Housing Task Force Recommendations Implementation Plan
BOS Agenda Date: June 25,2002
Agenda Rem No. 53
County of Santa Clara
Office of the County Executive
CE08 062502
Prepared by: Jane Decker
Deputy County Executive
DATE:
June 25, 2002
TO:
Board of Supervisors
FROM:
Richard Wittenberg
County Executive
SUBJECT:
Housing Task Force Recommendations Implementation Plan
RKrOMMENDED ACTION
Consider recommendations relating to Housing Task Force Recommendations Implementation Plan.
Possible action:
a.
Approve Implementation Plan for the Housing Task Force Recommendations.
b.
Approve the current priorities of the Office of Affordable Housing, including a focus on special needs housing,
pending results of the Technical Assistance report.
c.
Board of Supervisors: Donald F. Gage. Blanca Alvarado, Pete McHugh, Jirn Beall, Liz Kniss
County Executive; Richard Wittenberg
1
BOS Agenda Date; June 25,2002
Agenda Kem No.53
Establish the Board of Supervisors' intent to pursue the creation of a County Housing Commission and begin
discussions with the cities.
d.
Establish affordable housing as a regional and legislative policy priority for the Board of Supervisors.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS
There are no general fund costs associated with this report. The contract for the Acting Director of Housing, who is
currently the Housing Bond Coordinator, will be increased modestly from Housing Bond revenues as compensation for
additional activities in his interim role.
REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION
At the April 9 Board of Supervisors meeting, the Board accepted an Administration recommendation to establish an
Office of Affordable Housing and deferred to budget the consideration of using some Redevelopment Settlement
Agreement delegated revenues for housing purposes. At the same meeting, the Housing Task Force presented their
recommendations to the Board who referred them to the Administration to develop an implementation plan. A matrix of
the Task Force recommendations is attached.
There are six primary clusters of recommendations in the Task Force Report. They are:
1.
Create an Office of Affordable Housing (OAH).
2.
Establish special needs housing as a County priority.
3.
Create a County Housing Commission.
4.
County assume leadership in regional, state and federal housing policy advocacy.
5.
County take leadership to identify new local source of revenue for housing.
6.
County work with public jurisdictions to establish policies on use of surplus public land for housing.
Below is a report outlining Administration efforts to date to develop an implementation plan for the Task Force
recommendations.
Board of Supervisors: Donald F. Gage, Blanca Alvarado, Pete McHugh,Jim Beall, Liz Kniss
County Executive: Richard Wittenberg
2
BOS Agenda Date: June 25,2002
Agenda Item No.53
Office of Affordable Housing
The intent is to establish the Office of Affordable Housing(OAH)effective July 1 and comprised of HCD,the Housing
Bond/MCC Program, and the Homeless Services Program. There are some administrative details to work out, but the
units will be consolidated under the leadership of the Acting Housing Director, Naphtali Knox. Meetings with the three
units and the Deputy County Executive began soon after the Board approval of the consolidation in early April. An
evaluation is continuing of current functions, including overlapping functions, as well as an assessment of the ability of
the new office to take on additional responsibilities after consolidating. The Deputy County Executive is working with
GSA property management in an effort to co-locate the units at the North First Street offices so the functions can
become better integrated.
In May, the San Francisco HUD office approved a County request for technical assistance to create a plan for the new
Office of Affordable Housing. The consultant selected for the project is the Enterprise Foundation (EF), using staff from
their San Francisco and Los Angeles offices. The EF has extensive experience working with local government on
housing issues. They will work with the County to design the OAH organizational stmcture, develop an implementation
schedule, identify funding, and research best practices. Our initial meeting was June 14 and we concluded that their
work plan would include an assessment of what the County is currently doing in housing; what we could be doing; and
how to develop linkages with partners in the community. After a work plan is approved, which will be imminent, the
project will be completed within 90 days. It will include interviews with staff working in County housing programs as
well as with people and agencies in the community.
In the meantime, beginning July 1, the Acting Housing Director will begin to coordinate and administer the activities of
the OAH. The office will identify and coordinate resources for the purpose of providing housing for County special
needs clients , will continue to strategically target below market mortgage funds, CDBG and other federal grants, loans
and subsidies to programs and projects of the OAH,and begin developing relationships with cities on joint affordable
housing projects and programs beyond what is already provided through existing programs. In addition, the Acting
Housing Director will engage in discussions with other personnel in the County Executive's Office to ensure that
affordable housing is considered as part of the ongoing development of County property. Staff will also closely monitor
the $2.1 billion housing bond on the November ballot. Passage of this measure will provide for an as yet undetermined
level of revenue for local purposes in a range of housing categories.
As new resources are dedicated to County housing programs, staff will develop plans for the use of the funds. The Board
action to set aside $18 million in delegated redevelopment settlement revenue, until after assessment in October,
included a request for staff to develop a plan for the expenditure of those funds. Staff will bring a report back to the
Board with recommendations for the use of the revenue. Until new revenues are available, staff will balance new
priorities of the office with the demanding functions of the existing programs.
Special Needs Housing
One of the highest priorities of the new office, specifically targeted by County Administration as well as by the Housing
Task Force, will be the coordination of departmental efforts in support of securing housing for special needs clients. The
OAH will immediately convene regular meetings of County staff engaged in housing and related services. The purpose
of these meetings will be to better coordinate housing information and resources and offer assistance toward existing
efforts to develop a countywide affordable housing data base and information service to which County departments will
have access. The hope is that through a coordinated effort, existing resources can be leveraged to achieve County goals
of securing a range of affordable housing for clients served by County departments. Ultimately, as resources are added
Board of Supervisors: Donald F. Gage, Blanca Alvarado, Pete McHugh,Jim Beall, Liz Kniss
County Executive: Richard Wittenberg
3
BOS Agenda Date: June 25,2002
Agenda Item No.53
to the program, the County can invest in the creation of new housing units available to County clients and other special
needs individuals.
We are anticipating that the consultants will be able to research best practices and ways of better serving the housing
needs of our special needs clients.
County Housing Commission
The Task Force recommended that a County Housing Commission be established which could foster a regional dialogue
among elected officials on housing issues. Alternative membership structures were proposed and it was suggested that
creation of a commission could occur in partnership with the Cities Association. The alternative that would serve the
greatest purpose would be a body that has representation from the County and each of the cities. To begin the discussion
of this kind of entity, staff arranged for a presentation of the Task Force recommendations to the Cities Association in
early May. Two members of the Task Force presented all of the recommendations as the context, but the focus of the
discussion was the concept of a Housing Commission. Initial concerns expressed by the city representatives related to
cities' land use authority and the potential ability of a commission to override that authority. Other responses included
looking at a more regional approaeh to housing by bringing cities' land and resources together in partnerships. Finally,
the membership indicated they would like to have a presentation of the Task Force recommendations made to their city
councils and it was agreed that a letter would be sent to each of the Cities from the Task Force offering to make a
presentation.
In early June, the City managers were given a presentation on the Task Force recommendations and how the County is
responding. Again, there was interest and support for forming partnerships with the County to accomplish more in
housing.
Ultimately, the idea of a commission will have to be resolved by interaction among elected officials building upon
existing relationships. Therefore, we believe it is premature for the Board of Supervisors to adopt an ordinance creating
a Housing Commission. If the Board decides to move forward with the Task Force recommendation, a dialogue with
city elected officials is an important next step. When agreement is reached on creating a commission, the membership
structure and financial support would need to be identified. With additional resources. County staff or staff appointed by
the Commission could provide administrative support.
Policy Advocacy
The Task Force recommended that the County demonstrate leadership on regional. State and Federal advocacy in the
area of housing. The County currently takes positions on and advocates for legislation and other policies that could
affect housing. Generally, those efforts have not been in conjunction with other jurisdictions except, for example, the trip
with the cities and the Manufacturing Group every spring and better coordination could occur. A more comprehensive
approach to housing could be developed through the County's Legislative Priorities process that is conducted in the fall;
however coordination is needed with other jurisdictions in order to effectively address their needs and concerns. Existing
forums through the HCD program. Housing Bond program and Homeless services program that we hope will become
integrated, could be utilized to assist in developing policy, along with coordination with the Housing Action Coalition
and Housing Leadership Council who have played leadership roles in Housing issues. Staff will look for opportunities to
participate in existing housing forums and create new opportunities for cross communication among a number of
housing advocacy forums that exist. A Housing Commission, if established, would be a logical vehicle to develop and
advocate on regional housing policy issues.
Board of Supervisors; Donald F. Gage, Blanca Alvarado, Pete McHugh,Jim Beall, Lis Kniss
County Executive: Richard Wittenberg
4
BOS Agenda Date: June 25.2002
Agenda Hern No.53
Public Source of Local Financing
The Task Force recommended that the County spearhead a countywide effort to identify and secure a source of local
public revenue to assist in developing affordable housing. As a result of the December, 2001 Housing Solutions Summit,
which was sponsored by the Board of Supervisors, City of San Jose, Manufacturing Group and Working Partnerships, a
commitment was made to begin the process of identifying sources of revenue. The first step is to ensure the passage of
the $2.1 billion Statewide bond measure in November. Supervisor Beall is a member of the State Steering Committee
developing the strategy to achieve that end. While there is no estimate at this time of the specific amount of revenue that
would flow to Santa Clara County from the measure, it could be a significant amount. This is a first step toward securing
a new source of revenue for housing and the local effort on this measure will form the basis of further efforts to generate
local housing revenue.
Included in this recommendation was a suggestion for the County to create a countywide sales tax sharing pool to be
used for housing. Existing law allows for this but since cities rely on their sales tax revenue to support their municipal
functions, sharing existing revenues may not be palatable to them. Cities that have redevelopment agencies are required
to direct 20% of their redevelopment revenue to affordable housing and some cities have committed to spending up to
30%. Whether cities are supportive of using additional existing revenues for housing will be a future discussion item.
Another recommendation is to update a revenue nexus study that had been prepared for the Housing Trust of Santa Clara
County. This study was basically a review of the potential and feasibility of a number of sources of public financing
deemed appropriate and accessible for affordable housing. In 1997, the Hausrath Economics Group surveyed existing
housing trust funds to identify commonly used revenue sources. To generate enough revenue to substantially increase
the amount of affordable housing, sales tax and property tax were determined to have the most potential. Updating this
study would require a commitment of around $50,000- $100,000. Logically, this would be an activity associated with a
future countywide effort to develop a local source of revenue for housing and the cost could be shared by the partners in
that effort.
The Task force recommendations also included supporting State legislation to create Housing Opportunity Zones within
municipalities where increases in property taxes are directed to affordable housing. There is currently a measure by
Assemblyman Lowenthal, AB 1284, which would allow local governments to create what are essentially redevelopment
areas. Increases in property taxes resulting from these areas would be diverted to local government as an incentive to
provide for more housing.
Implementation of this kind of legislation would mean the County and other taxing jurisdictions would be foregoing
increases in property taxes in certain "housing opportunity districts". The Board of Supervisors opposed AB 1284
because of the potential County loss of property tax, therefore, would need to be a careful review of the benefits to
legislation of this sort before a recommendation could be made to the Board to support it.
The final recommendation in this area was for the Board of Supervisors to allocate 30 percent of the Redevelopment
Agreement revenues to affordable housing. This issue was considered by the Board on June 10 and as indicated earlier
in this report, staff will develop ideas for the expenditure of the funds.
Publicly owned Surplus Land
The Task Force recommended that the County use surplus land for housing where appropriate and work with other
jurisdictions to develop an inventory of vacant or surplus land for housing. The Deputy County Executive has scheduled
Board of Supervisors: Donald F. Gage, Blanca Alvarado, Pete McHugh,Jim Beall, Liz Kniss
County Executive: Richard Wittenberg
5
BOS Agenda Date: June 25,2002
Agenda Item No.53
a meeting with GSA,the Roads department and the Parks department to discuss developing a policy that could be
recommended to the Board regarding the use of County surplus land for housing. There are requirements in State law
related to the disposal of surplus property and the Board also has a policy regarding achieving fair market value for
property sales or leases. These issues will be examined to determine what options the Board could be presented for
policy revision in this area. Following discussion of a Board policy, other jurisdictions could be encouraged to adopt
policies regarding the use of surplus property.
Currently there is no consistent tracking by cities of surplus or vacant land. However, the County Executive's office is
working with a consultant, formerly with the County's Center for Urban Analysis, to develop an inventory, using the
Assessor's data, of all public vacant land. This effort is to address the Task Force recommendation to work with local,
state and federal Jurisdictions in the county to compile an inventory of public vacant or surplus land that could be used
for housing. Our product will be a gross inventory of public vacant land without regard to its appropriateness for
housing, therefore, after it is completed, we will attempt to identify parcels that are appropriate in size and location for
primarily multi-family housing.
Related to this, the Task Force recommended that the County sponsor legislation requiring local jurisdictions to include
in their Housing Elements a section identifying vacant and surplus land owned by the jurisdiction and intentions for
future use. Staff has had preliminary discussions with the Planning Director and will examine this proposal but there
would probably be resistance to adding more requirements to the Housing Element through legislation.
Another Task Force recommendation related to the creation of an Affordable Housing Land Bank. Land for affordable
housing development would be contributed by private or public sources or purchased by the Land Bank. The Land Bank
could be administered as a public or private entity.
Several models of land banking have been identified by staff and merit further study. In all cases, the primary functions
of the land bank are to acquire land (by donation or purchase), to hold title to the land in perpetuity, and to lease the land
at reduced rates in exchange for the development of affordable housing. Over time, payments from the land leases will
provide for a growing pool of funds for future land acquisition.
The OAH may be able to further study models for land banking to determine whether this should be pursued by the
County or in partnership with the private sector.
In conclusion, the new Office of Affordable Housing will address as many of the Board of Supervisors' housing
priorities as possible. However, the constraints of limited resources and staff may initially limit the County's ability to
provide the regional leadership in all areas envisioned in the Housing Task Force report.
ATTACHMENTS
•(Transmittal submitted on Jun 19, 2002 11:02:40 AM - PDF Version)
• Housing Task Force Recommendations (Miscellaneous)
Board of Supervisors: Donald F. Gage, Blanca Alvarado, Pete McHugh,Jim Beall, Liz Knlss
County Executive: Richard Wittenberg
6
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
SUPPORTIVE HOUSING INITIATIVE
Prepared by the Office of the County Executive
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
1
introduction
4
4
Origin and Charge of the Housing Coordinator
4
Findings of the Housing Coordinator
The Continuum of Care is at Risk
5
Fewer Unrts for Persons with Special Needs
5
The County Must Do More
6
Establishing the Spedal Needs Housing WorkGroup
6
6
Findings of the Work Group
Defining Special Needs Populations
6
Housing Problems of Spedal Needs Populations
7
Limited Information on Housing Needs of Spedal Needs Person in County..
8
Spedal Needs Persons Receiving Services from the County
9
Spedal Needs Persons Receiving Housing Services from the County
10
Current Inventory of Low Income Housing
10
Loss of Affordable Housing
12
Quantifying the Housir^ Needs for Persons
Spedal Needs
Working Group Estimates of Housing Needs of Persons with Spedal Needs
12
14
Recommendatioris
15
Acknowledgments
18
References
19
Appendices
Appendix A-Glossary of Terms
20
Appendix B- Categories of Spedal Needs Person
25
Appendix C- Desired Outcomes
26
Appendix D- Current County Housing Activities
29
Appendix E- List of Tables & Charts
32
SUPPORTIVE HOUSING INITIATIVE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The appropriateness and feasibility of County government taking an aggressive rote providing
housing opportunities for county residents has become a topic of debate in the face of the
housing cnsis that currently gnps Santa Clara County. The County has responded by
supporting a number of countywide solutbns to address the crisis including: establishing the
Housing Trust of Santa Clara County, effectively utilizing the Housing Bond Tnrst program,
expanding the MCC program and co-sponsoring the Housing Summit with the Silicon Valley
Manufactun'ng Group in November 1999, among others.
To follow up on ideas emanating from the Housing Summit, the Board of Supervisors committed
to hiring a housing consultant(Housing Coordinator) to determine how the County could expand
or improve on its current efforts. The consultant was hired in July 2000, given the title Housing
Coordinator, and has worked under the direction of the County Execut'rve’s Office. This report
marks an interim point in the work conducted by the Housing Coordinator.
Santa Clara County is in the midst of a sevens, protracted housing crisis of unprecedented
proportions. Nearly all of us are affected by the housing shortage and consequent high cost of
housing, but those particularly vulnerable are the low and extremely low income spedal needs
populations, many of whom are served by County agencies; The crisis in spedalneeds housing
stems from the fact there has never been enough because it is politically difficult to site and too
costly to build without significant subsidy, and state and federal assistance has been drastically
scaled back. The booming economy has exacerbated the crisis by driving rents beyond the
means of those on fixed incomes and has made it lucrative for owners to convert units to market
rents or sell them. As a result the countywide inventory of low cost housing affordable to those
on lim'rted or fixed incomes is diminishing rapidly.
It is the central premise of this report that housing and housing related services are a vital
component if not the most vital component, in the matrix of sodal services provided by the
County to those with special needs. Tradittonally the County’s ability to effectively deliver social
services in a cost efficient way has been directly tied to the availability of low cost housing.
Today, that availability is in serious jeopardy and has given rise to the dilemma of escalating
impoverishment and homelessness of special needs persons and rising costs of providing
necessary social services.
Given its current structure and policies, the County is unable to mitigate the housing crisis of
special needs persons in a significant way. Worse still, the housing crisis is growing as the
inventory of low cost units dwindles and the numbers of those to serve grows
Without
immediate and long-term aggressive intervention, what is now a crisis in special needs housing
will quickly become a catastrophe.
1
This report recommends the County create a
Housing Services” unit, a nexus of
responsibilities and functions within County government designed to coordinate, support and
enhance the numerous housing and housing related services* currently provided by the County
for its special needs clients. The unit could also be responsible for implementation of a Board
adopted Housing Action Plan to be developed over the next several months.
This report urges the County to become a collabor^or with local jurisdictions, developers and
service providers by providing resources and political leverage to create housing opportunities
for extremely low income, special needs populations. This report is a call for the County to take
a visible, proactive role in the community, supporting and advocating for the development of all
low-income housing.
We call this program,“The Supportive Housing Initiative.” The number of units built and the
numbers of individuals and families housed will be the determiner of its success.
Major
recommendations are listed below with specific strategies enumerated in the Recommendations
portion of this report.
Recommendation #1 - Create a County Housing Unit in the County Executive’s Office
The County should create within County government a Housing to coordinate and
support existing housing service efforts, acquire new resources, gather and manage
housing data and insure that all departments are working together and using resources
efficiently.
Recommendation #2 - Increase Low Income Housing Production
The County must become a collaborator with local jurisdictions, nonproftt developers and
service providers to set goals, plan for and help facilitate tiie development of very low
and extremely low income housing with supportive services. The Housing Unit will work
with GSA and other departments to make County surplus property available for the
development of special needs housing.
Recommendation #3- Increase Investment in Low Income Housing
The County must work with local partners and aggressively pursue new state and
federal funding. In addition, the County mustfind new and dedicate additional ewsting
revenue sources to the development of very low and extremely low-’mcome housing
including housing with supportive services.
Recommendation #4 — Encourage Best Practices in Special Needs Housing Management
To insure County agencies and clients are getting tiie best housing services possible,
the County should explore different community based special needs housing models to
find innovative designs that would be effective in Santa Clara County. For example, are
there ways or incentives to make the common, single-family home board and care model
more financially feasible? Are there other models that are more desirable for crertain
special needs clients?
Recommendation #5- Become a Visible Proactive Advocate for Special Needs Housing
The County is the largest service provider for special needs persons and must take a
leadership role on their behalf. The Housing unit will be instrumental in supporting and
advocating for the development of very low and extremely low-income housing
* Appendix D
2
opportunities in all cities in the county, as well as advocating for additional state and
federal funds.
Recommendation #6 -Establish a Regional Forum to Address the Countywide Affordable
Housing Crisis including Special Needs Housing Issues
The County can facilitate the creation of a countywide dialogue and informational data
on the affordable housing crisis. It can do this through existing forums or developing and
managing a countywide housing consortium of city officials and housing leaders,
designed to come up with countywide consensus on housing issues.
CONCLUSION
Our conclusion is simple. There are more individuals and families with special needs than there
is available housing that is reasonably affordable to them. Despite a slowing economy, there is
little evidence to suggest that the housing crisis for special needs populations is lessening, or
will lessen in the foreseeable future, indeed, all indications are that it will continue to worsen,
threatening mote households now living on the ed^ of the housing crisis. As the problems
grow, so will the impact on the County. Therefore, it is in the County’s best interest, as well as
the special needs persons it senres and the broader community as a whole, for the County to
take aggressive action now.
