families with the median income. As affordability
drops, lower income families are most acutely affected. The current prices may be attributable to a
housing shortage caused by a continuing decline in housing production during the 1990s, consistent
strong demand fueled by the boom in the high technology sector, and reasonable mortgage rates.
While the high technology sector boom has passed, housing prices have continued to increase in Santa
Clara County.
The information provided in Table R, Median Home Prices was prepared in late 2004. Updated
information through January, 2005 was only available in summary form and is presented next.
During the calendar year ending 2004, there were 30,765 home sales in the County with an average
sales price of $735,554 for new homes and $636,715 for existing homes (includes condos, townhouses,
and single-family detached homes). The median sales price for new homes was $684,421 and
$550,000 for existing. In the month of January, 2005, the median sales price for new and existing
homes combined was $600,000. Compared to March 2004 when the median sales price was $512,000,
the current median represents an increase in sales prices of 17.19% for that 9 month period.
Table R
Median Home Prices, 2003-2004
Percent
Median Home Prices
Location
September 2003
September 2004
Change
14.60%
Santa Clara County
$549,000.00
$479,000.00
Campbell
$550,000.00
$521,000.00
5.60%
Cupertino
$739,000.00
$620,000.00
19.20%
$550,000.00
$462,000.00
19.00%
$1,264,250.00
$1,120,000.00
12.90%
Los Gatos
$902,500.00
$716,000.00
26.00%
Milpitas
$515,000.00
$438,000.00
17.60%
Gilroy
Los Altos
Morgan Hill
$620,000.00
$550,000.00
12.70%
Mountain View
$600,000.00
$500,000.00
20.00%
Palo Alto
$750,000.00
$830,000.00
-9.60%
San Jose
$515,000.00
$456,000.00
12.90%
Santa Clara
$569,000.00
$462,500.00
23.00%
$1,259,000.00
$1,091,250.00
15.40%
Saratoga
$526,500.00
$550,000.00
Sunnyvale
Note: Los Altos Hills included os part of Los Altos, Monte Sereno included as part of Saratoga.
4.50%
Source: California Association of Realtors, 2003.
Rental Housing Cost
As previously stated, housing units in the Santa Clara Urban County Area are predominantly owneroccupied. However, recent trends in home prices have led to an increasing number of people being
priced out of the homeownership market. One consequence has been a shift in tenure trends, with
inereasing number of people remaining in the rental market, exacerbating the competition for scarce
affordable housing units.
45
The Housing Authority of Santa Clara conducts a survey of average gross rental rates in cities and
communities in Santa Clara County. Table S shows the average rent by selected jurisdictions, along
with the median gross rent according to the 2000 Census. Rents in the Urban County Area tend to be
higher on average than those in the HUD-designated "entitlement cities" in the County (Cupertino,
Gilroy, Milpitas, Mountain View, Palo Alto, San Jose, Santa Clara, Sunnyvale). As indicated in Table
S, rents in the Urban County Area have exceeded the Fair Market Rent(FMR)established by HUD for
the San Jose Metropolitan area {Table T), except in the City of Campbell. This indicates difficulty in
finding affordable rental housing for lower-income residents in most of the Urban County Area.
Most jurisdictions in the Urban County Area have rental assistance programs, such as Section 8 rental
assistance. Some jurisdictions also have "home sharing" programs that assist seniors in locating
roommates to share existing housing in the community. Funding for these programs include CDBG
and HOME funds and redevelopment agency set-aside funds.
Table S
Rental Rates in Santa Clara Urban County Area
Jurisdictions
2000 Median Rent
Jurisdiction
# of Rooms
2004 Average Rents
Campbell
(all units)
N/A
Studio
1 BR
$],054
2 BR
$],267
$1,708
3 BR
N/A
Studio
1 BR
$2,400
2 BR
$1,51 1
Los Altos
Studio
$1,181
1 BR
2 BR
$1,148
$1,621
3 BR
$2,089
Los Gatos
$1,331
N/A
Studio
1 BR
$1,099
2 BR
$1,552
3 BR
$1,793
$1,112
N/A
Studio
Saratoga
$1,727
N/A
3 BR
Morgan Hill
$U54
1 BR
$1,292
2 BR
N/A
3 BR
$2,158
$1,689
N/A - not available
Note: Due to limited rental units, data for Los Altos Hills and Monte Sereno are not available.
Source: 2000 Census, Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara (2003).
46
Table T
Fair Market Rents in Santa Clara County
FY 2001
FY 2005
FMR
FMR
1 BR
$886
$998
$942
$1,107
+10.9%
2 BR
$1,221
$1,313
+7.5%
3 BR
$1,673
$1,889
+6.3%
# of Rooms
HUD Fair Market
Rent (FMR) for
Santa Clara Co.
Studio
Percent Change
+6.3%
Source: Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara revised 2/28/05
Housing Affordability
Housing affordability is dependent upon income and housing costs. Using updated income guidelines,
current housing affordability in terms of home ownership can be estimated for the various income
groups. According to the HUD income guidelines for 2005, the Median Family Income (MFI) in the
San Jose metropolitan area for a family of four persons is $105,500. Based upon this MFI,the
maximum income level for an Extremely Low Income household (0-30 percent MFI) is $31,850. For a
Very Low Income household (31-50 percent MFI), the maximum level is $53,050, while for a Low
Income household (51-80 Percent MFI) it is $84,900. It should be noted that HUD income limits are
adjusted according to family size. Therefore, income levels would be different for a family of three or
a family of six.
Table U
Affordable Housing Costs by Income
Income Group
Extremely Low (0-30% MFI)
Monthly
Property
Maximum
Median
Affordable
Taxes,
Affordable
Income
Payment
Insurance
Home Price
$31,850
$650
$189
$97,560
$316
$162,630
$1,082
$53,050
Very Low (31-50% MFI)
$260,190
$504
$1,732
$84,900
Low (51-80% MFI)
Note: Calculation of affordable mortgage and home price based on a 7% interest rate, 10% down
payment, and Area Median Family Income of $105,500 for 2005.
Sources: HUD Income Levels, 2005; www.ntmortaaaelOl.com
Assuming that the potential homebuyer within each income group has sufficient credit, sufficient down
payment (10 percent), and maintains affordable housing expenses (i.e. spends no greater than 30
percent of their income on the mortgage, taxes and insurance), the maximum affordable prices for
homes within the Urban County Area are presented in Table U. Maximum affordable home prices can
be determined for a household at the top of that income category and for a household size of four.
Given the median home prices shown in Table R, home ownership is beyond the reach of most
extremely low- and very low-income households, and most low-income households may only be able
to afford condominium units or small-size single-family homes. Similarly, extremely low-income
households cannot afford the median rents in most of the Urban County Area, and very low-income
households are confined to studio and one- bedroom apartments.
47
Housing Condition
Age of Housing Stock
The age of housing is commonly used by state and federal housing programs as a factor to estimate
rehabilitation needs in communities. Typically, most homes begin to require major repairs or have
significant rehabilitation needs at 30 or 40 years of age. Approximately 57.9 percent of the housing
stock in the Urban County Area is over 30 years old, Indicating the potential need for rehabilitation and
continued maintenance for a significant portion of that stock {Table V). However, the extent which
older single-family homes need rehabilitation is largely due to the income of the owner-occupants and
their ability to pay for home maintenance and repairs. Given the relatively high incomes of residents
in the Urban County Area, the small percentage of lower-income households, and the small percentage
of deficient housing units (see below), it is likely that the housing rehabilitation need is low, at least
among owner-occupied homes.
Table V
Age of Housing Stock 2000
Number of Units
Monte
Los
Year Built
Campbell
Los Altos
Altos Hills
Los Gatos
Sereno
Morgan Hill
Saratoga
Uninc. County
466
656
166
1,313
154
256
314
3,431
1940-1949
1 ,123
1,063
89
816
81
185
482
4,571
1950-1959
3,089
4,261
578
1,761
237
332
2,914
8.676
1960-1969
4,1 15
2,326
703
3,599
264
787
3,179
4,430
1970-1979
3,996
1,264
599
3,018
285
3,676
2,230
5,193
1980-1989
2,570
598
438
1,089
100
2,583
903
3,141
1990-2000
989
562
262
808
116
3,291
645
2,566
16,348
10,730
2,835
12,404
1,237
11,1 10
10,667
32,008
1939 or earlier
Total
Source: 2000 Census
Many jurisdictions in the Urban County Area have a Code Enforcement program, which is used to
maintain and improve the condition of housing stock. Identification of potential code violations occurs
primarily through complaints received from residents. Funding for code enforcement programs comes
from local general funds and CDBG funds. Also, some jurisdictions provide housing rehabilitation
assistance to lower-income homeowners through their CDBG and HOME programs.
Housing Deficiencies
Available Census data also offers two indicators of housing stock deficiencies: the number of units
lacking complete plumbing and kitchen facilities. As indicated in Table IF, 581 housing units in the
Urban County Area lacked complete plumbing, and 809 units were without kitchen facilities. It is not
known if any units had both deficiencies. With a few exceptions, the rate of substandard units was
lower for jurisdictions within the Urban County Area than for Santa Clara County overall.
48
Table W
Housing Stock Deficiencies: 2000
Units lacking Complete
Plumbing
Units lacking Compiete
Kitchen Faciiities
Number of Units
% of Total Units
90
Los Altos Hills
7
Los Gatos
6
% of Total Units
0.47%
0.18%
0.24%
0.04%
Monte Sereno
0
0.00%
0
0.55%
0.85%
0.52%
1.26%
0.00%
Morgan Hill
Saratoga
76
56
0.50%
43
0.40%
376
0.68%
0.17%
0.76%
356
0.71%
2,867
0.50%
3,289
0.58%
Jurisdiction
Number ot Units
Campbell
77
Los Altos
20
Unincorporated County
Santa Clara County
19
92
15
157
Source: 2000 Census.
General housing stock deficiencies, and programs to deal with them, vary by jurisdiction. A summary
of housing deficiency conditions and programs by jurisdictions within the Urban County Area follows:
Campbell. Comprising the southwestern quadrant of the City, the San Tomas Area is one of
the older neighborhoods in Campbell and has the greatest rehabilitation needs. When code
enforcement violations are identified/cited. City staff encourages property owners to seek
assistance through the Homeowner Rehabilitation Program. Under this CDBG-funded program,
the City provides financial assistance to lower-income homeowners to assist them in the
improvement of their homes. The City also works with the County of Santa Clara to provide
the Rental Rehabilitation Program to facilitate the rehabilitation of units occupied by lowerincome renters. In the past, the Campbell Redevelopment Agency has also worked successfully
with non-profit housing developers to rehabilitate the Sharmon Palms and San Tomas Gardens
projects.
