'

'I

I

/i

'

u

'

.

. I

- J

Ill

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
HOUSING TASI, FORCE
Report : 2002

.,•

•
••:

.I.j

•:

[ TABLE OF CONTENTS )

STATEMENT
Hon . James T. Beall and Hon. Donald F. Gage

4

INTRODUCTION
Crisis, Response, and Process
Analysis: Trends, Barriers, and Needs
Economic Boom and Spiraling Costs
Jobs/Housing Imbalance
Public Financing System
Lack of Political Will
Federal and State Support
Housing Needs
Special Hous ing Needs
Public Employees
Current Efforts

5

B
7

8
8
9
9
10
11

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
Infrastructure and Organization
Office of Affordable Housing
Special Needs Housing
Regional Leadership and Advocacy
County Housing Commission
Policy Advocacy
Resources Acquisition and Allocation
Public Source of Local Financing
Publicly-owned Surplus Land

30

CONCLUSION

33

APPENDIX
1:
2:
3:
4:

Footnotes
Office of Affordable Housing-Proposed Activities
Special Needs Housing-Proposed Activities
Publicly-owned Surplus Land-Affordable Housing Land Bank -

14

17
20
23
26

37

38
39
40

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA HOUSING. TASK FORCE Report 2002
Statement: Hon. James T. Beall and Hon. Donald F. Gage

County of Santa Clara

..

Office of the Board of Supervisors

. ---- :

Coun1y Guvernmenl Center. East Wing
70 Wes1 11eddlng s1ree1. 10til Floor
San Jose. California 951 Io
(408) 299-432 I
FAX 298-8400

299-2323
TDD 993-8272

April 2002
As elected public servants of the County of Santa Clara, we have heard the compelling stories of working
parents struggling to make ends meet, of young families wondering if they will ever be able to purchase
a home here, of senior citizens worrying if their fixed incomes will force them to leave the region they
helped build, and of employees yearning to live in the community they serve. The scarcity of affordable
housing touches us all and represents a threat to the economic vitality and the social fabric our Santa
Clara County community.
The persistent housing crisis has focused the attention of community leaders and policy makers on the
need for actfon. However, in spite of the efforts to respond on the part of the fifteen local cities and
townships, and the County itself, the crisis worsens. This sobering truth, that no one institution can
solve this problem, presents a unique challenge for anyone concerned about the long-term health of
Silicon Valley.
It is for this reason that the Board of Supervisors took a unique step to involve the wider community in
the policy discourse by establishing the County of Santa Clara Housing Task Force. Through an intensive
community planning process, hundreds of stakeholders worked for several months to develop a firmer
understanding of the housing concerns we face and the solutions we might work on together. Over the
last few months a Steering Committee has further analyzed and refined several proposals for consideration by the Board of Supervisors.
The County of Santa Clara Housing Task Force Report 2002 is the culmination of this groundbreaking
collaboration and represents a thoughtful articulation of a comprehensive regional response. U/timatelY,
the Board of Supervisors will discuss the ideas in this report and establish an appropriate course of
action for the County of Santa Clara. We are confident that the foundation laid by this effort will help
position the County to play a constructive and collaborative role in addressing our region's housing crisis.
We thank the Task Force for its work and look forward to the dialogue it has framed.

SincerelY,

!=.~-~llf-

santa Clara County Supervisor, District 4
Board Chair 2001

Board of Supervisors :
Donald F. Gage
Dlslrict I

4

Blanca Alvarado
District 2

......
..

Pete McHugh
District 3

Donald F. Gage
Santa Clara County Supervisor, District 1
Board Chair 2002

James T. Beall. Jr.
District 4

Liz Kniss
Dislrict 5

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA HOUSING TASK FORCE Report 2002
Introduction: Process, Analysis, and Current Efforts

::z
--4

0

::a

r-

0
Cl

n
-<
::a

c::

n
--4

In what can only be described as a stunning paradox, housing, one of our most fundamental
human needs, is among the defining issues for the region that gave birth to the high technology
revolution. More preciselY, the lack of affordable housing in Santa Clara County has contributed to
a crisis in the shadow of Silicon Valley's much-heralded prosperity. Long recognized as an innovative and responsive public institution, the County of Santa Clara is uniquely positioned to play a
constructive and collaborative leadership role to respond to the housing needs of county residents.

"'ti

0

::z

n
0

::z

n
r-

0

"'ti
"'ti

m
::z

e:

Cl

VI

><

m

n

>

0

::z

==
==

m

:21
Cl

>

--4
0

::z
VI

CRISIS, RESPONSE, AND PROCESS

Economic Boom
I

v

•
•
■

Lack of State and

Federal Support
The Crisis:
The flip side of a record economic expansion that stretched through the latter half
of the past decade, the shortage of
affordable housing in our region has
facilitated dramatic and unprecedented
increases in rents and home prices for
;t
our entire community. The result is
/
_, , ,
V
a potentially crippling legacy for
,
.,'
the regional economy. For the pri- Lack of Political Will <- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -> Public Financing System
vate sector, increasing nousing
costs have made it difficult to attract and retain
special needs populations. With the CHTF, the
an increasingly mobile workforce, forcing many
Board of Supervisors has taken an unprecedented
firms to limit expansion or relocate altogether. For
step by convening community members, policy
individuals and families here, the impact has been
makers, city planners, housing advocates, and
debilitating as an increasing share of family income
experts to define a comprehensive action plan
is devoted to housing expenses. As a consequence,
that may shape strategic interventions and future
the dream of home ownership becomes more eluinitiatives by the County to make a quantifiable
sive, or commuting fantastic distances from homes
impact on our region's housing woes.
elsewhere becomes the only realistic alternative.

The Response:
While the myriad implications of the crisis are
sobering, the reaction by community leaders and
institutions has remained both fractious and inadequate. In response to increasing calls for regional
leadership on the housing crisis, the County of
Santa Clara, under the leadership of Supervisor
Jim Beall, initiated a community planning effort to
define a county-wide strategic action plan for
affordable housing known as the Santa Clara
County Housing Task Force (CHTF). Historically,
the County has not played a central role in the
development of housing, because zoning and land
use authority, which has the most impact on
housing production levels, is retained by the 15
cities and townships in the county. However, the
County of Santa Clara and its affiliated agencies
are significant leaders in addressing the continuum
of housing needs, with various programs that
support homebuyers, low-income families and

lh

The County of Santa Clara
is uniquely positioned
to play a constructive
and collaborative
leadership role ...
The Process:
Starting in May of 2001, over 200 participants the
CHTF process worked to develop this report to the
Board of Supervisors. Five committees met over
the summer and fall to refine our understanding of
specific dimensions of housing needs and to flesh
out policy recommendations. The committees
included: Regional Housing Action Plan, Special
Needs Housing, Community Land Trust, Surplus
Government Land, and Employee Housing.

5

13

33

37

:z:
0

1-

u
::::,
0
0

c:::
1-

:z:

A unique charge 'of this effort was to craft an
analysis of the housing needs and current economic
and policy trends exacerbating the housing shortage.
After a thorough review of existing data sets on
the nature of the needs and barriers, the CHTF
set about identifying and prioritizing solutions.
The final phase of the effort united the chairs
from each committee with representatives from
each member of the Board of Supervisors to
review, evaluate, and craft viable implementation
strategies for consideration by the Board of
Supervisors. This report is the culmination of a bold
initiative on the part of the Board of Supervisors to
engage the broader community in identifying
focused objectives and viable strategies for the
County to take a leadership role in the affordable
housing arena.

ANALYSIS:
TRENDS, BARRIERS, AND NEEDS

result of all of these trends is overwhelming
unmet housing needs for all low-income famil ies,
including special needs populations and public
employees.

Economic Boom and Spiraling Costs:
From 1992 through 2001, the Silicon Valley economy
created 334,000 new jobs but only 50,100 units
of new housing, or over 6 times the number of
jobs than housing units. 1 As a consequence, the
competition for existing housing stock sent home
prices and rents to dizzying heights. Despite the
job losses witnessed in our current recession, the
mean home price in Santa Clara County stands at
$551,317 for existing homes and $740,003 for new
homes. 2 The median-income household can afford
to buy only approximately 15 percent of the houses
sold in Santa Clara County. This number contrasts
with the national average of 63 percent, making our
region the 4th least affordable in the nation .3

To develop a foundation on
Over the last decade housing
which to build specific recprices have increased by 70
ommendations, the CHTF
The competition for
percent, while median houseinvested a considerable
existing housing stock sent hold income has increased
amount of time investigating
4
home prices and rents to approximately 50 percent.
our regional housing needs
However, this growth in
and barriers contributing to
dizzying heights ...
household income has priour current crisis. What parmarily benefited only the
ticipants found were interhighest paid workers. As
locking trends that both present daunting hurdles
Working Partnerships reported last year, fully 39
and illuminate key objectives for action. The
percent of local jobs pay less than $30,000 per
economic boom experienced by our region had
year. 5 Looking at future job growth, four of the ten
a dramatic impact on housing costs, facilitating
fastest growing occupations pay less than
a growing imbalance between job growth and
$21,000 annually. 6 Beyond fundamental equity
housing availability. Efforts to correct for these
issues, this growing income inequality equates to
production inequities must compete with fiscal
an increasing rent burden for more working families.
constraints placed on municipalities by our state's
Of the 226,000 households that rent in Santa
public financing system and the localized interests
Clara County, 39 percent spend 30 percent or
of cities, which have ultimate land use authority.
more of their income on housing. 1 While rents
Complicating matters is the decline in resources
have declined over the past year, the market rent
from the state and federal government, which
for a two-bedroom apartment in Santa Clara
shouldered much of the responsibility for public
County is $1,592. 8
investment in housing until recent decades. The

ill4J

PERCENTAGE OF HOMES AFFORDABLE TO MEDIAN-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS 1
70%
60%

I l

50%
40%

II

30%
20%
10%
0%
1991
...,._

1992

...... us

6

1993

1994

Santa Clara County

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Source: National Association of Home Builders

Fierce competition for developable
land, for both commercial and
residential projects, has kept land
prices at over $1. 1 million per
acre. 9 This fact alone makes the
prospect of developing affordable
housing for low-income families
without some form of public subsidy
nearly impossible .

:z

Jobs/Housing Imbalance:
The jobs/housing imbalance has precipitated key
problems for local policy makers. From 19791999, more than 70 percent of the total job growth
in Silicon Valley has been concentrated in northwest
Santa Clara County (Cupertino, Los Altos, Los
Altos Hills , Mountain View, Palo Alto, Santa Clara
and Sunnyvale), north San Jose, and southern
San Mateo County. 10 The Association of Bay Area
Governments (ABAG) estimated that between
1995-2000, 6 jobs were created for every housing
unit built in Santa Clara County. ABAG expects
this imbalance to continue between 2000-2005,
with 2.5 jobs for every unit of new housing, mostly
concentrated in the northern part of the county. 11
In certain cities, the astonishing number of jobs
created in that city dwarfs the number of resi dents. Looking at data from 2000, Palo Alto had
2. 7 jobs per employed resident, while Santa Clara
had 2 jobs per employed resident. 12 Other north
County cities-Sunnyvale, Mountain View, Milpitas,
and Cupertino were projected to be at or above
1.5. 13 This concentration of jobs in certain cities
without corresponding housing development there
means other communities must shoulder that
responsibility. For example, San Jose only had 0.8
jobs per employed resident. 12
Traffic congestion is among the more tangible
consequences. Without delving into the details of
the transportation crisis, we can see that the
impact of having only 78 percent of the county
workforce actually residing in the county 14 has
lead to the 47 percent increase in in-commuting
to Santa Clara County between 1990-2000.15
Recent Census figures indicate that over 35 percent
of county residents spend over 30 minutes commuting to work each day; that figure is over 40
percent for San Jose residents.16

