HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 5511
City of Palo Alto (ID # 5511)
Finance Committee Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 3/17/2015
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: CDBG Program
Title: Proposed Fiscal Year 2015/2016 Community Development Block Grant
Funding Allocation; Draft 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan and Draft 2015/2016
Action Plan
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Finance Committee recommend that the City Council take the
following actions:
1. Allocate CDBG funding as recommended in the draft 2015/2016 Action Plan and as
described in this report;
2. Authorize the City Manager to execute the 2015/2016 CDBG application and 2015/2016
Action Plan for CDBG funds, any other necessary documents concerning the application,
and to otherwise bind the City with respect to the applications and commitment of
funds;
3. Authorize staff to submit the 2015/2016 Action Plan to HUD by the May 15, 2015
deadline; and
4. Authorize staff to submit the 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan to HUD by the May 15, 2015
deadline.
Executive Summary
The City of Palo Alto receives funds annually from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) as an entitlement city under the Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) Program. The CDBG program is the principal Federal program providing localities with
grants to devise innovative and constructive neighborhood approaches to improve the physical,
economic, and social conditions in their communities through “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 requirements include preparation of a five-year strategic plan of action, referred to as a
Consolidated Plan, to address priority housing and community development needs and to set
goals for attaining identified objectives. An Action Plan is prepared annually to identify specific
projects to be funded in that year that implement the strategies identified in the Consolidated
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Plan. Currently the CDBG program is guided by the 2010-2015 Consolidated Plan adopted by
Council May 9, 2010 and a new five-year plan is required.
For the 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan process, Planning staff coordinated with the County of
Santa Clara and other entitlement jurisdictions in the County, referred to in this report as the
“Consortium,” to identify and prioritize housing and community development needs across the
region, and strategies to meet those needs. The Consolidated Plan includes a needs
assessment and market analysis and serves as the strategic plan that identifies priority needs of
the City to help guide the distribution of CDBG funding. The Action Plan outlines the proposed
projects to be funded for Fiscal Year 2015/2016. Seven programs are recommended for
funding that provides supportive services for targeted low-income groups including persons
who are homeless, persons with disabilities, the elderly, and other special needs groups. In
addition, the funding recommendations include one multi-family housing rehabilitation project
and funding to cover the cost of administering the City’s CDBG program.
The draft 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan and the draft 2015/2016 Action Plan (Attachment B)
have been made available for public review from February 17, 2015 through March 18, 2015.
The Finance Committee is being asked to review the draft 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan and the
draft 2015/2016 Action Plan with funding recommendations. Upon review of the draft plan and
funding recommendations, it is requested 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 4, 2015. Staff will then submit the Consolidated Plan and
the Action Plan to HUD in order to meet the May 15, 2015 deadline.
Background
The CDBG program is authorized under Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act
of 1974, as amended. As an entitlement city under the CDBG program, the City of Palo Alto
receives funds annually on a formula grant basis. Palo Alto has historically expended all of its
CDBG funds on projects benefiting low- and very-low-income persons.
HUD regulations require all CDBG funded activities meet one of the three national objectives:
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.
All of the funded projects in Palo Alto meet the first objective of benefiting low-and very-low-
income persons. Palo Alto has five primary CDBG program activity areas in which to allocate
funds: Public Services, Planning and Administration, Economic Development, Housing, and
Public Facilities.
Federal regulations limit the amount that can be spent on administration and public services.
The allocations for administrative activities and public services are both proposed to be at the
maximum spending cap in Fiscal Year 2015/2016. No more than 20 percent of the City’s
entitlement grant and estimated program income for the following year can be spent on
Administration. It is estimated that $115,072 will be available for this category for Fiscal Year
2015/2016.
Similarly, Federal law places a maximum spending cap of 15 percent of the grant allocation and
15 percent of any program income received during the previous fiscal year on public services. It
City of Palo Alto Page 3
is estimated that $82,910 will be available for Public Service activities for Fiscal Year 2015/2016.
Public service activities include services for homeless persons, housing and emergency services
to low income individuals with disabilities, and services to victims of domestic violence.
On February 11, 2015, HUD notified the City of its Fiscal Year 2015/2016 CDBG Entitlement.
The final CDBG Entitlement amount is $442,460.
Consolidated Plan
The Draft 2015-2020 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 CDBG. Currently the CDBG program is guided by the 2010-2015
Consolidated Plan adopted by Council May 9, 2010. A new 5-year strategic plan is now required
for the 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan process.
Action Plan
HUD requires submittal of an Annual Action Plan no later than 45 days prior to the start of the
program year, or May 15th of every year, that identifies the specific projects to be funded to
implement strategies identified in the Consolidated Plan.
CDBG Applications
Currently, the CDBG program operates under a two-year funding request cycle. Applications
for Fiscal Years 2015/2016 and 2016/2017 were made available in November 2014. A notice of
CDBG funding availability was published in the Palo Alto Weekly on November 21, 2014 with
completed applications due January 9, 2015. Mandatory Pre-Proposal Conferences were
conducted on December 10, 2014 and January 5, 2015 to assist applicants with program
regulations and project eligibility questions. The CDBG applications considered for funding for
Fiscal Year 2015/2016 are identified on the attached chart (Attachment A). During this funding
cycle the City did not receive any funding applications for public facilities improvement
projects.
Citizen Participation
A Citizen Participation Plan is a required component of the CDBG Program. HUD regulations
require CDBG recipient agencies to prepare and implement a plan that provides adequate
opportunity for citizens to participate in an advisory role in the planning, implementation, and
assessment of the CDBG program. On October 18, 2010 the City adopted an amended Citizen
Participation Plan and shifted the CDBG advisory role from a separate Citizens Advisory
Committee to the established Human Relations Commission (HRC). In summary, the intention
of the new plan was to provide a collaborative link between the CDBG funding process and the
Human Service Resource Allocation Process (HSRAP). The HRC is now charged with reviewing
funding recommendations for the City’s two human service funding sources. A sub-committee
comprised of staff and three members of the HRC was established to review both the CDBG and
HSRAP funding applications and to provide recommendations to the full commission.
While both CDBG and HSRAP are operating on a two-year funding cycle, final CDBG funding
recommendations need to be reviewed annually since the budget is contingent upon funding
allocations received from HUD. The sub-committee met on January 29, 2015 at City Hall to
City of Palo Alto Page 4
discuss the Fiscal Year 2015/2016 CDBG budget, reviewed the applications received, and
recommended funding amounts based on the estimated funds available. The meeting was
open to the public and publicized on the City’s website and in the Palo Alto Weekly. Since the
City had not received its final allocation amounts from HUD, the Selection Committee also
outlined a general contingency strategy that would allow staff to make adjustments to the
funding recommendations based on the final CDBG Entitlement allocation.
On February 11, 2015 the City received notification of its final CDBG Entitlement amount of
$442,460, representing an additional $43,242 available for allocation for Fiscal Year 2015/2016.
Staff applied the following contingency strategy, as agreed to by the Selection Committee, to
allocate the additional funds:
In the Public Services category, each applicant was recommended to receive an
additional amount which represents the applicant's proportional share of funds
originally recommended for allocation within the category, up to the amount requested.
In the Planning & Administration category, Project Sentinel was recommended to
receive an additional amount up to the total amount requested, with the remainder
applied to CDBG Administration.
In the remaining categories, Housing and Economic Development, the two remaining
applicants were recommended to receive the remainder of the additional funds split
evenly.
On February 12, 2015 the HRC considered the funding recommendations of the subcommittee,
as adjusted, at a public hearing. These recommendations are appended to this report as
Attachment A.
Commitment of Funds
HUD regulations require that CDBG funds be expended in a timely manner. Specifically, the
regulatory requirement is that no more than 1.5 times a jurisdiction’s annual entitlement grant
amount 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 this timeliness requirement. For this reason, all funding applications
are scrutinized to ensure the readiness of the program or project to move forward and expend
funds in a timely manner.
Discussion
Palo Alto’s CDBG program continues to be directed towards expanding and maintaining existing
affordable housing supply, promoting housing opportunities and choices, and providing
supportive services for targeted low-income groups including persons who are homeless,
persons with disabilities, the elderly, and other special needs groups. Moreover, the CDBG
program places a high priority to expand the goal of creating economic opportunities for low-
income persons. All of the proposed projects for CDBG funding for Fiscal Year 2015/2016, as
presented in the draft 2015/2016 Action Plan, address the priority housing and community
development needs identified in the draft Consolidated Plan.
Draft 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan
Per HUD requirements, the City is required to prepare a Consolidated Plan every five years.
Currently the CDBG program is guided by the 2010-2015 Consolidated Plan adopted by Council
May 9, 2010. This year the City is required to prepare a new 5-year strategic plan that will
City of Palo Alto Page 5
guide the investment of approximately $400,000 annually from HUD for the CDBG formula
grant. The resulting Consolidated Plan will be effective July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2020.
The Consolidated Plan is designed to help entitlement grantees assess affordable housing and
community development needs. Public participation plays a central role in the development of
the Consolidated Plan. In August 2014, the Consortium launched an in-depth, collaborative
regional effort to consult with community stakeholders to identify housing and community
development needs. This comprehensive outreach process was undertaken to enhance
coordination and discuss new approaches to working with social service providers that utilize
funding for eligible activities, projects, and programs. Comments received through this
outreach effort combined with Palo Alto’s specifically identified needs, have been used to
inform the 5-year strategic plan. The draft Consolidated Plan for 2015-2020, provided as
Attachment B, outlines the following five specific goals:
Affordable Housing: Assist in the creation and preservation of affordable housing for
low income and special needs households.
Homelessness: Support activities to end homelessness.
Strengthen Neighborhoods: Support activities that strengthen neighborhoods through
the provision of community services and public improvements to benefit low income
and special needs households.
Fair Housing: Promote fair housing choice.
Economic Development: Expand economic opportunities for low income households.
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 2015/2016,
as presented in the draft 2015/16 Action Plan, address the priority housing and supportive
service needs identified in the draft Consolidated Plan.
Fiscal Year 2015/2016 Funds Available for Allocation
Prior to the City receiving notification of the final entitlement amount from HUD, staff
estimated the Fiscal Year 2015/2016 CDBG Entitlement to be approximately $399,218. This was
based on HUD’s appropriation request for a 7.8% reduction in funds for formula application
grants from the previous year. On February 11, 2015, HUD notified the City of its Fiscal Year
2015/2016 CDBG Entitlement allocation of $442,460, which is $43,242 more than anticipated.
Based on the foregoing, the total amount available for allocation in Fiscal Year 2015/2016 is
estimated to be $881,673 as summarized below:
$442,460 Fiscal Year 2015/2016 Entitlement Grant
$303,164
Reallocated Funds from Previous Years:
$ 46,998 – Palo Alto Housing Corp. California Park Rehab (FY2013)
$ 25,788 – Community Working Group Alma Garden Rehab (FY2012)
$ 17,099 – Downtown Streets Inc. (FY 2014)
$213,279 – Unprogrammed Excess Program Income (FY 2014)
$136,049 Estimated Program Income from Palo Alto Housing Corporation that is
generated from loan repayments and rental income in excess of expenses
City of Palo Alto Page 6
on specific properties acquired or rehabilitated with CDBG funds
$881,673 ESTIMATED TOTAL AVAILABLE FOR ALLOCATION
Of the $881,673 of CDBG funds anticipated to be available, the total amount is proposed to be
used during Fiscal Year 2015/2016.
The following summarizes the calculations for funding limitations that are placed on two
funding categories:
Maximum Available for Public Services
Estimated Fiscal Year 2015/2016 CDBG Entitlement Grant $442,460
Fiscal Year 2014/2015 Actual Program Income Received1 $110,273
Public Service Cap (15% of $552,733) $ 82,910
Maximum Available for Planning/Administration
Estimated Fiscal Year 2015/2016 CDBG Entitlement Grant $442,460
Estimated Fiscal Year 2015/2016 Program Income $136,049
Planning/Admin Cap (20% of $578,509) $115,702
The difference between the funding caps and the amount proposed to be allocated during
Fiscal Year 2015/2016, or $683,061, yields the amount that can used to fund projects within the
other three funding categories; Economic Development, Housing, and Public Facilities.
Additional funding can be made available for these activities if less is provided for
Administration or Public Services.
Fiscal Year 2015/2016 – Funding Requests and Recommendations
Palo Alto’s CDBG program is operating under a two-year funding cycle. A notice of funding
availability was released in November 2014 and a total of nine applications for funding were
received. A list of the submitted applications and the funding recommendations for Fiscal Year
2015/16 is included in Attachment A. All of the applications submitted for CDBG funding in
Fiscal Year 2015/2016 are HUD “eligible activities” and meet HUD’s National Objectives. In
addition, all of the submitted applications meet the City’s CDBG program goals and objectives.
The HRC, in conjunction with staff, is recommending funding for eight of the nine applications.
Unfortunately, the program proposed by the Day Workers Center of Mountain is not fully
developed. Specifically, more information is needed about how many Palo Alto residents will
be served, where local activities will take place, and which potential partnership agencies will
be involved. HUD also requires that a project or program is ready to receive the funds before
the City considers committing its federal funds. The applicant is encouraged to further develop
the program and will be considered for funding during the second year of the two-year funding
cycle.
On February 12, 2015, the HRC recommended approval of the Selection Committee’s funding
recommendations including the adjustments described in the background section of this report.
1 Actual Program Income received in Fiscal Year 2014/2015 includes $100,390 from Palo Alto Housing Corporation
and $9,883 in HIP loan repayments.
City of Palo Alto Page 7
Table 1, Fiscal Year 2015/2016 Funding Recommendations, identifies the applications received
and the funding allocation amounts recommended by the HRC.
Table 1: Fiscal Year 2015/2016 Funding Recommendations
Planning staff has actively taken measures to introduce efficiency in program administration
that will result in a less staff intensive program. These include streamlining the administrative
procedures to reduce staffing needs, operating under a two-year funding cycle, and revised
monitoring guidelines to improve efficiency and reduce on-site monitoring visits. Moreover,
staff has identified ways to recover certain personnel costs associated with individual projects
Applicant Agency FY 2015/2016
Funding Request
HRC
Recommendations
Public Services
Catholic Charities of Santa Clara County –
Long Term Care Ombudsman $ 6,500 $ 5,422
Day Workers Center of Mountain View –
Service to Palo Alto $ 10,000 $ -0-
InnVision Shelter Network –
Opportunity Services Center $ 50,000 $ 38,499
Palo Alto Housing Corporation –
SRO Support Services $ 42,874 $ 24,861
Silicon Valley Independent Living Center –
Housing and Emergency Services for Persons with
Disabilities
$ 10,000 $ 5,422
YWCA of Silicon Valley –
Domestic Violence Services $ 10,000 $ 8,676
Sub-total $ 129,374 $ 82,880
Planning & Administration
Project Sentinel –
Fair Housing $ 32,016 $ 32,016
City of Palo Alto –
CDBG Administration $ 80,000 $ 83,686
Sub-total $ 112,016 $ 115,702
Housing
MidPen Housing –
Palo Alto Gardens Rehab Project $ 500,000 $ 392,368
Sub-total $ 500,000 $ 392,368
Economic Development
Downtown Streets –
Workforce Development Program $ 314,100 $ 290,273
Sub-total $ 314,100 $ 290,273
Grand Total $ 1,055,490 $ 881,673
City of Palo Alto Page 8
that require administration beyond the basic CDBG program administration requirements.
These are referred to as project delivery costs and are typically associated with capital outlay
projects that require staff to assist with the development of bid documents and assistance with
federal procurement requirements.
For Fiscal Year 2015/2016 this includes reducing CDBG staffing level to a .40 full time
equivalency position for basic CDBG administration related activities. Staff is requesting
additional funding in the Administration budget to cover the potential cost associated with
consultant contracts which may be used to support CDBG Program administration.
Timeline
Funding recommendation made by the Finance Committee will be forwarded to the City
Council for review and approval at a public hearing scheduled for May 4, 2015. Subsequently,
the adopted Action Plan will be submitted to HUD by May 15, 2015.
Resource Impact
As mentioned above, several measures have been taken to ensure there is no direct General
Fund subsidy for the administration of the CDBG Program. This includes streamlining the
program to reduce staffing needs and revised monitoring guidelines to improve efficiency of
the program. Staff recovery in Fiscal Year 2014/15 from the CDBG entitlement grant is $65,000.
For Fiscal Year 2015/2016, staff is requesting a total of $83,686 in the Administration budget.
The total staff recovery from the CDBG entitlement grant proposed for Fiscal Year 2015/2016 is
approximately .40 full time equivalency, or $65,596 The balance, $18,090, will be used for
publication costs, office supplies, and to cover potential costs associated with consultant
contracts which may be used to support CDBG Program Administration. While the Fiscal Year
2015/2016 amount is not sufficient to cover the full cost of 1 full time equivalency position, it
does cover the full staffing needs of administering the CDBG program, thus not further
substantially impacting the General Fund with the balance of staff time going towards non-
CDBG eligible activities. It should be noted that the General Fund does not recover any
overhead from the CDBG program and supports the program with cost for departmental
managerial oversight and internal support functions.
Policy Implications
All of the applications recommended for funding in Fiscal Year 2015/2016 are consistent with
the priorities established in the City’s draft 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan. Moreover, they are
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. Prior to 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 NEPA regulations
have been satisfied for each particular project.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Fiscal Year 2015/2016 Funding Recommendations (DOCX)
Attachment B: Draft 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan (includes the Draft FY 2015/2016
Action Plan) (PDF)
ATTACHMENT A
CITY OF PALO ALTO CDBG APPLICATIONS
FISCAL YEAR 2015/2016
Total Estimated Funds Available $ 881,673
Available for Public Service (15% Cap) $ 82,910
Available for Planning/Admin (20% Cap) $ 115,072
Available for Economic Development & Housing $ 683,691
USES:
AGENCY PROGRAM NAME FY 2016/2015
REQUEST
HRC
RECOMMENDED
ALLOCATIONS
Public Services (15% CAP = $82,910)
Catholic Charities of Santa Clara County Ombudsman Program $ 6,500 $ 5,422
Day Worker Center of Mountain View Service to Palo Alto $ 10,000 $ -
InnVision Shelter Network Opportunity Services Center $ 50,000 $ 38,499
Palo Alto Housing Corporation SRO Resident Support $ 42,874 $ 24,861
Silicon Valley Independent Living Center Housing and Emergency Services $ 10,000 $ 5,422
YWCA of Silicon Valley Domestic Violence Services $ 10,000 $ 8,676
Public Service Total $ 129,374 $ 82,880
Planning & Administration (20% CAP = $115,702)
Project Sentinel1 Fair Housing Services $ 32,016 $ 32,016
City of Palo Alto CDBG Administration $ 80,000 $ 83,686
Planning & Administration Total $ 112,016 $ 115,702
Economic Development
Downtown Streets Workforce Development Program $ 314,100 $ 290,723
Economic Development Total $ 314,100 $ 290,723
Housing
MidPen Housing Palo Alto Garden Rehabilitation $ 500,000 $ 392,368
Housing Total $ 500,000 $ 392,368
GRAND TOTAL $ 1,055,490 $ 881,673
1 Project Sentinel’s application for funding is being considered under the Planning and Administration funding category.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
DRAFT 2015-2020 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
AND DRAFT 2015-2016 ACTION PLAN
Public Review and Comment Period: February 17, 2015 – March 25, 2015
Updated February 24, 2015
Prepared by the Department of Planning & Community Environment
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Director Hillary Gitelman
Consuelo Hernandez, Senior Planner
T: 650-329-2428 E: Consuelo.hernandez@cityofpaloalto.org
ATTACHMENT B
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 2
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
CITY OF PALO ALTO
DRAFT 2015-2020 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
AND 2015-2016 ACTION PLAN
Prepared by:
LeSar Development Consultants
www.LeSarDevelopment.com
Prepared by:
MIG
www.migcom.com
Jennifer LeSar
President and CEO
619-236-0612 X102
jennifer@lesardevelopment.com
Laura Stetson
Principal
626-744-9872
lstetson@migcom.com
Vicky Joes
Principal
619-236-0612 x102
vicky@lesardevelopment.com
Jamillah Jordan
Outreach Specialist
510-845-7549
jamillahj@migcom.com
Keryna Johnson
Senior Associate
619-236-0612 x107
keryna@lesardevelopment.com
Prepared for:
City of Palo Alto
Planning and Community Environment Department
www.cityofpaloalto.org
285 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
650-329-2496
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 3
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 9
ES-05 Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................... 9
The Process .................................................................................................................................................14
PR-05 Lead & Responsible Agencies 24 CFR 91.200(b) ........................................................................ 14
PR-10 Consultation - 91.100, 91.200(b), 91.215(l) .................................................................................... 15
PR-15 Citizen Participation ...................................................................................................................... 31
Needs Assessment ..................................................................................................................................... 39
NA-05 Overview ..................................................................................................................................... 39
NA-10 Housing Needs Assessment - 24 CFR 91.205 (a, b, c) ................................................................. 43
NA-15 Disproportionately Greater Need: Housing Problems – 91.205 (b)(2) ....................................... 51
NA-20 Disproportionately Greater Need: Severe Housing Problems – 91.205 (b)(2)......................... 54
NA-25 Disproportionately Greater Need: Housing Cost Burdens – 91.205 (b)(2) ............................... 57
NA-30 Disproportionately Greater Need: Discussion – 91.205(b)(2) ................................................... 59
NA-35 Public Housing – 91.205(b) ......................................................................................................... 61
NA-40 Homeless Needs Assessment – 91.205(c) ................................................................................. 64
NA-45 Non-Homeless Special Needs Assessment - 91.205 (b, d) ......................................................... 71
NA-50 Non-Housing Community Development Needs – 91.215 (f) ..................................................... 75
Housing Market Analysis .......................................................................................................................... 79
MA-05 Overview..................................................................................................................................... 79
MA-10 Number of Housing Units – 91.210(a)&(b)(2) ............................................................................ 82
MA-15 Housing Market Analysis: Cost of Housing - 91.210(a) .............................................................. 86
MA-20 Housing Market Analysis: Condition of Housing – 91.210(a) .................................................... 89
MA-25 Public and Assisted Housing – 91.210(b) ................................................................................... 91
MA-30 Homeless Facilities and Services – 91.210(c) ............................................................................. 94
MA-35 Special Needs Facilities and Services – 91.210(d) ..................................................................... 102
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 4
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
MA-40 Barriers to Affordable Housing – 91.210(e)............................................................................. 105
MA-45 Non-Housing Community Development Assets – 91.215 (f)................................................... 106
MA-50 Needs and Market Analysis Discussion .................................................................................... 112
Strategic Plan ............................................................................................................................................ 116
SP-05 Overview ..................................................................................................................................... 116
SP-10 Geographic Priorities – 91.215 (a)(1) ........................................................................................... 117
SP-25 Priority Needs - 91.215(a)(2) ........................................................................................................ 118
SP-30 Influence of Market Conditions – 91.215 (b) .............................................................................. 123
SP-35 Anticipated Resources - 91.215(a)(4), 91.220(c)(1,2).................................................................. 124
SP-40 Institutional Delivery Structure – 91.215(k) ............................................................................... 129
SP- 45 Goals Summary – 91.215(a)(4) ................................................................................................... 134
SP-50 Public Housing Accessibility and Involvement – 91.215(c) ....................................................... 136
SP-55 Barriers to Affordable Housing – 91.215(h) ................................................................................ 137
SP-60 Homelessness Strategy – 91.215(d) ........................................................................................... 141
SP-65 Lead based paint Hazards – 91.215(i) .........................................................................................145
SP-70 Anti-Poverty Strategy – 91.215(j) ............................................................................................... 146
SP-80 Monitoring – 91.230 .................................................................................................................... 147
First Year Action Plan .............................................................................................................................. 149
AP-15 Expected Resources – 91.220(c)(1,2) ......................................................................................... 149
AP-20 Annual Goals and Objectives .....................................................................................................154
AP-35 Projects – 91.220(d) ................................................................................................................... 156
AP-38 Project Summary ........................................................................................................................ 157
AP-50 Geographic Distribution – 91.220(f) ......................................................................................... 159
AP-55 Affordable Housing – 91.220(g) ................................................................................................ 160
AP-60 Public Housing – 91.220(h) ......................................................................................................... 161
AP-65 Homeless and Other Special Needs Activities – 91.220(i) ....................................................... 163
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 5
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
AP-75 Barriers to Affordable Housing – 91.220(j) ............................................................................... 166
AP-85 Other Actions – 91.220(k)...........................................................................................................170
AP-90 Program Specific Requirements – 91.220(l)(1,2,4) ................................................................... 174
Citizen Participation Plan ......................................................................................................................... 175
Table of Acronyms.................................................................................................................................... 183
Appendix A: Citizen Participation Summary ......................................................................................... 184
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 6
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
List of Tables
Table 1 - Responsible Agencies .................................................................................................................. 14
Table 2 - Agencies, Groups, and Organizations that Attended Regional and Community Forums ....... 18
Table 3 - Other Local / Regional / Federal Planning Efforts ...................................................................... 28
Table 4 - Citizen Participation Outreach ................................................................................................... 34
Table 5 - Housing Needs Assessment Demographics (City) .................................................................... 43
Table 6 - Total Households (City) .............................................................................................................. 43
Table 7 - Housing Problems (City) ............................................................................................................. 44
Table 8 - Severe Housing Problems (City) ................................................................................................ 44
Table 9 - Cost Burden > 30% (City) ............................................................................................................. 45
Table 10 - Cost Burden > 50% (City)............................................................................................................ 45
Table 11 - Crowding Information (City) ...................................................................................................... 45
Table 12 - Households with Children Present (City) .................................................................................. 46
Table 13 - Section 8 Participants at 0-30% AMI (County) .......................................................................... 47
Table 14 - Disproportionately Greater Need 0 - 30% AMI (City) ................................................................ 51
Table 15 - Disproportionately Greater Need 30 - 50% AMI (City) .............................................................. 51
Table 16 - Disproportionately Greater Need 50 - 80% AMI (City) ............................................................. 52
Table 17 - Disproportionately Greater Need 80 - 100% AMI (City) ............................................................ 52
Table 18 - Disproportionately Greater Need – Housing Problems (County) ........................................... 52
Table 19 - Severe Housing Problems 0 - 30% AMI (City) ........................................................................... 54
Table 20 - Severe Housing Problems 30 - 50% AMI (City) ......................................................................... 54
Table 21 - Severe Housing Problems 50 - 80% AMI (City) ......................................................................... 55
Table 22 - Severe Housing Problems 80 - 100% AMI (City) ....................................................................... 55
Table 23 - Disproportionately Greater Need – Severe Housing Problems (City) .................................... 55
Table 24 - Greater Need: Housing Cost Burden (City) .............................................................................. 57
Table 25 - Disproportionately Greater Cost Burden (City) ....................................................................... 57
Table 26 - Public Housing by Program Type (City) ................................................................................... 61
Table 27 - Characteristics of Public Housing Residents by Program Type (City) .................................... 62
Table 28 - Race of Public Housing Residents by Program Type (City) .................................................... 63
Table 29 - Ethnicity of Public Housing Residents by Program Type (City) .............................................. 63
Table 30 - Resources Requested by Section 8 Participants (County) ..................................................... 64
Table 31 - Homeless Needs Assessment (City/County) ............................................................................ 67
Table 32 - Exited Homelessness (City) ...................................................................................................... 69
Table 33 - Days to Housing (County) ......................................................................................................... 69
Table 34 - Race and Ethnic Group of Homeless (City) .............................................................................. 69
Table 35 - Elderly Population (City) ........................................................................................................... 72
Table 36 - Disability Status of Population (City) ....................................................................................... 72
Table 37 - Household Size (City) ................................................................................................................ 73
Table 38 - Residential Properties by Unit Number (City) ......................................................................... 82
Table 39 - Unit Size by Tenure (City) ......................................................................................................... 82
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 7
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Table 40 - HASC Housing Properties (County) ......................................................................................... 83
Table 41 - HACSC Special Needs Populations ............................................................................................ 85
Table 42 - Cost of Housing (City) ............................................................................................................... 86
Table 43 - Rent Paid (City) ......................................................................................................................... 86
Table 44 - Housing Affordability (City) ...................................................................................................... 87
Table 45 - Monthly Rent (City)................................................................................................................... 87
Table 46 - Affordable Housing Supply Versus Need (City) ...................................................................... 87
Table 47 - Condition of Units (City) ........................................................................................................... 89
Table 48 - Year Unit Built (City) ................................................................................................................. 89
Table 49 - Risk of Lead-Based Paint (City) ................................................................................................ 90
Table 50 - Vacant Units (City) .................................................................................................................... 90
Table 51 - Total Number of Units by Program Type (County) .................................................................. 91
Table 52 - Public Housing Condition .......................................................................................................... 92
Table 53 - HACSC Family Self Sufficiency Report (County) ...................................................................... 93
Table 54 - Facilities and Housing Targeted to Homeless Households (County) ..................................... 94
Table 55 - Homeless Housing Inventory Chart (County) .......................................................................... 96
Table 56 - Licensed Community Care Facilities (City) .............................................................................. 102
Table 57 - Independent Living Facilities for Elderly Residents in Palo Alto, 2014 (City) ....................... 103
Table 58 -Jobs / Employed Residents Ratio (County) ............................................................................ 106
Table 59 - Jobs by Business Activity (City) ...............................................................................................107
Table 60 - Labor Force (City) ....................................................................................................................107
Table 61 - Occupations by Sector (City) ...................................................................................................107
Table 62 - Travel Time (City) .................................................................................................................... 108
Table 63 - Educational Attainment by Employment Status - Population Age 16 and Older (City) ....... 108
Table 64 - Educational Attainment by Age (City) ................................................................................... 108
Table 65 - Educational Attainment by Age - 25 and Older (City) ........................................................... 109
Table 66 - Median Earnings in the Past 12 Months (City) ....................................................................... 109
Table 67 - Priority Needs Summary .......................................................................................................... 118
Table 68 - Influence of Market Conditions .............................................................................................. 123
Table 69 - City Entitlement Funding Received FY 2010 – FY 2014 ........................................................... 124
Table 70 - Anticipated Resources ............................................................................................................. 125
Table 71 - Institutional Delivery Structure ................................................................................................ 129
Table 72 - Homeless Prevention Services Summary ................................................................................ 131
Table 73 - Goals Summary ......................................................................................................................... 134
Table 74 - CDBG Fiscal Year 2015-2016 Annual Budgetary Priorities ...................................................... 149
Table 75 - Expected Resources – Priority Table ...................................................................................... 150
Table 76 - Goals Summary .........................................................................................................................154
Table 77 - Project Information ................................................................................................................. 156
Table 78 - Project Summary ...................................................................................................................... 157
Table 79 - Geographic Distribution .......................................................................................................... 159
Table 80 - One Year Goals for Affordable Housing by Support Requirement ...................................... 160
Table 81 - One Year Goals for Affordable Housing by Support Type ..................................................... 160
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 8
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 9
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Executive Summary
ES-05 Executive Summary
Introduction
The City of Palo Alto (City) is an entitlement jurisdiction that receives federal funding from the
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) through the Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG) Program.
The purpose of CDBG funding is to help jurisdictions address their community development needs.
CDBG grantees are eligible to use the resources they receive for Public Services, Community and
Economic Development, Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) Public Facilities/Infrastructure, and CIP
Housing Rehabilitation. Public Service projects provide social services and/or other direct support to
individuals and households in need of assistance. Community and Economic Development projects
are focused on assisting businesses and organizations with small business loans, façade
improvements, and other initiatives. CIP Public Facilities/Infrastructure projects are those which aim
to improve public facilities and infrastructure. CIP Housing Rehabilitation projects are for housing
rehabilitation improvements of single and multi-unit housing. The City anticipates approximately
$2,546,054 in CDBG funding from 2015-2020.
HUD requires that entitlement jurisdictions complete a Consolidated Plan every five years. The
Consolidated Plan includes an analysis of the jurisdiction’s market, affordable housing, and
community development conditions. Additionally, entitlement jurisdictions must also submit an
Annual Action Plan to report the distribution of federal entitlement program funding over the
Consolidated Plan’s five year period that identifies how funding allocations help meet the goals
covered in the Consolidated Plan and a Consolidated Annual Performance Evaluation Report (CAPER)
to report the City’s performance.
Five Year Goals
1. Assist in the creation and preservation of affordable housing for low income and special
needs households.
2. Support activities to end homelessness.
3. Support activities that strengthen neighborhoods through the provision of community
services and public improvements to benefit low income and special needs households.
4. Promote fair housing choice.
5. Expand economic opportunities for low income households.
Methodology
The City’s Consolidated Plan for Fiscal Year 2015-2020 includes a Needs Assessment and Market
Analysis and serves as the strategic plan that identifies priority needs of the City to help guide the
distribution of CDBG funding. The majority of data utilized is provided by HUD for the purpose of
preparing the Consolidated Plan. HUD periodically receives custom tabulations of data from the U.S.
Census Bureau that are largely not available through standard Census products. Known as the
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 10
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data, it demonstrates the extent of housing
problems and housing needs, particularly for low income households. The CHAS data is used by local
governments to plan how to spend HUD funds, and may also be used by HUD to distribute grant
funds.1
When CHAS data is not available or appropriate, other data is utilized, including the 2000 and 2010
U.S. Census data and the American Community Survey (ACS) 2008-2012 five-year estimates. While
ACS one-year estimates provide the most current data, this report utilizes five-year estimates as they
reflect a larger sample size and are considered more reliable and precise.2
Federal funds provided under the CDBG entitlement program are primarily concerned with activities
that benefit low-and moderate-income (LMI) households whose incomes do not exceed 80 percent
of the area median family income (AMI), as established by HUD, with adjustments for smaller or
larger families.3 HUD utilizes three income levels to define LMI households:
Extremely low income: Households earning 30 percent or less than the AMI (subject to
specified adjustments for areas with unusually high or low incomes)
Very low income: Households earning 50 percent or less than the AMI (subject to specified
adjustments for areas with unusually high or low incomes)
Low and moderate income: Households earning 80 percent or less than the AMI (subject to
adjustments for areas with unusually high or low incomes or housing costs)
Summary of the objectives and outcomes identified in the Needs Assessment Overview
The City is part of the San Francisco Metropolitan Bay Area, located 35 miles south of San Francisco
and 14 miles north of San José. The City is located within the County of Santa Clara, borders San
Mateo County, and encompasses an area of approximately 26 square miles, one-third of which
consists of open space. According to 2008-2012 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimates,
the City's total resident population is 63,475. The City has the most educated residents in the country
and is one of the most expensive cities to live in.4 In Silicon Valley, the City is considered a central
economic focal point and is home to over 7,000 businesses while providing jobs to more than 98,000
people.5
The following provides a brief overview of the results of the Needs Assessment:
1 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. “Consolidated Planning/CHAS Data.”
http://www.huduser.org/portal/datasets/cp.html
2 United States Census Bureau. “American Community Survey: When to Use 1-year, 3-year, or 5-year
Estimates.” http://www.census.gov/acs/www/guidance_for_data_users/estimates/
3 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. “Glossary of CPD Terms.”
http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/comm_planning/library/glossary
4 Huffington Post. “California’s Most Educated Cities: Palo Alto, Los Altos Top the List.” January 2012.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/california-most-educated-towns/
5 Bedbury Realtors. “Palo Alto.” http://www.bedburyrealtors.com/Communities/Palo-Alto
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 11
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
NA -10 Housing Needs
• Twenty-nine percent of households in the City are paying more than 30 percent of their
income toward housing costs.
• Thirteen percent of households are severely cost burdened and paying more than 50 percent
of their income toward housing.
NA-15 Disproportionately Greater Need: Housing Problems
Eighty-nine percent of Asian households in the 30-50% AMI category experience housing
problems, compared to 71 percent of the jurisdiction as a whole.
Ninety-three percent of Asian households in the 50-80% AMI category experience housing
problems, compared to 71 percent of the jurisdiction as a whole.
More than three-quarters of Hispanic households (78 percent) in the 80-100% AMI category
experience housing problems, compared to a nearly half (54 percent) of the jurisdiction as a
whole.
NA-20 Disproportionately Greater Need: Severe Housing Problems
More than half of Asian households in the 30-50% AMI income category experience severe
housing problems in the City, compared to 43 percent of the jurisdiction as a whole.
More than three-quarters of Asian households (77 percent) in the 50-80% AMI category
experience a disproportionate amount of severe housing problems, compared to 40 percent
of the jurisdiction as a whole.
Forty-five percent of Hispanic households in the 80-100% AMI category experience a
disproportionate amount of severe housing problems, compared to 23 percent of the
jurisdiction as a whole.
NA-25 Disproportionately Greater Need: Housing Cost Burdens
Hispanic households experience a disproportionate cost burden, with 27 percent of
households experiencing cost burden, compared to 16 percent of the City as a whole.
American Indian, Alaska Native households experience a disproportionate severe cost
burden, with 33 percent of households experiencing cost burden, compared to 13 percent of
the City as a whole.
NA-35 Public Housing
The Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara (HACSC) assists approximately 17,000
households through the federal Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program (Section 8).
The Section 8 waiting list contains 21,256 households – this is estimated to be a 10-year wait.
NA-40 Homeless Needs
The Santa Clara region is home to the fourth-largest population of homeless individuals and
the highest percentage of unsheltered homeless of any major city.
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 12
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
As of the 2013 Point in Time Homeless Survey, Palo Alto had 157 homeless residents, with
over 90 percent unsheltered and living in a place not fit for human habitation.
Palo Alto clients – those who report that their last permanent zip code was in Palo Alto –
represent approximately one percent of the County’s homeless clients.
NA-45 Non-Homeless Special Needs
Individuals 65 years of age and older represent 17 percent of the total population of the City.
Thirty-three percent of households in the City contain at least one person 62 years or older.
More than one-quarter of individuals (27 percent) age 65 or older have a disability compared
to four percent of the population age 18 to 64, or seven percent of the population as a
whole.
NA-50 Non-Housing Community Development Needs
• Residents and stakeholders who participated in the community outreach for the
Consolidated Plan identified the following community development needs as high priorities
within these three categories:
o Public Facilities: increased homeless facilities, youth centers, rehabilitation of senior
centers, and recreational facilities throughout the County
o Public Improvements: complete streets that accommodate multiple transportation
modes, pedestrian safety, ADA curb improvements, and increased access to parks
and open space amenities
o Public Services: food assistance and nutrition programs for vulnerable populations,
year-round activities for youth, health care services for seniors and low income
families, and services for homeless persons
Evaluation of past performance
The City is responsible for ensuring compliance with all rules and regulations associated with the
CDBG entitlement grant program. The City’s Annual Action Plans and CAPERs have provided many
details about the goals, projects and programs completed by the City over the past five years. A
review of past consolidated annual performance and evaluation reports reveals a strong record of
performance in the use of CDBG funds. Palo Alto has been strategic about leveraging these federal
dollars and identifying partnerships in the community to maximize their use. For instance, 140 new
affordable rental housing have been created during the 2010-2015 Consolidated Planning period,
approximately 50 previously unemployed extremely low income individuals have reentered the
workforce, and public services have been provided to over 1,000 unduplicated individuals.
The City recognizes that the evaluation of past performance is critical to ensure the City and its
subrecipients are implementing activities effectively and that those activities align with the City’s
overall strategies and goals. The performance of programs and systems are evaluated to ensure the
goals and projects are addressing critical needs in the community. Palo Alto has historically allocated
CDBG funds to activities that benefit LMI persons, with a top priority to increase affordable housing
opportunities in the City. However, due to Palo Alto’s expensive housing market coupled with a
decrease in CDBG entitlement funds, it is becoming more difficult to create opportunities for
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 13
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
affordable housing. As such, during this Consolidated Planning period the City will be focusing on
rehabilitating existing affordable housing stock that is in need of repair.
Planning Staff will also work closely with subrecipients to leverage resources and create
opportunities for partnership and collaboration. The City’s subrecipients are challenged to think
creatively about working together to address the needs in our community.
Summary of citizen participation process and consultation process
The City launched a comprehensive outreach strategy to enhance and broaden citizen participation
in the preparation of the Consolidated Plan. The City informed the public that it was in the process of
creating the 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan and encouraged public participation in the process by
conducting a Regional Needs Survey and hosting regional and community forums.
Approximately 4,847 entities, organizations, agencies, and persons were directly engaged via
outreach efforts and asked to share materials with their beneficiaries, partners, and contacts. These
stakeholders were also encouraged to promote attendance at the public forums and to solicit
responses to the Regional Needs Survey. Stakeholder engagement included phone calls, targeted
emails, newsletter announcements, social media posts, and personalized requests from City staff.
The City provided public notice of the Regional Needs Survey and regional and community forums
through various outreach methods, including newspaper postings, the internet, social media, and
hard copy fliers distributed to various organizations and at local community centers.
Two hundred and nine (209) individuals participated in the regional and community forums, including
residents, service providers, community advocates, and interested stakeholders. A total of 11 regional
and community forums were held in the following locations: Gilroy, Los Gatos, Morgan Hill, San José,
Saratoga, and Mountain View, from September 2014 to November 2014. One thousand four hundred
seventy-two (1,472) individuals completed the Regional Needs Survey.
Summary of comments or views not accepted and reasons for not accepting them
Comments received during the public review period will be included in the final draft of the plan.
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 14
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
The Process
PR-05 Lead & Responsible Agencies 24 CFR 91.200(b)
Describe agency/entity responsible for preparing the Consolidated Plan and those responsible for
administration of each grant program and funding source.
The agency/entity responsible for preparing the Consolidated Plan and those responsible for
administration of the grant program and funding source is shown in Table 1.
Table 1 - Responsible Agencies
Agency Role Name Department/Agency
CDBG Administrator / Lead Agency City of Palo Alto Planning and Community Environment
Department
Lead and Responsible Agencies
The City of Palo Alto (City) is the Lead Agency for the United States Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD) entitlement programs. The City’s CDBG Coordinator is responsible for
the administration of HUD entitlements, which include the Community Development Block Grant
Program (CDBG). By federal law, each jurisdiction is required to submit to HUD a five-year
Consolidated Plan and Annual Action Plans listing priorities and strategies for the use of federal
funds.
The Consolidated Plan is a guide for how the City will use its federal funds to meet the housing and
community development needs of its populations. For the 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan process, the
City worked collaboratively with the County of Santa Clara (County) and other entitlement
jurisdictions in the County to identify and prioritize housing and housing-related needs across the
region, and strategies to meet those needs.
