HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 199-10TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
~ ATTENTION: FINANCE COMMITTEE
FROM: CITY MANAGER
DATE: . APRIL 20, 2010
REPORT TYPE: PUBLIC HEARING
BUDGET
FY 2011
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
CMR: 199:10
SUBJECT: Proposed Fiscal Year 2010-2011 Community Development
Block Grant (CDBG) Funding Allocations; 2010-2015 Draft
Consolidated Plan and 2010-2011 Draft Action Plan
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Palo Alto receives funds annually from HUD as an entitlement city under the
CDBG Program, authorized by Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act
of 1974, as amended. The purpose of the program is to benefit low and very-low income
persons, aid in the prevention or elimination of slums or blight or meet urgent community
needs in the case of an emergency.
HUD requirements include a 5 year strategic plan of action, titled a Consolidated Plan, to
address priority housing and community development needs and to set goals for attaining
identified objectives. Additionally an Action Plan is prepared annually to identify
specific projects to be funded implementing the Consolidated Plan. The adopted
Consolidated and Action Plans are required to be submitted to HUD by May 15,2010.
The Finance Committee is requested to review both the draft 2010-2015 Consolidated
Plan and 2010-2011 Action Plan with funding recommendations. Upon review of the
draft plans and funding recommendations, it is requested that the Finance Committee
make recommendations to the City Council. The City Council will review the
recommendations of the Finance Committee at a public hearing scheduled for May 3,
2010.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff and the CDBG Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) recommend that the Finance
Committee recommend that the City Council:
CMR: 199:10 10f8
1. Allocate CDBG funding as recommended by staff in the draft 2010111 Action Plan.
2. Authorize staff to submit the 2010111 Action Plan to Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD) by the May 15,2010 deadline.
3. Authorize staff to submit the 2010-2015 Consolidated Pian to HUD by the May 15,
2010 deadline.
4. Authorize the City Manager, on behalf of the City, to execute the 2010111 application
and Action Plan for CDBG funds, 2010-2015 Consolidated Plan and any other
necessary documents concerning the application, and to otherwise bind the City with
respect to the application and commitment of funds.
BACKGROUND
The City of Palo Alto receives funds annually from HUD as an entitlement city under the
CDBG Program, authorized by Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act
of 1974 (the Act) as amended. The primary objective of the Act is "the development of
viable urban communities by providing decent housing and a suitable living environment,
and expanding economic opportunities, principally for persons of low and moderate
income."
HUD regulations require that all activities must meet one of the three national objectives
of the CDBG Program:
~ Benefit low-and very-low-income persons;
~ Aid in the prevention or elimination of slums or blight; or
~ Meet other community development needs having a particular urgency, or posing
a serious and immediate threat to the health or welfare of the community.
Palo Alto has historically expended all of its CDBG funds on projects benefiting low-and
very-low-income persons.
The City has three primary CDBG program activity areas:
1) Public Services: Social service activities that benefit low-income persons. Under
federal law the maximum amount that can be expended under this category is 15
percent of the grant allocation and 15 percent of any program income for the
preVIOUS year. For fiscal year 2010/11, the maximum available for public services
is $122,803.
2) Planning and Administration: This category is used to reimburse for fair housing
activities, CDBG program management, oversight and coordination,
environmental reviews, and CDBG-related planning activities. Federal
regulations limit the amount that can be spent in this category to 20 percent of the
grant and 20 percent of the estimated program income for the following year. For
fiscal year 2010/11, funding is limited to a maximum of $159,313. The City's
CMR: 199:10 20f8
reimbursement for the cost of administering the CDBG program is limited by this
cap.
3) Capital Projects: Capital improvement activities such as housing land acquisition,
purchase of existing rental housing, rehabilitation, accessibility, and public
improvements have historically been the primary focus of the City'S CDBG
program. Economic development projects which benefit low-income people by
job creation can also be considered under the capital funding category. There are
no funding limitations in this category.
Consolidated Plan
The Draft 2010-2015 Consolidated Plan is a 5-year strategic plan of action that addresses
priority housing and community development needs. It also sets specific goals for
attaining identified objectives. Each year, an Annual Action Plan is prepared to identify
specific projects to be funded to implement the Consolidated Plan. The Consolidated Plan
and the Annual Action Plan updates are required by HUD in order for the City to receive
federal funding from programs such as the Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) or HOME Investment Partnership Act. The CDBG program is currently guided
by the 2005-2010 Consolidated Plan, adopted by the City Council May 9,2005.
CDBG Applications
The City is on a two-year funding request cycle. Applications for the 2009-2011 two
year funding period were mailed to area housing and human service providers on October
1, 2008 and posted on the City's website. A notice announcing the availability of
applications for 2009/10 and 2010111 CDBG funding was published in the Palo Alto
Weekly on October 3, 2008 with completed applications due December 5, 2008. A
proposal-writing workshop was conducted on November 6, 2008 to assist applicants with
program regulations and project eligibility questions. The City received 11 applications
for 2009110 funding totaling $939,204 and funding was approved by Council for the
,200911 0 cycle on May 4, 2009. The public service applications included additional
funding requests for 2010111 totaling $183,370.
Since additional available funding for fiscal year 2010111 was available for capital
improvement projects, a request for applications for capital projects only was advertised
on January 22,2010. Four capital improvement applications were received in response'to
the advertisement for a total funding request of $880,823. These include Stevenson
House sewer pipe repair for $478,808, Second Harvest Food Bank for warehouse
rehabilitation for $242,015, Avenidas handyman repair service for home repair for
$60,000, and the Day Worker Center of Mountain View for rehabilitation of a newly
acquired center for $100,000.
Citizen Participation
The City follows a Citizen Participation Plan to encourage public participation in the
CDBG allocation and assessment process. The Citizen Participation Plan calls for a
seven-member Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC), six of whom are selected by the
Mayor. One slot on the CAC is reserved for a member of the City's Human Relations
Commission (HRC). Active members of this year's CAC were: Olana Kahn (HRC
CMR: 199:10 30f8
Liaison), Bruce Grimes, Kathryn Morton, Karen Sundback, and Litsie Indetgand. As this
was an off year in the two year meeting cycle, the CAC met once to consider the
additional four capital improvement applications that were received in response to a
request for applications for capital projects. It has become increasingly difficult to fill the
committee vacancies. In an attempt to improve the citizen advisory process, staff will be
reviewing public participation alternatives in the upcoming fiscal year to bring back to
Council at a later date.
Commitment of Funds
HUD regulations require that CDBG funds be expended in a timely manner. The
regulatory requirement is that no more than 1.5 times a jurisdiction's annual entitlement
grant amount may remain in the City's letter of credit 60 days prior to the end of the
program year. In an effort to reduce the backlog of unspent CDBG funds, HUD employs
monetary sanctions against jurisdictions that exceed the regulatory standard. For this
reason, all funding applications are scrutinized to insure the readiness of the program or
project to move forward and expend funds in a timely manner.
DISCUSSION
2010-2015 Draft Consolidated Plan
Per HUD requirements, the City is to prepare a Consolidated Plan every five years. The
Draft Consolidated Plan for 2010-2015 is provided as Attachment B. A primary goal for
the 2010-2015 five-year period is to provide 125 units of permanent, affordable housing.
Palo Alto's CDBG program continues to be directed toward: expanding and maintaining
the affordable housing supply; promoting housing opportunities and choices; maintaining
and improving community facilities; and providing supportive services for targeted low
income groups, including persons who are homeless, persons with disabilities, the
elderly, and other special needs groups. All of the proposed projects for CDBG funding
for fiscal year 2010111, as presented in the draft 2010-11 Action Plan, address the priority
housing and supportive service needs identified in the draft Consolidated Plan.
Additionally, Palo Alto's CDBG program proposes as a high priority to expand the goal
of creating economic opportunities for low-income households, included as GoalS in the
draft Consolidated Plan. The goal has been included previously but given low priority for
funding. Possible funding opportunities could include small business loans,
microenterprise development support, job training for adults and youth and commercial
building fa<;ade improvement programs. No proposed projects address the economic
development goal for fiscal year 2010111, most likely because economic development
projects have not been funded previously with City CDBG funds. Planning research into
setting up an economic development program will ensue within FY 10111. An economic
development proposal will be developed and set forth in an application process within
next year's funding cycle.
The CDBG program also proposes to incorporate an environmental sustainability goal
(Goal 6 in the draft Consolidated Plan) that would encourage collaborative efforts with
local jurisdictions and subrecipients to ensure all stakeholders achieve sustainable
outcomes from project implementation. This would include energy and water efficiency
measures in new and existing homes and support of local municipal code modifications
CMR: 199:10 40f8
to create a new recycling and compo sting ordinance including the community goal of
Zero Waste by 2021.
2010111 Funds Available for Allocation
The total amount available for allocation In fiscal year 2010/11 IS $1,046,046,
summarized as follows:
$731,566 FY 2010/11 CDBG entitlement grant from HUD
$ 73,479 Reallocation of other previous funds
$ 5,000. Estimated program income for 2010111 from the City's Housing
Improvement Program (HIP), a single-family residential
rehabilitation program that is no longer operational
$ 60,000 Estimated program income for 2010/11 from the Palo Alto
Housing Corporation that is generated when rental income exceeds
expenses on specific properties acquired or rehabilitated with
CDBGfunds
$ 149,550 Estimated Sheridan Apartments and Palo Alto Gardens loan
repayment
$ 26,451
$1,046,046
Excess Prior Year Program Income
TOTAL AVAILABLE FOR ALLOCATION
Requests for funding for the 2010111 grant cycle totaled $1,270,992.
FY 2010111 -Funding Requests and Recommendations
For public service requests, the staff and CAC recommend allocation of the same
percentage of funding levels as allocated for the prior year's (2009/10) grant cycle,
encompassing a total of $122,803. Table 1 summarizes the requests and recommended
funding.
For administration and planning requests, staff and CAC recommend funding Project
Sentinel for Fair Housing services at their requested amount and that the remainder of the
20% cap be allocated to the City for program administration (Table 1).
For capital project funding requests, staff and CAC recommend funding:
• Stevenson House sewer pipe replacement project at $478,304, as there are severe
environmental impacts to the site presently from deteriorated piping and sewer
backups. Stevenson House had requested $478,808.
• Second Harvest Food Bank requested $242,015 for rehabilitation of a portion of
interior warehouse space to accommodate needed office space. Approximately
26% of the request was requested for contingency funds in anticipation of project
cost overruns. It was determined by staff and CAC to propose reduction of the
contingency for cost overruns to approximately 12% and propose funding the
project at $211,819.
• The Avenidas Handyman Repair Services program was allocated $60,000 for FY
09/10. To date approximately 10% of that allocation has been utilized (±$6,000).
Therefore, staff and CAC propose to reduce the funding for handyman services in
CMR: 199:10 50f8
FY 10/11 to a more appropriate level, $10,000, and encourage the subrecipient to
continue with program services in hopes of expanding the program throughout
the coming years.
• The Day Worker Center of Mountain View requested $100,000 in CDBG funds
for rehabilitation to a newly acquired center that is presently a vacant building in
need of interior tenant improvements and exterior improvements such as a new
roof, sidewalk and parking, lot improvements. Staff and CAC recommend
funding the Day Worker Center project the remainder of funds available for
capital improvement projects, $63,807.
Table 1 shows the applications that were received along with the CAC and staff funding
recommendations.
CMR: 199:10 60f8
TABLE 1
REVISED APRIL 5,2010
FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010-2011
FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS
2009/2010 2010/2011 CAC/ STAFF
APPLICANT AGENCY FUNDING FUNDING RECOMMEN-
REQUEST DATIONS
PUBLIC SERVICES
1. Catholic Charities 5,000 5,000 5,000
Long-Term Care Ombudsman
2. Inn Vision 31,160 50,000 34,211
Opportunity Center
3. Inn Vision/Clara-Mateo Alliance 36,361 50,000 39,681
Emergency Shelter for persons & children
4. Palo Alto Housing Corporation 31,160 50,870 34,211
SRO Resident Support Services
5. Support Network for Battered Women 8,570 20,000 9,700
Domestic Violence Services
6. Emergency Housing Consortium -0-7,500 -0-
Emergency Shelter
Total Public Services (Cap $122,803) 112,251 183,370 122,803
FAIR HOUSING/ADMINISTRATION
7. Project Sentinel 30,725 31,440 31,440
Fair Housing Services
8. City of Palo Alto 118,943 175,359 127,873
Program Administration
Total AdministrationJCap $159,313) 149,668 206,799 159,313
CAPITAL PROJECTS
9. Stevenson House 478,808 478,304
Sewer Pipe Replacement
10. Second Harvest Food Bank 242,015 211,819
Rehabilitation of warehouse interior to
accommodate office space
11. Avenidas 60,000 10,000
Home Repair and Accessibility Services
12. Day Worker Center of Mountain View 100,000 63,807
Rehabilitation of newly acquired center
Total Capital 880,823 763,930
TOTAL $1,270,992 $1,046,046
CMR: 199:10 70f8
TIME LINE
Funding recommendations made by the Finance Committee will be forwarded to the City
Council for review and approval at a public hearing scheduled for May 3, 2010.
Subsequently, the Annual Action Plan and Consolidated Plan update will be submitted to
HUD to meet the May 15, 2010 deadline.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
All of the applications recommended for funding in fiscal year 2010/11 are consistent
with the priorities established in the City's draft Consolidated Plan for the period 2010 to
2015. They are also consistent with the housing programs and policies in the adopted
Comprehensive Plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
For purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), budgeting in itself is not a project. HUD
environmental regulations for the CDBG program are contained in 24 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) 58 "Environmental Review Procedures for Title I Community
Development Block Grant Programs." The regulations require that entitlement
jurisdictions assume the responsibility for environmental review and decision-making
under NEP A. Prior to the commitment or release of funds for each of the proposed
projects, staff will carry out the required environmental reviews or assessments and
certify that the review procedures under CEQA, HUD and NEP A regulations have been
satisfied for each particular project.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Staff and CAC recommendations for FY 2010111 CDBG Funding
Attachment B: 2010-20J5 Draft Consolidated Plan that includes 2010111 Draft Annual
Action Plan (Chapter 6)
PREPARED BY: K1l&'fJ!y(anner -CDBG
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
Curtis Williams, Director
Planning and Community Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
cc: CDBG Citizens Advisory Committee Members
2010/11 CDBG Applicant Agencies
CMR: 199:10 80f8
2010/11 CDBG FUNDING
APPLICATION REQUEST WORKSHEET
April 5, 2010
Public Service Applications'
Name of Agency Project Title CDBG-I0/ll 09/10
Funding Funded
Request Amount
1. Catholic Charities Long-Term Care
Ombudsman $5,000 $5,000
2. Clara Mateo Haven House -emergency
Alliance/Inn Vision family shelter $50,000 $36,361
3. Emergency Housing Emergency shelter for $7,500 -0-
Consortium singles and families
4. Opportunity Homeless support services $50,000 $31,160
Center/Inn Vision
5. Palo Alto Housing SRO Resident Support $50,870 $31,160
Corp. Services
6. Support Network for Domestic Violence $20,000 $8,570
Battered Women Services -Emergency
housing and transitional
housing
TOTALS $183,370 $112,251
15% Cap
Recommendations
CAC
$5,000
$39,681
-0-
$34,211
$34,211
$ 9,700
$122,803
$122,803
~ ,...,
> n
~ ~ ,...,
>
... "'.·C~·=.O·~·"~~'.~".OC'"· ·c"'"~~"===.~".=c="=· . __ .. _==~_~,c=,=-·-··-·······--==,=c-=,===.==c'=.'_=-==-====·==,,"=CO"-==~"='''==.=''~LC ,== .. = ..... = .. ,,= ... =.= .•.. ='"-=-======="""""===
Planning and Administration Applications
Name of Agency Project Title CDBG-I0/ll 09/10 Recommendations
Funding Funded CAC
Request Amount
7. City of Palo Alto -CDBG-R Program $175,359 $118,943 $127,873
Planning Dept. Administration
8. Proj ect Sentinel Fair Housing Services $ 31,440 $ 30,725 $ 31,440
TOTAL $206,799 $149,668 $159,313
20% Cap $159,313 ___ J
Capital Project Applications
Name of Agency Project Title CDBG-I0/ll Funding Recommendations
Request CAC
9. Avenidas Handyman services $60,000 $ 10,000
10. Day Worker Center Rehabilitation of newly acquired center $100,00 $ 63,807
of Mountain View
11. Second Harvest Rehabilitation of warehouse interior to
Food Bank accommodate office space $242,015 $211,819
12. Stevenson House Sewer Pipe Replacement $478,808 $478,304
TOTAL $880,823 $763,930
65% of grant $763,930
TOTAL
Total CDBG-I0/ll Total Proposed
Funding Requested Allocation
$1,270,992 $1,046,046
DRAFT
City of Palo Alto
2010-2015
CONSOLIDATED PLAN
ATTACHMENT B
Consolidated Plan
2010-2015
Santa Clara County Entitlement Jurisdictions
January 2010
Santa Clara County Entitlement Jurisdictions
City of Cupertino
City of Gilroy
City of Mountain View
City of Palo Alto
City of Sunnyvale
City of San Jose
City of Santa Clara
The Urban County of Santa Clara
The Urban County is composed of unincorporated Santa Clara County, as well as the cities of Campbell,
Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, and Saratoga.
San Francisco Bay Area Sacramento New York Washington, D.C.
Bay Area Economics
Headquarters 510.547.9380
1285 66th Street fax 510.547.9388
Emeryville, CA 94608 bae1@bae1.com
bayareaeconomics.com
Table of Contents
1 Executive Summary ..................................................................................... i
2 Introd Dction .............................................................................................. 1
2.1 Purpose of the Consolidated Plan ...................................................................... 1
2.2 Santa Clara Entitlement Jurisdictions .................................................................. 1
2.3 Resources for Housing and Community Development Activities ................................. 2
2.4 Organization of the Consolidated Plan ................................................................ 6
3 Citizen Participation .................................................................................... 7
4 Housing and Community Development Needs ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.••• 9
4.1 Demographic Profile and Housing Needs ............................................................. 9
4.2 Needs of Homeless People ............................................................................ 31
4.3 Other "Special Needs" Groups ....................................................................... .47
4.4 Lead Based Paint Needs ................................................................................ 59
4.5 Housing Stock Characteristics ......................................................................... 61
4.6 Housing Affordability .................................................................................. 67
4.7 Public and Assisted Housing .......................................................................... 79
4.8 Barriers to Affordable Housing ....................................................................... 86
4.9 Fair Housing ............................................................................................. 95
4.10 Non-Housing Community Development Needs ................................................... 104
5 Five Year Strategic Plan ............................................................................ 109
5.1 Methodology for Prioritizing Need ................................................................. 109
5.2 Goals, Strategies, and Actions ....................................................................... 110
5.3 Public Housing ........................................................................................ 116
5.4 Barriers to Affordable Housing ...................................................................... 118
5.5 Anti-Poverty Strategy ................................................................................. 118
5.6 Institutional Structure ................................................................................. 120
5.7 Coordination ............................................................................................ 121
6
5.8 Resources for Housing and Community Development Activities .............................. 123
5.9 Strategic Plan Tables .................................................................................. 123
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
Appendix A: Documentation of Public Process ................................................ 131
Appendix B: Needs Assessment Data Sources .••••••••••••••••••••••.••.••••••••••••••••••••••• 141
Appendix C: Detailed Maps of Minority Concentration and Poverty ••••••••.••.••••••.• 145
Appendix D: Homeless Gap Analysis .................................................................. 151
Appendix E: Inventory of Services for Special Needs and Homeless ••••••••••••.•••••••. 160
Appendix F: Rental Trends by Region ••••••••..•...•.•.••••.•.••••••••.••...••••••••••••.••••••• 170
Appendix G: Maximum Affordable Sales Price Calculator •••.••••••••.••••••••.••••••••••• 175
One-Year Action Plan ............................................................................... 178
Community Development Resources ............................................................... 179
Geographic Distribution .............................................................................. 185
Community Participation ............................................................................. 185
Housing Needs ......................................................................................... 186
Action Plan Tables .................................................................................... 186
Index of Tables and Figures
Table 4.1: Population and Household Growth, Santa Clara County, 2000-2009 •••.•••••.•.•••••••••••• 14
Table 4.2: Household Composition and Size, Santa Clara County, 2009 •.•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 15
Table 4.3: Age Distribution, Santa Clara County, 2009 ••••..•••••••••••••••.••.••••••...•.....•...•••••••••.• 16
Table 4.4: Race and Ethnicity, Santa Clara County, 2009 ••••••••••••••••••••.•••••••••.•••••.•.••••••••••••• 18
Figure 4.1: Concentrations of Population by RacelEthnicity, 2009 •••••.••••••...••.•.•.•..•••..•.••••••••• 20
Figure 4.2: Areas of Minority Concentration, 2009 •.•.•••••••••••••••.••••.•...•••••••••.•••...••••••••••••.•• 22
Table 4.5: Household Income, Santa Clara County, 2009 .....••••••••••••••••...•..•..•...••.••.••..•••••••.• 23
Table 4.6: Percent Low-and Very Low-Income by Household Type, 2000 •••••••••••••••••••••.••.•.•••• 25
Table 4.7: Poverty' Status, 2009 .................................................................................... 26
Figure 4.3: Areas of Concentrated Poverty', 2009 •••••••••••.••.••..••••••.•.••••••••••••••••••••..••..••••••••• 27
Table 4.8: Major Private-Sector Employers, 2009 ..••••••••••••••.••••••.••...•..••• / ..••••.••••••••••••••••••• 29
Figure 4.4: Major Employers, Santa Clara County ..•.•••••••••••••••••••••••.•..•.•....•••••••••••••••••••••• 30
Table 4.9: Job Projections, Santa Clara County, 2005-2035 .••.••••••••••••••••••••••••.....••.•••••.••••••. 31
Table 4.10: Total Sheltered and Unsheltered Homeless, 2009 ••••••••••.•.......••..•••••••••••••••.•.••••••• 33
Table 4.11: Total Sheltered and Unsheltered Homeless, 2007-2009 ••.••...•..•......•.••••••••••••••..•••• 34
Table 4.12: Homeless RacelEthnicity Profile, Santa Clara County, 2009 •••••••••••••••..•.••••••.•••••.• 35
Table 4.13: Homeless Subpopulations, Santa Clara County, 2009 ••••••.•.•••••••••.•••••••.•.••••••••••••. 36
Table 4.14: Emergency Shelters, Santa Clara County, 2009 ..•..••••••••.••••••••••••••••......•.•.•.•..••.. 37
Table 4.15: Transitional Housing, Santa Clara County, 2009 •.••••••.....•...••.....••••••••......•••••••••• 39
Table 4.16: Permanent Supportive Housing, Santa Clara County, 2009 •..•...•....•.•••••••..•.•••••••• .41
Table 4.17: Homeless Housing Gap Analysis, 2008 (Required HUD Table lA) ..•.•••••••.•••.••.••••• .45
Table 4.18: Large Households by Tenure, 2000 ••••••....•••..•••..•••••••••••••••••••••••••...••.••••..•.••••.• 48
Table 4.19: Housing Problems, Elderly Households, Santa Clara County, 2000 ..•••••••...••..•••••••• 49
Table 4.20: Female-Headed Households with Children, 2009 •••••••••••.•.•••.•••••••••.••••••••••.••••••••• 51
Table 4.21: Persons with Disabilities, 2000 •.••••••••.•••.•••...•.....••••••••.•••••••••••••••...••••••••.••.•••.• 52
Table 4.22: Disabilities by Type and Age, Santa Clara County, 2000 •••..••.•..••...••.•.•....•.•..••••••. 53
Table 4.23: Farm workers, Santa Clara County, 2007 ••••••••••••..••......••.•..•..•..•..•••••••.•..•.••••••• 55
Table 4.24: Licensed Community Care Facilities in Santa Clara County, 2009 ••.•••....••••••..•..••..• 57
Figure 4.5: Licensed Community Care Facilities in Santa Clara County, 2009 •••••••••••••••••••••••••• 58
Table 4.25: Housing Units with Lead-Based Paint, 2000 ••..••••••••••••••••••••••..•••••••••••••••••••••••••• 60
Table 4.26: Housing Unit Type by Jurisdiction, 2009 •••.•••••••••••••••••...••..•••.....•••.•••••••••••••••••• 62
Table 4.27: Tenure Distribution by Jurisdiction, 2009 •••••••••••••••..••••••••••••••••••••.•••••••••••••.••••• 63
Table 4.28: Age of Housing Stock by Jurisdiction, 2000 ••••••••••••••••••••••••.•••••.••••.••••••••••••••••••• 64
Table 4.29: Housing Conditions by Jurisdiction, 2000 ..••••••••.••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.•••••••••••••• 65
Table 4.30: Building Permits by Building Type, Santa Clara County, 2000-2009 •••••.••••.•••••••••••• 66
Table 4.31: Building Permits by Jurisdiction, 2000-2009 •••••.•••.••••••••.•••••••••••.•.•••••••••••••..••••• 67
Figure 4.6: Median Sales Price, Santa Clara County, 1988-2000 ••••••••••••••••..•.••.•.•.....••••••••••••• 68
Figure 4.7: Sales Volume, Santa Clara County, 1988-2000 •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••..•••••••••• 69
Table 4.32: Median Sales Price by Jurisdiction, 2009 (a) •••••.•••.••..•.••••..•••••••.••.•••••••••••••••.••••• 70
Table 4.33: Rental Market Characteristics, 2Q 2009 .••••••.•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.••.•••••••••••• 71
Table 4.34: Affordability of Market Rate For-Sale Housing in Santa Clara County ••.••••.•.••••••••• 74
Table 4.35: Affordability of Market Rate Rental Housing in Santa Clara County ••••••••••••••••••••• 76
Table 4.36: Overpayment by Jurisdiction, 2000 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.••••..••••.•••••••••••••••• 77
Table 4.37: Overcrowding by Jurisdiction, 2000 •••••...••.•••...•••.•••..•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 78
Table 4.38: Foreclosure Filings by Jurisdiction, Q3 2008, Q3 2009 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 79
Table 4.39: Public Housing Developments, Santa Clara County ••••••••••••..••..•.....•••••••••••••••••••• 81
Table 4.40: Project-and Tenant-Based Section 8 Vouchers •••••••••••••••••••••••..•...••..••••••••••••••••• 83
Table 4.41: Subsidized Rental Housing by Jurisdiction ••••••••••••••••••••••••.•••..••.•••••••••••••••••.•••• 84
Figure 4.8: Subsidized Rental Housing by Jurisdiction ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.••...•••••••••••••••.••••• 85
Table 4.42: Affordable Rental Units at Risk of Conversion to Market-Rate, 2009 .••••••••••••••••••••• 86
Figure 4.9: Producer Price Index for Key Construction Costs •••••••••••••••••••••...•..••.•••••.••••••.•••• 94
Table 4.43: CDBG Survey Responses for Community Services Need ••••••••••.•..•••••••••••••••••••••• 106
. ,
Table 5.1 (BUD Table 1B): Special Needs (Non-Homeless) Populations •••••••••.•..••••••••••••.••..••• 124
Table 5.2 (BUD Table 1C): Housing/Community Development Objectives .•••••••••...•••...•.•.•••••• 125
Table 5.3 (BUD Table 2A): Priority Housing NeedslInvestment Plan ••••••.•.••••••••••••.•.•••.•.•••••• 127
Table 5.4 (BUD Table 2B): Non-Housing Community Development Needs ..•.•••••••••••••••••••.••••• 128
Table 5.5 (BUD Table 2C): Priority Community Development Needs ••••••••••••••••.•••••••••••••.••••• 130
1 Executive Summary
The City of Palo Alto has prepared its Consolidated Plan for the period 2010-2015 in compliance
with 24 CFR 91 and the ensuing regulations of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) to guide in the allocation of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
funds to subrecipients.
Although new census data is not available efforts have been made to update as much of the
information as possible from the previous Consolidated Plan utilizing other data sources. Other data
sources often extrapolate older census data projecting to the present to provide for more up to date
analysis. The extrapolated data is an excellent source of comparison between entitlement
jurisdictions within Santa Clara County but the 2000 Census data provides the foundation for
required HUD tables.
The provision of affordable rental units continues to be the most significant need in Palo Alto. The
City will continue to use CDBG and other available funds to pursue the creation and preservation of
all types of affordable housing. Critical housing needs identified in the Consolidated Plan are the
alleviation of the high cost of housing for lower income renter households. This is especially true for
the elderly concerning both ownership and rental units. Of the 24.4 % of Palo Alto households that
earn less than 80% of the median family income, 42% of those households are elderly households.
Another continuing high priority need is to provide housing opportunities for low income homeless
persons or persons at risk of homelessness, especially families with children and persons with special
needs.
Five year goals associated with housing are as follows:
'~ Increase the number of permanently affordable rental units by 125 units.
~ Support the rehabilitation needs to units owned by low income residents.
~ Support the rehabilitation needs of non-profit owned multi-family rental housing projects
that are affordable to lower income elderly households, homeless, at risk of homelessness,
especially families with children and persons with special needs.
Five year goals associated with public services are as follows:
~ Support the rehabilitation of facilities serving special needs populations.
~ Support transitional housing programs and supportive services.
~ Support programs that provide short-term emergency shelter and vital services for the
homeless while still prioritizing a Housing First approach to ending homelessness.
Additionally three high priority goals have been identified from community forum discussions. First
to develop programs that would increase employment opportunities for low income persons,
especially youth. Secondly, to develop a small business loan program to facilitate start up businesses
by low income residents. Lastly to ensure rehabilitation and new development projects provide an
environmentally sustainable living environment. Recent City Council goals of well being of the
City's youth and environmental sustainability restate this focus.
HUD's Office of Sustainable Housing and Communities' mission is to create strong, sustainable
communities by connecting housing to jobs, fostering local innovation and helping to build a clean
energy economy. This broad based mission focuses on providing local innovation by creating
partnerships across federal agencies and providing resources and tools to help communities realize
their own visions for building more livable, walkable, environmentally sustainable regions.
Therefore the following Consolidated Plan goals redirect the City's CDBO focus from reactive to
proactive:
~ Support collaborative projects that incorporate environmental sustainability in both capital
improvement and public service areas of funding.
~ Support programs and projects that focus on economic development for low income
individuals, especially youth, in the form of job training and small business loans.
ii
2 Introduction
2.1 Purpose of the Consolidated Plan
The federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) annually allocates a series of
grants to local jurisdictions for community development activities. These funding programs include
the Community Development Block Grants (CDBG), the HOME Investments Partnerships Program
(HOME), Housing Opportunities for People with AIDS (HOPW A), and Emergency Shelter Grants
(ESG).
Jurisdictions typically must have a population of 50,000 or more to qualify as an "entitlement
jurisdiction" that receives grant funding directly from HUD. Funding is allocated on a formula basis,
based on several factors, including population. Qualified "urban counties" with at least 200,000
residents (excluding the population of entitlement jurisdictions) are also entitled to receive annual
grants. These counties then disburse the funds to local non-entitlement jurisdictions accordingly.
As a requirement to receive these entitlement grants, Title I of the National Affordable Housing Act
mandates that jurisdictions prepare a five-year Consolidated Plan that identifies local community
development needs and sets forth a strategy to address these needs. The Consolidated Plan must
address both affordable housing and non-housing related community development needs.
2.2 Santa Clara Entitlement Jurisdictions
In Santa Clara County, a number of entitlement jurisdictions are collaborating on preparation of their
2010-2015 Consolidated Plans. This group of jurisdictions, referred to by this document as the
"Santa Clara County Entitlement Jurisdictions" or simply "Entitlement Jurisdictions," includes:
• City of Cupertino
• City of Gilroy
• City of Mountain View
• City of Palo Alto
• City of Sunnyvale
• City of San Jose
• City of Santa Clara
• Santa Clara Urban County
The Urban County is composed of unincorporated Santa Clara County, as well as cities with fewer
than 50,000 residents, namely the jurisdictions of Campbell, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos,
Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, and Saratoga. The City of Milpitas, an entitlement jurisdiction, is not
included in this Consolidated Plan because the City is on a different Consolidated Plan cycle.
1
2.3 Resources for Housing and Community Development Activities
Federal Entitlement Grants
The following describes the resources that the Entitlement Jurisdictions can access for housing and
community development activities, including grants allocated by HUD to entitlement jurisdictions.
Entitlement grants are largely allocated on a formula basis, based on several objective measures of
community needs, including the extent of poverty, population, housing overcrowding, age of housing
and extent of population growth lag in relationship to other metropolitan areas.!
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG). The CDBG program, one of the largest federal
grants administered by HUD, provides funding for a wide variety of housing and community
development needs. CDBG funds may be used for activities which include, but are not limited to:2
• Acquisition of real property
• Relocation and demolition
• Rehabilitation of residential and non-residential structures
• Construction of public facilities and improvements, such as water and sewer facilities,
streets, neighborhood centers, and the conversion of school buildings for eligible purposes
• Public services, within certain limits
• Activities relating to energy conservation and renewable energy resources
• Provision of assistance to profit-motivated businesses to carry out economic development
and job creation/retention activities
Generally, the following types of activities are ineligible:
• Acquisition, construction, or reconstruction of buildings for the general conduct of
government
• Political activities
• Certain income payments
• Construction of new housing by units of general local government
Over a one, two, or three-year period, as selected by the grantee, not less than 70 percent of CDBG
funds must be used for activities that benefit low-and moderate-income persons. In addition, each
activity must meet one of the following national objectives for the program: benefit low-and
!
HUD defines the extent of growth lag as the number of persons who would have been residents in a city or
urban county, in excess of its current popUlation, if the city or urban county had a population growth rate equal to
the population growth rate of all metropolitan cities during that period.
2
HUD, Community Development Block Grant Entitlement Communities Grants, August 27, 2009,
http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/communitydevelopmentlprograms/entitlementl
2
moderate-income persons, prevention or elimination of slums or blight, or address community
development needs having a particular urgency because existing conditions pose a serious and
immediate threat to the health or welfare of the community for which other funding is not available.
HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME). HOME funds have a more focused scope
than CDBG. Funds may be used to provide home purchase or rehabilitation financing assistance to
eligible lower-income homeowners and new homebuyers; to build or rehabilitate housing for rent or
own~rship; or for "other reasonable and necessary expenses related to the development of non-luxury
housing," including site acquisition or improvement, demolition of dilapidated housing to make way
for new HOME-assisted development, and payment of relocation expenses. Participating
jurisdictions may use HOME funds to provide tenant-based rental assistance contracts of up to two
years if such activity is consistent with their Consolidated PI~ and justified under local market
conditions.3
Housing Opportunities for People with AIDS (HOPW A). HOPW A funding provides housing
assistance and related supportive services for individuals with AIDS. These include, but are not
limited to, the acquisition, rehabilitation, or new construction of housing units; costs for facility
operations; rental assistance; and short-term payments to prevent homelessness. HOPW A funds also
may be used for health care and mental health services, chemical dependency treatment, nutritional
services, case management, assistance with daily living, and other supportive services. The City of
San Jose administers HOPW A funds for Santa Clara and San Benito counties.
Emergency Shelter Grants (ESG). The ESG program provides homeless persons with basic shelter
and essential supportive services. It can assist with the operational costs of the shelter facility, and
for the administration of the grant. ESG also provides short-term homeless prevention assistance to
persons at imminent risk of losing their own housing due to eviction, foreclosure, or utility shutoffs.
The City of San Jose administers ESG funds to different parts of the County.
Other Federal Grant Programs
In addition to the entitlement grants listed above, the federal government has several other funding
programs for community development and affordable housing activities. These include the Section 8
Rental Assistance program, Section 202, Section 811, the Affordable Housing Program (AHP)
through the Federal Home Loan Bank, and others. As recent additions to the array of federal
sources, the Housing & Economic Recovery Act (HERA) and the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act (ARRA) also contribute a broad array of community development funds.
3
HUD, Home Investment Partnerships Programs, October 19, 2009,
http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/affordablehousinglprograms/home/
3
State Housing and Community Development Sources
In California, the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and the California
Housing Finance Agency (CaIHF A) administer a variety of statewide public affordable housing
programs. Examples of HCD's programs include the Multifamily Housing Program (MHP),
Affordable Housing Innovation Fund (AHIF), Building Equity and Growth in Neighborhoods
Program (BEGIN), CaIHOME, and the Serna Farmworker Housing Grant Program. Many HCD
programs have historically been funded by one-time state bond issuances, and are subject to the
remaining availability of funding. CalHF A offers multiple mortgage loan programs, down payment
assistance programs, and funding for the construction, acquisition, and rehabilitation of affordable
ownership units. The State also administers the Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program,
a widely used financing source for affordable housing projects.
The County of Santa Clara also receives Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) funds for housing.
Currently, $19.2 million is on reserve at the state level to support the development of housing for
homeless mentally ill in the County.
County and Local Housing and Community Development Sources
The Entitlement Jurisdictions also have access to a variety of local and countywide resources, as
outlined below:
IncIusionary Housing Programs and In-Lieu Fees. Inclusionary programs are established through
local ordinances that require market rate residential developers to set aside a certain portion of units
in a development for income-restricted affordable housing. Many inclusionary ordinances also give
developers the option of satisfying inclusionary housing requirements through payment of an in-lieu
fee. The local jurisdiction, in tum, directs these fees towards other affordable housing activities.
Among the Entitlement Jurisdictions and the Urban County, the cities of Cupertino, Gilroy, Los
Altos, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, Mountain View, Palo Alto, Santa Clara, and
Sunnyvale have inclusionary housing programs. Local jurisdictions typically link their inclusionary
housing programs with a local density bonus ordinance, formulated for consistency with the State
Density Bonus Law.
Jobs-Housing Linkage Fees. The fee is assessed by local governments on new commercial
developments, and revenue is used to support local affordable housing activities. Among the
Entitlement Jurisdictions, the cities of Cupertino, Mountain View, Palo Alto, and Sunnyvale
maintain linkage fees. In addition, Stanford University pays a fee to the County Stanford Affordable
Housing Fund, based on square footage developed on campus. So far more than $8 million has come
into the fund which is used to assist in the development of new housing units within a six-mile radius
of the campus.
4
Redevelopment Funds. California Community Redevelopment Law requires redevelopment
agencies (RDAs) to set aside 20 percent of tax increment revenue in redevelopment project areas for
affordable housing activities. In addition, at least 15 percent of non-Agency developed housing in
the project area must be made affordable to low-and moderate-income households. Of these units,
40 percent (i.e., six percent of the total) must serve very low-income households.
The Housing Trust of Santa Clara County. A non-profit organization that combines private and
public funds to support affordable housing activities in the County, including assistance to
developers and homebuyers. The Housing Trust of Santa Clara County is among the largest housing
trusts in the nation building special needs and affordable housing and assisting first-time
. homebuyers. Since 2001, the Trust has invested over $32 million and leveraged over $1 billion to
create more than 7,600 housing opportunities through the following programs:
• First Time Homebuyer Program
Total Invested: $14 million
Total Leveraged: $681 million
New Homeowners Created: 2,000
• Developer Loan Program
Total Invested: $8 million
Total Leveraged: $731 million
Affordable Homes Created: 2,900
• Homelessness Prevention Program
Total Invested: $10 million
Families and Individuals Assisted with Housing: 3,000
Mortgage Credit Certificates (MCC). The federal government allows homeowners to claim a
federal income tax deduction equal to the amount of interest paid each year on a home loan. This
itemized deduction only reduces the amount of taxable income. Through an MCC, a homeowners'
deduction can be converted into a federal income tax credit for qualified first-time homebuyers. This
credit actually reduces the household's tax payments on a dollar for dollar basis, with a maximum
credit equal to 10 to 20 percent of the annual interest paid on the borrower's mortgage. Mortgage
credit certificates in Santa Clara County are issued by the County directly to eligible homeowners.
County Affordable Housing Fund. The County of Santa Clara maintains an Affordable Housing
Fund that has provided $20 million since 2003 to assist in the development of 1,400 housing units for
low-and extremely low-income households, homeless, and special needs populations.
5
2.4 Organization of the Consolidated Plan
Following the Executive Summary and this Introduction, the Consolidated Plan is comprised of the
following four sections:
Section 3: Citizen Participation. Outlines the process used to solicit community input for the
Consolidated Plan.
Section 4: Housing and Community Development Needs. Includes quantitative and qualitative
data summarizing housing need among the Entitlement Jurisdictions. Specifically, this section
addresses housing problems, local demographics, housing stock characteristics, homeless needs,
housing affordability, the supply of affordable housing, barriers to housing development, and fair
housing issues. Non-housing community development needs are also discussed.
The hOllsing problems segment relies on the 2000 U.S. Census data, as it is the most reliable data
enabling quantitative analysis. The rest of the section presents a variety of data sources including,
the American Community Survey, Claritas, Inc. (a private data service that benchmarks estimates to
the Census), the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), the California Department of
Finance, the State Employment Development Department, and other more specialized sources in
order to provide an more up to date analysis of housing and community development needs. The
needs assessment also reflects input from participants at the Consolidated Plan Workshops
(discussed in Section 3).
Section 5: Strategic Plan. Contains the five-year plan for addressing local community development
needs.
Section 6: Consolidated Action Plan. Summarizes the one-year plan for allocation of funding.
6
3 Citizen Participation
Throughout September 2009, the Entitlement Jurisdictions hosted four Consolidated Plan Workshops
to engage the public and local stakeholders in the planning process. The Workshops were held in
Sunnyvale, San Jose, and Morgan Hill, to encompass northern, central, and southern Santa Clara
County. In addition, the City of San Jose hosted a smaller workshop for its Strong Neighborhood
Initiative (SNI) Neighborhood Advisory Committee (NAC) representatives. Workshops were
scheduled both after hours (6pm to 7:30pm) and during the workday (3pm to 4:30pm), allowing
more flexibility for participants to attend. With the exception of the North County Workshop, which
took place in the Sunnyvale City Hall, all the other sessions were held in neighborhood community
centers or libraries. Appendix A.l contains the date, time, and location of each workshop.
The Workshops were well attended, thanks to the Entitlement Jurisdictions' efforts to publicize the
events through emails to service providers, advertisements in the local newspapers, and
communication with local stakeholders, neighborhood groups, and public officials. A total of 105
individuals participated in the four Workshops. Appendix A.l documents the attendees at each
session.
At the Workshops, staff outlined the Consolidated Plan process and the purpose of the document.
Participants then dispersed into smaller break-out groups to discuss needs associated with (1)
community services, (2) housing, (3) economic development, and (4) community facilities and
infrastructure. Specifically, participants were asked:
• What are the primary needs associated with each issue area?
• What services and facilities are currently in place to effectively address these needs?
• What gaps in services and facilities remain?
While responses generally centered on the specific sub-area of the County where the meeting was
held (i.e., North, Central, South, and San Jose), countywide issues also arose during the discussion.
After the break-out session, participants reconvened to discuss these issues as a single group.
Appendix A.2 summarizes the comments recorded at each Workshop.
As another method of soliciting input, Workshop participants also completed an informal survey that
assessed local community development needs. This survey was distributed more broadly among the
San Jose SNI network to further engage the public in the Consolidated Plan. Although these surveys
are not meant to be a rigorous quantitative assessment of need, they do offer a general perspective on
community development concerns and priorities. A total of 120 surveys were received. Appendix
A.3 contains the survey instrument and responses. These responses, along with the participant
comments from the Workshop, were incorporated into the following section, which summarizes
community development needs in the Entitlement Jurisdictions.
7
The City of Palo Alto provided the draft Consolidated Plan for public review from March 22 through
April 23, 2010. Notice of the document's availability was advertised in the Palo Alto Weekly March
19 and 26, 2010; published on the city's website and copies were available at the Downtown Library,
. City Hall Department of Planning and Community Environment and the City's Development Center
located at 285 Hamilton Ave. Members of the City's CDBG Citizen Advisory Committee also
received draft copies for review and comment.
The draft Consolidated Plan was also open for pubic comment at two public hearings. The first
public hearing was conducted on April 6, 2010, before the City's Finance Committee. The second
public hearing was conducted on May 3,2010, before the City Council. Public comments received
relative to the circulation of the draft Consolidated Plan and public hearings are incorporated in
Appendix AA.
8
4 Housing and Community Development
Nee d s
This Housing and Community Development Needs Assessment incorporates quantitative data from a
variety of sources and qualitative information from various organizations and community
stakeholders. Quantitative data sources include the United States Census; the Association of Bay
Area Governments; the State of California, Department of Finance; and Claritas, Inc., a private
demographic data vendor. A complete explanation of data sources used in this Needs Assessment is
provided in Appendix B. Whenever possible, the Needs Assessment presents the most recent data
reflecting current market and economic conditions. For example, data from Claritas, Inc. which
estimates current demographic trends based on the 2000 Census is often used to provide 2009 data.4
However, in some cases, the 2000 U.S. Census provides the most reliable data and more up-to-date
information is unavailable.5
4.1 Demographic Profile and Housing Needs
Current Housing Needs
Current housing needs refer to households with housing problems, which vary according to
household type, income and tenure. Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data
developed by the 2000 U.S. Census Bureau for HUD provides the most comprehensive dataset
specific to Palo Alto relative to HUD criteria for the five year Consolidated Planning process and is
incorporated in the following required HUD table. and analysis. Detailed CHAS data based on the
2000 Census is included in the following chart. Following the current housing needs analysis for
Palo Alto are multiple sections relaying 2009 data and comparing Palo Alto special housing needs of
particular population groups with other Santa Clara County entitlement jurisdictions.
As defined by HUD, housing problems include: 1) units with physical defects (lacking complete
kitchen or bathroom); 2) overcrowded conditions (housing units with more than one person per
room); 3) housing cost burden, including utilities, exceeding 50 percent of gross income.
4
Claritas is used instead of the American Community Survey (ACS) because the ACS does not allow an analysis
of block groups or smaller geographic areas.
5
In reviewing this Needs Assessment, it is important to consider that the 2000 Census marked a peak in the
County's economy, with low unemployment and a severe housing shortage. In contrast, today's economy is
characterized by high unemployment and more affordable housing. Data from 2000 may therefore be less
applicable today. Notwithstanding this issue, current economic conditions also lead to affordability concerns,
specifically because of job losses.
9
____ 'WO_ .... __ .... _ .. -~--_._.----...
l'aIt AltO. CIIlro ..... source atDml: CIIAS DIIrabook :DIll Omat as at I 2000
R~ o-~ I
Eldetl.y
HOO!ehdd f1y Type, Im:ome k. 1&2 SnWI • :.aqe All Elderly 1 ct Small I.argt
}f:)u$iq Prollem tnlmtcr Related (! J(dQ:dt.~ OOcr ToIaI. 211Cmber
Rd __
~(5Q1 Ali Otru:r IOtai . IOtai
~ol41 to 04) OJIJK~) :t~_~ ~ h~ tl t14) IUIN.:' I~W, O-mm 1~
(A) an lei (J)) lB (F'J (G) 18) m iJ) (L)
1. Ho18eboId bKolae <=5f%
MJ'l 1,1111 589 85 109:5 :z,m 924 3tl7 29 223 1m 4,,433
:. JlO1ISCbotd.lDcomc ~
MJ'( B" U5 53 ":to U'7S 4U 1~ l! 124 814 l1SG
3.·~Mh IObl::Jm 66.4 83.6 11.1 75,4 72.1 !1M 71.9 looJ) 83.7 61.1 ~u:
4. ~om:B1IIdefI>3Im 62:.4 81M ,2., 7M CltA ~t.l '7."'1 I XU) M.7 6cl.Q 1S7.!!
!;. ~('MtRlI'" >!!'* .. ?n "MI "' .. 1 ~:)Q ~1 46'-~:it6 .tOr! 1;'6 ~t1. l?.s
...\,
o tJ.IIoIl:!ldlllldIniOme >30% to
<5t%M11 3M 2SJ :n 385 rt5 .. 437 1:29 4 99 669 1,644
1. ~t;,with myilousinsprobkmls 71.0 133 1)0..0 97.4 86.2. 32.9 12.9 100.(' ~u. 4~_6 ~.(
'~ I«C~Bn"'M>lI'% 77(1 64.6 1i.b 9(1.9 'm.l '3?Q 5)~ l:lOJ! $$.6 4L:3 til.?
9. %Cost BUI4en>SO% 42.8 4.:53 12:.5 Ss.s 47.6 16.9 :53.5 19(Ht 35.4 21.2 )9.3
lUJoasellotcl bmIIe>5O"lo to
-<8O%~m 141 m 24 ~oo l,l)6S 4lS 85 :'1.1 120 674 1m
lL%wimanv 769 14.~ l:JCU 61.'5 'iI.S 16.9 S2.9 11.'<; 54,2 3.3..2 S6.f
12. % CQ$tBmb >30% 169 69.4 S8.l ,*.3 6.9 .t~9 52.9 U.S 54.2 33..2 52
13.'M.Cott Bwdcl!>S<% .3.5 2U U 2.0.0 23..3 l~O 52.' S5.f/ 37.5 2$.2-Z<I
1'" BfUMhBlii JUnine >110%
MFI ,--~ ___ M1L .-."-~-~ _(j,*r1'L __ t91t. ~~~" ~,-,
1,055 1;70 :2,.222 19P9S:
1:>.~""" hR_ ....... blcms '51::> ;t:i,J ~LJ 19.0 ;'!:1.~ ':J.Y ;tU,;Z J:l.~ Z5.S 11..5 :W.4
16.l!IOC(lSI~l()CM,. 34.2 IS .. ) 11.' lU 11.6 ~.9 19.4-1l.J. It..t 1".2-:7.3
~
~
I."'.\I(,C_B~~ 4.: 1..0 ().O f,G U 3..:l 4.1) 2.4 11.3 4.2 :U
l8. l.·GfaI JIoweb.lId5 1.936 3.353 304 5.2t'9 J08!1.2 41.421> 6900 1138 :..913 14.37? 25..271
19."Wilh Uly b(I~~krn S9.' 39.5 ~.8 37.7 4'.2.9 lU 22.9 21.1 33,] :D.:! :n.7
'1).%C_lhm'<m>30% 56.!. 3G,. 3.~..2 ::W.3 3',0 lIU UA U.7 32.4 21.'1' 2$.3
_n.~~5~ __ 30.1 ,3.1 !U . ail< 1'.0 10.1 U 6 .• is.? 9.1) 11.4
Note: Data prtscnte:1 in tbis table is baSed. on. special taI:rulation$ ftO.m $8Dl~<le CensllS data. The Il'Ilillber ot'bOUSdlOldsin each. catc,s.ory usualJy c::!eviatc$ $ligb.tly
.u.vm Ibf:, 10');( !,.:1IJuuJ.. WR" tv CfRJ u.~ ru "JlU.nlpUlai.e ~1" ~m uu~ c.u wlill ~kb. Imwp.n:c.uti.UIIS otl.b.i:s Waiu muuhl twW' un I1R:: p.rupurt.,iu.:a. uthl,J~huttb;
.In ~ cf'8$sktalacermh.et> thaD.cm precl.ce a_b~_
So-.n::e:: HUD Camprehen!li'o'C Hcrusing A.f'li)tdabili.t-( Strategy (elIAS) Da:tal;M)ok. 2000.
