HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-05-12 City Council (7)TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
0
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE:MAY 12, 2003 CMR: 262:03
SUBJECT:APPROVAL OF A FAIR HOUSING PROVIDER AND ADOPTION
OF THE "ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING
CHOICE, 2000-2005"
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1.Review and adopt the "Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice, 2000-2005
(Attachment A)," that includes an Action Plan for Fair Housing,
2.Direct the City Manager to submit the Action Plan to the U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development (HUD) and
3. Approve the. selection of Project Sentinel as the City’s fair housing provider.
BACKGROUND
As a requirement of receiving Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds,
Palo Alto must "affirmatively further fair housing" to support the elimination of racial
and ethnic segregation and other discriminatory practices in housing. To fu!fill this
requirement, the City annually allocates a portion of its CDBG grant to a non-profit
agency for provision of fair housing education, outreach and counseling services. For
many years, Midpeninsula Citizens for Fair Housing (MCFH) has submitted an
application to the City through the annual CDBG allocation process requesting CDBG
funds to provide fair housing services, and has been awarded the funding.
In 1995, HUD added a requirement for CDBG entitlement jurisdictions to prepare an
"Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice" with an Action Plan for overcoming
the impediments. On May 6, 1996, the Palo Alto City. Council adopted the City’s
CMR:262:03 Page 1 of 4
"Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice, 1995-2000" (Analysis) including an
Action Plan.
The Analysis is updated periodically, but in 1999, the CDBG recipients of Santa Clara
County (five cities plus the County) decided to pool resources to hire the Empirical
Research Group, based at UCLA Law School, to conduct a study of fair housing
conditions and services in Santa Clara County. The jurisdictions consulted with HUD
who determined it was appropriate to delay updating the Analysis until the study was
completed in order to incorporate the research findings and 2000 census data. The study
was released in January 2003 and posted on the website of the Santa Clara County Office
of Affordable Housing. A summary of the study’s findings and recommendations are
included in the City’s Analysis as well as the fair housing policies from the City’s
recently updated Housing Element.
DISCUSSION
Selection of Fair Housing Provider
For the FY 03/05 CDBG funding cycles, MCFH did not submit an application for CDBG
funds by the deadline of December 13. As a result, no fair housing provider was included
in the CDBG application requests reviewed by the Citizens Advisory Committee and
Finance Committee although administration funding was allocated in the CDBG budget
for a fair housing provider.
City staffwas contacted in late December by the cities of Mountain View and Sunn.vvale
to jointly solicit proposals to find a single fair housing agency to provide services for the
three North County cities. (see Attachment B, Memorandum of March 24, 2003). This
joint effort was initiated in response to the countywide study of fair housing services,
which emphasized addressing fair housing on a regional basis. A regional fair housing
provider was also seen as a means to reduce project costs by eliminating duplication of
services and reducing overhead expenses. The regional collaboration on fair housing
services is also consistent with the City Manager’s direction for staff to work with the
Santa Clara County Cities Association on a uniform CDBG application in order to reduce
the administrative burden for nonprofit organizations.
Two fair housing agencies, MCFH and Project Sentinel, submitted proposals in response
to the Request for Proposals circulated by the three cities. Overall both agencies are well
qualified to provide the necessary fair housing services. Although historically Palo Alto,
as well Mountain and Sunnyvale, have contracted with MCFH, staff from the three cities
unanimously ageed to select Project Sentinel as the fair housing service provider because
Project Sentinel has a stronger record in effective community outreach, provides
community education materials in nine languages, has the capacity to handle phone calls
in numerous languages and maintains an updated well developed website. Due to the
diversity of the region, these capabilities are important in ensuring that all members of
the community have access to fair housing ser~dces. Project Sentinel also dedicates a
CMR:262:03 Page 2 of 4
staff member with a background in public relations and communications to its outreach
activities.
MCFH, on the other hand, is currently examining the feasibility of a merger with Eden
Council for Hope and Opportunity in the East Bay (ECHO) and the administrative
responsibilities of the agency are considered somewhat in flux; MCFH has been without
a full-time director since last December. Although the merger of the two agencies has the
potential to result in a strong and effective fair housing agency, at this time
MCFH/ECHO is not in a position to guarantee that the merger will occur or commit to
when it will occur.
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice, 2000-2005
The action plan contained within the Analysis has been implemented since 1995 and no
major changes are proposed with this update. The review and comment period on the
Draft was March 25 to April 25, 2003. Consultations were held with Midpeninsula
Citizens for Fair Housing, the City’s fair housing provider, and with the Palo Alto
Housing Corporation for incorporation of their comments prior to release of the public
draft and posting on the City’s CDBG website. Notices were mailed to interested parties
such as the CDBG Citizens Advisory Committee, fair housing and affordable housing
service providers, real estate managers, and community organizations. The Human
Relations Commission reviewed and accepted comments at its regular meeting of April
10.
RESOURCE IMPACT
No City General Funds are expended on implementation of the Fair Housing Action Plan.
City CDBG funding allocated to the contract with a fair housing service provider will be
determined by the Council during approval of the FY03/04 CDBG budget. Staff and the
CDBG Citizens Advisory Committee recommended $26,800 for fair housing services for
both FY2003/04 and 2004/2005. Overall, there is little cost differential between the two
proposals. MCFH proposed to provide fair housing services for Palo Alto for $22,685 for
2003/2004 and estimated that the amount would increase to $23,366 for the second year;
staffing cost is $39 per hour. Project Sentinel is proposing a slightly higher contract
amount of $26,000, with staff time at a cost of $34.
POLICY IMPLICATION
The fair housing services identified for the fair housing service provider are similar to
those of previous years, with expansion of public outreach activities and capacity to offer
services in numerous languages. These services and the, including the Fair Housing
Action Plan, are consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan direction, the "CDBG
Consolidated Plan, 2000-2005" and past Council actions.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Both the contract for provision of fair housing services and the AI are not considered
projects under CEQA.
CMR:262:03 Page 3 of 4
PREPAREDBY:
ORGN~~nce Planning Manager
APPROVED BY: " ~’~-’a ’
/g’TEPH~NT EMSLIE, Director of Planning & Community Environment
EMILIY HARRISON, Assistant City Manager
Attachment:
A - "City of Palo Alto: Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice, 2000-2005"
B-Memorandum of March 24, 2003" North Santa Clara County Fair Housing Services
Recommendation for Selection of Fair Housing Services Provider for FY 03/05
CMR:262:03 Page 4 of 4
ATTACHMENT A
DRAFT
CITY OF PALO ALTO
ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS
TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE
For the Period
July 1, 2000 to June 30, 2005
The Department of
Planning and Community Environment
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94301
Steve Emslie, Director
For Information, contact:
Jennifer Coile, Contract CDBG Coordinator
Planning Division, City of Palo Alto (650) 329-2170
II.
III.
IV.
DRAFT
City of Palo Alto
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice, 2000-2005
Table of Contents
Introduction
General Summary. .....................................................................1
Definitions ............................................................
Methodology and Coordination...
Palo Alto Background Data
Demographic Data .................................................................3
Housing Market Conditions ......................................................3
Provision of Housing Brokerage Services and Financing Assistance for
Dwellings .............................................................................4
Zoning and Site Selection .........................................................5
Palo Alto’s Current Fair Housing Profile
Nature and Extent of Housing Discrimination .................................5
! 995 Counti-g’lde Fair Housing Survey’ Summary. ..........................9
2000-2002 Santa Clara County Fair Housing Study’. .........................9
MCFH Surveys - Families with Children .....................................13
Hate Crimes ........................................................................13
Identification of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice ...........................13
VII.
VIII.
Assessment of Current Public and Private Fair Housing Programs and
Activities ....................................................................................1
Policies and Programs in the Amended Housing Element That Address Fair
Housing Impediments ................................................................... 18
Conclusions and Recommendations ..................................................21
Signature Page ............................................................................24
Appendkx: Sources and Consultations ................................................25
Draft Februat3’ 2003
CITY OF PALO ALTO
ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE
For the Period July 1, 2000 to June 30, 2005
I.Introduction
General Summary
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has a long-standing
commitment to the elimination of racial and ethnic se~egation and other discriminatory
practices. Based on its obligation under section 808 of the Fair Housing Act, HUD has
strongly encouraged the adoption and enforcement of State and local fair housing laws,
and the reduction of separation by race, ethnicity or disability status in all of its housing
and commurfiU, development prog-rams. Through its community development pro~ams,
HUD seeks to further its goal of increasing equal and free access to residential housing in
order to achieve equality of oppommity for all persons regardless of race, color, religion,
sex, national origin, disability, or familial status.
This document and the related Action Plan are designed to address and fulfill the fair
housing requirements of the Consolidated Plan (24 CFR Part 91.21(e) and the
CommuniW Development Block Grant (CDBG) Progam (24 CFR Part 570.303d).
Federal regulations require participating communities to certi~ that they are
affirmatively furthering fair housing and conducting fair housing planning by:
Conducting an analysis of the impediments to fair housing choice
Taking appropriate actions to overcome the effects of any impediments identified
through the analysis, and
Maintaining appropriate records of the analysis and actions
The Analysis of Impediments (AI) and any future updates are generally required to be
conducted in conformance with the Consolidated Plan time frame. This AI updates and
replaces the City’s AI of 1995-2005. Action Plans must respond to the impediments
identified in the AI and include milestones, timetables, and measurable results for each of
the four years following the completion/update of the AI.