Los Altos. The recently adopted Housing Element contains a program stating that the City will
continue to assist in the provision of housing assistance in Los Altos for low-income
households with other public agencies and private non-profit organizations that offer rental
assistance, home repairs, and first-time homebuyer assistance. To minimize overlap or
duplication of services, the City will provide program information to interested individuals
through handouts available at City Hall, the Los Altos Senior Center, the Los Altos Library,
and the Woodland Branch Library. The City will also contact previous rehabilitation applicants
when new funding becomes available and post a legal notice in the newspaper when housing
rehabilitation funds become available. However, housing rehabilitation has not been identified
as a high-priority need in the City.
Los Altos Hills. Deficient and substandard housing has not been identified as a problem in Los
Altos Hills.
Los Gatos. The current Housing Element has an implementation program that proposes to
continue to provide Housing Conservation Program assistance to property owners to improve
their housing units. To increase program productivity, the Town proposes to conduct a housing
condition survey in neighborhoods with older housing stock, to redesign program goals and
objectives to respond to the results of the housing condition survey if needed, and to redesign
marketing materials and aggressively market program to potential applicants.
49
Saratoga. There are few homes in Saratoga in substandard condition. The City estimates that
less than one percent of the housing stock in Saratoga is in need of repair, and that there are no
dwelling units that have deteriorated to the point of needing replacement. The City has used
federal funds to implement the Saratoga Housing Assistance and Rehabilitation Program
(SHARP). The program consists primarily of a home improvement loan subsidy program for
low- and moderate-income homeowners to repair and bring their homes up to code standards.
In 1996, the Safety Grant Program was established to aid the rehabilitation of aging homes.
Made possible by CDBG funds, this program grants up to $10,000 to qualified residents who
need to make repairs to their homes, but do not want to take out a loan through SHARP. Funds
are granted to correct health and safety problems within homes, such as covering exposed
wires, installing stair and porch railings, and improving disabled access to homes.
Santa Clara County (unincorporated). The CDBG program of the County has as one of its
objectives the rehabilitation and maintenance of existing housing. Over the last 3-10 years,
$3,157,871 was expended rehabilitating 130 units and assisting 199 units of housing with
minor home repairs. The County intends to continue development and/or rehabilitation of
housing units and housing services for low-income families and individuals in the Urban
County. The County also utilized the HOME program to finance construction and
rehabilitation of housing for low and very low-income residents.
50
Homeless Facilities and Services
Table X
Emergency Shelters, Santa Clara County
Provider Name
HMIS
Facility Name
Geo
Code
Target Population 2004 Year-Round Units/Bed
A
B
2004 All Beds
Family
Family
Individ.
Year-
Units
Beds
Beds
Round
Seasonal
Current Inventory
Asian Amer. for Comm. Involvement
Emergency Shelter
N
063258
FC*
14
14
0
14
0
Bill Wilson Center
Bill Wilson Center
C
063354
YMF
0
0
16
16
0
063258
SM
0
0
52
52
0
DV
City Team Ministries
City Team Rescue Mission
P4/05
Clara Mateo Alliance
Clara Mateo Shelter
P9/04
069081
SMF
0
0
63
63
0
Family Wing
P9/04
069081
FC
6
18
0
18
0
C
062382
SMF
0
0
12
12
0
La Isla Pacifica
P9/05
061452
FC*
4
15
0
15
0
060930
SM
0
0
15
15
0
0
125
0
125
EFIC LifeBuilders
Rotating Shelter
Armory
Armory
C
EFIC LifeBuilders
EFIC LifeBuilders
Clara Mateo Alliance
Community Services
Community Solutions
Cupertino Community Srvcs
Alpha Omega
DV
C
063660
SMF
0
C
061452
SMF
0
0
125
0
125
OurFlouse
C
063258
YMF
0
0
10
10
0
Reception Center
Reception Center
C
063258
FC
10
40
0
40
0
C
063258
SMF
0
0
175
0
175
EHC LifeBuilders
Reception Center
C
063258
SMF
0
EFIC LifeBuilders
San Martin
C
069085
FC
Sobrato Family Living Ctr
C
063354
FC
San Jose Family Shelter
C
063258
Commercial Street Inn
C
063258
EFIC LifeBuilders
EFIC LifeBuilders
EFIC LifeBuilders
Family Supportive FIsng
InnVision
InnVision
C
Commercial Street Inn
063258
0
125
0
125
36
0
0
36
18
72
0
72
0
FC
35
143
0
143
0
SF
0
0
15
15
0
FC*
12
40
0
40
0
0
15
15
0
InnVision
Community Inns
C
063258
SM
0
InnVision
Julian Street Inn
C
063258
SMF
0
0
62
62
0
InnVision
Montgomery Street Inns
C
063258
SM
0
0
46
46
0
Jeramiah’s Promise
Shelter
0
0
3
3
0
Next Door
Next Door
5
19
0
19
0
24
24
0
8
0
Salvation Army
Hospitality Flouse
Social Advocates for Youth
Casa SAY
Support Network for Battered Women
Emergency Shelter
Urban Ministries
Hotel de Zinc
N
063258
SF
P 10/04
063258
FC*
P4/05
063258
SM
0
0
N
062382
YMF
0
0
P 10/04
062382
FC*
5
18
0
18
0
0
0
15
15
0
117
415
906
735
586
C
DV
DV
SMF
Subtotal
*Women with Children.
Source; Santa Clara County Office of Affordable Housing, Form HUD 40076 CoC-G
51
Table Y
Transitional Housing, Santa Clara County
Provider Name
HMIS
Facility Name
Geo
2004 All Beds
Target Population 2004 Year-
Code
Round Units/Bed
A
B
Family
Units
Famil
y Beds
Individ
Total
.Beds
Beds
Seasonal
Current Inventory
Bill Wilson Center
Youth Parents with
Bill Wilson Center
Transitional Housing
Shared Housing
Shared Housing
Shared Housing
Transitional Housing
C
063354
FC
C
063354
YMF
22
32
0
32
0
0
19
19
22
0
22
42
Children
Catholic Charities
Catholic Charities
Catholic Charities
Charities Housing
City Team Ministries
City Team Ministries
P 12/04
069085
FC*
6
P 12/04
069085
SMF
0
0
42
P 12/04
063258
FC
2
6
0
6
N
063258
FC
7
24
0
24
House of Grace
P4/05
063258
SF
0
0
22
22
063258
SM
0
0
74
74
25
DV
City Team Rehab
P4/05
City Team Ministries
Heritage House
P4/05
063258
SF
0
0
25
Clara Mateo Alliance
Clara Mateo
P9/04
069081
FC
6
18
0
18
Clara Mateo Alliance
Clara Mateo
P9/04
069081
SMF
0
0
34
34
Community Services Agency
Community Solutions
Graduate House
C
062382
SM
0
0
6
6
Transitional Housing
P9/05
061452
FC
3
6
0
0
Transitional
C
060930
SM
0
0
10
10
060930
FC*
6
12
0
12
063258
SMF
0
0
40
40
Cupertino Comm. Srvcs
Cupertino Comm. Srvcs
Transitional
C
EHC LifeBuilders
5* Street
C
EHC LifeBuilders
Gifford Street
C
063258
FC*
8
25
0
25
EHC LifeBuilders
Reception Center
C
063258
SMF
0
0
50
50
EHC LifeBuilders
San Martin Family
C
069085
FC
8
36
0
36
EHC LifeBuilders
(Migrant)
Reception Center
C
063258
FC
10
30
0
30
San Martin Family Living
C
069085
FC
18
81
0
81
C
063354
FC
10
40
0
40
YMF
0
0
EHC LifeBuilders
*seasonal
Ctr.
EHC LifeBuilders
Sobrato Family Living
Center
EHC LifeBuilders
Youth Transitional
C
063258
Family Supportive Hsng
C
063258
FC
N
063258
FC*
Housing Authority
Transitional Housing
Transitional Housing
Ochoa Family Shelter
P9/05
061452
InnVision
InnVision Villa
C
InnVision
InnVision Villa
C
Health Connections
52
8
9
38
0
24
86
0
86
FC
75
360
0
360
063258
SF
0
0
9
9
063258
FC*
14
46
0
46
DV
38
*seasonal
Table Y
Transitional Housing, Santa Clara County
Provider Name
HMIS
Facility Name
Geo
Code
Round Units/Bed
A
B
Family
Units
InnVision
C
Montgomery Street Inn
063258
2004 All Beds
Target Population 2004 Year-
SM
VE
Famil
Individ
Total
y Beds
.Beds
Beds
0
0
40
40
35
Seasonal
TS
InnVision
Transitional Homes
C
063258
SF
0
0
35
InnVision
Jullian Street Inn
C
063258
SM
0
0
10
10
InnVision/Catholic Charities
HomeSafe Santa Clara
C
063354
FC*
DV
24
75
0
75
InnVision and partners
Mid-Peninsula Housing
HomeSafe San Jose
C
063258
FC*
DV
24
75
0
75
Support Network
N
062382
SM
0
0
8
8
Next Door
Women with Children
P 10/04
062274
FC*
19
60
0
60
Salvation Army
P4/05
063258
SM
0
0
46
46
see Homeless Team
Hospitality House
Transitional Housing
P9/05
063258
SM
0
0
16
16
St. Joseph Cathedral
St. Joseph Worker Housing
C
063258
WC
7
25
0
25
20
DV
St. Joseph Cathedral
St. Joseph Worker Housing
C
063258
SM
0
0
20
Unity Care
Youth Transitional
P9/05
063258
YMF
0
0
12
12
302
1097
526
1623
Subtotal
'Correction from erroneous 1617 total in Table 3 in original County application to HUD. Source: Santa Clara County Office of Affordable Housing, Form HUD
40076 CoC-G
53
Table Z
Permanent Supportive Housing, Santa Clara County
Provider Name
Facility Name
HMIS
Geo
2004 All Beds
Target Population 2004 Year-Round
Units/Bed
Code
A
B
Family
Family
Individ.
Total
Units
Beds
Beds
Beds
61
0
0
Current Inventory
Sunset Square
Assisted Permanent Housing
P9/04
069085
FC
15
C
063660
SMF
0
0
24
24
EHC LifeBuilders
Monterey Glenn Inn
C
063258
SMF
0
0
95
95
EHC LifeBuilders
Markham Plaza
C
063258
SMF
0
0
50
50
Sobrato Family Living
C
063354
FC
22
88
0
88
Sunset Square(Donna Lane)
N
063258
FC
4
8
0
8
Shelter Plus Care
C
069085
SMF
0
0
87
87
Shelter Plus Care
C
069085
FC
Clara Mateo Alliance
EHC LifeBuilders
EHC LifeBuilders
Center
Hsg. for Independent
People
Housing Authority
Housing Authority
Subtotal
70
291
0
291
111
448
256
643
20
Under Development
Clara Mateo Alliance
El Paseo
P9/04
063258
SMF
0
0
20
InnVision
Julian Inn - Safe Haven
C
063258
SM
0
0
10
10
SMF
0
0
20
20
Subtotal
0
0
50
50
Charities Housing
PSH
9/05
063258
Source: Santa Clara County Office of Affordable Housing, Form HUD 40076 CoC-G
54
Seasonal
Special Needs Facilities and Services
Special Needs Housing
Certain segments of the population may have more difficulty in finding decent, affordable housing due
to their special needs. In the Santa Clara Urban County Area, these "special needs" groups include the
elderly, disabled persons, female-headed households, farm workers, persons with AIDS, and persons
with alcohol and other drug addictions. An overview of licensed community care facilities in Santa
Clara Urban County area that serve some of the special needs groups is provided in Table AA,
followed by a detailed discussion of each of the special needs groups. As shown in Table AA, 687
licensed community care facilities are located in the Urban County Area, with a capacity of 22,441
beds.