Highlights include the following:
• In general, renter households had a higher level of housing problems (42.9 percent) than
owner household (31. 7 percent). Owners, as a group, had fewer problems. Among all
owners, 67.1 percent of extremely low-income, 45.6 percent of very low-income, and 33.2
percent of low-income owner households experienced housing problems. Cost burden was a
major component of these problems.
• Large family households had the highest level of housing problems regardless of income
level. All of the very low-income and low-income large family renters experienced housing
problems, as did 72.1 percent of extremely low-income large family renters. All of the
extremely low-income and very low-income large family owners also experienced housing
problems, as did 81.5 percent of low-income large family owners. The primary housing
problem was cost burden.
• A significant proportion of small family households also experienced housing problems.
Approximately 83.6 percent of extremely low-income, 78.3 percent of very low-income, and
74.5 percent of low-income small family renter households had housing problems. Cost
burden was the primary problem. Among owner households, 71.9 percent of extremely low
income and 72.9 percent of very low-income households had housing problems.
• A high percentage of elderly households, primarily renters, suffered housing problems.
Approximately 59.8 of all elderly renters (including 66.4 percent of extremely low-income
and 77 percent of very low-income elderly renters) suffered from a housing problem. Cost
burden was a major component of housing problems for elderly renters. Elderly owners
generally experienced fewer housing problems (18.3 percent).
Of the Total Households % with any housing problems (line item 19 of the prior record) elderly 1
and 2 member rental households and large family rental households are the two household types that
experience a disproportionate housing need primarily attributable to cost burden. (A disproportionate
need refers to any need that is more than 10 percentage points above the need demonstrated for all
households. )
Compared. to the percentage of all households in Palo Alto with a housing problem (20.4 percent),
extremely low-income households experienced a disproportionate housing need. In this income
group, about 71 percent of all households had housing problems. Specifically, a higher percentage of
renter households (72.7 percent) had housing problems compared to owners (67.1 percent). All
household subgroups in this income category met the criteria for disproportionate housing need.
12
Approximately 45.6 percent of all very low-income households experienced one or more housing
problems. Thus, very low-income households also have a disproportionate need compared to the
general population. Again, renters experienced a greater need compared to owners, as 86.2 percent
of renters experienced some type of housing problem, compared to 45.6 percent of owner
households. Very low-income large family renter households had the greatest level of need of all
very low-income households, with 100 percent facing some type of housing problem. Elderly owner
households were the only household subgroup that did not experience a disproportionate housing
need.
Approximately 56.6 percent of all low-income households experienced housing problems. Low
income renter households were more than twice as likely as owner households (71.2 percent to 33.2
percent) to experience housing problems, primarily cost burden related. Large family renter
households experienced the highest percent of housing problems compared to other low-income
households (100 percent).
Population and Household Trends
As of 2009, the Entitlement Jurisdictions contained 1.8 million residents, making up over 96 percent
of Santa Clara County's total population.6 San Jose alone had over 1 million residents, comprising
54 percent of the County total. The cities of Santa Clara and Sunnyvale also had larger shares of the
County population, with 117,200 and 138,800 residents, respectively. As shown in Table 4.1,
Santa Clara County's population increased by 10 percent between 2000 and 2009.
Population changes experienced by individual jurisdictions vary significantly. Among entitlement
jurisdictions, Mountain View and Palo Alto experienced more modest growth, with population
increases of less than six percent between 2000 and 2009. In contrast, Gilroy and Santa Clara
experienced the largest growth, increasing by 24 percent and 15 percent, respectively, over the same
period. Higher housing costs, as well as the limited supply of developable land in many hillside
jurisdictions, resulted in a large share of the new population growth in the lower-cost jurisdictions of
Gilroy, San Jose, and Santa Clara.
Within the Urban County, Morgan Hill experienced the largest increase in population, with 19
percent growth between 2000 and 2009.
7
Over this period, Los Altos Hills also saw more rapid
expansion, growing by 13 percent. However, the small population of Los Altos Hills (fewer than
9,000 residents) leads to high percentage growth rates. Otherwise, growth remained under seven
percent in all other Urban County jurisdictions.
6
As stated earlier, the Entitlement Jurisdictions addressed in this Consolidated Plan exclude the City of Milpitas
7
A small portion of Morgan Hill's population increase results from the annexation of75 housing units during this
time period.
13
Household growth in Santa Clara County and the Entitlement Jurisdictions paralleled population
trends, though at a slower rate. There are an estimated 612,500 households in Santa Clara County in
2009, an increase of over eight percent since 2000.
Table 4.1: Population and Household Growth, Santa Clara County, 2000-2009
Population 2000-2009 Households 2000-2009
2000 2009 Est. (a) %Chanse 2000 2009 Est. (a) % Change
Cupertino 50,546 55,840 10.5% 18,204 19,752 8.5%
Gilroy 41,464 51,508 24.2% 11,869 14,529 22.4%
Mountain View 70,708 74,762 5.7% 31,242 32,444 3.8%
Palo Alto 58,598 64,484 10.0% 25,216 27,387 8.6%
San Jose 894,943 1,006,892 12.5% 276,598 305,660 10.5%
Santa Clara 102,361 117,242 14.5% 38,526 43,483 12.9%
Sunnyvale 131,760 138,826 5.4% 52,539 54,375 3.5%
Urban County
Campbell 38,138 40,420 6.0% 15,920 16,577 4.1%
Los Altos 27,693 28,458 2.8% 10,462 10,561 0.9%
Los Altos Hills 7,902 8,889 12.5% 2,740 3,043 11.1%
Los Gatos 28,592 30,497 6.7% 11,988 12,576 4.9%
Monte Sereno 3,483 3,619 3.9% 1,211 1,236 2.1%
Morgan Hill 33,556 39,814 18.6% 10,846 12,665 16.8%
Saratoga 29,843 31,679 6.2% 10,450 10,886 4.2%
Unincorporated County 100,300 93,874 -6.4% 30,920 28,172 -8.9%
Urban County 269,507 277,250 2.9% 94,537 95,716 1.2%
Entitlement Jurisdictions 1,619,887 1,786,804 10.3% 548,731 593,346 8.1%
Santa Clara County 1,682,585 1,857,621 10.4% 565,863 612,463 8.2%
Note:
(a) 2009 population and household estimates prm,1ded by California Department of Finance.
Sources: 1990 U.S. Census; Claritas, 2000; California Department of Finance, 2009; BAE, 2009.
Household Composition and Size
Table 4.2 provides a distribution of households across various types in 2009. As shown, family
households, defined as two or more individuals who are related by birth, marriage, or adoption,
represent the majority (70 percent) of households in Santa Clara County. Single-person households
comprise 21 percent of households, while the remaining nine percent are non-family households.
Among entitlement jurisdictions, Gilroy has the highest percentage of families, at 81 percent. Nearly
86 percent of Los Altos households are families, the highest percentage among Urban County
jurisdictions. Mountain View has the highest rates of single-person households among the
Entitlement Jurisdictions, at 35 percent, followed by Palo Alto (33 percent), Campbell (30 percent),
and Los Gatos (30 percent).
14
The average household size in Santa Clara County in 2009 is 2.98 persons per household. This is
higher than the Entitlement Jurisdictions' average household size of 2.96 persons per household, and
corresponds with the Entitlement Jurisdictions' slightly lower rate of family households. Consistent
with data on household type distribution, Gilroy has the largest household size among Entitlement
Jurisdictions at 3.52 persons per household, while Mountain View has the smallest household size at
2.29 persons per household.
Table 4.2: Household Composition and Size, Santa Clara County, 2009
Household Tlpe
2 or more persons Average
Single Married Other Non-Household
Person Couple Famill Famill Size (a)
Cupertino 19.2% 64.0% 10.9% 5.9% 2.80
Gilroy 13.7% 61.5% 19.7% 5.1% 3.52
Mountain View 35.1% 40.1% 10.9% 13.8% 2.29
Palo Alto 32.7% 48.1% 9.3% 9.8% 2.33
San Jose 18.5% 55.7% 17.6% 8.2% 3.26
Santa Clara 25.7% 48.2% 14.1% 12.0% 2.63
Sunnyvale 26.8% 49.9% 12.2% 11.1% 2.54
Urban. County
Campbell 30.1% 42.6% 14.7% 12.6% 2.42
Los Altos Hills 19.0% 69.4% 7.3% 4.3% 2.66
Los Altos 10.9% 79.3% 6.3% 3.5% 2.90
Los Gatos 29.9% 51.0% 1'0.1% 9.1% 2.37
Morgan Hill 12.6% 78.1% 6.5% 2.8% 2.93
Monte Sereno 15.3% 62.8% 16.7% 5.2% 3.10
Saratoga 14.0% 75.1% 7.3% 3.6% 2.88
Unincorporated County 17.8% 58.2% 13.4% 10.6% 3.06
Urba n County 20.5% 59.2% 12.0% 8.3% 2.79
Entitlement Jurisdictions 21.6% 54.5% 15.0% 9.0% 2.96
Santa Clara County Total 21.2% 54.8% 15.1% 8.9% 2.98
Note:
(a) Awrage household size is based on 2009 California Department of Finance population
and household estimates.
Sources: Claritas, 2009; California Department of Finance, 2009; BAE, 2009.
Age Distribution
The countywide median age in 2009 is 37.2 years old. As shown in Table 4.3, just 24 percent of the
County's population is under 18 years old while 11 percent is 65 years old or over. The County's
proportion of elderly is consistent with state levels and lower than the national average; 11 percent of
California residents and 13 percent of people across the country are 65 years old or older in 2009.8
The age distribution of jurisdictions parallels data on household type and size discussed earlier.
8
Estimates based on data provided by Claritas, Inc., 2009.
15
Generally, cities with larger household sizes and greater proportions of family households have a
higher percentage of residents under 18 years old.
Among the Entitlement Jurisdictions, persons 65 years old and over represent 11 percent of the
population. This percentage, however, varies greatly among jurisdictions. Los Altos Hills, Los
Altos, Saratoga, and Los Gatos have among the highest proportions of persons aged 65 years old and
over, ranging from 18 to 21 percent. Gilroy has the lowest proportion of elderly residents, with less
than eight percent of the population over 65 years old.
Overall, Gilroy, San Jose, and Monte Sereno have the youngest populations, with median ages of
32.6 and 36.1, and 36.1 years old, respectively. Los Altos and Los Altos Hills have the oldest
population, with a median ages of 50.3 and 47.6 years old, respectively.
Table 4.3: Age Distribution, Santa Clara County, 2009
Age Cohort Median
Under 18 18 -24 25 -44 45 -64 65 & Older Age (a)
Cupertino 23.7% 8.7% 24.2% 30.5% 12.9% 40.8
Gilroy 30.5% 10.1% 29.0% 22.5% 7.9% 32.6
Mountain View 19.4% 5.8% 37.1% 26.2% 11.5% 38.6
Palo Alto 19.4% 6.9% 25.6% 31.3% 16.8% 43.8
San Jose 25.4% 9.2% 30.7% 24.7% 9.9% 36.1
Santa Clara 21.2% 8.8% 34.4% 24.3% 11.4% 37.2
Sunnyvale 22.3% 6.1% 34.7% 25.0% 11.8% 37.8
Urban County
Campbell 21.7% 6.8% 33.0% 27.5% 11.0% 39.0
Los Altos Hills 22.5% 7.8% 15.3% 33.6% 20.8% 47.6
Los Altos 19.9% 8.6% 14.6% 37.9% 19.1% 50.3
Los Gatos 18.9% 7.3% 23.2% 33.0% 17.6% 45.4
Morgan Hill 25.0% 8.8% 14.0% 36.0% 16.2% 46.3
Monte Sereno 28.5% 9.4% 25.2% 27.6% 9.3% 36.1
Saratoga 22.2% 9.0% 15.3% 35.3% 18.3% 46.9
Unincorporated County 22.1% 14.6% 25.7% 26.4% 11.2% NA
Urba n County 22.6% 10.5% 23.7% 29.6% 13.6% NA
Entitle me nt Jurisdictions 24.1% 8.9% 30.0% 25.9% 11.1% NA
Santa Clara County Total 24.1% 8.9% 30.1% 25.9% 11.0% 37.2
Note:
(a) Median age data is not available for Unincorporated County, Urban County, or CDBG Jurisdictions
Sources: Claritas, 2009; BAE, 2009.
Race/Ethnicity
Santa Clara County has a diverse population with no one race comprising a majority in 2009. As
shown in Table 4.4, Non-Hispanic White persons account for 37 percent of the population while
Asians represent 31 percent countywide. HispaniclLatino residents comprised 26 percent of the
16
County's population overall. Among the Entitlement Jurisdictions, Non-Hispanic White and Asian
residents make up 38 percent and 31 percent of the population, respectively, while Hispanic/Latino
residents represent almost 26 percent of the population. These figures are nearly identical for the
Entitlement Jurisdictions as a whole.
17
Table 4.4: Race and Ethnicity, Santa Clara County, 2009
Non-Hispanic Population by Race
Cupertino
Gilroy
Mountain View
Palo Alto
San Jose
Santa Clara
Sunnyvale
Urban County
Campbell
Los Altos Hills
Los Altos
Los Gatos
Morgan Hill
Monte Sereno
Saratoga
Unincorporated County
Urba n County
Entitlement Jurisdictions
Santa Clara County Total
White
36.0%
31.9%
49.2%
66.6%
29.6%
39.1%
35.7%
58.5%
72.8%
67.9%
79.9%
78.4%
56.9%
53.7%
49.3%
58.6%
37.8%
37.0%
Hispanic Population by Race
Cupertino
Gilroy
Mountain View
Palo Alto
San Jose
Santa Clara
Sunnyvale
Urban County
Campbell
Los Altos Hills
Los Altos
Los Gatos
Morgan Hill
Monte Sereno
Saratoga
Unincorporated County
Urban County
Entitlement Jurisdictions
Santa Clara County
White
----:r9%
25.4%
10.0%
3.1%
12.2%
6.8%
7.5%
8.8%
2.2%
1.4%
3.6%
2.7%
10.6%
2.3%
12.7%
8.3%
10.5%
10.4%
Sources: Claritas, 2009; BAE, 2009.
Black!
African
American
0.6%
2.0%
1.8%
1.8%
3.0%
2.1%
1.7%
3.0%
0.5%
0.5%
0.9%
0.1%
1.9%
0.4%
1.9%
1.6%
2.4%
2.4%
Black!
African
American
0.1 %
0.4%
0.2%
0.0%
0.2%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.0%
0.1%
0.1%
0.0%
0.1%
0.0%
0.1%
0.1%
0.2%
0.2%
Native
American
0.1%
0.5%
0.2%
0.1%
0.3%
0.2%
0.2%
0.3%
0.1%
0.0%
0.1%
0.0%
0.5%
0.1%
0.4%
0.3%
0.2%
0.2%
Native
American
0.0%
1.3%
0.2%
0.1%
0.5%
0.3%
0.2%
0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.0%
0.6%
0.1%
0.6%
0.4%
0.4%
0.4%
18
Asian
56.6%
4.9%
25.6%
23.2%
31.3%
37.4%
41.7%
18.2%
20.0%
26.1%
9.9%
14.9%
7.1%
40.1%
13.6%
16.9%
29.7%
30.8%
Asian
0.1%
0.4%
0.1%
0.1%
0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.2%
0.1%
0.3%
0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
Native
Hawaiian
I Pacific
Islander
0.1 %
0.2%
0.2%
0.1%
0.4%
0.4%
0.3%
0.2%
0.2%
0.1%
0.1%
0.0%
0.1%
0.1%
0.2%
0.2%
0.3%
0.3%
Native
Hawaiian
I Pacific
Islander
0.0%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Other
Two or
More
Races
0.3% 2.9%
0.1% 2.2%
0.3% 3.1 %
0.3% 3.1%
0.2%
0.3%
0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
0.3%
0.2%
0.3%
0.2%
0.1%
0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
Other
3.1%
3.9%
3.2%
4.0%
2.8%
3.1%
3.2%
2.6%
3.2%
2.3%
3.2%
3.2%
3.1%
3.1%
Two or
More
Races
0.8% 0.5%
27.0% 3.7%
7.9% 1.3%
1.0% 0.5%
16.8% 2.2%
7.7% 1.5%
7.6%
4.8%
0.5%
0.1%
1.0%
0.6%
15.8%
0.4%
15.2%
8.6%
13.1%
12.9%
1.3%
1.6%
0.3%
0.2%
0.7%
0.4%
2.6%
0.4%
2.2%
1.5%
1.8%
1.8%
Total Non-
Hispanic/Latino
96.6%
41.7%
80.4%
95.2%
67.9%
83.5%
83.1%
84.3%
96.8%
98.1%
94.4%
96.3%
69.9%
96.8%
68.9%
80.9%
73.8%
74.1%
Total Hispanic/
Latino
3.4%
58.3%
19.6%
4.8%
32.1%
16.5%
16.9%
15.7%
3.2%
1.9%
5.6%
3.7%
30.1%
3.2%
31.1%
19.1%
26.2%
25.9%
Although no one race constitutes a majority in the County, racial and ethnic groups are not equally
distributed throu~hout the County. Areas ofracial/ethnic minority concentration are neighborhoods
with a disproportionately high number of minority (i.e., non-White) households.
According to HUD, "areas of minority concentration" are defined as Census block groups where 50
percent of the population is comprised of a single ethnic or racial group other than Whites. As
shown in Figure 4.1, White'persons comprise the majority of the population in the eastern and
western portions of the County. Areas of Cupertino, Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, San Jose, and
Sunnyvale have a majority Asian population under this definition. In addition, portions of Gilroy
and surrounding areas, as well as areas of San Jose, Sunnyvale, and Santa Clara have majority
Hispanic/Latino populations.
Appendix C provides more detailed maps of minority concentration, as well as separate maps
illustrating the percentage of Asian residents and Hispanic residents in the County.
19
"~"-"===~""= .• "~.-"".===------------------------.. --------.----==~=~===
Figure 4.1: Concentrations of Population by Race/Ethnicity, Santa Clara County, 2009
Legend
Population by RacelEthnicity ~
No Group over 50%
....... Ie over 50%
~ Asian Over 50%
~ Hispanic Over 50%
20
Stanislaus
County
-----------------------------c-:=t-=="-=============~=
Another way employed by HUD to define minority concentration is where the percentage of
minorities in an area is at least 20 percent greater than the countywide share of minorities. In 2009,
the non-White population comprised approximately 63 percent of the County's population.
Therefore, under this definition, Census block groups where non-Whites represent over 83 percent of
the population are considered areas of minority concentration. Figure 4.2 shows that areas of
minority concentration occur in portions of San Jose, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, and Gilroy.
21
Figure 4.2: Areas of Minority Concentration, Santa Clara County, 2009
Legend
Percent Minority Population
Less than 83%
,,83%orMore
santa Clara County
22
Stanislaus
County
Household Income Distribution
According to Claritas estimates, Santa Clara County has a 2009 median household income of
$88,430. As shown in Table 4.5,35 percent of households earn between $75,000 and $149,999
while another 26 percent earn between $35,000 and $74,999 annually. Household incomes vary
greatly across Entitlement Jurisdictions. Los Altos is the most affluent entitlement jurisdiction with a
median household income of$194,500 in 2009. Gilroy has the lowest median household income
among at $73,600.
Table 4.5: Household Income, Santa Clara County, 2009
Less than $35,000 $75,000 $150,000 Median
$35,000 to $74,999 to $149,999 or More HH Income (a)
Cupertino 11.2% 17.3% 36.2% 35.3% $119,009
Gilroy 19.8% 31.3% 37.3% 11.6% $73,564
Mountain View 17.6% 27.6% 34.0% 20.8% $83,359
Palo Alto 16.8% 20.3% 29.7% 33.3% $104,948
San Jose 17.8% 27.3% 36.4% 18.5% $83,106
Santa Clara 17.6% 26.9% 38.5% 17.1% $83,711
Sunnyvale 15.1% 26.0% 37.7% 21.2% $89,206
Urban County
Campbell 16.7% 30.6% 36.3% 16.4% $79,403
Los Altos Hills 8.4% 16.1% 26.6% 48.9% $146,997
Los Altos 8.0% 10.5% 19.3% 62.2% $194,466
Los Gatos 12.5% 21.7% 30.5% 35.3% $111,609
Morgan Hill 8.2% 13.5% 20.3% 58.0% $177,793
Monte Sereno 15.3% 21.9% 37.1% 25.8% $96,703
Saratoga 9.4% 10.9% 23.3% 56.4% $173,831
Unincorporated County 19.5% 26.4% 30.2% 23.9% NA
Urban County 14.9% 22.5% 30.5% 32.1% NA
Entitlement Jurisdictions 16.8% 25.8% 35.3% 22.1% NA
Santa Clara County Total 16.6% 25.7% 35.4% 22.2% $88,430
Note:
(a) Median household income data is not available for Unincorporated County, Urban County, or CDBG Jurisdictions
Sources: Claritas, 2009; BAE, 2009.
Household Income by Household Type
For planning purposes, households are categorized by HUD as extremely low-income, very low
income, or low-income, based on percentages of the County's Median Family Income (MFI). The
MFI is calculated annually by HUD for different household sizes.
9
The HUD income categories are
9
MFI calculations are based on American Community Survey (ACS) median income data published by the U.S.
Census Bureau and adjusted by a number of factors, including adjustment for high cost areas. As such, the MFI
calculated by HUD is higher than the median household income estimated by Claritas for 2009, presented in
Table 4.5. Higher MFI levels result in higher estimates of housing affordability than may actually be the case for
23
defined below:
• Extremely Low-Income: Up to 30 percent of County MFI
• Very Low-Income: 31 percent to 50 percent of County MFI
• Low-Income: 51 percent to 80 percent of County MFI
HUD publishes data on these income groups based on the 2000 Census in the Comprehensive
Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS). Table 4.6 shows the percentage of households that are very
low-or low-income, that is those earning less than 80 percent ofMFI, by household type. As shown,
31 percent of both County and Entitlement Jurisdiction households were very low-or low-income in
2000. Monte Sereno and Los Altos Hills had the lowest percentage of lower-income households in
2000.
With the exception of Monte Sereno and Los Altos Hills, elderly households had the highest
percentage of very low-and low-income households when compared to all other household types.
The majority of elderly households countywide and in the Entitlement Jurisdictions were lower
income in 2000. It should be noted that income measures do not take factor in assets and home
equity, which is a relevant consideration, particularly for many elderly households.
As shown in Table 4.6, approximately 34 percent of large families with five or more members and 22
percent of small families were lower-income in 2000. These findings suggest the need for affordable
housing serving various household types, particularly seniors, in the Entitlement Jurisdictions.
County households.
24
Table 4.6: Percent Low-and Very Low-Income by Household Type, 2000 (a)
Elderly Small Family Large Family All Others Total
Cupertino 40.2% 13.1% 15.2% 21.6% 19.6%
Gilroy 65.9% 30.8% 51.4% 32.5% 40.6%
Mountain View 57.4% 20.0% 44.3% 26.1% 30.0%
Palo Alto 41.9% 12.4% 13.3% 28.3% 24.4%
San Jose 58.9% 25.5% 36.6% 32.5% 33.7%
Santa Clara 62.7% 21.8% 32.9% 27.9% 31.8%
Sunnyvale 56.7% 19.2% 30.7% 22.7% 27.5%
Urban County
Campbell 61.4% 22.2% 28.6% 26.7% 30.3%
Los Altos 29.2% 5.1% 7.2% 19.9% 14.6%
Los Altos Hills 11.7% 6.0% 7.3% 32.5% 10.1%
Los Gatos 37.9% 10.9% 15.1% 18.4% 19.6%
Monte Sereno 20.2% 6.6% 8.5% 27.5% 11.8%
Morgan Hill 59.1% 16.4% 32.3% 33.9% 28.1%
Saratoga 27.3% 6.5% 8.1% 18.7% 13.6%
Unincorporated County 50.1% 23.7% 36.5% 40.5% 34.0%
Urban County 42.0% 16.1% 27.3% 29.7% 25.5%
Entitlement Jurisdictions 53.4% 21.8% 34.7% 29.3% 30.6%
Santa Clara County 53.5% 21.8% 34.3% 29.1% 30.5%
Notes:
(a) Very low-income households defined as those eaming less than 50% of median family income (MFI).
Low-income households defined as those eaming between 51 % and 80% of MFI
Definitions:
Elderly households - 1 or 2 person household, either person 62 years old or older
Small family - 2 to 4 related members
Large family - 5 or more related members
Sources: HUD, State of the Cities Data System: Comprehensiw Housing Affordability Strategy
(CHAS) special tabulations from Census 2000; BAE, 2009.
Areas of Concentrated Poverty
Countywide, approximately six percent of households had incomes below the poverty level in 2009.
As shown in Table 4.7, the prevalence of poverty varies widely across Entitlement Jurisdictions.
Consistent with household income data, the City of Gilroy has the highest proportion of households
living below the poverty line at seven percent. The Urban County jurisdictions of Los Altos and Los
Altos Hills have the lowest poverty rate with just two percent of households living below the poverty
line.
25
Table 4.7: Poverty Status, 2009
Households Below Percent
Poverty Line of Total
Cupertino 543 3.9%
Gilroy 869 7.4%
Mountain View 701 4.4%
Palo Alto 609 4.1%
San Jose 14,420 6.6%
Santa Clara 1,396 5.3%
Sunnyvale 1,430 4.4%
Urban County
Campbell 346 3.8%
Los Altos 133 1.6%
Los Altos Hills 59 2.4%
Los Gatos 260 3.4%
Monte Sereno 45 4.3%
Morgan Hill 360 3.7%
Saratoga 231 2.7%
Unincorporated County 978 3.6%
Urban County 2,412 5.2%
Entitle me nt Jurisdictions 22,380 5.5%
Santa Clara County 23,000 5.7%
Sources: Claritas, 2009; BAE, 2009.
Figure 4.3 shows areas of concentrated poverty in the County. The U.S. Census Bureau uses three
categories to discuss the incidence of poverty in an area -less than 20 percent, between 20 percent
and 40 percent, and 40 percent or more.
IO
The traditional definition of concentrated poverty is where
40 percent of the population lives below the federal poverty threshold. II There are no block groups in
the County that have more than 40 percent of the population below the poverty line. However, as
shown, there are few block groups within the Entitlement Jurisdictions that have more than 20
percent of the population living in poverty. Specifically, portions of San Jose, Gilroy, and
unincorporated Santa Clara County west of Palo Alto and west of Morgan Hill have the highest
proportions of households living below the poverty line, with more than 20 percent of households
falling in this category. It should be noted high poverty area west of Palo Alto is where Stanford
University is located. The high concentration of students with little or no income contributes to a
higher poverty rate in the area. Appendix C provides a map with a more detailed illustration of
concentrated poverty in the County.
10
U.S. Census Bureau, "Areas with Concentrated Poverty: 1999," July 2005,
http://w\\'W.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/censr-16.pdf
II
Wolch, Jennifer and Nathan Sessoms, USC Department of Geography, "The Changing Face of Concentrated
Poverty," http://www.usc.edu/schools/sppd/lusklresearch/pdf/wp 2005-1004.pdf
26
Figure 4.3: Areas of Concentrated Poverty~ Santa Clara County, 2009
Santa Cruz County
Legend
Percent Living Below Poverty
Less than 5%
5% to 10%
.. 10.1%to20%
.. More than 20%
27
Stanislaus
County
The federal poverty level is only one way of measuring poverty and self-sufficiency. In fact, the
federal poverty level is based on 1964 cost data, and may not be the best measure for a region with a
high cost of living, such as Santa Clara County. As an alternative to the federal poverty level, the
First Steps to Cutting Poverty in Half by 2020 report for Santa Clara County presents a Self
Sufficiency Standard that identifies the wage needed for a household to escape poverty. This
includes enough money to pay for basics like rent, food, child care, health care, transportation, and
taxes, and to save and build assets for the future.· According to the report, a household with two
adults, a preschooler, and a school-age child would need to earn $68,430 a year to make ends meet in
Santa Clara County. That is more than three times the federal poverty level of $21,200 for the same
sized family.12 The Self-Sufficiency Standard is higher than the federal poverty level, in part, due to
high housing costs in Santa Clara County. The First Steps to Cutting Poverty report also includes an
Action Plan to reduce the number of households below the Self-Sufficiency Standard.
Major Employers
The distance between jobs and housing, and the availability of transit affects people's ability to find
and hold jobs. Table 4.8 provides a list of the largest private sector employers in Santa Clara
County, while Figure 4.4 indicates their locations. Many of the County's largest employers are
located in San Jose, Santa Clara, and Sunnyvale. Importantly, 21 of the County's 26 largest
employers are within one-quarter mile of a transit station or bus stop, facilitating access to
households who rely on public transit to get to work.13
12
Step up Silicon Valley, First Steps to Cutting Poverty in Halfby 2020: Together We Can Help Families Step
Up and Out of Poverty, April 2009, Page 4-5.
13
Based on GIS analysis of employer locations and transit network.
28
Table 4.8: Major Private-Sector Employers, Santa Clara County, 2009
Number of
Employer Name Location Industry Employees (a)
Cisco Systems, Inc. San Jose Computer Peripherals Mfg. 10,000+
Applied Materials, Inc. Santa Clara Semiconductor Mfg Equipment Wholesale 5,000-9,999
Avago Technologies Ltd. San Jose Exporters (Wholesale) 5,000-9,999
Fujitsu IT Holdings Inc, Intemational Sunnyvale Computers-Wholesale 5,000-9,999
Intel Corp. Santa Clara Semiconductor-Devices (Mfg.) 5,000-9,999
Valley Medical Center San Jose Hospitals 5,000-9,999
Flextronics Intemational Milpitas Solar Energy Equipment-Mfg. 5,000-9,999
Google Mountain View Information 5,000-9,999
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. Sunnyvale Semiconductors and Related Devices Mfg. 1,000 -4,999
Apple Inc. Cupertino Computers-Electronics Mfg. 1,000 -4,999
Califomia's Great America Santa Clara Amusement and Theme Parks 1,000 -4,999
Christopher Ranch, LLC Gilroy Garlic (Mfg.) 1,000 -4,999
E4E Santa Clara Venture Capital Companies 1,000 -4,999
EI Camino Hospital Mountain View Hospitals 1,000 -4,999
'Fujitsu Ltd. Sunnyvale Venture Capital Companies 1,000 -4,999
Goldsmith Plants, Inc. Gilroy Florists-Retail 1,000 -4,999
Hewlett-Packard Cupertino Computer and Equipment Dealers 1,000 -4,999
Hewlett Packard Co. Palo Alto Venture Capital Companies 1,000 -4,999
HP Pavilion at San Jose San Jose Stadiums, Arenas, and Sports Fields 1,000 -4,999
Kaiser Permanente Medical Center San Jose Hospitals 1,000 -4,999
Microsoft Corp Mountain View Computer Software-Mfg. 1,000 -4,999
National Semiconductor Corp Santa Clara Semiconductors and Related Devices Mfg. 1,000 -4,999
Net App Inc. Sunnyvale Computer Storage Devices-Mfg. 1,000 -4,999
Nortel Networks Santa Clara Marketing Programs and Services 1,000 -4,999
Santa Teresa Community Hospital San Jose Hospitals 1,000 -4,999
VA Palo Alto Healthcare Palo Alto Hospitals 1,000 -4,999
Note:
(a) These companies are ranked by employment size category; no exact employment figures were provided by Califomia Employment
Development Department. '
Sources: Califomia Employment Development Department, 2nd Edition 2009 ; BAE, 2009.
29
Figure 4.4: Major Employers, Santa Clara County
San
Mateo
County
Legend
Major Employers
.. Located within 1/4 mi. of transit
• Located outside 1/4 mi. of transit
Santa Cruz County
... --. ~ ...... -,. "H'~ '-~:--:"'-'-~j-'-'-'-"-~~"-' ._._,,_~,,~. ___ ~."_" .---."----.---!--.--,:"':=--====:=::==:=:::::~~~:;;;;;;;;;;m;:_~~"""",.".,. __ _
Alameda County
~
Santa Clara County
30
Major Job Centers
In 2005, the Association of Bay Area Governments estimated there were approximately 872,900 jobs
in Santa Clara County. Consistent with information on the County's largest employers, San Jose,
Santa Clara, and Sunnyvale comprised the top three job centers in 2005. San Jose accounted for 40
percent of all employment countywide, while Santa Clara contained 12 percent of the County total.
In 2009, ABAG projected that employment in Santa Clara County would increase by 62 percent
between 2005 and 2035, to 1.4 millionjobs. As shown in Table 4.9, the Entitlement Jurisdictions
were expected to experience more rapid job growth, with a projected increase of 64 percent during
the same time period. San Jose, Santa Clara, and Sunnyvale were projected to remain major
employment centers. The number of jobs in San Jose was expected to increase by over 103 percent,
while Santa Clara and Sunnyvale are expected to see job increases of 47 percent and 49 percent,
respectively. Although ABAG released its projections data in the summer of 2009, and made some
adjustments for the ongoing recession, job growth may fall short of the projections in the near future
due to the current economic climate.
Table 4.9: Job Projections, Santa Clara County, 2005-2035
% Change
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 '05-'35
Cupertino 31,060 31,780 32,550 33,340 34,260 35,880 37,620 21.1%
Gilroy 17,370 17,850 18,710 19,650 21,550 23,880 26,350 51.7%
Mountain View 51,130 51,990 52,510 53,650 58,890 65,310 72,470 41.7%
Palo Alto 75,610 76,480 76,740 77,010 78,550 80,320 82,160 8.7%
San Jose 348,960 369,500 425,100 493,060 562,350 633,700 708,980 103.2%
Santa Clara 104,920 106,750 111,560 118,100 127,080 140,050 153,940 46.7%
Sunnyvale 73,630 77,890 81,460 85,200 92,650 101,320 109,900 49.3%
Urban County
campbell 22,470 22,910 23,880 25,100 26,490 27,490 28,900 28.6%
Los Altos 10,440 10,540 10,820 11,130 11,430 11,730 11,950 14.5%
Los Altos Hills 1,890 1,900 1,910 1,920 1,940 1,950 1,970 4.2%
Los Gatos 18,650 18,900 19,020 19,510 20,250 20,990 21,800 16.9%
Monte Sereno 410 420 440 480 520 550 590 43.9%
Morgan Hill 13,120 13,520 15,450 17,390 19,810 22,220 24,640 87.8%
Saratoga 6,960 7,070 7,120 7,220 7,320 7,420 7,480 7.5%
Unincorporated County 48,660 50,400 53,590 56,670 59,690 62,620 64,710 33.0%
Urban County Total 122,600 125,660 132,230 139,420 147,450 154,970 162,040 32.2%
Entitlement Jurisdictions 825,280 857,900 930,860 1,019,430 1,122,780 1,235,430 1,353,460 64.0%
Santa Clara County Total 872,860 906,270 981,230 1,071,980 1,177,520 1,292,490 1,412,620 61.8%
Sources: ABAG Projections, 2009; BAE, 2009.
4.2 Needs of Homeless People
Homeless individuals struggle with various difficulties, such as physical and mental disabilities,
unemployment, HIV / AIDS, and/or substance abuse that often impair their ability to secure or retain
31
housing. Depending on an individual's circumstances, these needs may be addressed via emergency
shelters, transitional, or permanent supportive housing. Emergency shelters are defined as housing
offering minimal supportive services, with occupancy limited to up to six months. HUD defines
transitional housing as a project that is designed to provide housing and appropriate support services
to homeless persons to facilitate movement to independent living within 24 months. For purposes of
the HOME program, there is not a HUD-approved time period for moving to independent living.
Permanent supportive housing puts no limit on'the length of stay, and offers on-or off-site services
that assist residents in retaining their housing, improving health, and maximizing their ability to live
and work in the community.
Homeless Population
According to the 2009 Santa Clara County Homeless Census and Survey, 7,086 people self-declared
homelessness per the HUD definition on January 26-27, 2009, meaning that they reported either
sleeping in a place not fit for human habitation, or in emergency or transitional housing for homeless
people. The Homeless Census found the greatest number of homeless in San Jose, with
approximately 4,200 homeless people counted, or 59 percent of the County's total homeless
population. Gilroy had the second largest count of homeless people among the jurisdictions, with
nearly 600 people living without permanent shelter. Overall, the Homeless Census suggests the
homeless count generally decreased from 2007, with 116 fewer homeless people in the County by
2009 (see Table 4.10).
This count, however, should be considered conservative because many homeless individuals cannot
be found, even with the most thorough methodology. Furthermore, a decrease in homeless counted
during the point-in-time census does not necessarily signify a decrease in homelessness. Although
careful training took place prior to the count of unsheltered homeless, it is very difficult to count all
homeless individuals living on the streets and there is the potential for human error.
32
Table 4.10: Total Sheltered and Unsheltered Homeless, Santa Clara County 2009 (a)
Adults of Undetermined
Individuals Persons in Families Gender/Age (b) Total Homeless
Jurisdiction 2007 2009 Change 2007 2009 Change 2007 2009 Change 2007 2009 Change
Cupertino 37 53 16 12 (12) 4 8 4 53 61 8
Gilroy 235 292 57 308 265 (43) 117 42 (75) 660 599 (61)
Mountain View 55 31 (24) 10 10 57 35 (22) 122 76 (46)
Palo Alto 196 129 (67) 20 23 3 21 26 5 237 178 (59)
San Jose 2,523 2,519 (4) 515 384 (131) 1,271 1,290 19 4,309 4,193 (116)
Santa Clara 181 208 27 229 166 (63) 70 100 30 480 474 (6)
Sunnyvale 541 285 (256) 18 15 (3) 81 49 (32) 640 349 (291)
Urban County
Campbell 38 23 (15) 4 (4) 54 21 (33) 96 44 (52)
Los Altos 3 82 79 8 8 7 7 10 97 87
Los Altos Hills
Los Gatos 16 13 (3) 14 7 (7) 30 20 (10)
Monte Sereno (c) (c) 4 NA (c) NA (c) NA (c) 4 NA
Morgan Hill 10 69 59 4 8 4 10 27 17 24 104 80
Saratoga 22 22 23 23
Unincorporated County 132 236 104 122 119 (3) 120 421 301 374 776 402
San Martin 5 9 4 115 112 (3) 1 120 122 2
Other Uninc. areas 127 227 100 7 7 120 420 300 254 654 400
Urban County Total 199 449 250 130 135 5 205 484 279 534 1,068 534
Entitlement Jurisdictions 3,967 3,966 (1) 1,242 998 (244) 1,826 2,034 208 7,035 6,998 (37)
Santa Clara County (d) 4,049 4,011 (38) 1,257 1,008 (249) 1,896 2,067 171 7,202 7,086 (116)
Notes:
(a) This survey does not include people in rehabilitation facilities, hospitals, or jails. The 2007 Homeless Census and Survey was conducted
from Jan. 29-30,2007. The 2009 Census took place during Jan. 26-27, 2009.
(b) This category includes indi~duals whose family status, or sex, could not be determined by observers during point-in-time homeless count.
These unsheltered indi~duals resided in whicles, abandoned buildings, or other obscure locations. Importantly, data collection changed between
2007 and 2009; in 2009, sex and family status of these indi~duals was recorded whenewr possible. This may explain, in part, a decrease in the
number of persons observed in the encampment category between 2007 and 2009.
(c) In 2007, data for the City of Monte Sereno were not reported separately.
(d) Decrease in homeless counted during point-in-time estimate does not necessarily signify a corresponding decrease in homeless ness
due to difficulty in counting all homeless indi~duals. Similarly, a decrease in homeless count does not necessarily represent a loss
of inwntory in the County or City capacity, but rather a re-classification of the bed "type" that reflects a programming or funding change.
Sources: Santa Clara County Homeless Census, Applied Survey Research, 2007 & 2009; BAE, 2009.
Although the 2009 Homeless Census reports a decrease in homeless individuals since 2007, local
homeless services providers in the County report that they have seen an increase in clients seeking
assistance. For example, staff at the Community Services Agency (CSA), which serves Los Altos,
Los Altos Hills, and Mountain View, report that they saw a nearly 100 person increase in homeless
clients between fiscal year 2007-2008 and fiscal year 2008-2009; the number of clients served rose
from 300 in 2007-2008 to 394 in 2008-2009.
14
In addition, Consolidated Plan Workshop participants,
including representatives from homeless shelters and service providers such as EHC Lifebuilders,
Inn Vision, the Bill Wilson Center, and West Valley Community Services, reported increased
demand for homeless services, particularly as a result of the recession and many households having
14
Nadia Llivea, Homeless Services Specialist, Community Services Agency, email and phone correspondence
with BAE.
33
one or more members out of work.
Table 4.11 below shows that the majority of homeless men and women lived without shelter in both
2007 and 2009. However, the majority of homeless children lived in transitional housing.
Table 4.11: Total Sheltered and Unsheltered Homeless, Santa Clara County 2007·2009 (a)
Adults of
Undetennlned
Settln!;'! Men Women Youth lb~ Gender/Age lc~ Total Individuals
2007 2009 Change 2007 2009 Cha nge 2007 2009 Change 2007 2009 Change 2007 2009 Change
Unsheltered 2,084 2,022 (62) 647 499 (148) 246 80 (166) 2,124 2,382 258
Single indilAduals 2,022 2,009 (13) 580 480 (100) 114 46 (68) 222 315 93
Persons in families 62 13 (49) 67 19 (48) 132 34 (98)
IndilAduals in cars, vans, RVs 1,031 978 (53)
IndilAduals in encampments 865 752 (113)
IndilAduals in abandoned buildings NA 285 NA
IndilAduals reported by park ranger 6 52 46
Sheltered (d) 902 917 15 557 227 (330) 640 547 (93) 2 412 410
Emergency Shelter 616 675 59 219 148 (71) 163 163 1 92 91
Single indilAduals 594 675 81 143 148 5 21 17 (4) (1)
Persons in families 22 NA3 NA 76 NA3 NA 142 146 4 92 92
Transitional Housing 286 242 (44) 338 79 (259) 477 384 (93) 320 319
Single indilAduals 213 242 29 105 79 (26) 27 (27) (1)
Persons in families 73 NA3 NA 233 NA3 NA 450 384 (66) 320 320
Total Unsheltered & Sheltered (e) 2,986 2,939 (47) 1,204 726 (478) 886 627 (259) 2,126 2,794 668
Notes:
(a) This surwy does not include people in rehabilitation facilities, hospitals, or jails. The 2007 Homeless Census and Surwy was conducted
from Jan. 29-30,2007. The 2009 Census took place during Jan. 26-27, 2009.
5,101 4,983
2,938 2,850
261 66
1,031 978
865 752
NA 285
6 52
2,101 2,103
999 1,078
759 840
240 238
1,102 1,025
346 321
756 704
7,202 7,086
(b) It should be noted that a change in the youth data collection process was made in 2009. As opposed to 2007, youth census enumerators in 2009 were
asked to make a distinction between unaccompanied youth under age 18 and unaccompanied youth ages 18 -22 years. Those enumerated youth ages 18 -22
were subsequently integrated into the owrall adult population (18 years and owr) enumerated during the general homeless census. Howewr, the distinction
and integration made in 2009 were not made in 2007. Therefore, the difference in the total number ofyouth enumerated in 2007 and 2009 may be due in part
to this change in data collection.
(c) This category includes indilAduals whose family status, or sex, could not be determined by obserwrs during point-in-time homeless count. These unsheltered
indilAduals resided in whicles, abandoned buildings, or other obscured locations. Importantly, data collection changed between 2007 and 2009; in 2009, sex and
family status of these indilAduals was recorded whenewr possible. This may explain, in part, a decrease in the number of persons obserwd in the encampment
category between 2007 and 2009.
(d) In 2009, shelter ser\Ace prolAders were not asked to indicate the gender of indilAduals in families, which resulted in the considerable increase of indilAduals in the
·undetermined gender" category.
(e) Decrease in homeless counted during point-in-time estimate does not necessarily signify a corresponding decrease in homelessness
due to difficulty in counting all homeless indilAduals. Similarly, a decrease in homeless count does not necessarily represent a loss
of inwntory in the County or City capacity, but rather a re-classification of the bed "type" that reflects a programming or funding change.
Sources: Santa Clara County Homeless Census, Applied Surwy Research, 2007 & 2009; BAE, 2009.
(118)
(88)
(195)
(53)
(113)
NA
46
2
79
81
(2)
(77)
(25)
(52)
(116)
Table 4.12 presents the race and ethnicity profile of the homeless population in Santa Clara County.
This data is based on the 936 individuals who were surveyed as part of the 2009 Homeless Census.
As shown, White and HispaniclLatino individuals represented the largest proportions of the homeless
population, each comprising 33 percent of those surveyed. While African Americans represent two
percent of Santa Clara County's total population in 2009, they represented 20 percent of the
homeless population.
34
Table 4.12: Homeless RacelEthnicity Profile, Santa Clara County,
2009
Response (a) Number
White I Caucasian 305
Hispanic I Latino 305
Black I African American 187
Asian 37
American I ndian I Alaskan Native 33
Pacific Islander 11
Othe r I Mu Iti-ethn ic 58
Total 936
Note:
(a) Represents surveyed homeless population only.
Sources: Santa Clara County Homeless Census,
Applied Survey Research, 2009; BAE, 2009.
Percent
32.6%
32.6%
20.0%
4.0%
3.5%
1.2%
6.2%
100.0%
The 2009 Homeless Census found that approximately 39 percent of homeless individuals surveyed
have chronic substance abuse problems. Another 32 percent are chronically homeless, defined by
HUD as an unaccompanied homeless individual with a disabling condition who has either been
continuously homeless for a year or more, or has had at least four episodes of homelessness in the
past three years (see Table 4.13). It should be noted that a homeless individual could fall into more
than one subpopulation. These findings, coupled with the comments from Consolidated Plan
Workshop participants, highlight the ongoing need for substance abuse services serving the homeless
and others.
35
Table 4.13: Homeless Subpopulations, Santa Clara County, 2009
Percent
Sheltered Unsheltered Total of Total
Chronically Homeless 195 2,075 2,270 32.0%
Seriously Mentally III 409 1,222 1,631 23.0%
Chronic Substance Abuse 492 2,301 2,793 39.4%
Veterans 283 583 866 12.2%
Persons with HIV/AIDS 5 99 104 1.5%
Victims of Domestic Violence 149 533 682 9.6%
Unaccompanied Youth (Under 18) 17 46 63 0.9%
Total (b) 2,103 4,983 7,086
Notes:
(a) Estimates calculated by applying the Homeless Sun.ey results to the point-in-time Census count.
(b) Total do not equal sum of all subpopulations. An indi~dual may be counted in more than one
category. The total represents the total number of indi~duals counted in the Honeless Census.
Sources: 2009 Santa Clara County Homeless Census and Sun.ey, Applied Sun.ey Research,
January 2009; BAE, 2009.
Inventory of Facilities and Services for Homeless
There are a variety of facilities and services to assist individuals and families who are homeless or at
risk of homelessness. Some facilities target specific groups, such as victims of domestic violence,
veterans, or individuals with HN or AIDS. Tables 4.14,4.15, and 4.16 provide an inventory of
facilities in Santa Clara County, along with the type of clients served and facility capacity. Table
4.14 lists the emergency shelters in the County, while Table 4.15 and Table 4.16 list the County's
transitional housing and permanent supportive housing facilities, respectively. The inventories of
facilities are based on the County's 2009 Continuum of Care Application.
As described earlier, emergency shelters provide temporary shelter for homeless individuals and
families. Transitional housing provides rental housing for individuals and families who are
transitioning out of homeless ness for a predetermined amount of time (usually up to 24 months).
Permanent supportive housing offers on-or off-site services to assist residents, with no limit on the
length of stay.
Countywide, jurisdictions support the Housing First model, which is based on the principle that
permanent housing with services can help chronic homeless individuals achieve stability. The model
places people in permanent housing as quickly as possible, as the most cost-effective approach with
the greatest chance of permanently extracting persons from homelessness. As such, jurisdictions
prioritize permanent supportive housing for homeless residents over new emergency shelters.
36
W .......
======0======='='-'''=-'''-=''-'-=--'-=''''-=-''-'--'' , ................... =".=. -=. =-"="= .• --=--=.=_.--= .. , .. = .. =-=-=-=======""""""'-==""."",,--
Table 4.14: EmergencY Shelters. Santa Clara County. 2009
Provider Facility Name City
Current Inventorv
West Valley Community Services Rotating Shelter Cupertino
Community Solutions La Isla Pacifica Gilroy
EHC Ufebuilders Armory" Gilroy Gilroy
Support Network for Battered Emergency Shelter Mountain View
InnVision Hotel de Zinc Palo Alto
Asian Americans for Community Asian Women's Place San Jose
Involvement
City Team Ministries City Team Rescue Mission San Jose
Community Homeless Alliance First Christian Church Shelter San Jose
Ministry
EHC Ufebuilders . Boccardo Regional Reception Center San Jose
EHC Ufebuilders Boccardo Regional Reception San Jose
Medical Respite Center
Family Supportive Housing San Jose Family Shelter San Jose
InnVislon Comrneldal Street Inn San Jose
InnVislon Montgomery Street Inn/Community San Jose
Inns
InnVision Junan Street San Jose
Next Door Solutions to Domestic Next Door Solutions San Jose
Violence
Salvation Army Hospitality House (Ovemlghter) San Jose
Bill Wilson Center Runaway and Homeless Youth Santa Clara
Shelter
EHC Housing Consortium dba EHC Armory -Sunnyvale Sunnyvale
Ufebuilders
EHC Ufebuilders Boccardo Family living Center In Santa Clara County
SanMartin
InnVision Clara Mateo Shelter Santa Clara County
EHC Ufebullders Boccardo Family living Center -Santa Clara County
Migrant Worker Program (7 month:
Mav-Novl
EHC Ufebullders Sobrato House Youth Center San Jose
EHC Ufebuilders Veterans Dorm at the Boccardo San Jose
Reception Center
Subtotal
Target
Populetlpn tal All Year-Round BedslUnits Total
Family Family Individual Total Year-Seasonal
_A ___ .!---BIIda.....JIDIIa. --.ElIda. Round Bed. --BId&.
SM 0 0 15 15
HC DV 14 3 0 14 0
SMF 0 0 0 0 48
HC DV 16 6 0 16
SMF 0 0 15 15 0
HC DV 12 4 0 12 0
SM 0 0 50 50 125
SMF+HC 19 1 2 21 0
SMF 0 0 185 185 0
SMF 0 0 17 17 0
HC 143 35 0 143 0
SFHC 40 12 15 55 0
SM 0 0 46 46 0
SMF 0 0 60 60 0
HC DV 19 7 0 19 46
SM 0 0 22 22 0
YMF 0 0 20 20 125
SMF 0 0 0 0
HC 0 0 0 0 0
SMF+HC 18 6 40 58 0
HC 0 0 0 0
YMF 0 0 10 10 0
YMF VET 0 0 10 10 0
281 74 507 788 346
t-3 = 0" ;-
~ ~
~
~ a n>
~ n> = ~
rIJ =~ ..... n> ..,
~
rIJ = = ..... = n
i' .., = n
Q = = ~
N => => \C -= --
eN en
Under Development
Next Door Solutions to Domestic
Violence
NOteS:
·(a) Target Population Key:
SM: single males
SF: single females
SMF: single males and females
CO: couples only, no children
NO Solutions
SMHC: single males and households with children
SFHC: single females and households with children
HC: households with children
YM: youth males
Subtotal
Total
San Jose
Sources: Santa Clara County, Continuum of Care Application, 2009; BAE, 2009.