This report provides the Board of Supervisors with the foundation to take steps necessary to
meet the challenges of the housing crisis for persons with special needs. While the level of
resources and policy diange required to solve the affordable housing crisis is daunting, this
report offers attainable short-term goals and lays the groundwork for a coordirrated local and
regional effort for long-term solutions. We believe the most effective way to engage local,
regional and national partners over the lotig term is for the County to demonstrate its
commitment to solving the housing crisis by making substantial and immediate investments in
the financing, production and preservation of affordable housing for special needs persons in
Santa Clara County.
3
INTRODUCTION
ORIGIN AND CHARGE OF THE HOUSING COORDINATOR
In November 1999, the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors co-sponsored the Silicon
Valley Housing Summit with the Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group. More than 500 housing
leaders from around the county worked to identify critical housing issues and brainstormed
possible solutions.
A report organizing the input and outlining recommendations from
participants was fonwarded to the administration for review.
In April 2000, staff analysis concluded that the County could have several opportunities to make
a significant and lasting impact on mitigating the housing crisis, particularly addressing ^e
housing needs of the special needs populations. Administration concluded that a housing
consultant should be hired to conduct a study of the major recommendations.
In June 2000 the Board approved hiring a housing consultant on a pilot project basis to review
the areas suggested by staff and recommend ways for the County to more aggressively marshal
its resources and better coordinate its current housing efforts. The housing consultant was
given the title "Housing Coordinator" and works under the supervision of Housing Bond
Coordinator Naphtali Knox and Deputy County Executive Jane Decker.
On July 3, 2000, Housing Consultant Ray Villarreal was hired as the County Housing
Coordinator to implement the County's work plan. The one-year pilot project was to focus on a
number of areas as follows:
> Examine the County's current housing efforts and look for ways to be more effective;
> Identify possible County investment opportunities related to housing;
> Seek out opportunities for regional pubiic/private/interjurisdictional coordination;
> Explore the feasibility of a public education campaign on affordable housing with other
jurisdictions and the private sector;
> Prepare a Housing Action Plan document for County programs to recommend increases to
existing programs or to add to the current array of County housing programs.
The County Housing Coordinator began by reviewing relevant housing materials and
interviewing Board staff, key department staff and individuals familiar with the Summit Report.
Next, key personnel within County departments who deal with housing issues on a daily basis
were
interviewed. More than 40 individuals were interviewed with a questionnaire designed to
solicit open-ended responses of their opinion of the effectiveness and problems of current
County programs, as well as recommendations for improvement. Interviews were then
extended to service providers, shelter operators and nonprofit developers, soliciting input on
ways the County could be more effective. Upon completion of this phase of the project, a report
of the County Housing Coordinator findings was submitted to the Deputy County Executive.
FINDINGS OF THE HOUSING COORDINATOR
Since the early 1990's. Santa Clara County has experienced an uninterrupted economic boom
that has fueled a staggering demand for all types of housing. The commensurate shortage of
housing supply has pushed purchase and rental prices to unprecedented levels, making
housing costs in Santa Clara County among the highest in the United States.
4
THE CONTINUUM OF CARE IS AT RISK
The impact the housing crisis is having on all low-income residents is devastating, as rents have
jumped 60% in the past five years in Santa Clara County’. Those most vulnerable to such
dramatic increases are the special needs persons in the county, living primarily on fixed
They are losing access to low and very low-income housing because it is being
priced beyond their means or it is being converted from rental housing to ownership housing.
Fierce competition rages over what little affordable housing is available between the working
incomes,
poor and special needs individuals and families on limited and fixed incomes.
County agencies are bearing a significant and increasing burden because there are never
enough beds or units to meet the need. Front line managers and case workers are spending
more of their days trying to find housing for clients. Housing that is available is more costly both
to the County and the clients, meaning more service dollars and client dollars are being used for
housing rather than on services. The Continuum of Care strategy of the County for serving
special needs populations is in danger of collapsing as more dollars are spent on fewer units
and consequently less service.
FEWER UNITS FOR PERSONS WITH SPECIAL NEEDS
Through partial or total rental payments, the County has traditionally relied on private property
owners to house many of its special needs clients in single-family homes and apartments while
they are being cared for, rehabilitated or trained. However, the dramatic rise in home sale
prices has caused many property owners to sell their property or rentals on the open market, or
raise their rents, thus pricing County reimbursements or Section 8 subsidies almost out of the
market entirely. County service agencies report that their sources of vital low cost housing are
rapidly diminishing.
Transitional housing facilities and shelters are squeezed from both sides. As the number of
units decrease, more people seek help. Those already in low cost transitional environments are
unable to move to a permanent environment once their treatment, rehabilitation or training is
complete because the cost of market rate housing is so much greater. Social workers are loath
to put these individuals and families back on the streets because they are likely to return to their
previous environments and end up back at the County’s front door in 6 months. As a result,
low-income individuals and their families are staying longer in transitional homes (again,
diminishing their availability).
County housing staff reported that for specials needs person in need of court ordered or
intensive supportive care, the lack of housing is keeping them and their families further
upstream in the Continuum of Care. For example, it was reported that:
> Over 200 clients with less than serious mental health disabilities are remaining “housed” in
medical institutions at approximately $800 per day - until suitable, less costly {@$50 per
day)supportive housing becomes available in the county;
> Individuals who have been court ordered to undergo rehabilitation are remaining “housed”
in jail for 90 to 120 days until less costly, supportive housing becomes available;
> Children, whose parents have completed their rehabilitation or treatment, are spending
longer in foster care separated from their families until housing is found by their parent(s);
> Clients in the CalWorks program have been unable to find housing that will accept their
Section 8 vouchers and as a result hundreds of vouchers remain unused.
These are just a few of the examples reported by housing staff from every department
interviewed. From the foregoing, we can conclude that County housing costs for special needs
Silicon Valley Prqcctions 2000, p.8
5
clients are increasing dramatically and will continue as the supply of low-income housing
throughout the county decreases.
THE COUNTY MUST DO MORE
In response to the growing housing crisis for their clients and contract agencies, County
agencies have essentially added “housing placement services” to the list of services provided
adding housing staff to help ttieir clients find suitable housing and to pursue additional
resources. The Mental Health Department has its own Housing Coordinator, as does the Drug
& Alcohol Department. Some specific programs run by the Social Services Agency have
housing search teams and the agency is proposing to create a central housing unit within the
agency.
All County housing staff interviewed for this report said they work independently of
each other with little coordinaUon or sharing of information and resources between departments.
They also report they are increasingly overwhelmed by the enormous need for more housing.
All staff interviewed want the County “to do something” to address the housing crisis. As one
said, “it has been politically correct to focus only on the “grass tops* of the housing problem
(Silicon Valley high tech workers) but not at all on the “grass roots" (low income individuals).
Some said that all they can do at this point is fight to maintain existing units. However, they
admit the County offers little in the way of incentives for property owners to stay in the system.
One staff person remarked, “at this rate. County subsidized housing (board and care, foster
care, etc.) will be nonexistent in five years.”
It is clear that existing efforts are inadequate. If the County is to maintain its "Continuum of
Care" strategy for serving its special needs population, then housing strategies must be devised
for developing and maintaining access to very low inceme housing. This strategy should be
coordinated through county housing agencies and assist nonprofit housing developers and
providers by creating a hub of activities, resources and specialization that they can utilize to
pursue housing opportunities.
ESTABLISHING THE SPECIAL NEEDS HOUSING WORKING GROUP
Towards developing a housing action plan, the administration decided to convene an “Internal
Working Group* made up of key. front line housing staff from County agencies. Its purpose
would be to further develop the above proposed project and establish a clear set of action
oriented recommendations designed to produce more housing opportunities for special needs
persons and to make current County housing efforts more effident. It was called the Spedal
Needs Housing Advisory Working Group. (Please refer to the Acknowledgements for those
individuals who participated.)
On October 17, 2000, Susan Silveira, an organizational (x>nsultant with an extensive
background in affordable and special needs housing, was brought on board to fadlitate these
sessions with tfie Working Group. The group met 6 times between November 9, 2000 and
January 17, 2001.
FINDINGS OF THE WORKING GROUP
DEFINING SPECIAL NEEDS POPULATIONS
The first task of the Working Group was to clearly define the special needs populations in need
of housing assistance and how large a population they are in the County. It was agreed that
while the affordable housing crisis severely impacts all low-income households, the group’s
primary focus was on addressing the housing needs of the very low and extremely low-income
special needs populations in need of County assistance.
6
The Working Group developed a list of the categories of persons with special needs that County
agencies and departments currently serve. Included on the list were those with physical and
mental disabilities, abuse victims, substance abusers, at-risk youth, veterans and more (see
Appendix 1 for list). Generally, special needs individuals and families are defined as households
where a person(s) has a physical, mental or emotional disability, or special circumstance (i.e.,
age, abuse victim, etc.) that causes such a severe economic hardship of uncertain duration that
it compromises their ability to live independently.
It was the consensus of the Working Group that specials needs clients readily meet the federal
definition of low-income household with the vast majority of their clients meeting the definition of
very low or extremely low-income household, It was also agreed that those special needs
persons living solely on Social Security Income (SSI) are by definition extremely low-income
households living at or below the federal poverty level (See Glossary of Terms for complete
definition)*. Currently, the maximum allowable SSI benefit is set at $692 per month, or $8304
per year and for most, especially those with severe disabilities, it is their sole source of income .
According to 1999 estimates there are approximately 149,915 adults and 220,754 children living
below the federal poverty level in Santa Clara County^ While it is almost impossible to extract
precisely how many of those individuals are persons with special needs as defined above, we
can infer from other data sources that a good many of them are. For example, according to the
most recent data on SSI recipients in Santa Clara County, there were 40,863 persons receiving
SSI in 1996.“* Table 1 below illustrates the housing difficulties low-income households have by
depicting the median incomes earned by typical household sizes in Santa Clara County in 2000.
AREA MEDIAN INCOME -SANTA CLARA COUNTY 2000=’
TABLE 1
Number of Persons in Family
1
2
3
4
6
6
Extremely Low(30%)
$18,250
$20,900
$23,500
$26,100
$28,200
$30,300
Very Low(50%)
$30,450
$34,800
$39,150
$43,500
$47,000
$50,450
Low(80%)
$48,700
$55,700
$62,650
$69,600
$75,150
$80,750
Median(100%)
$60,900
$69,600
$78,300
$87,000
$93,950
$100,900
Mcxlerate 120%)
$73,100
$83,500
$93,950
$104,400
$112,750
$121,100
Income Category
as % of Median Income
HOUSING PROBLEMS OF SPECIAL NEEDS POPULATIONS
Given the above, it is clear why households earning below 50% of the median income in Santa
Clara County have a difficult time finding any housing they can afford in Santa Clara County.
The 2000 Fair Market Rent(FMR)in Santa Clara County for a two bedroom apartment is $1221
a month, a level that is only affordable to households earning at least $23,480 an hour, or
$48,840 per yeai^.
* Defined as household incOTie below the official national poverty cutofffor a household size. Generally, the cutoff
for a family offour approximates 33 percent ofthe HUD adjusted area median family incesne.
^ Santa Qara County Coasdidated Plan, May 2000,p2-36
^ US Census Bureau, Santa Qara County Planning IJqrartmcnt - “QmckFacts”
* SSI Redpierts by State and County, The Office ofPolicy, Sodal Seoffity Administratioo,December 1999
* IrUD Median Income Table provided by Nafrfitali Knox,SCC Housing Bend Coordinator
* Locked rXit! California’s Affordable IkxJsing Oists, May 2000, Piiilished by the California Budget Prcgect,P-1'1
7
Those (extremely low and very low-income) households that are able to find housing are paying
a disproportionate share of their income on housing. According to the National Low-Income
Housing Coalition only 44% of all renters in Santa Clara County were able to afford the 1999
Fair Market Rent without incurring housing costs over 30%. According to the American Housing
Survey 41%(or 90,600 individuals) of all renters in San Jose are paying over 30% of their
income on housing costs and over 20% (43,800 individuals) are paying over 50% of their
income on housing costs^. However, it is far worse for SSI recipients in this County.
Members of the Working Group continually pointed out that these were the special needs clients
they were the most familiar with and for whom finding affordable, or supportive housing was
nearly impossible. Their comments and anecdotal information are supported by a recent study
published in March 1999, titled Priced Out in 1998,® by the Consortium for Citizens with
Disabilities Housing Task Force, a national advocacy organization for persons with disabilities.
The major findings of Priced Out in 1998 document that persons with disabilities receiving SSI
not only live in extreme poverty and receive an income far below the minimum wage, they are
also unable to afford decent, safe housing in any of the 50 states. For example in California:
> Comparing like households - SSI income is roughly 21% of the state’s median income;
> The value of average SSI monthly income expressed as an houily rate is $3.09 an hour;
> Persons on SSI must pay approximately 85% of their income on the cost for the average
efficiency apartment in California;
> Persons on SSI must pay approximately 101% of their income on the cost for the average
one bedroom apartment in California.
Priced Out in 1998 concludes that people on SSI have difficult choices to make when looking for
rental housing. At best they must either take on a severe rent burden, or accept overcrowded
and substandard housing. Without significant housing assistance, persons with disabilities and
living on SSI have little hope of finding decent, affordable housing in the community. There are
other major barriers like stigma and housing discrimination, which exacerbate the problem.
However, even the elimination of these barriers would not address the fact that the rnajority of
persons with special needs living in Santa Clara County simply do not have enough income to
afford decent, safe housing.
LIMITED INFORMATION ON HOUSING NEEDS OF SPECIAL NEEDS PERSONS
Towards developing meaningful recommendations, the Working Group attempted to quantify
the need for low-income housing in the county for special needs persons. While evidence that
the county is facing a housing crisis is abundant, the task of estimating the precise housing
need for different types of special needs persons within the County proved to be difficult. The
absence of comprehensive countywide information on the housing crisis frustrated our efforts.
One of the findings of this report is that there is a critical need for definitive reports and data
that fully analyze and describe the countywide housing needs of persons with special
needs. The Census provides limited data on persons with special needs but does not provide
information on their housing problems. The Santa Clara County Consolidated Plan provides
information on the housing needs of special needs populations but focuses mostly on those who
reside in the Urban County (See Glossary of Terms). The remaining cities, those not in the
“urban county,” prepare their own consolidated plans, which includes information on special
needs housing, but only for their own city. The Santa Clara County Housing Collaborative
sources
^ American Housing Survey, A Joint publication ofthe Census Btreau, US Bepartmenl ofCommerce and HUD
* Priced Out in 1998, published by llie Technical Assistance Ccrflabor^ivc Inc., Consortium for Qtizens with DisaKIities
Housing Task Force, March 1999.
$
produces an annual report relative to the homeless housing needs throughout the county that is
comprehensive and useful, but does not specifically address special needs housing issues.
Despite the lack of special needs housing reports or studies specific to Santa Clara County as a
whole, the Working Group was able to develop information from a variety of local organizations
(who work directly with special needs persons). They also collected data and conducted
interviews within their own respective agencies. From this study the group was able to make a
number of reasonable estimates of current need and projections of future need.
Admittedly however, this information is incomplete, as there is no organized or centralized
means of gathering this type of information. There is certain to be some errors because some
clients are served by more than one agency and there are likely undercounts as well. A detailed
and comprehensive needs assessment of the whole Continuum of Care for special needs
populations in Santa Clara County is needed, but tr is beyond the scope of this report.
Nevertheless, it is recognized by the Working Group to be vital information that must be
developed for future planning efforts.
SPECIAL NEEDS PERSONS RECEIVING SERVICES FROM THE COUNTY
The Working Group collected data from their respective agencies on the number and type of
special needs persons and families currently being served by the County. The table below
represents their best estimates of the numbers of clients the County currently serves.
Special Needs Persoirs Receiving Services from the County
Table 2
FAMILY & CHILDREN'S SERVICES (cent)
SOCIAL SERVICES AGENCY
Foster Care
Public Assistance
CalWorksA'ANF/Receiving Aid
Clients Recaving MediCal
Clients Receiving Food Stamps
Aged Out Youth (18-25)
10,800
53,000
3,800
Domestic Violence
Wcxnen
Wanen w/ Children
Substance Abusers
DEPT. OF AGING & ADULT SERVICES
Public Guardian's Office
Elderly(60+)
Rnandal Abuse
160
Medically Fragle
200
100
50
20
Abused
Neglected
Head Irijured
Undocumented
Conservatorship
Mentally III
Bderly
Children w/HiV
Lower Income Households
Recovery Clients
27
61
Department of Alcohol and Drugs
Substance Abusers
20
Adult Managed Care
Bay Area Services Network
Children, Addescents & Families
Deferred Ertry of Judgment
800
600
675
Mental Health
225
Persons with Mental Disabilities
54
5
Families & Children
5761
60
State Hospital
9
320
4500
8873
Out of County Locked Fadlrties
8
7379
570
Adults(18-59)
Older Adults(59+)
Intensive Psychiatric Jail Services
Transitional Aged Youth (18-25)
480
Youth
Runaways
62
Children w/ Medcal Needs
Family Self Sufficiency/
Family Unification Program
Women
HOSPITAL & HEALTH SYSTEM
FAMILY & CHILDREN'S SERVICES
Persons w/ Developmental Disabilities
18
26
Mental Health
Adult Protective Services
Bderly(65+)- up to per month
Deperident Adults - up to per month
2764
119
1165
5334
16
100
SPECIAL NEEDS PERSONS RECEIVING HOUSING SERVICES FROM THE COUNTY
Members of the Working Group collected the information below, based on informal polling of
their respective agencies to present what is known about housing assistance the County
oirrently provides. Short of surveying every caseworker and analyzing individual cases, Table
3 reflects best estimates, which in some cases are yearly or monthly averages. Working Group
members reported that agencies that contract with the County for the provision of housing to
County clients’ report that all contracted facilities are full to capacity on a daily basis.
It should be noted that the Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara is not included in the
table below because they are not a County government agency. However, the Housing
Authority does provide permanent housing assistance for a substantial number of the County’s
special needs clients. The numbers of individuals and families receiving Housing Auttrority
assistance through Section 8 and other programs appear later in this report.
CLIENTS RECEIVING HOUSING/HOUSING ASSISTANCE FROM COUNTY AGENCIES
TABLES
Permanent
Emergency Transitional
Shelter
Housing
Supportive
Permanent
Housing
Housing
488
41
Mental Health
160
238
Men
10
87
Women
5
Mentally Disabled
^cohol & Drug*
51
102
Families w/Children
50
Shelter Rus Care
Family & Children’s Services
Persons w/ Devdopment^ Disabilities
50
4
5
Children w/HIV
Lower Income Households
187
<50% cf median (Family Unification Program)
Youth
Aged Out(18-25)
Runaways
Foster Care
17
102
727
1589
36
11
7
4
5
17
6
8
312
Domestic Violence
Women
Womai ^Children
Substarsce Abusers
Wonwi
62
Recovery aients
10
11
1303
2627
Mental Health
Children w/ Medical Needs
Totals
40
21
620
107
CURRENT INVENTORY OF LOW-SNGOME HOUSING
With the above statistics as a backdrop, the Working Group next turned to what information is
available regarding the current inventory of low-income and extremely low-income housing.
Again, it must be stated that a true ojuntywide perspective is conspicuously absent.
* Data ftr Alcdhiol & iOugs reflects actual daily capacity. Lengh ofstay for men and wmen is 3 months. Length
ofstay ftr wcmen with chikt-en is 3 to 9 mcntiis.
10
A recent survey conducted by First Community Housing revealed that there are 223 affordable
housing complexes in Santa Clara County providing 22,084 units of affordable housing in Santa
Clara County.* These units provide housing for individuals and families with incomes primarily
between 50-120% of tiie County’s median income. When compared to the previous reference
that showed over 149,000 adults and 220,000 children in Santa Clara County living below the
federal poverty level, so-called “affordable housing” is hardly housing the truly poor. It certainly
is not housing the 40,000 living on SSI and presumably with special needs. Even most of those
on Section 8 are left out because at least 75% of those receiving Section 8 assistance require
housing affordable to those earning less than 30% of the county median income.*
It was reported that the Housing Authority of Santa Clara County serves 11,149 clients through
its Section 8 assistance program. Of those, approximately 2,010 receive their Section 8
assistance through participation in a County service program. Approximately 3,690 annually
receive other public assistance in the form of MediCal, Food Stamps or the CalWorks program
from the Social Services Agency of Santa Clara County.
It was clear from discussions with the Working Group that County agencies and the Housing
Authority have forged a strong, effective working partnership serving special needs populations.
It was the consensus of the group that the County should strengthen the partnership between
the County and the Housing Authority even furtiier. The following table illustrates the numbers
of low income and County clients currently served through Section 8 assistance, as well as
Public Housing and housing created through the state tax credit program.