Table AA
Licensed Community Care Facilities
In Urban County Area
Capacity
(number of
Type of Facility
Small Family Home
Group Home
Number of
beds or
Facilities
persons)
Capacity by Type of
Disability
Mental
Developmental
4
20
0
0
63
579
0
0
Adult Residential
257
281
0
Elderly Residential
330
1,968
6,001
0
0
5
73
0
0
28
13,800
0
0
687
22,441
281
0
Social
Rehabilitation
Adult Day care
Total
Notes:
1. The specialized care columns are not mutually exclusive. For example, a
facility may have a total capacity of 10 beds, with 8 beds for developmentally
disabled children and 4 of the 10 beds are designed to accommodate non
ambulatory children.
2. Group homes provide specialized treatment for persons under age 18.
3. Small family homes provide care to children in licensees’ own homes. Small
family residents are usually children on probation, developmentally disabled
children, children with other special needs, and some foster children.
4. Adult residential facilities provide care for persons age 18 to 59 years
including both developmentally disabled adults and persons suffering from
mental Illness or psychiatric disorders.
5. Elderly residential facilities provide care for persons age 60 and above.
Source; State of California Department of Social Services Community Care Licensing Division, 2003.
Seniors
The 2000 Census reported that there were 32,468 residents in the Santa Clara Urban County Area age
65 and over, which represented approximately 11 percent of the population ofthe Urban County Area.
This age group increased by approximately 28.5 percent from 1990 to 2000, and also increased slightly
as a portion of the population. The senior age group will likely continue to increase in the future as the
"baby boomer" population ages and medical advances allow individuals to live longer.
55
According to special tabulations from the 2000 Census provided by HUD, just over 6,000 elderly
households needed housing assistance in the Urban County area, which represented. Many senior
housing developments have been construeted recently to meet housing needs. However, these
developments typically target seniors earning above 40-60 percent of the median income, and do not
meet the needs of many lower-income seniors. There is also a need for shared and assisted senior
housing opportunities. Senior citizens who own their homes may also have difficulty when non
housing expenses increase and their fixed income does not. When senior homeowners find themselves
in economie trouble, home maintenance needs are often deferred. According to County Housing
Department staff, a significant portion of the participants in the County’s Rehabilitation Loan
Programs have been seniors.
Frail Elderly. A significant segment of the senior population has one or more conditions that affect
major life functions, their ability to live independently, and their ability to care for themselves. These
individuals are sometimes referred to as "frail elderly." The 2000 Census indicated that 30.5 percent of
the elderly population in the Urban County Area had a disability. The Census counted 20,275
disabilities among residents in the Urban County Area who are 65 years of age or older. Of these
disabilities, 2,190 were self-care disabilities, and 4,820 were go-outside-home disabilities. It should be
noted that seniors may have more than one type of disability; therefore, the number of disabilities do
not correspond to the number of seniors with disabilities.
Persons with Disabilities
According to the 2000 Census, there were 33,223 persons in the Urban County Area age 16 to 64 that
had a disability (Table 2). The same census recorded 13,474 employment disabilities among persons
in that same age group residing in the Urban County Area. Also, there were 2,552 sensory disabilities,
5,655 physical disabilities, 3,538 mental disabilities, 1,373 self-care disabilities, and 6,631 go-outsidehome disabilities. Some persons may have more than one type of disability; therefore, the total
number of disabilities does not necessarily equal the number of persons with disabilities.
Map 8 depicts the locations of residential care facilities in Santa Clara County, including facilities
specifically for persons with disabilities. One problem many disabled individuals face regarding
housing is lack of income. Many disabled individuals rely on Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
from the Social Security Administration as their primary income. According to information provided
by the Economic and Social Opportunities, Inc.(ESO)agency, the most eommon problem eneountered
by physically disabled persons in Santa Clara County is the lack of accessible housing. Many
physically disabled persons live in housing units that have inaccessible entrance/exits, bathroom
facilities, etc. This lack of accessibility prevents the physically disabled person from living an
independent and active life.
According to the Santa Clara County Mental Health Department, mental health needs in the area
continue to exceed available support services. The Department estimates that 24,000 people in the
County need case management services (social worker assistance to obtain basic needs), yet only about
5,000 places currently exist in the inventory of services, resulting in an unmet need of 19,000 case
management places. Similarly, 29,000 people in the County need mental health care, while only
19,000 people are able to be served. This leaves a gap of about 10,000 people needing services county
wide. Data specific to the Urban County Area is not available. The total population in the Urban
County Area in 2000 is 16 percent of the County's. Based on this, it is estimated that there are
approximately 1,600 people with mental illnesses in the Urban County Area who need speeial services.
56
Map 8
Location of Residential Care Facilities (including Persons with Disabilities.
57
Table BB
Type of Disabilities
Santa
Monte
Los Altos
Clara
Hills
Los Gatos
Sereno
County
Campbell
city,
Los Altos
city,
town,
town,
city,
Morgan
Hill city,
Saratoga
city,
Area
California
California
California
California
California
California
California
55,715
8,993
4,933
1,201
5,370
547
7,231
4,276
33,223
5,788
2,151
651
2,590
405
4,984
1,941
Sensory disability
2,552
415
233
45
206
30
313
116
Physical disability
5,655
906
370
118
373
38
1,058
338
Mental disability
3,538
564
279
63
308
23
568
155
Self-care disability
1,373
207
96
57
54
0
169
68
Go-outside-home disability
6,631
1,170
404
51
455
141
944
365
Employment disability
Disabilities tallied for people 65 years
13,474
2,526
769
317
1,194
173
1,932
899
and over:
20,275
2,807
2,634
503
2,686
125
1,872
2,166
Sensory disability
3,746
508
459
88
462
39
378
412
Physical disability
6,735
985
868
172
875
29
625
813
Mental disability
2,784
352
400
39
320
13
278
275
Self-care disability
2,190
267
267
65
309
9
202
232
Go-outside-home disability
4,820
695
640
139
720
35
389
434
Urban
Total disabilities tallied:
Disabilities tallied for people 16 to 64
years:
Source: 2000 Census
58
The Housing Choices Coalition (HCC) - an agency addressing the housing needs of the
developmentally disabled - reports that at least 5,600 people of all ages in Santa Clara County
currently have mental retardation, cerebral palsy, autism or other developmental disabilities. The
San Andreas Center, a non-profit organization serving persons with developmental disabilities,
estimates that 3,100 developmentally disabled adults are over the age of 18, and 60 percent of
them are living at home with their parents. Therefore, about 1,850 developmentally disabled
Individuals in the County will likely need some kind of housing. Based on the Urban County
Area having 16 percent of the County’s total population, it is estimated that there are about 298
Urban County Area residents with developmental disabilities who are likely to need housing. In
addition, it is estimated that about 300 people (30 percent) of the 970 people who now live in
community residential facilities (i.e., group homes) in the County would also choose more
independent living, were it available. Many of the developmentally disabled live on Social
Security income with additional income from work, family or other sources. HCC reports that it
is not uncommon for a disabled adult to earn less than $10,000, making it extremely difficult to
find affordable housing.
Female-Headed Households
There were 5,471 female-headed households in the Urban County Area in 2000. Because of the
increased financial and emotional burden that female-headed households carry, they often have
difficulty finding adequate and affordable housing for themselves and their children. In addition,
female-headed households often encounter subtle (and not so subtle) forms of discrimination,
especially when trying to rent housing.
There are two available programs that address the needs of single parents. The "Shared Housing
Program", operated by Catholic Charities, helps match female-headed households for the
purpose of sharing housing and thereby reducing individual household housing costs. The second
program. Project Sentinel, provides fair-housing counseling and mediation services. The staff of
Project Sentinel has reported that child-related discrimination complaints represent the largest
number of complaints received in regards to fair housing practices.
Farm workers
Traditionally, Santa Clara County has been home to many agricultural businesses and industries.
However, changes in the Silicon Valley have reduced the role of agriculture in the County's
economy, although agricultural activity remains in the southern part of the County. ABAC
projects a drop in agricultural jobs in the County through 2020. According to the Santa Clara
County Housing Element, adopted in 2003, the number of farm workers has remained steady at
about 5,000 to 6,000 persons during the peak summer months.
Due to the seasonal nature of the work and relatively low wages, farm worker households often
have a difficult time seeuring safe, habitable, and affordable housing. The most significant
residential resources are located in the southern County, where most of the agricultural activity is
located. The Ochoa Center in Gilroy contains 100 family units and is operated as a migrant camp
by the Santa Clara County Housing Authority for a maximum 6-month period each year. The
Center was rehabilitated using funds provided by the State of California, County of Santa Clara
and the City of Gilroy. The rehabilitation work has resulted in an upgraded and modern
residential facility. Housing at the Ochoa Migrant Center is available on a seasonal basis for a
maximum of 100 families whose primary ineome is derived from agricultural-related work.
59
Persons with HIV/AIDS
According to September 2004 statistics from the California Department of Health Services, there
have been 3,548 residents in Santa Clara County recorded with AIDS. Of these, 1,554 residents
are currently alive. In addition, there have been 852 recorded cases of people with HIV in the
County. Table CC provides a breakdown of HIV/AIDS cases in the County by location, based
upon a May 2003 report prepared by the Santa Clara County Public Health Department.
Table CC
Location of AIDS Cases,
Santa Clara County
Percent of Cases
Region
North County
East Valley
18%
Central/Downtown San Jose
20%
West Valley
Narvaez(South San Jose)
South County
13%
13%
11%
2%
1%
Homeless
22%
Non-Resident, Unknown
Souree: HIV Medical Care Survey, Santa Clara County Public Health
Department, May 2003.
As indicated in Table CC, approximately 1 percent of HIV/AIDS cases were homeless.
According to the AIDS/HIV Community Services Plan for Santa Clara County, 10-15 percent of
the homeless population is HIV-infected.
Persons with Alcohol/Other Drug Addiction
Alcohol/other drug abuse(AODA) is defined as excessive and impairing use of alcohol or other
drugs, including addiction. The National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism estimates
the number of men with drinking problems (moderate or severe abuse) at 14 to 16 percent of the
adult male population, and the number of women with similar problems at 6 percent. Abusers of
alcohol and other drugs have special housing needs during treatment and recovery. Group
quarters typically provide appropriate settings for treatment and recovery. Affordable rental
units provide housing during the transition to a responsible lifestyle.