HC DV
YF: Youth females
3
3
284
YMF: youth males and females
1
75
o
o
507
3
3
791
SMF + HC: Single male and female plus households with children
DV -Domestic Violence victims only
VET -Veterans only
HIV -HIVIAIDS populations only
o
o
346
Table 4.15: Transitional Housing, Santa Clara County, 2009
Provider Facility Name City
Current Inventory
West Valley Community Services Transitional Housing Program Cupertino
Bill IMlson Center THlHomeless Youth and Young Gilroy
Families -Maria Way
South County Housing (previously Sobrato Transitional Apts. -TH for Gilroy
EHC UfeBullders) SlnQle Mothers and Their Children
Community Solutions Ellnvierno Transitional Housing Gilroy
Community Solutions Kern Avenue Transitional HOUSing Gilroy
Bill IMlson Center THINorth County -Villa Street Mountain VieW
InnVision (with Community Services Graduate House Mountain View
AQencv)
Bill IMlson Center THlHomeless Youth and Young San Jose
Families-Humbolt Street
Bill IMlson Center THlHomeless Youth and Young San Jose
Families -LeIQh Ave.
City Team Ministries House of Grace San Jose
W City Team Ministries Men's RecoverylDiscipleship "SanJose
<0 City Team Ministries Heritage Home San Jose
EHC UfeBuilders Boccardo Regional Reception Center San Jose
Family Supportive Hou~ing Glen Art -Transitional Housing San Jose
PfOQram#1
InnVision HomeSafe San Jose San Jose
InnVislon Montgomery Street Inn San Jose
InnVision Stevens House San Jose
Salvation Army Hospitality House (Emmanuel San Jose
House)
Salvation Army Volunteer Recovery San Jose
San Jose Cathedral Worker House forWomen and San Jose
Children
San Jose Cathedral Worker House for Men San Jose
Unity Care Unity Place (THP Plus) San Jose
InnVision InnVislon Villa SanJose
EHC LifeBuilders Sobrato House Youth Center San Jose
EHC LifeBuilders Boccardo Regional Reception Center San Jose
(Single Adults Tr;msitioning out of
Psvchiatric HosDltals)
FamilY Supportive Housing Transitional Housing Program #2 San Jose
Bill IMlson Center Young Parents with Children -Santa Clara
Jackson St. Santa Clara
Target
PppllhdloD ;., All Year·Round BedslUnits
Family Family Individual Total Year-
_A ___ L --!!!!!. --Y.!!B!. ~. Round Beds
SMHC 12 6 10, ·22
HC 8 4 0 8
HC 196 44 0 196
SM 0 0 12 12
SM 0 0 8 8
HC 10 5 0 10
SMF 0 0 6 6
YMF 0 0 5 5
YMF 0 0 5 5
SF 0 0 22 22
SM 0 0 40 40
SF 0 0 20 20
SMF+HC 40 10 0 40
HC 33 10 0 33
SFHC DV 66 24 1 67
SM VET 0 0 39 39
SMF 0 0 7 7
SM 0 0 40 40
SM 0 0 6 6
HC 25 7 0 25
SM 0 0 20 20
YMF 0 0 16 16
SMF 46 14 9 55
YMF 0 0 9 9
SMF 0 0 15 15
HC 24 7 0 24
HC 16 8 0 16
~ = =tD
~ ;...
~
--3
~ = ~. -o· = !.
== Q = ~ S·
~
rLl = = -= n ;-
~ n
Q = = ~
N
Q
Q
~ -= -
=--"-,,,-~=-,-,--,::::,--~--,,-L:::....:::':":-~-"-"'::':"":":.:c:...:.:;:=.:.::~.::.:c--:~=-:..=:::::"~-.:::~'";::::::: _:.==~.:::="="~"~===..::::....:::.:.:.....:::.:_-:.::::...::..-:.::::..::...:=:::::.:..:.-==.:.=":;:::.::::=:..::.::::::.:.:.;::::::..:=:.;":.::::":::::::::::::::::::"::'::':::::::"::::::':':'-"-"'"--"--!-""-"-~""::':.:::::=:::::::::.::-""'-'-"-
~ o
EHC LifeBuilders
Next Door Solutions to Domestic
Violence
EHC UfeBullders
InnVislon
Community Solutions
Bill Wilson Center
Bill Wilson Center
Ullder Developmellt
EHC UfeBuilders
JIIOfes:
(a) Target Population Key:
SM: single males
SF: single females
SMF: single males and females
co: couples only, no children
Sobrato Family Uving Center (Santa
Clara)
HomeSafe Santa Clara
Boccardo Family Living Center in
San Martin
North Santa Clara County
Transitional Housina
La Casa del Puente TRT
THlNorth County -Rockefeller Drive
THlHomeless Youth and Young
Families -Norman Drive
Subtotal
Veterans THP at the Boccardo
ReceDtion Center
Subtotal
Total
SMHC: single males and households with children
SFHC: single females and households with children
HC: households with children
YM: youth males
Sources: Santa Clara County, Continuum of care Application, 2009; BAE, 2009.
Santa Clara
Santa Clara
Santa Clara County
Santa Clara County
Santa Clara County
Sunnyvale
Sunnyvale
San Jose
HC
SFHC DV
HC
HC
SMF
YMF
HC
SMF VET
YF: yoUth females
173
44
81
18
0
0
10
802
o
o
802
YMF: youth niales and females
43
20
18
5
0
0
5
230
o
o
230
0
4
0
0
12
8
0
314
10
10
324
173
48
81
18
12
8
10
1.116
10
10
1.126
SMF + HC: Single male and female plus households with children
DV -Domestic Violence victims only
VET -Veterans only
HIV -HIVIAIDS populations only
/
Table 4.16: Pennanent Supportive Housing, Santa Clara County, 2009
Provider Facility Name City
~m2~ing.(=Ay SObrato TransMonai x;amnents in
EHC UfeBuilders) Gilroy (PBA Units) Gilroy
Community Solutions Walnut Lane Gilroy
Community Solutions Glenview Dr. Gilroy
Community Working Group Opportunity Center Palo Alto
Catholic Charities of San Jose New Directions San Jose
Charities Housing Development San Antonio Place and Scattered
Corp. Sites San Jose
un me l)lreeIS ... roJecl tor Homeless
Addicted to Alcohol (Housing
SCC Department of Mental Health Homeless People with Alcohol
(formerly EHC Ufebuilders)
Emergency HOUSing ConSGrUum of
Addiction) San Jose
Santa Clara County dba EHC
LIfeBuilders Markham Terrace .' San Jose
First Community Housing (SCC
Dept. of Mental Health) Curtner Gardens San Jose
~
...Jio.
Housing Authority of the Counly of
Santa Clara Shelter Plus Care/Off the Streets San Jose
Housing Authority of the County of
Santa Clara Shelter Plus Care San Jose
Housing Authority of the County of
Santa Clara Sel;tion 8 Vouchers -Housing First San Jose
Housing for Independent People Sunset leasing San Jose
Housing for Independent People Sesame Court San Jose
InnVision Alexander House San Jose
InnVislon North County Inns San Jose
Safe Haven Permiment Housing for
InnVision Women (Hester Project) San Jose
InnVision Sunset Square San Jose
Catholic Charities of San Jose Navigator Project San Jose
Charities Housing DevelQpment
Corp. Paseo Senter II (1900 Senter Rd.) San Jose
Charities Housing Development
Corp. Paseo Senter I (1896 Senter) San Jose
Housing Authority of the County of
Santa Clara Section 8 Voucher -MlW San Jose
Housing Authority of the County of HUD-VASH Veteran Housing Choice
Santa Clara Vouchers San Jose
EHC UfeBuliders Sobrato Family Uving Center Santa Clara
Target
population fa} All Year-Round BedslUnlts
Family Family Individual Total Year-
_A___ .!.--!!!!!. Units --.!!!!!. Round Beds
HC 68 15 0 68
SM 0 0 6 6
SM 0 0 6 6
SMF+HC 56 18 75 131
SMF 0 0 25 25
SMF+HC 4 2 8 12
SMF 0 0 44 44
SMF 0 0 95 95
SMF 0 0 27 27
SMF 0 0 12 12
SMF+HC 276 n 117 393
SMF+HC 249 62 2 251
SMF+HC 10 3 4 14
SMF 0 0 6 6
SMF 0 0 6 6
SMF 0 0 19 19
SF 0 0 10 10
HC 55 15 0 55
SMF 0 0 29 29
SMF+HC 9 4 10
.SMF+HC 11 5 3 14
SMF+HC 10 3 11
SMF+HC VET 2 1 19 21
HC 32 8 0 32
~ = ~
ti'
~ ;..
~
Iood n> e = = n> = ......
rIJ. = "'0
"'0 o
::l :;r
n>
=:: o = fI.I
S"
I!CI
rIJ. = = ...... = n ;-
~
n o = = ~
N <= <= I.Q e
~
N
North Santa Clara County Supportive
InnVision Housing Coalition Santa Clara County SMF o
782
o
213
8
623
8
1,305
Uncler Development
St. Joseph's FamflyCenter
St. Joseph's Family Center
. catholic Charities of San Jose
Catholic Charities of San Jose
Charities Housing Development
Corp.
Housing Authority of the County of
Santa Clara
Gilroy Place
Our New Place
New Directions Expansion
Family Housing
Kings Crossing
Section 8 Voucher -MTW
Subtotal
Housing Authority of the County of
Santa ClaraNeterans Administration
Santa Clara County Mental HeaHh
Department
HUD-VASH Veteran Housing Choice
Vouchers
Mental HeaHh Permanent Supportive
InnVision
Charities Housing Development
Corp.
South County Housing
Notes:
(a) Target Population Key:
SM: single males
SF: single females
SMF: single males and females
CO: couples only, no children .
Housing Project
Samaritan Inns
Belovida Santa Clara
Royal Court Apartments
SMHC: single males and households with children
SFHC: single females and households with children
HC: households with children
YM: youth males
Subtotal
Total
Sources: Santa Clara County, Continuum of Care Application, 2009; BAE, 2009.
Gilroy
Gilroy
San Jose
San Jose
San Jose
San Jose
San Jose
San Jose
San Jose
Santa Clara
Santa Clara County
SMF
YMF
SMF
HC
SMF+HC
SMF+HC
SMF+HC
SMF
SMF+HC
SMF
HC
VET
YF: youth females
o
32
o
50
8
490
22
0
8
0
20
630
1,412
YMF: youth males and females
o
9
o
14
4
197
9
0
2
0
12
247
460
9
o
22
o
14
199
146
18
17
3
0
428
951
9
32
22
50
22
689
168
18
25
3
20
1,058
2,363
SMF + HC: Single male and female plus households with children
DV -Domestic Violence victims only
VET -Veterans only
HIV -HIVIAIDS populations only
Continuum of Care Gap Analysis
Each year the County prepares a Continuum of Care Gap Analysis which identifies the unmet need
for emergency shelters, transitional housing, and permanent supportive housing. 15 The Gap
Analysis, presented in Table 4.17, is based on the current inventory and the number of beds under
development as well as the most recent Homeless Census, anq reflects the County's 2009
Continuum of Care Application.
As shown in Table 4.17, there is an unmet need of nearly 3,000 beds in transitional and permanent
supportive housing for individuals. Approximately 300 beds in transitional and permanent
supportive housing are needed for households with children. The unmet need for homeless
families is lower in 2009 compared to previous years because of the Census showed a decrease in
families. Appendix D provides the Continuum of Care Gap Analysis (HUD Table lA) for the
Entitlement Jurisdictions.
It should be noted that many of Palo Alto's homeless, families and individuals, are provided
emergency shelter outside of the County of Santa Clara. Palo Alto is located on the border of San
Mateo County and many Palo Alto homeless receive shelter in San Mateo County through a variety
of providers located outside of Santa Clara County. Appendix Table D.4 (HUD Table I-A) is
provided for comparison with other jurisdictions within Santa Clara County and because it is a
HUD requirement. It is unfortunate that statistical analysis is restricted to the Homeless Census
and Homeless Survey, a one point-in-time survey conducted within very restrictive spatial
boundaries provided by County boundary lines. The survey is conducted in this manner for the
sake of analytical consistency but severely impacts smaller jurisdictions in measuring mobile
homeless populations crossing County lines.
For instance Appendix D.4 indicates that there were 5 sheltered victims of domestic violence and
there were zero families with children in emergency shelters. The primary provider for shelter for
victims of domestic violence that are Palo Alto citizens, Shelter Network for Battered Women, is
located within San Mateo County. Statistics from the agency indicate that within FY 07-08 seven
clients and their accompanying children from Palo Alto were provided emergency shelter and
transitional housing, safety net services were provided to 41 individual residents, counseling
services were provided to 35 residents and 113 crisis calls were received from Palo Alto residents.
In FY 08-09, 2 Palo Alto individuals and their children were provided shelter and transitional
housing, 47 residents received safety net services, 46 residents received crisis counseling and 116
crisis calls from residents of Palo Alto were received. Emergency shelter is defined as housing for
up to six months in order to maintain a safe environment and move into more permanent housing
15
The Continuum of Care is a set of three competitively-awarded HUD programs created to address the
problems of homeless ness in a comprehensive manner with other federal agencies. The programs are the
Supportive Housing Program (SHP), Shelter Plus Care program, and Single Room Occupancy program (SRO).
43
when the family is stabilized. If one were to rely on the Homeless Census and data from the
Homeless Survey relative to Santa Clara County the above population of Palo Alto citizens is
unaccounted for. Fortunately, the City of Palo Alto requires significant data input in its application
process for sub-recipients requesting funding that provides a much more accurate indicator of need.
44
Table 4.17: Homeless Housing Gap Analysis, 2008 (Required HUn Table lA)
Individuals
Emergency Shelter
Transitional Housing
Permanent Supportive Housing
Total
Fam ilies with Children
Emergency Shelter
Transitional Housing
Permanent Supportive Housing
Total
Part 1: Homeless Population (b)
Number of Families with Children
Number of Persons in Families with
Children
Number of Persons in Households
without Children (c)
Total
Part 2: Homeless Subpopulations (d)
a. Chronically Homeless
b. Seriou sly Men tally III
c. Chronic Substance Abuse
d. Veterans
e. Persons with HIV/AIDS
f. Victims of Do mestic Violen ce
g. Unaccompanied Youth (Under 18)
Notes:
Number of Beds
Current
Inventory
507
314
523
1,344
281
802
782
1,865
Sheltered
Emergency
Shelter
77
238
840
1,078
Sheltered
195
409
492
283
5
149
17
Under
Development
0
10
428
438
3
0
630
633
Transitional
Housins
187
704
321
1,025
Onmet
Need (a)
0
37
2,911
2,948
0
151
126
277
Unsheltered
21
66
4,917
4,983
(a) Unmet need derived from the number of beds under development and the number of sheltered
and unsheltered homeless enumerated in the 2009 Santa Clara County Homeless Census and Survey.
Methodology used to calculate unmet need based on the 2009 Continuum of Care Application.
For complete description of methodology and assumptions, contact the Executive Committee
ofthe Santa Clara County Collaborative on Housing and Homeless Issues.
(b) Based on 2009 Santa Clara County Homeless Census and Survey.
(c) Persons in households without children include single persons and individuals in vehicles, encampments,
abandoned buildings, or parks where family status could not be determined.
(d) These data are based on both the Homeless Census and data from the Homeless Survey. The results
are estimates, calculated by applying the survey results to the point-in-time Homeless Census population.
Sources: 2009 Homeless Census and Survey, Applied Survey Research, January 2009;
2009 Santa Clara County Continuum of Care Application; BAE, 2009.
45
Total
285
1,008
6,078
7,086
Efforts to Address Homelessness
Santa Clara County and its member jurisdictions are addressing homelessness through strategies
identified in several plans prepared for the County.
10 Year Plan to End Chronic Homelessness in Santa Clara County. The Santa Clara County
Collaborative on Affordable Housing and Homeless Issues is a coordinated effort to meet the
housing and supportive services needs of unhoused and very low-income residents in the County.16
To this end, the Collaborative developed a 10-Year Plan to End Chronic Homelessness. The Plan
indicates that the chronically homeless utilize most of the community's resources within the
homeless service system and are costly to mainstream systems because of frequent interactions
with hospitals, mental health crisis services, and the criminal justice system. Strategies identified
in the Plan to end chronic homelessness are identified below: 17
• Prevent its occurrence.
• Provide permanent housing with access to treatment, services, and income to facilitate
long-term housing retention.
• Engage chronically unhoused people to use services and housing.
• Access income supports and employment.
• Establish an infrastructure for success
• Engage the entire community.
Destination: Home. Destination: Home is a task force charged with implementing the
recommendations of the 2007 Blue Ribbon Commission on Ending Chronic Homelessness and
Solving the Affordable Housing Crisis in Santa Clara County. The Blue Ribbon Commission
(BRC) identified several solutions for ending homelessness in the County: 18
• Improve access to services by creating outreach and benefit teams that have a consistent
and dependable presence on the streets where chronically homeless individuals congregate.
• Create an Institutional Outreach and Discharge Planning Strategy for persons such as
health care or corrections facilities.
• Implement a medical respite facility for homeless patients being discharged from a hospital
or emergency room to recover and recuperate.
• Establish a "One Stop" Homeless Prevention Center that will provide all of the services
needed by homeless populations to address issues and ultimately access permanent
16
http://www.collabscc.org 17
Keys to Housing: A 10 Year Plan to End Chronic Homelessness in Santa Clara County, May 2005,
http://www.collabscc.org/Keys_to_Housing_1 0_ Year _Plan. pdf 18
Executive Summary for the Blue Ribbon Commission to End Homelessness and Solve the Affordable Housing
Crisis, November 30, 2007, http://www.sjhollsing.orglhomeless/BRC.pdf
46
housing.
• Shift to a housing first model that emphasizes permanent housing with services.
Destination: Home opened two One-Stop Homeless Prevention Centers in November 2008, serving
over 3,700 homeless and at-risk clients to date. The County of Santa Clara Department of Social
Services has Supplemental Security Income (SSI) advocates at each One-Stop location, allowing
eligible clients to begin the process of applying for benefits at the same time they search for
employment, receive housing assistance, or get assistance with other needs.19
4.3 Other "Special Needs" Groups
In addition to homeless people, other groups have special needs that affect their ability to secure
housing or require special types of housing such as accessible or elderly housing. These groups
may encounter greater difficulty finding adequate and affordable housing due to a shortage of units
of the type they require; or other barriers. These special needs populations include large
households, female-headed households with children, seniors, disabled individuals, and persons
with HN/AIDS. Please refer to Section 5.12 for a quantitative assessment of un met need for
special needs populations, and the proposed annual goals for addressing these needs (HUD Table
IB).
Large Households
The U.S. Census Bureau defines large households as those with five or more persons. Large
households may encounter difficulty in finding adequately-sized, affordable housing due to the
limited supply of large units in many jurisdictions. Additionally, large units generally cost more to
rent and buy than smaller units. This may cause larger families to live in overcrowded conditions
and/or overpay for housing.
In 2000, 16 percent of Santa Clara County households had five or more persons. This figure varied
substantially across Entitlement Jurisdictions. Approximately 24 percent of Gilroy's households
were large households while only six percent of Palo Alto and Los Gatos households had five or
more individuals (see Table 4.18). This finding is consistent with the South County Consolidated
Plan Workshop, where participants noted the need for affordable units serving larger households.
19
Maureen O'Malley-Moore, Project Director, Destination: Home, "One Stop Homelessness Prevention
Centers."
47
Table 4.18: Large Households by Tenure, 2000 (a)
Larse HH Owners Larse HH Renters All Large Households
Number %ofOwners Number % of Renters Number % of Total
Cupertino 1,246 10.8% 477 7.2% 1,723 9.5%
Gilroy 1,415 19.5% 1,455 31.6% 2,870 24.2%
Mountain View 779 6.0% 1,378 7.5% 2,157 6.9%
Palo Alto 1,189 8.2% 430 4.0% 1,619 6.4%
San Jose 33,290 19.5% 22,202 21.0% 55,492 20.1%
Santa Clara 1,987 11.2% 2,033 9.8% 4,020 10.4%
Sunnyvale 2,369 9.5% 2,209 8.0% 4,578 8.7%
Urban County
Campbell 670 8.7% 523 6.3% 1,193 7.5%
Los Altos Hills 746 8.3% 87 5.8% 833 8.0%
Los Altos 299 11.6% 20 11.9% 319 11.6%
Los Gatos 616 7.9% 157 3.8% 773 6.4%
Morgan Hill 144 12.6% 4 5.7% 148 12.2%
Monte Sereno 1,146 14.6% 640 21.4% 1,786 16.5%
Saratoga 1,062 11.3% 104 10.0% 1,166 11.2%
Unincorporated County 3,462 16.2% 2,119 15.0% 5,581 18.0%
Urban County 8,145 12.2% 3,654 11.3% 11,799 12.5%
Entitlement Jurisdictions 50,420 15.4% 33,838 14.9% 84,258 15.4%
Santa Clara County Total 53,262 15.7% 34,484 15.2% 87,746 15.5%
Note:
(a) A "large household" is defined as fiw persons or more.
Sources: U.S. Census, SF1 H-15, 2000; BAE, 2009.
Elderly
Many elderly residents face a unique set of housing needs, largely due to physical limitations,
lower household incomes, and health care costs. Smaller unit sizes and accessibility to transit,
health care, and other services are important housing concerns for this population. Housing
affordability also represents a key issue for seniors, many of whom are living on fixed incomes. As
the Baby Boom generation ages, the demand for senior housing serving various income levels is
expected to increase in the Bay Area, California, and nation.
According to the 2000 Census, 38 percent of Santa Clara County's elderly households (age 65
years or older) face one or more housing problems (see Table 4.19). This includes overpaying for
housing (spending more·than 30 percent of their income on housing costs), living in an
overcrowded situation, or living in a unit that lacks complete kitchen or plumbing facilities.
Housing problems are more prevalent among elderly renter households than owner households.
Approximately 60 percent of elderly renter households experienced housing problems, compared to
31 percent of owner households.
Local service providers at each of the Consolidated Plan Workshops indicated a need for more
48
affordable senior housing facilities, particularly given the long waiting lists at existing subsidized
developments.
Table 4.19: Housing Problems, Elderly Households, Santa Clara County, 2000 (a)
Income Level All Elderly
Extr. Low Ve!1 Low Low Median+ Households
Elderly Renter Households (b) 11,080 4,084 1,964 4,754 21,882
% with Any Housing Problems 69.0% 72.2% 57.7% 30.5% 60.2%
% Cost Burden >30% 66.4% 68.7% 53.7% 27.0% 57.1%
% Cost Burden >50% 45.5% 35.7% 21.1% 4.8% 32.6%
Elderly Owner Households 11,182 11,630 9,094 37,933 69,839
% with Any Housing Problems 62.4% 62.4% 25.4% 13.0% 30.8%
% Cost Burden >30% 62.1% 62.1% 25.3% 12.8% 30.5%
% Cost Burden >50% 44.1% 44.1% 11.8% 3.0% 17.6%
Total Elderly Households 22,262 15,714 11,058 42,687 91,721
% with Any Housing Problems 65.7% 64.9% 31.1% 14.9% 37.8%
% Cost Burden >30% 64.2% 63.8% 30.3% 14.4% 36.9%
% Cost Burden >50% 44.8% 41.9% 13.5% 3.2% 21.2%
Notes:
(a) Figures reported abow are based on the HUD-published CHAS 2000 data series, using 1999 incomes. CHAS data
reflect HUD-defined household income limits, for various household sizes, calculated for Santa Clara County.
Elderly household defined as those with householders 65 years old and owr.
(b) Renter data does not include renters li\Ang on boats, RVs or vans, excluding approximately 25,000 households
nationwide.
Definitions:
"Any Housing Problems" signifies cost burden greater than 30% of income and/or owrcrowding and/or without complete
kitchen or plumbing facilities.
Cost Burden is the fraction of a household's total gross income spent on housing costs. For renters, housing costs
include rent paid by the tenant plus utilities. For owners, housing costs include mortgage payment, taxes, insurance,
and utilities.
Sources: HUD, State of the Cities Data System: Comprehensiw Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) Special
Tabulations from Census 2000; BAE, 2009.
The Census Bureau defines the frail elderly as persons 65 years old or older who have a self-care or
mobility limitation. In 2000, approximately 60,600 seniors, or 39 percent of the elderly in Santa
Clara County, had one or more disabilities. Among disabled seniors, 25 percent had a disability
that prevented them from leaving their homes and 11 percent had a self-care disability.20
20
It should be noted that individuals may have more than one disability. For example, those with a self care
disability may also have a go-outside-of-home disability.
49
Female-Headed Households
According to the 2006 American Community Survey, 43 percent of single-parent female-headed
households nationwide live. at or below the federal poverty level, compared to national poverty rate
of 10 percent. Single mothers have a greater risk of falling into poverty than single fathers due to
factors such as the wage gap between men and women, insufficient training and education for
higher-wage jobs, and inadequate child support. Households with single mothers also typically
have special needs related to access to day care/childcare, health care, and other supportive
services.
In 2009, there were approximately 30,500 female-headed households with children, representing
approximately five percent of the County's total households. This figure varies across
jurisdictions, ranging from less than two percent in Los Altos and Morgan Hill to just below nine
percent in Gilroy (see Table 4.20).
50
Table 4.20: Female-Headed Households with
Children, 2009
Number of
Female-Headed
Percent
of Total
HH's wI Children Households
Cupertino 724 3.9%
Gilroy 1,233 8.6%
Mountain View 1,043 3.3%
Palo Alto 921 3.6%
San Jose 17,855 6.0%
Santa Clara 1,762 4.2%
Sunnyvale 2,002 3.8%
Urban County
Campbell 843 5.3%
Los Altos Hills 240 2.3%
Los Altos 43 1.5%
Los Gatos 497 4.0%
Morgan Hill 18 1.4%
Monte Sereno 896 7.3%
Saratoga 208 2.0%
Unincorporated County 1,281 4.0%
Urban County 4,026 4.1%
Entitlement Jurisdictions 29,566 5.1%
Santa Clara County Total 30,528 5.1%
Sources: Claritas, 2009; BAE, 2009.
Persons with Disabilities
A disability is a physical or mental impairment that limits one or more major life activities.
21
Persons with a disability generally have lower incomes and often face barriers to finding
employment or adequate housing due to physical or structural obstacles. This segment of the
population often needs affordable housing that is located near public transportation, services, and
shopping. Persons with disabilities may require units equipped with wheelchair accessibility or
other special features that accommodate physical or sensory limitations. Depending on the severity
of the disability, people may live independently with some assistance in their own homes, or may
require assisted living and supportive services in special care facilities.
The 2000 Census reports that there were approximately 254,700 individuals with disabilities in
Santa Clara County, accounting for 16 percent of the County's civilian, non-institutionalized
population age five years and older. The proportion of disabled individuals varied across the
County, ranging from nine percent in the Urban County jurisdiction of Saratoga to 19 percent in
21
According to the Americans with Disabilities Act, major life activities include seeing, hearing, speaking,
walking, breathing, performing manual tasks, learning, caring for oneself, and working.
51
San Jose.
Table 4.21: Persons with Disabilities, Civilian, Non
Institutionalized Population, 5+ Years, 2000
Population with % Total
a Disabili~ Population (a)
Cupertino 5,082 10.8%
Gilroy 6,454 17.2%
Mountain View 9,527 14.5%
Palo Alto 6,920 12.5%
San Jose 152,089 18.5%
Santa Clara 14,915 15.7%
Sunnyvale 17,360 14.2%
Urban County
Campbell 5,450 15.2%
Los Altos Hills 2,966 11.6%
Los Altos 743 9.7%
Los Gatos 3,186 12.0%
Morgan Hill 354 10.6%
Monte Sereno 4,206 13.8%
Saratoga 2,632 9.4%
Unincorporated County 13,455 14.2%
Urban County 32,992 13.1%
Entitlement Jurisdictions 245,339 16.4%
Santa Clara County Total 254,729 16.4%
Note:
(a) Total percentage of population taken from unh.erse of non
institutionalized ci\1lians, age fiw years and older.
Sources: U.S.Census, SF3-P42, 2000; BAE 2009.
The U.S. Census Bureau places disabilities into six categories, defined below:
• Sensory disability -blindness, deafness, or a severe vision or hearing impairment
• Physical disability - a condition that substantially limits one or more basic physical
activities such as walking, climbing stairs, reaching, lifting, or carrying
• Mental disability - a physical, mental or emotional condition that made it difficult to
perform certain activities like learning, remembering, or concentrating
• Self-care disability - a physical, mental, or emotional condition that made it difficult to
perform certain activities like dressing, bathing, or getting around inside the home
• Going-outside-the-home disability - a physical, mental, or emotional condition that made
it difficult to perform certain activities like going outside the home alone to shop or visit a
doctor's office
• Employment disability - a physical, mental, or emotional condition that made it difficult
52
to perform certain activities like working at a job or business
As shown in Table 4.22, the largest proportion (51 percent) of disabled individuals had an
employment disability. The second most common disability type was go-outs ide-home disability,
representing 43 percent of disabled individuals, followed by physical disabilities at 31 percent. It
should be noted that disabled individuals may have more than one disability.
Table 4.22: Disabilities by Type and Age, Santa Clara County, 2000
Ase5·15 ~e 16·64 Ase65+
Percent of Percent of Percent of
Persons with Persons with Persons with
Disability Type Number ---Disabilities (a) Number Disabilities (a) Number Disabilities (a) Number
Sensory Disability 1,804 19.2% 16,480 8.9% 20,564 16.9% 37,044
Physical Disability 1,640 17.4% 40,257 21.8% 39,508 32.5% 79,765
Mental Disability 6,875 73.0% 28,044 15.2% 18,128 14.9% 46,172
Self-Care Disability 2,222 23.6% 12,663 6.9% 12,897 10.6% 25,560
Go-Outside-Home Disability N/A N/A 79,636 43.1% 30,596 25.1% 110,232
Employment Disability N/A N/A 130,246 70.5% N/A N/A 130,246
Total Disabilities (b) 12,541 307,326 121,693 441,560
Notes:
(a) Total percent of persons wth disabilities exceeds 100 percent because individuals may have more than one disability type.
(b) Total disabilities exceed total persons with disabilities because individuals may have more than one disability type.
Source: U.S.Census, SF3·P41, 2000; BAE, 2009.
Persons with Alcohol/Other Drug Abuse
Total
Percent of
Persons with
Disabilities (a)
14.5%
31.3%
18.1%
10.0%
43.3%
51.1%
Alcohol/other drug abuse (AODA) refers to excessive and impairing use of alcohol or other drugs,
including addiction. The National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism reports that 17.6
million people in the United States (about one in every 12 adults) abuse alcohol or are alcohol
dependent.22 Persons with AODA have special housing needs during treatment and recovery.
Group homes are often appropriate for treatment and recovery while affordable rental housing
provides stability for those transitioning to a responsible drug-or alcohol-free life.
The California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs (ADP) reports that there were 22,345
admissions to alcohol and other drug treatment facilities in California during the 2007-2008 fiscal
year. The number of individuals admitted to treatment during the year was 174,066 and on any
given day, there were 115,677 clients in treatment. Clients may have multiple admissions to
treatment during a year, accounting for the higher number of admissions compared to clients. The
majority of clients admitted to a treatment program were men, representing 62 percent of
admissions. The highest percent of admissions were for treatment of methamphetamine addictions
22
National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, "F AQ for the General Public,"
http://v·rww.niaaa.nih.gov/FAOs/General-English/default.htm#groups
53
at 34 percent; alcohol treatment represented 20 percent of admissions.
23
Within Santa Clara County, there were a total of9,358 adult admissions to outpatient and
residential treatment facilities during the 2002-2003 fiscal year. Five primary substances
accounted for the large majority of treatment admissions -methamphetamines (47 percent),
alcohol (24 percent), marijuana (11 percent), cocaine (10 percent), and heroin (five percent).
Criminal justice referrals accounted for 76 percent of treatment admissions in Santa Clara County
in 2003.
24
As a result of the State's budget crisis, funding for substance abuse treatment programs has been
reduced substantially. For example, the State's 2009-2010 budget eliminated funding for the
Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act, which provided first-and second-time nonviolent
drug offenders the opportunity to receive substance abuse treatment instead of incarceration.
25
HIVIAIDS
Individuals with Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) and Acquired Immunodeficiency
Syndrome (AIDS) face various challenges to obtaining and maintaining affordable and stable
housing. For persons with HIV / AIDS, the shortage of stable housing is a barrier to consistent
medical care and treatment. Furthermore, despite federal and State fair housing laws, many
individuals face eviction when their health conditions are disclosed.
According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), California has second highest
number AIDS cases reported cumulatively from the beginning of the epidemic through December
2007 among the fifty states. California reported 148,949 AIDS cases to the CDC cumulatively
through December 2007.
26
More recent data from the California Department of Health Services
indicates that there have been 153,901 individuals with AIDS and 36,412 people with HIV in the
State through April 2009. Within Santa Clara County, 4,121 cases of AIDS and 762 cases ofHIV
have been reported cumulatively through April 2009. Of this, 2,008 individuals with AIDS and
755 people with HIV are alive.
27
Medical advances in the treatment ofHIV and AIDS allow
23
California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs, "California Alcohol and Other Drug (AOD)
Treatment Report: Fiscal Year (FY) 2007-2008,
http://www.adp.ca.gov/oaraJpdflCalifornians in Tx FINAL.pdf
24
Santa Clara Department of Alcohol & Drug Services, Annual Report -FY 2003,
htto:llwww.sccgov.org/SCC/docs/Alcohol%20&%20Drug%20Services,%20Department%20ofUIo20CDEP)/attac
hments/624309Almuai report 03.pdf
25
State of California, "2009-2010 Enacted Budget Summary," July 28,2009,
http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/pdflEnactedlBudgetSummarv/FullBud get Summary. pdf
26
Center for Disease Control and Prevention, "California 2008 Profile,"
http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/stateprofiles/pdflCalifornia profi Ie. pdf
27
California Department of Health Services, "HIV/AIDS Surveillance in California," April 2009,
http://v·,rv.,rvv.cdph.ca.gov/programs/aids/Documents/HIVAIDSMergedApr09.pdf
54
individuals living with the disease to have longer life expectancies and many are able to continue
living without the need of government assistance. As such, not all of the 2,763 persons in the
County with HIV / AIDS need assistance from the government.
Farmworkers
Farmworkers may encounter special housing needs because of their limited income and seasonable
nature of employment. Many farmworkers live in unsafe, substandard and/or crowded conditions.
Housing needs for farmworkers include both permanent and seasonal housing for individuals, as
well as permanent housing for families.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) categorizes farmworkers into three groups: 1)
permanent, 2) seasonal, and 3) migrant. Permanent farmworkers are typically employed year
round by the same employer. A seasonal farmworker works an average of less than 150 days per
year and earns at least half of his or her earned income from farm work. Migrant farmworkers are
a subset of seasonal farmworkers, and include those who have to travel to their workplace, and
cannot return to their permanent residence within the same day.
Santa Clara County does not have large populations offarmworkers. As shown in Table 4.23, the
2007 USDA Census of Agriculture identified 5,589 farmworkers in Santa Clara County.
Approximately half of farmworkers countywide were permanent employees in 2007. Although the
USDA Census of Agriculture does not provide farmworker data at the city level, discussions with
city staff and local service providers indicate that there is a larger farmworker population, and a
corresponding need for affordable housing and services, in Southern Santa Clara County.
Table 4.23: Farmworkers, Santa Clara County,
2007
Santa Clara County
Seasonal (Less than 150 days)
Permanent (More than 150 days)
Total
Percent
Number of Total
2,747 49.2%
2,842 50.8%
5,589
Sources: United States Department of Agriculture,
2007 Census of Agriculture, Table 7; BAE, 2009.
Inventory of facilities and services for special needs population
Individuals with special needs, including the elderly or persons with physical or mental disabilities,
need access to suitable housing in their communities. This segment of the population often needs
affordable housing that is located near public transportation, services, and shopping. Persons with
disabilities may require units equipped with wheelchair accessibility or other special features that
55
accommodate physical or sensory limitations. Depending on the severity of the disability and
support program regulations and reimbursement levels, people may live independently with some
assistance in their own homes, or may live in assisted living or other special care facilities.
Table 4.24 shows the number and capacity of licensed community care facilities in the County by
jurisdiction while Figure 4.5 shows the location of these facilities. These licensed facilities are
defined by the California Department of Social Services, Community Care Licensing Division:
• Adult Residential Facilities (ARF) provide 24-hour non-medical care for adults ages 18
years through 59 years old, who are unable to provide for their own daily needs. ARFs
include board and care homes for adults with developmental disabilities and mental
illnesses.
• Residential Care Facilities for the Elderly (RCFE) provide care, supervision, and
assistance with daily living activities, such as bathing and grooming.
• Group Homes provide 24-hour non-medical care and supervision to children. Services
include social, psychological, and behavioral programs for troubled youth.
• Small Family Homes (SFH) provide 24-hour care in the licensee's family residence for
six or fewer children who require special supervision as a result of a mental or
developmental disability or physical handicap.
As shown in Table 4.24, there are 715 licensed care facilities with capacity to accommodate
approximately 11,400 individuals within the Entitlement Jurisdictions. As the largest city in the
County, San Jose has the greatest number of licensed community care facilities, with 490 facilities
housing 4,600 individuals.
56
Table 4.24: Licensed Community Care Facilities in Santa Clara County, 2009
Adult Residential Care Small
Total Residenti~1 (a) for the Elderly (b) Group Homes (c) Family Home (d)
Facilities Beds Facilities Beds Facilities Beds Facilities Beds Facilities Beds
Cupertino 10 -sas 2 --12-6 --gs:r-2 --12-
Gilroy 29 419 19 127 6 244 4 48
Mountain Vif!ltN 20 184 2 18 16 152 2 14
Palo Alto 10 1,785 10 1,785
San Jose 490 4,572 220 1,677 234 2,553 35 336 6
Santa Clara 29 285 12 72 15 187 2 26
Sunnyvale 50 852 6 60 42 782 6 4
Urban County
Campbell 17 309 2 16 14 284 9
Los Altos Hills
Los Altos 5 295 5 295
Los Gatos 10 792 6 8 756 30
Morgan Hill 14 236 5 109 5 103 2 12 2 12
Monte Sereno
Saratoga 5 509 5 509
Unincorporated County 8 86 4 24 3 56 1 6
Urban County Total 59 2,227 12 155 40 2,003 5 57 2 12
Entitlement Jurisdictions 697 11,309 273 2,121 369 8,667 51 499 4 22
Santa Clara County Total 715 11,412 283 2,178 371 8,677 57 535 4 22
Notes:
(a) Adult Residential Facilities provide 24-hour non-medical care or adults who are unable to provide for their own daily needs.
(b) Residential Care Facilities for the Elderly provide care, supervision, and assistance with daily living activities.
(c) Group homes provide non-medical care and supervision to children.
(d) Small Family Homes provide twenty-four hour care in the licensee's family residence for six or fewer children who require
special care and supervision due to mental or dewlopmental disabilities or physical handicap.
Sources: Califomia Community Care Licensing Division, 2009; BAE, 2009
57
============================±==========--=-,._=,",,=--._-_ ...... _--_ ...... -.
Figure 4.5: Licensed Community Care Facilities in Santa Clara County, 2009
Santa Clara County
Santa Cruz County
Legend
Community Care Facilities
• Adult Residential Care
• Group Home
• Residential Care Facility for the Elderly
.. Small Family Home
58
Stanislaus
County
I
I ·
I
In addition to the residential care facilities described above, there are a wide variety of programs to
assist special needs populations, homeless individuals and families, and individuals and families
threatened with homelessness. Many programs target specific groups such as youth, veterans, or
persons with HIV / AIDS. Appendix E provides a complete inventory of services for special needs
and homeless populations in Santa Clara County.
4.4 Lead-Based Paint Needs
Lead poisoning is a major environmental health problem in the United States, particularly among
children. According to the Center for Disease Control (CDC), approximately 250,000 U.S.
children aged one to five years old have lead blood levels greater than recommended. Children are
particularly vulnerable to lead poisoning because their growing bodies absorb more lead and their
brains and nervous systems are more sensitive to lead's damaging effects. Lead poisoning can
cause damage to the brain and nervous system, behavior and learning problems, slowed growth,
hearing problems, and headaches.
Lead-based paint (LBP) is the most common source of lead exposure for children today. In 1978,
the use of lead-based paint on residential properties was banned. According to the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), approximately 75 percent of all
residential structures built prior to 1978 contain LBP.28 Low-income and minority children are
more likely to be exposed to lead hazards because they more often live in older housing with LBP,
and where the units suffer from deferred maintenance and chipping paint. According to a 2000
nationwide study, 16 percent of low-income children living in older housing have lead poisoning,
compared to 4.4 percent of all children.
29
CRAS data provides the number of housing units built prior to 1970 that were occupied by lower
income households in 2000. This data can be used to estimate the extent ofLBP hazards among
lower-income households. As shown in Table 4.25, approximately 45,600 rental units occupied by
extremely low-, low-, and moderate-income households may contain LBP. In addition,
approximately 6,000 low-and moderate-income homeowners may occupy units containing LBP.
~ .
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, "EPA and HUD Announce Landmark Lead Disclosure
Settlement." January 16,2002. http://www.hud.gov/news/release.cfm?content=pr02-012.cfm
29
President's Task Force on Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks to Children, "Eliminating Childhood
Lead Poisoning: A Federal Strategy Targeting Lead Paint Hazards," February 2000.
59
Table 4.25: Housing Units with Lead-Based Paint Occupied by Lower Income Households, Santa
Clara County, 2000
Renters
Housing Units
Number of
Pre-1970 Units
Est. Number of Units With
Lead-Based Paint
Owners
Housing Units
Number of
Pre-1970 Units
Est. Number of Units With
Lead-Based Paint
Notes:
Occupied Units by Income Category
Ext Low Very Low Low
<30% AMI 31-50%AMI 51-80%AMI
9,228 15,958 35,590
6,921 11,968 26,693
Occupied Units by Income Category
Ext Low Very Low Low
<30% AMI (b) 31-50% AMI 51-80% AMI
N/A 6,408 1,607
N/A 4,806 1,205
Total
Households
60,775
45,582
Est. % of Pre-
1970 Units
With Lead-
Based Paint (a)
75%
Est. % of Pre-
1970 Units
Total With Lead-
Households Based Paint (a)
8,015
75%
6,011
(a) Approximately 75% of homes built before 1978 contain lead-based paint according to the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban De\elopment (HUD).
(b) Data for extremely-low income owners is not available.
Sources: U.S. Census, CHAS, 2000; HUD, 2002; BAE, 2009.
In Santa Clara County in 2006, there were 65 confirmed cases of elevated blood lead levels among
children, accounting for 20 percent of all confirmed cases in the Bay Area that year.
30 In 2007, the
last complete year for which data is readily available, there were 58 new cases recorded in the
County. 31
The County and local jurisdictions address LBP hazards by conducting ongoing screening and
abatement through various rehabilitation programs. Consistent with federal regulations,
jurisdictions require that single-family or multifamily residential rehabilitation being assisted by
federal funds be inspected for LBP if the property was constructed before 1978. Properties that test
positive must undergo appropriate reduction and abatement procedures.
30
Center for Disease Control and Prevention, State of California, 2006.
31
Chuck Fuller, Santa Clara County Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program, "Identifying Unique
Sources of Lead Exposure & Challenges of Lead Hazard Enforcement."
60
The Santa Clara County Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program (CLPPP) offers services to
reduce LBP hazards. These include outreach and education, public health nurse case management
and environmental investigations, resources and referrals for children who require lead testing, and
investigation of complaints of unsafe work practices and lead hazards.
The relatively low number of elevated blood lead level cases inthe County suggests that these
measures are effective. Nonetheless, County staff indicate that abatement measures can be costly
. II
and these programs may be underfunded.
4.5 Housing Stock Characteristics
Housing Units
According to the California Department of Finance, the majority of housing units in Santa Clara
County and the Entitlement Jurisdictions are single-family (attached and detached) homes in 2009
(see Table 4.26). Single-family homes represent 63 percent of all housing units in the County and
Entitlement Jurisdictions. While the distribution of the type of housing units varies across
jurisdictions, single-family homes represent the majority of housing units in all Entitlement
Jurisdictions except Mountain View and Sunnyvale. Among entitlement jurisdictions, Gilroy and
Cupertino have the highest percentage of single-family homes, at 74 percent and 71 percent,
respectively. Single-family homes are even more dominant in the Urban County. With the
exception of Campbell, single-family homes represent at least 70 percent of homes in all Urban
County jurisdictions.
32
Fuller, Chuck, Santa Clara County Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program, Phone Interview with
BAE, November 3,2009.
61
Table 4.26: Housing Unit Type by Jurisdiction, 2009
Housing Unit Type
Total Units Sinsle-Famill (a) Multifamill Mobile Homes
Cupertino 20,269 71.1% 28.9% 0.0%
Gilroy 14,874 73.5% 23.6% 2.9%
Mountain View 33,680 40.1% 56.2% 3.7%
Palo Alto 28,291 58.9% 40.5% 0.6%
San Jose 311,452 63.5% 33.0% 3.5%
Santa Clara 44,729 50.2% 49.6% 0.2%
Sunnyvale 55,630 47.8% 44.8% 7.4%
Urban County
Campbell 16,955 55.8% 42.7% 1.5%
Los Altos 10,829 88.7% 11.2% 0.1%
Los Altos Hills 3,126 99.0% 0.8% 0.2%
Los Gatos 12,973 69.6% 29.4% 0.9%
Monte Sereno 1,262 92.8% 7.2% 0.0%
Morgan Hill 12,952 77.1% 15.8% 7.0%
Saratoga 11,093 92.7% 7.2% 0.1%
Unincorporated County 29,168 85.0% 12.6% 2.4%
Urban County 98,358 78.7% 19.2% 2.0%
Entitlement Jurisdictions 607,283 62.5% 34.3% 3.1%
Santa Clara County 626,659 62.7% 34.1% 3.1%
Notes:
(a) Includes single-family detatched and single-family attached units.
Sources:. CA Department of Finance, Table E-5, 2009; BAE, 2009.
Tenure
Often, ajurisdiction's housing stock correlates with the tenure distribution of the occupied housing
units. Cities with a higher proportion of single-family residences generally have a higher
homeownership rate. As shown in Table 4.27, approximately 59 percent of Santa Clara County
and Entitlement Jurisdiction households are homeowners. Consistent with the distribution of
housing type, Gilroy and Cupertino have the highest homeownership rate among entitlement
jurisdictions. The Urban County's homeownership rate is substantially higher than the County's as
a whole, with 70 percent of households owning their own homes.
62
Table 4.27: Tenure Distribution by Jurisdiction, 2009
Total
Occupied Units Owner Renter
Cupertino 18,408 63.7% 36.3%
Gilroy 14,408 62.1% 37.9%
Mountain View 31,244 41.6% 58.4%
Palo Alto 25,525 55.8% 44.2%
San Jose 295,221 61.4% 38.6%
Santa Clara 42,034 45.0% 55.0%
Sunnyvale 52,585 46.8% 53.2%
Urban County
Campbell 15,891 47.9% 52.1%
Los Altos 10,602 85.2% 14.8%
Los Altos Hills 2,834 93.9% 6.1%
Los Gatos 12,414 65.1% 34.9%
Monte Sereno 1,242 94.3% 5.7%
Morgan Hill 12,301 71.7% 28.3%
Saratoga 10,487 89.7% 10.3%
Unincorporated County 31,689 68.2% 31.8%
Urban County 97,460 70.2% 29.8%
Entitlement Jurisdictions 576,885 59.1% 40.9%
Santa Clara County 595,646 59.4% 40.6%
Sources: Claritas, 2009; BAE, 2009.
Housing Conditions
Age of Housing Stock. Unless carefully maintained, older housing stock can create health and
safety problems for occupants. Housing policy analysts generally believe that even with normal
maintenance, dwellings over 40 years of age can deteriorate, requiring significant rehabilitation.
According to the 2000 Census, approximately 50 percent of housing units countywide were built
before 1970.
As shown in Table 4.28, the age of housing stock varies across entitlement jurisdictions and within
the Urban County. Among entitlement jurisdictions, Gilroy has the newest housing stock, with a
median year built of 1978, while Palo Alto has the oldest housing stock, with a median year built of
1957. Within the Urban County, Morgan Hill has the newest housing stock while Saratoga has the
oldest.
63
Table 4.28: Age of Housing Stock by Jurisdiction, 2000
1949 or 1950 to 1970 to 1990 to Median
earlier 1969 1989 March 2000 Year Built
Cupertino 4.3% 45.8% 36.1% 13.8% 1970
Gilroy 9.3% 20.4% 49.3% 21.0% 1978
Mountain View 9.0% 43.8% 38.4% 8.8% 1969
Palo Alto 29.5% 44.4% 20.1% 6.0% 1957
San Jose 9.0% 35.4% 43.2% 12.3% 1972
Santa Clara 9.3% 52.0% 30.6% 8.1% 1965
Sunnyvale 6.2% 45.3% 36.2% 12.4% 1969
Urban County
Campbell 9.7% 44.1% 40.2% 6.0% 1968
Los Altos 16.0% 61.4% 17.4% 5.2% 1968
Los Altos Hills 9.0% 45.2% 36.6% 9.2% 1968
Los Gatos 17.2% 43.2% 33.1% 6.5% 1966
Monte Sereno 19.0% 40.5% 31.1% 9.4% 1966
Morgan Hill 4.0% 10.1% 56.3% 29.6% 1981
Saratoga 7.5% 57.1% 29.4% 6.0% 1965
Unincorporated County 25.2% 40.8% 26.0% 8.0% nla
Urban County 15.7% 42.3% 32.5% 9.5% nla
Entitlement Jurisdictions 10.7% 39.7% 38.3% 11.3% nla
Santa Clara County 10.5% 39.4% 38.6% 11.5% 1970
Sources: U.S. Census, SF3 H34 and H36, 2000; BAE, 2009.
Housing Conditions. Despite the age of housing units in some jurisdictions, much of the County's
housing stock remains in relatively good condition. Data on the number of units which lack
complete plumbing and kitchen facilities are often used to assess the condition of a jurisdiction's
housing stock. As Table 4.29 illustrates, virtually all of the County and Entitlement Jurisdictions'
housing units contain complete plumbing and kitchen facilities.
