Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2003-11-24 City Council (7)
City of Palo Alto City Manager’s Report TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DATE:NOVEMBER 24, 2003 CMR: 508:03 SUBJECT:CONSOLIDATED ANNUAL PERFORMANCE AND EVALUATION REPORT (CAPER) FOR THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PROGRAM FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002/03 This is an informational report and no Council action is required. BACKGROUND The preparation and submittal of a Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER) is a requirement of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for the receipt of Federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds. The attached document was submitted to HUD on September 29, 2003, following the required 15-day public review period.It is being provided to the Council for informational purposes only. DISCUSSION The CAPER provides a summary of the resources available and the programmatic accomplishments in affordable housing and community development activities during the 2002/03 fiscal year. It evaluates the actions taken during the year to implement the strategies and objectives described in the Consolidated Plan for the period July 1, 2000 to June 30, 2005, and the progress made in addressing identified priority needs. Summary of Accomplishments Although no new affordable units were added to the housing stock during the fiscal year, work progressed on the development Of two major projects: Oak Court and the Opportunity Center. All housing projects are multi-year by nature. Upon completion, these two projects will add approximately 142 new affordable housing units to Palo CMR: 508:03 Page 1 of 3 Alto’s existing inventory. The City is on track to achieve the Consolidated Plan’s five- year goal of providing 125 new units of affordable housing during the period 2000-2005. CDBG funds provided a new emergency call system at Stevenson House. CDBG funds were also used to upgrade an elevator at Lytton Gardens and for the rehabilitation of Clara-Mateo Alliance’s Elsa Segovia Center for homeless women and children. All of the public service activities were carried out as anticipated. Funds were used principally for agencies providing services to homeless, very-low income or elderly persons. Some of the agencies funded were Emergency Housing Consortium, Urban Ministry/InnVision, and the Palo Alto Housing Corporation. These services significantly expanded the service and shelter opportunities for homeless persons and those at-risk of homelessness. Fair housing advocacy and complaint investigation services were provided for those who believed they had experienced discriminatory treatment. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: 2002/03 CAPER PREPARED BY: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia, Associate Planner-CDBG DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: S/T’EP’HE~ EMStLIE Director of Planning & Community Environment CITY MANAGER APPROVAL :~~//~. /2//.(-~ ~1 ~-~ EMIL~g6~- ~ Assistant City Manager CDBG Citizens Advisory Committee Palo Alto Human Relations Commission League of Women Voters Stevenson House Palo Alto Housing Corporation Community Working Group CMR: 508:03 Page 2 of 3 Mid-Peninsula Citizens for Fair Housing Clara-Mateo Alliance Emergency Housing Consortium Urban Ministry/InnVision Shelter Network Society of St. Vincent de Paul Avenidas Palo Alto Community Child Care, Inc. Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara CMR: 508:03 Page 3 of 3 ATTACHMENT A CONSOLIDATED ANNUAL PERFORMANCE AND EVALUATION REPORT (CAPER) July 1, 2002 through June 30, 2003 CITY OF PALO ALTO CALIFORNIA Prepared By: Department of Planning and Community Environment Public Review and Comment Period: September 8 - 22, 2003 For Submittal to HUD: September 30, 2003 For information, contact: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia, Associate Planner, CDBG (650) 329-2428, or Catherine Siegel, Housing Coordinator (650) 329-2108 TABLE OF CONTENTS PART I. ENTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................1 A. Description of Report .................................................................................................................2 B. Description of Public Review Process .......................................................................................2 C. Overview of Identified Needs and Priorities ..........................................................................2-3 PART II. .AFFORDABLE HOUSING .......................................................................................4 A. Resources .................................................................................................................................5 1. Resources Available within the City of Palo Alto .........................................................5 a. Commlmity Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funds .....................................5 b. Local Housing Funds .....................................................................................5-6 c. HOME 7investment Partnership Act Funds ..........................................................6 d. State of California Funds .....................................................................~ ...............6 e. Redevelopment Funds ........................................................................................6 f. Public Housing ...................................................................................................6 2. Other Resources Obtained by Nonprofits and Others ....................................................7 a. HUD Section 8 - Moderate Rehabilitation Progam ........................................7 b. HUD Shelter Plus Care - Section 8 ...................................................................7 c. HUD Tenant Based Section 8 Rental Assistance ...............................................7 The Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara Tenant Based Section 8 Vouchers & Certificates Issues (Table) .............................8 B. Accomplishments .........................: ............................................................................................9 1. Pro~ammatic Accomplishments ....................................................................................9 a. New Construction Rental Housing ................................................................9-10 Oak Court Apartments - South of Forest Multi-family Housing Site Community Working Group - Oppommity Center b. Rehabilitation of Existing Rental Housing ......................................10-11 Stevenson House Lytton Gardens c. Below Market Rate Home Ownership and Rental Pro~ams ............................11 d. Rehabilitation of Oyster Occupied Single Family Homes ................................12 2. Persons and Households Assisted with Housing ..........................................................12 Summary of Housing Accomplishments (HUD Table 1A) ...................................12-13 C. Assessment of Performance ...................................................................................................13 1. Evaluation of Pro~ess in Meeting 2002/03 Goals .......................................................13 2. Barriers to Fulfilling Housing Strategies ......................................................................14 a. Federal or State Barriers ..............................................................................14-15 b. Barriers Related to Local Market Conditions ...................................................15 c. Discussion of Most Serious Barriers ...........................................................15-16 Actions to Address Obstacles .................................................................................16- !7 Adjustments or Improvements to .~%rdable Housing Strategies ...............................17 a. PuNic Policies .............................................................................................17-18 b. Development Impact Fees for Housing ...............................................19 PART III: COM~I-UNITY DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................20 A. Resources As ailable ...............................................................................................................1 1. City of Palo Alto Non-Housing Community- Development Resources ........................21 a. Federal Funds ...................................................................................................21 b. Local Funds (Human Service Resource Allocation Process) .....................21-22 c. Leveraging ........................................................................................................22 B. Accomplishments ..................................................................................................................22 !. Summary of Accomplishments with CDBO Funds ...............................................22-23 2. Summary of Community Development Accomplisl~nents (H Table 3-1) ......23-25 3. Summao~ of Accomplisl~nents, Palo Alto General Fund Money ...............................26 4. Summary of Accomplishments with Hamilton Public Benefit Funds .........................26 5. Actions Taken to _Affirmatively Further Fair Housing ............................................27-30 6. Actions Taken to Address Needs of Homeless Persons ..............................................31 a. Shelter Plus Care (SPC) ...................................................................................31 b. Community Wor ~king Group .......................................................................31-32 c. Elsa Segovia Women’s Center .........................................................................32 d. Emplo?~ent Opportunities ..............................................................................32 e. Homeless Services ......................................................................................32-33 7. Other Actions ..............................................................................................................."~ a. Lead Based Paint Hazard Reduction ...........................................................33-34 b. Intergovemmental Cooperation .......................................................................34 c. Actions to Ensure CDBO Compliance ...........................................................34-35 8. Changes to Annual Action Plan ...................................................................................35 C. Assessment of Performance ............................................................................................, .....35 1. Evaluation of Pro~ess in Meeting Annual Community Development Goals ............35 2. Barriers to Fulfilling Strate~es ...............................................................................35-36 3. Adjustments to Community Development Strate~es ..................................................36 PART IV: APPENI)IX ..............................................................................................................37 A. Copy of Ad and Public Review Notice for CAPER B, Goals and Objectives 9 ~C, Grantee Performance Financial Report for Fiscal Year 200_/0.z PART I. INTRODUCTION I. INTRODUCTION A. Description of Report The U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has created a ~ants management and reporting system to implement the concept of consolidated planning. The consolidated planning system is intended to relate and link identified needs within a community to the federal and local resources available to meet those needs, and to strengthen partnerships among all levels of government and the private sector. The annual reporting portion of this system is know as the Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER). Preparation and submittal of the CAPER is a condition for the City. (and nonprofit organizations within the CiDr) to apply for federal community,- development and housing assistance funds such as CommuniD, Development Block Grant (CDBG) and Home Investment Partnership Act (HOME) funds. The CAPER provides a summary of the resources available and the programmatic accomplishments in affordable housing and communi~oT de~,elopment during the 2002/03 fiscal year. It evaluates the actions taken during the year to implement the strategies and objectives described in Palo Alto’s Consolidated Plan for the period July 1, 2000 to June 30, 2005, and the pro~ess made during the past year in addressing identified priority needs and objectives. B. Description of Public Review Process A notice regarding the availability of the draft CAPER was mailed to interested organizations and persons. Copies of the CAPER were made available at City Hall. A notice informing the public of the availability of the CAPER was published in the Palo Alto Weekly on