-4

::::c:,

Cahfornia 's system of local
government finance hmits
the amount of revenue
generated by housing ...
Proposition 13 and subsequent reforms such as
Proposition 218, the ability of local government
to raise revenues through increases in property
taxes has been severely impaired. The cost of
paying for the infrastructure that was once shared
across a region (such as schools, parks, streets,
and sewers), makes adding new residential units
an expensive endeavor for municipalities. These
expenses are used as justification for cities to
limit new or higher-density housing production or
are tacked on to the cost of housing in the form of
development fees. Such fees are passed along to
consumers making homes even less affordable.
As a result, cities are encouraged to favor retail
development, wh ich produces sales tax dollars,
over new residential or office projects.
Cities that have prioritized sales tax generation in
their land use polices, instead of new and higher
density housing production , remain in a stronger
fiscal position relative to communities that do the
converse. Here in Santa Clara County, cities such as
Santa Clara, Palo Alto, and Mountain View collect
over twice as many sales tax dollars per capita as
San Jose. 11 The downside of such a reliance on
sales tax revenues, however, is that such cities
may also suffer disproportionately when the economy
suffers cyclical downturns. While San Jose
continues to accommodate and build more housing,
at times it has also been forced to prioritize retail
development to pay for basic services.
2000 SALES TAX REVENUES PER CAPITA 17
Sou rce: Californ ia Board of Equalizatio n, Cen sus 2000

This concentration of jobs in
certain cities means other
communities must shoulder
that responsibihty...
Public Financing System:
A key trend discussed in the CHTF process is that
California's system of local government finance
limits the amount of revenue generated by housing
leading to a phenomenon that has been dubbed
"fiscalization of land use." In the aftermath of

Santa Clara
Palo Alto
Mountain View
Los Gatos
Campbell
Milpitas
Sunnyvale
Cupertino
Gilroy
San Jose
Morgan Hill
Los Altos
Saratoga
Los Altos Hills
Monte Sereno

- - - $40,837
$36,365
$33,198
$28,123
$26,168
$25,380
$23,358
$22,178
$22,003
$15,208
$13,110
• $8,841
I $3,489
I $1 ,190
I $829

0
c:::I

c::
C,

-4

0

:z

z:
C

t~

::,
C
C

c::
.....

z:

Lack of Political Will:
The lack of political will, that is in some ways
closely linked with the fiscalization of land use,
al so presents major hurdles for cities to increase
housing supply. Policymakers are confronted with
some rather unique challenges here. Because of
Silicon Valley's thirst for more office space, lawmakers are at times placed in the difficult position
of rejecting jobs for residents. It is often easier to
approve commercial development than residential,
especially at higher densities. Current residents
will frequently assert that they do not want to see
the character of their neighborhood change with
higher density housing, and affordable developments in particular, by referencing what impacts
they expect on property values, traffic, schools,
and other public services.

Local policy mal<ers are
squeezed by competing
considet·ations ...
While this may not always be the case, local policy
makers are squeezed by competing considerations.
On one hand, the compelling regional housing crisis threatens to choke off our valley's competitive
position as residents and employers are forced to
leave the area because of spiraling costs. On the
other hand , there are commercial developments
clamoring for land on which to build and constituents rallying to oppose new housing proposals.

Federal and State Support:
Public investment to increase housing supplies
and support infrastructure has historically been
a priority for federal and state government.
However, federal support for housing has declined
since the 1970s, and our state has suffered
disproportionately from that decline. California
received fewer federal housing assistance dollars in
1999 for each individual living below the federal
poverty level than all but one of the ten largest
states. While the federal government spent. on
average, $286 on housing assistance for each
person in poverty, California received only $171
per person in poverty. 18
State housing spending dropped substantially
during 1990s, from 0.7 percent of total spendlng
in 1990-91 to 0.2 percent of total spending in
1999-00. California allocated $109 .6 million for

8

housing programs in 1999-00. In the same year,
Florida, with less than half the population of
California, allocated $149 million for housing programs for low- and moderate-income families.
Massachusetts, which allocated $187 million for
housing in 1999-00, has less than a fifth of our
population .19

Federal support for housing has
declined since the 19 70s,
and our state has suffered
disproportionately from
that decline ...
raw
Another alarming circumstance is that a significant fraction of the state's federally subsidized
housing units are reaching the expiration dates of
their contracts to maintain affordability. In the
past three years, California has lost more than
15,000 affordable housing units to opt-outs and
prepayments, a total of 11 percent of the federally assisted inventory, with most of the losses
occurring in Los Angeles, Orange, San Diego, and
Santa Clara Counties. The State Department of
Housing and Community Development estimates
that more than 180,000 units may be at risk of
conversion from affordable to market rents over
the next decade. 20
In Santa Clara County, 2,185 units had either
opted out or pre-paid as of April 2001. 2.447
units were in the process of doing so as of last
November. While 444 of those affordable units
have been preserved, it has come at great cost
for acquisition and rehabilitation of that housing .
Looking forward, another 905 can leave th eir
r

-

,.,,,

CONVERSION OF FEDERALLY-SUBSIDIZED
AFFORDABLE UNITS TO MARKET RATE
Units
Lost: Opted-out or Prepaid*

2185

444 have been prese rv ed

'-

In Process of Prepayment**
In Process of Opt Out***
Eligible to Expire 2002-06
Eligible to Expire 2007-11
Eligible to Expire 2012-

1428
1019
905
151
338

Total affordable units lost,
at risk, or preserved

6026

*As of April 2001, '*As of Nov,2001, '*' As of August 2001
Source: California Housing Partnership Corporatio1121

11

:z:

affordab ility restrictions behind in the next 4.
years, with an additional 489 set to expire from
2007 and thereafter.21 All to ld we have lost, have
paid to preserve, or stand to lose over 6000
affordable units, almost negating the significant
investments made by local government to create
new affordable housing units over the past decade.

We have lost, have paid to
preserve, or stand to lose over
6000 affordable units ...
Housing Needs:

.

While estimates vary on the precise scale of
housing needs for individuals and families in
Santa Clara County, there is widespread agreement
that the problem is significant and represents a
threat to the quality of life of local residents. The
Regional Housing Action Plan committee estimated
that in 2000 Santa Clara County had a shortage of
more than 81,800 housing units that were affordable to extremely low- and very low-income
households (0-50 percent of area median income) .
Because this number does not incorporate
uncounted families at that income range , those
living "doubled up" (i.e. multiple families living in a
single home, in illegally converted garages, etc.),
or such workers forced to commute in from outlying communities, the actual deficit of units for this
population may exceed 100,000.

term, the concurrent dampening of earning
capacity of families compounded with the spectre
of layoffs may also erode their ability to improve
their housing situations.

~

=

c:,
C
C:
C")
~

c:,

:z:

Santa Clara County had a ~
shortage of more than
81,800 housing units ...
Special Housing Needs:
The impact of the housing crisis is most critical
fo r vulnerable special needs populations. For
example, many of the 40,971 persons receiving
Supplemental Security Income (SSI) in Santa Clara
County in 2000 have specific housing needs. 23
The County Collaborative on Affordable Housing
Homeless Issues reported an unmet housing need
for homeless individuals and families with children
of nearly 4500 units. 24 Despite the fact that Santa
Clara County has roughly 26 emergency shelters
providing 1,020 beds year round (with an addi tional 150 beds at armories during the winter) ,
it is estimated that 1,000 people sleep on the
streets on a typical night. 25 Annually, there are at
least 20,000 episodes of homelessness by individuals and famil ies in the County,26 and an esti mated 1,500 homeless teenagers are found on
the streets of downtown San Jose. 2'

The impact of the housing
crisis is most critical for
vulnerable special needs
populations ...

ABAG's most recent projections of housing needs
reflect a deficit of over 57,000 units including over
16,000 for low and very low-income households. 22
Although the current recession may continue to
curb increases in housing costs over th e near

PERCENTAGE OF HOUSING NEED MET FOR VERY LOW-INCOME
AND EXTREMELY LOW-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS
300%

a,

::!::~
"Cl
a, · C:

250%
200%

a, :::,
:z: a,

200%

GJ=

150%

-:c
Cl "'
bl)"'

"'>
-c:c
C:

.c:

100%

a, •U

:;; 3:
C.

50%
0%
1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

Year

9

z:
c::::,
I-

1!11RRENT 1NV£ffifORY Q,f lUJO'SINl FOO 1'11£ lt.OlflLESsa

C.,

::::i
Cl

c::::,

a:
1-

z:

Individuals

Families with
Children

TOTAL

809

410

1219

Emergency Shelter
Transitional Housing

592

674

1266

Permanent Supportive Housing

438

368

806

TOTAL

1839

1452

3291

um, 1f(IUSIN'G tf£fD F101t TilE tlOMElES&N
Individuals

Families with
Children

TOTAL

Emergency Shelter

381

476

857

Transitional Housing

841

1013

1854

Permanent Supportive Housing

504

1277

1781

TOTAL

1726

2766

4492

Source: Santa Clara County Collaborative on Arfordable Housing and Homeless Issues, Continuum of Care Gaps Analysis 2001

The last update of the Santa Clara County
Consolidated Plan reports the following: 28
• As of November 2000 there were 26,331
persons on the Section 8 waiting list for
Santa Clara County. Of these 3,849 were
elderly, 4,741 were disabled, and 4,168
identified themselves as homeless.
• More than 6,000 are on the public housing
waiting list.
• More than 41,000 are on the low-income
housing tax credit program waiting list.
• Over the past five years, 944 mobile home
units have been lost in the Urban County
(where most are located).
• The number of County licensed foster care
facilities has decreased from approximately
800 in 1991 to 378 in 1999.
• Over 130 board and care units under
contract with the Mental Health Department
will be lost within the next year due to
redevelopment plans in downtown San Jose.
• There are 3,500-5 ,500 agricultural workers
earning $11,960-$13,000 and only 300
beds at Ochoa provided by the Housing
Authority of the County of Santa Clara.
• 7,726 units of subsidized low-income housing
units are at risk of conversion to market rate
housing, and many of the individuals and
families living in them have special
housing needs.

10

lh

.'(ii',\,:/,
,:;:

Public Employees:
The housing crisis also directly impacts all local
public institutions, severely limiting our ability to
recruit and retain high quality public employees.
Public agencies are experiencing critical shortages
of nurses, teachers , fire fighters, police officers,
and other critical service employees. This greatly
affects the quality of services provided by local
governments. More public employees are living
further from their jobs and commuting long hours
to get to work. Long commutes for all employees
mean less time with their families and the inability
to be involved in their local communities in a
meaningful way. For those public employees in
customer service or other high stress jobs, the
stress associated with long commutes further
diminishes their quality of life, morale, and in some
cases their job performance. Although the affordability crisis faced by public employees, particularly
in lower paid positions, does not differ significantly
from that of lower paid private sector employees,
the Task Force focused upon the critical workforce shortages in service oriented public sector
positions. Because public agencies are experiencing high rates of turnover and losing more
experienced employees, policy makers have started
to echo the call for more concerted regional action.

Th~ housing crisis also directly
impacts our ability to recruit
and retain high quality
public employees ...

I

:1
I

I
I
1
;I

I
I

CURRENT EFFORTS

.

While the County of Santa Clara has not historically considered itself a force in housing, it has a
strong tradition of housing related activity that can provide a foundation for greater leadership in the
coming decade. Working with local agencies, the Housing Authority, and public and private sector
partners, the County actively provides an array of housing opportunities and services that cover the
spectrum of housing needs in·Santa Clara County. Services include: rental and homeownership financial
assistance, building and rehabilitating affordable housing, providing shelter for the homeless, and
coordinating services and resources for individuals and families with special needs. More recently, the
County is a founding partner of and the largest single contributor to the Housing Trust of Santa Clara
County. Its investment of $2.5 million has helped leverage over $20 million in public and private sector
contributions to support the diverse array of housing financing programs provided by the Trust. The
Board of Supervisors has spearheaded the Fairgrounds revitalization project, which includes the
development of hundreds of residential units. The County is also looking at other housing opportunities
on the Fair Oaks Clinic site, Elmwood in Milpitas, and on other properties.

:z:

.......

=

Cl

c::,
C:
C")

.......
Cl

:z:

The County of Santa Clara has a strong tradition
of housing related activity that can provide a
foundation for greater leadership ...

11

-a

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA HOUSiNG..TASK FORCE Report 2002

C)

Recommendations

n

r-

-<

,...,

::ic,

n

Building upon a comprehensive analysis of housing needs and the root causes of our region's
housing crisis, the County Housing Task Force identified and prioritized potential strategic
interventions on the part of the County to respond. The Steering Committee further evaluated
the recommendations and crafted implementation strategies for consideration by the
Board of Supervisors.

C)

3:
3:

,...,

:z:
c::,

>

--4
C)

:z:
en

The recommendations are presented as sets of policy briefs grouped in the following categories:

INFRASTRUCTURE AND ORGANIZATION
Internally focused proposals to strengthen the existing
foundation of housing activity by the County and
establish a more integrated structure to respond
to needs, obstacles and opportunities.

