The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2020-02-26 e-packet@7:00Wednesday, February 26, 2020 7:00 PM City of South San Francisco P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA Municipal Services Building, Council Chambers 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, CA City Council Regular Meeting Agenda February 26, 2020City Council Regular Meeting Agenda PEOPLE OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO You are invited to offer your suggestions. In order that you may know our method of conducting Council business, we proceed as follows: The regular meetings of the City Council are held on the second and fourth Wednesday of each month at 7:00 p.m. in the Municipal Services Building, Council Chambers, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, California. The City Clerk will read successively the items of business appearing on the Agenda. As she completes reading an item, it will be ready for Council action. RICHARD A. GARBARINO, Mayor MARK ADDIEGO, Vice Mayor MARK NAGALES, Councilmember BUENAFLOR NICOLAS, Councilmember KARYL MATSUMOTO, Councilmember FRANK RISSO, City Treasurer ROSA GOVEA ACOSTA, City Clerk MIKE FUTRELL, City Manager SKY WOODRUFF, City Attorney PLEASE SILENCE CELL PHONES AND PAGERS HEARING ASSISTANCE EQUIPMENT AVAILABLE FOR USE BY THE HEARING IMPAIRED AT CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS In accordance with California Government Code Section 54957.5, any writing or document that is a public record, relates to an open session agenda item, and is distributed less than 72 hours prior to a regular meeting will be made available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s Office located at City Hall. If, however, the document or writing is not distributed until the regular meeting to which it relates, then the document or writing will be made available to the public at the location of the meeting, as listed on this agenda. The address of City Hall is 400 Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, California 94080. Page 2 City of South San Francisco Printed on 5/8/2020 February 26, 2020City Council Regular Meeting Agenda CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AGENDA REVIEW ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM STAFF PRESENTATIONS Presentation of a Certificate of Recognition to Rachel Reyes, South San Francisco resident and senior at El Camino High School, for being named 2020 Youth of the Year by the Boys & Girls Clubs of North San Mateo County. (Richard Garbarino, Mayor) 1. Presentation of a proclamation recognizing March as Irish-American Heritage Month in South San Francisco. (Richard Garbarino, Mayor) 2. Presentation of a proclamation recognizing March as National Women’s History Month in South San Francisco. (Richard Garbarino, Mayor) 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS For those wishing to address the City Council on any Agenda or non-agendized item, please complete a Speaker Card located at the entrance to the Council Chamber’s and submit it to the City Clerk. Please be sure to indicate the Agenda Item # you wish to address or the topic of your public comment. California law prevents the City Council from taking action on any item not on the Agenda (except in emergency circumstances). Your question or problem may be referred to staff for investigation and/or action where appropriate or the matter may be placed on a future Agenda for more comprehensive action or a report. When your name is called, please come to the podium, state your name and address (optional) for the Minutes. COMMENTS ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES PER SPEAKER. Thank you for your cooperation. COUNCIL COMMENTS/REQUESTS CONSENT CALENDAR Motion to approve the Minutes for the meeting of December 11, 2019. (Rosa Govea Acosta, City Clerk) 4. Page 3 City of South San Francisco Printed on 5/8/2020 February 26, 2020City Council Regular Meeting Agenda Report regarding a resolution approving the filing of an application for Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery funds allocated through the State of California in their Fiscal Year 2019-2020 budget in the amount of $16,703 to support beverage container recycling programs in City parks and authorizing the Finance Director to adjust the City’s Fiscal Year 2019-2020 revenue budget upon receipt of funds pursuant to budget amendment #20.036. (Sharon Ranals, Director of Parks and Recreation) 5. Resolution approving the filing of an application for Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery funds allocated through the State of California in their Fiscal Year 2019-2020 budget in the amount of $16,703 to support beverage container recycling programs in City parks and authorizing the Finance Director to adjust the City’s Fiscal Year 2019-2020 revenue budget upon receipt of funds pursuant to budget amendment #20.036. 5a. Report regarding adoption of two Ordinances that would add section 2.16.050 to Title 2, Chapter 2.16 and section 2.22.050 to Title 2, Chapter 2.22 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code pertaining to electronic filing of campaign statements and use of electronic signatures. (Tony Barrera, Director of Information Technology) 6. Ordinance adding section 2.16.050 to Title 2, Chapter 2.16, of the South San Francisco Municipal Code pertaining to electronic filing of campaign statements. 6a. Ordinance adding section 2.22.050 to Title 2, Chapter 2.22, of the South San Francisco Municipal Code pertaining to electronic signatures. 6b. Report regarding an Ordinance approving a First Amendment to the Second Amended and Restated Development Agreement (DAA19-0003) to the Gateway Business Park Master Plan Project between the City of South San Francisco and between BMR-700 Gateway LP, BMR-750, 800, 850 Gateway LP, BMR-900 Gateway LP, and BMR-1000 Gateway LP to make minor modifications to amend provisions relating to childcare facilities within the development. (Billy Gross, Senior Planner) 7. Ordinance adopting a First Amendment to the Second Amended and Restated Development Agreement (DAA19-0003) to the Gateway Business Park Master Plan Project between the City of South San Francisco and between BMR-700 Gateway LP, BMR-750, 800, 850 Gateway LP, BMR-900 Gateway LP, and BMR-1000 Gateway LP to make minor modifications to amend provisions relating to childcare facilities within the development. 7a. Page 4 City of South San Francisco Printed on 5/8/2020 February 26, 2020City Council Regular Meeting Agenda PUBLIC HEARING Report regarding holding a Public Hearing on the City’s housing, community, and economic development needs for the Fiscal Year 2020-2021 One Year Action Plan and providing direction to the Community Development Block Grant Subcommittee regarding funding priorities. (Kris Romasanta, Community Development Coordinator) 8. ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS Report regarding a resolution to adopt the draft Urban Forest Master Plan. (Greg Mediati, Deputy Director, Parks and Recreation Department) 9. Resolution approving and adopting the Urban Forest Master Plan for the City of South San Francisco. 9a. Report regarding Emergency Rental Assistance Grant Program for South San Francisco residents facing one-time financial hardship (Kris Romasanta, Community Development Coordinator) 10. Report regarding a resolution accepting mid-year financial report and amending the Fiscal Year 2019-2020 adopted budget. (Janet Salisbury, Director of Finance) 11. Resolution accepting mid-year financial report and amending the Fiscal Year 2019-20 adopted budget. 11a. ITEMS FROM COUNCIL – COMMITTEE REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS ADJOURNMENT Page 5 City of South San Francisco Printed on 5/8/2020 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:20-148 Agenda Date:2/26/2020 Version:1 Item #:1. Presentation of a Certificate of Recognition to Rachel Reyes, South San Francisco resident and senior at El Camino High School, for being named 2020 Youth of the Year by the Boys & Girls Clubs of North San Mateo County. (Richard Garbarino, Mayor) City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/21/2020Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Certificate of Appreciation Rachel Reyes Mayor Richard Garbarino and the City Council of South San Francisco do hereby congratulate Rachel Reyes for being named 2020 Youth of the Year by the Boys & Girls Clubs of North San Mateo County. Rachel, a twelfth grader at El Camino High School, is a South San Francisco resident. We offer our heartielt congratulatfons to Rachel on this prestfgious honor and making a positfve difference in the lives of our South San Francisco youth. Presented on this 26th day of February, 2020, by the City Council of South San Francisco. Richard Garbarino, Mayor Mark Addiego, Vice Mayor Karyl Matsumoto, Councilmember Mark Nagales, Councilmember Buenaflor Nicolas, Councilmember City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:20-149 Agenda Date:2/26/2020 Version:1 Item #:2. Presentation of a proclamation recognizing March as Irish-American Heritage Month in South San Francisco. ( Richard Garbarino, Mayor) City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/21/2020Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ Dated: February 26, 2020 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO RECOGNIZES AND CELEBRATES MARCH AS IRISH-AMERICAN HERITAGE MONTH February 26, 2020 WHEREAS, the first recorded celebration of Irish-Americans dates back to 1762 with the first St. Patrick’s Day parade in New York City, which became an annual event; and WHEREAS, in October, 1990, the U.S. Congress passed Public Law 101-418, establishing March, 1991, as Irish-American Heritage Month; and WHEREAS, in 1991, President George H.W. Bush issued for the first time a proclamation designating March as Irish-American Heritage Month, and within the authority of the Executive Branch, the President has issued a proclamation every year since then; and WHEREAS, Irish-American Heritage Month is held in March to coincide with St. Patrick’s Day, the Irish national holiday celebrated on March 17th; and WHEREAS, Irish-American Heritage Month is a time to honor the indispensable achievements and contributions of Irish immigrants and their descendants living in the United States; and WHEREAS, Irish Americans have helped shape America by overcoming hardship and strife through strength, sacrifice, faith, and family, strongly believing that if we work hard and live responsibly, we can and will build a better future for our children and grandchildren; and WHEREAS, today nearly 33 million Americans proudly trace their heritage to the Emerald Isle, which is more than five times the amount of people living in Ireland altogether; and WHEREAS, our nation is richer because of the countless contributions of Irish Americans, who have changed and helped shape the world, including John F. Kennedy, the first Irish-Catholic President of the United States; Michael Flatley, dancer and choreographer known for his shows “Riverdance” and “The Lord of the Dance”; Eileen Marie Collins, first female pilot and first female commander of a Space Shuttle; Elizabeth Cochran Seaman (also known as Nellie Bly), investigative journalist, industrialist, inventor, and charity worker known for her record-breaking trip around the world in 72 days; Frank McCourt, Pulitzer Prize-winning author known for his book Angela’s Ashes; Bruce Springsteen, legendary singer, songwriter, and musician; and Maureen O’Hara, actress and singer known for playing fiercely passionate but sensible heroines. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Mayor Richard Garbarino and the City Council of the City of South San Francisco do hereby proclaim March as Irish-American Heritage Month and thank our Irish-American residents for their countless contributions to our community. ________________________________ Richard Garbarino Mayor ________________________________ Mark Addiego, Vice Mayor ________________________________ Karyl Matsumoto, Councilmember ________________________________ Mark Nagales, Councilmember ________________________________ Buenaflor Nicolas, Councilmember City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:20-150 Agenda Date:2/26/2020 Version:1 Item #:3. Presentation of a proclamation recognizing March as National Women’s History Month in South San Francisco. (Richard Garbarino, Mayor) City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/21/2020Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ RECOGNITION OF MARCH AS WOMEN’S HISTORY MONTH: “VALIANT WOMEN OF THE VOTE” February 26, 2020 WHEREAS, Women’s History Month, which traces its origins back to the first International Women’s Day in 1911, is observed annually and is a time to reflect on the extraordinary achievements and struggles of women, honor their role in shaping the course of U.S. history, and to respect those who tirelessly and courageously blazed trails for women’s empowerment and equality; and WHEREAS, since 1911, momentum for having a dedicated platform for recognizing women whether in the form of a day or week, continued to grow nationwide and was centered on the celebration of International Women’s Day on March 8; and in February, 1980, President Jimmy Carter issued a presidential proclamation declaring the week of March 8, 1980, as National Women’s History Week; and WHEREAS, in 1981, the U.S. Congress passed a resolution, Public Law 97-28, that authorized and requested the President of the United States to proclaim the week beginning March 7, 1982, as “Women’s History Week”, and continued to pass joint resolutions designating a week in March as Women’s History Week, spurring schools and libraries to have their own celebrations, resulting in 14 states declaring March as Women’s History Month by 1986; and WHEREAS, in 1987, the National Women’s History Project petitioned legislators to designate the month of March, 1981, as Women’s History Month, leading to the passage of Public Law 100-9 by the U.S. Congress designating the month of March, 1987, as “Women’s History Month”; and WHEREAS, since 1988, every U.S. President has issued annual proclamations designating the month of March as Women’s History Month; and WHEREAS, with this year’s theme of “Valiant Women of the Vote”, we pay homage to the women who have fought for a woman’s right to vote in the United States; and in recognition of the Centennial of the 19th Amendment, we honor women from the original suffrage movement as well as 20th and 21st century women who have continued the struggle to ensure voting rights for all. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Mayor Richard Garbarino and the City Council of the City of South San Francisco do hereby proclaim March as Women’s History Month in South San Francisco and call upon all residents and visitors alike to observe this month and celebrate the strong, talented, bright, and courageous women in their lives. ________________________________ Richard Garbarino, Mayor ________________________________ Mark Addiego, Vice Mayor ________________________________ Karyl Matsumoto, Councilmember ________________________________ Mark Nagales, Councilmember ________________________________ Buenaflor Nicolas, Councilmember Dated: February 26, 2020 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:20-36 Agenda Date:2/26/2020 Version:1 Item #:4. Motion to approve the Minutes for the meeting of December 11, 2019.(Rosa Govea Acosta, City Clerk) City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/21/2020Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:20-156 Agenda Date:2/26/2020 Version:1 Item #:5. Report regarding a resolution approving the filing of an application for Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery funds allocated through the State of California in their Fiscal Year 2019-2020 budget in the amount of $16,703 to support beverage container recycling programs in City parks and authorizing the Finance Director to adjust the City’s Fiscal Year 2019-2020 revenue budget upon receipt of funds pursuant to budget amendment #20.036. (Sharon Ranals, Director of Parks and Recreation) RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the filing of an application for the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle)funds allocated through the State of California in their Fiscal Year 2019-2020 (FY 19-20)budget in the amount of $16,703 to support beverage container recycling programs in City parks and authorize the Finance Director to adjust the City’s Fiscal Year 2019-2020 (FY 19-20) revenue budget upon receipt of funds. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the filing of an application for CalRecycle funds allocated through the State of California.CalRecycle administers a program to provide and support statewide opportunities for beverage container recycling.The goal of this program is to reach and maintain an 80 percent recycling rate for all California refund value beverage containers (aluminum,glass, plastic and bi-metal).Projects implemented by cities and counties will assist in reaching and maintaining this goal. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 14581(a)(3)(A)of the California Beverage Container Recycling and Litter Reduction Act,CalRecycle is distributing $10,500,000 in FY19-20 to eligible cities and counties specifically for beverage container recycling and litter cleanup activities.Payments are calculated annually per capita using the California Department of Finance’s population statistics.The application deadline to receive the funding,which is a non-competitive payment program as opposed to a competitive grant program,is March 2, 2020. For the past several years,the City has taken advantage of this funding source to enhance our support of recycling programs.The Parks and Recreation Department has purchased multi-stream waste receptacles which are placed in our City parks and facilities.The proposed purchase for this year would be to install multi-stream waste receptacles in City parks, including Orange Memorial Park and Centennial Way Trail. FISCAL IMPACT Funds received from the CalRecycle program will allow for the purchase of waste receptacles which enhance the City’s ability to collect and recycle beverage containers.There will be no need to increase the Parks and Recreation Department’s budget for expenditures.Receipt of these funds does not commit the City to ongoing or matching funding.Adopting this resolution will authorize the Finance Director to amend the FY19-20 revenue budget upon receipt of funds from CalRecycle. Payments will be distributed in June-July 2020. RELATIONSHIP TO STRATEGIC PLAN The CalRecycle program funds supports Strategic Plan Priority #2:Build and Maintain a Sustainable City byCity of South San Francisco Printed on 2/20/2020Page 1 of 2 powered by Legistar™ File #:20-156 Agenda Date:2/26/2020 Version:1 Item #:5. The CalRecycle program funds supports Strategic Plan Priority #2:Build and Maintain a Sustainable City by providing additional infrastructure for recycling beverage containers in City parks. CONCLUSION It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the filing of an application for CalRecycle funds allocated through the State of California in the amount of $16,703 to support beverage container recycling programs and authorize the Finance Director to amend the FY 19-20 revenue budget upon receipt of funds.Receipt of these funds will enable the Parks and Recreation Department to provide enhanced recycling opportunities in City parks, to the benefit of the community and the environment. City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/20/2020Page 2 of 2 powered by Legistar™ City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:20-157 Agenda Date:2/26/2020 Version:1 Item #:5a. Resolution approving the filing of an application for Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery funds allocated through the State of California in their Fiscal Year 2019-2020 budget in the amount of $16,703 to support beverage container recycling programs in City parks and authorizing the Finance Director to adjust the City’s Fiscal Year 2019-2020 revenue budget upon receipt of funds pursuant to budget amendment #20.036. WHEREAS,pursuant to Public Resources Code sections 48000 et seq.,14581,and 42023.1(g),the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle)has established various payment programs to make payments to qualifying jurisdictions; and WHEREAS,in furtherance of this authority CalRecycle is required to establish procedures governing the administration of the payment programs; and WHEREAS,CalRecycle’s procedures for administering payment programs require,among other things,an applicant’s governing body to declare by resolution certain authorizations related to the administration of the payment program. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that the City of South San Francisco is authorized to submit an application to CalRecycle for any and all payment programs offered; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager,or his/her designee,is hereby authorized as Signature Authority to execute all documents necessary to implement and secure payment; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this authorization is effective until rescinded by the Signature Authority or this governing body. ***** City of South San Francisco Printed on 5/4/2020Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:20-152 Agenda Date:2/26/2020 Version:1 Item #:6. Report regarding adoption of two Ordinances that would add section 2.16.050 to Title 2, Chapter 2.16 and section 2.22.050 to Title 2, Chapter 2.22 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code pertaining to electronic filing of campaign statements and use of electronic signatures. (Tony Barrera, Director of Information Technology) RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council waive reading and adopt:(1)an Ordinance to add section 2.16.050 to Title 2,Chapter 2.16 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code to accept electronic filing of campaign statements and (2)and Ordinance to add section 2.22.050 to Title 2,Chapter 2.22 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code to use and accept electronic signatures. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION The City Council previously waived reading and introduced the following two Ordinances: (1)Ordinance adding section 2.16.050 to Title 2,Chapter 2.16 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code to accept electronic filing of campaign statements. (2)Ordinance adding section 2.22.050 to Title 2,Chapter 2.22 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code to use and accept electronic signatures. (Introduced 2/12/20; Vote 5-0) The Ordinances are now ready for adoption. City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/20/2020Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:20-153 Agenda Date:2/26/2020 Version:1 Item #:6a. Ordinance adding section 2.16.050 to Title 2,Chapter 2.16,of the South San Francisco Municipal Code pertaining to electronic filing of campaign statements. WHEREAS,Government Code section 84615 allows a local government agency to adopt an ordinance to require the electronic filing of campaign statements,reports,or other documents by elected officers,candidates, committees,or other persons who are required to file campaign disclosure statements under Title 9,Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 84100)of the Government Code,and who have received contributions and have made expenditures totaling less than two thousand dollars ($2,000) in a calendar year; WHEREAS,the City of South San Francisco seeks to require the electronic filing of such campaign statements pursuant to Government Code section 84615 in order to make the administration of municipal elections more efficient and to provide greater access to such information to the public; WHEREAS,the City has entered into an agreement with Granicus,LLC,a vendor approved by the California Secretary of State,to provide online electronic filing system ("System")for campaign disclosure statements; and WHEREAS, the System will operate securely and effectively and will not unduly burden filers; WHEREAS,the System shall ensure the integrity of the data transmitted and shall include safeguards against efforts to tamper with, manipulate, alter, or subvert the data; and WHEREAS,the System will enable filers to complete and submit filings free of charge,and will make all the data filed available online and free of charge in an easily understood format that provides the greatest public access. NOW,THEREFORE,THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1.Findings The City Council of South San Francisco, finds that all Recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 2.Addition to Title 2 Section 2.16.050 (Electronic Filing of Campaign Statements)of Chapter 2.16 (Municipal Elections)of Title 2 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code is hereby added as follows: City of South San Francisco Printed on 5/4/2020Page 1 of 2 powered by Legistar™ File #:20-153 Agenda Date:2/26/2020 Version:1 Item #:6a. 2.16.004 Electronic Filing of Campaign Statements (a)Any elected officer,candidate,committee,or other person required to file statements,reports,or other documents described by Chapter 4 (Campaign Disclosure)of Title 9 (Political Reform)of the California Government Code,and who has received contributions and made expenditures of $2,000 or more in a calendar year, shall file those statements, electronically using procedures established by the City Clerk. (b)Once an elected officer,candidate,committee,or other person files a statement,report,or other document electronically pursuant to subsection (a),all future statements,reports,or other documents on behalf of that filer shall be filed electronically. (c)In any instance in which an original statement,report,or other document must be filed with the California Secretary of State and a copy of that statement,report,or other document is required to be filed with the City Clerk, the filer may file the copy electronically. (d) If the City Clerk's electronic system is not capable of accepting a particular type of statement, report or other document, an elected officer, candidate, committee or other person shall file that document with the City Clerk in an alternative format. SECTION 3.Severability If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid,the remainder of the ordinance and the application of such provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby. SECTION 4.Publication and Effective Date Pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 36933,a summary of this Ordinance shall be prepared by the City Attorney.At least five (5)days prior to the Council meeting at which this Ordinance is scheduled to be adopted,the City Clerk shall (1)publish the Summary,and (2)post in the City Clerk’s Office a certified copy of this Ordinance.Within fifteen (15)days after the adoption of this Ordinance,the City Clerk shall (1) publish the summary,and (2)post in the City Clerk’s Office a certified copy of the full text of this Ordinance along with the names of those City Council members voting for and against this Ordinance or otherwise voting. This Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days from and after its adoption. ***** Introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of South San Francisco held the 12 th day of February 2020. City of South San Francisco Printed on 5/4/2020Page 2 of 2 powered by Legistar™ City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:20-154 Agenda Date:2/26/2020 Version:1 Item #:6b. Ordinance adding section 2.22.050 to Title 2,Chapter 2.22,of the South San Francisco Municipal Code pertaining to electronic signatures. WHEREAS,in 1995,California passed Government Code section 16.5,authorizing public entities,including cities,to accept a “digital signature”for any written communication,so long as the digital signature meets certain requirements and complies with regulations adopted by the Secretary of State; and WHEREAS,the regulations adopted by the Secretary of State in 1998 require a public entity,before accepting a digital signature,to ensure that (1)the level of security used to identify the signer of a document is sufficient for the transaction being conducted,(2)the level of security used to transmit the signature is sufficient for the transaction being conducted,and (3)any certificate format used by the signer is sufficient for the security and interoperability needs of the public entity (2 Cal. Code Regs. § 22005); and WHEREAS,in 1999,California adopted a version of the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA)in Civil Code sections 1633.1 to 1633.17,giving electronic signatures the same legal effect as manual or “wet” signatures; and WHEREAS,UETA applies broadly to “any action or set of actions occurring between two or more persons relating to the conduct of business,commercial,or governmental affairs”(Civil Code,§1633.2,subd.(o))and transactions subject to UETA need not meet the specific requirements of Government Code section 16.5 and its implementing regulations (Gov. Code, § 16.5, subd. (e)); and WHEREAS,in 2000,the United States Congress passed the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (E-SIGN Act),mandating the same treatment of electronic signatures and manual signatures in interstate or foreign commerce (15 U.S.C. § 7001); and WHEREAS,the use of electronic signatures on legally binding documents has become increasingly prevalent in the private sector and is gaining prevalence among public agencies; and WHEREAS,the benefits of electronic signatures include,but are not limited to,reductions in the paper,time, and costs associated with transmitting, approving and executing physical documents; and WHEREAS,electronic signature technologies have developed to address concerns with verifying the identity of the person affixing his or her electronic signature; and WHEREAS,the City wishes to benefit from the efficiencies and benefits of electronic signatures,while using technology that addresses these security concerns; and WHEREAS,this Ordinance enables the City to use electronic signatures on electronic records provided the City of South San Francisco Printed on 5/4/2020Page 1 of 3 powered by Legistar™ File #:20-154 Agenda Date:2/26/2020 Version:1 Item #:6b. signature is in accordance with UETA or Government Code section 16.5, as applicable; and WHEREAS,this Ordinance codifies the City’s policy on electronic signatures,while enabling the City Manager to adopt additional policies and procedures to operationalize the use of electronic signatures; and WHEREAS,the City Council finds that the use of electronic signatures will allow the City to collect and preserve signatures on documents quickly and securely,will improve efficiency while saving costs of transmitting documents, and will provide for better management of City records; and NOW,THEREFORE,THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1.Findings The City Council of South San Francisco, finds that all Recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 2.Addition to Title 2 Section 2.22.050 (Electronic Signatures)of Chapter 2.22 (Signatures)of Title 2 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code is hereby added as follows: 2.22.050 Electronic Signatures (a) The following definitions apply to this section: (1) “Electronic signature” has the same meaning as in Section 1633.2 of the California Civil Code. (2) “Digital signature” has the same meaning as in Section 16.5 of the California Government Code. (3) “Transaction” has the same meaning as in Section 1633.2 of the California Civil Code. (4)“UETA”means the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act,commencing at Section 1633.1 of the California Civil Code. (b)In any transaction with the City,in which the parties have agreed to conduct the transaction by electronic means, the City may use and accept an electronic signature, if the electronic signature complies with the UETA. (c)In any written communication with the City,in which a signature is used or required,the City may use or accept a digital signature,if the digital signature complies with Section 16.5 of the California Government Code. (d)The City Manager or designee shall determine the documents for which the City may use and accept electronic signatures or digital signatures.The City Manager or designee shall further determine acceptable technologies and vendors under this section to ensure the security and integrity of any data and signatures.In determining which technologies and vendors are acceptable for digital signatures,the City Manager or designee shall comply with all applicable regulations,including but not limited to ensuring that the level of security used to identify the signer of a document and the level of security used to transmit the signature are sufficient for the transaction being conducted.In addition,to the extent necessary,the City Manager or designee shall ensure that any certificate involved in obtaining a digital signature by the signer is sufficient for the City’s security and City of South San Francisco Printed on 5/4/2020Page 2 of 3 powered by Legistar™ File #:20-154 Agenda Date:2/26/2020 Version:1 Item #:6b. that any certificate involved in obtaining a digital signature by the signer is sufficient for the City’s security and interoperability needs.The City Manager or designee shall set forth these determinations in a written policy or Administrative Regulation. SECTION 3.Severability If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid,the remainder of the ordinance and the application of such provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby. SECTION 4.Publication and Effective Date Pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 36933,a summary of this Ordinance shall be prepared by the City Attorney.At least five (5)days prior to the Council meeting at which this Ordinance is scheduled to be adopted,the City Clerk shall (1)publish the Summary,and (2)post in the City Clerk’s Office a certified copy of this Ordinance.Within fifteen (15)days after the adoption of this Ordinance,the City Clerk shall (1) publish the summary,and (2)post in the City Clerk’s Office a certified copy of the full text of this Ordinance along with the names of those City Council members voting for and against this Ordinance or otherwise voting. This Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days from and after its adoption. ***** Introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of South San Francisco held the 12 th day of February 2020. City of South San Francisco Printed on 5/4/2020Page 3 of 3 powered by Legistar™ City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:20-137 Agenda Date:2/26/2020 Version:1 Item #:7. Report regarding an Ordinance approving a First Amendment to the Second Amended and Restated Development Agreement (DAA19-0003)to the Gateway Business Park Master Plan Project between the City of South San Francisco and between BMR-700 Gateway LP,BMR-750,800,850 Gateway LP,BMR-900 Gateway LP,and BMR-1000 Gateway LP to make minor modifications to amend provisions relating to childcare facilities within the development.(Billy Gross, Senior Planner) RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council waive reading and adopt an Ordinance approving the First Amendment to the Second Amended and Restated Development Agreement to the Gateway Business Park Master Plan Project between the City and BMR-700 Gateway LP,BMR-750,800,850 Gateway LP, BMR-900 Gateway LP, and BMR-1000 Gateway LP, and waive further reading. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION The City Council previously waived reading and introduced the following ordinance.The ordinance is ready for adoption. Ordinance adopting a First Amendment to the Second Amended and Restated Development Agreement (DAA19-0003)to the Gateway Business Park Master Plan Project between the City of South San Francisco and between BMR-700 Gateway LP,BMR-750,800,850 Gateway LP,BMR-900 Gateway LP,and BMR-1000 Gateway LP to make minor modifications to amend provisions relating to childcare facilities within the development. (Introduced on 02/12/20; Vote 5-0) ASSOCIATIONS 1.Final Ordinance (20-138) A.Exhibit A- First Amendment to the Second Amended and Restated Development Agreement City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/20/2020Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:20-138 Agenda Date:2/26/2020 Version:1 Item #:7a. Ordinance adopting a First Amendment to the Second Amended and Restated Development Agreement (DAA19-0003)to the Gateway Business Park Master Plan Project between the City of South San Francisco and between BMR-700 Gateway LP,BMR-750,800,850 Gateway LP,BMR-900 Gateway LP,and BMR-1000 Gateway LP to make minor modifications to amend provisions relating to childcare facilities within the development. WHEREAS,in 2010 the City of South San Francisco (“City”)adopted (1)Resolution No.18-2010 certifying the 2009 Environmental Impact Report (“2009 EIR”)(State Clearinghouse No.2008062059),(2)Resolution No.19-2010 approving a general plan amendment and transportation demand management (TDM)program, (3)Ordinance No.1422-2010 amending Chapters 20.57 and 20.120 of the Zoning Ordinance,and (4) Ordinance No.1423-2010 approving a development agreement with Chamberlin Associates,for the construction of five to six R&D/Office buildings,two to four parking structures,and related improvements on an approximately 22.6-acre site located at 700-1000 Gateway Boulevard; and WHEREAS,in 2013 the City adopted (1)Resolution No.43-2013 making findings and relying on the previously certified 2009 EIR,(2)Resolution No.44-2013 approving modifications to the Gateway Business Park Master Plan,a new Phase 1 Precise Plan,and modifications to the TDM program,and (3)Ordinance No. 1471-2013 adopting a First Amended and Restated Development Agreement with Gateway of Pacific LP (“BioMed Realty”); and WHEREAS,in 2018 the City adopted Ordinance No.1559-2018 adopting a Second Amended and Restated Development Agreement with BMR-700 Gateway LP,BMR-750,800,850 Gateway LP,BMR-900 Gateway LP,and BMR-1000 Gateway LP to allow for minor modifications to the agreement,including acknowledgement of the transfer and assignment of the separate parcels to the respective affiliates, acknowledgement of lot line adjustment between Phases 1 and 2,and confirmation that each property owner holds the compliance burdens,obligations,and responsibilities for its respective parcel of property under the Second Amended and Restated Development Agreement; and WHEREAS,BioMed Realty (“Owner”or “Applicant”)submitted an application requesting a First Amendment to the Second Amended and Restated Development Agreement to allow for a minor modification to the agreement related to the replacement childcare obligation; and WHEREAS,the 2009 EIR was certified in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code,§§21000,et seq.,“CEQA”)and CEQA Guidelines,which analyzed the potential environmental impacts of the Project; and WHEREAS,the modifications contemplated in the First Amendment to the Second Amended and Restated Development Agreement are minor in nature,the approval of which would not result in any new significantCity of South San Francisco Printed on 3/18/2020Page 1 of 4 powered by Legistar™ File #:20-138 Agenda Date:2/26/2020 Version:1 Item #:7a. Development Agreement are minor in nature,the approval of which would not result in any new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of any previously identified effects beyond those disclosed and analyzed in the 2009 EIR certified by City Council,nor does the First Amendment to the Second Amended and Restated Development Agreement constitute a change in the Project or change in circumstances that would require additional environmental review; and WHEREAS,the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on January 16,2020,at which time interested parties had the opportunity to be heard,to review the proposed First Amendment to the Second Amended and Restated Development Agreement,as well as supporting documents,and recommended that the City Council consider the First Amendment to the Second Amended and Restated Development Agreement; and WHEREAS,the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on February 12,2020 to consider the First Amendment to the Second Amended and Restated Development Agreement, and take public testimony. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of South San Francisco does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. That based on the entirety of the record before it,which includes without limitation,the California Environmental Quality Act,Public Resources Code §21000,et seq.(“CEQA)and the CEQA Guidelines,14 California Code of Regulations §15000,et seq.;the South San Francisco General Plan,and General Plan Environmental Impact Report;the South San Francisco Municipal Code;2009 EIR,and associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Programs;all site plans,and all reports,minutes,and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission’s duly noticed January 16,2020 meeting;all site plans,and all reports, minutes,and public testimony submitted as part of the City Council’s duly noticed February 12,2020 meeting; and any other evidence (within the meaning of Public Resources Code §21080(e)and §21082.2),the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco hereby finds as follows: A.The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution. B.The Exhibit attached to this Resolution,the proposed First Amendment to the Second Amended and Restated Development Agreement (Exhibit A), is incorporated by reference as if set forth fully herein. C.The documents and other material constituting the record for these proceedings are located at the Planning Division for the City of South San Francisco,315 Maple Avenue,South San Francisco,CA 94080, and in the custody of the Planning Manager. D.The Owner and City have negotiated a First Amendment to the Second Amended and Restated Development Agreement pursuant to Government Code Section 65864 et seq.The First Amendment to the Second Amended and Restated Development Agreement,attached hereto as Exhibit A,sets forth the duration, property,project criteria,and other required information identified in Government Code Section 65865.2. Based on the findings in support of the Project,the Planning Commission finds that the Development Agreement,vesting a project for a campus-style development of office and R&D buildings,is consistent with the objectives,policies,general land uses and programs specified in the South San Francisco General Plan,the Gateway Specific Plan, and any applicable zoning regulations. City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/18/2020Page 2 of 4 powered by Legistar™ File #:20-138 Agenda Date:2/26/2020 Version:1 Item #:7a. E.The First Amendment to the Second Amended and Restated Development Agreement is compatible with the uses authorized in,and the regulations prescribed for the land use district in which the real property is located.The subject site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of the land use being proposed.The General Plan specifically contemplates the proposed type of project and the suitability of the site for development was analyzed thoroughly in the environmental document prepared for the Project. F.The First Amendment to the Second Amended and Restated Development Agreement is in conformity with public convenience,general welfare and good land use practice because the modifications are minor in nature. G.The First Amendment to the Second Amended and Restated Development Agreement will not be detrimental to the health,safety and general welfare because the amendment preserves a campus-like environment. H.The First Amendment to the Second Amended and Restated Development Agreement will not adversely affect the orderly development of property or the preservation of property valued because the amendment improves the property’s campus-like environment and is consistent with surrounding R&D and office uses. SECTION 2.Approval of Development Agreement A.The City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby approves the First Amendment to the Second Amended and Restated Development Agreement with BMR-700 Gateway LP,BMR-750,800,850 Gateway LP,BMR-900 Gateway LP,and BMR-1000 Gateway LP,attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference. B.The City Council further authorizes the City Manager to execute the First Amendment to the Second Amended and Restated Development Agreement,on behalf of the City,in substantially the form attached as Exhibit A,and to make revisions to such Agreement,subject to the approval of the City Attorney, which do not materially or substantially increase the City’s obligations thereunder. SECTION 3.Severability If any provision of this Ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid or unconstitutional,the remainder of this Ordinance,including the application of such part or provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby and shall continue in full force and effect.To this end, provisions of this Ordinance are severable.The City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby declares that it would have passed each section,subsection,subdivision,paragraph,sentence,clause,or phrase hereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections,subsections,subdivisions,paragraphs,sentences, clauses, or phrases be held unconstitutional, invalid, or unenforceable. SECTION 4.Publication and Effective Date. Pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 36933,a summary of this Ordinance shall be prepared by the City Attorney.At least five (5)days prior to the Council meeting at which this Ordinance is scheduled to be adopted,the City Clerk shall (1)publish the Summary,and (2)post in the City Clerk’s Office a certified copy of this Ordinance.Within fifteen (15)days after the adoption of this Ordinance,the City Clerk shall (1) City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/18/2020Page 3 of 4 powered by Legistar™ File #:20-138 Agenda Date:2/26/2020 Version:1 Item #:7a. copy of this Ordinance.Within fifteen (15)days after the adoption of this Ordinance,the City Clerk shall (1) publish the summary,and (2)post in the City Clerk’s Office a certified copy of the full text of this Ordinance along with the names of those City Council members voting for and against this Ordinance or otherwise voting. This Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days from and after its adoption. ***** Introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of South San Francisco held the 12th day of February 2020. City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/18/2020Page 4 of 4 powered by Legistar™ Page 1 RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: City Clerk City of South San Francisco 400 Grand Avenue P. O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 Exempt from recording fees per Government Code §§6103, 27383 ______________________________________________________________________________ Space above this line reserved for recorder’s use APNs: 015-023-290; 015-023-300 015-023-200; 015-023-320; 015-023-430; 015-023-190; 015-023-310 FIRST AMENDMENT TO SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AND BMR-700 GATEWAY LP, BMR-750, 800, 850 GATEWAY LP, BMR-900 GATEWAY LP, AND BMR-1000 GATEWAY LP SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA Gateway Business Park Master Plan Project FIRST AMENDMENT TO SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Page 2 FIRST AMENDMENT TO SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Gateway Business Park Master Plan Project This FIRST AMENDMENT TO SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE GATEWAY BUSINESS PARK MASTER PLAN PROJECT is dated __________ ___, 2020 (“First Amendment”). This First Amendment is between BMR-700 Gateway LP (“BMR-700 Gateway); BMR-750, 800, 850 Gateway LP (“BMR-750, 800, 850 Gateway”); BMR-900 Gateway LP (“BMR-900 Gateway”); and BMR- 1000 Gateway LP (“BMR-1000 Gateway”); all of which are Delaware limited partnerships (collectively “Owners” and individually “Owner”), on the one hand, and the CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of California (“City”), on the other hand. Each Owner and the City are individually referred to herein as a “Party” and collectively referred to herein as “Parties.” RECITALS A. WHEREAS, Owners and City are parties to that certain Second Amended and Restated Development Agreement (Gateway Business Park Master Plan Project) by and between the Owners and City, dated August 31, 2018, and recorded in the Official Records of San Mateo County on September 7, 2018, as Document Number 2018-070317 (“Development Agreement”); B. WHEREAS, Owners and City wish to amend the Development Agreement as set forth in this First Amendment; C. WHEREAS, all proceedings necessary for the valid adoption and execution of this First Amendment have taken place in accordance with California Government Code sections 65864 through 65869.5, the California Environmental Quality Act, and Chapter 19.60 of the City’s Municipal Code; D. WHEREAS, the City Council and the City Planning Commission have found that the Development Agreement, as amended by this First Amendment, is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified in the South San Francisco General Plan; and E. WHEREAS, on __________ ___, 2020, the City Council of City adopted Ordinance Number ____-2020 approving and adopting this First Amendment, and such ordinance took effect 30 days later. AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties, pursuant to the authority contained in Government Code Sections 65864 through 65869.5 and Chapter 19.60 of the City’s Municipal Code, and in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements contained herein, agree as follows: FIRST AMENDMENT TO SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Page 3 1. Revised Childcare Replacement Facility Requirement. Section 12(b) of the Development Agreement and Section 1.2.4(b) of Exhibit E-1 to the Development Agreement are each amended and restated in their entirety to read as follows: (b) Childcare Replacement Facility. To enable City to provide a childcare facility comparable to the former childcare facility that was designated for 850 Gateway Boulevard, envisioned to serve up to 80 to 100 children, the Owners of Phases 2, 3, and 4 collectively shall pay to the City (i) one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) within 30 days of the First Amendment Effective Date and (ii) six million five hundred thousand dollars ($6,500,000.00) prior to City’s issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy for Phase 2. The Parties agree that these payments satisfy Owners’ childcare facility obligations in light of the present value of the funds to the City for other public projects and the potential renovation of an existing building to provide a space for a replacement childcare facility. Use of the funds is not limited to any specific potential project, and the City may use the initial one million dollars ($1,000,0000) for other public projects and the balance of funds for the provision of any childcare facility, including all costs associated with site acquisition (including, if necessary, eminent domain), environmental review, permitting, and all other expenses and fees, including reasonable attorneys' fees. Compliance with Section 12(b) of the DA and section 1.2.4(b) of Exhibit E-1 shall be deemed to be compliance with condition of approval A-16.b. The “First Amendment Effective Date” is defined as the date that the ordinance approving the First Amendment to this Agreement took effect. 2. Revised Fee Estimate. Exhibit E-2 to the Development Agreement is amended such that the seventh row of the second table is amended and restated to state “Child Care Facility (§ 12(b) of DA)” in the Fee column, “$7.5 million paid in accordance with § 12(b)” in the Rate and All Phases Fee columns, and “$0.00” in the Phase 1 Fee column. 3. Effective Date. Pursuant to Section 19.60.140 of the City’s Municipal Code, notwithstanding the fact that the City Council adopted an ordinance approving this First Amendment, this First Amendment shall be effective and shall only create obligations for the Parties from and after the date that the ordinance approving this First Amendment takes effect. 4. Full Force and Effect. As amended by this First Amendment, the Development Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 5. Counterparts. This First Amendment may be executed in multiple originals, each of which is deemed an original, and may be signed in counterparts. IN WITNESS WHEREOF this Agreement has been executed by the Parties on the day and year first above written. (Signatures appear on the following pages) FIRST AMENDMENT TO SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Page 4 CITY: CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO By: __________________________ Name: __________________________ Its: City Manager ATTEST: __________________________ City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: __________________________ City Attorney OWNERS: BMR-700 GATEWAY LP By: ___________________________ Name: ___________________________ Its: ___________________________ BMR-750, 800, 850 GATEWAY LP By: ___________________________ Name: ___________________________ Its: ___________________________ BMR-900 GATEWAY LP By: ___________________________ Name: ___________________________ Its: ___________________________ BMR-1000 GATEWAY LP By: ___________________________ Name: ___________________________ Its: ___________________________ FIRST AMENDMENT TO SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Page 5 A Notary Public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. State of _______________________ ) ) County of _____________________ ) On ____________________, before me, ______________________________, a Notary Public, personally appeared ______________________________________________________, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature______________________________ (Seal) 3461691.1 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:20-73 Agenda Date:2/26/2020 Version:1 Item #:8. Report regarding holding a Public Hearing on the City’s housing,community,and economic development needs for the Fiscal Year 2020-2021 One Year Action Plan and providing direction to the Community Development Block Grant Subcommittee regarding funding priorities.(Kris Romasanta,Community Development Coordinator) RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council hold a public hearing and receive public testimony on the City’s housing,community,and economic development needs for the Fiscal Year 2020-2021 Annual Action Plan, and provide direction to the Community Development Block Grant Subcommittee regarding funding priorities. BACKGROUND The U.S.Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)requires local jurisdictions to prepare an Annual Action Plan (Action Plan for the upcoming Fiscal Year 2020-2021,in order to receive funds through the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)Program.As part of the development of the Action Plan,the City is required to hold two public hearings. The purpose of the February 26,2020 public hearing is to obtain citizens’view on housing,community,and economic development needs which will inform the Action Plan.Additionally,for those non-profit organizations seeking CDBG funds,they may use this public hearing to make brief comments to City Council regarding their programs.The City Council can take this opportunity to ask the non-profit organizations questions regarding their proposed activities and to give direction to the CDBG Subcommittee on funding priorities. A notice of the public hearing was published in the San Mateo County Times on February 5, 2020. The second public hearing is scheduled for April 22,2020.At this meeting,Council will consider adopting the FY 20-21 Action Plan and make final recommendations on CDBG funding allocations. DISCUSSION Funds Available for Fiscal Year 2020-2021 The City’s entitlement allocation for Fiscal Year 2020-2021 is $493,573.Since the City received its entitlement amount earlier than in previous years,the CDBG Subcommittee and City Council can make final budget allocations for public service sub-recipients and programs, which can be used to draft the Action Plan. Pursuant to federal spending limitations,a total of 15 percent of the entitlement amount plus 15 percent of prior year program income may be allocated to non-profit organizations for public service.The amount available for public services is $86,073. CDBG administration costs (i.e.City staff time to administer the grant)also have a mandated spending limitation of 20 percent of the entitlement amount plus 20 percent of the estimated prior year program income. This line item’s spending limits are mandated by congressional statute and may not be exceeded. City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/21/2020Page 1 of 4 powered by Legistar™ File #:20-73 Agenda Date:2/26/2020 Version:1 Item #:8. CDBG Programs The following is a summary of currently funded activities under the CDBG program. Public Services The City issued a Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA)for Fiscal Year 2020-2021 CDBG funds for public services,fair housing,minor home repair,housing activities,capital improvements,and public facility projects on December 6,2019.The applications were made available online from December 6,2019 to January 16, 2020.Additionally,an invitation to submit proposals was posted on the City’s website and an email notification was sent to the City’s community service providers list.A Technical Assistance Workshop was also held for any agencies unfamiliar with City Data Services and required training on how to submit an application. Project proposals and budget submitted by non-profit organizations seeking funding reflect a one-year program that would renew the same goals and objectives for the following year.FY 20 is the start of a new two-year cycle.Attachment 1 includes a summary of funding requests,FY 20 funding distribution and goals.Attachment 2 includes the applications as submitted. For Fiscal Year 19-20,Legal Aid Society of San Mateo County and John’s Closet were not funded through CDBG funds,but through the City’s Housing Fund and other sources.Legal Aid reapplied for housing funds, while John’s Closet decided not to reapply for CDBG funds this cycle.All other non-profits that received CDBG funding from the City in FY 19-20 submitted applications for FY 20-21 funding.The non-profits that submitted applications this year for CDBG funding are listed below: ·CORA ·HIP Housing ·Legal Aid Society of San Mateo County ·Ombudsman Services of San Mateo County ·Rape Trauma Services Center ·Samaritan House ·Star Vista ·Friends for Youth ·Health Mobile ·IEP Collaborative ·Life Moves ·Renaissance Entrepreneurship Center ·United Way Bay Area ·CID ·El Concilio of San Mateo County ·Rebuilding Together Peninsula ·Project Sentinel* *HOME Administrative Funds applicant The City received six new public service applications from Friends for Youth,Health Mobile,IEP Collaborative,Life Moves,Renaissance Entrepreneurship Center,and United Way Bay Area.Health Mobile was CDBG funded from 2004 to 2017. Life Moves was funded from 2007 to 2012. City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/21/2020Page 2 of 4 powered by Legistar™ File #:20-73 Agenda Date:2/26/2020 Version:1 Item #:8. Fair Housing The City has targeted the HOME Administrative funds it receives from the County for fair housing activities since the CDBG regulations require the City to affirmatively further fair housing.Fair housing activities may only be funded from administration or public service type funds.In FY 19,the HOME Administrative funds were allocated to Project Sentinel,a non-profit fair housing provider.Project Sentinel has submitted an application for this cycle. City Sponsored Housing Rehabilitation Loan Program The Housing Rehabilitation Loan Program assists low and moderate-income homeowners with housing loans and/or grants to rehabilitate their homes.This program demonstrates the City’s commitment to maintaining affordable housing and anti-blight and anti-displacement efforts.The Housing Rehabilitation Loan Program is being modified to improve efficiency and to reduce administrative cost.Staff is currently working with other members of the CDBG cohort of entitlement cities to improve this process. Debris Box Vouchers Debris Box Vouchers are issued to clear code violations and for emergencies.Debris box vouchers are targeted for the cleanup of conditions that affect the health, safety, or appearance of properties. Emergency Home Repair Vouchers Emergency Home Repair Vouchers are provided as grants of up to $5,500 for qualifying homeowners.These vouchers apply to minor home repairs and minor code violations,such as broken sewer lines,water heater replacement,roof repairs,broken windows,etc.These grants have no fees or charges except any required permit fees. The homeowner is responsible for any costs beyond the grant amount. Public Improvement Projects In FY 19-20,CDBG funds were used replace curbs into ADA compliant ramps at 40 intersections.Street improvements were made along Sunnyside Drive,Susie Way,Orange Avenue,C Street,South Spruce Avenue, and Lowrie Avenue.A majority of the sidewalk ramps are located on the eastern side of the City,east of El Camino Real.The project provides access to people with disabilities so that they can safely transition from the sidewalk to the street and vice versa. The FY 2020-2021 NOFA also solicited proposals for public improvement projects,which include internal South San Francisco departments and external agencies working on public projects in the City.The City received two applicants for this cycle,Habitat for Humanity’s Firehouse Live project and the City of South San Francisco’s Irish Town Green Park Rehabilitation project. