Santa Clara County is nearly two years behind on receiving state approval for its housing plans, allowing developers to push projects forward in unwanted ways.
County officials submitted their fourth draft of the housing element on Nov. 1 and expect to hear back from the state Department of Housing and Community Development by Dec. 31. Lacking state approval has left the door open for 40 builder's remedy applications, which don't need to adhere to county housing guidelines.
The housing element details how the county plans to meet state housing goals, as California sets new goals every eight years to account for population growth and other community needs. The deadline for cities and counties to have their 2023-2031 housing element approved was Jan. 31, 2023. All 15 municipalities in the county have had their plans approved, though most approvals came in late.
Santa Clara County's housing element only pertains to unincorporated, partly agricultural regions. Officials need to plan for 3,125 more homes by 2031, 1,305 of which must be affordable to residents making less than 80% of the area median income. In Santa Clara County, that's $146,100 for a family of four.
Leza Mikhail, county deputy director of planning and development, said one reason the housing element's approval has been delayed is because the state focused on programs that improve access to housing, especially targeting racial equity. In the latest version, officials further detailed projects that address housing access inequity and their plans to analyze cost and development trends in the local housing market.
The county is tasked with adding 10 times as many homes as it had in the previous eight-year cycle, Mikhail said, whereas other Bay Area jurisdictions had more incremental increases. That puts a strain on the county to provide basic services to new developments.
"The most extreme obstacle is the inability for the unincorporated county to provide adequate access to basic human services such as water or sewer to accommodate extensive housing growth that is typically provided in urban areas," Mikhail told San Jose Spotlight.
Local
Many potential county housing sites border surrounding cities which could provide those services, SV@Home Director of Policy Alison Cingolani said.
Most of the builder's remedy proposals are for single-family homes on large plots of undeveloped land, which Cingolani said is often more profitable than developing on lots that might need demolition work or have to negotiate with neighbors.
Get a weekly recap of the latest San Francisco Bay Area housing news. >Sign up for NBC Bay Area’s Housing Deconstructed newsletter.
Despite being more profitable, Cingolani said developing on untouched land disturbs open, agricultural space the county wants to preserve. It also puts homes farther away from jobs and transit centers, which increases commute times for future residents.
She said some builder's remedy proposals are in locations that can be dangerous, such as one near Saratoga for an 81-room hotel and 255 homes near Mountain Winery in a high-risk fire zone.
On the other hand, Cingolani said infill developments are more responsible than the proposals on undeveloped land because they're often closer to jobs and public transit.
"It's important that growth happens, but that it happens in the right way, not in ways that are damaging to the environment or that put people in a place that's risky or don't facilitate our need to get people closer to where they work," Cingolani told San Jose Spotlight.
The Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors unanimously approved the latest version of the housing element at its Dec. 3 meeting. Supervisors stressed the importance of halting builders' remedy proposals and getting state approval on the housing element.
"This is becoming like the Wild West, and absolutely it is not good for the county planning as a whole," Supervisor Otto Lee said.
Editor's note: This story originally appeared in San Jose Spotlight.