REGIONAL LEADERSHIP AND ADVOCACY
Externally oriented activities that create the context
for greater regional cooperation and action.

I

I

RESIIRCE AGIIU'ISITlON AND l lUCATtOft

I
Policy directives that position the County to address
critical resource deficits by securing land and
financing for affordable housing.

I
I

I
I

I
13

en

:z:
c::,
1-

c:C

COUNTY OF SANTA CtA~A HOUSING TASK FORCE Report 1001
Infrastructure & Organization: Office of Affordable Housing

Cl

:z:
LI.I

==
==

c::,

u
LI.I

a::

>u
--'

c::,

a..

SUMMARY:
The County of Santa Clara may establish the Office
of Affordable Housing (OAH) to strategically coordinate existing County housing service efforts and
to proactively seek opportunities for the County to
contribute resources to increase the supply of
affordable housing. The OAH may also serve as
support to the Board of Supervisors in order to exert
countywide leadership and may bring together
multiple local jurisdictions to form a County
Housing Commission.
GOAL: The goal of this proposal is to establish an
institutional structure that will expand the County's
regional leadership role in housing and strengthen
our capacity to deliver necessary services by creating
more affordable housing opportunities countywide.

BACKGROUND
Problem Statement:
Santa Clara County's severe and sustained housing
crisis shows little evidence of abating during the current econom ic downturn, suggesting that the problem
will remain with us into the foreseeatJle fUture . Indeed,
all indications are that exorbitant housing costs, cou pled with a stagnant if not deteriorating economy, further threatens the quality of life
for local households, especially
the low-income special needs
populations that the County
serves. Over the long -term, as
the costs of market housing continue to rise, the expenses
incurred by the County will continue to increase as well and
erode services.

Throughout the County, agencies and programs are
struggling admirably to cope with overwhelming housing
needs and are ini:;reasingly looking for more integrated
direction that can advance comprehensive so'lutions.
The County cannot continue to rely solely on local
jurisdictions and the housing market to produce
enough affordable housing for its residents and special
needs clients.

The Current Environment
County: Existing housing services are scattered
throughout the County organization and are focused
narrowly on the needs and functions of their respective
departments. This decentralized structure virtually
precludes effective inter-departmental coordination of
resources and services .
Counly housing staff report that all available atfordable
housing sources are operating at maximum capaclly,
whi le demand for their services continues to grow.
Overwhelmed by staggering demand, departmental
housing staff have become focused on housing placement services and on attempts to retain existing units.
Little, if any, proactive efforts are made to acq uire new
affordable units. As a result, their numbers continue to
decline, while the costs of existing units continue to climb.

Affordable Housing Development: A recent survey
conducted by First Community Housing revealed that
there are 223 affordable housing
complexes in Santa Clara County,
The lack of coordinated
providing 22,084 units. These
units provide housing for individinternal and regional
uals and families with incomes
solutions directed at
primarily between 50-120 percent
addressing the housing
of the County's median income.
While
the above efforts are to be
crisis is hindering the
congratulated, they hardly begin
County's ability to
to scratch the surface of the
effectively and efficient)), housing needs of extremely lowincome special needs individuals
deliver services ...
and families.

[iii;)

The lack of coordinated internal
and regional solutions directed at
addressing the housing crisis is
hindering the County's ability to effectively and efficiently deliver services. Therefore, it is in the County's
best interest to take concerted action now.
Participants in the County Housing Task Force (CHTF)
concluded that the County, as currently configured, is
unable to meet the challenges of the housing crisis in
a strategic, proactive, and meaningful way.

14

THE PLAN
To help the County of Santa Clara respond to our
region's housing crisis, the CHTF recommends the
establishment of an Office of Affordable Housing
(OAH) that would strategically coordina te existing
County housing services and seek opportunities for
the County to contribute resources to the creation of

""Cl
C

more affordable housing. The OAH may serve as support
to the Board of Supervisors in order to exert countywide leadership on housing policies. Furthermore, the
OAH may bring together multiple local jurisdictions to
form a County Housing Commission (CHC).
The OAH may play a number of critical roles in the implementation and development of County housing strategy.
First, by having the County create the OAH and acknowledge that affordable housing is a policy priority, the OAH
may become the point of contact within the County
organization for affordable housing policy activities,
issues, and proposals. The OAH may conduct research;
evaluate policy proposals and pending legislation; and
produce and disseminate reports and informational
resources as requested.

Fourth, the OAH may implement a Special Needs
Housing Program. Such a program may identify and
evaluate development opportunities where County
land, funds, and support could be leveraged to create
affordable housing for special needs clients. The OAH
may work with County agencies and service providers
to disseminate affordable housing information. The
office may also support and build upon the current
efforts to create a countywide database of affordable
units that would be available to special needs clients,
housing staff, and service providers. The OAH may also
develop a financial assistance program to help special
needs clients obtain affordable housing. Further, the
OAH may work closely with special needs housing
service providers to insure that programs are managed
according to "best practices" methods. The OAH may
explore and recommend ways to provide incentives for
programs that are run effectively.

r-

n

-<
;:c

m

n
C

3:
3:

m
:z:
C

>

--4
C

:z:
en

Fifth, the OAH may work with
local Jurisdictions and assist in
the development of a County
Housing Commission. The OAH
may work with the CHC to develop
and implement regional housing
solutions to regional housing
problems. Examples might include:
using surplus land for affordable
housing, developing public employee housing assistance, or
advocating as a region for additional housing support from the
state and federal governments .

Second, the OAH may serve as a coordinating hub for
County departments engaged in finding housing for
County clients. The OAH may function as a repository
of critical housing data, as well as a source of information about County housing activities and financial
resource opportunities for agencies and housing
providers. The OAH may help evaluate data, programs,
and projects in order to better target resources and
maximize opportunities for collaboration between
departments, developers, and service providers.
Third, the OAH may establish its role in the wider
community as a facilitator and consensus builder for
affordable housing. Working with cities, builders, service providers and lenders, the OAH may advocate for
and seek projects where County resources (funds,
services, and/or surplus land) may be leveraged into
affordable housing opportunities.

Finally, the OAH may actively
coordinate and advance policy
advocacy efforts on housing
issues among all levels of government in partnership with local leaders, advocates, and
community members. By providing research, communications infrastructure, policy analysis, and strategic
planning, the County can work with the CHC to more
thoughtfully create and advance legislation that will
ameliorate our region's housing crisis . Such activity
might include leading research and advocacy efforts
to secure a source of local public financing.

The. creation of the OAH would
send a strong message within the
County organization and to the
community at large that the County
recognizes the seriousness of
the housing crisis ...

-'!J/I

~

15

V)

z:
0
1-

c:C
Q

z:
L,U

::E:
::E:
0
C.)
L,U

ct:

>C.)

Benefits and Opportunities:
The recommendation to establish an OAH is part of an
overall strategy envisioned by the CHTF to reposition the
County into a new public leadership role as a "countywide affordable housing champion. "The creation of the
OAH would send a strong message within the County
organization and to the community at large that the
County recognizes the seriousness of the housing crisis
and is equally serious about making significant inroads
towards addressing the problem.

....I

0
Q..

The CHTF clearly identified the County as the largest
provider of housing opportunities for special needs and
impoverished individuals and families, but it also identified
a number of gaps and deficiencies in the way those
services and opportunities are delivered. Establishing
the OAH may address those issues by bringing a new
focus that agencies and housing staff working separately
and isolated from one another currently lack. The efficiencies generated by the collaboration, coordination,
and sharing of information and expertise between the
diverse group of existing housing specialists could
benefit both the County and its clients.

Consequences of Doing Nothing:
The County of Santa Clara's existing decentralized
response to the housing crisis will remain in place. The
scale of the crisis will continue to erode the County's
ability to efficiently provide services to local residents.
Fiscal Implications of Establishing an Office of
Affordable Housing:
Depending on the scope of responsibilities identified
for the program, the costs borne by the County may
range from moderate to significant. Staffing, organizational infrastructure costs, research capacity, information
database development, printing and communications
costs would likely represent the basic level of program
support. If the County were to move forward with
directly investing in the development of affordable
housing, such a resource allocation would represent
more considerable opportunity costs that must be
measured against other uses. Funding for providing
financial assistance to special needs clients would
have to come from consolidation of existing programs
and/or a new source of funding.

County agency housing staff may also benefit from
having an OAH that may work in the wider community
and advocate for their housing interests and needs.

KEY ACTIVITY CLUSTERS
1) The Board of Supervisors may accept the recommendation to establish an Office of Affordable Housing
and direct the Administration to take the necessary steps for creating the office effective July 1, 2002.
2) The County may adopt a work plan for the Office of Affordable Housing.

16

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA HOUSING TASK FORCE Report 2002
Infrastructure & Organization: Special N~eds Housing

""C
C

r-

n

-<
:::c
l'T'I

n

SUMMARY:
The County of Santa Clara may establish an integrated program to lead efforts in improving the
coordination, qualitY, and development of housing
for its special needs clients. By compiling critical
data, disseminating resource and best practice
information, coordinating efforts of existing housing
and assistance programs, and leveraging County
resources for the purpose of developing more special
needs housing, a County Office of Affordable
Housing can better position the County to fulfill its
service mission.

GOAL: The goal of this proposal is to establish an
institutional vehicle that will allow the County to
more thoughtfully and strategically address the
housing needs of the vulnerable populations it serves.

BACKGROUND
Problem Statement:
The housing crisis in Santa Clara County is especially
difficult for low- and extremely low-income special
needs populations, many of . whom are served by
County agencies. From the beginning of the process,
participants in the County Housing Task Force (CHTF)
broached the most basic concern about special needs
housing: there has never been enough of it. The reasons
for this are many and reflect those underlying the housing
crisis in general, but the magnitude and consequences
are even more severe for those with special needs.
First, the economic boom, which witnessed unprecedented competition for all types of housing, created an
opportunity for landlords to raise rents beyond the
means of those on fixed incomes. In the case of many
federally financed affordable projects, property owners
converted units to market rents or sold them altogether.
As a result, the countywide inventory of housing
affordable to those on limited or fixed incomes has
diminished rapidly. Second, prospective development
of special needs housing often must confront the fears
of neighborhood residents, which creates political
hurdles to the siting of facilities. Third, the expense of
building such housing requires significant levels of
public subsidy that local jurisdictions are often unable
or unwilling to fund due to fiscal constraints. Fourth,
state and federal assistance has been drastically

scaled back, leaving communities to identify or generate resources to meet escalating needs on their own.

C

==
==

l'T'I

:z
Cl

The magnitude and
consequences are even more
severe for those with
special needs ...

>

--I
C

:z
V)

The Current Environment
County: Housing and housing related services are a
vital component in the matrix of social services provided by the County to those with special needs.
Traditionally, the County's ability to effectively deliver
social services in a cost efficient way has been directly tied to the availability of low cost housing. Today,
that availability is in serious jeopardy and has given
rise to the dilemma of escalating impoverishment and
homelessness of special needs persons.
As reported in the County's Supportive Housing
Initiative Report, "agencies are bearing a significant
and increasing burden because there are never
enough beds or units to meet the need. Front line
managers and case managers are spending more of
their days trying to find housing for clients. Housing
that is available is more costly both to the County and
the clients, meaning more service dollars and client
dollars are being used for housing rather than on services. The Continuum of Care strategy of the County for
serving special needs populations is in danger of co/lapsing as more dollars are spent on fewer units and
consequently less service. "

County agencies currently provide
housing or housing assistance to
over 4,300 clients across all
special needs programs ...

It is estimated that County agencies currently provide
housing or housing assistance to over 4,300 clients
across all special needs programs. The Housing
Authority assists over 14,000 clients through its
Section 8 programs and over 2,300 through their other
housing programs for low-income individuals and

17

V,

:z:
0

1-

c:c

Cl

:z:
LI.I

:ii:
:ii:
0
~

LI.I

a::

>~

...I

0

CL

families. The scale of affordable ho1:Jsing needs far outstrips the market supply and the current resources at
the disposal of any local public entity. Without a nexus
for cooperation with non-profit developers and service
providers, the County and the special needs persons it
serves will continue to lose ground.

services and make recommendations to fill unmet
needs. The Program may also support the current
efforts to develop an online information database of
available affordable housing units, services provided,
and rental market conditions.