Consolidated Plan Public Contact Information
City of Palo Alto
Planning and Community Environment Department
Consuelo Hernandez
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650) 329-2428
Consuelo.Hernandez@cityofpaloalto.org
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 15
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
PR-10 Consultation - 91.100, 91.200(b), 91.215(l)
Introduction
Provide a concise summary of the jurisdiction’s activities to enhance coordination between public
and assisted housing providers and private and governmental health, mental health and service
agencies (91.215[I]).
Throughout the County, eight entitlement jurisdictions are collaborating on preparation of their 2015-
2020 Consolidated Plans. This group of jurisdictions, referred to within 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 José
City of Santa Clara
Santa Clara Urban County
Public participation plays a central role in the development of the Consolidated Plan. The
participating Entitlement Jurisdictions within the County launched an in-depth, collaborative regional
effort to consult with community stakeholders, elected offices, City and County departments, and
beneficiaries of entitlement programs to inform and develop the priorities and strategies contained
within this five-year plan.
The participating jurisdictions, in partnership with LeSar Development Consultants (LDC) and MIG,
Inc. (MIG), facilitated a comprehensive outreach process to enhance coordination and discuss new
approaches to working with public and assisted housing providers, legal advocates, private and
governmental health agencies, mental health service providers, and other stakeholders that utilize
funding for eligible activities, projects, and programs.
A Regional Needs Survey was conducted to solicit input from residents and workers in the region.
Respondents were informed that participating jurisdictions were updating their respective
Consolidated Plans for federal funds that primarily serve low- and moderate-income (LMI) residents
and areas. The Regional Needs Survey polled respondents about the level of need in their respective
neighborhoods for various types of improvements that could be addressed by entitlement funds.
A total of 1,472 survey responses were obtained from September 19, 2014 to November 15, 2014,
including 1,078 surveys collected electronically and 394 collected via print surveys.
Regional Forums
The Entitlement Jurisdictions held three regional public forums to identify housing and community
development needs and priorities for the next five years. The public forums were conducted as part
of a collaborative regional approach to help the participating jurisdictions make data-driven, place-
based investment decisions for federal funds. Seventy-six (76) people attended the regional forums,
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 16
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
including community members, service providers, nonprofit representatives, and interested
stakeholders.
Community Forums in Local Jurisdictions
In addition to the regional forums, several Entitlement Jurisdictions conducted public outreach
independent of the regional collaborative. The cities of San Jose and Mountain View, and the Santa
Clara Urban County, each held multiple community forums to solicit public input on local issues,
needs and priorities. The community forums were held in tandem with the regional public forums to
expand the outreach process and gather specific place-based input. One hundred and thirty-three
(133) individuals attended the community forums, including residents, service providers, nonprofit
representatives, and interested stakeholders.
Outreach
Approximately 4,847 entities, organizations, agencies, and persons were directly engaged via
outreach efforts and asked to share materials with their beneficiaries, partners, and contacts. These
stakeholders were also encouraged to promote attendance at the public forums and to solicit
responses to the Regional Needs Survey. Stakeholder engagement included phone calls, targeted
emails, newsletter announcements, social media posts, and personalized requests from staff of the
Entitlement Jurisdictions. Each participating jurisdiction also promoted the regional forums and
regional survey links on their respective websites and announced the Consolidated Plan process
through electronic mailing lists. Outreach materials and the survey links (including materials in
Spanish) were emailed to over 4,000 entities, organizations, and persons.
Approximately 1,225 printed flyers providing public notice about the regional forums were
distributed throughout the County at libraries, recreation centers, community meeting locations, and
organizations benefiting LMI residents and areas. These flyers were available in English and Spanish.
Print newspaper display ads also were posted in the Gilroy Dispatch (English), Mountain View Voice
(English), El Observador (Spanish), La Oferta (Spanish), Thoi Bao (Vietnamese), Philippine News
(Tagalog), World Journal (Chinese) and San Jose Mercury News (English). In addition, an online display
ad was placed in the San Jose Mercury News to reach readers electronically.
Describe coordination with the Continuum of Care and efforts to address the needs of homeless
persons (particularly chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans,
and unaccompanied youth) and persons at risk of homelessness.
The Santa Clara County Continuum of Care (CoC) is a multi-sector group of stakeholders dedicated to
ending and preventing homelessness in the County. The CoC’s primary responsibilities are to
coordinate large-scale implementation of efforts to prevent and end homelessness in the County.
The CoC is governed by the Santa Clara CoC Board (CoC Board), which stands as the driving force
committed to supporting and promoting a systems change approach to preventing and ending
homelessness in the County.
The CoC Board is comprised of the same individuals who serve on the Destination: Home Leadership
Board. Destination: Home is a public-private partnership committed to collective impact strategies to
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 17
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
end chronic homelessness, and leads the development of community-wide strategy related to the
CoC’s work.
The County’s Office of Supportive Housing serves as the Collaborative Applicant for the CoC, and is
responsible for implementing by-laws and protocols that govern the operations of the CoC. The Office of
Supportive Housing is also responsible for ensuring that the CoC meets the requirements outlined under
the Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing Act of 2009 (HEARTH).6
In winter 2015, Destination: Home and the CoC released a Community Plan to End Homelessness in
Santa Clara County (the Plan), which outlines a roadmap for community-wide efforts to end
homelessness in the County by 2020. The strategies and action steps included in the plan were
informed by members who participated in a series of community summits designed to address the
needs of homeless populations from April to August 2014. The Plan identifies strategies to address
the needs of homeless persons in the County, including chronically homeless individuals and families,
families with children, veterans, and unaccompanied youth. Additionally, it also intended to address
the needs of persons at risk of homelessness.
To address the needs of homeless individuals and individuals at risk of homelessness, the Plan aims
to implement the following strategies:7
1. Disrupt systems: Develop disruptive strategies and innovative prototypes that transform the
systems related to housing homeless people.
2. Build the solution: Secure the right amount of funding needed to provide housing and
services to those who are homeless and those at risk of homelessness.
3. Serve the person: Adopt an approach that recognizes the need for client-centered strategies
with different responses for different levels of need and different groups, targeting
resources to the specific individual or household.
Over the next five years, the Plan seeks to identify approximately 6,000 new housing opportunities
for the homeless, intending to house 2,518 homeless individuals, 718 homeless veterans, and more
than 2,333 children, unaccompanied youth, and homeless individuals living in families.
The City is represented on the CoC by Minka Van Der Zwaag, Human Services Manager. Members of the
CoC meet on a monthly basis in various work groups to ensure successful implementation components
of the Plan’s action steps. A Community Plan Implementation Team, which includes members of the CoC
and other community stakeholders, meets quarterly to evaluate progress toward the Plan’s goals,
identify gaps in homeless services, establish funding priorities, and pursue an overall systematic
approach to address homelessness.8
6 County of Santa Clara. “Housing Element 2015-2022.” 2014.
http://www.sccgov.org/sites/planning/PlansPrograms/GeneralPlan/Housing/Documents/HE_2015_Adopted_Final.pdf
7 Santa Clara County CoC. “Community Plan to End Homelessness in Santa Clara County 2015-2020.” 2014.
8 Ibid.
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 18
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Describe consultation with the Continuum(s) of Care that serves the jurisdiction's area in
determining how to allocate ESG funds, develop performance standards and evaluate outcomes,
and develop funding, policies, and procedures for the administration of HMIS.
Allocating Funds, Setting Performance Standards and Evaluating Outcomes
The City is not an ESG entitlement jurisdiction.
Operating and Administrating Homeless Management Information System Santa Clara County (HMIS
SCC)
The HMIS SCC project is administered by Community Technology Alliance (CTA) and has served the
community since 2004. The project meets and exceeds HUD’s requirements for the implementation
and compliance of HMIS Standards. The project has a rich array of service provider participation and
is utilized to capture information and report on special programming, such as Housing 1000, the
County VTA free bus pass program, and prevention service delivery.9
Describe Agencies, groups, organizations, and others who participated in the process, and describe
the jurisdictions consultations with housing, social service agencies, and other entities.
In August 2014, the Entitlement Jurisdictions contracted with LDC and MIG to develop the
Consolidated Plan for fiscal years 2015-2020. In partnership with the participating jurisdictions, LDC
and MIG launched an in-depth, collaborative effort to consult with elected officials, City/County
departments, community stakeholders, and beneficiaries of entitlement programs to inform and
develop the priorities and strategies contained within the five-year plan.
Table 2 provides a list of all agencies, groups and organizations that attended the regional and
community forums. Several of the agencies, groups and organizations identified in the table
attended multiple forums. A comprehensive list of all stakeholders and local service providers
contacted to provide input into the planning process at the Consolidated Plan regional and
community forums is included in Appendix A.
Table 2 - Agencies, Groups, and Organizations that Attended Regional and Community Forums
Agency / Group
/Organization
Agency / Group /
Organization Type
What Section of
the Plan Was
Addressed by the
Consultation?
How Was the
Agency/Group/Organization Consulted
and What are the Anticipated Outcomes
of the Consultation or Areas for
Improved Coordination?
Abilities United Disabled Services
Services – Children
Needs
Assessment and
Strategic Plan
Agency attended Community Forum(s)
on:
September 25, 2014
9 County of Santa Clara. Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER). 2014
http://www.sccgov.org/sites/oah/Housing%20%20Community%20Development%20(HCD)/Documents/Draft%20CAPER%20FY1
4%20vs%201.pdf
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 19
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Agency / Group
/Organization
Agency / Group /
Organization Type
What Section of
the Plan Was
Addressed by the
Consultation?
How Was the
Agency/Group/Organization Consulted
and What are the Anticipated Outcomes
of the Consultation or Areas for
Improved Coordination?
Afghan Center Cultural Organizations Needs
Assessment and
Strategic Plan
Agency attended Community Forum(s)
on:
October 7, 2014
Aging Services
Collaborative
Senior Services Needs
Assessment and
Strategic Plan
Agency attended Community Forum(s)
on:
September 27, 2014
Bill Wilson Center Children and Youth
Services
Needs
Assessment and
Strategic Plan
Agency attended Community Forum(s)
on:
September 25, 2014
September 27, 2014
September 30, 2014
October 1, 2014
October 2, 2014
October 7, 2014
October 23, 2014
November 20, 2014
California Housing
Odd Fellows
Foundation
Housing
Children and Youth
Services
Community/Family
Services and
Organizations
Needs
Assessment and
Strategic Plan
Agency attended Community Forum(s)
on:
November 5, 2014
Casa De Clara -
Catholic Worker
Health Services
Homeless Services –
Single Women/ Women
and Children Only
Needs
Assessment and
Strategic Plan
Agency attended Community Forum(s)
on:
November 20, 2014
Catholic Charities
of Santa Clara
County
Senior Services
Needs
Assessment and
Strategic Plan
Agency attended Community Forum(s)
on:
October 2, 2014
Challenge Team
Mountain View
Dreamers
Immigration Services
Community/Family
Services and
Organizations
Needs
Assessment and
Strategic Plan
Agency attended Community Forum(s)
on:
September 25, 2014
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 20
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Agency / Group
/Organization
Agency / Group /
Organization Type
What Section of
the Plan Was
Addressed by the
Consultation?
How Was the
Agency/Group/Organization Consulted
and What are the Anticipated Outcomes
of the Consultation or Areas for
Improved Coordination?
City of Campbell Government Agencies:
Local, County, State and
Federal
Needs
Assessment and
Strategic Plan
Agency attended Community Forum(s)
on:
September 25, 2014
City of Cupertino Government Agencies:
Local, County, State and
Federal
Needs
Assessment and
Strategic Plan
Agency attended Community Forum(s)
on:
November 20, 2014
City of Gilroy Government Agencies:
Local, County, State and
Federal
Needs
Assessment and
Strategic Plan
Agency attended Community Forum(s)
on:
September 25, 2014
City of Mountain
View
Government Agencies:
Local, County, State and
Federal
Needs
Assessment and
Strategic Plan
Agency attended Community Forum(s)
on:
October 22, 2014
City of Palo Alto Government Agencies:
Local, County, State and
Federal
Needs
Assessment and
Strategic Plan
Agency attended Community Forum (s)
on:
September 25, 2014
City of San Jose Government Agencies:
Local, County, State and
Federal
Needs
Assessment and
Strategic Plan
Agency attended Community Forum (s)
on:
September 27, 2014
September 30, 2014
October 1, 2014
October 2, 2014
October 7, 2014
City of San Jose
Environmental
Services
Department
Government Agencies:
Local, County, State and
Federal
Needs
Assessment and
Strategic Plan
Agency attended Community Forum (s)
on the following dates:
October 7, 2014
City of Santa Cruz Government Agencies:
Local, County, State and
Federal
Needs
Assessment and
Strategic Plan
Agency attended Community Forum (s)
on:
September 25, 2014
City of Sunnyvale Government Agencies:
Local, County, State and
Federal
Needs
Assessment and
Strategic Plan
Agency attended Community Forum (s)
on:
November 5, 2014
Coldwell Banker Business (Major
Employers, Chambers of
Commerce,
Associations, Real
Needs
Assessment and
Strategic Plan
Agency attended Community Forum (s)
on:
September 25, 2014
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 21
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Agency / Group
/Organization
Agency / Group /
Organization Type
What Section of
the Plan Was
Addressed by the
Consultation?
How Was the
Agency/Group/Organization Consulted
and What are the Anticipated Outcomes
of the Consultation or Areas for
Improved Coordination?
Estate)
Community
School Of Music
And Arts
Community/ Family
Services and
Organizations
Needs
Assessment and
Strategic Plan
Agency attended Community Forum (s)
on:
November 20, 2014
Community
Services Agency
Senior Services Needs
Assessment and
Strategic Plan
Agency attended Community Forum(s)
on the following dates:
September 25, 2014
Compassion
Center
Homeless Services Needs
Assessment and
Strategic Plan
Agency attended Community Forum(s)
on:
September 25, 2014
October 23, 2014
November 5, 2014
County of Santa
Clara
Government Agencies:
Local, County, State and
Federal
Needs
Assessment and
Strategic Plan
Agency attended Community Forum(s)
on:
October 22, 2014
November 1, 2014
Destination:
Home
Homeless Services Needs
Assessment and
Strategic Plan
Agency attended Community Forum(s)
on:
September 25, 2014
November 1, 2014
November 5, 2014
Five Wounds/
Brookwood
Terrace
Neighborhood
Association
Needs
Assessment and
Strategic Plan
Agency attended Community Forum(s)
on:
September 25, 2014
Franklin McKinley
Children's
Initiative
Education Services Needs
Assessment and
Strategic Plan
Agency attended Community Forum(s)
on:
October 7, 2014
Fresh Lifelines For
Youth (FLY)
Children & Youth
Services
Needs
Assessment and
Strategic Plan
Agency attended Community Forum(s)
on:
October 7, 2014
Gilroy Compassion
Center
Homeless Services Needs
Assessment and
Agency attended Community Forum(s)
on:
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 22
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Agency / Group
/Organization
Agency / Group /
Organization Type
What Section of
the Plan Was
Addressed by the
Consultation?
How Was the
Agency/Group/Organization Consulted
and What are the Anticipated Outcomes
of the Consultation or Areas for
Improved Coordination?
Strategic Plan October 23, 2014
Health Trust /
Aging Services
Collaborative
Homeless Services Needs
Assessment and
Strategic Plan
Agency attended Community Forum(s)
on:
September 25, 2014
Hope’s Corner Homeless Services
Community/ Family
Services and
Organizations
Needs
Assessment and
Strategic Plan
Agency attended Community Forum(s)
on:
September 25, 2014
In Home Services Disabled Services Needs
Assessment and
Strategic Plan
Agency attended Community Forum (s)
on:
October 23, 2014
Institute on Aging Senior Services
Health Services
Needs
Assessment and
Strategic Plan
Agency attended Community Forum(s)
on:
October 1, 2014
InnVision Shelter
Network (IVSN)
Homeless Services Needs
Assessment and
Strategic Plan
Agency attended Community Forum(s)
on:
October 22, 2014
Junior
Achievement
Children and Youth
Services
Needs
Assessment and
Strategic Plan
Agency attended Community Forum(s)
on:
September 25, 2014
Law Foundation
Of Silicon Valley
Fair Housing and Legal Needs
Assessment and
Strategic Plan
Agency attended Community Forum(s)
on:
October 23, 2014
LeSar
Development
Corporation
Affordable Housing
Developers
Business (Major
Employers, Chambers of
Commerce,
Associations, Real
Estate)
Needs
Assessment and
Strategic Plan
Agency attended Community Forum(s)
on:
October 7, 2014
Legal Aid Society
Santa Clara
County
Fair Housing and Legal Needs
Assessment and
Strategic Plan
Agency attended Community Forum(s)
on:
September 25, 2014
Los Altos Community/Family Needs Agency attended Community Forum(s)
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 23
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Agency / Group
/Organization
Agency / Group /
Organization Type
What Section of
the Plan Was
Addressed by the
Consultation?
How Was the
Agency/Group/Organization Consulted
and What are the Anticipated Outcomes
of the Consultation or Areas for
Improved Coordination?
Community
Foundation
Services and
Organizations
Assessment and
Strategic Plan
on:
September 30, 2014
October 1, 2014
Live Oak Adult
Day Services
Senior Services Needs
Assessment and
Strategic Plan
Agency attended Community Forum(s)
on:
October 23, 2014
Mayfair NAC Neighborhood
Association
Needs
Assessment and
Strategic Plan
Agency attended Community Forum(s)
on the following dates:
September 27, 2014
Mckinly Bonita
Neighborhood
Association
Neighborhood
Association
Needs
Assessment and
Strategic Plan
Agency attended Community Forum(s)
on:
October 2, 2014
MidPen Housing Affordable Housing
Developers
Needs
Assessment and
Strategic Plan
Agency attended Community Forum(s)
on:
September 30, 2014
Migrant
Education, Santa
Clara Unified
School District
Education Services
Employment and Job
Training Services
Needs
Assessment and
Strategic Plan
Agency attended Community Forum(s)
on the following dates:
September 25, 2014
October 23, 2014
Mountain View
Dreamers
Immigration Services
Community/Family
Services and
Organizations
Needs
Assessment and
Strategic Plan
Agency attended Community Forum(s)
on:
September 25, 2014
September 27, 2014
September 30, 2014
October 1, 2014
October 2, 2014
October 7, 2014
October 22, 2014
October 23, 2014
November 1, 2014
November 5, 2014
November 20, 2014
Mountain View Government Agencies: Needs Agency attended Community Forum(s)
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 24
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Agency / Group
/Organization
Agency / Group /
Organization Type
What Section of
the Plan Was
Addressed by the
Consultation?
How Was the
Agency/Group/Organization Consulted
and What are the Anticipated Outcomes
of the Consultation or Areas for
Improved Coordination?
Human Relations
Commission (HRC)
Local, County, State and
Federal
Community/ Family
Services and
Organizations
Senior Services
Children and Youth
Services
Assessment and
Strategic Plan
on:
September 25, 2014
Palo Alto Human
Relations
Commission
Government Agencies:
Local, County, State and
Federal
Community/ Family
Services and
Organizations
Senior Services
Children and Youth
Services
Needs
Assessment and
Strategic Plan
Agency attended Community Forum(s)
on:
September 25, 2014
Project Access Employment and Job
Training Services
Community/ Family
Services and
Organizations
Senior Services
Children and Youth
Services
Needs
Assessment and
Strategic Plan
Agency attended Community Forum(s)
on:
October 23, 2014
Project Sentinel Fair Housing and Legal Needs
Assessment and
Strategic Plan
Agency attended Community Forum (s):
September 25, 2014
Rebuilding
Together
Peninsula
Housing Needs
Assessment and
Strategic Plan
Agency attended Community Forum (s):
October 1, 2014
Rebuilding
Together Silicon
Housing Needs
Assessment and
Agency attended Community Forum (s)
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 25
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Agency / Group
/Organization
Agency / Group /
Organization Type
What Section of
the Plan Was
Addressed by the
Consultation?
How Was the
Agency/Group/Organization Consulted
and What are the Anticipated Outcomes
of the Consultation or Areas for
Improved Coordination?
Valley Strategic Plan on:
October 1, 2014
November 20, 2014
Sacred Heart -
Housing Action
Committee
Fair Housing and Legal Needs
Assessment and
Strategic Plan
Agency attended Community Forum (s)
on:
September 25, 2014
October 1, 2014
October 23, 2014
Sacred Heart
Community
Service
Fair Housing and Legal Needs
Assessment and
Strategic Plan
Agency attended Community Forum (s)
on:
September 27, 2014
September 30, 2014
October 1, 2014
October 2, 2014
October 7, 2014
Senior Adults
Legal Assistance
(SALA)
Fair Housing and Legal
Senior Services
Needs
Assessment and
Strategic Plan
Agency attended Community Forum (s)
on:
September 27, 2014
Santa Clara
County
Government Agencies:
Local, County, State and
Federal
Needs
Assessment and
Strategic Plan
Agency attended Community Forum (s)
on:
October 1, 2014
Secondary
Fuente/ Walnut
Creek
Homeowner Ass.
Housing
Business (Major
Employers, Chambers of
Commerce,
Associations, Real
Estate)
Needs
Assessment and
Strategic Plan
Agency attended Community Forum (s)
on:
September 25, 2014
September 27, 2014
October 22, 2014
October 23, 2014
November 1, 2014
November 5, 2014
Servant Partners Cultural Organization Needs
Assessment and
Strategic Plan
Agency attended Community Forum (s)
on:
September 27, 2014
Silicon Valley
Community
Foundation
Education Services Needs
Assessment and
Strategic Plan
Agency attended Community Forum (s)
on:
September 27, 2014
Silicon Valley
Independent
Senior Services Needs
Assessment and
Agency attended Community Forum (s)
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 26
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Agency / Group
/Organization
Agency / Group /
Organization Type
What Section of
the Plan Was
Addressed by the
Consultation?
How Was the
Agency/Group/Organization Consulted
and What are the Anticipated Outcomes
of the Consultation or Areas for
Improved Coordination?
Living Center Strategic Plan on:
October 2, 2014
Somos Mayfair Community/ Family
Services and
Organizations
Children and Youth
Services
Needs
Assessment and
Strategic Plan
Agency attended Community Forum (s)
on:
September 25, 2014
South County
Collaborative
Housing Services
Homeless Services
Needs
Assessment and
Strategic Plan
Agency attended Community Forum (s)
on:
September 25, 2014
September 30, 2014
October 2, 2014
St. Joseph's
Family Center
Continuum of Care Needs
Assessment and
Strategic Plan
Agency attended Community Forum (s)
on:
September 27, 2014
October 1, 2014
October 2, 2014
Sunnyvale
Community
Services
Community/ Family
Services and
Organizations
Needs
Assessment and
Strategic Plan
Agency attended Community Forum (s)
on:
October 22, 2014
Silicon Valley
Council of
Nonprofits
Community/ Family
Services and
Organizations
Needs
Assessment and
Strategic Plan
Agency attended Community Forum (s)
on:
October 22, 2014
West Valley
Community
Services
Senior Services Needs
Assessment and
Strategic Plan
Agency attended Community Forum (s)
on:
September 25, 2014
YMCA Children & Youth
Services
Needs
Assessment and
Strategic Plan
Agency attended Community Forum (s)
on:
October 1, 2014
Yu Chi Kai Senior
Center
Senior Services Needs
Assessment and
Strategic Plan
Agency attended Community Forum(s)
on:
November 20, 2014
Identify any Agency Types not consulted and provide rationale for not consulting.
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 27
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Not applicable. See PR-10 Table 2.
Other Local/Regional/State/Federal Planning Efforts Considered When Preparing the Plan
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 28
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Table 3 - Other Local / Regional / Federal Planning Efforts
Name of Plan Lead Organization
How Do the Goals of Your
Strategic Plan Overlap With the
Goals of Each Plan?
City of Palo Alto Housing Element
(2015-2023)
City of Palo Alto The Housing Element serves as a
policy guide to help the City meet
its existing and future housing
needs. This effort aligns with the
Strategic Plan's goal to assist in the
creation and preservation of
affordable housing.
Continuum of Care Regional Continuum of Care
Council
The CoC works to alleviate the
impact of homelessness in the
community through the
cooperation and collaboration of
social service providers. This effort
aligns with the Strategic Plan's
goal to support activities to end
homelessness.
2012-2014 Comprehensive HIV
Prevention & Care Plan for San
José
Santa Clara County HIV Planning
Council for Prevention and Care
This plan provides a roadmap for
the Santa Clara County HIV
Planning Council for Prevention
and Care to provide a
comprehensive and
compassionate system of HIV
prevention and care services for
the County. This effort aligns with
the Strategic Plan's goal to support
activities that strengthen
neighborhoods through the
provision of community services
and public improvements.
Affordable Housing Funding
Landscape & Local Best Practices
(2013)
Cities Association of Santa Clara
County and Housing Trust Silicon
Valley
This report provides a comparison
of the different funding strategies
available for affordable housing in
the County, and the best practices
for funding new affordable
housing. This effort aligns with the
Strategic Plan's goal to assist in the
creation and preservation of
affordable housing.
Regional Housing Need Plan for
the San Francisco Bay Area: 2014-
2022
Association of Bay Area
Governments
This plan analyzes the total
regional housing need for the
County and all of the Bay Area. This
effort aligns with the Strategic
Plan's goal to assist in the creation
and preservation of affordable
housing.
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 29
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Name of Plan Lead Organization
How Do the Goals of Your
Strategic Plan Overlap With the
Goals of Each Plan?
Community Plan to End
Homelessness in Santa Clara
County 2015-2020
Destination: Home The Community Plan to End
Homelessness in the County is a
five-year plan to guide
governmental actors, nonprofits,
and other community members as
they make decisions about
funding, programs, priorities and
needs. This effort aligns with the
Strategic Plan's goal to support
activities to end homelessness.
Palo Alto's Infrastructure: Catching
Up, Keeping Up, and Moving
Ahead (2011)
City of Palo Alto’s Infrastructure
Blue Ribbon Commission
This plan details recommendations
for infrastructure maintenance and
replace, as well as identifies
potential sources of funding. This
effort aligns with the Strategic
Plan's goal to support activities
that strengthen neighborhoods
through the provision of
community services and public
improvements.
City of Palo Alto Comprehensive
Plan (1998)
City of Palo Alto This plan is the City’s primary tool
for guiding future development. It
provides a guide for long-term
choices and goals for the City’s
future. This effort aligns with the
Strategic Plan's goal to support
activities that strengthen
neighborhoods through the
provision of community services
and public improvements.
Describe cooperation and coordination with other public entities, including the State and any
adjacent units of general local government, in the implementation of the Consolidated Plan.
(91.215[l])
As mentioned previously, the Entitlement Jurisdictions are collaborating on preparation of their 2015-
2020 Consolidated Plans. The outreach and the regional needs assessment for these jurisdictions was
a coordinated effort. The CoC and the County were involved in the formation of the Consolidated
Plan and will be integral in its implementation.
As standard practice, CDBG entitlement jurisdictions from throughout the County hold quarterly
meetings known as the CDBG Coordinators Group. These meetings are often attended by HUD
representatives and their purpose is to share information, best practices, new developments, and
federal policy and appropriations updates among the local grantee staff, as well as to offer a
convenient forum for HUD to provide ad-hoc technical assistance related to federal grant
management. Meeting agendas cover such topics as projects receiving multi-jurisdictional funding,
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 30
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
performance levels and costs for contracted public services, proposed annual funding plans, HUD
program administration requirements, and other topics of mutual concern.
These quarterly meetings provide the opportunity for the City to consult with other jurisdictions on
its proposed use of federal funds for the upcoming Program Year. The CDBG Coordinators Group
meetings are often followed by a Regional Housing Working Group meeting, which is open to staff of
entitlement and non-entitlement jurisdictions. The Working Group provides a forum for jurisdictions
to develop coordinated responses to regional housing challenges.
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 31
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
PR-15 Citizen Participation
Summary of citizen participation process/Efforts made to broaden citizen participation
Summarize citizen participation process and how it impacted goal-setting
The following is an overview of the efforts made to enhance and broaden citizen participation. A
comprehensive summary of the citizen participation process and how it impacted goal-setting is
provided in Appendix A: Citizen Participation Summary.
Regional and Community Forums
Results: 209 individuals participated in the forums including residents, service providers,
community advocates and interested stakeholders.
Hardcopy Engagement: 1,225 hardcopy surveys distributed to: libraries, and community
meetings, organizations benefiting LMI residents and area.
Location: A total of 11 regional and community forums were held in the following locations:
Gilroy, Los Gatos, Morgan Hill, San José, Saratoga, and Mountain View from September 2014
to November 2014.
Newspaper Advertisements: Eight multi-lingual display ads were posted in local news media
outlets in the County reaching a joint circulation across the County of over 1,575,000.
Regional Needs Survey
Results: 1,472 responses
Outreach: 4,847 entities, organizations, persons directly engaged via email; outreach flyer
and survey links posted on websites of the Entitlement Jurisdictions of the County.
Social Media: Approximately 25,000 persons on Facebook and 11,000 persons on Twitter
were engaged.
Overall Community Needs
Need for Affordable Rental Housing
The majority of community forum participants and survey respondents identified increasing
affordable rental housing inventory as the highest priority need within the County. More
than 63 percent of survey respondents indicated affordable rental housing as a “high level”
of need. Several community forum participants noted that LMI households cannot afford
average rental rates in the County.
Need to Increase Services for the Homeless
Emergency and transitional housing, comprehensive services at homeless encampments
(e.g., basic shelter facilities, health care referrals), and rental assistance programs for the
homeless were frequently identified by participants as critical needs.
Need for Senior Housing
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 32
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
The need to address the housing crisis facing seniors in the County was a common discussion
topic. Forum participants noted that elderly renter households experience numerous housing
issues, including cost burden and rental units in disrepair.
Need for Increase in Community Services
Survey respondents and forum participants called attention to the need for expanded
support of a wide range of community services to meet the basic needs of vulnerable
populations. Programs to meet basic needs such as food, clothing, health, and shelter of low
income and special needs populations were frequently highlighted during community
forums. Due to the increased demand for these basic assistance programs, service providers
noted that they were struggling to meet clients’ needs with limited resources and staff
capacity.
Need for Support Services for Seniors
Local service providers who attended the community forums stressed the importance of
increasing safety net programs for seniors. Nutrition and food assistance programs,
transportation services, recreational programs to reduce senior isolation, and general case
management services are needed to address challenges faced by the County’s growing
senior population.
Need for Transportation Services
Local service providers at each of the Consolidated Plan forums highlighted the lack of
affordable and accessible transportation services in the County. Programs to augment public
transit, paratransit, and senior transit services were cited as necessities.
Need for Fair Housing Education and Legal Services
Several service providers noted the need to expand the provision of free or low-cost legal
services to protect fair housing rights and to mediate tenant / landlord issues. Education for
tenants and landlords was identified as a vital need to prevent illegal evictions and address
housing discrimination.
Need for Economic Development and Job Training Programs
Many forum participants emphasized the need for job training programs for youth, low-
skilled workers, homeless individuals and undocumented workers. Small business assistance,
including micro-enterprise loans and services to support minority-owned businesses, were
also highlighted as important tools to spur job creation and to retain small business owners
in the County.
Need for Infrastructure and Neighborhood Improvement Services
The need to create pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods and cities that support “Complete
Streets” guidance was frequently noted by forum participants. Addressing bicycle/pedestrian
conflicts with vehicular traffic was a key issue of concern for vulnerable populations,
including school-age children and seniors. Other participants expressed the need to expand
ADA improvements such as curb cuts, sidewalk repairs and crosswalk enhancements.
Expanding access to open space and recreational amenities was also noted by several service
providers as a pressing need to encourage healthy lifestyles and active living among the
County’s residents.
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 33
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Consolidated Plan Public Comment Period
The Consolidated Plan was released February 17, 2015 for a 30 day public review and comment
period. An updated version of the Plan was released on February 24, 2015 and the comment period
was extended an additional seven days. The Plan was available electronically on the City’s CDBG
website at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pln/cdbg.asp. Hardcopies were made available
at City Hall and at the Development Services Center located at 285 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA
94301. The electronic version was sent to distribution lists totaling approximately nine entities,
organizations, agencies and citizens or groups. In addition, public comment was encouraged at the
hearings listed below, or could be submitted in writing to: City of Palo Alto Department of Planning
and Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Attn: Consuelo Hernandez,
Senior Planner. A summary of all public comments is included in the final Consolidated Plan, along
with the City’s response to the comments, if any.
Public Hearings
Locations and dates:
o Human Relations Commission Public Hearing
City Council Chambers
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
February 12, 2015 – 7:00PM
o Human Relations Commission Public Hearing
City Council Conference Room
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo alto, CA 94301
March 12, 2015 – 7:00PM
o Palo Alto City Council Finance Committee Public Hearing
Council Conference Room
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
March 17, 2015 – 6:00PM
o City Council Public Hearing
City Council Chambers
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, Ca 94301
May 4, 2015 – 7:00PM
In addition to the mass distribution of the draft Plan and notice of the public comment period
described above, notice of the public hearings was published in advance in the Palo Alto Weekly.
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 34
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Table 4 - Citizen Participation Outreach
Mode of
Outreach
Target of Outreach Summary of
Response/Attendance
Summary of
Comments
Received
Summary of
comments not
accepted and reasons
URL (If applicable)
Public Forums Broad community outreach
to all members of the public
and targeted outreach to
service providers,
beneficiaries and grant
recipients
A total of 209
individuals attended
the 11
regional/community
forums held in the fall
of 2014.
See PR-15 All comments were
accepted.
Online Survey Broad community outreach
to members of the public
and interested stakeholders
A total of 1,078
Regional Needs Surveys
were collected during
the open period from
September 19, 2014
through November 15,
2014.
The online survey was
available in Spanish and
English.
The online survey link
was distributed to over
4,847 entities,
organizations,
agencies, and persons.
See PR-15 All comments were
accepted.
English:
https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/SCC_Regional_S
urvey
Spanish:
https://es.surveymonkey.com/s/SCC_Regional_Surv
ey_Spanish
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 35
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Mode of
Outreach
Target of Outreach Summary of
Response/Attendance
Summary of
Comments
Received
Summary of
comments not
accepted and reasons
URL (If applicable)
Print Survey Targeted non-English
Speaking communities
through surveys in English,
Spanish, simplified Chinese,
Tagalog and Vietnamese.
Over 3,160 print surveys
were distributed at
community centers,
libraries, City Halls, senior
centers and other high-
traffic community hubs.
A total of 394 Regional
Needs Surveys were
collected during the
open period from
September 19, 2014
through November 15,
2014.
The print survey was
available in five
languages.
See PR-15 All comments were
accepted.
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 36
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Mode of
Outreach
Target of Outreach Summary of
Response/Attendance
Summary of
Comments
Received
Summary of
comments not
accepted and reasons
URL (If applicable)
Website Broad outreach to Santa
Clara County stakeholders
with computer and internet
access
Announcements
posted to the websites
of the Entitlement
Jurisdictions to
promote regional
survey links (English
and Spanish) and
regional/ community
forums
See PR-15 Not Applicable County of Santa Clara/ Urban County:
http://www.sccgov.org/sites/oah/Pages/Office-of-
Affordable-Housing.aspx
City of Palo Alto:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pln/cdbg.
asp
City of Sunnyvale:
http://sunnyvale.ca.gov/Departments/CommunityD
evelopment/HousingandCommunityAssistance.asp
x
City of Mountain View:
http://www.mountainview.gov/depts/comdev/pres
ervation/details.asp?NewsID=899&TargetID=35
http://www.mountainview.gov/events/default.asp
City of San Jose:
http://www.sanjoseca.gov/HousingConPlan
City of Cupertino:
http://www.cupertino.org/index.aspx?page=976
City of Santa Clara:
http://santaclaraca.gov/index.aspx?page=41&recor
did=13579
City of Gilroy:
http://www.cityofgilroy.org/cityofgilroy/
http://www.cityofgilroy.org/cityofgilroy/city_hall/co
mmunity_development/planning/housing/default.a
spx
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 37
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Mode of
Outreach
Target of Outreach Summary of
Response/Attendance
Summary of
Comments
Received
Summary of
comments not
accepted and reasons
URL (If applicable)
Advertisements
in News Media
Outlets
Multi-lingual
advertisements printed in
the following media outlets:
El Observador (Spanish,
)Mountain View Voice
(English), San Jose Mercury
News (English),
Gilroy Dispatch (English), La
Oferta (Spanish), Thoi Bao
(Vietnamese), Philippine
News (Tagalog) and World
Journal (Chinese)
Eight, multi-lingual
display ads were
posted in local news
media outlets in the
County; One online
advertisement was
placed in the San Jose
Mercury News.
Joint circulation (e.g.
number of copies
distributed on
an average day) of over
1,575,000.
See PR-15 Not Applicable
Social Media Broad outreach to Santa
Clara County residents and
stakeholders with
computer access
Announcements
posted to Facebook
and Twitter accounts of
Entitlement
Jurisdictions and
community partners.
A potential of 25,000
persons on Facebook
and 11,000 persons on
Twitter were engaged
in this process.
See PR-15 All comments were
accepted.
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 38
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Mode of
Outreach
Target of Outreach Summary of
Response/Attendance
Summary of
Comments
Received
Summary of
comments not
accepted and reasons
URL (If applicable)
E-blasts Mass emails to new and
established distribution lists
of Entitlement Jurisdictions
and community partners
Approximately 4,847
entities, organizations,
agencies, and persons
have been engaged
through e-blasts
outreach efforts.
E-blasts included links
to an electronic
outreach flyer.
See PR-15 All comments were
accepted.
Personalized
emails from
staff of
Entitlement
Jurisdictions
Service providers,
beneficiaries and grant
recipients across the
County.
Targeted emails
promoting regional
survey links (English
and Spanish) sent to
over 560 stakeholders.
See PR-15 All comments were
accepted.
Print Outreach
Flyers
Print surveys were
distributed at community
centers, libraries, City Halls,
senior centers and other
high-traffic community
hubs.
Over 1,225 print flyers
were printed and
distributed at
community hubs across
the County.
See PR-15 All comments were
accepted.
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 39
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Needs Assessment
NA-05 Overview
The County of Santa Clara (County) encompasses Silicon Valley, an area known for its technological
enterprise, wealth and proximity to the San Francisco Bay Area. It is a region of distinct socio-
economic stratification, containing many of the wealthiest households in the nation. It is also one of
the least affordable places to live, with 42 percent of residents experiencing housing cost burden.10
The region boasts the highest national median household income at $90,73711. It is also the third-
most expensive rental market in the U.S,12 the seventh-least affordable for-sale market of any
metropolitan area13, and home to the fourth-largest population of homeless individuals14 with the
highest percentage of unsheltered homeless of any major city. 15
These statistics point to a widening gap between the highest earners and the middle and lower
income population. Over 45 percent of households earn $100,000 or more yearly, but only 13 percent
earn between $50,000 and $75,000 and 15 percent earn between $25,000 and $49,99916, making the
region the second-least equitable metropolitan area in the nation.17 Many lower income residents
struggle with severe housing costs driven by a tight and competitive housing market that responds
to the demands of the highest earning households, driving up the cost of for-sale and rental housing.
In order to maintain housing affordability and meet the needs of a diverse and growing population,
the jurisdictions within the County must work to preserve and expand the supply of housing for all
income levels. This will be critical to maintaining the wellbeing and economic prosperity of the
region.
The City of Palo Alto (City) is part of the San Francisco Metropolitan Bay Area, located 35 miles south
of San Francisco and 14 miles north of San Jose. The City is located within the County, borders San
Mateo County, and encompasses an area of approximately 26 square miles, one-third of which
consists of open space. According to 2008-2012 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimates,
the City's total resident population is 63,475. The City has the most educated residents in the country
and is one of the most expensive cities to live in.18 In Silicon Valley, the City is considered a central
economic focal point and is home to over 7,000 businesses while providing jobs to more than 98,000
people.19
10 2007-2011 CHAS
11 The United States Conference of Mayors and The Council on Metro Economies and the New American City. “U.S. Metro
Economies: Income and Wage Gaps Across the US.” August 2014. http://usmayors.org/metroeconomies/2014/08/report.pdf
12 National Low Income Housing Coalition. “Out of Reach.” 2014. http://nlihc.org/sites/default/files/oor/2014OOR.pdf
13 Trulia. “Where is Homeownership Within Reach of the Middle Class and Millennials.” November 2014.
http://www.trulia.com/trends/2014/11/middle-class-millennials-report/
14 The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. “2014 Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR) to
Congress.” October 2014. https://www.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/AHAR-2014-Part1.pdf
15 Ibid
16 The United States Conference of Mayors and The Council on Metro Economies and the New American City. “U.S. Metro
Economies: Income and Wage Gaps Across the US.” August 2014. http://usmayors.org/metroeconomies/2014/08/report.pdf
17 Ibid
18 Huffington Post. “California’s Most Educated Cities: Palo Alto, Los Altos Top the List.” January 2012.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/california-most-educated-towns/
19 Bedbury Realtors. “Palo Alto.” http://www.bedburyrealtors.com/Communities/Palo-Alto
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 40
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Methodology
The majority of data utilized is provided by HUD for the purpose of preparing the Consolidated Plan.
HUD periodically receives custom tabulations of data from the U.S. Census Bureau that are largely
not available through standard Census products. Known as the Comprehensive Housing Affordability
Strategy (CHAS) data, it demonstrates the extent of housing problems and housing needs,
particularly for low income households. The CHAS data is used by local governments to plan how to
spend HUD funds, and may also be used by HUD to distribute grant funds.20
When CHAS data is not available or appropriate, other data is utilized, including 2000 and 2010 U.S.
Census data and American Community Survey (ACS) 2008-2012 five-year estimates. While ACS one-
year estimates provide the most current data, this report utilizes five-year estimates as they reflect a
larger sample size and are considered more reliable and precise.21
Federal funds provided under the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) entitlement
program are primarily concerned with activities that benefit low-and moderate-income (LMI)
households whose incomes do not exceed 80 percent of the area median family income (AMI), as
established by HUD, with adjustments for smaller or larger families.22 HUD utilizes three income
levels to define LMI households:
Extremely low income: Households earning 30 percent or less than the AMI (subject to
specified adjustments for areas with unusually high or low incomes)
Very low income: Households earning 50 percent or less than the AMI (subject to specified
adjustments for areas with unusually high or low incomes)
Low and moderate income: Households earning 80 percent or less than the AMI (subject to
adjustments for areas with unusually high or low incomes or housing costs)
Overview
Within Palo Alto, almost one-quarter (23 percent) of City households (5,845 households) are LMI,
with incomes ranging from 0-80% AMI:
10 percent (2,560 households) at 0-30% AMI
6 percent (1,675 households) at 30-50% AMI
6 percent (1,610 households) at 50-80% AMI
The following provides a brief summary of the results of the Needs Assessment, which will be
discussed in more detail in each corresponding section of this chapter.