Frid~ September 5, 2003. The notice was also displayed on the City’s website during the public review period. A copy of that notice is appended to this report (Appendix A). The draft CAPER was available for public review and comment for a 15-day period, beginning on Monday September 8, 2003 and concluding at 5:00 p.m. on Monday September 22, 2003. C. Overview of Identified Needs and Fundin~ Priorities Palo Alto’s housing and communiV development needs were identified in the Consolidated Plan for the period July 1, 2000 to June 30, 2005. Not surprising, the provision of affordable renta! houskng units was identified as the most critical need in Pato ,aAto. This includes the provision of housing affordable to persons who are homeless, or at-risk ofhomelessness, and persons with special needs such as the frail elderly, developmentally disabled, physically disabled, or persons with severe mental illnesses. ~rkile all types of housing arc needed in the Ci~,, the Consolidated Plan objectives focus on the creation and preservation of rental housing. Permanent housing for families with children, the ldcrly, singles and very small households is the highest priority, followed by transitional housing with supportive services. While the creation of additional new units of affordable housing is the most dcsirab] option, the preservation of existing subsidized units that arc at-risk of converting to market rate units is also a high priority need. Non-housing community development needs in Palo Alto include public services mad public facilities and improvements. Public service needs include supportive services and employment opportunities for lower income, at-risk, homeless, or disabled populations. There is also a need to expand, modernize, rehabilitate, and make accessibility improvements to existing public facilities serving the same populations. See Appendix B for a summary of the 2000-2005 Consolidated Plan Goals and Objectives. Of the total 2002/03 CDBG allocation, 65 percent was allocated to housing activities, 15 percent for public facilities, nine percent toward public services, and 11 percent for fair housing and pro~am administration. PA_RT II. AFFORDABLE HOUSING PART II. AFFORDABLE HOUSING A. Resources 1. Resources Available within the City of Palo Alto a. CommuniW Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funds 1)tn fiscal year 2002/03, the City" ofpalo Alto allocated a total of $1,487,000 in federal Community" Development Block Grant (CDBO) funds. This amount represents an entitlement allocation of $808,000 from HUD, $30,000 in anticipated proHam income, $45,000 in excess proHam income received in prior years, and $604,000 in reallocated funds. Of the total CDBG alJocation, $968,500 or 65 percent was allocated for housing-related projects. b. Local Housin~ Funds The City of Palo Alto maintains a local housing trust fund that has two sub-funds: the "Commercial Housing In-Lieu" fund and the "Residentia! Housing In-Lieu" fund. These are the only local sources of funding and subsidies for afI%rdabte housing within the Ci~. They are used to provide matching funds, to pay for expenses which exceed HUD cost limits, to fund the cost of features and amenities ineligible under federal housing proHams, for pre-development expenses, feasibility studies, site acquisition and similar purposes. Commercial Housin~ In-Lieu Fund: Palo Alto requires commercial and industrial development projects to pay a housing mitigation fee under Chapter 16.47 of the Municipal Code. The fees are deposited in the Commercial Housing In-Lieu Fund, and the accumulated fees and interest earned on the fund are made available only for the creation of new low and moderate income housing units under the "Housing Reserve Guidelines" adopted by the City Council. The Commercial Fund had an available balance of approximately $1,009,480 on June 30, 2003. Residential Housin~ In-Lieu Fund: Pursuant to ProHam H-36 (the Below Market Rate Pro~am) of the City’s adopted Housing Element, Palo Alto collects housing in-lieu fees from residential developments when it is inI%asible to provide below market rate units on-site. ~ese fees, along .with interest e~tings of the Fund and other miscellaneous revenues related to housing, are placed in a special fund - the Residential Housing In-Lieu Fund. This fund, per adopted City policy, is used mainly to provide funding for acquisition or rehabilitation of low and moderate income housing, but may also be used for assistance to new" housing construction prqiects. At the end of the 2002/03 fiscal year: the Residential Fund had an available balance of approximately $1,815,860. c. Home Investment partnership Act (HOME) Funds The City of Palo Alto is not an entitlement jurisdiction for the federal HOME prog-ram. The City is only eligible to apply for HOME funds through the State of California HOME pro~am. No applications were submitted in fiscal year 2002/03. d. State of California Funds The Multifamily Housing Pro~am (MHP) is a new source of funding for affordable housing, made possible by the passage of Proposition 46 in November 2002. The purpose of this pro~am is to provide low-interest loans to developers of affordable housing. The M2-IP General funds may be used for multifamily rental and transitional housing projects involving new construction, rehabilitation, or conversion of nonresidential structures. The Palo .~to Housing Corporation (PAHC) applied for the first round of MIq~ funds and received $4,555,100 for their Oak Court Aparmaents project (further described in Section B. 1.a). e. Redevelooment Funds Although the City has not had access to redevelopment funds in the past, the City Council approved an ordinance on July 9, 2001 to establish a redevelopment agency for the City of Palo Alto. To date, the City has not. established a Redevelopment Project Area. f. Public Housiri~ There are no units ofpublic housing in Palo Alto. 6 2.Other Resourees Obtained by Nonprofits and Others a. HUD Section 8 - Moderate Rehabilitation Pro_o-ram Palo _Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC) owns and manages a number of apartment buildings where a portion of the units have rents subsidized under the old Section g Moderate Rehabilitation program. Project-based Section 8 contracts for this rental assistance pro~am were originally ~Mtten for terms of 5 to 15 years and are beginning to expire. Currently, HLK) only provides exqtensions on a yearly basis. PAHC currently has 37 units under the Section g - Moderate Rehabilitation Program (Oak Manor, 23; Curtner,9; Emerson South, 5). Oak Manor expires in 2008; Emerson South was renewed until June 2004; and one unit in the Curmer Apartments was renewed until July 2004, w-h!de the rest are in the renewal process with the Housing Authority. The Elm Apartments had a total of eight Section 8 units that expired in March of 1999, however 8 residents qualified for Section 8 certificates. The Feme Apartments had five moderate rehabilitation traits that expired in !998. Three of the residents went on to receive traditional Section 8 vouchers, while two did not qualify-. b. HUD Section 8 - Shelter Plus Care The Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara has provided the Palo Alto Housing Corporation with project based Section 8 rental assistance for homeless persons participating in the County’s Shelter Plus Care (SPC) pro~am. Seven units are available at the single room occupancy, Barker Hote!, and 10 units are available at the Alma Place Residency Hotel. During the period July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003, 14 previously homeless individuais were provided with housing through the program. 64 percent were White, 7 percent were Asian, 22 percent were of another race and 7 percent were Black. Of the participants, 22% were of Hispanic ethnlcity. T ~hirteen of the program beneficiaries were extremely low income (less than 30% of the Counb~ median income) and one was very low income (less than 50% of the Count), median income). Please see a more complete discussion of the Shelter Plus Care Program in the Community Development Section of this report. c. HUD Tenant Based Section 8 Rental Assistance The Housing .Authority of the County of Santa Clara administers the Section 8 Rental Assistance Program for the City of Palo Alto. There are currently about 7,000 people on the waiting list for Section 8 certificates. 88 households with a Palo Alto address are currently on the Section 8 waiting list: 8 disabled and elderly, !6 disabled, 15 elderly and 49 non-disabled/non-elderly. The Santa Clara County Housing Authority reported that 237 households in Palo Alto received tenant- based Section 8 rental assistance in fiscal year 2002/03. The fo!lowing statistics describe the participant characteristics for alI Section o° programs in Palo Alto: 237 Tenant Based, 0 Project Based, 13 Shelter Plus Care, and 37 Moderate Rehabilitation. The Housing AuthoritT of the County of Santa Clara Section 8 Vouchers and Certificates Issued in Palo Alto FY 2002 0 bedrooms 37 1 bedroom 161 Cerfificate~oueher Size 2 3 4 bedrooms bedrooms bedrooms 62 26 1 5 bedrooms Total 287 White 196 Black 31 Distribution by Racial GrouI .amaerican Asian Indian!Maskan Native 58 Hawaiian! Pacific Islander Total 287 Hispanic 34 Distribution by Ethnicity Non-Hispanic 253 Total 287 Low Income (51- 80% of Median) Distribution by Income Very Low (31- 50% of Extremely Low Median)(Less than 30% of Median) 20 262 Tota! 287 Elderly 148 Disabled (Non-Elderly) Distribution by Status Non-Elderly/ Non-Disabled Elderly and Disabled 46 I 70 23 Total 287 Head of Household Male Female TOTAL 106 181 287 B. Accomplishments 1. Programmatic Accomplishments and Leveraging of Other Resources The City of Palo Alto, by itself, and in conjunction with nonprofit housing developers, undertook the following acti~dties to meet its priorities for affordable, housing development mad assistance as stated in the FY 2002/03 Annum Action Plan of the ConsoIidated Plan. a. New Construction Rental Housing Oak,,~0urt Apartments (South of Forest Multi-family Housin~ Site) Location: 845 Ramona Street In October 2002, the City" acquired ownership of the 1.23-acre site in a residential neighborhood south of downtown Palo Alto. The site is a portion of about 10 acres of land vacated by the Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF) after its move to a new facility constructed on Et Camino Real. About half of the 1.23 acres was donated to the City by PAMF in-lieu of providing below market priced housing v,4thin the condominiums and single family homes being developed on the rest of its lands. The City paid $3 million for the other half of the site with money from its local Commercial Housing In-Lieu Fund. The City selected the Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC) and .Michael Pyatok as the developer/architect team for the project, named Oak COurt. The project consists of a 53-trait family rental apartment development with all units affordable to very low and low-income households. The City intends to give site control to the PAHC once the financing to construct the new housing is h~ place. Proposition 46, the Housing Bond Act passed last November, provided $779 million in new funding for the State’s Multifamily Housing Program (MHP) for very" low-income rental housing. PAHC structured the project’s financing using MHP, a competitive program, combined with tax-exempt bond-financed construction and permanent funding and the non- competitive, four-percent tax credit prog-ram. PAHC was successful in this strategs~ and received an MHP funding award of $4,555,100 on June 3, 2003. All other financing is now fully committed and construction is scheduled to begin in September. The units will be affordable to households from three income levels: 35% of State Median Income (SMI), 50% of_Area Median Income (.aNVII), and 60% of AMI. The current SMI is $60,300 and the AlVII is $105,500. Ol~portunitv Center Proiect 33/39/45 Encina Way, Palo Alto On May 7, 2001 and May 13, 2002, the Cit7 Council of Palo Alto approved a total allocation of $1,280,000 in CDBG funds for the Oppommity Center project sponsored by the Community Wor’king Group (CWG). This allocation’was provided to CWG in the form of addition, the City Council approved a commitment of $750,000 for housing consW~ction costs from the City’s Residential Fund. The Opportunity Center concept evolved from the original 1998 proposal to the current project of 9,000 square feet of space for a center for day use and the deliver?, of social services for homeless adults and families and 89 units of permanent and transitional housing. The facility will house existing homeless services presently located in inadequate and scattered sites in Palo Alto and the mid-peninsula area. The Center will be located on an 18,178 square foot site at what is presently -lcnown as 33, 39 and 45 Encina Avenue between El Camino Real and the Urban Lane