Third, the Program may function as a research and
information development strategist, working with
County housing staff and service providers tc)'.; develop
critical countywide housing needs data with emphasis
on special needs housing data.
THE PLAN
The
Program may also remain curThe County may become
In order to better coordinate the
rent on potential revenue sources
development and execution of
a powerful advocate on
available from state and federal
special needs housing opportunibehalf
of
individuals
housing programs that may be
ties, the CHTF recommends that
used
for the development of more
with special needs ...
the County of Santa Clara establow-income housing. Its purpose
lish an integrated Special Needs
would be to assist County housing
Housing Program component of an Office of Affordable
staff and service providers with critical data and other
Housing that would have a number of critical roles to
administrative assistance necessary for securing
play in the implementation of a comprehensive County
additional local, state, and federal funding.
housing strategy.

Therefore, it is in the County's best interest to engage
in aggressive action now.

First, the Program may function as an advocate for
affordable housing for special needs clients throughout
the couoty. Its purpose would be to seek out and evaluate
affordable housing development projects where County
resources (land or funds) and support can be leveraged
into affordable housing for special needs clients. By
bringing resources to the table in discussions with
cities, developers, and service providers, the County is
in a position both to further the common goal of affordable housing development and to negotiate for units to
be accessible to County clients.

Fourth, the Program may function as a coordinating
hub for County departments engaged in finding housing
for County clients and those allocating resources.
The program would work with County housing staff to
evaluate and prioritize data, programs, and projects in
order to better target resources such as Community
Development Block Grants and other housing funds
while maximizing opportunities for collaboration between
departments, developers, and service providers.
Finally, the Program may provide a level of quality
assurance and work closely with County housing staff
and housing service providers to ensure that special
needs housing programs are managed according to
"best practices" methods. To insure County agencies
and clients are getting the best possible housing services,
the County may explore different community-based
special needs housing models to find innovative designs
that would be effective in Santa Clara County. For
example, it may explore incentives to make the common,
single-family home, board and care model more financially feasible, or it may identify other models that are
more desirable for certain special needs clients.
[For specific proposed activities, please see Appendix 3.)

Second, the Program may function as an information
clearinghouse tor countywide affordable housing services
and programs available to special needs clients. This
information would be kept updated and published for
distribution to the public, service providers, and County
housing staff. By working with County housing staff,
the Program may evaluate existing housing education

18

Benefits and Opportunities:
The CHTF clearly identified the County of Santa Clara
as the largest provider of housing opportunities for
special needs individuals and families, but it also
identified a number of gaps and deficiencies in the way
those opportunities are developed and delivered.
Establishing the Special Needs Housing Program under

-g
C)

a County Office of Affordable Housing could bring a ,. The scale of the crisis continues to erode the County's
new focus that agencies and housing staff, working
ability to efficiently provide services to vulnerable
separately and in isolation from one another, currently
populations. Therefore, without aggressive intervenlack. The efficiencies generated from diverse group of
tion, the County's Continuum of Care strategy will
housing specialists located within one organization and
remain in danger of collapsing.
collaborating together, would benefit clients and
the County.
Fiscal Implications of Establishing
a Special Needs Housing Program:
By investing land and financial resources into affordDepending on the size, functions, and responsibilities
able housing development, the County may become a
of the program , the costs borne by the County could
powerful advocate on behalf of individuals with special
range from nominal to significant. Staffing, research
needs, and is instantly positioned to help lead a coorcapacity, information database development, printing
dinated regional response to the housing crisis.
and communications costs would likely represent the
basic level of program support. If the County were to
move forward with directly investing in the development
Consequences of Doing Nothing:
of affordable housing (including special needs setThe housing crisis in Santa Clara County is a systemic
asides) by designating financial resources or surplus
and long-term problem that will not be resolved by
land for that purpose, it would represent more considermarket forces alone, particularly for those with special
able opportunity costs that would be measured against
needs. Indeed, economic and political pressures far
other uses .
beyond the County's control guarantee that the housing
problems will remain into the foreseeable future .
However, by doing nothing, it is certain that the crisis
will grow and take its toll on the County.

re-,

-<
:=ell
l'T'I
C">
C)

3:
3:
l'T'I

:z
Cl
:i:,,,

--t
C)

:z
en

KEY AClilVITY CLUSTERS
1) The County may establish special needs housing as a key program component of a County Office
of Affordable Housing and identify the staffing and organizational infrastructure to implement such
a program.
2) The County may direct allocation of land or appropriate financial resources toward the development
of affordable and special needs housing.

~

19

V,

:z:
0

1<C
Cl

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA HOUSING TASI< FORCE Report 2002
Regional Leadership & Advocacy: County Housing Commission

:z:
LI.I

:ii::
:ii::

SUMMARY:

0

'-:I
LI.I

IX

>'-:>
...I

0

c..

The County of Santa Clara may establish a County
Housing Commission (CHG) that would foster a
regional dialogue on issues of housing among local
elected officials and provide a vehicle to la unch
collaborative initiatives to address critical needs.
The CHG may include representatives from local
municipalities, the CountY, and other appointed
members at the discretion of the Board of
Supervisors.

GOAL: The objective of this proposal is for the
County to address the lack of regional coordination
on housing issues by creating a context in which
local leaders can communicate and develop
regional responses.

has created a destabilizing economic and social
disequilib ria between cities within the county and
between our county and others . Fou rth, the housing
crisis has severely restricted the ability of all local
public institutions to recruit and retain high quality
public employees.

Current Environment
local Government: Among the issues of foremost
concern to local elected leaders involved in the Santa
Clara County Cities Association are issues of housing,
air quality, and transportation. One element that makes
housing unique, however, ls U1at It does not have an
established public inter-governmental entity like the Air
Quality Management District or the Valley Transportation
Authority 0/TA) to provide monitoring, research, visibility,
and directed response to tile issue. Cities are responsible for cratting and implementing their housing elements on a regular basis. However, there is no consistent

BACKGROUND
Problem Statement:
Many of the factors which have precipitated our housing crisis are regional In nature. However, the lack of
a coordinated regiona l response among local policy
makers has created a leadership vacuum in which
public entitles grasp for solutions to a set or problems
larger 'than their sphere of authority. At the same time,
because municipalities retain primary responsibility for
the land use decisions that either promote or restrain
housing development in their jurisdiction, city councils
are among the key battlegrounds in the struggle to
address our housing shortage.
Throughout the County Housing Task Force (CHTF)
process, advocates and decision makers acknowledged the need for a conduit to understand, refine,
and collectively Implement policy and programmatic
in itiatives that address botl1 the sym ptoms and root
causes of our crisis.
As it relates to local government, four major circumstances present significant barriers to the development
of more housing , or are symptomatic of the direct
Impact of the crisis. First, the state's system of local
government finance has created perverse disincentives
to housing creation . Second, the lack of political wi ll
on the part of local jurisdictions has deflected attempts
to make policy decisions that could ameliorate the crisis.
Tl1ird, a growing imbalance between Jobs and housing

20

I-lousing does not have
an established public intergovernmental entity to provide
monitoring, research, visibility,
and directed response ...

""Cl

c::,

mechanism for regional discussion or evaluation of ,•
progress made in achieving our goals.

Other: One recent development has been the establishment of the Housing Trust of Santa Clara County,
which has brought together many different constituencies
from the public and private sectors to invest in a common response to our region's housing woes through a
revolving loan and grantmaking fund. Each municipality
in the County has invested resources into the Housing
Trust -a nascent, if indirect, common vehicle.

THE PLAN
To maximize the impact of enhanced County activity in
housing and to leverage greater regional cooperation,
the CHTF recommends that the County establish a
County Housing Commission (CHC) that would include
representatives from all local jurisdictions and other
appropriate appointees. The primary function of this
commission would be to foster a collective dialogue
on issues of housing and provide a vehicle for
regional action.

The commission would
foster a collective dialogue
on issues of housing and
provide a vehicle for
regional action ...

-',\J,/,
r0'~

Activity: While the CHTF felt that the membership of
such an inter-governmental commission, once established, should determine its own objectives, the process
identified and prioritized potential activities including:
• Spearhead regional planning processes that will
mitigate the housing/jobs imbalance and establish
countywide housing goals.
• Collect, analyze, and disseminate data on local
trends in housing needs, costs, and production
levels, as well as the impact of specific
housing policies.
• Take a leadership role in a community campaign
to establish a new source of public revenues for
affordable housing.
• Educate other elected officials on the importance
of affordable housing development in their cities.
• Develop an ongoing education campaign to build
political and community support for the development of affordable housing.
• Establish countywide inter-jurisdictional housing
agreements to expedite the creation of special
needs housing development and/or services.

• Work with cities on siting and expediting approval
of appropriate special needs and affordable
housing projects on surplus government-owned
lands, or on County unincorporated land (seeking
waivers or variances on LAFCO rules, transportation
services rules, density rules, etc.)
• Partner with local jurisdictions to effect land use
policies that result in affordable housing units
being created.

.....

C")

-<

=
...,
C")

c::,

3:
3:

...,
:z
Cl

>

--4

• Establish a countywide Land Bank, comprised of
surplus land and financial contributions from all
local jurisdictions, to be administered by the CHC
or other non-profit agency, for the purpose of
building and rehabilitating low-, very low-, and
extremely low-income housing.

c::,

:z
en

• Develop a countywide Housing Action Plan to
comprehensively address the housing needs of all
Santa Clara County residents, and enlist regional
support for the implementation of this plan.
• Evaluate and comment on the housing elements
of individual cities to the State HCD.
Potential activities specific to housing for public
employees:
• Create a "one-stop shop" for public employees
to acquire information on available resources
for housing.
• Establish a multi-jurisdictional revolving loan
program to provide rental and home buying
assistance for public employees.
• Collect and compare data on local economic
trends, salary levels, turnover and job vacancy
rates, housing costs, caseloads, and anecdotal
information to aid in identifying solutions.
• Partner with public sector unions to determine
needs of public employees through surveys and
focus group discussions.
• Work with our state and federal delegations and
appropriate agencies to provide tax incentives for
public employees who live in high cost areas, and for
property owners and developers to provide affordable housing opportunities for public employees.

Membership: The CHTF Steering Committee recommends that the County look at two models in determining
the membership of the CHG. The first model would
emulate the representation of the Board of Directors of
the VTA. The CHG could be composed of representatives from population-weighted clusters of cities and
the County (12 to 17 appointees and alternates). The
second model would reintroduce the structure employed
at one time by the County's Inter-Governmental Council,

21

V)

:z:
0

.....
cs:

Cl

:z:
LI.I

==
==

Involving committed elected leaders from throughout
the county ino·eases the chance of a tangible nsponse
to our region's housing crisis ...

0

t,.:,

LI.I

cc:

>t,.:,

....I

0

c..

but for the purposes of housing. Each City and the County
could appoint one or more representatives based on its population (17 to 25 members).
Such structures can create
geographic balance, broad
ownership, and comprehensive
local public representation.

cm
CD

Either of the two models could
incorporate community representatives (business, labor,
housing advocates, developers,
and ot11er stakeholders.)

Benefits and Opportunities:
By working collaboratively with local jurisdictions to
understand the scope of the problem and create
strategies to address the crisis, the county can instigate regional planning efforts that involve those most
responsible for implementing them. Involving committed
elected leaders from throughout the county increases
the chance of a tangible response to our region's housing crisis.

Consequences of
~
Doing Nothing:
The existing decentralized
authority for housing concerns
would remain in place. In all
probability, the leadership vacuum,
as well as fiscal and local political
constraints, would continue to
overwhelm the ability of independent jurisdictions to address
the problem in a meaningful
way. If existing trends remain in
place, the crisis will worsen.

Fiscal Implications of Establishing
a County Housing Commission on:
Depending on the identified structure and activities,
the costs borne by the County could range from moderate
to nominal. Staffing, organizational infrastructure, and
research capacity would be the most critical initial
requirements.

KEY ACTIVITY CLUSTERS
1) The County may author a proposal for a partnership with the Santa Clara County Cities Association to
craft an effective membership structure for a County Housing Commission (CHC) comprised of
representatives from local municipalities, the County, and other appointed members.
2) The County may identify staffing, organizational infrastructure, and funding to develop and support
the CHC which may include membership dues.
3) The County may pass an ordinance authorizing the creation of the CHC.

