HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-05-08 City Council (10)City Manager’s Report
TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE:MAY 8, 2000 CMR:244:00
SUBJECT:PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
RECOMMMENDATIONS TO ADOPT THE 2000-2005
CONSOLIDATED PLAN FOR RECEIPT OF FEDERAL
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) FUNDS;
AND THE FINANCE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2000/01 CDBG FUNDING ALLOCATIONS
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council:
Adopt the revised draft Consolidated Plan for the period July 1~ 2000 to June 30,
2005 that includes the revised Citizen Participation Plan and the authorization to
apply a true 80 percent of median income limitation to specified activities on a
case-by-case basis.
Adopt the Resolution (Attachment A) establishing funding allocations for the
2000/01 Community Development Block Grant Program as recommended by the
Finance Committee.
Authorize and direct the City Manager, or his designee, to execute and submit to
HUD the Consolidated Plan andany other documentation necessary to file the
application with HUD, and to otherwise bind the City with respect to the
application, before the May 15, 2000 deadline.
Authorize and direct staff to carry out any further required environmental
assessments and certifications for each project under the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) prior to
the commitment of funds.
CMR:244:00 Page 1 of 4
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Preparation and adoption of the 2000-2005 Consolidated Plan is a requirement of the
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), in order for the City (and non-
profit organizations within the City) to apply for HUD funding. The overall goals of the
federal CDBG program covered by the Consolidated Plan are: "to develop viable urban
communities by providing decent housing, a suitable living environment, and expanding
economic opportunities, princip, ally for persons of low and very low income."
The required public review period for the Draft Consolidated Plan began March 31, 2000
and ended on April 30, 2000. The final signed document is due to HUD by May 15,
2000. Adoption of the Consolidated Plan and the application for federal CDBG funds
will provide $787,275 to the City in fiscal year 2000/01 for programs and projects that
benefit lower income persons. Over the five-year period covered by the Plan, the City
anticipates receiving approximately 4 million dollars in CDBG funds.
This is the first five-year update of the original plan that covered the period from 1995 -
2000: Since many of the HUD required tables and charts are based on 1990 census data,
the Consolidated Plan will require a major update when the 2000 census information is
available (approximately 2002). The strategies and goals of this Consolidated Plan have
not changed from the previous plan and are consistent with the approved Comprehensive
Plan and in particular, the Housing Element. All of the proposed projects for 2000/01
CDBG funding address the priority needs and identified goals of the Consolidated Plan.
For informational purposes, also included as Attachment G to this report, is HUD’s
Annual Community Assessment of the City’.s fiscal year 1998/99 CDBG program.
DRAFT CONSOLIDATED PLAN DISCUSSION
The draft Consolidated Plan was reviewed by the Planning and Transportation
Commission on April 12, 2000, and by the Human Relations Commission on April 13,
2000. The Human Relations Commission did not take formal action on the Plan.
Attachment B is the Planning and Transportation Commission staff report that provides
background information on the Draft Consolidated Plan, and Attachment C contains the
meeting minutes with the Planning and Transportation Commissioner’s comments and
recommendations. The revised draft Consolidated Plan is Attachment H. The Planning
and Transportation Commission unanimously recommended that the Council adopt the
Consolidated Plan, including the revised Citizen Participation Plan and the flexibility of
using the true 80 percent of median income limitation for specific activities, on a case-by-
case-basis. The comments of the Planning and Transportation Commission, the Human
Relations Commission and the public have been summarized, along with the staff
response, in Appendix C of the attached revised draft Consolidated Plan..
FINANCE COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
The Finance Committee considered the 2000/01 CDBG allocations (the Annual Action
Plan of the Consolidated Plan) at its meeting on April 20, 2000. Attachment D is the
CMR:244:00 Page 2 of 4
staff report (CMR 221:00) that provides background information on the 2000/01 funding
process, the proposals, and the staff and CDBG Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC).
funding recommendations. Attachment E contains the Finance Committee meeting
minutes with comments and recommendations. Emergency Housing Consortium’s April
19, 2000 letter to the Finance Committee regarding its CDBG funding request for the
Sobrato Family Living Center is included as Attachment F.
The Finance Committee reviewed and discussed the various CDBG proposals and the
differing staff and Citizen Advisory Committee recommendations at its April 20, 2000
meeting.. The Finance Committee voted unanimously to recommend to Council the
approval of the staff recommendations reflected in CMR 221:00 and the attached funding
Resolution.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A CDBG Funding Resolution for Fiscal Year 2000/01
Attachment
Attachment
Attachment
Attachment
Attachment
Attachment
Attachment
B April 12, 2000 Planning and Transportation Commission staff report
C Planning and Transportation Commission Minutes of April 12, 2000
D April 20, 2000 Finance Committee CMR
E Finance Committee Minutes of April 20, 2000
F Letter from Emergency Housing Consortium
G February 17, 2000 Assessment letter from HUD
H Revised Draft 2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
PREPARED BY:Suzanne Bayley, CDBG Coordinator
DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW:
G. EDWARD ~
Director~ Planning and Community Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
HARRISON
Assistant City Manager
co:CDBG Citizens Advisory Committee
Planning and Transportation Commission
Human Relations Commission
Palo Alto Housing Corporation
Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition
CMR:244:00 Page 3 of 4
League of Women Voters
2000/2001 Applicant Agencies
Sally Probst
Herb Borock
CMR:244:00 Page 4 of 4
Attachme
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
APPROVING THE USE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK
GRANT FUNDS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000-2001
WHEREAS, on May 8, 2000, the Palo Alto City Council
approved and adopted a document entitled "Consolidated Plan", which
identified and established the Palo Alto housing and non-housing
community development needs, objectives, and priorities for the
period of July i, 2000 to June 30, 2005; and
WHEREAS, the 2000-01 Action Plan, the annual update to the
Consolidated Plan, was subjected to public review and commentary
during the period of March 31, 2000 through April 30, 2000; and
WHEREAS, the potential uses of Community Development Block
Grant ("CDBG") funds were evaluated in light of .the needs and
objectives identified in the Consolidated Plan and reflected in the
recommendations and comments of the Citizens Advisory Committee and
bther interested citizens; and
WHEREAS, under the CDBG program, the highest priority is
given to activities which will benefit persons with low and
moderate incomes; and
WHEREAS, the City Council and the Finance Committee of the
City Council have held publicly noticed public hearings on the
proposed uses of the CDBG funds for fiscal year 2000-01; and
WHEREAS, the fiscal year 2000-01 CDBG funds allocated to
the City are proposed to implement the following programs;
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does
RESOLVE as follows:
SECTION i. The uses of CDBG funds for fiscal year 2000-01
are hereby approved and authorized for the following programs:
Catholic Charities of Santa Clara County.
Long Term Care Ombudsman Program.
Complaint investigation and advocacy
services to Palo Alto’s elderly residents
livingin nursing and residential care
facilities. City-wide.$ 8,240
Emergency Housing Consortium. EHC
provides temporary shelter and supportive
services for homeless individuals and
families. County-wide.8,240
1 I
00428 syn 0090540
8~
Palo Alto Housing Corporation. Supportive
counseling program for low income residents
of the Barker Hotel at 439 Emerson Street
in Palo Alto.
Palo Alto Housing Corporation. Project
is to provide information and referral
services for affordable housing options
in Palo Alto and surrounding communities,
and the publication of a housing directory.
City-wide.
Shelter Network’s Haven Family House -
Transitional housing and comprehensive
supportive services for homeless families
at the agency’s Menlo Park facility. Haven
Family House seeks to permanently break the
cycle of homelessness, re-linking homeless
families with stable incomes, jobs, and
housing.
Clara Mateo Alliance’s Family Shelter Wing -
Emergency and transitional housing and
supportive services for homeless families
with children. Services are provided on
the grounds of the VA Campus in Menlo Park
Clara Mateo Alliance’s Shelter - Emergency
and transitional housing for homeless
persons at the VA campus in Menlo Park.
The shelter targets a difficult to serve
population such as homeless persons with
disabilities, psychiatric disorders,
substance-abuse issues, and those with
severe mental illness.
Community Technology Alliance - Provision
of 24-hour VoiceMail boxes that are.
available 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 ca~e workers at partner
shelters or agencies.
Community Working Group (CWG) - Planning
grant to create a permanent Opportunity
Center to provide space for a full range of
social, medical, mental health, and
rehabilitative services for persons who are
homeless.
17,745
22,500
15,000
i0,000
25,000
12,000
25,000
00428 syn 0090540
I0.Mid-Peninsula Citizens for Fair Housing.
MCFH provides services to promote fair
housing, including complaint investigation,
counseling, advocacy and education.
City-wide.
ii.City ofPalo Alto. Department of Planning
and Community Environment. Overall CDBG
grant administration and capital improve-
ment project delivery costs associated
with federal funding. City-wide.
12.Community Housing, Inc. (Lytton Gardens I) -
Rehabilitation and accessibility upgrades
to an elevator in the common area of a
senior residential facility. The
,renovations will make the elevators
convenient and accessible to the 260
elderly residents.
13.ACHIEVE - Replacement of approximately
40.0 feet of deteriorating fencing that
surrouhds the school’s play area. The
school, which is located in Palo Alto,
serves children and youth with severe
developmental, emohional and/or behavioral
problems.
14.City of Palo Alto - Housing Development
Fund. Provision of funds to be used in
conjunction with City Commercial Housing
In-Lieu funds for a portion of the
development costs of a new family rental
apartment project. The site would be
acquired from the Palo Alto Medical
Foundation in the South of Forest Planning
Area (SOFA).
TOTAL
18,550
II0,000
65,000
30,000
420,000
$787,275
SECTION 2 The total amount set forth under Section 1 of
this resolution hereby represents the proposed allocation of
$732,000 in CDBG funds, from the United States Department of
Housing and Urban Development ("HUD") for fiscal year 2000-01,
$40,000 in anticipated program income for fiscal year 2000-01,
$9,500 in prior years program income, and $5,775 in reallocated
funds.
SECTION 3. The City Manager is hereby authorized to expend
the money in the $I0,000 CDBG emergency contingency account,
created under Resolution No. 6897, on an emergency basis in his
discretion for existing or additional CDBG-eligible programs or
O0428.syn 0090540 3
projects. The City Manager is further directed to report to the
C’ity Council following the occurrence of any such expenditures.
SECTION 4. The City staff is hereby authorized to submit
the 2000-01 annual Action Plan update and appropriate application
forms to HUD for the fiscal year 2000-01 CDBG funds, and such money
shall be spent as set forth in this resolution. The Mayor, City
Manager and any other designated City staff or officials are
hereby authorized to execute such application forms and any other
necessary documents to secure these funds.
SECTION $. The City Council hereby finds that the fiscal
year 2000-01 CDBG program authorized under Section 1 of this
resolution is not a project under the California Environmental
Quality Act ("CEQA"). However, the Council further authorizes and
directs City staff to conduct any further environmental review, and
prepare any additional environmental assessments and certificates
that may be’required, under CEQA and the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) for each project under the fiscal year 2000-01
CDBG program prior to the release of funds for any such project.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:APPROVED:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Senior Asst. City Attorney
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
Mayor
City Manager
Director of Planning
and Community Environment
CDBG Coordinator
Director of Administrative
Services
00428 syn 0090540 4
Attachment B
PLANNING DIVISION
MEMORANDUM
TO:PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
FROM:
AGENDA DATE:
Suzanne Bayley
April 12, 2000
DEPARTMENT: Planning and
Community Environment
SUBJECT:REVIEW AND COMMENT ON THE DRAFT 2000-2005
CONSOLIDATED PLAN FOR RECEIPT OF FEDERAL
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT
(CDBG) FUNDS
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission comment on the
draft Consolidated Plan for the period 2000=2005, and forward those comments to the
City Council.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Background
The Consolidated Plan is a requirement of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (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.
City of Palo Alto Page 1
5
Many of the HUD-required tables and charts are based on census data. Since the 2000
census information is not yet available, the text and content of the Draft 2000-2005
Consolidated Plan is essentially the same as that contained in the previous plan.
However, more current informationhas been incorporated whenever possible. HUD will
require a major update of the Consolidated Plan when the 2000 census data is available in
approximately two years.
A revised Citizen Participation Plan, describing the City’s efforts to encourage public
oversight and involvement in the allocation and review of the expenditure of federal
funds, is incorporated in the document. The existing Citizen-Participation Plan was
adopted by the City Council on December 13, 1993. It is being revised to more closely
conform to federal Consolidated Plan requirements. The revised Citizen Participation
Plan describes specific criteria that will be used to determine a substantial amendment to
the Consolidated Plan.
Discussion
The Consolidated Plan includes information about affordable housing needs, homeless
needs, housing market conditions and an inventory of existing facilities, housing and
services. The Plan identifies the City’s priority housing and community development
needs and describes a five~year strategy for addressing those priority needs. The
priorities and strategies are based on an assessment of public and private financial
resources (federal, State and local), that could realistically be expected to be available.
The final Plan will also contain a one-year Action Plan for fiscal year 2000/01, including
a proposed budget for the City’s CDBG entitlement grant and program income of
$787,275.
Public Participation
Citizen participation is a required and encouraged element in the Consolidated Planning
process. Staff held a public meeting on January 20, 2000 to give interested citizens an
opportunity to express their views regarding the City’s needs and the selection of
priorities. The meeting was attended by a broad spectrum of the public representing
different segments of the low-income population and persons with special needs and
disabilities. A summary of the citizen comments from that meeting are included as
appendixA in the draft Consolidated Plan.
Consultations to discuss needs and strategies on a Countywide basis have been held with
representatives of the entitlement cities in Santa Clara County (Gilroy, San Jose, Milpitas,
Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, and Mountain View), and representatives of the Urban County
(Morgan Hill, Campbell, Los Gatos, Saratoga, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Monte Sereno
City of Palo Alto Page 2
6
and Campbell). Additionally, a consultation was held with the Santa Clara County
Housing Authority on January 27, 2000 to discuss coordination of needs and resources.
The Consolidated Plan is available for public review and comment for a 30-dayperiod
from March 31, 2000 to April 30, 2000.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
A HUD approved Consolidated Plan is a prerequisite for the City (and non-profit
organizations operating within the City) to apply for and receive federal housing
assistance funds and community development funds under the CDBG and HOME
programs, as well as other federal housing and assistance programs.
The Consolidated Plan is a five-year strategy and a one-year action plan that implements
existing City policies contained in the adopted Comprehensive Plan and, in particular, the
Housing Element. Specific Goals include:
Goal H-1 Housing Opportunities: ..
¯ .Increase the supply of housing for all income levels
Goal H-2 Housing.Conservation
¯ Retain and improve the existing rental housing stock
Goal H-3 Housing Diversity
Promote and support affordable housing opportunities
Implement the Below-Market-Rate (BMR) program
Encourage facilities and services that address special housing
needs.
Preserve HUD-assisted low-income rental projects
Goal H-4 Fair Housing
¯ Eliminate discrimination in housing
Since the provision of housing affordable to lower income persons remains the highest
identified need, no changes were made to the previous strategic plan.
During this five-year period, however, the Council will have the opportunity to choose to
add the flexibility of using the true 80 percent of median income eligibility limits for area
benefit activities as well as certain direct benefit activities, on a case-by-case basis. This
issue is explained under income limits on page 13 of the draft ConsolidatedPlan.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The adoption of the Consolidated Plan is exempt from environmental review as an
admin,.’strative activity under the federal environmental review regulations for the CDBG
program at 24 CFR part 58.34 (3). It is statutorily exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15262 (Feasibility and Planning
Studies).
NEXT STEPS
Revisions and comments suggested by the Commission.will be forwarded, together with
comments from the public, to the City Council for their consideration.
The Human Relations Commission will review the Draft Consolidated Plan on April 13,
2000. The Finance Committee will review the 2000/01 CDBG funding allocations on
April 20, 2000, and the City Council will review and act on the Consolidated Plan, the
Citizen Participation Plan, and the 2000/01 CDBG funding allocations on May 8, 2000.
The Consolidated Plan must be submitted to HUD by May 15, 2000.
ATTACHMENTS/EXHIBITS:
Draf~ Consolidated Plan for the Period July 1, 2000 to June 30, 2005.
COURTESY COPIES WITH ATTACHMENTS
City Council
Human Relations Commission
Citizen Advisory Committee
League of Women Voters
Palo Alto Housing Corporation
Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition
Santa Clara County Housing Authority
Prepared by: Suzanne Bayley, CDBG Coordinator
Reviewed by: John Lusardi, Assistant Planning Official
Division Head Approval:
Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official
City of Palo Alto Page 4
8
¯Attachment C
Excerpt of Minutes of the Planning and Transportation Commission
April 12, 2000
REGULAR MEETING - 7:O0 P. M
City Council Chambers
Civic Center, 1st Floor
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94301
ROLL CALL
Meeting called to order at 7:05 P.M.
Commissioners:
Kathy Schmidt, Chairman
Annette Bialson, Vice-Chair
Owen Byrd .
Jon Schink
Phyllis Cassel
Bonnie Packer
Staff:
Suzanne Bayley, CDBG Coordinator
Wynne Furth, Senior Assist. City Attorney
John Lusardi, Act. Asst. Planning Official
Patrick Butt
Zariah Betten, Executive Secretary
Chairman Schmidt: I would like to call the meeting to order for April 12, 2000 for the
Planning and Transportation Commission. Would the secretary please call the roll.
(All commissioners present)
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: -: None.
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS: -- None.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
Public Hearing:
1. Update of the Comprehensive Plan Status Report: Review and comment on the
updated Comprehensive Plan Status Report.
Chairman Schmidt: We were to review and comment on the Comprehensive Plan report
that was in our packets. Would staff like to comment?
Mr. Lusardi: Madam Chair and members of the commission, the item is a review of the
Comprehensive Plan Status Report. Staff recommends that the commission provide
comments on the Comprehensive Plan implementation plan status report. The comments
will be forwarded to the city council. The final version of the implementation plan status
report will be included in the 1999-2001 budget document scheduled for the city council
9
2.Draft Consolidated Comprehensive Plan for 2000-2005:
Chairman Schmidt: Our next agenda item is the draft consolidated plan for 2000-2005.
Our task is to review and comment on the draft consolidated plan. The consolidated plan
describes the city’s affordable housing and non-housing community development needs,
resources and priorities for-the period July 1, 2000 to June 30, 2005. Preparation and
adoption of the consolidated plan is required by the U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD) in order forthe city (and nonprofit organizations within the
city) to apply for federal housing and community development formula programs such as
the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME programs. The
Consolidated Plan established goals for the provision of housing and public service
assistance to low- and moderate-income persons, including those who are homeless,
disabled, elderly or who have other special needs. May we have the staff presentation
please?
Mr. Lusardi: Madam Chairman and commissioners, the item before you is the Draft
2000-2005 consolidated plan. The staff recommends that the commission provide
comments on the draft plan and that these comments be forwarded to the city council.
The city council is expected to review and act on the plan at their May 8 meeting. An
important element of the preparation of the plan is the involved public participation with
respect to the plan. That public participation is summarized in both the staff report and
the draft plan.
The consolidated plan serves four separate but integrated ftmctions -- as a planning
document for the city, as an application for federal funds, as a strategy to be followed in
carrying out HUD programs, and as an action plan that provides a basis for assessing
performance. Suzanne Bayley with the planning department and project manager for the
draft plan preparation is here to summarize some points contained in the draft plan.
Following Suzanne, staff is available for commission comments,
Ms. Bayley: Thank you. This document is currently out for a required 30-day public
review, and this evening is also a published opportunity for members of the public to
comment on the plan, and for your comments and any public comments to be passed
along to the city council. This is a somewhat technical document, with the majority of
the content prescribed by HUD guidelines. Therefore, in places, it is not very readable or
user-friendly. Additionally, much of the required information is based on census data.
We obviously have no new census data since 1990, so some of it.we really cannot update,
and will not be able to until the 2000 census is available. Unfortunately, HUD went
ahead and made us update it anyway, saying that in two years when we get the
anticipated census data, we will have to do another update of the plan. In order to make it
as meaningful as possible, we have updated the information in the document for you
wherever possible.
The five-year strategy in this plan is virtually the same as in the previous five-year plan..
The provision of housing units affordable to lower-income residents continues to be the
top priority.. There is no new information that would cause us to change thatpriority. As
a matter of fact, the available information would lead us to reinforce that priority. Our
goal over the next five years is to produce 125 units of affordable housing, approximately
25 units per year. All of the priorities in the consolidated plan are consistent with the
city’s adopted Comprehensive Plan and the certified housing element.
The draft of the consolidated plan also includes a revised citizen participation plan. The
real difference in that is that we have included a definition of a substantial amendment to
the consolidated plan. We have defined that as a change that is equal to or greater than
twenty percent of the annual CDBG entitlement grant. This is really a cleanup provision
to include the HUD requirement in our plan.
The city council will also be asked to adopt a provision that will allow the city to use the ¯
true eighty percent of median-income eligibility limits for our area for select activities.
Nationally, the CDBG program defines lower-income as people making up to eighty
percent of the media, and that is adjusted for household size, However, in high cost areas
like Santa Clara County, that eighty percent has been capped, usually around the national
median. So in effect, Santa Clara County has only been able to serve people making up
to sixty-five percent of the median. Last year, however, HUD named ten exception
communities across the country, and Santa Clara County is one of them. This will allow
entitlement jurisdictions to choose to use the true eighty percent of median in high cost
areas. We have recommended that council do that to at least retain flexibility. Almost all
of our programs are targeted to the very-low-income, but in certain areas, for area benefit
activities and certain specific activities, it might give us more flexibility to be able to
serve some residents making up to eighty percent of median. Perhaps if we wanted to do
something with the BMR program that would allow some type of home ownership using
CDBG funds for something like that. Again, all we have to-do is to choose to use the true
eighty percent, and we would go back to council anytime we actually wanted to do that.
That summarizes what is before you, and we welcome your comments.
Chairman Schmidt: Are there any.questions for staff by commissioners?
Commissioner Schink: I want to make sure I am reading this correctly. On Page 74
where it says "0ne-year action plan" does that then refer to the pages that follow?
Ms. Bayley: Yes, the 0ne-year action plan is what we intend to do with the CDBG funds
for the following year. So it is each one of those. Those are actually the staff
recommendations for next year. Staff and the Citizens Advisory Committee have looked
at the applications for next year, and we will be going to the Finance Committee on April
20th with those recommendations. Then again on to council on May 8. Those
recommendations differ. The action plan shows the staff recommendations for those
programs for next year. Then every year, we update the annual action plan with the
CDBG allocations.
Commissioner Schink: It might be a little clearer for members of the public reading it if
you then specified that it is the pages following.
Commissioner Cassel: I thought the same thing. I looked at it and saw "one-year action
plan," and there was nothing there.
Commissioner Schink: If you listed them, it would reference the following pages, it
makes it clearer. Sitting here, it took awhile to put it together.
Ms. Bayley: Yes. That is HUD-required software that those recommendations are on ¯
that go into the national basis, so again, it is difficult to read.
Commissioner Packer: You said that in the five-year plan, you hope to use the CDBG
funds to provide 125 units of rental housing, at about 25 per year. Where is that in the
one-year action plan? The last page shows the development costs for the below-market-
rate housing in SOFA, but is there another place I should be looking for the monies, and
how they would go for the 25 units in that first year?
Ms. Bayley: Well, you are correct. It is that activity. The staff recommendation is
$420,000 of our $782,000 amount to be put into the housing development fund for use on
PAMF SOFA BMR housing units,which will be approximately 45 units of affordable
rental housing. So that would count toward those 25 units. They do not come at 25 per
year. It is really spread over the five-year period. That would be the first increment of
44-45 units.
Chairman Schmidt: I think Bonnie might be asking whether you do not plan to get all of
the money to build those units from CDBG. CDBG is just a small drop in the bucket, so
tospeak, and you only get $750,00 or $800,000 or whatever from. CDBG annually. That
goes to several different applications. Is that correct?
Ms. Bayley: Yes, that is correct. We will not use the funds totally for that, but with those
funds, that would be our goal to use them as leverage to create 125 Units of housing.
Commissioner Packer: Do we have any idea as to where the balance of other rental units
might come from? Or do we just hope those will be coming down the pike in the next
five years?
Ms. Bayley: We have our fingers crossed. As far as new units, those are the only new
units that we have on the drawing board. The only other activity of which I am aware at.
this time would be the Terman Apartments which will be coming up in 2004, when their
contract expires. That will be another issue like Palo Alto Gardens and the Sheridan.
That will be a preservation issue. That is 92 units of housing, so that is another activity
that I am aware of. But at this point, the SoFA BMR component is the only new units
that are planned.
Commissioner Byrd: Suzanne, I know that the HUD requirements result in a very
technical document, and I want to elevate us out of its technicalities for just. a minute.
Everyone is aware that we have an affordable housing crisis in this city and in this
county. What is your sense of the trend line for the availability of (a) federal funds, and
(b) just generally, funds to try and build and maintain affordable housing in Palo Alto. Is
it getting tighter?. Looser? What are our prospects for delivering the number of units that
we say we will over the next five to ten years?
Ms. Bayley: Well, in looking into my crystal ball, a couple of things come to mind. One,
the federal dollars, the CDBG dollars, have been going down. In fact, I just looked up the
statistic the other day, and found it to be fairly amazing. Our 2000-2001 CDBG
allocation for next year. is $732,000, and that is less than it was twenty years ago in 1980-
81, when it was $801,000..With the cost of housing, not including inflation or anything
else, you can see that our federal dollars to this community have really been going down.
So that has been the trend over at least the last five to ten years. The good news is that
the state, I believe, is waking up to the preservation crisis, and if they pass the state
housing bond, then I think there will be some relief there and we will see some more
money there. Our other sources, of course, are our own commercial and residential .
housing in-lieu fees. The city has been very proactive in collecting those fees and using
them. We have created 151 below-market-rate units in the time that we have had that
program.
The county has created a housing, trust fund, and is capitalizing that. The last I heard, it
was at $8 million, and they are trying to capitalize it at $20 million, so that looks very
positive. So I think people are waking up to the problem. I just have no idea whether we
will have more federal funds. We are not an entitlement jurisdiction for HOME funds,
which is the major housing fund source for most cities. We have to go to the State of
California for our HOME funds, and we were only awarded one allocation for HOME
funds the very first year they came out. We used those funds to purchase the Barker
Hotel. Oftentimes, programs are not aimed at higher-income areas, because the number
of units that can be constructed are fewer than in lower-cost areas.
Commissioner Byrd~ So with insane land costs and ever increasing construction costs,
what are the prospects for delivering the number of units to which we have committed, in
our certified housing element and that are expressed in this plan?
Ms. Bayley: I cannot tell you exactly, but we believe it is feasible that we will have
projects, and we will at least make the 125 units here over the five-year period, especially
including Terman, as I said, which is 92 units. We hope to do more. If you look back at
what we have done over the last five years, we were actually able to do 300 units, and we
had the same 125-unit goal. So we certainly hope to surpass that amount. At this point, I
do not know of other funds that would be available. We certainly intend to apply for
HOME funds whenever we have a project that we think would work. The n0n-profits
have been very active in bringing in tax credits, that kind of thing, so those things are
available, but the high cost of land makes it very, very difficult, and we are competing
with other activities in the city for that very scarce land.
Mr. Lusardi: A couple of other comments on that question, which I think is a really good
question that every community in the bay area is struggling with when it comes to
affordable housing. It is not just the cost of land. To give you an order of magnitude
there, our commercial in-lieu housing fund has approximately $3 million plus in the fund
right now, and we are going to spend all 0fthat on the SoFA affordable housing, so we
are going to have to replenish that fund. That is just going to get us a site delivery. An
affordable housing developer is then going to have to come forward with housing costs
and development costs. The good news about that is that the affordable housing
developers are getting very good in the bay area. They are getting very sophisticated.
When I got started in working with affordable housing several years ago, it was very
difficult to find a good affordable housing developer. Now there are more and more of
them, and they are getting very good. The bad news is that again, there are-a lot of
barriers that they have to go through, considerably more than a private developer. This
report summarizes the barriers that are there. One approach is that I sought to remove the
barriers. I don’t know how we do that, but it is certainly worth a discussion in that
respect.
In talking to the Palo Alto Housing Corporation about the SOFA plan, they estimated it
would take them seven to nine months just to get all of their funding in place to do that
development. They have to have that fimding in place before they can even start
construction, so that gives you an order of magnitude as to what has to be done just to get
one housing development moving.
Commissioner Cassel: I would like to go back to the mundane for just a little bit. The
Stanford West senior housing project, how does that fit into this? I noticed in the housing
units that the plan was requiring 1,000 units overall in the city, yet there is 1,000 units
right there. Where do those numbers fit into the estimated number of units that we will
be building in the city over the next five to ten years?
Mr. Lusardi: I don’t know ifI have a clear answer to that question. I can get back to you
with respect to that, but we were actually talking about this very issue a couple of weeks.
ago and how we count housing units and how we take the credit for those housing units
when they are finished or when we approve the projects~ We have done it both ways, and
it really depends upon the reporting regulations that are involved. I think the answer to
your question is that we count them when they are completed and come on line, so we
need to assess the Stanford project when that happens. I do know, I was told today that
the Stanford project expects to start delivering some of their required affordable units by
August. I think they are required for about 90+ units, and I think they are expecting to
have sixty on line by the end of the year. That is pretty positive.
Commissioner Cassel: Well, we have two needs. One is units in general, as that is one
method of keeping the housing prices under control, .and the other is for affordable units.
I could not tell from this whether those units have already been counted or were to be
counted in the future.
Chairman Schmidt: I will now open the public hearing.
Sally Probst, 735 Coastland Drive, Palo Alto: The League of Women Voters of Palo
Alto will be commenting in a written statement before the end of the current period,
because we have a number of issues on which we wish to comment. I do want to say a
couple of things as an individual. That is that it seems to me that rather than set our goal
at 125 units and surpass it, you might set our goals higher and try to reach more. We
know from those two projects that are more or less on line, as you say, we will be over
125. There should be affordable housing from other developments along E1 Camino, the
Elks Club, perhaps, the hotel, perhaps, and there may be some other items, including the
Stanford housing that is within the city. It is possible that there will be, in .my opinion,
within this five-year period, further Stanford housing within the city that has not yet come
to the planning commission and city council.
I also have a question. The report speaks about the difficulty of federal housing along E1
Camino because of noise level requirements. Yet we are able to build private housing
along E1 Camino. I would like to get some further information about that. Why does that
restrict? How severe are the federal noise level requirements that prevent us from doing
any further building along E1 Camino? Or did I misunderstand the report?
Then I would like to ask the planning commission to push for city funds in addition to
CDBG money which we know keeps going down each year, and in addition to the
housing funds that we have, the commercial funds, etc. etc., we all know that housing is
one of our two major problems in this city and in thi§.area. It-seems to me that while
there are a million needs for city funds, that there should be more emphasis on some plain
old city tax money going for housing projects. Those are my comments as an individual.
Thank you.
Chairman Schmidt: Thank you, Sally. I will now close the public hearing and come
back to the commission. Are there additional comments or questions?
Commissioner Schink: Could we get Suzanne to address the issue of noise on El
Camino?
Ms. Bayley: Yes, regarding the noise levels, you did read that correctly, Sally. There are
National Environmental Policy Act (NEFA) requirements for any federal project. There
are very strict decibel noise levels for where, you can use federal funds. Usually, it can be
mitigated in some way, for example, the CalPark Apartments near the railroad tracks
have a sound wall, but it can be quite expensive. It is more of a requirement than for
projects that do not use federal funds have to meet.
Commissioner Byrd: I would like to follow up on Sally’s question about the 125 units. I .
am presuming that one of the dangers in aiming too high, at least within sight of the feds,
is that if you do not meet your target, there may be some impact. Therefore, we pick a
number we know we Can meet and intend to go beyond it.
Ms. Bayley: That is correct. I want to make sure that you understand the difference
between these goals which we set for ourselves to try and deal with the use of CDBG
funds and our ABAG target goals. Those are our real numbers that we have to meet, and
that is a different time frame. They can be the same units, but those are the numbers we
are required to meet. This is 125 affordable units. I appreciate Sally’s comments, and we
always appreciate her advocacy for affordable housing, but you are right, if we do not
meet our target, for whatever reason (and in some cases we cannot control the number of
units), then we are sort of called to task for not meeting what we tried to do. sO we do set
our goals high, but we put them down for what we think we can do that is required for
this federal plan.
Commissioner Cassel: Would you review the ABAG numbers, because I cannot put my
finger on them right now. I know that they totaled a little over a thousand units, and that
is why I was surprised with Stanford coming on line, that they were so low. I presume
that is a different formula. One of the problems I am missing with these numbers is that
they have different requirements that you have to fill in the boxes for, and they do not
always match. So our goal is 125, and the ABAG goal is 191, plus or minus, for very-
low-income housing.
Ms. Bayley: Exactly right. ABAG numbers are a thousand in total, 191 very-low-
income, 86 low-income, 243 moderate-income, 481 above-moderate. That is over a
different time period rather than our five-year time frame. I think this is 71/2 years also.
They are really not the same numbers. It would be nice if they were, but they are not.
Chairman Schmidt: Getting back to the federal funds and the noise restrictions, etc., do
all of these housing types that we are talking about have federal funds involved in them?
Or is the primary source of the federal funds the CDBG and HOME funds?
Ms. Bayley: They do not all. have federal funds.
Chairman Schmidt: So there might be some projects that could be built along El Camino
that fit these categories that would not have federal funding.
Ms. Bayley:- Yes.
Chairman Schmidt: I learned from a recent experience I had in another city with CDBG
funds that they are difficult to use just because there is so much paperwork and so much
complex reporting. Sometimes, organizations try to avoid them and get money elsewhere
just because it is such a difficult process to go through.
Ms. Bayley: Yes, they are quite burdensome to use, and sometimes putting in just a little
money will taint a project so that you bring all of the federal requirements into it. So it is
best to pick the activity that is the easiest to handle with the CDBG funds for a specific
project.
Commissioner Byrd: In response to Kathy’s and Jon’s question, it is worth pointing out
that I have a client building a project that is 44 units, a 100 % deeply affordable project
on El Camino in a city just north of here that is funded with CDBG and HOME and
federal tax credit funds. So it is not impossible to site new, affordable units on E1
Camino and use good building technology to mitigate noise. We can do that here, too.
Commissioner Burt: I have a question for staff, probably directed toward John,
principally. There has been discussion about the prospect of a developer fee for funding
parks to help mitigate the need for new common space as we increased the density and
.created in-fill housing. Do you know whether there is an intent on the part of staff to
have exemptions tO that fee for affordable housing or low-income housing?
Mr. Lusardi: No, I don’t think we have gotten to that point yet. I cannot say whether that
will be included or not included. We have not discussed that yet.
Chairman Schmidt: Other questions or comments?
Commissioner Burt: Only one, and it is mostly for the commission’s benefit. There were
questions raised about where is this money going to come from in the long run. One of
the most exciting ideas I have heard lately is being touted by East Palo Alto Council
Member Dwain Bay, who is using the model of the Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space.
District and the commitment that was made there to tax ourselves to preserve open space
to create a similar special district with taxing authority to assemble funds to acquire land
for affordable housing in the same way that we acquire land for open space. He has a
long way to go on it, but he is making the rounds of decision-makers now to promote this
idea. I just wanted to bring it up in .this forum, because I think it is veu exciting. I think
affordable housing is as important an amenity to this region as open space, and if we can
pay for one, we can certainly pay for the other. So there is just something to watch for.
Ms. Furth: I wanted to say in further response to the questionabout exemption of low-
and m0derate-income housingprojects from possible park or other impact fees, it is true
that in the SoFA project itself, there is no specific exemption, but the open space
contribution for the project as a whole includes the open space contribution for the below-
market,rate housing, so it would not be subject to any fee.