The 2000 Census, which provides the most recent data on housing conditions, found that less than
one percent of the occupied housing units in the County and Entitlement Jurisdictions lacked
complete plumbing. In addition, less than one percent of owner-occupied units in the County and
Entitlement Jurisdictions lacked complete kitchen facilities. A slightly higher proportion of renter
occupied units lacked complete kitchens; approximately 1.2 percent of Entitlement Jurisdiction
renter-occupied units did not have these facilities.
There are slight variations in the lack of plumbing and kitchen facilities across Entitlement
Jurisdictions. For example, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, and Los Gatos have higher proportions of
renter-occupied units lacking complete kitchen facilities, with between three and five percent of
rental units lacking these facilities. Nevertheless, overall housing conditions appear good among
Entitlement Jurisdictions.
64
Table 4.29: Housing Conditions by Jurisdiction, 2000
Percent without Complete Percent without Complete Kitchen
Plumbins Facilities Facilities
Owners Renters Total Owners Renters Total
Cupertino 0.2% 0.4% 0.2% 0.1% 0.4% 0.2%
Gilroy 0.4% 1.0% 0.6% 0.0% 1.5% 0.6%
Mountain View 0.1% 0.5% 0.3% 0.2% 0.4% 0.3%
Palo Alto 0.1% 0.3% 0.2% 0.1% 2.6% 1.2%
San Jose 0.4% 0.9% 0.6% 0.3% 1.0% 0.6%
Santa Clara 0.3% 0.6% 0.4% 0.3% 1.2% 0.7%
Sunnyvale 0.3% 0.6% 0.5% 0.1% 1.1% 0.7%
Urban County
Campbell 0.3% 0.5% 0.5% 0.2% 0.8% 0.5%
Los Altos 0.1% 0.5% 0.2% 0.1% 5.4% 0.9%
Los Altos Hills 0.3% 0.0% 0.3% ·0.3% 3.9% 0.5%
Los Gatos 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.9% 1.0%
Monte Sereno 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Morgan Hill 0.2% 1.3% 0.5% 0.0% 1.1% 0.3%
Saratoga 0.1% 0.7% 0.2% 0.1% 1.8% 0.2%
Unincorporated County 0.4% 1.8% 0.8% 0.3% 1.7% 0.7%
Urban County 0.2% 1.0% 0.4% 0.1% 1.8% 0.6%
Entitlement Jurisdictions 0.3% 0.8% 0.5% 0.2% 1.2% 0.6%
Santa Clara County 0.3% 0.8% 0.5% 0.2% 1.1% 0.6%
Sources: U.S. Census, SF3 H48, 2000; BAE, 2009.
New Residential Building Permits
Since 2000, new residential construction in Santa Clara County has been dominated by large
multifamily buildings with five units or more. Approximately 58 percent of the 48,558 residential
building permits issued in the County between 2000 and June 2009 have been for units in large
multifamily buildings. Single-family units represented 39 percent of all residential building
permits issued. It should be noted that not all issued building permits are actually constructed.
Due to the current downturn in the housing market, many projects were issued building permits,
but were not completed.
65
Table 4.30: Building Permits by Building Type, Santa Clara County, 2000-2009
2009 2000·2009
Building Type 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 YTD (a) Total % of Total
Single Family 2,827 1,622 2,096 2,468 2,534 2,291 2,076 1,905 975 206 19,000 39.1%
2 Units 28 38 22 62 82 28 10 44 50 16 380 0.8%
3 & 4 Units 183 78 147 88 126 202 90 40 49 3 1,006 2.1%
5 or More Units 3,573 4,179 2,196 4,388 2,242 3,050 3,899 2,148 2,433 64 28,172 58.0%
Total 6,611 5,917 4,461 7,006 4,984 5,571 6,075 4,137 3,507 289 48,558 100.0%
Notes:
(a) Includes building permits issued through June 2009.
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2009; BAE, 2009.
As shown in Table 4.31, the City of San Jose issued the majority of residential building permits,
accounting for 55 percent of permits issued countywide between 2000 and 2009. Among the
Entitlement Jurisdictions, the City of Santa Clara accounted for the second largest proportion of
building permits, issuing 10 percent of the County's total. Gilroy comprised the third largest share
of building permits, with six percent of the County total. Together, the Urban County accounted
for 11 percent of all residential building permits issued.
66
Table 4.31: Building Permits by Jurisdiction, 2000-2009
Percent
2009 2000-2009 of County
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 YTD (a) Total Total
Cupertino 105 77 371 36 87 106 126 83 107 9 1,107 2.3%
Gilroy 307 448 353 247 355 669 238 204 12 5 2,838 5.8%
Mountain View 121 349 25 92 155 83 163 371 205 7 1,571 3.2%
Palo Alto 94 95 132 110 113 163 222 486 227 39 1,681 3.5%
San Jose 4,426 3,375 2,465 4,336 2,795 2,775 2,975 1,942 1,769 38 26,896 55.4%
Santa Clara 217 551 547 1,113 315 910 510 90 535 37 4,825 9.9%
Sunnyvale 189 179 18 270 415 171 264 317 356 54 2,233 4.6%
Urban County
Campbell 64 39 33 62 28 24 35 22 52 2 361 0.7%
Los Altos 42 52 59 36 59 64 64 123 44 12 555 1.1%
Los Altos Hills 45 42 23 34 19 26 19 22 23 8 261 0.5%
Los Gatos 89 41 36 43 55 36 357 34 16 8 715 1.5%
Monte Sereno 12 7 12 5 11 15 9 14 13 5 103 0.2%
Morgan Hill 201 103 229 311 238 272 204 147 57 4 1,766 3.6%
Saratoga 64 56 44 213 24 42 27 25 23 12 530 1.1%
Unincorporated County 397 110 111 97 97 117 118 83 54 22 1,206 2.5%
Urban County 914 450 547 801 531 596 833 470 282 73 5,497 11.3%
Entitlement Jurisdictions 6,373 5,524 4,458 7,005 4,766 5,473 5,331 3,963 3,493 262 46,648 . 96.1%
Santa Clara County 6,611 5,917 4,461 7,006 4,984 5,571 6,075 4,137 3,507 289 48,558 100.0%
Note:
(a) Includes building penn its issued through June 2009.
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2009; BAE, 2009.
4.6 Housing Affordability
Home Sale Trends
As shown in Figure 4.6, the median sales price for single-family homes in Santa Clara County
increased dramatically between 2000 and 2007 before falling during the current economic
downturn. Countywide, the median sales price for single-family homes rose by 60 percent from
$483,000 to $775,000 between 2000 and 2007. Since the 2007 peak, the median sales price has
decreased by 42 percent, falling to levels below 2000 home values. During 2009 (January through
May), the median home sales price for single-family homes was $44~,000.
Condominium sales prices show a similar trend. The median sales price for condominiums peaked
at $535,000 in 2007 after experiencing an increase of 69 percent since 2000. Between 2007 and
2009, the median sales price decreased by 45 percent to $294,500.
67
Figure 4.6: Median Sales Price, Santa Clara County, 1988-2009
$900,000
$800,000
$700,000
Q) $600,000
0 .t:: a.. $500,000 en
Q)
10 $400,000
C/)
c:::
$300,000 co :.c
Q)
~ $200,000
$100,000
$0
Notes:
(a) 2009 data includes January to May 2009.
Sources: DataQuick, 2009; BAE, 2009.
--SFR--Condo
Figure 4.7 depicts the sales volume for single-family homes and condominiums in Santa Clara
County since 1988. As shown, the sales volume for single-family homes has consistently been
more than twice the volume for condominiums. Sales volume for both single-family homes and
condominiums peaked in 2004, when 26,000 single-family residences and 10,000 condominiums
were sold. Residential sales volume has steadily declined since 2004.
68
Figure 4.7: Sales Volume, Santa Clara County, 1988-2,009
30,000
25,000
"0 20,000 15
(J)
en ..... '2
15,000 ::J
'0
L...
~
E 10,000 :::J
Z
5,000
0
Notes:
(a) 2009 data includes January to May 2009.
Sources: DataQuick, 2009; BAE, 2009.
--SFR -~Condo
Looking at individual jurisdictions, median sales price and volume varies significantly across the
County. Table 4.32 presents the median sales price for single-family homes and condominiums
sold during the first five months of 2009.
Among entitlement jurisdictions, Cupertino had the highest median sales price for single-family
homes and condominiums, at $986,500 and $642,500, respectively. Gilroy had the most affordable
single-family homes and condominium units, with median sales prices of$355,000 and $185,000,
respectively. Sales. volume was the highest in San Jose, which accounted for 63 percent of single
family homes and 62 percent of condominiums sold in the County between January and May 2009.
In the Urban County, three jurisdictions had median sales prices for single-family residences that
exceeded $1 million. Los Altos had the highest median sales price at $1.6 million for single-family
homes. Morgan Hill was the most affordable jurisdiction in the Urban County with a median sales
price of $525,000 for single-family homes.
69
In general, the housing market downturn since 2007 has impacted all the Entitlement Jurisdictions,
with notable declines in median sales prices. Gilroy and San Jose experienced particularly sharp
decreases of 48 percent and 44 percent, respectively, among single-family homes. However, Los
Gatos has actually experienced an increase in prices over this period for single-family homes, while
Palo Alto saw price gains among condominiums.
Table 4.32: Median Sales Price by Jurisdiction, 2009 (a)
Sinsle Famill Residences Condominiums
% Change % Change
Median Units Sales Price Median Units Sales Price
Sales Price Sold from 2007 Sales Price Sold from 2007
Cupertino $986,500 111 -16.0% $642,500 34 -1.5%
Gilroy $355,000 293 -48.4% $185,000 38 -54.9%
Mountain View $865,000 98 -8.9% $505,000 99 -21.1%
Palo Alto $900,000 256 -17.4% $635,000 44 9.0%
San Jose $400,000 3,091 -44.4% $230,000 1,017 -54.0%
Santa Clara $509,500 214 -30.5% $357,500 96 -29.3%
Sunnyvale $529,000 215 -39.9% $499,500 104 -24.4%
Urban County
Campbell $664,000 99 -15.6% $399,500 37 -29.3%
Los Altos $1,555,000 103 -10.5% $765,000 8 -5.6%
Los Altos Hills $0 0 nfa ' $0 0 nfa
Los Gatos $987,000 124 29.3% $672,500 33 -5.0%
Monte Sereno $1,419,000 10 -25.3% $0 0 nfa
Morgan Hill $525,000 137 -37.9% $292,500 26 -40.6%
Saratoga $1,405,000 67 -12.1% $490,500 6 -23.4%
Unincorporated County nfa n/a nfa nfa nfa nfa
Urba n County nfa nfa nfa nfa nfa nfa
Entitlement Jurisdictions nfa nfa nfa nfa nfa nfa
Santa Clara County $447,000 4,918 -42% $294,500 1,645 -45%
(a) 2009 data includes January to May 2009. Median sales price and sales wlume based on full and wrified sales
in zip codes associated with each jurisdiction.
Source: OataQuick, 2009; BAE, 2009.
RentalAlarketTrends
A review of rental market conditions in the Entitlement Jurisdictions was conducted using data
from RealFacts, a private data vendor that collects quarterly rental data from apartment complexes
with 50 or more units. For the purposes of this analysis, the Entitlement Jurisdictions were divided
into four sub-areas, described below.33
• North County: Palo Alto, Mountain View, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Sunnyvale
• Central County: Cupertino, Santa Clara, San Jose, Campbell
33
The four regions do not include the City of Milpitas.
70
• Central West County: Saratoga, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno
• South County: Morgan Hill, Gilroy
Table 4.33 shows rental market characteristics for these four geographies while Appendix F
provides more detailed market conditions for each sub-area. During the second quarter of 2009,
monthly rents were highest on an overall and per square foot basis in Central West County while
rental housing was most affordable in South County. The average monthly rent in Central West
County was $1,975, compared to $1,409 in South County.
With the exception of North County, monthly rents have increased across the Entitlement
Jurisdictions since 2007. Rent increases were the largest in the more affluent Central West County,
rising by eight percent between 2007 and 2009. Central County and South County experienced
more modest increases of approximately one percent during the same time period. These rent
increases parallel regional trends in the residential rental market, as potential homebuyers have
continued to rent until the for-sale housing market recovers, the larger economy rebounds, and/or
credit markets loosen. However, as the recession continues, average asking rents may decrease in
response to rising unemployment and reduced household spending. The North County already
shows signs of this trend, with a sharp increase in vacancies ( discussed below) and a corresponding
decline in average rents.
Table 4.33: Rental Market Characteristics, 2Q 2009
North Central Central South
Coun~ (a) Coun~ (a) West (a) County (a)
Awrage Rent $1,568 $1,542 $1,975 $1,409
Awrage Unit Size 807 861 892 865
Awrage RentlSq Ft $1.94 $1.79 $2.21 $1.63
% Change in Monthly
Rent, 2007-2009 -3.0% 0.6% 7.7% 1.2%
Vacancy Rate
2007 2.9% 3.4% 9.0% 10.0%
2009 5.1% 5.~% 4.8% 5.1%
Notes:
(a) The geographic regions are defined as follows:
North County: Palo Alto, Mountain View, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Sunnyvale
Central County: Cupertino, Santa Clara, San Jose, Campbell
Central West: Saratoga, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno
South County: Morgan Hill, Gilroy
Sources: Real Facts , 2009; BAE, 2009.
Housing economists generally consider a rental vacancy of five percent as sufficient to provide
71
adequate choice and mobility for residents, and sufficient income for landlords. Higher rates result
in a depressed rental market, while lower rates begin to impinge on resident mobility and lead to
housing concerns such as overcrowding and overpayment. During the second quarter of 2009,
vacancy rates across the Entitlement Jurisdictions ranged from five to six percent, meeting the
benchmark for a "healthy" rental market. Historically, vacancy rates have fluctuated; in 2007,
North and Central County vacancy rates were approximately three percent while Central West and
South County had higher rates of nine percent and 10 percent, respectively.
Housing Affordability for Various Income Groups
Affordability is generally discussed in the context of households with different income levels.
Households are categorized by HUD as extremely low-income, very low-income, or low-income
based on household size and percentages of the area Median Family Income (MFI). These income
limits are established annually by HUD. Federal, state, and local affordable housing programs
generally target households earning up to 80 percent ofMFI, though some programs also provide
assistance to households earning up to 120 percent ofMFI. The HUD-defined income categories
are presented below:
• Extremely Low-Income: Up to 30 percent of County MFI
• Very Low-Income: 31 percent to 50 percent of County MFI
• Low-Income: 51 percent to 80 percent of County MFI
For-Sale Housing. Table 4.34 shows affordability scenarios for four-person households with
extremely low-, very low-, and low-incomes. This analysis compares the maximum affordable sale
price for each of these households to the market rate prices for three-bedroom units in the four sub
county regions described earlier between April 28, 2009 and July 28,2009.
34
The maximum affordable sales price was calculated using household income limits published by
HUD, conventional financing terms, and assuming that households spend 30 percent of gross
income on mortgage payments, taxes, and insurance. Appendix G shows the detailed calculations
used to derive the maximum affordable sales price for single-family residences and condominiums.
Affordability of market rate housing varies across Santa Clara County. As shown in Table 4.34,
the maximum affordable sales price for a low-income, four-person household seeking to purchase a
single-family home is $353,500. In North County and Central West County, approximately five
percent of three-bedroom homes sold on the market up to this price point. By comparison, single
family homes in Central County and South County were somewhat more affordable.
Approximately 33 percent of Central County homes and 56 percent of South County homes sold
34
Due to the high sales volume in Central County, analysis for this geography is based on full and verified sales
of three-bedroom units sold between June 28,2009 and July 28,2009.
72
for $353,500 or less.
The maximum affordable sales price for condominiums is slightly lower than the price for single
family homes because monthly homeowners association (HOA) fees are factored into the
calculation, thereby reducing the amount available for mortgage payments. The maximum
affordable condominium sales price for a four-person low-income household is $286,900. Similar
to the single-family residential market, a larger proportion of condominiums were affordable to
low-income households in Central County and South County; approximately 42 percent of three
bedroom condominiums in Central County and 50 percent of units in South County fell within the
affordable price range. By comparison, just 11 percent of North County condominiums and none
of the Central West condominiums sold on the market for less than $286,900.
73
Table 4.34: Affordability of Market Rate For-Sale Housing in Santa Clara County
Single-Family Residences
Income Level
Extremely Low-Income (Up to 30% MR)
Very Low-Income (Up to 50% MFI)
Low-Income (Up to 80% MFI)
Median Sale Price
Number of Un~s Sold
Condominiums
Income Level
Extremely Low-Income (Up to 30% MFI)
Very Low-Income (Up to 50% MFI)
Low-Income (Up to 80% MFI)
Median Sale Price
Number of Un~s Sold
Notes:
Income
Limit (a)
$31,850
$53,050
$84,900
Income
Limit (a)
$31,850
$53,050
$84,900
Max. Affordable
Sale Price (b)
$132,600
$220,900
$353,500
Max. Affordable
Sale Price (b)
$66,000
$154,300
$286,900
Percent of SFRs on Market within Price Range (c)
North Central Central West South
County (d) County (d) (e) County (d) County (d)
1.4% 1.8% 0.0% 2.0%
1.8% 7.4% 0.0% 16.8%
5.0% 32.5% 4.5% 55.7%
$836,000 $450,000 $980,000 $330,000
219 338 67 149
Percent of Condos on Market within Price Range (c)
North Central Central West South
County (d) County (d) (e) County (d) County (d)
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
1.6% 11.7% 0.0% 0.0%
11.1% 41.6% 0.0% 50.0%
$625,000 $351,200 $662,500 $305,000
63 77 14 14
(a) Income limits published by U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for four-person household in Santa Clara County, 2009.
(b) Assumptions used to calculate affordable sales price:
Annual Interest Rate (Fixed)
Term of mortgage (Years)
Percent of sale price as down payment
Initial property tax (annual)
Mortgage I nsurance as percent of loan amount
Annual homeowner's insurance rate as percent of sale
6.53%
30
20%
1%
0.00%
0.12%
Homeowners Association Fee (monthly) $400
PITI = Principal, Interest, Taxes, and Insurance
Percent of household income available for PITI 30%
Freddie Mac historical monthly Primary Mortgage Market
Survey data tables. Ten-year average.
CA Dept. of I nsurance webs~e, based on average of all quotes,
assuming $150,000 of coverage and a 26-40 yearold home.
(c) Analysis based on all full and verified sales of three-bedroom units between April 28,2009 and July 28, 2009.
(d) The geographic regions are defined as follows:
North County: Palo Alto, Mountain View, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Sunnyvale
Central County: Cupertino, Santa Clara,San Jose, Campbell
Central West: Saratoga, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno
South County: Morgan Hill, Gilroy
(e) Due to the high sales volume in Central County, analysis for this geography is based on full and verified sales of three-bedroom
units sold between June 28,2009 and July 28,2009.
Sources: U.S. HUD, 2009; DataQuick, 2009; BAE, 2009.
This analysis indicates that current market prices remain an obstacle to homeownership for lower
income households in the North and Central West areas, in particular. Following the regional
decline in home values, single-family homes in Central and South County have become more
affordable.
It is important to note, however, that credit markets have tightened in tandem with the decline in
home values. As such, although homes have become more affordable, lender requirements for a
minimum down payment or credit score may present a greater obstacle for buyers today. More
accessible home loan products are available, including Federal Housing Administration (FHA)
74
loans. FHA loans are insured by the federal government, and have traditionally allowed lower
income households to purchase a home that they could not otherwise afford. However, interviews
with lenders suggest that many households are not aware of these programs. Moreover, many loan
officers prefer to focus on conventional mortgages because of the added time and effort associated
with processing and securing approval on a FHA loan.35
Rental Housing. Table 4.35 compares the maximum affordable monthly rent with the average
market rents in the four sub-county areas for households of various sizes. Maximum affordable
monthly rents assumed that households pay 30 percent of their gross income on rent and utilities.
With a few exceptions, market rate rents are roughly comparable to the maximum affordable rents
for low-income households across the Entitlement Jurisdictions. In most cases, the maximum
affordable monthly rent for low-income households ~xceeded the average monthly rent during the
second quarter of 2009. Exceptions include market rate rental units for small households in Central
West County and for four-person households in North County and Central County.
Across the Entitlement Jurisdictions, the average market rate rent far exceeds the maximum
affordable rent for very low-and extremely low-income households. These households would
need to spend substantially more than 30 percent of their gross income to afford market rate rental
housing. For very low-income households the gap between the affordable monthly rent and the
average market rent ranges from $262 for a three-person household in South County to $1,063 a
month for a four-person household in North County.
35
Thompson, Samuel, Chase Bank, phone interview with BAE, July 8, 2009.
75
Table 4.35: Affordability of Market Rate Rental Housing in Santa Clara
County
Household Size (a)
1 person 2 person 3 person 4 person
Average Market Rate Rent (b)
North County
Central County
Central West County
South County
Maximum Affordable Monthly Rent
Extremely Low Income (30% AMI)
Household Income (c)
Max. Affordable Monthly Rent (d)
Very Low Income (50% AMI)
Household Income (c)
Max. Affordable Monthly Rent (d)
Low Income (80% AMI)
Household Income (c)
Max. Affordable Monthly Rent (d)
Notes:
$1,396
$1,353
$1,816
$1,231
$22,300
$445
$37,150
$816
$59,400
$1,372
$1,396
$1,353
$1,816
$1,231
$25,500
$525
$42,450
$948
$67,900
$1,585
(a) The following unit sizes are assumed based on household size:
1 person - 1 bedroom/1 bathroom
2 person - 1 bedroom/1 bathroom
3 person - 2 bedroom/1 bathroom
4 person - 3 bedroom/2 bathrooms
(b) Reported by Real Facts for 202009.
$1,547
$1,496
$1,569
$1,327
$28,650
$587
$47,750
$1,065
$76,400
$1,781
(c) Household income published by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development for Santa Clara County, 2009
$2,213
$2,159
n/a
$1,583
$31,850
$620
$53,050
$1,150
$84,900
$1,947
(d) Assumes 30 percent of income spent on rent and utilities. Utility costs based on utlility
allowance for multifamily dwelling established by Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara.
Sources: U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development, 2009; RealFacts, 2009;
Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara, 2009; BAE, 2009.
Overpayment
According to HUD standards, a household is considered "cost-burdened" (Le., overpaying for
housing) if it spends more than 30 percent of gross income on housing-related costs. Households
are "severely cost burdened" if they pay more than 50 percent of their income on housing costs.
Countywide, approximately 31 percent of households overpaid for housing in 2000. The incidence
of overpayment was higher for renters than owners, with 36 percent of renter households and 28
percent of owner households spending more than 30 percent of their income on housing costs.
The rate of overpayment varied slightly across jurisdictions. However, with the exception of
76
Monte Sereno, renter households were uniformly more likely to be cost burdened than owner
households throughout the Entitlement Jurisdictions. The incidence of overpayment among renter
households was highest in San Jose and Los Altos Hills, where 39 percent and 42 percent of
households were cost burdened, respectively. Gilroy and Monte Sereno had the highest rate of
overpayment among homeowners, at 34 percent.
During the current economic downturn, the rate of overpayment may have increased due to rising
unemployment. Unfortunately, more recent data on overpayment is unavailable.
Table 4.36: Overpayment by Jurisdiction, 2000
Percent of Households Spending More than 30%
of Income on Housing
Owners Renters All Households
Cupertino 26.2% 31.1% 28.0%
Gilroy 34.1% 34.7% 34.3%
Mountain View 28.6% 31.9% 30.5%
Palo Alto 21.7% 37.0% 28.3%
San Jose 29.0% 39.4% 33.0%
Santa Clara 23.4% 33.1% 28.6%
Sunnyvale 25.4% 29.2% 27.4%
Urban County
Campbell 27.8% 38.0% 33.1%
Los Altos 23.9% 38.6% 25.9%
Los Altos Hills 31.7% 42.3% 32.5%
Los Gatos 30.8% 34.4% 32.1%
Monte Sereno 33.8% 29.0% 33.5%
Morgan Hill 30.0% 36.7% 31.8%
Saratoga 26.9% 28.2% 27.0%
Unincorporated County 29.0% 35.8% 31.1%
Urban County 28.4% 36.2% 30.7%
Entitlement Jurisdictions 28.0% 36.1% 31.3%
Santa Clara County 27.9% 36.1% 31.2%
Sources: HUD, State of the Cities Data System: Comprehensiw Housing
Affordability Strategy (CHAS) special tabulations from Census 2000; BAE; 2009.
Overcrowding
A lack of affordable housing can result in overcrowded households. The U.S. Census defines
"overcrowding" as more than one person per room, excluding bathrooms and kitchens. Table 4.37
shows the overcrowding rate among renters and owners by jurisdiction in Santa Clara County. In
2000, approximately 14 percent of all households countywide were overcrowded. Overcrowding
was substantially higher among renters than owners, with 23 percent of renters and eight percent of
owner households living in overcrowded situations.
77
The prevalence of overcrowding varied across the County. Overall, the rate of overcrowding in the
Urban County is lower than the rate for the County as a whole; three percent of owner households
and 14 percent of renter households in the Urban County lived in overcrowded situations in 2000.
Overcrowding was particularly high among renter households in Gilroy and San Jose, where 38
percent and 29 percent of households were overcrowded, respectively.
As with overpayment, rising unemployment and foreclosures may contribute to greater
overcrowding rates in Entitlement Jurisdictions. However, more current data on overcrowding is
unavailable.
Table 4.37: Overcrowding by Jurisdiction, 2000
All
Owners Renters Households
Cupertino 5.2% 17.3% 9.6%
Gilroy 6.9% 37.5% 18.7%
Mountain View 3.7% 16.7% 11.3%
Palo Alto 1.7% 7.4% 4.2%
San Jose 11.5% 29.3% 18.3%
Santa Clara 6.2% 21.1% 14.3%
Sunnyvale 5.4% 19.9% 13.0%
Urban County
Campbell 3.2% 11.6% 7.5%
Los Altos 1.0% 3.4% 1.4%
Los Altos Hills 0.0% 6.9% 0.5%
Los Gatos 0.9% 5.7% 2.6%
Monte Sereno 1.3% 12.7% 2.0%
Morgan Hill 3.4% 21.0% 8.2%
Saratoga 1.3% 8.3% 2.0%
Unincorporated County 6.8% 19.3% 10.7%
Urban County 3.4% 13.8% 6.4%
Entitlement Jurisdictions 8.0% 23.1% 14.1%
Santa Clara County 8.2% 23.3% 14.3%
Sources: U.S. Census, SF3 H20, 2000; BAE, 2009.
Foreclosures
Due to a variety of interrelated factors, including an increase in subprime lending activity in recent
years, California and the nation are currently undergoing an unprecedented wave of foreclosures.
During the third quarter of2009, approximately 3,890 homeowners in the Entitlement Jurisdictions
received notices of default, the fIrst step in the foreclosure process. This represents a 45 percent
increase in the number of defaults since the third quarter of 2008. In addition, 789 fIlings for bank
owned properties in the Entitlement Jurisdictions were recorded by the County Assessor in the
third quarter of2009, a signal that these homes were lost to foreclosure. As a positive sign, this
78
figure represents a 55 percent decline in recorded trustee deeds from the third quarter of2008, an
indication that the rate of foreclosures has slowed (see Table 4.38). Greater willingness among
lenders to formulate "workout" solutions for mortgages in arrears, as well as foreclosure prevention
efforts by the federal, State, and local government have contributed, to this trend.
For example, the City of San Jose Housing Department has established ForeclosureHelp to provide
information and referral services to assist families impacted by foreclosure and to help them
navigate the foreclosure process. Services are mainly provided to San Jose Metropolitan area
residents and include prevention, intervention and family re-stabilization. Staff report that their
services have also been offered beyond the immediate area to assist residents in southern Santa
Clara County and Santa Cruz County. Under the program, staff meet with homeowners at risk of
foreclosure to determine their circumstances and connect them to the appropriate resources,
including HUD-certified foreclosure prevention counselors, nonprofit legal services, emergency
financial assistance and other housing services.
Table 4.38: Foreclosure Filings by Jurisdiction, Q3 2008, Q3 2009
Notices of Default Bank Owned Properties
Q32008 Q32009 % Change Q32008 Q3 2009 % Change
Cupertino 15 27 80% 3 3 0%
Gilroy 188 221 18% 152 49 -68%
Mou ntai n View 15 50 233% 14 11 -21%
Palo Alto 11 18 64% 3 200%
San Jose 2,081 2,874 38% 1,421 600 -58%
Santa Clara 110 186 69% 48 39 -19%
Sunnyvale 77 148 92% 35 22 -37%
Urban County
Campbell 37 80 116% 21 14 -33%
Los Altos 5 14 180% 1 1 0%
Los Altos Hills 0 0 0% 0 0 0%
Los Gatos 33 70 112% 12 15 25%
Monte Sereno 3 4 33% 0 -100%
Morgan Hill 101 167 65% 57 29 -49%
Saratoga 16 34 113% 2 3 50%
Total 2,692 3,893 45% 1,768 789 -55%
Source: City of San Jose, 2009; BAE, 2009.
4.7 Public and Assisted Housing
Public Housing
The Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara (HACSC) provides public housing and rental
assistance for low-income families, seniors, and persons with disabilities in the County. HACSC
also administers and manages the public housing program for the City of San Jose Housing
79
Authority through an agreement between both agencies. Table 4.39 provides a list of public
housing developments owned by HAeSe, including those in San Jose. As shown, there are nine
public housing developments, including two developments for families, four developments for
seniors, and three developments for persons with disabilities. In total, HAeSe's public housing
projects have 555 units, the majority of which have one-bedroom.
HAese reports a waitlist of approximately 4,000 households for the two family developments
'located in San Jose. The waitlist for seniors and disabled individuals are done on a per
development basis. Senior and disabled individuals apply to each development directly. Each
senior and disabled development has a waitlist ranging from 200 to 500 individuals. All waitlists
have been closed since 2006. The length of these waitlists is indicative of the demand and need for
affordable units serving lower-income households in the County.
80
Table 4.39: Public Housing Developments, Santa Clara County
Name
Family
Julian Gardens
Lucretia Gardens
Senior
Rincon Gardens
Sunset Gardens
Cypress Gardens
Lenzen Gardens
Disabled
Deborah Drive Apts
Eklund Gardens
Miramar Apartments
Total Units
WaitJist (b)
Family
Senior
Disabled
Notes:
Location
San Jose
San Jose
Campbell
Gilroy
San Jose
San Jose
Santa Clara
Santa Clara
Santa Clara
!mil
9
16
200
75
125
94
4
16
16
555
4,000
200-500
200-500
Number of
Bedrooms
1-BR £§.B 3-BR
0 0 9
0 16
190 10 0
70 5 0
111 14 0
89 5 0
2 2 0
10 6
8 8 0
470 54 31
per development
per d evelo pme nt
Year
.l!!!!!L Details
1994
1994
1981 19 un~s are ADA-accessible
1982 8 units are ADA-accessible.
1984 13 un~s are ADA-accessible
1984 9 units are ADA-accessible
1998
1997
1998
(a) The Housing Author~ plans to convert all public housing units to tax cred~ units. As of September 2009, six
developments are involved in the dispos~ion process, which wi" convert to tax cred~ units by the end of 2009.
(b) Waitlist varies depending on un~ type. A" wa~lists have been closed since 2006.
Family housing applicants are placed in one large applicant pool, senior and disabled applicants apply to
public housing developments directly, resulting in a range of wait listed individuals due to desirabil~ of certain
projects over others.
Sources: Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara website, 2009; Phone conversation with HACSC,
September 17,2009; BAE, 2009.
HACSC is in the process of rehabilitating its properties and converting all nine public housing
developments into low-income housing tax credit (LIHTC) units and/or project-based Section 8
units. The Housing Authority has received funding from HUD to rehabilitate the properties.
Improvements at the developments will include compliance with the accessibility requirements
under Section 504.36 The rehabilitation process will be conducted in phases, allowing households
to continue occupying portions of the development that are not under construction. Families
36
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 prohibits the discrimination on the basis of a disability in any
program or activity that receives federal assistance, including HUD. In 1982 HAeSe's conducted a Section 504
needs assessment and determined that its properties were in compliance. Several years later, HAeSe passed a
Section 504 audit.
81
currently living in public housing will be eligible to receive tenant-based Section 8 vouchers and
will be free to use the voucher at the rehabilitated public housing development or at another
location of their choosing.
37
Section 8
HACSC and HUD also offer rental assistance for lower income households through the Section 8
Voucher program.
38
Under the voucher program, HACSC issues an eligible household a voucher
and the household selects a unit of its choice. There are no residency requirements when applying
for Section 8 vouchers, though local residents receive a preference over non-residents. HUD also
provides project-based Section 8 vouchers associated with particular developments. Table 4.40
summarizes this data for Santa Clara County. As shown, there are 15,228 tenant-based and 5,642
project-based vouchers in the Entitlement Jurisdictions. HACSC administers 6,429 vouchers for
the City of San Jose Housing Authority. 39 The number of vouchers in the City of San Jose exceeds
the number of vouchers issued by the City's Housing Authority because households receiving
tenant-based vouchers from HACSC may also choose to locate in San Jose. Table 4.40 reports
where voucher holders reside, regardless of who issues the voucher.
37
Rivera, Claudia, Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara, Phone interview with BAE, September 19'
2009.
38
HACSC administers and manages the Section 8 program for the City of San Jose Housing Authority.
39
City of San Jose, Annual Action Plan 2009-2010, July 29,2009, Page 21.
82
Table 4.40: Project-and Tenant-Based Section 8 Vouchers
Section 8
Te na nt-Project-Section 8
Based Based (a) Total Percent
Cupertino 50 127 177 0.8%
Gilroy 759 249 1,008 4.7%
Mountain View 378 366 744 3.4%
Palo Alto 202 643 845 3.9%
San Jose 11,683 2,964 14,647 67.7%
Santa Clara 795 109 904 4.2%
Sunnyvale 599 423 1,022 4.7%
Urban County
Campbell 372 449 821 3.8%
Los Altos Hills 2 2 0.0%
Los Gatos 61 112 173 0.8%
Morgan Hill 300 30 330 1.5%
Saratoga 6 170 176 0.8%
Unincorporated County
San Martin 19 19 0.1%
AI~so 2 2 0.0%
Urban County Total 762 761 1,523 7.0%
Entitlement Jurisdictions 15,228 5,642 20,870 96.5%
Santa Clara County Total 15,839 5,791 21,630 100.0%
Section 8 Waiting List (b) 53,369
Note:
(a) Project-based Section 8 wuchers include those issued by HACSC in addition to those
issued through HUD's Section 8 Multifamily Program.
(b) Waitlist and Section 8 data current through October 5, 2009.
Sources: Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara, 2009; Section 8 Multifamily
Program Vouchers, HUD, Region IX, October 2009; BAE, 2009
Subsidized Housing
In addition to public housing, there are other federal, state, and local programs that subsidize rental
housing for lower-income households. These funding sources include low-income housing tax
credits, project-based Section 8, HOME, CDBG, HOPW A, and redevelopment agency funds,
among others. Table 4.41 lists the subsidized units within Entitlement Jurisdictions. As shown,
there are 324 subsidized developments within the Entitlement Jurisdictions, providing a total of
24,162 units. Within the County and among Entitlement Jurisdictions, subsidized units represented
approximately 10 percent of all rental units. However, this figure varied significantly across
jurisdictions. Figure 4.8 illustrates the locations of the subsidized housing and public housing in
Santa Clara County.
83
Table 4.41: Subsidized Rental Housing by Jurisdiction
Subsidized Rental Housing Total Units as
Number of Number of Rental Percent Total
Developments Units Units Rental Units
Cupertino 16 330 6,689 4.9%
Gilroy 14 738 5,460 13.5%
Mountain View 13 1,083 18,244 5.9%
Palo Alto 29 1,456 11,283 12.9%
San Jose 155 16,022 113,974 14.1%
Santa Clara 20 1,254 23,102 5.4%
Sunnyvale 29 1,409 27,959 5.0%
Urban County
Campbell 12 629 8,286 7.6%
Los Altos 5 22 1,572 1.4%
Los Altos Hills 172 NA
Los Gatos 10 275 4,336 6.3%
Monte Sereno 71 NA
Morgan Hill 18 774 3,482 22.2%
Saratoga 3 170 1,083 15.7%
Unincorporated County 10,076 NA
Urban County Total 48 1,870 29,078 6.4%
Entitlement Jurisdictions 324 24,162 235,789 10.2%
Santa Clara County Total 335 25,005 241,552 10.4%
Sources: Draft Housing Elements, 2009; HUD LlHTC Database, 2009; City of San Jose, 2009; HUD Region IX, 2009;
City of San Jose, HCD, Rental Listings 2009; California Redewlopment Agencies FY 2007-08
New Construction Housing Acti\Aty Report; Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara (HACSC),
2009; Claritas, 2009; BAE, 2009.
84
Figure 4.8: Subsidized Rental Housing by Jurisdiction
San
Mateo
County
Legend
Subsidized Housing
• Located outside 1/4 mi. of transit
• Located within 1/4 mi. of transit
Public Housing
• Located outside 1/4 mi. of Transit
• Located within 1/4 mi. of Transit
Santa Cruz County
I ;i;i"":·':,:,i.?:'::C'
Alameda County
Santa Clara County
Many subsidized affordable housing developments receive government funding that requires units be
made affordable for a specified amount of time. Table 4.42 lists affordable developments owned by
for-profit entities that are at-risk of converting to market rate in the next five years. There are other
properties whose affordability requirements are set to expire in the next five years that are owned by
nonprofit organizations. However, these developments are considered to be lower risk because of
the nonprofits' commitment and mission to preserve affordability. Among Entitlement Jurisdictions,
Gilroy40, Los Gatos, Palo Alto, and San Jose have at-risk developments. As shown, there are nine
40
It should be noted that the Parkview Apartments in Gilroy has a one year contract with HUD for affordability
that is renewed annually.
85
developments with 1,165 affordable units that have affordability requirements that will expire by the
end of2011.
Table 4.42: Affordable Rental Units at Risk of Conversion to
Market-Rate, Santa Clara County, 2009
Affordable
Name Units Expiration Date
Gilroy
Park\Aew Apartments 54 March 31,2010
Los Gatos
Villa Vasona Apartments 107 May 31,2010
Palo Alto
Terman Apartments 92 July 31, 2010
San Jose
Mayfair Golden Manor 210 September 30,2010
Arbor Apartments 122 August 31,2010
San Jose Apartments 214 September 30, 2011
San Jose Gardens 162 April 30, 2010
Las Casitas 168 February 28, 2011
Almaden Garden Apartments 36 August 31, 2011
Total Units at Risk of Conversion 1,165
Sources: California Housing Partnership Corporation, July, 2009;
City of San Jose, 2009; BAE, 2009.
4.8 Barriers to Affordable Housing
Governmental and non-governmental constraints may act as barriers to affordable housing.
Governmental constraints may include land use policies governed by local general plans and zoning
ordinances. The largest non-governmental constraints are market-related factors, such as land and
construction costs and the accessibility of financing.
Governmental Constraints
Government regulations can affect housing availability and costs by limiting the supply of buildable
land, setting standards and allowable densities for development, and exacting development fees.
Growth Management Programs
County Growth Management Programs. Growth management programs are intended to curb
urban sprawl and promote well-planned development in areas that have access to necessary public
infrastructure, facilities, and services. These programs can come in the form of an urban growth
86
boundary (UGB), which establishes a boundary within which urban development should be
concentrated, or as an overall cap on new residential development. While growth management
programs are intended to promote well-planned development, they may act as a constraint to the
extent they limit new housing production and prevent a jurisdiction from addressing its housing
needs.
The "joint urban development policies," the growth management policies shared by Santa Clara
County, the cities, and the Local Agency Formation Committee, stipulate that urban development for
all land use categories be located within cities or their Urban Service Areas (USAs). These policies
are not considered a constraint to new housing production. The joint urban development policies
stipulate that the County will only allow non-urban land uses and densities of development, such as
agriculture, low density residential, and open space uses, outside of the USAs and the city
boundaries. These policies focus new urban development in existing urban areas, preserve rural
character, natural resources, and open space, and limit the demand for new public services and
infrastructure. The joint urban development policies have been mutually agreed upon and
implemented by the cities, County, and LAFCO since the mid_1970s.41
Local Growth Management Programs. The cities of Gilroy, San Jose, and Morgan Hill have
established growth management programs as well.
The City of Gilroy's Residential Development Ordinance (RDO) places a numerical limit on the
number of building permits which can be issued each year for residential dwelling units. Every ten
years the City Council considers economic, public service, environmental, housing, and other
relevant information and determines annual numerical limits for the next ten years. Between 2004
and 2013, the annual numerical limit ranges from 163 units to 398 units, for a total of2,480 market
rate units over ten years. In addition, the RDO allows for 970 exempt housing units during the 2004
to 2013 time period. Exempt units include small projects with 12 or fewer units, replacement
dwelling units, affordable projects sponsored by a nonprofit organization, senior housing, and
transitional housing, among other projects. The City of Gilroy recognizes that the RDO program
may constrain the development of affordable housing. As such, its General Plan update process has
focused on a number of strategies to reconfigure the RDO program in a manner that supports
affordable housing goals while achieving other important community goals.
42
For example, under the
City's adopted Downtown Specific Plan, 1,576 residential units are projected to be constructed
within a 20-year period. These units are counted separately from the RDOs market rate and exempt
units. This area has potential for housing to be built at densities that position units to be affordable.
The City of San Jose has a GreenlinelUrban Growth Boundary (UGB) and an Urban Service Area
41
County of Santa Clara, County o/Santa Clara Housing Element Update 2009-2014, Administrative Draft, June
9, 2009, Pages 64 to 65.
42
City of Gilroy, Housing Element, Pages 3-27 to 3-30.
87
(USA) to define the perimeter of development and urbanization in the City. As part of the City's
Growth Management Strategy, the UGB defines the ultimate perimeter of development and preserves
open space resources. The UGB generally follows the 15 percent slope line of the hillsides
surrounding San Jose, excluding land subject to geologic or seismic hazards that are inappropriate for
urban development. In addition to the UGB, the City's Urban Service Area defines the area that is
served by existing urban facilities, utilities and services or is expected to be served within the next
five years. Together, the UGB and USA policies determine the timing and location of future urban
development and the extension of urban services to ensure both occur in a timely manner. Although
the UGB and USA reduce the supply of developable land in the City, the programs are necessary to
achieve important planning goals. To offset higher land costs due to the boundaries, the City's
General Plan incorporates Discretionary Alternate Use policies and required minimum densities to
facilitate increased residential densities and achieve higher economic feasibility through higher
density development.43
The City of Morgan Hill maintains the Residential Development Control System (RDCS), a growth
control policy that determines the number of residential permits that can be issued annually.
Building allocations are awarded on a fiscal year basis based on a formula which determines the
desired population increase for the City each year and translates that figure into a maximum number
of dwelling units. Currently, this formula allows approximately 250 dwelling units to be constructed
each year. Permits for residential development are typically reviewed once a year through a
competitive process. The allocation is based on an objective point system that addresses 14 criteria,
including design, diversity of housing types, affordable housing, and the potential impact on public
facilities, traffic, infrastructure, and public services. Developers receive additional points to projects
that commit five to ten percent of the total number of units for low-and moderate-income
households. The City is in the process of preparing its current Housing Element, which will include
programs to mitigate the RDCS constraint on housing production, particularly affordable units.
Local Land Use Controls and Regulations
Zoning Ordinance Restrictions. Jurisdictions' zoning ordinances establishes permitted uses and
development standards for zoning districts in accordance with the General Plan. The ordinances
specify the zones in which residential development is permitted and the development standards
projects must adhere to. Most of the jurisdictions within the County have zoning ordinances which
allow for a variety of housing types. However, a few of the smaller, rural jurisdictions do not permit
multifamily housing in any zoning district. Because multifamily housing is often more affordable
than single-family housing, zoning ordinances that restrict this type of development may limit
housing opportunities for lower-income households and special needs populations, raising a fair and
affordable housing concern. The Urban County jurisdictions of Los Altos Hills and Monte Sereno
do not permit multifamily housing in an effort to maintain their communities' rural residential
characters. These jurisdictions do, however, permit second units, which in certain circumstances
43
City of San Jose, Draft San Jose Housing Element Update 2007-2014, June 5, 2009, Pages C42 to C43.
88
may provide more affordable housing opportunities.
Other jurisdictions have provisions in their zoning ordinances that may limit the production of
multifamily housing. In the City of Saratoga, Measure G, a voter approved initiative passed in 1996,
requires that certain amendments to the Land Use Element be made by a vote of the people.
Amendments that re-designate residential land to commercial, industrial or other land use
designations, that increase densities or intensities of residential land use, or that re-designate
recreational open space to other land use designations must be authorized by a vote of residents. The
goal o(this Measure is to protect residential and recreational open space lands and does not affect the
City's regulations authorizing second dwelling units or its Housing Element update process, required
under State law. 44
Second Unit Regulations. Second units, also known as accessory dwelling units (ADUs) are self
contained apartments with a kitchen, bathroom, and sleeping facilities that are attached to a single
family residence or located on the same property as the principal residence. Due to their smaller
sizes, second units may provide affordable housing opportunities for lower-income households,
seniors, and/or disabled individuals. Local land use regulations that constrain the development of
second units may therefore have a negative impact on housing for special needs populations.
State law requires local jurisdictions to either adopt ordinances that establish the conditions under
which second units will be permitted or to follow the State law provisions governing second units
(Government Code, Section 65852.2). Cities typically establish regulations governing the size,
location, and parking of second units. No local jurisdiction can adopt an ordinance that totally
precludes the development of second units unless the ordinance contains findings acknowledging
that allowing second units may limit housing opportunities of the region and result in adverse
impacts on public health, safety, and welfare. Furthermore, AB 1866 amended the State's second
unit law in 2003, requiring jurisdictions to use a ministerial, rather than discretionary process, for
approving second units.
In compliance with State law, the County and the Entitlement Jurisdictions have updated zoning
provisions pertaining to second units to approve second units at an administrative level. In addition
to encouraging the production of second units to meet affordable housing needs, some jurisdictions
specifically require second units to be affordable for lower-income households. For example, the
City of Los Altos requires second units be deed-restricted and maintained as affordable for very low
or low-income households.
Regulations Governing Emergency Shelters and Transitional Housing. Local land use controls
can constrain the availability of emergency shelters and transitional housing for homeless individuals
and shelters if these uses are not permitted in any zoning district or if additional discretionary permits
44
City of Saratoga, Draft 2007-2014 Housing Element, April 29, 2009, Page 31.
89
are required for their approval. SB2, a state law that became effective on January 1,2008, sought to
address this potential constraint by strengthening planning requirements around emergency shelters
and transitional housing. The law requires all jurisdictions to identify a zone where emergency
shelters are permitted by right without a conditional use permit or other discretionary permit. In
addition, transitional and permanent supportive housing must be considered a residential use and
only be subjected to restrictions that apply to other residential uses of the same type in the same
45 zone.
In Unincorporated Santa Clara County, emergency shelters operating within an existing or proposed
single-family residence in an Rl, RIE, RHS, RlS, R2, or R3 zone are permitted by right. New
multi-family residential development for emergency shelter use is allowed in the RlS, R3S, and R3
zones, with Architecture and Site Approval (ASA). The ASA process is designed to ensure that
development standards for setbacks, parking, fire, water, sewer, and other site requirements are met.
The County will also pursue amendments to its Zoning Ordinance to allow emergency shelters
within existing, permitted Religious Institutions, Non-profit Institutions, and Community Care
Expanded facilities as an ancillary use, allowed by right without additional discretionary land use
approvals, subject to certain maximum occupancy and minimum management
standards/requirements appropriate to each use and facility type.
Other Entitlement Jurisdictions have programs in their Housing Elements that will allow for
emergency shelters in at least one zoning jurisdiction and treat transitional and supportive housing
like other residential uses, as required by SB2. The cities of Los Gatos and Monte Sereno are
meeting the requirements of SB2 by entering into an agreement to develop at least one permanent
emergency shelter within two years that would serve both jurisdictions.
It should be noted that while jurisdictions are in compliance or working to become compliant with
state law regulating emergency shelters, the countywide priority is to provide permanent supportive
housing rather than new emergency shelters. As discussed previously, jurisdictions support the
Housing First model, which emphasizes permanent housing with services to help homeless
individuals achieve stability.
Regulations for Community Care Facilities. Local zoning ordinances also may affect the
availability of housing for persons for community care facilities serving special needs populations.
In particular, zoning ordinances often include provisions regulating community care facilities and
outlining processes for reasonable accommodation. The Lanterman Developmental Disabilities
Services Act requires local jurisdictions to treat licensed group homes and residential care facilities
with six or fewer residents no differently than other permitted single-family housing uses. Cities
45
California Department of Housing and Community Development, Memorandum: Senate Bill 2 -Legislation
Effective January 1,2008: Local Planning and Approval for Emergency Shelters and Transitional and Supportive
Housing, May 7,2008. http://www.hcd.ca.gov/hpd/housing element2/SB2memo071708 final.pdf
90
must allow these licensed residential care facilities in any area zoned for residential use and may not
require conditional use permits or other additional discretionary permits.
Consistent with State law, the County and most Entitlement Jurisdictions permit licensed community
care facilities for six or fewer residents by right in residential zones allowing single-family
residential uses.
Reasonable Accommodation Policies. Both the federal Fair Housing Act and the California Fair
Employment and Housing Act impose an affirmative duty on cities and counties to make reasonable
accommodations in their zoning and land use policies when such accommodations are necessary to
provide equal access to housing for persons with disabilities. Reasonable accommodations refer to
modifications or exemptions to particular policies that facilitate equal access to housing. Examples
include exemptions to setbacks for wheelchair access structures or reductions to parking
requirements.
Many jurisdictions do not have a specific process specifically designed for people with disabilities to
make a reasonable accommodations request. Rather, local governments provide disabled residents
relief from the strict terms of their zoning ordinances through existing variance or Conditional Use
Permit processes. Many of the Entitlement Jurisdictions currently address reasonable
accommodation requests in this manner.
In a May 15, 2001 letter, the California Attorney General recommended that local governments
adopt formal written procedures for handling reasonable accommodations requests. While
addressing reasonable accommodations requests through variances and Conditional Use Permits does
not violate fair housing laws, it does increase the risk of wrongfully denying a disabled applicant's
request for relief and incurring liability for monetary damages and penalties. Furthermore, reliance
on variances and use permits may encourage, in some circumstances, community opposition to
projects involving much needed housing for persons with disabilities.
46
Some cities, including the cities of Gilroy, Campbell, and San Jose have reasonable accommodations
procedures outlined in their zoning ordinances. Many other Entitlement Jurisdictions have programs
in their Housing Elements to develop formal reasonable accommodations procedures. These
jurisdictions include the cities of Cupertino, Sunnyvale, Monte Sereno, and Saratoga.
Parking Requirements. Parking requirements may serve as a constraint on housing development
by increasing development costs and reducing the amount of land available for project amenities or
additional units. Developers may be deterred from building new housing in jurisdictions with
particularly high parking ratios due to the added costs associated with such requirements. Some
46
Lockyer, Bill, California Attorney General, Letter to All California Mayors, May 15, 2001.
http://caag.statc.ca.lls/civilrights/pdflrcasonab I.pdf
91
jurisdictions provide opportunities for reduced parking ratios for affordable or senior housing,
housing for persons with disabilities, and projects located in close proximity to public transportation.