22

-*,\JI. .
'f

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA HOUSING. ,TASK FORCE Report 2002
Regional Leadership & Advocacy: Policy Advocacy

"'CJ
Cl

re-,

-<
:::c
l'T1

n

SUMMARY:

Cl

The County of Santa Clara may reposition itself to
be a proactive force in affordable housing advocacy
for our region. By making housing advocacy at the
local, state, and federal levels an institutional
priority of a County Office of Affordable Housing,
the County may spearhead efforts to enact housing
policies and secure resources for Santa Clara County.

GOAL: The objective of this proposal is for the
County to actively coordinate and advance policy
advocacy efforts on housing issues at al/ levels of
government in partnership with local leaders
advocates, and community members.

The Current Environment
Local Government: Existing leadership and advocacy
roles are decentralized throughout the County and are
largely driven by individuals, programs, and services.
Piecemeal approaches exist via Community Development
Block Grants (CDBG), the Santa Clara County Cities
Association, the Board of Supervisors Legislative
Committee , and other individual departments and
agencies. However, there is no central organization
that advocates for legislation and funding for the entire
County. A lack of an integrated strategy to advance
clear policy directives prevents the County from efficiently leading or advocating on housing issues.

3:
3:
l'T1

z:
Cl
~

--4
Cl

z:
en

I

BACKGROUND
Problem Statement: While th!)re is wide recognition
among community members and policy makers
throughout our region of the effects of our housing crisis,
there have been precious few examples of coordinated
efforts on the part of local government in response.
Currently, local jurisdictions engage in advocacy independently of each other, whic.h results in a lack of
regional balance, and diminishes our regional influence, resulting in fewer resources for the region.
While the absence of a coordinated response cannot
be attributed to any one factor, the lack of political will
on the part of local jurisdictions and traditional spheres
of authority have often limited intervention by an overarching political entity to address the housing issue.
Because of the interlocking nexus of fiscal, economic,
and regulatory circumstances that overlay our entire
region (and not just individual municipalities), collaborative action is crucial. Consideration of jurisdiction,
protocol, and tradition should be recognized and
respected, but the severity of the crisis and the lack
of comprehensive, compelling solutions took precedence over all else and motivated the participants in
the County Housing Task Force (CHTF) as they created
the recommendations in this report.

Currently, local jurisdictions
engage in advocacy independently
of each other, which diminishes
our regional influence ...

To the extent that developing and supporting the creation
of affordable housing is a regional responsibility, no single
organization currently exists to assume this role. The
cities and County are individually responsible to meet
mandatory housing requirements but do not coordinate
or support one another in a comprehensive fashion.
This lack of cohesive regional organization and proactive advocacy reduces the effectiveness of the County
and all other local public jurisdictions. Without a comprehensive internal or external approach, the County
will continue to be unable to meet local housing needs
and federal/state requirements for affordable housing.

There is no central organization
that advocates for legislation and
funding for the entire County...
Community Organizations: Several distinguished
organizations and advocacy groups have played important
roles in raising the profile of the housing crisis and
advocating for specific responses. Major studies have
been generated by key organizations including Working
Partnerships USA, the Silicon Valley Manufacturing
Group and Greenbelt Alliance. Community advocacy
groups such as Association of Community Organizations
for Reform Now (ACORN), the Affordable Housing
Network, People Acting in Community Together,
Peninsula Interfaith Action, and the Interfaith Council
have pushed local leaders to address housing needs,
especially those of low-income families. Other collaborative bodies-including the Housing Leadership
Council, the Housing Action Coalition, the Santa Clara
County Collaborative on Affordable Housing and

23

V)

z:
Cl

I-

ce
Cl

z:
LI.I

~
~
Cl
LI
LI.I

c:::

>LI
-I

Cl

0..

Homeless Issues, and Housing for All Coalition-have
coalesced housing advocates, policy makers, service
providers, trade associations, and community, religious,
business, and labor leadership in creative ways to
advance common goals.
Such organizations and coalitions have in recent years
been instrumental in the approval of many individual
affordable housing developments, and have successfully advocated for policy responses including :
• An increased allocation for extremely low-income
housing development by the City of San Jose's
Redevelopment Agency from $25-$35 million.
• An increased percentage allocation for affordable
housing development by the City of Milpitas'
Redevelopment Agency from 20 percent
to 30 percent.
• A new below market rate program and housing
impact fee in the City of Mountain View.
• An expanded below market rate program in the
City of Palo Alto.
• A significant increase in Low-Income Housing Tax
Cre9it equity for the State of California at both the
state and federal levels.
• A dramatic increase in non-project based Section
8 allocations to our County over the last ten years,
from 7,600 units to over 14,000 today.

An integrated lobbying strategy
that involves both local government
and community constituencies
must he in place ...
-'~',,\;,,/,
~

On the Horizon: Despite the presence of active community constituencies, many participants in the CHTF
process maintained that public sector leadership,
specifically from a regional entity like the County of
Santa Clara, is essential in coordinating and mobilizing
larger scale legislative advocacy efforts toward the
state and federal government. Given that there is some
movement on proposals in Sacramento and Washington
to bolster housing assistance, timing for action is critical. The California legislature is considering placing a
$2 billion bond for a Housing and Emergency Shelter
Trust Fund on the ballot for November of 2002. Federal
legislation for a National Housing Trust Fund is weaving
its way through the halls of Congress. If Santa Clara
County is to receive significant resources under either
initiative, then an integrated lobbying strategy that
involves both local government and community constituencies must be in place.

24

THE PLAN
To reposition the County into a new public leadership
role as "the countywide affordable housing champion,"
the CHTF recommends tl1at the County of Santa Clara
make affordable housing advocacy at the local, state,
and federal levels an institutional priority. The County
can play a critical role in the development of .Policies,
and advocate for regional concerns and additional
resources . A core function of a County Office of
Affordable Housing could be to spearhead legislative
advocacy efforts to potentially unite many of the
important constituencies supporting affordable housing
with local policy makers, resulting in greater legislative
outcomes. By providing research, communications
infrastructure, policy analysis, and strategic planning,
the County can work with a County Housing Commission
to more thoughtfully create and advance legislation
that will ameliorate our region's housing crisis.
Policies: The CHTF identified dozens of potential policy
initiatives, but prioritized the following :
• Promote implementation of favorable land use
policies and set asides for affordable housing
developments.
• Urge Cities to implement SB 211, which requires
allocation of 30 percent of their redevelopment
funds to affordable housing .
• Advocate for Housing Element reforms
(to strengthen both reporting and implementation
requirements for local jurisdictions.)
• Encourage our state delegation to lead a largescale effort to review and reform special needs
licensing requirements and codes.
• Advocate for funds, tax incentives, and programs
(e.g ., the State Housing and Emergency Shelter

-

"'Cl

Trust Fund) aimed at developing affordable housing
in high cost counties throughout the state.

'· Consequences of Doing Nothing:
The existing networks of housing advocates and
organizations will continue to work independently to
• Support legislation to address construction defect
increase development of affordable housing. The County
liability, in order to remove the disincentive to
and
local jurisdictions will continue to advocate sepaconstruction of multi-family housing .
rately and will partner on an ad-hoc basis if they can
• Support legislation to create Housing Redevelopment
identify legislation in their common interests. Without a
zones where increases in property taxes are
nexus for cooperation with other partners, the County will
allocated toward affordable housing on a countycontinue to shoulder the burden for advocating for the
wide basis.
housing needs of County clients and programs. If existing
trends remain in place, the housing crisis will worsen.
Benefits and Opportunities:
By proactively developing partnerships to lobby for
Fiscal Implications of Establishing
resources and policy changes, the County would be
a Policy Advocacy Program:
better able to encourage and influence legislation, land
Depending on the depth of activities, the costs borne
use policies, and leverage other resources to support the
by the County could range from moderate to nominal.
development of affordable housing. With an increased
Staffing, research capacity, communications infraCounty profile and presence, the needs of County clients
structure, and potential travel costs would be the most
and programs will be better met with improved repreextensive requirements.
sentation, resources, and policies.

Q
,...

C">

-<
::a
l"l"I

C">
Q

3:
3:
l"l"I

:z:
C
~

-4
Q

:z:
V)

With an increased County profile and presence, the needs
of County clients and programs will be better met...
KEY ACTIVITY CLUSTERS
1) The County may establish legislative and policy advocacy efforts as a key program component of a

County Office of Affordable Housing and identify the staffing and organizational infrastructure
resources to implement such a program.
2) The County may further research and evaluate the policy priorities identified in the CHTF Report to
craft legislation and policy goals for a County Office of Affordable Housing.
3) The County may reach out to and expand our lobbying efforts with local partners to increase
resources and advocate for regi~-~!1 affor.!!_~ble h..Q~~ing policies.

hd

25

V)

:z:
0

1-

c:r:

COUNTY OF SANTA 'Cl_!RA HOUSING TASK FORCE Report 1001
Resource Acquisition & Allocation: Public Source of Local Financing

Cl

:z:
L&.J

==
==

0
LI
L&.J

ci:::

>LI
....I

SUMMARY:
The County of Santa Clara may spearhead a countywide effort to identify and secure an ongoing source
of local public revenue to support the development
of affordable housing.

0

c..

GOAL: The objective of this proposal is for the County
to initiate a process that can significantly bolster
the financial resources available to address the
continuum of affordable housing needs in our county
and to create fiscal incentives for increasing the
production of affordable housing.

Current Environment
Local Government: Over the last decade, cities in
Santa Clara County have invested in the production of
affordable units using various financing sources, primarily redevelopment tax-increment financing. Taking
a snapshot of nine cities which have compiled reliable
data from 1992 to 2000 (Campbell, Los Gatos,
Milpitas, Morgan Hill , Mountai n View, Palo Alto, San
Jose, Santa Clara, and Sunnyvale), we see the following
three trends. First, San Jose has supported the lion 's
share of the production of housing units affordab le to
moderate- , low-, and extremely low-income families in
the County over the past decade, accounting for 88
percent of total units produced in 1992, growing to 95

BACKGROUND
Problem Statement: Amon g the primary barriers to
th e creation and preservation of affordable housing,
identified in every phase of the County Housing Task
Force (C!:lTF) process, were the lack of adequate financial resources and incentives for development. The
nature and underlying cau ses of our region's housing
crisis have focused the attention of leaders and advocates on a need for greater financial resources at the
local level.

SANTA CLARA COUNTY AFFORDABLE
HOUSING UNITS PRODUCED
2500

2000

1,927

1500

Three major trends have been described as working
together to create a "perfect storm" exace rbating the
shortfall of affordable hous ing. First, the explosive
growth of our regional economy has precipitated both
spiraling costs for existing housing stock and extremely
high land prices. Seco nd, the lack of adequate federal
and state subsidy support for affordable housing
development and preservation has contributed to the
chasm between supply and need. Third, the state's
public finance system discourages cities from allowing
more housing development.

500

0 ....__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

Fiscal Year

SANTA CLARA COUNTY AFFORDABLE HOUSING
FUNDING PER UNIT
40,000
33,00ll

35 ,000
30,000

The nature and underlying causes
of our region's housing crisis have
focused the attention of leaders
and advocates on a need for
greater financial resources
at the local level...

26 ,281

15,000
~

=g

20,000

11 .163

c:,

15,000
10,000
5,000
1991

1993

1994

1895

1996 1997

1998
-

26

111,l

1999

2000

Fiscal Vear
Saflll Clara C01rnlr I

.,,
C)

percent of units produced in 2000. (1,135 and 1,823 ,,
units in those respective years). Second, the County's
overall production of has increased over that period by
nearly 50 percent (from 1,293 units in 1992 to 1,927
units per year in 2000) although city funding amounts
have increased only 1. 7 percent annually. Third, as a
result, the subsidy level per unit in nominal dollars has
fluctuated between $34,131 per unit in 1992 to $26,281
per unit in 2000, a drop of 23 percent even before
adjusting for inflation. The significant swings we have
witnessed in the economy over the past decade are
also evident in the production and subsidy figures.