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact on the General Fund to hold this Public Hearing.In order for the City to allocate federal funds,two Public Hearings must be held.This is the first of two hearings.At a subsequent City Council meeting,Council will be asked to consider adopting the Annual Action Plan following the second Public Hearing. RELATIONSHIP TO STRATEGIC PLAN By completing the HUD-mandated public process,including the required Annual Action Plan,the City will be able to secure its allocation of CDBG funds for the coming year.This,in turn will advance several components of the City’s Strategic Plan, in particular: ·Provide funding for social services and public projects to support residents (Strategic Plan Priority #2 City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/21/2020Page 3 of 4 powered by Legistar™ File #:20-73 Agenda Date:2/26/2020 Version:1 Item #:8. ·Provide funding for social services and public projects to support residents (Strategic Plan Priority #2 Quality of Life) ·Help fund non-profits that work to address various affordable housing-related issues (Initiative 2.3 - Promote a balanced mix of housing options) ·Shift the financial burden away from the City’s General Fund by securing Federal grant funds (Priority Area 3 Financial Stability) ·Partner with non-profits that provide information to local residents and help strengthen community relationship (Priority Area 6 Community Connections) CONCLUSION It is recommended that the City Council conduct a public hearing,receive testimony on the City’s housing, community,and economic development needs for the Annual Action Plan,and provide direction to the CDBG Subcommittee regarding funding priorities. Attachments: 1.FY 20-21 Grant Allocation Requests 2.FY 20-21 Budget 3.Sub-recipient Applications City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/21/2020Page 4 of 4 powered by Legistar™ Attachment 1 Organization Program FY 20-21 Amount Requested FY 20-21 Client Goal FY 19-20 Amount Received 1 CORA CORA Emergency Shelter Program 10,200$ 6 15,160$ 2 HIP Housing Home Sharing Program 12,000$ 8 14,260$ 3 Legal Aid Society of San Mateo County Homesavers 12,300$ 190 12,300$ 4 Ombudsman Services of San Mateo County, Inc. Advocacy services to elderly and developmentally disabled 20,000$ 96 15,120$ 5 Rape Trauma Services Center Sexual Assault Services 15,000$ 78 16,060$ 6 Samaritan House Safe Harbor 16,000$ 92 15,160$ 7 StarVista Transitional Housing 11,000$ 13 10,760$ 8 Friends for Youth Mentoring for youth 5,000$ 20 New 9 Health Mobile Free Mobile Clinic 10,000$ 140 New 10 IEP Collaborative Advocacy training for low-income and youth with disabilities 5,053$ 240 New 11 Life Moves Shelter Operations CDBG 25,000$ 191 New 12 Renaissance Entrepreneurship Small business training 25,000$ 30 New 13 United Way of the Bay Area 211 Referral Service 7,800$ 260 New 14 Subtotal 174,353$ 1364 86,520$ 15 CID Housing Accessibility Modification 10,000$ 5 30,000$ 16 El Concilio of San Mateo County Peninsula Minor Home Repair 37,500$ 10 37,500$ 17 Rebuilding Together Peninsula National Rebuilding Day 15,750$ 30 15,750$ 18 Rebuilding Together Peninsula Safe at Home 55,000$ 12 55,000$ 19 Subtotal 118,250$ 57 138,250$ 20 City of South San Francisco Irish Town Green 130,000$ 2649 New 21 Habitat for Humanity Firehouse Live 100,000$ 81 New 22 Subtotal 230,000$ 2730 23 Project Sentinel Fair Housing 16,171$ 77$ 16,171$ 24 TOTAL 538,774$ 240,941$ CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS/PUBLIC FACITILIES HOME FUNDS: FAIR HOUSING ACTIVITIES Community Development Block Grant Program FY 20-21 Grant Allocation Requests PUBLIC SERVICE GRANTS MINOR HOME REPAIR PROGRAMS *Note that Rebuilding Together's National Rebuilding Day is a one day event held the last weekend in April. Therefore, Rebuilding Together doesn't report clients served until Quarter 4 CDBG FY 20-21 FY 19-20 (Actual) Entitlement Amount 493,573 466,637 Prior Years Uncommitted Funds (Estimated Rollover)100,000 386,494 Program Income Estimate 30,000 80,245 Total 623,573 933,376 PUBLIC SERVICES Estimate Actual 15 % of FY 20-21 Entitlement 74,036 69,996 15% of Prior Year Program Income 12,037 20,604 Total Public Service Limit 86,073 90,600 CDBG ADMINISTRATION 20% of FY 20-21 Entitlement 98,715 93,327 20% of Estimated Current Year Program Income 6,000 16,049 Total Administration Limit 104,715 109,376 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS/PUBLIC FACILITIES Estimate Actual Capital Improvements Projects 146,000 206,000 MINOR HOME REPAIR PROGRAMS 138,250 138,250 CITY SPONSORED ACTIVITIES Housing Rehabilitation Program 65,000 45,000 Debris Box Vouchers 2,000 2,000 Emergency Home Repairs 50,000 50,000 Total City Sponsored Activities 117,000 97,000 Total Non-Restricted Funds 401,250 441,250 Contingency 31,536 292,150 NON-RESTRICTED CDBG FUNDS Attachment 2 Community Development Block Grant Program FUNDS AVAILABLE SPENDING LIMITS FOR CDBG FUNDS 1/23/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8529&prop=26 1/7 Consolidated Community Funding Application Redwood City, San Mateo County, and S. San Francisco Application for New Funding for FY 2020-21 GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Organization Name: Center for Independence of Individuals with Disabilities 2. Project Title: Housing Accessibility Modifications (HAM) We are applying for funding from: Redwood City City of San Mateo South San Francisco County of San Mateo Budget/Client Summary (Auto-populated from Budget, below) Jurisdictions receiving this application Amount Requested % of Program Budget Proposed # of Served % of Served Total $ Per Redwood City $20,000 14% 9 17% $2,222.22 City of San Mateo $30,000 21% 14 26% $2,142.86 County of San Mateo $60,000 43% 26 48% $2,307.69 South San Francisco $10,000 7% 5 9% $2,000.00 Total $120,000 86% 54 100% $2,222.22 Grant Funded Programs: We are applying for a Minor Home Repair Program CDBG National Objective Eligibility - How are you serving low income populations? Service to "presumed benefit" groups listed below (income verification not required, but verification of presumed benefit status is required): Abused children Homeless persons Victims of domestic violence Illiterate adults Elderly persons/seniors (age 62+) Persons living with AIDS Severely disabled adults Migrant farm workers Income Verification: Describe how you obtain, verify, and maintain proof of income and presumed benefit status. Third party documentation or client signatures on the certification forms must be available on file for review at all times. All Home Accessibility Modification (HAM) consumers must meet the income requirements for either the extremely low, very low, and low income category. Services are only available to individuals and families with functional limitations. In order to determine eligibility, CID requires all applicants to complete an intake to verify that they meet the income requirements and other terms stated in the grant agreement, as well as the criteria necessary to be a consumer of an Independent Living Center (e.g. have a disability and need for services to become more independent). When more than self verification is required under a specific grant and policy and stipulation, CID's HAM Coordinator collects all pertinent income information prior to starting modification for any household. Examples of acceptable forms of income verification include a W-2 form from the previous year, recent payroll stubs (3 months), copies of SSI award letters, AFDC award letters etc. 3. Project Address: 2001 Winward Way, Suite 103 City: San Mateo Zip: 94404-2499 4. Provide a one sentence project summary: The Center for Independence Housing Accessibility Modification (HAM) program will increase safety and independence for low-income individuals with disabilities through the installation of home accessibility modifications. Organization Address: 2001 Winward Way, Suite 103 City: San Mateo Zip: 94404-2499 Organization Phone: 650-645-1780 Website: http://www.cidsanmateo.org/ Type of Applicant: Non-Profit Our agency serves: 5. Contact Person / Project Administrator:Name: Alexandra Manieri Title: Program Manager Telephone: 650- 645-1780, Ext. 119 Contact Email: alexandram@cidsanmateo.org; lisah@cidsanmateo.org Fax: 650-645-1785 1/23/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8529&prop=26 2/7 6. Name of Agency Director: Donna Reed 7. Fiscal Officer:Name: Tsegereda Andarge Email: tsegeredat@cidsanmateo.org Telephone: 650- 645-1780 Ext. 111 Fiscal Officer Address: 2001 Winward Way, Suite 103 City: San Mateo Zip: 94404-2499 8. Authorized Signatory:Name: Donna Reed Email: donnar@cidsanmateo.org Telephone: 650- 645-1780 Ext 113 Authorized Signatory Address: 2001 Winward Way, Suite 103 City: San Mateo Zip: 94404-2499 9. Please provide days and hours of regularly scheduled operation: Office Hours are Monday - Friday from 9 am - 5 pm. 10. DUNS Number: 049014111 Federal EIN/TIN Number: 94-2581080 11. HUD Activity: Choose the HUD activity that most closely matches your service: 14A - Rehab: Single-Unit Residential 12. Project Specific Narrative: Provide a narrative description of the specific activities to be carried out with the requested funds. This should also include program objectives and key priorities for each specific jurisdiction. Accessible, affordable housing is a major concern for people with disabilities in San Mateo County, many of whom are on fixed incomes. According to the Social Security Administration, the average disability benefit for 2019 was $1,234 per month. The major emphasis in CID's housing efforts is our Housing Accessibility (HAM) Program. Through this program, CID installs ramps, hand rails, grab bars, vertical lifts, and other modifications to increase home accessibility for individuals with disabilities. These modifications facilitate people with disabilities to remain at home or move back into their homes with greater independence, preventing the need to move into a skilled nursing or other institutional care facility. CID cooperates with cities and the County housing agencies in San Mateo County to increase then number of quality accessible and affordable housing options. Our key objective for all cities is to provide home modifications for extremely low, very low, and low income individuals with disabilities living in San Mateo County. Our priority is to provide low-income individuals with disabilities the opportunity to become more independent in their homes through modifications that will keep them safe in their homes. 13A. Assessment of Need - Redwood City: Briefly describe how you determined the need for your program for each specific jurisdiction that you are applying for funds. Identify target population(s) and area(s) served. Please state the source(s) and date(s) of information. Identify any similar programs in the community. Determination of need for each specific jurisdiction that we are applying for funds is based on past performances of the agency, demands identified by request, and similar programs within a specific jurisdictional area. Additionally, we audit our organization on key demographic of nationality and diverse population of services provided and outreach to different communities. Population: The target population is individuals with disabilities. According to 2010 Census data, 18.9% of Redwood City residents have disabilities. Additional increase projection in the future occurring with the growing elderly community. Areas: The targeted area is all residential households within the Redwood city limits that meet the criteria for low, very low, or extremely low income level. 'Redwood City QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau.' San Mateo (city) QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Jan. 2016 13B. Assessment of Need - City of San Mateo: Briefly describe how you determined the need for your program for each specific jurisdiction that you are applying for funds. Identify target population(s) and area(s) served. Please state the source(s) and date(s) of information. Identify any similar programs in the community. Determination of need for each specific jurisdiction that we are applying for funds is based on past performances of the agency, demands identified by request, and similar programs within a specific jurisdictional area. Additionally, we audit our organization on key demographic of nationality and diverse population of services provided and outreach to different communities. Population: The target population is individuals with disabilities living in the City of San Mateo. According to 2010 Census data, 15% of the City of San Mateo residents have disabilities. Additional increase projection in the future occurring with the growing elderly community. Areas: The targeted area is all residential households within the San Mateo city limits that are low, very low, and extremely low income level. 'City of San Mateo QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau.' San Mateo (city) QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Jan. 2016 13C. Assessment of Need - County of San Mateo: Briefly describe how you determined the need for your program for each specific jurisdiction that you are applying for funds. Identify target population(s) and area(s) served. Please state the source(s) and date(s) of information. Identify any similar programs in the community. Determination of need for each specific jurisdiction that we are applying for funds is based on past performances of the agency, demands identified by request, and similar programs within a specific jurisdictional area. Additionally, we audit our organization on key demographic of nationality and diverse population of services provided and outreach to different communities. Population: The target population is individuals with disabilities living in the County of San Mateo. According to 2010 Census data, 19.8% of residents of the County of San Mateo have disabilities. Additional increase projection in the future occurring with the growing elderly community. 1/23/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8529&prop=26 3/7 Areas: All residential households within the San Mateo County limits that meet the criteria for low, very low, or extremely low income level. 'County of San Mateo QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau.' San Mateo (city) QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Jan. 2016 13D. Assessment of Need - South San Francisco: Briefly describe how you determined the need for your program for each specific jurisdiction that you are applying for funds. Identify target population(s) and area(s) served. Please state the source(s) and date(s) of information. Identify any similar programs in the community. Determination of need for each specific jurisdiction that we are applying for funds is based on past performances of the agency, demands identified by request, and similar programs within a specific jurisdictional area. Additionally, we audit our organization on key demographic of nationality and diverse population of services provided and outreach to different communities. Population: The target population is individuals with disabilities living in South San Francisco. According to 2010 Census data, 17.75% of South San Francisco residents have disabilities. Additional increase projection in the future occurring with the growing elderly community. Areas: All residential households within the South San Francisco city limits that meet the criteria for low, very low, or extremely low income level. 'South San Francisco (city) QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau.' San Mateo (city) QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Jan. 2016 14. Timeline: Provide a brief timetable for project implementation and achievement of projected goals and how you plan to expend your funds in a timely manner by the end of the fiscal year. CID's HAM Coordinator and Program Manager continuously monitor the HAM program throughout the fiscal year to ensure that projected timelines and milestones are met. In the beginning of each fiscal year, we evaluate the amount of funding allocated by each individual jurisdiction and set monthly and quarterly milestones to be met regarding spending and the number of consumers to be served in order to reach our annual program goals. During each monthly review, we evaluate progress toward our annual goal and determine which jurisdiction may be lacking in consumer requests. We will schedule outreaches in the target areas to increase community awareness of our organization and the HAM program. All our HAM project goals are set, achievable, measurable, time limited, and clearly stated on our work plans for each project. 15. Evaluation: Briefly describe how you will determine and measure the success of your program and whether or not program goals were met? If your program is currently receiving grant funds please describe accomplishments of goals to date. CID provides quality satisfaction surveys for all Home Accessibility Modification Program consumers served in order to evaluate the services provided. We gauge our program success by our consumers' satisfaction, as well as reaching milestones set in the grant stipulations, including the number of individuals households served, the number and type of modifications provided, and diversity of consumers served. From a consumer stand point, the majority of consumers surveyed report that they are satisfied with the HAM program and that they are more independent as a result of HAM services. For example, installation of grab bars in a bathroom allows an individual to shower without care attendants and the installation of a ramp allows an individual can move in and out freely without assistance. These modifications essentially prevent individuals from institutionalization and allows them to live more independently in their home and community. 16. Collaboration: Describe partnerships with other organizations/agencies, the nature of the partnership, and how it relates to the proposed project. We currently collaborate with Home Safety Services and EVator as contractors who install the modifications. Additionally, we work closely with Rebuilding Together, another local non-profit that also provides home modifications to the community. The nature of our partnership is working closely on projects, outside contracts, and proper referrals. We make referrals to one another if the other agency is better equipped to provide services. CID's HAM Coordinator has also built relationships with nurses, social workers, and therapists who provide referrals for community members in need of home modifications. CID's HAM program is unique in that we specifically provide accessibility modifications to seniors and individuals with disabilities or other functional limitations. 17. Impact: : Discuss any general trends and conditions that have affected or impacted your service levels or service populations. For New Applicants – describe what these funds would allow your agency to do that you may not be able to do now. For Continuing Applicants – describe how your program would be impacted without these funds. Trends show that the number of older adults and individuals with disabilities in San Mateo County could increase by 30-40% by 2020 (Lisa et al). As an Independent Living Center serving individuals of all ages and disabilities, CID has seen an increase in the needs for our Home Accessibility Modification Program, as well as our AT Reuse Program (e.g walkers, wheelchairs, etc). Without CDBG funds, our HAM program would not be able to provide home accessibility modifications for as many residents as previously served, as other funding sources cover administration costs, but will not cover materials and supplies for the program. Without these funds there could be an increase of individuals who are no longer able to live independently in their homes, and consequently stripped of their independence. It could also potentially put a financial strain on the individuals family, county, and state due to high cost of institutionalization. As an Independent Living Center, our HAM program is vital to the San Mateo County community and without these funds we would inevitably lose staff and lose one of our most valued and long standing programs in the community. 18. Project Beneficiaries/Quantifiable Measurement: Indicate the expected number of beneficiaries to be served by the program. For each response below please indicate both the number of households and number of individuals. Refer to the San Mateo County Income Limits. 1/23/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8529&prop=26 4/7 a. Indicate the total number of low-income beneficiaries you expect to serve with this program for each jurisdiction application for funding. *Low-income is 80% of Area Median Income or below. See AMI table b. Indicate the total number of beneficiaries you expect to serve with this program in each jurisdiction - regardless of income. Jurisdiction a. Number of low-income beneficiaries to be served per grant jurisdiction application. **Low-income** is 80% of Area Median Income or below. b. All beneficiaries to be served per grant jurisdiction application regardless of income Persons Households Persons Households Daly City 10 10 10 10 Redwood City 9 9 9 9 City of San Mateo 14 14 14 14 County of San Mateo 26 26 26 26 South San Francisco 5 5 5 5 Totals 64 64 64 64 19. Populations Served: Check the boxes below if they describe a significant population served by your program. These categories are not considered "presumed benefit" by HUD, and require income verification. Persons exiting incarceration Low-income youth Other Disabled 20. Affirmative Outreach: a. Use the demographics from your previous program year to provide an analysis of the population you serve relative to the demographics in the table. NOTE: If you are a new applicant please provide your best estimation. Race & Ethnicity Redwood City Population Redwood City % by Ethnicity Low Income by Ethnicity served by your Program Your Program % by Ethnicity Total 74,402 100%10 100% White and not Hispanic 40,656 54.64% 9 90.00% White and Hispanic 23,557 31.66% 0 0.00% Asian 6,715 9.03% 0 0.00% African American 1,916 2.58% 0 0.00% Pacific Islander 663 0.89% 0 0.00% Native American 384 0.52% 0 0.00% Other 1,511 2.03% 1 10.00% Race & Ethnicity City of San Mateo Population City of San Mateo % by Ethnicity Low Income by Ethnicity served by your Program Your Program % by Ethnicity Total 97,207 100%10 100% White and not Hispanic 45,240 46.54% 7 70.00% White and Hispanic 25,815 26.56% 1 10.00% Asian 18,153 18.67% 1 10.00% African American 2,099 2.16% 1 10.00% Pacific Islander 1,937 1.99% 0 0.00% Native American 140 0.14% 0 0.00% Other 3,823 3.93% 0 0.00% Race & Ethnicity South San Francisco Population South San Francisco % by Ethnicity Low Income by Ethnicity served by your Program Your Program % by Ethnicity Total 63,632 100%4 100% White and not Hispanic 23,760 37.34% 1 25.00% White and Hispanic 21,645 34.02% 1 25.00% Asian 23,293 36.61% 0 0.00% African American 1,625 2.55% 2 50.00% Pacific Islander 1,111 1.75% 0 0.00% Native American 395 0.62% 0 0.00% Other 9,598 15.08% 0 0.00% b. Based on the percentages that you indicate your organization served describe your efforts to improve affirmative outreach to groups that may be underserved by your program and the result of your efforts: Based on the statistical analysis of people served by CID and race and ethnicity average of each city (Redwood City, South San Francisco, and City of San Mateo) additional outreach needs to be conducted in the Hispanic (non white) and Asian communities in all 3 demographic areas, as well as the African American community in Redwood City. CID will provide outreach at the county level to the Diversity Equity Council, and other specific Health Equity 1/23/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8529&prop=26 5/7 Initiatives, in order to provide targeted outreach to underserved communities in San Mateo County. 21. Leveraging: Describe your fundraising efforts and additional sources of revenue for this project and your organization. Please state whether any of these fund sources are already committed and in what amount. The majority of our administrative costs are funded by the Department of Rehabilitation (DOR) revenue. To date, we have been allocated funding from DOR to help fund support staff to help coordinate the modification of jobs, contractors, billing, and additional administrative duties associated with the HAM program. Staff List List below key staff members who work on this program Position Title Name of Staff Person Job Responsibilities Qualifications HAM Coordinator Lisa Heath Coordination of all HAM projects Background in Administration Finance Manager Tsgereda Andarge Fiscal Management for entire organization Background in Fiscal Management Program Manager Alexandra Manieri Oversight of all CID programs 3 years of experience managing CID programs PROPOSED PROGRAM BUDGET FOR FY 2020-21 Redwood City City of San Mateo County of San Mateo South San Francisco Total Jurisdictions Budget Line Item Agency Total Pgm%Program Total %Requested %Requested %Requested %Requested Pgm%Requested Labor Finance Manager $72,000 10% $7,200 15% $1,100 25% $1,800 49% $3,500 11% $800 100%$7,200 Taxes/Benefits $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Operations/Maintenance Materials/Contractor $132,800 100% $132,800 14% $18,900 21% $28,200 43% $56,500 7% $9,200 85%$112,800 Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0% $0 TOTAL $204,800 68%$140,000 14%$20,000 21%$30,000 43%$60,000 7%$10,000 86%$120,000 Number of Individual Beneficiaries 9 14 26 5 54 Cost per Individual $2,222.22 $2,142.86 $2,307.69 $2,000.00 $2,222.22 For the City of Redwood City ONLY, answer the following: 1. Funding Criteria: 1. Affordable Housing: Acquisition of sites for affordable housing, new construction of affordable housing, conversion of existing housing to affordable, acquisition and rehabilitation of rental housing (includes special needs housing). 2. Marketing/Advertising a. Check all of the following methods your agency utilizes to promote and advertise your programs and services: Flyers/brochures Website CIP (Handbook/Database) Outreach presentations to service providers Outreach presentations to public PSA’s b. Which of the above marketing/advertising materials are available in multi-langual form and which languages are they available in? Brochures are available in Spanish and English. Large print or braille materials are available upon request. Languages spoken in the office: Tagalog, Spanish. c. How and where are the materials distributed? Material for our Home Accessibility Modification (HAM) program are prominently displayed in the lobby of our Main Office (San Mateo) and our Branch Office (San Bruno). Additionally, when an individual conducts an intake for any of our programs, they are given an overview and materials for the HAM program as well. During all outreaches to different community partners in San Mateo County, we distribute pamphlets describing the services at our center. 1/23/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8529&prop=26 6/7 Some of our common targets for outreaches for the HAM program are: hospitals, Occupational Therapists, Physical Therapists, Social Workers, teachers, and organizations that are specifically geared towards diverse groups. Staff also frequently participate in senior information and health fairs and other resource fairs to distribute HAM materials directly to community members who could benefit from the program. 3. Program Outcomes: a. Please describe the accomplishments of program goals for FY/19. Our program helps individuals in the community through home modifications or using Assistive technology (e.g stair lifts). These efforts assist us to maintain people's independence and safety, while fostering community integration. As a result of our program, going to the grocery story, getting to work or to a doctor's appointment becomes possible. One of the biggest impact we have through this program is helping individuals remain in their homes as well as return home form institutional settings by providing structural improvements that give power and independence back to the consumer. b. In what ways has your program made a difference in the lives of the people you serve? Please provide at least one concrete example from the people served in FY/19: We received a call from a gentleman who learned about our HAM Program by searching the web for a ramp installation. When he called, he wanted us to install a ramp quickly. The urgency was in having a safe way for his mother to get in and out of the house. His 97 year old mother had a stroke and getting her in and out of the house was a struggle. Initially, he wanted a wood ramp to match the rest of the house, but I explained to him that a modular aluminum ramp would be quicker to get done given that a permit is not required for a modular aluminum ramp. Within days, Les at EVator assembled the ramp and the consumer's family was grateful for the assistance we had given them. Additionally, he was very impressed with our determination to act quickly and proficiently. Attachments 1. Resolution authorizing application and designation of signatory, by the Board of Directors Board_Resolution_-_City_of_San_Mateo_- _January_2020.pdf Board_Resolution_-_City_of_Redwood_City_- _January_2020.pdf Board_Resolution_-_County_of_San_Mateo_- _January_2020.pdf Board_Resolution_-_South_San_Francisco_- _January_2020.pdf 2. Proof of 501(c)3 / tax-exempt status CID_Nonprofit_Status_Pg_from_IRS.pdf 3. By-laws 2019-01-09_-_CID_By-Laws.pdf 4. Articles of Incorporation CID_-_Articles_of_Incorporation.pdf 5. Board roster, including: Name, Company, Years on Board Meeting dates for previous 12 months Number of years allowed for each board term CID_Board_Roster_with_2019_meeting_dates_and_term_- _as_of_12-06-2019.pdf 6. Organizational chart for entire organization Organizational_Chart_2019-2020_-_01-06-2020.pdf 7. Certified financial audit no more that 1 fiscal year old, prepared by a CPA, and: Management letters (if applicable) A-122 and A-133 Single Audit (for entities that receive more than $500,000 in federal funding) OR A letter from your Executive Director or Chief Financial Officer certifying that agency does not receive more than $500,000 in federal funds and is not subject to the Single Audit. CID_Audit_Report_FYE_September_30_2018.pdf 2020_Single_Audit_Letter_-_CDS.pdf 8. The following are required: Current (FY19-20) Agency Operating Budget Proposed (FY20-21) Agency Operating Budget CID_Agency_Budget_FY19-20..pdf Proposed_Agency_Budget_FY20-21..pdf 9. Mission Statement CID_Mission_Statement_-_01-23-2019.pdf 10. Non-discrimination policy for Staff and Clients 2019-06-13__-_CID_Employee_Handbook_-_Non- Discrimination_Policy.pdf 11. Reasonable Accommodations Policy for Staff and Clients 2019-06-13__-_CID_Employee_Handbook_- _Reasonable_Accommodations_Policy.pdf 12. Conflict of Interest Policy. (If not available, please indicate when you will submit) 2019-06-13__-_CID_Employee_Handbook_- _Conflict_of_Interest_policy.pdf 13. Other - 1/23/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8529&prop=26 7/7 Download All Attachments Program Manager Signature Tsegereda Andarge Date Signed 01/16/2020 Initially submitted: Jan 16, 2020 - 09:49:47 2/10/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8618&prop=11 1/7 Consolidated Community Funding Application Redwood City, San Mateo County, and S. San Francisco Application for New Funding for FY 2020-21 GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Organization Name: Community Overcoming Relationship Abuse (CORA) 2. Project Title: CORA Safe House (Emergency Shelter) Program We are applying for funding from: Redwood City City of San Mateo South San Francisco County of San Mateo Budget/Client Summary (Auto-populated from Budget, below) Jurisdictions receiving this application Amount Requested % of Program Budget Proposed # of Persons Served % of Persons Served Total $ Per Persons Redwood City $15,000 2% 18 19% $833.33 County of San Mateo $40,000 7% 70 74% $571.43 South San Francisco $10,200 2% 6 6% $1,700.00 Total $65,200 11% 94 100% $693.62 Grant Funded Programs: We are applying for a Public Services Program CDBG National Objective Eligibility - How are you serving low income populations? Service to "presumed benefit" groups listed below (income verification not required, but verification of presumed benefit status is required): Abused children Homeless persons Victims of domestic violence Illiterate adults Elderly persons/seniors (age 62+) Persons living with AIDS Severely disabled adults Migrant farm workers Income Verification: Describe how you obtain, verify, and maintain proof of income and presumed benefit status. Third party documentation or client signatures on the certification forms must be available on file for review at all times. All of our clients are presumed eligible, based on their status as 'battered spouses' -- see 24 CFR 570.483(b)(2)(ii) (A): https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/24/570.483. 3. Project Address: Suppressed City: Suppressed Zip: 94403-1814 4. Provide a one sentence project summary: To provide operating assistance for CORA's Safe Houses providing victims and survivors of domestic violence and their children with safe and confidential emergency shelter services. Organization Address: 2211 Palm Avenue City: San Mateo Zip: 94403-1814 Organization Phone: 650-652-0800 Website: http://www.corasupport.org/ Type of Applicant: For Profit Our agency serves: Persons 5. Contact Person / Project Administrator: Name: Cordelia Leoncio Title: Grants & Contracts Officer Telephone: 650-652-0800 Contact Email: cordelial@corasupport.org Fax: 650-652-0808 6. Name of Agency Director: Colsaria Henderson 7. Fiscal Officer:Name: Teri Dunwoody Email: terid@corasupport.org Telephone: 650-652-0800 Fiscal Officer Address: 2211 Palm Avenue City: San Mateo Zip: 94403-1814 2/10/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8618&prop=11 2/7 8. Authorized Signatory: Name: Colsaria Henderson Email: colsariah@corasupport.org Telephone: 650-652-0800 Authorized Signatory Address: 2211 Palm Avenue City: San Mateo Zip: 94403-1814 9. Please provide days and hours of regularly scheduled operation: CORA's safe houses are in operation 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. CORA's hotline is answered by a trained crisis counselor 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. CORA's Community Office is open 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM Monday through Friday, except for holidays. 10. DUNS Number: 015862386 Federal EIN/TIN Number: 94-2481188 11. HUD Activity: Choose the HUD activity that most closely matches your service: 05G - Battered and Abused Spouses 12. Project Specific Narrative: Provide a narrative description of the specific activities to be carried out with the requested funds. This should also include program objectives and key priorities for each specific jurisdiction. This project requests continued support for CORA's free, culturally competent, trauma-informed Safe Houses for victims of domestic violence and their children. CORA operates the only domestic violence emergency shelters in San Mateo County since 1977, open to any individual or family in need of confidential shelter. Domestic violence continues to be a pervasive social problem impacting all social, economic, and cultural groups and has life-changing consequences in the lives of victims and their families. Funds will support CORA’s shelter staff, in addition to operational costs. The primary goal of Safe House services is to help survivors with crisis intervention, attain safety and self-sufficiency, and heal from trauma and abuse. We use a trauma-informed and survivor-defined model of service, an approach that provides a proven framework for assisting survivors in strengthening their personal safety, and emotional and psychological well-being so they can rebuild their lives. Advocates provide survivors the support and opportunities they need to set and attain their goals. OBJECTIVES: 80% of Safe House Program clients will demonstrate an increase in self-sufficiency, improving their ability to re-build a life free from abuse, and 80% of clients will transition into safe housing. 13A. Assessment of Need - Redwood City: Briefly describe how you determined the need for your program for each specific jurisdiction that you are applying for funds. Identify target population(s) and area(s) served. Please state the source(s) and date(s) of information. Identify any similar programs in the community. CORA operates the only domestic violence emergency shelters in San Mateo County, serving victims of domestic violence and their children. According to the California Department of Public Health (2017), intimate partner abuse (IPA) is a public health priority and will impact nearly one in five adults. We assess the need through our requests for services data. Over the past 5 years, we responded to an average of 12,500 requests for services annually. In fiscal year 2018-19, we provided 189 individuals (98 adults and 91 children) with emergency shelter and received more than 4,867 calls for domestic violence assistance on our 24 hour crisis hotline. We contacted 1,533 survivors through our 24-hour law enforcement referral program, and provided 1,704 survivors with legal information and advice via our Legal Hotline. Among clients that requested services out of the county’s four largest cities, 15.87% came from Redwood City, the third highest city. We focus on underserved populations, low-to-no income, immigrants, and those with limited English proficiency. Last year we served 42% Hispanic/Latino, 20% non-Hispanic White, 13% Asian, 7% African American, 2% Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander; 1% American Indian or Alaska Native, and 15% multi-racial. About 82% of all clients served were female, with an average age of 39 for adults and 8 for children. CORA’s clients identify as low- income (99.55%); average annual income was $12,168 and 25.5% reported zero income 13B. Assessment of Need - County of San Mateo: Briefly describe how you determined the need for your program for each specific jurisdiction that you are applying for funds. Identify target population(s) and area(s) served. Please state the source(s) and date(s) of information. Identify any similar programs in the community. CORA operates the only domestic violence emergency shelters in San Mateo County, serving victims of domestic violence and their children. According to the California Department of Public Health (2017), intimate partner abuse (IPA) is a public health priority and will impact nearly one in five California adults. We assess the need through our requests for services data. Over the past 5 years, we responded to an average of 12,500 requests for services annually. In fiscal year 2018-19, we provided 189 individuals (98 adults and 91 children) with emergency shelter and received more than 4,867 calls for domestic violence assistance on our 24 hour crisis hotline. We contacted 1,533 survivors through our 24-hour law enforcement referral program, and provided 1,704 survivors with legal information and advice via our Legal Hotline. Among clients that requested services 35.62% came from the San Mateo Urban County. We focus on underserved populations, low-to-no income, immigrants, and those with limited English proficiency. Last year we served 42% Hispanic/Latino, 20% non-Hispanic White, 13% Asian, 7% African American, 2% Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander; 1% American Indian or Alaska Native, and 15% multi-racial. About 82% of all clients served were female, with an average age of 39 for adults and 8 for children. CORA’s clients identify as low- income (99.55%); average annual income was $12,168 and 25.5% reported zero income. 13C. Assessment of Need - South San Francisco: Briefly describe how you determined the need for your 2/10/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8618&prop=11 3/7 program for each specific jurisdiction that you are applying for funds. Identify target population(s) and area(s) served. Please state the source(s) and date(s) of information. Identify any similar programs in the community. CORA operates the only domestic violence emergency shelters in San Mateo County, serving victims of domestic violence and their children. According to the California Department of Public Health (2017), intimate partner abuse (IPA) is a public health priority and will impact nearly one in five California adults. We assess the need through our requests for services data. Over the past 5 years, we responded to an average of 12,500 requests for services annually. In fiscal year 2018-19, we provided 189 individuals (98 adults and 91 children) with emergency shelter and received more than 4,867 calls on our 24 hour crisis hotline. We contacted 1,533 survivors through our 24-hour law enforcement referral program, and provided 1,704 survivors with legal information and advice via our Legal Hotline. Among clients that requested services, 12.96% came from South San Francisco,16.4% from the City of San Mateo, 16.14% from Daly City, and 15.87% from Redwood City. We focus on underserved populations, low-to-no income, immigrants, and those with limited English proficiency. Last year we served 42% Hispanic/Latino, 20% non-Hispanic White, 13% Asian, 7% African American, 2% Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander; 1% American Indian or Alaska Native, and 15% multi-racial. Most survivors identified as female (82%), with an average age of 39 (adults) and 8 (children). The majority identified as low- income (99.55%); average annual income $12,168 and 25.5% reported zero income. 14. Timeline: Provide a brief timetable for project implementation and achievement of projected goals and how you plan to expend your funds in a timely manner by the end of the fiscal year. CORA has operated its Safe House continuously since 1977, therefore the projected goals of the program will continue into the new CDBG program year without interruption. As we requested significantly less funding than what it costs to provide emergency shelter services, we anticipate invoicing for funds within the first two to three quarters for each jurisdiction. 15. Evaluation: Briefly describe how you will determine and measure the success of your program and whether or not program goals were met? If your program is currently receiving grant funds please describe accomplishments of goals to date. CORA is committed to thorough evaluation of the efficacy of its services. Success is determined by survivors, the self-sufficiency and safety plan they develop with advocates, and the ability to move into a safe and secure environment. Assessments are taken during intake and exit. We are using quantitative data to track emergency shelter outcomes through the Self-Sufficiency Matrix and the number of exits to safe housing. Careful analysis of our evaluation data confirms that our work is making a difference. With our current grant funds, second quarter data shows that we served 57 individuals with emergency shelter services; 38 survivors (22 adults and 16 children) accessed the shelter, and 19 survivors (11 adults and 8 children) benefited from emergency hotel services. Eighty-six percent of clients exiting shelter moved into safe housing, while 100% of shelter clients received self-sufficiency service referrals. In FY 2019, 189 individuals (98 adults and 91 children) accessed emergency shelter, our supportive housing program provided 44 individuals with transitional housing and/or rental subsidies, and 95% of clients completing the client feedback form were more knowledgeable about services and options to increase their safety. Domestic Violence Housing First, an approach that helps survivors obtain stable housing as quickly as possible, can be used to help emergency shelter clients exit the program or avoid shelter altogether, maximizing our impact. 16. Collaboration: Describe partnerships with other organizations/agencies, the nature of the partnership, and how it relates to the proposed project. Our partnerships increase the effectiveness and impact of our emergency shelter program. - Program with landlords amenable to rent their properties to survivors, helpful for clients with poor credit history or past legal housing issues. - We coordinate the San Mateo County Domestic Violence Pro Bono Legal Collaborative to provide comprehensive services and referrals to meet survivors’ legal needs. - Members and key partners on various county-wide collaborations and committees including the Domestic Violence Council, the Death Review Team, and the Legal Process Committee, among others. - October 2019, CORA organized a strangulation training for law enforcement, medical first responders and advocates. - Member of the statewide domestic violence coalition, a network of over 1,000 diverse advocates, shelters, organizations and allied groups across the state. - Partnerships with local schools to prevent teen dating violence, workshops in the community, outreach through community centers, health care and homeless service providers, and other community-based organizations. Attend health fairs and community events to promote our services and provide information on domestic violence. - Emergency Response Program partnership with 20 San Mateo County law enforcement jurisdictions, providing immediate, 24/7 confidential, telephone-based crisis counseling to survivors at the scene of 911 calls, connecting them with emergency shelter, legal and counseling services 17. Impact: : Discuss any general trends and conditions that have affected or impacted your service levels or service populations. For New Applicants – describe what these funds would allow your agency to do that you may not be able to do now. For Continuing Applicants – describe how your program would be impacted without these funds. We operate the only confidential emergency shelters for survivors in the county, providing crisis intervention for those fleeing domestic violence, and helping survivors heal and re-build their lives. Some San Mateo County residents live in extreme poverty, and as one of the most expensive rental markets in the U.S. the affordable housing crisis continues to have a significant impact on survivors’ safety. 2/10/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8618&prop=11 4/7 In 2019, the County’s identified 1,512 individuals experiencing homelessness, and of the 901 unsheltered, 12% identified as survivors. While some seek confidential shelter services, others find it too difficult to leave their homes, and feel they must stay or return to the abuser. This places survivors at risk of ongoing threats to their safety and stability, often leading to more complex trauma, impacting their physical and mental health. CORA has seen higher rates of requests for mental health services and higher volume of crisis hotline caller. Immigration survivors are fearful of seeking affordable housing services. Many landlords are hesitant to rent to survivors, especially those that are receiving rental subsidies; they can easily rent their units on the open market. While the demand for CORA's emergency shelter services continues to exceed the agency’s capacity, without CDBG funding we would experience programmatic cutbacks, a reduction of Safe House staff hours, and an impact on our ability to provide the current level of services. 18. Project Beneficiaries/Quantifiable Measurement: Indicate the expected number of beneficiaries to be served by the program. For each response below please indicate both the number of households and number of individuals. Refer to the San Mateo County Income Limits. a. Indicate the total number of low-income beneficiaries you expect to serve with this program for each jurisdiction application for funding. *Low-income is 80% of Area Median Income or below. See AMI table b. Indicate the total number of beneficiaries you expect to serve with this program in each jurisdiction - regardless of income. Jurisdiction a. Number of low-income beneficiaries to be served per grant jurisdiction application. **Low-income** is 80% of Area Median Income or below. b. All beneficiaries to be served per grant jurisdiction application regardless of income Persons Households Persons Households Daly City 0 0 Redwood City 18 6 18 6 City of San Mateo 0 0 County of San Mateo 70 24 70 24 South San Francisco 6 2 6 2 Totals 94 32 94 32 19. Populations Served: Check the boxes below if they describe a significant population served by your program. These categories are not considered "presumed benefit" by HUD, and require income verification. Persons exiting incarceration Low-income youth Other Victims/survivors of domestic violence 20. Affirmative Outreach: a. Use the demographics from your previous program year to provide an analysis of the population you serve relative to the demographics in the table. NOTE: If you are a new applicant please provide your best estimation. Race & Ethnicity Redwood City Population Redwood City % by Ethnicity Low Income by Ethnicity served by your Program Your Program % by Ethnicity Total 74,402 100%18 100% White and not Hispanic 40,656 54.64% 2 11.11% White and Hispanic 23,557 31.66% 12 66.67% Asian 6,715 9.03% 0 0.00% African American 1,916 2.58% 1 5.56% Pacific Islander 663 0.89% 0 0.00% Native American 384 0.52% 0 0.00% Other 1,511 2.03% 3 16.67% Race & Ethnicity South San Francisco Population South San Francisco % by Ethnicity Low Income by Ethnicity served by your Program Your Program % by Ethnicity Total 63,632 100%6 100% White and not Hispanic 23,760 37.34% 0 0.00% White and Hispanic 21,645 34.02% 5 83.33% Asian 23,293 36.61% 0 0.00% African American 1,625 2.55% 0 0.00% Pacific Islander 1,111 1.75% 0 0.00% Native American 395 0.62% 0 0.00% Other 9,598 15.08% 1 16.67% b. Based on the percentages that you indicate your organization served describe your efforts to improve affirmative outreach to groups that may be underserved by your program and the result of your efforts: CORA uses a range of outreach strategies to reach the diverse population of San Mateo County including 2/10/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8618&prop=11 5/7 distributing and/or displaying multi-lingual pamphlets/posters in public places such as bus stops, community centers, malls, health care centers, courthouses, and legal aid agencies. Many of our outreach documents are translated into Spanish, and last year, we translated several of them into Tagalog and Chinese as well, to reflect the top three languages spoken in San Mateo County (after English). CORA's community education team conducts presentations, workshops, and tabling at events in a variety of community settings around the County. CORA's bilingual website provides resources and contact information to its bilingual support groups and other programs. 21. Leveraging: Describe your fundraising efforts and additional sources of revenue for this project and your organization. Please state whether any of these fund sources are already committed and in what amount. CORA depends upon a broad base of support from city and county agencies, grants from foundations and corporations, and individual donations to maintain its services. We have been successful in the past at leveraging funds from the County of San Mateo, the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services, and the Department of Justice. We expect continued support from these sources. As is typical for this time of the year, about half of the funding CORA requires for this program is already committed for 2020-2021, another third of the funding needed is out for consideration and is expected to yield needed support and the balance of funds are still to be raised through individual donors, events and foundation grants. CORA’s fundraising efforts are led by our development team which includes a Director of Development and Communications, Grants and Contracts Officer, Development Officer, and Marketing Officer, and in FY20 CORA will hire for a Major Gifts Officer to enable us to work more closely with some of our most generous donors. CORA is leveraging a recent capacity building grant to enhance fundraising and will be redesigning our fundraising approach to launch a 5 year pledge program, a mid-level giving program and specific outreach to lapsed donors to re-engage them in our work. While CORA’s fundraising work is strong, the need will always outpace the resources available and we are committed to constantly expanding our base of support. Staff List List below key staff members who work on this program Position Title Name of Staff Person Job Responsibilities Qualifications Client Advocate Brenda Gonzales Intake and case management Bilingual English/Spanish advocate/case mngr Residential Assistant Michael Coutts Facilities management/food bank/case mgmt Victim advocate/case mngr Safe House Coordinator Zena Andreani Manage two shelters/oversee staff and activities With CORA since 2012; Coordinator since 2016 PROPOSED PROGRAM BUDGET FOR FY 2020-21 Redwood City County of San Mateo South San Francisco Total Jurisdictions Budget Line Item Agency Total Pgm%Program Total %Requested %Requested %Requested Pgm%Requested Labor Salaries/Wages $3,413,699 10% $342,477 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0%$0 Taxes/Benefits $751,914 10%$77,784 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0%$0 Operations/Maintenance Janitorial $34,639 34% $11,777 0% 100% $11,777 0% 100%$11,777 Emergency Lodging $29,500 36% $10,620 25% $2,620 75% $8,000 0% 100%$10,620 Repairs/Maintenance $44,000 36% $15,840 0% 100% $15,840 0% 100%$15,840 Office Supplies $36,000 22% $7,920 45% $3,537 55% $4,383 0% 100%$7,920 Telephone $65,500 23% $15,065 59% $8,843 0% $0 41% $6,222 100%$15,065 Administration $1,304,638 10%$130,464 0% 0% 3% $3,978 3% $3,978 TOTAL $5,679,890 11%$611,947 2%$15,000 7%$40,000 2%$10,200 11%$65,200 Number of Individual Beneficiaries 18 70 6 94 Cost per Individual $833.33 $571.43 $1,700.00 $693.62 For the City of Redwood City ONLY, answer the following: 1. Funding Criteria: 2. Homeless Assistance Activities: Provision of fair housing counseling services, provision of legal intervention to prevent homelessness, provision of operation funds for shared housing, emergency shelter and transitional housing and related services for homeless and those at risk of homelessness, youth and single persons. 2/10/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8618&prop=11 6/7 2. Marketing/Advertising a. Check all of the following methods your agency utilizes to promote and advertise your programs and services: Flyers/brochures Website Phone book listing CIP (Handbook/Database) Outreach presentations to service providers Outreach presentations to public PSA’s b. Which of the above marketing/advertising materials are available in multi-langual form and which languages are they available in? Our flyers/brochures and outreach presentations to service providers and the public are provided in both Spanish and English. Additionally, last year, we translated several of our marketing materials (brochures, community posters, mall ads, and social media communications) into Tagalog and Chinese. Presentations are provided in English or Spanish, depending on the needs of the group requesting our presentation. c. How and where are the materials distributed? Materials are distributed through CORA’s partners. Distributing and/or displaying multi-lingual pamphlets/posters in public places such as bus stops, community centers, malls, health care centers, courthouses, and legal aid agencies. CORA's community education team conducts presentations, workshops, and tabling at events in a variety of community settings around the County. Another main way of distributing materials is through San Mateo County’s Kaiser facilities. As Kaiser is committed to ending domestic violence and they display our brochures and we conduct workshops and presentations with staff and clients. 3. Program Outcomes: a. Please describe the accomplishments of program goals for FY/19. In FY 2019, 189 individuals (98 adults and 91 children) accessed emergency shelter, our supportive housing program provided 44 individuals with transitional housing and/or rental subsidies, and 95% of clients completing the client feedback form were more knowledgeable about services and options to increase their safety. Domestic Violence Housing First, an approach that helps survivors obtain stable housing as quickly as possible, can be used to help emergency shelter clients exit the program or avoid shelter altogether, maximizing our impact. b. In what ways has your program made a difference in the lives of the people you serve? Please provide at least one concrete example from the people served in FY/19: Ann Marie* moved from Colorado to California, hoping that enough distance would keep her safe from her husband of 10 years. At first, she believed her relationship to be healthy, and considered her husband to be supportive and loving, he even seemed to support her decision to transition from male to female, a desire she had been keeping close to her heart throughout her life. Everything changed after she started her transition. He started to fight with her, and their arguments soon turned physical. She left their home in Colorado to escape the abuse. He followed her to California, promised her it would be different and convinced her to return to the relationship. She reluctantly agreed. The violence continued and escalated. She was lost and unsure how she would get out a second time. She was given our hotline number and, when it was safe, she reached out for support. While in our shelter program, she recovered from injuries caused by her husband, explored her legal options, made a plan to ensure he could not have contact with her, and decided to file for divorce. Ann Marie worked with her advocate to find and build connections with CORA’s community partners. She attended CORA’s LGBTQ therapy group and has started to recover from the years of physical, emotional, and financial abuse that she endured. Ann Marie is moving into a new apartment. She has safely left the relationship and recently shared, 'You gave me my life back and a chance to heal.' *Names changed. Attachments 1. Resolution authorizing application and designation of signatory, by the Board of Directors 1._Board_Resolution.pdf 2. Proof of 501(c)3 / tax-exempt status 2._501c3letter.pdf 3. By-laws 3._Bylaws_032712_-_COMPLETE_and_SIGNED.pdf 4. Articles of Incorporation 4._Articles_of_incorporation.pdf 4._Articles_of_incorporation_Certificate_of_Amendment.pdf 5. Board roster, including: Name, Company, Years on Board Meeting dates for previous 12 months Number of years allowed for each board term 5._BOD_Roster_2019-2020.pdf 5._BOD_Meeting_Dates_2018-2019.pdf 5._BOD_Terms_of_Service.pdf 2/10/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8618&prop=11 7/7 6. Organizational chart for entire organization 6._CORA-_Org_Chart-_09-26-19.pdf 7. Certified financial audit no more that 1 fiscal year old, prepared by a CPA, and: Management letters (if applicable) A-122 and A-133 Single Audit (for entities that receive more than $500,000 in federal funding) OR A letter from your Executive Director or Chief Financial Officer certifying that agency does not receive more than $500,000 in federal funds and is not subject to the Single Audit. 7._CORA_18_FINAL_CL.pdf 7._CORA_18_FINAL_FS.pdf 7._CORA_18_FINAL_UG.pdf 8. The following are required: Current (FY19-20) Agency Operating Budget Proposed (FY20-21) Agency Operating Budget 8._FY20Budget-FinalBDApproved-B.pdf 8._Proposed_FY21_Budget.pdf 8._FY20_Safe_House_Budget.pdf 9. Mission Statement 9._Mission_Statement.pdf 10. Non-discrimination policy for Staff and Clients 10._Nondiscrimination_Policy.pdf 11. Reasonable Accommodations Policy for Staff and Clients 11._Reasonable_Accommodations_-_Client.pdf 11._Reasonable_Accommodations_-_Staff.pdf 12. Conflict of Interest Policy. (If not available, please indicate when you will submit) 12._Code_of_Conduct_-_COI_highlighted.pdf 13. Other - Download All Attachments Program Manager Signature Jennifer Dow Rowell Date Signed 01/15/2020 Initially submitted: Jan 15, 2020 - 18:12:08 1/27/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8642&prop=117 1/7 Consolidated Community Funding Application Redwood City, San Mateo County, and S. San Francisco Application for New Funding for FY 2020-21 GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Organization Name: El Concilio of San Mateo County 2. Project Title: Peninsula Minor Home Repair We are applying for funding from: Redwood City City of San Mateo South San Francisco County of San Mateo Budget/Client Summary (Auto-populated from Budget, below) Jurisdictions receiving this application Amount Requested % of Program Budget Proposed # of Served % of Served Total $ Per City of San Mateo $15,000 14% 38 16% $394.74 County of San Mateo $55,000 51% 150 64% $366.67 South San Francisco $37,500 35% 45 19% $833.33 Total $107,500 100% 233 100% $461.37 Grant Funded Programs: We are applying for a Minor Home Repair Program CDBG National Objective Eligibility - How are you serving low income populations? Minor home repairs for low income households whose incomes are verified. Income Verification: Describe how you obtain, verify, and maintain proof of income and presumed benefit status. Third party documentation or client signatures on the certification forms must be available on file for review at all times. Income verification is a standard requirement for all ESCMC programs. The income thresholds for the PMHR program are consistent with San Mateo County and entitlement cities standards. We require documented proof of income for all programs, such as the Energy Savings Assistance program, which has strict qualification and income verification requirements. For the PMHR program, we require the two most current proofs of income (pay check stubs or proof of amount given to applicant by Social Security, Disability or unemployment). A proof of ownership waiver needs to be signed by owner. Ownership of the home is verified by checking with the County Assessor's office. If the name on this waiver is different than the name that the house is under, the application will not be approved. Renters can apply but must have the property owner waiver signed by the owner of the house or apartment. All documents collected go into customer files and are available for review at all times. Along with maintaining appropriate documentation for new customers, the PMHR program will leverage existing documents on file and in ESCMC's database to ensure appropriate income verification is documented and maintained for all PMHR customers. 3. Project Address: 3180 Middlefield Road City: Redwood City Zip: 94063-3762 4. Provide a one sentence project summary: ECSMC proposes to continue providing minor home repair services to residents of San Mateo County enabling extremely low, very low, low and fixed income residents whose homes do not initially qualify for all of the Energy Savings Assistance, Low Income Weatherization, Community Help Awareness for Natural Gas Services and Healthy Home Connect programs to benefit and receive more energy/water education and conservation solutions. Organization Address: 3180 Middlefield Road City: Redwood City Zip: 94063-3762 Organization Phone: 650-373-1080 Website: www.el- concilio.com Type of Applicant: For Profit Our agency serves: 5. Contact Person / Project Administrator: Name: Joaquin Narvaez Title: PMHR Manager Telephone: 650-918-9553 Contact Email: joaquinn75@yahoo.com Fax: 650-373-1090 6. Name of Agency Director: Ortensia Lopez 7. Fiscal Officer:Name: T.L. Minahan Email: tlminahan@yahoo.com Telephone: 650-373-1080 1/27/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8642&prop=117 2/7 Fiscal Officer Address: 3180 Middlefield Road City: Redwood City Zip: 94063-3762 8. Authorized Signatory:Name: Ortensia Lopez Email: or10sia@el- concilio.com Telephone: 650-373-1080 Authorized Signatory Address: 3180 Middlefield Road City: Redwood City Zip: 94063-3762 9. Please provide days and hours of regularly scheduled operation: Monday through Friday 8AM-5PM 10. DUNS Number: 94-6525250 Federal EIN/TIN Number: 94-2772110 11. HUD Activity: Choose the HUD activity that most closely matches your service: 05 - Public Services 12. Project Specific Narrative: Provide a narrative description of the specific activities to be carried out with the requested funds. This should also include program objectives and key priorities for each specific jurisdiction. The unique feature and benefit of PMHR program is ECSMC’s holistic approach and considerable experience in providing home repair services to Extremely Low Income (ELI), Very Low Income (VLI) and Low Income (LI) residents including those on a fixed income. The PMHR program objectives are providing cost-effective minor home repair improvements/repairs focusing on: • health and safety, • housing quality standards, • increasing energy/water conservation, • making more homes eligible for energy/water weatherization improvements that would otherwise not be completed, • and/or access modifications. The key priorities of the PMHR for SMC, CSM and SSF programs are to focus on its target audience on households who: • need but are unaware of programs available to improve their homes through minor home repairs, • may be eligible for low-cost installation of energy/water conservation solutions, and • would benefit significantly from reducing monthly energy/household water expenses. Under the PMHR program, the services provided to eligible homes include (but are not limited to): • Attic insulation. • Water heater wrapping • Carbon monoxide/fire alarm inspections/installation • Repair/replace heating, ventilation, and air condition (HVAC) • Natural gas appliance testing • Refrigerator replacement • Water leak testing • Energy audits/concurrent energy education • Quality control inspections • Repair/replace doors, windows, fe 13A. Assessment of Need - City of San Mateo: Briefly describe how you determined the need for your program for each specific jurisdiction that you are applying for funds. Identify target population(s) and area(s) served. Please state the source(s) and date(s) of information. Identify any similar programs in the community. PMHR program is in line with City of San Mateo’s affordable housing priorities of preserving existing rental housing and improving conditions of existing housing. ECSMC determined the need for the PMHR program based on our experience as a contractor for PG&E’s Energy Savings Assistance (ESA), Healthy Home Connect program. Our specialists conduct minor home repairs such as broken or moldy windows, or a lack of accessibility modifications such as safety hand rails, which are unsuitable and unsafe, especially for children or the elderly. Our target population of ELI/VLI/LI and fixed income households cannot make these minor home repairs due to health conditions and/or financial reasons. Rebuilding Together Peninsula offers similar minor home repair services improving the condition of existing housing within the city. However, such programs are limited to specific jurisdictions and do not have the necessary resources to meet all of the needs within San Mateo. The city’s population is 105,025 (2018 US Census est.) with 7.6% living below poverty level. In addition to improving safety, potential energy/water conservation measures yield savings in monthly utility bills, which in turn help to provide economic opportunities by providing discretionary funds for families who are economically disadvantaged. Of City households, 43.4% speak a non-English language, making PMHR’s multilingual (English, Spanish, Chinese, Tagalog, Tongan, Russian) and culturally-sensitive staff a great asset. 13B. Assessment of Need - County of San Mateo: Briefly describe how you determined the need for your program for each specific jurisdiction that you are applying for funds. Identify target population(s) and area(s) served. Please state the source(s) and date(s) of information. Identify any similar programs in the community. PMHR program is in line with County’s Consolidated Plan, supporting decent, affordable housing, suitable living environments, and economic opportunities). ECSMC determined the need for the PMHR program based on experience as a contractor for PG&E’s Energy Savings Assistance (ESA) and Healthy Home Conn program. Our specialists conduct minor home repairs such as broken or moldy windows, or a lack of accessibility modifications such as safety hand rails, which are unsuitable and unsafe, especially for children or the elderly. Target populations of ELI/VLI/LI and fixed income households cannot make these minor home repairs due to health conditions and/or financial reasons. Rebuilding Together Peninsula offers similar minor home repair services improving the condition of existing housing within the County of San Mateo. However, such programs are limited to specific jurisdictions and do not have the necessary resources to meet all of the needs within San Mateo. The county’s population is 769,545 (2018 US Census est.) with 6.8% living below poverty level. In addition to improving safety, potential energy/water conservation measures yield savings in monthly utility bills, which in turn help to provide economic 1/27/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8642&prop=117 3/7 opportunities by providing discretionary funds for economically disadvantaged families. Of County households, 46.3% speak a non-English language, making PMHR’s multilingual (English, Spanish, Chinese, Tagalog, Tongan, Russian) and culturally-sensitive staff a great asset. 13C. Assessment of Need - South San Francisco: Briefly describe how you determined the need for your program for each specific jurisdiction that you are applying for funds. Identify target population(s) and area(s) served. Please state the source(s) and date(s) of information. Identify any similar programs in the community. PMHR program is in line with South San Francisco’s (SSF) affordable housing priorities of preserving existing rental housing and improving the condition of existing housing. ECSMC determined the need for the PMHR program based on our experience as a contractor for PG&E’s Energy Savings Assistance (ESA) and Healthy Home Connect program. Our specialists conduct minor home repairs such as broken or moldy windows, or a lack of accessibility modifications such as safety hand rails, which are unsuitable and unsafe, especially for children or the elderly. Our target population of ELI/VLI/LI and fixed income households cannot make these minor home repairs due to health conditions and/or financial reasons. Rebuilding Together Peninsula offers similar minor home repair services improving the condition of existing housing within the city. However, such programs are limited to specific jurisdictions and do not have the necessary resources to meet all of the needs within SSF. The city’s population is 67,773 (2018 US Census est.) with 7.5% living below poverty level. In addition to improving safety, potential energy/water conservation measures yield savings in monthly utility bills, which in turn help to provide economic opportunities by providing discretionary funds for economically disadvantaged families. Of SSF households, 56.9% speak a non-English language, making PMHR’s multilingual (English, Spanish, Chinese, Tagalog, Tongan, Russian) and culturally-sensitive staff a great asset. 14. Timeline: Provide a brief timetable for project implementation and achievement of projected goals and how you plan to expend your funds in a timely manner by the end of the fiscal year. Quarter 1: • Preparation, negotiation and execution of contract. • Review administrative protocols/staff training update. • Generate PMHR customer leads. • Contacting residents who did not qualify for ESA due to minor home repair needs. • Implement Environmental review process. • Quarterly expense review and report. Quarter 2: • Submit Q1 report. • Validate monthly home repair completions/QA paperwork. • Assess materials and labor actuals. • Adjust service forecast and/or staffing assumptions. • Produce mid-term production reports. • Quarterly expense review and report. Quarter 3: • Submit Q2 report. • Monitor progress and results/QA paperwork . • Identify any operational modification needs. • Quarterly expense review and report. Quarter 4: • Submit Q3 report. • Complete remaining contract commitments/QA paperwork. • Assess actual vs. forecasted expenses. • Reassess program and staffing needs. • Quarterly expense review and report. • Review outcomes/prepare and submit year-end report. We will review our numbers quarterly and adjust outreach efforts accordingly. Pending funding requests, the total number of units the FY20/21 PMHR program targets (with quarterly reassessments) are: • San Mateo County: 20 households • San Mateo: 10 households • So San Francisco: 10 households. 