Score: +1 (4/8/3)

Santa Clara County Grand Jury • 2017-2018

(endorsed)*

Published: September 04, 2018 7 pages Consolidated Report

Ver PDF original

⚠️ Aviso de traducción: Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.

⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.

Note: Missing finding numbers detected: F9, F10

Findings 3 findings

F7 Page 4

NIMBY (Not in My Backyard) opposition adversely affects the supply of BMR housing units. Agencies to respond are all 15 cities and the County.

F8 Page 5

It is unnecessarily difficult to confirm how many BMR units are constructed in a particular year or RHNA cycle because cities and the County only report permitted units.

F11 Page 5

The VTA is a valuable model for effectively generating BMR housing on publicly owned property. Agencies to respond are the County and the SCVWD.

Recommendations 4

R7
Page 4

A task force to communicate the value and importance of each city meeting its RHNA objectives for BMR housing should be created and funded by the County and all 15 🔨 cities, by June 30, 2019. County of Santa Clara Response: The County generally agrees with Finding 7, and efforts are underway within the Office of Supportive Housing to change the community narrative around BMR housing. As noted in Finding 7, opposition can be a barrier to the development of affordable housing. While community engagement happens at the various development stages, there is opportunity to increase widespread community support for BMR housing. As part of the implementation of the 2016 Measure A Affordable Housing Bond, the County launched the Housing Ready Communities (HRC) campaign – a community engagement and education campaign in partnership with cities and other stakeholders to fully implement the County's plan to end homelessness and build new affordable and supportive housing. The County disagrees with Recommendation 7, as drafted, because it is not warranted. The purpose of the task force – communicating the value of RHNA objectives – is very important. However, if supported by the cities, the County recommends building on the County's Housing and Community Development Advisory Committee (HCDAC), which includes an elected official from five of the 15 cities and towns in Santa Clara County, and it may provide an alternate forum to consider this issue. The HCDAC recently amended its bylaws to include the cities of Cupertino, Gilroy and Palo Alto for its HOME Consortia, 3 - DocuSign Envelope ID: 094E3C8F-25B5-4E6A-AD0F-EFA3A6F25931 which helps smaller cities qualify for federal funding for affordable housing programs. The County will evaluate the possibility of expanding HCDAC's membership to include all 15 cities and the County. The State's adoption of SB 35 and AB 72 also support the County's determination that
R8
Page 5

All 15 cities and the County should annually publish the number of constructed BMR units, start in April 2019. County of Santa Clara Response: The County agrees with Recommendation 8. If there are BMR units constructed in the unincorporated areas of the County, the Planning Department will annually publish these numbers.
R11a
Page 5

The County should identify or create an agency, modeled after the VTA's Joint Development Program, to coordinate partnerships between developers and both the SCVWD and the County for the development of BMR housing,
R11b
Page 5

Parcels suitable for BMR housing should be offered for development by the SCVWD and the County, , County of Santa Clara Response: The County disagrees partially with Finding 11. The VTA's BMR policy related to building BMR housing on publicly owned property is a valuable model. However, the VTA's policy would be more impactful if the policy required the VTA to issue joint procurements with the local jurisdiction and the County. A collaborative approach would result in a more streamlined entitlement and financing approach. The County will not implement Recommendation 11a because it is not reasonable. The VTA staff and governing Board set policy and implement development activities on properties owned by VTA. While County staff have been coordinating, facilitating, and supporting development opportunities and partnerships between cities, the County and 4 DocuSign Envelope ID: 094E3C8F-25B5-4E6A-AD0F-EFA3A6F25931 other government agencies, neither the County, another agency, nor an agency created by the County can establish or implement a joint development program for properties owned by other agencies. The County has and will continue to identify suitable County-owned properties for the development of BMR housing. For example, 160 units of permanent supportive housing are being developed on County-owned property on Senter Road in San Jose. In addition, the County is actively developing BMR housing options for its Grant Avenue property in Palo Alto. A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4, . . . • . .* . . • • . . - . . . •

Agency Responses 9

Government agencies' official responses to this report's findings and recommendations. Click on a response to see the structured breakdown.

2017 Update from the City of Campbell

March 13, 2017 • 3 pages View Details ▾

PDF

2017 Update from the City of Campbell

March 07, 2017 • 3 pages View Details ▾

PDF

2017 Update from the City of Cupertino

March 20, 2017 • 6 pages View Details ▾

PDF

2017 Update from the City of Cupertino

March 20, 2017 • 6 pages View Details ▾

PDF

City of Campbell

September 19, 2018 • 8 pages • 7 responses • Score: +1 (+1, 0, 0) View Details ▾

PDF

7 responses to findings and recommendations

R2a

The County should form a task force with the cities to establish housing impact fees for employers to subsidize BMR housing, by June 30, 2019. Agencies to respond are all 15 cities and the County.