This updated AI was not prepared according to the usual cycle because in 1999, the City
entered an ageement with Santa Clara County and the other CDBG entitltement
jurisdictions within the County to jointly undertake a comprehensive regional study of
Count3~ fair housing pro~ams. With the concurrence of HUD, the CounD: and five cities
delayed the update of the A1 in order to incorporate the findings and recommendations of
the Countywv-ide Fair Housing Study. The Study was scheduled to be completed in June
Draft February 2003
2002 but became final in January 2003. The Study’s analyses and recommendations
were included in this AI where possible.
It was also strategic for the City to use data from the 2000 Census, which was not
released until late 2001 and summer 2002. Also, throughout 2001, the City was updating
the City’s Housing Element of the General Plan with adoption by the City. Council on
December 3, 2002. Policies and programs that relate to fair housing in the "Housing
Element: January 1999-June 30, 2006" are incorporated in this AI.
The AI was prepared by the City ofPalo Alto’s Department of Planning and Community
Environment, and was funded through the City’s CDBG Program as an eligible
administrative expense. All records and supporting documentation pertaining to the AI
and the Action Plan are kept for public review in the City’s Planning Division, 5th Floor,
City Hall, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA.
Definitions
Fair housing is defined by HUD in 24 CFR 570.904 (c)(1) to mean the ability of persons
of similar income levels to have the same housing choices regardless of race, color,
religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin. Discrimination in the sale or
rental of housing is prohibited against these protected classes (See the Fair Housing Act,
42 Untied States Codes, Section 3601, et seq.; also see California Government Code
Section 12955 and the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Civil Code Section 51, et seq.). Fair
housing laws are intended to further equal oppommity in housing, mortgage lending, and
the purchase of mortgage insurance.
For purposes of this report, impediments to fair housing choice are defined as:
Any actions, omissions, or decisions taken because of race, color, religion, sex,
disability, familial status or national origin that restrict housing choice, or
An)., actions, omissions or decisions that have this effect.
Methodology and Coordination
As part of fair housing planning, and the preparation of the AI, entitlement jurisdictions
were encouraged to seek input and cooperation from community and business
organizations, and other governmental agencies. To this end, in 1995, CDBG staff from
the Santa Clara Urban County and the entitlement cities of Palo Alto, Mountain View,
Sunn?~,ale, Santa Clara, and Gilroy convened a wor -king group to insure a coordinated,
regional approach to the development of the individual analyses. The working group
conducted a counts~ide survey in 1996 of community agencies regarding impediments
to housing choice in Santa Clara County as a whole, and for the individual entitlement
jurisdictions. In 1999, the CDBG Coordinators wor’king group pooled funds to hire
consultants, the Empirical Research Group at UCLA School of Law, to assess fair
housing conditions and programs throughout Santa Clara County.
2
Draft February 2003
In addition to these County studies, information specific to Palo Alto is routinely
provided by Pato Alto’s local fair housing organization, Mid-Peninsula Citizens for Fair
Housing (MCFH). MCFH has been a CDBG subrecipient of the City to provide fair
housing services for a number of years. MCFH submits performance reports that contain
data, such as the nature and extent of housing discrimination complaints in Palo Alto
together with the results of testing and any special fair housing surveys or audits. In
connection with this AI update, MCFH was consulted regarding their opinions or
observations regarding impediments to housing choice regionally, and in Palo Alto
specifically; suggested actions to remove or alleviate identified impediments; and any
other information which they deemed to be helpful or appropriate for this report.
II.Palo Alto Background Data
Demo~aphic Data
Palo Alto’s population has increased only slightly during the last 30 years. The number
of residents increased by 4.7% from 55,966 in 1970 to 58,598 in 2000 with most of this
~owth occurring between 1990-2000. While the average number of persons per
household declined from 2.7 in ! 970 to 2.3 in 2000, the number of housing units
increased.
Although 72.8 percent ofPalo Alto’s population is white, the City is becoming more
ethnically diverse. Asians and Pacific Islanders increased their share of the City’s
population gowing from 10 percent to 17.3 percent between 1990 and 2000 while 4.6
percent are Hispanic, 2 percent are black and 3.3 percent identify" themselves as other.
Housin~ Market Conditions
The 2000 Census indicated that there were 26,048 housing units in Palo Alto. This was
an increase of 860 units from 1990. About one-third of the City’s homes were built
during the 1950’s, the period of geatest housing construction in Palo Alto’s history.
Since 1970, the rate of production has generally declined. From 1970 to 1980, homes
were added at a rate of about 240 units per year. By the 1990’ s, the annual rate had
decreased to about 86 units per year as a result of economic factors and the limited
availabilit3’ of residential land.
The Consolidated Plan provides a complete discussion of the housing market conditions
in Palo Alto, based on research and data provided in the 2000 census. Those conditions
can be summarized as follows:
1)There is a greater demand for housing in Palo Alto than can be met, particularly
affordable housing for households with very tow and low incomes.
2)There is scarce land available for new- housing development. The City is essentially
built out. This contributes to the high cost of land, and therefore high housing costs.
Draft February 2003
3)There is a significant affordability gap in both the owner and rental housing markets
for low and very low-income households.
4)The housing ownership rate in 2000 was 57%.
5)The City has a total of 11,105 units of rental housing, 1,082 of which are subsidized.
Two-thirds of the rental stock is comprised of smaller units (studio, one and two
bedroom units).
6) Census information shows an overall rental vacancy rate (apartments and homes) of
3.17%. The City Planning Division conducts it owm periodic determination of the
rental apartment vacancy rate pursuant to the City’s condominium conversion
ordinance. This data indicates that as of July 2002, the vacancy rate for rental
housing was 1.86%. This extremely low vacancy rate further pushes up the cost of
rental housing and allows landlords to be very selective in choosing tenants.
Man3’ long-term tenants in Palo Alto experienced a sig-nificant escalation in rental rates
during the 1990’s, due at least in part to the low vacancy factor. Rents have been
dropping in 2000-2002. Contributing to the affordability problem for lower income
renters with federal housing subsidies, HUD has reduced the fair market rental
reimbursement rate from the 45th percentile to the 40th percentile. This means that tenants
with Section 8 subsidies are paying more out of pocket by bearing an increased share of
rent. There is no public housing in the City besides Section 8 tenants and landlords; the
City contracts with Santa Clara County Housing Authority to administer the Section 8
prog-ram.
High housing prices continue to exclude persons of middle and lower incomes from
residing in the City. Not only is it difficult for people who move here to afford housing,
it is often difficult for those born and raised here to do the same. Many long-term
residents are finding that their ~own children cannot afford to live in Palo Alto which
creates a hardship for those trying to maintain extended family ties.
Provision of Housina Brokerage Selwices and Financin~ Assistance for Dweltin.os
There is no evidence available to indicate discrimination in the provision of housing
brokerage services. There are no mortgage-deficient ("red-lined") residential areas where
brokers or banks will not tend within Palo Alto nor are any areas singled out for more
careful review or required to pay higher than standard rates.
Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) 2000 data is available for either the San
Francisco or San Jose Metropolitan Statistical Area but is based on 1990 Census data.
Staff believes it is unlikely to serve as an accurate indicator of Palo Alto trends. With no
city-specific data available and in the absence of complaints, staff concluded that there is
no evidence of differential treatment Or discriminatory lending practices wSthin Palo Alto.
However, the City lies in a subregion with patterns of home mortgage discrimination and
the City supports efforts to analyze and combat it. Countywide analyses, such as the June
2002 study "Fair Housing in Santa Clara County: .An Assessment of Conditions and
Pro~ams, 2000-2002" conducted by the Empirical Research Group of UCLA Law
School indicates some discrirn’mation among different racial groups seeking home
4
Draft February 2003
mortgages within the County. A ten-year lawsuit against a bank practicing "redlining" by
systematically refusing to issue home mortgages to African-Americans in East Palo Alto
was settled in the Fall of 2002. A Santa Clara County Anti-Predatory Lending Working
Group, comprised of a number of organizations such as Mid-Peninsula Citizens for Fair
Housing, East San Jose Community Law Center, Bay Legal Aid, HUD, FDIC, East Palo
Alto Community Law Project, Consumers Credit Counseling and the California
Reinvestment Committee, has been working since the summer of 2001.
Zoning and Site Selection
Palo Alto is essentially a built-out city. Changes in zoning from commercial to
residential could potentially provide more available housing sites, although single family
and multiple family housing is a permitted use in all commercial and industrial zones.
Increased residential density in Palo Alto would help provide more housing units at more
affordable prices. Although City ordinances provide for the densities necessary to create
more affordable housing, development has been occurring at the low end of the allowed
density range.
A review of public policies in the City’s Consolidated Plan determined that overall, local
public policies do not constitute barriers to affordable housing or pose impediments to
fair housing choice. The City’ s zoning ordinance contains a variety of zoning districts
which allow a range of housing Lvpes; single room occupancy developments are
permitted; there is a large supply of multi-family rental housing; affordable housing is
encouraged; minimum lot sizes, setbacks, floor area ratios and height requirements are
not a barrier to affordable housing and permit a variety of housing t.~es to be deve!oped;
there are no restrictions, other than the State standards, regarding the number of unrelated
individuals who can occupy a dwelling, and ~oup homes for special needs ~oups are
permitted as long as they comply with State requirements.