entrance to the Palo Alto Medical Clinic. CWG partnered with the Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara and IrmVision to acquire and develop the site. The project was approved by the City Council on March 3, 2003. This partnership will also construct theproject and operate the facility’: In addition to Palo Alto’s significant funding contribution, development funding of $4,880,000 has been committed by San Marco Count?,, the County of Santa Clara, the federal government and private foundation donors. Maj or funding still needs to be obtained, primarily the competitive Low Income Housing Tax Credits (over $9 million) and additional private fundraising and charitable donations (estimated $3.7 million) as part of the estimated $18.6 miliion development budget. IrmVision, an experienced provider of homeless services and transitional housing, would be responsible for operations and ongoing operating costs. b. Rehabilitation of Existin~ Rental Housin~ Stevenson House Location: 455 E. Charleston Road, Palo Alto Palo Alto Senior Housing Project, inc. was awarded $50,000 in CDBG funds to upgade the emergency call systems in al! of the units at their Stevenson House facility. The facility consists of 120 affordable housing units, which are occupied by 135 low- and very--low income seniors. The existing emergency call system was the oriNnal one that was installed when the building was constructed in 1968. The system was outdated and only had to capacity to identify the building and floor where an emergency was occurring. The new system was installed in April 2003 and identifies exactly which unit is requesting emergency assistance. Lytton Gardens Location: 656 Lytton Avenue, Palo Alto Community- Housing inc. was awarded $65,000 in CDBG funds to rehabilitate and up~ade one of the three elevatorsin the Lytton Gardens senior housing complex. The facility provides affordable housing for 270 low-income seniors. Unfortunately, one of the main work took precedence and delayed the CDBG project implementation, in fiscal year 2001/02, the contract was awarded and construction was completed in December 2002. The elevator is now fully operational and is being utilized by the Ly~on Gardens residents. c. Below Market Rate (BM~) Ownershio & Rental Programs The oldest BMR units were buih in 1975 and the typical development ~ncludes from one to four BMR units. Fifty percent of the inventory was built in the 1980’s and thirty-four percent were built between 1975 and 1979. The City and Palo Alto Housing Corporation initially became aware of the problems facing BMR owners in condominium projects facing large special assessments for capital repairs in February 200!. On September 9, 2002, the City Council established a BMR pro~am emergency fund as an ongoing permanent pro~am so prevent the loss of BMR units and provide emergency loans for BMR unit owners for substantial mandatory assessments. The pro~am is also aimed to preserve BMR unit housing stock by preventing loss through foreclosure or through the resale process. The Counci! approved loan progrmn criteria and loan terms and appropriated $150,000 from the Residential Housing in-lieu fund to the BMR Emergency Fund. As a result of special assessments levied against certain developments as well as the broader implications of an a~ing BMR housing stock, the Counci! directed staffto develop a loan pro~am to address these issues. BMR Home O~’nership Units. The Below Market Rate Pro~am is a City pro~am in the Comprehensive Plan (Pro~am H-36) which requires developers of market rate housing to provide a certain number of units within each residential project at affordable prices to moderate income buyers (usually 10% of the total units). The BMR units are sold to households on a waiting list with 59-year deed restrictions on use, occupancy and the resale price. As of June 30, 2003, there were 152 units in the ownership prog-ram inventory. B?v’-d~ Rental Units. This is the rental housing component of the City’s inctusionary housing pro~am. There are 101 BMR rental units in five separate multi- family rental developments in Palo Alto. These units are rented at below market rents to eligible low and moderate-income households. The specific income eli#bility varies from project to project, however, the City guidelines target the rental pro~am to households between 60% and 80% of the County Median Income. The initial 63 units of BMR renta! housing in the 628-matt Stanford West Apartments on Sand Hill Road were occupied; 94 additional BMR rental units will be added after 15 years. Employees of Stanford University, and persons world_ng for businesses located on Stanford owned lands, have priority for occupancy at the Stanford West project because the housing has been developed and is owned by Stanford. It is not intended as student housing. During this period, no new BMR rental units were constructed but rezoning for a small mixed- use project hacluding one, three-bedroom BMR unit was approved in May 2002. d. Rehabilitation of Existinm Owner-Occupied Sinzle Family Homes The City may provide CDBG funds to very low-income owners for home repairs in cases where there is an urgent need for City financial assistance due to serious health or safety problems. During the year, there were no applications for this pro~am. 2. Persons and Households Assisted with Housing The attached Table 1A shows 0 households assisted with rental housing during the period covered by tiffs report. The table counts only persons or households newly occupying housing, or li~ing in newly rehabilitated, preserved or constructed housing units regardless of when the financing Or subsidies were awarded. Not included are units that are vacant or in the process of renting or traits under construction or which are in the pre-development stages. Also not included are units assisted with Shelter Plus Care, counseling sen, ices, or homeless persons or households who receive overnight shelter. These activities are discussed in Part III of this report. Summary of Housing Accomplishments (-HUD Table 1A) Name of Grantee: City of Palo Alto State: CA Program Year: 2002/03 Priority Need CategouT Renters 0 - 30% of Median Family Income (MFI) * 31 - 50% of MFt Actual Units 51-80% ofMFI Total Owners 0 - 30% of MFI 31 - 50% of MFI 51 - 80% of MFI ...... Total ..................... Homeless ** Individuals Families Total Non-Homeles~....Special Needs Total Total Housing 0 ......... Total 215 Housing 0 TOTAL HOUSING ~rhite Black!African .amaerican Asian American Indian!Alaska Native Native Hawaiian!Other Pacific Islander Black/African .american and White Asian and White American Indian/Alaska Native and White American Indian/Alaska Native and Black/African American BaIance/Other Total Race TOTAL HOUSING Hispanic Total Ethnieity *As annually adjusted by HUD **Homeless families and individuals assisted w’ith transitional and permanent housing C. Assessment of Performance 1.Evaluation of Progress in Meeting Annual (2002/03) Affordable Housing Goal: Average of 25 Households to be Assisted Per Year The 2000-2005 Consolidated Plan affordable housing goal is to assist an average of 25 units per year over the five-year period, or a total of !25 units. Although no units were completed during fiscal year 2002/03, it should be noted that all housing activities are multi-year in natm-e. The projects in development will add sig-aificantly to the affordable housing stock and help achieve the 125-unit goal within the next few years. The City’s ~eatest need is affordable housing, and the majority of CDBG and loci housing 5xnds have been targeted and expended to preserve or increase the affordable rental housing stock. All of the CDBG funds have been used to carry om activities that benefit low and moderate-income persons. 2. Barriers to Fulfilling Housing Strate~es There are many barriers that Palo Alto faces in meeting its affordable housing strate~es, most of which are beyond the control of the CiD~. Palo Alto has one of the most expensive housing markets in the counlx3,, due in large part to the lack of land suitable for new housing. Most of the Cit3r:s development potential consists of thrill on small vacant lots, redevelopment of existing properties, and conversion of underutilized non-residential lands to hi~Jaer densiD~ residential or mixed use projects. Other uses, such as churches, and educational facilities, compete for this limited supply of residential land. Between 1996 and 2000 the median price of ownership housing more than doubled in Palo Alto. Average rents were also estimated to have doubled over the same time period. Although housing prices have stabilized in the past year, almost all for-sale and most rental properties are still out of reach for all but households with above moderate incomes. In addition, there continues to be a low vacancy rate for renti housing. As of April 2003, the rental vacancy rate in the Cil3, was 1.43%. Some of the barriers to building more housing are the result of decisions and priorities set by federal or State governments that must decide how to distribute very limited funding. The policies and priorities set by these agencies often do not favor high cost areas, and most federal housing resources are not readily available to the City of Palo Alto. Some of these barriers include: the lack of confessional appropriations for certain programs; limitations in federal regx~lations that make some progams very difficult to use in Palo Alto; the lack of appropriate and available housing sites; and a lack of interest or capabilit3, on the part of for-profit and non-profit developers in pursuing some federal pro~ams. The principal barriers to fulfilling the Cit3~’s affordable housing goals and objectives are discussed below. a. Barriers Related to Federal or State Fundina Levels and Priorities: Changes by the State’s Tax Credit Allocation Committee in the method of determining awards for the competiti-~e federal and State housing tax credits has made it more dif-ficult to obtain tax credit awards for low-income rental housing. There are also very restrictive caps that limit the total amount of tax credit awards within certain counties including Santa Clara County. There is far geater demand in Santa Clara County for the competitive tax credits than the amount allowed under the allocation cap. There are problems of utilizing federal housing programs, such as Section 202 and 8 ! 1, in areas with high construction and land costs. HUD places limitations on the amount of HUD subsidies, which then result in the need for large local funding contributions to make projects financially feasible. The amount of federal CDBG funds that the City receives on an entitlement basis from for HOME funds on an entitlement basis has affected the City’s capability to encourage and fund affordable housing. Other barriers are: The lack of State or federal funding for the preservation of older, HUD-subsidized and Section 8 assisted rental housing by acquisition by nonprofit housing organizations Reduction in the term of project-based Section 8 contract renewals from the 20-year contracts of the 1970’s to the one-year renewals presently authorized by Congress. Limited funding in HUD’s budget for the Section 8 tenant-based assistance program (Section 8 certificates and vouchers administered by local housing authorities) since FY !994. b. Barriers Related to Local Housin~ Market Conditions: Limited vacant land suitable for housing construction mad strong competition from developers of market-rate housing, commercial projects and other uses such as private schools for any available site. Extremely high prices for sites suitable for new housing and for existing residential properties suitable for acquisition and rehabilitation. Limited local funding sources for affordable housing. An extremely low vacancy rate and high housing demand means that even modest rental units are occupied by households with incomes above the HUD low-income iimit. This means that acquisition and/or rehabilitation programs must relocate existing tenants in order to utilize federal funds. ,/Low vacancy rates and high rental rates have made it difficult for persons to find housing in Palo Alto using tenant-based Section 8 Certificates and Vouchers. c. Discussion of Most Serious Barriers: The most serious barrier is the lack of dependable access to HOiVIE funds. The fact that the City does not qualify, as an entitlement jurisdiction for HOME funds is a significant barrier to meeting the City’s housing objectives. The HOME Investment Partnership Act is the principa! federal housing program directly available to local governments. The City can only obtain funding on a competitive basis through the State of California’s statewide allocation. The State holds only one competition round each year. Palo Alto is at a disadvantage in the State’s process because of the percentage of ranking points assi~oi~ed to rural applicants, and those om