Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-05-04 City Council Agenda PacketCITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL May 4, 2015 Special Meeting Community Meeting Room 5:30 PM Agenda posted according to PAMC Section 2.04.070. Supporting materials are available in the Council Chambers on the Thursday preceding the meeting. 1 May 4, 2015 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. PUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public may speak to agendized items; up to three minutes per speaker, to be determined by the presiding officer. If you wish to address the Council on any issue that is on this agenda, please complete a speaker request card located on the table at the entrance to the Council Chambers, and deliver it to the City Clerk prior to discussion of the item. You are not required to give your name on the speaker card in order to speak to the Council, but it is very helpful. TIME ESTIMATES Time estimates are provided as part of the Council's effort to manage its time at Council meetings. Listed times are estimates only and are subject to change at any time, including while the meeting is in progress. The Council reserves the right to use more or less time on any item, to change the order of items and/or to continue items to another meeting. Particular items may be heard before or after the time estimated on the agenda. This may occur in order to best manage the time at a meeting or to adapt to the participation of the public. To ensure participation in a particular item, we suggest arriving at the beginning of the meeting and remaining until the item is called. HEARINGS REQUIRED BY LAW Applicants and/or appellants may have up to ten minutes at the outset of the public discussion to make their remarks and up to three minutes for concluding remarks after other members of the public have spoken. Call to Order Special Orders of the Day 5:30-6:00 PM 1. Interview of Two Candidates for the Human Relations Commission COUNCIL WILL MOVE INTO CHAMBERS 6:00-6:30 PM 2. Adoption of Resolutions Expressing Appreciation to John Melton and Asher Waldfogel Upon Completion of Their Terms as Utilities Advisory Commissioners 3. Community Partnership Presentation - Palo Alto Mediation Program 4. Appointment of Candidates to the Public Art Commission and Utilities Advisory Commission 2 May 4, 2015 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions City Manager Comments 6:30-6:40 PM Oral Communications 6:40-6:55 PM Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Council reserves the right to limit the duration of Oral Communications period to 30 minutes. Minutes Approval 6:55-7:00 PM 5. March 16, 2015 Consent Calendar 7:00-7:05 PM Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the calendar by three Council Members. 6. Approval of the Award of Contract Number C15157200 for $191,760 to Walker Parking for Design of Parking Access and Revenue Controls (PARCs) and Parking Guidance Systems (PGS), and Approval of a Budget Amendment Ordinance to Transfer $171,760 From the University Avenue Parking Permit Fund to Capital Improvement Project (CIP) PL-15002, Garage Technologies Project 7. Approval of Purchase Order with Golden Gate Systems, LLC for FY15 City-Wide Computer Refresh in the Amount of $622,837 8. Approval of a One-year Contract with Bovo-Tighe LLC for Organization and Performance Management Consulting at a Cost Not to Exceed Amount of $125,000 9. Confirmation of Appointment of Beth Minor as City Clerk and Approval of Employment Agreement Action Items Include: Reports of Committees/Commissions, Ordinances and Resolutions, Public Hearings, Reports of Officials, Unfinished Business and Council Matters. 7:05-7:20 PM 10. Finance Committee Recommends Adoption of the 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan, 2015/2016 Action Plan and Associated 2015/2016 Funding Allocations and Adoption of a Resolution Approving the Use of Community Development Block Grant Funds for Fiscal Year 2015/2016 3 May 4, 2015 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. 7:20- 9:30 PM 11. PUBLIC HEARING: To Consider an Appeal of the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s Architectural Review Approval of a 31,407 Square-Foot, Four Story, Mixed Use Building with Parking Facilities on Two Subterranean Levels on an 11,000 Square-Foot Site in the Downtown Commercial (CD-C (GF)(P)) Zone District located at 429 University Avenue; and Approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. Environmental Assessment: A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been Prepared 9:30-10:00 PM 12. Policy and Services Committee Recommendation Regarding Changes to City Council and Standing Committee Minutes Inter-Governmental Legislative Affairs Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements Members of the public may not speak to the item(s) Adjournment AMERICANS WITH DISABILITY ACT (ADA) 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 (650) 329-2550 (Voice) 24 hours in advance. 4 May 4, 2015 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. Additional Information Council and Standing Committee Meetings Sp. Finance Committee Meeting May 5, 2015 Sp. City Council Meeting May 6, 2015 Sp. Finance Committee Meeting May 7, 2015 Schedule of Meetings Schedule of Meetings Tentative Agenda Tentative Agenda Informational Report Storm Drain Oversight Committee Review of FY2014 Storm Drainage Fund Expenditures City of Palo Alto Investment Activity Report for the Third Quarter, Fiscal Year 2015 Building Safety Month Proclamation Architectural Review Board Recruitment Flyer Buena Vista Mobilehome Park Flyer Public Letters to Council Set 1 CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK May 4, 2015 The Honorable City Council Palo Alto, California Interview of Two Candidates for the Human Relations Commission On Monday, May 4, 2015 the City Council will interview two applicants for the Human Relations Commission. Copies of all applications are attached. Some applications may be redacted at the request of the applicant. A full set of non-redacted applications will be provided to Council Members directly. The City Council is scheduled to vote to appoint candidates for these three commissions on Monday, May 11, 2015. Human Relations Commission 2.22.010 Membership There is created a Human Relations Commission composed of seven members who are not Council Members, officers or employees of the city, who are residents of the city, and who shall be appointed by the City Council. (Ord. 2924 § 1, 1976: Ord. 2537 (part), 1969: Ord. 2485 § 1 (part), 1969) There are three open terms ending April 30, 2018 on the Human Relations Commission. Applicants to be interviewed are as follows: 10 minute interviews Alice Smith 5:30 p.m. Valerie Stringer 5:40 p.m. BACKGROUND On Monday, April 6, 2015 City Council selected the eight applicants to interview for the Human Relations Commission. Portions of the Palo Alto Municipal Code describing requirements for serving on the Commission are included for reference. On Wednesday, April 15, 2015 City Council interviewed six applicants for the Commission. ATTACHMENTS:  Attachment A: HRC Smith, Alice (PDF)  Attachment B: HRC Stinger, Valerie (PDF) Page 2 Department Head: Beth Minor, City Clerk Page 3 Personal Information Name: Valerie Stinger ) GJTY OF r�1XLO ALTO. CA CITY CLEf{K'S dFtlCE . Address: 721 Christine Drive, Palo Alto, CA 94303 15 HAR -3 PM I! 0 7 Cell Phone: IE) Home t00ffice Phone: 650-493-6043 E-mail: Are you a Palo Alto Resident?IEJYesONo ) Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City <ilf..li>alo �. who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members?UYes"'9 No Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for?�YesONo California state law requires appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest, Form 700. Do you have an investment in, or do you serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to; 1) engage in business with the City, 2) provide products or services for City projects, or 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for?0Yesl8)No Excluding your principal residence, do you own real property in Palo Alto?l:IYes� No How did you Learn about the vacancy on the Human Relations Commission? Ocommunity Group IZJ Email from City Clerk 0Palo Alto Weekly 0 Daily Post Deity Website 0 Flyer Other: ______________________________ _ List relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: B.A., Economics, Goucher College MBA, University of Santa Clara Palo Alto Library Advisory Commission, 2005-2011, Chair, 2008 Page 1 Human Relations Commission ) ) Employment Present or Last Employer: Consultant, Biotech; Consultant, Developing Economies Occupation: Retired Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: For the last 15 years, I have been involved in Palo Alto activities and global programs. On the local level, serving on the Library Advisory Commission was the most involving and satisfying concentrated effort. I was actively involved researching and compiling the LSMAR, the strategic plan for our city libraries; communicating with neighborhoods and Council members; implementing the strategy, that is working with architects, public art selection, and city committees. During the bond campaign, I volunteered to support passage of the bond issue. The engagement was positive. Besides an updated library system for the city, it was a personal lesson on how much focused energy democracy requires, even to pass one bond issue for one community. On an international level, I have worked and volunteered in developing economies, with HIV/AIDS awareness, gender issues, and small/micro entrepreneurship. I developed a program to provide basic business training and access to HIV/AIDS counseling and testing, which was implemented in Lesotho and Southern Sudan. These trainings were directed to the poorest of the poor, to facilitate their initiative for their economic well-being. I also developed a curriculum for women in the Middle East and North Africa. Additionally, during this period, I worked on the business planning for numerous organizations and coops in Africa and the former Soviet Union, helping them move from a subsistence level to economic independence 1. What is it about the Human Relations Commission that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? The Human Relations Commission provides an avenue, for me, to be involved in the promotion of civic values on my home turf. My hope for Palo Alto is that the resources and infrastructure exist to give a diverse population a fair chance and a framework to act on his/her own initiative. My professional and volunteer experience give evidence, I hope, to the planning, implementation, and collaboration skills I would bring to the Human Relations Commission. My interest in the Commission is broad. I am proud to live in Palo Alto. It is important to me that, as the city grows, we continue to care for diverse populations and budget to provide human services. I do, in addition, have specific interest in one area, the Senior Summit. I am currently in the throes of caring for my 92-year old mother and can project from my singular experience to the broader community. The experience is horrific. We have an aging demographic segment and we need a community vision and strategy to optimize services. The HRC can bring attention and focus to this segment's needs. The HRC can prioritize and provide visibility to the agencies with expertise serving this segment. Page2 Human Relations Commission ) 2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particular interest to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Commission meeting you can view an archive here: LINK. See above, please. 3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Human Relations Commission achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? •Continue to review and amend, as needed, the City's Human Services Needs Assessment and Resource Allocation Process to ensure that it addresses the next five year period. •Continue to assess the budgeting process so that funding for services is maintained even in fluctuating economies. Page3 Human Relations Commission ) ) 4. Human Relations Commission Members work with the documents listed below. If you have experience with any of these documents, please describe that experience. Experience with these documents is not required for selection. Human Services Needs Assessment LINK Muni Code 9.72 -Mandatory Response Program LINK Community Services Element of the Comprehensive Plan LINK Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, "No state or local agency shall post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the Internet without first obtaining the written permission of that individual." The full code is attached. This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached to the Application and posted to the City's website. The full code can be read here: LINK Read the code, and check only ONE option below: l8J I give permission for the City of Palo Alto to post to the City's website the attached Board and Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR D I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City's website. I am providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address: Cell Phone: 0Home 1Domce Phone: E-mail: SignatureVa I e ri e Digitally signed by Valerie Stinger St •1 n g er DN: cn=Valerie Stinger, o, ou, email=vhs101@yahoo.com.c=US Date: 2015.03.03 00:22:51 -08'00' Date: 03MAR2015 Page4 Human Relations Commission City of Palo Alto (ID # 5699) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Special Orders of the Day Meeting Date: 5/4/2015 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Resolutions for John Melton and Asher Waldfogel Title: Adoption of Resolutions Expressing Appreciation to John Melton and Asher Waldfogel Upon Completion of Their Terms as Utilities Advisory Commissioners From: City Manager Lead Department: Utilities Attachments:  Attachment A: John Melton Resolution (PDF)  Attachment B: Asher Waldfogel Resolution (DOC) RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO EXPRESSING APPRECIATION TO JOHN MELTON, UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMISSIONER WHEREAS, John Melton, a Stanford University Business School graduate and longtime Palo Alto resident served on the Utilities Advisory Commission from March 2004 through April 2015, serving two terms as Commission Chair; and WHEREAS, John Melton provided dedicated service to the residents and businesses of this community through review of utilities budgets, rates and policies and practices, through employing his extensive knowledge of financial analysis, budget development, utilities operating and capital project expenditures, business strategies and through his knowledge of utilities industry matters; and WHEREAS, John Melton additionally served on other infrastructure related Palo Alto Commissions, including the Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Commission, the Library Bond Oversight Committee and the Storm Drain Oversight Committee; and WHEREAS, John Melton capably assisted in the development of the 10-year Energy Efficiency Plan, the Renewable Portfolio Standard, the Utilities Strategic Plan, the Long-term Electric Acquisition Plan, the Gas Utility Long-term Plan, the 2010 Urban Water Management Plan, the Local Solar Plan, the Carbon Neutral Plan for the Electric Supply Portfolio and with utilities rates for electric, fiber optics, natural gas, water and wastewater collection; and WHEREAS, John Melton, as a participant on the Utilities Advisory Commission’s Ad Hoc Budget Subcommittee, provided substantial review of proposed capital projects and operating budgets for the Utilities Department; and WHEREAS, John Melton made several trips to Sacramento and Washington D.C. as an advocate of the Utilities Department’s policies for the City of Palo Alto; and WHEREAS, John Melton, in addition to his contributions to the Utilities Department’s programs and policies over an eleven year period, displayed a sense of humor and maintained a professional demeanor at all times (even when the Stanford Women’s Basketball team lost); and WHEREAS, John Melton’s consideration of concerns raised by the public and his willingness to listen to different points of view often resulted in joint recommendations made by Staff and the Commission that were adopted by the City Council. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Palo Alto recognizes the meritorious service of John Melton by commending his outstanding service and recording its appreciation, as well as the appreciation of the citizens of this community for the services and contributions rendered as a Utilities Advisory Commissioner. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: May 4, 2015 ATTEST: APPROVED: ___________________ ______________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: ____________________ ______________________ City Attorney City Manager ATTACHMENT A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO EXPRESSING APPRECIATION TO ASHER WALDFOGEL, UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMISSIONER WHEREAS, Asher Waldfogel served as a Commissioner, Vice Chair and Chair on the Utilities Advisory Commission from August 2008 through April 2015; and WHEREAS, Asher Waldfogel employed his extensive knowledge of financial analysis and business strategy through his review of Utilities Department budgets and rates, rate structure design, capital projects and many other utilities policies and practices, and provided dedicated service to the residents and businesses of this community; and WHEREAS, Asher Waldfogel also served on the Library Citizen’s Technology Advisory Group and as the Utilities Advisory Commission’s Liaison to the Technology and Connected City Committee for the City of Palo Alto; and WHEREAS, Asher Waldfogel provided guidance and insights as the Utilities Department engaged in the development of their 10-year Energy Efficiency goals, the Renewable Portfolio Standard, the Utilities Strategic Plan, the Long-term Electric Acquisition Plan, the Gas Utility Long-term Plan, the 2010 Urban Water Management Plan, the Local Solar Plan, the Carbon Neutral Plan, the Utilities Legislative Policy Guidelines and Utilities rates for their electric, fiber optic, natural gas, water and wastewater collection utilities; and WHEREAS, Asher Waldfogel made recommendations to the City Council on matters such as governance, and led the effort for the Utilities Advisory Commission to adopt bylaws; and WHEREAS, Asher Waldfogel paid particular attention to policies that dealt with utilities rates and rate design, he asked penetrating questions regarding fairness for all ratepayers, advocated for effective communication of rate changes and he recommended changes to policies that underlined rate design, including advocating discussion in advance of the completion of the Cost of Service Analyses; and WHEREAS, Asher Waldfogel displayed particular attention and passion for the build-out and development of the fiber utility; and WHEREAS, Asher Waldfogel engaged the community, Council Members and academics in an effort to help shape recommendations for Utilities for the City of Palo Alto. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Palo Alto recognizes the meritorious service of Asher Waldfogel by commending his outstanding public service and recording its appreciation, as well as the appreciation of the citizens of this community for the services and contributions rendered. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: May 4, 2015 ATTEST: APPROVED: ___________________ ______________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: ____________________ ______________________ City Attorney City Manager ATTACHMENT B City of Palo Alto (ID # 5650) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Special Orders of the Day Meeting Date: 5/4/2015 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Partnership Presentation - Palo Alto Mediation Program Title: Community Partnership Presentation - Palo Alto Mediation Program From: City Manager Lead Department: Community Services The Palo Alto Mediation Program (PAMP) will update the City Council on its mediation and conciliation program to solve landlord-tenant, neighbor to neighbor and other conflicts in the community. Project Sentinel, the administrative arm of PAMP, will address a series of free workshops it is organizing for landlords with a goal of improving landlord-tenant relations and teaching the abc's of being a responsible landlord. CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK May 4, 2015 The Honorable City Council Palo Alto, California Appointment of Candidates to the Public Art Commission and Utilities Advisory Commission On Monday, May 4, 2015 the Council will vote to appoint commissioners to the Public Art Commission and the Utilities Advisory Commission. Voting will be by paper ballot. The first candidates to receive at least five votes (required) will be appointed. Copies of all applications are attached. Some applications may be redacted at the request of the applicant. A full set of non-redacted applications will be provided to Council Members directly. Public Art Commission Vote to appoint 3 three-year terms on the Public Art Commission (PAC), expiring on April 30, 2018. The 5 PAC Candidates are as follows: Eric Beckstrom Loren Gordon Ben Miyaji Caroline Mustard Mila Zelkha Utilities Advisory Commission Vote to appoint 2 three-year terms on the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC), expiring on April 30, 2018. Subsequently, due to the resignation of Audrey Chang on April 22, 2015, Staff recommends Council vote to appoint 1 unexpired term on the UAC expiring April 30, 2016. The 5 UAC Candidates are as follows: Michael Danaher Timothy Gray Natalia Kachenko Judith Schwartz Lisa Van Dusen REVISED Page 2 BACKGROUND The City Council interviewed five candidates for the Public Art Commission (PAC) and five candidates for the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) on Wednesday, April 15, 2015. On April 22, 2015 the City Clerk’s Department was notified that Audrey Chang had resigned from the Utilities Advisory Commission. Her term would have ended April 30, 2016. In order to insure the Commission has sufficient members to continue their work, Staff recommends Council appoint a third Commissioner to Ms. Chang’s unexpired term. The City Council also interviewed six candidates for the Human Relations Commission on Wednesday, April 15, 2015 and is scheduled to interview two additional candidates (Alice Smith and Valerie Stinger) on Monday, May 4, 2015, beginning at 5:30 P.M. On Monday, May 11, 2015, City Council will select three candidates for three-year terms on the Human Relations Commission expiring April 30, 2018. ATTACHMENTS:  Attachment A: PAC Beckstrom, Eric (PDF)  Attachment B: PAC Gordon, Loren (PDF)  Attachment C: PAC Miyaji, Ben (PDF)  Attachment D: PAC Mustard, Caroline (PDF)  Attachment E: PAC Zelkha, Mila (PDF)  Attachment F: UAC Danaher, Michael (PDF)  Attachment G: UAC Gray, Timothy (PDF)  Attachment H: UAC Kachenko, Natalia (PDF)  Attachment I: UAC Schwartz, Judith (PDF)  Attachment J: UAC Van Dusen, Lisa (PDF) Department Head: Beth Minor, City Clerk Page 3 Personal Information Name: Eric Beckstrom Address: 325 Middlefield Road Cell Phone: 650-847-8351 0Home 10ottice Phone: 650-847-8351 E-mail: Eric@BeckstromArchitecture.com Are you a Palo Alto Resident?(81Yes0No ouy OF PALO ALTO. CA CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 15 HAR 16 PM I: 10 Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City Qf.ealo �. who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members? L.IYes IQ.I No Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for?l8)Yes0No California state law requires appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest, Form 700. Do you have an investment in, or do you serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to; 1) engage in business with the City, 2) provide products or services for City projects, or 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for?OveslE,tNo Excluding your principal residence, do you own real property in Palo Alto?OYeslEJNo How did you Learn about the vacancy on the Public Art Commission? Ocommunity Group D Email from City Clerk 0Palo Alto Weekly 0Daily Post Deity Website 0Flyer Other: Friend who serves on PA Historic Board, Margaret Wimmer List relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: See attached Resume. ArchitecUPlanner for 26 years in many cities, SF, NYC, London, Stockholm, Lund, Rockport, Stowe Recent Master Studies in Sustainable Urban Design-Lund University, Sweden Page 1 Public Art Commission Employment Present or Last Employer: Beckstrom Architecture/Planning + Consulting Occupation: Architect Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: Please see resume. Involved in many community groups, from SF Urban tree planting, Immigrant Family Resource Center-SF, Gang Resource Center-SF, Bay Chamber Concerts-Rockport, Waldorf Schools, etc. Also workshops with groups, from Peking University, Lund University, Swedish Business group, etc. 1. What is it about the Public Art Commission that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? Public Art is integral to the quality of public life. Active interest since studes at the SF Institute for Urban Studies housed at the SFArt lnstitute-1984. Silicon Valley/Palo Alto thrive for a number of reasons. The public space in Palo Alto is unique with small lots, sidewalks, mature trees and a very diverse population. The chance encounters in the public realm actually provide a foundation for the health of the community: culturally, economically, socially. I would be honored to assist the commission in its mission and endeavors. Page2 Public Art Commission 2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particular interest to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Commission meeting you can view an archive here: LINK. The 101 Bike Bridge will perhaps be the most 'public' of Palo Alto public art elements. It combines the closeup, active engagement of pedestrians and bicyclists who will use it to go to the Baylands along with the thousands of 101 users who will pass under in a matter of seconds. So perhaps this work illustrates very different qualities of engagement. Public art can perform a 'dance' of engagement at all hours of the day. What is that we want these forms to address? Perhaps it is celebration of shared public space. Celebrations can be quiet and intimate or loud and for the masses. Palo Alto is 'connected' to the rest of the world with the 'tech' ancestry here. This tech ancestry is ironically intimately connected to people through feel at their fingertips on keyboards to their visual imagination through pixels on screens. The innovation gestation setting of Palo Alto is alive precisely because of its rich public space web which allows networking. This networks thrives in a city of sidewalks, small lots, mixed uses, large and small streets under a canopy of mature and diverse trees. The nature element brings living sculpture to ground these technological endeavors. The sidewalk culture is intensely important here on so many levels. Therefore some cities may have public art in typical·civic settings which may in fact have very little actual public engagement whereas Palo Alto 'lives and breathes' with its sidewalk culture. This Sidewalk culture expands into large nature areas such as the 'Dish' and now the Meadowlands with this amazing opportunity of the 101 pedestrian bridge to bookend both sides of Palo Alto. 3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Public Art Commission achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? I am fascinated by group intelligence and process. What does it take to allow and support active discussions to sieve out the most relevant qualities of any endeavor? It is an honor to see the thorough and thoughtful thinking of the PA Arts commission in the podcasts. As the Commission goes forward how can it assess what places and works of art engage to the highest level? What is that highest level and how can the PA Arts Commission support projects that engage all of our senses? In today's digital age what is the role or challenge of public art? What are the tactile qualities that allow the public to pause and reconsider their sense of their own community and their role in it? An approach which I have used in other settings allows structured and varied discussions to allow the salient issues to reveal themselves. Everyone has artistic passions and perspectives, how to give voice to this in the process of furthering Public Art's role? In my past board experience I was mainly called to serve on committees which form the basis of arts: Economic committees, Strategic committees, etc. I would hope to share this other thinking to support and engage with the other members of the Commission. Thank you. Page3 Public Art-Commission 4. Public Art Commission Members work with the document listed below. If you have experience with this document, please describe that experience. Experience with this document is not required for selection. Municipal Arts Plan LINK I have read through the document. It covers a lot of ground/landscape. Perhaps a shorter synopsis of the same document on one page might be interesting. It is obvious from the podcasts that the PAC members embrace and comprehend the essence of this document. Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, "No state or local agency shall post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the Internet without first obtaining the written permission of that individual." The full code is attached. This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached to the Application and posted to the City's website. The full code can be read here: LINK Read the code, and check only ONE option below: f8I I give permission for the City of Palo Alto to post to the City's website the attached Board and Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR D I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City's website. I am providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address: Cell Phone: D Home 10 Office Phone: E-mail: Signature:_�_,._ __ � ______________ Date: 3;/s-f?o� Page4 Public Art Commission 2011-2015 2002-2004 1987-88 1986-87 1984 1981-85 2014-present 2014-present 2003-2013 2000-2003 1995-2000 1991-95 1990-91 1990 1988-90 1988 1985-88 1987 1985 1982/83 Summer 1981 1980 Summer 1979 Summer 2014 2013-14 2011 2003-2013 2002-2005 2005 1998 1999-2002 1998-2002 1997-99 1996-97 1995 1993-95 1993-94 1994 1995 1993-95 1982 1976-81 1975-1981 ERIC A. BECKSTROM, Architect President, Beckstrom Architecture/Planning+ Consulting Inc. Palo Alto, CA Registered: CA C25632, ME ARC2779 , NCARB #46,854, , VT 2188{1apsed) Web-www.BeckstromArchitecture.com; email-Eric@BeckstromArchitecture.com EDUCATION 2015 Lund University, Lund, Sweden, Masters Program Sustainable Urban Design-SUDES/HDM Waldorf Foundation Studies (Pedagogical/Teacher training), 2-year program. Pratt Institute, Brooklyn, New York, Bachelor of Architecture (5-year) The Architectural Association, School of Architecture, London, England San Francisco Center for Architecture and Urban Studies, San Francisco, California Oklahoma State University, Architecture, Mechanical Engineering and Philosophy EMPLOYMENT HISTORY President, Beckstrom Architecture/Planning+ Consulting, Palo Alto, CA/ Rockport, ME. Consultant, AWA-Ana Williamson Architect, Menlo Park, tA Principal, Beckstrom Architecture & Planning, Rockport, ME. Grew firm to 6 people. Principal, Cushman+ Beckstrom, Inc. Architecture & Planning, Rockport, ME/ Stowe, VT. Grew firm to from 3 to 12 people. Associate Partner/ Architect A.I.A., M. B. Cushman Design, Inc., Stowe, VT. Architect, David S. Gast & Associates, San Francisco, CA. Arkitekt, Rosen bergs Arkitektkontor AB, Stockholm, Sweden. Arkitekt, Can Arkitektkontor AB, Stockholm, Sweden. Intern Architect, Pei, Cobb, Freed & Partners, New York, New York. Intern Architect, Hellmuth, Obata, and Kassabaum, New York, New York. Intern Architect, Omrania U.K. Ltd., London, England. Historical Researcher, Waterfront Development Corporation, London, England. Intern Architect, Lister, Drew & Associates, Walton-on-Thames, England. Stonemason, Mike Shelton Construction, Tulsa, Oklahoma Actor/Biker#2, Walt Disney Movie 'Tex', http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0084783/ House Framer-wood, Doug Lee Construction, Tulsa, Oklahoma Motorcycle/Bicycle Mechanic, Cyle Kart Racers, Tulsa, Oklahoma ACTIVITIES Innovation Workshop Leader, VINNOVA/foretagarna Business Association, San Francisco/Silicon Valley, CA Guest Lecturer, Lund University Industrial Design, Architecture, Business School, Lund, Sweden Guest Lecture/Graduate project jurist, Peking University, Beijing, CN Board Member, Bay Chamber Concerts, Rockport, ME. President/Board Member, Ashwood Waldorf School, Rockport, ME Water Workshop-Steiner Institute, Herbert Dreiseitl, LA Architecture/Form/Ecology International Conference Participant, Jarna, Sweden. Expert Witness, Vermont Environmental Board, Cell tower relocation, case success. Garfield Hyde Park Neighbors Alliance, GHNA, Neighborhood Advocacy Group, VT. Mountain Choraliers Choir, Lamoille County, VT. Building Committee, Lake Champlain Waldorf School, Shelburne, VT. Board Member, Good Samaritan Family Resource Center, SF, CA. Member, Precita Valley Neighbors, SF, CA. Neighborhood relations, park renovations. Board Member, Mission Neighborhood Inner City tuition free Waldorf School, SF, CA. Board Member, Precita Valley Community Center, Youth/Gang Prevention Center, SF, CA. Organizer, Friends of the Urban Forest, SF, CA. -street planting-60 street/40 houses. Member, A.I.A. Task Force on the Environment, San Francisco, CA. Movie, Biker 2, 'Tex' Disney movie; Screen Test for Francis Ford Coppola -'The Outsiders' Motocross Racer, 250cc and 125cc, Intermediate class Eagle Scout. ERIC A. BECKSTROM Personal Information Name: Loren Gordon t�L'( Of PALO A!JO. f' :\ 1.,/ l y CLEHr\'S OFFICE Address: 428 Maple Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Cell Phone: 650-269-6489 I 5 MAR -3 PM 4: 1 7 �Home 10ottice Phone: 650-321-2189 E-mail: lilikg428@gmail.com Are you a Palo Alto Resident?IZ!YesONo Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City ¢.J;>alo �. who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members? LJYes �No Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for?IZJYes ONo California state law requires appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest, Form 700. Do you have an investment in, or do you serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to; 1) engage in business with the City, 2) provide products or services for City projects, or 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for?O YeslZJNo Excluding your principal residence, do you own real property in Palo Alto? Ov es IZJ No How did you Learn about the vacancy on the Public Art Commission? Ocommunity Group D Email from City Clerk 0Palo Alto Weekly Other: Jim Migdal 0 Daily Post Deity Website 0Flyer List relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: I have a Bachelor's degree from the University of Colorado and a Master's degree of Business Administration from the University of San Francisco. I'm drawn to the art world because both my mother and sister are artists. In my first job after college, I worked for a San Francisco investment bank (Montgomery Securities) that had an extensive collection of modern art and antiques. In November 2014, I co-hosted an art show in my home. I love to be surrounded by paintings, photographs, sculpure, or art of any kind. My experience includes volunteer work at SFMOMA in the past and a current position on the Membership Executive Council at the Cantor Arts Center. Page 1 Public Art Commission Employment Present or Last Employer: Bank of America (Montgomery Securities) occupation: Human Resource Mgmt., Vice President, Corporate Finance and Syndicate a Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: I served on the Addison PT A executive board as the co-chair of Outreach and Education. I have held many positions at my children's elementary school (Charles Armstrong School) including organizing and chairing fundraisers and supporting teachers. I currently volunteer at the Brentwood School on behalf of All Students Matter, volunteer for the California Transplant Donor Network, serve on the executive board of Gamble Garden and on the Membership Executive Council of the Cantor Arts Center. For the past six years, I have been involved with Gamble Garden, an estate owned by the City of Palo Alto. I have twice co-chaired the Spring Tour, Gamble's largest fund-raising event and served on the board for five years. This Palo Alto experience has made me aware of our citizens' interest in open space, public parks, gardens and beauty. Working with individual homeowners who share their gardens with the public during the Spring Tour, I learned there is a feeling that beautiful landscape, natural tranquility and outdoor sculpture is important to our community. Art and beauty matter. 1. What is it about the Public Art Commission that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? I am passionate about sharing works of art with the public. Recently, Richard Serra's Sequence sculpture left the Cantor Arts Center to find its new home inside the SFMOMA. When I visited the Cantor last week, I heard many people comment on missing the sculpture. The presence of this piece simply brought them joy. It was an outdoor installation that was accessible to everyone for free. I heard similar comments from those who visit Gamble Garden. They just enjoy being outdoors surrounded by interesting and beautiful trees and plants. I'm interested in joining the Public Art Commision because I deeply care about art for all. I support maintaining the pieces in the collection and bringing in new art. I'm very excited to experience art in the University Avenue underpass and still smile every time I walk by one of Greg Brown's murals. Page 2 Public Art Commission 2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particular interest to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Commission meeting you can view an archive here: LINK. I have not attended a Commission meeting. Thank you for making the meetings available online. I found the December 18th meeting regarding the public art master plan for Palo Alto interesting. Barbara Goldstein presented the plan and outlined how she and Gail Goldman intend to engage the public. I would love to be a part of this process. We are fortunate to have this team working for our city. 3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Public Art Commission achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? We are fortunate to have space for land art. It is wonderful to discover Patrick Dougherty's stickwork sculpture and incredible to walk over to check out Andy Goldsworthy's Stone River. I would like to see more natural land art in Palo Alto. Those who live our town enjoy our mild weather and make time to be outside. Palo Alto is one of the best places to live in our nation and deserves a destination art piece that you'd find in urban areas such as San Francisco. It would be interesting if this piece was natural. We could accomplish this by partnering with corporations, using funds (percent for art) from several new projects, and creating an event around the new installation. I realize that finding the right artist, location and funding can take years. However, we live in a well-connected city and we can get this accomplished. Another goal I have is to engage the youth of our community. I believe in getting youth more involved in public art. The commision could invite young artists to submit works for temporary shows in public buildings or ask for a young writer to write an article or blog about a new installation. Page 3 Public Art Commission 4. Public Art Commission Members work with the document listed below. If you have experience with this document, please describe that experience. Experience with this document is not required for selection. Municipal Arts Plan LINK Thank you very much for making this plan available. I have reveiwed it. Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, "No state or local agency shall post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the Internet without first obtaining the written permission of that individual." The full code is attached. This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached to the Application and posted to the City's website. The full code can be read here: LINK Read the code, and check only ONE option below: � I give permission for the City of Palo Alto to post to the City's website the attached Board and Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR 0 I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City's website. I am providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address: Cell Phone: 0 Home 10 Office Phone: E-mail: Loren Gordon Signature:----------------------Date: 03-03-15 Page4 Public Art Commission Employment Present or Last Employer: Retired (Last employer -Siemens Corporation) Occupation: Contentment pursuits (Project Leader) Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: I have been a member of the City of San Jose Arts Commission from June 1992 to February 2015. I served as chair of the commission from 2003 to 2006 and chair of Public Art Committee of the Arts Commission in 2006-2007. I also chaired the Norman Mineta San Jose International Airport Public Art Master Plan Steering Committee in 2004. I was named Metro Newspaper Public Art Person of the Year in 2004. I have served on the City of Palo Public Art Commission since June 2013 and currently serve as the vice-chair. I was co-president of the Parents Auxiliary at Children's Musical Theater of San Jose and served on the board of directors in 1991-1992 and 1997-1999. As a docent at the Japanese American Museum of San Jose, I lead tours of the museum to guests that request a guided tour. I am a volunteer Marriage Commissioner for the County of Santa Clara and have performed over 4,500 marriage ceremonies. 1. What is it about the Public Art Commission that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? I have been involved in public art for over 20 years and it is a passion of mine. I believe public art is the soul of a city and great cities have great public art. The Public Art Master Plan process that is just starting is of great interest to me and I believe my experience in this area will be very helpful in the development of the plan. Page 2 Public Art Commission 2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particular interest to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Commission meeting you can view an archive here: The percent for public art by private development ordinance that was enacted in January, 2014. At least a dozen projects have come before the Public Art Commission for review and comment. These projects are a way to add powerful and innovative pieces of public art to the Palo Alto landscape. 3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Public Art Commissic)n achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? Completion of the first Public Art Master Plan (PAMP) for Palo Alto. The PAMP is an important document to help shape the future of public art in Palo Alto. Input from the city council, city staff and the community will be used to formulate the PAMP. The Public Art Commission can be the interface between the city council, city staff and thH community and the consultants that will be writing the PAMP. Page 3 Public Art Commission 4. Public Art Commission Members work with the document listed below. If you h�1ve experience with this document, please describe that experience. Experience with this documE!nt is not required for selection. Municipal Arts Plan LIN_6 The Municipal Arts Plan (MAP) is the Public Art Commission's "roadmap" for public art. Recent discussions have included updating the MAP to more reflect recent developments in technology and how the PAMP can influence public art in Palo Alto. Consent to Publish Personal Information on the of Palo Alto Website California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part. "No state or local agency shall post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on. the Internet without first obtaining the written permission of that individual." The full code is attached. This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached to the Application and posted to the City's website. The full code can be read here: LINK Read the code, and checl< only ONE option below: D I give permission for the City of Palo Alto to post to the City's website the attached Board and Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR (g] I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City's website. I am providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address: 1313 Newell Rd Palo Alto, CA 94301 Cell Phone: 0 Home10 Office Phone: E-mail: Ben.Miyaji@gmail.com March 2, 2015 Page4 Public Art Commission Employment Present or Last Employer: Mobile Art Academy Occupation: Education Director and co-founder Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: I do not have any long lasting involvement, but recently spent a day at the VA in Menlo Park at their day long art workshop, working with vets showing them how to paint on their iPads! I have also volunteered help at the different schools I have worked with - Menlo School, Los Altos Christian School etc. 1. What is it about the Public Art Commission that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? I have a huge regard for the immense impact this city has had on the world in terms of the tech industry and Stanford scientists. I see it as a hub of the american renascence. However I feel that their is a gap between the subjects of art and technology that needs to be bridged so they join forces in creative ways. I want to help make that happen, not just with mobile digital art, but with good art in any fine art genre. I want to help enhance the city with art to express the true creativity that exists here. I feel I have experience in making things happen in the art world, of forging ahead with new ideas, especially in the meeting of art and technology. Page2 Public Art Commission 2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particular interest to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Commission meeting you can view an archive here: LINK. I am not familiar with the commission as such, but was interested in issues that Jim was telling me about. I tried going to the link, but when I did that I lost all the info I had typed into this document, so I will leave it at that! 3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Public Art Commission achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? I would like to see the creative spirit of Palo Alto expressed more visibly in the community. I would like to encourage the many start ups and large tech companies to join us in sponsoring great modern art that belongs here to Palo Alto. I would like to see us create a young artist incubator and bring in some avant large artistic creations that makes Palo Alto a leading artistic center for the world, just as it is a leader in tech. Page 3 Public Art Commission 4. Public Art Commission Members work with the document listed below. If you have experience with this document, please describe that experience. Experience with this document is not required for selection. Municipal Arts Plan LINK I have no experience with this document. Consent to Publish Personal Information on the of Palo Alto Website California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, "No state or local agency shall post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the Internet without first obtaining the written permission of that individual." The full code is attached. This consent form wil not be redacted and will be attached to the Application and posted to the City's website. The full code can be read here: LINK Read the code, and check only ONE option below: D I give permission for the City of Palo Alto to post to the City's website the attached Board and Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR l8J I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City's website. I am providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address: 668 Ramona Street, Palo Alto Cell Phone: 650 289 8148 0 Home 10omce Phone: E-mail: caroline@mobileartacademy.com Date: 2/24/2015 Page4 Public Art Commission Employment Present or Last Employer: Inn Vision Shelter Network Occupation: Nonprofit Administration Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: I am a Commissioner on the Santa Clara County Homeless Healthcare Governing Board and I serve on the Board of Directors of the Palo Alto Housing Corporation, a nonprofit developer of affordable housing. I am a member of the City of Palo Alto Sustainable Climate Action Plan Advisory Group as well as the City's Comprehensive Plan Update Leadership Group. I am a member of the League of Women Voters and a Fellow of the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce's Leadership Palo Alto 2014 program. I am volunteer at Ohlone Elementary School in Palo Alto, among other activities. 1. What is it about the Public Art Commission that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? Please see attached page. Page2 Public Art Commission ...... ' . • • • 2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particular interest to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Commission meeting you can view an archive here: LINK. I am interested in seeing how the Public Art in Private Development Ordinance which was passed in January of last year will contribute to the funding of more temporary and permanent public art throughout the City. In addition, I am looking forward to the creation of the City's Public Art Master Plan and am excited to see this effort engage the public through community outreach and public participation. I hope this process helps staff and the Commission synthesize any emerging themes around how public art can enhance quality of life, foster economic development and create vital public spaces during a year when our City will be thinking about "place making" in a variety of ways. 3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Public Art Commission achieve, and why? How would.you suggest accomplishing this? A primary goal would be to work towards the creation of the Pubiic Art Master Plan now that the City has selected a consultant to facilitate that process. As a Commissioner, I would support staff in their review of the consultant's research and planning efforts, provide perspective, feedback and suggestions as needed, and support in efforts to have a broad spectrum of Palo Altans engage in the community outreach component. A second, short term goal includes supporting the implementation of an online database of the City's public art collection with mobile app for accessing educational info about the artwork. And finally, I am interested in continuing to support Artists in Residence, exploring how we might be able to replicate the kind of residency program that brought about the Greg Brown murals we know today. · Page3 Public Art Commission 4. Public Art Commission Members work with the document listed below. If you have experience with this document, please describe that experience. Experience with this document is not required for selection. Municipal Arts Plan LINK Consent to Publish Personal Information on the of Palo Alto Website California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, "No state or local agency shall post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the Internet without first obtaining the written permission of that individual." The full code is attached. This consent form wil not be redacted and wil be attached to the Application and posted to the City's website. The full code can be read here: LINK Read the code, and check only ONE option below: .D. I give permission for the City of Palo Alto to post to the City's website the attached Board and Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR 181 I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City's website. I am providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address: Cell Phone: 0 Home 10 Office Phone: E-mail: mila.zelkha@gmail.com Page4 Public Art Commission 4. Public Art Commis$ion Members work with the document listed below. If you have experience with this document, please describe that experience. Experience with this document is not required for selection. Municipal Arts Plan LINK Consent to Publish Personal Information on the of Palo Website - .. - California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, "No state or local agency shall post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the Internet without first obtaining the written permission of that individual." The full code is attached. This consent form wil not be redacted and wil be attached to the Application and posted to the City's website. The full code can be read here: LINK Read the code, and check only ONE option below: 0 I give permission for the City of Palo Alto to post to the City's website the attached Board and Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR � I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City's website. I am providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address: Cell Phone: 0Home1[Joffice Phone: E-mail: mila.zelkha@gmail.com Date: s- Page4 Public Art Commission oF Di\ L . ·o ' I M t1. �· d}fi 1. What is it about the Public Art Commission that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest t0:you, and why? I, like other Palo Altans, have had the good fortune of living my days with the art of Greg Brown. His public murals are some of my earliest memories of civic pride. Having grown up in Palo Alto, I became close friends with a band of brothers that included Greg's son. Hovering in mid-air or catching us off guard with his booming laugh, hanging out with Greg at his home meant that we were surrounded by both art and joy. We could be ourselves with Greg and celebrated even if we tried on a tough exterior ... an egg shell was an egg shell and yet with Greg it could be a sweetheart leaning in with affection. As we grew up and paired off, Greg gave us each a work of art - a series of wedding portraits for each couple. The drawing Greg drew of me ... about to ride a roller coaster at the boardwalk ... my eyes are closed and hopelessly in love. What a gift I have been able to enjoy, living with this art every day over the years, an experience that opened my eyes to see in a way I never had before and that is very different than that of visiting something once in a gallery or museum for a few moments. In 2003, the Palo Alto Art Center held an exhibition of Greg's work titled "Unlikely Saints". Neighbors, friends, and Palo Altans of all kinds were found in Greg's work­ people who we interact with every day -the owner of the art supply store, the pharmacist realistically presented with an electric radiance that only Greg could capture. I believe however it is the public art of Greg Brown, especially of his murals done through the City of Palo Alto's Artist in Residence program several decades ago, is what has had and will continue to have a lastiD.g impact on our entire community. Public art that we can live with -that gives us pause and inspires us -is a most valuable gift because it is really the gift of unlocking something inside of us -one where our eyes open, showing us how we love life, how to see. I would like to serve on the City of Palo Alto's Public Art Commission to share the profound experience of living with art to all who come to this wonderful city, to take the time in our ordinary days to see more, feel more, and love & celebrate all of the unlikely saints out there and our potential. e1rry OF PALO ALTO. CA CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Personal Information Name: Michael Danaher Address: 1355 Hamilton Ave I 5 HAR 16 AM ': 43 Cell Phone: 650-714-8530 0Home 118]office Phone: 650-320-4625 E-mail: mdanaher@wsgr.com Are you a Palo Alto Resident?l8JYes0No Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City QLE.'alo �. who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members?WYes Rl!No Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for? l&Jves D No California state law requires appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest, Form 700. Do you have an Investment in, or do you serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to; 1) engage in business with the City, 2) provide products or services for City projects, or 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for?0Yesl8]No Excluding your principal residence, do you own real property In Palo Alto?0Yesi&!No How did you Learn about the vacancy on the Utilities Advisory Commission? Ocommunity Group 0Daily Post 0 Email from City Clerk D City Website 0Palo Alto Weekly DFlyer other: discussion with commission member List relevant education, training, experience, certificates 'of training, licenses, or professional registration: · B.A. Yale J.D. Stanford Member of California Bar Page 1 Utlllty Advisory Commission Employment Present or Last Employer: Wiison Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati Occupation: Attorney Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: After stints in government service, my wife and I returned here in the BO's. While our children were in school my community service was youth-oriented, including at least 14 seasons of AYSO coaching, Assistant Scoutmaster of my son's Boy Scout troop, support person for my wife's Girl Scout troop and a period of teaching math enrichment to the more advanced math students at Duvenick. I also served for a number of years as president of the Palo Alto Adult Soccer League. After our son and daughter left home I have devoted more time to support of · environmental groups and clean energy and energy efficient projects, as discussed below. 1. What is it about the Utilities Advisory Commission that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? I am a life-long environmentalist and spend time every day on the climate crisis and possible responses. I was one of the leaders in building our cleantech team at the law firm; we are now among the most active in the country. I (and my colleagues) devote substantial time to helping create, build, finance and expand companies with new technologies and business models for alternative energy and resource efficiency. Through working with companies, attending conferences, and discussions with colleagues and with entrepreneurs, scientists, investors, business leaders, energy companies and others, I am exposed to critical thinking and new initiatives on almost all the fields under the purview of the UAC, including energy supply, technology and business model innovation for renewable energy and the Implications for utilities, technologies and strategies for energy efficiency in the built environment, water use, demand side management and more. I've also worked with businesses in the telecom/datacom sector and have some familiarity with FTTH technologies. In addition to domain exposure, I've been fortunate to gain substantial business experience. As a corporate attorney at the firm for 28 years, I've worked with hundreds of companies, · attended thousands of board meetings, budget reviews and strategic reviews, learned from working with some of the talented people in tech, and learned too from watching so many mistakes being made. Along the way I've become a student of boards and their decision-making processes. Page2 Utility Advisory Commission 2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particular interest to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Commission meeting you can view an archive here: LINK. Like many, I'm deeply concerned about the water shortage and think about it whenever I turn on the tap. I lived here during the 1976-7 drought but this may be the new normal, either because we're in a cyclic "megadrought," climate change or both. I'm aware of some of the actions the Utilities department has taken but I'm interested in hearing about the long-term strategy, both supply-side and demand-side. I'm also interested in investigating whether, as part of a long-term supply-side strategy, there may be opportunities to purchase water rights from farmers, perhaps from farmers who could use the money to invest in efficient water technology. 3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Utilities Advisory Commission achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? It would be presumptuous at this stage for me to suggest goals. I am so impressed with the quality of the Utilities department work and so proud of how innovative and enlightened Palo Alto has been. From its clean energy programs, to incentives and consulting services for energy efficiency in new construction, to support for new technologies and more, Palo Alto is a model of best practices. I have much to learn before I can make proposals. I do have areas of inquiry. I'll mention two. First, I'd like to understand, from the Utility department perspective, the relative efficiency of grid-scale renewable energy, community solar, roof-top solar and energy efficiency Initiatives, and to understand how Palo Alto and its residents can get the most bank for their money. Second,.most utility companies are restricted by PUC rules including limits on what investments they may include in their rate-base. I'd like to understand how much flexibility Palo Alto has relative to most utilities and whether there are leadership opportunities for Palo Alto to demonstrate new approaches. Page3 Utlllty Advisory Commiss!on 4. Utilities Advisory Commission Members work with the documents listed below. If you have experience with any of these documents, please describe that experience. Experience with these documents is not required for selection. The Utilities Strategic Plan LINK The Long Term Electric Acquisition Plan LINK The Gas Utility Long-term Plan LINK Urban Water Management Plan LINK Ten-Year Electric Energy Efficiency Plan and Ten-Year Natural Gas Energy Efficiency Plan LINK Utilities Quarterly Update for the most recently reported quarter LINK I I have read most of these but that is all. Consent to Publish Personal Information on the Citv of Palo Alto Website California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, In part, "No state or local agency shall post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the Internet without first obtaining the written permission of that individual." The full code is attached. This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached to the Application and posted to the City's website. The full code can be read here: LINK Read the code, and check only ONE option below: fil I give permission for the City of Palo Alto to post to the City's website the attached Board and Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR Q I fequest that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City's website. I am providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address: Cell Phone: 0Home 10omce Phone: E-mail: Signature; ---1...µ...;·..:..1. .;;;;J;....__e......;.d._____;:::,_D-=\=-.::;a;.;..,.,,,;;.._ '--_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-:_-:_-:_-:_-::;;;...._ __ Date: 3/15/2015 Page4 Utility Advisory Commission Personal Information Name: Timothy Gray Address:4173 Park Blvd. Cell Phone: 650 493-3000 l8J Home 1Doffice Phone: 650 858-2738 E-mail: Timothygray@sbcglobal.net Are you a Palo Alto Resident?i8]Yes0 No GllY OF fDALO Al.JO.CA CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 15 HAR -2 AH Ill: 34 Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City ¢.li>alo �. who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members?WYes�No Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for?IE}YesONo California state law requires appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest, Form 700. Do you have an investment in, or do you serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to; · 1) engage in business with the City, 2) provide products or services for City projects, or 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for?0Yesl8JNo Excluding your principal residence, do you own real property in Palo Alto?0Yesl&!No How did you Learn about the vacancy on the Utilities Advisory Commission'? 0community Group 0 Email from City Clerk 0 Palo Alto Weekly 0Daily Post OcityWebsite 0Flyer List relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: Certified Public Accountant, Consultant to Large Companies throughout the nation, avid interest in Environmental impact of community energy policies, customer of Palo Alto Natural Gas Vehicle station, Palo Alto Home Owner, and Participant in Palo Alto Green. Page 1 Utility Advisory Commission Employment Present or Last Employer: Treasury Advocates, Self Employed, Occupation: Consultant to San Mateo Medical Center and other hospitals. Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: Active advocate of fairness, transparency, and integrity in local government. Frequent speaker at City Council Meetings. Former candidate for Palo Alto City Council. Palo Alto Utilities customer for 20 years. 1. What is it about the Utilities Advisory Commission that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? I am interested in pursuing and maintaining zero emission in the least costly basis. I am interested in being an advocate for the residential customers. This would include making sure that all transactions between the Utilities Enterprise and the Palo Alto General Fund are fairly reflected in arm-length transactions, are transparent, and fairly reflect the economics of the transactions. As a former journalist, I have experience in communicating information of community interest. As a Corporate finance leader, I am practiced in communicating complex economic transactions in sim le and understandable terms that deliver a common understandin to stake-holders with all levels of experience. My corporate career has been dedicated to promoting a customer-focus approach to service in all areas of professional performance. Page2 Utility Advisory Commission 2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particular interest to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Commission meeting you can view an archive here: LINK. The conversion of Palo Green into a new way to engage citizens in purchasing green energy and generally speaking, opportunities to purchase carbon offsets. 3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Utilities Advisory Commission achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? I would like to prove and communicate to the Utility customers that they are receiving the lowest rates possible as a result of innovative and efficient operations of the Utility Enterprise. I would be very interested in finding the economic balance that would allow the City to move forward with undergrounding utility lines, and to promote the roll-out of greater access to the fiber-optics network in an economically responsible way. Advocate for efficient Utility operations to preserve local ownership of the Utilities, and to deliver an "ownership dividend" to residential and corporate customers. To the extent possible, I would advocate for policies that increased solar and promoted alternative energy sources, within reasonable economic contraints. I would champion co · · to within very pragmatic parameters. Page3 Utility Advisory Commission 4. Utilities Advisory Commission Members work with the documents listed below. If you have experience with any of these documents, please describe that experience. Experience with these documents is not required for selection. The Utilities Strategic Plan LINK The Long Term Electric Acquisition Plan LINK The Gas Utility Long-term Plan LINK Urban Water Management Plan LINK Ten-Year Electric Energy Efficiency Plan and Ten-Year Natural Gas Energy Efficiency Plan LINK Utilities Quarterly Update for the most recently reported quarter LINK I have general awareness of these concepts, but have not studied or had experience with these plans. Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, "No state or local agency shall post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the Internet without first obtaining the written permission of that individual." The full code is attached. This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached to the Application and posted to the City's website. The full code can be read here: LINK Read the code, and check only ONE option below: JEI. I give permission for the City of Palo Alto to post to the City's website the attached Board and Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR 0 I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City's website. I am providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact . . . Address: Cell Phone: 0Home 100ffice Phone: E-mail: Page4 Utility Advisory Commission ) 1. What is it about the Utilities Advisory Commission that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? I view this as an opportµnity to contribute to my local community integrating conservation, community, culture and commerce in developing sustainable practice 2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particular interest to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Commission meeting you can view an archive here: LINK. 3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Utilities Advisory Commission achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? Implementing elements of lean management that integrates set of activities designed to achieve re;3sonable waste reduction and energy conservation using minimal resources and funds Consolidating commission commitment to empowerment, education, and environmental awareness programs, 4. Utilities Advisory Commission Members work with the documents listed below. If you have experience with any of these documents, please describe that experience. Experience with these documents is not required for selection. The Utilities Strategic Plan LINK . The Long Term Electric Acquisition Plan LINK The Gas Utility Long-term Plan LINK Urban Water Management Plan LINK Ten-Year Electric Energy Efficiency Plan and Ten-Year Natural Gas Energy Efficiency Plan LINK Utilities Quarterly Update for the most recently reported quarter LINK Page 2 Utility Advisory Commission ) Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, "No state or local agency shall post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the Internet without first obtaining the written permission of that individual." The full code is attached. This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached to the Application and posted to the City's website. The full code can be read here: LINK Read the code, and check only ONE option below: 0 I give permission for the City of Palo Alto to post to the City's website the attached Board and Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR ® I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City's website. I am providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address: Palo Alto resident Cell Phone: n/a 0 Home I 0 Office Phone: E-mail: Signature: Date: Page3 Utility Advisory Commission Personal Information Name: Judith Schwartz Address: 2330 Bryant Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Cell Phone: 650-906-9927 (both home and office) E-mail: Judith@tothept.com Are you a Palo Alto Resident? X Yes_ No 15 HAR -3 PM 4: I 0 Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City of Palo Alto, who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members? Yes X No Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for? X Yes No California state law requires appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest, Form 700. Do you have an investment in, or do you serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to; 1) engage in business with the City, 2) provide products or services for City projects, or 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for?_ Yes X No Excluding your principal residence, do you own real property in Palo Alto?_ Yes _X No How did you learn about the vacancy on the Utilities Advisory Commission? Other: _posting on NextDoor and regular emails from PAUAC List relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: I am a nationally recognized expert in consumer engagement, utility communications, dynamic pricing, strategies to support low-income families, and energy literacy programs. My company, To the Point is a strategic marketing and systems consultancy working on the leading edge of human-centered design, communication and marketing programs, systems analysis, and applied technology since 1987. Since 2007, I have been on the forefront of sustainability issues, grid modernization, alternative energy, and the digital home. Working at the nexus of public policy, technology, communications, and business; I bring an unusual perspective that crosses functional disciplines to cut to the heart of the problems and solutions. Municipal utilities (electricity, water, gas) are my clients, subjects of research studies I've prepared, and participants in symposia and workshops that I've organized. Therefore, I am very familiar with the distinct governance, financial, and management issues that affect public power organizations. I am happy to provide a list of relevant publications and video productions. My husband and I moved to Palo Alto in March 1982 when I went to work for Apple Computer. My high­ tech career focused on deploying and introducing disruptive technologies including personal computers, Internet, ERP, and other novel application areas. I was previously the president and co-founder of a water treatment start up that was ahead of its time. The utility industry can be viewed through a similar Jens of policy, technology, and behavioral transformation. Employment Present Employer: To the Point Occupation: Consultant Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: Currently serve on 2 boards: Family and Children Services of Silicon Valley (Palo Alto) and the Association for Demand Response and Smart Grid (a national organization); Past board member for the Silicon Valley Arts Council, Palo Alto Womans Club, Friends of Huddart and Wunderlich Park, and an advisory board member for CHAPS, an equestrian group underwriting riding scholarships for foster children and veterans. • Experience with over 30 nonprofits as board member, senior staff, consultant, pro-bono contributor; Past advisor to board, staff, and volunteer development organizations serving Silicon Valley; Designed fundraising programs and promotions for capital, operating, membership campaigns for museums, social service agencies, and community groups; 30-year track record of building strategic alliances, partnerships, and encouraging individual employees and colleagues to collaborate and do their best work. 1. What is it about the Utilities Advisory Commission that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? In my work in this sector, I have seen the pivotal role commissions play in guiding utilities and how challenging it can be to educate commissoners on the subtleties of the issues. I have developed stakeholder education programs, collaborating with regulators; utilities such as EWEB, SDG&E, Hydro One, National Grid, PG&E, Pepco; leading scientists, analysts, consumer advocates, and technology companies. A panelist at the FERC Technical Conference for the National Action Plan for Demand Response, I was the Strategic Communications Consultant to the NAPDR Coalition of Coalitions which included APP A. I was a member of the leadership team for the Department of Energy Smart Grid Consumer Engagement Working Group identifying best practices in customer and stakeholder outreach. I was a member of the CPUC Technical Working Group on Smart Grid Goals, program manager for the IEEE PES Community Summit Program, and have written or co-authored publications for the Smart Grid Consumer Collaborative, Association for Demand Response and Smart Grid, National Action Plan on DR, the Institute for Electric Efficiency, and DEFG. I would bring to the UAC a deep understanding of what it takes to involve, listen to, and communicate with communities and varied stakeholder groups. Residents are more likely to support activities and investments by their utility if they can see how the organization is serving their own goals and priorities rather than simply the utility's objectives. 2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particular interest to you and describe why you are interested in it. Sustainability and Climate Action Plan Briefing. As the City Sustainability Officer noted, "the easy parts have been done and it is now time to challenge ourselves to meet the long-term goals for GHG reductions." Specifically noted as targets were CA 80% reduction by 2050; 80% by 2030 along with cities like Fort Collins; and the California moonshot goal to be climate neutral within 10 years or less. My participation and leadership in industry conferences, research, and working groups have given me a realistic view of the tradeoffs and efficacy among technology and financial investments, policy changes, and behavioral change. Claims and aspirational goals often do not match up with reality. As someone who crafts coherent stories and frameworks, I feel that I could capably assess what is being proposed for Palo Alto. I was particularly taken by the "How good is good enough and what is realistic to achieve that level?" discussion as I think that cuts to the heart of the matter for all of the resources and services managed by Palo Alto. I was heartened to hear that RMI consultants leading the design charrette felt so many elements were already happening in our City. However, I see a gap between that assessment and my own perception as a City resident who is both knowledgeable and concerned about these issues. The public engagement goals sound great and I would love to see more people in the community actively involved. I believe that one needs to look at the big integrated systems picture in order to address "mitigation vs adaptation" and "vision vs operations." 3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Utilities Advisory Commission achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? There are a great many people and businesses in Palo Alto who are interested in responding to climate change and in creating and/or adopting technologies that enable more efficient use of energy, gas, and water to save money, reduce waste, and detect outages/leaks. We are one of the epicenters of EV adoption and with the recent requirement that new homes must include EV charging capability, it is likely this trend will accelerate with the range of attractive new EV s and hybrids coming on the market. That is likely to increase penetration of rooftop solar in Palo Alto as electric vehicles will make those investments more viable. In addition to this increase in intermittent supply and load, another risk for Palo Alto's electricity supply is the single transmission power line through the Colorado substation. In the event of a major disruption at the substation, power could be cut to the city for an extended period of time. These factors combined with the utility's increasing dependence on contracts for solar generation, means the City will need a mix of advanced storage at different scales and demand side technology solutions to cost-effectively manage this impending challenge. Goal: Build upon community aspirations and economic and sustainability goals to obtain support for investment in new infrastructure and programs that will allow a portfolio of options that matches the diverse priorities of city residents and commercial customers. How: We can accomplish this by learning from other jurisdictions, embracing proven best practices for stakeholder and community engagement that are achieving these goals in other cities across the country. We also can leverage the technology experts and innovation that are part of our community to encourage optimum solutions and "next practices." For example, managing drought conditions can better executed with the same kinds of technologies and outreach techniques that are proving successful with electricity and gas delivery. Palo Alto leaders like to envision our city as an exceptional example of green, sustainable, smart city. I believe the reality can match the vision if we are open to the voices and experiences of others who are further down the path. We can share those lessons with our City Council, utility staff, and citizens so they can be reassured that activities new to Palo Alto are reasonable steps, that we are setting realistic expectations, and we are in a position to validate requests for investment. 4. Utilities Advisory Commission Members work with the documents listed below. If you have experience with any of these documents, please describe that experience. Experience with these documents is not required for selection. The Utilities Strategic Plan LINK The Long Term Electric Acquisition Plan LINK The Gas Utility Long-term Plan LINK Urban Water Management Plan LINK Ten-Year Electric Energy Efficiency Plan and Ten-Year Natural Gas Energy Efficiency Plan LINK Utilities Quarterly Update for the most recently reported quarter LINK Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, "No state or local agency shall post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the Internet without first obtaining the written permission of that individual." The full code is attached. This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached to the Application and posted to the City's website. The full code can be read here: LINK Read the code, and check only ONE option below: ..3, I give permission for the City of Palo Alto to post to the City's website the attached Board and Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR Q I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City's website. I am providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address: Cell Phone: 0 Home 10ottice Phone: E-mail: Signature C)�� v Date: 3 McU<l1 c;iO 1'5 Page 4 Utility Advisory Commission Name: Lisa Van Dusen Address: 1111 Greenwood Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Cell Phone: 650-799-3883 0Home t 00ffice Phone: E-mail: lvandusen@mac.com Are you a Palo Alto Resident?J,81Yes0 No CIT t UF PALO /'dJO. Ct-1 CITY CLEF\l\'S OFFICE 15 HAR -3 PM 5: I � Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City �alo �. who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members?UYes �No Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for? IEJvesO No California state law requires appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest, Form 700. Do you have an investment in, or do you serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to; 1) engage in business with the City, 2) provide products or services for City projects, or 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for?OveslEJNo Excluding your principal residence, do you own real property in Palo Alto?J.81Yes0No How did you Learn about the vacancy on the Utilities Advisory Commission? Ocommunity Group 0 Email from City Clerk 0Palo Alto Weekly Other: friends 0Daily Post Deity Website 0Flyer List relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: Please see attached. Page 1 Utility Advisory Commission Employment Present or Last Employer: SV2 -Silicon Valley Social Venture Fund Occupation: Director of Partner Engagement & External Relations Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: Please see attached. 1. What is it about the Utilities Advisory Commission that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? Please see attached Page2 Utility Advisory Commission 2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particular interest to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Commission meeting you can view an archive here: LINK. Please see attached. 3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Utilities Advisory Commission achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? Please see attached. Page 3 Utility Advisory Commission 4. Utilities Advisory Commission Members work with the documents listed below. If you have experience with any of these documents, please describe that experience. Experience with these documents is not required for selection. The Utilities Strategic Plan LINK The Long Term Electric Acquisition Plan LINK The Gas Utility Long-term Plan LINK Urban Water Management Plan LINK Ten-Year Electric Energy Efficiency Plan and Ten-Year Natural Gas Energy Efficiency Plan LINK Utilities Quarterly Update for the most recently reported quarter LINK Please see attached. Consent to Publish Personal lnfonnation on the City of Palo Alto Website California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, "No state or local agency shall post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the Internet without first obtaining the written permission of that individual." The full code is attached. This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached to the Application and posted to the City's website. The full code can be read here: LINK Read the code, and check only ONE option below: J8l. I give permission for the City of Palo Alto to post to the City's website the attached Board and Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR Q I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City's website. I am providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address: Cell Phone: 0Home 10office Phone: E-mail: Signature: ___ YJ_,� __ C_._lfa-n __ �-----------Date: 3/3/15 Page4 Utility Advisory Commission City of Palo Alto -Utilities Advisory Commission Application Addendum from Lisa Van Dusen -3/3/15 List relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: Education: • A.B. Brown University • Certificate in Innovation Leadership (Leading by Design), California College of the Arts • Stanford Continuing Studies, UC Berkeley Extension: coursework in clean tech innovation, accounting and other topics Relevant work experience: • SV2 Silicon Vallev Social Venture Fund (2013-present): Director of Partner Engagement & External Relations. Responsible for developing and stewarding key strategic relationships throughout Silicon Valley; ensuring meaningful SV2 Partner/donor engagement and education; spearheading key initiatives, including impact investing, revenue diversification, and leadership cultivation. Participated in Environment Grant Round (current Grantee, FoodShift, is focused on changing paradigms for food waste and food recovery). (I have recently been notified that I will be recognized by the Silicon Valley Business Journal with the 100 Women oflnfluence -Silicon Valley 2015 Award which will be conferred in May 2015). • Leadership Palo Alto (2012-2013): Co-directed the re-launch and redesign of this civic leadership development program. • Precourt Institwe tor Energv (2011): Stanford University, special projects. • Wave One Palo Alto, Chief Operating Officer (2009-2010): Helped lead initiative to transform small commercial buildings and their tenants in Downtown Palo Alto into sustainable facilities and organizations through a full spectrum of sustainable practices. • Embarcadero Media, Palo Alto Weekly and Palo Alto Online (1989-2008): Director of Sales & Marketing, then Marketing Director, and finally Co-founder and Director, Palo Alto Online. While directing Palo Alto Online, was responsible for setting rates, generating revenue, and reaching tipping points for both site usage and profitability. Both the Palo Alto Weekly and Palo Alto Online received numerous top awards for excellence related to my work from the California Newspaper Publishers Association, Peninsula Press Club and Association of Alternative Newsweeklies during my tenure. • Cable Communications Cooperative of Palo Alto (1983-1989): Founding Executive Director, then Sales & Marketing Director. Spearheaded successful effort to win the Midpeninsula cable franchise for a local consumer cooperative, and later played key leadership roles regarding contracts with Pacific Bell and Heritage Cablevision, rates, and programming. Cable Co-op was an early test bed for new data communications technologies and was one of the first providers of broadband cable data services to a public school in the country. Extensive experience in working with the City of Palo Alto and Palo Alto member-subscribers. Utilities Advisory Commission -Application from Lisa Van Dusen -3/3/15 1 lvanduscn@mac.com 1650-799-388311111 Greenwood Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: I have been extensively involved in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations throughout my life, especially in Palo Alto and Silicon Valley, since I began working and living in Palo Alto in the 1980s. The following partial list details the extent of my engagement with civic life -both current and past. Current: • City of Palo Alto Sustainability/Climate Action Plan Advisory Council (SICAP) • Carbon Zero Institute. Board of Directors [LINK] • Palo Alto Art Center Foundation, Emeritus Board (previous service included two terms on the Board of Directors and Communications Committee Chair for the Capital Campaign) • Planned Parenthood, member Planned Parenthood Mar Monte Peninsula Breakfast Committee (previously member of the Board of Directors of Planned Parenthood Golden Gate) • First Person: creator and host of online video interview series featuring people who live boldly in Silicon Valley • Mentor: I provide advice and support numerous social entrepreneurs and young professionals, including many alumni of Leadership Palo Alto • Artist and illustrator: illustrated Objects & Oddities, illustrator for 826Michigan.org Previous: • Woman's Club of Palo Alto, Co-founder/producer of Landmark Leaders Speaker Series, 2012-13 & 2013-14 • Boy Scouts of America, Troop 57: Committee Chair and Board of Review Chair • Crystal Springs Uplands School (Co-chair of annual campaign, member of Capital Campaign Committee) • Leadership Midpeninsula, Class of 2001 • Walter Hays Elementary School, Environmental Co-chair (as the first in this role in PAUSD, instituted student recycling team leaders program, no garbage lunch initiative, collaborated with City Bicycling Team, and helped develop and deliver 5th grade curriculum on waste reduction) • Free The Children, founding member of California advisory board • Friends of the River (formerly on foundation board, advisory board, white water rafting guide working on river conservation and wise water policy advocacy) • Volunteer (fundraiser/canvasser) several national, state, and local political campaigns 1. What is it about the Utilities Advisory Commission that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? I would be honored to serve on the Utilities Advisory Commission for several reasons: • As a lifelong sustainability evangelist: I would work tirelessly to help achieve measurable goals for Palo Alto's Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (S/CAP), using all of the current tools available to the UAC and helping to develop new ones when necessary. As a member of the Sustainability/Climate Action Plan Advisory Council, I would seek to maintain and enhance communications between the UAC and the Advisory Council to assist in creating, recommending, and implementing utility-related solutions. One area that interests me particularly is reducing our reliance on natural gas to work toward a carbon neutral energy stream. Utilities Advisory Commission-Application from Lisa Van Dusen -3/3/15 2 lvandusen@mac.com 1650-799-388311111 Greenwood Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 • As a long-time customer of CPAU: I would seek to ensure safe, reliable and affordable utilities service for all members of our community. I believe it is critical to have the "user vantage point" clearly in mind as the UAC navigates some difficult challenges ahead. In addition to my own experience as a ratepayer, I became familiar with the concerns of facilities managers and commercial ratepayers through my work with Wave One, which involved water, electricity, natural gas, garbage, compost and recycling services. The insights I gained and the relationships I developed through my work with Wave One could be helpful to UAC. • As a former telecommunications professional: I would endeavor to find solutions that will meet the needs of ratepayers, our community as a whole, and the CPAU. Because Cable Co-op was a member-owned cooperative, I have had extensive experience in finding new ways to align consumer needs with business goals. In addition to setting rates and enhancing customer service, my experience in constructing and maintaining the cable plant, particularly in concert with other companies, could prove useful as the City proceeds with the proposed fiber project and other telecommunications initiatives. I personally negotiated agreements with multi-unit dwellings, businesses and other commercial customers for cable service, which provides some context and understanding related to CPAU. My work with Cable Co-op also helped me to develop a vision of how vibrant, local telecommunications services can benefit our community. 2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particular interest to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Commission meeting you can view an archive here: LINK • Community Solar program: I believe that a Community Solar Program could be an effective way to accelerate adoption of solar for residential property owners. The combination of lower costs, paired with neighbors learning and pursuing this opportunity potentially in clusters, could result in speedier adoption and hopefully overall lower cost. • Expansion of CLEAN program: I first became acquainted with the Clean Coalition several years ago and have followed their work since. The opportunity for more ratepayers to become producers of renewable energy seems like a win for all parties involved. I believe there is substantial untapped potential for participation here. 3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Utilities Advisory Commission achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? • Realistic Carbon Pricing and Revenue Neutral Carbon Tax or Other Alternatives: I believe the UAC should re-examine how the City prices carbon at present and whether that price should be adjusted in light of current science and research. In addition, I am interested in exploring a revenue neutral carbon tax or other alternatives, such as a collection of complementary "fee-bate" programs that could be used as tools for reaching or perhaps exceeding the "moonshot" proposed by the City's Chief Sustainability Officer, Gil Friend. The importance of realistic pricing and strong price signals cannot be overstated. The more we can bring prices into alignment with the true costs of greenhouse gas externalities, the more we can accelerate the transition to sustainability, and the more all CPAU customers will be more motivated to achieve carbon neutrality or even to become "net carbon negative." There are many exciting paths forward for Palo Alto, and I would particularly like to see the UAC do as much as possible to assist the City Council and the community as a whole to realize our sustainability goals. (I attended Utilities Advisory Commission -Application from Lisa Van Dusen -3/3/15 3 lvanduscn@mac.com 1650-799-388311111 Greenwood Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 the Citizen's Climate Lobby session on Pricing Carbon on February 20th in San Francisco, and was pleased to learn more about some of the options available to the City.) • Supporting and effectively communicating the need for appropriate rate increases as necessary: As water and other rates rise, I would seek creative approaches to educating everyone in our community about the need for rate increases. Through service on the UAC, I would seek to help articulate and communicate both the reasons for higher rates and the opportunities (through education, greater efficiency, rebates, and other approaches) to maintain not only satisfactory but high levels of service, while avoiding a "deprivation mindset." I would seek to work with civic groups, other organizations, and a wide range of citizen and commercial rate-payers to help shape plans for any necessary rate increases and then to work with them to communicate justifications for those increases within their respective networks. • Encouraging new sources for locally generated renewable energy: I would encourage collaboration with the Clean Coalition, and commercial and residential property owners to facilitate increased solar and other renewable energy production. In addition, I would work to continue to shepherd the anaerobic digestion plant forward in a prudent fashion as an energy-generating solution that addresses our organic waste challenges and opportunities. • Learning and cooperative action: Finally, and perhaps most importantly, I would seek to learn from and work cooperatively with everyone involved in shaping policy for CPAU. This includes not only the members of the UAC and the leadership and staff of CPAU, but also the City Council, City Staff, and advisory groups, such as the S/CAP Advisory Council and CEAP. The goals that our community has set for itself will be achieved most effectively when we work together. If I have the honor of serving on the UAC, one of my personal objectives will be to learn as much as I can from the prior and continuing work of other members of the UAC, so that the initiatives that I would offer and support would be pursued within the context of existing plans and knowledge. I would also take a personal interest in promoting effective communication between the S/CAP Advisory Council and the UAC. 4. Utilities Advisory Commission Members work with the documents listed below. If you have experience with any of these documents, please describe that experience. Experience with these documents is not required for selection. I have looked through all of the documents below, but do not claim to understand their nuances. I will, however, do everything possible to educate myself and to become familiar with all documents that would be relevant to serving on the UAC. The Utilities Strategic Plan LINK The Long Term Electric Acquisition Plan LINK The Gas Utility Long-term Plan LINK Urban Water Management Plan LINK Ten-Year Electric Energy Efficiency Plan and Ten-Year Natural Gas Energy Efficiency Plan LINK Utilities Quarterly Update for the most recently reported quarter LINK Signature: Date: 3/3/15 Utilities Advisory Commission -Application from Lisa Van Dusen -3/3/15 4 lvandusen@mac.com 1650-799-3883 11111 Greenwood Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 03/16/2015 117- 086 Regular Meeting March 16, 2015 Special Orders of the Day ........................................................................88 1. Presentation of Proclamation to Exchange Students from Tsuchiura, Japan and Presentation of Matt Schlegel, Marathon Runner .................88 Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions ..................................................88 City Manager Comments .........................................................................89 Oral Communications ..............................................................................89 Consent Calendar ...................................................................................90 2. Approval of a Contract with SCS Field Services in an Amount Not to Exceed $139,060 for the First Year to Provide Landfill Gas and Leachate Control Systems Maintenance, Monitoring, and Reporting Services and to Exercise the Option of a Second and Third Year of the Contract ........................................................................................90 3. Approval of a Site and Design Application by Peck Design on Behalf of Walnut Holding, LLC for a new 13,118 sf Single Family Home, detached garage, and pool; and Associated Site Improvements on a 10.39 Acre Parcel of Land in the Open Space (OS) Zone District located at 820 Los Trancos Road. Environmental Assessment: Mitigated Negative Declaration has Been Prepared .............................90 4. Approval and Authorization for the City Manager to Execute Amendment One to Memorandum of Understanding with the Santa Clara Valley Water District to Increase Palo Alto’s Total Cost Obligation by $500,000 Through FY 2016 for a Total Cost Obligation of $1,235,915 to Fund Water Conservation Rebate and Incentive Programs and Adoption of a Related Budget Amendment Ordinance 5313 entitled “Budget Amendment Ordinance for the Council for the City of Palo Alto for Fiscal Year 2015 to Provide Appropriation in the Amount of $400,000.” ....................................................................90 Action Items ..........................................................................................91 MINUTES 03/16/2015 117- 87 5. Comprehensive Plan Update Status and Discussion of Existing Comprehensive Plan Themes and Structure .......................................91 6. Review of the Adobe Creek Pedestrian & Cyclist Bridge 2014 Design Competition Process and Outcome, and Authorization to Proceed with Contract Negotiations to Develop a Scope of Work and Cost for Basic Design Services Necessary to Complete Joint California Environmental Quality Act/National Environmental Policy Act Review for the Adobe Creek Pedestrian & Cyclist Bridge .....................................................99 7. Colleagues' Memo From Mayor Holman, Council Members Burt, Schmid, and Wolbach Regarding Strengthening City Engagement with Neighborhoods ...............................................................................112 Closed Session .......................................................................................112 8. PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT .....................................................................112 9. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS, CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8 ............................................113 Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 12:30 A.M. ...........................113 MINUTES 03/16/2015 117- 88 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 6:07 P.M. Present: Berman, Burt, DuBois, Filseth, Kniss, Schmid, Wolbach arrived at 6:21 P.M. Absent: Holman, Scharff Special Orders of the Day 1. Presentation of Proclamation to Exchange Students from Tsuchiura, Japan and Presentation of Matt Schlegel, Marathon Runner. Vice Mayor Schmid welcomed students from Tsuchiura to the meeting and to Palo Alto. Matt Schlegel was honored to represent Palo Alto at the marathon in Tsuchiura, Japan. While in Tsuchiura, he would meet with City and school officials. Jennifer Buenrostro, Neighbors Abroad, introduced students and their host families. Etsuo Sato, Tsuchiura City, appreciated the City's welcome and hospitality. Neighbors Abroad sponsored the exchange program for 20 years and ensured its success. The people of Tsuchiura were touched by Palo Alto's concern and donations after the earthquake four years ago. Tsuchiura looked forward to developing understanding and exchanging ideas with Palo Alto. Council Member Kniss noted a few of the activities planned for students during the week of their visit and said Palo Alto students would spend two weeks in Tsuchiura at the end of the school year. Vice Mayor Schmid read the Proclamation into the record. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Vice Mayor Schmid reported Agenda Item Number 9 would be postponed. James Keene, City Manager, advised that Staff did not yet determine a date for the item to return to the Council but said it could return in April 2015. MOTION: Council Member Burt moved, seconded by Council Member Kniss to continue Agenda Item 9 - CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY MINUTES 03/16/2015 117- 89 NEGOTIATORS, CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8 to a date unknown. MOTION PASSED: 7-0 Holman, Scharff absent City Manager Comments James Keene, City Manager, announced Electric Utility Technicians discussed the danger of live electric wires with fourth graders at Fairmeadow Elementary School. The Utilities Department was going to send reminders and tips to the community about repairing water leaks as part of “Fix a Leak Week.” Council Member Kniss read the Proclamation thanking Ray Bacchetti, Human Relations Commission, Commissioner for his service to the City and the community. Vice Mayor Schmid remarked that Mr. Bacchetti was an ideal citizen and brought a wealth of experience and knowledge to the City. Council Member Berman served with Mr. Bacchetti on the Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Commission, which was just one of the many services Mr. Bacchetti performed for the City. Mr. Bacchetti was an incredible role model. Council Member Burt commented that Mr. Bacchetti was a tireless contributor to the community. Dennis Burns, Police Chief, indicated the Proclamation well summarized and recognized Mr. Bacchetti's service. Mr. Bacchetti was a volunteer with the Police Department. Oral Communications William Conlon stated the alarming number of recent youth suicides demanded the attention of the Council and all citizens of Palo Alto. He was shocked to learn that a majority of students were sleep deprived and he suggested that sleep deprivation could be a common factor in the suicide epidemic. The Council needed to alert all parents of the vital importance of adequate sleep and to implement measures to assess the quantity and quality of sleep. Eamonn Gormley, Transform, related the supply and demand theory of economics to roads and traffic congestion. Jeff Hoel was registering for the Comprehensive Plan Summit when he decided to read the Terms of Service, Privacy Agreement, and Cookies MINUTES 03/16/2015 117- 90 Agreement before completing his registration. Those documents were intimidating. He felt the public should not be required to agree to those documents in order to participate in City government. Perhaps the Policy and Services Committee could review that. Stephanie Munoz thought it was wasteful to demolish the gymnasium at Palo Alto High School and suggested it be used for temporary housing of homeless women. The City needed to buy back Transfer of Development Rights. Catherine Marteneau shared activities and entertainment held during Arbor Week and Arbor Day. The City was presented with a "check" for $6.6 million, which represented the value of benefits provided by Palo Alto street trees annually. Consent Calendar MOTION: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member Berman to approve Agenda Item Numbers 2-4. 2. Approval of a Contract with SCS Field Services in an Amount Not to Exceed $139,060 for the First Year to Provide Landfill Gas and Leachate Control Systems Maintenance, Monitoring, and Reporting Services and to Exercise the Option of a Second and Third Year of the Contract. 3. Approval of a Site and Design Application by Peck Design on Behalf of Walnut Holding, LLC for a new 13,118 sf Single Family Home, detached garage, and pool; and Associated Site Improvements on a 10.39 Acre Parcel of Land in the Open Space (OS) Zone District located at 820 Los Trancos Road. Environmental Assessment: Mitigated Negative Declaration has Been Prepared. 4. Approval and Authorization for the City Manager to Execute Amendment One to Memorandum of Understanding with the Santa Clara Valley Water District to Increase Palo Alto’s Total Cost Obligation by $500,000 Through FY 2016 for a Total Cost Obligation of $1,235,915 to Fund Water Conservation Rebate and Incentive Programs and Adoption of a Related Budget Amendment Ordinance 5313 entitled “Budget Amendment Ordinance for the Council for the City of Palo Alto for Fiscal Year 2015 to Provide Appropriation in the Amount of $400,000.” MOTION PASSED: 7-0 Holman, Scharff absent MINUTES 03/16/2015 117- 91 Action Items 5. Comprehensive Plan Update Status and Discussion of Existing Comprehensive Plan Themes and Structure. Hillary Gitelman, Planning and Community Environment Director, reviewed reasons for engaging in the Comprehensive Plan Update and said the Update began in 2008. In 2012, the Council identified a process to complete the Comprehensive Plan expeditiously. The latest schedule projected completion of the Comprehensive Plan Update in the first quarter of 2016. The Leadership Group was meeting biweekly to plan a Summit on May 30, 2015. Staff viewed the Summit as an opportunity to discuss big issues and to recruit residents for work sessions. Staff was working with consultants and the Leadership Group to define outreach activities concurrent with and after the Summit. After the Summit, Staff envisioned a series of Council and community work sessions. Council work sessions would focus on big issues and inform community work sessions. Community work sessions would focus on policy and program language for the Comprehensive Plan. The current Comprehensive Plan addressed many issues thoughtfully. Staff did not believe whole sections of the Comprehensive Plan needed significant revisions or updates. However, big issues needed to be addressed. She noted that the Comprehensive Plan Update could contain significant policy adjustments where needed, while retaining many valued concepts. She questioned whether themes in the current Comprehensive Plan should be retained, reordered or prioritized, or revised to address today's challenges. Mila Zelkha wished to extend the timeline for the Comprehensive Plan Update in order to better understand issues. She encouraged the Council to include an economic analysis of all proposed options, including the sustainability plan and performance metrics. Stephanie Munoz remarked that a plan allowed one to invest time, work, and money on building something over 10 to 20 years, although the Council did not share that belief because they constantly changed their plans. Bob Moss advised that the median home price in February 2015 was greater than $2.4 million. The median home price increased 32 percent between February 2014 and February 2015. The average home price was more than $3.2 million. Based on the sale price of the Maybell site, raw land cost more than $8 million an acre. Palo Alto suffered from a jobs/housing imbalance over the last 35 years. Council Member Burt reviewed Staff's recommendation to the Council and remarked that this was the Council's opportunity to provide substantive feedback. He hoped the Council would have a dialog and said the State MINUTES 03/16/2015 117- 92 mandated a Safety Element, which was included in the Natural and Urban Environment Element. He requested Staff provide the rationale for including the Safety Element in the Natural and Urban Environment Element. Ms. Gitelman advised that the Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC) made that decision prior to her employment with the City. She could consult with Commissioners and report to the Council. She requested the Council provide feedback as to whether that was an effective way to organize the Comprehensive Plan. Council Member Burt noted P&TC Commissioner Michael was present and requested he provide insights, if any. Mark Michael, Planning and Transportation Commissioner, indicated the decision was made prior to his service on the P&TC. He understood the P&TC wished to streamline the structure. It was opportunistic to include the Safety Element rather than leaving it as a standalone Element. Council Member Burt asked if Commissioner Michael was aware of the reasons for leaving the Concept Plans for East Meadow Circle and California Avenue as separate Elements. Mr. Michael believed the P&TC did not consider editorially either Concept Plan as part of any of the other traditional elements. Council Member Burt inquired if Staff knew the reasons for proposing the Concept Plans as standalone Elements. Ms. Gitelman understood the Council directed the identification of those two geographic areas. She assumed the Council directed the Concept Plans be standalone Elements. Council Member Burt recalled the Council directed Staff to prepare Concept Plans, but did not recall Council discussion regarding organization of the Draft Comprehensive Plan. He was unsure that was the correct way to organize the Comprehensive Plan. The Concept Plans were part of the Land Use and Community Design. James Keene, City Manager, indicated attention to the Comprehensive Plan between 2008 and 2013 was focused almost exclusively on the two Concept Plans. Organization of the Comprehensive Plan was most likely determined by various people and the current Staff was not adhering to any particular focus. At this stage, the Council planned to advise Staff about structure, themes, and other components. MINUTES 03/16/2015 117- 93 Council Member Burt felt themes should be contemporary. The Council directed the P&TC to make the Comprehensive Plan contemporary, more readable, and better organized. Some topics in the P&TC draft were a series of substantive questions and choices that were included in the Comprehensive Plan as recommended language. The Council needed to identify the substantive choices contained in the Draft and discuss them, as well as new issues because Council had not discussed or decided to incorporate those recommendations. Environmental and sustainability issues had to be updated to reflect current thinking. Transportation was a fundamental part of the vision for the future and those two examples pointed to the need for a reconsideration of themes. Council Member DuBois inquired whether the Council would review the Comprehensive Plan Update through 2015 with a projected completion date some time in 2016. Ms. Gitelman answered yes. Council Member DuBois suggested the Council discuss whether that timeline was appropriate because he preferred quality over a deadline. Separating cleanup, deletions, and accomplished programs from substantial choices was useful. He requested Staff discuss citizen involvement following the Summit. Ms. Gitelman was working with the Leadership Group regarding structure of the post-Summit work sessions. Staff was designing a process that allowed comparison of the existing Comprehensive Plan with the P&TC's draft in order to structure community discussion of policies and programs. Community sessions would focus on the details and language of the Comprehensive Plan, while accepting input from the Council regarding policy questions. Community work sessions were going to be scheduled with advance notice so that residents could choose which sessions to attend. Council Member DuBois liked the idea of comparing the two versions of the Comprehensive Plan. He asked if work sessions would be organized around Elements of the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Gitelman indicated some of the work sessions would likely be organized around Elements. She said because of the complexity of some Elements, they would need to be divided into topics. Council Member DuBois suggested the Council discuss weighting and sequencing of goals for the Comprehensive Plan. A framework for evaluating themes and goals would be useful, possibly utilizing categories of core City services, additional services to improve the City, and policies that impacted things external to the City. He asked if Staff was aware of reasons MINUTES 03/16/2015 117- 94 for changing the Natural Environment Element to the Natural and Urban Environment Element. Ms. Gitelman suspected the name was changed in an effort to better communicate the topics considered in the Element. Council Member DuBois felt Natural Environment should be separate from Urban Environment and Safety. He thought topics of preservation and open space could be separate from urban environment. Ms. Gitelman advised that one of the ideas in the existing Comprehensive Plan was that the natural elements infiltrated the urban environment. The City may have preserved open spaces, but creeks within the urban environment had natural resource value. Council Member DuBois believed pure urban topics could be segregated. He appreciated the public communication regarding comparisons to other cities and identification of agreed upon issues. Council Member Kniss noted the Downtown Coordinated Area Plan (CAP) had been successful in limiting growth over a long period of time. The Council needed to share the same definitions of terms in discussing the Comprehensive Plan. The Council held extensive discussions and received extensive feedback regarding California Avenue. Healthy communities were based on safety and land use. She inquired whether healthy communities could be a part of the Natural and Urban Environment and Safety. Sometimes healthy communities were a standalone Element. Ms. Gitelman commented that healthy communities could be woven through many, if not all Elements. Council Member Kniss stated the purposes of the existing Comprehensive Plan were livability, walkability, and urbanization. The goal was to have more near transit and a better circulation plan. She asked if Staff had a sense of the Leadership Group's desires to hold more in-depth discussions over an extended period. Ms. Gitelman clarified that the Leadership Group's role was to assist Staff with community outreach and community engagement. She thought members of the public would attend workshops after the Summit. Council Member Kniss knew the Leadership Group worked hard and provided valuable input. MINUTES 03/16/2015 117- 95 Council Member Filseth appreciated the concept of prioritizing themes into categories and commented that the Council's discussion could benefit significantly from a quantitative element. There was no universal definition of quality of life or growth. Objectivity and clear definitions of and relationships among terms would facilitate the discussion. In order to take a system perspective, a person had to understand the interaction among topics beyond a conceptual level. The Council needed to attempt to measure many of their goals for the Comprehensive Plan in order to determine consequences. Council Member Berman wanted to understand why Safety was included with Natural and Urban Environment. He asked if classification of the two Concept Plans within the Comprehensive Plan was important. Ms. Gitelman did not believe it would be important. No matter where they were located in the Comprehensive Plan, they were part of the Comprehensive Plan. Both Concept Plans had received a great deal of separate attention over the year. Council Member Berman thought quantifying job and population growth had merit. The impacts of changes and addressing those impacts were important. It was important for business and housing to remain compatible; however, the Council was attempting to blend residential and commercial uses within specific areas of the City. Council Member Wolbach suggested an ideal process would include expert lectures, community outreach, community building, and a policy advisory group. He asked Staff to share thoughts about the divergence of the processes for the existing Comprehensive Plan and the Draft Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Gitelman reported the City recognized the need to update the Comprehensive Plan in 2006 and a process began in 2008. Because of the elapsed time, Staff recommended the current process. The Council was certainly able to make changes or adjustments to the process. Mr. Keene recalled in 2006, the Council directed Staff to focus on the two Concept Plans. The economy declined, this caused a shift in the focus away from the Comprehensive Plan. As the Draft Comprehensive Plan was going to be delivered to the Council, the economic turnaround arrived, bringing the pressures of growth. The Council was aware of the big choice issues; it was a mistake for the Council to attempt to align each component and issue. Rather, the Council needed to identify the high-level themes with more details, and then reconcile inconsistencies. More public input was able to MINUTES 03/16/2015 117- 96 occur once the Council provided their vision for the future. He encouraged the Council to identify and discuss key issues sooner rather than later. Council Member Wolbach believed the themes from the existing Comprehensive Plan were good. He thought the language regarding physical boundaries of residential and commercial areas should be changed to consider residential areas intruding on areas that were predominantly commercial. Perhaps the Council was able to consider allowing a mixed use building that focused more on housing rather than on jobs. Meeting housing supply challenges was an important and failing component of the existing Comprehensive Plan. He hoped that theme would be retained and prioritized. The Concept Plans were important, whether they were incorporated into Land Use or remained standalone Elements. A number of areas of the City needed to have a specialized focus. He liked the idea of incorporating the Sustainability/Climate Action Plan into the Comprehensive Plan and concurred with Council Member Filseth regarding the need for quantitative data. Vice Mayor Schmid thought the highest priority was land use. The National Citizens Survey indicated land use was a deep concern for the citizens of Palo Alto. MOTION: Vice Mayor Schmid moved, seconded by Council Member XX that the Summit sessions will explore the impacts of replacing Theme Number 6 - Meeting Residential and Commercial Needs, with the following: 1. the number of residents and the number of employees will grow at the same rate over time; and 2. the rate of growth of jobs and residents will remain at or below the average from 2001-2015. Council Member DuBois inquired whether the number of jobs and residents had to remain the same, even though the ratio improved. Vice Mayor Schmid was asking the Summit to review the impacts of having them grow at the same rate to be discussed at the Summit Meeting on May 30, 2015. Mr. Keene explained that the Summit would launch a series of discussions. Post-Summit work sessions focused on growth management strategies, where this type of discussion would be appropriate. Vice Mayor Schmid was suggesting these topics be presented at the Summit for discussion. MINUTES 03/16/2015 117- 97 MOTION FAILED DUE TO THE LACK OF A SECOND Council Member DuBois agreed a discussion of growth management needed to be part of the Summit and workshops. The Council was able to discuss the Comprehensive Plan through a Committee of the Whole, a Committee Meeting with all the Council Members present. Themes needed to be evaluated with a rubric of “core services,” including “improvements to the City,” and “external things.” “Core services” included schools, traffic, safety, and neighborhoods. “Improving the City” meant changes to transportation, sustainability, retail diversity, and housing supply. “External things” comprised of the City's global reputation, attracting startups, and Palo Alto as a regional destination. The Council had to quantify issues and review relationships and dependencies among data. Each of the Comprehensive Plan themes was important. He ranked themes from highest to lowest as: 1) building community neighborhoods; 2) maintaining and enhancing community character; 3) meeting the housing supply challenge; 4) protecting and repairing natural features; 5) meeting residential and commercial needs; 6) reducing reliance on the automobile; and 7) providing responsive governance and regional leadership. Council Member Filseth mentioned the amount of the City's failure to meet Comprehensive Plan goals and said that was due to the City not following the Comprehensive Plan or to the Comprehensive Plan not addressing issues. Perhaps the Comprehensive Plan was able to include methods to correct mistakes. Council Member Burt felt the Council would have opportunities to quantify goals. The Council determined when that type of ranking and a comparative ranking were appropriate. The Council's discussions were to be informed by the Summit. He wanted to discuss considerations in order to provide a framework for Summit discussions. Current themes overlapped and did not fully reflect current issues. There needed to be a high correlation between Core Values and Comprehensive Plan themes. The Council would have to discuss interactions among themes. Zoning Ordinance changes would reflect changes in the Comprehensive Plan and would better implement the existing Comprehensive Plan. He encouraged Staff to allow the Leadership Group to play a role in the Comprehensive Plan process. A revised theme could have a different meaning and emphasis, even though it was not substantially different from the original theme. He wanted to understand the Council's role in the process. Ms. Gitelman reported Staff proposed involving the Council primarily at major issue points. The Council's discussion of growth management strategies was to continue on March 23, 2015. Shortly thereafter, the MINUTES 03/16/2015 117- 98 Council was going to discuss retail preservation. If the Council wished to schedule sessions to discuss frameworks and semantics, then Staff needed time to fit those into the Agenda schedule. Council Member Wolbach questioned whether the Council's vision included Light Rail and said the Council should provide some direction as to whether they wanted to maintain the timeline for completion of the Comprehensive Plan. He inquired whether the current timeline projected completion of the Comprehensive Plan in the first quarter of 2016. Ms. Gitelman replied yes. Council Member Wolbach asked if the Council wished to provide guidance to Staff regarding the calendar, themes, or the process for engaging the public and/or the Leadership Group at this time. Mr. Keene thought the Council should not offer Motions because they did not complete the discussion. Schedules for the Summit and post-Summit periods were set. The Council seemed to be considering an elongated schedule for the Comprehensive Plan Update process. That was not as important as identifying additional Council sessions prior to the Summit on May 30, 2015 because prior to the Summit, the Council and the public needed a sense of the Council's vision. The Council was able to direct Staff to return with suggestions for other engagements with the Council regarding concepts raised in the current discussion. MOTION: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member Burt to have a deeper discussion on the Comprehensive Plan on the overarching goals and vision statement for each element before the Summit and the Comprehensive Plan process. Ms. Gitelman explained a discussion of an Interim Ordinance regarding retail preservation Citywide would return to the Council after a discussion of growth management strategies. She requested clarification as to whether the Motion requested Staff schedule another discussion. Council Member DuBois did not wish to prescribe a timeframe in the Motion but a discussion prior to the Summit was helpful. Council Member Filseth asked if the California Avenue item remained on the Agenda. Ms. Gitelman explained that the Council would discuss retail preservation Citywide. California Avenue was going to be the first area for specific review, following the Citywide discussion. MINUTES 03/16/2015 117- 99 Council Member Filseth believed a discussion of the California Avenue area was a higher priority. Council Member Wolbach suggested the follow-up discussion be more specific and provide more detailed guidance to Staff, with respect to process items. Council Member DuBois did not wish to set a schedule prior to the Summit. Council Member Burt added that the process would include any guidance on the role of the Leadership Group. Council Member Wolbach inquired if Staff would offer suggestions for the process in their subsequent Staff Report. Ms. Gitelman reported Staff had not yet determined the structure for post- Summit community work sessions. If the Council intended to weigh in prior to the Summit on organization of those discussions, that was welcome. Staff wished to clearly articulate at the Summit what the community was registering. Council Member Wolbach suggested Council Members consider details about process so the subsequent discussion would be more productive. MOTION PASSED: 7-0 Holman, Scharff absent Council took a break from 8:45-8:51 P.M. 6. Review of the Adobe Creek Pedestrian & Cyclist Bridge 2014 Design Competition Process and Outcome, and Authorization to Proceed with Contract Negotiations to Develop a Scope of Work and Cost for Basic Design Services Necessary to Complete Joint California Environmental Quality Act/National Environmental Policy Act Review for the Adobe Creek Pedestrian & Cyclist Bridge. Vice Mayor Schmid inquired whether Staff proposed the Council do more than review the two projects. Mike Sartor, Public Works Director, recommended the Council direct Staff to proceed with negotiations for concept design and environmental review with the winner of the competition. The Council was able to direct Staff to negotiate with one of the other two teams or release a Request for Proposal (RFP) as an alternative solution. MINUTES 03/16/2015 117- 100 Brad Eggleston, Assistant Director of Public Works, outlined the process for the discussion. Teams would provide a 15-minute presentation and show a video of their designs. Vice Mayor Schmid asked if the 15-minute presentation would include the video. Mr. Eggleston answered no. Teams presented their original submissions and noted any changes they proposed to the design. The bridge was located just downstream from the union of Barron and Adobe Creeks. The undercrossing was closed six months of the year due to wet weather and the Adobe Creek Bridge Project became the top priority in the 2012 Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan. The City secured $8.3 million in grant funding for the Project and $1.7 million through the City's Infrastructure Funding Plan. Margie O’Driscoll, Design Competition Advisor, explained that a design competition was utilized in order to achieve architectural innovation and great design. Sixty international firms were invited to participate, 20 of whom were selected to submit designs. A jury selected three designs from 20 submissions. She reviewed design criteria and jury members' qualifications. Videos of the submissions were placed on YouTube and boards were located in the library. A Technical Advisory Panel (TAP) provided feedback for a final jury hearing by advising that HNTB Corporation's design most met all the criteria. The jury, along with four Architectural Review Board (ARB) Members reviewed comments from TAP and the three design submissions. The jury unanimously voted for the HNTB Corporation team. Mr. Eggleston advised that Staff presented the three design submissions to five City Boards and Commissions for comment. Staff's recommendation was based on the jury's decision, discussions about cost and constructability, and feedback from Boards and Commissions. Staff acknowledged concerns around bird safety and was committed to a design process that coordinated with bird safety advocates. Staff requested direction to negotiate design work needed for the environmental review process and would return to the Council for approval of a contract to a certain percentage of design. The contract was not going to provide a complete design or construction. He read design guidelines regarding height of the bridge and Staff interpreted the guidelines as not establishing a maximum height for a bridge over Highway 101. All three submissions met the guidelines. Vice Mayor Schmid requested Staff refer to each team using a single name so that everyone could refer to teams consistently. He inquired about the preferred name for the first team. MINUTES 03/16/2015 117- 101 Mr. Eggleston answered the Moffatt and Nichol Team and the HNTB Team. Gary Antonucci, Moffatt and Nichol, was honored to participate in the competition and to receive high marks from TAP. Steven Grover, Moffatt and Nichol Architect, designed a beautiful, graceful, and unique suspension bridge that supported itself during construction. The bridge did not utilize cables. A single tension member provided vertical support of the main span and torsional support of the side spans. The bridge offered a visual presence that was timeless and elegant. He changed the design subsequent to the competition to refine the fencing design so it was more consistent with the overall architectural vocabulary. The design was dramatic yet context appropriate. If cost was the only criteria, then a standard box bridge would suffice. However, a standard concrete bridge did not meet the visual design goals, it impacted the Baylands more than other alternatives, and it reduced safety. His design achieved visual, environmental, and geometric goals, while retaining many cost benefits of a conventional girder bridge. While the structural system was innovative, construction methods and materials were tried and true. Design standards called for large radius curves with clear, open sightlines as provided in the design. He proposed a pathway configuration that had become a design reference. A mixing zone at the base of ramps reduced the chance of conflicts at intersections. The design did not utilize cables because they presented a hazard to birds but it followed all visual impact guidelines for the Baylands and the project. The bridge did not utilize structural supports in the wetland area. The lighting scheme lit only the traveled way and avoided upward light pollution as well as spillover to the sensitive habitat. Tony Sanchez, Moffatt and Nichol, reported the bridge spanned 235 feet over the freeway and frontage roads. The main load carrying member was a steel box girder. This was a simple and cost effective bridge. The steel box girder on both sides of the deck connected with floor beams, which were covered by a concrete deck. The stiff deck was designed to take 100 percent of the dead load. The bridge had the capability to be erected with a partial freeway closure. Engineering and analysis indicated the bridge was well within Code limits. Jiri Strasky analyzed and tested bridge concepts. Mr. Antonucci stated the concept met any possible interpretation of design guidelines and was vetted and endorsed by world-class bridge engineers. He would be very excited to deliver such a bridge. Wil Carson, HNTB Corporation, indicated the defining opportunity for the project was innovation. The bridge design had the potential to create a new paradigm for what infrastructure could do. The bridge was versatile, MINUTES 03/16/2015 117- 102 interconnected, provided for conservation, and was innovative in many ways. The bridge was designed to be as light and transparent as possible. Structural members and the bridge deck were only 18 inches deep; the bridge reached 18 feet in height over the Baylands. Over Highway 101, the arch and cable net created a cathedral-like space that gestured skyward. The bridge deck was curved and reflected the graceful contours of the Baylands. The design avoided structure in the medians, tower supports in the Baylands, and did not conflict with a gas main. Steel arches were one of the most cost-effective structure types. The bridge was visually and physically light. The bridge was to be driven into place, which resulted in closure of the freeway for only one night. Shortcut stairs were located at either side of the freeway, which allowed for direct access. The lighting design balanced pedestrian safety while minimizing environmental impacts. Marcel Wilson, HNTB Corporation, reported the bridge would be transformative, increase public health, and increase enjoyment of the Baylands. Amenities included a tire station, water fountain, bike storage, a restroom, and seating. The area was to serve as a departure point for an outing in the Baylands, or as a destination in and of itself. The vernal pool, boardwalk, and restroom were located on a lower level and the design and elements could adapt to sea level rise. Ned Kahn, HNTB Corporation, designed a thin metal element to make the wind visible. Mr. Carson advised that the team met with local environmental groups regarding bird safety. Research demonstrated that bird diverters were effective. Subsequent to the design competition, the height of the bridge was reduced 20-25 feet and an on-grade ramp was added to the north side. Judith Wasserman, Jury Chair, was surprised to receive submissions for the competition after she read the stringent design guidelines. Juror Burrows was familiar with many team members and their work. The three teams were chosen based on their qualifications and experience rather than a design. The TAP reviewed only written and graphic materials. She was astounded by the quality and beauty of the three designs. Four of the five jurors favored the HNTB team; she noted that the public presentations were unusual. Both designs were wheelchair accessible but the design and build process was not complete until the ribbon cutting ceremony was held. She encouraged the Council to follow the direction of the jury. Keith Wandry was appalled by the cost of the proposed bridge and suggested a simple bridge at a lower cost because it could free up funds for MINUTES 03/16/2015 117- 103 programs to prevent youth suicide. Metal disks reflected the sun into commuters' eyes. Jeff Hosea, Sera Architects representing Google, read a letter from Google and mentioned the bridge would benefit the entire region. Google was willing to work with the City in granting an easement for the project to cross its property. Google preferred the design of the Moffatt and Nichol team. Kirk Gharda, Sierra Club, preferred the design of the Moffatt and Nichol team because the bridge design should focus on enabling access to nature and improving the Baylands. Alice Mansell indicated that the environmental review would be difficult and said the bird diverters would be hazardous for drivers. She requested the Council select the Moffatt and Nichol design. Emily Renzel supported the Moffatt and Nichol design as it fit into the low- key profile of the Baylands and Palo Alto. The glint of bird diverters distracted drivers, as would birds falling into traffic after having struck bridge cables. This area of Highway 101 was a high accident area. Roy Snyder indicated a simple, expeditiously built, and cost-effective overcrossing was needed. Bridge amenities were superfluous. The City did not need to build a star-spangled, arched bridge. The suspension arch concept detracted from the ambience and serenity of the natural beauty of the Baylands. Carl Jones was looking forward to a bridge over Highway 101. Both designs were gorgeous. He did not favor motion-based lighting and said he favored a northbound access to the bridge. Shelby Sinkler, Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society, supported the Moffatt and Nichol submission because it embraced all design criteria and guidelines and did not attempt to mitigate bird safety. She reviewed correspondence from the public and stated that 83 letters opposed Submission A, HNTB and 76 letters supported Submission C, Moffatt and Nichol. Claire Elliott was excited by the prospect of a year-round overpass and by Submission C, Moffatt and Nichol. She was concerned about bird safety with respect to Submission A, HNTB. Migrating birds traveled through Palo Alto. Michael Heaney noted the Moffatt and Nichol design segregated pedestrians from cyclists with only a painted line. The HNTB design utilized a barrier. That barrier would prevent collisions between cyclists and pedestrians. MINUTES 03/16/2015 117- 104 Shira Shaham stated the Moffatt and Nichol design met the requirement for harmonious coexistence with wildlife. The HNTB design seemed to be the better design from the user's perspective; however, the suspension structure was harmful. Joann Edwards encouraged the Council to honor the jury process by selecting the Moffatt and Nichol design. The HNTB design offered grace and function over a lackluster freeway. Mike Ferreira, Sierra Club, supported Submission C by the Moffatt and Nichol team. He thought Submission A, HNTB should be moved away from migration corridors. Shani Kleinhaus, Audubon Society, explained that bird diverters were developed for use with power lines. She noted that birds would be injured by the lattice of cables in Submission A, HNTB. Jim Foley concurred with Staff's and the jury's recommendation of the HNTB design. Heidi Trilling felt the jury process was skewed in that the jury's selection was not final. The jury process was as important as the bridge design. Gila Dev, Sierra Club, was excited by the prospect of a bicycle bridge. Submission C, Moffatt and Nichol was the better choice. Beverly Benson supported the Moffatt and Nichol design. Kirsten Daehler relayed that she was a mother and science teacher and she agreed with the selection of the HNTB design. She commended the Council for using the jury process. Deidre Crommie, speaking as an individual, stated access to the Baylands was important. She supported the Moffatt and Nichol design and said the bridge should not be a destination but should be integrated with the Baylands. Penny Ellson, speaking as an individual, thanked both teams for providing beautiful designs. She expressed concern about the possible danger to birds posed by bridge designs and asked the Council to make the research available to the public. Eileen McLaughlin, Citizens Committee to Complete the Refuge, supported building a bike bridge. She expressed concern about the lack of environmental review in the design process. MINUTES 03/16/2015 117- 105 James Keene, City Manager, requested Agenda Item Number 7 be continued to a date uncertain. MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Council Member Filseth to continue Agenda Item Number 7 - Colleagues' Memo From Mayor Holman, Council Members Burt, Schmid, and Wolbach Regarding Strengthening City Engagement with Neighborhoods, to a date uncertain. MOTION PASSED: 6-1 Wolbach no, Holman, Scharff absent Mr. Sartor advised that Ms. Wasserman provided good points regarding the jury process. He supported Staff's recommendation. Mr. Keene indicated the Council may need additional information prior to making a selection of a design. Council Member Burt reported the Council received additional information regarding risks and benefits of Submission A, HNTB with respect to birds. Submission A, HNTB appeared to have inherently higher risks to birds than Submission C, Moffatt and Nichol. He asked how that information was considered in the review process. Mr. Eggleston advised that wildlife safety was a design guideline for the competition. He did not recall specific discussion of threats to birds. Council Member Burt questioned the jury's choice of a design with a higher risk to bird safety, which was contrary to design guidelines. Mr. Eggleston stated the jury discussed the diverter disks as a mitigating factor for bird safety. Members of the public did not raise concerns for bird safety during the competition. Council Member Burt inquired about a method to obtain an independent assessment of risks to bird safety. Mr. Eggleston remarked that the HNTB team and the Audubon Society had provided names of experts who supported both positions. Council Member Burt recalled Submission C, Moffatt and Nichol did not have a separation made for cyclists and pedestrians. He asked if anyone questioned Moffatt and Nichol as to whether a separation was feasible for their design. Mr. Eggleston understood Moffatt and Nichol explained during the competition that their submission provided a small, two to three inch vertical separation for cyclists and pedestrians. MINUTES 03/16/2015 117- 106 Council Member Burt requested the Moffatt and Nichol team respond to his question. Mr. Grover explained that the design included a vertical separation; the same mode separation utilized in the Homer Avenue underpass and the Berkeley Bike Bridge. The mode separation was proven to be successful. Council Member Burt asked if Mr. Grover meant a full separation was not safer for cyclists and pedestrians. Mr. Grover explained that a stopped rider in a segregated path blocked traffic behind him. Council Member Burt repeated his question. Mr. Grover felt creating a barrier between the separation was a possible hazard. Council Member Burt noted safety and hazard elements relating to a full separation, and asked if there was a net effect from those elements. Mr. Grover advised that best practices indicated a wider path integrating mode separation, striping, and signage. Council Member Burt requested the width of the two designs. Elizabeth Ames, Project Manager, reported both designs could offer an 18 foot wide facility and said the HNTB clearly provided an 18 foot design. She requested the Moffatt and Nichol team verify the width of their design. Mr. Grover indicated his design provided a six foot sidewalk and two bike lines, five feet wide each, along with shy distance. The total width was approximately 18 feet. Council Member Burt requested clarification of the width of the design. Mr. Grover explained that shy distance was the additional distance next to a barrier. The two lanes, sidewalk, and shy distance totaled 18 feet. Mr. Carson clarified that the width along the mode separation totaled 19 feet. Both curves were wider by nine feet along the inner radius and 12 feet along the outer radius. Over the freeway, the width was 22 feet. Council Member Burt inquired about validation of costs, and mechanisms that ensured a cost overrun did not occur. MINUTES 03/16/2015 117- 107 Mr. Eggleston reported the design phase was preliminary and costs could not be fully determined. The $8 million construction cost was included in the competition. Teams submitted estimates of construction costs. The TAP advised that elements of the designs would not dramatically increase costs. Council Member Burt asked what would happen if the selected design exceeded $8 million in costs. Mr. Sartor relayed that the contract could include a requirement for the designer to remain within the budget. Cost estimates were to be performed at various stages of design. If cost estimates exceeded the budget, the designer was required to alter the design or to perform “value engineering,” a method used to improve the value of goods or services by using an examination of function, to bring costs within budget. Council Member Burt inquired about the consequences if the design had to be altered to remain within budget and those alterations affected aspects favored by the City. Mr. Keene was asking about the ability to change designs in a value engineering situation. Mr. Eggleston believed the next design phase, which included environmental review, would provide better cost estimates. The cost for the next design phase would be a couple hundred thousand dollars. Council Member Burt understood the City could have more confidence in cost estimates at the next design phase. Should cost estimates exceed budget in the next phase, the risk to the City was a couple hundred thousand dollars. Mr. Eggleston concurred. Council Member Burt asked if Staff agreed that Submission C, Moffatt and Nichol could have fewer problems obtaining Caltrans’ approval, along with the environmental approvals. Mr. Eggleston reported Caltrans did not typically review these design ideas and they were not keen on the City utilizing a design competition. Comments regarding Caltrans review came from the TAP meeting. Council Member Burt inquired whether Staff could provide additional information regarding the design least likely to have problems with the environmental and Caltrans reviews. Mr. Eggleston responded yes. MINUTES 03/16/2015 117- 108 Council Member Wolbach questioned whether the competition provided options that would not have been provided through a Request for Proposal (RFP) and remarked that the Council should not simply defer to the jury's selection. The competition was primarily an architectural contest. Design, construction, and lifetime costs should be inexpensive. He asked if mosquitoes were a consideration in designing the vernal pool of Submission A, HNTB. Mr. Eggleston believed the water was static. Mr. Wilson advised that water in the vernal pool would act like water in the Baylands. The vernal pool was a facility that treated storm water. Council Member Wolbach inquired about lifetime costs and including those in a contract. Mr. Eggleston offered to provide that information at a later time. Neither design was expected to have significant costs, and both were expected to have long life spans. Council Member Wolbach asked if construction times were comparable for the designs. Mr. Eggleston thought they would be the same. Council Member Wolbach asked if a contract could provide penalties for construction delays and overruns. Molly Stump, City Attorney, reported public agencies could incentivize prompt building in the construction phase. In the current phase, teams were concerned with constructability. Council Member Wolbach inquired whether the Moffat and Nichol design addressed the PG&E easement. Mr. Eggleston was not aware of a conflict between Submission C, Moffatt and Nichol and the easement, as Moffat and Nichol had utilized the alignment provided with the design guidelines. Ms. Ames advised that a 20-foot easement and a 36-inch gas main were located near the column proposed by Moffatt and Nichol. No structure should be placed in the easement. Mr. Sanchez reported that the column was located a sufficient distance from the easement. If the City proceeded with the Moffatt and Nichol design, they were to verify there was no conflict with the easement. MINUTES 03/16/2015 117- 109 Council Member Wolbach asked if improving bike and pedestrian safety on the San Antonio overpass was considered as a viable and less expensive alternative. Mr. Eggleston understood that was not considered in the Feasibility Study. Mr. Keene did not recall any discussion over the past four or five years in that regard. Council Member Kniss inquired whether public comment would be allowed at a subsequent meeting, should the Council direct Staff to return with additional information. Ms. Stump answered yes. Council Member Kniss expressed concern that Mayor Holman could not be present when she was responsible for the competition. She requested Staff comment on whether this item could be continued to allow Mayor Holman to participate. Mr. Keene was not able to contemplate a subsequent meeting without taking public comment and Staff providing additional information. Council Member Kniss asked if Submission A, HNTB provided divided lanes for cyclists and pedestrians. Mr. Eggleston replied yes. Council Member Kniss heard the design team state both designs were safe, yet she was not convinced of that. She preferred a barrier between the lanes. Mr. Eggleston indicated the barrier was discussed during the competition, and Boards and Commissions supported the vertical separation. Council Member Kniss did not wish to delay the project further but said she was concerned about safety. She thought either design would be spectacular. MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Council Member XX to direct Staff to proceed with contract negotiations with HNTB Corporation, the party voted the winner by the design competition jury of the Adobe Creek Pedestrian & Cyclist Bridge 2014 Design Competition. Contract negotiations will develop a scope of work and cost of the basic design services necessary to complete joint California Environmental Quality MINUTES 03/16/2015 117- 110 Act/National Environmental Policy act review for the Adobe Creek Pedestrian & Cyclist Bridge. MOTION FAILED DUE TO THE LACK OF A SECOND Council Member Berman inquired about the meaning of “very successful” in relation to a design and about the safety of the Berkeley Bike Bridge. Mr. Grover was not aware of any accidents on the Berkeley Bike Bridge. The lanes in the design were separate. The sidewalks on the bridge were separated from the pathway by a 2 ½ inch sloped curb. The curb was sloped to provide some safety to a cyclist who lost control of his bike. Mr. Keene advised he was City Manager of Berkeley when the bike bridge design was chosen. He did not encounter any issues with the design of the Berkeley Bridge while using the bridge. A lane separation was an advantage for multigenerational users of the Palo Alto Bike Bridge. Council Member Berman asked if the safety concern was a fatal flaw for the Moffatt and Nichol design. Ms. Wasserman reported constructability and aesthetics rather than safety concerns pushed the jury toward selecting HNTB's design. Council Member Berman asked if the bird diverters created noise. Mr. Kahn relayed that the disks would make a subtle sound in extreme wind, but it would not be audible over traffic noise. Council Member Berman asked if 100 disks would make sufficient noise to be audible. Mr. Kahn could design the disks to be silent if noise was an issue. Council Member Berman asked if car lights would reflect off the disks. Mr. Kahn noted that it was possible to adjust the surface reflectivity of disks from shiny to matte. He had 60 installations of disks across the world, and disks had not caused any auto accidents. Disks reflected only a tiny fraction of light. Mr. Carson asked if Council Member Berman meant to question whether the disks would be visible at night. Council Member Berman wanted to understand whether car lights would reflect off disks. MINUTES 03/16/2015 117- 111 Mr. Carson asked if Council Member Berman understood the function of the UV element. Council Member Berman responded no. Mr. Carson explained that bird diverters contained an element that absorbed light during the day and emitted it at night. Night birds were able to utilize that light to image the disks. Council Member Berman recalled comments that the HNTB design would have northbound access on the west side of the highway. He asked if that also applied to the Moffatt and Nichol design. Mr. Grover answered yes. Google favored stairs at that access location. He offered to include a bike rail, as a member of the public suggested. Council Member Berman asked if Staff made it clear that the Council would have final approval of the design. Mr. Eggleston responded yes. Council Member Berman asked if Staff made it clear that the Council did not have to accept the jury's selection. Mr. Eggleston answered yes. Council Member Berman did not believe the Council should concede approval of a design or construction project to any entity. Both designs were well executed and appropriate. The lower profile of the Moffatt and Nichol design was appropriate for the Baylands environment. MOTION: Council Member Berman moved, seconded by Council Member Filseth to proceed with contract negotiations with Moffatt and Nichol Design Group. Council Member Filseth concurred with Council Member Berman's comments. Both designs were beautiful bridges. In the long run, Palo Alto residents were happier with the Moffatt and Nichol design. He thought in 20 or 30 years, the absence of architecture in the Baylands would be striking. Council Member DuBois favored emphasizing the Baylands over the bridge. Council Member Burt agreed Submission C, Moffatt and Nichol was context appropriate for the Baylands; both designs were exceptional. He preferred to have information about bird safety before selecting a design though. MINUTES 03/16/2015 117- 112 Vice Mayor Schmid agreed bird safety was an issue. The arch design was a distraction from the openness of the Baylands. Mr. Keene wanted to perform additional research regarding costs before spending a couple hundred thousand dollars for additional design. The Moffatt and Nichol design had not been implemented previously. Managing costs was always a concern for the City. Council Member Berman agreed with Staff performing due diligence. Vice Mayor Schmid asked if Council Member Berman wished to include a timeframe for Staff to return with information. Mr. Keene advised that Staff could provide that information along with the contract. MOTION PASSED: 7-0 Holman, Scharff absent Council Member Burt reported the design competition provided two exceptional designs. The Council selected a context appropriate design over an exceptional architectural design. The process worked well. 7. Colleagues' Memo From Mayor Holman, Council Members Burt, Schmid, and Wolbach Regarding Strengthening City Engagement with Neighborhoods. Closed Session MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Council Member Wolbach to go into Closed Session. MOTION PASSED: 7-0 Holman, Scharff absent The Council went into the closed session at 11:32 P.M. 8. PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT Title: City Clerk Authority: Government Code Section 54957 (b) 9. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS, CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8 Property: U.S. Post Office, 380 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto 94301 Agency Negotiators: James Keene, Lalo Perez, Hamid Ghaemmaghami, Joe Saccio, Hillary Gitelman, Aaron Aknin, Meg Monroe, Molly Stump, Cara Silver Negotiating Parties: City of Palo Alto and United States Post Office MINUTES 03/16/2015 117- 113 Under Negotiation: Purchase: Price and Terms of Payment The Council reconvened from the Closed Session at 12:29 A.M. Vice Mayor Schmid advised no reportable action. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 12:30 A.M. ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Sections 2.04.180(a) and (b). The City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are made solely for the purpose of facilitating the preparation of the minutes of the meetings. City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are recycled 90 days from the date of the meeting. The tapes are available for members of the public to listen to during regular office hours. City of Palo Alto (ID # 5680) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 5/4/2015 Summary Title: Contract Award to Walker Parking Consultants for Parking Techn. Title: Approval of the Award of Contract Number C15157200 for $191,760 to Walker Parking for Design of Parking Access and Revenue Controls (PARCs) and Parking Guidance Systems (PGS), and Approval of a Budget Amendment Ordinance to Transfer $171,760 from the University Avenue Parking Permit Fund to Capital Improvement Project (CIP) PL-15002, Garage Technologies Project From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that Council direct Staff to: 1. Authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute a contract for $191,760.00 to Walker Parking for design of Parking Access and Revenue Controls (PARCs) and Parking Guidance Systems (PGS) for Downtown lots and garages, and 2. Approve the attached Budget Amendment Ordinance (BAO) to transfer $171,760 from the University Avenue Parking Permit Fund to Capital Improvement Project (CIP) PL- 15002, Garage Technologies Project Executive Summary Since early 2014, the City has been engaged in several related initiatives aimed at reducing Downtown parking demand, improving management of existing parking resources and investigating options for additional parking supply. On August 18, 2014, Staff presented to Council a summary of the Downtown’s estimated parking supply and occupancy challenges and noted the benefits associated with improved parking management, including potential increased occupancy in parking garages and lots, better management of annual parking permits, real-time garage and lot occupancy data and overall better control of parking resources. Council directed staff to move forward with an RFP for integrated Parking Guidance System and Parking Access and Revenue Control Technology for the Downtown Parking Lots and Garages. This report summarizes the City’s RFP process for the work and recommendation for contract award. City of Palo Alto Page 1 Background Staff released an RFP on January 15, 2015, requesting proposals for design and construction administration services of an integrated parking facility management system, lane control equipment, pay-on-foot stations and parking guidance systems for the four city-owned garages, and as an add-alternate, for the City’s surface lots. The City received one responsive proposal to the solicitation. This staff report summarizes the considerations associated with the work and staff’s recommendation to award the contract to Walker Parking. Discussion The RFP identified several parking priorities for the City based on Downtown parking stakeholder feedback and a report generated by the city’s parking consultant. Staff released the solicitation as a design-bid-build project so that the selected designer would be able to develop an appropriate solution based on City requirements, and produce a design and equipment specifications that could then be bid out competitively to prospective vendors. The City received one responsive proposal for the work from Walker Parking, a pre-eminent parking consultant working in several Bay Area cities and around the country. Staff expects that many vendors are primarily interested in bidding on the construction of the work rather than the design component (vendors who bid on design are precluded from bidding on construction). City staff performed several reference checks with clients of Walker and received all positive feedback on Walker’s experience, understanding of parking technology and ability to design relevant and effective parking solutions. The scope of the work which Walker would perform includes the following: Site Analysis and Programming Phase Walker will provide a site analysis of the garages, identifying any required medians/islands and concrete pours which would be required for installation of equipment, and develop conceptual drawings of garage entryways depicting schematic layouts of the preferred equipment. Walker will also meet with project stakeholders, including Downtown business owners and customers, to identify equipment which would best meet the needs of the community. System Design Development Phase During this phase, Walker will prepare detailed design drawings and specifications for equipment installation and any civil, electrical or mechanical work required for the installation. The consultant shall develop all construction plans, details and specifications. Additionally, Walker will coordinate with the Wayfinding consultant (Hunt Design) on specification of PGS technology and proposed signage locations at the garages and Downtown. Pre-Construction Phase During Pre-Construction, Walker will develop bid documents for a competitive bid, including detailed specifications for equipment and installation and probable equipment cost. In addition, City of Palo Alto Page 2 Walker will prepare a location plan of equipment and submit to the City for review, and revise as needed to City’s satisfaction. Construction Administration Phase Once the selected contractor is on board, Walker will review and respond to Contractor submittals and requests for substitutions, and any requests for information or clarification. Walker will also conduct a final inspection at the completion of the installation to insure appropriate installation, location and quality of equipment. Concurrently with the design work, the City plans to issue an RFP for a consultant to study the potential impacts of paid parking in the commercial Downtown. Timeline Once awarded, Walker’s work would take between 6-7 months for design, including ARB review as required. Construction schedule would depend on particular equipment specification and schedule agreed to between the City and the PARCs contractor installers. Resource Impact Walker’s contract is for $191,760.00, which will be funded from the newly-created Parking Guidance Systems, Access Controls, and Revenue Collection Equipment (PL-15002) in the Capital Improvement Fund. As part of the Fiscal Year 2015 Mid-Year report, this project was established, with funding in the amount of $20,000. . Staff requests approval of the attached BAO to appropriate funding for this work, which would be offset by a transfer from the University Avenue Parking Permit Fund. Walker will be developing an estimate of probable construction cost based on the proposed design and equipment during Fiscal Year 2016. Policy Implications Implementing PARCs and PGS equipment in garages is consistent with Council-directed integrated parking policy to improve management of parking permit distribution and increase utilization in garages and lots. Providing the infrastructure for paid parking is a first step in facilitating alternative mode shift, and is a crucial piece of the City’s multi-pronged parking management strategy. Environmental Review The proposed contract would provide for design and installation of equipment that would be used to better manage existing parking supplies and would not add or eliminate parking spaces and any physical changes will be subject to review by the Architectural Review Board. For these reasons, it can be seen with certainty that the proposed project does not have the potential to cause significant environmental impacts and the project does not require review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). Attachments:  A: Walker Parking Construction Contract C15157200 (PDF)  B: Budget Amendment Ordinance for CMR 5680 (DOCX) City of Palo Alto Page 3 DocuSign Envelope ID: 433A1989-1A71-4F57-89C9-76C3EEDB7855 CONSULTANT. SECTION 4. NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION. The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT for performance of the Services described in Exhibit “A”, including both payment for professional services and reimbursable expenses, shall not exceed One Hundred Ninety One Thousand Seven Hundred Sixty Dollars ($191,760.00). The applicable rates and schedule of payment are set out in Exhibit “C-1”, entitled “HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE,” which is attached to and made a part of this Agreement. Additional Services, if any, shall be authorized in accordance with and subject to the provisions of Exhibit “C”. CONSULTANT shall not receive any compensation for Additional Services performed without the prior written authorization of CITY. Additional Services shall mean any work that is determined by CITY to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but which is not included within the Scope of Services described in Exhibit “A”. SECTION 5. INVOICES. In order to request payment, CONSULTANT shall submit monthly invoices to the CITY describing the services performed and the applicable charges (including an identification of personnel who performed the services, hours worked, hourly rates, and reimbursable expenses), based upon the CONSULTANT’s billing rates (set forth in Exhibit “C-1”). If applicable, the invoice shall also describe the percentage of completion of each task. The information in CONSULTANT’s payment requests shall be subject to verification by CITY. CONSULTANT shall send all invoices to the City’s project manager at the address specified in Section 13 below. The City will generally process and pay invoices within thirty (30) days of receipt. SECTION 6. QUALIFICATIONS/STANDARD OF CARE. All of the Services shall be performed by CONSULTANT or under CONSULTANT’s supervision. CONSULTANT represents that it possesses the professional and technical personnel necessary to perform the Services required by this Agreement and that the personnel have sufficient skill and experience to perform the Services assigned to them. CONSULTANT represents that it, its employees and subconsultants, if permitted, have and shall maintain during the term of this Agreement all licenses, permits, qualifications, insurance and approvals of whatever nature that are legally required to perform the Services. All of the services to be furnished by CONSULTANT under this agreement shall meet the professional standard and quality that prevail among professionals in the same discipline and of similar knowledge and skill engaged in related work throughout California under the same or similar circumstances. SECTION 7. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS. CONSULTANT shall keep itself informed of and in compliance with all federal, state and local laws, ordinances, regulations, and orders that may affect in any manner the Project or the performance of the Services or those engaged to perform Services under this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall procure all permits and licenses, pay all charges and fees, and give all notices required by law in the performance of the Services. SECTION 8. ERRORS/OMISSIONS. CONSULTANT shall correct, at no cost to CITY, any and all errors, omissions, or ambiguities in the work product submitted to CITY, provided CITY Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 2 DocuSign Envelope ID: 433A1989-1A71-4F57-89C9-76C3EEDB7855 gives notice to CONSULTANT. If CONSULTANT has prepared plans and specifications or other design documents to construct the Project, CONSULTANT shall be obligated to correct any and all errors, omissions or ambiguities discovered prior to and during the course of construction of the Project. This obligation shall survive termination of the Agreement. SECTION 9. COST ESTIMATES. If this Agreement pertains to the design of a public works project, CONSULTANT shall submit estimates of probable construction costs at each phase of design submittal. If the total estimated construction cost at any submittal exceeds ten percent (10%) of the CITY’s stated construction budget, CONSULTANT shall make recommendations to the CITY for aligning the PROJECT design with the budget, incorporate CITY approved recommendations, and revise the design to meet the Project budget, at no additional cost to CITY. SECTION 10. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. It is understood and agreed that in performing the Services under this Agreement CONSULTANT, and any person employed by or contracted with CONSULTANT to furnish labor and/or materials under this Agreement, shall act as and be an independent contractor and not an agent or employee of the CITY. SECTION 11. ASSIGNMENT. The parties agree that the expertise and experience of CONSULTANT are material considerations for this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall not assign or transfer any interest in this Agreement nor the performance of any of CONSULTANT’s obligations hereunder without the prior written consent of the city manager. Consent to one assignment will not be deemed to be consent to any subsequent assignment. Any assignment made without the approval of the city manager will be void. SECTION 12. SUBCONTRACTING. CONSULTANT shall not subcontract any portion of the work to be performed under this Agreement without the prior written authorization of the city manager or designee. CONSULTANT shall be responsible for directing the work of any subconsultants and for any compensation due to subconsultants. CITY assumes no responsibility whatsoever concerning compensation. CONSULTANT shall be fully responsible to CITY for all acts and omissions of a subconsultant. CONSULTANT shall change or add subconsultants only with the prior approval of the city manager or his designee. SECTION 13. PROJECT MANAGEMENT. CONSULTANT will assign Michael Robertson as the Principal-in-Charge to have supervisory responsibility for the performance, progress, and execution of the Services and James Maglothin as the Project Manager to represent CONSULTANT during the day-to-day work on the Project. If circumstances cause the substitution of the project director, project coordinator, or any other key personnel for any reason, the appointment of a substitute project director and the assignment of any key new or replacement personnel will be subject to the prior written approval of the CITY’s project manager. CONSULTANT, at CITY’s request, shall promptly remove personnel who CITY finds do not perform the Services in an acceptable manner, are uncooperative, or present a threat to the adequate or timely completion of the Project or a threat to the safety of persons or property. Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 3 DocuSign Envelope ID: 433A1989-1A71-4F57-89C9-76C3EEDB7855 The City’s project manager is Jessica Sullivan, Planning & Community Environment Department, Transportation Division, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94303, Telephone: (650) 329-2453. The project manager will be CONSULTANT’s point of contact with respect to performance, progress and execution of the Services. The CITY may designate an alternate project manager from time to time. SECTION 14. OWNERSHIP OF MATERIALS. Upon delivery, all work product, including without limitation, all writings, drawings, plans, reports, , calculations, documents, other materials and copyright interests developed under this Agreement shall be and remain the exclusive property of CITY without restriction or limitation upon their use. CONSULTANT agrees that all copyrights which arise from creation of the work pursuant to this Agreement shall be vested in CITY, and CONSULTANT waives and relinquishes all claims to copyright or other intellectual property rights in favor of the CITY. Neither CONSULTANT nor its contractors, if any, shall make any of such materials available to any individual or organization without the prior written approval of the City Manager or designee. CONSULTANT makes no representation of the suitability of the work product for use in or application to circumstances not contemplated by the scope of work. The Consultant shall retain the copyrights to both the Parking Access and Revenue Control System (PARCS) and Parking Guidance System (PGS) specifications. SECTION 15. AUDITS. CONSULTANT will permit CITY to audit, at any reasonable time during the term of this Agreement and for three (3) years thereafter, CONSULTANT’s records pertaining to matters covered by this Agreement. CONSULTANT further agrees to maintain and retain such records for at least three (3) years after the expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement. SECTION 16. INDEMNITY. 16.1. To the fullest extent permitted by law, CONSULTANT shall protect, indemnify, defend and hold harmless CITY, its Council members, officers, employees and agents (each an “Indemnified Party”) from and against any and all demands, claims, or liability of any nature, including death or injury to any person, property damage or any other loss, including all costs and expenses of whatever nature including attorneys fees, experts fees, court costs and disbursements (“Claims”) that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of the CONSULTANT, its officers, employees, agents or contractors under this Agreement, regardless of whether or not it is caused in part by an Indemnified Party. 16.2. Notwithstanding the above, nothing in this Section 16 shall be construed to require CONSULTANT to indemnify an Indemnified Party from Claims arising from the active negligence, sole negligence or willful misconduct of an Indemnified Party. 16.3. The acceptance of CONSULTANT’s services and duties by CITY shall not operate as a waiver of the right of indemnification. The provisions of this Section 16 shall survive the expiration or early termination of this Agreement. SECTION 17. WAIVERS. The waiver by either party of any breach or violation of any Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 5 DocuSign Envelope ID: 433A1989-1A71-4F57-89C9-76C3EEDB7855 covenant, term, condition or provision of this Agreement, or of the provisions of any ordinance or law, will not be deemed to be a waiver of any other term, covenant, condition, provisions, ordinance or law, or of any subsequent breach or violation of the same or of any other term, covenant, condition, provision, ordinance or law. SECTION 18. INSURANCE. 18.1. CONSULTANT, at its sole cost and expense, shall obtain and maintain, in full force and effect during the term of this Agreement, the insurance coverage described in Exhibit "D". CONSULTANT and its contractors, if any, shall obtain a policy endorsement naming CITY as an additional insured under any general liability or automobile policy or policies. 18.2. All insurance coverage required hereunder shall be provided through carriers with AM Best’s Key Rating Guide ratings of A-:VII or higher which are licensed or authorized to transact insurance business in the State of California. Any and all contractors of CONSULTANT retained to perform Services under this Agreement will obtain and maintain, in full force and effect during the term of this Agreement, identical insurance coverage, naming CITY as an additional insured under such policies as required above. 18.3. Certificates evidencing such insurance shall be filed with CITY concurrently with the execution of this Agreement. The certificates will be subject to the approval of CITY’s Risk Manager and will contain an endorsement stating that the insurance is primary coverage and will not be canceled, or materially reduced in coverage or limits, by the insurer except after filing with the Purchasing Manager thirty (30) days' prior written notice of the cancellation or modification. If the insurer cancels or modifies the insurance and provides less than thirty (30) days’ notice to CONSULTANT, CONSULTANT shall provide the Purchasing Manager written notice of the cancellation or modification within two (2) business days of the CONSULTANT’s receipt of such notice. CONSULTANT shall be responsible for ensuring that current certificates evidencing the insurance are provided to CITY’s Purchasing Manager during the entire term of this Agreement. 18.4. The procuring of such required policy or policies of insurance will not be construed to limit CONSULTANT's liability hereunder nor to fulfill the indemnification provisions of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the policy or policies of insurance, CONSULTANT will be obligated for the full and total amount of any damage, injury, or loss caused by or directly arising as a result of the Services performed under this Agreement, including such damage, injury, or loss arising after the Agreement is terminated or the term has expired. SECTION 19. TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION OF AGREEMENT OR SERVICES. 19.1. The City Manager may suspend the performance of the Services, in whole or in part, or terminate this Agreement, with or without cause, by giving ten (10) days prior written notice thereof to CONSULTANT. Upon receipt of such notice, CONSULTANT will immediately discontinue its performance of the Services. Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 6 DocuSign Envelope ID: 433A1989-1A71-4F57-89C9-76C3EEDB7855 19.2. CONSULTANT may terminate this Agreement or suspend its performance of the Services by giving thirty (30) days prior written notice thereof to CITY, but only in the event of a substantial failure of performance by CITY. 19.3. Upon such suspension or termination, CONSULTANT shall deliver to the City Manager immediately any and all copies of studies, sketches, drawings, computations, and other data, whether or not completed, prepared by CONSULTANT or its contractors, if any, or given to CONSULTANT or its contractors, if any, in connection with this Agreement. Such materials will become the property of CITY. 19.4. Upon such suspension or termination by CITY, CONSULTANT will be paid for the Services rendered or materials delivered to CITY in accordance with the scope of services on or before the effective date (i.e., 10 days after giving notice) of suspension or termination; provided, however, if this Agreement is suspended or terminated on account of a default by CONSULTANT, CITY will be obligated to compensate CONSULTANT only for that portion of CONSULTANT’s services which are of direct and immediate benefit to CITY as such determination may be made by the City Manager acting in the reasonable exercise of his/her discretion. The following Sections will survive any expiration or termination of this Agreement: 14, 15, 16, 19.4, 20, and 25. 19.5. No payment, partial payment, acceptance, or partial acceptance by CITY will operate as a waiver on the part of CITY of any of its rights under this Agreement. SECTION 20. NOTICES. All notices hereunder will be given in writing and mailed, postage prepaid, by certified mail, addressed as follows: To CITY: Office of the City Clerk City of Palo Alto Post Office Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 With a copy to the Purchasing Manager To CONSULTANT: Attention of the project director at the address of CONSULTANT recited above SECTION 21. CONFLICT OF INTEREST. 21.1. In accepting this Agreement, CONSULTANT covenants that it presently has no interest, and will not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, financial or otherwise, which would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of the Services. 21.2. CONSULTANT further covenants that, in the performance of this Agreement, it will not employ subconsultants, contractors or persons having such an interest. Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 7 DocuSign Envelope ID: 433A1989-1A71-4F57-89C9-76C3EEDB7855 CONSULTANT certifies that no person who has or will have any financial interest under this Agreement is an officer or employee of CITY; this provision will be interpreted in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Government Code of the State of California. 21.3. If the Project Manager determines that CONSULTANT is a “Consultant” as that term is defined by the Regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission, CONSULTANT shall be required and agrees to file the appropriate financial disclosure documents required by the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Political Reform Act. SECTION 22. NONDISCRIMINATION. As set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code section 2.30.510, CONSULTANT certifies that in the performance of this Agreement, it shall not discriminate in the employment of any person because of the race, skin color, gender, age, religion, disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, housing status, marital status, familial status, weight or height of such person. CONSULTANT acknowledges that it has read and understands the provisions of Section 2.30.510 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code relating to Nondiscrimination Requirements and the penalties for violation thereof, and agrees to meet all requirements of Section 2.30.510 pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment. SECTION 23. ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED PURCHASING AND ZERO WASTE REQUIREMENTS. CONSULTANT shall comply with the City’s Environmentally Preferred Purchasing policies which are available at the City’s Purchasing Department, incorporated by reference and may be amended from time to time. CONSULTANT shall comply with waste reduction, reuse, recycling and disposal requirements of the City’s Zero Waste Program. Zero Waste best practices include first minimizing and reducing waste; second, reusing waste and third, recycling or composting waste. In particular, Consultant shall comply with the following zero waste requirements:  All printed materials provided by Consultant to City generated from a personal computer and printer including but not limited to, proposals, quotes, invoices, reports, and public education materials, shall be double-sided and printed on a minimum of 30% or greater post-consumer content paper, unless otherwise approved by the City’s Project Manager. Any submitted materials printed by a professional printing company shall be a minimum of 30% or greater post- consumer material and printed with vegetable based inks.  Goods purchased by Consultant on behalf of the City shall be purchased in accordance with the City’s Environmental Purchasing Policy including but not limited to Extended Producer Responsibility requirements for products and packaging. A copy of this policy is on file at the Purchasing Office.  Reusable/returnable pallets shall be taken back by the Consultant, at no additional cost to the City, for reuse or recycling. Consultant shall provide documentation from the facility accepting the pallets to verify that pallets are not being disposed. SECTION 24. NON-APPROPRIATION 24.1. This Agreement is subject to the fiscal provisions of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Municipal Code. This Agreement will terminate without any penalty (a) at the end of any fiscal year in the event that funds are not appropriated for the Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 8 DocuSign Envelope ID: 433A1989-1A71-4F57-89C9-76C3EEDB7855 following fiscal year, or (b) at any time within a fiscal year in the event that funds are only appropriated for a portion of the fiscal year and funds for this Agreement are no longer available. This section shall take precedence in the event of a conflict with any other covenant, term, condition, or provision of this Agreement. SECTION 25. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS. 25.1. This Agreement will be governed by the laws of the State of California. 25.2. In the event that an action is brought, the parties agree that trial of such action will be vested exclusively in the state courts of California in the County of Santa Clara, State of California. 25.3. The prevailing party in any action brought to enforce the provisions of this Agreement may recover its reasonable costs and attorneys' fees expended in connection with that action. The prevailing party shall be entitled to recover an amount equal to the fair market value of legal services provided by attorneys employed by it as well as any attorneys’ fees paid to third parties. 25.4. This document represents the entire and integrated agreement between the parties and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, and contracts, either written or oral. This document may be amended only by a written instrument, which is signed by the parties. 25.5. The covenants, terms, conditions and provisions of this Agreement will apply to, and will bind, the heirs, successors, executors, administrators, assignees, and consultants of the parties. 25.6. If a court of competent jurisdiction finds or rules that any provision of this Agreement or any amendment thereto is void or unenforceable, the unaffected provisions of this Agreement and any amendments thereto will remain in full force and effect. 25.7. All exhibits referred to in this Agreement and any addenda, appendices, attachments, and schedules to this Agreement which, from time to time, may be referred to in any duly executed amendment hereto are by such reference incorporated in this Agreement and will be deemed to be a part of this Agreement. 25.8 If, pursuant to this contract with CONSULTANT, City shares with CONSULTANT personal information as defined in California Civil Code section 1798.81.5(d) about a California resident (“Personal Information”), CONSULTANT shall maintain reasonable and appropriate security procedures to protect that Personal Information, and shall inform City immediately upon learning that there has been a breach in the security of the system or in the security of the Personal Information. CONSULTANT shall not use Personal Information for direct marketing purposes without City’s express written consent. 25.9 All unchecked boxes do not apply to this agreement. 25.10 The individuals executing this Agreement represent and warrant that they have the legal capacity and authority to do so on behalf of their respective legal entities. Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 9 25.11 This Agreement may be signed in multiple counterparts, which shall, when executed by all the parties, constitute a single binding agreement DocuSign Envelope ID: 433A1989-1A71-4F57-89C9-76C3EEDB7855 Managing Principal IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Agreement on the date first above written. CITY OF PALO ALTO WALKER PARKING CONSULTANTS/ENGINEERS, INC. APPROVED AS TO FORM: Attachments: EXHIBIT “A”: SCOPE OF WORK EXHIBIT “B”: SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE EXHIBIT “C”: COMPENSATION EXHIBIT “C-1”: SCHEDULE OF RATES EXHIBIT “D”: INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 10 DocuSign Envelope ID: 433A1989-1A71-4F57-89C9-76C3EEDB7855 EXHIBIT “A” SCOPE OF SERVICES TASK A: Site Analysis and Programming 1. The CONSULTANT shall attend a kick-off meeting with CITY staff to review the project scope and schedule, and review main objectives for the proposed system. a. Work with CITY to identify key stakeholders for the PGS/PARC project team to ensure all entities impacted by the project are represented in the decision making process. b. Facilitate a kick-off meeting between key CITY stakeholders and CONSULTANT team members to review the project scope and schedule, and review the main objectives for the proposed system. 2. The CONSULTANT shall conduct walk-throughs of garages R, S/L, CW and CC and review all CITY-provided information for the garages, including as-built plans for the garages. CITY will provide architectural drawings of the garages for the CONSULTANT to use for background drawings. a. Work with the appropriate project stakeholders to identify and inventory the current parking facilities to be included in the project. b. Evaluate and document the existing infrastructure that is available to support the PGS and PARC. c. Evaluate the infrastructure and space requirements to support the desired PGS/PARC and identify new infrastructure and space requirements necessary to support the desired systems. The evaluation will take into consideration the use of existing infrastructure where feasible, advisable, and cost effective. 3. The CONSULTANT shall attend up to three stakeholder meetings/Planning Commission meetings to gather input on the type of equipment and proposed designs for the equipment. The CONSULTANT shall provide renderings of the garage entryways and identify pros and cons of up to two design options for each facility. The CONSULTANT should anticipate submitting plans for building permit review for all applicable CITY departments. a. Facilitate the stakeholder meetings to develop a set of high-level system requirements that CITY desires to be included in the new PGS and PARC systems in an effort to achieve the goals for this project. Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 10 b. Identify relevant features and functionalities that meet CITY-established goals through implementation of industry best practices. CONSULTANT will identify technologies that are currently available, emerging, and on the horizon in the parking industry for consideration by CITY. CONSULTANT will assist CITY in evaluating the features and functionalities based on the accepted state-of-the-art technologies available in the world and domestic markets including identification of CITY-desired features and functionalities that may require customized system development by the PGS/PARC Contractor. These technologies will cover the functionality of the equipment as well as the operational requirements to be fulfilled by the new system. DocuSign Envelope ID: 433A1989-1A71-4F57-89C9-76C3EEDB7855 c. Document the relevant PGS/PARC features and functionalities including a description of each along with the advantages and disadvantages, commercial availability, proven successes/failures, risks, and estimate of the associated acquisition/construction/implementation costs as they relate to CITY’s operating environment and existing infrastructure. d. Document potential requirements in a detailed Design Criteria Matrix of “Critical” and “Desirable” features and functionalities. The Design Criteria Matrix will be used in the System Design Development and Construction Administration phases to ensure that the required features and functionalities are provided. The agreed upon Design Criteria Matrix will serve as the basis for the system design in Task B. e. Develop a preliminary Opinion of Probable Cost (OPC) for the acquisition, construction, and implementation costs based on the recommended PGS/PARC and necessary infrastructure. f. Conduct a review meeting with project stakeholders to solicit feedback on the deliverables developed and incorporate the review comments into the final deliverables. 4. The CONSULTANT shall provide site analysis, identifying any required medians/islands and concrete pours which would be required for installation of equipment. a. Identify the appropriate civil infrastructure necessary to accommodate the design criteria and develop conceptual equipment and island locations. b. Develop conceptual drawings of the garage entryways depicting schematic layouts of the preferred equipment. Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 11 DocuSign Envelope ID: 433A1989-1A71-4F57-89C9-76C3EEDB7855 Task A Deliverables: 1. Draft PGS/PARC Evaluation and Recommendations Report 2. Final PGS/PARC Evaluation and Recommendations Report 3. Design Criteria Matrix 4. Opinion of Probable Cost (OPC) for the PGS/PARC 5. Schematic layout of proposed equipment locations and conceptual drawings of the necessary equipment islands for each garage TASK B: System Design Development 1. The CONSULTANT shall prepare detailed design drawings and specifications for equipment installation and any civil, electrical or mechanical work required for the installation. The CONSULTANT shall develop all construction plans, details and specifications based on completion of Task A including incorporation of all review comments and value engineering decisions. a. Develop functional specifications based on the design criteria established in Task A and provide submittals at the 65%, 95%, and Final completion milestones. The functional specifications will include requirements for system functionalities, performance metrics, and service levels for various aspects of the PGS and PARC. b. Refine the conceptual drawings developed in Task A, based on CITY feedback, to produce design drawings for the PGS/PARC at each parking garage. Submittals of the design drawings will be provided at the 65%, 95%, and Final completion milestones. Drawings will show proposed locations of major PGS components (sensors, space indicators, signage, etc) and PARC components (equipment islands, entry/exit stations, barrier gates, dynamic signage, etc.) c. Develop technical specifications for the civil and electrical infrastructure required for the PARC and PGS. Submittals of the design drawings will be provided at the 65%, 95%, and Final completion milestones. d. Refine the OPC at the 65%, 95%, and Final design milestones to reflect any changes encountered. e. Develop a Phased Implementation Plan that includes a phased installation and activation milestones based on the design criteria and required new infrastructure. Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 12 DocuSign Envelope ID: 433A1989-1A71-4F57-89C9-76C3EEDB7855 2. The CONSULTANT shall coordinate with the Wayfinding Consultant on specification of PGS technology and proposed signage locations, and work with Wayfinding CONSULTANT on PGS signage mock-ups as necessary. a. Coordinate with the Wayfinding Consultant at the 65%, 95%, and Final design milestones to ensure the PGS design elements are consistent with the branding and signage program developed by the Wayfinding Consultant. b. Review the signage design created by the Wayfinding Consultant to verify the signs can accommodate the dynamic message displays for the PGS and the appropriate messages are being displayed to drivers at the proper decision points. 3. The CONSULTANT shall meet with CITY Staff as necessary to respond to and address CITY and Community comments. a. Conduct design review meetings, via WebEx or in person as necessary, with project stakeholders after the 65% and 95% design milestone submittals. TASK B Deliverables: 1. PARC and PGS Functional Specifications – submitted at the 65%, 95%, and Final design milestones with stakeholder feedback incorporated at each design milestone 2. Design Drawings – submitted at the 65%, 95%, and Final design milestones with stakeholder feedback incorporated at each design milestone 3. Technical Specifications for Civil and Electrical Infrastructure – submitted at the 65%, 95%, and Final design milestones with stakeholder feedback incorporated at each design milestone 4. Revised OPC – submitted at the 65%, 95%, and Final design milestones to reflect any changes that impact estimated costs 5. Phased Implementation Plan TASK C: Pre-Construction 1. The CONSULTANT shall develop Bid Documents for competitive bid, including detailed specifications for equipment and installation. a. Prepare and package the following documents for inclusion in the CITY’s RFP for the PGS and PARC: Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 13 DocuSign Envelope ID: 433A1989-1A71-4F57-89C9-76C3EEDB7855 i. Functional Specifications and Drawings developed in Task B ii. Technical Specifications for the civil and electrical infrastructure for the PARC and PGS iii. Phased Implementation Plan developed in Task B iv. Minimum Proposer Qualifications v. Pricing Templates that allow evaluation of the proposed costs for major system components of the PGS and PARC in a detailed breakout for side- by-side comparison between proposals 2. The CONSULTANT shall prepare a location plan of equipment and submit to CITY for review, and revise as needed to CITY’s satisfaction. a. Will be developed as part of the Task B conceptual drawings and finalized prior to advertisement of the Bid Documents 3. The CONSULTANT shall verify the statement of probable cost for construction and equipment purchase. a. OPC will be finalized as part of Task B, prior to advertisement of the Bid Documents 4. The CONSULTANT shall attend one preconstruction meeting to be conducted by the CITY for the PARCs and PGS implementation, and assist the CITY in evaluation of the bids as necessary. a. Develop presentation materials and facilitate a pre-proposal conference for the PARC system and the PGS system, including developing pre-proposal agendas, documenting questions received from the potential respondents and preparing responses to questions related to the RFPs b. Prepare addenda with changes to the Functional Specification and other contract documents created by the CONSULTANT team, if necessary c. Review and evaluate the submitted proposals for RFP responsiveness and compliance regarding minimum qualifications, technical solution, and pricing. The review will include creation of a comparative matrix that identifies key advantages and disadvantages of each proposal to help facilitate proposer selection d. Participate as a technical advisor to the selection committee during the CITY’s scoring and evaluation of the proposals TASK C Deliverables: 1. Finalized OPC Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 14 DocuSign Envelope ID: 433A1989-1A71-4F57-89C9-76C3EEDB7855 2. RFP Documents – Five (5) 18” x 24” construction document sets, finalized Phased Implementation Plan, Minimum Proposer Qualifications, Evaluation Criteria, and Pricing Template 3. Pre-Proposal Materials – Pre-proposal agenda, proposer question documentation, and responses to proposer questions 4. Design Document Addenda – Revised construction documents that address necessary clarifications after issuing the RFP 5. Evaluation Matrix – Matrix outlining key advantages and disadvantages of each proposal TASK D: Construction Administration 1. As requested by the CITY, CONSULTANT shall review and respond to Contractor submittals and requests for substitution, and contractor’s requests for information and clarification. a. Review the Contractor’s submittals outlined in the contract documents and verify that the submittals conform to the requirements in the contract documents. Includes review and comment on Contractor-created test plan and test procedures (required in the Functional Specifications as part of the Contractor submittals) for the required system tests for verification that the proposed test procedures demonstrate the functional requirements stipulated in the contract documents b. Review and respond to Contractors’ Requests for Information (RFI) and Requests for Substitution (RFS) 2. The CONSULTANT shall conduct a final inspection at the completion of the installation to insure appropriate installation, location and quality of installation. a. Perform field observations of the Contractor installed equipment at each location after all equipment has been installed to verify that the installation conforms to the contract documents and provide documentation of any observed deviations b. Participate in final acceptance tests of a sampling of each equipment type at each garage after all equipment has been installed to verify that the equipment is functioning per the contract documents Task D Deliverables: 1. Submittal Review Documentation - Documentation of CONSULTANT’s comments to Contractor submittals as it relates to conformance with the contract documents 2. RFI and RFS Responses – Documentation of CONSULTANT’s responses to Contractor RFI and RFS using the CITY-provided forms 3. Field Observation Reports – Documentation of issues observed during field observations of final equipment installation Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 15 4. Testing Documentation – Completing the Contractor-provided test scripts and noting any test deviations DocuSign Envelope ID: 433A1989-1A71-4F57-89C9-76C3EEDB7855 Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 16 EXHIBIT “C” DocuSign Envelope ID: 433A1989-1A71-4F57-89C9-76C3EEDB7855 COMPENSATION The CITY agrees to compensate the CONSULTANT for professional services performed in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and as set forth in the budget schedule below. Compensation shall be calculated based on the hourly rate schedule attached as exhibit C-1 up to the not to exceed budget amount for each task set forth below. The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT under this Agreement for all services described in Exhibit “A” (“Basic Services”) and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed $191,760.00. CONSULTANT agrees to complete all Basic Services, including reimbursable expenses, within this amount. Any work performed or expenses incurred for which payment would result in a total exceeding the maximum amount of compensation set forth herein shall be at no cost to the CITY. CONSULTANT shall perform the tasks and categories of work as outlined and budgeted below. The CITY’s Project Manager may approve in writing the transfer of budget amounts between any of the tasks or categories listed below provided the total compensation for Basic Services, including reimbursable expenses, does not exceed $191,760.00. BUDGET SCHEDULE NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT Task 1 $44,420.00 (Site Analysis & Programing) Task 2 $66,275.00 (System design & Development) Task 3 $35,240.00 (Pre-Construction) Task 4 $31,785.00 (Construction Administration) Sub-total Basic Services $177,720.00 Reimbursable Expenses $14,040.00 Total Basic Services and Reimbursable expenses $191,760.00 Maximum Total Compensation $191,760.00 Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 18 DocuSign Envelope ID: 433A1989-1A71-4F57-89C9-76C3EEDB7855 REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES The administrative, overhead, secretarial time or secretarial overtime, word processing, photocopying, in-house printing, insurance and other ordinary business expenses are included within the scope of payment for services and are not reimbursable expenses. CITY shall reimburse CONSULTANT for the following reimbursable expenses at cost. Expenses for which CONSULTANT shall be reimbursed are: A. Travel outside the San Francisco Bay area, including transportation and meals, will be reimbursed at actual cost subject to the City of Palo Alto’s policy for reimbursement of travel and meal expenses for City of Palo Alto employees. B. Long distance telephone service charges, cellular phone service charges, facsimile transmission and postage charges are reimbursable at actual cost. All requests for payment of expenses shall be accompanied by appropriate backup information. Any expense anticipated to be more than $1,000.00 shall be approved in advance by the CITY’s project manager. ADDITIONAL SERVICES The CONSULTANT shall provide additional services only by advanced, written authorization from the CITY. The CONSULTANT, at the CITY’s project manager’s request, shall submit a detailed written proposal including a description of the scope of services, schedule, level of effort, and CONSULTANT’s proposed maximum compensation, including reimbursable expense, for such services based on the rates set forth in Exhibit C-1. The additional services scope, schedule and maximum compensation shall be negotiated and agreed to in writing by the CITY’s Project Manager and CONSULTANT prior to commencement of the services. Payment for additional services is subject to all requirements and restrictions in this Agreement Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 19 DocuSign Envelope ID: 433A1989-1A71-4F57-89C9-76C3EEDB7855 EXHIBIT “C-1” HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE Scope Labor Categories Estimated Hours Hourly Rate Extended Rate Task A: Site Analysis and Programming Senior Project Manager 75 $220 $16,500 Consultant 82 $185 $15,170 Principal-in-Charge 22 $255 $5,610 Senior Engineer 20 $195 $3,900 Cad Technician 24 $135 $3,240 Anticipated Expenses $6,675 TOTAL NOT TO EXCEED, TASK A $51,095 Task B: System Design Development Senior Project Manager 50 $220 $11,000 Consultant 150 $185 $27,750 Principal-in-Charge 11 $255 $2,805 Senior Engineer 52 $195 $10,140 Cad Technician 108 $135 $14,580 Anticipated Expenses $500 TOTAL NOT TO EXCEED, TASK B $66,775 Task C: Pre-Construction Senior Project Manager 98 $220 $21,560 Consultant 36 $185 $6,660 Principal-in-Charge 0 $255 $0 Senior Engineer 36 $195 $7020 Cad Technician 0 $135 $0 Anticipated Expenses $2,690 TOTAL NOT TO EXCEED, TASK C $37,930 Task D: Construction Administration Senior Project Manager 108 $220 $23,760 Consultant 21 $185 $3,885 Principal-in-Charge 4 $255 $1,020 Senior Engineer 16 $195 $3,120 Cad Technician 0 $135 $0 Anticipated Expenses $4,175 TOTAL NOT TO EXCEED, TASK D $35,960 TOTAL NOT TO EXCEED (TASK A -D) $191,760 Professional Services Rev Sep. 2014 20 DocuSign Envelope ID: 433A1989-1A71-4F57-89C9-76C3EEDB7855 EXHIBIT “D” INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS CONTRACTORS TO THE CITY OF PALO ALTO (CITY), AT THEIR SOLE EXPENSE, SHALL FOR THE TERM OF THE CONTRACT OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN INSURANCE IN THE AMOUNTS FOR THE COVERAGE SPECIFIED BELOW, AFFORDED BY COMPANIES WITH AM BEST’S KEY RATING OF A-:VII, OR HIGHER, LICENSED OR AUTHORIZED TO TRANSACT INSURANCE BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. REQUIRE D TYPE OF COVERAGE REQUIREMENT MINIMUM LIMITS EACH OCCURRENCE AGGREGATE YES YES WORKER’S COMPENSATION EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY STATUTORY STATUTORY YES GENERAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING BODILY INJURY $1,000,000 $1,000,000 PERSONAL INJURY, BROAD FORM PROPERTY DAMAGE BLANKET PROPERTY DAMAGE $1,000,000 $1,000,000 CONTRACTUAL, AND FIRE LEGAL LIABILITY BODILY INJURY & PROPERTY DAMAGE COMBINED. $1,000,000 $1,000,000 BODILY INJURY $1,000,000 $1,000,000 -EACH PERSON $1,000,000 $1,000,000 YES AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY, INCLUDING -EACH OCCURRENCE $1,000,000 $1,000,000 ALL OWNED, HIRED, NON-OWNED PROPERTY DAMAGE $1,000,000 $1,000,000 BODILY INJURY AND PROPERTY DAMAGE, COMBINED $1,000,000 $1,000,000 YES PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING, ERRORS AND OMISSIONS, MALPRACTICE (WHEN APPLICABLE), AND NEGLIGENT PERFORMANCE ALL DAMAGES $1,000,000 YES THE CITY OF PALO ALTO IS TO BE NAMED AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED: CONTRACTOR, AT ITS SOLE COST AND EXPENSE, SHALL OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN, IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE TERM OF ANY RESULTANT AGREEMENT, THE INSURANCE COVERAGE HEREIN DESCRIBED, INSURING NOT ONLY CONTRACTOR AND ITS SUBCONSULTANTS, IF ANY, BUT ALSO, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY AND PROFESSIONAL INSURANCE, NAMING AS ADDITIONAL INSUREDS CITY, ITS COUNCIL MEMBERS, OFFICERS, AGENTS, AND EMPLOYEES. AWARD IS CONTINGENT ON COMPLIANCE WITH CITY’S INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS, AS SPECIFIED, BELOW: I. INSURANCE COVERAGE MUST INCLUDE: A. A PROVISION FOR A WRITTEN THIRTY (30) DAY ADVANCE NOTICE TO CITY OF CHANGE IN COVERAGE OR OF COVERAGE CANCELLATION; AND B. A CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY ENDORSEMENT PROVIDING INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR CONTRACTOR’S AGREEMENT TO INDEMNIFY CITY. C. DEDUCTIBLE AMOUNTS IN EXCESS OF $5,000 REQUIRE CITY’S PRIOR APPROVAL. II. CONTACTOR MUST SUBMIT CERTIFICATES(S) OF INSURANCE EVIDENCING REQUIRED COVERAGE. III. ENDORSEMENT PROVISIONS, WITH RESPECT TO THE INSURANCE AFFORDED TO “ADDITIONAL INSUREDS” A. PRIMARY COVERAGE WITH RESPECT TO CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF THE OPERATIONS OF THE NAMED INSURED, INSURANCE AS AFFORDED BY THIS POLICY IS PRIMARY AND IS NOT ADDITIONAL TO OR CONTRIBUTING WITH ANY OTHER INSURANCE CARRIED BY OR FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ADDITIONAL INSUREDS. B. CROSS LIABILITY THE NAMING OF MORE THAN ONE PERSON, FIRM, OR CORPORATION AS INSUREDS UNDER THE POLICY SHALL NOT, FOR THAT REASON ALONE, EXTINGUISH ANY RIGHTS OF THE INSURED AGAINST ANOTHER, BUT THIS ENDORSEMENT, AND THE NAMING OF MULTIPLE INSUREDS, SHALL NOT INCREASE THE TOTAL LIABILITY OF THE COMPANY UNDER THIS POLICY. Professional Services Rev Sep. 2014 21 DocuSign Envelope ID: 433A1989-1A71-4F57-89C9-76C3EEDB7855 C. NOTICE OF CANCELLATION 1. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR ANY REASON OTHER THAN THE NON-PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE CONSULTANT SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A THIRTY (30) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION. 2. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR THE NON-PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE CONSULTANT SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A TEN (10) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION. NOTICES SHALL BE EMAILED OR MAILED TO: EMAIL: InsuranceCerts@CityofPaloAlto.org PURCHASING AND CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION CITY OF PALO ALTO P.O. BOX 10250 PALO ALTO, CA 94303. Professional Services Rev Sep. 2014 22 Attachment B Ordinance No. XXXX ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015 TO INCREASE THE PARKING GUIDANCE SYSTEMS, ACCESS CONTROLS, AND REVENUE COLLECTION EQUIPMENT PROJECT (PL-15002) IN THE AMOUNT OF $171,760 IN THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND OFFSET WITH A TRANSFER FROM THE UNIVERSITY AVENUE PARKING PERMIT FUND. The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. The Council of the City of Palo Alto finds and determines as follows: A. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of Article III of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto, the Council on June 16, 2014 did adopt a budget for Fiscal Year 2015; and B. Since early 2014, the City has been engaged in several related initiatives aimed at reducing Downtown parking demand, improving management of existing parking resources and investigating options for additional parking supply; and C. On !ugust 18, 2014, Staff presented to Council a summary of the Downtown’s estimated parking supply and occupancy challenges; and D. Council directed staff to move forward with an RFP for integrated Parking Guidance System and Parking Access and Revenue Control Technology for the Downtown Parking Lots and Garages; and E. Staff released an RFP on January 15, 2015, requesting proposals for design and construction administration services of an integrated parking facility management system, lane control equipment, pay-on-foot stations and parking guidance systems for the four city-owned garages, and as an add-alternate, for the City’s surface lots; and F. The City received one responsive proposal to the solicitation, from Walker Parking. Staff recommends awarding a contract to Walker Construction at this time, with estimated costs of $191,760. There is currently $20,000 available in the Parking Guidance Systems, Access Controls, and Revenue Collection Equipment Project in the Capital Improvement Fund. SECTION 2. Therefore, One Hundred and Seventy One Thousand, Seven Hundred and Sixty Dollars ($171,760) is recommended to be appropriated in the Capital Improvement Fund in the Parking Guidance Systems, Access Controls, and Revenue Collection Equipment project, offset by a transfer from the University Avenue Parking Permit District. The expenditure in the University Avenue Parking Permit District is to be offset by a reduction to the ending fund balance in that fund. 1 Revised April 14, 2015 130920 dm 0131136 ____________________________ ____________________________ ____________________________ ____________________________ ____________________________ ____________________________ SECTION 3. As provided in Section 2.04.330 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, this ordinance shall become effective upon adoption. SECTION 4. The Council of the City of Palo Alto hereby finds that this is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act and, therefore, no environmental impact assessment is necessary. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: Enter Date Here AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: NOT PARTICIPATING: ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Senior Assistant City Attorney Mayor APPROVED: City Manager Director of Administrative Services Director of Planning and Community Environment 2 Revised April 14, 2015 130920 dm 0131136 City of Palo Alto (ID # 5641) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 5/4/2015 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: FY15 Computer Refresh Title: Approval of Purchase Order with Golden Gate Systems, LLC for FY15 City-Wide Computer Refresh in the Amount of $622,837 From: City Manager Lead Department: IT Department Recommendation Staff recommends that Council approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute the attached Purchase Order with Golden Gate Systems, LLC in the amount of $622,837 to purchase laptop and desktop computers, computer monitors, port replicators and warranties, for the replacement of computer equipment which are at the end of their useful lives. Executive Summary Staff computers are currently on a four-year replacement schedule. As part of a mobile- first strategy, computers that are at the end-of-useful-life are replaced with laptop computers and extended with flat screen monitors, when needed. Background A Request for Quotation (RFQ) was submitted on 03/03/15, with responses due back on 03/24/15. Six vendors responded to the RFQ with one vendor being disqualified for not bidding on all items requested. The lowest responsible bidder is Golden Gate Systems, LLC. The bids are as follows: Vendor Name Quoted Bid Golden Gate Systems, LLC $622,836.19 Staples Technology $682,472.20 MoreDirect $640,700.40 SoftNet Solutions $707,538.38 City of Palo Alto Page 2 OM Office Supply INC. $683,583.46 Discussion To ensure proper support and maintenance, up to one-quarter of the City’s personal computer inventory should be replaced annually. Staff will purchase with this contract 305 laptops including a 4-Year warranty for each laptop, 80 desktop computers including a 4-Year warranty for each desktop, 400 monitors, and 200 port replicators (docking stations for laptops). As current desktop computers reach the end of their useful lives, most will be replaced with laptop computers (the Library Department requires desktop computers that will be used by the public). This order is larger than typical order and will bring the total laptop count for City Staff to almost 900. As a result, Staff anticipates a computer replacement order in FY16 to be around 100. We expect to return to a more even number of replacements per year in FY 17. Resource Impact Savings from technology projects approved in the Fiscal Year 2015 Budget that came in under budget ($396,000) as well as existing Fiscal Year 2015 approved computer replacement funding ($227,000) from within the Information Technology operating budget will be used to fund this purchase. Environmental Review Approval of this purchase order does not constitute a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); therefore, no Environmental Assessment is required. Attachments:  EXHIBIT A - RFQ158242 Golden Gate Systems Bid Response (PDF) City of Palo Alto (ID # 5266) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 5/4/2015 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Approval of a one-year contract with Bovo Tighe LLC Title: Approval of a One-year Contract with Bovo-Tighe LLC for Organization and Performance Management Consulting at a Cost Not to Exceed $125,000 From: City Manager Lead Department: Human Resources Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council approve contract C15158871 between the City of Palo Alto and Bovo Tighe, LLC to not exceed $125,000 for a one year term. Executive Summary Bovo Tighe, LLC (Bovo Tighe) has provided organizational assessment, development, and performance management services to various City departments on an unfolding, individual basis over the past three years. Given the positive results to date, staff is recommending the approval of a one year contract for $125,000 to be used citywide, building on the prior work and avoiding disruption of in-progress activities. The importance of such organizational support is ongoing and during this next year, staff will conduct a new formal solicitation for citywide organizational assessment, development, and performance management services on a multi- year basis. Background Over the past three years, five departments (Libraries, Human Resources, Development Services, Planning & Community Environment, and City Clerk) plus the Executive Leadership Team have utilized the services of Bovo Tighe to conduct organizational assessments, implement continuous improvement programs, create and execute strategic plans, enhance team communications and effectiveness and advance organizational development.. At each juncture, in evaluating the need for external consultation, departments completed informal solicitations to find a provider for organizational development consulting services. Bovo Tighe was regularly selected due to their ability to provide enhanced and innovative services at a competitive cost, with excellent references. The firm has demonstrated the ability to provide timely response when needed and excellent organizational development services. Bovo Tighe provides practical advice through consultation with managers, department-specific City of Palo Alto Page 2 organizational development and strategic planning programs and coaching for specific leadership needs. For example, in Development Services Department, Bovo Tighe led a strategic planning workshop that resulted in a coordinated plan that brings together Planning, Utilities, Fire, and Public Works in one action plan to improve service delivery and reduce wait times for permits. In the Library Department, Bovo Tighe has conducted all-staff training, along with communications and staff development work, including surveys to drive how managers work with staff to improve management systems for the whole organization. This has helped inform needed changes as we restructured staffing for the new library facilities. The Executive Leadership Team had several workshops that helped develop more integrated departmental work plans and other performance management measures. This has included professional one-on-one and team coaching, resulting in improved accountability, evaluation of subordinates, and management of programs. The proposed contract will allow the Human Resources Department to continue to offer services to the Executive Leadership Team and departments and avoid disruption of in-progress activities. Resource Impact Funding for this activity was approved by City Council during the Fiscal Year 2015 budget process as part of the allocations to department training funds. This new $125,000 contract will be funded through that pool of funds. Timeline The proposed contract is expected to provide services through the first quarter of 2016. In the fourth quarter of 2015, staff will return to City Council with the results of a solicitation to provide organizational development services for a longer term. Attachments:  C15158871 Bovo Tighe Contract (PDF) Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 1 CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C15158871 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND BOVO-TIGHE, LLC FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES This Agreement is entered into on this 27th day of April, 2015, (“Agreement”) by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (“CITY”), and BOVO-TIGHE, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, located at 4280 Gold Run Drive, Oakley, California, 94561, Telephone No. (425) 641-0799 ("CONSULTANT"). RECITALS The following recitals are a substantive portion of this Agreement. A. CITY intends to perform organizational effectiveness assessments to be tailored to departmental needs, including Public Works, Planning and Community Environment, Community Services Department, Libraries, Utilities, Administrative Services Department, Human Resources, the City Manager’s office, Public Safety, the City Attorney’s office, the City Auditor’s office and the City Clerk’s office (“Project”) and desires to engage a consultant to provide services in connection with the Project (“Services”). B. CONSULTANT has represented that it has the necessary professional expertise, qualifications, and capability, and all required licenses and/or certifications to provide the Services. C. CITY in reliance on these representations desires to engage CONSULTANT to provide the Services as more fully described in Exhibit “A”, attached to and made a part of this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the recitals, covenants, terms, and conditions, in this Agreement, the parties agree: AGREEMENT SECTION 1. SCOPE OF SERVICES. CONSULTANT shall perform the Services described in Exhibit “A” in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement. The performance of all Services shall be to the reasonable satisfaction of CITY. SECTION 2. TERM. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date of its full execution through April 26, 2016 unless terminated earlier pursuant to Section 19 of this Agreement. SECTION 3. SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE. Time is of the essence in the performance of Services under this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall complete the Services within the term of this Agreement and in accordance with the schedule set forth in Exhibit “B”, attached to and DocuSign Envelope ID: CDD3205B-6B40-43BC-8B36-CCFF69FBA1E5 Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 2 made a part of this Agreement. Any Services for which times for performance are not specified in this Agreement shall be commenced and completed by CONSULTANT in a reasonably prompt and timely manner based upon the circumstances and direction communicated to the CONSULTANT. CITY’s agreement to extend the term or the schedule for performance shall not preclude recovery of damages for delay if the extension is required due to the fault of CONSULTANT. SECTION 4. NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION. The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT for performance of the Services described in Exhibit “A”, including both payment for professional services and reimbursable expenses, shall not exceed One Hundred Twenty Five Thousand Dollars ($125,000.00). The applicable rates and schedule of payment are set out in Exhibit “C-1”, entitled “RATE SCHEDULE,” which is attached to and made a part of this Agreement. Additional Services, if any, shall be authorized in accordance with and subject to the provisions of Exhibit “C”. CONSULTANT shall not receive any compensation for Additional Services performed without the prior written authorization of CITY. Additional Services shall mean any work that is determined by CITY to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but which is not included within the Scope of Services described in Exhibit “A”. SECTION 5. INVOICES. In order to request payment, CONSULTANT shall submit monthly invoices to the CITY describing the services performed and the applicable charges (including an identification of personnel who performed the services, hours worked, hourly rates, and reimbursable expenses), based upon the CONSULTANT’s billing rates (set forth in Exhibit “C- 1”). If applicable, the invoice shall also describe the percentage of completion of each task. The information in CONSULTANT’s payment requests shall be subject to verification by CITY. CONSULTANT shall send all invoices to the City’s project manager at the address specified in Section 13 below. The City will generally process and pay invoices within thirty (30) days of receipt. SECTION 6. QUALIFICATIONS/STANDARD OF CARE. All of the Services shall be performed by CONSULTANT or under CONSULTANT’s supervision. CONSULTANT represents that it possesses the professional and technical personnel necessary to perform the Services required by this Agreement and that the personnel have sufficient skill and experience to perform the Services assigned to them. CONSULTANT represents that it, its employees and subconsultants, if permitted, have and shall maintain during the term of this Agreement all licenses, permits, qualifications, insurance and approvals of whatever nature that are legally required to perform the Services. All of the services to be furnished by CONSULTANT under this agreement shall meet the professional standard and quality that prevail among professionals in the same discipline and of similar knowledge and skill engaged in related work throughout California under the same or similar circumstances. SECTION 7. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS. CONSULTANT shall keep itself informed of and in compliance with all federal, state and local laws, ordinances, regulations, and orders that may affect in any manner the Project or the performance of the Services or those engaged to perform Services under this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall procure all permits and licenses, DocuSign Envelope ID: CDD3205B-6B40-43BC-8B36-CCFF69FBA1E5 Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 3 pay all charges and fees, and give all notices required by law in the performance of the Services. SECTION 8. ERRORS/OMISSIONS. CONSULTANT shall correct, at no cost to CITY, any and all errors, omissions, or ambiguities in the work product submitted to CITY, provided CITY gives notice to CONSULTANT. If CONSULTANT has prepared plans and specifications or other design documents to construct the Project, CONSULTANT shall be obligated to correct any and all errors, omissions or ambiguities discovered prior to and during the course of construction of the Project. This obligation shall survive termination of the Agreement. SECTION 9. COST ESTIMATES. If this Agreement pertains to the design of a public works project, CONSULTANT shall submit estimates of probable construction costs at each phase of design submittal. If the total estimated construction cost at any submittal exceeds ten percent (10%) of the CITY’s stated construction budget, CONSULTANT shall make recommendations to the CITY for aligning the PROJECT design with the budget, incorporate CITY approved recommendations, and revise the design to meet the Project budget, at no additional cost to CITY. SECTION 10. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. It is understood and agreed that in performing the Services under this Agreement CONSULTANT, and any person employed by or contracted with CONSULTANT to furnish labor and/or materials under this Agreement, shall act as and be an independent contractor and not an agent or employee of the CITY. SECTION 11. ASSIGNMENT. The parties agree that the expertise and experience of CONSULTANT are material considerations for this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall not assign or transfer any interest in this Agreement nor the performance of any of CONSULTANT’s obligations hereunder without the prior written consent of the city manager. Consent to one assignment will not be deemed to be consent to any subsequent assignment. Any assignment made without the approval of the city manager will be void. SECTION 12. SUBCONTRACTING. CONSULTANT shall not subcontract any portion of the work to be performed under this Agreement without the prior written authorization of the city manager or designee. CONSULTANT shall be responsible for directing the work of any subconsultants and for any compensation due to subconsultants. CITY assumes no responsibility whatsoever concerning compensation. CONSULTANT shall be fully responsible to CITY for all acts and omissions of a subconsultant. CONSULTANT shall change or add subconsultants only with the prior approval of the city manager or his designee. SECTION 13. PROJECT MANAGEMENT. CONSULTANT will assign Brooke Bovo & Dave Tighe as the Project Managers to have supervisory responsibility for the performance, progress, and execution of the Services and to represent CONSULTANT during the day-to-day work on the Project. If circumstances cause the substitution of the project director, project coordinator, or any other key personnel for any reason, the appointment of a substitute project director and the assignment of any key new or replacement personnel will be subject to the prior written approval of the CITY’s project manager. CONSULTANT, at CITY’s request, shall promptly remove personnel who CITY finds do not perform the Services in an acceptable DocuSign Envelope ID: CDD3205B-6B40-43BC-8B36-CCFF69FBA1E5 Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 4 manner, are uncooperative, or present a threat to the adequate or timely completion of the Project or a threat to the safety of persons or property. The City’s project manager is Khashayar Alaee, Human Resources Department, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94303, Telephone: (650) 329-2230. The project manager will be CONSULTANT’s point of contact with respect to performance, progress and execution of the Services. The CITY may designate an alternate project manager from time to time. SECTION 14. OWNERSHIP OF MATERIALS. Upon delivery, all work product, including without limitation, all writings, drawings, plans, reports, specifications, calculations, documents, other materials and copyright interests developed under this Agreement shall be and remain the exclusive property of CITY without restriction or limitation upon their use. CONSULTANT agrees that all copyrights which arise from creation of the work pursuant to this Agreement shall be vested in CITY, and CONSULTANT waives and relinquishes all claims to copyright or other intellectual property rights in favor of the CITY. Neither CONSULTANT nor its contractors, if any, shall make any of such materials available to any individual or organization without the prior written approval of the City Manager or designee. CONSULTANT makes no representation of the suitability of the work product for use in or application to circumstances not contemplated by the scope of work. SECTION 15. AUDITS. CONSULTANT will permit CITY to audit, at any reasonable time during the term of this Agreement and for three (3) years thereafter, CONSULTANT’s records pertaining to matters covered by this Agreement. CONSULTANT further agrees to maintain and retain such records for at least three (3) years after the expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement. SECTION 16. INDEMNITY. 16.1. To the fullest extent permitted by law, CONSULTANT shall protect, indemnify, defend and hold harmless CITY, its Council members, officers, employees and agents (each an “Indemnified Party”) from and against any and all demands, claims, or liability of any nature, including death or injury to any person, property damage or any other loss, including all costs and expenses of whatever nature including attorneys fees, experts fees, court costs and disbursements (“Claims”) resulting from, arising out of or in any manner related to performance or nonperformance by CONSULTANT, its officers, employees, agents or contractors under this Agreement, regardless of whether or not it is caused in part by an Indemnified Party. 16.2. Notwithstanding the above, nothing in this Section 16 shall be construed to require CONSULTANT to indemnify an Indemnified Party from Claims arising from the active negligence, sole negligence or willful misconduct of an Indemnified Party. 16.3. The acceptance of CONSULTANT’s services and duties by CITY shall not operate as a waiver of the right of indemnification. The provisions of this Section 16 shall survive the expiration or early termination of this Agreement. DocuSign Envelope ID: CDD3205B-6B40-43BC-8B36-CCFF69FBA1E5 Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 5 SECTION 17. WAIVERS. The waiver by either party of any breach or violation of any covenant, term, condition or provision of this Agreement, or of the provisions of any ordinance or law, will not be deemed to be a waiver of any other term, covenant, condition, provisions, ordinance or law, or of any subsequent breach or violation of the same or of any other term, covenant, condition, provision, ordinance or law. SECTION 18. INSURANCE. 18.1. CONSULTANT, at its sole cost and expense, shall obtain and maintain, in full force and effect during the term of this Agreement, the insurance coverage described in Exhibit "D". CONSULTANT and its contractors, if any, shall obtain a policy endorsement naming CITY as an additional insured under any general liability or automobile policy or policies. 18.2. All insurance coverage required hereunder shall be provided through carriers with AM Best’s Key Rating Guide ratings of A-:VII or higher which are licensed or authorized to transact insurance business in the State of California. Any and all contractors of CONSULTANT retained to perform Services under this Agreement will obtain and maintain, in full force and effect during the term of this Agreement, identical insurance coverage, naming CITY as an additional insured under such policies as required above. 18.3. Certificates evidencing such insurance shall be filed with CITY concurrently with the execution of this Agreement. The certificates will be subject to the approval of CITY’s Risk Manager and will contain an endorsement stating that the insurance is primary coverage and will not be canceled, or materially reduced in coverage or limits, by the insurer except after filing with the Purchasing Manager thirty (30) days' prior written notice of the cancellation or modification. If the insurer cancels or modifies the insurance and provides less than thirty (30) days’ notice to CONSULTANT, CONSULTANT shall provide the Purchasing Manager written notice of the cancellation or modification within two (2) business days of the CONSULTANT’s receipt of such notice. CONSULTANT shall be responsible for ensuring that current certificates evidencing the insurance are provided to CITY’s Purchasing Manager during the entire term of this Agreement. 18.4. The procuring of such required policy or policies of insurance will not be construed to limit CONSULTANT's liability hereunder nor to fulfill the indemnification provisions of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the policy or policies of insurance, CONSULTANT will be obligated for the full and total amount of any damage, injury, or loss caused by or directly arising as a result of the Services performed under this Agreement, including such damage, injury, or loss arising after the Agreement is terminated or the term has expired. SECTION 19. TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION OF AGREEMENT OR SERVICES. 19.1. The City Manager may suspend the performance of the Services, in whole or in part, or terminate this Agreement, with or without cause, by giving ten (10) days prior written notice thereof to CONSULTANT. Upon receipt of such notice, CONSULTANT will immediately discontinue its performance of the Services. DocuSign Envelope ID: CDD3205B-6B40-43BC-8B36-CCFF69FBA1E5 Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 6 19.2. CONSULTANT may terminate this Agreement or suspend its performance of the Services by giving thirty (30) days prior written notice thereof to CITY, but only in the event of a substantial failure of performance by CITY. 19.3. Upon such suspension or termination, CONSULTANT shall deliver to the City Manager immediately any and all copies of studies, sketches, drawings, computations, and other data, whether or not completed, prepared by CONSULTANT or its contractors, if any, or given to CONSULTANT or its contractors, if any, in connection with this Agreement. Such materials will become the property of CITY. 19.4. Upon such suspension or termination by CITY, CONSULTANT will be paid for the Services rendered or materials delivered to CITY in accordance with the scope of services on or before the effective date (i.e., 10 days after giving notice) of suspension or termination; provided, however, if this Agreement is suspended or terminated on account of a default by CONSULTANT, CITY will be obligated to compensate CONSULTANT only for that portion of CONSULTANT’s services which are of direct and immediate benefit to CITY as such determination may be made by the City Manager acting in the reasonable exercise of his/her discretion. The following Sections will survive any expiration or termination of this Agreement: 14, 15, 16, 19.4, 20, and 25. 19.5. No payment, partial payment, acceptance, or partial acceptance by CITY will operate as a waiver on the part of CITY of any of its rights under this Agreement. SECTION 20. NOTICES. All notices hereunder will be given in writing and mailed, postage prepaid, by certified mail, addressed as follows: To CITY: Office of the City Clerk City of Palo Alto Post Office Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 With a copy to the Purchasing Manager To CONSULTANT: Attention of the project director at the address of CONSULTANT recited above SECTION 21. CONFLICT OF INTEREST. 21.1. In accepting this Agreement, CONSULTANT covenants that it presently has no interest, and will not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, financial or otherwise, which would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of the Services. 21.2. CONSULTANT further covenants that, in the performance of this DocuSign Envelope ID: CDD3205B-6B40-43BC-8B36-CCFF69FBA1E5 Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 7 Agreement, it will not employ subconsultants, contractors or persons having such an interest. CONSULTANT certifies that no person who has or will have any financial interest under this Agreement is an officer or employee of CITY; this provision will be interpreted in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Government Code of the State of California. 21.3. If the Project Manager determines that CONSULTANT is a “Consultant” as that term is defined by the Regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission, CONSULTANT shall be required and agrees to file the appropriate financial disclosure documents required by the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Political Reform Act. SECTION 22. NONDISCRIMINATION. As set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code section 2.30.510, CONSULTANT certifies that in the performance of this Agreement, it shall not discriminate in the employment of any person because of the race, skin color, gender, age, religion, disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, housing status, marital status, familial status, weight or height of such person. CONSULTANT acknowledges that it has read and understands the provisions of Section 2.30.510 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code relating to Nondiscrimination Requirements and the penalties for violation thereof, and agrees to meet all requirements of Section 2.30.510 pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment. SECTION 23. ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED PURCHASING AND ZERO WASTE REQUIREMENTS. CONSULTANT shall comply with the City’s Environmentally Preferred Purchasing policies which are available at the City’s Purchasing Department, incorporated by reference and may be amended from time to time. CONSULTANT shall comply with waste reduction, reuse, recycling and disposal requirements of the City’s Zero Waste Program. Zero Waste best practices include first minimizing and reducing waste; second, reusing waste and third, recycling or composting waste. In particular, Consultant shall comply with the following zero waste requirements:  All printed materials provided by Consultant to City generated from a personal computer and printer including but not limited to, proposals, quotes, invoices, reports, and public education materials, shall be double-sided and printed on a minimum of 30% or greater post-consumer content paper, unless otherwise approved by the City’s Project Manager. Any submitted materials printed by a professional printing company shall be a minimum of 30% or greater post- consumer material and printed with vegetable based inks.  Goods purchased by Consultant on behalf of the City shall be purchased in accordance with the City’s Environmental Purchasing Policy including but not limited to Extended Producer Responsibility requirements for products and packaging. A copy of this policy is on file at the Purchasing Office.  Reusable/returnable pallets shall be taken back by the Consultant, at no additional cost to the City, for reuse or recycling. Consultant shall provide documentation from the facility accepting the pallets to verify that pallets are not being disposed. SECTION 24. NON-APPROPRIATION 24.1. This Agreement is subject to the fiscal provisions of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Municipal Code. This Agreement will terminate without any DocuSign Envelope ID: CDD3205B-6B40-43BC-8B36-CCFF69FBA1E5 Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 8 penalty (a) at the end of any fiscal year in the event that funds are not appropriated for the following fiscal year, or (b) at any time within a fiscal year in the event that funds are only appropriated for a portion of the fiscal year and funds for this Agreement are no longer available. This section shall take precedence in the event of a conflict with any other covenant, term, condition, or provision of this Agreement. SECTION 25. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS. 25.1. This Agreement will be governed by the laws of the State of California. 25.2. In the event that an action is brought, the parties agree that trial of such action will be vested exclusively in the state courts of California in the County of Santa Clara, State of California. 25.3. The prevailing party in any action brought to enforce the provisions of this Agreement may recover its reasonable costs and attorneys' fees expended in connection with that action. The prevailing party shall be entitled to recover an amount equal to the fair market value of legal services provided by attorneys employed by it as well as any attorneys’ fees paid to third parties. 25.4. This document represents the entire and integrated agreement between the parties and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, and contracts, either written or oral. This document may be amended only by a written instrument, which is signed by the parties. 25.5. The covenants, terms, conditions and provisions of this Agreement will apply to, and will bind, the heirs, successors, executors, administrators, assignees, and consultants of the parties. 25.6. If a court of competent jurisdiction finds or rules that any provision of this Agreement or any amendment thereto is void or unenforceable, the unaffected provisions of this Agreement and any amendments thereto will remain in full force and effect. 25.7. All exhibits referred to in this Agreement and any addenda, appendices, attachments, and schedules to this Agreement which, from time to time, may be referred to in any duly executed amendment hereto are by such reference incorporated in this Agreement and will be deemed to be a part of this Agreement. 25.8 If, pursuant to this contract with CONSULTANT, City shares with CONSULTANT personal information as defined in California Civil Code section 1798.81.5(d) about a California resident (“Personal Information”), CONSULTANT shall maintain reasonable and appropriate security procedures to protect that Personal Information, and shall inform City immediately upon learning that there has been a breach in the security of the system or in the security of the Personal Information. CONSULTANT shall not use Personal Information for direct marketing purposes without City’s express written consent. 25.9 All unchecked boxes do not apply to this agreement. 25.10 The individuals executing this Agreement represent and warrant that they DocuSign Envelope ID: CDD3205B-6B40-43BC-8B36-CCFF69FBA1E5 Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 9 have the legal capacity and authority to do so on behalf of their respective legal entities. 25.11 This Agreement may be signed in multiple counterparts, which shall, when executed by all the parties, constitute a single binding agreement IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Agreement on the date first above written. CITY OF PALO ALTO APPROVED AS TO FORM: BOVO-TIGHE, LLC Attachments: EXHIBIT “A”: SCOPE OF WORK EXHIBIT “B”: SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE EXHIBIT “C”: COMPENSATION EXHIBIT “C-1”: SCHEDULE OF RATES EXHIBIT “D”: INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS DocuSign Envelope ID: CDD3205B-6B40-43BC-8B36-CCFF69FBA1E5 Principal Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 10 EXHIBIT “A” SCOPE OF SERVICES CONSULTANT shall provide organizational effectiveness assessments, including ways to increase efficient operations, improve staff effectiveness, integrate new team members, develop enhanced service models, and to offer leadership and team coaching. Specific programs will be tailored to departmental needs, including Public Works, Planning and Community Environment, Community Services Department, Libraries, Utilities, Administrative Services Department, Human Resources, the City Manager’s office, Public Safety, the City Attorney’s office, the City Auditor’s office and the City Clerk’s office. 1. Organizational Self-Assessment: The Organizational Assessment provides the tools and means for groups to discover and clarify what makes the group effective or ineffective and how to make the necessary adjustments to improve performance. It allows teams to forge ahead confidently knowing they can sustain and improve the team through a periodic and systematic process. 2. Leadership Maturity Assessment: Accurately assess your personal and leadership/department’s situation and create a transformative plan; grow your productive capacity; expand your capacity dramatically by engaging others to help you; expand the transformational capacity in everyone around you. 3. Measuring Mindsets: Strategies, tools and techniques to think and perform more effectively. Recognize and utilize different behaviors and work styles; improve communication to facilitate a high performance work environment and enhance employee contributions; communicate clear goals and expectations and understand team member motivators. Use of the DISC profile, group and individual assessments & coaching. 4. Execution Tracker: The management team should have a system to keep track of commitments and operational effectiveness. The system should provide a way to see the key goals (intentions), to look at loading, the measures of operational performance, key decision criteria, and a listing of perceived issues that might upset our plans. The Tracker would include:  Core Values statement  Purpose statement DocuSign Envelope ID: CDD3205B-6B40-43BC-8B36-CCFF69FBA1E5 Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 11  Transformational Goals:  3 year transformation (3-5 generally)  1 year transformation (5-10 generally)  1 month transformation (10-15 generally)  Operational Measures  Issues (problems that might stop our progress on our intentions or reduce our operational effectiveness) 5. Accelerating Personal Accountability: Teaches techniques to help individuals practice personal accountability in the workplace, and helps managers/ supervisors understand how to instruct their team members to become more responsible and self-managing. Key Topics covered include 1) Building personal and organizational accountability; 2) Dealing with change; 3) Delivering accountable Customer Service; 4) Setting and communicating clear goals and expectations; 5) Delivering feedback more effectively; 6) Attaining work/life balance; 7) Managing/improving poor performance; 8) Improving the productivity of teams; 9) Communicating in an accountable manner; 10) Motivating yourself and others through high accountability 6. One on one leadership coaching to develop skills to create and maintain critical relationships, tools and techniques to move your work group or department forward DocuSign Envelope ID: CDD3205B-6B40-43BC-8B36-CCFF69FBA1E5 Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 12 EXHIBIT “B” SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE CONSULTANT shall perform the Services so as to complete each milestone within the number of days/weeks specified below. The time to complete each milestone may be increased or decreased by mutual written agreement of the project managers for CONSULTANT and CITY so long as all work is completed within the term of the Agreement. Milestones Completion No. of Days/Weeks From NTP 1. Services as required, Per Exhibit “A” TBD Scope of Work DocuSign Envelope ID: CDD3205B-6B40-43BC-8B36-CCFF69FBA1E5 Professional Services Rev Sep. 2014 13 EXHIBIT “C” COMPENSATION The CITY agrees to compensate the CONSULTANT for professional services performed in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement based on the rate schedule attached as Exhibit C-1. The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT under this Agreement for all services described in Exhibit “A” (“Services”) and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed $125,000.00. CONSULTANT agrees to complete all Services, including reimbursable expenses, within this amount. Any work performed or expenses incurred for which payment would result in a total exceeding the maximum amount of compensation set forth herein shall be at no cost to the CITY. REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES The administrative, overhead, secretarial time or secretarial overtime, word processing, photocopying, in-house printing, insurance and other ordinary business expenses are included within the scope of payment for services and are not reimbursable expenses. CITY shall reimburse CONSULTANT for the following reimbursable expenses at cost. Expenses for which CONSULTANT shall be reimbursed are: A. Travel outside the San Francisco Bay area, including transportation and meals, will be reimbursed at actual cost subject to the City of Palo Alto’s policy for reimbursement of travel and meal expenses for City of Palo Alto employees. B. Long distance telephone service charges, cellular phone service charges, facsimile transmission and postage charges are reimbursable at actual cost. All requests for payment of expenses shall be accompanied by appropriate backup information. Any expense anticipated to be more than $0.00 shall be approved in advance by the CITY’s project manager. ADDITIONAL SERVICES The CONSULTANT shall provide additional services only by advanced, written authorization from the CITY. The CONSULTANT, at the CITY’s project manager’s request, shall submit a detailed written proposal including a description of the scope of services, schedule, level of effort, and CONSULTANT’s proposed maximum compensation, including reimbursable expenses, for such services based on the rates set forth in Exhibit C-1. The additional services scope, schedule and maximum compensation shall be negotiated and agreed to in writing by the CITY’s Project Manager and CONSULTANT prior to commencement of the services. Payment for additional services is subject to all requirements and restrictions in this Agreement. DocuSign Envelope ID: CDD3205B-6B40-43BC-8B36-CCFF69FBA1E5 Professional Services Rev Sep. 2014 14 EXHIBIT “C-1” RATE SCHEDULE TriMetrix leadership assessments-$340 per assessment TriMetrix Leadership Telephone debriefs- $90.00 per debrief Life Mastery Workshop- 1 day- $350.00 per participant minimum 20 participants Psychology of Achievement- 3-Day workshop- $850 per participant- minimum 20 participants Accelerating Personal Accountability Workshop-1 day- $350.00 per participant- minimum 20 participants Accelerated Learning-1 day workshop-$350 per participants- minimum 20 participants Dynamic Communication- 2 day- $450.00 per participant- minimum 20 participants Unshakeable Trust- 1 day- $350.00 per participant-minimum 20 participants Pursuit of Trust-1 day- $350.00 per participant- minimum 20 participants Communication That Counts-1 day- $350.00 per participant-- minimum 20 participants Consultations on request- Most consulting projects are highly customized and a project fee is agreed to in advance by the manager. All classes must be cancelled more than 30 days prior to the scheduled event, any cancellation less than 30 days will be charged at 1/2 of the amount for the minimum amount of participants for that workshop. All transportation and shipping is billed at the actual invoiced amount and invoices will be provided. DocuSign Envelope ID: CDD3205B-6B40-43BC-8B36-CCFF69FBA1E5 Professional Services Rev Sep. 2014 15 EXHIBIT “D” INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS CONTRACTORS TO THE CITY OF PALO ALTO (CITY), AT THEIR SOLE EXPENSE, SHALL FOR THE TERM OF THE CONTRACT OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN INSURANCE IN THE AMOUNTS FOR THE COVERAGE SPECIFIED BELOW, AFFORDED BY COMPANIES WITH AM BEST’S KEY RATING OF A-:VII, OR HIGHER, LICENSED OR AUTHORIZED TO TRANSACT INSURANCE BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. AWARD IS CONTINGENT ON COMPLIANCE WITH CITY’S INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS, AS SPECIFIED, BELOW: REQUIRE D TYPE OF COVERAGE REQUIREMENT MINIMUM LIMITS EACH OCCURRENCE AGGREGATE YES YES WORKER’S COMPENSATION EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY STATUTORY STATUTORY YES GENERAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING PERSONAL INJURY, BROAD FORM PROPERTY DAMAGE BLANKET CONTRACTUAL, AND FIRE LEGAL LIABILITY BODILY INJURY PROPERTY DAMAGE BODILY INJURY & PROPERTY DAMAGE COMBINED. $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 YES AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY, INCLUDING ALL OWNED, HIRED, NON-OWNED BODILY INJURY - EACH PERSON - EACH OCCURRENCE PROPERTY DAMAGE BODILY INJURY AND PROPERTY DAMAGE, COMBINED $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 YES PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING, ERRORS AND OMISSIONS, MALPRACTICE (WHEN APPLICABLE), AND NEGLIGENT PERFORMANCE ALL DAMAGES $1,000,000 YES THE CITY OF PALO ALTO IS TO BE NAMED AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED: CONTRACTOR, AT ITS SOLE COST AND EXPENSE, SHALL OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN, IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE TERM OF ANY RESULTANT AGREEMENT, THE INSURANCE COVERAGE HEREIN DESCRIBED, INSURING NOT ONLY CONTRACTOR AND ITS SUBCONSULTANTS, IF ANY, BUT ALSO, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY AND PROFESSIONAL INSURANCE, NAMING AS ADDITIONAL INSUREDS CITY, ITS COUNCIL MEMBERS, OFFICERS, AGENTS, AND EMPLOYEES. I. INSURANCE COVERAGE MUST INCLUDE: A. A PROVISION FOR A WRITTEN THIRTY (30) DAY ADVANCE NOTICE TO CITY OF CHANGE IN COVERAGE OR OF COVERAGE CANCELLATION; AND B. A CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY ENDORSEMENT PROVIDING INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR CONTRACTOR’S AGREEMENT TO INDEMNIFY CITY. C. DEDUCTIBLE AMOUNTS IN EXCESS OF $5,000 REQUIRE CITY’S PRIOR APPROVAL. II. CONTACTOR MUST SUBMIT CERTIFICATES(S) OF INSURANCE EVIDENCING REQUIRED COVERAGE. III. ENDORSEMENT PROVISIONS, WITH RESPECT TO THE INSURANCE AFFORDED TO “ADDITIONAL INSUREDS” A. PRIMARY COVERAGE WITH RESPECT TO CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF THE OPERATIONS OF THE NAMED INSURED, INSURANCE AS AFFORDED BY THIS POLICY IS PRIMARY AND IS NOT ADDITIONAL TO OR CONTRIBUTING WITH ANY OTHER INSURANCE CARRIED BY OR FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ADDITIONAL INSUREDS. B. CROSS LIABILITY DocuSign Envelope ID: CDD3205B-6B40-43BC-8B36-CCFF69FBA1E5 Professional Services Rev Sep. 2014 16 THE NAMING OF MORE THAN ONE PERSON, FIRM, OR CORPORATION AS INSUREDS UNDER THE POLICY SHALL NOT, FOR THAT REASON ALONE, EXTINGUISH ANY RIGHTS OF THE INSURED AGAINST ANOTHER, BUT THIS ENDORSEMENT, AND THE NAMING OF MULTIPLE INSUREDS, SHALL NOT INCREASE THE TOTAL LIABILITY OF THE COMPANY UNDER THIS POLICY. C. NOTICE OF CANCELLATION 1. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR ANY REASON OTHER THAN THE NON-PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE CONSULTANT SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A THIRTY (30) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION. 2. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR THE NON- PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE CONSULTANT SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A TEN (10) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION. NOTICES SHALL BE EMAILED OR MAILED TO: EMAIL: InsuranceCerts@CityofPaloAlto.org PURCHASING AND CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION CITY OF PALO ALTO P.O. BOX 10250 PALO ALTO, CA 94303. DocuSign Envelope ID: CDD3205B-6B40-43BC-8B36-CCFF69FBA1E5 Certificate of Completion Envelope Number: CDD3205B6B4043BC8B36CCFF69FBA1E5 Status: Completed Subject: Please DocuSign this document: C15158871 BovoTighe Contract.pdf Source Envelope: Document Pages: 16 Signatures: 1 Envelope Originator: Certificate Pages: 4 Initials: 0 Chris Anastole AutoNav: Enabled EnvelopeId Stamping: Enabled 250 Hamilton Ave Palo Alto , CA 94301 chris.anastole@cityofpaloalto.org IP Address: 199.33.32.254 Record Tracking Status: Original 4/9/2015 7:56:25 AM PT Holder: Chris Anastole chris.anastole@cityofpaloalto.org Location: DocuSign Signer Events Signature Timestamp Dave Tighe dave@bovo-tighe.com Principal Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None)Using IP Address: 71.197.147.201 Sent: 4/9/2015 8:01:08 AM PT Viewed: 4/9/2015 9:34:32 AM PT Signed: 4/9/2015 9:37:11 AM PT Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Accepted: 4/9/2015 9:34:32 AM PT ID: c9c229ad-7f38-41cf-b8ed-ac838801dc1e In Person Signer Events Signature Timestamp Editor Delivery Events Status Timestamp Agent Delivery Events Status Timestamp Intermediary Delivery Events Status Timestamp Certified Delivery Events Status Timestamp Carbon Copy Events Status Timestamp Khashayar Alaee Khashayar.Alaee@CityofPaloAlto.org Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None) Sent: 4/9/2015 9:37:12 AM PT Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Accepted: 6/18/2014 9:19:26 PM PT ID: 5f824cad-c8bd-46d0-8e86-011facbd6d14 Notary Events Timestamp Envelope Summary Events Status Timestamps Envelope Sent Hashed/Encrypted 4/9/2015 9:37:12 AM PT Certified Delivered Security Checked 4/9/2015 9:37:12 AM PT Signing Complete Security Checked 4/9/2015 9:37:12 AM PT Completed Security Checked 4/9/2015 9:37:12 AM PT Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure CONSUMER DISCLOSURE From time to time, City of Palo Alto (we, us or Company) may be required by law to provide to you certain written notices or disclosures. Described below are the terms and conditions for providing to you such notices and disclosures electronically through your DocuSign, Inc. (DocuSign) Express user account. Please read the information below carefully and thoroughly, and if you can access this information electronically to your satisfaction and agree to these terms and conditions, please confirm your agreement by clicking the 'I agree' button at the bottom of this document. Getting paper copies At any time, you may request from us a paper copy of any record provided or made available electronically to you by us. For such copies, as long as you are an authorized user of the DocuSign system you will have the ability to download and print any documents we send to you through your DocuSign user account for a limited period of time (usually 30 days) after such documents are first sent to you. After such time, if you wish for us to send you paper copies of any such documents from our office to you, you will be charged a $0.00 per-page fee. You may request delivery of such paper copies from us by following the procedure described below. Withdrawing your consent If you decide to receive notices and disclosures from us electronically, you may at any time change your mind and tell us that thereafter you want to receive required notices and disclosures only in paper format. How you must inform us of your decision to receive future notices and disclosure in paper format and withdraw your consent to receive notices and disclosures electronically is described below. Consequences of changing your mind If you elect to receive required notices and disclosures only in paper format, it will slow the speed at which we can complete certain steps in transactions with you and delivering services to you because we will need first to send the required notices or disclosures to you in paper format, and then wait until we receive back from you your acknowledgment of your receipt of such paper notices or disclosures. To indicate to us that you are changing your mind, you must withdraw your consent using the DocuSign 'Withdraw Consent' form on the signing page of your DocuSign account. This will indicate to us that you have withdrawn your consent to receive required notices and disclosures electronically from us and you will no longer be able to use your DocuSign Express user account to receive required notices and consents electronically from us or to sign electronically documents from us. All notices and disclosures will be sent to you electronically Unless you tell us otherwise in accordance with the procedures described herein, we will provide electronically to you through your DocuSign user account all required notices, disclosures, authorizations, acknowledgements, and other documents that are required to be provided or made available to you during the course of our relationship with you. To reduce the chance of you inadvertently not receiving any notice or disclosure, we prefer to provide all of the required notices and disclosures to you by the same method and to the same address that you have given us. Thus, you can receive all the disclosures and notices electronically or in paper format through the paper mail delivery system. If you do not agree with this process, please let us know as described below. Please also see the paragraph immediately above that describes the consequences of your electing not to receive delivery of the notices and disclosures electronically from us. Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure created on: 10/1/2013 3:33:53 PM Parties agreed to: Dave Tighe, Khashayar Alaee How to contact City of Palo Alto: You may contact us to let us know of your changes as to how we may contact you electronically, to request paper copies of certain information from us, and to withdraw your prior consent to receive notices and disclosures electronically as follows: To contact us by email send messages to: david.ramberg@cityofpaloalto.org To advise City of Palo Alto of your new e-mail address To let us know of a change in your e-mail address where we should send notices and disclosures electronically to you, you must send an email message to us at david.ramberg@cityofpaloalto.org and in the body of such request you must state: your previous e-mail address, your new e-mail address. We do not require any other information from you to change your email address.. In addition, you must notify DocuSign, Inc to arrange for your new email address to be reflected in your DocuSign account by following the process for changing e-mail in DocuSign. To request paper copies from City of Palo Alto To request delivery from us of paper copies of the notices and disclosures previously provided by us to you electronically, you must send us an e-mail to david.ramberg@cityofpaloalto.org and in the body of such request you must state your e-mail address, full name, US Postal address, and telephone number. We will bill you for any fees at that time, if any. To withdraw your consent with City of Palo Alto To inform us that you no longer want to receive future notices and disclosures in electronic format you may: i. decline to sign a document from within your DocuSign account, and on the subsequent page, select the check-box indicating you wish to withdraw your consent, or you may; ii. send us an e-mail to david.ramberg@cityofpaloalto.org and in the body of such request you must state your e-mail, full name, IS Postal Address, telephone number, and account number. We do not need any other information from you to withdraw consent.. The consequences of your withdrawing consent for online documents will be that transactions may take a longer time to process.. Required hardware and software Operating Systems: Windows2000? or WindowsXP? Browsers (for SENDERS): Internet Explorer 6.0? or above Browsers (for SIGNERS): Internet Explorer 6.0?, Mozilla FireFox 1.0, NetScape 7.2 (or above) Email: Access to a valid email account Screen Resolution: 800 x 600 minimum Enabled Security Settings: •Allow per session cookies •Users accessing the internet behind a Proxy Server must enable HTTP 1.1 settings via proxy connection ** These minimum requirements are subject to change. If these requirements change, we will provide you with an email message at the email address we have on file for you at that time providing you with the revised hardware and software requirements, at which time you will have the right to withdraw your consent. Acknowledging your access and consent to receive materials electronically To confirm to us that you can access this information electronically, which will be similar to other electronic notices and disclosures that we will provide to you, please verify that you were able to read this electronic disclosure and that you also were able to print on paper or electronically save this page for your future reference and access or that you were able to e-mail this disclosure and consent to an address where you will be able to print on paper or save it for your future reference and access. Further, if you consent to receiving notices and disclosures exclusively in electronic format on the terms and conditions described above, please let us know by clicking the 'I agree' button below. By checking the 'I Agree' box, I confirm that: • I can access and read this Electronic CONSENT TO ELECTRONIC RECEIPT OF ELECTRONIC CONSUMER DISCLOSURES document; and • I can print on paper the disclosure or save or send the disclosure to a place where I can print it, for future reference and access; and • Until or unless I notify City of Palo Alto as described above, I consent to receive from exclusively through electronic means all notices, disclosures, authorizations, acknowledgements, and other documents that are required to be provided or made available to me by City of Palo Alto during the course of my relationship with you. City of Palo Alto (ID # 5776) City Council Staff Report City of Palo Alto Page 1 Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 5/4/2015 Summary Title: Appointment of City Clerk Title: Confirmation of Appointment of Beth Minor as City Clerk and Approval of Employment Agreement From: City Manager Lead Department: Human Resources Recommended Motion Move to appoint Ms. Beth Minor as City Clerk, with a start date of May 5, 2015, and approve the attached Employment Agreement including a salary of $135,000. Recommendation and Discussion After a national search and interviews of a number of finalists the Council has selected Beth Minor to serve as Palo Alto’s City Clerk. Ms. Minor brings extensive experience in Palo Alto serving currently as the Acting Clerk, and 8 years as the Assistant Clerk and as in a variety of management roles in industry. Attached is an at-will Employment Agreement setting terms of employment, including a salary of $135,000. Resource Impact The FY 2015 Budget for the City Clerk’s Office is sufficient to cover the costs of this employment contract. Attachment: Employment Agreement: City of Palo Alto and Beth Minor Attachments: Attachment A: Minor Contract (PDF) #9 City of Palo Alto (ID # 5589) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 5/4/2015 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Fiscal Year 2016 CDBG Allocations and 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan Title: Finance Committee Recommends Adoption of the 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan, 2015/2016 Action Plan and Associated 2015/2016 Funding Allocations and Adoption of a Resolution Approving the Use of Community Development Block Grant Funds for Fiscal Year 2015/2016 From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff and the Finance Committee recommend a Council MOTION to: 1. Adopt the attached funding Resolution allocating CDBG funding as recommended in the draft 2015/2016 Action Plan and as described in this report; 2. Authorize the City Manager to execute the 2015/2016 CDBG application and 2015/2016 Action Plan for CDBG funds, any other necessary documents concerning the application, and to otherwise bind the City with respect to the applications and commitment of funds; 3. Authorize staff to submit the 2015/2016 Action Plan to HUD by the May 15, 2015 deadline; and 4. Authorize staff to submit the 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan to HUD by the May 15, 2015 deadline. Executive Summary The City of Palo Alto receives funds annually from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) as an entitlement city under the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program. The CDBG program is the principal Federal program providing localities with grants to devise innovative and constructive neighborhood approaches to improve the physical, economic, and social conditions in their communities through “the development of viable City of Palo Alto Page 2 urban communities, by providing decent housing and a suitable living environment and expanding economic opportunities, principally for persons of low and moderate income.” HUD requirements include preparation of a five-year strategic plan of action, referred to as a Consolidated Plan, to address priority housing and community development needs and to set goals for attaining identified objectives. An Action Plan is prepared annually to identify specific projects to be funded in that year that implement the strategies identified in the Consolidated Plan. Currently the CDBG program is guided by the 2010-2015 Consolidated Plan adopted by Council May 9, 2010. This year the City is required to prepare a new five-year strategic plan that will guide the investment of approximately $400,000 annually from HUD for the CDBG formula grant. The resulting Consolidated Plan will be effective July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2020. The new Consolidated Plan and the first year Action Plan are due to HUD no later than May 15, 2015. Both the draft 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan and the draft 2015/2016 Action Plan (Attachment B) were made available for public review from February 17, 2015 through March 25, 2015. Staff and the Human Relations Commission’s CDBG funding recommendations were presented at a public hearing before the Finance Committee on March 17, 2015, at which time the Finance Committee unanimously recommended City Council approval. The programs and projects proposed for funding in the first year Action Plan are summarized in the resolution (Attachment A) approving the use of CDBG funds for Fiscal Year 2015/2016. Background On February 10, 2015 HUD released the CDBG entitlement grant allocation amounts for Fiscal Year 2015/2016. The final allocation for Palo Alto is $442,460, representing an approximate increase of two (2) percent compared to last year’s allocation of $433,993. 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan HUD regulations require the City to prepare a Consolidated Plan every five years. Currently the CDBG Program is guided by the 2010-2015 Consolidated Plan adopted by Council on May 9, 2010. This year the City is required to prepare a new five-year strategic plan that will guide the program over the next five years. The Consolidated Plan is designed to help entitlement grantees assess affordable housing and community development needs. For the 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan process, Planning & Community Environment staff coordinated with the County of Santa Clara and other entitlement jurisdictions in the County, referred to in this report as the “Consortium,” to identify and prioritize housing and community development needs across the region, and strategies to meet those needs. In August 2014, the Consortium launched an in-depth, collaborative regional effort to consult with stakeholders to identify housing and community development needs. This comprehensive outreach process was undertaken to enhance coordination and discuss new approaches to working with social service providers that utilize funding for eligible activities, projects and programs. Comments received through this outreach effort combined with Palo Alto’s specifically identified needs, have been City of Palo Alto Page 3 used to inform the draft five-year strategic plan. The Consolidated Plan consists of a needs assessment and market analysis which serves as the strategic plan that identifies priority needs of the City to help guide the distribution of CDBG funding. In addition, the Consolidated Plan includes the first year Action Plan outlining the proposed projects to be funded during Fiscal Year 2015/2016. Review by Human Relations Commission and Finance Committee The CDBG selection committee, comprised of three members of the Human Relations Commission (HRC) and staff, met on January 29, 2015 to discuss the applications and make recommendations for funding for Fiscal Year 2015/2016. On February 12, 2015 the HRC considered the funding recommendations of the selection committee, as adjusted to account for HUD’s final entitlement grant allocation, at a public hearing. On March 12, 2015 the HRC further discussed the proposed five-year goals and objectives. Staff and the HRC’s CDBG funding recommendations, as outlined in CMR No. 5511 (Attachment C), were presented at a public hearing before the Finance Committee on March 17, 2015. After taking public comment the Finance Committee voted 4-0 to recommend to Council adoption of the recommendations, as recorded in the Finance Committee meeting minutes (Attachment D). Discussion Palo Alto’s CDBG program continues to be directed towards expanding and maintaining existing affordable housing supply, promoting housing opportunities and choices, maintaining and improving community facilities, and providing support services for targeted low-income groups including persons who are homeless, persons with disabilities, the elderly, and other special needs groups. Moreover, the CDBG program places a high priority on expanding the goal of creating economic opportunities for low-income persons. Seven programs are recommended for funding that provides supportive services for targeted low-income groups including persons who are homeless, persons with disabilities, the elderly, and other special needs groups. In addition, the funding recommendations include one multi-family housing rehabilitation project and funding to cover the cost of administering the City’s CDBG program. All of the proposed projects for Fiscal Year 2015/2016, as presented in the draft 2015/2016 Action Plan, address these priorities identified in the draft 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan. Timeline Funding recommendations made by the City Council will be incorporated into the final 2015/2016 Action Plan and final 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan. Both documents will be submitted to HUD, along with the appropriate forms and certifications, by the May 15, 2015 deadline. Resource Impact Several measures have been taken to ensure there is no direct General Fund subsidy for the administration of the CDBG Program. These include streamlining the program to reduce City of Palo Alto Page 4 staffing needs and revised monitoring guidelines to improve efficiency of the program. Staff recovery in Fiscal Year 2014/15 from the CDBG entitlement grant is $65,000. For Fiscal Year 2015/2016, staff is requesting a total of $83,686 in the Administration budget. The total staff recovery from the CDBG entitlement grant proposed for Fiscal Year 2015/2016 is approximately 0.40 full time equivalency, or $65,596 The balance, $18,090, will be used for publication costs, office supplies, and to cover potential costs associated with consultant contracts which may be used to support CDBG Program Administration. While the Fiscal Year 2015/2016 amount is not sufficient to cover the full cost of 1 full time equivalency position, it does cover the full staffing needs of administering the CDBG program. It should be noted that the General Fund does not recover any overhead from the CDBG program and supports the program with cost for departmental managerial oversight and internal support functions. Policy Implications All of the applications recommended for funding in Fiscal Year 2015/2016 are consistent with the priorities established in the City’s proposed 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan, which is generally consistent with the prior plan. Moreover, the recommendations and priorities are consistent with the housing programs and policies in the adopted Comprehensive Plan. Environmental Review For purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), budgeting in itself is not a project. Prior to commitment or release of funds for each of the proposed projects, staff will carry out the required environmental reviews or assessments and certify that the review procedures under CEQA, HUD and NEPA regulations have been satisfied for each particular project. Attachments:  Attachment A: Resolution CDBG FY15-16 (DOCX)  Attachment B: 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan and FY 2015/2016 Action Plan (PDF)  Attachment C: Finance Committee Staff Report, March 17, 2015 (PDF)  Attachment D: Finance Committee Meeting minutes of March 17, 2015 (PDF) ATTACHMENT A Resolution No. XXXX Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving The Use of Community Development Block Grant Funds for Fiscal Year 2015/2016 WHEREAS, on May 4, 2015, 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 July 1, 2015 to June 30, 2020; and WHEREAS, the 2015/2016 Action Plan, the annual funding update to the Consolidated Plan, was subjected to public review and commentary during the period from February 17, 2015 through March 25, 2015; 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 Human Relations Commission and other 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 2015/2016; and WHEREAS, CDBG funds allocated to the City for fiscal year 2015/2016 are proposed to implement the programs described in this resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as follows: SECTION 1. The uses of CDBG funds for fiscal year 2015/2016 are hereby approved and authorized for the following programs: Name of Program Amount 1. Catholic Charities of Santa Clara County – Long Term Care Ombudsman Program. Advocate for the rights of seniors and disabled residents in long term care facilities. $ 5,422 2. InnVision Shelter Network – Opportunity Services Center. Provide comprehensive, one-stop, multi-service day drop-in center for critical homeless services. $ 38,499 3. Palo Alto Housing Corporation – SRO Resident Support. Provide in-house SRO Service Coordinator for support counseling, employment assistance and crisis intervention. $ 24,861 ATTACHMENT A 4. Silicon Valley Independent Living Center – Housing and Emergency Services. Assist low-income individuals and families in search for affordable, accessible housing. $ 5,422 5. YWCA of Silicon Valley – Domestic Violence Services. Provide crisis intervention, emergency shelter, comprehensive case management, counseling/ therapy, children’s play therapy and legal services $ 8,676 6. Project Sentinel – Fair Housing Services. Provide fair housing services including complaint investigation, counseling, advocacy and community education $ 32,016 7. City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment – CDBG Program Administration. $ 83,686 8. MidPen Housing – Palo Alto Garden Rehabilitation. Make site improvements for increased site accessibility, water conservation and property sustainability. $ 392,368 9. Downtown Streets – Workforce Development Program. Provide comprehensive support services for homeless/ unemployed to secure employment. $ 290,723 TOTAL $ 881,673 SECTION 2. The total amount set forth under Section 1 of this resolution represents the proposed allocation of $442,460, in CDBG funds from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for fiscal year 2015/2016, $136,049 in anticipated program income for fiscal year 2015/2016 from Palo Alto Housing Corporation, and a total of $303,164 in prior year resources (Downtown Streets, Inc., FY 2014 - $17,099; Palo Alto Housing Corporation California Park Rehab Project, FY 2013 - $46,998; Community Working Group Alma Garden Rehab Project, FY 2012 - $25,788; and $213,279 in FY 2014 excess program income). SECTION 3. The City staff is hereby authorized to submit the 2015/2016 annual Action Plan update and appropriate application forms to HUD for the fiscal year 2015/2016 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. The City Manager or designee is authorized to sign all necessary grant agreements with the program providers set forth in Section 1. SECTION 4. The funding amounts set forth in Section 1 of this resolution are based on final allocation amounts from the Federal Fiscal Year 2015 HUD appropriations; City Staff is authorized to make adjustments increasing or decreasing the funding amounts set forth herein as consistent with the adopted Citizen Participation Plan. ATTACHMENT A SECTION 5. The City Council hereby finds that the fiscal year 2015/2016 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 prepare certifications that may be required, under CEQA and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), for each project under the fiscal year 2015/2016 CDBG program prior to the release of funds for any such project. // // // // // ATTACHMENT A INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Manager Sr. Assistant City Attorney Director of Planning and Community Environment APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Director of Administrative Services CDBG Coordinator CITY OF PALO ALTO DRAFT 2015-2020 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2015-2016 ACTION PLAN Public Review and Comment Period: February 17, 2015 – March 25, 2015 Updated February 24, 2015 Prepared by the Department of Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Director Hillary Gitelman Consuelo Hernandez, Senior Planner T: 650-329-2428 E: Consuelo.hernandez@cityofpaloalto.org ATTACHMENT B Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 2 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) CITY OF PALO ALTO DRAFT 2015-2020 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND 2015-2016 ACTION PLAN Prepared by: LeSar Development Consultants www.LeSarDevelopment.com Prepared by: MIG www.migcom.com Jennifer LeSar President and CEO 619-236-0612 X102 jennifer@lesardevelopment.com Laura Stetson Principal 626-744-9872 lstetson@migcom.com Vicky Joes Principal 619-236-0612 x102 vicky@lesardevelopment.com Jamillah Jordan Outreach Specialist 510-845-7549 jamillahj@migcom.com Keryna Johnson Senior Associate 619-236-0612 x107 keryna@lesardevelopment.com Prepared for: City of Palo Alto Planning and Community Environment Department www.cityofpaloalto.org 285 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 650-329-2496 Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 3 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Table of Contents Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 9 ES-05 Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................... 9 The Process .................................................................................................................................................14 PR-05 Lead & Responsible Agencies 24 CFR 91.200(b) ........................................................................ 14 PR-10 Consultation - 91.100, 91.200(b), 91.215(l) .................................................................................... 15 PR-15 Citizen Participation ...................................................................................................................... 31 Needs Assessment ..................................................................................................................................... 39 NA-05 Overview ..................................................................................................................................... 39 NA-10 Housing Needs Assessment - 24 CFR 91.205 (a, b, c) ................................................................. 43 NA-15 Disproportionately Greater Need: Housing Problems – 91.205 (b)(2) ....................................... 51 NA-20 Disproportionately Greater Need: Severe Housing Problems – 91.205 (b)(2)......................... 54 NA-25 Disproportionately Greater Need: Housing Cost Burdens – 91.205 (b)(2) ............................... 57 NA-30 Disproportionately Greater Need: Discussion – 91.205(b)(2) ................................................... 59 NA-35 Public Housing – 91.205(b) ......................................................................................................... 61 NA-40 Homeless Needs Assessment – 91.205(c) ................................................................................. 64 NA-45 Non-Homeless Special Needs Assessment - 91.205 (b, d) ......................................................... 71 NA-50 Non-Housing Community Development Needs – 91.215 (f) ..................................................... 75 Housing Market Analysis .......................................................................................................................... 79 MA-05 Overview..................................................................................................................................... 79 MA-10 Number of Housing Units – 91.210(a)&(b)(2) ............................................................................ 82 MA-15 Housing Market Analysis: Cost of Housing - 91.210(a) .............................................................. 86 MA-20 Housing Market Analysis: Condition of Housing – 91.210(a) .................................................... 89 MA-25 Public and Assisted Housing – 91.210(b) ................................................................................... 91 MA-30 Homeless Facilities and Services – 91.210(c) ............................................................................. 94 MA-35 Special Needs Facilities and Services – 91.210(d) ..................................................................... 102 Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 4 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) MA-40 Barriers to Affordable Housing – 91.210(e)............................................................................. 105 MA-45 Non-Housing Community Development Assets – 91.215 (f)................................................... 106 MA-50 Needs and Market Analysis Discussion .................................................................................... 112 Strategic Plan ............................................................................................................................................ 116 SP-05 Overview ..................................................................................................................................... 116 SP-10 Geographic Priorities – 91.215 (a)(1) ........................................................................................... 117 SP-25 Priority Needs - 91.215(a)(2) ........................................................................................................ 118 SP-30 Influence of Market Conditions – 91.215 (b) .............................................................................. 123 SP-35 Anticipated Resources - 91.215(a)(4), 91.220(c)(1,2).................................................................. 124 SP-40 Institutional Delivery Structure – 91.215(k) ............................................................................... 129 SP- 45 Goals Summary – 91.215(a)(4) ................................................................................................... 134 SP-50 Public Housing Accessibility and Involvement – 91.215(c) ....................................................... 136 SP-55 Barriers to Affordable Housing – 91.215(h) ................................................................................ 137 SP-60 Homelessness Strategy – 91.215(d) ........................................................................................... 141 SP-65 Lead based paint Hazards – 91.215(i) .........................................................................................145 SP-70 Anti-Poverty Strategy – 91.215(j) ............................................................................................... 146 SP-80 Monitoring – 91.230 .................................................................................................................... 147 First Year Action Plan .............................................................................................................................. 149 AP-15 Expected Resources – 91.220(c)(1,2) ......................................................................................... 149 AP-20 Annual Goals and Objectives .....................................................................................................154 AP-35 Projects – 91.220(d) ................................................................................................................... 156 AP-38 Project Summary ........................................................................................................................ 157 AP-50 Geographic Distribution – 91.220(f) ......................................................................................... 159 AP-55 Affordable Housing – 91.220(g) ................................................................................................ 160 AP-60 Public Housing – 91.220(h) ......................................................................................................... 161 AP-65 Homeless and Other Special Needs Activities – 91.220(i) ....................................................... 163 Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 5 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) AP-75 Barriers to Affordable Housing – 91.220(j) ............................................................................... 166 AP-85 Other Actions – 91.220(k)...........................................................................................................170 AP-90 Program Specific Requirements – 91.220(l)(1,2,4) ................................................................... 174 Citizen Participation Plan ......................................................................................................................... 175 Table of Acronyms.................................................................................................................................... 183 Appendix A: Citizen Participation Summary ......................................................................................... 184 Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 6 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) List of Tables Table 1 - Responsible Agencies .................................................................................................................. 14 Table 2 - Agencies, Groups, and Organizations that Attended Regional and Community Forums ....... 18 Table 3 - Other Local / Regional / Federal Planning Efforts ...................................................................... 28 Table 4 - Citizen Participation Outreach ................................................................................................... 34 Table 5 - Housing Needs Assessment Demographics (City) .................................................................... 43 Table 6 - Total Households (City) .............................................................................................................. 43 Table 7 - Housing Problems (City) ............................................................................................................. 44 Table 8 - Severe Housing Problems (City) ................................................................................................ 44 Table 9 - Cost Burden > 30% (City) ............................................................................................................. 45 Table 10 - Cost Burden > 50% (City)............................................................................................................ 45 Table 11 - Crowding Information (City) ...................................................................................................... 45 Table 12 - Households with Children Present (City) .................................................................................. 46 Table 13 - Section 8 Participants at 0-30% AMI (County) .......................................................................... 47 Table 14 - Disproportionately Greater Need 0 - 30% AMI (City) ................................................................ 51 Table 15 - Disproportionately Greater Need 30 - 50% AMI (City) .............................................................. 51 Table 16 - Disproportionately Greater Need 50 - 80% AMI (City) ............................................................. 52 Table 17 - Disproportionately Greater Need 80 - 100% AMI (City) ............................................................ 52 Table 18 - Disproportionately Greater Need – Housing Problems (County) ........................................... 52 Table 19 - Severe Housing Problems 0 - 30% AMI (City) ........................................................................... 54 Table 20 - Severe Housing Problems 30 - 50% AMI (City) ......................................................................... 54 Table 21 - Severe Housing Problems 50 - 80% AMI (City) ......................................................................... 55 Table 22 - Severe Housing Problems 80 - 100% AMI (City) ....................................................................... 55 Table 23 - Disproportionately Greater Need – Severe Housing Problems (City) .................................... 55 Table 24 - Greater Need: Housing Cost Burden (City) .............................................................................. 57 Table 25 - Disproportionately Greater Cost Burden (City) ....................................................................... 57 Table 26 - Public Housing by Program Type (City) ................................................................................... 61 Table 27 - Characteristics of Public Housing Residents by Program Type (City) .................................... 62 Table 28 - Race of Public Housing Residents by Program Type (City) .................................................... 63 Table 29 - Ethnicity of Public Housing Residents by Program Type (City) .............................................. 63 Table 30 - Resources Requested by Section 8 Participants (County) ..................................................... 64 Table 31 - Homeless Needs Assessment (City/County) ............................................................................ 67 Table 32 - Exited Homelessness (City) ...................................................................................................... 69 Table 33 - Days to Housing (County) ......................................................................................................... 69 Table 34 - Race and Ethnic Group of Homeless (City) .............................................................................. 69 Table 35 - Elderly Population (City) ........................................................................................................... 72 Table 36 - Disability Status of Population (City) ....................................................................................... 72 Table 37 - Household Size (City) ................................................................................................................ 73 Table 38 - Residential Properties by Unit Number (City) ......................................................................... 82 Table 39 - Unit Size by Tenure (City) ......................................................................................................... 82 Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 7 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Table 40 - HASC Housing Properties (County) ......................................................................................... 83 Table 41 - HACSC Special Needs Populations ............................................................................................ 85 Table 42 - Cost of Housing (City) ............................................................................................................... 86 Table 43 - Rent Paid (City) ......................................................................................................................... 86 Table 44 - Housing Affordability (City) ...................................................................................................... 87 Table 45 - Monthly Rent (City)................................................................................................................... 87 Table 46 - Affordable Housing Supply Versus Need (City) ...................................................................... 87 Table 47 - Condition of Units (City) ........................................................................................................... 89 Table 48 - Year Unit Built (City) ................................................................................................................. 89 Table 49 - Risk of Lead-Based Paint (City) ................................................................................................ 90 Table 50 - Vacant Units (City) .................................................................................................................... 90 Table 51 - Total Number of Units by Program Type (County) .................................................................. 91 Table 52 - Public Housing Condition .......................................................................................................... 92 Table 53 - HACSC Family Self Sufficiency Report (County) ...................................................................... 93 Table 54 - Facilities and Housing Targeted to Homeless Households (County) ..................................... 94 Table 55 - Homeless Housing Inventory Chart (County) .......................................................................... 96 Table 56 - Licensed Community Care Facilities (City) .............................................................................. 102 Table 57 - Independent Living Facilities for Elderly Residents in Palo Alto, 2014 (City) ....................... 103 Table 58 -Jobs / Employed Residents Ratio (County) ............................................................................ 106 Table 59 - Jobs by Business Activity (City) ...............................................................................................107 Table 60 - Labor Force (City) ....................................................................................................................107 Table 61 - Occupations by Sector (City) ...................................................................................................107 Table 62 - Travel Time (City) .................................................................................................................... 108 Table 63 - Educational Attainment by Employment Status - Population Age 16 and Older (City) ....... 108 Table 64 - Educational Attainment by Age (City) ................................................................................... 108 Table 65 - Educational Attainment by Age - 25 and Older (City) ........................................................... 109 Table 66 - Median Earnings in the Past 12 Months (City) ....................................................................... 109 Table 67 - Priority Needs Summary .......................................................................................................... 118 Table 68 - Influence of Market Conditions .............................................................................................. 123 Table 69 - City Entitlement Funding Received FY 2010 – FY 2014 ........................................................... 124 Table 70 - Anticipated Resources ............................................................................................................. 125 Table 71 - Institutional Delivery Structure ................................................................................................ 129 Table 72 - Homeless Prevention Services Summary ................................................................................ 131 Table 73 - Goals Summary ......................................................................................................................... 134 Table 74 - CDBG Fiscal Year 2015-2016 Annual Budgetary Priorities ...................................................... 149 Table 75 - Expected Resources – Priority Table ...................................................................................... 150 Table 76 - Goals Summary .........................................................................................................................154 Table 77 - Project Information ................................................................................................................. 156 Table 78 - Project Summary ...................................................................................................................... 157 Table 79 - Geographic Distribution .......................................................................................................... 159 Table 80 - One Year Goals for Affordable Housing by Support Requirement ...................................... 160 Table 81 - One Year Goals for Affordable Housing by Support Type ..................................................... 160 Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 8 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 9 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Executive Summary ES-05 Executive Summary Introduction The City of Palo Alto (City) is an entitlement jurisdiction that receives federal funding from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) through the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program. The purpose of CDBG funding is to help jurisdictions address their community development needs. CDBG grantees are eligible to use the resources they receive for Public Services, Community and Economic Development, Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) Public Facilities/Infrastructure, and CIP Housing Rehabilitation. Public Service projects provide social services and/or other direct support to individuals and households in need of assistance. Community and Economic Development projects are focused on assisting businesses and organizations with small business loans, façade improvements, and other initiatives. CIP Public Facilities/Infrastructure projects are those which aim to improve public facilities and infrastructure. CIP Housing Rehabilitation projects are for housing rehabilitation improvements of single and multi-unit housing. The City anticipates approximately $2,546,054 in CDBG funding from 2015-2020. HUD requires that entitlement jurisdictions complete a Consolidated Plan every five years. The Consolidated Plan includes an analysis of the jurisdiction’s market, affordable housing, and community development conditions. Additionally, entitlement jurisdictions must also submit an Annual Action Plan to report the distribution of federal entitlement program funding over the Consolidated Plan’s five year period that identifies how funding allocations help meet the goals covered in the Consolidated Plan and a Consolidated Annual Performance Evaluation Report (CAPER) to report the City’s performance. Five Year Goals 1. Assist in the creation and preservation of affordable housing for low income and special needs households. 2. Support activities to end homelessness. 3. Support activities that strengthen neighborhoods through the provision of community services and public improvements to benefit low income and special needs households. 4. Promote fair housing choice. 5. Expand economic opportunities for low income households. Methodology The City’s Consolidated Plan for Fiscal Year 2015-2020 includes a Needs Assessment and Market Analysis and serves as the strategic plan that identifies priority needs of the City to help guide the distribution of CDBG funding. The majority of data utilized is provided by HUD for the purpose of preparing the Consolidated Plan. HUD periodically receives custom tabulations of data from the U.S. Census Bureau that are largely not available through standard Census products. Known as the Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 10 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data, it demonstrates the extent of housing problems and housing needs, particularly for low income households. The CHAS data is used by local governments to plan how to spend HUD funds, and may also be used by HUD to distribute grant funds.1 When CHAS data is not available or appropriate, other data is utilized, including the 2000 and 2010 U.S. Census data and the American Community Survey (ACS) 2008-2012 five-year estimates. While ACS one-year estimates provide the most current data, this report utilizes five-year estimates as they reflect a larger sample size and are considered more reliable and precise.2 Federal funds provided under the CDBG entitlement program are primarily concerned with activities that benefit low-and moderate-income (LMI) households whose incomes do not exceed 80 percent of the area median family income (AMI), as established by HUD, with adjustments for smaller or larger families.3 HUD utilizes three income levels to define LMI households:  Extremely low income: Households earning 30 percent or less than the AMI (subject to specified adjustments for areas with unusually high or low incomes)  Very low income: Households earning 50 percent or less than the AMI (subject to specified adjustments for areas with unusually high or low incomes)  Low and moderate income: Households earning 80 percent or less than the AMI (subject to adjustments for areas with unusually high or low incomes or housing costs) Summary of the objectives and outcomes identified in the Needs Assessment Overview The City is part of the San Francisco Metropolitan Bay Area, located 35 miles south of San Francisco and 14 miles north of San José. The City is located within the County of Santa Clara, borders San Mateo County, and encompasses an area of approximately 26 square miles, one-third of which consists of open space. According to 2008-2012 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimates, the City's total resident population is 63,475. The City has the most educated residents in the country and is one of the most expensive cities to live in.4 In Silicon Valley, the City is considered a central economic focal point and is home to over 7,000 businesses while providing jobs to more than 98,000 people.5 The following provides a brief overview of the results of the Needs Assessment: 1 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. “Consolidated Planning/CHAS Data.” http://www.huduser.org/portal/datasets/cp.html 2 United States Census Bureau. “American Community Survey: When to Use 1-year, 3-year, or 5-year Estimates.” http://www.census.gov/acs/www/guidance_for_data_users/estimates/ 3 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. “Glossary of CPD Terms.” http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/comm_planning/library/glossary 4 Huffington Post. “California’s Most Educated Cities: Palo Alto, Los Altos Top the List.” January 2012. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/california-most-educated-towns/ 5 Bedbury Realtors. “Palo Alto.” http://www.bedburyrealtors.com/Communities/Palo-Alto Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 11 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) NA -10 Housing Needs • Twenty-nine percent of households in the City are paying more than 30 percent of their income toward housing costs. • Thirteen percent of households are severely cost burdened and paying more than 50 percent of their income toward housing. NA-15 Disproportionately Greater Need: Housing Problems  Eighty-nine percent of Asian households in the 30-50% AMI category experience housing problems, compared to 71 percent of the jurisdiction as a whole.  Ninety-three percent of Asian households in the 50-80% AMI category experience housing problems, compared to 71 percent of the jurisdiction as a whole.  More than three-quarters of Hispanic households (78 percent) in the 80-100% AMI category experience housing problems, compared to a nearly half (54 percent) of the jurisdiction as a whole. NA-20 Disproportionately Greater Need: Severe Housing Problems  More than half of Asian households in the 30-50% AMI income category experience severe housing problems in the City, compared to 43 percent of the jurisdiction as a whole.  More than three-quarters of Asian households (77 percent) in the 50-80% AMI category experience a disproportionate amount of severe housing problems, compared to 40 percent of the jurisdiction as a whole.  Forty-five percent of Hispanic households in the 80-100% AMI category experience a disproportionate amount of severe housing problems, compared to 23 percent of the jurisdiction as a whole. NA-25 Disproportionately Greater Need: Housing Cost Burdens  Hispanic households experience a disproportionate cost burden, with 27 percent of households experiencing cost burden, compared to 16 percent of the City as a whole.  American Indian, Alaska Native households experience a disproportionate severe cost burden, with 33 percent of households experiencing cost burden, compared to 13 percent of the City as a whole. NA-35 Public Housing  The Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara (HACSC) assists approximately 17,000 households through the federal Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program (Section 8).  The Section 8 waiting list contains 21,256 households – this is estimated to be a 10-year wait. NA-40 Homeless Needs  The Santa Clara region is home to the fourth-largest population of homeless individuals and the highest percentage of unsheltered homeless of any major city. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 12 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)  As of the 2013 Point in Time Homeless Survey, Palo Alto had 157 homeless residents, with over 90 percent unsheltered and living in a place not fit for human habitation.  Palo Alto clients – those who report that their last permanent zip code was in Palo Alto – represent approximately one percent of the County’s homeless clients. NA-45 Non-Homeless Special Needs  Individuals 65 years of age and older represent 17 percent of the total population of the City.  Thirty-three percent of households in the City contain at least one person 62 years or older.  More than one-quarter of individuals (27 percent) age 65 or older have a disability compared to four percent of the population age 18 to 64, or seven percent of the population as a whole. NA-50 Non-Housing Community Development Needs • Residents and stakeholders who participated in the community outreach for the Consolidated Plan identified the following community development needs as high priorities within these three categories: o Public Facilities: increased homeless facilities, youth centers, rehabilitation of senior centers, and recreational facilities throughout the County o Public Improvements: complete streets that accommodate multiple transportation modes, pedestrian safety, ADA curb improvements, and increased access to parks and open space amenities o Public Services: food assistance and nutrition programs for vulnerable populations, year-round activities for youth, health care services for seniors and low income families, and services for homeless persons Evaluation of past performance The City is responsible for ensuring compliance with all rules and regulations associated with the CDBG entitlement grant program. The City’s Annual Action Plans and CAPERs have provided many details about the goals, projects and programs completed by the City over the past five years. A review of past consolidated annual performance and evaluation reports reveals a strong record of performance in the use of CDBG funds. Palo Alto has been strategic about leveraging these federal dollars and identifying partnerships in the community to maximize their use. For instance, 140 new affordable rental housing have been created during the 2010-2015 Consolidated Planning period, approximately 50 previously unemployed extremely low income individuals have reentered the workforce, and public services have been provided to over 1,000 unduplicated individuals. The City recognizes that the evaluation of past performance is critical to ensure the City and its subrecipients are implementing activities effectively and that those activities align with the City’s overall strategies and goals. The performance of programs and systems are evaluated to ensure the goals and projects are addressing critical needs in the community. Palo Alto has historically allocated CDBG funds to activities that benefit LMI persons, with a top priority to increase affordable housing opportunities in the City. However, due to Palo Alto’s expensive housing market coupled with a decrease in CDBG entitlement funds, it is becoming more difficult to create opportunities for Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 13 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) affordable housing. As such, during this Consolidated Planning period the City will be focusing on rehabilitating existing affordable housing stock that is in need of repair. Planning Staff will also work closely with subrecipients to leverage resources and create opportunities for partnership and collaboration. The City’s subrecipients are challenged to think creatively about working together to address the needs in our community. Summary of citizen participation process and consultation process The City launched a comprehensive outreach strategy to enhance and broaden citizen participation in the preparation of the Consolidated Plan. The City informed the public that it was in the process of creating the 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan and encouraged public participation in the process by conducting a Regional Needs Survey and hosting regional and community forums. Approximately 4,847 entities, organizations, agencies, and persons were directly engaged via outreach efforts and asked to share materials with their beneficiaries, partners, and contacts. These stakeholders were also encouraged to promote attendance at the public forums and to solicit responses to the Regional Needs Survey. Stakeholder engagement included phone calls, targeted emails, newsletter announcements, social media posts, and personalized requests from City staff. The City provided public notice of the Regional Needs Survey and regional and community forums through various outreach methods, including newspaper postings, the internet, social media, and hard copy fliers distributed to various organizations and at local community centers. Two hundred and nine (209) individuals participated in the regional and community forums, including residents, service providers, community advocates, and interested stakeholders. A total of 11 regional and community forums were held in the following locations: Gilroy, Los Gatos, Morgan Hill, San José, Saratoga, and Mountain View, from September 2014 to November 2014. One thousand four hundred seventy-two (1,472) individuals completed the Regional Needs Survey. Summary of comments or views not accepted and reasons for not accepting them Comments received during the public review period will be included in the final draft of the plan. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 14 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) The Process PR-05 Lead & Responsible Agencies 24 CFR 91.200(b) Describe agency/entity responsible for preparing the Consolidated Plan and those responsible for administration of each grant program and funding source. The agency/entity responsible for preparing the Consolidated Plan and those responsible for administration of the grant program and funding source is shown in Table 1. Table 1 - Responsible Agencies Agency Role Name Department/Agency CDBG Administrator / Lead Agency City of Palo Alto Planning and Community Environment Department Lead and Responsible Agencies The City of Palo Alto (City) is the Lead Agency for the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) entitlement programs. The City’s CDBG Coordinator is responsible for the administration of HUD entitlements, which include the Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG). By federal law, each jurisdiction is required to submit to HUD a five-year Consolidated Plan and Annual Action Plans listing priorities and strategies for the use of federal funds. The Consolidated Plan is a guide for how the City will use its federal funds to meet the housing and community development needs of its populations. For the 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan process, the City worked collaboratively with the County of Santa Clara (County) and other entitlement jurisdictions in the County to identify and prioritize housing and housing-related needs across the region, and strategies to meet those needs. Consolidated Plan Public Contact Information City of Palo Alto Planning and Community Environment Department Consuelo Hernandez 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2428 Consuelo.Hernandez@cityofpaloalto.org Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 15 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) PR-10 Consultation - 91.100, 91.200(b), 91.215(l) Introduction Provide a concise summary of the jurisdiction’s activities to enhance coordination between public and assisted housing providers and private and governmental health, mental health and service agencies (91.215[I]). Throughout the County, eight entitlement jurisdictions are collaborating on preparation of their 2015- 2020 Consolidated Plans. This group of jurisdictions, referred to within this document as the “Santa Clara County Entitlement Jurisdictions” or simply “Entitlement Jurisdictions,” includes:  City of Cupertino  City of Gilroy  City of Mountain View  City of Palo Alto  City of Sunnyvale  City of San José  City of Santa Clara  Santa Clara Urban County Public participation plays a central role in the development of the Consolidated Plan. The participating Entitlement Jurisdictions within the County launched an in-depth, collaborative regional effort to consult with community stakeholders, elected offices, City and County departments, and beneficiaries of entitlement programs to inform and develop the priorities and strategies contained within this five-year plan. The participating jurisdictions, in partnership with LeSar Development Consultants (LDC) and MIG, Inc. (MIG), facilitated a comprehensive outreach process to enhance coordination and discuss new approaches to working with public and assisted housing providers, legal advocates, private and governmental health agencies, mental health service providers, and other stakeholders that utilize funding for eligible activities, projects, and programs. A Regional Needs Survey was conducted to solicit input from residents and workers in the region. Respondents were informed that participating jurisdictions were updating their respective Consolidated Plans for federal funds that primarily serve low- and moderate-income (LMI) residents and areas. The Regional Needs Survey polled respondents about the level of need in their respective neighborhoods for various types of improvements that could be addressed by entitlement funds. A total of 1,472 survey responses were obtained from September 19, 2014 to November 15, 2014, including 1,078 surveys collected electronically and 394 collected via print surveys. Regional Forums The Entitlement Jurisdictions held three regional public forums to identify housing and community development needs and priorities for the next five years. The public forums were conducted as part of a collaborative regional approach to help the participating jurisdictions make data-driven, place- based investment decisions for federal funds. Seventy-six (76) people attended the regional forums, Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 16 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) including community members, service providers, nonprofit representatives, and interested stakeholders. Community Forums in Local Jurisdictions In addition to the regional forums, several Entitlement Jurisdictions conducted public outreach independent of the regional collaborative. The cities of San Jose and Mountain View, and the Santa Clara Urban County, each held multiple community forums to solicit public input on local issues, needs and priorities. The community forums were held in tandem with the regional public forums to expand the outreach process and gather specific place-based input. One hundred and thirty-three (133) individuals attended the community forums, including residents, service providers, nonprofit representatives, and interested stakeholders. Outreach Approximately 4,847 entities, organizations, agencies, and persons were directly engaged via outreach efforts and asked to share materials with their beneficiaries, partners, and contacts. These stakeholders were also encouraged to promote attendance at the public forums and to solicit responses to the Regional Needs Survey. Stakeholder engagement included phone calls, targeted emails, newsletter announcements, social media posts, and personalized requests from staff of the Entitlement Jurisdictions. Each participating jurisdiction also promoted the regional forums and regional survey links on their respective websites and announced the Consolidated Plan process through electronic mailing lists. Outreach materials and the survey links (including materials in Spanish) were emailed to over 4,000 entities, organizations, and persons. Approximately 1,225 printed flyers providing public notice about the regional forums were distributed throughout the County at libraries, recreation centers, community meeting locations, and organizations benefiting LMI residents and areas. These flyers were available in English and Spanish. Print newspaper display ads also were posted in the Gilroy Dispatch (English), Mountain View Voice (English), El Observador (Spanish), La Oferta (Spanish), Thoi Bao (Vietnamese), Philippine News (Tagalog), World Journal (Chinese) and San Jose Mercury News (English). In addition, an online display ad was placed in the San Jose Mercury News to reach readers electronically. Describe coordination with the Continuum of Care and efforts to address the needs of homeless persons (particularly chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans, and unaccompanied youth) and persons at risk of homelessness. The Santa Clara County Continuum of Care (CoC) is a multi-sector group of stakeholders dedicated to ending and preventing homelessness in the County. The CoC’s primary responsibilities are to coordinate large-scale implementation of efforts to prevent and end homelessness in the County. The CoC is governed by the Santa Clara CoC Board (CoC Board), which stands as the driving force committed to supporting and promoting a systems change approach to preventing and ending homelessness in the County. The CoC Board is comprised of the same individuals who serve on the Destination: Home Leadership Board. Destination: Home is a public-private partnership committed to collective impact strategies to Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 17 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) end chronic homelessness, and leads the development of community-wide strategy related to the CoC’s work. The County’s Office of Supportive Housing serves as the Collaborative Applicant for the CoC, and is responsible for implementing by-laws and protocols that govern the operations of the CoC. The Office of Supportive Housing is also responsible for ensuring that the CoC meets the requirements outlined under the Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing Act of 2009 (HEARTH).6 In winter 2015, Destination: Home and the CoC released a Community Plan to End Homelessness in Santa Clara County (the Plan), which outlines a roadmap for community-wide efforts to end homelessness in the County by 2020. The strategies and action steps included in the plan were informed by members who participated in a series of community summits designed to address the needs of homeless populations from April to August 2014. The Plan identifies strategies to address the needs of homeless persons in the County, including chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans, and unaccompanied youth. Additionally, it also intended to address the needs of persons at risk of homelessness. To address the needs of homeless individuals and individuals at risk of homelessness, the Plan aims to implement the following strategies:7 1. Disrupt systems: Develop disruptive strategies and innovative prototypes that transform the systems related to housing homeless people. 2. Build the solution: Secure the right amount of funding needed to provide housing and services to those who are homeless and those at risk of homelessness. 3. Serve the person: Adopt an approach that recognizes the need for client-centered strategies with different responses for different levels of need and different groups, targeting resources to the specific individual or household. Over the next five years, the Plan seeks to identify approximately 6,000 new housing opportunities for the homeless, intending to house 2,518 homeless individuals, 718 homeless veterans, and more than 2,333 children, unaccompanied youth, and homeless individuals living in families. The City is represented on the CoC by Minka Van Der Zwaag, Human Services Manager. Members of the CoC meet on a monthly basis in various work groups to ensure successful implementation components of the Plan’s action steps. A Community Plan Implementation Team, which includes members of the CoC and other community stakeholders, meets quarterly to evaluate progress toward the Plan’s goals, identify gaps in homeless services, establish funding priorities, and pursue an overall systematic approach to address homelessness.8 6 County of Santa Clara. “Housing Element 2015-2022.” 2014. http://www.sccgov.org/sites/planning/PlansPrograms/GeneralPlan/Housing/Documents/HE_2015_Adopted_Final.pdf 7 Santa Clara County CoC. “Community Plan to End Homelessness in Santa Clara County 2015-2020.” 2014. 8 Ibid. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 18 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Describe consultation with the Continuum(s) of Care that serves the jurisdiction's area in determining how to allocate ESG funds, develop performance standards and evaluate outcomes, and develop funding, policies, and procedures for the administration of HMIS. Allocating Funds, Setting Performance Standards and Evaluating Outcomes The City is not an ESG entitlement jurisdiction. Operating and Administrating Homeless Management Information System Santa Clara County (HMIS SCC) The HMIS SCC project is administered by Community Technology Alliance (CTA) and has served the community since 2004. The project meets and exceeds HUD’s requirements for the implementation and compliance of HMIS Standards. The project has a rich array of service provider participation and is utilized to capture information and report on special programming, such as Housing 1000, the County VTA free bus pass program, and prevention service delivery.9 Describe Agencies, groups, organizations, and others who participated in the process, and describe the jurisdictions consultations with housing, social service agencies, and other entities. In August 2014, the Entitlement Jurisdictions contracted with LDC and MIG to develop the Consolidated Plan for fiscal years 2015-2020. In partnership with the participating jurisdictions, LDC and MIG launched an in-depth, collaborative effort to consult with elected officials, City/County departments, community stakeholders, and beneficiaries of entitlement programs to inform and develop the priorities and strategies contained within the five-year plan. Table 2 provides a list of all agencies, groups and organizations that attended the regional and community forums. Several of the agencies, groups and organizations identified in the table attended multiple forums. A comprehensive list of all stakeholders and local service providers contacted to provide input into the planning process at the Consolidated Plan regional and community forums is included in Appendix A. Table 2 - Agencies, Groups, and Organizations that Attended Regional and Community Forums Agency / Group /Organization Agency / Group / Organization Type What Section of the Plan Was Addressed by the Consultation? How Was the Agency/Group/Organization Consulted and What are the Anticipated Outcomes of the Consultation or Areas for Improved Coordination? Abilities United Disabled Services Services – Children Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Agency attended Community Forum(s) on:  September 25, 2014 9 County of Santa Clara. Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER). 2014 http://www.sccgov.org/sites/oah/Housing%20%20Community%20Development%20(HCD)/Documents/Draft%20CAPER%20FY1 4%20vs%201.pdf Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 19 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Agency / Group /Organization Agency / Group / Organization Type What Section of the Plan Was Addressed by the Consultation? How Was the Agency/Group/Organization Consulted and What are the Anticipated Outcomes of the Consultation or Areas for Improved Coordination? Afghan Center Cultural Organizations Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Agency attended Community Forum(s) on:  October 7, 2014 Aging Services Collaborative Senior Services Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Agency attended Community Forum(s) on:  September 27, 2014 Bill Wilson Center Children and Youth Services Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Agency attended Community Forum(s) on:  September 25, 2014  September 27, 2014  September 30, 2014  October 1, 2014  October 2, 2014  October 7, 2014  October 23, 2014  November 20, 2014 California Housing Odd Fellows Foundation Housing Children and Youth Services Community/Family Services and Organizations Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Agency attended Community Forum(s) on:  November 5, 2014 Casa De Clara - Catholic Worker Health Services Homeless Services – Single Women/ Women and Children Only Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Agency attended Community Forum(s) on:  November 20, 2014 Catholic Charities of Santa Clara County Senior Services Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Agency attended Community Forum(s) on:  October 2, 2014 Challenge Team Mountain View Dreamers Immigration Services Community/Family Services and Organizations Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Agency attended Community Forum(s) on:  September 25, 2014 Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 20 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Agency / Group /Organization Agency / Group / Organization Type What Section of the Plan Was Addressed by the Consultation? How Was the Agency/Group/Organization Consulted and What are the Anticipated Outcomes of the Consultation or Areas for Improved Coordination? City of Campbell Government Agencies: Local, County, State and Federal Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Agency attended Community Forum(s) on:  September 25, 2014 City of Cupertino Government Agencies: Local, County, State and Federal Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Agency attended Community Forum(s) on:  November 20, 2014 City of Gilroy Government Agencies: Local, County, State and Federal Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Agency attended Community Forum(s) on:  September 25, 2014 City of Mountain View Government Agencies: Local, County, State and Federal Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Agency attended Community Forum(s) on:  October 22, 2014 City of Palo Alto Government Agencies: Local, County, State and Federal Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Agency attended Community Forum (s) on:  September 25, 2014 City of San Jose Government Agencies: Local, County, State and Federal Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Agency attended Community Forum (s) on:  September 27, 2014  September 30, 2014  October 1, 2014  October 2, 2014  October 7, 2014 City of San Jose Environmental Services Department Government Agencies: Local, County, State and Federal Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Agency attended Community Forum (s) on the following dates:  October 7, 2014 City of Santa Cruz Government Agencies: Local, County, State and Federal Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Agency attended Community Forum (s) on:  September 25, 2014 City of Sunnyvale Government Agencies: Local, County, State and Federal Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Agency attended Community Forum (s) on:  November 5, 2014 Coldwell Banker Business (Major Employers, Chambers of Commerce, Associations, Real Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Agency attended Community Forum (s) on:  September 25, 2014 Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 21 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Agency / Group /Organization Agency / Group / Organization Type What Section of the Plan Was Addressed by the Consultation? How Was the Agency/Group/Organization Consulted and What are the Anticipated Outcomes of the Consultation or Areas for Improved Coordination? Estate) Community School Of Music And Arts Community/ Family Services and Organizations Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Agency attended Community Forum (s) on:  November 20, 2014 Community Services Agency Senior Services Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Agency attended Community Forum(s) on the following dates:  September 25, 2014 Compassion Center Homeless Services Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Agency attended Community Forum(s) on:  September 25, 2014  October 23, 2014  November 5, 2014 County of Santa Clara Government Agencies: Local, County, State and Federal Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Agency attended Community Forum(s) on:  October 22, 2014  November 1, 2014 Destination: Home Homeless Services Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Agency attended Community Forum(s) on:  September 25, 2014  November 1, 2014  November 5, 2014 Five Wounds/ Brookwood Terrace Neighborhood Association Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Agency attended Community Forum(s) on:  September 25, 2014 Franklin McKinley Children's Initiative Education Services Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Agency attended Community Forum(s) on:  October 7, 2014 Fresh Lifelines For Youth (FLY) Children & Youth Services Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Agency attended Community Forum(s) on:  October 7, 2014 Gilroy Compassion Center Homeless Services Needs Assessment and Agency attended Community Forum(s) on: Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 22 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Agency / Group /Organization Agency / Group / Organization Type What Section of the Plan Was Addressed by the Consultation? How Was the Agency/Group/Organization Consulted and What are the Anticipated Outcomes of the Consultation or Areas for Improved Coordination? Strategic Plan  October 23, 2014 Health Trust / Aging Services Collaborative Homeless Services Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Agency attended Community Forum(s) on:  September 25, 2014 Hope’s Corner Homeless Services Community/ Family Services and Organizations Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Agency attended Community Forum(s) on:  September 25, 2014 In Home Services Disabled Services Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Agency attended Community Forum (s) on:  October 23, 2014 Institute on Aging Senior Services Health Services Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Agency attended Community Forum(s) on:  October 1, 2014 InnVision Shelter Network (IVSN) Homeless Services Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Agency attended Community Forum(s) on:  October 22, 2014 Junior Achievement Children and Youth Services Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Agency attended Community Forum(s) on:  September 25, 2014 Law Foundation Of Silicon Valley Fair Housing and Legal Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Agency attended Community Forum(s) on:  October 23, 2014 LeSar Development Corporation Affordable Housing Developers Business (Major Employers, Chambers of Commerce, Associations, Real Estate) Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Agency attended Community Forum(s) on:  October 7, 2014 Legal Aid Society Santa Clara County Fair Housing and Legal Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Agency attended Community Forum(s) on:  September 25, 2014 Los Altos Community/Family Needs Agency attended Community Forum(s) Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 23 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Agency / Group /Organization Agency / Group / Organization Type What Section of the Plan Was Addressed by the Consultation? How Was the Agency/Group/Organization Consulted and What are the Anticipated Outcomes of the Consultation or Areas for Improved Coordination? Community Foundation Services and Organizations Assessment and Strategic Plan on:  September 30, 2014  October 1, 2014 Live Oak Adult Day Services Senior Services Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Agency attended Community Forum(s) on:  October 23, 2014 Mayfair NAC Neighborhood Association Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Agency attended Community Forum(s) on the following dates:  September 27, 2014 Mckinly Bonita Neighborhood Association Neighborhood Association Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Agency attended Community Forum(s) on:  October 2, 2014 MidPen Housing Affordable Housing Developers Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Agency attended Community Forum(s) on:  September 30, 2014 Migrant Education, Santa Clara Unified School District Education Services Employment and Job Training Services Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Agency attended Community Forum(s) on the following dates:  September 25, 2014  October 23, 2014 Mountain View Dreamers Immigration Services Community/Family Services and Organizations Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Agency attended Community Forum(s) on:  September 25, 2014  September 27, 2014  September 30, 2014  October 1, 2014  October 2, 2014  October 7, 2014  October 22, 2014  October 23, 2014  November 1, 2014  November 5, 2014  November 20, 2014 Mountain View Government Agencies: Needs Agency attended Community Forum(s) Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 24 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Agency / Group /Organization Agency / Group / Organization Type What Section of the Plan Was Addressed by the Consultation? How Was the Agency/Group/Organization Consulted and What are the Anticipated Outcomes of the Consultation or Areas for Improved Coordination? Human Relations Commission (HRC) Local, County, State and Federal Community/ Family Services and Organizations Senior Services Children and Youth Services Assessment and Strategic Plan on:  September 25, 2014 Palo Alto Human Relations Commission Government Agencies: Local, County, State and Federal Community/ Family Services and Organizations Senior Services Children and Youth Services Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Agency attended Community Forum(s) on:  September 25, 2014 Project Access Employment and Job Training Services Community/ Family Services and Organizations Senior Services Children and Youth Services Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Agency attended Community Forum(s) on:  October 23, 2014 Project Sentinel Fair Housing and Legal Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Agency attended Community Forum (s):  September 25, 2014 Rebuilding Together Peninsula Housing Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Agency attended Community Forum (s):  October 1, 2014 Rebuilding Together Silicon Housing Needs Assessment and Agency attended Community Forum (s) Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 25 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Agency / Group /Organization Agency / Group / Organization Type What Section of the Plan Was Addressed by the Consultation? How Was the Agency/Group/Organization Consulted and What are the Anticipated Outcomes of the Consultation or Areas for Improved Coordination? Valley Strategic Plan on:  October 1, 2014  November 20, 2014 Sacred Heart - Housing Action Committee Fair Housing and Legal Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Agency attended Community Forum (s) on:  September 25, 2014  October 1, 2014  October 23, 2014 Sacred Heart Community Service Fair Housing and Legal Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Agency attended Community Forum (s) on:  September 27, 2014  September 30, 2014  October 1, 2014  October 2, 2014  October 7, 2014 Senior Adults Legal Assistance (SALA) Fair Housing and Legal Senior Services Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Agency attended Community Forum (s) on:  September 27, 2014 Santa Clara County Government Agencies: Local, County, State and Federal Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Agency attended Community Forum (s) on:  October 1, 2014 Secondary Fuente/ Walnut Creek Homeowner Ass. Housing Business (Major Employers, Chambers of Commerce, Associations, Real Estate) Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Agency attended Community Forum (s) on:  September 25, 2014  September 27, 2014  October 22, 2014  October 23, 2014  November 1, 2014  November 5, 2014 Servant Partners Cultural Organization Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Agency attended Community Forum (s) on:  September 27, 2014 Silicon Valley Community Foundation Education Services Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Agency attended Community Forum (s) on:  September 27, 2014 Silicon Valley Independent Senior Services Needs Assessment and Agency attended Community Forum (s) Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 26 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Agency / Group /Organization Agency / Group / Organization Type What Section of the Plan Was Addressed by the Consultation? How Was the Agency/Group/Organization Consulted and What are the Anticipated Outcomes of the Consultation or Areas for Improved Coordination? Living Center Strategic Plan on:  October 2, 2014 Somos Mayfair Community/ Family Services and Organizations Children and Youth Services Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Agency attended Community Forum (s) on:  September 25, 2014 South County Collaborative Housing Services Homeless Services Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Agency attended Community Forum (s) on:  September 25, 2014  September 30, 2014  October 2, 2014 St. Joseph's Family Center Continuum of Care Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Agency attended Community Forum (s) on:  September 27, 2014  October 1, 2014  October 2, 2014 Sunnyvale Community Services Community/ Family Services and Organizations Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Agency attended Community Forum (s) on: October 22, 2014 Silicon Valley Council of Nonprofits Community/ Family Services and Organizations Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Agency attended Community Forum (s) on:  October 22, 2014 West Valley Community Services Senior Services Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Agency attended Community Forum (s) on:  September 25, 2014 YMCA Children & Youth Services Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Agency attended Community Forum (s) on:  October 1, 2014 Yu Chi Kai Senior Center Senior Services Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Agency attended Community Forum(s) on:  November 20, 2014 Identify any Agency Types not consulted and provide rationale for not consulting. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 27 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Not applicable. See PR-10 Table 2. Other Local/Regional/State/Federal Planning Efforts Considered When Preparing the Plan Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 28 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Table 3 - Other Local / Regional / Federal Planning Efforts Name of Plan Lead Organization How Do the Goals of Your Strategic Plan Overlap With the Goals of Each Plan? City of Palo Alto Housing Element (2015-2023) City of Palo Alto The Housing Element serves as a policy guide to help the City meet its existing and future housing needs. This effort aligns with the Strategic Plan's goal to assist in the creation and preservation of affordable housing. Continuum of Care Regional Continuum of Care Council The CoC works to alleviate the impact of homelessness in the community through the cooperation and collaboration of social service providers. This effort aligns with the Strategic Plan's goal to support activities to end homelessness. 2012-2014 Comprehensive HIV Prevention & Care Plan for San José Santa Clara County HIV Planning Council for Prevention and Care This plan provides a roadmap for the Santa Clara County HIV Planning Council for Prevention and Care to provide a comprehensive and compassionate system of HIV prevention and care services for the County. This effort aligns with the Strategic Plan's goal to support activities that strengthen neighborhoods through the provision of community services and public improvements. Affordable Housing Funding Landscape & Local Best Practices (2013) Cities Association of Santa Clara County and Housing Trust Silicon Valley This report provides a comparison of the different funding strategies available for affordable housing in the County, and the best practices for funding new affordable housing. This effort aligns with the Strategic Plan's goal to assist in the creation and preservation of affordable housing. Regional Housing Need Plan for the San Francisco Bay Area: 2014- 2022 Association of Bay Area Governments This plan analyzes the total regional housing need for the County and all of the Bay Area. This effort aligns with the Strategic Plan's goal to assist in the creation and preservation of affordable housing. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 29 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Name of Plan Lead Organization How Do the Goals of Your Strategic Plan Overlap With the Goals of Each Plan? Community Plan to End Homelessness in Santa Clara County 2015-2020 Destination: Home The Community Plan to End Homelessness in the County is a five-year plan to guide governmental actors, nonprofits, and other community members as they make decisions about funding, programs, priorities and needs. This effort aligns with the Strategic Plan's goal to support activities to end homelessness. Palo Alto's Infrastructure: Catching Up, Keeping Up, and Moving Ahead (2011) City of Palo Alto’s Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Commission This plan details recommendations for infrastructure maintenance and replace, as well as identifies potential sources of funding. This effort aligns with the Strategic Plan's goal to support activities that strengthen neighborhoods through the provision of community services and public improvements. City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan (1998) City of Palo Alto This plan is the City’s primary tool for guiding future development. It provides a guide for long-term choices and goals for the City’s future. This effort aligns with the Strategic Plan's goal to support activities that strengthen neighborhoods through the provision of community services and public improvements. Describe cooperation and coordination with other public entities, including the State and any adjacent units of general local government, in the implementation of the Consolidated Plan. (91.215[l]) As mentioned previously, the Entitlement Jurisdictions are collaborating on preparation of their 2015- 2020 Consolidated Plans. The outreach and the regional needs assessment for these jurisdictions was a coordinated effort. The CoC and the County were involved in the formation of the Consolidated Plan and will be integral in its implementation. As standard practice, CDBG entitlement jurisdictions from throughout the County hold quarterly meetings known as the CDBG Coordinators Group. These meetings are often attended by HUD representatives and their purpose is to share information, best practices, new developments, and federal policy and appropriations updates among the local grantee staff, as well as to offer a convenient forum for HUD to provide ad-hoc technical assistance related to federal grant management. Meeting agendas cover such topics as projects receiving multi-jurisdictional funding, Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 30 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) performance levels and costs for contracted public services, proposed annual funding plans, HUD program administration requirements, and other topics of mutual concern. These quarterly meetings provide the opportunity for the City to consult with other jurisdictions on its proposed use of federal funds for the upcoming Program Year. The CDBG Coordinators Group meetings are often followed by a Regional Housing Working Group meeting, which is open to staff of entitlement and non-entitlement jurisdictions. The Working Group provides a forum for jurisdictions to develop coordinated responses to regional housing challenges. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 31 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) PR-15 Citizen Participation Summary of citizen participation process/Efforts made to broaden citizen participation Summarize citizen participation process and how it impacted goal-setting The following is an overview of the efforts made to enhance and broaden citizen participation. A comprehensive summary of the citizen participation process and how it impacted goal-setting is provided in Appendix A: Citizen Participation Summary. Regional and Community Forums  Results: 209 individuals participated in the forums including residents, service providers, community advocates and interested stakeholders.  Hardcopy Engagement: 1,225 hardcopy surveys distributed to: libraries, and community meetings, organizations benefiting LMI residents and area.  Location: A total of 11 regional and community forums were held in the following locations: Gilroy, Los Gatos, Morgan Hill, San José, Saratoga, and Mountain View from September 2014 to November 2014.  Newspaper Advertisements: Eight multi-lingual display ads were posted in local news media outlets in the County reaching a joint circulation across the County of over 1,575,000. Regional Needs Survey  Results: 1,472 responses  Outreach: 4,847 entities, organizations, persons directly engaged via email; outreach flyer and survey links posted on websites of the Entitlement Jurisdictions of the County.  Social Media: Approximately 25,000 persons on Facebook and 11,000 persons on Twitter were engaged. Overall Community Needs  Need for Affordable Rental Housing The majority of community forum participants and survey respondents identified increasing affordable rental housing inventory as the highest priority need within the County. More than 63 percent of survey respondents indicated affordable rental housing as a “high level” of need. Several community forum participants noted that LMI households cannot afford average rental rates in the County.  Need to Increase Services for the Homeless Emergency and transitional housing, comprehensive services at homeless encampments (e.g., basic shelter facilities, health care referrals), and rental assistance programs for the homeless were frequently identified by participants as critical needs.  Need for Senior Housing Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 32 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) The need to address the housing crisis facing seniors in the County was a common discussion topic. Forum participants noted that elderly renter households experience numerous housing issues, including cost burden and rental units in disrepair.  Need for Increase in Community Services Survey respondents and forum participants called attention to the need for expanded support of a wide range of community services to meet the basic needs of vulnerable populations. Programs to meet basic needs such as food, clothing, health, and shelter of low income and special needs populations were frequently highlighted during community forums. Due to the increased demand for these basic assistance programs, service providers noted that they were struggling to meet clients’ needs with limited resources and staff capacity.  Need for Support Services for Seniors Local service providers who attended the community forums stressed the importance of increasing safety net programs for seniors. Nutrition and food assistance programs, transportation services, recreational programs to reduce senior isolation, and general case management services are needed to address challenges faced by the County’s growing senior population.  Need for Transportation Services Local service providers at each of the Consolidated Plan forums highlighted the lack of affordable and accessible transportation services in the County. Programs to augment public transit, paratransit, and senior transit services were cited as necessities.  Need for Fair Housing Education and Legal Services Several service providers noted the need to expand the provision of free or low-cost legal services to protect fair housing rights and to mediate tenant / landlord issues. Education for tenants and landlords was identified as a vital need to prevent illegal evictions and address housing discrimination.  Need for Economic Development and Job Training Programs Many forum participants emphasized the need for job training programs for youth, low- skilled workers, homeless individuals and undocumented workers. Small business assistance, including micro-enterprise loans and services to support minority-owned businesses, were also highlighted as important tools to spur job creation and to retain small business owners in the County.  Need for Infrastructure and Neighborhood Improvement Services The need to create pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods and cities that support “Complete Streets” guidance was frequently noted by forum participants. Addressing bicycle/pedestrian conflicts with vehicular traffic was a key issue of concern for vulnerable populations, including school-age children and seniors. Other participants expressed the need to expand ADA improvements such as curb cuts, sidewalk repairs and crosswalk enhancements. Expanding access to open space and recreational amenities was also noted by several service providers as a pressing need to encourage healthy lifestyles and active living among the County’s residents. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 33 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Consolidated Plan Public Comment Period The Consolidated Plan was released February 17, 2015 for a 30 day public review and comment period. An updated version of the Plan was released on February 24, 2015 and the comment period was extended an additional seven days. The Plan was available electronically on the City’s CDBG website at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pln/cdbg.asp. Hardcopies were made available at City Hall and at the Development Services Center located at 285 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301. The electronic version was sent to distribution lists totaling approximately nine entities, organizations, agencies and citizens or groups. In addition, public comment was encouraged at the hearings listed below, or could be submitted in writing to: City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Attn: Consuelo Hernandez, Senior Planner. A summary of all public comments is included in the final Consolidated Plan, along with the City’s response to the comments, if any. Public Hearings Locations and dates: o Human Relations Commission Public Hearing City Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 February 12, 2015 – 7:00PM o Human Relations Commission Public Hearing City Council Conference Room 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo alto, CA 94301 March 12, 2015 – 7:00PM o Palo Alto City Council Finance Committee Public Hearing Council Conference Room 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 March 17, 2015 – 6:00PM o City Council Public Hearing City Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, Ca 94301 May 4, 2015 – 7:00PM In addition to the mass distribution of the draft Plan and notice of the public comment period described above, notice of the public hearings was published in advance in the Palo Alto Weekly. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 34 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Table 4 - Citizen Participation Outreach Mode of Outreach Target of Outreach Summary of Response/Attendance Summary of Comments Received Summary of comments not accepted and reasons URL (If applicable) Public Forums Broad community outreach to all members of the public and targeted outreach to service providers, beneficiaries and grant recipients A total of 209 individuals attended the 11 regional/community forums held in the fall of 2014. See PR-15 All comments were accepted. Online Survey Broad community outreach to members of the public and interested stakeholders A total of 1,078 Regional Needs Surveys were collected during the open period from September 19, 2014 through November 15, 2014. The online survey was available in Spanish and English. The online survey link was distributed to over 4,847 entities, organizations, agencies, and persons. See PR-15 All comments were accepted. English: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/SCC_Regional_S urvey Spanish: https://es.surveymonkey.com/s/SCC_Regional_Surv ey_Spanish Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 35 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Mode of Outreach Target of Outreach Summary of Response/Attendance Summary of Comments Received Summary of comments not accepted and reasons URL (If applicable) Print Survey Targeted non-English Speaking communities through surveys in English, Spanish, simplified Chinese, Tagalog and Vietnamese. Over 3,160 print surveys were distributed at community centers, libraries, City Halls, senior centers and other high- traffic community hubs. A total of 394 Regional Needs Surveys were collected during the open period from September 19, 2014 through November 15, 2014. The print survey was available in five languages. See PR-15 All comments were accepted. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 36 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Mode of Outreach Target of Outreach Summary of Response/Attendance Summary of Comments Received Summary of comments not accepted and reasons URL (If applicable) Website Broad outreach to Santa Clara County stakeholders with computer and internet access Announcements posted to the websites of the Entitlement Jurisdictions to promote regional survey links (English and Spanish) and regional/ community forums See PR-15 Not Applicable County of Santa Clara/ Urban County: http://www.sccgov.org/sites/oah/Pages/Office-of- Affordable-Housing.aspx City of Palo Alto: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pln/cdbg. asp City of Sunnyvale: http://sunnyvale.ca.gov/Departments/CommunityD evelopment/HousingandCommunityAssistance.asp x City of Mountain View: http://www.mountainview.gov/depts/comdev/pres ervation/details.asp?NewsID=899&TargetID=35 http://www.mountainview.gov/events/default.asp City of San Jose: http://www.sanjoseca.gov/HousingConPlan City of Cupertino: http://www.cupertino.org/index.aspx?page=976 City of Santa Clara: http://santaclaraca.gov/index.aspx?page=41&recor did=13579 City of Gilroy: http://www.cityofgilroy.org/cityofgilroy/ http://www.cityofgilroy.org/cityofgilroy/city_hall/co mmunity_development/planning/housing/default.a spx Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 37 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Mode of Outreach Target of Outreach Summary of Response/Attendance Summary of Comments Received Summary of comments not accepted and reasons URL (If applicable) Advertisements in News Media Outlets Multi-lingual advertisements printed in the following media outlets: El Observador (Spanish, )Mountain View Voice (English), San Jose Mercury News (English), Gilroy Dispatch (English), La Oferta (Spanish), Thoi Bao (Vietnamese), Philippine News (Tagalog) and World Journal (Chinese) Eight, multi-lingual display ads were posted in local news media outlets in the County; One online advertisement was placed in the San Jose Mercury News. Joint circulation (e.g. number of copies distributed on an average day) of over 1,575,000. See PR-15 Not Applicable Social Media Broad outreach to Santa Clara County residents and stakeholders with computer access Announcements posted to Facebook and Twitter accounts of Entitlement Jurisdictions and community partners. A potential of 25,000 persons on Facebook and 11,000 persons on Twitter were engaged in this process. See PR-15 All comments were accepted. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 38 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Mode of Outreach Target of Outreach Summary of Response/Attendance Summary of Comments Received Summary of comments not accepted and reasons URL (If applicable) E-blasts Mass emails to new and established distribution lists of Entitlement Jurisdictions and community partners Approximately 4,847 entities, organizations, agencies, and persons have been engaged through e-blasts outreach efforts. E-blasts included links to an electronic outreach flyer. See PR-15 All comments were accepted. Personalized emails from staff of Entitlement Jurisdictions Service providers, beneficiaries and grant recipients across the County. Targeted emails promoting regional survey links (English and Spanish) sent to over 560 stakeholders. See PR-15 All comments were accepted. Print Outreach Flyers Print surveys were distributed at community centers, libraries, City Halls, senior centers and other high-traffic community hubs. Over 1,225 print flyers were printed and distributed at community hubs across the County. See PR-15 All comments were accepted. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 39 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Needs Assessment NA-05 Overview The County of Santa Clara (County) encompasses Silicon Valley, an area known for its technological enterprise, wealth and proximity to the San Francisco Bay Area. It is a region of distinct socio- economic stratification, containing many of the wealthiest households in the nation. It is also one of the least affordable places to live, with 42 percent of residents experiencing housing cost burden.10 The region boasts the highest national median household income at $90,73711. It is also the third- most expensive rental market in the U.S,12 the seventh-least affordable for-sale market of any metropolitan area13, and home to the fourth-largest population of homeless individuals14 with the highest percentage of unsheltered homeless of any major city. 15 These statistics point to a widening gap between the highest earners and the middle and lower income population. Over 45 percent of households earn $100,000 or more yearly, but only 13 percent earn between $50,000 and $75,000 and 15 percent earn between $25,000 and $49,99916, making the region the second-least equitable metropolitan area in the nation.17 Many lower income residents struggle with severe housing costs driven by a tight and competitive housing market that responds to the demands of the highest earning households, driving up the cost of for-sale and rental housing. In order to maintain housing affordability and meet the needs of a diverse and growing population, the jurisdictions within the County must work to preserve and expand the supply of housing for all income levels. This will be critical to maintaining the wellbeing and economic prosperity of the region. The City of Palo Alto (City) is part of the San Francisco Metropolitan Bay Area, located 35 miles south of San Francisco and 14 miles north of San Jose. The City is located within the County, borders San Mateo County, and encompasses an area of approximately 26 square miles, one-third of which consists of open space. According to 2008-2012 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimates, the City's total resident population is 63,475. The City has the most educated residents in the country and is one of the most expensive cities to live in.18 In Silicon Valley, the City is considered a central economic focal point and is home to over 7,000 businesses while providing jobs to more than 98,000 people.19 10 2007-2011 CHAS 11 The United States Conference of Mayors and The Council on Metro Economies and the New American City. “U.S. Metro Economies: Income and Wage Gaps Across the US.” August 2014. http://usmayors.org/metroeconomies/2014/08/report.pdf 12 National Low Income Housing Coalition. “Out of Reach.” 2014. http://nlihc.org/sites/default/files/oor/2014OOR.pdf 13 Trulia. “Where is Homeownership Within Reach of the Middle Class and Millennials.” November 2014. http://www.trulia.com/trends/2014/11/middle-class-millennials-report/ 14 The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. “2014 Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR) to Congress.” October 2014. https://www.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/AHAR-2014-Part1.pdf 15 Ibid 16 The United States Conference of Mayors and The Council on Metro Economies and the New American City. “U.S. Metro Economies: Income and Wage Gaps Across the US.” August 2014. http://usmayors.org/metroeconomies/2014/08/report.pdf 17 Ibid 18 Huffington Post. “California’s Most Educated Cities: Palo Alto, Los Altos Top the List.” January 2012. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/california-most-educated-towns/ 19 Bedbury Realtors. “Palo Alto.” http://www.bedburyrealtors.com/Communities/Palo-Alto Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 40 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Methodology The majority of data utilized is provided by HUD for the purpose of preparing the Consolidated Plan. HUD periodically receives custom tabulations of data from the U.S. Census Bureau that are largely not available through standard Census products. Known as the Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data, it demonstrates the extent of housing problems and housing needs, particularly for low income households. The CHAS data is used by local governments to plan how to spend HUD funds, and may also be used by HUD to distribute grant funds.20 When CHAS data is not available or appropriate, other data is utilized, including 2000 and 2010 U.S. Census data and American Community Survey (ACS) 2008-2012 five-year estimates. While ACS one- year estimates provide the most current data, this report utilizes five-year estimates as they reflect a larger sample size and are considered more reliable and precise.21 Federal funds provided under the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) entitlement program are primarily concerned with activities that benefit low-and moderate-income (LMI) households whose incomes do not exceed 80 percent of the area median family income (AMI), as established by HUD, with adjustments for smaller or larger families.22 HUD utilizes three income levels to define LMI households:  Extremely low income: Households earning 30 percent or less than the AMI (subject to specified adjustments for areas with unusually high or low incomes)  Very low income: Households earning 50 percent or less than the AMI (subject to specified adjustments for areas with unusually high or low incomes)  Low and moderate income: Households earning 80 percent or less than the AMI (subject to adjustments for areas with unusually high or low incomes or housing costs) Overview Within Palo Alto, almost one-quarter (23 percent) of City households (5,845 households) are LMI, with incomes ranging from 0-80% AMI:  10 percent (2,560 households) at 0-30% AMI  6 percent (1,675 households) at 30-50% AMI  6 percent (1,610 households) at 50-80% AMI The following provides a brief summary of the results of the Needs Assessment, which will be discussed in more detail in each corresponding section of this chapter. 20 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. “Consolidated Planning/CHAS Data.” http://www.huduser.org/portal/datasets/cp.html 21 United States Census Bureau. “American Community Survey: When to Use 1-year, 3-year, or 5-year Estimates.” http://www.census.gov/acs/www/guidance_for_data_users/estimates/ 22 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. “Glossary of CPD Terms.” http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/comm_planning/library/glossary Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 41 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) NA -10 Housing Needs • Twenty-nine percent of households in the City are paying more than 30 percent of their income toward housing costs. • Thirteen percent of households are severely cost burdened and paying more than 50 percent of their income toward housing. NA-15 Disproportionately Greater Need: Housing Problems  Eighty-nine percent of Asian households in the 30-50% AMI category experience housing problems, compared to 71 percent of the jurisdiction as a whole.  Ninety-three percent of Asian households in the 50-80% AMI category experience housing problems, compared to 71 percent of the jurisdiction as a whole.  More than three-quarters of Hispanic households (78 percent) in the 80-100% AMI category experience housing problems, compared to a nearly half (54 percent) of the jurisdiction as a whole. NA-20 Disproportionately Greater Need: Severe Housing Problems  More than half of Asian households in the 30-50% AMI income category experience severe housing problems in the City, compared to 43 percent of the jurisdiction as a whole.  More than three-quarters of Asian households (77 percent) in the 50-80% AMI category experience a disproportionate amount of severe housing problems, compared to 40 percent of the jurisdiction as a whole.  Forty-five percent of Hispanic households in the 80-100% AMI category experience a disproportionate amount of severe housing problems, compared to 23 percent of the jurisdiction as a whole. NA-25 Disproportionately Greater Need: Housing Cost Burdens  Hispanic households experience a disproportionate cost burden, with 27 percent of households experiencing cost burden, compared to 16 percent of the City as a whole.  American Indian, Alaska Native households experience a disproportionate severe cost burden, with 33 percent of households experiencing cost burden, compared to 13 percent of the City as a whole. NA-35 Public Housing  The Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara (HACSC) assists approximately 17,000 households through the federal Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program (Section 8).  The Section 8 waiting list contains 21,256 households – this is estimated to be a 10-year wait. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 42 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) NA-40 Homeless Needs  The Santa Clara region is home to the fourth-largest population of homeless individuals and the highest percentage of unsheltered homeless of any major city.  As of the 2013 Point in Time Homeless Survey, Palo Alto had 157 homeless residents, and over 90 percent were unsheltered and living in a place not fit for human habitation.  Palo Alto clients – those who report that their last permanent zip code was in Palo Alto – represent approximately one percent of the County’s homeless clients. NA-45 Non-Homeless Special Needs  Individuals 65 years of age and older represent 17 percent of the total population of the City.  Thirty-three percent of households in the City contain at least one person 62 years or older.  More than one-quarter of individuals (27 percent) age 65 or older have a disability compared to four percent of the population age 18 to 64, or seven percent of the population as a whole. NA-50 Non-Housing Community Development Needs • Residents and stakeholders who participated in the community outreach for the Consolidated Plan identified the following community development needs as high priorities within these three categories: o Public Facilities: increased homeless facilities, youth centers, rehabilitation of senior centers, and recreational facilities throughout the County o Public Improvements: complete streets that accommodate multiple transportation modes, pedestrian safety, ADA curb improvements, and increased access to parks and open space amenities o Public Services: food assistance and nutrition programs for vulnerable populations, year-round activities for youth, health care services for seniors and low income families, and services for homeless persons Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 43 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) NA-10 Housing Needs Assessment - 24 CFR 91.205 (a, b, c) Introduction This section provides an overview of the housing needs present in the City, including the degree and distribution of housing problems within multiple income brackets. Within the Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data, HUD identifies four housing problems: 1) Housing unit lacking complete kitchen facilities 2) Housing unit lacking complete plumbing facilities 3) Household being overcrowded 4) Housing being cost burdened In addition, HUD defines severe housing problems as:  Severely overcrowded, with more than 1.5 persons per room  Severely cost burdened families paying more than 50 percent of income toward housing costs (including utilities) A household is considered to be overcrowded if there is more than one person per room and severely overcrowded if there are more than 1.5 people per room. A household is considered to be cost burdened if the household is spending more than 30 percent of its monthly income on housing costs (including utilities) and severely cost burdened if the household is spending more than 50 percent of its monthly income on housing costs (including utilities). Table 5 - Housing Needs Assessment Demographics (City) Demographics Base Year: 2000 Most Recent Year: 2012 % Change Population 58,598 64,514 10% Households 25,216 26,244 <1% Median Income $90,377 $122,482 36% Data Source: 2000 Census (Base Year), 2008-2012 ACS (Most Recent Year) Table 6 - Total Households (City) 0-30% AMI >30-50% AMI >50-80% AMI >80-100% AMI >100% AMI Total Households * 2,565 1,674 1,610 1,495 18,460 Small Family Households * 395 390 580 525 9,150 Large Family Households * 95 70 30 10 1,345 Household Contains at Least One Person 62-74 Years of Age 550 405 360 320 3,035 Household Contains at Least One Person Age 75 or Older 860 449 325 285 1,875 Households With One or More Children 6 Years Old or Younger * 90 165 200 120 2,150 Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 44 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) 0-30% AMI >30-50% AMI >50-80% AMI >80-100% AMI >100% AMI * The highest income category for these family types is >80% AMI Data Source: 2007-2011 CHAS Table 7 - Housing Problems (City) Renter Households Owner Households 0-30% AMI >30- 50% AMI >50- 80% AMI >80- 100% AMI Total 0-30% AMI >30- 50% AMI >50- 80% AMI >80- 100% AMI Total NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS Substandard Housing - Lacking Complete Plumbing or Kitchen Facilities 130 50 0 35 215 45 10 0 0 55 Severely Overcrowded - With >1.51 People Per Room (and Complete Kitchen and Plumbing) 55 0 35 25 115 0 0 0 0 0 Overcrowded - With 1.01---1.5 People Per Room (and None of the Above Problems) 30 15 40 20 105 0 50 0 0 50 Housing Cost Burden Greater Than 50 Percent of Income (and None of the Above Problems) 715 395 225 145 1,480 625 154 265 125 1,169 Housing Cost Burden Greater Than 30 Percent of Income (and None of the Above Problems) 175 415 450 330 1,370 65 105 85 70 325 Zero/Negative Income (and None of the Above Problems) 115 0 0 0 115 80 0 0 0 80 Data Source: 2007-2011 CHAS Table 8 - Severe Housing Problems (City) Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 45 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Renter Households Owner Households 0- 30% AMI >30- 50% AMI >50- 80% AMI >80- 100% AMI Total 0- 30% AMI >30- 50% AMI >50- 80% AMI >80- 100% AMI Total NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS Having One or More of Four Housing Problems 925 460 300 230 1,915 670 219 265 125 1,279 Having None of Four Housing Problems 610 520 540 600 2,270 165 475 505 540 1,685 Household Has Negative Income, but None of the Other Housing Problems 115 0 0 0 115 80 0 0 0 80 Data Source: 2007-2011 CHAS Table 9 - Cost Burden > 30% (City) Renter Households Owner Households 0-30% AMI >30-50% AMI >50- 80% AMI Total 0-30% AMI >30-50% AMI >50- 80% AMI Total NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS Small Related 145 320 250 715 150 55 150 355 Large Related 50 10 20 80 45 0 0 45 Elderly 500 200 140 840 370 159 160 689 Other 340 340 300 980 175 40 35 250 Total Need by Income 1,035 870 710 2,615 740 254 345 1,339 Data Source: 2007-2011 CHAS Table 10 - Cost Burden > 50% (City) Renter Households Owner Households 0-30% AMI >30-50% AMI >50- 80% AMI Total 0-30% AMI >30-50% AMI >50- 80% AMI Total NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS Small Related 105 195 60 360 140 35 120 295 Large Related 50 0 0 50 45 0 0 45 Elderly 345 120 50 515 315 89 120 524 Other 310 105 120 535 175 30 20 225 Total Need by Income 810 420 230 1,460 675 154 260 1,089 Data Source: 2007-2011 CHAS Table 11 - Crowding Information (City) Renter Households Owner Households 0- 30% AMI >30- 50% AMI >50- 80% AMI >80- 100% AMI Total 0- 30% AMI >30- 50% AMI >50- 80% AMI >80- 100% AMI Total NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS Single-Family Households 100 15 75 55 245 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple, Unrelated Family Households 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 0 0 50 Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 46 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Renter Households Owner Households 0- 30% AMI >30- 50% AMI >50- 80% AMI >80- 100% AMI Total 0- 30% AMI >30- 50% AMI >50- 80% AMI >80- 100% AMI Total Other, Non-Family Households 0 0 0 10 10 0 0 0 0 0 Total Need by Income 100 15 75 65 255 0 50 0 0 50 Data Source: 2007-2011 CHAS Table 12 - Households with Children Present (City) Renter Households Owner Households 0-30% AMI >30- 50% AMI >50-80% AMI Total 0-30% AMI >30-50% AMI >50-80% AMI Total Households with Children Present 75 115 165 355 15 50 35 100 Data Source: 2007-2011 CHAS What are the most common housing problems? One-third (33 percent) of City households report at least one housing problem, while 17 percent report at least one severe housing problem. Cost Burden Cost burden is the most common housing problem:  Twenty-nine percent of households (6,870 households) in the City are paying more than 30 percent of their income toward housing costs. Severe Cost Burden Severe housing cost burden is the second most common housing problem:  Thirteen percent of households (3,095 households) are severely cost burdened and paying more than 50 percent of their income toward housing. Overcrowding The third most common housing problem is overcrowding:  One percent of households (305 households) are overcrowded, with more than one person per room.  Seventy-nine percent of overcrowded households (190 households) are LMI. Are any populations/household types more affected than others by these problems? LMI renter households are much more likely to experience cost burden, with 47 percent of LMI renter households (2,375) paying more than 30 percent of their income toward housing costs, compared to 26 percent of LMI owner households (1,299). Additionally, 26 percent of renter Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 47 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) households (1,335) are paying more than 50 percent of their income toward housing costs are LMI, compared to 21 percent of owner households (1,044). Renter households are more likely to be overcrowded than owner households, with two percent of renter households experiencing overcrowding compared to a negligible amount of owner households (.3 percent or 50 households). Additionally, 75 percent of renter households experiencing overcrowding are LMI. Describe the characteristics and needs of Low income individuals and families with children (especially extremely low income) who are currently housed but are at imminent risk of either residing in shelters or becoming unsheltered 91.205(c)/91.305(c)). Also discuss the needs of formerly homeless families and individuals who are receiving rapid re-housing assistance and are nearing the termination of that assistance. Rapid-rehousing The County is home to several agencies providing rapid-rehousing assistance to households in need. One example is the California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) program, which serves over 12,000 families annually in the region (nearly 30,000 men, women, and children). According to the Santa Clara County Social Services Agency, “Twenty‐nine percent of CalWORKs families included adults with earned wages, with the median earnings for CalWORKs families at $2,013 for three months. Taking into account the earned wages, the maximum monthly CalWORKs benefit for a family of four, and other government assistance income (CalFresh, Earned Income Tax Credit, and other unearned income), a CalWORKs family in Santa Clara County would have a monthly income of approximately $1,928. To afford the area FMR, a CalWORKs family would have to expend 86% of their monthly income on rent.” 23 Additionally, Help Management Information System (HMIS) data indicates that in the last year, homeless and housing service providers assisted 52,805 individuals in families—15,024 of whom were homeless at the time of service (40 percent were under the age of 18).24 Forty-six percent of the families receiving assistance were unemployed and 31 percent were receiving CalWORKs assistance. In Fiscal Year 2013-2014, the number of CalWORKs households receiving HUD services increased by nearly 70 percent since 2011.25 Currently Housed and At Imminent Risk The numbers below do not reflect any formerly homeless families or individuals who are receiving rapid re-housing assistance and are nearing the termination of that assistance. Table 13 lists the number of extremely low income Section 8 participants at 30% AMI or below. HACSC does not collect information on the specific characteristics of this population. Table 13 - Section 8 Participants at 0-30% AMI (County) Income Limit Category At 30% or Below 23 Santa Clara County Social Services Agency, 2014 24 Ibid 25 Ibid Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 48 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Income Limit Category At 30% or Below 1 Person 6,292 2 Persons 3,580 3 Persons 1,813 4 Persons 1,378 5 Persons 829 6 Persons 399 7 Persons 166 8 Persons 50 Total 14,507 Data Source: HACSC If a jurisdiction provides estimates of the at-risk population(s), it should also include a description of the operational definition of the at-risk group and the methodology used to generate the estimates. At-risk of homelessness is defined as households receiving Section 8 assistance whose gross annual income equals 30% or less than the current Area Median Incomes per family size. Specify particular housing characteristics that have been linked with instability and an increased risk of homelessness. Severe cost burden is the greatest predictor of homelessness risk, with populations paying more than 50 percent of their income on housing costs or having incomes at or below 50% AMI are at greatest risk of becoming homeless.  Thirteen percent of households (3,505) in the City are severely cost burdened.  Ten percent (2,565 households) are severely cost burdened and earning below 30% AMI.  Sixteen percent (4,240 households) are severely cost burdened and earning below 50% AMI. Figure 1 displays the primary causes of homelessness cited by respondents to the 2013 homeless census. From the census: “Forty percent (40%) reported job loss, up from 27 percent in 2011. Seventeen percent (17%) reported alcohol and drug use as the primary cause, followed by eviction at 12 percent (up from 5% in 2011). While it was not one of the top five responses, 8 percent of survey respondents reported family/domestic violence as the primary cause of their homelessness.”26 This data suggests that inability to find affordable housing and the need for supportive services, such as drug and alcohol rehabilitation, might be the main indicators of increased risk of homelessness. Figure 1 – Top Five Causes of Homelessness (County) 26 Applied Survey Research. “Santa Clara County Homeless Census & Survey.” 2013. http://www.appliedsurveyresearch.org/storage/database/homelessness/santaclara_sanjose/2013%20Homeless%20Census%2 0and%20Survey%20Santa%20Clara%206%2028%2013.pdf Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 49 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Data Source: 2013 Santa Clara County Homeless Census & Survey Data Source Comments: 2013 N=818, 2011 N=997 Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 50 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Discussion Please see discussion above. Describe the number and type of single person households in need of housing assistance. There are 1,769 single person households in the County on the Section 8 waiting list. The waiting list has been closed since 2006, and is not expected to reopen in the near future. Within the City, there are approximately 19 single person sheltered homeless on a given night.27 Jurisdiction-specific data is not available for unsheltered homeless in this subpopulation. Estimate the number and type of families in need of housing assistance who are disabled or victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking. There are 1,241 disabled Head of Households on Section 8 waiting list. HACSC does not keep records of assisted/non-assisted families that are victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking. Within the City, there is one sheltered homeless individual who is in need of housing assistance on a given night and are victims of domestic violence. Jurisdiction-specific data is not available for unsheltered homeless in this subpopulation. 27 Community Technology Alliance (CTA). Data includes individuals and households who are “Literally Homeless” or “Category 1 Homeless” – those staying in Emergency Shelter, Transitional Housing and Safe Haven. CTA also collects data from agencies that primarily serve people who are at-risk of homelessness. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 51 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) NA-15 Disproportionately Greater Need: Housing Problems – 91.205 (b) (2) Assess the need of any racial or ethnic group that has disproportionately greater need in comparison to the needs of that category of need as a whole. Introduction Per HUD definitions, a disproportionate need exists when any group has a housing need that is 10 percent or higher than the jurisdiction as a whole. This section presents the extent of housing problems and identifies populations that have a disproportionately greater need. Table 14 - Disproportionately Greater Need 0 - 30% AMI (City) Housing Problems Has One or More of Four Housing Problems Has None of the Four Housing Problems Household has No/Negative Income, but None of the Other Housing Problems Jurisdiction as a Whole 1,670 550 115 White 935 380 45 Black / African American 55 35 10 Asian 445 85 55 American Indian, Alaska Native 20 0 0 Pacific Islander 0 0 0 Hispanic 210 50 0 Data Source: 2007-2011 CHAS * The four housing problems are: 1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities, 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities, 3. More than one person per room, 4.Cost Burden greater than 30% Table 15 - Disproportionately Greater Need 30 - 50% AMI (City) Housing Problems Has One or More of Four Housing Problems Has None of the Four Housing Problems Household has No/Negative Income, but None of the Other Housing Problems Jurisdiction as a Whole 1,140 475 0 White 680 410 0 Black / African American 130 40 0 Asian 195 25 0 American Indian, Alaska Native 0 0 0 Pacific Islander 0 0 0 Hispanic 90 0 0 Data Source: 2007-2011 CHAS * The four housing problems are: 1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities, 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities, 3. More than one person per room, 4.Cost Burden greater than 30% Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 52 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Table 16 - Disproportionately Greater Need 50 - 80% AMI (City) Housing Problems Has One or More of Four Housing Problems Has None of the Four Housing Problems Household has No/Negative Income, but None of the Other Housing Problems Jurisdiction as a Whole 590 245 0 White 295 205 0 Black / African American 0 0 0 Asian 200 15 0 American Indian, Alaska Native 0 10 0 Pacific Islander 0 0 0 Hispanic 40 15 0 Data Source: 2007-2011 CHAS * The four housing problems are: 1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities, 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities, 3. More than one person per room, 4.Cost Burden greater than 30% Table 17 - Disproportionately Greater Need 80 - 100% AMI (City) Housing Problems Has One or More of Four Housing Problems Has None of the Four Housing Problems Household has No/Negative Income, but None of the Other Housing Problems Jurisdiction as a Whole 750 635 0 White 515 435 0 Black / African American 10 55 0 Asian 175 120 0 American Indian, Alaska Native 0 10 0 Pacific Islander 0 0 0 Hispanic 49 14 0 Data Source: 2007-2011 CHAS * The four housing problems are: 1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities, 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities, 3. More than one person per room, 4.Cost Burden greater than 30% Table 18 - Disproportionately Greater Need – Housing Problems (County) Housing Problems 0-30% AMI 30-50% AMI 50-80% AMI 80-100% AMI # % # % # % # % Jurisdiction as a Whole 1,670 75% 1,140 71% 590 71% 750 54% White 935 71% 680 62% 295 59% 515 54% Black / African American 55 61% 130 76% 0 0% 10 15% Asian 445 84% 195 89% 200 93% 175 59% American Indian, Alaska Native 20 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Pacific Islander 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Hispanic 210 81% 90 100% 40 73% 49 78% Data Source: 2007-2011 CHAS Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 53 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Discussion The 0-30% AMI income bracket is the only category that does not include a racial/ethnic group that is disproportionately affected by one or more of the four housing problems (although Hispanic households were only one percent away from the 10 percent threshold). The following provides a summary of the racial/ethnic groups disproportionately affected by housing problems in all other income groups:  Eighty-nine percent of Asian households (195 households) in the 30-50% AMI category experience housing problems, compared to 71 percent of the jurisdiction as a whole.  Ninety-three percent of Asian households (200 households) in the 50-80% AMI category experience housing problems, compared to 71 percent of the jurisdiction as a whole.  More than three-quarters of Hispanic households (78 percent or 49 households) in the 80- 100% AMI category experience housing problems, compared to a nearly half (54 percent) of the jurisdiction as a whole. Note: Due to insufficient data, the analysis for the 0-30% AMI income category does not include American Indian, Alaska Native or Pacific Islander households. For households in the 30-50% AMI income category, the analysis does not include American Indian, Alaska Native, Pacific Islander, or Hispanic households. For households in the 50-80% AMI income category, the analysis does not include Black/African American, American Indian, Alaska Native, or Pacific Islander households. Additionally, households with no/negative income are not counted in the analysis, as they cannot by definition have a cost burden, although they still may require housing assistance. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 54 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) NA-20 Disproportionately Greater Need: Severe Housing Problems – 91.205 (b) (2) Assess the need of any racial or ethnic group that has disproportionately greater need in comparison to the needs of that category of need as a whole. Introduction: Per HUD definitions, a disproportionate need exists when any group has a housing need that is 10 percent or higher than the jurisdiction as a whole. A household is considered severely overcrowded when there are more than 1.5 persons per room and is severely cost-burdened when paying more than 50 percent of its income toward housing costs, including utilities. This section analyzes the extent of severe housing problems and identifies populations that have a disproportionately greater need. Table 19 - Severe Housing Problems 0 - 30% AMI (City) Severe Housing Problems* Has One or More of Four Housing Problems Has None of the Four Housing Problems Household has No/Negative Income, but None of the Other Housing Problems Jurisdiction as a Whole 1,410 810 115 White 805 500 45 Black / African American 45 40 10 Asian 355 175 55 American Indian, Alaska Native 20 0 0 Pacific Islander 0 0 0 Hispanic 165 90 0 Data Source: 2007-2011 CHAS * The four severe housing problems are: 1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities, 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities, 3. More than 1.5 persons per room, 4.Cost Burden over 50% Table 20 - Severe Housing Problems 30 - 50% AMI (City) Severe Housing Problems* Has One or More of Four Housing Problems Has None of the Four Housing Problems Household has No/Negative Income, but None of the Other Housing Problems Jurisdiction as a Whole 700 910 0 White 440 650 0 Black / African American 80 90 0 Asian 125 90 0 American Indian, Alaska Native 0 0 0 Pacific Islander 0 0 0 Hispanic 30 60 0 *The four severe housing problems are: 1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities, 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities, 3. More than 1.5 persons per room, 4.Cost Burden over 50% Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 55 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Table 21 - Severe Housing Problems 50 - 80% AMI (City) Severe Housing Problems* Has One or More of Four Housing Problems Has None of the Four Housing Problems Household has No/Negative Income, but None of the Other Housing Problems Jurisdiction as a Whole 335 500 0 White 120 380 0 Black / African American 0 0 0 Asian 165 50 0 American Indian, Alaska Native 0 10 0 Pacific Islander 0 0 0 Hispanic 25 30 0 Data Source: 2007-2011 CHAS * The four severe housing problems are: 1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities, 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities, 3. More than 1.5 persons per room, 4.Cost Burden over 50% Table 22 - Severe Housing Problems 80 - 100% AMI (City) Severe Housing Problems* Has One or More of Four Housing Problems Has None of the Four Housing Problems Household has No/Negative Income, but None of the Other Housing Problems Jurisdiction as a Whole 315 1,070 0 White 205 735 0 Black / African American 0 65 0 Asian 85 210 0 American Indian, Alaska Native 0 10 0 Pacific Islander 0 0 0 Hispanic 29 35 0 Data Source: 2007-2011 CHAS * The four severe housing problems are: 1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities, 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities, 3. More than 1.5 persons per room, 4.Cost Burden over 50% Table 23 - Disproportionately Greater Need – Severe Housing Problems (City) Severe Housing Problems 0-30% AMI 30-50% AMI 50-80% AMI 80-100% AMI # % # % # % # % Jurisdiction as a Whole 1,410 64% 700 43% 335 40% 315 23% White 805 62% 440 40% 120 24% 205 22% Black / African American 45 53% 80 47% 0 0% 0 0% Asian 355 67% 125 58% 165 77% 85 29% American Indian, Alaska Native 20 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0% 0% Pacific Islander 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0% 0% Hispanic 165 65% 30 33% 25 45% 29 45% Data Source: 2007-2011 CHAS Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 56 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Discussion: The 0-30% AMI income bracket does not include any racial/ethnic groups that are disproportionately affected by one or more of the four severe housing problems. The following provides a summary of the racial/ethnic groups that experience disproportionate need in the 30-50% AMI, 50-80% AMI, and 80-100% income categories:  More than half of Asian households (58 percent) in the 30-50% AMI income category experience severe housing problems in the City, compared to 43 percent of the jurisdiction as a whole.  More than three-quarters of Asian households (77 percent or 165 households) in the 50-80% AMI category experience a disproportionate amount of severe housing problems, compared to 40 percent of the jurisdiction as a whole.  Forty-five percent of Hispanic households (29 households) in the 80-100% AMI category experience a disproportionate amount of severe housing problems, compared to 23 percent of the jurisdiction as a whole. Note: Due to insufficient data, the analysis for the 0-30% AMI and 30-50% AMI income categories does not include American Indian, Alaska Native or Pacific Islander households. For households in the 50- 80% and 80-100% AMI income categories, the analysis does not include Black/African American, American Indian, Alaska Native, or Pacific Islander households. Additionally, households with no/negative income are not counted in the analysis, as they cannot by definition have a cost burden, although they still may require housing assistance. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 57 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) NA-25 Disproportionately Greater Need: Housing Cost Burdens – 91.205 (b) (2) Assess the need of any racial or ethnic group that has disproportionately greater need in comparison to the needs of that category of need as a whole. Introduction: Per HUD definitions, a disproportionate need exists when any group has a housing need that is 10 percent or higher than the jurisdiction as a whole. A household is considered cost burdened when paying more than 30 percent of its income toward housing costs, including utilities, and is severely cost burdened when paying more than 50 percent of its income toward housing costs. This section analyzes the extent of cost burden and identifies populations that have a disproportionately greater cost burden. Table 24 - Greater Need: Housing Cost Burden (City) Housing Cost Burden <30% 30-50% >50% No / Negative Income (Not Computed) Jurisdiction as a Whole 16,170 3,775 3,095 130 White 12,000 2,395 1,865 60 Black / African American 405 105 125 10 Asian 2,965 895 815 55 American Indian, Alaska Native 40 0 20 0 Pacific Islander 20 0 0 0 Hispanic 580 295 205 0 Data Source: 2007-2011 CHAS Table 25 - Disproportionately Greater Cost Burden (City) Housing Cost Burden <30% 30-50% >50% # % # % # % Jurisdiction as a Whole 16,170 70% 3,775 16% 3,095 13% White 12,000 74% 2,395 15% 1,865 11% Black / African American 405 64% 105 17% 125 20% Asian 2,965 63% 895 19% 815 17% American Indian, Alaska Native 40 67% 0 0% 20 33% Pacific Islander 20 100% 0 0% 0 0% Hispanic 580 54% 295 27% 205 19% Data Source: 2007-2011 CHAS Discussion The data indicates that, as a whole, 29 percent of households in the City are cost burdened and paying greater than 30 percent of their income toward housing costs, while 13 percent are severely cost burdened and paying more than 50 percent of their income on housing costs. Among cost burdened households paying more than 30 to 50 percent of their income toward housing costs, Hispanic households experience a disproportionate need, with 27 percent (297 households) experiencing cost burden, compared to 16 percent of the City as a whole. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 58 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Among severely cost burdened households paying more than 50 percent of their income toward housing costs, American Indian, Alaska Native households experience a disproportionate need, with 33 percent (20 households) experiencing cost burden, compared to 13 percent of the City as a whole. Note: Due to insufficient data, the analysis for households paying more than 30 to 50 percent of their income toward housing costs does not include Pacific Islander or American Indian, Alaska Native households. For households paying more than 50 percent of their income toward housing costs, the analysis does not include Pacific Islander households. Additionally, households with no/negative income are not counted in the analysis, as they cannot by definition have a cost burden, although they still may require housing assistance. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 59 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) NA-30 Disproportionately Greater Need: Discussion – 91.205(b) (2) Are there any Income categories in which a racial or ethnic group has disproportionately greater need than the needs of that income category as a whole? Please see the discussion for NA-15, NA-20, and NA-25. In summary;  For 50-80% AMI households: 60 percent of Asian households experience severe housing problems, compared to 32 percent of the jurisdiction as a whole. If they have needs not identified above, what are those needs? Needs have been previously identified. Are any of those racial or ethnic groups located in specific areas or neighborhoods in your community? Map 1 illustrates the areas of the City that have minority concentration. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 60 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Map 1 - Areas of Minority Concentration (City) Data Source: ACS 2007-2011 Data Source Comment: Minority concentration is defined as census tracts where the percentage of individuals of a particular racial or ethnic minority group is at least 20 percentage points higher than the citywide average. Minority refers to all ethnic groups other than non-Hispanic white. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 61 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) NA-35 Public Housing – 91.205(b) Introduction HACSC assists approximately 17,000 households through the federal Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program. The Section 8 waiting list contains 21,256 households, estimated to be a 10-year wait. HACSC also develops, controls, and manages more than 2,600 affordable rental housing properties throughout the County. HACSC’s programs are targeted toward LMI households, and more than 80 percent of its client households are extremely low income families, seniors, veterans, persons with disabilities, and formerly homeless individuals.28 In 2008 HACSC entered into a ten-year agreement with HUD to become a Moving to Work (MTW) agency. The MTW program is a federal demonstration program that allows greater flexibility to design and implement more innovative approaches for providing housing assistance.29 Additionally, HACSC has used Low Income Housing Tax Credit financing to transform and rehabilitate 535 units of public housing into HACSC-controlled properties. The agency is an active developer of affordable housing and has either constructed, rehabilitated, or assisted with the development of more than 30 housing developments that service a variety of households, including special needs households.30 The following tables display the public housing inventory and housing vouchers maintained by HACSC. HACSC has four two-bedroom family public housing units in its portfolio; they are located in the City of Santa Clara. Approximately 16,387 housing vouchers are in use countywide. Table 26 - Public Housing by Program Type (City) Program Type Certificate Mod- Rehab Public Housing Vouchers Total Project -based Tenant -based Special Purpose Voucher Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing Family Unification Program Disabled * # of Units Vouchers in Use 0 38 0 252 54 179 18 0 1 * Includes Non-Elderly Disabled, Mainstream One-Year, Mainstream Five-Year, and Nursing Home Transition Data Source: HACSC 28 Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara. “Welcome to HACSC.” http://www.hacsc.org/ 29 HACSC. “Moving to Work (MTW) 2014 Annual Report.” September 2014. 30 Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara. “HACSC.” http://www.hacsc.org/ Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 62 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Table 27 - Characteristics of Public Housing Residents by Program Type (City) Program Type Palo Alto Certificate Mod- Rehab Public Housing Vouchers Total Project -based Tenant -based Special Purpose Voucher Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing Family Unification Program Average Annual Income 0 $23,491 0 $14,092 $11,738 $14,703 $15,272 0 Average Length of Stay (Years) 0 9 0 9 6 11 2 0 Average Household Size 0 2 0 2 1 2 2 0 # Homeless at Admission 0 0 0 44 14 12 18 0 # of Elderly Program Participants (>62) 0 12 0 158 37 114 7 0 # of Disabled Families 0 13 0 166 28 130 8 0 # of Families Requesting Accessibility Features - - - - - - - - # of HIV/AIDS Program Participants - - - - - - - - # of DV Victims - - - - - - - - Data Source: HACSC Data Source Comment: HACSC does not collect information on HIV/AIDs or Domestic Violence households or the number of families requesting accessibility features. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 63 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Table 28 - Race of Public Housing Residents by Program Type (City) Program Type Race Certificate Mod- Rehab Public Housing Vouchers Total Project -based Tenant -based Special Purpose Voucher Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing Family Unification Program Disabled * White 0 0 0 167 28 126 12 0 1 Black/African American 0 0 0 40 9 26 5 0 0 Asian 0 0 0 46 21 24 1 0 0 American Indian/Alaska Native 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 * Includes Non-Elderly Disabled, Mainstream One-Year, Mainstream Five-year, and Nursing Home Transition Data Source: HACSC Table 29 - Ethnicity of Public Housing Residents by Program Type (City) Program Type Ethnicity Certificate Mod- Rehab Public Housing Vouchers Total Project -based Tenant -based Special Purpose Voucher Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing Family Unification Program Disabled * Hispanic 0 8 0 33 6 17 5 0 5 Not Hispanic 0 31 0 220 49 142 14 0 15 * Includes Non-Elderly Disabled, Mainstream One-Year, Mainstream Five-year, and Nursing Home Transition Data Source: HACSC Section 504 Needs Assessment: Describe the needs of public housing tenants and applicants on the waiting list for accessible units. None of the four public housing units owned and managed by HACSC are accessible, and information about the need for accessible units is not collected for waiting list applicants. Most immediate needs of residents of Public Housing and Housing Choice voucher holders In January 2013, HACSC randomly sampled 1,500 of its Section 8 participants to better understand the types of services and/or resources needed to increase their self-sufficiency. Approximately 400 participants responded. Table 30 below identified the services requested and the number of Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 64 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) participants that requested that service. Affordable healthcare, job training, basic computer skills, English as a second language, and job placement resources were among the top most-identified services. The majority of these services are related to workforce training, showing the need for economic development among Section 8 participants. The selection of affordable healthcare as the highest need indicates the need for additional health-related services. Table 30 - Resources Requested by Section 8 Participants (County) Rank Services/Resources # Participants Requesting Service % Participants Requesting Service 1 Affordable Healthcare 122 11% 2 Job Training 114 10% 3 Basic Computer Skills 113 10% 4 Nothing 102 9% 5 English as a Second Language 96 8% 6 Job Placement 94 8% 7 Post-Secondary Education 79 7% 8 Transportation Assistance 79 7% 9 Job Search Skills 68 6% 10 Legal Assistance 61 5% 11 HS Diploma/GED 53 5% 12 Affordable Childcare 53 5% 13 Financial Planning 53 5% 14 Credit Repair/Credit History 50 4% 15 Substance Abuse/Mental Health Counseling 21 2% Total 1,137 100% Data Source: HACSC Data Source Comment: Totals may not add to 100% due to rounding. N= 400, multiple resources could be selected by each respondent. Discussion Please see discussions above. NA-40 Homeless Needs Assessment – 91.205(c) Introduction As was previously discussed, the Santa Clara region is home to the fourth-largest population of homeless individuals (6,681 single individuals),31 and the highest percentage of unsheltered homeless of any major city (75 percent of homeless people sleep in places unfit for human habitation). The homeless assistance program planning network is governed by the Santa Clara Continuum of Care (CoC), governed by the Destination: Home Leadership Board, who serves as the Continuum of Care (CoC) Board of Directors. The membership of the CoC is a collaboration of representatives from local jurisdictions comprised of community-based organizations, the Housing Authority of Santa Clara, governmental departments, health service agencies, homeless advocates, consumers, the faith 31 The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. “2014 Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR) to Congress.” October 2014. https://www.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/AHAR-2014-Part1.pdf Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 65 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) community, and research, policy and planning groups. The homeless services system utilized by the CoC is referred to as the Homeless Management Information System (HMIS). The HMIS monitors outcomes and performance measures for all the homeless services agencies funded by the County. HMIS Methodology Data provided in this section is for Fiscal Year 2014 (July 1, 2013 – June 30, 2014). CTA reports jurisdictional data based on clients’ self-reported last permanent zip codes. The last permanent zip code is the zip code area that the client lived in when s/he last lived in permanent housing (e.g. rental house/apartment, own home, living with friends/relatives with permanent tenure). This reporting method was adopted by CDBG program coordinators from the various jurisdictions within the County and was preferred over reporting the clients served by service providers within each jurisdiction, as shelter and transitional housing services are largely centralized within San Jose and not equitably distributed throughout the County. Numbers reported are based on actual HMIS data yet are still considered estimates as they are averages and/or include proportional representations of clients for whom no last permanent zip code was recorded (15% of all clients served 7/1/2013 – 6/30/2014 report no last permanent zip code). Palo Alto clients – those who report that their last permanent zip code was in Palo Alto – represent approximately one percent of the County’s homeless clients. Homeless Point-in-Time Census and Survey32 The Santa Clara County CoC’s Homeless Census and Survey is conducted every two years and consists of data collected on the sheltered and unsheltered homeless population. Sheltered homeless include those occupying shelter beds on the night of the count. Data describing the number of sheltered homeless persons are obtained from HMIS where possible, and collected directly from providers not using HMIS as needed. Unsheltered homeless are counted by direct observation, and community volunteers partnered with homeless guides canvas the regions by car and on foot during the early morning hours of the chosen nights. A large subset of the sheltered and unsheltered population is subsequently surveyed, providing data that is then used to estimate demographic details of the homeless population as a whole at a single point-in-time. 32 Applied Survey Research. “Santa Clara County Homeless Census & Survey.” 2013. http://www.appliedsurveyresearch.org/storage/database/homelessness/santaclara_sanjose/2013%20Homeless%20Census%2 0and%20Survey%20Santa%20Clara%206%2028%2013.pdf Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 66 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Figure 2 – Homeless by Jurisdiction Data Source: 2013 Santa Clara County Homeless Census & Survey Data Source Comments: Jurisdiction determined geographic distribution, not last permanent zip code. The Santa Clara 2013 Homeless Point-in-Time Census and Survey was performed using HUD recommended practices for counting and surveying homeless individuals. This study included a field enumeration of homeless individuals residing in Santa Clara County on January 29 and January 30, 2013. On January 29, the cities of Gilroy and Organ Hill, portions of the cities of Campbell, Los Gatos, Milpitas, San Jose, and the unincorporated areas in the eastern and southwestern parts of the county were enumerated. The following morning, January 30, remaining portions of the cities of Campbell, Milpitas, Los Gatos, and San Jose; the cities of Cupertino, Monte Sereno, Mountain View, Los Gatos Hills, Palo Alto, Saratoga, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, and the unincorporated areas in the northwestern part of the county were enumerated. Figure 2 shows the geographic distribution of sheltered and unsheltered homeless persons in Santa Clara County.33 33 Applied Survey Research. “Santa Clara County Homeless Census & Survey.” 2013. http://www.appliedsurveyresearch.org/storage/database/homelessness/santaclara_sanjose/2013%20Homeless%20Census%2 0and%20Survey%20Santa%20Clara%206%2028%2013.pdf Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 67 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) The following definitions below provide the methodology for Table 31: Definitions  # Experiencing Homelessness Each Year – unduplicated count of all persons enrolled during the program year  # Becoming Homeless Each Year – unduplicated count of persons appearing in HMIS for the first time during the year  # Exiting Homelessness Each Year – unduplicated count of persons exiting programs to a permanent destination as defined by HUD  # of Days Persons Experience Homelessness – average of the sums of the lengths of stay for each person Table 31 - Homeless Needs Assessment (City/County) Population Estimate the # of persons experiencing homelessness on a given night Estimate the # experiencing homelessness each year Estimate the # becoming homeless each year Estimate the # exiting homelessness each year Estimate the # of days persons experience homelessness Sheltered (Palo Alto) *Unsheltered (Countywide) Persons in Households with Adult(s) and Child(ren) 1 956 9 3 * * Persons in Households with Only Children 0 183 2 1 * * Persons in Households with Only Adults 19 5,435 85 20 * * Chronically Homeless Individuals (Persons) 4 2,250 20 2 * * Chronically 0 9 1 1 * * Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 68 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Population Estimate the # of persons experiencing homelessness on a given night Estimate the # experiencing homelessness each year Estimate the # becoming homeless each year Estimate the # exiting homelessness each year Estimate the # of days persons experience homelessness Sheltered (Palo Alto) *Unsheltered (Countywide) Homeless Families (Households) Veterans 6 579 20 5 * * Unaccompanied Child 0 203 2 1 * * Persons with HIV 0 93 2 0 * * Severely Mentally Ill 4 2,872 30 7 * * Chronically Substance Abuse 1 1,010 12 2 * * Victims of Domestic Violence 1 431 7 1 * * Data Source: HMIS Santa Clara County Data Source Comment: This data reflects reports for all HMIS clients who self-declared that their last permanent zip code was in Palo Alto, and a proportional inclusion of clients who did not declare a last permanent zip code. “Given Night” estimates derived by taking average from four points in time. *For unsheltered populations, the data presented is aggregate for the County – current methodologies do not break down subpopulation data by jurisdiction. **Data is not available on “Estimate the # exiting homelessness each year” and “Estimate the # of days persons experience homelessness” is not available for multiple populations, please refer to Table 32 and Table 33. If data is not available for the categories "number of persons becoming and exiting homelessness each year," and "number of days that persons experience homelessness," describe these categories for each homeless population type (including chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans and their families, and unaccompanied youth). While data for each specific homeless subpopulation is not available, as shown in Table 32 and Table 33, there is data for the number exiting homelessness and the average days to obtain housing. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 69 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Table 32 - Exited Homelessness (City) Project Type # Of Clients Who Obtained Permanent Housing Emergency Shelter 5 Transitional Housing 2 Rapid Re-Housing 1 Data Source: HMIS Santa Clara County Table 33 - Days to Housing (County) Project Type Average Days to Housing Emergency Shelter 61.6 Transitional Housing 319.9 Rapid Re-Housing 84 Data Source: HMIS Santa Clara County Nature and Extent of Homelessness: (Optional) Table 34 - Race and Ethnic Group of Homeless (City) Race Sheltered White 33 Black or African American 28 Asian 4 American Indian or Alaska Native 2 Native Hawaii or Pacific Islander 0 Multiple Races 0 Ethnicity Sheltered Hispanic 19 Non-Hispanic 65 Data Source: HMIS Santa Clara County Data Source Comment: HMIS data filtered for clients reporting a Palo Alto zip code as their last permanent zip code. Race/Ethnicity for four points in time were averaged. Ethnicity data includes clients for whom race data is not known. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 70 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Estimate the number and type of families in need of housing assistance for families with children and the families of veterans. Between 2013 and 2014 one veteran household with children were served by Santa Clara County HMIS Partner Agencies.34 A total of four households with children (including the one veteran household) were served. Discussion Please see discussions above. 34 CTA 2013-2014. Includes households who reported their last permanent zip code as Palo Alto. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 71 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) NA-45 Non-Homeless Special Needs Assessment - 91.205 (b, d) Introduction The following section addresses the needs of special populations and the special housing and service needs they might require. The special needs populations considered in this section include:  Elderly households  Persons with disabilities  Large households  Female-headed households  Persons living with AIDS/HIV and their families Describe the characteristics of special needs populations in your community: Elderly Households HUD defines elderly as age 62 and older, and frail elderly as persons who require assistance with three or more activities of daily living such as eating, bathing, walking, and performing light housework. The U.S. Census commonly defines older adults as those aged 65 and older. For the purposes of this analysis, the term elderly refers to those over the age of 62. Elderly residents generally face a unique set of housing needs, largely due to physical limitations, lower household incomes, and the rising costs of health care. Unit sizes and access to transit, health care, and other services are important housing concerns for this population. Housing affordability represents a key issue for seniors, many of whom are living on fixed incomes. The demand for senior housing serving various income levels is expected to increase as the baby boom generation ages.35 Seventeen percent of City residents (10,794 individuals) are over the age of 65,36 and 33 percent of households (8,464) in the City contain at least one person 62 years or older.37 These households are more likely to be LMI, with 35 percent of households containing at least one person age 62 or older (2,949households) having incomes below 80% AMI, compared to 23 percent for the City. Additionally, 43 percent of elderly households in the City are cost burdened and paying more than 30 percent of their income on housing costs, while 29 percent are severely cost burdened and paying more than 50 percent of their income on housing costs.38 35 Joint Center for Housing Studies. “Housing America’s Older Adults: Meeting the Needs of an Aging Population.” 2014. http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/sites/jchs.harvard.edu/files/jchs-housing_americas_older_adults_2014.pdf 36 2008-2012 ACS 37 2007-2011 CHAS 38 Ibid Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 72 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Table 35 - Elderly Population (City) Income 0-30% AMI >30-50% AMI >50-80% AMI >80-100% AMI >100% AMI Total Households 2,565 1,674 1,610 1,495 18,460 Household Contains at Least One Person 62-74 Years of Age 550 405 360 320 3,035 Household Contains at Least One Person Age 75 or Older 860 449 325 285 1,875 Data Source: 2007-2011 CHAS Persons with Disabilities HUD defines disability as a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities for an individual. Persons with disabilities can face unique barriers to securing affordable housing that provides them with the accommodations they need. Persons with disabilities may require units equipped with wheelchair accessibility or other special features that accommodate physical or sensory limitations. Access to transit, health care, services, and shopping also are important factors for this population.39 As shown in Table 36 below, more than one-quarter of individuals (27 percent) age 65 or older have a disability compared to four percent of the population age 18 to 64, or seven percent of the population as a whole. Of the disabled population 65 years and older, eight percent (803 individuals) have a self-care difficulty and 16 percent (1,685 individuals) have an independent living difficulty, resulting in over 2,400 elderly individuals who may require supportive housing accommodations. Table 36 - Disability Status of Population (City) Number Percent Population 18 To 64 Years 38,748 With a Hearing Difficulty 319 1% With a Vision Difficulty 193 1% With a Cognitive Difficulty 514 1% With an Ambulatory Difficulty 518 1% With a Self-Care Difficulty 338 1% With an Independent Living Difficulty 524 1% Total with a Disability (18 to 64 Years Old) 1,441 4% Population 65 Years and Over 10,505 With a Hearing Difficulty 1,085 10% With a Vision Difficulty 504 5% With a Cognitive Difficulty 826 8% With an Ambulatory Difficulty 1,700 16% 39 National Council on Disability. “The State of Housing in America in the 21st Century: A Disability Perspective.” January 2010. http://www.ncd.gov/publications/2010/Jan192010 Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 73 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Number Percent With a Self-Care Difficulty 803 8% With an Independent Living Difficulty 1,685 16% Total with a Disability (65+ Years Old) 2,789 27% Total Population 4,525 7% Large Households The U.S. Census Bureau defines large households as those with five or more persons. Large households may face challenges finding adequately-sized affordable housing. This may cause larger families to live in overcrowded conditions and/or overpay for housing. Census data for 2010 shows that the average household size in the City is 2.44 people. Table 37 below demonstrates that five percent of all households are large households. Table 37 - Household Size (City) Number Percent 1 Person 7982 30% 2 Persons 8386 32% 3 Persons 4091 15% 4 Persons 4106 15% 5 or More Persons 1392 5% Total Households 26,493 100% Data Source: 2007-2011 CHAS Female-Headed Families Single mothers may have a greater risk of poverty than single fathers due to factors such as the wage gap between men and women, insufficient training and education for higher earning jobs, and inadequate or expensive child support services.40 Female-headed families with children may have unique housing needs such as ease of access to child care, health care, and other supportive services. Single parent, female-headed households with children under the age of 18 account for approximately seven percent of all City households. This equates to roughly 1,762 single-mother families.41 Persons Living with AIDS/HIV and their Families Stable and affordable housing that is available to persons living with HIV/AIDS and their families helps assure they have consistent access to the level of medical care and supportive services that are essential to their health and welfare. Stable and affordable housing can also result in fewer 40 U.C. Berkeley. “Serving Low income Families in Poverty Neighborhoods Using Promising Programs and Practices.” September 2004. http://cssr.berkeley.edu/pdfs/lowIncomeFam.pdf 41 2008-2012 ACS Data Source: 2013 ACS Data Source Comment: Totals may not add to 100% due to rounding Data Source Comment: Totals may not add to 100% due to rounding Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 74 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) hospitalizations and decreased emergency room care. In addition, housing assistance, such as short- term help with rent or mortgage payments, may prevent homelessness among persons with HIV/AIDS and their families.42 In Santa Clara County, from April 2006 through June 2014, a total of 1,119 cases of HIV were reported; of these, 1,080 individuals are still living (3% deceased). During the same time period, a total of 4,655 cases of AIDS was reported; 2,327 are still living (50% deceased).43 According to a 2011 Santa Clara County HIV/AIDS needs assessment survey, the majority of respondents living with HIV/AIDS represented renters households (71 percent), and 30 percent reported experiencing difficulty getting housing in the six months prior to the survey.44 What are the housing and supportive service needs of these populations and how are these needs determined? Please see discussions above. Discuss the size and characteristics of the population with HIV/AIDS and their families within the Eligible Metropolitan Statistical Area. HIV Countywide, males represent 85 percent of reported HIV cases. This includes White (45 percent), Hispanic/Latino (32 percent), African American (12 percent), and Asian/Pacific Islander (9 percent) males. Thirty-five percent of the 75 newly reported cases in 2010 were of individuals between 20 and 29 years of age, compared with only 14 percent of existing (total living) cases in that age group.45 AIDS Overall, those living with AIDS are older, with 43 percent age 50 and older, compared to 28 percent age 50 and older for those with HIV. Additionally, AIDS incidence is most likely seen among Hispanic/Latino persons (42 percent), followed by Whites (36 percent), Asian Pacific Islanders (11 percent), and African Americans (10 percent). 46 Discussion: Please see discussions above. 42 National AIDS Housing Coalition. “HOPWA.” http://nationalaidshousing.org/legisadvocacy/hopwa/ 43 California Office of AIDS. “HIV/AIDS Surveillance in California.” June 2014. 44 Santa Clara County HIV Planning Council for Prevention and Care. “2012-2014 Comprehensive HIV Prevention & Care Plan for San José.” 2011. 45 Ibid. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 75 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) NA-50 Non-Housing Community Development Needs – 91.215 (f) Describe the jurisdiction’s need for Public Facilities. The City’s Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Commission’s Final Report makes the following findings: 47 1. The current Public Safety Building (PSB) is not designed to facilitate the efficient flow of police activities. It is overcrowded and lacks the capacity to accommodate increased use of technology or future service demands. Additionally, it falls short of Occupational Safety and Health Administration and other legal specifications. 2. Fire Stations 3 and 4 were built near the midpoint of the last century and are poorly designed and too small for their current uses. 3. The current PSB and Fire Stations 3 and 4 are vulnerable to damage in a severe earthquake that could render them inoperable for an extended period. In order to close the gap between the Palo Alto Police Department’s operating budget and its total revenues and to aid in the construction of a new public safety building, a ballot measure was approved in November 2014 to increase taxes to provide for these resources.48 Regional and Community Forums Regional and community forums were conducted in order to engage the community and highlight what participants felt were areas that were in need of funding. Participants in these engagement activities identified the following needs for public facilities: • Increase the number of homeless facilities across the County. • Build youth centers and recreational facilities in different locations throughout the County. • Support modernization and rehabilitation of senior centers. • Coordinate information services to promote and leverage access to community facilities. Regional Needs Survey To gain additional insight on high-priority needs a regional survey was conducted. Respondents rated the level of need for 14 public facility types in their neighborhoods. The six highest priorities in this category were: 1. Homeless facilities 2. Facilities for abused, abandoned and/or neglected children 3. Educational facilities 4. Mental health care facilities 5. Youth centers 47 “Palo Alto’s Infrastructure: Catching Up, Keeping Up, and Moving Ahead.” December 2011. 48 City of Palo Alto. “City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update Public Services Draft Existing Conditions Report.” August 2014. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 76 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) 6. Drop-in day center for the homeless How were these needs determined? In October 2010, the Palo Alto City Council appointed a 17-member Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Commission (IBRC) to look out 25 years and tackle a four-part challenge. Their conclusions and findings are included in their final report. Additionally, the City has reviewed and profiled existing public services (such as police protection, fire protection, schools, libraries, and parks and recreation services) in its Comprehensive Plan Update Public Services Draft Existing Conditions Report,49 which was released in August 2014. This report discusses the regulatory framework and existing conditions related to public services in the City in order to provide context for its upcoming Comprehensive Plan Update and Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Feedback was gathered from the community needs survey and community forums, where residents and stakeholders of the City provided input community needs. Please see Appendix A: Citizen Participation Summary for more detail. Describe the jurisdiction’s need for Public Improvements: For a number of years the City has needed to underfund maintenance costs, causing a considerable backlog of deferred maintenance to accumulate. Among the facilities earmarked for significant maintenance are the Cubberley Community Center: $7.0 million, streets: $6.1 million, parks: $5.6 million, sidewalks: $3.7 million, and the Baylands Nature Preserve: $3.0 million. The total cost of maintenance accrued over time is $41.5 million.50 Specifically for parks, residents prioritized the addition or improvement of loop trails, off-leash dog parks and community gardens. Other improvements, such as enhanced wildlife habitat, restored waterways, and improved trails received lower prioritization.51 Regional and Community Forums Stakeholders at each of the Consolidated Plan forums highlighted the lack of affordable and accessible transportation services in the County. Programs to augment public transit were cited as necessities. Participants in the forums also emphasized the need for the jurisdictions to: • Promote complete streets to accommodate multiple transportation modes. • Focus on pedestrian safety by improving crosswalk visibility and enhancing sidewalks. • Expand ADA curb improvements. • Increase access to parks and open space amenities in low income neighborhoods. 49 City of Palo Alto. “Comprehensive Plan Update PUBLIC SERVICES Draft Existing Conditions Report.” August 2014. 50 Ibid 51 City of Palo Alto. “Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation Intercept Survey Summer Draft.” 2014. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 77 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Regional Needs Survey Survey respondents rated the level of need for 15 infrastructure and neighborhood improvements within their neighborhoods. The five highest priorities in this area that they identified were: 1. Cleanup of contaminated sites 2. Street improvements 3. Lighting improvement 4. Sidewalk improvements 5. Water/sewer improvements How were these needs determined? Overall public improvements needs were examined by the same IBRC discussed above. Park priorities were assessed during an intercept survey of park visitors in the summer of 2014. The purpose of the surveys was to identify community needs and issues as they relate to parks. Feedback was gathered from the community needs survey and community forums, where residents and stakeholders of the City provided input community needs. Please see Appendix A: Citizen Participation Summary for more detail. Describe the jurisdiction’s need for Public Services: Regional and Community Forums During the forums, participants emphasized the need to support a broad range of community services. The need to increase services for the homeless was a key concern identified by community members. Emergency and transitional housing, comprehensive services at homeless encampments (e.g., basic shelter facilities, health care referrals), and rental assistance programs for the homeless were frequently identified by participants as critical needs. Another common topic was the need to address the housing crisis facing seniors in the County. Forum participants noted that elderly renters experience numerous housing issues, including cost burden. The primary needs that were identified include: • Address the needs for accessible and affordable transportation services throughout Santa Clara County • Support food assistance and nutrition programs for low income families, seniors and disabled individuals • Provide health care services to seniors and low income families • Develop free, year-round programs and activities for youth (e.g., recreation programming, sports) • Offer comprehensive services at homeless encampments (e.g., outreach, health, referrals) • Provide mental health care services for homeless and veterans • Support services to reduce senior isolation • Assist service providers in meeting the needs of vulnerable populations through increased funding and information sharing Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 78 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Regional Needs Survey Survey respondents rated the level of need for 23 public service improvements in their neighborhoods. The five highest priorities in this area were: 1. Emergency housing assistance to prevent homelessness 2. Access to fresh and nutritious foods 3. Homeless services 4. Abused, abandoned and/or neglected children services 5. Transportation services How were these needs determined? Feedback was gathered from the community needs survey and community forums, where residents and stakeholders of the City provided input community needs. Please see Appendix A: Citizen Participation Summary for more detail. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 79 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Housing Market Analysis MA-05 Overview Housing Market Analysis Overview As was discussed in the Needs Assessment, in the San José-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA HUD Metro Fair Market Rent Area (HMFA), the 3rd most expensive rental market in the nation, renters must earn at least $31.70 an hour to afford the average two-bedroom apartment.52 Rental housing throughout Santa Clara County (County) is becoming increasingly more expensive and the affordability gap is widening. According to the Cities Association of Santa Clara County and Housing Trust Silicon Valley, “the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) projects that over the next 25 years 57 percent of all household growth in the Bay Area will consist of very-low and low income households. The State’s Employment Development Department projects that more than half of the jobs created in the next five years in Santa Clara County will pay $11.00 per hour or less. In addition, much of the growth is expected to be with senior households”.53 Rising home prices are a response to an imbalance between supply and demand. An adequate housing supply is critical to keeping housing affordable, and affordable housing is among the most important contributors to household welfare. When considering the large difference between income and housing costs, the need for more affordable housing, not just for the lowest income residents, but also for a large number of low and moderate income working families, becomes clear. Overall, there is a strong need for a diverse mixture of new housing stock to serve the needs of the region’s current and future population. The large percentage of single-family units reflects a more suburban land development pattern. From 2000-2012, median home values increased 222 percent and rents increased 313 percent. Median household income increased only 36 percent. With wages not keeping pace with the housing market and the increasing cost of living in Palo Alto, future investments in affordable housing development and workforce development, are more important than ever to maintain a self-sufficient population. The following gives a brief overview of the market analysis results, with more detail included in each corresponding section: MA-10 Number of Housing Units  The City contains 27,268 housing units – 57 percent of which are owner-occupied households, while 43 percent are renter-occupied households.  The majority of housing units (57 percent) in the City are single-family units (1-unit detached structures) and 38 percent are multi-family attached units.  Two housing developments totaling 168 units are at risk of conversion during the term of this Consolidated Plan (2015-2019). 52 National Low Income Housing Coalition. “Out of Reach.” 2014. http://nlihc.org/sites/default/files/oor/2014OOR.pdf 53 Cities Association of Santa Clara County and Housing Trust Silicon Valley. “Affordable Housing Landscape & Local Best Practices.” December 2013. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 80 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) MA-15 Housing Market Analysis: Cost of Housing  Cost burden is the most common housing problem within the City of Palo Alto, 30 percent of households in the City paying more than 30 percent of their income toward housing costs, and 14 percent of households paying more than 50 percent of their income toward housing costs.  The greatest need for affordable units is for the extremely low income households (0-30% AMI), with a gap of 1,780 units. MA-20 Housing Market Analysis: Condition of Housing  Seventy-nine percent of housing units were constructed before 1980 and are at risk of a lead based paint hazard. It is estimated that 23 percent of units at risk of a LBP hazard are occupied by LMI households. MA-25 Public and Assisted Housing  The Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara (HASCS) develops, controls, and manages more than 2,600 affordable rental housing properties throughout the County.  HACSC has been a Moving to Work (MTW) agency since 2008. In this time the agency has developed 31 MTW activities. The vast majority of their successful initiatives have been aimed at reducing administrative inefficiencies, which in turn opens up more resources for programs aimed at LMI families. MA-30 Homeless Facilities  As per the 2014 Housing Inventory Count (HIC) 6,320 beds are available for homeless individuals and families in the County. 358 beds are under development.  Housing facilities for homeless individuals and families include emergency shelters, transitional housing, permanent supportive housing, and safe havens. MA-35 Special Needs Facilities  The City has a total of 420 licensed community care facility beds available for persons with health-related conditions. MA-40 Barriers to Affordable Housing  The City identified multiple barriers to affordable housing, including income and wages that are consistent with the rising cost of housing, a competitive rental and home market, and diminishing public funds. MA-45 Non-Housing Community Development Assets  Overall, 98 percent of Palo Also residents have at least a high school diploma or higher, and more than half (57 percent).have a bachelor’s degree or higher.  Holders of bachelor’s degrees have approximately 75 percent higher median income than those with only an associate’s, and those with a graduate degree or professional degree have a 140 percent higher median income. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 81 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)  Between September 2013 and September 2014, total employment in the San José- Sunnyvale- Santa Clara Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) expanded by 34,400 jobs. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 82 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) MA-10 Number of Housing Units – 91.210(a) & (b) (2) Introduction The City is primarily comprised of single-family owner-occupied units. The City contains 27,268 housing units, 57 percent of which are owner-occupied households, while 43 percent are renter households. Additionally, 62 percent of housing units (16,857 units) are single-family detached and attached housing. Multi-family dwelling units represent 39 percent (10,333 units) of the City’s total housing stock. Table 38 - Residential Properties by Unit Number (City) Property Type Number % 1-Unit Detached Structure 15,506 57% 1-Unit, Attached Structure 1,351 5% 2-4 Units 1,784 7% 5-19 Units 3,430 13% 20 or More Units 5,119 19% Mobile Home, Boat, RV, Van, etc. 78 0% Total 27,268 100% Data Source: 2007-2011 ACS Data source Comment: Totals may not add to 100% due to rounding Table 39 - Unit Size by Tenure (City) Owner Households Renter Households Number % Number % No Bedroom 29 0% 947 9% 1 Bedroom 333 2% 4,060 37% 2 Bedrooms 2,465 17% 3,987 36% 3 or More Bedrooms 11,989 81% 1,987 18% Total 14,816 100% 10,981 100% Data Source: 2007-2011 ACS Data source Comment: Totals may not add to 100% due to rounding Describe the number and targeting (income level/type of family served) of units assisted with federal, state, and local programs. In 2014, 17 affordable rental housing projects were located in the City, providing 1,332 affordable housing units to LMI households.54 The Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara (HASCS) Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program and other voucher programs target assistance as follows: 75 percent entering the program must be at 0-30% AMI and the remaining 25 percent must be no higher than 50% AMI. HASCS’s housing properties have income limits as follows: 54 City of Palo Alto. “2015-2023 Housing Element.” 2014. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 83 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Table 40 - HASC Housing Properties (County) Project Name City Income Limit Number of Units Housing Type El Parador Campbell 50% AMI 125 Senior Tax Credit Housing Rincon Gardens*† Campbell 50% AMI 200 Family Tax Credit Housing Sunset Gardens*† Gilroy 50% AMI 75 Senior Tax Credit Housing San Pedro Gardens Morgan Hill 50% or 60% AMI 20 Family Tax Credit Housing Opportunity Center† Palo Alto 50% AMI 89 Senior Tax Credit Housing Avenida Espana Gardens San José 50% AMI 84 Public and Other HUD Assisted Housing Blossom River Apts. San José 50% or 60% AMI 144 Senior Tax Credit Housing Clarendon Street San José 50% or 60% AMI 80 Family Tax Credit Housing Cypress Gardens*† San José 50% or 60% AMI 125 Family Tax Credit Housing DeRose Gardens San José 60% AMI 76 Senior Tax Credit Housing Helzer Courts San José 30%, 50% or 60% AMI 155 Family Tax Credit Housing Huff Gardens San José 60% AMI 72 Family Tax Credit Housing Julian Gardens† San José 50% AMI 9 Senior Tax Credit Housing Lenzen Gardens*† San José 50% AMI 94 Family Tax Credit Housing Lucretia Gardens† San José 50% AMI 16 Family Tax Credit Housing Morrone Gardens San José 50% AMI 102 Senior Tax Credit Housing Pinmore Gardens San José 60% AMI 51 Family Tax Credit Housing Poco Way Apartments† San José 50% or 60% AMI 129 Family Tax Credit Housing Seifert House† San José 50% AMI 3 Senior Tax Credit Housing The Willows San José 30% or 60% AMI 47 Family Tax Credit Housing Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 84 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Project Name City Income Limit Number of Units Housing Type Villa Hermosa San José 40% AMI 100 Family Tax Credit Housing Villa San Pedro San José 50% or 60% AMI 100 Family Tax Credit Housing Bracher Senior Apartments Santa Clara 50% AMI 72 Senior Tax Credit Housing Deborah Drive** Santa Clara 40% of new admissions must have income below 30% AMI, the remaining 60% are below 80% AMI 4 Family Tax Credit Housing Eklund I Apartments† Santa Clara 50% AMI 10 Family Tax Credit Housing Eklund II Apartments† Santa Clara 50% AMI 6 Public and Other HUD Assisted Housing John Burns Gardens Santa Clara 50% AMI 100 Senior Tax Credit Housing Klamath Gardens Santa Clara 50% AMI 17 Family Tax Credit Housing Miramar† Santa Clara 50% AMI 16 Senior Tax Credit Housing RiverTown Apartments Santa Clara 20%, 35% or 60% AMI 100 Public and Other HUD Assisted Housing Data Source: HACSC Data Source Comments: *These properties also include non-elderly disabled. **Theses properties are Public Housing units until final disposition and will then have Project-Based Vouchers. †These properties include Project-Based Vouchers or Project Based Assistance. Provide an assessment of units expected to be lost from the affordable housing inventory for any reason, such as expiration of Section 8 contracts. The Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC) owns and manages three Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation projects in Palo Alto: the Curtner Apartments, Emerson South Apartments, and Oak Manor Townhouses. The original Housing Assistance Payments (HAP) contracts of these properties have expired, but they are renewed annually.55 Two housing developments, totaling 168 units, are at risk of conversion during the term of this Consolidated Plan (2015-2019). 55 Ibid. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 85 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Describe the need for specific types of housing: As discussed in the Needs Assessment, several special needs populations require affordable housing, including the homeless or at-risk of homelessness; large households; female-headed households with children; seniors; and disabled individuals. As shown in Table 41, the vast majority of HACSC clients fall into one of these special needs categories.56 HACSC reports that smaller unit sizes and accessibility to transit, health care, and other services are housing needs for the senior population. The same often holds true for disabled individuals. Table 41 - HACSC Special Needs Populations Data Source: HACSC Discussion Please see discussions above. 56 Housing authority of the County of Santa Clara, Housing Needs Assessment, 2013 Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 86 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) MA-15 Housing Market Analysis: Cost of Housing - 91.210(a) Introduction Housing affordability is an important factor for evaluating the housing market, as well as quality of life, as many housing problems relate directly to the cost of housing. HUD standards measure affordability by the number of households paying no more than 30 percent of their gross income toward housing costs, including utilities. This section provides an overview of the overall cost of housing in the City. Among owner households, over one-fourth (26 percent) are cost burdened and 12 percent are severely cost burdened. For renter households, over one-third (35 percent) are cost burdened and 15 percent are severely cost burdened. Taken together, nearly one-third (29 percent) of owner and renter households (7,690 households) in the City are paying more than 30 percent of their income toward housing costs, and 13 percent of owner and renter households (3,505 households) are paying more than 50 percent of their gross income toward housing costs. As was discussed in MA-05, the San José-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA HUD Metro Fair Market Rent Area (HMFA), which includes the City, renter households must earn at least $31.70 an hour to afford a market-rate two bedroom apartment; this causes the area to be the third most expensive rental market in the nation.57 Table 42 - Cost of Housing (City) Base Year: 2000 Most Recent Year: 2013 % Change Median Home Value 776,000 $1,720,000 222% Median Contract Rent 1,308 $4,096 313% Data Source: 2000 Census (Base Year), DQNews 2013/ City of Palo Alto Housing Element 2015-2023 (Most Recent Year) Table 43 - Rent Paid (City) Rent Paid Number % Less than $500 1,066 9.7% $500-999 1,027 9.4% $1,000-1,499 2,359 21.5% $1,500-1,999 2,673 24.3% $2,000 or More 3,856 35.1% Total 10,981 100.0% Data Source: 2007-2011 ACS 57 National Low Income Housing Coalition. “Out of Reach.” 2014. http://nlihc.org/sites/default/files/oor/2014OOR.pdf Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 87 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Table 44 - Housing Affordability (City) Percentage of Units Affordable to Households Earning: Renter Households Owner Households 30% AMI 780 No Data 50% AMI 1,260 89 80% AMI 2,015 124 100% AMI No Data 218 Total 4,055 431 Data Source: 2007-2011 CHAS Table 45 - Monthly Rent (City) Monthly Rent ($) Efficiency (No Bedroom) 1 Bedroom 2 Bedrooms 3 Bedrooms 4 Bedrooms Fair Market Rent 1,079 1,262 1,610 2,270 2,574 High HOME Rent 1,079 1,199 1,441 1,656 1,828 Low HOME Rent 918 985 1,183 1,369 1,528 Data Source: HUD FMR and HOME Rents Table 46 - Affordable Housing Supply Versus Need (City) Household Income Range Total Units Available Total Households Gap (Renter and Owner Units) 30% AMI 780 2560 -1,780 50% AMI 1,349 1675 -326 80% AMI 2,139 1610 529 Total 4,268 5,845 -1,577 Data Source: 2007-2011 CHAS Is there sufficient housing for households at all income levels? There is a disparity between need and availability of affordable housing in the City. The greatest disparity is seen with 0-30% AMI renter households. Approximately 2,560 households earn between 0-30% AMI, yet there are only 780 rental units available that are affordable to these households. Overall, there are 5,845 LMI households in the City and 4,268 units available that are affordable to that income range. How is affordability of housing likely to change considering changes to home values and/or rents? Overall, income in the City is not keeping pace with the rising housing costs and high cost of living. Table 42 shows the median home value and contract rent for housing units. This data demonstrates that from 2000 to 2013 there has been a 222 percent increase in median home values and a 313 percent change in median contract rent. Within the same time period there was a 36 percent increase in the household median income ($90,377 to $122,482).58 With 2013 median rent prices at almost three times 2000 rates, families seeking rental units might experience a greater difficulty 58 2013 ACS. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 88 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) affording housing. This is a conservative estimate, as multiple 2014 studies have indicated Silicon Valley is currently the most expensive housing market in the country. 59 60 61 How do HOME rents / Fair Market Rent compare to Area Median Rent? How might this impact your strategy to produce or preserve affordable housing? The HOME and Fair Market Rent (FMR) limits are considerably lower than the overall median rent of households in the City. At $4,096, the average rent is higher than the HOME and FMR limits for all unit sizes. Within high-priced markets, strategies which produce affordable housing do more to preserve long- term affordability for low income households. In contrast, programs that provide tenant-based rental assistance, such as Section 8 vouchers, might not be feasible due to market economics, especially in the areas with higher rents. Strategies that work to produce housing multiply the impact of available funds by increasing the number of households that can be served over a time period, especially when HOME rents are considerably lower than those found throughout most of the City. Discussion Please see discussions above. 59 Silicon Valley Business Journal. “When the Median Home Price is $4.6 million: Silicon Valley Claims 3 of Nation’s 10 most Expensive Housing Markets.” http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2014/07/07/when-the-median-home-price-is-4-6- million-silicon.html 60 Forbes. “Silicon Valley Dominates 2013 List of America’s Most Expensive ZIP Codes.” http://www.forbes.com/sites/morganbrennan/2013/10/16/silicon-valley-tech-enclaves-top-our-list-of-americas-most- expensive-zip-codes/ 61 Huffington Post. “10 Most Affordable Housing Markets in America.” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/15/most- affordable-homes-in-the-us_n_6147890.html Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 89 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) MA-20 Housing Market Analysis: Condition of Housing – 91.210(a) Introduction HUD defines housing “conditions” similarly to the definition of housing problems previously discussed in the Needs Assessment. These conditions are: 1. More than one person per room 2. Cost burden greater than 30 percent 3. Lack of complete plumbing 4. Lack of complete kitchen facilities Definitions Within the City, a "substandard residential building" is defined as any residential building in which any of the following conditions exist to an extent that it endangers the life, limb, health, property, safety or welfare of the public or the occupants thereof.62 Table 47 - Condition of Units (City) Condition of Units Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied Number % Number % With One Selected Condition 3,951 27% 3,983 36% With Two Selected Conditions 45 0% 344 3% With Three Selected Conditions 43 0% 23 0% With Four Selected Conditions 0 0% 0 0% No Selected Conditions 10,777 73% 6,631 60% Total 14,816 100% 10,981 99% Data Source: 2007-2011 ACS Data Comment: Totals may not add to 100% due to rounding Table 48 - Year Unit Built (City) Year Unit Built Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied Number % Number % 2000 or Later 1,327 9% 938 9% 1980-1999 1,292 9% 1,975 18% 1950-1979 7,499 51% 6,526 59% Before 1950 4,698 32% 1,542 14% Total 14,816 101% 10,981 100% Data Source: 2007-2011 CHAS Data Source Comment: Totals may not add to 100% due to rounding 62 City of Palo Alto Municipal Code. 16.40. Unsafe Buildings Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 90 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Table 49 - Risk of Lead-Based Paint (City) Risk of Lead-Based Paint Hazard Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied Number % Number % Total Number of Units Built Before 1980 12,197 82% 8,068 73% Housing Units build before 1980 with children present 615 4% 525 5% Data Source: 2007-2011 ACS (Total Units) 2007-2011 CHAS (Units with Children present) Table 50 - Vacant Units (City) Suitable for Rehabilitation Not Suitable for Rehabilitation Total Vacant Units - - - Abandoned Vacant Units - - - REO Properties - - - Abandoned REO Properties - - - Data Source Comments: Data on vacant units or suitability for rehabilitation is not collected by the City Estimated Number of Housing Units Occupied by Low or Moderate Income Families with LBP Hazards Building age is used to estimate the number of homes with lead-based paint (LBP), which was prohibited on residential units after 1978. For the purposes of this plan, units built before 1980 are used as a baseline for units that contain LBP. Seventy-seven percent of all units (21,455 units) in the City were built before 1980 and provide potential exposure to LBP. As discussed in the Needs Assessment, 23 percent of households within the City have incomes ranging from 0-80% AMI. Using this percentage as a baseline, we can estimate that 4,934 LBP units are occupied by LMI families. Discussion Please see discussions above. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 91 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) MA-25 Public and Assisted Housing – 91.210(b) Introduction As was discussed in the Needs Assessment, HACSC assists approximately 17,000 households through Section 8. The Section 8 waiting list contains 21,256 households – this is estimated to be a 10-year wait. HACSC also develops, controls, and manages more than 2,600 affordable rental housing properties throughout the County. HACSC’s programs are targeted toward LMI households, and more than 80 percent of their client households are extremely low income families, seniors, veterans, persons with disabilities, and formerly homeless individuals.63 As referenced in the Need Assessment, in 2008 HACSC entered into a ten-year agreement with HUD to become a Moving to Work agency. The MTW program is a federal demonstration program that allows greater flexibility to design and implement more innovative approaches for providing housing assistance.64 Additionally, HACSC has used Low Income Housing Tax Credit financing to transform and rehabilitate 535 units of public housing into HACSC-controlled properties. The agency is an active developer of affordable housing and has either constructed, rehabilitated, or assisted with the development of more than 30 housing developments that service a variety of households, including special needs households.65 The tables below display the public housing inventory and housing vouchers maintained by HACSC. HACSC has four two-bedroom family public housing units in its portfolio; they are located in the City of Santa Clara. Approximately 16,387 housing vouchers are in use countywide. Specific HACSC data on the number of units or vouchers available is only available for the City of San Jose (through the Housing Authority of the City of San José, administered by HACSC) and the County as a whole. Table 51 - Total Number of Units by Program Type (County) Program Type Certificate Mod- Rehab Public Housing Vouchers Total Project -based Tenant -based Special Purpose Voucher Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing Family Unification Program Disabled * # of Units/Vouchers Available 0 42 0 10,931 666 9,362 740 100 63 # of Accessible Units - - - - - - - - - *Includes Non-Elderly Disabled, Mainstream One-Year, Mainstream Five-year, and Nursing Home Transition Data Source: HACSC Data Source Comment: HACSC does not collect data on whether or not households use a voucher for an accessible unit. 63 Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara. “Welcome to HACSC.” http://www.hacsc.org/ 64 HACSC. “Moving to Work (MTW) 2014 Annual Report.” September 2014. 65 Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara. “Welcome to HACSC.” http://www.hacsc.org/ Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 92 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Describe the supply of public housing developments. Not applicable. There are no public housing developments located in the jurisdiction. Describe the number and physical condition of public housing units in the jurisdiction, including those that are participating in an approved Public Housing Agency Plan. Not applicable. Table 52 - Public Housing Condition Public Housing Development Average Inspection Score N/A N/A Describe the restoration and revitalization needs of public housing units in the jurisdiction. Not applicable. Describe the public housing agency's strategy for improving the living environment of low- and moderate-income families residing in public housing. As referenced in the Needs Assessment, HACSC has been a Moving to Work agency since 2008. In this time the agency has developed 31 MTW activities. The vast majority of their successful initiatives have been aimed at reducing administrative inefficiencies, which in turn opens up more resources for programs aimed at LMI families.66 The following is excerpted from HACSC’s August 2014 Board of Commissioner’s report: “HACSC’s Family Self Sufficiency (FSS) Program is designed to provide assistance to current HACSC Section 8 families to achieve self-sufficiency. When a family enrolls in the five-year program, HPD’s FSS Coordinator and LIFESteps service provider helps the family develop self-sufficiency goals and a training plan, and coordinates access to job training and other services, including childcare and transportation. Program participants are required to seek and maintain employment or attend school or job training. As participants increase their earned income and pay a larger share of the rent, HACSC holds the amount of the tenant’s rent increases in an escrow account, which is then awarded to participants who successfully complete the program. HACSC is currently in the initial stages of creating a pilot successor program to FSS under the auspices of its MTW flexibility called Focus Forward.” Every year, HACSC provides a report to HUD on the previous year’s activities in its FSS program. The following chart represents a summary of what was reported to HUD for the County of Santa Clara’s and the City of San Jose’s FSS programs.” 67 66 HACSC. “Moving to Work (MTW) 2014 Annual Report.” September 2014. 67 HACSC. “Housing Programs Department (HPD) Monthly Board Report.” August 2014. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 93 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Table 53 - HACSC Family Self Sufficiency Report (County) CY2013 Family Self Sufficiency Report How many households were actively case-managed? 266 How many individuals received services? 266 How many households successfully completed their Contract of Participation? 28 What is the cost per family to coordinate services? $1,899 How many FSS households increased their income? 80 What was the average dollar increase in annual household income? $12,431 How many households experienced a reduction in cash welfare assistance? 19 How many households ceased receiving cash welfare assistance as a result of increased household income? 11 How many new FSS escrow accounts were established with positive balances? 22 What was the total value of FSS escrow accounts disbursed to graduating households? $300,190 How many households were able to move to non-subsidized housing? 5 Data Source: HACSC Board Report August 2013 Discussion: Please see discussions above. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 94 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) MA-30 Homeless Facilities and Services – 91.210(c) Introduction Various organizations within the County provide housing facilities and services for the homeless. Housing opportunities for homeless individuals and families include emergency shelters, transitional housing, permanent supportive housing, rapid re-housing, and safe havens. Housing opportunities are provided at facilities or through scattered-site housing models. Housing services available include outreach and engagement, housing location assistance, medical services, employment assistance, substance abuse recovery, legal aid, mental health care, veteran services, public assistance benefits advocacy and referrals, family crisis shelters and childcare, domestic violence support, personal good storage, and personal care/hygiene services. Table 54 - Facilities and Housing Targeted to Homeless Households (County) Emergency Shelter Beds Transitional Housing Beds Permanent Supportive Housing Beds Year Round Beds (Current & New) Voucher / Seasonal / Overflow Beds Current & New Current & New Under Development Households with Adult(s) and Child(ren) 257 70 619 1602 6 Households with Only Adults 314 271 522 2081 309 Chronically Homeless Households 0 0 0 979 310 Veterans 30 0 152 809 0 Unaccompanied Youth 22 0 0 0 0 Data Source: HMIS Santa Clara County Data Source Comment: List includes DV Shelters. Numbers are duplicate for Unaccompanied Youth and Unaccompanied Children. Data includes entire continuum capacity and is aggregate for the County. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 95 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Describe mainstream services, such as health, mental health, and employment services to the extent those services are used to complement services targeted to homeless persons. Regional programs that highlight and demonstrate mainstream service connections for the homeless population include:68  The Valley Homeless Healthcare Program (VHHP) is part of the Santa Clara Valley Health and Hospital system and provides a variety of services for homeless people, including primary care, urgent care, and backpack medicine for people in encampments, medically focused outreach, and connection to an SSI advocate through the County’s Social Services Agency. VHHP also connects people to the public behavioral health system and connects people with or enrolls people in Affordable Care Act benefits. VHHP also manages a Medical Respite program for homeless who are being discharged from hospitalizations, including from the County hospital.  The Social Services Agency has an expedited review process for SNAP (food stamps) applications for homeless people such that they can be approved for benefits within three days.  The Social Services Agency and the Workforce Investment Board (work2future) in San Jose are piloting an employment program for recipients of General Assistance who are homeless.  The County’s Behavioral Health Services Department (BHS) has several programs that connect homeless people to housing or shelter assistance, as well as several programs in which homeless people are connected to BHS for treatment.  BHS and the County’s Office of Reentry Services, as well as Social Services and VHHP, have partnered on services through the County’s Reentry Resource Center (RRC) to provide services to people who have a history of incarceration, including those who were recently released and who are homeless. Through the RRC, clients can get expedited connections/referrals to treatment services, housing, and other mainstream benefits.  BHS is dedicating a significant portion of its State Mental Health Services Act funds to housing. Since 2007, $21 million has been dedicated to housing in the form of construction assistance or operational subsidies. This investment will result in at least 150 new housing units for mentally ill households who are homeless, chronically homeless or at risk of homelessness (depending on the housing project). Of these units, 109 units are currently occupied, five are under construction and 36 are in the planning stages.  The County’s Office of Supportive Housing's (OSH) mission is to increase the supply of housing and supportive housing that is affordable and available to extremely low income and/or special needs households. OSH supports the County’s mission of promoting a healthy, safe, and prosperous community by ending and preventing homelessness. 68 County of Santa Clara Office of Supportive Housing Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 96 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) List and describe services and facilities that meet the needs of homeless persons, particularly chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans and their families, and unaccompanied youth. If the services and facilities are listed on screen SP-40 Institutional Delivery Structure or screen MA-35 Special Needs Facilities and Services, describe how these facilities and services specifically address the needs of these populations. The following is a list of facilities that provide a total of 6,320 beds (358 beds are under development) for homeless individuals and families in the County. The number of beds provided to Target Populations of individuals and families is:69 • Households with children (HC): 1,124 • Single females (SF): 85 • Single females and households with children (SFHC): 304 • Single males (SM): 346 • Single males and females (SMF): 1,052 • Single males and females and households with children (SMF+HC): 3,031 • Unaccompanied youth males and females (YMF): 20 • Domestic violence (DV): 50 • HIV/AIDs program (HIV): 167 Table 55 - Homeless Housing Inventory Chart (County) Organization Name Project Name Target Pop. Total Beds Abode Services Abode Place-Based Rapid Re-Housing Program SMF+HC 100 Abode Services Encampments SMF+HC 20 Abode Services SCC Rental Assistance Program SMF+HC 90 Abode Services SCC Rental Assistance Program SMF+HC 70 Abode Services SJ Mental Health TH SMF+HC 24 Abode Services SJ Mental Health TH SMF+HC 13 Abode Services St. James Park (Dept. of Drug & Alcohol Services) SMF+HC 21 Abode Services Sunnyvale TH SMF+HC 9 Abode Services Sunnyvale TH SMF+HC 30 Abode Services Sunset Leasing SMF+HC 21 Asian Americans for Community Involvement Asian Women's Home SFHC 14 Bill Wilson Center 8th Street/Keyes (formerly Leigh) SMF 4 Bill Wilson Center Bill Wilson RRH SMF+HC 44 Bill Wilson Center High Glen (formerly Villa Street) HC 9 Bill Wilson Center Jackson St. HC 17 69 Santa Clara County Continuum of Care. “2014 SCC Housing Inventory Chart.” http://www.sccgov.org/sites/oah/Pages/Office-of-Affordable-Housing.aspx Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 97 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Organization Name Project Name Target Pop. Total Beds Bill Wilson Center Lafayette Street SMF 6 Bill Wilson Center Norman Drive (North County) HC 11 Bill Wilson Center PeaCoCk Commons SMF+HC 34 Bill Wilson Center PeaCoCk Commons LI SMF+HC 11 Bill Wilson Center PeaCoCk Commons MHSA SMF+HC 11 Bill Wilson Center Rockefeller Drive (North County) SMF 8 Bill Wilson Center Runaway and Homeless Youth Shelter YMF 20 Bill Wilson Center Via Anacapa HC 8 Catholic Charities of Santa Clara County Family Housing HC 56 Catholic Charities of Santa Clara County Navigator Project SMF 29 Catholic Charities of Santa Clara County New Directions SMF 25 Catholic Charities of Santa Clara County New Directions Expansion - Medical Respite SMF 22 Charities Housing San Antonio Place and Scattered Sites SMF 10 City Team Ministries City Team Rescue Mission SM 48 City Team Ministries Heritage Home SF 23 City Team Ministries House of Grace SF 30 City Team Ministries Men's Recovery/Discipleship SM 56 City Team Ministries Rescue Mission TH SM 11 Community Solutions El Invierno TH Gilroy SM 12 Community Solutions Glenview Dr. SM 6 Community Solutions La Isla Pacifica HC DV 14 Community Solutions Maria Way SM 6 Community Solutions Walnut Lane SM 6 Community Working Group/Housing Authority Opportunity Center - HUD SMF 6 Community Working Group/Housing Authority Opportunity Center - NON-HUD SMF+HC 82 Downtown Streets Team Workforce Supportive Housing Program SMF 9 Family Supportive Housing Glen Art - Transitional Housing Program #1 HC 21 Family Supportive Housing San Jose Family Shelter HC 123 Family Supportive Housing Transitional Housing Program #2 HC 23 Family Supportive Housing Transitional Housing Program #3 HC 13 Family Supportive Housing Transitional Housing Program #4 HC 8 Goodwill Institute for Career Development Goodwill SSVF SMF+HC 30 HomeFirst (formerly EHC Lifebuilders) Boccardo FLC San Martin 2 year Transitional Program HC 63 HomeFirst (formerly EHC Lifebuilders) Boccardo FLC San Martin Family Wellness Court Units HC 15 HomeFirst (formerly EHC Lifebuilders) Boccardo FLC San Martin Farmworkers Housing HC 0 Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 98 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Organization Name Project Name Target Pop. Total Beds HomeFirst (formerly EHC Lifebuilders) Boccardo FLC San Martin Short Term Transitional HC 48 HomeFirst (formerly EHC Lifebuilders) BRC Nightly Shelter SMF 167 HomeFirst (formerly EHC Lifebuilders) BRC Supportive Transitional Housing (Mental Health) SMF 18 HomeFirst (formerly EHC Lifebuilders) EHC Lifebuilders - SSVF SMF+HC 20 HomeFirst (formerly EHC Lifebuilders) GPD BRC Veterans Per Diem SMF 20 HomeFirst (formerly EHC Lifebuilders) Housing 1000 Care Coordination Project SMF 14 HomeFirst (formerly EHC Lifebuilders) Housing for Homeless Addicted to Alcohol SMF 42 HomeFirst (formerly EHC Lifebuilders) Nightly CWSP Gilroy SMF+HC 101 HomeFirst (formerly EHC Lifebuilders) Nightly CWSP Sunnyvale SMF 125 HomeFirst (formerly EHC Lifebuilders) Scattered Site TH Program #1 HC 45 HomeFirst (formerly EHC Lifebuilders) Scattered Site TH Program #2 HC 15 HomeFirst (formerly EHC Lifebuilders) Sobrato Family Living Center ELI HC 40 HomeFirst (formerly EHC Lifebuilders) Sobrato Family Living Center PSH HC 32 HomeFirst (formerly EHC Lifebuilders) Sobrato Family Living Center VLI HC 99 HomeFirst (formerly EHC Lifebuilders) Sobrato House Youth Shelter SMF 10 Homeless Veterans Emergency Housing Facility HVEHF - Aging SMF 71 Homeless Veterans Emergency Housing Facility HVEHF - Men's SM 38 Homeless Veterans Emergency Housing Facility HVEHF - Women's SF 11 Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara CHDR 2010 (formerly known as Section 8 Vouchers - Housing First) SMF+HC 267 Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara CHDR 2013 SMF 75 Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara CHDR 2013 SMF 25 Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara King's Crossing SMF+HC 59 Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara Section 8 Voucher - MTW SMF+HC 750 Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara Shelter Plus Care 5022 SMF+HC 409 Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara Shelter Plus Care 5320 SMF 24 Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara Tully Gardens SMF 10 Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara VASH - HUD-VASH SMF+HC 809 InnVision (with Community Services Agency) Graduate House SMF 5 InnVision Shelter Network Alexander House SF 6 InnVision Shelter Network Commercial Street Inn SFHC 51 Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 99 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Organization Name Project Name Target Pop. Total Beds InnVision Shelter Network CSI Cold Weather Inn HC 3 InnVision Shelter Network Highlander Terrace (formerly known as North Santa Clara County Permanent Housing for Families) HC 23 InnVision Shelter Network Hotel de Zink SMF 15 InnVision Shelter Network InnVision Villa SFHC 54 InnVision Shelter Network JSI 24-Hour Care SMF 12 InnVision Shelter Network JSI Cold Weather Inn SMF 5 InnVision Shelter Network JSI DADS SMF 8 InnVision Shelter Network JSI DADS/AB 109 THU SMF 2 InnVision Shelter Network JSI Full Service Provider (FSP) SMF 8 InnVision Shelter Network JSI Mental Health SMF 21 InnVision Shelter Network Julian Street Inn SMF 10 InnVision Shelter Network MSI AB 109/DADS THU SM 4 InnVision Shelter Network MSI Cold Weather Inn SF 5 InnVision Shelter Network MSI Emergency Shelter SM 46 InnVision Shelter Network MSI HUD THU SM 10 InnVision Shelter Network MSI THU AB 109 SM 5 InnVision Shelter Network MSI Transitional Housing Unit SM 8 InnVision Shelter Network MSI VA PD THU Beds SM 12 InnVision Shelter Network North County Inns SMF 18 InnVision Shelter Network Rolison Inns (formerly known as North Santa Clara County Supportive Housing Coalition) SMF 8 InnVision Shelter Network Safe Haven Permanent Housing for Women (Hester Project) SF 10 InnVision Shelter Network Samaritan Inns SMF+HC 25 InnVision Shelter Network Stevens House SMF 7 InnVision Shelter Network Sunset Square HC 39 InnVision Shelter Network/Next Door Solutions to Domestic Violence Home Safe San Jose SFHC DV 70 InnVision Shelter Network/Next Door Solutions to Domestic Violence Home Safe Santa Clara SFHC DV 72 Next Door Solutions to Domestic Violence Residential Emergency Shelter SFHC DV 20 Salvation Army Emmanuel House (Overnighter) SM 22 Salvation Army Hospitality House-Working Man's Program SM 50 Salvation Army Volunteer Recovery SM 6 Santa Clara County Mental Health Department AB 109 SMF 30 Santa Clara County Mental Health Department Abode - Rental Assistance Project (RAP) #1 SMF 55 Santa Clara County Mental Health Department Abode - Rental Assistance Project (RAP) #2 SMF 8 Santa Clara County Mental Health Community Reintegration - Central SMF 10 Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 100 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Organization Name Project Name Target Pop. Total Beds Department County Santa Clara County Mental Health Department Community Reintegration - North County SMF 10 Santa Clara County Mental Health Department Community Reintegration - South County SMF 10 Santa Clara County Mental Health Department CSJ and MHD/CC - TBRA SMF+HC 13 Santa Clara County Mental Health Department CSJ and MHD/MMH - TBRA SMF+HC 2 Santa Clara County Mental Health Department Custody Health High Users SMF 15 Santa Clara County Mental Health Department Mental Health Permanent Supportive Housing Project SMF 20 Santa Clara County Mental Health Department MHSA 4th Street Apartments SMF 6 Santa Clara County Mental Health Department MHSA Archer Street Apartments SMF 6 Santa Clara County Mental Health Department MHSA Armory Family Housing SMF 10 Santa Clara County Mental Health Department MHSA Bella Terra Senior Apartments SMF 5 Santa Clara County Mental Health Department MHSA Belovida Santa Clara SMF 3 Santa Clara County Mental Health Department MHSA Curtner Studio SMF 27 Santa Clara County Mental Health Department MHSA Donner Lofts SMF 15 Santa Clara County Mental Health Department MHSA Fair Oak Plaza SMF 18 Santa Clara County Mental Health Department MHSA Ford and Monterey Family Apartments SMF 5 Santa Clara County Mental Health Department MHSA Gilroy Sobrato Apartments SMF 17 Santa Clara County Mental Health Department MHSA King's Crossing SMF+HC 10 Santa Clara County Mental Health Department MHSA Parkside Studio SMF 11 Santa Clara County Mental Health Department MHSA Paseo Senter I (1896 Senter) SMF+HC 17 Santa Clara County Mental Health Department MHSA Paseo Senter II (1900 Senter Rd.) SMF 5 Santa Clara County Mental Health Department Pay For Success SMF 120 Santa Clara County Mental Health Department Scattered Site Rental Assistance SMF 14 South County Housing Royal Court Apartments SMF+HC 34 South County Housing Sobrato Gilroy Permanent Housing HC 52 South County Housing Sobrato Transitional (HUD) HC 61 Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 101 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Organization Name Project Name Target Pop. Total Beds South County Housing Sobrato Transitional (non-HUD) HC 83 St. Joseph's Family Center Gilroy Place SMF 12 St. Joseph's Family Center Gilroy Sobrato Apartments - HUD SMF 8 St. Joseph's Family Center Our New Place HC DV 36 The Health Trust Housing for Health Program HC HIV 167 Valley Homeless Health Care Program Valley Health Medical Respite Center SMF 18 West Valley Community Services Transitional Housing Program SMF+HC 18 YWCA of Silicon Valley Support Network for Battered Women SFHC DV 23 Total 6,320 Data Source: 2014 HIC Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 102 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) MA-35 Special Needs Facilities and Services – 91.210(d) Introduction Table 56 - Licensed Community Care Facilities (City) Facility Type Facilities Bed Adult Residential - - Residential Care for the Elderly 6 420 Group Homes - - Small Family Home - - Social Rehabilitation - - Total 6 420 Data Source: California Community Care Licensing Division, 2014 Including the elderly, frail elderly, persons with disabilities (mental, physical, developmental), persons with alcohol or other drug addictions, persons with HIV/AIDS and their families, public housing residents and any other categories the jurisdiction may specify, describe their supportive housing needs. Describe programs for ensuring that persons returning from mental and physical health institutions receive appropriate supportive housing. The City has a total of 420 Residential Care facility beds available for elderly persons. Residential Care Facilities for the Elderly (RCFE) provide care, supervision and assistance with activities of daily living, such as bathing and grooming. They may also provide incidental medical services under special care plans. The facilities provide services to persons 60 years of age and over and persons under 60 with compatible needs. RCFEs may also be known as assisted living facilities, nursing homes, and board and care homes. The facilities can range in size from fewer than six beds to over 100 beds. The residents in these facilities require varying levels of personal care and protective supervision.70 The City spends part of its CDBG funds and local funds toward a variety of public services to address the supportive housing needs of homeless and very low income persons. For example, the City provides funding to Momentum for Mental Health for their homeless outreach program. Momentum provides a wide range of specialized and culturally competent services and programs that include:71 • Residential treatment programs that provide an alternative to admission to or continued care in a hospital 70 Community Care Licensing Division. “Glossary.” http://www.ccld.ca.gov/res/html/glossary.htm 71 Momentum for Mental Health. “Momentum for Mental Health Home Page.” http://www.momentumformentalhealth.org/ Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 103 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) • Supportive housing programs to assist individuals in achieving and maintaining independent living • Day rehabilitation programs • Outpatient mental health and psychiatric treatment, case management and rehabilitation services provided by multidisciplinary teams • Employment preparation, search and support • Services and support to family members Specify the activities that the jurisdiction plans to undertake during the next year to address the housing and supportive services needs identified in accordance with 91.215(e) with respect to persons who are not homeless but have other special needs. Link to one-year goals. 91.315(e) As shown in Table 57, there are 12 housing developments in Palo Alto that include 985 units specifically designed for elderly households.72 Table 57 - Independent Living Facilities for Elderly Residents in Palo Alto, 2014 (City) Development Total Units Senior Units Income Level Served Alta Torre 56 55 Very Low Income Arastradero Park 66 13 Low Income Colorado Park 60 8 Low income Fabian Way Senior Housing 56 56 Low income Lytton I and II 268 268 Low income Lytton Courtyard 51 51 Extremely Low- and Low income Moldaw (Taube-Koret Campus 170 170 Low income Palo Alto Gardens 156 128 Very Low income Sheridan Apartments 57 57 Low income Stevenson House 128 128 Low income Terman Apartments 92 24 Very Low income Webster Wood Apartments 68 4 Low income Total 1251 985 Data Source: City of Palo Alto 2015-2023 Housing Element In addition, there are other housing types, appropriate for people living with a developmental disability: rent subsidized homes, licensed and unlicensed single-family homes, and residential care facilities.73 The design of housing-accessibility modifications, the proximity to services and transit, and the availability of group living opportunities represent some of the types of considerations that are important in serving this need group. Incorporating barrier-free design in all new multi-family housing (as required by California and Federal Fair Housing laws) is especially important to provide the widest range of choices for disabled residents. Special consideration may also be given to the affordability of housing, as people with disabilities may be living on a fixed income. 72 City of Palo Alto. “2015-2023 Housing Element.” 2014. 73 Ibid. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 104 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) For entitlement/consortia grantees: Specify the activities that the jurisdiction plans to undertake during the next year to address the housing and supportive services needs identified in accordance with 91.215(e) with respect to persons who are not homeless but have other special needs. Link to one-year goals. (91.220(2)) The City will continue to provide funding to various non-profit agencies that provide supportive services to people who are not homeless but have other special needs. Below is a sample list of these services, which in total is budgeted at $1 million in General Fund dollars every year. Figure 3 – Human Services Resource Allocation Process Budget Data Source: City of Palo Alto Through the CDBG program the City will continue to support activities for the special needs population, which will be specified in the CDBG Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) when it is complete. A NOFA for the creation of new affordable housing will also be released in 2015. Additionally, the City is one of three jurisdictions that has joined the County of Santa Clara in establishing a HOME consortium. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 105 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) MA-40 Barriers to Affordable Housing – 91.210(e) Describe any negative effects of public policies on affordable housing and residential investment. The incorporated and unincorporated jurisdictions within the County face barriers to affordable housing that are common throughout the Bay Area. High on the list is the lack of developable land, which increases the cost of available lands and increases housing development costs. Local opposition is another common obstacle as many neighbors have strong reactions to infill and affordable housing developments. Their opposition is often based on misconceptions, such as a foreseen increase in crime; erosion of property values; increase in parking and traffic congestion; and overwhelmed schools.74 However, to ensure a healthy economy the region must focus on strategies and investment that provide housing for much of the region’s workforce – for example, sales clerks, secretaries, firefighters, police, teachers, and health service workers – whose incomes significantly limit their housing choices.75 Even when developments produce relatively affordable housing, in a constrained housing supply market, higher income buyers and renters generally outbid lower income households and a home’s final sale or rental price will generally far exceed the projected sales or rental costs. Public subsidies are often needed to guarantee affordable homes for LMI households. The City identified several constraints to the maintenance, development and improvement of housing and affordable housing in its 2015-2023 Housing Element update: 76  Local policies and regulations can impact the price and availability of housing and, in particular, the provision of affordable housing  Land use controls  Site improvement requirements  Fees and exactions  Permit processing procedures 74 Association of Bay Area Governments. “Affordable Housing in the Bay Area.” 2014. 75 Association of Bay Area Governments. “Jobs-Housing Connection Strategy.” 2012. 76 City of Palo Alto. “2015-2023 Housing Element.” 2014. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 106 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) MA-45 Non-Housing Community Development Assets – 91.215 (f) Introduction Strategies for increasing the housing supply must take into account a jurisdiction’s job/housing balance, which is defined as the ratio of number of jobs to number of housing units in a given area. A more precise ratio is between the number of jobs and the number of employed residents, as some households have no workers, while others have multiple workers). There should not only be a sufficient amount of housing at a range of prices, but also a variety of housing types appropriate for a range of needs and in locations that allow for access to transportation and employment opportunities. If there is an imbalance of appropriate housing for the number of employees in an area, the result can be longer commutes and greater traffic congestion as employees must then commute to places of employment. Jobs and housing are considered to be balanced when there are an equal number of employed residents and jobs within a given area, with a ratio of approximately 1.0. A more balanced jobs/housing ratio can ease traffic congestion and the burden it imposes on residents, businesses, and local infrastructure. That burden is particularly evident in California. Researchers ranked four California metropolitan areas among the nation’s ten most-congested areas in terms of time lost per year: 1) Los Angeles/Long Beach/ Santa Ana, 2) San Francisco/Oakland, and tied for 8th) San Jose.77 The table below shows the Job/Housing ratios for the jurisdictions in the County as determined by the ABAG.78 Table 58 -Jobs / Employed Residents Ratio (County) Jurisdiction Jobs/Employed Residents Ratio Campbell 1.3 Cupertino 1.0 Los Gatos 1.8 Milpitas 1.5 Mountain View 1.2 Palo Alto 2.9 San Jose 0.8 Santa Clara 1.9 Sunnyvale 1.0 Santa Clara County 1.1 Data Source: ABAG Projections 2013 The Bay Area region has taken a step to reduce the jobs/housing imbalance with the adoption of Plan Bay Area, the region's implementation of the Sustainable Communities Strategy required by SB 375 of 2008.79 Plan Bay Area focuses growth in urban areas near transit and employment. This strategy will allow for an increase in the housing supply that narrows the affordability gap. Higher density 77 California Planning Roundtable. “Deconstructing Jobs-Housing Balance.” 2008.http://www.cproundtable.org/media/uploads/pub_files/CPR-Jobs-Housing.pdf 78 Association of Bay Area Governments. “Jobs/Housing Balance.” http://www.abag.ca.gov/planning/housingneeds/notes/10-19-06_Agenda_Item_2_-_Jobs-Housing_Balance.pdf 79 California Environmental Protection Agency. “Sustainable Communities.” http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/sb375.htm Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 107 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) housing located near transit can be more affordable than detached more suburban-style housing. Lower housing costs and lower commuting costs can significantly reduce the overall cost of living for households. Table 59 - Jobs by Business Activity (City) Business by Sector Number of Workers Number of Jobs Share of Workers % Share of Jobs % Jobs less workers % Agriculture, Mining, Oil & Gas Extraction 44 39 0 0 0 Arts, Entertainment, Accommodations 1,459 5,822 7 7 0 Construction 491 805 2 1 -1 Education and Health Care Services 4,112 29,352 19 34 15 Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate 1,266 3,631 6 4 -2 Information 1,550 6,719 7 8 1 Manufacturing 3,024 8,181 14 10 -5 Other Services 916 2,905 4 3 -1 Professional, Scientific, Management Services 5,326 18,807 25 22 -3 Public Administration 0 1 0 0 0 Retail Trade 1,110 5,153 5 6 1 Transportation and Warehousing 200 69 1 0 -1 Wholesale Trade 786 1,323 4 2 -2 Total 20,284 82,807 -- -- -- Data Source: 2007-2011 ACS (Workers), 2011 Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (Jobs) Data Source Comment: HUD data for Public Administration sector not available. Table 60 - Labor Force (City) Total Population in the Civilian Labor Force 32,360 Civilian Employed Population 16 years and Over 30,713 Unemployment Rate 5.09% Unemployment Rate for Ages 16-24 16.08% Unemployment Rate for Ages 25-65 3.47% Data Source: 2007-2011 ACS Table 61 - Occupations by Sector (City) Occupations by Sector Number of People Management, Business and Financial 17,137 Farming, Fisheries and Forestry Occupations 659 Service 1,238 Sales and Office 3,574 Construction, Extraction, Maintenance and Repair 507 Production, Transportation and Material Moving 502 Data Source: 2007-2011 ACS Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 108 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Table 62 - Travel Time (City) Travel Time Number Percentage < 30 Minutes 20,458 75% 30-59 Minutes 5,261 19% 60 or More Minutes 1,449 5% Total 27,168 100% Data Source: 2007-2011 ACS Data Source Comment: Totals may not add to 100% due to rounding Table 63 - Educational Attainment by Employment Status - Population Age 16 and Older (City) Educational Attainment In Labor Force Civilian Employed Unemployed Not in Labor Force Less Than High School Graduate 456 2 207 High School Graduate (Includes Equivalency) 804 108 379 Some College or Associate's Degree 2,503 248 1,166 Bachelor's Degree or Higher 22,924 847 5,086 Data Source: 2007-2011 ACS Table 64 - Educational Attainment by Age (City) Age 18–24 Years 25–34 Years 35–44 Years 45–65 Years 65+ Years Less Than 9th Grade 7 54 115 241 194 9th to 12th Grade, No Diploma 175 59 65 131 258 High School Graduate, GED, or Alternative 624 419 121 751 998 Some College, No Degree 1,435 843 529 1,368 1,429 Associate's Degree 136 272 152 753 526 Bachelor's Degree 1,039 2,787 2,466 4,913 2,956 Graduate or Professional Degree 253 4,181 5,678 8,845 3,941 Data Source: 2007-2011 ACS As shown in Table 64, the educational attainment for residents 25 years of age and older is as follows:  Two percent have not graduated high school  Five percent have graduated high school (including equivalency), but no further education  Nine percent have some college but no degree  Four percent have an associate’s degree  Twenty-nine percent have a bachelor’s degree  Fifty percent have a graduate or professional degree Overall, 98 percent of Palo Also residents have at least a high school diploma or higher, and more than half have a bachelor’s degree or higher (57 percent). Meanwhile, less than one third of the Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 109 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) entire population of California has a bachelor’s degree or higher and 11 percent have a graduate or professional degree.80 Table 65 - Educational Attainment by Age - 25 and Older (City) Age Total % of Total 25–34 Years 35–44 Years 45–65 Years 65+ Years Less Than 9th Grade 54 115 241 194 604 1% 9th To 12th Grade, No Diploma 59 65 131 258 513 1% High School Graduate, GED, or Alternative 419 121 751 998 2289 5% Some College, No Degree 843 529 1,368 1,429 4169 9% Associate's Degree 272 152 753 526 1703 4% Bachelor's Degree 2,787 2,466 4,913 2,956 13122 29% Graduate or Professional Degree 4,181 5,678 8,845 3,941 22645 50% Total: 8615 9126 17002 10302 45045 100% Data Source: 2007-2011 CHAS Data Source Comment: Totals may not add up to 100% due to rounding Table 65 shows that residents with advanced and professional degrees have significantly higher median incomes, with holders of bachelor’s degrees having approximately 75 percent higher median income than those with only an associate’s, and those with a graduate degree or professional degree having a 140 percent higher median income. Table 66 - Median Earnings in the Past 12 Months (City) Educational Attainment Median Earnings in the Past 12 Months Less Than High School Graduate 22,500 High School Graduate (Includes Equivalency) 28,889 Some College or Associate's Degree 43,145 Bachelor's Degree 75,709 Graduate or Professional Degree 103,860 Data Source: 2007-2011 ACS Based on the Business Activity table above, what are the major employment sectors within your jurisdiction? The top employer in Palo Alto is Hewlett-Packard, with approximately 317,000 employees as of April, 2014. Other notable employers in the City include: VMware, Varian Medical Systems, Tesla Motors, Tobxo Software, and Jive Software. Together, these five companies employ over 31,000 people.81 80 2008-2012 ACS 81 Silicon Valley. “Searchable database of Silicon Valley’s top 150 companies for 2014.” http://www.siliconvalley.com/ Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 110 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Describe any major changes that may have an economic impact, such as planned local or regional public or private sector investments or initiatives that have affected or may affect job and business growth opportunities during the planning period. Describe any needs for workforce development, business support or infrastructure these changes may create. As of 2014, the City Council has adopted a new business registration program that monitors how many people are working in the City and for what types of businesses. The purpose of this registry is to maintain an accurate record of businesses in the City in order to develop recommendations on land uses, better coordinate transportation programs, assist in zoning compliance, and gather statistical information for other purposes. There is a fee included with the registration of a business.82 In March 2014, the Palo Alto City Council approved a two percentage point increase in the transient occupancy tax rate to raise $116.8 million, via debt financing in the form of Certificates of Participation, for General Fund infrastructure and City services, such as earthquake safe fire stations; pedestrian and bike improvements, including safe routes to school, streets, sidewalks, paths, and bridges; and maintaining parks and recreation facilities. Describe any current workforce training initiatives, including those supported by Workforce Investment Boards, community colleges and other organizations. Describe how these efforts will support the jurisdiction's Consolidated Plan. The Workforce Development Program will provide a transition from unemployment and homelessness to regular employment and housing through case management, job training, mentoring, housing, and transportation assistance. Downtown Streets Team is a nonprofit in Palo Alto that worked to reduce homelessness through a “work first” model. Downtown Streets Team uses their community connections to provide training and job opportunities to homeless people, specifically in the downtown area. The Downtown Streets Team has helped 282 people find housing and 291 find jobs since its inception in 2005. The Downtown Streets Team has initiatives in Palo Alto, Sunnyvale, San Jose, and San Rafael.83 NOVA is directed by the NOVA Workforce Board which works on behalf of Cupertino, Los Altos, Milpitas, Mountain View, Palo Alto, Santa Clara, and Sunnyvale. To support workforce mobility, NOVA provides:  Real-time labor market information about in-demand skills  Skill-building and enhancements to match market demand  Navigation tools for the ever-changing and entrepreneurial new labor market  Advocacy for necessary infrastructure to support workers between opportunities, such as unemployment insurance for all and portable benefits  Interconnected support system for multiple career pathways for youth84 To prepare potential employees for the technology-driven industries in the Silicon Valley, NOVA provides necessary digital literacy training along with its other services. 82 City of Palo Alto Economic Development Department. 83 Downtown Streets Team. “Our Impact.” http://streetsteam.org/thenumbers/ 84 NOVA. “Purpose Statement.” http://www.novaworks.org/ Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 111 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Does your jurisdiction participate in a Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS)? No. If so, what economic development initiatives are you undertaking that may be coordinated with the Consolidated Plan? If not, describe other local/regional plans or initiatives that impact economic growth. The City’s Economic Development Department (EDD) established a Council policy in 2013 that sets the goals and principles for a more proactive economic strategy. The purpose of the policy is to create an environment that attracts, retains, and encourages business growth in the City. The EDD is supporting the attraction of new business to Palo Alto, while helping to retain and grow existing enterprises. Department focus will be on understanding and striving to meet the needs of revenue- generating companies (i.e., retail, hotel, business-to-business, etc.) that help to fund vital city services. Also, by serving as an advocate with other City departments, such as the Development Services, Planning, Fire, and Utilities, EDD staff will facilitate the appropriate growth of companies in Palo Alto by making development and location processes as transparent and predictable as possible.85 In May 2013 the Palo Alto City Council approved the allocation of $150,000 in CDBG funds toward a Microenterprise Assistance Program (MAP). The purpose of the program is to provide access to new opportunities to improve the economic self-sufficiency of LMI families and individuals. This program builds on the foundation of entrepreneurship and empowers clients by increasing their economic literacy, business skills, self-esteem, and personal behavior appropriate to the workplace. The MAP program seeks to accomplish the following:86  Provide an innovative path out of poverty  Create self-sufficiency  Improve the survival rate of microenterprise businesses  Improve employment skills  Promote community economic development Discussion Please see discussion above. 85 City of Palo Alto. “Office of Economic Development Policy.” January 2013. 86 City of Palo Alto. “Pilot Microenterprise Assistance Program (MAP). http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=2480&TargetID=268 Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 112 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) MA-50 Needs and Market Analysis Discussion Are there areas where households with multiple housing problems are concentrated? (Include a definition of "concentration.") Housing problems disproportionately affect low income and minority populations. For the disproportionate needs by racial/ethnic group, please see the discussion for NA-15, NA-20, and NA-25. In summary: • For 0-30% AMI households: 89 percent of Black/African American households experience severe housing problems, compared to 75 percent of the jurisdiction as a whole.  For 30-50 % AMI households: 88 percent of Black/African American Housing and 91 percent of Hispanic households experience housing problems, compared to 77 percent of the jurisdiction as a whole. Sixty-three percent of Hispanic households in the experience severe housing problems, compared to 50 percent of the jurisdiction as a whole.  For 50-80 % AMI households: 75 percent of Black/African American households, 72 percent of Asian households, and 86 percent of Hispanic households experience housing problems, compared to 62 percent of the jurisdiction as a whole. Fifty-three percent of Hispanic households experience severe housing problems, compared to 29 percent of the jurisdiction as a whole. Minority concentration is defined as census tracts where the percentage of individuals of a particular racial or ethnic minority group is at least 20 percentage points higher than the citywide average. Map 2 below illustrates areas of the jurisdiction that have a minority or LMI concentration. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 113 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Map 2 – Areas of Minority and LMI Concentration Data Source: ACS 2007-2011 Data Source Comment: Minority concentration is defined as census tracts where the percentage of individuals of a particular racial or ethnic minority group is at least 20 percentage points higher than the citywide average. LMI concentration is defined as census tracts where the median household income is below 80% AMI. Based on FY 14 median family income for Santa Clara County, calculated by the Census Bureau for HUD’s Fair Market Rent and Income Limit areas. Are there any areas in the jurisdiction where racial or ethnic minorities or low-income families are concentrated? (include a definition of "concentration") Please see discussion above. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 114 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) What are the characteristics of the market in these areas/neighborhoods? The City’s housing costs are among the highest in the nation, with the median home value and median contract rent increasing exponentially in the last decade. Home values increased by 222 percent and median rents grew by 313 percent. Currently, the City would need approximately 1,780 additional affordable housing units to match the housing needs of the population earning below 80% AMI. Are there any community assets in these areas/neighborhoods? Map 3 displays a sample of community assets and amenities that may represent strategic investment opportunities for these areas, including: 1. Transit Centers 2. Community Centers 3. Fire Stations 4. Health Care Centers 5. Police Stations 6. Public Libraries 7. Recreation Centers Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 115 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Map 3 – Minority Concentration, LMI, and Community Assets Data Source: ACS 2007-2011 Data Source Comment: Minority concentration is defined as census tracts where the percentage of individuals of a particular racial or ethnic minority group is at least 20 percentage points higher than the citywide average. LMI concentration is defined as census tracts where the median household income is below 80% AMI. Based on FY 14 median family income for Santa Clara County, calculated by the Census Bureau for HUD’s Fair Market Rent and Income Limit areas. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 116 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Strategic Plan SP-05 Overview Strategic Plan Overview The Consolidated Plan goals below represent high priority needs for the City of Palo Alto (City) and serve as the basis for the strategic actions the City will use to meet these needs. The goals, listed in no particular order, are: 1. Assist in the creation and preservation of affordable housing for low income and special needs households. 2. Support activities to end homelessness. 3. Support activities that strengthen neighborhoods through the provision of community services and public improvements to benefit low income and special needs households. 4. Promote fair housing choice. 5. Expand economic opportunities for low income households. The City’s Consolidated Plan update coincides with the development of the first year Action Plan and the biennial Request for Proposals (RFP) process. The City awards Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding to non-profit agencies to provide public services and housing for low income and special needs households. The City operates on a two-year grant funding cycle for CDBG grants. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 117 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) SP-10 Geographic Priorities – 91.215 (a)(1) Geographic Area Not applicable. The City has not established specific target areas to focus the investment of CDBG funds. The City attempts to support affordable housing and services to low income and/or special needs persons throughout the City. General Allocation Priorities The City allocates federal entitlement dollars to benefit low-and moderately-low income (LMI) persons without target areas. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 118 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) SP-25 Priority Needs - 91.215(a)(2) Priority Needs Based on the Needs Assessment, Market Analysis, and community outreach conducted for the current Consolidated Plan cycle, the goals were established to meet the priority needs. Projects will only be considered for funding within the Consolidated Plan period if they address these high priority needs, summarized in the table below. Table 67 - Priority Needs Summary Sort Order Priority Need Priority Level Description Population Goal Basis for Relative Priority 1 Affordable Housing High Almost a quarter of households (23 percent or 5,845) in the City are LMI, with incomes ranging from 0-80% area median income (AMI). As stated in the Needs Assessment, burden is the most common housing problem within the City of Palo Alto, 30 percent of households in the City paying more than 30 percent of their income toward housing costs, and 14 percent of households paying more than 50 percent of their income toward housing costs. The Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara (HACSC) assists approximately 17,000 households through the federal Section 8 Housing Income Level:  Extremely Low  Low  Moderate  Middle Family Types:  Large Families  Families with Children  Elderly Homeless:  Chronic Homelessness  Individuals  Families with Children  Mentally Ill  Chronic Substance Abuse  Veterans  Persons with HIV/Aids  Victims of Domestic Violence  Unaccompanied Youth Non-homeless Special Needs:  Elderly  Frail Elderly  Persons with Mental Disabilities  Persons with Physical Disabilities Assist in the creation and preservation of affordable housing for low income and special needs households Qualitative feedback collected through the regional forums and regional needs survey, which were substantiated by quantitative data reported in the Needs Assessment and Market Analysis, served as the basis for prioritization. Energy efficiency, water conservation, and greenhouse gas reduction are all growing policy concerns for the City. The City will continue to support environmentally- sustainable residential development, particularly for affordable housing Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 119 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Sort Order Priority Need Priority Level Description Population Goal Basis for Relative Priority Choice Voucher program (Section 8). The Section 8 waiting list contains 21,256 households — an estimated 10-year wait.  Persons with Alcohol or Other Addictions  Persons with HIV/AIDS and their Families  Victims of Domestic Violence stock. 2 Homelessness High The Santa Clara region is home to the fourth-largest population of homeless individuals (6,681 single individuals),87 and the highest percentage of unsheltered homeless of any major city (75 percent of homeless people sleep in places unfit for human habitation). Homeless:  Chronic Homelessness  Individuals  Families with Children  Mentally Ill  Chronic Substance Abuse  Veterans  Persons with HIV/Aids  Victims of Domestic Violence  Unaccompanied Youth Support activities to end homelessness Qualitative feedback collected through the regional forums and regional needs survey, which were substantiated by quantitative data reported in the Needs Assessment and Market Analysis, served as the basis for prioritization. 3 Community Services and Public Improvements High Consolidated Plan forum and survey participants emphasized the need to support a broad range of community services. Low income households and special needs populations require a multifaceted network to address basic needs such as food, clothing, health, and Income Level:  Extremely Low  Low  Moderate  Middle Family Types:  Large Families  Families with Children  Elderly Strengthen neighborhoods through the provision of community services and public improvements Qualitative feedback collected through the regional forums and regional needs survey, which were substantiated by quantitative data reported in the Needs Assessment and Market Analysis, served as the basis 87 The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. “2014 Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR) to Congress.” October 2014. https://www.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/AHAR-2014-Part1.pdf Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 120 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Sort Order Priority Need Priority Level Description Population Goal Basis for Relative Priority shelter, as well as other services outlined in NA-50 Non-Housing Community Development Needs. Non-homeless Special Needs:  Elderly  Frail Elderly  Persons with Mental Disabilities  Persons with Physical Disabilities  Persons with Alcohol or Other Addictions  Persons with HIV/AIDS and their Families  Victims of Domestic Violence  Non-housing Community Development for prioritization. 4 Fair Housing High Fair housing represents an ongoing concern in the County. Of the 1,472 total survey respondents, 192 (16 percent) said they have experienced some form of housing discrimination. The majority of respondents (29 percent) who experienced discrimination indicated that race was the primary factor for that discrimination. Additionally, 66 percent indicated they were discriminated against by a landlord or property manager. Interviews with local service providers indicate that many home seekers and landlords are unaware of federal and Income Level:  Extremely Low  Low  Moderate Family Types:  Large Families  Families with Children  Elderly  Public Housing Residents Homeless:  Chronic Homelessness  Individuals  Families with Children  Mentally Ill  Chronic Substance Abuse  Veterans  Persons with HIV/Aids  Victims of Domestic Violence  Unaccompanied Youth Promote fair housing choice Qualitative feedback collected through the regional forums and regional needs survey, which were substantiated by quantitative data reported in the Needs Assessment and Market Analysis, served as the basis for prioritization. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 121 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Sort Order Priority Need Priority Level Description Population Goal Basis for Relative Priority state fair housing laws. Non-homeless Special Needs:  Elderly  Frail Elderly  Persons with Mental Disabilities  Persons with Physical Disabilities  Persons with Alcohol or Other Addictions  Persons with HIV/AIDS and their Families  Victims of Domestic Violence 5 Economic Development High LMI households with elderly members are more likely to experience cost burden, with 54 percent paying more than 30 percent of their income towards housing costs, compared to 34 percent of the jurisdiction as a whole. Almost one-third of households (32 percent or 10,155) in the City are extremely low income, low income, or moderate income, with incomes ranging from 0-80% AMI. As discussed in the Needs Assessment and Market Analysis, services that benefit low income households and special needs populations are Income Level:  Extremely Low  Low  Moderate Family Types:  Large Families  Families with Children  Elderly Homeless:  Chronic Homelessness  Individuals  Families with Children  Mentally Ill  Chronic Substance Abuse  Veterans  Persons with HIV/Aids  Victims of Domestic Violence  Unaccompanied Youth Non-homeless Special Needs:  Elderly  Frail Elderly Expand economic opportunities for low income households Qualitative feedback collected through the regional forums and regional needs survey, which were substantiated by quantitative data reported in the Needs Assessment and Market Analysis, served as the basis for prioritization. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 122 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Sort Order Priority Need Priority Level Description Population Goal Basis for Relative Priority necessary to help these groups take advantage of the overall economic growth of the City. Greater access to transit centers, public services, job training and workforce development, are key.  Persons with Mental Disabilities  Persons with Physical Disabilities  Persons with Alcohol or Other Addictions  Persons with HIV/AIDS and their Families  Victims of Domestic Violence Narrative As previously discussed, the City is in one of the wealthiest regions of the nation and the income gap between the richest and the poorest populations is growing significantly. The City is tasked with determining how to maintain economic growth while assisting the most vulnerable populations. The Needs Assessment and Market Analysis, in concert with the qualitative data collected through the community outreach, highlight the City’s continued need for investment in economic development, affordable housing, and services for low income households, the homeless and other special need groups. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 123 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) SP-30 Influence of Market Conditions – 91.215 (b) Table 68 - Influence of Market Conditions Affordable Housing Type Market Characteristics that Will Influence the Use of Funds Available for Housing Type Tenant Based Rental Assistance (TBRA) As per the Needs Assessment, 13 percent of households in the City are severely cost burdened and paying more than 50 percent of their income toward housing costs. Sixteen percent of households in the City have incomes at or below 50% AMI. TBRA for Non-Homeless Special Needs As discussed in the Needs Assessment and Market Analysis, special needs populations generally face unique housing needs, such as physical limitations, low household incomes, and rising costs of healthcare and/or childcare. Housing affordability may be a key issue for those living on fixed incomes. High housing costs within the City can make it difficult to transition from Community Care Facilities into the private rental market without rental subsidies. This may put those special needs groups at a higher risk of becoming homeless. New Unit Production As per the Needs Assessment and Market Analysis, 35 percent of renters are cost burdened and paying more than 30 percent of their income toward housing costs. Forty-seven percent of those cost burdened renter households are LMI households. The HACSC currently has 21,000 households on its waitlist for Section 8, and the waitlist has been closed since 2006. Rehabilitation As per the Needs Assessment and Market Analysis, 77 percent of the City’s housing stock is over 40 years old and may require maintenance and repair. Acquisition, Including Preservation There are currently 4,268 units in the City that are affordable for households earning below 80% AMI, yet there are 5,845 households within this income bracket in need of affordable housing. This reflects a total deficit of 1,780 units for LMI households. With a lack of vacant land for new development, acquisition and preservation are important tools for growing the affordable housing stock. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 124 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) SP-35 Anticipated Resources - 91.215(a) (4), 91.220(c) (1, 2) Introduction The amount of federal entitlement funding has seen an overall decrease of approximately 41 percent in the five year period from Fiscal Years (FY) 2010-2014. For the purposes of the Strategic Plan the City anticipates an annual five percent entitlement reduction per year, with the addition of approximately $136,049 in Program Income annually. Table 69 - City Entitlement Funding Received FY 2010 – FY 2014 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 Total CDBG $731,566 $606,566 $429,304 $467,192 $433,933 $2,668,561 Figure 4 - City Entitlement Funding Received FY 2010 - FY 2014 $0 $100,000 $200,000 $300,000 $400,000 $500,000 $600,000 $700,000 $800,000 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 125 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Table 70 - Anticipated Resources Program Source of Funds Uses of Funds Expected Amount Available Year 1 Expected Amount Available Reminder of ConPlan $ Narrative Description Annual Allocation: $ Program Income: $ Prior Year Resources: $ Total: $ CDBG Public Federal  Admin and Planning  Acquisition  Economic Development  Housing  Public Improvements  Public Service $442,460 $136,049 $303,164 $881,673 $2,103,594 CDBG funds will be used for the creation and preservation of affordable rental units, improvements in lower income neighborhoods, and public services that benefit low income and special needs households. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 126 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Explain how federal funds will leverage those additional resources (private, state and local funds), including a description of how matching requirements will be satisfied Entitlement Funds Leverage, in the context of the CDBG and HOME, means bringing other local, state, and federal financial resources to maximize the reach and impact of the City’s HUD Programs. HUD, like many other federal agencies, encourages the recipients of federal monies to demonstrate that efforts are being made to strategically leverage additional funds in order to achieve greater results. Leverage is also a way to increase project efficiencies and benefit from economies of scale that often come with combining sources of funding for similar or expanded scopes. Funds will be leveraged if financial commitments toward the costs of a project from a source other than the originating HUD program are documented. Additionally, the City has recently been approved to join Santa Clara County's HOME Consortium. HOME funds can be used to fund eligible affordable housing projects for acquisition, construction and rehabilitation. Starting in FY 2015-2016 developers of affordable housing projects will be eligible to competitively apply through an annual RFP process directly to the County for HOME funds to help subsidize affordable housing projects in Palo Alto. If the City receives HOME dollars from its participation in the HOME consortium, the required 25 percent matching funds will be provided from the City’s Affordable Housing Fund, which is comprised of two sub-funds: the Commercial Housing Fund and the Residential Housing Fund. As of August 25, 2014 the Commercial Housing Fund had an available balance of approximately $6,600,000 and the Residential Housing Fund had an available balance of $1,400,000. Other Federal Grant Programs In addition to the entitlement dollars listed above, the federal government has several other funding programs for community development and affordable housing activities. These include: the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program, Section 202, Section 811, the Affordable Housing Program (AHP) through the Federal Home Loan Bank, and others. It should be noted that, in most cases, the City would not be the applicant for these funding sources as many of these programs offer assistance to affordable housing developers rather than local jurisdictions. State Housing and Community Development Sources In California, the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and the California Housing Finance Agency (CalHFA) administer a variety of statewide public affordable housing programs that offer assistance to nonprofit affordable housing developers. Examples of HCD’s programs include the Multifamily Housing Program (MHP), Affordable Housing Innovation Fund (AHIF), Building Equity and Growth in Neighborhoods Program (BEGIN), and CalHOME. Many HCD programs have historically been funded by one-time State bond issuances and, as such, are subject to limited availability of funding. CalHFA offers multiple mortgage loan programs, down payment assistance programs, and funding for the construction, acquisition, and rehabilitation of affordable ownership units. The State also administers the federal Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program, a widely used financing source for affordable housing projects. As with the other federal grant programs discussed above, the City would not apply for these funding sources. Rather, local affordable housing developers could apply for funding through these programs for particular developments in the City. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 127 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Additionally, the County also receives Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) funds from the State for housing. County and Local Housing and Community Development Sources There are a variety of countywide and local resources that support housing and community development programs. Some of these programs offer assistance to local affordable housing developers and community organizations while others provide assistance directly to individuals. These resources are discussed below:  Human Service Resource Allocation Process In addition to the CDBG public service funds, the City will provide $1,099,347 million dollars from the General Fund in support of human services through HSRAP. The HSRAP funds, in conjunction with the CDBG public service funds, are distributed to local nonprofit agencies.  Palo Alto Commercial Housing Fund The Commercial Housing fund is used primarily to increase the number of new affordable housing units for Palo Alto’s work force. It is funded with mitigation fees required from developers of commercial and industrial projects. As of August 25, 2014 the Commercial Housing Fund had an available balance of approximately $6,600,000.  Palo Alto Residential Housing Fund The Residential Housing Fund is funded with mitigation fees provided under Palo Alto’s Below Market Rate (BMR) housing program from residential developers and money from other miscellaneous sources, such as proceeds from the sale or lease of City property. As of August 25, 2014 the Residential Housing Fund had an available balance of $1,400,000.  Below Market Rate Emergency Fund This fund was authorized by City Council in September 2002 in order to provide funding on an ongoing basis for loans to BMR owners for special assessment loans and for rehabilitation and preservation of the City’s stock of BMR ownership units. As of March 13, 2014 the BMR Emergency Fund had a balance of approximately $450,000.  The Housing Trust Silicon Valley This nonprofit organization combines private and public funds to support affordable housing activities in the County, including assistance to developers and homebuyers. Housing Trust Silicon Valley is among the largest housing trusts in the nation building special needs and affordable housing and assisting first-time homebuyers. Since HTSV began distributing funds in 2001, the trust has invested over $75 million and leveraged over $1.88 billion to create more than 9,953 housing opportunities  Mortgage Credit Certificates (MCC) Program The MCC program provides assistance to first-time homebuyers by allowing an eligible purchaser to take 20 percent of their annual mortgage interest payment as a tax credit against federal income taxes. The County administers the MCC Program on behalf of the jurisdictions, including Palo Alto. The program does establish maximum sales price limits on units assisted in this program and, due to the high housing costs in Cupertino, there have been few households assisted in Cupertino in recent years. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 128 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)  Santa Clara County Affordable Housing Fund (AHF) The County Board of Supervisors established the Affordable Housing Fund with initial funding of $18.6 million in 2002. The main purpose of the AHF was to assist in the development of affordable housing especially for extremely low income and special needs people throughout the County. The County has awarded over $10 million from the AHF to date. $960,000 was awarded to the Tree House project developed by the Palo Alto Housing Corporation.  Stanford Affordable Housing Fund The County maintains this affordable housing fund intended to benefit low income households. The County distributes the funds through a Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) process and has assisted developers in creating 91 units regionally. If appropriate, describe publically owned land or property located within the jurisdiction that may be used to address the needs identified in the plan The City has no surplus vacant land that would be available for the development of housing or services. Sixty-five percent of land in the City is open space. Discussion Please see discussions above. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 129 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) SP-40 Institutional Delivery Structure – 91.215(k) Explain the institutional structure through which the jurisdiction will carry out its Consolidated Plan, including private industry, non-profit organizations, and public institutions. Table 71 - Institutional Delivery Structure Responsible Entity Responsible Entity Type Role Geographic Area Served City of Palo Alto, Planning and Community Environment Government agency  Affordable housing – ownership  Affordable housing – rental  Public housing  Homelessness  Non-homeless special needs  Community development: public facilities  Community development: neighborhood improvements  Community development: public services  Community development: economic development  Planning Jurisdiction City of Palo Alto, Human Services Division Government agency  Planning Jurisdiction County of Santa Clara – Office of Supportive Housing Continuum of Care  Homelessness Region Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara PHA  Affordable housing – rental  Affordable housing – ownership  Public housing Region Assess of Strengths and Gaps in the Institutional Delivery System Strengths The City manages the institutional delivery structure surrounding the acceptance and allocation of federal grant funds for Consolidated Plan programs. The goals and objectives of the Strategic Plan could not have been formulated without residents’ informed assistance. Public presentation and participation is a vital component in the formulation and development of the City’s public policy documents, such as its Comprehensive Plan, Housing Element, and Specific and Precise Plans. These are just a few of the policy documents that the City has in place to influence and guide the economic, housing, and social service developments in the City. The City’s Planning and Community Environment Department is responsible for the review of development and building activity to ensure compliance with zoning and building codes, the achievement of economic development goals, Comprehensive Plan policies, housing policies, and community values. The department assists the community in establishing land use and neighborhood plans and ensures the quality of new projects through the design and development review process. Implementation of CDBG funds is overseen by the Department of Planning and Community Environment. Human Services and social service delivery in Palo Alto by non-profit agencies is Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 130 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) coordinated through the Human Services Resource Allocation Program (HSRAP). The City Council approves projects and programs that meet the City’s goals. Collectively, the programs funded under CDBG and HSRAP provide essential services to the community. Applications are received and reviewed congruently which allows for internal administrative efficiencies, creates a visible public forum for the CDBG program, and provides a more coordinated and effective approach at addressing the City’s human service needs. The City benefits from a strong jurisdictional and regional network of housing and community development partners. For example, the HACSC improves neighborhoods by assisting low income residents, increasing the supply of affordable safe housing, and rehabilitating residential properties in many jurisdictions in the County. HACSC assists approximately 17,000 households countywide through federal rental housing assistance, and developing and managing affordable rental housing properties. Working closely with landlords, housing developers, charities and local governments, the HACSC provides housing and support services to as many eligible families as possible. In addition, the Santa Clara Fair Housing Task Force includes representatives from the City and the other entitlement jurisdictions, fair housing providers, legal service providers, and other community service providers. Since its inception, the Task Force has implemented a calendar of countywide fair housing events and sponsors public information meetings, including Accessibility Training, First-Time Homebuyer training, and Predatory Lending training.88 As standard practice, CDBG entitlement jurisdictions from throughout the County hold quarterly meetings to discuss issues of common interest. Meeting agendas cover such topics as projects receiving multi-jurisdictional funding, performance levels and costs for contracted public services, proposed annual funding plans, HUD program administration requirements, and other topics of mutual concern. These quarterly meetings provide an opportunity for the City to consult with other jurisdictions on its proposed use of federal funds for the upcoming Program Year. They have helped participants better understand the County and nonprofit social service structure within the County, and provide input to the Santa Clara County Office of Affordable Housing. Finally, the meeting serves as a forum for HUD representatives to share information and answer questions from entitlement jurisdictions regarding issues of mutual importance. These quarterly meetings provide the opportunity for the City to consult with other jurisdictions on its proposed use of federal funds for the upcoming Program Year. The CDBG Coordinators Group meetings are often followed by a Regional Housing Working Group meeting, which is open to staff of entitlement and non-entitlement jurisdictions. The Working Group provides a forum for jurisdictions to develop coordinated responses to regional housing challenges. Gaps Nonprofit affordable housing developers and service providers play an important role in promoting community development within the City. However, they are often at a disadvantage in the housing development arena, as they compete with developers in the private sector for the limited land available for the development of housing. Affordable housing developers must adhere to noticing, 88 City of Palo Alto. “Fiscal Year 2015 Annual Action Plan. 2014. https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/39839&sa=U&ei=AHyQVOHpI8ff oATsg4KgAg&ved=0CAgQFjAB&client=internal-uds-cse&usg=AFQjCNF_XnDk4Zbw8fKMZf7TrMDdbPAgpg Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 131 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) outreach and evaluation processes associated with the use of public funds. Private market rate developers do not have such requirements and are able to purchase sites quickly. Many market rate developers have funds available to purchase properties rather than needing to seek financing, which saves time. The market realities of increased value due to scarcity of land and the ability to acquire sites quickly provide advantages to market rate developers, while posing challenging constraints to affordable housing developers. Availability of services targeted to homeless persons and persons with HIV and mainstream services Table 72 - Homeless Prevention Services Summary Homelessness Prevention Services Available in the Community Targeted to Homeless Targeted to People with HIV Homelessness Prevention Services Counseling/Advocacy X Legal Assistance X X Mortgage Assistance X Rental Assistance X X Utilities Assistance X Street Outreach Services Law Enforcement X X Mobile Clinics X X Other Street Outreach Services X Supportive Services Alcohol & Drug Abuse X Child Care X Education X Employment and Employment Training X Healthcare X X HIV/AIDS Life Skills X X Mental Health Counseling X Transportation X Describe how the service delivery system including, but not limited to, the services listed above meet the needs of homeless persons (particularly chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans and their families, and unaccompanied youth) As part of the institutional delivery system, the City participates in the Santa Clara County CoC, a multi-sector group of stakeholders dedicated to ending and preventing homelessness in the County. The CoC’s primary responsibilities are to coordinate large-scale implementation of efforts to prevent and end homelessness. The CoC is governed by the CoC Board, which stands as the driving force committed to supporting and promoting a systems change approach to preventing and ending homelessness in the County. 89 89 County of Santa Clara. “Housing Element 2015-2022.” 2014. http://www.sccgov.org/sites/planning/PlansPrograms/GeneralPlan/Housing/Documents/HE_2015_Adopted_Final.pdf Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 132 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Destination: Home, a public-private partnership committed to collective impact strategies to end chronic homelessness, serves as the backbone organization for the CoC and is responsible for implementing by-laws and protocols that govern the operations of the CoC. Destination: Home is also responsible for ensuring that the CoC meets the requirements outlined under the Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing Act of 2009 (HEARTH).90 Describe the strengths and gaps of the service delivery system for special needs population and persons experiencing homelessness, including, but not limited to, the services listed above In fall 2014, the CoC released a Draft Community Plan to End Homelessness in Santa Clara County, which outlines a roadmap for community-wide efforts to end homelessness in the County by 2020. The strategies and action steps included in the plan were informed by members who participated in a series of community summits designed to address the needs of homeless populations from April to August 2014. The Plan identifies strategies to address the needs of homeless persons in the County, including chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans, and unaccompanied youth. Additionally, it also intended to address the needs of persons at risk of homelessness. To address the needs of homeless individuals and individuals at risk of homelessness, the Plan aims to implement the following three action steps:91 1. Disrupt systems: Develop disruptive strategies and innovative prototypes that transform the systems related to housing homeless people. 2. Build the solution: Secure the right amount of funding needed to provide housing and services to those who are homeless and those at risk of homelessness. 3. Serve the person: Adopt an approach that recognizes the need for client-centered strategies with different responses for different levels of need and different groups, targeting resources to the specific individual or household. Over the next five years, the Plan seeks to house 2,518 homeless individuals, 718 homeless veterans, and more than 2,333 children, unaccompanied youth, and homeless individuals living in families. Provide a summary of the strategy for overcoming gaps in the institutional structure and service delivery system for carrying out a strategy to address priority needs The City is striving to improve intergovernmental and private sector cooperation to synergize efforts and resources, and develop new revenues for community service needs and the production of affordable housing. Collaborative efforts include:  Regular quarterly meetings between entitlement jurisdictions  Joint jurisdiction Request for Proposals and project review committees 90 Santa Clara County. “Continuum of Care Governance Charter.” 2013. 91 Destination: Home. “Community Plan to End Homelessness in Santa Clara County 2015-2012.” 2014. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 133 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)  Coordination on project management for projects funded by multiple jurisdictions. Recent examples include the effort by the County to create a regional affordable housing fund, using former redevelopment funds that could be returned to the County to use for affordable housing. Another effort underway involves the possible use of former redevelopment funds to create a countywide pool for homeless shelters and transitional housing. These interactions among agencies generate cohesive discussion and forums for bridging funding and service gaps on a regional scale. The City’s decision to join the County’s HOME Consortium (along with the cities of Gilroy and Cupertino) is another example of a collaborative strategy to improve the institutional delivery structure for address affordable housing needs. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 134 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) SP- 45 Goals Summary – 91.215(a) (4) Goals Summary Information Table 73 - Goals Summary Sort Order Goal Name Start Year End Year Category Geographic Area Needs Addressed Funding Goal Outcome Indicator 1 Affordable Housing 2015 2020  Affordable Housing N/A Affordable Housing CDBG: $1,018,421 Rental units rehabilitated: 300 Housing Units 2 Homelessness 2015 2020  Homeless N/A Homelessness CDBG: $254,605 Public service activities other than for low/mod income housing benefit: 2,500 Persons Assisted 3 Strengthen Neighborhoods 2015 2020  Non-Housing Community Development  Non-Homeless Special Needs N/A Community Services and Public Improvements CDBG: $127,302 Public service activities other than for low/mod income housing benefit: 2,500 Persons Assisted Public facility or infrastructure activities other than for low/mod income housing benefit: 500 Persons Assisted 4 Fair Housing 2015 2020  Non-Housing Community Development N/A Fair Housing CDBG: $152,763.24 Public service activities other than for low/mod income housing benefit: 100 Persons Assisted 5 Economic Development 2015 2020  Non-Housing Community Development N/A Economic Development CDBG: $992,963 Jobs created/retained: 125 Jobs Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 135 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Goal Descriptions 1 Goal Name Affordable Housing Goal Description Assist in the creation and preservation of affordable housing for low income and special needs households. 2 Goal Name Homelessness Goal Description Support activities to end homelessness. 3 Goal Name Strengthen Neighborhoods Goal Description Support activities that strengthen neighborhoods through the provision of community services and public improvements to benefit low income and special needs households. 4 Goal Name Fair Housing Goal Description Promote fair housing choice. 5 Goal Name Economic Development Goal Description Expand economic opportunities for low income households. Estimate the number of extremely low income, low income, and moderate income families to whom the jurisdiction will provide affordable housing as defined by HOME 91.315(b)(2) Currently, the City’s HUD allocation for entitlement grants does not include funding from the HOME program. In prior fiscal years Palo Alto has funded a number of projects that have resulted in the production of new affordable housing units, rehabilitation of existing multi-family rental units, and acquisition of existing units. During the previous funding cycle the City did not receive any applications for affordable housing supported through the production of new units or rehabilitation of existing units. While future provision of affordable housing will depend on the availability of projects, the City estimates that CDBG funds will be used to provide affordable housing to approximately 300 households over the next five years. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 136 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) SP-50 Public Housing Accessibility and Involvement – 91.215(c) Need to Increase the Number of Accessible Units (if Required by a Section 504 Voluntary Compliance Agreement) Not applicable. Activities to Increase Resident Involvements HACSC is proactive in incorporating resident input into the agency’s policy-making process. An equitable and transparent policy-making process that includes the opinions of public housing residents is achieved through the involvement of two tenant commissioners, one being a senior citizen, on the HACSC board. Furthermore, HACSC has installed a Resident Counsel which is comprised of five residents from all HUD-funded programs (Multifamily Housing, LIHTC, HOME, public housing, and Section 8). The Resident Counsel works with HACSC staff on evaluating the effectiveness and efficiency of the agency’s rental assistance programs. This grants members the opportunity to provide input on necessary program modifications. As previously noted, HACSC has been a Moving to Work (MTW) agency since 2008. In this time the agency has developed 31 MTW activities. The vast majority of their successful initiatives have been aimed at reducing administrative inefficiencies, which in turn opens up more resources for programs aimed at LMI families.92 The following is excerpted from HACSC’s August 2014 Board of Commissioner’s report: “HACSC’s Family Self Sufficiency (FSS) Program is designed to provide assistance to current HACSC Section 8 families to achieve self-sufficiency. When a family enrolls in the five-year program, HPD’s FSS Coordinator and LIFESteps service provider helps the family develop self-sufficiency goals and a training plan, and coordinates access to job training and other services, including childcare and transportation. Program participants are required to seek and maintain employment or attend school or job training. As participants increase their earned income and pay a larger share of the rent, HACSC holds the amount of the tenant’s rent increases in an escrow account, which is then awarded to participants who successfully complete the program. HACSC is currently in the initial stages of creating a pilot successor program to FSS under the auspices of its MTW flexibility called Focus Forward.” 