The Ci~’ developed an amended "Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan, 1999 -
2006" which was adopted on December 2, 2002. In the course of adopting the Housing
Element, the City Council reviewed the City’s current zoning and land use policies and
practices as they affect the creation of affordable housing and housing choice. The
Zoning Ordinance will be updated over the next two years to reflect the recommendations
from the Housing Element. These recommendations and their potential impact on fair
housing are discussed in Section VI.
III.Palo Alto’s Current Fair Housing Profile
Nature and Extent of Housina Discrimination
According to MCFH and fair housing experts nationally, a great deal of under-reporting
of discrimination occurs since the act of reporting is a commitment of time and aKention
which many people carmot or chose not to make. Therefore, the following statistical
information can only give an indication of the prevalence of discrimination rather than a
definitive account. According to the information received, the most reported eatego~
Draft February 2003
of discriminatory conditions in both Palo Alto and Santa Clara County as a whole,
is discrimination based on familial status and disability.
The San Francisco HUD office of Fair Housing and Equal Oppommity (FHEO) provided
information on the number and types of discrimination cases filed at HUD and the State
of California’s Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) between October
1, ! 999 to December 31,2001. In that period, 5 cases were filed with Palo Alto as the
originating address: 1 on the basis of race and 4 on the basis of disability. All 5 were
filed with DFEH and none at HUD.
Title VIII fair housing discrimination cases originating in Palo Alto that were closed in
the same period included 4 closed by HUD and 9 closed by DFEH. The basis of the
closed complaints included: 7 on the basis of disability, 5 on family status and 1 on race.
9 of the cases were conciliated or resolved and 4 complaints were determined to have no
cause.
HUD also reports Housing Discrimination Complaint Charges and Conciliations for
.Recipients of Federal Financial Assistance. The report for October 1, 1999 to December
31,2001 complaints states that in September 2000, Mid-Peninsula Citizens for Fair
Housing charged Lytton IV Housing in Palo Alto w-ith discrimination against persons
with disabilities in the design of a new housing development. The case was settled in the
fall of 2002.
A case is opened by MCFH when there is reason to believe that a client’s housing rights
have been violated. Cases are investigated and possibly resolved by MCFH through the
use of legal research, testers, counseling, etc. If evidence of discrimination can be
corroborated, the complainant is referred to an enforcement agency (such as FHEO), or
direct legal counsel. Complainants can also contact HUD directly and HUD may refer the
complaint to the state FHEO.
The tables on the following pages report statistics for Palo Alto cases handled by MCFH
for the period July 1, 1998 through December 3 !, 2002.
MCFH also provided information on the ethnicity of complainants and their income
levels. 72% of all local discrimination cases were filed by Whites, t 4% by Blacks, 3%
by Hispanics, and none by Asians. The rest of the cases were categorized as Not
Applicable or Other. Low-income persons/households were 24%, very low income 58%,
with the balance categorized as Not Applicable or Other. MCFH statistics for 1991-95
demonstrate similar patterns.
Draft February 2003
Mid-Peninsula Citizens for Fair Housing
Fair Housing Consultations and Cases: Basis of Discrimination
PALO ALTO: July 1, 1997 - December 31, 2000
Basis for
Discrimination
Consultation
i
Jul 1, 1997-
Jun 30,
1998 Cases
6
July 1, 1999-
June 30, 2000
Consul-Cases
tations
1 7
1 -
11 9
July 1, 2000
Childrert/Familial
Status
Mental Disabili~3 2
Physical 5 7
Disabili~~
Race 4 42
1 3
!
1
3
23 21
Consul-
tations*
3
6
19
4
1
1
July 1, 2001-
¯Jan 9, 2002
Cases [Consul-tations,Cases
3
3
8
14
3
1 5
-2
4 7
June 30, 2001
Consul-
tations
2
National Origin
Sexual
Orientation
Marital Status
Gender
Income Source
Age
Religious
Other
TOTAL
TOTAL
Cases
16
6
27
6
5
1 3 3
-1
1 -2
1 4
21 17 44 63
Note: Consultations that become cases are not duplicated in the statistics but are listed only as cases,
Source: MCFH: CDBG Progam Performance Report to the Ci~’ of Palo Alto
* 12/01/01 to 01/08/02 only
** Does not include July 1, 1997 to June 30, 1998
7
Draft February 2003
Mid-Peninsula Citizens for Fair Housing
Fair Housing Case Clients: Income/Race
PASO ALTO 1998 - 2000
Case Client Household Characteristics 1998/1999 1999/2000 [Total
TOTAL Number Assisted 15 21 36
Low Income 0 7 7
Very Low Income 14 12 26
Total Number Low and Ve~ Low Income 14 19 33
% assisted who are Low/Very Low Income 90°/3 90%90%
W-hire, not of Hispanic Origin 12 15 27
Black, not of Hispanic Origin 3 4 7
American Indian!Alaskan Native 0 0 0
Hispanic 0
Asian!Pacific Islander 0 0 0
Female Headed Households 8 15
Source: MCFH: CDBG Pro~am Performance Report to the City of Palo Alto
Draft February 2003
Summary of 1995 County-Wide Fair Housin~ Survey
Respondents to a Santa Clara Count,vwide survey included Asian Law Alliance, Tri-
County Apartment Association, Mid-Peninsula Citizens for Fair Housing, and Miramonte
Mental Health Services. Mid-Peninsula Citizens for Fair Housing noted that in the rental
of housing, restrictive occupancy policies in Palo Alto, while improved, are still a fair
housing impediment, and are the basis for many inquiries to their office. Tri-County
Apartment Association noted that occupancy is rarely limited by landlords of privately
owned rental housing as a means of discrimination against a protected class, but that
landlords often set occupancy standards for legitimate business purposes, to prevent
overcrowding and the associated impacts on the property’s condition and the community
as a whole.
The Asian Law Alliance reported that their agency received 52 complaints in Santa Clara
County involving discrimination in rental housing over a 12-month period. None of the
cases reported, however, were from Palo Alto. The Asian Law Alliance also noted that,
based on discussions at agency staff meetings, they have noticed the plight of recent
immi~ants and refugees who are unaware of their rights relating to discriminatory
treatment. These same immi~ants and refugees also face language barriers m accessing
housing.
Miramonte Mental Health Services reported that neighborhood discrimination against
tenants with mental illness is a problem in accessing and keeping housing.
Neighborhoods will often put pressure on landlords to terminate leases of tenants with
psychiatric disabilities because they believe the tenants are detrimental to the
neighborhood.
Information gleaned from a summaD: of an April 20, ! 995 fair housing forum "Access to
Housing for People with Mental Health Disabilities" sponsored by the Mental Health
Advocacy Project and Project Sentinel,. describes a lack of resources available for people
with mental health disabilities in accessing.affordable housing. Identi~,ing and being.
able to access available resources, overcoming the ignorance and fear associated with the
stereotypes of people with mental disabilities, and promoting community awareness and
sensitivity of mental health disabilities ~vere seen as reasonable accon~nodations.
2000-2002 Santa Clara County Fair Housin~o Study
The purpose of this study, "Fair Housing in Santa Clara County: An Assessment of
Conditions and Pro~ams, 2000-2002," is to assess the current extent and nature of fair
housing problems in Santa Clara County, and to propose ways to improving current
programs that relate to fair housing. Each of the Community Development Block Grant
jurisdictions in the county completed fair housing assessments but the Study represents
the first attempt to look comprehensively at conditions throughout the Count?., and to use
systematic data to evaluate several different dimensions of fair housing - demo~aphic
change, lending patterns, residential attitudes, land use practices, and the performance of
fair housing agencies.
Draft FebruaO, 2003
Chapter One, Demographic Setting and Racial Trends in Santa Clara Count)’,
reviews the changes in major racial groups over the decade. Migration from India -
fueled by strong links between Silicon Valley and the Indian computer industry, - leapt
during the past decade. The total Asian population rose 83% between 1990 and 2000. The
Hispanic population also grew substantially, though less dramatically, while the White
and Black populations modestly declined.
Although economic segregation in the Count), is marked and though specific racial and
ethnic groups have areas of concentration within the region, Santa Clara County remains
one of the best examples of diversity mixed with integration in the United States.
The interaction of rapid economic growth and modest population growth implies a strong
emphasis in local government policy to limit new development. While there are good
policy reasons behind many of these anti-growth policies, they naturally create conditions
where housing costs steadily increase, low-income workers are gradually squeezed out of
the housing market, and the affluence of the County steadily increases even while the
quality of life stagnates or even declines for a significant portion of the population.
Black segregation has historically been less in Santa Clara County than in the rest of
California. The study indicates there has been some increase in the County in the last ten
years, although there is still less than in the rest of the state.
The moderate levels of segregation Hispanics experience in Santa Clara County is fairly
typical of levels Hispanics face throughout the nation, and appears to follow very much
the classic pattern observed elsewhere - that is, Hispanic segregation appears to result
from three principal factors: lower incomes, ethnic clustering and discrimination.
