HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-04-20 City Council (3)City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
ATTENTION: FINANCE COMMITTEE ’ ~ ~ ..............
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COM]~UN4TY ENVIRONMENT
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APRIL 20, 2000 CMR:221:00/
PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR 2000/01 COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG)
FUNDING ALLOCATIONS
REPORT IN BRIEF
This report transmits the recommendations of City staff and the CDBG Citizens Advisory
Committee (CAC) for the expenditure of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
funds for fiscal year 2000/01. The City received 15 applications for funding totaling
$1,177,940. The amount available for allocation in program year 2000/01 is $ 787,275.
Attachment A summarizes the funding requests with .the staff and CAC
recommendations. Staff and the CAC did not concur on all of the funding.
recommendations. The CAC recommendations are presented as alternatives to the staff
recommendations in this report.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Finance Committee recommend to the City Council approval
that the funding allocations recommended by staff be included in the final 2000/01
Action Plan of the Consolidated Plan for the period 2000-2005.
Consolidated Plan 2000-2005
Fiscal year 2000/01 is the beginning of a new five-year consolidated planning period for
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) programs. A draft
CMR:221:00 Page 1 of 8
Consolidated Plan for the period July 1, 2000 to June 30, 2005 has been prepared and
distributed for the required 30-day public review that began on March 31, 2000. The
Consolidated Plan is required by HUD in order for the city to receive federal funding
from programs such as the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) or HOME
Investment Partnership Act.
The Draft 2000-2005 Consolidated Plan is an update of the previous 1995-2000
Consolidated Plan, adopted by Council-on May 1, 1995.’ The Plan is a five-year strategy
and a one-year action plan for the use of federal funds. There were no substantial
changes to th.e prioritized needs and strategies of the previous Consolidated Plan. All of
the proposed projects for CDBG funding for fiscal year 2000/01 address the priority
housing and non-housing needs identified in the Plan.
CDBG Regulations
The City of Palo Alto receives funds annually from HUD as an entitlement City under the
CDBG Program, authorized by Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act
of 1974, as amended. The primary objective of the Act is "the development of viable
urban communities by providing decent housing and a suitable living environment, and
expanding economic opportunities, principally for persons of low and moderate income. "
HUD regulations require that all activities must meet one of the three national objectives
of the CDBG Program:
Activities that benefit low and very low income persons
Activities that aid in the prevention or elimination of slums or blight; or
Activities that meet other community development needs having a particular
urgency, or posing a serious and immediate threat to the health or welfare of
the community.
Palo Alto has historically expended all of its CDBG funds on projects benefiting low and
very low-income persons.
The three primary CDBG program activity areas are:
Public Service
Social service activities such as the provision of interim shelter, and
supportive services, child care, drug abuse prevention, and senior services,
may be funded under this category. The amount of CDBG funds used for
public services can not exceed 15 percent of the annual grant and program
income from the preceding program year. The maximum amount that can
be expended in this category for fiscal year 2000/01 is $118,725.
CMR:221:00 Page 2 of 8
Planning and Administration
This category includes the contract for fair housing services and City staff
tim~. spent on overall CDBG program administration and planning
activities. Additionally, it may include the cost of individual project plans
related to a specific activity (such as planning costs for the proposed
Opportunity Center). Federal regulations limit the amount that can be spent
in. this c’ategory to 20 percent"of the grant and estimated program income
for the following year. Funding for fiscal year 2000/01 is limited to a
maximum of $154,400.
Capital Projects
The primary focus of the CDBG program is on "community development",
or capital projects such as housing, land acquisition, relocation, site
clearance, rehabilitation, accessibility, public facility improvements, etc.
Although there are no funding limitations in this category, funds may not
be used for new construction of new housing units.