HOUSING ASSISTANCE PROVIDED BY THE HOUSING AUTHORITY
TABLE4
Program
Section 8 Programs:
Type of Housing/Clients
Served
810*
Welfare to Work
Families(100% TANF)
Shelter Rus Care
Haneless/Dually-Piagnosed
120
Mainstream
Persons with Osabilit'es
163
After Care
Persons w/Developmental Disabilities
Open Child Welfare Cases
136
Family Unification Prognan
Others
Low-Income Individuals/Families
Lowlncome Housing Tax Credit Ftogram
9845
11,149
Total
Other Housing Programs
Family Setf-Suffidency
Public Housing
75
Units
Low-Income Fanilies
450
Lowlncome Individuals/FarrMlies
660
Lowlncome Individuals/Farrwlies
1,242
2,262
Total
13,401
Total Combined
Another source the Working Group turned to for information on the inventory of special needs
housing was The Santa Clara County Collaborative on Affordable Housing and Homeless
issues. Each year the Collaborative prepares a yearly Continuum of Care Gaps Analysis as
part of the McKinney Homeless Fund application. The analysis is a compilation of the eight
• This number docs na include board and care and ottier types ofassisted ht)iising that are not apartment complexes.
* Santa Qara County Housing Authority
Prcgected to increase to 1066 by June 2001.
11
Consolidated Plans of the county, field research, and other sources. It is perhaps the best
current inventory of homeless housing available. While its focus is primarily on homelessness
services and issues, it was assumed that there is considerable overlap between the issues and
needs of the homeless and special needs populations served by the County.
SANTA CLARA COUNTY COLLABORATIVE - GAPS ANALYSIS
CURRENT INVENTORY OF THOSE HOUSED
TABLES
TOTAL
Individuals
Families
827
492
1319
837
1332
2169
Emergency Shefter
Transitional Housing
Permanent Supportive Housing
442
675
1117
TOTAL
2106
2499
4606
LOSS OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Unfortunately, the County also continues to lose affordable housing.
> According to the Santa Clara County Consolidated Plan, over the past five years there has
been a loss of 944 mobile home units in the Urban County (where most are located).
> According to one member of the Working Group, the number of County licensed Foster Care
facilities has decreased from approximately 800 in 1991 to 378 in 1999.
> Further, over 130 Board & Care units under contract with the Mental Health Department wiU
be lost within the next year due to redevelopment plans in downtown San Jose.
> According to the California Housing Partnership Corporation® Santa Clara County has lost
1,794 Section 8 low-income units over the past decade.
> The Consolidated Plan identifies 7,726 units of subsidized low-income housing units as
being at risk of being converted to market rate housing.^® The Consolidated Plan identifies
the individuals and families living in the these 7,726 units as having special housing needs.
QUANTIFYING THE HOUSING NEEDS FOR PERSON WITH SPECIAL NEEDS
The Collaborative must also report information on the unmet housing need for the homeless in
Santa Clara County for their McKinney Homeless funding application. Table 5 below depicts a
modest need for additional beds and units for homeless individuals and families
SANTA CLARA COUNTY COLLABORATIVE - GAPS ANALYSIS
UNMET HOMELESS HOUSING NEEDS, 2000
TABLES
Total
Individuals
Families w/Chiklren
Emergency Shelter
200
181
381
Tran^onal
275
309
584
Permanent Supportive Housing
300
868
1168
TOTAL
776
1368
2133
Another source that projects low and very low income housing need in Santa Clara County is
the Association of Bay Governments (ABAG). ABAG projections are based on a
comprehensive formula using income levels and jobs among other things to determine a
county’s housing need. Their projections show a modest need of low and very low income
® California Housing Partnership Corporaticn, April 2000
10
Santa Clara County C<'3isolidated Plan, March 2000, p. 2-50
12
housing especially when compared to the numbers of those in need in Santa Clara County.
They are significant numbers nonetheless, because of the controversy building “low income”
housing raises in established neighbortioods and the difficulty of building such housing without
substantial subsidy.
ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS HOUSING NEEDS PROJECTIONS
TABLE?
Santa Clara County
Very Low
11,424
Low
Moderate
Above Moderate
Total
5,173
15,659
25,735
57,991
The most telling statistic presented regarding the level of need for low cost housing in
Santa Clara County is the Section 8 waiting list. As of November 2000, there were 26,331
persons on the Housing Authority's Section 8 waiting list for Santa Clara County. Of these,
3,849 are elderly, 4,741 are disabled and 4,168 identify themselves as homeless. There
are 6,000 persons on the public housing waiting list. The combined need represented by
both lists exceeds 32,000.
When the combined totals of those already receiving Section 8 assistance and public
housing are added to those on the waiting lists, it equals approximately 45,000 - quite
close to the number (40,863) of those estimated to be living on SSI in Santa Clara County.
While it is beyond the scope of this report to make a direct connection between the two, it
does not take a leap of faith to see the considerable overlap between those living on SSI
and defined as special needs individuals and those seeking housing assistance from the
Housing Authority.
This inference is supported by additional information. Table 8 below shows that low income
renters (defined as earning less than $15,000 a year-presumably SSI recipients) outnumber the
current inventory of low income rental units (defined as renting for under $400 per month presumably affordable to only SSI redpients) by almost 20,000. Note, however, this data
applies only to San Jose. If the analysis were applied countywide, the shortage of low cost
units, as defined here, would in all likelihood rise.
11
LOW INCOME RENTERS'*'OUTNUMBER AFFORDABLE UNITS IN CALIFORNIA
TABLES
Low Cost Units
34,400
1,287,400
15,100
603,400
19,300
684,000
Number of Low
San Jose
California
Shortage of
Income Renters
Number of Low
Income Rental Units
Ratio of Low Income
Renters to Low Cost Units
2.3 to 1
2.1 to 1
-■ —;
WORKING GROUP ESTIMATES OF HOUSING NEEDS
To estimate how much very low-income and extremely low-income housing is needed by
special needs persons served by Santa Clara County Agencies; Working Group members
provided their best “educated guess" estimates. Again, short of polling all their caseworkers
and clients, the actual need is not easily accessible information. In some cases numbers are
based on waiting lists. In other cases, estimates weren’t appropriate. As stated earlier, there is
Ixw Income renters are defined as those with hcxisehold incomes under $ 15,000 per year. Ixjw cost rental units
are those that rent for under $400 a month.
I
US Department of Commerce, Census Bureau and US. l>epartment of Housing & Urban Develcpment, American
Housing Survey 1999
13
no organized procedure or system in place to gather and maintain data that evaluates clients
housing needs. Estimates and best guesses are all that can be relied upon currently.
One of the recommendations of the report is for the County to develop a system of evaluating
and tracking all clients housing needs and matching them (if needed) with available housing
opportunities in the county. A major advantage of developing such a system is the
development of comprehensive, countywide data on the housing needs of special needs
populations being served by the County. Such information would be useful for departmental
planning purposes, as well as for nonprofit developers and service providers competing for state
and federal funding for low-income housing projects and services
Table 7 below presents the best available information. The Housing Authority’s Section 8
waiting list numbers are included because it is assumed that many of these persons are
currently receiving services from the County. Moreover, the Section 8 waiting list numbers are
broken out into special needs categories as defined by the Working Group and illustrate the
housing need of those special needs clients. The Collaborative’s Continuum of Care Gaps
Analysis numbers are not included as it is assumed that those numbers are duplicative. Lastly,
it should be kept in mind that these numbers are in a state of flux depending on a host of
factors, including the state of the economy, new housing developments and the loss of
additional affordable units among others.
HOUSING NEEDS OF SPECIAL NEEDS CLIENTS SERVED BY COUNTY AGENCIES
TABLES
Permanent
Emergency
Transitional
Supportive
Permanent Housing
Shelter
Housing
Housing
(Section 8)
4741
Persons w/ Disabilrties
Head Injured
Bdef1y(60+)
20
50 Skilled Care
300 Board & Care
30*
13,573
Lowerlnccme Households
85
<30% of median itxxxne
1366(CalWorte)
4168
Homeless
52
Substance Abuser^
21
130 Board & Care
Mental He^th
Totals
3849
30
52
40IMD Beds
6261
22,966
The above numbers represent what at best can be considered as ranges of needs. We cannot
be sure how many of those on the Section 8 waiting list who described themselves as disabled
or homeless will need supportive care and services provided along with their housing
• It was rcpoled that the typical emergency shelter model is not suitable fw the special naxls ofelderly individuals
and that an emergaicy shelter fcr elderly mly was needed.
* These figures arc “snapshot” data taken from waiting lists over a 5 m-rking day period.
14
assistance. Neither are we sure of the precise number of elderly on the Section 8 waiting list
who won’t need supportive care.
What we are sure of is:
> There are approximately 40,000 individuals living on SSI at or below the federal poverty
level in Santa Clara County who are presumed to have special needs due to some disability;
> While 13,000 currently receive housing assistance, approximately 32,000 are on waiting lists
and it is assumed the majority are County clients and below the poverty level;
> Of those on the waiting list, approximately 5,200 to as many as 13,000 are identified or
presumed to have special needs and in need of some degree of supportive services;
> Of the 13,000 receiving housing assistance, 7,762 are identified as special needs persons
and at risk of having their subsidized housing being converted to market rate housing;
> At least another 130 Board & Care units contracted to the Mental Health Department are at
immediate risk of being lost.
> All agencies who contract with the County to provide housing for special needs clients report
their facilities are full on a daily basis;
> All Working Group members report that all sources of housing utilized by their departments
are full to capacity on a daily basis and that the supply available to them is diminishing,
it is the unavoidable finding of this report that there is a minimum need today of over 5,200 units
of very low and extremely low-income housing with supportive services at this time in Santa
Clara County. Moreover, the need could easily climb to well over 10,000 units overnight due to
any number of economic factors beyond anyone’s control. Across the board, all housing types
and housing services are needed to alleviate the growing impoverishment of the special needs
populations in Santa Clara County.
There is much work that needs to be done. This report urges the Board of Supervisors to take
the necessary steps to preserve, build, acquire or contract for more housing affordable to the
very tow and extremely lownncome special needs populations of the County.
RECOMMENDATIONS
To support the development of housing affordable to special needs populations within Santa
Clara County, the Working Group has developed major recommendations and a wide range of
working strategies. The recommendations are based on clear principles that create a firm
foundation for the development of affordable housing policy and programs within the County.
The Working Group believes these recommendations can also serve as a model for other
jurisdictions, and perhaps more importantly, a challenge — for jurisdictions and agencies to
work together to solve the affordable housing crisis as one community. Here are the major
recommendations:
Recommendation #1 - Create a County Housing Unit in the County Executive’s Office
The County should create within County government a Housing to coordinate and support
existing housing service efforts, acquire new resources, gather and manage housing data and
insure that all departments are working together and using resources efficiently. Specific
strategies the County can pursue:
15
a) Assist with the development of a standardized intake system among County agencies to
better detemiine the housing needs of County clients and lead to more effective housing
placement;
b) Serve as internal facilitator for County housing staff dealing with special needs clients,
convening regular meetings to gauge progress, identify emerging issues and funds, and
coordinate efforts,
c) Assist in the development and maintenance of the countywide database currently being
developed by Community Tedinology Alliance and Housing for Independent People;
d) Provide agencies access to listings of affordable units to assist in placement of clients.
Recommer^datlon #2 - Increase Low Income Housing Production
The County must become a collaborator with local jurisdictions, nonprofit developers and
service providers to plan for and help facilitate the development of very low and extremely low
income housing with supportive services,
The Working Group supports Supervisor Beall’s
recent call for a Housing Action Plan in his state of the County Address. Among the strategies
to build more affordable housing, we support the following:
a) Explore the feasibility of establishing a revolving loan fund that nonprofit developers
could utilize to secure land wrfiiie additional financing is pursued;
b) Identify county properties that can be developed for low-income housing, including
exploration of mixed-use opportunities;
c) Establish an official liaison witfi the Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara and
the Housing Trust of Santa Clara County to ensure those County priorities and needs
are considered in development/project opportunities.
Recommendation #3-Increase Investment in Low Income Housing
The County must work with local partners and aggressively pursue new state and federal
funding. In addition, the County must find new sources of funding as well as commit additional
existing revenue to the development of very low and extremely tow-income housing including
housing with supportive services. Specific strategies the County can pursue:
a) Research, evaluate, and pursue potential revenue sources available from state and
federal housing programs that could be used for the development of more low-income
housing;
.
b) Provide resource development and grant writing assistance to County agencies and
housing and service providers to facilitate tiie development of mote low-income housing,
c) Analyze current County expenditures on housing and determine if funds could be more
effidently spent for the creation of low-income housing opportunities;
d) Work as liaison with County Housing and Community Development (HCD) to ensure
Community Development Block Grant funds are allocated to meet County low-income
housing objectives;
e) Commit additional resources to the Housing Trust of Santa Clara County and explore
ways to establish a permanent source of funding.
Recommendation #4- Encourage Best Practices in Special Needs Housing Management
To insure County agencies and clients are getting the best housing services possible, the
County should explore different community based special needs housing models to find
innovative designs that would be effective in Santa Clara County. For example, are ttiere ways
or incentives to make the common, single-family home, board and care model more financially
feasible? Are there other models that are more desirable for crertain special needs clients?
16
Recommendation #5- Become a Visible Proactive Advocate for Special Needs Housing
The County is the largest service provider for special needs persons and must take a leadership
rote on frieir behalf. This unit will be instrumental in supporting and advocating for the
development of very low and extremely low-income housing opportunities in all cities in the
county, as well as advocating for additional state and federal funds. Specific strategies the
County can pursue:
a) Work with countywide affordable housing programs and organizations to advocate for
low-income housing development and housing opportunities for special needs clients;
b) Develop and implement educational outreach to policymakers and the community to
create a more positive political response to low-income housing;
c) Assist the advocacy efforts of County staff for supportive low-income housing legislation
on behalf of County agencies at the State and Federal levels of government.
Recommendation #6 -Establish a Regional Forum to Address the Countywide Affordable
Housing Crisis including Special Needs Housing Issues
The County must facilitate the creation of a regional dialogue and perspective on the affordable
housing crisis. It can do this through existing forums or developing and managing a countywide
housing consortium of city officials and housing leaders, designed to come up with countywide
consensus on housing issues. Specific strategies ttie County can purse:
a)
b)
Develop countywide housing goals for special needs populations based on needs
assessments and inventory data, and advocate for regional support to meet those goals;
Worfc with regional partners to develop a countywide Housing Action Plan to
comprehensively address the housing ne^s of all Santa Clara County residents, and
enlist regional support for the implementation of this plan.
17
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This report is based in part on individual interviews and information provided by the valuable input
and participation of the Special Needs Housing Advisory Working Group. Their time and
commitment were essential to this important process. They are as follows;
Jamie Buckmaster, Program Manager,- Dept, of Aging & Adult Services, Adult Protective Services
Candy Capogrossi, Deputy Director, Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara
Charles Chew, Program Manager, County Housing & Community Development Program
Mary Helen Doherty, Director Governmental Relations & Planning, Social Services Agency
Ann Draper, Director, Santa Clara County Planning Office
Jorge Gonzalez, Social Services Program Manager, Santa Clara County Social Services Agency
Margaret Gregg, Homeless Services Coordinator, Office of the County Executive
Corky Gutierrez, Housing Coordinator, Santa Clara County Department of Mental Health
Brandi Hoffman, MCC Program Manager, Office of the County Executive
Alette Lundeberg, Dept. Employment Benefit Services Administrator, Social Services Agency
LeRoy Martin, Director, Department of Family & Children’s Services
Dunia Noel, Associate Planner, Santa Clara County Planning Office
Sharon Rea, Program Manager, Dept, of Aging & Adult Services, Office of the Public Guardian
Edith Sona, Quality Improvement Coordinator, County Department of Alcohol & Drug Services
Office of the County Executive
Jane Decker, Deputy County Executive,
Naphtali H. Knox, Housing Bond Coordinator,
Ray Villarreal, Housing Coordinator,
Susan Silviera, Springboard Consulting & Training Services
A special thanks to the following for their valuable input:
Chris Block, Executive Director of the Housing Trust of Santa Clara County
Kristie Scannel, Executive Director of Housing for Independent People
Ray Allen, Executive Director Community Technology Alliance
18
REFERENCES
US Census Bureau, Santa Clara County Planning Department - “QuickFacts"
Housing Needs Assessment for Persons with Disabilities: Final Report. Prepared for City of San
Jose Department of Housing by Vemazza Wolfe Associates, Inc., December 1997
Hospital Conference of Santa Clara County, Community Health Needs Assessmentfor Santa Clara
County. June 1996, p. 12
SS! Recipients by State and County, Tbe Office of Policy, Social Security Administration, 12/99
1999 Santa Clara County Homeless Suryey, Jerome Burstein and Linda Woodsmall, Sept. 8, 2000
Santa Clara County Consolidated Plan for 2000-2005
State of California, Employment Development Department, Labor Market Information division.
Information Services Group.
Joint Venture's 2001 Index of Silicon Valley prepared by Collaborative Economics, p.19, January
2000.
Santa Clara County Collaborative on Affordable Housing and Homeless Issues, Continuum of Care
Gaps Analysis 2000
Locked Out! California’s Affordable Housing Crisis, May 2000, published by the California Budget
Project
Priced Out in 1998, Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities Housing Task Force, downloaded from
Opening Doors- ht4)//www.o-c-d.oig/od-may99.htm
California Housing Partnership Corporation, /^ril 2000
Rental Housing Assistance-The Worsening Crisis, HUD Report to Congress on Worst Case Housing
Needs
American Housing Survey, A Joint publication of the Census Bureau, US Department of Commerce
and HUD.
19
APPENDIX A
GLOSSARY OF TERMS*
Affordable Housing - Affordable housing is generally defined as housing where the occupant is
paying no more than 30 percent of gross income for gross housing costs, including utility costs.
AIDS and Related Diseases - The disease of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome or any
conditions arising from the etioiogic agent for acquired immunodeficiency syndrome.
Alcohol/Other Drug Addiction - A serious and persistent alcohol or other drug addition that
significantly limits a person’s ability to live independently.
Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) - A federal program in which grants of
money are given to cities and/or counties for the sole purpose of Community Development related
activities.
Cost Burden > 30% - The extent to which gross housing costs, including utility costs, exceed 30
percent of gross income, based on data published by the U.S. Census Bureau.
Cost Burden > 50% (Severe Cost Burden) - The extent to whidi gross housing costs, including
utility costs, exceed 50 percent of gross income (U.S. Census Bureau).
Department of Housing and Urban Development(HUD) - The agency of the Federal Government
that oversees the Community Development Block Grant Program, HOME and the ESG Programs.
Disabled Household - A household composed of one or more persons at least one of whom is an
adult (a person of at least 18 years of age) who has a disability. A person shall be consid^^ to
have a disability if the person is determined to have a physical, mental or emotiorial impairment that.
(1) is expected to be of long-continued and indefinite duration,(2) substantially impeded his or her
that the ability could improved by
ability to live independently, and (3) is of such a nature
considered
to have a disability if he
suitable housing conditions. A person shall also be
developmental disability, as defined in the Developmental Disabilities
Assistance
^o ofiganys
surviving member
or and
members
Act (42 U.S.C. 6001-6006). The term also indudes the
household described in the first sentence of this paragraph who were living in an assisted unit with
the deceased member of the household at the time of her or her death.
Economic Independence and Self-Sufficiency Programs - Programs undertaken by Public
Housing Agencies (PHAs) to promote economic independence and self-sufficiency for participating
families. Such programs may include Project Self-Sufficiency and Operation Bootstrap
that originated under earlier Section 8 rental certificate and rental voucher initiatives, as well as tne
Family Self-Sufficiency program. In addition, PHA's may operate locally developed programs
conduct a
variety of special projects designed to promote economic independence and serr-
sufficiency.
* Glos-saiy modified fiorn the Santa Oara County Consolidated Plan 2000-2005
20
Eideily Household - For HUD rental programs, a one or two person household in which the head of
the household or spouse is at least 62 years of age.
Elderly Person - A person who is at least 62 years of age.
Entitlement Cities - Cities which have their own CDBG Programs. These cities include Gilroy.
Milpitas, Mountain View, Palo Alto. San Jose, Santa Clara, and Sunnyvale.
Fair Market Rents- FMRs estimate the cost of rent and utilities other than telephone service. FMRs
are currently set at the 40*^ percentile within an area, meaning the FMR is the cost below which 40%
of the housing units in an area would rent for less and 60 percent would rent for a higher amount.
Many public programs use FMRs as a measure of housing costs including Section 8. FMRs are
published annually by HUD.
Family - The Bureau of Census defines a family as a householder (head of household) and one or
more other persons living in the same household, who are related by birth, marriage or adoption.