While there are almost no neighborhoods in Santa Clara County where a specific Asian
nationality constitutes even a majority of residents, there are identifiable neighborhoods
for each of the major Asian goups. In the absence of any systematic testing data, it is
hard to conclude that discrimination is not contributing to this segregation. However,
research in other cities suggests that these levels of segegation are consistent with
voluntary clustering.
Chapter Two, Fair Lending in Santa Clara Count),: An Analysis of Home Mortgage
Data, contains Empirical Research Group’s analysis of reports mandated by the Home
Mortgage Disclosure Act and found that approval rates are relatively high for all groups
of loan applicants in Santa Clara County, loo’king at lender behavior in the aggregate.
However, there is enough evidence of disparate treatment to warrant serious attention to
the possibility of discriminatory treatment and underw-riting by area banks.
Chapter Three, Fair Housing Experiences and Perceptions: A Survey of Santa
Clara Count), Residents describes the results of a s.urvey of 250 Santa Clara County
residents. The people sampled were asked to identi~~ the most important problem facing
the Counb’. The dominant answers were "traffic" (32%) and "housing" (31%). The
dominant housing problem was considered high cost; 60% of respondents believed that
10
Draft February 2003
area "families being priced out of apartments due to rising rents" is a "vei3~ serious
problem."
Empirical Research Group compared this survey to one done in Los Angeles County.
Blacks and Hispanics in Santa Clara County reported higher levels of discrimination than
did these same groups in Los Angeles County. Yet Santa Clara County residents of all
races tended to perceive their own neighborhoods as more welcoming of racial diversity
than Los Angeles County residents perceived of their communities included in that stud?,.
The survey attempted to measure residents’ awareness and perception of fair housing
organizations. Project Sentinel and Mid-Peninsula Citizens for Fair Housing, funded by
the city of Palo Alto as well as the other County jurisdictions, produced very little name
recognition. According to the consultant, the two fair housing organizations, though
exemplar3,, in many ways, are clearly failing to make themselves ~known to their
constituency.
Chapter Four, Fair Housing Services in Santa Clara CounDr, reports on Empirical
Research Group’s visits to fair housing providers. They assessed operational details and
general achievements of these groups - how successful is their testing, how cost-effective
and productive their services are, how well- ~known the groups are, and how much they are
doing to reduce the volume of discrimination in Santa Clara County. ERG concluded
that Santa Clara County has two capable and substantial groups that focus on fair housing
- Project Sentinel and Mid-Peninsula Citizens for Fair Housing - and a cluster of other
organizations that work actively on fair housing issues and that have highly
~knowledgeable and capable staffs. By any comparative standard, the jurisdictions in
Santa Clara County are, in the aggregate, putting their fair housing dollars to good use.
However, the stren~h of the County’s fair housing presence means that local
jurisdictions are in a position to ask more challenging questions, such as how well these
groups actually serve the fair housing needs of the region, and develop more ambitious
strategies for addressing these needs. For example, there is no decent information on how
widespread any form of discrimination is in Santa Clara County. No one ~knows how
much of a deterrent the existing threat of enforcement activity poses for Santa Clara
County housing providers.
The study found that fair housing complaints from families with children are more
common than race-based complaints. Disability discrimination complaints are also
common. Most of these are from in-place tenants seeking reasonable accommodation.
A number of jurisdictions supplement CDBG expenditures with appropriations from
general funds, particularly for landlord/tenant services. Some of the funding that is
reported for fair housing is actually for tenant/land!ord services, and this can give an
inaccurate picture of what is actually going for fair housing. The consultant recommends
that jurisdictions develop uniform standards for accountability on which services are
funded.
11
Draft Februao, 2003
Chapter Five examines Santa Clara County Land Use and Zoning Issues. The 1988
amendments to federal fair housing law and the 1994 amendments to California fair
housing law both explicitly extended the protection of anti-discrimination laws to persons
with disabilities. Builders of new housing must comply wfith new requirements aimed at
making multifamily housing more accessible to persons with walkers or wheelchairs.
Local governments cannot put undue obstacles in the path of developers or operators of
~oup homes that aim to provide housing for the disabled.
In addition to the two amendments mentioned above, the study notes the California
Community Care Facilities Act, the California Anti-NIMBY Law, and the Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA), and comments that an elementary step for all jurisdictions
to take in promoting fair housing is to make certain that their zoning codes and land use
practices comply with the letter and spirit of these laws.
In Santa Clara County most jurisdictions have two-sided policies towards the
development of affordable housing. On the one hand, most jurisdictions have zoning
regulations that have exclusionary effects - substantial lot size requirements, significant
restrictions on multifamily development, and so on. On the other hand, nearly all
jurisdictions have some incentives built into their zoning rules (incentives strongly
encouraged by state policies) that encourage or require developers of multifamily housing
to make some of that housing affordable. Many jurisdictions have policies that tend to
restrict the development or rental of "guesthouses" (sometimes called "granny fiats") in
single-family neighborhoods.
Fair housing advocates intelwiewed for the study generally felt that local officials
behaved reasonably in the processing of applications for the siting of ~oup homes and in
other zoning issues.
Chapter Six’s Conclusions and Recommendations states that fair housing conditions
in Santa Clara County are generally very good. Although this report does identify"
important problems that should be addressed, it is important not to overlook Santa Clara
County’s achievements: an exceptional level of inte~ation in most parts of the County;
an unusually strong and generally well-funded network of fair housing providers; a
generally responsive and concerned ~oup of officials worNng on land use, housing
supply and fair housing issues; and many signs of tolerance of diversity and support for
fair housing across the general public community.
Santa Clara County, has two fundamental fair housing problems. The intractable problem
is affordabilitv. The region’s economic transformation may have reached a plateau, but
the County will almost certainly continue to be an extraordinarily difficult place to create
affordable housing for some time. To the degee that the market remains very expensive,
many parts of the County will become tess economically integated, families will
frequently encounter restrictive practices, and the County’s high level of racial
inte~ation will be threatened. The second problem is that fair housing progams are
largely reactive rather than proactive.
12
Draft February 2003
Specific recommendations for regiona! collaboration are presented in Section VII of this
Report, "Conclusions and Recommendations."
MCFH Surveys and Audits - Families with Children
Due to the fact that discrimination based on familial status is the most often reported
basis for reported discriminato~ acts, Mid-Peninsula Citizens for Fair Housing
conducted several local surveys and audits. These surveys focused on multi-family rental
properties in Palo Alto to ascertain compliance with federal, state and local fair housing
laws, especially as they impact families with children. The f~rst telephone survey was
conducted in May, ! 992 and was designed to elicit information regarding acceptance of
families with children as residents, and the occupancy standards applied by property
owners. Twenty properties were contacted representing 2,110 housing units. The
findings of that sur~,ey indicated that although all the properties allowed families with
children as tenants, 24.8% of the properties were overly restrictive in their occupancy
policies, exposing families with children to higher rents, and less choice in housing.
MCFH conducted follow-up telephone surveys in 1994 and t 995 that indicated that all of
the complexes tested had policies which complied with fair housing laws regarding
occupancy and rentals available to families with children. However, further surveys of
four apartment complexes in 1999 and four in 2000 by tester applicants revealed a
possible bias against families with children in t out of 4 cases. Continued vigilance and
educational outreach efforts are considered necessary to insure ongoing compliance.
Hate Crimes
The Cit-y’s Human Relations Commission monitors hate crimes within the City. The
California Department of Justice’s Statistics Center (CJSC) publishes an annual report on
Hate Crime in California. In Palo Alto, 9 hate crime events/offenses were reported in
2000 perpetrated by 3 known suspects, 7 crimes in 1999 by 5 known suspects, and 4
crimes in t998 by 3 known suspects.
IV.Identification of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
"Impediments" to fair housing are determined either because of their intent (any actions,
omissions, or decision taken because of race, color, religion, sex, disability, familiar
status or national origin which restrict housing choices or the availability of housing
choices) or e~ (any actions, omissions or decisions which have the effect of restricting
housing choices or the availability of housing choices because of race, color, religion,
sex, disability, familial status, or national origin).
The largest impediment of fair housing for low income people in Palo Alto is one of
supply and demand. The demand for affordable rental and ownership housing far
exceeds the supply. Fair housing is defined as the ability of persons of similar income
levels to have housing choices regardless of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, and other
constitutionally protected classifications. Housing cost and supply negatively affect the
13
Draft February 2003
ability, of persons of low income to obtain housing in Palo Alto, but the issues of race,
gender or color do not re~.~larly factor into it.
The Lack of Affordable Housing restricts people in their ability to purchase or rent
housing. Census data show that the primary ~oups affected by the lack of affordable
housing are low and moderate-income people. People of color, families with
children, and persons with disabilities have a disproportionate problem in finding
housing in Palo Alto and Santa Clara County when compared to young, white, higher
income, able-bodied purchasers and renters without children.
The Lack of Available Housing creates an inadequate pool of housing stock. The
predominance of single family residences compared to the amount of multi-family
housing in Pa!o Alto also affects the availability and affordability of housing choice.