Funding Applications
Applications for 2000/01 funding were mailed to more than 75 area housing and human
service providers on October 19, 1999. A notice announcing the availability of
applications for 2000/01 CDBG funding was published in the Palo Alto Weekly on
October 22, 1999. The completed applications were due by 3:00 p.m. on Tuesday,
December 7, 1999.
In order to coordinate the Human Service Resource Allocation Process (HSRAP) with the
CDBG application process, a joint Proposal Writing Workshop was held on November
12, 1999 at Cubberley Community Center. Al! HSRAP and CDBG applicants were
encouraged to attend the workshop that included information about the City’s CDBG and
housing programs as well as HSRAP funds administered by the Office of Human
Services.
Citizen Participation
The City follows a Citizen Participation Plan to encourage public participation in the
CDBG allocation and assessment process. The Citizen Participation Plan calls for a nine-
member Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC), selected by the Mayor. One slot on the
CAC is reserved for a member of the City’s Human Relations Commission (HRC). This
year’s committee included: Eve Agiewich (HRC Liaison), Gaye Courtney, Andrew
Freedman, Jonathan Foster, Liza Kniss, Trina Lovercheck, David Negrin, Sidgid Pinsky,
and Joe Villareal. Trina Lovercheck was selected as the Committee’s spokesperson this
year.
CMR:221:00 Page 3 of 8
DISCUSSION
Entitlement Grant
The City’s 2000/01 CDBG entitlement allocation is $732,000. This is a $6,000 decrease
from the prior year’s allocation of $738,000. Program income (income generated
directly from the use of CDBG funds) for 2000/01 is estimated to be $40,000. The main
source of program income (PI) is from loan payoffs from the City’s Housing
Improvement Program (HIP), a single-family residential rehabilitation program. Since
the HIP is no longer operational and new loans are not being generated, the income
stream from loan payments and payoffs continues to decrease. The current value of the
HIP loan portfolio is approximately $320,000.
The other anticipated source of revenue is from the Palo Alto Housing Corporation, when
rental income exceeds expenses on specific properties acquired or rehabilitated with
CDBG funds. Additionally, an unused traffic mitigation fee in the amount of $9,500 was
returned to the CDBG program from the California Park Apartment project. Finally,
¯ reallocated funds are left over from the Alliance for Community Care’s Waverley Street
House feasibility study that was completed in fiscal year 1998/99.
Funds Available for Allocation
FY 2000/01 CDBG Allocation from HUD
Estimated Program Income
Housing Improvement Program
Palo Alto Housing Corporation
Returned Cal Park Traffic Mitigation Fees
Reallocated Funds
Alliance/Waverley House Feasibility Study
Total
$732,000
20,000
20,000
9,500
5,775
$787,275
The 15 percent cap in the public service category is based on the following:
2000/01 Entitlement Grant $732,000
Estimated PI 1999/00’ HIP
Estimated PI 1999/00’ PAHC
Cal Park Mitigation
35,000
15,000
9,500
$791,500 x 15%= $118,725
The 20 percent cap in the planning and administrative category is based on the following:
2000/01 entitlement Grant $732,000
Estimated PI 2000/01 * HIP 20,000
Estimated PI 2000/01’ PAHC 20,000
$772,000 x 20% = $154,400
* Federal regulations require caps to be calculated on program income for different years
CMR:221:00 Page 4 of 8
The following chart shows the applications received and the CAC and staff funding
recommendations. Attachment A is a narrative explaining the proposals and the funding
recommendations in more detail. Staff and the CAC have identical recommendations in
the Public Service category, but have differing recommendations in the Program
Administration and Capital Improvement categories. The projects where the
recommendations are not the same are highlighted on the chart below.
200012001 CDBG FUNDING REQUESTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Name of Agency
1999/2000
Funded
2000/2001
Funding.