20 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. “Consolidated Planning/CHAS Data.”
http://www.huduser.org/portal/datasets/cp.html
21 United States Census Bureau. “American Community Survey: When to Use 1-year, 3-year, or 5-year
Estimates.” http://www.census.gov/acs/www/guidance_for_data_users/estimates/
22 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. “Glossary of CPD Terms.”
http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/comm_planning/library/glossary
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 41
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
NA -10 Housing Needs
• Twenty-nine percent of households in the City are paying more than 30 percent of their
income toward housing costs.
• Thirteen percent of households are severely cost burdened and paying more than 50 percent
of their income toward housing.
NA-15 Disproportionately Greater Need: Housing Problems
Eighty-nine percent of Asian households in the 30-50% AMI category experience housing
problems, compared to 71 percent of the jurisdiction as a whole.
Ninety-three percent of Asian households in the 50-80% AMI category experience housing
problems, compared to 71 percent of the jurisdiction as a whole.
More than three-quarters of Hispanic households (78 percent) in the 80-100% AMI category
experience housing problems, compared to a nearly half (54 percent) of the jurisdiction as a
whole.
NA-20 Disproportionately Greater Need: Severe Housing Problems
More than half of Asian households in the 30-50% AMI income category experience severe
housing problems in the City, compared to 43 percent of the jurisdiction as a whole.
More than three-quarters of Asian households (77 percent) in the 50-80% AMI category
experience a disproportionate amount of severe housing problems, compared to 40 percent
of the jurisdiction as a whole.
Forty-five percent of Hispanic households in the 80-100% AMI category experience a
disproportionate amount of severe housing problems, compared to 23 percent of the
jurisdiction as a whole.
NA-25 Disproportionately Greater Need: Housing Cost Burdens
Hispanic households experience a disproportionate cost burden, with 27 percent of
households experiencing cost burden, compared to 16 percent of the City as a whole.
American Indian, Alaska Native households experience a disproportionate severe cost
burden, with 33 percent of households experiencing cost burden, compared to 13 percent of
the City as a whole.
NA-35 Public Housing
The Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara (HACSC) assists approximately 17,000
households through the federal Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program (Section 8).
The Section 8 waiting list contains 21,256 households – this is estimated to be a 10-year wait.
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 42
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
NA-40 Homeless Needs
The Santa Clara region is home to the fourth-largest population of homeless individuals and
the highest percentage of unsheltered homeless of any major city.
As of the 2013 Point in Time Homeless Survey, Palo Alto had 157 homeless residents, and over
90 percent were unsheltered and living in a place not fit for human habitation.
Palo Alto clients – those who report that their last permanent zip code was in Palo Alto –
represent approximately one percent of the County’s homeless clients.
NA-45 Non-Homeless Special Needs
Individuals 65 years of age and older represent 17 percent of the total population of the City.
Thirty-three percent of households in the City contain at least one person 62 years or older.
More than one-quarter of individuals (27 percent) age 65 or older have a disability compared
to four percent of the population age 18 to 64, or seven percent of the population as a
whole.
NA-50 Non-Housing Community Development Needs
• Residents and stakeholders who participated in the community outreach for the
Consolidated Plan identified the following community development needs as high priorities
within these three categories:
o Public Facilities: increased homeless facilities, youth centers, rehabilitation of senior
centers, and recreational facilities throughout the County
o Public Improvements: complete streets that accommodate multiple transportation
modes, pedestrian safety, ADA curb improvements, and increased access to parks
and open space amenities
o Public Services: food assistance and nutrition programs for vulnerable populations,
year-round activities for youth, health care services for seniors and low income
families, and services for homeless persons
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 43
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
NA-10 Housing Needs Assessment - 24 CFR 91.205 (a, b, c)
Introduction
This section provides an overview of the housing needs present in the City, including the degree and
distribution of housing problems within multiple income brackets. Within the Comprehensive
Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data, HUD identifies four housing problems:
1) Housing unit lacking complete kitchen facilities
2) Housing unit lacking complete plumbing facilities
3) Household being overcrowded
4) Housing being cost burdened
In addition, HUD defines severe housing problems as:
Severely overcrowded, with more than 1.5 persons per room
Severely cost burdened families paying more than 50 percent of income toward housing
costs (including utilities)
A household is considered to be overcrowded if there is more than one person per room and
severely overcrowded if there are more than 1.5 people per room.
A household is considered to be cost burdened if the household is spending more than 30 percent of
its monthly income on housing costs (including utilities) and severely cost burdened if the household
is spending more than 50 percent of its monthly income on housing costs (including utilities).
Table 5 - Housing Needs Assessment Demographics (City)
Demographics Base Year: 2000 Most Recent Year: 2012 % Change
Population 58,598 64,514 10%
Households 25,216 26,244 <1%
Median Income $90,377 $122,482 36%
Data Source: 2000 Census (Base Year), 2008-2012 ACS (Most Recent Year)
Table 6 - Total Households (City)
0-30% AMI >30-50%
AMI
>50-80%
AMI
>80-100%
AMI
>100% AMI
Total Households * 2,565 1,674 1,610 1,495 18,460
Small Family Households * 395 390 580 525 9,150
Large Family Households * 95 70 30 10 1,345
Household Contains at Least One Person
62-74 Years of Age
550 405 360 320 3,035
Household Contains at Least One Person
Age 75 or Older
860 449 325 285 1,875
Households With One or More Children 6
Years Old or Younger *
90 165 200 120 2,150
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 44
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
0-30% AMI >30-50%
AMI
>50-80%
AMI
>80-100%
AMI
>100% AMI
* The highest income category for these family types is >80% AMI
Data Source: 2007-2011 CHAS
Table 7 - Housing Problems (City)
Renter Households Owner Households
0-30%
AMI
>30-
50%
AMI
>50-
80%
AMI
>80-
100%
AMI
Total 0-30%
AMI
>30-
50%
AMI
>50-
80%
AMI
>80-
100%
AMI
Total
NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS
Substandard
Housing - Lacking
Complete
Plumbing or
Kitchen Facilities
130 50 0 35 215 45 10 0 0 55
Severely
Overcrowded -
With >1.51 People
Per Room (and
Complete
Kitchen and
Plumbing)
55 0 35 25 115 0 0 0 0 0
Overcrowded -
With 1.01---1.5
People Per Room
(and None of the
Above Problems)
30 15 40 20 105 0 50 0 0 50
Housing Cost
Burden Greater
Than 50 Percent
of Income (and
None of the
Above Problems)
715 395 225 145 1,480 625 154 265 125 1,169
Housing Cost
Burden Greater
Than 30 Percent
of Income (and
None of the
Above Problems)
175 415 450 330 1,370 65 105 85 70 325
Zero/Negative
Income (and
None of the
Above Problems)
115 0 0 0 115 80 0 0 0 80
Data Source: 2007-2011 CHAS
Table 8 - Severe Housing Problems (City)
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 45
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Renter Households Owner Households
0-
30%
AMI
>30-
50%
AMI
>50-
80%
AMI
>80-
100%
AMI
Total 0-
30%
AMI
>30-
50%
AMI
>50-
80%
AMI
>80-
100%
AMI
Total
NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS
Having One or More of Four Housing
Problems
925 460 300 230 1,915 670 219 265 125 1,279
Having None of Four Housing
Problems
610 520 540 600 2,270 165 475 505 540 1,685
Household Has Negative Income, but
None of the Other Housing Problems
115 0 0 0 115 80 0 0 0 80
Data Source: 2007-2011 CHAS
Table 9 - Cost Burden > 30% (City)
Renter Households Owner Households
0-30%
AMI
>30-50%
AMI
>50-
80%
AMI
Total 0-30%
AMI
>30-50%
AMI
>50-
80%
AMI
Total
NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS
Small Related 145 320 250 715 150 55 150 355
Large Related 50 10 20 80 45 0 0 45
Elderly 500 200 140 840 370 159 160 689
Other 340 340 300 980 175 40 35 250
Total Need by Income 1,035 870 710 2,615 740 254 345 1,339
Data Source: 2007-2011 CHAS
Table 10 - Cost Burden > 50% (City)
Renter Households Owner Households
0-30%
AMI
>30-50%
AMI
>50-
80%
AMI
Total 0-30%
AMI
>30-50%
AMI
>50-
80%
AMI
Total
NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS
Small Related 105 195 60 360 140 35 120 295
Large Related 50 0 0 50 45 0 0 45
Elderly 345 120 50 515 315 89 120 524
Other 310 105 120 535 175 30 20 225
Total Need by Income 810 420 230 1,460 675 154 260 1,089
Data Source: 2007-2011 CHAS
Table 11 - Crowding Information (City)
Renter Households Owner Households
0-
30%
AMI
>30-
50%
AMI
>50-
80%
AMI
>80-
100%
AMI
Total 0-
30%
AMI
>30-
50%
AMI
>50-
80%
AMI
>80-
100%
AMI
Total
NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS
Single-Family Households 100 15 75 55 245 0 0 0 0 0
Multiple, Unrelated Family
Households
0 0 0 0 0 0 50 0 0 50
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 46
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Renter Households Owner Households
0-
30%
AMI
>30-
50%
AMI
>50-
80%
AMI
>80-
100%
AMI
Total 0-
30%
AMI
>30-
50%
AMI
>50-
80%
AMI
>80-
100%
AMI
Total
Other, Non-Family Households 0 0 0 10 10 0 0 0 0 0
Total Need by Income 100 15 75 65 255 0 50 0 0 50
Data Source: 2007-2011 CHAS
Table 12 - Households with Children Present (City)
Renter Households Owner Households
0-30%
AMI
>30-
50%
AMI
>50-80%
AMI
Total 0-30%
AMI
>30-50%
AMI
>50-80%
AMI
Total
Households with
Children Present
75 115 165 355 15 50 35 100
Data Source: 2007-2011 CHAS
What are the most common housing problems?
One-third (33 percent) of City households report at least one housing problem, while 17 percent
report at least one severe housing problem.
Cost Burden
Cost burden is the most common housing problem:
Twenty-nine percent of households (6,870 households) in the City are paying more than 30
percent of their income toward housing costs.
Severe Cost Burden
Severe housing cost burden is the second most common housing problem:
Thirteen percent of households (3,095 households) are severely cost burdened and paying
more than 50 percent of their income toward housing.
Overcrowding
The third most common housing problem is overcrowding:
One percent of households (305 households) are overcrowded, with more than one person
per room.
Seventy-nine percent of overcrowded households (190 households) are LMI.
Are any populations/household types more affected than others by these problems?
LMI renter households are much more likely to experience cost burden, with 47 percent of LMI
renter households (2,375) paying more than 30 percent of their income toward housing costs,
compared to 26 percent of LMI owner households (1,299). Additionally, 26 percent of renter
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 47
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
households (1,335) are paying more than 50 percent of their income toward housing costs are LMI,
compared to 21 percent of owner households (1,044).
Renter households are more likely to be overcrowded than owner households, with two percent of
renter households experiencing overcrowding compared to a negligible amount of owner
households (.3 percent or 50 households). Additionally, 75 percent of renter households
experiencing overcrowding are LMI.
Describe the characteristics and needs of Low income individuals and families with children
(especially extremely low income) who are currently housed but are at imminent risk of either
residing in shelters or becoming unsheltered 91.205(c)/91.305(c)). Also discuss the needs of
formerly homeless families and individuals who are receiving rapid re-housing assistance and are
nearing the termination of that assistance.
Rapid-rehousing
The County is home to several agencies providing rapid-rehousing assistance to households in need.
One example is the California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) program,
which serves over 12,000 families annually in the region (nearly 30,000 men, women, and children).
According to the Santa Clara County Social Services Agency, “Twenty‐nine percent of CalWORKs
families included adults with earned wages, with the median earnings for CalWORKs families at
$2,013 for three months. Taking into account the earned wages, the maximum monthly CalWORKs
benefit for a family of four, and other government assistance income (CalFresh, Earned Income Tax
Credit, and other unearned income), a CalWORKs family in Santa Clara County would have a monthly
income of approximately $1,928. To afford the area FMR, a CalWORKs family would have to expend
86% of their monthly income on rent.” 23
Additionally, Help Management Information System (HMIS) data indicates that in the last year,
homeless and housing service providers assisted 52,805 individuals in families—15,024 of whom were
homeless at the time of service (40 percent were under the age of 18).24 Forty-six percent of the
families receiving assistance were unemployed and 31 percent were receiving CalWORKs assistance.
In Fiscal Year 2013-2014, the number of CalWORKs households receiving HUD services increased by
nearly 70 percent since 2011.25
Currently Housed and At Imminent Risk
The numbers below do not reflect any formerly homeless families or individuals who are receiving
rapid re-housing assistance and are nearing the termination of that assistance.
Table 13 lists the number of extremely low income Section 8 participants at 30% AMI or below.
HACSC does not collect information on the specific characteristics of this population.
Table 13 - Section 8 Participants at 0-30% AMI (County)
Income Limit Category At 30% or Below
23 Santa Clara County Social Services Agency, 2014
24 Ibid
25 Ibid
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 48
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Income Limit Category At 30% or Below
1 Person
6,292
2 Persons 3,580
3 Persons 1,813
4 Persons 1,378
5 Persons 829
6 Persons 399
7 Persons 166
8 Persons 50
Total 14,507
Data Source: HACSC
If a jurisdiction provides estimates of the at-risk population(s), it should also include a description
of the operational definition of the at-risk group and the methodology used to generate the
estimates.
At-risk of homelessness is defined as households receiving Section 8 assistance whose gross annual
income equals 30% or less than the current Area Median Incomes per family size.
Specify particular housing characteristics that have been linked with instability and an increased
risk of homelessness.
Severe cost burden is the greatest predictor of homelessness risk, with populations paying more
than 50 percent of their income on housing costs or having incomes at or below 50% AMI are at
greatest risk of becoming homeless.
Thirteen percent of households (3,505) in the City are severely cost burdened.
Ten percent (2,565 households) are severely cost burdened and earning below 30% AMI.
Sixteen percent (4,240 households) are severely cost burdened and earning below 50% AMI.
Figure 1 displays the primary causes of homelessness cited by respondents to the 2013 homeless
census. From the census: “Forty percent (40%) reported job loss, up from 27 percent in 2011.
Seventeen percent (17%) reported alcohol and drug use as the primary cause, followed by eviction at
12 percent (up from 5% in 2011). While it was not one of the top five responses, 8 percent of survey
respondents reported family/domestic violence as the primary cause of their homelessness.”26
This data suggests that inability to find affordable housing and the need for supportive services, such
as drug and alcohol rehabilitation, might be the main indicators of increased risk of homelessness.
Figure 1 – Top Five Causes of Homelessness (County)
26 Applied Survey Research. “Santa Clara County Homeless Census & Survey.” 2013.
http://www.appliedsurveyresearch.org/storage/database/homelessness/santaclara_sanjose/2013%20Homeless%20Census%2
0and%20Survey%20Santa%20Clara%206%2028%2013.pdf
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 49
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Data Source: 2013 Santa Clara County Homeless Census & Survey
Data Source
Comments:
2013 N=818, 2011 N=997
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 50
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Discussion
Please see discussion above.
Describe the number and type of single person households in need of housing assistance.
There are 1,769 single person households in the County on the Section 8 waiting list. The waiting list
has been closed since 2006, and is not expected to reopen in the near future.
Within the City, there are approximately 19 single person sheltered homeless on a given night.27
Jurisdiction-specific data is not available for unsheltered homeless in this subpopulation.
Estimate the number and type of families in need of housing assistance who are disabled or victims
of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking.
There are 1,241 disabled Head of Households on Section 8 waiting list. HACSC does not keep records
of assisted/non-assisted families that are victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual
assault, or stalking.
Within the City, there is one sheltered homeless individual who is in need of housing assistance on a
given night and are victims of domestic violence. Jurisdiction-specific data is not available for
unsheltered homeless in this subpopulation.
27 Community Technology Alliance (CTA). Data includes individuals and households who are “Literally Homeless” or
“Category 1 Homeless” – those staying in Emergency Shelter, Transitional Housing and Safe Haven. CTA also collects data
from agencies that primarily serve people who are at-risk of homelessness.
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 51
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
NA-15 Disproportionately Greater Need: Housing Problems – 91.205 (b) (2)
Assess the need of any racial or ethnic group that has disproportionately greater need in comparison
to the needs of that category of need as a whole.
Introduction
Per HUD definitions, a disproportionate need exists when any group has a housing need that is 10
percent or higher than the jurisdiction as a whole. This section presents the extent of housing
problems and identifies populations that have a disproportionately greater need.
Table 14 - Disproportionately Greater Need 0 - 30% AMI (City)
Housing Problems Has One or More of
Four Housing
Problems
Has None of the
Four Housing
Problems
Household has
No/Negative
Income, but None of
the Other Housing
Problems
Jurisdiction as a Whole 1,670 550 115
White 935 380 45
Black / African American 55 35 10
Asian 445 85 55
American Indian, Alaska Native 20 0 0
Pacific Islander 0 0 0
Hispanic 210 50 0
Data Source: 2007-2011 CHAS
* The four housing problems are: 1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities, 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities, 3. More than one person per
room, 4.Cost Burden greater than 30%
Table 15 - Disproportionately Greater Need 30 - 50% AMI (City)
Housing Problems Has One or More of
Four Housing
Problems
Has None of the
Four Housing
Problems
Household has
No/Negative
Income, but None of
the Other Housing
Problems
Jurisdiction as a Whole 1,140 475 0
White 680 410 0
Black / African American 130 40 0
Asian 195 25 0
American Indian, Alaska Native 0 0 0
Pacific Islander 0 0 0
Hispanic 90 0 0
Data Source: 2007-2011 CHAS
* The four housing problems are: 1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities, 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities, 3. More than one person per
room, 4.Cost Burden greater than 30%
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 52
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Table 16 - Disproportionately Greater Need 50 - 80% AMI (City)
Housing Problems Has One or More of
Four Housing
Problems
Has None of the
Four Housing
Problems
Household has
No/Negative
Income, but None of
the Other Housing
Problems
Jurisdiction as a Whole 590 245 0
White 295 205 0
Black / African American 0 0 0
Asian 200 15 0
American Indian, Alaska Native 0 10 0
Pacific Islander 0 0 0
Hispanic 40 15 0
Data Source: 2007-2011 CHAS
* The four housing problems are: 1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities, 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities, 3. More than one person per
room, 4.Cost Burden greater than 30%
Table 17 - Disproportionately Greater Need 80 - 100% AMI (City)
Housing Problems Has One or More of
Four Housing
Problems
Has None of the Four
Housing Problems
Household has
No/Negative
Income, but None of
the Other Housing
Problems
Jurisdiction as a Whole 750 635 0
White 515 435 0
Black / African American 10 55 0
Asian 175 120 0
American Indian, Alaska Native 0 10 0
Pacific Islander 0 0 0
Hispanic 49 14 0
Data Source: 2007-2011 CHAS
* The four housing problems are: 1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities, 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities, 3. More than one person per
room, 4.Cost Burden greater than 30%
Table 18 - Disproportionately Greater Need – Housing Problems (County)
Housing Problems 0-30% AMI 30-50% AMI 50-80% AMI 80-100% AMI
# % # % # % # %
Jurisdiction as a Whole 1,670 75% 1,140 71% 590 71% 750 54%
White 935 71% 680 62% 295 59% 515 54%
Black / African American 55 61% 130 76% 0 0% 10 15%
Asian 445 84% 195 89% 200 93% 175 59%
American Indian, Alaska Native 20 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Pacific Islander 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Hispanic 210 81% 90 100% 40 73% 49 78%
Data Source: 2007-2011 CHAS
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 53
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Discussion
The 0-30% AMI income bracket is the only category that does not include a racial/ethnic group that is
disproportionately affected by one or more of the four housing problems (although Hispanic
households were only one percent away from the 10 percent threshold). The following provides a
summary of the racial/ethnic groups disproportionately affected by housing problems in all other
income groups:
Eighty-nine percent of Asian households (195 households) in the 30-50% AMI category
experience housing problems, compared to 71 percent of the jurisdiction as a whole.
Ninety-three percent of Asian households (200 households) in the 50-80% AMI category
experience housing problems, compared to 71 percent of the jurisdiction as a whole.
More than three-quarters of Hispanic households (78 percent or 49 households) in the 80-
100% AMI category experience housing problems, compared to a nearly half (54 percent) of
the jurisdiction as a whole.
Note: Due to insufficient data, the analysis for the 0-30% AMI income category does not include
American Indian, Alaska Native or Pacific Islander households. For households in the 30-50% AMI
income category, the analysis does not include American Indian, Alaska Native, Pacific Islander, or
Hispanic households. For households in the 50-80% AMI income category, the analysis does not
include Black/African American, American Indian, Alaska Native, or Pacific Islander households.
Additionally, households with no/negative income are not counted in the analysis, as they cannot by
definition have a cost burden, although they still may require housing assistance.
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 54
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
NA-20 Disproportionately Greater Need: Severe Housing Problems – 91.205 (b)
(2)
Assess the need of any racial or ethnic group that has disproportionately greater need in comparison
to the needs of that category of need as a whole.
Introduction:
Per HUD definitions, a disproportionate need exists when any group has a housing need that is 10
percent or higher than the jurisdiction as a whole. A household is considered severely overcrowded
when there are more than 1.5 persons per room and is severely cost-burdened when paying more
than 50 percent of its income toward housing costs, including utilities. This section analyzes the
extent of severe housing problems and identifies populations that have a disproportionately greater
need.
Table 19 - Severe Housing Problems 0 - 30% AMI (City)
Severe Housing Problems* Has One or More of
Four Housing
Problems
Has None of the
Four Housing
Problems
Household has
No/Negative
Income, but None of
the Other Housing
Problems
Jurisdiction as a Whole 1,410 810 115
White 805 500 45
Black / African American 45 40 10
Asian 355 175 55
American Indian, Alaska Native 20 0 0
Pacific Islander 0 0 0
Hispanic 165 90 0
Data Source: 2007-2011 CHAS
* The four severe housing problems are: 1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities, 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities, 3. More than 1.5 persons
per room, 4.Cost Burden over 50%
Table 20 - Severe Housing Problems 30 - 50% AMI (City)
Severe Housing Problems* Has One or More of
Four Housing
Problems
Has None of the
Four Housing
Problems
Household has
No/Negative
Income, but None of
the Other Housing
Problems
Jurisdiction as a Whole 700 910 0
White 440 650 0
Black / African American 80 90 0
Asian 125 90 0
American Indian, Alaska Native 0 0 0
Pacific Islander 0 0 0
Hispanic 30 60 0
*The four severe housing problems are: 1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities, 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities, 3. More than 1.5 persons
per room, 4.Cost Burden over 50%
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 55
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Table 21 - Severe Housing Problems 50 - 80% AMI (City)
Severe Housing Problems* Has One or More of
Four Housing
Problems
Has None of the
Four Housing
Problems
Household has
No/Negative
Income, but None of
the Other Housing
Problems
Jurisdiction as a Whole 335 500 0
White 120 380 0
Black / African American 0 0 0
Asian 165 50 0
American Indian, Alaska Native 0 10 0
Pacific Islander 0 0 0
Hispanic 25 30 0
Data Source: 2007-2011 CHAS
* The four severe housing problems are: 1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities, 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities, 3. More than 1.5 persons
per room, 4.Cost Burden over 50%
Table 22 - Severe Housing Problems 80 - 100% AMI (City)
Severe Housing Problems* Has One or More of
Four Housing
Problems
Has None of the
Four Housing
Problems
Household has
No/Negative
Income, but None of
the Other Housing
Problems
Jurisdiction as a Whole 315 1,070 0
White 205 735 0
Black / African American 0 65 0
Asian 85 210 0
American Indian, Alaska Native 0 10 0
Pacific Islander 0 0 0
Hispanic 29 35 0
Data Source: 2007-2011 CHAS
* The four severe housing problems are: 1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities, 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities, 3. More than 1.5 persons
per room, 4.Cost Burden over 50%
Table 23 - Disproportionately Greater Need – Severe Housing Problems (City)
Severe Housing Problems 0-30% AMI 30-50% AMI 50-80% AMI 80-100% AMI
# % # % # % # %
Jurisdiction as a Whole 1,410 64% 700 43% 335 40% 315 23%
White 805 62% 440 40% 120 24% 205 22%
Black / African American 45 53% 80 47% 0 0% 0 0%
Asian 355 67% 125 58% 165 77% 85 29%
American Indian, Alaska Native 20 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0% 0%
Pacific Islander 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0% 0%
Hispanic 165 65% 30 33% 25 45% 29 45%
Data Source: 2007-2011 CHAS
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 56
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Discussion:
The 0-30% AMI income bracket does not include any racial/ethnic groups that are disproportionately
affected by one or more of the four severe housing problems. The following provides a summary of
the racial/ethnic groups that experience disproportionate need in the 30-50% AMI, 50-80% AMI, and
80-100% income categories:
More than half of Asian households (58 percent) in the 30-50% AMI income category
experience severe housing problems in the City, compared to 43 percent of the jurisdiction as
a whole.
More than three-quarters of Asian households (77 percent or 165 households) in the 50-80%
AMI category experience a disproportionate amount of severe housing problems, compared
to 40 percent of the jurisdiction as a whole.
Forty-five percent of Hispanic households (29 households) in the 80-100% AMI category
experience a disproportionate amount of severe housing problems, compared to 23 percent
of the jurisdiction as a whole.
Note: Due to insufficient data, the analysis for the 0-30% AMI and 30-50% AMI income categories does
not include American Indian, Alaska Native or Pacific Islander households. For households in the 50-
80% and 80-100% AMI income categories, the analysis does not include Black/African American,
American Indian, Alaska Native, or Pacific Islander households. Additionally, households with
no/negative income are not counted in the analysis, as they cannot by definition have a cost burden,
although they still may require housing assistance.
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 57
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
NA-25 Disproportionately Greater Need: Housing Cost Burdens – 91.205 (b) (2)
Assess the need of any racial or ethnic group that has disproportionately greater need in comparison
to the needs of that category of need as a whole.
Introduction:
Per HUD definitions, a disproportionate need exists when any group has a housing need that is 10
percent or higher than the jurisdiction as a whole. A household is considered cost burdened when
paying more than 30 percent of its income toward housing costs, including utilities, and is severely
cost burdened when paying more than 50 percent of its income toward housing costs. This section
analyzes the extent of cost burden and identifies populations that have a disproportionately greater
cost burden.
Table 24 - Greater Need: Housing Cost Burden (City)
Housing Cost Burden <30% 30-50% >50% No / Negative
Income (Not
Computed)
Jurisdiction as a Whole 16,170 3,775 3,095 130
White 12,000 2,395 1,865 60
Black / African American 405 105 125 10
Asian 2,965 895 815 55
American Indian, Alaska
Native
40 0 20 0
Pacific Islander 20 0 0 0
Hispanic 580 295 205 0
Data Source: 2007-2011 CHAS
Table 25 - Disproportionately Greater Cost Burden (City)
Housing Cost Burden <30% 30-50% >50%
# % # % # %
Jurisdiction as a Whole 16,170 70% 3,775 16% 3,095 13%
White 12,000 74% 2,395 15% 1,865 11%
Black / African American 405 64% 105 17% 125 20%
Asian 2,965 63% 895 19% 815 17%
American Indian, Alaska Native 40 67% 0 0% 20 33%
Pacific Islander 20 100% 0 0% 0 0%
Hispanic 580 54% 295 27% 205 19%
Data Source: 2007-2011 CHAS
Discussion
The data indicates that, as a whole, 29 percent of households in the City are cost burdened and
paying greater than 30 percent of their income toward housing costs, while 13 percent are severely
cost burdened and paying more than 50 percent of their income on housing costs.
Among cost burdened households paying more than 30 to 50 percent of their income toward
housing costs, Hispanic households experience a disproportionate need, with 27 percent (297
households) experiencing cost burden, compared to 16 percent of the City as a whole.
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 58
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Among severely cost burdened households paying more than 50 percent of their income toward
housing costs, American Indian, Alaska Native households experience a disproportionate need, with
33 percent (20 households) experiencing cost burden, compared to 13 percent of the City as a whole.
Note: Due to insufficient data, the analysis for households paying more than 30 to 50 percent of their
income toward housing costs does not include Pacific Islander or American Indian, Alaska Native
households. For households paying more than 50 percent of their income toward housing costs, the
analysis does not include Pacific Islander households. Additionally, households with no/negative
income are not counted in the analysis, as they cannot by definition have a cost burden, although
they still may require housing assistance.
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 59
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
NA-30 Disproportionately Greater Need: Discussion – 91.205(b) (2)
Are there any Income categories in which a racial or ethnic group has disproportionately greater
need than the needs of that income category as a whole?
Please see the discussion for NA-15, NA-20, and NA-25. In summary;
For 50-80% AMI households: 60 percent of Asian households experience severe housing
problems, compared to 32 percent of the jurisdiction as a whole.
If they have needs not identified above, what are those needs?
Needs have been previously identified.
Are any of those racial or ethnic groups located in specific areas or neighborhoods in your
community?
Map 1 illustrates the areas of the City that have minority concentration.
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 60
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Map 1 - Areas of Minority Concentration (City)
Data Source: ACS 2007-2011
Data Source
Comment:
Minority concentration is defined as census tracts where the percentage of individuals of a particular racial or ethnic
minority group is at least 20 percentage points higher than the citywide average. Minority refers to all ethnic groups
other than non-Hispanic white.
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 61
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
NA-35 Public Housing – 91.205(b)
Introduction
HACSC assists approximately 17,000 households through the federal Section 8 Housing Choice
Voucher program. The Section 8 waiting list contains 21,256 households, estimated to be a 10-year
wait. HACSC also develops, controls, and manages more than 2,600 affordable rental housing
properties throughout the County. HACSC’s programs are targeted toward LMI households, and
more than 80 percent of its client households are extremely low income families, seniors, veterans,
persons with disabilities, and formerly homeless individuals.28
In 2008 HACSC entered into a ten-year agreement with HUD to become a Moving to Work (MTW)
agency. The MTW program is a federal demonstration program that allows greater flexibility to
design and implement more innovative approaches for providing housing assistance.29 Additionally,
HACSC has used Low Income Housing Tax Credit financing to transform and rehabilitate 535 units of
public housing into HACSC-controlled properties. The agency is an active developer of affordable
housing and has either constructed, rehabilitated, or assisted with the development of more than 30
housing developments that service a variety of households, including special needs households.30
The following tables display the public housing inventory and housing vouchers maintained by
HACSC. HACSC has four two-bedroom family public housing units in its portfolio; they are located in
the City of Santa Clara. Approximately 16,387 housing vouchers are in use countywide.
Table 26 - Public Housing by Program Type (City)
Program Type
Certificate Mod-
Rehab
Public
Housing
Vouchers
Total Project
-based
Tenant
-based
Special Purpose Voucher
Veterans
Affairs
Supportive
Housing
Family
Unification
Program
Disabled
*
# of Units
Vouchers
in Use
0 38 0 252 54 179 18 0 1
* Includes Non-Elderly Disabled, Mainstream One-Year, Mainstream Five-Year, and Nursing Home Transition
Data Source: HACSC
28 Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara. “Welcome to HACSC.” http://www.hacsc.org/
29 HACSC. “Moving to Work (MTW) 2014 Annual Report.” September 2014.
30 Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara. “HACSC.” http://www.hacsc.org/
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 62
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Table 27 - Characteristics of Public Housing Residents by Program Type (City)
Program Type
Palo Alto
Certificate Mod-
Rehab
Public
Housing
Vouchers
Total Project
-based
Tenant
-based
Special Purpose Voucher
Veterans
Affairs
Supportive
Housing
Family
Unification
Program
Average Annual
Income
0 $23,491 0 $14,092 $11,738 $14,703 $15,272 0
Average Length
of Stay (Years)
0 9 0 9 6 11 2 0
Average
Household Size
0 2 0 2 1 2 2 0
# Homeless at
Admission
0 0 0 44 14 12 18 0
# of Elderly
Program
Participants (>62)
0 12 0 158 37 114 7 0
# of Disabled
Families
0 13 0 166 28 130 8 0
# of Families
Requesting
Accessibility
Features
- - - - - - - -
# of HIV/AIDS
Program
Participants
- - - - - - - -
# of DV Victims - - - - - - - -
Data Source: HACSC
Data Source
Comment:
HACSC does not collect information on HIV/AIDs or Domestic Violence households or the number of families
requesting accessibility features.
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 63
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Table 28 - Race of Public Housing Residents by Program Type (City)
Program Type
Race Certificate Mod-
Rehab
Public
Housing
Vouchers
Total Project
-based
Tenant
-based
Special Purpose Voucher
Veterans
Affairs
Supportive
Housing
Family
Unification
Program
Disabled
*
White 0 0 0 167 28 126 12 0 1
Black/African
American
0 0 0 40 9 26 5 0 0
Asian 0 0 0 46 21 24 1 0 0
American
Indian/Alaska
Native
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Native
Hawaiian/Other
Pacific Islander
0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0
Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
* Includes Non-Elderly Disabled, Mainstream One-Year, Mainstream Five-year, and Nursing Home Transition
Data Source: HACSC
Table 29 - Ethnicity of Public Housing Residents by Program Type (City)
Program Type
Ethnicity Certificate Mod-
Rehab
Public
Housing
Vouchers
Total Project
-based
Tenant
-based
Special Purpose Voucher
Veterans
Affairs
Supportive
Housing
Family
Unification
Program
Disabled
*
Hispanic 0 8 0 33 6 17 5 0 5
Not
Hispanic
0 31 0 220 49 142 14 0 15
* Includes Non-Elderly Disabled, Mainstream One-Year, Mainstream Five-year, and Nursing Home Transition
Data Source: HACSC
Section 504 Needs Assessment: Describe the needs of public housing tenants and applicants on the
waiting list for accessible units.
None of the four public housing units owned and managed by HACSC are accessible, and information
about the need for accessible units is not collected for waiting list applicants.
Most immediate needs of residents of Public Housing and Housing Choice voucher holders
In January 2013, HACSC randomly sampled 1,500 of its Section 8 participants to better understand
the types of services and/or resources needed to increase their self-sufficiency. Approximately 400
participants responded. Table 30 below identified the services requested and the number of
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 64
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
participants that requested that service. Affordable healthcare, job training, basic computer skills,
English as a second language, and job placement resources were among the top most-identified
services. The majority of these services are related to workforce training, showing the need for
economic development among Section 8 participants. The selection of affordable healthcare as the
highest need indicates the need for additional health-related services.
Table 30 - Resources Requested by Section 8 Participants (County)
Rank Services/Resources # Participants Requesting
Service
% Participants Requesting
Service
1 Affordable Healthcare 122 11%
2 Job Training 114 10%
3 Basic Computer Skills 113 10%
4 Nothing 102 9%
5 English as a Second
Language
96 8%
6 Job Placement 94 8%
7 Post-Secondary Education 79 7%
8 Transportation Assistance 79 7%
9 Job Search Skills 68 6%
10 Legal Assistance 61 5%
11 HS Diploma/GED 53 5%
12 Affordable Childcare 53 5%
13 Financial Planning 53 5%
14 Credit Repair/Credit
History
50 4%
15 Substance Abuse/Mental
Health Counseling
21 2%
Total 1,137 100%
Data Source: HACSC
Data Source
Comment: Totals may not add to 100% due to rounding. N= 400, multiple resources could be selected by each respondent.
Discussion
Please see discussions above.
NA-40 Homeless Needs Assessment – 91.205(c)
Introduction
As was previously discussed, the Santa Clara region is home to the fourth-largest population of
homeless individuals (6,681 single individuals),31 and the highest percentage of unsheltered homeless
of any major city (75 percent of homeless people sleep in places unfit for human habitation). The
homeless assistance program planning network is governed by the Santa Clara Continuum of Care
(CoC), governed by the Destination: Home Leadership Board, who serves as the Continuum of Care
(CoC) Board of Directors. The membership of the CoC is a collaboration of representatives from local
jurisdictions comprised of community-based organizations, the Housing Authority of Santa Clara,
governmental departments, health service agencies, homeless advocates, consumers, the faith
31 The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. “2014 Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR) to
Congress.” October 2014. https://www.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/AHAR-2014-Part1.pdf
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 65
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
community, and research, policy and planning groups. The homeless services system utilized by the
CoC is referred to as the Homeless Management Information System (HMIS). The HMIS monitors
outcomes and performance measures for all the homeless services agencies funded by the County.
HMIS Methodology
Data provided in this section is for Fiscal Year 2014 (July 1, 2013 – June 30, 2014). CTA reports
jurisdictional data based on clients’ self-reported last permanent zip codes. The last permanent zip
code is the zip code area that the client lived in when s/he last lived in permanent housing (e.g. rental
house/apartment, own home, living with friends/relatives with permanent tenure). This reporting
method was adopted by CDBG program coordinators from the various jurisdictions within the
County and was preferred over reporting the clients served by service providers within each
jurisdiction, as shelter and transitional housing services are largely centralized within San Jose and
not equitably distributed throughout the County. Numbers reported are based on actual HMIS data
yet are still considered estimates as they are averages and/or include proportional representations of
clients for whom no last permanent zip code was recorded (15% of all clients served 7/1/2013 –
6/30/2014 report no last permanent zip code). Palo Alto clients – those who report that their last
permanent zip code was in Palo Alto – represent approximately one percent of the County’s
homeless clients.
Homeless Point-in-Time Census and Survey32
The Santa Clara County CoC’s Homeless Census and Survey is conducted every two years and consists of
data collected on the sheltered and unsheltered homeless population. Sheltered homeless include those
occupying shelter beds on the night of the count. Data describing the number of sheltered homeless
persons are obtained from HMIS where possible, and collected directly from providers not using HMIS
as needed. Unsheltered homeless are counted by direct observation, and community volunteers
partnered with homeless guides canvas the regions by car and on foot during the early morning hours of
the chosen nights. A large subset of the sheltered and unsheltered population is subsequently surveyed,
providing data that is then used to estimate demographic details of the homeless population as a whole
at a single point-in-time.
32 Applied Survey Research. “Santa Clara County Homeless Census & Survey.” 2013.
http://www.appliedsurveyresearch.org/storage/database/homelessness/santaclara_sanjose/2013%20Homeless%20Census%2
0and%20Survey%20Santa%20Clara%206%2028%2013.pdf
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 66
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Figure 2 – Homeless by Jurisdiction
Data Source: 2013 Santa Clara County Homeless Census & Survey
Data Source Comments: Jurisdiction determined geographic distribution, not last permanent zip code.
The Santa Clara 2013 Homeless Point-in-Time Census and Survey was performed using HUD
recommended practices for counting and surveying homeless individuals. This study included a field
enumeration of homeless individuals residing in Santa Clara County on January 29 and January 30,
2013. On January 29, the cities of Gilroy and Organ Hill, portions of the cities of Campbell, Los Gatos,
Milpitas, San Jose, and the unincorporated areas in the eastern and southwestern parts of the
county were enumerated. The following morning, January 30, remaining portions of the cities of
Campbell, Milpitas, Los Gatos, and San Jose; the cities of Cupertino, Monte Sereno, Mountain View,
Los Gatos Hills, Palo Alto, Saratoga, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, and the unincorporated areas in the
northwestern part of the county were enumerated. Figure 2 shows the geographic distribution of
sheltered and unsheltered homeless persons in Santa Clara County.33
33 Applied Survey Research. “Santa Clara County Homeless Census & Survey.” 2013.
http://www.appliedsurveyresearch.org/storage/database/homelessness/santaclara_sanjose/2013%20Homeless%20Census%2
0and%20Survey%20Santa%20Clara%206%2028%2013.pdf
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 67
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
The following definitions below provide the methodology for Table 31:
Definitions
# Experiencing Homelessness Each Year – unduplicated count of all persons enrolled during
the program year
# Becoming Homeless Each Year – unduplicated count of persons appearing in HMIS for the
first time during the year
# Exiting Homelessness Each Year – unduplicated count of persons exiting programs to a
permanent destination as defined by HUD
# of Days Persons Experience Homelessness – average of the sums of the lengths of stay for
each person
Table 31 - Homeless Needs Assessment (City/County)
Population
Estimate the # of persons
experiencing homelessness
on a given night
Estimate the
#
experiencing
homelessness
each year
Estimate
the #
becoming
homeless
each year
Estimate the
# exiting
homelessness
each year
Estimate the
# of days
persons
experience
homelessness Sheltered
(Palo Alto)
*Unsheltered
(Countywide)
Persons in
Households with
Adult(s) and
Child(ren)
1 956 9 3 * *
Persons in
Households with
Only Children
0 183 2 1 * *
Persons in
Households with
Only Adults
19 5,435 85 20 * *
Chronically
Homeless
Individuals
(Persons)
4 2,250 20 2 * *
Chronically 0 9 1 1 * *
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 68
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Population
Estimate the # of persons
experiencing homelessness
on a given night
Estimate the
#
experiencing
homelessness
each year
Estimate
the #
becoming
homeless
each year
Estimate the
# exiting
homelessness
each year
Estimate the
# of days
persons
experience
homelessness Sheltered
(Palo Alto)
*Unsheltered
(Countywide)
Homeless Families
(Households)
Veterans 6 579 20 5 * *
Unaccompanied
Child
0 203 2 1 * *
Persons with HIV 0 93 2 0 * *
Severely Mentally
Ill
4 2,872 30 7 * *
Chronically
Substance Abuse
1 1,010 12 2 * *
Victims of
Domestic Violence
1 431 7 1 * *
Data Source: HMIS Santa Clara County
Data Source
Comment:
This data reflects reports for all HMIS clients who self-declared that their last permanent zip code was in Palo Alto, and
a proportional inclusion of clients who did not declare a last permanent zip code. “Given Night” estimates derived by
taking average from four points in time. *For unsheltered populations, the data presented is aggregate for the County
– current methodologies do not break down subpopulation data by jurisdiction.
**Data is not available on “Estimate the # exiting homelessness each year” and “Estimate the # of days persons
experience homelessness” is not available for multiple populations, please refer to Table 32 and Table 33.
If data is not available for the categories "number of persons becoming and exiting homelessness
each year," and "number of days that persons experience homelessness," describe these
categories for each homeless population type (including chronically homeless individuals and
families, families with children, veterans and their families, and unaccompanied youth).
While data for each specific homeless subpopulation is not available, as shown in Table 32 and Table
33, there is data for the number exiting homelessness and the average days to obtain housing.