Commissioner Burt: I would like to follow up regarding the comments made about what "
kinds of income we might be able to generate as a city or as a region to address this
problem that has gone from a problem to a crisis, and I expect within the next couple of
years, an accelerating crisis. When we met with staff regarding the CIP, three major
funding sources were briefly discussed that have been neglected by the city. I would like
to take this opportunity to raise those for future discussion and consideration by the
council. One is that almost two years ago, we had discussed an increase in the transient
occupancy tax to bring it up to par with some of the surrounding communities. Second,
we are one of the few communities in the.area, as I understand it, that does not have a
long distance phone tax. Third, we do not even have a business license fee. I think these
three major funding sources are out there, and they present really an irony that we have
this community where we are witnessing incredible wealth by local businesses, in many
cases, and wealth in the private sector, yet we seem to have inadequate public funds to
address the community priorities, including affordable housing and other community
priorities that were set within the Comprehensive Plan that we discussed earlier. I think
that the city needs to have a serious rethinking of significant potential revenue sources
that could help mitigate many of these severe problems.
Commissioner Packer: I agree with what Commissioner Burr says. I don’t know what
has gone on before since I am a new kid on the block here, but I think it would be useful
if we could have a motion wherein we encourage council to immediately create a
committee, or whatever is done, to look at these potential revenue sources, not only the
three that Pat mentioned, but beyond, solely for the purpose of addressing the affordable
housing crisis in this city, and that as a commission, we urge the council to do so.
Commissioner Bialson: I think this is the sort of discussion that belongs in our retreat. I
don’t think we can expand our motion on this specific point to include that sort of feeling
of the commission. I absolutely agree with Bonnie and Pat, but I think we would dilute
the motion that we have presented .as necessary for purposes of getting the funding from
the federal government. Adding something ’on to it, as you were suggesting, that is not
. agendized I think is perhaps inappropriate. I would prefer to see that as an item on the
retreat, or that we bring it up as a special item for an agenda in the future.
Commissioner Cassel’. I found this report extremely depressing. I don’t know about the
rest of you, but we all know these numbers, and you are expressing the concern, but it
was really frustrating. We get studies, and you hear about studies and surveys, etc., and
they say well, this is accurate three or four percent positive or negative within that kind of
range. I think we could have these numbers adjusted fifty percent, one hundred percent,
and the conclusions would still be the same. That is how bad it is. Not only do we need
to look at it creatively within the city, but we need to look at it creatively within the
region. This fund that everyone is touting that is being set up to be $20 million from
private industry is a drop in the bucket, and they carmot even raise that~ It is a smooth
salving of the fingers or the hand or something to say they are doing something. The issue
is even bigger than that. It is just enormous, and we all know it and we are all feeling it.
As I read this report, having read these reports umteen times before for twenty or thirty
years, not this exact report, obviously, because they make .this different every time, but
we are all feeling that this is just horrendously discouraging. How do we balance these
jobs with housing, in general, anywhere? Do we want fewer jobs? No, because we are
all enjoying being at work. There is this tremendous balancing act, yet some people have
an awful lot of money to buy very expensive housing, and other people cannot afford
anything, and we have been saying that for a long time. As we all know, it is divergent.
So that was what my overall feeling was.
MOTION: Commissioner Cassel: I therefore would recommend that we forward this
plan and if the staff would appreciate that we would recommend to the council that the
city elect to use the trueeighty percent of median income in special programs. I think we
should do that, as well. I move to make that motion, and am willing to follow up with
Bonnie’s suggestion at another time. -
SECOND: Not noted. (Woman)
Chairman Schmidt: Any other comments? I think we have said a lot of important things
here tonight, and I am also depressed with the amount of housing we are getting out of
this, and I would love to see higher goals than 125 units per year. I want to mention that I
think one of the areas of emphasis for housing should be family housing. I think a lot of
our housing providers have said that that is where the greatest need is. It is somewhat
mentioned in here, .but I wanted to emphasize that family housing is something we have
not been providing, but we are aiming at that with the SOFA project.
MOTION PASSES: Chairman Schmidt: All in favor of the motion, please say aye? All.
opposed say no? That passes unanimously on a vote Of 7=0. That goes to council on May
8th.
REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES
2!3
Attachment D
City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
TO:
ATTENTION:
FROM:
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FINANCE COMMITTEE
CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APRIL 20, 2000
PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR 2000/01 COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG)
FUNDING ALLOCATIONS
CMR:221:00
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.
BACKGROUND
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 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 3 l, 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.
CMR:221:00 Page" 21
Consolidated Plan for the period Julyl, 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 the 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 havinga 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 ~22--
Planning and Administration
This category includes the contract for fair housing services and City staff
time 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 category 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. All 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 323 --
DISCUSSION
Entitlement Grant ~
The City’s 2000/01 CDBG entitlement allocation is $732,000. Thi~ isa $6,000 decrease
from the prior year’s allocation of $738,000. Program income (income generated
directly from the useof 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 let~ 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
Estimated PI 1999/00" HIP
Estimated PI !999/00’ PAHC
Cal Park Mitigation
$732,000
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 z 24 --
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-
- 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
80,000
$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
$ 25,000
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. 25 --
The CAC recommendations differ from the staff recommendations 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 Comprehensive Annual
Performance and Evaluation Report, .etc.). These are in addition to thealready
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
funding so that funds can be allocated to Emergency Housing Consortium’s Sobrato
Family Living Center.
CMR:221:00
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 projects 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
PREPARED BY: Suzanne Bayley, CDBG Coordinator
CMR:221:00 Page
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
G. EDWARD GAWI~
Director of Planning and Community Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
HARRISON
Assistant City Manager
co:CDBG Citizens Advisory Committee Members
2000/01 CDBG Applicant Agencies
CMR:221:00 Page
ATTACHMENT A
STAFF AND CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMITTEE (CAC)
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 2000/01
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDING
PUBLIC SERVICE APPLICATIONS
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 Palo 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),
29
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: Agency provides emergency shelter and comprehensive supportive 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 Centerin 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
of homelessness 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
their stability and housing.
3O
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 tum-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
sources,
Priority Need: Prevention ofhomelessness
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 housing 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 financial support fi’om 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 Intemet 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
3
Shelter Network - Haven Family House
260 Van Buren Road, Menlo Park, CA 94025
Funding Request:
Staff Recommendation
CAC Recommendation
$15,000
$15,000
$15,000
Proposal: Haven Family House provides transitional 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.
o 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
$10,000
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.
32
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 targets 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 tothe 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
115 East Gish Road #222, San Jose, CA 95112
33
Funding Request:
Staff Recommendation
CAC Recommendation
$12,000
$12,000
$12,000
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
parmering 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:$25,000
Staff Recommendation $25,000
CAC Recommendation $25,000
Proposal: CWG proposes to create apermanent 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, and rehabilitative 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
6 34
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 northern 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 care". 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.
I1.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 related 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 recommendspartial 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 $ -0-
CAC Recommendation $ 50,000
Proposal: EHC has operated theSanta Clara Family Living Center in the City of Santa
Clara for the past 15 years. In 1997, the State of California sold the property to Sun
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.
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 year of operation. Additionally, the project has
countywide collaboration, and is close to public transit, The CAC believes this is an
important, 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,OOO
$ 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 thd 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 frail 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
37
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:
Staff Recommendation
CAC Recommendation
35,000
30,000
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.
Environ mental: 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 Charming, Ramona & Bryant Streets in the SOFA
Plan Area
Funding Request:
Staff Recommendation
CAC Recommendation
$ 500,000
$ 420,000
$ 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 38
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 large, historic homes and one modem, duplex
structure. Only the duplex structure is ciari~ently used as rental housing, 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 J-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.
39
11
EXCERPT
FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING
April 20, 2000
Attachment E
Council Chambers
City of Palo Alto
Item:Proposed Fiscal Year 2000/01 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) FundinE
.Allocations
Chair Mossar: Is there a staff report?
Mr. Yeats: Yes, Chair Mossar, Suzanne Bayley from die Planning and Community Environment
Department is here to make a presentation. She will then introduce her Committee Chair and
members.
Ms. Bayley: This public hearing is an opportunity for the public to comment and for the Finance
Committee to review and discuss the recommendations of Staff and the Citizens Advisory
Committee relating to the allocation of federal Community Development Block Grant funds for
fiscal year 2000-2001. The entitlement grant this year is $732,000, but with reallocations and
program income, the total available for distribution this year is $787,275. The City received 15
applications for funding, totaling $1 ;777,940. The other thing I would like you to know is that this
fiscal year 2000-2001 is the first year of a new five-year consolidated planning period for our federal
funds. Staff has just completed the update of the previous Consolidated Plan that is currently out
for the required 30-day public review that began March 31, 2000, ending on April 30.
The Consolidated Plan describes local conditions and resources, identifies priority housing and non-
housing community development needs, and outlines a strategy to address the identified needs. The
one-year Action Plan that is updated each year describes the activities that the City intends to
undertake with CDBG funds to address the needs and implement the strategies. The draft
Consolidated Plan has been reviewed by the Planning Commission as well as the Human Relations
Commission. It. will go on to the City Council at their May 8th meeting, along with your
recommendations for the annual allocations.
The provision of permanent housing affordable to lower-income persons remains the highest need
identified in the Consolidated Plan. There were no changes made to the five-year plan that stresses
housing. The greatest emphasis is on housing for families with children, persons with disabilities
or other special needs, such as the elderly, persons who are homeless or are at risk of homelessness,
and those who are single or who live in very small households. Those goals have not changed, and
they are also in conformance with our Comprehensive Plan.
h:/vbosch//cdbg/cdbggenl/Apr20FinanceMinutes.doc
1 40
I also want to takea quick opportmaity to introduce the members of our CDBG Citizens Adv.isory
Committee and to acknowledge their hard work and many hours of meetings, interviews and
discussions to provide the funding recommendations before you tonight, and also for their- important
¯ perspective on the applications and the services in our community. This year’s Committee included
Eve Agiewich, who is the Human Relations Commission liaison, Gaye Courtney, Andrew Freedman,
Jonathan Foster, Liza Kniss, Trina Lovercheck, David Negrin, Sigrid Pinsky and Joe Villareal. Trina
Lovercheck was this year’s spokesperson and is here tonight to answer any questions that you might
have of the Committee.. -
The one other point I would like to make is that we worked very hard this year to try and combine
the CDBG and Human Resource allocation processes to coordinate and consolidate them as much
as possible.¯ This year¯we had the applications due on the same day. We held a joint Proposal
Writing Workshop for all of the applicants, and we are having the funding recommendations before
you on the same night this year for the first time so that you can look at all of the applications at
once.
I do have to point out one mistake on the chart in your staff report on page 5. Under Mid-Peninsula
Citizens for Fair Housing, the CAC recommendation is shown as $8,550 and should actually be
$18,500, the same as the Staff recommendation. With that, I will be happy to answer any questions
that you have.
Chair Mossar: I want to clarify the timing process, and then perhaps I will have a motion from my
colleagues: You say that the CDBG recommendations are going to the full Council on May 8th for
approval?
Ms. Bayley: Yes.
Chair Mossar: So that decision is made prior to the approval of the final budget?
Mr. Yeats: Yes, it has to be submitted based upon federal guidelines. That is generally before a
budget is adopted.
Chair Mossar: There are a number of people here in this room who are going to ask us for extra
money. How do we deal with that? When we talk about CDBG, should we ask only those people
to speak to us who are on the recommended list, and ask those who’ are not on the recommended list
to speak to us in the operating budget portion of Community Services?
Mr. Yeats: I will answer that in a roundabout way.
Chair Mossar: It is a roundabout question.
h:ivbosch//cdbg/cdbggenl/Apr20FinanceMinutes.doc
41
Mr, Yeats: Please correct me if this is not correct, but I believe that with the.CDBG funding, there
is a set amount. So any additional funding beyond that would have to come out of the General .Fund,
and that would be .approved at a later date and would not be submitted with the package to the
federal government. So that is why it can go forward, because they have actually told us how much
they are giving us, and you are merely approving those expenditures.
Council Member Ojakian: I hear what you are saying, but when we are doing the CDBG funds,
those are federal funds that they have allocated to us, and we need to respond back to them. If we
are going to look at funds in excess of this, it will be out of our own pockets. When we get to
HSRAP, we can probably address that.
Chair Mossar: Yes, so this is what I am going to suggest. If you think you are here to talk about
CDBG funding, whether what you are asking for is in either the recommended Citizens Committee
or the Staff’s list, you may speak during that portion; but we may choose to make budgetary
decisions on your request at another point in the agenda, just so that is clear.
MOTION: Chair Mossar: Just to help the Council in its decision-making process, I will move that
we direct Staffto keep track of all of the additions that we make through our budget hearing process,
both in the amounts and the purposes, and that we come back at the end of our hearing process and
review those decisions, review that bottom line number, and make sure that we are still comfortable
in movingforward and making those recommendations to the full Council.
SECOND: By (either Lytle or Eakins - very hard to tell)
MOTION PASSES: Chair Mossar:All in favor of the motion, say aye? That passes unanimously
with all four Finance Committee members voting aye. So Staff, if you would keep track of that, just
so all of the memb,ers of the audience know, on our first night, we managed to add over $200,000
t0the budget. You may think we are dealing fast and loOse here, but I think maybe we got nervous.
I will now open the public heating.
Michele Jackson, 1660 S. Amphlett, Suite 200, San Mateo: Good evening. I am the Associate
Executive Director for the Shelter Network. I will be very brief. I want to thank the Citizens
Committee and Staff for their recommendation, and tell you that it will help us to put more people
back into permanent housing who go through Haven Family House. I will be glad to answer any
questions you might have about the Haven Family House Project.
Angel Batt, 795 Willow Road, Bldg. 323-D, Menlo Park: Good evening. I am the Executive
Director of the San Mateo Alliance, the commtmity shelter on the VA grounds in.Menlo Park. I just
want to thank you and the City of Palo Alto for the outstanding support that you have provided in
getting the shelter off to a running start when it began back in 1997, as well as the continuing
support. With your funding, we will be able to open up our new Family Shelter in mid-May. We
will have a grand opening celebration, where I hope to see you all.
h:lvbosehl/cdbglcdbggenllApr2oFinanceMinutes.doc
42
Barry Del Buono, Emergency Housing Consortium: Basically, we submitted a request for
$100,000 for the Sobrato Family Living Center. The Citizens Advisory Committee voted in favor
of it, but voted that the money would come out of Staff. So that is like tossing a hungry dog a bone.
What we would like you to do is to take a look at how we can get at least a portion of this very
special shelter and ~ansitional and permanent housing project for homeless families up and running
and have the City of Palo Alto continue to be a player. So I certainly would hate to have you
increase your budget by a hundred thousand bucks, but I am probably not the first to do that.
Chair Mossar: Let me clarify with you, Barry, that your organization receives public service money
from us, correct? There is a recommendation for $8,240 for that portion. In addition, you are asking
for $100,000. It looks like the Committee recommended $50,000 and Staff recommended nothing.
Mr. Del Buono: That is correct.
Chair Mossar: Thank you. I wanted to make sure that was correct. I will now bring this item back
to the Council, and ask for comments by Committee members.
Council Member Lytle: As I understand from the testimony we have heard, there is only one
applicant whose process is here before us tonight requesting that they be reconsidered. Everyone
else was simply here to support the line item that Staff has recommended.
Chair Mossar: That is correct, but there are some differences between the Staff and the Citizens
Committee recommendations and we need to go through and resolve those issues.
Council Member Ojakian: I have one question. In the past, we have used the capital projects
section to use the funds to make sure that some of our affordable HUD housing that was in jeopardy
is converting to full market-rate housing got protected. Do we have anything else out there that we
need to be aware of?. We had Palo Alto Gardens last year, and we have had the Sheridan and some
other housing units. Do we have anything I have perhaps overlooked that I should know about?
Mr. Yeats: I believe that one way or the other, we have protected all of the current housing out there.
As you said, we did Palo Alto Gardens last year, and that was about $800,000 with the funding. I
do not think there is anything left remaining, unless Suzanne can answer.
Ms. Bayley: You are correct in that we have saved what is out there right now, but there is one more
looming on the horizon. That is the Terman Apartments, 92 units of housing on the Terman site.
Those come up in 2004, so we will have that opportunity, although it is possible that it might come
up a little earlier because there might be some state funding. It has not been approved yet but there
might be some state, funding for preservation of units, so it might be something we would want to
address within the next couple of years. It officially does not come up until 2004. That is the last
one in Palo Alto.
h:/vbosch//cdbg/cdbggenl/Apr20FinanceMinutes.doc
43
Council Member Ojakian: We don’t have to worry about that in this budget. It would be helpful,
Suzanne, at some date, obv!ously not right now because it.is not related to what we have in front of
us, that you drop us a very brief line about what the dollars are and the actual dates so that we will
keep that on our radar screen.
Ms. Bayley: Right, and that is included in the draft Consolidated Plan that is out. It is possible over
the next five years as a project.
Council Member Ojakian: So we will get that on May 8th when we look at that Plan.
CounCil Member Lyric: Is there a little bit of amplification that could be made in the difference
between the Committee recommendation and the Staff recommendation? I see there are two items,
and one is the Program Administration, and the other is the Housing Development Fund. What
would be the impacts on those two items if we were to shift funds per .the Committee
recommendation?
Ms. Bayley:. There are three differences, and they are supposed to be highlighted, but for some
reason, it did not highlight on your report. The Program Administration has a $30,000 difference.
There is a $20,000 difference in the Housing Development Fund. That $50,000 difference, the
Citizens Advisory Committee, that is the money they recommended be given to the Emergency
Housing Consortium Sobrato Project. Regarding the Program Administration funding, what is not
reimbursed from CDBG will .be a bigger liabilit~ for the General Fund. This includes Staff costs.
It is a reimbursement from HUD for our Staff costs to administer the program and actually do the
projects. It actually costs closer to $130,000 to $200,000, depending upon the number of projects
that we are doing and if they are major housing projects. We reduced it last year from $180,000 to
$130,000. This year, even though we started out requesting $130,000 since that was the only
category that the Community Working Group proposal could be funded under because it is a
planning grant, not public service or a capital project, we further reduced the request to $110,000.
So the lower the amount, the more that the General Fund subsidizes that program. The same is true
for the Housing Development Fund. I would like John Lusardi to speak to that for the SOFA project.
It just means there is less funding available for the proposed 44-45 units of family housing.
Council Member Lytle: It sounds like no matter how we.slice it, the money would have to come
out of the General Fund, no matter what. There is no way I don’t think of reducing these two. It
sounds like they are already pared to the bone.
Mr. Benest: We are already subsidizing the program in the amount of $70,000- $75,000.
Ms. Bayley: Right. There are other things that were recommended that you could, of course,
consider changing, such as the Community Housing elevator upgrades. Staff and the Citizen
Advisory Committee recommended$65,000 for that. Also, the Achieve school fence of $30,000.
Those are areas where you could move money. Also, there is no cap on capital: projects, so you
h:lvbosch//cdbg/cdbggenl/Apr2OFinanceMinutes.doc
.5
44
could use all of the money for capital projects, whereas the Administration and Public Services have
maximum limits. So those are some options.
MOTION: Council Member Ojakian: I am going to make a motion,and if there is any other
discussion that people want, it can happen after that. I am going to make a.motion to accept the Staff
recommendation, as stated in the report.
SECOND: By Council Member Eakins.
Council Member Ojakian: The only brief comment I would make, because I think we have a lot
of agreement between the Citizens Committee and Staff and I don’t think there is a lot we have to
say; every year, we get into this issue about how much of the program administrative cost should
be covered by these funds. I think as it has been stated in the past, we have assumed some of that
cost. I don’t know how we can keep going down that road. I think probably what Staff has put in
here is reasonable, which covers half out of our General Fund and about half out of here, and I am
comfortable with that.
Council Member Lytle: I wouldjust like to compliment Staff and the Committee on the fine
process you have conducted here and the efforts you made to coordinate things this year. It looks
like it just gets better and better each time we do it. I very much appreciate it, and.I know how many
hours it takes to come to these conclusions. Thank you very much for your community service.
Chair Mossar: You probably all know this all too well, but this is always a difficult choice for
everyone involved to make. I know it is difficult for you to live from year to year, wondering what
and if you are going to have funding. Unfortunately, the federal government, in its infmite wisdom,
has chosen to decrease these amounts on an annual basis, and it seems to be headed in that direction
in the future. That is basically the reason I am choosing the Staffrecommendation. I think we have
to be realistic about these monies. We also have to make sure .that we have the money to administer
the programs and follow through on the commitments that we make when we accept these funds.
MOTION PASSES: Chair Mossar: All in favor of the motion, say aye? That passes unanimously
with all four Finance Committee members voting aye. We will recommend to the full City Council
on the Staff-recommended CDBG funding program.
(End of excerpt)
h:/vbosch//edbg/cdbggenl/Apr20FinanceMinutes.doc ¯
45
FROH : EH¢FI~X NO. : 29.~.ee ~. ~9 2~ Attachment F
Finance Committ~ Chairperson
City of Pa]o A]to
250 Hamilton Avenue
Pale Alto, CA 94301
Dear Councilperson Mossar:
I am writing to you regarding the sta~ recommendation to not fund Emergency Housing Consortium’s Comm uniVy
Development Block Grant request for our Sobrato Family Living Center project. Sp~ifivally, Emergency Housing
Consortium requested $100,000.00 to fund a portion of the capital development costs for this project. Our request
was based on the number of homeless Pale Alto families we anticipate serving at the site.
The Sobrato Family Living Center project is comprised of 51 units of emergency shelter, transitional housing, and
permanefit, affordable, supported housing for homeless families with children. This is the only site within the
County of Santa Clam where the ~ntir¢ continuum of care for homeless families is represented at a single campus.
As you may be aware, families with children are the fasted growing segment of the homeless population.
Moreover, Emergency Housing Consortium, alone, has more than 250 families on our waiting list for shelter! The
Sobrato Family Living Center is a valuable resource in this county where there is an extreme lack of houslng and . "
services available to families.
Furthermore, there is an established tradition of furtding facilities serving the homeless on a multi-jurisdictional
basis. Most recently, the City of Pale Alto continusd its leadership role by providing funding for Emergency
ftousing Consortium’s Regional Reception Center in San Jose. The Sobrato Family Living Center has, in fact,
been funded by a variety of local jurisdictions including, but not limited to the ¢oJlowi.ng cities: San Jose, Sama
Clara, Sunnyvale, Mountain View, Miipitas, Campbell. In addi.tion, the project has also been fimded by the County
of Santa Clara and the Town of Los Gates.
The Sobrato Family Living Center project clearlyfits within the goals established by the City of Pale Alto’s
Comprehensive Plan. Policy H-12 of the Comprehensive Plan establishes a goal of working with agencies
supporting very low2, low-, and moderate-income households. The Sobrato Family Living Center excluslvely
serves very low-income families (0-30% of the median.income).
.It is my hope that the City of Pale Alto can find flinging to add its fair share to this vital project. We look forward
to continuing our parmership focused on helping homeless Pale Altans break the cycle ofhomeles~css.
Very truly yours,
Barry Del Buono
Executive Director
Nancy Lytle
Sandy Eakins
Vic Ojakian
Suzanne Bayley
46
2011 Little Orchard Stree[ ¯ San Jose, CA 95125. (408) 294-2100
http:/ /www,homelessnesS.org
Attacl~ment G
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
PacificJHawaii
California State Office
450 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, California 94102-3448
Honorable Gary Fazzino
Mayor of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Dear Mayor Fazzino:
FEB 1 7 2000
Subject: Annual Community Assessment for 1998 Program year
City of Palo Alto, California
We have completed our Annual Community Assessment (ACA) of the City of Palo
Alto’s performance in implementing its 1.998 Annual Action Plan objectives, based on the
City’s Five-year Consolidated Plan. The Program Year covered by this assessment
includes the period from July 1, 1998 - June 30, 1999. As a result of this assessment,
we have determined that the City has the continuing capacity to implement and
administer the Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) and is in
compliance with the statutes and regulations governing the program. This determination
is based upon the information available to th’is office, and does not reflect a
comprehensive evaluation of specific program activities.
We wish to congratulate the City of Palo Alto for completing its planned affordable
housing and community development activities and making measurable progress toward
meeting the priority needs identified in its Consolidated Plan. In particular, we commend
the City for its efforts to preserve formerly HUD-insured rental projects from the risk of
conversion to market rate housing, avoid significant losses of affordable units and
prevent the permanent displacement of low and very low income residents. Additionally,
the City exceeded its. five-year Consolidated Plan housing production/preservation goal
of 125 units. A total of 361units had been created/or preserved by the end of the 1998-
99 Program Year.
The City provided crucial support and funding to three major affordable housing
developments, which resulted in the acquisition/rehabilitation (i.e., preservation) of 213
units at-risk of conversion to market, rate housing and the new construction of another 24
units during the1998-99 Program Year. These projects, Sheridan Apartments, Palo Alto
Gardens and Page Mill Court, benefited low and very low income elderly, disabled and
family households, respectively. Their combined total development cost exceeded $25
million dollars. The City contributed $2,739,550 in CDBG multi-year funding and
$1,880,400 in local housing trust funds to the three projects, as well as.S11.4 million in
47
tax exempt bond financing specifically to Palo Alto Gardens. Approximately $9 million
dollars in other public and private financing were leveraged overall, including $363,000 in
CDBG funds from several cities and the County of Santa Clara for Page Mill Court.
During this reporting period, water supply rehabilitation work was begun on the
66-unit, multi-familY Arastradero Park Apartments, as well as the roofing rehabilitation
work to Building .A of Stevenson House, a 120-unit complex for seniors and disabled
persons. Presently, Stevenson House is complete and Arastradero Park Apartments is
substantially complete. Pre-rehabilitation activities involving a third project, Emerson
North Apartments (i.e., 6 units for small households) were initiated in 1998-99, and the
rehabilitation work will begin this year.
A study was performed to determine the feasibility of utilizing a downtown
residential property owned by Alliance for Community Care, a non-profit organization, in
order to provide affordable housing for lower income persons with mental illness.
Potential rehabilitation costs and occupancy issues were identified. The organization
was recently awarded a 1999 Continuum of Care/Supportive Housing Program grant
from HUD in the amount of $180,000, which will cover approximately 50% of the
estimated rehabilitation cost of the project named Alliance House. The City has
allocated $60,000 in 1999-2000 CDBG funds and the rehabilitation work is expected to
commence when the balance of needed funding is identified.
As a means of addressing the exorbitant cost of developing affordable housing
within Santa Clara County, the City of Palo Alto participated in efforts of the Santa Clara
County Collaborative on Housing and Homeless Issues, the Silicon Valley Manufacturing
Group and the County to establish a countywide Housing Trust Fund (HTF). City staff
took part in .the HTF feasibility studies and the City is represented on the committee that
will eventually govern the Housing Trust Fund.
The City also adopted a new Housing Element as part of its 1998-2010
Comprehensive Plan. The revised Plan places an emphasis on creating new housing
opportunities by use of such tools as minimum densities, designating higher densities
near transit and services, mixed-use projects and strengthening other zoning incentives. -
The revised Plan also continued the former Plan’s emphasis on, and protections for
existing rental units such as those generated in prior years via the City’s Below Market
Rate (BMR) programs, including inclusionary units in new construction projects (i.e.,
homeownership and rental) and the resale of existing homes subject to affordability
terms.
The City’s BMR homeownership program serves households with incomes up to
100% of the HUD median area income (MAI) and the rental program serves households
with incomes below 80% of the HUD-MAI threshold at initial occupancy. During the
1998-99 Program Year, four first-time homebuyer and five tenant households, i.e.,
48
3
families with incomes below 80% of the HUD-MAI, benefited from the BMR programs.
The total number of BMR units (rental as well as ownership) are expected to increase in
Program Year 1999-2000 and future years.
During the 1998-99 Program Year, the City allocated a total of $1,084,026 in
General Funds to address the non-housing community development priority needs of low
and moderate income persons, including children, youth/teens, families, single parent
households, seniors, disabled and homeless persons. City funding was supplemented
with $117,450 in CDBG funds for various public services and another $146,600 in CDBG
funds in support of fair housing activities and CDBG program.administration..
All CDBG Program statutory requirements were met. Overall, 100% of CDBG
funds were expended on activities that benefited low and moderate income persons and
households. Public services and planning/program administrative percentages were
14.7% and 16.7%, respectivelY, and below the maximum 20% and 15% caps. In
addition, as of April 30, 1999, i:e.,. 60-days prior to the end of Palo Alto’s program year,
the City’s balance of unexpended CDBG funds was 0.95 of its annual entitlement. This
rate was well below the required minimum 1..5 threshold, indicating that the City
expended its CDBG funds, including program income, on a timely basis.
With respect to the development of Palo Alto’s next three to five-year
Consolidated Plan, we urge the City to include goals and actions designed to alleviate
poverty amongst City residents, even if it applies to a small percentage of the population.
Addressing this concern is particularly pertinent given the continued favorable economic
climate of the Silicon Valley Region.
HUD’s Community Planning and Development Division maintains active
partnerships with state and local governments for the purpose of achieving meaningful
housing and community development results. Our partnerships are forged by the laws,
regulations, and policies that govern our collective efforts, and by the unique
characteristics that define each partner. Our primary objective is to ensure that our joint
efforts result in housing and community development programs that benefit low and
moderate income persons. To that end, we annually review our partnership
performance. The annual review process provides an opportunity to collaborate with our
partners and improve our methods for achieving collective goals.
49
We look fonNard to continuing to work in.partnership with the City of Palo Alto, in
order to help the City achieve its immediate and long-range affordable housing and
community development goals.
Very sincerely yours,
Original Signed By
Steven B. Sachs
Director, Community Planning
and Development Division
June Fleming, City Manager
John Lusardi, Acting Assistant Planning Official
Suzanne Bayley, CDBG Coordinator
Cathy Siegel, Housing Coordinator
50
Attachment H
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Housing and Community Development
CONSOLIDATED PLAN
For the Period
July 1, 2000 to June 30, 2005
RE VISED DRAFT
5/8/00
Prepared by Department of Planning & Community Environment
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94301
For Information, contact: Suzanne Bayley
Planning Division, City of Palo Alto (650) 329-2428
City of Palo Alto
2000-2005 Consolidated Plan 51
CITY OF PALO ALTO
CONSOLIDATED PLAN
FOR THE PERIOD JULY 1, 2000 TO JUNE 30, 2005
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
A. Purpose of the Consolidated Plan
B. Overview of Methods Used to Identify Needs and Priorities
1.Roles and Responsibilities
2.Neighborhood Meetings
3.Citizen Participation
4.Consultation with Government and Non-Profit Organizations
5.Needs Pdodtization Process
C. Summary of Accomplishments for Prior Five Year Consolidated Plan
II. HOUSING AND HOMELESS NEEDS ASSESSMENT
A.Introduction
B.Affordable Housing Needs
1. Summary of Needs
a. Regional Housing Need Allocation
2. Income Trends
a. Income. Limits
b. Per Capita Income
c. Poverty Rate
d. Mean Income
3. Population and Households
4. Housing Need by Category
a. Renter and Owner Households
b. Large Families
c. Elderly Households
(1) Needs
(2). Resources
d. Frail Elderly Households
(1) Needs
(2) Resources
e. Summary of Elderly and Frail Elderly Needs
f. Single Persons
City of Palo Alto
2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
Table of Contents
i 52
Co
Do
g. Summary of Needs for Persons with Disabilities
h. Persons with Mental Illness , .
(1) Needs
(2) Resources
i.Persons with Developmental Disabilities
(1) Supportive Housing Needs
(2) Supportive Housing Resources
(3) Group Home Needs
(4) Group Home Resources
j. Persons with Physical Disabilities
(1) Needs
(2) Resources .
k. Persons with Substance Abuse
(1) Needs
(2) Resources
1. Persons with HIV/AIDS
(1) Needs
(2) Resources
m. Single Parent Households
n. Households Overpaying for Housing ("Cost Burdened")
o. Overcrowded Households
Homeless Needs
I. The 1995 Survey on Homelessness
2. Santa Clara County Housing Authority Waiting List
3. Numbers of Homeless Persons Served
4. Needs of Persons Threatened with Homelessness
5. Inventory of Facilities and Services to Assist the Homeless and
Persons Threatened with.Homelessness ~
a. Countywide Facilities
b. Local Inventory of Facilities and Services to Assist the
Homeless and Persons threatened with Homelessness
Public Housing Needs
Lead Based Paint ¯
III.
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
HOUSING MARKET CONDITIONS
Housing Type
Overall Housing Demand
Homeownership Affordability
Rental Housing Affordability
Construction Cost
Occupancy and Physical Characteristics of the Housing Stock
1. Ownership Housing
2. Rental Housing
3. Age of Housing Stock
4. Vacancy Rate
City 0f Palo Alto
2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
Table of Contents
ii 53¯
5. Substandard Housing
G. Racial/Ethnic and Low-Income Concentrations
1. Racial/Ethnic Concentrations
2. Low Income Concentrations
H.Disproportionate Need
I.Suitability of Housing Stock for Households with Special Needs
1. Elderly Households
2. Persons with Physical Disabilities
3..Families with Children
J. Assisted Housing Inventory
1. Section 8 Rental Assistance Program
2. Other Assisted Housing Inventory
3. Below Market Program Housing Inventory
K. Barriers to Affordable Housing
1. Lack of Vacant or Available Land for Housing Construction
2. Price of Land Suitable for Housing
3. Lack of Market Demand and Financing for Market Rate Housing
L. Fair Housing
IV. NON-HOUSING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NEEDS
A.Introduction
B.Self-Sufficiency Wages
C.Workforce Characteristics and Unemployment
D.Occupations!Employment Sector
E.Transportation
F.Capital Project Needs
1. Public Facilities
2. Accessibility Needs
3. Homeless Shelter and Day Center Needs
G. Public Service Needs
1. Non-Profit Organization Operational Needs
2. Employment Opportunity Needs
¯ 3. CDBG Program Administration
H. Other Non-Housing Community Development Needs
V. FIVE-YEAR STRATEGY ’
A. Introduction
B. Affordable Housing Priorities and Objectives
1. Priority Affordable Housing Needs
a. Rental Housing
(1) Activities
(2) Persons To Be Assisted
b. New Ownership Housing
(1) Activities
City of Palo Alto
2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
Table of Contents
iii 54
o
(2) Persons to be Assisted
(3) Programs and Resources
c. Existing Ownership Housing
(1) Activities
Homeless Strategy
Prevention
a. Actions to Prevent Very Low Income Households from
Becoming Homeless
(1) Activities ’
(2) Programs and Resources
Emergency Shelter and Outreach and Assessment Services
a. Actions to Address Emergency Shelter and Outreach and
Assessment Services
(,1) Activities
(2) Programs and Resources
Transitional Housing with Support S~rvices
(3) Activities
(4) Programs and Resources
Permanent Affordable Housing
(1) Other Special Needs Populations
a. All Special Needs Groups
(1) Activities
(2) Persons To Be Assisted
(3) Programs and Resources
b. Non-Housing Community Development Priorities and Objectives
c. Anti-Poverty Strategy
d. Overcoming Barriers
e.Lead-Based Paint
f.Public Housing
g.Institutional Structure
h.Coordination
i.Monitoring
VI.ONE YEAR ACTION PLAN
VII.CERTIFICATIONS
City of Palo Alto
2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
Table of Contents
iv
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A Summary of Citizen Comments from January 20, 2000 Hearing
APPENDIX B Draft Citizen Participation Plan
APPENDIX C Citizen Comments to Draft Consolidated Plan During Review
Period
APPENDIX D Correspondence Related to Meeting with ,Santa Clara County
Housing Authority on January 27, 2000
APPENDIX E Required HUD Charts & Maps
Table 1C (CHAS) - Housing Assistance Needs of Low and
Moderate Income Households
APPENDIX F Table Compiled by City of San Jose Department of Housing
(1998) - Inventory of Facilities and Services for Homeless
APPENDIX G Maps
City of Palo Alto
2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
Table Of Contents
V
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Palo Alto has prepared its Consolidated Plan for the period 2000-2005 in compliance
with 24 CFR 91 and the ensuing regulations of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development. Although new census data is not available, efforts have been made to update as
much of the information as possible in the previous Consolidated Plan.