Request
Recommendations
CAC Staff
Catholic Charities
Ombudsman Program
Emergency Housing Consortium
Shelter & Homeless Services
Palo Alto Housing Corporation
Barker Hotel
Palo Alto Housing Corporation
Low Income Housing Services
Shelter Network
Haven Family House
Clara-Mateo Alliance
Family Shelter Wing
Clara-Mateo Alliance
Clara Mateo Shelter
Community Technology Alliance
Community Voice Mail
TOTAL PUBLIC SERVICES
PLANNING & ADMINISTRATION
Community Working Group
Opportunity Center
Mid-Peninsula Citizens for Fair Housing
Fair Housing Services
City of Palo Alto
Program Administration
TOTAL ADMINISTRATION
Emergency Housing Consortium
Sobrato Family Living Center
Community Housing Inc.
Elevator Upgrades
ACHIEVE
School Fence
City of Palo Alto
Housing Development Fund (SOFA BMR)
TOTAL CAPITAL PROJECTS
PUBLIC SERVICES
$ 8,000
8,000
16,450
25,000
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
- n/a-
18,000
130,000
-n/a-
-n/a-
- n/a -
- n/a -
$ 8,240
10,800
34,800
35,000
15,000
10,000
25,000
12,000
$150,840
$ 25,000
20,000
110,000
$155,000
$100,000
237,100
35,000
500,000
$872,100
$ 8,240
8,240
17,745
22,500
15,000
10,000
25,000
12,000
$118,725
$ 25,000
8,550
80,0O0
$123,550
$ 50,000
65,000
30,000
400,000
$545,000
$ 8,240
8,240
17,745
22,500
15,000
10,000
25,000
12,000
$118,725
$ 25,o0o
18,550
110,000
$153,550
$ -0-
65,000
30,000
420,000
$545,000
GRAND TOTAL $1,177,940 $787,275 $787,275
CMR:221:00 Page 5 of 8
The CAC recommendations differ from the staffrecommendations in the following areas:
1. Administration. In fiscal year 1998/99, the City reduced its reimbursement for
program administration from the CDBG program from $180,000 to $130,000. This was
due to an on-going trend of reduced funding from HUD. Without accounting for
inflation, the actual amount of the CDBG grant in FY 2000/01 ($732,000) is less than it
was 20 years ago, in FY 1980/81 ($801,000).
While the CDBG funding has been decreasing, the administrative burdens have increased
(Consolidated Plan, Annual Action Plans, the Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing
Choice, the Lead-Based Paint Management Plan, The Comprehensi~ce Annual
Performance and Evaluation Report, etc.). These are in addition to the already
burdensome federal requirements such as National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
environmental .review, Department of Labor prevailing wage regulations, procurement
procedures, single-audits, etc. that apply to the activities themselves.
The actual cost of administering the CDBG Program and the project delivery expenses
relating to housing and capital projects varies each year with the number of projects and
activities, but is approximately $200,000. This includes salaries, benefits and direct costs.
It includes staff costs for the CDBG Coordinator (1 FTE), the Housing Coordinator (.5
FTE), and clerical support (.5 FTE).
The CAC believes that a greater percentage of the CDBG funds should be distributed to
projects in the community, and that the City General Fund should provide a greater share
of the CDBG program expenses.
The staff recommendation reduces the administrative reimbursement request from
$130,000 to $110,000 to accommodate the Community Working Group’s planning
proposal for an Opportunity Center that can only be funded in this category. The City
staff project delivery costs for the implementation of the proposed affordable housing
development in the South of Forest Area Plan could be shifted from administration, and
included as part of the project costs.
2. Capital - The CAC has recommended reduced funding in the City’s request for
capital dollars for the SOFA affordable housing project, and in CDBG administrative
_fftn_djng so that funds can be allocated to Emergen_a~ Housing. Consortium’s Sobrato
Family Living Center.