Lack of Land Available for Housing Construction - This has been identified as the
primary obstacle for both nonprofit and for profit developers trying to develop
housing. Only .5% of the urban area is vacant (less than .5%). Because of the lack of
vacant parcels, it is anticipated that under-utilized sites or sites zoned for
commercial/industrial uses will become more feasible for re-use to residential
designations.
Price of Land Suitable for New Housing - This obstacle is related to the scarciU~ of
land. When land is available in Palo Alto, the price is too high for the construction of
low to moderate income housing without costly subsidies. Residentially zoned
(multiple-family zoning districts) property has more than doubled in value since 1996
and can sell for $150-$167 per square foot or more depending on its location and
development potential. Commercially zoned land outside of the downtown core may
have also doubled in price to over $150 per square foot. Thus, a one-acre site would
be worth in excess of $6.5 million.
Discrimination in Housing - This continues to influence who may find housing in
Palo Alto and who may not. Families with children and persons with disabilities
remain the largest single classes affected by discrimination in Palo Alto, and in Santa
Clara County. In the county, persons of minority races or of national origin outside
the U.S. are also affected by discriminator, actions. Although there is no readily
available information on the accessibility of housing in Palo Alto for persons with
disabilities, it is likely that many units (and projects) do not meet current standards of
accessibility, as mandated by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) since most
of the Ci~;’s housing stock was built prior to the adoption of ADA in 1991.
Complex Federal Requirements - Application processes for the limited amount of
federal and state housing funds available arehighly complex and competitive. The
re)q-lad of federal requirements such as prevailing wage, property acquisition
regulations, environmental standards, relocation, etc., also add considerably to the
cost of creating affordable housing.
14
Draft February 2003
Insufficient Funds Available - Federal reductions in the already insufficient supply
of funding for housing, along with the need for increased subsidies in high cost areas,
results in fewer affordable units being created in Palo Alto. The distribution of tax
credits for developing affordable housing is problematic because the priorities set at
the State level typically limit the eligibility of projects in Palo Alto.
In the following sections, each of these impediments will be examined in terms of
ongoing public and private fair housing pro~ams and activities to further profess in fair
housing in the City of Palo Alto.
Assessment of Current Public and Private Fair Housing Programs and
Activities
The City of Palo Alto has a number of current poticies and pro~ams, which encourage
fair and equal housing choice. The City also maintains a strong commitment to the
creation of affordable housing oppommities; the City Council in 2002 reaffirmed that it is
one of the Council’s top five priorities for the City. These ongoing progams are grouped
according to the fair housing impediments discussed in the previous section; some may
be valid for more than one impediment but are listed only once in the area where they
have the ~eatest impact.
Lack of Affordable Housing
Palo Alto has employed a Housing Coordinator since 1992 to facilitate the production
of affordable housing in Palo Alto through nonprofit parmerships and technical
assistance.
Palo Alto has a Below Market Rate (BMR) Program, which in 2002 consisted of 152
below market home ownership units and 101 below market rate rental units. The
units are located throughout the City in privately constructed residential
developments. They are provided by the private market under the City’s inclusionalg,’
zoning policies in the Housing Element, which have been in effect since 1974. The
City contracts w-ith the Palo Alto Housing Corporation to administer the Program.
The City developed an Affirmative Marketing Procedures Guide for owners and
managers of affordable housing units assisted with federal HOME fmads. The guide
describes the requirements and practices owners must adhere to in order to
affirmatively market the HOME assisted rental units.
The Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC) created and distributed a resource guide
to affordable (and assisted) housing in Palo Alto and the vicinity in June 1994. The
booklet was funded with CDBG funds, and is currently available online in addition to
paper copies that are periodically updated and reprinted.
The City provided CDBG funds to the Palo Alto Housing Corporation to research and
complete an Asset Management Plan and a Property Management Procedures
15
Draft February 2003
Manual. The purpose of the Plan and Manual are to increase the capacity of the -
organization to plan and administer an ever-increasing number of assisted/affordable
housing units within the City.
Lack of Available Housing
The City provides general fund support to Project Sentinel to provide Information and
Referral services about landlord/tenant laws and conduct a citywide tenant/landlord
mediation program. This frequently helps tenants to resolve disputes and remain in
their housing.
Palo Alto’s Rental Housing Stabilization Policy (Palo Alto Municipal code 9.68.030)
requires Pato Alto landlords to annually offer one-year v~Mtten leases to tenants. The
purpose of the ordinance is to provide tenants with some assurance of stability under
the terms of a written lease and to minimize displacement in a rental housing market
which affords them few and expensive options.
Lack of Land Available for Housing Construction
The update of the "Housing Element of the City’s Comprehensive General Plan, 1999
- 2006" together with the update of the City’s Zoning Ordinance 2000 - 2005 is
studying alternative housing sites and ways to accommodate additional housing
density without compromising neighborhood quality.
_Price of Land Suitable_for New Housing
The City maintains a local "Housing Reserve Fund" to be used for acquisition,
rehabilitation, new construction, and predevelopment expenses of low-income
housing. The Commercial Portion of the Fund is funded with housing mitigation fees
required from developers of commercial and industrial space. The residential portion
of the Fund is supplied by in-lieu fees under the "Below Market Rate" Housing
Pro~am from residential developers.
Discrimination in Housing
The City has contracted with Mid-Peninsula Citizens for Fair Housing for a number
of years to provide fair housing services including information and referral,
community outreach and education, discrimination complaint checNng and
investigation, legal referrals and assistance in resolving complaints. In fiscal year
2002/03, MCFH was awarded $25,800 in CDBG funds. In a t,vpical year, MCFH
offers telephone consultations, complaint investigations, conducts tester training and
an annual meeting for participating attorneys. MCFH audits rental housing for
families in Palo Alto and has conducted special projects such as production of an
educational video about discrimination against people with disabilities. MCFH was a
successful plaintiff with the U.S. Government in a lawsuit against Lytton Gardens
16
Draft FebruaO, 2003
development at-Lytton Courtyard for violations in ADA resulting in discrimination
against applicants and tenants with disabilities.
Activities of MCFH to increase public awareness about fair housing include
widespread advertising, i.e., daily in the San Jose Mercury News, weekly in the Palo
Alto Weekly, monthly in Peninsula Parent magazine and E! Observador; frequent
radio Public Service Announcements; distribution of brochures, annual workshops for
apartment ow~ners and managers; production of two videos about fair housing shown
on community cable access as well as education presentations; listings on websites,
such as the City of Palo Alto Family Resources database; articles in Disabled Dealer
magazine, booths at events such as the Tri-CounD" Apartment Owners Association
Expo, Northern California Abilities Expo, Foothill College Volunteer Fair, DeAnza
College Multicultural Fair.
MCFH frequently makes presentations to organizations such as the Mental Health
Association, Palo Alto Tenants Housing Forum, North Count?, Social Service Agency
case workers, Fair Housing Rights Seminar, Deposition Workshop at San Francisco
HRC, Women’s Rights conference, Housing Action Coalition meeting of Silicon
Valley Manufacturers Group, Stanford University Housing Service Center, Martin
Luther King Day celebration, Catholic Charities Shared Housing staff.. Pa!o Alto
Housing Information and Referral collaborative, Silicon Valley Faith-Based
Coalition, and Sheraton Apartments residents.
MCFH also collaborates with regional fair housing advocates and service providers
by participating in meetings such as the Bay Area Annual Fair Housing Leadership
Conference, Northern California Fair Housing Coalition, Annual Conference of the
National Fair Housing Alliance, State Department of Fair Employrnent and Housing
Legislative Update Workshop, and the Santa Clara County Housing Task Force.
MCFH collaborated with Project Sentinel, Mental Health Advocacy Project and
Asian Law Alliance in organizing an accessibility, workshop at Stanford UniversiV.
The Palo Alto Human Relations Commission (HRC) investigates, reviews, advocates
for and advises the CiD Council on matters relating to maintaining a non-
discriminatory atmosphere in Palo Alto. The HRC, in collaboration with police
officials, investigate and document any instances of local hate crimes.
Chapter 9.74 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code prohibits discrimination against
families with minor children in housing. The ordinance lists specific prohibited rental
practice activities including the application of restrictive occupancy standards.
The CiD~ Attorney’s Office handles cases brought to their attention involving
discriminatory rental practices.
The City annually celebrates Fair Housing Month in April.
17
Draft February 2003
The City utilizes utility mailers to inform citizens about fair housing rights and
services.
Complex" Federal Requirements
The City participates in a Santa Clara County CDBG Coordinators Working Group
that periodically advises the Department of Housing and Urban Development about
housing regulations and their impact on the local level.
Insufficient Funds Available
As mentioned previously, the City maintains a local "Housing Reserve Fund" to be
used for acquisition, rehabilitation, new construction, and predevelopment expenses
of low-income housing. The Commercial Portion of the Fund is funded w~th housing
mitigation fees required from developers of commercial and industrial space. The
residential portion of the Fund is supplied by in-lieu fees under the "Below Market
Rate" Housing Progam from residential developers.
The City contributed funds to create a Santa Clara County Housing Trust Fund as a
public/private initiative dedicated to creating more affordable housing in Santa Clara
County using a revolving loan fired and ~ant-making pro~am to complement and
leverage other housing resources. The City’s contribution of $500,000 towards the
initial $20,000,000 investment capitalization is available to help leverage new
affordable housing projects in Palo Alto.
