(endorsed)

Recommendations 7

• 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.
• 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 mechanisms such as commercial linkage fees and residential impact fees to fund BMR housing. Some agencies, including the County, funded concurrent nexus studies. Some agencies, including the County, are in the process of developing ordinances to establish impact fees and/or inclusionary Board of Supervisors: Mike Wasserman, Dave Cortese, Ken Yeager, S. Joseph Simitian, Cindy Chavez County Executive: Jeffrey V. Smith DocuSign Envelope ID: 094E3C8F-25B5-4E6A-AD0F-EFA3A6F25931 housing ordinances to increase funding or opportunities for the development of BMR housing. A task force comprised of elected leaders and/or city-/County-staff cannot establish impact fees or inclusionary housing ordinances. These tools involve considerable staff resources and analyses, and it is the prerogative of each local government within the County to determine how and when it will use its limited resources to evaluate proposals to subsidize BMR housing.
• 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
• R7
  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
  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
  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
  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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1, . . . • . .* . . • • . . - . . . •