Jurisdictions are required to use the National Affordable Housing Act definition, found in 24 CFR
812.2, in their ConPlans, although that definition is different than that found in Census Documents.
When Census data is used in many of the tables and charts, their definition of family is used.
Family Self-Sufficiency (FSS) Program - A program enacted by Section 554 of the National
Affordable Housing Act which directs Public Housing agencies (PHAS) and Indian Housing
Authorities (IRAs) to use Section 8 assistance under the rental certificate and rental voucher
programs, together with public and private resources, to provide supportive services to enable
participating families to achieve economic self-sufficiency.
First-Time Homebuyer - An individual or family who has not owned a home during the Oiree-year
period preceding the HLTD-assisted purchase of a home ttiat must be used as the principal
residence of the homebuyer. except that any individual who is a displaced homemaker(as defined in
not be excluded from corisideration as
24 CFR92)or a single parent(as defined in 24 CFR 92) may
a first-time homebuyer on the basis that the individual, while a homemaker or mam'ed, owned a
home with his or her spouse, or resided in a home owned by the spouse.
Frail Elderly - An elderly person who is unable to perform at least 3 activities of daily living (i.e.
eating, dressing, battling, grooming and household management activities).(See 24 CFR 889.105.)
Group Quarters - Facilities providing living quarters that are not classified as housing units by the
U.S. Census definition. Examples include prisons, nursing homes, dormitories, military barracks,
and shelters.
HOME - The HOME Investment Partnerships Program that is authorized by Title 11 of the National
Affordable Housing Act.
Homeless Family - Family that includes at least one parent or guardian and one child under the age
of 18, a homeless pregnant woman, or a
homeless person in the processing of securing legal
custody of a person under the age of 18.
21
Homeless individual - An unaccompanied youth (17 years or younger) or an adult (18 years, or
older) without children.
Homeless Youth - Unaccompanied person 17 years of age or younger, who is living in an
unsheltered situation.
Household - One or more persons occupying a housing unit(U.S. Census definition).
Housing Problems - Households with housing problems include those that; (1) occupy units
meeting the definition of Physical Defects; (2) meet the definition of overcrowded; and (3) meet the
definition of cost burden greater than 30%; and (4)do not meet Housing Quality Standards.
Housing Unit - An occupied or vacant house, apartment, or single room (SRO housing) that is
intended as separate living quarters.(U.S. Census definition)
HUD -adjusted area median family income (HAMFI)- In 1974, Congress defined “low income
and very low income for HUD rental programs as incomes not exceeding 80 and 60 percent of the
area median family income, as adjusted by HUD. Statutory adjustments now include upper and
lower caps for areas with low or high ratios of housing costs to income and for each nonmetropolitan
county average. Estimates of the median family income and the official income cutoffs for each
metropolrtan area are based on the most recent census and then updated each year by HUD. Each
base cutoff is assumed to apply to a household of four, and official cutoffs are further adjusted by
household size: one person, 70% of the base; two persons, 80 percent; three persons, 90 percent
five persons, 108 percent; six persons, 116 percent; and so on.
Institutions/lnstitutlonal - Group quarters for persons under care or custody.
Low-tncome Household - A low-income household is one wrhose income does not exceed 50
percent of the median family income for the area, as determined by HUD, with adjustments for
smaller and larger families. HUD may establish income ceilings higher or lower than 50 percent of
the median for the area on the basis of HUD's findings that such variations are necessary because
of prevailing levels of construction costs or fair market rents, or unusually high or low family
incomes.
Middle-Income Family - Family w4iose income is between 80% and 95% of the m^ian income for
the area, as determined by HUD, with adjustments for smaller and larger families. HUD may
establish income ceilings higher or lower than 95% of the median for the area, on file basis of HUD s
findings that such variations are necessary because of prevailing levels of constmction costs or fair
market rents, or unusually high or low family incomes.
Non-Entitlement Cities - Cities participating in the Urban County CDBG Program who do not have
a program of their own. The non-entitlement cities include Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos, Los Altos
Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill and Saratoga.
Non-Homeless Persons with Special Needs - Includes frail elderly persons, persons with AIDS,
disabled families, and families participating in organized programs to achieve economic setfsuffidency.
22
Non-fnstitutional - Group quarters for persons not under care or custody
Occupied Housing Unit - A housing unit in which people are currently living
Other Househoid - A household of one or more persons that does not meet the definition of a Small
Related household, Large Related household, or Elderiy household.
Other Low-Income - Households wrfiose incomes are between 51% and 80 % of the median
income for the area, as determined by HUD,with adjustments for smaller and larger families.
Overcrowded - A housing unit containing more than one person per room.
Poverty Level- Household income below the official national poverty cutoffs for the United States for
that household size. The poverty cutoff for a family of four approximates 33 percent of the HAMFI.
Forty four percent of very low-income households and 85 percent of extremely low-income
households are poor.
Rent Burden > 30%(Cost Burden)- The extent to which gross rents, including utility costs, exceed
30 percent of the tenant's gross income, based on data published by the U. S. Census Bureau.
Rent Burden > 50% (Severe Cost Burden)- The extent to which gross rents, including utility costs
exceeding 50 percent of the tenanfs income, based on data published by the U.S. Census Bureau.
Rental Assistance - Rental assistance payments provided as either project-based rental assistance
or tenant-based assistance.
Renter - A household that rents the housing unit it occupies, including both units rented for cash and
units occupied without cash payment of rent.(U.S. Census definition.)
Renter-Occupied Unit - Any occupied housing unit that is not owner occupied, including units
rented for cash and those occupied without payment of cash rent.
Service Needs - The particular services identified for special-needs populations, which typically may
include transportation, personal care, housekeeping, counseling, meals, case management,
personal emergency response, and other services to prevent premature inst'rtutionalization and to
assist individuals to continue living independently.
Severe Mental Illness - A serious and persistent mental or emotional impairment that significantly
limits a person's ability to live independently.
Sheltered - Families and persons whose primary nighttime residence is a supervised, publicly or
privately operated shelter, including emergency shelters, transitional housing for the homeless,
domestic violence shelters, residential shelters for runaway and homeless youth, and any rriotel or
apartment voudier arrangement paid because the person is homeless. This term does not include
23
persons living doub!ed-up or in overcrowded or substandard conventional housing. Any facility
offering permanent housing is not a shelter, nor are its residents homeless.
Supportive Housing - Housing, including Housing Units and Group Quarters, that have a
supportive services environment, and include a planned service component.
Supportive Service Need in FSS Plan - The plan that PHAs administering a Family SelfSufficiency program are required to develop to identify the services they will provide to participating
families and the source of funding for those services. The supportive services may include child
care, transportation, remedial education, education for completion of secondary or post secondary
schooling,, job training, preparation and counseling, substance abuse treatment and counseling,
training in homemaking and parenting skills, money management and household management,
counseling in homeownership, job development and placement, follow-up assistance after job
placement, and other appropriate services.
Supportive Services - Services provided to residents of supportive housing for the purpose of
fadlitating the independence of residents. Some examples are case management, medical or
psychological counseling and supervision, childcare, transportation, and job training.
Unsheltered - Families and individuals vrfiose primary nighttime residence is a public or private
place not designed for, or ordinarily used as, a regular sleeping accommodation for human beings
(e.g. street, parks, and alleys).
Urban County - A term which refers to the jurisdictions which have signed agreements with the
County to participate in the County's CDBG program. The jurisdictions are Campbell, Cupertino,
Los Altos. Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno. Morgan Hill, Saratoga, and unincorporated San
Jose.
Very Low-Income - Households whose incomes do not exceed 50 percent of the median income for
the area, as determined by HUD, with adjustments for smaller and larger families, for areas with
unusually high or low incomes, or where needed because of prevailing levels of construction costs
or fair market rents.
Worst-Case Needs - Unassisted, very lownncome renter households who pay more than half of
their income for rent, live in seriously substandard housing (which includes homeless people) or
have been involuntarily displaced.
24
APPENDIX B
CATEGORIES OF SPECIAL NEEDS PERSONS
❖ Persons with physical/developmental disabilities
■
Living on fixed income(SSI)
❖ Elderly(Persons over 60 years of age)
■
Phyacally and/or financially abused, neglected
■
Medically fragile and in need of acute care
Temporary placement needs
«
«
Need assisted housing
Living on Fixed incomes(SSI)
❖
Persons w/ith HIV/AIDS
❖
Homeless
»
Families with children
• Individuals
❖ immigrant/Refugees
■ Agricultural Workers
- Legal residents
■
❖
Veterans
-
Mentally III
•
Homeless
«
❖
Undocumented
Substance Abusers
Youth
-
Aged Out(1&-25, service eligible 1&-21)
■
Runaways, Abused & neglected
«
Fosto’care
❖ At-Risk of Losing Housing
■ Board & care displaced
-
Conversion tenants
Domestic Violence
•
❖
in need of permanent and transitional housing
Substance Abusers
■
Sober Living Environment residents in need of care
•
Court ordered treatment
«
Recovery clients in need of permanent and transitional houang
•
Family reunification
Mental Health Clients
-
❖
With severe medical needs - Dually diagnosed
■
In need of independent living environments
■
In need of shared living environments
Offenders/Paroloes
25
APPENDIX C
DESIRED SOLUTIONS/ OUTCOMES
The Working Group on Special Needs Housing identified the outcomes that were most desirable in
terms of creating more housing opportunities for their special needs clients.
DEVELOPMENT
1. Developers/builders of fow-cost housing developments should be encouraged to set-aside some
units for special needs clients.
2. When approving low-income housing developments, local authorities should require/encourage
the designation of some units for special needs clients.
3. Permanent Supportive Housing:
a) One-bedroom units for elderly mentally disabled and physically disabled,
b) 2-6 bedroom units for CalWorks families, Shelter Plus Care clients, and for all other
clients desiring group home or board & care housing,
c) Intermediate care facilities for elderly and mentally disabled with special medical needs,
d) Secure perimeter skilled nursing facilities (could involve converting a single family home)
for those with intensive medical and supervisory needs,
e) Professionally staffed 40-bed skilled care facility for difficult clients.
4. Temporary Supportive Housing (0-2 yrs.)
a) One-bedroom units for frail elderly, mentally disabled, physically disabled,
b) 2-6 bedroom units for frail elderly, mentally disabled and physically disabled clients for
shared care (board & care.)
5. Permanent Housing
6. Develop all types of rental units affordable to those on extremely low incomes.
RESOURCES
1. The following revenue sources should be explored as a means of financing the new
and rehabilitation of extremely
development of extremely low-income housing and the acquisition
clients.
low-incxDme housing to serve the County’s special needs
a)
The Housing Trust of Santa Clara County
b) The Santa Clara County Housing Bond Tmst Fund
First Commission
c) The Tobacco Fund Allocation to the Children & Families
d) CalWorks Incentive Funds
e) Density Bonus Funding
f) Community Development Block Grant Funds
g) County General Fund
h) Housing Authority Section 8 Funding (Project-Based)
i) Funding that Results from Proposition 36
]) Federal Funds for Independent Living Programs
26
k) McKinney Homeless Funding
I) Redevelopment Agencies Housing - Set asides(20%)
m) Community Reinvestment Act
n) State Housing and Community Development Funds
o) Other State and Federal Grants
p) Corporation for Supportive Housing
2.
There should be a resource development specialist to act as a clearinghouse for collecting and
disseminating funding information, act as grant writer to identify funding sources and coordinate
submitting proposals to obtain ftjnding for special needs housing.
3.
Funds currently spent by the County on housing for special needs clients should be analyzed to
determine to what extent they could be spent to develop more housing opportunities for the
County’s special needs clients.
4.
5.
County properties currently used or under-utilized by departments such as general
administration, roads & airports, parks & recreation and VTA, should be developed with
extremely low-income housing to serve special needs clients where feasible.
Facilitate access to extremely low-income housing opportunities through the development and
maintenance of a countywide database of all available low-income housing opportunities, such
the database currently being developed by Community Technology Alliance and Housing for
as
Independent People.)
8.
Provide more housing search teams for those agencies attempting to house Wieir clients.
Provide better property management services, incorporating best practices.
Create opportunities for low-income housing development at Moffett Field.
9.
Develop a standardized intake system to gather and maintain comprehensive data on current
6.
7.
client needs.
10.Specialized training for board & care operators who have special needs clients.
CLIENT ASSISTANCE
1. Provide more comprehensive case management services to ensure a client is rent-ready, these
services will include average daily living skills training, money management, etc.
a)
b)
A pool of funding developed and managed to assist clients with rent deposits.
Provide more comprehensive case-management services to ensure that a client remains
successfully housed.
c) Provide resource assistance to client so they do not lose their housing.
d)
e)
Seek incentives that will make more landlords willing to house special needs clients.
More landlords will be willing to house special needs clients.
f) Provide on-site day care services.
9) Low-income housing will be located near public transit.
27
POLICY
1.
Create the political will to build more low-income housing for special needs clients by
educational outreach to policymakers and the community.
2.
Encourage the San Jose Redevelopment Agency to address the loss of board & care housing
due to redevelopment.
3.
Review County zoning recommendations and foster changes that would enhance the creation of
special needs housing in cities and the county, such as:
a)
b)
Promote inciusionary zoning, and construction and use of secondary “granny” units.
Review and revise County and cities’ policy on discharge/lease of County property as means of
locating potential sites for special needs housing.
4.
5.
Develop a coordinated funding strategy for development of special needs housing opportunities.
Promote streamlined development processes that encourage the development of extremely lowincome housing.
28
APPENDIX D
CURRENT COUNTY HOUSING ACTIVITIES
The County, local agencies, the Housing Authority, nonprofit organizations, and Silicon Valley
companies actively provide financial assistance, build and rehabilitate affordable housing, provide
shelter for the homeless, and coordinate special needs housing and resources through the following
programs.
FIRST TIME HOMEBUYER PROGRAMS
County Mortgage Credit Certificate Program: Offers qualifying low-to-moderate income first-time
homebuyers annual federal income tax credits equal to 15 percent of interest paid on the first
mortgage. More than 10,000 Mortgage Credit Certificates(MCCs)have been issued since 1988.
Extra Credit Teacher Home Purchase Program <ECTHPP): New in 2000, this is a State
sponsored program under which the County issues MCCs in the unincorporated areas and the cities
of San Jose and Gilroy. ECTHPP offers Mortgage Credit Certificates at a 20 percent tax credit rate
and silent second loans of $7,600 to $40,000 to credentialed teachers, principals, and assistant
principals who agree to serve for five years at “low-performing sdioois” (those rated in the lowest 30
percent on the State’s Academic Performance Index).
Community Assisted Shared Appreciation (CASA) Program: Started in 2000, this is a joint
initiative of the County. Northbay Ecumenical Homes, Cal Fed Bank, and the City of Sunnyvale to
provide silent second loans up to $80,000 to median-income first time homebuyers in Sunnyvale and
the unincorporated county.
Housing Trust of Santa Clara County: The County has contributed $2,250,000 to the $17.5 million
raised to date toward the initial capitalization goal of $20 million. After allowing for a 10 percent
contingency, the remaining $18 million is to be divided equally into three categories: first time
homebuyer assistance, affordable multifamily development, and transitional and emergency shelter
development. The first single-family loan programs will begin this Spring.
SPECIAL NEEDS HOUSING
Community Development Block Grant Program: Annual federal grants support a variety of
housing and community development activities. Cities with less than 50,000 population are included
in “the Urban County” (coordinated by County HCD); larger cities receive their own entitlement. The
Urban County includes Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno,
Morgan Hill. Saratoga, and tiie unincorporated areas of the county. CDBG funds for FY 00 were
$2,591,000.
HOME Program: This is a federal grant to provide incentives for the production of affordable
housing. It is distributed by the County HCD to non-profit development corporations for revitalization
projects and rehabilitation of existing multi-unit structures for low-income households. HOME funds
must be matched with state or local revenue. The grant for FY 00 was $936,000.
29
Emergency Shelter Grants Program (ESG); Federal funds available for renovation and
rehabilitation, maintenance and operations, essential support services, and homeless prevention
activities at homeless shelters. County ESG funds in FY 00 totaled $92,000.
Cold Weather Shelter Program: Allows for the operation and maintenance of the armories in Gilroy
and Sunnyvale as emergency shelters, as well as increased winter beds at the Emergency Housing
Consortium’s Regional Reception Center in San Jose. The County contributed $340,000 from the
General Fund to this program for this fiscal year.
Shelter Plus Care Program: Federal rental assistance for homeless individuals who have long-term
disabilities resulting from mental illness, alcohol and drug abuse, or an HIV positive medical
condition, and who are receiving other supportive services to help them maintain stability and
transition to permanent housing. This is a collaborative effort between the County, the Housing
Authority, and community groups serving the homeless. Each grant is valid for five years of rental
assistance and is matched by the County in the form of support services. Award amount history.
1992 (renewed in 1998), $1,545,860 for 25 units; 1993 (renewal applied for). $1,540,800 for 32
units; 1995, $1,390,740 for 30 units; 1996,$1,846,200 for 50 units; 1998, $1,905,660 for 25 units.
Family Self-sufficiency (FSS): Helps families become self-sufficient by providing Section 8 rental
certificates or vouchers that are conditioned on maintaining employment or attending school or job
training. The Housing Authority implements this program, working with a volunteer support group of
employment and education agencies. A case manager is funded by City of San Jose Community
Development Block Grant funds. The County does not contribute to this program.
Family UnificaOon Program (FUP): Helps families in the Child Welfare System to become selfsufficient by providing time-limited rent vouchers. Families must participate in programs and
services offered by one of the four Family Resource Centers in Santa Clara County. This rental
subsidy program is funded by HUD and administered by the Housing Authority. The County does not
contribute funds to this program, but the Social Services Agency provides referral and case
management services.
Welfare to Work: This Section 8 voucher program provides housing subsidies to assist families
moving from welfare to work. The Housing Authority receives financial support from the County
Social Services Agency to fund housing search staff. Of the current allocation of 1,066 vouchers,
885 families have successfully located housing in the past year, and the remaining number will be
housed by June 1,2001. These 1,066 vouchers are permanently set aside to assist this population.
Rental/Mortgage Assistance Program (R/MAP): This is a homelessness prevention program. The
Emergency Assistance Network (EAN), a consortium of non-profit and city-sponsored housing
assistance organizations, provides funds to low income families or individuals for temporary rental or
mortgage payments, rental security deposits, and utility hookups. Funded by foundations, cities, and
from the County Housing Bond Trust Fund through the County Homeless Coordinator. Of this year’s
budget of $760,000, the Housing Bond Trust Fund contributed $105,000. Since 1992, the Housing
Bond Trust Fund has contributed $675,000 to R/MAP.
30
APPENDIX E
LIST OF TABLES AND CHARTS
Table 1 - HUD Median income Table for Santa Clara County Housing
7
Table 2 - Special Needs Clients of Santa Clara County
9
Table 3- Clients Receiving Housing Assistance from the County
10
Table 4- Housing Assistance Provided by the Housing Authority
11
Table 5- Santa Clara County Collaborative - Gaps Analysis
12
Table 6- Santa Clara County Collaborative - Gaps Analysis
12
Table 7- Association of Bay Area Governments — Housing Needs Projections
13
Table 8- Low Income Renter Outnumber Affordable Units in California
13
Table 9-Woricing Group Housing Needs Analysis for Special Needs Populations
14
32
MEMO TO:
Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors ,
FROM:
Santa Clara County Housing Task Force
RE:
Attached Status Report
DATE:
August 21,2001
Appco/ed Accepiacl
Oi
Ccriiad
o.-
By
. Auto'S g'ZOOl
Date:
Hon. Supervisors:
Attached please find a Status Report from the Santa Clara County
by
Housing Task Force. As you know,the Task Force was appointed
ofthe Task
Board Chair James T. Beall earlier this year. The charge
Force was to identify and study problems, challenges and barriers
associated with housing production and affordability in Santa Clara
were to
County, and then to identify potential solutions. Theseofsolutions
recommended
be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors in the form
action items and objectives.
This report covers the work done to date, which is very nearly complete.
This report contains eight sections. Each section has its own cover page,
(The only
and is headed by its own explanation, or executive summary.
each of its
exception is Section IV, which contains Final Reports from
four work groups). Associated back-up documents are then attached to
each section.
The Task Force wishes to thank and acknowledge the Board of
project. Many
Supervisors for its vision and encouragement about this
long hours ofthought, ideas and discussion went into the development
ofthis report. We look forward to further discussion with you about this
most urgent matter.