jurisdictions with high City and P_A_I-IC successfully obtained and implemented a major acquisition and rehabilitation of the 26-unit Barker Hotel SRO with a FY 1992 HOME pant from the State, the City has not been able to access the State’s HOME funds since that time. There are man3, obstacles that have prevented the City from obtaining HOME funds. The primary obstacles are listed below: Extreme!y high demand and competition for State HOME funds requires that applications be near perfect to receive funding. The State’s rating criteria favors rural and Community- Housing Development Organizations (CHDO) applicants, and jurisdictions with high rates of poverty. Since Palo Alto does not fit these priorities, the City is at a gear disadvantage in the competition. There are no qualified CHDOs operating in the Palo Alto area, and the local nonprofit housing developers are not interested in creating CHDOs and pursuing HOME funds directly. The State’s once per year application process is too inflexible for use with the -tdnd of major rental housing projects that are usually done in Palo Alto. It is unlikely that project timing and readiness will coincide with the State’s application schedule in a manner that will earn maximum points. Another serious barrier is the expiration of project-based Section 8 contracts and insufficient funding from the Federal government for contract renewals. Some ofPalo Alto’s largest subsidized housing developments have project-based Section 8 rental assistance contracts which have expired or will expire in the nex~t few years. Most of these projects are o’amed and operated by nonprofit housing organizations that desire to continue the low-income use under their HUD insured financing and regulatory a~eements. Renewal of the Section 8 rental assistance contracts for all these projects is critical in order to preserve affordable rents for the extremely low-income tenants who occupy these units. Many of these projects, serve elderly and disabled persons who would find it very difficult to move, and who would unlikely be able to secure comparable housing even if they were provided with a Section 8 voucher. 3.Actions to Address Obstacles to Maintain Affordable Housing, or Eliminate Barriers to Affordable Housing CDBG Housin~ Development Fund The City’s CDBG Housing Development Fund was used to award a $50,000 contract to Eden Housing, an affordable housing developer, to assist the City in acquiring a suitable site for an affordable housing development. $118,500 in fiscal year 2002/03 funds were allocated to the CDBG Housing Development Fund for securing a site. In addition, $600,000 in CDBG funding has been allocated from fiscal years 2003/04 and 2004/05, for a total of $718,500. Due to the lack of vacant land and the high costs of land, this has proven to be a difficult challenge. Housin_~ Trust Fund When the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, Silicon Valley Manufactt~ring Group, Santa Clara County Collaborative on Housing and Homeless Issues, and the Community Foundation of Silicon Valley founded Santa Clara County Housing Trust Fund, the City of Palo Alto was among the contributors that raised initial seed capital of $20 million in its iS_rst two years. The City contributed $500,000 from the local Residential Housing l_n-Lieu Fund. The Trust is dedicated to building and sustaining a revolving loan fund and grant-making program that will leverage other housing resources throughout Silicon Valley. The Trust’s three emphases are creating more affordable rental housing, first-time homebuyer opportunities and housing for the homeless. In 2002, it made 711 loans in the first-time homebuyer program, including 2 Palo Alto homebuyers. They also provided 12 loans for 573 units of homeless housing, including the Opportunity Center and ten loans for 999 units of multifamily housing units including the Oak Court Apartments of the Palo Alto Housing Corporation. The Oak Court family rental project and the Opportunity- Center are described in Section II.B.a of this report. Oak Court consists of 53 rental units to be developed in 1, 2, and 3 bedroom configurations affordable to families of 3 5% of State Median Income and 50% and 60% of Area Median Income and the Opportunity Center vdll have 89 units of permanent and transitional housing. 4. Adjustments or Improvements to Affordable Housing Strate#es a. Public Policies ¯Housing Element The Housing Element is a key component of the Comprehensive Plan adopted by the City Council on July 20, 1998, and is the chief poticy document describing the City’s housing needs and the policies and programs the City will use to meet those needs. On December 2, 2002 the City Council adopted an updated Housing Element for the period January 1, 1999 to June 30, 2006 with strategies to meet the City’s fair share of the region’s housing needs as defined by the Association of Bay Area Governments (A_BAG). The City of Palo Alto is required to provide a total of 1,397 housing units over the 7V,_-year period of the 1,397 units; the City has constructed 787 resulting in a remaining need of 610 units. The following chart indicates the required units by income category: Total Goal in Units 1,3 97 units % of Total Very, Low Income (Less than 50% of Median) 265 units 19% Low Income (50% - 80% of Median) 116 units 8% Moderate Income (80% - 120% of Median) 040 units 25% Above Moderate (Over 120% of Median) 673 units 48% Main policies and programs included in the Housing Element address: ¯Increasing the Supply of Land Suitable for Housing ¯Using Existing and Planned Residential Lands More Efficiently and Intensively ¯Modifying and Strengthening Existing Policies to Increase the Supply of Affordable Housing ¯Using LeNslative Powers to Promote Af-fordable Housing ¯Reserving ! 6 sites identified on the Housing Sites Inventory for higher density housing As part of the Housing Element Update process, a Technical Advisory Group comprised of affordable housing advocates was formed to identify programs and policies to encourage affordable housing production. Staff conducted a focus panel with for-profit and non-profit housing developers to discuss the viability of potential development regulations recommended by the Tectmicat Advisory Group and to identi~ other strateNes to increase the housing supply. Two public forums were held to solicit citizen input and comments on new policies and programs. The Housing Element went through six City Council public hearings and two Planning and Transportation Commission hearings. ¯Zoning Ordinance Update. The Zoning Ordinance Update effort to date has included: 1) identification of issues through a series of public meetings, 2) development of extensive back~ound research regarding zoning regulations, including review of many other cities’ codes; 3) preparation of several discussion papers on zoning-related issues, such as format and organization, land uses, New Urbanism ("form") approaches to zoning, flexibility vs. certainty, and zoning districts; 4) formulation of initial recommendations for revisions to the industrial and manufacturing diskricts of the code; and, 5)development of concepma! land use prototypes for Transit Corridor Residential, Mixed Use and Village Residential zoning districts. The Planning and Transportation Commission has conducted 22 study sessions thus far to discuss Update issues, and the City Council has conducted three study sessions to provide additional direction. In addition, two joint City Council!Planning and Transportation study sessions have been held. Design consultants have recently begam work developing desi~ma prototypes for multi-family, mixed use, village residential, and transit-oriented development, which will be the focus of work in the coming months. Low-density residential issues wil! also be discussed in the Fall of 2003; two of the Planning and Transportation study sessions and a community workshop evaluated options for better providing for second units in the City. The City Council adopted a Second Unit Ordinance in June 2003 that provides for ministerial review of attached and detached second units. The present schedule anticipates the presentation of a draft Zoning Ordinance in 2004. 3_8 b. Development Impact Fees for Housin~ On March 25, 2002, the City Council approved modifications and additions to Impact Fees collected for residential and commercial development pr~ects. The Impact Fees are now comprised of three categories: Housing, Traffic mad Community Facilities. The key change in the Housing fee was to increase the fee from $4.21 per square foot to $15.00 per square foot and requires that an annual cost of living adjustment be made. The current rate as of May 8, 2003 is $15.24 applies to nonresidential development The Council removed the 2,500 square foot project threshold and the 20,000 square foot exemption, so that the new rate applies to all net new square footage approved after May 8, 2002. Full payment is required ~dth building permit and some " exemptions are provided, such as hazardous material storage, churches, colleges and universities, commercial recreation, hospitals and convalescent facilities, private education facilities, public facilities and private clubs, lodges and fraternal organizations. PART III. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 2O III.COMM-U_~ITY DEVELOPMENT A. Resources Available 1. City. of Palo Alto Non-Housing Community Development Resources a. Federal Funds The primary federal resource in the City of Palo _Alto for non-housing community development activity is the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Pro~am. The City of Palo Alto is an entitlement jurisdiction under the CDBG re~o-alations and receives annual funding on a formula basis. The purpose of the CDBG prog-ram is to develop viable urban communities by providing decent housing and a suitable living environment, and by expanding economic opportunities, principally for low and moderate-income persons. The City receives no other direct federal funding for community- development projects. As explained earlier in this report, the amount of CDBG funds available for allocation in 2002/03 was $1,487,000. In fiscal year 2002/03, the City, allocated a total of $134,700 to public service activities, and $165,800 to fair housing activities and CDBG pro~am administration. b. Local Funds ¯Human Service Resource Allocation Process (HStLAP) The City- of Palo Alto provided $1,350,927 in General Funds in 2002/03 to address priority human service needs h~ the community. The funds were allocated through the Human Service Resource Allocation Process (HSRAP), and administered by the Office of Human Services in the Community Service Department. The projects funded addressed the Human Relations Commission’s priority- needs in the following categories: nutrition, child-care, youth/teens, seniors, homeless/low income, disability, information and referral, women, and family support. Hamilton Public Benefit Pro_o-ram for Senior Services In 1993 the City of Palo Alto entered into an a~eement with Hamilton Avenue Properties regarding the public benefit portion of a Planned Community (PC) zone change. The PC allowed development of a senior condominium project with 36 residentia! units. The ag-reement called for a $500, 000 contribution to the City for the establishment of an endow~nent fund to benefit seniors and senior services, payable in annual installments of $50,000. Additionally, upon resale of all the orig-inal units, a fee of 2-½% of the sales price of the unit shall also go into the fund. In fiscal year 2001/02, the tenth and fmal instalment of $50,000 was disbursed to Avenidas, the local provider of services for seniors. Avenidas has began to receive quarterly interest payments in August 2003 as an additional provision of the a~eement. _4_ll of the local non-profit agencies leverage CDBG, HSRAP, and other funding ~dth money from local organizations such as the United Way, corporations, foundations, and individual donors. B. Accomplishments 1. Summary of Accomplishments with CDBG Funds The appended financial expenditure report summarizes the accomplishments of each activity funded with Community, Development Block Grant funds in 2002/03. The report also specifies the number and race/ethnicity of persons or households who benefited from the activities. Following is a brief recap of the accomplishments of the public service and other community development activities that were completed during the 2002/03 fiscal year with CDBG lands. $24.745 to the Palo Alto Housini,, Corporation. Provided couaseling sessions for very- low income residents of the Barker Hotel (many of whom were previously homeless). $8.490 to Emergency Housin~ Consortium. Provided homeless persons with supportive services and shelter nights in emergency shelter and transitional housing pro~ams. $25.800 to Mid-Peninsula Citizens for Fair Housing. Investigated cases involving allegations of housing discrimination in Palo Alto, and provided outreach and education services. $20.000 to Shelter Network for Haven Family House. Provided transitional housing and supportive services to homeless families at a rehabilitated facility- in Menlo Park. $50.750 to Clara Marco Alliance Homeless Shelter. $28,750 for the single persons shelter and $12,000 for the new family shelter wing in the Veterans Administration facility in Menlo Park. Agency provided shelter and supportive services to homeless individuals and families. $78.000 to Palo Alto Community Child Care for repainting the exterior of the Venmra Community Center. $140.000 to Avenidas for repairing and up~ading the Heating, Ventilating, and Cooling (HVAC) system at their senior cente.r faciIit3,. 