93 Is the public housing agency designated as troubled under 24 CFR part 902? No. Plan to remove the ‘troubled’ designation Not applicable. 92 HACSC. “Moving to Work (MTW) 2014 Annual Report.” September 2014. 93 HACSC. “Housing Programs Department (HPD) Monthly Board Report.” August 2014. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 137 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) SP-55 Barriers to Affordable Housing – 91.215(h) Barriers to Affordable Housing As previously discussed, the incorporated and unincorporated jurisdictions within the County face barriers to affordable housing that are common throughout the Bay Area. High on the list is the lack of developable land, which increases the cost of available lands and increases housing development costs. Local opposition is another common obstacle as many neighbors have strong reactions to infill and affordable housing developments. Their opposition is often based on misconceptions, such as a foreseen increase in crime; erosion of property values; increase in parking and traffic congestion; and overwhelmed schools.94 However, to ensure a healthy economy, the region must focus on strategies and investment that provide housing for much of the region’s workforce – for example, sales clerks, secretaries, firefighters, police, teachers, and health service workers – whose incomes significantly limit their housing choices.95 Even when developments produce relatively affordable housing, in a constrained housing supply market, higher income buyers and renters generally outbid lower income households and a home’s final sale or rental price will generally far exceed the projected sales or rental costs. Public subsidies are often needed to guarantee affordable homes for LMI households. The City identified several constraints to the maintenance, development and improvement of housing and affordable housing in its 2015-2023 Housing Element update: 96  Local policies and regulations can impact the price and availability of housing and, in particular, the provision of affordable housing  Land use controls  Site improvement requirements  Fees and exactions  Permit processing procedures Strategy to Remove or Ameliorate the Barriers to Affordable Housing As stated in previous chapters, the City is addressing the barriers to affordable housing through the following programs and ordinances: Context-Based Design Codes The City adopted form-based codes in 2006 to ensure and encourage residential development by following context-based design guidelines to meet increased density needs. The code encourages the creation of walkable, pedestrian-oriented neighborhoods, following green building design principles, and increasing density along transit corridors and in mixed-use neighborhoods. The Context-Based Design Code allows for increased density and mixed-use buildings in a way that enhances neighborhood character and walkability. 94 Association of Bay Area Governments. “Affordable Housing in the Bay Area.” 2014. 95 Association of Bay Area Governments. “Jobs-Housing Connection Strategy.” 2012. 96 City of Palo Alto. “2015-2023 Housing Element.” 2014. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/44951 Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 138 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Density Bonus Ordinance Density bonus provisions are a tool for attracting and assisting developers in constructing affordable housing. Density bonuses allow a developer to increase the density of a development above that allowed by standard zoning regulations, as well as provide regulatory relief in the form of concessions. In exchange, a developer provides affordable units in the development. In 2004, the California State Legislature lowered the thresholds required to receive a density bonus and increased the number of concessions a developer can receive. The City adopted a Density Bonus Ordinance in January 2014. The density bonus regulations allow for bonuses of 20 to 35 percent, depending on the amount and type of affordable housing provided. As required by state law, the regulations also allow for exceptions to applicable zoning and other development standards, to further encourage development of affordable housing. Below Market Rate Housing Program Established in 1974, the City’s BMR Housing Program has been instrumental in the production of affordable housing by requiring developers to provide a certain percentage of units as BMR in every approved project of three units or more. The program originally required that for developments on sites of less than five acres, the developer must provide 15 percent of the total housing units as BMR housing units. If the site was larger than five acres, the developer was required to provide 20 percent of the units as BMR housing. However, recent court cases have drastically changed the BMR, or “inclusionary zoning”, environment in California. Two factors have received recent attention by the courts: whether inclusionary housing is considered rent control, and whether inclusionary housing and related housing mitigation fees are considered exactions. As a result of ongoing litigation, many cities have suspended or amended the portions of their inclusionary housing requirements that require affordable units to be included in market‐rate rental developments and many cities have turned, instead, to the use of development impact fees charged on new, market-rate housing and/or commercial development. Known as “Housing Impact Fees” and “Commercial Linkage Fees,” these fees are based on an assessment of the extent to which the development of new market-rate housing or commercial uses, respectively, generates additional demand for affordable housing. 97 Commercial Housing Fund The Commercial Fund is composed solely of housing mitigation fees collected from commercial developers under Chapter 16.47 of the Municipal Code. This ordinance was adopted in 1984. Fee revenue varies greatly from year to year. However, over a ten-year period from 1998 to 2008, over $5.4 million was collected in fees at an average of $542,000 per year. During that period the fee rate ranged from about $3.00 to $4.00 per square foot. In May 2002, the housing impact fee was increased to $15.00 per net new square feet of commercial space and, as of May 2008, it had gone up to $17.06 with annual CPI adjustments. The Commercial Fund monies are used only to assist in the development of new housing units. Since initiation of commercial housing impact fees through June 97 California Building Industry Association. “California Supreme Court takes Inclusionary Zoning Case.” http://www.cbia.org/go/government-affairs/cbia-reports1/september-23-2013/california-supreme-court-takes-inclusionary- zoning-case/ Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 139 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) 2008, seven new housing projects have been constructed with City financial assistance from the Commercial Fund producing 377 new affordable rental units. Residential Housing Fund The Residential Fund is primarily composed of fees received from developers of market-rate residential projects in-lieu of the provision of on-site or off-site below market rate units. These fees are collected pursuant to the City's BMR housing program. Over the ten-year period from 1998 to 2008, almost $5.8 million in fees were collected, for an average of about $580,000 per year in revenue. Residential Fund monies may be used to assist new housing development or the acquisition, rehabilitation or the preservation of existing housing for affordable housing. All housing assisted has been rental and most of the units have been affordable to very low and low income households. Through 2008, a total of nine housing projects with 379 units have been acquired, rehabilitated or constructed with City assistance from this Fund. In all cases, the housing projects assisted by the City have been developed, owned and managed by local nonprofit housing organizations. Many housing types have been developed serving different housing needs. Examples include: senior apartments, SRO units, family apartments, units for persons with disabilities, studio units and large family units. Typically, the developer has also used state of federal housing subsidies such as the housing tax credits in addition to the City's financial assistance. The City provides its funds through long-term loans with low interest rates and usually deferred payment. All loans must be approved by the City Council and the City restricts the projects under long-term regulatory agreements. Any cost necessary to develop the housing can be funded by the City. Developers are encouraged to apply through the funding cycle for the CDBG program, but may apply at other times if necessary. Development Impact Fees for Housing Palo Alto’s impact fees are comprised of four categories: housing, traffic, community facilities, and parkland dedication. The housing fee to non-residential development increased from $18.44 to $18.89 per square foot, effective May 8, 2013. The fee rate applies to all net new commercial square footage on a site. Full payment is required at building permit issuance with some exemptions including hospitals and convalescent facilities, private education facilities, public facilities and private clubs, lodges and fraternal organizations. Housing Trust Silicon Valley (HTSV) This nonprofit organization combines private and public funds to support affordable housing activities in the County, including assistance to developers and homebuyers. The HTSV is among the largest housing trusts in the nation building special needs and affordable housing and assisting first- time homebuyers. Palo Alto was among the contributors during its founding and has continued to allocate funding. A provision was added to ensure the City’s funds be used exclusively for qualifying affordable housing projects within Palo Alto. The most recent contribution included $200,000 from the City’s Residential Housing Fund for Fiscal Year 2012. Participation in the Trust has increased the available housing funding for a number of Palo Alto projects. In addition, HTSCC has invested over $100,000 assisting 16 households to purchase homes in Palo Alto through its first-time homebuyer program. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 140 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) Additionally, the City has recently been approved to join the County's HOME Consortium. HOME funds can be used to fund eligible affordable housing projects for acquisition, construction and rehabilitation. Starting in FY 2015-2016, developers of affordable housing projects will be eligible to competitively apply through an annual RFP process directly to the County for HOME funds to help subsidize affordable housing projects in the City. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 141 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) SP-60 Homelessness Strategy – 91.215(d) Describe the five-year goals and actions for reducing and ending homelessness including: Following a six-month planning process, the Santa Clara County Collaborative on Affordable Housing and Homeless Issues recommended the people serving on the Destination: Home Leadership Board should also serve as the Continuum of Care (CoC) Board. The Destination: Home Leadership Board agreed to accept this dual role due to the overwhelming need for a unified and community-wide strategy to end and prevent homelessness, especially chronic homelessness, which is a priority both locally and nationally. The new CoC Board identified the County’s Office of Supportive Housing as the Collaborative Applicant to ensure that the local CoC fully implemented the requirements and intent of The Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing (HEARTH) Act of 2009. Lead by Destination: Home, the CoC created a five-year strategic plan entitled the 2015-2020 Community Plan to End Homelessness in Santa Clara County through a series of community summits related to the specific homeless populations and homeless issues in the County.98 As previously discussed, the CoC’s target is to house 2,518 chronically homeless individuals, 718 homeless veterans, and more than 2,333 homeless children, youth, and families. The CoC’s plan includes the following overarching strategies: 1. Disrupt Systems – Develop disruptive strategies and innovative prototypes that transform the systems related to housing a homeless person. 2. Build the Solution – Secure the right amount of funding needed to provide housing and services to those who are homeless and those at risk of homelessness. 3. Serve the Person – Adopt an approach that recognizes the need for client-centered strategies with different responses for different levels of need and different groups, targeting resources to the specific individual or household. Within each strategy the CoC identifies several tasks: 1. Disrupt Systems a. Transform the Way Government Responds to Homelessness i. Rethink how government organizes to respond to homelessness ii. Ensure people leaving systems do not become homeless iii. Increase access to benefits for people who are homeless or at risk of homelessness b. Include the Private Sector and the Community in the Solution i. Increase awareness ii. Increase and align private resources iii. Provide opportunities for the business sector to address homelessness iv. Collaborate with community organizations v. Engage with the environmental community to reduce the environmental impacts of homelessness c. Create the Best Homeless System of Care i. Coordinate housing and services to connect each individual with the right housing solution 98 Santa Clara County CoC. “Community Plan to End Homelessness in Santa Clara County 2015-2020.” 2014. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 142 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) ii. Respond to system barriers and service gaps by making the best use of existing assets iii. Partner across public and private sectors to improve systemic coordination iv. Increase provider capacity 2. Build the Solution a. Create New Homes and Opportunities to House Homeless Men, Women, and Children i. Create 6,000 Housing Opportunities ii. Fund supportive services for the new housing opportunities 3. Serve the Population a. Have Different Responses for Different Levels of Need i. Provide permanent supportive housing to end chronic homelessness ii. Expand rapid rehousing resources to respond to episodic homelessness iii. Prevent homelessness before it happens Reaching out to homeless persons (especially unsheltered persons) and assessing their individual needs Two formally homeless persons are on the Continuum of Care Board. Homeless outreach primarily occurs in the City of San Jose, although outreach efforts to the rest of the County are expected to increase in the next 12 months. Addressing the emergency and transitional housing needs of homeless persons New Directions, on a county-wide basis, provides intensive case management to frequent users of the emergency departments at four area hospitals, many of whom are chronically homeless individuals. Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, O’Connor Hospital, Regional Medical Center and Saint Louise Regional Hospital are served by this project. Health Care for the Homeless provides medical care to homeless people through its clinics and mobile medical van at homeless encampments. Helping homeless persons (especially chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans and their families, and unaccompanied youth) make the transition to permanent housing and independent living, including shortening the period of time that individuals and families experience homelessness, facilitating access for homeless individuals and families to affordable housing units, and preventing individuals and families who were recently homeless from becoming homeless again. Particularly for chronically homeless, it is preferred that individuals receive intensive case management rather than simple information and referral services. Case managers work to assist homeless individuals find housing, connect with resources, and receive services to maintain housing. The provision of case management is person-based rather than shelter-based with the goal of rapid re-housing. Within the five-year goals of the Community Plan to End Homelessness, the target is to create 6,000 housing opportunities for persons who are homeless. An additional goal is for each of the 6,000 new tenants to have access to the services that will allow them to maintain that housing.99 99 Santa Clara County CoC. “Community Plan to End Homelessness in Santa Clara County 2015-2020.” 2014. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 143 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) The City spends part of its CDBG funds and local funds toward a variety of public services to address the needs of homeless and very low income persons. Services provided include free food, clothing, medical care, legal assistance, and rental assistance. The City allocates funding to the following homeless service providers: CDBG Funded  InnVision Shelter Network - Opportunity Services Center The Opportunity Services Center facility in Palo Alto provides a clean, safe environment and resources for low income or homeless persons including bagged groceries, hot meals, a rotating church shelter program, information and referral, shower and laundry facilities, case management, and money management (payee) programs, clothing and health services. A daily hot meal is provided at a different location each day and bagged groceries are distributed daily at the Downtown Food Closet. The Hotel de Zink rotating church shelter program is housed at a different location each month.  Downtown Streets Team – Workforce Development Program This economic development program helps motivated graduates of the Downtown Streets Team programs move on to stable employment. The program includes mentoring, counseling, job readiness, job training, and assistance. HSRAP Funded  Abilities United – Disability Services This organization provides services and activities for adults and children with mental and physical disabilities.  Community Technology Alliance – Shared Technical Infrastructure The Community Technology Alliance provides shelter hotline and voicemail services for homeless individuals and families. The voicemail service helps case-managed clients attain individual goals such as securing health care, housing or employment. A countywide housing information and referral website and tracking system is maintained to assist service providers and those seeking shelter.  Downtown Streets Team – Downtown Streets Downtown Streets Team identifies motivated homeless individuals and provides them with jobs cleaning and beautifying the downtown area in exchange for housing and food vouchers. The program includes counseling, coaching and training to help program participants build self-esteem, confidence and connections in the community.  Momentum for Mental Health – Homeless Outreach Program Momentum for Mental Health outreach program provide emergency on-call services to assist local mentally ill homeless persons. The agency provides services to City departments, libraries, community centers and local homeless service providers. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 144 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Help low-income individuals and families avoid becoming homeless, especially extremely low- income individuals and families who are likely to become homeless after being discharged from a publicly funded institution or system of care, or who are receiving assistance from public and private agencies that address housing, health, social services, employment, education or youth needs The City allocates funding to the following service providers:  Palo Alto Housing Corporation – SRO Tenant Counseling Palo Alto Housing Corporation provides counseling and case-management services for the low income residents and prospective residents of single room occupancy hotels in Palo Alto. Many SRO residents have a history of homelessness and special needs. The program plays a vital role in helping residents maintain their stability and housing.  Avenidas – Senior Services This agency is the main provider of senior services in the Mid-Peninsula area.  La Comida de California – Hot Meals for the Elderly La Comida provides a daily hot meal program for the elderly.  May View Health Center – Health Care for Low Income & Homeless Residents The Center provides basic primary health care services and health education and referral services for uninsured low income and homeless individuals from the Palo Alto area.  Peninsula HealthCare Connection – Project Downtown Connect This is a provider of health care services at the Opportunity Center of Palo Alto. Project Downtown Connect provides Section 8 vouchers to eligible homeless individuals and families.  SALA – Legal Assistance for the Elderly Senior Adults Legal Assistance (SALA) provides affordable legal assistance to elderly residents. Discussion Please see discussion above. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 145 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) SP-65 Lead based paint Hazards – 91.215(i) Actions to address LBP hazards and increase access to housing without LBP hazards The City’s housing and CDBG staff provide information and referral to property owners, developers, and non-profit organizations rehabilitating older housing about lead-based paint (LBP) hazards. Any house to be rehabilitated with City financial assistance is required to be inspected for the existence of LBP and LBP hazards. The City will provide financial assistance for the abatement of such hazards in units rehabilitated with City funding. How are the actions listed above related to the extent of lead poisoning and hazards? Building age is used to estimate the number of homes with LBP which was prohibited on residential units after 1978. For the purposes of this plan, units built before 1980 are used as a baseline for units that contain LBP. Seventy-nine percent of all units (20,265 units) in the City were built before 1980 and provide potential exposure to LBP. As discussed in the Needs Assessment, 23 percent of households within the City have incomes ranging from 0-80% AMI. Using this percentage as a baseline, we can estimate that 4,661 LBP units are occupied by LMI families. How are the actions listed above integrated into housing policies and procedures? The City requires that contractors are trained and certified in an effort to decrease the risk of potential use of LBP in new units. All development and rehabilitation projects must be evaluated according to HUD’s Lead Safe Housing Rule 24 CFR Part 35. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 146 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) SP-70 Anti-Poverty Strategy – 91.215(j) How are the Jurisdiction poverty reducing goals, programs, and policies coordinated with this affordable housing plan As stated in the Needs Assessment, almost a quarter of households (23 percent, or 5,845 households) in the City are LMI, with incomes ranging from 0-80% AMI. To address this, the City employs a multi-tiered anti-poverty strategy, with each of the goals and programs described in this plan addressing poverty directly or indirectly. The City provided either CDBG or HSRAP funding to several services for persons within the community who are low income, homeless, or at-risk of becoming homeless. In summary, the goal of all of the services listed in this chapter is to prevent homelessness, help people move out of homelessness, and to reduce the number of persons below the poverty line. The City’s Workforce Development Program, administered by Downtown Streets, Inc., provides a transition from unemployment and homelessness to regular employment and housing through case management, job training, mentoring, housing, and transportation assistance. The City also partners with NOVA, a local nonprofit agency that provides job seekers with resume and job search assistance, assessment, and referrals to specialized training and educational programs. The City provided $1,216,177 in General Funds during FY 2013-2014 to address primary human service needs in the community. These funds include multi-year agreements with others allocated by HSRAP and administered by the Office of Human Services in the Community Services Department. Funded projects addressed priority needs in the following categories: early child care and education, youth programs, senior nutrition and social services, homelessness, and basic needs such as health care and mental health.100 In 2013 the Palo Alto City Council approved the allocation of $150,000 in CDBG funds toward a Microenterprise Assistance Program (MAP). The purpose of the program is to provide access to new opportunities to improve the economic self-sufficiency of LMI families and individuals. This program builds on the foundation of entrepreneurship and empowers clients by increasing their economic literacy, business skills, self-esteem, and personal behavior appropriate to the workplace. The MAP program seeks to accomplish the following:101  Provide an innovative path out of poverty  Create self-sufficiency  Improve the survival rate of microenterprise businesses  Improve employment skills  Promote community economic development 100 City of Palo Alto. “Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report FY2013-2014.” 2014 101 City of Palo Alto. “Pilot Microenterprise Assistance Program (MAP). http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=2480&TargetID=268 Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 147 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) SP-80 Monitoring – 91.230 Describe the standards and procedures that the jurisdiction will use to monitor activities carried out in furtherance of the plan and will use to ensure long-term compliance with requirements of the programs involved, including minority business outreach and the comprehensive planning requirements A key element of the CDBG Planner’s role in management and oversight responsibilities is the monitoring of program performance. In general, the CDBG Coordinator is responsible for managing the day-to-day operations of the City’s CDBG Program and ensuring that funds are used in keeping with program requirements. Monitoring is a review of program or project performance and compliance. The City uses a CDBG Monitoring Responsibilities and Plan to provide an internal control mechanism designed to review performance over a period of time and to evaluate compliance of nonprofit sub- recipients funded under CDBG pursuant to 24 CFR 570.502. Applicability of Uniform Administrative Requirements, (a) (14) and with 24 CFR Section 85, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to States and Local Governments, 24 CFR Section 85.40 “Monitoring and reporting program performance,” and other laws and regulations based on the funding source.102 Monitoring allows the City to provide technical assistance to help subrecipients comply with applicable laws and regulations, improve technical skills, increase capacity and stay updated on regulations relevant to CDBG. Additionally, monitoring helps to identify deficiencies, and highlight accomplishments and best practices that can be duplicated. Monitoring will be conducted in two phases. File review will generally confirm compliance with reporting requirements, financial submittals, and contract provisions and much of it will be completed prior to the onsite visit. On-site reviews will focus more on the beneficiary documentation and services provided, including quantitative performance outcomes to local and federal objectives, and financial processes and documentation only available at the program site. The City will coordinate its monitoring efforts of Public Service activities funded by other entitlement jurisdictions, in an effort to standardize the process and reduce the burden on the providers. Monitoring checklists will be used to assure regulatory requirements are being met and will adequately be designed to test for client eligibility. Subrecipients who are found to be in noncompliance and receive a finding as a result of their monitoring will be provided with technical assistance towards resolution. Actions taken by the City to achieve compliance may include, but not be limited to, withholding further disbursements of CDBG funds until satisfactory compliance with applicable regulations are achieved. 102 U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development. “Monitoring and Reporting Program Performance.” http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2000-title24-vol1/pdf/CFR-2000-title24-vol1-sec85-40.pdf Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 148 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Minority Outreach (MBE/WBE) Through the CDBG Program the City works with non-profit affordable housing developers on awarding contractors and subcontractors performing the construction contracts awarded participation by minority businesses in each construction project. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 149 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) First Year Action Plan AP-15 Expected Resources – 91.220(c) (1, 2) Introduction The City of Palo Alto’s (City) Fiscal Year (FY) 2015-2016 Action Plan covers the time period from July 1, 2015 to June 30 2016 (HUD Program Year 2015). The City’s FY 2016 entitlement amount is $442,460. Additionally, the City estimates approximately $136,049 in program income and an estimated $303,164 in available uncommitted funds from the prior program year, bringing the total estimated budget for FY 2015-2016 to $881,673. While U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) allocations are critical, they are not sufficient to overcome all barriers and address all needs that low income individuals and families face in attaining self-sufficiency. The City will continue to leverage additional resources to successfully provide support and services to the populations in need. Currently, the City is not eligible to receive direct funding under the HOME Investment Partnership Act (HOME), Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG), or Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) – also programs covered under the Consolidated Plan Regulations. Within the CDBG funding, Year One allocations are as follows: Table 74 - CDBG Fiscal Year 2015-2016 Annual Budgetary Priorities CDBG Fiscal Year 2015 Annual Budgetary Priorities FY 2015-2016 Budget ($442,460 Allocation + $136,049 Program Income) $578,509 Administration and Planning (20% Cap = $115,701) 20% $115,702 Public Services (15% Cap = $82,910) 15% $82,880 Affordable Housing Projects 40% $231,140 Economic Development Projects 25% $148,787 Total 100% $578,509 FY 2014-2015 Uncommitted Funds (Affordable Housing & Economic Development Projects) $303,164 Total Available to Allocate $881,673 Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 150 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Table 75 - Expected Resources – Priority Table Program Source of Funds Uses of Funds Expected Amount Available Year 1 Expected Amount Available Reminder of ConPlan $ Narrative Description Annual Allocation: $ Program Income: $ Prior Year Resources: $ Total: $ CDBG Public Federal  Admin and Planning  Acquisition  Economic Development  Housing  Public Improvements  Public Service $442,460 $136,049 $303,164 $881,673 $2,103,594 CDBG funds will be used for the creation and preservation of affordable rental units, improvements in lower income neighborhoods, and public services that benefit low income and special needs households. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 151 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Explain how federal funds will leverage those additional resources (private, state and local funds), including a description of how matching requirements will be satisfied Entitlement Funds Leverage, in the context of the CDBG and HOME, means bringing other local, state, and federal financial resources to maximize the reach and impact of the City’s HUD Programs. HUD, like many other federal agencies, encourages the recipients of federal monies to demonstrate that efforts are being made to strategically leverage additional funds in order to achieve greater results. Leverage is also a way to increase project efficiencies and benefit from economies of scale that often come with combining sources of funding for similar or expanded scopes. Funds will be leveraged if financial commitments toward the costs of a project from a source other than the originating HUD program are documented. Additionally, the City has recently been approved to join the County's HOME Consortium. HOME funds can be used to fund eligible affordable housing projects for acquisition, construction and rehabilitation. Starting in FY 2015-2016 developers of affordable housing projects will be eligible to competitively apply through an annual Request for Proposals (RFP) process directly to the County for HOME funds to help subsidize affordable housing projects in Palo Alto. If the City receives HOME dollars from its participation in the HOME consortium, the required 25 percent matching funds will be provided from the City’s Affordable Housing Fund, which is comprised of two sub-funds: the Commercial Housing Fund and the Residential Housing Fund. As of August 25, 2014 the Commercial Housing Fund had an available balance of approximately $6,600,000 and the Residential Housing Fund had an available balance of $1,400,000. Other Federal Grant Programs In addition to the entitlement dollars listed above, the federal government has several other funding programs for community development and affordable housing activities. These include: the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program, Section 202, Section 811, the Affordable Housing Program (AHP) through the Federal Home Loan Bank, and others. It should be noted that, in most cases, the City would not be the applicant for these funding sources as many of these programs offer assistance to affordable housing developers rather than local jurisdictions. State Housing and Community Development Sources In California, the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and the California Housing Finance Agency (CalHFA) administer a variety of statewide public affordable housing programs that offer assistance to nonprofit affordable housing developers. Examples of HCD’s programs include the Multifamily Housing Program (MHP), Affordable Housing Innovation Fund (AHIF), Building Equity and Growth in Neighborhoods Program (BEGIN), and CalHOME. Many HCD programs have historically been funded by one-time State bond issuances and, as such, are subject to limited availability of funding. CalHFA offers multiple mortgage loan programs, down payment assistance programs, and funding for the construction, acquisition, and rehabilitation of affordable ownership units. The State also administers the federal Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program, a widely used financing source for affordable housing projects. As with the other federal grant programs discussed above, the City would not apply for these funding sources. Rather, local affordable housing developers could apply for funding through these programs for particular developments in the City. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 152 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Additionally, the County also receives Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) funds from the State for housing. County and Local Housing and Community Development Sources There are a variety of countywide and local resources that support housing and community development programs. Some of these programs offer assistance to local affordable housing developers and community organizations while others provide assistance directly to individuals. These resources are discussed below:  Human Service Resource Allocation Process In addition to the CDBG public service funds, the City will provide $1,099,347 million dollars from the General Fund in support of human services through HSRAP. The HSRAP funds, in conjunction with the CDBG public service funds, are distributed to local nonprofit agencies.  Palo Alto Commercial Housing Fund The Commercial Housing fund is used primarily to increase the number of new affordable housing units for Palo Alto’s work force. It is funded with mitigation fees required from developers of commercial and industrial projects. As of August 25, 2014 the Commercial Housing Fund had an available balance of approximately $6,600,000.  Palo Alto Residential Housing Fund The Residential Housing Fund is funded with mitigation fees provided under Palo Alto’s Below Market Rate (BMR) housing program from residential developers and money from other miscellaneous sources, such as proceeds from the sale or lease of City property. As of August 25, 2014 the Residential Housing Fund had an available balance of $1,400,000.  Below Market Rate Emergency Fund This fund was authorized by City Council in September 2002 in order to provide funding on an ongoing basis for loans to BMR owners for special assessment loans and for rehabilitation and preservation of the City’s stock of BMR ownership units. As of March 13, 2014 the BMR Emergency Fund had a balance of approximately $450,000.  Housing Trust Silicon Valley This nonprofit organization combines private and public funds to support affordable housing activities in the County, including assistance to developers and homebuyers. The Housing Trust is among the largest housing trusts in the nation building special needs and affordable housing and assisting first-time homebuyers. Since HTSV began distributing funds in 2001, the trust has invested over $75 million and leveraged over $1.88 billion to create more than 9,953 housing opportunities.  Mortgage Credit Certificates (MCC) Program The MCC program provides assistance to first-time homebuyers by allowing an eligible purchaser to take 20 percent of their annual mortgage interest payment as a tax credit against federal income taxes. The County administers the MCC Program on behalf of the jurisdictions, including Palo Alto. The program does establish maximum sales price limits on units assisted in this program and, due to the high housing costs in the City, there have been few households assisted in Palo Alto in recent years. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 153 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)  Santa Clara County Affordable Housing Fund (AHF) The County Board of Supervisors established the AHF with initial funding of $18.6 million in 2002. The main purpose of the AHF was to assist in the development of affordable housing especially for extremely low income and special needs people throughout the County. The County has awarded over $10 million from the AHF to date. $960,000 was awarded to the Tree House project developed by the Palo Alto Housing Corporation.  Stanford Affordable Housing Fund The County maintains this affordable housing fund intended to benefit low income households. The County distributes the funds through a Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) process and has assisted developers in creating 91 units regionally. If appropriate, describe publically owned land or property located within the jurisdiction that may be used to address the needs identified in the plan Not applicable; the existing land that the City has jurisdiction over is currently utilized by facilities and parks. Sixty-five percent of the City is open space. Discussion Please see discussions above. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 154 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) AP-20 Annual Goals and Objectives Goals Summary Information Table 76 - Goals Summary Sort Order Goal Name Start Year End Year Category Geographic Area Needs Addressed Funding Goal Outcome Indicator 1 Affordable Housing 2015 2020  Affordable Housing N/A  Affordable Housing CDBG: $392,368 Rental units rehabilitated: 156 Housing Units 2 Homelessness 2015 2020  Homeless N/A  Homelessness CDBG: $63,360 Public service activities other than for low/mod income housing benefit: 531 Persons Assisted 3 Strengthen Neighborhoods 2015 2020  Non-Housing Community Development  Non-Homeless Special Needs N/A  Community Services and Public Improvements CDBG: $19,520 Public service activities other than for low/mod income housing benefit: 305 Persons Assisted 4 Fair Housing 2015 2020  Non-Housing Community Development N/A  Fair Housing CDBG: $32,016 Public service activities other than for low/mod income housing benefit: 30 Persons Assisted 5 Economic Development 2015 2020  Non-Housing Community Development N/A  Economic Development CDBG: $290,723 Jobs created/retained: 30 Jobs Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 155 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Goal Descriptions 1 Goal Name Affordable Housing Goal Description Assist in the creation and preservation of affordable housing for low income and special needs households. 2 Goal Name Homelessness Goal Description Support activities to end homelessness. 3 Goal Name Strengthen Neighborhoods Goal Description Support activities that strengthen neighborhoods through the provision of community services and public improvements to benefit low income and special needs households. 4 Goal Name Fair Housing Goal Description Promote fair housing choice. 5 Goal Name Economic Development Goal Description Expand economic opportunities for low income households. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 156 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) AP-35 Projects – 91.220(d) Introduction The Consolidated Plan goals below represent high priority needs for the City of Palo Alto (City) and serve as the basis for the strategic actions the City will use to meet these needs. The goals, listed in no particular order, are: 1. Assist in the creation and preservation of affordable housing for low income and special needs households. 2. Support activities to end homelessness. 3. Support activities that strengthen neighborhoods through the provision of community services and public improvements to benefit low income and special needs households. 4. Promote fair housing choice. 5. Expand economic opportunities for low income households. Projects Table 77 - Project Information # Project Name 1 Long-Term Care Ombudsman Program 2 Opportunity Services Center 3 SRO Resident Support Services 4 Housing & Emergency Services 5 Domestic Violence Services 6 Fair Housing Services 7 Planning and Administration 8 Palo Alto Gardens Rehabilitation Project 9 Workforce Development Program Describe the reasons for allocation priorities and any obstacles to addressing underserved needs The City’s Consolidated Plan update coincides with the development of the first year Action Plan and the biennial RFP process. The City awards CDBG funding to nonprofit agencies to provide public services and housing for low income and special needs households. The City operates on a two-year grant funding cycle for CDBG grants. The City allocates its CDBG funds to projects and programs that will primarily benefit 0-50% AMI households, the homeless and special needs populations. The allocation of funds is made based on the needs identified in the Consolidated Plan. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 157 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) AP-38 Project Summary Project Summary Information Table 78 - Project Summary Sort Order Project Name Target Area Goals Supported Needs Addressed Funding Goal Outcome Indicator 1 Catholic Charities of Santa Clara County – Long-term Care Ombudsman Program N/A  Strengthen Neighborhoods   Homelessness  Community Services and Public Improvements $5,422 Public service activities other than for low/mod income housing benefit: 260 Persons Assisted 2 InnVision Shelter Network – Opportunity Services Center N/A  Homelessness  Strengthen  Homelessness  Community Services and Public Improvements $38,499 Public service activities other than for low/mod income housing benefit: 400 Persons Assisted 3 Palo Alto Housing Corporation – SRO Resident Support Program N/A  Strengthen Neighborhoods  Homelessness  Affordable Housing  Fair Housing  Community Services and Public Improvements  Homelessness  Affordable Housing $24,861 Public service activities other than for low/mod income housing benefit: 131 Persons Assisted 4 Silicon Valley Independent Living Center – Housing & Emergency Housing Services N/A  Strengthen Neighborhoods  Fair Housing  Community Services  Fair Housing $5,422 Public service activities other than for low/mod income housing benefit: 20 Persons Assisted 5 YWCA of Silicon Valley – Domestic Violence Activities N/A  Community Services  Community Services $8,676 Public service activities other than for low/mod income housing benefit: 40 Persons Assisted 6 Project Sentinel – Fair Housing Services N/A  Fair Housing  Fair Housing  Affordable Housing $32,016 Public service activities other than for low/mod income housing benefit: 40 Persons Assisted Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 158 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Sort Order Project Name Target Area Goals Supported Needs Addressed Funding Goal Outcome Indicator 7 City of Palo Alto Planning and Administration N/A  Affordable Housing  Homelessness  Strengthen Neighborhoods  Fair Housing  Economic Development  Affordable Housing  Homelessness  Community Services  Public Facilities, Public Improvements and Infrastructure  Fair Housing  Economic Development $83,686 N/A 8 MidPen Housing – Palo Alto Garden Housing Rehabilitation N/A  Affordable Housing Affordable Housing $392,368 Rental units rehabilitated: 156 Housing Units 9 Downtown Streets – Workforce Development Program N/A  Economic Development  Economic Development $290,723 Jobs created/retained: 30 Jobs Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 159 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) AP-50 Geographic Distribution – 91.220(f) Description of the geographic areas of the entitlement (including areas of low income and minority concentration) where assistance will be directed Not applicable. The City has not established specific target areas to focus the investment of CDBG funds. Table 79 - Geographic Distribution Target Area Percentage of Funds N/A N/A Rationale for the priorities for allocating investments geographically Not applicable. Discussion Please see discussion above. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 160 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) AP-55 Affordable Housing – 91.220(g) Introduction Palo Alto has identified affordable housing as the primary objective for the expenditure of CDBG funds in the Consolidated Plan. The City will continue to allocate the maximum funding available to activities and projects that meet this objective. While CDBG entitlement dollars are limited, the City does anticipate expending a significant portion of its CDBG funds on the preservation and rehabilitation of affordable housing. A detailed discussion of how HUD entitlements will be used to support affordable housing needs within the City is provided in AP-20, with the number of households to be assisted itemized by goal. Table 80 - One Year Goals for Affordable Housing by Support Requirement One Year Goals for the Number of Households to be Supported Homeless 0 Non-Homeless 0 Special-Needs 156 Total 156 Table 81 - One Year Goals for Affordable Housing by Support Type One Year Goals for the Number of Households Supported Through Rental Assistance 0 The Production of New Units 0 Rehab of Existing Units 156 Acquisition of Existing Units 0 Total 156 Discussion Please see discussion above. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 161 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) AP-60 Public Housing – 91.220(h) Introduction HACSC assists approximately 17,000 households through the federal Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program (Section 8). The Section 8 waiting list contains 21,256 households (estimated to be a 10-year wait). HACSC also develops, controls, and manages more than 2,600 affordable rental housing properties throughout the County. HACSC’s programs are targeted toward LMI households and more than 80 percent of their client households are extremely low income families, seniors, veterans, persons with disabilities, and formerly homeless individuals. 103 In 2008, HACSC entered a ten-year agreement with HUD to become a Moving to Work (MTW) agency. The MTW program is a federal demonstration program that allows greater flexibility to design and implement more innovative approaches for providing housing assistance.104 Additionally, HACSC has used LIHTC financing to transform and rehabilitate 535 units of public housing into HACSC-controlled properties. The agency is an active developer of affordable housing and has either constructed, rehabilitated, or assisted with the development of more than 30 housing developments that service a variety of households, including special needs households. Actions planned during the next year to address the needs to public housing Not applicable. HACSC owns and manages four public housing units, which are all located in the City of Santa Clara. Actions to encourage public housing residents to become more involved in management and participate in homeownership While the majority of their units have been converted to affordable housing stock, HACSC is proactive in incorporating resident input into the agency’s policy-making process. An equitable and transparent policy-making process that includes the opinions of residents is achieved through the involvement of two tenant commissioners, one being a senior citizen, on the HACSC board. HACSC has been a MTW agency since 2008. In this time the agency has developed 31 MTW activities. The vast majority of its successful initiatives have been aimed at reducing administrative inefficiencies, which in turn opens up more resources for programs aimed at LMI families. The following is excerpted from HACSC’s August 2014 Board of Commissioner’s report: “HACSC’s Family Self Sufficiency (FSS) Program is designed to provide assistance to current HACSC Section 8 families to achieve self-sufficiency. When a family enrolls in the five-year program, HPD’s FSS Coordinator and LIFESteps service provider helps the family develop self-sufficiency goals and a training plan, and coordinates access to job training and other services, including childcare and transportation. Program participants are required to seek and maintain employment or attend school or job training. As participants increase their earned income and pay a larger share of the rent, HACSC holds the amount of the tenant’s rent increases in an escrow account, which is then awarded 103 Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara. “Welcome to HACSC.” http://www.hacsc.org/ 104 HACSC. “Moving to Work (MTW) 2014 Annual Report.” September 2014. http://www.hacsc.org/assets/1/6/MTW_FY2014_Annual_Report-Final_Draft_9.30.14.pdf Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 162 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) to participants who successfully complete the program. HACSC is currently in the initial stages of creating a pilot successor program to FSS under the auspices of its MTW flexibility called Focus Forward.”105 If the PHA is designated as troubled, describe the manner in which financial assistance will be provided or other assistance Not applicable. Discussion Please see discussions above. 105 HACSC. “Housing Programs Department (HPD) Monthly Board Report.” August 2014. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 163 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) AP-65 Homeless and Other Special Needs Activities – 91.220(i) Introduction The Santa Clara region is home to the fourth-largest population of homeless individuals (6,681 single individuals)106 and the highest percentage of unsheltered homeless of any major city (75 percent of homeless people sleep in places unfit for human habitation). The homeless assistance program planning network is governed by the Santa Clara Continuum of Care (CoC), governed by the Destination: Home Leadership Board, who serves as the CoC Board of Directors. The membership of the CoC is a collaboration of representatives from local jurisdictions comprised of community-based organizations, the Housing Authority of Santa Clara, governmental departments, health service agencies, homeless advocates, consumers, the faith community, and research, policy and planning groups. The homeless services system utilized by the CoC is referred to as the Homeless Management Information System (HMIS). The HMIS monitors outcomes and performance measures for all the homeless services agencies funded by the County. Describe the jurisdictions one-year goals and actions for reducing and ending homelessness including: Reaching out to homeless persons (especially unsheltered persons) and assessing their individual needs. In January 2015, a Point‐In‐Time (PIT) count was conducted for Santa Clara County by the City of San Jose in conjunction with the County of Santa Clara. The PIT is an intense survey used to count the number of homeless living throughout Santa Clara County on the streets, in shelters, safe havens or in transitional housing, or in areas not meant for human habitation. The survey was conducted by hundreds of volunteers who asked those living on the streets, as well as the residents of shelters, safe havens and transitional housing, to respond to questions related to their needs. A portion of the survey addresses the needs of those surveyed. Palo Alto financially contributed to this effort. Addressing the emergency shelter and transitional housing needs of homeless persons In addressing the Consolidated Plan and the Continuum of Care strategic plans, Palo Alto will provide funding for essential services and operations to local emergency shelters and transitional housing facilities. The facilities provide shelter and services to homeless families with children, single parents with children, single men and women, victims of domestic violence and sexual abuse, homeless veterans, and the population living on the street. One example includes the Hotel de Zink rotating shelter program housed at various faith based organizations throughout the calendar year. CDBG funding is provided to InnVision Shelter Network, the operator of the program. A total of 15 beds are provided on a nightly basis. Helping homeless persons (especially chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans and their families, and unaccompanied youth) make the transition to permanent housing and independent living, including shortening the period of time that individuals and families experience homelessness, facilitating access for 106 The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. “2014 Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR) to Congress.” October 2014. https://www.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/AHAR-2014-Part1.pdf Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 164 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) homeless individuals and families to affordable housing units, and preventing individuals and families who were recently homeless from becoming homeless again. The City spends part of its CDBG funds and local funds toward a variety of public services to address the needs of homeless and very low income persons. Services provided include free food, clothing, medical care, legal assistance, and rental assistance. The City allocates funding to the following homeless service providers: CDBG Funded  InnVision Shelter Network - Opportunity Services Center: $35,500 The Opportunity Services Center facility in Palo Alto provides a clean, safe environment and resources for low income or homeless persons including bagged groceries, hot meals, a rotating church shelter program, information and referral, shower and laundry facilities, case management, and money management (payee) programs, clothing and health services. A daily hot meal is provided at a different location each day and bagged groceries are distributed daily at the Downtown Food Closet. The Hotel de Zink rotating church shelter program is housed at a different location each month.  Downtown Streets Team – Workforce Development Program: $276,654 This economic development program helps motivated graduates of the Downtown Streets Team programs move on to stable employment. The program includes mentoring, counseling, job readiness, job training, and assistance. HSRAP Funded  Abilities United – Disability Services: Amount Pending This organization provides services and activities for adults and children with mental and physical disabilities.  Community Technology Alliance – Shared Technical Infrastructure: Amount Pending The Community Technology Alliance provides shelter hotline and voicemail services for homeless individuals and families. The voicemail service helps case-managed clients attain individual goals such as securing health care, housing or employment. A countywide housing information and referral website and tracking system is maintained to assist service providers and those seeking shelter.  Downtown Streets Team – Downtown Streets: Amount Pending Downtown Streets Team identifies motivated homeless individuals and provides them with jobs cleaning and beautifying the downtown area in exchange for housing and food vouchers. The program includes counseling, coaching and training to help program participants build self-esteem, confidence and connections in the community.  Momentum for Mental Health – Homeless Outreach Program: Amount Pending Momentum for Mental Health outreach program provide emergency on-call services to assist local mentally ill homeless persons. The agency provides services to City departments, libraries, community centers and local homeless service providers. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 165 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Helping low income individuals and families avoid becoming homeless, especially extremely low income individuals and families and those who are: being discharged from publicly funded institutions and systems of care (such as health care facilities, mental health facilities, foster care and other youth facilities, and corrections programs and institutions); or, receiving assistance from public or private agencies that address housing, health, social services, employment, education, or youth needs. Palo Alto Housing Corporation – SRO Tenant Counseling: $22,924 Provides counseling and case-management services for the low-income residents and prospective residents of single room occupancy hotels in Palo Alto. Many SRO residents have a history of homelessness and special needs. The program plays a vital role in helping residents maintain their stability and housing. Avenidas – Senior Services: Agency is the main provider of senior services in the Mid-Peninsula area. La Comida de California – Hot Meals for The Elderly: Daily meal program for the elderly. May View Health Center – Health Care for Low Income & Homeless Palo Alto residents: Basic primary health care services and health education and referral services for uninsured low- income and homeless individuals from the Palo Alto area. Peninsula HealthCare Connection – Project Downtown Connect: Provider of health care services at the Opportunity Center of Palo Alto. Project Downtown Connect provides Section 8 vouchers to eligible homeless individuals and families. SALA – Legal Assistance to Elders: Senior Adults Legal Assistance (SALA) provides affordable legal assistance to elders. Discussion Please see discussion above. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 166 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) AP-75 Barriers to Affordable Housing – 91.220(j) Introduction: The incorporated and unincorporated jurisdictions within the County face barriers to affordable housing that are common throughout the Bay Area. High on the list is the lack of developable land, which increases the cost of available lands and increases housing development costs. Local opposition is another common obstacle as many neighbors have strong reactions to infill and affordable housing developments. Their opposition is often based on misconceptions, such as a foreseen increase in crime; erosion of property values; increase in parking and traffic congestion; and overwhelmed schools.107 However, to ensure a healthy economy the region must focus on strategies and investment that provide housing for much of the region’s workforce – for example, sales clerks, secretaries, firefighters, police, teachers, and health service workers – whose incomes significantly limit their housing choices.108 Even when developments produce relatively affordable housing, in a constrained housing supply market, higher income buyers and renters generally outbid lower income households and a home’s final sale or rental price will generally far exceed the projected sales or rental costs. Public subsidies are often needed to guarantee affordable homes for LMI households. The City identified several constraints to the maintenance, development and improvement of housing and affordable housing in its 2015-2023 Housing Element update: 109  Local policies and regulations can impact the price and availability of housing and, in particular, the provision of affordable housing  Land use controls  Site improvement requirements  Fees and exactions  Permit processing procedures Strategy to Remove or Ameliorate the Barriers to Affordable Housing The City is addressing the barriers to affordable housing through the following programs and ordinances: Context-Based Design Codes The City adopted form-based codes in 2006 to ensure and encourage residential development by following context-based design guidelines to meet increased density needs. The code encourages the creation of walkable, pedestrian-oriented neighborhoods, following green building design principles, and increasing density along transit corridors and in mixed-use neighborhoods. The Context-Based Design Code allows for increased density and mixed-use buildings in a way that enhances neighborhood character and walkability. 107 Association of Bay Area Governments. “Affordable Housing in the Bay Area.” 2014. 108 Association of Bay Area Governments. “Jobs-Housing Connection Strategy.” 2012. 109 City of Palo Alto. “2015-2023 Housing Element.” 2014. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/44951 Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 167 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Density Bonus Ordinance Density bonus provisions are a tool for attracting and assisting developers in constructing affordable housing. Density bonuses allow a developer to increase the density of a development above that allowed by standard zoning regulations, as well as provide regulatory relief in the form of concessions. In exchange, a developer provides affordable units in the development. In 2004, the California State Legislature lowered the thresholds required to receive a density bonus and increased the number of concessions a developer can receive. The City adopted a Density Bonus Ordinance in January 2014. The density bonus regulations allow for bonuses of 20 to 35 percent, depending on the amount and type of affordable housing provided. As required by state law, the regulations also allow for exceptions to applicable zoning and other development standards, to further encourage development of affordable housing. Below Market Rate Housing Program Established in 1974, the City’s BMR Housing Program has been instrumental in the production of affordable housing by requiring developers to provide a certain percentage of units as BMR in every approved project of three units or more. The program originally required that for developments on sites of less than five acres, the developer must provide 15 percent of the total housing units as BMR housing units. If the site was larger than five acres, the developer was required to provide 20 percent of the units as BMR housing. However, recent court cases have drastically changed the BMR, or “inclusionary zoning”, environment in California. Two factors have received recent attention by the courts: whether inclusionary housing is considered rent control, and whether inclusionary housing and related housing mitigation fees are considered exactions. As a result of ongoing litigation, many cities have suspended or amended the portions of their inclusionary housing requirements that require affordable units to be included in market‐rate rental developments and many cities have turned, instead, to the use of development impact fees charged on new, market-rate housing and/or commercial development. Known as “Housing Impact Fees” and “Commercial Linkage Fees,” these fees are based on an assessment of the extent to which the development of new market-rate housing or commercial uses, respectively, generates additional demand for affordable housing. 110 Commercial Housing Fund The Commercial Fund is composed solely of housing mitigation fees collected from commercial developers under Chapter 16.47 of the Municipal Code. This ordinance was adopted in 1984. Fee revenue varies greatly from year to year. However, over a ten-year period from 1998 to 2008, over $5.4 million was collected in fees at an average of $542,000 per year. During that period the fee rate ranged from about $3.00 to $4.00 per square foot. In May 2002, the housing impact fee was increased to $15.00 per net new square feet of commercial space and as of May 2008 it had gone up to $17.06 with annual CPI adjustments. The Commercial Fund monies are used only to assist in the development of new housing units. Since initiation of commercial housing impact fees through June 110 California Building Industry Association. “California Supreme Court takes Inclusionary Zoning Case.” http://www.cbia.org/go/government-affairs/cbia-reports1/september-23-2013/california-supreme-court-takes-inclusionary- zoning-case/ Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 168 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) 2008, seven new housing projects have been constructed with City financial assistance from the Commercial Fund producing 377 new affordable rental units. Residential Housing Fund The Residential Fund is primarily composed of fees received from developers of market-rate residential projects in-lieu of the provision of on-site or off-site below market rate units. These fees are collected pursuant to the City's BMR housing program. Over the ten-year period from 1998 to 2008, almost $5.8 million in fees were collected, for an average of about $580,000 per year in revenue. Residential Fund monies may be used to assist new housing development or the acquisition, rehabilitation or the preservation of existing housing for affordable housing. All housing assisted has been rental and most of the units have been affordable to very low and low income households. Through 2008, a total of nine housing projects with 379 units have been acquired, rehabilitated or constructed with City assistance from this Fund. In all cases, the housing projects assisted by the City have been developed, owned and managed by local nonprofit housing organizations. Many housing types have been developed serving different housing needs. Examples include: senior apartments, SRO units, family apartments, units for persons with disabilities, studio units and large family units. Typically, the developer has also used state of federal housing subsidies such as the housing tax credits in addition to the City's financial assistance. The City provides its funds through long-term loans with low interest rates and usually deferred payment. All loans must be approved by the City Council and the City restricts the projects under long-term regulatory agreements. Any cost necessary to develop the housing can be funded by the City. Developers are encouraged to apply through the funding cycle for the CDBG program, but may apply at other times if necessary. Development Impact Fees for Housing Palo Alto’s impact fees are comprised of four categories: housing, traffic, community facilities, and parkland dedication. The housing fee to non-residential development increased from $18.44 to $18.89 per square foot effective May 8, 2013. The fee rate applies to all net new commercial square footage on a site. Full payment is required at building permit issuance with some exemptions including hospitals and convalescent facilities, private education facilities, public facilities and private clubs, lodges and fraternal organizations. Housing Trust Silicon Valley (HTSV) This nonprofit organization combines private and public funds to support affordable housing activities in the County, including assistance to developers and homebuyers. HTSV is among the largest housing trusts in the nation building special needs and affordable housing and assisting first- time homebuyers. Palo Alto was among the contributors during its founding and has continued to allocate funding. A provision was added to ensure the City’s funds be used exclusively for qualifying affordable housing projects within Palo Alto. The most recent contribution included $200,000 from the City’s Residential Housing Fund for Fiscal Year 2012. Participation in the Trust has increased the available housing funding for a number of Palo Alto projects. In addition, HTSCC has invested over $100,000 assisting 16 households to purchase homes in Palo Alto through its first-time homebuyer program. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 169 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) Additionally, the City has recently been approved to join the County's HOME Consortium. HOME funds can be used to fund eligible affordable housing projects for acquisition, construction and rehabilitation. Starting in FY 2015-2016, developers of affordable housing projects will be eligible to competitively apply through an annual RFP process directly to the County for HOME funds to help subsidize affordable housing projects in the City. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 170 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) AP-85 Other Actions – 91.220(k) Introduction: This section discusses the City’s efforts in addressing the underserved needs, expanding and preserving affordable housing, reducing lead-based paint hazards, and developing institutional structure for delivering housing and community development activities. Actions planned to address obstacles to meeting underserved needs The diminishing amount of funds continues to be the most significant obstacle to addressing the needs of underserved populations. To address this, the City supplements its CDBG funding with other resources and funds, such as: • The City’s Human Service Resource Allocation Process (HSRAP) provides $1,099,347 million dollars from the General Fund in support of human services. The HSRAP funds, in conjunction with the CDBG public service funds, are distributed to local non-profit agencies. • The Palo Alto Commercial Housing Fund is used primarily to increase the number of new affordable housing units for Palo Alto’s work force. It is funded with mitigation fees required from developers of commercial and industrial projects. • The Palo Alto Residential Housing Fund is funded with mitigation fees provided under Palo Alto’s BMR housing program from residential developers and money from other miscellaneous sources, such as proceeds from the sale or lease of City property. • The City’s Below Market Rate Emergency Fund was authorized in 2002 to provide funding on an ongoing basis for loans to BMR owners for special assessment loans and for rehabilitation and preservation of the City’s stock of BMR ownership units. • HOME Program funds are available on an annual competitive basis through the State of California HOME program, and the County’s HOME Consortium. • The HACSC administers the federal Section 8 program countywide. The program provides rental subsidies and develops affordable housing for low income households, seniors and persons with disabilities living within the County. • The County distributes federal McKinney Homeless Assistance funds to organizations in the county that provide services to homeless persons and persons at-risk of homelessness. • The State’s Multifamily Housing Program has been a major source of funding for affordable housing since 2002. This program provides low-interest loans to developers of affordable rental housing. • The State’s Local Housing Trust Fund Grant Program is a public/private partnership created to receive on-going revenues for affordable housing production such as Palo Alto’s Commercial and Residential Housing Funds. • The California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (CTCAC) holds two application cycles for Low Income Housing Tax Credits each year. Local non-profits apply directly to the CTCAC for these funds when they have identified a project. • The Housing Trust Silicon Valley is a nonprofit organization that combines private and public funds to support affordable housing activities in the County, including assistance to developers and homebuyers. The Housing Trust is a public/private initiative, dedicated to Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 171 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) creating more affordable housing in the County, using a revolving loan fund and a grant making program to complement and leverage other housing resources. • The Mortgage Credit Certificate (MCC) Program provides assistance to first-time homebuyers by allowing an eligible purchaser to take 20 percent of their annual mortgage interest payment as a tax credit against federal income taxes. The County administers the MCC Program on behalf of the jurisdictions in the County, including the City. • The Santa Clara County Affordable Housing Fund (AHF) was established in 2002. The main purpose of the AHF was to assist in the development of affordable housing, especially for extremely low income and special needs people throughout the County. Actions planned to foster and maintain affordable housing The City will foster and maintain affordable housing by continuing the following programs and ordinances: • The Below Market Rate Emergency Fund which provides funding on an ongoing basis for loans to BMR owners for special assessment loans and for rehabilitation and preservation of the City’s stock of BMR ownership units. • The Commercial Housing Fund is used primarily to increase the number of new affordable housing units for Palo Alto’s work force. • The Residential Housing Fund is used to assist new housing development or the acquisition, rehabilitation or the preservation of existing housing for affordable housing. • The Density Bonus Ordinance, adopted by the City Council in January 2014. The density bonus regulations allow for bonuses of 20 to 35 percent, depending on the amount and type of affordable housing provided • The City’s participation in the County's HOME Consortium will allow developers of affordable housing projects to be eligible to competitively apply through an annual RFP process directly to the County for HOME funds to help subsidize affordable housing projects in Palo Alto, including acquisition, construction and rehabilitation. Actions planned to reduce lead-based paint hazards The City’s housing and CDBG staff provides information and referral to property owners, developers, and non-profit organizations rehabilitating older housing about lead-based paint (LBP) hazards. Any house to be rehabilitated with City financial assistance is required to be inspected for the existence of LBP and LBP hazards. The City will provide financial assistance for the abatement of LBP hazards in units rehabilitated with City funding. The City also requires that contractors are trained and certified in an effort to decrease the risk of potential use of LBP in new units. All development and rehabilitation projects must be evaluated according to HUD’s Lead Safe Housing Rule 24 CFR Part 35.111 111 U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development. “Lead Safe Housing Rule.” http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/healthy_homes/enforcement/lshr Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 172 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Actions planned to reduce the number of poverty-level families The City, in its continuing effort to reduce poverty, will prioritize funding agencies that provide direct assistance to the homeless and those in danger of becoming homeless. In FY 2015-2016, these programs will include the following: • The Microenterprise Assistance Program provides access to new opportunities to improve the economic self-sufficiency of LMI families and individuals. This program builds on the foundation of entrepreneurship and empowers clients by increasing their economic literacy, business skills, self-esteem, and personal behavior appropriate to the workplace.  The Workforce Development Program will provide a transition from unemployment and homelessness to regular employment and housing through case management, job training, mentoring, housing, and transportation assistance.  Downtown Streets Team is a nonprofit in the City that works to reduce homelessness through a “work first” model. Downtown Streets Team uses their community connections to provide training and job opportunities to homeless people, specifically in the downtown area. The Downtown Streets Team has helped 282 people find housing and 291 find jobs since its inception in 2005. The Downtown Streets Team has initiatives in Palo Alto, Sunnyvale, San Jose, and San Rafael. Actions planned to develop institutional structure The City is striving to improve intergovernmental and private sector cooperation to synergize efforts and resources and develop new revenues for community service needs and the production of affordable housing. Collaborative efforts include:  Regular quarterly meetings between entitlement jurisdictions at the CDBG Coordinators Meeting and Regional Housing Working Group  Joint jurisdiction Request for Proposals and project review committees  Coordination on project management for projects funded by multiple jurisdictions  HOME Consortium between member jurisdictions for affordable housing projects Recent examples include the effort by the County to create a regional affordable housing fund, using former redevelopment funds that could be returned to the County to use for affordable housing. Another effort underway involves the possible use of former redevelopment funds to create a countywide pool for homeless shelters and transitional housing. These interactions among agencies generate cohesive discussion and forums for bridging funding and service gaps on a regional scale. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 173 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Actions planned to enhance coordination between public and private housing and social service agencies The City benefits from a strong jurisdiction and region-wide network of housing and community development partners, such as the County and the CoC. To improve intergovernmental and private sector cooperation, the City will continue to participate with other local jurisdictions and developers in sharing information and resources. In addition to the actions listed above, the City will continue to coordinate with the City’s human services funding efforts to comprehensively address community needs. Discussion: Please see discussions above. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 174 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) AP-90 Program Specific Requirements – 91.220(l) (1, 2, 4) Introduction: The following provides additional information about the CDBG program income and program requirements. Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) Reference 24 CFR 91.220(l) (1) 1. The total amount of program income that will have been received before the start of the next program year and that has not yet been reprogrammed $136,049 2. The amount of proceeds from section 108 loan guarantees that will be used during the year to address the priority needs and specific objectives identified in the grantee's strategic plan $0 3. The amount of surplus funds from urban renewal settlements $0 4. The amount of any grant funds returned to the line of credit for which the planned use has not been included in a prior statement or plan $0 5. The amount of income from float-funded activities $0 Total Program Income $136,049 Other CDBG Requirements 1. The amount of urgent need activities $0 2. The estimated percentage of CDBG funds that will be used for activities that benefit persons of low and moderate income 100% 3. Overall Benefit – A consecutive period of one, two, or three years may be used to determine that a minimum overall benefit of 70 percent of CDBG funds is used to benefit persons of low and moderate income. Specify the years that include this Annual Action Plan FY 2015 – 2017 Discussion: Please see discussions above. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 175 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Citizen Participation Plan Introduction The City of Palo Alto (City) is a federal entitlement jurisdiction that receives federal grant funding from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The City receives federal entitlement grant funding for the following program:  Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) As an entitlement jurisdiction, the City is required to prepare a:  Five Year Consolidated Plan (Consolidated Plan)  Annual Action Plan (Action Plan)  Annual Consolidated Annual Performance Evaluation Report (CAPER) Under HUD’s Code of Final Regulations for the Consolidated Plan (24 CFR Part 91 Sec. 91.105), the City must adopt a Citizen Participation Plan (CPP) that sets forth the City’s policies and procedures for citizen participation in the planning, execution, and evaluation of the Consolidated Plan, Action Plans, and CAPER. This CPP provides guidelines for the City to provide and encourage public participation by residents, community stakeholders, and grant beneficiaries in the process of drafting, implementing, and evaluating the Consolidated Plan and related documents. The citizen participation process includes outreach, public hearings, community forums, and opportunities for comment. Definitions  Annual Action Plan: The Action Plan summarizes the activities that will be undertaken in the upcoming Fiscal Year (FY) to meet the goals outlined in the Consolidated Plan. The Action Plan also identifies the federal and non-federal resources that will be used meet the goals of the approved Consolidated Plan.  Amendment, Minor: A change to a previously adopted Consolidated Plan or Action Plan that does not meet the threshold to qualify as a Substantial Amendment. A minor amendment may include monetary changes or shifts, regardless of size that are both: 1. Necessary for substantially preserving all the programs and activities identified in a Plan 2. Necessitated by significant changes in the funding levels between HUD’s initial estimates of funding amounts and HUD’s final allocation notification to the City  Amendment, Substantial: A change to a previously adopted Consolidated Plan or Action Plan that: o Increases or decreases the amount allocated to a category of funding within the City’s entitlement grant program by 25 percent o Significantly changes an activity’s proposed beneficiaries or persons served o Allocates funding for a new activity not previously described in the Consolidated Plan Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 176 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)  Citizen Participation Plan: The CPP provides guidelines by which the City will promote engagement in the planning, implementation, and evaluation of the distribution of federal funds, as outlined in the Consolidated Plan, Action Plan, and CAPERs.  Community Development Block Grant: HUD’s CDBG program provides communities with resources to address a wide range of housing and community development needs that benefit very low and low income persons and areas.  Consolidated Annual Performance Evaluation Report: The CAPER assesses the City’s annual achievements relative to the goals in the Consolidated Plan and proposed activities in the Action Plan. HUD requires the City to prepare a CAPER at the end of each fiscal year.  Department Of Housing And Urban Development: HUD is the federal government agency that creates and manages programs pertaining to federal home ownership, affordable housing, fair housing, homelessness, and community and housing development.  Displacement: Displacement refers to the involuntary relocation of individuals from their residences due to housing development and rehabilitation activities paid for by federal funds.  Eligible Activity: Activities that are allowable uses of the CDBG funds covered by the CPP as defined in the Code of Federal Regulations Title 24 for HUD.  Entitlement Jurisdiction: A city with a population of at least 50,000, a central city of a metropolitan area, or a qualified urban county with a population of at least 200,000 that receives grant funding from HUD.  Five Year Consolidated Plan: HUD requires entitlement jurisdictions to prepare a Consolidated Plan every five years. The Consolidated Plan is a strategic plan that identifies housing, economic, and community development needs and prioritizes funding to address those needs over a five-year period.  Low- and Moderate-Income: As defined annually by HUD, low-and moderate-income (LMI) is 0-80 percent of area median family income (AMI) for a jurisdiction, with adjustments for smaller or larger families. This includes those individuals presumed by HUD to be principally LMI (abused children, battered spouses, elderly persons, severely disabled adults, homeless persons, illiterate adults, persons living with AIDS and migrant farm workers). HUD utilizes three income levels to define LMI households: o Extremely low income: Households earning 30 percent or less than the AMI (subject to specified adjustments for areas with unusually high or low incomes) o Very low income: Households earning 50 percent or less than the AMI (subject to specified adjustments for areas with unusually high or low incomes) o Low and moderate income: Households earning 80 percent or less than the AMI (subject to adjustments for areas with unusually high or low incomes or housing costs)  Public Hearing: Public hearings are designed to provide the public the opportunity to make public testimony and comment. Public hearings related to the Consolidated Plan are to be advertised in local newspapers and made accessible to non-English speakers and individuals with disabilities. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 177 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Roles, Responsibilities, and Contact Information The City is a federal entitlement jurisdiction and is a recipient of CDBG funding from the federal government. The City’s Charter established a council and manager form of government. Palo Alto’s City Council is the elected legislative body of the City and is responsible for approving its Consolidated Plan, Action Plans, amendments to the Plans, and CAPERs prior to their submission to HUD. It is the intent of the City to provide for and encourage citizen participation with particular emphasis on participation by lower income persons who are beneficiaries or impacted by CDBG funded activities. The City encourages the participation in all stages of the Consolidated Planning process of all its residents, including minorities and non-English speaking persons, as well as persons with mobility, visual or hearing impairments, and residents of assisted housing developments and recipients of tenant-based assistance. All public hearings will be held at times and locations convenient to potential and actual beneficiaries and with reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities. In general, hearings will be held in the evening at City Hall due to its central location, convenient access and disability accessibility. Translation services will be provided when there is an indication that non-English speaking persons will be attending. Other reasonable accommodations will be provided on a case-by-case basis. The General Contact Information for the City’s HUD Entitlement Programs is: City of Palo Alto Planning and Community Environment Department Consuelo Hernandez, Senior Planner 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2428 Consuelo.Hernandez@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org Citizen Participation Policies Availability of Draft and Approved Documents The draft CPP, Consolidated Plan, Action Plan, and any draft Substantial Amendments will be available for public review and comment for a minimum of 30 days prior to their submission to HUD. The draft CAPER will be available for public review and comment for a minimum of 15 days prior to its final submission to HUD. Previously approved plans and amendments will be available to residents, public agencies, and other interested stakeholders. The draft and final versions of the CPP, Consolidated Plan, Action Plan, CAPER, and all related amendments will be available online at the City’s website: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pln/cdbg.asp . Hard copies of all documents will be available at the City’s Planning and Community Environment Department at 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 178 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Information on the City’s Consolidated Plans, including records or documents concerning the previous Consolidated Plans, CPPs, the current Consolidated Plan, Action Plans, CAPERs, and program regulations, will be posted on the City’s website at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pln/cdbg.asp , and will be available for public review during normal working hours at the City’s Planning and Community Environment Department located at 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301, and upon written request addressed to the City’s General Contact via the Planning and Community Environment Department. If the City is unable to provide immediate access to the documents requested, the City will make every effort to provide the documents and reports within 15 business days from the receipt of the request. The City will use the following processes to adopt and make any subsequent changes to the documents listed below:  Citizen Participation Plan: The CPP is designed to facilitate and encourage the public to participate in the Consolidated Plan process. In particular, the CPP seeks to encourage the involvement of LMI persons. o The City will notify the public of any subsequent changes it will make to its CPP through public notices at libraries, recreation centers, community centers, online through the City’s website, and advertisement in a local newspaper of general circulation — in advance of a 30-day public review and comment period. o During the 30-day public review and comment period, copies of the document will be available to the public for review at libraries, recreation centers, community centers, and through the City’s website at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pln/cdbg.asp. o During the 30-day public review and comment period, the public may file comments in writing to the City of Palo Alto Planning and Community Environment Department, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301; via email to consuelo.hernandez@cityofpaloalto.org; by phone at 650-329-2428 or in person at Palo Alto City Hall, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301, Monday through Friday during normal working hours and during the Council adoption hearing. Any change in the public participation process as outlined in this document will require an amendment to the CPP. o Anti-Displacement Policy: It is the policy of the City to avoid, to the greatest extent feasible, the involuntary displacement of any persons, property or businesses as a result of CDBG activities. Displacement occurs when a “person” or their property is displaced as a direct result of a federally assisted acquisition, demolition or rehabilitation project. All efforts to minimize involuntary displacement will be carried out by designing activities in such a way that displacement is avoided, except in extraordinary circumstances where no feasible alternatives to displacement are available if the City’s community development objectives are to be met. The City will take all reasonable steps to avoid displacement, such as: assuring whenever possible that residential occupants of buildings be rehabilitated are offered an opportunity to return; planning rehabilitation projects to include “staging” where this would minimize displacement; and following federal Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 179 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) notification requirements carefully to assure that households do not leave because they are not informed about the plans for the project or their rights for relocation benefits. Should involuntary displacement become necessary under such circumstances, relocation benefits will be provided in accordance with: (a) the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended (URA) and 24 CFR 570.606(b); and (b) the requirements of 24 CFR 570.606(c) governing the Residential Anti-displacement and Relocation Assistance Plan (Plan) under Section 104(d) of the HUD Act. The policies and requirements of these laws are described in HUD Handbook 1378 and the City shall strictly abide by these policies and laws. • Consolidated Plan and Action Plans: The steps outlined below provide opportunities for public involvement in the preparation of the Consolidated Plan and the Action Plan. To solicit community input, which is essential to determining these needs and priorities, the City will perform the following: o Consult with local, state, regional and applicable federal public agencies that assist LMI persons and areas, in addition to neighboring jurisdictions. o Consult with private agencies, including local nonprofit service providers and advocates such as the local public housing agency, health agencies, homeless service providers, nonprofit housing developers and social service agencies (including those focusing on services to children, the elderly, persons with disabilities, persons with HIV/AIDS, persons with substance abuse problems, etc.). o Place public notices at libraries, recreation centers, community centers and online through the City’s website and through advertisement in a local newspaper of general circulation at least 15 days in advance of a meeting. The notice will include an estimate of the amount of funds available, the range of activities that could be undertaken and the amount that would benefit LMI persons. o Provide the public with 30 days to review and comment on the draft Consolidated Plan and/or the draft Action Plan from the date of the notice. Comments may be filed in person at the City’s Planning and Community Environment Department located at 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301; via mail to City of Palo Alto Planning and Community Environment Department, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301; by phone at 650-329-2428; or by email to consuelo.hernandez@cityofpaloalto.org. o The City will hold a minimum of one public hearing before the City Council to provide the opportunity to make public testimony and comment on needs and priorities. o All comments and views expressed by the public, whether given as verbal testimony at the public hearing or submitted in writing during the review and comment period, will be documented. The final documents will have a section noting comments received during the public review period, along with explanations for comments that were not accepted.  Substantial Amendments to the Consolidated Plan and the Action Plan: Amendments are considered “Substantial” whenever one of the following is proposed: o A change in the allocation priorities or a change in the method of fund distribution. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 180 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) o A substantial change which increases or decreases the amount allocated to a category of funding within the City’s entitlement grant programs by 25 percent. o To implement an activity using CDBG funds for new programs that were not described in the Consolidated Plan. o To substantially change the purpose or intended beneficiaries of an activity approved for CDBG funding, e.g., instead of primarily benefitting lower income households the activity instead proposes to benefit mostly moderate income households. The following procedures apply to Substantial Amendments: o The City will place public notices at libraries, recreation centers, community centers and online through the City’s website and through advertisement in a local newspaper of general circulation in advance of a 30-day public review and comment period. o During the 30-day public review and comment period, copies of the document will be available for review at the City’s Planning and Community Environment Department office during normal working hours located at 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301, on the City’s and website at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pln/cdbg.asp and upon written request addressed to the City’s General Contact via the Planning and Community Environment Department. o The public may file comments in person at the City’s Planning and Community Environment Department located at 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301; via mail to City of Palo Alto Planning and Community Environment Department, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301; by phone at 650-329-2428; or by email to consuelo.hernandez@cityofpaloalto.org during the 30-day period from the date of the notice. o The City will hold a minimum of one public hearing within the community to solicit input on the Substantial Amendment. o Hold a minimum of one public hearing before the City Council to solicit additional input and for adoption consideration. o In preparing a final Substantial Amendment, all comments and views expressed by the public, whether given as verbal testimony at the public hearing or submitted in writing during the review and comment period, will be documented. The final documents will have a section noting comments received during the public review period, along with explanations for comments that were not accepted.  CAPER: The CAPER must describe how funds were actually used and the extent to which these funds were used for activities that benefited LMI persons. The following steps outline the opportunities for public involvement in the CAPER: o The City will place public notices at libraries, recreation centers, community centers and online through the City’s website and through advertisement in a local newspaper of general circulation in advance of a 15-day public review and comment period. o The public has 15 days to review the CAPER from the date of the notice. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 181 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) o During the 15-day public review and comment period, the document will be available for public review and comment at the City’s Community Development Department office. o The City will hold a minimum of one public hearing within the community to solicit input on the CAPER. o The public may file comments in person at the City’s Planning and Community Environment Department located at 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301; via mail to City of Palo Alto Planning and Community Environment Department, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301; by phone at 650-329-2428; or by email to consuelo.hernandez@cityofpaloalto.org during the 15-day period from the date of the notice. o In preparing the CAPER, all comments and views expressed by the public, whether given as verbal testimony at the public hearing or submitted in writing during the public review and comment period, will be documented. The final documents will have a section noting comments received during the public review period, along with explanations for comments that were not accepted. Public Hearings and Public Comment Period  Public Hearings: The City will hold public hearings for the Consolidated Plan and Action Plan, amendments made to the CPP, and Substantial Amendments. o The City Council Public Hearings will typically be held at City Hall Council Chambers, located at 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301. Listening devices, interpretation services, and other assistance to disabled persons or those with limited English proficiency will be provided upon request, ranging up to five business days prior notification to the City Clerk. Requests for disability-related modifications or accommodations required to facilitate meeting participation, including requests for auxiliary aids, services or interpreters, require different lead times, ranging up to five business days. For this reason, it is important to provide as much advance notice as possible to ensure availability. Assistive Listening Devices (ALDs) are available upon request.  Notice of Hearings and Review Periods: To allow the public time to provide comments prior to the submission of approved documents to HUD, the City will hold a minimum 30-day public review and comment period for adoption consideration of the Consolidated Plan, Action Plan, and Substantial Amendment. The City will establish a public review period of at least 15 days for each CAPER and CPP to allow for public comments prior to the submission of approved documents to HUD. Copies of the draft plans will be available to the public at the City’s Planning and Community Environment Department at 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301. To ensure that the public, including minorities, persons with limited English proficiency, persons with disabilities, residents of public housing, and LMI residents are able to participate in the public review process, the City will provide residents, public agencies and other stakeholder notices on applicable public review periods and public hearings that adhere to the following: Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 182 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) o The notices will be published prior to the start of the public comment period and at least 15 days before the final public hearing and will include information regarding how to request accommodation and services available for persons with disabilities who wish to attend the public hearings. o The notices will be distributed to persons on the CDBG contact list maintained by the City for those parties expressing interest in receiving information and updates related to the City’s Consolidated Plan, Action Plan, CAPER, Substantial Amendments and CPP. Interested parties may request to be added to this contact list by sending an email to consuelo.hernandez@cityofpaloalto.org, by calling 650-329-2428 or by writing to the Planning and Community Environment Department at 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301. o The notices will be distributed through a variety of methods, including e-mail, newspaper publications and the City’s website at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pln/cdbg.asp . The notices will include information on how to obtain a copy of the draft documents and scheduled hearing dates, times, and locations. When necessary or applicable, the City may combine notices complying with several individual requirements into one comprehensive notice for dissemination and publication.  Comments/Complaints on Adopted Plans: Comments or complaints from residents, public agencies, and other stakeholders regarding the adopted Consolidated Plan or related amendments and performance reports may be submitted in writing or verbally to the General Contact at the City’s Planning and Community Environment Department at 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301. Written comments or complaints will be referred to appropriate City staff for consideration and response. The City will attempt to respond to all comments or complaints within 15 business days and maintain a correspondence file for this purpose. Technical Assistance The City will, to the extent feasible, respond to requests for technical assistance from entities representing LMI groups who are seeking CDBG and HOME funding in accordance with grant procedures. This may include, but is not limited to, providing information regarding how to fill out applications, other potential funding sources, and referrals to appropriate agencies within and outside the City. "Technical assistance," as used here, does not include the provision of funds to the entities requesting such assistance. Assistance will also be provided by the City’s Planning and Community Environment Department’s staff to interested individuals and resident groups who need further explanation on the background and intent of the Housing and Community Development Act, interpretation of specific HUD regulations, and project eligibility criteria for federal grants. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 183 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Table of Acronyms AHP Affordable Housing Program BEGIN Building Equity and Growth in Neighborhoods CAPER Consolidated Annual Performance Evaluation Report CBO Community-Based Organization CDBG Community Development Block Grant Program CDI Community Development Initiative CIP Capital Improvement Projects CoC Continuum of Care ESG Emergency Services Grant FSS Family Self Sufficiency FY Fiscal Year HACSC Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara HAP Housing assistance payments HEARTH Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing Act of 2009 HIF Housing Impact Fee HMIS Homeless Management Information System HOME HOME Investment Partnerships Program HOPWA Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS HTF Housing Trust Fund HTSV Housing Trust Silicon Valley IIG Infill Infrastructure Grant LBP Lead-Based Paint LMI Low and moderate income MCC Mortgage Credit Certificates MHSA Mental Health Services Act MTW Moving to Work NED Non-Elderly Disabled NHSSV Neighborhood Housing Services Silicon Valley NOFA Notice of Funding Availability NSP Neighborhood Stabilization Program RDA Redevelopment Agency RFP Request for Proposal RHNA Regional Housing Needs Allocation RTP Regional Transportation Plan Section 8 Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program SCS Sustainable Communities Strategy TBRA Tenant-Based Rental Assistance TOD Transit-Oriented Development VASH Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing WIOA Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 184 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Appendix A: Citizen Participation Summary Regional Forums The participating Entitlement Jurisdictions of Santa Clara County held three regional public forums to identify housing and community development needs and priorities for the next five years. Seventy- six people in total attended the regional forums, including community members, service providers, fair housing advocates, school district board members, housing and human services commission members, non-profit representatives, and interested stakeholders. The regional forums were held in Mountain View, San Jose, and Gilroy to engage the northern, central, and southern parts of the County. Forums were scheduled on different days of the week and at various times of day to allow maximum flexibility for participants to attend. Table 1 – Regional Forums Community Forums Local public participation plays an important role in the development of the plans. The community forums were conducted as part of a broad approach to help local jurisdictions make data-driven, place-based investment decisions for federal funds. Each of the community forums provided additional public input and a deeper understanding of housing issues at the local level. The community forums were held in the cities of Los Gatos, Morgan Hill, Saratoga, San Jose and Mountain View. The workshops held in San Jose were located in Districts 3, 4 and 5, which are LMI census tracts. The majority of the community forums were held at neighborhood community centers or libraries at various times of day to provide convenient access for participants. Regional Forum Date Time Number of Attendees Forum Address 1 Thursday, September 25, 2014 2:00pm - 4:00pm 43 Mountain View City Hall, 500 Castro Street, 2nd Floor Plaza Conference Room Mountain View, CA 94041 2 Saturday, September 27, 2014 10:00am - 12:00pm 17 San Jose City Hall, Room 118-120 200 E. Santa Clara St. San Jose, CA 95113 3 Wednesday, October 22, 2014 6:30pm - 8:30pm 16 Gilroy Library 350 W. Sixth Street Gilroy, CA 95020 Total Attendees 76 Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 185 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Table 2 – Community Forums Community Forum Date Time Number of Attendees Forum Address 1 Tuesday, September 30, 2014 6:00pm- 8:00pm 14 Roosevelt Community Center, Room 1 and 2 901 E. Santa Clara St. San Jose, CA 95116 2 Wednesday, October 1, 2014 10:00am- 12:00pm 29 Seven Trees Community Center, Room 3 3590 Cas Drive San Jose, CA 95111 3 Tuesday, October 2, 2014 6:00pm- 8:00pm 23 Mayfair Community Center, Chavez Hall 2039 Kammerer Ave. San Jose, CA 95116 4 Tuesday, October 7. 2014 6:00pm- 8:00pm 26 Tully Community Brach Library, Community Room 880 Tully Rd. San Jose, CA 95111 5 Thursday, October 23, 2014 6:30pm- 8:30pm 14 Mountain View City Hall, 500 Castro Street, 2nd Floor Plaza Conference Room Mountain View, CA 94041 6 Saturday, November 1, 2014 11:00am- 1:00pm 7 Centennial Recreation Center North Room 171 W. Edmundson Avenue Morgan Hill, CA 95037 7 Wednesday, November 5, 2014 2:00pm- 4:00pm 11 Prospect Center Grace Room 19848 Prospect Road Saratoga, CA 95070 8 Thursday, November 20, 2014 6:00pm- 8:00pm 9 Neighborhood Center 208 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 Total Attendees 133 A combined total of 209 individuals attended both the community and regional forums. Outreach Approximately 4,847 entities, organizations, agencies, and persons were directly engaged via outreach efforts and asked to share materials with their beneficiaries, partners, and contacts. These stakeholders were also encouraged to promote attendance at the public forums and to solicit responses to the Regional Needs Survey. Stakeholder engagement included phone calls, targeted emails, newsletter announcements, social media posts, and personalized requests from jurisdiction staff. Through these communications, stakeholders were invited to participate in one of the forums planned throughout the County and to submit survey responses. Each participating jurisdiction also Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 186 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) promoted the regional forums and regional survey links on their respective websites and announced the Consolidated Plan process through their electronic mailing lists. Approximately 1,225 printed flyers noticing the regional forums were distributed throughout the County, including at libraries, recreation centers, community meetings, and organizations benefiting LMI residents and areas. These flyers were available online and in print in English and Spanish. Multi-lingual, print advertisements in local newspapers were posted in the Gilroy Dispatch (English), Mountain View Voice (English), El Observador (Spanish), La Oferta (Spanish), Thoi Bao (Vietnamese), Philippine News (Tagalog), World Journal (Chinese) and San Jose Mercury News (English). In addition, an online display ad was placed in the San Jose Mercury News to reach readers electronically. Each segment of the community outreach and planning process was transparent to ensure the public was aware its input was being collected, reviewed, and considered. Forum Structure The regional forums began with a welcome and introduction of the jurisdictional staff and consultant team, followed by a review of the forum’s agenda, the purpose of the Consolidated Plan, and the goals of the regional forums. Next, the facilitator delivered an introductory presentation covering the Plan process, programs funded through HUD grants, what types of programs and projects can be funded, historical allocations, and recent projects. After the presentation, participants were invited to engage in a gallery walk activity. Participants interacted with large “HUD Bucks” display boards, which encouraged them to think critically about community spending priorities in the County. Each display board presented a separate issue area: 1) Community Facilities, 2) Community Services, 3) Economic Development, 4) Housing, and 5) Infrastructure and Neighborhood Improvements. Participants were given $200 “HUD Bucks” to spend on over 50 program choices they support within each issue area. This process encouraged participants to prioritize facilities, services, programs, and improvements within each respective category. Thus, the activity functioned as a budgeting exercise for participants to experience how federal funds are distributed among various programs, projects and services. Directions to participants were to spend their $200 HUD Bucks up to a limit indicated on each board. For example, because HUD enforces a 15 percent cap on public service dollars, the community services board included a limit of $30 HUD Bucks to reflect this cap. (It should be noted that the infrastructure and housing boards both had a Fair Housing category, which may account for higher HUD Bucks allocations for fair housing.) Following the HUD Bucks activity, the group was divided into small group breakout sessions to discuss community needs and fair housing. Participants dispersed into smaller break-out groups to gather public input on the needs and barriers with respect to the following categories, which mirrored the HUD Bucks categories: 1) Community Facilities, 2) Community Services, 3) Economic Development, 4) Housing, and 5) Infrastructure and Neighborhood Improvements. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 187 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Group facilitators encouraged participants to think critically about housing issues and community improvement needs within the County. The participants discussed and identified issues and concerns within their local communities and across the County. During these small group discussions, participants contributed creative and thoughtful responses to the following questions: Community Needs:  What are the primary needs associated with: o Community Facilities o Community Services o Economic Development o Housing o Infrastructure and Neighborhood Improvements  What services and facilities are currently in place to effectively address these needs?  What gaps in services and facilities remain? Fair Housing:  Have you (or someone you know) experienced discrimination in housing choice, whether accessing rental housing or in purchasing a residence?  What did you do, or would you do, if you were discriminated against in housing choice? While responses generally centered on the specific sub-area of the County where the meeting was held (i.e., North, Central, South, and San Jose), countywide issues also arose during the discussion. After the break-out session, participants reconvened to discuss these issues as a single group. The final part of the meeting included a report back, in which facilitators summarized the small group discussions. The facilitator then closed the meeting with final comments, next steps and a review of additional opportunities to provide public input. The interactive format of the forums solicited strong participation, wherein all attendees were provided the opportunity to participate in the conversation. Translation services were provided at each forum. Key Findings from Regional and Community Forums The diversity of participants and organizations attending the regional and community forums led to a nuanced awareness of the housing and community improvement needs across the County. This section highlights key findings and ideas raised during the small group discussions organized by issue area. The key findings are based on the most frequently discussed needs, issues and priorities that were shared by forum participants. Primary Needs Associated with Each Issue Area Community Services  Address the needs for accessible and affordable transportation services throughout Santa Clara County Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 188 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)  Support food assistance and nutrition programs for low income families, seniors and disabled individuals  Provide health care services to seniors and low income families  Develop free, year-round programs and activities for youth (e.g., recreation programming, sports)  Offer comprehensive services at homeless encampments (e.g., outreach, health, referrals)  Provide mental health care services for homeless and veterans  Support services to reduce senior isolation  Assist service providers in meeting the needs of vulnerable populations through increased funding and information sharing Housing  Ensure availability of affordable housing, including transitional housing  Provide legal services to protect fair housing rights and to mediate tenant/landlord legal issues  Address affordable housing eligibility restrictions to expand the number of residents who can qualify  Provide affordable rental housing for low income families, at-risk families and individuals with disabilities  Fund additional homeless prevention programs  Provide rental subsidies and assistance for low income families to support rapid re-housing Community Facilities  Increase the number of homeless facilities across the County  Build youth centers and recreational facilities in different locations throughout the County  Support modernization and rehabilitation of senior centers  Coordinate information services to promote and leverage access to community facilities Economic Development  Increase employment services targeted towards homeless individuals, veterans, and parolees  Provide access to apprenticeships and mentoring programs for at-risk youth  Offer employment services such as job training, English language and capacity-building classes Infrastructure and Neighborhood Improvements  Promote complete streets to accommodate multiple transportation modes  Focus on pedestrian safety by improving crosswalk visibility and enhancing sidewalks  Expand ADA curb improvements  Increase access to parks and open space amenities in low income neighborhoods Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 189 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Key Findings from HUD Bucks Activity Table 3: Top Three Overall Spending Priorities by Issue Area of Regional and Community Forums Priority Housing Priority Public Facilities 1 Affordable Rental Housing 1 Homeless Facilities 2 Senior Housing 2 Senior Centers 3 Permanent Supportive Housing 3 Youth Centers Priority Public Services Priority Economic Development 1 Homeless Services 1 Employment Training 2 Senior Activities 2 Job Creation/Retention 3 Transportation 3 Small Business Loans Priority Infrastructure/Neighborhood Improvements 1 Fair Housing 2 Streets/Sidewalks 3 ADA Improvements Regional Needs Survey A Regional Needs Survey was conducted to solicit input from residents and workers in the County of Santa Clara. Respondents were informed that the Santa County Entitlement Jurisdictions were updating their Consolidated Plans for federal funds that primarily serve low- to moderate income residents and areas. The survey polled respondents about the level of need in their neighborhoods for various types of improvements that can potentially be addressed by entitlement funds. To give as many people as possible the chance to voice their opinion, emphasis was placed on making the survey widely available and gathering a large number of responses rather than administering the survey to a controlled, statistically representative pool. Therefore, the survey results should be views as an indicator of the opinions of the respondents, but not as representing the opinions of the County population as a group. The survey was distributed through a number of channels to gather responses from a broad sample. It was made available in printed format, as well as electronic format via Survey Monkey. Electronic Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 190 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) responses could be submitted via smartphone, tablet, and web browsers. The survey was available online and in print in English and Spanish, and in print in simplified Chinese, Tagalog, and Vietnamese. Responses were solicited in the following ways:  Links to the online survey in both English and Spanish were placed on the websites of each Entitlement Jurisdiction. English: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/SCC_Regional_Survey Spanish: https://es.surveymonkey.com/s/SCC_Regional_Survey_Spanish  Approximately, 4,847 entities, organization, agencies, and persons were directly targeted in the outreach efforts and requested to share project materials with their beneficiaries, partners, and contacts. Engagement included direct phone calls and targeted emails with outreach flyers as attachments.  Approximately 1,225 printed flyers noticing the regional survey were printed and distributed throughout the County, including at libraries, recreation centers, community meetings, and organizations benefiting LMI residents and areas. These flyers were available online and in print in English and Spanish.  Multi-lingual, print advertisements in local newspapers were posted in the Gilroy Dispatch (English), Mountain View Voice (English), El Observador (Spanish), La Oferta (Spanish), Thoi Bao (Vietnamese), Philippine News (Tagalog), World Journal (Chinese) and San Jose Mercury News (English). In addition, an online display ad was placed in the San Jose Mercury News to reach readers electronically.  The survey was widely shared on social media by elected officials, organizations, entities, and other individuals. An estimated 25,000 persons on Facebook and 11,000 persons on Twitter were engaged. (This represents the number of “Likes” or “Followers” of each person/entity that posted a message about the survey or forum.)  At least 3,160 printed surveys were printed and distributed throughout the County at libraries, community meetings, and organizations benefiting LMI residents and areas. Survey Results A total of 1,472 survey responses were collected from September 19, 2014 to November 15, 2014, including 1,078 surveys collected electronically and 394 collected on paper. The surveys were available in five languages. Of these surveys, 1,271 individuals responded in English, 124 individuals responded in Spanish, 25 individuals responded in simplified Chinese, 49 individuals responded in Vietnamese, and three individuals responded in Tagalog. Figure 1 shows the percentage of individuals who responded to the survey organized by language. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 191 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Of the individuals who responded to the survey, 1,401 indicated they live in the County of Santa Clara and 62 indicated they do not live in the County. Respondents who live within the County jurisdictions mainly reside in San Jose (36%), followed by the city of Santa Clara (17%), Sunnyvale (16%), Gilroy (12%), and Mountain View (6%). The remaining individuals live within the jurisdictions of Morgan Hill, Palo Alto, Campbell, Unincorporated Santa Clara County, Los Altos, Saratoga, Milpitas, Los Gatos, Cupertino, Los Altos Hills, and Monte Sereno. Figure 2 shows a city-by-city analysis of where respondents live. 86% 8% 2% 0.2% 3% Figure 1 – Percent of Surveys Taken by Language English Spanish Chinese Tagalog Vietnamese Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 192 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) In addition, the survey polled respondents on whether they worked within any of the County jurisdictions. The percentage of individuals working in the County of Santa Clara (74%) indicated they worked primarily in these jurisdictions: San Jose (40%), the city of Santa Clara (13%), Gilroy (8%), and Mountain View (8%), with the remainder in other jurisdictions. On the following page, Figure 3 presents a GIS map that illustrates the number of survey respondents by jurisdiction. 0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%40% Monte Sereno Los Altos Hills Don’t Know Cupertino Los Gatos Milpitas Saratoga Los Altos Unincorporated Santa Clara County Campbell Palo Alto Morgan Hill Mountain View Gilroy Sunnyvale City of Santa Clara San Jose Percent of Respondents Figure 2 – Percent of Where Respondents Live by Jurisdiction Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 193 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Figure 3 – Number of Survey Respondents by City Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 194 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Respondents were primarily residents (70%), but also Community-Based Organizations (14%), Service Providers (5%), Business Owners (3%), and Public Agencies (2%). The remaining 6% of respondents indicated “Other” for their response. Many of the “Other” respondents specified themselves as homeless, educators, developers, retired, landlords, or property managers. More detailed information about respondents can be seen in Figure 5. 0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45% Los Altos Hills Unincorporated Santa Clara County Los Altos Campbell Don’t Know Cupertino Mountain View Sunnyvale San Jose Percent of Respondents Figure 4 – Percent of Where Respondents Work by Jurisdiction Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 195 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Survey Ranking Methodology Respondents designated their level of need as low, medium, high, or “don’t know.” This rating system was chosen to simplify responses and better gauge the level of need. To maintain consistency, the low, medium, high, and “don’t know” rating system was used throughout the survey. Need Ratings in Overall Areas The survey asked respondents to rate the level of need for 63 specific improvement types that fall into five distinct categories. These five categories were: Housing, Public Facilities, Infrastructure and Neighborhood Improvements, Public Services, and Economic Development. The level of need indicated within these categories provides additional insight into broad priorities. Respondents rated the level of need in their neighborhood in five overall areas: 1. Create additional affordable housing available to low income residents 2. Improve non-profit community services (such as senior, youth, health, homeless, and fair housing services) 3. Create more jobs available to low income residents 4. Improve city facilities that provide public services (such as parks, recreation or senior centers, parking facilities, and street improvements) 5. Other Table 7 below shows the percentage of respondents who rated each overall need as high. 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80% Public agency Business owner Service provider Other (please specify) Community‐based organization/ non‐profit Resident Percent of Respondents Figure 5 –Percent of Respondents by Category Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 196 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Table 7 – Overall Areas: High Level of Need Overall Need Area High Level of Need Create additional affordable housing available to low-income residents 62.1% Improve non-profit community services (such as senior, youth, health, homeless, and fair housing services) 54.7% Create more jobs available to low-income residents 52.5% Other 46.3% Improve city facilities that provide public services (such as parks, recreation or senior centers, parking facilities, and street improvements) 37.1% In addition to the four overall need areas, 373 respondents provided open-ended feedback through the “Other” survey response option. Below are the key themes and needs identified by survey respondents, organized by categories of need. Economic Development  Increase funding for senior services  Provide financial assistance for small business expansion  Develop jobs for working class  Ensure workers are given a living wage Public Facilities  Provide more public facilities for homeless  Expand library operation hours  Build more parks to encompass people of all ages  Develop cultural and arts community center  Improve school infrastructure through extensive remodeling  Build higher quality schools Housing  Increase availability of senior housing  Provide housing for LGBT/HIV population  Create housing for median income population  Provide more subsidized housing for disabled population Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 197 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Public Services  Expand supportive services for the homeless population  Provide affordable daycare options  Increase availability of healthcare services  Expand youth engagement activities  Ensure transportation for seniors is accessible and affordable  Expand transportation services to unincorporated areas of the County  Address the middle class’ inability to access services due to the inability to qualify for low income services  Increase availability of senior services  Expand crime prevention and enhance gang reduction programs  Address resident fears of making too much money to qualify for low-income services Infrastructure  Address climate change through infrastructure improvements  Address flooding through street improvements  Improve and expand bike infrastructure  Improve and expand pedestrian infrastructure including sidewalks and crosswalks Highest Priority Needs Top priority needs within all categories are described below based on the highest percentage of respondents for each improvement item. Table 8 summarizes the ten highest priority needs and the percentage of respondents that selected the particular need.  Among the five need categories, “increase affordable rental housing inventory” was rated as the highest need. More than 63% of individuals indicated this category as “high level of need.”  Four housing needs appear among the top ten priorities on this list: 1) increase affordable rental housing inventory, 2) rental assistance for homeless, 3) affordable housing located near transit, and 4) housing for other special needs.  Homeless facilities and facilities for abused, abandoned and/or neglected children both appear among the ten highest level of needs, ranked third and seventh, respectively.  Job training for the homeless received the eighth highest level of need, which is the only economic development priority to make the top ten priorities.  Three public service improvements appear among the top ten priorities, including emergency housing assistance, access to fresh and nutritious foods, and homeless services. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 198 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Table 8 – Ten Highest Priority Needs in All Categories Priority Rank Category Specific Need Percentage of Respondents 1 Housing Increase affordable rental housing inventory 63.1% 2 Public Service Emergency housing assistance to prevent homelessness, such as utility and rental assistance 52.3% 3 Public Facilities Homeless facilities (temporary housing and emergency shelters) 51.3% 4 Housing Rental assistance for the homeless 51.0% 5 Public Services Access to fresh and nutritious foods 49.8% 6 Public Services Homeless services 49.6% 7 Public Facilities Facilities for abused, abandoned and/or neglected children 49.5% 8 Economic Development Job training for the homeless 48.8% 9 Housing Affordable housing located near transit 48.6% 10 Housing Housing for other special needs (such as seniors and persons with disabilities) 48.0% Housing Needs Respondents rated the need for 13 different housing-related improvements in their neighborhoods. The five highest priorities in this area were: 1. Increase of affordable rental housing inventory 2. Rental assistance for the homeless 3. Affordable housing located near transit 4. Housing for other special needs 5. Permanent supportive rental housing for the homeless The table below shows the highest level of need for each of the housing-related improvements and the share of respondents who rated each category as “high level” of need. Table 9 – High Level of Need for Specific Housing Improvements Priority Rank Housing: High Level of Need Share of Respondents 1 Increase affordable rental housing inventory 63.1% 2 Rental assistance for the homeless 51.0% 3 Affordable housing located near transit 48.6% 4 Housing for other special needs (such as seniors and persons with disabilities) 48.0% 5 Permanent supportive rental housing for the homeless 46.8% Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 199 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Priority Rank Housing: High Level of Need Share of Respondents 6 Energy efficiency and sustainability improvements 41.6% 7 Healthy homes 37.5% 8 Down-payment assistance to purchase a home 33.8% 9 Code enforcement, in coordination with a neighborhood plan 33.4% 10 Housing accessibility improvements 29.7% 11 Rental housing rehabilitation 27.7% 12 Emergency home improvement/repair 24.9% 13 Owner-occupied housing rehabilitation 18.5% Public Facilities Respondents rated the level of need for 14 public facility types in their neighborhoods. The six highest priorities in this area were: 1. Homeless facilities 2. Facilities for abused, abandoned and/or neglected children 3. Educational facilities 4. Mental health care facilities 5. Youth centers 6. Drop-in day center for the homeless The table below shows the highest level of need for each of the public facilities types and the share of respondents who rated each category as “high level” of need. Table 10 – High Level of Need for Specific Public Facility Types Priority Rank Public Facilities: High Level of Need Share of Respondents 1 Homeless facilities (temporary housing and emergency shelters) 51.3% 2 Facilities for abused, abandoned and/or neglected children 49.5% 3 Educational facilities 46.9% 4 Mental health care facilities 45.5% 5 Youth centers 42.6% 6 Drop-in day center for the homeless 41.2% 7 Healthcare facilities 39.0% 8 Child care centers 35.4% 9 Recreation facilities 33.2% 10 Parks and park facilities 32.2% 11 Centers for the disabled 32.0% 12 Senior centers 29.9% Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 200 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Priority Rank Public Facilities: High Level of Need Share of Respondents 13 Parking facilities 22.5% 14 Facilities for persons with HIV/AIDS 20.5% Public Services Respondents rated the level of need for 23 public service improvements in their neighborhoods. The five highest priorities in this area were: 1. Emergency housing assistance to prevent homelessness 2. Access to fresh and nutritious foods 3. Homeless services 4. Abused, abandoned and/or neglected children services 5. Transportation services The table below shows the highest level of need for each of the public service improvements and the share of respondents who rated each category as “high level” of need. Table 11 – High Level of Need for Specific Public Services Improvements Priority Rank Public Services: High Level of Need Share of Respondents 1 Emergency housing assistance to prevent homelessness – such as utility and rental assistance 52.3% 2 Access to fresh and nutritious foods 49.8% 3 Homeless services 49.6% 4 Abused, abandoned and/or neglected children services 46.5% 5 Transportation services 46.4% 6 Mental health services 46.4% 7 Youth services 44.1% 8 Crime awareness/prevention services 44.0% 9 Employment training services 43.4% 10 Neighborhood cleanups (trash, graffiti, etc.) 42.9% 11 Services to increase neighborhood and community engagement 40.6% 12 Financial literacy 39.3% 13 Battered and abused spouses services 37.9% 14 Food banks 36.7% 15 Veteran services 36.7% 16 Fair housing activities 36.5% 17 Child care services 36.0% 18 Senior services 35.8% 19 Disability services 35.4% Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 201 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Priority Rank Public Services: High Level of Need Share of Respondents 20 Tenant/landlord counseling services 30.8% 21 Legal services 30.1% 22 Housing counseling for homebuyers and owners 24.4% 23 Lead-based paint/lead hazard screens 19.1% 24 Services for persons with HIV/AIDS 18.7% Economic Development Respondents rated the level of need for five economic development areas in their neighborhoods. The three highest priorities in this area were: 1. Job training for homeless 2. Financial assistance for low income residents for small business expansion and job creation 3. Storefront improvements in low income neighborhoods The table below shows the highest level of need for each of the economic development areas and the share of respondents who rated each category as “high level” of need. Table 12 – High Level of Need for Specific Economic Development Areas Priority Rank Economic Development: High Level of Need Share of Respondents 1 Job training for the homeless 48.8% 2 Financial assistance for low-income residents for small business expansion and job creation 35.3% 3 Storefront improvements in low-income neighborhoods 33.9% 4 Microenterprise assistance for small business expansion (5 or fewer employees) 24.1% 5 Public improvements to commercial/industrial sites 20.3% Infrastructure and Neighborhood Respondents rated the level of need for 15 infrastructure and neighborhood improvements within their neighborhoods. The five highest priorities in this area were: 1. Cleanup of contaminated sites 2. Street improvements 3. Lighting improvement 4. Sidewalk improvements 5. Water/sewer improvements Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 202 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) The table below shows the highest level of need for each of the infrastructure and neighborhood improvements and the share of respondents who rated each category as “high level” of need. Table 13 – High Level of Need for Specific Infrastructure and Neighborhood Improvements Priority Rank Infrastructure and Neighborhood: High Level of Need Share of Respondents 1 Cleanup of contaminated sites 44.9% 2 Street improvements 41.1% 3 Lighting improvements 35.7% 4 Sidewalk improvements 35.2% 5 Water/sewer improvements 34.7% 6 Community gardens 31.5% 7 Stormwater and drainage improvements 30.2% 8 Slowing traffic speed 29.8% 9 New or renovated playgrounds 29.4% 10 Trails 28.8% 11 Acquisition and clearance of vacant lots 26.4% 12 ADA accessibility to public facilities 23.0% 13 Neighborhood signage 21.7% 14 Landscaping improvements 19.5% 15 Public art 18.7% Fair Housing Respondents were asked to answer a series of questions related to Fair Housing. Four questions were used to gauge each individuals experience with housing discrimination. 16% 76% 8% Figure 6 – Percent of Individuals Who Have Experienced Housing Discrimination in Santa Clara County Yes No Don’t Know Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 203 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Of the 1,472 total respondents, 192 (16%) said they have experienced some form of housing discrimination. The majority of discrimination occurred within an apartment complex (19%). The next highest location for discrimination was indicated by the “Other” category. Within this category, duplexes, condos, and private renters were the most commonly indicated. Many respondents who selected “Other” expressed experiencing discrimination in multiple locations. The three highest locations of discrimination were:  Apartment Complex  Other  Single-family neighborhood The figure below shows where respondents experienced discrimination. The majority of respondents (29%) who experienced discrimination indicated that race was the primary factor for that discrimination. Respondents selected “Other” as the next highest basis of discrimination. Within the “Other” category respondents indicated race, inability to speak English, religion, credit, and marital status as the cause for discrimination. The three highest basis of discrimination were: 1. Race 2. Other 3. Familial Status 0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%50% Trailer or mobile home park When applying for City/County programs Public or subsidized housing project Condo development Single‐family neighborhood Other (please specify) Apartment complex Percent of Respondents Figure 7 – Locations Where Respondents Reported Experiencing Discrimination Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 204 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) The Figure 8 below depicts what respondents believe is the basis for discrimination they have experienced. Respondents were then asked to identify who they felt had discriminated against them. The majority of respondents (66%) indicated they were discriminated against by a landlord or property manager. Respondents selected “Other” as the next highest category of who discriminated against them. Within the “Other” selection respondents indicated they experienced discrimination from landlords, property managers, existing residents, and home owner associations. The three highest categories that respondents believed discriminated against them were: 1. Landlord/Property Manager 2. Other 3. Don’t Know Figure 9 on the following page illustrates who respondents believe is responsible for the discrimination they have experienced. 0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35% Religion Sex Color Disability National origin Sexual orientation Don’t Know Familial status (families with children under 18) Other (please specify) Race Percent of Respondents Figure 8 – The Reason Respondents Believe They Experienced Discrimination Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 205 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70% Mortgage insurer Real estate agent Mortgage lender City/County staff Don’t Know Other (please specify) Landlord/Property manager Percent of Respondents Figure 9 – Who Respondents Believe Discriminated Against Them Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 City of Palo Alto (ID # 5511) Finance Committee Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 3/17/2015 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: CDBG Program Title: Proposed Fiscal Year 2015/2016 Community Development Block Grant Funding Allocation; Draft 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan and Draft 2015/2016 Action Plan From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that the Finance Committee recommend that the City Council take the following actions: 1.Allocate CDBG funding as recommended in the draft 2015/2016 Action Plan and as described in this report; 2.Authorize the City Manager to execute the 2015/2016 CDBG application and 2015/2016 Action Plan for CDBG funds, any other necessary documents concerning the application, and to otherwise bind the City with respect to the applications and commitment of funds; 3.Authorize staff to submit the 2015/2016 Action Plan to HUD by the May 15, 2015 deadline; and 4.Authorize staff to submit the 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan to HUD by the May 15, 2015 deadline. Executive Summary The City of Palo Alto receives funds annually from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) as an entitlement city under the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program. The CDBG program is the principal Federal program providing localities with grants to devise innovative and constructive neighborhood approaches to improve the physical, economic, and social conditions in their communities through “the development of viable urban communities, by providing decent housing and a suitable living environment and expanding economic opportunities, principally for persons of low and moderate income.” HUD requirements include preparation of a five-year strategic plan of action, referred to as a Consolidated Plan, to address priority housing and community development needs and to set goals for attaining identified objectives. An Action Plan is prepared annually to identify specific projects to be funded in that year that implement the strategies identified in the Consolidated Attachment C City of Palo Alto Page 2 Plan. Currently the CDBG program is guided by the 2010-2015 Consolidated Plan adopted by Council May 9, 2010 and a new five-year plan is required. For the 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan process, Planning staff coordinated with the County of Santa Clara and other entitlement jurisdictions in the County, referred to in this report as the “Consortium,” to identify and prioritize housing and community development needs across the region, and strategies to meet those needs. The Consolidated Plan includes a needs assessment and market analysis and serves as the strategic plan that identifies priority needs of the City to help guide the distribution of CDBG funding. The Action Plan outlines the proposed projects to be funded for Fiscal Year 2015/2016. Seven programs are recommended for funding that provides supportive services for targeted low-income groups including persons who are homeless, persons with disabilities, the elderly, and other special needs groups. In addition, the funding recommendations include one multi-family housing rehabilitation project and funding to cover the cost of administering the City’s CDBG program. The draft 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan and the draft 2015/2016 Action Plan (Attachment B) have been made available for public review from February 17, 2015 through March 18, 2015. The Finance Committee is being asked to review the draft 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan and the draft 2015/2016 Action Plan with funding recommendations. Upon review of the draft plan and funding recommendations, it is requested the Finance Committee make recommendations to the City Council. The City Council will review the recommendations of the Finance Committee at a public hearing scheduled for May 4, 2015. Staff will then submit the Consolidated Plan and the Action Plan to HUD in order to meet the May 15, 2015 deadline. Background The CDBG program is authorized under Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended. As an entitlement city under the CDBG program, the City of Palo Alto receives funds annually on a formula grant basis. Palo Alto has historically expended all of its CDBG funds on projects benefiting low- and very-low-income persons. HUD regulations require all CDBG funded activities meet one of the three national objectives:  Benefit low-and very-low-income persons;  Aid in the prevention or elimination of slums or blight; or  Meet other community development needs having a particular urgency, or posing a serious and immediate threat to the health or welfare of the community. All of the funded projects in Palo Alto meet the first objective of benefiting low-and very-low- income persons. Palo Alto has five primary CDBG program activity areas in which to allocate funds: Public Services, Planning and Administration, Economic Development, Housing, and Public Facilities. Federal regulations limit the amount that can be spent on administration and public services. The allocations for administrative activities and public services are both proposed to be at the maximum spending cap in Fiscal Year 2015/2016. No more than 20 percent of the City’s entitlement grant and estimated program income for the following year can be spent on Administration. It is estimated that $115,072 will be available for this category for Fiscal Year 2015/2016. Similarly, Federal law places a maximum spending cap of 15 percent of the grant allocation and 15 percent of any program income received during the previous fiscal year on public services. It City of Palo Alto Page 3 is estimated that $82,910 will be available for Public Service activities for Fiscal Year 2015/2016. Public service activities include services for homeless persons, housing and emergency services to low income individuals with disabilities, and services to victims of domestic violence. On February 11, 2015, HUD notified the City of its Fiscal Year 2015/2016 CDBG Entitlement. The final CDBG Entitlement amount is $442,460. Consolidated Plan The Draft 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan is a 5-year strategic plan of action that addresses priority housing and community development needs. It also sets specific goals for attaining identified objectives. Each year, an Annual Action Plan is prepared to identify specific projects to be funded to implement the Consolidated Plan. The Consolidated Plan and the Annual Action Plan updates are required by HUD in order for the City to receive federal funding from programs such as the CDBG. Currently the CDBG program is guided by the 2010-2015 Consolidated Plan adopted by Council May 9, 2010. A new 5-year strategic plan is now required for the 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan process. Action Plan HUD requires submittal of an Annual Action Plan no later than 45 days prior to the start of the program year, or May 15th of every year, that identifies the specific projects to be funded to implement strategies identified in the Consolidated Plan. CDBG Applications Currently, the CDBG program operates under a two-year funding request cycle. Applications for Fiscal Years 2015/2016 and 2016/2017 were made available in November 2014. A notice of CDBG funding availability was published in the Palo Alto Weekly on November 21, 2014 with completed applications due January 9, 2015. Mandatory Pre-Proposal Conferences were conducted on December 10, 2014 and January 5, 2015 to assist applicants with program regulations and project eligibility questions. The CDBG applications considered for funding for Fiscal Year 2015/2016 are identified on the attached chart (Attachment A). During this funding cycle the City did not receive any funding applications for public facilities improvement projects. Citizen Participation A Citizen Participation Plan is a required component of the CDBG Program. HUD regulations require CDBG recipient agencies to prepare and implement a plan that provides adequate opportunity for citizens to participate in an advisory role in the planning, implementation, and assessment of the CDBG program. On October 18, 2010 the City adopted an amended Citizen Participation Plan and shifted the CDBG advisory role from a separate Citizens Advisory Committee to the established Human Relations Commission (HRC). In summary, the intention of the new plan was to provide a collaborative link between the CDBG funding process and the Human Service Resource Allocation Process (HSRAP). The HRC is now charged with reviewing funding recommendations for the City’s two human service funding sources. A sub-committee comprised of staff and three members of the HRC was established to review both the CDBG and HSRAP funding applications and to provide recommendations to the full commission. While both CDBG and HSRAP are operating on a two-year funding cycle, final CDBG funding recommendations need to be reviewed annually since the budget is contingent upon funding allocations received from HUD. The sub-committee met on January 29, 2015 at City Hall to City of Palo Alto Page 4 discuss the Fiscal Year 2015/2016 CDBG budget, reviewed the applications received, and recommended funding amounts based on the estimated funds available. The meeting was open to the public and publicized on the City’s website and in the Palo Alto Weekly. Since the City had not received its final allocation amounts from HUD, the Selection Committee also outlined a general contingency strategy that would allow staff to make adjustments to the funding recommendations based on the final CDBG Entitlement allocation. On February 11, 2015 the City received notification of its final CDBG Entitlement amount of $442,460, representing an additional $43,242 available for allocation for Fiscal Year 2015/2016. Staff applied the following contingency strategy, as agreed to by the Selection Committee, to allocate the additional funds:  In the Public Services category, each applicant was recommended to receive an additional amount which represents the applicant's proportional share of funds originally recommended for allocation within the category, up to the amount requested.  In the Planning & Administration category, Project Sentinel was recommended to receive an additional amount up to the total amount requested, with the remainder applied to CDBG Administration.  In the remaining categories, Housing and Economic Development, the two remaining applicants were recommended to receive the remainder of the additional funds split evenly. On February 12, 2015 the HRC considered the funding recommendations of the subcommittee, as adjusted, at a public hearing. These recommendations are appended to this report as Attachment A. Commitment of Funds HUD regulations require that CDBG funds be expended in a timely manner. Specifically, the regulatory requirement is that no more than 1.5 times a jurisdiction’s annual entitlement grant amount remain in the City’s Letter of Credit 60 days prior to the end of the program year. In an effort to reduce the backlog of unspent CDBG funds, HUD employs monetary sanctions against jurisdictions that exceed this timeliness requirement. For this reason, all funding applications are scrutinized to ensure the readiness of the program or project to move forward and expend funds in a timely manner. Discussion Palo Alto’s CDBG program continues to be directed towards expanding and maintaining existing affordable housing supply, promoting housing opportunities and choices, and providing supportive services for targeted low-income groups including persons who are homeless, persons with disabilities, the elderly, and other special needs groups. Moreover, the CDBG program places a high priority to expand the goal of creating economic opportunities for low- income persons. All of the proposed projects for CDBG funding for Fiscal Year 2015/2016, as presented in the draft 2015/2016 Action Plan, address the priority housing and community development needs identified in the draft Consolidated Plan. Draft 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan Per HUD requirements, the City is required to prepare a Consolidated Plan every five years. Currently the CDBG program is guided by the 2010-2015 Consolidated Plan adopted by Council May 9, 2010. This year the City is required to prepare a new 5-year strategic plan that will City of Palo Alto Page 5 guide the investment of approximately $400,000 annually from HUD for the CDBG formula grant. The resulting Consolidated Plan will be effective July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2020. The Consolidated Plan is designed to help entitlement grantees assess affordable housing and community development needs. Public participation plays a central role in the development of the Consolidated Plan. In August 2014, the Consortium launched an in-depth, collaborative regional effort to consult with community stakeholders to identify housing and community development needs. This comprehensive outreach process was undertaken to enhance coordination and discuss new approaches to working with social service providers that utilize funding for eligible activities, projects, and programs. Comments received through this outreach effort combined with Palo Alto’s specifically identified needs, have been used to inform the 5-year strategic plan. The draft Consolidated Plan for 2015-2020, provided as Attachment B, outlines the following five specific goals:  Affordable Housing: Assist in the creation and preservation of affordable housing for low income and special needs households.  Homelessness: Support activities to end homelessness.  Strengthen Neighborhoods: Support activities that strengthen neighborhoods through the provision of community services and public improvements to benefit low income and special needs households.  Fair Housing: Promote fair housing choice.  Economic Development: Expand economic opportunities for low income households. Palo Alto's CDBG program continues to be directed toward: expanding and maintaining the affordable housing supply; promoting housing opportunities and choices; maintaining and improving community facilities; and providing supportive services for targeted low income groups, including persons who are homeless, persons with disabilities, the elderly, and other special needs groups. All of the proposed projects for CDBG funding for Fiscal Year 2015/2016, as presented in the draft 2015/16 Action Plan, address the priority housing and supportive service needs identified in the draft Consolidated Plan. Fiscal Year 2015/2016 Funds Available for Allocation Prior to the City receiving notification of the final entitlement amount from HUD, staff estimated the Fiscal Year 2015/2016 CDBG Entitlement to be approximately $399,218. This was based on HUD’s appropriation request for a 7.8% reduction in funds for formula application grants from the previous year. On February 11, 2015, HUD notified the City of its Fiscal Year 2015/2016 CDBG Entitlement allocation of $442,460, which is $43,242 more than anticipated. Based on the foregoing, the total amount available for allocation in Fiscal Year 2015/2016 is estimated to be $881,673 as summarized below: $442,460 Fiscal Year 2015/2016 Entitlement Grant $303,164 Reallocated Funds from Previous Years: $ 46,998 – Palo Alto Housing Corp. California Park Rehab (FY2013) $ 25,788 – Community Working Group Alma Garden Rehab (FY2012) $ 17,099 – Downtown Streets Inc. (FY 2014) $213,279 – Unprogrammed Excess Program Income (FY 2014) $136,049 Estimated Program Income from Palo Alto Housing Corporation that is generated from loan repayments and rental income in excess of expenses City of Palo Alto Page 6 on specific properties acquired or rehabilitated with CDBG funds $881,673 ESTIMATED TOTAL AVAILABLE FOR ALLOCATION Of the $881,673 of CDBG funds anticipated to be available, the total amount is proposed to be used during Fiscal Year 2015/2016. The following summarizes the calculations for funding limitations that are placed on two funding categories: Maximum Available for Public Services Estimated Fiscal Year 2015/2016 CDBG Entitlement Grant $442,460 Fiscal Year 2014/2015 Actual Program Income Received1 $110,273 Public Service Cap (15% of $552,733) $ 82,910 Maximum Available for Planning/Administration Estimated Fiscal Year 2015/2016 CDBG Entitlement Grant $442,460 Estimated Fiscal Year 2015/2016 Program Income $136,049 Planning/Admin Cap (20% of $578,509) $115,702 The difference between the funding caps and the amount proposed to be allocated during Fiscal Year 2015/2016, or $683,061, yields the amount that can used to fund projects within the other three funding categories; Economic Development, Housing, and Public Facilities. Additional funding can be made available for these activities if less is provided for Administration or Public Services. Fiscal Year 2015/2016 – Funding Requests and Recommendations Palo Alto’s CDBG program is operating under a two-year funding cycle. A notice of funding availability was released in November 2014 and a total of nine applications for funding were received. A list of the submitted applications and the funding recommendations for Fiscal Year 2015/16 is included in Attachment A. All of the applications submitted for CDBG funding in Fiscal Year 2015/2016 are HUD “eligible activities” and meet HUD’s National Objectives. In addition, all of the submitted applications meet the City’s CDBG program goals and objectives. The HRC, in conjunction with staff, is recommending funding for eight of the nine applications. Unfortunately, the program proposed by the Day Workers Center of Mountain is not fully developed. Specifically, more information is needed about how many Palo Alto residents will be served, where local activities will take place, and which potential partnership agencies will be involved. HUD also requires that a project or program is ready to receive the funds before the City considers committing its federal funds. The applicant is encouraged to further develop the program and will be considered for funding during the second year of the two-year funding cycle. On February 12, 2015, the HRC recommended approval of the Selection Committee’s funding recommendations including the adjustments described in the background section of this report. 1 Actual Program Income received in Fiscal Year 2014/2015 includes $100,390 from Palo Alto Housing Corporation and $9,883 in HIP loan repayments. City of Palo Alto Page 7 Table 1, Fiscal Year 2015/2016 Funding Recommendations, identifies the applications received and the funding allocation amounts recommended by the HRC. Table 1: Fiscal Year 2015/2016 Funding Recommendations Planning staff has actively taken measures to introduce efficiency in program administration that will result in a less staff intensive program. These include streamlining the administrative procedures to reduce staffing needs, operating under a two-year funding cycle, and revised monitoring guidelines to improve efficiency and reduce on-site monitoring visits. Moreover, staff has identified ways to recover certain personnel costs associated with individual projects Applicant Agency FY 2015/2016 Funding Request HRC Recommendations Public Services Catholic Charities of Santa Clara County – Long Term Care Ombudsman $ 6,500 $ 5,422 Day Workers Center of Mountain View – Service to Palo Alto $ 10,000 $ -0- InnVision Shelter Network – Opportunity Services Center $ 50,000 $ 38,499 Palo Alto Housing Corporation – SRO Support Services $ 42,874 $ 24,861 Silicon Valley Independent Living Center – Housing and Emergency Services for Persons with Disabilities $ 10,000 $ 5,422 YWCA of Silicon Valley – Domestic Violence Services $ 10,000 $ 8,676 Sub-total $ 129,374 $ 82,880 Planning & Administration Project Sentinel – Fair Housing $ 32,016 $ 32,016 City of Palo Alto – CDBG Administration $ 80,000 $ 83,686 Sub-total $ 112,016 $ 115,702 Housing MidPen Housing – Palo Alto Gardens Rehab Project $ 500,000 $ 392,368 Sub-total $ 500,000 $ 392,368 Economic Development Downtown Streets – Workforce Development Program $ 314,100 $ 290,273 Sub-total $ 314,100 $ 290,273 Grand Total $ 1,055,490 $ 881,673 City of Palo Alto Page 8 that require administration beyond the basic CDBG program administration requirements. These are referred to as project delivery costs and are typically associated with capital outlay projects that require staff to assist with the development of bid documents and assistance with federal procurement requirements. For Fiscal Year 2015/2016 this includes reducing CDBG staffing level to a .40 full time equivalency position for basic CDBG administration related activities. Staff is requesting additional funding in the Administration budget to cover the potential cost associated with consultant contracts which may be used to support CDBG Program administration. Timeline Funding recommendation made by the Finance Committee will be forwarded to the City Council for review and approval at a public hearing scheduled for May 4, 2015. Subsequently, the adopted Action Plan will be submitted to HUD by May 15, 2015. Resource Impact As mentioned above, several measures have been taken to ensure there is no direct General Fund subsidy for the administration of the CDBG Program. This includes streamlining the program to reduce staffing needs and revised monitoring guidelines to improve efficiency of the program. Staff recovery in Fiscal Year 2014/15 from the CDBG entitlement grant is $65,000. For Fiscal Year 2015/2016, staff is requesting a total of $83,686 in the Administration budget. The total staff recovery from the CDBG entitlement grant proposed for Fiscal Year 2015/2016 is approximately .40 full time equivalency, or $65,596 The balance, $18,090, will be used for publication costs, office supplies, and to cover potential costs associated with consultant contracts which may be used to support CDBG Program Administration. While the Fiscal Year 2015/2016 amount is not sufficient to cover the full cost of 1 full time equivalency position, it does cover the full staffing needs of administering the CDBG program, thus not further substantially impacting the General Fund with the balance of staff time going towards non- CDBG eligible activities. It should be noted that the General Fund does not recover any overhead from the CDBG program and supports the program with cost for departmental managerial oversight and internal support functions. Policy Implications All of the applications recommended for funding in Fiscal Year 2015/2016 are consistent with the priorities established in the City’s draft 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan. Moreover, they are consistent with the housing programs and policies in the adopted Comprehensive Plan. Environmental Review For purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), budgeting in itself is not a project. Prior to commitment or release of funds for each of the proposed projects, staff will carry out the required environmental reviews or assessments and certify that the review procedures under CEQA, HUD and NEPA regulations have been satisfied for each particular project. Attachments:  Attachment A: Fiscal Year 2015/2016 Funding Recommendations (DOCX)  Attachment B: Draft 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan (includes the Draft FY 2015/2016 Action Plan) (PDF) ATTACHMENT A CITY OF PALO ALTO CDBG APPLICATIONS FISCAL YEAR 2015/2016 Total Estimated Funds Available $ 881,673 Available for Public Service (15% Cap) $ 82,910 Available for Planning/Admin (20% Cap) $ 115,072 Available for Economic Development & Housing $ 683,691 USES: AGENCY PROGRAM NAME FY 2016/2015 REQUEST HRC RECOMMENDED ALLOCATIONS Public Services (15% CAP = $82,910) Catholic Charities of Santa Clara County Ombudsman Program $ 6,500 $ 5,422 Day Worker Center of Mountain View Service to Palo Alto $ 10,000 $ - InnVision Shelter Network Opportunity Services Center $ 50,000 $ 38,499 Palo Alto Housing Corporation SRO Resident Support $ 42,874 $ 24,861 Silicon Valley Independent Living Center Housing and Emergency Services $ 10,000 $ 5,422 YWCA of Silicon Valley Domestic Violence Services $ 10,000 $ 8,676 Public Service Total $ 129,374 $ 82,880 Planning & Administration (20% CAP = $115,702) Project Sentinel1 Fair Housing Services $ 32,016 $ 32,016 City of Palo Alto CDBG Administration $ 80,000 $ 83,686 Planning & Administration Total $ 112,016 $ 115,702 Economic Development Downtown Streets Workforce Development Program $ 314,100 $ 290,723 Economic Development Total $ 314,100 $ 290,723 Housing MidPen Housing Palo Alto Garden Rehabilitation $ 500,000 $ 392,368 Housing Total $ 500,000 $ 392,368 GRAND TOTAL $ 1,055,490 $ 881,673 1 Project Sentinel’s application for funding is being considered under the Planning and Administration funding category. CITY OF PALO ALTO DRAFT 2015-2020 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2015-2016 ACTION PLAN Public Review and Comment Period: February 17, 2015 – March 25, 2015 Updated February 24, 2015 Prepared by the Department of Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Director Hillary Gitelman Consuelo Hernandez, Senior Planner T: 650-329-2428 E: Consuelo.hernandez@cityofpaloalto.org ATTACHMENT B Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 2 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) CITY OF PALO ALTO DRAFT 2015-2020 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND 2015-2016 ACTION PLAN Prepared by: LeSar Development Consultants www.LeSarDevelopment.com Prepared by: MIG www.migcom.com Jennifer LeSar President and CEO 619-236-0612 X102 jennifer@lesardevelopment.com Laura Stetson Principal 626-744-9872 lstetson@migcom.com Vicky Joes Principal 619-236-0612 x102 vicky@lesardevelopment.com Jamillah Jordan Outreach Specialist 510-845-7549 jamillahj@migcom.com Keryna Johnson Senior Associate 619-236-0612 x107 keryna@lesardevelopment.com Prepared for: City of Palo Alto Planning and Community Environment Department www.cityofpaloalto.org 285 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 650-329-2496 Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 3 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Table of Contents Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 9 ES-05 Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................... 9 The Process .................................................................................................................................................14 PR-05 Lead & Responsible Agencies 24 CFR 91.200(b) ........................................................................ 14 PR-10 Consultation - 91.100, 91.200(b), 91.215(l) .................................................................................... 15 PR-15 Citizen Participation ...................................................................................................................... 31 Needs Assessment ..................................................................................................................................... 39 NA-05 Overview ..................................................................................................................................... 39 NA-10 Housing Needs Assessment - 24 CFR 91.205 (a, b, c) ................................................................. 43 NA-15 Disproportionately Greater Need: Housing Problems – 91.205 (b)(2) ....................................... 51 NA-20 Disproportionately Greater Need: Severe Housing Problems – 91.205 (b)(2)......................... 54 NA-25 Disproportionately Greater Need: Housing Cost Burdens – 91.205 (b)(2) ............................... 57 NA-30 Disproportionately Greater Need: Discussion – 91.205(b)(2) ................................................... 59 NA-35 Public Housing – 91.205(b) ......................................................................................................... 61 NA-40 Homeless Needs Assessment – 91.205(c) ................................................................................. 64 NA-45 Non-Homeless Special Needs Assessment - 91.205 (b, d) ......................................................... 71 NA-50 Non-Housing Community Development Needs – 91.215 (f) ..................................................... 75 Housing Market Analysis .......................................................................................................................... 79 MA-05 Overview..................................................................................................................................... 79 MA-10 Number of Housing Units – 91.210(a)&(b)(2) ............................................................................ 82 MA-15 Housing Market Analysis: Cost of Housing - 91.210(a) .............................................................. 86 MA-20 Housing Market Analysis: Condition of Housing – 91.210(a) .................................................... 89 MA-25 Public and Assisted Housing – 91.210(b) ................................................................................... 91 MA-30 Homeless Facilities and Services – 91.210(c) ............................................................................. 94 MA-35 Special Needs Facilities and Services – 91.210(d) ..................................................................... 102 Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 4 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) MA-40 Barriers to Affordable Housing – 91.210(e)............................................................................. 105 MA-45 Non-Housing Community Development Assets – 91.215 (f)................................................... 106 MA-50 Needs and Market Analysis Discussion .................................................................................... 112 Strategic Plan ............................................................................................................................................ 116 SP-05 Overview ..................................................................................................................................... 116 SP-10 Geographic Priorities – 91.215 (a)(1) ........................................................................................... 117 SP-25 Priority Needs - 91.215(a)(2) ........................................................................................................ 118 SP-30 Influence of Market Conditions – 91.215 (b) .............................................................................. 123 SP-35 Anticipated Resources - 91.215(a)(4), 91.220(c)(1,2).................................................................. 124 SP-40 Institutional Delivery Structure – 91.215(k) ............................................................................... 129 SP- 45 Goals Summary – 91.215(a)(4) ................................................................................................... 134 SP-50 Public Housing Accessibility and Involvement – 91.215(c) ....................................................... 136 SP-55 Barriers to Affordable Housing – 91.215(h) ................................................................................ 137 SP-60 Homelessness Strategy – 91.215(d) ........................................................................................... 141 SP-65 Lead based paint Hazards – 91.215(i) .........................................................................................145 SP-70 Anti-Poverty Strategy – 91.215(j) ............................................................................................... 146 SP-80 Monitoring – 91.230 .................................................................................................................... 147 First Year Action Plan .............................................................................................................................. 149 AP-15 Expected Resources – 91.220(c)(1,2) ......................................................................................... 149 AP-20 Annual Goals and Objectives .....................................................................................................154 AP-35 Projects – 91.220(d) ................................................................................................................... 156 AP-38 Project Summary ........................................................................................................................ 157 AP-50 Geographic Distribution – 91.220(f) ......................................................................................... 159 AP-55 Affordable Housing – 91.220(g) ................................................................................................ 160 AP-60 Public Housing – 91.220(h) ......................................................................................................... 161 AP-65 Homeless and Other Special Needs Activities – 91.220(i) ....................................................... 163 Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 5 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) AP-75 Barriers to Affordable Housing – 91.220(j) ............................................................................... 166 AP-85 Other Actions – 91.220(k)...........................................................................................................170 AP-90 Program Specific Requirements – 91.220(l)(1,2,4) ................................................................... 174 Citizen Participation Plan ......................................................................................................................... 175 Table of Acronyms.................................................................................................................................... 183 Appendix A: Citizen Participation Summary ......................................................................................... 184 Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 6 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) List of Tables Table 1 - Responsible Agencies .................................................................................................................. 14 Table 2 - Agencies, Groups, and Organizations that Attended Regional and Community Forums ....... 18 Table 3 - Other Local / Regional / Federal Planning Efforts ...................................................................... 28 Table 4 - Citizen Participation Outreach ................................................................................................... 34 Table 5 - Housing Needs Assessment Demographics (City) .................................................................... 43 Table 6 - Total Households (City) .............................................................................................................. 43 Table 7 - Housing Problems (City) ............................................................................................................. 44 Table 8 - Severe Housing Problems (City) ................................................................................................ 44 Table 9 - Cost Burden > 30% (City) ............................................................................................................. 45 Table 10 - Cost Burden > 50% (City)............................................................................................................ 45 Table 11 - Crowding Information (City) ...................................................................................................... 45 Table 12 - Households with Children Present (City) .................................................................................. 46 Table 13 - Section 8 Participants at 0-30% AMI (County) .......................................................................... 47 Table 14 - Disproportionately Greater Need 0 - 30% AMI (City) ................................................................ 51 Table 15 - Disproportionately Greater Need 30 - 50% AMI (City) .............................................................. 51 Table 16 - Disproportionately Greater Need 50 - 80% AMI (City) ............................................................. 52 Table 17 - Disproportionately Greater Need 80 - 100% AMI (City) ............................................................ 52 Table 18 - Disproportionately Greater Need – Housing Problems (County) ........................................... 52 Table 19 - Severe Housing Problems 0 - 30% AMI (City) ........................................................................... 54 Table 20 - Severe Housing Problems 30 - 50% AMI (City) ......................................................................... 54 Table 21 - Severe Housing Problems 50 - 80% AMI (City) ......................................................................... 55 Table 22 - Severe Housing Problems 80 - 100% AMI (City) ....................................................................... 55 Table 23 - Disproportionately Greater Need – Severe Housing Problems (City) .................................... 55 Table 24 - Greater Need: Housing Cost Burden (City) .............................................................................. 57 Table 25 - Disproportionately Greater Cost Burden (City) ....................................................................... 57 Table 26 - Public Housing by Program Type (City) ................................................................................... 61 Table 27 - Characteristics of Public Housing Residents by Program Type (City) .................................... 62 Table 28 - Race of Public Housing Residents by Program Type (City) .................................................... 63 Table 29 - Ethnicity of Public Housing Residents by Program Type (City) .............................................. 63 Table 30 - Resources Requested by Section 8 Participants (County) ..................................................... 64 Table 31 - Homeless Needs Assessment (City/County) ............................................................................ 67 Table 32 - Exited Homelessness (City) ...................................................................................................... 69 Table 33 - Days to Housing (County) ......................................................................................................... 69 Table 34 - Race and Ethnic Group of Homeless (City) .............................................................................. 69 Table 35 - Elderly Population (City) ........................................................................................................... 72 Table 36 - Disability Status of Population (City) ....................................................................................... 72 Table 37 - Household Size (City) ................................................................................................................ 73 Table 38 - Residential Properties by Unit Number (City) ......................................................................... 