Respectfully submitted,
The Santa Clara County Housing Task Force
:
I 11 I
I
Aim
?nni
Agenda Rem No. 53
County of Santa Clara
Office of the County Executive
CE08 062502
Prepared by: Jane Decker
Deputy County Executive
DATE:
June 25, 2002
TO:
Board of Supervisors
FROM:
Richard Wittenberg
County Executive
SUBJECT:
Housing Task Force Recommendations Implementation Plan
RKrOMMENDED ACTION
Consider recommendations relating to Housing Task Force Recommendations Implementation Plan.
Possible action:
a.
Approve Implementation Plan for the Housing Task Force Recommendations.
b.
Approve the current priorities of the Office of Affordable Housing, including a focus on special needs housing,
pending results of the Technical Assistance report.
c.
Board of Supervisors: Donald F. Gage. Blanca Alvarado, Pete McHugh, Jirn Beall, Liz Kniss
County Executive; Richard Wittenberg
1
BOS Agenda Date; June 25,2002
Agenda Kem No.53
Establish the Board of Supervisors' intent to pursue the creation of a County Housing Commission and begin
discussions with the cities.
d.
Establish affordable housing as a regional and legislative policy priority for the Board of Supervisors.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS
There are no general fund costs associated with this report. The contract for the Acting Director of Housing, who is
currently the Housing Bond Coordinator, will be increased modestly from Housing Bond revenues as compensation for
additional activities in his interim role.
REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION
At the April 9 Board of Supervisors meeting, the Board accepted an Administration recommendation to establish an
Office of Affordable Housing and deferred to budget the consideration of using some Redevelopment Settlement
Agreement delegated revenues for housing purposes. At the same meeting, the Housing Task Force presented their
recommendations to the Board who referred them to the Administration to develop an implementation plan. A matrix of
the Task Force recommendations is attached.
There are six primary clusters of recommendations in the Task Force Report. They are:
1.
Create an Office of Affordable Housing (OAH).
2.
Establish special needs housing as a County priority.
3.
Create a County Housing Commission.
4.
County assume leadership in regional, state and federal housing policy advocacy.
5.
County take leadership to identify new local source of revenue for housing.
6.
County work with public jurisdictions to establish policies on use of surplus public land for housing.
Below is a report outlining Administration efforts to date to develop an implementation plan for the Task Force
recommendations.
Board of Supervisors: Donald F. Gage, Blanca Alvarado, Pete McHugh,Jim Beall, Liz Kniss
County Executive: Richard Wittenberg
2
BOS Agenda Date: June 25,2002
Agenda Item No.53
Office of Affordable Housing
The intent is to establish the Office of Affordable Housing(OAH)effective July 1 and comprised of HCD,the Housing
Bond/MCC Program, and the Homeless Services Program. There are some administrative details to work out, but the
units will be consolidated under the leadership of the Acting Housing Director, Naphtali Knox. Meetings with the three
units and the Deputy County Executive began soon after the Board approval of the consolidation in early April. An
evaluation is continuing of current functions, including overlapping functions, as well as an assessment of the ability of
the new office to take on additional responsibilities after consolidating. The Deputy County Executive is working with
GSA property management in an effort to co-locate the units at the North First Street offices so the functions can
become better integrated.
In May, the San Francisco HUD office approved a County request for technical assistance to create a plan for the new
Office of Affordable Housing. The consultant selected for the project is the Enterprise Foundation (EF), using staff from
their San Francisco and Los Angeles offices. The EF has extensive experience working with local government on
housing issues. They will work with the County to design the OAH organizational stmcture, develop an implementation
schedule, identify funding, and research best practices. Our initial meeting was June 14 and we concluded that their
work plan would include an assessment of what the County is currently doing in housing; what we could be doing; and
how to develop linkages with partners in the community. After a work plan is approved, which will be imminent, the
project will be completed within 90 days. It will include interviews with staff working in County housing programs as
well as with people and agencies in the community.
In the meantime, beginning July 1, the Acting Housing Director will begin to coordinate and administer the activities of
the OAH. The office will identify and coordinate resources for the purpose of providing housing for County special
needs clients , will continue to strategically target below market mortgage funds, CDBG and other federal grants, loans
and subsidies to programs and projects of the OAH,and begin developing relationships with cities on joint affordable
housing projects and programs beyond what is already provided through existing programs. In addition, the Acting
Housing Director will engage in discussions with other personnel in the County Executive's Office to ensure that
affordable housing is considered as part of the ongoing development of County property. Staff will also closely monitor
the $2.1 billion housing bond on the November ballot. Passage of this measure will provide for an as yet undetermined
level of revenue for local purposes in a range of housing categories.
As new resources are dedicated to County housing programs, staff will develop plans for the use of the funds. The Board
action to set aside $18 million in delegated redevelopment settlement revenue, until after assessment in October,
included a request for staff to develop a plan for the expenditure of those funds. Staff will bring a report back to the
Board with recommendations for the use of the revenue. Until new revenues are available, staff will balance new
priorities of the office with the demanding functions of the existing programs.
Special Needs Housing
One of the highest priorities of the new office, specifically targeted by County Administration as well as by the Housing
Task Force, will be the coordination of departmental efforts in support of securing housing for special needs clients. The
OAH will immediately convene regular meetings of County staff engaged in housing and related services. The purpose
of these meetings will be to better coordinate housing information and resources and offer assistance toward existing
efforts to develop a countywide affordable housing data base and information service to which County departments will
have access. The hope is that through a coordinated effort, existing resources can be leveraged to achieve County goals
of securing a range of affordable housing for clients served by County departments. Ultimately, as resources are added
Board of Supervisors: Donald F. Gage, Blanca Alvarado, Pete McHugh,Jim Beall, Liz Kniss
County Executive: Richard Wittenberg
3
BOS Agenda Date: June 25,2002
Agenda Item No.53
to the program, the County can invest in the creation of new housing units available to County clients and other special
needs individuals.
We are anticipating that the consultants will be able to research best practices and ways of better serving the housing
needs of our special needs clients.
County Housing Commission
The Task Force recommended that a County Housing Commission be established which could foster a regional dialogue
among elected officials on housing issues. Alternative membership structures were proposed and it was suggested that
creation of a commission could occur in partnership with the Cities Association. The alternative that would serve the
greatest purpose would be a body that has representation from the County and each of the cities. To begin the discussion
of this kind of entity, staff arranged for a presentation of the Task Force recommendations to the Cities Association in
early May. Two members of the Task Force presented all of the recommendations as the context, but the focus of the
discussion was the concept of a Housing Commission. Initial concerns expressed by the city representatives related to
cities' land use authority and the potential ability of a commission to override that authority. Other responses included
looking at a more regional approaeh to housing by bringing cities' land and resources together in partnerships. Finally,
the membership indicated they would like to have a presentation of the Task Force recommendations made to their city
councils and it was agreed that a letter would be sent to each of the Cities from the Task Force offering to make a
presentation.
In early June, the City managers were given a presentation on the Task Force recommendations and how the County is
responding. Again, there was interest and support for forming partnerships with the County to accomplish more in
housing.
Ultimately, the idea of a commission will have to be resolved by interaction among elected officials building upon
existing relationships. Therefore, we believe it is premature for the Board of Supervisors to adopt an ordinance creating
a Housing Commission. If the Board decides to move forward with the Task Force recommendation, a dialogue with
city elected officials is an important next step. When agreement is reached on creating a commission, the membership
structure and financial support would need to be identified. With additional resources. County staff or staff appointed by
the Commission could provide administrative support.
Policy Advocacy
The Task Force recommended that the County demonstrate leadership on regional. State and Federal advocacy in the
area of housing. The County currently takes positions on and advocates for legislation and other policies that could
affect housing. Generally, those efforts have not been in conjunction with other jurisdictions except, for example, the trip
with the cities and the Manufacturing Group every spring and better coordination could occur. A more comprehensive
approach to housing could be developed through the County's Legislative Priorities process that is conducted in the fall;
however coordination is needed with other jurisdictions in order to effectively address their needs and concerns. Existing
forums through the HCD program. Housing Bond program and Homeless services program that we hope will become
integrated, could be utilized to assist in developing policy, along with coordination with the Housing Action Coalition
and Housing Leadership Council who have played leadership roles in Housing issues. Staff will look for opportunities to
participate in existing housing forums and create new opportunities for cross communication among a number of
housing advocacy forums that exist. A Housing Commission, if established, would be a logical vehicle to develop and
advocate on regional housing policy issues.
Board of Supervisors; Donald F. Gage, Blanca Alvarado, Pete McHugh,Jim Beall, Lis Kniss
County Executive: Richard Wittenberg
4
BOS Agenda Date: June 25.2002
Agenda Hern No.53
Public Source of Local Financing
The Task Force recommended that the County spearhead a countywide effort to identify and secure a source of local
public revenue to assist in developing affordable housing. As a result of the December, 2001 Housing Solutions Summit,
which was sponsored by the Board of Supervisors, City of San Jose, Manufacturing Group and Working Partnerships, a
commitment was made to begin the process of identifying sources of revenue. The first step is to ensure the passage of
the $2.1 billion Statewide bond measure in November. Supervisor Beall is a member of the State Steering Committee
developing the strategy to achieve that end. While there is no estimate at this time of the specific amount of revenue that
would flow to Santa Clara County from the measure, it could be a significant amount. This is a first step toward securing
a new source of revenue for housing and the local effort on this measure will form the basis of further efforts to generate
local housing revenue.
Included in this recommendation was a suggestion for the County to create a countywide sales tax sharing pool to be
used for housing. Existing law allows for this but since cities rely on their sales tax revenue to support their municipal
functions, sharing existing revenues may not be palatable to them. Cities that have redevelopment agencies are required
to direct 20% of their redevelopment revenue to affordable housing and some cities have committed to spending up to
30%. Whether cities are supportive of using additional existing revenues for housing will be a future discussion item.
Another recommendation is to update a revenue nexus study that had been prepared for the Housing Trust of Santa Clara
County. This study was basically a review of the potential and feasibility of a number of sources of public financing
deemed appropriate and accessible for affordable housing. In 1997, the Hausrath Economics Group surveyed existing
housing trust funds to identify commonly used revenue sources. To generate enough revenue to substantially increase
the amount of affordable housing, sales tax and property tax were determined to have the most potential. Updating this
study would require a commitment of around $50,000- $100,000. Logically, this would be an activity associated with a
future countywide effort to develop a local source of revenue for housing and the cost could be shared by the partners in
that effort.
The Task force recommendations also included supporting State legislation to create Housing Opportunity Zones within
municipalities where increases in property taxes are directed to affordable housing. There is currently a measure by
Assemblyman Lowenthal, AB 1284, which would allow local governments to create what are essentially redevelopment
areas. Increases in property taxes resulting from these areas would be diverted to local government as an incentive to
provide for more housing.
Implementation of this kind of legislation would mean the County and other taxing jurisdictions would be foregoing
increases in property taxes in certain "housing opportunity districts". The Board of Supervisors opposed AB 1284
because of the potential County loss of property tax, therefore, would need to be a careful review of the benefits to
legislation of this sort before a recommendation could be made to the Board to support it.
The final recommendation in this area was for the Board of Supervisors to allocate 30 percent of the Redevelopment
Agreement revenues to affordable housing. This issue was considered by the Board on June 10 and as indicated earlier
in this report, staff will develop ideas for the expenditure of the funds.
Publicly owned Surplus Land
The Task Force recommended that the County use surplus land for housing where appropriate and work with other
jurisdictions to develop an inventory of vacant or surplus land for housing. The Deputy County Executive has scheduled
Board of Supervisors: Donald F. Gage, Blanca Alvarado, Pete McHugh,Jim Beall, Liz Kniss
County Executive: Richard Wittenberg
5
BOS Agenda Date: June 25,2002
Agenda Item No.53
a meeting with GSA,the Roads department and the Parks department to discuss developing a policy that could be
recommended to the Board regarding the use of County surplus land for housing. There are requirements in State law
related to the disposal of surplus property and the Board also has a policy regarding achieving fair market value for
property sales or leases. These issues will be examined to determine what options the Board could be presented for
policy revision in this area. Following discussion of a Board policy, other jurisdictions could be encouraged to adopt
policies regarding the use of surplus property.
Currently there is no consistent tracking by cities of surplus or vacant land. However, the County Executive's office is
working with a consultant, formerly with the County's Center for Urban Analysis, to develop an inventory, using the
Assessor's data, of all public vacant land. This effort is to address the Task Force recommendation to work with local,
state and federal Jurisdictions in the county to compile an inventory of public vacant or surplus land that could be used
for housing. Our product will be a gross inventory of public vacant land without regard to its appropriateness for
housing, therefore, after it is completed, we will attempt to identify parcels that are appropriate in size and location for
primarily multi-family housing.
Related to this, the Task Force recommended that the County sponsor legislation requiring local jurisdictions to include
in their Housing Elements a section identifying vacant and surplus land owned by the jurisdiction and intentions for
future use. Staff has had preliminary discussions with the Planning Director and will examine this proposal but there
would probably be resistance to adding more requirements to the Housing Element through legislation.
Another Task Force recommendation related to the creation of an Affordable Housing Land Bank. Land for affordable
housing development would be contributed by private or public sources or purchased by the Land Bank. The Land Bank
could be administered as a public or private entity.
Several models of land banking have been identified by staff and merit further study. In all cases, the primary functions
of the land bank are to acquire land (by donation or purchase), to hold title to the land in perpetuity, and to lease the land
at reduced rates in exchange for the development of affordable housing. Over time, payments from the land leases will
provide for a growing pool of funds for future land acquisition.
The OAH may be able to further study models for land banking to determine whether this should be pursued by the
County or in partnership with the private sector.
In conclusion, the new Office of Affordable Housing will address as many of the Board of Supervisors' housing
priorities as possible. However, the constraints of limited resources and staff may initially limit the County's ability to
provide the regional leadership in all areas envisioned in the Housing Task Force report.
ATTACHMENTS
•(Transmittal submitted on Jun 19, 2002 11:02:40 AM - PDF Version)
• Housing Task Force Recommendations (Miscellaneous)
Board of Supervisors: Donald F. Gage, Blanca Alvarado, Pete McHugh,Jim Beall, Liz Knlss
County Executive: Richard Wittenberg
6
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
SUPPORTIVE HOUSING INITIATIVE
Prepared by the Office of the County Executive
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
1
introduction
4
4
Origin and Charge of the Housing Coordinator
4
Findings of the Housing Coordinator
The Continuum of Care is at Risk
5
Fewer Unrts for Persons with Special Needs
5
The County Must Do More
6
Establishing the Spedal Needs Housing WorkGroup
6
6
Findings of the Work Group
Defining Special Needs Populations
6
Housing Problems of Spedal Needs Populations
7
Limited Information on Housing Needs of Spedal Needs Person in County..
8
Spedal Needs Persons Receiving Services from the County
9
Spedal Needs Persons Receiving Housing Services from the County
10
Current Inventory of Low Income Housing
10
Loss of Affordable Housing
12
Quantifying the Housir^ Needs for Persons
Spedal Needs
Working Group Estimates of Housing Needs of Persons with Spedal Needs
12
14
Recommendatioris
15
Acknowledgments
18
References
19
Appendices
Appendix A-Glossary of Terms
20
Appendix B- Categories of Spedal Needs Person
25
Appendix C- Desired Outcomes
26
Appendix D- Current County Housing Activities
29
Appendix E- List of Tables & Charts
32
SUPPORTIVE HOUSING INITIATIVE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The appropriateness and feasibility of County government taking an aggressive rote providing
housing opportunities for county residents has become a topic of debate in the face of the
housing cnsis that currently gnps Santa Clara County. The County has responded by
supporting a number of countywide solutbns to address the crisis including: establishing the
Housing Trust of Santa Clara County, effectively utilizing the Housing Bond Tnrst program,
expanding the MCC program and co-sponsoring the Housing Summit with the Silicon Valley
Manufactun'ng Group in November 1999, among others.
To follow up on ideas emanating from the Housing Summit, the Board of Supervisors committed
to hiring a housing consultant(Housing Coordinator) to determine how the County could expand
or improve on its current efforts. The consultant was hired in July 2000, given the title Housing
Coordinator, and has worked under the direction of the County Execut'rve’s Office. This report
marks an interim point in the work conducted by the Housing Coordinator.
Santa Clara County is in the midst of a sevens, protracted housing crisis of unprecedented
proportions. Nearly all of us are affected by the housing shortage and consequent high cost of
housing, but those particularly vulnerable are the low and extremely low income spedal needs
populations, many of whom are served by County agencies; The crisis in spedalneeds housing
stems from the fact there has never been enough because it is politically difficult to site and too
costly to build without significant subsidy, and state and federal assistance has been drastically
scaled back. The booming economy has exacerbated the crisis by driving rents beyond the
means of those on fixed incomes and has made it lucrative for owners to convert units to market
rents or sell them. As a result the countywide inventory of low cost housing affordable to those
on lim'rted or fixed incomes is diminishing rapidly.
It is the central premise of this report that housing and housing related services are a vital
component if not the most vital component, in the matrix of sodal services provided by the
County to those with special needs. Tradittonally the County’s ability to effectively deliver social
services in a cost efficient way has been directly tied to the availability of low cost housing.
Today, that availability is in serious jeopardy and has given rise to the dilemma of escalating
impoverishment and homelessness of special needs persons and rising costs of providing
necessary social services.
Given its current structure and policies, the County is unable to mitigate the housing crisis of
special needs persons in a significant way. Worse still, the housing crisis is growing as the
inventory of low cost units dwindles and the numbers of those to serve grows
Without
immediate and long-term aggressive intervention, what is now a crisis in special needs housing
will quickly become a catastrophe.
1
This report recommends the County create a
Housing Services” unit, a nexus of
responsibilities and functions within County government designed to coordinate, support and
enhance the numerous housing and housing related services* currently provided by the County
for its special needs clients. The unit could also be responsible for implementation of a Board
adopted Housing Action Plan to be developed over the next several months.
This report urges the County to become a collabor^or with local jurisdictions, developers and
service providers by providing resources and political leverage to create housing opportunities
for extremely low income, special needs populations. This report is a call for the County to take
a visible, proactive role in the community, supporting and advocating for the development of all
low-income housing.
We call this program,“The Supportive Housing Initiative.” The number of units built and the
numbers of individuals and families housed will be the determiner of its success.
Major
recommendations are listed below with specific strategies enumerated in the Recommendations
portion of this report.
Recommendation #1 - Create a County Housing Unit in the County Executive’s Office
The County should create within County government a Housing to coordinate and
support existing housing service efforts, acquire new resources, gather and manage
housing data and insure that all departments are working together and using resources
efficiently.
Recommendation #2 - Increase Low Income Housing Production
The County must become a collaborator with local jurisdictions, nonproftt developers and
service providers to set goals, plan for and help facilitate tiie development of very low
and extremely low income housing with supportive services. The Housing Unit will work
with GSA and other departments to make County surplus property available for the
development of special needs housing.
Recommendation #3- Increase Investment in Low Income Housing
The County must work with local partners and aggressively pursue new state and
federal funding. In addition, the County mustfind new and dedicate additional ewsting
revenue sources to the development of very low and extremely low-’mcome housing
including housing with supportive services.
Recommendation #4 — Encourage Best Practices in Special Needs Housing Management
To insure County agencies and clients are getting tiie best housing services possible,
the County should explore different community based special needs housing models to
find innovative designs that would be effective in Santa Clara County. For example, are
there ways or incentives to make the common, single-family home board and care model
more financially feasible? Are there other models that are more desirable for crertain
special needs clients?
Recommendation #5- Become a Visible Proactive Advocate for Special Needs Housing
The County is the largest service provider for special needs persons and must take a
leadership role on their behalf. The Housing unit will be instrumental in supporting and
advocating for the development of very low and extremely low-income housing
* Appendix D
2
opportunities in all cities in the county, as well as advocating for additional state and
federal funds.
Recommendation #6 -Establish a Regional Forum to Address the Countywide Affordable
Housing Crisis including Special Needs Housing Issues
The County can facilitate the creation of a countywide dialogue and informational data
on the affordable housing crisis. It can do this through existing forums or developing and
managing a countywide housing consortium of city officials and housing leaders,
designed to come up with countywide consensus on housing issues.
CONCLUSION
Our conclusion is simple. There are more individuals and families with special needs than there
is available housing that is reasonably affordable to them. Despite a slowing economy, there is
little evidence to suggest that the housing crisis for special needs populations is lessening, or
will lessen in the foreseeable future, indeed, all indications are that it will continue to worsen,
threatening mote households now living on the ed^ of the housing crisis. As the problems
grow, so will the impact on the County. Therefore, it is in the County’s best interest, as well as
the special needs persons it senres and the broader community as a whole, for the County to
take aggressive action now.