In its Annual Report FY 2003, the Santa Clara County Department of Alcohol and Drug Services
indicated that there were 9,358 adult admissions to the County's substance abuse programs from
July 2002 to June 2003. In that same time period, there were 10,236 discharges from these
programs. These figures include duplicated admissions and discharges, so the actual number of
persons admitted or discharged is less, but the precise number is unknown. The median length of
stay for those treated in residential programs was 35 days, while it was 84 days for those treated
in outpatient programs. No data are available concerning the residences or housing status of
persons admitted or discharged.
60
Public and Assisted Housing Needs
Public Housing
The Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara (HACSC) manages 555 public housing
units throughout Santa Clara County. Most ofthese units (494) are exclusively for lower-income
seniors, while only 25 units are exclusively for lower-income families. Most of these public
housing units are located in communities that are not part ofthe Santa Clara Urban County Area.
The one public housing complex in the Urban County Area is located in Campbell. The Rincon
Gardens complex offers 190 one-bedroom units and 10 two-bedroom units to low-income
seniors. In addition, there are other units managed by HACSC that are tax credit properties. The
only one ofthese properties located in the Urban County Area is the San Pedro Gardens complex
in Morgan Hill. This facility offers 36 units to low-income families. 16 of these units are "sweat
equity" units for which the occupants contribute labor for their construction.
Tenant-Based Rental Housing Assistance
The Santa Clara Urban County area offers a variety of rental assistance programs for lower
income residents in the Urban County. HACSC administer the rental assistance programs,
primarily the Section 8 program. Currently, 834 households in the Santa Clara Urban County
Area receive Section 8 vouchers through HACSC. Another 151 households are currently on the
waiting list. Table DD provides a breakdown ofthe participants in and waiting list applicants for
the voucher program in the Urban County Area, by community and by type.
Table DD
Section 8 Participants and Applicants,
Santa Clara Urban County Area
Los
Community
Los
Morgan
Campbell
Altos*
Gatos
Disabled
82
0
Elderly
Disabled and Elderly
63
0
63
Type
Participants
San
Saratoga
Total
Hill
Martin
23
50
1
2
158
17
32
1
1
114
1
10
29
0
1
104
Non-Disabled/Non190
1
28
213
21
5
458
398
2
78
324
23
9
834
Disabled
12
0
4
7
0
2
25
Elderly
Disabled and Elderly
8
1
4
1
0
3
17
1
0
0
1
0
0
2
45
1
10
29
17
5
107
66
2
18
38
17
10
151
Elderly
Total
Waiting List Applicants
Non-Disabled/Non
Elderly
Total
* Includes Los Altos Hills.
Source: Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara
61
Assisted Housing Units At-Risk of Converting to Market Rate
The State Housing Element law and HUD Consolidated Plan regulation require cities to prepare
an inventory including all assisted multi-family rental units which are eligible to convert to nonlow-income housing uses due to termination of subsidy contract, mortgage prepayment, or
expiring use restrictions. The State Housing Element law requires this inventory cover a tenyear evaluation period following the statutory due date of the Housing Element (July 1, 2004);
whereas the HUD regulation requires the inventory to cover only the five-year planning period of
the Consolidated Plan. To satisfy both state and federal requirements, this at-risk housing
analysis period covers from July 1, 2004 through June 30, 2014. This analysis represents a
review of current status and options, rather than a specific statement of County policy.
The at-risk projects identified below are considered at risk due to two aspects: 1) the expiring
Section 8 contracts; and 2) the prepayment eligibility of HUD-insured mortgage loans.
Affordable housing opportunities for low and moderate income households are available through
a variety of federal funding programs. Many projects subsidized in the past with federal funding
are at risk of converting to market rate housing.
Campbell. According to a risk assessment by California Housing Partnership
Corporation (CHPC), no assisted development in Campbell is at high risk of conversion
to market use. Of the 608 assisted units identified, 399 units in five projects are
determined to be at low risk of conversion during the 2001-2011 period. These projects
include Corinthian House, Rincon Gardens, Wesley Manor, the Hamilton Avenue
project, and Fairlands Court. All ofthese projects are subject to annual renewal under the
HUD Section 8 program, with the exception of Fairlands Court which is assisted through
CDBG funds and not expected to convert.
Los Gatos. Villa Vasona is a 107-unit elderly and handicapped development owned by
PMG Properties. It was originally financed with CDBG funds from the Town of Los
Gatos, as well as Section 8 New Construction funds. The Section 8 funding provided a
rental subsidy guarantee to all 107 tenants that will expire in November 2004. As part of
its agreement with the original owners of Villa Vasona, ownership of the development
was to be transferred to the Town 65 years after the completion of development
(approximate year 2049) for $1.00. Furthermore, the agreement specifies that there are no
rent limits set in the event that Section 8 rent subsidies expire. The agreement does state
that if the subsidy does expire, the development is to continue renting to elderly and
handicapped residents of low and moderate income, as defined by HUD regulations. As
the year 2004 approaches, the Town will need to review this agreement. Specifically,
while the agreement may specify that units have to be rented to low and moderate
households, it is unclear whether the rents will have to be affordable to low- and
moderate-income households. The affordability of the units is as important as the
occupancy of the units and should be preserved as much as possible.
Saratoga. The California Housing Partnership Corporation provides an Inventory of
federally subsidized rental units at risk of conversion. The 1999 update, which identifies
units at risk through the year 2020, identified two HUD-asslsted multi-family housing
developments with Section 8 contracts in the Saratoga. The Section 8 contract expired for
these two developments in 1999, and one development was identified as high risk for
conversion according to the 1999 update.
No other communities in the Urban County Area had any developments that were identified as
being at risk of converting to market-rate housing.
62
Barriers to Affordable Housing
Many factors influence the supply, diversity and affordability of housing in the Urban County
Area. Chief among them is the regional imbalance between jobs and housing, and the shortage
of affordable housing units. More simply put, there is an inadequate supply of housing suitable
to meet local needs, and the housing that is available is mostly unaffordable to low- and
moderate-income residents. Since these conditions are regional in character, one community
cannot correct these conditions by itself. Even all the communities in the Urban County Area
together cannot correct these problems. However, community can mitigate the local impact
within its borders. Also, by joining together in purpose and by pooling resources, the Urban
County communities can increase their individual potentials to address the housing affordability
problems of residents.
Potential Governmental Constraints
Below is a summary of governmental actions and regulations that might constrain the production
of affordable housing. These constraints are presented in a generalized manner for all Urban
County jurisdictions.
Local Government Constraints
■
The zoning ordinances of each jurisdiction designate the use, density and other
development standards, which may influence housing costs. When objectives for the
maintenance of both safe and diversified housing are considered, the zoning ordinances
of the Urban County jurisdictions do not appear to unduly constrain residential
development, when fairly applied. Several jurisdictions already allow mixed use
developments and higher densities in certain areas, and all jurisdictions are required to
make provision for secondary dwelling units.
■
Building codes and enforcement procedures may affect the cost of housing. The codes
are intended to ensure the structural integrity of housing units and the health and safety of
residents. The codes are not considered to impose onerous standards or expenses in
relation to other communities in the region.
■
Jurisdictions impose residential development fees on new development. The fees
charged by Urban County communities are comparable to those charged by other local
governments in the region. Many of the Urban County jurisdictions have programs that
waive part or all of the required fees for affordable housing units. Others contribute
assistance from low-income housing funds to cover the fees.
■ Installing and maintaining public infrastructure (e.g., roads, sewage treatment facilities) is
a significant expense to local government. In the absence of adequate funding for major
infrastructure improvements, local governments are faced with either increasing taxes or
requiring new development to pay for improvements. Governments choosing the latter
alternative include policies waiving part or all of the infrastructure fees for affordable
housing projects, or contributing low-income housing funds to cover the fees.
■
The development review process for Urban County jurisdictions contains timeconsuming steps, typically mandated by State laws. All Urban County communities have
reviewed their processes for opportunities to reduce time and expense for project
applicants. Many have established "fast track" approval procedures for affordable
housing projects.
63
■
Los Gatos imposes rent and occupancy restrictions associated with new construction and
rehabilitation loan programs. These restrictions ensure the continued availability and
affordability of housing units to low- and very low-income households.
■
Morgan Hill has a voter-approved ordinance that regulates the number of housing units
that may be added annually. Unlike many growth control programs, Morgan Hill's
ordinance assures that a pre-determined number of affordable units may be permitted
annually, commensurate with projected need. This opportunity is reinforced by the City's
low-income housing programs.
State Government Constraints
■
The State's Housing Element approval process has imposed unanticipated constraints on
the ability of local governments to jointly respond to affordable housing opportunities.
State law requires evidence that each individual community provides the full array of
affordable housing development resources, regardless of how practical or cost-effective
that strategy may be from a regional housing needs perspective. Local officials and
housing advocates are working to develop effective Countywide and regional strategies
to ensure an adequate supply of affordable housing throughout the region. This would
include working with State officials to correct counter-productive regulations.
■
Most local government agencies have been unable to compensate for the revenue losses
created by Proposition 13. By reducing and severely limiting the rate of property tax
increases, many local governments have been forced to curtail services and to defer
maintenance for facilities and infrastructure. Many communities have turned to user fees
to meet demand for services. Since these fees are imposed primarily on new residents,
these fees have added to the expense of both new and resale housing.
■
Article 34 of the California Constitution presents a number of constitutional barriers to
the development of low-income housing. Article 34 requires local voter approval for all
low-income housing developments when units are to be publicly owned or privately
owned but financed by public agencies, and more than 49 percent of the units would be
reserved for low-income occupancy. Projects not affected by the provisions of Article 34
include private developments financed by federal or private money, rehabilitation
projects financed by County-issued bonds, and cooperative projects where units are to be
owned.
■
In the past. State guidelines for agricultural worker housing have restricted the ability of
local jurisdictions to use available funding, since State funds for agricultural worker
housing are devoted exclusively to the needs of migratory workers, while housing needs
for permanent agricultural workers are not addressed. However, the State has established
the Joe Serna, Jr. Farm worker Housing Grant Program, which provides funds for the
construction of owner-occupied housing.
Federal Government Constraints
■
Revised regulations, such as the 1986 Tax Reform Bill, have had an adverse impact on
the financing of affordable housing by reducing incentives to invest in housing.
■
The active withdrawal of the federal government from housing production and housing
assistance has constrained the ability of local governments to respond to affordable
housing needs.
64
■
Inconsistent funding for CDBG (five-year plans vs. one-year allocations).
■
CDBG restrictions that prohibit the involvement offor-profit housing developers.
■
Davis-Bacon prevailing wage requirements that are incompatible with requirements
regarding use of community-based contractors.
Intergovernmental Constraints
■
Inconsistency between State and federal rehabilitation program standards.