82 Table 39 - Unit Size by Tenure (City) ......................................................................................................... 82 Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 7 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Table 40 - HASC Housing Properties (County) ......................................................................................... 83 Table 41 - HACSC Special Needs Populations ............................................................................................ 85 Table 42 - Cost of Housing (City) ............................................................................................................... 86 Table 43 - Rent Paid (City) ......................................................................................................................... 86 Table 44 - Housing Affordability (City) ...................................................................................................... 87 Table 45 - Monthly Rent (City)................................................................................................................... 87 Table 46 - Affordable Housing Supply Versus Need (City) ...................................................................... 87 Table 47 - Condition of Units (City) ........................................................................................................... 89 Table 48 - Year Unit Built (City) ................................................................................................................. 89 Table 49 - Risk of Lead-Based Paint (City) ................................................................................................ 90 Table 50 - Vacant Units (City) .................................................................................................................... 90 Table 51 - Total Number of Units by Program Type (County) .................................................................. 91 Table 52 - Public Housing Condition .......................................................................................................... 92 Table 53 - HACSC Family Self Sufficiency Report (County) ...................................................................... 93 Table 54 - Facilities and Housing Targeted to Homeless Households (County) ..................................... 94 Table 55 - Homeless Housing Inventory Chart (County) .......................................................................... 96 Table 56 - Licensed Community Care Facilities (City) .............................................................................. 102 Table 57 - Independent Living Facilities for Elderly Residents in Palo Alto, 2014 (City) ....................... 103 Table 58 -Jobs / Employed Residents Ratio (County) ............................................................................ 106 Table 59 - Jobs by Business Activity (City) ...............................................................................................107 Table 60 - Labor Force (City) ....................................................................................................................107 Table 61 - Occupations by Sector (City) ...................................................................................................107 Table 62 - Travel Time (City) .................................................................................................................... 108 Table 63 - Educational Attainment by Employment Status - Population Age 16 and Older (City) ....... 108 Table 64 - Educational Attainment by Age (City) ................................................................................... 108 Table 65 - Educational Attainment by Age - 25 and Older (City) ........................................................... 109 Table 66 - Median Earnings in the Past 12 Months (City) ....................................................................... 109 Table 67 - Priority Needs Summary .......................................................................................................... 118 Table 68 - Influence of Market Conditions .............................................................................................. 123 Table 69 - City Entitlement Funding Received FY 2010 – FY 2014 ........................................................... 124 Table 70 - Anticipated Resources ............................................................................................................. 125 Table 71 - Institutional Delivery Structure ................................................................................................ 129 Table 72 - Homeless Prevention Services Summary ................................................................................ 131 Table 73 - Goals Summary ......................................................................................................................... 134 Table 74 - CDBG Fiscal Year 2015-2016 Annual Budgetary Priorities ...................................................... 149 Table 75 - Expected Resources – Priority Table ...................................................................................... 150 Table 76 - Goals Summary .........................................................................................................................154 Table 77 - Project Information ................................................................................................................. 156 Table 78 - Project Summary ...................................................................................................................... 157 Table 79 - Geographic Distribution .......................................................................................................... 159 Table 80 - One Year Goals for Affordable Housing by Support Requirement ...................................... 160 Table 81 - One Year Goals for Affordable Housing by Support Type ..................................................... 160 Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 8 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 9 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Executive Summary ES-05 Executive Summary Introduction The City of Palo Alto (City) is an entitlement jurisdiction that receives federal funding from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) through the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program. The purpose of CDBG funding is to help jurisdictions address their community development needs. CDBG grantees are eligible to use the resources they receive for Public Services, Community and Economic Development, Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) Public Facilities/Infrastructure, and CIP Housing Rehabilitation. Public Service projects provide social services and/or other direct support to individuals and households in need of assistance. Community and Economic Development projects are focused on assisting businesses and organizations with small business loans, façade improvements, and other initiatives. CIP Public Facilities/Infrastructure projects are those which aim to improve public facilities and infrastructure. CIP Housing Rehabilitation projects are for housing rehabilitation improvements of single and multi-unit housing. The City anticipates approximately $2,546,054 in CDBG funding from 2015-2020. HUD requires that entitlement jurisdictions complete a Consolidated Plan every five years. The Consolidated Plan includes an analysis of the jurisdiction’s market, affordable housing, and community development conditions. Additionally, entitlement jurisdictions must also submit an Annual Action Plan to report the distribution of federal entitlement program funding over the Consolidated Plan’s five year period that identifies how funding allocations help meet the goals covered in the Consolidated Plan and a Consolidated Annual Performance Evaluation Report (CAPER) to report the City’s performance. Five Year Goals 1. Assist in the creation and preservation of affordable housing for low income and special needs households. 2. Support activities to end homelessness. 3. Support activities that strengthen neighborhoods through the provision of community services and public improvements to benefit low income and special needs households. 4. Promote fair housing choice. 5. Expand economic opportunities for low income households. Methodology The City’s Consolidated Plan for Fiscal Year 2015-2020 includes a Needs Assessment and Market Analysis and serves as the strategic plan that identifies priority needs of the City to help guide the distribution of CDBG funding. The majority of data utilized is provided by HUD for the purpose of preparing the Consolidated Plan. HUD periodically receives custom tabulations of data from the U.S. Census Bureau that are largely not available through standard Census products. Known as the Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 10 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data, it demonstrates the extent of housing problems and housing needs, particularly for low income households. The CHAS data is used by local governments to plan how to spend HUD funds, and may also be used by HUD to distribute grant funds.1 When CHAS data is not available or appropriate, other data is utilized, including the 2000 and 2010 U.S. Census data and the American Community Survey (ACS) 2008-2012 five-year estimates. While ACS one-year estimates provide the most current data, this report utilizes five-year estimates as they reflect a larger sample size and are considered more reliable and precise.2 Federal funds provided under the CDBG entitlement program are primarily concerned with activities that benefit low-and moderate-income (LMI) households whose incomes do not exceed 80 percent of the area median family income (AMI), as established by HUD, with adjustments for smaller or larger families.3 HUD utilizes three income levels to define LMI households:  Extremely low income: Households earning 30 percent or less than the AMI (subject to specified adjustments for areas with unusually high or low incomes)  Very low income: Households earning 50 percent or less than the AMI (subject to specified adjustments for areas with unusually high or low incomes)  Low and moderate income: Households earning 80 percent or less than the AMI (subject to adjustments for areas with unusually high or low incomes or housing costs) Summary of the objectives and outcomes identified in the Needs Assessment Overview The City is part of the San Francisco Metropolitan Bay Area, located 35 miles south of San Francisco and 14 miles north of San José. The City is located within the County of Santa Clara, borders San Mateo County, and encompasses an area of approximately 26 square miles, one-third of which consists of open space. According to 2008-2012 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimates, the City's total resident population is 63,475. The City has the most educated residents in the country and is one of the most expensive cities to live in.4 In Silicon Valley, the City is considered a central economic focal point and is home to over 7,000 businesses while providing jobs to more than 98,000 people.5 The following provides a brief overview of the results of the Needs Assessment: 1 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. “Consolidated Planning/CHAS Data.” http://www.huduser.org/portal/datasets/cp.html 2 United States Census Bureau. “American Community Survey: When to Use 1-year, 3-year, or 5-year Estimates.” http://www.census.gov/acs/www/guidance_for_data_users/estimates/ 3 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. “Glossary of CPD Terms.” http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/comm_planning/library/glossary 4 Huffington Post. “California’s Most Educated Cities: Palo Alto, Los Altos Top the List.” January 2012. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/california-most-educated-towns/ 5 Bedbury Realtors. “Palo Alto.” http://www.bedburyrealtors.com/Communities/Palo-Alto Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 11 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) NA -10 Housing Needs • Twenty-nine percent of households in the City are paying more than 30 percent of their income toward housing costs. • Thirteen percent of households are severely cost burdened and paying more than 50 percent of their income toward housing. NA-15 Disproportionately Greater Need: Housing Problems  Eighty-nine percent of Asian households in the 30-50% AMI category experience housing problems, compared to 71 percent of the jurisdiction as a whole.  Ninety-three percent of Asian households in the 50-80% AMI category experience housing problems, compared to 71 percent of the jurisdiction as a whole.  More than three-quarters of Hispanic households (78 percent) in the 80-100% AMI category experience housing problems, compared to a nearly half (54 percent) of the jurisdiction as a whole. NA-20 Disproportionately Greater Need: Severe Housing Problems  More than half of Asian households in the 30-50% AMI income category experience severe housing problems in the City, compared to 43 percent of the jurisdiction as a whole.  More than three-quarters of Asian households (77 percent) in the 50-80% AMI category experience a disproportionate amount of severe housing problems, compared to 40 percent of the jurisdiction as a whole.  Forty-five percent of Hispanic households in the 80-100% AMI category experience a disproportionate amount of severe housing problems, compared to 23 percent of the jurisdiction as a whole. NA-25 Disproportionately Greater Need: Housing Cost Burdens  Hispanic households experience a disproportionate cost burden, with 27 percent of households experiencing cost burden, compared to 16 percent of the City as a whole.  American Indian, Alaska Native households experience a disproportionate severe cost burden, with 33 percent of households experiencing cost burden, compared to 13 percent of the City as a whole. NA-35 Public Housing  The Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara (HACSC) assists approximately 17,000 households through the federal Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program (Section 8).  The Section 8 waiting list contains 21,256 households – this is estimated to be a 10-year wait. NA-40 Homeless Needs  The Santa Clara region is home to the fourth-largest population of homeless individuals and the highest percentage of unsheltered homeless of any major city. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 12 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)  As of the 2013 Point in Time Homeless Survey, Palo Alto had 157 homeless residents, with over 90 percent unsheltered and living in a place not fit for human habitation.  Palo Alto clients – those who report that their last permanent zip code was in Palo Alto – represent approximately one percent of the County’s homeless clients. NA-45 Non-Homeless Special Needs  Individuals 65 years of age and older represent 17 percent of the total population of the City.  Thirty-three percent of households in the City contain at least one person 62 years or older.  More than one-quarter of individuals (27 percent) age 65 or older have a disability compared to four percent of the population age 18 to 64, or seven percent of the population as a whole. NA-50 Non-Housing Community Development Needs • Residents and stakeholders who participated in the community outreach for the Consolidated Plan identified the following community development needs as high priorities within these three categories: o Public Facilities: increased homeless facilities, youth centers, rehabilitation of senior centers, and recreational facilities throughout the County o Public Improvements: complete streets that accommodate multiple transportation modes, pedestrian safety, ADA curb improvements, and increased access to parks and open space amenities o Public Services: food assistance and nutrition programs for vulnerable populations, year-round activities for youth, health care services for seniors and low income families, and services for homeless persons Evaluation of past performance The City is responsible for ensuring compliance with all rules and regulations associated with the CDBG entitlement grant program. The City’s Annual Action Plans and CAPERs have provided many details about the goals, projects and programs completed by the City over the past five years. A review of past consolidated annual performance and evaluation reports reveals a strong record of performance in the use of CDBG funds. Palo Alto has been strategic about leveraging these federal dollars and identifying partnerships in the community to maximize their use. For instance, 140 new affordable rental housing have been created during the 2010-2015 Consolidated Planning period, approximately 50 previously unemployed extremely low income individuals have reentered the workforce, and public services have been provided to over 1,000 unduplicated individuals. The City recognizes that the evaluation of past performance is critical to ensure the City and its subrecipients are implementing activities effectively and that those activities align with the City’s overall strategies and goals. The performance of programs and systems are evaluated to ensure the goals and projects are addressing critical needs in the community. Palo Alto has historically allocated CDBG funds to activities that benefit LMI persons, with a top priority to increase affordable housing opportunities in the City. However, due to Palo Alto’s expensive housing market coupled with a decrease in CDBG entitlement funds, it is becoming more difficult to create opportunities for Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 13 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) affordable housing. As such, during this Consolidated Planning period the City will be focusing on rehabilitating existing affordable housing stock that is in need of repair. Planning Staff will also work closely with subrecipients to leverage resources and create opportunities for partnership and collaboration. The City’s subrecipients are challenged to think creatively about working together to address the needs in our community. Summary of citizen participation process and consultation process The City launched a comprehensive outreach strategy to enhance and broaden citizen participation in the preparation of the Consolidated Plan. The City informed the public that it was in the process of creating the 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan and encouraged public participation in the process by conducting a Regional Needs Survey and hosting regional and community forums. Approximately 4,847 entities, organizations, agencies, and persons were directly engaged via outreach efforts and asked to share materials with their beneficiaries, partners, and contacts. These stakeholders were also encouraged to promote attendance at the public forums and to solicit responses to the Regional Needs Survey. Stakeholder engagement included phone calls, targeted emails, newsletter announcements, social media posts, and personalized requests from City staff. The City provided public notice of the Regional Needs Survey and regional and community forums through various outreach methods, including newspaper postings, the internet, social media, and hard copy fliers distributed to various organizations and at local community centers. Two hundred and nine (209) individuals participated in the regional and community forums, including residents, service providers, community advocates, and interested stakeholders. A total of 11 regional and community forums were held in the following locations: Gilroy, Los Gatos, Morgan Hill, San José, Saratoga, and Mountain View, from September 2014 to November 2014. One thousand four hundred seventy-two (1,472) individuals completed the Regional Needs Survey. Summary of comments or views not accepted and reasons for not accepting them Comments received during the public review period will be included in the final draft of the plan. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 14 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) The Process PR-05 Lead & Responsible Agencies 24 CFR 91.200(b) Describe agency/entity responsible for preparing the Consolidated Plan and those responsible for administration of each grant program and funding source. The agency/entity responsible for preparing the Consolidated Plan and those responsible for administration of the grant program and funding source is shown in Table 1. Table 1 - Responsible Agencies Agency Role Name Department/Agency CDBG Administrator / Lead Agency City of Palo Alto Planning and Community Environment Department Lead and Responsible Agencies The City of Palo Alto (City) is the Lead Agency for the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) entitlement programs. The City’s CDBG Coordinator is responsible for the administration of HUD entitlements, which include the Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG). By federal law, each jurisdiction is required to submit to HUD a five-year Consolidated Plan and Annual Action Plans listing priorities and strategies for the use of federal funds. The Consolidated Plan is a guide for how the City will use its federal funds to meet the housing and community development needs of its populations. For the 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan process, the City worked collaboratively with the County of Santa Clara (County) and other entitlement jurisdictions in the County to identify and prioritize housing and housing-related needs across the region, and strategies to meet those needs. Consolidated Plan Public Contact Information City of Palo Alto Planning and Community Environment Department Consuelo Hernandez 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2428 Consuelo.Hernandez@cityofpaloalto.org Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 15 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) PR-10 Consultation - 91.100, 91.200(b), 91.215(l) Introduction Provide a concise summary of the jurisdiction’s activities to enhance coordination between public and assisted housing providers and private and governmental health, mental health and service agencies (91.215[I]). Throughout the County, eight entitlement jurisdictions are collaborating on preparation of their 2015- 2020 Consolidated Plans. This group of jurisdictions, referred to within this document as the “Santa Clara County Entitlement Jurisdictions” or simply “Entitlement Jurisdictions,” includes:  City of Cupertino  City of Gilroy  City of Mountain View  City of Palo Alto  City of Sunnyvale  City of San José  City of Santa Clara  Santa Clara Urban County Public participation plays a central role in the development of the Consolidated Plan. The participating Entitlement Jurisdictions within the County launched an in-depth, collaborative regional effort to consult with community stakeholders, elected offices, City and County departments, and beneficiaries of entitlement programs to inform and develop the priorities and strategies contained within this five-year plan. The participating jurisdictions, in partnership with LeSar Development Consultants (LDC) and MIG, Inc. (MIG), facilitated a comprehensive outreach process to enhance coordination and discuss new approaches to working with public and assisted housing providers, legal advocates, private and governmental health agencies, mental health service providers, and other stakeholders that utilize funding for eligible activities, projects, and programs. A Regional Needs Survey was conducted to solicit input from residents and workers in the region. Respondents were informed that participating jurisdictions were updating their respective Consolidated Plans for federal funds that primarily serve low- and moderate-income (LMI) residents and areas. The Regional Needs Survey polled respondents about the level of need in their respective neighborhoods for various types of improvements that could be addressed by entitlement funds. A total of 1,472 survey responses were obtained from September 19, 2014 to November 15, 2014, including 1,078 surveys collected electronically and 394 collected via print surveys. Regional Forums The Entitlement Jurisdictions held three regional public forums to identify housing and community development needs and priorities for the next five years. The public forums were conducted as part of a collaborative regional approach to help the participating jurisdictions make data-driven, place- based investment decisions for federal funds. Seventy-six (76) people attended the regional forums, Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 16 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) including community members, service providers, nonprofit representatives, and interested stakeholders. Community Forums in Local Jurisdictions In addition to the regional forums, several Entitlement Jurisdictions conducted public outreach independent of the regional collaborative. The cities of San Jose and Mountain View, and the Santa Clara Urban County, each held multiple community forums to solicit public input on local issues, needs and priorities. The community forums were held in tandem with the regional public forums to expand the outreach process and gather specific place-based input. One hundred and thirty-three (133) individuals attended the community forums, including residents, service providers, nonprofit representatives, and interested stakeholders. Outreach Approximately 4,847 entities, organizations, agencies, and persons were directly engaged via outreach efforts and asked to share materials with their beneficiaries, partners, and contacts. These stakeholders were also encouraged to promote attendance at the public forums and to solicit responses to the Regional Needs Survey. Stakeholder engagement included phone calls, targeted emails, newsletter announcements, social media posts, and personalized requests from staff of the Entitlement Jurisdictions. Each participating jurisdiction also promoted the regional forums and regional survey links on their respective websites and announced the Consolidated Plan process through electronic mailing lists. Outreach materials and the survey links (including materials in Spanish) were emailed to over 4,000 entities, organizations, and persons. Approximately 1,225 printed flyers providing public notice about the regional forums were distributed throughout the County at libraries, recreation centers, community meeting locations, and organizations benefiting LMI residents and areas. These flyers were available in English and Spanish. Print newspaper display ads also were posted in the Gilroy Dispatch (English), Mountain View Voice (English), El Observador (Spanish), La Oferta (Spanish), Thoi Bao (Vietnamese), Philippine News (Tagalog), World Journal (Chinese) and San Jose Mercury News (English). In addition, an online display ad was placed in the San Jose Mercury News to reach readers electronically. Describe coordination with the Continuum of Care and efforts to address the needs of homeless persons (particularly chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans, and unaccompanied youth) and persons at risk of homelessness. The Santa Clara County Continuum of Care (CoC) is a multi-sector group of stakeholders dedicated to ending and preventing homelessness in the County. The CoC’s primary responsibilities are to coordinate large-scale implementation of efforts to prevent and end homelessness in the County. The CoC is governed by the Santa Clara CoC Board (CoC Board), which stands as the driving force committed to supporting and promoting a systems change approach to preventing and ending homelessness in the County. The CoC Board is comprised of the same individuals who serve on the Destination: Home Leadership Board. Destination: Home is a public-private partnership committed to collective impact strategies to Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 17 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) end chronic homelessness, and leads the development of community-wide strategy related to the CoC’s work. The County’s Office of Supportive Housing serves as the Collaborative Applicant for the CoC, and is responsible for implementing by-laws and protocols that govern the operations of the CoC. The Office of Supportive Housing is also responsible for ensuring that the CoC meets the requirements outlined under the Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing Act of 2009 (HEARTH).6 In winter 2015, Destination: Home and the CoC released a Community Plan to End Homelessness in Santa Clara County (the Plan), which outlines a roadmap for community-wide efforts to end homelessness in the County by 2020. The strategies and action steps included in the plan were informed by members who participated in a series of community summits designed to address the needs of homeless populations from April to August 2014. The Plan identifies strategies to address the needs of homeless persons in the County, including chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans, and unaccompanied youth. Additionally, it also intended to address the needs of persons at risk of homelessness. To address the needs of homeless individuals and individuals at risk of homelessness, the Plan aims to implement the following strategies:7 1. Disrupt systems: Develop disruptive strategies and innovative prototypes that transform the systems related to housing homeless people. 2. Build the solution: Secure the right amount of funding needed to provide housing and services to those who are homeless and those at risk of homelessness. 3. Serve the person: Adopt an approach that recognizes the need for client-centered strategies with different responses for different levels of need and different groups, targeting resources to the specific individual or household. Over the next five years, the Plan seeks to identify approximately 6,000 new housing opportunities for the homeless, intending to house 2,518 homeless individuals, 718 homeless veterans, and more than 2,333 children, unaccompanied youth, and homeless individuals living in families. The City is represented on the CoC by Minka Van Der Zwaag, Human Services Manager. Members of the CoC meet on a monthly basis in various work groups to ensure successful implementation components of the Plan’s action steps. A Community Plan Implementation Team, which includes members of the CoC and other community stakeholders, meets quarterly to evaluate progress toward the Plan’s goals, identify gaps in homeless services, establish funding priorities, and pursue an overall systematic approach to address homelessness.8 6 County of Santa Clara. “Housing Element 2015-2022.” 2014. http://www.sccgov.org/sites/planning/PlansPrograms/GeneralPlan/Housing/Documents/HE_2015_Adopted_Final.pdf 7 Santa Clara County CoC. “Community Plan to End Homelessness in Santa Clara County 2015-2020.” 2014. 8 Ibid. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 18 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Describe consultation with the Continuum(s) of Care that serves the jurisdiction's area in determining how to allocate ESG funds, develop performance standards and evaluate outcomes, and develop funding, policies, and procedures for the administration of HMIS. Allocating Funds, Setting Performance Standards and Evaluating Outcomes The City is not an ESG entitlement jurisdiction. Operating and Administrating Homeless Management Information System Santa Clara County (HMIS SCC) The HMIS SCC project is administered by Community Technology Alliance (CTA) and has served the community since 2004. The project meets and exceeds HUD’s requirements for the implementation and compliance of HMIS Standards. The project has a rich array of service provider participation and is utilized to capture information and report on special programming, such as Housing 1000, the County VTA free bus pass program, and prevention service delivery.9 Describe Agencies, groups, organizations, and others who participated in the process, and describe the jurisdictions consultations with housing, social service agencies, and other entities. In August 2014, the Entitlement Jurisdictions contracted with LDC and MIG to develop the Consolidated Plan for fiscal years 2015-2020. In partnership with the participating jurisdictions, LDC and MIG launched an in-depth, collaborative effort to consult with elected officials, City/County departments, community stakeholders, and beneficiaries of entitlement programs to inform and develop the priorities and strategies contained within the five-year plan. Table 2 provides a list of all agencies, groups and organizations that attended the regional and community forums. Several of the agencies, groups and organizations identified in the table attended multiple forums. A comprehensive list of all stakeholders and local service providers contacted to provide input into the planning process at the Consolidated Plan regional and community forums is included in Appendix A. Table 2 - Agencies, Groups, and Organizations that Attended Regional and Community Forums Agency / Group /Organization Agency / Group / Organization Type What Section of the Plan Was Addressed by the Consultation? How Was the Agency/Group/Organization Consulted and What are the Anticipated Outcomes of the Consultation or Areas for Improved Coordination? Abilities United Disabled Services Services – Children Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Agency attended Community Forum(s) on:  September 25, 2014 9 County of Santa Clara. Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER). 2014 http://www.sccgov.org/sites/oah/Housing%20%20Community%20Development%20(HCD)/Documents/Draft%20CAPER%20FY1 4%20vs%201.pdf Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 19 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Agency / Group /Organization Agency / Group / Organization Type What Section of the Plan Was Addressed by the Consultation? How Was the Agency/Group/Organization Consulted and What are the Anticipated Outcomes of the Consultation or Areas for Improved Coordination? Afghan Center Cultural Organizations Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Agency attended Community Forum(s) on:  October 7, 2014 Aging Services Collaborative Senior Services Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Agency attended Community Forum(s) on:  September 27, 2014 Bill Wilson Center Children and Youth Services Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Agency attended Community Forum(s) on:  September 25, 2014  September 27, 2014  September 30, 2014  October 1, 2014  October 2, 2014  October 7, 2014  October 23, 2014  November 20, 2014 California Housing Odd Fellows Foundation Housing Children and Youth Services Community/Family Services and Organizations Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Agency attended Community Forum(s) on:  November 5, 2014 Casa De Clara - Catholic Worker Health Services Homeless Services – Single Women/ Women and Children Only Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Agency attended Community Forum(s) on:  November 20, 2014 Catholic Charities of Santa Clara County Senior Services Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Agency attended Community Forum(s) on:  October 2, 2014 Challenge Team Mountain View Dreamers Immigration Services Community/Family Services and Organizations Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Agency attended Community Forum(s) on:  September 25, 2014 Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 20 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Agency / Group /Organization Agency / Group / Organization Type What Section of the Plan Was Addressed by the Consultation? How Was the Agency/Group/Organization Consulted and What are the Anticipated Outcomes of the Consultation or Areas for Improved Coordination? City of Campbell Government Agencies: Local, County, State and Federal Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Agency attended Community Forum(s) on:  September 25, 2014 City of Cupertino Government Agencies: Local, County, State and Federal Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Agency attended Community Forum(s) on:  November 20, 2014 City of Gilroy Government Agencies: Local, County, State and Federal Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Agency attended Community Forum(s) on:  September 25, 2014 City of Mountain View Government Agencies: Local, County, State and Federal Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Agency attended Community Forum(s) on:  October 22, 2014 City of Palo Alto Government Agencies: Local, County, State and Federal Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Agency attended Community Forum (s) on:  September 25, 2014 City of San Jose Government Agencies: Local, County, State and Federal Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Agency attended Community Forum (s) on:  September 27, 2014  September 30, 2014  October 1, 2014  October 2, 2014  October 7, 2014 City of San Jose Environmental Services Department Government Agencies: Local, County, State and Federal Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Agency attended Community Forum (s) on the following dates:  October 7, 2014 City of Santa Cruz Government Agencies: Local, County, State and Federal Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Agency attended Community Forum (s) on:  September 25, 2014 City of Sunnyvale Government Agencies: Local, County, State and Federal Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Agency attended Community Forum (s) on:  November 5, 2014 Coldwell Banker Business (Major Employers, Chambers of Commerce, Associations, Real Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Agency attended Community Forum (s) on:  September 25, 2014 Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 21 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Agency / Group /Organization Agency / Group / Organization Type What Section of the Plan Was Addressed by the Consultation? How Was the Agency/Group/Organization Consulted and What are the Anticipated Outcomes of the Consultation or Areas for Improved Coordination? Estate) Community School Of Music And Arts Community/ Family Services and Organizations Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Agency attended Community Forum (s) on:  November 20, 2014 Community Services Agency Senior Services Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Agency attended Community Forum(s) on the following dates:  September 25, 2014 Compassion Center Homeless Services Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Agency attended Community Forum(s) on:  September 25, 2014  October 23, 2014  November 5, 2014 County of Santa Clara Government Agencies: Local, County, State and Federal Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Agency attended Community Forum(s) on:  October 22, 2014  November 1, 2014 Destination: Home Homeless Services Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Agency attended Community Forum(s) on:  September 25, 2014  November 1, 2014  November 5, 2014 Five Wounds/ Brookwood Terrace Neighborhood Association Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Agency attended Community Forum(s) on:  September 25, 2014 Franklin McKinley Children's Initiative Education Services Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Agency attended Community Forum(s) on:  October 7, 2014 Fresh Lifelines For Youth (FLY) Children & Youth Services Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Agency attended Community Forum(s) on:  October 7, 2014 Gilroy Compassion Center Homeless Services Needs Assessment and Agency attended Community Forum(s) on: Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 22 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Agency / Group /Organization Agency / Group / Organization Type What Section of the Plan Was Addressed by the Consultation? How Was the Agency/Group/Organization Consulted and What are the Anticipated Outcomes of the Consultation or Areas for Improved Coordination? Strategic Plan  October 23, 2014 Health Trust / Aging Services Collaborative Homeless Services Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Agency attended Community Forum(s) on:  September 25, 2014 Hope’s Corner Homeless Services Community/ Family Services and Organizations Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Agency attended Community Forum(s) on:  September 25, 2014 In Home Services Disabled Services Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Agency attended Community Forum (s) on:  October 23, 2014 Institute on Aging Senior Services Health Services Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Agency attended Community Forum(s) on:  October 1, 2014 InnVision Shelter Network (IVSN) Homeless Services Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Agency attended Community Forum(s) on:  October 22, 2014 Junior Achievement Children and Youth Services Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Agency attended Community Forum(s) on:  September 25, 2014 Law Foundation Of Silicon Valley Fair Housing and Legal Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Agency attended Community Forum(s) on:  October 23, 2014 LeSar Development Corporation Affordable Housing Developers Business (Major Employers, Chambers of Commerce, Associations, Real Estate) Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Agency attended Community Forum(s) on:  October 7, 2014 Legal Aid Society Santa Clara County Fair Housing and Legal Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Agency attended Community Forum(s) on:  September 25, 2014 Los Altos Community/Family Needs Agency attended Community Forum(s) Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 23 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Agency / Group /Organization Agency / Group / Organization Type What Section of the Plan Was Addressed by the Consultation? How Was the Agency/Group/Organization Consulted and What are the Anticipated Outcomes of the Consultation or Areas for Improved Coordination? Community Foundation Services and Organizations Assessment and Strategic Plan on:  September 30, 2014  October 1, 2014 Live Oak Adult Day Services Senior Services Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Agency attended Community Forum(s) on:  October 23, 2014 Mayfair NAC Neighborhood Association Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Agency attended Community Forum(s) on the following dates:  September 27, 2014 Mckinly Bonita Neighborhood Association Neighborhood Association Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Agency attended Community Forum(s) on:  October 2, 2014 MidPen Housing Affordable Housing Developers Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Agency attended Community Forum(s) on:  September 30, 2014 Migrant Education, Santa Clara Unified School District Education Services Employment and Job Training Services Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Agency attended Community Forum(s) on the following dates:  September 25, 2014  October 23, 2014 Mountain View Dreamers Immigration Services Community/Family Services and Organizations Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Agency attended Community Forum(s) on:  September 25, 2014  September 27, 2014  September 30, 2014  October 1, 2014  October 2, 2014  October 7, 2014  October 22, 2014  October 23, 2014  November 1, 2014  November 5, 2014  November 20, 2014 Mountain View Government Agencies: Needs Agency attended Community Forum(s) Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 24 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Agency / Group /Organization Agency / Group / Organization Type What Section of the Plan Was Addressed by the Consultation? How Was the Agency/Group/Organization Consulted and What are the Anticipated Outcomes of the Consultation or Areas for Improved Coordination? Human Relations Commission (HRC) Local, County, State and Federal Community/ Family Services and Organizations Senior Services Children and Youth Services Assessment and Strategic Plan on:  September 25, 2014 Palo Alto Human Relations Commission Government Agencies: Local, County, State and Federal Community/ Family Services and Organizations Senior Services Children and Youth Services Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Agency attended Community Forum(s) on:  September 25, 2014 Project Access Employment and Job Training Services Community/ Family Services and Organizations Senior Services Children and Youth Services Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Agency attended Community Forum(s) on:  October 23, 2014 Project Sentinel Fair Housing and Legal Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Agency attended Community Forum (s):  September 25, 2014 Rebuilding Together Peninsula Housing Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Agency attended Community Forum (s):  October 1, 2014 Rebuilding Together Silicon Housing Needs Assessment and Agency attended Community Forum (s) Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 25 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Agency / Group /Organization Agency / Group / Organization Type What Section of the Plan Was Addressed by the Consultation? How Was the Agency/Group/Organization Consulted and What are the Anticipated Outcomes of the Consultation or Areas for Improved Coordination? Valley Strategic Plan on:  October 1, 2014  November 20, 2014 Sacred Heart - Housing Action Committee Fair Housing and Legal Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Agency attended Community Forum (s) on:  September 25, 2014  October 1, 2014  October 23, 2014 Sacred Heart Community Service Fair Housing and Legal Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Agency attended Community Forum (s) on:  September 27, 2014  September 30, 2014  October 1, 2014  October 2, 2014  October 7, 2014 Senior Adults Legal Assistance (SALA) Fair Housing and Legal Senior Services Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Agency attended Community Forum (s) on:  September 27, 2014 Santa Clara County Government Agencies: Local, County, State and Federal Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Agency attended Community Forum (s) on:  October 1, 2014 Secondary Fuente/ Walnut Creek Homeowner Ass. Housing Business (Major Employers, Chambers of Commerce, Associations, Real Estate) Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Agency attended Community Forum (s) on:  September 25, 2014  September 27, 2014  October 22, 2014  October 23, 2014  November 1, 2014  November 5, 2014 Servant Partners Cultural Organization Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Agency attended Community Forum (s) on:  September 27, 2014 Silicon Valley Community Foundation Education Services Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Agency attended Community Forum (s) on:  September 27, 2014 Silicon Valley Independent Senior Services Needs Assessment and Agency attended Community Forum (s) Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 26 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Agency / Group /Organization Agency / Group / Organization Type What Section of the Plan Was Addressed by the Consultation? How Was the Agency/Group/Organization Consulted and What are the Anticipated Outcomes of the Consultation or Areas for Improved Coordination? Living Center Strategic Plan on:  October 2, 2014 Somos Mayfair Community/ Family Services and Organizations Children and Youth Services Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Agency attended Community Forum (s) on:  September 25, 2014 South County Collaborative Housing Services Homeless Services Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Agency attended Community Forum (s) on:  September 25, 2014  September 30, 2014  October 2, 2014 St. Joseph's Family Center Continuum of Care Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Agency attended Community Forum (s) on:  September 27, 2014  October 1, 2014  October 2, 2014 Sunnyvale Community Services Community/ Family Services and Organizations Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Agency attended Community Forum (s) on: October 22, 2014 Silicon Valley Council of Nonprofits Community/ Family Services and Organizations Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Agency attended Community Forum (s) on:  October 22, 2014 West Valley Community Services Senior Services Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Agency attended Community Forum (s) on:  September 25, 2014 YMCA Children & Youth Services Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Agency attended Community Forum (s) on:  October 1, 2014 Yu Chi Kai Senior Center Senior Services Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Agency attended Community Forum(s) on:  November 20, 2014 Identify any Agency Types not consulted and provide rationale for not consulting. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 27 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Not applicable. See PR-10 Table 2. Other Local/Regional/State/Federal Planning Efforts Considered When Preparing the Plan Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 28 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Table 3 - Other Local / Regional / Federal Planning Efforts Name of Plan Lead Organization How Do the Goals of Your Strategic Plan Overlap With the Goals of Each Plan? City of Palo Alto Housing Element (2015-2023) City of Palo Alto The Housing Element serves as a policy guide to help the City meet its existing and future housing needs. This effort aligns with the Strategic Plan's goal to assist in the creation and preservation of affordable housing. Continuum of Care Regional Continuum of Care Council The CoC works to alleviate the impact of homelessness in the community through the cooperation and collaboration of social service providers. This effort aligns with the Strategic Plan's goal to support activities to end homelessness. 2012-2014 Comprehensive HIV Prevention & Care Plan for San José Santa Clara County HIV Planning Council for Prevention and Care This plan provides a roadmap for the Santa Clara County HIV Planning Council for Prevention and Care to provide a comprehensive and compassionate system of HIV prevention and care services for the County. This effort aligns with the Strategic Plan's goal to support activities that strengthen neighborhoods through the provision of community services and public improvements. Affordable Housing Funding Landscape & Local Best Practices (2013) Cities Association of Santa Clara County and Housing Trust Silicon Valley This report provides a comparison of the different funding strategies available for affordable housing in the County, and the best practices for funding new affordable housing. This effort aligns with the Strategic Plan's goal to assist in the creation and preservation of affordable housing. Regional Housing Need Plan for the San Francisco Bay Area: 2014- 2022 Association of Bay Area Governments This plan analyzes the total regional housing need for the County and all of the Bay Area. This effort aligns with the Strategic Plan's goal to assist in the creation and preservation of affordable housing. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 29 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Name of Plan Lead Organization How Do the Goals of Your Strategic Plan Overlap With the Goals of Each Plan? Community Plan to End Homelessness in Santa Clara County 2015-2020 Destination: Home The Community Plan to End Homelessness in the County is a five-year plan to guide governmental actors, nonprofits, and other community members as they make decisions about funding, programs, priorities and needs. This effort aligns with the Strategic Plan's goal to support activities to end homelessness. Palo Alto's Infrastructure: Catching Up, Keeping Up, and Moving Ahead (2011) City of Palo Alto’s Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Commission This plan details recommendations for infrastructure maintenance and replace, as well as identifies potential sources of funding. This effort aligns with the Strategic Plan's goal to support activities that strengthen neighborhoods through the provision of community services and public improvements. City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan (1998) City of Palo Alto This plan is the City’s primary tool for guiding future development. It provides a guide for long-term choices and goals for the City’s future. This effort aligns with the Strategic Plan's goal to support activities that strengthen neighborhoods through the provision of community services and public improvements. Describe cooperation and coordination with other public entities, including the State and any adjacent units of general local government, in the implementation of the Consolidated Plan. (91.215[l]) As mentioned previously, the Entitlement Jurisdictions are collaborating on preparation of their 2015- 2020 Consolidated Plans. The outreach and the regional needs assessment for these jurisdictions was a coordinated effort. The CoC and the County were involved in the formation of the Consolidated Plan and will be integral in its implementation. As standard practice, CDBG entitlement jurisdictions from throughout the County hold quarterly meetings known as the CDBG Coordinators Group. These meetings are often attended by HUD representatives and their purpose is to share information, best practices, new developments, and federal policy and appropriations updates among the local grantee staff, as well as to offer a convenient forum for HUD to provide ad-hoc technical assistance related to federal grant management. Meeting agendas cover such topics as projects receiving multi-jurisdictional funding, Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 30 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) performance levels and costs for contracted public services, proposed annual funding plans, HUD program administration requirements, and other topics of mutual concern. These quarterly meetings provide the opportunity for the City to consult with other jurisdictions on its proposed use of federal funds for the upcoming Program Year. The CDBG Coordinators Group meetings are often followed by a Regional Housing Working Group meeting, which is open to staff of entitlement and non-entitlement jurisdictions. The Working Group provides a forum for jurisdictions to develop coordinated responses to regional housing challenges. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 31 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) PR-15 Citizen Participation Summary of citizen participation process/Efforts made to broaden citizen participation Summarize citizen participation process and how it impacted goal-setting The following is an overview of the efforts made to enhance and broaden citizen participation. A comprehensive summary of the citizen participation process and how it impacted goal-setting is provided in Appendix A: Citizen Participation Summary. Regional and Community Forums  Results: 209 individuals participated in the forums including residents, service providers, community advocates and interested stakeholders.  Hardcopy Engagement: 1,225 hardcopy surveys distributed to: libraries, and community meetings, organizations benefiting LMI residents and area.  Location: A total of 11 regional and community forums were held in the following locations: Gilroy, Los Gatos, Morgan Hill, San José, Saratoga, and Mountain View from September 2014 to November 2014.  Newspaper Advertisements: Eight multi-lingual display ads were posted in local news media outlets in the County reaching a joint circulation across the County of over 1,575,000. Regional Needs Survey  Results: 1,472 responses  Outreach: 4,847 entities, organizations, persons directly engaged via email; outreach flyer and survey links posted on websites of the Entitlement Jurisdictions of the County.  Social Media: Approximately 25,000 persons on Facebook and 11,000 persons on Twitter were engaged. Overall Community Needs  Need for Affordable Rental Housing The majority of community forum participants and survey respondents identified increasing affordable rental housing inventory as the highest priority need within the County. More than 63 percent of survey respondents indicated affordable rental housing as a “high level” of need. Several community forum participants noted that LMI households cannot afford average rental rates in the County.  Need to Increase Services for the Homeless Emergency and transitional housing, comprehensive services at homeless encampments (e.g., basic shelter facilities, health care referrals), and rental assistance programs for the homeless were frequently identified by participants as critical needs.  Need for Senior Housing Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 32 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) The need to address the housing crisis facing seniors in the County was a common discussion topic. Forum participants noted that elderly renter households experience numerous housing issues, including cost burden and rental units in disrepair.  Need for Increase in Community Services Survey respondents and forum participants called attention to the need for expanded support of a wide range of community services to meet the basic needs of vulnerable populations. Programs to meet basic needs such as food, clothing, health, and shelter of low income and special needs populations were frequently highlighted during community forums. Due to the increased demand for these basic assistance programs, service providers noted that they were struggling to meet clients’ needs with limited resources and staff capacity.  Need for Support Services for Seniors Local service providers who attended the community forums stressed the importance of increasing safety net programs for seniors. Nutrition and food assistance programs, transportation services, recreational programs to reduce senior isolation, and general case management services are needed to address challenges faced by the County’s growing senior population.  Need for Transportation Services Local service providers at each of the Consolidated Plan forums highlighted the lack of affordable and accessible transportation services in the County. Programs to augment public transit, paratransit, and senior transit services were cited as necessities.  Need for Fair Housing Education and Legal Services Several service providers noted the need to expand the provision of free or low-cost legal services to protect fair housing rights and to mediate tenant / landlord issues. Education for tenants and landlords was identified as a vital need to prevent illegal evictions and address housing discrimination.  Need for Economic Development and Job Training Programs Many forum participants emphasized the need for job training programs for youth, low- skilled workers, homeless individuals and undocumented workers. Small business assistance, including micro-enterprise loans and services to support minority-owned businesses, were also highlighted as important tools to spur job creation and to retain small business owners in the County.  Need for Infrastructure and Neighborhood Improvement Services The need to create pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods and cities that support “Complete Streets” guidance was frequently noted by forum participants. Addressing bicycle/pedestrian conflicts with vehicular traffic was a key issue of concern for vulnerable populations, including school-age children and seniors. Other participants expressed the need to expand ADA improvements such as curb cuts, sidewalk repairs and crosswalk enhancements. Expanding access to open space and recreational amenities was also noted by several service providers as a pressing need to encourage healthy lifestyles and active living among the County’s residents. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 33 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Consolidated Plan Public Comment Period The Consolidated Plan was released February 17, 2015 for a 30 day public review and comment period. An updated version of the Plan was released on February 24, 2015 and the comment period was extended an additional seven days. The Plan was available electronically on the City’s CDBG website at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pln/cdbg.asp. Hardcopies were made available at City Hall and at the Development Services Center located at 285 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301. The electronic version was sent to distribution lists totaling approximately nine entities, organizations, agencies and citizens or groups. In addition, public comment was encouraged at the hearings listed below, or could be submitted in writing to: City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Attn: Consuelo Hernandez, Senior Planner. A summary of all public comments is included in the final Consolidated Plan, along with the City’s response to the comments, if any. Public Hearings Locations and dates: o Human Relations Commission Public Hearing City Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 February 12, 2015 – 7:00PM o Human Relations Commission Public Hearing City Council Conference Room 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo alto, CA 94301 March 12, 2015 – 7:00PM o Palo Alto City Council Finance Committee Public Hearing Council Conference Room 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 March 17, 2015 – 6:00PM o City Council Public Hearing City Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, Ca 94301 May 4, 2015 – 7:00PM In addition to the mass distribution of the draft Plan and notice of the public comment period described above, notice of the public hearings was published in advance in the Palo Alto Weekly. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 34 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Table 4 - Citizen Participation Outreach Mode of Outreach Target of Outreach Summary of Response/Attendance Summary of Comments Received Summary of comments not accepted and reasons URL (If applicable) Public Forums Broad community outreach to all members of the public and targeted outreach to service providers, beneficiaries and grant recipients A total of 209 individuals attended the 11 regional/community forums held in the fall of 2014. See PR-15 All comments were accepted. Online Survey Broad community outreach to members of the public and interested stakeholders A total of 1,078 Regional Needs Surveys were collected during the open period from September 19, 2014 through November 15, 2014. The online survey was available in Spanish and English. The online survey link was distributed to over 4,847 entities, organizations, agencies, and persons. See PR-15 All comments were accepted. English: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/SCC_Regional_S urvey Spanish: https://es.surveymonkey.com/s/SCC_Regional_Surv ey_Spanish Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 35 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Mode of Outreach Target of Outreach Summary of Response/Attendance Summary of Comments Received Summary of comments not accepted and reasons URL (If applicable) Print Survey Targeted non-English Speaking communities through surveys in English, Spanish, simplified Chinese, Tagalog and Vietnamese. Over 3,160 print surveys were distributed at community centers, libraries, City Halls, senior centers and other high- traffic community hubs. A total of 394 Regional Needs Surveys were collected during the open period from September 19, 2014 through November 15, 2014. The print survey was available in five languages. See PR-15 All comments were accepted. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 36 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Mode of Outreach Target of Outreach Summary of Response/Attendance Summary of Comments Received Summary of comments not accepted and reasons URL (If applicable) Website Broad outreach to Santa Clara County stakeholders with computer and internet access Announcements posted to the websites of the Entitlement Jurisdictions to promote regional survey links (English and Spanish) and regional/ community forums See PR-15 Not Applicable County of Santa Clara/ Urban County: http://www.sccgov.org/sites/oah/Pages/Office-of- Affordable-Housing.aspx City of Palo Alto: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pln/cdbg. asp City of Sunnyvale: http://sunnyvale.ca.gov/Departments/CommunityD evelopment/HousingandCommunityAssistance.asp x City of Mountain View: http://www.mountainview.gov/depts/comdev/pres ervation/details.asp?NewsID=899&TargetID=35 http://www.mountainview.gov/events/default.asp City of San Jose: http://www.sanjoseca.gov/HousingConPlan City of Cupertino: http://www.cupertino.org/index.aspx?page=976 City of Santa Clara: http://santaclaraca.gov/index.aspx?page=41&recor did=13579 City of Gilroy: http://www.cityofgilroy.org/cityofgilroy/ http://www.cityofgilroy.org/cityofgilroy/city_hall/co mmunity_development/planning/housing/default.a spx Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 37 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Mode of Outreach Target of Outreach Summary of Response/Attendance Summary of Comments Received Summary of comments not accepted and reasons URL (If applicable) Advertisements in News Media Outlets Multi-lingual advertisements printed in the following media outlets: El Observador (Spanish, )Mountain View Voice (English), San Jose Mercury News (English), Gilroy Dispatch (English), La Oferta (Spanish), Thoi Bao (Vietnamese), Philippine News (Tagalog) and World Journal (Chinese) Eight, multi-lingual display ads were posted in local news media outlets in the County; One online advertisement was placed in the San Jose Mercury News. Joint circulation (e.g. number of copies distributed on an average day) of over 1,575,000. See PR-15 Not Applicable Social Media Broad outreach to Santa Clara County residents and stakeholders with computer access Announcements posted to Facebook and Twitter accounts of Entitlement Jurisdictions and community partners. A potential of 25,000 persons on Facebook and 11,000 persons on Twitter were engaged in this process. See PR-15 All comments were accepted. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 38 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Mode of Outreach Target of Outreach Summary of Response/Attendance Summary of Comments Received Summary of comments not accepted and reasons URL (If applicable) E-blasts Mass emails to new and established distribution lists of Entitlement Jurisdictions and community partners Approximately 4,847 entities, organizations, agencies, and persons have been engaged through e-blasts outreach efforts. E-blasts included links to an electronic outreach flyer. See PR-15 All comments were accepted. Personalized emails from staff of Entitlement Jurisdictions Service providers, beneficiaries and grant recipients across the County. Targeted emails promoting regional survey links (English and Spanish) sent to over 560 stakeholders. See PR-15 All comments were accepted. Print Outreach Flyers Print surveys were distributed at community centers, libraries, City Halls, senior centers and other high-traffic community hubs. Over 1,225 print flyers were printed and distributed at community hubs across the County. See PR-15 All comments were accepted. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 39 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Needs Assessment NA-05 Overview The County of Santa Clara (County) encompasses Silicon Valley, an area known for its technological enterprise, wealth and proximity to the San Francisco Bay Area. It is a region of distinct socio- economic stratification, containing many of the wealthiest households in the nation. It is also one of the least affordable places to live, with 42 percent of residents experiencing housing cost burden.10 The region boasts the highest national median household income at $90,73711. It is also the third- most expensive rental market in the U.S,12 the seventh-least affordable for-sale market of any metropolitan area13, and home to the fourth-largest population of homeless individuals14 with the highest percentage of unsheltered homeless of any major city. 15 These statistics point to a widening gap between the highest earners and the middle and lower income population. Over 45 percent of households earn $100,000 or more yearly, but only 13 percent earn between $50,000 and $75,000 and 15 percent earn between $25,000 and $49,99916, making the region the second-least equitable metropolitan area in the nation.17 Many lower income residents struggle with severe housing costs driven by a tight and competitive housing market that responds to the demands of the highest earning households, driving up the cost of for-sale and rental housing. In order to maintain housing affordability and meet the needs of a diverse and growing population, the jurisdictions within the County must work to preserve and expand the supply of housing for all income levels. This will be critical to maintaining the wellbeing and economic prosperity of the region. The City of Palo Alto (City) is part of the San Francisco Metropolitan Bay Area, located 35 miles south of San Francisco and 14 miles north of San Jose. The City is located within the County, borders San Mateo County, and encompasses an area of approximately 26 square miles, one-third of which consists of open space. According to 2008-2012 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimates, the City's total resident population is 63,475. The City has the most educated residents in the country and is one of the most expensive cities to live in.18 In Silicon Valley, the City is considered a central economic focal point and is home to over 7,000 businesses while providing jobs to more than 98,000 people.19 10 2007-2011 CHAS 11 The United States Conference of Mayors and The Council on Metro Economies and the New American City. “U.S. Metro Economies: Income and Wage Gaps Across the US.” August 2014. http://usmayors.org/metroeconomies/2014/08/report.pdf 12 National Low Income Housing Coalition. “Out of Reach.” 2014. http://nlihc.org/sites/default/files/oor/2014OOR.pdf 13 Trulia. “Where is Homeownership Within Reach of the Middle Class and Millennials.” November 2014. http://www.trulia.com/trends/2014/11/middle-class-millennials-report/ 14 The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. “2014 Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR) to Congress.” October 2014. https://www.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/AHAR-2014-Part1.pdf 15 Ibid 16 The United States Conference of Mayors and The Council on Metro Economies and the New American City. “U.S. Metro Economies: Income and Wage Gaps Across the US.” August 2014. http://usmayors.org/metroeconomies/2014/08/report.pdf 17 Ibid 18 Huffington Post. “California’s Most Educated Cities: Palo Alto, Los Altos Top the List.” January 2012. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/california-most-educated-towns/ 19 Bedbury Realtors. “Palo Alto.” http://www.bedburyrealtors.com/Communities/Palo-Alto Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 40 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Methodology The majority of data utilized is provided by HUD for the purpose of preparing the Consolidated Plan. HUD periodically receives custom tabulations of data from the U.S. Census Bureau that are largely not available through standard Census products. Known as the Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data, it demonstrates the extent of housing problems and housing needs, particularly for low income households. The CHAS data is used by local governments to plan how to spend HUD funds, and may also be used by HUD to distribute grant funds.20 When CHAS data is not available or appropriate, other data is utilized, including 2000 and 2010 U.S. Census data and American Community Survey (ACS) 2008-2012 five-year estimates. While ACS one- year estimates provide the most current data, this report utilizes five-year estimates as they reflect a larger sample size and are considered more reliable and precise.21 Federal funds provided under the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) entitlement program are primarily concerned with activities that benefit low-and moderate-income (LMI) households whose incomes do not exceed 80 percent of the area median family income (AMI), as established by HUD, with adjustments for smaller or larger families.22 HUD utilizes three income levels to define LMI households:  Extremely low income: Households earning 30 percent or less than the AMI (subject to specified adjustments for areas with unusually high or low incomes)  Very low income: Households earning 50 percent or less than the AMI (subject to specified adjustments for areas with unusually high or low incomes)  Low and moderate income: Households earning 80 percent or less than the AMI (subject to adjustments for areas with unusually high or low incomes or housing costs) Overview Within Palo Alto, almost one-quarter (23 percent) of City households (5,845 households) are LMI, with incomes ranging from 0-80% AMI:  10 percent (2,560 households) at 0-30% AMI  6 percent (1,675 households) at 30-50% AMI  6 percent (1,610 households) at 50-80% AMI The following provides a brief summary of the results of the Needs Assessment, which will be discussed in more detail in each corresponding section of this chapter. 20 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. “Consolidated Planning/CHAS Data.” http://www.huduser.org/portal/datasets/cp.html 21 United States Census Bureau. “American Community Survey: When to Use 1-year, 3-year, or 5-year Estimates.” http://www.census.gov/acs/www/guidance_for_data_users/estimates/ 22 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. “Glossary of CPD Terms.” http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/comm_planning/library/glossary Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 41 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) NA -10 Housing Needs • Twenty-nine percent of households in the City are paying more than 30 percent of their income toward housing costs. • Thirteen percent of households are severely cost burdened and paying more than 50 percent of their income toward housing. NA-15 Disproportionately Greater Need: Housing Problems  Eighty-nine percent of Asian households in the 30-50% AMI category experience housing problems, compared to 71 percent of the jurisdiction as a whole.  Ninety-three percent of Asian households in the 50-80% AMI category experience housing problems, compared to 71 percent of the jurisdiction as a whole.  More than three-quarters of Hispanic households (78 percent) in the 80-100% AMI category experience housing problems, compared to a nearly half (54 percent) of the jurisdiction as a whole. NA-20 Disproportionately Greater Need: Severe Housing Problems  More than half of Asian households in the 30-50% AMI income category experience severe housing problems in the City, compared to 43 percent of the jurisdiction as a whole.  More than three-quarters of Asian households (77 percent) in the 50-80% AMI category experience a disproportionate amount of severe housing problems, compared to 40 percent of the jurisdiction as a whole.  Forty-five percent of Hispanic households in the 80-100% AMI category experience a disproportionate amount of severe housing problems, compared to 23 percent of the jurisdiction as a whole. NA-25 Disproportionately Greater Need: Housing Cost Burdens  Hispanic households experience a disproportionate cost burden, with 27 percent of households experiencing cost burden, compared to 16 percent of the City as a whole.  American Indian, Alaska Native households experience a disproportionate severe cost burden, with 33 percent of households experiencing cost burden, compared to 13 percent of the City as a whole. NA-35 Public Housing  The Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara (HACSC) assists approximately 17,000 households through the federal Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program (Section 8).  The Section 8 waiting list contains 21,256 households – this is estimated to be a 10-year wait. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 42 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) NA-40 Homeless Needs  The Santa Clara region is home to the fourth-largest population of homeless individuals and the highest percentage of unsheltered homeless of any major city.  As of the 2013 Point in Time Homeless Survey, Palo Alto had 157 homeless residents, and over 90 percent were unsheltered and living in a place not fit for human habitation.  Palo Alto clients – those who report that their last permanent zip code was in Palo Alto – represent approximately one percent of the County’s homeless clients. NA-45 Non-Homeless Special Needs  Individuals 65 years of age and older represent 17 percent of the total population of the City.  Thirty-three percent of households in the City contain at least one person 62 years or older.  More than one-quarter of individuals (27 percent) age 65 or older have a disability compared to four percent of the population age 18 to 64, or seven percent of the population as a whole. NA-50 Non-Housing Community Development Needs • Residents and stakeholders who participated in the community outreach for the Consolidated Plan identified the following community development needs as high priorities within these three categories: o Public Facilities: increased homeless facilities, youth centers, rehabilitation of senior centers, and recreational facilities throughout the County o Public Improvements: complete streets that accommodate multiple transportation modes, pedestrian safety, ADA curb improvements, and increased access to parks and open space amenities o Public Services: food assistance and nutrition programs for vulnerable populations, year-round activities for youth, health care services for seniors and low income families, and services for homeless persons Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 43 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) NA-10 Housing Needs Assessment - 24 CFR 91.205 (a, b, c) Introduction This section provides an overview of the housing needs present in the City, including the degree and distribution of housing problems within multiple income brackets. Within the Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data, HUD identifies four housing problems: 1) Housing unit lacking complete kitchen facilities 2) Housing unit lacking complete plumbing facilities 3) Household being overcrowded 4) Housing being cost burdened In addition, HUD defines severe housing problems as:  Severely overcrowded, with more than 1.5 persons per room  Severely cost burdened families paying more than 50 percent of income toward housing costs (including utilities) A household is considered to be overcrowded if there is more than one person per room and severely overcrowded if there are more than 1.5 people per room. A household is considered to be cost burdened if the household is spending more than 30 percent of its monthly income on housing costs (including utilities) and severely cost burdened if the household is spending more than 50 percent of its monthly income on housing costs (including utilities). Table 5 - Housing Needs Assessment Demographics (City) Demographics Base Year: 2000 Most Recent Year: 2012 % Change Population 58,598 64,514 10% Households 25,216 26,244 <1% Median Income $90,377 $122,482 36% Data Source: 2000 Census (Base Year), 2008-2012 ACS (Most Recent Year) Table 6 - Total Households (City) 0-30% AMI >30-50% AMI >50-80% AMI >80-100% AMI >100% AMI Total Households * 2,565 1,674 1,610 1,495 18,460 Small Family Households * 395 390 580 525 9,150 Large Family Households * 95 70 30 10 1,345 Household Contains at Least One Person 62-74 Years of Age 550 405 360 320 3,035 Household Contains at Least One Person Age 75 or Older 860 449 325 285 1,875 Households With One or More Children 6 Years Old or Younger * 90 165 200 120 2,150 Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 44 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) 0-30% AMI >30-50% AMI >50-80% AMI >80-100% AMI >100% AMI * The highest income category for these family types is >80% AMI Data Source: 2007-2011 CHAS Table 7 - Housing Problems (City) Renter Households Owner Households 0-30% AMI >30- 50% AMI >50- 80% AMI >80- 100% AMI Total 0-30% AMI >30- 50% AMI >50- 80% AMI >80- 100% AMI Total NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS Substandard Housing - Lacking Complete Plumbing or Kitchen Facilities 130 50 0 35 215 45 10 0 0 55 Severely Overcrowded - With >1.51 People Per Room (and Complete Kitchen and Plumbing) 55 0 35 25 115 0 0 0 0 0 Overcrowded - With 1.01---1.5 People Per Room (and None of the Above Problems) 30 15 40 20 105 0 50 0 0 50 Housing Cost Burden Greater Than 50 Percent of Income (and None of the Above Problems) 715 395 225 145 1,480 625 154 265 125 1,169 Housing Cost Burden Greater Than 30 Percent of Income (and None of the Above Problems) 175 415 450 330 1,370 65 105 85 70 325 Zero/Negative Income (and None of the Above Problems) 115 0 0 0 115 80 0 0 0 80 Data Source: 2007-2011 CHAS Table 8 - Severe Housing Problems (City) Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 45 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Renter Households Owner Households 0- 30% AMI >30- 50% AMI >50- 80% AMI >80- 100% AMI Total 0- 30% AMI >30- 50% AMI >50- 80% AMI >80- 100% AMI Total NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS Having One or More of Four Housing Problems 925 460 300 230 1,915 670 219 265 125 1,279 Having None of Four Housing Problems 610 520 540 600 2,270 165 475 505 540 1,685 Household Has Negative Income, but None of the Other Housing Problems 115 0 0 0 115 80 0 0 0 80 Data Source: 2007-2011 CHAS Table 9 - Cost Burden > 30% (City) Renter Households Owner Households 0-30% AMI >30-50% AMI >50- 80% AMI Total 0-30% AMI >30-50% AMI >50- 80% AMI Total NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS Small Related 145 320 250 715 150 55 150 355 Large Related 50 10 20 80 45 0 0 45 Elderly 500 200 140 840 370 159 160 689 Other 340 340 300 980 175 40 35 250 Total Need by Income 1,035 870 710 2,615 740 254 345 1,339 Data Source: 2007-2011 CHAS Table 10 - Cost Burden > 50% (City) Renter Households Owner Households 0-30% AMI >30-50% AMI >50- 80% AMI Total 0-30% AMI >30-50% AMI >50- 80% AMI Total NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS Small Related 105 195 60 360 140 35 120 295 Large Related 50 0 0 50 45 0 0 45 Elderly 345 120 50 515 315 89 120 524 Other 310 105 120 535 175 30 20 225 Total Need by Income 810 420 230 1,460 675 154 260 1,089 Data Source: 2007-2011 CHAS Table 11 - Crowding Information (City) Renter Households Owner Households 0- 30% AMI >30- 50% AMI >50- 80% AMI >80- 100% AMI Total 0- 30% AMI >30- 50% AMI >50- 80% AMI >80- 100% AMI Total NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS Single-Family Households 100 15 75 55 245 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple, Unrelated Family Households 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 0 0 50 Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 46 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Renter Households Owner Households 0- 30% AMI >30- 50% AMI >50- 80% AMI >80- 100% AMI Total 0- 30% AMI >30- 50% AMI >50- 80% AMI >80- 100% AMI Total Other, Non-Family Households 0 0 0 10 10 0 0 0 0 0 Total Need by Income 100 15 75 65 255 0 50 0 0 50 Data Source: 2007-2011 CHAS Table 12 - Households with Children Present (City) Renter Households Owner Households 0-30% AMI >30- 50% AMI >50-80% AMI Total 0-30% AMI >30-50% AMI >50-80% AMI Total Households with Children Present 75 115 165 355 15 50 35 100 Data Source: 2007-2011 CHAS What are the most common housing problems? One-third (33 percent) of City households report at least one housing problem, while 17 percent report at least one severe housing problem. Cost Burden Cost burden is the most common housing problem:  Twenty-nine percent of households (6,870 households) in the City are paying more than 30 percent of their income toward housing costs. Severe Cost Burden Severe housing cost burden is the second most common housing problem:  Thirteen percent of households (3,095 households) are severely cost burdened and paying more than 50 percent of their income toward housing. Overcrowding The third most common housing problem is overcrowding:  One percent of households (305 households) are overcrowded, with more than one person per room.  Seventy-nine percent of overcrowded households (190 households) are LMI. Are any populations/household types more affected than others by these problems? LMI renter households are much more likely to experience cost burden, with 47 percent of LMI renter households (2,375) paying more than 30 percent of their income toward housing costs, compared to 26 percent of LMI owner households (1,299). Additionally, 26 percent of renter Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 47 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) households (1,335) are paying more than 50 percent of their income toward housing costs are LMI, compared to 21 percent of owner households (1,044). Renter households are more likely to be overcrowded than owner households, with two percent of renter households experiencing overcrowding compared to a negligible amount of owner households (.3 percent or 50 households). Additionally, 75 percent of renter households experiencing overcrowding are LMI. Describe the characteristics and needs of Low income individuals and families with children (especially extremely low income) who are currently housed but are at imminent risk of either residing in shelters or becoming unsheltered 91.205(c)/91.305(c)). Also discuss the needs of formerly homeless families and individuals who are receiving rapid re-housing assistance and are nearing the termination of that assistance. Rapid-rehousing The County is home to several agencies providing rapid-rehousing assistance to households in need. One example is the California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) program, which serves over 12,000 families annually in the region (nearly 30,000 men, women, and children). According to the Santa Clara County Social Services Agency, “Twenty‐nine percent of CalWORKs families included adults with earned wages, with the median earnings for CalWORKs families at $2,013 for three months. Taking into account the earned wages, the maximum monthly CalWORKs benefit for a family of four, and other government assistance income (CalFresh, Earned Income Tax Credit, and other unearned income), a CalWORKs family in Santa Clara County would have a monthly income of approximately $1,928. To afford the area FMR, a CalWORKs family would have to expend 86% of their monthly income on rent.” 23 Additionally, Help Management Information System (HMIS) data indicates that in the last year, homeless and housing service providers assisted 52,805 individuals in families—15,024 of whom were homeless at the time of service (40 percent were under the age of 18).24 Forty-six percent of the families receiving assistance were unemployed and 31 percent were receiving CalWORKs assistance. In Fiscal Year 2013-2014, the number of CalWORKs households receiving HUD services increased by nearly 70 percent since 2011.25 Currently Housed and At Imminent Risk The numbers below do not reflect any formerly homeless families or individuals who are receiving rapid re-housing assistance and are nearing the termination of that assistance. Table 13 lists the number of extremely low income Section 8 participants at 30% AMI or below. HACSC does not collect information on the specific characteristics of this population. Table 13 - Section 8 Participants at 0-30% AMI (County) Income Limit Category At 30% or Below 23 Santa Clara County Social Services Agency, 2014 24 Ibid 25 Ibid Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 48 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Income Limit Category At 30% or Below 1 Person 6,292 2 Persons 3,580 3 Persons 1,813 4 Persons 1,378 5 Persons 829 6 Persons 399 7 Persons 166 8 Persons 50 Total 14,507 Data Source: HACSC If a jurisdiction provides estimates of the at-risk population(s), it should also include a description of the operational definition of the at-risk group and the methodology used to generate the estimates. At-risk of homelessness is defined as households receiving Section 8 assistance whose gross annual income equals 30% or less than the current Area Median Incomes per family size. Specify particular housing characteristics that have been linked with instability and an increased risk of homelessness. Severe cost burden is the greatest predictor of homelessness risk, with populations paying more than 50 percent of their income on housing costs or having incomes at or below 50% AMI are at greatest risk of becoming homeless.  Thirteen percent of households (3,505) in the City are severely cost burdened.  Ten percent (2,565 households) are severely cost burdened and earning below 30% AMI.  Sixteen percent (4,240 households) are severely cost burdened and earning below 50% AMI. Figure 1 displays the primary causes of homelessness cited by respondents to the 2013 homeless census. From the census: “Forty percent (40%) reported job loss, up from 27 percent in 2011. Seventeen percent (17%) reported alcohol and drug use as the primary cause, followed by eviction at 12 percent (up from 5% in 2011). While it was not one of the top five responses, 8 percent of survey respondents reported family/domestic violence as the primary cause of their homelessness.”26 This data suggests that inability to find affordable housing and the need for supportive services, such as drug and alcohol rehabilitation, might be the main indicators of increased risk of homelessness. Figure 1 – Top Five Causes of Homelessness (County) 26 Applied Survey Research. “Santa Clara County Homeless Census & Survey.” 2013. http://www.appliedsurveyresearch.org/storage/database/homelessness/santaclara_sanjose/2013%20Homeless%20Census%2 0and%20Survey%20Santa%20Clara%206%2028%2013.pdf Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 49 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Data Source: 2013 Santa Clara County Homeless Census & Survey Data Source Comments: 2013 N=818, 2011 N=997 Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 50 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Discussion Please see discussion above. Describe the number and type of single person households in need of housing assistance. There are 1,769 single person households in the County on the Section 8 waiting list. The waiting list has been closed since 2006, and is not expected to reopen in the near future. Within the City, there are approximately 19 single person sheltered homeless on a given night.27 Jurisdiction-specific data is not available for unsheltered homeless in this subpopulation. Estimate the number and type of families in need of housing assistance who are disabled or victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking. There are 1,241 disabled Head of Households on Section 8 waiting list. HACSC does not keep records of assisted/non-assisted families that are victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking. Within the City, there is one sheltered homeless individual who is in need of housing assistance on a given night and are victims of domestic violence. Jurisdiction-specific data is not available for unsheltered homeless in this subpopulation. 27 Community Technology Alliance (CTA). Data includes individuals and households who are “Literally Homeless” or “Category 1 Homeless” – those staying in Emergency Shelter, Transitional Housing and Safe Haven. CTA also collects data from agencies that primarily serve people who are at-risk of homelessness. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 51 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) NA-15 Disproportionately Greater Need: Housing Problems – 91.205 (b) (2) Assess the need of any racial or ethnic group that has disproportionately greater need in comparison to the needs of that category of need as a whole. Introduction Per HUD definitions, a disproportionate need exists when any group has a housing need that is 10 percent or higher than the jurisdiction as a whole. This section presents the extent of housing problems and identifies populations that have a disproportionately greater need. Table 14 - Disproportionately Greater Need 0 - 30% AMI (City) Housing Problems Has One or More of Four Housing Problems Has None of the Four Housing Problems Household has No/Negative Income, but None of the Other Housing Problems Jurisdiction as a Whole 1,670 550 115 White 935 380 45 Black / African American 55 35 10 Asian 445 85 55 American Indian, Alaska Native 20 0 0 Pacific Islander 0 0 0 Hispanic 210 50 0 Data Source: 2007-2011 CHAS * The four housing problems are: 1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities, 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities, 3. More than one person per room, 4.Cost Burden greater than 30% Table 15 - Disproportionately Greater Need 30 - 50% AMI (City) Housing Problems Has One or More of Four Housing Problems Has None of the Four Housing Problems Household has No/Negative Income, but None of the Other Housing Problems Jurisdiction as a Whole 1,140 475 0 White 680 410 0 Black / African American 130 40 0 Asian 195 25 0 American Indian, Alaska Native 0 0 0 Pacific Islander 0 0 0 Hispanic 90 0 0 Data Source: 2007-2011 CHAS * The four housing problems are: 1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities, 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities, 3. More than one person per room, 4.Cost Burden greater than 30% Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 52 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Table 16 - Disproportionately Greater Need 50 - 80% AMI (City) Housing Problems Has One or More of Four Housing Problems Has None of the Four Housing Problems Household has No/Negative Income, but None of the Other Housing Problems Jurisdiction as a Whole 590 245 0 White 295 205 0 Black / African American 0 0 0 Asian 200 15 0 American Indian, Alaska Native 0 10 0 Pacific Islander 0 0 0 Hispanic 40 15 0 Data Source: 2007-2011 CHAS * The four housing problems are: 1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities, 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities, 3. More than one person per room, 4.Cost Burden greater than 30% Table 17 - Disproportionately Greater Need 80 - 100% AMI (City) Housing Problems Has One or More of Four Housing Problems Has None of the Four Housing Problems Household has No/Negative Income, but None of the Other Housing Problems Jurisdiction as a Whole 750 635 0 White 515 435 0 Black / African American 10 55 0 Asian 175 120 0 American Indian, Alaska Native 0 10 0 Pacific Islander 0 0 0 Hispanic 49 14 0 Data Source: 2007-2011 CHAS * The four housing problems are: 1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities, 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities, 3. More than one person per room, 4.Cost Burden greater than 30% Table 18 - Disproportionately Greater Need – Housing Problems (County) Housing Problems 0-30% AMI 30-50% AMI 50-80% AMI 80-100% AMI # % # % # % # % Jurisdiction as a Whole 1,670 75% 1,140 71% 590 71% 750 54% White 935 71% 680 62% 295 59% 515 54% Black / African American 55 61% 130 76% 0 0% 10 15% Asian 445 84% 195 89% 200 93% 175 59% American Indian, Alaska Native 20 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Pacific Islander 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Hispanic 210 81% 90 100% 40 73% 49 78% Data Source: 2007-2011 CHAS Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 53 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Discussion The 0-30% AMI income bracket is the only category that does not include a racial/ethnic group that is disproportionately affected by one or more of the four housing problems (although Hispanic households were only one percent away from the 10 percent threshold). The following provides a summary of the racial/ethnic groups disproportionately affected by housing problems in all other income groups:  Eighty-nine percent of Asian households (195 households) in the 30-50% AMI category experience housing problems, compared to 71 percent of the jurisdiction as a whole.  Ninety-three percent of Asian households (200 households) in the 50-80% AMI category experience housing problems, compared to 71 percent of the jurisdiction as a whole.  More than three-quarters of Hispanic households (78 percent or 49 households) in the 80- 100% AMI category experience housing problems, compared to a nearly half (54 percent) of the jurisdiction as a whole. Note: Due to insufficient data, the analysis for the 0-30% AMI income category does not include American Indian, Alaska Native or Pacific Islander households. For households in the 30-50% AMI income category, the analysis does not include American Indian, Alaska Native, Pacific Islander, or Hispanic households. For households in the 50-80% AMI income category, the analysis does not include Black/African American, American Indian, Alaska Native, or Pacific Islander households. Additionally, households with no/negative income are not counted in the analysis, as they cannot by definition have a cost burden, although they still may require housing assistance. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 54 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) NA-20 Disproportionately Greater Need: Severe Housing Problems – 91.205 (b) (2) Assess the need of any racial or ethnic group that has disproportionately greater need in comparison to the needs of that category of need as a whole. Introduction: Per HUD definitions, a disproportionate need exists when any group has a housing need that is 10 percent or higher than the jurisdiction as a whole. A household is considered severely overcrowded when there are more than 1.5 persons per room and is severely cost-burdened when paying more than 50 percent of its income toward housing costs, including utilities. This section analyzes the extent of severe housing problems and identifies populations that have a disproportionately greater need. Table 19 - Severe Housing Problems 0 - 30% AMI (City) Severe Housing Problems* Has One or More of Four Housing Problems Has None of the Four Housing Problems Household has No/Negative Income, but None of the Other Housing Problems Jurisdiction as a Whole 1,410 810 115 White 805 500 45 Black / African American 45 40 10 Asian 355 175 55 American Indian, Alaska Native 20 0 0 Pacific Islander 0 0 0 Hispanic 165 90 0 Data Source: 2007-2011 CHAS * The four severe housing problems are: 1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities, 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities, 3. More than 1.5 persons per room, 4.Cost Burden over 50% Table 20 - Severe Housing Problems 30 - 50% AMI (City) Severe Housing Problems* Has One or More of Four Housing Problems Has None of the Four Housing Problems Household has No/Negative Income, but None of the Other Housing Problems Jurisdiction as a Whole 700 910 0 White 440 650 0 Black / African American 80 90 0 Asian 125 90 0 American Indian, Alaska Native 0 0 0 Pacific Islander 0 0 0 Hispanic 30 60 0 *The four severe housing problems are: 1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities, 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities, 3. More than 1.5 persons per room, 4.Cost Burden over 50% Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 55 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Table 21 - Severe Housing Problems 50 - 80% AMI (City) Severe Housing Problems* Has One or More of Four Housing Problems Has None of the Four Housing Problems Household has No/Negative Income, but None of the Other Housing Problems Jurisdiction as a Whole 335 500 0 White 120 380 0 Black / African American 0 0 0 Asian 165 50 0 American Indian, Alaska Native 0 10 0 Pacific Islander 0 0 0 Hispanic 25 30 0 Data Source: 2007-2011 CHAS * The four severe housing problems are: 1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities, 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities, 3. More than 1.5 persons per room, 4.Cost Burden over 50% Table 22 - Severe Housing Problems 80 - 100% AMI (City) Severe Housing Problems* Has One or More of Four Housing Problems Has None of the Four Housing Problems Household has No/Negative Income, but None of the Other Housing Problems Jurisdiction as a Whole 315 1,070 0 White 205 735 0 Black / African American 0 65 0 Asian 85 210 0 American Indian, Alaska Native 0 10 0 Pacific Islander 0 0 0 Hispanic 29 35 0 Data Source: 2007-2011 CHAS * The four severe housing problems are: 1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities, 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities, 3. More than 1.5 persons per room, 4.Cost Burden over 50% Table 23 - Disproportionately Greater Need – Severe Housing Problems (City) Severe Housing Problems 0-30% AMI 30-50% AMI 50-80% AMI 80-100% AMI # % # % # % # % Jurisdiction as a Whole 1,410 64% 700 43% 335 40% 315 23% White 805 62% 440 40% 120 24% 205 22% Black / African American 45 53% 80 47% 0 0% 0 0% Asian 355 67% 125 58% 165 77% 85 29% American Indian, Alaska Native 20 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0% 0% Pacific Islander 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0% 0% Hispanic 165 65% 30 33% 25 45% 29 45% Data Source: 2007-2011 CHAS Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 56 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Discussion: The 0-30% AMI income bracket does not include any racial/ethnic groups that are disproportionately affected by one or more of the four severe housing problems. The following provides a summary of the racial/ethnic groups that experience disproportionate need in the 30-50% AMI, 50-80% AMI, and 80-100% income categories:  More than half of Asian households (58 percent) in the 30-50% AMI income category experience severe housing problems in the City, compared to 43 percent of the jurisdiction as a whole.  More than three-quarters of Asian households (77 percent or 165 households) in the 50-80% AMI category experience a disproportionate amount of severe housing problems, compared to 40 percent of the jurisdiction as a whole.  Forty-five percent of Hispanic households (29 households) in the 80-100% AMI category experience a disproportionate amount of severe housing problems, compared to 23 percent of the jurisdiction as a whole. Note: Due to insufficient data, the analysis for the 0-30% AMI and 30-50% AMI income categories does not include American Indian, Alaska Native or Pacific Islander households. For households in the 50- 80% and 80-100% AMI income categories, the analysis does not include Black/African American, American Indian, Alaska Native, or Pacific Islander households. Additionally, households with no/negative income are not counted in the analysis, as they cannot by definition have a cost burden, although they still may require housing assistance. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 57 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) NA-25 Disproportionately Greater Need: Housing Cost Burdens – 91.205 (b) (2) Assess the need of any racial or ethnic group that has disproportionately greater need in comparison to the needs of that category of need as a whole. Introduction: Per HUD definitions, a disproportionate need exists when any group has a housing need that is 10 percent or higher than the jurisdiction as a whole. A household is considered cost burdened when paying more than 30 percent of its income toward housing costs, including utilities, and is severely cost burdened when paying more than 50 percent of its income toward housing costs. This section analyzes the extent of cost burden and identifies populations that have a disproportionately greater cost burden. Table 24 - Greater Need: Housing Cost Burden (City) Housing Cost Burden <30% 30-50% >50% No / Negative Income (Not Computed) Jurisdiction as a Whole 16,170 3,775 3,095 130 White 12,000 2,395 1,865 60 Black / African American 405 105 125 10 Asian 2,965 895 815 55 American Indian, Alaska Native 40 0 20 0 Pacific Islander 20 0 0 0 Hispanic 580 295 205 0 Data Source: 2007-2011 CHAS Table 25 - Disproportionately Greater Cost Burden (City) Housing Cost Burden <30% 30-50% >50% # % # % # % Jurisdiction as a Whole 16,170 70% 3,775 16% 3,095 13% White 12,000 74% 2,395 15% 1,865 11% Black / African American 405 64% 105 17% 125 20% Asian 2,965 63% 895 19% 815 17% American Indian, Alaska Native 40 67% 0 0% 20 33% Pacific Islander 20 100% 0 0% 0 0% Hispanic 580 54% 295 27% 205 19% Data Source: 2007-2011 CHAS Discussion The data indicates that, as a whole, 29 percent of households in the City are cost burdened and paying greater than 30 percent of their income toward housing costs, while 13 percent are severely cost burdened and paying more than 50 percent of their income on housing costs. Among cost burdened households paying more than 30 to 50 percent of their income toward housing costs, Hispanic households experience a disproportionate need, with 27 percent (297 households) experiencing cost burden, compared to 16 percent of the City as a whole. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 58 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Among severely cost burdened households paying more than 50 percent of their income toward housing costs, American Indian, Alaska Native households experience a disproportionate need, with 33 percent (20 households) experiencing cost burden, compared to 13 percent of the City as a whole. Note: Due to insufficient data, the analysis for households paying more than 30 to 50 percent of their income toward housing costs does not include Pacific Islander or American Indian, Alaska Native households. For households paying more than 50 percent of their income toward housing costs, the analysis does not include Pacific Islander households. Additionally, households with no/negative income are not counted in the analysis, as they cannot by definition have a cost burden, although they still may require housing assistance. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 59 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) NA-30 Disproportionately Greater Need: Discussion – 91.205(b) (2) Are there any Income categories in which a racial or ethnic group has disproportionately greater need than the needs of that income category as a whole? Please see the discussion for NA-15, NA-20, and NA-25. In summary;  For 50-80% AMI households: 60 percent of Asian households experience severe housing problems, compared to 32 percent of the jurisdiction as a whole. If they have needs not identified above, what are those needs? Needs have been previously identified. Are any of those racial or ethnic groups located in specific areas or neighborhoods in your community? Map 1 illustrates the areas of the City that have minority concentration. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 60 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Map 1 - Areas of Minority Concentration (City) Data Source: ACS 2007-2011 Data Source Comment: Minority concentration is defined as census tracts where the percentage of individuals of a particular racial or ethnic minority group is at least 20 percentage points higher than the citywide average. Minority refers to all ethnic groups other than non-Hispanic white. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 61 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) NA-35 Public Housing – 91.205(b) Introduction HACSC assists approximately 17,000 households through the federal Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program. The Section 8 waiting list contains 21,256 households, estimated to be a 10-year wait. HACSC also develops, controls, and manages more than 2,600 affordable rental housing properties throughout the County. HACSC’s programs are targeted toward LMI households, and more than 80 percent of its client households are extremely low income families, seniors, veterans, persons with disabilities, and formerly homeless individuals.28 In 2008 HACSC entered into a ten-year agreement with HUD to become a Moving to Work (MTW) agency. The MTW program is a federal demonstration program that allows greater flexibility to design and implement more innovative approaches for providing housing assistance.29 Additionally, HACSC has used Low Income Housing Tax Credit financing to transform and rehabilitate 535 units of public housing into HACSC-controlled properties. The agency is an active developer of affordable housing and has either constructed, rehabilitated, or assisted with the development of more than 30 housing developments that service a variety of households, including special needs households.30 The following tables display the public housing inventory and housing vouchers maintained by HACSC. HACSC has four two-bedroom family public housing units in its portfolio; they are located in the City of Santa Clara. Approximately 16,387 housing vouchers are in use countywide. Table 26 - Public Housing by Program Type (City) Program Type Certificate Mod- Rehab Public Housing Vouchers Total Project -based Tenant -based Special Purpose Voucher Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing Family Unification Program Disabled * # of Units Vouchers in Use 0 38 0 252 54 179 18 0 1 * Includes Non-Elderly Disabled, Mainstream One-Year, Mainstream Five-Year, and Nursing Home Transition Data Source: HACSC 28 Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara. “Welcome to HACSC.” http://www.hacsc.org/ 29 HACSC. “Moving to Work (MTW) 2014 Annual Report.” September 2014. 30 Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara. “HACSC.” http://www.hacsc.org/ Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 62 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Table 27 - Characteristics of Public Housing Residents by Program Type (City) Program Type Palo Alto Certificate Mod- Rehab Public Housing Vouchers Total Project -based Tenant -based Special Purpose Voucher Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing Family Unification Program Average Annual Income 0 $23,491 0 $14,092 $11,738 $14,703 $15,272 0 Average Length of Stay (Years) 0 9 0 9 6 11 2 0 Average Household Size 0 2 0 2 1 2 2 0 # Homeless at Admission 0 0 0 44 14 12 18 0 # of Elderly Program Participants (>62) 0 12 0 158 37 114 7 0 # of Disabled Families 0 13 0 166 28 130 8 0 # of Families Requesting Accessibility Features - - - - - - - - # of HIV/AIDS Program Participants - - - - - - - - # of DV Victims - - - - - - - - Data Source: HACSC Data Source Comment: HACSC does not collect information on HIV/AIDs or Domestic Violence households or the number of families requesting accessibility features. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 63 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Table 28 - Race of Public Housing Residents by Program Type (City) Program Type Race Certificate Mod- Rehab Public Housing Vouchers Total Project -based Tenant -based Special Purpose Voucher Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing Family Unification Program Disabled * White 0 0 0 167 28 126 12 0 1 Black/African American 0 0 0 40 9 26 5 0 0 Asian 0 0 0 46 21 24 1 0 0 American Indian/Alaska Native 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 * Includes Non-Elderly Disabled, Mainstream One-Year, Mainstream Five-year, and Nursing Home Transition Data Source: HACSC Table 29 - Ethnicity of Public Housing Residents by Program Type (City) Program Type Ethnicity Certificate Mod- Rehab Public Housing Vouchers Total Project -based Tenant -based Special Purpose Voucher Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing Family Unification Program Disabled * Hispanic 0 8 0 33 6 17 5 0 5 Not Hispanic 0 31 0 220 49 142 14 0 15 * Includes Non-Elderly Disabled, Mainstream One-Year, Mainstream Five-year, and Nursing Home Transition Data Source: HACSC Section 504 Needs Assessment: Describe the needs of public housing tenants and applicants on the waiting list for accessible units. None of the four public housing units owned and managed by HACSC are accessible, and information about the need for accessible units is not collected for waiting list applicants. Most immediate needs of residents of Public Housing and Housing Choice voucher holders In January 2013, HACSC randomly sampled 1,500 of its Section 8 participants to better understand the types of services and/or resources needed to increase their self-sufficiency. Approximately 400 participants responded. Table 30 below identified the services requested and the number of Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 64 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) participants that requested that service. Affordable healthcare, job training, basic computer skills, English as a second language, and job placement resources were among the top most-identified services. The majority of these services are related to workforce training, showing the need for economic development among Section 8 participants. The selection of affordable healthcare as the highest need indicates the need for additional health-related services. Table 30 - Resources Requested by Section 8 Participants (County) Rank Services/Resources # Participants Requesting Service % Participants Requesting Service 1 Affordable Healthcare 122 11% 2 Job Training 114 10% 3 Basic Computer Skills 113 10% 4 Nothing 102 9% 5 English as a Second Language 96 8% 6 Job Placement 94 8% 7 Post-Secondary Education 79 7% 8 Transportation Assistance 79 7% 9 Job Search Skills 68 6% 10 Legal Assistance 61 5% 11 HS Diploma/GED 53 5% 12 Affordable Childcare 53 5% 13 Financial Planning 53 5% 14 Credit Repair/Credit History 50 4% 15 Substance Abuse/Mental Health Counseling 21 2% Total 1,137 100% Data Source: HACSC Data Source Comment: Totals may not add to 100% due to rounding. N= 400, multiple resources could be selected by each respondent. Discussion Please see discussions above. NA-40 Homeless Needs Assessment – 91.205(c) Introduction As was previously discussed, the Santa Clara region is home to the fourth-largest population of homeless individuals (6,681 single individuals),31 and the highest percentage of unsheltered homeless of any major city (75 percent of homeless people sleep in places unfit for human habitation). The homeless assistance program planning network is governed by the Santa Clara Continuum of Care (CoC), governed by the Destination: Home Leadership Board, who serves as the Continuum of Care (CoC) Board of Directors. The membership of the CoC is a collaboration of representatives from local jurisdictions comprised of community-based organizations, the Housing Authority of Santa Clara, governmental departments, health service agencies, homeless advocates, consumers, the faith 31 The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. “2014 Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR) to Congress.” October 2014. https://www.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/AHAR-2014-Part1.pdf Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 65 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) community, and research, policy and planning groups. The homeless services system utilized by the CoC is referred to as the Homeless Management Information System (HMIS). The HMIS monitors outcomes and performance measures for all the homeless services agencies funded by the County. HMIS Methodology Data provided in this section is for Fiscal Year 2014 (July 1, 2013 – June 30, 2014). CTA reports jurisdictional data based on clients’ self-reported last permanent zip codes. The last permanent zip code is the zip code area that the client lived in when s/he last lived in permanent housing (e.g. rental house/apartment, own home, living with friends/relatives with permanent tenure). This reporting method was adopted by CDBG program coordinators from the various jurisdictions within the County and was preferred over reporting the clients served by service providers within each jurisdiction, as shelter and transitional housing services are largely centralized within San Jose and not equitably distributed throughout the County. Numbers reported are based on actual HMIS data yet are still considered estimates as they are averages and/or include proportional representations of clients for whom no last permanent zip code was recorded (15% of all clients served 7/1/2013 – 6/30/2014 report no last permanent zip code). Palo Alto clients – those who report that their last permanent zip code was in Palo Alto – represent approximately one percent of the County’s homeless clients. Homeless Point-in-Time Census and Survey32 The Santa Clara County CoC’s Homeless Census and Survey is conducted every two years and consists of data collected on the sheltered and unsheltered homeless population. Sheltered homeless include those occupying shelter beds on the night of the count. Data describing the number of sheltered homeless persons are obtained from HMIS where possible, and collected directly from providers not using HMIS as needed. Unsheltered homeless are counted by direct observation, and community volunteers partnered with homeless guides canvas the regions by car and on foot during the early morning hours of the chosen nights. A large subset of the sheltered and unsheltered population is subsequently surveyed, providing data that is then used to estimate demographic details of the homeless population as a whole at a single point-in-time. 32 Applied Survey Research. “Santa Clara County Homeless Census & Survey.” 2013. http://www.appliedsurveyresearch.org/storage/database/homelessness/santaclara_sanjose/2013%20Homeless%20Census%2 0and%20Survey%20Santa%20Clara%206%2028%2013.pdf Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 66 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Figure 2 – Homeless by Jurisdiction Data Source: 2013 Santa Clara County Homeless Census & Survey Data Source Comments: Jurisdiction determined geographic distribution, not last permanent zip code. The Santa Clara 2013 Homeless Point-in-Time Census and Survey was performed using HUD recommended practices for counting and surveying homeless individuals. This study included a field enumeration of homeless individuals residing in Santa Clara County on January 29 and January 30, 2013. On January 29, the cities of Gilroy and Organ Hill, portions of the cities of Campbell, Los Gatos, Milpitas, San Jose, and the unincorporated areas in the eastern and southwestern parts of the county were enumerated. The following morning, January 30, remaining portions of the cities of Campbell, Milpitas, Los Gatos, and San Jose; the cities of Cupertino, Monte Sereno, Mountain View, Los Gatos Hills, Palo Alto, Saratoga, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, and the unincorporated areas in the northwestern part of the county were enumerated. Figure 2 shows the geographic distribution of sheltered and unsheltered homeless persons in Santa Clara County.33 33 Applied Survey Research. “Santa Clara County Homeless Census & Survey.” 2013. http://www.appliedsurveyresearch.org/storage/database/homelessness/santaclara_sanjose/2013%20Homeless%20Census%2 0and%20Survey%20Santa%20Clara%206%2028%2013.pdf Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 67 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) The following definitions below provide the methodology for Table 31: Definitions  # Experiencing Homelessness Each Year – unduplicated count of all persons enrolled during the program year  # Becoming Homeless Each Year – unduplicated count of persons appearing in HMIS for the first time during the year  # Exiting Homelessness Each Year – unduplicated count of persons exiting programs to a permanent destination as defined by HUD  # of Days Persons Experience Homelessness – average of the sums of the lengths of stay for each person Table 31 - Homeless Needs Assessment (City/County) Population Estimate the # of persons experiencing homelessness on a given night Estimate the # experiencing homelessness each year Estimate the # becoming homeless each year Estimate the # exiting homelessness each year Estimate the # of days persons experience homelessness Sheltered (Palo Alto) *Unsheltered (Countywide) Persons in Households with Adult(s) and Child(ren) 1 956 9 3 * * Persons in Households with Only Children 0 183 2 1 * * Persons in Households with Only Adults 19 5,435 85 20 * * Chronically Homeless Individuals (Persons) 4 2,250 20 2 * * Chronically 0 9 1 1 * * Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 68 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Population Estimate the # of persons experiencing homelessness on a given night Estimate the # experiencing homelessness each year Estimate the # becoming homeless each year Estimate the # exiting homelessness each year Estimate the # of days persons experience homelessness Sheltered (Palo Alto) *Unsheltered (Countywide) Homeless Families (Households) Veterans 6 579 20 5 * * Unaccompanied Child 0 203 2 1 * * Persons with HIV 0 93 2 0 * * Severely Mentally Ill 4 2,872 30 7 * * Chronically Substance Abuse 1 1,010 12 2 * * Victims of Domestic Violence 1 431 7 1 * * Data Source: HMIS Santa Clara County Data Source Comment: This data reflects reports for all HMIS clients who self-declared that their last permanent zip code was in Palo Alto, and a proportional inclusion of clients who did not declare a last permanent zip code. “Given Night” estimates derived by taking average from four points in time. *For unsheltered populations, the data presented is aggregate for the County – current methodologies do not break down subpopulation data by jurisdiction. **Data is not available on “Estimate the # exiting homelessness each year” and “Estimate the # of days persons experience homelessness” is not available for multiple populations, please refer to Table 32 and Table 33. If data is not available for the categories "number of persons becoming and exiting homelessness each year," and "number of days that persons experience homelessness," describe these categories for each homeless population type (including chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans and their families, and unaccompanied youth). While data for each specific homeless subpopulation is not available, as shown in Table 32 and Table 33, there is data for the number exiting homelessness and the average days to obtain housing. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 69 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Table 32 - Exited Homelessness (City) Project Type # Of Clients Who Obtained Permanent Housing Emergency Shelter 5 Transitional Housing 2 Rapid Re-Housing 1 Data Source: HMIS Santa Clara County Table 33 - Days to Housing (County) Project Type Average Days to Housing Emergency Shelter 61.6 Transitional Housing 319.9 Rapid Re-Housing 84 Data Source: HMIS Santa Clara County Nature and Extent of Homelessness: (Optional) Table 34 - Race and Ethnic Group of Homeless (City) Race Sheltered White 33 Black or African American 28 Asian 4 American Indian or Alaska Native 2 Native Hawaii or Pacific Islander 0 Multiple Races 0 Ethnicity Sheltered Hispanic 19 Non-Hispanic 65 Data Source: HMIS Santa Clara County Data Source Comment: HMIS data filtered for clients reporting a Palo Alto zip code as their last permanent zip code. Race/Ethnicity for four points in time were averaged. Ethnicity data includes clients for whom race data is not known. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 70 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Estimate the number and type of families in need of housing assistance for families with children and the families of veterans. Between 2013 and 2014 one veteran household with children were served by Santa Clara County HMIS Partner Agencies.34 A total of four households with children (including the one veteran household) were served. Discussion Please see discussions above. 34 CTA 2013-2014. Includes households who reported their last permanent zip code as Palo Alto. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 71 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) NA-45 Non-Homeless Special Needs Assessment - 91.205 (b, d) Introduction The following section addresses the needs of special populations and the special housing and service needs they might require. The special needs populations considered in this section include:  Elderly households  Persons with disabilities  Large households  Female-headed households  Persons living with AIDS/HIV and their families Describe the characteristics of special needs populations in your community: Elderly Households HUD defines elderly as age 62 and older, and frail elderly as persons who require assistance with three or more activities of daily living such as eating, bathing, walking, and performing light housework. The U.S. Census commonly defines older adults as those aged 65 and older. For the purposes of this analysis, the term elderly refers to those over the age of 62. Elderly residents generally face a unique set of housing needs, largely due to physical limitations, lower household incomes, and the rising costs of health care. Unit sizes and access to transit, health care, and other services are important housing concerns for this population. Housing affordability represents a key issue for seniors, many of whom are living on fixed incomes. The demand for senior housing serving various income levels is expected to increase as the baby boom generation ages.35 Seventeen percent of City residents (10,794 individuals) are over the age of 65,36 and 33 percent of households (8,464) in the City contain at least one person 62 years or older.37 These households are more likely to be LMI, with 35 percent of households containing at least one person age 62 or older (2,949households) having incomes below 80% AMI, compared to 23 percent for the City. Additionally, 43 percent of elderly households in the City are cost burdened and paying more than 30 percent of their income on housing costs, while 29 percent are severely cost burdened and paying more than 50 percent of their income on housing costs.38 35 Joint Center for Housing Studies. “Housing America’s Older Adults: Meeting the Needs of an Aging Population.” 2014. http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/sites/jchs.harvard.edu/files/jchs-housing_americas_older_adults_2014.pdf 36 2008-2012 ACS 37 2007-2011 CHAS 38 Ibid Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 72 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Table 35 - Elderly Population (City) Income 0-30% AMI >30-50% AMI >50-80% AMI >80-100% AMI >100% AMI Total Households 2,565 1,674 1,610 1,495 18,460 Household Contains at Least One Person 62-74 Years of Age 550 405 360 320 3,035 Household Contains at Least One Person Age 75 or Older 860 449 325 285 1,875 Data Source: 2007-2011 CHAS Persons with Disabilities HUD defines disability as a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities for an individual. Persons with disabilities can face unique barriers to securing affordable housing that provides them with the accommodations they need. Persons with disabilities may require units equipped with wheelchair accessibility or other special features that accommodate physical or sensory limitations. Access to transit, health care, services, and shopping also are important factors for this population.39 As shown in Table 36 below, more than one-quarter of individuals (27 percent) age 65 or older have a disability compared to four percent of the population age 18 to 64, or seven percent of the population as a whole. Of the disabled population 65 years and older, eight percent (803 individuals) have a self-care difficulty and 16 percent (1,685 individuals) have an independent living difficulty, resulting in over 2,400 elderly individuals who may require supportive housing accommodations. Table 36 - Disability Status of Population (City) Number Percent Population 18 To 64 Years 38,748 With a Hearing Difficulty 319 1% With a Vision Difficulty 193 1% With a Cognitive Difficulty 514 1% With an Ambulatory Difficulty 518 1% With a Self-Care Difficulty 338 1% With an Independent Living Difficulty 524 1% Total with a Disability (18 to 64 Years Old) 1,441 4% Population 65 Years and Over 10,505 With a Hearing Difficulty 1,085 10% With a Vision Difficulty 504 5% With a Cognitive Difficulty 826 8% With an Ambulatory Difficulty 1,700 16% 39 National Council on Disability. “The State of Housing in America in the 21st Century: A Disability Perspective.” January 2010. http://www.ncd.gov/publications/2010/Jan192010 Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 73 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Number Percent With a Self-Care Difficulty 803 8% With an Independent Living Difficulty 1,685 16% Total with a Disability (65+ Years Old) 2,789 27% Total Population 4,525 7% Large Households The U.S. Census Bureau defines large households as those with five or more persons. Large households may face challenges finding adequately-sized affordable housing. This may cause larger families to live in overcrowded conditions and/or overpay for housing. Census data for 2010 shows that the average household size in the City is 2.44 people. Table 37 below demonstrates that five percent of all households are large households. Table 37 - Household Size (City) Number Percent 1 Person 7982 30% 2 Persons 8386 32% 3 Persons 4091 15% 4 Persons 4106 15% 5 or More Persons 1392 5% Total Households 26,493 100% Data Source: 2007-2011 CHAS Female-Headed Families Single mothers may have a greater risk of poverty than single fathers due to factors such as the wage gap between men and women, insufficient training and education for higher earning jobs, and inadequate or expensive child support services.40 Female-headed families with children may have unique housing needs such as ease of access to child care, health care, and other supportive services. Single parent, female-headed households with children under the age of 18 account for approximately seven percent of all City households. This equates to roughly 1,762 single-mother families.41 Persons Living with AIDS/HIV and their Families Stable and affordable housing that is available to persons living with HIV/AIDS and their families helps assure they have consistent access to the level of medical care and supportive services that are essential to their health and welfare. Stable and affordable housing can also result in fewer 40 U.C. Berkeley. “Serving Low income Families in Poverty Neighborhoods Using Promising Programs and Practices.” September 2004. http://cssr.berkeley.edu/pdfs/lowIncomeFam.pdf 41 2008-2012 ACS Data Source: 2013 ACS Data Source Comment: Totals may not add to 100% due to rounding Data Source Comment: Totals may not add to 100% due to rounding Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 74 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) hospitalizations and decreased emergency room care. In addition, housing assistance, such as short- term help with rent or mortgage payments, may prevent homelessness among persons with HIV/AIDS and their families.42 In Santa Clara County, from April 2006 through June 2014, a total of 1,119 cases of HIV were reported; of these, 1,080 individuals are still living (3% deceased). During the same time period, a total of 4,655 cases of AIDS was reported; 2,327 are still living (50% deceased).43 According to a 2011 Santa Clara County HIV/AIDS needs assessment survey, the majority of respondents living with HIV/AIDS represented renters households (71 percent), and 30 percent reported experiencing difficulty getting housing in the six months prior to the survey.44 What are the housing and supportive service needs of these populations and how are these needs determined? Please see discussions above. Discuss the size and characteristics of the population with HIV/AIDS and their families within the Eligible Metropolitan Statistical Area. HIV Countywide, males represent 85 percent of reported HIV cases. This includes White (45 percent), Hispanic/Latino (32 percent), African American (12 percent), and Asian/Pacific Islander (9 percent) males. Thirty-five percent of the 75 newly reported cases in 2010 were of individuals between 20 and 29 years of age, compared with only 14 percent of existing (total living) cases in that age group.45 AIDS Overall, those living with AIDS are older, with 43 percent age 50 and older, compared to 28 percent age 50 and older for those with HIV. Additionally, AIDS incidence is most likely seen among Hispanic/Latino persons (42 percent), followed by Whites (36 percent), Asian Pacific Islanders (11 percent), and African Americans (10 percent). 46 Discussion: Please see discussions above. 42 National AIDS Housing Coalition. “HOPWA.” http://nationalaidshousing.org/legisadvocacy/hopwa/ 43 California Office of AIDS. “HIV/AIDS Surveillance in California.” June 2014. 44 Santa Clara County HIV Planning Council for Prevention and Care. “2012-2014 Comprehensive HIV Prevention & Care Plan for San José.” 2011. 45 Ibid. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 75 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) NA-50 Non-Housing Community Development Needs – 91.215 (f) Describe the jurisdiction’s need for Public Facilities. The City’s Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Commission’s Final Report makes the following findings: 47 1. The current Public Safety Building (PSB) is not designed to facilitate the efficient flow of police activities. It is overcrowded and lacks the capacity to accommodate increased use of technology or future service demands. Additionally, it falls short of Occupational Safety and Health Administration and other legal specifications. 2. Fire Stations 3 and 4 were built near the midpoint of the last century and are poorly designed and too small for their current uses. 3. The current PSB and Fire Stations 3 and 4 are vulnerable to damage in a severe earthquake that could render them inoperable for an extended period. In order to close the gap between the Palo Alto Police Department’s operating budget and its total revenues and to aid in the construction of a new public safety building, a ballot measure was approved in November 2014 to increase taxes to provide for these resources.48 Regional and Community Forums Regional and community forums were conducted in order to engage the community and highlight what participants felt were areas that were in need of funding. Participants in these engagement activities identified the following needs for public facilities: • Increase the number of homeless facilities across the County. • Build youth centers and recreational facilities in different locations throughout the County. • Support modernization and rehabilitation of senior centers. • Coordinate information services to promote and leverage access to community facilities. Regional Needs Survey To gain additional insight on high-priority needs a regional survey was conducted. Respondents rated the level of need for 14 public facility types in their neighborhoods. The six highest priorities in this category were: 1. Homeless facilities 2. Facilities for abused, abandoned and/or neglected children 3. Educational facilities 4. Mental health care facilities 5. Youth centers 47 “Palo Alto’s Infrastructure: Catching Up, Keeping Up, and Moving Ahead.” December 2011. 48 City of Palo Alto. “City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update Public Services Draft Existing Conditions Report.” August 2014. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 76 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) 6. Drop-in day center for the homeless How were these needs determined? In October 2010, the Palo Alto City Council appointed a 17-member Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Commission (IBRC) to look out 25 years and tackle a four-part challenge. Their conclusions and findings are included in their final report. Additionally, the City has reviewed and profiled existing public services (such as police protection, fire protection, schools, libraries, and parks and recreation services) in its Comprehensive Plan Update Public Services Draft Existing Conditions Report,49 which was released in August 2014. This report discusses the regulatory framework and existing conditions related to public services in the City in order to provide context for its upcoming Comprehensive Plan Update and Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Feedback was gathered from the community needs survey and community forums, where residents and stakeholders of the City provided input community needs. Please see Appendix A: Citizen Participation Summary for more detail. Describe the jurisdiction’s need for Public Improvements: For a number of years the City has needed to underfund maintenance costs, causing a considerable backlog of deferred maintenance to accumulate. Among the facilities earmarked for significant maintenance are the Cubberley Community Center: $7.0 million, streets: $6.1 million, parks: $5.6 million, sidewalks: $3.7 million, and the Baylands Nature Preserve: $3.0 million. The total cost of maintenance accrued over time is $41.5 million.50 Specifically for parks, residents prioritized the addition or improvement of loop trails, off-leash dog parks and community gardens. Other improvements, such as enhanced wildlife habitat, restored waterways, and improved trails received lower prioritization.51 Regional and Community Forums Stakeholders at each of the Consolidated Plan forums highlighted the lack of affordable and accessible transportation services in the County. Programs to augment public transit were cited as necessities. Participants in the forums also emphasized the need for the jurisdictions to: • Promote complete streets to accommodate multiple transportation modes. • Focus on pedestrian safety by improving crosswalk visibility and enhancing sidewalks. • Expand ADA curb improvements. • Increase access to parks and open space amenities in low income neighborhoods. 49 City of Palo Alto. “Comprehensive Plan Update PUBLIC SERVICES Draft Existing Conditions Report.” August 2014. 50 Ibid 51 City of Palo Alto. “Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation Intercept Survey Summer Draft.” 2014. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 77 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Regional Needs Survey Survey respondents rated the level of need for 15 infrastructure and neighborhood improvements within their neighborhoods. The five highest priorities in this area that they identified were: 1. Cleanup of contaminated sites 2. Street improvements 3. Lighting improvement 4. Sidewalk improvements 5. Water/sewer improvements How were these needs determined? Overall public improvements needs were examined by the same IBRC discussed above. Park priorities were assessed during an intercept survey of park visitors in the summer of 2014. The purpose of the surveys was to identify community needs and issues as they relate to parks. Feedback was gathered from the community needs survey and community forums, where residents and stakeholders of the City provided input community needs. Please see Appendix A: Citizen Participation Summary for more detail. Describe the jurisdiction’s need for Public Services: Regional and Community Forums During the forums, participants emphasized the need to support a broad range of community services. The need to increase services for the homeless was a key concern identified by community members. Emergency and transitional housing, comprehensive services at homeless encampments (e.g., basic shelter facilities, health care referrals), and rental assistance programs for the homeless were frequently identified by participants as critical needs. Another common topic was the need to address the housing crisis facing seniors in the County. Forum participants noted that elderly renters experience numerous housing issues, including cost burden. The primary needs that were identified include: • Address the needs for accessible and affordable transportation services throughout Santa Clara County • Support food assistance and nutrition programs for low income families, seniors and disabled individuals • Provide health care services to seniors and low income families • Develop free, year-round programs and activities for youth (e.g., recreation programming, sports) • Offer comprehensive services at homeless encampments (e.g., outreach, health, referrals) • Provide mental health care services for homeless and veterans • Support services to reduce senior isolation • Assist service providers in meeting the needs of vulnerable populations through increased funding and information sharing Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 78 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Regional Needs Survey Survey respondents rated the level of need for 23 public service improvements in their neighborhoods. The five highest priorities in this area were: 1. Emergency housing assistance to prevent homelessness 2. Access to fresh and nutritious foods 3. Homeless services 4. Abused, abandoned and/or neglected children services 5. Transportation services How were these needs determined? Feedback was gathered from the community needs survey and community forums, where residents and stakeholders of the City provided input community needs. Please see Appendix A: Citizen Participation Summary for more detail. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 79 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Housing Market Analysis MA-05 Overview Housing Market Analysis Overview As was discussed in the Needs Assessment, in the San José-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA HUD Metro Fair Market Rent Area (HMFA), the 3rd most expensive rental market in the nation, renters must earn at least $31.70 an hour to afford the average two-bedroom apartment.52 Rental housing throughout Santa Clara County (County) is becoming increasingly more expensive and the affordability gap is widening. According to the Cities Association of Santa Clara County and Housing Trust Silicon Valley, “the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) projects that over the next 25 years 57 percent of all household growth in the Bay Area will consist of very-low and low income households. The State’s Employment Development Department projects that more than half of the jobs created in the next five years in Santa Clara County will pay $11.00 per hour or less. In addition, much of the growth is expected to be with senior households”.53 Rising home prices are a response to an imbalance between supply and demand. An adequate housing supply is critical to keeping housing affordable, and affordable housing is among the most important contributors to household welfare. When considering the large difference between income and housing costs, the need for more affordable housing, not just for the lowest income residents, but also for a large number of low and moderate income working families, becomes clear. Overall, there is a strong need for a diverse mixture of new housing stock to serve the needs of the region’s current and future population. The large percentage of single-family units reflects a more suburban land development pattern. From 2000-2012, median home values increased 222 percent and rents increased 313 percent. Median household income increased only 36 percent. With wages not keeping pace with the housing market and the increasing cost of living in Palo Alto, future investments in affordable housing development and workforce development, are more important than ever to maintain a self-sufficient population. The following gives a brief overview of the market analysis results, with more detail included in each corresponding section: MA-10 Number of Housing Units  The City contains 27,268 housing units – 57 percent of which are owner-occupied households, while 43 percent are renter-occupied households.  The majority of housing units (57 percent) in the City are single-family units (1-unit detached structures) and 38 percent are multi-family attached units.  Two housing developments totaling 168 units are at risk of conversion during the term of this Consolidated Plan (2015-2019). 52 National Low Income Housing Coalition. “Out of Reach.” 2014. http://nlihc.org/sites/default/files/oor/2014OOR.pdf 53 Cities Association of Santa Clara County and Housing Trust Silicon Valley. “Affordable Housing Landscape & Local Best Practices.” December 2013. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 80 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) MA-15 Housing Market Analysis: Cost of Housing  Cost burden is the most common housing problem within the City of Palo Alto, 30 percent of households in the City paying more than 30 percent of their income toward housing costs, and 14 percent of households paying more than 50 percent of their income toward housing costs.  The greatest need for affordable units is for the extremely low income households (0-30% AMI), with a gap of 1,780 units. MA-20 Housing Market Analysis: Condition of Housing  Seventy-nine percent of housing units were constructed before 1980 and are at risk of a lead based paint hazard. It is estimated that 23 percent of units at risk of a LBP hazard are occupied by LMI households. MA-25 Public and Assisted Housing  The Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara (HASCS) develops, controls, and manages more than 2,600 affordable rental housing properties throughout the County.  HACSC has been a Moving to Work (MTW) agency since 2008. In this time the agency has developed 31 MTW activities. The vast majority of their successful initiatives have been aimed at reducing administrative inefficiencies, which in turn opens up more resources for programs aimed at LMI families. MA-30 Homeless Facilities  As per the 2014 Housing Inventory Count (HIC) 6,320 beds are available for homeless individuals and families in the County. 358 beds are under development.  Housing facilities for homeless individuals and families include emergency shelters, transitional housing, permanent supportive housing, and safe havens. MA-35 Special Needs Facilities  The City has a total of 420 licensed community care facility beds available for persons with health-related conditions. MA-40 Barriers to Affordable Housing  The City identified multiple barriers to affordable housing, including income and wages that are consistent with the rising cost of housing, a competitive rental and home market, and diminishing public funds. MA-45 Non-Housing Community Development Assets  Overall, 98 percent of Palo Also residents have at least a high school diploma or higher, and more than half (57 percent).have a bachelor’s degree or higher.  Holders of bachelor’s degrees have approximately 75 percent higher median income than those with only an associate’s, and those with a graduate degree or professional degree have a 140 percent higher median income. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 81 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)  Between September 2013 and September 2014, total employment in the San José- Sunnyvale- Santa Clara Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) expanded by 34,400 jobs. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 82 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) MA-10 Number of Housing Units – 91.210(a) & (b) (2) Introduction The City is primarily comprised of single-family owner-occupied units. The City contains 27,268 housing units, 57 percent of which are owner-occupied households, while 43 percent are renter households. Additionally, 62 percent of housing units (16,857 units) are single-family detached and attached housing. Multi-family dwelling units represent 39 percent (10,333 units) of the City’s total housing stock. Table 38 - Residential Properties by Unit Number (City) Property Type Number % 1-Unit Detached Structure 15,506 57% 1-Unit, Attached Structure 1,351 5% 2-4 Units 1,784 7% 5-19 Units 3,430 13% 20 or More Units 5,119 19% Mobile Home, Boat, RV, Van, etc. 78 0% Total 27,268 100% Data Source: 2007-2011 ACS Data source Comment: Totals may not add to 100% due to rounding Table 39 - Unit Size by Tenure (City) Owner Households Renter Households Number % Number % No Bedroom 29 0% 947 9% 1 Bedroom 333 2% 4,060 37% 2 Bedrooms 2,465 17% 3,987 36% 3 or More Bedrooms 11,989 81% 1,987 18% Total 14,816 100% 10,981 100% Data Source: 2007-2011 ACS Data source Comment: Totals may not add to 100% due to rounding Describe the number and targeting (income level/type of family served) of units assisted with federal, state, and local programs. In 2014, 17 affordable rental housing projects were located in the City, providing 1,332 affordable housing units to LMI households.54 The Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara (HASCS) Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program and other voucher programs target assistance as follows: 75 percent entering the program must be at 0-30% AMI and the remaining 25 percent must be no higher than 50% AMI. HASCS’s housing properties have income limits as follows: 54 City of Palo Alto. “2015-2023 Housing Element.” 2014. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 83 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Table 40 - HASC Housing Properties (County) Project Name City Income Limit Number of Units Housing Type El Parador Campbell 50% AMI 125 Senior Tax Credit Housing Rincon Gardens*† Campbell 50% AMI 200 Family Tax Credit Housing Sunset Gardens*† Gilroy 50% AMI 75 Senior Tax Credit Housing San Pedro Gardens Morgan Hill 50% or 60% AMI 20 Family Tax Credit Housing Opportunity Center† Palo Alto 50% AMI 89 Senior Tax Credit Housing Avenida Espana Gardens San José 50% AMI 84 Public and Other HUD Assisted Housing Blossom River Apts. San José 50% or 60% AMI 144 Senior Tax Credit Housing Clarendon Street San José 50% or 60% AMI 80 Family Tax Credit Housing Cypress Gardens*† San José 50% or 60% AMI 125 Family Tax Credit Housing DeRose Gardens San José 60% AMI 76 Senior Tax Credit Housing Helzer Courts San José 30%, 50% or 60% AMI 155 Family Tax Credit Housing Huff Gardens San José 60% AMI 72 Family Tax Credit Housing Julian Gardens† San José 50% AMI 9 Senior Tax Credit Housing Lenzen Gardens*† San José 50% AMI 94 Family Tax Credit Housing Lucretia Gardens† San José 50% AMI 16 Family Tax Credit Housing Morrone Gardens San José 50% AMI 102 Senior Tax Credit Housing Pinmore Gardens San José 60% AMI 51 Family Tax Credit Housing Poco Way Apartments† San José 50% or 60% AMI 129 Family Tax Credit Housing Seifert House† San José 50% AMI 3 Senior Tax Credit Housing The Willows San José 30% or 60% AMI 47 Family Tax Credit Housing Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 84 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Project Name City Income Limit Number of Units Housing Type Villa Hermosa San José 40% AMI 100 Family Tax Credit Housing Villa San Pedro San José 50% or 60% AMI 100 Family Tax Credit Housing Bracher Senior Apartments Santa Clara 50% AMI 72 Senior Tax Credit Housing Deborah Drive** Santa Clara 40% of new admissions must have income below 30% AMI, the remaining 60% are below 80% AMI 4 Family Tax Credit Housing Eklund I Apartments† Santa Clara 50% AMI 10 Family Tax Credit Housing Eklund II Apartments† Santa Clara 50% AMI 6 Public and Other HUD Assisted Housing John Burns Gardens Santa Clara 50% AMI 100 Senior Tax Credit Housing Klamath Gardens Santa Clara 50% AMI 17 Family Tax Credit Housing Miramar† Santa Clara 50% AMI 16 Senior Tax Credit Housing RiverTown Apartments Santa Clara 20%, 35% or 60% AMI 100 Public and Other HUD Assisted Housing Data Source: HACSC Data Source Comments: *These properties also include non-elderly disabled. **Theses properties are Public Housing units until final disposition and will then have Project-Based Vouchers. †These properties include Project-Based Vouchers or Project Based Assistance. Provide an assessment of units expected to be lost from the affordable housing inventory for any reason, such as expiration of Section 8 contracts. The Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC) owns and manages three Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation projects in Palo Alto: the Curtner Apartments, Emerson South Apartments, and Oak Manor Townhouses. The original Housing Assistance Payments (HAP) contracts of these properties have expired, but they are renewed annually.55 Two housing developments, totaling 168 units, are at risk of conversion during the term of this Consolidated Plan (2015-2019). 55 Ibid. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 85 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Describe the need for specific types of housing: As discussed in the Needs Assessment, several special needs populations require affordable housing, including the homeless or at-risk of homelessness; large households; female-headed households with children; seniors; and disabled individuals. As shown in Table 41, the vast majority of HACSC clients fall into one of these special needs categories.56 HACSC reports that smaller unit sizes and accessibility to transit, health care, and other services are housing needs for the senior population. The same often holds true for disabled individuals. Table 41 - HACSC Special Needs Populations Data Source: HACSC Discussion Please see discussions above. 56 Housing authority of the County of Santa Clara, Housing Needs Assessment, 2013 Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 86 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) MA-15 Housing Market Analysis: Cost of Housing - 91.210(a) Introduction Housing affordability is an important factor for evaluating the housing market, as well as quality of life, as many housing problems relate directly to the cost of housing. HUD standards measure affordability by the number of households paying no more than 30 percent of their gross income toward housing costs, including utilities. This section provides an overview of the overall cost of housing in the City. Among owner households, over one-fourth (26 percent) are cost burdened and 12 percent are severely cost burdened. For renter households, over one-third (35 percent) are cost burdened and 15 percent are severely cost burdened. Taken together, nearly one-third (29 percent) of owner and renter households (7,690 households) in the City are paying more than 30 percent of their income toward housing costs, and 13 percent of owner and renter households (3,505 households) are paying more than 50 percent of their gross income toward housing costs. As was discussed in MA-05, the San José-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA HUD Metro Fair Market Rent Area (HMFA), which includes the City, renter households must earn at least $31.70 an hour to afford a market-rate two bedroom apartment; this causes the area to be the third most expensive rental market in the nation.57 Table 42 - Cost of Housing (City) Base Year: 2000 Most Recent Year: 2013 % Change Median Home Value 776,000 $1,720,000 222% Median Contract Rent 1,308 $4,096 313% Data Source: 2000 Census (Base Year), DQNews 2013/ City of Palo Alto Housing Element 2015-2023 (Most Recent Year) Table 43 - Rent Paid (City) Rent Paid Number % Less than $500 1,066 9.7% $500-999 1,027 9.4% $1,000-1,499 2,359 21.5% $1,500-1,999 2,673 24.3% $2,000 or More 3,856 35.1% Total 10,981 100.0% Data Source: 2007-2011 ACS 57 National Low Income Housing Coalition. “Out of Reach.” 2014. http://nlihc.org/sites/default/files/oor/2014OOR.pdf Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 87 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Table 44 - Housing Affordability (City) Percentage of Units Affordable to Households Earning: Renter Households Owner Households 30% AMI 780 No Data 50% AMI 1,260 89 80% AMI 2,015 124 100% AMI No Data 218 Total 4,055 431 Data Source: 2007-2011 CHAS Table 45 - Monthly Rent (City) Monthly Rent ($) Efficiency (No Bedroom) 1 Bedroom 2 Bedrooms 3 Bedrooms 4 Bedrooms Fair Market Rent 1,079 1,262 1,610 2,270 2,574 High HOME Rent 1,079 1,199 1,441 1,656 1,828 Low HOME Rent 918 985 1,183 1,369 1,528 Data Source: HUD FMR and HOME Rents Table 46 - Affordable Housing Supply Versus Need (City) Household Income Range Total Units Available Total Households Gap (Renter and Owner Units) 30% AMI 780 2560 -1,780 50% AMI 1,349 1675 -326 80% AMI 2,139 1610 529 Total 4,268 5,845 -1,577 Data Source: 2007-2011 CHAS Is there sufficient housing for households at all income levels? There is a disparity between need and availability of affordable housing in the City. The greatest disparity is seen with 0-30% AMI renter households. Approximately 2,560 households earn between 0-30% AMI, yet there are only 780 rental units available that are affordable to these households. Overall, there are 5,845 LMI households in the City and 4,268 units available that are affordable to that income range. How is affordability of housing likely to change considering changes to home values and/or rents? Overall, income in the City is not keeping pace with the rising housing costs and high cost of living. Table 42 shows the median home value and contract rent for housing units. This data demonstrates that from 2000 to 2013 there has been a 222 percent increase in median home values and a 313 percent change in median contract rent. Within the same time period there was a 36 percent increase in the household median income ($90,377 to $122,482).58 With 2013 median rent prices at almost three times 2000 rates, families seeking rental units might experience a greater difficulty 58 2013 ACS. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 88 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) affording housing. This is a conservative estimate, as multiple 2014 studies have indicated Silicon Valley is currently the most expensive housing market in the country. 59 60 61 How do HOME rents / Fair Market Rent compare to Area Median Rent? How might this impact your strategy to produce or preserve affordable housing? The HOME and Fair Market Rent (FMR) limits are considerably lower than the overall median rent of households in the City. At $4,096, the average rent is higher than the HOME and FMR limits for all unit sizes. Within high-priced markets, strategies which produce affordable housing do more to preserve long- term affordability for low income households. In contrast, programs that provide tenant-based rental assistance, such as Section 8 vouchers, might not be feasible due to market economics, especially in the areas with higher rents. Strategies that work to produce housing multiply the impact of available funds by increasing the number of households that can be served over a time period, especially when HOME rents are considerably lower than those found throughout most of the City. Discussion Please see discussions above. 59 Silicon Valley Business Journal. “When the Median Home Price is $4.6 million: Silicon Valley Claims 3 of Nation’s 10 most Expensive Housing Markets.” http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2014/07/07/when-the-median-home-price-is-4-6- million-silicon.html 60 Forbes. “Silicon Valley Dominates 2013 List of America’s Most Expensive ZIP Codes.” http://www.forbes.com/sites/morganbrennan/2013/10/16/silicon-valley-tech-enclaves-top-our-list-of-americas-most- expensive-zip-codes/ 61 Huffington Post. “10 Most Affordable Housing Markets in America.” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/15/most- affordable-homes-in-the-us_n_6147890.html Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 89 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) MA-20 Housing Market Analysis: Condition of Housing – 91.210(a) Introduction HUD defines housing “conditions” similarly to the definition of housing problems previously discussed in the Needs Assessment. These conditions are: 1. More than one person per room 2. Cost burden greater than 30 percent 3. Lack of complete plumbing 4. Lack of complete kitchen facilities Definitions Within the City, a "substandard residential building" is defined as any residential building in which any of the following conditions exist to an extent that it endangers the life, limb, health, property, safety or welfare of the public or the occupants thereof.62 Table 47 - Condition of Units (City) Condition of Units Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied Number % Number % With One Selected Condition 3,951 27% 3,983 36% With Two Selected Conditions 45 0% 344 3% With Three Selected Conditions 43 0% 23 0% With Four Selected Conditions 0 0% 0 0% No Selected Conditions 10,777 73% 6,631 60% Total 14,816 100% 10,981 99% Data Source: 2007-2011 ACS Data Comment: Totals may not add to 100% due to rounding Table 48 - Year Unit Built (City) Year Unit Built Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied Number % Number % 2000 or Later 1,327 9% 938 9% 1980-1999 1,292 9% 1,975 18% 1950-1979 7,499 51% 6,526 59% Before 1950 4,698 32% 1,542 14% Total 14,816 101% 10,981 100% Data Source: 2007-2011 CHAS Data Source Comment: Totals may not add to 100% due to rounding 62 City of Palo Alto Municipal Code. 16.40. Unsafe Buildings Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 90 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Table 49 - Risk of Lead-Based Paint (City) Risk of Lead-Based Paint Hazard Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied Number % Number % Total Number of Units Built Before 1980 12,197 82% 8,068 73% Housing Units build before 1980 with children present 615 4% 525 5% Data Source: 2007-2011 ACS (Total Units) 2007-2011 CHAS (Units with Children present) Table 50 - Vacant Units (City) Suitable for Rehabilitation Not Suitable for Rehabilitation Total Vacant Units - - - Abandoned Vacant Units - - - REO Properties - - - Abandoned REO Properties - - - Data Source Comments: Data on vacant units or suitability for rehabilitation is not collected by the City Estimated Number of Housing Units Occupied by Low or Moderate Income Families with LBP Hazards Building age is used to estimate the number of homes with lead-based paint (LBP), which was prohibited on residential units after 1978. For the purposes of this plan, units built before 1980 are used as a baseline for units that contain LBP. Seventy-seven percent of all units (21,455 units) in the City were built before 1980 and provide potential exposure to LBP. As discussed in the Needs Assessment, 23 percent of households within the City have incomes ranging from 0-80% AMI. Using this percentage as a baseline, we can estimate that 4,934 LBP units are occupied by LMI families. Discussion Please see discussions above. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 91 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) MA-25 Public and Assisted Housing – 91.210(b) Introduction As was discussed in the Needs Assessment, HACSC assists approximately 17,000 households through Section 8. The Section 8 waiting list contains 21,256 households – this is estimated to be a 10-year wait. HACSC also develops, controls, and manages more than 2,600 affordable rental housing properties throughout the County. HACSC’s programs are targeted toward LMI households, and more than 80 percent of their client households are extremely low income families, seniors, veterans, persons with disabilities, and formerly homeless individuals.63 As referenced in the Need Assessment, in 2008 HACSC entered into a ten-year agreement with HUD to become a Moving to Work agency. The MTW program is a federal demonstration program that allows greater flexibility to design and implement more innovative approaches for providing housing assistance.64 Additionally, HACSC has used Low Income Housing Tax Credit financing to transform and rehabilitate 535 units of public housing into HACSC-controlled properties. The agency is an active developer of affordable housing and has either constructed, rehabilitated, or assisted with the development of more than 30 housing developments that service a variety of households, including special needs households.65 The tables below display the public housing inventory and housing vouchers maintained by HACSC. HACSC has four two-bedroom family public housing units in its portfolio; they are located in the City of Santa Clara. Approximately 16,387 housing vouchers are in use countywide. Specific HACSC data on the number of units or vouchers available is only available for the City of San Jose (through the Housing Authority of the City of San José, administered by HACSC) and the County as a whole. Table 51 - Total Number of Units by Program Type (County) Program Type Certificate Mod- Rehab Public Housing Vouchers Total Project -based Tenant -based Special Purpose Voucher Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing Family Unification Program Disabled * # of Units/Vouchers Available 0 42 0 10,931 666 9,362 740 100 63 # of Accessible Units - - - - - - - - - *Includes Non-Elderly Disabled, Mainstream One-Year, Mainstream Five-year, and Nursing Home Transition Data Source: HACSC Data Source Comment: HACSC does not collect data on whether or not households use a voucher for an accessible unit. 63 Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara. “Welcome to HACSC.” http://www.hacsc.org/ 64 HACSC. “Moving to Work (MTW) 2014 Annual Report.” September 2014. 65 Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara. “Welcome to HACSC.” http://www.hacsc.org/ Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 92 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Describe the supply of public housing developments. Not applicable. There are no public housing developments located in the jurisdiction. Describe the number and physical condition of public housing units in the jurisdiction, including those that are participating in an approved Public Housing Agency Plan. Not applicable. Table 52 - Public Housing Condition Public Housing Development Average Inspection Score N/A N/A Describe the restoration and revitalization needs of public housing units in the jurisdiction. Not applicable. Describe the public housing agency's strategy for improving the living environment of low- and moderate-income families residing in public housing. As referenced in the Needs Assessment, HACSC has been a Moving to Work agency since 2008. In this time the agency has developed 31 MTW activities. The vast majority of their successful initiatives have been aimed at reducing administrative inefficiencies, which in turn opens up more resources for programs aimed at LMI families.66 The following is excerpted from HACSC’s August 2014 Board of Commissioner’s report: “HACSC’s Family Self Sufficiency (FSS) Program is designed to provide assistance to current HACSC Section 8 families to achieve self-sufficiency. When a family enrolls in the five-year program, HPD’s FSS Coordinator and LIFESteps service provider helps the family develop self-sufficiency goals and a training plan, and coordinates access to job training and other services, including childcare and transportation. Program participants are required to seek and maintain employment or attend school or job training. As participants increase their earned income and pay a larger share of the rent, HACSC holds the amount of the tenant’s rent increases in an escrow account, which is then awarded to participants who successfully complete the program. HACSC is currently in the initial stages of creating a pilot successor program to FSS under the auspices of its MTW flexibility called Focus Forward.” Every year, HACSC provides a report to HUD on the previous year’s activities in its FSS program. The following chart represents a summary of what was reported to HUD for the County of Santa Clara’s and the City of San Jose’s FSS programs.” 67 66 HACSC. “Moving to Work (MTW) 2014 Annual Report.” September 2014. 67 HACSC. “Housing Programs Department (HPD) Monthly Board Report.” August 2014. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 93 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Table 53 - HACSC Family Self Sufficiency Report (County) CY2013 Family Self Sufficiency Report How many households were actively case-managed? 266 How many individuals received services? 266 How many households successfully completed their Contract of Participation? 28 What is the cost per family to coordinate services? $1,899 How many FSS households increased their income? 80 What was the average dollar increase in annual household income? $12,431 How many households experienced a reduction in cash welfare assistance? 19 How many households ceased receiving cash welfare assistance as a result of increased household income? 11 How many new FSS escrow accounts were established with positive balances? 22 What was the total value of FSS escrow accounts disbursed to graduating households? $300,190 How many households were able to move to non-subsidized housing? 5 Data Source: HACSC Board Report August 2013 Discussion: Please see discussions above. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 94 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) MA-30 Homeless Facilities and Services – 91.210(c) Introduction Various organizations within the County provide housing facilities and services for the homeless. Housing opportunities for homeless individuals and families include emergency shelters, transitional housing, permanent supportive housing, rapid re-housing, and safe havens. Housing opportunities are provided at facilities or through scattered-site housing models. Housing services available include outreach and engagement, housing location assistance, medical services, employment assistance, substance abuse recovery, legal aid, mental health care, veteran services, public assistance benefits advocacy and referrals, family crisis shelters and childcare, domestic violence support, personal good storage, and personal care/hygiene services. Table 54 - Facilities and Housing Targeted to Homeless Households (County) Emergency Shelter Beds Transitional Housing Beds Permanent Supportive Housing Beds Year Round Beds (Current & New) Voucher / Seasonal / Overflow Beds Current & New Current & New Under Development Households with Adult(s) and Child(ren) 257 70 619 1602 6 Households with Only Adults 314 271 522 2081 309 Chronically Homeless Households 0 0 0 979 310 Veterans 30 0 152 809 0 Unaccompanied Youth 22 0 0 0 0 Data Source: HMIS Santa Clara County Data Source Comment: List includes DV Shelters. Numbers are duplicate for Unaccompanied Youth and Unaccompanied Children. Data includes entire continuum capacity and is aggregate for the County. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 95 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Describe mainstream services, such as health, mental health, and employment services to the extent those services are used to complement services targeted to homeless persons. Regional programs that highlight and demonstrate mainstream service connections for the homeless population include:68  The Valley Homeless Healthcare Program (VHHP) is part of the Santa Clara Valley Health and Hospital system and provides a variety of services for homeless people, including primary care, urgent care, and backpack medicine for people in encampments, medically focused outreach, and connection to an SSI advocate through the County’s Social Services Agency. VHHP also connects people to the public behavioral health system and connects people with or enrolls people in Affordable Care Act benefits. VHHP also manages a Medical Respite program for homeless who are being discharged from hospitalizations, including from the County hospital.  The Social Services Agency has an expedited review process for SNAP (food stamps) applications for homeless people such that they can be approved for benefits within three days.  The Social Services Agency and the Workforce Investment Board (work2future) in San Jose are piloting an employment program for recipients of General Assistance who are homeless.  The County’s Behavioral Health Services Department (BHS) has several programs that connect homeless people to housing or shelter assistance, as well as several programs in which homeless people are connected to BHS for treatment.  BHS and the County’s Office of Reentry Services, as well as Social Services and VHHP, have partnered on services through the County’s Reentry Resource Center (RRC) to provide services to people who have a history of incarceration, including those who were recently released and who are homeless. Through the RRC, clients can get expedited connections/referrals to treatment services, housing, and other mainstream benefits.  BHS is dedicating a significant portion of its State Mental Health Services Act funds to housing. Since 2007, $21 million has been dedicated to housing in the form of construction assistance or operational subsidies. This investment will result in at least 150 new housing units for mentally ill households who are homeless, chronically homeless or at risk of homelessness (depending on the housing project). Of these units, 109 units are currently occupied, five are under construction and 36 are in the planning stages.  The County’s Office of Supportive Housing's (OSH) mission is to increase the supply of housing and supportive housing that is affordable and available to extremely low income and/or special needs households. OSH supports the County’s mission of promoting a healthy, safe, and prosperous community by ending and preventing homelessness. 68 County of Santa Clara Office of Supportive Housing Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 96 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) List and describe services and facilities that meet the needs of homeless persons, particularly chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans and their families, and unaccompanied youth. If the services and facilities are listed on screen SP-40 Institutional Delivery Structure or screen MA-35 Special Needs Facilities and Services, describe how these facilities and services specifically address the needs of these populations. The following is a list of facilities that provide a total of 6,320 beds (358 beds are under development) for homeless individuals and families in the County. The number of beds provided to Target Populations of individuals and families is:69 • Households with children (HC): 1,124 • Single females (SF): 85 • Single females and households with children (SFHC): 304 • Single males (SM): 346 • Single males and females (SMF): 1,052 • Single males and females and households with children (SMF+HC): 3,031 • Unaccompanied youth males and females (YMF): 20 • Domestic violence (DV): 50 • HIV/AIDs program (HIV): 167 Table 55 - Homeless Housing Inventory Chart (County) Organization Name Project Name Target Pop. Total Beds Abode Services Abode Place-Based Rapid Re-Housing Program SMF+HC 100 Abode Services Encampments SMF+HC 20 Abode Services SCC Rental Assistance Program SMF+HC 90 Abode Services SCC Rental Assistance Program SMF+HC 70 Abode Services SJ Mental Health TH SMF+HC 24 Abode Services SJ Mental Health TH SMF+HC 13 Abode Services St. James Park (Dept. of Drug & Alcohol Services) SMF+HC 21 Abode Services Sunnyvale TH SMF+HC 9 Abode Services Sunnyvale TH SMF+HC 30 Abode Services Sunset Leasing SMF+HC 21 Asian Americans for Community Involvement Asian Women's Home SFHC 14 Bill Wilson Center 8th Street/Keyes (formerly Leigh) SMF 4 Bill Wilson Center Bill Wilson RRH SMF+HC 44 Bill Wilson Center High Glen (formerly Villa Street) HC 9 Bill Wilson Center Jackson St. HC 17 69 Santa Clara County Continuum of Care. “2014 SCC Housing Inventory Chart.” http://www.sccgov.org/sites/oah/Pages/Office-of-Affordable-Housing.aspx Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 97 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Organization Name Project Name Target Pop. Total Beds Bill Wilson Center Lafayette Street SMF 6 Bill Wilson Center Norman Drive (North County) HC 11 Bill Wilson Center PeaCoCk Commons SMF+HC 34 Bill Wilson Center PeaCoCk Commons LI SMF+HC 11 Bill Wilson Center PeaCoCk Commons MHSA SMF+HC 11 Bill Wilson Center Rockefeller Drive (North County) SMF 8 Bill Wilson Center Runaway and Homeless Youth Shelter YMF 20 Bill Wilson Center Via Anacapa HC 8 Catholic Charities of Santa Clara County Family Housing HC 56 Catholic Charities of Santa Clara County Navigator Project SMF 29 Catholic Charities of Santa Clara County New Directions SMF 25 Catholic Charities of Santa Clara County New Directions Expansion - Medical Respite SMF 22 Charities Housing San Antonio Place and Scattered Sites SMF 10 City Team Ministries City Team Rescue Mission SM 48 City Team Ministries Heritage Home SF 23 City Team Ministries House of Grace SF 30 City Team Ministries Men's Recovery/Discipleship SM 56 City Team Ministries Rescue Mission TH SM 11 Community Solutions El Invierno TH Gilroy SM 12 Community Solutions Glenview Dr. SM 6 Community Solutions La Isla Pacifica HC DV 14 Community Solutions Maria Way SM 6 Community Solutions Walnut Lane SM 6 Community Working Group/Housing Authority Opportunity Center - HUD SMF 6 Community Working Group/Housing Authority Opportunity Center - NON-HUD SMF+HC 82 Downtown Streets Team Workforce Supportive Housing Program SMF 9 Family Supportive Housing Glen Art - Transitional Housing Program #1 HC 21 Family Supportive Housing San Jose Family Shelter HC 123 Family Supportive Housing Transitional Housing Program #2 HC 23 Family Supportive Housing Transitional Housing Program #3 HC 13 Family Supportive Housing Transitional Housing Program #4 HC 8 Goodwill Institute for Career Development Goodwill SSVF SMF+HC 30 HomeFirst (formerly EHC Lifebuilders) Boccardo FLC San Martin 2 year Transitional Program HC 63 HomeFirst (formerly EHC Lifebuilders) Boccardo FLC San Martin Family Wellness Court Units HC 15 HomeFirst (formerly EHC Lifebuilders) Boccardo FLC San Martin Farmworkers Housing HC 0 Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 98 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Organization Name Project Name Target Pop. Total Beds HomeFirst (formerly EHC Lifebuilders) Boccardo FLC San Martin Short Term Transitional HC 48 HomeFirst (formerly EHC Lifebuilders) BRC Nightly Shelter SMF 167 HomeFirst (formerly EHC Lifebuilders) BRC Supportive Transitional Housing (Mental Health) SMF 18 HomeFirst (formerly EHC Lifebuilders) EHC Lifebuilders - SSVF SMF+HC 20 HomeFirst (formerly EHC Lifebuilders) GPD BRC Veterans Per Diem SMF 20 HomeFirst (formerly EHC Lifebuilders) Housing 1000 Care Coordination Project SMF 14 HomeFirst (formerly EHC Lifebuilders) Housing for Homeless Addicted to Alcohol SMF 42 HomeFirst (formerly EHC Lifebuilders) Nightly CWSP Gilroy SMF+HC 101 HomeFirst (formerly EHC Lifebuilders) Nightly CWSP Sunnyvale SMF 125 HomeFirst (formerly EHC Lifebuilders) Scattered Site TH Program #1 HC 45 HomeFirst (formerly EHC Lifebuilders) Scattered Site TH Program #2 HC 15 HomeFirst (formerly EHC Lifebuilders) Sobrato Family Living Center ELI HC 40 HomeFirst (formerly EHC Lifebuilders) Sobrato Family Living Center PSH HC 32 HomeFirst (formerly EHC Lifebuilders) Sobrato Family Living Center VLI HC 99 HomeFirst (formerly EHC Lifebuilders) Sobrato House Youth Shelter SMF 10 Homeless Veterans Emergency Housing Facility HVEHF - Aging SMF 71 Homeless Veterans Emergency Housing Facility HVEHF - Men's SM 38 Homeless Veterans Emergency Housing Facility HVEHF - Women's SF 11 Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara CHDR 2010 (formerly known as Section 8 Vouchers - Housing First) SMF+HC 267 Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara CHDR 2013 SMF 75 Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara CHDR 2013 SMF 25 Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara King's Crossing SMF+HC 59 Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara Section 8 Voucher - MTW SMF+HC 750 Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara Shelter Plus Care 5022 SMF+HC 409 Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara Shelter Plus Care 5320 SMF 24 Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara Tully Gardens SMF 10 Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara VASH - HUD-VASH SMF+HC 809 InnVision (with Community Services Agency) Graduate House SMF 5 InnVision Shelter Network Alexander House SF 6 InnVision Shelter Network Commercial Street Inn SFHC 51 Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 99 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Organization Name Project Name Target Pop. Total Beds InnVision Shelter Network CSI Cold Weather Inn HC 3 InnVision Shelter Network Highlander Terrace (formerly known as North Santa Clara County Permanent Housing for Families) HC 23 InnVision Shelter Network Hotel de Zink SMF 15 InnVision Shelter Network InnVision Villa SFHC 54 InnVision Shelter Network JSI 24-Hour Care SMF 12 InnVision Shelter Network JSI Cold Weather Inn SMF 5 InnVision Shelter Network JSI DADS SMF 8 InnVision Shelter Network JSI DADS/AB 109 THU SMF 2 InnVision Shelter Network JSI Full Service Provider (FSP) SMF 8 InnVision Shelter Network JSI Mental Health SMF 21 InnVision Shelter Network Julian Street Inn SMF 10 InnVision Shelter Network MSI AB 109/DADS THU SM 4 InnVision Shelter Network MSI Cold Weather Inn SF 5 InnVision Shelter Network MSI Emergency Shelter SM 46 InnVision Shelter Network MSI HUD THU SM 10 InnVision Shelter Network MSI THU AB 109 SM 5 InnVision Shelter Network MSI Transitional Housing Unit SM 8 InnVision Shelter Network MSI VA PD THU Beds SM 12 InnVision Shelter Network North County Inns SMF 18 InnVision Shelter Network Rolison Inns (formerly known as North Santa Clara County Supportive Housing Coalition) SMF 8 InnVision Shelter Network Safe Haven Permanent Housing for Women (Hester Project) SF 10 InnVision Shelter Network Samaritan Inns SMF+HC 25 InnVision Shelter Network Stevens House SMF 7 InnVision Shelter Network Sunset Square HC 39 InnVision Shelter Network/Next Door Solutions to Domestic Violence Home Safe San Jose SFHC DV 70 InnVision Shelter Network/Next Door Solutions to Domestic Violence Home Safe Santa Clara SFHC DV 72 Next Door Solutions to Domestic Violence Residential Emergency Shelter SFHC DV 20 Salvation Army Emmanuel House (Overnighter) SM 22 Salvation Army Hospitality House-Working Man's Program SM 50 Salvation Army Volunteer Recovery SM 6 Santa Clara County Mental Health Department AB 109 SMF 30 Santa Clara County Mental Health Department Abode - Rental Assistance Project (RAP) #1 SMF 55 Santa Clara County Mental Health Department Abode - Rental Assistance Project (RAP) #2 SMF 8 Santa Clara County Mental Health Community Reintegration - Central SMF 10 Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 100 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Organization Name Project Name Target Pop. Total Beds Department County Santa Clara County Mental Health Department Community Reintegration - North County SMF 10 Santa Clara County Mental Health Department Community Reintegration - South County SMF 10 Santa Clara County Mental Health Department CSJ and MHD/CC - TBRA SMF+HC 13 Santa Clara County Mental Health Department CSJ and MHD/MMH - TBRA SMF+HC 2 Santa Clara County Mental Health Department Custody Health High Users SMF 15 Santa Clara County Mental Health Department Mental Health Permanent Supportive Housing Project SMF 20 Santa Clara County Mental Health Department MHSA 4th Street Apartments SMF 6 Santa Clara County Mental Health Department MHSA Archer Street Apartments SMF 6 Santa Clara County Mental Health Department MHSA Armory Family Housing SMF 10 Santa Clara County Mental Health Department MHSA Bella Terra Senior Apartments SMF 5 Santa Clara County Mental Health Department MHSA Belovida Santa Clara SMF 3 Santa Clara County Mental Health Department MHSA Curtner Studio SMF 27 Santa Clara County Mental Health Department MHSA Donner Lofts SMF 15 Santa Clara County Mental Health Department MHSA Fair Oak Plaza SMF 18 Santa Clara County Mental Health Department MHSA Ford and Monterey Family Apartments SMF 5 Santa Clara County Mental Health Department MHSA Gilroy Sobrato Apartments SMF 17 Santa Clara County Mental Health Department MHSA King's Crossing SMF+HC 10 Santa Clara County Mental Health Department MHSA Parkside Studio SMF 11 Santa Clara County Mental Health Department MHSA Paseo Senter I (1896 Senter) SMF+HC 17 Santa Clara County Mental Health Department MHSA Paseo Senter II (1900 Senter Rd.) SMF 5 Santa Clara County Mental Health Department Pay For Success SMF 120 Santa Clara County Mental Health Department Scattered Site Rental Assistance SMF 14 South County Housing Royal Court Apartments SMF+HC 34 South County Housing Sobrato Gilroy Permanent Housing HC 52 South County Housing Sobrato Transitional (HUD) HC 61 Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 101 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Organization Name Project Name Target Pop. Total Beds South County Housing Sobrato Transitional (non-HUD) HC 83 St. Joseph's Family Center Gilroy Place SMF 12 St. Joseph's Family Center Gilroy Sobrato Apartments - HUD SMF 8 St. Joseph's Family Center Our New Place HC DV 36 The Health Trust Housing for Health Program HC HIV 167 Valley Homeless Health Care Program Valley Health Medical Respite Center SMF 18 West Valley Community Services Transitional Housing Program SMF+HC 18 YWCA of Silicon Valley Support Network for Battered Women SFHC DV 23 Total 6,320 Data Source: 2014 HIC Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 102 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) MA-35 Special Needs Facilities and Services – 91.210(d) Introduction Table 56 - Licensed Community Care Facilities (City) Facility Type Facilities Bed Adult Residential - - Residential Care for the Elderly 6 420 Group Homes - - Small Family Home - - Social Rehabilitation - - Total 6 420 Data Source: California Community Care Licensing Division, 2014 Including the elderly, frail elderly, persons with disabilities (mental, physical, developmental), persons with alcohol or other drug addictions, persons with HIV/AIDS and their families, public housing residents and any other categories the jurisdiction may specify, describe their supportive housing needs. Describe programs for ensuring that persons returning from mental and physical health institutions receive appropriate supportive housing. The City has a total of 420 Residential Care facility beds available for elderly persons. Residential Care Facilities for the Elderly (RCFE) provide care, supervision and assistance with activities of daily living, such as bathing and grooming. They may also provide incidental medical services under special care plans. The facilities provide services to persons 60 years of age and over and persons under 60 with compatible needs. RCFEs may also be known as assisted living facilities, nursing homes, and board and care homes. The facilities can range in size from fewer than six beds to over 100 beds. The residents in these facilities require varying levels of personal care and protective supervision.70 The City spends part of its CDBG funds and local funds toward a variety of public services to address the supportive housing needs of homeless and very low income persons. For example, the City provides funding to Momentum for Mental Health for their homeless outreach program. Momentum provides a wide range of specialized and culturally competent services and programs that include:71 • Residential treatment programs that provide an alternative to admission to or continued care in a hospital 70 Community Care Licensing Division. “Glossary.” http://www.ccld.ca.gov/res/html/glossary.htm 71 Momentum for Mental Health. “Momentum for Mental Health Home Page.” http://www.momentumformentalhealth.org/ Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 103 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) • Supportive housing programs to assist individuals in achieving and maintaining independent living • Day rehabilitation programs • Outpatient mental health and psychiatric treatment, case management and rehabilitation services provided by multidisciplinary teams • Employment preparation, search and support • Services and support to family members Specify the activities that the jurisdiction plans to undertake during the next year to address the housing and supportive services needs identified in accordance with 91.215(e) with respect to persons who are not homeless but have other special needs. Link to one-year goals. 