CMR:221:00 Page 6 of 8
RESOURCE IMPACT ’
The CAC recommendation would require that more General Fund money be expended
for CDBG program support expenses. Additionally, there is a work-load burden of a
third capital project (not including the housing project). On average, only one or two
projects per year can be accomplished. Staff has been completing a backlog of capital
projects. There are currently two outstanding project~ that remain from previous
allocations.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
All of the applications recommended for funding in fiscal year 2000/01 are consistent
with the priorities established in the City’s draft Consolidated Plan for the period 2000-
2005. They are also consistent with the housing programs and policies contained in the
adopted Comprehensive Plan.
TIMELINE
Funding recommendations made by the Finance Committee will be forwarded to the City
Council for review and approval at a public hearing on May 8, 2000. The Council will be
asked to review and adopt the draft 2000-2005 Consolidated Plan at the same time.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
For purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), budgeting in itself is
not a project. For each project description section in Attachment A, the required CEQA
review has been given.
HUD environmental regulations for the CDBG program are contained .in 24 CFR 58
"Environmental Review Procedures for Title I Community Development Block Grant
Programs". The regulations require that entitlement jurisdictions assume the
responsibility for environmental review and decision making under the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Prior to the commitment or release of funds for each
of the proposed projects, staff will carry out the required environmental reviews or
assessments, and certify that the review procedures under CEQA, and HUD and NEPA
regulations have been satisfied for each particular project.
ATTACHMENT
Attachment A: Narrative report containing staff and CAC funding recommendations
P_REPARED_B Y_"_S uzanne_B ayley,_CDB G Coor_dinator.
CMR:221:00 Page 7 of 8
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
G. EDWARD GAWI~
Director of Planning and Community Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
EMIL~ HARRISON
Assistant City Manager
CDBG Citizens Advisory Committee Members
2000/01 CDBG Applicant Agencies
CMR:221:00 Page 8 of 8
ATTACHMENT A
STAFF AND CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMITTEE (CAC)
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 2000/01
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDING
PUBLIC SERVICE APPLICATIONS
1.Catholic Charities - Long-Term Care Ombudsman Program
2625 Zanker Rd. Suite 200, San Jose, CA 95134-2107
Funding Request:
Staff Recommendation
CAC Recommendation
$8,240
$8,240
$8,240
Proposal: Agency provides confidential advocacy and complaint investigation services to
the frail, chronically ill, primarily elderly residents in Pa!o Alto’s licensed Skilled Nursing
and Residential Care Facilities. Agency staff and trained community volunteer ombudsmen
visit residents in local facilities on a regular basis and as special circumstances dictate (i.e.
in response to specific complaints). On behalf of these residents, the Program investigates
complaints, including allegations of abuse and neglect, seeks fair resolution to problems, and
promotes the resident’s right to quality of care and quality of life in the long-term care
setting.
Discussion: Current contract objectives are being met. Services provided by the
Ombudsman Program are not duplicated by any other agency, and provide an important
presence in local long-term care facilities. Agency anticipates serving 465 unduplicated Palo
Alto residents.
Priority Need: Services for persons with special needs (elderly)
Environmental: Not a Project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
2.Emergency Housing Consortium (EHC) - Emergency Shelter and Services
2011 Little Orchard Street, San Jose, CA 95125
Funding Request:
Staff Recommendation
CAC Recommendation
$10,800
$8,240
$8,240
Proposal: "A~en~ypi0;vid~s em~r’~enc~ sh~lter~and c~iiap~’eh6’nsive SUlS~iortive services to
homeless men, women, families with children, and youth in various facilities in Santa Clara
County. EHC operates a youth shelter in San Jose, the winter shelters at the National Guard
Armories in Sunnyvale and Gilroy, the regional Reception Center in San Jose, and various
other transitional housing programs in the San Jose area. Supportive services include
prepared meals, counseling, child care, transportation, case management, and skills
workshops to help secure housing and/or employment.
Discussion: Current contract objectives are being met. This agency provides the majority
of the homeless shelter services in Santa Clara County, including the Sunnyvale Armory, and
is an important resource for persons from the Palo Alto area. Agency anticipates providing
shelter to 50 unduplicated persons whose last significant address is Palo Alto.