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 69
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Table 32 - Exited Homelessness (City)
Project Type # Of Clients Who Obtained Permanent Housing
Emergency Shelter 5
Transitional Housing 2
Rapid Re-Housing 1
Data
Source:
HMIS Santa Clara County
Table 33 - Days to Housing (County)
Project Type Average Days to Housing
Emergency Shelter 61.6
Transitional Housing 319.9
Rapid Re-Housing 84
Data
Source:
HMIS Santa Clara County
Nature and Extent of Homelessness: (Optional)
Table 34 - Race and Ethnic Group of Homeless (City)
Race Sheltered
White 33
Black or African American 28
Asian 4
American Indian or Alaska Native 2
Native Hawaii or Pacific Islander 0
Multiple Races 0
Ethnicity Sheltered
Hispanic 19
Non-Hispanic 65
Data Source: HMIS Santa Clara County
Data Source
Comment:
HMIS data filtered for clients reporting a Palo Alto zip code as their last permanent zip code. Race/Ethnicity for four
points in time were averaged. Ethnicity data includes clients for whom race data is not known.
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 70
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Estimate the number and type of families in need of housing assistance for families with children
and the families of veterans.
Between 2013 and 2014 one veteran household with children were served by Santa Clara County
HMIS Partner Agencies.34 A total of four households with children (including the one veteran
household) were served.
Discussion
Please see discussions above.
34 CTA 2013-2014. Includes households who reported their last permanent zip code as Palo Alto.
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 71
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
NA-45 Non-Homeless Special Needs Assessment - 91.205 (b, d)
Introduction
The following section addresses the needs of special populations and the special housing and service
needs they might require. The special needs populations considered in this section include:
Elderly households
Persons with disabilities
Large households
Female-headed households
Persons living with AIDS/HIV and their families
Describe the characteristics of special needs populations in your community:
Elderly Households
HUD defines elderly as age 62 and older, and frail elderly as persons who require assistance with
three or more activities of daily living such as eating, bathing, walking, and performing light
housework. The U.S. Census commonly defines older adults as those aged 65 and older. For the
purposes of this analysis, the term elderly refers to those over the age of 62.
Elderly residents generally face a unique set of housing needs, largely due to physical limitations,
lower household incomes, and the rising costs of health care. Unit sizes and access to transit, health
care, and other services are important housing concerns for this population. Housing affordability
represents a key issue for seniors, many of whom are living on fixed incomes. The demand for senior
housing serving various income levels is expected to increase as the baby boom generation ages.35
Seventeen percent of City residents (10,794 individuals) are over the age of 65,36 and 33 percent of
households (8,464) in the City contain at least one person 62 years or older.37 These households are
more likely to be LMI, with 35 percent of households containing at least one person age 62 or older
(2,949households) having incomes below 80% AMI, compared to 23 percent for the City.
Additionally, 43 percent of elderly households in the City are cost burdened and paying more than 30
percent of their income on housing costs, while 29 percent are severely cost burdened and paying
more than 50 percent of their income on housing costs.38
35 Joint Center for Housing Studies. “Housing America’s Older Adults: Meeting the Needs of an Aging Population.” 2014.
http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/sites/jchs.harvard.edu/files/jchs-housing_americas_older_adults_2014.pdf
36 2008-2012 ACS
37 2007-2011 CHAS
38 Ibid
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 72
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Table 35 - Elderly Population (City)
Income 0-30%
AMI
>30-50%
AMI
>50-80%
AMI
>80-100%
AMI
>100%
AMI
Total Households 2,565 1,674 1,610 1,495 18,460
Household Contains at Least One
Person 62-74 Years of Age
550 405 360 320 3,035
Household Contains at Least One
Person Age 75 or Older
860 449 325 285 1,875
Data Source: 2007-2011 CHAS
Persons with Disabilities
HUD defines disability as a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the
major life activities for an individual.
Persons with disabilities can face unique barriers to securing affordable housing that provides them
with the accommodations they need. Persons with disabilities may require units equipped with
wheelchair accessibility or other special features that accommodate physical or sensory limitations.
Access to transit, health care, services, and shopping also are important factors for this population.39
As shown in Table 36 below, more than one-quarter of individuals (27 percent) age 65 or older have a
disability compared to four percent of the population age 18 to 64, or seven percent of the
population as a whole. Of the disabled population 65 years and older, eight percent (803 individuals)
have a self-care difficulty and 16 percent (1,685 individuals) have an independent living difficulty,
resulting in over 2,400 elderly individuals who may require supportive housing accommodations.
Table 36 - Disability Status of Population (City)
Number Percent
Population 18 To 64 Years 38,748
With a Hearing Difficulty 319 1%
With a Vision Difficulty 193 1%
With a Cognitive Difficulty 514 1%
With an Ambulatory Difficulty 518 1%
With a Self-Care Difficulty 338 1%
With an Independent Living Difficulty 524 1%
Total with a Disability (18 to 64 Years Old) 1,441 4%
Population 65 Years and Over 10,505
With a Hearing Difficulty 1,085 10%
With a Vision Difficulty 504 5%
With a Cognitive Difficulty 826 8%
With an Ambulatory Difficulty 1,700 16%
39 National Council on Disability. “The State of Housing in America in the 21st Century: A Disability Perspective.” January
2010. http://www.ncd.gov/publications/2010/Jan192010
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 73
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Number Percent
With a Self-Care Difficulty 803 8%
With an Independent Living Difficulty 1,685 16%
Total with a Disability (65+ Years Old) 2,789 27%
Total Population 4,525 7%
Large Households
The U.S. Census Bureau defines large households as those with five or more persons. Large
households may face challenges finding adequately-sized affordable housing. This may cause larger
families to live in overcrowded conditions and/or overpay for housing. Census data for 2010 shows
that the average household size in the City is 2.44 people. Table 37 below demonstrates that five
percent of all households are large households.
Table 37 - Household Size (City)
Number Percent
1 Person 7982 30%
2 Persons 8386 32%
3 Persons 4091 15%
4 Persons 4106 15%
5 or More Persons 1392 5%
Total Households 26,493 100%
Data Source: 2007-2011 CHAS
Female-Headed Families
Single mothers may have a greater risk of poverty than single fathers due to factors such as the
wage gap between men and women, insufficient training and education for higher earning jobs, and
inadequate or expensive child support services.40 Female-headed families with children may have
unique housing needs such as ease of access to child care, health care, and other supportive services.
Single parent, female-headed households with children under the age of 18 account for
approximately seven percent of all City households. This equates to roughly 1,762 single-mother
families.41
Persons Living with AIDS/HIV and their Families
Stable and affordable housing that is available to persons living with HIV/AIDS and their families
helps assure they have consistent access to the level of medical care and supportive services that are
essential to their health and welfare. Stable and affordable housing can also result in fewer
40 U.C. Berkeley. “Serving Low income Families in Poverty Neighborhoods Using Promising Programs and Practices.”
September 2004. http://cssr.berkeley.edu/pdfs/lowIncomeFam.pdf
41 2008-2012 ACS
Data Source: 2013 ACS
Data Source
Comment:
Totals may not add to 100% due to rounding
Data Source
Comment:
Totals may not add to 100% due to rounding
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 74
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
hospitalizations and decreased emergency room care. In addition, housing assistance, such as short-
term help with rent or mortgage payments, may prevent homelessness among persons with
HIV/AIDS and their families.42
In Santa Clara County, from April 2006 through June 2014, a total of 1,119 cases of HIV were reported;
of these, 1,080 individuals are still living (3% deceased). During the same time period, a total of 4,655
cases of AIDS was reported; 2,327 are still living (50% deceased).43 According to a 2011 Santa Clara
County HIV/AIDS needs assessment survey, the majority of respondents living with HIV/AIDS
represented renters households (71 percent), and 30 percent reported experiencing difficulty getting
housing in the six months prior to the survey.44
What are the housing and supportive service needs of these populations and how are these needs
determined?
Please see discussions above.
Discuss the size and characteristics of the population with HIV/AIDS and their families within the
Eligible Metropolitan Statistical Area.
HIV
Countywide, males represent 85 percent of reported HIV cases. This includes White (45 percent),
Hispanic/Latino (32 percent), African American (12 percent), and Asian/Pacific Islander (9 percent)
males. Thirty-five percent of the 75 newly reported cases in 2010 were of individuals between 20 and
29 years of age, compared with only 14 percent of existing (total living) cases in that age group.45
AIDS
Overall, those living with AIDS are older, with 43 percent age 50 and older, compared to 28 percent
age 50 and older for those with HIV. Additionally, AIDS incidence is most likely seen among
Hispanic/Latino persons (42 percent), followed by Whites (36 percent), Asian Pacific Islanders (11
percent), and African Americans (10 percent). 46
Discussion:
Please see discussions above.
42 National AIDS Housing Coalition. “HOPWA.” http://nationalaidshousing.org/legisadvocacy/hopwa/
43 California Office of AIDS. “HIV/AIDS Surveillance in California.” June 2014.
44 Santa Clara County HIV Planning Council for Prevention and Care. “2012-2014 Comprehensive HIV Prevention & Care Plan
for San José.” 2011.
45 Ibid.
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 75
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
NA-50 Non-Housing Community Development Needs – 91.215 (f)
Describe the jurisdiction’s need for Public Facilities.
The City’s Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Commission’s Final Report makes the following findings: 47
1. The current Public Safety Building (PSB) is not designed to facilitate the efficient flow of
police activities. It is overcrowded and lacks the capacity to accommodate increased use of
technology or future service demands. Additionally, it falls short of Occupational Safety and
Health Administration and other legal specifications.
2. Fire Stations 3 and 4 were built near the midpoint of the last century and are poorly designed
and too small for their current uses.
3. The current PSB and Fire Stations 3 and 4 are vulnerable to damage in a severe earthquake
that could render them inoperable for an extended period.
In order to close the gap between the Palo Alto Police Department’s operating budget and its total
revenues and to aid in the construction of a new public safety building, a ballot measure was
approved in November 2014 to increase taxes to provide for these resources.48
Regional and Community Forums
Regional and community forums were conducted in order to engage the community and highlight
what participants felt were areas that were in need of funding. Participants in these engagement
activities identified the following needs for public facilities:
• Increase the number of homeless facilities across the County.
• Build youth centers and recreational facilities in different locations throughout the County.
• Support modernization and rehabilitation of senior centers.
• Coordinate information services to promote and leverage access to community facilities.
Regional Needs Survey
To gain additional insight on high-priority needs a regional survey was conducted. Respondents rated
the level of need for 14 public facility types in their neighborhoods. The six highest priorities in this
category were:
1. Homeless facilities
2. Facilities for abused, abandoned and/or neglected children
3. Educational facilities
4. Mental health care facilities
5. Youth centers
47 “Palo Alto’s Infrastructure: Catching Up, Keeping Up, and Moving Ahead.” December 2011.
48 City of Palo Alto. “City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update Public Services Draft Existing Conditions Report.” August
2014.
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 76
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
6. Drop-in day center for the homeless
How were these needs determined?
In October 2010, the Palo Alto City Council appointed a 17-member Infrastructure Blue Ribbon
Commission (IBRC) to look out 25 years and tackle a four-part challenge. Their conclusions and
findings are included in their final report.
Additionally, the City has reviewed and profiled existing public services (such as police protection,
fire protection, schools, libraries, and parks and recreation services) in its Comprehensive Plan
Update Public Services Draft Existing Conditions Report,49 which was released in August 2014. This
report discusses the regulatory framework and existing conditions related to public services in the
City in order to provide context for its upcoming Comprehensive Plan Update and Environmental
Impact Report (EIR).
Feedback was gathered from the community needs survey and community forums, where residents
and stakeholders of the City provided input community needs. Please see Appendix A: Citizen
Participation Summary for more detail.
Describe the jurisdiction’s need for Public Improvements:
For a number of years the City has needed to underfund maintenance costs, causing a considerable
backlog of deferred maintenance to accumulate. Among the facilities earmarked for significant
maintenance are the Cubberley Community Center: $7.0 million, streets: $6.1 million, parks: $5.6
million, sidewalks: $3.7 million, and the Baylands Nature Preserve: $3.0 million. The total cost of
maintenance accrued over time is $41.5 million.50
Specifically for parks, residents prioritized the addition or improvement of loop trails, off-leash dog
parks and community gardens. Other improvements, such as enhanced wildlife habitat, restored
waterways, and improved trails received lower prioritization.51
Regional and Community Forums
Stakeholders at each of the Consolidated Plan forums highlighted the lack of affordable and
accessible transportation services in the County. Programs to augment public transit were cited as
necessities. Participants in the forums also emphasized the need for the jurisdictions to:
• Promote complete streets to accommodate multiple transportation modes.
• Focus on pedestrian safety by improving crosswalk visibility and enhancing sidewalks.
• Expand ADA curb improvements.
• Increase access to parks and open space amenities in low income neighborhoods.
49 City of Palo Alto. “Comprehensive Plan Update PUBLIC SERVICES Draft Existing Conditions Report.” August 2014.
50 Ibid
51 City of Palo Alto. “Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation Intercept Survey Summer Draft.” 2014.
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 77
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Regional Needs Survey
Survey respondents rated the level of need for 15 infrastructure and neighborhood improvements
within their neighborhoods. The five highest priorities in this area that they identified were:
1. Cleanup of contaminated sites
2. Street improvements
3. Lighting improvement
4. Sidewalk improvements
5. Water/sewer improvements
How were these needs determined?
Overall public improvements needs were examined by the same IBRC discussed above. Park
priorities were assessed during an intercept survey of park visitors in the summer of 2014. The
purpose of the surveys was to identify community needs and issues as they relate to parks.
Feedback was gathered from the community needs survey and community forums, where residents
and stakeholders of the City provided input community needs. Please see Appendix A: Citizen
Participation Summary for more detail.
Describe the jurisdiction’s need for Public Services:
Regional and Community Forums
During the forums, participants emphasized the need to support a broad range of community
services. The need to increase services for the homeless was a key concern identified by community
members. Emergency and transitional housing, comprehensive services at homeless encampments
(e.g., basic shelter facilities, health care referrals), and rental assistance programs for the homeless
were frequently identified by participants as critical needs. Another common topic was the need to
address the housing crisis facing seniors in the County. Forum participants noted that elderly renters
experience numerous housing issues, including cost burden. The primary needs that were identified
include:
• Address the needs for accessible and affordable transportation services throughout Santa
Clara County
• Support food assistance and nutrition programs for low income families, seniors and disabled
individuals
• Provide health care services to seniors and low income families
• Develop free, year-round programs and activities for youth (e.g., recreation programming,
sports)
• Offer comprehensive services at homeless encampments (e.g., outreach, health, referrals)
• Provide mental health care services for homeless and veterans
• Support services to reduce senior isolation
• Assist service providers in meeting the needs of vulnerable populations through increased
funding and information sharing
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 78
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Regional Needs Survey
Survey respondents rated the level of need for 23 public service improvements in their
neighborhoods. The five highest priorities in this area were:
1. Emergency housing assistance to prevent homelessness
2. Access to fresh and nutritious foods
3. Homeless services
4. Abused, abandoned and/or neglected children services
5. Transportation services
How were these needs determined?
Feedback was gathered from the community needs survey and community forums, where residents
and stakeholders of the City provided input community needs. Please see Appendix A: Citizen
Participation Summary for more detail.
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 79
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Housing Market Analysis
MA-05 Overview
Housing Market Analysis Overview
As was discussed in the Needs Assessment, in the San José-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA HUD Metro
Fair Market Rent Area (HMFA), the 3rd most expensive rental market in the nation, renters must
earn at least $31.70 an hour to afford the average two-bedroom apartment.52 Rental housing
throughout Santa Clara County (County) is becoming increasingly more expensive and the
affordability gap is widening. According to the Cities Association of Santa Clara County and Housing
Trust Silicon Valley, “the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) projects that over the next 25
years 57 percent of all household growth in the Bay Area will consist of very-low and low income
households. The State’s Employment Development Department projects that more than half of the
jobs created in the next five years in Santa Clara County will pay $11.00 per hour or less. In addition,
much of the growth is expected to be with senior households”.53
Rising home prices are a response to an imbalance between supply and demand. An adequate
housing supply is critical to keeping housing affordable, and affordable housing is among the most
important contributors to household welfare. When considering the large difference between
income and housing costs, the need for more affordable housing, not just for the lowest income
residents, but also for a large number of low and moderate income working families, becomes clear.
Overall, there is a strong need for a diverse mixture of new housing stock to serve the needs of the
region’s current and future population.
The large percentage of single-family units reflects a more suburban land development pattern.
From 2000-2012, median home values increased 222 percent and rents increased 313 percent. Median
household income increased only 36 percent.
With wages not keeping pace with the housing market and the increasing cost of living in Palo Alto,
future investments in affordable housing development and workforce development, are more
important than ever to maintain a self-sufficient population.
The following gives a brief overview of the market analysis results, with more detail included in each
corresponding section:
MA-10 Number of Housing Units
The City contains 27,268 housing units – 57 percent of which are owner-occupied households,
while 43 percent are renter-occupied households.
The majority of housing units (57 percent) in the City are single-family units (1-unit detached
structures) and 38 percent are multi-family attached units.
Two housing developments totaling 168 units are at risk of conversion during the term of this
Consolidated Plan (2015-2019).
52 National Low Income Housing Coalition. “Out of Reach.” 2014. http://nlihc.org/sites/default/files/oor/2014OOR.pdf
53 Cities Association of Santa Clara County and Housing Trust Silicon Valley. “Affordable Housing Landscape & Local Best
Practices.” December 2013.
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 80
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
MA-15 Housing Market Analysis: Cost of Housing
Cost burden is the most common housing problem within the City of Palo Alto, 30 percent of
households in the City paying more than 30 percent of their income toward housing costs,
and 14 percent of households paying more than 50 percent of their income toward housing
costs.
The greatest need for affordable units is for the extremely low income households (0-30%
AMI), with a gap of 1,780 units.
MA-20 Housing Market Analysis: Condition of Housing
Seventy-nine percent of housing units were constructed before 1980 and are at risk of a lead
based paint hazard. It is estimated that 23 percent of units at risk of a LBP hazard are
occupied by LMI households.
MA-25 Public and Assisted Housing
The Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara (HASCS) develops, controls, and
manages more than 2,600 affordable rental housing properties throughout the County.
HACSC has been a Moving to Work (MTW) agency since 2008. In this time the agency has
developed 31 MTW activities. The vast majority of their successful initiatives have been aimed
at reducing administrative inefficiencies, which in turn opens up more resources for
programs aimed at LMI families.
MA-30 Homeless Facilities
As per the 2014 Housing Inventory Count (HIC) 6,320 beds are available for homeless
individuals and families in the County. 358 beds are under development.
Housing facilities for homeless individuals and families include emergency shelters,
transitional housing, permanent supportive housing, and safe havens.
MA-35 Special Needs Facilities
The City has a total of 420 licensed community care facility beds available for persons with
health-related conditions.
MA-40 Barriers to Affordable Housing
The City identified multiple barriers to affordable housing, including income and wages that
are consistent with the rising cost of housing, a competitive rental and home market, and
diminishing public funds.
MA-45 Non-Housing Community Development Assets
Overall, 98 percent of Palo Also residents have at least a high school diploma or higher, and
more than half (57 percent).have a bachelor’s degree or higher.
Holders of bachelor’s degrees have approximately 75 percent higher median income than
those with only an associate’s, and those with a graduate degree or professional degree have
a 140 percent higher median income.
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 81
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Between September 2013 and September 2014, total employment in the San José- Sunnyvale-
Santa Clara Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) expanded by 34,400 jobs.
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 82
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
MA-10 Number of Housing Units – 91.210(a) & (b) (2)
Introduction
The City is primarily comprised of single-family owner-occupied units. The City contains 27,268
housing units, 57 percent of which are owner-occupied households, while 43 percent are renter
households. Additionally, 62 percent of housing units (16,857 units) are single-family detached and
attached housing. Multi-family dwelling units represent 39 percent (10,333 units) of the City’s total
housing stock.
Table 38 - Residential Properties by Unit Number (City)
Property Type Number %
1-Unit Detached Structure 15,506 57%
1-Unit, Attached Structure 1,351 5%
2-4 Units 1,784 7%
5-19 Units 3,430 13%
20 or More Units 5,119 19%
Mobile Home, Boat, RV, Van, etc. 78 0%
Total 27,268 100%
Data Source: 2007-2011 ACS
Data source
Comment:
Totals may not add to 100% due to rounding
Table 39 - Unit Size by Tenure (City)
Owner Households Renter Households
Number % Number %
No Bedroom 29 0% 947 9%
1 Bedroom 333 2% 4,060 37%
2 Bedrooms 2,465 17% 3,987 36%
3 or More Bedrooms 11,989 81% 1,987 18%
Total 14,816 100% 10,981 100%
Data Source: 2007-2011 ACS
Data source
Comment:
Totals may not add to 100% due to rounding
Describe the number and targeting (income level/type of family served) of units assisted with
federal, state, and local programs.
In 2014, 17 affordable rental housing projects were located in the City, providing 1,332 affordable
housing units to LMI households.54
The Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara (HASCS) Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher
program and other voucher programs target assistance as follows: 75 percent entering the program
must be at 0-30% AMI and the remaining 25 percent must be no higher than 50% AMI.
HASCS’s housing properties have income limits as follows:
54 City of Palo Alto. “2015-2023 Housing Element.” 2014.
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 83
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Table 40 - HASC Housing Properties (County)
Project Name City Income Limit Number of
Units Housing Type
El Parador Campbell 50% AMI 125 Senior Tax Credit
Housing
Rincon Gardens*† Campbell 50% AMI 200 Family Tax Credit
Housing
Sunset Gardens*† Gilroy 50% AMI 75 Senior Tax Credit
Housing
San Pedro Gardens Morgan
Hill
50% or 60% AMI 20 Family Tax Credit
Housing
Opportunity Center† Palo Alto 50% AMI 89 Senior Tax Credit
Housing
Avenida Espana
Gardens
San José 50% AMI 84 Public and Other
HUD Assisted
Housing
Blossom River Apts. San José 50% or 60% AMI 144 Senior Tax Credit
Housing
Clarendon Street San José 50% or 60% AMI 80 Family Tax Credit
Housing
Cypress Gardens*† San José 50% or 60% AMI 125 Family Tax Credit
Housing
DeRose Gardens San José 60% AMI 76 Senior Tax Credit
Housing
Helzer Courts San José 30%, 50% or 60% AMI 155 Family Tax Credit
Housing
Huff Gardens San José 60% AMI 72 Family Tax Credit
Housing
Julian Gardens† San José 50% AMI 9 Senior Tax Credit
Housing
Lenzen Gardens*† San José 50% AMI 94 Family Tax Credit
Housing
Lucretia Gardens† San José 50% AMI 16 Family Tax Credit
Housing
Morrone Gardens San José 50% AMI 102 Senior Tax Credit
Housing
Pinmore Gardens San José 60% AMI 51 Family Tax Credit
Housing
Poco Way
Apartments†
San José 50% or 60% AMI 129 Family Tax Credit
Housing
Seifert House† San José 50% AMI 3 Senior Tax Credit
Housing
The Willows San José 30% or 60% AMI 47 Family Tax Credit
Housing
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 84
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Project Name City Income Limit Number of
Units Housing Type
Villa Hermosa San José 40% AMI 100 Family Tax Credit
Housing
Villa San Pedro San José 50% or 60% AMI 100 Family Tax Credit
Housing
Bracher Senior
Apartments
Santa
Clara
50% AMI 72 Senior Tax Credit
Housing
Deborah Drive** Santa
Clara
40% of new admissions must have
income below 30% AMI, the
remaining 60% are below 80% AMI
4 Family Tax Credit
Housing
Eklund I
Apartments†
Santa
Clara
50% AMI 10 Family Tax Credit
Housing
Eklund II
Apartments†
Santa
Clara
50% AMI 6 Public and Other
HUD Assisted
Housing
John Burns Gardens Santa
Clara
50% AMI 100 Senior Tax Credit
Housing
Klamath Gardens Santa
Clara
50% AMI 17 Family Tax Credit
Housing
Miramar† Santa
Clara
50% AMI 16 Senior Tax Credit
Housing
RiverTown
Apartments
Santa
Clara
20%, 35% or 60% AMI 100 Public and Other
HUD Assisted
Housing
Data Source: HACSC
Data Source
Comments:
*These properties also include non-elderly disabled. **Theses properties are Public Housing units until final disposition and will
then have Project-Based Vouchers. †These properties include Project-Based Vouchers or Project Based Assistance.
Provide an assessment of units expected to be lost from the affordable housing inventory for any
reason, such as expiration of Section 8 contracts.
The Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC) owns and manages three Section 8 Moderate
Rehabilitation projects in Palo Alto: the Curtner Apartments, Emerson South Apartments, and Oak
Manor Townhouses. The original Housing Assistance Payments (HAP) contracts of these properties
have expired, but they are renewed annually.55
Two housing developments, totaling 168 units, are at risk of conversion during the term of this
Consolidated Plan (2015-2019).
55 Ibid.
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 85
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Describe the need for specific types of housing:
As discussed in the Needs Assessment, several special needs populations require affordable housing,
including the homeless or at-risk of homelessness; large households; female-headed households with
children; seniors; and disabled individuals. As shown in Table 41, the vast majority of HACSC clients
fall into one of these special needs categories.56 HACSC reports that smaller unit sizes and
accessibility to transit, health care, and other services are housing needs for the senior population.
The same often holds true for disabled individuals.
Table 41 - HACSC Special Needs Populations
Data Source: HACSC
Discussion
Please see discussions above.
56 Housing authority of the County of Santa Clara, Housing Needs Assessment, 2013
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 86
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
MA-15 Housing Market Analysis: Cost of Housing - 91.210(a)
Introduction
Housing affordability is an important factor for evaluating the housing market, as well as quality of
life, as many housing problems relate directly to the cost of housing. HUD standards measure
affordability by the number of households paying no more than 30 percent of their gross income
toward housing costs, including utilities. This section provides an overview of the overall cost of
housing in the City.
Among owner households, over one-fourth (26 percent) are cost burdened and 12 percent are
severely cost burdened. For renter households, over one-third (35 percent) are cost burdened and 15
percent are severely cost burdened. Taken together, nearly one-third (29 percent) of owner and
renter households (7,690 households) in the City are paying more than 30 percent of their income
toward housing costs, and 13 percent of owner and renter households (3,505 households) are paying
more than 50 percent of their gross income toward housing costs.
As was discussed in MA-05, the San José-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA HUD Metro Fair Market Rent
Area (HMFA), which includes the City, renter households must earn at least $31.70 an hour to afford a
market-rate two bedroom apartment; this causes the area to be the third most expensive rental
market in the nation.57
Table 42 - Cost of Housing (City)
Base Year: 2000 Most Recent Year: 2013 % Change
Median Home Value 776,000 $1,720,000 222%
Median Contract Rent 1,308 $4,096 313%
Data Source: 2000 Census (Base Year), DQNews 2013/ City of Palo Alto Housing Element 2015-2023 (Most Recent Year)
Table 43 - Rent Paid (City)
Rent Paid Number %
Less than $500 1,066 9.7%
$500-999 1,027 9.4%
$1,000-1,499 2,359 21.5%
$1,500-1,999 2,673 24.3%
$2,000 or More 3,856 35.1%
Total 10,981 100.0%
Data Source: 2007-2011 ACS
57 National Low Income Housing Coalition. “Out of Reach.” 2014. http://nlihc.org/sites/default/files/oor/2014OOR.pdf
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 87
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Table 44 - Housing Affordability (City)
Percentage of Units Affordable to
Households Earning:
Renter Households Owner Households
30% AMI 780 No Data
50% AMI 1,260 89
80% AMI 2,015 124
100% AMI No Data 218
Total 4,055 431
Data Source: 2007-2011 CHAS
Table 45 - Monthly Rent (City)
Monthly Rent ($) Efficiency (No
Bedroom)
1 Bedroom 2 Bedrooms 3 Bedrooms 4 Bedrooms
Fair Market Rent 1,079 1,262 1,610 2,270 2,574
High HOME Rent 1,079 1,199 1,441 1,656 1,828
Low HOME Rent 918 985 1,183 1,369 1,528
Data Source: HUD FMR and HOME Rents
Table 46 - Affordable Housing Supply Versus Need (City)
Household Income Range Total Units Available Total Households Gap (Renter and Owner Units)
30% AMI 780 2560 -1,780
50% AMI 1,349 1675 -326
80% AMI 2,139 1610 529
Total 4,268 5,845 -1,577
Data Source: 2007-2011 CHAS
Is there sufficient housing for households at all income levels?
There is a disparity between need and availability of affordable housing in the City. The greatest
disparity is seen with 0-30% AMI renter households. Approximately 2,560 households earn between
0-30% AMI, yet there are only 780 rental units available that are affordable to these households.
Overall, there are 5,845 LMI households in the City and 4,268 units available that are affordable to
that income range.
How is affordability of housing likely to change considering changes to home values and/or rents?
Overall, income in the City is not keeping pace with the rising housing costs and high cost of living.
Table 42 shows the median home value and contract rent for housing units. This data demonstrates
that from 2000 to 2013 there has been a 222 percent increase in median home values and a 313
percent change in median contract rent. Within the same time period there was a 36 percent
increase in the household median income ($90,377 to $122,482).58 With 2013 median rent prices at
almost three times 2000 rates, families seeking rental units might experience a greater difficulty
58 2013 ACS.
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 88
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
affording housing. This is a conservative estimate, as multiple 2014 studies have indicated Silicon
Valley is currently the most expensive housing market in the country. 59 60 61
How do HOME rents / Fair Market Rent compare to Area Median Rent? How might this impact your
strategy to produce or preserve affordable housing?
The HOME and Fair Market Rent (FMR) limits are considerably lower than the overall median rent of
households in the City. At $4,096, the average rent is higher than the HOME and FMR limits for all
unit sizes.
Within high-priced markets, strategies which produce affordable housing do more to preserve long-
term affordability for low income households. In contrast, programs that provide tenant-based
rental assistance, such as Section 8 vouchers, might not be feasible due to market economics,
especially in the areas with higher rents. Strategies that work to produce housing multiply the impact
of available funds by increasing the number of households that can be served over a time period,
especially when HOME rents are considerably lower than those found throughout most of the City.
Discussion
Please see discussions above.
59 Silicon Valley Business Journal. “When the Median Home Price is $4.6 million: Silicon Valley Claims 3 of Nation’s 10 most
Expensive Housing Markets.” http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2014/07/07/when-the-median-home-price-is-4-6-
million-silicon.html
60 Forbes. “Silicon Valley Dominates 2013 List of America’s Most Expensive ZIP Codes.”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/morganbrennan/2013/10/16/silicon-valley-tech-enclaves-top-our-list-of-americas-most-
expensive-zip-codes/
61 Huffington Post. “10 Most Affordable Housing Markets in America.” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/15/most-
affordable-homes-in-the-us_n_6147890.html
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 89
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
MA-20 Housing Market Analysis: Condition of Housing – 91.210(a)
Introduction
HUD defines housing “conditions” similarly to the definition of housing problems previously
discussed in the Needs Assessment. These conditions are:
1. More than one person per room
2. Cost burden greater than 30 percent
3. Lack of complete plumbing
4. Lack of complete kitchen facilities
Definitions
Within the City, a "substandard residential building" is defined as any residential building in which
any of the following conditions exist to an extent that it endangers the life, limb, health, property,
safety or welfare of the public or the occupants thereof.62
Table 47 - Condition of Units (City)
Condition of Units Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied
Number % Number %
With One Selected Condition 3,951 27% 3,983 36%
With Two Selected Conditions 45 0% 344 3%
With Three Selected Conditions 43 0% 23 0%
With Four Selected Conditions 0 0% 0 0%
No Selected Conditions 10,777 73% 6,631 60%
Total 14,816 100% 10,981 99%
Data Source: 2007-2011 ACS
Data
Comment:
Totals may not add to 100% due to rounding
Table 48 - Year Unit Built (City)
Year Unit Built Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied
Number % Number %
2000 or Later 1,327 9% 938 9%
1980-1999 1,292 9% 1,975 18%
1950-1979 7,499 51% 6,526 59%
Before 1950 4,698 32% 1,542 14%
Total 14,816 101% 10,981 100%
Data Source: 2007-2011 CHAS
Data Source
Comment:
Totals may not add to 100% due to rounding
62 City of Palo Alto Municipal Code. 16.40. Unsafe Buildings
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 90
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Table 49 - Risk of Lead-Based Paint (City)
Risk of Lead-Based Paint Hazard Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied
Number % Number %
Total Number of Units Built Before 1980 12,197 82% 8,068 73%
Housing Units build before 1980 with children present 615 4% 525 5%
Data Source: 2007-2011 ACS (Total Units) 2007-2011 CHAS (Units with Children present)
Table 50 - Vacant Units (City)
Suitable for
Rehabilitation
Not Suitable for
Rehabilitation
Total
Vacant Units - - -
Abandoned Vacant Units - - -
REO Properties - - -
Abandoned REO Properties - - -
Data
Source
Comments:
Data on vacant units or suitability for rehabilitation is not collected by the City
Estimated Number of Housing Units Occupied by Low or Moderate Income Families with LBP
Hazards
Building age is used to estimate the number of homes with lead-based paint (LBP), which was
prohibited on residential units after 1978. For the purposes of this plan, units built before 1980 are
used as a baseline for units that contain LBP. Seventy-seven percent of all units (21,455 units) in the
City were built before 1980 and provide potential exposure to LBP. As discussed in the Needs
Assessment, 23 percent of households within the City have incomes ranging from 0-80% AMI. Using
this percentage as a baseline, we can estimate that 4,934 LBP units are occupied by LMI families.
Discussion
Please see discussions above.
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 91
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
MA-25 Public and Assisted Housing – 91.210(b)
Introduction
As was discussed in the Needs Assessment, HACSC assists approximately 17,000 households through
Section 8. The Section 8 waiting list contains 21,256 households – this is estimated to be a 10-year
wait. HACSC also develops, controls, and manages more than 2,600 affordable rental housing
properties throughout the County. HACSC’s programs are targeted toward LMI households, and
more than 80 percent of their client households are extremely low income families, seniors,
veterans, persons with disabilities, and formerly homeless individuals.63
As referenced in the Need Assessment, in 2008 HACSC entered into a ten-year agreement with HUD
to become a Moving to Work agency. The MTW program is a federal demonstration program that
allows greater flexibility to design and implement more innovative approaches for providing housing
assistance.64 Additionally, HACSC has used Low Income Housing Tax Credit financing to transform
and rehabilitate 535 units of public housing into HACSC-controlled properties. The agency is an active
developer of affordable housing and has either constructed, rehabilitated, or assisted with the
development of more than 30 housing developments that service a variety of households, including
special needs households.65
The tables below display the public housing inventory and housing vouchers maintained by HACSC.
HACSC has four two-bedroom family public housing units in its portfolio; they are located in the City
of Santa Clara. Approximately 16,387 housing vouchers are in use countywide.
Specific HACSC data on the number of units or vouchers available is only available for the City of San
Jose (through the Housing Authority of the City of San José, administered by HACSC) and the County
as a whole.
Table 51 - Total Number of Units by Program Type (County)
Program Type
Certificate Mod-
Rehab
Public
Housing
Vouchers
Total Project
-based
Tenant
-based
Special Purpose Voucher
Veterans
Affairs
Supportive
Housing
Family
Unification
Program
Disabled
*
# of
Units/Vouchers
Available
0 42 0 10,931 666 9,362 740 100 63
# of Accessible
Units
- - - - - - - - -
*Includes Non-Elderly Disabled, Mainstream One-Year, Mainstream Five-year, and Nursing Home Transition
Data Source: HACSC
Data Source
Comment:
HACSC does not collect data on whether or not households use a voucher for an accessible unit.
63 Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara. “Welcome to HACSC.” http://www.hacsc.org/
64 HACSC. “Moving to Work (MTW) 2014 Annual Report.” September 2014.
65 Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara. “Welcome to HACSC.” http://www.hacsc.org/
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 92
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Describe the supply of public housing developments.
Not applicable. There are no public housing developments located in the jurisdiction.
Describe the number and physical condition of public housing units in the jurisdiction, including
those that are participating in an approved Public Housing Agency Plan.
Not applicable.
Table 52 - Public Housing Condition
Public Housing Development Average Inspection Score
N/A N/A
Describe the restoration and revitalization needs of public housing units in the jurisdiction.
Not applicable.
Describe the public housing agency's strategy for improving the living environment of low- and
moderate-income families residing in public housing.
As referenced in the Needs Assessment, HACSC has been a Moving to Work agency since 2008. In
this time the agency has developed 31 MTW activities. The vast majority of their successful initiatives
have been aimed at reducing administrative inefficiencies, which in turn opens up more resources for
programs aimed at LMI families.66 The following is excerpted from HACSC’s August 2014 Board of
Commissioner’s report:
“HACSC’s Family Self Sufficiency (FSS) Program is designed to provide assistance to current HACSC
Section 8 families to achieve self-sufficiency. When a family enrolls in the five-year program, HPD’s
FSS Coordinator and LIFESteps service provider helps the family develop self-sufficiency goals and a
training plan, and coordinates access to job training and other services, including childcare and
transportation. Program participants are required to seek and maintain employment or attend
school or job training. As participants increase their earned income and pay a larger share of the rent,
HACSC holds the amount of the tenant’s rent increases in an escrow account, which is then awarded
to participants who successfully complete the program. HACSC is currently in the initial stages of
creating a pilot successor program to FSS under the auspices of its MTW flexibility called Focus
Forward.”
Every year, HACSC provides a report to HUD on the previous year’s activities in its FSS program. The
following chart represents a summary of what was reported to HUD for the County of Santa Clara’s
and the City of San Jose’s FSS programs.” 67
66 HACSC. “Moving to Work (MTW) 2014 Annual Report.” September 2014.
67 HACSC. “Housing Programs Department (HPD) Monthly Board Report.” August 2014.
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 93
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Table 53 - HACSC Family Self Sufficiency Report (County)
CY2013 Family Self Sufficiency Report
How many households were actively case-managed? 266
How many individuals received services? 266
How many households successfully completed their Contract of Participation? 28
What is the cost per family to coordinate services? $1,899
How many FSS households increased their income? 80
What was the average dollar increase in annual household income? $12,431
How many households experienced a reduction in cash welfare assistance? 19
How many households ceased receiving cash welfare assistance as a result of
increased household income?
11
How many new FSS escrow accounts were established with positive balances? 22
What was the total value of FSS escrow accounts disbursed to graduating
households?
$300,190
How many households were able to move to non-subsidized housing? 5
Data Source: HACSC Board Report August 2013
Discussion:
Please see discussions above.
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 94
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
MA-30 Homeless Facilities and Services – 91.210(c)
Introduction
Various organizations within the County provide housing facilities and services for the homeless. Housing opportunities for homeless
individuals and families include emergency shelters, transitional housing, permanent supportive housing, rapid re-housing, and safe havens.
Housing opportunities are provided at facilities or through scattered-site housing models. Housing services available include outreach and
engagement, housing location assistance, medical services, employment assistance, substance abuse recovery, legal aid, mental health
care, veteran services, public assistance benefits advocacy and referrals, family crisis shelters and childcare, domestic violence support,
personal good storage, and personal care/hygiene services.
Table 54 - Facilities and Housing Targeted to Homeless Households (County)
Emergency Shelter Beds Transitional Housing
Beds
Permanent Supportive Housing Beds
Year Round Beds
(Current & New)
Voucher / Seasonal /
Overflow Beds
Current & New Current & New Under Development
Households with Adult(s)
and Child(ren)
257 70 619 1602 6
Households with Only
Adults
314 271 522 2081 309
Chronically Homeless
Households
0 0 0 979 310
Veterans 30 0 152 809 0
Unaccompanied Youth 22 0 0 0 0
Data Source: HMIS Santa Clara County
Data Source
Comment:
List includes DV Shelters. Numbers are duplicate for Unaccompanied Youth and Unaccompanied Children. Data includes entire continuum capacity and is aggregate for the
County.
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 95
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Describe mainstream services, such as health, mental health, and employment services to the
extent those services are used to complement services targeted to homeless persons.
Regional programs that highlight and demonstrate mainstream service connections for the homeless
population include:68
The Valley Homeless Healthcare Program (VHHP) is part of the Santa Clara Valley Health and
Hospital system and provides a variety of services for homeless people, including primary
care, urgent care, and backpack medicine for people in encampments, medically focused
outreach, and connection to an SSI advocate through the County’s Social Services Agency.
VHHP also connects people to the public behavioral health system and connects people with
or enrolls people in Affordable Care Act benefits. VHHP also manages a Medical Respite
program for homeless who are being discharged from hospitalizations, including from the
County hospital.
The Social Services Agency has an expedited review process for SNAP (food stamps)
applications for homeless people such that they can be approved for benefits within three
days.
The Social Services Agency and the Workforce Investment Board (work2future) in San Jose
are piloting an employment program for recipients of General Assistance who are homeless.
The County’s Behavioral Health Services Department (BHS) has several programs that
connect homeless people to housing or shelter assistance, as well as several programs in
which homeless people are connected to BHS for treatment.
BHS and the County’s Office of Reentry Services, as well as Social Services and VHHP, have
partnered on services through the County’s Reentry Resource Center (RRC) to provide
services to people who have a history of incarceration, including those who were recently
released and who are homeless. Through the RRC, clients can get expedited
connections/referrals to treatment services, housing, and other mainstream benefits.
BHS is dedicating a significant portion of its State Mental Health Services Act funds to
housing. Since 2007, $21 million has been dedicated to housing in the form of construction
assistance or operational subsidies. This investment will result in at least 150 new housing
units for mentally ill households who are homeless, chronically homeless or at risk of
homelessness (depending on the housing project). Of these units, 109 units are currently
occupied, five are under construction and 36 are in the planning stages.
The County’s Office of Supportive Housing's (OSH) mission is to increase the supply of
housing and supportive housing that is affordable and available to extremely low income
and/or special needs households. OSH supports the County’s mission of promoting a healthy,
safe, and prosperous community by ending and preventing homelessness.
68 County of Santa Clara Office of Supportive Housing
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 96
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
List and describe services and facilities that meet the needs of homeless persons, particularly
chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans and their families,
and unaccompanied youth. If the services and facilities are listed on screen SP-40 Institutional
Delivery Structure or screen MA-35 Special Needs Facilities and Services, describe how these
facilities and services specifically address the needs of these populations.