91.315(e) As shown in Table 57, there are 12 housing developments in Palo Alto that include 985 units specifically designed for elderly households.72 Table 57 - Independent Living Facilities for Elderly Residents in Palo Alto, 2014 (City) Development Total Units Senior Units Income Level Served Alta Torre 56 55 Very Low Income Arastradero Park 66 13 Low Income Colorado Park 60 8 Low income Fabian Way Senior Housing 56 56 Low income Lytton I and II 268 268 Low income Lytton Courtyard 51 51 Extremely Low- and Low income Moldaw (Taube-Koret Campus 170 170 Low income Palo Alto Gardens 156 128 Very Low income Sheridan Apartments 57 57 Low income Stevenson House 128 128 Low income Terman Apartments 92 24 Very Low income Webster Wood Apartments 68 4 Low income Total 1251 985 Data Source: City of Palo Alto 2015-2023 Housing Element In addition, there are other housing types, appropriate for people living with a developmental disability: rent subsidized homes, licensed and unlicensed single-family homes, and residential care facilities.73 The design of housing-accessibility modifications, the proximity to services and transit, and the availability of group living opportunities represent some of the types of considerations that are important in serving this need group. Incorporating barrier-free design in all new multi-family housing (as required by California and Federal Fair Housing laws) is especially important to provide the widest range of choices for disabled residents. Special consideration may also be given to the affordability of housing, as people with disabilities may be living on a fixed income. 72 City of Palo Alto. “2015-2023 Housing Element.” 2014. 73 Ibid. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 104 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) For entitlement/consortia grantees: Specify the activities that the jurisdiction plans to undertake during the next year to address the housing and supportive services needs identified in accordance with 91.215(e) with respect to persons who are not homeless but have other special needs. Link to one-year goals. (91.220(2)) The City will continue to provide funding to various non-profit agencies that provide supportive services to people who are not homeless but have other special needs. Below is a sample list of these services, which in total is budgeted at $1 million in General Fund dollars every year. Figure 3 – Human Services Resource Allocation Process Budget Data Source: City of Palo Alto Through the CDBG program the City will continue to support activities for the special needs population, which will be specified in the CDBG Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) when it is complete. A NOFA for the creation of new affordable housing will also be released in 2015. Additionally, the City is one of three jurisdictions that has joined the County of Santa Clara in establishing a HOME consortium. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 105 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) MA-40 Barriers to Affordable Housing – 91.210(e) Describe any negative effects of public policies on affordable housing and residential investment. The incorporated and unincorporated jurisdictions within the County face barriers to affordable housing that are common throughout the Bay Area. High on the list is the lack of developable land, which increases the cost of available lands and increases housing development costs. Local opposition is another common obstacle as many neighbors have strong reactions to infill and affordable housing developments. Their opposition is often based on misconceptions, such as a foreseen increase in crime; erosion of property values; increase in parking and traffic congestion; and overwhelmed schools.74 However, to ensure a healthy economy the region must focus on strategies and investment that provide housing for much of the region’s workforce – for example, sales clerks, secretaries, firefighters, police, teachers, and health service workers – whose incomes significantly limit their housing choices.75 Even when developments produce relatively affordable housing, in a constrained housing supply market, higher income buyers and renters generally outbid lower income households and a home’s final sale or rental price will generally far exceed the projected sales or rental costs. Public subsidies are often needed to guarantee affordable homes for LMI households. The City identified several constraints to the maintenance, development and improvement of housing and affordable housing in its 2015-2023 Housing Element update: 76  Local policies and regulations can impact the price and availability of housing and, in particular, the provision of affordable housing  Land use controls  Site improvement requirements  Fees and exactions  Permit processing procedures 74 Association of Bay Area Governments. “Affordable Housing in the Bay Area.” 2014. 75 Association of Bay Area Governments. “Jobs-Housing Connection Strategy.” 2012. 76 City of Palo Alto. “2015-2023 Housing Element.” 2014. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 106 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) MA-45 Non-Housing Community Development Assets – 91.215 (f) Introduction Strategies for increasing the housing supply must take into account a jurisdiction’s job/housing balance, which is defined as the ratio of number of jobs to number of housing units in a given area. A more precise ratio is between the number of jobs and the number of employed residents, as some households have no workers, while others have multiple workers). There should not only be a sufficient amount of housing at a range of prices, but also a variety of housing types appropriate for a range of needs and in locations that allow for access to transportation and employment opportunities. If there is an imbalance of appropriate housing for the number of employees in an area, the result can be longer commutes and greater traffic congestion as employees must then commute to places of employment. Jobs and housing are considered to be balanced when there are an equal number of employed residents and jobs within a given area, with a ratio of approximately 1.0. A more balanced jobs/housing ratio can ease traffic congestion and the burden it imposes on residents, businesses, and local infrastructure. That burden is particularly evident in California. Researchers ranked four California metropolitan areas among the nation’s ten most-congested areas in terms of time lost per year: 1) Los Angeles/Long Beach/ Santa Ana, 2) San Francisco/Oakland, and tied for 8th) San Jose.77 The table below shows the Job/Housing ratios for the jurisdictions in the County as determined by the ABAG.78 Table 58 -Jobs / Employed Residents Ratio (County) Jurisdiction Jobs/Employed Residents Ratio Campbell 1.3 Cupertino 1.0 Los Gatos 1.8 Milpitas 1.5 Mountain View 1.2 Palo Alto 2.9 San Jose 0.8 Santa Clara 1.9 Sunnyvale 1.0 Santa Clara County 1.1 Data Source: ABAG Projections 2013 The Bay Area region has taken a step to reduce the jobs/housing imbalance with the adoption of Plan Bay Area, the region's implementation of the Sustainable Communities Strategy required by SB 375 of 2008.79 Plan Bay Area focuses growth in urban areas near transit and employment. This strategy will allow for an increase in the housing supply that narrows the affordability gap. Higher density 77 California Planning Roundtable. “Deconstructing Jobs-Housing Balance.” 2008.http://www.cproundtable.org/media/uploads/pub_files/CPR-Jobs-Housing.pdf 78 Association of Bay Area Governments. “Jobs/Housing Balance.” http://www.abag.ca.gov/planning/housingneeds/notes/10-19-06_Agenda_Item_2_-_Jobs-Housing_Balance.pdf 79 California Environmental Protection Agency. “Sustainable Communities.” http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/sb375.htm Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 107 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) housing located near transit can be more affordable than detached more suburban-style housing. Lower housing costs and lower commuting costs can significantly reduce the overall cost of living for households. Table 59 - Jobs by Business Activity (City) Business by Sector Number of Workers Number of Jobs Share of Workers % Share of Jobs % Jobs less workers % Agriculture, Mining, Oil & Gas Extraction 44 39 0 0 0 Arts, Entertainment, Accommodations 1,459 5,822 7 7 0 Construction 491 805 2 1 -1 Education and Health Care Services 4,112 29,352 19 34 15 Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate 1,266 3,631 6 4 -2 Information 1,550 6,719 7 8 1 Manufacturing 3,024 8,181 14 10 -5 Other Services 916 2,905 4 3 -1 Professional, Scientific, Management Services 5,326 18,807 25 22 -3 Public Administration 0 1 0 0 0 Retail Trade 1,110 5,153 5 6 1 Transportation and Warehousing 200 69 1 0 -1 Wholesale Trade 786 1,323 4 2 -2 Total 20,284 82,807 -- -- -- Data Source: 2007-2011 ACS (Workers), 2011 Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (Jobs) Data Source Comment: HUD data for Public Administration sector not available. Table 60 - Labor Force (City) Total Population in the Civilian Labor Force 32,360 Civilian Employed Population 16 years and Over 30,713 Unemployment Rate 5.09% Unemployment Rate for Ages 16-24 16.08% Unemployment Rate for Ages 25-65 3.47% Data Source: 2007-2011 ACS Table 61 - Occupations by Sector (City) Occupations by Sector Number of People Management, Business and Financial 17,137 Farming, Fisheries and Forestry Occupations 659 Service 1,238 Sales and Office 3,574 Construction, Extraction, Maintenance and Repair 507 Production, Transportation and Material Moving 502 Data Source: 2007-2011 ACS Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 108 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Table 62 - Travel Time (City) Travel Time Number Percentage < 30 Minutes 20,458 75% 30-59 Minutes 5,261 19% 60 or More Minutes 1,449 5% Total 27,168 100% Data Source: 2007-2011 ACS Data Source Comment: Totals may not add to 100% due to rounding Table 63 - Educational Attainment by Employment Status - Population Age 16 and Older (City) Educational Attainment In Labor Force Civilian Employed Unemployed Not in Labor Force Less Than High School Graduate 456 2 207 High School Graduate (Includes Equivalency) 804 108 379 Some College or Associate's Degree 2,503 248 1,166 Bachelor's Degree or Higher 22,924 847 5,086 Data Source: 2007-2011 ACS Table 64 - Educational Attainment by Age (City) Age 18–24 Years 25–34 Years 35–44 Years 45–65 Years 65+ Years Less Than 9th Grade 7 54 115 241 194 9th to 12th Grade, No Diploma 175 59 65 131 258 High School Graduate, GED, or Alternative 624 419 121 751 998 Some College, No Degree 1,435 843 529 1,368 1,429 Associate's Degree 136 272 152 753 526 Bachelor's Degree 1,039 2,787 2,466 4,913 2,956 Graduate or Professional Degree 253 4,181 5,678 8,845 3,941 Data Source: 2007-2011 ACS As shown in Table 64, the educational attainment for residents 25 years of age and older is as follows:  Two percent have not graduated high school  Five percent have graduated high school (including equivalency), but no further education  Nine percent have some college but no degree  Four percent have an associate’s degree  Twenty-nine percent have a bachelor’s degree  Fifty percent have a graduate or professional degree Overall, 98 percent of Palo Also residents have at least a high school diploma or higher, and more than half have a bachelor’s degree or higher (57 percent). Meanwhile, less than one third of the Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 109 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) entire population of California has a bachelor’s degree or higher and 11 percent have a graduate or professional degree.80 Table 65 - Educational Attainment by Age - 25 and Older (City) Age Total % of Total 25–34 Years 35–44 Years 45–65 Years 65+ Years Less Than 9th Grade 54 115 241 194 604 1% 9th To 12th Grade, No Diploma 59 65 131 258 513 1% High School Graduate, GED, or Alternative 419 121 751 998 2289 5% Some College, No Degree 843 529 1,368 1,429 4169 9% Associate's Degree 272 152 753 526 1703 4% Bachelor's Degree 2,787 2,466 4,913 2,956 13122 29% Graduate or Professional Degree 4,181 5,678 8,845 3,941 22645 50% Total: 8615 9126 17002 10302 45045 100% Data Source: 2007-2011 CHAS Data Source Comment: Totals may not add up to 100% due to rounding Table 65 shows that residents with advanced and professional degrees have significantly higher median incomes, with holders of bachelor’s degrees having approximately 75 percent higher median income than those with only an associate’s, and those with a graduate degree or professional degree having a 140 percent higher median income. Table 66 - Median Earnings in the Past 12 Months (City) Educational Attainment Median Earnings in the Past 12 Months Less Than High School Graduate 22,500 High School Graduate (Includes Equivalency) 28,889 Some College or Associate's Degree 43,145 Bachelor's Degree 75,709 Graduate or Professional Degree 103,860 Data Source: 2007-2011 ACS Based on the Business Activity table above, what are the major employment sectors within your jurisdiction? The top employer in Palo Alto is Hewlett-Packard, with approximately 317,000 employees as of April, 2014. Other notable employers in the City include: VMware, Varian Medical Systems, Tesla Motors, Tobxo Software, and Jive Software. Together, these five companies employ over 31,000 people.81 80 2008-2012 ACS 81 Silicon Valley. “Searchable database of Silicon Valley’s top 150 companies for 2014.” http://www.siliconvalley.com/ Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 110 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Describe any major changes that may have an economic impact, such as planned local or regional public or private sector investments or initiatives that have affected or may affect job and business growth opportunities during the planning period. Describe any needs for workforce development, business support or infrastructure these changes may create. As of 2014, the City Council has adopted a new business registration program that monitors how many people are working in the City and for what types of businesses. The purpose of this registry is to maintain an accurate record of businesses in the City in order to develop recommendations on land uses, better coordinate transportation programs, assist in zoning compliance, and gather statistical information for other purposes. There is a fee included with the registration of a business.82 In March 2014, the Palo Alto City Council approved a two percentage point increase in the transient occupancy tax rate to raise $116.8 million, via debt financing in the form of Certificates of Participation, for General Fund infrastructure and City services, such as earthquake safe fire stations; pedestrian and bike improvements, including safe routes to school, streets, sidewalks, paths, and bridges; and maintaining parks and recreation facilities. Describe any current workforce training initiatives, including those supported by Workforce Investment Boards, community colleges and other organizations. Describe how these efforts will support the jurisdiction's Consolidated Plan. The Workforce Development Program will provide a transition from unemployment and homelessness to regular employment and housing through case management, job training, mentoring, housing, and transportation assistance. Downtown Streets Team is a nonprofit in Palo Alto that worked to reduce homelessness through a “work first” model. Downtown Streets Team uses their community connections to provide training and job opportunities to homeless people, specifically in the downtown area. The Downtown Streets Team has helped 282 people find housing and 291 find jobs since its inception in 2005. The Downtown Streets Team has initiatives in Palo Alto, Sunnyvale, San Jose, and San Rafael.83 NOVA is directed by the NOVA Workforce Board which works on behalf of Cupertino, Los Altos, Milpitas, Mountain View, Palo Alto, Santa Clara, and Sunnyvale. To support workforce mobility, NOVA provides:  Real-time labor market information about in-demand skills  Skill-building and enhancements to match market demand  Navigation tools for the ever-changing and entrepreneurial new labor market  Advocacy for necessary infrastructure to support workers between opportunities, such as unemployment insurance for all and portable benefits  Interconnected support system for multiple career pathways for youth84 To prepare potential employees for the technology-driven industries in the Silicon Valley, NOVA provides necessary digital literacy training along with its other services. 82 City of Palo Alto Economic Development Department. 83 Downtown Streets Team. “Our Impact.” http://streetsteam.org/thenumbers/ 84 NOVA. “Purpose Statement.” http://www.novaworks.org/ Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 111 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Does your jurisdiction participate in a Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS)? No. If so, what economic development initiatives are you undertaking that may be coordinated with the Consolidated Plan? If not, describe other local/regional plans or initiatives that impact economic growth. The City’s Economic Development Department (EDD) established a Council policy in 2013 that sets the goals and principles for a more proactive economic strategy. The purpose of the policy is to create an environment that attracts, retains, and encourages business growth in the City. The EDD is supporting the attraction of new business to Palo Alto, while helping to retain and grow existing enterprises. Department focus will be on understanding and striving to meet the needs of revenue- generating companies (i.e., retail, hotel, business-to-business, etc.) that help to fund vital city services. Also, by serving as an advocate with other City departments, such as the Development Services, Planning, Fire, and Utilities, EDD staff will facilitate the appropriate growth of companies in Palo Alto by making development and location processes as transparent and predictable as possible.85 In May 2013 the Palo Alto City Council approved the allocation of $150,000 in CDBG funds toward a Microenterprise Assistance Program (MAP). The purpose of the program is to provide access to new opportunities to improve the economic self-sufficiency of LMI families and individuals. This program builds on the foundation of entrepreneurship and empowers clients by increasing their economic literacy, business skills, self-esteem, and personal behavior appropriate to the workplace. The MAP program seeks to accomplish the following:86  Provide an innovative path out of poverty  Create self-sufficiency  Improve the survival rate of microenterprise businesses  Improve employment skills  Promote community economic development Discussion Please see discussion above. 85 City of Palo Alto. “Office of Economic Development Policy.” January 2013. 86 City of Palo Alto. “Pilot Microenterprise Assistance Program (MAP). http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=2480&TargetID=268 Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 112 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) MA-50 Needs and Market Analysis Discussion Are there areas where households with multiple housing problems are concentrated? (Include a definition of "concentration.") Housing problems disproportionately affect low income and minority populations. For the disproportionate needs by racial/ethnic group, please see the discussion for NA-15, NA-20, and NA-25. In summary: • For 0-30% AMI households: 89 percent of Black/African American households experience severe housing problems, compared to 75 percent of the jurisdiction as a whole.  For 30-50 % AMI households: 88 percent of Black/African American Housing and 91 percent of Hispanic households experience housing problems, compared to 77 percent of the jurisdiction as a whole. Sixty-three percent of Hispanic households in the experience severe housing problems, compared to 50 percent of the jurisdiction as a whole.  For 50-80 % AMI households: 75 percent of Black/African American households, 72 percent of Asian households, and 86 percent of Hispanic households experience housing problems, compared to 62 percent of the jurisdiction as a whole. Fifty-three percent of Hispanic households experience severe housing problems, compared to 29 percent of the jurisdiction as a whole. Minority concentration is defined as census tracts where the percentage of individuals of a particular racial or ethnic minority group is at least 20 percentage points higher than the citywide average. Map 2 below illustrates areas of the jurisdiction that have a minority or LMI concentration. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 113 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Map 2 – Areas of Minority and LMI Concentration Data Source: ACS 2007-2011 Data Source Comment: Minority concentration is defined as census tracts where the percentage of individuals of a particular racial or ethnic minority group is at least 20 percentage points higher than the citywide average. LMI concentration is defined as census tracts where the median household income is below 80% AMI. Based on FY 14 median family income for Santa Clara County, calculated by the Census Bureau for HUD’s Fair Market Rent and Income Limit areas. Are there any areas in the jurisdiction where racial or ethnic minorities or low-income families are concentrated? (include a definition of "concentration") Please see discussion above. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 114 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) What are the characteristics of the market in these areas/neighborhoods? The City’s housing costs are among the highest in the nation, with the median home value and median contract rent increasing exponentially in the last decade. Home values increased by 222 percent and median rents grew by 313 percent. Currently, the City would need approximately 1,780 additional affordable housing units to match the housing needs of the population earning below 80% AMI. Are there any community assets in these areas/neighborhoods? Map 3 displays a sample of community assets and amenities that may represent strategic investment opportunities for these areas, including: 1. Transit Centers 2. Community Centers 3. Fire Stations 4. Health Care Centers 5. Police Stations 6. Public Libraries 7. Recreation Centers Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 115 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Map 3 – Minority Concentration, LMI, and Community Assets Data Source: ACS 2007-2011 Data Source Comment: Minority concentration is defined as census tracts where the percentage of individuals of a particular racial or ethnic minority group is at least 20 percentage points higher than the citywide average. LMI concentration is defined as census tracts where the median household income is below 80% AMI. Based on FY 14 median family income for Santa Clara County, calculated by the Census Bureau for HUD’s Fair Market Rent and Income Limit areas. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 116 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Strategic Plan SP-05 Overview Strategic Plan Overview The Consolidated Plan goals below represent high priority needs for the City of Palo Alto (City) and serve as the basis for the strategic actions the City will use to meet these needs. The goals, listed in no particular order, are: 1. Assist in the creation and preservation of affordable housing for low income and special needs households. 2. Support activities to end homelessness. 3. Support activities that strengthen neighborhoods through the provision of community services and public improvements to benefit low income and special needs households. 4. Promote fair housing choice. 5. Expand economic opportunities for low income households. The City’s Consolidated Plan update coincides with the development of the first year Action Plan and the biennial Request for Proposals (RFP) process. The City awards Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding to non-profit agencies to provide public services and housing for low income and special needs households. The City operates on a two-year grant funding cycle for CDBG grants. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 117 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) SP-10 Geographic Priorities – 91.215 (a)(1) Geographic Area Not applicable. The City has not established specific target areas to focus the investment of CDBG funds. The City attempts to support affordable housing and services to low income and/or special needs persons throughout the City. General Allocation Priorities The City allocates federal entitlement dollars to benefit low-and moderately-low income (LMI) persons without target areas. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 118 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) SP-25 Priority Needs - 91.215(a)(2) Priority Needs Based on the Needs Assessment, Market Analysis, and community outreach conducted for the current Consolidated Plan cycle, the goals were established to meet the priority needs. Projects will only be considered for funding within the Consolidated Plan period if they address these high priority needs, summarized in the table below. Table 67 - Priority Needs Summary Sort Order Priority Need Priority Level Description Population Goal Basis for Relative Priority 1 Affordable Housing High Almost a quarter of households (23 percent or 5,845) in the City are LMI, with incomes ranging from 0-80% area median income (AMI). As stated in the Needs Assessment, burden is the most common housing problem within the City of Palo Alto, 30 percent of households in the City paying more than 30 percent of their income toward housing costs, and 14 percent of households paying more than 50 percent of their income toward housing costs. The Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara (HACSC) assists approximately 17,000 households through the federal Section 8 Housing Income Level:  Extremely Low  Low  Moderate  Middle Family Types:  Large Families  Families with Children  Elderly Homeless:  Chronic Homelessness  Individuals  Families with Children  Mentally Ill  Chronic Substance Abuse  Veterans  Persons with HIV/Aids  Victims of Domestic Violence  Unaccompanied Youth Non-homeless Special Needs:  Elderly  Frail Elderly  Persons with Mental Disabilities  Persons with Physical Disabilities Assist in the creation and preservation of affordable housing for low income and special needs households Qualitative feedback collected through the regional forums and regional needs survey, which were substantiated by quantitative data reported in the Needs Assessment and Market Analysis, served as the basis for prioritization. Energy efficiency, water conservation, and greenhouse gas reduction are all growing policy concerns for the City. The City will continue to support environmentally- sustainable residential development, particularly for affordable housing Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 119 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Sort Order Priority Need Priority Level Description Population Goal Basis for Relative Priority Choice Voucher program (Section 8). The Section 8 waiting list contains 21,256 households — an estimated 10-year wait.  Persons with Alcohol or Other Addictions  Persons with HIV/AIDS and their Families  Victims of Domestic Violence stock. 2 Homelessness High The Santa Clara region is home to the fourth-largest population of homeless individuals (6,681 single individuals),87 and the highest percentage of unsheltered homeless of any major city (75 percent of homeless people sleep in places unfit for human habitation). Homeless:  Chronic Homelessness  Individuals  Families with Children  Mentally Ill  Chronic Substance Abuse  Veterans  Persons with HIV/Aids  Victims of Domestic Violence  Unaccompanied Youth Support activities to end homelessness Qualitative feedback collected through the regional forums and regional needs survey, which were substantiated by quantitative data reported in the Needs Assessment and Market Analysis, served as the basis for prioritization. 3 Community Services and Public Improvements High Consolidated Plan forum and survey participants emphasized the need to support a broad range of community services. Low income households and special needs populations require a multifaceted network to address basic needs such as food, clothing, health, and Income Level:  Extremely Low  Low  Moderate  Middle Family Types:  Large Families  Families with Children  Elderly Strengthen neighborhoods through the provision of community services and public improvements Qualitative feedback collected through the regional forums and regional needs survey, which were substantiated by quantitative data reported in the Needs Assessment and Market Analysis, served as the basis 87 The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. “2014 Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR) to Congress.” October 2014. https://www.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/AHAR-2014-Part1.pdf Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 120 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Sort Order Priority Need Priority Level Description Population Goal Basis for Relative Priority shelter, as well as other services outlined in NA-50 Non-Housing Community Development Needs. Non-homeless Special Needs:  Elderly  Frail Elderly  Persons with Mental Disabilities  Persons with Physical Disabilities  Persons with Alcohol or Other Addictions  Persons with HIV/AIDS and their Families  Victims of Domestic Violence  Non-housing Community Development for prioritization. 4 Fair Housing High Fair housing represents an ongoing concern in the County. Of the 1,472 total survey respondents, 192 (16 percent) said they have experienced some form of housing discrimination. The majority of respondents (29 percent) who experienced discrimination indicated that race was the primary factor for that discrimination. Additionally, 66 percent indicated they were discriminated against by a landlord or property manager. Interviews with local service providers indicate that many home seekers and landlords are unaware of federal and Income Level:  Extremely Low  Low  Moderate Family Types:  Large Families  Families with Children  Elderly  Public Housing Residents Homeless:  Chronic Homelessness  Individuals  Families with Children  Mentally Ill  Chronic Substance Abuse  Veterans  Persons with HIV/Aids  Victims of Domestic Violence  Unaccompanied Youth Promote fair housing choice Qualitative feedback collected through the regional forums and regional needs survey, which were substantiated by quantitative data reported in the Needs Assessment and Market Analysis, served as the basis for prioritization. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 121 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Sort Order Priority Need Priority Level Description Population Goal Basis for Relative Priority state fair housing laws. Non-homeless Special Needs:  Elderly  Frail Elderly  Persons with Mental Disabilities  Persons with Physical Disabilities  Persons with Alcohol or Other Addictions  Persons with HIV/AIDS and their Families  Victims of Domestic Violence 5 Economic Development High LMI households with elderly members are more likely to experience cost burden, with 54 percent paying more than 30 percent of their income towards housing costs, compared to 34 percent of the jurisdiction as a whole. Almost one-third of households (32 percent or 10,155) in the City are extremely low income, low income, or moderate income, with incomes ranging from 0-80% AMI. As discussed in the Needs Assessment and Market Analysis, services that benefit low income households and special needs populations are Income Level:  Extremely Low  Low  Moderate Family Types:  Large Families  Families with Children  Elderly Homeless:  Chronic Homelessness  Individuals  Families with Children  Mentally Ill  Chronic Substance Abuse  Veterans  Persons with HIV/Aids  Victims of Domestic Violence  Unaccompanied Youth Non-homeless Special Needs:  Elderly  Frail Elderly Expand economic opportunities for low income households Qualitative feedback collected through the regional forums and regional needs survey, which were substantiated by quantitative data reported in the Needs Assessment and Market Analysis, served as the basis for prioritization. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 122 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Sort Order Priority Need Priority Level Description Population Goal Basis for Relative Priority necessary to help these groups take advantage of the overall economic growth of the City. Greater access to transit centers, public services, job training and workforce development, are key.  Persons with Mental Disabilities  Persons with Physical Disabilities  Persons with Alcohol or Other Addictions  Persons with HIV/AIDS and their Families  Victims of Domestic Violence Narrative As previously discussed, the City is in one of the wealthiest regions of the nation and the income gap between the richest and the poorest populations is growing significantly. The City is tasked with determining how to maintain economic growth while assisting the most vulnerable populations. The Needs Assessment and Market Analysis, in concert with the qualitative data collected through the community outreach, highlight the City’s continued need for investment in economic development, affordable housing, and services for low income households, the homeless and other special need groups. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 123 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) SP-30 Influence of Market Conditions – 91.215 (b) Table 68 - Influence of Market Conditions Affordable Housing Type Market Characteristics that Will Influence the Use of Funds Available for Housing Type Tenant Based Rental Assistance (TBRA) As per the Needs Assessment, 13 percent of households in the City are severely cost burdened and paying more than 50 percent of their income toward housing costs. Sixteen percent of households in the City have incomes at or below 50% AMI. TBRA for Non-Homeless Special Needs As discussed in the Needs Assessment and Market Analysis, special needs populations generally face unique housing needs, such as physical limitations, low household incomes, and rising costs of healthcare and/or childcare. Housing affordability may be a key issue for those living on fixed incomes. High housing costs within the City can make it difficult to transition from Community Care Facilities into the private rental market without rental subsidies. This may put those special needs groups at a higher risk of becoming homeless. New Unit Production As per the Needs Assessment and Market Analysis, 35 percent of renters are cost burdened and paying more than 30 percent of their income toward housing costs. Forty-seven percent of those cost burdened renter households are LMI households. The HACSC currently has 21,000 households on its waitlist for Section 8, and the waitlist has been closed since 2006. Rehabilitation As per the Needs Assessment and Market Analysis, 77 percent of the City’s housing stock is over 40 years old and may require maintenance and repair. Acquisition, Including Preservation There are currently 4,268 units in the City that are affordable for households earning below 80% AMI, yet there are 5,845 households within this income bracket in need of affordable housing. This reflects a total deficit of 1,780 units for LMI households. With a lack of vacant land for new development, acquisition and preservation are important tools for growing the affordable housing stock. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 124 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) SP-35 Anticipated Resources - 91.215(a) (4), 91.220(c) (1, 2) Introduction The amount of federal entitlement funding has seen an overall decrease of approximately 41 percent in the five year period from Fiscal Years (FY) 2010-2014. For the purposes of the Strategic Plan the City anticipates an annual five percent entitlement reduction per year, with the addition of approximately $136,049 in Program Income annually. Table 69 - City Entitlement Funding Received FY 2010 – FY 2014 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 Total CDBG $731,566 $606,566 $429,304 $467,192 $433,933 $2,668,561 Figure 4 - City Entitlement Funding Received FY 2010 - FY 2014 $0 $100,000 $200,000 $300,000 $400,000 $500,000 $600,000 $700,000 $800,000 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 125 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Table 70 - Anticipated Resources Program Source of Funds Uses of Funds Expected Amount Available Year 1 Expected Amount Available Reminder of ConPlan $ Narrative Description Annual Allocation: $ Program Income: $ Prior Year Resources: $ Total: $ CDBG Public Federal  Admin and Planning  Acquisition  Economic Development  Housing  Public Improvements  Public Service $442,460 $136,049 $303,164 $881,673 $2,103,594 CDBG funds will be used for the creation and preservation of affordable rental units, improvements in lower income neighborhoods, and public services that benefit low income and special needs households. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 126 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Explain how federal funds will leverage those additional resources (private, state and local funds), including a description of how matching requirements will be satisfied Entitlement Funds Leverage, in the context of the CDBG and HOME, means bringing other local, state, and federal financial resources to maximize the reach and impact of the City’s HUD Programs. HUD, like many other federal agencies, encourages the recipients of federal monies to demonstrate that efforts are being made to strategically leverage additional funds in order to achieve greater results. Leverage is also a way to increase project efficiencies and benefit from economies of scale that often come with combining sources of funding for similar or expanded scopes. Funds will be leveraged if financial commitments toward the costs of a project from a source other than the originating HUD program are documented. Additionally, the City has recently been approved to join Santa Clara County's HOME Consortium. HOME funds can be used to fund eligible affordable housing projects for acquisition, construction and rehabilitation. Starting in FY 2015-2016 developers of affordable housing projects will be eligible to competitively apply through an annual RFP process directly to the County for HOME funds to help subsidize affordable housing projects in Palo Alto. If the City receives HOME dollars from its participation in the HOME consortium, the required 25 percent matching funds will be provided from the City’s Affordable Housing Fund, which is comprised of two sub-funds: the Commercial Housing Fund and the Residential Housing Fund. As of August 25, 2014 the Commercial Housing Fund had an available balance of approximately $6,600,000 and the Residential Housing Fund had an available balance of $1,400,000. Other Federal Grant Programs In addition to the entitlement dollars listed above, the federal government has several other funding programs for community development and affordable housing activities. These include: the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program, Section 202, Section 811, the Affordable Housing Program (AHP) through the Federal Home Loan Bank, and others. It should be noted that, in most cases, the City would not be the applicant for these funding sources as many of these programs offer assistance to affordable housing developers rather than local jurisdictions. State Housing and Community Development Sources In California, the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and the California Housing Finance Agency (CalHFA) administer a variety of statewide public affordable housing programs that offer assistance to nonprofit affordable housing developers. Examples of HCD’s programs include the Multifamily Housing Program (MHP), Affordable Housing Innovation Fund (AHIF), Building Equity and Growth in Neighborhoods Program (BEGIN), and CalHOME. Many HCD programs have historically been funded by one-time State bond issuances and, as such, are subject to limited availability of funding. CalHFA offers multiple mortgage loan programs, down payment assistance programs, and funding for the construction, acquisition, and rehabilitation of affordable ownership units. The State also administers the federal Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program, a widely used financing source for affordable housing projects. As with the other federal grant programs discussed above, the City would not apply for these funding sources. Rather, local affordable housing developers could apply for funding through these programs for particular developments in the City. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 127 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Additionally, the County also receives Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) funds from the State for housing. County and Local Housing and Community Development Sources There are a variety of countywide and local resources that support housing and community development programs. Some of these programs offer assistance to local affordable housing developers and community organizations while others provide assistance directly to individuals. These resources are discussed below:  Human Service Resource Allocation Process In addition to the CDBG public service funds, the City will provide $1,099,347 million dollars from the General Fund in support of human services through HSRAP. The HSRAP funds, in conjunction with the CDBG public service funds, are distributed to local nonprofit agencies.  Palo Alto Commercial Housing Fund The Commercial Housing fund is used primarily to increase the number of new affordable housing units for Palo Alto’s work force. It is funded with mitigation fees required from developers of commercial and industrial projects. As of August 25, 2014 the Commercial Housing Fund had an available balance of approximately $6,600,000.  Palo Alto Residential Housing Fund The Residential Housing Fund is funded with mitigation fees provided under Palo Alto’s Below Market Rate (BMR) housing program from residential developers and money from other miscellaneous sources, such as proceeds from the sale or lease of City property. As of August 25, 2014 the Residential Housing Fund had an available balance of $1,400,000.  Below Market Rate Emergency Fund This fund was authorized by City Council in September 2002 in order to provide funding on an ongoing basis for loans to BMR owners for special assessment loans and for rehabilitation and preservation of the City’s stock of BMR ownership units. As of March 13, 2014 the BMR Emergency Fund had a balance of approximately $450,000.  The Housing Trust Silicon Valley This nonprofit organization combines private and public funds to support affordable housing activities in the County, including assistance to developers and homebuyers. Housing Trust Silicon Valley is among the largest housing trusts in the nation building special needs and affordable housing and assisting first-time homebuyers. Since HTSV began distributing funds in 2001, the trust has invested over $75 million and leveraged over $1.88 billion to create more than 9,953 housing opportunities  Mortgage Credit Certificates (MCC) Program The MCC program provides assistance to first-time homebuyers by allowing an eligible purchaser to take 20 percent of their annual mortgage interest payment as a tax credit against federal income taxes. The County administers the MCC Program on behalf of the jurisdictions, including Palo Alto. The program does establish maximum sales price limits on units assisted in this program and, due to the high housing costs in Cupertino, there have been few households assisted in Cupertino in recent years. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 128 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)  Santa Clara County Affordable Housing Fund (AHF) The County Board of Supervisors established the Affordable Housing Fund with initial funding of $18.6 million in 2002. The main purpose of the AHF was to assist in the development of affordable housing especially for extremely low income and special needs people throughout the County. The County has awarded over $10 million from the AHF to date. $960,000 was awarded to the Tree House project developed by the Palo Alto Housing Corporation.  Stanford Affordable Housing Fund The County maintains this affordable housing fund intended to benefit low income households. The County distributes the funds through a Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) process and has assisted developers in creating 91 units regionally. If appropriate, describe publically owned land or property located within the jurisdiction that may be used to address the needs identified in the plan The City has no surplus vacant land that would be available for the development of housing or services. Sixty-five percent of land in the City is open space. Discussion Please see discussions above. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 129 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) SP-40 Institutional Delivery Structure – 91.215(k) Explain the institutional structure through which the jurisdiction will carry out its Consolidated Plan, including private industry, non-profit organizations, and public institutions. Table 71 - Institutional Delivery Structure Responsible Entity Responsible Entity Type Role Geographic Area Served City of Palo Alto, Planning and Community Environment Government agency  Affordable housing – ownership  Affordable housing – rental  Public housing  Homelessness  Non-homeless special needs  Community development: public facilities  Community development: neighborhood improvements  Community development: public services  Community development: economic development  Planning Jurisdiction City of Palo Alto, Human Services Division Government agency  Planning Jurisdiction County of Santa Clara – Office of Supportive Housing Continuum of Care  Homelessness Region Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara PHA  Affordable housing – rental  Affordable housing – ownership  Public housing Region Assess of Strengths and Gaps in the Institutional Delivery System Strengths The City manages the institutional delivery structure surrounding the acceptance and allocation of federal grant funds for Consolidated Plan programs. The goals and objectives of the Strategic Plan could not have been formulated without residents’ informed assistance. Public presentation and participation is a vital component in the formulation and development of the City’s public policy documents, such as its Comprehensive Plan, Housing Element, and Specific and Precise Plans. These are just a few of the policy documents that the City has in place to influence and guide the economic, housing, and social service developments in the City. The City’s Planning and Community Environment Department is responsible for the review of development and building activity to ensure compliance with zoning and building codes, the achievement of economic development goals, Comprehensive Plan policies, housing policies, and community values. The department assists the community in establishing land use and neighborhood plans and ensures the quality of new projects through the design and development review process. Implementation of CDBG funds is overseen by the Department of Planning and Community Environment. Human Services and social service delivery in Palo Alto by non-profit agencies is Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 130 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) coordinated through the Human Services Resource Allocation Program (HSRAP). The City Council approves projects and programs that meet the City’s goals. Collectively, the programs funded under CDBG and HSRAP provide essential services to the community. Applications are received and reviewed congruently which allows for internal administrative efficiencies, creates a visible public forum for the CDBG program, and provides a more coordinated and effective approach at addressing the City’s human service needs. The City benefits from a strong jurisdictional and regional network of housing and community development partners. For example, the HACSC improves neighborhoods by assisting low income residents, increasing the supply of affordable safe housing, and rehabilitating residential properties in many jurisdictions in the County. HACSC assists approximately 17,000 households countywide through federal rental housing assistance, and developing and managing affordable rental housing properties. Working closely with landlords, housing developers, charities and local governments, the HACSC provides housing and support services to as many eligible families as possible. In addition, the Santa Clara Fair Housing Task Force includes representatives from the City and the other entitlement jurisdictions, fair housing providers, legal service providers, and other community service providers. Since its inception, the Task Force has implemented a calendar of countywide fair housing events and sponsors public information meetings, including Accessibility Training, First-Time Homebuyer training, and Predatory Lending training.88 As standard practice, CDBG entitlement jurisdictions from throughout the County hold quarterly meetings to discuss issues of common interest. Meeting agendas cover such topics as projects receiving multi-jurisdictional funding, performance levels and costs for contracted public services, proposed annual funding plans, HUD program administration requirements, and other topics of mutual concern. These quarterly meetings provide an opportunity for the City to consult with other jurisdictions on its proposed use of federal funds for the upcoming Program Year. They have helped participants better understand the County and nonprofit social service structure within the County, and provide input to the Santa Clara County Office of Affordable Housing. Finally, the meeting serves as a forum for HUD representatives to share information and answer questions from entitlement jurisdictions regarding issues of mutual importance. These quarterly meetings provide the opportunity for the City to consult with other jurisdictions on its proposed use of federal funds for the upcoming Program Year. The CDBG Coordinators Group meetings are often followed by a Regional Housing Working Group meeting, which is open to staff of entitlement and non-entitlement jurisdictions. The Working Group provides a forum for jurisdictions to develop coordinated responses to regional housing challenges. Gaps Nonprofit affordable housing developers and service providers play an important role in promoting community development within the City. However, they are often at a disadvantage in the housing development arena, as they compete with developers in the private sector for the limited land available for the development of housing. Affordable housing developers must adhere to noticing, 88 City of Palo Alto. “Fiscal Year 2015 Annual Action Plan. 2014. https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/39839&sa=U&ei=AHyQVOHpI8ff oATsg4KgAg&ved=0CAgQFjAB&client=internal-uds-cse&usg=AFQjCNF_XnDk4Zbw8fKMZf7TrMDdbPAgpg Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 131 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) outreach and evaluation processes associated with the use of public funds. Private market rate developers do not have such requirements and are able to purchase sites quickly. Many market rate developers have funds available to purchase properties rather than needing to seek financing, which saves time. The market realities of increased value due to scarcity of land and the ability to acquire sites quickly provide advantages to market rate developers, while posing challenging constraints to affordable housing developers. Availability of services targeted to homeless persons and persons with HIV and mainstream services Table 72 - Homeless Prevention Services Summary Homelessness Prevention Services Available in the Community Targeted to Homeless Targeted to People with HIV Homelessness Prevention Services Counseling/Advocacy X Legal Assistance X X Mortgage Assistance X Rental Assistance X X Utilities Assistance X Street Outreach Services Law Enforcement X X Mobile Clinics X X Other Street Outreach Services X Supportive Services Alcohol & Drug Abuse X Child Care X Education X Employment and Employment Training X Healthcare X X HIV/AIDS Life Skills X X Mental Health Counseling X Transportation X Describe how the service delivery system including, but not limited to, the services listed above meet the needs of homeless persons (particularly chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans and their families, and unaccompanied youth) As part of the institutional delivery system, the City participates in the Santa Clara County CoC, a multi-sector group of stakeholders dedicated to ending and preventing homelessness in the County. The CoC’s primary responsibilities are to coordinate large-scale implementation of efforts to prevent and end homelessness. The CoC is governed by the CoC Board, which stands as the driving force committed to supporting and promoting a systems change approach to preventing and ending homelessness in the County. 89 89 County of Santa Clara. “Housing Element 2015-2022.” 2014. http://www.sccgov.org/sites/planning/PlansPrograms/GeneralPlan/Housing/Documents/HE_2015_Adopted_Final.pdf Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 132 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Destination: Home, a public-private partnership committed to collective impact strategies to end chronic homelessness, serves as the backbone organization for the CoC and is responsible for implementing by-laws and protocols that govern the operations of the CoC. Destination: Home is also responsible for ensuring that the CoC meets the requirements outlined under the Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing Act of 2009 (HEARTH).90 Describe the strengths and gaps of the service delivery system for special needs population and persons experiencing homelessness, including, but not limited to, the services listed above In fall 2014, the CoC released a Draft Community Plan to End Homelessness in Santa Clara County, which outlines a roadmap for community-wide efforts to end homelessness in the County by 2020. The strategies and action steps included in the plan were informed by members who participated in a series of community summits designed to address the needs of homeless populations from April to August 2014. The Plan identifies strategies to address the needs of homeless persons in the County, including chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans, and unaccompanied youth. Additionally, it also intended to address the needs of persons at risk of homelessness. To address the needs of homeless individuals and individuals at risk of homelessness, the Plan aims to implement the following three action steps:91 1. Disrupt systems: Develop disruptive strategies and innovative prototypes that transform the systems related to housing homeless people. 2. Build the solution: Secure the right amount of funding needed to provide housing and services to those who are homeless and those at risk of homelessness. 3. Serve the person: Adopt an approach that recognizes the need for client-centered strategies with different responses for different levels of need and different groups, targeting resources to the specific individual or household. Over the next five years, the Plan seeks to house 2,518 homeless individuals, 718 homeless veterans, and more than 2,333 children, unaccompanied youth, and homeless individuals living in families. Provide a summary of the strategy for overcoming gaps in the institutional structure and service delivery system for carrying out a strategy to address priority needs The City is striving to improve intergovernmental and private sector cooperation to synergize efforts and resources, and develop new revenues for community service needs and the production of affordable housing. Collaborative efforts include:  Regular quarterly meetings between entitlement jurisdictions  Joint jurisdiction Request for Proposals and project review committees 90 Santa Clara County. “Continuum of Care Governance Charter.” 2013. 91 Destination: Home. “Community Plan to End Homelessness in Santa Clara County 2015-2012.” 2014. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 133 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)  Coordination on project management for projects funded by multiple jurisdictions. Recent examples include the effort by the County to create a regional affordable housing fund, using former redevelopment funds that could be returned to the County to use for affordable housing. Another effort underway involves the possible use of former redevelopment funds to create a countywide pool for homeless shelters and transitional housing. These interactions among agencies generate cohesive discussion and forums for bridging funding and service gaps on a regional scale. The City’s decision to join the County’s HOME Consortium (along with the cities of Gilroy and Cupertino) is another example of a collaborative strategy to improve the institutional delivery structure for address affordable housing needs. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 134 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) SP- 45 Goals Summary – 91.215(a) (4) Goals Summary Information Table 73 - Goals Summary Sort Order Goal Name Start Year End Year Category Geographic Area Needs Addressed Funding Goal Outcome Indicator 1 Affordable Housing 2015 2020  Affordable Housing N/A Affordable Housing CDBG: $1,018,421 Rental units rehabilitated: 300 Housing Units 2 Homelessness 2015 2020  Homeless N/A Homelessness CDBG: $254,605 Public service activities other than for low/mod income housing benefit: 2,500 Persons Assisted 3 Strengthen Neighborhoods 2015 2020  Non-Housing Community Development  Non-Homeless Special Needs N/A Community Services and Public Improvements CDBG: $127,302 Public service activities other than for low/mod income housing benefit: 2,500 Persons Assisted Public facility or infrastructure activities other than for low/mod income housing benefit: 500 Persons Assisted 4 Fair Housing 2015 2020  Non-Housing Community Development N/A Fair Housing CDBG: $152,763.24 Public service activities other than for low/mod income housing benefit: 100 Persons Assisted 5 Economic Development 2015 2020  Non-Housing Community Development N/A Economic Development CDBG: $992,963 Jobs created/retained: 125 Jobs Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 135 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Goal Descriptions 1 Goal Name Affordable Housing Goal Description Assist in the creation and preservation of affordable housing for low income and special needs households. 2 Goal Name Homelessness Goal Description Support activities to end homelessness. 3 Goal Name Strengthen Neighborhoods Goal Description Support activities that strengthen neighborhoods through the provision of community services and public improvements to benefit low income and special needs households. 4 Goal Name Fair Housing Goal Description Promote fair housing choice. 5 Goal Name Economic Development Goal Description Expand economic opportunities for low income households. Estimate the number of extremely low income, low income, and moderate income families to whom the jurisdiction will provide affordable housing as defined by HOME 91.315(b)(2) Currently, the City’s HUD allocation for entitlement grants does not include funding from the HOME program. In prior fiscal years Palo Alto has funded a number of projects that have resulted in the production of new affordable housing units, rehabilitation of existing multi-family rental units, and acquisition of existing units. During the previous funding cycle the City did not receive any applications for affordable housing supported through the production of new units or rehabilitation of existing units. While future provision of affordable housing will depend on the availability of projects, the City estimates that CDBG funds will be used to provide affordable housing to approximately 300 households over the next five years. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 136 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) SP-50 Public Housing Accessibility and Involvement – 91.215(c) Need to Increase the Number of Accessible Units (if Required by a Section 504 Voluntary Compliance Agreement) Not applicable. Activities to Increase Resident Involvements HACSC is proactive in incorporating resident input into the agency’s policy-making process. An equitable and transparent policy-making process that includes the opinions of public housing residents is achieved through the involvement of two tenant commissioners, one being a senior citizen, on the HACSC board. Furthermore, HACSC has installed a Resident Counsel which is comprised of five residents from all HUD-funded programs (Multifamily Housing, LIHTC, HOME, public housing, and Section 8). The Resident Counsel works with HACSC staff on evaluating the effectiveness and efficiency of the agency’s rental assistance programs. This grants members the opportunity to provide input on necessary program modifications. As previously noted, HACSC has been a Moving to Work (MTW) agency since 2008. In this time the agency has developed 31 MTW activities. The vast majority of their successful initiatives have been aimed at reducing administrative inefficiencies, which in turn opens up more resources for programs aimed at LMI families.92 The following is excerpted from HACSC’s August 2014 Board of Commissioner’s report: “HACSC’s Family Self Sufficiency (FSS) Program is designed to provide assistance to current HACSC Section 8 families to achieve self-sufficiency. When a family enrolls in the five-year program, HPD’s FSS Coordinator and LIFESteps service provider helps the family develop self-sufficiency goals and a training plan, and coordinates access to job training and other services, including childcare and transportation. Program participants are required to seek and maintain employment or attend school or job training. As participants increase their earned income and pay a larger share of the rent, HACSC holds the amount of the tenant’s rent increases in an escrow account, which is then awarded to participants who successfully complete the program. HACSC is currently in the initial stages of creating a pilot successor program to FSS under the auspices of its MTW flexibility called Focus Forward.” 93 Is the public housing agency designated as troubled under 24 CFR part 902? No. Plan to remove the ‘troubled’ designation Not applicable. 92 HACSC. “Moving to Work (MTW) 2014 Annual Report.” September 2014. 93 HACSC. “Housing Programs Department (HPD) Monthly Board Report.” August 2014. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 137 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) SP-55 Barriers to Affordable Housing – 91.215(h) Barriers to Affordable Housing As previously discussed, the incorporated and unincorporated jurisdictions within the County face barriers to affordable housing that are common throughout the Bay Area. High on the list is the lack of developable land, which increases the cost of available lands and increases housing development costs. Local opposition is another common obstacle as many neighbors have strong reactions to infill and affordable housing developments. Their opposition is often based on misconceptions, such as a foreseen increase in crime; erosion of property values; increase in parking and traffic congestion; and overwhelmed schools.94 However, to ensure a healthy economy, the region must focus on strategies and investment that provide housing for much of the region’s workforce – for example, sales clerks, secretaries, firefighters, police, teachers, and health service workers – whose incomes significantly limit their housing choices.95 Even when developments produce relatively affordable housing, in a constrained housing supply market, higher income buyers and renters generally outbid lower income households and a home’s final sale or rental price will generally far exceed the projected sales or rental costs. Public subsidies are often needed to guarantee affordable homes for LMI households. The City identified several constraints to the maintenance, development and improvement of housing and affordable housing in its 2015-2023 Housing Element update: 96  Local policies and regulations can impact the price and availability of housing and, in particular, the provision of affordable housing  Land use controls  Site improvement requirements  Fees and exactions  Permit processing procedures Strategy to Remove or Ameliorate the Barriers to Affordable Housing As stated in previous chapters, the City is addressing the barriers to affordable housing through the following programs and ordinances: Context-Based Design Codes The City adopted form-based codes in 2006 to ensure and encourage residential development by following context-based design guidelines to meet increased density needs. The code encourages the creation of walkable, pedestrian-oriented neighborhoods, following green building design principles, and increasing density along transit corridors and in mixed-use neighborhoods. The Context-Based Design Code allows for increased density and mixed-use buildings in a way that enhances neighborhood character and walkability. 94 Association of Bay Area Governments. “Affordable Housing in the Bay Area.” 2014. 95 Association of Bay Area Governments. “Jobs-Housing Connection Strategy.” 2012. 96 City of Palo Alto. “2015-2023 Housing Element.” 2014. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/44951 Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 138 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Density Bonus Ordinance Density bonus provisions are a tool for attracting and assisting developers in constructing affordable housing. Density bonuses allow a developer to increase the density of a development above that allowed by standard zoning regulations, as well as provide regulatory relief in the form of concessions. In exchange, a developer provides affordable units in the development. In 2004, the California State Legislature lowered the thresholds required to receive a density bonus and increased the number of concessions a developer can receive. The City adopted a Density Bonus Ordinance in January 2014. The density bonus regulations allow for bonuses of 20 to 35 percent, depending on the amount and type of affordable housing provided. As required by state law, the regulations also allow for exceptions to applicable zoning and other development standards, to further encourage development of affordable housing. Below Market Rate Housing Program Established in 1974, the City’s BMR Housing Program has been instrumental in the production of affordable housing by requiring developers to provide a certain percentage of units as BMR in every approved project of three units or more. The program originally required that for developments on sites of less than five acres, the developer must provide 15 percent of the total housing units as BMR housing units. If the site was larger than five acres, the developer was required to provide 20 percent of the units as BMR housing. However, recent court cases have drastically changed the BMR, or “inclusionary zoning”, environment in California. Two factors have received recent attention by the courts: whether inclusionary housing is considered rent control, and whether inclusionary housing and related housing mitigation fees are considered exactions. As a result of ongoing litigation, many cities have suspended or amended the portions of their inclusionary housing requirements that require affordable units to be included in market‐rate rental developments and many cities have turned, instead, to the use of development impact fees charged on new, market-rate housing and/or commercial development. Known as “Housing Impact Fees” and “Commercial Linkage Fees,” these fees are based on an assessment of the extent to which the development of new market-rate housing or commercial uses, respectively, generates additional demand for affordable housing. 97 Commercial Housing Fund The Commercial Fund is composed solely of housing mitigation fees collected from commercial developers under Chapter 16.47 of the Municipal Code. This ordinance was adopted in 1984. Fee revenue varies greatly from year to year. However, over a ten-year period from 1998 to 2008, over $5.4 million was collected in fees at an average of $542,000 per year. During that period the fee rate ranged from about $3.00 to $4.00 per square foot. In May 2002, the housing impact fee was increased to $15.00 per net new square feet of commercial space and, as of May 2008, it had gone up to $17.06 with annual CPI adjustments. The Commercial Fund monies are used only to assist in the development of new housing units. Since initiation of commercial housing impact fees through June 97 California Building Industry Association. “California Supreme Court takes Inclusionary Zoning Case.” http://www.cbia.org/go/government-affairs/cbia-reports1/september-23-2013/california-supreme-court-takes-inclusionary- zoning-case/ Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 139 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) 2008, seven new housing projects have been constructed with City financial assistance from the Commercial Fund producing 377 new affordable rental units. Residential Housing Fund The Residential Fund is primarily composed of fees received from developers of market-rate residential projects in-lieu of the provision of on-site or off-site below market rate units. These fees are collected pursuant to the City's BMR housing program. Over the ten-year period from 1998 to 2008, almost $5.8 million in fees were collected, for an average of about $580,000 per year in revenue. Residential Fund monies may be used to assist new housing development or the acquisition, rehabilitation or the preservation of existing housing for affordable housing. All housing assisted has been rental and most of the units have been affordable to very low and low income households. Through 2008, a total of nine housing projects with 379 units have been acquired, rehabilitated or constructed with City assistance from this Fund. In all cases, the housing projects assisted by the City have been developed, owned and managed by local nonprofit housing organizations. Many housing types have been developed serving different housing needs. Examples include: senior apartments, SRO units, family apartments, units for persons with disabilities, studio units and large family units. Typically, the developer has also used state of federal housing subsidies such as the housing tax credits in addition to the City's financial assistance. The City provides its funds through long-term loans with low interest rates and usually deferred payment. All loans must be approved by the City Council and the City restricts the projects under long-term regulatory agreements. Any cost necessary to develop the housing can be funded by the City. Developers are encouraged to apply through the funding cycle for the CDBG program, but may apply at other times if necessary. Development Impact Fees for Housing Palo Alto’s impact fees are comprised of four categories: housing, traffic, community facilities, and parkland dedication. The housing fee to non-residential development increased from $18.44 to $18.89 per square foot, effective May 8, 2013. The fee rate applies to all net new commercial square footage on a site. Full payment is required at building permit issuance with some exemptions including hospitals and convalescent facilities, private education facilities, public facilities and private clubs, lodges and fraternal organizations. Housing Trust Silicon Valley (HTSV) This nonprofit organization combines private and public funds to support affordable housing activities in the County, including assistance to developers and homebuyers. The HTSV is among the largest housing trusts in the nation building special needs and affordable housing and assisting first- time homebuyers. Palo Alto was among the contributors during its founding and has continued to allocate funding. A provision was added to ensure the City’s funds be used exclusively for qualifying affordable housing projects within Palo Alto. The most recent contribution included $200,000 from the City’s Residential Housing Fund for Fiscal Year 2012. Participation in the Trust has increased the available housing funding for a number of Palo Alto projects. In addition, HTSCC has invested over $100,000 assisting 16 households to purchase homes in Palo Alto through its first-time homebuyer program. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 140 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) Additionally, the City has recently been approved to join the County's HOME Consortium. HOME funds can be used to fund eligible affordable housing projects for acquisition, construction and rehabilitation. Starting in FY 2015-2016, developers of affordable housing projects will be eligible to competitively apply through an annual RFP process directly to the County for HOME funds to help subsidize affordable housing projects in the City. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 141 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) SP-60 Homelessness Strategy – 91.215(d) Describe the five-year goals and actions for reducing and ending homelessness including: Following a six-month planning process, the Santa Clara County Collaborative on Affordable Housing and Homeless Issues recommended the people serving on the Destination: Home Leadership Board should also serve as the Continuum of Care (CoC) Board. The Destination: Home Leadership Board agreed to accept this dual role due to the overwhelming need for a unified and community-wide strategy to end and prevent homelessness, especially chronic homelessness, which is a priority both locally and nationally. The new CoC Board identified the County’s Office of Supportive Housing as the Collaborative Applicant to ensure that the local CoC fully implemented the requirements and intent of The Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing (HEARTH) Act of 2009. Lead by Destination: Home, the CoC created a five-year strategic plan entitled the 2015-2020 Community Plan to End Homelessness in Santa Clara County through a series of community summits related to the specific homeless populations and homeless issues in the County.98 As previously discussed, the CoC’s target is to house 2,518 chronically homeless individuals, 718 homeless veterans, and more than 2,333 homeless children, youth, and families. The CoC’s plan includes the following overarching strategies: 1. Disrupt Systems – Develop disruptive strategies and innovative prototypes that transform the systems related to housing a homeless person. 2. Build the Solution – Secure the right amount of funding needed to provide housing and services to those who are homeless and those at risk of homelessness. 3. Serve the Person – Adopt an approach that recognizes the need for client-centered strategies with different responses for different levels of need and different groups, targeting resources to the specific individual or household. Within each strategy the CoC identifies several tasks: 1. Disrupt Systems a. Transform the Way Government Responds to Homelessness i. Rethink how government organizes to respond to homelessness ii. Ensure people leaving systems do not become homeless iii. Increase access to benefits for people who are homeless or at risk of homelessness b. Include the Private Sector and the Community in the Solution i. Increase awareness ii. Increase and align private resources iii. Provide opportunities for the business sector to address homelessness iv. Collaborate with community organizations v. Engage with the environmental community to reduce the environmental impacts of homelessness c. Create the Best Homeless System of Care i. Coordinate housing and services to connect each individual with the right housing solution 98 Santa Clara County CoC. “Community Plan to End Homelessness in Santa Clara County 2015-2020.” 2014. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 142 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) ii. Respond to system barriers and service gaps by making the best use of existing assets iii. Partner across public and private sectors to improve systemic coordination iv. Increase provider capacity 2. Build the Solution a. Create New Homes and Opportunities to House Homeless Men, Women, and Children i. Create 6,000 Housing Opportunities ii. Fund supportive services for the new housing opportunities 3. Serve the Population a. Have Different Responses for Different Levels of Need i. Provide permanent supportive housing to end chronic homelessness ii. Expand rapid rehousing resources to respond to episodic homelessness iii. Prevent homelessness before it happens Reaching out to homeless persons (especially unsheltered persons) and assessing their individual needs Two formally homeless persons are on the Continuum of Care Board. Homeless outreach primarily occurs in the City of San Jose, although outreach efforts to the rest of the County are expected to increase in the next 12 months. Addressing the emergency and transitional housing needs of homeless persons New Directions, on a county-wide basis, provides intensive case management to frequent users of the emergency departments at four area hospitals, many of whom are chronically homeless individuals. Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, O’Connor Hospital, Regional Medical Center and Saint Louise Regional Hospital are served by this project. Health Care for the Homeless provides medical care to homeless people through its clinics and mobile medical van at homeless encampments. Helping homeless persons (especially chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans and their families, and unaccompanied youth) make the transition to permanent housing and independent living, including shortening the period of time that individuals and families experience homelessness, facilitating access for homeless individuals and families to affordable housing units, and preventing individuals and families who were recently homeless from becoming homeless again. Particularly for chronically homeless, it is preferred that individuals receive intensive case management rather than simple information and referral services. Case managers work to assist homeless individuals find housing, connect with resources, and receive services to maintain housing. The provision of case management is person-based rather than shelter-based with the goal of rapid re-housing. Within the five-year goals of the Community Plan to End Homelessness, the target is to create 6,000 housing opportunities for persons who are homeless. An additional goal is for each of the 6,000 new tenants to have access to the services that will allow them to maintain that housing.99 99 Santa Clara County CoC. “Community Plan to End Homelessness in Santa Clara County 2015-2020.” 2014. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 143 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) The City spends part of its CDBG funds and local funds toward a variety of public services to address the needs of homeless and very low income persons. Services provided include free food, clothing, medical care, legal assistance, and rental assistance. The City allocates funding to the following homeless service providers: CDBG Funded  InnVision Shelter Network - Opportunity Services Center The Opportunity Services Center facility in Palo Alto provides a clean, safe environment and resources for low income or homeless persons including bagged groceries, hot meals, a rotating church shelter program, information and referral, shower and laundry facilities, case management, and money management (payee) programs, clothing and health services. A daily hot meal is provided at a different location each day and bagged groceries are distributed daily at the Downtown Food Closet. The Hotel de Zink rotating church shelter program is housed at a different location each month.  Downtown Streets Team – Workforce Development Program This economic development program helps motivated graduates of the Downtown Streets Team programs move on to stable employment. The program includes mentoring, counseling, job readiness, job training, and assistance. HSRAP Funded  Abilities United – Disability Services This organization provides services and activities for adults and children with mental and physical disabilities.  Community Technology Alliance – Shared Technical Infrastructure The Community Technology Alliance provides shelter hotline and voicemail services for homeless individuals and families. The voicemail service helps case-managed clients attain individual goals such as securing health care, housing or employment. A countywide housing information and referral website and tracking system is maintained to assist service providers and those seeking shelter.  Downtown Streets Team – Downtown Streets Downtown Streets Team identifies motivated homeless individuals and provides them with jobs cleaning and beautifying the downtown area in exchange for housing and food vouchers. The program includes counseling, coaching and training to help program participants build self-esteem, confidence and connections in the community.  Momentum for Mental Health – Homeless Outreach Program Momentum for Mental Health outreach program provide emergency on-call services to assist local mentally ill homeless persons. The agency provides services to City departments, libraries, community centers and local homeless service providers. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 144 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Help low-income individuals and families avoid becoming homeless, especially extremely low- income individuals and families who are likely to become homeless after being discharged from a publicly funded institution or system of care, or who are receiving assistance from public and private agencies that address housing, health, social services, employment, education or youth needs The City allocates funding to the following service providers:  Palo Alto Housing Corporation – SRO Tenant Counseling Palo Alto Housing Corporation provides counseling and case-management services for the low income residents and prospective residents of single room occupancy hotels in Palo Alto. Many SRO residents have a history of homelessness and special needs. The program plays a vital role in helping residents maintain their stability and housing.  Avenidas – Senior Services This agency is the main provider of senior services in the Mid-Peninsula area.  La Comida de California – Hot Meals for the Elderly La Comida provides a daily hot meal program for the elderly.  May View Health Center – Health Care for Low Income & Homeless Residents The Center provides basic primary health care services and health education and referral services for uninsured low income and homeless individuals from the Palo Alto area.  Peninsula HealthCare Connection – Project Downtown Connect This is a provider of health care services at the Opportunity Center of Palo Alto. Project Downtown Connect provides Section 8 vouchers to eligible homeless individuals and families.  SALA – Legal Assistance for the Elderly Senior Adults Legal Assistance (SALA) provides affordable legal assistance to elderly residents. Discussion Please see discussion above. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 145 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) SP-65 Lead based paint Hazards – 91.215(i) Actions to address LBP hazards and increase access to housing without LBP hazards The City’s housing and CDBG staff provide information and referral to property owners, developers, and non-profit organizations rehabilitating older housing about lead-based paint (LBP) hazards. Any house to be rehabilitated with City financial assistance is required to be inspected for the existence of LBP and LBP hazards. The City will provide financial assistance for the abatement of such hazards in units rehabilitated with City funding. How are the actions listed above related to the extent of lead poisoning and hazards? Building age is used to estimate the number of homes with LBP which was prohibited on residential units after 1978. For the purposes of this plan, units built before 1980 are used as a baseline for units that contain LBP. Seventy-nine percent of all units (20,265 units) in the City were built before 1980 and provide potential exposure to LBP. As discussed in the Needs Assessment, 23 percent of households within the City have incomes ranging from 0-80% AMI. Using this percentage as a baseline, we can estimate that 4,661 LBP units are occupied by LMI families. How are the actions listed above integrated into housing policies and procedures? The City requires that contractors are trained and certified in an effort to decrease the risk of potential use of LBP in new units. All development and rehabilitation projects must be evaluated according to HUD’s Lead Safe Housing Rule 24 CFR Part 35. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 146 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) SP-70 Anti-Poverty Strategy – 91.215(j) How are the Jurisdiction poverty reducing goals, programs, and policies coordinated with this affordable housing plan As stated in the Needs Assessment, almost a quarter of households (23 percent, or 5,845 households) in the City are LMI, with incomes ranging from 0-80% AMI. To address this, the City employs a multi-tiered anti-poverty strategy, with each of the goals and programs described in this plan addressing poverty directly or indirectly. The City provided either CDBG or HSRAP funding to several services for persons within the community who are low income, homeless, or at-risk of becoming homeless. In summary, the goal of all of the services listed in this chapter is to prevent homelessness, help people move out of homelessness, and to reduce the number of persons below the poverty line. The City’s Workforce Development Program, administered by Downtown Streets, Inc., provides a transition from unemployment and homelessness to regular employment and housing through case management, job training, mentoring, housing, and transportation assistance. The City also partners with NOVA, a local nonprofit agency that provides job seekers with resume and job search assistance, assessment, and referrals to specialized training and educational programs. The City provided $1,216,177 in General Funds during FY 2013-2014 to address primary human service needs in the community. These funds include multi-year agreements with others allocated by HSRAP and administered by the Office of Human Services in the Community Services Department. Funded projects addressed priority needs in the following categories: early child care and education, youth programs, senior nutrition and social services, homelessness, and basic needs such as health care and mental health.100 In 2013 the Palo Alto City Council approved the allocation of $150,000 in CDBG funds toward a Microenterprise Assistance Program (MAP). The purpose of the program is to provide access to new opportunities to improve the economic self-sufficiency of LMI families and individuals. This program builds on the foundation of entrepreneurship and empowers clients by increasing their economic literacy, business skills, self-esteem, and personal behavior appropriate to the workplace. The MAP program seeks to accomplish the following:101  Provide an innovative path out of poverty  Create self-sufficiency  Improve the survival rate of microenterprise businesses  Improve employment skills  Promote community economic development 100 City of Palo Alto. “Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report FY2013-2014.” 2014 101 City of Palo Alto. “Pilot Microenterprise Assistance Program (MAP). http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=2480&TargetID=268 Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 147 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) SP-80 Monitoring – 91.230 Describe the standards and procedures that the jurisdiction will use to monitor activities carried out in furtherance of the plan and will use to ensure long-term compliance with requirements of the programs involved, including minority business outreach and the comprehensive planning requirements A key element of the CDBG Planner’s role in management and oversight responsibilities is the monitoring of program performance. In general, the CDBG Coordinator is responsible for managing the day-to-day operations of the City’s CDBG Program and ensuring that funds are used in keeping with program requirements. Monitoring is a review of program or project performance and compliance. The City uses a CDBG Monitoring Responsibilities and Plan to provide an internal control mechanism designed to review performance over a period of time and to evaluate compliance of nonprofit sub- recipients funded under CDBG pursuant to 24 CFR 570.502. Applicability of Uniform Administrative Requirements, (a) (14) and with 24 CFR Section 85, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to States and Local Governments, 24 CFR Section 85.40 “Monitoring and reporting program performance,” and other laws and regulations based on the funding source.102 Monitoring allows the City to provide technical assistance to help subrecipients comply with applicable laws and regulations, improve technical skills, increase capacity and stay updated on regulations relevant to CDBG. Additionally, monitoring helps to identify deficiencies, and highlight accomplishments and best practices that can be duplicated. Monitoring will be conducted in two phases. File review will generally confirm compliance with reporting requirements, financial submittals, and contract provisions and much of it will be completed prior to the onsite visit. On-site reviews will focus more on the beneficiary documentation and services provided, including quantitative performance outcomes to local and federal objectives, and financial processes and documentation only available at the program site. The City will coordinate its monitoring efforts of Public Service activities funded by other entitlement jurisdictions, in an effort to standardize the process and reduce the burden on the providers. Monitoring checklists will be used to assure regulatory requirements are being met and will adequately be designed to test for client eligibility. Subrecipients who are found to be in noncompliance and receive a finding as a result of their monitoring will be provided with technical assistance towards resolution. Actions taken by the City to achieve compliance may include, but not be limited to, withholding further disbursements of CDBG funds until satisfactory compliance with applicable regulations are achieved. 102 U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development. “Monitoring and Reporting Program Performance.” http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2000-title24-vol1/pdf/CFR-2000-title24-vol1-sec85-40.pdf Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 148 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Minority Outreach (MBE/WBE) Through the CDBG Program the City works with non-profit affordable housing developers on awarding contractors and subcontractors performing the construction contracts awarded participation by minority businesses in each construction project. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 149 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) First Year Action Plan AP-15 Expected Resources – 91.220(c) (1, 2) Introduction The City of Palo Alto’s (City) Fiscal Year (FY) 2015-2016 Action Plan covers the time period from July 1, 2015 to June 30 2016 (HUD Program Year 2015). The City’s FY 2016 entitlement amount is $442,460. Additionally, the City estimates approximately $136,049 in program income and an estimated $303,164 in available uncommitted funds from the prior program year, bringing the total estimated budget for FY 2015-2016 to $881,673. While U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) allocations are critical, they are not sufficient to overcome all barriers and address all needs that low income individuals and families face in attaining self-sufficiency. The City will continue to leverage additional resources to successfully provide support and services to the populations in need. Currently, the City is not eligible to receive direct funding under the HOME Investment Partnership Act (HOME), Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG), or Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) – also programs covered under the Consolidated Plan Regulations. Within the CDBG funding, Year One allocations are as follows: Table 74 - CDBG Fiscal Year 2015-2016 Annual Budgetary Priorities CDBG Fiscal Year 2015 Annual Budgetary Priorities FY 2015-2016 Budget ($442,460 Allocation + $136,049 Program Income) $578,509 Administration and Planning (20% Cap = $115,701) 20% $115,702 Public Services (15% Cap = $82,910) 15% $82,880 Affordable Housing Projects 40% $231,140 Economic Development Projects 25% $148,787 Total 100% $578,509 FY 2014-2015 Uncommitted Funds (Affordable Housing & Economic Development Projects) $303,164 Total Available to Allocate $881,673 Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 150 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Table 75 - Expected Resources – Priority Table Program Source of Funds Uses of Funds Expected Amount Available Year 1 Expected Amount Available Reminder of ConPlan $ Narrative Description Annual Allocation: $ Program Income: $ Prior Year Resources: $ Total: $ CDBG Public Federal  Admin and Planning  Acquisition  Economic Development  Housing  Public Improvements  Public Service $442,460 $136,049 $303,164 $881,673 $2,103,594 CDBG funds will be used for the creation and preservation of affordable rental units, improvements in lower income neighborhoods, and public services that benefit low income and special needs households. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 151 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Explain how federal funds will leverage those additional resources (private, state and local funds), including a description of how matching requirements will be satisfied Entitlement Funds Leverage, in the context of the CDBG and HOME, means bringing other local, state, and federal financial resources to maximize the reach and impact of the City’s HUD Programs. HUD, like many other federal agencies, encourages the recipients of federal monies to demonstrate that efforts are being made to strategically leverage additional funds in order to achieve greater results. Leverage is also a way to increase project efficiencies and benefit from economies of scale that often come with combining sources of funding for similar or expanded scopes. Funds will be leveraged if financial commitments toward the costs of a project from a source other than the originating HUD program are documented. Additionally, the City has recently been approved to join the County's HOME Consortium. HOME funds can be used to fund eligible affordable housing projects for acquisition, construction and rehabilitation. Starting in FY 2015-2016 developers of affordable housing projects will be eligible to competitively apply through an annual Request for Proposals (RFP) process directly to the County for HOME funds to help subsidize affordable housing projects in Palo Alto. If the City receives HOME dollars from its participation in the HOME consortium, the required 25 percent matching funds will be provided from the City’s Affordable Housing Fund, which is comprised of two sub-funds: the Commercial Housing Fund and the Residential Housing Fund. As of August 25, 2014 the Commercial Housing Fund had an available balance of approximately $6,600,000 and the Residential Housing Fund had an available balance of $1,400,000. Other Federal Grant Programs In addition to the entitlement dollars listed above, the federal government has several other funding programs for community development and affordable housing activities. These include: the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program, Section 202, Section 811, the Affordable Housing Program (AHP) through the Federal Home Loan Bank, and others. It should be noted that, in most cases, the City would not be the applicant for these funding sources as many of these programs offer assistance to affordable housing developers rather than local jurisdictions. State Housing and Community Development Sources In California, the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and the California Housing Finance Agency (CalHFA) administer a variety of statewide public affordable housing programs that offer assistance to nonprofit affordable housing developers. Examples of HCD’s programs include the Multifamily Housing Program (MHP), Affordable Housing Innovation Fund (AHIF), Building Equity and Growth in Neighborhoods Program (BEGIN), and CalHOME. Many HCD programs have historically been funded by one-time State bond issuances and, as such, are subject to limited availability of funding. CalHFA offers multiple mortgage loan programs, down payment assistance programs, and funding for the construction, acquisition, and rehabilitation of affordable ownership units. The State also administers the federal Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program, a widely used financing source for affordable housing projects. As with the other federal grant programs discussed above, the City would not apply for these funding sources. Rather, local affordable housing developers could apply for funding through these programs for particular developments in the City. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 152 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Additionally, the County also receives Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) funds from the State for housing. County and Local Housing and Community Development Sources There are a variety of countywide and local resources that support housing and community development programs. Some of these programs offer assistance to local affordable housing developers and community organizations while others provide assistance directly to individuals. These resources are discussed below:  Human Service Resource Allocation Process In addition to the CDBG public service funds, the City will provide $1,099,347 million dollars from the General Fund in support of human services through HSRAP. The HSRAP funds, in conjunction with the CDBG public service funds, are distributed to local nonprofit agencies.  Palo Alto Commercial Housing Fund The Commercial Housing fund is used primarily to increase the number of new affordable housing units for Palo Alto’s work force. It is funded with mitigation fees required from developers of commercial and industrial projects. As of August 25, 2014 the Commercial Housing Fund had an available balance of approximately $6,600,000.  Palo Alto Residential Housing Fund The Residential Housing Fund is funded with mitigation fees provided under Palo Alto’s Below Market Rate (BMR) housing program from residential developers and money from other miscellaneous sources, such as proceeds from the sale or lease of City property. As of August 25, 2014 the Residential Housing Fund had an available balance of $1,400,000.  Below Market Rate Emergency Fund This fund was authorized by City Council in September 2002 in order to provide funding on an ongoing basis for loans to BMR owners for special assessment loans and for rehabilitation and preservation of the City’s stock of BMR ownership units. As of March 13, 2014 the BMR Emergency Fund had a balance of approximately $450,000.  Housing Trust Silicon Valley This nonprofit organization combines private and public funds to support affordable housing activities in the County, including assistance to developers and homebuyers. The Housing Trust is among the largest housing trusts in the nation building special needs and affordable housing and assisting first-time homebuyers. Since HTSV began distributing funds in 2001, the trust has invested over $75 million and leveraged over $1.88 billion to create more than 9,953 housing opportunities.  Mortgage Credit Certificates (MCC) Program The MCC program provides assistance to first-time homebuyers by allowing an eligible purchaser to take 20 percent of their annual mortgage interest payment as a tax credit against federal income taxes. The County administers the MCC Program on behalf of the jurisdictions, including Palo Alto. The program does establish maximum sales price limits on units assisted in this program and, due to the high housing costs in the City, there have been few households assisted in Palo Alto in recent years. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 153 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)  Santa Clara County Affordable Housing Fund (AHF) The County Board of Supervisors established the AHF with initial funding of $18.6 million in 2002. The main purpose of the AHF was to assist in the development of affordable housing especially for extremely low income and special needs people throughout the County. The County has awarded over $10 million from the AHF to date. $960,000 was awarded to the Tree House project developed by the Palo Alto Housing Corporation.  Stanford Affordable Housing Fund The County maintains this affordable housing fund intended to benefit low income households. The County distributes the funds through a Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) process and has assisted developers in creating 91 units regionally. If appropriate, describe publically owned land or property located within the jurisdiction that may be used to address the needs identified in the plan Not applicable; the existing land that the City has jurisdiction over is currently utilized by facilities and parks. Sixty-five percent of the City is open space. Discussion Please see discussions above. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 154 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) AP-20 Annual Goals and Objectives Goals Summary Information Table 76 - Goals Summary Sort Order Goal Name Start Year End Year Category Geographic Area Needs Addressed Funding Goal Outcome Indicator 1 Affordable Housing 2015 2020  Affordable Housing N/A  Affordable Housing CDBG: $392,368 Rental units rehabilitated: 156 Housing Units 2 Homelessness 2015 2020  Homeless N/A  Homelessness CDBG: $63,360 Public service activities other than for low/mod income housing benefit: 531 Persons Assisted 3 Strengthen Neighborhoods 2015 2020  Non-Housing Community Development  Non-Homeless Special Needs N/A  Community Services and Public Improvements CDBG: $19,520 Public service activities other than for low/mod income housing benefit: 305 Persons Assisted 4 Fair Housing 2015 2020  Non-Housing Community Development N/A  Fair Housing CDBG: $32,016 Public service activities other than for low/mod income housing benefit: 30 Persons Assisted 5 Economic Development 2015 2020  Non-Housing Community Development N/A  Economic Development CDBG: $290,723 Jobs created/retained: 30 Jobs Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 155 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Goal Descriptions 1 Goal Name Affordable Housing Goal Description Assist in the creation and preservation of affordable housing for low income and special needs households. 2 Goal Name Homelessness Goal Description Support activities to end homelessness. 3 Goal Name Strengthen Neighborhoods Goal Description Support activities that strengthen neighborhoods through the provision of community services and public improvements to benefit low income and special needs households. 4 Goal Name Fair Housing Goal Description Promote fair housing choice. 5 Goal Name Economic Development Goal Description Expand economic opportunities for low income households. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 156 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) AP-35 Projects – 91.220(d) Introduction The Consolidated Plan goals below represent high priority needs for the City of Palo Alto (City) and serve as the basis for the strategic actions the City will use to meet these needs. The goals, listed in no particular order, are: 1. Assist in the creation and preservation of affordable housing for low income and special needs households. 2. Support activities to end homelessness. 3. Support activities that strengthen neighborhoods through the provision of community services and public improvements to benefit low income and special needs households. 4. Promote fair housing choice. 5. Expand economic opportunities for low income households. Projects Table 77 - Project Information # Project Name 1 Long-Term Care Ombudsman Program 2 Opportunity Services Center 3 SRO Resident Support Services 4 Housing & Emergency Services 5 Domestic Violence Services 6 Fair Housing Services 7 Planning and Administration 8 Palo Alto Gardens Rehabilitation Project 9 Workforce Development Program Describe the reasons for allocation priorities and any obstacles to addressing underserved needs The City’s Consolidated Plan update coincides with the development of the first year Action Plan and the biennial RFP process. The City awards CDBG funding to nonprofit agencies to provide public services and housing for low income and special needs households. The City operates on a two-year grant funding cycle for CDBG grants. The City allocates its CDBG funds to projects and programs that will primarily benefit 0-50% AMI households, the homeless and special needs populations. The allocation of funds is made based on the needs identified in the Consolidated Plan. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 157 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) AP-38 Project Summary Project Summary Information Table 78 - Project Summary Sort Order Project Name Target Area Goals Supported Needs Addressed Funding Goal Outcome Indicator 1 Catholic Charities of Santa Clara County – Long-term Care Ombudsman Program N/A  Strengthen Neighborhoods   Homelessness  Community Services and Public Improvements $5,422 Public service activities other than for low/mod income housing benefit: 260 Persons Assisted 2 InnVision Shelter Network – Opportunity Services Center N/A  Homelessness  Strengthen  Homelessness  Community Services and Public Improvements $38,499 Public service activities other than for low/mod income housing benefit: 400 Persons Assisted 3 Palo Alto Housing Corporation – SRO Resident Support Program N/A  Strengthen Neighborhoods  Homelessness  Affordable Housing  Fair Housing  Community Services and Public Improvements  Homelessness  Affordable Housing $24,861 Public service activities other than for low/mod income housing benefit: 131 Persons Assisted 4 Silicon Valley Independent Living Center – Housing & Emergency Housing Services N/A  Strengthen Neighborhoods  Fair Housing  Community Services  Fair Housing $5,422 Public service activities other than for low/mod income housing benefit: 20 Persons Assisted 5 YWCA of Silicon Valley – Domestic Violence Activities N/A  Community Services  Community Services $8,676 Public service activities other than for low/mod income housing benefit: 40 Persons Assisted 6 Project Sentinel – Fair Housing Services N/A  Fair Housing  Fair Housing  Affordable Housing $32,016 Public service activities other than for low/mod income housing benefit: 40 Persons Assisted Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 158 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Sort Order Project Name Target Area Goals Supported Needs Addressed Funding Goal Outcome Indicator 7 City of Palo Alto Planning and Administration N/A  Affordable Housing  Homelessness  Strengthen Neighborhoods  Fair Housing  Economic Development  Affordable Housing  Homelessness  Community Services  Public Facilities, Public Improvements and Infrastructure  Fair Housing  Economic Development $83,686 N/A 8 MidPen Housing – Palo Alto Garden Housing Rehabilitation N/A  Affordable Housing Affordable Housing $392,368 Rental units rehabilitated: 156 Housing Units 9 Downtown Streets – Workforce Development Program N/A  Economic Development  Economic Development $290,723 Jobs created/retained: 30 Jobs Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 159 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) AP-50 Geographic Distribution – 91.220(f) Description of the geographic areas of the entitlement (including areas of low income and minority concentration) where assistance will be directed Not applicable. The City has not established specific target areas to focus the investment of CDBG funds. Table 79 - Geographic Distribution Target Area Percentage of Funds N/A N/A Rationale for the priorities for allocating investments geographically Not applicable. Discussion Please see discussion above. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 160 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) AP-55 Affordable Housing – 91.220(g) Introduction Palo Alto has identified affordable housing as the primary objective for the expenditure of CDBG funds in the Consolidated Plan. The City will continue to allocate the maximum funding available to activities and projects that meet this objective. While CDBG entitlement dollars are limited, the City does anticipate expending a significant portion of its CDBG funds on the preservation and rehabilitation of affordable housing. A detailed discussion of how HUD entitlements will be used to support affordable housing needs within the City is provided in AP-20, with the number of households to be assisted itemized by goal. Table 80 - One Year Goals for Affordable Housing by Support Requirement One Year Goals for the Number of Households to be Supported Homeless 0 Non-Homeless 0 Special-Needs 156 Total 156 Table 81 - One Year Goals for Affordable Housing by Support Type One Year Goals for the Number of Households Supported Through Rental Assistance 0 The Production of New Units 0 Rehab of Existing Units 156 Acquisition of Existing Units 0 Total 156 Discussion Please see discussion above. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 161 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) AP-60 Public Housing – 91.220(h) Introduction HACSC assists approximately 17,000 households through the federal Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program (Section 8). The Section 8 waiting list contains 21,256 households (estimated to be a 10-year wait). HACSC also develops, controls, and manages more than 2,600 affordable rental housing properties throughout the County. HACSC’s programs are targeted toward LMI households and more than 80 percent of their client households are extremely low income families, seniors, veterans, persons with disabilities, and formerly homeless individuals. 103 In 2008, HACSC entered a ten-year agreement with HUD to become a Moving to Work (MTW) agency. The MTW program is a federal demonstration program that allows greater flexibility to design and implement more innovative approaches for providing housing assistance.104 Additionally, HACSC has used LIHTC financing to transform and rehabilitate 535 units of public housing into HACSC-controlled properties. The agency is an active developer of affordable housing and has either constructed, rehabilitated, or assisted with the development of more than 30 housing developments that service a variety of households, including special needs households. Actions planned during the next year to address the needs to public housing Not applicable. HACSC owns and manages four public housing units, which are all located in the City of Santa Clara. Actions to encourage public housing residents to become more involved in management and participate in homeownership While the majority of their units have been converted to affordable housing stock, HACSC is proactive in incorporating resident input into the agency’s policy-making process. An equitable and transparent policy-making process that includes the opinions of residents is achieved through the involvement of two tenant commissioners, one being a senior citizen, on the HACSC board. HACSC has been a MTW agency since 2008. In this time the agency has developed 31 MTW activities. The vast majority of its successful initiatives have been aimed at reducing administrative inefficiencies, which in turn opens up more resources for programs aimed at LMI families. The following is excerpted from HACSC’s August 2014 Board of Commissioner’s report: “HACSC’s Family Self Sufficiency (FSS) Program is designed to provide assistance to current HACSC Section 8 families to achieve self-sufficiency. When a family enrolls in the five-year program, HPD’s FSS Coordinator and LIFESteps service provider helps the family develop self-sufficiency goals and a training plan, and coordinates access to job training and other services, including childcare and transportation. Program participants are required to seek and maintain employment or attend school or job training. As participants increase their earned income and pay a larger share of the rent, HACSC holds the amount of the tenant’s rent increases in an escrow account, which is then awarded 103 Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara. “Welcome to HACSC.” http://www.hacsc.org/ 104 HACSC. “Moving to Work (MTW) 2014 Annual Report.” September 2014. http://www.hacsc.org/assets/1/6/MTW_FY2014_Annual_Report-Final_Draft_9.30.14.pdf Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 162 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) to participants who successfully complete the program. HACSC is currently in the initial stages of creating a pilot successor program to FSS under the auspices of its MTW flexibility called Focus Forward.”105 If the PHA is designated as troubled, describe the manner in which financial assistance will be provided or other assistance Not applicable. Discussion Please see discussions above. 105 HACSC. “Housing Programs Department (HPD) Monthly Board Report.” August 2014. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 163 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) AP-65 Homeless and Other Special Needs Activities – 91.220(i) Introduction The Santa Clara region is home to the fourth-largest population of homeless individuals (6,681 single individuals)106 and the highest percentage of unsheltered homeless of any major city (75 percent of homeless people sleep in places unfit for human habitation). The homeless assistance program planning network is governed by the Santa Clara Continuum of Care (CoC), governed by the Destination: Home Leadership Board, who serves as the CoC Board of Directors. The membership of the CoC is a collaboration of representatives from local jurisdictions comprised of community-based organizations, the Housing Authority of Santa Clara, governmental departments, health service agencies, homeless advocates, consumers, the faith community, and research, policy and planning groups. The homeless services system utilized by the CoC is referred to as the Homeless Management Information System (HMIS). The HMIS monitors outcomes and performance measures for all the homeless services agencies funded by the County. Describe the jurisdictions one-year goals and actions for reducing and ending homelessness including: Reaching out to homeless persons (especially unsheltered persons) and assessing their individual needs. In January 2015, a Point‐In‐Time (PIT) count was conducted for Santa Clara County by the City of San Jose in conjunction with the County of Santa Clara. The PIT is an intense survey used to count the number of homeless living throughout Santa Clara County on the streets, in shelters, safe havens or in transitional housing, or in areas not meant for human habitation. The survey was conducted by hundreds of volunteers who asked those living on the streets, as well as the residents of shelters, safe havens and transitional housing, to respond to questions related to their needs. A portion of the survey addresses the needs of those surveyed. Palo Alto financially contributed to this effort. Addressing the emergency shelter and transitional housing needs of homeless persons In addressing the Consolidated Plan and the Continuum of Care strategic plans, Palo Alto will provide funding for essential services and operations to local emergency shelters and transitional housing facilities. The facilities provide shelter and services to homeless families with children, single parents with children, single men and women, victims of domestic violence and sexual abuse, homeless veterans, and the population living on the street. One example includes the Hotel de Zink rotating shelter program housed at various faith based organizations throughout the calendar year. CDBG funding is provided to InnVision Shelter Network, the operator of the program. A total of 15 beds are provided on a nightly basis. Helping homeless persons (especially chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans and their families, and unaccompanied youth) make the transition to permanent housing and independent living, including shortening the period of time that individuals and families experience homelessness, facilitating access for 106 The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. “2014 Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR) to Congress.” October 2014. https://www.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/AHAR-2014-Part1.pdf Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 164 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) homeless individuals and families to affordable housing units, and preventing individuals and families who were recently homeless from becoming homeless again. The City spends part of its CDBG funds and local funds toward a variety of public services to address the needs of homeless and very low income persons. Services provided include free food, clothing, medical care, legal assistance, and rental assistance. The City allocates funding to the following homeless service providers: CDBG Funded  InnVision Shelter Network - Opportunity Services Center: $35,500 The Opportunity Services Center facility in Palo Alto provides a clean, safe environment and resources for low income or homeless persons including bagged groceries, hot meals, a rotating church shelter program, information and referral, shower and laundry facilities, case management, and money management (payee) programs, clothing and health services. A daily hot meal is provided at a different location each day and bagged groceries are distributed daily at the Downtown Food Closet. The Hotel de Zink rotating church shelter program is housed at a different location each month.  Downtown Streets Team – Workforce Development Program: $276,654 This economic development program helps motivated graduates of the Downtown Streets Team programs move on to stable employment. The program includes mentoring, counseling, job readiness, job training, and assistance. HSRAP Funded  Abilities United – Disability Services: Amount Pending This organization provides services and activities for adults and children with mental and physical disabilities.  Community Technology Alliance – Shared Technical Infrastructure: Amount Pending The Community Technology Alliance provides shelter hotline and voicemail services for homeless individuals and families. The voicemail service helps case-managed clients attain individual goals such as securing health care, housing or employment. A countywide housing information and referral website and tracking system is maintained to assist service providers and those seeking shelter.  Downtown Streets Team – Downtown Streets: Amount Pending Downtown Streets Team identifies motivated homeless individuals and provides them with jobs cleaning and beautifying the downtown area in exchange for housing and food vouchers. The program includes counseling, coaching and training to help program participants build self-esteem, confidence and connections in the community.  Momentum for Mental Health – Homeless Outreach Program: Amount Pending Momentum for Mental Health outreach program provide emergency on-call services to assist local mentally ill homeless persons. The agency provides services to City departments, libraries, community centers and local homeless service providers. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 165 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Helping low income individuals and families avoid becoming homeless, especially extremely low income individuals and families and those who are: being discharged from publicly funded institutions and systems of care (such as health care facilities, mental health facilities, foster care and other youth facilities, and corrections programs and institutions); or, receiving assistance from public or private agencies that address housing, health, social services, employment, education, or youth needs. Palo Alto Housing Corporation – SRO Tenant Counseling: $22,924 Provides counseling and case-management services for the low-income residents and prospective residents of single room occupancy hotels in Palo Alto. Many SRO residents have a history of homelessness and special needs. The program plays a vital role in helping residents maintain their stability and housing. Avenidas – Senior Services: Agency is the main provider of senior services in the Mid-Peninsula area. La Comida de California – Hot Meals for The Elderly: Daily meal program for the elderly. May View Health Center – Health Care for Low Income & Homeless Palo Alto residents: Basic primary health care services and health education and referral services for uninsured low- income and homeless individuals from the Palo Alto area. Peninsula HealthCare Connection – Project Downtown Connect: Provider of health care services at the Opportunity Center of Palo Alto. Project Downtown Connect provides Section 8 vouchers to eligible homeless individuals and families. SALA – Legal Assistance to Elders: Senior Adults Legal Assistance (SALA) provides affordable legal assistance to elders. Discussion Please see discussion above. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 166 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) AP-75 Barriers to Affordable Housing – 91.220(j) Introduction: The incorporated and unincorporated jurisdictions within the County face barriers to affordable housing that are common throughout the Bay Area. High on the list is the lack of developable land, which increases the cost of available lands and increases housing development costs. Local opposition is another common obstacle as many neighbors have strong reactions to infill and affordable housing developments. Their opposition is often based on misconceptions, such as a foreseen increase in crime; erosion of property values; increase in parking and traffic congestion; and overwhelmed schools.107 However, to ensure a healthy economy the region must focus on strategies and investment that provide housing for much of the region’s workforce – for example, sales clerks, secretaries, firefighters, police, teachers, and health service workers – whose incomes significantly limit their housing choices.108 Even when developments produce relatively affordable housing, in a constrained housing supply market, higher income buyers and renters generally outbid lower income households and a home’s final sale or rental price will generally far exceed the projected sales or rental costs. Public subsidies are often needed to guarantee affordable homes for LMI households. The City identified several constraints to the maintenance, development and improvement of housing and affordable housing in its 2015-2023 Housing Element update: 109  Local policies and regulations can impact the price and availability of housing and, in particular, the provision of affordable housing  Land use controls  Site improvement requirements  Fees and exactions  Permit processing procedures Strategy to Remove or Ameliorate the Barriers to Affordable Housing The City is addressing the barriers to affordable housing through the following programs and ordinances: Context-Based Design Codes The City adopted form-based codes in 2006 to ensure and encourage residential development by following context-based design guidelines to meet increased density needs. The code encourages the creation of walkable, pedestrian-oriented neighborhoods, following green building design principles, and increasing density along transit corridors and in mixed-use neighborhoods. The Context-Based Design Code allows for increased density and mixed-use buildings in a way that enhances neighborhood character and walkability. 107 Association of Bay Area Governments. “Affordable Housing in the Bay Area.” 2014. 108 Association of Bay Area Governments. “Jobs-Housing Connection Strategy.” 2012. 109 City of Palo Alto. “2015-2023 Housing Element.” 2014. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/44951 Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 167 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Density Bonus Ordinance Density bonus provisions are a tool for attracting and assisting developers in constructing affordable housing. Density bonuses allow a developer to increase the density of a development above that allowed by standard zoning regulations, as well as provide regulatory relief in the form of concessions. In exchange, a developer provides affordable units in the development. In 2004, the California State Legislature lowered the thresholds required to receive a density bonus and increased the number of concessions a developer can receive. The City adopted a Density Bonus Ordinance in January 2014. The density bonus regulations allow for bonuses of 20 to 35 percent, depending on the amount and type of affordable housing provided. As required by state law, the regulations also allow for exceptions to applicable zoning and other development standards, to further encourage development of affordable housing. Below Market Rate Housing Program Established in 1974, the City’s BMR Housing Program has been instrumental in the production of affordable housing by requiring developers to provide a certain percentage of units as BMR in every approved project of three units or more. The program originally required that for developments on sites of less than five acres, the developer must provide 15 percent of the total housing units as BMR housing units. If the site was larger than five acres, the developer was required to provide 20 percent of the units as BMR housing. However, recent court cases have drastically changed the BMR, or “inclusionary zoning”, environment in California. Two factors have received recent attention by the courts: whether inclusionary housing is considered rent control, and whether inclusionary housing and related housing mitigation fees are considered exactions. As a result of ongoing litigation, many cities have suspended or amended the portions of their inclusionary housing requirements that require affordable units to be included in market‐rate rental developments and many cities have turned, instead, to the use of development impact fees charged on new, market-rate housing and/or commercial development. Known as “Housing Impact Fees” and “Commercial Linkage Fees,” these fees are based on an assessment of the extent to which the development of new market-rate housing or commercial uses, respectively, generates additional demand for affordable housing. 110 Commercial Housing Fund The Commercial Fund is composed solely of housing mitigation fees collected from commercial developers under Chapter 16.47 of the Municipal Code. This ordinance was adopted in 1984. Fee revenue varies greatly from year to year. However, over a ten-year period from 1998 to 2008, over $5.4 million was collected in fees at an average of $542,000 per year. During that period the fee rate ranged from about $3.00 to $4.00 per square foot. In May 2002, the housing impact fee was increased to $15.00 per net new square feet of commercial space and as of May 2008 it had gone up to $17.06 with annual CPI adjustments. The Commercial Fund monies are used only to assist in the development of new housing units. Since initiation of commercial housing impact fees through June 110 California Building Industry Association. “California Supreme Court takes Inclusionary Zoning Case.” http://www.cbia.org/go/government-affairs/cbia-reports1/september-23-2013/california-supreme-court-takes-inclusionary- zoning-case/ Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 168 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) 2008, seven new housing projects have been constructed with City financial assistance from the Commercial Fund producing 377 new affordable rental units. Residential Housing Fund The Residential Fund is primarily composed of fees received from developers of market-rate residential projects in-lieu of the provision of on-site or off-site below market rate units. These fees are collected pursuant to the City's BMR housing program. Over the ten-year period from 1998 to 2008, almost $5.8 million in fees were collected, for an average of about $580,000 per year in revenue. Residential Fund monies may be used to assist new housing development or the acquisition, rehabilitation or the preservation of existing housing for affordable housing. All housing assisted has been rental and most of the units have been affordable to very low and low income households. Through 2008, a total of nine housing projects with 379 units have been acquired, rehabilitated or constructed with City assistance from this Fund. In all cases, the housing projects assisted by the City have been developed, owned and managed by local nonprofit housing organizations. Many housing types have been developed serving different housing needs. Examples include: senior apartments, SRO units, family apartments, units for persons with disabilities, studio units and large family units. Typically, the developer has also used state of federal housing subsidies such as the housing tax credits in addition to the City's financial assistance. The City provides its funds through long-term loans with low interest rates and usually deferred payment. All loans must be approved by the City Council and the City restricts the projects under long-term regulatory agreements. Any cost necessary to develop the housing can be funded by the City. Developers are encouraged to apply through the funding cycle for the CDBG program, but may apply at other times if necessary. Development Impact Fees for Housing Palo Alto’s impact fees are comprised of four categories: housing, traffic, community facilities, and parkland dedication. The housing fee to non-residential development increased from $18.44 to $18.89 per square foot effective May 8, 2013. The fee rate applies to all net new commercial square footage on a site. Full payment is required at building permit issuance with some exemptions including hospitals and convalescent facilities, private education facilities, public facilities and private clubs, lodges and fraternal organizations. Housing Trust Silicon Valley (HTSV) This nonprofit organization combines private and public funds to support affordable housing activities in the County, including assistance to developers and homebuyers. HTSV is among the largest housing trusts in the nation building special needs and affordable housing and assisting first- time homebuyers. Palo Alto was among the contributors during its founding and has continued to allocate funding. A provision was added to ensure the City’s funds be used exclusively for qualifying affordable housing projects within Palo Alto. The most recent contribution included $200,000 from the City’s Residential Housing Fund for Fiscal Year 2012. Participation in the Trust has increased the available housing funding for a number of Palo Alto projects. In addition, HTSCC has invested over $100,000 assisting 16 households to purchase homes in Palo Alto through its first-time homebuyer program. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 169 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) Additionally, the City has recently been approved to join the County's HOME Consortium. HOME funds can be used to fund eligible affordable housing projects for acquisition, construction and rehabilitation. Starting in FY 2015-2016, developers of affordable housing projects will be eligible to competitively apply through an annual RFP process directly to the County for HOME funds to help subsidize affordable housing projects in the City. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 170 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) AP-85 Other Actions – 91.220(k) Introduction: This section discusses the City’s efforts in addressing the underserved needs, expanding and preserving affordable housing, reducing lead-based paint hazards, and developing institutional structure for delivering housing and community development activities. Actions planned to address obstacles to meeting underserved needs The diminishing amount of funds continues to be the most significant obstacle to addressing the needs of underserved populations. To address this, the City supplements its CDBG funding with other resources and funds, such as: • The City’s Human Service Resource Allocation Process (HSRAP) provides $1,099,347 million dollars from the General Fund in support of human services. The HSRAP funds, in conjunction with the CDBG public service funds, are distributed to local non-profit agencies. • The Palo Alto Commercial Housing Fund is used primarily to increase the number of new affordable housing units for Palo Alto’s work force. It is funded with mitigation fees required from developers of commercial and industrial projects. • The Palo Alto Residential Housing Fund is funded with mitigation fees provided under Palo Alto’s BMR housing program from residential developers and money from other miscellaneous sources, such as proceeds from the sale or lease of City property. • The City’s Below Market Rate Emergency Fund was authorized in 2002 to provide funding on an ongoing basis for loans to BMR owners for special assessment loans and for rehabilitation and preservation of the City’s stock of BMR ownership units. • HOME Program funds are available on an annual competitive basis through the State of California HOME program, and the County’s HOME Consortium. • The HACSC administers the federal Section 8 program countywide. The program provides rental subsidies and develops affordable housing for low income households, seniors and persons with disabilities living within the County. • The County distributes federal McKinney Homeless Assistance funds to organizations in the county that provide services to homeless persons and persons at-risk of homelessness. • The State’s Multifamily Housing Program has been a major source of funding for affordable housing since 2002. This program provides low-interest loans to developers of affordable rental housing. • The State’s Local Housing Trust Fund Grant Program is a public/private partnership created to receive on-going revenues for affordable housing production such as Palo Alto’s Commercial and Residential Housing Funds. • The California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (CTCAC) holds two application cycles for Low Income Housing Tax Credits each year. Local non-profits apply directly to the CTCAC for these funds when they have identified a project. • The Housing Trust Silicon Valley is a nonprofit organization that combines private and public funds to support affordable housing activities in the County, including assistance to developers and homebuyers. The Housing Trust is a public/private initiative, dedicated to Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 171 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) creating more affordable housing in the County, using a revolving loan fund and a grant making program to complement and leverage other housing resources. • The Mortgage Credit Certificate (MCC) Program provides assistance to first-time homebuyers by allowing an eligible purchaser to take 20 percent of their annual mortgage interest payment as a tax credit against federal income taxes. The County administers the MCC Program on behalf of the jurisdictions in the County, including the City. • The Santa Clara County Affordable Housing Fund (AHF) was established in 2002. The main purpose of the AHF was to assist in the development of affordable housing, especially for extremely low income and special needs people throughout the County. Actions planned to foster and maintain affordable housing The City will foster and maintain affordable housing by continuing the following programs and ordinances: • The Below Market Rate Emergency Fund which provides funding on an ongoing basis for loans to BMR owners for special assessment loans and for rehabilitation and preservation of the City’s stock of BMR ownership units. • The Commercial Housing Fund is used primarily to increase the number of new affordable housing units for Palo Alto’s work force. • The Residential Housing Fund is used to assist new housing development or the acquisition, rehabilitation or the preservation of existing housing for affordable housing. • The Density Bonus Ordinance, adopted by the City Council in January 2014. The density bonus regulations allow for bonuses of 20 to 35 percent, depending on the amount and type of affordable housing provided • The City’s participation in the County's HOME Consortium will allow developers of affordable housing projects to be eligible to competitively apply through an annual RFP process directly to the County for HOME funds to help subsidize affordable housing projects in Palo Alto, including acquisition, construction and rehabilitation. Actions planned to reduce lead-based paint hazards The City’s housing and CDBG staff provides information and referral to property owners, developers, and non-profit organizations rehabilitating older housing about lead-based paint (LBP) hazards. Any house to be rehabilitated with City financial assistance is required to be inspected for the existence of LBP and LBP hazards. The City will provide financial assistance for the abatement of LBP hazards in units rehabilitated with City funding. The City also requires that contractors are trained and certified in an effort to decrease the risk of potential use of LBP in new units. All development and rehabilitation projects must be evaluated according to HUD’s Lead Safe Housing Rule 24 CFR Part 35.111 111 U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development. “Lead Safe Housing Rule.” http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/healthy_homes/enforcement/lshr Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 172 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Actions planned to reduce the number of poverty-level families The City, in its continuing effort to reduce poverty, will prioritize funding agencies that provide direct assistance to the homeless and those in danger of becoming homeless. In FY 2015-2016, these programs will include the following: • The Microenterprise Assistance Program provides access to new opportunities to improve the economic self-sufficiency of LMI families and individuals. This program builds on the foundation of entrepreneurship and empowers clients by increasing their economic literacy, business skills, self-esteem, and personal behavior appropriate to the workplace.  The Workforce Development Program will provide a transition from unemployment and homelessness to regular employment and housing through case management, job training, mentoring, housing, and transportation assistance.  Downtown Streets Team is a nonprofit in the City that works to reduce homelessness through a “work first” model. Downtown Streets Team uses their community connections to provide training and job opportunities to homeless people, specifically in the downtown area. The Downtown Streets Team has helped 282 people find housing and 291 find jobs since its inception in 2005. The Downtown Streets Team has initiatives in Palo Alto, Sunnyvale, San Jose, and San Rafael. Actions planned to develop institutional structure The City is striving to improve intergovernmental and private sector cooperation to synergize efforts and resources and develop new revenues for community service needs and the production of affordable housing. Collaborative efforts include:  Regular quarterly meetings between entitlement jurisdictions at the CDBG Coordinators Meeting and Regional Housing Working Group  Joint jurisdiction Request for Proposals and project review committees  Coordination on project management for projects funded by multiple jurisdictions  HOME Consortium between member jurisdictions for affordable housing projects Recent examples include the effort by the County to create a regional affordable housing fund, using former redevelopment funds that could be returned to the County to use for affordable housing. Another effort underway involves the possible use of former redevelopment funds to create a countywide pool for homeless shelters and transitional housing. These interactions among agencies generate cohesive discussion and forums for bridging funding and service gaps on a regional scale. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 173 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Actions planned to enhance coordination between public and private housing and social service agencies The City benefits from a strong jurisdiction and region-wide network of housing and community development partners, such as the County and the CoC. To improve intergovernmental and private sector cooperation, the City will continue to participate with other local jurisdictions and developers in sharing information and resources. In addition to the actions listed above, the City will continue to coordinate with the City’s human services funding efforts to comprehensively address community needs. Discussion: Please see discussions above. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 174 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) AP-90 Program Specific Requirements – 91.220(l) (1, 2, 4) Introduction: The following provides additional information about the CDBG program income and program requirements. Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) Reference 24 CFR 91.220(l) (1) 1. The total amount of program income that will have been received before the start of the next program year and that has not yet been reprogrammed $136,049 2. The amount of proceeds from section 108 loan guarantees that will be used during the year to address the priority needs and specific objectives identified in the grantee's strategic plan $0 3. The amount of surplus funds from urban renewal settlements $0 4. The amount of any grant funds returned to the line of credit for which the planned use has not been included in a prior statement or plan $0 5. The amount of income from float-funded activities $0 Total Program Income $136,049 Other CDBG Requirements 1. The amount of urgent need activities $0 2. The estimated percentage of CDBG funds that will be used for activities that benefit persons of low and moderate income 100% 3. Overall Benefit – A consecutive period of one, two, or three years may be used to determine that a minimum overall benefit of 70 percent of CDBG funds is used to benefit persons of low and moderate income. Specify the years that include this Annual Action Plan FY 2015 – 2017 Discussion: Please see discussions above. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 175 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Citizen Participation Plan Introduction The City of Palo Alto (City) is a federal entitlement jurisdiction that receives federal grant funding from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The City receives federal entitlement grant funding for the following program:  Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) As an entitlement jurisdiction, the City is required to prepare a:  Five Year Consolidated Plan (Consolidated Plan)  Annual Action Plan (Action Plan)  Annual Consolidated Annual Performance Evaluation Report (CAPER) Under HUD’s Code of Final Regulations for the Consolidated Plan (24 CFR Part 91 Sec. 91.105), the City must adopt a Citizen Participation Plan (CPP) that sets forth the City’s policies and procedures for citizen participation in the planning, execution, and evaluation of the Consolidated Plan, Action Plans, and CAPER. This CPP provides guidelines for the City to provide and encourage public participation by residents, community stakeholders, and grant beneficiaries in the process of drafting, implementing, and evaluating the Consolidated Plan and related documents. The citizen participation process includes outreach, public hearings, community forums, and opportunities for comment. Definitions  Annual Action Plan: The Action Plan summarizes the activities that will be undertaken in the upcoming Fiscal Year (FY) to meet the goals outlined in the Consolidated Plan. The Action Plan also identifies the federal and non-federal resources that will be used meet the goals of the approved Consolidated Plan.  Amendment, Minor: A change to a previously adopted Consolidated Plan or Action Plan that does not meet the threshold to qualify as a Substantial Amendment. A minor amendment may include monetary changes or shifts, regardless of size that are both: 1. Necessary for substantially preserving all the programs and activities identified in a Plan 2. Necessitated by significant changes in the funding levels between HUD’s initial estimates of funding amounts and HUD’s final allocation notification to the City  Amendment, Substantial: A change to a previously adopted Consolidated Plan or Action Plan that: o Increases or decreases the amount allocated to a category of funding within the City’s entitlement grant program by 25 percent o Significantly changes an activity’s proposed beneficiaries or persons served o Allocates funding for a new activity not previously described in the Consolidated Plan Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 176 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)  Citizen Participation Plan: The CPP provides guidelines by which the City will promote engagement in the planning, implementation, and evaluation of the distribution of federal funds, as outlined in the Consolidated Plan, Action Plan, and CAPERs.  Community Development Block Grant: HUD’s CDBG program provides communities with resources to address a wide range of housing and community development needs that benefit very low and low income persons and areas.  Consolidated Annual Performance Evaluation Report: The CAPER assesses the City’s annual achievements relative to the goals in the Consolidated Plan and proposed activities in the Action Plan. HUD requires the City to prepare a CAPER at the end of each fiscal year.  Department Of Housing And Urban Development: HUD is the federal government agency that creates and manages programs pertaining to federal home ownership, affordable housing, fair housing, homelessness, and community and housing development.  Displacement: Displacement refers to the involuntary relocation of individuals from their residences due to housing development and rehabilitation activities paid for by federal funds.  Eligible Activity: Activities that are allowable uses of the CDBG funds covered by the CPP as defined in the Code of Federal Regulations Title 24 for HUD.  Entitlement Jurisdiction: A city with a population of at least 50,000, a central city of a metropolitan area, or a qualified urban county with a population of at least 200,000 that receives grant funding from HUD.  Five Year Consolidated Plan: HUD requires entitlement jurisdictions to prepare a Consolidated Plan every five years. The Consolidated Plan is a strategic plan that identifies housing, economic, and community development needs and prioritizes funding to address those needs over a five-year period.  Low- and Moderate-Income: As defined annually by HUD, low-and moderate-income (LMI) is 0-80 percent of area median family income (AMI) for a jurisdiction, with adjustments for smaller or larger families. This includes those individuals presumed by HUD to be principally LMI (abused children, battered spouses, elderly persons, severely disabled adults, homeless persons, illiterate adults, persons living with AIDS and migrant farm workers). HUD utilizes three income levels to define LMI households: o Extremely low income: Households earning 30 percent or less than the AMI (subject to specified adjustments for areas with unusually high or low incomes) o Very low income: Households earning 50 percent or less than the AMI (subject to specified adjustments for areas with unusually high or low incomes) o Low and moderate income: Households earning 80 percent or less than the AMI (subject to adjustments for areas with unusually high or low incomes or housing costs)  Public Hearing: Public hearings are designed to provide the public the opportunity to make public testimony and comment. Public hearings related to the Consolidated Plan are to be advertised in local newspapers and made accessible to non-English speakers and individuals with disabilities. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 177 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Roles, Responsibilities, and Contact Information The City is a federal entitlement jurisdiction and is a recipient of CDBG funding from the federal government. The City’s Charter established a council and manager form of government. Palo Alto’s City Council is the elected legislative body of the City and is responsible for approving its Consolidated Plan, Action Plans, amendments to the Plans, and CAPERs prior to their submission to HUD. It is the intent of the City to provide for and encourage citizen participation with particular emphasis on participation by lower income persons who are beneficiaries or impacted by CDBG funded activities. The City encourages the participation in all stages of the Consolidated Planning process of all its residents, including minorities and non-English speaking persons, as well as persons with mobility, visual or hearing impairments, and residents of assisted housing developments and recipients of tenant-based assistance. All public hearings will be held at times and locations convenient to potential and actual beneficiaries and with reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities. In general, hearings will be held in the evening at City Hall due to its central location, convenient access and disability accessibility. Translation services will be provided when there is an indication that non-English speaking persons will be attending. Other reasonable accommodations will be provided on a case-by-case basis. The General Contact Information for the City’s HUD Entitlement Programs is: City of Palo Alto Planning and Community Environment Department Consuelo Hernandez, Senior Planner 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2428 Consuelo.Hernandez@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org Citizen Participation Policies Availability of Draft and Approved Documents The draft CPP, Consolidated Plan, Action Plan, and any draft Substantial Amendments will be available for public review and comment for a minimum of 30 days prior to their submission to HUD. The draft CAPER will be available for public review and comment for a minimum of 15 days prior to its final submission to HUD. Previously approved plans and amendments will be available to residents, public agencies, and other interested stakeholders. The draft and final versions of the CPP, Consolidated Plan, Action Plan, CAPER, and all related amendments will be available online at the City’s website: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pln/cdbg.asp . Hard copies of all documents will be available at the City’s Planning and Community Environment Department at 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 178 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Information on the City’s Consolidated Plans, including records or documents concerning the previous Consolidated Plans, CPPs, the current Consolidated Plan, Action Plans, CAPERs, and program regulations, will be posted on the City’s website at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pln/cdbg.asp , and will be available for public review during normal working hours at the City’s Planning and Community Environment Department located at 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301, and upon written request addressed to the City’s General Contact via the Planning and Community Environment Department. If the City is unable to provide immediate access to the documents requested, the City will make every effort to provide the documents and reports within 15 business days from the receipt of the request. The City will use the following processes to adopt and make any subsequent changes to the documents listed below:  Citizen Participation Plan: The CPP is designed to facilitate and encourage the public to participate in the Consolidated Plan process. In particular, the CPP seeks to encourage the involvement of LMI persons. o The City will notify the public of any subsequent changes it will make to its CPP through public notices at libraries, recreation centers, community centers, online through the City’s website, and advertisement in a local newspaper of general circulation — in advance of a 30-day public review and comment period. o During the 30-day public review and comment period, copies of the document will be available to the public for review at libraries, recreation centers, community centers, and through the City’s website at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pln/cdbg.asp. o During the 30-day public review and comment period, the public may file comments in writing to the City of Palo Alto Planning and Community Environment Department, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301; via email to consuelo.hernandez@cityofpaloalto.org; by phone at 650-329-2428 or in person at Palo Alto City Hall, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301, Monday through Friday during normal working hours and during the Council adoption hearing. Any change in the public participation process as outlined in this document will require an amendment to the CPP. o Anti-Displacement Policy: It is the policy of the City to avoid, to the greatest extent feasible, the involuntary displacement of any persons, property or businesses as a result of CDBG activities. Displacement occurs when a “person” or their property is displaced as a direct result of a federally assisted acquisition, demolition or rehabilitation project. All efforts to minimize involuntary displacement will be carried out by designing activities in such a way that displacement is avoided, except in extraordinary circumstances where no feasible alternatives to displacement are available if the City’s community development objectives are to be met. The City will take all reasonable steps to avoid displacement, such as: assuring whenever possible that residential occupants of buildings be rehabilitated are offered an opportunity to return; planning rehabilitation projects to include “staging” where this would minimize displacement; and following federal Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 179 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) notification requirements carefully to assure that households do not leave because they are not informed about the plans for the project or their rights for relocation benefits. Should involuntary displacement become necessary under such circumstances, relocation benefits will be provided in accordance with: (a) the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended (URA) and 24 CFR 570.606(b); and (b) the requirements of 24 CFR 570.606(c) governing the Residential Anti-displacement and Relocation Assistance Plan (Plan) under Section 104(d) of the HUD Act. The policies and requirements of these laws are described in HUD Handbook 1378 and the City shall strictly abide by these policies and laws. • Consolidated Plan and Action Plans: The steps outlined below provide opportunities for public involvement in the preparation of the Consolidated Plan and the Action Plan. To solicit community input, which is essential to determining these needs and priorities, the City will perform the following: o Consult with local, state, regional and applicable federal public agencies that assist LMI persons and areas, in addition to neighboring jurisdictions. o Consult with private agencies, including local nonprofit service providers and advocates such as the local public housing agency, health agencies, homeless service providers, nonprofit housing developers and social service agencies (including those focusing on services to children, the elderly, persons with disabilities, persons with HIV/AIDS, persons with substance abuse problems, etc.). o Place public notices at libraries, recreation centers, community centers and online through the City’s website and through advertisement in a local newspaper of general circulation at least 15 days in advance of a meeting. The notice will include an estimate of the amount of funds available, the range of activities that could be undertaken and the amount that would benefit LMI persons. o Provide the public with 30 days to review and comment on the draft Consolidated Plan and/or the draft Action Plan from the date of the notice. Comments may be filed in person at the City’s Planning and Community Environment Department located at 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301; via mail to City of Palo Alto Planning and Community Environment Department, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301; by phone at 650-329-2428; or by email to consuelo.hernandez@cityofpaloalto.org. o The City will hold a minimum of one public hearing before the City Council to provide the opportunity to make public testimony and comment on needs and priorities. o All comments and views expressed by the public, whether given as verbal testimony at the public hearing or submitted in writing during the review and comment period, will be documented. The final documents will have a section noting comments received during the public review period, along with explanations for comments that were not accepted.  Substantial Amendments to the Consolidated Plan and the Action Plan: Amendments are considered “Substantial” whenever one of the following is proposed: o A change in the allocation priorities or a change in the method of fund distribution. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 180 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) o A substantial change which increases or decreases the amount allocated to a category of funding within the City’s entitlement grant programs by 25 percent. o To implement an activity using CDBG funds for new programs that were not described in the Consolidated Plan. o To substantially change the purpose or intended beneficiaries of an activity approved for CDBG funding, e.g., instead of primarily benefitting lower income households the activity instead proposes to benefit mostly moderate income households. The following procedures apply to Substantial Amendments: o The City will place public notices at libraries, recreation centers, community centers and online through the City’s website and through advertisement in a local newspaper of general circulation in advance of a 30-day public review and comment period. o During the 30-day public review and comment period, copies of the document will be available for review at the City’s Planning and Community Environment Department office during normal working hours located at 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301, on the City’s and website at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pln/cdbg.asp and upon written request addressed to the City’s General Contact via the Planning and Community Environment Department. o The public may file comments in person at the City’s Planning and Community Environment Department located at 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301; via mail to City of Palo Alto Planning and Community Environment Department, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301; by phone at 650-329-2428; or by email to consuelo.hernandez@cityofpaloalto.org during the 30-day period from the date of the notice. o The City will hold a minimum of one public hearing within the community to solicit input on the Substantial Amendment. o Hold a minimum of one public hearing before the City Council to solicit additional input and for adoption consideration. o In preparing a final Substantial Amendment, all comments and views expressed by the public, whether given as verbal testimony at the public hearing or submitted in writing during the review and comment period, will be documented. The final documents will have a section noting comments received during the public review period, along with explanations for comments that were not accepted.  CAPER: The CAPER must describe how funds were actually used and the extent to which these funds were used for activities that benefited LMI persons. The following steps outline the opportunities for public involvement in the CAPER: o The City will place public notices at libraries, recreation centers, community centers and online through the City’s website and through advertisement in a local newspaper of general circulation in advance of a 15-day public review and comment period. o The public has 15 days to review the CAPER from the date of the notice. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 181 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) o During the 15-day public review and comment period, the document will be available for public review and comment at the City’s Community Development Department office. o The City will hold a minimum of one public hearing within the community to solicit input on the CAPER. o The public may file comments in person at the City’s Planning and Community Environment Department located at 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301; via mail to City of Palo Alto Planning and Community Environment Department, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301; by phone at 650-329-2428; or by email to consuelo.hernandez@cityofpaloalto.org during the 15-day period from the date of the notice. o In preparing the CAPER, all comments and views expressed by the public, whether given as verbal testimony at the public hearing or submitted in writing during the public review and comment period, will be documented. The final documents will have a section noting comments received during the public review period, along with explanations for comments that were not accepted. Public Hearings and Public Comment Period  Public Hearings: The City will hold public hearings for the Consolidated Plan and Action Plan, amendments made to the CPP, and Substantial Amendments. o The City Council Public Hearings will typically be held at City Hall Council Chambers, located at 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301. Listening devices, interpretation services, and other assistance to disabled persons or those with limited English proficiency will be provided upon request, ranging up to five business days prior notification to the City Clerk. Requests for disability-related modifications or accommodations required to facilitate meeting participation, including requests for auxiliary aids, services or interpreters, require different lead times, ranging up to five business days. For this reason, it is important to provide as much advance notice as possible to ensure availability. Assistive Listening Devices (ALDs) are available upon request.  Notice of Hearings and Review Periods: To allow the public time to provide comments prior to the submission of approved documents to HUD, the City will hold a minimum 30-day public review and comment period for adoption consideration of the Consolidated Plan, Action Plan, and Substantial Amendment. The City will establish a public review period of at least 15 days for each CAPER and CPP to allow for public comments prior to the submission of approved documents to HUD. Copies of the draft plans will be available to the public at the City’s Planning and Community Environment Department at 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301. To ensure that the public, including minorities, persons with limited English proficiency, persons with disabilities, residents of public housing, and LMI residents are able to participate in the public review process, the City will provide residents, public agencies and other stakeholder notices on applicable public review periods and public hearings that adhere to the following: Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 182 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) o The notices will be published prior to the start of the public comment period and at least 15 days before the final public hearing and will include information regarding how to request accommodation and services available for persons with disabilities who wish to attend the public hearings. o The notices will be distributed to persons on the CDBG contact list maintained by the City for those parties expressing interest in receiving information and updates related to the City’s Consolidated Plan, Action Plan, CAPER, Substantial Amendments and CPP. Interested parties may request to be added to this contact list by sending an email to consuelo.hernandez@cityofpaloalto.org, by calling 650-329-2428 or by writing to the Planning and Community Environment Department at 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301. o The notices will be distributed through a variety of methods, including e-mail, newspaper publications and the City’s website at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pln/cdbg.asp . The notices will include information on how to obtain a copy of the draft documents and scheduled hearing dates, times, and locations. When necessary or applicable, the City may combine notices complying with several individual requirements into one comprehensive notice for dissemination and publication.  Comments/Complaints on Adopted Plans: Comments or complaints from residents, public agencies, and other stakeholders regarding the adopted Consolidated Plan or related amendments and performance reports may be submitted in writing or verbally to the General Contact at the City’s Planning and Community Environment Department at 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301. Written comments or complaints will be referred to appropriate City staff for consideration and response. The City will attempt to respond to all comments or complaints within 15 business days and maintain a correspondence file for this purpose. Technical Assistance The City will, to the extent feasible, respond to requests for technical assistance from entities representing LMI groups who are seeking CDBG and HOME funding in accordance with grant procedures. This may include, but is not limited to, providing information regarding how to fill out applications, other potential funding sources, and referrals to appropriate agencies within and outside the City. "Technical assistance," as used here, does not include the provision of funds to the entities requesting such assistance. Assistance will also be provided by the City’s Planning and Community Environment Department’s staff to interested individuals and resident groups who need further explanation on the background and intent of the Housing and Community Development Act, interpretation of specific HUD regulations, and project eligibility criteria for federal grants. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 183 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Table of Acronyms AHP Affordable Housing Program BEGIN Building Equity and Growth in Neighborhoods CAPER Consolidated Annual Performance Evaluation Report CBO Community-Based Organization CDBG Community Development Block Grant Program CDI Community Development Initiative CIP Capital Improvement Projects CoC Continuum of Care ESG Emergency Services Grant FSS Family Self Sufficiency FY Fiscal Year HACSC Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara HAP Housing assistance payments HEARTH Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing Act of 2009 HIF Housing Impact Fee HMIS Homeless Management Information System HOME HOME Investment Partnerships Program HOPWA Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS HTF Housing Trust Fund HTSV Housing Trust Silicon Valley IIG Infill Infrastructure Grant LBP Lead-Based Paint LMI Low and moderate income MCC Mortgage Credit Certificates MHSA Mental Health Services Act MTW Moving to Work NED Non-Elderly Disabled NHSSV Neighborhood Housing Services Silicon Valley NOFA Notice of Funding Availability NSP Neighborhood Stabilization Program RDA Redevelopment Agency RFP Request for Proposal RHNA Regional Housing Needs Allocation RTP Regional Transportation Plan Section 8 Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program SCS Sustainable Communities Strategy TBRA Tenant-Based Rental Assistance TOD Transit-Oriented Development VASH Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing WIOA Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 184 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Appendix A: Citizen Participation Summary Regional Forums The participating Entitlement Jurisdictions of Santa Clara County held three regional public forums to identify housing and community development needs and priorities for the next five years. Seventy- six people in total attended the regional forums, including community members, service providers, fair housing advocates, school district board members, housing and human services commission members, non-profit representatives, and interested stakeholders. The regional forums were held in Mountain View, San Jose, and Gilroy to engage the northern, central, and southern parts of the County. Forums were scheduled on different days of the week and at various times of day to allow maximum flexibility for participants to attend. Table 1 – Regional Forums Community Forums Local public participation plays an important role in the development of the plans. The community forums were conducted as part of a broad approach to help local jurisdictions make data-driven, place-based investment decisions for federal funds. Each of the community forums provided additional public input and a deeper understanding of housing issues at the local level. The community forums were held in the cities of Los Gatos, Morgan Hill, Saratoga, San Jose and Mountain View. The workshops held in San Jose were located in Districts 3, 4 and 5, which are LMI census tracts. The majority of the community forums were held at neighborhood community centers or libraries at various times of day to provide convenient access for participants. Regional Forum Date Time Number of Attendees Forum Address 1 Thursday, September 25, 2014 2:00pm - 4:00pm 43 Mountain View City Hall, 500 Castro Street, 2nd Floor Plaza Conference Room Mountain View, CA 94041 2 Saturday, September 27, 2014 10:00am - 12:00pm 17 San Jose City Hall, Room 118-120 200 E. Santa Clara St. San Jose, CA 95113 3 Wednesday, October 22, 2014 6:30pm - 8:30pm 16 Gilroy Library 350 W. Sixth Street Gilroy, CA 95020 Total Attendees 76 Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 185 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Table 2 – Community Forums Community Forum Date Time Number of Attendees Forum Address 1 Tuesday, September 30, 2014 6:00pm- 8:00pm 14 Roosevelt Community Center, Room 1 and 2 901 E. Santa Clara St. San Jose, CA 95116 2 Wednesday, October 1, 2014 10:00am- 12:00pm 29 Seven Trees Community Center, Room 3 3590 Cas Drive San Jose, CA 95111 3 Tuesday, October 2, 2014 6:00pm- 8:00pm 23 Mayfair Community Center, Chavez Hall 2039 Kammerer Ave. San Jose, CA 95116 4 Tuesday, October 7. 2014 6:00pm- 8:00pm 26 Tully Community Brach Library, Community Room 880 Tully Rd. San Jose, CA 95111 5 Thursday, October 23, 2014 6:30pm- 8:30pm 14 Mountain View City Hall, 500 Castro Street, 2nd Floor Plaza Conference Room Mountain View, CA 94041 6 Saturday, November 1, 2014 11:00am- 1:00pm 7 Centennial Recreation Center North Room 171 W. Edmundson Avenue Morgan Hill, CA 95037 7 Wednesday, November 5, 2014 2:00pm- 4:00pm 11 Prospect Center Grace Room 19848 Prospect Road Saratoga, CA 95070 8 Thursday, November 20, 2014 6:00pm- 8:00pm 9 Neighborhood Center 208 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 Total Attendees 133 A combined total of 209 individuals attended both the community and regional forums. Outreach Approximately 4,847 entities, organizations, agencies, and persons were directly engaged via outreach efforts and asked to share materials with their beneficiaries, partners, and contacts. These stakeholders were also encouraged to promote attendance at the public forums and to solicit responses to the Regional Needs Survey. Stakeholder engagement included phone calls, targeted emails, newsletter announcements, social media posts, and personalized requests from jurisdiction staff. Through these communications, stakeholders were invited to participate in one of the forums planned throughout the County and to submit survey responses. Each participating jurisdiction also Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 186 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) promoted the regional forums and regional survey links on their respective websites and announced the Consolidated Plan process through their electronic mailing lists. Approximately 1,225 printed flyers noticing the regional forums were distributed throughout the County, including at libraries, recreation centers, community meetings, and organizations benefiting LMI residents and areas. These flyers were available online and in print in English and Spanish. Multi-lingual, print advertisements in local newspapers were posted in the Gilroy Dispatch (English), Mountain View Voice (English), El Observador (Spanish), La Oferta (Spanish), Thoi Bao (Vietnamese), Philippine News (Tagalog), World Journal (Chinese) and San Jose Mercury News (English). In addition, an online display ad was placed in the San Jose Mercury News to reach readers electronically. Each segment of the community outreach and planning process was transparent to ensure the public was aware its input was being collected, reviewed, and considered. Forum Structure The regional forums began with a welcome and introduction of the jurisdictional staff and consultant team, followed by a review of the forum’s agenda, the purpose of the Consolidated Plan, and the goals of the regional forums. Next, the facilitator delivered an introductory presentation covering the Plan process, programs funded through HUD grants, what types of programs and projects can be funded, historical allocations, and recent projects. After the presentation, participants were invited to engage in a gallery walk activity. Participants interacted with large “HUD Bucks” display boards, which encouraged them to think critically about community spending priorities in the County. Each display board presented a separate issue area: 1) Community Facilities, 2) Community Services, 3) Economic Development, 4) Housing, and 5) Infrastructure and Neighborhood Improvements. Participants were given $200 “HUD Bucks” to spend on over 50 program choices they support within each issue area. This process encouraged participants to prioritize facilities, services, programs, and improvements within each respective category. Thus, the activity functioned as a budgeting exercise for participants to experience how federal funds are distributed among various programs, projects and services. Directions to participants were to spend their $200 HUD Bucks up to a limit indicated on each board. For example, because HUD enforces a 15 percent cap on public service dollars, the community services board included a limit of $30 HUD Bucks to reflect this cap. (It should be noted that the infrastructure and housing boards both had a Fair Housing category, which may account for higher HUD Bucks allocations for fair housing.) Following the HUD Bucks activity, the group was divided into small group breakout sessions to discuss community needs and fair housing. Participants dispersed into smaller break-out groups to gather public input on the needs and barriers with respect to the following categories, which mirrored the HUD Bucks categories: 1) Community Facilities, 2) Community Services, 3) Economic Development, 4) Housing, and 5) Infrastructure and Neighborhood Improvements. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 187 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Group facilitators encouraged participants to think critically about housing issues and community improvement needs within the County. The participants discussed and identified issues and concerns within their local communities and across the County. During these small group discussions, participants contributed creative and thoughtful responses to the following questions: Community Needs:  What are the primary needs associated with: o Community Facilities o Community Services o Economic Development o Housing o Infrastructure and Neighborhood Improvements  What services and facilities are currently in place to effectively address these needs?  What gaps in services and facilities remain? Fair Housing:  Have you (or someone you know) experienced discrimination in housing choice, whether accessing rental housing or in purchasing a residence?  What did you do, or would you do, if you were discriminated against in housing choice? While responses generally centered on the specific sub-area of the County where the meeting was held (i.e., North, Central, South, and San Jose), countywide issues also arose during the discussion. After the break-out session, participants reconvened to discuss these issues as a single group. The final part of the meeting included a report back, in which facilitators summarized the small group discussions. The facilitator then closed the meeting with final comments, next steps and a review of additional opportunities to provide public input. The interactive format of the forums solicited strong participation, wherein all attendees were provided the opportunity to participate in the conversation. Translation services were provided at each forum. Key Findings from Regional and Community Forums The diversity of participants and organizations attending the regional and community forums led to a nuanced awareness of the housing and community improvement needs across the County. This section highlights key findings and ideas raised during the small group discussions organized by issue area. The key findings are based on the most frequently discussed needs, issues and priorities that were shared by forum participants. Primary Needs Associated with Each Issue Area Community Services  Address the needs for accessible and affordable transportation services throughout Santa Clara County Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 188 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)  Support food assistance and nutrition programs for low income families, seniors and disabled individuals  Provide health care services to seniors and low income families  Develop free, year-round programs and activities for youth (e.g., recreation programming, sports)  Offer comprehensive services at homeless encampments (e.g., outreach, health, referrals)  Provide mental health care services for homeless and veterans  Support services to reduce senior isolation  Assist service providers in meeting the needs of vulnerable populations through increased funding and information sharing Housing  Ensure availability of affordable housing, including transitional housing  Provide legal services to protect fair housing rights and to mediate tenant/landlord legal issues  Address affordable housing eligibility restrictions to expand the number of residents who can qualify  Provide affordable rental housing for low income families, at-risk families and individuals with disabilities  Fund additional homeless prevention programs  Provide rental subsidies and assistance for low income families to support rapid re-housing Community Facilities  Increase the number of homeless facilities across the County  Build youth centers and recreational facilities in different locations throughout the County  Support modernization and rehabilitation of senior centers  Coordinate information services to promote and leverage access to community facilities Economic Development  Increase employment services targeted towards homeless individuals, veterans, and parolees  Provide access to apprenticeships and mentoring programs for at-risk youth  Offer employment services such as job training, English language and capacity-building classes Infrastructure and Neighborhood Improvements  Promote complete streets to accommodate multiple transportation modes  Focus on pedestrian safety by improving crosswalk visibility and enhancing sidewalks  Expand ADA curb improvements  Increase access to parks and open space amenities in low income neighborhoods Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 189 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Key Findings from HUD Bucks Activity Table 3: Top Three Overall Spending Priorities by Issue Area of Regional and Community Forums Priority Housing Priority Public Facilities 1 Affordable Rental Housing 1 Homeless Facilities 2 Senior Housing 2 Senior Centers 3 Permanent Supportive Housing 3 Youth Centers Priority Public Services Priority Economic Development 1 Homeless Services 1 Employment Training 2 Senior Activities 2 Job Creation/Retention 3 Transportation 3 Small Business Loans Priority Infrastructure/Neighborhood Improvements 1 Fair Housing 2 Streets/Sidewalks 3 ADA Improvements Regional Needs Survey A Regional Needs Survey was conducted to solicit input from residents and workers in the County of Santa Clara. Respondents were informed that the Santa County Entitlement Jurisdictions were updating their Consolidated Plans for federal funds that primarily serve low- to moderate income residents and areas. The survey polled respondents about the level of need in their neighborhoods for various types of improvements that can potentially be addressed by entitlement funds. To give as many people as possible the chance to voice their opinion, emphasis was placed on making the survey widely available and gathering a large number of responses rather than administering the survey to a controlled, statistically representative pool. Therefore, the survey results should be views as an indicator of the opinions of the respondents, but not as representing the opinions of the County population as a group. The survey was distributed through a number of channels to gather responses from a broad sample. It was made available in printed format, as well as electronic format via Survey Monkey. Electronic Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 190 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) responses could be submitted via smartphone, tablet, and web browsers. The survey was available online and in print in English and Spanish, and in print in simplified Chinese, Tagalog, and Vietnamese. Responses were solicited in the following ways:  Links to the online survey in both English and Spanish were placed on the websites of each Entitlement Jurisdiction. English: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/SCC_Regional_Survey Spanish: https://es.surveymonkey.com/s/SCC_Regional_Survey_Spanish  Approximately, 4,847 entities, organization, agencies, and persons were directly targeted in the outreach efforts and requested to share project materials with their beneficiaries, partners, and contacts. Engagement included direct phone calls and targeted emails with outreach flyers as attachments.  Approximately 1,225 printed flyers noticing the regional survey were printed and distributed throughout the County, including at libraries, recreation centers, community meetings, and organizations benefiting LMI residents and areas. These flyers were available online and in print in English and Spanish.  Multi-lingual, print advertisements in local newspapers were posted in the Gilroy Dispatch (English), Mountain View Voice (English), El Observador (Spanish), La Oferta (Spanish), Thoi Bao (Vietnamese), Philippine News (Tagalog), World Journal (Chinese) and San Jose Mercury News (English). In addition, an online display ad was placed in the San Jose Mercury News to reach readers electronically.  The survey was widely shared on social media by elected officials, organizations, entities, and other individuals. An estimated 25,000 persons on Facebook and 11,000 persons on Twitter were engaged. (This represents the number of “Likes” or “Followers” of each person/entity that posted a message about the survey or forum.)  At least 3,160 printed surveys were printed and distributed throughout the County at libraries, community meetings, and organizations benefiting LMI residents and areas. Survey Results A total of 1,472 survey responses were collected from September 19, 2014 to November 15, 2014, including 1,078 surveys collected electronically and 394 collected on paper. The surveys were available in five languages. Of these surveys, 1,271 individuals responded in English, 124 individuals responded in Spanish, 25 individuals responded in simplified Chinese, 49 individuals responded in Vietnamese, and three individuals responded in Tagalog. Figure 1 shows the percentage of individuals who responded to the survey organized by language. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 191 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Of the individuals who responded to the survey, 1,401 indicated they live in the County of Santa Clara and 62 indicated they do not live in the County. Respondents who live within the County jurisdictions mainly reside in San Jose (36%), followed by the city of Santa Clara (17%), Sunnyvale (16%), Gilroy (12%), and Mountain View (6%). The remaining individuals live within the jurisdictions of Morgan Hill, Palo Alto, Campbell, Unincorporated Santa Clara County, Los Altos, Saratoga, Milpitas, Los Gatos, Cupertino, Los Altos Hills, and Monte Sereno. Figure 2 shows a city-by-city analysis of where respondents live. 86% 8% 2% 0.2% 3% Figure 1 – Percent of Surveys Taken by Language English Spanish Chinese Tagalog Vietnamese Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 192 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) In addition, the survey polled respondents on whether they worked within any of the County jurisdictions. The percentage of individuals working in the County of Santa Clara (74%) indicated they worked primarily in these jurisdictions: San Jose (40%), the city of Santa Clara (13%), Gilroy (8%), and Mountain View (8%), with the remainder in other jurisdictions. On the following page, Figure 3 presents a GIS map that illustrates the number of survey respondents by jurisdiction. 0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%40% Monte Sereno Los Altos Hills Don’t Know Cupertino Los Gatos Milpitas Saratoga Los Altos Unincorporated Santa Clara County Campbell Palo Alto Morgan Hill Mountain View Gilroy Sunnyvale City of Santa Clara San Jose Percent of Respondents Figure 2 – Percent of Where Respondents Live by Jurisdiction Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 193 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Figure 3 – Number of Survey Respondents by City Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 194 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Respondents were primarily residents (70%), but also Community-Based Organizations (14%), Service Providers (5%), Business Owners (3%), and Public Agencies (2%). The remaining 6% of respondents indicated “Other” for their response. Many of the “Other” respondents specified themselves as homeless, educators, developers, retired, landlords, or property managers. More detailed information about respondents can be seen in Figure 5. 0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45% Los Altos Hills Unincorporated Santa Clara County Los Altos Campbell Don’t Know Cupertino Mountain View Sunnyvale San Jose Percent of Respondents Figure 4 – Percent of Where Respondents Work by Jurisdiction Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 195 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Survey Ranking Methodology Respondents designated their level of need as low, medium, high, or “don’t know.” This rating system was chosen to simplify responses and better gauge the level of need. To maintain consistency, the low, medium, high, and “don’t know” rating system was used throughout the survey. Need Ratings in Overall Areas The survey asked respondents to rate the level of need for 63 specific improvement types that fall into five distinct categories. These five categories were: Housing, Public Facilities, Infrastructure and Neighborhood Improvements, Public Services, and Economic Development. The level of need indicated within these categories provides additional insight into broad priorities. Respondents rated the level of need in their neighborhood in five overall areas: 1. Create additional affordable housing available to low income residents 2. Improve non-profit community services (such as senior, youth, health, homeless, and fair housing services) 3. Create more jobs available to low income residents 4. Improve city facilities that provide public services (such as parks, recreation or senior centers, parking facilities, and street improvements) 5. Other Table 7 below shows the percentage of respondents who rated each overall need as high. 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80% Public agency Business owner Service provider Other (please specify) Community‐based organization/ non‐profit Resident Percent of Respondents Figure 5 –Percent of Respondents by Category Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 196 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Table 7 – Overall Areas: High Level of Need Overall Need Area High Level of Need Create additional affordable housing available to low-income residents 62.1% Improve non-profit community services (such as senior, youth, health, homeless, and fair housing services) 54.7% Create more jobs available to low-income residents 52.5% Other 46.3% Improve city facilities that provide public services (such as parks, recreation or senior centers, parking facilities, and street improvements) 37.1% In addition to the four overall need areas, 373 respondents provided open-ended feedback through the “Other” survey response option. Below are the key themes and needs identified by survey respondents, organized by categories of need. Economic Development  Increase funding for senior services  Provide financial assistance for small business expansion  Develop jobs for working class  Ensure workers are given a living wage Public Facilities  Provide more public facilities for homeless  Expand library operation hours  Build more parks to encompass people of all ages  Develop cultural and arts community center  Improve school infrastructure through extensive remodeling  Build higher quality schools Housing  Increase availability of senior housing  Provide housing for LGBT/HIV population  Create housing for median income population  Provide more subsidized housing for disabled population Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 197 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Public Services  Expand supportive services for the homeless population  Provide affordable daycare options  Increase availability of healthcare services  Expand youth engagement activities  Ensure transportation for seniors is accessible and affordable  Expand transportation services to unincorporated areas of the County  Address the middle class’ inability to access services due to the inability to qualify for low income services  Increase availability of senior services  Expand crime prevention and enhance gang reduction programs  Address resident fears of making too much money to qualify for low-income services Infrastructure  Address climate change through infrastructure improvements  Address flooding through street improvements  Improve and expand bike infrastructure  Improve and expand pedestrian infrastructure including sidewalks and crosswalks Highest Priority Needs Top priority needs within all categories are described below based on the highest percentage of respondents for each improvement item. Table 8 summarizes the ten highest priority needs and the percentage of respondents that selected the particular need.  Among the five need categories, “increase affordable rental housing inventory” was rated as the highest need. More than 63% of individuals indicated this category as “high level of need.”  Four housing needs appear among the top ten priorities on this list: 1) increase affordable rental housing inventory, 2) rental assistance for homeless, 3) affordable housing located near transit, and 4) housing for other special needs.  Homeless facilities and facilities for abused, abandoned and/or neglected children both appear among the ten highest level of needs, ranked third and seventh, respectively.  Job training for the homeless received the eighth highest level of need, which is the only economic development priority to make the top ten priorities.  Three public service improvements appear among the top ten priorities, including emergency housing assistance, access to fresh and nutritious foods, and homeless services. Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 198 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Table 8 – Ten Highest Priority Needs in All Categories Priority Rank Category Specific Need Percentage of Respondents 1 Housing Increase affordable rental housing inventory 63.1% 2 Public Service Emergency housing assistance to prevent homelessness, such as utility and rental assistance 52.3% 3 Public Facilities Homeless facilities (temporary housing and emergency shelters) 51.3% 4 Housing Rental assistance for the homeless 51.0% 5 Public Services Access to fresh and nutritious foods 49.8% 6 Public Services Homeless services 49.6% 7 Public Facilities Facilities for abused, abandoned and/or neglected children 49.5% 8 Economic Development Job training for the homeless 48.8% 9 Housing Affordable housing located near transit 48.6% 10 Housing Housing for other special needs (such as seniors and persons with disabilities) 48.0% Housing Needs Respondents rated the need for 13 different housing-related improvements in their neighborhoods. The five highest priorities in this area were: 1. Increase of affordable rental housing inventory 2. Rental assistance for the homeless 3. Affordable housing located near transit 4. Housing for other special needs 5. Permanent supportive rental housing for the homeless The table below shows the highest level of need for each of the housing-related improvements and the share of respondents who rated each category as “high level” of need. Table 9 – High Level of Need for Specific Housing Improvements Priority Rank Housing: High Level of Need Share of Respondents 1 Increase affordable rental housing inventory 63.1% 2 Rental assistance for the homeless 51.0% 3 Affordable housing located near transit 48.6% 4 Housing for other special needs (such as seniors and persons with disabilities) 48.0% 5 Permanent supportive rental housing for the homeless 46.8% Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 199 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Priority Rank Housing: High Level of Need Share of Respondents 6 Energy efficiency and sustainability improvements 41.6% 7 Healthy homes 37.5% 8 Down-payment assistance to purchase a home 33.8% 9 Code enforcement, in coordination with a neighborhood plan 33.4% 10 Housing accessibility improvements 29.7% 11 Rental housing rehabilitation 27.7% 12 Emergency home improvement/repair 24.9% 13 Owner-occupied housing rehabilitation 18.5% Public Facilities Respondents rated the level of need for 14 public facility types in their neighborhoods. The six highest priorities in this area were: 1. Homeless facilities 2. Facilities for abused, abandoned and/or neglected children 3. Educational facilities 4. Mental health care facilities 5. Youth centers 6. Drop-in day center for the homeless The table below shows the highest level of need for each of the public facilities types and the share of respondents who rated each category as “high level” of need. Table 10 – High Level of Need for Specific Public Facility Types Priority Rank Public Facilities: High Level of Need Share of Respondents 1 Homeless facilities (temporary housing and emergency shelters) 51.3% 2 Facilities for abused, abandoned and/or neglected children 49.5% 3 Educational facilities 46.9% 4 Mental health care facilities 45.5% 5 Youth centers 42.6% 6 Drop-in day center for the homeless 41.2% 7 Healthcare facilities 39.0% 8 Child care centers 35.4% 9 Recreation facilities 33.2% 10 Parks and park facilities 32.2% 11 Centers for the disabled 32.0% 12 Senior centers 29.9% Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 200 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Priority Rank Public Facilities: High Level of Need Share of Respondents 13 Parking facilities 22.5% 14 Facilities for persons with HIV/AIDS 20.5% Public Services Respondents rated the level of need for 23 public service improvements in their neighborhoods. The five highest priorities in this area were: 1. Emergency housing assistance to prevent homelessness 2. Access to fresh and nutritious foods 3. Homeless services 4. Abused, abandoned and/or neglected children services 5. Transportation services The table below shows the highest level of need for each of the public service improvements and the share of respondents who rated each category as “high level” of need. Table 11 – High Level of Need for Specific Public Services Improvements Priority Rank Public Services: High Level of Need Share of Respondents 1 Emergency housing assistance to prevent homelessness – such as utility and rental assistance 52.3% 2 Access to fresh and nutritious foods 49.8% 3 Homeless services 49.6% 4 Abused, abandoned and/or neglected children services 46.5% 5 Transportation services 46.4% 6 Mental health services 46.4% 7 Youth services 44.1% 8 Crime awareness/prevention services 44.0% 9 Employment training services 43.4% 10 Neighborhood cleanups (trash, graffiti, etc.) 42.9% 11 Services to increase neighborhood and community engagement 40.6% 12 Financial literacy 39.3% 13 Battered and abused spouses services 37.9% 14 Food banks 36.7% 15 Veteran services 36.7% 16 Fair housing activities 36.5% 17 Child care services 36.0% 18 Senior services 35.8% 19 Disability services 35.4% Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 201 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Priority Rank Public Services: High Level of Need Share of Respondents 20 Tenant/landlord counseling services 30.8% 21 Legal services 30.1% 22 Housing counseling for homebuyers and owners 24.4% 23 Lead-based paint/lead hazard screens 19.1% 24 Services for persons with HIV/AIDS 18.7% Economic Development Respondents rated the level of need for five economic development areas in their neighborhoods. The three highest priorities in this area were: 1. Job training for homeless 2. Financial assistance for low income residents for small business expansion and job creation 3. Storefront improvements in low income neighborhoods The table below shows the highest level of need for each of the economic development areas and the share of respondents who rated each category as “high level” of need. Table 12 – High Level of Need for Specific Economic Development Areas Priority Rank Economic Development: High Level of Need Share of Respondents 1 Job training for the homeless 48.8% 2 Financial assistance for low-income residents for small business expansion and job creation 35.3% 3 Storefront improvements in low-income neighborhoods 33.9% 4 Microenterprise assistance for small business expansion (5 or fewer employees) 24.1% 5 Public improvements to commercial/industrial sites 20.3% Infrastructure and Neighborhood Respondents rated the level of need for 15 infrastructure and neighborhood improvements within their neighborhoods. The five highest priorities in this area were: 1. Cleanup of contaminated sites 2. Street improvements 3. Lighting improvement 4. Sidewalk improvements 5. Water/sewer improvements Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 202 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) The table below shows the highest level of need for each of the infrastructure and neighborhood improvements and the share of respondents who rated each category as “high level” of need. Table 13 – High Level of Need for Specific Infrastructure and Neighborhood Improvements Priority Rank Infrastructure and Neighborhood: High Level of Need Share of Respondents 1 Cleanup of contaminated sites 44.9% 2 Street improvements 41.1% 3 Lighting improvements 35.7% 4 Sidewalk improvements 35.2% 5 Water/sewer improvements 34.7% 6 Community gardens 31.5% 7 Stormwater and drainage improvements 30.2% 8 Slowing traffic speed 29.8% 9 New or renovated playgrounds 29.4% 10 Trails 28.8% 11 Acquisition and clearance of vacant lots 26.4% 12 ADA accessibility to public facilities 23.0% 13 Neighborhood signage 21.7% 14 Landscaping improvements 19.5% 15 Public art 18.7% Fair Housing Respondents were asked to answer a series of questions related to Fair Housing. Four questions were used to gauge each individuals experience with housing discrimination. 16% 76% 8% Figure 6 – Percent of Individuals Who Have Experienced Housing Discrimination in Santa Clara County Yes No Don’t Know Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 203 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Of the 1,472 total respondents, 192 (16%) said they have experienced some form of housing discrimination. The majority of discrimination occurred within an apartment complex (19%). The next highest location for discrimination was indicated by the “Other” category. Within this category, duplexes, condos, and private renters were the most commonly indicated. Many respondents who selected “Other” expressed experiencing discrimination in multiple locations. The three highest locations of discrimination were:  Apartment Complex  Other  Single-family neighborhood The figure below shows where respondents experienced discrimination. The majority of respondents (29%) who experienced discrimination indicated that race was the primary factor for that discrimination. Respondents selected “Other” as the next highest basis of discrimination. Within the “Other” category respondents indicated race, inability to speak English, religion, credit, and marital status as the cause for discrimination. The three highest basis of discrimination were: 1. Race 2. Other 3. Familial Status 0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%50% Trailer or mobile home park When applying for City/County programs Public or subsidized housing project Condo development Single‐family neighborhood Other (please specify) Apartment complex Percent of Respondents Figure 7 – Locations Where Respondents Reported Experiencing Discrimination Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 204 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) The Figure 8 below depicts what respondents believe is the basis for discrimination they have experienced. Respondents were then asked to identify who they felt had discriminated against them. The majority of respondents (66%) indicated they were discriminated against by a landlord or property manager. Respondents selected “Other” as the next highest category of who discriminated against them. Within the “Other” selection respondents indicated they experienced discrimination from landlords, property managers, existing residents, and home owner associations. The three highest categories that respondents believed discriminated against them were: 1. Landlord/Property Manager 2. Other 3. Don’t Know Figure 9 on the following page illustrates who respondents believe is responsible for the discrimination they have experienced. 0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35% Religion Sex Color Disability National origin Sexual orientation Don’t Know Familial status (families with children under 18) Other (please specify) Race Percent of Respondents Figure 8 – The Reason Respondents Believe They Experienced Discrimination Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 Consolidated Plan PALO ALTO 205 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70% Mortgage insurer Real estate agent Mortgage lender City/County staff Don’t Know Other (please specify) Landlord/Property manager Percent of Respondents Figure 9 – Who Respondents Believe Discriminated Against Them Duns NO. 050520782 February 2015 FINANCE COMMITTEE DRAFT EXCERPT MINUTES Special Meeting Tuesday, March 17, 2015 Chairperson Schmid called the meeting to order at 6:01 P.M. in the Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California. Present: Filseth, Kniss, Scharff, Schmid (Chair) Absent: Oral Communications None Agenda Items 1.Proposed Fiscal Year 2015/2016 Community Development Block Grant Funding Allocation; Draft 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan and Draft 2015/2016 Action Plan. Matthew Weintraub, Planner, said the City of Palo Alto received annual funding under the Community Development Block Grant Program (Program) (CDBG) which was the principal Federal program that provided grants to improve physical, economic and social conditions, primarily for persons with low and moderate income. Activities funded by CDBG had to meet one of the National Objectives: 1) to benefit low and very low income persons; 2) aid and prevent elimination of slums and blight; and 3) meet other community needs that were particularly urgent for the low income community. All activities funded by Palo Alto met the first objective, which was to benefit low and very low income persons. On February 11, 2015, the City received notification from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) regarding the City’s final funding allocation amount of $442,460, which represented an increase of $8,467, or two percent from last year’s allocation of $433,993. The total funding available for allocation was $881,673, which included the Entitlement Grant amount; this was $136,049 of estimated Program income, and $303,164 in prior year Page 1 of 7 Attachment D DRAFT MINUTES resources. Palo Alto had five funding categories for which to allocate funds: 1) Public Services; 2) Planning and Administration; 3) Economic Development; 4) Housing; and 5) Public Facilities. Public Service activities, which were similar to the activities funded by the Human Services Resource Allocation Process (HSRAP), had a maximum spending Cap of 15 percent of the Entitlement Grant, and 15 percent of the actual Program income received during the previous Fiscal Years (FY). The maximum amount of money that was able to be spent for FY 2016 was $82,910; this was to be compared with $95,320 that was allocated in FY 2015. There was a 20 percent spending Cap that was placed on the Planning and Administration Activities, which included the administrative costs for managing the CDBG Program. The maximum that was able to be spent on Planning and Administration for FY 2016 was $115,072; $113,996 was spent for FY 2015. He noted that there was no Cap placed on the other three categories. Staff worked to make the CDBG Program less Staff intensive and introduced efficiencies into the Program implementation. In FY 2016, Staff planned on reducing the CDBG Staff level to a .4 percent Full Time Equivalency (FTE), which allowed for the continued funding of Project Sentinel, under the Planning and Administration Activity. Staff requested additional funding in the Administration category to cover the potential costs associated with the consultant contracts, which might be used to support CDBG Program Administration. In order to be eligible for funding, HUD required a five year Strategic Plan, also called the Consolidated Plan, in order to address the priority housing and community development needs and to set goals for attaining objectives. The 2010-2015 Consolidated Plan was adopted by the Council on May 9, 2010, and a new five year plan was required. According to the Draft 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan, Palo Alto’s CDBG Program continued to be directed toward expanding and maintaining the affordable housing supply, promoting housing opportunities choices, maintaining and improving community facilities, and providing supportive services for targeted low-income groups, including homeless individuals, persons with disabilities, the elderly, and other special needs groups. In addition, a one year Action Plan was required, outlining the activities that identified the strategies listed in the Consolidated Plan. The Draft 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan and the Draft 2015-2016 Action Plan were available for public review from February 17, 2015 through March 25, 2015. Currently the CDBG Program operated under a two year funding cycle, and applications for FY 2016 and 2017 were made available in December, 2014. A notice of CDBG funding availability was published in the Palo Alto Weekly on November 21, 2014 and completed applications were due by January 9, 2015. Mandatory Proposal Writing Workshops were conducted on December 10, 2014 and January 5, 2015 to assist applicants with Program regulations and project eligibility questions. There were nine applications received and the Selection Committee met on January 29, 2015 to discuss the 2016 CDBG Budget, to Page 2 of 7 Finance Committee Special Meeting Draft Minutes 3/17/2015 DRAFT MINUTES review the applications received, and to recommend funding amounts, based on the estimated funds available. At a Public Hearing on February 12, 2015, the Human Relations Commission (HRC) considered the funding recommendations of the Selection Committee, as adjusted to account for HUD’s final Entitlement Grant Allocation. There was also discussion of the Day Workers Center of Mountain View; the Selection Committee decided to make a recommendation to not fund the Day Workers Center of Mountain View for FY 2016 because the project did not appear ready to receive funds. The Day Workers Center of Mountain View was going to be reconsidered for funding for FY 2017. MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Kniss to recommend to the City Council to take the following actions: 1. Allocate CDBG funding as recommended in the draft 2015/2016 Action Plan and as described in this report; 2. Authorize the City Manager to execute the 2015/2016 CDBG application and the 2015/2016 Action Plan for CDBG funds, any other necessary documents concerning the application, and to otherwise bind the City with respect to the applications and commitment of funds; 3. Authorize Staff to submit the 2015/2016 Action Plan to HUD by the May 15, 2015 deadline; and 4. Authorize Staff to submit the 2015/2020 Consolidate Plan to HUD by the May 15, 2015 deadline. Council Member Scharff noted this was a process that the HRC vetted, the ability to make recommendations to the Finance Committee (Committee). There was no opposition that he saw, and therefore agreed with the HRC recommendation; this was the process, unless there was good reason to disagree. Council Member Kniss remarked that there was a great deal of time spent deciding where the money was going to go and questioned Staff about why the Day Workers were not receive funding. Mr. Weintraub replied that Staff was going to consider the Day Workers Center for next year. Page 3 of 7 Finance Committee Special Meeting Draft Minutes 3/17/2015 DRAFT MINUTES Council Member Kniss agreed and questioned the funding that was up to $83,000 for Staff. She understood Staff was cutting down to a .4 FTE but were adding consultants. Consuelo Hernandez, Senior Planner, clarified that there was a proposed rule at the HUD level for the new report that the City had to develop to affirmatively further fair housing. Staff was not yet instructed to prepare this report but were planning ahead so the General Fund was not impacted next FY. Council Member Kniss clarified that Staff was not positive that this needed to be done, but thought it might need to be done. Ms. Hernandez said yes and said there was a final ruling at the HUD level and once their decision was made, they were going to let the City know of the decision. Staff was instructed by HUD that they might have to submit the report in December 2015, and wanted to make sure they had enough funds to hire a consultant to do the work. Council Member Kniss confirmed that Staff was not going to spend the funds unless they had to. Ms. Hernandez agreed and said if the funds were not spent, they would be reallocated to another project for the next FY. Council Member Kniss emphasized that the discussion was CDBG and not HSRAP, which was a long conversation about deciding what percentages went where. The discussion of CDBG was simple compared to HSRAP. Council Member Filseth agreed with Council Member Scharff that the Committee should take guidance on how the money should be spent from the HRC. The amount was modest relative to other processes that were done in the City and the expenses did not seem high. Chair Schmid was confused about the one, two and five years; was the Committee voting on funds from this year’s Budget and then agreeing on a commitment for next year. Ms. Hernandez made clear that the Committee was making a commitment in the funding amounts for FY 2016. Staff was not going to release a Notice of Funding Availability for 2017, so the same applicants were going to be Page 4 of 7 Finance Committee Special Meeting Draft Minutes 3/17/2015 DRAFT MINUTES considered. The only change was the final amounts were contingent on the City’s allocation for the following FY. Chair Schmid thought it was important to keep in mind that there was a two year Program the City was looking at and the Committee was approving a five year Program. He wanted to know where the five year Program was. Ms. Hernandez explained the Consolidated Plan was the Draft Document. It was the Strategic Plan where Staff projected how much Staff proposed to spend in funding over the next five years and where they established their goals. Chair Schmid wanted to know if the Committee was committing to the presented group of candidates to come back for the next five years. Ms. Hernandez replied no. The Committee was committing to two years for the applications submitted. Chair Schmid inquired what was being done for the five year approval. Ms. Hernandez answered that the Committee was adopting the goals for the next five years. Chair Schmid confirmed it was the rules. Ms. Hernandez said no, it was the Program Goals. There were five goals in the Draft Consolidated Plan, and Staff needed to make sure that whatever applications they accepted, were meeting those goals and objectives in the Draft Comprehensive Plan. Chair Schmid confirmed that the funding and the candidates for the funding might be brand new. Ms. Hernandez said yes, every two years. Chair Schmid recalled a meeting with the HRC a few weeks ago about an aggressive goal to look at homelessness; homelessness seemed to coincide with the CDBG Program. He wanted to know what the HRC discussed regarding funding and their new initiatives on homelessness. Ms. Hernandez answered that the HRC recommended that Staff keep the Page 5 of 7 Finance Committee Special Meeting Draft Minutes 3/17/2015 DRAFT MINUTES Public Service Cap at 15 percent. It was possible to allocate no funding toward Public Services, which included programs for the homeless population. The HUD regulations require that no more than 15 percent be spent on public services, and the HRC decided to fully fund 15 percent of the Program toward public service activities; half of that funding included InnVision Shelter Network (InnVision) for operation of the Opportunity Center. The HRC incorporated their priorities into the five year Strategic Plan. Chair Schmid relayed there was $38,000 allocated for InnVision and $24,000 for Palo Alto Housing Corp; he wanted to know if the Housing Corp was part of the Homeless Program. Ms. Hernandez clarified that the Palo Alto Housing Corp was for prevention of homelessness. Chair Schmid asked about the Downtown Streets Team. Ms. Hernandez replied they fell under the Workforce Development Program; they were related to economic development but the program targeted the homeless. Chair Schmid wanted to know if these decisions coincided with the priorities the HRC talked about, or was it separate. Ms. Hernandez answered that it was a separate funding source and a separate priority; Staff tried to align the priorities that the HRC set. Chair Schmid felt the HRC identified an aggressive and important goal and he thought they would be actively involved in seeing if there was funding for it; he wanted to know why the HRC was not at the Committee meeting asking for the money. Ms. Hernandez was not able to answer that question. Typically there was not a representative at the Committee meeting unless there was a contentious Item or some disagreement; in this case there was no disagreement. Chair Schmid noted the Administrative Fee and said the City was given $1 million, and 10 percent of that was taken for Administrative Fees. He suggested that Staff offer to cover the cost for Administration and to use the Page 6 of 7 Finance Committee Special Meeting Draft Minutes 3/17/2015 DRAFT MINUTES $100,000 for homelessness. Ms. Hernandez remarked that there were limitations on how the funding was spent for Public Services. Typically services that helped the homeless were categorized under Public Services and had a Cap of 15 percent. Even if all the dollars went toward homelessness, none of the Administration Budget could be reallocated toward homelessness. In order to maximize the Public Service dollars for homelessness, Staff reduced the Administrative costs so Project Sentinel was able to qualify under the Administrative Cap and not the Public Service Cap. This was a strategy by Staff so that funding would be moved toward the delivery of services and not in the Administration of the Program. If there was a project that took more Staff time, Staff was able to recover the costs as “Project Delivery Fees.” None of the projects recommended for funding had that fee but if one came about, Staff would recover the funds for Staff time. Chair Schmid thought it was odd to vote on a funding grant to help the low income, while a good portion of the Fund was being used to fund one of the richest Cities in the world. He inquired if a part of the Grant was given to Palo Alto Garden; he wanted to know where Palo Alto Garden was and what it was. Ms. Hernandez replied that it was 154 units of senior housing. The funding was going to America’s with Disability Act improvements and some landscaping to help reduce water costs. Chair Schmid wanted to know the address of Palo Alto Gardens. Ms. Hernandez did not have that information but said it was in south Palo Alto and it was administered by MidPen Housing, a housing corporation in Palo Alto. Chair Schmid repeated that the Motion was to allocate the funds and to approve the Action Plan and the Consolidated Plan; this was a recommendation to the Council. MOTION PASSED: 4-0 ADJOURNMENT: Meeting adjourned at 8:33 P.M. Page 7 of 7 Finance Committee Special Meeting Draft Minutes 3/17/2015 City of Palo Alto (ID # 5668) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 5/4/2015 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: 429 University Avenue Appeal Hearing Title: PUBLIC HEARING: To Consider an Appeal of the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s Architectural Review Approval of a 31,407 Square-Foot, Four Story, Mixed Use Building With Parking Facilities on Two Subterranean Levels on an 11,000 Square-Foot Site in the Downtown Commercial (CD-C (GF)(P)) Zone District located at 429 University Avenue; and Approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. Environmental Assessment: A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared. From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommended Motion That the City Council directs staff to prepare a Record of Land Use Action to: 1. Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program; 2. Deny the appeal; and 3. Approve the project based on the findings and conditions provided in the Director’s determination. The Record of Land Use Action would be placed on the Council’s Consent Agenda for approval at an upcoming meeting. Executive Summary The City Council will consider an appeal of the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s decision to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigated Monitoring Program and approve an Architectural Review application for a new mixed use commercial building at the subject address based on a recommendation from the City’s Architectural Review Board. This report provides salient background and supporting information, but focuses primarily on the appeal statements and findings required to make a decision on the project. The April 6, 2015 Council report (ID #5657) includes previous staff reports, minutes, environmental documents and public correspondence, and is available online: City of Palo Alto Page 2 http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/46619. The appellant asserts that the proposed project is incompatible in size and style with neighborhood and nearby structures; creates safety, traffic and parking problems; and results in a loss of retail in the downtown retail core (Attachment B). The project architect provided a response letter addressing points raised by the appellant (Attachment C). Staff’s review of the project finds it in conformance with applicable municipal regulations, the City’s Comprehensive Plan and the Downtown Design Guidelines. Notwithstanding staff’s conclusions, the project is subject to discretionary review and several findings related to the project’s compatibility to the immediate environment, neighborhood character and providing safe and convenient access to the property. The appellant identifies some topics (retail preservation, downtown parking) that are actively being discussed by the community and City Council. While these are important conversations to have, some of these topics appear to fall beyond the scope of review for this specific project. Background On April 6, 2015, the City Council voted to hear an appeal of a proposed mixed use building at the northwest corner of University Avenue and Kipling Street. Some project details are summarized on the following chart: Existing (to be removed) Proposed Permitted or Required Floor Area / (Floor Area Ratio) 11,633 SF 1 / (1.06:1 FAR) Retail (~8,800 SF) Office (~2,800 SF) 31,407 SF 2 / (2.86:1 FAR) Retail (7,935 SF) Office (12,472 SF) Residential (11,000 SF) Up to 32,000 SF / (2.91:1 FAR)3 ; Maximum for Commercial(22,000 SF) 4 Residential(11,000 SF) Height/Stories 425 University (23.5’) 429 University (18.5’)/ 1 story with mezzanine 50’/4 Stories 50’ 5 Parking 10 (onsite) 37 (parking district assessment) 40 (onsite) 37 (parking district assessment) 20 (Parking exempt TDR) 6 92 7 Storefronts Beam Genze Marine Layer Amour Vert Lane - - City of Palo Alto Page 3 Design w/in Reach 1 SF = Square Foot 2 Include a 200 SF one-time floor area bonus authorized by PAMC 18.18.070(a)(1) and 9,207 SF Transferable Development Rights (TDR) authorized by PAMC 18.18.080. 3 Based on combination of residential, commercial and transferred development rights. Base zoning floor area ratio for mixed use projects in the CD-C district is maximum 2.0:1; with TDR in the downtown parking assessment district may result in an addition of 10,000 SF floor area. 4 Subject to the provisions of Pedestrian (P) Shopping and Ground Floor (GF) combining districts, including the requirements of pedestrian design features with an area not less than 1.5 feet times the length of adjoining frontage and permitted uses on the ground floor devoted to retail. 5 Utility or mechanical features may exceed the height limit established in any district by no more than fifteen feet under the restrictions set forth in PAMC 18.40.090. 6 TDR = Transferred Development Right. 7 Based on the mix of land uses and floor area 92 spaces are required. Under provisions of the City’s code, this project is entitled to various on-site parking exemptions which are outlined in the parking discussion below. The applicant proposes retail on the ground floor, offices on the second and fourth levels, and residential on the third and fourth levels. Four apartment residential units are included in the development and average approximately 2,500 square feet in area. Parking is provided in a two-level subterranean garage accessed from Lane 30 (alley). The building is contemporarily designed; project plans are available online http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/37684. Discussion Prior to the Director’s determination on the project, the City’s Architectural Review Board considered the project at three public hearings. The ARBs recommendations, Director’s determination, and now the City Council’s action on this project must be based on required findings found in Attachment A. The Director’s findings are available in Attachment D. Appeal Statement On March 11, 2015, Michael Harbour filed an appeal citing concerns about the project’s compatibility with the neighborhood, including its historic character; safety, traffic and parking conflicts; and, loss of ground floor retail. Aesthetic Quality The appellant expresses concern with the project’s building size, style and massing, and finds it out of context with Kipling Street and University Avenue. The appellant conducted an inventory and analysis of structures near the project site, and concluded that the project is incompatible with its context because it is ‘overly tall, massive and architecturally dissimilar’ and has ‘nothing in common stylistically’ with other buildings in the area. The appellant asserts the project does not comply with the required architectural review findings, context-based design criteria, or the Downtown Design Guidelines. City of Palo Alto Page 4 The Architectural Review Boardmembers evaluated the project and provided recommendations based on the required findings and the context-based design criteria set forth in the municipal code. Architectural Review Findings (PAMC 18.76.020(d)) As detailed more fully in the Director’s determination letter (Attachment D), the ARB evaluated the project’s compatibility with nearby buildings and appropriateness of scale to the street and built environment. The Boardmembers evaluated this project in the context of permitted development densities established in the municipal code and based on its location in the retail core of the city. The Boardmembers and Director concluded that the design is appropriately scaled for a mixed use project with retail, office and housing units, which is encouraged in the project’s zoning district. The project incorporates architectural features with façade treatment, stepbacks and modulation that provide a transition to adjacent commercial buildings. The building has active storefronts, with features like recessed entrances and canopies that contribute to the retail vitality and pedestrian character of the Downtown University Avenue District. Context-Based Design Criteria (PAMC 18.18.110) The Context-Based Design Criteria require developments in a commercial district to be responsible to its context and compatible with adjacent developments, and to promote the establishment of pedestrian oriented design. The Context-Based Design Criteria is established with the intent to indicate relationships between the site’s development and adjacent street types, surrounding land uses and nearby natural features. The word ‘context’ is not construed as a desire to replicate a specific architectural style from existing surroundings, but rather to provide appropriate transitions to those surroundings. It can be achieved when apparent scale and mass is consistent with the pattern of achieving a pedestrian oriented design and when new construction shares general characteristics and established design linkages with the overall pattern of buildings so the visual unit of the street is maintained. The appellant asserts that the architect made no effort to ensure conformance to stylistic compatibility with any building in sight of the development. There is particular objection of the project as it relates to Kipling Street and the project’s perceived as overly massive and architecturally dissimilar style. The ARB acknowledged the project has greater scale and height than other buildings adjacent to the project site. Though, the scale of the building is appropriate to accommodate a mixed use program that is permitted in the CD-C zone district. The ARB evaluated the project’s height and concluded that the proposed building height is an appropriate architectural response to a fifty-foot width right-of-way. The ARB found that the project would provide appropriate transition to its surroundings with pedestrian oriented street façades and proper massing setbacks. City of Palo Alto Page 5 Downtown Urban Design Guide The Downtown Urban Design Guide (Guide) provides direction to the applicant, staff and ARB regarding development and design in the downtown area. This advisory Guide divides the downtown area into districts, each having a unique identity and design characteristics. The project site is located within the University Avenue District and Kipling Street secondary district. The Guide reinforces University Avenue as the retail core of Downtown Palo Alto, by maintaining the strong concentration of ground floor retail uses between Alma and Cowper streets. University Avenue contains a general 25-50 foot wide pattern of storefronts, and similar sized structural bays at larger buildings. This pattern creates a pleasing rhythm and allows a variety of building façades within a single block face. Generally, buildings are two to four stories with few exceptions. Most buildings have no setback to the street and rise to a parapet wall within a distinct roof. The architectural style of retail storefronts is mixed. Many corner stores front only onto University Avenue while ignoring the side streets. The Kipling Street secondary district is overlapped with the University Avenue district because of its own distinct characteristics. The Guide encourages the use of appropriate building design, landscaping and public amenities to unify and complement the secondary district. The Guide also promotes the character of Kipling Street between Lytton Avenue and University Avenue by retaining the older single family structures that have been converted to businesses and the architectural character they provided. The ARB found that the proposed building is consistent with the Guide’s recommendations for the districts. The University Avenue façade would preserve the existing structural pattern and follow the general storefront rhythm. The proposed extensive storefront glazing, recessed entrances and canopies, and pedestrian friendly amenities such as street trees and ample sidewalk widths, would contribute to the goal of creating an exciting and diverse pedestrian environment. The project is compatible in the Downtown urban context with buildings varying in heights ranging from two to four stories. The proposed building incorporates upper level setbacks to provide a transition in scale to adjacent buildings. Historic Character The appellant raises concerns about the project’s potential impacts to nearby historic buildings. Although the project site is within the vicinity of buildings listed on the City’s local Historical Resources Inventory, the project is not located within the vicinity of a designated historic district recognized by local, state or national historic registers requiring the establishment of visual and historic linkages. According to the Historical Architectural Evaluation (Attachment E) prepared by Preservation Architecture (and peer reviewed by the City’s environmental consultant), there are no previously identified historic districts in the vicinity of the project site. Furthermore, the report found that there is no apparent collection of resources, thematically or architecturally, that may constitute an identifiable historic district that would include the subject property. The Downtown area is comprised of buildings that spans several periods of development, and no particular period, style or building type is prevalent. City of Palo Alto Page 6 The report further describes several historic structures located in the vicinity of the project site, including properties listed in the City’s Inventory and in the National Register of Historic Places. The historic structure that is nearest to the project site is a Category 3 building, listed on the City’s local Historic Resource Inventory, located west of the project site. The proposed work, which is limited to the project site, would not have any physical or material effect on nearby individual historic structures, including the adjacent Category 3 structure. The appellant argues there are Category 1 and 2 historic structures on the 400 blocks of University Avenue and Kipling Street. That information does not comport with city’s records. Nevertheless, Kipling Street does have a unique character with its Victorian designed homes. Importantly, the proposed project, from an environmental analysis perspective, does not impact those properties. The Council, in its review of the ARB findings, could certainly consider the character of Kipling Street and its relationship to the proposed project when evaluating neighborhood compatibility. The ARB and Director recognize the proposed building is different from those architectural forms, but did not conclude, as the appellant has, that the project clashes significantly in size and style with the collection of buildings comprising the streetscape along Kipling Street. Parking and Traffic Impacts The appellant references various statements in the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) conducted by Hexagon Transportation Consultant, Inc., dated October 20, 2014. The appellant states concerns that the traffic pattern, trip generation and queuing time would exacerbate the road capacity and safety conditions of Kipling Street. The appellant notes several minor accidents that occur under existing conditions. The appellant states that the combination of increased traffic, congestion, emissions, and accidents will result in decreased compatibility for bicycles and pedestrians. Kipling Street is narrow with about 29 feet of roadway and parking on both sides of the street. The overall right-of-way is about 50 feet. While a review of police report data for Kipling Street does not suggest a higher volume of accidents on this street compared to others, it is likely many of the minor accidents are not reported. Florence Street is another nearby narrow street, but parking is prohibited on one side. The proposed project will generate more daily and peak trips compared to existing uses. However, this trip generation does not result in a significant environmental impact in Level of Service. Vehicle movement could be improved on Kipling Street if parking were removed along one side. Eleven and thirteen on-street parking spaces exist presently on the east and west sides of the street, respectively. This policy issue needs to be evaluated with the desire to preserve limited parking resources downtown. The removal of two or three parking spaces across from Lane 30 and between Lane 30 and University Avenue could facilitate turning movements from Lane 30. But this condition exists with or without the project. Having vehicle City of Palo Alto Page 7 parking on both sides of the street tends to limit vehicle speed which could be construed by some as positive. Regarding decreased pedestrian and bicycle compatibility, the project proposes 13 bicycle parking spaces, including seven bicycle lockers. The pedestrian activity is not anticipated to decrease along Kipling Street or University Avenue as a result of the project. On the contrary, the project may result in greater pedestrian and bicycle activity as workers leave the building during breaks and after work and residents visit restaurants, shops and other services in their neighborhood. Furthermore, the Director imposed a condition requiring a Traffic Demand Management program as part of the project. It is anticipated this program will encourage alternative modes of access to and from the site and result in less single occupancy vehicle trips (Attachment D, page 12 of 41, condition #8). Regarding parking, the property is located within the Downtown Parking Assessment District. The property had been assessed and had paid fees for a total of 37 parking spaces not provided on-site. The project includes approximately 9,200 square feet of Transferred Development Rights (TDRs). Five thousand of those TDRs, from 206-210 Homer Avenue and 212-216 Homer Avenue, are exempt from parking, which reduces required parking by 20 spaces. These parking exempt TDRs were certified and recorded prior to the current parking exempt TDR ban. Parking is provided on two subterranean levels. Forty spaces are provided onsite. The total number of spaces normally required based on the mix of land uses and floor area is 92 spaces. Accordingly, the project provides five additional spaces beyond code requirements: 92 (required) – 37 (parking assessment) – 20 (parking-exempt TDR) – 40 (provided onsite) = 5 extra parking spaces. Ingress and egress to parking is from Lane 30, which is a one-way alley exiting on Kipling Street. Ground Floor Retail The appellant notes concern regarding the loss of ground floor retail space associated with the development and references a policy drafted by the Planning & Transportation Commission for the Comprehensive Plan update, which has not been formally adopted. The referenced policy states ‘use a variety of planning and regulatory tools, including growth limits, to ensure no additional net loss of retail space due to any proposed land use and other policy changes’. While the CD-C zoning district does not have a minimum area requirement for ground floor retail use, the proposed development is consistent with regulations for the ground floor (GF) and pedestrian shopping (P) combining districts by providing retail space on the ground floor with pedestrian design features. The proposed first floor of the project is primarily for retail uses. Other uses include a lobby, elevator and stairway access to upper floors, trash receptacles, mechanical room, garage ramp and bicycle lockers. The area of the stairs, the elevator, and the ramp to reach the below grade parking facility for the retail, office, and residential uses would displace some amount of ground floor retail space. City of Palo Alto Page 8 The existing retail area on the ground floor is approximately 8,800 square feet, comprised of recessed entrances, retail area, storage area and restrooms. The proposed retail area is 7,160 square feet (not including two required stairs, elevator and elevator lobby, garage ramp, exit hallways, trash areas for other uses, mechanical rooms, open site areas formed by the alley setback, and bicycle locker/utility service area). While the project has less retail square footage, it retains viable ground floor retail space and complies with applicable municipal regulations. Correspondence Written public comments that were not previously included in the April 6, 2015 Council Report (ID #5657) is included in this report as Attachment F. Comments received included both support for the project and concerns about the project. Two commentators raised questions regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration as it relates to housing and parking. Specific comments state that the city ignored housing impacts associated with increased commercial development and that the analysis confused compliance with parking standards to inadequate parking provided for the project. The City of Palo Alto has a workforce housing imbalance. As reported in the Housing Element (2015-2023), Palo Alto has an estimated job/housing ratio of 3.05 jobs for every employed resident. Housing in Palo Alto is not affordable for most workers. To help offset this imbalance, the city currently collects a fee of $19.31 per square foot of commercial space, which is deposited into the city’s Affordable Housing Fund. Money collected is used to support efforts to increase affordable housing production. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) provides that such a mechanism is appropriate to offset cumulative impacts. Contribution to the fund is not identified as a mitigation measure because it is a standard municipal code requirement and the fee is collected at the time of building permit issuance. This explanation is provided in the Mitigated Negative Declaration previously provided to the City Council in the April 6, 2015 packet (council packet page 1012 or page 32 of Attachment J in ID# 5657). Regarding the commentators remarks on parking, state law generally does not consider parking to be an environmental impact. Traffic and air quality impacts associated with parking do need to be considered and are addressed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Importantly, the traffic analysis is based on trip generation for the proposed mix of uses and not the number of parking spaces provided as part of the project. Further, the traffic analysis erred on the conservative side as it did not take into consideration any trip credits associated with existing land uses or any on- or off-site parking (assessed parking spaces). While the project site includes 40 on-site parking spaces, it has and continues to contribute financially to 37 parking spaces that have already been constructed in the downtown parking assessment district. That 20 TDR exempt parking spaces are not provided results in an insignificant increase to traffic and air quality, based on the analysis contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Based on the foregoing and review the project-related environmental analysis, staff finds the commentators remarks are sufficiently addressed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. City of Palo Alto Page 9 Resource Impact There are no significant fiscal or budget impacts associated with this recommendation. Policy Implications The City’s Comprehensive Plan encourages owners to upgrade or replace existing commercial properties so that commercial areas are more competitive and better serve the community. In addition the Comprehensive Plan established the Downtown area as being suitable for mixed use. The proposed project would support maintaining and enhancing the University Avenue/Downtown area as the central business district of the City, with a mix of commercial and residential uses, promote quality design that recognizes the regional importance of the area and reinforces its pedestrian character. While it is always possible to argue that one or more specific policies of the Comprehensive Plan have not been adequately addressed, the City’s obligation is to determine whether – on balance – the project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as a whole. In this instance, staff has determined that the project conforms with existing zoning regulations adopted to implement the Comprehensive Plan and proposes a project that is in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan’s vision for perpetuating Downtown as the City’s central business district with an inviting pedestrian environment. In this appeal the Council is entitled to reassess the evidence in the record to ensure that determination is correct. The City Council’s consideration of this appeal of the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s decision will largely be focused on a review of the Architectural Review findings, and whether the Council agrees that these findings can be made with regard to the proposed project. Below are the actions available to the City Council: Direct staff to prepare a Record of Land Use Action for adoption on the Consent agenda at an upcoming meeting to: 1. Deny the appeal and approve the project based on the Director’s findings and conditions; 2. Uphold the appeal and approve the project with modifications or new conditions needed to make the required findings; 3. Continue the appeal and request additional studies and/or redesign; or 4. Uphold the appeal and deny the project based on its failure to meet the required findings, effectively requiring the applicant to redesign and resubmit a modified project. Environmental Review The proposed project is subject to environmental review under provisions of the California Environment Quality Act (CEQA). Pursuant to the requirements of the CEQA, a Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared and circulated. With a required 20-day public review, the comment period for this project was from November 17, 2014 to December 12, 2014. The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Mitigation Monitoring Program is Attachment J in the April 6, 2015 Council Report at this link City of Palo Alto Page 10 http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/46619. Attachments:  Attachment A: Architectural Review Findings and Context-design Based Criteria (DOCX)  Attachment B: Appeal Letter (PDF)  Attachment C: Applicant's Response Letter (PDF)  Attachment D: Director's Decision Letter (PDF)  Attachment E: Historic Architectural Evaluation prepared by Preservation Architecture (PDF)  Attachment F: Public Correspondence (PDF) Palo Alto Municipal Code 18.76.020 (d) Architectural Review Findings Neither the director, nor the city council on appeal, shall grant architectural review approval, unless it is found that: (1) The design is consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan; (2) The design is compatible with the immediate environment of the site; (3) The design is appropriate to the function of the project; (4) In areas considered by the board as having a unified design character or historical character, the design is compatible with such character; (5) The design promotes harmonious transitions in scale and character in areas between different designated land uses; (6) The design is compatible with approved improvements both on and off the site; (7) The planning and siting of the various functions and buildings on the site create an internal sense of order and provide a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and the general community; (8) The amount and arrangement of open space are appropriate to the design and the function of the structures; (9) Sufficient ancillary functions are provided to support the main functions of the project and the same are compatible with the project's design concept; (10) Access to the property and circulation thereon are safe and convenient for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles; (11) Natural features are appropriately preserved and integrated with the project; (12) The materials, textures, colors and details of construction and plant material are appropriate expression to the design and function and whether the same are compatible with the adjacent and neighboring structures, landscape elements and functions; (13) The landscape design concept for the site, as shown by the relationship of plant masses, open space, scale, plant forms and foliage textures and colors create a desirable and functional environment and whether the landscape concept depicts an appropriate unity with the various buildings on the site; (14) Plant material is suitable and adaptable to the site, capable of being properly maintained on the site, and is of a variety which would tend to be drought-resistant and to reduce consumption of water in its installation and maintenance; (15) The project exhibits green building and sustainable design that is energy efficient, water conserving, durable and nontoxic, with high-quality spaces and high recycled content materials. The following considerations should be utilized in determining sustainable site and building design: (A) Optimize building orientation for heat gain, shading, daylighting, and natural ventilation; (B) Design of landscaping to create comfortable micro-climates and reduce heat island effects: (C) Design for easy pedestrian, bicycle and transit access; (D) Maximize on site stormwater management through landscaping and permeable paving; (E) Use sustainable building materials; (F) Design lighting, plumbing and equipment for efficient energy and water use; (G) Create healthy indoor environments; and (H) Use creativity and innovation to build more sustainable environments. (16) The design is consistent and compatible with the purpose of architectural review as set forth in subsection (a). Palo Alto Municipal Code 18.18.110 Context-based Design Criteria (a) Contextual and Compatibility Criteria Development in a commercial district shall be responsible to its context and compatible with adjacent development, and shall promote the establishment of pedestrian oriented design. (1) Context (A) Context as used in this section is intended to indicate relationships between the site's development to adjacent street types, surrounding land uses, and on-site or nearby natural features, such as creeks or trees. Effective transitions to these adjacent uses and features are strongly reinforced by Comprehensive Plan policies. (B) The word "context" should not be construed as a desire to replicate existing surroundings, but rather to provide appropriate transitions to those surroundings. "Context" is also not specific to architectural style or design, though in some instances relationships may be reinforced by an architectural response. (2) Compatibility (A) Compatibility is achieved when the apparent scale and mass of new buildings is consistent with the pattern of achieving a pedestrian oriented design, and when new construction shares general characteristics and establishes design linkages with the overall pattern of buildings so that the visual unity of the street is maintained. (B) Compatibility goals may be accomplished through various means, including but not limited to: (i) the siting, scale, massing, and materials; (ii) the rhythmic pattern of the street established by the general width of the buildings and the spacing between them; (iii) the pattern of roof lines and projections; (iv) the sizes, proportions, and orientations of windows, bays and doorways; (v) the location and treatment of entryways; (vi) the shadow patterns from massing and decorative features; (vii) the siting and treatment of parking; and (viii) the treatment of landscaping. (b) Context-Based Design Considerations and Findings In addition to the findings for Architectural Review contained in Section 18.76.020(d) of the Zoning Ordinance, the following additional findings are applicable in the CD district and subdistricts: (1) Pedestrian and Bicycle Environment The design of new projects shall promote pedestrian walkability, a bicycle friendly environment, and connectivity through design elements such as: A. Ground floor uses that are appealing to pedestrians through well-designed visibility and access; B. On primary pedestrian routes, climate and weather protection where possible, such as covered waiting areas, building projections and colonnades, and awnings; C. Streetscape or pedestrian amenities that contribute to the area's streetscape environment such as street trees, bulbouts, benches, landscape elements, and public art; D. Bicycle amenities that contribute to the area's bicycle environment and safety needs, such as bike racks, storage or parking, or dedicated bike lanes or paths; and E. Vehicle access from alleys or sidestreets where they exist, with pedestrian access from the public street. (2) Street Building Facades Street facades shall be designed to provide a strong relationship with the sidewalk and the street(s), to create an environment that supports and encourages pedestrian activity through design elements such as: A. Placement and orientation of doorways, windows, and landscape elements to create strong, direct relationships with the street; B. Facades that include projecting eaves and overhangs, porches, and other architectural elements that provide human scale and help break up building mass; C. Entries that are clearly defined features of front facades, and that have a scale that is in proportion to the size and type of the building and number of units being accessed; larger buildings should have a more prominent building entrance, while maintaining a pedestrian scale; D. Residential units and storefronts that have a presence on the street and are not walled-off or oriented exclusively inward; E. Elements that signal habitation such as entrances, stairs, porches, bays and balconies that are visible to people on the street; F. All exposed sides of a building designed with the same level of care and integrity; G. Reinforcing the definition and importance of the street with building mass; and H. Upper floors set back to fit in with the context of the neighborhood. (3) Massing and Setbacks Buildings shall be designed to minimize massing and conform to proper setbacks through elements such as: A. Rooflines that emphasize and accentuate significant elements of the building such as entries, bays, and balconies; B. Design with articulation, setbacks, and materials that minimize massing, break down the scale of buildings, and provide visual interest; C. Corner buildings that incorporate special features to reinforce important intersections and create buildings of unique architectural merit and varied styles; D. Building facades articulated with a building base, body and roof or parapet edge; E. Buildings set back from the property line to create an effective 12' sidewalk on El Camino Real, 8' elsewhere; F. A majority of the building frontage located at the setback line; and G. No side setback for midblock properties, allowing for a continuous street facade, except when abutting low density residential. (4) Low-Density Residential Transitions Where new projects are built abutting existing lower-scale residential development, care shall be taken to respect the scale and privacy of neighboring properties through: A. Transitions of development intensity from higher density development building types to building types that are compatible with the lower intensity surrounding uses; B. Massing and orientation of buildings that respect and mirror the massing of neighboring structures by stepping back upper stories to transition to smaller scale buildings, including setbacks and daylight planes that match abutting R-1 and R-2 zone requirements; C. Respecting privacy of neighboring structures, with windows and upper floor balconies positioned so they minimize views into neighboring properties; D. Minimizing sight lines into and from neighboring properties; E. Limiting sun and shade impacts on abutting properties; and F. Providing pedestrian paseos and mews to create separation between uses. (5) Project Open Space Private and public open space shall be provided so that it is usable for the residents, visitors, and/or employees of a site. A. The type and design of the usable private open space shall be appropriate to the character of the building(s), and shall consider dimensions, solar access, wind protection, views, and privacy; B. Open space should be sited and designed to accommodate different activities, groups, active and passive uses, and should be located convenient to the users (e.g., residents, employees, or public) C. Common open spaces should connect to the pedestrian pathways and existing natural amenities of the site and its surroundings; D. Usable open space may be any combination of private and common spaces; E. Usable open space does not need to be located on the ground and may be located in porches, decks, balconies and/or podiums (but not on rooftops); F. Open space should be located to activate the street façade and increase "eyes on the street" when possible; G. Both private and common open space areas should be buffered from noise where feasible through landscaping and building placement; H. Open space situated over a structural slab/podium or on a rooftop shall have a combination of landscaping and high quality paving materials, including elements such as planters, mature trees, and use of textured and/or colored paved surfaces; and I. Parking may not be counted as open space. (6) Parking Design Parking needs shall be accommodated but shall not be allowed to overwhelm the character of the project or detract from the pedestrian environment, such that: A. Parking is located behind buildings, below grade or, where those options are not feasible, screened by landscaping, low walls, etc.; B. Structured parking is fronted or wrapped with habitable uses when possible; C. Parking that is semi-depressed is screened with architectural elements that enhance the streetscape such as stoops, balcony overhangs, and/or art; D. Landscaping such as trees, shrubs, vines, or groundcover is incorporated into surface parking lots; E. For properties with parking access from the rear of the site (such as a rear alley or driveway) landscaping shall provide a visual buffer between vehicle circulation areas and abutting properties; F. Street parking is utilized for visitor or customer parking and is designed in a manner to enhance traffic calming; G. For properties with parking accessed from the front, minimize the amount of frontage used for parking access, no more than 25% of the site frontage facing a street should be devoted to garage openings, carports, or open/surface parking (on sites with less than 100 feet of frontage, no more than 25 feet); H. Where two parking lots abut and it is possible for a curb cut and driveway to serve several properties, owners are strongly encouraged to enter in to shared access agreements; and I. Parking is accessed from side streets or alleys when possible. (7) Large (Multi-Acre) Sites Large (in excess of one acre) sites shall be designed so that street, block, and building patterns are consistent with those of the surrounding neighborhood, and such that: A. New development of large sites maintains and enhances connectivity with a hierarchy of public streets, private streets, walks and bike paths (integrated with Palo Alto's Bicycle Master Plan, when applicable); B. The diversity of building types increases with increased lot size (e.g., <1 acre = minimum 1 building type; 1-2 acres = minimum 2 housing types; greater than 2 acres = minimum 3 housing types); and C. Where a site includes more than one housing type, each building type should respond to its immediate context in terms of scale, massing, and design (e.g., Village Residential building types facing or abutting existing single-family residences). (8) Sustainability and Green Building Design Project design and materials to achieve sustainability and green building design should be incorporated into the project. Green building design considers the environment during design and construction. Green building design aims for compatibility with the local environment: to protect, respect and benefit from it. In general, sustainable buildings are energy efficient, water conserving, durable and nontoxic, with high-quality spaces and high recycled content materials. The following considerations should be included in site and building design: A. Optimize building orientation for heat gain, shading, daylighting, and natural ventilation. B. Design landscaping to create comfortable micro-climates and reduce heat island effects. C. Design for easy pedestrian, bicycle, and transit access. D. Maximize onsite stormwater management through landscaping and permeable pavement. E. Use sustainable building materials. F. Design lighting, plumbing, and equipment for efficient energy and water use. G. Create healthy indoor environments. H. Use creativity and innovation to build more sustainable environments. One example is establishing gardens with edible fruits, vegetables or other plants to satisfy a portion of project open space requirements. I. Provide protection for creeks and riparian vegetation and integrate stormwater management measures and open space to minimize water quality and erosion impacts to the creek environment. J. Encourage installation of photovoltaic panels.                                                                                                                                                                                   March 23, 2015 City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue, 7th floor Palo Alto, CA 94301 SENT VIA EMAIL Re: Appeal of director’s decision 14PLN-00222 429 University Avenue Honorable Mayor Holman and fellow council members, As the architect, I am writing to you to respond to several of the points in the letter from Mr. Michael Harbor, the appellant, regarding the director’s approval of 429 University Avenue, a new, mixed-use retail, office, and residential building. Specifically, I want to respond to his concerns about “Size and Style”, “Safety, Traffic and Parking”, as well as “Loss of Retail”. I urge you to support the director’s approval of this project based on the unanimous recommendation from presiding ARB members. Size and Style Mission Revival, Modern, Spanish Colonial, Victorian, Queen Anne, Utilitarian, are surrounding architectural styles referenced by Mr. Harbor. I would add a few more like Art Deco, Bungalow, Mercantile and Neoclassic. It is this eclecticism that defines a community as accepting, innovative and progressive; a community that is Palo Alto. Palo Alto has never dictated style. In fact, the Downtown Urban Design Guidelines and SOFA II Guide had this precept in mind wherein they specifically encourage architects to “not mimic prevalent architectural styles”. The standard of measure is not style. The standard of measure is compatibility. This project is a high-quality, modern design that responds to the needs of our time, is differentiated by style, but is no less compatible than other neighboring buildings. Standards of compatibility are many. I want to evaluate two: urban compatibility and architectural compatibility. 1. Urban Compatibility Urban compatibility can be measured by evaluating how well a project fulfills the design goals of the community. University Avenue is the core of the central business district and a regional center. Buildings that are taller, that reinforce the street edge, that create ground floor shops and that create opportunities for mixed-use residential and commercial uses are encouraged. Another goal is to activate sidewalks and enhance the pedestrian experience by using recesses, landscaping, display windows, canopies and quality materials. This project celebrates these goals. The ground floor is defined by retail uses, large display windows offering many opportunities to see within, canopies, recesses at entries and quality cut stone materials. The pedestrian experience extends along University Avenue and all the way down Kipling to the alley. The building is bright with activity unlike the existing building’s solid walls and exposed rear parking. On the second floor, office space provides support for the third floor apartments. The apartments have generous terraces that will encourage “eyes on the street” and the desired pedestrian activity. The fourth floor has a mix of outdoor landscaped terraces, an office and another residential apartment. Though the building is four stories tall it steps back considerably to create the rooftop terraces and provide transition to the adjacent buildings on Kipling, a mixed-use neighborhood in the CD-C zoning district.                                                                                                                                                                                   2. Architectural Compatibility Architectural compatibility can be measured by considering scale, massing, quality of materials, block-face rhythms of existing buildings, pattern of roof lines, orientation and size of windows and doorways, shadow patterns created by building masses and the alignment of adjacent building elements like openings, cornices and roof lines. This project responds to these metrics. The design of the building’s Kipling façade reflects the smaller scale and rhythm of the existing development along Kipling, a fifty-foot wide public ROW. This is evidenced by the composition of the façade where it is divided into twenty-five foot sections consisting of the main building block and retail windows below, the retail entry and third floor terrace façade opening, the stair form and the office entry wrapping the corner at the alley with a landscape planter and seat wall. The twenty-foot public alley provides separation between the adjacent buildings and the project. The fourth floor of the building is set back ten feet from the alley property line and twelve feet from the Kipling property line resulting in a street façade that will appear as a three-story building. The stair form, a vertical accent, will incorporate the public art feature yet to be designed, is not unlike the vertical accents occurring in the facades of the existing homes along Kipling and serves to add interest and excitement to the Kipling façade. The University Avenue façade responds not only to the buildings immediately adjacent and west of the subject property but to the taller, higher density development of the University Avenue Commercial District. The University façade is two and three stories tall. The fourth floor is set back twenty-eight feet from the front of the building creating a terrace that will be activated by building occupants and landscaping. The terrace extends the length of the building as does the main three-story building block of the composition, giving definition to the street edge and presence to the building when seen in the context of the street. The main rectangular mass of the building is elevated so that the bottom aligns with the first floor openings of the adjacent buildings along University Avenue. Frameless glass fills this void creating display windows and entries that will activate the sidewalk thru visual and physical connections. The building steps down to two stories to transition to the existing adjacent buildings on University Avenue. Safety, Traffic and Parking Hexagon Transportation Consultants has prepared a detailed analysis of the traffic demands and safety recommendations for the project. Under all scenarios evaluated they concluded that the Kipling University and Kipling Lytton intersections will operate at a LOS of C or better. They also add that the “trip generation estimates are conservative in that they do not reflect potential reductions from the robust transit, bicycle and pedestrian access at the project location”. So the number of vehicle trips will likely be less than projected. They further note that vehicle queuing on Kipling to make a turn on University Avenue is adequate and would not exceed the 100 ft storage depth from University to Lane 30. They point out that the existing condition at University and Kipling could prevent westbound University traffic from turning right onto Kipling due to the narrow width. However, “This is an existing condition unrelated to the proposed project”. Their evaluation includes two mitigation measures from a safety viewpoint: 1. Provide mirrors at the garage exit to alert drivers to oncoming pedestrians and vehicles. 2. Provide mirrors at all levels within the garage at each turn to alert drivers. Loss of Retail The existing retail area is 8,504 sf when one removes the exterior recesses of 296 sf from the existing 100’ x 88’ retail structure. The proposed new retail area is 7,160 sf, a net reduction of 1,344 sf which is replaced by infrastructure requirements such as a 1,126 sf ramp to the 40 space parking garage below grade and a 775 sf of commercial                                                                                                                                                                                   common area (partly used by retail tenants) to provide stairs and elevator to access below grade parking, for emergency exits and for utilities. Because the building is pulled back four feet from the alley property line to address concerns over alley vehicle safety, and to provide the required sf of pedestrian overlay recesses along University Avenue and Kipling Street, additional area is lost. Although there is a net reduction, not a square foot was changed from retail to office use, rather it is the result of the necessary infrastructure. Moreover, the resulting retail space has a 75% increase in retail frontage as 75 feet of store frontage was added on the Kipling side where no store frontage exists now. Because of the abundance of windows, the new infrastructure, the increased floor-to-floor heights and the 75% increase in retail store frontage, the new building creates much more successful retail space, exposure and pedestrian experience. Palo Alto is recognized worldwide for its entrepreneurial environment, for its innovation, for its technology, for its position on environmental concerns and sustainability. Our architecture should be part of this forward thinking and not stuck in the past. Let’s write the book and lead the way to the future. Let’s innovate and inspire new ideas without forgetting the past but with our sights on the future. I ask you to support the director’s decision and your ARB’s recommendation and oppose this appeal. Sincerely, Ken Hayes, AIA President 446 17th Street #302 Oakland CA 94612 510.418.0285 mhulbert@earthlink.net June 18, 2014 - rev.September 22, 2014 425 UNIVERSITY AVENUE, PALO ALTO Historic Architectural Evaluation Introduction The property at 425 University Ave. houses a tall 1-1/2 story commercial building facing southeast towards University Ave. (figs.1-2). The structure fills the 25 foot wide and 110 feet deep lot. The rear faces and is accessed via a service alley crossing the block between Kipling and Waverley streets (fig.3). A set of original drawings for this commercial building are dated 1937.1 No other original records or documentation for this property have been located. The purpose of this report is to summarize the history of the subject property and to complete an evaluation to determine if the structure thereon has any potential historical or historic architectural significance based on pertinent evaluation criteria. This effort was undertaken in late-May to mid-June 2014, including a site visit, a research visit to the Special Collections at the Stanford University Libraries, and another research visit to the City of Palo Alto Development Center, all on June 12, 2014. Selected online research was also undertaken. This effort is also based, in part, on previous research and documentation by this author for the adjoining property at 429-447 University Avenue.2 Architectural Description A commercial building type, 425 University Ave. is a 1-1/2 story structure with one storefront facing the main street (University Ave.). Its storefront today consists of a central, framed, clipped-arch door opening with separate, framed clipped-arch window openings at each side. The window and door units are metal and glass. The bulk and remainder of the façade is orange-red facing brick, including the door and window piers and surrounds, and excepting a metal fascia that spans the top of the facade in the form of a flat, contemporary cornice (figs.2,4). No records have been located with which to directly identify the origin of the present façade. It appears to be from the 1970s. In several earlier images (from the Palo Alto Historical Association photographic collection), a portion of the building’s front can be seen c1940 (PAHA image #079-043, fig.5). At that time, the store was Kenyon’s Beauty Salon and Drugs. Its façade then did not appear as it does now. Then, it was a Moderne style façade with prominent Moderne sign lettering (including both a monumentally scaled K and an apostrophe) applied to an upper façade that appears to be plain white stucco. The façade is framed with narrow column-like elements in a dark color, possibly tile, at each side, though ending shy of the top, where the white wall surface spanned the upper wall and returned for a short section along each side. A framing band also spanned the mid- façade and from which a fabric awning projected. One other sign is visible – one projecting from the upper east face of wall and for “Kenyon’s Drugs.” Due to deep shadows, nothing below the awning is visible in early image. 1 From the Birge M. Clark Architectural Drawing Collection, Stanford University Libraries. 2 429-447 University Avenue, Palo Alto, Historic Architectural Evaluation. Preservation Architecture, December 27, 2012. 425 UNIVERSITY AVE., P.A. MHPA EVAL–061814-rev.092214–P2 The c1940 façade was then evidently new, the building having been designed in 1937. That original design, by the architects Birge M. Clark & David B. Clark, is documented in a set of 5 drawing sheets dated June 11, 1937 (revised June 15) and labeled “Store Building for Mrs. Mattie McDougall, 427 University Avenue, Palo Alto”.3 Those original plans did not indicate an occupant or include signage, and there is no evidence that the Clarks designed the Kenyon’s shop front or interior. The current building generally corresponds to the originally designed structure in its general plan and sectional layout, with the mezzanine floor at the upper rear half of the structure and with one enclosed parking space at the rear – though there are presently two garage spaces. The building was and is concrete construction, its roof low-slope with a number of skylights. Per original drawings, the front (southeast) façade as designed incorporated glass brick at the base, a central door, tile frames up each side, a shallow ornamental fascia/awning band, and a stucco upper façade (fig.6). None of those original design elements are present. The original rear walls (the building is some 25 feet deeper than both its neighbors so has three small rear elevations) exposed concrete, 2 stories in height, with punched openings with doors below and steel windows above (fig.7). Original concrete and openings at the rear walls are intact, though one new opening has been created for a second garage, and all doors and windows have been replaced (fig.8). Property History Per Sanborn maps, in the early-20th century the subject property was part of a parcel that housed a large, two-family residential structure. In the 1924 Sanborn, that structure is identified as 425-431 University Avenue. A note card in the files of the Palo Alto Historical Association (PAHA) references a residence – the “residence for Mrs. Frances Patterson” – at 431 University, and records the date of that house to an 1898 permit record. In 1925, a final listing for 431 University Avenue identifies the occupants as “Torrence & Robbins” and a “DeTuncy, Dr. G.P.” (1925 Palo Alto City Directory). As noted above, the subject commercial building is dated by an original 1937 set of drawings. It occupies approximately one-fifth of the earlier residential lot, leaving a separate property to the east (427-449 University) and west (423 University). City and phone directories were not searched in detail as part of this effort. Based on photographic evidence, the original and early occupant was Kenyon’s Beauty Shop & Drugs, who were still in this space in the 1950s. Per permit records, later occupants of the store were The Morris Plan Co. (1966-c1983), Remedy Temp. (1989-c1994), and Cambridge Sound Works (1995-?). The mezzanine office space was separately improved in 1989 and remains in use as office space independent of the commercial unit. Permit records held by the City of Palo Alto extend back no earlier than the 1960s, and most records are from the 1980s on. The earliest alteration record is a 1966 permit application to “Remodel int. as per plan” (no plans were located) as a “loan office” for the Morris Plan Co. The architect was San Francisco’s Wurster Bernardi & Emmons and the builder the Arthur Bros. No evidence was found of that 3 Original plans for this and adjacent buildings used different street numbers. In addition to 425 University, labeled 427 in original drawings, plans for the west adjoiner (#423) – also the work of architect Birge Clark – was originally labeled 423-425, and plans for its west adjoiner was labeled 429-433. 425 UNIVERSITY AVE., P.A. MHPA EVAL–061814-rev.092214–P3 design or whether any portion of it exists today. Since the work was identified as interior, it is assumed that the current façade does not date to then, nor does it appear to. The next subsequent permit-related record is a sketch elevation, dated 1/15/75, showing a range of signage on windows and doors, the layout which looks like the current one of a simple rectangular wall plane with three semi-arched openings, the central one a door, and signage above, yet no architectural materials are identified. A range of other subsequent permit applications are available (on database and microfiche at CPA Development Center), including: reroofing in 1981; additional tenant improvements (for Morris Plan Co.) in 1982; alteration of the mezzanine to office space (for Charles Holman Design) in 1989, which included the additional garage and replacement of rear doors and windows; tenant improvements and signage (for Remedy Temp) in 1990; additional tenant improvements and signage (for Cambridge Sound Works) in 1994 and 1995; and rooftop AC equipment (for Holman) in 1995. No permit was seen for the current tenant. In summary, the exterior of the building at 425 University Avenue has been extensively altered, including the complete loss of the original/early façade and storefront. Consequently, and based on empirical evidence, the original 1930s commercial building character is no longer in existence. Associated Persons Per the original drawings, the originator of the subject commercial building was Mrs. Mattie L. McDougall (c1885-1969). Based on permit records, her son, Kenneth R. McDougall (1904- 1982), retained ownership of the property until 1981, and one further permit-related record identifies a Greg McDougall as owner in 1989. So the McDougall family retained ownership at least into the 1990s (no deed searches were undertaken as part of this effort). In permit records during the 1990s, a Jan Christiansen of Los Gatos is listed as owner. Per census records, in 1940, Mattie and Kenneth McDougall resided at 1290 University Avenue in Palo Alto. No specific historical information about the McDougalls has been uncovered. It does not appear that the McDougalls are of any local historical interest or importance. Other identifiable persons associated with this property include a number of professionals engaged on tenant improvements: • John Bergeson I.B.D. (Morris Plan Co., 1982) • James N. Thorne, A.I.A., Architect (Remedy Temp, 1989) • Frank Rupert Bryant, Architect (Cambridge Sound Works, 1994) No other primary individuals or firms have been identified as having been directly associated with the subject property. Architects The original architects of the building at 425 University Ave. were Birge M. Clark (c1893-1989) and David B. Clark (c?-1944) of Palo Alto. Birge M. Clark and David B. Clark The Clark brothers presided over an influential and highly successful architectural practice in Palo Alto. Though brother and architect David shares attribution for many of their early works, including the subject commercial building and the many completed projects during the latter half 425 UNIVERSITY AVE., P.A. MHPA EVAL–061814-rev.092214–P4 of the 1930s, David passed away in 1944, so it is Birge whose reputation carried the practice forward as far as the 1970s and who carries it still. In the following, writer Peter Gauvin summarizes the professional life of Birge Clark [from www.paloaltoonline.com; dated Wednesday May 25, 1994): “Many of Palo Alto's most treasured architectural landmarks were designed by native son Birge Clark, a 1910 graduate of Palo Alto High School. In a prolific career spanning five decades, the architect designed more than 200 commercial and residential buildings in Palo Alto and on the Stanford campus. Clark was an exponent of Spanish Colonial Revival design, a distinctive style which he called "Early California." The son of Arthur B. Clark, Stanford professor of art and architecture and Mayfield's first mayor, Birge Clark assisted his father as "clerk of the works" for the Lou Henry Hoover house at Stanford. President Herbert Hoover gave the home to Stanford after his wife's death for use as the university president's residence. Between 1922 and 1930, Clark was the only architect with an office in Palo Alto. He designed a total of 98 Palo Alto residences, including all of the homes on Coleridge Avenue between Cowper and Webster streets, and 39 Stanford campus homes. Three homes of which he was proudest were the Dunker House at 420 Maple St., the Charles and Kathleen Norris House at 1247 Cowper St. and the Lucie Stern residence at 1990 Cowper. His close association with the charitable Mrs. Stern led him to design several buildings of the Community Center at 1305 Middlefield Road as well as the Children's Library nearby and the Sea Scout base at the harbor. Other well-known buildings by Clark include the former police-fire station at 450 Bryant St., now the Palo Alto Senior Center, and the Hamilton Avenue branch of the post office. He and his brother David also designed Palo Alto's first junior high school, David Starr Jordan Middle School, which opened in 1937.” While most of Clark’s work tend towards the traditional and colonial varieties, the work of their practice from the late 1930s on focused on the modern. In addition to their Streamlined Moderne buildings, many of their largest and most published projects were strikingly modern. Other associated architects include Wurster, Bernardi & Emmons, who in 1966 were engaged in interior alterations on the subject building. Wurster Bernardi & Emmons The following is a biographical summary of the Wurster Bernardi and Emmons partnership.4 William Wilson Wurster, born in California in 1895, earned his degree in architecture from the University of California, Berkeley, in 1919. After obtaining his license in 1922, he worked briefly in firms in Sacramento and New York, then opened the firm William W. Wurster in 1924. He gained national recognition early in his career with an award-winning design for the Gregory farmhouse (Scotts Valley, 1927), and became the most well-known modernist architect in the Bay Area. In 1944, Wurster formed a partnership with former employee Theodore Bernardi, and with the 4 Inventory of the William W. Wurster/Wurster, Bernardi & Emmons Collection, 1922-1974. Collection number: 1976- 2. Environmental Design Archives, University of California, Berkeley @http://www.oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/tf8k40079x/entire_text/ 425 UNIVERSITY AVE., P.A. MHPA EVAL–061814-rev.092214–P5 addition of Donn Emmons, also a former employee, in 1945, the firm became Wurster, Bernardi, and Emmons (WBE). Bernardi earned his architecture degree at University of California, Berkeley in 1924, and obtained his license in 1933 after completing post-graduate work. He joined Wurster's firm in 1934, and within a few years became one of two chief draftsmen. He spent two years in independent practice before accepting Wurster's offer of partnership. Between 1954 and 1971 he served as a lecturer in the Department of Architecture at U.C. Berkeley. Emmons joined Wurster's firm in 1938. Educated at Cornell University and the University of Southern California, Emmons spent four years in various architectural firms in Los Angeles before moving north to work with Wurster. He spent four years as a draftsman in Wurster's office before joining the Naval Reserves during World War II. Upon his release in 1945, he joined Wurster and Bernardi as a partner in the firm. Wurster returned to the Bay Area in 1950 to become Dean of Architecture at the University of California, Berkeley, a position he held until his retirement in 1963. In 1959 he brought the departments of architecture, landscape architecture, and city and regional planning together to become the College of Environmental Design. WBE incorporated in 1963 and continued to produce award-winning designs, receiving the American Institute of Architects' Architectural Firm Award in 1965. All three partners had been named Fellows of the AIA by this time, and Wurster was later honored with the AIA Gold Medal Award for lifetime achievement in 1969. After Wurster's death in 1973, the two younger partners continued running the firm until the mid- 1980s. As of 1999, WBE continues to exist without the original partners. Historic Context The subject property’s historic context is that of the commercial development of the City of Palo Alto, and specifically of the City’s downtown, which is centered at University Avenue and Alma Street, where it originated in the mid-1890s, coincident to the City’s incorporation in 1894 and directly adjacent to the Southern Pacific Railroad’s train stop. At that time, based on turn-of-the-20th century Sanborn Maps, it was a very small downtown, emanating from the Alma and University Avenue circle to the northeast for just a couple of blocks before giving way to residential uses. That linear, eastward pattern of commercial development continued throughout the 1900s. By the mid-1920s, University Avenue commercial development extended to the corner of Waverley, which defines the western boundary of the subject block. In 1927, the directly adjoining structures on the subject block were constructed. With the Great Depression, little development likely occurred in the early 1930s. Then, in 1937, the subject building at 425 University was built. By 1950, commercial development along University Avenue reached as far east as Cowper. In the mid-to-late 20th century, the downtown expanded further east to Middlefield Road, some 12 blocks from its origins at the Alma and University circle. Buildings in the downtown range from the early-20th century to the present, with a concomitant range of architectural forms, styles and materials. The downtown is predominately yet not strictly low – i.e., single to 1-1/2 stories. The subject building is representative of many throughout the downtown that have been altered beyond recognition of their original and early designs. Earlier structures on many other University Avenue parcels have been replaced with new buildings, which is a pattern that has episodically continued since the mid-1900s. At this juncture, surviving older structures are few relative to the overall downtown and are therefore scattered throughout the downtown. In this downtown commercial setting, there is no identified historical or cultural district, and no 425 UNIVERSITY AVE., P.A. MHPA EVAL–061814-rev.092214–P6 apparent collection of resources, thematically or architecturally, that may constitute an identifiable, future historic district or area. Evaluation The property and structure at 425 University Ave. have not previously been evaluated for historic resource eligibility. In order to address the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) specific to historic resources, the current effort has been requested and is intended to provide such historic resource evaluation. California Register of Historical Resources: The following evaluates the subject resource using the California Register (CR) criteria, listing each criterion followed by a statement based on the details reported herein. To be eligible for listing on the CR, a resource must be historically significant at the local, state, or national level, under one or more of the following four criteria: 1. It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States; There are no identified events of importance to local, regional or state history associated with 425 University Avenue. In the early-mid 20th century, this property was part and parcel with general commercial development patterns in downtown Palo Alto. As 425 University Avenue has no associations to events that have contributed to local, regional or state history, the property does not meet CR Criterion 1. 2. It is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history; No persons of importance to local, regional, state or national history have been identified as having been associated with this commercial property and its building. The identified original and longtime owners (McDougall) are not identifiable persons of historic importance, and no early or subsequent occupants are of identifiable interest or importance. Consequently, the property and structure at 425 University Ave. have no potential historical significance based on any association to persons of potentially historic importance, so the resource does not meet CR criterion 2. 3. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method or construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values; The extant building at 425 University Ave. was constructed c1937. It had a façade and storefront in the Moderne architectural style. It was a commercial design generally typical of its period, yet the subject building was of a spare and less distinctive design than others on this and adjacent downtown blocks, a range of which yet survive, including the adjacent structures to the west. The original architects of the subject building, Birge M. and David B. Clark, are recognized as local masters. In particular, the architect Birge M. Clark was locally important in his time, and remains so in our time. Another architectural firm – Wurster, Bernardi and Emmons – was engaged in the interior design for a new commercial tenant in 1966. While that firm and its individual architects – William Wurster in particular – are noteworthy, there is no specific evidence of who was 425 UNIVERSITY AVE., P.A. MHPA EVAL–061814-rev.092214–P7 associated with this project, and the project itself is understood to have been a tenant improvement. While the original building was the work of master architects Birge M. Clark and David B. Clark, the character that the original building façade and storefront lent this structure has been entirely lost. The current façade cannot be accurately dated but is relatively recent and not potentially before c1970. The current façade is a bland and stoic contemporary design without stylistic interest or importance. Therefore, the commercial structure at 425 University Avenue has no potential historic architectural significance. Though the structure does not embody distinctive stylistic or architectural characteristics or methodologies, or possess artistic value, because its original design was the work of master architects, on that singular basis 425 University Avenue meets CR Criterion 3. However, it is not eligible for inclusion on the CR because its integrity has been compromised as described under Summary below. 4. It has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation. 425 University Avenue has not yielded and does not appear to have the potential to yield any important historic information. Therefore, the property does not meet CR Criterion 4. CR Evaluation Summary Per the above evaluation record, 425 University Avenue meets CR criterion 3, in part, as its original design was the work of master architects Birge M. Clark and David B. Clark. Consequently, since the resource meets at least one criterion, then it may be eligible for inclusion on the CR. However, to be eligible for the CR, a resource must meet at least one eligibility criterion and its integrity must be intact and directly relative to its identified basis of significance. In this case, integrity must be demonstrable relative to the property’s original architectural design, as that design would represent the original architects in the present. Per CR evaluation criteria, the following addresses each of seven aspects of integrity (from NR Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation; Section VIII, How to Evaluate the Integrity of a Property). Location: The subject structure remains in its original and early location, so its integrity of location is intact. Setting: The commercial setting of the subject structure from the period of the development of the subject resource is largely intact. Thus, the structure’s integrity of setting is largely intact. Association: There are no specific associations of importance relative to the subject property. However, it has and retains general associations to patterns of commercial development in downtown Palo Alto. Therefore, its general integrity of association is intact. Feeling: The feeling of this property has changed from what it would have felt like at the time of its potential significance. To the extent that, even knowing its original Moderne design character, it is not possible to recognize or conjure that original and early character. Consequently, the integrity of feeling has been lost. Design: The original and early architectural design character is no longer present in the extant structure, as its principal architectural design has been entirely removed. Therefore, the integrity of design is lost. 425 UNIVERSITY AVE., P.A. MHPA EVAL–061814-rev.092214–P8 Materials: As with the design, while its basic structural materials remain, the architectural features and materials of the original building have been lost. Consequently, the structure’s material integrity has been substantially lost. Workmanship: As is the case with its design and materials, examples of original and early workmanship are no longer in evidence. Thus, the integrity of workmanship has also been lost. Conclusion: This analysis of integrity illustrates that the extant structure and property have lost four of the seven aspects of integrity – those of feeling, design, materials and workmanship – the latter of which are the three most important given that the basis of significance is about the original architects and their architectural design. As also documented above, while three aspects of integrity are intact, that of location, setting and association, these are the least important relative to the building’s original architects and their design. The fact is that the most salient aspects of integrity relative to the resource’s potential basis for significance have been lost, and the three least important aspects of integrity are an inadequate basis for a finding of integrity relative to its potential significance as a representation of the work of masterful architects. Therefore, the structure at 425 University Avenue has conclusively lost its integrity and, with it, the ability of the structure to convey its potential significance in the present and its potential for inclusion on the CR. City of Palo Alto (CPA): The following additionally evaluates the subject structure based on the City of Palo Alto’s criteria for designation of historic structures/sites or districts to the City of Palo Alto’s historic inventory (from PAMC Section 16.49.040[b]), again citing each criterion with a statement based on the details reported herein and followed by an evaluation summary. (1) The structure or site is identified with the lives of historic people or with important events in the city, state or nation; No persons of importance to local, regional, state or national history have been identified as having been associated with this commercial property and its building. The identified original and longtime owners (McDougall) are not identifiable persons of historic importance, and no early or subsequent occupants are of identifiable interest or importance. Consequently, the property and structure at 425 University Ave. have no potential historical significance based on any association to persons of potentially historic importance, so the resource does not meet CPA criterion 1. (2) The structure or site is particularly representative of an architectural style or way of life important to the city, state or nation; As summarized above (under CR criterion 3), the character that the original building façade and storefront lent this structure have been entirely lost. The current façade cannot be accurately dated but is relatively recent and not potentially before c1970. The current façade is a bland and stoic contemporary design without stylistic interest or importance. Additionally, the commercial use and character of the property and its structure are not representative of any important way of life. Therefore, the property and building at 425 University Ave. do not meet CPA criterion 2. (3) The structure or site is an example of a type of building which was once common, but is now 425 UNIVERSITY AVE., P.A. MHPA EVAL–061814-rev.092214–P9 rare; The commercial site and its structure are common, so the property and building at 425 University Ave. do not meet CPA criterion 3. (4) The structure or site is connected with a business or use which was once common, but is now rare; Again, the commercial uses of the subject site and its structure are common, so the property and building at 425 University Ave. do not meet CPA criterion 4. (5) The architect or builder was important; The original architects of the subject building, Birge M. and David B. Clark, are recognized as local masters. In particular, the architect Birge M. Clark was locally important in his time, and remains so in our time. Thus, its original design was the work of master architects, so on that basis 425 University Avenue meets CPA Criterion 5. (6) The structure or site contains elements demonstrating outstanding attention to architectural design, detail, materials or craftsmanship. As summarized, the current building exterior is a bland and unadorned contemporary design without stylistic interest or importance. As the structure does not embody distinctive stylistic or architectural characteristics or methodologies, 425 University does not meet CPA criterion 6. Summary of Findings As detailed above, with respect to the structure located at 425 University Avenue in Palo Alto, while there is a potential and partial basis for a finding of significance under the CR, its unequivocal loss of integrity relative to its area of potential significance renders the existing structure ineligible for listing on the CR. Additionally, the property and structure are not located in or near an identified historic district, and the making of any such district does not appear to have any even distant potential. Moreover, while the subject structure meets a single CPA criterion, as summarized, its original architectural design has been entirely lost, and its present character is without stylistic interest or importance. Consequently, 425 University Avenue is neither meritorious of the work of the architects Birge M. and David B. Clark, nor is it a good example of any architectural style and therefore it is unworthy of designation as a historic structure under the City of Palo Alto’s historic inventory (from PAMC Section 16.49.040[b]). Signed: Mark Hulbert Preservation Architect 425 UNIVERSITY AVE., P.A. MHPA EVAL–061814-rev.092214–P10 Fig.1 – 425 University Avenue – Aerial View showing location (north at upper right corner) Fig.2 – 425 University Avenue – Front View Detail of front façade 425 University University Ave. Ki p l i n g A v e . Wa v e r l y A v e . 425 UNIVERSITY AVE., P.A. MHPA EVAL–061814-rev.092214–P11 Fig.3 – 425 University Avenue – Detail of storefront Fig.4 – 425 University Avenue – Rear View (from east) Fig.5 – 425 University Avenue – Rear View (from west) 425 UNIVERSITY AVE., P.A. MHPA EVAL–061814-rev.092214–P12 Fig.6 – 425 University Avenue – c1940 – at left (courtesy Palo Alto Historical Association) 425 UNIVERSITY AVE., P.A. MHPA EVAL–061814-rev.092214–P13 Fig.7 – 425 University Avenue – Original front elevation drawing Fig.8 – 425 University Avenue – Original rear elevation drawing 446 17th Street #302 Oakland CA 94612 510.418.0285 mhulbert@earthlink.net December 27, 2012 – rev.September 22, 2014 429-447 UNIVERSITY AVENUE, PALO ALTO Historic Architectural Evaluation Introduction The property at 429-447 University Ave. houses a corner building of four (nos. 429, 435, 441, 447) contiguous, 1-1/2 story commercial shops, each facing southeast towards University Ave., including the corner shop, no. 447, the side wall of which faces northeast towards Kipling Street (fig.1). The structure fills the 75 foot wide lot and extends 87.5 feet into its 110 foot depth. The remaining depth is a perpendicular parking strip that spans the rear of the lot, and which is accessed via a service alley crossing the block between Kipling and Waverley streets. A small, attached structure stands above the parking area behind the shop at no. 435 (fig.3). No original records have been located for this commercial building. The City of Palo Alto’s property database lists the year built as 1927. The property has not been identified as a potential historic resource by the City or by the State (no listing on State Historic Resources Inventory). It is not included in an historic district. The purpose of this report is to summarize the history of the subject property and to complete an evaluation to determine if the structure thereon has any potential historical or historic architectural significance based on pertinent evaluation criteria. This effort was undertaken in late-2012, including a site visit, a research visit to the Palo Alto Historical Association (for historical photos and documentation) and the Palo Alto Main Library (for city directories), and a permit research visit to the City of Palo Alto Development Center, all on Dec. 20, 2012. Selected online research was also undertaken at that time. Subsequently, in the process of researching and documenting the adjacent commercial building at 425 University Ave., additional information about directly adjoining buildings was collected.1 Architectural Description As a commercial building type, this is a low structure in one part with four enframed storefronts facing the main street (University Ave.). Its storefronts extend high up the otherwise relatively low front wall. Thus, the wall area is minimal, with a narrow, solid band, perhaps five feet tall, spanning the structure, and with narrow piers at each corner as well as separating the storefronts. A storefront window returns along the front-fifth of the corner-side wall, which is otherwise essentially solid, though there are a trio of small windows spaced along that wall. Most wall surfaces, flat and moulded areas alike, are uniformly finished in what appears to be an evenly stippled stucco (cement plaster, or similar). The lintel – the planar, vertical wall segment spanning directly above the storefront openings – is flat, as are the narrow piers. The base of each pier is clad to about a thirty-inch height with stone tiles. Atop each pier is a moulded plaster capital in the form of a simplified and large flora. Each of the storefronts, the 1 Original architectural documents for three of the adjoining buildings on the subject block were located in the Birge M. Clark Architectural Drawings Collection of the Stanford University Libraries. Therein are a set of 1926 plans for a building identified as 429-433 University Ave., and another set of 1937 plans for a building identified as 427 University Ave. Neither set of plans were for the subject building – the latter set is of the extant building at 425 University, the former set is of the extant building at 415-419 University Ave., and a third set is of the extant building at 423 University Ave. 429-447 UNIVERSITY AVE., P.A. MHPA EVAL–122712-rev.092214–P2 tops of which align, is terminated with a row of widely-spaced dentils. In the lintel above no. 447, a pair of cast medallions is recessed into the face of wall on each side of a contemporary sign. Spanning the lintel is a continuous, concatenated frieze consisting of roughly-square recessed panels separated by miniature pilasters, and with a moulded round plaque set in each panel. Altogether, there are some forty-eight panels and plaques across the front. Above the frieze, the wall is capped by a moulded projecting cornice. These top-of-wall features also extend the length of the side-street wall, though with a simple frieze band along the side. One further feature at the front is that the wall segment corresponding to the corner store (no.447) stands slightly proud, with a shallowly returning west edge. This same shallow projection occurs at the corner-side wall, where the store window bay is slightly proud with a return. The existing storefront windows and doors vary in their wall, window and door patterns and materials, as well as signage. No storefronts appear to have any original elements. No original or early mezzanine level windows are present. The oldest storefront looks to be no. 441, which may date to the 1960s. Several early images (from the Palo Alto Historical Association photographic collection) show a portion of the building’s front, essentially in the background, as the images are of parading Palo Altans c1940 (PAHA image #079-043, fig.5). Nonetheless, the architectural characteristics of the street wall and storefronts are discernible. Variations between the existing building and early building fronts are clearly apparent. In the early building front, several rows of what appear to be red clay, mission-type roof tiles overhang the cornice, giving the top of wall a serrated edge. The vertical piers aren’t flush to the upper wall, but are inset, and with a cap moulding that appears partially dentiled with hanging tassels or glyphs. These caps are integrated into the rows of dentils that span across the storefront openings. Directly above each storefront, the wall – the lintel – is kerfed along the bottom edge. A floral ornament sits above each capital, yet is clearly a part of the upper wall and separate from the top of pier. Storefronts aren’t visible, as they are hidden by canvas awnings individual to each shop, and the corner shop is not visible. Above, the mezzanine windows match and are of a form of decorative leaded glass or grillwork. By comparison, and based on direct observation, in the current building: • The storefronts are all changed in their entirety, including the corner and separating piers and their edge ornamentation • The wall is flat and the piers are flush, with contemporary stone tile bases • The original floral emblems that comprise capitals are not original. • The decorative tile roof edge is absent. In this ensemble of elements, the only features of the existing façade that may possibly correspond to the early façade are pieces of the ornamental frieze, the two wall medallions at no. 447 and, perhaps, some dentils. Prior to initiating research about this property, this writer made a visit to the site and its structure. Immediate observations were that there are no old materials on this façade. The surfaces are too smooth and uniform, unmarred, uncracked and undented to be aged material. Exterior cornices and ornamentation that are greater than fifty years of age (these would be eighty-five years of age if original) show evidence of age. The exterior surfaces and ornamentation on this façade show little evidence of age. They are smooth, uniform and seemingly synthetic. Permit records held by the City of Palo Alto extend back no earlier than the 1960s, and most 429-447 UNIVERSITY AVE., P.A. MHPA EVAL–122712-rev.092214–P3 records are from the 1980s on. Evidence for several earlier alterations are included in an assessment record covering the 1950s to the early 1960s (attached, from the CPA permit records database). Therein, the rear structure above parking at shop no. 435 is identified as a 1952 alteration. And two interior alterations, dated to 1951 and 1963, are also noted. During that time, the owner was first listed as Josiah H. Kirk, then as Angeline B. Kirk. A plan diagram shows the rear structure and that the building housed three shops, Cafeteria, Timm’s Radio, and Firestone, with the latter tenant occupying shop nos. 441 and 447. The earliest permit record, from 1963, included schematic elevations of the front façade generally showing new brick piers and infill (possibly the same brickwork that selectively remains at nos. 441 and 447), horizontal blade-like canopies, a boxed cornice, and a façade that is without ornamental features, along with a note to “furr and stucco” the upper wall. Various permit applications and drawings (though limited in number as well as in content) from then through 1991 continue to depict a building without the stylistic character of the original. In the fall of 1995, a permit application identifying the subject structure as The Craig Building (Leonard Craig, owner) proposed “uncovering the building front” and “cosmetic face lift.” A letter with this application called to “restore the building front from above the canopy to the top of the parapet wall…,” as well as to “build back and improve the columns and capitals…”. A subsequent staff report under this application to the City’s Architectural Review Board (Nov. 2, 1995, 95-ARB-190) stated that “the existing flat upper building wall will be articulated through the use of a new crown [cornice], decorative band [frieze], exposed lintel, and details. Many of these elements are repeated from those currently found on the façade of the Reprint Mint space (447)… The existing brick-faced columns [piers] will be resurfaced in stucco and decorated with capitals and a sandstone base. Also, new pilasters are to be added to the Kipling Street elevation.” This 1996 record confirms that the original building had in fact been previously altered to the extent that very little original material remained. Under this same application, a letter from the architect (Binkley Design Group to CPA, Dec. 6, 1995) stated that further exploration had confirmed that the medallions showing above the Reprint Mint store… do not appear to repeat along the balance of the upper wall.” This letter also confirms the study and modification of the design for the new pilaster [pier] capitals. While the term “restoration” is repeated in these documents, there is minimal evidence of bona- fide restoration of this façade. Based on these records and personal observations, there is the possibility that one element may remain from the early or original façade – a pair of medallions in the face of lintel above shop no. 447. There is also the possibility that the portion of the frieze above that shop may be also early or original. However, it is not possible to tell if either element is original based on personal observation and documentation, and physical conditions suggest that these may not be older elements (or that they have been overcoated). In any event, even if some of the original frieze remains, the facts are that all that possibly remains of an original or early façade are minor decorative elements. Moreover, many elements that were replaced are new features that do not match the original. In summary, the exterior of the building at 429-447 University Avenue has been extensively altered, first sometime in the mid-20th century and again in the mid-1990s. The original storefronts that constitute the bulk of this building exterior are entirely lost. Its decorative roof edge has been lost, its cornice apparently replaced, the frieze reconstructed, and the other 429-447 UNIVERSITY AVE., P.A. MHPA EVAL–122712-rev.092214–P4 ornamental features replaced with conjectural elements, all excepting an indeterminate number of pieces of the frieze and the medallions at no. 447. Consequently, the original building façade is no longer in existence, and the architectural building form has lost its characteristic design and material integrity. Property History Evidence for the history of this commercial property is limited. No original or early permit or drawing documentation has been found. Per Sanborn maps, in the early-20th century the existing property was part of a parcel that housed a large, two-family residential structure. In the 1924 Sanborn, that structure is identified as 425-431 University Avenue. A note card in the files of the Palo Alto Historical Association (PAHA) references a residence – the “residence for Mrs. Frances Patterson” – at 431 University, and records the date of that house to an 1898 permit record. In 1925, a final listing for 431 University Avenue identifies the occupants as “Torrence & Robbins” and a “DeTuncy, Dr. G.P.” (1925 Palo Alto City Directory). As noted above, the subject commercial building is dated by an assessor’s record to 1927. It occupies about two-thirds of the earlier residential lot, leaving a separate swath of property to the west and north. (The former was thereafter developed into the current store building at 425 University, and the latter was then developed into the rear service alley.) This commercial building and its recently urbanized setting were first depicted in the 1949 Sanborn Map (fig.4). Though 1927 is given as the date built, the city directory does not include any listing for the span of addresses 427-449 until 1930. That first listings are for the California State Automobile Association at no. 429, and Piggly Wiggly gro[cery] at no. 447. Early information about the conversion of the property from residential to commercial is limited to several news clippings (PAHA, file folder for Piggly Wiggly/Safeway). The earliest though unfortunately undated article states that “Piggly Wiggly will operate two stores in Palo Alto as soon as the new building at Kipling street and University avenue is completed, which will be early in June.” (“Piggly Wiggly Will Operate 2 Store Here,” PA Times, no date – see fig.6) A second clipping from 1934 reports the sale “of the relatively new, reinforced concrete business block at the southwest corner of University avenue and Kipling street to an Oakland investor…” (“Avenue Site Here Bought for $65,000,” Palo Alto Times, Jul. 25, 1934, fig.6). This report identifies the new owners as Mr. and Mrs. M.B. Skaggs of Oakland, and the former owners as Mr. and Mrs. A. Williams of Palo Alto. This article also mentions that Piggly Wiggly has secured a five-year lease on the vacant store adjacent (no. 441). With respect to original and early ownership, these are the extent of records and information located to date. (No search of deeds has been undertaken as part of this work.) In conclusion, the original owners and developers may have been Mr. and Mrs. A. Williams. The original and primary tenant was the grocery merchants Piggly Wiggly, whose name remained until 1934-1935 when they became Safeway Stores. Safeway remained at this location into the 1940s. The other shops have been occupied by a wide variety of commercial offices and stores. Historic Context The subject property’s historic context is that of the commercial development of the City of Palo Alto, and specifically of the City’s downtown, which is centered at University Avenue and Alma 429-447 UNIVERSITY AVE., P.A. MHPA EVAL–122712-rev.092214–P5 Street, where it originated in the mid-1890s, coincident to the City’s incorporation in 1894 and directly adjacent to the Southern Pacific Railroad’s train stop. At that time, based on turn-of-the-20th century Sanborn Maps, it was a very small downtown, emanating from the Alma and University Avenue circle to the northeast for just a couple of blocks before giving way to residential uses. That linear, eastward pattern of commercial development continued throughout the 1900s. By the mid-1920s, University Avenue commercial development extended to the corner of Waverley, which defines the western boundary of the subject block. In 1927, along with several other structures on its block, the subject building at 429-447 University was built. By 1950, commercial development along University Avenue reached as far east as Cowper. In the mid-to-late 20th century, the downtown expanded further east to Middlefield Road, some 12 blocks from its origins at the Alma and University circle. Buildings in the downtown range from the early-20th century to the present, with a concomitant range of architectural forms, styles and materials. The downtown is predominately yet not strictly low – i.e., single to 1-1/2 stories. The subject building is representative of many throughout the downtown that have been altered beyond recognition of their original and early designs. Earlier structures on many other University Avenue parcels have been replaced with new buildings, which is a pattern that has episodically continued since the mid-1900s. At this juncture, surviving older structures are few relative to the overall downtown and are therefore scattered throughout the downtown. In this downtown commercial setting, there is no identified historical or cultural district, and no apparent collection of resources, thematically or architecturally, that may constitute an identifiable, future historic district or area. Evaluation The property and structure at 429-447 University Ave. have not previously been evaluated for historic resource eligibility. In order to address the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) specific to historic resources, the current effort has been requested and is intended to provide such historic resource evaluation. California Register of Historical Resources: The following evaluates the subject resource using the California Register (CR) criteria, listing each criterion followed by a statement based on the details reported herein. To be eligible for listing on the CR, a resource must be historically significant at the local, state, or national level, under one or more of the following four criteria: 1. It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States; There are no identified events of importance to local, regional or state history associated with 429-447 University Avenue. In the early 20th century, this property was part and parcel with general commercial development patterns in downtown Palo Alto, and specifically with the expansion of the downtown southeastward. Thus, 429-447 University Avenue has no associations to events that have contributed to local, regional or state history, so the property does not meet CR Criterion 1. 2. It is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history; No persons of importance to local, regional, state or national history have been identified to have been associated with this commercial property and its building. The identified original 429-447 UNIVERSITY AVE., P.A. MHPA EVAL–122712-rev.092214–P6 and early owners (Williams, Skaggs, Kirk) are not identifiable persons of historic importance. Consequently, the property and structure at 429-447 University Ave. have no potential historical significance based on any association to persons of potentially historic importance. 3. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method or construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values; The extant building at 429-447 University Ave. was constructed c1927. Based on early images, it had a façade with composite ornamentation – including Mediterranean/Colonial style features (cast ornamentation and roof edge) plus some apparently Art Moderne elements (upper storefront windows). It was a commercial design generally typical of its period, as can be evidenced by neighboring structures seen in early photos, whereby each of their façade designs were somewhat unique in order to attract individual attention, yet where the block front had a measure of unity. The subject building was less distinctive than others on this and adjacent downtown blocks, a range of which yet survive. Moreover, the original building façade has been substantially lost. The current façade can be dated to 1996. While the existing upper façade is generally representative of the original design, the original was largely removed and altered in the mid-20th century. Important features of the original/early design are no longer extant, in particular the shop fronts, which make up a large portion of the façade yet have been entirely removed, along with the original capitals/piers as well as the decorative tile roof edge. And other decorative elements have been conjecturally added. While there may be several original ornamental elements at the existing façade, the extent is difficult to ascertain. Such extent of retention does not constitute an original or historic façade. Without its original façade, the remaining building structure/shell does not constitute a work of distinctive architecture. Even were the entire upper wall intact, it would be inappropriate to conclude such as a meaningfully sufficient extent of retention of distinctive characteristics. Plus, there is no detailed evidence of what did exist originally. Therefore, the commercial structure at 429-447 University Avenue has no potential historic architectural significance. Moreover, no architect, engineer, designer or builder of the original building has been identified. As the structure does not embody distinctive stylistic or architectural characteristics or methodologies, or represent the work of a master, or possess artistic value; then 429- 447 University Avenue does not meet CR Criterion 3. 4. It has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation. 429-447 University Avenue has not yielded and does not appear to have the potential to yield any important historic information. Therefore, the property does not meet CR Criterion 4. CR Evaluation Summary: Per the above evaluation record and findings, the commercial property and building at 429-447 University Avenue does not meet any CR criterion and, therefore, is not eligible for inclusion on the CR. Further, inclusion on the CR requires that a given property must meet at least one CR criterion and retain its historical integrity. However, as 429-447 University Ave. does not meet any CR criterion and is therefore not CR eligible, an analysis of the building’s integrity is not required. 429-447 UNIVERSITY AVE., P.A. MHPA EVAL–122712-rev.092214–P7 City of Palo Alto (CPA): The following additionally evaluates the subject structure based on the City of Palo Alto’s criteria for designation of historic structures/sites or districts to the City of Palo Alto’s historic inventory (from PAMC Section 16.49.040[b]), again citing each criterion with a statement based on the details reported herein and followed by an evaluation summary. (1) The structure or site is identified with the lives of historic people or with important events in the city, state or nation; No persons of importance to local, regional, state or national history have been identified as having been associated with this commercial property and its building. Consequently, the property and structure at 429-447 University Ave. has no potential historical significance based on any association to persons of potentially historic importance, so the resource does not meet CPA criterion 1. (2) The structure or site is particularly representative of an architectural style or way of life important to the city, state or nation; As summarized above (under CR criterion 3), the character that the original building façade and storefront lent this structure has been substantially altered and lost. The current façade can be dated to 1996. While the existing upper façade is generally representative of the original design, the original was largely removed and altered in the mid-20th century. Important features of the original/early design are no longer extant. Additionally, the commercial use and character of the property and its structure are not representative of any important way of life. Therefore, the property and building at 429-447 University Ave. does not meet CPA criterion 2. (3) The structure or site is an example of a type of building which was once common, but is now rare; The commercial site and its structure are common, so the property and building at 429-447 University Ave. does not meet CPA criterion 3. (4) The structure or site is connected with a business or use which was once common, but is now rare; Again, the commercial uses of the subject site and its structure are common, so the property and building at 429-447 University Ave. does not meet CPA criterion 4. (5) The architect or builder was important; No original architect, engineer, designer or builder of the original building has been identified. Thus, the property has no identifiable association to an important architect or builder. (6) The structure or site contains elements demonstrating outstanding attention to architectural design, detail, materials or craftsmanship. As summarized, the current facades date to 1996, and are a contemporary design with minor stylistic interest. As the structure does not embody distinctive stylistic or architectural 429-447 UNIVERSITY AVE., P.A. MHPA EVAL–122712-rev.092214–P8 characteristics or methodologies, 429-447 University does not meet CPA criterion 6. Summary of Findings As detailed above, the structure located at 429-447 University Avenue in Palo Alto is ineligible for listing on the CR. Additionally, the property and structure are not located in or near an identified historic district, and the making of any such district does not appear to have any even distant potential. Moreover, as summarized, its original architectural design has been lost, and its present character is without historic architectural interest or importance. Consequently, 429-447 University Ave. is unworthy of designation as a historic structure under the City of Palo Alto’s historic inventory (from PAMC Section 16.49.040[b]). Signed: Mark Hulbert Preservation Architect Fig.1 – 429-447 University Avenue – View of front and side 429-447 UNIVERSITY AVE., P.A. MHPA EVAL–122712-rev.092214–P9 Fig.2 – 429-447 University Avenue – Detail of front façade Fig.3 – 429-447 University Avenue - Rear 429-447 UNIVERSITY AVE., P.A. MHPA EVAL–122712-rev.092214–P10 Fig.4 – 429-447 University Avenue, 1945 Sanborn Map 429-447 University 429-447 UNIVERSITY AVE., P.A. MHPA EVAL–122712-rev.092214–P11 Fig.5 – 429-447 University Avenue – c1940 (Palo Alto Historical Association) 429-447 UNIVERSITY AVE., P.A. MHPA EVAL–122712-rev.092214–P12 Fig.6 – 429-447 University Avenue – Newspaper clippings (Palo Alto Historical Association)                                                                                                                                                                                   March 23, 2015 City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue, 7th floor Palo Alto, CA 94301 SENT VIA EMAIL Re: Appeal of director’s decision 14PLN-00222 429 University Avenue Honorable Mayor Holman and fellow council members, As the architect, I am writing to you to respond to several of the points in the letter from Mr. Michael Harbor, the appellant, regarding the director’s approval of 429 University Avenue, a new, mixed-use retail, office, and residential building. Specifically, I want to respond to his concerns about “Size and Style”, “Safety, Traffic and Parking”, as well as “Loss of Retail”. I urge you to support the director’s approval of this project based on the unanimous recommendation from presiding ARB members. Size and Style Mission Revival, Modern, Spanish Colonial, Victorian, Queen Anne, Utilitarian, are surrounding architectural styles referenced by Mr. Harbor. I would add a few more like Art Deco, Bungalow, Mercantile and Neoclassic. It is this eclecticism that defines a community as accepting, innovative and progressive; a community that is Palo Alto. Palo Alto has never dictated style. In fact, the Downtown Urban Design Guidelines and SOFA II Guide had this precept in mind wherein they specifically encourage architects to “not mimic prevalent architectural styles”. The standard of measure is not style. The standard of measure is compatibility. This project is a high-quality, modern design that responds to the needs of our time, is differentiated by style, but is no less compatible than other neighboring buildings. Standards of compatibility are many. I want to evaluate two: urban compatibility and architectural compatibility. 1. Urban Compatibility Urban compatibility can be measured by evaluating how well a project fulfills the design goals of the community. University Avenue is the core of the central business district and a regional center. Buildings that are taller, that reinforce the street edge, that create ground floor shops and that create opportunities for mixed-use residential and commercial uses are encouraged. Another goal is to activate sidewalks and enhance the pedestrian experience by using recesses, landscaping, display windows, canopies and quality materials. This project celebrates these goals. The ground floor is defined by retail uses, large display windows offering many opportunities to see within, canopies, recesses at entries and quality cut stone materials. The pedestrian experience extends along University Avenue and all the way down Kipling to the alley. The building is bright with activity unlike the existing building’s solid walls and exposed rear parking. On the second floor, office space provides support for the third floor apartments. The apartments have generous terraces that will encourage “eyes on the street” and the desired pedestrian activity. The fourth floor has a mix of outdoor landscaped terraces, an office and another residential apartment. Though the building is four stories tall it steps back considerably to create the rooftop terraces and provide transition to the adjacent buildings on Kipling, a mixed-use neighborhood in the CD-C zoning district.                                                                                                                                                                                   2. Architectural Compatibility Architectural compatibility can be measured by considering scale, massing, quality of materials, block-face rhythms of existing buildings, pattern of roof lines, orientation and size of windows and doorways, shadow patterns created by building masses and the alignment of adjacent building elements like openings, cornices and roof lines. This project responds to these metrics. The design of the building’s Kipling façade reflects the smaller scale and rhythm of the existing development along Kipling, a fifty-foot wide public ROW. This is evidenced by the composition of the façade where it is divided into twenty-five foot sections consisting of the main building block and retail windows below, the retail entry and third floor terrace façade opening, the stair form and the office entry wrapping the corner at the alley with a landscape planter and seat wall. The twenty-foot public alley provides separation between the adjacent buildings and the project. The fourth floor of the building is set back ten feet from the alley property line and twelve feet from the Kipling property line resulting in a street façade that will appear as a three-story building. The stair form, a vertical accent, will incorporate the public art feature yet to be designed, is not unlike the vertical accents occurring in the facades of the existing homes along Kipling and serves to add interest and excitement to the Kipling façade. The University Avenue façade responds not only to the buildings immediately adjacent and west of the subject property but to the taller, higher density development of the University Avenue Commercial District. The University façade is two and three stories tall. The fourth floor is set back twenty-eight feet from the front of the building creating a terrace that will be activated by building occupants and landscaping. The terrace extends the length of the building as does the main three-story building block of the composition, giving definition to the street edge and presence to the building when seen in the context of the street. The main rectangular mass of the building is elevated so that the bottom aligns with the first floor openings of the adjacent buildings along University Avenue. Frameless glass fills this void creating display windows and entries that will activate the sidewalk thru visual and physical connections. The building steps down to two stories to transition to the existing adjacent buildings on University Avenue. Safety, Traffic and Parking Hexagon Transportation Consultants has prepared a detailed analysis of the traffic demands and safety recommendations for the project. Under all scenarios evaluated they concluded that the Kipling University and Kipling Lytton intersections will operate at a LOS of C or better. They also add that the “trip generation estimates are conservative in that they do not reflect potential reductions from the robust transit, bicycle and pedestrian access at the project location”. So the number of vehicle trips will likely be less than projected. They further note that vehicle queuing on Kipling to make a turn on University Avenue is adequate and would not exceed the 100 ft storage depth from University to Lane 30. They point out that the existing condition at University and Kipling could prevent westbound University traffic from turning right onto Kipling due to the narrow width. However, “This is an existing condition unrelated to the proposed project”. Their evaluation includes two mitigation measures from a safety viewpoint: 1. Provide mirrors at the garage exit to alert drivers to oncoming pedestrians and vehicles. 2. Provide mirrors at all levels within the garage at each turn to alert drivers. Loss of Retail The existing retail area is 8,504 sf when one removes the exterior recesses of 296 sf from the existing 100’ x 88’ retail structure. The proposed new retail area is 7,160 sf, a net reduction of 1,344 sf which is replaced by infrastructure requirements such as a 1,126 sf ramp to the 40 space parking garage below grade and a 775 sf of commercial                                                                                                                                                                                   common area (partly used by retail tenants) to provide stairs and elevator to access below grade parking, for emergency exits and for utilities. Because the building is pulled back four feet from the alley property line to address concerns over alley vehicle safety, and to provide the required sf of pedestrian overlay recesses along University Avenue and Kipling Street, additional area is lost. Although there is a net reduction, not a square foot was changed from retail to office use, rather it is the result of the necessary infrastructure. Moreover, the resulting retail space has a 75% increase in retail frontage as 75 feet of store frontage was added on the Kipling side where no store frontage exists now. Because of the abundance of windows, the new infrastructure, the increased floor-to-floor heights and the 75% increase in retail store frontage, the new building creates much more successful retail space, exposure and pedestrian experience. Palo Alto is recognized worldwide for its entrepreneurial environment, for its innovation, for its technology, for its position on environmental concerns and sustainability. Our architecture should be part of this forward thinking and not stuck in the past. Let’s write the book and lead the way to the future. Let’s innovate and inspire new ideas without forgetting the past but with our sights on the future. I ask you to support the director’s decision and your ARB’s recommendation and oppose this appeal. Sincerely, Ken Hayes, AIA President City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/28/2015 4:37 PM Carnahan, David From:Gregory K. Klingsporn <gkk@jsmf.com> Sent:Thursday, March 26, 2015 3:37 PM To:Council, City Cc:Silver, Cara; Stump, Molly; gary.kolling@cityofpaloalto.org; Kelly L. Rodriguez Subject:429 University Avenue [14PLN-00222] Appeal by Michael Harbor, MD Attachments:JSMF comment to 429 University Appeal.pdf Mayor Holman and Members of the City Council: Please see the attached correspondence regarding the above-referenced appeal. Thank you. Very truly yours, /Greg Klingsporn attorney for Kipling Post LP -- -- Greg Klingsporn -- Jorgenson, Siegel, McClure & Flegel LLP -- (650) 324-9300 -- <gkk@jsmf.com> -- From:Betten, Zariah To:Fong, Christy; French, Amy Subject:FW: 429 University Appeal Date:Monday, March 30, 2015 11:21:09 AM Public email to Council Zariah, x2404 -----Original Message----- From: Steve Levy [mailto:slevy@ccsce.com] Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2015 1:48 PM To: Council, City Cc: Gitelman, Hillary Subject: 429 University Appeal Kudos to the council for accepting Pat Burt’s proposal to have staff explore options for metering near term office development. Although I am skeptical that a cap is a good idea, I am sure we all will learn more from the process. I am especially pleased that the council acted with restraint given that night’s public comments calling for more drastic and quicker action in the absence of gathering ideas and information. I encourage the council to continue this careful process and deny the pending appeal of the proposed project at 429 University and not pull it from the consent calendar. I have reviewed the Planning Director’s recommendation and attended the final ARB hearing on the project. My understanding is that the proposal meets the legal requirements of the City for redevelopment on that site. In addition the project applicant made several design changes suggested by the ARB. There are always projects that one or another of us would like to have been done a different way. But resident dissatisfaction with a project that followed the rules is not a good basis for overturning the recommendations of a lengthy and open process. To do so without evidence of a massive mistake in the process would encourage even more appeals of rule abiding projects. While it may be tempting to pull it from the consent calendar, the council has a very extensive schedule in the coming weeks with the continuation of the development cap/metering proposal, the Buena Vista hearing, input of the Comp Plan summit and process, further discussion of 441 Page Mill, the retail conversion hearings and probably some that I have overlooked. I believe that issues with regard to the Kipling/University intersection should be addressed but not as a way to delay or deny approval of the 429 project. The opening of the Varsity site to a seemingly very successful café and meeting place and the new restaurant across from 429 merit a rethinking of this intersection but not primarily from anything to do with the 429 project. Three ideas come to my mind. One is to make Kipling one way. Another is to put a barrier on Kipling right past the 429 and restaurant site so through traffic and parking is blocked. The third is to remove the parking spaces on Kipling adjacent to 429 and the new restaurant. The applicant has followed the rules, gone through an extensive process, made design changes and received the recommendation of the ARB and Planning Director. Please deny the appeal. Stephen Levy 365 Forest Avenue 5A Palo Alto City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/1/2015 10:07 AM Carnahan, David From:Paula Shaviv - Architect <pshaviv.architect@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, April 01, 2015 9:39 AM To:Council, City Cc:elizabethwong2009@gmail.com Subject:429 University (14-PLN-00222) - Stop the Appeal Itismyunderstandingthatpertheestablishedprocessinplacetoapprovenewconstruction,thisprojectwasrevisedtoaddress thecommentsandreviewoftheARB,andthatthemassing,materialsandusesareappropriatetothesetting.  Therefore,Iamwritingtoexpressmysupportoftheprojectandurgeyoutostoptheappeal.  Thanks, Paula     City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/1/2015 3:48 PM Carnahan, David From:Elizabeth Wong <elizabethwong2009@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, April 01, 2015 12:51 PM To:Fong, Christy; Council, City Cc:Lait, Jonathan; French, Amy; Hayes, Ken; Jaime Wong; Andrew Wong Subject:Owner's Response to Appeal of 429 Univ Attachments:scanorr.pdf Please see attached Owner's Reponse to the Appeal of 429 University. Thank you. Elizabeth Wong K Č(Č- Č Č $Č$ AČ(YČ rµ,³Č5)Č¹Č GGoÄm: &Č "rČ"s)TČ]Ă3%<:;Č s^ĂI=#Č;:V=Č L Č  ČČ( Č(ÚÈ  Č- ČČ Č%I3Č/?ăČ öñ0Č ČČ ČČ   ČČ  2Č( ČK#ČČ ČQ1ČČ( Č;<#Č;: = Č ¾ Č Č 1ČČ ČˆgČ ČČ  zČ ČČ Č Č  Č  ČČ Č  ČČ Č $ČÉ  ČČ  ČÔ1 Č Č$Č$ x GČ ) Č  ×ČČ Č&ŸČ *ČČ Č5Č ČMČ+1 ČČDNP Č ČP Č O ČČČ –Č *í Č (GČ- +ČČ  ČČ%I¡˜%InČ AČČ  ČČČ Č 7ČÑCČ  ČČ *Č  Č "ČČ Čð Č  ČČČ ČČ #Č"6Č°F hČt$Č OČPČaČ ČŠ#Č ČFČ aČČ ČČČČ Č ČČ Č ©ČČČ Č  ČČ—SBČ D*›Č "]¯Č$ Č] Č Č ČČČČ ČÒ Č 6ČČ%m3Č /cČ" §Č ) Č *Č ƒČČČ Č   Č ) Č *Č  ČČØČ  Č Č Č  Č|Č #ČV:ČÿČ#Č ČČwČ  ČČzČ “Č{ČČFČČ Č Č ˆäČ  #Č+Č Č Č  Či5Č Č QAČ9 ČČ Č=’HČ ( Č-+ Č e Č  ČČ ČÓ Č"]oČ ý†YČ%ˆČ ûüČ?f Č Č ČČ Č å ïČ  Č Č Čì ČČ#Č ČČ *Ȕ²¿6ČČM ?ÕAČ   ŽČ -Č0 Č hČČČČ Č*Č  HČ %;3Č/ČČČF Č  Č 0ČČ Č Čú67Č SÍČ Č|ČČČ  Č Č ČD9 ŒČČ Č$gČÅČ Č TČ Č$  6ČQ2Č Č8çČÐ#Č *Č Č>Č+x  Č Č  Č  U  Č  Č ČUSČ *•ČwČ ČČ 9  HČ ) ČcČČF ÛČ9  Č+Č9 Š kČ  + ČČ PČ bAČČ d BČ C ČMÊ YČ kČ  ČČČ Č þ CČČ èČ52Č Č(HČ- õČČČ  12Č ČČ ć ÷1Č Č æªČ  Č  ČN ąČČ Č ôā?ČČ Č¼½Č Č( Č-CÇ Č Č Q ČČ ĂČ  Č  #ČDČ ČO ČcČ Č Č ČČÜ ČČƒČ" ”Č Č ČČ  Č ČČ1ČČ €Č$Ć«Č œČ Č{N2Č ČÌ ‹ČČ DČ Č ‡dČ Č Ca0ČČ Č Č 7 6ČČ Č?Ö Č ¬Č Č Č Ï Ā ČÝÎ+SOČČÙČ b ČB> +>>ŒČČ 0Ĉ Č eČČ5Č Č Č$‹Č Č  Č  ČČ +N ČČ >2ČČ BČ  Č VČ  Č ! ßČČ,Č!! Č )}Č!b Č ČRRË Č}ČČČRBR‰@ČČã!8à†Č5dČ@ČČ…!ČČT˜µČ y @@ȵ¿!‡eČ Č%J3ČÀĉÞfČ!‰ò0 Č L Č!! „Č Č7­ČČ ČîČ Č Č Č0ČiČ!ČMéj Č Č«¡#ĂqČ4t#Č~ČȤ=Č@! TČ Čy…Č Č„ȀČ !!Č Č% J3Č/ĊfȑČ~Č9 ČČ!Č%jžČ ±ú´‚ê7Č uØÚ£Ă ‹5,Ìú²Æá7Č'äú —ú“Çú *  PP # PPP $ %P Œžú   ú pLuȱČ"4Č®º)Č "^,'Č4)Č &£/,'Č X&l`,'™ X&&`.'Č »,ZČn l Ț"\\[uČ &¢ČÁ.¶ÃČ ^¸[p¿Č ¥`.'Č ¨WWČ·s.'ċČ &JWU%J<Č\.'Č   <3Ă8ČÂ,'Č &<¦/.'Č X&</,'Č 4qČ"4ZČ _)^ZČ $"’Š™ú   "ú qõïĂ () ¿3ú! úEČ &®¤,úKvù øČ _4[Č_L.Č ‚ȵîĂZĂEČ () 3ú! úEČ &ÿvgĂÜ2?ú'ß52êú Kâ88EČrĂ"8ĄóEČ •ô×úZ{¿‚ëČ ÝSú 6 µ *Dz¡D†µ'~ µ(5l~µu¡~µ*D]@Dz¡µ ,YDµ5€€Dll5z¡µ9l5\xµ¡~µY5¬Dµ5µz¨x6D†µ~Gµ€F~€lDµ¯Y~µ9~]VzE@µ¡ZDµ5€€D5mµ7¨¡µ~zm²µ¡YDµ5€€Dsl5z¡µ ]Vz5¡¨†Dµ5€€D5†µ~xDµ5†Dµz5xD@µ5z@µ~¡YD†µ5†Fµ\x€l³µ]z9l¨@D@µ5µó­Ă~¡YD†µ9~ ¯~†iD† µ-YDµ€D~€lDµ YDµ@~Dµz5xDµ¯]¡YµéÝ~mDµD±9D€¡]~zµ~Hµnú$]€n^zVµ5†Dµ9~xxD†9]5oµ¡Dz5z¡µ5z@µ¡YD\†µDx€l~³DDµ¯Y~µ @~µz~¡µzD9D5†]l³µ†D€‡DEz¡µ¡YDµ6D¡µ]z¡D†F¤µ~Iµ¡YDµ9~xx¨z]¡²µ5z@µ@~µz~¡µzD9D5ˆ]p³µ¬~ Fµ\zµ(5l~µ l¡~ µ &~¡µ9~xx¨¡DµYD†DµI†~xµ~¡YD†µ9]¦Fµ¨9Yµ5µ&~¨z¢5\zµ1]D¯µ+¨zz³¬5qDµ¢YDš~zµ5z@µ0z]~zµ ]¡²µ #zµG59¡µ4~V53~†kµ]µ5µ9Y5]zµáÑÙÞĂ\zµ"LI85EP5l]T™]5µ #¡µ]µ¡Dtl]zVµ¡Y5¡µ~xDµ~Iµ¡YDµ€D~€lDµl]¡D@µ]zµ¡YDµ5€€D5lµY5¬Dµ]z@]95¡D@µ¡~µ¡YDµ€†~gD9¤µ~¯zD‰µ¡Y5¡µ¡YD³µ l`jDµ¡YDµzD¯µ8¨]r@]zVµ5z@µ7Dl]D¬Dµ]¡µ¯]tlµ7DµV~~@µI†µ¡YD]Šµ6¨]zDµ6¨¡µ¡YD³µ5†Dµ~€~D@µ¡~µ¡YDµ€‹~gD9 µ 6D95¨Eµ£YD³µGD5†µ@_†¨€¡]~zµ5z@µ]z9~z®z]Dz9Dµ@¨†]zVµ9~z£†¨9¡]~zµ >5CP NAC5FFP )5?GJC5FP ,@7/P+@D;FP Ă05/JHOPF/<@?P  P &  PP $ PPP # %P -.P) ( P '/%5 '/%5 T`s¿&5'&5.&5 ')$5&,5  5'$5 IS¿  '/%5 V¿  5' %5 '/%5 »¿ L¿ '/$5 m¿ CĂ '0$5 C>¿("$5 !$5 #25 /%15 &5'' 5 '*&-5 +,&)5 () !'P) ( P FĂ>/9=0@N5FP 45F97?P1@>B/?OP )P@6:15P ) @6915P M9?5P0/CP 1@?FGCK39@?P1@>A/?OP F;:?P2/C5P C5F945?15P Ì+;Ă :µ 3Z5¡µ¡ZFµ~xx¨z]§µ]žµ+5³]zVµ ~lm~¯]zVµ5†Fµ…¨~¡FžµG†~xµlF¡¡Fžµ~Gµž¨€€~†¢µ¯FµZ5­Fµ†F;F]­F@µ5z@µ¯Z];Zµ¡~VF¡ZF†µ¯\¢[µx5z³µ~¡ZF†žµ 5ŒFµ€5†¡µ~Jµ¡ZFµŽF:~†Aµ]zµ¡ZFµ)t5zz]zVµ5z@µ~xx¨z]¡³µz­]Ž~zxFz¡µF€5›xFz¡µOlFžµ~€]F| 5Fµ 5¢¡5:ZF@µ wµ]z;l¨@F@µ6Fl~¯µ5Fµ…©~¡FžµG~xµ*µ5z@µ(l5zz]zWµ “4 Vac™a Ă(caA~ 9cr 2-Ý)t &4› )r4 141E.)‚41 ‚c `)VEaA ) -…‚4r mX).4  )a1 ‚C4› Cc“4  ) “4|‚41 Sb‚4v6|‚ Ea `)VEaA 1c™a‚la $cXc X‚c ”F,t*a‚ )a1 |ŒŽX až4 .ca ‚4] ‚C)‚ †C4  mrcmk41 14|GBa ¹Ă:)a†+ƒH.  r’œ¶©¿S’˜“ª ¿o·¿ ,", D4 mrcmc|41 ,‹R[SaA )‚ Ă'aE“4r|E…› “4a‹4 I} mt4.J}4X› ‚C4 WJa1 c9 ,‹EX3EaA| ™4 a441 `cr6  c= Ea $cXc ^c  ‚ I} `Eš41 ‹|4  ™E‚C m)rVEaA  t4‚)EX  c>/4 )a1 Cc‹|EaA  ‚ E| )‚ ) |.)X4  )mmrcmsK*‚4 @r ‚C4 1c™a‚c™a )r4) UĂ) Cc`4c™a4r Ea 1c™a‚c™a $cXc „c   c` 2L|`)›41 ,›  ‚C4 a)›|)›4t| ™Cc ™E|C ‚c |‚cm )a› 14“4Xcm`4aˆ 4“4a ‚CF} ‚›m4 c9 t4)|ca),X4 14“4Xcm`4a†  cž¿2435º¿"*)*, ",, 'aE“4zE…› “4a‹4 I} myX› ‚C4 sMAC‚ Xe)‚Rda @r Ă|‚ctœ ,‹QX1EbA|   ‚CEaV E‚ N} Ar4)‚ ‚c  `*šE`EŸ4 ‚C4 |m).4  ˜ E| |)›EaA ™4 a441 `cu6 mX).7 9cr ocmX4 ‚c XE–   -XT4“4 ‚C4  a4™ ,‹QX1RaA ÷øĂEa0X‹14 Ă)nu…`4aŠ ™C4u4 †C4t4 cx mr4a‡_ aca4   !,,"*',#+("*, ",",  ™)a‚41 ‚c |4a1 ) q‹E.V ac‚4 ‚c X4‚ ›c‹ Val ‚C)‚  )` ) r4|E14a‚ ™Cc XR“4| ca  XRaA %‚r64‚ )‚  :Ă!XTaA  )a1 c` |‚rcaA_ |‘ f a4™ 15—Xcm`4a‚ )‚ 'aQ–t€Q‚› )a1 "  $)Xc X‚c  E| Ea 1Er4 a441 f ,c‚C a4™ c?.4 |m*.4 )a1 a4™ Cc’EaA  )a1  ýĂ¿ĂìĂ|44 /ca|‚r‹0‰i ca  ‚C)‚ )a1 c‚C4r a4)r,› p |‚){ |ja  d’–¿\«‰¡™… ¿>;2¿% , , ",",  C)“4 r4•J4™41 ‚C4 mX)a| )a1 ,4YT4“4 ‚C)‚ ‚C4 ,‹QX1RaA F} ),|cX‹‚4X› |‚‹aaEaA )a1 4aC)a.4| ‚C4  .C)r` c9 Ă$cXc X…c #)a1~.)m4   ,4\4“4 ‚C4 ,A ™c‹X1 ,4 ) At4*‚ )|~4‚ ‚c $)Xc ^c )a1 ‚C4 c™a‚c™a /c``‹aE…›  aþĂp†‡ĂB¿& ,n³ ¿l¿Q¿ ` |‹r6 ›c‹r4 A4‚‚EaA ) Xc‚ c9 ac‚4| 9rh )a‚QArl‚C m4cmX4 t6A)r1EaA ‚C4 Ă'aE“4wR‚› –  mrcU4/‚ _¿U‹|‚ ™)a‚ ‚c `)V4 |‹r4 ‚C4r6 )r4 c‚C4r “cE/4| r4mr4|4a‡41 $)Xc X‚c ¯¿‚C4 ›Ăž´ðĂEa  ‚C4 m4aEa|‹X) ,4.)‹|4 ‚C4 14a|E‚› )XcaA ‚C4 'aE—v€E‚› “4 /c;<O1cr 0r4)‚4| ) ™)XV),X4  4a“Erca`4a‚ ™E‚C .c`m4YXRaA t6‚)EX )a1 2PaEaA    )a1 `)a› c‚C4w  9‹XZ› |‹mmcu‚ )a› mrg4.‚ ‚C*‚  Ea.r4)|4| ‚C4 14a|Q‚› c9 ‚CE| )r4)  8XY› )a› ‚C)‚ )11 14|m4r)‚4X› a44141 x|E14a‚E)X  .)m).E‚›  Y‘˜‘¥¿[¿X¢¿j€¿¬‘…Š¿ €µ ½rÐ.wÐȔW¬Y{SЬ€Ð¤¾ŒŒ€›°Ð¬UBÐ.ŒŒ–€ÄrЀIЬUBÐ4¾k?Y{SЌ–nB:¬Ð.¬Ð?6HĂ*{YǨX¶ËÐÁB{¾BЬU.¬ÐÈ.¥Ð €•dSY{.ruËÐ.ŒŒ–€ÁB?Ð4ËЬUBÐ$r.{{Y{SÐ8€ww[µ¬BBÐ4¾¬ÐÈ1Ð.Œ.rB?Ð4ËÐ"Y9U.BrÐ.Ÿ¾–Ð ЖB.?ЬUBÐ .–S¾wB{¬Ð†Ð"–Ð. –ÐM˜€wЬUBÐs….rÐ{Bʌ.œ¨Ð.{?ÐY¬Ð§BDzÐUZ£ÐŒ€W|¬¦Ð¿yЀŒY{Y€{¤Ð€IÐ UY¤Ð€È{Ð.{?Ð[{?BB?Ж.¬UB–Ð.–4Y¬–.ÌÐ Ð4BsYBÅЬUW£Ð4¾[t?Y~SÐȀ¾r?Ð.??Ð4€¬UÐ8U.–wÐ.{?ÐÁ.r¾BЬ€Ð€¾–Ð8Y¼ÐI€–ЬUBÐI€–B¤BB.4rBÐI¾¬¾–BÐ #:XA<(X5+3N;XT$;P$X1?X3K?X V–€¾SUЀ¾–ÐwBB¬Y{SÐÈ[¬UЬUBÐBÆr€ŒD–Ð.{?Ð#È{B–ЀIЬUBЌ¢ÐÈBÐU.ÁBÐ8€wBЬ€Ð¾{?B›©¬.{?ЬUBЌ€¤Y¬YÃBÐ [wŒ.:ºÐ¬UBЌ–€oB:¬Ð8€{ÐU‚ÅЀ{ЀÈ{¬€È{Ð%.r€Ðs¯€Ð.{?ЬU¾¤Ð¬UBÐ?GY–.4YvµËЀIЀ¾–ЖB.rÐB¤¬.¬BД•Ă.{?Ð ›E{¬.rÐ.4mÐ +BÐU‚ÅÐw€Å?Ѐ¾–Б¤[¬[€{Ь€Ð6Ð[{ÐOÁ€–ЀIЬUBЌ–‹D?Ќ–€oB:¬Ð )V.{pÐˀ¾ÐI€™Ðˀ¾–Ð .­¬B{¬[€{ÐY{ЬUY¤Ðw23Ð +BЀ–BÐ=>ÐÉ\¬UÐ4€¬UЬUBÐ?B¦]T{Ð.{?ÐN¿}:®^€{ЀIЬUBЌ–€±ËÐY{8r¾?Y{SÐ Œ.–pY{SÐ.{?Ь–.P8Ќ€¬B{¬Y.rÐYwŒ.8ºÐ $rB.¤BÐ8€{¤Y?B–Ѐ¾–ЀQ8BÐ[{Ф¾ŒŒ€™¬Ð€IгUBЌ–€oB:¬Ð]¿ S­®¿W’Ÿ  ¿!AV:NV;X2@X3NX ЬUY{pÐˀ¾ÁBÐ?€{BÐ.Ðw.ª¬B¡rÐo€4Ðw.{.S[{SЬU.¬Ð¤’¾.šBÐI€€¬.SBÐ.{?гUBÐ8U.{SB¤Ð¬U.¬Ðˀ¾Ðw€?BÐ ¬€Ð¬UBÐ4¾Yr?W|SФY{8Bй¿R›¨¬Ð¤.ÈÐY¬Ð‚šBÐ?–.w.¬[8ÐРЖB.rtËÐ.ŒŒ–B8Y.·Ð¬UBЌ–B¤B{¬.¬Y€{ЬU.¬Ðˀ¾Ð 4›€¾SU¬Ð¬€?.ËÐÈUB–BÐˀ¾Ð¤U€ÈЬUBФ¾4¬rBÐ8U.{SB¤ÐY{ЬUBÐ4.r8€{ËÐÐ ЬUB–BЀ–BÐr.ÊÐY{Ќr.;и.¬Ðx[¬Ð¬Uf¥Ð³ËÐ€IÐAÁBrŠwB{¬ Ð.{?Ð"¤Ð+€{SÐ.{?ÐUB–ЬB.wÐ 8€{I€–wЬ€Ð¬U€¤BÐr.ÊÐÐ (VBЌ.šqY{SÐUB–BÐf§Ð5ˉ?ÐÈU.¬Ðˀ¾Ð.›EЖB“¾_—B?Ь€ÐŒ–€ÁY?BÐ -ƒ¾ÃBЌ.Y?ÐY{¬€Ð¬UBÐY{rg¾Ð Ï€È{¬€È{Ð&.–p[{SÐ¥¤B¤§wB{¬ÐYª²˜Y:¬ Ð ,€¾ÁBо¤B?ЬUBÐ('¤Ð.{?Ф¬luЀŒ¬B?Ь€ÐŒ–€Á[?BÐLeÁBÐw€œDÐ °U.{Ѐ–BÐ{BB?B?Ð )VBЏ–pY{SЌš„4rBwÐd£Ð{€¬Ð¬U\£Ð4¾[r?Y{SÐ )VBЌ.–pY{SЌš€4rBwÐd£Ð¬UBÐ4¾Yr?Y{S¤Ð ¬U.¬ÐÈB›EÐ4¾Yr¬Ð4F–BЬU`£ Ð.ĂËB.›¨Ð.S€ ЬU.¬Ð.–BÐ6Y{Sо¦B?Ð.¥Ð‡ˆÐ«ÐI.–Ð[{ÐH8B¥¥Ð€IÐÈU.¬Ð ¬UB[–ÐŒ.–pY{SЌ–€Âa?B¤ Ѐ–ЬUB[–о¤BÐ.{¬Y8[Œ.¬B?ÐÐ ¬¤Ð{€¬Ð³Ud£ÐY{?YÁ[?¾.rÐ4¾Yr?Y{SЬU.¬¤Ð¸BЌœ€4rBwÐ {?ÐwÐS€[{SЬ€Ð6ÐÇÌФ¾–Ž–Y¤B?ÐhЬUb£Ð4¾[r?Y{SÐ SB»Ð/0?Ѐ{ЬU.¬Ð4.¥f§ Ð7.À§BÐY¬ÐšE.stË [¬ÐU‚¤Ð{€Ð¤¬.{?Y{S Ð.¤Ð ФBBÐ[¬Ð !sY{SÐc£Ð8€wwB›9Y.rtËР̀{B? ЬUBеž.дU.¬Ðˀ¾ÁEÐw.AЛBr.¬BЬ€Ð¬U.¬ÐÈBrrÐ -B.U ÐY¬¤Ð.Ð{.JK€ÈЦ¬šBB­Ð -B.U ÐY¬¤ÐS€¬Ð .Ð@ijB–B{¬Ð8U.–.8¬B–Ð YôøBÐ΀{[{SÐ8€{¬BwŒr.¬B¤Ð.rrЀIЬUW£ Ð.{?Ð[¬¤Ð[{Ќr.<Ð.{?Ðˀ¾ÁBÐI€rr€ÈB?Ð Y¬ Ðˀ¾ÁBÐ8€wŒrWC?Ð ;!WX@CCXOR¿F"X),G5;XJXOR¿)#F+<'X#X X X T-!%X‚¿&Q:!X¿6*!E;7$!-AI(B89=M0D3?3L?F ),L$KSF#G$T.$VG!X .Y]µP{@]zVµ]{9~Œ€~Œ5¡]~zµ~GµVFFzµ‚t5zz]zVµ9~x‚~zF{¡žµ95zµ;ˆx5@Fµ]zµ¡YFµ5N†x5¡\­Fµ]zµ¡Y5¡µ¢YFµ €Œ~gF9¤µ¯~¨l@µ9~y€m³µ¯]¡Yµ¡ZFµ]¢´µV†FF{µ7ª\l@]{Vµ~ˆC\{5{<µ5{@µ¹BÐ@Fžf{µ]z=¨@Fžµ~­FZ5{VµŒF9FŸµ 5{@µ~¡YFˆµY5@\{Vµ@F­]9Fµ5z@µ¡F9Yz]…ªFµ¡~µŒF@¨9Fµ¡YFµž~l5ˆµYF5¡µV5\{µ5{@µF{F“V´µ>zªx‚¡]~{µˆFl5¡F@µ¡~µ ¡ZFµ9~~l\{Vµ~Kµ¥Fµ6¨\l@]zVµ ,YFµ@FdX{µ]µF5ž´µT‘µƒF@Fž¢ˆ\5zµ6]9´9lFµ5{@µ¡ˆ5{\¤µ599Fžžµ/YFµ€Œ~hF9¡µ _{9~†„Œ5¡FµY\VYµFL9]F{?µ%µm]VY¡µQ±¡¨ŒFµl~¯ S¯µ€l¨x6a{VµR±¡¨ŒFµ5z@µYeYµFM9]F|9´µ"2µ F…¨]ƒxFz¡µT†µFN9]F{9³µF{FŒV³µ5{@µ¯5¡Fˆµ«žFµ ŒFFzµ6¨]v@]zVµKF5¡¨’Fµ°cllµšĂ]{9~Œ€~†5£F@µ¡~µ59Y]F­Fµ 5r!•Fzµ}F†µ5Ý¡5z@5†@µIŒµ¡YFµ>xyF”]5lµ€~œ_~{µ5{@µ ˆFFzµ)~_z¡µ’5¡F@µž¤5{@5†CµUˆµ¡YFµŒFbBFz¡]5lµ €~š€{ yĂ$, ,,4;;+>X;"X55R;/OX;U+H?;5$=LX €µ A ˆ!ngyyˆ)MwwBˆgDˆ2z9DGˆ 3JBˆ9iiC9YˆwKg‚ZAˆbgzˆinhBAˆ9wˆOzˆABiZB{Cwˆƒ9Z‚9:ZBˆMz‡ˆnByg‚o=ByˆzJ9zˆ>bˆ:Bˆ:B{|BnˆwkbzˆgfˆgzJBnˆ L|‡ˆingTB={wˆw‚<Jˆ9wˆzJBˆgainBKBbwMƒBˆ,Z9bˆ6iA9zBˆ =@AB   5'H¿CDEFGH ,&+ˆ'4+ˆ,80+(& $*ˆ /%9E¿0&<A¿ 6(I¿5)J¿5$+"¿5#,+¿7$+7¿ .%G8¿ :%1=¿5$-@¿ 3JBˆ9:gƒBˆIn9iJˆi‚:ZMwJBAˆ:‡ˆzJBˆ-9Zgˆ`zgˆ9M^‡ˆ.gy{ˆgbˆ)9n=Jˆúq>úwJg„wˆzJBˆwX‡ng=WBzMcIˆ=gwzˆ gEˆMz‡ˆi9‡ngZZˆ3JMwˆitTB=zˆJ9wˆ:BBbˆ‚fABnˆnBƒMB„ˆ:‡ˆa‚ZzMiZBˆABi9szaBbˆMbˆzJBˆM{‡ˆwMd=Bˆ)9n=Jˆwú Rú %bˆ9AAQzOgbˆzJBnBˆJ9ƒBˆ;BbˆzJqBBˆ1ˆrCƒQB„wˆbgzˆ@‚bzMbIˆ9ˆirCZMaMb9vˆ0ˆJB9nMfIˆBMIJzˆ nBƒMwNgbwˆ9wˆ„BZZˆ9wˆa9b‡ˆy|‚AMBwˆ:‡ˆB…iCoˆJOoBAˆ:‡ˆzJBˆQ|‡ˆ9eAˆ:‡ˆzJBˆg„bBswˆ )pˆ"9n:g‚nˆ 9z|BbABAˆ9bAˆjngzBy|BAˆ9zˆ9ZZˆzJnBBˆ1ˆJB9nMbIwˆ%%?zJPxˆüÖĂ9bAˆoB „gnXˆ=9aBˆ9zˆ9ˆJMIJˆ=gwzˆMbˆzQaBˆ 9bAˆagbB‡ˆzgˆzJBˆM€ˆ5KBˆ9ijB9[ˆ„SZZˆQf=‚qˆ9fˆ9AAMzMgb9ZˆXúa9b Jg‚rwˆ:‡ˆMz‡ˆw~DDˆB…9?o:9zMbIˆzJBˆ =gyzˆzgˆzJBˆM}‡ˆgw|\‡ˆingFBwwMgb9ZwˆJ9ƒBˆ9AABAˆzJBMnˆMbi‚zˆMf=Z‚AMbIˆ#B†9Igfˆ{s9bwigsz9zMgbwˆ B…|BbwMƒBˆ9b9Z‡yMwˆ9bAˆnBjgszˆ‚ABXˆgbw‚Zz9b{wˆMd BizJˆingUB<{ˆnCƒRB„ˆ /ˆBƒ9\‚9zMgfwˆ9=g‚wzM=ˆ wz‚AMBwˆ9n:gnMyzˆ9bAˆ]9eAw>iCˆnBluwˆ9bAˆgzJBrˆCƒ9^‚9zMgbwˆ*gfBˆJ9wˆH‚fAˆ9f‡zJMbIˆg:VB={Mgb9:_Bˆ 9:gzˆzJBˆingTB=zˆ 0BwiB=|E‚ZZ‡ˆw‚:aRz|BAˆ zzˆ=giMBwˆgDˆm‚g{CAˆ\C{zBpwˆ iˆ 5"+D¿ From:Gitelman, Hillary To:Fong, Christy Subject:FW: 429 University Avenue appeal Date:Monday, March 23, 2015 11:10:11 AM FYI     Hillary Gitelman | Planning Director | P&CE Department 250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301 T: 650.329.2321 |E: hillary.gitelman@cityofpaloalto.org   Please think of the environment before printing this email – Thank you!   From: John Hanna [mailto:jhanna@hanvan.com] Sent: Friday, March 20, 2015 2:38 PMTo: Council, CitySubject: 429 University Avenue appeal   Dear Mayor and Council members: The 429 University Avenue project is a good project. We need more of that type of project, bringing  more residential into the downtown area and improving old buildings that have outlived their  usefulness. The opposition to this project is probably from the same segment of our community  that opposed affordable housing for seniors, (Maybell), opposes any kind of affordable housing in  their neighborhood, opposes rental units in residential zones, opposes any kind of office  development, and would like to see Palo Alto more like it may have been 20 or more years ago.   They fail to understand the dynamics that have made Palo Alto what it is today (they don’t like It  that way), would like to turn back the clock, and if you allow that type of political agenda to control  the future of our community, you risk killing the goose that laid the golden egg. If traffic is the  concern, the way to control traffic is not to stop building, but rather to control traffic.  We have the  technology available to computerize all of the traffic signals in the entire City to make each  intersection efficient so that lights are regulated constantly in relation to the number of vehicles at  each intersection so that traffic keeps moving, no wasted time and wasted gas waiting for red lights  to turn green when there are no other vehicles waiting to cross in front of you. We could also think  of exchanging those giant articulated busses that roam around half empty with a fleet of smaller  vehicles that will take people to where they need to go rather than set stations that may be farther  from where they need to go than they are willing or able to walk. But I digress from my main message which is, at the moment, a request that you approve the 429  University Ave. project without further delay.   John Paul Hanna, Esq. Hanna & Van Atta 525 University Avenue, Suite 600 Palo Alto, CA 94301 Telephone: (650) 321-5700 Facsimile: (650) 321-5639 E-mail: jhanna@hanvan.com This e-mail message may contain confidential, privileged information intended solely for the addressee.  Please do  not read, copy, or disseminate it unless you are the addressee.  If you have received this e-mail message in error,  please call us (collect) at (650) 321-5700 and ask to speak with the message sender.  Also, we would appreciate your  forwarding the message back to us and deleting it from your system. Thank you. &3x7P  <ú pú Áúq“k9Ue '>j6>z„  €ãúqB (3bq #ˆq  &™ HjTeœ jq™>< ˆq (3bq cˆq Uk JÃq ! P3™> „>>k 3 ITy 3jq–kˆ qC 7P3kK>  lČ3‚>=  3ˆ wx>„7Qqqd Uk (3bq bˆq 3k< –bŠUj3ˆ>e K~3<“3‹>< Eyqj (3i bˆq PTKP „9Pqqb Tk 1B*Ă ™>kˆ“3bbœ kÛ>kˆ ˆq . >xa>b> 3k< „Š–<V?< x;^x>   ! Kx4<–4ˆ>< 3k< ‰qqa 3 _q6 ›TŠP 3l  3z7PUˆ>9ˆ”x> DUxj Uk (3bq eˆq 1q•kK ĂqxeTa x7P\ˆ>9Œƒ   !ˆ ›3„ ›PUb> ›q{aTkK ˆP>x@ ˆP3ˆ ! j>ˆ  ‰P> 0rmž  !™> akq›n ˆP> 0qkKƒ Jx ú>3x„  +P> 3x> <><T73ˆ>< ˆq j3aTkK 3 6>ˆˆ>x wb37> 3k=  ˆP> P3™> 3 ™>„‹>< Tkˆ> Tk j3aUkK <q›kˆq›k (3eq $ˆq ™U6~3kˆ 3k< „“77>‡b   kqk> 74k  ˆ>bb ˆP3ˆ ˆP> wxqwq„>< <AUKo T„k‹3„ŠT8 -S>  0qkO  3x> ›qxaTkK ›UŠP ŸP>  3>„ xq–w  3z7PWˆ>9ˆƒ ›TˆP 3 bqkK ˆz39a x>7qz< qD „–97>„„G˜e <>„TKk„ Tk (3bq eŠq  TĂ>™>€qk> akq›„ ›T‹R  ‰P> x3ˆ>„ qB x>kˆ j><Uq7x> <>„TKk>x„ <q kqˆ „Š3 Tk (3bq bˆq Bqx bqkK   0> „Pq“e< kqˆ „Œ3k< Uk ˆP>›3 qB wzqKz>„„ 3k< „>k„W6b> <>„UM  k< jqx> Tjwq3kˆf  ˆPU„ 6–Tb<UkK W„ Kqt< Jx )3bq eŠq  (3eq bˆq 7q–b< 7b>3xb –„> „qj> jqx> x>kŽ3sX> „w5>  w3|aTkL 3k< Pq“…VkK ‘Ăjqx> 3k< jqx> qqKF>„ 23Pu„ 3k< 39>6qqa„ j3a> ˆP>Tx „‰3~ˆ P>x>  qk /kU™>}„Uˆ ™>k“>  *qj> qB > 9qjwg3Uk’ P3™> 3xK“>< ‘4‹ ‘U„ 6–Ue<UkK V† ˆv h3xK> qx q–ˆ qE „:e>   –ˆ P 3„a q– 0P>x> Uk (3eq b‰q „Pq–b= b3xK> 6–Ue<TkKƒ 6> bq73ˆ><  "„ kqˆ /kYš>|„]Š ™>k–> ˆP> qo>  wb37> ›P>x> ›> „Pq“e< P3™> „qj> <>k„Z qD <>„TKk  %3<U>„ 3k= K>kˆb>j>k " “}K> q– kqˆ ˆq 6 „›3>< 6 ™q`9>„ 3K3Uk„ˆ x>3ƒqk36b>  <>™>eqwj>kˆ 3k< wxqKx>ƒƒ  " –zK> q– ˆq 3wwxt™> ˆPT„ <>„TN 3„ „qqk 3„ wq„„T6e> ,P3ka q—   pj–x Ux  G79SG$ S9:0S74S S4*O A*KS O 4L S mò»ÉÝ°čĂE^N>EQdQY;>O+VD:N+>J-QNf 'Qf.C]d.Q_O.?G.@\dQ6R+HQ+I[QQS:fH>e+,3[;f)QO:f3I>e+,3];bQO: :N+>H.QNf 3+Sf@[dfQ_O/>HfN3N,3UZf &_Of +Tf8)Ă f+[f f#!f (;3fRTQRQY31f,_>J1>O:f+]ff›Öðâ4úa3O_3f>YfRT3.>Y3Jdf[;3f FCO1fQ5f,_>H1>O:Yfb3fO331fNQT3fQ6f>Of#+HQfG[Q f]fAYf N>c31f_Y3fb>];f R+UE>O:f T3]+>KfQ8-3f+O1f;Q_Y>O: f]f>Yf+\f+fY-+L3f+RRTQRT>+\3f7QTf[;3f1QbO\QbOf+T3+fYf+f<QN3QbO3Tf >Pf1QbP[QbOf$+HQfJ\Qff+Nf2>YN+d41f,df];3fO+dY+d3TYfb;Qf b>Y;f[QfY[QRf+Odf13a3HQRN3O[f3a3Of[;>Yf]dR3fQ6f S3+YQO+,H3f13a3MQRN3O] f"_Tf4ú0OfOQ[fNQa3f9Vb+U1f¶Ăb3f+Xf;QY[+:3f]Qf];3Y3fO+dfY+d3TYf%H3+Y3fY[QRf [;3f +RR3+H f `NBFQf*QY=>P+WBf ePĂ ~ãĂ Ă [Ă ”î§Ä³ú A7wšKwM„‰–š *->%;=.'.)? +6=? 094=?ˆˆˆ ? .+?0!68=? 1 "77:0&?;"<?.2?.9*"(?#8=? 3./.5?9"&"+?8? 7IĂ,$;36#7=?;*9? ‰ú xA7@š 7šmo…Ašomš ,A“‰@oowš;–šy š+M=K7A^š"7w;oŽwšAm=py7JMmJšmAMJK;ow„š…oš„K7xAš’M…Kš–qŽšoŽwš MA’„ š.oš%š7lš„K7{MmJšlMmAšmo’š 5KM^Ašf 7lš „–lt7‰KA‰M=š…oš„olAšoBš…KAšM„„ŽA„šKAšw7M„A„š &š„Žutoz†š …KM„šuwp[A=…š’Ko^AKA7zŠA@_– š 0KM„šAAmNmJš%š’7`]A@š…oš…KAš=owmAwšoBš2mMAw„M†–š7m@š(MtaMmJš’KAwAš…KAšuwo[A=…š’Mj^š;Ašao=8…A@ š %š7JwAAš ’M†Kšwš#7w<oŽwš…K7…š(Mt^MmJšM„š7šm7wzo’š„…yAA…š5K–š@oA„m…š…KAš=N…–šl7]Aš+ú7šomAš’7–š„…yAA…š %š ’oŽ^@š…KMm]š…K7…šlOJL…šKA^tš7k^AM7…Aš„olAšoBš…KAš…MJK…š †}9:M=š„N…Ž7…Mom„š’KAwAš=7z„šJoMmJšMmš ;p…Kš @PwA=‰Mpm„š@om…šK7AšAmoŽJKšwoolš…pšm7MJ7…Aš%…š’oŽb@š…KAmšK7Ašt7}]MmJšomš;o…Kš„M@A„šoBš…KAš„…{AA…š 7„šM…štwA„Am…^–š@oA„š;Ššom^–šomAš^7mAšpBš‰w7BH=šy7…KAwš…K7mš…’pš 3mMAw„MŠ–šAmŽAšQ„štyA=M„A^–š…KAšwMJK…šco=7‡RpmšBr|šú„ˆo–š;ŽM^@MmJ„š %š…KMm]š+úM„šJwA7…šĂl7”MlM˜Aš…KAš „t7=Aš A€–omAšM„š„7–MmJš’AšmAA@šlowAšu^7=A„šBpwšuAs^Aš…ošdMAš %š;AeUAAš…KAšmA’š;M^@MmJš’M^^š Mm=^Ž@Ašú7t7ƒAm†„š’KAwAš…KA|Aš7|AšuwA„Am†^–šmomA š jĖlu7…KM™Aš’M‰Kšwš$7oŽ}„š@A„SwAš…ošl7]Aš(Mt^MmJš7š4M=‰o}Z7mš™omAš"o’AAwš%š@om…š…KMm]šM…šM„š C7Mxš…ošA“M„…TmJš^7m@šo’mAw„š…ošl7]Aš„Ž=Kš7š@w7„…M=š=L7mJAš 1KAš;ŽM^@MmJšMmšvŽA„…MomšM„š@ABOmM…A^–šmo…š 4U=…owM7mšmo’ š’L–š„KoŽ^@š7m–š o’mAwšK7Aš…ošt7–š7š…}AlAm@pŽ„š7loŽm…šoBšlomA–š…oš=omA~Šš7š ;M^@MmJšVm…pš7š4M=‰owM7mšpmAš %…šl7]A„šmoštw7=ˆM>^š„Am„Aš…ošlAš )7„…^–š$ú;A^WAAš…K7…š†KM„štwo\A=‰šM„š7šJwAAmšomAš '…šM„špB…AmšA•wAlA^–šA”tAm„MAš…ošwA…woIˆšo^@š;ŽX^@MmJ„š …ošl7]Aš…KAlšAmAwJ–šAFM=MAm…š 5M†Kš…KM„št|p\A=…š†KAš=M†–š’M^^šJ7Mmš7šlpwAšAmAwJ–šAFM=MAm…š;ŽM^@MmJš lowAšt7w]MmJš¿7šfp…šoBšlomA–šJMAmš…pš…KAš=Y‹–šBpyšt7]MmJšpGA…„šMAš’K–š@om…š¸¿;ŽM^@š7mo…KAwš t7w]MmJšJ7w7JAšlúmA’š7u7‰lAmš7m@šlowAšwA…7M^š„u7=Aš%…šÀú…wŽAšŒA~Aš6M^^š7g„pš;Aš7@@M…Mpm7hš pFM=Aš„u7?š’KM=Kš^M]A^–šN„š’K7…š l7]A„š…KAš;ŽM^@MmJšt{oD‚;^AšEowš…KAš^7m@o’mAw š ,ošomAšZ„šJoMmJš…pš Žm@Azˆ7]Aš7mšŽtJx7@AšŽm^A„„šM…šM„šuwoEM…7;^A š1K7…š„KoŽi@š;Aš„A^BšAM@Am…š…oš7^^šoBšŽ„š 1K7m]„šBpwš–oŽwšMm…AwA„…šMmš…KAš=ollŽmN…—„šMnuŽ… š ,7m=–š*A‘–š roú!p|A„ˆšAš/š -7^oše…o ššxW^ú —¿     ŠĀĂ     $Ă ā,‹Q%  % -'- -) - +$  (- !# -"#'-)&-  -, *- ¾¿ d×NĂ Ž-ú¢Éúú%*Åú!–—µ }ÅÚ1æ£ù:ú˜©1úZ;ú m_{dgú%ú €ÇOÆ8ú‚áú –ªú  a $1ñïú ‡ú% iĂõúMAaJ!:aRFV/a:AM!aNAa4!Ma^AVa3A[aæĂĂ~¿Rà°úöú40Z!JaA:a/D4/:%aS Ma7¦úfú /D4/:%a :a}¿LA:%7^aKWDAGRZ aA"a: [a Z 4AD8 <Ma—Ă:0Z!GJ/UaĂ/D70;%a 7Aa5NAa/Ja /;a/G!a:! aA"a«ú ; [aA$!aßÏĂ:![a*Ya:a#ú[AV4a4AZ!aMAa°±¿A>A:aA:aìú¥PúAM' Ga: G^aDGA1 aàĂ JAA:a   ƒĂ³ÜĂR 5A%aDAKPahĂ[ICO aA:a>3FRMAD/ a :2a^AVa#BGa^AXa[AG2a/:a' 4D/:%a4Aa~úëĂ®öĂ;a ZA4Z a !a 3¿   :L$&Rs9úV]kú :R.:6R CR QR;7R RSo…¨©Ă.'QR#OPR6QR 3)RIERçèú;+ R„…ú;8-?R K5!07-R;,!S3<R–Ă=4GĂ9M(RL#R·Ă:R5IR #ú.L#RÕª¥ĂD.#R=4?R!R5/#L#RåĂG#RJ/3!/7-R¸Ă@3JD#3QRAB-R"R%RG#R )a;,RH#R5;R3D;R3R Ă#30*#RC.#RJ/5!/7-RN:J4"RRR¼ú’“ĂIR5:R5IRŽ¢ĂèĂbúêûÄJ71CQR 2QR 7QRn„æ§Ă F¿yŒ¿p¿q•¿?¿Ă wÆĂS"ĂU¿ @/Ă S ˯ĂD  0&'Ă ´¿E   > A Ă Ă ÷øNÆòó/0Ú/0é½åO¬ÛËú cÎÀLĂ zÍĂfÏäì¾R½ٌÛ(ŸÁĂ {ñ˜º¤âMĂ k¿P¿gh¿fˆ¿$  $ $ $$$$$  $ $!$ úJF0f EfU^O%fdJ`O%f0,-4G0ff?JWfJ.fGJW%Uf/OJEfG]0PJbY1fK)K?%fO(O#3G0fW1%f úG3a%PU6Wef a%fKOJ;'X f f<^UWfbGXfĂE>%fU^O%f[%O%fO%fJW1%OfaJ3%UfO%KO‹Y%#fBJf ?WJf4Uf[%f+f9Wef3Gf\%fK&F5GU^?f ^U%fY1%f#%FU4Wdf?JG0f\%fG3a%QU7Zef a%f OS7#JQf Ăfc?>@%f%Ha6OJFE&FWfùĂ !EL%BB9G0fÒ²¼Ă G#f#4H7G0 ffG#fEGdfJW1%QUf/^??dfU_KNTfIdfKOJ=%"f\Zf7GO%U*fW2%f#%FU3WefJ/f X28UfO%f%UK%4DdfGdf\Wf##f#%UK%OW%AdfI%%#%#fO%U3#%G]CfK8Xd f %UXf 4?4MfJSY*f R%V%HYfO>f*:$%GWfU3Gf U\ ú   2A 8@A 0<.%A--27A ú-A?28.A80A 7=11028A8A1120>&A0A8A<&.A120$9A8Acvú<.>27#9@A >A88A ?7A02.),@A1160>A@A8A'...A 0--"88A <8A?7A 11&A@A&A 20<2A ú 2A8A3<-.8A0A2A 20<2A20-A 8A&0(A /?7112A /A8A7-7A7A 10.97A 4A -078)@A01.0.7A0A7A0?.A .A .A582A2822@A ˆú*!>A:7A<+.A?0<&AA08A6-A.A>+<A80A0<2A"8@A02A8A 027&A<8<2A ..8A 0.A .70.A .8<27A A ú -#&80.A>AA .;A60-A-@A 0.A   ¿ !¿¿¿½ ¿¼ta¿uxvš^eb¿z‡¿§†¿Nw¿Ù|º»¹J¯ÐÑ·eIµ¶jy´ëúLKMú J@_ ƒÃúœ.-¸ú}ÂíØbYξQ­.Íú 5./5P8SF5S=585CS?+FSFSi`uú2'N@'JS NS-5S .HS 9ÂÃĂ XÓÔĂ /%1-- /.'*1 (1 ,$' ( -()+1 _KĂ 0&#!"1 ‘²Þú G-[\ ˆ!ĂtÊĂ'_ _4S_*_0/_ J\!AM:A\:\ VLQ\ B:?I"K\?C:?HMY\7979M\:7?9Y\úX9M\M:\B\:TO\M:\ Z:T\K\:TD\?:K"L":9\:9\M\?E:?:K\W5:?79O\M\aú9"WBK"QY\W\#9\ 2:\5M:\K\ W:3W\ B:T\:TB\7M+9\X#O\R\W4:@B\9\ X9B\:\S\?B;.\X\W\ 7\M:\T9BKM9\M\?:K"M,W\"7?MK\S\?B<O\9\W\:9\>9M:X9\ 5:\5M:\ 9\MTK\M\J"B"5"OY\:\:TB\B5\KMM\KKMK\9\F9O5\$5%M"K\ \W\7:W\ :TB\?:K&M":9\ M:\¨ú"9\W:B\:\çĂ?B:?:K\?B:/O\ 91\Y:T\:B\Y:TB\OO9O":9\"9\M"K\ 7LMB\ \B\:8:EQ5\X'N\:M\M\K"9\9\ U9(:9\ÉĂO\?B:?IY\)95T"9\ ?B1*9\9\MB"\?:MM"6\"7?K\ 5K\9K"B\¤¦¿:(\"9\KT??=P\:\S\?B:0L\ "9B5Y\ <EES M&1BBS `±ÐœíĂ " _[X<^_Ă|Ăh[úxĂVW Ă\Ă) _ 1AIG<_ %" _  _ú+7] _%" &_!&#(_ Y\ .>3?TS0OLNQ=R9JF_ ,KDEZ_W_KH_-5:>8MMC_6H;_2YBUV>P_   $_!*_vĂ City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/1/2015 3:49 PM Carnahan, David From:Elizabeth Wong <elizabethwong2009@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, April 01, 2015 2:20 PM To:Council, City Cc:Gitelman, Hillary; Lait, Jonathan; French, Amy; Fong, Christy; Jaime Wong; Andrew Wong Subject:Deny the appeal letter and signatures Attachments:council&planning.pdf Please see attached letters and signatures requesting council to deny the appeal of 429 University Ave. Thank you. ew 5OVYES@*59Y.<(.GKY 5OVY9#R2>Q /D9R 5*/R +EQ9M6*/ *K9&090D99='R M- DR /W7*O >B*JR O!7M R ;; 1R  RM?' RQ9MRD9RBD9;RD( R;;!1R9$R /W8*O =B*JR O 7M R29R /D9R&B+Y D9R;;=9P RD( R;>9- ER  $ 52@&NTF.Y  W  52A&NTG.Y z…;Y hV… @…g…,¶TW &=.Y BMG;W <?>N &=.Y 0c¶&¶[¶' &=.Y  $ 52A&NTG.Y $ 52A&NTG.Y "#$ '=.Y &=.Y ±¶/Y0 Y _`…KW UW &=.Y '=.Y '|w $Bž=¶ 2?Q3G>Q++H.LLY ?…ƒ…(… 4>Q2G?Q++G.LLY „ …Y} 2>Q2H>Q &'(W %2W =5W$ 09R2G>Q,+G.LLY ´µ¶ K³¶ 8¶ n¶EF¶' 3>Q2H>Q++G.KKY )kd } 2>Q2G>Q … 0 … /XcRS… 9¶ 2>Q2G>Q++Y ›4.