■
Inconsistencies between federal (NEPA) and State (CEQA) environmental protection
laws and regulations.
■
Federal procurement standards conflict with County standards, adding to the cost of units.
Potential Non-Governmental Constraints
Below is a summary of non-governmental actions and conditions within the Urban County Area
that might constrain the production of affordable housing. Non-governmental constraints fall
into three general categories; economic, environmental, and infrastructure.
Economic Constraints
■
The cost of land for housing construction is high. For example, in Los Altos Hills, the
typical quoted cost for an acre of undeveloped land that has a reasonable potential for
development ranges from $350,000 to $800,000. In Saratoga, single-family residential
lots range from $200,000 to $1 million, and medium-density multifamily land costs from
$175,000 to $250,000 per dwelling unit.
■
Construction costs are high in Santa Clara County. The Los Gatos Housing Element
states that, according to the Construction Industry Research Board, the median cost for
new residential construction in Santa Clara County in 2000 (including land and overhead
costs) was $246 per square foot. In Los Altos Hills, construction costs increased from
$49.10 per square foot in 1988 to beyond $100 per square foot in 1998.
■
The availability and cost of financing can directly affect housing construction costs and
costs of purchasing a home. In general, developers have had no problems securing
financing for construction projects. The exception has been for condominium projects,
where litigation regarding construction defects has discouraged lending. Interest rates
have been at low levels over the past several years, which has encouraged housing
purchases in the Urban County Area. However, future increases in interest rates would
add to purchasing costs, which may discourage potential homeowners.
■
General economic and employment conditions can influence the housing market. The
economy of the Silicon Valley has experienced a recession as the high-technology boom
ofthe 1990s came to an end. Unemployment has also increased, although unemployment
rates for the majority ofjurisdictions in the Urban County Area are at or below the rate
for California as a whole. However, as noted previously, housing prices in Santa Clara
County have continued to increase, despite these conditions.
65
Environmental Constraints
■
Many communities in the Urban County Area are located in areas of hills, either in whole
or in part. Steep and potentially unstable slopes discourage housing construction. Where
hillsides can be developed, the additional costs of construction increase the price of
residenees.
■
The Urban County Area is located in an area with an active earthquake history, and
which contains several faults. California law discourages construetion of residential
areas within fault rupture zones. Potential seismic activity discourages construction in
areas that could be especially affected by earthquakes, such as hillsides.
■
Some areas adjacent to streams could be subject to flooding. Flood potential could
increase if development is nearby, as more runoff would remain on the surface instead of
percolating into the ground.
■
Potential development areas within or adjacent to wildland areas could be exposed to a
potential wildland fire hazard. Aside from the threat to residences, this hazard could
increase insurance costs to homeowners, as well as lead to additional assessments on new
development to support firefighting ageneies.
Infrastructure Constraints
■
In general, the cities within the Urban County Area have few infrastructure constraints.
There is adequate water, sewer and storm drainage service and street circulation in these
communities. Additional water and sewer lines, storm drainage facilities and streets can
be installed for new residential development where no such facilities currently exist. In
some cases, developers would have to install these facilities, whieh may add to the cost of
the houses being constructed.
■
In the unincorporated areas of the County, infrastructure constraints are more significant.
Many areas do not have the water and sewer systems required to support extensive
residential development. Mueh of the unincorporated area eontains hills and mountains,
where the installation of such infrastructure would be costly, if it would be feasible at all.
The jurisdictions within the Urban County Area have adopted programs applieable to their
circumstances to address the barriers to affordable housing, as part of their General Plan Housing
Elements. These programs are ineorporated into the strategy section ofthe Consolidated Plan.
66
HUD Table 2A
Five Year Housing Needs and Priorities
Income
Unmet Need
Priority Need
Goals
Level
Renter:
Small Related
Large Related
0-30%AMI
31-50% AMI
High
High
51-80% AMI
Med
0-30%AMI
High
High
High
31-50% AMI
51-80% AMI
Elderly
All Other
Owner:
Small Related
0-30%AMI
31-50% AMI
High
High
51-80% AMI
Med
0-30%AMI
25
581
100
1,111
150
911
50
427
115
479
100
1,241
25
High
944
5
51-80% AMI
Med
4,106
100
0-30%AMI
High
682
5
734
30
High
High
High
High
High
High
8,475
140
820
35
51-80% AMI
High
4,045
60
0-30%AMI
Med
398
5
31-50% AMI
Med
337
10
51-80% AMI
High
2,522
15
0-80%
High
(1)
0-30%AMI
31-50% AMI
51-80% AMI
0-30%AMI
31-50% AMI
All Other
Special Needs
200
31-50% AMI
51-80% AMI
Elderly
175
469
31-50% AMI
Large Related
20
1,218
1,154
2,049
Populations
(1) Included in
222
5
448
30
3,050
55
1288
20
Total Goals
1,475
Section 215
1,060
numbers above.
Rental Goals^
Section 215
400
Owner Goals'*
Goals are expressed in Housing Units made affordable through new construction, acquisition of market rate units,
rehabilitation of units occupied by lower income households, or rental subsidies.
^An affordable Rental Unit is considered a Section 215 Unit if it is occupied by a household earning no more than
80% of AMI and if the rent is the lesser of the Section 8 Fair Market Rent or 30% of the Annual Income for a
household earning 65% of AMI.
'‘An Owner Unit is considered a Section 215 Unit if:(1) it is purchased as the principal residence by a first-time
homebuyer earning no more than 80% of AMI and the sales price does not exceed limits set under the National
Housing Act or (2) it is owned an occupied by a household 51-80% AMI,the unit is to be rehabilitated, and the
value of the unit after rehabilitation does not exceed mortgage limits under the National Affordable Housing Act of
1990.
67
STRATEGIC PLAN (91.215)
Summary
The following section describes the affordable housing objectives and strategies of the Urban
County Program and the process by which they were developed. They are reflective of the
combined housing objectives and priorities ofthe Urban County jurisdictions. The strategies that
follow describe the concepts and techniques with which the Urban County seeks to achieve the
objectives. Specific programs and resources to be utilized will be described in the Action Plan
section.
Countywide Housing Goals
Although the specific priorities may differ, the Entitlement Jurisdictions within Santa Clara
County have very similar housing goals. As a result, several housing development projects have
been funded by multiple jurisdictions. This is especially true in eases that are considered
regional housing issues such as homelessness and housing for victims of domestic violence.
Clients for theses services may travel from one city to the next in search for safe, secure
assistance. The potential for this occurrence resulted in the adoption of regional housing issues
to address Countywide Housing Goals. The Urban County’s housing objectives and strategies
that follow below are consistent with the Countywide Housing Goals.
Process
The Urban County Program is the administrator of Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) funds and represents a consortium of eleven independent jurisdictions. It, therefore, is
bound by the policy parameters set by those jurisdictions. With this understanding, the CHAS
Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) relied heavily on the adopted Housing Elements of the
General Plans of the jurisdictions in developing its own strategies. This decision was thought
prudent for several reasons:
a. The Housing Elements were adopted by the elected officials of the jurlsdietlons following
public hearings before local residents, and, therefore, was likely to refleet the housing
priorities ofthe general public,
b. The Housing Elements generally provide a clear description of current housing needs,
objectives, policies, and implementation programs for each jurisdiction. The elements,
although distinctive in format, all contain similar state mandated Information. All were
required to have been updated within the past five year period,
c. While it is clear that the adopted Housing Elements presented a ready and reliable resource,
they also reflected substantial consensus among Urban County members. Unlike the now
obsolete Housing Assistance Plans(HAP), which detail an individual jurisdiction's approach
to resolving housing needs, the Consolidated Plan must represent a "collective" approach
acceptable to a diverse collection of communities. The following objectives and strategies
reflect that reality.
As a result of data and input gathered as part of the 1995-2000 Plan preparation process, five
major objectives emerged on which the Urban County wanted to focus their affordable housing
programs. For each of these objectives, a number of strategies were developed, aimed at helping
the jurisdictions meet their objectives. The Urban County jurisdictions have indicated that the
affordable housing objectives set out in the 1995-2000 plan continue to state their priorities, and
should be included as objectives for the 2000-2005 plan. A subcommittee ofthe Citizens
68
Advisory Committee(CAC)and the Council Committee(CC) met on March 24, 2005 to discuss
the objectives and strategies and recommended one additional objective pertaining to first-time
homebuyers and some modifications on strategies. The six primary objectives of the Urban
County program are;
Increase the supply of affordable housing to lower income households.
Increase housing opportunities for special needs households and the unhoused.
Increase affordable housing opportunities for low to moderate income first time
homebuyers.
Rehabilitate and maintain existing affordable housing.
Preserve existing affordable housing.
Ensure equal housing opportunities.
Priorities for Assistance
In 1995, the County of Santa Clara's priorities for the provision of affordable housing were
determined by a review of statistical reports and the results of a widely distributed survey to
housing agencies. Based on the 1990 Census data, a table of the Priority Needs for the Urban
County Jurisdictions has been prepared. As indicated in Table 3 (located in the Action Planj,
the areas of highest priority for assistance were those activities directed to very low-income,
small family and large family renters and low-income, large family renters. The priority list also
includes housing programs and activities to assist homeless persons and persons with very
specialized needs. All available housing data for Santa Clara County clearly and consistently
pointed to these groups as being the most in need of housing assistance, and should, therefore, be
the focus of available resources.
Of somewhat lower priority were housing activities directed toward assisting very low and lowincome elderly renters, and other very low-income renters, such as single persons without
dependents. Also within this slightly lower priority grouping were programs for very lowincome, first time homebuyers with children and very low-income homeowners. These groups
were judged as having critical housing needs, but were not given quite as high a priority as those
in the first grouping.
The final and lowest priority category included activities to assist low-income homeowners and
first time homebuyers. While the difficulties of first time homebuyers is well documented, and
continues to be a major problem in the county, the needs of very low-income renters, homeless
individuals, and those with specialized needs continue to be the highest priority for funding.
Affordable Housing Objectives and Strategies
The following sections outline the Urban County’s objectives with regard to the HUD priorities
identified in Table 3 and the known needs ofthe seven jurisdictions that make up the Urban
County. Following each objective is a list ofstrategies intended to help mitigate the identified
problem. (Objectives are not ranked in order of importance.)
OBJECTIVE 1: INCREASE THE AVAILABLE SUPPLY OF HOUSING
AFFORDABLE TO LOWER INCOME HOUSEHOLDS
69
Land Use
There are many factors affecting the affordability of housing in the Urban County Jurisdictions.
One significant factor is the shortage of affordable housing units relative to demand. This
shortage manifests itself in several ways, such as a low affordable housing vacancy rates and
home prices and rents that are very high relative to the incomes of lower income households.
The lack of developable land and local development standards are other constraints to providing
housing at densities that allow affordability.