Priority Need: Shelter and services for persons who are homeless
Environmental: Not a Project under CEQA.
3. Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC) - Barker Resident Counseling
~ 439 Emerson St., Palo Alto, CA 94301
Funding Request:
Staff Recommendation
CAC Recommendation
$34,800
$17,745
$17,745
Proposal: The Barker Hotel serves a very low-income population of residents with a history
ofhomelessness and special needs. A counselor and Service Coordinator provide support
to individual tenants as needs or problems arise, and on an on-going basis. These intensive
case management and supportive services play a vital role in helping the residents maintain
tll~lI-:Sti::tOlllt.,V LUIU ILULI3111,1~.
2
Discussion: Current contract objectives are being met. The 26-unit Barker Hotel serves a
very needy population. The program has dramatically reduced the Barker’s turn-over and
eviction rates. Agency will serve 26 low-income Palo Alto residents. In order to assure
continuation of the program, PAHC will need to identify and secure other on-going funding
soui:ces.
Priority Need:Prevention of homelessness
Environmental: Not a Project under CEQA.
4.Palo Alto Housing Corporation - Housing Information and Referral Services
725 Alma Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Funding Request:
Staff Recommendation
CAC Recommendation
$35,000
$22,500
,22,500
Proposal: Agency provides information and referral (I & R) services to seekers of
affordable hous.ing in the Palo Alto and surrounding areas. This service assists mostly lower
income persons in their search to identify available affordable housing opportunities in Palo
Alto and surrounding areas, counsel on eligible subsidy programs, waiting lists, and advice
on other housing related issues. PAHC annually updates and distributes a comprehensive
housing directory that identifies waiting lists and resources in the area.
Discussion: Current contract objectives are being met. The CAC encourages PAHC to.
explore other resources to help fund a portion of the housing I & R service. PAHC’s own
waiting lists and properties provide the majority of subsidized housing in Palo Alto, and
should rightfully bear a portion of the I & R expense. A more expanded I & R service could
also garner f’mancial support from neighboring jurisdictions. The housing directory is a very
useful and important tool for housing seekers. In addition to the paper format, it should also
be available on the Internet so it can be routinely updated, and linked to related sites.
Priority Need: Supportive services for lower-income persons
Environmental: Not a project under CEQA
5.Shelter Network- Haven Family House
260 Van Buren Road, Menlo Park, CA 94025
Funding Request:
Staff Recommendation
CAC Recommendation
$15,000
$15,oo0
$15,00o
Proposal; ~I~ven-Famil’y ~H0Use~ovict~s ti:~nsiti0nai~ housing and a comprehensive array
of supportive services to up to fifteen homeless families. Families stay in one- and two-
bedroom apartments for two to four months until they can re-connect with permanent
housing, jobs, and the skills and resources necessary to break the cycle of homelessness.
Discussion: This agency has not received CDBG funds in the past. Haven Family House
is an important resource for homeless families with children from northern Santa Clara
County. The agency has just completed extensive rehabilitation of the facility and expects
to serve a total of 70 homeless families next year. It is anticipated that five of the families
will be from Palo Alto.
Priority Need: Transitional housing and services for homeless families with children
Environmental: Not a project under CEQA.
6.Clara-Mateo Alliance (CMA) - Family Shelter Wing
795 Willow Road, Bldg. 323-D, Menlo Park, CA 94025
Funding Request:
Staff Recommendation
CAC Recommendation
$10,000
$10,000
$1o,ooo
Proposal: The Clara-Mateo Alliance proposes to increase the capacity of the shelter facility
to accommodate more homeless families with children. By reconfiguring the family wing
of the shelter, CMA will be able to increase the number of families being served from 8
percent to 14 percent of their clientele. Funds from this grant would be used to provide
additional case-management and supportive services to the families and the children.