THE PLAN

r-

The Source: The CHTF recommends that the County
take steps necessary to establish an ongoing source of
local public revenue for affordable housing. The
Regional Housing Action Plan Committee discussed a
myriad of possible revenue streams to be allocated
toward a countywide housing pool and/or the Housing
Trust and prioritized action on these three:

-<

• Use a portion (30 percent) of the County's
settlement with the City of San Jose's
Redevelopment Agency and any future
settlements with cities.

n

=
m
n
C)

3:
3:
m

:z
Cl

>

-t
C)

:z
en

• Work with local cities to create a countywide
Housing Trust of Santa Clara County: For the last two
sales-tax revenue pool for affordable housing .
decades, housing advocates have cited the possibility
While currently permitted under state law,
of developing a local housing trust fund to raise new
implementing such a plan requires the initiative
sources of public revenue to finance affordable housing.
of local leadership.
In the late 1990s a local steering committee explored
the possibility of securing public financing streams
• Support legislation that will create Housing
similar to those that have been used to fund the other
Redevelopment zones where increases in property
257 housing trusts around the nation. After determining
tax-increments are funneled toward affordable
that the voting public's responsiveness to a tax or feehousing countywide.
based housing fund would
be bolstered by establishing
Furthermore, the CHTF
an organization with a track
recommends planning, analyBuilding a sustainable public
record, a unique public/pri- •
sis, and regional consultation
revenue source remains
vate collaborative decided
on several alternatives for an
to push forward to establish
a priority...
affordable housing fund:
a trust fund using a philan• Sales tax [0.25 percent,
thropic fundraising model to
temporary or otherwise]
obtain an initial capitalization.
•Bond financing [general obligation bond]
Under the leadership of the Board of Supervisors, the
• Linkage fees [Housing or commercial
Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group, Santa Clara County
development fees]
Collaborative on Affordable Housing and Homeless
• Property transaction taxes/fees [real estate/
Issues, and Community Foundation Silicon Valley, the
mortgage transfer taxes, penalties, etc.]
Housing Trust of Santa Clara County (HTSCC) was
• Pooling in-lieu fees from local jurisdictions with
formed to raise and distribute funds to address the
inclusionary zoning policies
continuum of affordable housing needs. From mid• Proceeds from the sale of government
1999 to 2001, the campaign raised $20 million in 24
owned land
months. The $2.5 million investment from the County,
by far the largest donor, along with public contributions
The first step for the County would be sponsorship of
from every city in the county, has accounted for more
an update to the revenue nexus study developed for
that a third of the capitalization. Nearly two-thirds of
the Housing Trust, to provide a current analysis of the
the money raised came from the private sector (local
revenue potential and feasibility of various sources of
corporations, private foundations, and individuals).
public financing for an affordable housing fund.
In operation for only eight months, the HTSCC has
completed its initial round of gap financing for affordThe Use: As noted previously, every element of the
able multifamily and homeless/transitional housing,
Task Force process identified objectives that may carry
assisting the development of over 800 units. The
some fiscal ramifications. Rather than stipulate which
Trust's first- time homebuyer program has helped over
recommendations are most deserving, from those
126 families move into their first homes. While this
discussions we can instead identify a few principles to
early success is remarkable, building a sustainable
help shape future funding priorities.
public revenue source remains a priority for the leaders involved in the effort.

27

V,

z:
0

t-

ee

c:i

z:
I.LI

:ii::
:ii::
0

u
I.LI

ct:

>u
....I

0

c..

First, such a revenue source should be used to subsidize development of housing along the continuum of
the county 's housing need: from direct investment in
affordable housing development for low-income families, to critical housing supports for special needs populations , to bolstering homeownersh ip programs for
low- and moderate-income famil ies . Several assessments by both public and publ ic-benefit institutions
have been made of the dire need for affordable housing locally. Needs have been thoroughly documented by
local cities through their housing elements and comprehensive planning processes, by various County agencies
working to secure adequate housing for special needs
clients, and by other organizations such as the County
Collaborative on Affordable Housing and Homeless
Issues, and United Way.Si licon Valley.

We must look to strategically
leverage investments to create
maximum outcomes ...
Second, we must look to strategically leverage investments to create maximum outcomes. For example, one
innovatiVe proposal was identifi ed in response to the
burden of infrastructure costs associated with residential development. This phenomenon is often cited
by local cities as a reason not to allow more or higher
density housing, or as justification to pass along those
costs to developers, who, in turn, increase housing
prices . The Regional Housing Action Plan Committee
recommended that a portion of a local revenue source
be directed toward a fund to support infrastructure
improvements in cities in order to incentivize development of affordable housing and higher density housing.
Whi le such investments may stray from traditional
notions of project-based fund ing of affordable housing,
they may provide an opportu nity to create even more
housing by addressing multiple obstacles and cultivating
partnerships among cities to make development happen.

Benefits and Opportunities:
By increasing the resources avail able to address our
reg ion's housing concerns, including those specific to
vulnerable populations, the County can both respond to
critical internal needs and create a context for region al leadership . With dedicated resources to invest in
housing for key populations, such as County clients
and publi c sector employees , the County will be better
positioned to fulfill its mission. By strateg ically targeting and leveraging resources while employing a more
comprehensive lens, the County can step into a critical
leadership role for our reg ion and wo rk in partnership
with local cities, the private, and publ ic-benefi t sectors
to address our housing concerns.

28

Consequences of Doing Nothing:
The existing patchwork of affordable housing revenue
streams would continue, with cities maintaining primary
responsibility. Two potential changes loom on the horizon
that may affect both the availability of currently affordable housing and funding for future development. First,
a significant public investment may be required to
acquire and preserve the affordability of fede~ally subsidized units whose affordability requirements are due
to expire.
Second, changes to state redeve lopment law may
significantly impact the amount of tax-increment collected
by the City of San Jose's Redevelopment Agency. The
largest redevelopment program in the State of California,
San Jose's program has provided the most significant
source of local revenue toward building affordable
housing in the County Even with new requirements
that a higher percentage of the tax-increment be
directed toward housing (30 percent up from 20 percent),
adjustments to the designation of redeve lopment zones
may significantly reduce the overall pool of funding
and, consequently, the housing set-aside .

With dedicated resources to invest
in housing for lcey populations the
County will be better positioned
to fulfill its mission ...
Without a new source of public revenue, with increasing demand for significant new investment to expand
and preserve our affordable housing supplies, and with
the potential for existing revenue streams to plummet,
the con sequence of doing nothing may be an intensifi cati on of an already severe housing crisis.

Fiscal Implications of Establishing
a Publ ic Source of Local Financing:
Depending on the specific revenue streams and scale
of investment identified on an annual basis, the costs
borne by the County cou ld range from significant to
nominal. If the County were to decide to direct 30 percent
of the settlement with the Redevelopment Agency of
the City of San Jose toward the Housing Trust or other
housing development opportunities, it would mean an
investment of upwards of $4.5 million per year at current
levels. If the County were to seek new tax or fee-based
revenue sources, the allocation of staff time, an updated
revenue nexus study, and preparation for a public ballot
initiative would be comparatively nominal.

""C
0

r-

KEY ACTIVITY CLUSTERS
1) The County may immediately consider the recommendation for directing 30 percent of the settlement
with the City of San Jose's Redevelopment Agency toward affordable housing.

n
-<
:::c,
l'T'I

n
0

2) The County may update the revenue nexus study for the Housing Trust of Santa Clara County.
3) The County may start consultations with local leadership on the timing, scale, and priorities for a local
source of public revenue for affordable housing, (e.g. sales tax, bonds, fees, etc.)
4) Working with those partners, the County may lead a campaign for an appropriate local revenue source
for affordable housing.

3:
3:
l'T'I

:z:
Cl

>

-I
0

:z:

5) Working with local cities, the County may create a countywide sales-tax revenue pool for
affordable housing.

en

6) The County may support state legislation to create Housing Redevelopment zones where increases
in property tax-increments are directed toward affordable housing on a countywide basis.

Uw

29

V>

z:
C)

1-

c:c

COUNTY' OF SANTA CLARA HOUSING TASK FORCE Report 2002
Resource Acquisition' S. Allocation: Publicly-owned Surplus Land

Cl

z:
I.I.I

:ii:
:ii:

SUMMARY

C)
~

I.I.I

c:::
►
~

-'
C)

c..

The County of Santa Clara may lead a regional
effort to make surplus government-owned land
available for the development of affordable housing,
both by committing available County properties,
and by creating a context for other local jurisdictions
to do the same.
GOAL: The primary goal of this proposal is to increase
the amount of land available for affordable housing
development. Ma'king surplus County land available
for affordable housing may also create new opportunities for strategic partnerships with cities to
address the continuum of housing needs, especially
those of County clients.

Santa Clara County suffers from an
acute and persistent shortage of
inexpensive, usable, and available
land for affordable housing ...
BACKGROUND
Problem Statement:

inventories, the inability of housing advocates to influence decisions on what is considered surplus land,
and the lack of a broad community and political commitment to use government-owned landJor affordable
housing. Many of these issues can be attributed to
the lack of a regional vehicle for collaboration on the
housing crisis.

Current Environment:
Currently, jurisdictions utilize surplus lands for affordable housing sporadically and without regard to a
regional affordable housing strategy. The burden for
pulling a complex transaction together rests largely on
the developer. However, the County has previously
demonstrated its leadership in this area with the
development of the County Fairgrounds property.
Currently the largest affordable development in the
state, the project will create 560 units of family and
senior housing on 12 acres of a County-owned site
that will be annexed by San Jose.
The CHTF recognizes that strict state codes and local
guidelines govern how publicly-owned lands are converted to surplus status and made available to the
market. With the context for public collaboration
created by a County Housing Commission, however,
local jurisdictions could make use of the latitude that
exists. The current environment lacks regional consensus
on the underlying causes, scope, and appropriate
responses to our housing crisis. Without consensus
and an integrated plan there is little incentive for cooperation. The issues concerning the use of surplus land for
affordable housing could be a focal point for regional
consensus building, planning, and ultimately working
together to resolve our affordable housing shortage,

Santa Clara County suffers from an acute and persistent
shortage of inexpensive, usable, and available land for
affordable housing. Developers of low-income, affordable housing agree it is their inability to buy or control
land that primarily restricts their ability to build affordable housing. With the costs of land exceeding limited
financing opportunities, housing
advocates, non-profit developers,
and service providers have turned
The County has previously demonstrated its
their attention to local, state, and
leadership with the development of the County
federal jurisdictions that own surplus or under-utilized lands for
Fairgrounds property...
affordable housing development.
Despite the opportunity to facilitate the creation of new
long-term affordable housing using surplus public
land, the County Housing Task Force (CHTF) identified
resistance on the part of local jurisdictions and various
County Departments to use such properties for that
purpose. Other significant obstacles presented by local
governments include the inaccessibility of surplus land

30

lh

THE PLAN
In order to increase the amount of land available for
affordable housing development, the CHTF proposes
seven interrelated recommendations regarding utilization of publicly-owned surplus land. First, the County
may commit its currently available surplus lands for
affordable housing development where it is deemed

""Cl
0

feasible and appropriate. Second, the County may , uses for the past 5 years, and do not have defined
develop a new process to make its surplus land availuses over the next 5 years. Surplus lands also
able, by reevaluating its current land inventory and
include 'air rights' where mixed-use developments
developing a more flexible definition of "surplus lands."
are suitable for affordable housing projects."
Third, the County may work with local cities to have
such surplus properties annexed to those cities to
By proactively seeking opportunities to make its land
available and implementing policy directives that facilfacilitate the development of housing. Fourth, the
County may encourage local (and locally-based) govitate that goal, the County can also model new best
practices for other jurisdictions to follow.
ernment jurisdictions to commit their surplus lands to
affordable housing development and together compile
an inventory of surplus lands available countywide.
Working with Other Jurisdictions: The County may
Fifth, the County may spearhead changes to state law
begin to work with and support all local, state, and
concerning surplus land and housing elements which
federal jurisdictions (including special tax districts)
would facilitate the conversion of surplus lands into
within the county to make their own surplus lands
affordable housing and require cities to account for all
available for the production of affordable housing.
surplus land in their jurisdictions. Sixth, the County
Working with other jurisdictions, the County may hire a
may facilitate the development of an affordable housconsultant to compile an inventory of all vacant or surplus
ing land bank. Lastly, the County may strongly reaffirm
government-owned land countywide. By engaging
its intention to follow through on its own stated objecother local and locally-based government entities
tives in the sec General Plan's Housing Element.
through an organization such as a County Housing
Commission, the County can work toward building a
Commitment of County-owned Land: The County may
consensus around a myriad of housing issues, including
the use of surplus lands.
lead by example and publicly commit its surplus land
to affordable housing. A bold follow-up to the leadership it has demonstrated with the Fairgrounds develChanges to State Law: The County may advocate for
opment, it would provide lhe County with new
changes to state law concerning surplus land. For
resources and opportunities to participate in the develexample, the County may request that our state delegation
opment of affordable housing countywide. The
sponsor legislation to:
County's support and its contribution of resources
• Require cities and counties to include in their
could help ensure that all types of affordable housing
Housing Elements a section identifying all vacant
are developed, especially housing accessible to County
and surplus lands owned by the jurisdiction, their
clients with special housing needs. Moreover, it would
intentions for future use, and timeline.
send a strong message throughout the County organ• Require public jurisdictions to make surplus lands
ization of the Board of Supervisors' commitment to
available for affordable housing if the land does
affordable housing.
not have a specified use within the next five years.