The provision of affordable rental units continues to be the most significant need in Palo Alto~
The City will continue to use CDBG and other available funds to pursue the creation and
preservation of all types of affordable housing: Two critical housing needs are identified in the
Consolidated Plan: the alleviation of the high cost of housing for lower income renter
households; and the provision of affordable housing for the very low-income, homeless and
persons with special needs.
Over the next five years, the City of Palo Alto will pursue the following primary goals:
~" Increase the number of permanently affordable rental units by 125 units
)~Support the rehabilitation needs of non-profit owned multi-family rental housing
projects that are affordable to lower income households or individuals
~" Provide additional shelter beds and services for homeless families and individuals
~Support public facility impro~,ements (accessibility;. modernization, rehabilitation,
etc.) for organizations that provide services to low-income or special needs
populations
Improve the community quality of life by supporting human service organizations
that provide a safety net of services to low-income, homeless and other at-risk
populations, such as persons with disabilities and the elderly
Take affirmative measures to ensure equal opportunity in housing for all, regardless
of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, familial status and disability.
The City’s proposed 2000-2001 Annual Action Plan activities support and promote the
accomplishment of the stated goals and objectives.
City of Palo Alto
2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
Page 2
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Purpose of the Consolidated Plan
The City of Palo Alto’s 2000-2005 Consolidated Plan describes local conditions and resources,
identifies priority housing, human service and community development needs, and outlines a
strategy to address the identified needs. The Consolidated Plan was developed under the
guidelines established by the Federal .Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD),
and it serves as the application for four major HUD formula programs:
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME)
Housing Opp6rtunities for Persons withAIDS (HOPWA)
Emergency Shelter Grants (ESG)
Of tl~e four formula programs, CDBG funds are the only ones received by the City of Palo Alto
on an entitlement basis directly from HUD. Funding from any of the other sources would
require a successful grant application in a competitive process administered by either the State of
California or HUD~ The Consolidated Plan serves as a guide to insure that Federal funds are
directed toward the most urgent community needs, and that funding decisions are consistent with
identified priorities and strategies. The Plan links identified community needs to the federal and
local resources available to meet those needs.
Additionally, the Consolidated Plan is intended to initiate a collaborative process whereby a
unified vision is established for community actions, and partnerships are strengthened among all
levels of govemment and the private sector. The Consolidated Plan serves four separate, but
integrated, functions: as a planning document for the jurisdiction; as an application for federal
funds; as a strategy to be followed in carrying out HUD programs; and as an action plan that
provides a basis for assessing performance.
National Goals: The Consolidated Plan must primarily benefit low-income persons in accordance
with the three basic goals of the four formula grant programs:
Provide decent housing
Provide a suitable living environment
Expand economic opportunities
This Plan is an update to the City’s 1995-2000 Consolidated Plan. While every effort has been
made to provide the most current information available, it must be noted that demographic
information based on census data is from 1990. Once the 2000 census data has been tabulated,
the Plan will again be updated.
City of Paio Alto
2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
Page 3
Overview of Methods Used to Identify Needs and PrioritiesBo
1. Roles and Responsibilities
Within the City of Palo Alto, the Planning Division in the Department of Planning and
Community Environment is responsible for administering the CDBG program, completing the
Consolidated Plan, and administering the affordable housing programs and projects. The Office
of Human Services in the Department of Community Services administers the Human Service
Resource Allocation Process (HSRAP) that distributes City of Palo Alto General Fund resources
for identified local human service needs. The Office of Human Services also provides staffing to
the City’s Human Relations Commission (HRC).
2. Neighborhood Meetings
The process for the preparation of the Consolidated Plan was initiated with a public heating on
affordable housing and community development needs, priorities, barriers and strategies. The
hearing was conducted by City Planning staff, and was held at 7:00 p.m. on January 20, 2000 in
the City Council Chambers, an accessible location. Persons who could not attend the heating
were encouraged to submit information by calling or writing to City Planning staff.
Notice of the public hearing was published in the Palo Alto Weekly on January 5, 2000, and was
mailed to an extensive list of individual citizens and organizations representing a broad spectrum
of the interested residents, such as:
The CDBG Citizens Advisory Committee
Members of the Palo Alto Human Relations Commission
Non-profit housing developers and providers
Non-profit & county social service agencies
Neighboring cities and jurisdictions
Private real estate investors, developers and Board of Realtors
Low income tenants & tenant groups,
Affordable housing advocates
Other interested citizens
Comments from the hearing were recorded and summarized (see Summary of Citizen
Comments, Appendix A). These comments and the written materials provided have been
considered in the development of this Plan.
The draft Consolidated Plan will be available from March 31,2000 to April 30, 2000 for public
review and comment. Notice of the availability of the draft document, and the planned public
heating dates will be published in the Palo Alto Weekly on March 29, 2000. The notice will also
be mailed to the list above. The Consolidated Plan will be reviewed by the Planning
Commission at a public heating on April 12, 2000, by the Human Relations Commission at their
meeting on April 13, 2000, and by the Finance Committee at a public hearing on April 20, 2000.
The City Council will review and adopt the Consolidated Plan at a public hearing on May 8,
2000.
City of Palo Alto
2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
Page 4
Copies of the drait Consolidated Plan will be available at the City’s public counter at the
Development Center, and at the Downtown Library. Copies of the document will be mailed to
the CDBG Citizens Advisory Committee, the Human Relations Commission, other interested
persons or organizations, and anyone who requests a copy. In preparing the final Consolidated
Plan, all comments or views expressed in writing or orally at public hearings will be considered.
A summary of comments received, and a summary of any comments or views not accepted, and
the reasons therefore, shall be attached to the final Consolidated Plan that is submitted to HUD.
In addition to the public hearing described above, the Palo Alto Human Relations Commission
also sponsored a public hearing at 7:00 p.m. on July 8, 1999 in the City Council Chambers. This
hearing provided an opportunity for citizens and non-profit agencies to address the Commission
regardingPalo Alto’s community service needs and gaps. The Office of Human Services and the
HRC also held meetings or workshops with various focus groups of at-risk sub-populations
within Palo Alto in order to determine service needs and service gaps. These included:
Senior needs assessment meeting (8/18/99)
Homeless task force meeting (1/27/00)
Housing services and information and referral meeting (1/13/00)
Housing for people with special needs workshop (3/4/00)
3. Citizen Participation
A primary aspect of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1987 is the provision of
adequate opportunity for citizens to participate in an advisory role in the planning,
implementation and assessment of the Community Development Block Grant program. To
comply with the requirements of the Act, the City of Palo Alto follows a detailed Citizen
Participation Plan that includes a nine-member Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC). The Mayor
appoints eight of the members, while one member is-from the Human Relations Commission.
The CAC reviews prioritized needs, makes funding allocation recommendations based on
identified needs, and helps evaluate program effectiveness by reviewing agency performance.
The Citizen Participation Plan is currently being amended, and its adoption will be considered by
the City Council at a public hearing on May 8, 2000 at 7:00 p.m. The draft Citizen Participation
.Plan is included in Appendix B, andis available for public review and comment during the same
time period as the Consolidated Plan.
Citizen comments received during the Consolidated Plan public review period are included in
Appendix C..
4. Consultation with Government and Non-Profit Organizations
In order to provide opportunities for collaboration and collective problem solving, City Housing
and CDBG staff consulted with or received data from local agencies that provide housing and/or
services to low-income persons or persons with special needs. The. agencies that were consulted
include:
City of Palo Alto
2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
Page 5
6O
Alliance for Community Care (mentally ill)
Clara-Mateo Alliance (homeless)
Urban Ministry (liomeless)
-Emergency Housing Consortium (homeless)
San An.dreas Regional Center (developmentally disabled)
Avenidas (seniors, frail elderly)
Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition (housing)
Palo Alto Housing Corporation (housing and services)
Stevenson House (senior residential facility)
Lytton Gartlens (senior residential facility)
Housing Choices Coalition
Santa Clara County Mental Health Bureau
Domestic Violence Council
Adjacent Units of Local Government
Housing and CDBG staff from within Santa Clara County met six times between July 23, 1999
and March 3, 2000 to consult on shared Consolidated Planning issues. Statistical information,
data and its availability from County agencies, as well as methodologies for estimating the local
share of countywide statistics, were discussed. Present at these meetings were representatives of
the HUD entitlement jurisdictions within the Santa Clara Urban County (Morgan Hill, Campbell,
Los Gatos, Saratoga, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Monte Ser’eno and Campbell), and the cities of
Palo Alto, Mountain View, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, San Jose, Milpitas and Gilroy.
These meetings also provided opportunities for consultations with HUD Community Planning
and Development (CPD) staff from the San Francisco office, the County Homeless .Coordinator,
the Santa Clara County Housing Authority, and the Santa Clara County Domestic Violence
Council Housing Committee. Copies of the draft Consolidated Plan will be provided to the State
of California, Department of Housing and Community Development, and the Association of Bay
Area Governments (ABAG).
Santa Clara County.Housing Authority (SCCHA)
A consultation was held with the Santa Clara County Housing Authority on January 27, 2000
from 9:00 to 11:00 a.m. at Palo Alto City Hall. City staff arranged the meeting to include
representatives of local non-profit housing developers. The meeting provided an opportunity for
all the affordable housing providers to meet and discuss issues of common concem. Although
there are no units of public housing in Palo Alto, the SCCHA .does administer the HUD Section 8
program on a countywide basis.
The Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998 requires Public Housing Authorities,
for the first time, tO prepare an Annual Plan similar to the Consolidated Plan. The consultation
meeting produced a list of ten items that city staff or the non-profit housing developers would
like the SCCHA to consider when preparing their own Annual Plan. It was agreed that better
communication and exchange of information is needed between the SCCHA, the City of Palo
Alto, and the housing non-profit organizations operating in Palo Alto. Increased communication
will lead to a better understanding of the policies, programs and needs of all parties.
Correspondence relating to this meeting can be found in Appendix D.
City of Palo Alto
2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
Page 6
Public Health - County Public Health
Because childhood lead poisoning is the number one environmental health hazard f~cing
American children, the City of Palo Alto consulted with the Lead Program Coordinator at the
Santa Clara County Environmental Health Department regarding information on childhood lead
poisoning in Palo Alto. Lead is a toxic element that can damage the health and development of
very young children. Since lead poisoning can seriously imperil a child’s development, it is
important that elevated blood-lead levels be detected and treated as early as possible.
Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA)
The City of San Jose administers an annual entitlement of HOPWA funds on behalf of all of
Santa Clara County. The City of Palo Alto, along with the other entitlement jurisdictions in
Santa .Clara County, consulted with the City of San Jose regarding the planned use of funds at a
meeting on March 3, 2000 in the City of Sunnyvale. For fiscal year 2000/01 the allocation is
$660,000. A public hearing was held on March 14, 2000 at 6:00 p.m. at the HIV Planning
Council at 2400 Moorpark Avenue in San Jose to hear public comment on. the planned
distribution of funds for 2000/01.
5. Needs Prioritization Process
The priority housing and non-housing community development needs identified in this Plan were
established by City Planning staff following a comprehensive review of all of the information
described above. In setting priorities and establishing a strategic plan, staff took into account
information provided by non-profit agencies, the results of consultations with other ’departments
within the City, consultations with other governmental agencies, information from public forums
and hearings, and information available from existing sources. Existing plans and policies, such
as the City’s Comprehensive Plan, Housing Element, and Economic Resources Plan and the
County’s Homeless Continuum of Care and Welfare to Work policies were also examined for
consistency and linkage to the Consolidated Plan. The priodtization of non-housing community
development activities also took into consideration the Office of Human Services and the Human
Relation Commission’s community needs assessment and pdodtization process.
C. Summary of Accomplishments for Prior Five-Year Consolidated Plan
Overall, the period from July 1, 1995 through June 30, 2000 was a very busy and productive time
for housing and non-housing community development activities in Palo Alto. In the five-year
period, the City received and allocated a total .of $4,694,500 in CDBG grants and program
income. A summary of the CDBG/Housing accomplishments follows:
City of Palo Alto
2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
Page 7
62
AFFORDABLE HOUSING ACCOMPLISHMENTS 1995-2000
Increase in Permanently Affordable Rental Housing
Project Year
Emerson House 1996
ventura Apartments 1997
Alma Place 1998
Page Mill Court 1998
Sheridan Apartments 1998
Palo Alto Gardens Apartments 1999
Subtotal
Increase in Below Market Rate (BMR) Rental Housing
Montage Apartments 1998
Total Increase in Affordable Rental
Housing
Increase in New BMR Homeownership Units
Everett
Silverwood
Classics
Subtotal
Grand Total of Affordable Housing.
Units Achieved 1995-2000
Source
New
Acquisition
New
New
Acquisition
Acquisition
Units
4
12
107
24
57
156
360
New 6
365
1
3
4
7
372
City of Palo Alto
2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
Page 8
63
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS COMPLETED.
1995-2000
1.New County Children’s Shelter - $72,500. Off-site improvements relating to the
construction ofa new 76,000 square-foot children’s shelter in San Jose. Residential facility
will house 3,900 abused and/or neglected children from Santa Clara County, annually.
2.Casa Say - $25,000. Phase I Renovations to Youth Shelter in Mountain View. Addition of
a second story to single-family residence. Agency provides short-term shelter for run-away
and at-risk adolescents.
3.Peninsula Children’s Center - $55,000. New playground equipment and play area
renovations for school which serves children with emotional and behavioral disabilities.4.Stevenson House - $30,000. New Fire Alarm system for 120-unit senior residential
facility for low-income seniors.
5.Lytton Gardens - $56,618. Safety and accessibility improvements. Installation of
elevator smoke doors and power assist hardware to interior doorways in common area of
senior residential facility. Provides 318 units of subsidized senior housing.
6.Stevenson House - $21,000. Accessibility improvements to restrooms and common area
of senior residential facility.
7.Casa Say - $5,000.Phase II Renovations to Youth Shelter in Mountain View.
Renovations finalized.
8.Emergency Housing Consortium - $50,000. Construction of 250-bed regional homeless
"Reception Center" in San Jose. Provides shelter, transitional housing and services for
homeless individuals and families in Santa Clara County.
9.City of Palo Alto, Rinconada Park - $45,000. Accessibility improvements to City Park to
make play structures and play area accessible to persons with disabilities~
10.City of Palo Alto, Ventura Community Center - $183,000. Roof repairs, electrical
upgrades and outdoor lighting, restroom accessibility, parking lot resurfacing and
miscellaneous renovations to community center that serves low-income area.
11.Community Association for Rehabilitation/ Swim Center - $35,000. Addition of an
accessible restroom and changing area and a new fire alarm system. Facility provides
warm water therapeutic swim opportunities for seniors and persons with disabilities.
12.Palo Alto Housing Corp, Arastradero Park - $286,380. Water supply system
renovations for 66 units of affordable family housing.
13.Veterans Workshop, Margarita St. House - $51,000. Acquisition of a shared transitional
home for low-income, disabled veterans.
14. Alliance for Community Care, Feasibility Study , $17,600, Feasibility study to
determine rehabilitation needs and future use of residential facility at 650 Waverley Street
in Palo Alto. Agency provides housing and supportive services for persons with mental
disabilities.
15.Stevenson House - $48,000. New roof on Building A for senior residential facility in Palo
Alto.
Total expended On community development projects: $981,098
City of Palo Alto
2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
Page 9
PUBLIC SERVICES
1995-2000
During the five-year period, the City expended $1,496,300 on public services and administration
and planning activities. Local non-profit organizations were provided with grant funds to
provide various services of benefit to low-income persons. A sampling of the activities and sub-
populations who benefited follows:
Seniors - Ombudsman services for frail, elderly persons in long-term care or nursing
facilities; subsidized minor home repair services
Basic Services - food, case-management, shelter, and counseling services for persons
who are low-income or homeless.
Housing Services - Shared housing counseling and referral, information and referral
services and production of a directory of available subsidized housing
Para-Transit - Fare box subsidies for the frail elderly and persons with disabilities
Fair Housing - Fair housing counseling and complaint investigation, education and
advocacy services to reduce discrimination.
Administration - CDBG program administration and planning activities
City of Palo Alto
2000-2005 Consolidated Plan.
Page 10
65-
II.HOUSING AND HOMELESS NEEDS ASSESSMENT
A. Introduction
Palo Alto is a suburban City with a 2000 resident population estimated at 62,000 people. It is
situated on the northern border of Santa Clara County in the heart of "Silicon Valley". Palo Alto
is part of the Mid-peninsula area that spans northern Santa Clara County (including the cities of
Santa Clara, Mountain View and Sunnyvale) and the southern ¯portion of San Mateo County
(including the cities of Menlo Park, East Palo Alto and Redwood City). The City is known for
its association with the world-famous educational and research institution of Stanford University.
Palo Alto was also the birthplace of the high technology industry in the Santa Clara Valley.
Stanford Medical Center is a major center for medical care and research. The City is also a
center of international culture, art, shopping and food.
Palo Alto is, overall, a very affluent community. The median family income (1990 census) was
over $68,000, about twice the national median income. From 1980 to 1990, Palo Alto’s median
household income increased 124 percent compared to a 106 percent increase for the County as a
whole. The number of persons below the poverty level was estimated at 5.8 percent in 1995, a
slight increase from 1990. Palo Alto is a very desirable place to live due to the climate, high
quality schools, culture, and access to jobs. The housing supply’ has not kept pace with housing
demand. The estimated number of new housing units in the City of Palo Alto from January 1988
to December 1998 is as follows:
UNITS CONSTRUCTED 1988 THROUGH 1998
Income Levels
Very Low Income
Low Income
Moderate Income
Above Moderate Income
Total Units
Number of Units
218
27.
67
656
968
Housing demand in Palo Alto is strongly influenced¯ by the number of jobs in the City and the
surrounding area. It is estimated that there are 2.1 times as many jobs in the City as there are
residents in the labor force. According to the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), in
2000 there were 98,450 jobs within the jurisdictional boundary of Palo Alto. About 80 percent
of the City’s work force commute from other jurisdictions..
Another important factor influencing the demand for housing in Palo Alto is the proximity of
Stanford University. The student population in 1992 was 14,297, of which about 8,700 were
housed on-campus. Thus, over 5,000 students had to be housed in Palo Alto or other nearby
areas. There are 977 units of housing for the University’s 1,642 faculty and 11,314 staff
members. The faculty and staff households who are not provided University housing add to the
housing demand in Palo Alto and the mid-peninsula area.
City of Palo Alto
2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
Page 11
66
In summary, there is a greater demand for housing than can be met. This is because Palo Alto is
a desirable place to live, there are many jobs and there is little land available for new housing
development. This leads to highhousing costs, low vacancy rates and a shortage of affordable
housing opportunities. The housing needs in the community are described in more detail in the
following sections.
B. Affordable Housing Needs
1. Summary of Needs
The most significant housing need in Palo Alto is to alleviate the high cost of housing for lower
income households, especially renters. Data from the 1990 U.S. Census indicate that over 75
percent of all lower income households who rent pay more than 30 percent of their income for
housing. For those households with even more limited incomes, specifically households whose
incomes are less than 50 percent of area-wide median income, the problem of overpaying is even
more severe. In Palo Alto, approximately 55 percent of these "very low" income households pay
more than half of their income for housing. Not only do these very low-income households have
reduced incomes to begin with, but over half of the households also have to pay more than 50
percent of their limited income just for housing costs. As the paragraphs and data below
indicate, the lower income households who have the most severe overpayment problems include
elderly renters and single parent renters~
Another critical housing need in Palo Alto is the need to provide affordable housing for persons
who are homeless or have special needs. Permanent affordable housing for homeless individuals
and households has been and continues to be an important need in Palo Alto. Of importance also
is the need to provide affordable housing with supportive services for persons with special needs,
such as the frail elderly, developmentally disabled, physically disabled and those persons with
severe mental illness.
Other housing needs identified in the paragraphs that follow include the need for the
rehabilitation of existing housing occupied by lower income households, and the provision of
homeownership opportunities for lower income households.
a. Regional Housing Need Allocation
The State of California mandates that local jurisdictions address their fair share of the regional
housing need. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) allocates established
regional housing needs numbers to individual jurisdictions by income categories. The timeframe
for this process is January 1, 1999 through June 30, 2006 (a seven and a half year planning
period).
According to ABAG’s preliminary numbers, Palo Alto will be responsible for about 1.9 percent
of the total Santa Clara County new housing need, which translates into the creation of 1,000
new housing units.
City of Palo Alto
2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
Page 12
67
Jurisdiction
City of Palo Alto
Percent of Palo Alto Total
Santa Clara County Total
Percent of Santa Clara
County Total
Regional
Allocation
of Units
1 ,GO0
Very
Low
Income
191
19.1%
10,703
Low
Income
86
8.6%
5,018
Moderate
Income
243
24.3%
14,569
Above
Moderate
Income
481
48.0%
23,767
Average
Yearly Need
133
54,056 7,207
19.8% 9.3%26.9%43.9%13.3%
2. Income Trends
a. Income Limits
The federal government sets income limits for determining eligibility for public housing, Section
8, and other government programs, and adjusts them annually. Nationally, low-income is
defined as less than 80 percent of the median family income for the area~ very low-income as less
than 50 percent, and extremely low-income as less than 30 percent. The low-income category is
also subject to a maximum cap in areas with unusually high incomes or high housing costs, such
as in Santa Clara County. In 1999, for example, the ceiling for low-income was capped at 67
percent of the median, and in 2000 it is capped at 66 percent of median. The capped income
limits must be used in determining program eligibility for a wide range of housing programs
available to lower-income households, including the CDBG program.
In 1999, the US Department of Housing .and Urban Development (HUD) exempted ten
Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) from the cap on low-income calculations. The .San Jose
MSA (which includes Palo Alto)was one of those communities selected. With this exemption,
Palo Alto is permitted to compute the true. 80 percent of area median income for CDBG and
HOME program purposes using the actual median income with appropriate adjustments for
family size. This exception is without any time limit, unless there is a future statutory change
that impacts this provision.
HUD requires that jurisdictions elect to use the higher income limits and reflect this decision in
their Consolidated. Plans. Jurisdictions are permitted to choose to use the new higher limits for
some elements of their program, while retaining lower limits for other program elements.
Choosing to.elect the higher limits would allow the City of Palo Alto the greatest flexibility in
their administration of the CDBG program.
The City of Palo Alto elects the option of adopting the higher limits for certain area benefit
activities or for certain direct benefit activities, on a case by case basis, to allow the greatest
flexibility in program implementation. It is, however, the intention of the City to continue to
target CDBG funds to the lowest-income residents where the needs are greatest.
City of Palo Alto
2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
Page 13
The following chart is provided to show how much a household can earn to be in one of the
various income categories. In 2000, the median income for a family of four in Santa Clara
County is $87,000 while the national median for a family of four is $50,200.
Income Category
Extremely low-income
(0:30%)
Very low-income (31-50%)
Low-income (51-66 %) CAP
Low-income (80%)
Median income (100%)
INCOME LIMITS, EFFECTIVE MARCH 2000
1
$18,250
$30,450
$39,850
$48,700
$60,900
Number of Persons in Family
2
$20,900
$34,800
$45,550
$55,700
$69,600
3
$23,500
$39,150
$51,250
$62,650
$78,300
4
$26,100
$43,500
$56,950
$69,600
$87,000
5
$28,200
$47,000
$61,500
$75,150
$93,950
Source: US Dep,utment of Housing and Urban Development..
6
$30,300
$50,450.
$66,050
$80,750
100,900
7
$32,350
$53,950
$70,650
$86,300
$107,900
8
$34,450
$57,400
$75,200
$91,850
$114,850
b. Per Capita Income ’
Per capita income is another important indicator. The State Department of Housing and
Community Development’s report entitled The State of California "s Housing Markets 1990-1997
shows that in 1997, the per capita income for Santa Clara County was one of the highest in the
State:
City of Palo Alto
2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
Page 14
Per Capita Income for Selected Counties, 1997
/I /
l | || | II ||
Source: State Department of Housing and Community Development, The State of California’s Housing
Markets 1990-1997
c. Poverty Rate
In the report Now is the Time." Places Left Behind in the New Economy (1999), HUD states that
the estimated poverty rate in Palo Alto for 1995 was 5.8 percent, an increase from the 1990
.Census when it was 4.6 percent.
d. Mean Income
1990 Census data indicate Palo Alto’s mean household incomes to be significantly higher than
those of the County. This gap is expected to increase over the next ten years, according to
ABAG. This is because Palo Alto’s mean income is expected to grow more quickly than the
County as a whole.
PROJECTED MEAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME, 1990 - 2010
Jurisdiction
Palo Alto.
Santa Clara County
1990
$83,500
$70,300
.2000
$107,100
$86,300
Percentage Percentage
Change 2010 .Change
28:26%.$125,100 16.81%
22.76%$97,200 .12.63%
City of Palo Alto
2000.2005 Consolidated Plan
Page 15
70-
3. Population and Households
In 1990 the City had a population of about 56,000. ABAG projects that over the next five io ten
years, the population will increase, but at a less rapid pace than the County as a whole. The
following table shows the percentage change in population from 1990 projected through 2010.
CHANGE IN POPULATION, 1990 - 2010
’Percentage Percentage
Jurisdiction 1990 2000 "Change 2010 Change
Palo Alto 55,900 62,000 10.91%64,300 3.71%
Santa Clara County 1,497,577 1,755,300 17.21% 1,919,0013 9.33%
Although the City’s population is projected tO have increased 11 percent between 1990 and
2000, the number of households increased only 4 percent, representing a trend toward larger
households. ABAG expects that the number of households will continue to increase overthe next
five to ten years, but less rapidly than the population by 2010. The following table shows this
expected growth.
CHANGE IN NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS, 1990 - 2010
Jurisdiction
Palo Alto
Santa Clara County
1990
24,206
520,1813
2000
25,090
567,080
Percentage
Change
3.65°A
9.02%
2010
25,960
620,76C
Percentage
Change
3.47~,
9.47%
4. Housing Need by Category
The need for affordable housing varies, by household income level and category. Described in
the paragraphs that follow are the housing, needs and household characteristics of various
categories of households in Palo Alto, The categories include:
’ City of Palo Alto
2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
Page 16
Renter and Owner Households
Large Families
Elderly Households
Frail Elderly Households.
Single Persons
Persons with Mental Iliness
Persons with Developmental Disabilities
Persons with Physical Disabilities.
Persons with Substance Abuse
Persons with HIV/AIDS
Single-Parent Households
Households Overpaying for Housing ("Cost Burdened")
a. Renter and Owner Households
The 1990 U.S~ Census indicates that in Palo Alto 42 percent of all households were renter
households and the remaining 58 percent owned their homes.
Renter’s Needs: The high cost of rent is the biggest problem for Palo Alto renters. 41 percent
of all renters (of all income levels) are overpaying for housing. Among low and very low-
income renters, overpaying is a much more serious problem. It is only among large family
renters that other housing problems such as overcrowding and substandard housing are notable.
The extent of housing problems among the renter population indicates a need for more affordable
rental units and more rental payment subsidies such as the Section 8 program, especially for very
low-income households. Very low-income renters, who pay over 50 percent oftheir income for
housing, may be sacrificing other necessities, including childcare, to stay in housing." These
households are especially vulnerable to homelessness.
RENTERS WITH ANY HOUSING PROBLEM BY INCOME CATEGORY, 1990
Percentage with Problems
.Percentage Paying More
Than 50 Percent
All
Renters
41%
N/A
Household Income Level
0-30
Percent
71%
57%
31-50
Percent
90%
52%
51-67
Percent
.78%
21%
68-95
Percent
67%
11%
Owners Needs: 26 percent of all owners have a housing problem. Only 18 percent of all owners
have very low, low or moderate incomes. Of the low and moderate-income owners, ~ff percent
(950 households) have housing problems, primarily overpaying. Generally, it is families who are
City of Palo Alto
2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
Page 17
72-
Overpaying. There are not any programs to assist existing low and moderate-income family
owners with their housing expenses.
b. Large Families
Large renter families (5 or more related persons) suffer housing problems to a greater degree
than all other household types. 58 :percent (222 households) of all large renter families have a
housing problem. The typical problems of large families are overpaying and overcrowding. Of
these, 37 percent (142 families) are low income. Overpaying is the most frequent problem of
low-income large families with an incidence of up to 85 percent.
c.Elderly Households
(1) Needs
Elderly households make up 25 percent of Palo Alto’s households. According to an October
1997 report prepared for the Senior Coordinating Council (Avenidas), the age 65+ population in
Santa Clara County is expected to.double between 1990 and 2020, while the 85+ population is
expected to grow by nearly 200 percent. The same report indicates that 80 percent of Palo Alto
people aged 55 or older own their own homes.
Overpaying is the most common housing problem for very low-income elderly renters. Of
elderly renter households with incomes between 31-50 percent of median, 86 percent are
overpaying. Even the moderate-income elderly renters are overpaying at a rate of 76 percent.
This demonstrates a great need for more rental assistance and new construction of subsidized
rental housing for the elderly.
Elderly Owners: 50 percent of very low-income owners overpay for housing.
Elderly Renters: Approximately 56 percent of ail elderly renters have a housing problem, almost
exclusively overpaying. Of the elderly renter households with incomes between 31-50 percent,
86 percent are overpaying. Even the moderate-income elderly renters are overpaying at a rate of
76 percent.
Further indication of the need for rental assistance for elderly households is demonstrated by the
83 elderly and disabled households on the Santa Clara County Housing Authority’s Section 8
waiting list. The Section 8 waiting list is currently closed..Most of the waiting lists for
subsidized elderly housing developments are also closed. Those that are open are open only to
persons who qualify for a federal preference, and even then the wait for a unit may be five to
seven years long. These situations demonstrate the severe need for more rental assistance and
new construction of subsidized rental housing for the elderly.
City of Palo Alto
2000-200.5 Consolidated Plan
Page 18
73-
(2) Resources
Resources currently available in Palo Alto for elderly households are identified below.
EXISTING HOUSING PRIMARILY OCCUPIED BY ELDERLY HOUSEHOLDS
INDEPENDENT LIVING (No Meals or Other Services)
Palo Alto Gardens
Sheridan Apartments
Terman Apartments
Webster Wood
Arastradero Park
Colorado Park
Total I
128 units
57 units
24 units
4 units
13 units
8 units
234
Very Low-income Only
Low-income
Very Low-income Only
Low-income
Low-income
Low-income
EXISTING SUPPORTIVE HOUSING FORTHE ELDERLY
INDEPENDENT LIVING (With Some Meals Provided)
Stevenson House
Lytton I and II
Lytton IV
Total
128 unitS
268 units
51 units
447
Lower Income Only
Lower Income Only
Lower Income Only
Frail Elderly Households
(1) Needs
Palo Alto has a higher percentage of older seniors than the nation as a whole. Tw.enty percent of
the senior population is 80 or above; compared to 12 percent nationwide. Based on. national
incidence rates, about 2,000 of Palo Alto’s elderly have a significant limitation that affects their
need for supportive services where they live as follows:
City of Palo Alto
2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
Page 19
74
1,000 Elderly need "Assisted Daily Living" (help with bathing, feeding, etc.)
950 Elderly need substantial help performing several activities of daily living or need
24 hour care or skilled nursing care
Older seniors are more likely to need assisted living or nursing care. Older seniors are also more
likely to have lower incomes. Thirty-seven percent of Palo Alto’s seniors aged 75 or older have
extremely, low incomes (below $15,000 per year). About 14 percent of seniors between 65 and
74 have incomes below $l 5,000.
Even seniors living in subsidized housing may have their housing needs change as they ag~. The
Lytton complex is the only development in Palo Alto that provides a full range of living options
for low-income seniors from independent living to assisted living to skilled nursing care.
There is a need to provide more affordable rental housing for frail seniors and to provide
sufficient in-home services to the frail elderly who want to remain in their own homes or
apartments.
(2) Resources
Skilled Nursing Facilities for the Elderly -- Lytton Gardens III: 145 units (about 50 percent of.the
beds are occupied by low-income elderly assisted under Medical or Medicare).
EXISTING HOUSING FOR FRAIL ELDERLY
Total
Facility Name Units Type of Facility
Casa Olga 103 Intermediate Nursing Care
Channing House 21 Nursing Facility
Channing House 285 RCFE *
Lytton Gardens Community Care 55 RCFE *
Lytton Gardens 145 Nursing Facility
Palo Alto Nursing Center 66 Nursing Facility ¯
Pleasant Manor 6 RCFE * "
Sandy Oak Place 6 RCFE *
Webster House 74 RCFE *
The Birches Residential Care .6 RCFE *
May Care 6 RCFE *" ¯
Severly Manor Guest Home .6 RCFE *
Sweet Little Home 6 RCFE *
The Palo Alto Commons 150 RCFE *
¯ RCFE = Residential Care Facility Elderly (Assisted Living) ¯
City of Palo Alto
2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
Page 20
75
e. Summary of Elderly and Frail Elderly Needs
The chart below identifies the current need that has been identified for the elderly and frail
elderly households in Palo Alto.
NEED FOR SUPPORTIVE HOUSING FOR VERY LOW INCOME
ELDERLY & FRAIL ELDERLY HOUSEHOLDS
Assisted Living
Substantial’A~sistance;
24 hour care; nursing care
2
3
Total
Need
1,000
95O
Percentage
Very Low
Income~
31%
31%
Gross
Need
310
units
295
units
31% of all elderly households (owner and renter) are very low income
Existing
Units
502
603
Assisted living units for very low income include 50 residential care units at Lytton II.
24-Hour Care Units are about 60 beds at Lytton Gardens III,
Estimate of
Unmet Need
260
235
f. Single Persons,
Separate information is not available about single (non-e!derly) persons who live alone and
singles that choose to live with other adults such as unmarried couples. The "all other
households" category in Table #1C (see Appendix E) is 50 percent of all renters. Housing
problems (again almost entirely overpaying) are more widespread in this group than in any Other
renter population group. 86 percent of low and very low-income "other" renters have housing
problems. The percentage with problems is spread evenly among extremely low, .very. low and
low-income categories.
Unless they are disabled or elderly, the Section 8 program does not generally serve single
persons. Also, Palo Alto’s stock of subsidized housing mostly serves elderly and families.~ The
low-income, single adult population seems to be an underserved group whose primary need is
affordable small rental units. Strategies that involve new construction, acquisition or other use of
the existing housing stock are needed. Appropriate housing could include. SROs, shared group
living in single-family homes, second units, matches with elderly homeowners and small
apartments.
City of Palo Alto
2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
Page 21
g. Summary of Needs for Persons with Disabilities
Approximately 1,940 persons ages 16-64 in Palo Alto have a disability that affects mobility or
self-care according to the 1990 Census. Of these, 1,700 have a disability that affects their ability
to work. Information is not available about the type of household they live in, their income level
or how their disability affects their housing needs. Generally, persons with disabilities have
lower incomes especiallyiftheir disability limits their ability to work. For persons with physical
disabilities, accessible housing is critical to their ability to live independently. For persons who
are not able to drive (or cannot afford to own a car), housing must not only be accessible, but
also located conveniently to shopping and public transportation.
h.Persons with Mental Illness
(1) Needs
According to the Santa Clara County Mental Health Department, there continues to be an
ongoing need for support services related to mental health needs of the community. The
Department estimates that 24,000 people need case management services, yet there are only
about 5,000 slots currently in the inventory of services. This results in an unmet need of 1.9,000
case management slots. Similarly, 29,000 people need mental health care, while only 19,000
people are able to be served. This leaves a gap of about 10,000 people needing services. The
Department additionally estimates that 25 percent of those with mental health concerns need job
training, while 33 percent need substance abuse treatment. Finally,. nearly 100 percent of this
population needs housing placement assistance, as well as life skills training.