This report provides the Board of Supervisors with the foundation to take steps necessary to
meet the challenges of the housing crisis for persons with special needs. While the level of
resources and policy diange required to solve the affordable housing crisis is daunting, this
report offers attainable short-term goals and lays the groundwork for a coordirrated local and
regional effort for long-term solutions. We believe the most effective way to engage local,
regional and national partners over the lotig term is for the County to demonstrate its
commitment to solving the housing crisis by making substantial and immediate investments in
the financing, production and preservation of affordable housing for special needs persons in
Santa Clara County.
3
INTRODUCTION
ORIGIN AND CHARGE OF THE HOUSING COORDINATOR
In November 1999, the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors co-sponsored the Silicon
Valley Housing Summit with the Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group. More than 500 housing
leaders from around the county worked to identify critical housing issues and brainstormed
possible solutions.
A report organizing the input and outlining recommendations from
participants was fonwarded to the administration for review.
In April 2000, staff analysis concluded that the County could have several opportunities to make
a significant and lasting impact on mitigating the housing crisis, particularly addressing ^e
housing needs of the special needs populations. Administration concluded that a housing
consultant should be hired to conduct a study of the major recommendations.
In June 2000 the Board approved hiring a housing consultant on a pilot project basis to review
the areas suggested by staff and recommend ways for the County to more aggressively marshal
its resources and better coordinate its current housing efforts. The housing consultant was
given the title "Housing Coordinator" and works under the supervision of Housing Bond
Coordinator Naphtali Knox and Deputy County Executive Jane Decker.
On July 3, 2000, Housing Consultant Ray Villarreal was hired as the County Housing
Coordinator to implement the County's work plan. The one-year pilot project was to focus on a
number of areas as follows:
> Examine the County's current housing efforts and look for ways to be more effective;
> Identify possible County investment opportunities related to housing;
> Seek out opportunities for regional pubiic/private/interjurisdictional coordination;
> Explore the feasibility of a public education campaign on affordable housing with other
jurisdictions and the private sector;
> Prepare a Housing Action Plan document for County programs to recommend increases to
existing programs or to add to the current array of County housing programs.
The County Housing Coordinator began by reviewing relevant housing materials and
interviewing Board staff, key department staff and individuals familiar with the Summit Report.
Next, key personnel within County departments who deal with housing issues on a daily basis
were
interviewed. More than 40 individuals were interviewed with a questionnaire designed to
solicit open-ended responses of their opinion of the effectiveness and problems of current
County programs, as well as recommendations for improvement. Interviews were then
extended to service providers, shelter operators and nonprofit developers, soliciting input on
ways the County could be more effective. Upon completion of this phase of the project, a report
of the County Housing Coordinator findings was submitted to the Deputy County Executive.
FINDINGS OF THE HOUSING COORDINATOR
Since the early 1990's. Santa Clara County has experienced an uninterrupted economic boom
that has fueled a staggering demand for all types of housing. The commensurate shortage of
housing supply has pushed purchase and rental prices to unprecedented levels, making
housing costs in Santa Clara County among the highest in the United States.
4
THE CONTINUUM OF CARE IS AT RISK
The impact the housing crisis is having on all low-income residents is devastating, as rents have
jumped 60% in the past five years in Santa Clara County’. Those most vulnerable to such
dramatic increases are the special needs persons in the county, living primarily on fixed
They are losing access to low and very low-income housing because it is being
priced beyond their means or it is being converted from rental housing to ownership housing.
Fierce competition rages over what little affordable housing is available between the working
incomes,
poor and special needs individuals and families on limited and fixed incomes.
County agencies are bearing a significant and increasing burden because there are never
enough beds or units to meet the need. Front line managers and case workers are spending
more of their days trying to find housing for clients. Housing that is available is more costly both
to the County and the clients, meaning more service dollars and client dollars are being used for
housing rather than on services. The Continuum of Care strategy of the County for serving
special needs populations is in danger of collapsing as more dollars are spent on fewer units
and consequently less service.
FEWER UNITS FOR PERSONS WITH SPECIAL NEEDS
Through partial or total rental payments, the County has traditionally relied on private property
owners to house many of its special needs clients in single-family homes and apartments while
they are being cared for, rehabilitated or trained. However, the dramatic rise in home sale
prices has caused many property owners to sell their property or rentals on the open market, or
raise their rents, thus pricing County reimbursements or Section 8 subsidies almost out of the
market entirely. County service agencies report that their sources of vital low cost housing are
rapidly diminishing.
Transitional housing facilities and shelters are squeezed from both sides. As the number of
units decrease, more people seek help. Those already in low cost transitional environments are
unable to move to a permanent environment once their treatment, rehabilitation or training is
complete because the cost of market rate housing is so much greater. Social workers are loath
to put these individuals and families back on the streets because they are likely to return to their
previous environments and end up back at the County’s front door in 6 months. As a result,
low-income individuals and their families are staying longer in transitional homes (again,
diminishing their availability).
County housing staff reported that for specials needs person in need of court ordered or
intensive supportive care, the lack of housing is keeping them and their families further
upstream in the Continuum of Care. For example, it was reported that:
> Over 200 clients with less than serious mental health disabilities are remaining “housed” in
medical institutions at approximately $800 per day - until suitable, less costly {@$50 per
day)supportive housing becomes available in the county;
> Individuals who have been court ordered to undergo rehabilitation are remaining “housed”
in jail for 90 to 120 days until less costly, supportive housing becomes available;
> Children, whose parents have completed their rehabilitation or treatment, are spending
longer in foster care separated from their families until housing is found by their parent(s);
> Clients in the CalWorks program have been unable to find housing that will accept their
Section 8 vouchers and as a result hundreds of vouchers remain unused.
These are just a few of the examples reported by housing staff from every department
interviewed. From the foregoing, we can conclude that County housing costs for special needs
Silicon Valley Prqcctions 2000, p.8
5
clients are increasing dramatically and will continue as the supply of low-income housing
throughout the county decreases.
THE COUNTY MUST DO MORE
In response to the growing housing crisis for their clients and contract agencies, County
agencies have essentially added “housing placement services” to the list of services provided
adding housing staff to help ttieir clients find suitable housing and to pursue additional
resources. The Mental Health Department has its own Housing Coordinator, as does the Drug
& Alcohol Department. Some specific programs run by the Social Services Agency have
housing search teams and the agency is proposing to create a central housing unit within the
agency.
All County housing staff interviewed for this report said they work independently of
each other with little coordinaUon or sharing of information and resources between departments.
They also report they are increasingly overwhelmed by the enormous need for more housing.
All staff interviewed want the County “to do something” to address the housing crisis. As one
said, “it has been politically correct to focus only on the “grass tops* of the housing problem
(Silicon Valley high tech workers) but not at all on the “grass roots" (low income individuals).
Some said that all they can do at this point is fight to maintain existing units. However, they
admit the County offers little in the way of incentives for property owners to stay in the system.
One staff person remarked, “at this rate. County subsidized housing (board and care, foster
care, etc.) will be nonexistent in five years.”
It is clear that existing efforts are inadequate. If the County is to maintain its "Continuum of
Care" strategy for serving its special needs population, then housing strategies must be devised
for developing and maintaining access to very low inceme housing. This strategy should be
coordinated through county housing agencies and assist nonprofit housing developers and
providers by creating a hub of activities, resources and specialization that they can utilize to
pursue housing opportunities.
ESTABLISHING THE SPECIAL NEEDS HOUSING WORKING GROUP
Towards developing a housing action plan, the administration decided to convene an “Internal
Working Group* made up of key. front line housing staff from County agencies. Its purpose
would be to further develop the above proposed project and establish a clear set of action
oriented recommendations designed to produce more housing opportunities for special needs
persons and to make current County housing efforts more effident. It was called the Spedal
Needs Housing Advisory Working Group. (Please refer to the Acknowledgements for those
individuals who participated.)
On October 17, 2000, Susan Silveira, an organizational (x>nsultant with an extensive
background in affordable and special needs housing, was brought on board to fadlitate these
sessions with tfie Working Group. The group met 6 times between November 9, 2000 and
January 17, 2001.
FINDINGS OF THE WORKING GROUP
DEFINING SPECIAL NEEDS POPULATIONS
The first task of the Working Group was to clearly define the special needs populations in need
of housing assistance and how large a population they are in the County. It was agreed that
while the affordable housing crisis severely impacts all low-income households, the group’s
primary focus was on addressing the housing needs of the very low and extremely low-income
special needs populations in need of County assistance.
6
The Working Group developed a list of the categories of persons with special needs that County
agencies and departments currently serve. Included on the list were those with physical and
mental disabilities, abuse victims, substance abusers, at-risk youth, veterans and more (see
Appendix 1 for list). Generally, special needs individuals and families are defined as households
where a person(s) has a physical, mental or emotional disability, or special circumstance (i.e.,
age, abuse victim, etc.) that causes such a severe economic hardship of uncertain duration that
it compromises their ability to live independently.
It was the consensus of the Working Group that specials needs clients readily meet the federal
definition of low-income household with the vast majority of their clients meeting the definition of
very low or extremely low-income household, It was also agreed that those special needs
persons living solely on Social Security Income (SSI) are by definition extremely low-income
households living at or below the federal poverty level (See Glossary of Terms for complete
definition)*. Currently, the maximum allowable SSI benefit is set at $692 per month, or $8304
per year and for most, especially those with severe disabilities, it is their sole source of income .
According to 1999 estimates there are approximately 149,915 adults and 220,754 children living
below the federal poverty level in Santa Clara County^ While it is almost impossible to extract
precisely how many of those individuals are persons with special needs as defined above, we
can infer from other data sources that a good many of them are. For example, according to the
most recent data on SSI recipients in Santa Clara County, there were 40,863 persons receiving
SSI in 1996.“* Table 1 below illustrates the housing difficulties low-income households have by
depicting the median incomes earned by typical household sizes in Santa Clara County in 2000.
AREA MEDIAN INCOME -SANTA CLARA COUNTY 2000=’
TABLE 1
Number of Persons in Family
1
2
3
4
6
6
Extremely Low(30%)
$18,250
$20,900
$23,500
$26,100
$28,200
$30,300
Very Low(50%)
$30,450
$34,800
$39,150
$43,500
$47,000
$50,450
Low(80%)
$48,700
$55,700
$62,650
$69,600
$75,150
$80,750
Median(100%)
$60,900
$69,600
$78,300
$87,000
$93,950
$100,900
Mcxlerate 120%)
$73,100
$83,500
$93,950
$104,400
$112,750
$121,100
Income Category
as % of Median Income
HOUSING PROBLEMS OF SPECIAL NEEDS POPULATIONS
Given the above, it is clear why households earning below 50% of the median income in Santa
Clara County have a difficult time finding any housing they can afford in Santa Clara County.
The 2000 Fair Market Rent(FMR)in Santa Clara County for a two bedroom apartment is $1221
a month, a level that is only affordable to households earning at least $23,480 an hour, or
$48,840 per yeai^.
* Defined as household incOTie below the official national poverty cutofffor a household size. Generally, the cutoff
for a family offour approximates 33 percent ofthe HUD adjusted area median family incesne.
^ Santa Qara County Coasdidated Plan, May 2000,p2-36
^ US Census Bureau, Santa Qara County Planning IJqrartmcnt - “QmckFacts”
* SSI Redpierts by State and County, The Office ofPolicy, Sodal Seoffity Administratioo,December 1999
* IrUD Median Income Table provided by Nafrfitali Knox,SCC Housing Bend Coordinator
* Locked rXit! California’s Affordable IkxJsing Oists, May 2000, Piiilished by the California Budget Prcgect,P-1'1
7
Those (extremely low and very low-income) households that are able to find housing are paying
a disproportionate share of their income on housing. According to the National Low-Income
Housing Coalition only 44% of all renters in Santa Clara County were able to afford the 1999
Fair Market Rent without incurring housing costs over 30%. According to the American Housing
Survey 41%(or 90,600 individuals) of all renters in San Jose are paying over 30% of their
income on housing costs and over 20% (43,800 individuals) are paying over 50% of their
income on housing costs^. However, it is far worse for SSI recipients in this County.
Members of the Working Group continually pointed out that these were the special needs clients
they were the most familiar with and for whom finding affordable, or supportive housing was
nearly impossible. Their comments and anecdotal information are supported by a recent study
published in March 1999, titled Priced Out in 1998,® by the Consortium for Citizens with
Disabilities Housing Task Force, a national advocacy organization for persons with disabilities.
The major findings of Priced Out in 1998 document that persons with disabilities receiving SSI
not only live in extreme poverty and receive an income far below the minimum wage, they are
also unable to afford decent, safe housing in any of the 50 states. For example in California:
> Comparing like households - SSI income is roughly 21% of the state’s median income;
> The value of average SSI monthly income expressed as an houily rate is $3.09 an hour;
> Persons on SSI must pay approximately 85% of their income on the cost for the average
efficiency apartment in California;
> Persons on SSI must pay approximately 101% of their income on the cost for the average
one bedroom apartment in California.
Priced Out in 1998 concludes that people on SSI have difficult choices to make when looking for
rental housing. At best they must either take on a severe rent burden, or accept overcrowded
and substandard housing. Without significant housing assistance, persons with disabilities and
living on SSI have little hope of finding decent, affordable housing in the community. There are
other major barriers like stigma and housing discrimination, which exacerbate the problem.
However, even the elimination of these barriers would not address the fact that the rnajority of
persons with special needs living in Santa Clara County simply do not have enough income to
afford decent, safe housing.
LIMITED INFORMATION ON HOUSING NEEDS OF SPECIAL NEEDS PERSONS
Towards developing meaningful recommendations, the Working Group attempted to quantify
the need for low-income housing in the county for special needs persons. While evidence that
the county is facing a housing crisis is abundant, the task of estimating the precise housing
need for different types of special needs persons within the County proved to be difficult. The
absence of comprehensive countywide information on the housing crisis frustrated our efforts.
One of the findings of this report is that there is a critical need for definitive reports and data
that fully analyze and describe the countywide housing needs of persons with special
needs. The Census provides limited data on persons with special needs but does not provide
information on their housing problems. The Santa Clara County Consolidated Plan provides
information on the housing needs of special needs populations but focuses mostly on those who
reside in the Urban County (See Glossary of Terms). The remaining cities, those not in the
“urban county,” prepare their own consolidated plans, which includes information on special
needs housing, but only for their own city. The Santa Clara County Housing Collaborative
sources
^ American Housing Survey, A Joint publication ofthe Census Btreau, US Bepartmenl ofCommerce and HUD
* Priced Out in 1998, published by llie Technical Assistance Ccrflabor^ivc Inc., Consortium for Qtizens with DisaKIities
Housing Task Force, March 1999.
$
produces an annual report relative to the homeless housing needs throughout the county that is
comprehensive and useful, but does not specifically address special needs housing issues.
Despite the lack of special needs housing reports or studies specific to Santa Clara County as a
whole, the Working Group was able to develop information from a variety of local organizations
(who work directly with special needs persons). They also collected data and conducted
interviews within their own respective agencies. From this study the group was able to make a
number of reasonable estimates of current need and projections of future need.
Admittedly however, this information is incomplete, as there is no organized or centralized
means of gathering this type of information. There is certain to be some errors because some
clients are served by more than one agency and there are likely undercounts as well. A detailed
and comprehensive needs assessment of the whole Continuum of Care for special needs
populations in Santa Clara County is needed, but tr is beyond the scope of this report.
Nevertheless, it is recognized by the Working Group to be vital information that must be
developed for future planning efforts.
SPECIAL NEEDS PERSONS RECEIVING SERVICES FROM THE COUNTY
The Working Group collected data from their respective agencies on the number and type of
special needs persons and families currently being served by the County. The table below
represents their best estimates of the numbers of clients the County currently serves.
Special Needs Persoirs Receiving Services from the County
Table 2
FAMILY & CHILDREN'S SERVICES (cent)
SOCIAL SERVICES AGENCY
Foster Care
Public Assistance
CalWorksA'ANF/Receiving Aid
Clients Recaving MediCal
Clients Receiving Food Stamps
Aged Out Youth (18-25)
10,800
53,000
3,800
Domestic Violence
Wcxnen
Wanen w/ Children
Substance Abusers
DEPT. OF AGING & ADULT SERVICES
Public Guardian's Office
Elderly(60+)
Rnandal Abuse
160
Medically Fragle
200
100
50
20
Abused
Neglected
Head Irijured
Undocumented
Conservatorship
Mentally III
Bderly
Children w/HiV
Lower Income Households
Recovery Clients
27
61
Department of Alcohol and Drugs
Substance Abusers
20
Adult Managed Care
Bay Area Services Network
Children, Addescents & Families
Deferred Ertry of Judgment
800
600
675
Mental Health
225
Persons with Mental Disabilities
54
5
Families & Children
5761
60
State Hospital
9
320
4500
8873
Out of County Locked Fadlrties
8
7379
570
Adults(18-59)
Older Adults(59+)
Intensive Psychiatric Jail Services
Transitional Aged Youth (18-25)
480
Youth
Runaways
62
Children w/ Medcal Needs
Family Self Sufficiency/
Family Unification Program
Women
HOSPITAL & HEALTH SYSTEM
FAMILY & CHILDREN'S SERVICES
Persons w/ Developmental Disabilities
18
26
Mental Health
Adult Protective Services
Bderly(65+)- up to per month
Deperident Adults - up to per month
2764
119
1165
5334
16
100
SPECIAL NEEDS PERSONS RECEIVING HOUSING SERVICES FROM THE COUNTY
Members of the Working Group collected the information below, based on informal polling of
their respective agencies to present what is known about housing assistance the County
oirrently provides. Short of surveying every caseworker and analyzing individual cases, Table
3 reflects best estimates, which in some cases are yearly or monthly averages. Working Group
members reported that agencies that contract with the County for the provision of housing to
County clients’ report that all contracted facilities are full to capacity on a daily basis.
It should be noted that the Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara is not included in the
table below because they are not a County government agency. However, the Housing
Authority does provide permanent housing assistance for a substantial number of the County’s
special needs clients. The numbers of individuals and families receiving Housing Auttrority
assistance through Section 8 and other programs appear later in this report.
CLIENTS RECEIVING HOUSING/HOUSING ASSISTANCE FROM COUNTY AGENCIES
TABLES
Permanent
Emergency Transitional
Shelter
Housing
Supportive
Permanent
Housing
Housing
488
41
Mental Health
160
238
Men
10
87
Women
5
Mentally Disabled
^cohol & Drug*
51
102
Families w/Children
50
Shelter Rus Care
Family & Children’s Services
Persons w/ Devdopment^ Disabilities
50
4
5
Children w/HIV
Lower Income Households
187
<50% cf median (Family Unification Program)
Youth
Aged Out(18-25)
Runaways
Foster Care
17
102
727
1589
36
11
7
4
5
17
6
8
312
Domestic Violence
Women
Womai ^Children
Substarsce Abusers
Wonwi
62
Recovery aients
10
11
1303
2627
Mental Health
Children w/ Medical Needs
Totals
40
21
620
107
CURRENT INVENTORY OF LOW-SNGOME HOUSING
With the above statistics as a backdrop, the Working Group next turned to what information is
available regarding the current inventory of low-income and extremely low-income housing.
Again, it must be stated that a true ojuntywide perspective is conspicuously absent.
* Data ftr Alcdhiol & iOugs reflects actual daily capacity. Lengh ofstay for men and wmen is 3 months. Length
ofstay ftr wcmen with chikt-en is 3 to 9 mcntiis.
10
A recent survey conducted by First Community Housing revealed that there are 223 affordable
housing complexes in Santa Clara County providing 22,084 units of affordable housing in Santa
Clara County.* These units provide housing for individuals and families with incomes primarily
between 50-120% of tiie County’s median income. When compared to the previous reference
that showed over 149,000 adults and 220,000 children in Santa Clara County living below the
federal poverty level, so-called “affordable housing” is hardly housing the truly poor. It certainly
is not housing the 40,000 living on SSI and presumably with special needs. Even most of those
on Section 8 are left out because at least 75% of those receiving Section 8 assistance require
housing affordable to those earning less than 30% of the county median income.*
It was reported that the Housing Authority of Santa Clara County serves 11,149 clients through
its Section 8 assistance program. Of those, approximately 2,010 receive their Section 8
assistance through participation in a County service program. Approximately 3,690 annually
receive other public assistance in the form of MediCal, Food Stamps or the CalWorks program
from the Social Services Agency of Santa Clara County.
It was clear from discussions with the Working Group that County agencies and the Housing
Authority have forged a strong, effective working partnership serving special needs populations.
It was the consensus of the group that the County should strengthen the partnership between
the County and the Housing Authority even furtiier. The following table illustrates the numbers
of low income and County clients currently served through Section 8 assistance, as well as
Public Housing and housing created through the state tax credit program.