15. Evaluation: Briefly describe how you will determine and measure the success of your program and whether or not program goals were met? If your program is currently receiving grant funds please describe accomplishments of goals to date. FY20-21 PMHR program goals are: • provide cost-effective home repair/improvements focusing on home safety and energy conservation through weatherization • increase awareness/participation of ELI/VLI/LI minor home repair programs • provide “Green Job” opportunities through job training, internships and placement of residents in PMHR related training/employment The success of PMHR will be measured by: • # of homes receiving repairs that will improve home safety and comfort • # of ELI/VLI/LI homes with PMHR completed enabling ESA qualification • # of trainees who learn skills that make them job/certification ready • Ability to complete repairs within budget and timeline FY 2018/19 PMHR program completed minor home repair services for 35 households, with 57% elderly, 66% female head of household, and 17% disabled (San Mateo County 23, San Mateo 7, and So San Francisco 5,). First two quarters of FY19-20, we provided PMHR services to 9 households and have enrolled and assessed an 1/27/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8642&prop=117 4/7 additional 20 units to-date. We continue to face the challenges regarding income threshold documentation. Also, the high number of renters requesting assistance has impacted our service numbers. We continue to communicate with both city and county housing staff to overcome these obstacles. Pending funding requests, the total number of units the FY20-21 PMHR program targets (with quarterly reassessments) are: •San Mateo County: 20 •San Mateo: 10 South San Franc 16. Collaboration: Describe partnerships with other organizations/agencies, the nature of the partnership, and how it relates to the proposed project. PG&E has contracted ECSMC for the past 16 years, providing us with extensive experience in reaching ELI/VLI/LI and fixed income residents, conducting energy usage assessments and arranging to install energy conservation and weatherization solutions as part of the Energy Savings Assistance Program. This partnership has helped ECSMC establish a positive reputation as an installation and repair service provider to ELI/VLI/LI households and has helped build a large customer base within the community. ECSMC also partners with governmental entities such as SMC Energy Watch, performing outreach for the residential portion of the program and performing energy audits and handles quality-control inspections. We continue collaborating with Rebuilding Together, Peninsula Clean Energy, HEAP, Build It Green, Solar oversight and other providers that provide similar services to provide added services for our customers. ECSMC also partners with a number of community based organizations (CBO’s) and government entities over the years, such as the Chicana Latina Foundation, San Mateo County Behavioral Health and Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Drugs program, One East Palo Alto, Free At Last, Nuestra Casa, Ecumenical Hunger Project, For Youth By Youth, San Mateo County Health Services Agency, JobTrain, Ravenswood Family Health Center, Voices of Recovery, and Second Harvest, that serve the area to increase the visibility of the PMHR program, along with our many other programs for ELI/VLI/LI residents. 17. Impact: : Discuss any general trends and conditions that have affected or impacted your service levels or service populations. For New Applicants – describe what these funds would allow your agency to do that you may not be able to do now. For Continuing Applicants – describe how your program would be impacted without these funds. Over the past nine years, grant funding has helped underwrite the cost of PMHR program materials and labor, as well as a small portion of the administrative costs related to program administration and management. These funds will allow ECSMC to continue providing minor home repairs to residents whose homes do not initially meet the eligibility requirements for all energy/water conservation installments because of required minor home repairs. Minor home repairs such as broken or moldy windows and faulty electrical work make these living environments, unhealthy and unsuitable, especially for children or the elderly. These ELI/VLI/LI households are unable to make these minor home repairs due to health conditions and/or financial reasons, and do not have the means to perform this work without assistance, resulting in a lost opportunity to receive maximum energy/water conservation services. By helping homes to become qualified for energy/water efficiencies, conservation, ELI/VLI/LI residents can realize necessary expense savings to help improve their quality of life. Without these funds, ECSMC would not be able to justify leveraging other limited funding and program resources to supplement the PMHR program, and would be forced to discontinue the PMHR program, resulting in a lost opportunity for ELI/VLI/LI and fixed income San Mateo County, City of San Mateo and South San Francisco, residents who do not have the means to perform these minor home repairs without assistance. 18. Project Beneficiaries/Quantifiable Measurement: Indicate the expected number of beneficiaries to be served by the program. For each response below please indicate both the number of households and number of individuals. Refer to the San Mateo County Income Limits. a. Indicate the total number of low-income beneficiaries you expect to serve with this program for each jurisdiction application for funding. *Low-income is 80% of Area Median Income or below. See AMI table b. Indicate the total number of beneficiaries you expect to serve with this program in each jurisdiction - regardless of income. Jurisdiction a. Number of low-income beneficiaries to be served per grant jurisdiction application. **Low-income** is 80% of Area Median Income or below. b. All beneficiaries to be served per grant jurisdiction application regardless of income Persons Households Persons Households Daly City 0 0 0 Redwood City 0 0 0 City of San Mateo 25 10 38 15 County of San Mateo 60 20 150 50 South San Francisco 30 10 45 15 Totals 115 40 233 80 19. Populations Served: Check the boxes below if they describe a significant population served by your program. These categories are not considered "presumed benefit" by HUD, and require income verification. Persons exiting incarceration Low-income youth Other ELI/VLI/LI 20. Affirmative Outreach: a. Use the demographics from your previous program year to provide an analysis of the population you serve relative to the demographics in the table. NOTE: If you are a new applicant please provide your best estimation. 1/27/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8642&prop=117 5/7 Race & Ethnicity City of San Mateo Population City of San Mateo % by Ethnicity Low Income by Ethnicity served by your Program Your Program % by Ethnicity Total 97,207 100%7 100% White and not Hispanic 45,240 46.54% 2 28.57% White and Hispanic 25,815 26.56% 0 0.00% Asian 18,153 18.67% 2 28.57% African American 2,099 2.16% 0 0.00% Pacific Islander 1,937 1.99% 0 0.00% Native American 140 0.14% 0 0.00% Other 3,823 3.93% 3 42.86% Race & Ethnicity South San Francisco Population South San Francisco % by Ethnicity Low Income by Ethnicity served by your Program Your Program % by Ethnicity Total 63,632 100%5 100% White and not Hispanic 23,760 37.34% 0 0.00% White and Hispanic 21,645 34.02% 2 40.00% Asian 23,293 36.61% 0 0.00% African American 1,625 2.55% 1 20.00% Pacific Islander 1,111 1.75% 0 0.00% Native American 395 0.62% 0 0.00% Other 9,598 15.08% 2 40.00% b. Based on the percentages that you indicate your organization served describe your efforts to improve affirmative outreach to groups that may be underserved by your program and the result of your efforts: A unique feature of the ECSMC program is the multicultural staff. The ECSMC staff is multilingual beyond English (Spanish, Chinese, Tagalog, Tongan and Russian) and many come from households with limited income levels as well, which helps build a rapport with households that are often hesitant to contact non community-based providers due to cultural and linguistic barriers, in addition to privacy concerns. In South San Francisco, the percentage of households where a language other than English is spoken is 56.9%, in the County of San Mateo, 46.3%, and in the City of San Mateo, 43.4%, making PMHR’s multilingual staff a great asset in reaching a broad customer base. ECSMC attributes its success to working with all ethnic groups within the community to our organization’s use of a family centered, community based, and culturally focused model. We continue on-going collaborative work with Rebuilding Together Peninsula, SMC Energy Watch, BIG, PCE, HEAP, Solar oversight and other providers that provide similar services. This leverages and/or provides added services for our customers. FY 18/19 we participated in 44 events. FY 19/20 we have participated in over 30 events. We will continue outreach efforts and partnering with CBO’s and government entities to increase the visibility of PMHR programs for ELI/VLI/LI residents of SMC, CSM and SSF. 21. Leveraging: Describe your fundraising efforts and additional sources of revenue for this project and your organization. Please state whether any of these fund sources are already committed and in what amount. PG&E has contracted ECSMC for the past 16 years. providing us with extensive experience in reaching ELI/VLI/LI and fixed income residents, conducting energy usage assessments and arranging to install energy conservation and weatherization solutions as part of the Energy Savings Assistance Program. Our Specialists have direct contact with ELI/VLI/LI residents (including in their native language) as they verify income eligibility, assess the conditions of income eligible housing units, and perform energy audits. With the PMHR program, our specialists are able to perform these minor home repairs, enabling households who otherwise wouldn’t qualify, to become eligible for the ESA Program to realize energy savings. Fundraising efforts and additional sources of revenue for this project include: $1.2 M contract (committed through December 2020) with PG&E/Richard Heath & Associates and Nexant to provide energy/water education, enrollment in 20% discount on energy bills and conservation solutions for 1,500 residents of San Mateo County, $135,000/year contract (committed through 04/2021) with Self-Help for the Elderly/CPUC to provide Outreach, Consumer Education Workshops and Dispute Resolution. $40,000 (committed through 10/2020) Peninsula Clean Energy for outreach and education to residents of San Mateo County. $25,000 Comerica (pending), $40,000 Wells Fargo, $15,000 Oportun (pending) $10,000 Union Bank (pending) Staff List List below key staff members who work on this program Position Title Name of Staff Person Job Responsibilities Qualifications Executive Director Ortensia Lopez ECSMC Executive Director. Overall management of PMHR program. Executive Director of ECSMC for over 22 years and 38 years of executive positions in non-profit sector. Peninsula Minor Home Joaquin Narvaez As supervisor, oversees the minor home 9 years as lead crew 1/27/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8642&prop=117 6/7 Repair Program Supervisor/National Gas Appliance Technician (NGAT)/Team Leader Lead Weatherization repair program and ensures coordination, quality assurance and documentation activities. Performs minor home repairs, natural gas appliance testing, duct testing, combustible appliance services, blower door and weatherization services. member. Graduate of Fire Fighter academy and is a certified Emergency Medical Technician. Possesses the following certifications: - OSHA - Asbestos - Lead - Natural Gas Appliance Technician (NGAT) - Duct Testing - Combustible Appliance Services - Blower Door - Weatherization. Currently training for electrical license. Minor Home Repair Specialist Armando Mosqueda Performs minor home repairs, duct testing, combustible appliance services, blower door and weatherization services. Possesses the following certifications: - OSHA - Lead - Duct Testing - Combustible Appliance Services - Blower Door - Weatherization. Administrative Assistant Jennifer McCray Environmental review process to San Mateo County and entitlement cities. Income verification review, data entry, schedule appointments, quality assurance checks, complete paperwork Bachelor of Arts Degree. Over 7 years with ECSMC. Accountant Timothy Minahan Fiscal billing and financial reporting.ECSMC accountant for 9 years. Bachelor of Arts Minor Home Repair Specialist Marco Romo Performs minor home repairs, duct testing, blower and weatherization services Possesses certifica;tion for Weatherization services PROPOSED PROGRAM BUDGET FOR FY 2020-21 City of San Mateo County of San Mateo South San Francisco Total Jurisdictions Budget Line Item Agency Total Pgm%Program Total %Requested %Requested %Requested Pgm%Requested Labor Accountant $75,000 12% $8,733 23% $1,983 34% $3,000 43% $3,750 100%$8,733 Case Manager $19,968 23% $4,536 11% $504 56% $2,520 33% $1,512 100%$4,536 Weatherization Lead $52,000 32% $16,866 19% $3,200 54% $9,166 27% $4,500 100%$16,866 Weatherization Crew $35,360 26% $9,297 11% $1,060 52% $4,867 36% $3,370 100%$9,297 Weatherization Crew $35,360 26% $9,297 11% $1,060 52% $4,867 36% $3,370 100%$9,297 Taxes/Benefits $63,276 24%$15,013 15% $2,312 51% $7,616 34% $5,085 100%$15,013 Supplies Construction Materials $290,875 14% $40,674 12% $4,881 56% $22,964 32% $12,829 100%$40,674 Other Personnel Costs $571,467 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%$0 Other Expenses $219,754 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%$0 Administration $143,103 2%$3,084 0% 0% 100% $3,084 100% $3,084 TOTAL $1,506,163 7%$107,500 14%$15,000 51%$55,000 35%$37,500 100%$107,500 Number of Individual Beneficiaries 38 150 45 233 Cost per Individual $394.74 $366.67 $833.33 $461.37 Attachments 1. Resolution authorizing application and designation of signatory, by the Board of Directors Att_1_ECSMC_Board_Resolution.pdf 2. Proof of 501(c)3 / tax- exempt status Att_2_ECSMC__501c3.pdf 3. By-laws Att_3_ECSMC_Bylaws.pdf 4. Articles of Incorporation Att__4_ECSMC_Articles_of_Incorp.pdf 5. Board roster, including: Name, Company, Years on Board Att_5_ECSMC_Board_Roster-Affiliates_2020.docx Att_5_ECSMC_Board_Meetings.docx Att_5_ECSMC_Term_Limits.docx 1/27/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8642&prop=117 7/7 Meeting dates for previous 12 months Number of years allowed for each board term 6. Organizational chart for entire organization Att_6_ECSMC_Org_Chart.pptx 7. Certified financial audit no more that 1 fiscal year old, prepared by a CPA, and: Management letters (if applicable) A-122 and A-133 Single Audit (for entities that receive more than $500,000 in federal funding) OR A letter from your Executive Director or Chief Financial Officer certifying that agency does not receive more than $500,000 in federal funds and is not subject to the Single Audit. Att_7_ECSMC_Audited_Financial_Statements_June_30_2017.pdf 20.21_CDBG_proposal_management_ltr.pdf 8. The following are required: Current (FY19-20) Agency Operating Budget Proposed (FY20-21) Agency Operating Budget Att_8_ECSMC_OPERATING_BUDGETS_FY_19-20__20-21.xlsx 9. Mission Statement Att_9_ECSMC_Mission_Statement.docx 10. Non-discrimination policy for Staff and Clients Att_10_ECSMC_Non-Discrimination_Policy_for_Staff_and_Clients.pdf 11. Reasonable Accommodations Policy for Staff and Clients Att_11_ECSMC_Reasonable_Accommodations_Policy_for_Staff_and_Clients.pdf 12. Conflict of Interest Policy. (If not available, please indicate when you will submit) Att_12_ECSMC_Conflict_of_Interest_Policy.pdf 13. Other - xyz Download All Attachments Program Manager Signature Ortensia Lopez Date Signed 01/23/2020 Initially submitted: Jan 16, 2020 - 13:30:11 Returned to Draft 01-23-2020 by City of San Mateo Reason: Please revise the 'Agency Total' column in your budget table. Returned to Draft 01-23-2020 by City of San Mateo Reason: Please revise the 'Agency Total' column in your budget table. 1/28/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8662&prop=1078 1/7 Consolidated Community Funding Application Redwood City, San Mateo County, and S. San Francisco Application for New Funding for FY 2020-21 GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Organization Name: Friends for Youth 2. Project Title: Friends for Youth Mentoring Services We are applying for funding from: Redwood City City of San Mateo South San Francisco County of San Mateo Budget/Client Summary (Auto-populated from Budget, below) Jurisdictions receiving this application Amount Requested % of Program Budget Proposed # of Served % of Served Total $ Per Redwood City $15,000 3% 100 32% $150.00 City of San Mateo $10,000 2% 40 13% $250.00 County of San Mateo $25,000 6% 150 48% $166.67 South San Francisco $5,000 1% 20 6% $250.00 Total $55,000 13% 310 100% $177.42 Grant Funded Programs: We are applying for a Public Services Program CDBG National Objective Eligibility - How are you serving low income populations? Service to "presumed benefit" groups listed below (income verification not required, but verification of presumed benefit status is required): Abused children Homeless persons Victims of domestic violence Illiterate adults Elderly persons/seniors (age 62+) Persons living with AIDS Severely disabled adults Migrant farm workers Income Verification: Describe how you obtain, verify, and maintain proof of income and presumed benefit status. Third party documentation or client signatures on the certification forms must be available on file for review at all times. Income is documented when staff interview parent/guardians during the initial home visit. Families indicate their household income, household size, and family structure and verify with their signature. Referral agents also fill out a comprehensive online application when referring a youth, which includes race/ethnicity, household challenges, and other demographic data. Our client population fits Presumed Benefit categories that principally benefit lower income persons. Most of our clients have experienced trauma, multiple adverse childhood experiences, been court- involved, and been impacted by housing instability or homelessness. 3. Project Address: 1741 Broadway Street City: Redwood City Zip: 94063-2483 4. Provide a one sentence project summary: Friends for Youth (FFY) provides quality mentoring relationships and support services to underserved, vulnerable youth through community-based 1:1 mentoring, school-based group mentoring, and our Whole Health for Youth coalition which provides prevention and early intervention programs for the whole family. Organization Address: 1741 Broadway Street City: Redwood City Zip: 94063-2483 Organization Phone: 6504822871 Website: www.friendsforyouth.org Type of Applicant: Non-Profit Our agency serves: 5. Contact Person / Project Administrator: Name: Sarah Norman Title: Community Partnerships Director Telephone: 6504822871 Contact Email: sarahnorman@friendsforyouth.orgFax: 6503684475 1/28/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8662&prop=1078 2/7 6. Name of Agency Director: Karen Wilmer 7. Fiscal Officer:Name: N/A Email: N/A Telephone: N/A Fiscal Officer Address: N/A City: N/A Zip: N/A 8. Authorized Signatory:Name: Sarah Norman Email: sarahnorman@friendsforyouth.orgTelephone: 6504822871 Authorized Signatory Address: 1741 Broadway Street City: Redwood City Zip: 94063-2483 9. Please provide days and hours of regularly scheduled operation: Friends for Youth operates Monday-Friday from 10am-6pm. Volunteer trainings and mentorship activities are often held on evenings and weekends. 10. DUNS Number: 194502985 Federal EIN/TIN Number: 94-2961034 11. HUD Activity: Choose the HUD activity that most closely matches your service: 05D - Youth Services 12. Project Specific Narrative: Provide a narrative description of the specific activities to be carried out with the requested funds. This should also include program objectives and key priorities for each specific jurisdiction. Objective 1: Provide 1-to-1 mentoring to vulnerable youth in San Mateo County to improve their academic engagement and behavioral health. We will match youth ages 8-17 1-to-1 with caring adult volunteer mentors. Youth referred by local service providers face risk factors such as domestic violence, housing instability, substance use, and limited access to services. Mentors complete an intensive screening and training process. Mentorships meet for 3 hours per week for 6 months or 1 year, although most meet far past the requirement. Staff provide referrals to services and activities focused on health and community service. Objective 2: Implement school-based group mentoring to increase wellbeing and decrease behavioral challenges and chronic absenteeism. In its fourth year, this program serves nearly 100 students at three Redwood City middle schools, Sequoia High School, and Burlingame Intermediate School, giving students a safe space to access peer and adult support. Our social-emotional learning curriculum, Building Superheroes, helps students build healthy coping habits, improve relationships, and set goals. Objective 3: Improve protective factors. Mentors help students connect with teachers, family, activities, college, careers, and resources. Students also participate in our multi-agency partnership, Whole Health for Youth Initiative, which aims to improve youth mental health and wellness through coordinated prevention services and education for parents and staff. 13A. Assessment of Need - Redwood City: Briefly describe how you determined the need for your program for each specific jurisdiction that you are applying for funds. Identify target population(s) and area(s) served. Please state the source(s) and date(s) of information. Identify any similar programs in the community. In San Mateo County’s Community Collaborative for Children’s Success 2019 assessment of Redwood City and North Fair Oaks, “24% of youth survey respondents reported that they have ‘never’ or ‘rarely’ talked to a supportive adult (for example, a parent, teacher, mentor) about what they are thinking or feeling. 8% of youth survey respondents reported that a parent or other caregiver has ‘never’ or ‘rarely’ actively supported their education (e.g., by attending school events or encouraging them to do homework). Another 12% reported that a parent or other caregiver has only ‘sometimes’ done this.’ In the California Healthy Kids Survey (2017-2018) 32% of girls and 17% of boys in 7th grade reported feeling chronically hopeless or sad. Mentoring is proven to decrease depressive symptoms in youth (MENTOR, Role of Risk 2013) According to our research, there are no other similar programs in Redwood City offering one-to-one community- based mentoring for at-risk youth ages 8-17 or school-based, group mentoring for at-risk 7th-9th graders. Other mentoring programs primarily focus on careers, college, or tutoring and narrower age ranges and populations. In contrast, our primary focus is on socio-emotional support for any youth at-risk. Each of our school partners has identified a significant need for mentoring programs as a Tier 2 intervention. Our youth and families are from extremely low income backgrounds and face housing instability, immigration challenges, and behavioral health issu 13B. Assessment of Need - City of San Mateo: Briefly describe how you determined the need for your program for each specific jurisdiction that you are applying for funds. Identify target population(s) and area(s) served. Please state the source(s) and date(s) of information. Identify any similar programs in the community. The majority of youth referred to our program from San Mateo, reside in East San Mateo. According to Healthy San Mateo County’s Youth Need Index (2014-2017 data) this area's youth have the highest need in the 91-100 percentile. The data also identifies San Mateo as a “hot spot” for behavioral health clients (2017). The need for mentors is also reflected in the California Healthy Kids Survey for the San Mateo-Foster City School District, where of 7th graders: 11% have used alcohol or other drugs, 26% experienced chronic sadness or hopelessness, 15% have attempted suicide, and on average 30% feel that no adults care about them at school. According to our research and the MENTOR National Mentoring Partnership, there are no other similar programs in San Mateo offering one-to-one community-based mentoring for at-risk youth ages 8-17 or school-based, group mentoring for at-risk 7th-9th graders. Other mentoring programs focus on careers, college, tutoring and narrower age ranges and populations while our primary focus is on socio-emotional support for any youth at-risk. Our youth and families are from low to extremely low income backgrounds and often face housing instability, immigration challenges, and behavioral health issues. 1/28/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8662&prop=1078 3/7 13C. Assessment of Need - County of San Mateo: Briefly describe how you determined the need for your program for each specific jurisdiction that you are applying for funds. Identify target population(s) and area(s) served. Please state the source(s) and date(s) of information. Identify any similar programs in the community. Based on school climate and behavioral health data, there is a high need for increased adult support in San Mateo County. According to Kidsdata.org: Of the students who report low school connectivity, 66.4% experience depression-related emotions(Kidsdata.org 2015-2017); 14.4% per 1,000 youth have been hospitalized for a mental health issue (Kidsdata.org 2018); 38.8% of families are living below the Self-Sufficiency Standard for California (Kidsdata.org 2016). With high socio-economic stress and limited time with working adults, youth need adult mentors. According to our research and the MENTOR National Mentoring Partnership, there are no other similar programs in San Mateo County offering one-to-one, community-based mentoring for at-risk youth ages 8-17 or school-based, group mentoring for at-risk 7th-9th graders. Other mentoring programs in San Mateo County focus on careers, college, tutoring and narrower age ranges and populations while our primary focus is on socio- emotional support for any youth at-risk. Each school partner has identified a significant need for mentoring programs that is not already being addressed. Friends for Youth serves youth ages 8-17 and their parent/guardians. Families served are from very low to extremely low-income households. They face challenges such as housing instability and homelessness, domestic violence, barriers to access, immigration status, behavioral health issues, and legal involvement. 13D. Assessment of Need - South San Francisco: Briefly describe how you determined the need for your program for each specific jurisdiction that you are applying for funds. Identify target population(s) and area(s) served. Please state the source(s) and date(s) of information. Identify any similar programs in the community. Youth in South San Francisco are facing socio-economic stressors that increase the need for individualized support services like mentoring. In San Mateo County’s Community Collaborative for Children’s Success (CCCS) 2019 assessment of South San Francisco, 31% of youth reported that they have “never” or “rarely” “talked to a supportive adult about what they are thinking or feeling.” The assessment also showed that, “even though only 8% of San Mateo County’s children and youth live in South San Francisco, 15% of Juvenile Probation’s clients and 9% of youth served by Behavioral Health & Recovery Services live here.” Respondents said there was a need for increased caring adult relationships because parents are busy working and less available to engage in their children’s lives. According to our research and the MENTOR National Mentoring Partnership, there are no other similar programs in South San Francisco offering one-to-one, community-based mentoring or school-based, group mentoring. Other mentoring programs focus on careers, college, tutoring and narrower age ranges and populations while our primary focus is on socio-emotional support for any youth at-risk. Friends for Youth serves youth ages 8-17 and their parent/guardians. Families served are from very low to extremely low-income households. They face challenges such as housing instability and homelessness, barriers to accessing resources, domestic violence, immigration status, and behavioral health issues. 14. Timeline: Provide a brief timetable for project implementation and achievement of projected goals and how you plan to expend your funds in a timely manner by the end of the fiscal year. Mentors and mentees join the 1-to-1, community-based mentoring program on a rolling basis throughout the year. The school-based, group mentoring program staff recruit mentors and plan programming over the summer and run the program throughout the school year. Funding primarily goes toward personnel costs required to implement mentoring services, as well as program costs for curriculum and training materials, volunteer recruitment, events, and field trips. Funding will be expended every month in a timely manner by the end of the fiscal year. 15. Evaluation: Briefly describe how you will determine and measure the success of your program and whether or not program goals were met? If your program is currently receiving grant funds please describe accomplishments of goals to date. FFY uses a statistically relevant pre and post Outcome Evaluation questionnaire to determine the impact of our mentoring services. Last school year, we also started implementing the Search Institute's Developmental Asset Profile (DAP) evaluation to assess our students' internal and external strengths and supports. We will continue to utilize DAP and assess if it is an appropriate tool to measure the impact of our programs. We also use process evaluation to determine whether program implementation goals are achieved (e.g., number of youth served, units of service delivered, activities delivered), which is tracked in our MentorCore database. Staff gather qualitative and quantitative data from mentors, youth and parent/guardians during regular check-ins, mid-year surveys, and year- end surveys. All of the data and constituent feedback is utilized to make program improvements. The following are the specific outcomes we will measure and report on at the end of the grant period and our most recent results: 90% or more will be attending school (met at 100%) 75% will maintain good or improved attendance (met at 78%) 70% will show improvement in their school effort and attitude toward school (met at 75%) 75% will avoid legal involvement (met at 84%) 70% will report avoidance of or decrease in drug and alcohol use (met at 91%) 70% will report they have developed improved coping skills (not met at 69%) 75% will consult with an adult about college and career option (m 16. Collaboration: Describe partnerships with other organizations/agencies, the nature of the partnership, and how it relates to the proposed project. Friends for Youth (FFY) aims to provide holistic support to the youth and families in our programs through strategic partnerships with complementary organizations. For our school-based mentoring programs, we collaborate with school administrators, teachers, counselors and family center staff to advance the wellbeing of our students. We also remain active members of wellness committees with Redwood City Elementary School District, Sequoia Union High School District, Redwood City 2020, and implementation committees for Community Collaborative for Children’s Success (CCCS) to align our programs with district and community-wide strategies. FFY's Community Partnerships Director manages the Whole Health for Youth Initiative, a coalition that works to improve youth mental health through coordinated prevention and early intervention programs. Core partners 1/28/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8662&prop=1078 4/7 include Siena Youth Center, Redwood City PAL, Star Vista, Peninsula Conflict Resolution Center (PCRC), and One Life Counseling Center, as well as a network of school and community partners. Through collaboration, partners provide quality, accessible mentoring services, after-school wellness activities, mental health trainings for parents and staff, and referrals to mental health services. 17. Impact: : Discuss any general trends and conditions that have affected or impacted your service levels or service populations. For New Applicants – describe what these funds would allow your agency to do that you may not be able to do now. For Continuing Applicants – describe how your program would be impacted without these funds. While there is a large demand for mentoring services, we cannot serve more youth and families without additional staff members and resources. We have 45 youth on the 1-to-1 wait list and school districts have requested that we add more schools and grades to our school-based program. With a small staff of five, we have managed expansion very efficiently thus far. Additional staff would also allow us to put more emphasis on mentor recruitment which is our other primary challenge. We currently require at least 50 qualified 1-to-1 mentors and 40 qualified school-based mentors each year. To meet this requirement means starting with at least 200-300 volunteer inquiries who must go through an initial orientation, a very comprehensive interview and screening process, full training, and approval by the FFY Selection Committee before being matched. Staff then provide weekly case management support to mentorships, as well as resources and activities. With additional funding we could match more youth on our 1-to-1 program wait list, expand our school-based program to a new school, and expand the services of our mental health and wellness coalition. 18. Project Beneficiaries/Quantifiable Measurement: Indicate the expected number of beneficiaries to be served by the program. For each response below please indicate both the number of households and number of individuals. Refer to the San Mateo County Income Limits. a. Indicate the total number of low-income beneficiaries you expect to serve with this program for each jurisdiction application for funding. *Low-income is 80% of Area Median Income or below. See AMI table b. Indicate the total number of beneficiaries you expect to serve with this program in each jurisdiction - regardless of income. Jurisdiction a. Number of low-income beneficiaries to be served per grant jurisdiction application. **Low-income** is 80% of Area Median Income or below. b. All beneficiaries to be served per grant jurisdiction application regardless of income Persons Households Persons Households Daly City 10 10 10 10 Redwood City 100 100 100 100 City of San Mateo 40 40 40 40 County of San Mateo 150 150 150 150 South San Francisco 20 20 20 20 Totals 320 320 320 320 19. Populations Served: Check the boxes below if they describe a significant population served by your program. These categories are not considered "presumed benefit" by HUD, and require income verification. Persons exiting incarceration Low-income youth Other 20. Affirmative Outreach: a. Use the demographics from your previous program year to provide an analysis of the population you serve relative to the demographics in the table. NOTE: If you are a new applicant please provide your best estimation. Race & Ethnicity Redwood City Population Redwood City % by Ethnicity Low Income by Ethnicity served by your Program Your Program % by Ethnicity Total 74,402 100%96 100% White and not Hispanic 40,656 54.64% 5 5.21% White and Hispanic 23,557 31.66% 82 85.42% Asian 6,715 9.03% 2 2.08% African American 1,916 2.58% 1 1.04% Pacific Islander 663 0.89% 1 1.04% Native American 384 0.52% 0 0.00% Other 1,511 2.03% 5 5.21% Race & Ethnicity City of San Mateo Population City of San Mateo % by Ethnicity Low Income by Ethnicity served by your Program Your Program % by Ethnicity Total 97,207 100%30 100% White and not Hispanic 45,240 46.54% 1 3.33% White and Hispanic 25,815 26.56% 25 83.33% Asian 18,153 18.67% 0 0.00% African American 2,099 2.16% 2 6.67% 1/28/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8662&prop=1078 5/7 Pacific Islander 1,937 1.99% 0 0.00% Native American 140 0.14% 0 0.00% Other 3,823 3.93% 2 6.67% Race & Ethnicity South San Francisco Population South San Francisco % by Ethnicity Low Income by Ethnicity served by your Program Your Program % by Ethnicity Total 63,632 100%17 100% White and not Hispanic 23,760 37.34% 3 17.65% White and Hispanic 21,645 34.02% 7 41.18% Asian 23,293 36.61% 2 11.76% African American 1,625 2.55% 0 0.00% Pacific Islander 1,111 1.75% 3 17.65% Native American 395 0.62% 0 0.00% Other 9,598 15.08% 2 11.76% b. Based on the percentages that you indicate your organization served describe your efforts to improve affirmative outreach to groups that may be underserved by your program and the result of your efforts: Our youth are referred to us by referral partners based on demonstrated need, so we do not have significant control over racial and ethnic demographics. However we have made an effort to talk to partners about referring underserved youth like Pacific Islanders, Latino unaccompanied minors, and LGBTQI youth. We are also building new referral partnerships with agencies and schools who can refer more diverse underserved populations. 21. Leveraging: Describe your fundraising efforts and additional sources of revenue for this project and your organization. Please state whether any of these fund sources are already committed and in what amount. Our funding strategy is to solicit support from a broad base of constituents, including foundations, corporations, individuals, service clubs, fundraising events, and available jurisdiction sources. Our Board of Directors is active in fundraising, seeking continued support from long-term individual donors and businesses. 100% of our board members donate. We are also working collaboratively with more organizations in order to maximize our collective resources and increase efficiency, reach, and quality of services. We seek to expand our reach into San Mateo County’s communities with the highest needs, and with county and city support, will be able to raise more funds from individuals, companies, and foundations in the area. We already have been awarded funds by Sand Hill Foundation ($140,000), Kaiser Permanente ($20,000), Sequoia Healthcare District ($70,000), David and LucilePackard Foundation ($25,000), Sobrato Family Foundation ($21,000), Sutter Mills-Peninsula Medical Center ($10,000), Peninsula Healthcare District ($20,000) and the City of Sunnyvale ($14,000). Individual donors contributed ~$100,000, and events contributed $90,000. Staff List List below key staff members who work on this program Position Title Name of Staff Person Job Responsibilities Qualifications Partnership Director Sarah Norman Manages community partnerships and Whole Health for Youth Initiative B.A Planning, Policy, Management, 8 years related experience Senior Program Coordinator Kiki Canny Recruits volunteers and oversees mentoring services B.A Psychology, 3 years related experience Program Coordinator Danny Almanza Coordinates the 1-to-1 mentoring program B.A Kinesiology, 5 years related experience Program Associate Jasmine Cardenas Coordinates the school-based programs B.A. Sociology (2020), 2 years related experience PROPOSED PROGRAM BUDGET FOR FY 2020-21 Redwood City City of San Mateo County of San Mateo South San Francisco Total Jurisdictions Budget Line Item Agency Total Pgm%Program Total %Requested %Requested %Requested %Requested Pgm%Requested Labor Partnership Director $65,000 92% $60,000 5% $2,750 2% $1,500 7% $4,000 1% $750 15%$9,000 Senior Program Coordinator $52,000 90% $47,000 10% $4,500 6% $3,000 13% $6,000 3% $1,250 31%$14,750 Program Coordinator $50,000 86% $43,000 8% $3,500 6% $2,500 13% $5,500 2% $950 29%$12,450 Program Associate $40,000 88% $35,000 7% $2,500 4% $1,500 10% $3,500 2% $600 23%$8,100 CEO $111,085 18% $20,000 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0%$0 Taxes/Benefits $81,139 55%$45,000 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0%$0 Supplies Activities $7,500 80% $6,000 10% $600 8% $500 57% $3,400 8% $500 83%$5,000 Mentor Training and Screening $4,500 78% $3,500 6% $200 6% $200 19% $650 9% $300 39%$1,350 1/28/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8662&prop=1078 6/7 Evaluation $2,000 75% $1,500 5% $70 5% $70 10% $150 7% $100 26%$390 Volunteer Management $8,000 94% $7,500 8% $600 7% $500 19% $1,450 5% $400 39%$2,950 Partnership Costs $55,000 100% $55,000 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0%$0 Materials Printing/Copying $8,000 62% $5,000 2% $80 1% $50 2% $100 1% $50 6%$280 Operations/Maintenance Office Rent $57,000 79% $45,000 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0%$0 Computer/Equiptment $15,500 65% $10,000 1% $100 1% $100 2% $150 0% $50 4%$400 Postage $1,500 67% $1,000 5% $50 5% $50 5% $50 2% $25 18%$175 Office Expense $3,367 89% $3,000 2% $50 1% $30 2% $50 1% $25 5%$155 Administration $62,750 80%$50,000 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 TOTAL $624,341 70%$437,500 3%$15,000 2%$10,000 6%$25,000 1%$5,000 13%$55,000 Number of Individual Beneficiaries 100 40 150 20 310 Cost per Individual $150.00 $250.00 $166.67 $250.00 $177.42 For the City of Redwood City ONLY, answer the following: 1. Funding Criteria: 3. Human Services: Basic Human Needs are activities that are vital for survival and not just an improvement to the quality of life, regardless of income. For example, emergency food programs are essential to survival. Coordination of a volunteer program is an improvement to the quality of life. 2. Marketing/Advertising a. Check all of the following methods your agency utilizes to promote and advertise your programs and services: Flyers/brochures Website CIP (Handbook/Database) Outreach presentations to service providers Outreach presentations to public PSA’s b. Which of the above marketing/advertising materials are available in multi-langual form and which languages are they available in? Our program flyers for families, program applications, releases, and event flyers are all available in English and Spanish. c. How and where are the materials distributed? Family outreach materials are provided through in-person outreach, community events, referral partners, mass text messaging, and social media. Marketing for mentor recruitment is done through posting on volunteer websites, college job and internship websites, volunteer fairs, partnerships with universities, corporate partnerships, presentations, social media, word of mouth campaigns, and community-wide flyering. 3. Program Outcomes: a. Please describe the accomplishments of program goals for FY/19. In FY 18/19 Friends for Youth provided comprehensive 1-to-1 mentoring services for 250 current and alumni youth and continued our successful match completion rate of 90% compared to 33-67% achieved by similar programs nationwide (The Kindness of Strangers, Marc Friedman). We also expanded our group mentoring program to serve nearly 100 youth at 6 school sites. We were awarded funds to launch and manage our multi-agency partnership, Whole Health for Youth Initiative, through which we have served over 500 youth, and educated 100 parents and 30 staff on mental health and wellness topics. b. In what ways has your program made a difference in the lives of the people you serve? Please provide at least one concrete example from the people served in FY/19: Our mentors provide consistent, individualized, and accessible support for families who have faced barriers to accessing other services for their children. For many of our mentees, their mentor is the first adult in their lives to provide consistent support. Adult support is a basic need for children's behavioral health. A mentee, Eunice, was referred from a school therapist and had experienced domestic violence, homelessness, and suicidality. She has been meeting with her mentor Paulette for 10 years. This year she told us, “I’ve had tutors and therapists, but I truly think Paulette has made the greatest impact on me and been the biggest help. Whether it was education, mental health, or physical health, Paulette’s been there.” Similarly Joel, an FFY mentee and first-generation college graduate from Princeton said, “Without my mentor, my dream of going to an Ivy League school would likely have ended before I even got to high school.” We also had Juan, a former mentee and first-generation college student, come back to be a volunteer mentor. Yami is one of the mentees who has benefited from the Whole Health for Youth Initiative collaborative. We connected her to Siena Youth Center’s after school program 1/28/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8662&prop=1078 7/7 and Star Vista therapy, and her mother Marisol has benefited from mental health education and social support at our parent classes. We are also proud of the many youth who had failing grades and school behavioral problems who reported improvements since meeting their mentor. Attachments 1. Resolution authorizing application and designation of signatory, by the Board of Directors Resolution_Authorization.pdf 2. Proof of 501(c)3 / tax-exempt status FFY_501c3_tax_exempt_letter.pdf 3. By-laws 2016-FINAL-BYLAW- REV_JAN_2020.docx 4. Articles of Incorporation FFY_Articles_of_Incorporation.pdf 5. Board roster, including: Name, Company, Years on Board Meeting dates for previous 12 months Number of years allowed for each board term BOD_Roster_wTerms_Mtg_Dates.doc 6. Organizational chart for entire organization FFY_Org_Chart_2019.pdf 7. Certified financial audit no more that 1 fiscal year old, prepared by a CPA, and: Management letters (if applicable) A-122 and A-133 Single Audit (for entities that receive more than $500,000 in federal funding) OR A letter from your Executive Director or Chief Financial Officer certifying that agency does not receive more than $500,000 in federal funds and is not subject to the Single Audit. FFY_Single_Payer_Audit_Status.pdf FY18-19_CPA_Financials.pdf FY19- 20_WHY_MS_Program_Budget_5- 19_REV.pdf 8. The following are required: Current (FY19-20) Agency Operating Budget Proposed (FY20-21) Agency Operating Budget FY19- 20_FFYAgency_Budget_628K.pdf PRELIMINARY_FY20- 21_FFY_Agency_Budget.pdf 9. Mission Statement FFY_Mission_Statement.png 10. Non-discrimination policy for Staff and Clients FFY_Non- Discrimination_Policy_2017.pdf 11. Reasonable Accommodations Policy for Staff and Clients FFY_Accessibiity_Policy_.pdf 12. Conflict of Interest Policy. (If not available, please indicate when you will submit) CONFLICT_of_Interest_7-18.pdf 13. Other - Download All Attachments Program Manager Signature Sarah Norman Date Signed 01/16/2020 Initially submitted: Jan 16, 2020 - 16:23:26 2/5/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8587&prop=1045 1/5 Consolidated Community Funding Application Redwood City, San Mateo County, and S. San Francisco Application for New Funding for FY 2020-21 GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Organization Name: Health Mobile 2. Project Title: Free dental care for low-income families We are applying for funding from: Redwood City City of San Mateo South San Francisco County of San Mateo Budget/Client Summary (Auto-populated from Budget, below) Jurisdictions receiving this application Amount Requested % of Program Budget Proposed # of Served % of Served Total $ Per South San Francisco $10,000 100% 75 100% $133.33 Total $10,000 100% 75 100% $133.33 Grant Funded Programs: We are applying for a Public Services Program CDBG National Objective Eligibility - How are you serving low income populations? Service to low income clients verified through income documentation. Income Verification: Describe how you obtain, verify, and maintain proof of income and presumed benefit status. Third party documentation or client signatures on the certification forms must be available on file for review at all times. We plan to provide free dental care to seniors and homeless in South San Francisco. For the homeless population we provide free dental care at homeless shelter and for seniors we provide at senior centers. For income verification we take third party income verification from homeless shelter for homeless and senior center documentation as a verification for income for seniors. 3. Project Address: 1659 Scott Blvd City: Santa Clara Zip: 95050-3450 4. Provide a one sentence project summary: Providing free, onsite dental care to seniors and homeless population of South San Francisco. Organization Address: 1659 Scott Blvd # 4 City: Santa Clara Zip: 95050-3450 Organization Phone: 408-879-0110 Website: www.healthmobile.org Type of Applicant: Our agency serves: 5. Contact Person / Project Administrator: Name: Mike Reza Title: COO Telephone: 408-879-0110 Contact Email: mike@healthmobile.org Fax: 408-244-3995 6. Name of Agency Director: Dr. A Parhizkari 7. Fiscal Officer:Name: Mike Reza Email: mike@healthmobile.orgTelephone: 408-879-0110 Fiscal Officer Address: 1659 Scott Blvd # 4 City: santa Clara Zip: 95050 8. Authorized Signatory:Name: mike reza Email: mike@healthmobile.orgTelephone: 408-879-0110 Authorized Signatory Address: 1659 Scott blvd # 4 City: Santa Clara Zip: 95050 9. Please provide days and hours of regularly scheduled operation: Monday to Friday from 9am-5pm 10. DUNS Number: 938737827 Federal EIN/TIN Number: 311658149 11. HUD Activity: Choose the HUD activity that most closely matches your service: 05M - Health Services 2/5/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8587&prop=1045 2/5 12. Project Specific Narrative: Provide a narrative description of the specific activities to be carried out with the requested funds. This should also include program objectives and key priorities for each specific jurisdiction. For $134 a visit we will provide comprehensive dental care to seniors and homeless population of South San Francisco. Our program is very well received and easy to understand. Adult dental care services is not covered by Medicare. Ironically seniors need are in dire need for dental care services due to years of neglect and aging. We plan to the much needed dental care services to seniors and homeless. We will provide the following 1-Dental Examination 2-Full mouth X-ray 3-Screening for oral cancer 4-Cessation for smoking 5-Dental cleaning 6-Fillings 13. Assessment of Need - South San Francisco: Briefly describe how you determined the need for your program for each specific jurisdiction that you are applying for funds. Identify target population(s) and area(s) served. Please state the source(s) and date(s) of information. Identify any similar programs in the community. California Endowment has conducted a study on California oral health conditions. California public oral health got C minus. California has the largest number of low-income adult in need of oral health than any state in the union. The situation is worse for homeless and seniors study shows. Dental care is expensive low-income adults and by far homeless population could not afford it. Seniors are on the fixed income and can not afford to pay for dental treatment. Ironically all three group are in dire need of dental treatment due to years of neglect and againing. The government sponsored insurance Medi-Cal covers emergency dental treatments. Very few dental care provide see Medi-Cal patients for it is not feasible to see Medi-Cal patients for Medi-Cal fees. Missing teeth in adults and seniors push them to social isolation. They are in pain and can not eat solid food. Toothache keep them up all night. Some that can navigate the system go to hospital emergency room for very expensive services Adult dental care is only partially covered by Medicaid. Ironically adults and seniors are in dire need of dental care services due to years of neglect and aging. On the other hand dental care services is very expensive and low income families can not afford it. Of the 84 Medi-Cal providers in San Mateo County in 2010 now only 4 providers see Medi-Cal patients. 14. Timeline: Provide a brief timetable for project implementation and achievement of projected goals and how you plan to expend your funds in a timely manner by the end of the fiscal year. The amount we are applying for is limited and will not be sufficient to cover all homeless and senior population of South San Francisco. Nevertheless we will provide free dental health care services for as many homeless and seniors we contracted for. 15. Evaluation: Briefly describe how you will determine and measure the success of your program and whether or not program goals were met? If your program is currently receiving grant funds please describe accomplishments of goals to date. Our program, providing free dental care to homeless and seniors, is very quantifiable and easy to audit. We provide free dental care to homeless and seniors in Mountain View and Sunnyvale with grant support from El Camino hospital. The measure for success is that 90% of patients have no pain after the first visit. 80% of patients have a better understanding of oral health and 80% of patients feel better about themselves and their overall health dsue to this program. 16. Collaboration: Describe partnerships with other organizations/agencies, the nature of the partnership, and how it relates to the proposed project. Our program, providing free dental care to homeless and seniors is a community affair. We have a good rapport with other organization for we have been providing public healthcare for 20 years. 17. Impact: : Discuss any general trends and conditions that have affected or impacted your service levels or service populations. For New Applicants – describe what these funds would allow your agency to do that you may not be able to do now. For Continuing Applicants – describe how your program would be impacted without these funds. We have being providing free dental care to underserved population of South San Francisco since 2004 wit exception of last year where we missed the deadline. Without this grant we are not able to provide free dental care to the most vulnerable group of people seniors and homeless population. We have been providing dental care to underserved population since 1999. We have been providing dental care to ;low-income and seniors in South San Francisco with grant assistance from CDBG since 2008 not counting last year. We are ready to go. it is another day at the office. The milestones are providing dental care for the underserved one patients at a time 18. Project Beneficiaries/Quantifiable Measurement: Indicate the expected number of beneficiaries to be served by the program. For each response below please indicate both the number of households and number of individuals. Refer to the San Mateo County Income Limits. a. Indicate the total number of low-income beneficiaries you expect to serve with this program for each jurisdiction application for funding. *Low-income is 80% of Area Median Income or below. See AMI table 2/5/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8587&prop=1045 3/5 b. Indicate the total number of beneficiaries you expect to serve with this program in each jurisdiction - regardless of income. Jurisdiction a. Number of low-income beneficiaries to be served per grant jurisdiction application. **Low-income** is 80% of Area Median Income or below. b. All beneficiaries to be served per grant jurisdiction application regardless of income Persons Households Persons Households Daly City Adult dental care is only partially covered by Medicaid. Ironically adults and seniors are in dire need of dental care services due to years of neglect and aging. On the other hand dental care services is very expensive and low income families can not afford it. Additionally, there were 84 Medi- Cal providers in San Mateo County in 2010 now only 4 providers. In short the segment of population including low-income, homeless and seniors are in dire need of dental care services they can not afford to pay for the treatment and there are very few provider that see government sponsored insurance patients (Medi-Cal). We plan to provide free dental care treatments for seniors, homeless and low-income. The fund would be used to cover salaries of treating dentist and treating dental assistants and dental supplies. Redwood City City of San Mateo County of San Mateo South San Francisco 75 75 75 75 Totals 75 75 75 75 19. Populations Served: Check the boxes below if they describe a significant population served by your program. These categories are not considered "presumed benefit" by HUD, and require income verification. Persons exiting incarceration Low-income youth Other homeless 20. Affirmative Outreach: a. Use the demographics from your previous program year to provide an analysis of the population you serve relative to the demographics in the table. NOTE: If you are a new applicant please provide your best estimation. Race & Ethnicity South San Francisco Population South San Francisco % by Ethnicity Low Income by Ethnicity served by your Program Your Program % by Ethnicity Total 63,632 100%75 100% White and not Hispanic 23,760 37.34% 23 30.67% White and Hispanic 21,645 34.02% 45 60.00% 2/5/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8587&prop=1045 4/5 Asian 23,293 36.61% 0.00% African American 1,625 2.55% 0.00% Pacific Islander 1,111 1.75% 0.00% Native American 395 0.62% 0.00% Other 9,598 15.08% 7 9.33% b. Based on the percentages that you indicate your organization served describe your efforts to improve affirmative outreach to groups that may be underserved by your program and the result of your efforts: The senior population that we provide truly present the South San Francisco. The are three homeless population group. The shelter homeless, the street homeless and the couch surfer. South San Francisco has less street homeless than San Francisco. Street homeless population varies from season to season and almost month to month. The shelter homeless is easier to reach through the shelter. The couch surfer homeless varies from year to year due to the job market. 21. Leveraging: Describe your fundraising efforts and additional sources of revenue for this project and your organization. Please state whether any of these fund sources are already committed and in what amount. We are applying for fund on a continuous basis. We plan to apply for FQHC (Federally Qualified Health center ) status for adult dental care is not a covered service for Medicare but it is a billable services for Medi-Cal. Staff List List below key staff members who work on this program Position Title Name of Staff Person Job Responsibilities Qualifications Dentist Dr Mehta Providing dental care to patient DDS Dental Assistant Julie Days Providing assistants to dentist RDA Dental Assistant Mashal Sarkesh Providing assistants to dentist DA Front office clerk Sonia Alvarez Greeting patients and completing the paperwork front office Driver Ismael Aragular Driving the mobile clinic to and from job site Driver PROPOSED PROGRAM BUDGET FOR FY 2020-21 South San Francisco Total Jurisdictions Budget Line Item Agency Total Pgm%Program Total %Requested Pgm%Requested Labor Dentist $3,500 100% $3,500 100% $3,500 100%$3,500 Dental Assistant 1 $1,800 100% $1,800 100% $1,800 100%$1,800 Dental Assistant 2 $1,700 100% $1,700 100% $1,700 100%$1,700 Front office $1,500 100% $1,500 100% $1,500 100%$1,500 Driver $1,500 100% $1,500 100% $1,500 100%$1,500 $0 $0 Taxes/Benefits $0 Administration 0% $0 TOTAL $10,000 100%$10,000 100%$10,000 100%$10,000 Number of Individual Beneficiaries 75 75 Cost per Individual $133.33 $133.33 Attachments 1. Resolution authorizing application and designation of signatory, by the Board of Directors Resolution_of_board_2020.pdf 5. Board roster, including: Name, Company, Years on Board Meeting dates for previous 12 months Number of years allowed for each board term Health_Mobile_Board_Member_2017-2022_audit_.docx 6. Organizational chart for entire organization Organization_Chart.xls 7. Certified financial audit no more that 1 fiscal year old, prepared by a CPA, and: Management letters (if applicable) no_need_for_A133_audit2020.pdf Audit_contract_2018-2019.pdf 2/5/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8587&prop=1045 5/5 A-122 and A-133 Single Audit (for entities that receive more than $500,000 in federal funding) OR A letter from your Executive Director or Chief Financial Officer certifying that agency does not receive more than $500,000 in federal funds and is not subject to the Single Audit. 8. The following are required: Current (FY19-20) Agency Operating Budget Proposed (FY20-21) Agency Operating Budget Health_Mobile_2020_Budget_CDBG_Final.xlsx 9. Mission Statement MISSION_STATEMENT.doc 10. Non-discrimination policy for Staff and Clients nondiscrimination_policy_Employment.doc 11. Reasonable Accommodations Policy for Staff and Clients Reasonable_Accommodation_Policy_CDBG_Att_11.doc 12. Conflict of Interest Policy. (If not available, please indicate when you will submit) conflictinterestpolicy2015.pdf 13. Other - xyz (do not remove) Download All Attachments Program Manager Signature mike reza Date Signed 02/04/2020 Initially submitted: Feb 4, 2020 - 17:17:20 1/27/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8533&prop=12 1/11 Consolidated Community Funding Application Redwood City, San Mateo County, and S. San Francisco Application for New Funding for FY 2020-21 GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Organization Name: Human Investment Project (HIP Housing) 2. Project Title: Home Sharing Program We are applying for funding from: Redwood City City of San Mateo South San Francisco County of San Mateo Budget/Client Summary (Auto-populated from Budget, below) Jurisdictions receiving this application Amount Requested % of Program Budget Proposed # of Served % of Served Total $ Per Redwood City $15,000 1% 9 13% $1,666.67 City of San Mateo $15,000 1% 15 22% $1,000.00 County of San Mateo $48,000 4% 37 54% $1,297.30 South San Francisco $12,000 1% 8 12% $1,500.00 Total $90,000 8% 69 100% $1,304.35 Grant Funded Programs: We are applying for a Public Services Program CDBG National Objective Eligibility - How are you serving low income populations? Service to low income clients verified through income documentation. Income Verification: Describe how you obtain, verify, and maintain proof of income and presumed benefit status. Third party documentation or client signatures on the certification forms must be available on file for review at all times. We know that every client we serve is different, and so are their needs and challenges. During the intake process, our program staff use a 'whole person approach', taking the time to listen, and learn about who their clients really are, and what challenges they face every day. When necessary, they will work with clients to create a budget that records their income and expenses, to determine what rent they can afford, as well as what expenses they could look at reducing, in order to release additional income that they could use towards their rent. They will also provide clients with additional resources to help them reduce their utility costs, and referrals to partner organizations that can help with move in costs if needed. During the client interview, Home Sharing staff collect basic documentation of income sources from Home Seekers (paystubs, award letters, etc) and discuss annual income and income sources with the Home Providers. All clients are also asked to sign an income documentation form which details the income information discussed during the interview . Once a Home Sharing match is made, Home Seekers are required to provide additional documentation to verify their income (two consecutive bank statements or most recent tax return). Our staff remain focused on helping their clients, and leave no stone unturned, to secure the resources that they believe will help the people they serve to secure stable and affordable housing. 3. Project Address: 800 S. Claremont #210 City: San Mateo Zip: 94402-4022 4. Provide a one sentence project summary: HIP Housing’s Home Sharing Program interviews and screens individuals who are searching for a housemate, and struggling renters who are searching for an affordable place to live, matching them in affordable home sharing arrangements, while also providing housing assistance and resources to low-income individuals and families throughout San Mateo County. Organization Address: 800 S. Claremont #210 City: San Mateo Zip: 94402-4022 Organization Phone: 650-348-6660 Website: http://www.hiphousing.org/ Type of Applicant: Non-Profit Our agency serves: 5. Contact Person / Project Administrator: Name: Laura Fanucchi Title: Associate Executive Director Telephone: 650-348-6660 1/27/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8533&prop=12 2/11 Contact Email: lfanucchi@hiphousing.org Fax: 650-348-0284 6. Name of Agency Director: Kate Comfort Harr 7. Fiscal Officer:Name: Norma Quiroz Email: nquiroz@hiphousing.org Telephone: 650-348-6660 Fiscal Officer Address: 800 S. Claremont Street, #210 City: San Mateo Zip: 94402-4022 8. Authorized Signatory:Name: Kate Comfort Harr Email: kcomfort@hiphousing.org Telephone: 650-348-6660 Authorized Signatory Address: 800 S. Claremont Street, #210 City: San Mateo, CA Zip: 94402-4024 9. Please provide days and hours of regularly scheduled operation: Monday - Friday 8:30AM - 5PM 10. DUNS Number: 120811997 Federal EIN/TIN Number: 942154614 11. HUD Activity: Choose the HUD activity that most closely matches your service: 05 - Public Services 12. Project Specific Narrative: Provide a narrative description of the specific activities to be carried out with the requested funds. This should also include program objectives and key priorities for each specific jurisdiction. The Home Sharing Program prevents homelessness, counters displacement, and creates new affordable housing, by matching people who have space in their home to share, with people who are searching for an affordable place to live. This innovative program enables working people to afford to live in San Mateo County, while helping struggling renters and those with special needs to remain in their home. Program Activities Include: Interviewing and screening applicants for the Home Sharing Program; reference checks; income documentation; generating referrals for active clients; guiding clients through the process of interviewing and screening their potential housemate; completion of a Living Together Agreement; mediation and ongoing support after Home Sharing match is made. With your support in FY 2020-2021, Home Sharing staff will interview, screen, and provide housing assistance to: • 14 Income Eligible Matched Home Seekers in San Mateo • 8 Income Eligible Matched Home Seekers in Redwood City • 7 Income Eligible Matched Home Seekers in So. San Francisco • 35 Income Eligible Matched Home Seekers - Other County Residents. The Annual Funding Report provided by our agency includes a narrative summary of the nearly 1500 persons served by the Home Sharing Program every year. However, the primary outcome / goal reported on to HUD, and tied to the funding budget, only reflects Income Eligible Home Seekers who are matched through the program. 