The Santa Clara County Health Department’s Mental Health Services Research Center reports
that 175 unduplicated persons with severe mental illness were served at the North County Mental
Health Center (located in Palo Alto) in 1999. Of the approximately 7,000 persons hospitalized
for mental illness at County facilities during the year, 10 percent .were either homeless prior to
admission or were living in a temporary arrangement,
A 1988 Santa Clara County plan identified a countywide need for 2,700 .permanent, affordable
rental units for mentally ill persons who were either homeless or in overly restrictive or
inadequate board and care homes. This housing should be affordable by extremely low-income
persons (0~30 percent of median) since a mentally disabled person onSSI receives an income of
$7,680 pe~; year or 19 percent of median income. Supportive services are very critical to the
mentally ill. Different types of housing are necessary including transitional and permanent
housing, SRO’s, shared housing, and board and care homes. County mental health staff
identified licenses board and care homes as the greatest unmet need in FY 2000.
City of Palo Alto
2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
Page 22
77
(2) Resources
Alliance for Community Care, Inc. provides treatment, support and rehabilitation counseling
Services for persons who have been affected by serious psychiatric disabilities. Although their
programs and administrative offices are based in San Jose, there is a service and treatment office
in Palo Alto. They operate a licensed group home in Palo Alto, as well as an independent shared
living house. They are attempting to rehabilitate and re-open a board and care home on
Waverley Street in Palo Alto to serve as transitional housing for persons with mental illness.
Adolescent Counseling Services, Inc. operates a residential program for teenage .youth with
severe mental or emotional problems, and Veterans Workshop operates two group homes for
veterans with disabilities.
LICENSED GROUP HOMES (With On-Site Care)
Name ~No. Served Clients Sponsor
La Selva 12 Adults Alliance for Community Care
Caravan House 6 Youth (12-17)Adolescent Counseling Services
PALO ALTO: INDEPENDENT SHARED LIVING
Name No. Served Clients Sponsor
Femando St. House 5 Adult Veterans "Veterans Workshop
Margarita St. House 6 Adult Veterans Veterans Workshop
Middlefield Rd. House 6 Adults Alliance for Community Care
i.Persons with Developmental Disabilities
(1) Supportive Housing Needs
The Housing Choices Coalition (HCC), an agency addressing the housing needs of the
developmentally disabled, reports that there are currently approximately 5,560 people of all ages
in Santa Clara County who have mental, retardation, epilepsy, cerebral palsy, autism or other
developmental disabilities. Of the 3,065 adults over the age of eighteen, approximately 1,845
(60 percent) are currently living at home with their parents. Of this number, 60 percent will
likely need some kind of housing. In addition, it is estimated that about 300 people (30 percent)
of the 970 people who now live in community residential facilities (i.e., group homes) would
also choose more independent living, were it available. These estimates are based on current
trends that suggest that nearly 2,000 disabled people with extremely low incomes will be looking
for housing over the next five years.
City of Paio Alto
2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
Page 23
78
Many of the developmentally disabled live on Social Security Income (SSI). Although this may
be supplemented by earned income or Social Security Disability Income (SSDI), HCC reports
that the average income for a person with a developmental disability is a mere 16.7 percent of the
median in Santa Clara County. This makes it extremely difficult to find affordable housing. A
housing .policy report published jointly by The Consortium for Citizens. with Disabilities and The
Technical Assistance Collaborative found that, on a national average:
...It takes almost 70 percent of SSI income along with extreme self-discipline-
and self-denial of other needs...for a person with a disability receiving SSI
benefits to rent a one-bedroom apartment in the United States. After paying rent,
only about $5.00 per day remains for all other expenses.
Clearly, the situation is far worse in Santa Clara County where it could take 154 percent of the
average income of a person with a developmental disability to. pay for the average priced one
bedroom apartment.
(2) Supportive Housing Resources
There are limited opportunities for persons with developmental disabilities to live in Palo Alto
other than living with their own families. Youth and adults who cannot live with their families
and need the care and supervision of a group home must generally be placed in other parts of the
County. City CDBG funds have been used in previous years to assist the Moving On group
home, and the Pettis Avenue Apartments in Mountain View (acquisition in 1986). Programs that
place developmentally disabled adults in independent living utilize housing in other cities due to
the high cost of rentals in Palo Alto.
In 1998 the Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition completed construction of a new 24-unit
residential facility in Palo Alto for adults with developmental disabilities. Page Mill Court is a
HUD Section 202 project that provides Section 8 rental assistance to income eligible tenants.
The project is an independent living facility with on-site supportive services. City CDBG and
housing in-lieu funds were used in the site acquisition and construction. The project is rented-up,
and there is a long waiting list. These units typically do not experience many turnovers.
(3) Group Home Needs.
A numerical estimate of this need is not available, but according to the San Andreas Regional
Center, persons who need a group home setting are usually placed in the southern part of Santa
Clara County since there is very little available in Palo Alto. Excellent services are available for
this ipopulation in Palo Alto, but the housing is not, so then clients must be transported north to
receive services. Community Association for Rehabilitation (CAR) in 1994 reported that they
receive an average of two contacts per month from persons seeking group residential services or
housing for a family member with developmental disabilities.
City of Palo Alto
2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
Page 24
"/9
(4) Group Home Resources
LICENSED GROUP HOMES FOR DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED
Name
Strausser Home
Palo Alto
Pettis Avenue Apartments
Mt. View
No. Served
2
14
(in5 apartments)
Clients
Adults
Adult Women
Sponsor
Private
. Private, Nonprofit
jo Persons with Physical Disabilities
(1) Needs
In March 2000, the Housing Authority of Santa Clara County reported that there were 86
elderly/disabled persons from Palo Alto on their waiting list for housing. This is a decrease from
November 1994 when there were 156 elderly/disabled persons from Palo Alto on the waiting list.
It is not known how many have physical disabilities. The 1990 Census, provides the following
numbers of persons in Palo Alto with "mobility or self-care limitations" who are not living in
institutions:
PERSONS WITH MOBILITY OR SELF-CARE LIMITATIONS - 1990 Census
No Work With Work
Disabilities Disability
Age 16 - 64 years 239 persons 1,701
Age 65 +212 persons 1,865
It is not possible to estimate how many of these people may need specialized housing with
services or accessible housing, but some portion of them would have inadequate housing at this
time or in the future.
City of Palo Alto
2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
Page 25
8O
(2) Resources
HOUSING FOR PERSONS WITH PHYSICAL DISABILITIES
Independent Living (No Services Provided)
Name No. of Adapted Description Income
’Units
Webster Wood 4 units 1 BR Low Income
California Park 1 unit 1 BR Low Income
Alma Place 3 units Studio Very Low Income
Barker Hotel 5 units Studio Very Low Income
Emerson House 1 unit 1 BR Low Income
There are no housing developments specifically designed and built to provide supportive housing
for persons with physical disabilities. Some projects for seniors will accept disabled persons for
some of their units, but it is unlikely that the units meet current standards of accessibility
(Americans With Disabilities Act). Generally these units would merely be ground floor (one
bedroom or studio) apartments without stairs. These projects include: Arastradero Park Apts.,
Colorado Park Apts., Lytton I, II and IV, Palo Alto Gardens, Sheridan Apts., and Terman Apts..
k.Persons with Substance Abuse .
(1) Needs
According to a study funded by the California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs,
approximately 7% of the population of this state uses drugs. Based on the i989 population of
29,063,200, this figure translates into approximately 2.1 million people who use drugs, with
approximately 112,000 of these people residing in Santa Clara County. There is.no adequate
information regarding the needs of this population, although it can be assumed that counseling
and other services for overcoming the addictions are critical in addition to affordable housing.
City of Palo Alto
2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
Page 26
8~
(2) Resources
SUPPORTIVE HOUSING FOR PERSONS WITH ALCOHOL
OR OTHER DRUG ADDICTIONS
Name Location Capacity .
Moriah Sober Living House Vernon Terrace, Palo Alto 8 persons
TLC Residential Care Kenneth Drive, Palo Alto .8-12 persons
!.Persons with HIV/AIDS
(1) Needs
Based on available Department of Health Se~wice data, there are approximately 3,000to 5,000
HIV+ persons in Santa Clara County. The 1999 Santa Clara County HIV Planning Council’s
needs assessment reported 2,953 cumulative cases of AIDS by the end of 1998. Of this number,
92 percent were male and 8 percent female. The study also showed that about 1,200 people are
alive with AIDS today.
The needs assessment identified the following three major barriers to service in Santa Clara
County:
Patients’ lack of knowledge or understanding of where to go for service
Lack of available transportation options
Long waits for service, including long housing waiting lists
Of the 343 people surveyed as part of the needs assessment, the following list of services were
rated as the most important to people living with HIV and AIDS.
)~55 percent cited health care
~"38 percent housing
~35 percent nutrition
~"25 percent medication
~"17 percent counseling and support
~’12 percent transportation
Housing was identified as a significant need among this population, and the most difficult
service to obtain. Within this category, housing for families was most difficult. Six percent of
the people in the sample were identified as homeless, either living in shelters or on the street.
The survey found that the homeless respondents were:
City of Palo Alto
2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
Page 27.
82
disproportionately drug injection users;
more likely to be African-American or Hispanic/Latino
more male, heterosexual and younger;.
more likely to be uninsured;
more likely to be unaware of their T-cell count or viral load;
less likely to have regular HIV care;
less likely to have seen a medical practitioner for HIV care in the last year;
more likely to rate their health as fair or poor;
less likely to have taken combination HIV/AIDS medications;
less likely to have access to a working telephone, pager or voice mail;
have significantly higher levels of alcohol use.
Another study, entitled HIV Medical Care Survey: An Evaluation of Persons Receiving Care for
H1V/AIDS Disease~, found that of the total number of people reported as receiving treatment for
HIV and AIDS in Santa Clara County (1,864), 17 percent were receiving treatment for severe
mental illness, 9 percent were diagnosed with substance abuse problems and another 3 percent
were receiving treatment for other sexually transmitted diseases. The geographical residency of
people receiving HIV/AIDS treatment were as follows:
15 percent resided in North County including Palo Alto, Mountain View,
Sunnyvale, Los Altos, Alviso and Santa Clara
11 percent resided in East County, including Milpitas, Berryessa and Alum
Rock
32 percent resided in Central County/Downtown San Jos~
16 percent resided in West County, including Campbell, Cupertino, Los
Gatos, Monte Sereno and Saratoga
2 percent resided in South County, including Morgan Hill, Gilroy and San
Martin
percent were homeless
20 percent had unknown residency
As a result of new treatments, many, but by no means all, of the people with HIV are living
longer and, in some cases, healthier lives. To maximize the likelihood that people will benefit
from the new drug therapies, they need a stable living environment. With the advent of protease
inhibitors and other medications, strict regimens are required to keep the virus under control.
And, despite the fact that people are living longer, many are still considered disabled and unable
to work. As a consequence, the current housing situation for low-income people living With HIV
is becoming increasingly critical. The housing options for persons with AIDS/HIV disease
City of Palo Alto
2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
Page 28
include temporary shelters, rent subsidies, long-term residential programs, housing referral
services, hospices, and emergency housing subsidies.
From July 1, 1999 through January 31, 2000, the ARIS project provided affordable housing to
120 individuals for a total of 19,197 bed days with an average occupancy of 97 percent. During
the same period, ARIS received 186 applications for housing through its various programs. As
of January 31, 2000, ARIS had 129 applications for housing on the waiting list, which is
approximately a 24-month wait.
(2) Resources
There are currently no existing housing projects specifically designed for persons with HIV
disease or persons with AIDS in Palo Alto. The ARIS Project, a provider of housing and support
services for persons with AIDS, indicated that they maintain a waiting list that averages one year
or more.
The City of San Jose has been designated by HUD as an entitlement City to receive Housing
Opportunities for Persons with Aids (HOPWA) funds. In accepting the HOPWA entitlement,
the City of San Jose is required to use the funds in ways that address the Countywide housing
and support service needs of low-income individuals with HIV or AIDS, and in consultation with
other local governmental entities in the County. The City of Palo Alto collaborates with the City
of San Jose and the other County jurisdictions in determining a process for expenditure of the
funds on a Countywide basis.
The ARIS Project Residence Program provides an example of low-cost, special needs housing to
persons with AIDS. The AR/S Project manages five residence sites, for a total of 44 beds in
shared living. In recognizing the need to provide services to the growing population of women
with AIDS or HIV, the ARIS Project opened its fifth house specifically for women in 1995.
m. Single Parent Households
About 25 percent of a;; families with children in Palo are headed by a single parent. There. are
1,014 single parent families with children under 18 and 900 single parents living with their
children 18 and over. The incomes of single parent families (especially female headed families)
are much less than the incomes of married couple families with children.
City of Paio Alto
2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
Page 29
MEAN INCOME OF DIFFERENT FAMILY TYPES WITH CHILDREN UNDER .18
YEARS OF AGE - 1990 Census
Married Couple Family
Male Head of Household Family
Female Head 0fHousehold Family
$101,537
$49,193
$36,651
Without affordable housing and supportive services, many single parent households are at high
risk of becoming homeless. Single parent families are the fastest growing segment of the
homeless populationl According to the "1993 Santa Clara County Children’s Report Card", 52
percent of homeless families in the County were headed by single parents.
n. Households Overpaying for Housing ("Cost Burdened")
Overpaying is the principal problem of all very low, low and moderate-income households, both
renters and owners. For renters, however, the problem is more acute. 1990 U.S. Census data
show that more than half of all renters in Palo Alto pay more than 30 percent of their income for
housing (also known as "cost burdened"). Lower income renter households are even more
severely impacted. Approximately 77 percent of all lower income renter households are cost
burdened in Palo Alto.
The next level of analysis is to examine those renter households who are "severely cost
burdened" that is, they are paying more than 50 percent of their income for housing. Census data
from 1990 indicate that .46 percent of all lower income renter households are severely cost
burdened. The problem is even more acute for very low and extremely low-income households
(households with incomes under 50 percent of median income). Approximately 55 percent of
these very low and extremely low-income households pay more than 50 percent of their income
for housing.
Data for low and moderate-income homeowners indicate that cost burden is a problem for very
low and extremely low-income homeowners and to a lesser degree for low and moderate-income
homeowners. Approximately 35 percent of all very low, low and moderate-income home6wners
are cost burdened. However, 57 percent of extremely low income and 32 percent of very low-
income households pay more than 30 percent of their income for housing. Only 23 percent of all
moderate-income homeowners are cost burdened.
In summary, there are more renter households than homeowner households who are cost
burdened. Especially cost burdened are extremely low, very low and lower income renter
households.
City of Palo Alto
2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
Page 30
o. Overcrowded Households
Overcrowding is not as serious a housing problem in Palo Alto as it is in Santa Clara County as a
whole or as it is in nearby cities such as Mountain View or Redwood City. Overcrowding is
primarily a problem of very low and low-income large family renters as shown belowl Only 4.3
percent of all renters are overcrowded in Palo Alto compared to 17.1 percent in the County as a
whole. Mountain View has an 11.6 percent overall rate and San Jose is the highest with an
overall rate of23~8 percent.
INCIDENCE OF OVERCROWDING
ALL RENTER & LARGE FAMILY RENTERS BY INCOME GROUP
PALO ALTO -1990 Census
Total InCome of Income of
0-30% of
Median
31-50% of
Median
Income of
51-67% of
Median
All Renters 4.3%4.3%7.9%9.2%
Large Families 48.6%48.0%66.1%78.2%
C. Homeless Needs
1. The 1995 Survey on H0melessness
Santa Clara County’s homeless population reflects the diverse urban, suburban and rural areas of
the County. The urban homeless, 80 percent of whom are single males, are the most visible in
the County. They constitute the primary users of the emergency winter shelter system in the
County. Unlike the urban homeless, the suburban and rural homeless are more difficult to
enumerate and do not congregate in large numbers, often encamping along the numerous creeks
that network the County. As many as 150 to 200 homeless individuals have .been identified as
camping in the County’s creeks at any given time.
Because of the shifting nature of homelessness, as people move between cities to find work or
housing, Palo Alto, in collaboration with the other entitlement jurisdictions and the urban county
of Santa Clara, are committed to a regional approach to the problem of homelessness. In 1995
the Cities of San Jos6, Santa Clara, Palo Alto, Mountain View, Sunnyvale, and Gilroy, and the
County of Santa Clara, jointly funded and participated in a survey of homeless individuals and
families in Santa Clara County. The survey consisted of a questionnaire that was administered to
a sample of the homeless population in the County. Unlike a census, which counts the entire
population in a group, a sample survey reaches only a subset of the totalpopulation.
City of Palo Alto.
2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
Page 31
86
The survey interview process consisted of two parts: (1) on-site interviews with individuals not
currently in a shelter but at various public street locations throughout the County, and (2) on-site
interviews with individuals at all of the emergency shelters, youth outreach centers, and
transitional housing facilities. Although efforts were made to survey everyone residing in the
shelters, not all were able or willing to be interviewed. Based on these two interview samplings,
the survey interviewed a total of 1,149 homeless individuals for this point-in-time survey of the
County(shelter and street survey only). The major findings of the survey are:
The length of time in homelessness appears,to be increasing. Over 41 percent of the
respondents reported being homeless for more than one year -- an increase of 40
percent over the 1989 Homelessness in Santa Clara County, 1989." New Faces,
Hidden Costs survey.
The number of children who are homeless comprised 19 percent of the total sample
count. Of the total number of homeless children in families, 74 percent were under
the age of 12.
The number of working homeless more than doubled from the 12 percent reported in
1989 to 24 percent in 1995.
Only a small portion (less than 25 percent) of the homeless receive public assistance
in the form of AFDC, General Assistance, WIC, and/or Social Security. Only 8
percent receive AFDC.
Mental illness and substance abuse are problems that continue to be a significant
factor for the County’s homeless population, with 34 percent of the respondents
reporting an alcohol or substance abuse problem and 11 percent reporting a severe
mental illness (8 percent reported both severe mental illness and alcohol/drug abuse "
problem).
The County’s homeless population continues to be fairly well educated. Fifty-three
percent graduated from high school or had at least some college courses, while 7
percent were college graduates and 2 percent had post-graduate training.
Seventy-two percent of the County’s homeless state their income is well below the
national poverty level.
The sample survey described above counted a large percentage, but not all, of the homeless
estimated to be living in the County. Based on the survey results and given the number of
emergency shelter beds existing in the County, the study estimates that at the time the survey
was taken, there were about 1,700 homeless people without permanent shelter in the County.
Further, by using a formula to calculate turnover rates in shelters, and adding in the families on
AFDC which had requested homeless assistance, the study estimates that there were 16,300
people who experienced an episode of homelessness during FY 93/94 in the entire County. This
does not mean that 16,300 people in the County were homeless for the entire year, but rather that
they had some period ofhomelessness in their lives, from less than a month to more than a year.
City of Palo Alto
2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
Page 32
87
The Palo.Alto sample represented 4.2 percent of the total survey population. However, there is
no accepted method for "allocating" the estimates of the number of homeless to individual ~ities
within the County. Due to the transitory nature of homelessness, it cannot be described with any
meaning except on at least a countywide basis. From the perspective of a city like Palo Alto,
which is located along the border between two counties; homelessness really should be studied
from a sub-regional perspective.
Whatever the exact number of homeless adults, youth and families, it is clear that existing
programs and facilities do not meet the service, shelter and housing needs of the local homeless
population.
2. Santa Clara County Housing Authority Waiting List
Another indicator regarding homelessness comes from the Housing Authority’s waiting list
information. When.the waiting list was opened in 1999, respondents were asked to self-identify
whether or not they were homeless. The following table shows this information for the various
cities in the County.
City of Palo Alto
’ 2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
Page 33
-88 -
1999 SANTA CLARA COUNTY HOUSING
AUTHORITY WAITING LIST STATISTICS
city
Campbell
Cupertino
Gilroy
Los.Altos
Los Altos Hills
Los Gatos
Milpitas
Monte Sereno
Morgan Hill
Mountain View
Palo Alto
San Jose
Santa Clara
Saratoga
Sunnyvale
Outside Santa Clara
County
rOTAL
Number of
Households on
Wait List
434
138
1,017
22
O
116
887
.1
358
280
304
19,525
1,225
46
949
3,020
28,322
Number of
Homeless
Households on
Wait List
40
13
253
2
0
23
107
0
65
40
54
2,860
134
6
109
643
4,349
Percentage of
Homeless
Households on
Wait List
9.22%
9.42%
24.88%
9.09%
0.00%
19.83%
12.06%
0.00%
18.16%
14.29%
17.76%
14.65%
10.94%
13.04%
11.49%
21.29%
15.36%
Percentage
of Countywide
Total
0.92%
0.30%
5;82%
0.05%
0.00%
0.53%
2.46%
0.00%
1.49%
0.92%
1.24%
65.76%
3.08%
0.14%
2.51%
14.79%
100.00%
3. Numbers of Homeless Persons Served
Emergency Housing Consortium reports that their 1,250-bed shelter system housed more than
5,844 unduplicated homeless adults during FY 93,94 in Santa Clara County. Additionally, 733
unduplicated homeless and runaway youth under the age of 18 were assisted by the Youth
Outreach Program at the youth drop in center in San Jose. Of the adult population served, 63
reported Palo Alto as their last residence or significant address.
Urban Ministry serves a large number of "unsheltered" homeless persons at their morning drop-
in center. On a daily basis, the outdoor center is visited by up to 120 persons. Since the drop-in
center is located a short walk from the San Mateo County line and adjacent to a major inter-
County transit terminal, it is reasonable to assume that some of their clients have connections
with other nearby communities~ Some of their clients, undoubtedly utilize the winter shelter at
either the Sunnyvale or San Mateo armories and thus may be counted in the annual service
counts by other agencies. Other clients with some limited income are able to live in a residential
hotel for part of the month and then return to the streets when their monthly income is depleted.
However, it is very likely that many of the Urban Ministry’s clients are truly "unsheltered" since
City of Palo Alto "
2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
Page 34
89
the drop-in center is located close to areas where homeless persons are known to camp or
congregate.
The Urban Ministry’s rotating church shelter programs serves an average of 13 persons per night
during the winter months. The Clara Mateo Alliance Shelter, located on the grounds of the
Veterans Administration Hospital in Menlo Park, has served over 1,200 homeless persons since
it opened in July 1997.
4. Needs of Persons Threatened with Homelessness
There is a very large incidence of overpaying among low-income households both in Palo Alto
and in Santa Clara County as a whole. Low-income persons who already pay more than 30
percent or 50 percent of their income for housing are at risk ofhomelessness at all times. Many
households must regularly rely on emergency food, hot meal programs and clothing programs to
continue to pay their rent. Emergency assistance providers continually exhaust their funds for
rental move-in assistance and emergency rent funds. There is a need for a steady and expanded
source of funding for these programs.
In light of the fact that the 1995 County Homeless Coordinator’s survey identified 6,328 children
in the AFDC families applying for homeless assistance, it is important to note that affordable
¯ childcare services are also a critical need. Affordable childcare provides the parent with the time
to pursue employment opportunities and provides a safe environment for .the child during the
turmoil that families suffer as a result of their homelessness.
Childcare ~ubsidies are essential to these families since the monthly fees for full-time childcare
in Palo Alto can range from approximately $420 for grades 1-5 to $1,340 for infant/toddler care.
The. availability of childcare is also. an issue since there is an extremely low vacancy rate for
existing facilities.
5.Inventory of Facilities and Services to Assist the Homeless and Persons Threatened
with Homelessness
a. Countywide Facilities
As of 1995, in Santa Clara County ¯there were 662 permanent shelter beds and 590 seasonal beds.
None of these facilities are located in the City of Palo Alto. The City of Palo Alto, in conjunction
with other entitlement jurisdictions, financed the development of Emergency Housing
Consortium’s Homeless Reception Center in San Jose. The Reception Center operates 150 year-
round beds (250 beds during the winter months) and provides intake and assessment services to ¯
it~ clients to ensure that¯ they receive the appropriate level of care. Additionally, Palo Alto
assisted in the establishment of the60-bed Clara-Mateo Shelter, located at the Veterans
Administration hospital in Menlo Park.
The largest shelter for youth in San Jos~ is the Santa Clara County Children’s Shelter, providing
emergency shelter for wards of the court (usually victims of abuse or neglect) from newborn to
18 years of age and located in San Josr. The facility has a 90-bed capacity and is consistently
City of Palo Alto
2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
Page 35
9O
full. The New County Children’s Shelter has a capacity of 132 beds and opened in 1995 in San
Josr. Other shelters for youth include Casa SAY in Mountain View, Emergency Hou.sing
Consortium’s Youth Outreach Program, ~md the Bill Wilson Center in Santa Clara.
The Table in Appendix F, compiled by the City of San Jose Department of Housing in 1998,
provides an inventory of facilities and services for the homeless, persons threatened with
homelessness, and those with special needs in Santa Clara County.
As part of the Regional Continuum of Care, the entitlement jurisdictions of Santa Clara County
have prepared a gaps analysis showing the existing number of homeless facilities and the
projected ongoing need. The table at the end of this section shows -the gaps analysis for the
County.
b.Local Inventory of Facilities and Services to Assist the Homeless and Persons
Threatened with Homelessness
The Palo Alto Urban Ministry operates a.drop-in center ~or the homeless from Monday through
Friday during the hours of 7:30 am to 11:30 am at their center behind the Red Cross building.
They provide bus passes, shower passes, message and mail services, clothing, case management,
and payee services. The agency’s food program provides bagged groceries and prepared mehls to
homeless and low-income individuals at various local sites. The Urban Ministry’s programs and
services are limited by the lack of a designated building with adequate space and facilities.
The Palo Alto Urban Ministry also operates the "Hotel de Zink" shelter out of twelve churches,
using a different church each month of the year. Fifteen people can be accommodated in this
emergency shelter program that serves single adults. The Community Services Agency of
Mountain View and Los Altos also provides a rotating church shelter program in Mountain View
that serves up to fifteen persons per night.
Alliance for Community Care, Inc, provides mental health services to adults and older adults
with serious and persistent mental disabilities. Programs sponsored .by the agency include group
housing with and without services, counseling, case management, street outreach, education and
vocationa! training.
Clara Mateo Alliance Shelter operates a 60-bed shelter that has six family-housing rooms and six
transitional housing rooms where people can stay for up to a year. Although the shelteris open
to all eligible clients, about two-thirds of the population served are veterans.
The Shelter Plus Care Program, administered by the County Office of Homelessness, provides
Section 8 rental subsidies to eligible, case-managed homeless persons with a disability. The
program has been successfully implemented in the both the Barker Hotel (a rehabilitated 26 unit
single room occupancy hotel) and Alma Place (a newly constructed 107 unit single room
occupancy residency hotel). Thirteen previously homeless persons are currently housed as a
result of the Program.
In addition to the case-management provided under the Shelter Plus Care Program, the Palo Alto
Housing Corporation provides additional, extensive counseling and supportive services to its
City of Palo Alto
2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
Page 36
r~sidents at the Barker Hotel, the majority of whom were previously homeless, or are at-risk of
becoming homeless. The program, funded with Palo Alto CDBG funds, has signific.antly
reduced the turnover rate at the Barker, keeping at-risk persons in their homes.
The American Red Cross distributes emergency assistance ftmds to families and individuals who
are threatened with homeless. The Red Cross is the local distributor of County Emergency
Assistance Network funds.
There are currently no transitional facilities located in Palo Alto.
D. Public Housing Needs
The City of Palo Alto does not have any public housing units or developments located within the
City limits.
E. Lead Based Paint
Due to the age of Palo Alto’s housing stock, most households (over 90 percent) are living in units
that are likely to contain lead based paint (defined as units built before 1979). In rental housing,
very low and low-income households are not disproportionately affected by lead paint hazards.
Thirty-four percent of pre-1979 rental units are occupied by lower-income households.
Generally, rental housing in Palo Alto is well maintained which may reduce lead paint hazards
for all tenants. In owner occupied housing (due to the high market value of such housing) very
few lower income households are affected by lead paint hazards.
16 percent of the pre-1979 owner occupied housing units are occupied by lower income
households. Lead paint in owner occupied housing is likely to be a problem of higher income
households who have the economic resources to remodel their homes. Consultation with the
County Environmental Health Department did not reveal any reports of significantly high lead
levels in children residing in Palo Alto. See the following tables for more information.
City of Palo Alto
2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
Page 37
92
RENTAL UNITS BY AGE OF UNIT & INCOME OF OCCUPANTS
YEAR BUILT:Pre-1940 1940- 1959 1960 - 1979
Occupied by Very Low Income 312 654 1,294
Occupied by Other Low Income 150 333 636
Occupied by Higher Income 1,335 2,743 2,569
TOTAL UNITS 1,797 3,730 4;499
OWNER UNITS BY AGE OF UNIT & INCOME OF OCCUPANTS
YEAR BUILT:Pre-1940 1940 - 1959 1960 - 1979
Occupied by Very Low Income 373 816 106
Occupied by Other Low Income 225 504 52
Occupied. by Higher Income 2,310 6,678 2,113
TOTAL UNITS 2,908 7,998 2,271
Source: Table 12 (10/19/93) in CHAS Databook; Special 1990 Census Tabulation Provided by HUD
The Environmental Health Department has identified "hot zones" in the’ County that have the
highest concentration of elevated blood-lead levels in children. The City of Palo Alto is not
considered to be a high risk area. There were seven (7) reported cases of elevated blood-lead
levels in children under the age if 16 from 1995 to 2000 in Palo Alto.
City of Palo Alto
2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
Page 38
III. HOUSING MARKET CONDITIONS
A. Housing Type
The State of California’s Departmem of Finance publishes official State-estimates of population
and housing over a period of several years. These statistics show that the population and number
of households continue to increase at a faster rate than the number of new units. The following
table illustrates this trend. It also shows what sectors of the housing market have seen the most
growth since 1990. "
HOUSING AND POPULATION ESTIMATES
1999
1990
Percent
Change
POPULATION
People in
Persons
61,189
55,900
9.46% 9.99%
Households
59,756
54,330
Total
25,952
25,188
3.03%
Single Family
Detached
15,538
15,245
1.92%
HOUSING UNITS
Single Family .2 to 4
Attached Units 5+ Units
1,008 1,775 7,518
1,008 1,707 7,115
0.00%3.98%5.66%
Mobile
Homes
113
113
0.00%
Source: California State Department of Finance, January 1999
As shown above, Palo Alto has a wide variety of housing types. As of 2000, the State estimates
that 36 percent of Palo Alto’s housing stock consists of multi-family housing units, 60 percent of
the housing stock consists of detached single family homes, and 4 percent are attached single
family homes. Other housing types include mobile homes (less than 1 percent).
B. Overall Housing Demand
There is greater demand for housing in Palo Alto than can be met, particularly affordable
housing for households with very low and low incomes. Since Palo Alto is a desirable place to
live and provides more jobs than housing units, there is intense demand for the existing units
available and prices are therefore bid upward. Further, there is scarce land available for new
housing development. The City has very little vacant or underdeveloped land for new
construction; in fact, the City is essentially "built out". Developers of affordable housing
projects must therefore compete with developers of market rate housing for the limited land still
available.
C. Homeownership Affordability
According to the santa Clara County Association of Realtors, the January 2000 Multiple Listing
Service shows that the median house price is $857,000 for single-family homes, and $359,000
for condos and townhomes. In. addition, a study by the Santa Clara County Center for Urban
Analysis shows that for all existing for-sale units, the average purchase price for existing housing
of all types in Palo Alto increased more than 10 percent between 1998 and 1999, from $596,000
City of Palo Alto
2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
Page 39
94
to more than $658,000. The average price of new h~using grew less (about 5 percent) but the
average price overall was higher ($1,111,000).
The National Association of Homebuilders (NAHB) provides statistics on the least affordable
housing markets in the US in terms of the number of households that can afford the median
priced home. The San Jos~ MSA is considered one of the least affordable metropolitan areas,
ranking number 182 out of a possible 186.
Homeownership rates give an indication of the stability of a community in its housing market.
Compared with other areas of the State, the San Jos6 MSA has one of the highest
homeownership rates as of 1997, with a figure that approaches the national average.
Homeownership Rates for Selected California M SAs, 1997
USAverage
San Jose MSA
San Bern/Riverside MSA
Oakland MSA
California
San Francisco MSA
LA MSA
40%42% 44% 46% 48% 50% 52% 54% 56% 58% 60% 62% 64% 66% 68%
The following table highlights the gap between what families of various incomes can afford and
the cost of housing in Palo Alto.
City of Paio Alto
2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
Page 40
95
ESTIMATED AFFORDABILITY GAP FOR HOMEOWNERSHIP
CITY OF PALO ALTO 1995
Extremely Very Low Median Moderate
Low Income Income Low Income Income Income
(30% MFI)*(50% MFI) (66% MFI) (100% MFI)(120°/0 MFI)
Income Level $26,100 $43.,500 $56,950 $87,000 $104,400
Affordable Annual Housing Cost $7,830 $13,050 $17,085 $26,100 $31,320
Affordable Unit Price $80,722 $134,536 $176,134 $269,072 $322,887
Market Price - Condo/2 Bdrms $359,000 $359,000 $359,000 $359,000 $359,000Gap-$278,278 -$224,464 -$182,866 -$89,928.-$36,113
Assumptions: Two bedroom condo units; four-person household; 27 percent of income for hom~mortgage; 3percent for taxes, insurance, dues; !0 percent down payment; 9 percent interest; 30 year 10an
* MFI = Median Family Income
D.-Rental Housing Affordability
The California minimum wage has not kept up with the cost of living. The poor are the most
disproportionately burdened with the cost of housing. A couple, both working full-time at
minimum wage ($5,75/hour), with two children would have a monthly gross income of about
$1,993. They could rent a two-bedroom apartment in San Jos6 (not including deposit, moving
expenses, hookup fees, and other start-up costs) for $1,139 at the very minimum (57 percent of
their gross income and 79 percent of their after-tax income). This leaves only $296 -- about $10
per day -- of their take-home income to pay. for food, clothing, transportation, and other needs
each month. This would also assume their employers paid for medical/dental insurance,
retirement, vacation, and sick leave.
Although it is difficult to find reliable current statistics on rental housing, in general it is known
that this aspect of the housing market is also very tight, and rents, have risen substantially over
the past five years. From March 1997 to March 1998, rents in Santa Clara County rose almost
10 percent, according to RealFacts. Fair Market Rents (FMRs) are estimates of the rent plus
utilities that would be required to rent privately owned, decent, safe, and sanitary rental housing
of a modest nature with suitable amenities. The calculation of FMRs is based on information
from the 1990 Census, housing surveys, and the CPI for housing. The rent figures do not
necessarily reflect current asking rents, but rather the upper limits of rents that can be used in the
negotiations for federally subsidized Section 8 contracts. The following table shows the current
FMR levels as established by HUD for all unit sizes and types.
City of Palo Alto
2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
Page 41
HUD SECTION 8 FAIR MARKET RENTS FOR SANTA CLARA COUNTY
Effective 10/1/99
SIZE FMR
STUDIO $866
1BR $988
2BR $1,221
3BR $1,673
4BR $1,879
The following table further highlights the difficulty that lower-income people have in finding
affordable rental housing. This fable shows how much the poorest households can afford in
monthly rent versus the FMR for an appropriately sized unit.
Income Category
Extremely. Low
Income (0-30%)
Very Low.
Income (31-50%)!
GAP BETWEEN AFFORDABLE RENTS AND
FAIR MARKET RENT (FMR)
Affordable 1 BR
1BRRent FMR Gap
$523 $988 -$466
Affordable~ 2 BR
2 BRRent FMR Gap
$653 $1,221 -$569
Affordable
3 BR Rent
$758
$870 $988 -$118 $1,088 $1,221 -$134 $1,261
3 BR
FMR Gap
$1,673 -$916
$1,673 -$412
E. Construction Cost
Escalating land prices and construction costs due to a high demand for housing, are major
contributors to the increasing cost of housing in the Palo Alto area. The major impediment to the
production of more housing is the !ack of available land. The cost of labor is also a factor. A
study by the RS Means Company in 1998 showed that California cities have the highest
construction cost indices in the nation. Means ranks construction markets according to the cost
of labor and materials against, a national average represented by the number 100. Indices higher
than 100 indicate an expensive construction market. The following table shows the major
California construction markets’ rankings (Palo Alto is included in San Jos~).