The following is a list of facilities that provide a total of 6,320 beds (358 beds are under
development) for homeless individuals and families in the County. The number of beds provided to
Target Populations of individuals and families is:69
• Households with children (HC): 1,124
• Single females (SF): 85
• Single females and households with children (SFHC): 304
• Single males (SM): 346
• Single males and females (SMF): 1,052
• Single males and females and households with children (SMF+HC): 3,031
• Unaccompanied youth males and females (YMF): 20
• Domestic violence (DV): 50
• HIV/AIDs program (HIV): 167
Table 55 - Homeless Housing Inventory Chart (County)
Organization Name Project Name Target Pop. Total
Beds
Abode Services Abode Place-Based Rapid Re-Housing
Program
SMF+HC 100
Abode Services Encampments SMF+HC 20
Abode Services SCC Rental Assistance Program SMF+HC 90
Abode Services SCC Rental Assistance Program SMF+HC 70
Abode Services SJ Mental Health TH SMF+HC 24
Abode Services SJ Mental Health TH SMF+HC 13
Abode Services St. James Park (Dept. of Drug &
Alcohol Services)
SMF+HC 21
Abode Services Sunnyvale TH SMF+HC 9
Abode Services Sunnyvale TH SMF+HC 30
Abode Services Sunset Leasing SMF+HC 21
Asian Americans for Community
Involvement
Asian Women's Home SFHC 14
Bill Wilson Center 8th Street/Keyes (formerly Leigh) SMF 4
Bill Wilson Center Bill Wilson RRH SMF+HC 44
Bill Wilson Center High Glen (formerly Villa Street) HC 9
Bill Wilson Center Jackson St. HC 17
69 Santa Clara County Continuum of Care. “2014 SCC Housing Inventory Chart.”
http://www.sccgov.org/sites/oah/Pages/Office-of-Affordable-Housing.aspx
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 97
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Organization Name Project Name Target Pop. Total
Beds
Bill Wilson Center Lafayette Street SMF 6
Bill Wilson Center Norman Drive (North County) HC 11
Bill Wilson Center PeaCoCk Commons SMF+HC 34
Bill Wilson Center PeaCoCk Commons LI SMF+HC 11
Bill Wilson Center PeaCoCk Commons MHSA SMF+HC 11
Bill Wilson Center Rockefeller Drive (North County) SMF 8
Bill Wilson Center Runaway and Homeless Youth Shelter YMF 20
Bill Wilson Center Via Anacapa HC 8
Catholic Charities of Santa Clara County Family Housing HC 56
Catholic Charities of Santa Clara County Navigator Project SMF 29
Catholic Charities of Santa Clara County New Directions SMF 25
Catholic Charities of Santa Clara County New Directions Expansion - Medical
Respite
SMF 22
Charities Housing San Antonio Place and Scattered Sites SMF 10
City Team Ministries City Team Rescue Mission SM 48
City Team Ministries Heritage Home SF 23
City Team Ministries House of Grace SF 30
City Team Ministries Men's Recovery/Discipleship SM 56
City Team Ministries Rescue Mission TH SM 11
Community Solutions El Invierno TH Gilroy SM 12
Community Solutions Glenview Dr. SM 6
Community Solutions La Isla Pacifica HC DV 14
Community Solutions Maria Way SM 6
Community Solutions Walnut Lane SM 6
Community Working Group/Housing
Authority
Opportunity Center - HUD SMF 6
Community Working Group/Housing
Authority
Opportunity Center - NON-HUD SMF+HC 82
Downtown Streets Team Workforce Supportive Housing
Program
SMF 9
Family Supportive Housing Glen Art - Transitional Housing
Program #1
HC 21
Family Supportive Housing San Jose Family Shelter HC 123
Family Supportive Housing Transitional Housing Program #2 HC 23
Family Supportive Housing Transitional Housing Program #3 HC 13
Family Supportive Housing Transitional Housing Program #4 HC 8
Goodwill Institute for Career
Development
Goodwill SSVF SMF+HC 30
HomeFirst (formerly EHC Lifebuilders) Boccardo FLC San Martin 2 year
Transitional Program
HC 63
HomeFirst (formerly EHC Lifebuilders) Boccardo FLC San Martin Family
Wellness Court Units
HC 15
HomeFirst (formerly EHC Lifebuilders) Boccardo FLC San Martin
Farmworkers Housing
HC 0
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 98
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Organization Name Project Name Target Pop. Total
Beds
HomeFirst (formerly EHC Lifebuilders) Boccardo FLC San Martin Short Term
Transitional
HC 48
HomeFirst (formerly EHC Lifebuilders) BRC Nightly Shelter SMF 167
HomeFirst (formerly EHC Lifebuilders) BRC Supportive Transitional Housing
(Mental Health)
SMF 18
HomeFirst (formerly EHC Lifebuilders) EHC Lifebuilders - SSVF SMF+HC 20
HomeFirst (formerly EHC Lifebuilders) GPD BRC Veterans Per Diem SMF 20
HomeFirst (formerly EHC Lifebuilders) Housing 1000 Care Coordination
Project
SMF 14
HomeFirst (formerly EHC Lifebuilders) Housing for Homeless Addicted to
Alcohol
SMF 42
HomeFirst (formerly EHC Lifebuilders) Nightly CWSP Gilroy SMF+HC 101
HomeFirst (formerly EHC Lifebuilders) Nightly CWSP Sunnyvale SMF 125
HomeFirst (formerly EHC Lifebuilders) Scattered Site TH Program #1 HC 45
HomeFirst (formerly EHC Lifebuilders) Scattered Site TH Program #2 HC 15
HomeFirst (formerly EHC Lifebuilders) Sobrato Family Living Center ELI HC 40
HomeFirst (formerly EHC Lifebuilders) Sobrato Family Living Center PSH HC 32
HomeFirst (formerly EHC Lifebuilders) Sobrato Family Living Center VLI HC 99
HomeFirst (formerly EHC Lifebuilders) Sobrato House Youth Shelter SMF 10
Homeless Veterans Emergency Housing
Facility
HVEHF - Aging SMF 71
Homeless Veterans Emergency Housing
Facility
HVEHF - Men's SM 38
Homeless Veterans Emergency Housing
Facility
HVEHF - Women's SF 11
Housing Authority of the County of Santa
Clara
CHDR 2010 (formerly known as
Section 8 Vouchers - Housing First)
SMF+HC 267
Housing Authority of the County of Santa
Clara
CHDR 2013 SMF 75
Housing Authority of the County of Santa
Clara
CHDR 2013 SMF 25
Housing Authority of the County of Santa
Clara
King's Crossing SMF+HC 59
Housing Authority of the County of Santa
Clara
Section 8 Voucher - MTW SMF+HC 750
Housing Authority of the County of Santa
Clara
Shelter Plus Care 5022 SMF+HC 409
Housing Authority of the County of Santa
Clara
Shelter Plus Care 5320 SMF 24
Housing Authority of the County of Santa
Clara
Tully Gardens SMF 10
Housing Authority of the County of Santa
Clara
VASH - HUD-VASH SMF+HC 809
InnVision (with Community Services
Agency)
Graduate House SMF 5
InnVision Shelter Network Alexander House SF 6
InnVision Shelter Network Commercial Street Inn SFHC 51
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 99
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Organization Name Project Name Target Pop. Total
Beds
InnVision Shelter Network CSI Cold Weather Inn HC 3
InnVision Shelter Network Highlander Terrace (formerly known
as North Santa Clara County
Permanent Housing for Families)
HC 23
InnVision Shelter Network Hotel de Zink SMF 15
InnVision Shelter Network InnVision Villa SFHC 54
InnVision Shelter Network JSI 24-Hour Care SMF 12
InnVision Shelter Network JSI Cold Weather Inn SMF 5
InnVision Shelter Network JSI DADS SMF 8
InnVision Shelter Network JSI DADS/AB 109 THU SMF 2
InnVision Shelter Network JSI Full Service Provider (FSP) SMF 8
InnVision Shelter Network JSI Mental Health SMF 21
InnVision Shelter Network Julian Street Inn SMF 10
InnVision Shelter Network MSI AB 109/DADS THU SM 4
InnVision Shelter Network MSI Cold Weather Inn SF 5
InnVision Shelter Network MSI Emergency Shelter SM 46
InnVision Shelter Network MSI HUD THU SM 10
InnVision Shelter Network MSI THU AB 109 SM 5
InnVision Shelter Network MSI Transitional Housing Unit SM 8
InnVision Shelter Network MSI VA PD THU Beds SM 12
InnVision Shelter Network North County Inns SMF 18
InnVision Shelter Network Rolison Inns (formerly known as
North Santa Clara County Supportive
Housing Coalition)
SMF 8
InnVision Shelter Network Safe Haven Permanent Housing for
Women (Hester Project)
SF 10
InnVision Shelter Network Samaritan Inns SMF+HC 25
InnVision Shelter Network Stevens House SMF 7
InnVision Shelter Network Sunset Square HC 39
InnVision Shelter Network/Next Door
Solutions to Domestic Violence
Home Safe San Jose SFHC DV 70
InnVision Shelter Network/Next Door
Solutions to Domestic Violence
Home Safe Santa Clara SFHC DV 72
Next Door Solutions to Domestic Violence Residential Emergency Shelter SFHC DV 20
Salvation Army Emmanuel House (Overnighter) SM 22
Salvation Army Hospitality House-Working Man's
Program
SM 50
Salvation Army Volunteer Recovery SM 6
Santa Clara County Mental Health
Department
AB 109 SMF 30
Santa Clara County Mental Health
Department
Abode - Rental Assistance Project
(RAP) #1
SMF 55
Santa Clara County Mental Health
Department
Abode - Rental Assistance Project
(RAP) #2
SMF 8
Santa Clara County Mental Health Community Reintegration - Central SMF 10
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 100
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Organization Name Project Name Target Pop. Total
Beds
Department County
Santa Clara County Mental Health
Department
Community Reintegration - North
County
SMF 10
Santa Clara County Mental Health
Department
Community Reintegration - South
County
SMF 10
Santa Clara County Mental Health
Department
CSJ and MHD/CC - TBRA SMF+HC 13
Santa Clara County Mental Health
Department
CSJ and MHD/MMH - TBRA SMF+HC 2
Santa Clara County Mental Health
Department
Custody Health High Users SMF 15
Santa Clara County Mental Health
Department
Mental Health Permanent Supportive
Housing Project
SMF 20
Santa Clara County Mental Health
Department
MHSA 4th Street Apartments SMF 6
Santa Clara County Mental Health
Department
MHSA Archer Street Apartments SMF 6
Santa Clara County Mental Health
Department
MHSA Armory Family Housing SMF 10
Santa Clara County Mental Health
Department
MHSA Bella Terra Senior Apartments SMF 5
Santa Clara County Mental Health
Department
MHSA Belovida Santa Clara SMF 3
Santa Clara County Mental Health
Department
MHSA Curtner Studio SMF 27
Santa Clara County Mental Health
Department
MHSA Donner Lofts SMF 15
Santa Clara County Mental Health
Department
MHSA Fair Oak Plaza SMF 18
Santa Clara County Mental Health
Department
MHSA Ford and Monterey Family
Apartments
SMF 5
Santa Clara County Mental Health
Department
MHSA Gilroy Sobrato Apartments SMF 17
Santa Clara County Mental Health
Department
MHSA King's Crossing SMF+HC 10
Santa Clara County Mental Health
Department
MHSA Parkside Studio SMF 11
Santa Clara County Mental Health
Department
MHSA Paseo Senter I (1896 Senter) SMF+HC 17
Santa Clara County Mental Health
Department
MHSA Paseo Senter II (1900 Senter
Rd.)
SMF 5
Santa Clara County Mental Health
Department
Pay For Success SMF 120
Santa Clara County Mental Health
Department
Scattered Site Rental Assistance SMF 14
South County Housing Royal Court Apartments SMF+HC 34
South County Housing Sobrato Gilroy Permanent Housing HC 52
South County Housing Sobrato Transitional (HUD) HC 61
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 101
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Organization Name Project Name Target Pop. Total
Beds
South County Housing Sobrato Transitional (non-HUD) HC 83
St. Joseph's Family Center Gilroy Place SMF 12
St. Joseph's Family Center Gilroy Sobrato Apartments - HUD SMF 8
St. Joseph's Family Center Our New Place HC DV 36
The Health Trust Housing for Health Program HC HIV 167
Valley Homeless Health Care Program Valley Health Medical Respite Center SMF 18
West Valley Community Services Transitional Housing Program SMF+HC 18
YWCA of Silicon Valley Support Network for Battered
Women
SFHC DV 23
Total 6,320
Data Source: 2014 HIC
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 102
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
MA-35 Special Needs Facilities and Services – 91.210(d)
Introduction
Table 56 - Licensed Community Care Facilities (City)
Facility Type Facilities Bed
Adult Residential - -
Residential Care for the Elderly 6 420
Group Homes - -
Small Family Home - -
Social Rehabilitation - -
Total 6 420
Data Source: California Community Care Licensing Division, 2014
Including the elderly, frail elderly, persons with disabilities (mental, physical, developmental),
persons with alcohol or other drug addictions, persons with HIV/AIDS and their families, public
housing residents and any other categories the jurisdiction may specify, describe their supportive
housing needs.
Describe programs for ensuring that persons returning from mental and physical health
institutions receive appropriate supportive housing.
The City has a total of 420 Residential Care facility beds available for elderly persons.
Residential Care Facilities for the Elderly (RCFE) provide care, supervision and assistance with
activities of daily living, such as bathing and grooming. They may also provide incidental medical
services under special care plans. The facilities provide services to persons 60 years of age and over
and persons under 60 with compatible needs. RCFEs may also be known as assisted living facilities,
nursing homes, and board and care homes. The facilities can range in size from fewer than six beds
to over 100 beds. The residents in these facilities require varying levels of personal care and
protective supervision.70
The City spends part of its CDBG funds and local funds toward a variety of public services to address
the supportive housing needs of homeless and very low income persons. For example, the City
provides funding to Momentum for Mental Health for their homeless outreach program. Momentum
provides a wide range of specialized and culturally competent services and programs that include:71
• Residential treatment programs that provide an alternative to admission to or continued
care in a hospital
70 Community Care Licensing Division. “Glossary.” http://www.ccld.ca.gov/res/html/glossary.htm
71 Momentum for Mental Health. “Momentum for Mental Health Home Page.”
http://www.momentumformentalhealth.org/
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 103
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
• Supportive housing programs to assist individuals in achieving and maintaining independent
living
• Day rehabilitation programs
• Outpatient mental health and psychiatric treatment, case management and rehabilitation
services provided by multidisciplinary teams
• Employment preparation, search and support
• Services and support to family members
Specify the activities that the jurisdiction plans to undertake during the next year to address the
housing and supportive services needs identified in accordance with 91.215(e) with respect to
persons who are not homeless but have other special needs. Link to one-year goals. 91.315(e)
As shown in Table 57, there are 12 housing developments in Palo Alto that include 985 units
specifically designed for elderly households.72
Table 57 - Independent Living Facilities for Elderly Residents in Palo Alto, 2014 (City)
Development Total Units Senior Units Income Level Served
Alta Torre 56 55 Very Low Income
Arastradero Park 66 13 Low Income
Colorado Park 60 8 Low income
Fabian Way Senior Housing 56 56 Low income
Lytton I and II 268 268 Low income
Lytton Courtyard 51 51 Extremely Low- and Low income
Moldaw (Taube-Koret Campus 170 170 Low income
Palo Alto Gardens 156 128 Very Low income
Sheridan Apartments 57 57 Low income
Stevenson House 128 128 Low income
Terman Apartments 92 24 Very Low income
Webster Wood Apartments 68 4 Low income
Total 1251 985
Data Source: City of Palo Alto 2015-2023 Housing Element
In addition, there are other housing types, appropriate for people living with a developmental
disability: rent subsidized homes, licensed and unlicensed single-family homes, and residential care
facilities.73
The design of housing-accessibility modifications, the proximity to services and transit, and the
availability of group living opportunities represent some of the types of considerations that are
important in serving this need group. Incorporating barrier-free design in all new multi-family
housing (as required by California and Federal Fair Housing laws) is especially important to provide
the widest range of choices for disabled residents. Special consideration may also be given to the
affordability of housing, as people with disabilities may be living on a fixed income.
72 City of Palo Alto. “2015-2023 Housing Element.” 2014.
73 Ibid.
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 104
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
For entitlement/consortia grantees: Specify the activities that the jurisdiction plans to undertake
during the next year to address the housing and supportive services needs identified in accordance
with 91.215(e) with respect to persons who are not homeless but have other special needs. Link to
one-year goals. (91.220(2))
The City will continue to provide funding to various non-profit agencies that provide supportive
services to people who are not homeless but have other special needs. Below is a sample list of
these services, which in total is budgeted at $1 million in General Fund dollars every year.
Figure 3 – Human Services Resource Allocation Process Budget
Data Source: City of Palo Alto
Through the CDBG program the City will continue to support activities for the special needs
population, which will be specified in the CDBG Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) when it is
complete. A NOFA for the creation of new affordable housing will also be released in 2015.
Additionally, the City is one of three jurisdictions that has joined the County of Santa Clara in
establishing a HOME consortium.
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 105
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
MA-40 Barriers to Affordable Housing – 91.210(e)
Describe any negative effects of public policies on affordable housing and residential investment.
The incorporated and unincorporated jurisdictions within the County face barriers to affordable
housing that are common throughout the Bay Area. High on the list is the lack of developable land,
which increases the cost of available lands and increases housing development costs. Local
opposition is another common obstacle as many neighbors have strong reactions to infill and
affordable housing developments. Their opposition is often based on misconceptions, such as a
foreseen increase in crime; erosion of property values; increase in parking and traffic congestion; and
overwhelmed schools.74 However, to ensure a healthy economy the region must focus on strategies
and investment that provide housing for much of the region’s workforce – for example, sales clerks,
secretaries, firefighters, police, teachers, and health service workers – whose incomes significantly
limit their housing choices.75
Even when developments produce relatively affordable housing, in a constrained housing supply
market, higher income buyers and renters generally outbid lower income households and a home’s
final sale or rental price will generally far exceed the projected sales or rental costs. Public subsidies
are often needed to guarantee affordable homes for LMI households.
The City identified several constraints to the maintenance, development and improvement of
housing and affordable housing in its 2015-2023 Housing Element update: 76
Local policies and regulations can impact the price and availability of housing and, in
particular, the provision of affordable housing
Land use controls
Site improvement requirements
Fees and exactions
Permit processing procedures
74 Association of Bay Area Governments. “Affordable Housing in the Bay Area.” 2014.
75 Association of Bay Area Governments. “Jobs-Housing Connection Strategy.” 2012.
76 City of Palo Alto. “2015-2023 Housing Element.” 2014.
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 106
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
MA-45 Non-Housing Community Development Assets – 91.215 (f)
Introduction
Strategies for increasing the housing supply must take into account a jurisdiction’s job/housing
balance, which is defined as the ratio of number of jobs to number of housing units in a given area. A
more precise ratio is between the number of jobs and the number of employed residents, as some
households have no workers, while others have multiple workers). There should not only be a
sufficient amount of housing at a range of prices, but also a variety of housing types appropriate for
a range of needs and in locations that allow for access to transportation and employment
opportunities. If there is an imbalance of appropriate housing for the number of employees in an
area, the result can be longer commutes and greater traffic congestion as employees must then
commute to places of employment.
Jobs and housing are considered to be balanced when there are an equal number of employed
residents and jobs within a given area, with a ratio of approximately 1.0. A more balanced
jobs/housing ratio can ease traffic congestion and the burden it imposes on residents, businesses,
and local infrastructure. That burden is particularly evident in California. Researchers ranked four
California metropolitan areas among the nation’s ten most-congested areas in terms of time lost per
year: 1) Los Angeles/Long Beach/ Santa Ana, 2) San Francisco/Oakland, and tied for 8th) San Jose.77
The table below shows the Job/Housing ratios for the jurisdictions in the County as determined by
the ABAG.78
Table 58 -Jobs / Employed Residents Ratio (County)
Jurisdiction Jobs/Employed Residents Ratio
Campbell 1.3
Cupertino 1.0
Los Gatos 1.8
Milpitas 1.5
Mountain View 1.2
Palo Alto 2.9
San Jose 0.8
Santa Clara 1.9
Sunnyvale 1.0
Santa Clara County 1.1
Data Source: ABAG Projections 2013
The Bay Area region has taken a step to reduce the jobs/housing imbalance with the adoption of Plan
Bay Area, the region's implementation of the Sustainable Communities Strategy required by SB 375
of 2008.79 Plan Bay Area focuses growth in urban areas near transit and employment. This strategy
will allow for an increase in the housing supply that narrows the affordability gap. Higher density
77 California Planning Roundtable. “Deconstructing Jobs-Housing Balance.”
2008.http://www.cproundtable.org/media/uploads/pub_files/CPR-Jobs-Housing.pdf
78 Association of Bay Area Governments. “Jobs/Housing Balance.”
http://www.abag.ca.gov/planning/housingneeds/notes/10-19-06_Agenda_Item_2_-_Jobs-Housing_Balance.pdf
79 California Environmental Protection Agency. “Sustainable Communities.” http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/sb375.htm
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 107
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
housing located near transit can be more affordable than detached more suburban-style housing.
Lower housing costs and lower commuting costs can significantly reduce the overall cost of living for
households.
Table 59 - Jobs by Business Activity (City)
Business by Sector Number
of
Workers
Number
of Jobs
Share of
Workers
%
Share of
Jobs
%
Jobs less
workers
%
Agriculture, Mining, Oil & Gas Extraction 44 39 0 0 0
Arts, Entertainment, Accommodations 1,459 5,822 7 7 0
Construction 491 805 2 1 -1
Education and Health Care Services 4,112 29,352 19 34 15
Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate 1,266 3,631 6 4 -2
Information 1,550 6,719 7 8 1
Manufacturing 3,024 8,181 14 10 -5
Other Services 916 2,905 4 3 -1
Professional, Scientific, Management Services 5,326 18,807 25 22 -3
Public Administration 0 1 0 0 0
Retail Trade 1,110 5,153 5 6 1
Transportation and Warehousing 200 69 1 0 -1
Wholesale Trade 786 1,323 4 2 -2
Total 20,284 82,807 -- -- --
Data Source: 2007-2011 ACS (Workers), 2011 Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (Jobs)
Data Source
Comment:
HUD data for Public Administration sector not available.
Table 60 - Labor Force (City)
Total Population in the Civilian Labor Force 32,360
Civilian Employed Population 16 years and Over 30,713
Unemployment Rate 5.09%
Unemployment Rate for Ages 16-24 16.08%
Unemployment Rate for Ages 25-65 3.47%
Data Source: 2007-2011 ACS
Table 61 - Occupations by Sector (City)
Occupations by Sector Number of People
Management, Business and Financial 17,137
Farming, Fisheries and Forestry Occupations 659
Service 1,238
Sales and Office 3,574
Construction, Extraction, Maintenance and Repair 507
Production, Transportation and Material Moving 502
Data Source: 2007-2011 ACS
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 108
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Table 62 - Travel Time (City)
Travel Time Number Percentage
< 30 Minutes 20,458 75%
30-59 Minutes 5,261 19%
60 or More Minutes 1,449 5%
Total 27,168 100%
Data Source: 2007-2011 ACS
Data Source
Comment:
Totals may not add to 100% due to rounding
Table 63 - Educational Attainment by Employment Status - Population Age 16 and Older (City)
Educational Attainment In Labor Force
Civilian Employed Unemployed Not in Labor
Force
Less Than High School Graduate 456 2 207
High School Graduate (Includes Equivalency) 804 108 379
Some College or Associate's Degree 2,503 248 1,166
Bachelor's Degree or Higher 22,924 847 5,086
Data Source: 2007-2011 ACS
Table 64 - Educational Attainment by Age (City)
Age
18–24
Years
25–34
Years
35–44
Years
45–65
Years
65+ Years
Less Than 9th Grade 7 54 115 241 194
9th to 12th Grade, No Diploma 175 59 65 131 258
High School Graduate, GED, or Alternative 624 419 121 751 998
Some College, No Degree 1,435 843 529 1,368 1,429
Associate's Degree 136 272 152 753 526
Bachelor's Degree 1,039 2,787 2,466 4,913 2,956
Graduate or Professional Degree 253 4,181 5,678 8,845 3,941
Data Source: 2007-2011 ACS
As shown in Table 64, the educational attainment for residents 25 years of age and older is as
follows:
Two percent have not graduated high school
Five percent have graduated high school (including equivalency), but no further education
Nine percent have some college but no degree
Four percent have an associate’s degree
Twenty-nine percent have a bachelor’s degree
Fifty percent have a graduate or professional degree
Overall, 98 percent of Palo Also residents have at least a high school diploma or higher, and more
than half have a bachelor’s degree or higher (57 percent). Meanwhile, less than one third of the
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 109
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
entire population of California has a bachelor’s degree or higher and 11 percent have a graduate or
professional degree.80
Table 65 - Educational Attainment by Age - 25 and Older (City)
Age
Total % of
Total 25–34
Years
35–44
Years
45–65
Years
65+
Years
Less Than 9th Grade 54 115 241 194 604 1%
9th To 12th Grade, No Diploma 59 65 131 258 513 1%
High School Graduate, GED, or Alternative 419 121 751 998 2289 5%
Some College, No Degree 843 529 1,368 1,429 4169 9%
Associate's Degree 272 152 753 526 1703 4%
Bachelor's Degree 2,787 2,466 4,913 2,956 13122 29%
Graduate or Professional Degree 4,181 5,678 8,845 3,941 22645 50%
Total: 8615 9126 17002 10302 45045 100%
Data Source: 2007-2011 CHAS
Data Source
Comment:
Totals may not add up to 100% due to rounding
Table 65 shows that residents with advanced and professional degrees have significantly higher
median incomes, with holders of bachelor’s degrees having approximately 75 percent higher median
income than those with only an associate’s, and those with a graduate degree or professional degree
having a 140 percent higher median income.
Table 66 - Median Earnings in the Past 12 Months (City)
Educational Attainment Median Earnings in the Past 12 Months
Less Than High School Graduate 22,500
High School Graduate (Includes Equivalency) 28,889
Some College or Associate's Degree 43,145
Bachelor's Degree 75,709
Graduate or Professional Degree 103,860
Data Source: 2007-2011 ACS
Based on the Business Activity table above, what are the major employment sectors within your
jurisdiction?
The top employer in Palo Alto is Hewlett-Packard, with approximately 317,000 employees as of April,
2014. Other notable employers in the City include: VMware, Varian Medical Systems, Tesla Motors,
Tobxo Software, and Jive Software. Together, these five companies employ over 31,000 people.81
80 2008-2012 ACS
81 Silicon Valley. “Searchable database of Silicon Valley’s top 150 companies for 2014.” http://www.siliconvalley.com/
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 110
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Describe any major changes that may have an economic impact, such as planned local or regional
public or private sector investments or initiatives that have affected or may affect job and business
growth opportunities during the planning period. Describe any needs for workforce development,
business support or infrastructure these changes may create.
As of 2014, the City Council has adopted a new business registration program that monitors how
many people are working in the City and for what types of businesses. The purpose of this registry is
to maintain an accurate record of businesses in the City in order to develop recommendations on
land uses, better coordinate transportation programs, assist in zoning compliance, and gather
statistical information for other purposes. There is a fee included with the registration of a
business.82
In March 2014, the Palo Alto City Council approved a two percentage point increase in the transient
occupancy tax rate to raise $116.8 million, via debt financing in the form of Certificates of
Participation, for General Fund infrastructure and City services, such as earthquake safe fire stations;
pedestrian and bike improvements, including safe routes to school, streets, sidewalks, paths, and
bridges; and maintaining parks and recreation facilities.
Describe any current workforce training initiatives, including those supported by Workforce
Investment Boards, community colleges and other organizations. Describe how these efforts will
support the jurisdiction's Consolidated Plan.
The Workforce Development Program will provide a transition from unemployment and
homelessness to regular employment and housing through case management, job training,
mentoring, housing, and transportation assistance.
Downtown Streets Team is a nonprofit in Palo Alto that worked to reduce homelessness through a
“work first” model. Downtown Streets Team uses their community connections to provide training
and job opportunities to homeless people, specifically in the downtown area. The Downtown Streets
Team has helped 282 people find housing and 291 find jobs since its inception in 2005. The
Downtown Streets Team has initiatives in Palo Alto, Sunnyvale, San Jose, and San Rafael.83
NOVA is directed by the NOVA Workforce Board which works on behalf of Cupertino, Los Altos,
Milpitas, Mountain View, Palo Alto, Santa Clara, and Sunnyvale. To support workforce mobility,
NOVA provides:
Real-time labor market information about in-demand skills
Skill-building and enhancements to match market demand
Navigation tools for the ever-changing and entrepreneurial new labor market
Advocacy for necessary infrastructure to support workers between opportunities, such as
unemployment insurance for all and portable benefits
Interconnected support system for multiple career pathways for youth84
To prepare potential employees for the technology-driven industries in the Silicon Valley, NOVA
provides necessary digital literacy training along with its other services.
82 City of Palo Alto Economic Development Department.
83 Downtown Streets Team. “Our Impact.” http://streetsteam.org/thenumbers/
84 NOVA. “Purpose Statement.” http://www.novaworks.org/
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 111
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Does your jurisdiction participate in a Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS)?
No.
If so, what economic development initiatives are you undertaking that may be coordinated with
the Consolidated Plan? If not, describe other local/regional plans or initiatives that impact economic
growth.
The City’s Economic Development Department (EDD) established a Council policy in 2013 that sets
the goals and principles for a more proactive economic strategy. The purpose of the policy is to
create an environment that attracts, retains, and encourages business growth in the City. The EDD is
supporting the attraction of new business to Palo Alto, while helping to retain and grow existing
enterprises. Department focus will be on understanding and striving to meet the needs of revenue-
generating companies (i.e., retail, hotel, business-to-business, etc.) that help to fund vital city
services. Also, by serving as an advocate with other City departments, such as the Development
Services, Planning, Fire, and Utilities, EDD staff will facilitate the appropriate growth of companies in
Palo Alto by making development and location processes as transparent and predictable as
possible.85
In May 2013 the Palo Alto City Council approved the allocation of $150,000 in CDBG funds toward a
Microenterprise Assistance Program (MAP). The purpose of the program is to provide access to new
opportunities to improve the economic self-sufficiency of LMI families and individuals. This program
builds on the foundation of entrepreneurship and empowers clients by increasing their economic
literacy, business skills, self-esteem, and personal behavior appropriate to the workplace. The MAP
program seeks to accomplish the following:86
Provide an innovative path out of poverty
Create self-sufficiency
Improve the survival rate of microenterprise businesses
Improve employment skills
Promote community economic development
Discussion
Please see discussion above.
85 City of Palo Alto. “Office of Economic Development Policy.” January 2013.
86 City of Palo Alto. “Pilot Microenterprise Assistance Program (MAP).
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=2480&TargetID=268
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 112
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
MA-50 Needs and Market Analysis Discussion
Are there areas where households with multiple housing problems are concentrated? (Include a
definition of "concentration.")
Housing problems disproportionately affect low income and minority populations. For the
disproportionate needs by racial/ethnic group, please see the discussion for NA-15, NA-20, and NA-25.
In summary:
• For 0-30% AMI households: 89 percent of Black/African American households experience
severe housing problems, compared to 75 percent of the jurisdiction as a whole.
For 30-50 % AMI households: 88 percent of Black/African American Housing and 91 percent of
Hispanic households experience housing problems, compared to 77 percent of the
jurisdiction as a whole. Sixty-three percent of Hispanic households in the experience severe
housing problems, compared to 50 percent of the jurisdiction as a whole.
For 50-80 % AMI households: 75 percent of Black/African American households, 72 percent of
Asian households, and 86 percent of Hispanic households experience housing problems,
compared to 62 percent of the jurisdiction as a whole. Fifty-three percent of Hispanic
households experience severe housing problems, compared to 29 percent of the jurisdiction
as a whole.
Minority concentration is defined as census tracts where the percentage of individuals of a particular
racial or ethnic minority group is at least 20 percentage points higher than the citywide average.
Map 2 below illustrates areas of the jurisdiction that have a minority or LMI concentration.
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 113
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Map 2 – Areas of Minority and LMI Concentration
Data Source: ACS 2007-2011
Data Source
Comment:
Minority concentration is defined as census tracts where the percentage of individuals of a particular racial or ethnic
minority group is at least 20 percentage points higher than the citywide average. LMI concentration is defined as
census tracts where the median household income is below 80% AMI. Based on FY 14 median family income for
Santa Clara County, calculated by the Census Bureau for HUD’s Fair Market Rent and Income Limit areas.
Are there any areas in the jurisdiction where racial or ethnic minorities or low-income families are
concentrated? (include a definition of "concentration")
Please see discussion above.
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 114
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
What are the characteristics of the market in these areas/neighborhoods?
The City’s housing costs are among the highest in the nation, with the median home value and
median contract rent increasing exponentially in the last decade. Home values increased by 222
percent and median rents grew by 313 percent. Currently, the City would need approximately 1,780
additional affordable housing units to match the housing needs of the population earning below 80%
AMI.
Are there any community assets in these areas/neighborhoods?
Map 3 displays a sample of community assets and amenities that may represent strategic investment
opportunities for these areas, including:
1. Transit Centers
2. Community Centers
3. Fire Stations
4. Health Care Centers
5. Police Stations
6. Public Libraries
7. Recreation Centers
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 115
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Map 3 – Minority Concentration, LMI, and Community Assets
Data Source: ACS 2007-2011
Data Source
Comment:
Minority concentration is defined as census tracts where the percentage of individuals of a particular racial or ethnic
minority group is at least 20 percentage points higher than the citywide average. LMI concentration is defined as
census tracts where the median household income is below 80% AMI. Based on FY 14 median family income for
Santa Clara County, calculated by the Census Bureau for HUD’s Fair Market Rent and Income Limit areas.
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 116
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Strategic Plan
SP-05 Overview
Strategic Plan Overview
The Consolidated Plan goals below represent high priority needs for the City of Palo Alto (City) and
serve as the basis for the strategic actions the City will use to meet these needs. The goals, listed in
no particular order, are:
1. Assist in the creation and preservation of affordable housing for low income and special
needs households.
2. Support activities to end homelessness.
3. Support activities that strengthen neighborhoods through the provision of community
services and public improvements to benefit low income and special needs households.
4. Promote fair housing choice.
5. Expand economic opportunities for low income households.
The City’s Consolidated Plan update coincides with the development of the first year Action Plan and
the biennial Request for Proposals (RFP) process. The City awards Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG) funding to non-profit agencies to provide public services and housing for low income
and special needs households. The City operates on a two-year grant funding cycle for CDBG grants.
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 117
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
SP-10 Geographic Priorities – 91.215 (a)(1)
Geographic Area
Not applicable. The City has not established specific target areas to focus the investment of CDBG
funds. The City attempts to support affordable housing and services to low income and/or special
needs persons throughout the City.
General Allocation Priorities
The City allocates federal entitlement dollars to benefit low-and moderately-low income (LMI)
persons without target areas.
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 118
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
SP-25 Priority Needs - 91.215(a)(2)
Priority Needs
Based on the Needs Assessment, Market Analysis, and community outreach conducted for the current Consolidated Plan cycle, the goals
were established to meet the priority needs. Projects will only be considered for funding within the Consolidated Plan period if they address
these high priority needs, summarized in the table below.
Table 67 - Priority Needs Summary
Sort
Order
Priority Need Priority
Level
Description Population Goal Basis for Relative
Priority
1 Affordable
Housing
High Almost a quarter of
households (23 percent or
5,845) in the City are LMI,
with incomes ranging from
0-80% area median income
(AMI).
As stated in the Needs
Assessment, burden is the
most common housing
problem within the City of
Palo Alto, 30 percent of
households in the City
paying more than 30
percent of their income
toward housing costs, and
14 percent of households
paying more than 50
percent of their income
toward housing costs.
The Housing Authority of
the County of Santa Clara
(HACSC) assists
approximately 17,000
households through the
federal Section 8 Housing
Income Level:
Extremely Low
Low
Moderate
Middle
Family Types:
Large Families
Families with Children
Elderly
Homeless:
Chronic Homelessness
Individuals
Families with Children
Mentally Ill
Chronic Substance Abuse
Veterans
Persons with HIV/Aids
Victims of Domestic Violence
Unaccompanied Youth
Non-homeless Special Needs:
Elderly
Frail Elderly
Persons with Mental Disabilities
Persons with Physical Disabilities
Assist in the
creation and
preservation of
affordable housing
for low income and
special needs
households
Qualitative feedback
collected through the
regional forums and
regional needs
survey, which were
substantiated by
quantitative data
reported in the
Needs Assessment
and Market Analysis,
served as the basis
for prioritization.
Energy efficiency,
water conservation,
and greenhouse gas
reduction are all
growing policy
concerns for the City.
The City will continue
to support
environmentally-
sustainable
residential
development,
particularly for
affordable housing
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 119
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Sort
Order
Priority Need Priority
Level
Description Population Goal Basis for Relative
Priority
Choice Voucher program
(Section 8). The Section 8
waiting list contains 21,256
households — an
estimated 10-year wait.
Persons with Alcohol or Other
Addictions
Persons with HIV/AIDS and their
Families
Victims of Domestic Violence
stock.
2 Homelessness High The Santa Clara region is
home to the fourth-largest
population of homeless
individuals (6,681 single
individuals),87 and the
highest percentage of
unsheltered homeless of
any major city (75 percent
of homeless people sleep in
places unfit for human
habitation).
Homeless:
Chronic Homelessness
Individuals
Families with Children
Mentally Ill
Chronic Substance Abuse
Veterans
Persons with HIV/Aids
Victims of Domestic Violence
Unaccompanied Youth
Support activities
to end
homelessness
Qualitative feedback
collected through the
regional forums and
regional needs
survey, which were
substantiated by
quantitative data
reported in the
Needs Assessment
and Market Analysis,
served as the basis
for prioritization.
3 Community
Services and
Public
Improvements
High Consolidated Plan forum
and survey participants
emphasized the need to
support a broad range of
community services. Low
income households and
special needs populations
require a multifaceted
network to address basic
needs such as food,
clothing, health, and
Income Level:
Extremely Low
Low
Moderate
Middle
Family Types:
Large Families
Families with Children
Elderly
Strengthen
neighborhoods
through the
provision of
community
services and public
improvements
Qualitative feedback
collected through the
regional forums and
regional needs
survey, which were
substantiated by
quantitative data
reported in the
Needs Assessment
and Market Analysis,
served as the basis
87 The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. “2014 Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR) to Congress.” October 2014.
https://www.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/AHAR-2014-Part1.pdf
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 120
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Sort
Order
Priority Need Priority
Level
Description Population Goal Basis for Relative
Priority
shelter, as well as other
services outlined in NA-50
Non-Housing Community
Development Needs.
Non-homeless Special Needs:
Elderly
Frail Elderly
Persons with Mental Disabilities
Persons with Physical Disabilities
Persons with Alcohol or Other
Addictions
Persons with HIV/AIDS and their
Families
Victims of Domestic Violence
Non-housing Community
Development
for prioritization.
4 Fair Housing High Fair housing represents an
ongoing concern in the
County. Of the 1,472 total
survey respondents, 192 (16
percent) said they have
experienced some form of
housing discrimination. The
majority of respondents (29
percent) who experienced
discrimination indicated
that race was the primary
factor for that
discrimination. Additionally,
66 percent indicated they
were discriminated against
by a landlord or property
manager. Interviews with
local service providers
indicate that many home
seekers and landlords are
unaware of federal and
Income Level:
Extremely Low
Low
Moderate
Family Types:
Large Families
Families with Children
Elderly
Public Housing Residents
Homeless:
Chronic Homelessness
Individuals
Families with Children
Mentally Ill
Chronic Substance Abuse
Veterans
Persons with HIV/Aids
Victims of Domestic Violence
Unaccompanied Youth
Promote fair
housing choice
Qualitative feedback
collected through the
regional forums and
regional needs
survey, which were
substantiated by
quantitative data
reported in the
Needs Assessment
and Market Analysis,
served as the basis
for prioritization.
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 121
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Sort
Order
Priority Need Priority
Level
Description Population Goal Basis for Relative
Priority
state fair housing laws.
Non-homeless Special Needs:
Elderly
Frail Elderly
Persons with Mental Disabilities
Persons with Physical Disabilities
Persons with Alcohol or Other
Addictions
Persons with HIV/AIDS and their
Families
Victims of Domestic Violence
5 Economic
Development
High LMI households with
elderly members are more
likely to experience cost
burden, with 54 percent
paying more than 30
percent of their income
towards housing costs,
compared to 34 percent of
the jurisdiction as a whole.
Almost one-third of
households (32 percent or
10,155) in the City are
extremely low income, low
income, or moderate
income, with incomes
ranging from 0-80% AMI.
As discussed in the Needs
Assessment and Market
Analysis, services that
benefit low income
households and special
needs populations are
Income Level:
Extremely Low
Low
Moderate
Family Types:
Large Families
Families with Children
Elderly
Homeless:
Chronic Homelessness
Individuals
Families with Children
Mentally Ill
Chronic Substance Abuse
Veterans
Persons with HIV/Aids
Victims of Domestic Violence
Unaccompanied Youth
Non-homeless Special Needs:
Elderly
Frail Elderly
Expand economic
opportunities for
low income
households
Qualitative feedback
collected through the
regional forums and
regional needs
survey, which were
substantiated by
quantitative data
reported in the
Needs Assessment
and Market Analysis,
served as the basis
for prioritization.
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 122
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Sort
Order
Priority Need Priority
Level
Description Population Goal Basis for Relative
Priority
necessary to help these
groups take advantage of
the overall economic
growth of the City. Greater
access to transit centers,
public services, job training
and workforce
development, are key.
Persons with Mental Disabilities
Persons with Physical Disabilities
Persons with Alcohol or Other
Addictions
Persons with HIV/AIDS and their
Families
Victims of Domestic Violence
Narrative
As previously discussed, the City is in one of the wealthiest regions of the nation and the income gap between the richest and the poorest
populations is growing significantly. The City is tasked with determining how to maintain economic growth while assisting the most
vulnerable populations.
The Needs Assessment and Market Analysis, in concert with the qualitative data collected through the community outreach, highlight the
City’s continued need for investment in economic development, affordable housing, and services for low income households, the homeless
and other special need groups.