Response: Unknown

Score: 0

The City of Campbell partially agrees with

R2b

Every city in the County should enact housing impact fees for employers to create a fund that subsidizes BMR housing, by June 30, 2020. Agencies to respond are the County and all 15 cities. County of Santa Clara Response: The County of Santa Clara generally agrees with Findings 2a and 2b; however, Recommendations 2a and 2b will not be implemented as described. Through the work of the Housing Task Force in 2015, the County has already encouraged cities to consider enacting or expanding various me...

Response: Unknown

Score: 0

The City of Campbell disagrees with

R3c

High-cost cities and the County should provide compensation to low-cost cities for increased public services required for taking on more BMR units in any high-rent/low- rent RHNA sub-region, Agencies to respond are Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Mountain View, Palo Alto, Santa Clara, Saratoga, Sunnyvale and the County. County of Santa Clara Response: The County of Santa Clara disagrees partially with

Response: Unknown

Score: 0

The City of Campbell disagrees with

NIMBY (Not in My Backyard) opposition adversely affects the supply of BMR housing units. Agencies to respond are all 15 cities and the County.

Response: Agree Score: +1

The City of Campbell agrees with finding 7.

A task force to communicate the value and importance of each city meeting its RHNA objectives for BMR housing should be created and funded by the County and all 15 🔨 cities, by June 30, 2019. County of Santa Clara Response: The County generally agrees with Finding 7, and efforts are underway within the Office of Supportive Housing to change the community narrative around BMR housing. As noted in Finding 7, opposition can be a barrier to the development of affordable housing. While community enga...

Response: Unknown

Score: 0

The City of Campbell agrees with

It is unnecessarily difficult to confirm how many BMR units are constructed in a particular year or RHNA cycle because cities and the County only report permitted units.

Response: Unknown Score: 0

Timeframe for implementation / further study: In January 2018, as requested by the California Department of Finance, the City submitted a Housing Unit Change Form identifying newly constructed units built in calendar year 2017. . ţ . . . . . .

All 15 cities and the County should annually publish the number of constructed BMR units, start in April 2019. County of Santa Clara Response: The County agrees with Recommendation 8. If there are BMR units constructed in the unincorporated areas of the County, the Planning Department will annually publish these numbers.

Response: Unknown

Score: 0

See response to

City of Campbell

June 05, 2018 • 2 pages View Details ▾

PDF

City of Cupertino

September 19, 2018 • 8 pages • 7 responses • Score: +2 (+2, 5, 0) View Details ▾

PDF

7 responses to findings and recommendations

R2a

The County should form a task force with the cities to establish housing impact fees for employers to subsidize BMR housing, by June 30, 2019. Agencies to respond are all 15 cities and the County.

Response: Requires Analysis

Due: June 30, 2019 Scheduled: FY 2018-2019 Score: 0

Clara County. The City is working to update this in FY The County should form a task 2018-2019. However, if a county led task force is force with the cities to establish established, the City will participate. Cupertino has housing impact fees for established high impact and linkage fees, therefore it employers to subsidize BMR might not be feasible to establish a separate employer housing, by June 30, 2019. impact fee. Also, as previously mentioned, the Grand Jury Report identifies Cupertino as having a housing to employed residents ratio of 1.08. Agree Conceivably, each city in the Co...

R2b

Response: Requires Analysis

Due: June 30, 2020 Scheduled: FY 2018-2019 Score: 0

Clara County. The City is working to update this in FY 2018-2019. However, if a county led task force is Every city in the County established, the City will participate. Cupertino was should enact housing impact able to recently contribute $4.672 towards an 18-unit fees for employers to create a senior affordable project being developed by Charities fund that subsidizes BMR Housing within the City. The project broke ground in housing, by June 30, 2019. April 2018. However, it is unlikely, that a separate employer impact fee will be imposed in addition to the City's non-residential linkage fee....

R3c

Response: Requires Analysis

Score: 0

could meet their BMR requirements without providing units in their cities. Agree Finding 5a: While there may be varying requirements within the Uneven BMR achievements County, this could be due to the cost of development, among cities is caused in part the cost of land or simply because that jurisdiction by varying inclusionary BMR found their inclusionary housing requirement fit for unit percentage requirements. their jurisdiction and adequate to meet the goals in their housing element. . Agree The City adopted one of the highest housing mitigation fees in Santa Clara County...

NIMBY (Not in My Backyard) opposition adversely affects the supply of BMR housing units. Agencies to respond are all 15 cities and the County.

Response: Disagree Partially Score: 0

the end of 2019. Partially Disagree Finding 7: Opposition to development projects is generally not limited to BMR housing projects.

Response: Will Implement

Score: +1

Residents continue to have valid concerns about traffic A task force to communicate congestion and the lack of meaningful transit in the the value and importance of West Valley. In addition, the City has identified and is each city meeting its RHNA working on collaboration on ways to address regional objectives for BMR housing transportation solutions that cannot be solved by any should be created and funded one city with other cities, businesses and the VTA. The by the County and all 15 cities, addition of a task force will not increase the City's by June 30, 2019. participation in regional c...