The County may lead by example
and publicly commit its surplus
land to affordable housing ...
Process: The County may establish a new process for
evaluating and then declaring which County owned
lands are considered surplus or excess land, thus
making such lands available for affordable housing
development. While some work has been done to
account for vacant or potentially surplus County properties, the County may reevaluate its current inventory and may consider adopting the following definition
of surplus land:
"Surplus Lands are vacant or under-utilized lands
or structures that have not had clearly defined

r-

n
-<
::icl
l'T'I

n
0

==
==
l'T'I

:z
Cl

>
.....
0

:z
en

• Make it easier for public jurisdictions to sell or
dispose of surplus land for the purpose of
developing affordable housing.

Affordable Housing Land Bank: The CHTF also
recommended that the County initiate the establishment
of a land bank to deposit these lands. The Affordable
Housing Land Bank (AHLB) could serve as repository
for lands that are either gifted to the land bank from
private and public sources, or are purchased by the
land bank. In this role, the AHLB could hold and manage
lands that are earmarked for affordable housing development. [For AHLB key activity clusters, please see
Appendix 4.]
County Housing Element:
In the Santa Clara County General Plan, several key
strategies had been identified to increase the supply of
affordable housing, including:

31

V,

z:
0
I-

<
0

z:
LU

==
==
0
~

LU

a:

>-

• Planning for a balanced ·housing supply
adequate to need
• Promoting residential construction
• Providing financial assistance for the
construction of housing affordable for lowand moderate-income families
• Removing fiscal barriers to housing
construction

~

...J

0
Q.

If the County of Santa Clara is to provide credible
leadership, and encourage other entities to do the
same, we must also adhere to the goals we have
established in our Housing Element.

Benefits and Opportunities:
The commitment to use surplus lands for affordable
housing development would signal the County's intent
to become an active force in addressing our region's
housing crisis. More importantly, it would free up, and
in the long run, generate resources necessary for the
County to advance an affordable housing agenda compatible with the County's needs.

County an active partner in individual projects and give
it the ability to negotiate for commensurate quantities,
types of units, and terms of affordability. Again, the
advantage is the ability to forward the County's agenda.

The Consequences of Doing Nothing:
Development of affordable housing wouJd occur similarly to the way it always has, with the responsibility
largely resting on the shoulders of local jurisdictions
Without significant funding or land to offer, the County
would have little input in development.
Fiscal Implications:
Fiscal implications would occur on a case-by-case
basis depending on whether the County was selling or
gifting the land. The County would then have to consider the opportunity cost of committing the land for
affordable housing development in comparison to selling the land at market values. Also, any value (i.e.,
any housing opportunities) negotiated in exchange for
the County's land would have to be factored in as well .
Staffing to manage the surplus land activities would
come from the proposed Office of Affordable Housing.

Making publicly owned surplus land available for
affordable housing development would also make the

The commitment to use surplus lands for affordable housing
development would signal the County's intent to become an
active force in addressing our region's housing crisis ...
KEi ACTIV1TY CLUSTERS
1) The County may adopt a resolution declaring its intent to use vacant or surplus lands owned by the
County for the purpose of developing affordable housing where it is deemed feasible and appropriate
and establish a process for doing so.
2) The County may work with all local, state, and federal jurisdictions in the county to inventory their
own vacant or surplus lands, and to make these available for affordable housing where it is deemed
feasible and appropriate. Such a process may also facilitate annexation of appropriate parcels by
local cities.
3) The County may research the feasibility of developing a countywide Affordable Housing Land Bank,
outside of County government, to hold and manage donated or purchased land for the singular purpose
of developing affordable housing.
4) The County may sponsor legislation requiring local jurisdictions to include in their Housing Elements
a section identifying all vacant and surplus lands owned by the jurisdiction as well as their intentions
for future use and timeline.
5) The County may strongly reaffirm its intention to follow through on its own stated objectives in the
General Plan's Housing Element.

32

sec

C":I

Cl

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA HOUSING.TASI< FORCE Report 2002

:z:
C":I

Conclusion

r-

e::
en
Cl

For a community that prides itself on being on the cutting edge, the irony is not lost upon local policy makers that the edge cuts both ways. The strength of our regional economY, which has made
Silicon Valley the envy of the world, has also helped create a severe shortage of affordable housing.
While elevated housing costs are not exactly a new phenomenon for residents of Santa Clara County,
the last decade has witnessed the some of the most eye-popping escalations in rental and home
prices encountered anywhere in the nation. The impact is destabilizing for the long-term health of
both the regional economy and the social fabric of our community.

:z:

To say simply that we have a housing problem adds nothing to the current discourse. To create a context for community stakeholders to take an active role in framing the issues and identifying solutions
represents a fundamentally new approach. This has been the premise behind and promise of the County
of Santa Clara Housing Task Force (CHTF).

At the direction of the Board of Supervisors, hundreds of participants were
charged with analyzing the s-cope and
underpinnings of our region's housing
woes. The Task Force explored several
key interconnecting trends that either
highlight or reinforce the crisis:

Board of Supervisors

I

County Executive
County Housing
Commission
I
I
I
I

• The spiraling housing cos(s
resulting from an unprecedented
economic boom.

'

,, ,

I

I

I

V

• The increasing imbalance between
job growth and housing production.

Office of
Afordable Housing

~,

Surplus La nd

------------- ->

• The fiscal constraints created by
our state's system of public
financing.

• The lack of political will on the part of local
jurisdictions to act aggressively and in a coordinated
fashion to increase housing supply.
• The diminishing support from federal and state
government to address housing needs at the local level.
• The need for affordable homes, particularly for lowincome families and those with special needs.

:
V
Public Source
of Financing

Special Needs

--> Housing

',,
~

Policy Advocacy

Recognizing the County's existing foundation in housing
activity through internal programs and agencies or affiliated
partnerships, the CHTF proceeded to identify viable strategic
interventions on the part of the County that could facilitate
a comprehensive and integrated local response to our
region's housing crisis. Ultimately, the CHTF Steering
Committee developed, analyzed, and refined six focused
recommendations that individually stand on their own merits,
but also, when considered together, weave a comprehensive
plan for dramatic County action.

The six focused recommendations
weave a comprehensive plan for
, , , dramatic County action ...

-,(!) -:;:

lh

33

z:
0
V)

The proposals are as follows:

~

....I

u
z:
0

u

To strengthen the internal infrastructure and organization
of the County to respond to the crisis:
1) Establish an Office of Affordable Housing
2) Develop an integrated Special Needs Housing Program

units in our community. The Office may proactively organize
a regional consensus building process among local policy
makers both to create an ongoing source of local public revenue and to allocate publicly-owned land for affordable
housing.

By providing staffing, research, and logistical support to an
inter-governmental County Housing Commission, the Office
of Affordable Housing may also lay a foundation for·greater
regional cooperation to achieve these goals and implement
other regional solutions.
Just as there is no single factor responsible for the region's
To facilitate acquisition and allocation of resources that
housing crisis, there is not one strategy, nor one public entican strategically address critical needs:
ty,
that can fix it. Local municipalities have done much to
5) Establish an ongoing Public Source of Local Financing
respond to the hosing needs of residents, but all concede it
6) Utilize Publicly-owned Surplus Land for affordable housing
has not been enough. Recognizing a vacuum of regional
leadership, the Board of Supervisors invited the communiWhile specific implementation steps have been identified
ty to work with them in a groundbreaking collaborative
for each proposal, what holds all of the recommendations
process to devise a comprehensive plan from a regional
together is the establishment of a central coordinating hub
perspective. It is the sincere desire of the County of Santa
of County housing related activity, a County Office of
Clara Housing Task Force that this report informs what a
Affordable Housing, working under the County Executive.
new constructive and collaborative
leadership role on the part of
In addition to providing an intethe
County
of Santa Clara might
This report informs what a new
grated institutional direction to
entail
for
consideration
and delibhousing activity foJ the County,
constructive and collaborative
eration
by
the
Board
of
the Office may also implement
Supervisors.
leadership role might entail...
each of the other proposals furTo create a context for regional leadership and advocacy:
3) Establish a County Housing Commission
4) Make housing Policy Advocacy an institutional priority

ther positioning the County as a
regional leader on housing issues. The Office may develop
the Special Needs Housing Program to coordinate existing
supportive housing. activities for County clients and to promote development of housing accessible to special needs
populations. If the Board of Supervisors were to affirm affordable housing policy advocacy as an institutional priority of
the County of Santa Clara, the Office could spearhead policy
efforts to expand funding and development of more affordable

34

n
C

r

,.'I

RECOMMENDATION

GOAL

SUMMARY
-

KEY ACTIVITY CLUSTERS

:z:
n

,....

c::
V,

-

C

Office of Affordable
Housing

Special Needs
Housing

County Housing
Commission

The County of Santa Clara may establish
the Office of Affordable Housing (OAH) to
strategical ly coordinate existing County
housing service efforts and to proactively
seek opportunities for the County to contribute resources to increase the supply
of affordable housing. The OAH may also
serve as support to the Board of Supervisors in order to exert countywide
leadership and may bring together
multiple local jurisdictions to form
a County Housing Commission.

To establish an
institutional structure
that will expand the
County's regional
leadership role in
housing and strengthen
our capacity to deliver
necessary services by
creating more affordable housing oppor!unities countywide.

The County of Santa Clara may establish
an integrated program to lead efforts in
improving the coordination, quality, and
development of housing for its special
needs clients. By compiling critical data,
disseminating resource, and best
practice information, coordinating efforts
of existing housing and assistance programs, and leveraging County resources
for the purpose of developing more
special needs housing, a County Office
of Affordable Housing can better position
the County to fulfill its service mission.

To establ ish an
institutional vehicle
that will allow the
County to more
thoughtfully and
strategical ly address
the housing needs of
the vulnerable
populations it serves.

The County of Santa Clara may establish
a County Housing Commission (CHC) that
would foster a regional dialogue on issues
of housing among local elected officials
and provide a vehicle to launch collaborative initiatives to address critical needs.
The CHC may include representatives
from local municipalities, the County,
and other appointed members
at the discretion of the Board of
Supervisors.

To address the lack of
regional coordination
on housing issues by
creating a context in
which local leaders
can comm unicate
and develop regional
responses.

:z:

1) The Board of Supervisors may accept the

recommendation to establish an Office of
Affordable Housing and direct the
Administrati on to take the necessa ry steps
for creating the office effective July 1, 2002.
2) The County may adopt a work plan for the
Office of Affordable Housing.

1) The County may establish special needs
housing as a key program component of a
County Office of Affordable Housing and
identify the staffing and organizational
infrastructure to implement such a program.
2) The County may direct allocation of land or
appropriate financial resources toward the
development of affordable and special
needs housing.

1) The County may author a proposal for a

partnership with the Santa Clara County Cities
Association to craft an effective membership
structure for a County Housing Commission
(CHC) comprised of representatives from local
municipalities, the County, and oth er
appointed members.
2) The County may identify staffing, organizational infrastructure, and funding to develop
and support the CHC which may include
membership dues.
3) The County may pass an ordi na nce authorizing

the creation of the CHC.

Policy Advocacy

The County of Santa Clara may reposition
itself to be a proactive force in affordable
housing advocacy for our region. By
making housing advocacy at the local,
state, and federal levels an institutional
priority of a County Office of Affordable
Housing, the County may spearhead
efforts to enact housing policies and
secure resources for Santa Clara County.

To actively coordinate
and advance policy
advocacy efforts on
housing issues at all
levels of government in
partnership with local
leaders, advocates,
and community
members.