22 $800,000 to Colrmaunitv Workin~ Grout?. for the Opportunity Center No investments were made in areas of minority concentration. The chart on the following pages reflects the accomplishments and beneficiaries served with 2002/03 CDBG expenditures: m Summary of Community- Development Accomplishments for Public Facilities and Improvements (HUD Table 3-1) Name of Grantee: Palo Alto State: CA Program Year: 2002/03 Priority Need Category Actual Number of Actual Number of Projects Assisted Projects Completed Public Facilities Senior Centers 1 Handicapped Centers Homeless Centers 1 ~7outh Centers Nei~borhood Facilities ! Child Care Centers Parks and/or Recreation Facilities Health Facilities Parking Facilities Abused!Neglect Facilities AIDS Facilities Other Public Facilities Public Improvements Solid Waste Improvements Flood Drain Improvements Water Improvements 23 Priority Need Category AetuaI Number of Actual Number of Projects Assisted Projects Completed Street Improvements Sidewalk Improvements Sewer Improvements Other Other Priority Need Catego~Actual Number of Persons Served Public Services Senior Services Handicapped Services ]7outh Services Transportation Services Substance Abuse Services I Employment Training ]1001 Crime Awareness Fair Housing Counseling 15 Tenant/Landlord Counseling Child Care Services Health Services Other PuNic Services (homeless assistance)8,674 persons and 288 households Accessibility Needs Other Community Development i Energ-~ Efficiency Improvements ] Priority Need Catego~,Actual _Number of Persons Ser~,ed Lead Based Paint/Hazards Code Enforcement Other Note: Numbers reflect persons assisted with CDBG funds only 25 3.Summary of Accomplishments with Palo Alto General Fund Money through the Human Service Resource Allocation Process (I:ISRAP) The City of Palo Alto Human Service Resource _Allocation Process (I-ISRAP) provided $1,350,927 in General Fund dollars to the following agencies for services to lower income elderly, disabled or special needs residents of Palo Alto during the 2002103 fiscal year. ,/ Adolescent Counselin~ Services - $99,178. On-campus counseling pro~ams ¯/ Alliance for Community Care - $27,27!. Homeless outreach progam ¯/ American Red Cross - $12,731. Homelessness prevention ser~dces -/ Avenidas - $452,821. Senior services ¢" Community Technolo~ Alliance - $15,450. Housing website/voicemail ¯/ Community Association for Rehabilitation (CAR) - $45,114. Services for children with disabilities and their families ¯/ La Comida de California - $33,715. Senior nutrition progam ,/ MavView Community Health Center - $17,949. Health care for low income, homeless, and uninsured residents ,/ Outreach and Escort - $6,365. Paratransit subsidy prog-ram. ¯ / Palo _Alto Community Child Care - $444,400. Child care subsidies and outreach ,/ Peninsula Association for Retarded Children & Adults - $15,484. Recreation Program -/ Proiect Sentinel - $68,377. Tenant!landlord counseling and mediation services ,/ Second Harvest Food Bank - $7,455. Groceries for low-income seniors ,/ Senior Adult Le_~aI Assistance - $8,528. Legal assistance for seniors -/ Social Advocates for Youth - $8,166. CASA Say youth homeless shelter ¢" Support Network for Battered Women - $20,544. Services for battered women ,/ Urban Ministries of Palo Alto - $34,479. Food pro~am and emergency shelter ¢" YMCA of the Mid-Peninsula - $8,487. Ventura Activity Center for teens ,/ lqVCA!Youth Community Ser~dce- $11,682. Rape crisis center and the teen assault prevention project ,/ Y-WCA of the Mid-Peninsula (YCS) - $12,731. Community Service Program and Summer Service Progam 4.. Summary of Accomplishments with Hamilton Public Benefit Funds The $50,000 allocation supported the Avenidas Volunteer Corp, Senior Home Repair, and Information and Referral Services. The Avenidas Volunteer Corp has several progams, including the Early Literacy Progam, the Partners in Caring Progam and the Computer Learning Center. The Senior Home Repair Progam coordinated 712 home repair jobs for seniors in Palo Alto. The "-mformatior~ and Referral Pro~am responded to 1,39i requests for im~ormation. 5. Actions Taken to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing The CiD: continues to support the purpose mad goal of fair housing and contracted with Mid- Peninsula Citizens for Fair Housing (MCFi-!-) to promote equal oppommity in housing in fiscal year 2002/03. Services included information and referral, communiD, outreach and education, discrimination complaint checking and investigation, legal referrals and assistance in resolving complaints. The City also contracted with Project Sentinel to provide tenant/landlord information, referral and mediation services. Senior Adult Legal Assistance (SALA) also receives City of Palo Alto General Funds to provide legal assistance to seniors. This service could include housing related assistance to elderly residents. In addition to the services provided under these contracts, the following steps were taken in the 2002/03 fiscal year to affirmatively fi~ther fair housing. The City updated its Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice and was approved and adopted by the City Council on May 12, 2003. In addition, a public hearing on the Analysis of Impediments was held on April 10, 2003 as part of the Human Relations Commission meeting. CiDr staff participated with other Santa Clara Count7 CDBG entitlement jurisdictions in an effort to conduct a countywide fair housing study. The purpose of the study was to eKNore fair housing issues on a regional basis, to evaluate the existing service delivery system, to review and comment on impediments to fair housing choice, and to develop new strategies. During the 2000/01 fiscal year a contract was awarded to Richard Sander, Professor of Law, UCLA. The study and interviews were completed, and the draft report was written, tvlr. Sanders decided, however, to include 2000 census data. During the 2001/02 fiscal year the report was revised to include more updated information and a public meeting for comments on the final draft was held on June 9, 2002. The report was released in January of 2003 and findings from the study were used to update the City.’ s Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice. The Cit7 of Palo Alto provided $1,784 in CDBG administrative dollars to pay for a portion of the $50,000 cost of the study. City staff coordinated with the Cities of Mountain View and Sunnyvale to release a joint Request for Proposals (RFP) for the provision of fair housing services in No~h Santa Clara Count7 in February of 2003. One of the recommendations from the Countywide fair housing study was for more intergovernmental collaboration on fair housing issues, therefore, the staff of the cities of Mountain View, Palo Alto and Sunnyvale decided to jointly issue an RFP. The goal of selecting a single fair housing service provider to work jointly for the three cities was to enhance cost effectiveness as well as the scope and quality of services. Staff from the three cities jointly recommended their selection to their individual councils as part of the Action Plan process. 27 The Office of Human Services continued sponsoring housing information and referral coordination meetings for service providers. The meetings have resulted in increased networking amongst provider agencies and the availability of shared housing wait lists and other information to help low income, elderly, homeless, or disabled clients access affordable housing. The City’s Office of Human Services provided affordable housing information and referral services, and distributed the "Directory of Housing Services and Subsidized Rental Housing in Palo Alto and Surrounding Communities", This directory is available online. The City targeted the majority of its CDBG and local housing funds to increasing/preserving the supply of housing affordable to persons with lower incomes and!or special needs The City contracted with Mid-Peninsula Citizens for Fair Housing (MCFH) "to conduct a discrimination audit to determine the effectiveness of the City’s Yrotect~’onfi’om Discrimination for Families ~4,ith Children ordinance in addressing occupancy restrictions in rental housing. Two testers contacted 11 Palo Alto rental property- owners who had 11 properties for rent. Each of the two testers had a different profile. The first tester had a child, while the second did not. In addition, the tester with the child called two additional properties. The purpose was to fred out if the owners or managers would accept families with children as tenants and if they would allow a single parent with one child to reside in a one-bedroom unit. Of the 13 audits conducted, three showed evidence of discrimination based on familial status; six showed no evidence of discrimination, and four were inconclusive. The City continues to support police officials and community" ~oups in the development of policies and actions to deal with hate crimes. Under its fiscal year _002/0~ contract with the City, MCFH conducted, and collaborated on a number of educational community forums and outreach activities relating to discrimination issues, as summarized below: Coordinated and participated in training on how to conduct effective fair housing investigations on October 25, 2002. A private fair housing attomey conducted a four- hour training for local fair housing advocates and providers. Participated in the Disability Expo held at the San Mateo Expo Center on November 22nd and 23rd.. 2002. Over 10.000¯ participants attended to learn about their rights regarding property accessibility. Attendees included service providers to the disabled 28 commm:dty. MCFH stuffed an information booth highlighting fair housing law and the protections for people with disabilities. Conducted one fair housing training workshop for managers of complexes in Palo Alto, Mountain View-, Redwood Ci~,, and East Palo _alto on fair housing rights and responsibilities. Eight managers from ttzroughout the Mid-Peninsula attended the workshop. Collaborative activities include participation in the quarterly meeting of the Northern California Fair Housing Coalition on December 18, 2002, as well as hosting the quarterly meeting in the spring. As hosts, MCFH coordinated speakers for the meeting, which included representatives form the Executive Council of Homeowners, Community Associations Institute, and the California ConFess for Seniors. Participmed in two meetings of the Westem Center on Law and Poverty Housing Task Force in February and March. MCFH staff presented information about MCFH services and trends in fair housing cases. Participated in Santa Clara Housing Task Force meeting with housing advocacy agencies of Santa Clara Count?,. MCFH participated in a round table discussion focused on current fair housing cases and fair housing leNslation updates. Attended a meeting on Anti-Predatory Lending at the Bay Area Legal Aid office in San Jose. MCFH was invited by colleagues at EPA Can Do, an agency with whom MCFH is collaborating to perform predatory lending testing for San Mateo and Santo Clara Counties. Participated in a t~-~Mr_dng on Anti-Predatory Lending at the Fannie Mae Partnership Office in San Francisco on April 17, 2003. Hosted an attorney training/dinner in collaboration with ECHO Housing and Sentine! Fair Housing on April 17, 2003. The training included a leNslative update, litigation update, and a presentation by a representative from HUD. Conducted two wor~hops to train volunteer testers to do complaint investigations and monitor fair housing conduct on December 5, 2002 and May- 31, 2003. A total of 18 testers were trained at these workshops. Conducted community presentation to clients from the Community Services Agency of Los Altos, Mountain View’s Fdpha-Omega ?rogam; provided im%rmation to the staff of Urban Ministry at the First Lutheran Church in Palo Alto. 29 Distributed 1,235 fair housing leaflets and brochures at the Palo Alto main library and Cit%~ Hall and at various other locations. These brochures contain information on fair housing laws, especially for people with disabilities and families with children. Distributed 3,000 flyers in the Tri-County Apamnent Association direct mail packet. This packet is delivered to 3,000 rental housing owners, managers, and service providers in the Tri-County area. Participated in a roundtable meeting, hosted by DFEH and HUD on December 5, 2002. DFEH presented their new mediation pro~am, in which complainants filing a case will be offered mediation. Staffed a booth at the Community Law Night in San Mateo County. Hosted an annual meeting with MCFH members, board of directors, cooperating attorneys, and interested community members on May 17. _00z. Broadcast Public Service Announcements throughout ! 