Policies and Programs in the Amended Housing Element that Address
Fair Housing Impediments
The January 1999- June 2006 Housing Element Amendment for the City of Palo Alto
modifies the 1998-2003 Housing Element. The Housing Element is part of the Ci~,’s
Comprehensive Plan required by State Law. Upon adoption of the amended Housing
Element on December 2, 2002, the proposed changes in land use and zoning policies wil!
be incorporated into a revision of the City’s Zoning Ordinance, which is scheduled to be
completed in 2005. Palo Alto’s Ci~ Council discussed the draft Housing Element at
len~h and stressed the importance of providing affordable, attainable housing. The
Housing Element has a section on Fair Housing; Goal H-4 states "An End to Housing
Discrimination on the Basis of Race, Religion, National Origin, Age, Sex, Sexual
Orientation, Marital Status, Physical Handicap, or Other Barriers that Prevent Choice in
Housing." Policy H-24 is "Support pro~ams and agencies that seek to eliminate housing
discrimination." Pro~ams H’61 to H-66 include:
Work with appropriate state and federal agencies to ensure that fair housing laws are
enforced.
Continue to support ~oups that provide fair housing services, such as Mid-Peninsula
Citizens for Fair Housing.
18
Draft February 2003
Continue the efforts of the Human Relations Commission to combat discrimination in
rental housing, including mediation of problems between landlords andtenants.
Continue implemen~:ation of the City’s Ordinances prohibiting discrimination in
renting or leasing housing based on age, parenthood, pregnancy or the potential or
actual presence of a minor child.
Continue the City’s role in coordinating the actions of various support groups that are
see-king to eliminate housing discrimination and in providing funding and other
support for these groups to disseminate fair housing information in Palo Alto,
including information on referrals to pertinent investigative or enforcement agencies
in the case of fair housing complaints.
Continue to interpret and apply the Ci~"s land use regulations in a manner that does
not deny to persons with disability, the access to housing and public accommodations
that are g~aaranteed under state and federal law.
Additional goals and policies in the Housing Element that support fair housing are
presented below. Man?: of them relate to more than one of the fair housing impediments
identified in Section III, so the relevant impediments are listed according to the following
code:
A.Lack of Affordable Housing
B.Lack of Available Housing
C.Lack of Land Available for Housing Construction
D.Price of Land Suitable for New Housing
E.Discrimination in Housing
F.Complex Federal Requirements
G.Insufficient Funds Available
Policy H-2: Consider a variety of strategies to increase housing density and diversity
in appropriate locations. Emphasize and encourage the development of affordable
and attainable housing. [A, B, C, D]
Pro~ams H-1 to H-12 include encouraging development densities at the higher end of
allowed density ranges and consider increasing minimum density requirements;
encourage the conversion of non-residential lands to residential; allow for increased
flexibility in application of development standards, new zoning districts for Transit-
Oriented Residential and Village Residential land use desig-nations, high residential
density under Mixed Use, zoning incentives that encourage development of diverse
housing types such as smaller more affordable units and two- and three-bedroom units
suitable for families with children; modi~~ standards to encourage the production of
second dwelling units, amend regulations to permit residential lots of smaller size.
Policy H-3: Continue to support the re-designation of suitable vacant or underutilized
lands for housing or mixed uses containing housing. [A, B, C, D]
Pro~ams H-13 to H-15 recommend implementation of the "Housing Opportunities
Study" that identifies vacant and underutilized sites and sites with existing non-
19
Draft Februao, 2003
residential uses that are suitable for future housing or mixed use development, rezoning
sites identified on the Housing Sites Inventory, and stud)4ng the El Camino Real
transportation corridor to assess the feasibility of developing higher density housing.
Policy H-4: Encourage mixed use projects as a means of increasing the housing
supply while promoting diversity and neighborhood vitality. [A, B, C, D]
Pro~arns H-16 to H-! 9 propose zoning ordinance regulations and incentives that
encourage the development of housing above and among commercial uses and over
parking lots in mixed use projects.
Policy H-5: Discourage the conversion of lands designated as residential to
nonresidential uses and the use of multiple family residential lands by nonresidential
uses, such as schools and churches, unless there is no net loss of housing potential on
a commtmity-wide basis. [A, B, C, D]
o Policy H-6: Support the reduction of governmental and regulatory constraints to the
production of affordable housing. [A, B, G]
Policy H-7: Monitor, on a regular basis, the City’s progress in increasing the supply
of housing and monitor the preservation of BMR rental units for very low and low-
income residents. [A, B, C, D, E]
Policy H-8: Promote the rehabilitation of deteriorating or substandard residential
properties. [B]
Policy H-9: Maintain the number of multi-family rental housing units, including
BMR rental and ownership units, in Palo Alto at no less than the number of multi-
family rental and BMR units available as of December 2001 and continue to support
efforts to increase the supply of these units. [A, B, C, D, E]
°Policy H-10: Preserve the existing legal, non-conforming rental cottages and duplexes
currently located in the R-1 and R-2 residential areas of Palo Alto, which represent a
significant portion of the CiD"s affordable housing supply. [A, B, C]
o Policy H-12: Encourage, foster and preserve diverse housing opportunities for very
low--, low--, and moderate-income households. [A, B, E]
Policy H-13" Provide for increased use and support of tenant/landlord educational
mediation opportunities. [A, B, E]
Progams H-36 to H-41 recommend policies to further encourage the development of the
BMR units and preservation of the Buena Vista Mobile Home Park.
Policy H-14: Support agencies and organizations that provide shelter, housing and
related services to very low-, low- and moderate-income households. [A, B, E]
2O
Draft February 2003
Program H-44 supports the development and preservation of group homes and supported
living facilities for persons with special housing needs.
Policy H-15: Pursue funding for the construction or rehabilitation of housing that is
affordable to very low-, low- and moderate-income households. Support financing
techniques such as land banking, federal and state tax credits, mortgage revenue
bonds and mortgage credit certificates to subsidize the cost of housing. [A, B, C, D,
F,G]
Policy H-16: Encourage the preservation, rehabilitation and construction of a Single
Room Occupancy (SRO) hotel and SRO housing. [A, B]
Policy H-17: Support oppommities for shared housing and other innovating housing
forms-to promote diversity and meet the needs of different household types and
income levels. [A, B]
Policy H- 18: Support housing that incorporates facilities and services to meet the
health care, transit or social service needs of households with special needs, including
seniors and persons with disabilities. [A, B, E]
Policy H-19: Support family housing that addresses resident needs for childcare,
youth services, recreation opportunities and access to transit. [A, B, E]
Policy H-20: Support legislation, regulatory changes, federal funding, and local
efforts for the permanent preservation of HUD-assisted very low- and tow-income
units at risk of conversion to market rate housing or loss of federal rental assistance.
[A, B, C, D, E, F, O]
VII. Conclusions and Recommendations
Fair housing issues in Palo Alto do not appear to be severe, and the records of MCFH
reveal a fairly consistent level of fair housing complaints filed annua!ly in the past
decade: 20 fair housing consultations and 15 to 20 cases. It is clear that although
discrimination in housing cuts across all racial, ethnic and economic lines in the region,
in Palo Alto it falls most heavily on single parent households, persons with disabilities,
and lower income persons and families. Housing cost and supply negatively affect the
ability of persons of low income to obtain housing in Palo Alto but the issues of race,
gender or color do not regularly factor into it.
There is a greater demand for housing than can be met. This is because Palo Alto is a
desirable place to live, there are many jobs, and there is little land available for new
housing development. This leads to high housing costs, low vacancy rates, and a
shortage of affordable housing opportunities. Decreases in the already insufficient supply
of federal and state housing funds, a!ong with existing overly-complex and burdensome
21
Draft February 2003
regulations at the governmental level, also severely restrict the amount of affordable
housing which can be created.
The lack of housing options in the region affordable to persons of low and moderate
income disproportionately affects people of color, families with children the elderly, and
persons with disabilities. Discrimination cases involving families with children and
persons with disabilities are the most prevalent cases in Palo Alto and Santa Clara
County. Property owners with restrictive occupancy policies, and other subjective rules
regarding children, expose families with children to higher rents, and fewer housing
choices.
The City of Palo Alto shares HUD’s commimaent to fair housing practices, and ptaces a
high priority on promoting and ensuring open and free choice in housing for all persons.
The City recognizes that free and equal access to residential housing (housing choice) is
fundamental to meeting essential needs and pursuing personal, educational, employment
or other goals. It is the City’s intent to maintain and promote a nondiscriminatory
environment in all aspects of the private and publicly funded housing markets within Palo
Alto, and to foster compliance with the nondiscrimination provisions of the Fair Housing
Act.
The City intends to continue its strong support of the ongoing fair and affordable housing
programs and policies outlined in Section V. The actual amount of funding each year for
focused fair housing activities will need to be balanced with other communi~ needs
including the development of affordable housing and the provision of supportive services
for low-income residents. The City’s ability to achieve measurable objectives within a
given timeframe is subject to the funding available and within the context of prohibitive
costs for developing and preserving affordable housing resources in this area.