13A. Assessment of Need - Redwood City: Briefly describe how you determined the need for your program for each specific jurisdiction that you are applying for funds. Identify target population(s) and area(s) served. Please state the source(s) and date(s) of information. Identify any similar programs in the community. The average rent for a 1-Bed Apartment in Redwood City today is, $3,168/Month (Source: Realtor.com). According to the National Low Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC) 2019 Out of Reach Report, residents would need to earn $60/Hour to afford this rent, which is close to five times the minimum wage in the City of Redwood City today. HIP Housing is addressing this need every single day. In FY 2018-2019, in the City of Redwood City, the Home Sharing Program served 150 residents, and 33 individuals who work in the city. •18 residents were matched in Home Sharing arrangements (14 were income eligible residents). •7 Individuals who work in the city were matched in Home Sharing arrangements. •49 residents matched through the program in previous years received ongoing support. •78% of all city residents matched through the program were low-income. These statistics include all income eligible Home Providers and Seekers matched through the program in FY 2018- 2019. In FY 2020-2021, it has been requested that we only report on income eligible matched Home Seekers as the primary outcome goal. With your support in FY 2020-2021, HIP Housing will continue to do its part to help the City of Redwood City to achieve its goal of “Building a Great Community Together”. 13B. Assessment of Need - City of San Mateo: Briefly describe how you determined the need for your program for each specific jurisdiction that you are applying for funds. Identify target population(s) and area(s) served. Please state the source(s) and date(s) of information. Identify any similar programs in the community. The need for stable and affordable housing in the San Mateo today is severe. According to Realtor.com, in San Mateo the average rent for a 1-Bed Apartment is $3,400/Month. To afford this rent, the NLIHC 2019 Out of Reach Report cites that residents need to earn $60/PH. Four times the minimum wage in the San Mateo. 1/27/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8533&prop=12 3/11 Many residents simply can’t keep pace, and leave the city in search of a more affordable place to live. By using the city’s existing housing stock, the Home Sharing Program increases affordable housing opportunities for low-income San Mateo residents, who are at-risk of being priced out of their community. In FY 2018-2019, in the City of San Mateo, the Home Sharing Program served 224 residents, and 55 individuals who work in the city. •33 residents were matched in Home Sharing arrangements (26 were income eligible). •26 Individuals who work in the city were matched in Home Sharing arrangements. •143 residents matched through the program in previous years received ongoing support. •79% of all city residents matched through the program were low-income. These statistics include all income eligible Home Providers and Seekers matched through the program in FY 2018- 2019. In FY 2020-2021, it has been requested that we only report on income eligible matched Home Seekers as the primary outcome goal. With your support in FY 20-21, we will help San Mateo residents to remain in the community they call home. 13C. Assessment of Need - County of San Mateo: Briefly describe how you determined the need for your program for each specific jurisdiction that you are applying for funds. Identify target population(s) and area(s) served. Please state the source(s) and date(s) of information. Identify any similar programs in the community. With San Mateo County once again being singled out as once of the most expensive places to live, our low- income residents particularly struggle with the effects of housing inequality. Today, Realtor.com cites the average rent for a 1-Bed Apartment in San Mateo County at $3,300/Month. To afford this rent, the NLIHC 2019 Out of Reach Reports states that you must earn at least $60/Hour, which is four times the minimum wage here in San Mateo County. The Home Sharing Program creates a roadmap to equity for our clients, by providing an affordable housing solution that will work in the real world. In FY 2018-2019, in San Mateo County, the Home Sharing Program served 530 residents, and 176 individuals who work in the county. •82 residents were matched in Home Sharing arrangements (73 were income eligible residents). •22 Individuals who work in the county were matched in Home Sharing arrangements. •192 residents matched through the program in previous years received ongoing support. •89% of all city residents matched through the program were low-income. These statistics include all income eligible Home Providers and Home Seekers matched through the program in FY 2018-2019. In FY 2020-2021, it has been requested that we only report on income eligible matched Home Seekers as the primary outcome goal. With your support in FY 2020-2021, we will continue to make San Mateo County a great place for everyone to live, work, and raise a family. 13D. Assessment of Need - South San Francisco: Briefly describe how you determined the need for your program for each specific jurisdiction that you are applying for funds. Identify target population(s) and area(s) served. Please state the source(s) and date(s) of information. Identify any similar programs in the community. So. San Francisco is a major center for innovation. Unfortunately, the city’s housing supply has been unable to keep pace with job growth, and population increases. Meanwhile, for city residents, the cost of living continues to grow. The average rent for a 1-Bed Apartment in the city today is $2,500/Month (Source: Realtor.com). According to the NLIHC 2019 Out of Reach Report, residents need to earn more than $50/Hour to afford this rent, which is more than three times the minimum wage in So. San Francisco. HIP Housing’s Home Sharing Program provides a practical and affordable housing solution to city residents. In FY 2018-2019, in So. San Francisco, the Home Sharing Program served 134 residents, and 2 individuals who work in the city. •13 residents were matched in Home Sharing arrangements (11 were income eligible). •5 Individuals who work in the city were matched in Home Sharing arrangements. •50 residents matched through the program in previous years received ongoing support. •85% of city residents matched through the program were low-income. These statistics include all income eligible Home Providers & Home Seekers matched through the program in FY 2018-2019. In FY 2020-2021, it has been requested that we only report on income eligible matched Home Seekers as the primary outcome goal. With your help in FY 20-21, this program will help make So. San Francisco a city where everyone can live, work, and thrive. 14. Timeline: Provide a brief timetable for project implementation and achievement of projected goals and how you plan to expend your funds in a timely manner by the end of the fiscal year. Program activities are ongoing. We will provide expenditures from 7/1/20 – 6/30/21, and disburse all funds by 6/31/21. Timeline : 1/27/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8533&prop=12 4/11 :-Interview, screen, & process client applications: Monthly - RWC 13-17; SSF 7-10; City SM 13-17; SMCo. 36-48. :-Provide housemate referrals & connection to housing resources: Weekly. Our agency is being asked to report only on Income Eligible Matched Home Seekers as the primary outcome goal. We continue to match Income Eligible Home Providers and plan to report on these clients narratively. As a result, we project the following: :-Report Statistically on goal of matching Income Eligible Home Seekers: Annually - RWC 8; City SM 14; SMCo. 35; SSF 7. :-Match Income Eligible Home Providers & Home Seekers: Monthly - RWC 1-2; SSF 1-2; City SM 2-3; SMCo. 8-9. :-Bilingual Services including: English; Spanish; Cantonese; German & Tagalog: Ongoing. :-Visits to Homebound/Hospital Bound Seniors & Persons with Disabilities: All jurisdictions 1-2 Visits per month. :-Maintain office hours at: Fair Oaks Community Center Tues & Thurs; San Mateo Mon – Fri; SSF Tuesday; Daly City Thursdays. :-Sign Language Interpretation: As needed through Partners in Communications, LLC. :-Facilitation of Living Together Agreements: Monthly - RWC 1-2; SSF 1-2; City SM 1-2; SMCo. 6-8. :-Follow up to matched clients including mediation: Seniors Quarterly; ongoing as needed with other clients. :-Community Outreach to raise program awareness 15. Evaluation: Briefly describe how you will determine and measure the success of your program and whether or not program goals were met? If your program is currently receiving grant funds please describe accomplishments of goals to date. CDBG funding supports all program activities (inquiry calls; interviewing/screening; referrals; matching; follow up support). The primary outcome goal linked to the budget and CDS reporting form has historically been reporting on the number of matched Home Providers & Home Seekers, while the secondary goals are reported narratively. In July 2019, CDBG monitors recommended two changes: (1) the primary outcome goal will only include income eligible matched home seekers, (2) additional income documentation will be required from matched home seekers. Due to these changes, the statistics for #s of persons served on the budget and on the primary outcome goal chart is less than prior years. The time it takes to collect additional income documentation from matched home seekers also impacts the timing of when data is reported in CDS. YTD: Primary Outcome Goal-Income eligible matched Home Seekers: RWC 2; SM 7; SMC 5; SSF 1. These statistics do not include the income eligible matched home seekers that staff is working on collecting additional income from. The additional numbers include: RWC 3; SM 1; SMC 11; SSF 2 Secondary Outcome Goals: # of inquiry calls to for housing help: RWC 168; SM 278; SMC 780; SSF 106 # of clients interviewed/screened: RWC 93; SM 172; SMC 325; SSF 85 # of Home Providers matched in Home sharing: RWC 4; SM 9; SMC 15; SSF 8 # of existing clients in matches made prior to FY 19-20: RWC 38; SM 103, SMC 166; SSF 49 16. Collaboration: Describe partnerships with other organizations/agencies, the nature of the partnership, and how it relates to the proposed project. Saff collaborate with organizations throughout the county, including: 1.San Mateo Co. HR Dept schedules “Lunch & Learns” for employees and retirees to learn about the Home Sharing Program. To make the program more accessible, County employees interested in learning about the program have the opportunity to interview at their place of business. 2.The Town of Hillsborough is enhancing communication about the Home Sharing Program to homeowners who have an Accessory Dwelling Unity (ADU). A mailing about the program was sent to 250 ADU owners, and several presentations have been conducted to raise awareness of the programs services to help ADU owners find tenants. 3.Sequoia Hospital’s HR Dept posts information about the Home Sharing Program for their employees to learn about as well as inviting our agency to table at employee resource events. HIP Housing’s Associate Director is also a member of the hospital’s Community Advisory Committee. 4.County Office of Education is partnering with HIP Housing to learn about workforce housing opportunities. Our agency provided content for a webpage created on the Office’s website, specifically dedicated to workforce housing options. Client Referral Partners Include: Rebuilding Together Peninsula CORE Community Centers San Mateo Co. Housing Authority & H.S.A of San Mateo Co. Safe Harbor Shelter SMChousingsearch.org San Mateo Co. Senior Centers Fair Oaks Community Center Life Moves 17. Impact: : Discuss any general trends and conditions that have affected or impacted your service levels or service populations. For New Applicants – describe what these funds would allow your agency to do that you may not be able to do now. For Continuing Applicants – describe how your program would be impacted without these funds. 1/27/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8533&prop=12 5/11 Despite Silicon Valley’s status as having one of the highest GDP’s in the world, residents who don’t earn enormous wages have been left behind, with few options for a safe and affordable place to live. With the massive increase in higher income job growth, coupled with limited housing development, we have a scarcity situation that has driven housing costs up far beyond what most local workers can afford. The result? People are leaving this county – in droves. California, specifically the Bay Area, has led the nation in out- migrations, with departures exceeding arrivals by more than 100,000 during each of the last three years (Source: SFBT May 2019). A secondary phenomenon of displacement, is that we are seeing a shift in our client population. As middle-class earners complete their move to more affordable areas of the state, we are finding that those who come to HIP Housing are facing much higher barriers to housing, including: having poor credit, challenges finding housing with a Sec. 8 voucher, and are very low-income, poverty level, or below. This is a disturbing trend, as it speaks to the widening gap of poverty and low--income earners in our community. If it continues, we are going to lose even more talented, highly qualified individuals in this county. HIP Housing needs your support now, more than ever. Without this funding, we would be unable to meet the increasing demand for the Home Sharing Programs services in San Mateo County. 18. Project Beneficiaries/Quantifiable Measurement: Indicate the expected number of beneficiaries to be served by the program. For each response below please indicate both the number of households and number of individuals. Refer to the San Mateo County Income Limits. a. Indicate the total number of low-income beneficiaries you expect to serve with this program for each jurisdiction application for funding. *Low-income is 80% of Area Median Income or below. See AMI table b. Indicate the total number of beneficiaries you expect to serve with this program in each jurisdiction - regardless of income. Jurisdiction a. Number of low-income beneficiaries to be served per grant jurisdiction application. **Low-income** is 80% of Area Median Income or below. b. All beneficiaries to be served per grant jurisdiction application regardless of income Persons Households Persons Households Daly City 7 7 8 8 Redwood City 8 8 9 9 City of San Mateo 14 14 15 15 County of San Mateo 35 35 37 37 South San Francisco 7 7 8 8 Totals 71 71 77 77 19. Populations Served: Check the boxes below if they describe a significant population served by your program. These categories are not considered "presumed benefit" by HUD, and require income verification. Persons exiting incarceration Low-income youth Other Homeless, At-Risk of Homelessness, Persons with disabilities, Seniors. 20. Affirmative Outreach: a. Use the demographics from your previous program year to provide an analysis of the population you serve relative to the demographics in the table. NOTE: If you are a new applicant please provide your best estimation. Race & Ethnicity Redwood City Population Redwood City % by Ethnicity Low Income by Ethnicity served by your Program Your Program % by Ethnicity Total 74,402 100%14 100% White and not Hispanic 40,656 54.64% 8 57.14% White and Hispanic 23,557 31.66% 0 0.00% Asian 6,715 9.03% 2 14.29% African American 1,916 2.58% 2 14.29% Pacific Islander 663 0.89% 0 0.00% Native American 384 0.52% 0 0.00% Other 1,511 2.03% 2 14.29% Race & Ethnicity City of San Mateo Population City of San Mateo % by Ethnicity Low Income by Ethnicity served by your Program Your Program % by Ethnicity Total 97,207 100%26 100% White and not Hispanic 45,240 46.54% 8 30.77% White and Hispanic 25,815 26.56% 7 26.92% Asian 18,153 18.67% 2 7.69% African American 2,099 2.16% 3 11.54% Pacific Islander 1,937 1.99% 0 0.00% Native American 140 0.14% 2 7.69% Other 3,823 3.93% 4 15.38% 1/27/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8533&prop=12 6/11 Race & Ethnicity South San Francisco Population South San Francisco % by Ethnicity Low Income by Ethnicity served by your Program Your Program % by Ethnicity Total 63,632 100%11 100% White and not Hispanic 23,760 37.34% 4 36.36% White and Hispanic 21,645 34.02% 0 0.00% Asian 23,293 36.61% 4 36.36% African American 1,625 2.55% 1 9.09% Pacific Islander 1,111 1.75% 1 9.09% Native American 395 0.62% 0 0.00% Other 9,598 15.08% 1 9.09% b. Based on the percentages that you indicate your organization served describe your efforts to improve affirmative outreach to groups that may be underserved by your program and the result of your efforts: To ensure that our programs are informed by the populations we serve, we conduct multiple client surveys that provide insight into what aspects of our programs work well and where we can improve. Our agency is always searching for opportunities that will enable us to share information about our programs with a broader audience, conducting outreach activities targeting all ethnicities and racial demographics in San Mateo County. Home Sharing Program materials are translated into Spanish and English, and we are currently working on translating these materials into Mandarin, Cantonese, and Tagalog. Many of our program staff are bilingual. Languages include: Spanish, German, Tagalog, Mandarin, and Cantonese. Additional Outreach Activities Include: •A member of the Home Sharing team is a coordinator for the Youth Latin X Conference, which brings together 350 local teens, young adults, and their parents, to explore questions of identity and purpose, and to build community. •Set up resource tables at numerous countywide events including: Daly City Latin X Heritage Event, Stroll for Soul in San Mateo, and the Commission on Aging Inclusion Fair. •Conducted presentations to: East Palo Alto Senior Commission, and Networked with Faith Based Communities throughout San Mateo County. 21. Leveraging: Describe your fundraising efforts and additional sources of revenue for this project and your organization. Please state whether any of these fund sources are already committed and in what amount. We are fortunate have a robust earned income model. We generate a substantial amount of our income through property developer and management fees as well as rent. Today, we are able to generate enough to cover ALL of our administrative costs. This has created a unique model of sustainability for our agency. To-date during FY 2019-2020, in addition to funding received from every city and town in the county, we have received support from a diverse group of community members, private foundations and corporations, including: General Support: •Wells Fargo $20,000 •David & Lucile Packard Fdn $150,000 •Chan Zuckerberg Initiative $100,000 •Bank of America $10,000 •Gellert Fdn $10,000 •Leslie Fdn $2,000 •Mervyn Brenner Fdn $1,500 •Glikbarg Fdn $5,000 •BBVA Compass $5,000 •Sobrato Challenge Grant $50,000 Self Sufficiency Program: •YWCA of the Mid-Peninsula $15,000 •Kaiser Permanente $150,000 •JH Robbins Fdn $5,000 •Sunlight Giving $50,000 •Grove Fdn $50,000 •Sobrato Pathways Grant $100,000 Home Sharing Program: •Mills-Peninsula Fdn $10,000 •Atkinson Fdn $15,000 •Union Bank $5,000 •Bank of the West $10,000 To achieve long-term sustainability, we are focused on generating new and creative funding sources, including: •Capitalizing on increased grant funding •Increase major donor gifts through Moves Mgmt Campaign •Growing new, earned income through compliance & mgmt contracts 1/27/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8533&prop=12 7/11 Staff List List below key staff members who work on this program Position Title Name of Staff Person Job Responsibilities Qualifications Associate Executive Director & Home Sharing Program Director Laura Fanucchi Oversees the activities of the Home Sharing Program including: staffing, training, volunteer coordination, reporting, and outreach. Laura has been part of the HIP Housing team since 1992. She holds a Bachelor’s Degree in Psychology from the University of San Francisco, and is a Graduate of the Chamber Leadership Program and Non-Profit Management Institute. She is also currently VP of the National Shared Housing Resource Center and on Sequoia Hospital's Community Advisory Committee. Home Sharing Program Specialist Laura Moya Works with the Home Sharing staff to provide support, and manages special outreach and collaboration for the program. Laura holds a BA in Hispanic Studies with a Multicultural Studies Concentration. She is a Graduate of a 40 hour domestic violence training program, Toastmasters, and Engaged Latina Leadership Activists (ELLA) Program. She is also a member of the Latina Coalition of Silicon Valley, a mentor for the ELLA Program, and is currently participating in the Chamber Leadership Program. Laura is bilingual including Spanish. Senior Home Sharing Coordinator South County Barbara Leidtke Coordinates South County Home Sharing activities as well as working with other county residents, provides counseling for clients and conducts outreach for the South San Mateo County area. Barbara also supervises and provides support to the North County Home Sharing Coordinator. Barbara has over 28 years of experience in social work, holds a BA Degree from San Francisco State University, and completed graduate courses at Universidad Iberameric in Santa Domingo. She is trilingual, including Spanish and German. Senior Home Sharing Coordinator Mid- County Debra Smith Coordinates Mid-County Home Sharing activities as well as working with other county residents, provides counseling for clients and conducts outreach for the Mid-County area. Debra also supervises and provides support to the Coastside Home Sharing Coordinator. Debra has over 19 years of experience as a Home Sharing Coordinator. She is a graduate of the chamber Leadership program, and a Notary Public. North County Home Sharing Coordinator Esperanza Jacuinde Coordinates North County Home Sharing activities as well as working with other county residents, provides counseling for clients, and conducts outreach for North San Mateo County. Esperanza joined the Home Sharing team in January 2020. She holds a BS in Criminal Justice, and is currently working on her Master’s in Business Administration. She has six years of experience working with Foster Youth as an Independent Living Skills Case Manager, Facility Manager, and Residential Program Manager. She is bilingual including Spanish. Coastside Home Sharing Coordinator Dania Delgadillo Coordinates Coastside Home Sharing activities as well as working with other county residents, and providing counseling for clients. Dania holds both a Bachelor’s Degree and a Master’s Degree in Social Work from San Jose State University, and has been 1/27/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8533&prop=12 8/11 part of the Home Sharing team since 2015. Dania is also bilingual including Spanish. PROPOSED PROGRAM BUDGET FOR FY 2020-21 Redwood City City of San Mateo County of San Mateo South San Francisco Total Jurisdictions Budget Line Item Agency Total Pgm%Program Total %Requested %Requested %Requested %Requested Pgm%Requested Labor North County Coordinator (EJ) $52,000 100% $52,000 0% 2% $1,300 18% $9,178 17% $8,966 37%$19,444 Mid-County Coordinator (DS) $61,800 100% $61,800 0% 8% $4,954 20% $12,064 0% 28%$17,018 South County Coodinator (BL) $69,557 100% $69,557 16% $10,846 6% $4,187 20% $14,082 0% 42%$29,115 Coastside Coordinator (DD) $56,650 100% $56,650 5% $2,922 6% $3,127 19% $10,846 3% $1,900 33%$18,795 Home Sharing Specialist (LM) $60,770 100% $60,770 2% $1,232 2% $1,432 3% $1,830 2% $1,134 9%$5,628 Other Staff $1,174,531 28% $330,251 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%$0 Taxes/Benefits $363,162 46%$166,885 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%$0 Administration $940,648 31%$292,393 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% $0 TOTAL $2,779,118 39%$1,090,306 1%$15,000 1%$15,000 4%$48,000 1%$12,000 8%$90,000 Number of Individual Beneficiaries 9 15 37 8 69 Cost per Individual $1,666.67 $1,000.00 $1,297.30 $1,500.00 $1,304.35 For the City of Redwood City ONLY, answer the following: 1. Funding Criteria: 2. Homeless Assistance Activities: Provision of fair housing counseling services, provision of legal intervention to prevent homelessness, provision of operation funds for shared housing, emergency shelter and transitional housing and related services for homeless and those at risk of homelessness, youth and single persons. 2. Marketing/Advertising a. Check all of the following methods your agency utilizes to promote and advertise your programs and services: Flyers/brochures Website Phone book listing Outreach presentations to service providers Outreach presentations to public PSA’s b. Which of the above marketing/advertising materials are available in multi-langual form and which languages are they available in? HIP Housing’s Home Sharing Flyers, outreach presentations, and PSA’s are available in both English and Spanish, and staff are in the process of translating the Home Sharing Flyers into Mandarin and Tagalog. Our staff speak a variety of languages including: English, Spanish, German, Tagalog, Mandarin, and Cantonese. c. How and where are the materials distributed? Home Sharing materials are distributed countywide by our Outreach Specialist, program staff, and volunteers, using a number of different channels including: •Home Sharing Flyers emailed monthly to City Clerks, City Councils, School Districts, Libraries, Churches, synagogues, Senior Centers, Community Organizations, and Nonprofits. •Home Sharing Informational flyers are mailed quarterly to city clerks, Senior Centers, Libraries, and Community Centers. •Outreach Presentations to City Council Members, and Community Organizations. 1/27/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8533&prop=12 9/11 •Tabling Events with community partners. •Through multiple Social Media Channels HIP Housing remains focused on expanding our outreach activities throughout San Mateo County during FY 2020-2021, to ensure that those in the greatest need will learn about our programs and services, and have the opportunity to receive the assistance they need to prevent homelessness, avoid displacement, and remain in their homes. 3. Program Outcomes: a. Please describe the accomplishments of program goals for FY/19. Last year, HIP Housing used Redwood City’s existing housing inventory more efficiently, to increase affordable housing opportunities for its residents, while helping to preserve the city’s thriving and diverse community. In FY 2018-2019, the Home Sharing Program served 150 city residents, and 33 individuals who work in the city. •18 residents were matched in Home Sharing arrangements (14 were income eligible residents). •7 Individuals who work in the city were matched in Home Sharing arrangements. •49 residents matched through the program in previous years received ongoing support. •78% of all city residents matched through the program were low-income. Before matching with a housemate: •Income eligible Home Providers were spending an average of 34% of their income on housing. •Income eligible Home Seekers were spending an average of 31% of their income on housing. After matching with a housemate: •Income eligible Home Providers reduced their housing costs to an average of 18% of their income. •Income eligible Home Seekers reduced their housing costs to an average of 28% of their income. By helping the low-income residents of Redwood City gain access to stable & affordable housing, the entire community can remain healthy, diverse, and strong. Everybody wins. b. In what ways has your program made a difference in the lives of the people you serve? Please provide at least one concrete example from the people served in FY/19: Craig, a Senior and Redwood City resident was referred to the Home Sharing program through the Veterans Administration. Craig became homeless after his landlord decided to take the room he was renting back so that his girlfriend could move in. Craig was now living out of his van. A friend allowed him to park the van in his driveway, and gave Craig access to the home to shower, however this situation was not sustainable. During the interview process for the Home Sharing Program Craig and his Home Sharing Coordinator discussed his budget, and some alternate housing resources that he had not been aware of. His coordinator suggested that he register with NOVA in order to help increase his exposure to employment opportunities. While Craig had been working as a computer expert at Best Buy, he knew that he needed to increase his income in order to find a new place to call home. For the last nine months, Craig has been renting a room from another senior who was struggling to meet her mortgage payments after her interest rate adjusted to a higher level. Craig’s rent represents only 20% of his income, which is very affordable and significantly less than he had been paying previously. Staff make Quarterly follow up calls to Craig and his housemate. Craig says that he feels fortunate to no longer be homeless, while his housemate said that Craig is the best housemate she’s ever had. Attachments 1. Resolution authorizing application and designation of signatory, by the Board of Directors Attachment_1_Board_Resolution_Authorizing_Application.pdf 2. Proof of 501(c)3 / tax- exempt status Attachment_2_HIP_Housing_501c3_Letter.pdf 3. By-laws Attachment_3_HIP_Housing_ByLaws_2015.pdf 4. Articles of Incorporation Attachment_4_Articles_of_Inc_HIPHousing.pdf 5. Board roster, including: Name, Company, Attachment_5_HIP_Housing_Board_Roster_FY2019-2020.pdf Attachment_5A_HIP_Housing_Board_Meeting_Dates_January_2019_January_2020.pdf 1/27/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8533&prop=12 10/11 Years on Board Meeting dates for previous 12 months Number of years allowed for each board term 6. Organizational chart for entire organization Attachment_6_HIP_Housing_Organization_Chart.pdf 7. Certified financial audit no more that 1 fiscal year old, prepared by a CPA, and: Management letters (if applicable) A-122 and A-133 Single Audit (for entities that receive more than $500,000 in federal funding) OR A letter from your Executive Director or Chief Financial Officer certifying that agency does not receive more than $500,000 in federal funds and is not subject to the Single Audit. Attachment_7_HIP_Housing_Certified_Financial_Audit_FY_2018_2019.pdf Attachment_7A_No_Single_Audit_Letter.pdf 8. The following are required: Current (FY19-20) Agency Operating Budget Proposed (FY20-21) Agency Operating Budget Attachment_8_HIP_Housing_Current_FY_2019_2020_Total_Programs_Budget.pdf Attachment_8b_HIP_Housing_Current_FY2019_2020_Current_Home_Sharing_Program_Budget.pdf Attachment_8A_HIP_Housing_Projected_Programs_Budget_FY_2020-2021.pdf 9. Mission Statement Attachment_9_HIP_Housing_Mission_Statement.pdf 10. Non- discrimination policy for Staff and Clients Attachment_10_Non-DiscriminationPolicyHIPHousing.pdf 11. Reasonable Accommodations Attachment_11_ReasonableAccomodationsPolicy.pdf 1/27/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8533&prop=12 11/11 Policy for Staff and Clients 12. Conflict of Interest Policy. (If not available, please indicate when you will submit) Attachment_12_HIP_Housing_Conflict_of_Interest_Policy.pdf 13. Other - Download All Attachments Program Manager Signature Patricia Cheeseman Date Signed 01/14/2020 Initially submitted: Jan 14, 2020 - 18:50:16 1/28/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8640&prop=1069 1/6 Consolidated Community Funding Application Redwood City, San Mateo County, and S. San Francisco Application for New Funding for FY 2020-21 GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Organization Name: IEP Collaborative, Inc. 2. Project Title: Special Education Rights Training Program for Low-Income Families We are applying for funding from: Redwood City City of San Mateo South San Francisco County of San Mateo Budget/Client Summary (Auto-populated from Budget, below) Jurisdictions receiving this application Amount Requested % of Program Budget Proposed # of Served % of Served Total $ Per South San Francisco $5,053 100% 240 100% $21.05 Total $5,053 100% 240 100% $21.05 Grant Funded Programs: We are applying for a Public Services Program CDBG National Objective Eligibility - How are you serving low income populations? Service to low income clients verified through income documentation. Income Verification: Describe how you obtain, verify, and maintain proof of income and presumed benefit status. Third party documentation or client signatures on the certification forms must be available on file for review at all times. IEP Collaborative, Inc (IEPC) seeks to leverage CDBG funding to serve low-income households that have children with special needs. Low-income households are defined as those which make 80% or less of the Area Median Income, based on San Mateo County’s 2019 Income Limits (https://housing.smcgov.org/sites/housing.smcgov.org/files/AFFORD2019x21x.pdf). To verify income eligibility, all participants in IEPC’s CDBG funded programs will complete an income verification form similar to the “Family Income Verification Form” used by the SF Mayor’s Office of Housing & Community Development (https://sfmohcd.org/sites/default/files/2018-19%20Family%20Income%20Verification%20Form%20- %20English_0.pdf). The form requests at least 1 additional document to prove income status, like a payroll stub, recent tax return, or proof of parent/child enrollment in a low-income government benefits program (SSI, CalFRESH, Medi-Cal, Section 8, Free and Reduced Lunch, etc.). Income verification forms will be available online and on site during training sessions & clinics. The client’s signature is required to verify that the information provided is truthful & correct. All income verification forms will be filed, stored, & maintained by the Managing Attorney. 3. Project Address: 851 N San Mateo Dr Ste H # 4 City: San Mateo Zip: 94401-2217 4. Provide a one sentence project summary: IEPC’s proposed CDBG-funded Special Education Rights Training Program in South San Francisco provides attorney-led advocacy training workshops for low-income and other youth with disabilities & their families in order to ensure that this perpetually underserved group can obtain the high-quality, inclusive, & appropriate educational services to which they are entitled, thus improving long-term outcomes & quality of life for youth, while also cultivating stronger & more empowered communities in the City as a whole. Organization Address: 851 N San Mateo Dr, Ste H-4 City: San Mateo Zip: 94401-2217 Organization Phone: 650-667-1453 Website: Type of Applicant: Non-Profit Our agency serves: 5. Contact Person / Project Administrator: Name: Krista J. Martinelli, Esq.Title: Chair/CEO/Managing Attorney Telephone: 650-667-1453 Contact Email: kmartinelli@iepcollaborative.org Fax: 6. Name of Agency Director: Krista J. Martinelli, Esq. 1/28/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8640&prop=1069 2/6 7. Fiscal Officer:Name: Marco A. Torres, Esq.Email: torresm_us@yahoo.com Telephone: 619-696-1100 Fiscal Officer Address: 350 10th Ave, Ste. 100 City: San Diego Zip: 91201 8. Authorized Signatory:Name: Krista J. Martinelli, Esq.Email: kmartinelli@iepcollaborative.orgTelephone: 650-667-1453 Authorized Signatory Address: 851 N San Mateo Dr, Ste H-4 City: San Mateo Zip: 94401-2217 9. Please provide days and hours of regularly scheduled operation: The IEPC office is open during standard business hours, Monday through Friday, 9:00 am to 5:00 pm PST. IEPC staff members and attorneys also attend to client inquiries outside of regular operating hours, as needed. 10. DUNS Number: In progress Federal EIN/TIN Number: 83-3448806 11. HUD Activity: Choose the HUD activity that most closely matches your service: 05C - Legal Services 12. Project Specific Narrative: Provide a narrative description of the specific activities to be carried out with the requested funds. This should also include program objectives and key priorities for each specific jurisdiction. IEP Collaborative, Inc (IEPC) is a nonprofit law corporation that provides free Special Education legal services to children with disabilities & their families. IEPC is requesting CDBG Public Services funding to support implementation of a Special Education Rights Training Program in the City of South San Francisco (SSF). This program aims to serve a specific high-need segment of the community & aligns well with the specific priorities outlined in the City’s Consolidated Plan, addressing the need for enhanced services for youth & people with disabilities. As part of the Rights Training Program, IEPC will organize a series of attorney-led civil rights advocacy training workshops for youth with disabilities & their families. There will be 8 training workshops (3 hrs each) over the course of the year, including 3 for general special education issues, 2 for high school & transition-age youth & 3 for mental health-related issues. These workshops will teach principles of collaborative advocacy & include information on key special education laws, such as IDEA, as well as information on IEPs & 504 Plans, eligibility review, presentation of legal templates, letters & other materials, & an overview of timelines & processes. The purpose of the program is to inform special education entitled students and families about the key services and supports mandated by federal & state law, and to empower students and parents as self-advocates to ensure these rights are realized. 13. Assessment of Need - South San Francisco: Briefly describe how you determined the need for your program for each specific jurisdiction that you are applying for funds. Identify target population(s) and area(s) served. Please state the source(s) and date(s) of information. Identify any similar programs in the community. The target population of IEPC’s proposed CDBG-funded program is low-income youth with disabilities & their families.This demographic is traditionally underserved & faces multiple barriers to opportunity & success. According to the CA Dept of Education, 12.7% of youth enrolled in SSFUSD during the 2017-18 school year were students with disabilities. Additionally, 41.6% of youth were low-income, as evidenced by enrollment in the free & reduced lunch program. Both figures are higher than averages for San Mateo County, where 11.2% & 34.3% students have disabilities or are low-income, respectively. Exact data on the number of youth with disabilities who are also low- income is not available. However, a 2017 article in Fordham Urban Law Journal suggests that 64.3% of students with disabilities nationwide hail from low-income households (http://bit.ly/koseki2017). This translates to an estimated 700 low-income students with disabilities in SSF. The actual figure is likely even higher, as this does not include youth who may have special needs but have yet to be diagnosed. The Rights Training Program proposed by IEPC is critical because, without proper support, youth with disabilities, especially those from low-income families, are at increased risk of adverse life outcomes as adults, such as poverty (2x rate of non-disabled peers), reliance on government aid, and homelessness (4x rate of non-disabled peers) (http://bit.ly/centerap2019). 14. Timeline: Provide a brief timetable for project implementation and achievement of projected goals and how you plan to expend your funds in a timely manner by the end of the fiscal year. July 2020: Finalize training presentations & materials. The majority of content is already developed as IEPC held its first rights training in January 2019 and is planning to hold a Spanish-language training at Edgewood in SSF in March 2020. / Jul-Aug 2020: (1) Coordinate logistics for 8 workshops. This includes establishing a calendar, and securing event spaces, translators & childcare services. (2) Begin advertising and recruiting participants by posting on the IEPC website and social media (Facebook) and conducting outreach through local nonprofits. Parent groups, such as PTAs, and local nonprofits will play a major role in helping to recruit participants & build interest for the program. Participants will be secured through Krista’s involvement in the SSF community and relationships with Edgewood, Thrive Alliance, SSF's Padres in Action group & Golden Gate Regional Center. We will also set up tables at community events to raise awareness and post flyers in libraries, at the Community Learning Center and other public spaces. / Aug 2020-April 2021: Hold Rights Training workshops. IEPC will hold 1 workshop per month for 8 months: Aug, Sept, Oct, Nov 2020, and Jan, Feb, Mar, and Apr 2021. All workshops will be held at locations which are centrally located and accessible by transit. / Mar-May 2021: Follow-up with participants and administer post-intervention surveys to assess impact of training on youth, parents, and education plans. 15. Evaluation: Briefly describe how you will determine and measure the success of your program and whether or not program goals were met? If your program is currently receiving grant funds please describe accomplishments of goals to date. IEPC will measure the success and impact of its training program in South San Francisco using a variety of quantitative and qualitative measures. For each workshop, IEPC will record the number of attendees and collect 1/28/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8640&prop=1069 3/6 general demographic info (age, disability, ethnicity, gender, income status). A pre and post assessment will be administered immediately before and after the workshop to assess how much knowledge about special education law and advocacy principles attendees have gained. Additionally, IEPC will monitor long term impacts for clients by comparing responses to intake questions against follow-up surveys. We will pose preliminary questions at rights trainings at intake. All workshop participants will then be sent a follow-up survey via e-mail at least one month after their original workshop date to help reveal long- term impacts of the program. Participants will be asked their feelings about the workshop and whether they believe training impacted their respective IEPs/504 plans or helped them gain confidence in navigating the IEP process and participating at the IEP team decision-making table. All data will be synthesized monthly & annually for reporting to the Board, which will decide if IEPC’s programs have achieved goals & targets. Targets: -240 people attend training sessions throughout the year -100% score better on post vs. pretest given during workshop -100% report engaging in self-advocacy. 16. Collaboration: Describe partnerships with other organizations/agencies, the nature of the partnership, and how it relates to the proposed project. Collaboration is critical to supporting students with disabilities & their families. IEPC seeks to leverage its connections with local youth organizations & parent groups to foster awareness of special education rights and opportunities. Additionally, building strategic partnerships with local agencies and nonprofits is central to IEPC’s recruitment and client outreach strategy for our program in South San Francisco. We also hope to partner with local organizations to co-host rights training sessions in order to reduce costs and increase impact. IEPC has connected with the following nonprofits located in San Mateo County and South San Francisco and the larger region: Parents Helping Parents, Golden Gate Regional Center, PARCA, Edgewood Center for Children & Families, Support for Families, & Padres In Action. IEPC is also an active participant in the Thrive Alliance, the Council of Parents Attorneys and Advocates, and the State Council on Developmental Disabilities. Furthermore, IEPC’s Board & leaders are connected to local legal institutions, including UC Hastings, USF, and the CLA Public Law Section. Moving forward, IEPC intends to enhance relationships with PTAs and the Special Education Community Advisory Committee (CAC) as well as legal service providers that might be contacted for assistance in education matters but are unable to serve IEPC’s addressed demographics, such as Legal Aid, the Bar Association of San Francisco, and the Youth Law Center. 17. Impact: : Discuss any general trends and conditions that have affected or impacted your service levels or service populations. For New Applicants – describe what these funds would allow your agency to do that you may not be able to do now. For Continuing Applicants – describe how your program would be impacted without these funds. IEPC was founded in January 2019; after initial start-up, in April 2019 we began serving clients, fundraising, & grant writing to support implementation of free special education legal services & rights trainings in the Bay Area. As an organization run exclusively by attorneys who are parents that have experienced the special education/IEP process, we've witnessed the life-changing impact of appropriate, inclusive education on our children’s lives firsthand & are committed to bringing our collaborative approach to local communities. To date, IEPC has assisted nearly 40 families through legal services and special education rights training. Since IEPC’s service delivery is dependent upon human capital (lawyers), its programs are now ready to implement, but require funding. The funding we secure through CDBG & other sources will determine where & to what extent our programs will continue to operate as IEPC grows. With funding, we intend to build out programs in increments by hiring 3 additional attorneys & developing a volunteer network that will include upwards of 50 attorneys. Without funding, it will be difficult to recruit and train additional lawyers to practice special education law. Since attorney representation is IEPC’s key differentiator from other special education advocacy organizations, this would be extremely detrimental to our organization’s development and would negatively impact growth. 18. Project Beneficiaries/Quantifiable Measurement: Indicate the expected number of beneficiaries to be served by the program. For each response below please indicate both the number of households and number of individuals. Refer to the San Mateo County Income Limits. a. Indicate the total number of low-income beneficiaries you expect to serve with this program for each jurisdiction application for funding. *Low-income is 80% of Area Median Income or below. See AMI table b. Indicate the total number of beneficiaries you expect to serve with this program in each jurisdiction - regardless of income. Jurisdiction a. Number of low-income beneficiaries to be served per grant jurisdiction application. **Low-income** is 80% of Area Median Income or below. b. All beneficiaries to be served per grant jurisdiction application regardless of income Persons Households Persons Households Daly City Redwood City City of San Mateo County of San Mateo South San Francisco 168 84 240 120 Totals 168 84 240 120 1/28/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8640&prop=1069 4/6 19. Populations Served: Check the boxes below if they describe a significant population served by your program. These categories are not considered "presumed benefit" by HUD, and require income verification. Persons exiting incarceration Low-income youth Other Youth with disabilities & special needs 20. Affirmative Outreach: a. Use the demographics from your previous program year to provide an analysis of the population you serve relative to the demographics in the table. NOTE: If you are a new applicant please provide your best estimation. Race & Ethnicity South San Francisco Population South San Francisco % by Ethnicity Low Income by Ethnicity served by your Program Your Program % by Ethnicity Total 63,632 100%11 100% White and not Hispanic 23,760 37.34% 2 18.18% White and Hispanic 21,645 34.02% 6 54.55% Asian 23,293 36.61% 3 27.27% African American 1,625 2.55% 0 0.00% Pacific Islander 1,111 1.75% 0 0.00% Native American 395 0.62% 0 0.00% Other 9,598 15.08% 0 0.00% b. Based on the percentages that you indicate your organization served describe your efforts to improve affirmative outreach to groups that may be underserved by your program and the result of your efforts: For our program in SSF, we aim to serve low-income families, & recognize that many of these families are from minority backgrounds & may lack english proficiency. In order to successfully engage this underserved demographic, IEPC has developed a two-part affirmative outreach strategy which includes (1) direct outreach to potential clients in the appropriate language, (2) the development of a referral network in partnership with local agencies & nonprofits. (1) DIRECT OUTREACH—IEPC will reach underserved clientele by hosting & participating in community events, with volunteer translators present whenever possible. In 2019, IEPC hosted 2 meet-n-greet events in Colma & San Mateo, attended Thrive Alliance events & engaged in numerous community forums. We advertise events using our website & printed flyers/brochures, available in multiple languages, including Spanish, Chinese & Tagalog to meet the needs of key low-income minority groups in SSF. The majority of clients to-date have been located through direct outreach activities. 2) REFERRAL NETWORK—Developing a strong referral network that includes local social services, education & legal aid organizations, advocacy groups, PTAs and other parent/student groups is another way IEPC reaches clients. Partners in our referral network promote IEPC services and direct clients our way. We also work with partner organizations to build rapport with local communities and develop cultural competence. 21. Leveraging: Describe your fundraising efforts and additional sources of revenue for this project and your organization. Please state whether any of these fund sources are already committed and in what amount. IEPC requires funding in the amount of $5,053.62 to support the proposed series of Special Education Rights Training workshops in South San Francisco annually. IEPC will leverage private fundraising to supplement any CDBG allotment, in order to ensure the program is fully funded. We will also implement cost-saving measures wherever possible, to stretch CDBG dollars to the fullest potential. Possible cost-savings measures for the current project include using volunteer translators for language services or working with partner nonprofits to secure free- to-use facilities. IEPC will also leverage in-kind donations of staff attorney & operational staff time as required to meet program needs. IEPC is currently funded exclusively through contributions from private donors. Our first major fundraising campaign, launched in Fall 2019, received $14,330 in unrestricted personal donations. As a new nonprofit in the early stages of development, we are actively looking to diversify our funding model to include public and private grants, venture capital, and corporate sponsorships. Moving forward, IEPC hopes to secure 50-70% of its revenue through private, corporate & individual contributions, & 30-50% through grants and sponsorship. Additional revenue may come from reimbursement of statutory attorney fees upon successful IDEA due process litigation, but we do not rely on this revenue stream for annual budgeting purposes. Staff List List below key staff members who work on this program Position Title Name of Staff Person Job Responsibilities Qualifications CEO/Chair/Managing Attorney Krista J. Martinelli, Esq. Develop content for training workshops; lead training workshops; conduct community outreach to recruit participants ; manage participant data; assist in program evaluation Krista has 21 years of experience in law and government, including nearly 10 years as a litigator at SF law firms (Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison and Pillsbury Winthrop) and 11 years as South San Francisco’s elected City Clerk. Since her son’s 2009 1/28/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8640&prop=1069 5/6 Autism diagnosis, she pursued training in SpEd law to access his IDEA entitlement. His accomplishments inspired IEPC’s founding to secure exceptional needs students’ success in inclusive and challenging IEP programming. Krista holds a BS, honors in Human Development and Family Studies (Cornell University, 1995) and a JD (Hastings, 1998). Director of Operations & Development Karen Bettucchi Oversee & drive overall operations, development & fundraising, community outreach & collaboration, & all administrative tasks necessary to implement & fund programming. Karen has over 20 years of professional operations & customer service leadership experience in education technology, as well as 10 years of non-profit leadership experience with the Millbrae Education Foundation where she was instrumental in building the organization's fundamental operations & fundraising strategies. PROPOSED PROGRAM BUDGET FOR FY 2020-21 South San Francisco Total Jurisdictions Budget Line Item Agency Total Pgm%Program Total %Requested Pgm%Requested Labor Project Director/Managing Attorney $110,000 1% $1,269 100% $1,269 100%$1,269 Translation Services $20,000 6% $1,200 100% $1,200 100%$1,200 Childcare Services $26,000 4% $1,056 100% $1,056 100%$1,056 Taxes/Benefits $1,350 0%$5 100% $5 100%$5 Supplies Office Supplies/Software and Mailing/Mailing Supplies $3,158 0% $13 100% $13 100%$13 Technology Equipment (Computers/Printer/Wifi) $2,250 0% $9 100% $9 100%$9 Operations/Maintenance Administrative and Operations-related Client Services $70,000 0% $280 100% $280 100%$280 Facilities/Site Rental Fees $20,000 6% $1,200 100% $1,200 100%$1,200 Professional Liability Insurance $5,368 0% $21 100% $21 100%$21 Administration 0% $0 TOTAL $258,126 2%$5,053 100%$5,053 100%$5,053 Number of Individual Beneficiaries 240 240 Cost per Individual $21.05 $21.05 Attachments 1. Resolution authorizing application and designation of signatory, by the Board of Directors Resolution.pdf 2. Proof of 501(c)3 / tax-exempt status Determination_Letter_.pdf 3. By-laws IEPC_Final_Bylaws.pdf 4. Articles of Incorporation IEPC_SOS_Conformed_Articles.pdf 5. Board roster, including:BOARD_ROSTER.docx 1/28/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8640&prop=1069 6/6 Name, Company, Years on Board Meeting dates for previous 12 months Number of years allowed for each board term 6. Organizational chart for entire organization Org_Chart_updated_1-15.pdf 7. Certified financial audit no more that 1 fiscal year old, prepared by a CPA, and: Management letters (if applicable) A-122 and A-133 Single Audit (for entities that receive more than $500,000 in federal funding) OR A letter from your Executive Director or Chief Financial Officer certifying that agency does not receive more than $500,000 in federal funds and is not subject to the Single Audit. Letter_re_attch_7_8_10_11__DUNS.pdf 8. The following are required: Current (FY19-20) Agency Operating Budget Proposed (FY20-21) Agency Operating Budget Letter_re_attch_7_8_10_11__DUNS.pdf 9. Mission Statement Mission_Statement.docx 10. Non-discrimination policy for Staff and Clients Letter_re_attch_7_8_10_11__DUNS.pdf 11. Reasonable Accommodations Policy for Staff and Clients Letter_re_attch_7_8_10_11__DUNS.pdf 12. Conflict of Interest Policy. (If not available, please indicate when you will submit) IEPC_Adopted_COI_Policy.pdf 13. Other - Table of Number of Students w/ Disabilities in SSF Number_of_Students_with_Disabilities_in_South_San_Francisco.pdf Download All Attachments Program Manager Signature Krista J. Martinelli Date Signed 01/16/2020 Initially submitted: Jan 16, 2020 - 14:03:58 2/10/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8694&prop=19 1/7 Consolidated Community Funding Application Redwood City, San Mateo County, and S. San Francisco Application for New Funding for FY 2020-21 GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Organization Name: Legal Aid Society of San Mateo County 2. Project Title: HomeSavers Preserving Affordable Housing in our Community We are applying for funding from: Redwood City City of San Mateo South San Francisco County of San Mateo Budget/Client Summary (Auto-populated from Budget, below) Jurisdictions receiving this application Amount Requested % of Program Budget Proposed # of Served % of Served Total $ Per City of San Mateo $16,500 2% 300 20% $55.00 County of San Mateo $25,000 3% 1,000 67% $25.00 South San Francisco $12,300 1% 190 13% $64.74 Total $53,800 6% 1,490 100% $36.11 Grant Funded Programs: We are applying for a Public Services Program CDBG National Objective Eligibility - How are you serving low income populations? Service to low income clients verified through income documentation. Income Verification: Describe how you obtain, verify, and maintain proof of income and presumed benefit status. Third party documentation or client signatures on the certification forms must be available on file for review at all times. All Legal Aid clients are required to complete a declaration of household income, which they must sign under penalty of perjury. We request that clients bring to their intake interview source documentation of income for all household members, if they have it. Documentation provided can include recent bank statements or tax returns, two consecutive paycheck records from an employer, a statement of benefits from a government agency, or proof of receipt of a government benefit (such as a MediCal or EBT card). If a client is able to provide this documentation, a copy is made and included in the physical file for that client, along with the client's signed declaration of household income. Client files for the past year are maintained at the Legal Aid office in a secure filing area. Files for the prior four years are maintained at a secure file storage facility with Corodata. After the file has been closed for five years, the physical paper file is shredded. 3. Project Address: 330 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 123 City: Redwood City Zip: 94065-1454 4. Provide a one sentence project summary: Legal assistance to people threatened with losing their homes or living in substandard conditions with the goals of keeping people in their homes; preventing homelessness through the enforcement of legal rights, in and out of court; and remedying substandard living conditions through advocacy. Organization Address: 330 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 123 City: Redwood City Zip: 94065-1454 Organization Phone: 650-558-0915 Website: www.legalaidsmc.org Type of Applicant: Non-Profit Our agency serves: 5. Contact Person / Project Administrator:Name: Shirley Gibson Title: Directing Attorney Telephone: 650-517-8927 Contact Email: SGibson@legalaidsmc.orgFax: 650-517-8973 6. Name of Agency Director: M. Stacey Hawver 7. Fiscal Officer:Name: Rene Rivera Email: Rrivera@legalaidsmc.org Telephone: 650-517-8913 Fiscal Officer Address: 330 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 123 City: Redwood City Zip: 94065-1454 2/10/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8694&prop=19 2/7 8. Authorized Signatory: Name: M. Stacey Hawver Email: MSHawver@legalaidsmc.org Telephone: 650-517-8917 Authorized Signatory Address: 330 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 123 City: Redwood City Zip: 94065-1454 9. Please provide days and hours of regularly scheduled operation: The Legal Aid Society office is open regularly from 9:00 am to 12 noon and 1:00 pm to 5:00 pm, Monday through Friday. 10. DUNS Number: 0342377270000 Federal EIN/TIN Number: 94-1451894 11. HUD Activity: Choose the HUD activity that most closely matches your service: 05C - Legal Services 12. Project Specific Narrative: Provide a narrative description of the specific activities to be carried out with the requested funds. This should also include program objectives and key priorities for each specific jurisdiction. Program Objective: The Legal Aid Society of San Mateo County works to bring fairness to the county’s housing courts, helps to keep low-income tenants in their homes, and can mitigate the effects of a potential eviction. We do this by providing legal advice and services to nearly 100 households each month at three weekly housing clinics. In FY 18-19, Legal Aid staff members and volunteers prepared 384 Answers to unlawful detainers (eviction lawsuits) filed in San Mateo County Court, and represented 50 households in defending evictions. Filing an answer ensures that a tenant has the opportunity to go through the court system to resolve their eviction case. Without legal assistance, tenants facing eviction are almost always forced to move from their homes. With limited-scope assistance and/or representation by an attorney, tenants are at least twice as likely to remain. Key Priorities: Legal Aid strives to provide low-income clients with the knowledge and practical assistance they need to more effectively advocate for themselves and their families in housing court. Specific Activities: Legal Aid attorneys, project staff, and trained pro bono attorneys meet one-on-one with clients to answer questions, provide legal advice, help with the completion of legal paperwork, and explain what to expect in the county’s housing courts. Legal Aid is also able to identify cases to place for full representation, and aggregate eviction data to track trends and impacts in specific cities. 13A. Assessment of Need - City of San Mateo: Briefly describe how you determined the need for your program for each specific jurisdiction that you are applying for funds. Identify target population(s) and area(s) served. Please state the source(s) and date(s) of information. Identify any similar programs in the community. Median rent in City of San Mateo is currently $2,041 per month (Get Healthy San Mateo County, Healthy Housing Data: http://www.gethealthysmc.org/healthy-housing-data), and the Fair Market Rent (FMR) published by HUD for 2020 is $3,220 for a one bedroom apartment in City of San Mateo. Yet the median annual income of Legal Aid’s City of San Mateo housing clients last year was just $24,000, or $2,000 per month. For these families, a market- rate apartment is out of reach, and the cost of moving prohibitive. It is critical that these families maintain their current housing whenever possible, and the primary factor that influences this outcome is timely legal help in defending an eviction. The statewide implementation of the Tenant Protection Act of 2019 (AB 1482) has introduced caps to rent increases and just cause eviction protections to more than seven million previously unprotected renter households in the state. Thousands of those households with new protections are in the City of San Mateo. Because eviction activity in the City of San Mateo tracked by Legal Aid has historically been predominantly (48%) “no cause” terminations, which are precisely the type of eviction now prohibited by AB 1482, we expect to see significant change in the eviction landscape of the city. Enforcement of these provisions will depend entirely upon tenants’ knowledge of their rights and ability to assert them, making access to legal services all the more essential. 13B. Assessment of Need - County of San Mateo: Briefly describe how you determined the need for your program for each specific jurisdiction that you are applying for funds. Identify target population(s) and area(s) served. Please state the source(s) and date(s) of information. Identify any similar programs in the community. Median rent in San Mateo County is currently $1,973 per month (Get Healthy San Mateo County, Healthy Housing Data: http://www.gethealthysmc.org/healthy-housing-data), and the Fair Market Rent (FMR) published by HUD for 2020 is $2,880 for a one bedroom apartment. Yet the median annual income of Legal Aid’s San Mateo County housing clients last year was just $20,400, or $1,700 per month. For these families, a market-rate apartment is out of reach, and the cost of moving prohibitive. It is critical that these families maintain their current housing whenever possible, and the primary factor that influences this outcome is timely legal help in defending an eviction. The statewide implementation of the Tenant Protection Act of 2019 (AB 1482) has introduced caps to rent increases and just cause eviction protections to more than seven million previously unprotected renter households in the state. Thousands of those households with new protections are in the cities and unincorporated areas under the County’s jurisdiction. Because eviction activity in San Mateo County tracked by Legal Aid has historically been predominantly (44%) “no cause” terminations, which are precisely the type of eviction now prohibited by AB 1482, we expect to see significant change in the eviction landscape of the County. Enforcement of these provisions will depend entirely upon tenants’ knowledge of their rights and ability to assert them, making access to legal services all the more essential. 13C. Assessment of Need - South San Francisco: Briefly describe how you determined the need for your program for each specific jurisdiction that you are applying for funds. Identify target population(s) and area(s) served. Please state the source(s) and date(s) of information. Identify any similar programs in the community. Median rent in South San Francisco is currently $1,751 per month (Get Healthy San Mateo County, Healthy Housing Data: http://www.gethealthysmc.org/healthy-housing-data), and the Fair Market Rent (FMR) published by HUD for 2020 is $2,340 for a one bedroom apartment in South San Francisco. Yet the median annual income of Legal Aid’s South San Francisco housing clients last year was just $18,660, or $1,555 per month. For these families, a market-rate apartment is out of reach, and the cost of moving prohibitive. It is critical that these families 2/10/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8694&prop=19 3/7 maintain their current housing whenever possible, and the primary factor that influences this outcome is timely legal help in defending an eviction. The statewide implementation of the Tenant Protection Act of 2019 (AB 1482) has introduced caps to rent increases and just cause eviction protections to more than seven million previously unprotected renter households in the state. Thousands of those households with new protections are in South San Francisco. Because eviction activity in South San Francisco tracked by Legal Aid has historically been predominantly (50%) “no cause” terminations, which are precisely the type of eviction now prohibited by AB 1482, we expect to see significant change in the eviction landscape of the city. Enforcement of these provisions will depend entirely upon tenants’ knowledge of their rights and ability to assert them, making access to legal services all the more essential. 