0 different radio stations in the Bay Area. Appeared as g-uests on three radio shows, Community Involvement on 91.7 KEAR 106.9, the Marconi Experiment on 91.7 KKUP Cupertino, and Street Talk Live on KFRC 99.7 and 99.3. ,/Published 48 fair housing advertisements in the San Jose Mercur3~ News and 26 ads in E! Observador, a local publication in Spanish that is distributed throu~out the Bay Area. During fiscal year 2002/03, MCFH investigated 15 cases of reported discrimination in Palo Alto, up slightly from a total of 14 cases investigated in the prior fiscal year. Of the 15 cases investigated, N_ne cases (60%) had a positive outcome (successful conciliation, referred to attorney, referred to HUD, or counseled/assisted); three cases (20%) terminated because either the client declined to pursue or there was no corroboration; and three cases (20%) are still pending. The 15 cases were in the following categories: Physical Disabilit3, 4 Cases 27.0% Familial Status/child 7 Cases 47.0% Marital Status 1 Case 6.0% Race 3 Cases 20.0% 15 Cases 100% 6.Actions taken to address the needs of homeless persons and to reduce the number of persons living below the poverty level a. Shelter P]us Care (SPC) The Shelter Plus Care Program, administered by the Office of the County’s Homeless Coordinator, provides up to five years of project based Section 8 rental assistance for previously homeless individuals with disabilities. To quailS for the SPC program, applicants must be living on the streets, or sta?4ng at emergency shelters. Additionally, they must have a diagnosis of one or more of the following diseases: (1) Mental iliness; (2) Alcohol or drug addiction; and (3) HIV/AIDS. They must be clean and sober (if their diag-nosis is drug or alcohol addictidn), and be wi!ling to commit to and follow an individual service plan created with their case manager specifically geared to their individual disability. Extensive support services are a necessary and required component of the program. These supportive services are provided to program participants to allow them to maintain their housing, address and resolve ongoing issues with their particular disability, and achieve a greater level of self-determination. Alma Place, the 107-unit residency hotel on Alma Street, has ten desig-nated SPC units during the reporting period. The Barker Hotel, a 26-unit single-room occupancy hotel in the downtown, has seven designated SPC units, but only three are occupied. The Barker SPC program served a total of six persons during the program year. Five participants were extremely low-income and one was very low income. Of these, five were White and one was of another race. One participant was of the Hispanic ethuicity. Eight extremely low-income persons were served in the Alma Place SPC program during the year. Four were White, one was Asian, one was black, and two were of another race. Two of the participants were of the Hispanic ethnicity. Overall, the SPC program has been successful at housing people with special needs who might not otherwise be eliNble for housing or be able to maintain their housing. b. CommuniW Wor’kin~ Group - OppormniW Center of the Midpeninsuta The Community Working Group (CWG) continues its work to build a day- facility that will provide refuge and a range of professionally run services for those who are homeless or otherwise in need of a safety net of social services. CWG has created a collaborative community allimace, established a corporate identity, secured a site, identified a service provider, and is diligently working toward project implementation. The Oppommity Center wil! provide personal services - mail delivery, access to a telephone, showers and personal hygiene supplies, laundry facilities, help fmding food and shelter, and a supportive environment. Case managers will be available to assist people in obtaining appropriate job sNlls, housing, and medical and mental health assistance. The Oppommity Center will also have approximately 89 units of affordable transitional and permanent housing for singles, couples and families with children. The building desi~,mn will allow for _different populations to coexist in the same area. The project is discussed more fully in the housing portion of this report. c. The Elsa Se_~ovia Women’s Center As part of a cooperative community model, the Clara-Marco _Alliance opened its day center for homeless and at-risk women and children from the Mid-peninsula area. The center, named the Elsa Segovia Women’s Center is located at the Veterans Administration (VA) campus in Menlo Park. The center opened in the spring of 2002 and provides information and referral, daytime refuge, meals and child care for homeless women and their children. Six emergency and/or transitional housing units are available for families. d. EmNovment Opportunities The Cit31 of Palo Alto Office of Human Services continued the homeless worker program during fiscal year 2002/03. $57,500 of Cit3, funding provided short-term City emplo)~nnent opportunities to homeless workers for two 12-week periods. Selected workers were provided with food vouchers, a voucher for clothing from the local Goodwill, and bicycle transportation. Workers were helped with resumes and skills training. Ten persons participated in the program, and five of them continued on to higher paying emplos-ment. e. Homeless Services. In total, the City" provided $313,340 in direct funding for the follov~d.ng services targeted to benefit persons who are very low income or homeless: Urban Ministry - $55,194 in City General Funds and CDBG funds for a prepared meal program, a grocery distribution program for low- income persons, drop-in center and emergency shelter. Emergency Housin~ Consortium - $8,490 in CDBG funds for emergency shelter and supportive services provided by the Sunnyvale Armory-, the Monterey Glen Inn Supportive Housing Program, and the Reception Center. Palo Alto Housina Corooration - Barker Hotel Counseling - $24,745 in CDBG funds for caseworldcounseIing sessions for the low-income tenants of the Single Room Occupancy Barker Hotel. Many of the tenants were previously homeless, and the counseling sessions help them maintain their housing stability. Shelter Network - Haven Family House - $20,000 in CDBG funds for transitional housing and supportive services (including childcare) for homeless families with children. ?2 Clara-Mateo Alliance - Fmnilv Shelter and Singles Shelter - $50,750 in CDBG funds for emergency shelter and transitional housing for homeiess indi~4duals and famiIies with children. American Red Cross - $12,731 in City General Funds were provided to the Red Cross for Homeless Prevention Services. MavView Communin, Clinic - $17,949 in City General Funds were provided to the Clinic to pro~dde health care for low-income, homeless, and uninsured residents. Alliance for Community Care - $27.271 in City General Funds for a homeless outreach pro~am targeted to those with mental health issues. Social Advocates for Youth - $8,166 in City General Funds were provided for the Casa SAY youth shelter and Safe Place Pro~am for nmaway and homeless youth. City’s Seasonal Jobs Program - $57,500 in City General Funds were used to sponsor the temporary employment prog-ram for homeless workers. ¢"S.up~ort Services for Battered Women - $20,544 in City General Funds were used to provide shelter and supportive services for abused women and children. ,,/St. Vincent de Paul Day Worker Center - $10,000 in CDBG funds were used to provide services, such as food, clothing and ESL classes at the day worker center 7. Other Actions a. Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Lead poisoning can cause permanent damage to the brain and many other organs, and can result in reduced intelligence and behavioral problems in young children. More than 800,000 children younger than 6 years old living in the United States have lead in their blood that is above the level of concern set by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). A significant mmaber of these children are in families of low income and are living in old homes with hea~ concentrations oflead-based paint. The most common sources of childhood exposure to lead are deteriorated lead-based paint and lead-comaminated dust and soil ha the environment. The City" housing and CDBG staff^provide information and referral to property owners, developers and non-profits rehabilitating older housing about lead-based paint hazards. There is no information that indicates lower income households are more likely to be exposed to lead paint hazards in Palo Alto than are families in the general population [see the discussion in the City’s Consolidated Plan]. The City" currently requires that any housing to be rehabilitated with City financial assistance to be inspected for the existence of lead paint and lead paint hazards. The Cit7 will provide financial assistance for the abatement of such hazards in units rehabilitated with City funding. Pato Alto, along with the other CDBG entitlement jurisdictions in Santa Clara Count?,, have joined forces to help build the capacity of lead paint abatement pro~ams in this area to comply with new Federal rega~lations. b. Inter~overnmental Cooperation The City of Palo Alto has worked closely with the cities of Mountain View- and Sunn?wa!e to distribute a joint Request for Proposals (RFP) for fair housing services. A single fair housing provider was selected for all three cities, resulting in more cost-effective services. Cit3~ staff has also participated in County sponsored Task Forces and other efforts to increase affordable housing on a re~onal basis. City- staff participates in the follov~ing: -/The Housing Bond Advisow Committee that oversees the Mortgage Credit Certificate pro~am and all County bond financing The Housing Trust Fund of Santa Clara County The CDBG and HOME Pro~am coordinators of entitlement jurisdictions from throughout Santa Clara Count?, that address multi-jurisdictional funding, re~onal approaches to fair housing and predator lending and other issues of common interest. ¢" Count?~vide Fair Housing Task Force c. Actions to Ensure CDBG Pro_o-ram Compliance The City follows the monitoring requirements for the use of federal funds as directed by HUD. City- staff attended HUD sponsored wor’kshops in enviroim~ental compliance, IDIS reporting, and a CDBG Basics course sponsored by the National Community Development Association (NCDA). The City’s Department of Planning and Community Environment monitors its housing production goals and all the activities carried out to further the goals of the Consolidated Plan. Subrecipients of CDBG funds are required to submit semi-annual and annual performance reports outlining the extent to which pro~am goals have been achieved, and the beneficiaries who have been served. Progam performance is measured against the specific progam objectives 34 outlined in the contract scope of services. City staff monitors each subrecipient, as necessary, to insure compliance with relations governing their administrative, financial and progammatic operations, and to make sure the subrecipients achieve their performance objectives within the prescribed schedule and budget. 8. Changes to Annual Action Plan No changes were made to Palo Alto’s 2002/03 Action Plan. C. Assessment of Performance 1. Evaluation of Progress in Meeting Annual Community Development Goals The City has made pro~ess in meeting its community development goals in the past year, especially in the area of services for lower income residents. The local safety net of services for lower income persons is being stren~hened with the creation of more shelter and supportive services. These efforts contribute si~cantly to a local continuum .of care. All of the public service agencies funded with CDBG funds address the identified needs of providing a variety of human services to low-income, at risk populations. A Housing Directow and Tenant Guide have been updated to assist residents find and!or retain affordable rental housing. Shelter beds m~d services for the homeless population have been increased as well as services to very low-income seniors and persons with disabilities. Employment training and entrepreneur progams have been established and targeted to persons who are unemployed and/or underemployed. The City pursued al! resources it indicated it would, provided requested certifications of consistency for HUD progams in a fair and impartial manner, and did not hinder Consolidated Plan implementation by action or willful inaction. 