The amended Housing Element identifies potential sites for future housing development
with an ag~essive schedule of proceeding with rezoning in order to ensure the sites are
ready for development. The City has been successful in the past with assisting non-profit
organizations to buy subsidized rental properties from for-profit owners, but
ac ~knowledges that one complex with a for-profit owner (the Terman Apartments)
remains that may be at risk of future increases in rent or conversion to market rate
housing.
Measuring the impact of fair housing activities can be elusive: for example, if the number
of fair housing complaint cases filed goes up, can that be attributed to increasing
discrimination or perhaps that the fair housing public outreach program has become more
visible so that more people are aware of their rights and know where to file a complaint?
Periodic monitoring and comprehensive fair housing audits should offer insights into the
nature of fair housing conditions and the effectiveness of the City’s approach. Increased
publicit,,, about the outcome of audits can be an effective means of educating landlords
about illegal discrimination and encouraging responses from victims of discrimination.
Reports by the Human Relations Commission and the U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development’s San Francisco Office of Fair Housing and Equal Oppormnib, the
22
Draft February 2003
Palo Alto Housing Corporation’s reports on the Below Market Rent unit program, and
performance reports by organizations such as Mid-Peninsula Citizens for Fair Housing
yield regular and accessible data.
The following actions are recommended in addition to maintaining the current ongoing
programs and policies in Section V. According to the data in Section III, the highest
priority target groups for advocacy and services are people with disabilities and families
with children, particularly female-headed households.
Participate in Santa Clara Countywide and regional (e.g. North County region of Pa!o
Alto-Mountain View-Sunnyvale) collaborative efforts on Fair Housing that seek to
implement the recommendations of the Empirical Research Group/UCLA Law
School study "Fair Housing in Santa Clara County: An Assessment of Conditions and
Programs, 2000-2002." Example of recommendations for possible joint
implementation include:
creation of a regional task force, coordination at the local government level and
establishment ofproactive goals
develop new sources of fair housing funding
measure forms of discrimination and deterrent impact of existing enforcement
activity by developing an annual testing program to build data on discrimination
levels, trends, distinctions between racial groups, and family/non-family
better public education through regional approaches to public outreach to
publicize the services of fair housing organizations
maximize effectiveness of fair housing providers through measures such as
monitoring and refining testing procedures by retaining outside experts from other
parts of the U.S. to conduct site visits at fair housing providers and strengthening
in-house litigation capacity of fair housing organizations
-support investigation and litigation aimed at predatory lenders
-monitor compliance with protection for the disabled
Support the activities of the Santa Clara County Anti-Predatory Lending Working
Group.
Continue to expand public outreach and information about fair housing policies and
services in Palo Alto, including website information. Develop additional means of
reaching people with disabilities and families with children.
Follow through on the Housing Element policies and proposals for updating the
Zoning Ordinance Update that will facilitate the development of additional housing
units generally and affordable housing specifically.
Develop a comprehensive survey of rental properties in the city to assess fair housing
conditions.
23
Draft February 2003
viii. Signature Page
This Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice has been prepared on the __
day of ,2003 by:
Julie Caporgno, Advance Planning Manager
And is approved by:
Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official
Steven A. Emslie, Director
Planning and Community Environment
Frank Benest, City Manager
Certifying Officer for the CDBG Program
24
Draft February 2003
IX.Appendix: Sources and Consultations
Sources
-Housing Element for the Ciu~ of Palo Alto: January 1999 - June 2006
-"Fair Housing in Santa Clara CounU,: An Assessment of Conditions and
Progams, 2000 - 2002" prepared by the Empirical Research Group, UCLA
-U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
-California Department of Justice Statistics Center
-FFIEC HMDA online database
-Performance Reports of Mid-Peninsula Citizens for Fair Housing
Consultations [Draft to be circulated Feb-April 2003]
Human Relations Commission of the City of Palo Alto
Mid-Peninsula Citizens for Fair Housing
Palo Alto Housing Corporation
Clara-Mateo Alliance
Shelter Network
Palo Alto Board of Realtors
25
ATTACHMENT B
March 24, 2003
MEMORANDUM
TO:Linda Lauzze, Administrative and Neighborhood Services Manager, City
of Mountain View
Julie Caporgno, Advance Planning Manager, City of Palo Alto
Robert Paternoster, Director of Community Development, City of
Sunnyvale
FROM:Adriana Garefalos, Senior Planner, City of Mountain View
Jennifer Coile, Contract CDBG Coordinator, City of Palo Alto
Eloiza Murillo-Garcia, Associate Plarmer - CDBG
Annabel Yurutucu, Housing Officer, City of Sunnyvale
Katrina Ardina, Housing Program Analyst, City of Sunnyvale
SUBJECT: NORTH SANTA CLARA COUNTY FAIR HOUSING SERVICES
RECOMMENDATION FOR SELECTION OF FAIR HOUSING
SERVICES PROVIDER FOR FY03/05
Recommendation
Staff from the cities of Mountain View, Palo Alto and Sunnyvale jointly recommend the
selection of Project Sentinel to provide fair housing services in a coordinated manner for
the three cities in Fiscal Years 03/05.
Background
As recipients of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds from the US
Department of Housing and Urban Development, the three cities are committed to
affirmatively further fair housing. Each year the cities allocate funding for fair housing
services to be provided by a non-profit organization. In the past, the non-profit fair
housing service providers have submitted an application in the pool of applicants for
CDBG funding and the cities review the application and determine the funding level in
the same manner as the other CDBG applicants.
Staff responsible for administration of the CDBG pro~ams in Santa Clara County and
CDBG recipient cities meet quarterly and have collaborated on information sharing and
programs of mutual interest for a number of years. In 1999, the cities and county jointly
funded a study of Fair Housing conditions and services in the county. The final study
was submitted in September 2002 and released in January 2003. The study included
recommendations for stren~hening fair housing services in Santa Clara County through
more regional and sub-regional collaboration. Staff of the cities of Mountain View, Palo
Alto and Sunnyvale decided to explore jointly issuing a Request for Proposals (RFP) for
fair housing services. The goal of selecting a single fair housing sen’ice provider to work
jointly for the three cities was to enhance cost effectiveness as well as quality of services.
On February 19, 2003, ~ :r copies of the RFP were mailed to the list of fair housing
agencies and attorneys s,own on Attachment A. The RFP was posted on the Sunnyvale
website. The advertisement shown in Attachment B was placed in the San Jose Mercury-
News on February 25, 2003 (the three cities shared the cost equally), in the San Jose Post
Record on February 19, 2003, the Palo Alto Weekly on February 21, 2003, and in the
Sunnyvale Sun on February 26, 2003. There were no further requests for paper or disk
copies of the RFP; the advertisement noted that the RFP was posted on the Sunnyvale
website.
On February 27, 2003, a Pre-Proposal Meeting was held in the Mountain View City Hall.
Two proposers attended. Over the next several weeks, the two proposers submitted
questions of clarification by email, to which City staff responded in a timely manner.
On March 17, 2003, two proposals were submitted by the deadline at Sunnyvale City
Hall. City staff reviewed the proposals, met on March 20 to discuss evaluation weighting
criteria (Attachment C) and interview questions (Attachment D). Interviews were
conducted on March 21 in Mountain View City Hall. The RFP stated the criteria for
evaluating the RFPs and these criteria were given points and weighting in an evaluation
matrix format. After completion of the interviews, staff filled out the evaluation rating
sheet from the knowledge gained in the interviews as well as the presentations in the
written proposals.
Project Sentinel received a total of 1,440 points out of 1,500 possible points, and
Midpeninsula Citizens for Fair Housing in collaboration with ECHO Housing received a
total of 1,235 points.
Discussion
No reference checks were conducted because both of the proposer agencies are well
known to the City staff. The City of Mountain View and the City of Palo Alto have had
contracts w~th Midpeninsula Citizens for Fair Housing to provide fair housing services
for more than ten years. The City of Palo Alto has contracted with Project Sentinel to
conduct a landlord/tenant mediation program for the past year. The City of Mountain
View has contracted with Project Sentinel for landlord/tenant services for the past five
years. Over the years, staff have reviewed performance reports, performed contract
monitoring, met with staff periodically, and gained feedback from citizens and
community leaders such as Human Relations and Housing Advisory Commissioners.
Generally, both agencies have performed in accordance with contract requirements.
Both agencies have qualified staff with relevant expertise, training and experience.
However, the Executive Director of Midpeninsula Citizens for Fair Housing (MCFH)
announced last October that she was leaving December 1, 2002. The position has not
been filled. In January, 2003, Margie Rocha, Executive Director of Eden Council for
Hope and Opportunity (ECHO), began working as the Interim Executive Director of
MCFH on a part-time basis, in addition to her position as Executive Director of ECHO.
ECHO is a well respected fair housing agency based in Hayward that has offered a
spectrum of housing services in the East Bay since 1964. In February, ECHO and
MCFH stated that they were discussing a merger of the two organizations. The proposal
2
was submitted by "MCFH in collaboration with ECHO" and showed Ms. Rocha
continuing in the role of ECHO Executive Director with oversight of current MCFH staff.
At the interview, staff asked about the timeframe of the merger, because we would need
to sign a contract with a single agency by June 30, 2003 in order to provide services.