Cities that grant some form of parking reduction include Campbell, Cupertino, Gilroy, Los Altos,
Mountain View, Palo Alto, San Jose, and Saratoga. Other cities, such as Los Altos Hills, Santa
Clara, and Sunnyvale, have programs in their Housing Elements to reconsider existing parking
requirements within their zoning ordinances.
Permit and Development Impact Fees
Like cities throughout California, most jurisdictions in the County collect permit and development
impact fees to recover the capital costs of providing community services and the administrative costs
associated with processing applications. Depending on the jurisdiction, developers may be required
to pay school and transportation impact fees, sewer and water connection fees, building permit fees,
wastewater treatment plant fees, and a variety of handling and service charges. Development impact
fees may result in higher housing costs if developers pass fees on to homebuyers.
The Home Builders Association of Northern California prepared the South Bay Area Cost of
Development Survey, 2006-2007, which compares permit and development impact fees across Santa
Clara County jurisdictions. Total fees, including entitlement fees, construction fees, impact/capacity
fees, and development taxes, for a single family home in a 50 lot subdivision ranged from $27,000
per unit in Sunnyvale to $80,000 in Cupertino.47 While these fees may be a constraint to housing
production, they are necessary to provide adequate planning services and maintain public services
and facilities. Some jurisdictions provide fee waivers or reductions for affordable housing projects
or housing for special needs populations.
Article XXXIV of the California Constitutional
Article XXXIV of the California Constitution requires approval of the voters before any "low rent
housing project" can be "developed, constructed, or acquired" by any "state public body." Article 34
applies not only to publicly-owned low-income rental projects, but also to low-income rental projects
developed by private persons and non-profit entities using certain types of public financial
assistance. Most jurisdictions seek voter approval for a specified number or percentage of units,
rather than on a project-by by-project basis. Exclusions to Article 34 include privately-owned, non
exempt, lower-income developments with no more than 49 percent of the units reserved for lower
income households, and reconstruction of previously existing lower-income units.
In Santa Clara County, Measure A, passed in the November 1998 ballot, authorizes under Article
XXXIV of the California Constitution the development, acquisition or construction of low rent
housing units in annual amounts equal to 1110 of one percent of the total number of existing housing
units within the municipalities and urban service areas of the County of Santa Clara as of the 1990
47
Home Builders Association of Northern California, South Bay Area Cost of Development Survey, 2006-2007,
http://wvvw.sanjoseca.gov/dcvclopmcnt/docs/06-07 COD Survcy Results.pdf
92
census. The total number of units authorized each calendar year would be approximately 540. These
units would be for persons and families of low income, including elderly or disabled persons. If the
total annual allocation is not exhausted in any given year, the remaining number of units would be
carried over and added to the number allowed in future years.
Non-Governmental Constraints
In addition to governmental constraints, non-governmental factors may also constrain the production
of new affordable housing.
Supply of Available Land. In many Entitlement Jurisdictions, the limited availability of land for
housing development constrains new housing production. These constraints are particularly
challenging for cities that do not have the potential to annex additional land because they are
completely surrounded by other incorporated cities. As a result, new residential production will
largely occur as infill projects, often a more challenging and costly development type. It is worth
noting, however, that infill development offers the benefits of greater transit accessibility, the
redevelopment of underused sites, and the preservation of open space.
Land Costs. Due to the limited supply and high demand, land costs in Santa Clara County are
generally higher than most other places across California. Lo~al developers indicate that land prices
are slowly adjusting during this economic downturn. However, developers generally report that the
market is not efficient and land owners' expectations of what their land is worth declines slowly.
Unless land owners are compelled to sell their property, many will wait for the market to recover.
Construction Costs. In recent months, key construction costs (materials and labor) have fallen
nationally in conjunction with the declining residential real estate market. Figure 4.9 illustrates
construction cost trends for key materials based on the Producer Price Index, a series of indices
published by the U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics that measures the sales price
for specific commodities and products. Lumber prices have declined by 19 percent between 2004
and 2008. As shown in Figure 4.9, steel prices have fallen sharply since August 2008. Local
developers report that construction costs, including labor, have fallen by approximately 20 percent in
tandem with the weak housing market. 48
48
Papanastassiou, Andrea, Director of Real Estate Development, Eden Housing, Inc., phone interview with BAE,
July 14,2009.
93
Figure 4.9: Producer Price Index for Key Construction Costs
300
250
>< CI)
"C 200 .5
CI) u ·c a.. 150 ...
CI) u :::s
"C 100 e a..
50
0
m m m 0 0 T"" T"" C\I C\I ('I) ('I) ~ ~ ~ LO LO <0 <0 <0 ...... ...... 00 00 m m m m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
I I I .!. 6. .0 I I I I .!. I I I I .!. I .0 I I I I .!. I I c::: c::: > "5 0 ~ -Cl c::: c::: > a. "5 0 >. -C) c::: as :::l 0 a. Q) Q) Q) 0 as :::l as :::l 0 a. Q) Q) Q) ,as 0 as :::l as ...., ...., z « en IJ..
....,
Cl ~ 0 ~ « ...., ...., z « en IJ..
....,
Cl ~ 0 ~ « ....,
Month
-Materials and components for construction -Lumber ............ Steel Mill Products
Base year: 1982 = 100
Sources: U.S. Dept. of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2009; BAE, 2009
Availability of Financing. According to local affordable housing developers, the availability of
financing presents the biggest barrier to producing new subsidized housing. Although the cost of
land and construction have declined, the associated tightening of the credit market, and decline in
State and local subsidies have made it challenging for affordable housing developers to take
advantage of lower costs.
As a particularly salient concern, the value of low-income housing tax credits (LIHTC) has fallen in
tandem with the economy. Tax credit investors also now have an even greater preference for new
construction, family housing, and senior housing developments, perceived to be less risky than
rehabilitation projects and permanent supportive housing.49 With this loss in tax credit equity,
developers are forced to tum to the State and local agencies for greater subsidies. Unfortunately,
uncertainty around State and local finances and the expiration of programs funded by previous State
housing bonds limits funds from these sources as well. However, some additional funds are
available through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, which provides funding for
49
Sawislak, Dan, Executive Director, Resources for Community Development, phone interview with BAE, July
2,2009.
94
various housing programs, including the Community Development Block Grant and the Tax Credit
Assistance Program.
In addition to reduced LIHTC financing, local redevelopment agencies (RDAs) have reduced
funding available as a result of the State budget crisis. To balance the State's budget for fiscal year
2009-2010, RDAs across the state are required to pay $2.05 billion of tax increment otherwise due to
them to the State's Supplemental Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (SERAF) over the a two
year period. In order to make the SERAF payment, some RDAs may need to borrow from or
suspend payments to the Low and Moderate Income Fund, which supports affordable housing for
low-and moderate-income households.
50
As another financing challenge, the State's weak fiscal condition has led to uncertainty of future
bond financing, a major strategy for raising affordable housing funds. In the face of Cali fomi a's
budget concerns, this constraint will likely remain in effect during some or all of the 2010-2015
Consolidated Plan cycle.
Public Perception. In some communities, public perception of housing developments may act as a
barrier. Community opposition may arise from neighbors who live near a proposed new
development. Residents may have concerns about a project's density and impact on parking and
traffic conditions. Public outreach efforts and good planning and design are key to addressing
potential community opposition.
4.9 Fair Housing
HUD requires all jurisdictions affirmatively further fair housing. This section outlines fair housing
services offered in Santa Clara County, identifies potential impediments to fair housing, and provides
recommendations to address the impediments.
Fair Housing Services
The primary fair housing activity many jurisdictions undertake is to contract with local nonprofit
organizations that specialize in fair housing issues. This model allows for stronger fair housing
programs and resources as the nonprofit organizations are able to specialize in fair housing issues
and achieve economies of scale by serving a wider geographic area.
Through contracts with jurisdictions, local fair housing organizations and legal aid groups perform
the following services:
50
California Redevelopment Association, "Redevelopment Agencies Prepare Second Lawsuit to Block
Unconstitutional Raids of Redevelopment Funds,"
http://www.calredevelop.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&Template=/CM/ContentDisplav.cfm&ContentI
D=5855
95
• Investigate allegations of housing discrimination and counsel tenants and landlords on their
rights and responsibilities under state and local laws;
• Assist tenants and home buyers with discrimination complaints by mediating and/or
providing education to property owners and assisting with litigation against owners or
managers if necessary;
• Provide management training, fair housing education, community outreach, landlord and
tenant counseling, conflict resolution, referrals, investigations, and audits;
• Work with clients to file an official complaint with HUD or the State DFEH, if an
investigation finds evidence of discrimination;
• Provide assistance with evictions, rental repairs, deposits, rental agreements, leases, rental
disputes, mortgage delinquency, home purchasing counseling, and other related issues.
Other Local Fair Housing Efforts
Countywide Fair Housing Task Force. In fiscal year 2003, the Countywide Fair Housing Task
Force was established. The Task Force includes representatives from entitlement jurisdictions, fair
housing providers, legal service providers, and other community service providers. Since its
inception, the Task Force has implemented a calendar of countywide fair housing events and
sponsors public information meetings, including Accessibility Training, First-Time Homebuyer
training, and Predatory Lending training.
Training and Outreach. In addition to contracting with local fair housing service providers, several
jurisdictions conduct additional fair housing activities such as training and outreach to local
apartment managers and property owners. For example, the City of San Jose sends out fair housing
information to property owners and coordinates with local Fair Housing service providers and the
Tri-County Apartment Association to hold bi-annual workshops for apartment owners and managers
on fair housing laws. The City also translates fair housing outreach and educational material into
several languages. The City of Palo Alto's Office of Human Services sponsors housing information
and referral coordination meetings to facilitate networking among service providers who assist low
income, elderly, disabled, or homeless clients.
Affordable Housing Programs. The lack of available and affordable housing can be an impediment
to fair housing in some areas of Santa Clara County. In response to high housing costs in the region,
jurisdictions have funded various subsidized housing programs to provide affordable housing to
lower-income households who are unable to afford market rate housing. These programs include
inclusionary housing programs, which require developers to reserve a percentage of units for lower
income households or pay an in-lieu fee, and first-time homebuyer programs that offer downpayment
assistance or second loans to eligible first-time homebuyers.
Fair Housing Impediments
The Entitlement Jurisdictions have prepared their respective Analyses of Impediments to Fair
96
Housing (AI) concurrently with the preparation of this Consolidated Plan. The AI identifies public
sector and private sector impediments to fair housing choice and provides recommendations to
remove impediments. The 2010-2014 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing for the Entitlement
Jurisdictions identified the following impediments to housing choice:
Treatment of Supportive Housing, Transitional Housing, and Emergency Shelters in Local
Zoning Ordinances. Section 4.8 describes how local land use controls can affect the production of
housing serving special needs groups, thereby creating a potential fair housing concern.
Definition of Family. A jurisdiction's zoning ordinance can constrain access to housing if it
contains a restrictive definition of a family. For example, a definition of family that limits the
number of persons and differentiates between related and unrelated individuals living together can be
used to discriminate against nontraditional families and illegally limit the development and siting of
group homes for individuals with disabilities. California court cases (City of Santa Barbara v.
Adamson, 1980 and City of Chula Vista v. Pagard, 1981) have ruled a zoning ordinance invalid if it
defines a "family" as (a) an individual; (b) two or more persons related by blood, marriage, or
adoption; or (c) a group of not more than a specific number of unrelated persons .as a single
housekeeping unit. The rulings established that defining a family in a manner that distinguishes
between blood-related and non-blood related individuals does not serve any legitimate or useful
objective or purpose recognized under zoning or land use planning powers of a jurisdiction, and
therefore violates privacy rights under the California Constitution.
Most of the Entitlement Jurisdictions have zoning ordinances which contain a broad definition of
family, in compliance with the Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act and fair housing
laws. The ordinances generally define a family as a group of people operating as "a single
housekeeping unit" without limiting the number of people or their relationship.
Access to FHA Loans. Households which face difficulty qualifying for a conventional mortgage
may decide to use a Federal Housing Administration (FHA) loan. FHA loans are insured by the
federal government, and have traditionally allowed lower-income households to purchase homes that
they could not otherwise afford. Thanks to the FHA insurance, these loans have lower interest rates,
require a low downpayment of 3.5 percent, and have more accessible underwriting criteria. In
general, lenders report that households with a credit score of at least 640 and a two-year employment
history can qualify for a FHA loan. FHA loans have become more popular as underwriting practices
for conventional mortgages have become stricter.51 In addition, more homebuyers are eligible for
FHA loans as a result of declining home prices. In Santa Clara County the FHA loan limit for a
51
Thompson, Samuel, Chase Bank, phone interview with BAE, July 8, 2009.
Zhovreboff, Walter, Bay Area Homebuyer Agency / First Home, Inc., phone interview with BAE, July 16,
2009.
97
single-family residence is $729,750.52
Despite the more favorable terms associated with FHA loans, there are some challenges associated
with purchasing a home with a FHA-backed mortgage. First, stringent guidelines regulate what
properties are eligible for purchase. Properties must meet certain requirements related to the
condition of the home and pass an inspection by FHA representatives. This requirement is a
particular challenge for homebuyers who are purchasing foreclosed properties that have been vacant
for a prolonged period and have associated maintenance issues.53
Another potential barrier is that not all banks issue FHA loans. Moreover, many loan officers prefer
to focus on conventional mortgages because of the added time and effort associated with processing
and securing approval on a FHA loan.54
First-Time Homebuyer Programs. In addition to conventional mortgages and FHA loans, the State
and many Entitlement Jurisdictions offer numerous first-time homebuyer programs. These include
various downpayment assistance and second mortgage programs. Some of these second mortgage
programs have equity sharing components. For example, the County of Santa Clara offers a $40,000
Downpayment Assistance Program, providing a 30 year loan, deferred at two percent interest for
four years and zero percent interest in years five through 30.55
Downpayment assistance and second mortgage programs are attractive to potential homebuyers,
particularly during times when financial institutions are approving loans at lower loan to value
rations. However, loan officers sometimes seek to avoid homebuyers utilizing first-time home buyer
programs due to the added time and labor associated with these programs. While lenders typically
process conventional loans in 30 days, the closing period for homebuyers using first-time homebuyer
programs is often 45 days. In addition, loan officers receive smaller commissions under these
programs, as they reduce the amount homebuyers need to borrow from the lender. 56
Some real estate brokers also prefer not to work with homebuyers using first-time homebuyer
programs. Brokers aim to expedite the closing period, while first-time homebuyer programs
generally result in extended loan approval processes. As a result, agents may not tell homebuyers
about potential State and local programs they would qualify for. Homebuyers who do not attend
52
FHA Loan Limits for California, http://www.fl1a.com/lending limits state.cfm?state=CALIFORNIA.
53
Zhovreboff, Walter, Bay Area Homebuyer Agency I First Home, Inc., phone interview with BAE, July 16,
2009.
54
Thompson, Samuel, Chase Bank, phone intervi~w with BAE, July 8,2009.
55
County of Santa Clara, "Downpayment Assistance Programs HOME (SCC40K) Program Manual and
Guidelines," June 2009,
http://www.sccgov.orglSCC/docs%2F Affordable%20Housing%200ffice%20ot%20(DEP)%2Fattachments%2FS
CC40K %20Loan%20ProgramManual%20Rev%207 09.pdf
56
Thompson, Samuel, Chase Bank, phone interview with BAE, July 8,2009.
98
first-time homebuyer classes or work with nonprofit housing counseling agencies are often unaware
of programs available to assist them.57
Affordable Housing Application Processes. Due to the requirements associated with various
affordable housing funding sources, certain households may encounter difficulties in applying for
subsidized housing. For example, applications can involve a large amount of paperwork and require
households to provide records for income verification. In some cases, short application time frames
and submittal requirements (e.g., by fax) create additional challenges. These requirements present
obstacles for homeless or disabled individuals who lack access to communication systems and
information networks, as well as the skills to complete and submit the necessary documentation.
Affordable housing developers receive hundreds to thousands of applications for a limited number of
units. As a result, applicants who are not selected through the lottery process are put on a waiting
list. Households must be proactive and regularly follow-up with property managers to inquire about
the status of the waiting list. If applicants on the waiting list move or change their phone number,
property managers may not be able to contact them when a unit becomes available. Again, this
procedure can make it more difficult to get off a waiting list for transient individuals or families who
don't have a regular address, phone number, or email address.
Applicants who are selected through the lottery or who come off the waitlist go through an interview
and/or screening process. Property managers routinely screen out individuals with a criminal or drug
history, or a poor credit record. This process can effectively screen out homeless or mentally
disabled applicants. To help address these challenges, several organizations provide housing
location assistance.
Elderly Housing. Seniors often need accessible units located in close proximity to services and
public transportation. Many seniors are also living on fixed incomes, making affordability a
particular concern. While there are subsidized senior housing developments in the County, local
service providers at each of the Consolidated Plan Workshops iI}dicated a need for more affordable
senior housing facilities, particularly given the long waiting lists at existing subsidized
developments. In addition there are few, if any, subsidized assisted living facilities in the County.
Faced with this shortage, lower-income individuals often do not have the option of living in an
assisted living facility and must bring services into their homes. Many affordable senior housing
facilities have service coordinators who work to provide these services to residents at the
development. There are also several referral and assistance programs that provide information and
help to connect individuals with support resources in the community.
Seniors can also face difficulties finding subsidized housing that accommodates a live-in caregiver.
57
Thompson, Samuel, Chase Bank, phone interview with BAE, July 8, 2009.
Zhovreboff, Walter, Bay Area Homebuyer Agency / First Home, Inc., phone interview with BAE, July 16,2009.
99
According to senior service providers, many subsidized projects serve individuals or couples only
and do not accommodate caregivers. In other cases, the caregiver's income may make the household
ineligible for the affordable unit. Challenges associated with live-in caregivers may also apply to
persons with disability or HIV / AIDS.
Housing for Persons with Disabilities. Individuals with mobility disabilities need accessible units
that are located on the ground floor or have elevator access, as well as larger kitchens, bathrooms,
and showers that can accommodate wheelchairs. Building codes and HOME regulations require that
five percent of units in multifamily residential complexes be wheelchair accessible and another two
percent of units be accessible for individuals with hearing or vision impairments.58 Affordable
housing developers follow these requirements and provide accessible units in their subsidized
housing developments. However, local service providers at Consolidated Plan Workshops report
that demand far outstrips the supply of accessible, subsidized housing units.
Nonetheless, affordable housing providers often have difficulty filling accessible units with disabled
individuals. Some affordable housing providers report that they only have a few disabled persons on
their waiting list. As such, if all disabled individuals on the waiting list are placed in a unit and
accessible units still remain, the developer will place a non-disabled person in the unit. This
contradicts information provided by other service providers who indicate a great need for affordable
accessible housing, and points to barriers in the application process that prevent interested
individuals from finding subsidized, accessible housing, or a mismatch between people who need
housing and when it is available. A lack of communication between affordable housing developers
and organizations that serve disabled persons also contributes to this problem. In fact, affordable
housing providers state that filling accessible units with disabled individuals requires a substantial
effort. Property managers must give presentations and meet with clients and service providers in
order to secure the applications.
Persons with disabilities face other challenges that may make it more difficult to secure both
affordable or market-rate housing. Often persons with disabilities have high medical bills that lead
to credit problems. Many individuals also rely on Social Security or welfare benefits. Organizations
who assist disabled individuals secure housing in the region, report that poor credit is one of the
biggest barriers to housing choice.
Other challenges disabled individuals may face include difficulties securing reasonable
accommodations requests. As discussed previously, the Fair Housing Act prohibits the refusal of
reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations are
necessary to afford a person with a disability equal access to housing. This applies to those involved
in the provision of housing, including property owners, housing managers, homeowners associations,
58
Papanastassiou, Andrea, Director of Real Estate Development, Eden Housing, Inc., phone interview with BAE,
July 14,2009.
100
lenders, real estate agents, and brokerage services. Local fair housing organizations, including
ECHO and Project Sentinel, indicate that some individuals have difficulties with landlords approving
their reasonable accommodation request. Examples of reasonable accommodation requests include
permission to have a service animal in the residence or securing parking closer to the unit. ECHO
and Project Sentinel report that reasonable accommodations requests for disabled individuals are one
of the more common fair housing complaints seen throughout Santa Clara County.59
Housing for Homeless Individuals. The primary barrier to housing choice for homeless individuals
is insufficient income. Local and regional service providers report that many homeless rely on
Supplemental Security Income (SSI) or Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI), which are too
low to qualify for most subsidized programs and affordable housing developments. In addition, as
noted above, both affordable housing developers and market-rate landlords may screen out
individuals with a criminal or drug history, history of evictions, or poor credit.
Securing housing can prove more difficult for homeless families compared to individuals due to
occupancy regulations, potential landlord biases against households with children, and the more
limited supply of larger units. Consolidated Plan Workshop participants reported that as a result of
the recession, there are more homeless families than ever seeking housing.
Santa Clara County and its member jurisdictions are addressing issues of housing choice and
accessibility for homeless individuals and families through strategies identified in the lOY ear Plan
to End Chronic Homelessness in Santa Clara County and through efforts of Destination: Home, a
taskforce focusing on ending chronic homelessness. Destination: Home opened two One-Stop
Homeless Prevention Centers in November 2008, serving over 3,700 homeless and at-risk clients to
date. The County of Santa Clara Department of Social Services has Supplemental Security Income
(SSI) advocates at each One-Stop location, allowing eligible clients to begin the process of applying
for benefits at the same time they search for employment, receive housing assistance, or get
assistance with other needs.60
Access to Housing by Limited English Proficiency (LEP) Individuals. As financial institutions
institute more stringent lending practices in response to the economic downturn, LEP individuals
may face greater challenges in navigating the mortgage process. According to regional housing
counseling agencies, at the height of the housing boom lenders were very interested in accessing the
Latino and Asian populations. However, bank outreach to these communities has since declined.
59
Arlene Zamorra, Housing Counselor, ECHO/phone interview with BAE, September 30, 2009.
Marquart, Ann, Executive Director, Project Sentinel, phone interview with BAE, October 14,2009.
60
Maureen O'Malley-Moore, Project Director, Destination: Home, "One Stop Homelessness Prevention
Centers."
101
As another concern for LEP households, undocumented individuals may face more complicated
processes when applying for a mortgage. Some groups within the Spanish-speaking community and
other LEP populations are "unbanked," and rely on a cash economy. Because regular banking
provides the record keeping and legitimacy that lenders look for, unbanked households have a more
difficult time providing documentation to qualify for a mortgage.
61 In addition to challenges
accessing housing, undocumented immigrants are also more reluctant to file fair housing complaints
with HUD or the State. ECHO has investigated fair housing complaints for immigrant clients.
However, clients are often hesitant to file official complaints with government agencies due to their
undocumented status.
62
Housing Opportunities for Families. Fair housing law prohibits discrimination based on familial
status. However, local service providers report that households with children are sometimes
discriminated against, particularly when searching for rental housing. Landlords may view
households with children as less desirable due to potential noise issues or damage to units. While
landlords and property managers may not deny families housing, they may place them in less
desirable units such as units at the back of a complex or a downstairs unit. The challenge in
identifying discrimination on the grounds of familial status is that often families may not know that
other units in a complex are available, and therefore not realize that they are being offered a less
desirable unit. ECHO and Project Sentinel report that differential treatment on the basis of familial
status is another common fair housing issue in the County.63
Lack of Awareness of Fair Housing. According to fair housing organizations, general public
education and awareness of fair housing issues is limited. Tenants often do not completely
understand their fair housing rights. To address this issue, jurisdictions and fair housing
organizations provide various fair housing education and outreach programs to housing providers
and to the general public. For example, Project Sentinel provides between 10 and 20 fair housing
trainings for property owners and managers in Santa Clara County each year. In addition,
jurisdictions and fair housing organizations outreach to the general community through mass media
such as newspaper columns, multi-lingual pamphlets, flyers, and radio advertisements. Fair housing
organizations also outreach to protected classes by working with organizations that serve target
I . 64 popu atIons.
Fair Housing Recommendations
To address these impediments, the AI presents the following recommendations:
61
Gonzales, Gilda, Executive Director, Unity Council, phone interview with BAE, July 15, 2009.
62
Arlene Zamorra, Housing Counselor, ECHO, phone interview with BAE, September 30, 2009. 63
Arlene Zamorra, Housing Counselor, ECHO, phone interview with BAE, September 30, 2009.
Marquart, Ann, Executive Director, Project Sentinel, phone interview with BAE, October 14,2009.
64
Marquart, Ann, Executive Director, Project Sentinel, phone interview with BAE, October 14,2009.
102
Action #1: Facilitate access to below-market-rate units. The Entitlement Jurisdictions shall
continue to assist affordable housing developers in an advertising the availability of below-market
rate units via the jurisdictions' websites, the 2-1-1 information and referral phone service, and other
media outlets. The jurisdictions will also facilitate communication between special needs service
providers and affordable housing developers, to ensure that home seekers with special needs have
fair access to available units.
Action #2: Contract with local service providers to conduct ongoing outreach and education
regarding fair housi~g for homeseekers, landlords, property managers, real estate agents, and
lenders. Outreach will occur via training sessions, public events,jurisdictions' websites and other
media outlets, staffing at service providers' offices, and multi-lingual flyers available in a variety
public locations.
Action #3: Contract with local service providers to conduct fair housing testing in local
apartment complexes. The testing program looks for any evidence of differential treatment among
sample local apartment complexes. Following the test, the service provider submits findings to the
local jurisdiction and conducts educational outreach to landlords that showed differential treatment
during the test.
Action #4: Modify local zoning ordinances for consistency with State and federal fair housing
laws. Modifications to be evaluated and addressed by Entitlement Jurisdictions include the
following:
•
•
Per State law, the Entitlement Jurisdictions shall amend their local zoning code as necessary
to consider transitional and permanent supportive housing as a residential use, subject only
to the same restrictions that apply to other residential uses of the same type in the same zone.
Entitlement Jurisdictions shall allow licensed residential care facilities with six or fewer
residents in any area zoned for residential use and may not require conditional use permits or
other additional discretionary permits, consistent with the Lanterman Developmental
Disabilities Services Act.
• Entitlement Jurisdictions shall revise their zoning regulations as necessary to ensure that the
requirements for secondary units conform to State law.
• Entitlement Jurisdictions' zoning ordinances shall have a definition of family that is
consistent with the Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act and the federal Fair
Housing Act and the Fair Housing Amendment Act.
103
Action #5: Allow for reasonable accommodation. The Entitlement Jurisdictions shall establish
formal procedures to address reasonable accommodation requests in zoning regulations to
accommodate the needs of persons with disabilities.
Action #6: Assist local Housing Authorities with outreach. The Entitlement Jurisdictions shall
continue to support the Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara and the City of San Jose
Housing Authority to ensure adequate outreach to minority, limited-English proficiency, and special
needs populations regarding the availability of public housing and Section 8 vouchers. Outreach
may occur via the jurisdictions' websites and informational flyers in multiple languages available at
public locations. Given the extended waiting lists for public housing and Section 8 programs,
attention will primarily be paid to fair management of the list.
Action #7: Maintain a list of partner lenders. The Entitlement Jurisdictions shall maintain a list of
lenders that can help buyers access below-market-rate loans and locally-sponsored downpayment and
mortgage assistance programs.
Action #8: Plan for and encourage transit-oriented development. The Entitlement Jurisdictions
shall continue to plan for higher residential and employment densities where appropriate to maximize
linkages between employers and affordable housing.
Action #9: Facilitate safe and efficient transit routes. The Entitlement Jurisdictions shall continue
to work with local transit agencies to facilitate safe and efficient routes for the various forms of
public transit to maximize linkages between employers and affordable housing.
4.10 Non-Housing Community Development Needs
As discussed in Section 2, the Entitlement Jurisdictions hosted four Consolidated Plan Workshops to
engage the public and local stakeholders in the planning process. Participants in the Workshops
discussed housing and non-housing community development needs in their respective areas.
Attendees also completed an informal survey that assessed the need for various services and
programs. In addition, this survey was distributed via the San Jose Strong Neighborhood Initiative
(SNI) network to further engage local residents in the Consolidated Plan process. This section
summarizes the key themes that emerged through the public outreach process.
Community Services
Workshop participants emphasized the need to support a broad range of community services.
Lower-income households and special needs populations require this multi-faceted network to
address basic needs such as food, clothing, health, and shelter, as well as other broader requirements
including:
• Legal services for lower-income households and seniors;
104
• Affordable child care;
• Fair housing and housing mediation services;
• Domestic violence counseling and prevention services;
• Social and recreational activities for seniors and youth;
• Transportation assistance, particularly for senior and disabled individuals;
• Parenting classes;
• Financial literacy training;
• Substance abuse services;
• Homeless services (including prevention); and
• Anti-gang programs.
Participants stressed that these services are inter-related; individuals and families need support in all
areas to thrive. The comments expressed in each Workshop are shown in greater detail in Appendix
A.
As another perspective on local service needs, Table 4.43 summarizes the results of the survey
completed by workshop participants and the SNI network.65 Respondents were asked to consider
their communities' needs, as they relate to various service areas, and ranked each issue from "Least
Need" to "Greatest Need" on a four-point scale. Table 4.43 highlights the three items that received
the highest average level of need for each major issue area and in each subarea of the County.66
65
Appendix A contains "Other" responses. 66
The "All" column is not highlighted because results are weighted towards the SNI responses, due to the larger
number of surveys received from this area.
105
Table 4.43: Summary of CDBG Survey Responses for Community Services Need
Family COunseling and Case Management 3.00
Foredosure Prevention and Housing Counseling 2.71 3.
Disabled Services 2.52 2.75
Senior Activi ties 2.78 3.50
Youth Activities 2.81 3.67
At-Risk Youth Services 3.00 • ... 3.57
Neglected/Abused Children 3.00 3.30 3.67
Child Care 2.88 3.00 3.00
Anti-Crime Programs 2.68 3.06 3.14
Hea Ith Se rvices 3.44
Mental Health Services 3.50
TenantlLandlord Mediation 2;88
Legal Services 2.72 2.67 2.75
Transportation Assistance 2.68 3.06 3.50
Substance A buse Service s 2.76 2.89 3.63
Domestic Violence Services (e.g., counseling) 3.00 3.40
Homeless Services 3.05
Emancipated Youth (agin gout of foster care) 3.10 3.13
HIVIAIDS Services 2.50 2.80 3.20 Other ________________ 3.50 4.00 4.00
Notes:
(a) "Number of responses" does not oount questions which were left unans\Yered by the participant
Completed responses were used to calculate "average level of need."
Sources: BAE, 2009.
3.21
l1li
3.57
2.81
3.00
2.98
3.22
3.06
3.12
2.86
2.57
2.75
3.80
Number of
3.21 98
2.95 101
2.61 97
3.05 103
3.44 111
3.76 103
3.20 97
3.07 99
3.49 102
3.53 100
3.13 93
2.66 93
2.84 101
3.08 101
3.00 102
3.20 102
3.02 101
2.76 100
2.73 92
3.80 11
While the recession and unemployment have exacerbated demand for all types of services, reduced
funding from the State and private sources has impacted service delivery. As such, continued
support from local jurisdictions via CnBG and other sources has become more vital. Participants
also stated that existing service providers already target many of these issues, and should continue to
be funded to the extent possible.
In terms of gaps in the service network, the following items emerged:
• South County participants reported a lack for foreclosure prevention and housing counseling
services.
• North County participants highlighted a lack of anti-gang and at-risk youth services in the
area.
As another consideration, participants noted that while the existing network of public and private
agencies already provides a broad range of services, many segments of the community lack effective
access to these programs. For example, undocumented residents often avoid service providers out of
concern for their immigration status. Language barriers (including for American Sign Language)
must also be addressed to ease access to services.
Youth, particularly at-risk youth, can also encounter unique barriers when trying to access services.
For example, school-sited programs can exclude youth who have been expelled from the district.
106
Youth may also face difficulty using services aimed at families or older adults (e.g., mental health
services).
Transportation also arose as a concern, particularly for seniors, the disabled and lower income
individuals who do not have a car. As regional transit agencies suffer cut backs, alternative options
such as Outreach become particularly important in gaining access to local services.
Centralization of services at facilities like community centers also helps individuals access multiple
programs simultaneously.
Finally, participants stated that more outreach and publicizing of existing services is necessary to let
the community know about these programs. For example, one participant noted that many residents
are unaware that the Council on Aging of Silicon Valley publishes the Senior Service Directory, a
useful resource required by the Older Americans Act. Participants also reported that the County's
211 service, while an important tool, often provides out of date or incomplete information, and
should be improved.
Economic Development
CDBG funds may be used for local economic development activities that promote job growth,
particularly among low-and moderate-income persons. These activities may prove especially
critical in the current recession, given local unemployment rates. The California Employment
Development Department (EDD) reports a 12.0 percent unemployment rate for Santa Clara County
in August 2009, the highest among the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area. As a basis of
comparison, California as a whole had a 12.1 percent unemployment rate as of August 2009.
As a symptom of high unemployment and the recession, CDBG Workshop participants noted that
many local business districts (e.g., Saratoga, Palo Alto, Sunnyvale, and Winchester Business
District) suffer from high vacancies. They stated the need for small business development,
mentoring, and loan programs to help alleviate this issue, and offer local entrepreneurs a chance to
lease space at more affordable rates during the down market.
Participants also expressed an interest in vocational programs that build basic job skills and train
workers, especially youth, to enter growth industries, like the clean technology sector. One
participant also highlighted the value of programs that train child care providers.
Community Facilities and Infrastructure
Jurisdictions may use CDBG funds for the development of community facilities and infrastructure
projects that benefit low-and moderate-income persons. Participants stated that ongoing
maintenance of parks and recreation facilities is needed. Graffiti abatement surfaced as a concern,
along with replacement of aging infrastructure. Participants also reported the need for expanded
homeless shelters, which often have long waiting lists. Although participants raised the issue of
107
homeless shelters, the County has shifted towards support for permanent supportive housing for
homeless individuals. Sidewalk and lighting improvement in business districts was also discussed,
along with rehabilitation of non-profit and public facilities.
Gilroy residents expressed the need for a youth center and a senior center. Gilroy currently has a
youth Center, but it is scheduled to be demolished due to seismic structural problems. While both
Gilroy and Morgan Hill currently have senior centers, additional facilities may be needed.
Participants also called for maintenance and lighting of local parks, sidewalks, and bus shelters, and
improvements for accessibility. Due to the area's distance from Central County service providers,
participants also pointed to demand for affordable satellite office space for service providers,
possibly in local community centers.
108
SFive-Year Strategic Plan
The Strategic Plan section of the Consolidated Plan serves as a blueprint for addressing the needs
identified in the Housing and Community Development Needs Assessment. The Strategic Plan
establishes a work plan with goals and strategies to guide the allocation of entitlement grant funds
and the implementation ofHUD programs over the next five years.
The goals and strategies listed in the Five-Year Strategic Plan are based on and coincide with the
policies, programs, and objectives described in the Housing Elements of the Entitlement
Jurisdictions. The goals and strategies also reflect input from community stakeholders, service
providers in the area, and staff. Section 3 outlines the Citizen Participation process used to solicit
input into the Consolidated Plan.
The Goals and Programs within the Strategic Plan are organized into four categories:
• Housing Needs
• Homeless Needs
• Non-Homeless Special Needs Housing
• Non-Housing Community Development Needs
In addition, per HUD requirements, the Strategic Plan addresses how the Entitlement Jurisdictions
work with the local public housing authorities, are mitigating barriers to affordable housing, address
poverty, and coordinate with public and private sector on community development efforts.
5.1 Methodology for Prioritizing Need
The Consolidated Plan's ranking of needs is based on multiple factors, including:
• The priorities identified in the Entitlement Jurisdictions' Housing Elements;
• The findings from the Consolidated Plan's Housing and Homelessness Needs Assessment;
• Current market conditions as described in the Housing Market Analysis (see Section 4);
• The severity of needs among all groups and subgroups, including the relative need between
varying income groups;
• Current housing stock;
• Likely available funding over the next five-year period for various housing and community
development activities; and
• Input from community members and organizations at the Consolidated Plan workshops and
through the Consolidated Plan survey.
Considering these factors, each program was assigned a High, Medium, or Low level priority. It is
important to note that a Medium and Low level priority does not preclude the Entitlement
Jurisdictions from providing funding for a particular activity. The priority is simply a relative
109
description of the amount of resources that the Entitlement Jurisdictions expect to dedicate to a
particular need.
5.2 Goals, Strategies, and Actions
The following is a summary of the City's funding priorities under the Consolidated Plan for the
2010/11 through 2015/16 program years. A description of specific strategic actions and goals
follows the summary.
1. AFFORDABLE HOUSING (Goal: 0-100%) of Budget)
a. ACTIVITIES IN SUPPORT OF NEW CONSTRUCTION, CONVERSION AND
ADDITION OF NEW UNITS.
1. Permanent housing for families with children
2. Other permanent housing including group homes, senior, the disables, shared
housing, etc.
3. Transitional housing with supportive services
4. Permanent housing for the homeless or at-risk of homelessness
b. PRESERVATION OF EXISTING, LOWER INCOME RENTAL HOUSING
1. Preservation of existing, federally subsidized multi-family housing owned by
profit motivated investors
2. Acquisition and/or rehabilitation of existing multi-family rental housing with an
emphasis on infrastructure improvements that facilitates environmental
sustainability
3. Acquisition and/or rehabilitation of existing buildings for special needs
populations including shared housing and group homes
c. PUBLIC FACILITIES AND IMPROVEMENTS
1. Rehabilitation of existing facilities for use as shelters for the homeless or other
special needs groups
2. PUBLIC SERVICES (Goal: 0-15% of Budget)
a. Services directly related to the housing needs of low-income persons
b. Homeless shelter operating costs and the provision of auxiliary or related services
c. Services which address other need of low-income, elderly or special needs persons
110
3. ADMINISTRATION (Goal: 0-20% of Budget)
a. Fair housing education, information, referral, advocacy, counseling and complaint
resolution
b. CDBG program administration and planning costs
c. Planning studies
Goal #1: Assist in the creation and preservation 0/ affordable housing/or lower-income and
special needs households
Strategy #lA: Assist developers with the production of affordable rental housing
Need. Affordability of rental housing varies significantly by jurisdiction. However, across the
Entitlement Jurisdictions, the average market 'rate rent far exceeds the maximum affordable rent for
very low-and extremely low:-income households. Moreover, the current economic recession and
unemployment further exacerbate affordability concerns for many households.
• Action IA.I. Provide financial and technical assistance to developers producing affordable
rental housing. Priority -High
• Action IA.2. Assist developers in rehabilitating seriously deteriorating and neglected
apartment buildings for conversion into affordable rental units. Priority -High
• Action IA.3. Address any barriers to affordable housing production through implementation
of associated Housing Element programs. Priority -Medium
Strategy #1 B: Support affordable ownership housing
Need. Although the current housing market downturn has led to falling sales prices in virtually all
the Entitlement Jurisdictions, ownership housing in North County and Central West County remains
largely unaffordable to lower-income households. In contrast, home values in Central and South
County are somewhat more affordable. It is also important to note, however, that credit markets
have tightened in tandem with the decline in home values. As such, although homes have generally
become more affordable, lender requirements for a minimum down payment or credit score present a
greater obstacle for buyers. Considering these factors, homeownership for lower-income households
remains an important goal.
• Action IB.I. Provide financial and technical assistance to developers producing afford~ble
ownership housing for lower-income households, such as self-help and "sweat equity"
organizations. Priority -Medium
111
• Action IB.2. Maintain a list of partner lenders that are familiar with local homebuyer
assistance programs and other below-market rate loan products. Priority -Low
• Action IB.3. Provide lower-income homeowners with the assistance for rehabilitating their
properties. Priority -High
Strategy #1 C: Assist lower-income seniors, larger families, the disabled, and farmworkers in
securing safe and affordable housing
Need for Senior Housing. According to the 2000 Census, 38 percent of Santa Clara County's
elderly households (age 65 years or older) face one or more housing problems. This includes
overpaying for housing (spending more than 30 percent of their income on housing costs), living in
an overcrowded situation, or living in a unit that lacks complete kitchen or plumbing facilities.
Housing problems are more prevalent among elderly renters than owners. Approximately 60 percent
of elderly renters experienced housing problems, compared to 31 percent of owners. Local service
providers at each of the Consolidated Plan Workshops echo these findings, and indicated a need for
more affordable senior housing, particularly given the long waiting lists at existing developments.
Need for Larger Units. In 2000, 16 percent of Santa Clara County households had five or more
persons. This figure varied substantially across Entitlement Jurisdictions. Approximately 24 percent
of Gilroy's households were large households while only six percent of Palo Alto and Los Gatos
households had five or more individuals. This finding is consistent with the Consolidated Plan
Workshops where participants noted the need for affordable units serving larger households in the
South County.
Need for Disabled Housing. The 2000 Census reports that there were approximately 9,400
individuals with disabilities in Santa Clara County, accounting for 17 percent of the County's
civilian, non-institutionalized population age five years and older. In 2000, approximately 60,600
seniors, or 39 percent of the elderly in Santa Clara County, had one or more disabilities.
Consolidated Plan Workshop participants also cited the need for accessible units serving disabled
persons.
Need for Farmworker Housing. The 2007 USDA Census of Agriculture identified 5,589
farmworkers in Santa Clara County. Approximately half of farmworkers countywide were
permanent employees in 2007. Although the USDA Census of Agriculture does not provide
farmworker data at the city level, discussions with city staff and local service providers indicate that
there is a larger farmworker population, and a corresponding need for affordable housing and
services in Southern Santa Clara County. Other portions of Santa Clara County have a limited
number of farmworkers, due to the lack of agricultural land.
112
• Action IC.1. Support the production and rehabilitation of affordable housing for seniors,
disabled individuals, large families, and farmworkers through applications for State and
federal funding, or with direct financial assistance. Priority -High
• Action I C.2. Ensure that local zoning standards allow for units that serve the needs of
disabled individuals, including second units and multifamily units. Priority -Low
Goal #2: Support activities to end homelessness
Strategy #2A: Provide housing and supportive services to homeless individuals and families and
households at risk of homelessness
Need. According to the 2009 Santa Clara County Homeless Census, 7,086 people self-declared
homelessness on January 26-27,2009, meaning that they reported either sleeping in a place not fit
for human habitation, or in emergency or transitional housing for homeless people. Although the
2009 Homeless Census reports a decrease in homeless individuals since 2007, local service providers
report that they have seen an increase in clients seeking assistance as a result of the recession and
unemployment.
• Action 2A.1. Support developers of transitional and supportive housing facilities through
technical and direct financial assistance, as well as their applications for State and federal
funding, drawing from the Housing First approach to ending homelessness. Priority -High
• Action 2A.2. Support existing transitional housing and supportive housing facilities.
Priority -High
• Action 2A.3. Support programs that provide short-term emergency shelter for homeless
individuals and families, while still prioritizing Housing First approach to ending
homelessness. Priority -High
• Action 2A.4. Support emergency rental assistance programs to help protect lower-income
households from homelessness. Priority -High
• Action 2A.S. Support outreach programs that provide vital services to homeless individuals,
including health services, substance abuse services, referrals, and others. Priority -High
Goal #3: Support activities that provide basic services, eliminate blight, and/or strengthen
neighborhoods
Strategy #3A: Support local service organizations that provide essential services to the community,
113
particularly special needs populations
Need. Consolidated Plan Workshop participants emphasized the need to support a broad range of
community services. Lower-income households and special needs populations require this multi
faceted network to address basic needs such as food, clothing, health, and shelter, as well as other
services outlined in Section 4.10 of the Consolidated Plan. As the recession and unemployment have
exacerbated demand for all types of services, reduced funding from the State and private sources has
impacted service delivery. Therefore, continued support from local jurisdictions via CnBG and
other sources has become more vital.
• Action 3A.l. Provide funding for social services organizations benefiting lower-income
households and special needs populations, including seniors, disabled, youth, homeless,
farmworkers, single-mothers, victims of domestic violence, and others. Priority -High
• Action 3A.2. Support programs and services that assist lower income households access
vital services through translation, transportation, outreach and information, and other forms
of assistance. Priority -High
• Action 3A.3. Support programs and services that assist households with foreclosure
prevention and recovery. Priority -Low
Strategy #3B: Provide the public facilities and infrastructure needed to assure the health, safety, and
welfare of the community
Need. Community Workshop participants expressed the need for ongoing maintenance and upgrades
to local public facilities, such as parks, community centers, youth and senior centers, sidewalks and
landscaping, recreation facilities, and others.
• Action 3B.1. Remove accessibility barriers from public facilities and sidewalks. Priority
Medium
• Action 3B.2. Enhance lower income neighborhoods through physical improvements and the
ongoing maintenance and rehabilitation of public areas and facilities. Priority -Medium
Strategy #3C: Mitigate lead-based paint hazards
Need. Approximately 45,600 rental units occupied by extremely low-, low-, and moderate-income
households may contain lead-based paint (LBP). In addition, approximately 6,000 low-and
moderate-income homeowners may occupy units containing LBP. However, homes with lead-based
paint do not necessarily pose a health hazard, if the property is in good condition and the paint well
maintained. In fact, there has been a relatively low incidence of lead poisoning among Santa Clara
County children. In Santa Clara County in 2006, there were only 65 confirmed cases of elevated
blood lead levels among children, accounting for 20 percent of all confirmed cases in the Bay Area
114
that year.
• Action 3C.1. Continue outreach and education to the community regarding the hazards of
lead poisoning, particularly with regard to lead-based paint hazards. Priority -Medium
• Action 3C.2. Inspect all properties being rehabilitated or acquired for affordable housing for
lead-based paint hazards. Priority -High
• Action 3C.3. Continue to update and implement the local Lead Based Paint Management
Plan as appropriate. Priority -Low
Goal #4: Promote fair housing choice
Goal #4A: Conduct outreach to the community regardingfair housing, and address local barriers to
fair housing
Need. Fair housing represents an ongoing concern in Santa Clara County. Interviews with local
service providers indicate that many home seekers and landlords are unaware of federal and state fair
housing laws. Between 2004 and 2008, a total of 32 to 78 complaints were filed annually in CnBG
Jurisdictions, with 52 reported through August 30,2009. Disability and familial status emerged as
the most common bases for complaint, accounting for 36 percent and 28 percent, respectively, of all
complaint bases between 2004 and August 2009. National origin and race also appeared as common
bases for complaints, appearing in 14 percent and 12 percent of all complaints, respectively.
• Action 4A.1. Contract with local service providers to conduct ongoing outreach and
education regarding fair housing for home seekers, landlords, property managers, real estate
agents, and lenders. Priority -Medium
• Action 4A.2. Contract with local service providers to conduct fair housing testing in local
apartment complexes. Priority -Medium
• Action 4A.3. Modify local zoning ordinances for consistency with State and federal fair
housing laws. Priority -Low
• Action 4A.4. Update the local Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice and report
on its implementation as necessary. Priority -High
Goal #5: Expand economic opportunities for low-income households
Strategy #5A: Support economic development activities that promote employment growth, and help
115
lower-income persons secure and maintain a job
Need. The California Employment Development Department (EDD) reports a 12 percent
unemployment rate for Santa Clara County in August 2009, the highest among the nine-county San
Francisco Bay Area. In response, Consolidated Plan Workshop participants stated the need for small
business development, mentoring, and loan programs. These activities can help local entrepreneurs
establish their businesses and lease space at more affordable rates during the down market.
Participants also expressed the need for vocational programs that build basic job skills and train
workers, especially youth, to enter the workforce. As a challenge, these services are often best
addressed at a county or regional scale, given the relative scarcity of funding resources at the local
level.
• Action 5A.I. Provide funding for organizations that support local employment development
and workforce training especially for at-risk youth. Priority -High
• Action 5.A.2. Support programs that facilitate small business development. Priority -High
Goal # 6: Promote environmental sustainability
Strategy #6A: Encourage the installation of energy-and water-efficiency measures in new and
existing homes
Need. With energy efficiency, water conservation, and greenhouse gas reduction all growing policy
concerns, local jurisdictions must further efforts to support environmentally-sustainable residential
development. Moreover, existing homes should be upgraded to improve their energy and water
efficiency.
• Action 6A.1. Support local municipal code modifications to create a new recycling and
compo sting ordinance to promote environmental sustainability, including reaching the
community goal of Zero Waste by 2021. Priority -High
• Action 6A.2. Support collaborative efforts between local jurisdictions and subrecipients to
ensure all stakeholders achieve sustainable outcomes from project implementation. Priority
High
5.3 Public Housing
This section describes how Entitlement Jurisdictions work with the local housing authorities, and
how the Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara (HACSC) and Housing Authority of the
City of San Jose (HACSJ) are expanding their services to address local needs.
The Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara (HACSC) and Housing Authority of the City of
116
San Jose (HACSJ) have been selected by HUD to participate in the Moving to Work (MTW)
demonstration program. In February 2008, HUD signed a 10-year MTW Agreement with HAeSC
and the HACSJ.
The three major goals for the MTW program are to (1) increase cost effectiveness in housing
program operations, (2) promote participants' economic self-sufficiency, and (3) expand
participants' housing options. MTW agencies are able to pursue these goals through an agreement
with HUD that gives them budget flexibility and the authorization to develop policies that are outside
the limitations of certain HUD regulations and the Housing Act of 1937.
As part of the MTW program, the HACSC and HACSJ prepare an Annual Plan to establish local
goals and objectives, and to present MTW activities along with related performance measures. The
Plan also introduces long term activities to be implemented during the demonstration period. Some
of the specific MTW activities proposed for the second year of the program (FY 09-10) include:
• Eliminating the verification of income that is excluded from income calculations;
• Excluding income from family assets under $50,000 when calculating income;
• Applying increased current Payment Standards for rent calculations between regular
reexaminations;
• Changing the Project-based Voucher program to ease program implementation and
.' expand housing choices; and
• Assisting over-income families residing at HACSC-owned properties that will combine
Project Based Vouchers with tax credits.
As a long-term vision under the MTW Demonstration, the HACSC and HACSJ seek to:
• Achieve a range of operational efficiencies in housing management;
• Augment the Section 8 Program to enhance the cost-effectiveness of assistance and to
expand the impact of the program;
• Enhance services to promote participant self-sufficiency;
• Pursue housing development, rehabilitation and neighborhood revitalization activities that
help address a chronic undersupply of affordable housing in the region.
To assist lower-income families transition to homeownership, the HACSC also operates the Section
8 Homeownership Program. This initiative provides monthly assistance that may be used by eligible
Housing Choice Voucher participants to help pay a home mortgage instead of rent. Participants are
responsible for obtaining financing and finding an appropriate home to purchase .