The objective is to increase the total number of affordable housing units in the Urban County
Jurisdictions in order to provide for the current and projected needs of the low and moderateincome families living in those communities. The affordable units should be appropriate in cost
and type for a range of households earning at or below 80% of the countywide median. The
following three strategies address this objective:
Strategy 1:
Each Urban County jurisdition will seek to encourage construction of an adequate
supply of affordable housing by:
a. Ensuring adequate residential development potential commensurate with
need,
b. Periodically surveying their community’s vacant and redevelopable
acreage for residential development opportunities,
c. Encouraging shared-housing programs,
d. Encouraging jurisdictions with Redevelopment Agencies to utilize the
20% set-aside for affordable housing development.
Strategy 2:
Each Urban County jurisdiction will encourage the construction of affordable
housing in a range of types and prices by:
a. Periodically reviewing eommunity development and design guidelines to
allow for the possibility of eost-effective eonstruction methods, and by
allowing innovative, eost-saving techniques, consistent with safety and
aesthetic standards,
b. Employing land use standards that permit construction of additional
housing, with a range of types and prices reflective of the community’s
current households,
c. Allowing accessory (second) unit additions, where appropriate,
d. Eneouraging private seetor construetion of affordable housing by
removing impediments in the permit review process,
e. Permitting compatible multi-family, mixed-use (commercial/residential)
projects.
Strategy 3:
Each Urban County jurisdiction will ensure the appropriateness and effeetiveness
of community housing goals and policies by:
a. Monitoring progress ofthe jurisdiction toward meeting affordable housing
objeetives.
b. Preparing an annual housing status report to the governing body.
Financial Assistance
Even when land is available, land-purchase and development costs in the Urban County
jurisdictions generally discourage the private seetor from building housing affordable to lower
income households. Consequently, ensuring that the supply of housing affordable to these
households continues to expand commensurate with demand, will require some amount of
subsidy.
70
Public subsidies can be provided in a variety of cash grants and loans. Land cost write-downs,
density bonus program proeeeds, donation of surplus public lands, reduced or amortized
development fees, and grants for various planning and development costs represent a number of
kinds of creative financing currently being offered by Urban County communities.
The following strategies are intended to ensure that there is continuous and reliable financial
assistance for the construction of affordable housing in Urban County jurisdietions. This
assistance should be made available, under specified conditions, to both private and non-profit
builders. Toward this end. Urban County jurisdictions will:
Strategy 4:
Pursue the creation of local programs that provide financial assistance or
incentives for constructing lower ineome housing.
Strategy 5:
Review procedures that expedite applications for low and moderate-income
housing projects and work toward the goal of redueing development costs and
time delays.
Strategy 6:
Strategy 7:
Pursue continued and expanded federal and state assistance for the construction or
preservation of lower ineome housing.
Target federal, state, and local housing funds to households earning less than 80%
ofthe County median income.
Strategy 8:
Develop "clearinghouse" programs that will assist private and non-profit builders
of lower ineome housing, by informing them of all available funding and
development options.
OBJECTIVE 2:
INCREASE HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR SPECIAL NEEDS
HOUSEHOLDS AND THE UNHOUSED
Certain populations in the Urban County communities encounter extraordinary difficulty in
finding both affordable and accessible housing. These categories include disabled persons,
persons with HIV/AIDS,the elderly, lower income households, agrieultural workers, lower
income mobile home residents in projects in threat of conversion, homeless, veterans, youth
(youth aging out of foster care), Seetion 8 conversion tenants, and survivors of domestic
violence. The strategies listed below are intended to help identify special housing needs within
each ofthe Urban County Jurisdictions and ensure that sufficient resources are available to meet
those needs. Toward this end, the Urban County Jurisdictions will:
Strategy 9:
Encourage the design and construction of conveniently located housing units
meeting the needs of identified special-needs households.
Strategy 10: Encourage licensed residential eare facilities and "life cycle" housing for
independent, mobile, senior resident.
Strategy 11: Coordinate their efforts to provide permanent housing for homeless families and
chronically homeless individuals.
Strategy 12: Encourage additional appropriate housing for emancipated youth throughout the
County.
71
OBJECTIVE 3: INCREASE AFFORDABLE HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR LOW
TO MODERATE INCOME FIRST TIME HOMEBUYERS
Santa Clara County is one of the top ten regions in the nation for high housing costs. Many
potential homebuyers are “closed out” of the housing market and denied the ability to build
equity through homeownership. This situation has serious consequences for the entire region
and serves as a disincentive for the job force to remain in the area. To address this objective of
increasing opportunities to first time homebuyers, the Urban County Jurisdictions will:
Strategy 13; Pursue the goal of increased homeownership rates in the County by offering down
payment assistance to lower-income first time homebuyers.
Strategy 14: Design programs to stand alone or be combined with existing homeownership
programs in the County.
Strategy 15: Market first time homebuyer programs to the real estate and lending communities.
Strategy 16: Encourage all first-time homebuyers to attend pre-purchase homeownership
education courses.
Strategy 17: Seek additional funding from public and private sources for first-time homebuyer
programs.
OBJECTIVE 4: REHABILITATE AND MAINTAIN EXISTING AFFORDABLE
HOUSING
The Urban County Jurisdictions, like all communities in the Bay Area, have been experiencing
significant, unprecedented increases in housing costs for at least a decade. The continuing price
increases have impacted the sales price of older and newly constructed homes.
The older homes in Santa Clara County are typically smaller, more modest units than those more
recently constructed. They were built in an era of considerably less costly construction. In the
past, these houses, duplexes, and small apartments provided affordable "starter" homes for young
families. They also served as affordable rental units for lower-income families, seniors, and
those with special needs. The strategies below are aimed at maintaining the number and
diversity of the existing affordable housing stock. To this end, the Urban County Jurisdictions
will:
Strategy 18: Encourage residents to maintain and rehabilitate existing housing through
continuous code enforcement efforts and through Urban County Cooperative
Housing Rehabilitation programs. Other federal, state, and county funded
programs available for rehabilitation activities will be investigated and pursued
(i.e.. Federal Rental Rehabilitation, State CHRP-0, and County Density Bonus
programs). Note: All units more than 50 years old and/or listed on a federal,
state, or local historic inventory shall use the Secretary ofthe Interior’s Standards
for Rehabilitation, as listed below.
72
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation:
1.
A property will be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires
minimal change to the defining characteristics ofthe building and its site and
environment.
2.
The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of
historic materials or alteration offeatures and spaces that characterize a property must be
avoided.
3.
Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use.
Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural
features or architectural elements from other buildings, will not be undertaken.
4.
Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historical
significance in their own right will be retained and preserved.
5.
Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship
that characterize a historic property will be preserved.
6.
Deteriorated historic features will be repaired, rather than be replaced. Where the
severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature
shall match the old in design, texture, color, and other visual qualities and, where
possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by
documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence.
7.
Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic
materials will not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, will be
undertaken using the gentlest means possible.
8.
Significant archaeological resources affected by the project must be protected and
preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken.
9.
New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction must not destroy historic
materials that characterize the property. The new work must be differentiated from the
old, and must be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to
protect the historic integrity ofthe property and its environment.
10.
New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a
manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity ofthe historic
property and its environment would be unimpaired.
Strategy 19: In permitting new housing construction of any type, whether publicly or privately
funded. Urban County Jurisdictions will strive to ensure compatibility with the
character and scale ofthe surrounding neighborhood.
73
OBJECTIVE 5:
PRESERVE EXISTING AFFORDABLE HOUSING
In a region that has recently experienced phenomenal increases in housing costs, simply
maintaining the affordable units that are currently in the housing stock is a major task. The
conversion of apartments to condominiums, the redevelopment of former mobile home parks, the
demolition of small homes and apartments, and the "gentrification" of older, small home/small
lot neighborhoods represent serious threats to the existing affordable housing supply.
Having been built and financed in an earlier era, these older units are typically less costly to rent
or buy than newer housing. This is the type of housing young families, single people, first time
homebuyers, and the fixed-income elderly can more easily afford. It fills a very important need
for many different types of households.
Unfortunately, the Urban County Jurisdictions were subject to the termination of federal
mortgage and/or rent subsidies, and their concern was that the loss ofthose subsidies not result in
the conversion of affordable housing units to market-rate units. The principal objectives of
Strategies 11-14 are to prevent the conversion or loss of existing affordable units, and ensuring
that those units remain available to low and moderate-income households in Urban County
communities. To this end, the Urban County Jurisdictions will:
Strategy 20: Protect existing rental housing from conversion to market-rate, ownership housing
according to the needs of each community.
Strategy 21: Work with the private sector to provide replacement housing, lost through
demolition or conversion to non-residential use for low and moderate-income
households.
Strategy 22: Provide assistance and encouragement that will allow households to maintain and
continue to live in their homes.
Strategy 23: Pursue Federal and State legislation to preserve Section 8 housing assistance and
enable continued funding ofthis housing option.
OBJECTIVE 6: ENSURE EQUAL HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES
Housing discrimination experienced by low and moderate-income households exacerbates
affordability problems by further restricting the housing options available. Despite years of
effort to curtail discrimination, it continues to occur; even though it is illegal. The objective of
the strategies below is to eliminate illegal and unwarranted discrimination in the Urban County
communities. The strategies, thus, address a broad range of activities that define discriminatory
housing practices. To this end, the Urban County Jurisdictions will:
Strategy 24: Promote equal housing opportunities and strive to eliminate discriminatory
housing practices that exclude persons based on racial, ethnic, religious, age,
marital-status, or any other arbitrary characteristics.
Strategy 25: Augment and enforce Fair Housing laws to protect against arbitrary housing
discrimination; fair housing services will be available to residents in all Urban
County communities.
74
Strategy 26: Recognize and protect the right oftenants and landlords and provide opportunities
for mediation of disputes.
Strategy 27: Disperse housing for low and moderate-income households throughout Urban
County communities and will not concentrate such housing in any locations.
Homelessness
In December of 2004, the cities of Santa Clara County and the County jointly sponsored a twoday homeless count (conducted by a consultant who specializes in these counts) to assess the
homeless population in the County's 351 census tracts. Based on the preliminary results, Based
on the results, there were 7,646 unduplicated cases of homelessness, of which 6,432 were
individual cases and 1,214 were persons in family groups.
In October 2004, the Board of Supervisors established a Homeless Task Force to create a plan to
end chronic homelessness in the County of Santa Clara. On May 3, 2005 the Task Force
presented its plan “Keys to Housing: A 10-Year Plan to End Chronic Homelessness in Santa
Clara County” to the Board of Supervisors. The Board unanimously accepted the Plan and
directed the Task Force to return on a quarterly basis with a report concerning the progress of
implementation of the Plan. Key to the Plan is a commitment to use the Housing First model as
a way to quickly re-house homeless people in permanent, supportive housing.(See Appendix J
for entire Plan.)