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 123
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
SP-30 Influence of Market Conditions – 91.215 (b)
Table 68 - Influence of Market Conditions
Affordable Housing Type Market Characteristics that Will Influence
the Use of Funds Available for Housing Type
Tenant Based Rental Assistance (TBRA) As per the Needs Assessment, 13 percent of households in the City
are severely cost burdened and paying more than 50 percent of
their income toward housing costs. Sixteen percent of households
in the City have incomes at or below 50% AMI.
TBRA for Non-Homeless Special Needs As discussed in the Needs Assessment and Market Analysis, special
needs populations generally face unique housing needs, such as
physical limitations, low household incomes, and rising costs of
healthcare and/or childcare. Housing affordability may be a key
issue for those living on fixed incomes. High housing costs within
the City can make it difficult to transition from Community Care
Facilities into the private rental market without rental subsidies.
This may put those special needs groups at a higher risk of
becoming homeless.
New Unit Production As per the Needs Assessment and Market Analysis, 35 percent of
renters are cost burdened and paying more than 30 percent of
their income toward housing costs. Forty-seven percent of those
cost burdened renter households are LMI households. The HACSC
currently has 21,000 households on its waitlist for Section 8, and
the waitlist has been closed since 2006.
Rehabilitation As per the Needs Assessment and Market Analysis, 77 percent of
the City’s housing stock is over 40 years old and may require
maintenance and repair.
Acquisition, Including Preservation There are currently 4,268 units in the City that are affordable for
households earning below 80% AMI, yet there are 5,845
households within this income bracket in need of affordable
housing. This reflects a total deficit of 1,780 units for LMI
households. With a lack of vacant land for new development,
acquisition and preservation are important tools for growing the
affordable housing stock.
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 124
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
SP-35 Anticipated Resources - 91.215(a) (4), 91.220(c) (1, 2)
Introduction
The amount of federal entitlement funding has seen an overall decrease of approximately 41 percent
in the five year period from Fiscal Years (FY) 2010-2014. For the purposes of the Strategic Plan the
City anticipates an annual five percent entitlement reduction per year, with the addition of
approximately $136,049 in Program Income annually.
Table 69 - City Entitlement Funding Received FY 2010 – FY 2014
FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 Total
CDBG $731,566 $606,566 $429,304 $467,192 $433,933 $2,668,561
Figure 4 - City Entitlement Funding Received FY 2010 - FY 2014
$0
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
$600,000
$700,000
$800,000
FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 125
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Table 70 - Anticipated Resources
Program Source
of
Funds
Uses of Funds Expected Amount Available Year 1 Expected
Amount
Available
Reminder
of ConPlan
$
Narrative Description
Annual
Allocation:
$
Program
Income: $
Prior Year
Resources:
$
Total:
$
CDBG Public
Federal
Admin and
Planning
Acquisition
Economic
Development
Housing
Public
Improvements
Public Service
$442,460
$136,049
$303,164
$881,673
$2,103,594 CDBG funds will be used
for the creation and
preservation of
affordable rental units,
improvements in lower
income neighborhoods,
and public services that
benefit low income and
special needs
households.
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 126
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Explain how federal funds will leverage those additional resources (private, state and local funds),
including a description of how matching requirements will be satisfied
Entitlement Funds
Leverage, in the context of the CDBG and HOME, means bringing other local, state, and federal
financial resources to maximize the reach and impact of the City’s HUD Programs. HUD, like many
other federal agencies, encourages the recipients of federal monies to demonstrate that efforts are
being made to strategically leverage additional funds in order to achieve greater results. Leverage is
also a way to increase project efficiencies and benefit from economies of scale that often come with
combining sources of funding for similar or expanded scopes. Funds will be leveraged if financial
commitments toward the costs of a project from a source other than the originating HUD program
are documented.
Additionally, the City has recently been approved to join Santa Clara County's HOME Consortium.
HOME funds can be used to fund eligible affordable housing projects for acquisition, construction
and rehabilitation. Starting in FY 2015-2016 developers of affordable housing projects will be eligible
to competitively apply through an annual RFP process directly to the County for HOME funds to help
subsidize affordable housing projects in Palo Alto. If the City receives HOME dollars from its
participation in the HOME consortium, the required 25 percent matching funds will be provided from
the City’s Affordable Housing Fund, which is comprised of two sub-funds: the Commercial Housing
Fund and the Residential Housing Fund. As of August 25, 2014 the Commercial Housing Fund had an
available balance of approximately $6,600,000 and the Residential Housing Fund had an available
balance of $1,400,000.
Other Federal Grant Programs
In addition to the entitlement dollars listed above, the federal government has several other funding
programs for community development and affordable housing activities. These include: the Section
8 Housing Choice Voucher Program, Section 202, Section 811, the Affordable Housing Program (AHP)
through the Federal Home Loan Bank, and others. It should be noted that, in most cases, the City
would not be the applicant for these funding sources as many of these programs offer assistance to
affordable housing developers rather than local jurisdictions.
State Housing and Community Development Sources
In California, the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and the California
Housing Finance Agency (CalHFA) administer a variety of statewide public affordable housing
programs that offer assistance to nonprofit affordable housing developers. Examples of HCD’s
programs include the Multifamily Housing Program (MHP), Affordable Housing Innovation Fund
(AHIF), Building Equity and Growth in Neighborhoods Program (BEGIN), and CalHOME. Many HCD
programs have historically been funded by one-time State bond issuances and, as such, are subject
to limited availability of funding. CalHFA 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 federal Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC)
program, a widely used financing source for affordable housing projects. As with the other federal
grant programs discussed above, the City would not apply for these funding sources. Rather, local
affordable housing developers could apply for funding through these programs for particular
developments in the City.
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 127
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Additionally, the County also receives Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) funds from the State for
housing.
County and Local Housing and Community Development Sources
There are a variety of countywide and local resources that support housing and community
development programs. Some of these programs offer assistance to local affordable housing
developers and community organizations while others provide assistance directly to individuals.
These resources are discussed below:
Human Service Resource Allocation Process
In addition to the CDBG public service funds, the City will provide $1,099,347 million dollars
from the General Fund in support of human services through HSRAP. The HSRAP funds, in
conjunction with the CDBG public service funds, are distributed to local nonprofit agencies.
Palo Alto Commercial Housing Fund
The Commercial Housing 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 August 25, 2014 the Commercial
Housing Fund had an available balance of approximately $6,600,000.
Palo Alto Residential Housing Fund
The Residential Housing Fund 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. As of
August 25, 2014 the Residential Housing Fund had an available balance of $1,400,000.
Below Market Rate Emergency Fund
This fund was authorized by City 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 March 13, 2014 the BMR
Emergency Fund had a balance of approximately $450,000.
The Housing Trust Silicon Valley
This nonprofit organization combines private and public funds to support affordable housing
activities in the County, including assistance to developers and homebuyers. Housing Trust
Silicon Valley is among the largest housing trusts in the nation building special needs and
affordable housing and assisting first-time homebuyers. Since HTSV began distributing funds
in 2001, the trust has invested over $75 million and leveraged over $1.88 billion to create more
than 9,953 housing opportunities
Mortgage Credit Certificates (MCC) Program
The MCC program provides assistance to first-time homebuyers by allowing an eligible
purchaser to take 20 percent of their annual mortgage interest payment as a tax credit
against federal income taxes. The County administers the MCC Program on behalf of the
jurisdictions, including Palo Alto. The program does establish maximum sales price limits on
units assisted in this program and, due to the high housing costs in Cupertino, there have
been few households assisted in Cupertino in recent years.
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 128
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Santa Clara County Affordable Housing Fund (AHF)
The County Board of Supervisors established the Affordable Housing Fund with initial
funding of $18.6 million in 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 the County. The County has awarded over $10 million from the AHF to
date. $960,000 was awarded to the Tree House project developed by the Palo Alto Housing
Corporation.
Stanford Affordable Housing Fund
The County maintains this affordable housing fund intended to benefit low income
households. The County distributes the funds through a Notice of Funding Availability
(NOFA) process and has assisted developers in creating 91 units regionally.
If appropriate, describe publically owned land or property located within the jurisdiction that may
be used to address the needs identified in the plan
The City has no surplus vacant land that would be available for the development of housing or
services. Sixty-five percent of land in the City is open space.
Discussion
Please see discussions above.
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 129
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
SP-40 Institutional Delivery Structure – 91.215(k)
Explain the institutional structure through which the jurisdiction will carry out its Consolidated
Plan, including private industry, non-profit organizations, and public institutions.
Table 71 - Institutional Delivery Structure
Responsible Entity Responsible
Entity Type
Role Geographic
Area Served
City of Palo Alto, Planning
and Community
Environment
Government
agency
Affordable housing – ownership
Affordable housing – rental
Public housing
Homelessness
Non-homeless special needs
Community development: public facilities
Community development: neighborhood
improvements
Community development: public services
Community development: economic
development
Planning
Jurisdiction
City of Palo Alto, Human
Services Division
Government
agency
Planning Jurisdiction
County of Santa Clara –
Office of Supportive
Housing
Continuum of
Care
Homelessness
Region
Housing Authority of the
County of Santa Clara
PHA Affordable housing – rental
Affordable housing – ownership
Public housing
Region
Assess of Strengths and Gaps in the Institutional Delivery System
Strengths
The City manages the institutional delivery structure surrounding the acceptance and allocation of
federal grant funds for Consolidated Plan programs. The goals and objectives of the Strategic Plan
could not have been formulated without residents’ informed assistance. Public presentation and
participation is a vital component in the formulation and development of the City’s public policy
documents, such as its Comprehensive Plan, Housing Element, and Specific and Precise Plans. These
are just a few of the policy documents that the City has in place to influence and guide the economic,
housing, and social service developments in the City.
The City’s Planning and Community Environment Department is responsible for the review of
development and building activity to ensure compliance with zoning and building codes, the
achievement of economic development goals, Comprehensive Plan policies, housing policies, and
community values. The department assists the community in establishing land use and neighborhood
plans and ensures the quality of new projects through the design and development review process.
Implementation of CDBG funds is overseen by the Department of Planning and Community
Environment. Human Services and social service delivery in Palo Alto by non-profit agencies is
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 130
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
coordinated through the Human Services Resource Allocation Program (HSRAP). The City Council
approves projects and programs that meet the City’s goals. Collectively, the programs funded under
CDBG and HSRAP provide essential services to the community. Applications are received and
reviewed congruently which allows for internal administrative efficiencies, creates a visible public
forum for the CDBG program, and provides a more coordinated and effective approach at addressing
the City’s human service needs.
The City benefits from a strong jurisdictional and regional network of housing and community
development partners. For example, the HACSC improves neighborhoods by assisting low income
residents, increasing the supply of affordable safe housing, and rehabilitating residential properties
in many jurisdictions in the County. HACSC assists approximately 17,000 households countywide
through federal rental housing assistance, and developing and managing affordable rental housing
properties. Working closely with landlords, housing developers, charities and local governments, the
HACSC provides housing and support services to as many eligible families as possible.
In addition, the Santa Clara Fair Housing Task Force includes representatives from the City and the
other 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.88
As standard practice, CDBG entitlement jurisdictions from throughout the County hold quarterly
meetings to discuss issues of common interest. Meeting agendas cover such topics as projects
receiving multi-jurisdictional funding, performance levels and costs for contracted public services,
proposed annual funding plans, HUD program administration requirements, and other topics of
mutual concern. These quarterly meetings provide an opportunity for the City to consult with other
jurisdictions on its proposed use of federal funds for the upcoming Program Year. They have helped
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. Finally, the meeting serves
as a forum for HUD representatives to share information and answer questions from entitlement
jurisdictions regarding issues of mutual importance.
These quarterly meetings provide the opportunity for the City to consult with other jurisdictions on
its proposed use of federal funds for the upcoming Program Year. The CDBG Coordinators Group
meetings are often followed by a Regional Housing Working Group meeting, which is open to staff of
entitlement and non-entitlement jurisdictions. The Working Group provides a forum for jurisdictions
to develop coordinated responses to regional housing challenges.
Gaps
Nonprofit affordable housing developers and service providers play an important role in promoting
community development within the City. However, they are often at a disadvantage in the housing
development arena, as they compete with developers in the private sector for the limited land
available for the development of housing. Affordable housing developers must adhere to noticing,
88 City of Palo Alto. “Fiscal Year 2015 Annual Action Plan. 2014.
https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/39839&sa=U&ei=AHyQVOHpI8ff
oATsg4KgAg&ved=0CAgQFjAB&client=internal-uds-cse&usg=AFQjCNF_XnDk4Zbw8fKMZf7TrMDdbPAgpg
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 131
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
outreach and evaluation processes associated with the use of public funds. Private market rate
developers do not have such requirements and are able to purchase sites quickly. Many market rate
developers have funds available to purchase properties rather than needing to seek financing, which
saves time. The market realities of increased value due to scarcity of land and the ability to acquire
sites quickly provide advantages to market rate developers, while posing challenging constraints to
affordable housing developers.
Availability of services targeted to homeless persons and persons with HIV and mainstream
services
Table 72 - Homeless Prevention Services Summary
Homelessness
Prevention Services
Available in the
Community
Targeted to Homeless Targeted to People with
HIV
Homelessness Prevention Services
Counseling/Advocacy X
Legal Assistance X X
Mortgage Assistance X
Rental Assistance X X
Utilities Assistance X
Street Outreach Services
Law Enforcement X X
Mobile Clinics X X
Other Street Outreach
Services
X
Supportive Services
Alcohol & Drug Abuse X
Child Care X
Education X
Employment and
Employment Training
X
Healthcare X X
HIV/AIDS
Life Skills X X
Mental Health
Counseling
X
Transportation X
Describe how the service delivery system including, but not limited to, the services listed above
meet the needs of homeless persons (particularly chronically homeless individuals and families,
families with children, veterans and their families, and unaccompanied youth)
As part of the institutional delivery system, the City participates in the Santa Clara County CoC, a
multi-sector group of stakeholders dedicated to ending and preventing homelessness in the County.
The CoC’s primary responsibilities are to coordinate large-scale implementation of efforts to prevent
and end homelessness. The CoC is governed by the CoC Board, which stands as the driving force
committed to supporting and promoting a systems change approach to preventing and ending
homelessness in the County. 89
89 County of Santa Clara. “Housing Element 2015-2022.” 2014.
http://www.sccgov.org/sites/planning/PlansPrograms/GeneralPlan/Housing/Documents/HE_2015_Adopted_Final.pdf
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 132
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Destination: Home, a public-private partnership committed to collective impact strategies to end
chronic homelessness, serves as the backbone organization for the CoC and is responsible for
implementing by-laws and protocols that govern the operations of the CoC. Destination: Home is
also responsible for ensuring that the CoC meets the requirements outlined under the Homeless
Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing Act of 2009 (HEARTH).90
Describe the strengths and gaps of the service delivery system for special needs population and
persons experiencing homelessness, including, but not limited to, the services listed above
In fall 2014, the CoC released a Draft Community Plan to End Homelessness in Santa Clara County,
which outlines a roadmap for community-wide efforts to end homelessness in the County by 2020.
The strategies and action steps included in the plan were informed by members who participated in
a series of community summits designed to address the needs of homeless populations from April to
August 2014. The Plan identifies strategies to address the needs of homeless persons in the County,
including chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans, and
unaccompanied youth. Additionally, it also intended to address the needs of persons at risk of
homelessness.
To address the needs of homeless individuals and individuals at risk of homelessness, the Plan aims
to implement the following three action steps:91
1. Disrupt systems: Develop disruptive strategies and innovative prototypes that transform the
systems related to housing homeless people.
2. Build the solution: Secure the right amount of funding needed to provide housing and
services to those who are homeless and those at risk of homelessness.
3. Serve the person: Adopt an approach that recognizes the need for client-centered strategies
with different responses for different levels of need and different groups, targeting
resources to the specific individual or household.
Over the next five years, the Plan seeks to house 2,518 homeless individuals, 718 homeless veterans,
and more than 2,333 children, unaccompanied youth, and homeless individuals living in families.
Provide a summary of the strategy for overcoming gaps in the institutional structure and service
delivery system for carrying out a strategy to address priority needs
The City is striving to improve intergovernmental and private sector cooperation to synergize efforts
and resources, and develop new revenues for community service needs and the production of
affordable housing.
Collaborative efforts include:
Regular quarterly meetings between entitlement jurisdictions
Joint jurisdiction Request for Proposals and project review committees
90 Santa Clara County. “Continuum of Care Governance Charter.” 2013.
91 Destination: Home. “Community Plan to End Homelessness in Santa Clara County 2015-2012.” 2014.
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 133
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Coordination on project management for projects funded by multiple jurisdictions.
Recent examples include the effort by the County to create a regional affordable housing fund, using
former redevelopment funds that could be returned to the County to use for affordable housing.
Another effort underway involves the possible use of former redevelopment funds to create a
countywide pool for homeless shelters and transitional housing. These interactions among agencies
generate cohesive discussion and forums for bridging funding and service gaps on a regional scale.
The City’s decision to join the County’s HOME Consortium (along with the cities of Gilroy and
Cupertino) is another example of a collaborative strategy to improve the institutional delivery
structure for address affordable housing needs.
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 134
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
SP- 45 Goals Summary – 91.215(a) (4)
Goals Summary Information
Table 73 - Goals Summary
Sort
Order
Goal Name Start
Year
End
Year
Category Geographic
Area
Needs Addressed Funding Goal Outcome Indicator
1 Affordable
Housing
2015 2020 Affordable Housing N/A Affordable Housing CDBG:
$1,018,421
Rental units rehabilitated:
300 Housing Units
2 Homelessness 2015 2020 Homeless N/A Homelessness CDBG:
$254,605
Public service activities
other than for low/mod
income housing benefit:
2,500 Persons Assisted
3 Strengthen
Neighborhoods
2015 2020 Non-Housing Community
Development
Non-Homeless Special
Needs
N/A Community Services
and Public
Improvements
CDBG:
$127,302
Public service activities
other than for low/mod
income housing benefit:
2,500 Persons Assisted
Public facility or
infrastructure activities
other than for low/mod
income housing benefit:
500 Persons Assisted
4 Fair Housing 2015 2020 Non-Housing Community
Development
N/A Fair Housing CDBG:
$152,763.24
Public service activities
other than for low/mod
income housing benefit:
100 Persons Assisted
5 Economic
Development
2015 2020 Non-Housing Community
Development
N/A Economic
Development
CDBG:
$992,963
Jobs created/retained:
125 Jobs
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 135
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Goal Descriptions
1 Goal Name Affordable Housing
Goal Description Assist in the creation and preservation of affordable housing for low income and special needs households.
2 Goal Name Homelessness
Goal Description Support activities to end homelessness.
3 Goal Name Strengthen Neighborhoods
Goal Description Support activities that strengthen neighborhoods through the provision of community services and public improvements
to benefit low income and special needs households.
4 Goal Name Fair Housing
Goal Description Promote fair housing choice.
5 Goal Name Economic Development
Goal Description Expand economic opportunities for low income households.
Estimate the number of extremely low income, low income, and moderate income families to whom the jurisdiction will provide
affordable housing as defined by HOME 91.315(b)(2)
Currently, the City’s HUD allocation for entitlement grants does not include funding from the HOME program. In prior fiscal years Palo Alto
has funded a number of projects that have resulted in the production of new affordable housing units, rehabilitation of existing multi-family
rental units, and acquisition of existing units. During the previous funding cycle the City did not receive any applications for affordable
housing supported through the production of new units or rehabilitation of existing units. While future provision of affordable housing will
depend on the availability of projects, the City estimates that CDBG funds will be used to provide affordable housing to approximately 300
households over the next five years.
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 136
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
SP-50 Public Housing Accessibility and Involvement – 91.215(c)
Need to Increase the Number of Accessible Units (if Required by a Section 504 Voluntary
Compliance Agreement)
Not applicable.
Activities to Increase Resident Involvements
HACSC is proactive in incorporating resident input into the agency’s policy-making process. An
equitable and transparent policy-making process that includes the opinions of public housing
residents is achieved through the involvement of two tenant commissioners, one being a senior
citizen, on the HACSC board. Furthermore, HACSC has installed a Resident Counsel which is
comprised of five residents from all HUD-funded programs (Multifamily Housing, LIHTC, HOME,
public housing, and Section 8). The Resident Counsel works with HACSC staff on evaluating the
effectiveness and efficiency of the agency’s rental assistance programs. This grants members the
opportunity to provide input on necessary program modifications.
As previously noted, HACSC has been a Moving to Work (MTW) agency since 2008. In this time the
agency has developed 31 MTW activities. The vast majority of their successful initiatives have been
aimed at reducing administrative inefficiencies, which in turn opens up more resources for programs
aimed at LMI families.92 The following is excerpted from HACSC’s August 2014 Board of
Commissioner’s report:
“HACSC’s Family Self Sufficiency (FSS) Program is designed to provide assistance to current HACSC
Section 8 families to achieve self-sufficiency. When a family enrolls in the five-year program, HPD’s
FSS Coordinator and LIFESteps service provider helps the family develop self-sufficiency goals and a
training plan, and coordinates access to job training and other services, including childcare and
transportation. Program participants are required to seek and maintain employment or attend
school or job training. As participants increase their earned income and pay a larger share of the rent,
HACSC holds the amount of the tenant’s rent increases in an escrow account, which is then awarded
to participants who successfully complete the program. HACSC is currently in the initial stages of
creating a pilot successor program to FSS under the auspices of its MTW flexibility called Focus
Forward.” 93
Is the public housing agency designated as troubled under 24 CFR part 902?
No.
Plan to remove the ‘troubled’ designation
Not applicable.
92 HACSC. “Moving to Work (MTW) 2014 Annual Report.” September 2014.
93 HACSC. “Housing Programs Department (HPD) Monthly Board Report.” August 2014.
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 137
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
SP-55 Barriers to Affordable Housing – 91.215(h)
Barriers to Affordable Housing
As previously discussed, the incorporated and unincorporated jurisdictions within the County face
barriers to affordable housing that are common throughout the Bay Area. High on the list is the lack
of developable land, which increases the cost of available lands and increases housing development
costs. Local opposition is another common obstacle as many neighbors have strong reactions to
infill and affordable housing developments. Their opposition is often based on misconceptions, such
as a foreseen increase in crime; erosion of property values; increase in parking and traffic congestion;
and overwhelmed schools.94 However, to ensure a healthy economy, the region must focus on
strategies and investment that provide housing for much of the region’s workforce – for example,
sales clerks, secretaries, firefighters, police, teachers, and health service workers – whose incomes
significantly limit their housing choices.95
Even when developments produce relatively affordable housing, in a constrained housing supply
market, higher income buyers and renters generally outbid lower income households and a home’s
final sale or rental price will generally far exceed the projected sales or rental costs. Public subsidies
are often needed to guarantee affordable homes for LMI households.
The City identified several constraints to the maintenance, development and improvement of
housing and affordable housing in its 2015-2023 Housing Element update: 96
Local policies and regulations can impact the price and availability of housing and, in
particular, the provision of affordable housing
Land use controls
Site improvement requirements
Fees and exactions
Permit processing procedures
Strategy to Remove or Ameliorate the Barriers to Affordable Housing
As stated in previous chapters, the City is addressing the barriers to affordable housing through the
following programs and ordinances:
Context-Based Design Codes
The City adopted form-based codes in 2006 to ensure and encourage residential development by
following context-based design guidelines to meet increased density needs. The code encourages
the creation of walkable, pedestrian-oriented neighborhoods, following green building design
principles, and increasing density along transit corridors and in mixed-use neighborhoods. The
Context-Based Design Code allows for increased density and mixed-use buildings in a way that
enhances neighborhood character and walkability.
94 Association of Bay Area Governments. “Affordable Housing in the Bay Area.” 2014.
95 Association of Bay Area Governments. “Jobs-Housing Connection Strategy.” 2012.
96 City of Palo Alto. “2015-2023 Housing Element.” 2014. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/44951
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 138
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Density Bonus Ordinance
Density bonus provisions are a tool for attracting and assisting developers in constructing affordable
housing. Density bonuses allow a developer to increase the density of a development above that
allowed by standard zoning regulations, as well as provide regulatory relief in the form of
concessions. In exchange, a developer provides affordable units in the development.
In 2004, the California State Legislature lowered the thresholds required to receive a density bonus
and increased the number of concessions a developer can receive. The City adopted a Density Bonus
Ordinance in January 2014. The density bonus regulations allow for bonuses of 20 to 35 percent,
depending on the amount and type of affordable housing provided. As required by state law, the
regulations also allow for exceptions to applicable zoning and other development standards, to
further encourage development of affordable housing.
Below Market Rate Housing Program
Established in 1974, the City’s BMR Housing Program has been instrumental in the production of
affordable housing by requiring developers to provide a certain percentage of units as BMR in every
approved project of three units or more. The program originally required that for developments on
sites of less than five acres, the developer must provide 15 percent of the total housing units as BMR
housing units. If the site was larger than five acres, the developer was required to provide 20 percent
of the units as BMR housing.
However, recent court cases have drastically changed the BMR, or “inclusionary zoning”,
environment in California. Two factors have received recent attention by the courts: whether
inclusionary housing is considered rent control, and whether inclusionary housing and related
housing mitigation fees are considered exactions. As a result of ongoing litigation, many cities have
suspended or amended the portions of their inclusionary housing requirements that require
affordable units to be included in market‐rate rental developments and many cities have turned,
instead, to the use of development impact fees charged on new, market-rate housing and/or
commercial development. Known as “Housing Impact Fees” and “Commercial Linkage Fees,” these
fees are based on an assessment of the extent to which the development of new market-rate
housing or commercial uses, respectively, generates additional demand for affordable housing. 97
Commercial Housing Fund
The Commercial Fund is composed solely of housing mitigation fees collected from commercial
developers under Chapter 16.47 of the Municipal Code. This ordinance was adopted in 1984. Fee
revenue varies greatly from year to year. However, over a ten-year period from 1998 to 2008, over
$5.4 million was collected in fees at an average of $542,000 per year. During that period the fee rate
ranged from about $3.00 to $4.00 per square foot. In May 2002, the housing impact fee was
increased to $15.00 per net new square feet of commercial space and, as of May 2008, it had gone up
to $17.06 with annual CPI adjustments. The Commercial Fund monies are used only to assist in the
development of new housing units. Since initiation of commercial housing impact fees through June
97 California Building Industry Association. “California Supreme Court takes Inclusionary Zoning Case.”
http://www.cbia.org/go/government-affairs/cbia-reports1/september-23-2013/california-supreme-court-takes-inclusionary-
zoning-case/
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 139
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
2008, seven new housing projects have been constructed with City financial assistance from the
Commercial Fund producing 377 new affordable rental units.
Residential Housing Fund
The Residential Fund is primarily composed of fees received from developers of market-rate
residential projects in-lieu of the provision of on-site or off-site below market rate units. These fees
are collected pursuant to the City's BMR housing program. Over the ten-year period from 1998 to
2008, almost $5.8 million in fees were collected, for an average of about $580,000 per year in
revenue. Residential Fund monies may be used to assist new housing development or the
acquisition, rehabilitation or the preservation of existing housing for affordable housing. All housing
assisted has been rental and most of the units have been affordable to very low and low income
households. Through 2008, a total of nine housing projects with 379 units have been acquired,
rehabilitated or constructed with City assistance from this Fund.
In all cases, the housing projects assisted by the City have been developed, owned and managed by
local nonprofit housing organizations. Many housing types have been developed serving different
housing needs. Examples include: senior apartments, SRO units, family apartments, units for
persons with disabilities, studio units and large family units. Typically, the developer has also used
state of federal housing subsidies such as the housing tax credits in addition to the City's financial
assistance.
The City provides its funds through long-term loans with low interest rates and usually deferred
payment. All loans must be approved by the City Council and the City restricts the projects under
long-term regulatory agreements. Any cost necessary to develop the housing can be funded by the
City. Developers are encouraged to apply through the funding cycle for the CDBG program, but may
apply at other times if necessary.
Development Impact Fees for Housing
Palo Alto’s impact fees are comprised of four categories: housing, traffic, community facilities, and
parkland dedication. The housing fee to non-residential development increased from $18.44 to $18.89
per square foot, effective May 8, 2013. The fee rate applies to all net new commercial square footage
on a site. Full payment is required at building permit issuance with some exemptions including
hospitals and convalescent facilities, private education facilities, public facilities and private clubs,
lodges and fraternal organizations.
Housing Trust Silicon Valley (HTSV)
This nonprofit organization combines private and public funds to support affordable housing
activities in the County, including assistance to developers and homebuyers. The HTSV is among the
largest housing trusts in the nation building special needs and affordable housing and assisting first-
time homebuyers. Palo Alto was among the contributors during its founding and has continued to
allocate funding. A provision was added to ensure the City’s funds be used exclusively for qualifying
affordable housing projects within Palo Alto. The most recent contribution included $200,000 from
the City’s Residential Housing Fund for Fiscal Year 2012. Participation in the Trust has increased the
available housing funding for a number of Palo Alto projects. In addition, HTSCC has invested over
$100,000 assisting 16 households to purchase homes in Palo Alto through its first-time homebuyer
program.
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 140
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME)
Additionally, the City has recently been approved to join the County's HOME Consortium. HOME
funds can be used to fund eligible affordable housing projects for acquisition, construction and
rehabilitation. Starting in FY 2015-2016, developers of affordable housing projects will be eligible to
competitively apply through an annual RFP process directly to the County for HOME funds to help
subsidize affordable housing projects in the City.
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 141
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
SP-60 Homelessness Strategy – 91.215(d)
Describe the five-year goals and actions for reducing and ending homelessness including:
Following a six-month planning process, the Santa Clara County Collaborative on Affordable Housing
and Homeless Issues recommended the people serving on the Destination: Home Leadership Board
should also serve as the Continuum of Care (CoC) Board. The Destination: Home Leadership Board
agreed to accept this dual role due to the overwhelming need for a unified and community-wide
strategy to end and prevent homelessness, especially chronic homelessness, which is a priority both
locally and nationally. The new CoC Board identified the County’s Office of Supportive Housing as the
Collaborative Applicant to ensure that the local CoC fully implemented the requirements and intent
of The Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing (HEARTH) Act of 2009.
Lead by Destination: Home, the CoC created a five-year strategic plan entitled the 2015-2020
Community Plan to End Homelessness in Santa Clara County through a series of community summits
related to the specific homeless populations and homeless issues in the County.98 As previously
discussed, the CoC’s target is to house 2,518 chronically homeless individuals, 718 homeless veterans,
and more than 2,333 homeless children, youth, and families.
The CoC’s plan includes the following overarching strategies:
1. Disrupt Systems – Develop disruptive strategies and innovative prototypes that transform
the systems related to housing a homeless person.
2. Build the Solution – Secure the right amount of funding needed to provide housing and
services to those who are homeless and those at risk of homelessness.
3. Serve the Person – Adopt an approach that recognizes the need for client-centered
strategies with different responses for different levels of need and different groups,
targeting resources to the specific individual or household.
Within each strategy the CoC identifies several tasks:
1. Disrupt Systems
a. Transform the Way Government Responds to Homelessness
i. Rethink how government organizes to respond to homelessness
ii. Ensure people leaving systems do not become homeless
iii. Increase access to benefits for people who are homeless or at risk of
homelessness
b. Include the Private Sector and the Community in the Solution
i. Increase awareness
ii. Increase and align private resources
iii. Provide opportunities for the business sector to address homelessness
iv. Collaborate with community organizations
v. Engage with the environmental community to reduce the environmental
impacts of homelessness
c. Create the Best Homeless System of Care
i. Coordinate housing and services to connect each individual with the right
housing solution
98 Santa Clara County CoC. “Community Plan to End Homelessness in Santa Clara County 2015-2020.” 2014.
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 142
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
ii. Respond to system barriers and service gaps by making the best use of
existing assets
iii. Partner across public and private sectors to improve systemic coordination
iv. Increase provider capacity
2. Build the Solution
a. Create New Homes and Opportunities to House Homeless Men, Women, and
Children
i. Create 6,000 Housing Opportunities
ii. Fund supportive services for the new housing opportunities
3. Serve the Population
a. Have Different Responses for Different Levels of Need
i. Provide permanent supportive housing to end chronic homelessness
ii. Expand rapid rehousing resources to respond to episodic homelessness
iii. Prevent homelessness before it happens
Reaching out to homeless persons (especially unsheltered persons) and assessing their individual
needs
Two formally homeless persons are on the Continuum of Care Board. Homeless outreach primarily
occurs in the City of San Jose, although outreach efforts to the rest of the County are expected to
increase in the next 12 months.
Addressing the emergency and transitional housing needs of homeless persons
New Directions, on a county-wide basis, provides intensive case management to frequent users of
the emergency departments at four area hospitals, many of whom are chronically homeless
individuals. Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, O’Connor Hospital, Regional Medical Center and Saint
Louise Regional Hospital are served by this project. Health Care for the Homeless provides medical
care to homeless people through its clinics and mobile medical van at homeless encampments.
Helping homeless persons (especially chronically homeless individuals and families, families with
children, veterans and their families, and unaccompanied youth) make the transition to permanent
housing and independent living, including shortening the period of time that individuals and
families experience homelessness, facilitating access for homeless individuals and families to
affordable housing units, and preventing individuals and families who were recently homeless
from becoming homeless again.
Particularly for chronically homeless, it is preferred that individuals receive intensive case
management rather than simple information and referral services. Case managers work to assist
homeless individuals find housing, connect with resources, and receive services to maintain housing.
The provision of case management is person-based rather than shelter-based with the goal of rapid
re-housing. Within the five-year goals of the Community Plan to End Homelessness, the target is to
create 6,000 housing opportunities for persons who are homeless. An additional goal is for each of
the 6,000 new tenants to have access to the services that will allow them to maintain that housing.99
99 Santa Clara County CoC. “Community Plan to End Homelessness in Santa Clara County 2015-2020.” 2014.
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 143
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
The City spends part of its CDBG funds and local funds toward a variety of public services to address
the needs of homeless and very low income persons. Services provided include free food, clothing,
medical care, legal assistance, and rental assistance. The City allocates funding to the following
homeless service providers:
CDBG Funded
InnVision Shelter Network - Opportunity Services Center
The Opportunity Services Center facility in Palo Alto provides a clean, safe environment and
resources for low income or homeless persons including bagged groceries, hot meals, a
rotating church shelter program, information and referral, shower and laundry facilities, case
management, and money management (payee) programs, clothing and health services. A
daily hot meal is provided at a different location each day and bagged groceries are
distributed daily at the Downtown Food Closet. The Hotel de Zink rotating church shelter
program is housed at a different location each month.
Downtown Streets Team – Workforce Development Program
This economic development program helps motivated graduates of the Downtown Streets
Team programs move on to stable employment. The program includes mentoring,
counseling, job readiness, job training, and assistance.
HSRAP Funded
Abilities United – Disability Services
This organization provides services and activities for adults and children with mental and
physical disabilities.
Community Technology Alliance – Shared Technical Infrastructure
The Community Technology Alliance provides shelter hotline and voicemail services for
homeless individuals and families. The voicemail service helps case-managed clients attain
individual goals such as securing health care, housing or employment. A countywide housing
information and referral website and tracking system is maintained to assist service providers
and those seeking shelter.
Downtown Streets Team – Downtown Streets
Downtown Streets Team identifies motivated homeless individuals and provides them with
jobs cleaning and beautifying the downtown area in exchange for housing and food
vouchers. The program includes counseling, coaching and training to help program
participants build self-esteem, confidence and connections in the community.
Momentum for Mental Health – Homeless Outreach Program
Momentum for Mental Health outreach program provide emergency on-call services to assist
local mentally ill homeless persons. The agency provides services to City departments,
libraries, community centers and local homeless service providers.
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 144
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Help low-income individuals and families avoid becoming homeless, especially extremely low-
income individuals and families who are likely to become homeless after being discharged from a
publicly funded institution or system of care, or who are receiving assistance from public and
private agencies that address housing, health, social services, employment, education or youth
needs
The City allocates funding to the following service providers:
Palo Alto Housing Corporation – SRO Tenant Counseling
Palo Alto Housing Corporation provides counseling and case-management services for the
low income residents and prospective residents of single room occupancy hotels in Palo Alto.
Many SRO residents have a history of homelessness and special needs. The program plays a
vital role in helping residents maintain their stability and housing.
Avenidas – Senior Services
This agency is the main provider of senior services in the Mid-Peninsula area.
La Comida de California – Hot Meals for the Elderly
La Comida provides a daily hot meal program for the elderly.
May View Health Center – Health Care for Low Income & Homeless Residents
The Center provides basic primary health care services and health education and referral
services for uninsured low income and homeless individuals from the Palo Alto area.
Peninsula HealthCare Connection – Project Downtown Connect
This is a provider of health care services at the Opportunity Center of Palo Alto. Project
Downtown Connect provides Section 8 vouchers to eligible homeless individuals and
families.
SALA – Legal Assistance for the Elderly
Senior Adults Legal Assistance (SALA) provides affordable legal assistance to elderly
residents.
Discussion
Please see discussion above.
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 145
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
SP-65 Lead based paint Hazards – 91.215(i)
Actions to address LBP hazards and increase access to housing without LBP hazards
The City’s housing and CDBG staff provide information and referral to property owners, developers,
and non-profit organizations rehabilitating older housing about lead-based paint (LBP) hazards. Any
house to be rehabilitated with City financial assistance is required to be inspected for the existence
of LBP and LBP hazards. The City will provide financial assistance for the abatement of such hazards
in units rehabilitated with City funding.
How are the actions listed above related to the extent of lead poisoning and hazards?
Building age is used to estimate the number of homes with LBP which was prohibited on residential
units after 1978. For the purposes of this plan, units built before 1980 are used as a baseline for units
that contain LBP. Seventy-nine percent of all units (20,265 units) in the City were built before 1980
and provide potential exposure to LBP. As discussed in the Needs Assessment, 23 percent of
households within the City have incomes ranging from 0-80% AMI. Using this percentage as a
baseline, we can estimate that 4,661 LBP units are occupied by LMI families.
How are the actions listed above integrated into housing policies and procedures?
The City requires that contractors are trained and certified in an effort to decrease the risk of
potential use of LBP in new units. All development and rehabilitation projects must be evaluated
according to HUD’s Lead Safe Housing Rule 24 CFR Part 35.
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 146
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
SP-70 Anti-Poverty Strategy – 91.215(j)
How are the Jurisdiction poverty reducing goals, programs, and policies coordinated with this
affordable housing plan
As stated in the Needs Assessment, almost a quarter of households (23 percent, or 5,845
households) in the City are LMI, with incomes ranging from 0-80% AMI. To address this, the City
employs a multi-tiered anti-poverty strategy, with each of the goals and programs described in this
plan addressing poverty directly or indirectly. The City provided either CDBG or HSRAP funding to
several services for persons within the community who are low income, homeless, or at-risk of
becoming homeless. In summary, the goal of all of the services listed in this chapter is to prevent
homelessness, help people move out of homelessness, and to reduce the number of persons below
the poverty line.
The City’s Workforce Development Program, administered by Downtown Streets, Inc., provides a
transition from unemployment and homelessness to regular employment and housing through case
management, job training, mentoring, housing, and transportation assistance. The City also partners
with NOVA, a local nonprofit agency that provides job seekers with resume and job search
assistance, assessment, and referrals to specialized training and educational programs.
The City provided $1,216,177 in General Funds during FY 2013-2014 to address primary human service
needs in the community. These funds include multi-year agreements with others allocated by HSRAP
and administered by the Office of Human Services in the Community Services Department. Funded
projects addressed priority needs in the following categories: early child care and education, youth
programs, senior nutrition and social services, homelessness, and basic needs such as health care
and mental health.100
In 2013 the Palo Alto City Council approved the allocation of $150,000 in CDBG funds toward a
Microenterprise Assistance Program (MAP). The purpose of the program is to provide access to new
opportunities to improve the economic self-sufficiency of LMI families and individuals. This program
builds on the foundation of entrepreneurship and empowers clients by increasing their economic
literacy, business skills, self-esteem, and personal behavior appropriate to the workplace. The MAP
program seeks to accomplish the following:101
Provide an innovative path out of poverty
Create self-sufficiency
Improve the survival rate of microenterprise businesses
Improve employment skills
Promote community economic development
100 City of Palo Alto. “Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report FY2013-2014.” 2014
101 City of Palo Alto. “Pilot Microenterprise Assistance Program (MAP).
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=2480&TargetID=268
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 147
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
SP-80 Monitoring – 91.230
Describe the standards and procedures that the jurisdiction will use to monitor activities carried
out in furtherance of the plan and will use to ensure long-term compliance with requirements of
the programs involved, including minority business outreach and the comprehensive planning
requirements
A key element of the CDBG Planner’s role in management and oversight responsibilities is the
monitoring of program performance. In general, the CDBG Coordinator is responsible for managing
the day-to-day operations of the City’s CDBG Program and ensuring that funds are used in keeping
with program requirements. Monitoring is a review of program or project performance and
compliance.
The City uses a CDBG Monitoring Responsibilities and Plan to provide an internal control mechanism
designed to review performance over a period of time and to evaluate compliance of nonprofit sub-
recipients funded under CDBG pursuant to 24 CFR 570.502. Applicability of Uniform Administrative
Requirements, (a) (14) and with 24 CFR Section 85, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants
and Cooperative Agreements to States and Local Governments, 24 CFR Section 85.40 “Monitoring
and reporting program performance,” and other laws and regulations based on the funding
source.102
Monitoring allows the City to provide technical assistance to help subrecipients comply with
applicable laws and regulations, improve technical skills, increase capacity and stay updated on
regulations relevant to CDBG. Additionally, monitoring helps to identify deficiencies, and highlight
accomplishments and best practices that can be duplicated.
Monitoring will be conducted in two phases. File review will generally confirm compliance with
reporting requirements, financial submittals, and contract provisions and much of it will be
completed prior to the onsite visit. On-site reviews will focus more on the beneficiary documentation
and services provided, including quantitative performance outcomes to local and federal objectives,
and financial processes and documentation only available at the program site.
The City will coordinate its monitoring efforts of Public Service activities funded by other entitlement
jurisdictions, in an effort to standardize the process and reduce the burden on the providers.
Monitoring checklists will be used to assure regulatory requirements are being met and will
adequately be designed to test for client eligibility. Subrecipients who are found to be in
noncompliance and receive a finding as a result of their monitoring will be provided with technical
assistance towards resolution. Actions taken by the City to achieve compliance may include, but not
be limited to, withholding further disbursements of CDBG funds until satisfactory compliance with
applicable regulations are achieved.