. Entitlement Jurisdictions look for opportunities to collaborate with the HACSC and HACSJ to
achieve these short-and long-term MTW objectives, and other aspects of the Housing Authorities'
programs. For example, the Cities cooperate with the HACSC and HACSJ in submitting
applications for funding to increase Section 8 vouchers and provide additional funding for affordable
117
housing or services in the County. The County also administers Santa Clara County's monitoring of
its permitted units under the Measure A Article XXXIV cap, discussed in greater detail in Section
4.8.
5.4 Barriers to Affordable Housing
As outlined in Section 4.8, governmental and non-governmental constraints may act as barriers to
affordable housing. Governmental constraints may include land use policies governed by local
general plans and zoning ordinances. The largest non-governmental constraints are market-related
factors, such as land and construction costs and the accessibility of financing. In response to these
issues, the Consolidated Plan includes a number of goals and associated strategies.
First, with regard to local land use controls that may pose a barrier to affordable housing, Program
1.3 refers to the relevant programs in the Entitlement Jurisdictions' respective Housing Elements.
The Housing Element is one of seven state-mandated elements of a jurisdiction's General Plan and
establishes a comprehensive, long-term plan to address housing needs. Updated every five to seven
years, the Housing Element is ajurisdiction's primary policy document regarding the development,
rehabilitation, and preservation of housing for all economic segments of the population. Per State
Housing Element law, the document must:
• Analyze the potential constraints to production;
• Outline a community's housing production objectives;
• List policies and implementation programs to achieve local housing goals;
• Examine the need for housing resources in a community, focusing in particular on special
needs populations;
• Identify adequate sites for the production of housing serving various income levels; and
• Evaluate the Housing Element for consistency with other components of the General Plan.
In terms of non-governmental barriers to affordable housing, Entitlement Jurisdictions also address
the supply of available land through their respective Housing Elements. As stated above, the
document must identify and/or zone adequate space to construct each jurisdiction'S regionally
allocated fair share of housing. Other' non-governmental barriers -land costs, construction costs, the
lack of financing options in today's credit market, and the public perception of affordable housing
are further addressed through Consolidated Plan Goals #1,2. 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9, and their associated
strategies.
5.5 Anti-Poverty Strategy
Countywide, approximately six percent of households had incomes below the poverty level in 2009.
The prevalence of poverty varies widely across Entitlement Jurisdictions. Consistent with household
income data, the City of Gilroy has the highest proportion of households living below the poverty
118
line at seven percent. The Urban County jurisdictions of Los Altos and Los Altos Hills have the
lowest poverty rate with just two percent of households living below the poverty line.
The Entitlement Jurisdictions employ a multi-tiered anti-poverty strategy, addressing the issue at a
local and county level. First, each of the goals and programs above helps address poverty directly or
indirectly. As noted by Community Workshop participants, households require assistance across a
spectrum of needs (i.e., housing, health, nutrition, transportation, etc.) to lift themselves out of
poverty.
To augment these efforts, a number of Entitlement Jurisdictions maintain economic development
strategies, including San Jose and Sunnyvale. These documents outline goals, policies, and programs
that support local economic development and job growth.
As a broader-based economic development resource, the North Valley Job Training Consortium
(NOVA) is a nonprofit, federally funded employment and training agency that provides workforce
development services. NOVA collaborates with local businesses, educators, and job seekers to build
the knowledge and skills needed to address the workforce needs of Silicon Valley. NOVA is
directed by the NOV A Workforce Board which works on behalf of a seven-city consortium
composed of the cities of Cupertino, Los Altos, Milpitas, Mountain View, Palo Alto, Santa Clara,
and Sunnyvale. Though the majority of job seekers served through NOVA are laid off workers,
affected by the downsizing or closure of their companies, NOV A also helps job seekers with special
needs, such as homeless veterans, disabled workers, welfare recipients, teen parents, and older
workers.
A similar program, W ork2Future, provides workforce development activities for the cities of Los
Gatos, Morgan Hill, Los Altos Hills, Saratoga, Monte Sereno, and the unincorporated areas of Santa
Clara County. Work2Future operates three One-Stop Career Centers in the areas of San Jose,
Campbell and South County.
Employment assistance is also provided to lower-income households through the Family Self
Sufficiency Program, operated by the HACSC. The Program provides coordination and access to job
training and other services for participants of the Housing Choice Voucher Program who are trying
to become self-sufficient. Participants are required to seek and maintain employment or attend
school or job training. As participants increase earned income, and as a result, pay more for their
portion of the rent, HUD matches the rent increase with money in an escrow account, which is then
awarded to participants who successfully complete the program. Escrow monies are often used as a
down payment on a home.
As another countywide anti-poverty initiative, the First Steps to Cutting Poverty in Half by 2020
report for Santa Clara County includes an Action Plan to reduce the number of households below the
119
Self-Sufficiency Standard. The Action Plan addresses the need and goals associated with food,
housing, health care, education, and income. The Action Plan was prepared by Step Up Silicon
Valley, a community-based initiative that includes community-based organizations, the public sector
(including the cities of Palo Alto, Santa Clara, and San Jose, and the County of Santa Clara), faith
communities and businesses, and is part of the national Campaign to Reduce Poverty in America.
In addition, in 2009, Sacred Heart Community Service (SHCS), the Santa Clara County Community
Action Agency, received funding under the Community Service Block Grant (CSBG) program to
provide a broad range of anti-poverty services including financial training and individual
development accounts, family services, emergency assistance loans, job search assistance, and
essential services (i.e., food, shelter, and clothing).
5.6 Institutional Structure
Both the public and private sector play vital roles in addressing the needs identified in this
Consolidated Plan.
On the public side, local jurisdictions serve as the funnel for federal grant funds, allocating these
monies to local service organizations according to the Consolidated Plan, local Housing Elements,
and other guiding policy documents. Local jurisdictions rely heavily on these federal funds to drive
much of their community development activities.
The Entitlement Jurisdictions also impact local housing conditions through their own policies and
programs. These·include programs that generate community development funds (see Section 2.3),
Redevelopment Agency activities, and their respective General and Specific Plans. Each of these
tools allows the City to leverage private sector activity to address its affordable housing and
community development goals. For example, in communities with inclusionary housing programs,
market rate residential development will contribute to the production of new affordable units. As a
challenge, the ongoing economic recession has slowed private sector development activity.
The Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara also contributes to the local community
development institutional structure. HACSC provides public housing and rental assistance for low
income families, seniors, and persons with disabilities in the County. HACSC also administers and
manages the public housing program for the City, of San Jose Housing Authority through an
agreement between both agencies. In total, HACSC manages nine public housing developments with
555 units. HACSC reports a waitlist of approximately 4,000 households for the two family
developments located in San Jose. Additionally, the HACSC senior and disabled projects have
waitlists ranging from 200 to 500 individuals. Given this backlog in demand, HACSC will likely
playa relatively modest role in addressing the need for affordable housing as the County's
population continues to expand.
120
Historically, the State of California has also played a major role in generating affordable housing
funds that builders and local jurisdictions can access. However, more recently, the State's weak
fiscal condition has led to uncertainty of future bond financing, a major strategy for raising
affordable housing funds. In the face of California's budget concerns, this constraint will likely
remain in effect during some or all of the 2010-2015 Consolidated Plan cycle.
On the private sector side, market rate developers will be the primary source of new housing in the,
County. Entitlement Jurisdictions support private production by guiding developers through the
entitlement process, applying design guidelines and zoning requirements to assure successful
projects, and assisting developers in addressing community concerns about projects. Again,
however, private development activity has slowed considerably in the current recession.
Affordable housing developers and service providers also serve a vital role in addressing community
development need. These groups typically serve the neediest populations. Unfortunately,
participants at the Community Workshops report that many of these groups operate at or above
capacity and cannot expand their service to meet the need. A loss of CnBG funds, therefore, could
represent a potentially significant gap in the service delivery system.
The Entitlement Jurisdictions will continue to support these groups to the extent possible and as long
as funding exists. The Jurisdictions will also back these groups' efforts to secure funding from other
sources, including the State and federal government, as well as private foundations and donors.
Within this community development institutional structure, lenders serve as the source of debt that
supports both market rate and affordable housing development, as well as individual home
purchases. However, in response to the economic recession, lenders have tightened credit
requirements, making it more difficult for developers and potential buyers to access loans.
As a particularly salient concern related to financing, the value of low-income housing tax credits
(LlliTC) has fallen in tandem with the economy. With this loss in tax credit equity, developers are
forced to tum to the State and local agencies for greater subsidies. Unfortunately, uncertainty around
State and local finances and the expiration of programs funded by State housing bonds limits funds
from these sources as well. To help address this issue, the American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act of 2009 (ARRA), provides funding for various housing programs, including the CnBG and the
Tax Credit Assistance Program.
5.7 Coordination
In addition to the collaborative efforts described in the two sections above, the Entitlement
Jurisdictions and other community development organizations in the County coordinate on other
121
initiatives.
First, the Jurisdictions participate in a countywide collaborative of CDBG funded jurisdictions and
the County of Santa Clara. Quarterly meetings are held to discuss joint projects and to identify
future opportunities for coordination and cooperation.
Second, as a coordinated effort to address homelessness in the County, the Santa Clara County
Collaborative on Housing and Homelessness brings together governmental agencies, homeless
service and shelter providers, homeless persons, housing advocates, and affordable housing
developers. The Collaborative prepares the Countywide Homelessness Continuum of Care Plan,
which seeks to create a comprehensive and coordinated system of affordable housing and supportive
services for the prevention, reduction, and eventual end of homelessness. The Plan provides a
common guide for the County, Cities, service providers, the faith community, the business sector,
philanthropy, and the broader community in addressing local housing and services needs for the
homeless.
Destination: Home is another countywide collaborative effort addressing regional homeless needs.
Destination: Home is task force charged with implementing the recommendations of the 2007 Blue
Ribbon Commission on Ending Chronic Homelessness and Solving the Affordable Housing Crisis in
Santa Clara County.
In addition, the Countywide Fair Housing Task Force includes representatives from Entitlement
Jurisdictions, fair housing providers, legal service providers, and other community service providers.
Since its inception, the Task Force has implemented a calendar of countywide fair housing events
and sponsors public information meetings, including Accessibility Training, First-Time Homebuyer
training, and Predatory Lending training.
Lastly, the Entitlement Jurisdictions in Santa Clara County have collaborated on preparing their
Consolidated Plans and Analyses of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice. This coordinated effort
allows the jurisdictions to evaluate and plan for community development needs on a more regional
basis. It recognizes that while different parts of the County have unique concerns, many of these
issues span jurisdictional borders and should be addressed more holistically. The document also
serves as a resource for local practitioners and service providers looking to understand community
development needs throughout Santa Clara County. Finally, this collaborative approach allows the
Entitlement Jurisdictions to use their resources for preparing a Consolidated Plan more cost
effectively.
122
5.8 Resources for Housing and Community Development Activities
Please refer to Section 2.3 for federal, state, and local resources for housing and community
development activities.
It would be speculative to estimate the amount of funding the City could anticipate from potential
sources that are not entitlement based. For the purpose of this Consolidated Plan, the City has
estimated the likely CDBG funding over the next five years assuming that funding levels and
allocation formulas do not change significantly. The primary sources of funding to implement the
Consolidated Plan are as follows:
Community Development Block Grant:
CDBG Program Income:
Human Service Resources Allocations:
City Affordable Housing Fund (Residential):
City Affordable Housing Fund (Commercial):
Total Estimate Funds, 2010 -2015:
5.9 Strategic Plan Tables
$ 3,350,000
$ 500,000
$ 4,000,000
$10,500,000
$ 3,000,000
$21,350,000
This section contains the HUD-required tables for the Five-Year Strategic Plan. These include:
• Table 5.1 (RUD Table 1B): Special Needs (Non-Homeless) Populations
• Table 5.2 (HUD Table 1C): Summary of Specific Housing/Community Development
Objectives
.• Table 5.3 (RUD Table 2A): Priority Housing Needs/Investment Plan
• Table 5.4 (HUD Table 2B): Non-Housing Community Development Needs
• Table 5.5 (RUD Table 2C): Priority Community Development Needs
123
Table 5.1 (HUn Table 1B): Special Needs (Non-Homeless) Populations
Table 5.1 estimates the number of households with special needs individuals based on the HUD CHAS table for the
number of low and moderate income households with mobility and self-care limitations, plus information provided
by the Santa Clara County Public Health Department on the estimated number of persons with mental illness,
substance abuse, and HIV/AIDS. Table 5.1 is used as a basis for calculating the number of households with special
needs individuals who experience an unmet housing need, based on HUD CHAS and other data on housing
problems, which is a sub-set of this table and goals for each category of special needs.
Priority Need Dollars to
SPECIAL NEEDS Level Uomet Address Goals
SUBPOPULATIONS High, Medium, Need Uomet
Low, Need
No Such Need
Elderly High 1,734 1,734,000 400
Frail Elderly High 933 1,399,500 200
Severe Mental Illness High 350 525,000 50
Developmentally Disabled High 65 65,000 50
Physically Disabled High 387 387,000 50
Persons wi Alcohol/Other Drug Medium 356 356,000
Addictions 25
Persons wIHIV I AIDS Medium 90 90,000 25
Victims of Domestic Violence High 50 50,000 25
Other
TOTAL 3,965 4,606,500 825
1. Based Palo Alto's proportion of the countywide population (3.5%) multiplied by the 2003 countywide number of discharges (10,236).
2. Based on the estimated number of North County cases (18 percent of2,406 countywide HIV/AIDS cases) and Palo Alto's proportion of
the North county population (20.6) percent) which includes Palo Alto, Mountain View, Los Altos and Sunnyvale. Separate data are not
available for Palo Alto.
3. Based upon data provided by Support Network for Battered Women, 2008 and 2009.
124
Table 5.2 (HUD Table IC): Summary of Specific Housing/Community Development Objectives
5.10 Table Ie Summary of Specific Objectives
Number Number
DH LowlModerate Income 2010 Units -0-%
1.1 Housing Resident. 2011 Units %
Housing 2012 Units %
Fund; 2013 Units %
Local 2014 Units %
develop. MULTI-YEAR GOAL 125 %
DH LowlModerate Income CDBG; 2010 Units 4 %
2.1 Housing Palo Alto 2011 Units % BMR
program 2012 Units %
2013 Units %
2014 Units %
MULTI-YEAR GOAL 20 %
DH LowlModerate Income CDBG 2010 Units 120 %
3.1 Housing 2011 Units %
2012 Units %
2013 Units %
2014 Units %
MULTI-YEAR GOAL 150 %
SL LowlModerate Income CDBG 2010 Units 5 %
1.1 Housing 2011 Units %
2012 Units %
2013 Units %
2014 Units %
MULTI-YEAR GOAL 50 %
125
SL LowlModerate Income CDBG; 2010 Units 3 % 2.1 Housing City of 2011 Units % Palo Alto
BMR 2012 Units %
program 2013 Units %
2014 Units %
MULTI-YEAR GOAL 14 %
SL LowlModerate Income CDBG 2010 Units 20 % 3.1 Housing 2011 Units %
2012 Units %
2013 Units %
2014 Units %
YEAR GOAL 125 %
126
Table 2A
Priority Housing NeedslInvestment Plan Table
Small Related
Large Related
Renter
Elderly
All Other
Owner Elderly
Owner All Other
Total Goals
Special Needs
127
25 50
25 50
25 25
22 75
280
130
Table 5.4 (HUD Table 2B): Non-Housing Community Development Needs
Table 2B
Priority Community Development Needs
Priority Dollars to
Priority Need Need Level Address Goal
Need Plan/Act
PUBLIC FACILITIES
Senior Centers High 300,000 3B.2
Youth Centers High 1,000,000 3B.2
Child Care Centers High 1,000,000 3B.2
Parks and Recreation Facilities Medium 200,000 3B.2
Health Care Facilities High 500,000 3B.2
Homeless Facilities High 1,000,000 3B.2
Drainage/Flooding IIIiprovements Low 5,000 3B.2
Street, Lighting & Sidewalk Improvement Medium 25,000 3B.l
Parking Facilities Low 10,000 3B.1
Disabled Accessibility Improvements Medium 250,000 3B.l
Traffic Calming Improvements Low 5,000 3B.l
Graffiti and Blight Removal Low 10,000 3B.2
COMMUNITY SERVICES
Food & Nutrition Services High 2,000,000 3A.l
Family Counseling & Case Management High 700,000 3A.l
Foreclosure Prevention & Housing Counsel. Low 5,000 3A.3
Disabled Services Medium 50,000 3.Al
Senior Activities Medium 500,000 3A.l
Youth Activities Medium 1,000,000 3A.l
At-Risk Youth Services High 1,000,000 3A.l
N eglected/ Abused Children High 1,000,000 3A.l
Child Care Medium 500,000 3A.2
Anti-Crime Programs Low 50,000 3A.2
Health Services High 250,000 3A.l
Mental Health Services High 250,000 2A.5
TenantlLandlord Mediation Low 150,000 4A.l
Legal Services Medium 35,000 3A.2
Transportation Services Low 10,000 3A2
Substance Abuse Services Medium 15,000 2A.5
128
Domestic Violence Services (e.g. High 50,000 3A.l
counseling)
Homeless Services High 1,000,000 2A.5
Emancipated Youth (aging out of foster Medium 100,000 2A.2
care)
HIV / AIDS Services Low 10,000 3A.l
HOUSING
Disabled Access Improvements Medium 100,000 lC.l
Owner-Occupied Rehabilitation Medium 100,000 lC.1
Rental Housing Rehabilitation Medium 2,000,000 lC.l
Homeownership Assistance Medium 50,000 lB.l
Affordable Rental Housing High 2,000,000 lA.l
Housing for Disabled Medium 200,000 lC.1
Senior Housing High 2,000,000 lC.1
Housing for Large Families Low 10,000 lC.1
Housing for Emancipated Youth Medium 100,000 2A.2
Fair Housing Services Medium 50,000 4A.l
Lead Paint Testing and Abatement High 20,000 3C.2
Energy Efficiency Improvements Medium 1,000,000 6A.2
Assistance for Seismic Retrofitting Low 15,000 lA.2
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Small Business Loans Medium 100,000 5A.2
Small Business Development & Mentoring High 200,000 5A.2
Job CreationlRetention High 500,000 5A.l
Employment or Vocational Training High 700,000 5A.l
Building & Fa9ade Improvement Low 45,000 5A.2
Assistance for seismic Retrofitting Low 10,000 5A.2
1. These needs have been categorized in the same manner as Appendix A.3 -Survey Responses ... Priority of need has been established
within each category but not between categories.
129
Table 5.5 (HUD Table 2C): Priority Community Development Needs
Summary of Specific Housing/Community Development Objectives
(HUD Table 2C)
Actual
Performance Expected Units
Goal # Specific Objectives Measure Units (leave
blank)
Rental Housing Objectives
IA.I Increase the Supply of Rental Housing Units 50
&IC.1
IA.2 Preserve Existing Affordable Rental Housing Units 72
&IC.I
IA.2 Conserve the Condition of Existing Rental Units 150
&IC.1 Housing
Owner Housing Objectives
IB.1 Continue Below market Rate Program Units 34
IS.3 Rehabilitation Loans to LIM Income Owners Units Emergency
Only
IB.3 Minor Home Repairs and Accessibility Units 150
Upgrades
Public Service Objectives
3A.I Assist Seniors in Long-Term Care Individuals 400
2A.I-5 Services to Prevent Homelessness Individuals 2,000
3A.I Food and Meal Programs Individuals 2,000
Public Facilities Objectives
3B.I Promote Community-Based Services through Facilities 2
&3B.2 Public Facilities
130
Appendix A:
Documentation of Public Process
131
Appendix A.1: COSG Workshop Attendees, September 3-23, 2009
,~~~~,;$1'.~i~:R,q~~ig~m~~~!W)~~'ti:~1·':~ik"#!';~~;~i.~iJ.@.6,:.~,$'tlf:.~~!'~~9.Pm'J.:';;/;'; .. · ",. ;;";'.1 •. :.;' 1 Charles Lauer
~~~~<';II=~':W~J""~i~,..t!9~i41~M,,'1.~~~:T.~;;,~:r=i!lY;W~~gc;,~~"'l~!:rmID!~!U:;';;;···~,};:;: ,",.
1 2.~m:allk ~r!hLife':~:' for Youth
2 Andrea Osgood Eden Housing
3 Blrku Melese, Ph.D., Ethiopian Community Services, Inc.
4 Carlos Garcia Fresh lifelines for Youth
5 Cesar Anda state legislature AD 23
6 Ching Mlng Hsueh Catholic Charities
7 Elaine Curran City of SJ Early Care
8 Elizabeth Hunt Indian Health Center of Santa Clara Valley
9 Erik Kaeding resident/student
10 Gary Smith GS Lighting Design
11 Georgia Bacll, Exec. Dlr. Senior Adult Legal Assistance
12 Heona Lee Korean-American Community Services (i<ACS)
13 James R. Brune Deaf Couns., Adv. & Referral Agency (DCARA)
14 Jan V. ChacOn Indian Health Center of Santa Clara Valley
15 Jane Hills, Deputy Director. Catholic Charities
16 Jeff Bomefeld Community Partners for Youth, Inc. (CCPY)
17 Jenna Boyer The Opportunity Fund
18 Judy Whmler, Dlr. of Community Resources The Bill Wilson Center
19 Lee Elak CDHC Commissioner
20 Uz Glrens Opportunity Fund
21 Margie Matthews resident
22 Marla SOlis Japanese American Senior Housing
23 Mark Johanson resident
24 Michele Lew/Presldent-CEO Asian Americans for Community Involvement
25 Minh Hoang Pham Catholic Charities
26 Regina Adams City of Mountain View
27 Ronald Anderson The Cambrian Center
28 Sylvia Alvarez Evergreen School District Board Member,
29 Tamon Norlmoto HCDC of SJ
30 Tom Geary Second Harvest
~~i'f'~SIJ.I1._i~~~P."'tfJ'.UI~~mm.I!!lJn4.~i.!~~~tji:;;=;i~i'~~.,i;j:<SMtliU'ii;9.~~~l'r.;J."r~aR.t.6.,i~;;i\/ 1 Alban Dlaz . CathOliC Charities .
2 Dina Campeau South County Collaborative
3 Edna Nagy Case Maneger, Morgan Hili Depot Commons CathOliC Charities Day Break III
4 Forrest Williams resident
5 Jane Hills, Deputy Director Children, Youth and Family Development
6 Jeff Pedersen Morgan Hili resident + Housing Mgr. City of SC
7 Joe Mueller resident
8 Leah Ezeoha Juvenile Probation, SCC
9 Lori Mathis, Dlr. of Brown Bag Programs Second Harvest
10 Lynn Magruder, Grants Administrator Community Solutions
11 Marilyn Roaf resident
12 Martha Bell, Exec. Director Silicon Valley Independent Living Center
13 Melanie Villanueva City of Morgan Hili Staff
14 Michele Schroder $AlA
15 Osvaldo Maldonado, Community Programs Manager Second Harvest
16 Patti Worthen, Supervisor Day Break Catholic Charities Day Break III
17 Sandra Nava City of Gilroy
18 Sheryll Bejarano resident
19 Sue L Koepp-Baker resident
~';#.j~;,~;:,:~;~~n;"f.I~R9~~t\~'I:,gJ1~,~~~·,J:~j.t~w~~~~:ri:~~~~~~%~~ttM~$lRto., ··,:;',·i;·· .•
1 Adam Montgomery Silicon Valley Association or Realtors
2 Adriana Caldera Support Network for Battered Women
3 Anna Gonzales Juvenile Probation, SCC
4 Arely Valeriano Catholic Charities of Santa Clara County
5 Arthur Schwartz resident
6 Beatrlz Lopez SALA
7 Beverly Jackson, ED Rebuilding Together
132
Appendix A.1: COBG Workshop Attendees, September 3-23, 2009
8 Chana Pederson
9 Cindy McCormick
10 Cindy Stahl
11 Connie Soto
12 Connie Verceles
13 Consuelo Collard
14 David Ramirez
15 Deml Yezgl
16 Dennis Klng
17 Deslrie Escobar
18 Diane Shakoor
19 Dori Hailu
20 Dorothy Heller, Exec. Assistant
21 Edith Alams
22 Elba Landaverde
23 Eric Anderson
24 Estella Jones, phone 408-730-5236.
25 Gerald Hewitt
26 Ginger McClure
27 Greg Harrick
28 Hector Burgos
29 Hilary Barraga, Director of Programs
30 Jesus Estrada
31 Joan Smithson, Site Manager
32 JoAnn Cabrera, development coordinator
33 Kathy Marx
34 Kerry Haywood, ED Moffett Park BTA
35 Laura Roblchek
36 Lynn Morison
37 Mark Roblchek
38 Mattew Osment-Dlr. Strategic Alliances
39 Nancy Tlvol
40 Patricia Lord
41 Peria Flores
42 Pilar Furiong
43 Raul and Helen Ledesma
44 RogerGaw
45 Sarah Khan
46 Shamlma Hasan, CEO
47 Stacy Castle
48 Susan Huff
49 Tom Geary
50 Tricla Uyeda
51 Victor Ruder
52 Wanda Hale, Development Officer
CCSC
City of Saratoga
NOVA
City of Sunnyvale, ED Manager
The Health Trust
Outreach
H&HSCom.
Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
JPD
Community AcHon Agency
H&HSCom.
Dayworker Center of Mountain View
COD/Housing
Community SVC8. Agency of Mtn. View and Los Altos
Sunnyvale HHSC
Sunnyvale resident
City of Santa Clara HCD
Catholic Charities of Santa Clara County
. HUD Region IX
Habitat Silicon V~lIey
Emergency Housing Consorilum (EHC)
Community Action Agency
Senior Lunch Program
MayVIew Community HeaHh Center
City of Palo Alto
Moffett Park BTA
resident
the bill wilson center
resident
Inn Vision
City of Sunnyvale-resident
City of Sunnyvale
Community Solutions
. Red Cross of Silicon Valley
residents
Sunnyvale Chamber of Commerce
,MAITRI
MayView Community Health Center
YWCA Silicon Valley
Saratoga Area Senior Coordinator
Second Harvest
West Valley Community Services -Rotating Shelter Program
SUMyvale Senior Nutrition
Catholic Charities of Santa Clara County
133
~ w
~
Food and Nutrition Services
Family Counseling and Case Management
Foreclosure Prevention and Housing
Counseling
Disabled Services
Senior Services and Activities
Youth Activities
At-Risk Youth Services
Neglected/Abused Children
Child Care
Preventative pro-active
measures needed.
Maintain support for senior
center meals.
Free activities needed. Tie in
with nutrition and health
(e.g., community gardens,
food production).
Need for gang intervention
programs.
Case management
services must continue .
and be expanded.
Lower income seniors lack
funds for all basic needs.
Legal services needed.
Increased abuse rates .
during recession.
Affordable, quality elder
day care needed.
Pro-active measures
needed. NSP funds may
help transform properties
to special needs
housing.
Deaf/hard of hearing
often cannot access
services due to lack of
ASL translation.
Assistance needed.
senior center meals.
Case management
services must continue
and be expanded. Need
for services increasing
as senior population
grows, especially to
avoid institutionalization.
Other funding sources
(e.g., United Way) being
cut.
Programs to prevent
. drop-outs needed.
Early intervention and
supplemental education
needed.
Increasectabuse rates
during recession. Need for
serVices increasing as
senior population grows,
especially to avoid
institutionalization. Other
funding sources (e.g.,
United Way) being cut.
Free activities needed. Tie
in with nutrition and health.
youth needed in Gilroy.
Need for gang intervention
Need for quality
care.
~
eN
0'1
Anti-Crime Programs
Health Services
Mental Health Services
Tenant/Landlord Mediation
Legal Services
Transportation Assistance
Substance Abuse Services
Domestic Violence Services (e.g., counseling)
Homeless Services
Emancipated Youth (aging out oHoster care)
HIVIAIDS Services
Other~ _______ _
Needed, particularly during
recession.
Needed, particularly during
recession.
Assistance with drug
coverage due to reduced
state funding.
Neighborhood safety
remains a concern in
some areas.
Needed.
Needed, particularly
during recession.
Needed for seniors.
Transportation serviCes
serving seniors, youth,
and others.
Needed for youth, in
particular ..
More prevalent with
recession. May rise with
predicted release of
incarcerated persons.
State funding being cut.
Demand for housing and
services.
Interim housing for
homeless to help provide
access to services.
Improved networking
between providers.
Language translation
services needed.
Greater publicizing of
existing services needed.
Affordable clinics Affordable clinics needed,
needed, particularly particularly given
given unemployment unemployment and lack of
and lack of insurance. insurance.
Needed.
Promote "meet & greet"
between affordable
housing property Needed, particularly during managers and potential
tenants to avoid eviction recession.
later. Follow up .tenant
supp()rt also needed.
Needed for seniors.
Transportation services
serving seniors, youth, and .!
others.
Needed. I
More prevalent with More prevalent with
recession. May rise with recession and predicted
predicted release of release of incarcerated
incarcerated persons. persons. State funding
State funding being cut. being cut.
Needed, particularly Needed, particularly during during recession. More recession. families than before.
Demand for housing and
services.
Community Centers and
other Single pOints of
access to multiple
services are needed. Programs to assist
Assistance with undocumented individuals
application and credit (including unaccompanied
! check fees for affordable minors) access range of
units. services.
Programs to assist
undocumented
indMduals accessral!ge
"""'" w en
Owner-Occupied Housing Rehabilitation
Rental Housing Rehabilitation
Homeownership Assistance
Affordable Rental Housing
Housing for Disabled
Senior Housing
Housing for Large Families
Housing for Emancipated Youth (aging out of
foster care)
Fair Housing Services
Lead Paint Testing and Abatement
Energy Efficiency Improvements
.'_". 'v., •. _. ___ • ___ "_"_.~",_.!_ .. _".,,~~ ~"_ . .,._..,._,._, _,,·",, ___ ~,," __ ·"·c··_·'· .. _ •. ~.~.~.-,_ ... " ._u, ··"-~:":::':""-::.:.:.:...:::"":':-':":2'::::::"'::'::::::'::"::
affordable
housing for a range of
household types, including
singles, couples, small
and large families.
Need for housing to serve
households up to 50% of
AMI.
Ongoing support to
affordable housing
needed.
Need for affordable
housing for people with
disabilities.
Need for affordable senior
housing.
Affordable units needed.
of services.
Financial training for
families.
Matched savings
program (IDA).
Assistance to young
professionals in
homes.
Need for permanent Need for permanent
affordable housing for affordable housing for
households up to 50% of households up to 50% of
AMI, as well as seniors. AMI. SROs also an option.
Need for
housing for people with
disabilities.
Housing for persons
requiring service
animals.
Encourage Universal
Design in new homes.
Need for affordable senior
housing.
...lIo.
W
-.....J
Transitional and Supportive Housing
Assistance for Seismic Retrofitting
Other _________ _
Small Business Loans
Small Business Development and Mentoring
Job CreationlRetention
Employment or Vocational Training
efficiency to lower income
households.
Winchester Bus. Dist.
Requires small business
Programs to help
entrepreneurs establish a
formal business outside of
their homes.
and water efficiency to
lower income households.
emporary
assistance to households
in danger of eviction or
foreclosure.
Strategies to assist with
NIMBY-ism for affordable
or multifamily housing.
Ongoing protection of
mobile home parks as a
source of affordable
housing.
Direct assistance for
move-on costs in rental
housing.
Affordable homeownership
through self-help housing
projects.
Utility assistance for
renters.
Outreach and coordination
Needed to help alleviate
commercial vacancies.
Youth and
services particuiiuly
needed.
Basic job skills and
services also
Need for one-stop
service center related to
housing activities and
programs.
Direct assistance for
move-on costs in rental
housing.
Needed.
Child care provider
vocational training good
example of vocational
program.
Transitional housing'
needed for all segments,
Need for affordable youth
oriented housing, including
pregnant and parenting
teens, as well as board and
care facilities.
Affordable housing for
farmworkers needed.
to generate
in emerging industries
(e.g., clean and green
Programs to train green
collar workers, particularly
youth.
...10.
W
(X)
Building & Fa98de Improvement
Assistance for Seismic Retrofitting
Other, ________ _
·:~ii;~u#~:~~~~~\~t'~~~l:~f:.::·,:~
Senior Centers
Youth Centers
Child Care Centers .
Parks and Recreation Facilities
Health Care Facilities
Homeless Facilities
DrainageJFlooding Improvements
Street, Lighting, and Sid~alk Improvements
Parking Facilities
Disabled Accessibility Improvements
Traffic Calming Improvements
Graffiti and Blight Removal
rnher _________ __
necessary.
Needed.
::~ .•. , .. ,,:::,., • :":,::?"C'\i'::~".·''':'';
Continue to maintain local
parks, especially heavily
used facilities.
.'
Graffiti abatement needed.
General need to replace
aging infrastructure.
---
Support of Business
Improvement Districts
that help prevent blight.
: :.: ...• >' (;;'\iL:./iY:(
Needed
Need for Center in Gilroy.
Serves as access pOint for
services.
Need for maintenance and
lighting.
Use CDBG for park
accessibility . I
Need for more expanded
centers. Often waiting
list.
Sidewalk and streetlight Need for accessible
improvement in business sidewalks and street
districts. lighting in Gilroy.
Rehab of non-profit and
public facilities.
Partner with schools to Need for accessible, well-
provide community lit, and user-friendly bus
facilities and services stops.
(though some youth and Satellite offices for service
other portions of providers, possibly in
community may be community centers.
barred from campus or
lack access).
Appendix A.3: CDBG Survey Responses. Santa Clara County. Sept. 2009
Family Counseling and Case Management 3.00 3.33 3.71 3.18 3.21 98
Foreclosure Prevention and Housing Counseling 2.71 2.61 3.38 3.12 2.95 101
Disabled Services 2.52 2.83 2.75 2.56 2.61 97
Senior Activities 2.78 3.16 3.50 3.07 3.05 103
Youth Actlvlties 2.81 3.33 3.67 3.75 3.44 111
At-Risk Youth Servlces 3.00 3.62 3.57 4.22 3.76 103
Neglected/Abused Children 3.00 3.30 3.67 3.19 3.20 97
Child Care 2.88 3.00 3.00 3.21 3.07 99
Anti-Crime Programs 2.68 3.06 3.14 4.00 3.49 102
Health Servlces 3.39 3.60 3.44 3.57 3.53 100
Mental Health Servlces 3.22 3.57 3.50 2.81 3.13 93
TenantlLandlord Mediation 2.09 2.44 2.88 3.00 2.66 93
Legal Servlces 2.72 2.67 2.75 2.98 2.84 101
Transportation Assistance 2.68 3.06 3.50 3.22 3.08 101
Substance Abuse Servlces 2.76 2.89 3.63 3.06 3.00 102
Domestic Violence Services (e.g., counseling) 3.00 3.40 3.75 3.12 3.20 102
Homeless Services 3.21 3.05 3.38 2.86 3.02 101
Emancipated Youth (aging out of foster care) 2.72 3.10 3.132.572.76 100
HIVIAIDS Services 2.50 2.80 3.20 2.75 2.73 92
Other 3.50 4.00 4.00 3.80 3.80 11
~~~V1ftJ.{W~%,,~~~~h~~~~~
Disabled Access Improvements 2.68 2.63 3.00 2.96 2.83 89
Owner-Occupied Housing Rehabilitation 2.32 2.44 2.80 2.98 2.71 91
Rental Housing Rehabilitation 2.43 2.67 2.33 3.18 2.89 89
Homeownership AsSistance 2.55 2.75 2.67 3.02 2.83 91
Affordable Rental Housing 3.41 3.65 3.57 3.10 3.31 95
Housing for Disabled 2.88 2.93 3.25 2.73 2.83 89
Senior Housing 3.00 3.59 3.75 3.00 3.17 97
Housing for Large Families 3.14 2.93 3.29 3.13 3.11 93
Housing for Emancipated Youth (aging out offoster care) 2.n 3.18 3.00 2.84 2.90 90
Fair Housing Servlces 2.41 2.81 3.00 3.26 2.96 92
Laad Paint Testing and Abatement 2.09 2.20 3.00 3.24 2.77 92
Energy Efficiency Improvements 2.57 2.93 2.40 3.31 3.01 93
Assistance for SeIsmic Retrofitting 2.17 2.21 2.00 3.07 2.64 84
Other 3.33 3.33 3.00 3.33 3.30 11 iiiljj~~~Ii.~M.,.·~·~-~~ -' , ?-' ,
Sma usiness Loans 2.43 2. 1 2.25 2.80 2.88 93
Small Business Development and Mentoring 2iS9 2.80 2.75 3.17 2.94 89
Job CreationlRetention 3.35 3.41 3.75 3.55 3.49 99
Employment or Vocational Training 3.29 3.44 3.67 3.52 3.48 95
Building & Fa9ade Improvement 2.05 2.93 2.00 3.31 2.89 90
Assistance for Seismic Retrofitting 1.86 2.29 1.67 3.14 2.60 82
Other 2.67 4.00 NA 2.80 3.00 11
~n~~~~tf!~~~
Senior centers 3.04 3.06 3.20 NA 3.08' 47
Youth Centers 3.08 3.21 3.50 NA 3.18 49
Child Care Centers 2.96 3.17 3.00 NA 3.04 45
Parks and Recreation Facilities 2.43 3.18 3.40 NA 2.84 43
Health Care Facilities 3.04 3.58 3.29 NA 3.28 50
Homeless Facilities 3.13 3.26 3.00 NA 3.17 47
Drainage/Flooding Improvements 2.10 2.25 2.33 NA 2.18 40
Street. Lighting. and Sidewalk Improvements 2.36 2.35 3.00 NA 2.42 43
Parking Facilities 1.83 2.00 2.25 NA 1.93 42
Disabled Accessibility Improvements 2.52 2.59 2.75 NA 2.57 44
Traffic Calming Improvements 2.10 2.29 2.00 NA 2.17 41
Graffiti and Blight Removal 2.14 2.41 1.75 NA 2.21 43
Other NA NA NA NA NA 0
Notes:
(a) "Number of responses· does not count questions which were left unanswered by the participant.
Completed responses were used to calculate "average level of need."
(b) ·Communlty Facilities and Infrastructure" questions were not included in the SNI survey.
Sources: BAE. 2009.
139
~
~ o
Appendix A.3: "Other" Comments
Category
Community Services
Housing
Economic Development &
Infrastructure
Sources: BAE, 2009
Comment
Police Improvement relationship
Curb appeal for residential properties
Yard maintenance
A community center
Employment Services
Services for immigrants
Services .to address growing epidemic of diabetes and chroniC illnesses
Translation information and referrals
Senior Legal Assistance-LTC Ombudsman, Elder Abuse Prevention
Protection from abuse for seniors in long term facilities
LTC Ombudsman-to protect seniors in nursing homes and assisted IMng
Child Care-SUBSIDIES! We have waitlists between 20 and 50 families per site. We cut It off at some point. But we get calls daily fur help.
Emergency Training for public
If we do not have a community center, have the school support the community to have their events in the gym or cafeteria.
Homeless Youth
Emergency Financial AsSistance to prevent eviction for low income families facing temporary problems
Assets/Savings, Financial Education
Matched-Savings Programs and Financial Education
Energy Efficiency-small business
Speed limits In front of our house
Training public
Curb appeal of commercial properties
Area
~
SNI
SNI
SNI
SNI
Central
Central
Central
South
South
North
North
SNI
SNI
Central
North
Central
Central
North
SNI
SNI
SNI
AppendixB:
Nee· d s Ass e ssm e n tD a t a Sources
141
• Association of Bay Area Governments (ABA G). ABAG, the regional planning agency for
the nine county San Francisco Bay Area, produces population, housing, and employment
projections for the cities and counties within its jurisdiction. The projections are updated
every two years. BAE used data from the 2009 ABAG Projections in this Needs
Assessment.
• Bay Area Economics (BAE) -BAE is listed as a source simply to indicate that it is
responsible for assembling the table. BAE is not the primary source for any of the data
provided in this report. All primary sources are listed in each table.
• Claritas, Inc. Claritas is a private data vendor that offers demographic data for thousands of
variables for numerous geographies, including cities, counties, and states. Using 2000 U.S.
Census data and more current American Community Survey as a benchmark, Claritas
provides current year estimates for many demographic characteristics such as household
composition, size, and income. This is particularly valuable given the fact that many cities
have undergone significant change since the last decennial census was completed over nine
years ago. BAE used Claritas data to characterize population and households and to describe
housing needs. Current-year demographic data from Claritas can be compared to decennial
census data from 1990 and 2000. Claritas does not publish margin of errors for their data.
• DataQuick Information Systems. DataQuick is a private data vendor that provides real
estate information such as home sales price and sales volume trends. DataQuick also
provides individual property records, which includes detailed information on property type,
sales date, and sale amount. This information allowed BAE to assess the market sales price
of homes sold in the County.
• RealFacts. RealFacts, a private data vendor, provides comprehensive information on
residential rental markets. Based on surveys of large apartment complexes with 50 or more
units, this data includes an inventory analysis as well as quarterly and annual rent and
occupancy trends.
• Santa Clara County Homeless Census and Survey, 2009. In January 2009, a count of
homeless individuals in Santa Clara County was conducted. Concurrently,one-on-one
interviews with homeless individuals were completed to create a qualitative profile of the
County's homeless population. This report provides detailed information on the size and
composition of the homeless population in Santa Clara County.
• State of California, Department of Finance. The Department of Finance publishes annual
population estimates for the State, counties, and cities, along with information on the number
142
of housing units, vacancies, average household size, and special populations. The
Department also produces population forecasts for the State and counties with age, sex, and
race/ethnic detail. The demographic data published by the Department of Finance serves as
the single official source for State planning and budgeting, informing various appropriation
decisions.
• State of California, Employment Development Department. The Employment
Development Department identifies the largest 25 private-sector employers in each County.
• USDA Census of Agriculture, 2007. Every five years the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) publishes a complete count of U.S. farms and ranches and the people who operate
them. This data source provides county-level data on the number of permanent and seasonal
farrnworkers.
• U.S. Census Bureau. The Census Bureau collects and disseminates a wide range of data
that is useful in assessing demographic conditions and housing needs. These are discussed
below.
o Decennial Census. The 2000 Census provides a wide range of population and housing
data for the County,region, and State. The decennial Census represents a count of
everyone living in the United States every ten years. In 2000, every household received
a questionnaire asking for information about sex, age, relationship, Hispanic origin, race,
and tenure. In addition, approximately 17 percent of households received a much longer
questionnaire which included questions social, economic, and fmancial characteristics of
their household as well as the physical characteristics of their housing unit. Although
the last decennial census was conducted nine years ago, it remains the most reliable
source for many data points because of the comprehensive nature of the survey.
o American Community Survey (ACS). The U.S. Census Bureau also publishes the
ACS, an on-going survey sent to a small sample of the population that provides
demographic, social, economic, and housing information for cities and counties every
year. However, due to the small sample size, there is a notable margin of error in ACS
data, particularly for small-and moderately-sized communities. F or t~is reason, BAE
does not utilize ACS data despite the fact that it provides more current information than
the 2000 Census.
o Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CRAS). CHAS provides special
tabulation data from the 2000 Census which shows housing problems for particular
populations, including the elderly, low-income households, and large households. This
data is used in the assessment of demand for special needs housing.
143
o Building Permits. The Census Bureau provides data on the number of residential
building permits issued by cities by building type.
144
A P P en d i xC:
Detailed Mapping of Areas of Minority
Concentration and Concentrated Poverty
145
Population by Race/Ethnicity
No Group over 50%
_ Vllhite over 50%
~ Asian Over 50%
~ Hispanic Over 50% Santa
146
Legend
Percent Asian
Less than 20%
20%1040%
.. More than 40%
sa?ta Cruz County
147
Legend
Percent Hispanic
Less than 20%
20% to 40%
.. More than 40%
sa~,a Cruz County
148
Legend
Percent Minority Population
Less than 83%
,,83%orMore
149
Santa Clara County
Stanislaus
County
Legend
Percent Living Below Poverty
Less than 5%
5% to 10%
.10.1%t020%
~ More than 20% Santa
150
AppendixD:
Homeless Gap Analysis
151
Appendix D.l: Homeless Gap Analysis, Cupertino, 2009
Individuals
Emergency Shelter
Transitional Housing
Permanent Supportive Housing
Total
Fam ilies with Children
Emergency Shelter
Transitional Housing
Permanent Supportive Housing
Total
Part 1: Homeless Population (b)
Number of Families with Children
(d)
Number of Persons in Fam ilies with
Children
Number of Persons in Households
without Children (e)
Total
Part 2: Homeless Subpopulations (f)
a. Chronically Homeless
b. Seriously Mentally III
c. Chronic Substance Abuse
d. Veterans
e. Persons with HIV/AIDS
f. Victims of Domestic Violenre
g. Unacoompanied Youth (Under 18)
Notes:
Num ber of Beds
Current Under
Inventory Developm ent
15 0
10 0
0 0
25 0
0 0
12 0
0 0
12 0
Sheltered ~cl
Emergency
Shelter
0
0
15
15
Sheltered
4
8
10
6
o
3
o
Transitional
Housing
4
15
13
28
Unsheltered
7
Onmet
Need (a)
0
0
25
25
0
2
8
9
Unsheltered
0
0
18
18
Total
11
(a) Unmet need derived from the number of beds underdevelopment and the numberofsheltered
and unsheltered homeless enumerated in the 2009 Santa Clara County Homeless Census and Survey.
Methodology used to calculate unmet need based on the 2009 Continuum of Care Application.
For complete description of methodology and assumptions, contact the Executive Committee
of the Santa Clara County Collaborative on Housing and Homeless Issues.
(b) Based on 2009 Santa Clara County Homeless Census and Survey.
(c) The point-in-time count at some emergency shelters and transitional housing facilities have been corrected
sinre the 2009 Homeless Census and Survey was released. This data reflects the corrected figures.
(d) Number of families derived from average household sizes from the Homeless Census and Survey.
(e) Persons in households without children include single persons and individuals in vehicles, encampments,
abandoned buildings, or parks where family status could not be determined.
(f) These data are based on both the Homeless Census and data from the Homeless Survey. The results
are estimates, calculated by applying the survey results to the point-in-time Homeless Census population.
Sources: 2009 Homeless Census and Survey, Applied Survey Research, January 2009;
2009 Santa Clara County Continuum of Care Application; BAE, 2009.
152
Total
4
15
46
61
Appendix D.2: Homeless Gap Analysis, Gilroy, 2009
Individuals
Emergency Shelter
Transitional Housing
Permanent Supportive Housing
Total
Families with Children
Emergency Shelter
Transitional Housing
Permanent Supportive Housing
Total
Part 1: Homeless Population (b)
Number of Families with Children
(d)
Number of Persons in Families with
Children
Number of Persons in Households
without Children (e)
Total
Part 2: Homeless Subpopulations (f)
a. Chronically Homeless
b. Seriously Mentally III
c. Chronic Substance Abuse
d. Veterans
e. Persons with HIV/AIDS
f. Victims of Domestic Violence
g. Unaccompanied Youth (Under 18)
Notes:
Num ber of Beds
Current Under
Inventory Development
0 0
20 0
12 9
32 9
14 0
204 0
68 32
286 32
Sheltered (c)
Emergency
Shelter
4
13
148
161
Sheltered
38
79
95
55
1
29
3
Transitional
Housing
71
266
14
280
Unsheltered
80
Dnmet
Need (a)
0
4
238
242
0
15
44
59
Unsheltered
1
3
190
193
Total
118
(a) Unmet need derived from the number of beds underdevelopment and the numberof sheltered
and unsheltered homeless enumerated in the 2009 Santa Clara County Homeless Census and Survey.
Methodo logy used to ca lcu late un met need ba se don the 2009 Continuum of Care Application.
For complete description of methodology and assumptions, contact the Executive Committee
of the Santa Clara County Collaborative on Housing and Homeless Issues.
(b) Based on 2009 Santa Clara County Homeless Census and Survey. Includes individuals at
sea son al she lte rs, which are not reflected in current inventory.
(c) The point-in-time count at some emergency shelters and transitional housing facilities have been corrected
since the 2009 Homeless Census and Survey was released. This data reflects the corrected figures.
(d) Numberof families derived from average household sizes from the Homeless Census and Survey.
(e) Persons in households without children include single persons and individuals in vehicles, encampments,
abandoned buildings, or parks where family status could not be determined.
(f) These data are based on both the Homeless Census and data from the Homeless Survey. The results
are estimates, calculated by applying the survey results to the point-in-time Homeless Census population.
Sources: 2009 Homeless Census and Survey, Applied Survey Research, January 2009;
2009 Santa Clara County Continuum of Care Application; BAE, 2009.
153
Total
76
282
352
634
Appendix D.3: Homeless Gap Analysis: Mountain View, 2009
Individuals
Emergency Shelter
Transitional Housing
Permanent Supportive Housing
Total
Fam ilies with Children
Emergency Shelter
Transitional Housing
Permanent Supportive Housing
Total
Part 1: Homeless Population (b)
Number of Families with Children
(d)
Number of Persons in Fam ilies with
Children
Number of Persons in Households
without Children (e)
Total
Part 2: Homeless Subpopulations (f)
a. Chronically Homeless
b. SeriOusly Mentally III
c. Chronic Substance Abuse
d. Veterans
e. Persons with HIVIAIDS
f. Victims of Domestic Violence
g. Unacoompanied Youth (Under 18)
Notes:
Num ber of Beds
Current Under
Inventory Development
0 0
6 0
0 0
6 0
16 0
10 0
0 0
26 0
Sheltered (c)
Emergency
Shelter
6
18
0
18
Sheltered
1
3
3
2
o
1
o
Transitional
Housing
3
10
4
14
Unsheltered
26
Onmet
Need (a)
0
37
38
0
2
8
9
Unsheltered
0
0
62
62
Total
27
(a) Unmet need derived from the number of beds underdevelopment and the numberof sheltered
and unsheltered homeless enumerated in the 2009 Santa Clara County Homeless Census and Survey.
Methodology used to calculate unmet need based on the 2009 Continuum of care Application.
For complete description of methodology and assumptions, contact the Executive Committee
ofthe Santa Clara County Collaborative on Housing and Homeless Issues.
(b) Based on 2009 Santa Clara County Homeless Census and Survey.
(c) The point-in-time count at some emergency shelters and transitional housing facilities have been corrected
since the 2009 Homeless Census and Survey was released. This data reflects the corrected figures.
(d) Numberof families derived from average household sizes from the Homeless Census and Survey.
(e) Persons in households without children include single persons and individuals in vehicles, encampments,
abandoned buildings, or parks where family status could not be determined.
(t) These data are based on both the Homeless Census and data from the Homeless Survey. The results
are estimates, calculated by applying the survey results to the point-in-time Homeless Census population.