4
Discussion: This project has not received funding in the past. It is an important additional
resource for the growing number of homeless families with children in northern Santa Clara
County. Agency anticipates serving 10 Palo Alto families with children.
Priority Need: Shelter and supportive services for homeless families.
Environmental: Not a project under CEQA
7. Clara-Mateo Alliance - Shelter and Supportive Services
795 Willow Road, Bldg. 323-D, Menlo Park, CA 94025
Funding Request:
Staff Recommendation
CAC Recommendation
$25,000
$25,000-
$25,000
Proposal: The Clara Mateo Alliance shelter provides a 54-bed shelter for homeless
individuals and couples, six family rooms for homeless families with children, and six
transitional housing units. They provide supportive services aimed at increasing self-
sufficiency and finding and maintaining stable housing. The shelter target~ the under-served
populations such as homeless persons with .disabilities, psychiatric disorders, chronic
substance abusers, and the severely mentally ill.
Discussion: This program is an important addition to the stock of emergency shelter and
transitional housing beds in Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties. The facility serves the
homeless sub-populations with some of the greatest needs. The shelter serves approximately
625 homeless persons annually, of which 65 percent are veterans. The City of Palo Alto has
funded this project for the past few years from special revenues created with money from a
private donor. Those funds are no longer available.
Priority Need: Shelter and services for persons who are homeless
Environmental: Not a project under CEQA
8. Community Technology Alliance (CTA) - Community Voice Mail
5
Funding Request:
Staff Recommendation
CAC Recommendation
$12,.000
$12,000
$ 2,ooo
Proposal: Agency provides supportive services for persons who are homeless such as a
24-hour toll-free shelter bed hotline, a weekly housing listing of rental units, and
Community VoiceMail. VoiceMail boxes are provided to homeless individuals through
partnering agencies. The individualized VoiceMail boxes give homeless clients access to
jobs, housing and health care services as an integral part of other services offered by. case
workers at partner shelters or agencies. Partner agencies in northern Santa Clara County
include Community Services Agency of Mountain View and Los Altos, Palo Alto Urban
Ministry, St. Joseph the worker Center, and the City of Palo Alto’s Office of Human
Services (for the seasonal worker program).
Discussion: This program fills a need for increased services to individuals who are
motivated to end their homelessness. The proposal also encourages partnership and
collaboration amongst local agencies serving homeless clients. CTA anticipates providing
67 persons from Palo Alto with VoiceMail capabilities.
Priority Need: Supportive services for persons who are homeless
Environmental: Not a project under CEQA
ADMINISTRATION
9.Community Working Group (CWG) - Planning Grant for Opportunity Center
33 Encina Way, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Funding Request:
Staff Recommendation
CAC Recommendation
$25,000
$25,000
$25,000
Proposal: CWG proposes to create a permanent facility, the Opportunity Center, at 33/39
Encina Way in Palo Alto. The Opportunity Center will provide a space for a full range of
social, medical, mental health-7-~-d r-~ha---bilitative services for persons who are homeless. The
application also mentions the possibility of some units of affordable housing on the site,
consistent with the zoning. This proposal is specifically for a planning grant to move the
project forward. The money would be used to prepare a development and business plan for
the Center, and create a partnership with a non-profit housing organization.
Discussion: There is a critical need in northem Santa Clara County for a specialized indoor
facility for the provision of supportive services for persons who are homeless or very low-
income. The CWG has worked for the past two years to identify a site and collaborate with
area social service agencies in an attempt to fill this gap in the countywide homeless
"continuum of cdre". Staff and the CAC believe that this preliminary contribution to the
planning effort is essential to the success of the project.