Although the merger is on a "fast track," there is no guarantee when (and if) the merger
will be complete. City staff are concerned about many uncertainties underlying this
transition period and the capacity of the MCFH division of the proposed combined
organization to deliver the services described in the proposal starting July 1, 2003. While
the ECHO programs and performance appear strong, staff belief it could take a year for
ECHO to increase the capacity and service delivery of MCFH to similar standards.
Community outreach and education is more than one-third of the Scope of Work. ECHO
has an impressive record of placement of Public Service Announcements plus ABC News
National coverage. MCFH’s audited financial statement indicates less than ! % of the
total 2001-02 budget was spent on printing, advertising and outreach expenses. Project
Sentinel has a staff member devoted to outreach activities with a background in
communications and public relations. MCFH has relied on its fair housing specialists to
conduct outreach such as preparing and printing brochures.
The website and language capacity of Project Sentinel was vastly superior to MCFH.
Most of the MCFH website has not been updated since 2001, including vital sections like
"Training Calendar." The Project Sentinel website is well developed, informative, and
includes fair housing information translated into at least 9 languages including Laotian
and Cambodian. Project Sentinel utilizes partnerships with diverse community groups to
assist them in translations and has had a contract for several years with AT&T’s
Language Line to facilitate translation of phone calls in 125 languages. Project Sentinel’s
staff are 40% bilingual/bicultural, including Mandarin. MCFH is in the process of
translating some materials into Spanish, Russian and Vietnamese. ECHO Housing has
ties with an East Bay Legal Language Assistance and plans to secure their services for
the MCFH service area.
Next Steps
Each City will follow its own procedures for negotiating and awarding a contract with
Project Sentinel for fair housing services, after their respective City Council approves the
budget for fair housing services in FY03/04. The proposal contained a detailed cost
estimate with a breakdown of service goals and costs in each City, which can easily be
incorporated in the City contract and scope.
Two of the three cities (Palo Alto and Sunn?~,ale) are on a two year funding cycle. The
contract with Project Sentinel will provide for extending the contract term in FY04/05,
subject to FY03/04 contract performance and adjustments for the FY04/05 budget
available for fair housing.
Attachments:
A - Mailing List for circulating the RFP
B - Advertisement of RFP
C - Evaluation Rating Sheet
D- Questions for Interviews
ATTACHMENT A - MAILING LIST FOR CIRCULATING THE RFP
February 19, 2003
Documentation of Circulation of RFP for Fair Housing Services for North Santa
Clara County and Sunnvvale Landlord/Tenant Dispute Resolution Services
Full paper copy of RFP mailed
Mid-Peninsula Citizens for Fair Housing
457 Kingsley Road
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Project Sentinel
430 Sherman #306
Palo Alto, CA 94306
ECHO Housing Inc.
770 "A" Street
Ha)-vvard, CA 94541
Asian Law Alliance
184 E. Jackson Street
San Jose, CA 95112
Community Legal Services Inc.
South Bay Fair Housing Project
2 West Santa Clara St. 8th floor
San Jose, CA 05113
AIDS Legal Services of Law Foundation of Silicon Valley
111 West St. John Street, Suite 315
San Jose, CA 94113
Mental Health Advocacy Project
Law Foundation of Silicon Valley
111 West St. John Street, Suite 315
San Jose, CA 94113
Fair Housing Law Project
Law Foundation of Silicon Valley
11 ! West St. John Street, Suite 315
San Jose, CA 94113
4
Legal Aid Society of Santa Clara County
480 N. First Street
San Jose, CA 95103-0103
Chris Brancart
Brancart and Brancart
P.O. Box 686
Pescadero, CA 94060
D. Scott Chang
Law Office of Scott Change
26870 Moody Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94002
Kerry Gough
Gough and Cohen
160 Franklin Street Suite 200
Oakland, CA 94607
Peter G. Lomhoff, Attorney
1 Kaiser Plaza #1725
Oakland, CA 94612-3610
Zona Sage
663 Jean Street
Oakland, CA 94610
Richard F. Kelly
Dubois and Kelley
702 Marshall Suite 400
Redwood Ctiy, CA 94603
Rufus L. Cole
Law Office of Rufus L. Cole
720 Market St. Penthouse Suite
San Francisco, CA 94102
Martin Snitow
Martin S. Snitow Law Corporation
P.O. Box 90278
San Jose, CA 95109-3278
Information Copies Mailed
Marlene Prendergast
Palo Alto Housing Corporation
725 Alma Street
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Attn: Rafael Cedillos
US Dept of Housing and Urban Development
Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, CA
Attn: Fair Housing
US Dept of Housing and Urban Development
Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, CA
Prof. John Baugh
Stanford School of Education
485 Lasuen Mall
Stanford, CA 94305-3096
Advertisements
Palo Alto Weekly
MountainView: San Jose Post Record
Smmswale Sun
Online in National Fair Housing Advocate, w~,.fairhousinu.com
Website Posting
http://wa~’.ci.sunn~,ale.ca.us/community-dev/housing/
6
ATTACHMENT B - ADVERTISEMENT OF RFP
CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW, CITY OF PALO ALTO, CITY OF SUNNYVALE
JOINT REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS ~P) TO PROVIDE
FAIR HOUSING SERVICES FOR NORTH SANTA CLARA COUNTY AND
CITY OF SUNNYVALE LANDLORDffENANT DISPUTE RESOLUTION
SERVICES
RFP Issued February 18, 2003; Proposals due March 17, 2003
Pre-Proposal Meeting: February 27, 2003 - 2 p.m.,
Mountain View City. Hall, 500 Castro Street
The three Cities are initiating a regional approach to Fair Housing services in response to
the recommendations of a Countywide Fair Housing Study. The Cities seek
investigation, counseling and legal referrals for victims of housing discrimination;
community education and outreach regarding fair housing law and practices; and
research, analyses, and reporting for City staff and officials regarding fair housing
practices. The City of Sunnyvale also seeks landlord/tenant services. Agencies,
organizations and/or firms are encouraged to apply.
The RFP is available at http://www.ci.sunnyvale.ca.us/community-devihousing
Or call (650) 329-2603, (408) 730-7451, or (650) 903-6379, to request a paper copy or
diskette.
7
ATTACHMENT C
Evaluator:
EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS
NORTH SANTA CLARA COI~TY FAIR HOUSING SERVICES
Name of Proposer:
Factor
!Evaluati°n(1 to 5*)
Score
Completeness of
Proposal
Evidence of
Understanding the
purpose &
, objectives
Understands the
requirements of the
services to be
provided
Composition and
Expertise of the
organization or team
Expertise of the
Pro~am manager
Time to be spent by
each time member
Team members
knowledgeable
about & direct FH
Experience
Legal expertise and
experience in
processing FH
complaints
Cost
TOTAL
Weight
5
5
10
10
10
5
15
2O
20
100
*1 = substantially below expectations
2 = somewhat below" expectations
3 = meets expectations
4 = somewhat above expectations
5 = substantially above expectations
ATTACHMENT D
NORTH SANTA CLARA COUNTY FAIR HOUSING SERVICES
INTERVIEWS OF pROPOSERS: MARCH 21. 2003
L INTR OD UCTIONS, PROPOSER PRESENTA TIONS/COMMENTS
IL OUESTIONS OF CLARIFICATION
Qs for MCFH!ECHO:
what is your approach to getting written materials translated, and providing
services to people who don’t speak English?
Staffing: We were unsure from the proposal about ECHO staff working on
the North County services.
Please explain MCFH "in collaboration with" ECHO. Any MOU between
the agencies? Who would be signing the contract?
Page 8, please explain who is on the "steering committee"
Qs for Project Sentinel:
March 2003 - transit posters placed in 100 trains running from SF to Gilroy?
Where on Caltrain?
-Explain how AT & T’s Language Line works.How long have you been
working with that contract?
-Case settlement log- available on website? Geographical information so
cities can incorporate info in their AI?
Where will the fair housing office be located? Will you be able to provide
onsite services, a minimum of one day a week, in Sunnyvale?
In Table of Unit Cost Rate Sheets, Task 2, Goal 4.B Monitoring of Rental
sites states "see Goal 3.A, Investigating/Counselin~mediation/conciliation"
above. Please explain.
III. OUESTIONS FOR BOTH PROPOSERS
Task 1. Community Education and Outreach:
Describe your approach to publicizing educational seminars and training workshops.
Based on your review of 2000 census data and ethnicity categories, which languages do
you think are important for fair housing information in the three cities? Describe the
language capacity of your staff and related resources.
Describe your current major outreach event plans for the next four months.
’#-hat is your success rate in placing radio and tv PSAs?
Describe your organization’s resources for maintaining and updating a v~ebsite.
Task 2. Advocacy and Investigation
Describe number of trained testers currently available.
Would you be willing to perform telephone audits in conjunction with a Stanford
research project on fair housing discrimination and dialects?
Task 3. Coalition Work and Reporting
Summarize the activities of the Working Group on Predatory Lending to date.
Organization/Staff Capaci~
Does the organization currently have enough staff resources to carry out the scope of
work or would additional staff need to be hired and trained?
IV. FUTHER OUESTIONS IF TIME AVAILABLE
Based on your reading of our AIs and your "knowledge of fair housing in this area, are
there any major fair housing needs that were overlooked or strategies for combating
housing discrimination?
Describe the content of your educational seminars and training workshops.
10