At its August meeting, the Santa Clara Planning Commission elected Mario Bouza Vice Chair, greenlit a use permit for the City Light Bible Church in an existing building at 2929 Patrick Henry Dr. and sent a State-mandated proposed replacement housing ordinance back to city staff for revision.
The replacement housing ordinance dominated the evening, with commissioners panning its provisions as so far-reaching that it could discourage affordable housing instead of preserving it.
The ordinance is mandated by state laws intended to prevent below-market-priced housing from being converted to or replaced by market-rate housing.* The proposed ordinance aims to consolidate provisions for replacement units, tenant protections, and relocation assistance and clarify ambiguities among three state laws: the Density Bonus Law, the Housing Element Law and the Housing Crisis Act of 2019.
The rules apply to demolition of any existing housing unit, including unpermitted units used as housing, anywhere on a site where housing existed at any point in the prior five years. The definition of “demolition” extends to renovations that eliminate a housing unit.
Rules get more complicated for low-income — “protected” — housing units whose deeds limit their occupants to lower-income households, are subject to rent caps or simply are units occupied by low-income households.
Developers must notice lawful tenants — i.e., not squatters or short-term rentals — at least six months before residents must move out, and at least 60 days before a temporary certificate of occupancy is issued. Displaced tenants have the right to stay until at least six months before construction begins, and the right to return at the same rent if the demolition doesn’t proceed. Lower-income tenants living in protected units are also entitled to state relocation benefits and have the right of first refusal on a comparable apartment in the new development.
Apartments must be replaced by units of the same size, the same number of bedrooms and affordable at the same income levels as those of prior tenants. If that’s not known, federal Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy data is used. Developers can replace low-income apartments with even lower-income units.
Commissioner Mario Bouza launched the commission’s deliberations by calling the proposal “the most cockeyed thing I ever read.”
“Let’s say that I have a fourplex [and] I decided to tear it down and build a fourplex, I’m going to be restricted on what I can charge for rent and on rent control, and who I’m going to have live there,” said Bouza. “You go through all the expenses of building something better that will improve our city, and improve the rental property in itself. My tax basis is going to change, but I’m still going to have to be charging the same amount of rent and not being able to recoup my costs on this.”
Commissioner Priya Cheruku said small landlords, not developers like Pulte or Lennar, would bear the cost, since they make up the majority of landlords in a city that is roughly 55% to 61% renter-occupied.
“We are going to have significant reduction in small landlord rental properties,” she said.
Cheruku said the ordinance also goes beyond state law by requiring even single-unit landlords to document five years of tenant history and prove vacancies are lawful; for example, not illegal evictions.
Lakshmi Rajagopalan, Assistant Director of Community Development, disputed that staff had gone beyond Council direction.
“State law provides the base,” she said. “It’s up to the city to figure out how to implement it. So the compliance milestones or the noticing requirements that we are requiring just helps us set a clear process.”
She pointed to a provision of the city’s Housing Element that contemplated requiring relocation benefits beyond what the state mandates and said staff had chosen not to go that far. Mountain View, she noted, has gone further than Santa Clara has.
At this point, Assistant City Attorney Xander Abbe intervened.
“[Commissioner Cheruku’s comparisons were] very illuminating. I did not realize we had so many provisions that were more onerous than state law,” he said.
“The CA Department of Housing and Community Development has required this in our housing element. It was a battle to get our housing element certified, and we’re behind schedule already. State law is ambiguous in some spots, so we’ve got to clarify,” Abbe continued. “What you described, though, sounds like we’ve gone further than that. I suggest we continue this [and] come back with a chart showing exactly what state law requires, and what we required.”
*The rationale goes back to mid-20th century urban renewal, where “slum clearance” often meant minority displacement, and the 1985 Ellis Act, which let landlords empty rent-controlled buildings for market-rate conversion.
Previous Santa Clara Planning Commission Meetings:
147-Unit Homestead Road Development Approved at Aug.12 Planning Commission Meeting
Planning Commission Removes Historic Designation from Downtown Lot; Cleans Up Zoning Code Ordinance
SC Planning Commission Outlines its Work Plan for 2026-27