Priority Need: Planning for the provision of future homeless services
Environmental: Not a project under CEQA
10.Mid-Peninsula Citizens for Fair Housing (MCFH) - Fair Housing Services
457 Kingsley Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Funding Request:
Staff‘ Recommendation
CAC Recommendation
$20,000
$18,550
$18,550
Proposal: Agency provides investigation, counseling and legal referral for victims of
housing discrimination as well as community outreach and education regarding housing
rights. MCFH serves the mid-peninsula area from Redwood City through
Cupertino/Sunnyvale and Fremont. MCFH seeks to reduce discrimination in housing and
provide redress for those who have been discriminated against. HUD regulations require
CDBG entitlement jurisdictions to affirmatively further fair housing choice.
Discussion: Current contract objectives are being met. The County of Santa Clara Housing
and Community Development staff will be conducting a county-wide analysis of fair housing
issues and services in the next fiscal year. One of the purposes of the analysis will be to
examine appropriate service and funding levels, and to evaluate issues of housing
discrimination on a countywide basis. It is expected that MCFH will participate in the survey
and provide information for the analysis.
Priority Need: Fair Housing Services
Environmental: Not a project under CEQA.
7
11.City of Palo Alto - Department of Planning and Community Environment
250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Funding Request:
Staff Recommendation
CAC Recommendation
$130,000
$110,000
$ 80,000
Proposal: Funding is requested to reimburse the City General Fund for costs i’elated to the
overall management, coordination, monitoring and evaluation of the CDBG Program,
including oversight of public service contracts, data gathering, studies, analysis, plan
preparation, and the identification of actions for implementation of plans.
Discussion: Due to the fact that the application from the Community Working Group could
only be considered for funding in the Planning and Administration category, and there is a
limit on the amount of funds that can be expended under that category, staff reduced the
request for General Fund reimbursement. The CAC believes the program administration
costs should be paid from the City’s General Fund entirely given the many needs in the
community and the scarce dollars available. Although the CAC recommends partial funding
for administrative costs for FY 2000/01, it urges the Finance Committee and the City Council
to consider absorbing more of the CDBG administrative costs from the General Fund.
Priority Need: CDBG Program Administration and support
Environmental: Not a project under CEQA.
CAPITAL AND/OR HOUSING PROJECTS
12.Emergency Housing Consortium (EHC) - Sobrato Family Living Center
1509 Agnew Road, Santa Clara, CA 95954
Funding Request:$100,000
Staff Recommendation $ -O-
CAC Recommendation $ 50,000
Proposal: EHC has operated the Santa Clara Family Living Center in the City of Santa
C l~-th~-p-a-sx-l~53rea r ~s~-. In--19 97S, ~e~S tat~of-C ~!if~a~old-the proper~-t~-Su~
Microsystems. EHC has worked closely with the parties to create a new plan to provide
50 family units of emergency shelter, transitional and permanent housing (including a
community center) to replace the original 32 family shelter units that would have been lost.
8
Phase I of the project opened in January 2000. This application is for Phase II -
rehabilitation of 18 additional transitional housing units.
Discussion: The provision of additional units of emergency, transitional, and permanent
housing with supportive services for families is a high priority need in our community.
EHC estimates that between seven and twelve homeless families from Palo Alto will be
served at the Center during the first ye.a,r, of_operation. Additionally, the project has
countywide collaboration, and is close to public transit. The CAC believes this is an
impo.rtant, innovative project that will provide needed additional low income housing.
Priority Needs: Emergency, transitional and permanent housing for homeless families
Environmental: Statutory exemption under CEQA Section 15280.
13.Community Housing, Inc. - Lytton Gardens Elevator Upgrade
656 Lytton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Funding Request:
Staff Recommendation
CAC Recommendation
$237,100
$ 65,000
$ 65,000
Proposal: Agency requested funds to renovate three 25 year-old elevators in the Lytton
Gardens I residential facility. The facility was built.in 1975 and provides 218 units of
subsidized low-income senior housing. The elevators need modernization to bring them
into ADA compliance. The mechanical and structural rehabilitation will improve the
safety, convenience, comfort, and accessibility of the elevators for the residents.