HUD Table 1C
Summary of Specific Homeless Objectives
Specific Objective
Unmet Need
Homeless Housing Objectives
Emergency Shelter-Individuals
61
Performance
Production
Measure
Goals
Beds
50
Emergency Shelter-Families
11
Beds
0
Transitional Housing-Individuals
Transitional Housing-Families
60
Units
20
11
Units
0
Permanent Housing-Individuals
Permanent Housing-Families
245
Units
25
47
Units
0
Total
435
95
Homeless Special Needs Objectives
Chronically Homeless
Seriously Mentally 111
CofC
N/A
CofC
CofC
N/A
CofC
Chronic Substance Abuse
CofC
N/A
CofC
Veterans
CofC
N/A
CofC
HIV/AIDS
CofC
N/A
CofC
Survivors of Domestic Violence
CofC
N/A
CofC
Youth
CofC
N/A
CofC
Other Speeial Needs
The Special Needs Populations to whom the Urban County has traditionally provided funding are
Seniors, Frail Elderly, Persons with Disabilities, Persons with Mental Illness, Female Heads of
Household (Domestic Violence) and Youth. The highest needs population is Persons with Disabilities.
75
HUD Table IB
Summary of Special Needs Populations (Non-Homeless) Objectives
Speeial Needs Category
Priority
Estimated
Need
Need
Seniors
High
Frail Elderly
Youth
High
High
High
High
High
6,000
20,275
33,223
1,600
Farm workers
Estimated Dollar
8,500
415,710
77,415
2,248,830
152,790
272,020
1,111,050
Low
100
0
HIV/AIDS
Medium
136
0
Alcohol/Qther Drug Addiction
Public and Assisted Housing Needs
Tenant-Based Rental Housing
Medium
1,497
0
Medium
236
0
Medium
151
0
Units At-Risk of Conversion
Medium
Persons with Disabilities
Mental Illness
Female Head of Household
5471
Total Persons
Goals
Need
127
0
77,316
4,277,815
2,680
4,560
25,600
725
1,430
6,050
41,045
Non-Housing Community Development
General
This section of the Consolidated Plan describes the Urban County’s non-housing community
development needs including:
-Public Facilities and Improvements, services and special needs services
-Public Services Which Primarily Serve Lower Income Clients
-Infrastructure and neighborhood services
-Economic development opportunities for low income persons
Based on data obtained from five ofthe Urban County cities the existing needs in the Urban
County areas are described below.
A. Public Facilities and Improvements: Capital Project Needs
-There is a need to expand, modernize, rehabilitate, make seismic and other safety related
improvements and accessibility improvements to existing facilities which serve special
need populations (limited clientele as defined by HUD regulations).
-There is a need to complete accessibility improvements in public facilites and in public
streets and sidewalks throughout the Urban County to ensure compliance with the
Americans with Disabilities Act(ADA).
-There are needs throughout the Urban County for new facilities and capital improvement
and rehabilitation of existing facilities occupied by service programs which serve the low
income and special needs populations.
-There are needs throughout the Urban County for improved facilites for the provision of
homeless services, including showers, laundry, food distribution, drop-in counseling, etc.
-There are needs throughout the Urban County for new park facilities and improvements
for existing park and playground facilities.
-There are needs throughout the Urban County for additional childcare facilities for low
income families.
76
B. Public Services Which Primarily Serve Lower Income Clients
-There are needs for supporting the operating expenses of organizations which provide
housing related information, counseling and supportive services such as:
•Affordable housing information and referral
•Information and counseling on tenant/landlord issues
•Shared housing counseling and placement
•Counseling, shelter services and general assistance to the very low income or
homeless population
•Services which address the needs of the frail elderly or persons with disabilities
•Services which address the needs of low income children and their families
-There are needs for infrastructure improvements in the Urban County. There is a
particular need for storm drainage improvements, sewer improvements, street and
sidewalk improvements in theUnincorporated Area.
-There are needs for economic development programs which create and increase
employment opportunities for minorities, low income persons, homeless persons, and
persons with disabilities. Although it is clear that a need exists in the Urban County
communities, the utilization of insufficient housing dollars to meet that need is not a
priority at this time. Therefore, the Urban County does not plan to address those non
housing community needs during the next five years {HUD Table 2B.)
HUD Table 2B
Community Development Needs
Category
Estimated
Priority
Estimated Dollar
Goals
Need
Need
Need
High
15
800,000
5
Medium
5
Medium
20
210,000
10,000
70,000
5
PUBLIC FACILITIES
Public Facilities-Barrier
Removal
Senior Centers
Homeless Facilities
Youth Facilities
Neighborhood Facilities
10
High,
10
Medium
Parks/Recreation Facilities
High
50
Street Improvements
High
50
High
50
Sidewalks
PUBLIC SERVICES
Public Service-General
60,000
High
55,000
High
500
Disabled Services
High
700
High
Legal Services
10,000
Youth Services
High
450
Battered Women
High
500
High
Fair Housing
300
High
Tenant Landlord Counseling
Source: 2004 Santa Clara County Homeless Census and Survey
Senior Services
25,000
625,000
270,000
300,000
650,000
700,000
25,000
15,000
150,000
250,000
175,000
75,000
16.7% Emergency; 16.3% Transitional and 67% Permanent; 15.9% Families and 84% Individuals
77
1
3
2
15
20
25
40,000
25,000
50
70
6,000
125
200
100
HUD Table 2C
Summary of Specific Housing/Community Development Objectives
Performance
Objective
Goal
Section 215
Goals
Measure
HOUSING
Energy Efficiency Improvements
Housing Units
Housing Units
Housing Units
Housing Units
Housing Units
Code Enforcement
Housing Units
Acquisition
Construction of Housing
Rehabilitation - Single Unit Res.
Rehabilitation - Multi Unit Res.
Total Housing Units
50
50
237
237
100
100
25
25
200
200
500
400
1,112
1,012
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Facilities
Public Facilities-Barrier Removal
Total Public Facilities
5
N/A
5
N/A
Parks/Recreation Facilities
Persons
50
N/A
Sidewalks
Persons
5000
N/A
Persons
5000
N/A
10,060
N/A
N/A
Street Improvements
Total Persons
PUBLIC SERVICES
Public Service-General
Persons
Senior Services
Persons
40,000
25,000
Disabled Services
Persons
50
N/A
Legal Services
Persons
70
N/A
Youth Services
Persons
6,000
N/A
Battered Women
Persons
125
N/A
Fair Housing
Tenant Landlord Counseling
Persons
200
N/A
Persons
100
N/A
Health Services
Persons
2500
N/A
N/A
74,045
Total Persons
Lead-Based Paint Hazards and Reduction
Lead poisoning is the number one environmental health threat that children in the United States
face today. It is estimated that over 434,000 children nationwide aged one to five years have
blood lead levels above the Center for Disease Control(CDC)levels of concern, that is, lOug/dL
(micrograms per deciliter). Lead poisoning causes IQ reductions, reading and learning
disabilities, decreased attention span and hyperactivity and aggressive behavior. Several factors
contribute to higher incidences of lead poisoning:
• Children under two are especially vulnerable
• Low Income children are at eight times higher risk for lead poisoning than wealthy
children
• Black children have five times higher risk than White children
• Hispanic children are twice as likely as White children to have lead poisoning
• Children in older housing are at higher risk
• Up to 50 percent of children in distressed neighborhoods have some level of lead
poisoning
78
Lead-based paint(LBP)is a major source of lead poisoning. Starting in 1978, the use of all leadbased paint on residential property was prohibited. National studies estimated that 75 percent of
all residential structures built prior to 1978 contain LBP and that older structures have the
highest percentage of LBP. The age of the housing stock is the key variable for estimating the
number of housing units with lead-based paint. In assessing the potential LBP hazard of these
older structures, several factors must be considered. First, not all units with lead-based paint
have lead-based paint hazards. Only testing for lead in dust, soil, deteriorated paint, chewable
paint surfaces, friction paint surfaces, or impact paint surfaces provides information about
hazards. Properties more at risk than others include:
■
■
Deteriorated units, particularly those with leaky roofs and plumbing
Rehabilitated units where there was not a thorough cleanup with high-phosphate wash
after the improvements were completed
The Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data provide the number of
housing units constructed before 1970 that were occupied by lower income households. This
data can be used to approximate the extent of LBP hazards among lower income households.
While information on units constructed before 1978 is not available from CHAS, estimates based
on
the pre-1970 stock provide a conservative estimate of the extent of LBP hazards. It is
estimated that 7,119 units in the Urban County Area occupied by lower income households (0-80
percent MFI) may contain LBP (Table 23).
There have been three main thrusts to Santa Clara County's response to LBP issues. First is the
ongoing sereening and treatment of children who may have been exposed to lead in their
environment. Second, the County and local Jurisdictions are testing for the presence of LBP
through their rehabilitation programs, and requiring abatement as necessary. Third, the County
initiated a class-action lawsuit against eight paint manufacturers and a trade group for selling
LBP that they knew was hazardous to ehildren. The suit sought to force the paint manufacturers
to pay for the removal of LBP from buildings where it is identified, to pay for the treatment of
children identified with lead poisoning, and to fund Countywide educational programs regarding
the risks associated with LBP. However, in 2003, the lawsuit was dismissed in Santa Clara
County Superior Court.
Santa Clara County Lead Programs
The Public Health Department established a Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program
composed of a unique three way partnership including: The public Health Department,
Environmental Health Services, and Public Health Nursing. The program provides case
management, environmental surveillance, education, and outreach.
The Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention (CLPPP) which is administered by the Santa Clara
County Health Department began screening for lead levels in the blood of children in a study
conducted between September of 1991 and August of 1992. Of the estimated 434,000 children
nationwide aged one to five years to have blood lead levels above the Center for Disease Control
(CDC) levels of concern, that is, lOug/dL (micrograms per deciliter), approximately 3,600 of
those ehildren reside in Santa Clara County. The County’s Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention
Program (CLPPP) is responsible for increasing public awareness on the dangers of lead
poisoning, and providing education and prevention programs.
There were 3,627 children tested during this period and 233 children had levels that exceeded 10
micrograms of lead per deciliter of blood which is 6 1/2% of the children studied. Of that same
79
group, there were 36 children that had blood levels of lead that exceeded the level of 20. The
study found that a high percentage of children were Hispanic. Preliminary findings suggest that
the use of “azarcon” as a folkremedy within the Hispanic community may have contributed to
the problem. Leaded paint and lead contaminated soil, however, remain a principal concern with
regard to childhood lead poisoning. Further, improperly glazed pottery also may have high
levels of lead.
Case Management/Prevention
In 2002, The Office of Affordable Housing and the County Board of Supervisors established a
Lead-Based Paint Grant Program. The program funds one time grants for the cost of inspection
and mitigation of lead-based paint contamination in homes in the urban cities and unicorporated
areas of the county, for low-income homeowners who participate in the Housing Rehabilitation
Program. Every Housing Rehabilitation applicant has a mandatory Lead Paint inspections and
abatement if necessary.