1) The County may establish legislative and

policy advocacy efforts as a key program
component of a County Office of Affordable
Housing and identify the staffing and
organizational infrastructure resources
to implement such a program.
2) The County may further research and evaluate
the policy priorities identified in the CHTF
Report to craft legislation and policy goals for
a County Office of Affordable Housing.
3) The County may reach out to and expand our

lobbying efforts with local partners to increase
resources and advocate for regional affordable
housing policies.
~

'
:,-h
,w . .
"f

35

:z:
c::,

,,
/

RECOMMENDATION
Public Source of
Local Financing

SUMMARY

GOAL

The County of Santa Clara may spearhead
a countywide effort to identify and secure
an ongoing source of local public revenue
to support the development of affordable
housing.

To initiate a process
that can significantly
bolster the financial
resources available to
address the continuum
of affordable housing
needs in our county
and to create fiscal
incentives for
increasing the
production of affordable housing.

KEY ACTIVITY CLUSTERS

"I

1) The County may immediately consider the

recommendation for directing 30 percent of
the settlement with the City of San Jose's
Redevelopment Agency toward affordable
housing.
2) The County may update the revenue nexus

study for the Housing Trust of Santa Clara
County.
3) The County may start consultations with local

leadership on the timing, scale, and priorities
for a local source of public revenue for
affordable housing, (e.g. sales tax, bonds,
fees, etc.)
4) Working with those partners, the County may

lead a campaign for an appropriate local
revenue source for affordable housing.
5) Working with local cities, the County may

create a countywide sales-tax revenue pool for
affordable housing.
6) The County may support state legislation to

create Housing Redevelopment zones where
increases in property tax-increments are
directed toward affordable housing on a
countywide basis .

.

Publicly-owned
Surplus Land

The County of Santa Clara may lead a
regional effort to make surplus government-owned land available for the
development of affordable housing, both
by committing available County properties,
and by creating a context for other local
jurisdictions to do the same.

To increase the amount
of land available for
affordable housing
development. Making
surplus County land
available for affordable
housing may also
create new
opportunities for
strategic partnerships
with cities to address
the continuum of
housing needs,
especially those of
County clients.

1) The County may adopt a resolution declaring

its intent to use vacant or surplus lands
owned by the County for the purpose of
developing affordable housing where it is
deemed feasible and appropriate and
establish a process for doing so.
2) The County may work with all local, state, and

federal jurisdictions in the county to inventory
their own vacant or surplus lands, and to
make these available for affordable housing
where it is deemed feasible and appropriate.
Such a process may also facilitate annexation
of appropriate parcels by local cities.
3) The County may research the feasibility of

developing a countywide Affordable Housing
Land Bank, outside of County government, to
hold and manage donated or purchased land
for the singular purpose of developing
affordable housing.
4) The County may sponsor legislation requiring

local jurisdictions to include in their Housing
Elements a section identifying all vacant and
surplus lands owned by the jurisdiction as
well as their intentions for future use and
timeline.
5) The County may strongly reaffirm its intention

to follow through on its own stated objectives
in the sec General Plan's Housing Element.

'-

./

I •
36

Ir,

:i::,.

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA HOUSING TASK FORCE Report 2002
Appendix 1: Footnotes

""ti
""ti

m
:z:
C

><

1. Joint Venture's 2002 Index of Silicon Valley, Joint Venture

Silicon Valley [Sources: Employment Development
Department, California Department of Finance], 2002, pg. 21 .

il l

II
II

14. Joint Venture's 2001 Index of Silicon Valley, Joint Venture
Silicon Valley, [Source: Metropolitan Transportation
Commission], 2001, pg . 7.

2. County of Santa Clara Assessor's Office, Figures for
October 2000 through September 2001 .

15. Valley Transportation Plan 2020 , Valley Transportation
Authority, December 2000.

3. www.nahb.com, National Association of Home Builders,
Figures for 03 2001.

16. www.factfinder.census.gov, "Census 2000: Table P048:
Travel Time to Work for Workers 16 Years or Older: Santa
Clara County, San Jose", US Census Bureau, 2001.

4. "Note on Affordable Housing in Silicon Valley" Ashok
Bardhan, PhD, Fisher Center on Real Estate & Urban
Economics-Haas School of Business, UC Berkeley, 2001 .
5. Everyone's Valley: Inclusion and Affordable Housing in
Silicon Valley, Working Partnerships USA, 2001, pg. 10.
[Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, OES Data 1999]
6. Everyone's Valley: Inclusion and Affordable Housing in
Silicon Valley, Working Partnerships USA, 2001, pg. 9.
[Source: www.calmis.ca,gov]
7. www.factfinder.census.gov, "Census 2000: Table H067 :
Gross Rent as a % of Household Income in the Past 12
Months: Santa Clara County", US Census Bureau, 2001 .

17. "Regional Sales Tax Sharing Weighed", San Jose Mercury
News, Tracey Kaplan, [Sources : California Board of
Equalization, Census 2000), February 10, 2002.
18. Locked Out: California's Affordable Housing Crisis,
California Budget Project, May 2000.
19. Ibid.
20. Ibid.
21. www.chpc.net/pages/atriskdata.html, California Housing
Partnership Corporation, 2001.
22. ABAG Projections 2000

8. "Fair Market Rents for Existing Housing-2002", US
Department of Housing & Urban Development.
9. Everyone's Valley: Inclusion and Affordable Housing in
Silicon Valley, Working Partnerships USA, 2001, pg. 38.
[Source: County of Santa Clara Assessor's Office)

g
)I

II
I
I

m
II

10. Building Sustainable Communities: Housing Solutions for
Silicon Valley, Prepared for the Silicon Valley Manufacturing
Group and Greenbelt Alliance by Strategic Economics, 1999.
11 . ABAG Projections 2000
12. Everyone's Valley: Inclusion and Affordable Housing in
Silicon Valley, Working Partnerships USA, 2001, pg. 45.
[Sources : California Department of Finance,
www.calmis.ca.gov, ABAG)

23 . Social Security Administration, Len Filipini, Assistant
District Manager.
24. Santa Clara County Collaborative on Affordable Housing
and Homeless Issues, Continuum of Care Gaps Analysis, 2001 .
25 . Santa Clara County Collaborative on Affordable Housing
and Homeless Issues Five Year Plan, 2001.
26. Santa Clara County Consolidated Plan for 2000-05,
May 2000.
27. Emergency Housing Consortium.
28. Santa Clara County Consolidated Plan for 2000-05,
May 2000.

13. "Focus on the Jobs Side of the Equation", Lenny Siegel,
Center for Public Environmental Oversight, January 2000.

I
D
:g

a
I

37

><
Cl

z:
LU

c..
c..

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA HOU~ING TASK FORCE Report 2002
Appendix 2: Office of Affordable Housing-Proposed Activities

er:

PROPOSED ACTIVITIES
Coordination:
• Coordinate current housing programs, projects, and
resources of County departments to serve a broad County
commitment to producing more affordable housing
opportunities.
• Provide resource development and grant writing assistance
to County agencies and housing service providers to facilitate
the development of more affordable housing.

• Advocate that all government surplus lands (or proceeds
from the sale thereof) be dedicated to the development of
affordable housing.

• Work to ensure Community Development Block Grant funds
are allocated to meet County affordable housing objectives .

• Advocate for and work with local, state, and federal agencies
on developing flexible conditions and consistent reporting
requirements on the use of public funds for special
needs housing.

• Utilize all surplus County lands (or proceeds from the sale
thereof) for the development of affordable housing, especially
for very low- and extremely low-income households.

• Advocate for additional state and federal housing resources
and tax incentives in high cost areas to encourage the
development of very low- and extremely low-income housing .

Research:
• Gather, evaluate, and organize critical data relative to the
housing needs of public employees and low- and moderateincome households !hroughout Santa Clara County.
• Develop a standardized intake system among County agencies
to better determine the housing needs of County clients and
facilitate effective housing placement.
• Develop a marketing strategy including a promotional
campaign and materials in support of affordable housing.
• Research, evaluate, and recommend potential permanent
revenue sources that could be used for the development of
more affordable housing.

Collaboration:
• Become a facilitator of affordable housing developments by
utilizing County resources to bring together cities, developers,
and service providers and make projects happen.
• Negotiate linking local land use approvals and funding
assistance with tradeoffs benefiting affordable housing
developments.
• Work with cities on finding appropriate locations for
affordable housing projects on surplus lands.
• Make housing information easily available to the developers
and service operators and assist them in acquiring state
and federal funding.
• To insure County agencies and clients are getting the best
housing services possible, work with affordable housing
providers to seek "best practices" in managing programs
and explore ways, including financial incentives, to encourage
and reward successful projects and programs

38

Advocacy:
• At the regional level, advocate attaching to core business
fun ctions of the local economy the financing of
affordable housing.

• Advocate for a large-scale effort to review and reform antquated state licensing requirements and codes to encourage
more property owners to provide affordable housing.

Assistance Programs:
• Become an insurer or guarantor of financing from public or
private sources for appropriate affordable housing projects.
• Establish a revolving loan fund that nonprofit developers could
utilize to secure land while additional financing is pursued .
• Establish affordable housing information services (Housing
Education Assistance Program) for low-income families and
public employees .

>

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA HOUSING TASK FORCE Report 2002
Appendix 3: Special Needs Housing- Proposed Activities

~

PROPOSED ACTIVITIES
Research and Coordination:

:II

• Provide resource development and grant writing assistance
to County agencies and housing service providers to facilitate
the development of more low-income special needs housing.

:II

• Work to ensure Community Development Block Grant funds
are allocated to meet County special needs housing objectives.

:tll

• Utilize surplus County lands (or proceeds from the sale
thereof) for the development of very low-and extremely
low-income housing with services for special needs
individuals and families.

31
31
:II
:II

=-:II

:II

:II

:ta
31
31
31

m
:z:
Cl

><

31

::a

""C
""C

• Gather, evaluate and organize critical data relative to the
housing needs of special needs populations throughout
Santa Clara County.
• Develop a standardized intake system among County agencies
to better determine the housing needs of County clients and
facilitate effective housing placement.
• Support the development and dissemination of an information
database on available units or beds for special needs individuals.

Development:
• Become a facilitator of special needs housing developments
by utilizing County resources to bring together cities,
developers, and service providers and make projects happen.
• Work with cities on finding appropriate locations for special
needs housing projects on surplus lands.

Advocacy:
• Work with local jurisdictions towards changing local land
use policies to include more special needs housing
components.
• Develop countywide housing goals for special needs
populations based on needs assessments and inventory
data, and advocate for regional support to meet those goals.
• Develop countywide housing goals for special needs
populations based on needs assessments and inventory
data, and advocate for regional support to meet those goals .
• At the regional level, advocate attaching to core business
functions of the local economy the financing of affordable
housing and/or housing services for special needs populations.

Assistance Programs:
• Work with special needs housing providers to seek "best
practices" in managing programs and explore ways, including
financial incentives, to encourage and reward successful
projects and programs.
• Establish a rental housing assistance fund that developers
can utilize to buy down rents and help finance the development
of projects for special needs clients.
• Establish affordable housing information services (H9using
Education Assistance Program) for special needs clients.
• Provide "catalyst financing" to assist special needs housing
developers at critical points in the project.

3
~

:fl
3

=-:ra
~
~

*

~

~

39

><
Cl

:z
I.I.I

0..
0..

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ·HO~SING TASK FORCE Report 2002
Appendix 4: Publicly-owned Surplus Land-Affordable Housing Land Bank

cc

KEY ACTIVITY CLUSTERS
The County may research the feasibility of developing a countywide Affordable Housing Land Bank (AHLB), outs!de of County
government, to hold and manage donated or purchased land for the singular purpose of developing affordable housing.
a) The AHLB may seek initial fundi ng from local ju risdiction s,

Redevelopment Agencies, the Housi ng Trust of Santa Clara
County (HTSCC), private, and philanthropic sources.

bl All local jurisdictions and the state may make contribution s
to the AHLB for the single purpose of building perm anent
affordabl e housing developments.
c) The AHLB may also be empowered to purchase governm ent

surplus lands for affordable housing developments.
d) The AHLB may also be empowered to purchase private lands

or residential buildings for affordabl e housing developments
or rehabilitation .

40

el The County may require that the AHLB work in partnership
with the HTSCC, the Housing Authority of the County of Santa
Clara or a local non-profit development corporation .

fl The County may urge jurisdictions to deposit "surplus lands"
in the AHLB for a specified period of time . If the surplus
lands are not utilized by the jurisdiction within the specifie'd
time, the AHLB could either sell the property with the
proceeds going towards affordable housing, or advance the
development of the property into affordable housing.