102 U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development. “Monitoring and Reporting Program Performance.”
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2000-title24-vol1/pdf/CFR-2000-title24-vol1-sec85-40.pdf
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 148
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Minority Outreach (MBE/WBE)
Through the CDBG Program the City works with non-profit affordable housing developers on
awarding contractors and subcontractors performing the construction contracts awarded
participation by minority businesses in each construction project.
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 149
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
First Year Action Plan
AP-15 Expected Resources – 91.220(c) (1, 2)
Introduction
The City of Palo Alto’s (City) Fiscal Year (FY) 2015-2016 Action Plan covers the time period from July 1,
2015 to June 30 2016 (HUD Program Year 2015). The City’s FY 2016 entitlement amount is $442,460.
Additionally, the City estimates approximately $136,049 in program income and an estimated
$303,164 in available uncommitted funds from the prior program year, bringing the total estimated
budget for FY 2015-2016 to $881,673.
While U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) allocations are critical, they are
not sufficient to overcome all barriers and address all needs that low income individuals and families
face in attaining self-sufficiency. The City will continue to leverage additional resources to
successfully provide support and services to the populations in need.
Currently, the City is not eligible to receive direct funding under the HOME Investment Partnership
Act (HOME), Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG), or Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS
(HOPWA) – also programs covered under the Consolidated Plan Regulations.
Within the CDBG funding, Year One allocations are as follows:
Table 74 - CDBG Fiscal Year 2015-2016 Annual Budgetary Priorities
CDBG Fiscal Year 2015 Annual Budgetary Priorities
FY 2015-2016 Budget
($442,460 Allocation + $136,049 Program Income)
$578,509
Administration and Planning (20% Cap = $115,701) 20% $115,702
Public Services (15% Cap = $82,910) 15% $82,880
Affordable Housing Projects 40% $231,140
Economic Development Projects 25% $148,787
Total 100% $578,509
FY 2014-2015 Uncommitted Funds
(Affordable Housing & Economic Development Projects)
$303,164
Total Available to Allocate $881,673
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 150
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Table 75 - Expected Resources – Priority Table
Program Source
of
Funds
Uses of Funds Expected Amount Available Year 1 Expected
Amount
Available
Reminder
of ConPlan
$
Narrative Description
Annual
Allocation:
$
Program
Income: $
Prior Year
Resources:
$
Total:
$
CDBG Public
Federal
Admin and
Planning
Acquisition
Economic
Development
Housing
Public
Improvements
Public Service
$442,460
$136,049
$303,164
$881,673
$2,103,594 CDBG funds will be used
for the creation and
preservation of
affordable rental units,
improvements in lower
income neighborhoods,
and public services that
benefit low income and
special needs
households.
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 151
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Explain how federal funds will leverage those additional resources (private, state and local funds),
including a description of how matching requirements will be satisfied
Entitlement Funds
Leverage, in the context of the CDBG and HOME, means bringing other local, state, and federal
financial resources to maximize the reach and impact of the City’s HUD Programs. HUD, like many
other federal agencies, encourages the recipients of federal monies to demonstrate that efforts are
being made to strategically leverage additional funds in order to achieve greater results. Leverage is
also a way to increase project efficiencies and benefit from economies of scale that often come with
combining sources of funding for similar or expanded scopes. Funds will be leveraged if financial
commitments toward the costs of a project from a source other than the originating HUD program
are documented.
Additionally, the City has recently been approved to join the County's HOME Consortium. HOME
funds can be used to fund eligible affordable housing projects for acquisition, construction and
rehabilitation. Starting in FY 2015-2016 developers of affordable housing projects will be eligible to
competitively apply through an annual Request for Proposals (RFP) process directly to the County
for HOME funds to help subsidize affordable housing projects in Palo Alto. If the City receives HOME
dollars from its participation in the HOME consortium, the required 25 percent matching funds will
be provided from the City’s Affordable Housing Fund, which is comprised of two sub-funds: the
Commercial Housing Fund and the Residential Housing Fund. As of August 25, 2014 the Commercial
Housing Fund had an available balance of approximately $6,600,000 and the Residential Housing
Fund had an available balance of $1,400,000.
Other Federal Grant Programs
In addition to the entitlement dollars listed above, the federal government has several other funding
programs for community development and affordable housing activities. These include: the Section
8 Housing Choice Voucher Program, Section 202, Section 811, the Affordable Housing Program (AHP)
through the Federal Home Loan Bank, and others. It should be noted that, in most cases, the City
would not be the applicant for these funding sources as many of these programs offer assistance to
affordable housing developers rather than local jurisdictions.
State Housing and Community Development Sources
In California, the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and the California
Housing Finance Agency (CalHFA) administer a variety of statewide public affordable housing
programs that offer assistance to nonprofit affordable housing developers. Examples of HCD’s
programs include the Multifamily Housing Program (MHP), Affordable Housing Innovation Fund
(AHIF), Building Equity and Growth in Neighborhoods Program (BEGIN), and CalHOME. Many HCD
programs have historically been funded by one-time State bond issuances and, as such, are subject
to limited availability of funding. CalHFA 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 federal Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC)
program, a widely used financing source for affordable housing projects. As with the other federal
grant programs discussed above, the City would not apply for these funding sources. Rather, local
affordable housing developers could apply for funding through these programs for particular
developments in the City.
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 152
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Additionally, the County also receives Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) funds from the State for
housing.
County and Local Housing and Community Development Sources
There are a variety of countywide and local resources that support housing and community
development programs. Some of these programs offer assistance to local affordable housing
developers and community organizations while others provide assistance directly to individuals.
These resources are discussed below:
Human Service Resource Allocation Process
In addition to the CDBG public service funds, the City will provide $1,099,347 million dollars
from the General Fund in support of human services through HSRAP. The HSRAP funds, in
conjunction with the CDBG public service funds, are distributed to local nonprofit agencies.
Palo Alto Commercial Housing Fund
The Commercial Housing 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 August 25, 2014 the Commercial
Housing Fund had an available balance of approximately $6,600,000.
Palo Alto Residential Housing Fund
The Residential Housing Fund 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. As of
August 25, 2014 the Residential Housing Fund had an available balance of $1,400,000.
Below Market Rate Emergency Fund
This fund was authorized by City 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 March 13, 2014 the BMR
Emergency Fund had a balance of approximately $450,000.
Housing Trust Silicon Valley
This nonprofit organization combines private and public funds to support affordable housing
activities in the County, including assistance to developers and homebuyers. The Housing
Trust is among the largest housing trusts in the nation building special needs and affordable
housing and assisting first-time homebuyers. Since HTSV began distributing funds in 2001, the
trust has invested over $75 million and leveraged over $1.88 billion to create more than 9,953
housing opportunities.
Mortgage Credit Certificates (MCC) Program
The MCC program provides assistance to first-time homebuyers by allowing an eligible
purchaser to take 20 percent of their annual mortgage interest payment as a tax credit
against federal income taxes. The County administers the MCC Program on behalf of the
jurisdictions, including Palo Alto. The program does establish maximum sales price limits on
units assisted in this program and, due to the high housing costs in the City, there have been
few households assisted in Palo Alto in recent years.
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 153
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Santa Clara County Affordable Housing Fund (AHF)
The County Board of Supervisors established the AHF with initial funding of $18.6 million in
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 the County. The
County has awarded over $10 million from the AHF to date. $960,000 was awarded to the
Tree House project developed by the Palo Alto Housing Corporation.
Stanford Affordable Housing Fund
The County maintains this affordable housing fund intended to benefit low income
households. The County distributes the funds through a Notice of Funding Availability
(NOFA) process and has assisted developers in creating 91 units regionally.
If appropriate, describe publically owned land or property located within the jurisdiction that may
be used to address the needs identified in the plan
Not applicable; the existing land that the City has jurisdiction over is currently utilized by facilities and
parks. Sixty-five percent of the City is open space.
Discussion
Please see discussions above.
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 154
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
AP-20 Annual Goals and Objectives
Goals Summary Information
Table 76 - Goals Summary
Sort
Order
Goal Name Start
Year
End
Year
Category Geographic
Area
Needs Addressed Funding Goal Outcome
Indicator
1 Affordable Housing 2015 2020 Affordable
Housing
N/A Affordable
Housing
CDBG:
$392,368
Rental units
rehabilitated:
156 Housing Units
2 Homelessness 2015 2020 Homeless N/A Homelessness CDBG:
$63,360
Public service activities
other than for
low/mod income
housing benefit:
531 Persons Assisted
3 Strengthen
Neighborhoods
2015 2020 Non-Housing
Community
Development
Non-Homeless
Special Needs
N/A Community
Services and
Public
Improvements
CDBG:
$19,520
Public service activities
other than for
low/mod income
housing benefit:
305 Persons Assisted
4 Fair Housing 2015 2020 Non-Housing
Community
Development
N/A Fair Housing CDBG:
$32,016
Public service activities
other than for
low/mod income
housing benefit:
30 Persons Assisted
5 Economic
Development
2015 2020 Non-Housing
Community
Development
N/A Economic
Development
CDBG:
$290,723
Jobs created/retained:
30 Jobs
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 155
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Goal Descriptions
1 Goal Name Affordable Housing
Goal Description Assist in the creation and preservation of affordable housing for low income and special needs households.
2 Goal Name Homelessness
Goal Description Support activities to end homelessness.
3 Goal Name Strengthen Neighborhoods
Goal Description Support activities that strengthen neighborhoods through the provision of community services and public improvements
to benefit low income and special needs households.
4 Goal Name Fair Housing
Goal Description Promote fair housing choice.
5 Goal Name Economic Development
Goal Description Expand economic opportunities for low income households.
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 156
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
AP-35 Projects – 91.220(d)
Introduction
The Consolidated Plan goals below represent high priority needs for the City of Palo Alto (City) and
serve as the basis for the strategic actions the City will use to meet these needs. The goals, listed in
no particular order, are:
1. Assist in the creation and preservation of affordable housing for low income and special
needs households.
2. Support activities to end homelessness.
3. Support activities that strengthen neighborhoods through the provision of community
services and public improvements to benefit low income and special needs households.
4. Promote fair housing choice.
5. Expand economic opportunities for low income households.
Projects
Table 77 - Project Information
# Project Name
1 Long-Term Care Ombudsman Program
2 Opportunity Services Center
3 SRO Resident Support Services
4 Housing & Emergency Services
5 Domestic Violence Services
6 Fair Housing Services
7 Planning and Administration
8 Palo Alto Gardens Rehabilitation Project
9 Workforce Development Program
Describe the reasons for allocation priorities and any obstacles to addressing underserved needs
The City’s Consolidated Plan update coincides with the development of the first year Action Plan and
the biennial RFP process. The City awards CDBG funding to nonprofit agencies to provide public
services and housing for low income and special needs households. The City operates on a two-year
grant funding cycle for CDBG grants.
The City allocates its CDBG funds to projects and programs that will primarily benefit 0-50% AMI
households, the homeless and special needs populations. The allocation of funds is made based on
the needs identified in the Consolidated Plan.
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 157
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
AP-38 Project Summary
Project Summary Information
Table 78 - Project Summary
Sort
Order
Project Name Target
Area
Goals Supported Needs Addressed Funding Goal Outcome
Indicator
1 Catholic Charities of Santa Clara County
– Long-term Care Ombudsman Program
N/A Strengthen
Neighborhoods
Homelessness
Community Services
and Public
Improvements
$5,422 Public service activities
other than for low/mod
income housing benefit:
260 Persons Assisted
2 InnVision Shelter Network –
Opportunity Services Center
N/A Homelessness
Strengthen
Homelessness
Community Services
and Public
Improvements
$38,499 Public service activities
other than for low/mod
income housing benefit:
400 Persons Assisted
3 Palo Alto Housing Corporation –
SRO Resident Support Program
N/A Strengthen
Neighborhoods
Homelessness
Affordable Housing
Fair Housing
Community Services
and Public
Improvements
Homelessness
Affordable Housing
$24,861 Public service activities
other than for low/mod
income housing benefit:
131 Persons Assisted
4 Silicon Valley Independent Living Center
– Housing & Emergency Housing
Services
N/A Strengthen
Neighborhoods
Fair Housing
Community Services
Fair Housing
$5,422 Public service activities
other than for low/mod
income housing benefit:
20 Persons Assisted
5 YWCA of Silicon Valley –
Domestic Violence Activities
N/A Community
Services
Community Services $8,676 Public service activities
other than for low/mod
income housing benefit:
40 Persons Assisted
6 Project Sentinel – Fair Housing Services N/A Fair Housing Fair Housing
Affordable Housing
$32,016 Public service activities
other than for low/mod
income housing benefit:
40 Persons Assisted
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 158
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Sort
Order
Project Name Target
Area
Goals Supported Needs Addressed Funding Goal Outcome
Indicator
7 City of Palo Alto Planning and
Administration
N/A Affordable Housing
Homelessness
Strengthen
Neighborhoods
Fair Housing
Economic
Development
Affordable Housing
Homelessness
Community Services
Public Facilities, Public
Improvements and
Infrastructure
Fair Housing
Economic Development
$83,686 N/A
8 MidPen Housing – Palo Alto Garden
Housing Rehabilitation
N/A Affordable Housing
Affordable Housing $392,368 Rental units
rehabilitated:
156 Housing Units
9 Downtown Streets – Workforce
Development Program
N/A Economic
Development
Economic Development
$290,723 Jobs created/retained:
30 Jobs
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 159
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
AP-50 Geographic Distribution – 91.220(f)
Description of the geographic areas of the entitlement (including areas of low income and minority
concentration) where assistance will be directed
Not applicable. The City has not established specific target areas to focus the investment of CDBG
funds.
Table 79 - Geographic Distribution
Target Area Percentage of Funds
N/A N/A
Rationale for the priorities for allocating investments geographically
Not applicable.
Discussion
Please see discussion above.
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 160
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
AP-55 Affordable Housing – 91.220(g)
Introduction
Palo Alto has identified affordable housing as the primary objective for the expenditure of CDBG
funds in the Consolidated Plan. The City will continue to allocate the maximum funding available to
activities and projects that meet this objective. While CDBG entitlement dollars are limited, the City
does anticipate expending a significant portion of its CDBG funds on the preservation and
rehabilitation of affordable housing. A detailed discussion of how HUD entitlements will be used to
support affordable housing needs within the City is provided in AP-20, with the number of
households to be assisted itemized by goal.
Table 80 - One Year Goals for Affordable Housing by Support Requirement
One Year Goals for the Number of Households to be Supported
Homeless 0
Non-Homeless 0
Special-Needs 156
Total 156
Table 81 - One Year Goals for Affordable Housing by Support Type
One Year Goals for the Number of Households Supported Through
Rental Assistance 0
The Production of New Units 0
Rehab of Existing Units 156
Acquisition of Existing Units 0
Total 156
Discussion
Please see discussion above.
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 161
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
AP-60 Public Housing – 91.220(h)
Introduction
HACSC assists approximately 17,000 households through the federal Section 8 Housing Choice
Voucher program (Section 8). The Section 8 waiting list contains 21,256 households (estimated to be
a 10-year wait). HACSC also develops, controls, and manages more than 2,600 affordable rental
housing properties throughout the County. HACSC’s programs are targeted toward LMI households
and more than 80 percent of their client households are extremely low income families, seniors,
veterans, persons with disabilities, and formerly homeless individuals. 103
In 2008, HACSC entered a ten-year agreement with HUD to become a Moving to Work (MTW)
agency. The MTW program is a federal demonstration program that allows greater flexibility to
design and implement more innovative approaches for providing housing assistance.104 Additionally,
HACSC has used LIHTC financing to transform and rehabilitate 535 units of public housing into
HACSC-controlled properties. The agency is an active developer of affordable housing and has either
constructed, rehabilitated, or assisted with the development of more than 30 housing developments
that service a variety of households, including special needs households.
Actions planned during the next year to address the needs to public housing
Not applicable. HACSC owns and manages four public housing units, which are all located in the City
of Santa Clara.
Actions to encourage public housing residents to become more involved in management and
participate in homeownership
While the majority of their units have been converted to affordable housing stock, HACSC is
proactive in incorporating resident input into the agency’s policy-making process. An equitable and
transparent policy-making process that includes the opinions of residents is achieved through the
involvement of two tenant commissioners, one being a senior citizen, on the HACSC board.
HACSC has been a MTW agency since 2008. In this time the agency has developed 31 MTW activities.
The vast majority of its successful initiatives have been aimed at reducing administrative
inefficiencies, which in turn opens up more resources for programs aimed at LMI families. The
following is excerpted from HACSC’s August 2014 Board of Commissioner’s report:
“HACSC’s Family Self Sufficiency (FSS) Program is designed to provide assistance to current HACSC
Section 8 families to achieve self-sufficiency. When a family enrolls in the five-year program, HPD’s
FSS Coordinator and LIFESteps service provider helps the family develop self-sufficiency goals and a
training plan, and coordinates access to job training and other services, including childcare and
transportation. Program participants are required to seek and maintain employment or attend
school or job training. As participants increase their earned income and pay a larger share of the rent,
HACSC holds the amount of the tenant’s rent increases in an escrow account, which is then awarded
103 Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara. “Welcome to HACSC.” http://www.hacsc.org/
104 HACSC. “Moving to Work (MTW) 2014 Annual Report.” September 2014.
http://www.hacsc.org/assets/1/6/MTW_FY2014_Annual_Report-Final_Draft_9.30.14.pdf
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 162
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
to participants who successfully complete the program. HACSC is currently in the initial stages of
creating a pilot successor program to FSS under the auspices of its MTW flexibility called Focus
Forward.”105
If the PHA is designated as troubled, describe the manner in which financial assistance will be
provided or other assistance
Not applicable.
Discussion
Please see discussions above.
105 HACSC. “Housing Programs Department (HPD) Monthly Board Report.” August 2014.
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 163
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
AP-65 Homeless and Other Special Needs Activities – 91.220(i)
Introduction
The Santa Clara region is home to the fourth-largest population of homeless individuals (6,681 single
individuals)106 and the highest percentage of unsheltered homeless of any major city (75 percent of
homeless people sleep in places unfit for human habitation). The homeless assistance program
planning network is governed by the Santa Clara Continuum of Care (CoC), governed by the
Destination: Home Leadership Board, who serves as the CoC Board of Directors. The membership of
the CoC is a collaboration of representatives from local jurisdictions comprised of community-based
organizations, the Housing Authority of Santa Clara, governmental departments, health service
agencies, homeless advocates, consumers, the faith community, and research, policy and planning
groups. The homeless services system utilized by the CoC is referred to as the Homeless
Management Information System (HMIS). The HMIS monitors outcomes and performance measures
for all the homeless services agencies funded by the County.
Describe the jurisdictions one-year goals and actions for reducing and ending homelessness
including:
Reaching out to homeless persons (especially unsheltered persons) and assessing their individual
needs.
In January 2015, a Point‐In‐Time (PIT) count was conducted for Santa Clara County by the City of San
Jose in conjunction with the County of Santa Clara. The PIT is an intense survey used to count the
number of homeless living throughout Santa Clara County on the streets, in shelters, safe havens or
in transitional housing, or in areas not meant for human habitation. The survey was conducted by
hundreds of volunteers who asked those living on the streets, as well as the residents of shelters,
safe havens and transitional housing, to respond to questions related to their needs. A portion of the
survey addresses the needs of those surveyed. Palo Alto financially contributed to this effort.
Addressing the emergency shelter and transitional housing needs of homeless persons
In addressing the Consolidated Plan and the Continuum of Care strategic plans, Palo Alto will provide
funding for essential services and operations to local emergency shelters and transitional housing
facilities. The facilities provide shelter and services to homeless families with children, single parents
with children, single men and women, victims of domestic violence and sexual abuse, homeless
veterans, and the population living on the street. One example includes the Hotel de Zink rotating
shelter program housed at various faith based organizations throughout the calendar year. CDBG
funding is provided to InnVision Shelter Network, the operator of the program. A total of 15 beds are
provided on a nightly basis.
Helping homeless persons (especially chronically homeless individuals and families,
families with children, veterans and their families, and unaccompanied youth) make the
transition to permanent housing and independent living, including shortening the period
of time that individuals and families experience homelessness, facilitating access for
106 The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. “2014 Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR) to
Congress.” October 2014. https://www.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/AHAR-2014-Part1.pdf
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 164
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
homeless individuals and families to affordable housing units, and preventing individuals
and families who were recently homeless from becoming homeless again.
The City spends part of its CDBG funds and local funds toward a variety of public services to address
the needs of homeless and very low income persons. Services provided include free food, clothing,
medical care, legal assistance, and rental assistance. The City allocates funding to the following
homeless service providers:
CDBG Funded
InnVision Shelter Network - Opportunity Services Center: $35,500
The Opportunity Services Center facility in Palo Alto provides a clean, safe environment and
resources for low income or homeless persons including bagged groceries, hot meals, a
rotating church shelter program, information and referral, shower and laundry facilities, case
management, and money management (payee) programs, clothing and health services. A
daily hot meal is provided at a different location each day and bagged groceries are
distributed daily at the Downtown Food Closet. The Hotel de Zink rotating church shelter
program is housed at a different location each month.
Downtown Streets Team – Workforce Development Program: $276,654
This economic development program helps motivated graduates of the Downtown Streets
Team programs move on to stable employment. The program includes mentoring,
counseling, job readiness, job training, and assistance.
HSRAP Funded
Abilities United – Disability Services: Amount Pending
This organization provides services and activities for adults and children with mental and
physical disabilities.
Community Technology Alliance – Shared Technical Infrastructure: Amount Pending
The Community Technology Alliance provides shelter hotline and voicemail services for
homeless individuals and families. The voicemail service helps case-managed clients attain
individual goals such as securing health care, housing or employment. A countywide housing
information and referral website and tracking system is maintained to assist service providers
and those seeking shelter.
Downtown Streets Team – Downtown Streets: Amount Pending
Downtown Streets Team identifies motivated homeless individuals and provides them with
jobs cleaning and beautifying the downtown area in exchange for housing and food
vouchers. The program includes counseling, coaching and training to help program
participants build self-esteem, confidence and connections in the community.
Momentum for Mental Health – Homeless Outreach Program: Amount Pending
Momentum for Mental Health outreach program provide emergency on-call services to assist
local mentally ill homeless persons. The agency provides services to City departments,
libraries, community centers and local homeless service providers.
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 165
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Helping low income individuals and families avoid becoming homeless, especially
extremely low income individuals and families and those who are: being discharged from
publicly funded institutions and systems of care (such as health care facilities, mental
health facilities, foster care and other youth facilities, and corrections programs and
institutions); or, receiving assistance from public or private agencies that address housing,
health, social services, employment, education, or youth needs.
Palo Alto Housing Corporation – SRO Tenant Counseling: $22,924
Provides counseling and case-management services for the low-income residents and prospective
residents of single room occupancy hotels in Palo Alto. Many SRO residents have a history of
homelessness and special needs. The program plays a vital role in helping residents maintain their
stability and housing.
Avenidas – Senior Services:
Agency is the main provider of senior services in the Mid-Peninsula area.
La Comida de California – Hot Meals for The Elderly:
Daily meal program for the elderly.
May View Health Center – Health Care for Low Income & Homeless Palo Alto residents:
Basic primary health care services and health education and referral services for uninsured low-
income and homeless individuals from the Palo Alto area.
Peninsula HealthCare Connection – Project Downtown Connect:
Provider of health care services at the Opportunity Center of Palo Alto. Project Downtown Connect
provides Section 8 vouchers to eligible homeless individuals and families.
SALA – Legal Assistance to Elders:
Senior Adults Legal Assistance (SALA) provides affordable legal assistance to elders.
Discussion
Please see discussion above.
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 166
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
AP-75 Barriers to Affordable Housing – 91.220(j)
Introduction:
The incorporated and unincorporated jurisdictions within the County face barriers to affordable
housing that are common throughout the Bay Area. High on the list is the lack of developable land,
which increases the cost of available lands and increases housing development costs. Local
opposition is another common obstacle as many neighbors have strong reactions to infill and
affordable housing developments. Their opposition is often based on misconceptions, such as a
foreseen increase in crime; erosion of property values; increase in parking and traffic congestion; and
overwhelmed schools.107 However, to ensure a healthy economy the region must focus on strategies
and investment that provide housing for much of the region’s workforce – for example, sales clerks,
secretaries, firefighters, police, teachers, and health service workers – whose incomes significantly
limit their housing choices.108
Even when developments produce relatively affordable housing, in a constrained housing supply
market, higher income buyers and renters generally outbid lower income households and a home’s
final sale or rental price will generally far exceed the projected sales or rental costs. Public subsidies
are often needed to guarantee affordable homes for LMI households.
The City identified several constraints to the maintenance, development and improvement of
housing and affordable housing in its 2015-2023 Housing Element update: 109
Local policies and regulations can impact the price and availability of housing and, in
particular, the provision of affordable housing
Land use controls
Site improvement requirements
Fees and exactions
Permit processing procedures
Strategy to Remove or Ameliorate the Barriers to Affordable Housing
The City is addressing the barriers to affordable housing through the following programs and
ordinances:
Context-Based Design Codes
The City adopted form-based codes in 2006 to ensure and encourage residential development by
following context-based design guidelines to meet increased density needs. The code encourages
the creation of walkable, pedestrian-oriented neighborhoods, following green building design
principles, and increasing density along transit corridors and in mixed-use neighborhoods. The
Context-Based Design Code allows for increased density and mixed-use buildings in a way that
enhances neighborhood character and walkability.
107 Association of Bay Area Governments. “Affordable Housing in the Bay Area.” 2014.
108 Association of Bay Area Governments. “Jobs-Housing Connection Strategy.” 2012.
109 City of Palo Alto. “2015-2023 Housing Element.” 2014. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/44951
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 167
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Density Bonus Ordinance
Density bonus provisions are a tool for attracting and assisting developers in constructing affordable
housing. Density bonuses allow a developer to increase the density of a development above that
allowed by standard zoning regulations, as well as provide regulatory relief in the form of
concessions. In exchange, a developer provides affordable units in the development.
In 2004, the California State Legislature lowered the thresholds required to receive a density bonus
and increased the number of concessions a developer can receive. The City adopted a Density Bonus
Ordinance in January 2014. The density bonus regulations allow for bonuses of 20 to 35 percent,
depending on the amount and type of affordable housing provided. As required by state law, the
regulations also allow for exceptions to applicable zoning and other development standards, to
further encourage development of affordable housing.
Below Market Rate Housing Program
Established in 1974, the City’s BMR Housing Program has been instrumental in the production of
affordable housing by requiring developers to provide a certain percentage of units as BMR in every
approved project of three units or more. The program originally required that for developments on
sites of less than five acres, the developer must provide 15 percent of the total housing units as BMR
housing units. If the site was larger than five acres, the developer was required to provide 20 percent
of the units as BMR housing.
However, recent court cases have drastically changed the BMR, or “inclusionary zoning”,
environment in California. Two factors have received recent attention by the courts: whether
inclusionary housing is considered rent control, and whether inclusionary housing and related
housing mitigation fees are considered exactions. As a result of ongoing litigation, many cities have
suspended or amended the portions of their inclusionary housing requirements that require
affordable units to be included in market‐rate rental developments and many cities have turned,
instead, to the use of development impact fees charged on new, market-rate housing and/or
commercial development. Known as “Housing Impact Fees” and “Commercial Linkage Fees,” these
fees are based on an assessment of the extent to which the development of new market-rate
housing or commercial uses, respectively, generates additional demand for affordable housing. 110
Commercial Housing Fund
The Commercial Fund is composed solely of housing mitigation fees collected from commercial
developers under Chapter 16.47 of the Municipal Code. This ordinance was adopted in 1984. Fee
revenue varies greatly from year to year. However, over a ten-year period from 1998 to 2008, over
$5.4 million was collected in fees at an average of $542,000 per year. During that period the fee rate
ranged from about $3.00 to $4.00 per square foot. In May 2002, the housing impact fee was
increased to $15.00 per net new square feet of commercial space and as of May 2008 it had gone up
to $17.06 with annual CPI adjustments. The Commercial Fund monies are used only to assist in the
development of new housing units. Since initiation of commercial housing impact fees through June
110 California Building Industry Association. “California Supreme Court takes Inclusionary Zoning Case.”
http://www.cbia.org/go/government-affairs/cbia-reports1/september-23-2013/california-supreme-court-takes-inclusionary-
zoning-case/
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 168
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
2008, seven new housing projects have been constructed with City financial assistance from the
Commercial Fund producing 377 new affordable rental units.
Residential Housing Fund
The Residential Fund is primarily composed of fees received from developers of market-rate
residential projects in-lieu of the provision of on-site or off-site below market rate units. These fees
are collected pursuant to the City's BMR housing program. Over the ten-year period from 1998 to
2008, almost $5.8 million in fees were collected, for an average of about $580,000 per year in
revenue. Residential Fund monies may be used to assist new housing development or the
acquisition, rehabilitation or the preservation of existing housing for affordable housing. All housing
assisted has been rental and most of the units have been affordable to very low and low income
households. Through 2008, a total of nine housing projects with 379 units have been acquired,
rehabilitated or constructed with City assistance from this Fund.
In all cases, the housing projects assisted by the City have been developed, owned and managed by
local nonprofit housing organizations. Many housing types have been developed serving different
housing needs. Examples include: senior apartments, SRO units, family apartments, units for
persons with disabilities, studio units and large family units. Typically, the developer has also used
state of federal housing subsidies such as the housing tax credits in addition to the City's financial
assistance.
The City provides its funds through long-term loans with low interest rates and usually deferred
payment. All loans must be approved by the City Council and the City restricts the projects under
long-term regulatory agreements. Any cost necessary to develop the housing can be funded by the
City. Developers are encouraged to apply through the funding cycle for the CDBG program, but may
apply at other times if necessary.
Development Impact Fees for Housing
Palo Alto’s impact fees are comprised of four categories: housing, traffic, community facilities, and
parkland dedication. The housing fee to non-residential development increased from $18.44 to $18.89
per square foot effective May 8, 2013. The fee rate applies to all net new commercial square footage
on a site. Full payment is required at building permit issuance with some exemptions including
hospitals and convalescent facilities, private education facilities, public facilities and private clubs,
lodges and fraternal organizations.
Housing Trust Silicon Valley (HTSV)
This nonprofit organization combines private and public funds to support affordable housing
activities in the County, including assistance to developers and homebuyers. HTSV is among the
largest housing trusts in the nation building special needs and affordable housing and assisting first-
time homebuyers. Palo Alto was among the contributors during its founding and has continued to
allocate funding. A provision was added to ensure the City’s funds be used exclusively for qualifying
affordable housing projects within Palo Alto. The most recent contribution included $200,000 from
the City’s Residential Housing Fund for Fiscal Year 2012. Participation in the Trust has increased the
available housing funding for a number of Palo Alto projects. In addition, HTSCC has invested over
$100,000 assisting 16 households to purchase homes in Palo Alto through its first-time homebuyer
program.
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 169
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME)
Additionally, the City has recently been approved to join the County's HOME Consortium. HOME
funds can be used to fund eligible affordable housing projects for acquisition, construction and
rehabilitation. Starting in FY 2015-2016, developers of affordable housing projects will be eligible to
competitively apply through an annual RFP process directly to the County for HOME funds to help
subsidize affordable housing projects in the City.
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 170
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
AP-85 Other Actions – 91.220(k)
Introduction:
This section discusses the City’s efforts in addressing the underserved needs, expanding and
preserving affordable housing, reducing lead-based paint hazards, and developing institutional
structure for delivering housing and community development activities.
Actions planned to address obstacles to meeting underserved needs
The diminishing amount of funds continues to be the most significant obstacle to addressing the
needs of underserved populations. To address this, the City supplements its CDBG funding with
other resources and funds, such as:
• The City’s Human Service Resource Allocation Process (HSRAP) provides $1,099,347 million
dollars from the General Fund in support of human services. The HSRAP funds, in
conjunction with the CDBG public service funds, are distributed to local non-profit agencies.
• The Palo Alto Commercial Housing 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.
• The Palo Alto Residential Housing Fund is funded with mitigation fees provided under Palo
Alto’s BMR housing program from residential developers and money from other
miscellaneous sources, such as proceeds from the sale or lease of City property.
• The City’s Below Market Rate Emergency Fund was authorized in 2002 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.
• HOME Program funds are available on an annual competitive basis through the State of
California HOME program, and the County’s HOME Consortium.
• The HACSC administers the federal Section 8 program countywide. The program provides
rental subsidies and develops affordable housing for low income households, seniors and
persons with disabilities living within the County.
• The County distributes federal McKinney Homeless Assistance funds to organizations in the
county that provide services to homeless persons and persons at-risk of homelessness.
• The State’s Multifamily Housing Program has been a major source of funding for affordable
housing since 2002. This program provides low-interest loans to developers of affordable
rental housing.
• The State’s Local Housing Trust Fund Grant Program is a public/private partnership created to
receive on-going revenues for affordable housing production such as Palo Alto’s Commercial
and Residential Housing Funds.
• The California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (CTCAC) holds two application cycles for Low
Income Housing Tax Credits each year. Local non-profits apply directly to the CTCAC for these
funds when they have identified a project.
• The Housing Trust Silicon Valley is a nonprofit organization that combines private and public
funds to support affordable housing activities in the County, including assistance to
developers and homebuyers. The Housing Trust is a public/private initiative, dedicated to
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 171
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
creating more affordable housing in the County, using a revolving loan fund and a grant
making program to complement and leverage other housing resources.
• The Mortgage Credit Certificate (MCC) Program provides assistance to first-time homebuyers
by allowing an eligible purchaser to take 20 percent of their annual mortgage interest
payment as a tax credit against federal income taxes. The County administers the MCC
Program on behalf of the jurisdictions in the County, including the City.
• The Santa Clara County Affordable Housing Fund (AHF) was established in 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 the County.
Actions planned to foster and maintain affordable housing
The City will foster and maintain affordable housing by continuing the following programs and
ordinances:
• The Below Market Rate Emergency Fund which provides 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.
• The Commercial Housing Fund is used primarily to increase the number of new affordable
housing units for Palo Alto’s work force.
• The Residential Housing Fund is used to assist new housing development or the acquisition,
rehabilitation or the preservation of existing housing for affordable housing.
• The Density Bonus Ordinance, adopted by the City Council in January 2014. The density bonus
regulations allow for bonuses of 20 to 35 percent, depending on the amount and type of
affordable housing provided
• The City’s participation in the County's HOME Consortium will allow developers of affordable
housing projects to be eligible to competitively apply through an annual RFP process directly
to the County for HOME funds to help subsidize affordable housing projects in Palo Alto,
including acquisition, construction and rehabilitation.
Actions planned to reduce lead-based paint hazards
The City’s housing and CDBG staff provides information and referral to property owners, developers,
and non-profit organizations rehabilitating older housing about lead-based paint (LBP) hazards. Any
house to be rehabilitated with City financial assistance is required to be inspected for the existence
of LBP and LBP hazards. The City will provide financial assistance for the abatement of LBP hazards
in units rehabilitated with City funding. The City also requires that contractors are trained and
certified in an effort to decrease the risk of potential use of LBP in new units. All development and
rehabilitation projects must be evaluated according to HUD’s Lead Safe Housing Rule 24 CFR Part
35.111
111 U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development. “Lead Safe Housing Rule.”
http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/healthy_homes/enforcement/lshr
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 172
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Actions planned to reduce the number of poverty-level families
The City, in its continuing effort to reduce poverty, will prioritize funding agencies that provide direct
assistance to the homeless and those in danger of becoming homeless. In FY 2015-2016, these
programs will include the following:
• The Microenterprise Assistance Program provides access to new opportunities to improve
the economic self-sufficiency of LMI families and individuals. This program builds on the
foundation of entrepreneurship and empowers clients by increasing their economic literacy,
business skills, self-esteem, and personal behavior appropriate to the workplace.
The Workforce Development Program will provide a transition from unemployment and
homelessness to regular employment and housing through case management, job training,
mentoring, housing, and transportation assistance.
Downtown Streets Team is a nonprofit in the City that works to reduce homelessness
through a “work first” model. Downtown Streets Team uses their community connections to
provide training and job opportunities to homeless people, specifically in the downtown
area. The Downtown Streets Team has helped 282 people find housing and 291 find jobs since
its inception in 2005. The Downtown Streets Team has initiatives in Palo Alto, Sunnyvale, San
Jose, and San Rafael.
Actions planned to develop institutional structure
The City is striving to improve intergovernmental and private sector cooperation to synergize efforts
and resources and develop new revenues for community service needs and the production of
affordable housing. Collaborative efforts include:
Regular quarterly meetings between entitlement jurisdictions at the CDBG Coordinators
Meeting and Regional Housing Working Group
Joint jurisdiction Request for Proposals and project review committees
Coordination on project management for projects funded by multiple jurisdictions
HOME Consortium between member jurisdictions for affordable housing projects
Recent examples include the effort by the County to create a regional affordable housing fund, using
former redevelopment funds that could be returned to the County to use for affordable housing.
Another effort underway involves the possible use of former redevelopment funds to create a
countywide pool for homeless shelters and transitional housing. These interactions among agencies
generate cohesive discussion and forums for bridging funding and service gaps on a regional scale.
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 173
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Actions planned to enhance coordination between public and private housing and social service
agencies
The City benefits from a strong jurisdiction and region-wide network of housing and community
development partners, such as the County and the CoC. To improve intergovernmental and private
sector cooperation, the City will continue to participate with other local jurisdictions and developers
in sharing information and resources.
In addition to the actions listed above, the City will continue to coordinate with the City’s human
services funding efforts to comprehensively address community needs.
Discussion:
Please see discussions above.
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 174
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
AP-90 Program Specific Requirements – 91.220(l) (1, 2, 4)
Introduction:
The following provides additional information about the CDBG program income and program
requirements.
Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG)
Reference 24 CFR 91.220(l) (1)
1. The total amount of program income that will have been received before the start
of the next program year and that has not yet been reprogrammed
$136,049
2. The amount of proceeds from section 108 loan guarantees that will be used during
the year to address the priority needs and specific objectives identified in the
grantee's strategic plan
$0
3. The amount of surplus funds from urban renewal settlements $0
4. The amount of any grant funds returned to the line of credit for which the
planned use has not been included in a prior statement or plan
$0
5. The amount of income from float-funded activities $0
Total Program Income $136,049
Other CDBG Requirements
1. The amount of urgent need activities $0
2. The estimated percentage of CDBG funds that will be used for activities that benefit
persons of low and moderate income
100%
3. Overall Benefit – A consecutive period of one, two, or three years may be used to
determine that a minimum overall benefit of 70 percent of CDBG funds is used to
benefit persons of low and moderate income. Specify the years that include this
Annual Action Plan
FY 2015 – 2017
Discussion:
Please see discussions above.
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 175
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Citizen Participation Plan
Introduction
The City of Palo Alto (City) is a federal entitlement jurisdiction that receives federal grant funding
from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
The City receives federal entitlement grant funding for the following program:
Community Development Block Grants (CDBG)
As an entitlement jurisdiction, the City is required to prepare a:
Five Year Consolidated Plan (Consolidated Plan)
Annual Action Plan (Action Plan)
Annual Consolidated Annual Performance Evaluation Report (CAPER)
Under HUD’s Code of Final Regulations for the Consolidated Plan (24 CFR Part 91 Sec. 91.105), the
City must adopt a Citizen Participation Plan (CPP) that sets forth the City’s policies and procedures
for citizen participation in the planning, execution, and evaluation of the Consolidated Plan, Action
Plans, and CAPER. This CPP provides guidelines for the City to provide and encourage public
participation by residents, community stakeholders, and grant beneficiaries in the process of
drafting, implementing, and evaluating the Consolidated Plan and related documents. The citizen
participation process includes outreach, public hearings, community forums, and opportunities for
comment.
Definitions
Annual Action Plan: The Action Plan summarizes the activities that will be undertaken in the
upcoming Fiscal Year (FY) to meet the goals outlined in the Consolidated Plan. The Action
Plan also identifies the federal and non-federal resources that will be used meet the goals of
the approved Consolidated Plan.
Amendment, Minor: A change to a previously adopted Consolidated Plan or Action Plan that
does not meet the threshold to qualify as a Substantial Amendment. A minor amendment
may include monetary changes or shifts, regardless of size that are both:
1. Necessary for substantially preserving all the programs and activities identified in a
Plan
2. Necessitated by significant changes in the funding levels between HUD’s initial
estimates of funding amounts and HUD’s final allocation notification to the City
Amendment, Substantial: A change to a previously adopted Consolidated Plan or Action Plan
that:
o Increases or decreases the amount allocated to a category of funding within the
City’s entitlement grant program by 25 percent
o Significantly changes an activity’s proposed beneficiaries or persons served
o Allocates funding for a new activity not previously described in the Consolidated Plan
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 176
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Citizen Participation Plan: The CPP provides guidelines by which the City will promote
engagement in the planning, implementation, and evaluation of the distribution of federal
funds, as outlined in the Consolidated Plan, Action Plan, and CAPERs.
Community Development Block Grant: HUD’s CDBG program provides communities with
resources to address a wide range of housing and community development needs that
benefit very low and low income persons and areas.
Consolidated Annual Performance Evaluation Report: The CAPER assesses the City’s annual
achievements relative to the goals in the Consolidated Plan and proposed activities in the
Action Plan. HUD requires the City to prepare a CAPER at the end of each fiscal year.
Department Of Housing And Urban Development: HUD is the federal government agency
that creates and manages programs pertaining to federal home ownership, affordable
housing, fair housing, homelessness, and community and housing development.
Displacement: Displacement refers to the involuntary relocation of individuals from their
residences due to housing development and rehabilitation activities paid for by federal funds.
Eligible Activity: Activities that are allowable uses of the CDBG funds covered by the CPP as
defined in the Code of Federal Regulations Title 24 for HUD.
Entitlement Jurisdiction: A city with a population of at least 50,000, a central city of a
metropolitan area, or a qualified urban county with a population of at least 200,000 that
receives grant funding from HUD.
Five Year Consolidated Plan: HUD requires entitlement jurisdictions to prepare a
Consolidated Plan every five years. The Consolidated Plan is a strategic plan that identifies
housing, economic, and community development needs and prioritizes funding to address
those needs over a five-year period.
Low- and Moderate-Income: As defined annually by HUD, low-and moderate-income (LMI) is
0-80 percent of area median family income (AMI) for a jurisdiction, with adjustments for
smaller or larger families. This includes those individuals presumed by HUD to be principally
LMI (abused children, battered spouses, elderly persons, severely disabled adults, homeless
persons, illiterate adults, persons living with AIDS and migrant farm workers). HUD utilizes
three income levels to define LMI households:
o Extremely low income: Households earning 30 percent or less than the AMI (subject
to specified adjustments for areas with unusually high or low incomes)
o Very low income: Households earning 50 percent or less than the AMI (subject to
specified adjustments for areas with unusually high or low incomes)
o Low and moderate income: Households earning 80 percent or less than the AMI
(subject to adjustments for areas with unusually high or low incomes or housing
costs)
Public Hearing: Public hearings are designed to provide the public the opportunity to make
public testimony and comment. Public hearings related to the Consolidated Plan are to be
advertised in local newspapers and made accessible to non-English speakers and individuals
with disabilities.