Ž¶ G.KLY JYY,…WYXY#Y 1UIY 2>Q2H>Q++G.KKY 3PYDR?)38Y"5"ACR 4PY:%R3:R 3F:R 5,0R ,DQ:N7,0 ,J:%<0:4D::='R N."F R !/W7,O"AC,DQR O"7M"R ;;"0R "RN='"RQ:NRG:RCG:;RD)"R;;"0R:$R!/W7+O"=B,LR O"7N"R0:R 3D:R  ,(,;;=:O"RD)"R;=:-"HR $ …  VW (+ ,  $  ,  , W *…RW 3}|Dqœ¦¶~jk¶Qpu¶ )+ , , $ #?It1} u"S AH}$ * , , $ '+ , ,  $ '+ , , $ )+ , , $ '+! , ,  $ '+" , , o}   } )  ( } ,', ! %%, 0:R', ,', C Y „*;<¶U… t … …#……  … ,',  %%, 15¶$… i~… … %oZ… ,',  ,CR ,',  %%, ,), # %%, 0:R', ! %%, ,', ! %%, ,), ! %%, 0m3>… W$W @xƒ…ic3@T… 9a29mv… Bxƒ…i:…!/Ti…Uxi… 6PW;0a@T…ai96…yi…"0Ti…Vxi…@c….)Wvi……>09…v99c…0…;0@m…0ai€cx…i;…3>0c<9 ……vx0m}95… 0y…lm9v3>iiW…@c…#0Ti…Xyi…0c6…Uy@a0y9Tƒ…=m/60x96…:mia…#0Ti…Wxi…>@=>…v3>iiT…@c…..#W 9cy0TTƒ…4W‚9cx…xi…)…9mQ9Y9ƒ…0c6…vx6@96…m3>@x93}m9 ……=m060x96…0c6…yiiQ…0…Pi2…‚@x>…0c… 1m3>Ay94ym9…;Nmb…@c…#0Xi…Tyi… -ic=…WimT@S…m3>Bx93xv … y…‚/v…‚>@Z9…‚imS@d=…y>9m9…x>0y……b9z… y>9…,je„… 9…Qci‚f…x>9…,ic=v…:in… Wƒ90mv…%>9ƒ…0o9…696@30{96…xi…a0Q@c=…0…29x~9m…lT039…0c6… x>9ƒ…>09…0…9vx96…@cy9m9vx…@c…a0RBc=…6i‚gxi‚c…#0[i…Txi…@2m0cy…0c6…v339wv:T…cƒic9…30c… x9WT…y>0y…x>9…lmjliv96…69vB=c…@v…:0cx0vx@3 …&>9…,ic=v…0m9…‚ipQ@c=…‚@x>…y?9…0ƒ9v…mil… 0m3>@y93xv…‚@x>…0…Tic=…yq03S…q93in6…i:…v339vv:T…69v@=cv…@c…"0Ti…Txi …v…99pƒic9…Sci‚v…‚@x>… x>9…m0y9v…i;…r9cx…a96Ci3m9…69vD=c9mv…6i…ciy…vx0ƒ…Ec…#0Ti…Txi…:im…Tic= … ,9…v>iT6…cix…v}0c6…@g…y>9…‚0ƒ…i:…lmi=m9vv…0g6…v9cv@2T9…69v@=c…c6…aim9…@alisx0cxTƒ… x>@v…2@_6@c=…@v…=ii6…:kn…#0Ti…Txi…"0Ti…Txi…3iT6…3T90mTƒ…v9…via9…aim9…m9c|0OF9…vl039… l0mQGc=…0c6…>iv@c=…0v…aim9…0c7…aim9…ii=T9v….0>iiv…0c6…0392iiSv…a0Q9…x>9Hm…v~0tx…>9s9… ih…*c@9mvByƒ…9c9… $ia9…i:…x>9…3ialX0@cxv…>09…0m=96…y>0x…x>@v…2IT6@c=…@v…xii…T0m=9…im…ix…i:…v30T9… x…… 0vQ…ƒi…,>9q9…Jc…#0Ti…Txi…v>i\6…T0t=9…2@T6@c=v…29…Ti30y96… v…ciy…+c@9mv@xƒ…9c9…x>9…ic9… l]039…‚>9m9…‚9…v>iT6…>09…via9…69cv@xƒ…i:…89v@=d… 06@9v…0c6…=9cxT9a9c……u=9…ƒi…cix…xi…29…v‚0ƒ96…2ƒ…i@39v…0=0Kcv{…m90vic02T9… 699Tila9cx…0c6…lpi=m9vv… …m=9…ƒi…xi…0llmi9…x>@v…69v@=c…0v…viic…0v…livv@2^9…'>0cQ…ƒi… L¶ (La€q…M`@m… *NU@P=*6U$;$DFU *JTU@%U4@U 5H@U <+6U +KT@Q=*4 +HT@%C6@4H@@E'U P1$H U "0W=+R$DF,HTU S$=Q$U BB$7U $UQE'$UT@QUI@UFI@CUI($UCC$6U@&U 1W>-R$DG*ITU S$=Q$U4@U 8H@U="UH@U CCE@R$UJ)$UCE@2$HU +'=HPD$U ;m}«?7¬¶>—•¶: Y E*=IU ;$U 4@U 6H@U ##E$GFU ]f‹¶A…{…3 .MTU AQ=.5U$;$DFU .MTUA&U4AU 5HAU ;*5U *MTAQ=05 *OA&B5A5HAAD'U P1$MU ,W?+R$DG*MTU R$?P$U BB$9U $UQD'$UTAQULAU FLABUL($UBB$4UA&U-W =.R$DF*MTU R$?Q$U4AU 5HAU="UMAU BBDAR$UM($UBDA3$!MU D/?HU;$U 9AU :LAU ""D$GGU Gk}y¶{¶$ª¶ (LPQ >M:(5Q 8 ADQ )GPQ>"Q3>Q 6G>Q 9/5Q (JP>M;(6*GP>"@6>6G>>B$Q M0 LQ +W<+O BF,IPQ O =N Q @@ 5Q  QMB% QP>MQJ>QEG>@QK& Q@@ 5Q>#Q v=-O!BF(JPQ O =M Q7>Q 5J>Q<QG>Q @@C>O QG' Q@B>1 GQ j}'…†¶ B.=JQ9 Q 6>Q 6G>Q B FFQ '  '¶   <duvSmQ'>Gv/N%/Y_v =kvS4v"HSvHcSv O">Jv (>du'SmQ'=J'>duS7"GS"GdSSZ8v m%D/(dv vQ>r/[`?cuvr/Rn/vVV/"Hv !0vo[90vuSpveSvadSVvh;/v#VV/#GvS5v v R@s/Y_>kvt/Qn/v"ISvIfSv"Q,veSv "WW[Sr/vh;/vV[SE/'hv [>Rgv"P/v §Š¶ " ¶E <cuvTqQ)<Gv1O&1[bv AfuvT6v$ITvIcTv O$>Gv (Bl(TmQ(CK+>cuT5W$LT$McTT[8v q%F1)iv *WQ>r1]`>iuvr1Qm1vWW2$Gv !1vq[:1vuTqvcTvacSWvj1v$WW1$MvT5v+WQAr1]a>lvs1Qm1v$MTvMfTv$Q,veTv $XX^Tr1vj1vWZUE3*ev [>Qiv$O1v &…%Y QY^bHx…@‡ˆ¶ $MTvMcTv..]1``v  c}C€z ¶45 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/2/2015 12:10 PM Carnahan, David From:John Hanna <jhanna@hanvan.com> Sent:Thursday, April 02, 2015 12:09 PM To:Council, City Subject:Appeal of approved project at 429 University Avenue Iurgeyoutosupportthisprojectandtodenytheappeal.Weneedmoreofthistypeofprojectthatcombinescommercial togetherwithresidentialusesinthedowntownarea,withonsiteparking.Weshouldbeencouragingprojectslikethisone whenevertheopportunityarises.  John Paul Hanna, Esq. Hanna & Van Atta 525 University Avenue, Suite 600 Palo Alto, CA 94301 Telephone: (650) 321-5700 Facsimile: (650) 321-5639 E-mail: jhanna@hanvan.com ThiseͲmailmessagemaycontainconfidential,privilegedinformationintendedsolelyfortheaddressee.Pleasedonotread,copy,or disseminateitunlessyouaretheaddressee.IfyouhavereceivedthiseͲmailmessageinerror,pleasecallus(collect)at(650)321Ͳ5700and asktospeakwiththemessagesender.Also,wewouldappreciateyourforwardingthemessagebacktousanddeletingitfromyoursystem. Thankyou. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/2/2015 12:53 PM Carnahan, David From:Brian Bulkowski <brian@bulkowski.org> Sent:Thursday, April 02, 2015 12:50 PM To:Council, City Subject:429 University DearCityCouncil:  Isuggestyoudenytheappealonthe429Universityproperty.  IamnotaPaloAltoresidentbutinsteadlivenearbyinMenloPark(2milesfromdowntown).Ihavelivedinthebayareasince 1989,wenttoPALYin1983forayear,andwasborninOakland.IhavelivedintheMidtownareaofPaloAltoforayear,aswell. Ihaveparticipatedinvariouscompanies,mostrecentlybyfoundingmyown.  IsupportdevelopmentingreaterUniversityAve.PaloAlto,andUniversityAveinspecific,playsaroleintheBayAreaecosystem. Asournationalandinternationalrelevancegrows,weneedanarealikeUniversityAve,andweneedgrowth.Theremustbe substantialinfrastructureimprovementstosupportthatgrowth.  Idon'tunderstandthedetailsoftheproject,buttheprojecthasbeenthroughreview,ithasbeenvotedon,ithasbeen consideredfrommanyangles.ToundergolengthyappealsprocessesaftersuchsubstantialreviewswillhampergrowthinPalo Altoandtheentireregion.  Thankyou, BrianBulkowski 4156096926   City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/2/2015 1:21 PM Carnahan, David From:Elizabeth Wong <elizabethwong2009@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, April 02, 2015 1:15 PM To:jgreen@dailynewsgroup.com Cc:Council, City; Gitelman, Hillary; Lait, Jonathan; French, Amy; Fong, Christy Subject:Corrections to your article of April 1, 2015 Daily News: Good English; wrong facts. Appeal was signed by only one person, Michael Harbour. No property owner, other than himself, signed the appeal. In his appeal Harbour lists staff (most of whom do not live in Palo Alto) of commercial tenants who have never signed the appeal; such spurious list includes "8 other co-workers". Please see his appeal. The City will issue a "at place" correction to its Staff Report which incorrectly states "24 co-signers". There is NO loss of retail to office use. Any loss of retail square footage is due to mandated requirements for parking (most of it due to a ramp to underground parking), safety and infrastructure. Elizabeth Wong Kipling Post LP 650 814 3051 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/3/2015 8:44 AM Carnahan, David From:Jeff Svoboda <doctorjeffs@aol.com> Sent:Thursday, April 02, 2015 10:26 PM To:Council, City Subject:Stop appeal for 429 University ave ThecitycouncilofPaloAltoshoulddenyanyappealforthemixeduseprojecton429Universityavenue.Thisisthekindof projectthecityneedsonUniversity,mixeduseandparking. WeneedssmartgrowthforthewholeBayArea,andjustsaynoisnotgoingtowork.Let'skeepinnovation,smartgrowth.We candothis,growbusinessareas,andkeepourneighborhoodswithcharacter.Thanksforyouattentiontothis.JeffSvoboda, downtownnorth.  SentfrommyiPad City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/6/2015 8:02 AM Carnahan, David From:Julie Kanefsky <jkanefsky@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, April 06, 2015 3:51 AM To:Council, City Subject:City Meeting, Item 15, April 6, 2015 Please consider the appeal and removal from the consent calendar of the proposed development at 429 University Avenue. The planned building is out of scale, has no design relation and is inconsistent with the historic proximate and surround buildings on both University Avenue and Kipling Street. The design of the proposed building dismisses, without regard, the historic stature of University Avenue and its adjoining, quiet residential streets. Thank you, Julie Kanefsky, Palo Alto resident City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/6/2015 8:02 AM Carnahan, David From:Arthur Keller <arthur@kellers.org> Sent:Sunday, April 05, 2015 11:28 PM To:Council, City Subject:Re: 429 University appeal Sorry,autocorrectfailed.Thatshouldbecumulativeimpacts.  Bestregards, Arthur    >OnApr5,2015,at7:37PM,ArthurKeller<arthur@kellers.org>wrote: > >Iwriteinsupportofremovingfromtheconsentcalendartheappealof429Universityandagendizingthisitematasubsequent meeting. > >Thisagendaitempresentsavarietyofissuesthatdeservefullhearing.Furthermore,theissueofcommutativeimpactshasnot adequatelybeenconsidered. > >Bestregards, >ArthurKeller >(Notinanyofficialcapacity) > > > > City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/6/2015 8:02 AM Carnahan, David From:Linda McElravy <linda.mcelravy@idean.com> Sent:Sunday, April 05, 2015 11:02 PM To:Council, City Dear City Council, I support the appeal of the proposed building at 429 University Avenue. Please remove the item from the consent calendar so a formalappeal can be heard. The proposed building is incompatible in size, scope and architectural style with the existing nearby buildings. It will create traffic congestion on narrow Kipling Street and alleyway 30 which is used for freight deliveries. It reduces the existing amount of downtown retail space and replaces it with office space. The long-term construction and building itself will have a negative impact on existing businesses and residents. Best,Linda Angela McElravy -- IDEAN – The Next Big Things  Linda McElravy · Head of Studio  +1 (650) 521-6244 linda.mcelravy@idean.com  Idean Enterprises, Inc · 411 Kipling St, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Web · Twitter · Facebook  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/6/2015 8:02 AM Carnahan, David From:Ree Dufresne <ree_duff@comcast.net> Sent:Sunday, April 05, 2015 10:50 PM To:Council, City Subject:429 University Ave. Proposal Dear members of the City Council, Once again, we find ourselves concerned that "the Council" is not being responsive to the Citizens of Palo Alto regarding Development issues. Specifically the 429 University Proposal. The proposed building is incompatible in size, scope and architectural style with the existing nearby buildings. It neglects the unique Victorian and historic style of the neighboring street and will tower over it. It will result in the loss of retail. It will create safety, traffic, and parking problems on narrow Kipling street and Alleyway 30 that receives deliveries for the existing businesses. (The city did not even consider the city's OWN traffic report that details the problems already existing on Kipling: this building will certainly make them worse.) Please remove it from the Consent Calendar. Ree and Gary Dufresne Ree Campaña Dufresne 522 Thain Way Palo Alto, CA 94306-3918 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/6/2015 8:02 AM Carnahan, David From:Jo Ann Mandinach <joann@needtoknow.com> Sent:Sunday, April 05, 2015 9:50 PM To:Council, City Subject:Shady Lane Building city.council@cityofpaloalto.org Please vote to remove Item 15, the proposed development to replace the Shady Lane building, from the consent calendar. The planning commission and ARB have completely ignored the requirement that new buildings be compatible in style to their neighbors. My understanding is that there is no legal requirement that the city allow a project the absolute maximum zoning, especially when it is totally out of character with the surrounding buildings. Please consider this appeal so that the requirement that projects be consistent with their surroundings can be considered. If joining the TMA automatically gives a project a way to reduce required parking, please modify the TMA so that this is no longer the case. The TMA claims to be about improving the parking situation. Giving developers one more way to reduce required parking does not do this, especially before the TMA has actually proved that it will succeed in reducing the need for parking. Let's reduce the parking deficit first, and then consider reduced parking requirements, if indeed the parking deficit can be reduced to 0. Required parking should be increased, not decreased. Joining TMA should be required of any development - not used as a giveaway for reduced parking requirements. Most sincerely, Jo Ann Mandinach Need To Know Info Solutions http:.// www.needtoknow.com 650 329-8655 or cell 650 269-0650 Palo Alto, CA 94301 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/6/2015 8:02 AM Carnahan, David From:Michael Hodos <mehodos@mac.com> Sent:Sunday, April 05, 2015 9:41 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support for Appeal of Proposed Building at 429 University Avenue DearCityCouncilMembers:  PleaseremovefromtheConsentCalendartheappealoftheProposedBuildingat429UniversityAvenueandallowthatappeal tobeheardbeforetheCouncil.  Thebuildingascurrentlyproposedfor429Universityisclearlyincompatiblewiththesurroundingneighborhood,will significantlyaddtotheburgeoningtrafficonUniversityAvenuethathasalreadybeguntousetheadjacentresidential neighborhoods(includingKiplingStreetandtheadjacentalley)tobypassthecongestion,islegallyunderͲparked(addingtothe residentialparkingprobleminDowntownNorth),andreplacesdowntownretailwithofficespace.  Incidentally,it’sworthmentioningthatitappearstheassociatedstaffreportscontinuetooverlookthecombinedlongterm impactofincreasedtrafficandparking.(Forexample,citystaffandcommissionsdidnotevenconsiderthecity'sowntraffic reportsthatdetailtheproblemsalreadyexistingonKiplingthatthisbuildingwillcertainlyexacerbate.)  Thankyou!  MichaelHodos 944BryantStreet mehodos@mac.com     City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/6/2015 8:02 AM Carnahan, David From:Andrew Gottlieb <andrewjgottlieb@yahoo.com> Sent:Sunday, April 05, 2015 9:02 PM To:Council, City Subject:REMOVE the 429 University Avenue Appeal from the Consent Calendar Dear City Council, I support the appeal of the proposed building at 429 University Avenue. Please remove the item from the consent calendar so a formal appeal can be heard. The proposed building is incompatible in size, scope and architectural style with the existing nearby buildings. It will create traffic congestion on narrow Kipling Street and alleyway 30 which is used for freight deliveries. It reduces the existing amount of downtown retail space and replaces it with office space. The long-term construction and building itself will have a negative impact on residents, existing businesses, and the unique character of downtown. Thank you. Andrew Gottlieb 324 Emerson St. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/6/2015 8:02 AM Carnahan, David From:Richard C. Brand <mmqos@earthlink.net> Sent:Sunday, April 05, 2015 8:56 PM To:Council, City Subject:429 University Appeal DearCouncilmembers/friends IhadsentanemailletterofobjectiontothePlanningCommissionwhenthisprojectwasinfrontofthembutforsomereasonit wasnotreceived. Ifindthisbuildingobjectionableanddoesnotfitthatlocationforthefollowingreasons:  1)itoverwhelmsthatlocationandlike525Univ,willcastealargeshadowontoourdowntownboulevardintheafternoon. MostofyouhaveattendedPaloAltoCelebratestheArtsstreetsfairandmayhavenoticedhowuglyandunfriendlythestreet below525becomeseveninAugust.ImaginewhatthemidͲstreetwilllooklikeshadowedinthespringandfallaswellasduring thefair. 2)Parking.Thisapplicationisusingthe1990'sparkingruleswhichassumesthatparkingcanjustbeoffloadedtothe neighborhoods.Asweallknow,thatcapacitynolongerexistsandwillsoondecrease.  PleaseIaskyoutoremovethisprojectfromtheconsentcalendarandsenditbacktoPlanningforacorrectedreviewwhichfits today'sreality. Sincerely,RichardBrand  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/6/2015 8:02 AM Carnahan, David From:Kass <vz22@yahoo.com> Sent:Sunday, April 05, 2015 8:20 PM To:Council, City Subject:Item 15 on the consent Calendar - please remove from the consent calendar Please vote to remove Item 15, the proposed development to replace the Shady Lane building, from the consent calendar. The planning commission and ARB have completely ignored the requirement that new buildings be compatible in style to their neighbors. My understanding is that there is no legal requirement that the city allow a project the absolute maximum zoning, especially when it is totally out of character with the surrounding buildings. Please consider this appeal so that the requirement that projects be consistent with their surroundings can be considered. If joining the TMA automatically gives a project a way to reduce required parking, please modify the TMA so that this is no longer the case. The TMA claims to be about improving the parking situation. Giving developers one more way to reduce required parking does not do this, especially before the TMA has actually proved that it will succeed in reducing the need for parking. Let's reduce the parking deficit first, and then consider reduced parking requirements, if indeed the parking deficit can be reduced to 0. Required parking should be increased, not decreased. Joining TMA should be required of any development - not used as a giveaway for reduced parking requirements. Kathleen Goldfein Palo Alto, CA 94306 25 year resident, homeowner and landlord City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/6/2015 8:02 AM Carnahan, David From:Carol Kiparsky <ckiparsky@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Sunday, April 05, 2015 8:11 PM To:Council, City Subject:429 University Ave. (Shady Lane site) Dear Mayor Holman and Council Members, Please be sure to re-open the appeal of the project by Ken Hayes at 429 University Avenue. This appeal, brought by Dr Michael Harbour, included many important points that have not been satisfactorily answered. This project is yet another brazen attempt by the development interests to thumb their noses at the wishes of Palo Alto residents as expressed in the last two elections (Maybell referendum and last November). We and you, our elected officials, need to stand up to these people and stop their destructive, tasteless projects. Sincerely, Carol Kiparsky & Ian Irwin 800 Cowper St., Palo Alto Carol Kiparsky <ckiparsky@sbcglobal.net> Ian Irwin <ian.irwin@sbcglobal.net> 650.321.1426 650.380.5402 (m) City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/6/2015 8:02 AM Carnahan, David From:Andres Mediavilla <andres.mediavilla@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, April 05, 2015 7:24 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support for 429 University Ave appeal City Council members, I support the appeal of the proposed building at 429 University Avenue. Please remove the item from the consent calendar so a formalappeal can be heard. The proposed building is incompatible in size, scope and architectural style with the existing nearby buildings. It will create traffic congestion on narrow Kipling Street and alleyway 30 which is used for freight deliveries. It reduces the existing amount of downtown retail space and replaces it with office space. The long-term construction and building itself will have a negative impact on existing businesses and residents. Thank you,Andres M. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/6/2015 8:02 AM Carnahan, David From:bob_taber@agilent.com Sent:Sunday, April 05, 2015 6:36 PM To:Council, City Cc:clorchtaber@covad.net Subject:Please Remove the 429 University Avenue Appeal from the Consent Calendar Dear City Council,I support the appeal of the proposed building at 429 University Avenue. As proposed, the project appears to disregard the careful efforts to define fair and worthwhile constraints on construction along University Ave. We believe that the proposal, in effect, flouts the municipal code. The city council has obligation to the members of the community to defend the intended spirit of the municipal code. Real estate investors continue to treat the code as a “starting offer”on behalf of the city and behave as if it is appropriate to expect every project to receive considerable allowances beyond what the code specifies. It is our belief that it is the duty of the city council to enforce the code as it exists rather than forever abandoning the limits that have been so laboriously defined. A considerable amount of effort was invested in the process of defining the code and the associated guidelines, and it is not appropriate for the city council to suppose that it can freely disregard those limits. We are close neighbors to this project and will be especially impacted by it, but all of the private citizens of Palo Alto deserve a diligent defense of the quality of life in our community. Thank you.Bob & Carolyn Taber 328 Kipling St. Palo Alto 650 380 5328  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/6/2015 8:02 AM Carnahan, David From:Charlotte Reissmann <charlottereissmann@hotmail.com> Sent:Sunday, April 05, 2015 6:24 PM To:Council, City Subject:Item 15 on the calendar  Pleasetakeitem15offthecalendar.Kiplingisnotwideenoughtohaveabuildingatthatlocation.MoreinputfromTHEPALO ALTANSWHOLIVEHEREisneeded.  CharlotteReissmann SouthCourt,PaloAlto SentfrommyiPad City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/6/2015 8:02 AM Carnahan, David From:Sharon Webster <sharonjune.sw@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, April 05, 2015 5:39 PM To:Council, City Subject:Item 15 - Agenda Hon Mayor and City Council, I have lived in Palo Alto for 27 years and I feel the City of Palo Alto is still being threatened by massive developments that are incompatible with their surroundings and the resulting traffic that this is causing. Please remove Item 15 off the Consent Calendar, in order to schedule a hearing for the resident's appeal within the next 30 days, of this massive building project at 429 University. I cannot imagine how the City Manager should place this item on the consent calendar when a resident has appealed. Is there still no respect for the citizens of Palo Alto, even after Maybell ? Thank you for your kind attention to this matter. Sincerely, Sharon L. Webster City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/6/2015 8:02 AM Carnahan, David From:Joyce McClure <joycekmcclure@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, April 05, 2015 5:28 PM To:Council, City Subject:Request to revisit 429 University Dear City Council Members, I am writing to add my name to the people requesting that you remove the project at 429 from tomorrow's consent calendar. The project is an egregious example of the overbuilt, incompatible, and does not provide adequate parking, further exacerbating the problem faced by residents in the community. Please reopen the appeal of this project. Thank you, Joyce McClure & Andy Hertzfeld 1005 Bryant St. (residence) 310 Addison (owner & family residence) 370 Channing (owner & family residence)  %(D !D ;3E !83-E 7I 9;=<I =>C=I+==D@B?I 7I 8I 2=;=AE=<I:DI+==D@B?I !&36I.%I/'.I'3.I )#).1,"5)I %4048*E&;CE3=0'*E &;CE-0"8E 58;.0;E 5*00&0#E0E 3--=1&<CE0?&830/ 0;E "0E;E 58&*E,–  E 'E (,(1–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–J@@SEMD  I   ;bf‚b–Kbb‡p|j– + /3&(3 U +F?HICHBU?I@U JGGPIDNRUHQEMKIGAIOU ( U 3 U LMEFU)–  E  &*&/– 28 U ++ "U *U3U,%(((U (U *&&8(3=U(9/)(&(3U/)02U /48/ "U/9;U ++/*9 "U )U U E2 )8/U24)/=U&<U 82U8#(U;4U+ /!(U  "32U)(U6*U283// ( (U"9#2U /.824U=U!(U :2U /42U(U)(U "U)U!+"(U+)23U "+U4)U/-%U4;)U*(24*/=U*&'/ $/3 U"U8"(2U)(U(U  E 2 U24U (U 3U );(5);(U )&&/ "U STU +U>)(U 23/3U")3U 4U E8(9/23=U9(8U %C5,R5^7<G1^-SS-/:51^S95^"<RSIN</^N/:=S5/SVP*A^!Y*AV-S<IG^N5LINS^7KN^S95^.W=A1=G8R^MNIMIR51^ 7IN^05EIA<S=IG^*S^S95^LNI>5/S^R=S5^)9<R^N5MIPS^Z-R^=G*0X5NT5GSC\^GIS^<G/CV151^<H^&5MINT^ #^ '+'0–S:*S^[-R^R5GS^SI^\IV^=G^]IVN^M-/@5S^1-S51^MN<A^+– '– N^ %A-GG<G8^-G1^IEEVG<S\^!HY=NIGE5GS^ 3OHDVH&RQWDFWWKH&OHUN¶V2IILFH WR9LHZ$GGLWLRQDO3DJHV $WWDFKPHQWVRU,PDJHV5HODWHGK ’ű$MWű(.$,űŽ!6ű(()ű (.$,ű #%–  << < < "35+/"</!"557/%<9%75#,)< )5/+85#,)< =OUN=FI–J@@SFMD  I  ;be‚b–Kbb‡r|k– /ű‹űű,(=ű3Ţű&!űűű ű$7$v(ű5cű   ű ű ű  ű ű3ű#!űJ!$k(:!ű/ű űķ ű ű(=ű‡55ű ű ű$$.űű ű uű/ űű ű űű  űűű ű ű ű ű  %űűo ű  űF űűJ"m:lű#űűű ű űűű   ű űű  ű $ m;!òű_5űű ű  űű  űű űű űű5  !ű /űűűűűűűKű űűű ű¶1 ű5ű ű5ű  ű ű 5ű5ű űű ű űűűű ű 5  űű  ű   ű  ű űűű ű !ű /űĨűű %űű7Tűű 7’ű(.$,eű  űűűÁsűű űű5ű ű6  ű0  5űűű6 ű3űć)ű ű ű űűűű Aű5ű- 5ű#5ű< ű0)ű  ű ű ’ű$(sű(.$,!ű6   ű5 ű űűű  %!ű/ ű5űű5ű Wűűsűűű ű ű  űű ű űű ű 1űűű,( t,,;ű3ű&ìôű /!"557/&< 4/"-5"+)< &ű  ű ľűVű,(=ű3ű&"űűű$7$}(űű ű űűű  ű űűűJ3ű&…:"űQű5űŃ űĘśűűű Eű Ÿű  k ű 5űű űsű ű  7 ű ű5űű ű !ű /ű ű ű 5űűűű ű !ű/ű %ű ű űűűă űű k ű ű ˆsű  űű 5ű ű űű ű Wű ű2 űű ű ű űű űűűű  űűűűűűWű ű  ű J!(),:!ű _ű  ű űű   űű űű   ű Īű űű5űűűy ¦űQű ű5űű¾5ű ű$ ;.§ű Qű űűűJűű- ű& 5űO  ű& ű  ű   5:Wűű ‹űű ű qűűęűűű $ ,.űJ-&O#űĹűš.; 7.,mWű !=:!ű&űűWű ű űűo5Îű>ű6 ű ű<"ű Qűy ű ű  űűűűű ű!ű /)űűűű\ ű űy űűűT űű űJ  űűű  ű   űo  űűŎ:ű űűűűy űűűűĔűű  ű 5¨ű/ űy űű ű űű ĺk%űűűű %ű  ƒű ű  sűű ű )ű 5ű űűű ű›ű  űű ű ű ű ű űű  ű ű ű‡űű ű ű ű ű !ű&űű űű  űű ů y ű űű  űű űű1  !ű±ű űűű ű„ű1 űºű űűű űűű űű—oqű<!Èű<ű5ű ű  Wű ű ű Ĥű űű űű űlű -TROh[E?h)FTD?hD*L7VJh(U:EF[?;[_T7Lh,T7eFQDh *RNN?:[FRQh 3[7QART=h4QFb?TYF[fh /F9T7TF?Yh & #h5QFc?TYF\fh(c?Q`?h17LRh(M[Rh.:;46/*D7*-0;,*<=7)1D>)2=);053D1T?Y?Ub7[FRQh(T<EF[?;[_T?h,?;?O9?T# h h "h #]Eh3[T??[hh 07JN7Q=h+(h&"h %% h OEaL9?T['?7T[ELFQKQ?[h űűűűűűű2ű ű6 űű%űű  űűVűűű ' űűű űĚ ű űű űűgű ű űűű!ű /ű2űűk ű  űűű% ű Y)ű  ű$vC=v;=Lűűű űűűű ű ű gűű ű ű%ű ˆűű űűűűű * ű ű űűű'7ä  űgűű űűű ƒű űű YWűűű  űűű  "ű &ű€űűű`ű€ű űűY  űGű ű ű ‰ űű 0]&ű< ű0UWű Ŧ ýűűűC MCāű  űű€YűGű Tű] ű0!Uűű$ M(¬ű űűűKKűű¸ ű*űG‡ű0űO'ű <UűűC M eű ű   űű  űű ű‰  'űűű ű ű  ­ű űYű űűGűB' ű8UűűC .¬ű űű ‰Yű űűG»ű0·ű6 űF%UűűC ,ű ű$ =­ű  űŏ»ű&0ű ņ'űGűO UűűC ø!ű_űűűűűű űuű Qű'Vű ű2űűű űű,(=ű3ű&űűű2Y ű  eű * űű  ű űűű v űě ű ű©ű0`ŬLű ű ű ű' ű  rűűű$ m.ű   ű ű  űűű űű 2 !ű 44+"5<04+)4< ]űű ű gűűűűű1 ű ''  ű űű\¨ű \ű°"ű T <űG óMM=t$ ù UHű> űűű  gűűLűoűB!űT*< űG$ .,å $ MõUVű  űűűűcűűC MCWű űű€űæ  ű  ű  űű†ű\ <űűűűC M ű!ç 6űűĊ*< ű ű űűű űűűC .űGű  ű űű %űűcűűűUlűQűű  ű űűC .Vűű“ű0űű°ű†űű  űűHű ]ű Ŝű‰  LűűC ,.eű \ű űoű\ <ű  űű$( .ű3Yű&ű ű]ű&hű_ű  ű űűűű\ < űűű*Y ©űQű űűűűű\ <űűűű   ű  űűű ¥ű ċű űű* űűűcű  űűűű ű  űűű'Yþű “ű>űh>"<"űG\ű]đű0uWű C M(Uű “ű_!ű8eű&"QH&!Lű&*ij űGB ű8'gűC M Uű ‘%űBű>Lű&  űG0 ű6 űFŐ%gű$ ,Uű _űűű Y űűűűű  űűűű  ű  ű űű1 űhű 1!"554< /űű  űűű űű,(=ű3Yű&Y!űű>ű\!ű 0%űG $M [7C M Uű  ű< ű>Hű 0 %űG Ą7C ,,Uűű]ű& "ű 9as]S”L–:fNte”NlR”;NaR”9”:fNue” /ű0%űű  űYűűű ű ű  ű  ű  űű ]ű&"ű8űű ű€  ű< űűűpűűűű ű%gű   űű1 ű   ű ű űű'ű  ű1*ű űű űű A9Ewi^{Woq_v~R{WjR g[kRW{Rd 0G3K3A…‚Š0L:;3B l? NRRb†bol”oV”<oll”=iiol…”N$…o”N”VosiSs”SjqfoSS”bl”&1+,”†^S”Vbsi”OSQNkS”K‹s…†Ss”9S{NsRb” NlR”=ijol…”K9=” 9S{NsRb”SN{SR”^b…”NsQ^b†SQ†‹sS”RS]sSS”N†”JlbSs…b†”oV”:NfbWo|bN”9SseSfS‘”bl”&1'+”NlR” oO†NblSR”^b…”fbQSl…S”bl”&1))”NV†Ss”QoiqfS†bl]”qo…†]sNRŒN†S”Žose”@S”doblSR”K‹s…†Ss…”Vbsi”bl” &1)+”NlR”Žb†^bl”N”VSŽ”SNs…”OSQNiS”olS”oV”†Žo”Q^bSV”RsN\…iSl”@S”…qSl†”†Žo”’SNs…”bl” blRSqSlRSl†”qsNQ†bQS”OSVosS”NQQSq†bl]”KŒs…†Ss…”oXSs”oV”qNlSs…^bq”9S†ŽSSl”&1,+”NlR”&1/&” ^S”…SsSR”N…”N”fSQ†‹sSs”bl”†^S”<SqN€iSl†”oV”8sQ^b†SQ†ŒsS”N†”J”:”9SseSfS” =jiol…”doblSR”K‹s…†Ss…”Vbsi”bl”&1)0”=R‹QN†SR”N†”:o{Sff”JlbSs…b†”NlR”†^S”JlbSs…b†”oV” Ho‹†^S}”:NfbVo}bN”=jjol…”…qSl†”Vo‹s”SNs…”bl”NsboŒ…”NsQ^b†SQ†ŒsNf”Vbsj…”bl”Co…”8l]SfS…” OSZsS”iobl]”lo€^”†o”Žose”Žb†^”KŒs…†Ss ”@S”…qSl†”VoŒs”SNs…”N…”N”RsNV†…jNl”bl”K‹s…†Ss…” oYbQS”OSZsS”doblbl]”†^S”ENNf”GS…SsS…”R‹sbl]”KoyR”LNs”AA!”Jqol”^b…”sUfSN…S”bl”&1+,”^S” doblSR”KŒs…†Ss”NlR”9S}NsRb”N…”N”qNs†lSs”bl”†^S”Vbsi#” L‹s…†Ss”sS†‹{SR”†o”†^S”9N”8sSN”bl”&1,%”†o”OSQojS”<SNl”oV”8sQ^b†SQ†‹sS”N†”†^S”JlbSs…b†”oV” :NfbVo{bN”9SseSfS”N”qo…b†bol”^S”^SfR”Œl†bf”^b…”sS†bsSjSl†”bl”&1.)"” Al”&1,1”^S”OsoŒ]^†”†^S” RSqNiSl†…”oV”NsQ^b†SQ†‹sS”fNlR…QNqS”NsQ^b†SQ†‹sS”NlR”Qb†”NlR”sS]bolNf”qfNllbl]”†o]S†^Ss”†o” OSQoiS”†^S”:ohfS]S”oV”=lbwpliSl†Nf”<S…b]l”K9=”blQosqosN†SR”bl”&1.)”NlR”Qol†bl‹SR”†o” qRŒQS”NŽNsRŽbllbl]”RS…c]l… ”vSQSbbl]”†^S”8iSsbQNl”Al…†b†Œ†S”oV”8sQ^b†SQ†…”8sQ^b†SQ†ŒsNf” >bsj”8ŽNsR”bl”&1.,!”8gf”†^sSS”qNs†lSs…”^NR”OSSl”lNiSR”>SffoŽ…”oV”†^S”8B8”O”†^b…”†biS”NlR” LŒs…†Ss”ŽN…”fN†Ss”^olosSR”Žb†^”†^S”8B8”?ofR”DSRNf”8ŽNsR”Vos”fbVS†biS”NQ^bSSiSl†”bl”&1.1” 8V†Ss”KŒs…†Ss…”RSN†^”bl”&1/)”†^S”†Žo”oŒl]Ss”qNs†lSs…”Qol†blŒSR”s‹llbl]”†^S”Vbsi”‹l†bf”†^S”ibR &10%…"”8…”oV”&111”K9=”Qol†blŒS…”†o”Sb…†”Žb†^o‹†”†^S”osb]blNf”qNs†lSs…” "36+/"<+)5:5< 8ű1 űcÏű ű 2űűűűű   ű  űűűAűű- ű & ‚ű  ű   űűűAqű )ű űű  űű3ű&ű ű& ű 6Lű űű űűű t$M .)ű   űűűSÐű űű$M ,ű íű   ű 1 űűű6ű-  űB  Ñűű!ű ") &űű)ű űű777(.ű ű6ű\)űűűűű ű )ű űűű& ű ű3ű&ű  űűűcűű1űű  űű   %űűűűű  ű!ű8ű )ű  űűű   ű  ű  űűű$ ..lű>űű t$ (.Vű3ű&ű ő  ű  ű2Ŀ  űűű űűF ƒű ű űűű űűű 1 ű  %"ű Qű$ (û)űű   ű 1ű űűű1 ű  %űű   !ű F¹űű†ű<)ű  ű  ű % ű  űűű ű$ m.!ű8)űű$ m;)ű ű1 ű űű,(=ű3űű !ű>ű$ =.gű   ű  ű ű 3¹ű&ű  űűűűűA…ű Qűű 77 ű(ñű )űű ű 2  űŖűűű\  űB Lűű$(ű  %űűűűűű& ű ű 3ű  lű > űűű űűűű 7(.ű űűű)űűű  ű űű   ű ű  ű ű !ű8ű űű  űűű   ű ű„Ĉ§|ű űű$£$v(űlű8ű1 ű űűűűű űű űűűű  ű ű űűű ű ű ű Hűw ű űűűű3ű&ű  űűű   űű ű  ű űűűűűű   ű  ű űű k$ ..!ű&űű 1 Ùű ű ű űűű űűű ű ű űűű   űűű !ű Qűű ű   űEűűűű  ű  űű   ű  )ű űºű A9Ewi`{Woq^v~R{WjS g[jRX{Rd 0G3K3C …ƒ‹0L<93Djr   ű ű ű1 )ű  ű ű1 űűű  űű űűűű ''"ű F ű űű űű ű%űű'ű  ű>űT"ű0ˆű ű< ű>!ű 0ˆƒű ű  ű ű űű űN ű űűű ű ű ű űű"ű8 ű űN ű űű ű  űűűű ű ű űűű $ ;.!ű8 ű űN űűű ű ű ű 'cű ű  ű űűű' "ű 8 )ű ű '' ű űű,(=ű3ű#ű űűű  ű   ű  !ű 8  ű ű ű űű' ű  ű űű  ű   ű ű'  )űűű ű|ű űűű űű ű%űű 'ű  Úűű űűű,(=ű3ű#ű'ű0Bű 0ű["ű O|űűűűűŒű űű ű0Bű űűŀű űű '' űű   ű ű6''ű!ű *”A†”^N…”aSfRSR”os”^N…”†^S”qo†Sl†aNf”†o”aSfR ”alVosjN†aol”aiqo‚Nl†”†o”†^S”qsS^a„†ox“”os” ^a…†ox“”oV”†^S”foQNf”NsSN”:NfaZ~aN”os”†^S”lN†aol” ,(=ű3ű#ű űű  ű ű űűűű ű űűű ű ű'ű  ű'hű8 )ű űŠű űű'ű0Bű0ű,!ű <9'75$+)<7((2< -ű űűű  ¡ű,(=ű3ű#ű'ű0Bű ű[{űű)űűű ű űű ű%űű'ű  ű>űT"ű 0%ű ű< ű>!ű0%!ű 0)ű  ű ű ű'űűűű )ű űű'űűűű  űű ű0B!ű O)űűűűű ű0B)űű ű'ű'űűűűű ű űű ű'űű ű ű  űűűű  űűű  "űQű ű œű ű'űű 'űűű űŔÒűű  ű Ûűű ű ű űű űű  űű ű!ű -ű0Čűű rű űű ű űűű űűűG'űFG” 9‹ffS†al”&,2”@oŽ”†o”8qqf”†^S”FN†aolNf”GS]a…†Ss”:sa†SsaN”Vos”=Nf‹N‰aol7”6 ű´xxx|űOűű wű űQűűű-:îű H~[Z†o~{3–8 ű  ű ű'űűűű űŭű )űűűűű  űű !ű Ra††o{i4–8 ű '' űűű ű1 ű ű'ű ű űű ű 'űű  ű1 ű űűű !ű8 )ű ű qűűűűűű !ű :„„~[oZ†o~{5–8 űœűű ħ ű űű' űűű ű1 ţ!ű O)űű ű űűű űűűű '' ű 'űű ű-ű#"ű8 Lűűűűű űű ű Caauo{i6–8 űűű ű‹ű ű  ű'ű űű ű űű%űű ű'űű űű  !ű8ű ű2ű )űű%űűűT ű ű  Ÿű űűűűű Kűű 1ű űű űű  "ű 0)ű ű űűű űű!ű >a„oi{3–8 űű űű  ű ű  űűűűűű ű2ű  )űűű ű  ű ű űűű' !ű8 ^ű űű ű űű"ű A9Fwi^|Woq^v~R|WkR! g[kRW|Rd 0G3K3A …ƒŠ 0L::4AlQ rMrS3” / ű  űű űű űű ¡űű ű¿ű ű űű,(=ű 3ű&"ű űűűS-&ű űmuű *”I^S”„†rŠP†ŠrS”or”„`†S”`„”PollSP†SR”Ž`†^”M”OŠ„`lS„„”or”Š„S”Ž^`P_”ŽM„”olPS”Poiiol”OŠ†”`„” loŽ”rMrS4” &Vű ű   űűű ű1 űű űű űű eűű űű  ű űű,(=ű3ű&"ű űűűS-&ű ű@Hű -” I^S”MrP^`†SP†”or”OŠ`fRSr”ŽM„”`iqo€Ml†5” / űű  űű ű1 ű fű>űTªű ű< ű>"űS%)űű K ű ű  űªűxűŅ  ‚ű ű  ű>űT"űS %űű   űÀűű űLű  űűűűű"ű / Eűűű űű ű%űű ű  Vűűű űű,(=ű 3ű&űűS-&űSű=ðű I I^S”„†rŠP†ŠrS”or”„`†S”Pol†M`l„”SfSiSl†„”RSiol„†rM†`l]”oŠ†„†MlR`l]”M††Sm†`ol”†o”MrP^`†SP†ŠrMf” RS„`]l ”RS†M`f ”iM†Sr`Mf„”or”PrM[„iMl„^`q” &űK )ű ű ű ű2űűűD ű ű  ű ű ű  ű  űűű¿ iű&ű ű ű űű¶ ű  ű  ű ű ĥ  ű   űű   Üű,(=ű3Ťű űűűS-&ű ű b!ű 7((/;<~d–#)#) 3< &ű   ű)ű ű űű ű ű   űű,(=ű3ű&űű- ű& Ýű a  ű űűű ű űÀ űűűű űű  ű ű űSBVűű  ű űűű űűűűű ű  ű ű ű2ű  ű  ű¾űűű űSB!ű &  Wű űŠű ű űűű   ű űűűű  ű  ű  Vű ű űĒ%űűű ű  ű űűűű űűű Űű !ű TLű  ű űŝ1 ű űűű űS-&ű EűűK )űű ű    ű ű űű ű Lű űűű  űű ű  űű ű ¦űS )ű,(=ű3ű&űű űűű ű%űű ű   ű>űT!ű ű< ű>iűS %eűűűűű ű2 űűű  ű ű ű  űűű‹ űű űűű  ű ű ű űSűű- ű& Óű  ű űJű-&TSű6 ű$b!, ".,.•Đ:!ű 6 ÿű  T%űOűïű -ű&  ű A9Ewia{Yoq^vR{Zj"R g\jTX{Rd 1G3K3A …‚‹0L::5BmM űű  ű ?űű   ű űűűű  £  ű   RűQű ű   űűhű 44;)ű űűű  ű  űű  ű ű ű űű űű ű űűű  űhű ³ű ű   űűű  fű     űKű  űű ¢`ű  ű  ű  űű ű  ?ű ű űű  ű ű `ű űű ű Rű Ãű #  Eű űűű7 ű ű ű `ű ű ű 9ű#ű űK?ű ű  űű  űűű  ű1 ű  9ű/ ű 7ß ű ű ű2  ű ű  űű ű à  ű ?ű  ű űű űKű ű ű ű "ű±ű ű  ű ű ġű űű  ű ű ű ű  ű ű ű ű ¼űJ"44;:ű  ű   ű ?ű űű   ű ű ű "ű/ űű  ű1 ű ű ű ű 7 ű Eű ű ű ű űűű ī ű ű űű uű / ű2 ű  ű ű ű űűű űŧ ?ű ű ű ű ű ű   ‚űű űű"ű_ű Ľ űű ű űű ű  "ű_ű ű ű űKKű  ű űű "ű/İű  ű  ű %ű űű"ű44C?ű  ű ű  ű ű űC b.uű ³ ű űűJű ű- ű# űO   ű#  ű    ű Ł  :ű űű  űű ű Ìű Eű  űű ű % ?űű űűűű ű- ű # ű C 4.űJ-#O#űűš.; á.4[?ű9=:"ű_  ű ű    ű    űű ű  ű ű ű  űű   "ű ´ űē ű ű2 ű ű ű ű ű űű  ű "űQű ű  ű ű ?űĶűűű  űű űűğű fű7 ūűű  ű ű ű  ?űű ű űű űű  ű 9ű/ıű   űűŒ ű  ű ű űű  ?ű űű |ű ű űY– ű ű  űű  ű    ű ű ű  ű ű  hű/ ű űű   ű ű űŨűű   ű  űű ű ű  ű Rű< űű ű  Eű ű ű„ ű   ű ű% ű Ĭű ű ű 9ű #ű  ű ű űű ű   fű űű  űű űű űű ű ű ű ű ű űűHű6  űq ű Eűű űű  űű űű   ű ű ű ?ű  ű ű ű űű ű iű#?ű ű KKű ű ű űű űűpűű   ű   ű űű %¤ű >ű Eű ű űű  ű fűű ű  ű «ű / ű  űű ű  űű ű  Eű  ű ű ű ű űű  ű ű űÔ  ű / ű űű ű ű űűű  Öű ű  ű ű  űű / ű ű  ű ű  ű ű   űű ű "ű / ű   ű  űű űű 9ű Qű ű űű  fű ű ű űű ű2 űN ű  űű ű  ű ű ű űNĂűű űű ű  űKfű ű ű ű  ű ű "ű44;ű ?ű ?űű   9ű -ű ű  ű¼ ű ű ű fű ű ű űű ű ű ű ű ű ű   …ű~  ű űű  ű űűű ű  űű űN 9ű/ ű ėűű ű ű ű^ű )ű  % ű ű   ű űű ű  "ű w2 ű  ű ű  ű  űű ű ű ŪűűűűJ ű ·űű IJ 7űűűűű :ű ű  űűHű/ ű2 ű ű ű   űű űN ű ű  ű  űűhű/ űű fűpű ű  ű   9ű - ű  ű  űű űA űű- ű# ű2  ű %űű ű ű űC b.?ű ű ű B;NBBHwib{Woq^v~U{X&lU( g[nUX{Ud 3;;H3;‡‚Œ"0O;;3B l; + ű ű   ű ű 1  ű + ×ű ű2  űű  + ű+ű ű űű űKű ű ű+  ű ű"ű44;RűA` ?ű ű ű űN Ģű űű űű2  Eű  ű ű    ű ű+ű ű  ű ű    ű ű  ű+  ű  9ű 1+.15;< #35+1;< w  űű ű  űű ű ++  ű–űű +  9ű _ű űű ű+ űű ű  +  ű űűp ëű -ű6ű+)űű ű âZ. ű  cű ű2 ű½ űű–űűű  ű  ű  űű Eű Ž+ű  ű  9ű~ű ű$PZ4ű6Eű  ű  űű   ű ű4Zn74[$ű3 ű#9ű#ű ű  űűŠ ű űű ű- ű# űO  ű#  ű J-#O#:űŌ űű  ű ű—  űűX¥ű‘ Śű- Äű  ű4[$ű 3 Eű ű  ű ű  űű  ű ű űű$MPMű+ ű  üű~ű$PZn^űű ű  ű ű4[$ű3 ű#ű  ű ű  űűz/ ű–B˜ű űűz</ eű <Hű†H-R˜űJ$PZnű-ű# űA ű< Ř:9ű #ű  űØű ű1 ű ++ ű űű   űűűÍű  ű ű$PZ;Hű~ ű  ű ű 7  űű ű ű   ű Eűűű ű űű ű ű ű ű ű Hű/ ű+űű  ű   ű ű ű  ű ű ű ű4Znű 3 žű ű ű  űű ű   ű ű űű ű i:ű/ ű ++  ű  ű ű ű  űK ű űű ű   űű ű$P4Pű6űXűJR4:Rű /  ű$PZúűűűű ű  ű {ű ű  ű  ŗű ű ű  űű  űōű ű űű ű4Z;k44Pű  ű$P[.Rű/  ű ű űűű űA łű6  űą + ű #  ű ű9ű4ZP)ű  ű- űF ű• ģµű ű9ű 44;9ű wű+ ű ű ű űű ű ű+ű  ű ű ++ űű +  ű ű űű űJ-#O#Eű ű űű-űFv6:Rű/ ű  ű  ű   ű   űc  ű  ű šűz- űF ű ű ű ű űű- ű# űű űű űű ű ű¯ ű  ű ű3 űűű +ń   Eű  ű űű űű®9™űz- űF űF ű” űZű6 űO{Åű-#ű/+Eű ű  űã ű"b:ű #ű  ű ű+ű$P[4ű ű ű űÆű ű   űrűp  ű   ű ű  %ű ű ű Ů ű űű3 űű ű¯ ű  ű űű”%  ű  ű9"9űÇűJz#ű6 űOű> űűÉbn{...d™ű- ű# ű/+{ű®"űZnrű$P[4)űRb:Hű/ ű ½ ű  ű űűűűTHű űX9űX9>"ű6%űű”%  )ű ű ű+ű űűX"ű űĉHű#HűF +űű- ű# 9ű/ ű  ű ű+ ű  ű-űF ű ű  űű7űűű ű  ű ű 1  űJRű44$ű:iű F ű ű űű űÊ ű žű űű ű2  űű  ű űp+ ű    ű ű  Rű_ű űű  ű űű  %űű űű ű%9:ű ~ű  )ű ű űű ű  ű+ű űűX"ű űX9ű#"űF +…ű/ ű  ű ű+ű  űű ű ű+  ű-űFEű ű+ű+ ű   ű$P[4t$P[nű ű ű +ű6ű6 Hű6ű+ ű ű ű  ű ű ű $P4."ű / ű ű ű űű  űűű ű űĦű ++  ű ű ű Rű #35+1#<+)5:5< / ű1 ű qű   ű  2 űű  űű ű ++ ű  + űű űA űű-ű # )ű ű    űű űA Œű  rű  űű   ű ű3 ű#ű ű# +ű A9NCAIzib}Woq^v~R}W'mV g[kRW}Rd 89=H89…„Š)2M::8CmA  ű űűGF )ű6%^űo%:űűű  űűű  űŠ "ű A` ›ű űű ű űű@( 7ö@;űĎű#"ű űű ű   ű  ű űűű űűűű ű Ň ű  Hű !–A‡”SiOoR`S„”‡^S”R`„‡`lP‡`S”P^MrMP‡Sr`„ˆ`P„”oV”M”‡qS ”qSr`oR ”rS]`ol ”or”iS‡^oR”or” Pol„‡rŠP‡`ol ”or”rSqrS„Sl‡„”‡^S”Žore”oV”M”iM„‡Sr”or”qo„„S„„S„”^`]^”M€`„‡`P”MgŠS„6” 8 ű2ű űű@( 7@@;űjű#èűaű*  ű $ (;"ű> űű ű Vűűĭ űűN űa ű űű„ *  űX }A  ű  űűG űű űű :ű űű ű#űX ű  űGűűa a:Rű xűűű** ű ű ű  űűű  dű ű űű   űű ű űűű ű dűa ű ű ű űN ű űaűa ű`űű űű ű   űVűű ďĮű ű *%űĻű  űűĸűű"ű8 ű1 ű űaű ű ř ű ű  űű ű ű 1 ű ű  %dűűűű  űűťhű Xdű ű ű űN ű űű ű "ű8 ű űN ű ű ű  űű$ bHűF  ű ű2űűN űű űűű ű ű ?ű ű űű  ű ű ű  űű ű ¢(. ű !ű xű űű ű } ű űűű ű2dűű  ű ű űÕű  ű %űűű űŠűű űN űű űű ű eű ű ű ű  ű* }űű űű ű  ű űű "ű# ű ű  ű ű űű 1  ű  !űF  ű űűűÁ ű ű ű űű  ű2űN Lű ű2űű   űű*ŕ"űč ű2űűňű űű űű űű  űN "űF űű űNĜLű  űʼnű ű ş }  ű űű*űűaĵűűĝ ű  iűwűű űű ű ű Lűű űűŊűűĕ  ű*įűűű ũű¸ ű 2űűűű *ű*   !ű- Vű űűű   ű  űű ű  ű2ű "ű 8 pdű ű   űĖűű@( t@@;űjű#ű űű ű  ű    ű  Rű X^űű  dű^ű űű űű ű ű ű űű   "ű #ű ű ű ű ű  ű  űű   ű   űű    ?űűű ű%űűű^űűű ű Āű ű@( Ž @@;űjű#ű űűűABűAű(” *”A‡”^M„”`SgRSR ”or”^M„”‡^S”qo‡Sl‡`Mg”‡o”`SgR ”`lVoriM‡`on”`iqor‡Ml‡”‡o”‡^S”qrS^`„‡oƒ”or” ^`„‡or”oV”‡^S”goPMg”MrTM” :Mg`Voz`M”or”‡^S”lM‡`ol” @( 7@@;űjű#űĩűű  ű ű űűűű ű ű űű  űűű *ű!ű8 ^ű  űű űűűABű Aű@!ű <P–?‹Zu‰Z†o~{–R‰vwZ7–-ű űű ű  ű ű dűŞ ű   ű ű ű űű@( Þ@@;űjű#ű űűűűA²ű ű Vű  ^űűű  űű űű űA²iű ‘– ?ű űű űABű `ű űűűűűűű űűABű ű  űűű   ű9űOa?űű@( 7@@;űjű#"ű űűűűABű *ű űű ‡űűABű  œűű űű ű Œűűűű` éű A:NAAHwi^{Xpq^v~R{X*j#R+ g[kRX{Rf 7:;H3: ˆ‚‹,0L::7AjG *I**űűI Dű,( 7,,;űjű űűű0]#ű*űbű 7((/;<+<#*#* 4< #ű D ű^űIű*űD* űű,( 7,,;űjű#űű]Dű#DűűDDű űDűűIű0B¤ű# DD^űIűű ű*űűűD* űűűűű  Ĵ űI*ű *Lű űIű%űűű*Iű *ű űűűűIűűű űDêű XWűűK ‚űűDű*I*Dű űIűļűDrűĞűűű *I*űűIűI*ű*I*Dűűűc*Ġlű0`DLű,( 7,,;ű jű#9űűIűű űűűI*ű*ű űIű0űű-Dű#DËű *űűGű]#X0ű6*ű$bi÷ ".,.•µ:iű 6 «ű  Xŋ%űĆDű ]ű#*I*ű C>PCCHyi^{Woq^v€R{W)j-R) g[jRX{Re8>;J5>‰‚‹+2P>>3Cls Bmh– "2 "".–TzmŠ`€ƒm…Ž–9Š`xˆ`– Vm`–}c–c€}y…–Xz]–ƒn^`–   “  + )  *  ! "#st$%&'(+ W’‘G–– , )     ) ,BD,CD ))&),      ),%)  , #&"D %&, D  D    !'()*",II     I  I     I +,•–8DD,    ,AD#,@D$,$)”––,)   ) #),   , ))  ) !' (),?D9 Alg8–"2""-–# %&#"&2"$– & & A;LAAHxi^}WotcvU}X.l'U+ g]jUW}Ue 3;=H4;‰‚Š/0P;;8Al40 FI )) )  )  )  ) &"2"".–# %&#"& $&& &!& !&!& A:LBAHyi^}Xou^v€R}W#jV h[jRW}Rf8::I3:‡‚Š+1L::3Bl3: City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/6/2015 8:02 AM Carnahan, David From:Kirit Dave <kiritdave@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, April 05, 2015 4:56 PM To:Council, City Subject:Item 15 on your agenda Dear Sir, Please remove item 15, regarding 429 University Ave. project. Sorry to say, and while containing my anger, i would say "enough is enough". City of Palo alto has been irreparably damaged in my opinion already and we need to stop this type of proposal immediately and permanently.. I have lived in Palo Alto for over 29 years now; and in last few years entire culture of what Plao Alto stood for as an unique city has all been ruined forever. We can not justify what we do in Palo alto for what neighboring Cities do. Of course huge "legal bribes" in surrounding Cities have also wreaked havoc in our living .. from traffic to crime and auto accidents. Please stop this massive zoning changes destroying our cities. I used to develop homes and small developments but Cities were too strict to give any breaks to smaller developers. ...either in terms of zoning or square footages of building. But now on massive scale with the corporate money power, and it is only money-power that has bought of conscience of City planners with the result of ruining our living standards. I recall when some of these developments were going on, we were assured that the traffic studies had satisfied planners of the minimal impact. Well let me give you real life data: What used to take close to 15 minutes now takes over 45 minutes during the traffic ... Thanks to the "traffic studies". Enough people have had enough and I am certain that next elections will reflect that fact. What has happened in our beautiful Palo Alto is another proof how quickly money brokers can ruin years and years of culture in a snap. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/6/2015 8:02 AM Kris City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/6/2015 8:02 AM Carnahan, David From:Elaine <meyere@concentric.net> Sent:Sunday, April 05, 2015 4:28 PM To:Council, City Subject:429 University Ave Please remove the item concerning  429 University Ave. from the Consent Calendar and allow the appeal.    The neighbors of this project have spoken clearly about what is wrong with this proposal.    The Council needs to make it clear about whose interests it represents ‐ residents or a few architects and developers.    This project violates the spirit of the Comprehensive Plan as well as the clear preferences of the voters last November. University  Avenue's character is being changed against the wishes of our residents.    The Planning Department would  not be so burdened with work if it stopped giving exceptions and variances to any  architect/developer who asks, and then having to defend their actions when questioned.  In‐lieu fees have been corrupted and have become zoning‐for‐sale. It is time to re‐think these loopholes.    Elaine Meyer  meyere@concentric.net  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/6/2015 8:02 AM Carnahan, David From:Deborah Wexler <drkwexler@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, April 05, 2015 4:21 PM To:Council, City Subject:429 Kipling Please reopen the appeal for the approval of the planned property on Kipling.  The project is too big for the location, out of  keeping for its location and architecturally a misfit for the street.  Take back our downtown from rapacious developers.  Show  them that they need to develop properties that are sensitive to the physical needs and the environment of the City.     Thank you,    Deborah Wexler  1078 Forest Ave  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/6/2015 8:02 AM Carnahan, David From:Margaret Feuer <portulaca24@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, April 05, 2015 3:56 PM To:Council, City Subject:429 University Madam Mayor and Members of the Council, Please reopen the appeal of the 4 story project at 429 University. This building is incompatible in size and style with surrounding structures. In addition, it is precisely the type of construction which has incensed Palo Alto residents for the past several years. Please listen to the electorate and reconsider this appeal. Yours truly, Margaret R. Feuer 1310 University Ave. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/6/2015 8:02 AM Carnahan, David From:Leonard Ortolano <ortolano@stanford.edu> Sent:Sunday, April 05, 2015 3:51 PM To:Council, City Subject:please take the project at 429 University Ave off of the consent calendar Dear members of the City Council,    I write to urge you to take Item 15 off the consent calendar so that a hearing on the appeal of the proposed  project at 429  University Ave can be scheduled within 30 days. This project has generated enormous controversy for a long time.  It is not the  type of action that should be on a consent calendar.    Frankly,  I am quite surprised that the City Manager would even consider an item with these types of adverse environmental and  social impacts to be one that should not be discussed fully by the City Council and decided upon by the full Council. The proposal  to have it on the consent calendar does not inspire confidence in the City Manager or the city staff.     Sincerely yours,    Leonard Ortolano  556 Irven Court   Palo Alto, CA 94306        City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/6/2015 8:02 AM Carnahan, David From:Patrick Frank <pfrank830@earthlink.net> Sent:Sunday, April 05, 2015 3:15 PM To:Council, City Subject:re-open the appeal I support re‐opening the appeal on the 429 University Ave project. The proposed Hayes building looks to be a monstrosity and a  faceless eyesore.    Patrick Frank  103 Lincoln Ave.  Palo Alto, CA 94301  email: pfrank830@earthlink.net  ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++  These things are, we conjecture, like the truth;  But as for certain truth, no one has known it.               Xenophanes, 570‐500 BCE  ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++    City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/6/2015 8:02 AM Carnahan, David From:Geoff Ball <ghball@aol.com> Sent:Sunday, April 05, 2015 3:07 PM To:Council, City Cc:meyere@concentric.net Subject:Appeal of 429 Kipling City Council Members Please re-open the appeal of the project at 429 University Ave. (Shady Lane site), tomorrow, April 6. The item should be removed from the Consent Calendar and a number of negative aspects of the project identified by the planning commission should be addressed in the Council's review of the project. All the best Geoff Ball Geoff Ball, Ph.D. Geoff Ball & Associates 315 Bryant Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301 ghball@aol.com, cell: 650-279-9461 www.GeoffBallFacilitator.com City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/6/2015 8:02 AM Carnahan, David From:Hamilton Hitchings <hitchingsh@yahoo.com> Sent:Sunday, April 05, 2015 3:01 PM To:Council, City Subject:Please remove item 15: 429 University Avenue from the consent calendar and schedule an appeal hearing. Thank you. Hamilton Hitchings City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/6/2015 8:02 AM Carnahan, David From:Richard Leask <leask@befcfinance.com> Sent:Sunday, April 05, 2015 2:55 PM To:Council, City Cc:meyere@concentric.net Subject:429 Kipling Members of the council,    The proposed project at 429 Kipling would be a huge mistake.  At a time of increasing congestion, another over‐sized building  which towers over its neighbors is the last thing we need.  In addition, there is absolutely no excuse for allowing yet another  building without sufficient parking.  At this point in Palo Alto’s history, we should be requiring that any new building contribute  parking beyond its needs, not less.    Please reconsider this project.    Richard G. Leask  1235 Webster Street  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/6/2015 8:02 AM Carnahan, David From:Baruch Boxer <brchboxer594@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, April 05, 2015 2:50 PM To:Council, City Subject:6 April agenda item 15 Item 15 should be removed from the April 6 meeting agenda. The proposed structure is harmfully inconsistent with  neighborhood ambiance and parking and safety requirements.  Thanks,    Baruch Boxer  Professor Emeritus, Rutgers University  Geography, Human Ecology, Environmental Science Visiting Scholar, Stanford University Dept. of Civil and Environmental  Engineering (2005‐13) (H)650‐424‐8072; (C)650‐646‐3186  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/6/2015 8:02 AM Carnahan, David From:Allen Akin <akin@arden.org> Sent:Sunday, April 05, 2015 2:49 PM To:Council, City Subject:Appeal of 429 University project Council Members,    After considering the text of the appeal, and comments from the ARB meeting, it seems to me that there is sufficient  justification for a formal review.  I support removing the appeal from the consent calendar so that a review can proceed.    Allen Akin  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/6/2015 8:02 AM Carnahan, David From:Larry and Zongqi Alton <lalton@pacbell.net> Sent:Sunday, April 05, 2015 2:17 PM To:Council, City Subject:Please reopen the appeal of 429 Kipling building Dear Council members, Please reopen the appeal of the 429 Kipling Building. The concerns of residents that were strongly expressed on the Maybell Referendum and again last November, were ignored by city staff again. The building is recklessly deficient on parking in the already extreme lack of parking situation in downtown Palo Alto. Kipling St is one of the narrowest streets in downtown Palo Alto at only 29 ft. wide, and is already congested and hazardous for two lane traffic, and almost impassable when cars and trucks are double parked for temporary business services. The mass of the 4 story building will create a structure that overwhelms the adjacent and existing buildings on University Avenue and Kipling Street. Municipal code states that "buildings shall be designed to minimize massing" (18.18.110). The staff report does not discuss the loss of ground floor retail associated with this development. Thank You, Larry Alton Owner in Downtown North City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/6/2015 8:02 AM Carnahan, David From:Alan Cooper <akcooper@pacbell.net> Sent:Sunday, April 05, 2015 1:57 PM To:Council, City Cc:akcooper@pacbell.net Subject:Reopen appeal for 429 University Ave project. Dear Council members Please reopen the appeal of the project at 429 University Ave. (Shady Lane site), tomorrow, April 6. The item should be removed from the Consent Calendar. The design proposed for 429 University has nothing in common stylistically with any building on the block, makes no Code-required gestures of shared style elements, and its size far exceeds all of its neighbors. It will dominate the block with its sheer mass, without Code-required consideration for neighboring structures. The new four story, 50 ft building would tower over the adjacent one and two story buildings on Kipling St. Kipling St is one of the narrowest streets in downtown Palo Alto at only 29 ft. wide. Please preserve the integrity and charm of Palo Alto downtown and revisit the design of this proposed "monster building". Thank you, Alan Cooper 270 Kellogg Ave City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/6/2015 8:02 AM Carnahan, David From:Pat Marriott <patmarriott@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Sunday, April 05, 2015 1:54 PM To:Council, City Subject:429 University Council Members:  I hope you will honor Michael Harbour's appeal of this project and I encourage you to read the Comments posted at  http://paloaltoonline.com/news/2015/04/03/downtown‐denizens‐split‐over‐proposed‐downtown‐development     I also urge you to change the rules that allow parking give‐aways, e.g., “Normally, a project of this sort would be  required to provide 92 parking spaces. But because the two current University Avenue buildings paid parking  assessment fees rather than provide the spaces, the requirement drops by 37 spaces, to 55. In addition, the  development uses a mechanism called "transfer of development rights" to reduce the requirement by another 20  spaces, to 35. The mechanism relies on building rights (along with parking exemptions) granted to developers who  rehabilitate and seismically retrofit historic buildings.”    None of these give‐aways make sense in the current downtown environment, nor in any other areas of the city.  Parking is a disaster everywhere and getting worse with every new development.    Thank you,              Pat Marriott    City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/6/2015 8:02 AM Carnahan, David From:Adam Guttentag <adam@yogaworks.com> Sent:Sunday, April 05, 2015 1:45 PM To:Council, City Subject:RE: Support of Appeal of Proposed Building at 429 University Ave. Dear City Council, I support the appeal of the proposed building at 429 University Avenue. Please remove the item from the consent calendar so a formal appeal can be heard. The proposed building is incompatible in size, scope and architectural style with the existing nearby buildings. It will create traffic congestion on narrow Kipling Street and alleyway 30 which is used for freight deliveries. It reduces the existing amount of downtown retail space and replaces it with office space. The long-term construction and building itself will have a negative impact on existing businesses and residents. I am writing on behalf of our new YogaWorks Palo Alto location, located at 440 Kipling St. Thank you, Adam Guttentag Senior VP Development & Operations YogaWorks 2215 Main St., Santa Monica, CA 90405 Tel: (310)664-6470 x106 / Cell: (310)963-7811 Email: adam@yogaworks.com City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/6/2015 8:02 AM Carnahan, David From:Paul Machado <plmachado@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, April 05, 2015 1:40 PM To:Council, City Subject:429 University Ave appeal I support the appeal of 429 University Ave.  It is time for this insanity to stop.Staff is to be guided by the comp plan which states  very clearly neighborhoods are to be protected.  Unfortunately  this is not  the case.  Here we have yet another project that is  incompatible architecturally with it's surrounding neighborhood.  Further it is to be placed on an undersized street and clearly will contribute to traffic, parking and congestion problems.    I urge council to take this matter of off the consent calendar and review it further.  Staff, the PTC and the ARB,  need direction so  their decisions are in compliance with the comp plan and the well being of neighborhoods is a prominent component of their  deliberations.    Thank you  Paul Machado  Evergreen Park  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/6/2015 8:02 AM Carnahan, David From:Jim Colton <james.colton10@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, April 05, 2015 1:34 PM To:Council, City Subject:Item 15 Dear council members I am writing to request that Item 15, the proposed large developer in Kipling ace, be removed from the consent calendar. The proposed building will have a big impact on the neighborhood in terms of retail space, parking, and traffic. Many examples in recent years have shown that there is a strong interest in such developments and that public wants to have a day before this development is considered for approval. Please remove this project fe the consent calendar so that such discussion can tale place Yours truly Jim Colton City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/6/2015 8:02 AM Carnahan, David From:Eric Gordon <emgordon@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, April 05, 2015 1:31 PM To:Council, City Subject:Do what you were elected for     Sent from my iPhone    Eric Gordon  650 465 5783  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/6/2015 8:02 AM Carnahan, David From:Barry Z. Rose <barryzrose@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, April 05, 2015 1:25 PM To:Council, City Cc:Elaine Subject:The Palo Alto planning process for 429 University . . . . . . obviously is the result of CORRUPT PRACTICES -- either within the city of Palo Alto government itself -- or within the bureaucracy. SHAME ON YOU!!! Barry Z. Rose City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/6/2015 8:02 AM Carnahan, David From:doria s <doriasumma@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, April 05, 2015 1:04 PM To:Council, City Subject:429 University Ave. Dear Mayor Holman and Council Members, I am in agreement with many other Palo Alto residents who are asking you to hear the appeal of 429 University ave. As stated in the appeal, the proposed building will add to many existing problems, including but not limited to: jobs/housing imbalance, loss of retail, increased traffic and yet more overflow commuter parking in residential neighborhoods. It does not make sense to approve projects that further exacerbate these problems at the same time we are trying to solve them. The current comprehensive plan contains many policies that aim to keep Downtown growth in scale with the pedestrian experience and in keeping with the idea of preserving diversity, and richness in architecture. For Instance,Policy L-58 advocates: "Promote adaptive reuse of old buildings …" part of what makes Palo Alto's business and neighborhoods so interesting is the juxtaposition of buildings from different eras. This richness of character can be preserved by 'adaptively reusing' or updating older buildings instead of tearing them down and replacing them. Even when buildings are not historic, their reuse can help maintain the scale and visual interest of the city or a business district." For this and other reasons stated in the appeal, I urge you to vote to give this project a full hearing and the full consideration of the City Council that it deserves. Thank you, Doria Summa (650) 858 2920 Home (650) 867 7544 Mobile City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/6/2015 8:02 AM Carnahan, David From:Robert McIntyre <rwm836@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, April 05, 2015 1:03 PM To:Council, City Subject:Item 15 on the April 6 consent calendar Dear City Council members I respectfully request that you remove item number 15 from the consent calendar portion of the April 6, 2015 council meeting. This item, regarding the property at 429 University Avenue, is too important a matter to not allow it to have a full, open hearing at the meeting. I thank you in advance for your consideration of this request. Sincerely, Bob McIntyre (Palo Alto resident since 1946). 1061 Fulton Street Palo Alto 94301 -- Robert W. McIntyre 415.385.7664 (cell) 650-321-5885 (fax) City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/6/2015 8:02 AM Carnahan, David From:John Guislin <jguislin@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, April 05, 2015 12:44 PM To:Council, City Subject:Please remove Item 15 from the April 6 consent calendar Council Members: I urge you to remove the project at 429 University Avenue from the Consent Calendar on April 6. I am in agreement with my neighbors and groups like Palo Altans for Sensible Zoning that this project: - is incompatible with the exiting neighborhood - reduces retail at the expense of office space - will exacerbate existing traffic and parking issues - is another example of business interests being put ahead of resident concerns Please make the time for an appeals process so that the concerns of residents can be addressed. Sincerely, John Guislin City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/6/2015 8:02 AM Carnahan, David From:Ben Lerner <balerner@yahoo.com> Sent:Sunday, April 05, 2015 12:05 PM To:Council, City Subject:Appeal of 429 University Avenue Dear PA City Council - Please support a resident's appeal of the building to be erected at 429 University Avenue. It is Item 15 on Monday Night's consent calendar, and I'm requesting that you remove it from the consent calendar and allow it a full hearing before Council. Thank You, Ben Lerner 3482 Janice Way Palo Alto City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/6/2015 8:02 AM Carnahan, David From:Jon Zweig <jon@jzweig.org> Sent:Sunday, April 05, 2015 12:04 PM To:Council, City Subject:Please take Item 15 off the consent calendar for April 6 meeting Dear City Council‐    Concerning the proposed office building at Kipling and University    The last thing we need for University Avenue is another large office building. The character of the street has already changed  enough. We are hurtling toward urbanization so fast, our city will soon  be unrecognizable. Please let's discuss this before  constructing another of these large, soulless offices. We should be encouraging retail space.    Sincerely,  Jon Zweig  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/6/2015 8:02 AM Carnahan, David From:Lowys <lowys@jps.net> Sent:Sunday, April 05, 2015 11:49 AM To:Council, City Cc:'Lowys' Subject:Remove 429 University Ave item from April 6 consent calendar Council- We strongly urge you to remove the 429 University Ave item from the consent calendar on April 6. Please allow a hearing for the appeal. Don’t let the city manager, developers and others who have been destroying Palo Alto’s building character and neighborhoods, over the past years, be allowed to ‘bull doze’ yet another down town area with a massive building that will further destroy a pedestrian street and add to the parking problems. This building will also negatively impact the area’s retail and residents. We hope the city council hears the concerns of all our community including its residents. We hope at least three council members will vote to have this item removed to allow for an appeal[s]. Thank you. Ruth and Michael Lowy Palo Alto City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/6/2015 8:02 AM Carnahan, David From:Lisa Rutherford <lrutherford@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, April 05, 2015 11:41 AM To:Council, City Subject:REMOVE 429 University Avenue Appeal from Consent Calendar Dear City Council Members, I am writing to ask that you remove the 429 University Ave Appeal from the Consent Calendar so that a formal appeal can be heard. The proposed building is incompatible in size, scope and architectural style with the existing nearby buildings, including my home. It will create traffic congestion on narrow Kipling Street and alleyway 30, which is used for freight deliveries. It reduces the existing amount of downtown retail space and replaces it with office space. The long- term construction and building itself will have a negative impact on existing businesses and residents. Thank you. Lisa Rutherford 443 Kipling St Palo Alto, CA 94301 ---------------- lisa rutherford lrutherford@gmail.com 650-380-2812 ---------------- Sent from Mailbox City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/6/2015 8:02 AM Carnahan, David From:Malcolm Beasley <beasley@stanford.edu> Sent:Sunday, April 05, 2015 11:30 AM To:Council, City Cc:Malcolm Beasley Subject:429 University City Council:    I am a long standing resident of DTN and am well informed about the current issues regarding  development, traffic and parking.   I urge you take approval of the 429 University Ave project off the Consent Calendar and discuss it directly.  Specifically, I think  you need to ask staff to provide the net increase in parking space demand the project will produce.  If approval only requires  that all the present processes have been followed, I know from long‐standing experience that the balance between  development and quality of the residential neighborhoods adjacent to the University Ave business corridor will not be  addressed, even superficially.  Either a project increases or decreases the demand for parking.  i submit that good governance  (and certainly in the present climate) dictates that Council know that number when they vote.      Thank you,    Mac Beasley      M.R.  Beasley  Geballe Laboratory for Advanced Materials Stanford University Stanford CA 94305  650‐723‐1196  beasley@stanford.edu          City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/6/2015 8:02 AM Carnahan, David From:Jeff Levinsky <jeff@levinsky.org> Sent:Sunday, April 05, 2015 10:24 AM To:Council, City Subject:Please Hear 429 University Ave Appeal Dear City Councilmembers:  I join with the many other residents across Palo Alto asking you to hear the 429 University appeal.  In approving the project, the city’s prior reviews and processes ignored:   Loss of retail: While staff now admit this project will cause retail space to be lost, they never revealed this in  any reports prior to the appeal.  In fact, page 27 of the project’s January 2014 Environmental Checklist says  (emphasis added), “The project would increase the existing retail, office, and residential land uses in the  immediate vicinity and would not introduce any incompatible land uses.” That statement is simply untrue.   Mitigation for the loss of retail: An obvious solution is to require retail space be added as mezzanines or  second floors so as to preserve the total retail square footage.  Such mitigation was never discussed because  staff never revealed there was a problem or addressed ways to solve it   Increased parking problems:  Although the Environmental Checklist repeatedly says the project complies with  the Comprehensive Plan, the lack of parking for 15 cars will undoubtedly force those cars into residential  neighborhoods, violating the city’s Comprehensive Plan protection of those from commercial intrusion.  The  report fails to note that or to consider possible mitigation.     Worsening job/housing imbalance:   Page 32 of the Environmental Checklist says, “The addition of four  dwelling units in the University Avenue/Downtown area would provide a small amount of housing in the  Downtown area, thereby improving the jobs‐housing balance in this employment center.”  The report states  the project will add 8,774 sq. ft. of commercial square footage, equaling at least 35 more workers in the  building (the number of local customers will likely decline, given that the retail space is shrinking).  Even if  each of the four new apartments were occupied by a Palo Alto employee, the project still requires 31 more  people to commute each day into the city.  The report inappropriately narrows consideration only to “this  employment center,” ignoring the traffic and environmental impact on the city overall. For these and many other reasons the community has pointed out, please remove 429 University from consent and  schedule a full and fair hearing on the issues the project raises.  Thank you,  Jeff Levinsky  1682 Hamilton Ave  Palo Alto City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/6/2015 8:02 AM Carnahan, David From:Emily Renzel <marshmama2@att.net> Sent:Sunday, April 05, 2015 9:55 AM To:Council, City Subject:Please remove 429 University from consent calendar Mayor Holman and Members of the City Council:    Sometimes it seems that the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing.   You recently adopted a mild restriction on  office conversion and you have been taking extraordinary steps to alleviate parking in residential neighborhoods near  downtown.   And yet here comes 429 University, a project that will go in the opposite direction ‐‐ more offices and less parking.      Please remove 429 University from the Consent Calendar and consider the appeal.    Sincerely,  Emily M. Renzel  1056 Forest Avenue  Palo Alto, CA  94301  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/6/2015 8:02 AM Carnahan, David From:DAVID KATZENSTEIN <davidkk@stanford.edu> Sent:Sunday, April 05, 2015 2:32 AM To:Council, City Cc:Michael Harbour Subject:proposed building at 429 University Avenue Dear City Council, I support the appeal of the proposed building at 429 University Avenue. Please remove the item from the consent calendar so a formal appeal can be heard. The proposed building is incompatible in size, scope and architectural style with the existing nearby buildings. It will create traffic congestion on narrow Kipling Street and alleyway 30 which is used for freight deliveries. It reduces the existing amount of downtown retail space and replaces it with office space. The long-term construction and building itself will have a negative impact on existing businesses and residents. Thank you. PROF DAVID KATZENSTEIN cell/txt 650-868-7250 Division of Infectious Disease Laboratory Grant Bldg S-146 Office Lane 154 Stanford University Medical Center 300 Pasteur Drive Stanford, Ca 94305-5107 Zim # 0777060693 skype name david.katzenstein skype # 1-650-319-7394 davidkk@stanford.edu City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/6/2015 8:02 AM Carnahan, David From:Ted Davids <tdavids@sonic.net> Sent:Saturday, April 04, 2015 3:57 PM To:Council, City Subject:Please Remove the 429 University Avenue Appeal from the Consent Calendar Dear Palo Alto City Council, I support the appeal of the proposed building at 429 University Avenue. Please remove the item from the consent calendar so a formal appeal can be heard. The proposed building is incompatible in size, scope and architectural style with the existing nearby buildings and the neighborhood. It will create traffic congestion on narrow Kipling Street and alleyway 30 which is used for freight deliveries. That will also increase the flow of business traffic into Downtown North and increase the existing congestion. It reduces the existing amount of downtown retail space and replaces it with office space. The long-term construction and building itself will have a negative impact on existing businesses and residents. Thank you. William T Davids 475 Everett Avenue, Palo Alto City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/6/2015 8:02 AM Carnahan, David From:Emily Mathews <emily.vinolocale@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, April 04, 2015 1:43 PM To:Council, City Subject:support of the appeal of the proposed building at 429 University Avenue Dear City Council, I support the appeal of the proposed building at 429 University Avenue. Please remove the item from the consent calendar so a formal appeal can be heard. The proposed building is incompatible in size, scope and architectural style with the existing nearby buildings. It will create traffic congestion on narrow Kipling Street and alleyway 30 which is used for freight deliveries. It reduces the existing amount of downtown retail space and replaces it with office space. The long-term construction and building itself will have a negative impact on existing businesses and residents. Thank you. Emily Mathews 3410 Park Blvd Palo Alto, CA -- Emily Mathews, Debra Szecsei & Jocelyn Alexander Co-Owners Vino Locale, Wine Bar & Restaurant www.vinolocale.com 650-328-0450 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/6/2015 8:02 AM Carnahan, David From:Kenneth Fong <ksfongdna@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, April 03, 2015 7:08 PM To:Council, City Subject:426 university   Dear Council members,    I am writing to ask the Council to deny the Appeal of this new building at 426 university ave., Palo Alto.   It is a well‐conceived  structure that is an added charm to attract more people to Palo Alto downtown.        Respectfully,    Kenneth Fong  Kenson ventures llc   400 Hamilton ave., PA    Sent from my iPhone  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/6/2015 8:04 AM Carnahan, David From:Elizabeth Wong <elizabethwong2009@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, April 05, 2015 5:28 PM To:Council, City Cc:Gitelman, Hillary; Lait, Jonathan; French, Amy; Fong, Christy Subject:Petitioners to stop the appeal of 429 University Ave Attachments:neighbors.pdf Please see attached signatures of petitioners to stop the appeal of 429 University Ave. Thank you. Elizabeth Wong 650 814 3051 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/6/2015 8:06 AM Carnahan, David From:Andy Miksztal <andy.miksztal@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, April 05, 2015 4:50 PM To:Council, City Subject:City Council Members Please remove Item 15 from the Consent Calendar. This desires a discussion with the residents of the city. Thank you, Andy Miksztal 743 Cereza Drive Palo Alto 650-269-9164 andy.miksztal@gmail.com City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/6/2015 8:06 AM Carnahan, David From:Sally Supplee <sallysupplee@comcast.net> Sent:Sunday, April 05, 2015 4:45 PM To:Council, City Subject:Consent Calendar Dear City Council, I am a long-time resident of Palo Alto, and I am writing you to let you know I really support the appeal of 429 University Avenue. It is really too large for the space, as well as lacking adequate parking - an amazing fact given all the problems with parking now. The street is small, and it will contribute to traffic. And it is very incompatible with the architecture of the surrounding area. I urge you to reconsider the development of this parcel in this manner. Best, Sally Supplee City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/6/2015 8:06 AM Carnahan, David From:Margo Davis <margoadavis@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, April 05, 2015 1:54 PM To:Council, City Subject:Remove Dear Sirs,    Please remove Item 15 from the consent calendar.    Thank you.      Margo Davis  margoadavis@gmail.com  650 714 2146  www.margodavisphoto.com    City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/6/2015 8:06 AM Carnahan, David From:Sheri Furman <sheri11@earthlink.net> Sent:Sunday, April 05, 2015 8:47 AM To:Council, City Subject:REMOVE the 429 University Avenue Appeal from the Consent Calendar Attachments:PAN 429 University.docx Please see the attached letter from PAN. Sheri Furman, PAN Chair April 5, 2015 Dear Councilmembers, PAN (Palo Alto Neighborhoods) urges you to support the appeal of 429 University and to help preserve our community. As proposed, the four-story building will unfortunately:  Be incompatible in size and massing, thus dwarfing the eclectic, mostly two-story historic, commercial buildings and Victorian homes nearby  Increase traffic problems by funneling cars onto Kipling, one of the narrowest streets downtown  Increase parking problems on Kipling if parking spaces have to be removed due to cars exiting the new underground garage  Increase parking problems for other downtown residents by providing virtually no parking for the 5,000 sq. ft. unparked TDR the project utilizes  Decrease the site’s retail space by about 20% at the very time we’re hoping to preserve and even expand retail downtown Please instead ask the developer to return with a proposal for the site that avoids the above problems. Furthermore, we do not agree with the ARB’s position that they are obliged to approve such projects. We believe instead that they have the power to say no to large projects that reduce retail, increase traffic and parking problems, and do not meet the compatibility standards. We hope the Council can provide guidance to the ARB so it can deter problematic projects earlier, thus helping both developers and city staff. Thank you, Sheri Furman Chair, PAN (Palo Alto Neighborhoods) City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/6/2015 8:06 AM Carnahan, David From:Elizabeth Wong <elizabethwong2009@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, April 05, 2015 12:15 PM To:Council, City Cc:Gitelman, Hillary; Lait, Jonathan; French, Amy; Fong, Christy Subject:Palo Alto Weekly Attachments:Palo Alto Online Fri Apr 3 2015.pdf Please see attached is the article posted by Palo Alto Weekly on Friday, April 3, 2015. Elizabeth http://paloaltoonline.com/news/print/2015/04/03/downtown-denizens-split-over-proposed-downtown- development Uploaded: Fri, Apr 3, 2015, 7:28 am Downtown denizens split over proposed development Palo Alto officials set to consider appeal of 429 University Ave. by Gennady Sheyner Depending on which side of Palo Alto's growth debate you stand on, the development proposed for 429 University Ave. is either a long-awaited, thoroughly vetted and highly desirable improvement to one of downtown Palo Alto's most prominent corners or an out-of-scale, under-parked traffic hazard in the making. On Monday night, the City Council is set to consider both points of view when it votes on resident Michael Harbour's appeal of the recently approved project. In some ways, the project perfectly epitomizes the ongoing community conversation about how much office growth downtown can accommodate. Randy Popp, chair of the Architectural Review Board, called the proposal "polarizing" during the board's Feb. 19 meeting on the project, which culminated in a 4-0 vote to support. Since then, dozens of residents have submitted letters expressing both sides of the argument. For supporters, like Realtor Sam Arsan, the existing buildings are old, have failing mechanical systems and need to be replaced "to keep the city vibrant." Lisa Haley, owner of the nearby yoga studio, Be Yoga, said she had some concerns about the traffic flow on Kipling Street but noted in a letter last year that she is "thrilled at the idea of a new building" and "excited about this development." For opponents like Harbour and residents with slow-growth leanings, the idea of a four-story building with a modernist, glassy design going up on a block filled with Victorian houses is the latest sign of the city's downtown growth policies gone astray. The attitude was perfectly encapsulated by Lytton Avenue resident Becky Baer, who bemoaned in a letter to the council the "alarming transformation of our beloved downtown area" and called the proposal "another nail in the coffin." In the appeal, Harbour argues that the four-story building's size and scale will "overwhelm the adjacent and existing structures" and that its style is incompatible with the Victorian buildings on the Kipling Street block near the new development. The new building, he notes in his appeal, would bring 7,000 square feet of retail to the site while displacing two stores -- including longtime boutique Shady Lane -- that occuppied about 9,000 square feet between them. The parking requirements, he wrote, are insufficient, and the traffic conditions will be dangerous because of the narrow nature of Kipling. Yet for Elizabeth Wong, the property owner, the project is a culmination of two years of work, four Architectural Review Board meetings and countless design revisions. Earlier this year, she agreed to relocate the building's stair and elevator shafts; set the balconies on the second and third floors further back; and relocate the public art from the building's lobby to an exterior wall facing Kipling. The project meets all zoning regulations. City planners are recommending that the council on Monday uphold the project's approval by voting on it without debate or discussion. Wong said many criticisms that have been levied by opponents of the project are off base. The loss of retail, for example, is a direct result of her including in the new building a garage with a ramp, an emergency exit and stairs, as per the city's requirement. Though the topic of offices displacing retail establishment has been a hot one during recent council discussions, in this case the retail space is not making way for offices as opponents imply but for required garage infrastructure. "Those items -- the ramp exit, the emergency exit and the stairs -- reduced the size of the retail space, but none went to proper office use and none of it was at our election," Wong told the Weekly. "We were required by code to put all those things in." She suggested an alternate way to bring retail to the downtown area: requiring Harbour's property at 421- 23 Kipling St. to have retail on the ground floor. Parking is another issue of dispute. Normally, a project of this sort would be required to provide 92 parking spaces. But because the two current University Avenue buildings paid parking assessment fees rather than provide the spaces, the requirement drops by 37 spaces, to 55. In addition, the development uses a mechanism called "transfer of development rights" to reduce the requirement by another 20 spaces, to 35. The mechanism relies on building rights (along with parking exemptions) granted to developers who rehabilitate and seismically retrofit historic buildings. The issue of parking is always a sore subject in downtown's residential neighborhoods, which are still awaiting the launch of a planned residential parking program. Though the City Council has recently revised several parking regulations to beef up the requirements, residents in congested areas like Downtown North and Professorville are understandably frustrated when they see a development's parking requirement go from 92 spaces to 35. The fact that the building's underground garage would provide 40 spaces did little to assuage the opponents concerns. In his appeal, Harbour argues that the garage will "create more problems than it solves." This is largely because it will force outbound cars to turn on Kipling, which is currently "so narrow that it is barely possible for two cars to travel past one another when cars are parked along both sides of the street," he wrote in the appeal. But Wong rejects any notion that her project is skirting parking regulations. For her, the math is simple. She is required to provide 35 spaces. She is providing 40. "We have five spaces more than is required," Wong said. In approving the project, the architecture panel expressed some concerns about the area's traffic flow but ultimately concluded that the project followed all the rules and should be approved. "Yeah, it's a narrow street. Yeah, it's got a different character. But the zoning contemplates all of this, and it's in place, and you've followed it," Popp said at the conclusion of the board meeting. "You've complied." The appeal of 429 University Ave. is just the latest in a series of appeals filed by residents against nearby development proposals. In December 2013, the council considered and ultimately rejected appeals of two modernist, mixed-use, multi-story developments. Both 240 Hamilton Ave. and 636 Waverley St. were designed by Ken Hayes, the architect behind 429 University. More recently, the council considered several "individual review" appeals from residents who opposed the construction of new single-family dwellings in their neighborhood. On Feb. 25, the council rejected an appeal from residents of Corina Way who protested the construction of a two-story home. Two other appeals, for new homes at Metro Circle and Richardson Court, were settled by the applicant and the appellant before they got to a council hearing. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/6/2015 8:07 AM Carnahan, David From:Ed Supplee <edsupplee@hotmail.com> Sent:Sunday, April 05, 2015 4:01 PM To:Council, City Subject:FW: 429 University Ave Appeal--City Council Meeting Monday April 6 at 7:30 PM Attachments:Appeal_429University_Final.doc Hello,    I'm one of the many people who think we ought to stop commercial development of virtually every kind, definitely  stop under parked buildings of any kind, and specifically stop this development.    Surely you have heard the peoples' input to this effect in the last election.    Please stop this building.    Ed Supplee  327/3284  > Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2015 13:51:11 ‐0700  > Subject: Fwd: 429 University Ave Appeal‐‐City Council Meeting Monday April 6 at 7:30 PM  > From: plmachado@gmail.com  > To:   >   > If you have a moment please send the city council a note supporting  > the appeal of 429 University Ave, set to be heard tomorrow. The  > oversized, under parked building will be located on an undersized  > street, Kipling, and will contribute to traffic, and parking problems.  > It is architecturally out of sync with the Victorian homes on the  > street..  >   > Thank you,  > Paul Machado  >   >   >   >   > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  > From: Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com>  > Date: Sun, Apr 5, 2015 at 8:28 AM  > Subject: 429 University Ave Appeal‐‐City Council Meeting Monday April  > 6 at 7:30 PM  > To: Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@gmail.com>  >   >   > Below is an appeal from Michael Harbour, a resident of Downtown North.  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/6/2015 8:07 AM > I urge you to support his effort to force 429 University project to  > greater Council scrutiny. Send a simple email asking to remove the  > project from the consent calendar and initiate indepth Council review.  >   > I recommend that you state one more concern to the Council.  >   > Most staff reports on Calif and Univ Ave core office projects are  > incomplete. These staff reports systematically avoid the cumulative  > negative impact on traffic and parking invasion into the residential  > neighborhoods. City staff (guided by the City Attorney) adhere to  > strict legal interpretation of Council's responsibility for  > stewardship; consequently, common sense negative impact is not even  > presented to City Council.  >   > The most feasible intervention is your political persuasion for  > Council re‐examine city policy...starting with the development project  > at 429 University. I assure you that this project will negatively  > impact DTN, Crescent Park, University South and Professorville.  >   > Why: The threat of permit parking has finally forced the city garages  > to "fill up". Residential permit parking (hopefully) will force  > downtown workers to park in the garages and parking lots first before  > parking on residential streets. QED: Future tenants and customers at  > 429 University will not be able to park easily in the commercial core  > and create profound pressure on City Staff and Council to allow  > greater and greater non‐resident parking in a wider and wider radius  > of University Avenue.  >   > If you wish, you can also ask Council how today's unrestrained city  > development policy will impact the water supply.  >   > Please pass this information on to your neighbors who may share these concerns.  >   > Neilson Buchanan  > 155 Bryant Street  > Palo Alto, CA 94301  >   > 650 329‐0484  > 650 537‐9611 cell  > cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com  >   > ‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded Message ‐‐‐‐‐  > From: Michael Harbour <dr.mharbour@gmail.com>  > To: info@vinolocale.com; 'Steve Dow' <sdow@srfunds.com>;  > coraliaayalew@yahoo.com; 'Lisa Rutherford' <lrutherford@gmail.com>;  > 'Carolyn Lorch‐Taber' <clorchtaber@covad.net>;  > lidiaklosek@sbcglobal.net; linda@idean.com; 'Amber Hazor'  > <amberh@yogaworks.com>; mike@norwellbuilders.com;  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/6/2015 8:07 AM > ian@norwellbuilders.com; 'Adam Guttentag' <adam@yogaworks.com>  > Cc: 'Michael Harbour' <dr.mharbour@gmail.com>  > Sent: Saturday, April 4, 2015 1:31 PM  > Subject: 429 University Ave Appeal‐‐First City Council Meeting Monday  > April 6 at 7:30 PM  >   > Dear 429 University Avenue Appellants and Palo Alto Neighbors,  >   > I was notified that Palo Alto City Council has placed the appeal of  > the proposed building at 429 University Avenue on the consent calendar  > for this Monday April 6 at 7:45 PM (approximate). In order for the  > building to be formally appealed, at least three (out of 9) city  > council members must formally vote to remove the appeal from the  > calendar. If this first step is accomplished, then the formal appeal  > would be heard by city council within 30 days. Therefore it is  > imperative in order for our appeal to progress that the city council  > vote to "remove" the appeal from the consent calendar on Monday  > evening.  >   > I am please asking everyone on this list to immediately do the  > following (immediately as in right now!):  >   > 1. Please send a short email to city council and ask them to "REMOVE  > the 429 University Avenue Appeal from the Consent Calendar." and state  > that you support the appeal of the building. The city council email  > address is: city.council@cityofpaloalto.org  > If you wish, you can simply copy and past the following message and  > email it to the city council email above.  >   > Dear City Council,  > I support the appeal of the proposed building at 429 University  > Avenue. Please remove the item from the consent calendar so a formal  > appeal can be heard. The proposed building is incompatible in size,  > scope and architectural style with the existing nearby buildings. It  > will create traffic congestion on narrow Kipling Street and alleyway  > 30 which is used for freight deliveries. It reduces the existing  > amount of downtown retail space and replaces it with office space.  > The long‐term construction and building itself will have a negative  > impact on existing businesses and residents.  > Thank you.  > Your NAME and ADDRESS  >   > 2. If you are able, it would be great if you could come to the city  > council meeting at 7:30 PM on Monday April 6 to show your support.  > The address is: 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto. The council  > chambers is on the first floor.  > If you are willing to speak for 1‐2 minutes (even better) please fill  > out a Speaker Comment Card which will be on the table to the right as  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/6/2015 8:07 AM > you walk into the council chambers. Speaking (even briefly) is the  > best way for the council to gauge your support.  >   > I have attached a copy of the appeal that we filed with the city.  > I've also included a link to a recent Palo Alto Weekly article about  > the building for you to read:  > http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2015/03/16/development‐at‐shady‐lane‐site‐faces‐citizens‐appeal  > Thank you for your support (we're almost there), and I look forward to  > seeing you if you can come in person. Please feel free to forward  > this email to anyone whom you feel would also support this effort.  >   > Best regards,  > Michael Harbour  > (650) 224‐4171‐‐cell  Appeal of Conditionally Approved Proposal by Ken Hayes and Kipling Post, LP to develop 429 University Avenue Introduction Recently the director of Palo Alto Planning conditionally approved a new building at 429 University Avenue at Kipling Street in the Downtown North area of Palo Alto. The proposal is for a mixed use four-story, 31,401 sq. foot building with two floors of underground parking. Although the address is on University Avenue, this project is as significant for Kipling Street as it is to University Avenue. The design attempts to maximize use of permitted space both vertically and horizontally, so that the City’s 50-foot height limit is no longer the maximum but rather has become the new norm for new commercial construction applications, regardless of context. The Architectural Review Board overlooked several critical items that affect the unique status of both streets which therefore needs to be reconsidered by the City Council for remedy. We ask the City Council to reconsider this proposal in relationship to the specific municipal codes for commercial district contextuality and compatibility (18.18.110) including the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan (Goal B-1, Policy L-4, L-5, L-6) and Downtown Urban Design Guidelines for size and style compatibility, parking, traffic, safety, and loss of retail space. Incompatible Size and Style The site of the proposed project is in the middle of an area densely populated with heritage buildings including one and two story Victorian homes that are being used for both residential and commercial purposes. On the 400 blocks of Kipling and University stand 13 heritage buildings in Category 1 to 4, and only half a dozen modern ones. Yet in the planners’ staff report and throughout the ARB hearings, very little attention was given to the historical significance and unique architecture of Kipling Street and how it relates to University Avenue. Kipling Street is enjoyed as an important pedestrian thoroughfare. It is the most preferred walking route from Downtown North and Johnson Park to University Avenue due to its beauty, tranquility afforded by the narrow street, and nostalgic period feel. The proposed building with its disproportionate size, discordant design, and resultant traffic and parking will permanently destroy the character of the street and the pedestrian environment (Policy L-5, Policy L-12) Municipal code states that a new building’s “compatibility is achieved when the apparent scale of mass of new buildings is consistent with the pattern of achieving a pedestrian oriented design, and when new construction shares general characteristics and establishes design linkages with the overall pattern of buildings so that the visual unity of the street is maintained.” (18.18.110 a2) Unfortunately the newly proposed building does not meet this requirement with regard to size and existing design from the perspective of Kipling Street or University Avenue. The architect and developer made no effort to ensure conformance to stylistic compatibility within any building page 2 in sight. The submitted renderings of the proposed building appear similar to a parking garage. The side and rear of the proposed building along Kipling Street is overly tall, massive and architecturally dissimilar to be remotely consistent with the existing one and and two story Victorian or Spanish Colonial structures on Kipling Street . The City of Palo Alto website has a page solely devoted to “Historic Downtown Buildings” and shows pictures of the homes at 405 and 421-423 Kipling Street as laudabe examples (http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/historic/bldgs.asp). These buildings include category 2, 3 and 4 historical structures. The historical and architectural significance of Kipling Street is obvious and should be maintained and protected. According to Palo Alto Municipal Code and ARB Charter the proposed building is not “compatible” (18.18.110, 18.76.101) or “harmonious” and “considerate” of nearby buildings (18.76.020). The following inventory and analysis of the architectural styles near the proposed building describes the buildings and styles: University Avenue, north side--the entire north side of the block consists of one and two story retail buildings, many with canvas canopies extending over the sidewalk. Their pedestrian appeal is strong. Cafe Venetia has decorative tiles at its base and a recessed entrance, both of which have an inviting appearance to pedestrians. The Taxim Mediterranean Cuisine building also has a recessed entrance. The buildings slated for demolition have attractive decorative articulation along the roof line which creates more pedestrian appeal, and stone or tile cladding at the base, in addition to four recessed entrances. The design proposed for 429 University has nothing in common stylistically with any building on the block, makes no Code-required gestures of shared style elements (see SoFA 2 for compatibility definition), and its size far exceeds all of its neighbors. It will dominate the block with its sheer mass, showing no Code-required consideration for neighboring structures, just like the ugly office tower at 525 University dominates the whole area (18.18.110 2Bi) University Avenue, south side-- Diagonally and directly across 429 University Avenue are historic buildings including the Varsity Theater in Mission Revival style, one of Palo Alto residents’ favorite architectural monuments. Adjacent to it is a series of three 2-story Spanish Colonial Revival buildings articulated on their upper floor with wood-framed balconies or arched windows. The Peets Coffee building in the Spanish style features a large arched entryway with picture windows and recessed entrance, and above it an ironwork balcony and punched window and gabled, red-tiled roof for roofline interest. The proposed design clashes incompatibly with these structures (18.18.111 2A). Directly across University at 428-432 University Avenue stands the least appealing building on the block which houses Lululemon. It is a 4-story structure with almost completely square or rectangular modules (windows), excepting only a tall arched main doorway. Its stone cladding is page 3 unarticulated and its windows have minimal borders, giving an impression of monotony. Although it has an arched doorway and red hues like the Union Bank next to it, the building most closely resembles the parking garage at 445 Bryant. It is hardly a model to emulate in a shopping district and should not have built for that reason. Therefore, 428 University should not be put forth as a compatibility model to justify a new monotonous, strictly utilitarian building design on the city’s most prominent shopping street. Finally the Union Bank building is a one or 1-1/2 story, red brick structure with multiple inviting arched doorways, covered with ivy. The overall effect is lifelike and pedestrian-friendly. Kipling Street--across from the proposed building on the corner of Kipling Street and University Avenue, is a Birge Clark designed building. It is the old home of Swain’s music and the original Apple Store. The building is simple and plain and represents no specific architectural category. However, it does feature a slight moulding to articulate the roofline. It deserves no emulation. Further north lies a row of six Victorian or Queen Anne homes used for residential, office and retail space including an unique wine-bar with outdoor seating that clearly serves the Code and Comp Plan requirement for pedestrian-friendly design. The impression of this strip of old houses is cozy. Behind the proposed site is a one story building with red tile roof and another Category 3 Vernacular structure which previously housed Zibibbo Restaurant before it was completely changed to office space. The proposed design at 429 University again clashes violently in size and style with these serene old buildings (18.18.110, 18.76.020, Policy L-5, L-11, L-18). Size and Massing with existing University Avenue and Kipling Street structures The size and massing of the building, especially on the side and rear facing Kipling St. will create a structure that overwhelms the adjacent and existing structures. Municipal code states that “buildings shall be designed to minimize massing” (18.18.110). Through a series of Transfer Development Rights and a bonus, the developer was able to nearly triple the 1.0 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) guideline to a FAR of 2.86. The new four story, 50 ft building would tower over the adjacent one and two story buildings on Kipling St. Kipling St is one of the narrowest streets in downtown Palo Alto at only 29 ft. wide. The proposed new building would have the same effect as placing the Bryant Street Garage on Kipling Street. Bryant Street is 49 ft wide, however, and can visually and physically accommodate such a building. Kipling Street cannot. An example of this incongruous size and architecture is already visible on the rear side of the Bryant Street Garage where it extends through to Florence Street. Florence Street is slightly wider at 30 feet, yet it is overwhelmed by this garage. It towers over the lovely Victorian building at 418-420 Florence St. and casts a long shadow across the street. This same effect would occur on Kipling Street which is even narrower and has more historic buildings. The juxtaposition of such a massive square building looming over the lovely shade of the Victorians is like prison being built next door to the famous “Painted Ladies” homes in San Francisco. page 4 At the final ARB hearing on 2/19/15, Chairman Popp and member Lew both stated that they personally felt that the building was “too big.” However, the current building code gave them no authorization to enforce a change in the proposed size. Each said that the code would have to be changed for them to reach their desired height and size. Each mentioned the “polarizing” aspect that this proposed project has had on the community. These comments are conspicuously missing from the planning staff notes despite the fact that ARB member Lew specifically asked that they be put in the report. He also mentioned the need for long-term planning for Kipling Street including the future development of the city’s surface parking lot on the corner Kipling St and Lytton Ave. He also suggested a special designation for a “Victorian Way” which is a wonderful idea that warrants further consideration from City Council. Safety, Traffic and Parking In addition to the 4 story structure, there is a proposed two story underground garage. Normally most citizens are enthusiastic when a developer includes parking with their buildings. However, this parking garage entrance is located at the rear of the building and will create more problems than it solves. The ARB did not consider the city’s traffic study at any of the hearings until it was brought up by me at the third and final hearing. All inbound traffic will be routed from Waverly Street (48 feet wide) and the resultant outbound traffic will empty out onto narrow Kipling Street (29 feet wide) where drivers could then turn either right or left. Kipling Street is currently so narrow that it is barely possible for two cars to travel past one another when cars are parked along both sides of the street. The city already prohibits left hand turns from University Avenue onto Kipling Street. Turning right onto Kipling Street is also problematic. The city commissioned the Hexagon traffic report for this project which was released on October 20, 2014. It states that a “queue of more than a single vehicle in the southbound direction could prevent other vehicles from turning right from westbound University Avenue onto Kipling Street, due to the extremely narrow roadway width and presence of parked vehicles” (pg. 39). Kipling Street residents and business tenants all report frequent accidents occurring on Kipling Street including side swipes, loss of side view mirrors, near misses, bicycle accidents, and drivers who repeatedly turn left from University Avenue who either miss or ignore the no turn sign. I personally have been hit twice while in my car. I was sideswiped once and had a sideview mirror torn off on another occasion since becoming a property owner in 2002. I also sideswiped a parked car by misjudging a passing car.and had to leave message on the windshield to notify the owner. If this building is built, the narrow road will be critically beyond its capacity and accidents will increase. The traffic study indicated a net increase of 166 automobile trips per day after construction is completed. This is probably an underestimation of car trips as office space today is utilized by a greater number of employees due to open work environments. One person no longer occupies 250 sq feet of office. It is more common for 4-6 persons to occupy that same space, thereby increasing the daily automobile trips and those looking for parking. Accidents and mishaps of all types will only get worse with increased traffic. page 5 ARB Chairman Popp said in his final comments that he was “concerned about safety” and this would need to be mitigated as part the conditional approval process. He also suggested that existing street parking spaces may need to be removed in order to accommodate the parking egress from the building. This important aspect is missing from the director’s conditional approval letter. The City Council should thoroughly assess the potential loss of parking spaces as well as safety and congestion issues by ordering a more detailed traffic analysis before proceeding with any development. The Hexagon traffic study also describes the building’s Site Access as another concern. It states, “in the event that a vehicle making a right turn out of the alley onto Kipling Street encountered a significant queue, the driver might choose to make a left turn onto Kipling Street and then onto Lytton Avenue to circle around the block” (pg. 47). This additional traffic “churn” would increase downtown traffic, congestion, and greenhouse emissions. The combination of increased traffic due to daily trips, increased congestion and emissions, increased traffic accidents, decreased compatibility for bicycles, and decreased desirability for pedestrians completely contradicts the Municipal Code that states “the design of new projects shall promote pedestrian walkability, a bicycle friendly environment, and connectivity through design elements” (18.18.110 (b)1). Loss of Retail The staff report does not discuss the loss of ground floor retail associated with this development. The Comprehensive Plan Policy B5.3 (page 13) states that measures should be used “to ensure no additional net loss of retail space due to any proposed land use and other policy changes.” We estimate that there is presently about 9,000 sq. ft. of ground floor retail on the site, while the proposed plans show just 7,160 sq. ft. will remain in the new building. This represents a loss of approximately 20% of retail, which is a devastating level of loss when the city is trying to preserve retail. Furthermore, retail loss reduces pedestrian interest and thus hurts other retail in that vicinity of University and Kipling as well. The staff report and ARB should have discussed this issue and examined alternative plans that would preserve or increase ground floor retail. Summary The proposed building at 429 University Avenue does not fit into its existing surroundings in either size or design. As a stand-alone modern building, it has design features that the ARB members liked. However, this building should not be evaluated by itself without the context of where it will be built. Palo Alto Municipal Code and Downtown Urban Design Guidelines state that the proposed building must be evaluated within the context of its surroundings. When viewed this way it is obvious that the project is not compatible and harmonious with its surroundings. This is where the developer and architect have failed. It neglects its unique Victorian neighbors. It page 6 also neglects its neighboring historical storefronts. It will tower over all of them as if as if to deny their legitimacy and declare them inferior and obsolete. While doing so, it will create permanent problems including safety, traffic, potential loss of existing street parking, congestion, and a loss of retail space and tranquility. We can do much better by designing a building that harmoniously transitions between the old and new. Respectfully Submitted, Michael J. Harbour, MD 421-423 Kipling Street Co-signers: YogaWorks, Adam Guttentag, SVP and Amber Hozar, RVP 440 Kipling St. AZIZA Beauty Salon, Coralia Ayalew, owner and 8 other co-workers 444 Kipling St. Vino Locale, Debra Szecsei, Jocelyn Alexander, and Emily Mathews, co-owners 431 Kipling St. Lisa, Douglas and Parker Rutherford, residents 443 Kipling St. Lidia’s Skin Care, Lidia Klosek, owner 437 Kipling St. Norwell Design and Build Remodeling, Mike Sullivan and Ian Wheeler, managers 437 Kipling St. Idean, Linda McElravy, manager 411 Kipling St. Sevin Rosen Funds, Steve Dow, CEO 421 Kipling St. Carolyn Lorch-Taber, resident 328 Kipling St. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/6/2015 12:17 PM Carnahan, David From:David Kleiman <dkleiman@d2realty.com> Sent:Monday, April 06, 2015 11:51 AM To:Council, City Subject:429 University Dear City Council Members:    I encourage you to deny the appeal of this project by failing to pull it from tonight's consent calendar.   This project was carefully considered by the ARB, and any further consideration of the project by the City Council would be a subversion of the ARB's process.    The project is consistent with all Palo Alto codes, and it would be a welcome addition to University Avenue.   Thank you for your consideration.   David Kleiman  333 High Street  Palo Alto, CA 94301        City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/6/2015 12:17 PM Carnahan, David From:Bruce MacIver <mbmaciver@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, April 06, 2015 11:37 AM To:Council, City Subject:Please remove 429 University Avenue Dear City Council, I support the appeal of the proposed building at 429 University Avenue. Please remove the item from the consent calendar so a formal appeal can be heard. The proposed building is incompatible in size, scope and architectural style with the existing nearby buildings. It will create traffic congestion on narrow Kipling Street and alleyway 30 which is used for freight deliveries. It reduces the existing amount of downtown retail space and replaces it with office space. The long-term construction and building itself will have a negative impact on existing businesses and residents. Regards, Bruce MacIver 101 Alma St Palo Alto City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/6/2015 12:17 PM Carnahan, David From:Michaela Dieffenbach <michaelaflowergirl@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, April 06, 2015 10:39 AM To:Council, City Subject:Appeal of the proposed building at 429 University Avenue Dear City Council, I support the appeal of the proposed building at 429 University Avenue. Please remove the item from the consent calendar so a formal appeal can be heard. The proposed building is incompatible in size, scope and architectural style with the existing nearby buildings. It will create traffic congestion on narrow Kipling Street and alleyway 30 which is used for freight deliveries. It reduces the existing amount of downtown retail space and replaces it with office space. The long-term construction and building itself will have a negative impact on existing businesses and residents. Thank you. Michaela Dieffenbach Michaela's Flower Shop 453 Waverley st. Palo Alto Ca, 94301 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/6/2015 12:17 PM Carnahan, David From:Nancy Traube <ntraube26@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, April 06, 2015 10:21 AM To:Council, City Subject:429 University Avenue Appeal from the Consent Calendar. Dear City Council, I support the appeal of the proposed building at 429 University Avenue. Please remove the item from the consent calendar so a formal appeal can be heard. The proposed building is incompatible in size, scope and architectural style with the existing nearby buildings. It will create traffic congestion on narrow Kipling Street and alleyway 30 which is used for freight deliveries. It reduces the existing amount of downtown retail space and replaces it with office space. The long-term construction and building itself will have a negative impact on existing businesses and residents. Thank you, Nancy Traube, 322 Stanford Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94306 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/6/2015 12:17 PM Carnahan, David From:Rainer Pitthan <Rainer.Pitthan@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, April 06, 2015 8:58 AM To:Council, City Subject:City Council Homepage for April 6, 2015 Dear Mayor Holman and the City Council: I support the appeal of 429 University Ave. I urge council to take this matter, #15 on the agenda, off the consent calendar and review it further. This is an opportunity to review why and how we got into a situation where Palo Alto’s recent architecture is perceived as ho-hum, unimaginative, undesirable, and destructive to the perception of the City as a livable entity. No warmth, no charm, no anything. And discuss how to fix it! Doing my homework, went to the City Council/s website http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/agendas/council.asp to read the Public Letters, I found no letters re 429. In fact, the package seem to relate to the March 16 session. So I went forward to the April 15 agenda - there I found 3 letters, all from Architects, very wordy, with little real content, and naturally highly positive. Not a single letter supporting the appeal. But that is known: Palo Alto architects, having successfully stacked the ARB, continue to scratch each others back. Maybe you reconsider your practices? City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/6/2015 12:17 PM Sincerely Rainer Pitthan -- Rainer Pitthan (650)327-9497 157 S. California Ave Palo Alto CA 094306 The #1 enemy of the United States is AutoComplete. Sorry if you find a mistake! City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/6/2015 3:17 PM Carnahan, David From:mwg1378@gmail.com on behalf of Mike Greenfield <mike@mikegreenfield.com> Sent:Monday, April 06, 2015 1:35 PM To:Council, City Subject:please deny appeal on 429 Unviersity City Council Members, I'm writing to request that you please deny the appeal on the 429 University project. The project complies with the relevant guidelines, and more importantly it provides some much-needed housing and office space in downtown Palo Alto. Our city is by many measures the most expensive place in the US to live and work, and we badly need more supply. I encourage anyone who is opposed to such a project to go out themselves and try to find a place to live and an office in which to work; you'll realize that this is a real issue even for people who are fairly well off. Putting a 4-story building on the major downtown avenue of the city is very much in keeping with the surrounding area and would be a substantial benefit. Creating more hurdles for this kind of project would be setting a very bad precedent in a city that has a great spirit of innovation and reinvention. Please deny the appeal. Thanks Mike Greenfield 321 Kipling Street City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/6/2015 3:17 PM Carnahan, David From:Vita <vitago@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, April 06, 2015 1:22 PM To:Council, City Cc:Neilson Buchanan; Michael Harbour Subject:re: today's consent calendar - 429 University Avenue Appeal Dear City Council, I support the appeal of the proposed building at 429 University Avenue. Please remove the item from the consent calendar so a formal appeal can be heard. 1- The proposed building is grossly incompatible in size, scope and architectural style with the existing nearby buildings. It's 4 times more stories than existing and any other buildings on a block! The new 429 University will cast its shadow most of the day on the old Apple building, intersection and cafes and restaurants across the road. 2 - It will create traffic congestion on narrow Kipling Street and alleyway behind, which is used for freight deliveries. Kipling is hard to navigate even now, when old Apple building and former Zibibo is unoccupied. 3 - Proposed building is dangerously short on parking spaces. 4 - It reduces the existing amount of downtown retail space and replaces it with office space, making the area less inviting. 5 - The long-term construction and building itself will have a negative impact on existing businesses, residents and visitors. To see the possible cumulative effect of this building, try walking on Lytton or Hamilton and see how much less people are walking there. The feel of looming faceless buildings pushes people to choose less treating routs. Palo Alto already have its share of huge buildings put there years ago to the profit for developers and loss for neighbors. They are a permanent blight in the neighborhood driving prices down for neighbors and affecting the quality of life around. Unfortunately once it the building goes up, the is no way to fix the damage. I know what I'm talking about: I leave in a shadow of one of the "blights". Please don't let Palo Alto die by the "thousand cuts" of inappropriate buildings. Thank you. Vita Gorbunova , 559 Everett Ave, Palo Alto, ca 94301. P.s. I would most definitely have attended the today's meeting if I had not been away from town. I'm also extremely disappointed that this very controversial item was put on the city counsel calendar during spring brake, right after the Easter and with very short notice. One might even think that it was done on purpose. Hopefully not, and counsel will look into the matter. -- Best, Vita 650 395-7805 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/6/2015 3:17 PM Sent from Gmail Mobile, so if my email sounds strange, it's autocorrect!!! City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/6/2015 3:17 PM Carnahan, David From:Stephen Reller <sreller@randmproperties.com> Sent:Monday, April 06, 2015 12:57 PM To:Council, City Subject:429 University Dear City Countil, I write this email today to urge you to deny the appeal to this project. Ms. Wong, whether you like her project or not, has been through the ringer/process for two years and multiple changes and has come out a winner. If this appeal is considered valid it will not only jeopardize the project but also the integrity of our municipal code and City Council. Ms Wong has followed the code for what is allowed to be built on this site and been approved by the ARB and Planning Department. The arguments that it is too big and under parked are untrue. While it uses TDRs and in-lieu fees to reduce parking, those tools are part of code, just as much as FAR limits, height limits and setbacks are. If those rules change they will be enforced on future projects but should not be enforced on this one. As a developer, I understand that developments in Palo Alto in this environment, and likely well into the future, will be more difficult. However, this project was a new development two years ago and has been fully vetted by Planning, ARB and City Council...and the public! Please do not enable this minority who is appealing this project. It will only ensure more headache (see PAOnline today - "critic" Doug Smith threatens lawsuit if he doesn't get his way...) On another note, please consider raising the 50' height limit. Keeping FAR limits and raising the 50' limit by twenty feet, with greater required setbacks for the upper floors, would result in more interesting buildings with much more interest on the ground floor with public seating and/or landscaping. It's a win win. The 50' height limit was an arbitrary number went it went into effect several decades ago. It now a proven creativity killer. Thanks so much for your consideration and for your service to this great city! Regards, Stephen Reller City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/6/2015 3:17 PM Carnahan, David From:Cheryl Lilienstein <clilienstein@me.com> Sent:Monday, April 06, 2015 12:45 PM To:Council, City; Gitelman, Hillary Subject:429 University appeal Dear City Council,  I attended one of the ARB meetings about this. ONLY ONE member of the ARB called out the developer and architect regarding  the so‐called "public art" that was going to be placed INSIDE a foyer (accessed by an access code.) This is but one example of the  developer's contempt for the intention and spirit of the city's requirements for public art, contextual design, and mitigation of  effects.    I hope that the city council will support the appeal, and direct the staff, the ARB and the PTC to require developers to produce  more contextual buildings that are welcoming and hold visual interest that is human scale.     This is our main street: like the new Varsity Theater re‐do (which has retained some of the charm and honors public life), ALL the  buildings on main street should express some commitment to civic life. This building fails to do that. With its generic design and  exclusivity, it may be following the letter of the law but does not come close to the spirit.    Cheryl Lilienstein  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/6/2015 3:17 PM Carnahan, David From:Wynne Furth <wynne.furth@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, April 06, 2015 12:36 PM To:Council, City Subject:Agenda Item 15; Appeal of 429 University Avenue Approval Honorable Mayor and Council Members: I ask that you remove this item from the consent calendar and set it for hearing at a future date. My neighbors have raised a number of concerns about the design,scale, and uses of the proposed project. I share many of those concerns. I am also concerned about the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration. The analysis in Section M of impacts on housing seems to ignore the increased demand/need for housing that the increased commercial uses on the site. More significantly, the analysis in Section P (f) of parking impacts seems to use an inadequate metric for increased parking demand and to confuse compliance with the Palo Alto Municipal Code with the provision of actual adequate parking. The Council has recognized that there is a severe parking shortage in the Downtown Commercial District which is blighting both neighboring residential areas, (in contradiction of the Comprehensive Plan and several design standards,) and hurting retail operations--a classic example of a sensitive setting in which even small changes can have significant adverse effects. The MND analysis, even using the low-ball occupancy standards of our Municipal Code, shows a need for 92 spaces and the construction of 41. That's a real world shortage of 51. Municipal Code compliance is obtained by allowing un-parked TDRs and one parking space credit per assessment district assessment unit. There are two problems with using this analysis for CEQA purposes. First, unparked TDR space is unparked space; the city may have to allow it (I express no opinion on that point)but it still has an environmental effect and may require something more than an MND --either mitigation to a level of insignificance of an EIR. Second, the analysis confuses assessment district units, which were calculated on the basis of onsite parking deficits, with parking spaces to be delivered by the Parking Assessment District bonds. Those bonds were designed to deliver only a fraction of a space per assessment unit, not one space per assessment unit. CEQA does allow the use of un-built improvements as mitigation measures, but only when there is sufficient design and finance in place to make them sufficiently real. There may be some credit due for assessment spaces constructed before the most recent bonds, but invoking a zoning code isn't sufficient to justify the "no impact" finding. Please ask that staff address these issues further so that the council and the public have the more accurate understanding of the situation that CEQA requires. With thanks for your work in governing our city, Wynne Furth City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/6/2015 3:17 PM Carnahan, David From:brian susan anuskewicz <basdesigns@icloud.com> Sent:Monday, April 06, 2015 12:30 PM To:Council, City Subject:Appeal of 429 University Avenue Greetings Council Members, To have both city staff & city manager advise city council to dismiss this appeal is the re-affirmation that both entities do not share the concern of its city residents. There are strong issues in which while this project proceeded thru the review process, the city staff reports and the Architectural Review Board failed to address or identify as to why this project became so large for this site. Neither the applicant’s representative nor city staff successfully presented this 'max-building' from the perspective of Kipling Street businesses & resident’s ‘streetscape context’. This project failed to properly show in city review that the Kipling Street corridor would be most impacted by this four story structure and change its neighborhood appeal for both its businesses & residents. I support the removal of this project from the consent calendar and council’s scheduling of this item at a future date in which there can be a public discussion of how both Transfer Development Rights and a One Time Bonus shaped this into a large building while providing no relief to its neighbors. One question to ask staff tonight is to identify the site address and structure in which this project used the TDR from in order to understand what this 'city-coupon' was redeemed for. With best regards, Brian Anuskewicz City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/6/2015 3:17 PM Carnahan, David From:Conni <cahart2003@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, April 06, 2015 1:44 PM To:Council, City Subject:429 University The owners have followed all the Palo Alto rules. They have accommodated all recommendations. They have approval from the  ARB. This at considerable personal expense in both time and money. There is no logical reason to deny the project.     Connett G Ahart  Laurel Glen Dr  Palo Alto      Sent from Conni's awesome iPhone   City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/6/2015 3:17 PM Carnahan, David From:Rainer Pitthan <Rainer.Pitthan@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, April 06, 2015 1:55 PM To:Council, City Cc:Michael Harbour; Neilson Buchanan; Cheryl Lilienstein; 'Todd Burke'; Paul Machado Subject:429 University: not “compatible” (PAMC 18.18.110, 18.76.101), not “harmonious” and “considerate” of nearby buildings (PAMC 18.76.020), Dear Mayor and City Council: I support the appeal of 429 University Ave. I urge council to take this matter off the consent calendar and review it further. This is an opportunity to review why and how we got into a situation where Palo Alto’s recent architecture is perceived as ho-hum, unimaginative, undesirable, and destructive to the perception of the City as a warm livable entity. No warmth, no charm, no anything. Retail is fleeing to Los Altos and Menlo Park. And how do we remedy existing and prevent future situations where physics requires 90 parking places, but “legally” only 35 are required. Why has none of the “parking relief” measures of the past been sunset? Why was the 1986 ground floor parking exemption in force until a year ago? Was the planning department asleep on the helm, or? Staff, in particular the City Attorney, the PTC and the ARB, need more direction so their decisions are in compliance with the wishes of the population, as expressed by their representatives, zoning ordinances, and building guidelines derived from the comprehensive plan, and the well being (aesthetics) of neighborhoods, and not only a mechanical comparison of dimensions with the maximum dimension (in feet) allowed by zoning. The California Planning Commissioner specifically calls for the inclusion of aesthetic principles in application approval and zoning decisions. As many observed, the staff, maybe under the direction of the City Attorney or the Planning Director, seems to have its own agenda, and does not parse for General Plan and Guideline Violation impacting on the population at large. One example given by Dr. Harbour: At the final ARB hearing on 2/19/15, Chairman Popp and member Lew both stated that they personally felt that the building was “too big.” However, the current building code gave them no authorization [they believe, probably wrongly] to enforce a change in the proposed size. Each said that the code would have to be changed for them to reach their desired height and size. Each mentioned the “polarizing” aspect that this proposed project has had on the community. These comments are conspicuously missing from the planning staff notes despite the fact that ARB member Lew specifically asked that they be put in the report. He also mentioned the need for long-term planning for Kipling Street including the future development of the city’s surface parking lot on the corner Kipling St and Lytton Ave. He also suggested a special designation for a “Victorian Way” which is a wonderful idea that warrants further consideration from City Council. Being a Charter City, Palo Alto’s ordinances do “not have to be in agreement” with its Comprehensive Plan (unless the city has adopted a consistency requirement?), but the City’s application decisions nevertheless “have to follow its own zoning ordinances”, as well as the comprehensive plan when not constrained by the ordinances. Also, as a Charter City, the building guidelines the City has developed from the tenets of the City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/6/2015 3:17 PM Comprehensive Plan have to be followed / used. They are the law the Charter-City City Council created. The guidelines as well recently have been blatantly violated in the case of 3864 Corina Way. [More specific, the Palo Alto Municipal Code and ARB Charter requires buildings to be “compatible” (18.18.110, 18.76.101), and “harmonious” and “considerate” of nearby buildings (18.76.020), in particular the next door neighbor.] The present practice that the City manager puts a project on the Consent Agenda as long as it is below some maximum dimension is untenable. To not have it parsed it for potential violation of the Comprehensive Plan, Building Guidelines, and Zoning Ordinances, as it nearly always does, is not up to the intellectual rigor of Palo Alto’s very educated citizens. We are not stupid. In general in California, the primary purpose of zoning is to prevent uses in a neighborhood that are thought to be incompatible with each other, like the property right to enjoy ones outdoors (a California specialty) being violated by the building of a neighbor who does not care about outdoor living. In practice, zoning also is used to prevent new development from interfering with existing uses and/or to preserve the "character" of a community. Here the famous Supreme Court adage about pornography comes to play: it may be difficult to define in the abstract, but you know it when you see it. Before it is too late, it is time to stop the approval of “City character destruction” by ROI maximized Lego-style glass houses, which contribute to traffic, parking, and congestion problems. It is unconscionable to have a legal requirement for 429 University (as for many other projects) of less than half the needed parking spaces, through all kind of legal shenanigans unrelated to the project, when by floor area counting more than 90 spaces are needed. Development gung-ho past Palo Alto City Councils have contributed to this unacceptable situation through reckless too-low, or even zero, parking requirements. Past City Councils have left a legacy of disastrous rules, like the 2008 removal of retail to office conversion, benefitting mostly the developers. Those rules must be changed immediately ex post facto – which is legal and practiced under common law, see http://bit.ly/1JeqnaS. It is time to stop the further destruction of the remaining aesthetic architectural coherence of Palo Alto by the Lego-style architecture, Instead Staff must be guided by the comp plan which states very clearly neighborhoods are to be protected from construction which does not fit into the existing aesthetics. Once more in Palo Alto, this is not the case here. We have yet another project that is incompatible architecturally with its surrounding neighborhood. In the discussion connected with the 3864 Corina Way case the need for a non-developer focused Ombuds-team within the planning department was brought up. It is high time to support the residents, whose taxes predominantly finance the town government. The developers and their architects will be quick to claim that beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. But it is just bad architecture they produce. "Eyes of the beholder" is a common saying, but numerous court cases in the last 50 years have firmly established that the police power of the cities does extend to aesthetics, and that traditional justification in terms of health and safety or property values, is expendable verbosity. The California Planning Commissioner explicitly encourages City (and County) Planning Commissions to extend their reviews to aesthetics of projects. And in the end it may have be the City Council which decides, after all the Charter City Council makes the laws, except for further litigation. And, Charter cities may amend their general plans as often as they wish, unlike general law jurisdictions, which are limited to four amendments per year. Finally, Dr. Harbour’s descriptions of the surrounding architecture in his appeal are a welcome difference of the laudatory boilerplate propaganda by Architect Hayes and his architect colleagues. That is the best they could come up with? And the final plan is the best they could come up with after 8 design changes? How bad must it have been in the beginning!? City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/6/2015 3:17 PM -- Rainer Pitthan (650)327-9497 157 S. California Ave Palo Alto CA 094306 The #1 enemy of the United States is AutoComplete. Sorry if there are mistakes! City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/6/2015 3:17 PM Carnahan, David From:Vita <vitago@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, April 06, 2015 2:01 PM To:Council, City Cc:Neilson Buchanan; Michael Harbour Subject:Re: today's consent calendar - 429 University Avenue Appeal Michael, Nielson, Unfortunately I'm out of town and can t come to the counsel tonight. Even my email would probably to late, please bring it to the counsel's attention if you can. Michael, did you request a Directors hearing for this? I figure the hearing supposed to be first step of appealing the projects. Interesting why city planner did not inform you. They did on my project. Another thing: special setback. I heard about it during discussion about new Walgreens. I recall it supposed to be 12ft. My bet 429 does not adhere to it. Best, Vita On Monday, April 6, 2015, Vita <vitago@gmail.com> wrote: Dear City Council, I support the appeal of the proposed building at 429 University Avenue. Please remove the item from the consent calendar so a formal appeal can be heard. 1- The proposed building is grossly incompatible in size, scope and architectural style with the existing nearby buildings. It's 4 times more stories than existing and any other buildings on a block! The new 429 University will cast its shadow most of the day on the old Apple building, intersection and cafes and restaurants across the road. 2 - It will create traffic congestion on narrow Kipling Street and alleyway behind, which is used for freight deliveries. Kipling is hard to navigate even now, when old Apple building and former Zibibo is unoccupied. 3 - Proposed building is dangerously short on parking spaces. 4 - It reduces the existing amount of downtown retail space and replaces it with office space, making the area less inviting. 5 - The long-term construction and building itself will have a negative impact on existing businesses, residents and visitors. To see the possible cumulative effect of this building, try walking on Lytton or Hamilton and see how much less people are walking there. The feel of looming faceless buildings pushes people to choose less treating routs. Palo Alto already have its share of huge buildings put there years ago to the profit for developers and loss for neighbors. They are a permanent blight in the neighborhood driving prices down for neighbors and affecting the quality of life around. Unfortunately once it the building goes up, the is no way to fix the damage. I know what I'm talking about: I leave in a shadow of one of the "blights". Please don't let Palo Alto die by the "thousand cuts" of inappropriate buildings. Thank you. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/6/2015 3:17 PM Vita Gorbunova , 559 Everett Ave, Palo Alto, ca 94301. P.s. I would most definitely have attended the today's meeting if I had not been away from town. I'm also extremely disappointed that this very controversial item was put on the city counsel calendar during spring brake, right after the Easter and with very short notice. One might even think that it was done on purpose. Hopefully not, and counsel will look into the matter. -- Best, Vita 650 395-7805 Sent from Gmail Mobile, so if my email sounds strange, it's autocorrect!!! -- Best, Vita 650 395-7805 Sent from Gmail Mobile, so if my email sounds strange, it's autocorrect!!! City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/6/2015 3:17 PM Carnahan, David From:Wayne Martin <wmartin46@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, April 06, 2015 2:50 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support for 429 University Appeal City Council City of Palo Alto Palo Alto, CA 94301 Subject: Support for 429 University Avenue Appeal Elected Council Members: Please consider favorably the request for appeal of the 429 University Avenue project. Clearly this project is too large for downtown, and should not be built at that location. Wayne Martin Palo Alto, CA www.twitter.com/wmartin46 www.youtube.com/wmartin46 www.scribd.com/wmartin46 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/6/2015 4:33 PM Carnahan, David From:jihirschpa@earthlink.net Sent:Monday, April 06, 2015 4:27 PM To:Council, City Subject:429 U. Ave. Council members, I support the appeal of 429 U. Avenue It is an oversized, under parked building that will be located on an undersized street, Kipling, and will contribute to traffic, and parking problems in the Downtown area.. More importantly, I strongly object to the process of matters like this going from Commission to the Planning Director and then being placed on the Consent Calendar effectively cutting out residents from having their day in Council chambers where their concerns can be heard by their ELECTED officials. Support the appeal and place this on a Council agenda for future consideration . Joe Hirsch City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/6/2015 4:34 PM Carnahan, David From:Clint Severson <ClintSeverson@abaxis.com> Sent:Monday, April 06, 2015 3:48 PM To:Council, City Subject:429 university project Ladies and Gentlemen:  This project needs to get approved, this has been going on for years and  meets all the requirements.  This type of appeal just  drives up costs and complexity, that is eventually passed on to the tenants.  Rent in Palo Alto is higher than Manhattan, mostly  because the supply is so constrained.  We need more housing/work spaces in this community, so let’s get off the dime and get  this approved.  Thank you all.  Clint Severson  955 laurel glen Dr.  Palo Alto CA     City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/6/2015 5:01 PM Carnahan, David From:Elizabeth Wong <elizabethwong2009@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, April 06, 2015 4:39 PM To:Council, City; Gitelman, Hillary; Lait, Jonathan; French, Amy; Fong, Christy Cc:Jaime Wong; Andrew Wong Subject:Opposition emails Hello, The Palo Altans for Sensible Zoning, the usual suspects and their corresponding mailing list people have sent the opposition emails you have received. Their attacks are misdirected to 429 University Ave. Expect this sort of backlash in the future from every construction development, residential and commercial. The emailers have an agenda: stop all growth, development in Palo Alto, even for mixed use buildings in transit areas. I ask you to persevere and do the right thing: If the laws are met, you must let (new development). If all of Indiana and Arkansas vote for egregious, discriminatory laws, it is our duty and our conscience to overturn the egregious laws and to perpetuate conscientious laws, no matter how unpopular they may be. Elizabeth Wong City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/6/2015 5:01 PM Carnahan, David From:Rainer Pitthan <Rainer.Pitthan@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, April 06, 2015 4:42 PM To:Council, City Subject:UAbu Dabi's opinion on 429 University in particular and downtown in general Since the City is withholding letters to the Council on 429 University Avenue from the April 6 City Council meeting posting, I recommend to go to Palo Alto on-line: http://bit.ly/1GZZPL8 I was struck in particular by one contribution asking: Are the city planners on the take? If Abu dabi is really from Abu Dhabi, he probably knows it when he sees it. 1. Several friends from the area, but not from Palo Alto, have asked me this. 2. When after a 7 year absence from Palo Alto I moved back 2 years ago, the one of the first things I read in the Daily Post was that the the Planning Director claimed that the narrow sidewalks he allowed, were build because he was following the tenets of New Urbanism. Now I do have a well studied 1956 translation of the book "Propos D'Urbanisme" by one "Charles-Édouard Jeanneret-Gris", also known as "Le Corbusier", and so I know this was lie. The one word to use describing New Urbanism is walkability, and for that you need wide sidewalks. Narrow sidewalks in a space- constrained town only fattens the pockets of the builders. Here is the complete posting: Posted by abu dabi a resident of Professorville on Apr 3, 2015 at 11:24 am Soon Palo Alto will have lost the very ambiance that Palo Altans and visitors found so charming about Palo Alto. 429 University is the not the last nail in the coffin, it is just one of the nails that are going to ensure the destruction of this City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/6/2015 5:01 PM once sweet downtown. Downtown Palo Alto will look like Beijing, Shanghai, Lang Fang etc. Cities that have grown to disarming proportions and ugliness with zero input from the displaced and dismissed. The people of Palo Alto seemed to be clear on their wish to limit office space and maintain retail. Putting in elevators, parking spaces, stairs, etc. in lieu of individually owned shops is not diminishing office space. Those detriments add to the demise. Are the city planners on the take? Is the city council too weak to make decisions to maintain Palo Alto's charm? Palo Altans travel to Europe and around the globe to have a first-hand account of ancient Rome, the characteristic Parisian boulevards, the ruins of Latin America, yet our city council and planning board have no compunction about destroying our once lovely downtown for the profit of moneyed people with no taste. -- Rainer Pitthan (650)327-9497 157 S. California Ave Palo Alto CA 094306 The #1 enemy of the United States is AutoComplete City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/6/2015 5:17 PM Carnahan, David From:Suzanne Keehn <dskeehn@pacbell.net> Sent:Monday, April 06, 2015 5:15 PM To:Council, City Subject:Item 15 on the Consent Calendar Dear Council Members,    Please be fair to the resident’s appeal of the proposed building for 420 University Ave, and take Item  15 off the consent calendar, so that a  hearing can be scheduled for the appeal within 30 days. By putting item 15 on the consent calendar  the City Manager is signaling to the Council that   they should ignore this appeal, which goes against our last election which signal that residents want  more say in what our city looks like and feels  like, and that the top priority needs to be livability.    This proposed building is incompatible in size, scope and style with the current buildings. It will tower  over our unique Victorian and historic style of the   neighboring street.  I would lose more retail and create safety, traffic, and parking problems on  Kipling which is narrow.  Even the city’s own traffic  report states that this will worsen the parking problems etc. that already exist on Kipling.    This would be another example that the city staff and our commissions not putting  our  residents  concerns on the top of the list when it comes to agreeing  to any development.  Especially one that is extreme, in architecture design, and the negative impact  it will have on our city.    PLUS California is in the midst of a major drought, the elephant in the room that no one is discussing  on the Council, even with the last agreement  to limit building on the three main streets, which I believe still is too much and is not addressing our  environmental issues.    Residents will have to cut their water use, but what is the point when we build like there is no  tomorrow?  Insanity has been defined as doing the same  thing over and over again, expecting a different result.”  I would say to continue development of any  kind, without taking in to account what we  are facing as a State, is insanity.    Suzanne Keehn  4076 Orme St.  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/6/2015 5:28 PM Carnahan, David From:Nancy Larson <nancyco2@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, April 06, 2015 5:28 PM To:Council, City Subject:429 University Please remove this site from the Consent Calendar,until the city council has had a chance to study the parking ramifications more closely. Thank you, Nancy Larson 101 Alma City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/8/2015 11:48 AM Carnahan, David From:Linda McElravy <linda.mcelravy@idean.com> Sent:Tuesday, April 07, 2015 10:44 AM To:Council, City Subject:Thank you! Dear City Council Member: Thank you for removing the appeal of 429 University Avenue from the consent calendar. I fully support the appeal of this proposed building. The building is not compatible with surrounding buildings in size and style. It reduces existing retail space and replaces it with office space. It increases traffic and will pose a safety risk along narrow Kipling Street. It will also be a significant burden to existing businesses and the surrounding community. Even the short term construction has made holding meetings or hosting visitors challenging. Thank you! Linda Angela McElravy -- IDEAN – The Next Big Things   Linda McElravy · Head of Studio   +1 (650) 521-6244  linda.mcelravy@idean.com   Idean Enterprises, Inc · 411 Kipling St, Palo Alto, CA 94301  Web · Twitter · Facebook    City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/8/2015 11:48 AM Carnahan, David From:Ted Davids <tdavids@sonic.net> Sent:Tuesday, April 07, 2015 2:40 PM To:Council, City Subject:The removal of the appeal of 429 University Avenue Dear Palo Alto City Council Members, I want to thank you for removing the appeal of 429 University Avenue from the consent calendar. I fully support the appeal of this proposed building. The building is not compatible with surrounding buildings in size and style and impact. It reduces existing retail space and replaces it with office space. It will increase traffic on Kipling, University and surrounding streets and will impact safety along Kipling Street between University and Lytton Avenues. This along with other changes in the immediate neighborhood will impact the quality of the area. I believe the infrastructure of the area is incompatible with the current scope of the project and needs to be reexamined. Thank you, William T. Davids 475 Everett Ave., Palo Alto City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/8/2015 11:48 AM Carnahan, David From:Michael Harbour <dr.mharbour@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, April 06, 2015 10:52 PM To:Council, City Subject:Thank you for removing the 429 University Ave Appeal from consent Dear City Council, Thank you for removing the appeal of 429 University Avenue from the consent calendar. I fully support the appeal of this proposed building. The building is not compatible with surrounding buildings in size and style. It reduces existing retail space and replaces it with office space. It increases traffic and will pose a safety risk along narrow Kipling Street. It will also be a significant burden to existing businesses and the surrounding community. I look forward to being able to fully discuss this at the hearing on May 4. Kind regards, Michael Harbour, MD 421 Kipling Street City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/8/2015 11:48 AM Carnahan, David From:Adam Swart <adam@swart.org> Sent:Monday, April 06, 2015 6:09 PM To:Council, City Subject:429 University Ave Dear City Council, I support the appeal of the proposed building at 429 University Avenue. Please remove the item from the consent calendar so a formal appeal can be heard. The proposed building is incompatible in size, scope and architectural style with the existing nearby buildings. It will create traffic congestion on narrow Kipling Street and alleyway 30 which is used for freight deliveries. It reduces the existing amount of downtown retail space and replaces it with office space. The long-term construction and building itself will have a negative impact on existing businesses and residents. Sincerely, Adam Swart 770 La Para Ave Palo Alto, CA 94306 -- Adam R. Swart Email: adam@swart.org Cell: 650-353-0083 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/8/2015 6:47 PM Carnahan, David From:Pat Marriott <patmarriott@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Wednesday, April 08, 2015 3:13 PM To:Council, City Subject:Thank you! Council Members:  Sincere thanks to Pat Burt, Greg Schmid and Eric Filseth for taking 429 University off the consent calendar. I’m glad  the council will consider a resident’s appeal opposing the building.  The ARB is an advisory group, not the final decision‐maker. Regardless of the its opinion, you have rightly concluded  that it’s your job to take another look at the project. Design and compatibility with surroundings are not the only  issues. Parking and loss of retail are equally important.   I hope this will prompt a future discussion of the role of the ARB and PTC, and the requirements for people serving.  For example, is it appropriate to have developers on the commission?   Below is a relevant comment posted at http://paloaltoonline.com/news/2015/04/07/council‐to‐weigh‐appeal‐of‐ polarizing‐downtown‐development  Again, thank you for taking the appropriate steps to revisit this project at a public hearing.              Pat Marriott    Posted by Looking for data? a resident of Downtown North 5 hours ago The National Citizen Survey 2014 surveyed 3000 people in Palo Alto. Here are a few tidbits from Web Link Percent rating Excellent or Good Overall confidence in Palo Alto government 52% (page 9) The overall direction that Palo Alto is taking 50% (page 9) Generally acting in the best interest of the community 54% (Appendix p.6-7) Quality of Palo Alto government 58% Land use, planning and zoning 43% (page 32) Overall quality of new development in Palo Alto 51% (page 17) Overall "built environment" of Palo Alto (including overall design, buildings, parks and transportation systems) Excellent 18% Good 49% (page 55)     City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/13/2015 9:28 AM Carnahan, David From:Elizabeth Wong <elizabethwong2009@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, April 10, 2015 10:42 AM To:Council, City; Gitelman, Hillary; Lait, Jonathan; French, Amy; Fong, Christy Cc:Jaime Wong; Andrew Wong Subject:429 University Irony Honorable Mayor Holman, City Council: Am I the only person who sees the irony in this situation? Mr. Harbour does NOT live on Kipling. He owns a house on Kipling that he rents out to COMMERCIAL tenants for OFFICE, not retail. Yet he complains about loss of retail. In the new Retail Preservation Ordinance, his building at 421-423 Kipling should be made ground floor retail. It is a perfect fit. And his commercial tenants are a major contributor to the traffic and parking problems he complains about. His house on Kipling is a Queen Anne – Historic Category 3. The others around it are NOT historic or are category 4 (the lowest category). According to the PAST website, some are even Four-Square, which is an architectural style created in reaction to the Queen Anne. Structures that are Category 3 and 4 are not REAL historic as are categories 1 and 2 which are strictly regulated and are required to be preserved. I should know, I own a real historic category 2 and in a historic district. In contrast category 3 and 4 buildings are City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/13/2015 9:28 AM exempt from California energy standards, ADA accessibility mandates, and are allowed non-conforming use. And they can be demolished. The buildings in appellant’s street all co-exist. And they co-exist with other, more modern styled buildings on University Ave. Just like the REAL historic buildings in the Ramona HISTORIC DISTRICT coexist with modern buildings on University Avenue AND on Ramona Street, there is no reason appellant’s building cannot co-exist with modern buildings on University Avenue including the proposed building at 429 University. My husband, my son and I own this property since 1999 and, in my mind, planning for its replacement started then, even through two business downturns. Mayor Holman: in your State of the City speech, you singled out for praise the visionaries and pragmatists who took a chance and made Palo Alto what it is today. Why stop now? Let’s move forward and make Palo Alto even better. Elizabeth Wong City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/13/2015 5:21 PM Carnahan, David From:Elizabeth L <laskyea@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, April 13, 2015 2:29 PM To:Council, City Subject:429 University Honorable Mayor, Council Members: I support the ARB’s and Planning’s approval of the plans for 429 University. This is the right project in the right part of town. It complies with all the rules and requirements from the city. Palo Alto cannot remain as beautiful, desirable and vibrant as it is today without innovation and upgrading of commercial areas such as downtown Palo Alto. Elizabeth Lasky Downtown North CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK May 4, 2015 The Honorable City Council Palo Alto, California Policy and Services Committee Recommendation Regarding Changes to City Council and Standing Committee Minutes Recommendation Staff recommends the City Council discuss and affirm Policy and Service Committee recommendation to move to Action minutes to record the proceedings of the Council and Standing Committee meetings, to include retaining DVD’s of the meetings as a source of minutes. Staff is looking for guidance whether to also produce Verbatim minutes, or Verbatim minutes for specific agenda items when needed. Executive Summary On December 16, 2014, the Policy and Services Committee voted 3-1, Schmid no, to immediately move to Action minutes and to retain the video as the formal record of the City Council and Standing Committee meetings, and that the City Council was to determine whether verbatim minutes were necessary. Currently, the City Clerk’s Office produces Sense Minutes of City Council and Council Standing Committee meetings, as directed by Municipal Code Section 2.04.160 (Attachment A). Sense Minutes include all actions taken and a short synopsis of the remarks by Council Members, Staff and members of the public as they speak regarding a particular matter under discussion. Council and some Standing Committee meeting minutes are typed by a contracted transcription service; the remainder are typed by Clerk Staff. In the event Council affirms the change to Action minutes, Staff will have to bring back an Ordinance, on Consent, changing the Municipal Code. Background During a Council meeting, City Clerk Staff begins the Action Minutes (Attachment B) by typing the names of all speakers and the motions. The second Staff member types the motions (Attachment C) so they appear on the screen for Council and the public to view. Within one week, Staff produces the final Action Minutes, which consists of just the motions. The Action minutes are then sent off to the transcriptionist to type the Sense Minutes. Depending on the length of the meeting and how many other sets of minutes they are working on, the minutes could take two or more weeks to return to us. A final review of the completed minutes is done by the City Clerk, and the minutes are placed on the agenda for Council’s approval. This whole process may take up to a month to complete. Last year a question was submitted to the City Clerks ListServe inquiring what types of Page 2 minutes were completed by cities. Of the 72 agencies that responded, 35 use Action Minutes and relied on the meeting video as the official record of the meeting. Thirty cities use Sense/Summary minutes and the remaining seven used detailed summary minutes. No agency used verbatim minutes. The Midpeninsula Media Center records all of our meetings and places them, via YouTube on their website. We are in the process of putting the link to these videos in a table that will include links to the agendas and minutes for each meeting. We are working to make it easier for the public to have all information regarding a meeting in one location. Resource Impact In the event Council chooses to affirm the use of Action minutes and the video to be the official record of their meetings, the City Clerk’s Office will save approximately $20,000 in contract transciription fees. In the event that Sense or Verbatim minutes are needed for a specific agenda item, these can be completed by either Clerk Staff or the outstide transcription service. ATTACHMENTS:  Attachment A: Municipal Code Section (DOCX)  Attachment B: 03-16-15 CCM Draft Action (DOC)  Attachment C: 04-06-15 CCM Motions (DOC)  Attachment D: 12-16-14 P&S EXCERPT 2 (DOC) Department Head: Beth Minor, City Clerk Page 3 ATTACHMENT A 2.04.160 City council minutes. (a) The minutes of the council shall be kept by the city clerk. The minutes shall be neatly typewritten or printed in a book kept for that purpose, with a record of each particular type of business transacted set off in paragraphs, with proper subheadings. (b) The minutes shall include a record of all business discussed at regular or special meetings of the council. The minutes shall be sense minutes and need not be a verbatim transcript of the proceedings. Sense minutes include all actions taken and a short synopsis of the remarks of such council members, staff and members of the public as speak upon a particular matter under discussion. A record shall be made of the names and addresses of persons addressing the council, together with a brief summary of their remarks indicating whether they spoke in support of or in opposition to such matter. Nothing in this section shall be construed to compel registration as a condition to attendance at a meeting. (c) As soon as possible after each council meeting the city clerk shall cause a copy of the minutes to be forwarded to each council member, the city manager, other officers and department heads of the city, all newspapers of general circulation within the city, and be made available to the public at the front counter in the city clerk's office, the table and bulletin board in the council chambers, and all city libraries, except the Children's Library. (d) At the meeting following publication, council minutes shall be agendized by the city clerk for the council's approval. Corrections to the minutes shall be made at the meeting. Council members may submit their corrections in writing or orally to the city clerk's office before the time of the meeting. The city clerk shall distribute a written copy of all corrections received during regular business hours to all council members at the meeting. (Ord. 4692 § 1 (part), 2001) CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL DRAFT ACTION MINUTES 1 March 16, 2015 Regular Meeting March 16, 2015 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 6:07 P.M. Present: Berman, Burt, DuBois, Filseth, Kniss, Schmid, Wolbach arrived @ 6:21 P.M. Absent: Holman, Scharff Special Orders of the Day 1. Presentation of Proclamation to Exchange Students from Tsuchiura, Japan and Presentation of Matt Schlegel, Marathon Runner. Vice Mayor Schmid Diana Nemet, Vice Mayor Schmid Ms. Nemet Matt Schlegel Jennifer Buenrostro Etsuo Sato Council Member Kniss Vice Mayor Schmid read the Proclamation. 2 March 16, 2015 Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Vice Mayor Schmid announced that Agenda Item Number 9 will be postponed James Keene, City Manager Vice Mayor Schmid MOTION: Council Member Burt moved, seconded by Council Member Kniss to continue Agenda Item 9- CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS, CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8 to a date unknown. MOTION PASSED: 7-0 Holman, Scharff absent City Manager Comments Jim Keene, City Manager Vice Mayor Schmid Council Member Kniss read the Proclamation for Ray Bacchetti. Vice Mayor Schmid Council Member Berman Council Member Burt Dennis Burns, Police Chief Oral Communications William Conlon Eamonn Gormley Jeff Hoel Stephanie Munoz 3 March 16, 2015 Catherine Marteneau Consent Calendar MOTION: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member Berman to approve Agenda Item Numbers 2-14. 2. Approval of a Contract with SCS Field Services in an Amount Not to Exceed $139,060 for the First Year to Provide Landfill Gas and Leachate Control Systems Maintenance, Monitoring, and Reporting Services and to Exercise the Option of a Second and Third Year of the Contract. 3. Approval of a Site and Design Application by Peck Desing on Behalf of Walnut Holding, LLC for a new 13,118 sf Single Family Home, detached garage, and pool; and Associated Site Improvements on a 10.39 Acre Parcel of Land in the Open Space (OS) Zone District located at 820 Los Trancos Road. Environmental Assessment: Mitigated Negative Declaration has Been Prepared. 4. Approval and Authorization for the City Manager to Execute Amendment One to Memorandum of Understanding with the Santa Clara Valley Water District to Increase Palo Alto’s Total Cost Obligation by $500,000 Through FY 2016 for a Total Cost Obligation of $1,235,915 to Fund Water Conservation Rebate and Incentive Programs and Adoption of a Related Budget Amendment Ordinance 5313 entitled “Budget Amendment Ordinance for the Council for the City of Palo Alto for Fiscal Year 2015 to Provide Appropriation in the Amount of $400,000.” MOTION PASSED: 7-0 Holman, Scharff absent Action Items 5. Comprehensive Plan Update Status and Discussion of Existing Comprehensive Plan Themes and Structure. Hillary Gitelman, Planning and Community Environment Director Vice Mayor Schmid Mila Zelkhas 4 March 16, 2015 Stephanie Munoz Bob Moss Vice Mayor Schmid Council Member Burt Ms. Gitelman Council Member Burt Mark Michael, Planning and Transportation Commissioner Council Member Burt Mr. Michael Council Member Burt Ms. Gitelman Council Member Burt concept plans James Keene, City Manager Council Member Burt Council Member DuBois Ms. Gitelman Council Member DuBois Ms. Gitelman Council Member DuBois Ms. Gitelman 5 March 16, 2015 Council Member DuBois Ms. Gitelman Council Member DuBois Ms. Gitelman Council Member DuBois Council Member Kniss Ms. Gitelman Council Member Kniss Ms. Gitelman Council Member Kniss Council Member Filseth not in comp plan quantitative element Council Member Berman Ms. Gitelman Council Member Berman Council Member Wolbach Ms. Gitelman Mr. Keene Council Member Wolbach Vice Mayor Schmid land use 6 March 16, 2015 MOTION: Vice Mayor Schmid moved, seconded by Council Member XX that the Summit sessions will explore the impacts of replacing Theme Number 6- Meeting Residential and Commercial Needs, with following: 1. the number of residents and the number of employees will grow at the same rate over time; 2. the rate of growth of jobs and residents will remain at or below the Council Member DuBois Vice Mayor Schmid Mr. Keene Vice Mayor Schmid MOTION FAILED DUE TO THE LACK OF A SECOND Council Member DuBois Council Member Filseth Council Member Burt Vice Mayor Schmid Ms. Gitelman great line of discussion how council would like to be involved involve council at these major issue points schedule sessions to go further into the words Vice Mayor Schmid Council Member Wolbach Ms. Gitelman Council Member Wolbach direction or redirection on themes, calendar Mr. Keene 7 March 16, 2015 Council member Dubois MOTION: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member Burt to have a deeper discussion on the Comprehensive Plan on the overarching goals and vision statement of each element before the Summit and the Comprehensive Plan process. Ms. Gitelman Council Member Burt Council Member Filseth Ms. Gitelman Council Member Filseth Council Member Wolbach Council Member DuBois Council Member Burt Council Member Wolbach Ms. Gitelman Council Member Wolbach MOTION PASSED: 7-0 Holman, Scharff absent Council took a break from 8:45-8:51 P.M. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 12:30 A.M. CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL ACTION MINUTES Page 1 of 7 Regular Meeting April 6, 2015 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 6:06 P.M. Present: Berman, Burt, Filseth, Holman, Kniss arrived at 7:14 P.M., Scharff, Schmid, Wolbach Absent: DuBois Study Session 1. Cost of Services Update and Draft User Fee Cost Recovery Level Policy Discussion. Special Orders of the Day 2. Selection of Applicants to Interview on April 15, 2015 for the Human Relations Commission, the Public Art Commission and the Utilities Advisory Commission. MOTION: Vice Mayor Schmid moved, seconded by Council Member Wolbach to interview all candidates for the Human Relations Commission, the Public Art Commission and the Utilities Advisor Commission. MOTION PASSED: 6-1 Scharff no, DuBois, Kniss absent Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions None. Minutes Approval 3. January 20, 2015, February 9 and February 17, 2015. ACTION MINUTES Page 2 of 7 City Council Meeting Action Minutes: 04/06/2015 MOTION: Vice Mayor Schmid moved, seconded by Council Member Kniss to approve the minutes of January 20, February 9 and 17, 2015. MOTION PASSED: 7-0-1 Scharff abstaining, DuBois absent Consent Calendar MOTION: Council Member Burt moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Schmid, third by Council Member Filseth to pull Agenda Item Number 15- Appeal of the Planning and Community Environment Director's Architectural Review Approval of a 31,407 s.f., Four Story, Mixed Use Building With Parking Facilities on Two Subterranean Levels Requested by Ken Hayes Architects, Inc. on Behalf of Kipling Post LP to Replace Two One-story Commercial/Retail Buildings on an 11,000 s.f. Site in the Downtown Commercial (CD-C (GF)(P)) Zone District Located at 429 University Avenue, to be heard on May 4, 2015. MOTION: Vice Mayor Schmid moved, seconded by Council Member Kniss to approve Agenda Item Numbers 4-14 & 16. 4. Approve and Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Construction Contract with Cal Electro Inc. in the Amount of $514,000 for the Electric Underground Rebuild and Re-conductor Project, Phase III Along and Near (A) San Antonio Road Between East Charleston and Middlefield Roads and, (B) Middlefield Road Between East Charleston and East Meadow Drive. 5. Approval of a Construction Grant Agreement with The Association of Bay Area Governments and the San Francisco Bay Area Water Trail in the Amount of $40,000 for Palo Alto Baylands Sailing Station Accessibility Improvements and Adoption of a Budget Amendment Ordinance 5315 entitled “Budget Amendment Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto in the Capital Project Fund in Amount of $40,000.” 6. Policy and Services Committee Recommendation to Accept the Auditor's Office Quarterly Report as of December 31, 2014. 7. Resolution 9502 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Structure of the Palo Alto/Stanford Citizen Corps Council / Palo Alto Emergency Services Council.” ACTION MINUTES Page 3 of 7 City Council Meeting Action Minutes: 04/06/2015 8. Approval of Letter of Agreement with the City of Sunnyvale for Emergency Operations Plan. 9. Approval of Contract with Traffic Data Services, Inc. for a Total of $100,000 to Provide On-Call Traffic Data Collection Services and Approval of a Budget Amendment Ordinance 5316 entitled “Budget Amendment Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto in the University Avenue Parking Permit Fund and the General Fund.” 10. Approval of Contract Number C15155597 with Biggs Cardosa & Associates, Inc. in an Amount Not to Exceed $149,250 for Consulting Engineering Services for the Citywide Bridge Assessment Project – CIP PE-13012. 11. Approval of a Record of Land Use Action and a Site and Design Application for a New Single-Story, Single-Family Residence and Associated Site Improvements on a 3.5-Acre Parcel of Land in the Open Space (OS) Zoning District Located at 805 Los Trancos Road. 12. Adoption of Corrected Resolution 9499 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto of the Council Ordering Weed Nuisance Abated.” 13. Confirmation of Appointment of Suzanne Mason as Assistant City Manager and Approval of Employment Agreement. 14. Adoption of a Contract Amendment with Val Security and a Budget Amendment Ordinance in the Amount of $175,000 to Increase the Project Safety Net Fund and Decrease the Stanford Medical Center Development Agreement Fund. 15. Appeal of the Planning and Community Environment Director's Architectural Review Approval of a 31,407 s.f., Four Story, Mixed Use Building With Parking Facilities on Two Subterranean Levels Requested by Ken Hayes Architects, Inc. on Behalf of Kipling Post LP to Replace Two One-story Commercial/Retail Buildings on an 11,000 s.f. Site in the Downtown Commercial (CD-C (GF)(P)) Zone District Located at 429 University Avenue. 16. Approval of a Contract Amendment with Genuent USA, LLC, Intratek Computer, Inc., Digital Intelligence Systems, LLC, GTC Systems, Inc., Modis, Inc., Bodhtree Solutions, Inc. and Signature Technology Group, ACTION MINUTES Page 4 of 7 City Council Meeting Action Minutes: 04/06/2015 Inc. For IT Temporary Staffing Support Services in a Total Amount Not to Exceed $650,000 Per Fiscal Year for All Seven Contracts. MOTION FOR AGENDA ITEM NUMBERS 4-14 AND 16 PASSED: 8-0 DuBois absent Action Items 17. TEFRA HEARING: Regarding Conduit Financing for the Stevenson House Project, Located at 455 East Charleston Road, Palo Alto, and Adoption of a Resolution 9502, and Approving the Issuance of Revenue Bonds by the California Municipal Finance Authority for the Purpose of Financing the Acquisition and Rehabilitation of a Multifamily Rental Housing Facility. Public Hearing opened at: 8:06 P.M. Public Hearing closed at 8:09 P.M. MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Kniss to adopt the Resolution approving the issuance of the bonds by the California Municipal Finance Authority (CMFA) for the benefit of Palo Alto Senior Housing Project, Inc. Stevenson House LP (Borrower). MOTION PASSED: 8-0 DuBois absent 18. City Council Direction Regarding: (1) Parameters of an Interim Ordinance to Prohibit Conversion of Ground Floor Retail and Services to Other Uses, and (2) Subsequent Steps to Establish Zoning Regulations to Preserve and Promote Active Ground Floor Uses in the City's Commercial Areas. MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Burt to direct Staff to prepare and return to Council with an urgency ordinance, including at a minimum the following: 1. A Citywide prohibition on converting existing ground floor retail uses to other uses until existing retail protections can be reviewed and revised as needed. Extend the same protections to eating and drinking uses, personal services, hotels, theatres, and travel agencies (permitted ground floor uses in the Downtown GF combining district); and ACTION MINUTES Page 5 of 7 City Council Meeting Action Minutes: 04/06/2015 2. Apply the prohibition to those retail services operating as of March 2, 2015 and for which no discretionary application involving a change of use has been submitted to the City by March 2, 2015; and 3. Include within the ordinance an appeal to the City Council in cases of financial hardship or showing that the facility is unsuited for successful retail use; and 4. Allow existing retail service facilities to be demolished and rebuilt provided that the retail square footage is only reduced by the minimum amount needed to provide access to any new upper floors and/or lower level parking; and 5. Retail services that are grandfathered in as legal non-conforming shall not be protected or required to remain; and 6. The Municipal Code’s definition of retail services and the other uses cited above shall be continued; and 7. The ordinance will be effective for an initial 45 days with an option to extend if the urgency continues. Staff is also directed to prepare a traditional ordinance for consideration by the Planning and Transportation Commission and the City Council as a “backstop” to extend the interim measures until existing retail protections can be reviewed and revised as needed; and 8. Nothing in the ordinance shall alter requirements of site-specific Planned Community zoning ordinances or adopted conditions of approval. Also, nothing in the ordinance shall affect the need for a conditional use permit for certain allowed uses where such requirements currently exist, although use permit requirements and affected uses could be adjusted in the permanent ordinance that follows. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER that conditional uses for ground floor retail areas are not permitted in retail districts while the interim ordinance is in effect. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to delete Number 5- Retail services that are grandfathered in as legal non-conforming shall not be protected or required to remain in the Motion. ACTION MINUTES Page 6 of 7 City Council Meeting Action Minutes: 04/06/2015 INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER modify first sentence of Municipal Code Section 18.04.030 (125) to begin “Retail service” means a use predominantly engaged in providing… Council Member Kniss left the meeting at 10:00 PM MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 7-0 DuBois, Kniss absent MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Mayor Holman to direct Staff that once the interim Ordinance is in place: 1. To bring forward the interim Ordinance as a regular Ordinance for Council adoption; and 2. Subsequently, to prioritize consideration of permanent retail protections starting with retail uses allowed on California Avenue and boundaries of the Retail (R) combining district. Also prioritize an analysis of retail trends and desired adjustments to the Ground Floor (GF) combining district in Downtown, followed by consideration of other commercial zones within the City. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to direct Staff to prepare an Ordinance to extend the boundaries of the (R) combining district to Cambridge Avenue. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER that projects in the pipeline that do not have applications for planning entitlements on file on March 2, 2015 would be subject to the Ordinance. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER that both instances of “interim” in the first sentence of the Motion be changed to “urgency.” MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 7-0 DuBois, Kniss absent Inter-Governmental Legislative Affairs None. ACTION MINUTES Page 7 of 7 City Council Meeting Action Minutes: 04/06/2015 Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements Council Member Scharff inquired if Council Members should keep the Packet Books for Agenda Item Number 18- City Council Direction Regarding: (1) Parameters of an Interim Ordinance to Prohibit Conversion of Ground Floor Retail and Services to Other Uses, and (2) Subsequent Steps to Establish Zoning Regulations to Preserve and Promote Active Ground Floor Uses in the City's Commercial Areas. Hillary Gitelman, Director of Planning and Community Environment responded yes. Closed Session MOTION: Council Member Filseth moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Schmid to go into Closed Session. MOTION PASSED: 6-0 Scharff not participating, DuBois, Kniss absent Council went into Closed Session at 10:49 P.M. 19. CONFERENCE WITH CITY LABOR NEGOTIATORS City Designated Representatives: City Manager and his designees pursuant to Merit System Rules and Regulations (James Keene, Kathy Shen, Melissa Tronquet, Dania Torres Wong, Sandra Blanch, David Ramberg, Joe Saccio, Molly Stump, Walter Rossmann) Employee Organizations: Palo Alto Police Officers Association (PAPOA); International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF), Local 1319 Authority: Government Code Section 54957.6(a) The Council reconvened from the Closed Session at 12:23 A.M., Mayor Holman reported no reportable action. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 12:23 A.M. POLICY AND SERVICES COMMITTEE EXCERPT MINUTES 1 Special Meeting Tuesday, December 16, 2014 Chairperson Price called the meeting to order at 6:0 P.M. in the Council Conference Room, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California. Present: Klein arrived at 6:13 P.M., Price (Chair), Scharff, Schmid Absent: ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None AGENDA ITEMS 2. Discussion of the Cost of Various Forms of City Council and Standing Committee Minutes. Beth Minor, Acting City Clerk, said on September 23, 2014 the Policy & Services Committee (Committee) requested Staff return with the breakdown costs of City Council and Standing Committee minutes in verbatim, sense, and action. At the present time and for the past three years the City Clerk’s department held a transcription contract for typing minutes; the contract was $24,000 annually. She continued, the standard hourly rate of the transcriptionist was $32 and for rush transcription the cost was $36 per hour; a rush request was turned around in three days’ time. The contract called for the service to supply two transcriptionists dedicated to the City Clerk’s minute requests. The current Municipal Code stated the minutes produced were to be sense minutes. She noted if there was a change requested by Council there would need to be a change to the Ordinance. Staff compiled research from other cities within California; 35 out of the 72 responses used action minutes and relied heavily on the video of the meeting as the record of the meeting. The action minutes consisted of the item title and the Motion. There were 30 cities that used sense or summary minutes while none of the 72 agencies used verbatim minutes. Sense minutes provided the general discussion although verbatim minutes included incomplete sentences and the thoughts spoken by the speaker. She noted verbatim minutes were not cleaned or adjusted by Staff. MINUTES 2 Policy & Services Committee Final Minutes December 16, 2014 Herb Borock was opposed to action minutes because there should be a historic memory of why a specific decision was made. He noted in the 1980’s the sense minutes were more intense, closer to verbatim minutes. Council Member Schmid wanted to plea for verbatim minutes. The production cost of the current minutes was $24,000 and the verbatim might be a third higher. He felt it was worth the additional funds. Ms. Minor stated the current contract was for $24,000 per year but the total amount allotted may or may not be used. Council Member Schmid found the verbatim minutes from the Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC) to be valuable. The Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) minutes were in a sense type format and there was not enough information to decipher what had happened. If the goal was to provide an accurate account of what happened at a meeting sense minutes were not the way. He agreed the video was available but the ratio of time between watching the meeting and reading a set of verbatim minutes was 6 to 1. He felt verbatim minutes were worth the cost of approximately $32,000 annually. Council Member Klein agreed with Council Member Schmid on the aspect of historical record; there was not sufficient weight given on the video reordered meetings. The sense minutes had become dangerous because the minutes were being typed by an outside person or Staff and the comments made during the meeting could be misinterpreted. As the City Attorney pointed out there could be legal complications. His first choice was action minutes and then verbatim minutes with the video. Council Member Scharff did not believe sense minutes were an option. He felt the action minutes were simple to read and you see the action taken. He thought Staff produced the action minutes during the Council meeting. Ms. Minor stated the body of the action minutes was typed at the meeting and Staff reviewed the video during the following week to verify the accuracy. Council Member Scharff stated there should be action minutes no matter what final decision was made and if there needed to be more information. He was satisfied with verbatim minutes as needed. He asked if there were action and verbatim minutes which would be the official minutes of record. Felicia Gross, Assistant City Attorney, stated as long as both types of minutes were completed, both types could be designated as the official record. MINUTES 3 Policy & Services Committee Final Minutes December 16, 2014 Council Member Scharff said when it was indicated by the City Attorney a set of sense minutes were contradicted by the video he felt the official record should be the video. Chair Price concurred with Council Member Klein that action minutes were appropriate. There was the option for verbatim minutes at a later date if necessary. Ms. Minor acknowledged there had been times when verbatim minutes were necessary for legal matters. Chair Price felt the ability to fall back on the video to produce a set of verbatim minutes was a safe guard. She believed the video and action minutes were a sufficient record. Council Member Scharff sensed the verbatim minutes were a tool for Council and the public to verify what happened at a meeting they may not have been able to attend without spending the time reviewing the video. Council Member Klein asked if the videos could be more searchable for the viewers. Ms. Minor stated the Midpeninsula Media Center had a limited ability of making them searchable. The Clerk’s department used a system for processing agendas which had the ability to view the videos. Staff uploaded the videos. The goal was for the Minute Traq system to be incorporated into the media room once the construction was complete. The video could be essentially book marked while it was being recorded. Chair Price clarified it was feasible with the software programs currently available to do preliminary marking of the recording to some degree. Ms. Minor stated that was correct; although, it was not yet available in the videotaping booth in the Council Chambers. Council Member Schmid asked where Chair Price sat on the sense minutes. Chair Price felt the sense minutes tended to be more problematic and she preferred action minutes. Council Member Schmid stated the Committee seemed to be in agreement; sense minutes were not as effective, action minutes were appropriate, although without verbatim minutes there would be elements of the discussion lost. The cost was so low that from a practical sense until Council MINUTES 4 Policy & Services Committee Final Minutes December 16, 2014 could see the tracking technology on the video to proceed with verbatim minutes was an interim step. Chair Price asked if there was a basis for the demand or interest for verbatim minutes. Ms. Minor said no. Council Member Scharff recommended the Policy & Services Committee drop sense minutes and immediately move to action minutes and recommend Council decide on whether they want to move forward with verbatim as well. Council Member Schmid said the suggested Motion was an interim solution but the goal was for a Code change. He confirmed the Motion was to change the Code to drop sense minutes. Council Member Scharff stated yes, his Motion would be to change the code to complete action minutes. If Council decided to move forward with verbatim minutes he did not feel they should be part of the Code. The action minutes and the video would be the formal record of the City. James Keene, City Manager, asked if the process itself, with the intent of the Motion, was to ask Staff to bring the recommendation from the Committee to the Council with the change to the Code at the time of the Council meeting. Therefore, if the Council chose to accept the Motion they could enact the change at the time. Council Member Scharff suggested Staff draft the Ordinance working with the City Attorney’s office but the formal minutes would be action and the video. He recommended bringing forward the draft Ordinance as an Consent Item during the second Council meeting of 2015 and sometime during the month of January bring forward to Council whether or not they wanted verbatim minutes. MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Klein that the Policy & Services Committee immediately move to action minutes and the video as the formal record of the City and recommend Council determine whether verbatim minutes were necessary. Council Member Schmid noted the current code section 2.04.160 (b) read: “The minutes shall include a record of all business discussed at regular or special meetings of the council. The minutes shall be sense minutes and need not be a verbatim transcript of the proceedings. Sense minutes include all actions taken and a short synopsis of the remarks of such council members, staff and members of the public as speak upon a particular matter MINUTES 5 Policy & Services Committee Final Minutes December 16, 2014 under discussion. A record shall be made of the names and addresses of persons addressing the council, together with a brief summary of their remarks indicating whether they spoke in support of or in opposition to such matter. Nothing in this section shall be construed to compel registration as a condition to attendance at a meeting.” He asked if the Motion was to drop that code section and replace it the “minutes shall be action minutes.” Council Member Scharff stated yes. Council Member Klein concurred. Council Member Scharff was leaving the language to be determined by the City Attorney because he believed most City Clerk’s offices considered the video the formal record. Council Member Schmid was opposed to the Motion because it was a reduction to the amount of materials available to the public. Council Member Scharff did not understand how it was a reduction. Council Member Schmid stated currently there were action minutes, sense minutes and the videotape. The Motion was to eliminate the sense minutes. Council Member Scharff clarified the third item would be the verbatim minutes which was recommended to go before the full Council for them to make a final decision. He believed the verbatim minutes were a tool for Council and they were worth the cost. He asked for a commitment from the City Manager to bring forth the verbatim minutes discussion to the full Council within 45 days. Mr. Keene stated that could be done; although, the unification of the Committee was while sense minutes provided more detail they were potentially less accurate as a historical record. He believed if enough City Council Members felt action minutes alone were not sufficient it would be a natural impulse for verbatim minutes. Three Council Members could pull the item from Consent into Action for a discussion during the meeting. Chair Price acknowledged any recommendation brought forward had the potential to be changed completely by a majority. Mr. Keene suggested producing action minutes for a couple of Council Meetings to give Council an idea of what to expect in order for them to make a final decision. MOTION PASSED: 3-1 Schmid no MINUTES 6 Policy & Services Committee Final Minutes December 16, 2014 Mr. Keene clarified the Motion was to place the Committee recommendation on the Consent Calendar. Council Member Klein stated yes. ADJOURNMENT: Meeting was adjourned at 7:37 P.M.