2. Barriers to Fulfilling Strategies The continually increasing cost of land in the Bay- Area has not only created a housing crisis, but a rental crisis for non-profit agencies that serve the vulnerable, at-risk populations. The cost of office space in northern Santa Clara Count5, is now among the highest in the nation, and is slowly driving service providers from the area. N addition, many non-profits have experienced a decrease in funding and donations because of the economic downturn. Funding cuts have resulted in a decrease in staffing and services at many of the local non-profit agencies. 35 Although housing prices have stabilized in the Bay Area, the housing that is available is still out of reach to man?, low-income residents, primary- because of the lack of available emp!oyment. The economic downturn has caused a sigr~ificant increase in unemployment rates. Man?, resident renters have been forced into homelessness or forced to leave the area as the result of dramatic increases in rental rates and unemployment over the past few years. People alrea@ in shelters or sub-standard housing fred it increasingly difficult to improve their living situations, and tend to stay in the shelters or sub-standard housing longer. 3. Adjustments or Improvements to Community Development Strategies No adjustments to the community development strategies have been identified at tiffs time. PART I-V. APPEiX,rl)IX AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION IN IH~ PALO ALTO WEEKLY No. 703 High St., Palo Alto, California 94301 (650) 326-8210 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA SS I. the undersigned, state that I am, and at all times herein mentioned was, a citizen United Stazes of America, over the age of eighteen years, and not a par~, to or inter~ i the above entitled matter, that I was at and dudng all said times and still am the princip~ of the publisher oi the PSo Alio Weekly, a newspaper of general circulation published in the city of Palo ~,-~to in said County of Santa Clara, State of California; that said is ar at all times herein mentioned a newspaper of general circulation as that term is defii Section 6008 of the Government Code of the State of California; that said was adjud~ such by Superior Court of the County of Santa Clara, State of California, under c November 2, 1982, Case Number P41989; that the notice of which the annexed is; printed copy, was set in type not smaller than nonpareil and was preceded with printed in black-iace ~,pe not smiler than nonpareil, describing and expressing in terms, the purport and character of the notice intended to be given; that said notic published and printed in said newspaper on the following dates, to wit: , /D~te of first publication in the Palo Alto WeekJy I declare under penalty of pen~ury tha~ the foregoing is true and correct. at Palo Alto, California. NOTICE OF PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT PERIOD FOR P.~LO ALTO’S CONSOLIDATED ANNUAL PERFORMA_NCE AND EVALUATION REPORT FOR THE PERIOD JULY 1, 2002 TO JUNE 30, 2003 Notice is hereby given that the City of Palo .ad.to has completed a draft performance report for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program for fiscal year 2002/03. The Draft Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER) is available for public review and comment prior to its submittal to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The CAPER provides a summary of the pro~ammatic accomplishments in affordable housing and community deve!opment during the 2002-2003 fiscal year. It describes the status of actions taken during the year to implement the strate~es and objectives described in the City’s Consolidated Plan for the period July 1, 2000 to June 30, 2005, and the prog-ress made in addressing identified priority needs and objectives. Public Review and Comment Period: The draft CAPER will be available for public review and comment for a 15-day period, be~nning on Monday, September 8, 2003 and concluding at 5:00 p.m. on Monday, September 22, 2003. Written comments may be submitted during the review period and should be sent to the City of Palo Alto, Department of Planning and Community Environment, Attention: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia, 250 Hamilton Avenue, 5th Floor, Palo Alto, CA 94301; 650/329-2428; e-mail eloiza.murillogarcia@ cityofpaloalto.org. To Obtain a Copy of the CAPER: Copies are available at the Department of Planning and Community Environment, City Hall, 5th Floor, 250 Hamilton Avenue, during regular business hours or by calling 650/329-2603. Persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids or services in using City facilities, services or pro~ams, or who would like information on the City’ s compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, may contact: Fred Herman, ADA Director, City of Palo Alto, 650-329-2550 (Voice) or 650-329-1199 (TDD). SIjMZgARY OF CDBG FUNDING PRIORITIES FISCAL YEAR 2002/2003 III. AFFORDABLE HOUSING (Goal: 65% of Budget) A.brEW CONSTRUCTION, CO.NWERSION & ADDITION OF !NrEW U.-NITS Permanent housing for families with children Other permanent housing including ~oup homes, seniors, the disabled, shared housing, etc. Transitional housing with supportive services Permanent housing for the homeless or at-risk of homelessness. B.PRESERVATION OF EXISTING. LOftIER INCOME RENTAL HOUSING Preselaration of existing, federally subsidized multi-family housing owned by profit motivated investors. Acquisition and/or rehabilitation of existing multi-family rental housing, including improvements to common areas. Acquisition and/or rehabilitation of existing buildings for special needs populations including shared housing and goup homes. PUBLIC,FACILIINES (Goal: 15% of Budget) Rehabilitation of existing facilities for use as shelters for the homeless or other special needs ~oups PUBLIC SERVICES (Goal: 9% of Budget) Services directly related to the housing needs of low-income persons. Homeless shelter operating costs and the provision of auxiliary or related services. Services which address other needs of low income, elderly or special needs persons. ADMINISTRATION (Goal: 11% of Budget) Fair housing education, information, referral, advocacy, and counseling and complaint resolution. CDBG pro~am administration and planning costs. Department of Housing & Urban Development Office of Community Planning COVER PAGE Grantee Performance Report Community Development Block Grant Program OMB Approval No. 2502-0006 (exp. 3/31/93) o o NAME & ADDRESS OF GRANTEE City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Program Year End } 2. Grant Number 6/30/03 I B02MC060020 NAME & ADDRESS OF C.D. DIRECTOR Stephen A. Emslie Dept. of Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue PaloAIto, CA 94301 NAME & TELEPHONE NUMBER OF PERSON MOST FAMILIAR WITH INFORMATION IN THIS REPORT Ms. Eloiza Murillo-Garcia (650) 329-2428 NAME & TELEPHONE NUMBER OF PERSON TO CONTACT ABOUT DISCLOSURES REQUIRED BY THE HUD REFORM ACT OF 1989 Ms. Eloiza Murillo-Garcia (650) 329-2428 Have these Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds been used: a. to meet the community development program objectives in the final statement for this program year? If no, explain, in narrative attachment, how: (1) the uses did not relate to program objectives; and (2) future activities or program objectives might change as a result of this year’s experiences. Yes exclusively to either benefit low-and-moderate (low/rood) income persons, aid in the prevention or elimination of slums or blight, or meet community development needs having a particular urgency? If no, explain in a narrative attachment. Yes such that the grantee has complied with, or will comply with, its certification to expend not less than 70% of its CDBG funds, during the specified period, on activities which benefit Iow/mod income persons? If no, explain in a narrative attachment. Yes 8.Were citizen comments about this report and/or the CDBG program received? summary. If yes, attach a No This form may be reproduced on office Oopiers. Previous editions are obsolete. Retain this record for 3 years. Form HUD-4949.1 (11/20/92) H:W,.eports\CDB G\gp coverpage_2003.doc Page 1 of 2 Departmen~ of Housing & Urban Development Office of Community Planning COVER PAGE Grantee Performance Report Community Development Block Grant Program OMB Approval No. 2502-0006 (exp. 3/31/93) Indicate how the Grantee Performance Report was made available to the public: a. BY PRINTED N©T1CE: Advertisement in Palo Alto Weekly September 5, 2003. b. BY PUBLIC HEARING: A Public Hearing was held on April 1,2003 to discuss allocation recommendations. A Public Hearing was held on May 12, 2003 to determine final funding allocations. c.OTHER: A notice regarding the public review period for the draft CAPER was mailed to a list of interested individuals and posted on the City’s website. 10.The following forms must be completed and attached: a. Activity Summary, form HUD 4949.2 b. Financial Summary, form HUD 4949.3 c. 1-4-1 Replacement, form HUD 4949.4 d. Rehabilitation, form HUD 4949.5 e. Displacement, form HUD 4949.6 I hereby certify that: This report contains all required items identified above; Federal assistance made available under the Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) has not been utilized to reduce substantially the amount of local financial support for community development activities below the level of such support prior to the start of the most recently completed CDBG program year; all the information stated herein, as wel! as any information provided in the accompaniment herewith, is true and accurate. Warning: HUD will prosecute false claims and statements. Conviction may result in criminal and/or civil penalties (18 U.S.C. 1001, 1010, 1012, U.S.C. 3729, 3802) Typed Name & Title of Authorized Official Representative FRANK BENEST City Manager Signature Date This form may be reproduced on office Copiers. Previous editions are obsolete. Retain this record for 3 years. Form HUD-4949.1 (11/20/92) Ref Handbook 6510.2 Page 2 of 2 H:k.K~ports\CDBG\_£pcov~rpa~e_2003.doc Funding Sources EntitlementGrant(includesreallocatedfunds) CDBG ESG HOME HOPWA Total $79~,000 $0 $0 $0 Prior Years’ Program Income NOT previously programmed or reported CDBG $66,5;35 ESG $0 HOME $0 HOPWA $0 Total Reprogrammed Prior Years’ Funds CDBG ESG HOME HOPWA Total $22,984 $0 SO $0 Total Estimated Program Income Housing Improvement Program Palo Alto Housing Corp. Total $34,000 $10,000 Section 108 Loan Guarantee Fund $791,000 $66,535 $22,984 $44,000 $0 TOTAL FUNDING SOURCES $924,519 Other Funds $0 Submitted Proposed Projects Totals $924,519 Un-Submi~ed Proposed Projects Totals $0 r~o0C..] ~ ,_.-- "r- oz 0 < ----. _ rn o~°°S~ E 0 0 ~- "11 I r- ’71 © LU r- r..o m -J O< r-" r.o. m Z r- ~ <.% oo~ FY 2003 - 2004 Locadon Map 0 PART II FINANCIAL SUMMARY ~. FORM PY 2002-2003 Financial Summary U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Grantee Perfo.--mance Report Office of Comm’~ni~y Planning & Development Community Deve!opment Block Program 0MB ~prova! No. 2506-0006(Exp. 3/31/93) !.Name of Grantee 2. Grant Number 3. Reporting Period City of Palo Alto B02MC060020 From 07/01/02 To 06/30/03 Part i: Summary of CDBG Resources i.Unexp_ended CDBG funds at end of previous period 2.Entitlement Grant from fo_~m HUD-7082 3.Surp_lus Urban Renewa! F~ds 4.Section 108 Guaranteed Loan Funds (Principal ~o~nt) 1,475,424 808,000 5.Program income received by:Grantee (Column A) a. Revolving _mu_nds b. Other (identify be!ow)79,374 Loan Repayments/Renta! Income/Interest Total Program Income (sum of columns a and-b) 6.Prior Period Adjustments (if negative, enc!ose in brackets) 7.Tota! CDBG Funds available for use during this report period Subrecipient (Co!unm. B) 8,538 87,912 2,371,336 Part Ii: Summary of CDBG Expenditures 8.Tota! expenditures reported on Activity Summary 9.Tota! ex~ended for P!ar~.ing & Administration (cdbglmc~)165,800 i0..Amount subject to Low/Mod Benefit Calculation 1,570,136 i!.CDBG funds used for Section !08 principa! & interest payments 12.Tota! expenditures (line 8 plus line !!) 13.Unexp_ended balance (line 7 minus line 12) t,735,936 0.00 1,735,936 635,400 Part iii:Low/Mod credit This Reporting Period 14. Tota! Low/Mod credit for multi-unit housing expenditures 15. Tota! from al! other activities qualifying as low/mod expenditures 16. Tota! (line !4 plus line 15) 699,!9! 870,945 1,570,136 17. Percent benefit to low/mod persons (line 16 divided by !ine i0 this reporting period)10o% Cerul/Icau!ons _Part IV: Low/Mod Benefit for Multi-Year ~’’’ ~’(Comm!ete only if certification period includes prior years) Program years (PY) covered in certification PY 2000,200!,2002 18. Cumulative net expendituges subject to program benefit calculation 19.Cumulative expenditures benefiting !ow/mod persons 20.Percent benefit to !ow/mod persons (line 19 divided by line !8) This form may be reproduced on local office copiers Previous editions are obsolete Retain this record for 3 years. 