Currently, the State provides funds for case management of individuals found to have high levels
of lead in their blood. Santa Clara County’s Public Health Department has been offering a
Childhood Lead Poisoning Program. Separate funding is required for programs aimed at
environmental lead abatement measures such as leaded paint and contaminated soil removal.
Anti-Poverty Strategy
The Urban County HCD Program primarily deals with issues pertaining to housing.
Currently, the program is not involved with economic development activities. Many of the
programs have impacts other than just housing. For instance, the Shelter Plus Care program
provides rental assistance and supportive services to homeless persons. The program
provides individuals with a foundation for re-entering the work force so they can be removed
from public assistance.
As noted earlier in this section, other programs that help eliminate poverty in Santa Clara
County are the Family Self-Sufficiency Program (FSS) and CalWORKs. According to
statistics gathered by the County, there has been a sharp decline (approximately 1/3 fewer) in
the number of persons requiring assistance payments over the past two years. Santa Clara
County will continue to participate in Job training programs such as GAIN, and will comply
with the CalWORKs Program.
To serve North County residents, the City of Sunnyvale initiated the North Valley Job Training
Consortium (NOVA) program. Formed in 1983 by six northern Santa Clara County cities,
NOVA is a federally funded, non profit employment and training agency. NOVA coordinates
efforts between private industry, organized labor, government, education and community-based
organizations that provide training, and employment programs at no cost to eligible applicants. It
offers programs for economically disadvantaged youth and adults, homeless, veterans,
individuals with disabilities, at-risk youth, seniors, and dislocated workers. NOVA is funded
primarily by grants from the State and federal government and by local industry. NOVA is
administered by the City of Sunnyvale. NOVA was created in response to Federal legislation,
specifically the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA). In addition, the NOVA Private Industry
Council was established to guide the agency in its mission to provide low cost and efficient job
training and employment programs for the six NOVA cities (Sunnyvale, Cupertino, Mountain
View, Los Altos, Santa Clara and Palo Alto). The council is a private/public partnership made up
of representatives from local government, business and industry, labor, education and training
systems, employment services, and community support organizations.
80
In Fiscal Year 2003-04, there were 17,271 client visits to NOVA’s “one-stop center” in Sunnyvale.
NOVA enrolled a total of 2,811 clients for program services.
Institutional Structure
The Urban County Program has operated in its existing organizational form since the inception
of the CDBG Program in 1975. Since then, the CDBG program funds have been administered
by County HCD staff, in conjunction with staff from the participating Urban County
jurisdictions. HOME funds have also been overseen by County HCD staff, in addition to
housing Rehabilitation Programs for some of the cities in the Urban County. County HCD also
provides technical assistance to the cities, as needed. In 2003, the HCD Program was placed
within the newly created Office of Affordable Housing.
Distribution of Funds Process
Annually, the Urban County receives an allocation of CDBG funds from HUD that is distributed
as follows:
• Approximately 60% of the grant (after administration and rehabilitation services have
been set aside) is divided equally between the participating non-entitlement cities
(including the County). Each participating city determines how its share of the money
will be allocated at the local level.
• Approximately 40% of the grant is placed in a competitive pool for distribution to public
and non-profit agencies for housing and housing-related projects.
Request for Proposal
The funding process is initiated at the HCD Advisory Committee each September, at which the
Committee members review the previous year’s application packet and recommend any changes
to the funding priorities or process. Upon approval, staff initiates the Application/Request for
Proposal (REP) process. Notice of the Request for Proposal, indicating how interested parties
may obtain an application, is published in the local newspaper, the San Jose Mercury News.
Notices of funding availability are also sent directly to previously funded agencies, various
housing-advocacy groups, and other interested parties.
Urban County Housing Pool - Non-Profit Organizations
Project proposals of a countywide nature, that are housing or housing-related and not normally
focused on serving one non-entitlement city, are submitted directly to the County. Immediately
following the submission deadline, an evaluation phase begins. Proposals received prior to the
deadline are screened for eligibility by County HCD staff. The applications are then distributed
among all Urban County staff members for review and recommendation. A meeting is held
approximately one week later where reviewers discuss the projects and present their individual
recommendations for funding. The entire group then prioritizes the projects according to preestablished criteria and drafts preliminary recommendations. After hearing public presentations
of the proposals and researching any outstanding questions or issues, the Urban County staff
meets again to finalize their recommendations.
Staff recommendations are then forwarded to the HCD Advisory Committee for review,
evaluation, and recommendations. Both staff and HCD Advisory Committee recommendations
are then forwarded to the County Board of Supervisors.
Throughout the funding cycle, committee meetings are open to the public. Applicants have the
opportunity to clarify the details of their projects and/or provide additional information; and
81
members of the public may ask questions or voice opinions. All public hearings on applications
for funding are publicized in the San Jose Mercury News at least 10 days prior to the hearing.
All public meeting notices and advertisements state the date, time, and location of the hearing
and/or meeting, as well as topics to be covered. Efforts are made to ensure effective notification
of the meetings through the use of flyers, public service announcements, and mail-outs to local
officials and interested citizens.
Local Project Development Phase - Cities
Project proposals for eligible CDBG activities that fall within a city's sphere of influence must be
submitted to the city and considered as a part of the city's project development process.
Running concurrently with the Urban County review process, is a series of hearings and
meetings at the local city and neighborhood level. This series of hearings and meetings,
typically held during the winter and spring months, provide information to the residents of Urban
County cities and, specifically, residents of target neighborhoods, regarding the process for
preparation, submission, and selection of project proposals. During this project development
phase, Urban County staff members or technical assistance teams may work with the residents to
assess local needs and develop project proposals. Urban County cities typically hold at least one
public meeting in targeted neighborhoods where comprehensive or concentrated neighborhood
revitalization, or the construction of public facilities or improvements, is either ongoing or
proposed.
While the cities may choose to have a number of public meetings with target groups, only one
public hearing is required. The purpose of that hearing is to recommend project proposals to be
funded by the city, from its share of the grant money. Each city then forwards all project
proposals, including those not recommended for funding, to the County for final review and
approval by the Board of Supervisors.
Public Housing
Goals for Families to be Assisted with Housing
The Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara has again been designated as a "High
Performer" by HUD for public housing administration and Section 8 program administration.
Additionally, the Housing Authority has again received the highest rating from Standard and
Poors; only the second Housing Authority in the United States to receive a rating. The rating
will be useful in financial transactions particularly affecting the Development Department.
New units under the Section 8 Rental Certificate, Rental Voucher and the Family Unification
programs, if available, are obtained through a competitive application process. The Section 8
wait list was opened in January, 1999 and over 27,000 people applied in one week. The current
wait list has 2500 names on it. In 1999, the Housing Authority received 100 certificates of
funding from HUD for persons with disabilities under the Main Stream funding. They also
received 700 vouchers which is equivalent to $7 million in housing assistance payment subsidies
for the County of Santa Clara for residents moving from welfare to work. The application was
nationally competitive. All voucher units are leased for Welfare to Work clients. The Housing
Authority received 445 Fair Share vouchers for the County of Santa Clara in 2002 and 80
Welfare to Work vouchers in 2003. The annual subsidy is $740,250. In addition, the Housing
Authority is administering tenant-based Shelter Plus Care housing assistance. Tenant-based
housing assistance is eligible for use throughout the County, including the Urban County areas.
The Family Unification Program received 100 additional certificates in October 1999. The
Housing Authority is working in partnership with the Social Services Agency of Santa Clara
County to place families in this program and has received funding through Social Services
82
Agency to fund staff positions to assist with housing counseling and search for welfare to work
recipients. This funding ends June 30, 2005. SSA has sponsored a shallow rent subsidy program
administered by the Housing Authority for up to 500 clients. This program ended June 30, 2004.
The Housing Authority and Housing Choices, a non-profit for persons with disabilities are
partnering on the development of housing at the former Agnews site. Remediation of toxics in
the soil has temporarily slowed down the progress but it is expected that progress will pick up in
the summer of 1999. John Burns Gardens and River Town Apartments are now leased. The
planned improvements for Rincon Gardens, in Campbell, took place in 1999 as planned and were
mentioned in last year’s plan. In 2000, $200,000 was expended to complete interior and exterior
work, concrete work, upgrade the fire alarm system, replace mailboxes, paint and replace
flooring in some units. In addition they will replaced the carpeting in the dining room and the
hallways as well as other improvements completed in 2003/2004, including modernization of
selected units plus replacement ofthe steam table for a cost of$67,000.
In December, 2000, the Housing Authority finished work on a new family development in San
Jose on Communication Hill. In April, 2001, work began on a 125 units development for seniors
in San Jose called El Parador. The units are fiilly occupied. The Housing Authority and the
County of Santa Clara will be developing affordable housing units at the County Fair Grounds
by 2005 if funds are available. Finally, the Housing Authority implemented Section 8
homeownership program. These are currently 5 homeowners who utilize Section 8 housing
assistance payments for homeownership.
The Shelter Plus Care (S+C) Program is authorized by the Title IV of the Stewart B. McKinney
Homeless Assistance Act. The program is intended to provide rental subsidies, linked with
coordinated supportive services, for homeless persons and their families who are either seriously
mentally ill, drug or alcohol dependent, or who have AIDS, or are HIV positive, or are dually
diagnosed.
S+C grant recipients are chosen nationwide on a competitive basis. Santa Clara County has
competed and was awarded five separate S+C grants; one in 1992, 1993, 1995, 1997, and finally
1998. The original grant awarded in 1992 expired in 1998, however, because there were funds
remaining, the grant was extended, then renewed. The Housing Authority manages $2.2 million
in Shelter Plus Care rent subsidies for approximately 200 individuals. Supportive services and
coordination are also provided for Shelter Plus Care clients as a match contribution from
government agencies such as County Public Health, Social Services and Mental Health
Departments, as well as non-profit service organizations and shelter providers, such as.
Community Care, Emergency Housing Consortium, InnVision and many others.
83
Document
Title I of the National Affordable Housing Act establishes the requirement for state and local governments that apply for direct assistance under certain HUD programs to have a HUD-approved Consolidated Plan. The Consolidated Plan is a comprehensive planning document that identifies a jurisdiction's overall needs for affordable and supportive housing and outlines a strategy to address those needs. In this case, the jurisdiction is the Urban County.The Consolidated Plan describes the activities that the Urban County anticipates undertaking during the five-year period of Fiscal Years 2005-2010 with funds received through the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program and the Home Investment Partnership Act (HOME) Program. These activities are intended to meet the Urban County’s affordable housing and community development needs and objectives. The Action Plan is an annual increment to the Consolidated Plan and describes the specific activities that the Urban County plans to undertake to address the established objectives.
Initiative
Collection
James T. Beall, Jr.
Content Type
Plan
Resource Type
Document
Date
2005-2010
District
District 4
Creator
Housing and Community Development
Language
English
Rights
No Copyright: http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/