14. Timeline: Provide a brief timetable for project implementation and achievement of projected goals and how you plan to expend your funds in a timely manner by the end of the fiscal year. Legal Aid already hosts three weekly housing clinics which are a well-known point of service for low income tenants in the county. Legal Aid can begin utilizing CDBG and HSFA funds immediately to support these clinics. Staffing and infrastructure for these clinics is already in place, with capacity to improve our outreach and efficacy with added financial support. During FY 20-21, Legal Aid proposes to assist 500 low-income tenant households from San Mateo, South San Francisco, and County jurisdictions during its weekly housing clinics. This goal is reasonable based on client demographic information from past programmatic years, and given the demonstrated need for these services. 15. Evaluation: Briefly describe how you will determine and measure the success of your program and whether or not program goals were met? If your program is currently receiving grant funds please describe accomplishments of goals to date. Legal Aid is committed to utilizing both internal and external data to evaluate its programs. We measure success by the number of households we are able to serve during our housing clinics, as well as by the number of cases that result in a favorable outcome for the client. We also work to reduce the number of unlawful detainer (UD) cases that result in a default judgment by the court. A default judgment is entered when a tenant fails to respond, responds incorrectly, or responds too late to a UD, and can mean that that the tenants are rapidly displaced from their home. In some cases, a household may be evicted in as little as five days after a default judgment. We will track the number of housing clinic clients who come to us with unlawful detainers and the number of Answers to UDs that we prepare for clients, compared to the total number of UD Answers and defaults throughout the County. 16. Collaboration: Describe partnerships with other organizations/agencies, the nature of the partnership, and how it relates to the proposed project. Legal Aid partners with San Mateo Superior Court and Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto to ensure that self-represented litigants in eviction proceedings have access to pro bono assistance at essential points of the legal process, including preparation of paperwork by Legal Aid at the outset of the case and assistance with settlement negotiations by Community Legal Services at subsequent court dates. Legal Aid also collaborates with Fair Oaks Community Center and Daly City Community Services Center to provide on-site housing assistance at these core service agencies. We work with other community organizations like the Anti-Displacement Coalition, Faith In Action, and Project Sentinel to provide outreach and comprehensive services to low-income individuals and families facing housing issues. Through active collaboration, client referrals, and targeted partnerships that address specific needs in the community, Legal Aid and its partners work to maximize resources and community impact while eliminating duplication of services. 17. Impact: : Discuss any general trends and conditions that have affected or impacted your service levels or service populations. For New Applicants – describe what these funds would allow your agency to do that you may not be able to do now. For Continuing Applicants – describe how your program would be impacted without these funds. With the passage of AB 1482 (the Tenant Protection Act of 2019), and the state-wide implementation of rent caps and just cause eviction protections, we have seen a tremendous increase in the need for outreach and education to San Mateo County tenants. Our clinic attendance has been over capacity for several months in 2019-20 due to tenant’s need to understand these changes. Because few similar tenant protections previously existed in the County, our local housing market presents a “clean slate” environment in which we will see the impact of these new protections evolve. San Mateo County also has the unique profile within the Bay Area of seeing a very high frequency of “no fault” evictions prior to the implementation of just cause eviction protections that will drastically change this eviction mechanism. Legal Aid is working closely with regional and statewide legal networks to ensure that AB 1482 laws are correctly enforced, and with local community partners to develop a network for access to critical information. 18. Project Beneficiaries/Quantifiable Measurement: Indicate the expected number of beneficiaries to be served by the program. For each response below please indicate both the number of households and number of individuals. Refer to the San Mateo County Income Limits. a. Indicate the total number of low-income beneficiaries you expect to serve with this program for each jurisdiction application for funding. *Low-income is 80% of Area Median Income or below. See AMI table b. Indicate the total number of beneficiaries you expect to serve with this program in each jurisdiction - regardless of income. Jurisdiction a. Number of low-income beneficiaries to be served per grant jurisdiction b. All beneficiaries to be served per grant jurisdiction application regardless of income 2/10/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8694&prop=19 4/7 application. **Low-income** is 80% of Area Median Income or below. Persons Households Persons Households Daly City Redwood City City of San Mateo 300 125 300 125 County of San Mateo 1,000 300 1,000 300 South San Francisco 190 75 190 75 Totals 1,490 500 1,490 500 19. Populations Served: Check the boxes below if they describe a significant population served by your program. These categories are not considered "presumed benefit" by HUD, and require income verification. Persons exiting incarceration Low-income youth Other 20. Affirmative Outreach: a. Use the demographics from your previous program year to provide an analysis of the population you serve relative to the demographics in the table. NOTE: If you are a new applicant please provide your best estimation. Race & Ethnicity City of San Mateo Population City of San Mateo % by Ethnicity Low Income by Ethnicity served by your Program Your Program % by Ethnicity Total 97,207 100%300 100% White and not Hispanic 45,240 46.54% 87 29.00% White and Hispanic 25,815 26.56% 143 47.67% Asian 18,153 18.67% 30 10.00% African American 2,099 2.16% 17 5.67% Pacific Islander 1,937 1.99% 4 1.33% Native American 140 0.14% 2 0.67% Other 3,823 3.93% 17 5.67% Race & Ethnicity South San Francisco Population South San Francisco % by Ethnicity Low Income by Ethnicity served by your Program Your Program % by Ethnicity Total 63,632 100%190 100% White and not Hispanic 23,760 37.34% 18 9.47% White and Hispanic 21,645 34.02% 99 52.11% Asian 23,293 36.61% 45 23.68% African American 1,625 2.55% 7 3.68% Pacific Islander 1,111 1.75% 0 0.00% Native American 395 0.62% 3 1.58% Other 9,598 15.08% 18 9.47% b. Based on the percentages that you indicate your organization served describe your efforts to improve affirmative outreach to groups that may be underserved by your program and the result of your efforts: Legal Aid serves low-income residents of San Mateo County. Our client demographics closely resemble that of individuals at or below 125% of the poverty level living in San Mateo County rather than the demographics of each city's population. Legal Aid continues to work to provide services for low-income residents of all races and ethnicities, but specifically focuses on providing culturally and linguistically appropriate services to serve the significant low-income Hispanic populations in the City of San Mateo and South San Francisco. 21. Leveraging: Describe your fundraising efforts and additional sources of revenue for this project and your organization. Please state whether any of these fund sources are already committed and in what amount. Legal Aid has a successful development program that has allowed it to secure program funding from an annual campaign, targeted major donor solicitations, and an annual luncheon and golf tournament. In addition, Legal Aid has been successful in obtaining grants and contracts to support its work from a number of foundations and local government agencies. For the FY 2020-2021 fiscal year, in addition to any CDBG funding awarded, we anticipate receiving support for the HomeSavers program from the State Bar of California Trust Fund Program ($50,194 Homelessness Prevention Fund received for 10/1/19-6/30/21; $125,120 IOLTA grant received for 1/1/20-12/31/20); Chan Zuckerberg Intitiative ($125,000 received this year for rental assistance to clients, with potential for renewal), San Bruno Community Foundation ($10,000 received for 1/1/20-12/31/20), and City of Redwood City HSFA (applied for $20,000). The San Mateo County Department of Housing supports Legal Aid's eviction defense litigation ($486,362 committed for 12/1/19-11/30/21). Staff List List below key staff members who work on this program Position Title Name of Staff Person Job Responsibilities Qualifications Directing Attorney Shirley Gibson Oversee project; provide direct legal Member of the California 2/10/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8694&prop=19 5/7 services to housing clients.State Bar; J.D., 1999 Director of Litigation David Carducci Provide direct legal services to housing clients Member of the California State Bar; J.D., 1991 Staff Attorney 1 Trevor Yan Provide direct legal services to housing clients Member of the California State Bar; J.D., 2014 Staff Attorney 2 Shane Sagisi Provide direct legal services to housing clients Member of the California State Bar; J.D., 2018 Senior Project Coordinator Maria Chatterjee Interpret for Spanish-speaking clients; provide written translation for litigation cases; maintain litigation case records Masters Degree; Spanish fluency Project Coordinator Evelyn Benitez Screen clients; schedule appointments; interpret for Spanish-speaking clients; provide information and referrals to clients; translate self-help and outreach materials into Spanish B.A.; Spanish fluency PROPOSED PROGRAM BUDGET FOR FY 2020-21 City of San Mateo County of San Mateo South San Francisco Total Jurisdictions Budget Line Item Agency Total Pgm%Program Total %Requested %Requested %Requested Pgm%Requested Labor Directing Attorney $110,500 100% $110,500 1% $1,500 2% $2,000 0% $500 4%$4,000 Director of Litigation $104,500 100% $104,500 7% $7,700 11% $12,000 4% $4,400 23%$24,100 Staff Attorney 1 $78,740 100% $78,740 4% $2,900 5% $4,300 3% $2,500 12%$9,700 Staff Attorney 2 $70,000 100% $70,000 1% $1,000 3% $2,000 4% $2,500 8%$5,500 Senior Project Coordinator $37,914 100% $37,914 1% $300 1% $400 1% $200 2%$900 Project Coordinator $46,640 100% $46,640 0% $150 1% $300 0% $200 1%$650 Other Staff $1,801,854 0% $0 Taxes/Benefits $652,543 20%$130,005 2% $2,950 3% $4,000 2% $2,000 7%$8,950 Supplies Office Supplies, Printing, Postage $51,000 20% $10,161 0% 0% 0% 0%$0 Materials Publications, Training, Travel $33,000 20% $6,575 0% 0% 0% 0%$0 Operations/Maintenance Occupancy $68,491 20% $13,645 0% 0% 0% 0%$0 Technology, Phone, Internet $52,220 20% $10,404 0% 0% 0% 0%$0 Other Operating Costs $54,500 20% $10,858 0% 0% 0% 0%$0 Contract Services $1,177,726 10% $121,000 0% 0% 0% 0%$0 Administration $210,000 57%$120,000 0% 0% 0% 0% $0 TOTAL $4,549,628 19%$870,942 2%$16,500 3%$25,000 1%$12,300 6%$53,800 Number of Individual Beneficiaries 300 1,000 190 1,490 Cost per Individual $55.00 $25.00 $64.74 $36.11 Attachments 1. Resolution authorizing application and designation of signatory, by the Board of Directors General_funding_resolution_2020.pdf 2. Proof of 501(c)3 /501c3_ltr_short10-4-79.pdf 2/10/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8694&prop=19 6/7 tax-exempt status 3. By-laws ByLaws_updated_09.13.2011.pdf 4. Articles of Incorporation ArticlesofIncorporation_2012.pdf 5. Board roster, including: Name, Company, Years on Board Meeting dates for previous 12 months Number of years allowed for each board term LASSMC_Board_of_Directors_2020_with_start_date.pdf Board_Meeting_Schedule_2019.pdf 6. Organizational chart for entire organization LASSMC_OrgChart_January_2020.pdf 7. Certified financial audit no more that 1 fiscal year old, prepared by a CPA, and: Management letters (if applicable) A-122 and A-133 Single Audit (for entities that receive more than $500,000 in federal funding) OR A letter from your Executive Director or Chief Financial Officer certifying that agency does not receive more than $500,000 in federal funds and is not subject to the Single Audit. LASSMC_Audit_Report_FY-2019.pdf LASSMC_Certification_Letter_No_Single_Audit_2020.pdf 8. The following are required: Current (FY19- 20) Agency Operating Budget Proposed (FY20- 21) Agency Operating Budget LASSMC_FY2020_Organization_Budget.pdf LASSMC_Proposed_FY2021_Organization_Budget.pdf 9. Mission Statement Mission_and_Vision_Statement.pdf 10. Non- discrimination policy for Staff and Clients LASSMC_Equal_Employment_Opportunity_and_Reasonable_Accommodations_Policy.pdf 11. Reasonable Accommodations Policy for Staff and Clients Legal_Aid_Equal_Opportunity_Policy_Including_Reasonable_Accommodations.pdf 12. Conflict of Interest Policy. (If not available, please indicate when you will submit) Legal_Aid_Conflict_of_Interest_Policy.pdf 13. Other - 2/10/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8694&prop=19 7/7 Download All Attachments Program Manager Signature Shirley E Gibson Date Signed 01/16/2020 Initially submitted: Jan 16, 2020 - 13:59:32 1/28/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8575&prop=54 1/8 Consolidated Community Funding Application Redwood City, San Mateo County, and S. San Francisco Application for New Funding for FY 2020-21 GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Organization Name: LifeMoves (formerly InnVision Shelter Network) 2. Project Title: Shelter Operations CDBG We are applying for funding from: Redwood City City of San Mateo South San Francisco County of San Mateo Budget/Client Summary (Auto-populated from Budget, below) Jurisdictions receiving this application Amount Requested % of Program Budget Proposed # of Served % of Served Total $ Per Redwood City $18,846 1% 311 15% $60.60 City of San Mateo $25,000 2% 246 11% $101.63 County of San Mateo $58,750 4% 1,393 65% $42.18 South San Francisco $25,000 2% 191 9% $130.89 Total $127,596 8% 2,141 100% $59.60 Grant Funded Programs: We are applying for a Public Services Program CDBG National Objective Eligibility - How are you serving low income populations? Service to "presumed benefit" groups listed below (income verification not required, but verification of presumed benefit status is required): Abused children Homeless persons Victims of domestic violence Illiterate adults Elderly persons/seniors (age 62+) Persons living with AIDS Severely disabled adults Migrant farm workers Income Verification: Describe how you obtain, verify, and maintain proof of income and presumed benefit status. Third party documentation or client signatures on the certification forms must be available on file for review at all times. To determine client income eligibility for our programs, upon intake, LifeMoves Case Managers verify household income by reviewing income tax returns, W-2 forms, payroll check stubs, employment verification letters, or—in the absence of documentation—direct contact with the employer. Should the client receive government assistance, we request a “notice of action” letter indicating amount awarded. In addition, a follow-up phone call is made to the benefits analyst to verify the amount stated. If client income changes, they are required to submit updated verification of income. Income certification is available on file for all LifeMoves clients and is available for review upon request. 3. Project Address: First Step – 325 Villa Terrace; Redwood Family – 110 Locust Street; Haven Family – 260 Van Buren Road, Maple Street – 1580A Maple Street; Family Crossroads – 50 Hillcrest Drive City: San Mateo, Redwood City, Menlo Park, Daly City Zip: 94401-2218 4. Provide a one sentence project summary: LifeMoves is requesting funding to support interim housing programs and comprehensive supportive services for homeless families and individuals from Urban San Mateo County. Organization Address: 181 Constitution Drive City: Menlo Park Zip: 94025-1106 Organization Phone: 650-685-5880 Website: www.lifemoves.org Type of Applicant: Non-Profit Our agency serves: 1/28/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8575&prop=54 2/8 5. Contact Person / Project Administrator: Name: Jacob Stone; Jeannie Leahy Title: Director of Shelters & Services, San Mateo County; Director, Contracts, Grants, & Donor Data Telephone: 650-685-5880 x158 Contact Email: jstone@lifemoves.org; jleahy@lifemoves.org Fax: 6. Name of Agency Director: Bruce Ives 7. Fiscal Officer:Name: Craig Garber Email: cgarber@lifemoves.org Telephone: 650-685-5880 x145 Fiscal Officer Address: 181 Constitution Drive City: Menlo Park Zip: 94025-1106 8. Authorized Signatory:Name: Bruce Ives Email: bives@lifemoves.org Telephone: 650-685-5880 x139 Authorized Signatory Address: 181 Constitution Drive City: Menlo Park Zip: 94025-1106 9. Please provide days and hours of regularly scheduled operation: LifeMoves homeless shelters in San Mateo County (First Step for Families, Redwood Family House, Haven Family House, Maple Street Shelter, and Family Crossroads) operate 365 days per year, 24 hours per day. 10. DUNS Number: 792738726 Federal EIN/TIN Number: 77-0160469 11. HUD Activity: Choose the HUD activity that most closely matches your service: 05 - Public Services 12. Project Specific Narrative: Provide a narrative description of the specific activities to be carried out with the requested funds. This should also include program objectives and key priorities for each specific jurisdiction. The LifeMoves mission is to provide shelter and supportive services that create opportunities for homeless families and individuals to return to stable housing and long-term self-sufficiency. At all five LifeMoves San Mateo County sites, shelter staff work with clients to develop the skills they need to transform their lives and build lasting solutions to homelessness. All clients work with a Case Managers to create and execute concrete plans to secure jobs, find child care, locate housing, and other components needed to create a sustainable lifestyle and prevent future homelessness. In addition to meeting with their Case Manager, clients attend mandatory life skills workshops and adhere to key practices (e.g. mandatory savings program) to help them regain self-sufficiency. Workshop curricula includes: effective search strategies for employment and housing, financial literacy training, and parenting skills. Additional onsite services include behavioral health (for adults and children), health care referrals, and substance abuse treatment support. FY 20/21 objectives: LifeMoves will serve 670 Urban San Mateo County residents in our five shelter sites. 80% of families completing an interim housing program will secure stable housing and 20% will maintain or increase their income. 60% of single adults completing an interim housing program will secure stable housing and 10% will maintain or increase their income. 13A. Assessment of Need - Redwood City: Briefly describe how you determined the need for your program for each specific jurisdiction that you are applying for funds. Identify target population(s) and area(s) served. Please state the source(s) and date(s) of information. Identify any similar programs in the community. The two most recent Point in Time homeless counts showed that homelessness increased significantly (21%) across San Mateo County from 2017 to 2019, and that the percentage increase was highest in Redwood City during this time period. According to the 2019 San Mateo County Homeless Census and Survey, Redwood City has the highest number of unsheltered homeless individuals in the County. The report noted that 221 homeless individuals were located in Redwood City, compared to 94 in 2017. Last year, Maple Street Shelter served 139 unduplicated individuals from Redwood City; across all LifeMoves sites, 188 unduplicated households containing 311 individuals from Redwood City were served. Funding will help LifeMoves serve homeless individuals from Redwood City who would otherwise be living on the streets, in RVs, garages, or other places unsuitable for human habitation. To address this need, the LifeMoves Maple Street Shelter provides emergency housing for 141 homeless, single, adult men and women, including difficult to serve populations such as individuals with substance use and mental health conditions, co-occurring disorders, and physical disabilities. In addition, many clients at Maple Street are medically fragile, and many have been chronically homeless. FY 2020-21 objectives: Serve 95 Redwood City homeless single adults. 60% of individuals completing the Maple Street program will secure stable housing. 13B. Assessment of Need - City of San Mateo: Briefly describe how you determined the need for your program for each specific jurisdiction that you are applying for funds. Identify target population(s) and area(s) served. Please state the source(s) and date(s) of information. Identify any similar programs in the community. According to the 2019 San Mateo County One Day Homeless Census and Survey, there were 1,512 homeless people in San Mateo County, 21% more than in 2017. Additionally, it reported that 74 homeless individuals were located in the City of San Mateo, compared to 48 in 2017. We believe that these numbers often undercount family homelessness, sometimes called a “hidden epidemic,” because homeless families tend to more often live in 1/28/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8575&prop=54 3/8 garages, vehicles, or doubled-up with friends, rather than live on the streets. To address this need, the LifeMoves First Step for Families shelter in the City of San Mateo provides interim housing for homeless families. The facility includes 117 beds in 24 furnished studio and 15 one-bedroom units for families, a free onsite therapeutic child care center, computer lab, and workshop and staff office space. The project includes supportive services that enable homeless families to return to self-sufficiency including case management; individual and family behavioral health support; a client savings program; parenting classes; referrals and subsidies for childcare; and a comprehensive Children's Program. The facility also includes a free onsite therapeutic child care center, with services tailored to meet the special needs of homeless children and families. FY20/21 objectives: First Step will serve 115 City of San Mateo individuals. 80% of families completing the First Step program will secure stable housing. 13C. Assessment of Need - County of San Mateo: Briefly describe how you determined the need for your program for each specific jurisdiction that you are applying for funds. Identify target population(s) and area(s) served. Please state the source(s) and date(s) of information. Identify any similar programs in the community. LifeMoves has been working with homeless individuals in San Mateo County since 1973. The need for these services was well established then and--despite the successes of the LifeMoves programs over the past four decades—that need is all the more pressing today. San Mateo County unemployment, underemployment, and low wages continue to conspire with the extremely high and ever-rising housing costs in the region to make it ever more difficult for working families to have the resources needed for permanent housing and a stable home life. As the largest provider of homeless services in San Mateo County, LifeMoves provides a valuable service to the community by helping families and individuals secure stable housing. LifeMoves has a wealth of data on its own programs that clearly demonstrate both the ongoing need for services and the success of the LifeMoves programs at addressing that need. FY 20/21 objectives: LifeMoves will serve 670 Urban San Mateo County residents in our five shelter sites. 80% of families completing an interim housing program will secure stable housing and 20% will maintain or increase their income. 60% of single adults completing an interim housing program will secure stable housing and 10% will maintain or increase their income. 13D. Assessment of Need - South San Francisco: Briefly describe how you determined the need for your program for each specific jurisdiction that you are applying for funds. Identify target population(s) and area(s) served. Please state the source(s) and date(s) of information. Identify any similar programs in the community. According to the 2019 San Mateo County One Day Homeless Census and Survey, there were 1,512 homeless people in San Mateo County, 21% more than in 2017. Additionally, it reported that 42 homeless individuals were located in South San Francisco, compared to 33 in 2017. We believe that these numbers often undercount family homelessness, sometimes called a “hidden epidemic,” because homeless families tend to more often live in garages, vehicles, or doubled-up with friends, rather than on the streets. To address this need, the LifeMoves Family Crossroads shelter, located at 50 Hillcrest Drive in Daly City, CA, provides interim housing for homeless families. The facility contains 15 furnished one-bedroom family units. In addition to providing a safe shelter, the Family Crossroads program seeks to re-connect homeless families with permanent housing, jobs, and the skills and resources needed to maintain them. Last year, Family Crossroads served 12 unduplicated families consisting of 42 individuals from South San Francisco; across all LifeMoves sites, 100 unduplicated families consisting of 190 individuals from South San Francisco were served. FY20/21 objectives: Serve 8 South San Francisco families consisting of 26 individuals. 80% of clients graduating from our transitional programs will return to permanent housing and 15% of graduates will maintain or increase income at end of operating year or program exit. 14. Timeline: Provide a brief timetable for project implementation and achievement of projected goals and how you plan to expend your funds in a timely manner by the end of the fiscal year. LifeMoves shelter programs is an ongoing project that is ready for implementation in the upcoming 2020-21 Fiscal Year. The project has dedicated staff and supervision along with the processes and procedures in place to start aiding clients immediately upon contract execution. As a long-time CDBG/HUD grantee with no outstanding issues, LifeMoves is experienced with the robust reporting, draw-down, and HMIS requirements for public contracts. LifeMoves is equipped and prepared to manage the data and financial requirements to expend funds in a timely manner while meeting the project goals. 15. Evaluation: Briefly describe how you will determine and measure the success of your program and whether or not program goals were met? If your program is currently receiving grant funds please describe accomplishments of goals to date. To ensure that all outcomes are met, LifeMoves follows a robust performance measurement protocol. To evaluate our programs, complete records of LifeMoves client outcomes and demographics are entered into a database by Case Managers and analyzed by the Contracts Compliance Manager. Additionally, the Homeless Management Information System (HMIS), a county-wide system, tracks the services each client receives. LifeMoves solicits feedback at regular intervals from program participants through weekly house meetings, case management sessions, and open-ended surveys. Additionally, all clients are asked to complete client satisfaction surveys upon graduation from the program. Currently, LifeMoves first and second quarter reports completed demonstrate the current shelter operations program is well positioned to meet its FY 2019-20 objective to serve 1,161 San Mateo County residents. In the first quarter of the fiscal year, the project served well more than half of the annual number of individuals we expect to 1/28/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8575&prop=54 4/8 serve over the entire year. 16. Collaboration: Describe partnerships with other organizations/agencies, the nature of the partnership, and how it relates to the proposed project. Collaboration is a key component of LifeMovesprogramming and enables LifeMoves to provide enhanced services and resources to our vulnerable clients, without unnecessary duplication of cost and effort. The diversity of LiveMoves partnerships enable our clients to receive a wide variety of support to help them meet all of their needs, be it mental health treatment, job training, child care or legal aid. LifeMoves works in deep partnership with organizations which serve homeless and low-income populations in San Mateo County including Second Harvest Food Bank, Loaves and Fishes, Mid-Peninsula Housing, Samaritan House, Institute of Human Development, Peninsula Family Service, San Mateo County Behavioral Health and Recovery Services, HIP Housing, Peninsula Special Interest Lion’s Club, My New Red Shoes, Legal Aid Society, Society of Saint Vincent de Paul, County of San Mateo Mental Health Services Division, Peninsula Family YMCA, and Saint Raymond Homeless Family Fund. Additionally, LifeMoves makes referrals to County medical, dental and mental health clinics, vocational support, and numerous other social services offered within the community. 17. Impact: : Discuss any general trends and conditions that have affected or impacted your service levels or service populations. For New Applicants – describe what these funds would allow your agency to do that you may not be able to do now. For Continuing Applicants – describe how your program would be impacted without these funds. Homelessness continues to be a significant problem in the Bay Area, including in San Mateo County. The rising cost of housing continues to exacerbate the ability of lower income individuals and families finding and maintaining suitable housing. LifeMoves needs the financial support of the community to not only achieve our intended outcomes, but to continue to conduct important and highly impactful work to help those most in need in our community. Without funding for the project, LifeMoves would be forced to scale back services for clients in Urban San Mateo County, leaving a vulnerable population without critical housing and supportive services. This could potentially increase homelessness in San Mateo County. 18. Project Beneficiaries/Quantifiable Measurement: Indicate the expected number of beneficiaries to be served by the program. For each response below please indicate both the number of households and number of individuals. Refer to the San Mateo County Income Limits. a. Indicate the total number of low-income beneficiaries you expect to serve with this program for each jurisdiction application for funding. *Low-income is 80% of Area Median Income or below. See AMI table b. Indicate the total number of beneficiaries you expect to serve with this program in each jurisdiction - regardless of income. Jurisdiction a. Number of low-income beneficiaries to be served per grant jurisdiction application. **Low-income** is 80% of Area Median Income or below. b. All beneficiaries to be served per grant jurisdiction application regardless of income Persons Households Persons Households Daly City 156 64 156 64 Redwood City 311 176 311 176 City of San Mateo 246 115 246 115 County of San Mateo 1,393 691 1,393 691 South San Francisco 191 98 191 98 Totals 2,297 1,144 2,297 1,144 19. Populations Served: Check the boxes below if they describe a significant population served by your program. These categories are not considered "presumed benefit" by HUD, and require income verification. Persons exiting incarceration Low-income youth Other Homeless 20. Affirmative Outreach: a. Use the demographics from your previous program year to provide an analysis of the population you serve relative to the demographics in the table. NOTE: If you are a new applicant please provide your best estimation. Race & Ethnicity Redwood City Population Redwood City % by Ethnicity Low Income by Ethnicity served by your Program Your Program % by Ethnicity Total 74,402 100%569 100% White and not Hispanic 40,656 54.64% 245 43.06% White and Hispanic 23,557 31.66% 112 19.68% Asian 6,715 9.03% 29 5.10% African American 1,916 2.58% 134 23.55% Pacific Islander 663 0.89% 26 4.57% 1/28/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8575&prop=54 5/8 Native American 384 0.52% 15 2.64% Other 1,511 2.03% 8 1.41% Race & Ethnicity City of San Mateo Population City of San Mateo % by Ethnicity Low Income by Ethnicity served by your Program Your Program % by Ethnicity Total 97,207 100%115 100% White and not Hispanic 45,240 46.54% 22 19.13% White and Hispanic 25,815 26.56% 36 31.30% Asian 18,153 18.67% 11 9.57% African American 2,099 2.16% 17 14.78% Pacific Islander 1,937 1.99% 14 12.17% Native American 140 0.14% 11 9.57% Other 3,823 3.93% 4 3.48% Race & Ethnicity South San Francisco Population South San Francisco % by Ethnicity Low Income by Ethnicity served by your Program Your Program % by Ethnicity Total 63,632 100%193 100% White and not Hispanic 23,760 37.34% 27 13.99% White and Hispanic 21,645 34.02% 75 38.86% Asian 23,293 36.61% 18 9.33% African American 1,625 2.55% 28 14.51% Pacific Islander 1,111 1.75% 22 11.40% Native American 395 0.62% 12 6.22% Other 9,598 15.08% 11 5.70% b. Based on the percentages that you indicate your organization served describe your efforts to improve affirmative outreach to groups that may be underserved by your program and the result of your efforts: LifeMoves serves a diverse population. Of the clients LifeMoves served in San Mateo County shelter programs last year, 46% were White, 29% were African American, 4% were Native American, 7% were Asian, 10% were Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, and 4% were mixed races or other. Additionally, 34% of individuals identified as being of Hispanic ethnicity. To improve affirmative outreach, the LifeMoves Homeless Outreach Team also identifies and engages clients by distributing printed program information and developing relationships with individuals that may be underserved by LifeMoves programs. With this diverse clientele, cultural competency is an integral part of LifeMoves training. LifeMoves contracts with a licensed clinical psychologist to provide a mandatory, semi-annual training to all LifeMoves staff on integrating multiculturalism into organizational practices. After program intake, LifeMoves makes every effort to ensure all individuals regardless of race, ethnicity or sexual orientation feel safe and accepted. 21. Leveraging: Describe your fundraising efforts and additional sources of revenue for this project and your organization. Please state whether any of these fund sources are already committed and in what amount. LifeMoves has decades of experience planning, implementing, and administering effective and efficient programs helping homeless families and individuals regain self-sufficiency and exit homelessness. LifeMoves is experienced at leveraging grant funding so services are cost-efficient and effective. Today, through a full spectrum of publicly- (federal, state, county, and city) and privately-funded programs located throughout San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties, LifeMoves provides cold-weather emergency shelters, short- and longer-term interim housing, permanent supportive housing, and follow-up services for more than 9,000 people annually. LifeMoves enjoys a long and successful track-record of effectively managing facilities, contracts, and services, including a rental assistance program and motel voucher emergency shelter program. SMC Shelter Ops (Pending)- Approx. $732,311 City of Burlingame (Pending)- Approx. $6,315 City of Foster City (Pending)-Approx. $3,000 First Five (Pending)-Approx. 13,949 MVP Special Needs (Pending)-Approx. $84,148 Private Donations (Awarded)-$150,000 State ESG (Awarded)-$41,007 City of San Mateo CDBG (Pending)- Aprrox. $25,000 Staff List List below key staff members who work on this program Position Title Name of Staff Person Job Responsibilities Qualifications Vice President of Programs and Services Brian Greenberg Manages all shelter and housing programs and direct services personnel Licensed psychologist with over 25 years of experience developing and managing 1/28/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8575&prop=54 6/8 behavioral health and housing programs Director of Shelters & Services, San Mateo County Jacob Stone Supervises Shelter Program Directors to ensure high quality program delivery and evaluates program performance BS from Quincy University. 8+ years of management experience at LifeMoves. Former Program Director of First Step for Families. Program Director, Maple Street Donna Miller Responsible for the day to day management and operation of shelter program. Ensures maintenance of a clean, safe, and supportive environment for clients and staff 30 years experience in Mental Health Sub-Acute Crisis residential as well as residential and outpatient Alcohol and Drug programs. Has worked as a Program Director, Clinical Supervisor and Case Manager/Counselor. Program Director, Haven Family House Gagan Sandhu Responsible for the day to day management and operation of shelter program. Ensures maintenance of a clean, safe, and supportive environment for clients and staff More than 9 years of program management and 15 + years of social work experience Program Director, First Step for Families Anna Kelleher Responsible for the day to day management and operation of shelter program. Ensures maintenance of a clean, safe, and supportive environment for clients and staff BA from New College of San Francisco, Masters of Social Work from San Francisco State University, and 15 years of experience working with nonprofits. Program Director, Redwood Family House Family Crossroads Rebecca Hernandez Responsible for the day to day management and operation of shelter program. Ensures maintenance of a clean, safe, and supportive environment for clients and staff Rebecca has a BA from UC San Diego. She has served as Children Services Coordinator and Bilingual Case Manager at Redwood Family House and Associate Program Director at First Step for Families before her recent promotion to program director a Redwood Family House and Family Crossroads. PROPOSED PROGRAM BUDGET FOR FY 2020-21 Redwood City City of San Mateo County of San Mateo South San Francisco Total Jurisdictions Budget Line Item Agency Total Pgm%Program Total %Requested %Requested %Requested %Requested Pgm%Requested Labor Program Directors $728,596 11% $78,750 18% $13,960 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 18%$13,960 Case Managers $4,637,002 7% $307,005 0% $0 2% $5,100 4% $11,636 2% $6,235 7%$22,971 Children's Services Coordinator $458,875 0% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Other Labor $1,899,579 0% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Taxes/Benefits $2,703,418 5%$142,730 3% $4,886 1% $1,787 3% $4,073 2% $2,182 9%$12,928 Supplies Client Assistance $2,742,982 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0%$0 Other Direct Costs $728,652 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0%$0 Operations/Maintenance Operations/Maintenance $8,956,765 10% $921,386 0% $0 2% $15,840 4% $37,700 2% $14,310 7%$67,850 Administration $3,130,675 6%$185,349 0% $0 1% $2,273 3% $5,341 1% $2,273 5% $9,887 TOTAL $25,986,544 6%$1,635,220 1%$18,846 2%$25,000 4%$58,750 2%$25,000 8%$127,596 Number of Individual Beneficiaries 311 246 1,393 191 2,141 Cost per Individual $60.60 $101.63 $42.18 $130.89 $59.60 For the City of Redwood City ONLY, answer the following: 1. Funding Criteria: 2. Homeless Assistance Activities: Provision of fair housing counseling services, provision of legal intervention to prevent homelessness, provision of operation funds for shared housing, emergency shelter and transitional housing and related services for homeless and those at risk of homelessness, youth and single persons. 1/28/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8575&prop=54 7/8 2. Marketing/Advertising a. Check all of the following methods your agency utilizes to promote and advertise your programs and services: Flyers/brochures Website Phone book listing CIP (Handbook/Database) Outreach presentations to service providers Outreach presentations to public b. Which of the above marketing/advertising materials are available in multi-langual form and which languages are they available in? Flyers and brochures are available in Spanish. c. How and where are the materials distributed? Flyers and brochures are distributed person-to-person in the field and at tabling events, and available through social media and our website. Additionally, flyers and brochures are available at our 10 shelter locations and the Opportunity Services Center, our drop-in day services center located in downtown Palo Alto. 3. Program Outcomes: a. Please describe the accomplishments of program goals for FY/19. Accounting for all individuals who list Redwood City as their last place of residence, Maple Street Shelter served 139 unduplicated individuals in FY19 and continues to the address housing needs of our clients by conducting workshops and assisting with housing applications and housing vouchers. Thirty beds dedicated to women were added in a separate building located behind Maple’s main facility where women will have access to workshops and case management to address their concerns. The facility will be staffed 24 hours/day and have two full-time case managers. We partnered with HealthRight360 to provide Intensive Outpatient Services on-site, consisting of group education and 1:1 substance abuse counseling sessions, to significantly reduce barriers to program entry. LifeMoves began a two-year pilot program, recently renewed for another two years, to provide a Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) to address the increasing medical needs of our aging and medically-fragile client population. Results include a reduction of 911 calls, saving an estimated $900,000; lower staff turnover; and improved staff sense of safety. Vocational Rehabilitation Services provides assessment services to assist clients with becoming engaged in their services as we continue to reduce barriers for clients. We also created four kennel spaces to house pets belonging to clients who would not be willing to move into shelter without a place for their companions. b. In what ways has your program made a difference in the lives of the people you serve? Please provide at least one concrete example from the people served in FY/19: Mr. Miranda (78 years old) came to Maple street Shelter in October 2018 with a very limited income and pension that amounted to $300 a month. In order to save enough money for his housing and increase his income, he got a part-time job at Applebee’s as a busboy at 20 hours a week. He reported that he loves his job and is happy that he is busy and not sitting around the shelter. After a few months working with the HealthCare for the Homeless Case Manager, Mr. Miranda was able to increase his income by $590 a month with a Social Security benefit. Following the case plan he developed with his case manager, Mr. Miranda began saving his entire Social Security benefit, as well as his pension and income. He only kept back the tips he earned at work which he used for outside food or bus fare. Subsequently, Mr. Miranda was selected for a PSH referral and completed all the tasks to submit on time. He was then chosen for a voucher and excitedly jumped on his housing search duties which included attending site visits and visiting different senior living communities throughout Daly City, Colma, and South San Francisco. Happily, Mr. Miranda moved into a one-bedroom apartment in South San Francisco with nearly $6,000 that he had saved while at Maple Street Shelter. Attachments 1. Resolution authorizing application and designation of signatory, by the Board of Directors Authorizing_Resolution_021016.pdf 1/28/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8575&prop=54 8/8 2. Proof of 501(c)3 / tax-exempt status LifeMoves_501c3.pdf 3. By-laws LifeMoves_ByLaws_041316.pdf 4. Articles of Incorporation LifeMoves_Articles_of_Incorporation.pdf 5. Board roster, including: Name, Company, Years on Board Meeting dates for previous 12 months Number of years allowed for each board term 2019_Calendar_-_BOD_mtgs_CY19.pdf 2020_Life_Moves_Board_of_Directors_.pdf 6. Organizational chart for entire organization LifeMoves_Org_Chart_1.8.2020.pdf 7. Certified financial audit no more that 1 fiscal year old, prepared by a CPA, and: Management letters (if applicable) A-122 and A-133 Single Audit (for entities that receive more than $500,000 in federal funding) OR A letter from your Executive Director or Chief Financial Officer certifying that agency does not receive more than $500,000 in federal funds and is not subject to the Single Audit. LifeMoves_FY19_Audit.pdf LifeMoves_FY19_Single_Audit.pdf 8. The following are required: Current (FY19-20) Agency Operating Budget Proposed (FY20-21) Agency Operating Budget LifeMoves_FY21_Budget.pdf FY20_LifeMoves_Budget.pdf 9. Mission Statement LifeMoves_Mission_Statement.pdf 10. Non-discrimination policy for Staff and Clients LifeMoves_Non-Discrimination_Policy.pdf 11. Reasonable Accommodations Policy for Staff and Clients LifeMoves_Reasonable_Accomodations_Policy_011317.pdf 12. Conflict of Interest Policy. (If not available, please indicate when you will submit) LM_2017_Conflict_of_Interest_Policy.pdf 13. Other - xyz Download All Attachments Program Manager Signature Jeannie Leahy Date Signed 01/24/2020 Initially submitted: Jan 14, 2020 - 11:36:13 Returned to Draft 01-24-2020 by City of San Mateo Reason: Please complete the households column of your beneficiaries table. 1/27/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8605&prop=21 1/6 Consolidated Community Funding Application Redwood City, San Mateo County, and S. San Francisco Application for New Funding for FY 2020-21 GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Organization Name: Ombudsman Services of San Mateo County, Inc 2. Project Title: Ombudsman Services of San Mateo County, Inc We are applying for funding from: Redwood City City of San Mateo South San Francisco County of San Mateo Budget/Client Summary (Auto-populated from Budget, below) Jurisdictions receiving this application Amount Requested % of Program Budget Proposed # of Served % of Served Total $ Per Redwood City $20,000 2% 948 26% $21.10 City of San Mateo $25,000 2% 1,992 54% $12.55 South San Francisco $20,000 2% 773 21% $25.87 Total $65,000 6% 3,713 100% $17.51 Grant Funded Programs: We are applying for a Public Services Program CDBG National Objective Eligibility - How are you serving low income populations? Service to "presumed benefit" groups listed below (income verification not required, but verification of presumed benefit status is required): Abused children Homeless persons Victims of domestic violence Illiterate adults Elderly persons/seniors (age 62+) Persons living with AIDS Severely disabled adults Migrant farm workers Income Verification: Describe how you obtain, verify, and maintain proof of income and presumed benefit status. Third party documentation or client signatures on the certification forms must be available on file for review at all times. WE do not maintain proof of income and presumed benefit status. The long term care facilities take care of all of these documents and needs. In order to enter a long term care facility, an individual needs to produce all these document before they are accepted. We do not have any authority to ask or require any of this.requirements. WE only deal with the people after they become a resident of a facility. 3. Project Address: 711 Nevada Street City: Redwood City Zip: 94061-1555 4. Provide a one sentence project summary: We are the only program wholly dedicated and legally mandated to advocate for the dignity and dquality of life of peopel living in licensed long term care facilities. Organization Address: 711 Nevada Street City: Redwood City Zip: 94061-1555 Organization Phone: 650 780 5707 Website: www.ossmc.org Type of Applicant: Our agency serves: 5. Contact Person / Project Administrator: Name: Bernadette Mellott Title: Executive Director Telephone: 650 780 5702 Contact Email: berniemellott@ossmc.org Fax: 650-364-5399 6. Name of Agency Director: Bernadette Mellott 7. Fiscal Officer:Name: Cindy Safe Email: ossmc@ossmc.org Telephone: 650 780 5707 Fiscal Officer Address: 711 Nevada St.City: Redwood city Zip: 94061-1555 1/27/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8605&prop=21 2/6 8. Authorized Signatory: Name: Bernadete Mellott Email: berniemellott@ossmc.org Telephone: 650-780-5702 Authorized Signatory Address: 711 Nevada St.City: Redwood City Zip: 94061-1555 9. Please provide days and hours of regularly scheduled operation: Monday through Friday 8:30 am to 4:00 pm 10. DUNS Number: 178766965 Federal EIN/TIN Number: 94-3397402 11. HUD Activity: Choose the HUD activity that most closely matches your service: 05A - Senior Services 12. Project Specific Narrative: Provide a narrative description of the specific activities to be carried out with the requested funds. This should also include program objectives and key priorities for each specific jurisdiction. Advocate support residents in long term care facilities. 1. Unannounced visits to facilities at least once a month but to SNFs we go weekly to insure quality of care and quality of life. Ombudsman are called to investigate ____ and abuse. This includes financial, sexual and physical abuse. In addition, we support residents, facilities and families in accessing community resources. 13A. Assessment of Need - Redwood City: Briefly describe how you determined the need for your program for each specific jurisdiction that you are applying for funds. Identify target population(s) and area(s) served. Please state the source(s) and date(s) of information. Identify any similar programs in the community. The populations we target in Redwood City are the licensed long term care facilities with in the boundaries of RC. there are 63 licensed facilities with 948 residents in Redwood City that we visit and monitor. these include board and care, nursing homes and homes for the mentally and physically impaired along with the adult day programs. Included in the 63 licensed Redwood city facilities are 6 Adult Residential Facilities (ARF) and 1 Adult Day Program. On the Community Care Licensing website, there is a current list of licensed facilities in San Mateo county at Ombudsman Services monitor. this list is updated for the public at least once a year to view ir anyone is interested. There is no other service in San Mateo County that provides what we do. Our program is a federal mandated program that each state is required to have. The state then has the different counties run the programs or contracts with a non-profit to be responsible which is what San Mateo county does with OSSMC. 13B. Assessment of Need - City of San Mateo: Briefly describe how you determined the need for your program for each specific jurisdiction that you are applying for funds. Identify target population(s) and area(s) served. Please state the source(s) and date(s) of information. Identify any similar programs in the community. the population we target in San Mateo are the long term care facilities within the boundaries of the city of San Mateo. there are 129 licensed facilities with 1992 residents in San Mateo that we visit and monitor. these include board and care, nursing homes and homes for the mentally and physically impaired along the the Adult Day Programs. Included in the 129 facilities are Adult Residential Facilities -9; ICF Nursing Facilities -6; RCFEs-74; SNFs-2;(skilled nursing facilities) and Adult Day Programs -5. You will find on the Community Care Licensing website a current list of licensed facilities in San Mateo County that Ombudsman Services monitor and visit. this list is updated at least once a year for the public to view if interested. There is no other service in San Mateo County that provides what we do. Our program is a federal mandated program that each state is required to have. The state then has the different counties run the programs or contracts with a non-profit to be responsible, which is what San Mateo County does with OSSMC. 13C. Assessment of Need - South San Francisco: Briefly describe how you determined the need for your program for each specific jurisdiction that you are applying for funds. Identify target population(s) and area(s) served. Please state the source(s) and date(s) of information. Identify any similar programs in the community. The population we target in South San Francisco are the long term care facilities within the boundaries of the City of South San Francisco there are 64 licensed facilities with 773 residents in SSF that we c visit and monitor. these include board and care, skilled nursing facilities and homes for the mentally and physically impaired along with the Adult Day Programs. Included in thee facilities are 3 Adult Residential Facilities, 5 Adult Day Programs, 6 ICF HAB, 5 ICF Nursing Facilities, 36 RCFEs, 5 Adult Day Programs. On the Community Care Licensing website, there is a current list of licensed facilities in San Mateo County that Ombudsman Services monitor and visit. This list is update at least once a year to view if you are interested. there is not other service in San Mateo County that provides what we do. Our program is a federal mandated program that each state is required to have. the state then has the different counties run the program or contract with a non-profit to be responsible. 14. Timeline: Provide a brief timetable for project implementation and achievement of projected goals and how you plan to expend your funds in a timely manner by the end of the fiscal year. Since OSSMC invoices quarterly, this reflects the achievements for the quarter which reflects all of the data that is required on the invoicing form which includes: Number of residents visited- monitored, complaints, age , income, ethnicity and sex. 15. Evaluation: Briefly describe how you will determine and measure the success of your program and whether or 1/27/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8605&prop=21 3/6 not program goals were met? If your program is currently receiving grant funds please describe accomplishments of goals to date. Every quarter, OSSMC has a complete quarterly report that is required in order to receive the funding for that quarter.With in this report is the evaluation of this program with in each city completed with he following information: 1. Total # of persons visits/complaints; 2. Income data weather extremely low, very low or low; 3. Race/ethnicity data for each city; 4. Other demographic data that is required by each city that we have a CDBG with. 16. Collaboration: Describe partnerships with other organizations/agencies, the nature of the partnership, and how it relates to the proposed project. Our collaboration for Redwood city, San Mateo and south San Francisco are with the some of the following organizations and programs: San Mateo Behavioral, Institute on Aging, Safe Harbor, Community Care Licensing, San Mateo Oral Health, San Mateo County;s Commission on Aging, California Dept of Public Health, State Ombudsman Office and the Police Departments in each city along with the District Attorney's Office. The nature of these partnerships and how they relate to OSSMC's program are as follows: since we are the advocate for each resident in all the facilities in each city, we use all types of resources in order to advocate for the resident and what their needs are. It really depends on the care of the individual and what outcome so-the need or want. An example would be if they are not receiving their monthly funds that are due to them. With their consent, we investigate who is receiving the funds, why is the rent not being paid at the facility. With this example, we talk with the administration of the facility , the police department of that city and even the district attorney to resolve the financial situation and see if there is financial fraud. 17. Impact: : Discuss any general trends and conditions that have affected or impacted your service levels or service populations. For New Applicants – describe what these funds would allow your agency to do that you may not be able to do now. For Continuing Applicants – describe how your program would be impacted without these funds. The impact our program has on Redwood City, San Mateo and South San Francisco is that each of these cities are assured that the residents in the licensed facilities in each of these cities have the Ombudsmen to advocate education and empower each person because we believe everyone deserves to be seen, heard, valued and supported so they can enjoy their best quality of life while living in a long term care facility. These residents deserve the same dignity that ll other citizens in each city receives. for each person 18. Project Beneficiaries/Quantifiable Measurement: Indicate the expected number of beneficiaries to be served by the program. For each response below please indicate both the number of households and number of individuals. Refer to the San Mateo County Income Limits. a. Indicate the total number of low-income beneficiaries you expect to serve with this program for each jurisdiction application for funding. *Low-income is 80% of Area Median Income or below. See AMI table b. Indicate the total number of beneficiaries you expect to serve with this program in each jurisdiction - regardless of income. Jurisdiction a. Number of low-income beneficiaries to be served per grant jurisdiction application. **Low-income** is 80% of Area Median Income or below. b. All beneficiaries to be served per grant jurisdiction application regardless of income Persons Households Persons Households Daly City Redwood City 948 948 948 948 City of San Mateo 1,992 1,992 1,992 1,992 County of San Mateo South San Francisco 773 773 773 773 Totals 3,713 3,713 3,713 3,713 19. Populations Served: Check the boxes below if they describe a significant population served by your program. These categories are not considered "presumed benefit" by HUD, and require income verification. Persons exiting incarceration Low-income youth Other 20. Affirmative Outreach: a. Use the demographics from your previous program year to provide an analysis of the population you serve relative to the demographics in the table. NOTE: If you are a new applicant please provide your best estimation. Race & Ethnicity Redwood City Population Redwood City % by Ethnicity Low Income by Ethnicity served by your Program Your Program % by Ethnicity Total 74,402 100%188 100% White and not Hispanic 40,656 54.64% 117 62.23% White and Hispanic 23,557 31.66% 0 0.00% Asian 6,715 9.03% 10 5.32% African American 1,916 2.58% 20 10.64% Pacific Islander 663 0.89% 6 3.19% Native American 384 0.52% 0 0.00% Other 1,511 2.03% 35 18.62% 1/27/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8605&prop=21 4/6 Race & Ethnicity City of San Mateo Population City of San Mateo % by Ethnicity Low Income by Ethnicity served by your Program Your Program % by Ethnicity Total 97,207 100%412 100% White and not Hispanic 45,240 46.54% 188 45.63% White and Hispanic 25,815 26.56% 0 0.00% Asian 18,153 18.67% 10 2.43% African American 2,099 2.16% 9 2.18% Pacific Islander 1,937 1.99% 10 2.43% Native American 140 0.14% 0 0.00% Other 3,823 3.93% 195 47.33% Race & Ethnicity South San Francisco Population South San Francisco % by Ethnicity Low Income by Ethnicity served by your Program Your Program % by Ethnicity Total 63,632 100%163 100% White and not Hispanic 23,760 37.34% 107 65.64% White and Hispanic 21,645 34.02% 0 0.00% Asian 23,293 36.61% 27 16.56% African American 1,625 2.55% 12 7.36% Pacific Islander 1,111 1.75% 0 0.00% Native American 395 0.62% 0 0.00% Other 9,598 15.08% 17 10.43% b. Based on the percentages that you indicate your organization served describe your efforts to improve affirmative outreach to groups that may be underserved by your program and the result of your efforts: We serve a specific population-long term care facilities. We have made specific progress in outreach to volunteer field ombudsman with diversity in language skills and culture background to better serve the residents. 21. Leveraging: Describe your fundraising efforts and additional sources of revenue for this project and your organization. Please state whether any of these fund sources are already committed and in what amount. Our funding sources are from: San Mateo County Aging and Adult Services , $609,658; CDBGs $30,525 from SSF and RC; Cities grants $6885, Burlingame,Foster City,Menlo Park, Town of Colma; Healthcare districts Grants $115,000; Grants from private Foundations $76,000 received, $35,00 still waiting; Public Support $66,700; business/corporate funding $9,500 still waiting; In-kind volunteers $157,000; Investment Income $80,000. Staff List List below key staff members who work on this program Position Title Name of Staff Person Job Responsibilities Qualifications Executive Director Bernadette Melott Over sees Ombudsman Services Program 30 plus years of experience Program Manager Kirsten Irgens- Moller Oversee's the Regional Supervisors 6 years of experience + social worker Bookkeeper Linda Manzon in charge of all financials 20 plus experience Administrative Assistant Cyndi Ware Admin duties 15 plus years of experience Regional Supervisor Nicki Manski Supervisor's field ombudsmen in south county 16 years of experience Regional Supervisor Bette Frayman-Kori Supervisor's field ombudsman in north county 6 years of experience Regional Supervisor Vicki Cormack supervisor's field ombudsman in central county 20 years of experience Volunteer Coordinator Twila Dependahl Trains our 38-40 volunteer field ombudsman 30 years of experience in corp world Abuse Specialist Bill Rodenspiel Monitors/visits all disable facilities-mental and physical Retired police officer Ombudsman Alan Kornfield monitors and visits facilities as needed Former volunteer ombudsman PROPOSED PROGRAM BUDGET FOR FY 2020-21 Redwood City City of San Mateo South San Francisco Total Jurisdictions Budget Line Item Agency Total Pgm%Program Total %Requested %Requested %Requested Pgm%Requested Labor Redwood City $74,297 100% $74,297 27% $20,000 0% 0% 27%$20,000 1/27/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8605&prop=21 5/6 Ombudsman San Mateo Ombudsman $73,000 100% $73,000 0% 34% $25,000 0% 34%$25,000 S San Francisco Ombudsman $62,915 100% $62,915 0% 0% 32% $20,000 32%$20,000 Other staff $360,108 100% $360,108 0% 0% 0% 0%$0 Abuse Specialist $45,424 100% $45,424 0% 0% 0% 0%$0 Taxes/Benefits $97,178 100%$97,178 0% 0% 0% 0%$0 Materials Printing and Repro $11,500 100% $11,500 0% 0% 0% 0%$0 Operations/Maintenance Fundraising $63,150 100% $63,150 0% 0% 0% 0%$0 Marketing/PR $3,500 100% $3,500 0% 0% 0% 0%$0 Employee Indirect Exp $22,250 100% $22,250 0% 0% 0% 0%$0 Board Exp $3,500 100% $3,500 0% 0% 0% 0%$0 Facilities and Equipment $23,100 100% $23,100 0% 0% 0% 0%$0 Financial Exp $26,594 100% $26,594 0% 0% 0% 0%$0 Insurance $5,000 100% $5,000 0% 0% 0% 0%$0 Office Exp $13,500 100% $13,500 0% 0% 0% 0%$0 Program Exp $24,980 100% $24,980 0% 0% 0% 0%$0 Volunteer In-kind Hours $157,000 100% $157,000 0% 0% 0% 0%$0 Administration 0% $0 TOTAL $1,066,996 100%$1,066,996 2%$20,000 2%$25,000 2%$20,000 6%$65,000 Number of Individual Beneficiaries 948 1,992 773 3,713 Cost per Individual $21.10 $12.55 $25.87 $17.51 For the City of Redwood City ONLY, answer the following: 1. Funding Criteria: 3. Human Services: Basic Human Needs are activities that are vital for survival and not just an improvement to the quality of life, regardless of income. For example, emergency food programs are essential to survival. Coordination of a volunteer program is an improvement to the quality of life. 2. Marketing/Advertising a. Check all of the following methods your agency utilizes to promote and advertise your programs and services: Flyers/brochures Website CIP (Handbook/Database) Outreach presentations to service providers Outreach presentations to public b. Which of the above marketing/advertising materials are available in multi-langual form and which languages are they available in? Tent cards are available in English, Spanish, and Chinese c. How and where are the materials distributed? Our materials are distributed by OSSMC staff, 40 field ombudsmen, at table top events, special events, churches, senior centers, libraries, long term care facilities and hospital lobbies. 3. Program Outcomes: a. Please describe the accomplishments of program goals for FY/19. The goals we achieved in 18-19 are as follows: We had 36 Ombudsman volunteers; Volunteers hours Contributed 5,532; facility in-service training's 20; Community Education Events 59; Facility visits 5,057; Cases opened and closed 1,283; Complaints received and cases closed 1,915; Licensed Facilities served in San Mateo county 484; residents served in SMC 10,708 b. In what ways has your program made a difference in the lives of the people you serve? Please provide at least one concrete example from the people served in FY/19: AT one of our facilities, we had a 87 year old man that thought he was really with it! Two people befriended him at a facility he was staying at and then followed him to his present facility. they visited him everyday t become hie 1/27/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8605&prop=21 6/6 'best friends'. He purchased the man a new truck for $46,000 and give the lady his SUV to drive. With all of this going on, the ombudsman became worried about this. It was beginning to appear as financial abuse. He then wanted to buy them a home for $1,700,000 and they told him they would take care of him! Finally the police were called and after they interviewed the man they said there was nothing wrong but we knew better. After more investigating, we found out that his name was not on the Deed to the new home. WE finally called the district attorney's office and spoke with one of the attorneys. After explaining the case, he said something is wrong! We finally got the man's name on the deed to the home so the financial abuse stopped. He moved out of the facility but the district attorney told this couple that he would be checking on them to make sure this man was being taken care of and there was no abuse. so far all is good and the man seemed to be happy. He had no family or friends so he was just the right person for this couple to befriend! Attachments 1. Resolution authorizing application and designation of signatory, by the Board of Directors Board_Resolution_19-20.pdf 5. Board roster, including: Name, Company, Years on Board Meeting dates for previous 12 months Number of years allowed for each board term Board_Members_Detail_Information_11.docx BOD_Years_of_Service_and_no_term_limits.pdf BOD_Meeting_Dates_18-19.pdf 6. Organizational chart for entire organization OSSMC_Org_Chart_2019-2020.pdf 7. Certified financial audit no more that 1 fiscal year old, prepared by a CPA, and: Management letters (if applicable) A-122 and A-133 Single Audit (for entities that receive more than $500,000 in federal funding) OR A letter from your Executive Director or Chief Financial Officer certifying that agency does not receive more than $500,000 in federal funds and is not subject to the Single Audit. CDBG_Ex_Letter.pdf Audit_Report18-19_complete_pages.pdf 8. The following are required: Current (FY19-20) Agency Operating Budget Proposed (FY20-21) Agency Operating Budget 19-20_Amended_Budget-_Oct._2019.pdf Draft_budget_for_20-21.xlsx 9. Mission Statement Mission_Statement.pdf 10. Non-discrimination policy for Staff and Clients Non-Discrimination_Policy.pdf 11. Reasonable Accommodations Policy for Staff and Clients Reasonable_Accomodation.pdf 12. Conflict of Interest Policy. (If not available, please indicate when you will submit) Conflicts_of_Interest.pdf 13. Other - xyz Download All Attachments Program Manager Signature Bernadette Mellott Date Signed 01/24/2020 Initially submitted: Jan 15, 2020 - 12:53:03 Returned to Draft 01-23-2020 by City of San Mateo Reason: Please complete the households column in the Project Beneficiaries table and submit the outstanding attachments. 