Discussion: Community Housing, Inc. has depleted its HUD sponsored capital reserves
to address other major life/safety physical plant repairs. The elevators need major
upgrades to make them convenient and accessible to the 260 elderly residents of Lytton
Gardens, many of whom cannot easily climb stairs. The elevators are frequently out of
commission due to repair calls, and are difficult for the flail residents to use. Staff and
the CAC recommend funding for one of the three elevators. The CAC encourages CHI
to continue building its HUD reserves and strengthening its capital campaign to provide
for the modernization of the other two elevators in need of renovation.
Priority Need: Rehabilitation of existing subsidized housing
9
Environmental: Categorically exempt under Section 15301 of CEQA, minor change to
an existing facility.
14.ACHIEVE - New Fence for School for Children with Disabilities
3860 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto, CA 094303
Funding Request:..$ 35,000
Staff Recommendatio~ .....$ "~!),-000
CAC Recommendation $ 30,000
Proposal: Agency request funding to replace over 400 feet of eight-foot high fence around
the facility that borders Mitchell Park Library and Community Center. ACHIEVE’s
programs provide services to more than 1,100 children and youth with autism, schizophrenia,
developmental delays, and other emotional and/or behavioral problems.
Discussion: The outside play area in the interior of the facility on Middlefield Road is often
the only area where the children can safely play outdoors. The fence is necessary to provide
a safe and secure area for them. The current fence is in an extremely dilapidated condition,
and is in dire need of replacement. Revised bids submitted by the agency, indicate that the
work can be completed for $30,000.
Priority Need: Rehabilitation of public facilities serving special needs populations.
Environmental: Categorically exempt under Section 15301 of CEQA, minor change to an
existing facility.
15.City of Palo Alto - Housing Development Fund SOFA Affordable Housing
Project
A portion of the block bordered by Channing, Ramona & Bryant Streets in the SOFA
Plan Area
Funding Request:
Staff Recommendation
CAC Recommendation
$ 500,000
$ 42O,000
$ 400,000
Proposal: The purpose of the proposal is to provide funding to be used in conjunction
with available City funds in the Commercial Housing In-Lieu Fund for a portion of the
development cost of a 45 unit rental apartment project. The project would be located on
a site acquired from the Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF) in the South of Forest
Planning Area (SOFA). The City will acquire 0.60 acres of land from PAMF in
10
satisfaction of PAMF’s obligations under the Below Market Housing Program of the
Comprehensive Plan. The City was offered the option-to purchase an additional 0.63 acres
of land so that a site of up to 1.225 acres could be acquired and made available for
affordable housing development.
A portion of the land to be acquired is comprised of three lots that contain existing
residential structures. There are two la~rg.,e, historic homes and one modem, duplex
structure. Only the dupiex strticture is currently uff~d as rental hoti~ing, the other two
homes have been used for the clinic’s operations. Moving the. homes to other sites in the
area is necessary to prepare the site for the construction of the new rental housing project.
The funding requested is for site clearance and preparation.
Discussion: The proposed development would address the critical housing needs of
families with children. The last new development of low-income family rental housing
was the 45-unit California Park Apartments, developed by the Palo Alto Housing
Corporation over 10 years ago. The SOFA site is conducive to a family housing
development because of the proximity of the proposed park, child-care facility, and public
transit. It is anticipated that the project would serve very low and low-income working
families who cannot afford decent rental housing in Palo Alto or the surrounding
communities. Because it will be necessary to utilize Commercial Housing In-Lieu funds
in combination with CDBG funds, there will be a priority for occupancy for households
who live or work in the City of Palo Alto. The development will comply with current
Americans with Disabilities (ADA) standards, and efforts will be made to make as many
units as possible suitable for occupancy by persons with physical disabilities. However,
the project is intended to serve the general population and not special needs households.
Priority Need: Affordable housing for families with children.
Environmental: SOFA CAP final EIR.
11