09~5/03 form h~-4949.3(!1/24/92) ref Handbook 65!0.2 Financial Summary Grantee Performance Report Community Deve!opment Block Program UoS. Department of Housing ~nd Urban Development Office of Community P!a~z~ing & Deve!opment Approval No. 2506-0006(Exp. 3/31/93) Part V: For Public Service (PS) Activities Only: Public Service C~2 Calculation 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. Total PS expenditures from column h, form HUD4949.2a Total PS ~n!iquidated obligations from co!unun r, from }Ib~ 4949.2a Sum of !ine 21 and line 22 Tota! PS ~n!iquidated obligations reported at the end of the previous reporting period. Net obligations for public services (line 23 minus line 24) .Amount of Program Income received in the preceding program year Entitlement Grant Amount (from line 2) Sum of lines 26 and 27 Percent funds obligated for Public Service Activities (line 25 divided by line 28) i34,700 -0" 134,700 -0- 134,700 106,535 808,000 914,535 Part VI: Plaru3_ing and Program Administration Cap Calculation 30. 31. 32. Amount subject to plar~ning and adminstrative cap 895,912 (grant amount from line 2 plus line 5) Amount expended for Planning & Administration (from line 9 above) I@5,800 Percent funds expended (line 31 divided by line 30) ~ ~ 5a: PROGP~AM INCOME NARP~ATIVE Low interest Loan Repayments (Housing improvement Program) Paio Alto Housing Corp. Renta! property income 79,374 8,538 All interest earned on the Housing improvement Program Loan Payments was returned to the U.S. Treasury. Other Program Income Activity No.Description Grantee Subrecipient 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 09/25/03 2 This form may be reproduced on local office copiers Previous editions are obsolete Retain this record for 3 years. Financial Summary Grantee Performance Report Commtunity Development Block Program form I-ID~-4949.3(!!/24/92 ref Handbook 6510.2 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Developmenn Office of Commu~.ity Plain!n[ & Deve!opment OMB 9~prova! No. 2506-0006(Exp. 3/31/93) GPR HA_NrDBOOK APpENrDIX 3: ITEM E CALCULATION OF BALANCE OF UAvPROGRAMMED FUNDS KECONCU.L&T]ONOFL!NE(S) OF CREDIT (LOC) .~iqD ~ASH BALANCES TO UA~XPENDED BALANCE OF CDBG FUNDS SHO%~ ON GPR Complete the following worksheet and submit with the attachment: D-NEXpEkrDED B~LANCE SHO~- ON GPR (line 13 of HTG~D 4949.3) ~D: LOC balance(s) as of GPR Date Cash on Hand: Grantee Program Accou/It Subrecipients Program Accotults Revolving Fund Cash Balances Section 108 Accounts (in contract) SUBTRACT: Grantee CDBG Program Liabilities (include any reimbursements due to the Grantee from program funds) Subrecipient CDBG Program Liabilities (same instructions as above) 635,400 -0- -0- TOTg~ RECONCILING B~-i~n!~CE: UnATRECONCILED DIFFERENCE:0 When grantees or subrecipients operate their pro9rams on a reimbursement basis, any amounts due to the grantees or subrecipients should be included in the Program Liabilities. 635,400 635,400 This form may be reproduced form HUD-4949.3 (11/24/92) on !ocal office copiers ref Handbook 6510.2 Previous editions are obsolete Retain this record for 3 years. U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Deve!opment Office of Community P!am_ning and Development 09/25/03 3 RE~n~ILITATiON ACTIVITIES Grantee Performance Report Community Development Block Grant Program 01~B .~Dprova! No. 2506-0006(exp. 3/31/93) Name of Grantee Grant Number Program Year City of Pa!o ~ito B02MCO60020 From 07/01/02 To 06/30/03 All grantees must submit this form,I Single-unit I Multi-unit whether or not they have CDBG funded I Activities I Activities rehabilitation programs.I (1 Unit)I (2+ U~its) !.Check box only if grantee has no CDBG rehabilitation activities:X 2. Staffing: number of Staff-Years (FTE staff years to tenths) 3. Current Program Year Expenditures: Activity delivery costs from CDBG funds a.Staff costs: Amount e~ended in 2 above b.Other direct costs (not included in 4) 4.Current Program Year Expenditures: For a!! projects (a+b+c below) a.CDBG funds expended b.Other public (Federal,State, local) funds exp’d. c.Private funds expended 5. Project/Units Rehabilitated/Committed a. Number of projects committed (multi-unit only) Projects b. lgumber of units committed Units Units 6. Obligations: .Amount obligated for projects/units committed in 5aand 5b a.CDBG funds obligated b.Other pub!ic(Fed.,State,!oca!) funds obligated c.Private funds obligated 7. Projects/Units Rehabi!itated/Comp!eted a. - Number of projects completed(multi-unit on!y) b. Number of units completed Projects Units Units 8.Cumulative Expenditures: a.CDBG funds expended b.Other public(Federal,State, !ocal) funds exD’d. c.Private funds expended 09/25/03 4 PART il FINANCIAL SUMMARY FORM PY 2002-2003 Financial Summary U.S. Department of ~ousing and Urban Development Grantee Perfo-~mance Report Office of Community Planning & Deve!opment Community Development Block Program 0MB ~prova! No. 2506-0006(Exp. 3/31/93) !.Name of Grantee 2. Grant Number 3. Reporting Period City of Palo Alto B02MCO60020 From 07/01/02 To 06/30/03 Part i: Summary of CDBG Resources !.Unexp_ended CDBG funds at end of previous period 2.Entitlement Grant from form ~Fu~-7082 3.Surp_!us Urban Renewal Fum_ds ~Section 108 Guaranteed Loan Funds (D~nc~Dal ~ount) 1,475,424 808,000 Subrecipient (Colun~n B) 8,538 Program income received by:Grantee Column A) a. Revolving Funds b. Other (identify be!ow)79,374 Loan Repayments/Renta! Income/Interest Tota! Program Income (sum of columns a and b)87,912 6.Prior Period Adjustments (if negative, enc!ose in brackets) 7. Total CDBG Funds available for use during this report period 2,371,336 Part iI: Summary of CDBG Expenditures 8.Total expenditures reported on Activity Summary 9.Tota! expended for P!a~ning & Administration (cdbg/mcfn)165,800 !0..Amount subject to Low!Hod Benefit Calculation 1,570,136 i!.CDBG funds used for Section 108 principa! & interest pa~ents 12.Tota! expenditures (line 8 p!us line !!) !3.Unexpended ba!~nce (line 7 minus line !2) 1,735,936 0.00 1,735,936 635,400 Part iii:LowiMod credit This Reporting Period 14. Total Low!Hod credit for multi-um.it housing expenditures 15. Tota! from al! other activities qualifying as !ow/mod expenditures !6. Tota! (line 14 plus line !5) 699,191 870,945 1,570,136 17 Percent benefit to low/mod o=~sons (line 16 divided by line !0 this reporting period)100% Part IV: Low/Hod Benefit for Multi-Year Certifications (Complete only if certification period includes prior years) Program years (PY) covered in certification PY 2000,2001,2002 18. Cumulative net expenditures subject to program benefit calculation 19.Cumulative expenditures benefiting !ow/mod persons 20.Percent benefit to low/mod persons (line 19 divided by line 18) This form may be reproduced on loca! office copiers Previous editions are obsolete Retain this record for 3 years. 09/29/03 form ~-0D-4949.3(11/24/92) ref Handbook 6510.2 Financia! Summary_ Grantee Performance Report Community Development B!ock Program U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Community Pla~ning & Development Approva! No. 2506-0006 (Exp. 3/31/93) Part V: For Public Service (PS) Activities Only: Public Service ~AP Calculation 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. Total PS exp_enditures from column h, fo_~m HUD4949.2a 134J00 Tota! PS un!iquidated obligations from column r, from ~0D 4949.2a -0- Sum of line 21 and line 22 134,700 Tota! PS ~n!iquidated obligations reported at the end of the previous reporting period.-0- Net obligations for public se_~-vices (line 23 minus line 24)134,700 Amount of Program income received in the preceding program year I08,~3~ Entitlement Grant ~ount (from line 2)808,000 Sum of lines 26 and 27 914,~3~ Percent funds obligated for Public Service Activities (line 25 divided by line 28) Part VI: Planning and Program Administration Cap Calculation 30. 31. 32. 9~ount subject to planning and adminstrative cap 895,912 (grant amount from line 2 plus line 5) Amount expended for Planning & Administration (from line 9 above) 18~,800 Percent funds e~_"pended (line 31 divided by !ine 30) Low Interest Loan Repayments (Housing Improvement Program) Palo .Alto Housing Corp. Renta! property income 79,374 8.538 A!l interest earned on the Housing improvement Program Loan Payments was returned to the U.S. Treasury. Other Program income Activity No.Description Grantee Subrecipient 0.00 0.00 Tot~]0.00 0.00 09/29/03 2 This form may be reproduced on local office copiers previous editions are obsolete Retain this record for 3 years. Financial Summary Grantee Performance Report Community Deve!opment B!ock Program fozTn -~0~-4949.3 (I!/24/92) ref Handbook 6510.2 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development O==_c~ of Commu~_ity P!am_ning & Development OI~ Approva! No. 2506-0006(Exp. 3/31/93) GPR HANDBOOK APPEhUg[X 3: ITEk{ E CALCULATION OF BALANCE OF U~ROGP~AA~h~D FUNDS RZCONCruDiTION OF LINE (S) OF CREDIT (LOC) AND ~ASH BALANCES TO DqqEkgENDED BALANCE OF CDBG £UNDS SHOV/N ON GPR Complete the following worksheet and submit with the attachment: UN~XPENDED B~i~ANCE SHO’~¢ ON GPR (line 13 of HTJD 4949.3) ADD: LOC balance(s) as of GPR Date Cash on Hand: Grantee Program Account Subrecipients Program Accounts 6~5,400 Revolving Fund Cash Balances Section 108 Accounts (in contract) -0- SUBTP~ACT: Grantee CDBG Program Liabilities (include any reimbursements due to the Grantee from program funds) -0- Subrecipient CDBG Program Liabilities (same instructions as above) -0- TOTAL RECONCILING BALANCE: IikrRECONC!LED DIFFERENCE:0 When grantees or subrecipients operate their programs on a reimbursement basis, any amounts due to the grantees or subrecipients should be included in the Program Liabilities. 635,400 635,400 This form may be reproduced form HUD-4949.3 (11/24/92) on local office copiers ref Handbook 65!0.2 Previous editions are obsolete Retain this record for 3 years. U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Deve!opment Office of Commu~.ity Plar~_ing and Development 09/29/03 3 REhabILITATION ACTIVITIES Grantee Performance Report Community Deve!opment Block Grant Program 0~ ~prova! No. 2506-0006(exp. 3/31/93) Name of Grantee Grant Number Program Year City of Pa!o Alto B02MCO60020 From 07/0!/02 To 06/30/03 ~i grantees must submit this form,I Single-unit I Multi-unit whether or not they have CDBG funded I Activities I Activities rehabilitation programs.[(i Unit)[(2+ Units) !. Check box on!y if grantee has no CDBG rehabilitation activities: 2.Staffing: number of Staff-Years (FTE ...._su=~ vears to tenths) 3. Current Program Year Eycp_enditures: Acti%~ity delivery costs from CDBG founds a.Staff costs: Amount ex!3_ended in 2 above b.Other direct costs (not included in 4) &.Current Program Year Expenditures: For a!l projects (a+b+c below) a.CDBG funds ex!~_ended b.Other public (Federa!,State, local) funds exp’d. c.Private funds expended 5.Project/Units Rehabi!itated/Committed a. Number of projects committed (multi-unit only) Projects Number of units committed Units Units 6. Obligations: .Amount obligated for projects/units committed in 5a and 5b a.CDBG funds obligated b.Other pub!ic(Fed.,State,!oca!) funds obligated c.Private funds obligated 7. Projects/Units Rehabilitated/Completed a. Number of projects com_m!eted(multi-unit only) Projects b. Number of units completed Units Units Cumulative Expenditures: a.CDBG funds expended b.Ouh~ mublic(Federa!,State, loca!) funds exD’d. c.Private funds expended 09/29/03 4 <z o < o < o z ~o~ o~m o o o < o o o r~ o ’::3OOOO[’3 o o oo o H 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o 0 t~~°z ~0 Oo~KOMO~ o 0~<~~0~ 0 o o o o o "4 o r~ o t-4 < o © © © © © oo o oo o o Z o o oo 0 m 0 o o © o ,-4 0"~ o o o 0 0 o o o o o .. © © t~°z ~CCO ~0~ 666 © OM 0 ooo~ ~oooo o ~ o oo o o o o o 00 Oo 0 ~00~ © o o 00 00000~ 000000 o o Q 0o u o < o[..[/i o o o < U H ~o o H 0 o ~o~~ o D ~0~ ~0~ ~°~ mO~U o < u o o o o o E~ o < 0 o o o > > o oooo ~o 0 > o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 c~ o oo oo o o o }-4 o > o 0 8,30 0 0 0 o o o H H z o o 0 oo m m oooo o~q r~ o o z oo 00~ ~o~ooo~~R~R zo ©m o H © o 0 o o o m oo o r~ © 0 < r_9 ~ o ::> o~ o r..) ~ H 0 o 0 ~-~ O~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~J ~00~ 0 0 o o ~ ~., © o o Q ~ 0 0~ o~o ~o~oo~o~o~ ~ oo Qo~° CD , , m oo~0 0 o H © o ~o ooo~ ~oooo ~00~ o ~o~ ~o o~ ~°~ 00~~ O~ 0~0~ o o oo oo oo o o .-;-j 0000 0o0000 00000~ 0 <3 H o o o o < o o~ o ~ 0 ~ 0 0 ~ I 00 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ 0 zo o o< © L~o ~° © oo 0 ~ ~ 0O~ o L~ O3 o< 0000~ ~000 ..~o oE~ 0 ~.. oo ooo~ Doooo p~ o o o < o < o o o o 0 o < H H >> QQ oo o ~ oo H oo~N~o~o~ MOOZ~ 0~ 0 0 0 o o o o o © o o o o o o d oo~