Sources: 2009 Homeless Census and Survey, Applied Survey Research, January 2009;
2009 Santa Clara County Continuum of Care Application; BAE, 2009.
154
Total
8
28
66
94
Appendix D.4: Homeless Gap Analysis, Palo Alto, 2009
Individuals
Emergency Shelter
Transitional Housing
Permanent Supportive Housing
. Total
Fam ilies with Children
Emergency Shelter
Transitional Housing
Permanent Supportive Housing
Total
Part 1: Homeless Population (b)
Number of Families with Children
(d)
Number of Persons in Fam ilies with
Children
Number of Persons in Households
without Children (e)
Total
Part 2: Homeless Subpopulations (f)
a. Chronically Homeless
b. Seriou sly Wlen lally III
c. Chronic Substance Abuse
d. Veterans
e. Persons with HIV/AIDS
f. Victims of Domestic Violenre.
g. Unacoompanied Youth (Under 18)
Notes:
Num ber of Beds
Current Under
Inventory Development
15 0
0 0
75 0
90 0
0 0
0 0
56 0
56 0
Sheltered (c)
Emergency
Shelter
0
0
16
16
Sheltered
7
14
17
10
o
5
1
Transitional
Housing
0
0
0
0
Unsheltered
44
Unmet
Need (a)
0
81
82
0
4
20
24
Unsheltered
0
0
105
105
Total
50
(a) Unmet need derived from the number of beds underdevelopment and the number of sheltered
and unsheltered homeless enumerated in the 2009 Sanla Clara County Homeless Census and Survey.
Methodology used to calculate unmet need based on the 2009 Continuum of Care Application.
For complete description of methodology and assumptions, contact the Executive Committee
of the Santa Clar~ County Collaborative on Housing and Homeless Issues.
(b) Based on 2009 Santa Clara County Homeless Census and Survey.
(c) The point-in-time count at some emergency shelters and transitional housing facilities have been corrected
sinre the 2009 Homeless Census and Survey was released. This dala reflects the corrected figures.
(d) Number of families derived from average household sizes from the Homeless Census and Survey.
(e) Persons in households without children include single persons and individuals in vehicles, encampments,
abandoned buildings, or parks where family status could not be determined.
(1) These data are based 0 n both the Homeless Census a nd data from the Homel ess Survey. The results
are estimates, calculated by applying the survey results to the point-in-time' Homeless Census population.
Sources: 2009 Homeless Census and Survey, Applied Survey Research, January 2009;
2009 Santa Clara County Continuum of Care Application; BAE, 2009.
155
Total
0
0
121
121
Appendix D.5: Homeless Gap Analysis, San Jose, 2009
Individuals
Emergency Shelter
Transitional Housing
Permanent Supportive Housing
Total
Families with Children
Emergency Shelter
Transitional Housing
Permanent Supportive Housing
Total
Part 1: Homeless Population (b)
Number of Families with Children
(d)
Number of Persons in Families with
Children
Number of Persons in Households
without Children (e)
Total
Part 2: Homeless Subpopulations (f)
a. Chronically Homeless
b. Seriously r.JIentally III
c. Chronic Substance Abuse
d. Veterans
e. Persons with HIVIAIDS
f. Victims of Domestic Violenre
g. Unaccompanied Youth (Under 18)
Notes:
Num ber of Beds
Current Under
Inventory Developm ent
417 0
254 10
428 416
1,099 426
233 3
234 0
626 578
1,093 581
Sheltered (c)
Emergency
Shelter
63
196
387
583
Sheltered
100
210.
253
145
3
77
9
Trans.itional
Housing
53
201
280
481
Unsheltered
1,296
Unmet
Need (a)
0
18
1,585
1,603
0
88
0
88
Unsheltered
13
42
3,070
3,112
Total
1,396
(a) Unmet need derived from the nu mber of beds under development and the number of sheltered
and unsheltered homeless enumerated in the 2009 Santa Clara County Homeless Census and Survey.
Methodology used to calculate un met need based on the 2009 Continuum of Care Application.
For complete description of methodology and assumptions, contact the Executive Committee
ofthe Santa Cia ra Cou nty Collaborative 0 n Housing and Homel ess Issues.
(b) Based on 2009 Santa Clara County Homeless Census and Survey.
(c) The point-in-time count at some emergency shelters and transitional housing facilities have been corrected
sinre the 2009 Homeless Census and Survey was released. This data reflects the corrected figures.
(d) Number of families derived from average household sizes fi"om the Homeless Census and Survey.
(e) Persons in households without children include single persons and individuals in vehicles, encampments,
abandoned buildings, or parks where family status could not be determined.
(t) These data are based on both the Homeless Census and data from the Homeless Survey. The results
are estimates, calculated by applying the survey results to the point-in-time Homeless Census population.
Sources: 2009 Homeless Census and Survey, Applied Survey Research, January 2009;
2009 Santa Clara County Continuum of Care Application; BAE, 2009.
156
Total
130
439
3,737
4,176
Appendix D.6: Homeless Gap Analysis, Santa Clara, 2009
Individuals
Emergency Shelter
Transitional Housing
Permanent Supportive Housing
Total
Families with Children
Emergency Shelter
Transitional Housing
Permanent Supportive Housing
Total
Part 1: Homeless Population (b)
Number of Families with Children
(d)
Number of Persons in Fam ilies with
Children
Number of Persons in Households
without Children (e)
Total
Part 2: Homeless Subpopulations (f)
a. Chronically Homeless
b. Seriously Mentally III
c. Chronic Substance Abuse
d. Veterans
e. Persons with HIVIAIDS
f. Victims of Domestic Violenoo
g. Unaccompanied Youth (Under 18)
Notes:
Num ber of Beds
Current Under
Inventory Developm ent
20 0
4 0
0 3
24 3
0 0
233 0
32 0
265 0
S heltered ~c!
Emergency
Shelter
0
0
17
17
Sheltered
17
36
43
25
o
13
1
Transitional
Housing
44
167
5
172
Unsheltered
121
Unmet
Need (a)
0
3
214
217
0
11
53
63
Unsheltered
1
2
288
290
Total
138
(a) Unmet need derived from the number of beds underdevelopment and the numberof sheltered
and unsheltered homeless enumerated in the 2009 Santa Clara County Homeless Census and Survey.
Methodology used to calculate un met need based on the 2009 Continuum of Care Application.
For complete description of methodology and assumptions, contact the Executive Committee
of the Santa Clara County Collaborative on Housing and Homeless Issues.
(b) Based on 2009 Santa Clara County Homeless Census and Survey.
(c) The point-in-time count at some emergency shelters and transitional housing facilities have been corrected
sinal the 2009 Homeless Census and Survey was released. This data reflects the corrected figures.
(d) Number of families derived from average household sizes from the Homeless Census and Survey.
(e) Persons in households without children include single persons and individuals in vehicles, encampments,
abandoned buildings, or parks where family status could not be determined.
(f) These data are based on both the Homeless Census and data from the Homeless Survey. The results
are estimates, calculated by applying the survey results to the point-in-time Homeless Census population.
Sources: 2009 Homeless Census and Survey, Applied Survey Research, January 2009;
2009 Santa Clara County Continuum of Care Application; BAE, 2009.
157
Total
45
169
310
479
Appendix D.7: Homeless Gap Analysis, Sunnyvale, 2009
Individuals
Emergency Shelter
Transitional Housing
Permanent Supportive Housing
Total
Families with Children
Emergency Shelter
Transitional Housing
Permanent Supportive Housing
Total
Part 1: Homeless Population (b)
Number of Families with Children
(d)
Number of Persons in Families with
Children
Number of Persons in Households
without Children (e)
Total
Part 2: Homeless Subpopulations (f)
a. Chronically Homeless
b. Seriously Mentally III
c. Chronic Substance Abuse
d. Veterans
e. Persons with HIV/AIDS
f. Victims of Domestic Violence
g. Unacoompanied Youth (Under 18)
Notes:
Num ber of Beds
Current Under
Inventory Development
0 0
8 0
0 0
8 0
0 0
10 0
0 0
10 0
Sheltered (c)
Emergency
Shelter
0
0
145
145
Sheltered
15
32
38
22
o
12
1
Transitional
Housing
3
11
8
19
Unsheltered
77
Onmet
Need (a)
0
2
155
157
0
8
40
48
Unsheltered
1
4
181
185
Total
92
(a) Unmet need derived from the number of beds underdevelopment and the numberof sheltered
and unsheltered homeless enumerated in the 2009 Santa Clara County Homeless Census and Survey.
Methodology used to calculate unmet need based onthe 2009 Continuum of Care Application.
For complete description of methodology and assumptions, contact the Executive Committee
ofthe Santa Clara County Collabo~ative on Housing and Homeless Issues.
(b) Based on 2009 Santa Clara County Homeless Census and Survey. Includes individuals at
sea son al she lte rs, which are not reflected in current inventory.
(c) The point-in-time count at some emergency shelters and transitional housing facilities have been corrected
since the 2009 Homeless Census and Survey was released. This data reflects the corrected figures.
(d) Numberof families derived from average household sizes from the Homeless Census and Survey.
(e) Persons in households without children include single persons and individuals in vehicles, encampments,
abandoned buildings, or parks where family status could not be determined.
(f) These data are based on both the Homeless Census and data from the Homeless Survey. The results
are estimates, calculated by applying the survey results to the point-in-time Homeless Census population.
Sources: 2009 Homeless Census and Survey' Applied Survey Research, January 2009;
2009 Santa Clara County Continuum of Care Application; BAE, 2009.
158
Total
4
15
334
349
Appendix D.S: Homeless Gap Analysis, Urban County, 2009
Individuals
Emergency Shelter
Transitional Housing
Permanent Supportive Housing
Total
Fam ilies with Children
Emergency Shelter
Tran sition al Housing
Permanent Supportive Housing
Total
Part 1: Homeless Population (b)
Number of Families with Children
(d)
Number of Persons in Families with
Children
Number of Persons in Households
without Children (e)
Total
Part 2: Homeless Subpopulations (f)
a. Chronically Homeless
b. Seriously Mentally III
c. Chronic Substance Abuse
d. Veterans
e. Persons with HIV/AIDS
f. Victims of Domestic Violence
g. Unacoompanied Youth (Under 18)
Notes:
NumberofBeds
Current Under
Inventory Development
40 0
12 0
8 0
60 0
18 0
99 0
0 20
117 20
Sheltered (c)
Emergency
Shelter
4
14
75
89
Sheltered
11
23
28
16
o
9
1
Transitional
Housing
21
80
12
92
Unsheltered
395
Unmel
Need (a)
0
7
534
541
0
21
84
105
Unsheltered
5
15
933
948
Total
406
(a) Unmet need derived from the number of beds underdevelopment and the numberof sheltered
and unsheltered homeless enumerated in the 2009 Santa Clara County Homeless Census and Survey.
Methodology used to calculate unmet need based on the 2009 Continuum of Care Application.
For complete description of methodology and assumptions, contact the Executive Committee
of the Santa Clara Cou nty Collaborative on Housing and Homeless Issues.
(b) Based on 2009 Santa Clara County Homeless Census and Survey. Includes individuals at
sea son al she lte rs, which are not reflected in current inventory.
(c) The point-in-time count at some emergency shelters and transitional housing facilities have been corrected
since the 2009 Homeless Census and Survey was released. This data reflects the corrected figures.
(d) Numberof families derived from average household sizes from the Homeless Census and Survey.
(e) Persons in households without children include single persons and individuals in vehicles, encampments,
abandoned buildings, or parks where family status could not be determined.
(f) These data are based on both the Homeless Census and data from the Homeless Survey. The results
are estimates, calculated by applying the survey results to the point-in-time Homeless Census population.
Sources: 2009 Homeless Census and Survey, Applied Survey Research, January 2009;
2009 Santa Clara County Continuum of Care Application; BAE, 2009.
159
Total
30
109
1,020
1,129
AppendixE:
Inventory of Services for Special .Needs
and Homeless Populations
160
~ en
~
Table E.1: Community Resources and Services, Santa Clara County, 2009 (a)
Community Technology Alliance
Contact Cares
HelpSCC
Homeless Care Force
HousingSCC
Inn Vision
Inn Vision's Urban Ministry of Palo Alto
Mental Health Advocacy Project
SC Unified School District
The Gardner Family Health Network
Fooe! & Basic Services
City Team Ministries
Cupertino Community Services
Homeless Care Force
Loaves and Rshes and Martha's Kitchen
Sacred Heart Community Services Community Food Program
Salvation Army
San Jose First Community ServIces
Second Harvest Food Bank
South Hills Community Church
StJoseph's
St Justin Community Ministry
University of Callfomia Cooperative Extension
United Way of Silicon Valley
The American Red Cross
Life Skills Trillnin,]
City Team Ministries
Sure Path Financial SoIuUons
Gardner Family Health Networks-Family Wellness
emergency assIStance In addition to senior and homeless services and programs.
Provides comprehensive and updatec:llisting of homeless facilities and vacancies in Santa Clara County.
including HelpSCC and others.
Bill Wilson Center provides telephone crisis training for volunteers
Website Rsting general and subpopulation special needs services.
Mobile program In 1989 to provide food. clothing. and personal care items to the homeless and needy of Santa
Clara. California.
Usts resources for special needs populations
Provides numerous services and care facilities throughout Santa Clara County.
Provides an emergency supply of food for people in need. People can retum twice weekly if necessary.
The MHAP Project is offered by the Law Foundation of Silicon Valley. Provides services to IndMduals with
mental health or development disabilities.
Supportive services. Including counseling and career-training programs.
Seven clinics offer primary health care and behavioral services dedicated to improving the health status of low
and moderate-income communities.
Provides homeless emergency services including food. shelter. clothing. recovery programs. and youth
outreach programs.
Supportive services.
Provides food. clothing. and personal care items to the homeless and needy of Santa Clara County.
Food program.
Food program.
Food Programs. plus other emergency assistance and support programs.
For an employment-readiness program targeting homeless and Iow-Income indMduals.
Food program.
Emergency services.
Emergency services.
Provision of food staples for needy families.
Working with local communities to improve nutrition
Emergency Assistance Network (EAN)-8 agencies serve County residents. Objective is to help families
maintain their current housing.
Santa Clara Valley Chapter-Homeless Assistance and Prevention Program
Provides homeless emergency services Including food. shelter, clothing, recovery programs. and youth
outreach programs.
A local non-profit financial counseling agency offers consultation services.
Through its seven clinics. Gardner provides comprehensive primary health care and behavioral services
dedicated to improving the health status of low and moderate-lncome communities In Santa Clara County.
~
0')
I\J
_-'~'~~'·~".O."7=''':C==·.'·CO·'' ,=C=~,=-""-=-·-=-=======""""""==
Table E.1: Community Resources and Services, Santa Clara County, 2009 (a)
Agency/Organization
Inn Vision Palo Alto
Mission College Corporate Education
San Jose First Community Services
Substance Abuse
ALANOClub
ARH Benny McKeown Center
CalWORKS Community Health Alliance
Catholic Charities
City Team Ministries
Coalition for Alcohol & Drug Free Pregnancy -CADFP
SCC Dept. of Alcohol and Drug Services
Gilroy East
Gilroy West
Los Gatos/Saratoga Union HS District -Shift Program
Mayfair Alcohol & Drug Coalition
Morgan Hill/San Martin Prevention Partnership
Palo Alto Drug & Alcohol Collaborative
Pathway Society
PIT Coalition
Salvation Army Adult Rehabilitation Center
Stanford -Santa Clara County Methamphetamine Task Force
The Coalition of New Immigrants
The Gateway Program
Mental Health
AchleveKlds
ACT for Mental Health
Adult and Older Adult System of Care
Details
Offers supportive servi.ces for moderate-and low-income families.
Providing housing, food, and programs that promote self-sufficienCY, InnVislon empowers homeless and low
Income families and individuals to gain stability. -
For an employrnent-readiness program targeting homeless and low-income individuals.
Alcoholics and Narcotics Anonymous in Santa Clara County.
A 27-bed alcohol and drug recovery program located In the East Foothills of San Jose. The facility offers a
highly structured, comprehensive and caring program for men and women seeking treatment.
Coordinates services with Social Services Agency and County DADS.
Catholic Charities helps the homeless, very low-income families, and the working poor find and keep safe,
stable, and appropriate housing.
In San Jose, City Team Ministries is providing hot meals, safe shelter, showers, and clean clothing to this city's
homeless population. <
Working on collaboration invoMng the medical community, local and statewide organizations, public and
private, to Create systemic change so that the vision of babies bom alcohol and drug free becomes a reality.
DADS maintains 24-hour hotline.
The Gilroy East Partnership was developed a youth empowerment model of AOD community prevention.
Develop environmental strategies to reduce alcohol availability including retail density, responsible beverage
service and binge drinking by youth.
Initiative to reduce underage drinking via a shift of environmental norms.
Goal to reduce alcohol, tobacco and other drug use problems.
A community coalition working to develop evidence-based environmental strategies to reduce the Incidence
and prevalence of AOD problems in the community.
Addresses underage drinking In Palo Alto.
Provides chemical dependency treatment to boys serving time In neighboring probation facilities.
The Prevention IIntervention/Treatment Strategy (PIT) focuses on reducing alcohol availability In a hlgh-crime
area of San Jose.
Supportlve~ services.
Researching destructive behavior associated with high-risk sexual behavior. Its goal is to reduce
methamphetamine use in SCC, and ultimately the reduction of new HIV infections.
The Coarltion of New Immigrants targets new wave of Eastern European and African immigrants, focusing on
cultural pressures in America.
Polnt-of-entry to the full spectrum of Department of Alcohol & Drug Services (DADS) Adult Managed Care
Services.
A special education and mental health service for students with complex needs, and their families.
Fireside Friendship Club and Self Help Center
Provides mental health services to adults with serious mental illness
....It.
0>
eN
Table E.1: Community Resources and Services, Santa Clara County, 2009 (a)
Agency/Organization
ALLIANCE For Community Care
Alum Rock Counseling Center
Asian Americans For Community Involvement (AACI )
Bascom Mental HeaHh Center
Bill De Frank Center
CalWORKS Community Health Alliance
Catholic Charities
Central Mental Health
Children's HeaHh Council
Children's Shelter Mental Health Clinic
City Team Ministries
Community Solutions
Downtown Mental Health
East Valley Mental Health
Eastern European Service Agency (EESA)
EHC life Builders
EMQ Family & Children Services
Fair Oaks Mental.Health
Family & Children ServIces
Gardner Family Care Corporation
Grace Community Center
HOPE Rehabilitation Services
Indian Health Center of Santa Clara Valley, Inc.
Details
Offers community-based services and rehabilitation programs to youth, aduHs and older adults recovering from
emotional and mental Illnesses.
(ARCC) has addressed the damage of family conflict, school failure and delinquency among high-risk youth,
producing responsible community members and a healthier, more vibrant East San Jose
AACI provides speciarlZed services in clients' native languages and Is sensitive to clients' cultural values.
Services provided Include assessments, emergency evaluations, individual and family therapy, medication
evaluations and medication support services.
Referral for gay lesbian, or bisexual youth.
A partnership between Santa Clara County SoCial Services Agency, Santa Clara Valley Health and Hospital
Systems' Department of Alcohol and Drug Services (DADS), Department of Mental Health.
catholic Charities' program categories include: mental heaHh and substance abuse in a managed care division,
elder care including nutrition, foster grandparentlng, kinship care support, mental health support services, etc.
Central Mental Health is an outpatient mental health Clinic which serves adults, 1~, older adults 8ge 60+.
Serves the developmental needs of children and families In the community, specializing in children with severe
behavioral and developmental difficulties.
Provides multl-disciplinary, CUlturally sensitive mental heaHh assessment and treatment services to Children's
Shelter and Emergency Satellite Foster Home child-residents, and their families •
Supportive services, including case management and counseling.
(previously Bridge Counseling Program) Provides a spectrum of behavioral health services to children and
adults.
Out-Patient facility serves clients suffering from serious mental illnesses who exhibit severe problems in normal
daily functioning.
East Valley Mental Health Center provides services to East San Jose and Milpitas from the site of the East
Valley Health Center at McKee and Jackson.
EESA provides mental health services .targetlng former Yugoslavian Community families.
The Emergency Housing Consortium enables homeless families \\lith children, teenagers, single .men and
women Including seniors and disabled aduHs to regain stability in the local community.
Provides a full continuum of mental health services for emotionally troubled children, adolescents, and families.
Fair Oaks Mental HeaHh is unique in providing outpatient services to children, adolescents and their families, as
well as to seriously mentally ill adults and young adults.
Family & Children Services, previously Adult and Child Guidance center, provides high quality, affordable
counseling, therapy and other support services in eight languages
Gardner Family Care Corp. provides outpatient mental health services to predominately Latino children,
families, and adults and older adults; including mental health services .
Grace Community Center provides day rehabilitation for individuals \\lith serious mental Illness who need
support to maintain and/or improve functioning in the community.
HOPE Counseling Center provides psychiatric assessment, psychotherapy, case management, and medication
monitOring for persons with developmentally disability, physical disability, or head injury.
The Indian Health Center provides outpatient mental heaHh and substance abuse treatment services.
·'=-'-=":::"':::'::;:~,=",;::,'-'-=~-::.~ __ "'_' __ "_'~'_'_":::'::'::"=_==:':='=:=::;-':::'!; __ .. ~ __ ~."~ __ ~ _. __ .~ _'~~ __ '_',<o_.,.._.,_. __ ~ .. ,. ___ , •. _____ ... ~ •. ,.~~_~_"" ... ".~ ...... -----.~.~~-.. ~ .... --.• -~.-""-:.~.,.!-'~-.'. .. "-'"-~'"~ ~-...• -~~,... ~
~
(J)
~
Table E.1: Community Resources and Services, Santa Clara County, 2009 (a)
Agency/Organization
InnVislon Julian Street Inn
Josefa Chaboya de Narvaez Mental HeaHh Center
Juvenile HaJl Mental Health Clinic
Las Plumas Mental Health
Law Foundation of Silicon Valley
Mekong Community Center
Mental HealOt Advocacy Project
Mickey's Place
Next Door Solutions to Domestic Violence
NorUt County Mental Health
Providing Assistance withy Unkages to Services
Rebekah's Children Services
Representative Payee Program
SC Valley Health and Hospital System
South County Mental Health
Ujima Adult & Fa~ily Services
AIDS! HIV (b)
Prevent/on
AIDS Community Research Consortium
Asian Americans For Community Involvement (AACI )
Bill Wilson Center
Billy DeFrank LGBT Community Center
Community Health Awareness Council: HYPE
Community Health Partnership: San Jose AIDS Education
The Crane Center
Ira Greene PACE Clinic
The Uving Center
NIGHT Mobile Health Van Program
Planned ParenUtood
Details
Julian Street Inn Is the only facility in Santa Clara County that provides emergency shelter to the severely
mentally ill.
Josefa Chaboya de Narvaez Mental Health Center Is designated a culturally proficient site providing services to
primarily the adult and older adult Latino and Vietnamese populatiOns of Santa Clara County who have a
severe mental illness.
The Mental Health Clinic at Juvenile Hall is an on-site intensive outpatient clinic, which provides multi
disciplinary, culturally sensitive mental health services to youUt incarcerated in Juvenile Hall.
Las Plumas Mental Health provides services to children, adolescents, and their families in a variety of settings
including the home, school, local community, and the. clinic setting.
Provides legal serviCes for AIDS patients, and oversees the mental healOt advocacy project.
Mekong Community Center provides linguistically and culturally sensitive mental health services to enable
psychiatrically disabled SouUteast Asian refugeeslimmigrants, particularly Vietnamese.
MHAP provides legal assistance to people identified as mentally or developmentally disabled.
Therapy Expansion for Homeless Families: To increase mental health services to homeless families at a
transitional housing facility in Santa Clara County.
Support. groups, 24-hour hotiine, and Individual and group counseling sessions.
North County Mental Health Is located in Palo Alto and serves mainly Ote communities of Mountain View, Los
Altos, and Palo Alto. -
The PALS Program provides clinical staff from the Mental Health Department for severely mentally iD offenders.
Provides residential, educational and mental healOt services to seriously emotionally disturbed childrep who are
victims of family violence, neglect, and sexual abuse, through residential treatment, foster care, wraparound
foster care, and community outreach education and counseling programs. .
The RepreSentative Payee Program protects the interest of recipients of SUpplemental Security Income, Social
Security Disability, and other Public Funds.
Offers prevention, education and treatment programs to all residents of Santa Clara County, regardless of
ability to pay.
SouUt County Mental Health Center provides mental health services to seriously mentally ill adults.
Ujlma YouUt Program offers various afrocentric services targeting African American families and youUt at risk.
Health Education and Information
Education, testing, outreach, support groups.
Counseling, outreach, sexual health education
Outreach, education, counseling.
HIV YouUt Prevention Education: Workshops, outreach, education. counseling. -
"Transpowerment-and other programs counseling, testing, and other support services.
Prevention counseling, testing, STD counseling.
Counseling and testing for hlgh-risk population.
People living with AIDS are offered resources, counseling and discussion groups.
Neighborhood Intervention geared to High Risk testing offers counseling and testing services.
Outreach and support services.
~
0')
CJ'1
Table E.1: Community Resources and Services, Santa Clara County, 2009 (a)
Agency/Organization
Pro Latino
Stanford Positive Care Clinic
Treatment
AIDS Legal Services
Camino Medical Group
Combined Addicts and Professional Services
EHC Ufebuilders
Gardner Family Health Network
The Health and Wellness Care Center
Community Health Partnership: San Jose AIDS Education
The Health Trust, AIDS Service
Indian Health Center of Santa Clara Valley, Inc.
sec Public Health Pharmacy
Youth
Bill Wilson Center
Choices for Children
Community Child Care Council the "4C" Council
EHC Ufebuilders-Sobrato House
EMQ
Family & Children Services
Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts
Go Kids
Help sec
Homeless Youth Network
Lucile Packard Children Hospital Mobile Medical Van
Mexican-American Community Services Agency
PathWay Society
Rebekah's children Services
San Jose Day Nursery
SC Unified School District
SC/San Benito County Head Start Program
Second Start
Details
Offers bilingual support services for high-risk population.
Health counseDng, testing, education.
The Law Foundation of Silicon Valley offers free legal asSistance related to discrimination and
housing/employment rights.
A division of the Palo Alto Medical Foundation offers primary care and support services for people with AIDS.
Intensive outpatient counseling aftercare offers housing services plus other supportive services.
Emergency housing, transitional housing and counseling services.
Testing and family therapy.
Targeting people with AIDS, or at risk of AIDS. Offers nutritional and wellness services.
Targeting people with AIDS, or at risk of AIDS. Offers supportive services.
Transitional case management from jails, housing services, transportation, and counseling services.
Health education, counseling, and testing services.
Uninsured or underinsured AIDS patients may utilize County pharmaceutical services.
Serves youth and families through counseRng, housing, education, and advocacy. Bill Wilson Center serves
over 10,000 clients In Santa Clara County annually
• Network of coordinated and Integrated partnerships, services and activities aimed at improving the lives of
children prenatal through age 5
Provides a variety of comprehensive services and serves as the community child care link for families and child
care professionals
Provides housing for runaway, homeless, and throw away youth populations.
Families First program offers mental health treatment, foster care and social services that help families recover
from trauma, abuse and addiction.
This County department protects children from abuse and neglect, and promotes their healthy development.
Youth programs.
Offers comprehensive child development services and community Involvement.
Referral website.
Network consists of six agencies (Alum Rock Counseling, Bill Wilson Center, Community Solutions, Emergency
Housing Consortium, Legal Advocates for Children and Youth and Social Advocates for Youth)
Medical and mental health treatment for runaway youth.
MACSA provides after school and education programs targeting youth.
Substance abuse and prevention services to y90uth
Outpatient therapy for children in Santa-Clara County.
Chlldcare program.
Famlly-child education and counseling available.
School-readiness promOtion,
Assists homeless shelters, and human welfare agencies in helping our clients gain portable work skills.
)
/
-Jo.
0')
0')
Table E.i: Community Resources and Services, Santa Clara County, 2009 (a)
Agency/Organization
Social Advocates for Youth / casa Say
The City of Palo Alto Child Care Subsidy Program
MACSA
The Shelter Bed Hotline
Unity Care Group
Veterans
Clara Mateo Alliance
Dept. of Mental Health·s Office of Client Empowerment
EHC Ufebuilders Boccardo Shelter
Second START
SCC Office of Veteran Services
VA San Jose Clinic
VA Palo Alto Hospital
San Jose Vet Center
Transportation
Affordable Housing and Valley Transportation Authority
Cupertino Community Services
Guaranteed Ride Program
Health Connections
Inn Vision
Mountain View and Los Altos
Outreach and Escort
Legal Rightsl Benefits Advocacy
Catholic Charities Immigration Legal Services
Katharine & George Alexander Community Law Center
'HelpSCC
Intemational Rescue Committee
Legal Aid of Santa Clara County
Legal Advocates for Children and Youth
Pro Bono Project of Santa Clara County
Project Sentinel
Public Interest Law Foundation of MHAP
Details
Provides a short-term residential facility 17 who are runaways or have been rejected from the home by theiir
parenfs).
Subsidy Program
The Mexican American community services agency operates 3 youth centers
24-hour hoUine. '
Youth outreach. foster care. mental health services.
Emergency Shelter and Transitional HOUSing
Mental Health resource for subpopulations, including veterans.
Offers many services including job search, mental health services, case management, legal assistance,
substance abuse recovery, and clinical services.
Outreach to homeless veterans.
Assists Veterans, military personnel, and their families in obtaining federal, state, and local benefits and
services, accrued through military service.
Provides a broad range of counseling, outreach. and referral services to eligible veterans in order to help them
make a satisfactory post-war readjustment to civilian life
Veteran Services
Veteran Services
Public Transit.
Financial assistance and case management services.
Up to 60 door-to-door vouchers to work-related destinations
Transportation services offered to indMduals with AIDS.
Transportation assistance offered.
Community Services Agency provides food and other emergency assistance to residents.
ADA Paratransit service supports older adults, individuals with disabilities and low-income families.
, Assessment. application. and referral agency for immigrants.
(fmrly East San Jose Community Law Center) Represents workers' and immigrants' rights.
Referral website.
Refugee shelter.
Fair housing, family law, labor. employment, and domestic violence representation.
The LACY Program focuses on safe housing, guardianships, domestic violence, educational advocacy,
emancipation, homeless and runaway youth, teen parents, and foster care. '
Free legal service and consultation.
Assists home seekers as well as houSing providers through counseling, complaint investigation, mediation,
conciliation and education. .
As part of Silicon Valley's Mental Health Advocacy Project, firm offers free legal services for special needs
population, including AIDS, Children and Youth, Public Interest, and Fair H~using issues.
-'"
0')
........
_, __ ""' _ •• _ ~ _.," __ 0· _"'~" •• ~"_."._~_" __ • __ , __ ._ •• _ ,
Table E.1: Community Resources and Services, Santa Clara County, 2009 (a)
Agency/Organization
Sacred Heart Community Services
Legal Assistance for Low-Income Immigrants
SC Office of Human Relations
Senior Adults Legal Assistance (SALA)
Silicon Valley Independent Uving Center (SVILC)
Other Supportive Services
Details
Provides essential services, offering tools for self-sufficiency
Santa Clara University OffelS free legal advice and assistance.
Referral and consuHation services.
Supports older pelSons (60+) In their efforts to live independently, non-lnstltutlonallzed, and with dignity.
Referral center for disabled persons, offering housing and counseling services. .
HospHal Council of Northem and Central Califomia-New Direction Targeting frequent hospHal-uselS, this program coordinates mental health and housing provisions for these
Housing FilSt
Sunnyvale Volunteer Language Bank
The Corporation for Supportive Housing
The John Stewart Company
The Palo Alto Housing Corporation
Working PartnelShips
Domestic Violence
Art and Play Therapy (APT)
Asian Americans for Community Involvement (ACCI)
Asian-Pacific Center
Bill Wilson Center and Hotline
Catholic Charities
Center for HeaHhy Development
La Isla Pacifica Women's Shelter
EI Toro Youth Center
Gilroy Family Resource Center
Grace Baptist Community Center
Indian Health Center
patients.
EHC UfebuildelS, Ion Vision and Housing Authority coll~orative work with families to prevent eviction.
Translation services.
Santa Clara Valley Medical Center connects with homeless shelter database to offer housing to hospital-uselS.
Affordable Housing development and management services.
Develops, acquires, and manages low-and moderate-income housing in Palo Alto and the San Francisco Bay
Area.
A coalition of community groups, labor, and faith organizations seeking a response to the widening gap
between the rich and poor in Silicon Valley
APrs Children's Program Is a counseling program which offelS art and play therapy groups for children who
feel sad or lonely, who have a tough time makinglkeeping friends, or who have trouble concentrating in school.
Program available include IndMdual counseling, children's support group, and a teen program.
Provides free and coi1fidential HIV treatment case management, mental health and substance abuse
counseling; on-site primary medical and psychiatric care, client and treatment advocacy, and group and
individual support to A&Pls IMn9 with HIV/AIDS.
IndMdual, Group and Family Counseling. Children's programs, parenting without violence, teen Intervention
programs.
Receives referrals from Next Door Solutions to Domestic Violence to help house SUrviVOIS of domestic violence
OffeIS affordable, quality counseling and psychotherapy to the greater Santa Clara CoUnty community
Counseling and referrals for battered women and children under 18. Legal advocacy and temporary restraining
ordelS. Shelter.
IndMdual, group and family counseling, support for teen parents, Independent living skills for foster care and
group home youth. .
Sponsored by Social Services Agency, Includes programming for indMduals and families Including Mental
Health Counseling for Children and Families, Youth LeadelShlp Programs, Parent Education, and Teen Parent
Group. .
Provides day rehabllHation for IndMduals with serious mental Illness who need support to maintain and/or
improve functioning In the community
OffelS a wide variety of services with focus on American Indian Families
~
0)
(X)
Table E.1: Community Resources and Services, Santa Clara County, 2009 (a)
Agency/Organization
Legal Advocates for Children and Youth (lACy)
MAITRI
MHAP
Next Door Solutions to Domestic Violence
Nuestra Casa (focus on Hispanic families)
Parents Helping Parents (PHP)
Support Network for Battered Women
Ujirani Center (focus on AfriCan-American families)
Victim Witness Assfstance Center
Seniors
Community Services Agency of Mountain View and Los Altos
HOUSing Policy and Homeless Dlvislon-San Jose
Inn Vision's Georgia Travis Center
MACSA
Next Door Solutions to Domestic Violence
Emergency al)(I Transitional Shelters
Beth-EI Baptist Church Ol:ltreach, Benevolence
Casa de Clara
City Team Ministry Rescue Mission! Men's Recovery Center
Cold Weather Shelter -Gilroy
Community Solutions-Homeless Youth
Community Solutions-Transitional Housing Program
Cupertino Rotating Shelter
Domiciliary care for Homeless Veterans
EHC Life Builders, Boccardo Center
EHC ute Builders, Markham Terrace Pennanent
EHC ute BuIlders, Sobrato Family Living Center (FLC)
Health Connections AIDS Services
Heritage Home
House of Grace
InnVision Villa
Details
Part of the Law Foundation of Silicon Valley, LACY provides legal assistance to teens who are vielims of dating
violence.
Provides teen outreach, workshops and mentoring to South Asian youth
Mental HeaHh Advocacy Project is a legal assistance provider in Santa Ciara County.
Groups for children exposed to domestic violence, individual and group counseling, interVention programs,
visitation programs.
Offers counseling for problems of family violence, drug/alcohol abuse, parenting effectiveness, appropriate
discipline, caring for medically fragile children and other issues that can cause family dysfunction.
Provides Infonnation, education and training for parents and professionals in contact with "special needs'
children.
Individual therapy for children who have witnessed domestic violence.
Education, support, mental health counseling.
Children who have witnessed domestic violence are considered to be primary victims of domestic violence by
Victim WItness and are eligible to receive the same level of assistance as adult victims. '
Supportive Services.
Supportive services and resource center for seniors.
Georgia Travis Center is a daytime drop-in center for homeless and low-income women and families.
Bilingual supportive services.
Shelter, HoUlne, transitional housing, youth programs, and counseling for victims of domestic violence.
Family Shelter services.
A Catholic womer house where single women are welcome for temporary shelter
Overnight emergency shetter for men. Mandatory chapel service attendance reqUired.
Shelter
Teen drop-in center, with other family-and adult-services including counseling, crisis intervention, legal
advocacy, and prevention and education programs.
The THP provides housing and services for young adults In the community, including fonner foster youth.
Cupertino Community Services organizes shelter alternating between different church sites.
Transitional progra~ for homeless vets. .
Offers case management, legal assistance, substance abuse recovery, and clinical services.
95 pennanent single room occupancy (SRO) housing unlt$ plus counseling services.
Low-Income and Homeless families live in supportive environment.
Serves 50 percent of the individuals diagnosed with AIDS in Santa Clara County. Grants and donations allow
HCAS to provide services without charging the client '.
Provides a long-tenn compaSSionate ministry for years to homeless, poor and abused women who are
pregnant and have no where else to tum but the streets
A 12-14 month residential program where addicted, abused or homeless women can rebuild their lives, without
being separated from their young children.
Provides transitional housing for single women and women with children.
~
0>
CO
Table E.1: Community Resources and Services, Santa Clara County, 2009 (a)
Agency/Organization
InnVlsion: Cecil White Center
InnVision: Commercial street Inn
InnVision: Georgia Travis Center
InnVision: Montgomery Street Inn
InnVision: Opportunity Center of Mid Peninsula
love Inc.
Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition
Sacred Heart Community Services
Salvation Army-Hospitality House
San Jose Family Shelter
San Martin Family living Center
Shelter Network
S1. Joseph the Worker House
Sunnyvale Winter Shelter
Urban Ministry of Palo Alto-Hotel de Zinc
West Valley Community Services
YWCA Villa Nueva
Chronic HornelessllCss
St. Joseph's Cathedral of Social Ministry
Notes:
Details
Daytime drop-in center for singles, families, and teens. An average of 300 individuals served daily.
55 beds for women and children, including an after school tutorial program.
Weekday assistance for approximately 100 women and children daily, including education, support, and the
Family Place Child Development Center.
85 beds for men, both short and long term, including job development programs.
The Permanent Supportive Housing Program provideS 70 efficiency units for individuals who make below 35%
of the area's median income
love INC mobilizes churches to transform lives by helping their neighbors in need.
The mission of Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition is to provide safe, affordable shefter of high quality to those in
need .
Provides essential services, offering tools for self-sufficiency for lower-income adufts and children.
Hospitality House provides temporary shelter for aduft men.
Provide emergency hOUSing and services to homeless.
The Center provides emergency and transitional housing for the homeless and very low-income farm worker
families.
Homeless families can receive short-and mid-term transitional housing and other supportive services, Including
food, employment aSSistance, and counseling.
St. Joseph Day Worker Center seeks to provide a dignified setting in which to connect workers and empioyers.
We strive for the empowerment of all workers through fair employment, education and job skills training,
Winter shelter.
15 beds for men and women, hosted by Palo Alto area faith communities.
We provide a continuum of basic needs, housing assistance and family support services.
63 units of affordable transitional housing for single parents offering a variety of services, including day care.
The Shefter Plus care program, is a HUD program administered by city agencies and the Office of Social
Ministry, targeting chronically homeless individuals.
(a) Programs and Services may be listed more than once, due to overlapping service aOO target populations. Although BAE attempted to document all services, this may not be a (
(b) Many AIDS Prevention services, facilities, and programs also offer treatment services.
Sources: Help SCC website, 2oo9; Santa Clara County Public HeaHh Department of Service Officers, Inc., 2009; Santa Clara
Department, 2009; Housing SCC website, 2009; California Association of County Veterans County Consolidated Plan, 2005; Phoenix Data Center, 2009; BAE, 2009.
AppendixF:
.Rental Trends by Region
170
Appendix F.l: Rental Trends, North Santa Clara County, 2Q 2009 (a)
CURRENT MARKET DATA -02 2009
Percent
Unit Type Number of Mix
Studio 2,011 8%
Jr 1BRl1 BA 1,254 5%
1 BRl1 BA 10,709 43%
2 BRl1 BA 3,349 13%
2BRl1.S BA 423 2%
2 BRl2 BA 5,318 21%
2 BRl2.S BA 4 0.02%
2BRTH 833 3%
3 BRl1 BA 25 0.1%
3 BRl1.S BA 33 0.1%
3 BRl2 BA 589 2%
3 BRl3 BA 130 1%
3BRTH 149 1%
4BR 7 0.03%
Totals 24,834 100%
AVERAGE RENT HISTORY -ANNUAL
Unit Type 2007 2008
Studio $1,193 $1,196
Jr 1BR $1,251 $1,342
1BRl1 BA $1,522 $1,582
2 BRl1 BA $1,603 $1,677
2 BRl2 BA $1,985 $2,069
2BRTH $2,075 $2,212
3 BRl2 BA $2,252 $2,404
3BRTH $2,897 $3,243
All Units $1,660 $1,732
OCCUPANCY RATE
Average
Year Occupancy
2004 94.8%
2005 95.7%
2006 97.2%
2007 97.1%
2008 95.6%
2009 94.9%
AGE OF HOUSING INVENTORY (by Project)
Year
Pre 1960's
1960's
1970's
1980's
1990's
2000's
Notes:
Percent of
Projects
4.3%
49.1%
28.0%
10.6%
5.0%
3.1%
Avg. Avg. Avg.
Sq.Fl Rent Rent/Sq. Fl
471 $1,106 $2.35
568 $1,185 $2.09
701 $1,396 $1.99
886 $1,547 $1.75
982 $2,372 $2.42
1,012 $1,897 $1.87
2,500 $6,200 $2.48
1,098 $2,061 $1.88
1,044 $1,899 $1.82
1,006 $1,825 $1.81
1,230 $2,213 $1.80
1,390 $2,773 $1.99
1,344 $3,180 $2.37
1,371 $2,347 $1.71
807 $1,568 $1.94
2007-2008 2007-2009
% Change 2009 (b) % Change
0.3% $1,130 -5.3%
7.3% $1,239 -1.0%
3.9% $1,445 -5.1%
4.6% $1,578 -1.6%
4.2% $1,943 -2.1%
6.6% $2,114 1.9%
6.7% $2,241 -0.5%
11.9% $3,222 11.2%
4.3% $1,611 -3.0%
(a) Represents only housing complexes with 50 units or more. North County cities with
complexes of 50 units or more include: Mountain View, Palo Alto, Sunnyvale
(b) 2009 data includes through second quarter data only.
Sources: Real Facts, Inc., 2009; BAE,2009.
171
Appendix F.2: Rental Trends, Central Santa Clara County, 2Q 2009 (a)
CURRENT MARKET DATA -02 2009
Percent Avg. Avg. Avg.
Unit Type Number of Mix Sq.Ft. Rent RentlSq.Ft.
Studio 3,134 6% 438 $1,035 $2.36
Jr1BRl1 BA 1,393 3% 589 $1,213 $2.06
1 BRl1 BA 19,595 39% 719 $1,353 $1.88
1BRl1.5 BA 146 0.3% 1,079 $1,884 $1.75
1BRTH 493 1% 958 $1,456 $1.52
2 BRl1 BA 5,387 11% 899 $1,496 $1.66
2BRl1.5 BA 655 1% 922 $1,477 $1.60
2 BRl2 BA 15,165 30% 1,032 $1,790 $1.73
2BRl2.5 BA 42 0.1% 1,197 $2,239 $1.87
2BRTH 1,439 3% 1,188 $1,953 $1.64
3 BRl1 BA 92 0.2% 998 $1,680 $1.68
3 BRl1.5 BA 74 0.1% 887 $1,910 $2.15
3 BRl2 BA 2,008 4% 1,280 $2,159 $1.69
3 BRl3 BA 212 0.4% 1,320 $2,387 $1.81
3BRTH 201 0.4% 1,394 $2,307 $1.65
4BR 12 0.0% 2,271 $5,500 $2.42
Totals 50,048 100% 861 $1,542 $1.79
AVERAGE RENT HISTORY -ANNUAL
2007-2008 2007-2009
Unit Type 2007 2008 % Change 2009 (b) % Change
Studio $1,068 $1,129 5.7% $1,069 0.1%
Jr1BR $1,178 $1,273 8.1% $1,242 5.4%
1BRl1 BA $1,394 $1,480 6.2% $1,385 -0.6%
2 BRl1 BA $1,473 $1,557 5.7% $1,505 2.2%
2 BRl2 BA $1,806 $1,933 7.0% $1,812 0.3%
2BRTH $2,002 $2,087 4.2% $1,969 -1.6%
3 BRl2 BA $2,084 $2,266 8.7% $2,173 4.3%
3BRTH $2,345 $2,418 3.1% $2,356 0.5%
All Units $1,559 $1,661 6.5% $1,568 0.6%
OCCUPANCY RATE
Average
Year Occupancy
2004 93.6%
2005 94.2%
2006 96.2%
2007 96.6%
2008 95.9%
2009 94.4%
AGE OF HOUSING INVENTORY (by Project)
Percent of
Year Projects
Pre 1960's 0.4%
1960's 23.4%
1970's 39.8%
1980's 14.3%
1990's 11.9%
2000's 10.2%
Notes:
(a) Represents only housing complexes with 50 units or more. Central County cities with
complexes of 50 units or more include: Campbell, Cupertino, San Jose, Santa Clara
(b) 2009 data includes through second quarter data only.
Sources: Real Facts, Inc., 2009; BAE, 2009.
172
Appendix F.3: Rental Trends, Central West Santa Clara County, 2Q 2009 (a)
CURRENT MARKET DATA -Q2 2009
Percent Avg. Avg. Avg.
UnitT~pe Number of Mix Sq. Ft Rent RentlSq.Ft
Studio 20 3% 516 $1,874 $3.63
Jr 1BRl1 BA 8 1% 700 $1,975 $2.82
1 BRl1 BA 397 59% 797 $1,816 $2.28
2 BRl1 BA 17 3% 952 $1,569 $1.65
2 BRl2 BA 234 35% 1,087 $2,282 $2.10
Totals 676 100% 892 $1,975 $2.21
AVERAGE RENT HISTORY -ANNUAL
2007-2008 2007-2009
Unit T~pe 2007 2008 % Change 2009 (b) % Change
Studio $1,700 $1,710 0.6% $1,824 7.3%
Jr 1BRl1 BA $1,680 $1;931 14.9% $1,975 17.6%
1 BRl1 BA $1,657 $1,866 12.6% $1,853 11.8%
2 BRl1 BA $1,442 $1,738 20.5% $1,582 9.7%
2'BRl2 BA $2,241 $2,531 12.9% $2,285 2.0%
All Units $1,854 $2,086 12.5% $1,997 7.7%
OCCUPANCY RATE
Average
Year Occupanc~
2004 93.7%
2005 94.6%
2006 95.1%
2007 91.0%
2008 96.1%
2009 95.2%
AGE OF HOUSING INVENTORY (by Project)
Percent of
Year Projects
Pre 1960's 16.7%
1960's 50.0%
1970's 16.7%
1980's 0.0%
1990's 0.0%
2000's 16.7%
Notes:
(a) Represents only housing complexes with 50 units or more. Central West County cities with
complexes of 50 units or more include: Los Gatos.
(b) 2009 data includes through second quarter data only.
Sources: RealFacts, Inc., 2009; BAE,2009.
173
Appendix F.4: Rental Trends, South Santa Clara County, 2Q 2009 (a)
CURRENT MARKET DATA -Q2 2009
Percent
UnitTl~e Number of Mix
1 BRl1 BA 239 26%
2 BRl1 BA 182 20%
2BRl1.S BA 25 3%
2 BRl2 BA 348 38%
2BRl2.S BA 56 6%
2BRTH 44 5%
3 BRl2 BA 12 1%
Totals 906 100%
AVERAGE RENT HISTORY -ANNUAL
Unit Tlpe 2007 2008
1 BRl1 BA $1,219 $1,284
2 BRl1 BA $1,336 $1,343
2BRl1.S BA nJa nfa
2 BRl2 BA $1,489 $1,530
2BRl2.5 BA nfa nfa
2BRTH $1,740 $1,786
3 BRl2 BA $1,980 $1,691
All Units $1,395 $1,427
OCCUPANCY RATE
Average
Year Occupancy
2004 94.4%
2005 94.9%
2006 85.9%
2007 90.0%
2008 93.6%
2009 94.9%
AGE OF HOUSING INVENTORY (by Project)
Year
Pre 1960's
1960's
1970's
1980's
1990's
2000's
Notes:
Percent of
Projects
0.0%
11.1%
22.2%
33.3%
22.2%
11.1%
Avg. Avg. Avg.
Sq. Ft Rent RentlSq.Ft
671 $1,231 $1.83
817 $1,327 $1.62
940 $1,555 $1.65
952 $1,518 $1.59
1,000 $1,300 $1.30
1,186 $1,855 $1.56
1,000 $1,583 $1.58
865 $1,409 $1.63
2007·2008 2007·2009
%Chanse 2009 (b) % Change
5.3% $1,247 2.3%
0.5% $1,335 -0.1%
nfa nfa nfa
2.8% $1,513 1.6%
nfa nfa nfa
2.6% $1,828 5.1%
-14.6% $1,608 -18.8%
2.3% $1,412 1.2%
(a) Represents only housing complexes with 50 units or more. South County cities with
complexes of 50 units or more include: Gilroy
(b) 2009 data includes through second quarter data only.
Sources: RealFacts, Inc., 2009; BAE,2009.
174
Appendix G:
Maxinlum Affordable Sales Price
Calculator
175
Appendix G.I: Affordable Housing Mortgage Calculator for SFR, Santa Clara County, 2009
Household Sale Down Total
Income (a) Price Payment (b) Mortgage (b)
Extremely Low Income (30% AMI)
4 Person HH $31,850 $132,602 $26,520 $106,081
Very Low Income (50% AMI)
4 Person HH $53,050 $220,864 $44,173 $176,691
Low Income (80% AMI)
4 Person HH $84,900 $353,465 $70,693 $282,772
Notes:
(a) Published by U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Dewlopment for Santa Clara County, 2009.
(b) Mortgage terms:
Annual Interest Rate (Fixed) 6.53%
Term of mortgage (Years)
Percent of sale price as down payment
(c) Initial property tax (annual)
(d) Mortgage Insurance as percent of loan amount
30
20%
1%
0.00%
Monthly
Monthly Property Mortgage Homeowner's
Payment Tax (c) Insurance (d) Insurance (e)
$672.73 $110.50 $0.00 $13.02
$1,120.51 $184.05 $0.00 $21.69
$1,793.24 $294.55 $0.00 $34.71
Freddie Mac historical monthly Primary Mortgage Market
Survey data tables. Ten-year awrage.
(e) Annual homeowner's insurance rate as percent of sale price 0.12% CA Dept. of Insurance website, based on awrage of all quotes,
assuming $150,000 of cow rage and a 26-40 year old home.
(f) Pill = Principal, Interest, Taxes, and Insurance
Percent of household income available for Pill 30.0%
Sources: U.S. HUD, 2009; Freddie Mac, 2008; CA Department of Insurance, 2009; BAE, 2009.
176
Total
Monthly
PITI (f)
$796.25
$1,326.25
$2,122.50
Appendix G.2: Affordable Housing Mortgage Calculator for Condominiums, Santa Clara County, 2009
Household Sale Down Total
Income (a) Price Payment (b) Mortgage (b)
Extremely Low Income (30%AMI)
4 Person HH $31,850 $65,989 $13,198 $52,791
Very Low Income (50%AMI)
4 Person HH $53,050 $154,251 $30,850 $123,401
Low Income (80% AMI)
4 Person HH $84,900 $286,852 $57,370 $229,482
Notes:
(a) Published by U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for Santa Clara County, 2009.