1/28/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8543&prop=25 1/7 Consolidated Community Funding Application Redwood City, San Mateo County, and S. San Francisco Application for New Funding for FY 2020-21 GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Organization Name: Project Sentinel, Inc. 2. Project Title: Fair Housing We are applying for funding from: Redwood City City of San Mateo South San Francisco County of San Mateo Budget/Client Summary (Auto-populated from Budget, below) Jurisdictions receiving this application Amount Requested % of Program Budget Proposed # of Served % of Served Total $ Per Redwood City $24,000 5% 122 24% $196.72 City of San Mateo $25,000 5% 110 22% $227.27 County of San Mateo $42,000 8% 209 42% $200.96 South San Francisco $16,171 3% 60 12% $269.52 Total $107,171 21% 501 100% $213.91 Grant Funded Programs: We are applying for a Fair Housing Program CDBG National Objective Eligibility - How are you serving low income populations? Service to low income clients verified through income documentation. Income Verification: Describe how you obtain, verify, and maintain proof of income and presumed benefit status. Third party documentation or client signatures on the certification forms must be available on file for review at all times. Upon complaint in-take each bona fide complainant is asked to provide income verification by a signed statement or by pay stubs, income tax returns, report of benefits, pensions or other suitable verification of income. 3. Project Address: 1615 Hudson St., Ste A City: Redwood City Zip: 94061-2907 4. Provide a one sentence project summary: Throughout San Mateo County Project Sentinel provides comprehensive fair housing services of proactive community outreach and education to home seekers, in place residents and housing providers as well as reactive complaint investigations seeking remedies for victims of housing discrimination. Organization Address: 1490 El Camino Real City: Santa Clara Zip: 95050-4609 Organization Phone: 650-321-6291 Website: www.housing.org Type of Applicant: Non-Profit Our agency serves: 5. Contact Person / Project Administrator: Name: Cristina Figueroa Cortes Title: Fair Housing Director Telephone: 408-907-4662 Contact Email: cfigueroacortes@housing.org Fax: 408-216-9968 6. Name of Agency Director: Ann Marquart 7. Fiscal Officer:Name: Cheryl Walter Email: Cherylw@healthtrust.org Telephone: 408-513-8763 Fiscal Officer Address: 3315 Almaden Expwy, Ste. 10 City: San Jose Zip: 95118 8. Authorized Signatory:Name: Ann Marquart Email: amarquart@housing.org Telephone: 408-470-3739 Authorized Signatory Address: 1490 El Camino Real City: Santa Clara Zip: 95050 9. Please provide days and hours of regularly scheduled operation: 1/28/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8543&prop=25 2/7 Monday-Friday 9:00am - 12:00pm; 1:00pm - 4:00pm 10. DUNS Number: 781326608 Federal EIN/TIN Number: 77-0266612 11. HUD Activity: Choose the HUD activity that most closely matches your service: 05J - Fair Housing Activities-Subj.to Pub.Serv.Cap 12. Project Specific Narrative: Provide a narrative description of the specific activities to be carried out with the requested funds. This should also include program objectives and key priorities for each specific jurisdiction. To combat illegal housing discrimination and ensure civil rights protection, Project Sentinel provides comprehensive fair housing services of complaint investigation, consultation, information and referral, and community outreach and education. Fair housing investigations that reveal evidence of illegal discrimination are addressed through education, conciliation, HUD or DFEH filings, or litigation. Information and referral services link callers with the most appropriate resources. Education and outreach activities increase the general population and target groups' awareness of the existence and benefits of fair housing. Housing providers (landlords, property managers) are provided with literature and educational workshops on fair housing compliance. These services help create and maintain healthy communities and assist San Mateo County, Redwood City and South San Francisco comply with HUD's directive to affirmatively further fair housing. Proposed services will be delivered from Project Sentinel's Redwood City office, Monday through Friday from 9 AM to 4:30 PM, with telephone intake from 9 AM to 4 PM. 'After-hours' work is scheduled as needed and by appointments. Complaints are investigated by testing, interviews, surveys, and document review. 13A. Assessment of Need - Redwood City: Briefly describe how you determined the need for your program for each specific jurisdiction that you are applying for funds. Identify target population(s) and area(s) served. Please state the source(s) and date(s) of information. Identify any similar programs in the community. Fair and equal access to housing is a primary civil right of all people and is a requirement of HUD for the receipt of federal funding. Fair housing services will serve those of protected status, producing integrated, healthy communities for the benefit of all in Redwood City. Victims of housing discrimination are often among the poorest and most underserved residents of our community. Redwood City's demographics show 31% of the population are Hispanics. The linguistic, cultural, mental, and physical barriers that contribute to discrimination often prevent victims from perceiving, understanding, and addressing discriminatory treatment. Project Sentinel will combat these barriers to fair housing by reaching out directly to target populations. Continued education must be available to housing providers, home seekers, and the community at large on the rights and responsibilities of developing and maintaining a balanced and integrated community. Fair housing encompasses all forms of housing with the majority of complaints coming from renters. The harsh rental housing market (49% renters in Redwood City City) and new laws with protections for Section 8 and veterans require more fair housing involvement. Those with disabilities, families with children and foreign-born experience a higher incident rate of housing problems which fair housing needs to address. 13B. Assessment of Need - City of San Mateo: Briefly describe how you determined the need for your program for each specific jurisdiction that you are applying for funds. Identify target population(s) and area(s) served. Please state the source(s) and date(s) of information. Identify any similar programs in the community. Fair and equal access to housing is a primary civil right of all people and is a requirement of HUD for the reciept of federal funding. Fair housing services will serve those of protected status, producing integrated, healthy communities for the benefit of all in the City of San Mateo. Victims of housing discrimination are often among the poorest and most underserved residents of our community. The linguistic, cultural, mental, and physical barriers that contribute to discrimination often prevent victims from perceiving, understanding, and addressing discriminatory treatment. Project Sentinel will combat these barriers to fair housing by reaching out directly to target populations. Continued education must be available to housing providers, home seekers, and the community at large on the rights and responsibilities of developing and maintaining a balanced and integrated community. Fair housing encompasses all forms of housing with the majority of complaints coming from renters. The harsh rental housing market (47.8% renters in San Mateo City)and new laws with protections for Section 8 and veterans require more fair housing involvement. Those with disabilities continue to struggle for reasonable accommodations and modifications. Families with children continue to suffer under overly restrictive rules of conduct and occupancy. Low-income minority households are often subjected to substandard housing conditions. All are factors for fair housing involvement. 13C. Assessment of Need - County of San Mateo: Briefly describe how you determined the need for your program for each specific jurisdiction that you are applying for funds. Identify target population(s) and area(s) served. Please state the source(s) and date(s) of information. Identify any similar programs in the community. Fair and equal access to housing is a primary civil right of all people and is a requirement of HUD for the receipt of federal funding. Fair housing services will serve those of protected status, producing integrated, healthy communities for the benefit of all in San Mateo County. Victims of housing discrimination are often among the poorest and most underserved residents of our community. The linguistic, cultural, mental, and physical barriers that contribute to discrimination often prevent victims from perceiving, understanding, and addressing discriminatory treatment. Project Sentinel will combat these barriers to fair housing by reaching out directly to target populations. Continued education must be available to housing providers, home seekers, and the community at large on the rights and responsibilities of developing and maintaining a balanced and integrated community. Fair housing encompasses all forms of housing with the majority of complaints coming from renters. The harsh rental housing market (40% renters in San Mateo County) and new laws with protections for Section 8 and veterans require more fair housing involvement. Those with disabilities continue to struggle for reasonable accommodations and modifications. Families with children continue to suffer under overly restrictive rules of occupancy and conduct. Low-income minority households are often subjected to substandard housing conditions. 1/28/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8543&prop=25 3/7 All are factors for fair housing involvement 13D. Assessment of Need - South San Francisco: Briefly describe how you determined the need for your program for each specific jurisdiction that you are applying for funds. Identify target population(s) and area(s) served. Please state the source(s) and date(s) of information. Identify any similar programs in the community. Fair and equal access to housing is a primary civil right of all people and is a requirement of HUD for the receipt of federal funding. Fair housing services will serve those of protected status, producing integrated, healthy communities for the benefit of all in South San Francisco. Victims of housing discrimination are often among the poorest and most underserved residents of our community. South San Francisco's demographics show 34% of the population are Hispanics, 36% Asian, 43% foreign-born and 60% speak a language other than English at home. The linguistic, cultural, mental, and physical barriers that contribute to discrimination often prevent victims from perceiving, understanding, and addressing discriminatory treatment. Project Sentinel will combat these barriers to fair housing by reaching out directly to target populations. Continued education must be available to housing providers, home seekers, and the community at large on the rights and responsibilities of developing and maintaining a balanced and integrated community. Fair housing encompasses all forms of housing with the majority of complaints coming from renters. The harsh rental housing market (39% renters in South San Francisco) and new laws with protections for Section 8 and veterans require more fair housing involvement. Those with disabilities, families with children and foreign-born experience a higher rate of housing problems which fair housing can address. 14. Timeline: Provide a brief timetable for project implementation and achievement of projected goals and how you plan to expend your funds in a timely manner by the end of the fiscal year. All program services of I&R, consultations, complaint counseling and investigation, community outreach and education are on-going. Reimbursement requests are based on direct service hours recorded on daily timesheets. Staff time spent on any one jurisdiction will vary based on caseload demands but can be controlled by increasing or decreasing outreach to comply with budget requirements and timely draws. All Project Sentinel staff are acutely aware of time management and the need to plan and track time expenditures and to achieve reasonable contract goals: 15. Evaluation: Briefly describe how you will determine and measure the success of your program and whether or not program goals were met? If your program is currently receiving grant funds please describe accomplishments of goals to date. Quantitative: Case files will confirm fair housing investigation assistance as well as tangible outcomes. We follow complaints beyond the investigation stage to final resolution. Phone logs will record information and referral services as well as how callers learned of the service to help shape future outreach efforts. Participant sign-in sheets will confirm attendance at outreach presentations. Qualitative: Process surveys solicit feed back on educational presentations and pre/post tests demonstrate the effectiveness of trainings and presentations by measuring whether the participants' knowledge was increased. Information on enforcement activity as well as outreach and education work efforts are submitted to the jurisdiction in quarterly reports All goals for beneficiaries served have been met in each entitlement. 16. Collaboration: Describe partnerships with other organizations/agencies, the nature of the partnership, and how it relates to the proposed project. Project Sentinel collaborates with a wide range of groups and grassroots community organizations to promote fair housing and to reach protected households and individuals. We believe it is important to educate 'front line' providers on what fair housing is, how to recognize a complaint, and how to make an effective enforcement referral. The more the staff at other social service agencies understand what fair housing is, the better they can serve their clientele with a referral to Project Sentinel. Collaborations for enhanced staff training for effective referrals include: Shelter Network (education, referrals), Caminar (referrals), Center for Independence of the Disabled (education, referrals)•Legal Aid of San Mateo (referrals), AARP (education, referrals), StarVista (education, referrals), Sunset Project (education, referrals) and Swords to Plowshares (education referrals). Project Sentinel is an active member of the San Mateo Housing Advocates Quarterly Meeting (SMHAQM). This collaborative includes the Legal Aid Society of San Mateo County, the Stanford Law Clinic, and Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto. We are working to coordinate our organizations’ services, as well as strategize about housing equality as it relates to community planning. Project Sentinel fair housing coordinators also frequently communicate informally about specific cases with housing rights attorneys in these agencies to decrease unlawful evictions and homelessness. 17. Impact: : Discuss any general trends and conditions that have affected or impacted your service levels or service populations. For New Applicants – describe what these funds would allow your agency to do that you may not be able to do now. For Continuing Applicants – describe how your program would be impacted without these funds. Trends: With the new renter protection laws and expanded fair housing protected categories the call volume is increasing. Small Mom and Pop housing providers need education about these new laws so they can avoid costly mistakes. Without the local CDBG funding, our services would be reduced proportionately and significantly. 18. Project Beneficiaries/Quantifiable Measurement: Indicate the expected number of beneficiaries to be served by the program. For each response below please indicate both the number of households and number of individuals. Refer to the San Mateo County Income Limits. a. Indicate the total number of low-income beneficiaries you expect to serve with this program for each jurisdiction application for funding. *Low-income is 80% of Area Median Income or below. See AMI table 1/28/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8543&prop=25 4/7 b. Indicate the total number of beneficiaries you expect to serve with this program in each jurisdiction - regardless of income. Jurisdiction a. Number of low-income beneficiaries to be served per grant jurisdiction application. **Low-income** is 80% of Area Median Income or below. b. All beneficiaries to be served per grant jurisdiction application regardless of income Persons Households Persons Households Daly City 32 16 41 20 Redwood City 97 48 122 61 City of San Mateo 88 44 110 55 County of San Mateo 167 83 209 104 South San Francisco 48 24 60 30 Totals 432 215 542 270 19. Populations Served: Check the boxes below if they describe a significant population served by your program. These categories are not considered "presumed benefit" by HUD, and require income verification. Persons exiting incarceration Low-income youth Other LMI persons residing or seeking to reside in San Mateo Co and cities. 20. Affirmative Outreach: a. Use the demographics from your previous program year to provide an analysis of the population you serve relative to the demographics in the table. NOTE: If you are a new applicant please provide your best estimation. Race & Ethnicity Redwood City Population Redwood City % by Ethnicity Low Income by Ethnicity served by your Program Your Program % by Ethnicity Total 74,402 100%136 100% White and not Hispanic 40,656 54.64% 34 25.00% White and Hispanic 23,557 31.66% 84 61.76% Asian 6,715 9.03% 4 2.94% African American 1,916 2.58% 5 3.68% Pacific Islander 663 0.89% 0.00% Native American 384 0.52% 0.00% Other 1,511 2.03% 9 6.62% Race & Ethnicity City of San Mateo Population City of San Mateo % by Ethnicity Low Income by Ethnicity served by your Program Your Program % by Ethnicity Total 97,207 100%75 100% White and not Hispanic 45,240 46.54% 28 37.33% White and Hispanic 25,815 26.56% 20 26.67% Asian 18,153 18.67% 13 17.33% African American 2,099 2.16% 12 16.00% Pacific Islander 1,937 1.99% 0.00% Native American 140 0.14% 0.00% Other 3,823 3.93% 2 2.67% Race & Ethnicity South San Francisco Population South San Francisco % by Ethnicity Low Income by Ethnicity served by your Program Your Program % by Ethnicity Total 63,632 100%56 100% White and not Hispanic 23,760 37.34% 10 17.86% White and Hispanic 21,645 34.02% 27 48.21% Asian 23,293 36.61% 12 21.43% African American 1,625 2.55% 0 0.00% Pacific Islander 1,111 1.75% 0 0.00% Native American 395 0.62% 0.00% Other 9,598 15.08% 7 12.50% b. Based on the percentages that you indicate your organization served describe your efforts to improve affirmative outreach to groups that may be underserved by your program and the result of your efforts: Project Sentinel has developed and distributed a wide range of educational material in English, Spanish and several Asian languages. We will continue to translate and distribute material. We plan to reach out to more service groups for ethnic Asians, Africans, East Indians and those from the Middle East. 21. Leveraging: Describe your fundraising efforts and additional sources of revenue for this project and your organization. Please state whether any of these fund sources are already committed and in what amount. Project Sentinel has historically been able to augment local CDBG funding for fair housing with separate federal 1/28/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8543&prop=25 5/7 grants contributing approximately 30-35% of the agency’s annual fair housing budget. We also provide fee- generating fair housing training to housing providers. Staff List List below key staff members who work on this program Position Title Name of Staff Person Job Responsibilities Qualifications Executive Director Ann Marquart Administers overall agency operations and some direct service 40+ years experience in Fair Housing Fair Housing Director Cristina Figueroa Cortes Supervise and provide direct service 6 years experience in Fair Housing Fair Housing Coordinator Mayra Magana Provides direct service 2 years experience in Fair Housing and intake Fair Housing Counselor Mirna Arriaga Provides direct service 2 years experience in Fair Housing Fair Housing Community Worker Nicole Garcia Provides direct service 1 year experience in Fair Housing Fair Housing Outreach Coordinator Ayah Refai Ahmed Provides direct service 4 years office coordination PROPOSED PROGRAM BUDGET FOR FY 2020-21 Redwood City City of San Mateo County of San Mateo South San Francisco Total Jurisdictions Budget Line Item Agency Total Pgm%Program Total %Requested %Requested %Requested %Requested Pgm%Requested Labor Executive Director $135,000 22% $29,295 2% $500 3% $800 2% $500 3% $1,000 10%$2,800 Fair Housing Director $65,000 100% $65,000 0% $200 2% $1,200 1% $800 2% $1,500 6%$3,700 Fair Housing Coordinator $53,706 100% $53,706 22% $11,750 18% $9,600 28% $15,000 11% $5,750 78%$42,100 Fair Housing Counselor $52,000 100% $52,000 1% $400 3% $1,800 9% $4,500 2% $800 14%$7,500 Fair Housing Community Worker $52,000 100% $52,000 5% $2,570 5% $2,700 10% $5,000 3% $1,810 23%$12,080 Fair Housing Outreach Coordinator $52,562 100% $52,562 0% $0 0% 0% 0% 0%$0 Indirect Cost Rate 20.8% $85,336 73% $62,131 5% $3,207 5% $3,349 9% $5,366 4% $2,259 23%$14,181 Taxes/Benefits $82,054 74%$60,913 5% $3,084 5% $3,220 8% $5,160 4% $2,172 22%$13,636 Supplies Office supplies $14,000 30% $4,204 0% 0% 4% $179 0% 4%$179 Operations/Maintenance Occupancy $69,094 48% $32,841 4% $1,179 3% $1,149 9% $2,800 0% 16%$5,128 Communications $37,882 35% $13,212 2% $320 2% $320 6% $820 0% 11%$1,460 Travel $26,717 9% $2,351 6% $140 7% $160 12% $275 29% $680 53%$1,255 Testers $11,500 100% $11,500 3% $400 4% $410 5% $600 2% $200 14%$1,610 Printing & postage $27,867 39% $10,970 0% 0% 4% $400 0% 4%$400 Equiptment maintenance $26,790 34% $8,977 3% $250 3% $292 7% $600 0% 13%$1,142 Administration $0 0% $0 TOTAL $791,508 65%$511,662 5%$24,000 5%$25,000 8%$42,000 3%$16,171 21%$107,171 Number of Individual Beneficiaries 122 110 209 60 501 Cost per Individual $196.72 $227.27 $200.96 $269.52 $213.91 For the City of Redwood City ONLY, answer the following: 1. Funding Criteria: 3. Human Services: Basic Human Needs are activities that are vital for survival and not just an improvement to the quality of life, regardless of income. For example, emergency food programs are essential to survival. Coordination of a volunteer program is an improvement to the quality of life. 1/28/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8543&prop=25 6/7 2. Marketing/Advertising a. Check all of the following methods your agency utilizes to promote and advertise your programs and services: Flyers/brochures Website Phone book listing CIP (Handbook/Database) Outreach presentations to service providers Outreach presentations to public PSA’s b. Which of the above marketing/advertising materials are available in multi-langual form and which languages are they available in? Flyers: Spanish, Mandarin, Vietnamese, Tagalog, and several other Asian languages. Outreach: We have a bilingual staff member who gives outreach presentations in Spanish to both service providers and to the public. c. How and where are the materials distributed? The materials are distributed by mail, at outreach events, by keeping a supply at places such as City Hall, public libraries, the offices of cooperating agencies such as Legal Aid of San Mateo County, by posting at public bulletin boards at places such as laundromats and coffee shops, and by tabling at community fairs and events. 3. Program Outcomes: a. Please describe the accomplishments of program goals for FY/19. In FY 1819, Project Sentinel opened 48 new fair housing investigations. Of these, 11 were resolved by agreement between the tenant and housing provider, 3 resulted in a referral to an attorney or legal services, and we filed three administrative complaints after finding evidence of discrimination. In all cases, the client received counseling and education on their fair housing rights and options. b. In what ways has your program made a difference in the lives of the people you serve? Please provide at least one concrete example from the people served in FY/19: Redwood City: A Latino household received a letter from their HOA’s attorney that claimed that only two people could live in their condominium unit. The homeowner resided with his wife and three children, making them a five- person household. We sent a letter to the attorney on reasonable occupancy limits under the fair housing laws and discrimination against families with children. As a result, the HOA ceased complaining about the number of people in their unit, and the situation was successfully resolved. San Mateo City: An Asian tenant requested a reasonable accommodation to have a support animal at her no-pets property. Her landlord ignored the request and sent her a notice terminating her tenancy without cause. After the tenant reached out for assistance, Project Sentinel staff reiterated the reasonable accommodation request and attempted to educate the landlord on the retaliation prohibitions of the fair housing laws. Despite these efforts to resolve the matter, the landlord refused to engage in the interactive process, and the tenant decided to move out instead of risking an eviction. We helped her file an administrative complaint based on the retaliation and denial of a reasonable accommodation. Through our representation, the matter was resolved at DFEH mediation. The landlord agreed to attend fair housing training, accept reasonable accommodation requests, and paid the tenant $40,000 for her damages. Cont'd in #13. Other of the attachments. Attachments 1. Resolution authorizing application and designation of signatory, by the Board of Directors Board_Resolution_authorizing_AM_12-13-18.pdf 2. Proof of 501(c)3 / tax-exempt status Exhibit_G_-_IRS_Tax_Exempt_Status.pdf CA_Tax_Exempt_Letter_1.20.17.pdf 3. By-laws Exhibit_E_-_By-Laws.pdf 4. Articles of Incorporation Exhibit_D_-_Articles_of_Incorporation.pdf 5. Board roster, including: Name, Company, Years on Board Meeting dates for previous 12 months Number of years allowed for each board term Board_Roster_2019_Rev.11-2019.pdf Board_Meeting_Dates_for_previous_12_Months.docx 6. Organizational chart for entire organization 2019_PS_Organization_Chart_rev_6.2019.pdf 7. Certified financial audit no more that 1 fiscal year old, prepared by a CPA, and: Audited_Financial_Statements_063018.pdf 1/28/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8543&prop=25 7/7 Management letters (if applicable) A-122 and A-133 Single Audit (for entities that receive more than $500,000 in federal funding) OR A letter from your Executive Director or Chief Financial Officer certifying that agency does not receive more than $500,000 in federal funds and is not subject to the Single Audit. 8. The following are required: Current (FY19-20) Agency Operating Budget Proposed (FY20-21) Agency Operating Budget Current_Agency_Operating_Budget_1920.pdf Project_Budget_Worksheet_FY20-21.xls Proposed_Agency_Budget_2021.pdf 9. Mission Statement Mission_Statement.pdf 10. Non-discrimination policy for Staff and Clients Statement_of_Policy_Non-Discrimination.doc 11. Reasonable Accommodations Policy for Staff and Clients reasonable_accommodation_statement.doc 12. Conflict of Interest Policy. (If not available, please indicate when you will submit) Conflict_of_Interest_Policy.doc 13. Other - 3.b. Program Outcomes Cont'd 3._b._Program_Outcomes_Contd.docx Download All Attachments Program Manager Signature Ann Marquart Date Signed 01/16/2020 Initially submitted: Jan 16, 2020 - 15:21:09 1/28/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8675&prop=359 1/8 Consolidated Community Funding Application Redwood City, San Mateo County, and S. San Francisco Application for New Funding for FY 2020-21 GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Organization Name: Rape Trauma Services: A Center for Healing and Violence Prevention 2. Project Title: Sexual Abuse Services for Children and Youth We are applying for funding from: Redwood City City of San Mateo South San Francisco County of San Mateo Budget/Client Summary (Auto-populated from Budget, below) Jurisdictions receiving this application Amount Requested % of Program Budget Proposed # of Served % of Served Total $ Per Redwood City $15,000 2% 78 33% $192.31 City of San Mateo $15,000 2% 78 33% $192.31 South San Francisco $15,000 2% 78 33% $192.31 Total $45,000 6% 234 100% $192.31 Grant Funded Programs: We are applying for a Public Services Program CDBG National Objective Eligibility - How are you serving low income populations? Service to "presumed benefit" groups listed below (income verification not required, but verification of presumed benefit status is required): Abused children Homeless persons Victims of domestic violence Illiterate adults Elderly persons/seniors (age 62+) Persons living with AIDS Severely disabled adults Migrant farm workers Income Verification: Describe how you obtain, verify, and maintain proof of income and presumed benefit status. Third party documentation or client signatures on the certification forms must be available on file for review at all times. The Sexual Abuse Services Program for Children and Youth provides direct services to child abuse survivors from infancy through 17 years of age. As abused children is a 'presumed benefit' group income verification is not required. RTS verifies the presumed benefit status by completing a Client Contact Data Form for each child served. The form is used to collect detailed information about the types of trauma/abuse suffered, the services requested and provided, follow-up services provided and the age, gender, and ethnicity of each survivor. Client Contact Data forms are kept in a locked cabinet. RTS has kept all data forms from the beginning of the agency (25 years). RTS reports by 'individuals' rather than 'households' as to comply with our legal responsibilities to confidentiality. Due to legal restrictions, RTS is unable to actively seek and record information regarding personal affiliations between clients; we are therefore unable to report victims who share living spaces as 'households' as to preserve the confidentiality of all clients. 3. Project Address: 1860 El Camino Real, Suite 406 City: Burlingame Zip: 94010-3117 4. Provide a one sentence project summary: The Sexual Abuse Services Program for Children and Youth provides mental health services to address the multiple healing needs of child survivors of sexual violence including: crisis intervention, individual and group counseling, advocacy, medical/legal and forensic accompaniment, and information and referrals. Organization Address: 1860 El Camino Real, Suite 406 City: Burlingame Zip: 94010-3117 Organization Phone: 650-652-0598 Website: rapetraumaservices.org Type of Applicant: Non-Profit Our agency serves: 5. Contact Person / Name: Emily Abrams Title: Executive Director Telephone: 650-652-0598 x14 1/28/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8675&prop=359 2/8 Project Administrator: Contact Email: emily@rapetraumaservices.org Fax: 6506520596 6. Name of Agency Director: Emily Abrams 7. Fiscal Officer:Name: Amanda Freeman Email: amanda@rapetraumaservices.orgTelephone: 650-652-0598 Fiscal Officer Address: 1860 El Camino REal, Suite 406 City: Burlingame Zip: 94010 8. Authorized Signatory:Name: Emily Abrams Email: emily@rapetraumaservices.org Telephone: 650-652-0598 Authorized Signatory Address: 1860 El Camino Real, Suite 406 City: Burlingame Zip: 94010 9. Please provide days and hours of regularly scheduled operation: RTS’ crisis intervention services (crisis counseling, advocacy, accompaniment, information and referrals) are available 24-hours a day. Counseling is scheduled to meet the needs of clients and families. In addition to Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:30 pm hours, sessions are available in the early mornings, evenings and on weekends. 10. DUNS Number: 876425245 Federal EIN/TIN Number: 94-3215045 11. HUD Activity: Choose the HUD activity that most closely matches your service: 05N - Abused and Neglected Children 12. Project Specific Narrative: Provide a narrative description of the specific activities to be carried out with the requested funds. This should also include program objectives and key priorities for each specific jurisdiction. RTS aims to help child abuse survivors learn the skills needed to heal from sexual violence, decrease the likelihood of developing Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and develop the tools to be supportive of their healing. RTS programs clearly matches HUD activities by providing Basic Human Needs to Abused Children by creating a violence free community by preventing violence and healing those who have been traumatized. Over 80% who seek RTS services are low income families. RTS provides child abuse survivors with Advocacy & Accompaniment, Crisis Intervention, Counseling, Information, Referrals, Community Outreach & Prevention. In 2019, RTS provided 684 child abuse victims with crisis intervention including accompaniment during forensic medical exams & interviews. The thread we continue to hear in these cases is the link between the housing crisis and child sexual abuse. Families are depending on strangers for a place to live & cramped quarters, without a formalized lease, have resulted in sexual abuse contributing to families having to choose between the safety of their child or being homeless. RTS staff have become case managers who are navigating the complicated systems of housing, victim services & trauma healing. RTS provides children with emotional support, answers questions and makes sure young survivors understand what is happening and that rights are protected under the law. RTS provides on- campus services to “At-Risk” youth at middle and high schools in RWC, SSF and SM. 13A. Assessment of Need - Redwood City: Briefly describe how you determined the need for your program for each specific jurisdiction that you are applying for funds. Identify target population(s) and area(s) served. Please state the source(s) and date(s) of information. Identify any similar programs in the community. RWC is the largest city in San Mateo County; the statistics for child sexual abuse match this size. Of the 684 survivors RTS served, 82 were RWC residents, from infancy to 17. All are low income, (HUD, 2019). 68% of these families had at least one monolingual Spanish Speaking parent. RTS’s Programa Para Latinos provides bi- lingual/bi-cultural staff and therapists to provide crisis intervention, advocacy & accompaniment, referrals and counseling to affected families. RTS has seen a rise in the number of families who are afraid to seek services outside of their “safe” neighborhoods. RTS provides prevention and intervention services throughout RWC through collaborations with libraries, community centers and non-profit partners. We have been able to meet the increased need while maintaining family safety. Children who are sexually abused often exhibit emotional, cognitive, and behavioral problems, such as depression, suicidal behavior, difficulty in school, use of alcohol & drugs, & early sexual activity. RTS is a place where survivors find support. The ability to heal from past trauma is fundamental to a child's safety and well-being, as well as the health of their community. For 25 years RTS has provided services to the target group - child victims of sexual abuse. On campus counseling & prevention workshops are provided to at- risk students in middle schools and high schools. 13B. Assessment of Need - City of San Mateo: Briefly describe how you determined the need for your program for each specific jurisdiction that you are applying for funds. Identify target population(s) and area(s) served. Please state the source(s) and date(s) of information. Identify any similar programs in the community. San Mateo County has been identified as a “human trafficking hotspot”. Child Sexual Exploitation is a form of child abuse in itself, but the number one risk factor for being sexually exploited is being a survivor of childhood sexual abuse. RTS is the only agency in the County that responds 24 hours a day to law enforcement and the Keller Center for Family Violence Intervention when a child (0 to 17) has been identified as a sexual assault survivor. Last year, RTS provided crisis intervention to 684 victims of child sexual abuse, including 27 identified as victims of child sexual exploitation. 78 of these children live in San Mateo and were low-income and underserved. RTS partners with many schools and community agencies in San Mateo to meet the needs of children and families after a disclosure of sexual abuse. RTS & SMHS have formed a partnership to allow specialized services for crisis counseling on campus. An advocate from RTS meets a family at the Keller Center to provide support and crisis intervention during forensic interviews & medical exams. All families receive a follow-up call from RTS to offer 1/28/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8675&prop=359 3/8 advocacy and mental health services. If the child is a student at SMHS, RTS can begin services as soon as the child returns to school. In 2018-2019, RTS provided 93 therapy sessions at that site alone. Funding allows us to provide a larger percentage of children with comprehensive ongoing services, and augments our in-depth services to those who are identified as trafficked. 13C. Assessment of Need - South San Francisco: Briefly describe how you determined the need for your program for each specific jurisdiction that you are applying for funds. Identify target population(s) and area(s) served. Please state the source(s) and date(s) of information. Identify any similar programs in the community. For 25 years RTS has provided services to the target group - child victims of sexual abuse - through crisis intervention, advocacy, accompaniment and counseling. Sexual violence affects all genders, ages, socio-economic status and communities. RTS believes that “hurt people hurt people”, rooting our work in ending cycles of violence to heal individuals, families and communities. RTS works closely with the SSFPD, medical providers, Child and Family Services and other partners to ensure each child/family who reports a sexual assault has support through the criminal justice system and beyond. SSFPD and school partners regularly reach out to RTS to provide crisis intervention, advocacy, and case management to child and teen survivors and families, understanding the expertise of our services and that we will respond 24 hours a day. Last year, RTS provided services to 684 victims of child sexual violence, including 27 identified as victims of child sexual exploitation. 52 of these children live in SSF and were low-income and underserved. Prevention Education and community service are core to the relationships RTS has created and maintains within SSF. Each year over 2,000 SSF students receive prevention education and at least 20 seniors complete their Senior Capstone project with RTS Educators. RTS experiences an increase in calls from teens to our crisis line during “Healthy Relationships week” on campus each February. 14. Timeline: Provide a brief timetable for project implementation and achievement of projected goals and how you plan to expend your funds in a timely manner by the end of the fiscal year. The Sexual Abuse Services Program for Children and Youth is an ongoing program in which individuals seek needed services at any time throughout the year. Activities and staff are in place to implement all aspects of the program. By the end of the Fiscal Year, RTS will provide: 78 Child Abuse survivors in Redwood City with - Advocacy and Accompaniment services - In person counseling (individual or group) - Crisis Intervention, counseling and/or support services on their school campus 78 Child Abuse survivors in the City of San Mateo with - Advocacy and Accompaniment services - In person counseling (individual or group) - Crisis Intervention, counseling and/or support services on their school campus 78 Child Abuse survivors in the City of South San Francisco with - Advocacy and Accompaniment services - In person counseling (individual or group) - Crisis Intervention, counseling and/or support services on their school campus 15. Evaluation: Briefly describe how you will determine and measure the success of your program and whether or not program goals were met? If your program is currently receiving grant funds please describe accomplishments of goals to date. A variety of measures are used to evaluate services. The Client Contact Data Form is completed for all clients. It collects detailed information about the services requested and provided, types of trauma/abuse suffered, demographics, and follow-up services provided. RTS holds weekly meetings to review individual cases, provide assessment, and assign cases. This process allows us to track the number of services provided to city residents and evaluate a client's ability to identify and address immediate and long-term trauma needs as well as gauge if a client has gained skills needed for healing, an understanding of services, and/or received appropriate referral information. 16. Collaboration: Describe partnerships with other organizations/agencies, the nature of the partnership, and how it relates to the proposed project. Children and teens who have suffered sexual trauma have a high likelihood of needing other services. RTS works with organizations throughout the County to assure survivors receive all necessary services (teen pregnancy prevention, substance abuse, housing needs, Child Protective Services). RTS is a member of the County Sexual Assault Task Force & Multidisciplinary Interview Team to create better understanding regarding child victim issues, provide training, and enhance the coordination & cooperation of all parties involved (law enforcement, medical personnel, DA, and Victim Witness). RTS works with City and County Police Departments.We are called in during an investigation to facilitate useful communication, supporting the creation of an environment that minimizes re- traumatization.RTS' role is to support the child victim, provide basic legal-medical information, and answer questions. RTS addresses prevention by providing education programs in elementary, middle and high schools. 43% of students reach out for further information, advocacy, and/or counseling.RTS serves underserved communities to promote prevention of sexual assault, and to provide intervention to those who have been affected. One of the collaborations that most affects youth is the Youth Empowerment and Advocacy Program, which involves cross training and information sharing between Victim Services Division of the DA’s office, CORA and RTS.This county wide collaboration ensures youth receive the services needed 17. Impact: : Discuss any general trends and conditions that have affected or impacted your service levels or service populations. For New Applicants – describe what these funds would allow your agency to do that you may 1/28/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8675&prop=359 4/8 not be able to do now. For Continuing Applicants – describe how your program would be impacted without these funds. Each year, new children reach out in need of victim services. Funding allows us to meet this demand. RTS provides a large percentage of direct services to Latino/a children. We continue to implement expanded counseling & advocacy to children by providing additional counseling groups. Our numbers indicate a high percentage of low- income clients. Additionally, funding allows RTS to provide outreach campaigns to at-risk communities. Through our Programa Para Latinos, RTS focuses outreach to underserved populations actively targeting people that have limited resources to receive services elsewhere. An ongoing trend is the increasing number of children seeking services who are victims of CSEC (Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children). CSEC includes the prostitution of children, child pornography, child sex tourism & other forms of transactional sex where a child engages in sexual activities to have key needs fulfilled, such as food, shelter or access to education. In 2019 RTS served 27 children who were identified as having exploitation history. Providing services to these children is often difficult, it is very time consuming and often hard to coordinate due to the presence of the justice system. Without funds, RTS would need to initiate a waiting list for counseling, fewer school communities would receive on campus services making it necessary for youth to travel to RTS’ office and some child victims may not receive accompaniment support during forensic exams and interviews. 18. Project Beneficiaries/Quantifiable Measurement: Indicate the expected number of beneficiaries to be served by the program. For each response below please indicate both the number of households and number of individuals. Refer to the San Mateo County Income Limits. a. Indicate the total number of low-income beneficiaries you expect to serve with this program for each jurisdiction application for funding. *Low-income is 80% of Area Median Income or below. See AMI table b. Indicate the total number of beneficiaries you expect to serve with this program in each jurisdiction - regardless of income. Jurisdiction a. Number of low-income beneficiaries to be served per grant jurisdiction application. **Low-income** is 80% of Area Median Income or below. b. All beneficiaries to be served per grant jurisdiction application regardless of income Persons Households Persons Households Daly City 60 0 60 0 Redwood City 78 0 78 0 City of San Mateo 78 0 78 0 County of San Mateo 375 0 375 0 South San Francisco 78 0 78 0 Totals 669 0 669 0 19. Populations Served: Check the boxes below if they describe a significant population served by your program. These categories are not considered "presumed benefit" by HUD, and require income verification. Persons exiting incarceration Low-income youth Other 20. Affirmative Outreach: a. Use the demographics from your previous program year to provide an analysis of the population you serve relative to the demographics in the table. NOTE: If you are a new applicant please provide your best estimation. Race & Ethnicity Redwood City Population Redwood City % by Ethnicity Low Income by Ethnicity served by your Program Your Program % by Ethnicity Total 74,402 100%82 100% White and not Hispanic 40,656 54.64% 19 23.17% White and Hispanic 23,557 31.66% 47 57.32% Asian 6,715 9.03% 7 8.54% African American 1,916 2.58% 5 6.10% Pacific Islander 663 0.89% 3 3.66% Native American 384 0.52% 1 1.22% Other 1,511 2.03% 0.00% Race & Ethnicity City of San Mateo Population City of San Mateo % by Ethnicity Low Income by Ethnicity served by your Program Your Program % by Ethnicity Total 97,207 100%78 100% White and not Hispanic 45,240 46.54% 26 33.33% White and Hispanic 25,815 26.56% 31 39.74% Asian 18,153 18.67% 12 15.38% African American 2,099 2.16% 3 3.85% Pacific Islander 1,937 1.99% 4 5.13% Native American 140 0.14% 1 1.28% Other 3,823 3.93% 1 1.28% 1/28/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8675&prop=359 5/8 Race & Ethnicity South San Francisco Population South San Francisco % by Ethnicity Low Income by Ethnicity served by your Program Your Program % by Ethnicity Total 63,632 100%52 100% White and not Hispanic 23,760 37.34% 12 23.08% White and Hispanic 21,645 34.02% 20 38.46% Asian 23,293 36.61% 16 30.77% African American 1,625 2.55% 1 1.92% Pacific Islander 1,111 1.75% 1 1.92% Native American 395 0.62% 0 0.00% Other 9,598 15.08% 2 3.85% b. Based on the percentages that you indicate your organization served describe your efforts to improve affirmative outreach to groups that may be underserved by your program and the result of your efforts: RTS is committed to making programs accessible by minimizing cultural, geographic, and economic barriers to participation. Staff is trained to be culturally sensitive to the needs of individuals and groups that have experienced oppression. Bilingual multicultural staff provides outreach to residents and specifically to the Latino immigrant community. Presentations are given where there is a high likelihood of contact with survivors or potential victims. Whites are underrepresented in RTS client pool because as a nonprofit agency with no cost counseling and support services, low-income and other underserved communities (i.e., non-White populations) overwhelmingly utilize RTS' programs due to a lack of resources to receive support elsewhere. RTS has a community outreach plan which targets underserved communities and sends program materials to over 75 agencies throughout San Mateo County and beyond, for example Native American Health Center, LGBT Community Center, Bayshore Prevention Project, Pyramid Alternatives, Kaiser Permanente (Redwood City, South San Francisco and San Mateo Medical Office) San Mateo County Human Services Agencies, and Asian American Recovery Services. 21. Leveraging: Describe your fundraising efforts and additional sources of revenue for this project and your organization. Please state whether any of these fund sources are already committed and in what amount. RTS receives an ongoing Rape Crisis Grant from CalOES - the funding amount is $235,000 for the Sexual Abuse Services Program for Children and Youth and ongoing funding from Child Abuse Treatment Center from CalOES in the amount of $288,000. RTS will receive $92,000 in 2020 from The San Mateo County Human Service Agency for services to survivors and families who have experienced sexual exploitation. RTS has received current funding from San Mateo County Probation, ($45,000), Pinpoint Foundation ($40,000), Kaiser Permanente ($15,000), San Bruno Community Foundation ($15,000), and the Bella Vista Foundation ($15,000). We will re-apply to these sources for the upcoming fiscal year and apply to additional Corporations and Foundations. A financial commitment from San Mateo, Redwood City, and South San Francisco lends additional credibility to our requests from all types of funders. When approaching business owners and city residents it has been helpful to discuss ongoing city support. RTS has continued its Non-profit membership of the RWC/SM Chamber of Commerce and speaks to and receives support from several service organizations (Rotary, Kiwanis, Lions, Soroptimist) throughout the county. Staff List List below key staff members who work on this program Position Title Name of Staff Person Job Responsibilities Qualifications Counseling Director, Trauma Therapist Jaclyn Rubbo Satre Oversee program and provides direct service to children and families who have experienced sexual trauma. Certified Sexual Assault Counselor Associate Marriage Family Therapist Counseling Coordinator, Trauma Therapist Reika Faust Coordinates Associate MFT program and provide direct service to children and families who have experienced sexual trauma Certified Sexual Assault Counselor Associate Marriage Family Therapist Programa Para Latinos Trauma Counselor Angie Espinoza Provides bi-lingual, bi-cultural therapy to children and families who have experienced sexual trauma Certified Sexual Assault Counselor Associate Marriage Family Therapist PROPOSED PROGRAM BUDGET FOR FY 2020-21 Redwood City City of San Mateo South San Francisco Total Jurisdictions Budget Line Item Agency Total Pgm%Program Total %Requested %Requested %Requested Pgm%Requested Labor 1/28/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8675&prop=359 6/8 Executive Director $135,000 39% $52,000 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0%$0 Program Director $110,000 48% $53,000 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0%$0 Counseling Program Director (Trauma Therapist) $83,000 60% $50,000 4% $2,000 4% $2,000 4% $2,000 12%$6,000 Counseling Program Coordinator (Trauma Therapist) $60,000 50% $30,000 5% $1,500 5% $1,500 5% $1,500 15%$4,500 Programa para Latinos Director $88,000 36% $32,000 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0%$0 Programa para Latinos Educators/Trauma Counselors (2 staff) $105,000 49% $51,000 6% $3,000 6% $3,000 6% $3,000 18%$9,000 Crisis Intervention Program Manager $66,000 53% $35,000 0% $0 0% 0% 0%$0 Prevention Educators / Trauma Counselors (2 staff members $116,500 53% $62,000 2% $1,500 2% $1,500 2% $1,500 7%$4,500 Trauma Counselors (3 staff members) $170,000 56% $95,000 2% $1,500 2% $1,500 2% $1,500 5%$4,500 Programa para Latinos Therapist $65,000 62% $40,000 8% $3,000 8% $3,000 8% $3,000 22%$9,000 Post Graduate Counseling Interns $53,000 47% $25,000 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0%$0 Clinical Supervisor $24,000 71% $17,000 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0%$0 Accountant/Book Keeper $60,000 42% $25,000 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0%$0 Taxes/Benefits $226,055 46%$105,000 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0%$0 Supplies Office Supplies $15,000 37% $5,500 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0%$0 Equipment and Maintenance $5,000 40% $2,000 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0%$0 Materials Postage and Delivery $13,000 31% $4,000 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0%$0 Printing and Reproduction $12,000 62% $7,500 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0%$0 Operations/Maintenance Occupancy $104,912 50% $52,000 5% $2,500 5% $2,500 5% $2,500 14%$7,500 Telephone and Communication $7,400 41% $3,000 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0%$0 Local Travel $16,000 62% $10,000 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0%$0 Training/Workshops $13,500 37% $5,000 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0%$0 General Liability Insurance $3,200 31% $1,000 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0%$0 Membership Dues $2,000 25% $500 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0%$0 Agency Audit $30,000 27% $8,000 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0%$0 SAC Support Services (Back-Up) $8,000 50% $4,000 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0%$0 Administration $35,500 34%$12,000 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 TOTAL $1,627,067 48%$786,500 2%$15,000 2%$15,000 2%$15,000 6%$45,000 Number of Individual Beneficiaries 78 78 78 234 Cost per Individual $192.31 $192.31 $192.31 $192.31 For the City of Redwood City ONLY, answer the following: 1. Funding Criteria: 3. Human Services: Basic Human Needs are activities that are vital for survival and not just an improvement to the quality of life, regardless of income. For example, emergency food programs are essential to survival. Coordination of a volunteer program is an improvement to the quality of life. 2. Marketing/Advertising a. Check all of the following methods your agency utilizes to promote and advertise your programs and services: Flyers/brochures 1/28/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8675&prop=359 7/8 Website Phone book listing CIP (Handbook/Database) Outreach presentations to service providers Outreach presentations to public PSA’s b. Which of the above marketing/advertising materials are available in multi-langual form and which languages are they available in? RTS materials are printed two sided in English and Spanish. Outreach presentations are provided in either English or Spanish. Radio and TV announcements are provided on English and Spanish stations. c. How and where are the materials distributed? Materials are sent to over 75 agencies that target underserved populations, for example Native American Health Center, LGBT Community Center, Bayshore Prevention Project, Pyramid Alternatives, Kaiser Permanente (Redwood City, South San Francisco and San Mateo Medical Office) San Mateo County Human Services Agencies, and Asian American Recovery Services. Materials are distributed at each Police Station in the county, The District Attorney's office, The Keller Center, schools, libraries, and other social service agencies. Outreach presentations are provided throughout San Mateo County with a concentrated effort in low-income communities. 3. Program Outcomes: a. Please describe the accomplishments of program goals for FY/19. During FY 18/19, RTS provided support services to 82 abused children living in RWC ranging in age from 1 to 17 years. The first point of contact was at the child's school, RWC police department, or at the Keller Center where a Sexual Assault counselor provided accompaniment and advocacy services during the forensic medical exam and/or legal interview. RTS provided At-Risk Youth services on campus at Redwood High School, Sequoia High School, Woodside High School, Adelante Spanish Immersion, Kennedy Middle School, Roy Cloud, Hoover, Garfield and Taft. RTS Educators provided Ending Cycles of Violence workshops to students throughout Redwood City. RTS staff provided professional trainings for members of the Multidisciplinary Interview Committee and SART teams. Police officers, nurses, social workers, deputy district attorneys, and victim witness advocates were provided with the latest research on child sexual violence and were given tips on how to engage youth in dialogue about healthy sexuality and help to prevent sexual & dating violence. RTS provided specialized training to Redwood City Police Officers aimed at working specifically with child survivors of Sexual Abuse. b. In what ways has your program made a difference in the lives of the people you serve? Please provide at least one concrete example from the people served in FY/19: Rae and Alana (11) were living with another family in a shed behind a house in Redwood City. Rae was the housekeeper for the family living in the main house in exchange for the room and a small stipend. Alana began acting out in school and disclosed to a school counselor that she was abused by a man also living in their home. A RTS Sexual Assault Advocate supported the family during the forensic interview & exam. Rae believed Alana, but was very concerned about housing and employment; they were evicted the day Alana disclosed the abuse. RTS worked with partner agencies to secure shelter placement for 60 days. The shelter provided safe living, but little else. RTS put together cleaning supplies, toilet paper and other necessities for the family. Rae was grateful, but wanted to work. Rae was using her cell phone for leads on employment and housing, and used her savings to pay the bill the first month. Finding affordable housing in RWC within the 60-day deadline proved difficult, and Rae began to panic. During a child-family meeting Rae asked Child and Family Services (CFS), Victim Services and RTS to help her pay her cell phone bill. The bill was $50.00. CFS and Victim Services were unable to help; RTS was the only provider who had funds available to help before the phone was disconnected. Rae began work shortly after, (due in part to having a cell phone), and RTS negotiated another 60 days in the shelter to seek permanent housing. Alana is receiving therapy & support at RTS. Attachments 1. Resolution authorizing application and designation of signatory, by the Board of Directors RTS_Board_Resolution_2020.doc 2. Proof of 501(c)3 / tax-exempt status Rape_Trauma_Services_IRS_Tax_Exempt_Letter.pdf 3. By-laws RTS_BYLAWS.pdf 4. Articles of Incorporation RTS_articles_of_incorporation.pdf 1/28/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8675&prop=359 8/8 5. Board roster, including: Name, Company, Years on Board Meeting dates for previous 12 months Number of years allowed for each board term RTS_BOARD_LIST_2020.pdf RTS_Board_Meeting_Dates_12_months.doc 6. Organizational chart for entire organization Org_Chart-Sept2019.pdf 7. Certified financial audit no more that 1 fiscal year old, prepared by a CPA, and: Management letters (if applicable) A-122 and A-133 Single Audit (for entities that receive more than $500,000 in federal funding) OR A letter from your Executive Director or Chief Financial Officer certifying that agency does not receive more than $500,000 in federal funds and is not subject to the Single Audit. RTS_2019_FINAL_Audit_Committee_Letter.pdf RTS_2019_Audit_FINAL_Report.pdf 8. The following are required: Current (FY19-20) Agency Operating Budget Proposed (FY20-21) Agency Operating Budget Agency_budget_2019_2020.pdf Agency_budget_2020_21_City.pdf 9. Mission Statement RTS_Mission_Statement.pdf 10. Non-discrimination policy for Staff and Clients RTS_Non_Discrimination_Policy.pdf 11. Reasonable Accommodations Policy for Staff and Clients RTS_Reasonable_Accommodations_Policy.pdf 12. Conflict of Interest Policy. (If not available, please indicate when you will submit) RTS_Conflict_of_Interest_Policy.pdf 13. Other - Download All Attachments Program Manager Signature Emily Abrams Date Signed 01/15/2020 Initially submitted: Jan 15, 2020 - 15:12:11 1/28/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8534&prop=36 1/9 Consolidated Community Funding Application Redwood City, San Mateo County, and S. San Francisco Application for New Funding for FY 2020-21 GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Organization Name: Rebuilding Together Peninsula 2. Project Title: National Rebuilding Day (NRD) - Home Rehabilitation Program We are applying for funding from: Redwood City City of San Mateo South San Francisco County of San Mateo Budget/Client Summary (Auto-populated from Budget, below) Jurisdictions receiving this application Amount Requested % of Program Budget Proposed # of Served % of Served Total $ Per Redwood City $20,540 3% 2 12% $10,270.00 City of San Mateo $25,000 4% 4 24% $6,250.00 County of San Mateo $34,000 5% 8 47% $4,250.00 South San Francisco $15,750 2% 3 18% $5,250.00 Total $95,290 15% 17 100% $5,605.29 Grant Funded Programs: We are applying for a Minor Home Repair Program CDBG National Objective Eligibility - How are you serving low income populations? Minor home repairs for low income households whose incomes are verified. Income Verification: Describe how you obtain, verify, and maintain proof of income and presumed benefit status. Third party documentation or client signatures on the certification forms must be available on file for review at all times. RTP’s National Rebuilding Day home repair program currently uses 80% AMI (Area Median Income) as its guide for income eligibility. Applicants are required to provide proof of gross monthly income for all individuals 18 and over living in the home, including renters. Income sources include: salaries, SSI or SSD, social security, alimony/child support, interest and dividends, pensions and annuities, rental income, and any other possible sources of income. The preferred documentation to prove income is the most recent income tax return (first two pages only) for each adult in the household. Alternatively, we ask each adult to submit as many the following documents as possible: last three bank statements, two pay stubs, social security award letter, SSI or SSDI statement and rent checks. 3. Project Address: 841 Kaynyne Street City: Redwood City Zip: 94063- 3000 4. Provide a one sentence project summary: National Rebuilding Day (NRD) - Home Rehabilitation program is a volunteer-driven home repair program that brings approximately 1,500 volunteers together on behalf of about 40 low-income homeowners each year, ensuring that every neighbor we serve has the most critical of human needs met -- a safe and healthy home. Organization Address: 841 Kaynyne Street City: Redwood City Zip: 94063- 3000 Organization Phone: 650-366-6597 Website: www.RTPeninsula.org Type of Applicant: Non-Profit Our agency serves: 5. Contact Person / Project Administrator: Name: Travis Killmer Title: Program Manager Telephone: 650-366- 6597 x226 Contact Email: travis@rebuildingtogetherpeninsula.org, cari@rebuildingtogetherpeninsula.org, development@rebuildingtogetherpeninsula.org Fax: 6. Name of Agency Melissa Lukin 1/28/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8534&prop=36 2/9 Director: 7. Fiscal Officer:Name: Billy Hoover Email: Billy@rebuildingtogetherpeninsula.org Telephone: 650-366- 6597 x221 Fiscal Officer Address: 841 Kaynyne Street City: Redwood City Zip: 94063 8. Authorized Signatory:Name: Melissa Lukin Email: melissa@rebuildingtogetherpeninsula.org Telephone: 650-366- 6597 Authorized Signatory Address: 841 Kaynyne Street City: Redwood City Zip: 94063- 3000 9. Please provide days and hours of regularly scheduled operation: Monday to Friday, 8am to 5pm. Closed for lunch from 12pm to 1pm. 10. DUNS Number: 11-399-5612 Federal EIN/TIN Number: 94-3106209 11. HUD Activity: Choose the HUD activity that most closely matches your service: 14A - Rehab: Single-Unit Residential 12. Project Specific Narrative: Provide a narrative description of the specific activities to be carried out with the requested funds. This should also include program objectives and key priorities for each specific jurisdiction. RTP’s National Rebuilding Day (NRD) - Home Rehabilitation program is an annual, one-day home repair program. NRD leverages the collaborative support of volunteers, financial sponsors, and in-kind donations to deliver major critical repairs to low-income homeowners that lack the financial means and technical expertise to address the repair issues plaguing their health and safety. NRD’s main objective is that the homes owned by our low-income neighbors are dry, clean, ventilated, pest-free, safe, contaminant-free and maintained home (the 7 Principles of Healthy Housing). Activities: 1. Low-income homeowner completes repair application. 2. RTP conducts a comprehensive Home Safety Assessment which assesses the health and safety repairs needed based on the 7 Principles of Healthy Housing. 3. In partnership with the homeowner, RTP develops a scope of work which provides a plan for how the health and safety repairs will be completed. 