HOUSING ASSISTANCE PROVIDED BY THE HOUSING AUTHORITY
TABLE4
Program
Section 8 Programs:
Type of Housing/Clients
Served
810*
Welfare to Work
Families(100% TANF)
Shelter Rus Care
Haneless/Dually-Piagnosed
120
Mainstream
Persons with Osabilit'es
163
After Care
Persons w/Developmental Disabilities
Open Child Welfare Cases
136
Family Unification Prognan
Others
Low-Income Individuals/Families
Lowlncome Housing Tax Credit Ftogram
9845
11,149
Total
Other Housing Programs
Family Setf-Suffidency
Public Housing
75
Units
Low-Income Fanilies
450
Lowlncome Individuals/FarrMlies
660
Lowlncome Individuals/Farrwlies
1,242
2,262
Total
13,401
Total Combined
Another source the Working Group turned to for information on the inventory of special needs
housing was The Santa Clara County Collaborative on Affordable Housing and Homeless
issues. Each year the Collaborative prepares a yearly Continuum of Care Gaps Analysis as
part of the McKinney Homeless Fund application. The analysis is a compilation of the eight
• This number docs na include board and care and ottier types ofassisted ht)iising that are not apartment complexes.
* Santa Qara County Housing Authority
Prcgected to increase to 1066 by June 2001.
11
Consolidated Plans of the county, field research, and other sources. It is perhaps the best
current inventory of homeless housing available. While its focus is primarily on homelessness
services and issues, it was assumed that there is considerable overlap between the issues and
needs of the homeless and special needs populations served by the County.
SANTA CLARA COUNTY COLLABORATIVE - GAPS ANALYSIS
CURRENT INVENTORY OF THOSE HOUSED
TABLES
TOTAL
Individuals
Families
827
492
1319
837
1332
2169
Emergency Shefter
Transitional Housing
Permanent Supportive Housing
442
675
1117
TOTAL
2106
2499
4606
LOSS OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Unfortunately, the County also continues to lose affordable housing.
> According to the Santa Clara County Consolidated Plan, over the past five years there has
been a loss of 944 mobile home units in the Urban County (where most are located).
> According to one member of the Working Group, the number of County licensed Foster Care
facilities has decreased from approximately 800 in 1991 to 378 in 1999.
> Further, over 130 Board & Care units under contract with the Mental Health Department wiU
be lost within the next year due to redevelopment plans in downtown San Jose.
> According to the California Housing Partnership Corporation® Santa Clara County has lost
1,794 Section 8 low-income units over the past decade.
> The Consolidated Plan identifies 7,726 units of subsidized low-income housing units as
being at risk of being converted to market rate housing.^® The Consolidated Plan identifies
the individuals and families living in the these 7,726 units as having special housing needs.
QUANTIFYING THE HOUSING NEEDS FOR PERSON WITH SPECIAL NEEDS
The Collaborative must also report information on the unmet housing need for the homeless in
Santa Clara County for their McKinney Homeless funding application. Table 5 below depicts a
modest need for additional beds and units for homeless individuals and families
SANTA CLARA COUNTY COLLABORATIVE - GAPS ANALYSIS
UNMET HOMELESS HOUSING NEEDS, 2000
TABLES
Total
Individuals
Families w/Chiklren
Emergency Shelter
200
181
381
Tran^onal
275
309
584
Permanent Supportive Housing
300
868
1168
TOTAL
776
1368
2133
Another source that projects low and very low income housing need in Santa Clara County is
the Association of Bay Governments (ABAG). ABAG projections are based on a
comprehensive formula using income levels and jobs among other things to determine a
county’s housing need. Their projections show a modest need of low and very low income
® California Housing Partnership Corporaticn, April 2000
10
Santa Clara County C<'3isolidated Plan, March 2000, p. 2-50
12
housing especially when compared to the numbers of those in need in Santa Clara County.
They are significant numbers nonetheless, because of the controversy building “low income”
housing raises in established neighbortioods and the difficulty of building such housing without
substantial subsidy.
ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS HOUSING NEEDS PROJECTIONS
TABLE?
Santa Clara County
Very Low
11,424
Low
Moderate
Above Moderate
Total
5,173
15,659
25,735
57,991
The most telling statistic presented regarding the level of need for low cost housing in
Santa Clara County is the Section 8 waiting list. As of November 2000, there were 26,331
persons on the Housing Authority's Section 8 waiting list for Santa Clara County. Of these,
3,849 are elderly, 4,741 are disabled and 4,168 identify themselves as homeless. There
are 6,000 persons on the public housing waiting list. The combined need represented by
both lists exceeds 32,000.
When the combined totals of those already receiving Section 8 assistance and public
housing are added to those on the waiting lists, it equals approximately 45,000 - quite
close to the number (40,863) of those estimated to be living on SSI in Santa Clara County.
While it is beyond the scope of this report to make a direct connection between the two, it
does not take a leap of faith to see the considerable overlap between those living on SSI
and defined as special needs individuals and those seeking housing assistance from the
Housing Authority.
This inference is supported by additional information. Table 8 below shows that low income
renters (defined as earning less than $15,000 a year-presumably SSI recipients) outnumber the
current inventory of low income rental units (defined as renting for under $400 per month presumably affordable to only SSI redpients) by almost 20,000. Note, however, this data
applies only to San Jose. If the analysis were applied countywide, the shortage of low cost
units, as defined here, would in all likelihood rise.
11
LOW INCOME RENTERS'*'OUTNUMBER AFFORDABLE UNITS IN CALIFORNIA
TABLES
Low Cost Units
34,400
1,287,400
15,100
603,400
19,300
684,000
Number of Low
San Jose
California
Shortage of
Income Renters
Number of Low
Income Rental Units
Ratio of Low Income
Renters to Low Cost Units
2.3 to 1
2.1 to 1
-■ —;
WORKING GROUP ESTIMATES OF HOUSING NEEDS
To estimate how much very low-income and extremely low-income housing is needed by
special needs persons served by Santa Clara County Agencies; Working Group members
provided their best “educated guess" estimates. Again, short of polling all their caseworkers
and clients, the actual need is not easily accessible information. In some cases numbers are
based on waiting lists. In other cases, estimates weren’t appropriate. As stated earlier, there is
Ixw Income renters are defined as those with hcxisehold incomes under $ 15,000 per year. Ixjw cost rental units
are those that rent for under $400 a month.
I
US Department of Commerce, Census Bureau and US. l>epartment of Housing & Urban Develcpment, American
Housing Survey 1999
13
no organized procedure or system in place to gather and maintain data that evaluates clients
housing needs. Estimates and best guesses are all that can be relied upon currently.
One of the recommendations of the report is for the County to develop a system of evaluating
and tracking all clients housing needs and matching them (if needed) with available housing
opportunities in the county. A major advantage of developing such a system is the
development of comprehensive, countywide data on the housing needs of special needs
populations being served by the County. Such information would be useful for departmental
planning purposes, as well as for nonprofit developers and service providers competing for state
and federal funding for low-income housing projects and services
Table 7 below presents the best available information. The Housing Authority’s Section 8
waiting list numbers are included because it is assumed that many of these persons are
currently receiving services from the County. Moreover, the Section 8 waiting list numbers are
broken out into special needs categories as defined by the Working Group and illustrate the
housing need of those special needs clients. The Collaborative’s Continuum of Care Gaps
Analysis numbers are not included as it is assumed that those numbers are duplicative. Lastly,
it should be kept in mind that these numbers are in a state of flux depending on a host of
factors, including the state of the economy, new housing developments and the loss of
additional affordable units among others.
HOUSING NEEDS OF SPECIAL NEEDS CLIENTS SERVED BY COUNTY AGENCIES
TABLES
Permanent
Emergency
Transitional
Supportive
Permanent Housing
Shelter
Housing
Housing
(Section 8)
4741
Persons w/ Disabilrties
Head Injured
Bdef1y(60+)
20
50 Skilled Care
300 Board & Care
30*
13,573
Lowerlnccme Households
85
<30% of median itxxxne
1366(CalWorte)
4168
Homeless
52
Substance Abuser^
21
130 Board & Care
Mental He^th
Totals
3849
30
52
40IMD Beds
6261
22,966
The above numbers represent what at best can be considered as ranges of needs. We cannot
be sure how many of those on the Section 8 waiting list who described themselves as disabled
or homeless will need supportive care and services provided along with their housing
• It was rcpoled that the typical emergency shelter model is not suitable fw the special naxls ofelderly individuals
and that an emergaicy shelter fcr elderly mly was needed.
* These figures arc “snapshot” data taken from waiting lists over a 5 m-rking day period.
14
assistance. Neither are we sure of the precise number of elderly on the Section 8 waiting list
who won’t need supportive care.
What we are sure of is:
> There are approximately 40,000 individuals living on SSI at or below the federal poverty
level in Santa Clara County who are presumed to have special needs due to some disability;
> While 13,000 currently receive housing assistance, approximately 32,000 are on waiting lists
and it is assumed the majority are County clients and below the poverty level;
> Of those on the waiting list, approximately 5,200 to as many as 13,000 are identified or
presumed to have special needs and in need of some degree of supportive services;
> Of the 13,000 receiving housing assistance, 7,762 are identified as special needs persons
and at risk of having their subsidized housing being converted to market rate housing;
> At least another 130 Board & Care units contracted to the Mental Health Department are at
immediate risk of being lost.
> All agencies who contract with the County to provide housing for special needs clients report
their facilities are full on a daily basis;
> All Working Group members report that all sources of housing utilized by their departments
are full to capacity on a daily basis and that the supply available to them is diminishing,
it is the unavoidable finding of this report that there is a minimum need today of over 5,200 units
of very low and extremely low-income housing with supportive services at this time in Santa
Clara County. Moreover, the need could easily climb to well over 10,000 units overnight due to
any number of economic factors beyond anyone’s control. Across the board, all housing types
and housing services are needed to alleviate the growing impoverishment of the special needs
populations in Santa Clara County.
There is much work that needs to be done. This report urges the Board of Supervisors to take
the necessary steps to preserve, build, acquire or contract for more housing affordable to the
very tow and extremely lownncome special needs populations of the County.
RECOMMENDATIONS
To support the development of housing affordable to special needs populations within Santa
Clara County, the Working Group has developed major recommendations and a wide range of
working strategies. The recommendations are based on clear principles that create a firm
foundation for the development of affordable housing policy and programs within the County.
The Working Group believes these recommendations can also serve as a model for other
jurisdictions, and perhaps more importantly, a challenge — for jurisdictions and agencies to
work together to solve the affordable housing crisis as one community. Here are the major
recommendations:
Recommendation #1 - Create a County Housing Unit in the County Executive’s Office
The County should create within County government a Housing to coordinate and support
existing housing service efforts, acquire new resources, gather and manage housing data and
insure that all departments are working together and using resources efficiently. Specific
strategies the County can pursue:
15
a) Assist with the development of a standardized intake system among County agencies to
better detemiine the housing needs of County clients and lead to more effective housing
placement;
b) Serve as internal facilitator for County housing staff dealing with special needs clients,
convening regular meetings to gauge progress, identify emerging issues and funds, and
coordinate efforts,
c) Assist in the development and maintenance of the countywide database currently being
developed by Community Tedinology Alliance and Housing for Independent People;
d) Provide agencies access to listings of affordable units to assist in placement of clients.
Recommer^datlon #2 - Increase Low Income Housing Production
The County must become a collaborator with local jurisdictions, nonprofit developers and
service providers to plan for and help facilitate the development of very low and extremely low
income housing with supportive services,
The Working Group supports Supervisor Beall’s
recent call for a Housing Action Plan in his state of the County Address. Among the strategies
to build more affordable housing, we support the following:
a) Explore the feasibility of establishing a revolving loan fund that nonprofit developers
could utilize to secure land wrfiiie additional financing is pursued;
b) Identify county properties that can be developed for low-income housing, including
exploration of mixed-use opportunities;
c) Establish an official liaison witfi the Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara and
the Housing Trust of Santa Clara County to ensure those County priorities and needs
are considered in development/project opportunities.
Recommendation #3-Increase Investment in Low Income Housing
The County must work with local partners and aggressively pursue new state and federal
funding. In addition, the County must find new sources of funding as well as commit additional
existing revenue to the development of very low and extremely tow-income housing including
housing with supportive services. Specific strategies the County can pursue:
a) Research, evaluate, and pursue potential revenue sources available from state and
federal housing programs that could be used for the development of more low-income
housing;
.
b) Provide resource development and grant writing assistance to County agencies and
housing and service providers to facilitate tiie development of mote low-income housing,
c) Analyze current County expenditures on housing and determine if funds could be more
effidently spent for the creation of low-income housing opportunities;
d) Work as liaison with County Housing and Community Development (HCD) to ensure
Community Development Block Grant funds are allocated to meet County low-income
housing objectives;
e) Commit additional resources to the Housing Trust of Santa Clara County and explore
ways to establish a permanent source of funding.
Recommendation #4- Encourage Best Practices in Special Needs Housing Management
To insure County agencies and clients are getting the best housing services possible, the
County should explore different community based special needs housing models to find
innovative designs that would be effective in Santa Clara County. For example, are ttiere ways
or incentives to make the common, single-family home, board and care model more financially
feasible? Are there other models that are more desirable for crertain special needs clients?
16
Recommendation #5- Become a Visible Proactive Advocate for Special Needs Housing
The County is the largest service provider for special needs persons and must take a leadership
rote on frieir behalf. This unit will be instrumental in supporting and advocating for the
development of very low and extremely low-income housing opportunities in all cities in the
county, as well as advocating for additional state and federal funds. Specific strategies the
County can pursue:
a) Work with countywide affordable housing programs and organizations to advocate for
low-income housing development and housing opportunities for special needs clients;
b) Develop and implement educational outreach to policymakers and the community to
create a more positive political response to low-income housing;
c) Assist the advocacy efforts of County staff for supportive low-income housing legislation
on behalf of County agencies at the State and Federal levels of government.
Recommendation #6 -Establish a Regional Forum to Address the Countywide Affordable
Housing Crisis including Special Needs Housing Issues
The County must facilitate the creation of a regional dialogue and perspective on the affordable
housing crisis. It can do this through existing forums or developing and managing a countywide
housing consortium of city officials and housing leaders, designed to come up with countywide
consensus on housing issues. Specific strategies ttie County can purse:
a)
b)
Develop countywide housing goals for special needs populations based on needs
assessments and inventory data, and advocate for regional support to meet those goals;
Worfc with regional partners to develop a countywide Housing Action Plan to
comprehensively address the housing ne^s of all Santa Clara County residents, and
enlist regional support for the implementation of this plan.
17
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This report is based in part on individual interviews and information provided by the valuable input
and participation of the Special Needs Housing Advisory Working Group. Their time and
commitment were essential to this important process. They are as follows;
Jamie Buckmaster, Program Manager,- Dept, of Aging & Adult Services, Adult Protective Services
Candy Capogrossi, Deputy Director, Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara
Charles Chew, Program Manager, County Housing & Community Development Program
Mary Helen Doherty, Director Governmental Relations & Planning, Social Services Agency
Ann Draper, Director, Santa Clara County Planning Office
Jorge Gonzalez, Social Services Program Manager, Santa Clara County Social Services Agency
Margaret Gregg, Homeless Services Coordinator, Office of the County Executive
Corky Gutierrez, Housing Coordinator, Santa Clara County Department of Mental Health
Brandi Hoffman, MCC Program Manager, Office of the County Executive
Alette Lundeberg, Dept. Employment Benefit Services Administrator, Social Services Agency
LeRoy Martin, Director, Department of Family & Children’s Services
Dunia Noel, Associate Planner, Santa Clara County Planning Office
Sharon Rea, Program Manager, Dept, of Aging & Adult Services, Office of the Public Guardian
Edith Sona, Quality Improvement Coordinator, County Department of Alcohol & Drug Services
Office of the County Executive
Jane Decker, Deputy County Executive,
Naphtali H. Knox, Housing Bond Coordinator,
Ray Villarreal, Housing Coordinator,
Susan Silviera, Springboard Consulting & Training Services
A special thanks to the following for their valuable input:
Chris Block, Executive Director of the Housing Trust of Santa Clara County
Kristie Scannel, Executive Director of Housing for Independent People
Ray Allen, Executive Director Community Technology Alliance
18
REFERENCES
US Census Bureau, Santa Clara County Planning Department - “QuickFacts"
Housing Needs Assessment for Persons with Disabilities: Final Report. Prepared for City of San
Jose Department of Housing by Vemazza Wolfe Associates, Inc., December 1997
Hospital Conference of Santa Clara County, Community Health Needs Assessmentfor Santa Clara
County. June 1996, p. 12
SS! Recipients by State and County, Tbe Office of Policy, Social Security Administration, 12/99
1999 Santa Clara County Homeless Suryey, Jerome Burstein and Linda Woodsmall, Sept. 8, 2000
Santa Clara County Consolidated Plan for 2000-2005
State of California, Employment Development Department, Labor Market Information division.
Information Services Group.
Joint Venture's 2001 Index of Silicon Valley prepared by Collaborative Economics, p.19, January
2000.
Santa Clara County Collaborative on Affordable Housing and Homeless Issues, Continuum of Care
Gaps Analysis 2000
Locked Out! California’s Affordable Housing Crisis, May 2000, published by the California Budget
Project
Priced Out in 1998, Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities Housing Task Force, downloaded from
Opening Doors- ht4)//www.o-c-d.oig/od-may99.htm
California Housing Partnership Corporation, /^ril 2000
Rental Housing Assistance-The Worsening Crisis, HUD Report to Congress on Worst Case Housing
Needs
American Housing Survey, A Joint publication of the Census Bureau, US Department of Commerce
and HUD.
19
APPENDIX A
GLOSSARY OF TERMS*
Affordable Housing - Affordable housing is generally defined as housing where the occupant is
paying no more than 30 percent of gross income for gross housing costs, including utility costs.
AIDS and Related Diseases - The disease of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome or any
conditions arising from the etioiogic agent for acquired immunodeficiency syndrome.
Alcohol/Other Drug Addiction - A serious and persistent alcohol or other drug addition that
significantly limits a person’s ability to live independently.
Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) - A federal program in which grants of
money are given to cities and/or counties for the sole purpose of Community Development related
activities.
Cost Burden > 30% - The extent to which gross housing costs, including utility costs, exceed 30
percent of gross income, based on data published by the U.S. Census Bureau.
Cost Burden > 50% (Severe Cost Burden) - The extent to whidi gross housing costs, including
utility costs, exceed 50 percent of gross income (U.S. Census Bureau).
Department of Housing and Urban Development(HUD) - The agency of the Federal Government
that oversees the Community Development Block Grant Program, HOME and the ESG Programs.
Disabled Household - A household composed of one or more persons at least one of whom is an
adult (a person of at least 18 years of age) who has a disability. A person shall be consid^^ to
have a disability if the person is determined to have a physical, mental or emotiorial impairment that.
(1) is expected to be of long-continued and indefinite duration,(2) substantially impeded his or her
that the ability could improved by
ability to live independently, and (3) is of such a nature
considered
to have a disability if he
suitable housing conditions. A person shall also be
developmental disability, as defined in the Developmental Disabilities
Assistance
^o ofiganys
surviving member
or and
members
Act (42 U.S.C. 6001-6006). The term also indudes the
household described in the first sentence of this paragraph who were living in an assisted unit with
the deceased member of the household at the time of her or her death.
Economic Independence and Self-Sufficiency Programs - Programs undertaken by Public
Housing Agencies (PHAs) to promote economic independence and self-sufficiency for participating
families. Such programs may include Project Self-Sufficiency and Operation Bootstrap
that originated under earlier Section 8 rental certificate and rental voucher initiatives, as well as tne
Family Self-Sufficiency program. In addition, PHA's may operate locally developed programs
conduct a
variety of special projects designed to promote economic independence and serr-
sufficiency.
* Glos-saiy modified fiorn the Santa Oara County Consolidated Plan 2000-2005
20
Eideily Household - For HUD rental programs, a one or two person household in which the head of
the household or spouse is at least 62 years of age.
Elderly Person - A person who is at least 62 years of age.
Entitlement Cities - Cities which have their own CDBG Programs. These cities include Gilroy.
Milpitas, Mountain View, Palo Alto. San Jose, Santa Clara, and Sunnyvale.
Fair Market Rents- FMRs estimate the cost of rent and utilities other than telephone service. FMRs
are currently set at the 40*^ percentile within an area, meaning the FMR is the cost below which 40%
of the housing units in an area would rent for less and 60 percent would rent for a higher amount.
Many public programs use FMRs as a measure of housing costs including Section 8. FMRs are
published annually by HUD.
Family - The Bureau of Census defines a family as a householder (head of household) and one or
more other persons living in the same household, who are related by birth, marriage or adoption.
Jurisdictions are required to use the National Affordable Housing Act definition, found in 24 CFR
812.2, in their ConPlans, although that definition is different than that found in Census Documents.
When Census data is used in many of the tables and charts, their definition of family is used.