(b) Mortgage terms:
Annual Interest Rate (Fixed) 6.53%
Term of mortgage (Years)
Percent of sale price as down payment
(c) Initial property tax (annual)
(d) Mortgage Insurance as percent of loan amount
30
20%
1%
0%
Monthly
Monthly Property Mortgage Homeowner's
Payment Tax (c) Insurance (d) Insurance (e)
$334.78 $54.99 $0.00 $6.48
$782.56 $128.54 $0.00 $15.15
$1,455.29 $239.04 $0.00 $28.17
Freddie Mac historical monthly Primary Mortgage Market
Survey data tables. Ten-year average.
(e) Annual homeowners insurance rate as percent of sale price 0.12% CA Dept. of Insurance webSite, based on average of all quotes,
assuming $150,000 of coverage and a 26-40 year old home.
(f) Homeowners Association Fee (monthly)
(g) PIT! = Principal, Interest, Taxes, and Insurance
Percent of household income available for PIT!
$400
30%
Sources: U.S. HUD, 2009; Freddie Mac, 2008; CA Department of Insurance, 2009; BAE, 2009.
177
Homeowner's Total
Association Monthly
Fee (f) PITI (g)
$400.00 $796.25
$400.00 $1,326.25
$400.00 $2,122.50
DRAFT
CITY OF PALO ALTO
2010/2011 ACTION PLAN
Annual Update of the City's Consolidated Plan for the Period
July 1,2010 to June 30, 2011
Public Review Period March 22,2010 -April 23, 2010
Prepared by Department of Planning & Community Environment
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94301
Curtis Williams, Director
For Information, Please Contact: Kathy Marx, CDBG Coordinator
Planning Division, City of Palo Alto (650) 329-2428
178
This one year Action Plan describes the eligible activities that the jurisdiction intends to undertake in
fiscal year 2010111 to address the needs and implement the strategies identified in the adopted
Consolidated Plan for the period July 1, 2010 to June 30, 2015. It describes the activities that the
jurisdiction will fund with the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) entitlement
grant funds in fiscal year 2010111 to address priority housing and non-housing community
development needs and to affirmatively further fair housing choice.
Community Development Resources
Federal Resources
Entitlement Grant Funding
The City of Palo Alto receives CDBG funds as an entitlement grant through HUD. In fiscal year
20010111, Palo Alto will allocate $1,046,046 in CDBG funds to eligible activities that address the
needs identified in the Consolidated Plan. This funding includes $731,566 in CDBG grants monies,
as well as $241,001 from program income received in previous years or anticipated in fiscal year
2010111 and $73,479 available for reallocation to new activities from CDBG funds received in
previous years. Program income is income directly generated from the use of CDBG funds that is
returned to the CDBG program and relocated to new activities.
Estimated FY 2010111 CDBG Entitlement Grant
Program Income:
Estimated Program Income 2010111 (HIP)
Estimated Program Income 2010111 (P AHC)
Estimated Program Income 200911 0 (Palo Alto Gardens/
Sheridan Gardens)
Excess Prior Year Program Income
Reallocated Funds:
Stevenson House Windows & Doors Project
A venidas Handyman Services
TOTAL ALLOCATION
179
$731,566
5,000
60,000
149,550
26,451
23,479
50,000
$1,046,046
HOME Program. The City of Palo Alto is not an entitlement grantee under the federal HOME
program and thus does not receive a direct grant of HOME Program funds from HUD. The only way
to access HOME funds for housing projects located within the City of Palo Alto is for the City, or
eligible nonprofit organizations, to apply to the State of California for the funds in an annual
competition. Due to excessive demand for the Stat's HOME allocation, and rating criteria that does
not favor areas like Palo Alto, it is difficult to secure an award.
County and Local Housing and Community Development Sources
The Entitlement Jurisdictions also have access to a variety of local and countywide resources, as
outlined below:
Inclusionary Housing Programs and In-Lieu Fees. Inclusionary programs are established through
local ordinances that require market rate residential developers to set aside a certain portion of units
in a development for income-restricted affordable housing. Many inclusionary ordinances also give
developers the option of satisfying inclusionary housing requirements through payment of an in-lieu
fee. The local jurisdiction, in tum, directs these fees towards other affordable housing activities.
Among the Entitlement Jurisdictions and the Urban County, the cities of Cupertino, Gilroy, Los
Altos, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, Mountain View, Palo Alto, Santa Clara, and
Sunnyvale have inclusionary housing programs.
The Palo Alto Affordable Housing Fund is a local housing trust fund established by the City Council
to provide financial assistance for the development, acquisition and rehabilitation of housing
affordable to extremely low, very low, low and moderate-income households. The Affordable
Housing Fund is the umbrella name for five distinct sub-funds for affordable housing. On October
27,2003, the City Council approved new guidelines for all of the City's affordable housing funds
including the ones composed of federal housing monies. The Affordable Housing Fund in now
composed of:
./ Commercial Housing Fund -this fund is used primarily to increase the number of new
affordable housing units for Palo Alto's work force. It is funded with mitigation fees
required from developers of commercial and industrial projects. As of December 31,2009,
the Commercial Fund had an available balance of approximately $1,597,074 .
./ Residential Housing Fund -this fund can be used for acquisition, rehabilitation, new
construction and predevelopment of low-income housing. It is funded with mitigation fees
provided under Palo Alto's Below market Rate (BMR) housing program from residential
developers and money from other miscellaneous sources, such as proceeds from the sale or
lease of City property. It is also used to pay for administration and consultant contracts
necessary to carry out the BMR program. As of December 31, 2009, the Residential Fund
had an available unallocated balance of approximately $1,236,365.
180
./ CDBG Housing Fund -The purpose of the CDBG Housing Fund is to have funds available
on an ongoing basis to utilize when necessary to facilitate the development, rehabilitation
and preservation of low-income housing. Housing development opportunities, especially
opportunities to acquire land for new housing construction, may come up at any time
throughout the year and due to the nature of the real estate market, a quick response is
frequently necessary. CDBG Housing Funds may be used to pay for costs associated with
the investigation of the feasibility of sites or properties for potential acquisition by the City,
or nonprofit organizations, for affordable housing. Typically these costs are for appraisals,
environmental studies and soil testing, title reports and conceptual design studies .
./ HOME Program Income Fund -the City has only one HOME funded project, the Barker
Hotel Single Room Occupancy. This project was funded in part with a $1 million 1992
HOME grant from the State. The City's funding is in the form of a long-term, deferred loan
and there has not been any program income from this loan .
./ Below market Rate (BMR) Emergency Fund -this fund was authorized by Council in
September 2002 in order to provide funding on an ongoing basis for loans to BMR owners
for special assessment loans and for rehabilitation and preservation of the City's stock of
BMR ownership units. As of December 31, 2009 the BMR Emergency Fund had a balance
of $367,177.
The actual process for initiating an application for City Affordable Housing Funds will vary
depending on the particular circumstances. Usually, a nonprofit sponsor will apply to the
Department of Planning and Community Environment for housing subsidy funds when they are in
negotiation for a particular site. At other times, the City may issue a Request for Proposals once it
has secured or identified a potential housing site.
The Planning Department will present recommendations for each project together with a proposed
funding package to the City Council for approval. In almost all cases, funds will be provided as a
loan secured by the property. The repayment terms and interest rate have to be tailored to the
particular project since affordable housing typically is financed from multiple sources with specific
requirements.
Jobs-Housing Linkage Fees. The fee is assessed by local governments on new commercial
developments, and revenue is used to support local affordable housing activities. Among the
Entitlement Jurisdictions, the cities of Cupertino, Mountain View, Palo Alto, and Sunnyvale
maintain linkage fees.
Redevelopment Funds. California Community Redevelopment Law requires redevelopment
181
agencies (RDAs) to set aside 20 percent of tax increment revenue in redevelopment project areas for
affordable housing activities. In addition, at least 15 percent of non-Agency developed housing in
the project area must be made affordable to low-and moderate-income households. Of these units,
40 percent (i.e., six percent of the total) must serve very low-income households.
The Housing Trust of Santa Clara County. A non-profit organization that combines private and
public funds to support affordable housing activities in the County, including assistance to
developers and homebuyers. The HTSCC is a public/private initiative, dedicated to creating more
affordable housing in Santa Clara County, using a revolving loan fund and grant-making program to
complement and leverage other housing resources. The City of Palo Alto has contributed $650,000
to the HTSCC since its inception. The City's contributions must be used exclusively for qualifying
affordable housing projects located within the City. Four new affordable rental projects located in
Palo Alto have received loans from the HTSCC: Oak Court Apartments ($400,000), Opportunity
Center ($650,000), Fabian Way Senior Housing by Bridge Housing ($650,000) and the Tree House
project ($500,000).
Mortgage Credit Certificates (MCC). The federal government allows homeowners to claim a
federal income tax deduction equal to the amount of interest paid each year on a home loan. This
itemized deduction only reduces the amount of taxable income. Through an MCC, a homeowners'
deduction can be converted into a federal income tax credit for qualified first-time home buyers. This
credit actually reduces the household's tax payments on a dollar for dollar basis, with a maximum
credit equal to 10 to 20 percent of the annual interest paid on the borrower's mortgage. Mortgage
credit certificates in Santa Clara County are issued by the County directly to eligible homeowners.
State of California's Multifamily Housing Program (MHP). The Multifamily Housing Program
(MHP) has been a major source of funding for affordable housing since November 2002. The
purpose of this program is to provide low-interest loans to developers of affordable rental housing.
The MHP General funds may be used for multifamily rental and transitional housing projects
involving new construction, rehabilitation, or conversion of nonresidential structures. MHP
Supportive Housing funds may be used for multifamily rental housing projects involving new
construction, rehabilitation, acquisition and rehabilitation, or conversion of nonresidential structures
for permanent rental housing only. Oak Court Apartments, developed by the Palo Alto Housing
Corporation and the Opportunity Center, developed by the Community Working GrouplHousing
Authority of Santa Clara County received substantial funding from the MHP program. The Fabian
Way Senior Housing project received an award of $5.25 million in permanent MHP funding in 2008.
State of California's Local Housing Trust Fund Grant Program. A component of Proposition 46
included funding for new and existing local housing trust funds. A local housing trust fund is a
public or private partnership created to receive on-going revenues for affordable housing production
such as Palo Alto's Commercial and Residential Housing Funds. The City of Palo Alto applied for
182
and received an award of$I,OOO,OOO in February 2004. The City Council committed these funds for
site acquisition for the Alma Street Family rental housing project.
Santa Clara County Affordable Housing Fund (AHF). The Santa Clara County Board of
Supervisors established the Affordable Housing Fund with initial funding of$18.6 million in July
2002. The main purpose of the AHF was to assist in the development of affordable housing
especially for extremely low income and special needs people throughout Santa Clara County. The
Opportunity Center received an award of $2.5 million from the AHF in the first round of funding
approved in September 2003. The Bridge Fabian Way Senior Housing was awarded $1.5 million
from this fu~d in 2008. A proposed $960,000 will be utilized by the Tree House project. The County
has awarded over $10 million from the AHF to date.
Section 8. The Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara administers the Section 8 program
countywide. In the previous fiscal year, a total of 296 households in Palo Alto received assistance
through the Section 8 program. Of those, 201 were housing choice vouchers,S were Shelter Plus
Care vouchers, 52 were project-based and 37 were part of the moderate rehabilitation program. The
City anticipates that Section 8 vouchers will continue to be available to Palo Alto residents in fiscal
year 2010111.
Low-Income Housing Tax Credits. The California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (CTCAC)
holds two application cycles each year. Typically, the first cycle is held in March and the second is
held in July. Local non-profits apply directly to the CTCAC for these funds when they have
identified a project. Tax credits were used for development of both the Oak Court Apartments and
the Opportunity Center and have been awarded for the Fabian Way Senior Housing. They are also
proposed to be used for $6.0 million in development funds for the Tree House project.
Destination: Home. As a one-stop homelessness prevention center, the goal of Destination: Home
is to provide one-stop multiservice centers for homelessness-prevention services that connect people
in need with appropriate services and directly link services, in an expedited manner, to permanent
supportive housing for homeless men, women and families in Santa Clara County. The Georgia
Travis Center and the Boccardo Reception Center in San Jose are presently operating this program in
conjunction with other programs. Additionally the program provides for a medical respite center that
allows homeless patients that have been hospitalized and discharged a clean, safe place to recuperate
and provides linkages to other services, including permanent housing, while the individual is in the
medical respite center. This program is being operated as a IS-bed facility in San Jose. Destination:
Home partners with Stanford Medical Center locally for the medical respite component.
183
STATE. LOCAL. PUBLIC AND PRIVATE RESOURCES FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Home
New Buyer Rental Homeless
Activity Acquisition Rehab Construction Assistance Assistance Assistance
STATE, LOCAL, and PUBLIC
Commercial Housing X
Fund
Residential Housing X X X X
Fund
State MHP X X X
City Owned Land X
MCC Program X
Housing Trust of X X X X X
Santa Clara County
Santa Clara County X X X X X
Housing Authority -
Section 8
County Department X
of Sochtl Services
Santa Clara County X X X
Affordable Housing
Fund
PRIVATE RESOURCES
BMRRental & X X X
Owner Program
Private Lenders: AHP X X X
Nonprofit Developers X X X X X
Private Foundations X
and Churches
Leveraging and Matching Requirements. The City of Palo Alto will leverage federal and private
housing funds to the greatest extent feasible consistent with the goals identified in the Consolidated
Plan. The City will encourage housing project sponsors to seek private financing and private grants,
and to fully utilize other state and federal housing development subsidies such as the low-income
housing tax credit program. The City will also utilize its local Affordable Housing Fund, as
appropriate, to leverage federal and private housing funds and to provide any required matching
funds. Where eligible, CDBG Housing Funds could be used as a portion of the matching
requirement for federal housing programs.
184
Homeless
Prevention
X
X
X
X
Geographic Distribution
The City considers the provision of all types of housing assistance on a citywide basis consistent
with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The City does not have specific target areas for
housing activities, but attempts to provide housing affordable to lower-income persons throughout
the City.
There are only a few areas that are considered to have a: concentration of minority populations or
low-income residents in Palo Alto. There are three census tracts in Palo Alto that have a
concentration of Asian populations, primarily in the northern part of the City and there are also four
Census tracts in the northwestern portion of the City that have a concentration of lower income
households.
In addition, Census tract 5107 in the Olive-West MeadowNentura area is an area of considerably
greater population and housing diversity than that which is found in most parts of Palo Alto. The
2000 census identified this tract as having the highest minority concentration of any non-split City
tract. More than half the housing units are in multiple-unit (3+) structures, and nearly two-thirds are
renter-occupied. Block Group 2 has a large proportion of modest rental housing, a relatively high
proportion of minority and ethnic groups, and 48.6% of the households are below the CDBG income
eligibility limits. The entire tract is above HUD's first quartile threshold of 27.4 percent for area
benefit activities.
Community Participation
The community outreach and planning for the 2010/2011 Action Plan was conducted in tandem with
the Consolidated Plan process. As outlined in Section 3 of the Consolidated Plan, throughout
September 2009, the Santa Clara County Entitlement Jurisdictions hosted four Consolidated Plan
Workshops to engage the public and local stakeholders in the planning process. The Workshops
were held in Sunnyvale, San Jose, and Morgan Hill, to encompass northern, central, and southern
Santa Clara County. In addition, the City of San Jose hosted a smaller workshop for its Strong
Neighborhood Initiative (SNI) Neighborhood Advisory Committee (NAC) representatives. A total
of 105 individuals participated in the four Workshops.
As another method of soliciting input, Workshop participants and stakeholders outside of the
Workshops also completed an informal survey that assessed local community development needs.
Although these surveys are not meant to be a rigorous quantitative assessment of need, they do offer
a general perspective on community development concerns and priorities. A total of 120 surveys
were received.
The City of Palo Alto provided the draft Action Plan with the Consolidated Plan for public review
from March 22 through April 23, 2010. Notice of the document's availability was advertised in the
Palo Alto Weekly March 19 and 26, 2010; published on the city's website and copies were available
at the Downtown Library, City Hall Department of Planning and Community Environment and the
185
City's Development Center located at 285 Hamilton Ave. Members of the City's CDBG Citizen
Advisory Committee also received draft copies for review and comment.
The draft Action Plan was also open for pubic comment at two public hearings. The first public
hearing was conducted on April 20, 2010, before the City's Finance Committee. The second public
hearing was conducted on May 3,2010, before the City Council. Public comments received relative
to the circulation of the draft Consolidated Plan and public hearings are incorporated in Appendix
AA.
Housing Needs
Allocation Priorities
Program Year is the first year of the City's five year Consolidated Plan for the period 2010-2015.
The table below sets forth the five year goals of that Plan and the one-year goals of the FY 2010111
Action Plan.
Summary of Specific Housing/Community Development Objective (HUD Table 2C)
Actual
Performance Expected Units
Goal # Specific Objectives Measure Units (leave
blank)
Rental Housine Ob.iectives
1A.1 Increase the Supply of Rental Housing Units 50 0
&lC.1
1A.2 Preserve Existing Affordable Rental Units 72 72
&lC.1 Housing
1A.2 Conserve the Condition of Existing Rental Units 150 50
&lC.1 Housing
Owner Housine Ob.iectives
1B.1 Continue Below market Rate Program Units 34 34 ..
1B.3 Rehabilitation Loans to LIM Income Units Emergency
Owners Only
1B.3 Minor Home Repairs and Accessibility Units 150 40
Upgrades
Public Service Ob.iectives
3A.1 Assist Seniors in Long-Term Care Individuals 400 120
2A.1 - 5 Services to Prevent Homelessness Individuals 2,000 500
3A.1 Food and Meal Programs Individuals 2,000 500
186
Public Facilities Ob.iectives
3B.l & Promote Community-Based Services Facilities 2 2
3B.2 through Public Facilities
Goal #1: Assist in the creation and preservation 0/ affordable housing/or lower-income and
special needs households
Strategy #lA: Assist developers with the production of affordable rental housing
• Action lA.1. Provide financial and technical assistance to developers producing affordable
rental housing. Priority -High
2010-2011 Action(s)
Fabian Way Senior Housing Project
Palo Alto, CA
Goal(s):
Complete construction and occupy -56 new housing units for low income seniors
Palo Alto Housing Corporation
488 W. Charleston Rd.
Palo Alto, CA 94306
Goal(s):
Continue to provide financial assistance for the construction of 3 5 new housing units for low
income families
• Action lA.2. Assist developers in rehabilitating seriously deteriorating and neglected
apartment buildings for conversion into affordable rental units. Priority -High
2010-2011 Action(s)
There are presently no plans for conversion of apartment buildings for conversion into
affordable rental housing units.
Goal(s)
Continue to promote apartment building conversion into affordable rental units.
• Action lA.3. Address any barriers to affordable housing production through implementation
of associated Housing Element programs. Priority -Medium
2010-2011 Action(s)
187
The City is working towards completion of the Housing Element update in which barriers to
affordable housing production are receiving updated review.
Goal(s)
The City anticipates the updated Housing Element will be approved at the local level and
sent to the State for review by the autumn of2010.
Strategy #1 B: Support affordable ownership housing
• Action 1B.1. Provide financial and technical assistance to developers producing affordable
ownership housing for lower-income households, such as self-help and "sweat equity"
organizations. Priority -Medium
2010-2011 Action(s)
There are no plans for 2010-11 to provide financial or technical assistance to developers of
affordable self-help affordable housing.
" Goal(s)
To continue to encourage developers of self-help affordable housing
• Action 1B.2. Maintain a list of partner lenders that are familiar with local homebuyer
assistance programs and other below-market rate loan products. Priority -Low
2010-2011 Action(s)
Work to start the maintenance of a list of partner lenders that are familiar with local
homebuyer assistance programs and other below-market rate loan products.
Goal(s)
Establish the list
• Action 1B.3. Provide lower-income homeowners with the assistance for rehabilitating their
properties. Priority -High
2010-2011 Action(s)
Avenidas Handyman Services
450 Bryant Street
Palo alto, CA 94301
Goal(s)
25 Households
Strategy #lC: Assist lower-income seniors, larger families, the disabled, andfarmworkers in
securing safe and affordable housing
188
• Action 1C.1. Support the production and rehabilitation of affordable housing for seniors,
disabled individuals, large families, and farmworkers through applications for State and
federal funding, or with direct financial assistance. Priority -High
2010-2011 Action(s)
Stevenson House
455 E. Charleston Rd.
Palo Alto, CA 94306
GoaJ(s):
120 low income senior rental units
• Action 1 C.2. Ensure that local zoning standards allow for units that serve the needs of
disabled individuals, including second units and multifamily units. Priority -Low
2010-2011 Action(s)
No current revisions to the local zoning code anticipated. Work with the City's Building
Department in assuring compliance with the Federal laws are met.
GoaJ(s)
Continue monitoring of local zoning code allowing for units that serve the needs of disabled
individuals, including second units and multifamily units.
Goal #2: Support activities to end homelessness
Strategy #2A: Provide housing and supportive services to homeless individuals and families and
households at risk of homelessness
• Action 2A.1. Support developers of transitional and supportive housing facilities through
technical and direct financial assistance, as well as their applications for State and federal
funding, drawing from the Housing First approach to ending homelessness. . Priority -High
2010-2011 Action(s)
There are no developments proposed for transitional and supportive housing facilities
GoaJ(s)
Continue to support any new proposed developments for transitional housing and supportive
housing facilities
• Action 2A.2. Support existing transitional housing and supportive housing facilities.
Priority -High
189
2010-2011 Action(s)
Palo Alto Ho,:!sing Corp.-Barker Hotel and Alma Place Counseling Program
725 Alma Street
Palo Alto; CA 94301
Goal(s)
131 households
Support Network for Battered Women
1257 Tasman Dr., Suite C (office)
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
Shelters are located in confidential locations in Santa Clara County
Goal(s)
4 Palo Alto residents and their children provided emergency & transitional shelter
Clara Mateo AlliancelInn Vision
795 Willow Rd., Bldg. 323;.D
Menlo Park, CA 94025
Goal(s)
6 transitional housing units for individuals and 18 transitional housing units for families
• Action 2A.3. Support programs that provide short-term emergency shelter for homeless
individuals and families, while still prioritizing Housing First approach to ending
homelessness. . Priority -High
2010-2011 Action(s)
Opportunity CenterlInn Vision
33 Encina Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Goal(s)
Operating Cost Assistance to support annual needs of 800 unduplicated Palo Alto residents·
InnVision -Hotel de Zink
Rotating Church Shelter Program
33 Encina Ave.
Palo Alto 94301
Goal(s)
Operating Cost Assistance
Clara Mateo AlliancelInn Vision
795 Willow Rd., Bldg. 323-D
190
Menlo Park, CA 94025
GoaJ(s)
4 families and 80 individuals provided emergency or transitional shelter
• Action 2A.4. Support emergency rental assistance programs to help protect lower-income
households from homelessness. Priority -High
2010-2011 Action(s)
Shelter Network
1450 Chapin Ave., 2nd Floor]
Burlingame, CA 94010
GoaJ(s)
Shelter Network is currently funded with American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds.
The goal is to continue support with CDBG funds when requested.
• Action 2A.S. Support outreach programs that provide vital services to homeless. individuals,
including health services, substance abuse services, referrals, and others. Priority -High
2010-2011 Action(s)
Second Harvest Food Bank
750 Curtner Ave.
San Jose, CA 95125
GoaJ(s)
1600 persons
LaComida -Senior Nutrition Program
450 Bryant St.
Palo Alto, CA 94301
GoaJ(s)
646 persons
Catholic Charities -Long-Term Care Ombudsman Program
2625 Zanker Rd., Suite 200
San Jose, Ca 95134-2107
GoaJ(s)
220 persons
Mayview Community Clinic -Health Care Services
270 Grant Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94306
191
Goal(s)
100 persons
Opportunity Service CenterlInn Vision
33 Encina Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Goal(s)
800 persons
Goal #3: Support activities that provide basic services, eliminate blight, and/or strengthen
neighborhoods
Strategy #3A: Support local service organizations that provide essential services to the community,
particularly special needs populations
• Action 3A.1. Provide funding for social services organizations benefiting lower-income
households and special needs populations, including seniors, disabled, youth, homeless,
farmworkers, single-mothers, victims of domestic violence, and others. Priority -High
2010-2011 Action(s)
Support Network for Battered Women
1257 Tasman Dr., Suite C (office)
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
Shelters are located in confidential locations in Santa Clara County
Goal(s)
4 Palo Alto residents and their children provided emergency & transitional shelter
• Action 3A.2. Support programs and services that assist lower income households access
vital services through translation, transportation, outreach and information, and other forms
of assistance. Priority -High
2010-2011 Action(s)
Support Network for Battered Women
1257 Tasman Dr., Suite C (office)
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
Shelters are located in confidential locations in Santa Clara County
Goal(s)
4 Palo Alto residents and their children provided emergency & transitional shelter
Shelter Network
192
1450 Chapin Ave., 2nd Floor]
Burlingame, CA 94010
Goal(s)
Shelter Network is currently funded with American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds.
The goal is to continue support with CDBG funds when requested.
• Action 3A.3. Support programs and services that assist households with foreclosure
prevention and recovery. Priority -Low
2010-2011 Action(s)
The City does not have a foreclosure assistance program at this time.
Goal(s)
Continue to monitor the foreclosure rate within Palo Alto for low and moderate income
households.
Strategy #3B: Provide the public facilities and infrastructure needed to assure the health, safety, and
welfare of the community
• Action 3B.1. Remove accessibility barriers from public, facilities and sidewalks. Priority
High
2010-2011 Action(s)
Recovery Act or CDBG funds have not been utilized to remove accessibility barriers from
public facilities and sidewalks in the city of Palo Alto.
Goal(s)
Consider the utilization of CDBG funds in forthcoming grant cycles for the removal of
accessibility barriers from public facilities and sidewalks in the city of Palo Alto.
• Action 3B.2. Enhance lower income neighborhoods through physical improvements and the
ongoing maintenance and rehabilitation of public areas and facilities. Priority -Medium
2010-2011 Action(s)
The City's Public Facilities and Recreation Departments maintain a wide variety of public
areas that are utilized by all income levels. No public facility in Palo Alto is dedicated to
low or moderate income residents only.
Goal(s)
Continue support of public and recreational facilities.
Strategy # 3C: Mitigate lead-based paint hazards
193
• Action 3C.1. Continue outreach and education to the community regarding the hazards of
lead poisoning, particularly with regard to lead-based paint hazards. Priority -Medium
2010-2011 Action(s)
When reviewing any housing or public facility for rehabilitation provide outreach to all
occupants regarding the hazards of lead poisoning from lead-based paint particularly.
Goal(s)
Utilize outreach for all proposed rehab projects.
• Action 3C.2. Inspect all properties being rehabilitated or acquired for affordable housing for
lead-based paint hazards. Priority -Medium
2010-2011 Action(s)
Stevenson House
455 Charleston Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94034
Goal(s)
Inspection of 120 unit affordable housing senior housing project.
• Action 3C.3. Continue to update and implement the local Lead Based Paint Management
Plan as appropriate. Priority -Low
2010-2011 Action(s)
The City has a local Lead Based Paint Management Plan that addresses current standards
applicable to lead based paint hazards.
Goal(s)
Goal #4: Promote fair housing choici
Goal #4A: Conduct outreach to the community regardingfair housing, and address local barriers to
fair housing
• Action 4A.l. Contract with local service providers to conduct ongoing outreach and
education regarding fair housing for homeseekers, landlords, property managers, real estate
agents, and lenders. Priority -Medium
2010-2011 Action(s)
Project Sentinel
525 Middlefield Rd., Suite 200
Redwood City, CA 94063
194
GoaJ(s)
25 persons will be assisted
• Action 4A.2. Contract with local service providers to conduct fair housing testing in local
apartment complexes. Priority -Medium
2010-2011 Action(s)
Project Sentinel
525 Middlefield Rd., Suite 200
Redwood City, CA 94063
GoaJ(s)
25 persons will be assisted
• Action 4A.3. Modify local zoning ordinances for consistency with State and federal fair
housing laws. Priority -Low
2010-2011 Action(s)
Project Sentinel
525 Middlefield Rd., Suite 200
Redwood City, CA 94063
GoaJ(s)
25 persons will be assisted
• Action 4A.S. Update the local Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice and report
on its implementation as necessary. Priority -High
2010-2011 Action(s)
A draft Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice update has been prepared and will
be submitted to HUD at the time of the 2010-15 Consolidated, Plan and 2010-11 Annual
Action Plan
GoaJ(s)
Goal #5: Expand economic opportunities for low-income households
Strategy #5A: Support economic development activities that promote employment growth, and help
lower-income persons secure and maintain a job
• Action SA.l. Provide funding for organizations that support local employment development
and workforce training. Priority -High
195
2010-2011 Action(s)
Day Worker Center of Mountain View
748 Mercy St.
Mountain View, CA 94041
Additionally review local efforts at establishing part-time job placement and training
opportunities for low income youth. Work to collaborate with those agencies to establish a
program that will serve that population.
GoaJ(s)
113 Palo Alto workers
• Action 5.A.2. Support programs that facilitate small business development. Priority -High
2010-2011 Action(s)
There are no programs planned that facilitate small business development for 2010-11.
Although it is anticipated that a small business loan program for low income microenterprise
entrepreneurial development will begin in 2010-11 with CDBG administrative funds through
the City of Palo Alto.
GoaJ(s)
To have the foundations ofa small business loan program in place by the next CDBG grant
application cycle and submit an application for such.
Goal # 6: Promote environmental sustain ability
Strategy #6A: Encourage the installation of energy-and water-efficiency measures in new and
existing homes
• Action 6A.l. Support local municipal code modifications to create a new recycling and
compo sting ordinance to promote environmental sustainability, including reaching the
community goal of Zero Waste by 2021. Priority -High
2010-2011 Action(s)
Stevenson House
455 Charleston Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94304
GoaJ(s)
Monitor and assure that all recycling efforts included in the Stevenson House sewer
rehabilitation project comply with all new ordinance requirements.
196
• Action 6A.2. Support collaborative efforts between local jurisdictions and subrecipients to
ensure all stakeholders achieve sustainable outcomes form project implementation. Priority
High
2010-2011 Action(s)
Second Harvest Food Bank
750 Curtner Ave.
San Jose, CA 95125
Day Worker Center of Mountain View
748 Mercy St.
Mountain View, CA 94041
Goal(s)
Review the recycling ordinances of San Jose and Mountain View to assure compliance with
regulations in those jurisdictions. Review project material lists for compliance with green
building material and practices.
2010/11 PROJECT AND ACTIVITIES TO BE UNDERTAKEN
All of the projects and activities to be undertaken with 2010-11 CDBG funding address the priority
housing and community development needs identified in the Consolidated Plan. The attached
Appendix C "Proposed Projects" describes each project or service ability, the 2010111 funds
allocated, the expected project beneficiaries and the HOD national objective.
Housing Activities
The City of Palo Alto's Consolidated Plan and Housing Element both emphasize the great need for
affordable housing for low and very low income households in Palo Alto. While all types of housing
are needed in the City, focus is on the creation and preservation of rental housing with an emphasis
on housing for very low and low income persons at risk of being homeless, are homeless, have
special needs or families with children.
Palo Alto Senior Housing, Inc. (Stevenson House) -$478,304
Objective:
Outcome:
Providing decent affordable housing
Affordability, efficiency and sustainability
Performance Measure: 120 Units and all Common Areas will have a functional sewer system
, 197
Stevenson House is a 120-unit residential facility for low-income seniors located at 455 E.
Charleston Road in Palo Alto. The facility presently serves 140 very-low income elderly residents
with an average age of 81 years. The facility was constructed in the 1950's and is in need of
continual maintenance and upgrades in order to maintain viability as senior housing.
This proposal will repair and replace, as necessary, deteriorated sewer pipes under the floor of four
first floor apartments in Building "A", eight first floor apartments in Building "B" and the laundry
room and fifteen first floor apartments in Building "C". The project also includes the repair or
replacement of the main sewer pipes that are located outside of these apartments, either under the
hallways, or outside of the building itself, or under the facility driveway. Connecting the apartment
pipes to the main sewer pipes will also be competed, as well as the removal of contaminated soil and
restoration of apartment flooring. The outcome of the project will provide low-income seniors with
decent affordable housing.
Avenidas, Handyman Services -$10,000
Objective:
\ Outcome:
Provide decent affordable housing
Provide a suitable living environment for low income Palo Alto residents
Performance Measure: 25 housing units will receive maintenance services
Avenidas Handyman Services will provide maintenance services to low-income Palo Alto residents
that live in private residences. The 2000 U.S. Census indicated on of every five Palo Alto residents
is over the age of 60 and of those, 20% live on annual incomes of less than $25,000, extremely low
and very low-income status. Handyman Services proposed to provide affordable maintenance
services including accessibility and safety repairs such as bathroom grab bars, door lock replacement
and repairs, faulty electrical fixture repairs, leaky faucets and low flow shower head conversions and
other basic home maintenance tasks that senior residents can no longer accomplish on their own for a
total of 100 hours of work. Handyman Services will be providing not only a more suitable living
environment for low income senior residents but also assisting with small home improvements that
could have the additional outcome of environmental sustainability.
Public Facilities
The Consolidated Plan provides for acquisition, construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation or
installation of public facilities and improvements. Public facilities can be commercial or industrial
structures utilized to benefit low and moderate income persons.
Second Harvest Food Bank -$211,819
Objective: Provide low/mod income residents with food
198
Outcome: Benefit low/mod income limited clientele
Performance Measure: Increase food distribution in Palo Alto by 3% per year for five years-
559,827 pounds by 2015
The proposed project is to renovate a storage area in the distribution center located in San Jose to
create ten new office spaces for employees and volunteers. The distribution center is already housed
within the warehouse facility. Therefore the work will be comprised of installing insulation,
electrical wiring, sprinklers, carpeting, windows, lights, cubicles and data cables.
Second Harvest is the primary food distribution source for many of Palo Alto's non-profit programs
including the Opportunity Center, La Comida (senior center) and the Brown Bag food program for
low-income seniors.
Day Worker Center of Mountain View -$63,807
Objective:
Outcome:
Provide low/mod income residents with job placement
Benefit low/mod income limited clientele
Performance Measure: Provide job placement for 113 Palo Alto residents
The proposed project is to renovate an existing vacant block commercial building located in
Mountain View to provide a permanent day worker center for low income workers looking for
employment and employers looking for reliable workers. The project consists of roofing, water,
sewer and power, windows, painting and finishes to both interior and exterior of the block building.
The goal of the project is to provide a stand-alone permanent location for the non-profit that has
existed in leased spaces since its inception 10 years ago. Funding proposed from the City of Palo
Alto's CDBG grant will comprise 13% of the renovation costs.
Proposed Public Service Activities
Palo Alto Housing Corporation -SRO Tenant Counseling Program -$34,211
Objective: Providing a suitable living environment
Outcome: Accessibility for the purpose of creating suitable living environments
Performance Measure: 131 persons will have improved accessibility to a suitable living
environment
Inn Vision/Clara-Mateo Alliance -Adult singles and families -$39,681
Objective: Providing a suitable living environment
Outcome: Accessibility for the purpose of providing decent affordable housing
Performance Measure: 80 individuals plus 4 families will have new accessibility to decent
affordable housing
199
InnVision -Opportunity Service Center Drop-In Program -$34,211
Objective: Providing a suitable living environment
Outcome: Accessibility for the purpose of creating suitable living environments
Performance Measure: 800 persons will have improved accessibility to a suitable living
environment
Catholic Charities -Long-Term Care Ombudsman Program -$ 5,000
Objective: Providing a suitable living environment
Outcome: Accessibility to supportive services
Performance Measure: 220 persons in Palo Alto will have improved accessibility to supportive
services thereby providing decent affordable housing
Support Network for Battered Women -Domestic Violence Program -$ 9,700
Objective: Providing a suitable living environment
Outcome: Accessibility for the purpose of providing decent affordable housing
Performance Measure: 4 individuals and their children will be provided emergency shelter; 23
clients will be provided safety net support services
Planning and Administrative Services
Planning and administrative services are provided as part of the Consolidated Plan. The City
includes fair housing activities within the 20% allowable cap per funding cycle.
Project Sentinel-$31,440
Objective: Provide decent affordable housing
Outcome: Accessibility for the purpose of providing decent affordable hosing
Performance Measure: 25 persons will have improved accessibility to decent affordable'
housing
Project Sentinel has proposed to provide investigation, counseling and legal referral for victims of
housing discrimination; community education and outreach regarding fair housing law and practices;
and analyses for City staff and official regarding fair housing practices.
City of Palo Alto -$127,873
Objective:
,Outcome:
Provide decent affordable housing and benefit low/mod income residents
General Program Administration
Performance Measure: n/a
200
The City of Palo Alto provides administration of the overall management, coordination and
evaluation of the CDBG program, and the project delivery cost associated with bringing projects to
completion.
Human Services
In addition to the CDBG public service funds, the City will provide $1,168,897 from the General
Fund in support of human services through its Human Service Resource Allocation Process
(HSRAP). The HSRAP funds, in conjunction with the CnBG public service funds, are distributed to
local non-profit agencies whose programs serve the needs of seniors, children, youth and families,
persons with disabilities, and those who are homeless, or at risk of homelessness. A variety of
supported programs provide mental and physical health care services, tenant/landlord mediation,
subsidized child care, support for victims of domestic violence and rape, senior services, adolescent
counseling, emergency food, nutritional services, and recreational activities.
Amendments to Plan
Prior to the submission of any substantial change in the proposed use of funds, citizens will be
provided reasonable notice of, and the opportunity to comment on, any proposed Action Plan
amendment( s).
Urgent Need Activities
In the event of a local, state or federal disaster declaration for areas within the boundaries of the City
of Palo Alto, the City reserves the right to use CDBG or other available federal funds to abate
immediate and necessary hazards. Such funds may be used for staff efforts, loans, or outright grants
to affected parties, as approved by City Council and allowable under the pertinent Federal
Guidelines.
Monitoring of Activities
The City of Palo Alto follows the monitoring requirements for the use of Federal funds as directed by
HOD. The City's Department of Planning and Community Environment monitors its housing
production goals and all the activities carried out to further the goals of the Consolidated Plan. For
activities funded by CDBG and HOME programs, an annual performance report is completed based
on HOD regulations and in accordance with HOD standards. The Consolidated Annual Performance
and Evaluation Report (CAPER) is available to the Citizens Advisory Committee and the general
public for comments during a IS-day review period. This report identifies the actual dollars
expended, the beneficiaries served, and the program goals achieved.
The City requires subrecipients of CDBG funds to submit semi-annual and annual performance
reports outlining the extent to which program goals have been achieved, and the number of
201
beneficiaries who have been served. Program performance is measured against the specific program
objectives outlined in the contract scope of services. Additionally, City staff will monitor each
subrecipient, as necessary; to insure compliance with all regulations governing their administrative,
financial, and programmatic operations, and to make sure the subrecipients achieve their
performance objectives within the prescribed schedule and budget.
Coordination
The CDBG entitlement cities (Palo Alto, Sunnyvale, Mountain View, Santa. Clara, Cupertino, Gilroy,
Milpitas, San Jose), and the Urban County of Santa Clara continue to meet on a regular schedule to
discuss issues of mutual concern and to share information and strategies for addressing affordable
housing, homelessness, fair housing, and other issues of common concern. The meetings have
helped the participants better understand the County and nonprofit social service structure within the
County, and provide input to the Santa Clara County Office of Affordable Housing.
The City of Palo Alto continues to collaborate with neighboring jurisdictions in both Santa Clara and
San Mateo County on-issues relating to homelessness in northern Santa Clara County and southern
San Mateo County. The City actively participates in the Santa Clara County Collaborative on
Affordable Housing and Homeless Issues.
As a result of the Countywide Fair Housing Study, the cities of Palo Alto, Mountain View and
Sunnyvale have jointly selected fair housing services from a single provider to serve the three cities.
In addition a Countywide Fair Housing Task Force has been formed and includes representatives
from entitlement jurisdictions, fair housing agencies, and other non-profit organizations. A staff
person from the City of Palo Alto is the representative for the North County cities (Mountain View,
Palo Alto and Sunnyvale).
The Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998 requires public housing authorities
(PHA's) to develop and implement five-year strategic plans. These plans must describe their long
range goals and provide a strategy for achieving the identified goals. The plans provide details about
the PHA' s operations, program participants, programs and services. The PHA is required to ensure
that their plan is consistent with any applicable Consolidated Plans for jurisdictions in which the
PHA is located. This new requirement allows for some collaborative discussions on the role of the
Santa Clara County Housing Authority in meeting the housing needs of low-income persons in Palo
Alto.
To ensure a coordinated approach to the City's human service funding efforts, CDBG and Human
Services staff meet to review and discuss applications received through both the CDBG and HSRAP
processes. Additionally, a member of the Human Relations Commission serves on the CDBG
Citizens Advisory Committee to avoid duplication of effort and to assure collaboration within Palo
Alto.
202
Application for Federal Assistance SF-424
*1. Type of Submission: *2. Type of Application * If Revision, select appropriate letter(s)
D Preapplication D New
~ Application ~ Continuation *Other (Specify)
D Changed/Corrected Application D Revision
3. Date Received: 4. Applicant Identifier:
5a. Federal Entity Identifier: *5b. Federal Award Identifier:
B 1 OMC060020
State Use Only:
6. Date Received by State: 17. State Application Identifier:
8. APPLICANT INFORMATION:
*a. Legal Name: City of Palo Alto
*b. EmployerlTaxpayer Identification Number (EINITIN): *c. Organizational DUNS:
94-6000389 050520782
d. Address:
*Street 1: PO Box 10250
Street 2:
*City: Palo Alto
County:
*State: CA
Province:
*Country: Santa Clara
*Zip / Postal Code 94303
e. Organizational Unit:
Department Name: Division Name:
Planning and Community Environment Planning
f. Name and contact information of person to be contacted on matters involving this application:
Prefix: Mr. *First Name: Steven
Middle Name:
*Last Name: Turner
Suffix:
Title: Advanced Planning Manager
Organizational Affiliation:
*Telephone Number: 650-329-2155 Fax Number: 650-329-2154
*Email: steven. turner@cityofpaloalto.org
OMB Number: 4040-0004
Expiration Date: 0113112009
Version 02
~-
Application for Federal Assistance SF-424
*9. Type of Applicant 1: Select Applicant Type:
C. City or Township Government
Type of Applicant 2: Select Applicant Type:
Type of Applicant 3: Select Applicant Type:
*Other (Specify)
*10 Name of Federal Agency:
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
11. Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number:
14-218
CFDA Title:
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
*12 Funding Opportunity Number:
*Title:
13. Competition Identification Number:
Title:
14. Areas Affected by Project (Cities, Counties, States, etc.):
City of Palo Alto, County of Santa Clara, State of California
*15. Descriptive Title of Applicant's Project:
The City of Palo Alto's Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program for fiscal year 2010/11
OMB Number: 4040-0004
Expiration Dare: 0113112009
Version 02
Application for Federal Assistance SF-424
16. Congressional Districts Of:
OMB Number: 4040-0004
Expiration Date: 01/31/2009
Version 02
*a. Applicant: 14th Congressional District *b. Program/Project: 14th Congressional
District
17. Proposed Project:
*a. Start Date: 7/01/2009 *b. End Date: 6/30/2011
18. Estimated Funding ($):
*a. Federal 731,566
*b. Applicant
*c. State
*d. Local
*e. Other
73,479
*f. Program Income 241,001
*g. TOTAL 1,046,046
*19. Is Application Subject to Review By State Under Executive Order 12372 Process?
D a. This application was made available to the State under the Executive Order 12372 Process for review on __
D b. Program is subject to E.O. 12372 but has not been selected by the State for review.
~ c. Program is not covered by E. O. 12372
*20. Is the Applicant Delinquent On Any Federal Debt? (If "Yes", provide explanation.)
DYes ~ No
21. *8y signing this application, I certify (1) to the statements contained in the list of certifications** and (2) that the statements
herein are true, complete and accurate to the best of my knowledge. I also provide the required assurances** and agree to comply
with any resulting terms if I accept an award. I am aware that any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements or claims may subject
me to criminal, civil, or administrative penalties. (U. S. Code, Title 218, Section 1001)
~ **IAGREE
** The list of certifications and assurances, or an internet site where you may obtain this list, is contained in the announcement or
agency specific instructions
Authorized Representative:
Prefix: Mr.
Middle Name:
*Last Name: Keene
Suffix:
*Title: City Manager
*Telephone Number: 650-329-2563
* Email: james.keene@cityofpaloalto.org
*Signature of Authorized Representative:
Authorized for Local Reproduction
*First Name: James
I Fax Number: 650-325-5025
I *Date Signed:
Standard Form 424 (Revised 10/2005)
Prescribed by OMB Circular A-I 02
Application for Federal Assistance SF-424
*Applicant Federal Debt Delinquency Explanation
The following should contain an explanation if the Applicant organization is delinquent of any Federal Debt.
OMB Number: 4040·0004
Expiration Date: 0113112009
Version 02
u.s. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
CDBG CONSOLIDATED PLAN
LISTING OF PROPOSED PROJECTS
FY 2010/11
The following is a summary of the fiscal year 2010/2011 proposed CDBG projects. The
accounts have been setup and loaded directly into IDIS.
PUBLIC SERVICES PROJECTS
Project ID SR-01025-999
Project Title Catholic Charities -Long Term Care Ombudsman Program
Priority Public Services
Description The program will receive, identify, investigate and resolve
complaints, including violations of personal rights and
allegations of elder abuse for primarily elderly long term care
residents.
HUDMatrix 05 Public Services (General)
CodelTitle
Citation 570.201 (e)
Accomplishments 200 People (General)
Funding Sources CDBG: $5,000
Eligibility 570.208(a)(2) -Low/Mod Limited Clientele
Agency Address 2625 Zanker Road, Ste. 200
San Jose, CA 95134
Location Community-wide
Project ID SR-01105
Project Title Support Network for Battered Women
Priority Public Services
Description Provide a confidential suitable living environment for
individuals and their children impacted by domestic violence.
A safety net of additional services include telephone hotline,
Safe Shelter Program, crisis counseling, legal. assistance and
court accompaniment.
HUDMatrix 05 Public Services (General)
CodelTitle
Citation 570.201 (e)
Accomplishments 35 People (General)
Funding Sources CDBG: $9,700
Eligibility 570.208(a)(2) -Low/Mod Limited Clientele
Agency Address 1257 Tasman Dr., Suite C
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
Location Community-wide
Project ID SR-01076-999
Project Title Inn Vision/Clara-Mateo Alliance -Family & Adult/Couples
Program
Priority Public Services
Description Shelter and transitional housing for homeless singles and
families with children. Provides a total of 34 emergency
shelter beds for singles and 24 emergency shelter beds for
families with 24-hour access, three meals per day, case
management and crisis intervention.
HUDMatrix 05 Public Services (General)
CodelTitle
Citation 570.201 (e)
Accomplishments 80 individuals and 4 families with children (General)
Fundin2 Sources CDBG: $39,681
Eli2ibility 570.208(a)(2) -Low/Mod Limited Clientele
Location 795 Willow Road, bldg. 323-D
Menlo Park, CA 94025
Pro.lect ID SR-01082-999
Pro.lect Title Inn Vision -Opportunity Center
Priority Public Services
Description The program provides critical services for homeless Palo Alto
residents. Services include showers, meals, case management,
bus passes, health care and counseling.
HUDMatrix 05 Public Services (General)
CodelTitle
Citation 570.201 (e)
Accomplishments 800 People (General)
Funding Sources CDBG: $34,211
Eligibility 570.208(a)(2) -Low/Mod Limited Clientele
Location 33 Encina Way
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Project ID SR-OI048-999
Project Title Palo Alto Housing Corp. -SRO Resident Support Services
Priority Public Services
Description This program provides counseling and supportive case
management services to low-income, homeless residents of
single room occupancy (SRO) housing. The Barker Hotel and
Alma Place serve the local community by, housing people
with a history of homelessness and other special needs.
HUDMatrix 05 Public Services (General)
CodelTitle
Citation 570.201 (e)
Accomplishments 131 People (General)
Fundin2 Sources CDBG: $34,211
Eli2ibility 570.208(a)(2) -Low/Mod Limited Clientele
Location 439 Emerson Street and 753 Alma Street
Palo Alto, CA 94301
PLANNING AND ADMINISTRATION
Project ID SR-OI003-999
Project Title City of Palo Alto -Planning and Administration
Priority Planning and Administration
Description Administrative costs for the overall management,
coordination and evaluation of the CDBG program, and the
project delivery costs associated with bringing projects to
completion.
HUDMatrix 21 General Program Administration
CodelTitle
Citation 570.206
Accomplishments N/A
Funding Sources CDBG: $127,873
Eligibility N/A
Location 250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Project ID TBD
Project Title Day Worker Center of Mountain View
Priority Rehabilitation of Public Facility
Description Available funds to rehabilitation a commercial facility for
center/office to aid injob creation and placement for low-
income residents.
HUDMatrix 14E -Rehab, Publicly or Privately-Owned
CodelTitle Commercial/Industrial
Citation 570.201 (c)
Accomplishments Public facility for job creation and placement
Funding Sources CDBG: $63,807
Eligibility 570.208(a)(2)(A) -Low/Mod Limited Clientele
Location 748 Mercy St.
Mountain View, CA 94041
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
IN THE
PALO ALTO WEEKLY
703 High St., Palo Alto, California 94301
(650) 326-821 0
INTHE
SUPERIOR COURT
OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNlY OF SANTA CLARA
No. --------B,Q~ce-~)1ji~
\\'n~ ~~-t (-C
~e~') e.0 ~O~~
~
~f'gn~ ~~~~~'J ~5~
STATE OF CALIFORNIA }
SS
COUNlY OF SANTA CLARA
~lS
I, the undersigned, state that I am, and at all times herein mentioned was, a
citizen of the United States of America, over the age of eighteen years, and not
a party to or interested in the above entitled matter, that I was at and during
all said times and still am the principal clerk of the publisher of the Palo Alto
Weekly, a newspaper of general circulation published weekly in the city of Palo
Alto in said County of Santa Clara, State of California; that said is and was at
all times herein mentioned a newspaper of general circulation as that term is
defined by Section 6008 of the Government Code of the State of California;
that said was adjudged as such by Superior Court of the County of Santa
Clara, State of California, under date of November 2, 1982, Case Number
P41 989; that the notice of which the annexed is a true printed copy, was
set in type not smaller than nonpareil and was preceded with words printed
in black-face type not smaller than nonpareil, describing and expressing in
general terms, the purport and character of the notice intended to be given;
that said notice was published and printed in said newspaper on the following
dates, to wit:
Date of first publication in the Palo Alto Weekly
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on~) dCj I f}o\ a
at Palo Alto, California.
Signed