City of Palo Alto
2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
Page 42
97
CALIFORNIA CONSTRUCTION MARKETS - 1998
City
San Francisco
San Jose
Oakland
Vallejo
Salinas
Sacramento
Los Angeles
Anaheim
Modesto
Stockton
San Luis Obispo
Long Beach
Fresno
Santa Barbara.
Riverside
Santa Ana
San Diego
San Bernardino
Bakersfield
Labor Materials
Index Index Totallndex Rank
139 110.7 124 178
132.109.9 121 176
129 109.5 119 175
129 105.4 ¯ 117 174
118 107.2 113 171
116 106.7 111 167
118 104.9 111 167
117 104.8 111 164
115 105.9 110 160
115 105.8 110 159
114 106.1 110 157
117 102.9 110 155
114 105.2 109 152
115 104.5 109 152
114 104.5 109 152
115 102.3 108 150
110 , 104.5 107 148
114 100.1 107 147
109 104.3 106 143
Source: RS Means 1998 Construction Cost Indices Only cities or MSAs with a population of
200,000 or above are included. Average index for the USA is 100.
Due to the jobs/housing imbalance in Santa Clara County, the demand for housing is expected to
remain high, thus resulting in high housing costs for rental and ownership housing. On the
positive side, the high cost of housing makes it a valuable investment and results in the great
majority of property owners maintaining their investment and making improvements as
necessary to prevent any deterioration of the housing.
However, high housing prices discourage some owners from selling their properties for fear they
will be unable to find a new home they can afford. Additionally, the high job growth in the
Silicon Valley area since 1995 has resulted in too few apartments and homes for all those who,
are seeking a place to live. Landlords can now ask for and receive virtually any rent they seek,
and homeowners who do sell often find their homes sell for far more than they asked - even
creating "bidding wars" among hopeful house hunters.
City of Palo Alto
2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
Page 43
F.Occupancy and Physical Characteristics of the Housing Stock
1. Ownership Housing
In 1990, the owner occupancy rate was 57 percent in Palo Alto. That is a 3 percent increase
since 1980. Seventy-eight percent of the ownership stock is in three bedroom units. Most owner
occupied units (88 percent) are single-family detached homes. Most are over 30 years old, the
median year built is 1954 and less than 10 percent of the owner occupied housing was built since
1980. Even though the owner occupied housing stock is older,, it tends to be well maintained due
to its high market value. Thus, the City estimates (based on earlier surveys done for the 1988 -
1991 Housing Assistance Plan) that only 3 percent of the owner occupied stock is. substandard.
2. Rental Housing
Over two thirds of the City’s 10,471 rental units are smaller units (studios, one and two
bedroom). Only 9 percent of the subsidized rental units are three bedrooms or more.
RENTAL STOCK BY UNIT SIZE
Total Stock
Subsidized Units
o
0& 1BR
5,032 (48%)
768 (71%)
Age of Housing Stock
2 BR
3,515 (34%)
216 (20%)
3+ BR
1,920 (18%)
97 (9%)
Total
10,471
1,082
The City’s rental housing is somewhat newer than its owner occupied housing with a median
year built of 1960. About 8 p~rcent of the total renter units were built since 1980.
4. Vacancy Rate
While a low vacancy .rate is an indication that the local economy is very strong, it makes it
difficult for people to find the housing, especially those with lower incomes, The Census
information shows an overall rental vacancy rate (apartments and homes) of 3.96 percent (1990).
The City Planning Division conducts its’ own semi-annual determination of the rental apartment
vacancy rate pursuant to the provisions of the city’s condominium conversion ordinance. The
City’s analysis is based on actual utility meter records and thus is more timely and accurate than
the Census information2 As of June 1999, the City estimated a 1.38 percent rental apartment
vacancy rate.
The State Department of Housing and Community Development’s report The State of
California’s Housing Markets 1990-1997 shows that rental housing in the San Jos6 Metropolitan
Statistical Area (of which Palo Alto is a part) continues to have very low vacancy rates.
City of Palo Alto
2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
Page 44
99
Percentage Vacancy Rate for Selected M SAs, 1990-1997
10.0%
9.0%
8.0%
7.0%
6.0%
5.0%
4.0%
3.0%
2.0%
1.0%
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997
.---~--CA
,,, = Oakland
5. Substandard Housing
Palo Alto’s housing stock is generally in very good condition even though the City has a high
proportion (18.5 percent) of older (pre-1940) stock compared to other suburban cities. This is
due to the high value of the housing for both sale and rent. Due to age, some rental structures
(i.e. 20 years or more in age) need upgrading and major maintenance that typically costs.
$10,000-15,000 per .unit, but overall the physical condition of housing is not a problem in Palo
Alto.
Although statistics are not available on Palo Alto alone, State HCD reports that Santa Clara
County’s housing stock is in significantly better condition .than other areas of the State. The
following table shows that Santa Clara County has one of the lowest rates of substandard units’
compared with other metropolitan areas of the State.
City of Palo Alto
2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
Page 45
100
Percentage of Housing Stock Considered Substandard for
Selected Areas, 1997
18%
16°/o
14°/o
12°/o
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%
Palo Alto considers a housing unit substandard if it doesn’t meet the federal Section 8 Housing
Quality Standards. Essentially all substandard housing units are considered as suitable for
rehabilitation.
G.Racial/Ethnic and Low-Income Concentrations
1. Racial/Ethnic Concentrations
While the City’s total population has increased only minimally (by 1 percent) over the last
decade from (1980 - 1990), the racial composition has changed. The biggest changes are in the
Asian & Pacific Islanders group, which increased 70 percent, and Hispanics, which increased 34
percent. Whites declined 4 percent, but are still the major population group with 85 percent of
the total population.
Palo Alto defines "racial/ethnic minority concentration" as a census tract with a non-white
population of over 50 percent. There are no areas within the City that are considered areas of
concentration by this definition. However, there are three census tracts where the racial
composition is significantly different than the City as a whole. A difference is considered
significant where a minority group’s population is five percent more than their percentage share
of the citywide population.
City of Palo Alto
2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
Page 46
101
CENSUS TRACTS WITH GREATER THAN
AVERAGE MINORITY POPULATION
White
Asian/Pacific Islander
Black
"American Indian
Other
Citywide
84.9%
10.4%
2.9%
0.3%
1.5%
Palo Alto
Gardens
5093.2
65.5%
18.1%
12.2%
0.0%
4.2%
Olive/West
MeadowNentura
5107
70.8%
12.8%
7.5%
0.2%
8.7%
Oak Creek
5116.98
74.0%
.17.9%
5.1%
0.1%
2.9%
The 1990 Census categorizes "Hispanic origin" as an ethnicity, and not as a race~ Persons of
Hispanic origin are included in the race categories ’listed above, Persons of Hispanic origin
comprise 9 percent of the total population in Tract 5093.2; 15 percent of the population in Tract
5107; and 4 percent of the population in 5116.98.
2. Low Income Concentrations
Palo Alto defines an area of low-income concentration as a census tract where more than 50
percent of all the households have incomes below the low-income limit for the CDBG program
(about 65 percentof the Countywide median income, which in 1990 was $34,200). All census
tracts except one have median household incomes above the low-income level.
The one census tract that does not is census tract No. 5093.02. This tract has a poverty rate of
11.2percent (the highest in the City) and a median household income of $12,891 (the lowest in
the City). This tract has a small total population (403 persons), over half of which live in the
Palo Alto Gardens Apartments, a low-income housing development of 156 units, all occupied by
very low-income households, most with annual incomes below $10,000.
Low-income Family Households: The median income of family households is consistently
higher than non-family (single persons and persons living with non-relatives) households. The
census tract with the lowest ~ median is Tract 5107 known as "’Olive-West,
Meadow/Ventura" neighborhood. Its median family income was $50,068 in 1990.
City of Palo Alto
2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
Page 47
102
Other Low-income Households: Six census tracts have
HUD’s low-income limit of $34,200. They are:median non-family incomes below
Census Tract
5093.02
5094.01
5108.03
5107.00
5115.98
5109.00
Name
Palo Alto Gardens
Monroe Park
Fairmeadow
Olive/West Meadow/Ventura
College Terrace; Evergreen Park;
Southgate
Old South Palo Alto; Midtown
West; El Carmelo
Non-familyMedian
Income(1990)
$ 7,897
26,094
26,595
32,436
33,292
$ 33,306
Almost 30 percent of Palo Alto’s population live in non-family households. The elderly, students
and adults living alone or in shared living situations are major parts of this population group.
Among low-income renters, 77 percent of the households areeither elderly (one and two
member househo!ds) or other unrelated households (singles and unrelated adults).
H. Disproportionate Need
HUD requires that the Consolidated Plan include an assessment of disproportionate housing
needs. For HUD purposes, a disproportionate need exists when the percentage 0f.persons in a
category of need, who are members of a particular racial or ethnic group, is at least 10
percentage points higher than the percentage of persons in the category as a whole. The shaded
areas on the following charts indicate "disproportionate need" in Palo Alto. There is no local
information available on the housing problems experienced by Asian/Pacific Islanders, Native
Americans or middle income households.
City of Palo Alto
2000,2005 Consolidated Plan
Page 48
103
RENTER HOUSEHOLDS WITH ANY HOUSING PROBLEMS
Total
0-30 Percent
Median Income
31-50 Percent
Median Income
51-80 Percent
Median Income
All Renters
70.6%
90.5%
78.0%
Minority Renters
58.2%
94.9%
81.0%
Black Renters
37.0%
81.6%
63.2%
Hispanic
Renters
69.2%
100.0%
100.0%
In the renter category, the only occurrence of disproportionate need is in the Hispanic renter
category of 51-80 percent of median income.
Total Renter Households in Palo Alto
Total Renters with Incomes of 51-80 percent of median
Total Hispanic Renters
10,417 Households
917 Households
28 Households
Hispanic renters as a total only represent 5.3 percent of all renter households in Palo Alto (551
Hispanic renter households total). There are only 28 households total in the disproportionate
group of Hispanic renters who have incomes of between 51-80 percent of median and have one
or more housing problems. With such a small number of households, it is questionable whether
the number of households is significant enough to consider them as having a disproportionate
need. For .example, to be within the range of 10 percentage points of the total household
percentage, the maximum number would be 88 percent (78 percent plus 10 percent = 88
percent), and 88 percent of 28 households is 25 households. The difference of three households
does not necessarily represent a disproportionate need.
OWNER HOUSEHOLDS WITH ANY HOUSING PROBLEMS
Total
0-30 Percent
Median Income
31-50 Percent
Median Income
51-80 Percent
Median Income
All Owners
58.1%
35.6%
29.4%
Minority Owners
47.2%
36.0%
Black Owners
76.9%
100.0% ¯
33.6%0.0%
Hispanic Owners
100.0%
25.7%.
55.0%
City of Palo Alto
2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
Page 49
104
Total Owner Households in Palo Alto
Total Black Households
Total Hispanic Households
By Income Category:
14,284 Households
267 Households
330 Households
All Households, 0-30 percent
Black, 0-30 percent Income
Hispanic, 0-30 percent Income
All Households, 31-50 percent
Black, 31-50 percent Income
All Households, 51-80 percent
Hispanic, 51-80 percent
657 Households
39 Households
7 Households
700 Households
7 Households
671 Households
40 Households
Again, the actual number of households affected is not statistically significant. All available
housing programs and services are provided to residents regardless of race or ethnicity.
I.Suitability of Housing Stock for Households with Special Needs
1. Elderly Households
Almost one-half of Palo Alto’s rental stock is studios and one bedrooms that are of appropriate
size for most elderly households. About 64 percent of the subsidized stock is occupied by
senior-headed households. However, there is still a shortage of affordable housing for very low-
income seniors and a lack of accessible units for seniors with disabilities. There is also a lack of
affordable housing for the low-income frail elderly.
2. Persons With Physical Disabilities
There is no readily available information on the extem to which there is sufficient accessible
housing in Palo Alto for persons with disabilities. However, considering the age of Palo Alto’s
housing stock it is likely that few units (and projects) meet current standards for accessibility as
mandated by the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA). There is also a lack of information on
the accessibility of the subsidized housing stock. Some subsidized projects have a unit or units
that are reserved for the disabled or for wheelchair users. However since most of the units were
built some time ago, they probably do not meet current standards. In addition, common areas of
the developments may not be fully accessible.
3. Families With Children
The housing stock information indicates that there may be a shortage of suitable rental housing
for families, especially for families that need three or more bedrooms. Only 9 percent of the
subsidized stock is in three bedroom units and only 18 percent of the total rental stock. It is
fairly certain that few of the three bedroom units (for sale or rent) on the open market are
affordable by low-income households.
City of Palo Alto
2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
Page 50
105
J. Assisted Housing Inventory
1. Section 8 Rental Assistance Program
The table below shows the number of housing units under Section 8 rental assistance contracts in
Palo Alto as of November, 1994 based on information provided by the Santa Clara County
Housing Authority, the governmental body that administers the Section 8 program within Palo
Alto. Exact numbers are not available but most of the 58 units are in subsidized housing
developments. Very few private property owners will rent to tenants with Section 8 assistance or
. will seek out Section 8 subsidies since they can easily rent for more to market rate tenants.
Section 8 Voucher Program - Usage In Palo Alto
Characteristics of Tenants & Units (November, 1994)
Total’: 58 Households 26 Elderly/Disabled 32 Family Households
PALO ALTO HOUSEHOLDS ON HOUSING
REGISTER - BY FAMILY TYPE (1999)
TYPE
Elderly and Disabled
Disabled Only
Elderly Only
Families
TOTAL
TOTAL
83
60
63
99
3O5
Source: Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara
PERCENTAGE
27%
20%
21%
32%
100%
1999.
*Disabled includes all types of disabilities (developmental, mental illness, physical, etc., as well as families
who have a member who is mobility impaired and disabled elderly households).
Of th~ over 27,000 names currently on the waiting list, 305 of them are from Palo Alto.
Generally, the Housing Authority estimates that there is a five to seven year wait for rental
assistance. The table above outlines the characteristics of Palo Alto households waiting for
assisted housingi
City of Palo Alto
2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
Page 51
106
2. Other Assisted Housing Inventory
The following chart lists Palo Alto’s inventory of subsidized low and moderate-income rental
housing.
All of the developments listed are fully rented, have very low turnover rates and most have
closed waiting lists. Of those projects with open waiting lists, they will only take applications
from persons who have a federal preference (displaced, live in substandard housing, or pay over
50 percent of income for rent).
CITY OF PALO ALTO SUBSIDIZED RENTAL HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS
Project
1.Stevenson House, 455 E. Charleston
2.Colorado Park, 1141 Colorado Ave.
3.Palo Alto Gardens, 648 San Antonio
Road
4. Arastradero Park, 574 Arastradero
5. Lytton Gardens I, 656 Lytton Avenue
6. Webster Wood, 941 Webster Street
7. Lytton Gardens II, 656 Lytton Ave.
8. Sheridan Apartments, 360 Sheridan
9. 1259 Pine St Shared Living House
10. Elm Apartments, 129 Emerson Street
11. Terman Apartments, 655 Arastradero
12. Ferne Apts, 101-131 Ferne Avenue
13. Emerson South, 3067 Emerson
14. Curtner Apts, 300-310 Curtner Ave.
* 15. Waldo Apartments, 3039 Emerson
16. California Park Apt., 2301 Park Blvd
’17. Oak Manor Tnhm, 630 Los Robles
18. Plum Tree Apts, 3020 Emerson
19. Lytton IV, 330 Everett Avenue
20. Barker Hotel, 439 Emerson Street
"21. Emerson No., 3051-3061 Emerson
*22. Emerson House, 330 Emerson St
*23. Ventura Apts, 290-310 Ventura
24. Alma Place SRO, 753 Alma St
25. Page Mill Court, 2700 Ash
Total
January 2000
Date Total
1968 120
1972 60
1999/73 156
1995/74 66
1975 218
1978 68
1979 100
1998/79 57
1981 1 ’
1982 11 ¯
1985 ’92
1984 16
1985 6
1986 9
1987 6
1989 45
1991 33
1991 10
1994 51
1994 26
1994 6
1996 4
1997 12
1998 107
1998 24
1,304
Subs.
120
60
156
66
218
41
100
57
’1
11
72
10
6
9
3
¯ 45
24
10
51
26
6
4
7
107
24
1,234
Type
Senior
Family & Senior (8 units)
1999 Preservation-
Family/Senior (128 units)
1995 Preserv- Family & Senior
Senior
Family, Senior (4 units);
Handicapped (4 units)
Senior (50 Independent Living;
50 Residential Care)
1998 Preserv-Senior, Handicpd
Family
Family
Family & Senior (24 units)
Family
Small Family
Family
Family
Family, Handicapped (1 unit)
Family
Family
Senior
Adults, Handicapped (5 units)
Small Family & Senior
Small Family, Hndcp & Senior
Family
Single Adults & Handicapped
Adults with Dev. Disabili’ties
*= Rental units provided in-lieu of on-site BMR units or funded with BMR in-lieu fees.
City of Palo Alto
2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
Page 52
107
Legend
Senior Housing only
Family & Senior Housing
Stevenson. House, 455 F-Charleston (120 units)
Colorado Park, 1141 Colorado Ave (60 units)
Palo Alto Gardens, 648 Sat~ Antonio Rd (156 units)
Arastradero Park, 574 Arastradero Rd (66 units)
Lytton Gardens I, 656 Lytton Ave (218 units)
Webster Wood, 941 Webster St (68 units)
Lytton Gardens II, 649 University Ave (100 units)
Sheridan Apts, 360 Sheriilan Ave (57 units)
Pine Street House, 1259 Pine St (I unit)
Elm Apts, 129 Emerson St (11 units)
Terman Apts. 655 Arastradero Rd (92 units)
Ferne Apts, 101-131 Ferric Ave (16 units)
Emerson South, 3067 Emerson St (6 units)
Curtner Apts, 300-310 Curtner Ave (9 units)
Waldo Apts, 3039 Emerson St (6 units)
California Park Apt, 2301 Park Bird (45 units)
Oak Manor Townhome, 630 Los Rctfles Ave (33 unitl
Plum Tree Apts, 3020 Emerson St (10 units)
Lytton Courtyard, 330 Everett Ave (51 units)
Barker Hotel, 439" Emerson St (26 units)
Emerson North. 3051-61 Emerson St (6 units)
Emerson House, 330 Emerson St (4 units) -
ventura Apts, 290-310 Ventura Ave (12 units)
Alma Place SRO, 753 Alma St (107 units)
Page Mill Court, 2700 Ash St (24 units)
Source: City of Palo Alto, Planning Division
Palo
Alto
Munic.
Golf
/
2000’ 4ooo’
The City o~
P a 1 o Alto
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
,1998 2010
Subsidized Rental
Housing (1998)
City of Palo Alto
2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
Page 53
108
3. Below Market Program Housing Inventory
In addition, as of January 2000, Palo Alto had 151 below market ownership units and 38 below
market rental units. They are located throughout the City in privately constructed residential
developments. The units were provided by the private market under the City’.s inclusionary
zoning policies in the City’s Housing Element that have been in effect since 1974. Generally, the
below market program serves persons with incomes above the CDBG limit to about 100 percent
of the County median income.
K. Barriers to Affordable Housing
1. Lack of Vacant or Available Land for Housing Construction
This is the primary condition that affects both nonprofit and for profit developers trying to
develop housing. Palo Alto is essentially a built out city. Only 1.4 percent of its urban area is
vacant. While there are numerous parcels that have potential for housing development, that
potential cannot be readily achieved due to many factors including: contamination by toxins,
numerous ownerships, legal issues, neighborhood opposition, site not for sale or priced above the
.market, rezoning needed, occupied by "grandfathered" non-conforming land uses, etc.
2. Price of Land Suitable for Housing
This obstacie is related to the scarcity of land. When land is available in Palo Alto, the price is
too high for the construction of low to moderate-income housing without costly subsidies. Prime
residentially zoned property can sell for $100,120 per square foot and up depending on its’
location and development potential. Commercially Zoned land (outside of the downtown core) is
valued at about $80-!00 per square foot. Thus, a one-acre site would typically be worth $3.5 to
$4.5 million.
3. Lack of Market Demand and Financing for Market Rate Housing
The most important factors that affect the City’s progress in meeting lower income housing
objectives are:
Extremely high price of sites for new housing or of existing residential properties
suitable for rehabilitation.
Highly competitive and complex application pro~ess for the limited amount of federal
and State housing funds.
HUD enx~ironmental standards that make it difficult to build federally subsidized
housing in areas with noise levels that fail to meet HUD standards (along El Camino
Real and near railroad tracks).
City of Palo Alto
2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
Page 54
109
Problems of utilizing federal housing programs such as Section 202 in areas with high
construction and land costs.
Limited amount of funds that the City receives on an entitlement basis from the
federal government.
Limited vacant land suitable for housing construction.
Federal Barriers to Affordable Housing
Some federal programs have eligibility thresholds based on age of housing stock, which
negatively impacts Palo Alto because its housing stock is newer than that of many
older cities.
Some federal programs have eligibility thresholds based on a national poverty level,
which negatively impactsPalo Alto. Although proportionately fewer households
meet the current definition for poverty level -- and therefore do not provide the
needed threshold to receive certain forms of assistance -- they are nonetheless
extremely low income and in need of assistance in this high-cost-of-living area.
Programs may not address local needs, but rather are appropriate for problems faced by
eastern cities (i.e., cities with an. overabundance of housing stock but which is
deteriorating, versus cities with an undersupply that need to build more to eliminate
overcrowding and homelessness).
Tax credit and Private ActivityBond caps have not been increased in ten years, despite
the fact that demand has increased because the need has increased, which has led the
State to ration tax credits to certain areas including Santa Clara County by limiting
the number of projects and credits allocated to those areas.
Federal housing project financing not quickly approved by HUD.
Mandatory cost containment policies necessitate local subsidies to achieve.local design
approvals.
Inconsistencies between federal, State and local underwriting standards, such as
affordability restrictions and foreclosure rules, increase cost and time.
Disabled guidelines may increase development costs. (ADA and Title 24 in California.)
Federal requirements to mitigate toxics (such as lead-based paint) in affordable housing
¯may prohibitively increase cost of development and/or rehabilitation and the cost of
ongoing monitoring.
Reporting requirements required by individual sources of program funds, tie up scarce
staff and time, which moves focus away from production to report writing.
Requirements for relocation benefits discourage funding for rehabilitation of rental
housing.
Davis Bacon wage requirements increase cost of providing affordable housing.
City of Palo Alto
2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
Page 55
110
State Barriers to Affordable Housing
State requirements often overlap with federal and local strategies, adding extra burden
to implementation process; although incentives exist, few developers will take
advantage of the incentives without additional subsidies.
Inconsistencies between federal, State, and local underwriting standards, such as
affordability restrictions, increase costs.
The State has implemented changes in both MCC and LIHTC Programs that have
shifted scarce housing resources away from high-cost urban areas like Palo Alto to
rural, low-cost areas like the Central Valley.
Bond funds have already been committed for urban areas;, future funding uncertain.
Underwriting standards tend to impact Palo Alto negatively.
Federal requirements for Consolidated Plan duplicate local efforts to produce Housing
Element. Meeting Housing Element requirements does not assume that units are
produced.
Relocation laws discourage City and property owner from participating in rental
rehabilitation.
State laws tend to be more restrictive than federal laws, increasing overall costs for
certain projects.
Local Barriers/Constraints to Affordable Housing ......
Short of requiring that all developments contain affordable housing, there are no
guarantees that any housing affordable to lower-income families will be constructed
in the City by the private market solely with these incentives.
Although discretionary policies are used when developers have secured the financing to
build an affordable housing project, they are not enough of an incentive by
themselves to generate affordable housing.
Development standards may contribute to the cost of affordable housing, making it
more expensive per unit and thereby reducing the volume of production.
L. Fair Housing
Following the completion of the 1995-2,000 Con~solidated Plan, the City conducted an Analysis
of Impediments (AI) to Fair Housing Choice, as required by HUD. The AI is intended to
identify barriers to fair housing choice and the actions proposed to address those barriers. The
AI identified the following impediments: the lack of affordable housing, the lack of available
housing, the lack of available land for’new housing, the high cost of land suitable for housing,
complex and burdensome federal regulations that add to the cost of housing, insufficient public
funds to construct new or rehabilitate existing housing, anddiscrimination in the rental housing
market.
City of Palo Alto
2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
Page 56
111
The lack of affordable housing restricts people in their ability to purchase.or rent housing. The
primary groups affected by this situation are low and moderate-income persons, families with
children, and persons with disabilities. The most often reported category of discrimination
complaints in Palo Alto were based on familial status (46%). Following that were complaints
based on race (36%), mental and physical disability (11%), and national origin (7%).
The Santa Clara Urban County and the entitlement cities of Gilroy, Milpitas, Mountain View,
Palo Alto, Santa Clara, San Jose, and Sunnyvale, individually and collectively, work to increase
the supply of affordable housing in the County of Santa Clara. The Cities and the County
currently contract, typically through their individual CDBG Programs or General Funds, with
organizations to provide services related to fair housing. Typical recipients of these funds include
Legal Aid Societies, immigrant community organizations, and fair housing testing agencies.
In the process of completing the Urban County’s and the City’s AI, it became apparent that many
of the fair housing concerns are regional, and not specific to individual jurisdictions. Further,
little is known with respect to the full range of fair housing needs throughout the County.
Although individual service organization may have an understanding of the needs of a particular
geographic area, or the problems .associated with their specific area of expertise, a
comprehensive study and analysis of regional fair housing issues did not exist. This type of
information would be helpful in targeting scarce resources to the real needs.
The Cities and the County, therefore, seek to improve the delivery of fair housing services by
studying the overall fair housing needs of the County and determining the most efficient use of
resources among existing and future service providers. This five-year strategy calls for the
creation of a study that would examine the following issues:
The County’s fair housing needs, including potential jurisdictionally specific needs
The effectiveness of the fair housing services that are currently provided to meet
those needs. For example, the study should answer the questions, "Are the services
provided appropriate to the, identified needs?,’ and "Is the .funding provided
appropriate for the services provided?"
Recommended modifications to the delivery of these services, given available
funding and capacity of the service providers
Recommended additions to the kinds of service providers that should receive funding.
Although the Cities and the County currently contract with service providers on an individual
basis, the .jurisdictions would additionally be interested in recommendations regarding the
appropriateness of providing services jointly, Countywide~
City of Palo Alto
2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
Page 57
112
IV. NON-HOUSING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NEEDS
A. Introduction
Non-housing community development needs are public service, infrastructure, economic
¯ development and other development needs in the community that have an important impact on
the living conditions of residents.. The purpose of addressing a community’s non-housing needs,
in addition to its .housing needs, is to help create more livable, better functioning, and more
attractive communities. This can be accomplished by integrating economic, physical,
environmental, and human development programs in a comprehensive and coordinated fashion
so that families and communities can work together ¯and thrive. By providing access to services
and projects to address these non-housing needs, a community can provide opportunities for self-
sufficiency and empower those most in need.
B. Self-Sufficiency Wages
The self-sufficiency standard, created by the nonprofit organization Wider Opportunities for
Women (WOW), is a measure used to document the costs of living that families of different
sizes must meet in order to move out of poverty. It calculates the amount of money working
adults need to meet their basic needs without subsides of any kind. Unlike the federal poverty _
standard, this standard takes into account the costs, of living as they vary both by family types
and geographic location.
According to WOW, weaknesses in the current poverty standard include the following:
It does not allow for costs of employment, particularly childcare.
It does not allow for the cost of health care.
There is no adjustment for geographic differences in cost, especially housing.
The standard lacks a mechanism by¯ which it can be updated to reflect revised
understanding of what is necessary, such as telephones.
There is no allowance for the impact of income taxes and tax credits.
The self-sufficiency standard calculation includes ehildcare, food, transportation, medical care,
clothing and miscellaneous, taxes and tax credits. The following chart shows the 1997 per-hour
wage needed for a single parent with two children to remain self sufficient for various locations.
There is a need for the creation of jobs that paya self-sufficient wage in order to move people
out of poverty.
City of Palo Alto
2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
Page 58
113
Self-Suffidency Wage Standard for a Single Parent with Two Children,
Selected Cities, 1997
(Average -- $t3.54)
$20.00
$19.00
$18.00
$17.00
$16.00
$15.00
$14.00
$13.00
$12.00
$11.00
$10.00
$16.24
$14.41
$16.63
$18.80
Modesto Sa~amento San Diego LosAngetes Oakland San Mateo San San Francisco
Jose/santa
Clara
Source: Wider Opportunities for Women, 1997
C. Workforce Characteristics and Unemplbyment
Like much of the rest of Santa Clara County and the Bay Area, Palo Alto has enjoyed low
unemployment rates. The State Department of Employment Development (EDD) shows that the
unemployment rate for January 2000 was 1.2 percent. However, the County’s overall
unemployment rate for the same period was 2.4 percent. Although statistics are not readily
available on unemployment over time in Palo Alto, the following chart is helpful in showing how
much the Santa Clara County unemployment rate has decreased since 1992/93, when it was at its
peak.
City of Palo Alto
2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
Page 59
1t4
Percentage Unemployment for Selected Areas, 1990.1996
10.0
:--~.-Santa Clara County --~-Bay Area _ --California 1
I
Source: State Department 0fHousing and Community Development, The State of California’s
Housing Markets 1990-1997
Palo Alto, like many other cities in Santa Clara County, has a jobs/housing imbalance. In 1990,
according to ABAG, Palo Alto had about 91,000 jobs and only 43,000 employed residents: This
results in a very high jobs/employed resident ratio of 2.10. The following table shows that there
was only about a 2 percent increase in employed residents at the same time there was nearly an 8
percent increase in the number of jobs. ABAG expects the jobs/housing imbalance to worsen
over the next ten years in Palo Alto
JOBS PER EMPLOYED RESIDENT, 1990’2010
Employed Residents
Jobs
Jobs per Employed Resident
1990
43,491
91,370
2.10
2000
44,300
98,450
2.22
Percentage
Change
1.86%
7.75%
2010
45,800
101,090
2.21
Percentage
Change
3.39%
2.68%
City of Palo Alto
2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
Page 60
115
D. Occupations/Employment Sector
ABAG’s projections show that .Palo Alto will see steady growth in all sectors of employment
between 2000 and 2010. The strongest area of growth is expected in the "service job’, sector,
though in numeric terms only. Percentage-wise, the greatest change is expected in the "other
jobs" sector. Manufacturing and wholesale jobs are expected to decline. The following table
shows the expected growth in various employment categories.
Number of New Jobs Percentage Change
Sector 2000~2010 2000-2010
Manufacturing/Wholesale -440 -2%
Retail 1’,300 9%
Service 3,630 7%
Other Jobs 1,410 11%
E. Transportation
According to the Texas Transportation Institute’s Urban Mobility Study (1999), commuters in
the San Jos6 metropolitan statistical area (MSA), which includes Palo Alto, now experience the
seventh worst mobility conditions in the cotmtry among MSAs of similar size, and 15th overall.
The TraVel Rate Index describes the length of additional time it takes to travel between two
points during rush hour conditions as opposed to non-commute times. This translates into an
annual time delay of 45 person-hours per driver. This report shows that 70 percent of the
freeways are now congested, with increasing numbers experiencing extreme congestion.
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) provides projections on the commute
patterns between and among various Counties in the Bay Area. The following table shows~ the
statistics for Santa Clara County through 2010:
City of Palo Alto
2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
Page 61
116
County of Residence
Alameda
Bay Area
Contra Costa
Elsewhere
Matin
Napa
San Francisco
San Mateo
Santa Clara
Santa Clara
Santa Clara
Santa Clara
Santa Clara
Santa Clara
Santa Clara
Santa Clara
Santa Clara
Santa Clara
Santa Clara
Solano
Solano
Sonoma
TOTAL
TOTAL
County of
Work
Santa Clara
Santa Clara
Santa Clara
Santa Clara
Santa Clara
Santa Clara
Santa Claz. a
Santa Clara
San Francisco
San Mateo
Santa Clara
Alameda
Contra Costa
Solano
Napa
Sonoma
Matin
Elsewhere
TOTAL
Santa Clara
Alameda
Santa Clara
Santa Clara
Bay Area
1990
53,139
823,779
6,010
33,081
564
103
7,992
44,001
7,536
31,896
710,582
24,163
2,299
121
34
116
421
6,512
783,680
1,000
10,326
388
856,860
3,076,680
2000
62,404
927,467
8~813
71,310
571
112
9,296
49,376
7,214
34,186
795,064
24,667
1,925
119.
40
139
493
4,605
868,452
1,416
11,828
415
998,777
3,426,761
2010
77,529¯
1,043,162
10,518
82,580
716
118
11,587
56,781
7,015
34,092
883,522
27,134
2,174
131
54
145
498
5,475
960,240
1,818
14,272
573
1,125,742
3,942,448
This shows that in addition to the 960,000+ commuters who will be living in Santa Clara County
commuting to locations within and outside the County, an additional 82,000+ commuters will be ¯
coming into the County by the year 2010. This movement in and through the County represents
an expected increase of almost 28 percent since 1990~ For those,eaming lower incomes, mass
transit is critical to their ability to travel between work and home, and to access services.
The MTC identifies transportation as a real barrier for individuals making the move from welfare
to work. It is not only difficult for CalWORKS participants to find jobs, they must figure out
how to get to those jobs. That means they have to consider all their transportation options --
driving, buses, trains, bicycles and so on -- even as they look for jobs. Social service staff
members who assist them must also be aware of participants’ transportation needs and options, as
well as how to obtain information about the options.
MTC has begun the development of a "Transportation Resource Guide" for each of the nine Bay
Area counties. The Guides provide information on all available transportation services in each
City of Palo Alto
2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
Page 62
117
county, including highway, transit, employer and private shuttles, and bicycle programs. The
guides are not intended to replace schedules and route maps available from individual transit
agencies, but rather to give CalWORKS participants and their advisors a general idea of ~vhat
kinds of options are available, and how to access additional information. There is a need for
improved public transit services as well as transit subsidies to assist lower income persons in
finding and retaining employment.
F.Capital Project Needs
1. Public Facilities
There is a need to expand, modernize,, rehabilitate, make seismic and other safety related
improvements and accessibility improvements to existing facilities that serve special needs
populations (limited clientele as defined by HUD regulations). There are also needs (within the
South Bay and Mid-Peninsula area) for new. facilities that serve the same populations.
2. Accessibility Needs
There is a need to complete accessibility improvements in public facilities, parks, streets, and
sidewalks throughout Palo Alto to ensure compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act
(iDA).
3. Homeless Shelter and Day Center Needs
There are needs (within the South Bay and Mid-Peninsula area)for more shelter beds for persons
who are homeless (both single persons and families), and for rehabilitation of existing shelter
facilities. Additionally, there is a critical need for a specialized indoor facility for the provision
of homeless supportive services, ,including counseling, information and referral, shower and
laundry facilities, transit pass distribution, employment counseling and training, mental health
outreach, etc.
G. Public Service Needs
1. Non-Profit Organization Operational Needs
There are needs for supporting the operating expenses of non-profit organizations that provide
supportive services to low income, vulnerable populations, such as:
Affordable housing information and referral
Counseling and case-work management for homeless or at-risk of
individuals
Mental health outreach services for homeless persons with mental illness.