Family Self-Sufficiency (FSS) Program - A program enacted by Section 554 of the National
Affordable Housing Act which directs Public Housing agencies (PHAS) and Indian Housing
Authorities (IRAs) to use Section 8 assistance under the rental certificate and rental voucher
programs, together with public and private resources, to provide supportive services to enable
participating families to achieve economic self-sufficiency.
First-Time Homebuyer - An individual or family who has not owned a home during the Oiree-year
period preceding the HLTD-assisted purchase of a home ttiat must be used as the principal
residence of the homebuyer. except that any individual who is a displaced homemaker(as defined in
not be excluded from corisideration as
24 CFR92)or a single parent(as defined in 24 CFR 92) may
a first-time homebuyer on the basis that the individual, while a homemaker or mam'ed, owned a
home with his or her spouse, or resided in a home owned by the spouse.
Frail Elderly - An elderly person who is unable to perform at least 3 activities of daily living (i.e.
eating, dressing, battling, grooming and household management activities).(See 24 CFR 889.105.)
Group Quarters - Facilities providing living quarters that are not classified as housing units by the
U.S. Census definition. Examples include prisons, nursing homes, dormitories, military barracks,
and shelters.
HOME - The HOME Investment Partnerships Program that is authorized by Title 11 of the National
Affordable Housing Act.
Homeless Family - Family that includes at least one parent or guardian and one child under the age
of 18, a homeless pregnant woman, or a
homeless person in the processing of securing legal
custody of a person under the age of 18.
21
Homeless individual - An unaccompanied youth (17 years or younger) or an adult (18 years, or
older) without children.
Homeless Youth - Unaccompanied person 17 years of age or younger, who is living in an
unsheltered situation.
Household - One or more persons occupying a housing unit(U.S. Census definition).
Housing Problems - Households with housing problems include those that; (1) occupy units
meeting the definition of Physical Defects; (2) meet the definition of overcrowded; and (3) meet the
definition of cost burden greater than 30%; and (4)do not meet Housing Quality Standards.
Housing Unit - An occupied or vacant house, apartment, or single room (SRO housing) that is
intended as separate living quarters.(U.S. Census definition)
HUD -adjusted area median family income (HAMFI)- In 1974, Congress defined “low income
and very low income for HUD rental programs as incomes not exceeding 80 and 60 percent of the
area median family income, as adjusted by HUD. Statutory adjustments now include upper and
lower caps for areas with low or high ratios of housing costs to income and for each nonmetropolitan
county average. Estimates of the median family income and the official income cutoffs for each
metropolrtan area are based on the most recent census and then updated each year by HUD. Each
base cutoff is assumed to apply to a household of four, and official cutoffs are further adjusted by
household size: one person, 70% of the base; two persons, 80 percent; three persons, 90 percent
five persons, 108 percent; six persons, 116 percent; and so on.
Institutions/lnstitutlonal - Group quarters for persons under care or custody.
Low-tncome Household - A low-income household is one wrhose income does not exceed 50
percent of the median family income for the area, as determined by HUD, with adjustments for
smaller and larger families. HUD may establish income ceilings higher or lower than 50 percent of
the median for the area on the basis of HUD's findings that such variations are necessary because
of prevailing levels of construction costs or fair market rents, or unusually high or low family
incomes.
Middle-Income Family - Family w4iose income is between 80% and 95% of the m^ian income for
the area, as determined by HUD, with adjustments for smaller and larger families. HUD may
establish income ceilings higher or lower than 95% of the median for the area, on file basis of HUD s
findings that such variations are necessary because of prevailing levels of constmction costs or fair
market rents, or unusually high or low family incomes.
Non-Entitlement Cities - Cities participating in the Urban County CDBG Program who do not have
a program of their own. The non-entitlement cities include Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos, Los Altos
Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill and Saratoga.
Non-Homeless Persons with Special Needs - Includes frail elderly persons, persons with AIDS,
disabled families, and families participating in organized programs to achieve economic setfsuffidency.
22
Non-fnstitutional - Group quarters for persons not under care or custody
Occupied Housing Unit - A housing unit in which people are currently living
Other Househoid - A household of one or more persons that does not meet the definition of a Small
Related household, Large Related household, or Elderiy household.
Other Low-Income - Households wrfiose incomes are between 51% and 80 % of the median
income for the area, as determined by HUD,with adjustments for smaller and larger families.
Overcrowded - A housing unit containing more than one person per room.
Poverty Level- Household income below the official national poverty cutoffs for the United States for
that household size. The poverty cutoff for a family of four approximates 33 percent of the HAMFI.
Forty four percent of very low-income households and 85 percent of extremely low-income
households are poor.
Rent Burden > 30%(Cost Burden)- The extent to which gross rents, including utility costs, exceed
30 percent of the tenant's gross income, based on data published by the U. S. Census Bureau.
Rent Burden > 50% (Severe Cost Burden)- The extent to which gross rents, including utility costs
exceeding 50 percent of the tenanfs income, based on data published by the U.S. Census Bureau.
Rental Assistance - Rental assistance payments provided as either project-based rental assistance
or tenant-based assistance.
Renter - A household that rents the housing unit it occupies, including both units rented for cash and
units occupied without cash payment of rent.(U.S. Census definition.)
Renter-Occupied Unit - Any occupied housing unit that is not owner occupied, including units
rented for cash and those occupied without payment of cash rent.
Service Needs - The particular services identified for special-needs populations, which typically may
include transportation, personal care, housekeeping, counseling, meals, case management,
personal emergency response, and other services to prevent premature inst'rtutionalization and to
assist individuals to continue living independently.
Severe Mental Illness - A serious and persistent mental or emotional impairment that significantly
limits a person's ability to live independently.
Sheltered - Families and persons whose primary nighttime residence is a supervised, publicly or
privately operated shelter, including emergency shelters, transitional housing for the homeless,
domestic violence shelters, residential shelters for runaway and homeless youth, and any rriotel or
apartment voudier arrangement paid because the person is homeless. This term does not include
23
persons living doub!ed-up or in overcrowded or substandard conventional housing. Any facility
offering permanent housing is not a shelter, nor are its residents homeless.
Supportive Housing - Housing, including Housing Units and Group Quarters, that have a
supportive services environment, and include a planned service component.
Supportive Service Need in FSS Plan - The plan that PHAs administering a Family SelfSufficiency program are required to develop to identify the services they will provide to participating
families and the source of funding for those services. The supportive services may include child
care, transportation, remedial education, education for completion of secondary or post secondary
schooling,, job training, preparation and counseling, substance abuse treatment and counseling,
training in homemaking and parenting skills, money management and household management,
counseling in homeownership, job development and placement, follow-up assistance after job
placement, and other appropriate services.
Supportive Services - Services provided to residents of supportive housing for the purpose of
fadlitating the independence of residents. Some examples are case management, medical or
psychological counseling and supervision, childcare, transportation, and job training.
Unsheltered - Families and individuals vrfiose primary nighttime residence is a public or private
place not designed for, or ordinarily used as, a regular sleeping accommodation for human beings
(e.g. street, parks, and alleys).
Urban County - A term which refers to the jurisdictions which have signed agreements with the
County to participate in the County's CDBG program. The jurisdictions are Campbell, Cupertino,
Los Altos. Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno. Morgan Hill, Saratoga, and unincorporated San
Jose.
Very Low-Income - Households whose incomes do not exceed 50 percent of the median income for
the area, as determined by HUD, with adjustments for smaller and larger families, for areas with
unusually high or low incomes, or where needed because of prevailing levels of construction costs
or fair market rents.
Worst-Case Needs - Unassisted, very lownncome renter households who pay more than half of
their income for rent, live in seriously substandard housing (which includes homeless people) or
have been involuntarily displaced.
24
APPENDIX B
CATEGORIES OF SPECIAL NEEDS PERSONS
❖ Persons with physical/developmental disabilities
■
Living on fixed income(SSI)
❖ Elderly(Persons over 60 years of age)
■
Phyacally and/or financially abused, neglected
■
Medically fragile and in need of acute care
Temporary placement needs
«
«
Need assisted housing
Living on Fixed incomes(SSI)
❖
Persons w/ith HIV/AIDS
❖
Homeless
»
Families with children
• Individuals
❖ immigrant/Refugees
■ Agricultural Workers
- Legal residents
■
❖
Veterans
-
Mentally III
•
Homeless
«
❖
Undocumented
Substance Abusers
Youth
-
Aged Out(1&-25, service eligible 1&-21)
■
Runaways, Abused & neglected
«
Fosto’care
❖ At-Risk of Losing Housing
■ Board & care displaced
-
Conversion tenants
Domestic Violence
•
❖
in need of permanent and transitional housing
Substance Abusers
■
Sober Living Environment residents in need of care
•
Court ordered treatment
«
Recovery clients in need of permanent and transitional houang
•
Family reunification
Mental Health Clients
-
❖
With severe medical needs - Dually diagnosed
■
In need of independent living environments
■
In need of shared living environments
Offenders/Paroloes
25
APPENDIX C
DESIRED SOLUTIONS/ OUTCOMES
The Working Group on Special Needs Housing identified the outcomes that were most desirable in
terms of creating more housing opportunities for their special needs clients.
DEVELOPMENT
1. Developers/builders of fow-cost housing developments should be encouraged to set-aside some
units for special needs clients.
2. When approving low-income housing developments, local authorities should require/encourage
the designation of some units for special needs clients.
3. Permanent Supportive Housing:
a) One-bedroom units for elderly mentally disabled and physically disabled,
b) 2-6 bedroom units for CalWorks families, Shelter Plus Care clients, and for all other
clients desiring group home or board & care housing,
c) Intermediate care facilities for elderly and mentally disabled with special medical needs,
d) Secure perimeter skilled nursing facilities (could involve converting a single family home)
for those with intensive medical and supervisory needs,
e) Professionally staffed 40-bed skilled care facility for difficult clients.
4. Temporary Supportive Housing (0-2 yrs.)
a) One-bedroom units for frail elderly, mentally disabled, physically disabled,
b) 2-6 bedroom units for frail elderly, mentally disabled and physically disabled clients for
shared care (board & care.)
5. Permanent Housing
6. Develop all types of rental units affordable to those on extremely low incomes.
RESOURCES
1. The following revenue sources should be explored as a means of financing the new
and rehabilitation of extremely
development of extremely low-income housing and the acquisition
clients.
low-incxDme housing to serve the County’s special needs
a)
The Housing Trust of Santa Clara County
b) The Santa Clara County Housing Bond Tmst Fund
First Commission
c) The Tobacco Fund Allocation to the Children & Families
d) CalWorks Incentive Funds
e) Density Bonus Funding
f) Community Development Block Grant Funds
g) County General Fund
h) Housing Authority Section 8 Funding (Project-Based)
i) Funding that Results from Proposition 36
]) Federal Funds for Independent Living Programs
26
k) McKinney Homeless Funding
I) Redevelopment Agencies Housing - Set asides(20%)
m) Community Reinvestment Act
n) State Housing and Community Development Funds
o) Other State and Federal Grants
p) Corporation for Supportive Housing
2.
There should be a resource development specialist to act as a clearinghouse for collecting and
disseminating funding information, act as grant writer to identify funding sources and coordinate
submitting proposals to obtain ftjnding for special needs housing.
3.
Funds currently spent by the County on housing for special needs clients should be analyzed to
determine to what extent they could be spent to develop more housing opportunities for the
County’s special needs clients.
4.
5.
County properties currently used or under-utilized by departments such as general
administration, roads & airports, parks & recreation and VTA, should be developed with
extremely low-income housing to serve special needs clients where feasible.
Facilitate access to extremely low-income housing opportunities through the development and
maintenance of a countywide database of all available low-income housing opportunities, such
the database currently being developed by Community Technology Alliance and Housing for
as
Independent People.)
8.
Provide more housing search teams for those agencies attempting to house Wieir clients.
Provide better property management services, incorporating best practices.
Create opportunities for low-income housing development at Moffett Field.
9.
Develop a standardized intake system to gather and maintain comprehensive data on current
6.
7.
client needs.
10.Specialized training for board & care operators who have special needs clients.
CLIENT ASSISTANCE
1. Provide more comprehensive case management services to ensure a client is rent-ready, these
services will include average daily living skills training, money management, etc.
a)
b)
A pool of funding developed and managed to assist clients with rent deposits.
Provide more comprehensive case-management services to ensure that a client remains
successfully housed.
c) Provide resource assistance to client so they do not lose their housing.
d)
e)
Seek incentives that will make more landlords willing to house special needs clients.
More landlords will be willing to house special needs clients.
f) Provide on-site day care services.
9) Low-income housing will be located near public transit.
27
POLICY
1.
Create the political will to build more low-income housing for special needs clients by
educational outreach to policymakers and the community.
2.
Encourage the San Jose Redevelopment Agency to address the loss of board & care housing
due to redevelopment.
3.
Review County zoning recommendations and foster changes that would enhance the creation of
special needs housing in cities and the county, such as:
a)
b)
Promote inciusionary zoning, and construction and use of secondary “granny” units.
Review and revise County and cities’ policy on discharge/lease of County property as means of
locating potential sites for special needs housing.
4.
5.
Develop a coordinated funding strategy for development of special needs housing opportunities.
Promote streamlined development processes that encourage the development of extremely lowincome housing.
28
APPENDIX D
CURRENT COUNTY HOUSING ACTIVITIES
The County, local agencies, the Housing Authority, nonprofit organizations, and Silicon Valley
companies actively provide financial assistance, build and rehabilitate affordable housing, provide
shelter for the homeless, and coordinate special needs housing and resources through the following
programs.
FIRST TIME HOMEBUYER PROGRAMS
County Mortgage Credit Certificate Program: Offers qualifying low-to-moderate income first-time
homebuyers annual federal income tax credits equal to 15 percent of interest paid on the first
mortgage. More than 10,000 Mortgage Credit Certificates(MCCs)have been issued since 1988.
Extra Credit Teacher Home Purchase Program <ECTHPP): New in 2000, this is a State
sponsored program under which the County issues MCCs in the unincorporated areas and the cities
of San Jose and Gilroy. ECTHPP offers Mortgage Credit Certificates at a 20 percent tax credit rate
and silent second loans of $7,600 to $40,000 to credentialed teachers, principals, and assistant
principals who agree to serve for five years at “low-performing sdioois” (those rated in the lowest 30
percent on the State’s Academic Performance Index).
Community Assisted Shared Appreciation (CASA) Program: Started in 2000, this is a joint
initiative of the County. Northbay Ecumenical Homes, Cal Fed Bank, and the City of Sunnyvale to
provide silent second loans up to $80,000 to median-income first time homebuyers in Sunnyvale and
the unincorporated county.
Housing Trust of Santa Clara County: The County has contributed $2,250,000 to the $17.5 million
raised to date toward the initial capitalization goal of $20 million. After allowing for a 10 percent
contingency, the remaining $18 million is to be divided equally into three categories: first time
homebuyer assistance, affordable multifamily development, and transitional and emergency shelter
development. The first single-family loan programs will begin this Spring.
SPECIAL NEEDS HOUSING
Community Development Block Grant Program: Annual federal grants support a variety of
housing and community development activities. Cities with less than 50,000 population are included
in “the Urban County” (coordinated by County HCD); larger cities receive their own entitlement. The
Urban County includes Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno,
Morgan Hill. Saratoga, and tiie unincorporated areas of the county. CDBG funds for FY 00 were
$2,591,000.
HOME Program: This is a federal grant to provide incentives for the production of affordable
housing. It is distributed by the County HCD to non-profit development corporations for revitalization
projects and rehabilitation of existing multi-unit structures for low-income households. HOME funds
must be matched with state or local revenue. The grant for FY 00 was $936,000.
29
Emergency Shelter Grants Program (ESG); Federal funds available for renovation and
rehabilitation, maintenance and operations, essential support services, and homeless prevention
activities at homeless shelters. County ESG funds in FY 00 totaled $92,000.
Cold Weather Shelter Program: Allows for the operation and maintenance of the armories in Gilroy
and Sunnyvale as emergency shelters, as well as increased winter beds at the Emergency Housing
Consortium’s Regional Reception Center in San Jose. The County contributed $340,000 from the
General Fund to this program for this fiscal year.
Shelter Plus Care Program: Federal rental assistance for homeless individuals who have long-term
disabilities resulting from mental illness, alcohol and drug abuse, or an HIV positive medical
condition, and who are receiving other supportive services to help them maintain stability and
transition to permanent housing. This is a collaborative effort between the County, the Housing
Authority, and community groups serving the homeless. Each grant is valid for five years of rental
assistance and is matched by the County in the form of support services. Award amount history.
1992 (renewed in 1998), $1,545,860 for 25 units; 1993 (renewal applied for). $1,540,800 for 32
units; 1995, $1,390,740 for 30 units; 1996,$1,846,200 for 50 units; 1998, $1,905,660 for 25 units.
Family Self-sufficiency (FSS): Helps families become self-sufficient by providing Section 8 rental
certificates or vouchers that are conditioned on maintaining employment or attending school or job
training. The Housing Authority implements this program, working with a volunteer support group of
employment and education agencies. A case manager is funded by City of San Jose Community
Development Block Grant funds. The County does not contribute to this program.
Family UnificaOon Program (FUP): Helps families in the Child Welfare System to become selfsufficient by providing time-limited rent vouchers. Families must participate in programs and
services offered by one of the four Family Resource Centers in Santa Clara County. This rental
subsidy program is funded by HUD and administered by the Housing Authority. The County does not
contribute funds to this program, but the Social Services Agency provides referral and case
management services.
Welfare to Work: This Section 8 voucher program provides housing subsidies to assist families
moving from welfare to work. The Housing Authority receives financial support from the County
Social Services Agency to fund housing search staff. Of the current allocation of 1,066 vouchers,
885 families have successfully located housing in the past year, and the remaining number will be
housed by June 1,2001. These 1,066 vouchers are permanently set aside to assist this population.
Rental/Mortgage Assistance Program (R/MAP): This is a homelessness prevention program. The
Emergency Assistance Network (EAN), a consortium of non-profit and city-sponsored housing
assistance organizations, provides funds to low income families or individuals for temporary rental or
mortgage payments, rental security deposits, and utility hookups. Funded by foundations, cities, and
from the County Housing Bond Trust Fund through the County Homeless Coordinator. Of this year’s
budget of $760,000, the Housing Bond Trust Fund contributed $105,000. Since 1992, the Housing
Bond Trust Fund has contributed $675,000 to R/MAP.
30
APPENDIX E
LIST OF TABLES AND CHARTS
Table 1 - HUD Median income Table for Santa Clara County Housing
7
Table 2 - Special Needs Clients of Santa Clara County
9
Table 3- Clients Receiving Housing Assistance from the County
10
Table 4- Housing Assistance Provided by the Housing Authority
11
Table 5- Santa Clara County Collaborative - Gaps Analysis
12
Table 6- Santa Clara County Collaborative - Gaps Analysis
12
Table 7- Association of Bay Area Governments — Housing Needs Projections
13
Table 8- Low Income Renter Outnumber Affordable Units in California
13
Table 9-Woricing Group Housing Needs Analysis for Special Needs Populations
14
32
MEMO TO:
Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors ,
FROM:
Santa Clara County Housing Task Force
RE:
Attached Status Report
DATE:
August 21,2001
Appco/ed Accepiacl
Oi
Ccriiad
o.-
By
. Auto'S g'ZOOl
Date:
Hon. Supervisors:
Attached please find a Status Report from the Santa Clara County
by
Housing Task Force. As you know,the Task Force was appointed
ofthe Task
Board Chair James T. Beall earlier this year. The charge
Force was to identify and study problems, challenges and barriers
associated with housing production and affordability in Santa Clara
were to
County, and then to identify potential solutions. Theseofsolutions
recommended
be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors in the form
action items and objectives.
This report covers the work done to date, which is very nearly complete.
This report contains eight sections. Each section has its own cover page,
(The only
and is headed by its own explanation, or executive summary.
each of its
exception is Section IV, which contains Final Reports from
four work groups). Associated back-up documents are then attached to
each section.
The Task Force wishes to thank and acknowledge the Board of
project. Many
Supervisors for its vision and encouragement about this
long hours ofthought, ideas and discussion went into the development
ofthis report. We look forward to further discussion with you about this
most urgent matter.
Respectfully submitted,
The Santa Clara County Housing Task Force
:
I 11 I
I
Aim
?nni
Document
Memorandum from the County Executive, Richard Wittenberg, to the Board of Supervisors asking to consider recommendations relating to the Housing Task Force Recommendations Implementation Plan.
Initiative
Collection
James T. Beall, Jr.
Content Type
Referrals
Resource Type
Document
Date
06/25/2002
District
District 4
Creator
Richard Wittenberg, County Executive
Language
English
Rights
No Copyright: http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/