It is unnecessarily difficult to confirm how many BMR units are constructed in a particular year or RHNA cycle because cities and the County only report permitted units.

Response: Disagree Partially Score: 0

Partially Agree While there continue to be opportunities to improve Finding 8: access to information and enhance transparency, It is unnecessarily difficult to Cupertino annually reports the number of housing confirm how many BMR units units generated each year to the CA Department of are constructed in a particular Housing and Community Development in compliance year or RHNA cycle because with mandated requirements and makes these reports cities and the County only available on its Housing webpages.

Response: Will Implement

Score: +1

Recommendation 8: Has not been implemented but will be implemented All 15 cities and the County in the future.

City of Palo Alto

September 14, 2018 • 6 pages • 7 responses • Score: -2 (+1, 3, -3) View Details ▾

PDF

7 responses to findings and recommendations

R2a

The County should form a task force with the cities to establish housing impact fees for employers to subsidize BMR housing, by June 30, 2019. Agencies to respond are all 15 cities and the County.

Response: Requires Analysis

Score: 0

fees for employers to subsidize BMR housing, by June 30, 2019. Agencies to respond are all 15 cities and the County. City of Palo Alto The recommendation requires further analysis. If the County forms a task force, Response representatives from the City of Palo Alto could participate. However, there are 25.0 several other funding mechanisms that have been implemented and are being revised to provide more funds for affordable housing throughout the region. In Palo Alto, the City has recently increased its development impact fees for BMR housing Civil Grand Jury Contributions to BMR housing from...

R2b

Response: Will Not Implement

Score: -1

create a fund that subsidizes BMR housing, by June 30, 2020. Agencies to respond are the County and all 15 cities. City of Palo Alto This recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted. The Response City of Palo Alto collects fees for commercial development to mitigate the impact of employment on the need for BMR housing. Civil Grand Jury RHNA sub-regions formed by several San Francisco Bay Area counties enable Finding 3a their cities to develop promising means to meet their collective BMR requirements. Such sub-regions can serve as instructive examples for cities in the ...

R3c

Response: Will Not Implement

Score: -1

for increased public services required for taking on more BMR units in any highrent/low-rent RHNA subregion, by the end of 2021. Agencies to respond are Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Mountain View, Palo Alto, Santa Clara, Saratoga, Sunnyvale and the County. City of Palo Alto The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or reasonable. This recommendation establishes a timeline for high-rent Response jurisdictions to compensate low-rent communities for increased public services related to housing units not built in reliance on...

NIMBY (Not in My Backyard) opposition adversely affects the supply of BMR housing units. Agencies to respond are all 15 cities and the County.

Response: Disagree Partially Score: 0

housing units. Agencies to respond are all 15 cities and the County. City of Palo Alto Partially disagree. Opposition to development may constrain housing Response development generally and BMR housing units specifically. However, opposition to development may or may not be specifically related to BMR housing units. There may be other concerns related to traffic, neighborhood character, construction-related impacts or other issues that generate opposition to projects. Civil Grand Jury A task force to communicate the value and importance of each city meeting its

Response: Will Not Implement

Score: -1

RHNA objectives for BMR housing should be created and funded by the County and all 15 cities, by June 30, 2019. City of Palo Alto The recommendation will not be implemented because it is unwarranted and Response vague. Through adoption of the City's Housing Element, the City engaged in a community dialogue about the importance of housing and identifying potential redevelopment sites to meet housing goal objectives. The City continued a community dialogue about housing with its recent Comprehensive Plan adoption. Through active implementation programs, the continues to support and is actively c...

It is unnecessarily difficult to confirm how many BMR units are constructed in a particular year or RHNA cycle because cities and the County only report permitted units.

Response: Disagree Partially Score: 0

particular year or RHNA cycle because cities and the County only report permitted units. Agencies to respond are all 15 cities and the County. City of Palo Alto Partially agree. While there continues to be opportunities to improve access to Response information and enhance transparency, the City of Palo Alto annually reports the number of housing units generated each year to the State Housing and Community Development departments in compliance with mandated requirements. Civil Grand Jury All 15 cities and the County should annually publish the number of constructed

Response: Will Implement

Score: +1

BMR units, starting in April 2019. City of Palo Alto The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented Response in the future, no later than March 31, 2019. Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact me at 650-329-2679 or [email protected]. Sincerely, onathan l Interim Director

Town of Los Altos Hills

September 20, 2018 • 8 pages View Details ▾

PDF

No Responses Found 11

Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.

County of Santa Clara Agency

Gilroy City

Los Gatos City

Milpitas City

Monte Sereno City

Morgan Hill City

Mountain View City

San Jose City

Santa Clara City

Saratoga City

Sunnyvale City

* This report's PDF did not contain easily extractable text and required Optical Character Recognition (OCR) for analysis. There may be minor errors in the extracted findings and recommendations due to OCR limitations with scanned documents.