Information and counseling on landlord/tenant issues
Shared housing counseling and placement
Counseling, shelter services and general assistance to the very low income
homeless
homeless
or
City of Palo Alto
2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
Page 63
118
Services that ad.dress the needs of the elderly or persons with disabilities
Services that address the needs of low-income children and their families
Transportation services and/or subsidies for low-income, elderly and/or dis~ibled
persons ~
Fair Housing Services
Child care subsidies to low income families
Shelters and services for victims of domestic violence
2. Employment Opportunity Needs
There are needs for programs that create and increase employment opportunities for minorities,
low-income persons, homeless persons, and persons with disabilities. There is a need to support
and strengthen a healthy, diversified local economy, create and. retain livable wage jobs, and
provide opportunities for residents to acquire the .skills necessary to obtain or retain livable wageemployment.
3. CDBG Program Administration
There is a need to support the CDBG Program administration for reporting and compliance with
federal regulations, to provide technical assistance to nonprofit agencies, to implement the
Citizens Participation Plan, and to monitor the CDBG Program’s progress.
H. Other Non-Housing Community Development Needs
Other non-housing community development needs are identified in Table 2b Non-Housing
Priority Needs Summary (see Appendix E).
City of Palo Alto
2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
Page 64
119
V. FIVE-YEAR STRATEGY
A. Affordable Housing Strategy
Affordable housing .in Santa Clara County, and in Palo Alto .particularly, has become an
oxymoron. Skyrocketing housing costs and a booming regional economy are effectively pricing
even moderate-income workers out of our community. Lower-income people, and people with
special needs are being displaced as a result of the growing gap between low wage and high
wage workers and the scarcity of housing affordable to lower income households. Over the next
five-year period, as it was in the last five-year period, the City of Palo Alto’s primary
Consolidated Plan objective will be to increase the supply of rental housing affordable to lower-
income residents.
¯The City’s Human Relations Commission, Office of Human Services and Planning Division
have held numerous public needs hearings in which the lack of housing opportunities affordable
to lowerincome persons is consistently the number one priority. This priority is also consistent
with the City’s Comprehensive Plan for the period 1998-2010 adopted by the Palo Alto City
Council on July 20, 1998. The Comprehensive Plan emphasizes the need for more affordable
housing for all income levels, retaining the existing supply of housing, promoting housing-
diversity, and eliminating discrimination in housing.
1. Affordable Rental Housing Priorities and Objectives
Five-Year Goal #1
Increase the supply of affordable rentai housing
by 125 units
Due to the extreme shortage of affordable housing in tl~e county as a whole and the extreme
housing needs of low-income persons, available resources will continue to be targeted to the
provision of new rental housing and the preservation of the existing affordable housing stock for
lower-income persons.
The City’s highest priority at the beginning of this five-year planning period, is the creation of
new affordable rental housing for families with children. The last newly constructed affordable
rental housing development in Palo Alto was the California Park Apartments in 1989.
It is also a high priority of the City to retain the existing affordable rental stock. The Terman
Apartment complex is the one federally subsidized rental project that is at-risk of converting to
market rate housing during the next five-year period. The current HUD Section 8 contract on the
92-unit Terman Apartment complex expires in 2004. However, depending on financing options,
it may be advantageous to use state resources~ if they become available, to try and preserve the
units at an earlier date.
Another priority is to keep existing, affordable rental housing in good condition. The
rehabilitation needs of older subsidized projects may include accessibility or energy conservation
improvements. Additionally, group homes or shared housing arrangements that provide
City of Palo Alto
2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
Page 65
120
affordable transitional or permanent housing for very low income persons and/or persons with
special needs are often in need of major rehabilitation and/or repairs.
Rental income in these projects is often not sufficient to fully fund reserves for replacements or
capital improvements. As these projects age, the needs become.more acute.
Activities: Acquisition, rehabilitation, preservation, new construction, site clearance,
predevelopment costs, off-site improvement costs, rental assistance, and support services will be
used to address this need.
Persons To Be Assisted: Very low-income renters (incomes less than 30 percent of median) and
low income renters (incomes less than 50 percent of median), both small and large family
households and other households.
Families with children
Homeless individuals and those "at-risk" of becoming homeless
Persons with special needs (especially the mentally ill)
Elderly persons
Programs and Resources: City Resources: Local public funds that are available for new rental
housing units are the housing mitigation funds in the City’s commercial reserve. These funds can
be used for land acquisition and for construction costs.
Private Resources: The City will work with nonprofithousing developers to obtain the greatest
amount of private financing for rental developments, Consistent with other objectives. The City
will assist project sponsors in obtaining financing from the Federal Home Loan Bank’s
Affordable Housing Program (AHP) for example. The City will also work with local lenders to
provide construction financing and bridge financing for. affordable housing projects.
Matching Funds: The City’s local "Housing Reserve Fund," which comes from housing in-lieu
fees on new corr~mercial projects, may be used for the required match for future HOME grants.
Where eligible, CDBG funds that are obligated for housing activities and support services may
also be used as a portion of the matching requirements.
The following programs and resources may be available or applied for directly by the City or
housing developers: ~
Annual allocation of CDBG funds (approximately $900,000 per year)
HOME funds (unknown amount, must apply to State)
HUD Section 202 and 811 programs for supportive housing for the elderly and
persons with special needs
HUD Steward B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Grants
Local City funds: Commercial and residential housing reserve fund
City of Palo Alto
2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
Page 66
121
City Owned Land Not Needed For Other Purposes
Santa Clara County Housing Trust Fund (application, once it is capitalized)
Low-Income Housing Tax Credits
State of California Bond Financing
Santa Clara County Housing Authority
¯Bond Financing
¯Project Based Section 8
¯Other Special Purpose Section 8 Subsidies
Specific Projects: The following projects meet the rental housing priority and may be
undertaken during the 2000-2005 period:
New Construction:
>" Family Rental Apartments (SOFA Area Plan)
~ Single Room Occupancy (SRO) Rental Units
>’ Transitional or Permanent Rental Housing
Preservation/Acquisition and/or rehabilitation of existing housing: "
)~ Terman Apartments (92 occupied units)
>’ Waverley Street House (Transitional Housing for persons with disabilities)
2. New Ownership Housing Priorities and Objectives
Five-Year Goal #2
Continue the Below
program
Market Rate (BMR)
Five-Year Goal #3
Continue to participate in the mortgage credit
certificate program
Activities: The City will require Below Market Ownership Units in all market rate "for sale"
housing developments, and will continue to participate in the mortgage credit certificate program
administered by the County of Santa Clara.
Persons To Be Assisted: The City’s Below Market Rate (BMR) housing program has been
providing home ownership opportunities mainly to moderate-income households (80 percent to
100 percent of median income) since the program’s inception in 1972. Currently, many of the
"BMR" units are available at prices that are affordable to CDBG eligible, low-income buyers.
However, low-income buyers often do not have sufficient down payments or have more
difficulty qualifying for a home mortgage than higher income buyers. Thus, the lower priced
"BMR" units, are often sold to moderate-income buyers. An evaluation of the feasibility of a
down payment assistance program (or some other ~’orm of assistance) to help low-income buyers
purchase more of the available units may be considered if a funding source can be identified.
City of Paio Alto
2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
Page 67
The MCC program is also used in conjunction with the BMR program to assist lower income
persons in qualifying for available units.
Programs and Resources: City Residential and Commercial Housing Reserve Funds, Mortgage
Credit Certificates and the City’s stock of new and resale "BMR" units may be used to address
this priority. Developers of new ownership projects of 3 or more units are required to provide 10
percent of the units at lower prices. Typical prices for a newly built, two-bedroom condo in
1999 would range from $136,200 to $230,800. ~Small projects, or projects where an on-site
BMR unit would be infeasible, may be allowed to. pay an in-lieu fee or provide off-site BMR
units. Resale prices are limited based on increases in the Consumer Price Index, so that BMR
units become relatively more affordable over time. The City contracts with the Palo Alto
Housing Corporation to administer the sales and re-sales of BMR units.
The City will work closely with Santa Clara County to continue the availability of the Mortgage
Credit Certificate (MCC) income tax credit assistance for moderate-income and low-income first
time homebuyers in Palo Alto.
3. Existing Home Ownership Housing
Five-Year Goal # 4
Provide for rehabilitation loans to very low-
income single family homeowners in emergency
or crisis situations only
Activities: Provide for the rehabilitation of existing single-family homes and provide support
services,
Persons To Be Assisted: All CDBG eligible, owner occupied households may be assisted, but
the target group is the low-income category (0 - 50 percent of median).
Programs and Resources: CDBG program income and annual grant funds. The City will only
fund the rehabilitation of owner occupied, single family housing where there is an urgent need or
serious health and safety problems. This activity is limited to very low-income homeowners.
Funding would be from loan repayments on .previous rehabilitation loans. Most of the City’s
owner occupied, single family housing stock is in standard, condition-and occupied by
households with incomes of moderate or above moderate levels. Generally, the housing problem
faced by low-income homeowners is the cost of the housing, not the condition of the unit.
B. Homeless Strategy
The City’s homeless assistance strategy, for housing activities that the City sponsors directly, is
to emphasize the creation of permanent housing that is affordable to the homeless and to
individuals who are moving out of shelters or transitional housing programs. The strategy
includes creating affordable housing opportunities for families with children and single adults.
City of Palo Alto
2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
Page 68
123
The Santa Clara County Collaborative on Housing and Homelessness has adopted a Continuum
of Care approach to help alleviate the problems of homelessness. The primary goal is to pre.vent.
homelessness and shorten the time people are homeless through the provision of housing with
supportive services and employment opportunities. The Continuum of Care strategy includes: 1)
Prevention services, 2) Emergency shelter with outreach and assessment services, 3) Transitional
housing with support services; and 4) Permanent housing. These services exist in Santa Clara
County, but not in sufficient numbers to address the need. The County of Santa Clara, in
collaboration with the entitlement jurisdictions,, believe that strengthening the Continuum of Care
on a regional basis will effectively address the needs of homeless people in individual .cities,
avoid duplication of services, and increase cost effectiveness.
The Collaborative represents homeless shelter andservice providers, housing advocates, non-
profit housing developers, and local governmental jurisdictions. Over 120 agencies have formed
the Collaborative to attract more funding for housing and homeless services to the area. The
main purpose of the Collaborative is to help prepare its member agencies to respond to the
federal Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act request for proposals in hopes of
attracting more funding for innovative programs to the region. The City plans to continue its
active participation in the Collaborative.
1. Prevention Services
An essential element of the City’s homelessness strategy is the provision of services to help low-
income residents avoid homele~sness. A high priority will be placed .on continuing and
improving existing services over the next five years. Placing a high priority on these services is
cost effective to the entire community because it maintains individuals and families in their
existing housing.
Five-Year Goal #5
Provide assistance and supportive services to low
and very-low income Palo Alto residents, to keep
them from becoming homeless.
Activities: Both direct and indirect assistance to lower-income households at risk 0f
homelessness Will be provided. Activities that Palo Alto funds that may prevent -homelessness
Childcare subsidies for low-income families, Palo Alto Community Child Care,
annual contract with general funds;
Landlord/Tenant Mediation, Project Sentinel, annual contract with general.funds
Single Parent Counseling & Support Services’ Family Service Mid-Peninsula,
annual contract with general funds;
Brown Bag Nutrition Program, Second Harvest Food Bank, annual contract with
general funds;
. City of Palo Alto
2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
Page 69
124
Senior Home Repair Program, Senior Housing Counseling, Avenidas;
contract with general funds;
Senior Nutrition Program, La Comida, annual contract with general funds;
annual
Housing Information & Referral, Palo Alto Housing Corporation, annual contract
with CDBG funds;
Barker .Hotel Counseling Program, Palo Alto Housing Corporation, annual
contract with CDBG funds;
Health Care Services, Mayfield Community Clinic, annual contract with general
funds; and
Rental and mortgage assistance program for at-risk homeless, American Red
Cross, annual contract with general funds
Persons To Be Assisted: Individuals and families with children with low and very low- incomes
(0-50 percent of countywide median).
Programs and Resources: CDBG and City General Funds, Foundations, Churches; state
Emergency Shelter Grants, . and Steward B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Funding.
2. Emergency Shelter with Outreach and Assessment Services
There are currently no permanent emergency shelter beds in the City of Palo Alto, although the
Urban Ministry of Palo Alto does operate a 15:bed rotating Church shelter program, A high
priority will be placed on supporting the existing shelters and transitional housing programs in
neighboring jurisdictions that serve Palo Alto residents, or the creation of additi0nal programs
and/or units. The provision of additional outreach services to the homeless mentally ill is also
seen as a high priority in this area. The City of Palo Alto will place a high priority on assessment
and other supportive services for the homeless population.
Another high priority is the need for an indoor Day Center to be established in the northern part
of the County to increase access to information and referral services, voice mail, and hygiene
services, such as showers and a place to do laundry. The day centers serve in general as a
resource center for one-stop shopping for an array of services. Surveys of people inthe suburban
and rural areas attest to the need for the day centers. Many did not know how to access shelter
information or were unaware of the shelter hotline phone number. Day centers will address this
problem as well as increase access to services not currently accessible to the suburban and rural
homeless populations.
Five-Year Goal #6
Support the creation of an indoor facility for the
provision of supportive services with the
potential of a housing component
City of Palo Alto
2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
Page .70
125
Five-Year Goal #7
Continue to support the operating (and/or
rehabilitation) costs of shelters and transitional
housing programs that serve the Palo Alto area
Five-Year Goal #8
Continue to support mental health outreach and
other supportive services for the homeless
Five,Year Goal #9
Continue to cooperate on countywide
approaches to the issues of homelessness
Activities: Acquisition, rehabilitation, rental assistance, and funding for the operation of shelter
and other supportive services.
Persons To Be Assisted: Homeless persons and homeless families with children.
Programs and Resources: CDBG, Shelter Plus Care, Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance
Act Funding, City Housing Reserve Fund, City Human Service Resource Allocation Process,
Federal Home Loan Bank’s Affordable Housing Program (AHP), Foundations, Churches.
3. Transitional Housing with Support Services
The Veterans Workshop operates two transitional housing programs for veterans with disabilities
in Palo Alto. The majority of the clients were previously homeless. There is a waiting list for
this type of housing and the rehabilitation of units or the addition of more units is a high priority.
Emergency Housing Consortium’s Reception Center in San Jose offers transitional housing to
area homeless as well as Clara- Mateo Alliance in Menlo Park. Shelter Network’s Haven Family
House in Menlo Park provides transitional housing for families with children.
Five-year goal #10
Support the activities of area non-profit
organizations that provide transitional housing
and supportive services to the homeless
Activities: Acquisition, rehabilitation, rental assistance, and funding for the operation of
transitional housing and supportive services.
Persons To Be Assisted: Homeless persons, and homeless families with children.
City of Palo Alto
2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
Page 71
126
Programs and Resources: CDBG, Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act Funding, City
Housing Reserve Fired; City Human Service Resource Allocation Process, Federal Home L, oan
Bank’s Affordable Housing Program (AHP), state Emergency Shelter Grants.
4. Permanent Affordable Housing
The newly constructed 107-unit Alma Place residence hotel provides permanent housing for low
and extremely low-income persons. The studio units are targeted to very low-income downtown
workers who make between. $6,000and $20,000 per year. Rents are in $330 - $490 per month
range. There is a long-waiting list for available units and a very Iowturnover rate. This demand
attests to the need for additional units in this price range. A high priority is placed on the
development of new units. This goal is included in the housing section of this report.
The County’s Shelter Plus Care Program provides 5 years of Section 8 rental assistance to
homeless persons with disabilities who are willing to participate in case-managed rehabilitation
programs. Currently there are 12 available slots in Alma Place and the Barker Hotel.
Five-year goal #11
Continue to Support the Shelter Plus Care
Program in Palo Alto and increase the units
available in the program to include families with
children
Activities: New construction, rehabilitation, rental assistance, and supportive services.
Persons To Be Assisted: Very low and low-income homeless individuals and families with
children (incomes of 0-30 percent of countywide median).
Programs and Resources: CDBGI Cit~ Housing Reserve, Stewart B. McKinney Homeless
Assistance Act Funding, state and federal tax credits, Shelter Plus Caxe.
C. Strategy for Other Special Needs Populations
Five-Year’ Goal #12) Assist seniors in long term
care facilities
Five-Year Goal #13
Continue to provide
services
Five-Year Goal #14
Continue to provide.
homelessness
accessible transportation
services to prevent
Five-Year Goal #15
Continue to support food and meal programs
City of Palo Alto
2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
Page 72
.Five-Year Goal #16
Complete the Waverley Street rehabilitation
project
Activities: New construction, rehabilitation, support facilities .and services (including
transportation) will all be employed in addressing special needs concerns.
Persons To Be Assisted: Individuals and small households who have been identified as having
special housing needs. These might include the elderly, persons with mental illness, persons with
disabilities, and victims of domestic violence, persons with HIV/AIDS, or other groups that need
housing with supportive services. Most persons are expected to have very low incomes below 30
percent of the median family income, others will be very low income (from 31 to 50 percent or
median), a few may be low income.
Programs and Resources: To meet these housing needs, the City offers assistance through the
CDBG program with the acquisition costs-of group homes and with rehabilitation costs of
existing residential facilities, or with supportive services.
CDBG, Section 811, Section 202, Low Income Housing Tax Credits, McKinney Homeless
Funding, City .Housing Reserve; General Funds (Human Service. Resource Allocation Process)
Specific Projects:
Waverley Street House - Alliance for Community Care. Rehabilitation of
transitional housing for low-income persons with mental illness
Senior long-term care ombudsmen program of Catholic Charities
Para-transit transportation subsidies through Outreach and Escort
La Comida senior nutrition programs
Second Harvest Brown Bag senior grocery programs
Non-Housing Community Development Strategy
The primary objective for n0n,housing community development is to support and promote a vital
system of community-based human services by maintaining and expanding the physical
infrastructure of facilities that house human service agencies and programs benefiting low-
income residents. This can be done through planning, acquisition, construction, and renovation
of new or existing facilities. Of primary importance over the next five years will be the
accessibility of services and systems for persons with disabilities.
E. Anti’Poverty Strategy
The purpose of an anti-poverty strategy is to describe a jurisdiction’s programs and policies for
red, ucing the number of households with incomes below the poverty line. For purposes of this
plan, the extremely low-income category (below 30 percent of the area median) will be used to
City of Palo Alto
2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
Page 73
128
define poverty. For fiscal year 2000, that figure is a maximum annual income of $18,250 for a
single person and $26,100 for a four-person household.
The majority of the programs and services the City supports to alleviate homelessness (see
homeless strategy) will also be of benefit to persons with incomes below the poverty level.
While the majority of those actions are aimed at providing basic or supportive services
(emergency shelter, affordable housing, mental health and substance abuse counseling,
information and referral, subsidized child care, nutrition programs, etc), this strategy is centered
on the creation of employment opportunities.
Palo Alto’s anti-poverty strategy addresses the income and employment needs of persons who
are economically disadvantaged, including persons who are homeless, who have disabilities, and
those who are participating in Welfare-to:Work programs. Although the City has a relatively low
poverty rate (5.8 percent), and a strong local economy, the regional need for employment
strategies that address the needs of this population is critical.
According to the North Valley Job Training .Consortium (NOVA), the Software industry had the
fastest job growth among industry clusters in 1999. The average wage in this job category
exceeded $95,000. Unfortunately these high, end, high-tech jobs require skills that most of the
available local workforce does not possess. The largest employing sector, local and visitor
services, has an average annual wage of $22,900. Over the last two years, household incomes at
the bottom 20 percent of income distribution remain below 1992 levels. Social stratification is
increasing as low-end jobs do not provide sufficient wages for living in the region.
The City of Palo Alto actively participates in two important employment programs:
1. NOVA
This is a public/private partnership comprised of representatives from local governments (the
cities of Palo Alto, Sunnyvale, Cupertino, Mountain View, Los Altos, and Santa Clara), business
and industry~ labor, education, training systems, employment services, and community support
organizations. Formed in 1983, the mission of NOVA is to provide low cost and efficient job
tra.ining and employment programs. Their strategic goal includes the elimination of the "Digital
Divide" as a key anti-poverty strategy for this region.
In fiscal year 2000, NOVA received a total of $17,867,522 in federal funds through the federally
funded Job Training Parmership Act (JTPA). These funds will be used to address the needs of
businesses, job seekers, and workers through a string of partnerships. Supported programs
include job training and placement, workshops on interviewing techniques and career
advancement, vocational and remedial education, case-management and counseling..
2. Seasonal Employment Opportunity Program
In response to the employment needs of homeless or very low-income persons, the city of Palo
Alto initiated a Seasonal Worker Program in 1996. The program recruits residents and clients
City of Palo Alto
2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
Page 74
129
fi’om the Clara-Mateo Alliance Shelter, Mountain View Community Services, and the Urban
Ministry Rotating Shelter Program to participate in a 12-week job readiness program.
The City administers two 12-week programs annually, with approximately five workers each
program period. Upon completion of the 12-week session, participants may continue to work as
an hourly worker for the City or are linked to other jobs through an interim employment agency.
In addition to the $8.00 per hour income, program participants receive support services such as
case management, food and clothing vouchers, bus passes, and a week of job readiness training
at OICW. The program has enjoyed.a 75 percent success rate for participants completing the
session and acquiring continuous employment.
The City of Palo Alto intends to continue its support of, and participation in, the important
programs described above. The City will also continue to collaborate with other governmental
agencies, businesses, and social service agencies to address the employment and income needs of
extremely low-income persons.
F. Fair Housing Strategy
The City’s fair housing strategy over the next five years will be to take all actions that are
necessary to ensure equal housing opportunity regardless of race, color, religion, national origin,
sex, familial status and disability. Upon completion of the countywide fair housing survey, the
AI will be modified and updated to reflect the results of the assessment, and current information.
Additionally, the City will continue to support the provision of fair housing services through
local non-profit organizations, and target resources in response to changing needs. In an effort to
address the issues identified in the City’s AI, the following additional actions are planned during
the.five-year period of the Consolidated Plan:
Monitor the provision of fair housing services to ensure that adequate services are
being provided and that services are being provided in the most cost effective.
means
Continue to budget available financial resources to the provision of fair housing
services and target services to the most important needs
Increase awareness of fair housing services and fair housing rights and
responsibilities through community outreach, advertising, brochure distribution
and the provision of training sessions and informational community meetings
G. Overcoming Barriers
The greatest barriers to the provision of affordable housing are the lack of available sites upon
which to build new housing, or acquire existing housing and lack of sufficient funding to
adequately subsidize projects so they will be affordable to the low- and very,low-income
households. Other barriers are market conditions affecting housing construction, local political
conditions and neighborhood perceptions affecting the acceptability of either the type or density
of project. The specific strategies to be employed to remove or alleviate such barriers are listed
below:
City of Palo Alto
2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
Page 75
130
BARRIER
Lack of Land or Sites
Land Costs
Cost of Construction
Financing Costs
Governmental Constraints
Lack of Sufficient Funding and
Adequate Housing Subsidies
Neighborhood Opposition
STRATEGY
Continue to rezone appropriate commercial sites for housing
purposes per adopted policies in the City’s Housing Element.
Monitor effectiveness of policies for providing housing for
very-low and low-income individuals and families.
Provide Public Land at Below Market Costs when feasible;
pursue funding to purchase market rate property; pursue
higher density projects that provide an appreciable proportion
of very-low and low-income housing, to reduce construction
costs per unit.
Pursue higher density projects for very-low and low-income
housing to reduce construction costs per unit.
Pursue federal and state funding and tax credits to reduce
costs of projects; pursue low interest loans from federal, state
and private sources; pursue mortgage credit certificates to
reduce monthly mortgage payments.
Use of Planned Community zoning projects to allow for
modification of project, densities and parking requirements.
Pursue available federal and state funding and support an
increase in allocation of such funding..
Through public outreach, increase public awareness of critical
need for affordable housing and fact that such housing has had
no adverse impacts on property values; developers pursuing
new housing projects to work closely with neighborhood
organizations
H. Lead-Based Paint
The City CDBG and Housing staff will work with. the County of Santa Clara CDBG division,
County Environmental Health and other CDBG entitlement cities to develop and secure
sufficient funding for a Countywide public information program to educate home owners,
landlords, local building departments, tenants, contractors and architects about lead hazards,
testing, construction techniques and proper abatement methods. It is hoped that funding for this
program will be obtained from the State under the Childhood Lead. Poisoning Prevention Act.
The City requires testing and hazard reduction in housing rehabilitation efforts funded with
federal and City housing funds. In accordance with the new regulations regarding the
applicability of federal lead-based paint regulations promulgated by HUD, the City of Palo Alto
includes as a strategy and action item the preparation of a Lead Based Paint Management Plan,
to be prepared in consultation with the County and applicable federal agenciesl
City of Palo Alto
2000~2005 Consolidated Plan
Page 76
131
I. Public Housing
There are no public housing developments in the City of Palo Alto.
J. Institutional Structure
The affordable housing, community development and human service delivery system in the City
of Palo Alto is comprised of a number of complementary components:
Public Institutions: The City’s Department of Planning and Comm .unity Environment
administers the CDBG Program addressing housing and affordable housing programs, and is in
the process of developing a new Comprehensive Plan for the next twenty years. The Department
of Community Services oversees the annual allocation of approximately one million dollars in
General Fund Human Service contracts, works with the Human Relations Commission on needs
assessments, diversity issues, and provides staff liaisons to Citywide volunteer task forces (i:e. "
Disability Awareness, Child Care, Mediation Youth Council). The Santa Clara County Housing
Authority administers the local Section 8 housing subsidy program, and has provided bond
financing for the acquisition of affordable housing projects within the City.
Non-Profit Organizations:_ The majority of housing and human service strategies will be
accomplished by supporting local non-profit organizations that provide programs and services
for lower income residents. The City will cooperate and work with these groups to insure the
development of affordable housing and appropriate services within the community.
Private: The City will work with private for-profit industry, in particular financialand
development groups, to encourage housing and economic development opportunities.
¯ The major problems and gaps in the delivery .of affordable housing and social services include: 1)
limited funding and long waiting lists, 2) inconsistency in annual funding sources and amounts,
3) increasingly stringent federal regulations, and 4) a fragmented social service system that
responds to a specialized "problem" rather than the needs of the whole person or family.
To help address some of these problems, the City convenes semi-annual "Human Service
Provider Network" meetings with local non-profit agencies to facilitate collaboration and to
discuss ideas for sharing services and responding to declines in funding. The City also
participates in a regional effort to address the issues of homelessness by serving on the
Countywide Homeless Collaborative. During the 1995-2000 plan period, City staff will continue
to strengthen its’ capability to carry out the housing and non-housing community development
strategies described in this Consolidated Plan in an efficient and timely manner. The City will
continue its effort to build a spirit of cooperation amongst City staff, nonprofit organizations, and
the private sector to leverage resources. The City will continue its efforts to work cooperatively
with other local jurisdictions in identifying and addressing regional issues.
City of Palo Alto
2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
Page 77
132
K. Coordination
The CDBG/Home Administrators from the entitlement cities of Palo Alto, Sunnyvale, Motmtain
View, Santa Clara, San Jose, Gilroy, Milpitas, and the Urban County of Santa Clara meet on a
quarterly basis, and as special circumstances dictate. These regular meetings promote
understanding of regional issues, help facilitate the implementation of Federal program
requirements, and help to coordinate funding efforts for non-profit organizations within Santa
Clara County. Over the last several years, these cities have cooperated in the joint funding of a
number of CDBG and housing projects of countywide significance. Neighboring cities
frequently cooperate in jointly funding housing for special needs populations. These efforts are
expected to continue.
Palo Alto City staff actively participate in the Santa Clara County Collaborative on Housing and
Homelessness. This Countywide group brings together governmental agencies, homeless service
and. shelter providers, homeless persons, housing advocates, and affordable housing developers
to develop coordinated approaches to homeless issues. This increases, cooperation and
coordination among the participants in developing more effective programs to address the
problem of homelessness and lack of affordable housing in Santa Clara County. These efforts
are expected to continue.
City staff has also coordinated meetings with the Santa Clara County Housing Authority to
promote greater participation in Section 8 subsidies by Palo Alto residents. These efforts have
translated into permanent affordable housing in Palo Alto for thirteen previously homeless
individuals through the Shelter Plus Care Program. These efforts will continue as needed. A
minimum of annual meetings with the Santa Clara County Housing Authority will also be
coordinated to continue discussion of issues of mutual importance and concern.
L. Monitoring
The City will continue to monitor closely the activities carded out to further the goals of the
Consolidated Plan. For all CDBG funded activities, a Consolidated Annual Performance and
Evaluation Report (CAPER) will be completed in accordance federal requirements detailing the
dollars expended, the beneficiaries served, and the program goals achieved. Additionally, City
staff will monitor each funding subrecipient to insure compliance with all regulations governing
their administrative, financial, and programmatic operations; and to insure they achieve their
performance objectives within schedule and budget.
City of Palo Alto
2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
Page 78
133
VI.ONE YEAR (FISCAL YEAR 2000/2001) ACTION PLAN
This one year Action Plan describes the eligible activities that the City intends to undertal~e in
fiscal year 2000/01 to address the needs and implement the strategies identified in the City’s
Consolidated Plan for the period July 1, 2000 to June 30, 2005. It describes the activities that the
City will fund with Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds in fiscal year 2000/01
to address priority housing and non’housing community development needs and to affirmatively
further fair housing choice. It serves as the City’s application for federal funds under the
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) formula grant programs.
Priority 2000/01 Housing Activities
Pale Alto’s Consolidated Plan and Housing Element emphasize .the great need for affordable
housing for low and very low income households in Pale Alto. ¯ While all types of housing are
needed in the City, the Consolidated Plan objectives focus on the creation and preservation of
rental housing. The strategic goals place the greatest emphasis on housing for families with
children, persons with disabilities or other special needs, such as the elderly, persons who are
homeless, or are at risk of homelessness, and those who are single or who live in very small
households.
The five-year Consolidated Plan goals include expending 65 percent of CDBG funds for housing
purposes and increasing the supply of affordable rental housing by 125 units.
SOFA Family Housing Project. The primary use of capital CDBG funds in the 2000/0i
fiscal year will be for delivery of a site for a new affordable housing project for families in
the South of Forest Area (SOFA) of Pale Alto. The proposed project is a 40-45 unit rental
housing development to be built on a 1.23 acre parcel bordered by Bryant, Channing,
.Ramona, and Homer. Local Commercial and Residential Housing,in-lieu funds will be used
to acquire the site.
Community Housing, Inc. (Lytton Gardens I) - Elevator Upgrade. Consistent with the
housing goals is the rehabilitation and preservation of existing residential facilities that serve
low-income residents. Lytton Gardens provides 218 units of subsidized housing for seniors
and persons with disabilities. Existing project reserves are not sufficient to address all of the
ongoing maintenance and rehabilitation needs of the facility. Funds will be provided to
improve the lobby elevator in the three-story building to reduce the number of service call s,
and to improve the elevator’s accessibility and ease of operation for the many frail elderly
and disabled residents.
CDBG funds allocated to the two housing activities described above, comprise 62 percent of
available CDBG funds for fiscal year 2000/01.
Resources
The City of Palo Alto intends to pursue and encourage local non-profit housing and support
services agencies to pursue all available public and private funding to achieve the Consolidated
Plan goals. Funding resources will be coordinated and leveraged whenever possible to maximize
their potential. It is expected that funding from a combination of federal, state and local sources
City of Pale Alto
2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
Page 79
134
will be used to pursue the majority of the City’s identified housing and community development
strategies.
2000/01 CDBG Allocations
2000/01 CDBG Entitlement Grant
Estimated Program Income FY 2000/01 (HIP)
¯ Estimated Program Income FY 2000/01 (PAHC)
Prior Unbudgeted Funds (Cal Park)
Reallocated Funds "
Total
$732,000
20,000
20,000
9,550
5,775
$787,275
Local and Other Resources
The primary local housing resource available in Palo Alto is the City’s Housing Reserve. The
Housing Reserve has two components:
Commercial Housing In-Lieu Fund - this fund is used primarily to increase the number of
new affordable housing units for Palo Alto’s work force. It is funded with housing mitigation
fees required from developers of commercial and industrial space. As of 12/31/99, the Fund
had a balance of approximately $3,100,000. .
Residential Housing In-Lieu Fund - this fund can be used for acquisition, rehabilitation, new
construction and predevelopment of low-income housing. It is funded with mitigation fees
provided under Palo Alto’s Below Market Rate (BMR) housing program from residential
developers, and money from other miscellaneous sources, such as proceeds from the sale or
lease of City property.
Leveraging and Matching Requirements
The City of Palo Alto will leverage federal and private housing funds to the greatest extent
feasible consistent with the goals identifie& The City will encourage housing project sponsors to
seek private financing and private grants, and to fully utilize other state and federal housing
development subsidies such as the low-income housing tax credit program. The City will also
utilize its local Housing Reserves, as appropriate, to leverage federal and private housing funds
and to provide any required matching funds. Where eligible, CDBG funds could be used as a
portion of the matching requirement for federal housing programs.
The City of Palo Alto is not an entitlement jurisdiction for HOME funds. The only possible way
to access HOME funds is for the City, or eligible nonprofit organizations within the City, to
apply to the State of California for the funds in an annual competition. Due to excessive demand
for the State’s HOME allocation, and rating criteria that doesn’t favor high-cost areas like Palo
Alto, it is difficult to secure an award. At the time the next Notice of Funding Availability
(NOFA) is published, staff will: evaluate all potentially suitable projects to determine whether or
not to apply for a HOME grant.
City of Palo Alto
2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
Page 80
LOCAL, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE RESOURCES FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Acquisition Rehabilitation New Home Buyer Rental Homeless
Activity Construction Assistance Assistance Assistance
Homeless
Prevention
Commercial Housing In-
Lieu Fund
Residential Housing In-
Lieu Fund
X X
LOCAL, PUBLIC
X
X
RESOURCES
City Owned land X
MCC Program X
Housing Bond Trust Fund X X X X
County Housing
Authority Section 8 X X X X X X
County Department of
Social Services X XOffice of County
Executive X X X
Shelter Plus Care
Stewart B. McKinney
Homeless Funds X X X X X X X
State and Federal
Housing Tax Credits X X X
PRIVATE RESOURCES
BMR Rental & Owner X.X XProgram
Private Lenders: AHP X - X X
Nonprofit Developers X X X X X
¯ Private Foundations and
Churches X X
Priority Public Service 2000/01 Activities
All of the public service activities included in the 2000/2001 CDBG funding cycle address the
priority public service goals identified in the Consolidated Plan. In fiscal year 2000/01 fifteen
percent of the CDBG funds will be targeted to public service activities to address the following
goals:
a) Services related directly to the housing needs of low income persons
~Palo Alto Housing Corporation - Housing Information and Referral services
)~Mid-Peninsula Citizens for Fair Housing - activities to promote an environment of
fair housing and decrease the incidents of discrimination in housing choice.
City of Palo Alto
2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
Page 81
136
b)Shelter and supportive services for individuals and families w~o are homeless or at,
risk of homelessness
)~ Palo Alto Housing Corporation - Barker Hotel tenant support services counseling’
~ Emergency Housing Consortium - shelter and supportive services for persons who
are homeless
>" Shelter Network (Haven Family House) - transitional housing and supportive service
for homeless families with children
>" Clara-Mateo Alliance - emergency Shelter, transitional housing, and supportive
services for homeless individuals and for families with children.
>" Community Technology Alliance -Community VoiceMail to assist homeless or
very-low income individuals with job, housing, or health care searches
>’. Community Working Group - Planning grant to establish an indoor "Opportunity
Center" to provide very low-income or homeless persons with access to showers, and
laundry facilities, counseling, and other supportive services.
c) Services that address other needs of low-income, elderly or special needs persons. , ,
~"Catholic Charities - Complaint investigation, ombudsman, advocacy and supportive
services for the frail elderly, in Palo Alto’s long-termcare nursing facilities
Local Resources
Human Service Resource Allocation Process (HSRAP). In fiscal year 2000/01, the City will
provide approximately $1,150,000 from the General Fund in support of human service programs
through HSRAP. The HSRAP funds, in conjunction with the CDBG public service funds, are
distributed to local non-profit agencies whose programs serve the needs of seniors, children,
youth and families, persons with disabilities, and those who are homeless, or at risk of
homelessness. A variety of supported programs provide fair housing activities, mental and
physical health care services, tenant/landlord mediation, housing information and referral,
subsidized child care, support for victims of.domestic violence and rape, adolescent counseling~
emergency food, nutritional services, recreational activities, and subsidized para-transit services.