4. Homeowner is paired with a volunteer Construction Captain who prepares the home for the work to be done on NRD. 5. Repair and home modifications are completed by a team of 10-100 volunteers on NRD. 6. Final project review and survey collection which assesses the impact of our work on the homeowner's health and safety. Priorities by jurisdiction: NRD 2021 will repair 2 homes in Redwood City, 4 homes in the City of San Mateo, 3 homes in South San Francisco, and 8 homes in the County of San Mateo. 13A. Assessment of Need - Redwood City: Briefly describe how you determined the need for your program for each specific jurisdiction that you are applying for funds. Identify target population(s) and area(s) served. Please state the source(s) and date(s) of information. Identify any similar programs in the community. NEED: Redwood City needs a free home repair program for its low-income neighbors because it has a lack of affordable housing (median Redwood City list price per square foot is $962 vs. San Francisco Metro $513, per Zillow) and our region has the highest construction costs in the world (International Construction Market Survey 2019). In 2016, the Pew Research Center found that our nation’s affordable housing crisis is leading to a rise in multigenerational living - 20% of Americans now live multi-generationally. Also, since 90% of seniors desire to age-in-place (AARP 2019), Redwood City needs a way to ensure that populations that are at risk for falls have access to free home safety modifications. In fact, the San Mateo County Fall Prevention Task Force found that falls account for 80% of accidental injury deaths in individuals over the age of 85, and 20% in ages 75 to 84. AREA SERVED: Since 1989, RTP has provided 339 Redwood City homeowners with free home repair services. NRD serves low- income homeowners across the city. TARGET POPULATION: NRD provides critical health and safety repairs to low-income homeowners with a focus on homes with seniors, veterans, people with disabilities, and families with children. SIMILAR PROGRAMS: RTP’s local networks and 30 years of expertise make us the leading home repair program on the Peninsula. While Habitat for Humanity has a home repair program, it serves fewer homes than RTP. 13B. Assessment of Need - City of San Mateo: Briefly describe how you determined the need for your program for each specific jurisdiction that you are applying for funds. Identify target population(s) and area(s) served. 1/28/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8534&prop=36 3/9 Please state the source(s) and date(s) of information. Identify any similar programs in the community. NEED: The City of San Mateo needs a free home repair program for its low-income neighbors because it has a lack of affordable housing (median City of San Mateo list price per square foot is $893 vs. San Francisco Metro $513, per Zillow) and our region has the highest construction costs in the world (International Construction Market Survey 2019). In 2016, the Pew Research Center found that our nation’s affordable housing crisis is leading to a rise in multigenerational living - 20% of Americans now live multi-generationally. Also, since 90% of seniors desire to age- in-place (AARP 2019), the City of San Mateo needs a way to ensure that populations that are at risk for falls have access to free home safety modifications. In fact, the San Mateo County Fall Prevention Task Force found that falls account for 80% of accidental injury deaths in individuals over the age of 85, and 20% in ages 75 to 84. AREA SERVED: Since 1989, RTP has provided 277 City of San Mateo homeowners with free home repair services. NRD serves low-income homeowners across the city. TARGET POPULATION: NRD provides critical health and safety repairs to low-income homeowners with a focus on homes with seniors, veterans, people with disabilities, and families with children. SIMILAR PROGRAMS: RTP’s local networks and 30 years of expertise make us the leading home repair program on the Peninsula. While Habitat for Humanity has a home repair program, it serves fewer homes than RTP. 13C. Assessment of Need - County of San Mateo: Briefly describe how you determined the need for your program for each specific jurisdiction that you are applying for funds. Identify target population(s) and area(s) served. Please state the source(s) and date(s) of information. Identify any similar programs in the community. NEED: The County needs a free home repair program for its low-income neighbors because it has a lack of affordable housing (median County list price per square foot is $900 vs. SF Metro $513, per Zillow) and our region has the highest construction costs in the world (International Construction Market Survey 2019). In 2016, the Pew Research Center found that our nation’s affordable housing crisis is leading to a rise in multigenerational living - 20% of Americans now live multi-generationally. Also, since 90% of seniors desire to age-in-place (AARP 2019), the county needs a way to ensure that populations that are at risk for falls have access to free home safety modifications. In fact, the county’s Fall Prevention Task Force found that falls account for 80% of accidental injury deaths in individuals over the age of 85, and 20% in ages 75 to 84. AREA SERVED: Since 1989, RTP has provided 1,291 County of San Mateo homeowners with free home repair services. NRD serves low-income homeowners across the county with a focus on North Fair Oaks, East Palo Alto and Belle Haven. TARGET POPULATION: NRD provides critical health and safety repairs to low-income homeowners with a focus on homes with seniors, veterans, people with disabilities, and families with children. SIMILAR PROGRAMS: RTP’s 30 years of expertise makes us the leading home repair program on the Peninsula. While Habitat for Humanity has a home repair program, it serves fewer homes than RTP. 13D. Assessment of Need - South San Francisco: Briefly describe how you determined the need for your program for each specific jurisdiction that you are applying for funds. Identify target population(s) and area(s) served. Please state the source(s) and date(s) of information. Identify any similar programs in the community. NEED: South San Francisco needs a free home repair program for its low-income neighbors because it has a lack of affordable housing (median SSF list price per square foot is $726 vs. San Francisco Metro $513, per Zillow) and our region has the highest construction costs in the world (International Construction Market Survey 2019). In 2016, the Pew Research Center found that our nation’s affordable housing crisis is leading to a rise in multigenerational living - 20% of Americans now live multi-generationally. Also, since 90% of seniors desire to age-in-place (AARP 2019), SSF needs a way to ensure that populations that are at risk for falls have access to free home safety modifications. In fact, the San Mateo County Fall Prevention Task Force found that falls account for 80% of accidental injury deaths in individuals over the age of 85, and 20% in ages 75 to 84. AREA SERVED: Since 1989, RTP has provided 244 South San Francisco homeowners with free home repair services. NRD serves low-income homeowners across the city. TARGET POPULATION: NRD provides critical health and safety repairs to low-income homeowners with a focus on homes with seniors, veterans, people with disabilities, and families with children. SIMILAR PROGRAMS: RTP’s local networks and 30 years of expertise make us the leading home repair program on the Peninsula. While Habitat for Humanity has a home repair program, it serves fewer homes than RTP. 14. Timeline: Provide a brief timetable for project implementation and achievement of projected goals and how you plan to expend your funds in a timely manner by the end of the fiscal year. 1/28/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8534&prop=36 4/9 National Rebuilding Day (NRD) 2021 Timeline Oct. 2020 - Jan. 2021: Site visits of homes Late Jan 2021: Project selection and sponsor matching Feb. 2021: Captains' Kickoff Meeting March 2021 - April 2021: Project planning, materials and supplies purchases, prep days April 24, 2021: National Rebuilding Day (last Saturday in April) May 2021 - Sept. 2021: Roof repairs and replacements; project wrap up and evaluation We will bill quarterly for the NRD Program Manager ’s time. The majority of NRD funds will be spent on construction supplies and materials purchased between February 2021 and May 2021. Please note that RTP would like to be considered for a two year contract. A two year contract gives RTP the ability to plan its deliverables with confidence and provide seamless services to the low-income populations that we serve. 15. Evaluation: Briefly describe how you will determine and measure the success of your program and whether or not program goals were met? If your program is currently receiving grant funds please describe accomplishments of goals to date. For the National Rebuilding Day program, we conduct homeowner surveys before and after repairs. Over the most recent year where survey data is available (July 2019 to June 2019), RTP found that: 99% of home repair participants reported that Rebuilding Together’s work has made their home a safer place to live; 97% reported that repairs created a healthier home environment for themselves and their family (if applicable); 95% reported that completed repairs will make it easier for them to maintain their home; and 74% reported feeling less likely to fall in their home since repairs, another 21% felt this question did not apply to them. RTP’s NRD program holds current contracts with each jurisdiction. We expect to meet all of our FY20 deliverables during National Rebuilding Day 2020 - April 25, 2020, including 4 homes in Redwood City, 4 in the City of San Mateo, 3 in South San Francisco and 8 homes in the County of San Mateo. Over the last few years, RTP has worked closely with the Sobrato Impact Lab and Actionable Insights to significantly enhance our capacity to evaluate the impact of our work. In fact, RTP’s work has proven to extend beyond repairs and renovations; we impact lives and communities across six domains: safety, physical health, mental health, independence, economic security, and community. We also recently completed a case study, “Homeownership and Economic Security: Hope for Neighbors in Need” and a copy is available upon request. 16. Collaboration: Describe partnerships with other organizations/agencies, the nature of the partnership, and how it relates to the proposed project. In order to complete 40 home repair projects on NRD, RTP’s skilled staff provides support and training to 40 multidisciplinary volunteer teams. Each team consists of: 1. Construction Captains who coordinate the repair work, assist with the site inspection, evaluation, material purchasing and volunteer assignments. Construction Captains work one-on-one with our NRD homeowners to develop a scope of work that addresses the health and safety concerns of that individual project. Construction Captains are skilled in home repair, donate 40+ hours of volunteer time over two months to plan and prepare repair projects for their homeowner. 2. Volunteer Captains recruit and organize volunteers for each rehabilitation site and assist the Construction Captain in planning and managing the core group of helpers. Volunteer Captains contribute about 20 hours of service to coordinate all the logistics for volunteers at each individual site on NRD. 3. Skilled Volunteers provide materials and skilled labor from assessment to completing projects like roofing and plumbing are assigned to each site as needed. 4. Service Volunteers perform projects like carpentry projects, fire safety and accessibility modifications, debris removal, interior and exterior painting, window or floor repairs, cleaning, landscaping, as well as moving furniture and appliances. 5. Support Volunteers provide hospitality, accounting, technology, and legal assistance. 17. Impact: : Discuss any general trends and conditions that have affected or impacted your service levels or service populations. For New Applicants – describe what these funds would allow your agency to do that you may not be able to do now. For Continuing Applicants – describe how your program would be impacted without these funds. RTP’s National Rebuilding Day program applies its expertise to address the following trends in our community: the increasing lack of affordable housing, the rise of multi-generational living, our aging population and their desire to age-in-place, and the extraordinary costs of repairs. We meet these challenges by rehabilitating and preserving existing affordable housing. Many low-income families, especially seniors on fixed incomes, simply do not have the 1/28/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8534&prop=36 5/9 resources to repair their home. Left unaddressed, minor home repairs can escalate into major issues that can leave homeowners vulnerable to illness, physical harm, and even homelessness. RTP strengthens communities and enhances self-sufficiency by ensuring that homes are safe and healthy and by empowering low-income homeowners to invest their limited resources on other needs. RTP revitalizes whole neighborhoods and provides long-lasting stability to them. Many of our clients have lived in their homes for generations and, as a result of our work, they can live safely, age in place, and pass an affordable home down to the next generation. Without funding, RTP will have to reduce the number of National Rebuilding Day repair project and scale back the scopes of work. Without adequate funding, our organization will have to leave more costly repairs undone, which in turn means that we are not leaving our homeowners in truly safe and healthy environments. The most fundamental need for any person is a safe and healthy home. 18. Project Beneficiaries/Quantifiable Measurement: Indicate the expected number of beneficiaries to be served by the program. For each response below please indicate both the number of households and number of individuals. Refer to the San Mateo County Income Limits. a. Indicate the total number of low-income beneficiaries you expect to serve with this program for each jurisdiction application for funding. *Low-income is 80% of Area Median Income or below. See AMI table b. Indicate the total number of beneficiaries you expect to serve with this program in each jurisdiction - regardless of income. Jurisdiction a. Number of low-income beneficiaries to be served per grant jurisdiction application. **Low-income** is 80% of Area Median Income or below. b. All beneficiaries to be served per grant jurisdiction application regardless of income Persons Households Persons Households Daly City 0 0 0 0 Redwood City 0 2 0 2 City of San Mateo 0 4 0 4 County of San Mateo 0 8 0 8 South San Francisco 0 3 0 3 Totals 0 17 0 17 19. Populations Served: Check the boxes below if they describe a significant population served by your program. These categories are not considered "presumed benefit" by HUD, and require income verification. Persons exiting incarceration Low-income youth Other low-income homeowners 20. Affirmative Outreach: a. Use the demographics from your previous program year to provide an analysis of the population you serve relative to the demographics in the table. NOTE: If you are a new applicant please provide your best estimation. Race & Ethnicity Redwood City Population Redwood City % by Ethnicity Low Income by Ethnicity served by your Program Your Program % by Ethnicity Total 74,402 100%15 100% White and not Hispanic 40,656 54.64% 1 6.67% White and Hispanic 23,557 31.66% 14 93.33% Asian 6,715 9.03% 0 0.00% African American 1,916 2.58% 0 0.00% Pacific Islander 663 0.89% 0 0.00% Native American 384 0.52% 0 0.00% Other 1,511 2.03% 0 0.00% Race & Ethnicity City of San Mateo Population City of San Mateo % by Ethnicity Low Income by Ethnicity served by your Program Your Program % by Ethnicity Total 97,207 100%7 100% White and not Hispanic 45,240 46.54% 2 28.57% White and Hispanic 25,815 26.56% 0 0.00% Asian 18,153 18.67% 3 42.86% African American 2,099 2.16% 0 0.00% Pacific Islander 1,937 1.99% 0 0.00% Native American 140 0.14% 0 0.00% Other 3,823 3.93% 2 28.57% Race & Ethnicity South San Francisco Population South San Francisco % by Ethnicity Low Income by Ethnicity served by your Program Your Program % by Ethnicity Total 63,632 100%4 100% White and not Hispanic 23,760 37.34% 1 25.00% 1/28/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8534&prop=36 6/9 White and Hispanic 21,645 34.02% 1 25.00% Asian 23,293 36.61% 0.00% African American 1,625 2.55% 0.00% Pacific Islander 1,111 1.75% 0.00% Native American 395 0.62% 0.00% Other 9,598 15.08% 2 50.00% b. Based on the percentages that you indicate your organization served describe your efforts to improve affirmative outreach to groups that may be underserved by your program and the result of your efforts: Note: The data above is for all of the members of the household, not just the homeowner, as the race/ethnicity of household members can differ from the homeowner. Because this program serves a handful of households in each jurisdiction it is difficult to perfectly align with the city’s overall demographics. However, the data above shows the populations served in each jurisdiction are predominated by underserved populations. RTP promotes equity through homeownership among disadvantaged groups. Last year those served identified as 49% seniors, 55% households with people with disabilities, 25% households with veteran residents, 100% low income (with 84% extremely or very low-income per HUD standards, with an overall median income of $28,788), and 76% of homeowners have lived in their homes 20+ years. RTP conducts grassroots outreach including door-to-door outreach; direct mail; distributing information about RTP’s home repair programs to nonprofit and government agencies; participating in community events; social media campaigns; and presentations at local senior centers, churches, and other groups. RTP is trusted by our neighbors in need. Our staff guides homeowners through the application and home repair process, providing multilingual and culturally competent support. We hold our general contractor’s license and are experts in navigating building code and permitting processes, thereby reducing barriers for low-income homeowners. 21. Leveraging: Describe your fundraising efforts and additional sources of revenue for this project and your organization. Please state whether any of these fund sources are already committed and in what amount. We could not accomplish our mission to repair homes, revitalize communities and rebuild lives without leveraging the in-kind support from individuals, skilled volunteers, community organizations, and corporations. RTP’s FY21 National Rebuilding Day budget is $639,306. Of this amount, we expect 22% to come from government sources and 78% to come from individuals, corporations, and foundations. To provide an example of expected FY21 revenue for NRD, below are details on secured and pending funding for FY20 NRD. National Rebuilding Day FY20 Secured and Pending Funding Sources: Secured sponsorships: $131,500 Pending and planned sponsorships: $191,000 Secured government contracts: $111,411 Secured foundations: $40,000 Pending foundations: $25,800 Revenue secured in FY19 restricted to FY20 activities: $139,595 TOTAL PROGRAM REVENUE: $639,306 For our organization, RTP is in a strong financial position. We hold $5M in assets. Our annual revenue comes from diverse streams: 23% from foundations, 17% from individuals, 20% from sponsorships, 23% from government, 16% from special events and 1% other. RTP recently completed a planning process to ensure financial sustainability. Recommendations included: increasing National Rebuilding Day sponsorship fees; a new special events strategy; a comprehensive donor development and stewardship plan; clearer project budgets; and refined internal project selection criteria and processes. Staff List List below key staff members who work on this program Position Title Name of Staff Person Job Responsibilities Qualifications National Rebuilding Day Program Manager Travis Killmer Responsible for the overall planning, management and coordination of 40 to 50 concurrent projects led and implemented by volunteers on National Rebuilding Day (NRD) and several similar repair projects at other times of the year ravis Killmer is our new NRD & Team Build Program Manager, and started at RTP on January 10, 2020. Travis grew up in Willits and graduated with a BA in History from UC-Santa Cruz. He worked in construction throughout high school and college, eventually pursuing a MA in International Relations in 1/28/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8534&prop=36 7/9 Budapest in 2017 before returning to construction work in Willits. He was inspired to join AmeriCorps in 2018 and used his construction skills to help with disaster recovery efforts in the Carolinas, Puerto Rico and Texas through SBP, a nonprofit disaster relief organization. PROPOSED PROGRAM BUDGET FOR FY 2020-21 Redwood City City of San Mateo County of San Mateo South San Francisco Total Jurisdictions Budget Line Item Agency Total Pgm%Program Total %Requested %Requested %Requested %Requested Pgm%Requested Labor Staff $780,886 23% $178,518 1% $2,054 1% $2,500 2% $3,400 1% $1,575 5%$9,529 Taxes/Benefits $315,864 23%$72,211 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0%$0 Materials Repairs and Renovation costs $749,845 42% $315,249 6% $18,486 7% $22,500 10% $30,600 4% $14,175 27%$85,761 Operations/Maintenance Operations, outreach and volunteers $126,466 19% $24,232 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0%$0 Administration $416,769 12%$49,096 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 TOTAL $2,389,830 27%$639,306 3%$20,540 4%$25,000 5%$34,000 2%$15,750 15%$95,290 Number of Individual Beneficiaries 2 4 8 3 17 Cost per Individual $10,270.00 $6,250.00 $4,250.00 $5,250.00 $5,605.29 For the City of Redwood City ONLY, answer the following: 1. Funding Criteria: 1. Affordable Housing: Acquisition of sites for affordable housing, new construction of affordable housing, conversion of existing housing to affordable, acquisition and rehabilitation of rental housing (includes special needs housing). 2. Marketing/Advertising a. Check all of the following methods your agency utilizes to promote and advertise your programs and services: Flyers/brochures Website Phone book listing CIP (Handbook/Database) Outreach presentations to service providers Outreach presentations to public PSA’s b. Which of the above marketing/advertising materials are available in multi-langual form and which languages are they available in? All of RTP’s services and documents are provided in English and Spanish. If a homeowner requires another language, RTP utilizes community partners that specialize with that population to serve as translators. In addition, select marketing collateral is offered in multi-lingual formats including RTP’s main flyers, brochures and direct mail pieces. RTP also conducts mult-lingual door to door outreach and phone outreach. c. How and where are the materials distributed? RTP’s National Rebuilding Day materials are distributed to low-income homeowners via: (1) Door-to-door outreach and direct mail to thousands of low-income homeowners. (2) Partner nonprofit organizations and government agencies. (3) Participating in community events (e.g. health fairs, farmers market, National Night Out) (4) Social media campaigns to targeted communities. 1/28/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8534&prop=36 8/9 (5) Presentations at local senior centers, churches, and other groups. In Redwood City, we make presentations and distribute materials to a variety of nonprofit, government and community organizations (e.g. Fair Oaks & Veterans Memorial Community Centers, Redwood City Human Service Agencies, Fair Oaks Community Center, and Peninsula Family Service). Through our NRD community facility repair program, RTP has developed deep relationships our nonprofits throughout Redwood City that serve primarily low-income people (e.g. Samaritan House Free Clinic, Kainos, StarVista, St. Francis Center, IHSD). 3. Program Outcomes: a. Please describe the accomplishments of program goals for FY/19. For fiscal year 2019, RTP’s National Rebuilding Day’s program’s goal was to serve 4 homes in Redwood City. We met this goal by serving 4 low-income households during NRD 2019. Program outcomes: From July 2019 to June 2019, RTP’s National Rebuilding Day program served 29 households (with 88 residents) with home repair services that aim to ensure a safe and healthy home for every person. From home repair participants surveyed: 99% reported that Rebuilding Together ’s work has made their home a safer place to live; 97% reported that repairs created a healthier home environment for themselves and their family (if applicable); 95% reported that completed repairs will make it easier for them to maintain their home; and 74% reported feeling less likely to fall in their home since repairs, another 21% felt this question did not apply to them. b. In what ways has your program made a difference in the lives of the people you serve? Please provide at least one concrete example from the people served in FY/19: Sometimes the best way to emphasize the impact that our National Rebuilding Day program can have on a life is through a story: Pearl* and her family have lived in their home since 2015. Pearl’s husband Curt passed away in 2016 at age 47 after major illness, leaving Pearl to raise their six children on her own. Shortly after Curt passed away, their youngest son Arthur had a terrible bike accident and, after complications during surgery, Arthur was left bedridden and in a wheelchair. The house, which was built in 1950, fell into disrepair over the years and was not ADA accessible. Pearl wasn’t able to complete repairs by herself because she lacks the knowledge and spends nearly all of her time caring for Arthur. RTP helped widen some of the doorways in Pearl’s home, replaced bedroom flooring, secured an entry ramp, and added a deck to help make the house more accessible. The repairs came as a much needed relief for Pearl, as they will ensure that her home is safe and healthy for her son. RTP’s commitment to ensuring a safe and healthy home for every person remains at the core of our work. Thank you for partnering with RTP and helping in our mission to “rebuild homes, revitalize communities and rebuild lives” for our neighbors in need. Your generosity makes a significant impact in our community and gives hope to the people who need it most. *Names changed to protect client confidentiality Attachments 1. Resolution authorizing application and designation of signatory, by the Board of Directors CDBG_Board_Authorization.pdf 2. Proof of 501(c)3 / tax-exempt status 501c3.pdf 3. By-laws By-laws_Resolution_11-17-11.pdf 4. Articles of Incorporation Articles_of_Incorporation__original_and_amendments.pdf 5. Board roster, including: Name, Company, Years on Board Meeting dates for previous 12 months Number of years allowed for each board term RTP_Board_Roster_19-20_for_CDBG.pdf 6. Organizational chart for entire organization RTPOrgChart_1.9.20.pdf 7. Certified financial audit no more that 1 fiscal year old, prepared by a CPA, and: Management letters (if applicable) A-122 and A-133 Single Audit (for entities that receive more than $500,000 in federal funding) OR A letter from your Executive Director or Chief Financial Officer certifying that agency does not receive more than $500,000 in federal funds and is not subject to the Single Audit. FINAL_FY2017- 18_Audited_Financial_Statements_received_4-2-19.pdf Single_Audit_not_required_letter.pdf Management_Letter_2019.pdf 8. The following are required: Current (FY19-20) Agency Operating Budget FY_20_Budget_Summary.pdf FY21_proposed_Budget_Summary.pdf FY20_NRD_budget.pdf 1/28/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8534&prop=36 9/9 Proposed (FY20-21) Agency Operating Budget 9. Mission Statement RTP_Mission_Statement_1.13.20.pdf 10. Non-discrimination policy for Staff and Clients nondiscrimination_and_accomodations_updated_2.2019.pdf 11. Reasonable Accommodations Policy for Staff and Clients nondiscrimination_and_accomodations_updated_2.2019.pdf 12. Conflict of Interest Policy. (If not available, please indicate when you will submit) confilct_of_interest_policy.pdf 13. Other - Download All Attachments Program Manager Signature Joy Dickinson Date Signed 01/14/2020 Initially submitted: Jan 14, 2020 - 10:13:19 Returned to Draft 01-14-2020 by San Mateo County Reason: RTD per Joy 1/28/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8535&prop=37 1/9 Consolidated Community Funding Application Redwood City, San Mateo County, and S. San Francisco Application for New Funding for FY 2020-21 GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Organization Name: Rebuilding Together Peninsula 2. Project Title: Safe at Home We are applying for funding from: Redwood City City of San Mateo South San Francisco County of San Mateo Budget/Client Summary (Auto-populated from Budget, below) Jurisdictions receiving this application Amount Requested % of Program Budget Proposed # of Served % of Served Total $ Per Redwood City $20,540 3% 7 9% $2,934.29 City of San Mateo $45,000 8% 12 16% $3,750.00 County of San Mateo $125,000 21% 45 59% $2,777.78 South San Francisco $55,000 9% 12 16% $4,583.33 Total $245,540 41% 76 100% $3,230.79 Grant Funded Programs: We are applying for a Minor Home Repair Program CDBG National Objective Eligibility - How are you serving low income populations? Minor home repairs for low income households whose incomes are verified. Income Verification: Describe how you obtain, verify, and maintain proof of income and presumed benefit status. Third party documentation or client signatures on the certification forms must be available on file for review at all times. RTP’s Safe at Home home repair programs currently uses 80% AMI (Area Median Income) as its guide for income eligibility. Applicants are required to provide proof of gross monthly income for all individuals 18 and over living in the home, including renters. Income sources include: salaries, SSI or SSD, social security, alimony/child support, interest and dividends, pensions and annuities, rental income, other income. The preferred documentation to prove income is the most recent income tax return (first two pages only) for each adult in the household. Alternatively, we ask each adult to submit as many the following documents as possible: last three bank statements, two pay stubs, social security award letter, SSI or SSDI statement and rent checks. 3. Project Address: 841 Kaynyne Street City: Redwood City Zip: 94063- 3000 4. Provide a one sentence project summary: RTP’s Safe at Home program provides critical health and safety related home repair needs for low-income homeowners, including home safety modifications that allow low-income seniors to safely age in place by eliminating the threat of injury or accident, particularly from falling. Organization Address: 841 Kaynyne Street City: Redwood City Zip: 94063- 3000 Organization Phone: 650-366-6597 Website: www.RebuildingTogetherPeninsula.org Type of Applicant: Our agency serves: 5. Contact Person / Project Administrator: Name: Greg Bernard Title: Construction Program Director Telephone: 650-366- 6597 x228 Contact Email: greg@rebuildingtogetherpeninsula.org; cari@rebuildingtogetherpeninsula.org; development@rebuildingtogetherpeninsula.org Fax: 6. Name of Agency Director: Melissa Lukin 1/28/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8535&prop=37 2/9 7. Fiscal Officer:Name: Billy Hoover Email: billy@rebuildingtogetherpeninsula.org Telephone: 650-366- 6597 x221 Fiscal Officer Address: 841 Kaynyne Street City: Redwood City Zip: 94063- 3000 8. Authorized Signatory:Name: Melissa Lukin Email: melissa@rebuildingtogetherpeninsula.org Telephone: 650-366- 6597 Authorized Signatory Address: 841 Kaynyne Street City: Redwood City Zip: 94063- 3000 9. Please provide days and hours of regularly scheduled operation: Monday to Friday, 8am to 5pm. Closed for lunch from 12pm to 1pm. 10. DUNS Number: 11-399-5612 Federal EIN/TIN Number: 94-3106209 11. HUD Activity: Choose the HUD activity that most closely matches your service: 14A - Rehab: Single-Unit Residential 12. Project Specific Narrative: Provide a narrative description of the specific activities to be carried out with the requested funds. This should also include program objectives and key priorities for each specific jurisdiction. Safe at Home Program objectives: (1) Low-income homeowners have access to home repair services that enable them to live in a dry, clean, ventilated, pest-free, safe, contaminant-free and maintained home (the 7 Principles of Healthy Housing). (2) Safety and health priorities identified in each home are addressed. (3) Participants will be equipped with the knowledge and tools necessary to identify health and safety hazards. They will be educated with maintenance tips to ensure the longevity of the repairs they receive. Activities: (1) Homeowner completes an application which provides key information about the repairs needed by vulnerable homeowners. (2) RTP’s trained and experienced staff conduct a comprehensive Home Safety Assessment which assesses the health and safety repairs needed based on the 7 Principles of Healthy Housing. (3) In partnership with the homeowner, RTP’s staff develops a Home Safety Plan (aka scope of work) which provides a detailed plan for how the critical health and safety repairs will be completed. (4) Complete repair and home modifications which is performed by our repair technicians. (5) Final project review and survey collection which assesses the impact of our work on the homeowner's health and safety. Priorities by jurisdiction: Safe at Home will repair 7 homes in Redwood City, 12 homes in the City of San Mateo, 12 homes in South San Francisco and 45 homes in the County of San Mateo. 13A. Assessment of Need - Redwood City: Briefly describe how you determined the need for your program for each specific jurisdiction that you are applying for funds. Identify target population(s) and area(s) served. Please state the source(s) and date(s) of information. Identify any similar programs in the community. NEED: Redwood City needs a free home repair program for its low-income neighbors because it has a lack of affordable housing (median Redwood City list price per square foot is $962 vs. San Francisco Metro $513, per Zillow) and the highest construction costs in the world (International Construction Market Survey 2019). In 2016, the Pew Research Center found that our nation’s affordable housing crisis is leading to a rise in multigenerational living - 20% of Americans now live multi-generationally. Also, since 90% of seniors desire to age-in-place (AARP 2019), Redwood City needs a way to ensure that populations at risk for falls have access to free home safety modifications. In fact, the San Mateo County Fall Prevention Task Force found that falls account for 80% of accidental injury deaths in individuals over the age of 85, and 20% in ages 75 to 84. AREA SERVED: Since 1989, RTP has provided 339 Redwood City homeowners with free home repair services. SAH serves low- income homeowners across the city. TARGET POPULATION: SAH provides critical health and safety repairs to low-income homeowners with a focus on homes with seniors, veterans, people with disabilities, and families with children. SIMILAR PROGRAMS: RTP’s extensive local networks and 30 years of home rehabilitation expertise, make us the leading home repair program on the Peninsula. While Habitat for Humanity Greater San Francisco has a home repair program, it serves fewer homes than RTP. 13B. Assessment of Need - City of San Mateo: Briefly describe how you determined the need for your program for each specific jurisdiction that you are applying for funds. Identify target population(s) and area(s) served. Please state the source(s) and date(s) of information. Identify any similar programs in the community. 1/28/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8535&prop=37 3/9 NEED: The City of San Mateo needs a free home repair program for its low-income neighbors because it has a lack of affordable housing (median City of San Mateo list price per square foot is $893 vs. San Francisco Metro $513, per Zillow) and the highest construction costs in the world (International Construction Market Survey 2019). In 2016, the Pew Research Center found that our nation’s affordable housing crisis is leading to a rise in multigenerational living - 20% of Americans now live multi-generationally. Also, since 90% of seniors desire to age-in-place (AARP 2019), the city needs a way to ensure that populations at risk for falls have access to free home safety modifications. In fact, the San Mateo County Fall Prevention Task Force found that falls account for 80% of accidental injury deaths in individuals over the age of 85, and 20% in ages 75 to 84. AREA SERVED: Since 1989, RTP has provided 277 City of San Mateo homeowners with free home repair services. SAH serves low-income homeowners across the city. TARGET POPULATION: SAH provides critical health and safety repairs to low-income homeowners with a focus on homes with seniors, veterans, people with disabilities, and families with children. SIMILAR PROGRAMS: RTP’s extensive local networks and 30 years of home rehabilitation expertise, make us the leading home repair program on the Peninsula. While Habitat for Humanity has a home repair program, it serves fewer homes than RTP. 13C. Assessment of Need - County of San Mateo: Briefly describe how you determined the need for your program for each specific jurisdiction that you are applying for funds. Identify target population(s) and area(s) served. Please state the source(s) and date(s) of information. Identify any similar programs in the community. NEED: The County needs a free home repair program for its low-income neighbors because it has a lack of affordable housing (median County list price per square foot is $900 vs. San Francisco Metro $513, per Zillow) and the highest construction costs in the world (International Construction Market Survey 2019). In 2016, the Pew Research Center found that our nation’s affordable housing crisis is leading to a rise in multigenerational living - 20% of Americans now live multi-generationally. Also, since 90% of seniors desire to age-in-place (AARP 2019), the county needs a way to ensure that populations at risk for falls have access to free home safety modifications. In fact, the County Fall Prevention Task Force found that falls account for 80% of accidental injury deaths in individuals over the age of 85, and 20% in ages 75 to 84. AREA SERVED: Since 1989, RTP has provided 1,291 County homeowners with free home repair services. SAH serves low-income homeowners across the County of San Mateo. The majority of SAH applications come from East Palo Alto and Belle Haven. TARGET POPULATION: SAH provides critical health and safety repairs to low-income homeowners with a focus on homes with seniors, veterans, people with disabilities, and families with children. SIMILAR PROGRAMS: RTP’s 30 years of expertise makes us the leading home repair program on the Peninsula. While Habitat for Humanity has a home repair program, it serves fewer home than RTP. 13D. Assessment of Need - South San Francisco: Briefly describe how you determined the need for your program for each specific jurisdiction that you are applying for funds. Identify target population(s) and area(s) served. Please state the source(s) and date(s) of information. Identify any similar programs in the community. NEED: South San Francisco needs a free home repair program for its low-income neighbors because it has a lack of affordable housing (median SSF list price per square foot is $726 vs. San Francisco vs. San Francisco Metro $513, per Zillow) and the highest construction costs in the world (International Construction Market Survey 2019). In 2016, the Pew Research Center found that our nation’s affordable housing crisis is leading to a rise in multigenerational living - 20% of Americans now live multi-generationally. Also, since 90% of seniors desire to age- in-place (AARP 2019), the city needs a way to ensure that populations at risk for falls have access to free home safety modifications. In fact, the San Mateo County Fall Prevention Task Force found that falls account for 80% of accidental injury deaths in individuals over the age of 85, and 20% in ages 75 to 84. AREA SERVED: Since 1989, RTP has provided 244 South San Francisco homeowners with free home repair services. SAH serves low-income homeowners across South San Francisco. TARGET POPULATION: SAH provides critical health and safety repairs to the homes of low-income homeowners with a focus on homes with seniors, veterans, people with disabilities, and families with children. SIMILAR PROGRAMS: RTP’s 30 years of expertise makes us the leading home repair program on the Peninsula. While Habitat for Humanity has a critical home repair program, it serves fewer homes than RTP. 14. Timeline: Provide a brief timetable for project implementation and achievement of projected goals and how you plan to expend your funds in a timely manner by the end of the fiscal year. 1/28/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8535&prop=37 4/9 During the grant award year, RTP’s SAH program will serve 76 homes across the four jurisdictions. Each home will go through five activities: (1) Homeowner completes an application which provides key information about the repairs needed. (2) RTP’s trained and experienced staff conduct a comprehensive Home Safety Assessment which assesses the health and safety repairs needed based on the 7 Principles of Healthy Housing. (3) In partnership with the homeowner, RTP’s staff develops a Home Safety Plan (aka scope of work) which provides a detailed plan for how the critical health and safety repairs will be completed. (4) Complete repair and home modifications which is performed by our repair technicians, trained volunteers and AmeriCorp. (5) Final project review and survey collection which assesses the impact of our work on the homeowner's health and safety. RTP will submit invoices quarterly to ensure funds are spent in a timely manner. SAH will serve the following number of homes by jurisdiction per quarter (per year): Redwood City: 2 to 3 homes (7 homes for the year) City of San Mateo: 3 homes (12 homes for the year) County: 11 to 12 homes (45 homes for the year) South San Francisco: 3 homes (12 homes for the year) Note: RTP would like to be considered for a two year contract. This will give RTP the ability to plan its deliverables with confidence and provide seamless services to the low-income populations we serve. 15. Evaluation: Briefly describe how you will determine and measure the success of your program and whether or not program goals were met? If your program is currently receiving grant funds please describe accomplishments of goals to date. RTP has worked with the Sobrato Impact Lab and Actionable Insights to significantly enhance our capacity to evaluate the impact of our work. For the Safe at Home program, we conduct homeowner surveys before and after repairs. Over the most recent year where survey data is available (July 2019 to June 2019), Safe at Home served 123 households (with 238 residents) with home repair services that aim to ensure a safe and healthy home for every person. For Safe at Home participants surveyed: 99% reported that Rebuilding Together ’s work has made their home a safer place to live; 97% reported that repairs created a healthier home environment for themselves and their family (if applicable); 95% reported that completed repairs will make it easier for them to maintain their home; and 74% reported feeling less likely to fall in their home since repairs, another 21% felt this question did not apply to them. RTP’s Safe at Home program holds current contracts with each jurisdiction. We expect to meet all of our FY20 deliverables. Accomplishments to date for FY20 (July 2019 to December 2019) include: Redwood City: 6 homes served to date (FY20 goal is 9) City of San Mateo: 5 homes served to date (FY20 goal is 12) County of San Mateo: 17 homes served to date (FY20 goal is 45) South San Francisco: 7 homes served to date (FY20 goal is 12) 16. Collaboration: Describe partnerships with other organizations/agencies, the nature of the partnership, and how it relates to the proposed project. RTP could not accomplish our mission to 'repair homes, revitalize communities and rebuild lives' without collaborating with nonprofits, government agencies, skilled and non-skilled volunteers, community organizations, and corporations. While the Safe at Home program partners with trades unions, vendors, and corporations for volunteer labor and in- kind donations, RTP and its staff manage the construction related tasks due to the technical repairs typically required at Safe at Home project sites. RTP collaborates with local nonprofit and government partners to ensure that each homeowner we work with receives the help they need. We refer our clients to programs such as Meals on Wheels, El Concilio, and PG&E Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program. We receive referrals for potential Safe at Home applicants from city staff, county social workers and case managers, hospitals, and local nonprofit agencies. RTP also collaborates on systemic change and policy work in regards to achieving our vision of safe and healthy housing for everyone. For example, RTP is part of the City of East Palo Alto’s 2ndUnit/Reducing Displacement Task Force, San Mateo County Fall Prevention Task Force, Thrive - The Alliance of Nonprofit for San Mateo County, the Energy Workgroup, the Redwood City Interagency Council, and the Silicon Valley Council of Nonprofits. 17. Impact: : Discuss any general trends and conditions that have affected or impacted your service levels or service populations. For New Applicants – describe what these funds would allow your agency to do that you may not be able to do now. For Continuing Applicants – describe how your program would be impacted without these funds. RTP’s Safe at Home program applies its expertise to address the following trends in our community: the increasing lack of affordable housing, the rise of multi-generational living, our aging population and their desire to age-in- 1/28/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8535&prop=37 5/9 place, and the extraordinary costs of repairs. We meet these challenges by rehabilitating and preserving existing affordable housing. Many low-income families, especially seniors on fixed incomes, simply do not have the resources to repair their home. Left unaddressed, minor home repairs can escalate into major issues that can leave homeowners vulnerable to illness, physical harm, and even homelessness. RTP strengthens communities and enhances self-sufficiency by ensuring that homes are safe and healthy and by empowering low-income homeowners to invest their limited resources on other needs. RTP revitalizes whole neighborhoods and provides long-lasting stability to them. Many of our clients have lived in their homes for generations and, as a result of our work, they can live safely, age in place, and pass an affordable home down to the next generation. Without funding, RTP will have to reduce the number of Safe at Home repair project and scale back the scopes of work. Without adequate funding, our organization will have to leave more costly repairs undone, which in turn means that we are not leaving our homeowners in truly safe and healthy environments. The most fundamental need for any person is a safe and healthy home. 18. Project Beneficiaries/Quantifiable Measurement: Indicate the expected number of beneficiaries to be served by the program. For each response below please indicate both the number of households and number of individuals. Refer to the San Mateo County Income Limits. a. Indicate the total number of low-income beneficiaries you expect to serve with this program for each jurisdiction application for funding. *Low-income is 80% of Area Median Income or below. See AMI table b. Indicate the total number of beneficiaries you expect to serve with this program in each jurisdiction - regardless of income. Jurisdiction a. Number of low-income beneficiaries to be served per grant jurisdiction application. **Low-income** is 80% of Area Median Income or below. b. All beneficiaries to be served per grant jurisdiction application regardless of income Persons Households Persons Households Daly City 0 6 0 6 Redwood City 0 7 0 7 City of San Mateo 0 12 0 12 County of San Mateo 0 45 0 45 South San Francisco 0 12 0 12 Totals 0 82 0 82 19. Populations Served: Check the boxes below if they describe a significant population served by your program. These categories are not considered "presumed benefit" by HUD, and require income verification. Persons exiting incarceration Low-income youth Other Low-income households 20. Affirmative Outreach: a. Use the demographics from your previous program year to provide an analysis of the population you serve relative to the demographics in the table. NOTE: If you are a new applicant please provide your best estimation. Race & Ethnicity Redwood City Population Redwood City % by Ethnicity Low Income by Ethnicity served by your Program Your Program % by Ethnicity Total 74,402 100%21 100% White and not Hispanic 40,656 54.64% 11 52.38% White and Hispanic 23,557 31.66% 4 19.05% Asian 6,715 9.03% 5 23.81% African American 1,916 2.58% 0 0.00% Pacific Islander 663 0.89% 0 0.00% Native American 384 0.52% 0 0.00% Other 1,511 2.03% 1 4.76% Race & Ethnicity City of San Mateo Population City of San Mateo % by Ethnicity Low Income by Ethnicity served by your Program Your Program % by Ethnicity Total 97,207 100%21 100% White and not Hispanic 45,240 46.54% 7 33.33% White and Hispanic 25,815 26.56% 4 19.05% Asian 18,153 18.67% 6 28.57% African American 2,099 2.16% 0 0.00% Pacific Islander 1,937 1.99% 0 0.00% Native American 140 0.14% 0 0.00% Other 3,823 3.93% 4 19.05% Race & Ethnicity South San Francisco South San Francisco % by Low Income by Ethnicity served Your Program % by Ethnicity 1/28/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8535&prop=37 6/9 Population Ethnicity by your Program Total 63,632 100%32 100% White and not Hispanic 23,760 37.34% 8 25.00% White and Hispanic 21,645 34.02% 12 37.50% Asian 23,293 36.61% 8 25.00% African American 1,625 2.55% 1 3.13% Pacific Islander 1,111 1.75% 0 0.00% Native American 395 0.62% 0 0.00% Other 9,598 15.08% 3 9.38% b. Based on the percentages that you indicate your organization served describe your efforts to improve affirmative outreach to groups that may be underserved by your program and the result of your efforts: Note: The data above is for all of the members of the household, not just the homeowner, as the race/ethnicity of household members can differ from the homeowner. Because this program serves a handful of households in each jurisdiction it is difficult to perfectly align with the city’s overall demographics. However, the data above shows the populations served in each jurisdiction are predominated by underserved populations. RTP promotes equity through homeownership among disadvantaged groups. Last year those served identified as 49% seniors, 55% households with people with disabilities, 25% households with veteran residents, 100% low income (with 84% extremely or very low-income per HUD standards, with an overall median income of $28,788), and 76% of homeowners have lived in their homes 20+ years. RTP conducts grassroots outreach including door-to-door outreach; direct mail; distributing information about RTP’s home repair programs to nonprofit and government agencies; participating in community events; social media campaigns; and presentations at local senior centers, churches, and other groups. RTP is trusted by our neighbors in need. Our staff guides homeowners through the application and repair process, providing multilingual and culturally competent support. We hold our general contractor’s license and are experts in navigating building code and permitting processes, thereby reducing barriers for low-income homeowners. 21. Leveraging: Describe your fundraising efforts and additional sources of revenue for this project and your organization. Please state whether any of these fund sources are already committed and in what amount. RTP’s FY21 Safe at Home Budget is $592,576. Of this amount, we expect 55% to come from government sources and 45% to come from individuals, corporations and foundations. To provide an example of expected FY21 revenue for the Safe at Home program, below are details on secured and pending funding for the FY20 Safe at Home program. Secured FY20 Safe at Home funding: County of San Mateo, $125,000 El Camino Healthcare District $78,000 City of South San Francisco, $55,000 Sequoia Healthcare District, $45,000 City of San Mateo, $45,000 Peninsula Health Care District, $30,000 City of Redwood City, $20,540 City of Daly City, $20,000 City of Mountain View, $40,000 Gellert Foundation, $10,000 San Mateo County Association of Realtors, $2,000 Pending FY20 requests: City of Menlo Park, $10,000 City of San Carlos, $12,000 Max and Victoria Dreyfus Foundation, $20,000 Expected FY20 Revenue: Individual Donors, $80,576 For our organization, RTP is in a strong financial position. We hold $5M in assets. Our annual revenue comes from diverse streams: 23% from foundations, 17% from individuals, 20% from sponsorships, 23% from government, 16% from special events and 1% other. RTP’s board and staff recently completed a planning process to ensure financial sustainability. Staff List List below key staff members who work on this program Position Title Name of Staff Person Job Responsibilities Qualifications Construction Program Director Greg Bernard His main responsibilities are to preview each applicant’s home, create a scope of 20 years of experience as a contractor 1/28/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8535&prop=37 7/9 work for them and oversee project management Senior Repair Technician Frank Tijerina Responsible for doing the repairs and modifications at homes and working with subcontractors and vendors to complete the necessary work at each home. More than 20 years of construction experience, including carpentry, plumbing, and electrical. Repair Technician Michael Andreini Responsible for doing the repairs and modifications at homes and working with subcontractors and vendors to complete the necessary work at each home. 10 years in construction before going on to work for JobCorps in San Jose as a counselor and as a teacher and track coach for Sequoia (Redwood City) & Hillsdale (San Mateo) High Schools. Program Coordinator Esmeralda Rodriguez Supports the Safe at Home team by working with homeowners to complete their applications, scheduling previews, and conducting homeowner survey 12 years of nonprofit experience serving vulnerable populations. Holds a bachelor ’s degree in Psychology. Volunteer and Outreach Coordinator To be hired Responsible for conducting outreach to low-income homeowners in the jurisdictions and assisting them in applying to the Safe at Home program Bachelor’s degree or equivalent experience, experience conducting outreach with diverse populations, bilingual preferred. PROPOSED PROGRAM BUDGET FOR FY 2020-21 Redwood City City of San Mateo County of San Mateo South San Francisco Total Jurisdictions Budget Line Item Agency Total Pgm%Program Total %Requested %Requested %Requested %Requested Pgm%Requested Labor Construction Program Director $78,000 85% $66,300 5% $3,000 6% $4,000 13% $8,500 6% $4,000 29%$19,500 Senior Repair Technician $73,000 80% $58,400 6% $3,500 10% $6,000 34% $20,000 15% $9,000 66%$38,500 Repair Technician $69,000 80% $55,200 5% $2,500 11% $6,000 27% $15,000 16% $9,000 59%$32,500 Program Coordinator $47,500 45% $21,375 2% $500 6% $1,300 12% $2,500 2% $500 22%$4,800 Volunteer and Outreach Coordinator $53,000 45% $23,850 2% $500 2% $500 4% $1,000 2% $500 10%$2,500 other staff $558,000 6% $31,495 2% $540 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 2%$540 Taxes/Benefits $218,250 33%$72,620 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0%$0 Supplies Program supplies $98,434 70% $68,585 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0%$0 Mileage $21,080 20% $4,158 2% $100 12% $500 48% $2,000 36% $1,500 99%$4,100 Materials Materials and Subcontractors $746,345 25% $184,443 5% $9,900 14% $26,700 41% $75,500 16% $30,000 77%$142,100 Operations/Maintenance Outreach $3,500 51% $1,781 0% $0 0% $0 28% $500 28% $500 56%$1,000 Volunteer costs $37,315 8% $3,069 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0%$0 Administration $386,386 0%$1,300 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 TOTAL $2,389,810 25%$592,576 3%$20,540 8%$45,000 21%$125,000 9%$55,000 41%$245,540 Number of Individual Beneficiaries 7 12 45 12 76 Cost per Individual $2,934.29 $3,750.00 $2,777.78 $4,583.33 $3,230.79 For the City of Redwood City ONLY, answer the following: 1. Funding Criteria: 1. Affordable Housing: Acquisition of sites for affordable housing, new construction of affordable housing, conversion of existing housing to affordable, acquisition and rehabilitation of rental housing (includes special needs housing). 1/28/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8535&prop=37 8/9 2. Marketing/Advertising a. Check all of the following methods your agency utilizes to promote and advertise your programs and services: Flyers/brochures Website Phone book listing CIP (Handbook/Database) Outreach presentations to service providers Outreach presentations to public PSA’s b. Which of the above marketing/advertising materials are available in multi-langual form and which languages are they available in? All of RTP’s services and documents are provided in English and Spanish. If a homeowner requires another language, RTP utilizes community partners that specialize with that population to serve as translators. In addition, select marketing collateral is offered in multi-lingual formats including RTP’s main flyers, brochures and direct mail pieces. RTP also conducts mult-lingual door to door outreach and phone outreach. c. How and where are the materials distributed? RTP’s Safe at Home materials are distributed to low-income homeowners via: (1) Door-to-door outreach and direct mail to thousands of low-income homeowners. (2) Partner nonprofit organizations and government agencies. (3) Participating in community events (e.g. health fairs, farmers market, National Night Out) (4) Social media campaigns to targeted communities. (5) Presentations at local senior centers, churches, and other groups. In Redwood City, we make presentations and distribute materials to a variety of nonprofit, government and community organizations (e.g. Fair Oaks & Veterans Memorial Community Centers, Redwood City Human Service Agencies, Fair Oaks Community Center, and Peninsula Family Service). Through our NRD community facility repair program, RTP has developed deep relationships our nonprofits throughout Redwood City that serve primarily low-income people (e.g. Samaritan House Free Clinic, Kainos, StarVista, St. Francis Center, IHSD) 3. Program Outcomes: a. Please describe the accomplishments of program goals for FY/19. For fiscal year 2019, RTP’s Safe at Home’s program’s goal was to serve 9 homes in Redwood City. We met goal by serving 9 low-income households. Overall program outcomes: From July 2019 to June 2019, RTP’s Safe at Home program served 123 households (with 238 residents) with home repair services that aim to ensure a safe and healthy home for every person. For Safe at Home participants surveyed: 99% reported that Rebuilding Together ’s work has made their home a safer place to live; 97% reported that repairs created a healthier home environment for themselves and their family (if applicable); 95% reported that completed repairs will make it easier for them to maintain their home; and 74% reported feeling less likely to fall in their home since repairs, another 21% felt this question did not apply to them. b. In what ways has your program made a difference in the lives of the people you serve? Please provide at least one concrete example from the people served in FY/19: Sometimes the best way to emphasize the impact that our Safe at Home program can have on a life is through a story: Elderly homeowner Christine* had an approved scope of work with our Safe at Home program. While she was waiting for her scheduled day of repairs, a 60 mile-per-hour windstorm collapsed her patio cover, making it unsafe for her to go into her backyard. She called RTP’s Safe at Home manager to explain what had happened and within two hours RTP’s Safe at Home team visited her home to fix the patio cover. A couple of days later, Safe at Home staff returned to do the scheduled work which included repairs to her fence and gate, a leaky roof and a dripping bathtub faucet. Christine said, “I was so grateful. These men really went the extra mile for me. Because of their efforts I am able to stay in my home and feel safe and secure.” RTP’s commitment to ensuring a safe and healthy home for every person remains at the core of our work. Thank you for partnering with RTP and helping in our mission to “rebuild homes, revitalize communities and rebuild lives” for our neighbors in need. Your generosity makes a significant impact in our community and gives hope to the people who need it most. *Name changed to protect client confidentiality 1/28/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8535&prop=37 9/9 Attachments 1. Resolution authorizing application and designation of signatory, by the Board of Directors CDBG_Board_Authorization.pdf 5. Board roster, including: Name, Company, Years on Board Meeting dates for previous 12 months Number of years allowed for each board term RTP_Board_Roster_19-20_for_CDBG.pdf 6. Organizational chart for entire organization RTPOrgChart_1.9.20.pdf 7. Certified financial audit no more that 1 fiscal year old, prepared by a CPA, and: Management letters (if applicable) A-122 and A-133 Single Audit (for entities that receive more than $500,000 in federal funding) OR A letter from your Executive Director or Chief Financial Officer certifying that agency does not receive more than $500,000 in federal funds and is not subject to the Single Audit. FINAL_FY2017- 18_Audited_Financial_Statements_received_4-2-19.pdf Single_Audit_not_required_letter.pdf Management_Letter_2019.pdf 8. The following are required: Current (FY19-20) Agency Operating Budget Proposed (FY20-21) Agency Operating Budget FY_20_Budget_Summary.pdf FY21_proposed_Budget_Summary.pdf FY20_SAH_budget.pdf 9. Mission Statement RTP_Mission_Statement_1.13.20.pdf 10. Non-discrimination policy for Staff and Clients nondiscrimination_and_accomodations_updated_2.2019.pdf 11. Reasonable Accommodations Policy for Staff and Clients nondiscrimination_and_accomodations_updated_2.2019.pdf 12. Conflict of Interest Policy. (If not available, please indicate when you will submit) confilct_of_interest_policy.pdf 13. Other - Download All Attachments Program Manager Signature Joy Dickinson Date Signed 01/14/2020 Initially submitted: Jan 14, 2020 - 09:56:46 2/4/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8703&prop=69 1/7 Consolidated Community Funding Application Redwood City, San Mateo County, and S. San Francisco Application for New Funding for FY 2020-21 GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Organization Name: Renaissance Entrepreneurship Center 2. Project Title: Igniting the Power of Entrepreneurship to Build Economically Vibrant Families and Communities in San Mateo County We are applying for funding from: Redwood City City of San Mateo South San Francisco County of San Mateo Budget/Client Summary (Auto-populated from Budget, below) Jurisdictions receiving this application Amount Requested % of Program Budget Proposed # of Served % of Served Total $ Per Redwood City $50,000 13% 60 29% $833.33 City of San Mateo $35,000 9% 40 19% $875.00 County of San Mateo $45,000 12% 80 38% $562.50 South San Francisco $25,000 7% 30 14% $833.33 Total $155,000 41% 210 100% $738.10 Grant Funded Programs: We are applying for a Microenterprise Assistance Program CDBG National Objective Eligibility - How are you serving low income populations? Service to low income clients verified through income documentation. Income Verification: Describe how you obtain, verify, and maintain proof of income and presumed benefit status. Third party documentation or client signatures on the certification forms must be available on file for review at all times. Our agency verifies the income of every client by reviewing one of the following documents: recent pay stub, tax return or benefits statement if receiving public assistance. 3. Project Address: 1848 Bay Road City: East Palo Alto Zip: 94303-1311 4. Provide a one sentence project summary: Renaissance Mid-Peninsula will support 210 low-income English- and Spanish-speaking women and men: 60 in Redwood City, 30 in the City of South San Francisco, 40 in the City of San Mateo, and 80 throughout the County of San Mateo, with customized English and Spanish language small business training classes and workshops, one- on-one consulting, legal and tax assistance, business incubation, and access to resources, markets and networks to assist them in achieving economic mobility and building assets by starting and growing their own sustainable small businesses. Organization Address: 275 5th Street City: San Francisco Zip: 94103-4117 Organization Phone: 415-541-8580 Website: www.rencenter.org Type of Applicant: Non-Profit Our agency serves: 5. Contact Person / Project Administrator:Name: Timothy Russell Title: Program Director Telephone: 650-321-2193 x1102 Contact Email: trussell@rencenter.org Fax: 6. Name of Agency Director: Sharon Miller 7. Fiscal Officer:Name: Lisa Hunter Email: lhunter@rencenter.org Telephone: 415-348-6259 Fiscal Officer Address: 275 Fifth Street City: San Francisco Zip: 94103-4117 8. Authorized Signatory:Name: Sharon Miller Email: sharon@rencenter.org Telephone: 415-348-6243 Authorized Signatory Address: 275 Fifth Street City: San Francisco Zip: 94103-4117 2/4/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8703&prop=69 2/7 9. Please provide days and hours of regularly scheduled operation: Renaissance Mid-Peninsula's office hours are Monday through Friday 9AM to 5PM, with evenings and weekend hours for scheduled training classes, workshops and special events. 10. DUNS Number: 054629282 Federal EIN/TIN Number: 94-2793122 11. HUD Activity: Choose the HUD activity that most closely matches your service: 18C - Micro-Enterprise Assist 12. Project Specific Narrative: Provide a narrative description of the specific activities to be carried out with the requested funds. This should also include program objectives and key priorities for each specific jurisdiction. Renaissance Mid-Peninsula will serve a total of 210 low-income English and Spanish speaking women and men in San Mateo County to develop the skills, confidence, and networks needed to start and grow their own businesses. Our clients, in turn, will launch and grow 60 businesses, creating employment for 91 local residents, including the business owners themselves: 15 businesses and 23 jobs in San Mateo County’s unincorporated areas plus the 16 small cities; 15 businesses and 23 jobs in the City of San Mateo; 18 businesses and 27 jobs in Redwood City; and 12 businesses and 18 jobs in the City of South San Francisco. In each jurisdiction, Renaissance Mid-Peninsula will provide comprehensive English- and Spanish-language entrepreneurship, financial, and empowerment training - from idea feasibility to business planning, launch, and growth – that directly addresses the challenges lower- income women and men face as they strive to achieve economic self-sufficiency. Our services will include intensive small business training classes and workshops, consulting, business incubation, legal and tax assistance, and access to the capital, resources, markets, and networks all entrepreneurs need to succeed but are unavailable in the lower-income communities Renaissance serves. 