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 177
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Roles, Responsibilities, and Contact Information
The City is a federal entitlement jurisdiction and is a recipient of CDBG funding from the federal
government.
The City’s Charter established a council and manager form of government. Palo Alto’s City Council is
the elected legislative body of the City and is responsible for approving its Consolidated Plan, Action
Plans, amendments to the Plans, and CAPERs prior to their submission to HUD.
It is the intent of the City to provide for and encourage citizen participation with particular emphasis
on participation by lower income persons who are beneficiaries or impacted by CDBG funded
activities. The City encourages the participation in all stages of the Consolidated Planning process of
all its residents, including minorities and non-English speaking persons, as well as persons with
mobility, visual or hearing impairments, and residents of assisted housing developments and
recipients of tenant-based assistance.
All public hearings will be held at times and locations convenient to potential and actual beneficiaries
and with reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities. In general, hearings will be held
in the evening at City Hall due to its central location, convenient access and disability accessibility.
Translation services will be provided when there is an indication that non-English speaking persons
will be attending. Other reasonable accommodations will be provided on a case-by-case basis.
The General Contact Information for the City’s HUD Entitlement Programs is:
City of Palo Alto
Planning and Community Environment Department
Consuelo Hernandez, Senior Planner
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650) 329-2428
Consuelo.Hernandez@cityofpaloalto.org
www.cityofpaloalto.org
Citizen Participation Policies
Availability of Draft and Approved Documents
The draft CPP, Consolidated Plan, Action Plan, and any draft Substantial Amendments will be
available for public review and comment for a minimum of 30 days prior to their submission to HUD.
The draft CAPER will be available for public review and comment for a minimum of 15 days prior to its
final submission to HUD. Previously approved plans and amendments will be available to residents,
public agencies, and other interested stakeholders.
The draft and final versions of the CPP, Consolidated Plan, Action Plan, CAPER, and all related
amendments will be available online at the City’s website:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pln/cdbg.asp . Hard copies of all documents will be available
at the City’s Planning and Community Environment Department at 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto,
CA 94301.
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 178
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Information on the City’s Consolidated Plans, including records or documents concerning the
previous Consolidated Plans, CPPs, the current Consolidated Plan, Action Plans, CAPERs, and
program regulations, will be posted on the City’s website at
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pln/cdbg.asp , and will be available for public review during
normal working hours at the City’s Planning and Community Environment Department located at 250
Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301, and upon written request addressed to the City’s General
Contact via the Planning and Community Environment Department. If the City is unable to provide
immediate access to the documents requested, the City will make every effort to provide the
documents and reports within 15 business days from the receipt of the request.
The City will use the following processes to adopt and make any subsequent changes to the
documents listed below:
Citizen Participation Plan: The CPP is designed to facilitate and encourage the public to
participate in the Consolidated Plan process. In particular, the CPP seeks to encourage the
involvement of LMI persons.
o The City will notify the public of any subsequent changes it will make to its CPP
through public notices at libraries, recreation centers, community centers, online
through the City’s website, and advertisement in a local newspaper of general
circulation — in advance of a 30-day public review and comment period.
o During the 30-day public review and comment period, copies of the document will be
available to the public for review at libraries, recreation centers, community centers,
and through the City’s website at
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pln/cdbg.asp.
o During the 30-day public review and comment period, the public may file comments
in writing to the City of Palo Alto Planning and Community Environment Department,
250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301; via email to
consuelo.hernandez@cityofpaloalto.org; by phone at 650-329-2428 or in person at
Palo Alto City Hall, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301, Monday through Friday
during normal working hours and during the Council adoption hearing.
Any change in the public participation process as outlined in this document will require an
amendment to the CPP.
o Anti-Displacement Policy: It is the policy of the City to avoid, to the greatest extent
feasible, the involuntary displacement of any persons, property or businesses as a
result of CDBG activities. Displacement occurs when a “person” or their property is
displaced as a direct result of a federally assisted acquisition, demolition or
rehabilitation project. All efforts to minimize involuntary displacement will be carried
out by designing activities in such a way that displacement is avoided, except in
extraordinary circumstances where no feasible alternatives to displacement are
available if the City’s community development objectives are to be met.
The City will take all reasonable steps to avoid displacement, such as: assuring
whenever possible that residential occupants of buildings be rehabilitated are
offered an opportunity to return; planning rehabilitation projects to include
“staging” where this would minimize displacement; and following federal
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 179
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
notification requirements carefully to assure that households do not leave because
they are not informed about the plans for the project or their rights for relocation
benefits.
Should involuntary displacement become necessary under such circumstances,
relocation benefits will be provided in accordance with: (a) the Uniform Relocation
Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended (URA) and
24 CFR 570.606(b); and (b) the requirements of 24 CFR 570.606(c) governing the
Residential Anti-displacement and Relocation Assistance Plan (Plan) under Section
104(d) of the HUD Act. The policies and requirements of these laws are described in
HUD Handbook 1378 and the City shall strictly abide by these policies and laws.
• Consolidated Plan and Action Plans: The steps outlined below provide opportunities for
public involvement in the preparation of the Consolidated Plan and the Action Plan.
To solicit community input, which is essential to determining these needs and priorities, the
City will perform the following:
o Consult with local, state, regional and applicable federal public agencies that assist LMI
persons and areas, in addition to neighboring jurisdictions.
o Consult with private agencies, including local nonprofit service providers and advocates
such as the local public housing agency, health agencies, homeless service providers,
nonprofit housing developers and social service agencies (including those focusing on
services to children, the elderly, persons with disabilities, persons with HIV/AIDS, persons
with substance abuse problems, etc.).
o Place public notices at libraries, recreation centers, community centers and online
through the City’s website and through advertisement in a local newspaper of general
circulation at least 15 days in advance of a meeting. The notice will include an estimate of
the amount of funds available, the range of activities that could be undertaken and the
amount that would benefit LMI persons.
o Provide the public with 30 days to review and comment on the draft Consolidated Plan
and/or the draft Action Plan from the date of the notice. Comments may be filed in
person at the City’s Planning and Community Environment Department located at 250
Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301; via mail to City of Palo Alto Planning and
Community Environment Department, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301; by
phone at 650-329-2428; or by email to consuelo.hernandez@cityofpaloalto.org.
o The City will hold a minimum of one public hearing before the City Council to provide the
opportunity to make public testimony and comment on needs and priorities.
o All comments and views expressed by the public, whether given as verbal testimony at
the public hearing or submitted in writing during the review and comment period, will be
documented. The final documents will have a section noting comments received during
the public review period, along with explanations for comments that were not accepted.
Substantial Amendments to the Consolidated Plan and the Action Plan: Amendments are
considered “Substantial” whenever one of the following is proposed:
o A change in the allocation priorities or a change in the method of fund distribution.
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 180
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
o A substantial change which increases or decreases the amount allocated to a category of
funding within the City’s entitlement grant programs by 25 percent.
o To implement an activity using CDBG funds for new programs that were not described in
the Consolidated Plan.
o To substantially change the purpose or intended beneficiaries of an activity approved for
CDBG funding, e.g., instead of primarily benefitting lower income households the activity
instead proposes to benefit mostly moderate income households.
The following procedures apply to Substantial Amendments:
o The City will place public notices at libraries, recreation centers, community centers and
online through the City’s website and through advertisement in a local newspaper of
general circulation in advance of a 30-day public review and comment period.
o During the 30-day public review and comment period, copies of the document will be
available for review at the City’s Planning and Community Environment Department
office during normal working hours located at 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301,
on the City’s and website at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pln/cdbg.asp and
upon written request addressed to the City’s General Contact via the Planning and
Community Environment Department.
o The public may file comments in person at the City’s Planning and Community
Environment Department located at 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301; via mail
to City of Palo Alto Planning and Community Environment Department, 250 Hamilton
Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301; by phone at 650-329-2428; or by email to
consuelo.hernandez@cityofpaloalto.org during the 30-day period from the date of the
notice.
o The City will hold a minimum of one public hearing within the community to solicit input
on the Substantial Amendment.
o Hold a minimum of one public hearing before the City Council to solicit additional input
and for adoption consideration.
o In preparing a final Substantial Amendment, all comments and views expressed by the
public, whether given as verbal testimony at the public hearing or submitted in writing
during the review and comment period, will be documented. The final documents will
have a section noting comments received during the public review period, along with
explanations for comments that were not accepted.
CAPER: The CAPER must describe how funds were actually used and the extent to which
these funds were used for activities that benefited LMI persons. The following steps outline
the opportunities for public involvement in the CAPER:
o The City will place public notices at libraries, recreation centers, community centers
and online through the City’s website and through advertisement in a local
newspaper of general circulation in advance of a 15-day public review and comment
period.
o The public has 15 days to review the CAPER from the date of the notice.
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 181
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
o During the 15-day public review and comment period, the document will be available
for public review and comment at the City’s Community Development Department
office.
o The City will hold a minimum of one public hearing within the community to solicit
input on the CAPER.
o The public may file comments in person at the City’s Planning and Community
Environment Department located at 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301; via
mail to City of Palo Alto Planning and Community Environment Department, 250
Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301; by phone at 650-329-2428; or by email to
consuelo.hernandez@cityofpaloalto.org during the 15-day period from the date of
the notice.
o In preparing the CAPER, all comments and views expressed by the public, whether
given as verbal testimony at the public hearing or submitted in writing during the
public review and comment period, will be documented. The final documents will
have a section noting comments received during the public review period, along with
explanations for comments that were not accepted.
Public Hearings and Public Comment Period
Public Hearings: The City will hold public hearings for the Consolidated Plan and Action Plan,
amendments made to the CPP, and Substantial Amendments.
o The City Council Public Hearings will typically be held at City Hall Council Chambers,
located at 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301. Listening devices,
interpretation services, and other assistance to disabled persons or those with
limited English proficiency will be provided upon request, ranging up to five business
days prior notification to the City Clerk. Requests for disability-related modifications
or accommodations required to facilitate meeting participation, including requests
for auxiliary aids, services or interpreters, require different lead times, ranging up to
five business days. For this reason, it is important to provide as much advance notice
as possible to ensure availability. Assistive Listening Devices (ALDs) are available
upon request.
Notice of Hearings and Review Periods: To allow the public time to provide comments prior
to the submission of approved documents to HUD, the City will hold a minimum 30-day public
review and comment period for adoption consideration of the Consolidated Plan, Action
Plan, and Substantial Amendment. The City will establish a public review period of at least 15
days for each CAPER and CPP to allow for public comments prior to the submission of
approved documents to HUD. Copies of the draft plans will be available to the public at the
City’s Planning and Community Environment Department at 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto,
CA 94301.
To ensure that the public, including minorities, persons with limited English proficiency,
persons with disabilities, residents of public housing, and LMI residents are able to
participate in the public review process, the City will provide residents, public agencies and
other stakeholder notices on applicable public review periods and public hearings that
adhere to the following:
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 182
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
o The notices will be published prior to the start of the public comment period and at
least 15 days before the final public hearing and will include information regarding
how to request accommodation and services available for persons with disabilities
who wish to attend the public hearings.
o The notices will be distributed to persons on the CDBG contact list maintained by the
City for those parties expressing interest in receiving information and updates related
to the City’s Consolidated Plan, Action Plan, CAPER, Substantial Amendments and
CPP. Interested parties may request to be added to this contact list by sending an
email to consuelo.hernandez@cityofpaloalto.org, by calling 650-329-2428 or by
writing to the Planning and Community Environment Department at 250 Hamilton
Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301.
o The notices will be distributed through a variety of methods, including e-mail,
newspaper publications and the City’s website at
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pln/cdbg.asp . The notices will include
information on how to obtain a copy of the draft documents and scheduled hearing
dates, times, and locations.
When necessary or applicable, the City may combine notices complying with several individual
requirements into one comprehensive notice for dissemination and publication.
Comments/Complaints on Adopted Plans: Comments or complaints from residents, public
agencies, and other stakeholders regarding the adopted Consolidated Plan or related
amendments and performance reports may be submitted in writing or verbally to the
General Contact at the City’s Planning and Community Environment Department at 250
Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301. Written comments or complaints will be referred to
appropriate City staff for consideration and response. The City will attempt to respond to all
comments or complaints within 15 business days and maintain a correspondence file for this
purpose.
Technical Assistance
The City will, to the extent feasible, respond to requests for technical assistance from entities
representing LMI groups who are seeking CDBG and HOME funding in accordance with grant
procedures. This may include, but is not limited to, providing information regarding how to fill out
applications, other potential funding sources, and referrals to appropriate agencies within and
outside the City. "Technical assistance," as used here, does not include the provision of funds to the
entities requesting such assistance. Assistance will also be provided by the City’s Planning and
Community Environment Department’s staff to interested individuals and resident groups who need
further explanation on the background and intent of the Housing and Community Development Act,
interpretation of specific HUD regulations, and project eligibility criteria for federal grants.
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 183
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Table of Acronyms
AHP Affordable Housing Program
BEGIN Building Equity and Growth in Neighborhoods
CAPER Consolidated Annual Performance Evaluation Report
CBO Community-Based Organization
CDBG Community Development Block Grant Program
CDI Community Development Initiative
CIP Capital Improvement Projects
CoC Continuum of Care
ESG Emergency Services Grant
FSS Family Self Sufficiency
FY Fiscal Year
HACSC Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara
HAP Housing assistance payments
HEARTH Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing Act of 2009
HIF Housing Impact Fee
HMIS Homeless Management Information System
HOME HOME Investment Partnerships Program
HOPWA Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS
HTF Housing Trust Fund
HTSV Housing Trust Silicon Valley
IIG Infill Infrastructure Grant
LBP Lead-Based Paint
LMI Low and moderate income
MCC Mortgage Credit Certificates
MHSA Mental Health Services Act
MTW Moving to Work
NED Non-Elderly Disabled
NHSSV Neighborhood Housing Services Silicon Valley
NOFA Notice of Funding Availability
NSP Neighborhood Stabilization Program
RDA Redevelopment Agency
RFP Request for Proposal
RHNA Regional Housing Needs Allocation
RTP Regional Transportation Plan
Section 8 Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program
SCS Sustainable Communities Strategy
TBRA Tenant-Based Rental Assistance
TOD Transit-Oriented Development
VASH Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing
WIOA Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 184
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Appendix A: Citizen Participation Summary
Regional Forums
The participating Entitlement Jurisdictions of Santa Clara County held three regional public forums to
identify housing and community development needs and priorities for the next five years. Seventy-
six people in total attended the regional forums, including community members, service providers,
fair housing advocates, school district board members, housing and human services commission
members, non-profit representatives, and interested stakeholders.
The regional forums were held in Mountain View, San Jose, and Gilroy to engage the northern,
central, and southern parts of the County. Forums were scheduled on different days of the week and
at various times of day to allow maximum flexibility for participants to attend.
Table 1 – Regional Forums
Community Forums
Local public participation plays an important role in the development of the plans. The community
forums were conducted as part of a broad approach to help local jurisdictions make data-driven,
place-based investment decisions for federal funds. Each of the community forums provided
additional public input and a deeper understanding of housing issues at the local level.
The community forums were held in the cities of Los Gatos, Morgan Hill, Saratoga, San Jose and
Mountain View. The workshops held in San Jose were located in Districts 3, 4 and 5, which are LMI
census tracts. The majority of the community forums were held at neighborhood community centers
or libraries at various times of day to provide convenient access for participants.
Regional
Forum Date Time Number of
Attendees Forum Address
1 Thursday, September
25, 2014
2:00pm -
4:00pm
43 Mountain View City Hall,
500 Castro Street, 2nd Floor
Plaza Conference Room
Mountain View, CA 94041
2 Saturday, September
27, 2014
10:00am -
12:00pm
17 San Jose City Hall,
Room 118-120
200 E. Santa Clara St.
San Jose, CA 95113
3 Wednesday, October
22, 2014
6:30pm -
8:30pm
16 Gilroy Library
350 W. Sixth Street
Gilroy, CA 95020
Total Attendees 76
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 185
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Table 2 – Community Forums
Community
Forum Date Time Number of
Attendees Forum Address
1 Tuesday, September 30,
2014
6:00pm-
8:00pm
14 Roosevelt Community Center,
Room 1 and 2
901 E. Santa Clara St.
San Jose, CA 95116
2 Wednesday, October 1,
2014
10:00am-
12:00pm
29 Seven Trees Community Center,
Room 3
3590 Cas Drive
San Jose, CA 95111
3 Tuesday, October 2, 2014 6:00pm-
8:00pm
23 Mayfair Community Center,
Chavez Hall
2039 Kammerer Ave.
San Jose, CA 95116
4 Tuesday, October 7. 2014 6:00pm-
8:00pm
26 Tully Community Brach Library,
Community Room
880 Tully Rd.
San Jose, CA 95111
5 Thursday, October 23,
2014
6:30pm-
8:30pm
14 Mountain View City Hall,
500 Castro Street, 2nd Floor
Plaza Conference Room
Mountain View, CA 94041
6 Saturday, November 1,
2014
11:00am-
1:00pm
7 Centennial Recreation Center
North Room
171 W. Edmundson Avenue
Morgan Hill, CA 95037
7 Wednesday, November 5,
2014
2:00pm-
4:00pm
11 Prospect Center
Grace Room
19848 Prospect Road
Saratoga, CA 95070
8 Thursday, November 20,
2014
6:00pm-
8:00pm
9 Neighborhood Center
208 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Total Attendees 133
A combined total of 209 individuals attended both the community and regional forums.
Outreach
Approximately 4,847 entities, organizations, agencies, and persons were directly engaged via
outreach efforts and asked to share materials with their beneficiaries, partners, and contacts. These
stakeholders were also encouraged to promote attendance at the public forums and to solicit
responses to the Regional Needs Survey. Stakeholder engagement included phone calls, targeted
emails, newsletter announcements, social media posts, and personalized requests from jurisdiction
staff.
Through these communications, stakeholders were invited to participate in one of the forums
planned throughout the County and to submit survey responses. Each participating jurisdiction also
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 186
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
promoted the regional forums and regional survey links on their respective websites and announced
the Consolidated Plan process through their electronic mailing lists.
Approximately 1,225 printed flyers noticing the regional forums were distributed throughout the
County, including at libraries, recreation centers, community meetings, and organizations benefiting
LMI residents and areas. These flyers were available online and in print in English and Spanish.
Multi-lingual, print advertisements in local newspapers were posted in the Gilroy Dispatch (English),
Mountain View Voice (English), El Observador (Spanish), La Oferta (Spanish), Thoi Bao (Vietnamese),
Philippine News (Tagalog), World Journal (Chinese) and San Jose Mercury News (English). In addition,
an online display ad was placed in the San Jose Mercury News to reach readers electronically.
Each segment of the community outreach and planning process was transparent to ensure the public
was aware its input was being collected, reviewed, and considered.
Forum Structure
The regional forums began with a welcome and introduction of the jurisdictional staff and consultant
team, followed by a review of the forum’s agenda, the purpose of the Consolidated Plan, and the
goals of the regional forums. Next, the facilitator delivered an introductory presentation covering
the Plan process, programs funded through HUD grants, what types of programs and projects can be
funded, historical allocations, and recent projects.
After the presentation, participants were invited to engage in a gallery walk activity. Participants
interacted with large “HUD Bucks” display boards, which encouraged them to think critically about
community spending priorities in the County. Each display board presented a separate issue area: 1)
Community Facilities, 2) Community Services, 3) Economic Development, 4) Housing, and 5)
Infrastructure and Neighborhood Improvements. Participants were given $200 “HUD Bucks” to
spend on over 50 program choices they support within each issue area. This process encouraged
participants to prioritize facilities, services, programs, and improvements within each respective
category. Thus, the activity functioned as a budgeting exercise for participants to experience how
federal funds are distributed among various programs, projects and services.
Directions to participants were to spend their $200 HUD Bucks up to a limit indicated on each board.
For example, because HUD enforces a 15 percent cap on public service dollars, the community
services board included a limit of $30 HUD Bucks to reflect this cap. (It should be noted that the
infrastructure and housing boards both had a Fair Housing category, which may account for higher
HUD Bucks allocations for fair housing.)
Following the HUD Bucks activity, the group was divided into small group breakout sessions to
discuss community needs and fair housing. Participants dispersed into smaller break-out groups to
gather public input on the needs and barriers with respect to the following categories, which
mirrored the HUD Bucks categories: 1) Community Facilities, 2) Community Services, 3) Economic
Development, 4) Housing, and 5) Infrastructure and Neighborhood Improvements.
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 187
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Group facilitators encouraged participants to think critically about housing issues and community
improvement needs within the County. The participants discussed and identified issues and concerns
within their local communities and across the County. During these small group discussions,
participants contributed creative and thoughtful responses to the following questions:
Community Needs:
What are the primary needs associated with:
o Community Facilities
o Community Services
o Economic Development
o Housing
o Infrastructure and Neighborhood Improvements
What services and facilities are currently in place to effectively address these needs?
What gaps in services and facilities remain?
Fair Housing:
Have you (or someone you know) experienced discrimination in housing choice, whether
accessing rental housing or in purchasing a residence?
What did you do, or would you do, if you were discriminated against in housing choice?
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. The
final part of the meeting included a report back, in which facilitators summarized the small group
discussions. The facilitator then closed the meeting with final comments, next steps and a review of
additional opportunities to provide public input.
The interactive format of the forums solicited strong participation, wherein all attendees were
provided the opportunity to participate in the conversation. Translation services were provided at
each forum.
Key Findings from Regional and Community Forums
The diversity of participants and organizations attending the regional and community forums led to a
nuanced awareness of the housing and community improvement needs across the County. This
section highlights key findings and ideas raised during the small group discussions organized by issue
area. The key findings are based on the most frequently discussed needs, issues and priorities that
were shared by forum participants.
Primary Needs Associated with Each Issue Area
Community Services
Address the needs for accessible and affordable transportation services throughout Santa
Clara County
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 188
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Support food assistance and nutrition programs for low income families, seniors and disabled
individuals
Provide health care services to seniors and low income families
Develop free, year-round programs and activities for youth (e.g., recreation programming,
sports)
Offer comprehensive services at homeless encampments (e.g., outreach, health, referrals)
Provide mental health care services for homeless and veterans
Support services to reduce senior isolation
Assist service providers in meeting the needs of vulnerable populations through increased
funding and information sharing
Housing
Ensure availability of affordable housing, including transitional housing
Provide legal services to protect fair housing rights and to mediate tenant/landlord legal
issues
Address affordable housing eligibility restrictions to expand the number of residents who can
qualify
Provide affordable rental housing for low income families, at-risk families and individuals with
disabilities
Fund additional homeless prevention programs
Provide rental subsidies and assistance for low income families to support rapid re-housing
Community Facilities
Increase the number of homeless facilities across the County
Build youth centers and recreational facilities in different locations throughout the County
Support modernization and rehabilitation of senior centers
Coordinate information services to promote and leverage access to community facilities
Economic Development
Increase employment services targeted towards homeless individuals, veterans, and
parolees
Provide access to apprenticeships and mentoring programs for at-risk youth
Offer employment services such as job training, English language and capacity-building
classes
Infrastructure and Neighborhood Improvements
Promote complete streets to accommodate multiple transportation modes
Focus on pedestrian safety by improving crosswalk visibility and enhancing sidewalks
Expand ADA curb improvements
Increase access to parks and open space amenities in low income neighborhoods
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 189
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Key Findings from HUD Bucks Activity
Table 3: Top Three Overall Spending Priorities by Issue Area of Regional and Community Forums
Priority Housing Priority Public Facilities
1 Affordable Rental Housing 1 Homeless Facilities
2 Senior Housing 2 Senior Centers
3 Permanent Supportive Housing 3 Youth Centers
Priority Public Services Priority Economic Development
1 Homeless Services 1 Employment Training
2 Senior Activities 2 Job Creation/Retention
3 Transportation 3 Small Business Loans
Priority Infrastructure/Neighborhood Improvements
1 Fair Housing
2 Streets/Sidewalks
3 ADA Improvements
Regional Needs Survey
A Regional Needs Survey was conducted to solicit input from residents and workers in the County of
Santa Clara. Respondents were informed that the Santa County Entitlement Jurisdictions were
updating their Consolidated Plans for federal funds that primarily serve low- to moderate income
residents and areas. The survey polled respondents about the level of need in their neighborhoods
for various types of improvements that can potentially be addressed by entitlement funds.
To give as many people as possible the chance to voice their opinion, emphasis was placed on
making the survey widely available and gathering a large number of responses rather than
administering the survey to a controlled, statistically representative pool. Therefore, the survey
results should be views as an indicator of the opinions of the respondents, but not as representing
the opinions of the County population as a group.
The survey was distributed through a number of channels to gather responses from a broad sample.
It was made available in printed format, as well as electronic format via Survey Monkey. Electronic
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 190
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
responses could be submitted via smartphone, tablet, and web browsers. The survey was available
online and in print in English and Spanish, and in print in simplified Chinese, Tagalog, and Vietnamese.
Responses were solicited in the following ways:
Links to the online survey in both English and Spanish were placed on the websites of each
Entitlement Jurisdiction.
English: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/SCC_Regional_Survey
Spanish: https://es.surveymonkey.com/s/SCC_Regional_Survey_Spanish
Approximately, 4,847 entities, organization, agencies, and persons were directly targeted in
the outreach efforts and requested to share project materials with their beneficiaries,
partners, and contacts. Engagement included direct phone calls and targeted emails with
outreach flyers as attachments.
Approximately 1,225 printed flyers noticing the regional survey were printed and distributed
throughout the County, including at libraries, recreation centers, community meetings, and
organizations benefiting LMI residents and areas. These flyers were available online and in
print in English and Spanish.
Multi-lingual, print advertisements in local newspapers were posted in the Gilroy Dispatch
(English), Mountain View Voice (English), El Observador (Spanish), La Oferta (Spanish), Thoi
Bao (Vietnamese), Philippine News (Tagalog), World Journal (Chinese) and San Jose Mercury
News (English). In addition, an online display ad was placed in the San Jose Mercury News to
reach readers electronically.
The survey was widely shared on social media by elected officials, organizations, entities, and
other individuals. An estimated 25,000 persons on Facebook and 11,000 persons on Twitter
were engaged. (This represents the number of “Likes” or “Followers” of each person/entity
that posted a message about the survey or forum.)
At least 3,160 printed surveys were printed and distributed throughout the County at
libraries, community meetings, and organizations benefiting LMI residents and areas.
Survey Results
A total of 1,472 survey responses were collected from September 19, 2014 to November 15, 2014,
including 1,078 surveys collected electronically and 394 collected on paper. The surveys were
available in five languages. Of these surveys, 1,271 individuals responded in English, 124 individuals
responded in Spanish, 25 individuals responded in simplified Chinese, 49 individuals responded in
Vietnamese, and three individuals responded in Tagalog. Figure 1 shows the percentage of
individuals who responded to the survey organized by language.
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 191
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Of the individuals who responded to the survey, 1,401 indicated they live in the County of Santa Clara
and 62 indicated they do not live in the County. Respondents who live within the County jurisdictions
mainly reside in San Jose (36%), followed by the city of Santa Clara (17%), Sunnyvale (16%), Gilroy (12%),
and Mountain View (6%). The remaining individuals live within the jurisdictions of Morgan Hill, Palo
Alto, Campbell, Unincorporated Santa Clara County, Los Altos, Saratoga, Milpitas, Los Gatos,
Cupertino, Los Altos Hills, and Monte Sereno. Figure 2 shows a city-by-city analysis of where
respondents live.
86%
8%
2% 0.2% 3%
Figure 1 – Percent of Surveys Taken by Language
English
Spanish
Chinese
Tagalog
Vietnamese
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 192
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
In addition, the survey polled respondents on whether they worked within any of the County
jurisdictions. The percentage of individuals working in the County of Santa Clara (74%) indicated they
worked primarily in these jurisdictions: San Jose (40%), the city of Santa Clara (13%), Gilroy (8%), and
Mountain View (8%), with the remainder in other jurisdictions.
On the following page, Figure 3 presents a GIS map that illustrates the number of survey
respondents by jurisdiction.
0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%40%
Monte Sereno
Los Altos Hills
Don’t Know
Cupertino
Los Gatos
Milpitas
Saratoga
Los Altos
Unincorporated Santa Clara County
Campbell
Palo Alto
Morgan Hill
Mountain View
Gilroy
Sunnyvale
City of Santa Clara
San Jose
Percent of Respondents
Figure 2 – Percent of Where Respondents Live by Jurisdiction
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 193
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Figure 3 – Number of Survey Respondents by City
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 194
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Respondents were primarily residents (70%), but also Community-Based Organizations (14%), Service
Providers (5%), Business Owners (3%), and Public Agencies (2%). The remaining 6% of respondents
indicated “Other” for their response. Many of the “Other” respondents specified themselves as
homeless, educators, developers, retired, landlords, or property managers. More detailed
information about respondents can be seen in Figure 5.
0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%
Los Altos Hills
Unincorporated Santa Clara County
Los Altos
Campbell
Don’t Know
Cupertino
Mountain View
Sunnyvale
San Jose
Percent of Respondents
Figure 4 – Percent of Where Respondents Work by
Jurisdiction
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 195
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Survey Ranking Methodology
Respondents designated their level of need as low, medium, high, or “don’t know.” This rating
system was chosen to simplify responses and better gauge the level of need. To maintain
consistency, the low, medium, high, and “don’t know” rating system was used throughout the
survey.
Need Ratings in Overall Areas
The survey asked respondents to rate the level of need for 63 specific improvement types that fall
into five distinct categories. These five categories were: Housing, Public Facilities, Infrastructure and
Neighborhood Improvements, Public Services, and Economic Development. The level of need
indicated within these categories provides additional insight into broad priorities.
Respondents rated the level of need in their neighborhood in five overall areas:
1. Create additional affordable housing available to low income residents
2. Improve non-profit community services (such as senior, youth, health, homeless, and fair
housing services)
3. Create more jobs available to low income residents
4. Improve city facilities that provide public services (such as parks, recreation or senior centers,
parking facilities, and street improvements)
5. Other
Table 7 below shows the percentage of respondents who rated each overall need as high.
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%
Public agency
Business owner
Service provider
Other (please specify)
Community‐based organization/ non‐profit
Resident
Percent of Respondents
Figure 5 –Percent of Respondents by Category
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 196
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Table 7 – Overall Areas: High Level of Need
Overall Need Area High Level
of Need
Create additional affordable housing available to low-income
residents
62.1%
Improve non-profit community services (such as senior, youth,
health, homeless, and fair housing services)
54.7%
Create more jobs available to low-income residents 52.5%
Other 46.3%
Improve city facilities that provide public services (such as parks,
recreation or senior centers, parking facilities, and street
improvements)
37.1%
In addition to the four overall need areas, 373 respondents provided open-ended feedback through
the “Other” survey response option. Below are the key themes and needs identified by survey
respondents, organized by categories of need.
Economic Development
Increase funding for senior services
Provide financial assistance for small business expansion
Develop jobs for working class
Ensure workers are given a living wage
Public Facilities
Provide more public facilities for homeless
Expand library operation hours
Build more parks to encompass people of all ages
Develop cultural and arts community center
Improve school infrastructure through extensive remodeling
Build higher quality schools
Housing
Increase availability of senior housing
Provide housing for LGBT/HIV population
Create housing for median income population
Provide more subsidized housing for disabled population
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 197
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Public Services
Expand supportive services for the homeless population
Provide affordable daycare options
Increase availability of healthcare services
Expand youth engagement activities
Ensure transportation for seniors is accessible and affordable
Expand transportation services to unincorporated areas of the County
Address the middle class’ inability to access services due to the inability to qualify for low
income services
Increase availability of senior services
Expand crime prevention and enhance gang reduction programs
Address resident fears of making too much money to qualify for low-income services
Infrastructure
Address climate change through infrastructure improvements
Address flooding through street improvements
Improve and expand bike infrastructure
Improve and expand pedestrian infrastructure including sidewalks and crosswalks
Highest Priority Needs
Top priority needs within all categories are described below based on the highest percentage of
respondents for each improvement item. Table 8 summarizes the ten highest priority needs and the
percentage of respondents that selected the particular need.
Among the five need categories, “increase affordable rental housing inventory” was rated as
the highest need. More than 63% of individuals indicated this category as “high level of
need.”
Four housing needs appear among the top ten priorities on this list: 1) increase affordable
rental housing inventory, 2) rental assistance for homeless, 3) affordable housing located
near transit, and 4) housing for other special needs.
Homeless facilities and facilities for abused, abandoned and/or neglected children both
appear among the ten highest level of needs, ranked third and seventh, respectively.
Job training for the homeless received the eighth highest level of need, which is the only
economic development priority to make the top ten priorities.
Three public service improvements appear among the top ten priorities, including emergency
housing assistance, access to fresh and nutritious foods, and homeless services.
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 198
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Table 8 – Ten Highest Priority Needs in All Categories
Priority
Rank Category Specific Need Percentage of
Respondents
1 Housing Increase affordable rental housing inventory 63.1%
2 Public Service Emergency housing assistance to prevent homelessness,
such as utility and rental assistance
52.3%
3 Public Facilities Homeless facilities (temporary housing and emergency
shelters)
51.3%
4 Housing Rental assistance for the homeless 51.0%
5 Public Services Access to fresh and nutritious foods 49.8%
6 Public Services Homeless services 49.6%
7 Public Facilities Facilities for abused, abandoned and/or neglected
children
49.5%
8 Economic
Development
Job training for the homeless 48.8%
9 Housing Affordable housing located near transit 48.6%
10 Housing Housing for other special needs (such as seniors and
persons with disabilities)
48.0%
Housing Needs
Respondents rated the need for 13 different housing-related improvements in their neighborhoods.
The five highest priorities in this area were:
1. Increase of affordable rental housing inventory
2. Rental assistance for the homeless
3. Affordable housing located near transit
4. Housing for other special needs
5. Permanent supportive rental housing for the homeless
The table below shows the highest level of need for each of the housing-related improvements and
the share of respondents who rated each category as “high level” of need.
Table 9 – High Level of Need for Specific Housing Improvements
Priority
Rank Housing: High Level of Need Share of
Respondents
1 Increase affordable rental housing inventory 63.1%
2 Rental assistance for the homeless 51.0%
3 Affordable housing located near transit 48.6%
4 Housing for other special needs (such as seniors and persons with
disabilities)
48.0%
5 Permanent supportive rental housing for the homeless 46.8%
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 199
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Priority
Rank Housing: High Level of Need Share of
Respondents
6 Energy efficiency and sustainability improvements 41.6%
7 Healthy homes 37.5%
8 Down-payment assistance to purchase a home 33.8%
9 Code enforcement, in coordination with a neighborhood plan 33.4%
10 Housing accessibility improvements 29.7%
11 Rental housing rehabilitation 27.7%
12 Emergency home improvement/repair 24.9%
13 Owner-occupied housing rehabilitation 18.5%
Public Facilities
Respondents rated the level of need for 14 public facility types in their neighborhoods. The six
highest priorities in this area were:
1. Homeless facilities
2. Facilities for abused, abandoned and/or neglected children
3. Educational facilities
4. Mental health care facilities
5. Youth centers
6. Drop-in day center for the homeless
The table below shows the highest level of need for each of the public facilities types and the share
of respondents who rated each category as “high level” of need.
Table 10 – High Level of Need for Specific Public Facility Types
Priority
Rank Public Facilities: High Level of Need Share of
Respondents
1 Homeless facilities (temporary housing and emergency shelters) 51.3%
2 Facilities for abused, abandoned and/or neglected children 49.5%
3 Educational facilities 46.9%
4 Mental health care facilities 45.5%
5 Youth centers 42.6%
6 Drop-in day center for the homeless 41.2%
7 Healthcare facilities 39.0%
8 Child care centers 35.4%
9 Recreation facilities 33.2%
10 Parks and park facilities 32.2%
11 Centers for the disabled 32.0%
12 Senior centers 29.9%
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 200
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Priority
Rank Public Facilities: High Level of Need Share of
Respondents
13 Parking facilities 22.5%
14 Facilities for persons with HIV/AIDS 20.5%
Public Services
Respondents rated the level of need for 23 public service improvements in their neighborhoods. The
five highest priorities in this area were:
1. Emergency housing assistance to prevent homelessness
2. Access to fresh and nutritious foods
3. Homeless services
4. Abused, abandoned and/or neglected children services
5. Transportation services
The table below shows the highest level of need for each of the public service improvements and the
share of respondents who rated each category as “high level” of need.
Table 11 – High Level of Need for Specific Public Services Improvements
Priority
Rank Public Services: High Level of Need Share of
Respondents
1 Emergency housing assistance to prevent homelessness – such as utility
and rental assistance
52.3%
2 Access to fresh and nutritious foods 49.8%
3 Homeless services 49.6%
4 Abused, abandoned and/or neglected children services 46.5%
5 Transportation services 46.4%
6 Mental health services 46.4%
7 Youth services 44.1%
8 Crime awareness/prevention services 44.0%
9 Employment training services 43.4%
10 Neighborhood cleanups (trash, graffiti, etc.) 42.9%
11 Services to increase neighborhood and community engagement 40.6%
12 Financial literacy 39.3%
13 Battered and abused spouses services 37.9%
14 Food banks 36.7%
15 Veteran services 36.7%
16 Fair housing activities 36.5%
17 Child care services 36.0%
18 Senior services 35.8%
19 Disability services 35.4%
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 201
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Priority
Rank Public Services: High Level of Need Share of
Respondents
20 Tenant/landlord counseling services 30.8%
21 Legal services 30.1%
22 Housing counseling for homebuyers and owners 24.4%
23 Lead-based paint/lead hazard screens 19.1%
24 Services for persons with HIV/AIDS 18.7%
Economic Development
Respondents rated the level of need for five economic development areas in their neighborhoods.
The three highest priorities in this area were:
1. Job training for homeless
2. Financial assistance for low income residents for small business expansion and job creation
3. Storefront improvements in low income neighborhoods
The table below shows the highest level of need for each of the economic development areas and
the share of respondents who rated each category as “high level” of need.
Table 12 – High Level of Need for Specific Economic Development Areas
Priority
Rank Economic Development: High Level of Need Share of
Respondents
1 Job training for the homeless 48.8%
2 Financial assistance for low-income residents for small business
expansion and job creation
35.3%
3 Storefront improvements in low-income neighborhoods 33.9%
4 Microenterprise assistance for small business expansion (5 or fewer
employees)
24.1%
5 Public improvements to commercial/industrial sites 20.3%
Infrastructure and Neighborhood
Respondents rated the level of need for 15 infrastructure and neighborhood improvements within
their neighborhoods. The five highest priorities in this area were:
1. Cleanup of contaminated sites
2. Street improvements
3. Lighting improvement
4. Sidewalk improvements
5. Water/sewer improvements
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 202
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
The table below shows the highest level of need for each of the infrastructure and neighborhood
improvements and the share of respondents who rated each category as “high level” of need.
Table 13 – High Level of Need for Specific Infrastructure and Neighborhood Improvements
Priority
Rank Infrastructure and Neighborhood: High Level of Need Share of
Respondents
1 Cleanup of contaminated sites 44.9%
2 Street improvements 41.1%
3 Lighting improvements 35.7%
4 Sidewalk improvements 35.2%
5 Water/sewer improvements 34.7%
6 Community gardens 31.5%
7 Stormwater and drainage improvements 30.2%
8 Slowing traffic speed 29.8%
9 New or renovated playgrounds 29.4%
10 Trails 28.8%
11 Acquisition and clearance of vacant lots 26.4%
12 ADA accessibility to public facilities 23.0%
13 Neighborhood signage 21.7%
14 Landscaping improvements 19.5%
15 Public art 18.7%
Fair Housing
Respondents were asked to answer a series of questions related to Fair Housing. Four questions
were used to gauge each individuals experience with housing discrimination.
16%
76%
8%
Figure 6 – Percent of Individuals Who Have Experienced
Housing Discrimination in Santa Clara County
Yes
No
Don’t Know
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 203
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Of the 1,472 total respondents, 192 (16%) said they have experienced some form of housing
discrimination. The majority of discrimination occurred within an apartment complex (19%). The next
highest location for discrimination was indicated by the “Other” category. Within this category,
duplexes, condos, and private renters were the most commonly indicated. Many respondents who
selected “Other” expressed experiencing discrimination in multiple locations. The three highest
locations of discrimination were:
Apartment Complex
Other
Single-family neighborhood
The figure below shows where respondents experienced discrimination.
The majority of respondents (29%) who experienced discrimination indicated that race was the
primary factor for that discrimination. Respondents selected “Other” as the next highest basis of
discrimination. Within the “Other” category respondents indicated race, inability to speak English,
religion, credit, and marital status as the cause for discrimination. The three highest basis of
discrimination were:
1. Race
2. Other
3. Familial Status
0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%50%
Trailer or mobile home park
When applying for City/County programs
Public or subsidized housing project
Condo development
Single‐family neighborhood
Other (please specify)
Apartment complex
Percent of Respondents
Figure 7 – Locations Where Respondents Reported
Experiencing Discrimination
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 204
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
The Figure 8 below depicts what respondents believe is the basis for discrimination they have
experienced.
Respondents were then asked to identify who they felt had discriminated against them. The majority
of respondents (66%) indicated they were discriminated against by a landlord or property manager.
Respondents selected “Other” as the next highest category of who discriminated against them.
Within the “Other” selection respondents indicated they experienced discrimination from landlords,
property managers, existing residents, and home owner associations. The three highest categories
that respondents believed discriminated against them were:
1. Landlord/Property Manager
2. Other
3. Don’t Know
Figure 9 on the following page illustrates who respondents believe is responsible for the
discrimination they have experienced.
0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%
Religion
Sex
Color
Disability
National origin
Sexual orientation
Don’t Know
Familial status (families with children under 18)
Other (please specify)
Race
Percent of Respondents
Figure 8 – The Reason Respondents Believe They
Experienced Discrimination
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015
Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 205
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%
Mortgage insurer
Real estate agent
Mortgage lender
City/County staff
Don’t Know
Other (please specify)
Landlord/Property manager
Percent of Respondents
Figure 9 – Who Respondents Believe Discriminated Against
Them
Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015