Community-Working Group (CWG) The CWG was established in 1998 to assist in the
identification of a local site for an indoor "Oppor[unity Center" from which services could be
provided to persons who are very low income or homeless. The goal of the Center would be to
provide counseling, case management and information and referral, as well as shower and
laundry facilities, lockers, a clothes closet and other related services. The CWG is comprised of
representatives from local churches, the Urban Ministry of Palo Alto, non-profit organizations,
Stanford University officials, City officials, City staff, persons who are or have been homeless,
the Human Relations Commission, and other interested community members.
In fiscal year 1999/00, CWG successfully secured site control on two parcels at 33/39 Encina
Way in Palo Alto for the Center. CWG has selected a team comprised of staff from the Palo
Alto Housing Corporation and the Santa Clara County Housing Authority to assist in project
design and implementation. Their community fund-raising efforts will continue in 2000/01.
Shelter Plus Care. City staff has facilitated several large meetings with area non-profit service
providers in order to increase local participation in the County’s Shelter plus Care program.
Administration of the program is through the office of the Santa Clara County Homeless
City of Palo Alto
2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
Page 82
137
Coordinator. It is a Federal grant program which provides Section 8 rental assistance to
participating landlords onbehalf of eligible tenants for a period of up to five years. Exten.siv,
support services are a necessary and required component of the program that targets people who
are homeless and disabled. These efforts are expected to continue.
Affirmatively Further Fair Housing
The City of Palo Alto completed an Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice on
February 6,1996. That report identified a lack of housing affordable to persons of low and
moderate income as the major impediment to housing choice. Housing discrimination was also
identified as an impediment, with cases based On familial status the’ most often reported.
However, the number of cases of discrimination against persons with physical and mental
disabilities has also been increasing. Palo Alto plans to undertake the following actions to foster
and maintain affordable housing and to address housing discrimination during the 2000/01 fiscal
year:
Provide CDBG and local housing funds for site acquisition and clearance for a 40.45 unit
affordable family housing projec.t on the, redevelopment site of the former Palo Alto Medical
Foundation.
Continue to assist ALLIANCE for Community Care in their efforts to raise funds to
rehabilitate the Waverley Street House to be used as.transitional housing for persons with
mental illness.
Continue to monitor the provision of fair housing services by MCFH to ensure that: adequate
services are being provided, and that services are provided in the most cost-effective way
possible.
Work with the Santa Clara County CDBG entitlement Cities in their effort to conduct a
countywide study of fair housing issues and to further identify fair housing needs on a
regional basis.
Continue the City’s funding support of affordable and supportive housing services that
provide housing information and referral, and tenant landlord mediation.
Provide funding to the local fair housing agency, Mid-Peninsula Citizens for Fair Housing
(MCFH) to reduce discrimination in housing by:
ao
Co
Investigating a minimum of 15 cases of housing discrimination
Conducting 25 consultations with persons who believe they have been discriminated
against
Maintaining a pool of 50 testers for investigations and conducting 3 trainings
Maintaining a panel of 10-15 attorneys for referral and coordinating an annual
meeting for participating attorneys
Running biweekly ads in the Palo Alto Weekly and daily ads in the San Jose
Mercury News; and running one display ad promoting fair housing
Distributing 100 fair housing brochures
Running 20 public service announcements for local radio/TV broadcasts
Making 7 educational presentations to the community
City of Palo Alto
2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
Page 83
138
I. Monitoring and reporting on four rental sites
j Showing the educational video on housing discrimination produced by MCFH on
local cable TV
Geographic Distribution
Housing Activities: The City will consider the provision of all types of housing assistance on a
citywide basis consistent with the policies of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The City does not
have specific target areas for housing activities but attempts to provide housing affordableto
lower income persons throughout the City.
Community Development Activities: Specific efforts have been coordinated in the Community
Services and Police Departments to focus on activities and services in the Ventura neighborhood.
A number of City sponsored programs and activities serving low and very. low income persons
have either been undertaken or are proposed. A police substation was opened in the area with
the goal of improving contact with the community. The Ventura Neighborhood (Census tract
5107, Block Group 2) has a large proportion of modest rental housing, a relatively high
proportion of minority and ethnic groups, and 48.46 % of the households are below the CDBG
income eligibility limits.
Other Actions
Remove Barriers to Affordable Housing
In fiscal year 2000/01 the City will continue to work with non-profit and for-profit housing
developers to encourage the development of new affordable housing. The City will work with
ALLIANCE for Community Care to encourage and assist them in completing the rehabilitation
of their transitional housing project on Waverley Street for persons with severe mental illness.
Reduce the Number of of Poverty Level Families
The City will continue to support subsidized child-care slots, the Emergency Assistance
Programs, food and nutrition programs, low cost health services, the seasonal workers program,
and other support services that are used by low-income households to obtain basic necessities.
¯Urgent Need Activities
In the event of alocal, state or federal disaster declaration for areas within the boundaries of the
City of Palo Alto, the City reserves the right to use CDBG or other available federal funds to
abate immediate and necessary hazards. Such funds may be used for staff efforts, .loans, or
outright grants to affected parties, as approved by City Council and allowable under the pertinent
Federal Guidelines:
Lead-Based Paint
For fiscal year 2000/01 the City will continue to required testing and lead hazard reduction in
housing rehabilitation efforts funded with CDBG or HOME funds. The City will also continue
to provide informational material on lead paint hazards. As required by new federal regulations,
the City will prepare a Lead Based Paint Management Plan. This plan will be prepared in
consultation with the county and applicable federal agencies.
Monitoring of Activities
City of Palo Alto
2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
Page 84
139
The City of Palo Alto follows the monitoring requirements for the use of federal funds as
directed by HUD. The City’s Department of Planning and Community Environment monitors its
housing production goals and all the activities carried out to further the goals of the Consolidated
Plan. For activities funded by CDBG and HOME programs, an annual performance report is
completed based on HUD regulations.and in accordance with HUD standards. The Consolidated
Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER) is available to the Citizens Advisory
Committee and the general public for comments during.a 15-day review period. This report
identifies the actual dollars expended, the beneficiaries served, and the program goals achieved.
The City requires subrecipients to submit semi-annual and annual performance reports outlining
the extent to which program goals have been achieved, and the beneficiaries who have been
served. Program performance is measured against the specific program objectives outlined in the
contract scope of services. Additionally, City staff will monitor each subrecipient, as necessary,
to insure compliance with all regulations governing their administrative, financial, and
programmatic operations, and to make sure the subrecipients achieve their performance
objectives within the prescribed schedule and budget.
Coordination
The CDBG entitlement cities (Palo Alto, Sunnyvale, Mountain View, Santa Clara, Gilroy,
Milpitas, San Jose), and the Urban County of Santa Clara, continue to meet to discuss issues of
mutual concern and to share information and strategies that address housing, homelessness, fair
housing, and other community needs. The meetings have helped the participants better
understand the County and nonprofit social service structure within the County. These efforts
are expected to continue.
The City of Palo Alto continues to collaborate with neighboring jurisdictions in Santa Clara and
San Mateo. County on issues relating to homelessness in northern Santa Clara County and
southem San Mateo County. The City actively participates in the Santa Clara County Housing
and Homeless Collaborative. These efforts are expected to continue.
Over the last several years, the entitlement cities in Santa Clara County have cooperated in the
joint CDBG funding of a number of community development projects. Projects jointlyfunded
include Second Harvest Food Bank’s distribution center, the New Children’s Shelter, Emergency
Housing Consortium’s Homeless Reception Center, Social Advocates for Youth’s group home
renovations, and Mid-Peninsula Housing Corporation’s housing project for developmentally
disabled adults. These efforts are expected to continue.
City staff and the staff of local non-profit housing .organizations will continue to collaborate and
consult with the Santa Clara County Housing Authority. A greater, understanding of the Housing
Authority’s operations, program.participants, programs and services will be beneficial in meeting
the housing needs of local low-income persons
To ensure a coordinated approach to the City’s human service, fimding efforts, the CDBG
Coordinator and the Administrator of Human Services meet to review and discuss applications
received tl~.ough both the CDBG and HSRAP processes. Additionally, a member of the Human
Relations Commission serves on the CDBG Citizens Advisory Committee to avoid duplication
City of Palo Alto ’140
2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
Page 85
of effort and to assure collaboration within Palo Alto. The CDBG and housing staff attend and
participate in the semi-annual Human ServicesProvider Network meetings coordinated by. the
Human Services Division to promote understanding and collaboration among the local public
service agencies.
The Office of Human Services and the Planning Department will continue to encourage non-
profit organizations to work together and share their expertise with one another, especially those
agencies that provide and manage housing and those that provide social services, in order to
ensure that resident’s needs are addressed.
City of Palo Alto
2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
Page 86
141 .
Application for Federal
Assistance
1. Type of Submission:
Application:Non- Construction
~reapplication:
5. Applicant Information
Legal Name
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Address
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Santa ¯Clara County
2. Date Submitted
05/15/00
3. Date Received by State
4. Date Received by Federal Agency
6. Employer Identification Number (EIN):
8. Type of Application:
Type: Continuation
10. C.atalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number:
Catalog Number: 14218
Assistance Title: Community Development Block Grant
12. Areas Affected by Project:
The City of Palo Alto, County of Santa Clara, State of
California
13. Proposed Project:
Start Date End Date
07/01/00 06/30/01
15. Estimated Funding:
a. Federal
$732,OO0
b. Applicant
$0
c. State
$0
d. Local
$0
e. Other
$15,275
f. Program Income
$40,000
g. Total
$ 787,275
Applicant Identifier
B-00-MC-06-0020
State Application Identifier
Federal Identifier
Organizational Unit
Department of Planning & Community Environmen
Contact
Suzanne Bayley
(650) 329-2428
7. Type of Applicant:
Municipal
9. Name of Federal Agency:
U.S. Dept. of Housing & Urban Development
11.Descriptive Title of Applicant’s Project:
The City of Palo Alto’s Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG) Program for Fiscal Year 1999/2000
14. Congressional Districts of:
a. Applicant b. Project
12th Congressional District 12th Congressional District
16. Is Application Subject to Review by State Executive Order 12372 Process?
Review Status: Program not covered
17. Is the Applicant Delinquent on Any Federal Debt?
No
18. To.the best of my knowledge and belief, all data in this application/preapplication are true and correct, the document has been duly authorizedby the governing body of the applicant and the applicant will comply with the attached assurances if the assistance is awarded.
a. Typed Name of Authorized Representative ~ b. Title
Frank Behest Id. Signature of Authorized Representative
City Manager
c. Telephone Number
(650) 329-2483
e. Date Signed
05/15/00
City of Palo Alto
2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
Page 87
’142
Funding Sources
Entitlement Grant (includes reallocated funds)
CDBG
ESG
HOME
HOPWA
Total
$732,000
$0
$0
So
Prior Years’ Program Income NOT previously programmed or reported
CDBG $9,500
ESG $0
HOME $0
HOPWA $0
Total
Reprogrammed Prior Years’ Funds
CDBG $5,775
ESG $0
HOME $0
HOPWA $0
Total
Total Estimated Program Income
PAHCIHIP
Total
$40,000
Section 108 Loan Guarantee Fund
$732,000
$9,500
$5,775
$40,000
$0
TOTAL FUNDING SOURCES $787,275
Other Funds $o
Submitted Proposed Projects Totals $787,275
Un-Submitted Proposed Projects Totals $0
City of Palo Alto
2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
Page 88
U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development
CPD Consolidated Plan
Listing of Proposed Projects
Project IDI
Local ID
0013
Project Title/Priority/
Objective/Description
ACHIEVE. Fence Replacement
Special Needs/Non-Homeless
Replacement of 400 feet of fencing around a school
fadlity that serves children with autism,
schizophrenia, developmental delays, or a variety of
severe emotional and behavioral challenges.
HUD Matdx Code/Title/ Funding Sources
CitationlAccomplishments
03B Handicapped Centers CDBG
ESG
570.201(c)HOME
HOPWA
1000 Persons with Special Needs
TOTAL
Total Other Funding
$ 30,000
$0
$0
$0
$30,000
$0
Help the Homeless?No
Help those with HIV or AIDS?No
Start Date: 07/01/00
Comple~ion Date: 06130101
Eligibility:
Subr~pient:
Looation(s):
570.208(a)(2) - Low / Mod Limited Clientele
Subrecipient Private 570.500(c)
Addresses
3860 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto, CA 94303 .
City of Palo Alto
2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
. Page 89
144
U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development
CPD Consolidated Plan
Listing of Proposed Projects
IProject ID/
Local,ID
0001
01025
Project TitlelPriorityl
Objective/Description
HUD Matrix Code/Title/ Funding Sources
CitationlAccomplishments
CATHOLIC CHARITIEs ~- Long Term Care Ombudsmen
Senior Programs.
Complaint investigation and advocacy services for the
frail, eldedy residents living in long-term nursing and
residential care facilities. Sen~ices include the
investigation and resolution of cases of eider abuse.
05A Senior Semices CDBG
ESG
570.201(e)HOME
HOPWA
465EIdedy
TOTAL
Total Other Funding
8,240
$o
$o
$0
$8,240
$0
Help the Homeless?No
Help those with HIV or AIDS?No
Stad Date: 07/01/00
Completion Date: 06130101
Eligibility:
Subrecipient:
Location(s):
570.208(a)(2). Low / Mod Limited Clientele
Subrecipient Pdvate 570.500(c)
Community W~de
City of Palo Alto
2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
Page 90
145
U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development
CPD Consolidated Plan
Listing of Proposed Projects
IProiect ID/
Local ID
0007
01003
Project TitlelPdodtyl
Objective/Description
HUD Matrix Code/Title/ Funding Sources
CitationlAccomplishments
CITY OF PALO ALTO- Administration
Planning & Administration
Administrative costs for the overall management,
coordination monitoring; and evaluation of the CDBG
Program, and the project delivery costs associatedwith
bringing capital projects to completion.
21A General Program Administration CDBG
ESG
570.206 HOME
HOPWA
ON/A
TOTAL
Total Other Funding
$11o,ooo
$o
$o
$o
$11o,0oo
$0
Help the Homeless?No
Help those with HIV or AIDS?No
Eligibility:
Subrecipient:
Location(s):
Local Govemment
Community Wide
Start Date: 07/01/00
Completion Date: 06130101
City of Palo Alto
2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
Page 91
146
U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development
CPD Consolidated Plan
Listing of Proposed Projects
IProject IDI
Local ID
0014
Project Title/Priority/
ObjectivelDescription
HUD Matrix CodeFFitle/ Funding Sources
CitationlAccomplishments
CITY OF PALO ALTO- Housing Development Fund
Housing
Site Clearance and pre-development costs for 45 new
units of affordable housing for families. The project
will be on a portion of the PAMF/SOFA redevelopment area
on a block bordered by Channing, Ramona & Bryant
Streets.
04 Clearance and Demolition
570.201(d)
45 Housing Units
CDBG
ESG
HOME
HOPWA
TOTAL
. .Total Other Funding
$ 420,000
$0
$0
$0
$420,000
$0
Help the Homeless?No
Help those with HIV or AIDS?No
Start Date: 07101100
Completion Date: 06130101
Eligibility:
Subrecipient:
Location(s):
570.208(a)(3) - Low / Mod Housing
Local Government
NIA
City of Palo Alto
2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
Page 92
147
U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development
CPD Consolidated Plan
Listing of Proposed Projects
IPr~ectlD/
LocallD
0010
Project TitlelPriority/
Objective/Descri ption
HUD Matrix Code/Title/ FundingSources
CitationlAccomplishments
CLARA-MATEO ALLIANCE- Family Shelter
Homeless & HIV/AIDS
Provision of shelter and transitional housing and
special supportive services for homeless families with
children.
05 Public Services (General)
570.201(e)
30 Household~ (General)
CDBG
ESG
HOME
HOPWA
TOTAL
Total Other Funding
$10,000
$0
$0
$0
$10,000
$0
J
Help the Homeless?Yes
Help those with HIV or AIDS?No
Start Date: 07101100
Completion Date: 06130101
Eligibility:
Subrecipient:
Location(s):
570.208(a)(2). Low I Mnd Limited Clientele
Subrecipient Pdvate 570.500(c)
Addresses
795 Willow Road, bldg. 323D, Menlo Park, CA 94025
City of Palo Alto
2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
Page 93
148
U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development
CPD Consolidated Plan
Listing of Proposed Projects
IProject IDI
Local ID
0O08
Project TitlelPfiodty/
Objective/Description
HUD Matrix Code/Title/ Funding Sources
Citation/Accomplishments
CLARA-MATEO ALLIANCE- Shelter
Public Services
Shelter, transitional housing, and supportive services
for homeless persons. Clients include underserved
populations such as persons with disabilities,
psychiatric disorders, chronic substance abuse issues,
and severe mentally illness.
05 Public Services (General)
570.201(e)
90 Persons who are Homeless
CDBG
ESG
HOME
HOPWA
TOTAL
Total Other Funding
$ 25,000
$o
$o
$o
$ 25,00O
$0
Help the Homeless?Yes
Help those with HIV or AIDS?No
Start Date: 07/01/00
Completion Date: 06130101
Eligibility:
Subrecipient:
Location(s):
570.208(a)(2) - Low/Mod Umited Clientele
Subrecipient Private 570.500(c)
Addresses
795 Willow Road Bldg 323D, Menlo Park, CA 94025
City of Palo Alto
2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
Page 94
149
U,S. Department of Housing & Urban Development
CPD Consolidated Plan
Listing of Proposed Projects
IProject ID/
Local ID
0011
Project Title/Priofityl
Objective/Description
HUD Matrix Code/Title/ Funding Sources
Citation/Accomplishments
COMMUNITY HOUSING, INC.. Lytton Gardens Elevators 14B Rehab; Multi-Unit Residential
Housing 570.202
Modernization of one elevator in the common area of
Lytton Gardens I, a 218-unit residential facility
providing affordable housing and congregate dining and
supportive services to seniors
218 Housing Units
CDBG
ESG
HOME
HOPWA
-TOTAL
Total Other Funding
65,000
$0
$0
$0
$ 65,0O0
$0
Help the Homeless?No
Help those with HIV or AIDS?No
Start Date: 07/01/00
Completion Date: 07/01/01
Eligibility:
Subr~pient:
Location(s) i
570.208(a)(3)- Low / Mnd Housing
Subredpient Private 570.500(c)
Addresses
656 Lytton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301
City of Palo Alto
2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
Page 95
150
IProjeci ID/
OOO5
U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development
CPD Consolidated Plan
Listing of Proposed Projects
Project Title/Priority/
ObjectivelDescription
HUD Matrix Code/Title/ Funding Sources
CitationlAccomplishments,
COMMUNITY TECHNOLOGY ALLIANCE- VdceMail
Public Services
To provide Community VoiceMail services to homeless
clients so that they can reach their primary objective
of findng housing and/or employment.
05 Public Se~ces (General)
570.201(e)
30 Persons who are Homeless
CDBG
ESG
HOME
HOPWA
TOTAL
Total Other Funding
$12,000
$0
$o
$0
$12,0~
$0
Help the Homeless?Yes
Help those with HIV or AIDS?No
Eligibility:
Subrecipient:
Location(s):
Start Date: 07/01/00
Completion Date: 06130101
570.208(a)(2) - Low/Mod Limited Clientele
Subr~pient Private 570.500(c)
Community Wde
City of Palo Alto
2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
Page 96
151
U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development
CPD Consolidated Plan
Listing of Proposed Projects
IProject ID/
Local ID
0012
Project Title/Priority/
ObjectivelDescription
HUD Matrix Coderritlel Funding Sources,
CitationlAccomplishments
COMMUNITY VVORKING GROUP- Planning Grant
Homeless & HIV/AIDS
Planning grant to assist non-profit organization
establish business and financial plans for the
development of a public facility to serve homeless and
those at risk of homelessness.
20 Planning CDBG $ 25,000
ESG $ 0
570.205 HOME $ 0
HOPWA $ O
0 N/A
TOTAL
Total Other Funding
$ 25,000
$0
Help the Homeless?Yes
Help those with HIV or AIDS?No
Eligibility:
Subrecipient:
Location(s):
Start Date: 07/01/00
Completion Date: 06130101
Subrecipient Private 570.500(c)
Addresses
33/39 Encina Way, Palo Alto, CA 94301
City of Palo Alto
2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
Page 97
152
U.S. Department of Housing & urban Development
CPD Consolidated Plan
Listing of Proposed Projects
IProject IDI
Local ID
00O4
01018
Project Title/Priority/
Objective/Description
HUD Matrix Code/Title/ Funding Sources
CitationlAccomplishments
EMERGENCY HOUSING CONSORTIUM- Shelter
Homeless & HIV/AIDS
Emergency shelter, transitional housing and supportive
services for homeless individuals and families,
including the Sunnyvale Armon/and the San Jose
Reception Center.
05 Public Services (General)
570.201(e)
50 Persons who are Homeless
CDBG
ESG
HOME
HOPWA
TOTAL
Total Other Funding
$8,240
$o
$0
$0
$ 8,240
$0
Help the Homeless?yes
Help those with HIV or AIDS?No
Start Date: 07/01/00
Completion Date: 06130101
Eligibility:
Subrecipient:
Location(s):
570.208(a)(2) - Low / Mod Limited Clientele
Subrecipient Pdvate 570.500(c)
Addresses
2011 Little Orchard Street, San Jose, CA 95125
City of Palo Alto
2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
Page 98
153
U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development
CPD Consolidated Plan
Listing of Proposed Projects
IProject IDI
Local ID
00O6
01016
Project TitlelPriority/
ObjectivelDescription
HUD Matrix Code/Title/ Funding Sources
CitationlAccomplishments
MID-PENINSULA CITIZENS FOR FAIR HOUSING
Planning & Administration
21D Fair Housing Activities CDBG(subject to 20% Admin cap)ESG
HOME
570.206 HOPWA
$18,550
$o
$o
$o
Fair housing services. Provision of a variety of
services that reduce incidents of housing discrimination
including complaint investigation, counseling,education, and advocacy..
15 Households (General)TOTAL
Total Other Funding
$18,550
$0
Help the Homeless?No
Help those with HIV or AIDS?No
Start Date: 07/01/00
Completion Date: 06130101
Eligibility:
Subrecipient:
Location(s):
Subrecipient Private 570.500(c)
Community Wide
City of Palo Alto
2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
Page 99
154
. U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development
CPD Consolidated Plan
Listing of Proposed Projects
I Project ID/
,ILocal ID
OO02
Project TitlelPdodty/
Objective/Description
HUD Matrix Code/Title/ Funding Sources
Citation/Accomplishments
PALO ALTO HOUSING CORP.- Barker Counseling
Homeless & HIV/AIDS
The program is.to provide counseling and supportive case
management se~ces for the low income residents of the
Barker Hotel. The Barker provides 26 units of permanent
Single Room Occupancy (SRO) housing in the downtown
area. These intensive case management sen~ices help the
residents, many of whom have a history of homelessness,
meintain their stability and their housing.
050 Mental Health Se~ces CDBG
ESG
570.201(e)HOME
HOPWA
26 Persons at Risk of Homelessness
TOTAL
Total Other Funding
$17,745
$o
$o
$0
$17,745
$0
Help the Homeless?yes
Help those with HIV or AIDS?No
Start Date: 07/01/00 .
Completion Date: 06130101
Eligibility:
Subrecipient:
Location(s):
570.208(a)(2) - Low / Mod Limited Clientele
Subrecipient Private 570.500(c)
Addresses
439 Emerson Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301
City of Palo Alto
2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
Page 100
155
U.S. Department of Housing 8, Urban Development
CPD Consolidated Plan
Listing of Proposed Projects
IProject ID/
Local ID
0003
O1O47
Project Title/Priority/
Objective/Description
HUD Matrix Code/Title/ Funding Sources
CitationlAccomplishments
PALO ALTO HOUSING CORP.- Housing Information & Ref~aPublic Services (General)
Public Sen,ices 570.201(e)
Affordable housing information, referral and counseling
services including advice on available, affordable
and/or subsidized housing units, counsel on eligible
subsidy programs, and referral to appropriate housing
and service providers.
3500 People IGeneral)
CDBG
ESG
HOME
HOPWA
TOTAL
Total Other Funding
$ 22,500
$o
$o
$o
$22,500
$0
Help the Homeless?No
Help those with HIV or AIDS?No
Start Date: 07101100
Completion Date: 06130101
Eligibility:
Subr~pient:
Location(s):
570.208(a)(2) - Low/Mod Limited Clientele
Subrecipient Private 570.500(c)
Community V~de
City of Palo Alto
2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
Page 101
156.
U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development
CPD Consolidated Plan
Listing of Proposed Projects
IProject IDI
Local ID
0009
Project TitlelPriorityl
Objective/Description
HUD Matrix Code/Title/ Funding Sources
CitationlAccomplishments
SHELTER NETWORK- Haven Family House
Homeless & HIV/AIDS
Transitional housing and comprehensive support services
for homeless families.
05 Public Sewices (General)
570.201(e)
35 Persons who are Homeless
CDBG
ESG
HOME
HOPWA
TOTAL
Total Other Funding
$15,000
$0
$0
$0
$15,000
$0
Help the Homeless?No
He p those with HIV or AIDS?No
Start Date: 07101100
Completion Date: 06/30/01
Eligibility:
Subrecipient:
Location(s):
570.208(a)(2) - Low / Mod Limited Clientele
Subrecipient Private 570,500(c)
Addresses
260 Van Buren Road, Menlo Park, CA 94025
City of Palo Alto
2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
Page 102
157
CERTIFICATIONS
In order to receive Federal CDBG funds, the City must certify that they are complying with in
compliance with specific laws, procedures, and other requirements. These certifications follow.
City of Palo Alto
2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
Page 103
158
APPENDIX A
SUMMARY OF CITIZEN COMMENTS FROM
JANUARY 20, 2000 HEARING
City of Palo Alto
2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
159
NOTES FROM PUBLIC HEARING ON.
HOUSINGAND NON-HOUSING .COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT NEEDS
THURSDAY, JANUARY 20, 2000, 7:00 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
PALO ALTO CITY HALL
¯Homeless Service/Opportunity Center (need Planning money now)
¯Permanent housing with services for homeless and those at-risk of homelessness
¯Link housing and supportive services
¯Continuit~ of services for persons with disabilities
¯Lower income persons who provide services can’t afford to live here - affects quality
of services
¯Housing needs for developmentally disabled adults
¯They need to stay in their home communities
¯Incomes of less than $10K
¯Need continuity of services
¯Provide housing subsidies
¯Haven Family House shelter
¯Family shelter; serves Palo Alto homeless families
¯Collaboration with other service providers
¯Services for people on the street
¯Access to information
¯Tools, support services
¯Transitional and permanent housing
¯Permanent affordable housing needs to be top priority over next five years
¯Takes lots of money to put together projects
¯High priority need is family housing (2-3 bedrooms) - waiting lists are very long; 10
years since last new units were built - displacement going on
160
¯More SRO-type units needed for very low income persons
¯Funding for services with SRO and transitional housing is critical need
¯Preservation "Terman Apartments - 2004
¯Seniors needs
¯85+ segment of population expected to increase. Need more assisted living units
for very lowincome, frail services
¯Nearly one-half of seniors have very low incomes ,
¯Seniors aging in place, very frail - need more units and services
¯Clara-Mateo Shelter - now up to 60 beds; needs to maintain program and keep it
going ,
¯Need programs that help end the cycle of homelessness
¯Focus on individual needs of clients to end "revolving door of homelessness"
¯Increase in homeless seniors that can’t get into low income housing on a $600 per
month income
¯Transitional housing is a gap
¯Need family shelter and transitional housing in North County
¯Services are fragmented- need more collaboration
¯Families living in motels; shelters are needed that accept kids of all ages and keep
families together
Housing for persons with disabilities is desperately needed
¯Over 5,000 persons with developmental disabilities who receive state funded
services need ongoing, long-term assistance
¯SSI income - can only afford $200 to $300 month rent; even affordable housing
rents are too high
¯More rental assistance so they don’t have to leave area
¯More housing set-asides from developers
¯Support services essential
Transitional housing for families needed in Pal0 Alto area - need location
Keep existing programs going and keep them successful
Educate the community - helping the homeless
Bring service providers together - be strategic
Loans for first-time home buyers
161
Keep programs going
Continuing problem of illegal housing discrimination (barrier to housing)
Discrimination based on (most frequent cases):
¯Disabilities
¯Family status (children)
¯Race (mainly Afro-American)
Senior housing
¯Increase access to support services, including affordable housing
¯Medical costs take up most of low income seniors’ incomes
¯Additional funds for assisted living services in existing senior housing
Other sources of federal funds needed to solve these problems
¯Leverage with State, County and general funds
Affordable housing for lower paid caregivers (affects care/services for seniors in
long-term care)
About 1,000 persons in Palo Alto area need long-term care
Insufficient money considering needs
Look for other sources of money - include the private dollars in the community
Housing situation will be getting worse
Increase permanently affordable housing
Family housing should be top priority - but don’t compartmentalize people
Focus housing dollars to lowest income households
Consolidated Plan should show impact on community of not addressing needs
162
APPENDIX B
DRAFT CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN
City of Palo Alto
2000-2005 Consolidated .Plan
163
DRAFT
CITY OF PALO ALTO
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG)
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN
Administered by the
Department of Planning and Community Environment
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
G. Edward Gawf, Director
Public Review and Comment Period:
March 31 -April 30, 2000
Adopted by the City Council:
For Information Contact: Suzanne Bayley
Planning Division, City of Palo Alto (650) 329-2428
e-maih suzanne_bayley@city.palo-alto.ca.us
164
INTRODUCTION
Purpose
The Citizen Participation Plan is intended to provide written documentation of the process and
procedures utilized by the City of Palo Alto to inform the public about, and involve the public in,
the Federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program and other related programs
such as the HOME Investment Partnership Act. A primary aspect of the Housing and
Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, which created the CDBG Program, is the
provision of adequate opportunity for citizens to participate in the planning, implementation and
assessment of the program.
In order to encourage public examination and appraisal of the process, as well as to enhance
program accountability, entitlement jurisdictions are required to certify that they are following a
detailed citizen participation plan. As required by 24 CFR Part 9! Subpart B 91.105, the Citizen
Participation Plan must:
Provide for and encourage citizen participation in the development, implementation and
assessment of the CDBG program with particular emphasis on participation by persons of
low and moderate income, minorities and non-English speaking persons as well as persons
with disabilities or special needs;
Provide citizens with reasonable and timely access to local meetings, information, and
records relating to the Consolidated Plan; the Annual Action Plan and substantial
amendments to the Plan, and the proposed and actual use of funds;
Provide for technical assistance to groups representative of persons of low and moderate
income that request such assistance in developing funding proposals;
Provide for a minimum of two public hearings to obtain citizen views and to respond to
proposals and questions at different stages of the community development process with
reasonable notice, accommodation for individuals with disabilities, and at times and locations
convenient to potential or actual program beneficiaries;
5.Provide for timely written responses to written complaints and grievances within 15 working
days where practicable; and
Identify how the needs of non-English speaking residents will be met in the case of public
hearings where a significant number of non-English speaking residents can be reasonably
expected to participate.
165
Objective
It is the intent of the City of Palo Alto to encourage meaningful citizen involvement ir~ the
CDBG process, the development of the five-year strategic Consolidated Plan, the Annual Action
Plan, any substantial amendments to the Plans, and the Consolidated Annual Performance and
Evaluation Report (CAPER) by:
1.Adhering to and complying with the provisions of the Federal CDBG requirements relating
to citizen participation as described in 24 CFR Part 91 s.ubpart B 91.105;
2. ~ Encouraging the participation of citizens in the planning, implementation and assessment of.
the CDBG program, especially those of low and very low income, members of minority
groups, the elderly, non-English speaking persons, individuals with disabilities, residents of
areas where funds might be expended,, and other neighborhood or civic groups;
Making information about the CDBG Program and process available to the public through
reasonable and timely access to. information, including publications in local newspapers,
public hearings, public meetings, and the provision of technical assistance.
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
CDBG Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC)
The City will establish a nine-member CDBG Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC). The
establishment of a CAC will provide a vehicle for active citizen involvement in all phases of the
Consolidated Planning process.
Function: The CDBG CAC is advisory to staff on the expenditure of CDBG funds and the
Consolidated Planning process. The CAC will assist in the identification of community
development needs and the assessment of projects presented for funding consideration. The
CAC will have an advisory role in the implementation of the CDBG program by acting as a
conduit to further define citizen needs and assessing performance. The CAC will assess
projects and activities to determine if the objectives of the Consolidated Plan are being met.
Recommendations, comments, assessments and proposals from the CAC will be forwarded
to the City Council for their review. The CAC will aid in the dissemination of information
about the Community Development Block Grant Program, and will aid in soliciting
comments and views from the general public.
Membership: Committee members will be appointed by the Mayor to serve a two-year term.
Members may not serve more. than two consecutive full terms. The Committee will have
nine voting members, one of whom is a member of the City’s Human Relations Commission.
The other eight members will consist of persons who live or work in Palo Alto and who are,
or who advocate for, persons of low and moderate income, persons with disabilities or
special needs, members of minority groups, or the elderly.
166
Conflict of Interest: In order to avoid a real or perceived conflict of interest, no person who is
a member of the Board of Directors, or is employed by an agency that applies for or receives
CDBG funding, will be eligible to serve on the CAC during any year in which the agency
receives or applies for CDBG funding.
City Council
The City Council sets policy and priorities, and approves and adopts the overall Consolidated
Plan, the Annual Action Plan and substantial amendments to the Plans. The City Council and the
Finance Committee will each hold a minimum of one public hearing per year for the purpose of
obtaining citizen’s views and formulating or responding to citizen’s proposals and questions.
Public hearings will be noticed at last 14 days in advance of the hearings in a newspape.r of
general circulation.
Actions of the City Council will direct the implementation of the Consolidated Plan.
Consolidated Plan Public Information Process
1.Prior to the adoption of the Consolidated Plan or the annual Action Plan, staff will provide
the CAC, other interested agencies, and the general public the following information:
The amount of grant funds and program income expected to be made available
during the next fiscal/program year for proposed community development and
housing activities;
¯The .range of activities that may be undertaken, including the estimated amount
proposed to be used for activities that will benefit persons of low and moderate
income;
¯The proposed CDBG activities which will likely, result in relocation, and the
City’s intent to minimize the necessity for relocation of persons as a result of
assisted activities;
¯The types and levels of assistance the City will make available (or require others
to make available) to persons who are eligible for relocation assistance as a result
of CDBG assisted activities.
o
Prior to publishing the proposed Consolidated Plan, or Annual Action Plan, a public hearing
will be held with the CAC or the City’s Human Relations Commission to obtain the views of
citizens on priority housing and non-housing community development needs. A notice of
this meeting will be published in a newspaper of general circulation at least 14 days prior to
the meeting.
The City will encourage citizen’s written comments prior to the adoption of a final
Consolidated Plan, or Annual Action Plan. The draft Consolidated Plan or Annual Action
Plan will be available to the public for a 30-day review period. A summary of the
167
Consolidated Plan or Annual Action Plan will be published in a newspaper of general
circulation and copies of the Consolidated Plan or Annual Action Plan will be available for
public review at City Hall and ,the downtown library. A list of other locations where c6pies.
of the entire Consolidated Plan or Annual Action Plan may be examined will be included
with the published summary.
Any comments or views received from the public will be considered in preparing the final
Consolidated Plan or Annual Action Plan. A summary of views and comments accepted, and
those not accepted and the reasons for not accepting them, will be attached to the final
Consolidated Plan or Annual Action Plan.
Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Reports (CAPER)
Annually, on September 30th, the City is required to submit a Consolidated Annual Performance
and Evaluation Report (CAPER) to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD). The CA’PER describes the CDBG expenditures and accomplishments for the program
year ending the previous June 30th.
The City invites citizens to submit comments on the performance report prior to its submission.
The city will publish a notice in a newspaper of general circulation indicating the subject of the
report, the location of the report, and the time and location of any public meeting.
The City will make a copy of the performance report available for review and comment a
minimum of 15 days in advance of its submission to HUD. The City will consider any
comments or views of citizens. A summary of views and comments accepted, and those not
accepted and the reasons for not accepting them, will be attached to the final performance report.
Availability and Accessibility to the Public
The general public is encouraged to participate in the various stages of the Consolidated Plan
process by attending the noticed public hearings or the CAC meetings, or submitting comments
in writing. They are also encouraged to express their views and comments directly to the CDBG
Coordinator in the Planning Division, or receive program information from planning staff, on the
5th floor of City Hall, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301. Staff will respond to written
complaints related to any aspect of the CDBG Program or the Consolidated Plan within 15 days
where practicable.
Planning staff will maintain the Citizens Participation Plan, the Residential Anti-displacement
and Relocation Assistance Plan, the Consolidated Plan; the Annual Action Plans, any substantial
amendments, and the Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Reports (CAPER), and
all other program records, documents, information and .reports required by federal regulations.
These documents are available for public review in the Planning Division, 5th floor, Civic Center,
250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301, during normal working hours (weekdays 8:00 am
to 12:00 pm; 1:00 pm to 5:00 pm).
168
Planning staff will arrange for information to be presented in a bilingual fashion at public
hearings whenever a significant number of non-English speaking residents can be reasonably
expected to participate, or when a request is made for such service.
All hearings and CAC meetings will be held in the evenings to allow the maximum number of
interested citizens to attend. All meetings will be held in accessible locations. Persons with
disabilities who require auxiliary aids or services in using City facilities, services or programs, or
who would like information on the City’s compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA) of 1990, may contact the ADA Director, City of Palo Alto, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo
Alto~ CA 94301;. 6501329-2550 (Voice) or 650-329-1199 (TDD). Public Hearings will be held in
the Council Chambers or other accessible locations. Sign language interpreters will be provided
upon request with 72 hours advance notice.
Technical Assistance
Technical assistaiace on the CDBG regulations and the CDBG process will be provided by the
staff of the Planning Division to r~on-profit agencies serving low and moderate-income persons,
or citizen groups representative of persons of low-and moderate-income, requesting such
assistance. Assistance may be in the form of general information, relevant demographic or
socio-economic data, interpretation of HUD rules and regulations, explanation of City policies
and procedures affecting the CDBG program, or advice regarding alternative funding sources for
projects which are ineligible under the CDBG program.
Amendments
Substantial amendments to the Consolidated Plan or Annual Action Plan are defined as:
1.the addition of a new activity (i.e., project) not previously identified in sufficient
detail to provide affected citizens an opportunity to submit comments, or
2.the change in the use of CDBG funds in one project from one eligible activity to
another that exceeds 20 percent of the City’s latest, annual entitlement grant, or
3.an increase or decrease in an activity’s program budget that exceeds twenty percent of
the City’s latest annual entitlement grant.
The City will encourage citizen’s written comments prior to the adoption of a substantial
amendment to the Consolidated Plan, or Annual Action Plan. The draft amendment will be
available to the public for a 30-day review period. A summary of the draft substantial
amendment will be published in a newspaper of general circulation and copies of the amendment
will be available for review at City Hall and the downtown library. A list of other location where
copies of the entire amendment may be examined will be included with the published summary.
Any comments or views received from the public will be considered in preparing the final
amendment. A summary of views and comments accepted, and those not accepted and the
reasons for not accepting them, will be attached to the final substantial amendment.
169
APPENDIX C
CITIZEN COMMENTS TO DRAFT CONSOLIDATED PLAN
DURING REVIEW PERIOD
City of Palo Alto
2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
170
COMMENTS ON DRAFT CONSOLIDATED PLAN
4/12/00 Planning Commission Meeting
Public Comments."
Sally Probst - 1) How much of a barrier are the federal noise regulations to building
housing along El Camino Real .or near the railroad tracks?
2) We should set our housing goals higher than the 125 units for the five-year period.
Staff response: 1) The use of federal funds requires adherence to the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations. These regulations can invoke noise
mitigation measures that are not required of the private market, making the development
of "affordable" housing more expensive. Mitigation measures such as sound walls can
add significantly to the cost of a project. 2) The housing goals were setat a level that
could reasonably be expected to be achieved over the next five years. The number is
there for the HUD plan, and we want to make sure it is a number that is achievable. We
will always strive to do more.
Comments from Planning Commissioners
John Northway: The Action Plan Section is confusing. Do the charts represent proposed
projects for next year?
Staff response: The charts are on HUD-required software and represent the staff
recommendations for FY 2000/01 CDBG funding. A narrative has been added to this
section to explain the proposed actions more clearly.
Kathy Schmidt: Need more emphasis on the need for additional family housing.
Staff response: OK. This has been noted in the five-year strategy section.
Phyllis Cassel: How does the goal of 125 units over the next five years relate to the
ABAG target numbers for low and very low income units?
Staffresponse: These numbers are really very different. The HUD numbers are based on
a conservative estimate of what we realistically can expect to accomplish based on
resources available. The ABAG numbers are assigned to us based on a portion of
regional need and land availability. They also cover different time frames, the
Consolidated Plan period is five years, and the ABAG period is 7 ½ years.
171
4/13/00 Human Relations Commission Meeting,
Comments from Human Relations Commissioners:
Andrew Pierce: There needs to be more discussion on fair housing/discrimination issues
since it is called out as one of the major goals in the Executive Summary Section.
Staffresponse: OK. The discussion on fair housing and discrimination has been
expanded.
172
COMMENTS TO DRAFT
CONSOLIDATED PLAN
To:Suzanne Bayley
From:Herb Borock
Date:April 13, 2000
The staff response to these comments is in italics following each comment.
Comments
Alma Place number in table. Should this be number of type of unit
rather than total number? Yes. Corrected.
27 Percent not shown for Sunnyvale, Los Altos, Alviso, Santa Clara.
Should it be 18 percent? It should be 15%. Corrected.
29 "The problem is more acute" .appears twice in sentence in third
paragraph. Yes. Corrected.
35 Is lead paint a problem of higher income households or is lead paint
not a problem? Lower income households are disproportionately
affected, but all households in pre-1950 housing are at risk.
Why is number of households greater than number of housing
units? Should be "persons in households". Corrected
49 Table omits homeless households (see p.32). This table is only
household type.. Homeless households are included in type of
househoM
54 Contract instead of contact, in second paragraph. Yes. Corrected
59 .Need (County of Residence) Santa Clara to add (County of
Work) Bay Area. Covered by "elsewhere"
First paragraph, 82,000+ should be 242,000+. Checking source on
this. Will update in final draft.
173
63-64
72
72
72
Three places mention commercial in-lieu fund as source of
funds. That fund has been depleted by SOFA project. Refers to
funds that will be replenished by new development.
Comprehensive Plan was adopted July 20, 1998. It is for a period of
only 12 years total (1998-2010), or only 10 more years. Corrected
Disability Awareness Task Force no longer exists. Corrected.
"Comma" needed between "mediation" and "youth council;’.
Corrected
72
72-73
Delete apostrophe after "its’" in last paragraph. Corrected.
Ensure instead of insure, in three places. Corrected.:
174
APPENDIX D
CORRESPONDENCE RELATED TO MEETING
WITH SANTA CLARA COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY
ON JANUARY 27, 2000
City of Palo Alto
2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
175-
March 3, 2000
Suzanne Bayley, CDBG Coordinator
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and Community Environment
250 Hamilton Avenue
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 943,03
Re: Consolidated Plan Consultation
Dear Suzanne:
Thank you for your correspondence regarding the consolidated plan consultation held 1/27/00 in
Palo Alto.
It was certainly a good opportunity to share information and hopefully clarify several
misconceptions regarding the Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara. I noted that a
few of the issues discussed as documented in your letter still require further correction of
information and will be pointed out for the record. A separate response is attached.
Attached is the draft of the Housing Authority PHAS plan. The document refers frequently to
supporting documents such as the Section 8 Administrative Plan and the Public Housing
Occupancy Plan. Due to their length, you will find 3 separate Table of Contents and we will be
pleased to send you any particular sections from those corresponding documents. As we all
agreed at the meeting, our bookshelves are already overflowing
There will be a public heating on April 10, 2000 at the Housing Authority main office from 4:00-
6:00 p.m. and comments eanbe mailed in or heard regarding the PHAS Plan. Of course, we
welcome any questions or concerns prior to that date. Included is the certification for
consistency of PHAS with the City of Palo Alto Consolidated Plan. While we did not have much
of an opportunity to discuss any anticipated changes to the City of Palo Alto Consolidated Plan
for 2000-2001, the Consolidated Plan for 1995-2000 has been reviewed. I believe our mutual
concerns for more affordable housing, through additional development of housing and seeking
and advocating for new funding through the federal, state and local sources given the high cost of
land and the shrinking opportunities to" find available sites are consistent within the two plans.
176
........ a~, jt.~-~_...:’~,,,,m. 95110-2300 (408) 275-8770 ~ Fax (408) ~’,~ 1’~9
Be assured that the Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara is very eager to work with
the City of.Palo Alto and our mutual partners such asPalo Alto Housing Corporation and Mid
Peninsula to aggressively pursue any and. al! opportunities to expand housing opportunities for the
very low and low income seniors, families and persons with disabilities in North County generally
and Palo Alto specifically.
Thank you Suzanne and I look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
CC:ap
Enclosures
HOUSING AUTHORITY OF TI-IE
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA "
Candace Capogrossi
Deputy Director
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
JOHN C. BURNS
DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
CANDACE CAPOGROSSI
From:
Date:
Re:
HOUSING AUTHORITY
OF THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
Suzanne Bayley, CDBG Coordinator
City of Pale Alto
D~artrnent of Planning and Community Environment
P.O. Box 10250
Pale Alto, CA 94303
RECEIVED
0 8 2000
~Commfmlen! of P~anning all~
Candace Capogrossi, Deputy Director
March 2, 2000
Response to Issues/Concerns of the 1/27/00 meeting with City of Palo Alto and non-profit
Housing Developers
The Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara has prepared their first "drait" PHAS Plan. The
jurisdictions will be asked to certify that their Consolidated Plan is consistent with the Housing Authority’s
5 Year Plan. Based on the new Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act, the Housing Authority will
be submitting by April 15, 2000 a five year plan with one year goals and objectives.
In anticipation, the City of Pale Alto invited the Housing Authority along with several of the non-profit
housing developers from the area to meet to discuss issues that were of concern and that they would like to
be considered by the Housing .Authority in preparing our five year plan. The Housing Authority will take
in to consideration all of your comments. However, several of the issues beg for fu~er clarification and
correction era misunderstanding of the Housing Authority position and role in addressing these concerns.
1. "The Housing Authority should allocate some of their Reserve Funds...to support affordable
housing development...which are not their own"
Response: HUD mandates that we have sufficient reserve funds that are in "reserve" and in fact,
we are monitored and evaluated on our ability to maintain an adequate reserve level.. The Housing
Authority has from time to time experienced an inadequacy in funding the Section 8 and Public
Housing Programs and have had to utilize reserve funds with HUD’s permission to assist with the
costs of the programs. This was due to a change in part in HUD’s formula for funding and our
success in leasing up 100% of our Section 8 allocations. The Housing Authority of the County of
Santa Clara has always utilized any available surpluses to create more housing and continues to
seek parmers who have something to contribute to the process. Some Housing Authorities do
have a large pool of reserve funds, but this is not true of the HACSC and has not been for many
years.
178
505 West Julian Street ¯ San Jose, California 95110-2300 ¯ (408) 275-8770 ¯ Fax (408) 280-1929 ¯ TDD (408) 993-3041
2.Higher Fair Market Rents mean fewer people can be served
Response: We agree that increases in the payment standard mean that fewer households can be
served. This is counterbalanced with the need to continue to assist the families we are currently
helping. The landlords expect .to receive increases and we must be careful not to cause the
eviction of seniors and families. At this point in time, the payment standard is equal to the Fair
Market Rent. Keep in mind that by definition, the Fair Market Rent is atthe 40% of market.
There is discussion at the national level to raise the FMR back to 45% and if this movement gains
favor, we would seek your support.
3.Project Based Section 8 has problems
Response: Any delays that have been experienced are due to HUD’s requirements for subsidy
layering review among other numerous requirements and delays in the non profits completing the
required rehabilitation bids which are needed prior to agreement to enter into contract. The
funding is not Mod Rehab, but was set aside from Section 8 certificate funds when we were
having difficulty getting leased up. The Housing Authority has been vigilant in working with
HUD to move the process along. We concur that the process needs to be streamlined so that the
delays not under our control can be shortened or eliminated.
4.Project Based funding is needed for preservation projects-
Response: HUD has been moving away from project based subsidies for a number of years.
Recently, there seem to be more options for owners to consider as they decide whether or not to
"opt-out". As the Housing Authority is 100% leased up, the only folks that were available for
these properties are tenants who have a transfer voucher. We will be issuing over 1400 new
vouchers this yeardue to additional funding. Some of these families more than likely would be
interested in any vacancies in North County.
Homeownership should not be a priority inthis area due to the high costs
Response: In general, we concur. However, there are some new opportunities that we plan to
target for the Family Self Sufficiency Program as a pilot program. Section 8 funds will be able to
be utilized for homeownership by families with disabilities as well as others. New opportunities
due to low interest loans leveraged with other Opportunities such as Mortgage Credits could create
expanded opportunities.
Better communication and exchange of information is needed between the Housing
Authority, the non-profit developers and the City of Palo Alto.
Response: We concur. There have been many changes in all our commtmities and our
stakeholders are the ones to suffer when we aren’t aware of the policies and procedures that
govern us as well as opportunities that we need to pass on. Expanded use ore-mail and support
of networks such as Community Technology Alliance where information on open applications,
funding opportunities, shelter availability and so much anore is part of the solution, but regular
meetings where the Housing Authority and CDBG coordinators can update each other are critical
and welcomed.
179
Mard~ 2, 2000
Page 3
7. The new merger rule was discussed and understood. No additional response is needed
8. The Housing Authority should be more aggressive in seeking land for new housing
¯ development particularly in seeking surplus land from the County of Santa Clara.
Response: The Housing Authority is very aggressive in seeking land. Over 2200 units have been
developed by the Housing Authority including development on sites that were identified by the
County of Santa Clara. All feasible opportunities are pursued with vigor. The Housing Authority
is building a new 155 unit family development in San Jose which will be open in 2000 and has
recently purchased land to build more housing (there are presently over 500 units in various
stages of planning). A cooperative development venture with the HA and Pale Alto Housing
Corporation is in the works. A goal of the 5 year plan is to complete at least 3 development
projects eaOh year.
There is a need for development and project assistance to be provided for service agencies
such as homeless service or transitional housing.
Response: The Housing Authority is interested in assisting other agencies depending on staff
availability and overall development scope of duties.
1)Development efforts for small projects is almost the same as for large projects. The HA,
however, is certainly will to discuss and develop any size project if in so doing it will add to
the available stock of affordable housing in Santa Clara County.
10.There is a concern with those aging in place and the need for services. ¯
Response: We concur and face those same concems in our public housing complexes. We
have been working with the Council on Aging and others to create a master plan considering
solutions. This is the beginning of a national crises -we hope to be part of the solution.
You requested some additional information which I would like to respond to. The wait list for the County
of Santa Clara of 27,000 has 3,997 elderly. This represents approximately 14% ofthetotal list. The
balance are families and persons with disabilities. There is a chart within the draft plan that breaks down
in further detail, the Section 8 and Public Housing wait lists. There are a total of 469 Section 8 tenants
who reside in Palo Alto. Of the 305 applicants on the wait list who reside in Palo Alto. 83 are elderly and
disabled. 60 are disabled only and 63 are elderly but not disabled. Regarding opt-out projects, the
Housing Authority has handled opt-out activities for over 1500 units. We do not have statistics on the
number that may have been rented to the open market after the first year of opt-out. We will consider this
factor as renewals come up.
CC:ap
180
Cityo Palo Alto
Department of Planning and
Community Environment
February 8, 2000
Planning Division
Ms. Candy Capogrossi
Deputy Director
Santa Clara County Housing Authority
505 West Julian
San Jose, CA 95110
Re: Consolidated Plan Consultation with Palo Alto, January 27, 2000
Dear Candy:
This letter is a follow-up to our Consolidated Plan consultation meeting on
January 27, 2000. It is intended to document our discussion and to provide a
written summary of the housing issues and needs that were identified. The
purpose of the meeting was to provide an opportunity for the C|ty of Palo Alto,
and non-profit housing developers working within the City, to comment
directly to the Santa Clara County Housing Authority on its policies and
strategies, and to discuss other issues or concerns. The following people
were present at the consultation meeting:
Santa Clara County Housin.q Authority
Candy Capogrossi, Deputy Director
City of Palo Alto
John Lusardi, Acting Assistant Planning Official
Suzanne Bayley, CDBG Coordinator
Cathy Siegel, Housing Coordinator
Palo Alto Housin.q Corporation
Marlene Prendergast, Executive Director
Judy Catambay, Property Management Coordinator
Rosie Casas, Property Supervisor
Midpeninsula Housinq Coalition
Fran Wagstaff, Executive Director
250 Hamilton Avenue
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
650.329.2441
650.329.2154 fax
Ms. Candy Capogrossi -2-February 8, 2000
Community Housin.q, Inc. (Lytton Gardens)
Gary Low, .Housing Administrator
Palo Alto Senior-Housin.q, Inc. (’Stevenson House)
Genie .Dee, Executive Director
The Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998 includes a new
requirement that Public Housing Authorities (PHA’s) prepare a Five-Year and
Annual Plan. The Five-Year Plan describes the mission of the agency and
the long-range goals and objectiv.es for achieving its mission. The Annual
Plan includes details regarding operations, participants, programs .and
services for the subsequent year. The City of-Palo Alto will be asked to
certify that the Santa Clara County Housing Authority’s Plan is consistent with
the information in our Consolidated Plan. The Housing Authority’s draft Five-
Year Plan.will be published in late February, 2000 an~! will go before the
Housing Authority’s Board at a public hearing.
The following items were identified by the group as issues and/or concerns
that they would like the Housing Authority to consider in the preparation of
¯ their Five-Year Plan:
The Housing Authority should allocate some of their "Reserve Funds" to
support affordable housing development and acquisition and rehabilitation
to projects which are not their own.
Increases in Section 8 Fair Market Rents (FMRs) have a downs,de
because, within the budget available, the Housing Authority can serve
fewer households. The higher FMRs do help keep property owners in the
program and make a broader range of units available to holders of Section
8 vouchers, but there was concern that it also results in fewer households
receiving housing assistance.
Project-based Section 8 administered by the Housing Authority has
problems. It can take more than two years for the paperwork and
processing before an award of Section 8 is actually available. Themost
frequently mentioned example was the Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation
awards made two years ago. The process needs to be streamlined and
simplified.
Project-based Section 8 assistance is needed for preservation projects
(Palo Alto Gardens is an example) in which a non-profit acquires a project
after the former owner has opted-out of the Section 8 contract. Trying to
182
Ms. Candy Capogrossi -3-February 8, 2000
o
fill vacated units with Section 8 voucher holders seems difficult especially
in the North County. When units turn over, it takes too long to find tenants
that hold a Section 8 voucher to rent the unit. The referrals from the
Housing Authority take too .long. The nonprofit can’t afford to keep units
vacant waiting for the Housing Authority’s process. These projects,
especially those in North County, need to be able to maintain their own
waiting lists and be able to provide project-based Section 8 assistance in
order to provide affordable housing to the lowest income levels.
[Note: it seemed that part of the p.roblem is that the Section 8 voucher
program is fully leased up at this time. There is little turnover in the
Section 8program, only an average of 60. households per month in the
entire County leave the program. Because relatively few households on
the waiting list are residents of North County, there just are not many
households newly receiving Section 8 that would have the desire to live in
North County. Additionally there are about 250 households per month that
receive Section 8 and decide they want to move to a different unit or area.
However, these households are probably now living in San Jose and may
not find it attractive to move to North County or Palo Alto.]
Participants did not believe that homeownership should be a priority for
the Housing Authority because the costs of homeownership in this area
are just too far beyond the reach of low income households.
[Note: the Housing Authority has a small program in which households
can "save" some of their housing assistance in an escrow and use it
towards the down payment on the purchase of a home. Typically, these
households use the funds to buy a house outside of the County, usually in
the Central Valley, where housing prices are much lower.]
Better communication and exchange of information is needed between the
Housing Authority and the City of Palo Alto and the housing nonprofits
operating in Palo Alto. There has been a lack of understanding of the
policies, programs and needs on both sides. An example of successful
communication was the effort led by the City staff to bring all parties
involved in the Shelter Plus Care Program together. This effort resulted in
the units, in Palo Alto allocated to Shelter Plus Care becoming fully leased
to assisted households.
o Concern was expressed about how the new requirement that Section 8
assisted households can pay up to 40% of their income for rent would be
implemented. This was explained by the Housing Authority.
183
MS. Candy Capogrossi February 8, 2000
o The Housing Authority should be m(~re aggressive in seeking land for new
housing development, especially in pressuring the County of Santa Clara
to make available its. surplus or underutilized land for housing.
The need for development and project management assistance to be
provided to homeless service agencies and other service agencies that
are doing transitional housing or group home projects was discussed.
[Note: the Housing Authority has provided staff for some projectsl such as
the. EHC reception center and a farm labor housing project, but it did not
appear that there was much interest on the part of the Housing Authority
in working on very small projects such as a group home rehabilitation.]
10.The senior housing providers emphasized that the aging in place issue is
very important in Palo Alto’s subsidized, low-income senior projects.
Residents median age is getting up in the 80’s and assisted living services
are increasingly needed. The Housing Authority commented that this is a
problem in the senior projects that they have developed and manage.
The Housing Authority provided the following statistics and information on
their programs:
¯The waiting list was last opened in January, 1999 and 28,000 names were
received
¯About 400 households, out of the 28,000 on the list, show a Palo Alto
address
The Housing Authority can compile statistics about the households on the
list, but it was emphasized that the information is only that provided by the
applicant and may not be complete or wholly accurate
Because of budget constraints and. the increased FMRs, increases in
Section 8 households should only be expected through special purpose
allocations from HUD which serve target groups. Examples of special
purpose Section 8 awards obtained by the Housing Authority are:
100 vouchers for the "Mainstream" program for persons with
developmental disabilities
~ 1,100 new vouchers for the "welfare-to-work" program.
184
Ms. Candy Capogrossi -5-February 8, 2000
The rental housing market has softehed ..’;~ bit. A few years ago only one in
thirteen households with a section 8 voucher could successfully find
housing in Santa Clara County. Currently, almost every household issued
a voucher is successful in their housing search.
The following information was requested from the Housing Authority:
What is the number and percentage of senior households on the waiting
list? What is the number and percentage of family households with
children? This information could be useful as a relative indicator of need.
What is the total number of project-based Section 8 Units whose owners
have opted-out of the project based contracts on a County wide basis?
How quickly are these units converting to market rate? The Housing
Authority said that in some cases, at least, the owners are finding it better
to just keep the.Section 8 tenants (who now have a voucher) in place,
even if it means foregoing some possible rents increase. [This is if the
tenant is a good one and the market rent isn’t too far above the Section 8
FMR].
City staff identified the Palo Alto Medical Foundation/South of Forest Area
(PAMF/SoFA) affordable housing site, and the Community Working Group’s
Homeless Opportunity Center (with possible housing component) as the two
projects which are currently known to have affordable housing production
potential in Palo Alto.
It was agreed ’that a follow-up meeting would be helpful to continue
discussions regarding the identified issues, and to increase communication
opportunities..A.nother meeting will be scheduled in approximately six months
(July/August 2000). Thank you once again for your participation, and for your
continued commitment to increasing the supply of affordable housing in our
community
Very truly yours,
185
CC:Rosie Casas
Judy Catambay
Genie Dee
Gary Low
John Lusardi
Marlene Prendergast
Cathy Siegel
Fran Wagstaff
186
APPENDIX E
REQUIRED HUD CHARTS & TABLES
TABLE 1C (CHAS) - HOUSING ASSISTANCE NEEDS
OF LOW AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSEHOLDS
City of Palo Alto
2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
Page 54
’187
188
Continuum of Care: Gaps Analysis - Individuals
-- BedslUnits
Emergency Shelter
Transitional Housing
Permanent Housing
Total
Estimated Current Unmet Need/Relative
Needs Inventory Gap Priority
I°I I°I
I°I Io I
I°I I°I
0 0
I0 I IHigh I
I0 I IHigh I
I°I IHigh I
0
-- Estimated Supportive Services Slots
Job Training
Case Management
Substance Abuse Treatment
Mental Health Care
Housing Placement
Life Skills Training
I0
Io
Io
Io
I° I
Io I
Io I
Io I
I°- I
Io I
I°I IMed I
I°I IHigh I
I°I IHigh I
I°I IMed I
I°I IHigh J
I0 I IHigh I~
-- Estimated Sub-Populations
Chronic Substance Abusers
Seriously Mentally III
Dually-Diagnosed
Veterans
Persons with HIV/AIDS
Victims of Domestic Violence
Youth
I°I I°J Io
I°I I°I I°
I°I I°I I°
I°I I°I I°
I°I I°I I°
I°I Io I I°
I°I I°I I° I
IHigh I
IHigh
IHigh
IHigh I
IMed
IHigh I
IMed I
City of Palo Alto
2000-2005 Consolidated Plan 189
Continuum of Care: Gaps Analysis, - Persons in Families with Children
~- BedslUnits
Emergency Shelter
Transitional Housing
Permanent Housing
Total
Estimated Current Unmet Need/Relative
Needs Inventory Gap Priority.
I°I I°I
I°I I°I
I°I I°
I°I
Io I.
I°I
0 0 0
IHigh
IHigh
, IHigh I
-- Estimated Supportive Services Slots
Job Training
Case Management
Child Care
Substance Abuse Treatment
Mental Health Care
Housing Placement
Life Skills Training
I°I I°
I°’1 I°
I°I I°
I°I I°
I°I I°
I°I I°
I°I Io
Io
Io
Io
Io
Io
Io
Io
I Med
I High l
I High
I High
IMed I
IHigh I
IHigh I
-- Estimated Sub-Populations
Chronic Substance Abusers I I0 I IMed ISeriously Mentally III
Dually-Diagnosed
Veterans
Persons with HIV/AIDS
Victims of Domestic Violence
I°I !°
I°I I°
I°I Io
I°I I°
I°I I°
I
I
I
I
I
I°I IMed I
I°I IMeal I
I0 I IL°w I
I°I IHigh I
I°I iHigh I
City of Paio Alto
2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
190
Special Needs/Non-Homeless
-- Sub-Populations
Elderly
Frail Elderly
Severe Mental Illness
Developmentally Disabled
Physically Disabled
Persons with Alcohol/Other Drug Addiction
Persons with HIV/AIDS
Priority Need Estimated
IHigh I ISO
IHigh J I=O
IHigh I I$0
IHigh I IS{)
IHigh I I$0
IHigh I I$O
IHigh I I$O
TOTAL I$0
Cityof Palo Alto
2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
191
Housing Needs
-- Renter
Small Related
Need Level Units
0- 30% of MFI ~-Iigh I I0
31 - 50% of MFI IHigh I I°
51- 80% of MFI I Med I I0
Estimated
I=°
Large Related 0-30%ofMFI IHigh
31 - 50% of MFI ’ IHigh
51- 80% of MFI IMed
I
I
I
I°I ISO I
I°I ISO I
I°I I:s°I
Elderly 0 - 30% of MFI IHigh
31 -50% ofMFI IHigh I I0 I I$O
51 -80% ofMFI IMed I Io I I$O
I
I
I
All’ Other
-- Owner
0-30% ofMFI I High I I°I I=O
31 - 50% ofMFI IHigh I I°I I$O
51 - 80% of MFI IMed I I°I
I
I
I
0-30% ofMFI IHigh I
31 -50% ofMFI IHigh I
Sl-80%ofMFI I Med I
!°I I=°
I°I I=°
I°I.I=°
I
1
I
City of Palo Alto
2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
192
Community Needs
Anti-Crime Programs
Overall
Sub-Categories
Crime Awareness (051)
Need Level Units
Low 0
Estimated $
$0
Low 0 $0
Economic Development
Overall
Sub-Categories
Rehab; Publicly or Privately-Owned Commer (14E)
CI Land Acquisition/Disposition (17A)
Cl Infrastructure Development (17B)
CI Building Acquisition, Construction, Re (17C)
Other Commercialllndustrial Improvements (17D)
ED Direct Financial Assistance to For-Pro (18A)
ED Technical Assistance (18B)
Micro-Enterprise Assistance (18C)
Need Level Units
Med 0
Estimated $
$0
Med 0 $0
Low 0 $0
Low 0 $0
Low,0 $0
Med 0 $0
Med 0 $0
High 0 $0
High 0 $0
-- Infrastructure
Overall
Sub-Categories
Flood Drain Improvements (031)
Water/Sewer Improvements (03J)
Street Improvements (03K)
Sidewalks (03L)
Tree Planting (03N)
Removal of Architectural Barriers (10)
Privately Owned Utilities (11)
Need Level Units
Low 0
Estimated $
$0
Low 0
Low 0
Low 0
Low 0
Med ’0
Med 0
Low 0
$0
$o
$o
$o
$o
$o
$o
-- Planning & Administration
Overall
Sub-Categories
Need Level Units
High.0
Estimated $
$0
193
Community Needs (Page 2)
-- Public Facilities
Overall
Sub-Categories
Public Facilities and Improvements (Gener (03)
Handicapped Centers (03B)
Neighborhood Facilities (03E)
Parks, Recreational Facilities (03F)
Parking Facilities (03G)
Solid Waste Disposal Improvements (03H)
Fire Stations/Equipment (030)
Health Facilities (03P)
Asbestos Removal (03R)
Clean-up of Contaminated Sites (04A)
Interim Assistance (06)
Non-Residential Historic Preservation (16B)
Need Level Units
High 0
High
High
High
High
None
None
None
High
High
Med
Low
Low
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Estimated $
$0
$0
$o
$o
$0
$o
$o
$o
$o
$o
$o
$o
$o
-- Public Services
Overall
Sub-Categories
Public Services (General) (05)
Handicapped Services (05B)
Legal Services (05C)
Transportation Services (05E)
Substance Abuse Services (05F)
Employment Training (05H)
Health Services (05M)
Mental Health Services (050)
Screening for Lead-Based Paint/Lead Hazar (05P)
Need Level Units
High 0
Estimated $
$0
High 0 $0
High 0 $0
Med 0 $0
High 0 $0
Med 0 $0
High 0 $0
Med 0 $0
High.0 $0
Med 0 $0
-- Senior Programs
Overall
Sub-Categories
Senior Centers (03A)
Senior Services (05A)
Need Level Units
High 0
Estimated $
$0
Med 0 $0
High 0 $0
194
Community Needs (Page 3)
-- Youth Programs
Need Level Units
Overall High 0
Sub-Categories
Youth Centers (03D)
Child Care Centers (03M)
Abused and Neglected Children Facilities (03Q)
Youth Services (05D)
Child Care Services- (05L)
Abused and Neglected Children (05N)
Estimated
S0
High 0 S0
High 0 $0
Med 0 S0
Med 0 $0
High 0 $0
Med 0 $0
-- Other
Need Level Units
Low 0Overall
Sub-Categories
Urban Renewal Completion (07)
CDBG Non-profit Organization Capacity Bui (19C)
CDBG Assistance to Institutes of Higher E (19D)
Repayments of Section 108 Loan Principal (19F)
Unprogrammed Funds (22)
Estimated $
$0
None 0 $0
High 0 $0
Low 0 $0
Low 0 $0
Low 0 $0
195
APPENDIX F
TABLE COMPILED BY CITY OF SAN JOSE DEPARTMENT
OF HOUSING (1998) - INVENTORY OF FACILITIES
AND SERVICES FOR HOMELESS
City of Palo Alto
2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
196
INVENTORY OF FACILITIES AND SERVICES FOR THE HOMELESS,
PERSONS THREATENED WITH HOMELESSNESS,
AND THOSE WITH SPECIAL NEEDS
NAME
Emergency Shelters
Brandon House
Casa de Clara
Casa SAY
Commercial Street
Heritage House
Julian Street Inn
Montgomery Street
Next Door
Rescue Mission
Community Inn
Reception Center
San Jos~ Family
Youth Outreach Program
Hospitality House
Seasonal Shelters
Reception Center
Transitional Housing
Casa Feliz
CityTeam Rehab Program
Emergency Housing Consortium Transitional (five
sites)
Hospitality House
House of Grace
Montgomery Street Inn
Dubert Lane
InnVision Transitional
Fifteenth Street
St. Joseph’s Worker House
YWCA Villa Nueva
*Fluctuates based on number of individuals in families
time is 250.
CLIENTELE
women and children
women and children
youth
women and children
pregnant women
¯mentally ill
men
battered women
men
men
all -
families
youth
men
TOTAL
all
mentally ill
men
families, men, women
¯men
women w/addictions
men
(included in InnVision)
women
men
men
all
TOTAL
CAPACITY
38
6
6
55
28
72
44
19
56
15
45*
146
10
24
564
170
61
74
142-179"*
40
26
39
47
0
20
63
549
total number at Reception Center at any
**Includes transitional housing at the following locations: N. 5t~ Street, Gifford Avenue,
Reception Center.
197
Day Shelters
Cecil White
Youth Outreach Program
ACTS for Mental Health
Georgia Travis Center
The Family Place
i Feeding Programs
Cecil White
Rescue Mission
Martha’s Kitchen
Salvation Army
Loaves & Fishes
Homeless Care Force
Clientele
adults
youth
mentally ill
women & children
women & children
adult homeless
adult homeless
all
all
families, women,
seniors
homeless
Other Daytime Facilities Serving the Homeless
CityTeam
St. Joseph’s Family
Outreach
First Immanuel Lutheran
Rotacare
Salvation Army
Sacred Heart Community
Services
Red Cross
Link
First Christian Church
Voucher Programs
Salvation Army Voucher
Program
InnVision
Sacred Heart Community
Center
Contact
Preventive Programs
AFDC RAP
Services
counseling, IDs, meals, meetings, showers
counseling, IDs, meals, meetings, showers’
counseling, referrals
supportive center
supportive center
daily noon or 5 pm
Mon-Sat 9:00 am & 7:00 pm, Sun 10:30 am &
7:00 pm
Tues & Wed 4:00 pm
Mon-Sat 10:00 am, Sun 2:00 pm
Mon & Thurs 4:00 pm Sun 1:00-5:30 pm
daily (mobile) .
needy clothing, food
families household goods
needy clothing
needy medical care
needy counseling, clothing, rent
needy food, clothing, education, furniture, rental
assistance
needy counseling, rent assistance
needy bus passes
needy clothing, food, bus passes, etc.
needy out-of-County, transportation
needy motel vouchers
needy motel vouchers
needy food vouchers
AFDC Families rent assistance for AFDC families facing
eviction.
ECHO RAP renters rent guarantee program, currently inactive
Other Support Agencies
Mekong Project SE Asian homeless &
severely mentally ill
homeless
transitional housing, drop-in socialization, care
management
provides family examination and treatment,
counseling at shelter locations
Healthcare to the Homeless
Family Health Foundation
of Alviso
Alliance for the Mentally III homeless outreach and mobile clinic for homeless
mentally ill
Source: Compiled by City of San Jose, Department of Housing, 1998.
198
APPENDIX G
MAPS
City of Palo Alto
2000-2005 Consolidated Plan 199