13A. Assessment of Need - Redwood City: Briefly describe how you determined the need for your program for each specific jurisdiction that you are applying for funds. Identify target population(s) and area(s) served. Please state the source(s) and date(s) of information. Identify any similar programs in the community. As economic inequality in Silicon Valley grows at unprecedented rates, it is critical to provide opportunity to all residents, especially those who face significant barriers to financial success – lower-income individuals, women, people of color, immigrants and those who are formerly incarcerated. According to the 2019 Silicon Valley Index, as the technology sector continues to strengthen, the gap between the rich and the poor widens. The report points to the downsides of the area’s economy including exacerbated inequality, rising housing costs, transportation challenges, and a stifled market for competitors to break into. While the poverty rate in Silicon Valley (7 percent) remains low relative to the state and nation, 37 percent of students receive free or reduced-price meals. Ten percent of Silicon Valley residents lack consistent access to food that is nutritionally adequate. Thirty percent of Silicon Valley households rely on public or private, informal assistance in order to get by, and more than 57 percent of those headed by a Hispanic or Latino householder are not self-sufficient. In Redwood City the income inequality (measured using the Gini index) is 0.5, which is higher than the national average. Further 9.23% of the population live below the poverty line, a number that is higher than the Silicon Valley average of 7%. The largest demographic living in poverty in Redwood City are women. (Data Source - https://datausa.io/profile/geo/redwood-city-ca/) 13B. Assessment of Need - City of San Mateo: Briefly describe how you determined the need for your program for each specific jurisdiction that you are applying for funds. Identify target population(s) and area(s) served. Please state the source(s) and date(s) of information. Identify any similar programs in the community. As economic inequality in Silicon Valley grows at unprecedented rates, it is critical to provide opportunity to all residents, especially those who face significant barriers to financial success – lower-income individuals, women, people of color, immigrants and those who are formerly incarcerated. According to the 2019 Silicon Valley Index, as the technology sector continues to strengthen, the gap between the rich and the poor widens. The report points to the downsides of the area’s economy including exacerbated inequality, rising housing costs, transportation challenges, and a stifled market for competitors to break into. While the poverty rate in Silicon Valley (7 percent) remains low relative to the state and nation, 37 percent of students receive free or reduced-price meals. Ten percent of Silicon Valley residents lack consistent access to food that is nutritionally adequate. Thirty percent of Silicon Valley households rely on public or private, informal assistance in order to get by, and more than 57 percent of those headed by a Hispanic or Latino householder are not self-sufficient. In the City of San Mateo, 9.5% of residents had an income below the poverty level in 2017 with over 14% of Hispanic residents living below the level. (Data Source, www.city-data.com/poverty/poverty-San-Mateo-California.html) 13C. Assessment of Need - County of San Mateo: Briefly describe how you determined the need for your program for each specific jurisdiction that you are applying for funds. Identify target population(s) and area(s) served. Please state the source(s) and date(s) of information. Identify any similar programs in the community. As economic inequality in Silicon Valley grows at unprecedented rates, it is critical to provide opportunity to all residents, especially those who face significant barriers to financial success – lower-income individuals, women, people of color, immigrants and those who are formerly incarcerated. According to the 2019 Silicon Valley Index, as the technology sector continues to strengthen, the gap between the rich and the poor widens. The report points to the downsides of the area’s economy including exacerbated inequality, rising housing costs, transportation challenges, and a stifled market for competitors to break into. While the poverty rate in Silicon Valley (7 percent) remains low relative to the state and nation, 37 percent of students receive free or reduced-price meals. Ten percent of Silicon Valley residents lack consistent access to food that is nutritionally adequate. Thirty percent of Silicon Valley households rely on public or private, informal assistance in order to get by, and more than 57 percent of those headed by a Hispanic or Latino householder are not self-sufficient. The California Self-Sufficiency Standard measures the minimum income necessary to cover all of a family's basic expenses - housing, food, child care, health care, transportation, and taxes - without public or private assistance. San Mateo County has the highest percentage of single mothers (69%) below self-sufficiency in the Bay Area. Further the top-income families earn almost 15.8 time 13D. Assessment of Need - South San Francisco: Briefly describe how you determined the need for your 2/4/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8703&prop=69 3/7 program for each specific jurisdiction that you are applying for funds. Identify target population(s) and area(s) served. Please state the source(s) and date(s) of information. Identify any similar programs in the community. As economic inequality in Silicon Valley grows at unprecedented rates, it is critical to provide opportunity to all residents, especially those who face significant barriers to financial success – lower-income individuals, women, people of color, immigrants and those who are formerly incarcerated. According to the 2019 Silicon Valley Index, as the technology sector continues to strengthen, the gap between the rich and the poor widens. The report points to the downsides of the area’s economy including exacerbated inequality, rising housing costs, transportation challenges, and a stifled market for competitors to break into. While the poverty rate in Silicon Valley (7 percent) remains low relative to the state and nation, 37 percent of students receive free or reduced-price meals. Ten percent of Silicon Valley residents lack consistent access to food that is nutritionally adequate. Thirty percent of Silicon Valley households rely on public or private, informal assistance in order to get by, and more than 57 percent of those headed by a Hispanic or Latino householder are not self-sufficient. Further the income inequality in South San Francisco (measured using the Gini index) is 0.5, which is higher than the national average of 0.479 showing that wages are distributed less evenly in South San Francisco. The most common racial or ethnic group living below the poverty line in South San Francisco is Hispanic making up over 30% of all persons living below the poverty line. (Data 14. Timeline: Provide a brief timetable for project implementation and achievement of projected goals and how you plan to expend your funds in a timely manner by the end of the fiscal year. Q1: July-September 2020 Kick Start Your Own Business orientations with all programs on display Start Smart Business of Childcare Entrepreneur Marketplace Q2: October-December 2020 Business Prep Business of Childcare Technology Training Entrepreneur Marketplace Q3: January 2021-March 2021 Kick Start Your Own Business orientations with all programs on display Start Smart Business of Childcare Conduct Volunteer Income Tax Assistance (VITA) services Entrepreneur Marketplace Q4: April-June 2021 Business Prep Business of Childcare Technology Training Conduct Volunteer Income Tax Assistance (VITA) services 15. Evaluation: Briefly describe how you will determine and measure the success of your program and whether or not program goals were met? If your program is currently receiving grant funds please describe accomplishments of goals to date. Renaissance tracks both quantitative and qualitative outcomes to measure success. Each client entering Renaissance will complete an intake form to provide demographic information (ethnicity, age, marriage status, education completed etc.) along with his/her personal, household and, if in business, business income, and status of business, along with her/his goals for enrollment in Renaissance. This baseline information will be used to track client progress and changes in personal or business circumstances using Vista Share, a database designed for the Microenterprise Industry. We will continue our participation in EntrepreneurTracker, a national survey conducted by the Aspen Institute’s FIELD program, which evaluates clients one year after they receive 10 or more hours of service. The survey helps assess our programs based on clients’ needs, the quality of service delivery and client satisfaction. 16. Collaboration: Describe partnerships with other organizations/agencies, the nature of the partnership, and how it relates to the proposed project. Renaissance has strong relationships with community-serving organizations throughout San Mateo County. Renaissance partners with the Redwood City Public Library, Sobrato Center for NonProfits, and the Adult Schools in Daly City, San Mateo and Menlo Park to provide off-site trainings at their facilities and conduct outreach to community members. We also partner with Project WeHope to provide services for formerly incarcerated and homeless women and men, Nuestra Casa for financial literacy education, East Palo Alto/Belle Haven Chamber of Commerce for small business services, and the City of East Palo Alto to deliver our Entrepreneur Marketplaces. Renaissance Mid-Peninsula will also be partnering with the Small Business Development Center to offer 6 workshops in 2020 including Nuts & Bolts of Buying a Business, Ins & Outs to Selling Your Business – Succession Planning, Business Valuations, Small Business Startup Financing, Small Business Expansion Financing, and Food and Beverage. To provide social services to the community we collaborate with our partners in our Incubator including Baby Basics, CORA, Family Resource Center of San Mateo County, National Hepatitis and Education Center, The Primary School, and The Children’s Health Council. 17. Impact: : Discuss any general trends and conditions that have affected or impacted your service levels or service populations. For New Applicants – describe what these funds would allow your agency to do that you may 2/4/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8703&prop=69 4/7 not be able to do now. For Continuing Applicants – describe how your program would be impacted without these funds. CDBG support has enabled Renaissance Mid-Peninsula to serve 130 lower-income San Mateo County women and men who launched and grew 39 businesses and created 53 jobs for local residents, including the business owners themselves. Additional CDBG funding for South San Francisco will allow us to serve a greater number of low-income women and men in the jurisdiction. Without these funds, Renaissance Mid-Peninsula could not build upon the success of our programs or expand our effective off-site programs in new communities in San Mateo County. 18. Project Beneficiaries/Quantifiable Measurement: Indicate the expected number of beneficiaries to be served by the program. For each response below please indicate both the number of households and number of individuals. Refer to the San Mateo County Income Limits. a. Indicate the total number of low-income beneficiaries you expect to serve with this program for each jurisdiction application for funding. *Low-income is 80% of Area Median Income or below. See AMI table b. Indicate the total number of beneficiaries you expect to serve with this program in each jurisdiction - regardless of income. Jurisdiction a. Number of low-income beneficiaries to be served per grant jurisdiction application. **Low-income** is 80% of Area Median Income or below. b. All beneficiaries to be served per grant jurisdiction application regardless of income Persons Households Persons Households Daly City 40 40 40 40 Redwood City 60 60 60 60 City of San Mateo 40 40 40 40 County of San Mateo 80 80 80 80 South San Francisco 30 30 30 30 Totals 250 250 250 250 19. c. Micro-Enterprose Please complete the following table for your project: Jurisdiction Low Income Jobs Created Total Jobs Created # of New Businesses Assisted # of Existing Businesses Assisted Redwood City 27 27 6 12 City of San Mateo 18 18 4 8 County of San Mateo 23 23 6 9 South San Francisco 18 18 4 8 Totals 86 86 20 37 20. Populations Served: Check the boxes below if they describe a significant population served by your program. These categories are not considered "presumed benefit" by HUD, and require income verification. Persons exiting incarceration Low-income youth Other Spanish Speaking Women and Men 21. Affirmative Outreach: a. Use the demographics from your previous program year to provide an analysis of the population you serve relative to the demographics in the table. NOTE: If you are a new applicant please provide your best estimation. Race & Ethnicity Redwood City Population Redwood City % by Ethnicity Low Income by Ethnicity served by your Program Your Program % by Ethnicity Total 74,402 100%40 100% White and not Hispanic 40,656 54.64% 10 25.00% White and Hispanic 23,557 31.66% 13 32.50% Asian 6,715 9.03% 4 10.00% African American 1,916 2.58% 8 20.00% Pacific Islander 663 0.89% 1 2.50% Native American 384 0.52% 3 7.50% Other 1,511 2.03% 1 2.50% Race & Ethnicity City of San Mateo Population City of San Mateo % by Ethnicity Low Income by Ethnicity served by your Program Your Program % by Ethnicity Total 97,207 100%70 100% White and not Hispanic 45,240 46.54% 15 21.43% White and Hispanic 25,815 26.56% 21 30.00% Asian 18,153 18.67% 8 11.43% African American 2,099 2.16% 18 25.71% Pacific Islander 1,937 1.99% 2 2.86% 2/4/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8703&prop=69 5/7 Native American 140 0.14% 3 4.29% Other 3,823 3.93% 3 4.29% Race & Ethnicity South San Francisco Population South San Francisco % by Ethnicity Low Income by Ethnicity served by your Program Your Program % by Ethnicity Total 63,632 100%25 100% White and not Hispanic 23,760 37.34% 6 24.00% White and Hispanic 21,645 34.02% 6 24.00% Asian 23,293 36.61% 5 20.00% African American 1,625 2.55% 5 20.00% Pacific Islander 1,111 1.75% 1 4.00% Native American 395 0.62% 0 0.00% Other 9,598 15.08% 2 8.00% b. Based on the percentages that you indicate your organization served describe your efforts to improve affirmative outreach to groups that may be underserved by your program and the result of your efforts: Renaissance targets our outreach efforts in all jurisdictions of San Mateo County to reach low income English- and Spanish-speaking women and men, persons of color, formerly incarcerated persons, and immigrants. Renaissance works in partnership with Community Legal Services of East Palo Alto (CLSEPA) to offer legal support services; Nuestra Casa, Community Financial Resources (CFR), San Mateo Credit Union, and Project WeHope to deliver Secure Futures/Futuros Seguros and to provide entrepreneurship, training to formerly incarcerated persons through our joint Dignity@Work program; East Palo Alto/Belle Haven Chamber of Commerce for small business services, and the City of East Palo Alto to deliver our Entrepreneur Marketplaces. We work with our partners to distribute program and promotional materials, make in-person presentations, participate in networking events, table at community gatherings and hold trainings. We also use English- and Spanish-language television, radio and print media, outreach through our network of San Mateo county graduate businesses and distribute materials in strategic locations including ESL programs, churches, and community centers. Our website provides information on our programs in English and Spanish, including course descriptions, a schedule of classes and intake forms. 22. Leveraging: Describe your fundraising efforts and additional sources of revenue for this project and your organization. Please state whether any of these fund sources are already committed and in what amount. Renaissance actively strives to maintain and deepen our long-term partnerships with local government entities, corporations, foundations, and community organizations. Organizationally, Renaissance has a diverse funding base: 38% government; 20% corporations; 19% foundations; 14% earned income; and 9% individuals. We will continue to maintain close relationships with our existing funders, while continually seeking new partners to ensure sustainability and support our programs on behalf of lower-income entrepreneurial women and men. Committed supporters for this program include: • City of East Palo Alto - $50,000 • BBVA Compass - $3,000 • Chan Zuckerberg Initiative (CZI) - $85,000 • Saga Foundation - $25,000 • State Farm - $35,000 • United Way - $6,600 • Wells Fargo - $15,000 • Atkinson Foundation - $5,000 • Friedman Family Foundation - $10,000 • Palo Alto Community Fund - $7,500 • Silicon Valley Community Foundation: Anonymous Donor Advised Fund - $50,000 In addition, Renaissance Mid-Peninsula also earns $35,000 from incubator tenancy and business support services as well as low cost program service fees. Staff List List below key staff members who work on this program Position Title Name of Staff Person Job Responsibilities Qualifications CEO Sharon Miller Oversees all agency operations.Over 20 years experience leading Renaissance MidPen Director Tim Russell Oversees all of MidPen's program and services Over 8 years of experience directing programs MIdPen Program Manager Crystal Rasmussen Manages the day to day program operations. Over 3 years of experience managing programs MidPen Program Associate Scarlett Velasquez Coordinates and supports program activities. Over 2 years experience coordinating programs PROPOSED PROGRAM BUDGET FOR FY 2020-21 Redwood City City of San Mateo County of San Mateo South San Francisco Total Jurisdictions Budget Line Item Agency Pgm%Program %Requested %Requested %Requested %Requested Pgm%Requested 2/4/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8703&prop=69 6/7 Total Total Labor CEO $150,000 5% $7,500 19% $1,400 0% $0 40% $3,000 0% $0 59%$4,400 Finance Director $90,000 5% $4,500 22% $1,000 22% $1,000 22% $1,000 22% $1,000 89%$4,000 Program Director $90,000 100% $90,000 8% $7,500 6% $5,000 8% $7,000 7% $6,000 28%$25,500 Program Manager $55,000 100% $55,000 15% $8,200 11% $6,200 11% $6,200 9% $4,700 46%$25,300 Program Coordinator $40,000 100% $40,000 14% $5,500 9% $3,500 14% $5,500 6% $2,200 42%$16,700 Accounting Manager $75,000 5% $3,700 22% $800 22% $800 22% $800 22% $800 86%$3,200 Data and Evaluation Coordinator $55,000 22% $12,000 25% $3,000 17% $2,000 33% $4,000 17% $2,000 92%$11,000 $0 Taxes/Benefits $380,000 12%$45,000 13% $6,000 13% $6,000 11% $5,000 4% $2,000 42%$19,000 Supplies Consultants and Instructors $678,000 15% $100,000 11% $11,000 8% $8,500 9% $9,000 5% $5,000 34%$33,500 Materials Program Materials $30,000 27% $8,000 38% $3,000 12% $1,000 19% $1,500 6% $500 75%$6,000 Operations/Maintenance Facilities $50,000 10% $5,000 16% $800 4% $200 10% $500 4% $200 34%$1,700 Travel $15,000 20% $3,000 27% $800 17% $500 17% $500 13% $400 73%$2,200 Administration $40,000 8%$3,000 33% $1,000 10% $300 33% $1,000 7% $200 83% $2,500 TOTAL $1,748,000 22%$376,700 13%$50,000 9%$35,000 12%$45,000 7%$25,000 41%$155,000 Number of Individual Beneficiaries 60 40 80 30 210 Cost per Individual $833.33 $875.00 $562.50 $833.33 $738.10 For the City of Redwood City ONLY, answer the following: 1. Funding Criteria: 5. Economic Development: Job creation and intervention programs that create actual jobs for low income residents. 2. Marketing/Advertising a. Check all of the following methods your agency utilizes to promote and advertise your programs and services: Flyers/brochures Website Outreach presentations to service providers Outreach presentations to public b. Which of the above marketing/advertising materials are available in multi-langual form and which languages are they available in? All of the above marketing/advertising materials are available in both English and Spanish. c. How and where are the materials distributed? We work with our partners to distribute program and promotional materials, make in-person presentations, participate in networking events, table at community gatherings and hold trainings. As previously mentioned, we also use English- and Spanish-language television, radio and print media, outreach through our network of San Mateo county graduate businesses and distribute materials in strategic locations including ESL programs, churches, and community centers. 3. Program Outcomes: a. Please describe the accomplishments of program goals for FY/19. Renaissance Mid-Peninsula delivered comprehensive English and Spanish language small business, financial, and empowerment training, consulting, skills building, incubation, and support services for 130 low income San Mateo County women and men. Our clients in turn launched and grew 39 businesses, creating and retaining 53 jobs for local residents, including the business owners themselves. In addition, Renaissance Mid-Peninsula accomplished the following during FY 18/19: ● 76 formerly incarcerated persons in our Dignity@Work Program participated in Secure Futures/Futuros Seguro our financial education and coaching training, with 35 clients increasing their monthly savings by $25. ● Hosted 3 Entrepreneur Marketplaces providing 22 small business owners with the opportunity to reach new clients, make sales and receive training in marketing, merchandising, client engagement and online payment processing. ● Served 217 low-income residents with tax advice, guidance, and support in completing and submitting tax forms and accessing their Earned Income Tax Credits through our Volunteer Income Tax Assistance (VITA) site. 2/4/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8703&prop=69 7/7 ● Held our 2019 Passion to Profit Conference at Facebook with over 125 attendees. b. In what ways has your program made a difference in the lives of the people you serve? Please provide at least one concrete example from the people served in FY/19: The program has made a big impact in the lives of Camile and Daniel Chijate, a couple who both worked at Hobee’s restaurants for 28 years. Camile worked as Vice President and Area Manager, and Daniel as Kitchen Manager. Both Camile and Daniel had a deep desire to purchase Hobee’s and fulfill their dream of owning and operating a restaurant of their own. As a result, the couple enrolled in Renaissance’s 4-Week Start Smart course that focuses on the entrepreneurial mindset and creating a lean business model canvas. Upon completion of the introductory course, Camile and Daniel enrolled in Business Prep, a 9-week class focused on developing a comprehensive business plan where they developed a visual definition which helped them realize their dream of purchasing and operating a restaurant chain. Thanks to Renaissance Mid-Peninsula they are now the proud owners of Hobee’s Restaurants. They continue to utilize Renaissance’s resources and recently completed the Online Digital Presence series in September 2019. Renaissance honored Camile and Daniel Chijate in 2019 at our annual event, Small Business Big Impact, with the Established Entrepreneur Award. At the event, they commented on the experience in working with Renaissance. “We feel very lucky to be in a place where there are resources for people who are willing to learn, work hard and dream. We tell everyone that asks us that our journey began at Renaissance, and we can't thank Renaissance enough!” As the owners of Hobee’s Attachments 1. Resolution authorizing application and designation of signatory, by the Board of Directors Resolution_of_the_Board_of_Directors.pdf 2. Proof of 501(c)3 / tax-exempt status Renaissance_IRS_Determination_Letter.pdf 3. By-laws By-Laws.pdf 4. Articles of Incorporation Renaissance_Articles_of_Incorporation.pdf 5. Board roster, including: Name, Company, Years on Board Meeting dates for previous 12 months Number of years allowed for each board term Board_Roster.pdf 6. Organizational chart for entire organization Org_Chart_January_2020.pdf 7. Certified financial audit no more that 1 fiscal year old, prepared by a CPA, and: Management letters (if applicable) A-122 and A-133 Single Audit (for entities that receive more than $500,000 in federal funding) OR A letter from your Executive Director or Chief Financial Officer certifying that agency does not receive more than $500,000 in federal funds and is not subject to the Single Audit. Renaissance_2018_Audited_Financial_Statements.pdf 8. The following are required: Current (FY19-20) Agency Operating Budget Proposed (FY20-21) Agency Operating Budget 2019_Budget_to_Actuals_-_December_- _Agency_Wide.pdf 2020_Agency_Financials.pdf MidPen_2020_Budget_Summary.pdf 9. Mission Statement Mission_Statement.pdf 10. Non-discrimination policy for Staff and Clients Non_Discrimination_Policy.pdf 11. Reasonable Accommodations Policy for Staff and Clients Reasonable_Accommodations_Policy.pdf 12. Conflict of Interest Policy. (If not available, please indicate when you will submit) Conflict_of_Interest_Policy.pdf 13. Other - Download All Attachments Program Manager Signature Sharon Miller Date Signed 01/16/2020 Initially submitted: Jan 16, 2020 - 15:51:38 1/28/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8582&prop=52 1/8 Consolidated Community Funding Application Redwood City, San Mateo County, and S. San Francisco Application for New Funding for FY 2020-21 GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Organization Name: Samaritan House 2. Project Title: Safe Harbor We are applying for funding from: Redwood City City of San Mateo South San Francisco County of San Mateo Budget/Client Summary (Auto-populated from Budget, below) Jurisdictions receiving this application Amount Requested % of Program Budget Proposed # of Served % of Served Total $ Per Redwood City $17,000 1% 40 30% $425.00 South San Francisco $16,000 1% 92 70% $173.91 Total $33,000 2% 132 100% $250.00 Grant Funded Programs: We are applying for a Public Services Program CDBG National Objective Eligibility - How are you serving low income populations? Service to "presumed benefit" groups listed below (income verification not required, but verification of presumed benefit status is required): Abused children Homeless persons Victims of domestic violence Illiterate adults Elderly persons/seniors (age 62+) Persons living with AIDS Severely disabled adults Migrant farm workers Income Verification: Describe how you obtain, verify, and maintain proof of income and presumed benefit status. Third party documentation or client signatures on the certification forms must be available on file for review at all times. Homeless persons who are extremely low income are a presumed benefit population in San Mateo County. All homeless clients served by safe Harbor are extremely low to very low income, and Samaritan House has a strict application and verification process to document eligibility based on household income. To verify income data, Safe Harbor staff obtains and reviews copies of pay stubs for employed clients and obtains and reviews check stubs for Social security, General Assistance and other forms of income. For client homeless certification, intake Staff verifies presumed benefit status utilizing a County form that is also utilized by the housing authority. This third party documentation is available on file for review at all times. 3. Project Address: 295 North Access Road City: South San Francisco Zip: 94080- 6097 4. Provide a one sentence project summary: Safe Harbor provides emergency and transitional shelter for homeless adults over age 18 in San Mateo County. Organization Address: 4031 Pacific Blvd.City: San Mateo Zip: 94403- 4666 Organization Phone: 650-341-4081 Website: www.samaritanhousesanmateo.org Type of Applicant: Non-Profit Our agency serves: 5. Contact Person / Project Administrator: Name: Laura Bent/Tiffany Hayes Title: Chief Operating Officer; Grants Manager Telephone: 650-523- 0824 Contact Email: laura@samaritanhousesanmateo.org;tiffany@samaritanhousesanmateo.org Fax: 6. Name of Agency Director: Bart Charlow 1/28/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8582&prop=52 2/8 7. Fiscal Officer:Name: Jolie Bou Email: jbou@samaritanhousesanmateo.org Telephone: 650-523- 0810 Fiscal Officer Address: 4031 Pacific Blvd City: San Mateo Zip: 94403- 4666 8. Authorized Signatory:Name: Bart Charlow Email: bart@samaritanhousesanmateo.org Telephone: 650-523- 0812 Authorized Signatory Address: 4031 Pacific Blvd City: San Mateo Zip: 94403- 4666 9. Please provide days and hours of regularly scheduled operation: Safe Harbor is open 7 days per week, 24 hours per day. 10. DUNS Number: 884486341 Federal EIN/TIN Number: 237416272 11. HUD Activity: Choose the HUD activity that most closely matches your service: Choose 12. Project Specific Narrative: Provide a narrative description of the specific activities to be carried out with the requested funds. This should also include program objectives and key priorities for each specific jurisdiction. Safe Harbor is a 90 bed homeless shelter located in South San Francisco that provides both emergency and transitional housing for homeless women and men 18 years and older from San Mateo County. As the County’s only shelter where people who are homeless and under the influence have access to the shelter without a sobriety requirement, Safe Harbor houses clients that are among the County’s most vulnerable, many who are dually diagnosed with both addiction and mental health disorder or addiction and physical health disorder. Each day, 90 people receive safe and warm shelter at Safe Harbor, as well as nutritious meals, on-site case management, counseling, educational programming, daily transportation vouchers, access to benefits enrollment and other supportive services. The program utilizes a tiered case management model that is carried out by our dedicated case management and intake team. Case managers act as advocates, connecting residents with much needed community services, including referrals to housing, mental health, AOD and employment resources. Project outcomes include: OUTCOME 1: The shelter will be at full capacity 95% of the time. OUTCOME 2: 60% of Safe Harbor clients will move into permanent, transitional or supportive housing. OUTCOME 3: 75% of clients identified as having mental health needs will receive referrals to mental health services. OUTCOME 4: 75% of clients identified as having substance abuse issues will receive referrals to AOD's. 13A. Assessment of Need - Redwood City: Briefly describe how you determined the need for your program for each specific jurisdiction that you are applying for funds. Identify target population(s) and area(s) served. Please state the source(s) and date(s) of information. Identify any similar programs in the community. As the average rent for an apartment in Redwood City reaches record highs ($3,254 in December 2019, rentjungle.com), high unemployment among our target population and rising rents continue to be a factor in the rate of homelessness. The lack of affordable housing in the County is a formidable obstacle that is increasingly preventing our homeless clients from locating permanent housing. The county’s housing crisis is impacting a diverse set of populations, and many of our newly homeless are seniors and younger people. Over 50% of our clients are new clients who are staying at Safe Harbor for the first time. This influx of new clients is due in part to new client referrals and more effective collaboration between local Police Departments, HOT team outreach workers, and homeless services providers that have been effective in reaching the homeless who have been living on city streets. Safe Harbor serves homeless adults over 18 years of age from San Mateo County. The majority of homeless clients served by Safe Harbor are extremely low income. In the North County there are no other homeless shelters. There are motel voucher programs through LifeMoves; transitional housing through Caminar; and transitional housing for those with substance abuse issues through CatholicCharities and the Latino Commission. Safe Harbor is unique in the County because we accept homeless individuals under the influence unless they are a danger to themselves or others. 13B. Assessment of Need - South San Francisco: Briefly describe how you determined the need for your program for each specific jurisdiction that you are applying for funds. Identify target population(s) and area(s) served. Please state the source(s) and date(s) of information. Identify any similar programs in the community. As the average rent for an apartment in South San Francisco reaches record highs ($3,353 in December 2019, rentjungle.com), high unemployment among our target population and rising rents continue to be a factor in the rate of homelessness. The lack of affordable housing throughout the County is a formidable obstacle that is increasingly preventing our homeless clients from locating permanent housing. The county’s housing crisis is impacting a diverse set of populations, and many of our newly homeless are seniors and younger people. Over 50% of our clients are new clients who are staying at Safe Harbor for the first time. This 1/28/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8582&prop=52 3/8 influx of new clients is due in part to new client referrals and more effective collaboration between local Police Departments, HOT team outreach workers, and homeless services providers that have been effective in reaching the homeless who have been living on city streets. Safe Harbor serves homeless adults over 18 years of age from San Mateo County. The majority of homeless clients served by Safe Harbor are extremely low income. In the North County there are no other homeless shelters. There are motel voucher programs through LifeMoves; transitional housing through Caminar; and transitional housing for those with substance abuse issues through Catholic Charities and the Latino Commission. Safe Harbor is unique in the County because we accept homeless individuals under the influence unless they are a danger to themselves or others. 14. Timeline: Provide a brief timetable for project implementation and achievement of projected goals and how you plan to expend your funds in a timely manner by the end of the fiscal year. Safe Harbor is an ongoing, continuing program, open to San Mateo County’s homeless population, 24 hours a day, 7 days per week. Therefore, we do not foresee any obstacles to implementing our project work plan as described, fully achieving our projected goals, and fully expending our contracted funds by the end of the fiscal year ending June 30, 2021. 15. Evaluation: Briefly describe how you will determine and measure the success of your program and whether or not program goals were met? If your program is currently receiving grant funds please describe accomplishments of goals to date. Samaritan House utilizes a mix of process and outcome evaluation strategies to capture meaningful objectives and outcomes for our various programs, including Safe Harbor. In addition to utilizing required external funder-driven databases, we currently maintain internal databases to track and provide information about all of our clients and services. Safe Harbor complies with all data collection and reporting requirements required by our funders. The Shelter uses Clarity Plus for capturing and managing client data, and keeps case management files. Safe Harbor serves homeless adults from across San Mateo County. In FY2019, we provided services for over 500 unduplicated homeless adults. Evaluation results are used in ongoing review and revision of program delivery, and recommendations formulated as a result of evaluation efforts are incorporated into the program planning process. We continue to adapt and modify our services in order to more effectively meet our clients' needs and expectations. We share evaluation results and lessons learned with our executive team, board, and funders, as required through regular program reports. Accomplishments to date include: exceeded mid-year contract outcomes for the City of Redwood City and the City of South San Francisco. 16. Collaboration: Describe partnerships with other organizations/agencies, the nature of the partnership, and how it relates to the proposed project. To effectively work with the most challenging homeless population in the County, Samaritan House leverages its resources and ensures timely and relevant services for its clients through close collaborations with local nonprofits and government agencies. Some of our many collaborations include: --Transportation for shelter clients provided by SamTrans. --Nutritious meals served at the shelter provided by the Samaritan House Food Program in partnership with Second Harvest of Silicon Valley. --Formal collaborative work with County SEAL team to expedite application process for SSDI and SSI benefits. --On site dental services provided bi-weekly by the County Mobile Dental Van. --Employment resources at Peninsula Works. --Basic healthcare provided twice a week onsite through the County Public Health Clinic. --Basic mental healthcare provided weekly onsite through County Behavioral Health Services. -- Project Sentinel provides advocacy around housing discrimination for homeless and low-income tenants who face discrimination and rental issues such as repairs, privacy, deposits and rental disputes. --HealthRight 360, an integrated care organization, provides mental health and substance use disorder treatment in an outpatient setting in San Mateo, and offers free individual and group counseling for the low-income. These are only a few of the many collaborations and partnerships in place to support the ongoing needs of homeless residents. 17. Impact: : Discuss any general trends and conditions that have affected or impacted your service levels or service populations. For New Applicants – describe what these funds would allow your agency to do that you may not be able to do now. For Continuing Applicants – describe how your program would be impacted without these funds. Safe Harbor houses San Mateo County's most difficult to serve homeless population who have multiple barriers to self-sufficiency, including fixed income due to age or disability, poor general health and low education levels. The rising cost of area rents and the increasing lack of affordable housing have severely impacted the ability of our clients to achieve permanent housing placements. While we continue to identify and successfully place clients into nontraditional housing options, including HIP Housing’s Homesharing Program, and successfully help clients attain housing vouchers, fewer landlords countywide are accepting housing vouchers, which is impacting the availability of affordable housing for our clients. This dearth is due to high base rates for rentals, resulting in large gaps between base rents and fair market rent. 1/28/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8582&prop=52 4/8 Given the economic trends that adversely affect our service population, our program would be tremendously affected by any loss or decrease in CDBG funds that are an integral part of Safe Harbor’s budget. Without these funds, we cannot assure the same level of service we have historically provided to all of the County’s homeless adults seeking our help. In response to the ongoing housing crisis, Samaritan House actively participates in the County's efforts to end homelessness, and we continue to advocate for our clients at various forums led by housing advocacy groups, agencies, & legislators. 18. Project Beneficiaries/Quantifiable Measurement: Indicate the expected number of beneficiaries to be served by the program. For each response below please indicate both the number of households and number of individuals. Refer to the San Mateo County Income Limits. a. Indicate the total number of low-income beneficiaries you expect to serve with this program for each jurisdiction application for funding. *Low-income is 80% of Area Median Income or below. See AMI table b. Indicate the total number of beneficiaries you expect to serve with this program in each jurisdiction - regardless of income. Jurisdiction a. Number of low-income beneficiaries to be served per grant jurisdiction application. **Low-income** is 80% of Area Median Income or below. b. All beneficiaries to be served per grant jurisdiction application regardless of income Persons Households Persons Households Daly City Redwood City 40 40 City of San Mateo County of San Mateo 0 0 South San Francisco 92 92 Totals 132 0 132 0 19. Populations Served: Check the boxes below if they describe a significant population served by your program. These categories are not considered "presumed benefit" by HUD, and require income verification. Persons exiting incarceration Low-income youth Other 20. Affirmative Outreach: a. Use the demographics from your previous program year to provide an analysis of the population you serve relative to the demographics in the table. NOTE: If you are a new applicant please provide your best estimation. Race & Ethnicity Redwood City Population Redwood City % by Ethnicity Low Income by Ethnicity served by your Program Your Program % by Ethnicity Total 74,402 100%128 100% White and not Hispanic 40,656 54.64% 57 44.53% White and Hispanic 23,557 31.66% 23 17.97% Asian 6,715 9.03% 4 3.13% African American 1,916 2.58% 31 24.22% Pacific Islander 663 0.89% 7 5.47% Native American 384 0.52% 5 3.91% Other 1,511 2.03% 1 0.78% Race & Ethnicity South San Francisco Population South San Francisco % by Ethnicity Low Income by Ethnicity served by your Program Your Program % by Ethnicity Total 63,632 100%336 100% White and not Hispanic 23,760 37.34% 123 36.61% White and Hispanic 21,645 34.02% 55 16.37% Asian 23,293 36.61% 27 8.04% African American 1,625 2.55% 92 27.38% Pacific Islander 1,111 1.75% 23 6.85% Native American 395 0.62% 15 4.46% Other 9,598 15.08% 1 0.30% b. Based on the percentages that you indicate your organization served describe your efforts to improve affirmative outreach to groups that may be underserved by your program and the result of your efforts: In existence since 1974, Samaritan House bolsters its accessibility by regularly: • Providing local agencies with information about its services in both English and Spanish; • Securing opportunities for stories in local English and Spanish language newspapers and other media; • Securing opportunities to speak to local service organizations (i.e., Rotary, Lion’s) • Participating in local community celebrations/fairs; 1/28/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8582&prop=52 5/8 • Reaching out to agencies outside the mainstream of “Safety Net Services”; and • Reaching out to bilingual service providers to establish cross-referral relationships. 21. Leveraging: Describe your fundraising efforts and additional sources of revenue for this project and your organization. Please state whether any of these fund sources are already committed and in what amount. Samaritan House’s Development Department raises grant funding from foundations, corporations, and government entities; forges partnerships with local businesses and community groups; holds fundraising events; cultivates donors in the community; and conducts large scale direct mail appeals to support the agency’s operations. Besides CDBG funds from the City of Redwood City ($17,000), City of South San Francisco ($10,200) and County of San Mateo, Samaritan House receives government funding from FEMA Emergency Food and Shelter Program ($36,400); City of Burlingame ($4,410); City of San Mateo ($15,000); San Mateo Medical Center Healthcare for the Homeless Program ($71,820), County of San Mateo BHRS ($93,724), and County of San Mateo General Funds ($810,250). We also receive private support for Safe Harbor from foundations such as The Carl Gellert & Celia Berta Gellert Foundation, Kaiser Permanente Foundation, and other family foundations. Staff List List below key staff members who work on this program Position Title Name of Staff Person Job Responsibilities Qualifications Associate Director Anje Rodriguez Responsible for the management, administration and supervision of staff associated with intake and assessment, client services, programming, facility and data operations. 13 years experience at Samaritan House. GED. Some college, AOD Studies. Prior experience with shelter programming and services. Case Manager & Community Liaison Eric Brown Provides assessment, case plan development and referral for homeless residents, serves as community liasion. 14 years experience at Samaritan House. GED. Some college, Human Services. Prior experience with shelter programming and services. Case Manager Bridgette Jones Provides assessment, case plan development, life skills programming and referral for homeless residents. 3 years experience at Samaritan House. 8 years experience customer service. Shelter Programming Coordinator & Case Manager Joran Seastrunk Provides assessment, case plan development and referral for homeless residents, coordinates life skills programming for shelter residents, and manages marketing and communications for the shelter. 8 years experience at Samaritan House. Prior experience working at Drug & Rehab, Family Shelter & Homeless Veterans. Shelter Case Manager Telia Wells Provides assessment, case place development, and referral for homeless residents who have been identified with mental health issues. 2 years experience at Samaritan House. BA and MSW. 6 years experience in social work. Intake Coordinator Ashlirae Scott Manages the day to day intake and orientation process. Supports shelter processes of entrance and exits and management of documents to support case management. Manages front desk operations, such as laundry, bed assignments, client concerns/complaints, referral process. 1 years experience at Samaritan House. HS Diploma. Some college. Prior experience with shelter programming and services. Program Aide Gerald Winston Coordinates the orderly operation of Safe Harbor Shelter and facilitates the delivery of shelter services to clients. This positions also works with vendors and community support services to support client needs. 13 years experience at Samaritan House. H.S. Diploma. Some college. 19 years' experience in counseling and AOD services. Program Aide Juan Rico Coordinates the orderly operation of Safe Harbor Shelter and facilitates the delivery of shelter services to clients. This positions also works with vendors and community support services to support client needs. 13 years experience at Samaritan House. 17 years' work experience. HS Diploma. Program Aide Gary Mason Coordinates the orderly operation of Safe Harbor Shelter and facilitates the delivery of shelter services to clients. This positions also works with vendors and community support services to support client needs. 17 years experience at Samaritan House. HS Diploma 1/28/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8582&prop=52 6/8 PROPOSED PROGRAM BUDGET FOR FY 2020-21 Redwood City South San Francisco Total Jurisdictions Budget Line Item Agency Total Pgm%Program Total %Requested %Requested Pgm%Requested Labor Case Manager EB $61,903 100% $61,903 27% $17,000 26% $16,000 53%$33,000 Other Staffing $5,458,126 15% $825,245 0% 0% 0%$0 $0 Taxes/Benefits $1,245,382 19%$233,821 0% 0% 0%$0 Supplies Office Supplies $97,778 4% $4,120 0% 0% 0%$0 Program Supplies $460,523 30% $140,338 0% 0% 0%$0 Operations/Maintenance Client Financial Assistance $970,000 0% 0% 0% 0%$0 Occupancy $634,513 2% $11,274 0% 0% 0%$0 Utilities/Communications $473,148 4% $19,662 0% 0% 0%$0 Housekeeping $134,009 12% $16,480 0% 0% 0%$0 Professional Fees $585,387 13% $75,160 0% 0% 0%$0 Transportation & Conf $136,141 8% $11,073 0% 0% 0%$0 Fees and Taxes $31,919 2% $515 0% 0% 0%$0 Equip Rental $43,873 5% $2,225 0% 0% 0%$0 In-Kind $4,298,680 6% $269,345 0% 0% 0%$0 Insur, Outside Serv $87,653 28% $24,689 0% 0% 0%$0 Administration $0 0% $0 TOTAL $14,719,035 12%$1,695,850 1%$17,000 1%$16,000 2%$33,000 Number of Individual Beneficiaries 40 92 132 Cost per Individual $425.00 $173.91 $250.00 For the City of Redwood City ONLY, answer the following: 1. Funding Criteria: 2. Homeless Assistance Activities: Provision of fair housing counseling services, provision of legal intervention to prevent homelessness, provision of operation funds for shared housing, emergency shelter and transitional housing and related services for homeless and those at risk of homelessness, youth and single persons. 2. Marketing/Advertising a. Check all of the following methods your agency utilizes to promote and advertise your programs and services: Flyers/brochures Website Phone book listing CIP (Handbook/Database) Outreach presentations to service providers Outreach presentations to public PSA’s b. Which of the above marketing/advertising materials are available in multi-langual form and which languages are they available in? Samaritan House makes every attempt to market its program services in multi-lingual formats by: --Providing local agencies with information about our services (program flyers are available in both English and Spanish); --Reaching out to bilingual service providers to establish cross-referral relationships. c. How and where are the materials distributed? Marketing/advertising materials are generally distributed through City programs, Core Service agencies, and the County. 3. Program Outcomes: a. Please describe the accomplishments of program goals for FY/19. 1/28/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8582&prop=52 7/8 Safe Harbor is Samaritan House’s year-round shelter that provides emergency and transitional housing services for the homeless population of San Mateo County. Safe Harbor’s primary purpose is to provide warmth, shelter, nutrition and access to supportive services to homeless individuals in a compassionate manner to meet their basic needs. Our outcomes for FY18-19 were as follows: OUTCOME 1: The shelter was at full capacity 98% of the time. OUTCOME 2: 55% of Safe Harbor transitional clients moved int o moved into permanent, transitional or supportive housing. 24% of Safe Harbor emergency clients moved into permanent transitional or supportive housing. OUTCOME 3: 100% of clients identified as having mental health needs received referrals to mental health services. OUTCOME 4: 100% of clients identified as having substance abuse issues received referrals to AOD services. b. In what ways has your program made a difference in the lives of the people you serve? Please provide at least one concrete example from the people served in FY/19: The following client story demonstrates the impact that Safe Harbor has made in the life of just one recent resident of the shelter. Karen, a resident of Redwood City was referred to Safe Harbor shelter along with her adult daughter who has been diagnosed with schizophrenia. Karen is physically disabled and unable to sustain employment due to her medical problems stemming from rheumatoid arthritis. She hopes to be approved for Social Security Disability Income (SSDI) and is receiving General Assistance and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Prior to her referral to Safe Harbor shelter, Karen was assessed for various housing programs that are offered by San Mateo County’s Human Services Agency in collaboration with other agencies such as LifeMoves, Abode Services, and the Housing Authority of San Mateo County. Each agency offers housing programs such as housing vouchers and other types of housing assistance, including, but not limited, to rental assistance, housing locator services, and case management. Karen and her daughter have been selected to receive services with Abode Services’ Rapid Re-Housing program. This program will offer housing locator services and rental assistance once they secure permanent housing. Attachments 1. Resolution authorizing application and designation of signatory, by the Board of Directors Safe_Harbor_CDBG_Board_Resolution_Pending_012320.pdf 2. Proof of 501(c)3 / tax-exempt status IRS_501c3_Determination_Letter_NEW.pdf 3. By-laws SH_Bylaws_approved_032615amended_092216.pdf 4. Articles of Incorporation Samaritan_House_Articles_of_Incorporation.pdf 5. Board roster, including: Name, Company, Years on Board Meeting dates for previous 12 months Number of years allowed for each board term Samaritan_House_Board_Roster_FY19-20.pdf 6. Organizational chart for entire organization Samaritan_House_Organization_Chart__2019-20.pdf 7. Certified financial audit no more that 1 fiscal year old, prepared by a CPA, and: Management letters (if applicable) A-122 and A-133 Single Audit (for entities that receive more than $500,000 in federal funding) OR A letter from your Executive Director or Chief Financial Officer certifying that agency does not receive more than $500,000 in federal funds and is not subject to the Single Audit. Samaritan_House_FYE19_Audit.pdf 8. The following are required: Current (FY19-20) Agency Operating Budget Proposed (FY20-21) Agency Operating Budget Samaritan_House_Total_Agency_FY20_Operating_Budget.pdf Samaritan_House_Total_Agency_Projected_FY21_Budget.pdf 9. Mission Statement Samaritan_House_Mission_Statement.doc 10. Non-discrimination policy for Staff and Clients Samaritan_House_Non-Discrimination_Policy.doc 11. Reasonable Accommodations Policy for Staff and Clients Samaritan_House_Reasonable_Accommodations_Policy.doc 1/28/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8582&prop=52 8/8 12. Conflict of Interest Policy. (If not available, please indicate when you will submit) Conflict_of_Interest_Policy.docx 13. Other - Download All Attachments Program Manager Signature Tiffany Hayes Date Signed 01/16/2020 Initially submitted: Jan 16, 2020 - 16:26:24 1/28/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8706&prop=1087 1/5 Consolidated Community Funding Application Redwood City, San Mateo County, and S. San Francisco Application for New Funding for FY 2020-21 GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Organization Name: StarVista 2. Project Title: Transitional Housing Placement Plus We are applying for funding from: Redwood City City of San Mateo South San Francisco County of San Mateo Budget/Client Summary (Auto-populated from Budget, below) Jurisdictions receiving this application Amount Requested % of Program Budget Proposed # of Served % of Served Total $ Per South San Francisco $11,000 3% 13 100% $846.15 Total $11,000 3% 13 100% $846.15 Grant Funded Programs: We are applying for a Public Services Program CDBG National Objective Eligibility - How are you serving low income populations? Service to "presumed benefit" groups listed below (income verification not required, but verification of presumed benefit status is required): Abused children Homeless persons Victims of domestic violence Illiterate adults Elderly persons/seniors (age 62+) Persons living with AIDS Severely disabled adults Migrant farm workers Income Verification: Describe how you obtain, verify, and maintain proof of income and presumed benefit status. Third party documentation or client signatures on the certification forms must be available on file for review at all times. Upon entry into the THP+ Program, clients must provide proof of their status as a former foster youth. Youth typically learn of the program at their AB-12 transition out of foster care meeting or will often times self-refer. A qualifying program requirement is that youth complete 30 hours of productivity per week. This may include school enrollment, employment, and/or mental health services. 3. Project Address: 701 Grand Ave City: South San Francisco Zip: 94080-2553 4. Provide a one sentence project summary: StarVista’s Transitional Housing Placement Plus program provides subsidized apartments in South San Francisco and case management services for emancipated foster youth aged 18-24, in addition to essential life skills training and assistance finding employment or attending school. Organization Address: 610 Elm Street Suite 212 City: San Carlos Zip: 94070-3070 Organization Phone: 650-591-9623 Website: www.star- vista.org Type of Applicant: Non-Profit Our agency serves: 5. Contact Person / Project Administrator: Name: Melissa Guariglia; Stephanie Black Title: Interim Department Director; Grants Manager Telephone: 650-591-9623 Contact Email: melissa.guariglia@star- vista.org; stephanie.black@star-vista.org Fax: 650-591-9750 6. Name of Agency Director: Sara Larios Mitchell, Ph.D. 7. Fiscal Officer:Name: Dianette Washer & Jill Kingery, AR Director Email: dwasher@star- vista.org; jill.kingery@star- vista.org Telephone: 6505919623 Fiscal Officer 610 Elm Street, Suite 212 City: San Carlos Zip: 94070 1/28/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8706&prop=1087 2/5 Address: 8. Authorized Signatory: Name: Sara Larios Mitchell, Ph.D. Email: smitchell@star- vista.org Telephone: 650-591-9623 Authorized Signatory Address: 610 Elm Street City: San Carlos Zip: 94070 9. Please provide days and hours of regularly scheduled operation: Apartments are available to residents 24/7. Staff are typically on-site (hours/days may vary): Monday: 10pm-8am Tuesday: 10pm-8am Thursday: 10pm-8am Friday: 10pm-8am Saturday: 10pm-8am 10. DUNS Number: 165376799 Federal EIN/TIN Number: 94-3094966 11. HUD Activity: Choose the HUD activity that most closely matches your service: 05D - Youth Services 12. Project Specific Narrative: Provide a narrative description of the specific activities to be carried out with the requested funds. This should also include program objectives and key priorities for each specific jurisdiction. We seek funds for our Transitional Housing Placement Plus (THP+) program that serves emancipated foster youth aged 18-24. THP+ is part of StarVista’s family of Youth Safety Net programs, which collectively have a goal of helping youth to overcome homelessness. THP+ helps former foster youth attain stable housing, optimal health, education, employment, and caring, supportive relationships. THP+ intensively serves about 18 youth each year, including parenting youth. It provides a safe haven and stable living accommodations for up to two years in – among other options – a three-unit apartment complex in South San Francisco. THP+ counselors provide: - BASIC LIFE SKILL BUILDING: consumer education, budgeting, use of credit, housekeeping, menu planning, food preparation, parenting skills. - EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES: GED preparation, post-secondary training, vocational education. - ASSISTANCE IN JOB PREPARATION AND ATTAINMENT: career counseling and job placement. THP+ helps with INTERPERSONAL SKILL BUILDING to enhance young people’s abilities to establish positive relationships with peers and adults, make decisions and manage stress, and mental health and physical health care. To build FINANCIAL SELF-SUFFICIENCY youth are provided a matched savings account they receive upon completion, a stipend for groceries and transportation vouchers. THP+ is STRENGTH-BASED, HOLISTIC, and INDIVIDUALIZED, and starts with assessment and a Transitional Independ 13. Assessment of Need - South San Francisco: Briefly describe how you determined the need for your program for each specific jurisdiction that you are applying for funds. Identify target population(s) and area(s) served. Please state the source(s) and date(s) of information. Identify any similar programs in the community. THP+ is the only program of its kind, specifically tailored to emancipated foster youth, serving South San Francisco and the community. Homeless and former foster youth have an elevated risk for a variety of mental health problems, and a history of foster care correlates with becoming homeless at an earlier age and remaining homeless for a longer period of time. As victims of abuse or neglect, these youth can't return to their families but they are not equipped to live on their own. They have to work to support themselves, often without having a high school degree. They have to seek their own role models rather than leaning on parents. Many use drugs or participate in survival sex for food or shelter. Our THP offers safe and stable housing, independent living skills training, and supportive services to help them stay in and complete high school, access health care, obtain job training, and receive mental health support. The programs break the cycle of homelessness among these youth, connects youth to community resources and promotes personal economic stability. Research has shown that 82% of youth who enter transitional living programs like ours make the transition to positive independent living rather than to homelessness. The Corp for Supportive Housing and the John Burton Foundation have established that supportive housing and independent living skills training are effective and necessary in assisting these youth in making successful transitions to independence. 14. Timeline: Provide a brief timetable for project implementation and achievement of projected goals and how you plan to expend your funds in a timely manner by the end of the fiscal year. THP+ is an ongoing program operating year-round and will not require any startup time for implementation. StarVista has a lengthy track record of efficient spend-down of CDBG and other funding. If awarded, StarVista will draw down CDBG funding each month, for 10 months, consistent with actual expenses incurred. THP+ has a strong history of meeting projected goals and anticipates a continued level of service excellence in 2020-2021. 15. Evaluation: Briefly describe how you will determine and measure the success of your program and whether or not program goals were met? If your program is currently receiving grant funds please describe accomplishments of goals to date. Evaluation methods to measure success include pre and post youth development asset gains surveys; Ansell- Casey Life Skills assessments; client self-evaluations and clinicians' assessments of client progress. Most of our direct service measures are tracked through the national Runaway and Homeless Youth Management Information System (RHYMIS). We also evaluate success through our internal data monitoring and evaluation. Data on participants' progress towards education and work goals are noted in individual case files and in our database for tracking against annual goals. Client data is collected and stored in Efforts to Outcomes (ETO) software. ETO is a 1/28/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8706&prop=1087 3/5 secure, web-based performance management database that is accessed for tracking and reporting purposes. In 18/19, the following outcomes were achieved: 91% of participants maintained/stabilized housing (goal: 75%), 100% of youth were attending/school or utilizing staff/resources toward academic achievement (goal: 88%), 100% of participants were connected to community resources around food, legal services, financial aid, IDA banking, and more (goal: 95%). 16. Collaboration: Describe partnerships with other organizations/agencies, the nature of the partnership, and how it relates to the proposed project. Our THP+ program is the only one of its kind in our County. Youth served by THP+ face many challenges and their need for support extends beyond services provided by StarVista. We are fortunate to collaborate with a number of partners to provide services for our clients. In addition to educational agencies (community colleges, Guardian Scholar's Programs) and vocational programs like JobTrain, these include Project Outlet in Mountain View, which support LGBTQ youth; Freedom House (for survivors of human trafficking), Asian American Recovery Services, the Youth Bereavement Program, Sequoia Counseling Services, the Rape Trauma Center, CORA (Community Overcoming Relationship Abuse), Standing Against Global Exploitation (SAGE), which works with youth traumatized by sexual exploitation and prostitution; El Centro Substance Abuse Services, Al-Anon family groups, Friends for Youth Mentoring Services, and the Youth Services Bureau. We connect you to health providers such as San Mateo Medical Center, Keller Center Family Violence Intervention Center and Daly City Youth Health Center, and food and shelter services such as Second Harvest Food Bank and Samaritan House. 17. Impact: : Discuss any general trends and conditions that have affected or impacted your service levels or service populations. For New Applicants – describe what these funds would allow your agency to do that you may not be able to do now. For Continuing Applicants – describe how your program would be impacted without these funds. Many youth transitioning out of the foster care system exit into homelessness - in California, one in four emancipated youth are homeless. Exiting youth often lack steady incomes, stable credit, rental histories, bank accounts, and additional factors that make it extremely challenging for them to obtain housing. These factors and a lack of housing also impact employment and educational pursuits, and former foster youth face disproportionately higher rates of dependence on public assistance, incarceration, unemployment, substance abuse, and mental health disorders. These youth make the transition to adulthood alone and unserved. They remain largely unclaimed, falling through the cracks. Poverty is pervasive and families struggle to meet their basic needs. Because the cost of housing is so high, families respond by doubling and tripling up in studio apartments or they seek shelter in substandard dwellings such as garages and storage sheds. Youth stay away from home to avoid overcrowded conditions and many describe lining up on whatever floor space is available to sleep at night. Funds would allow us to serve more needy youth, avoid placing youth on a waitlist and run our program at full capacity. The program is noticing an increase in homeless youth who are self-referring. 18. Project Beneficiaries/Quantifiable Measurement: Indicate the expected number of beneficiaries to be served by the program. For each response below please indicate both the number of households and number of individuals. Refer to the San Mateo County Income Limits. a. Indicate the total number of low-income beneficiaries you expect to serve with this program for each jurisdiction application for funding. *Low-income is 80% of Area Median Income or below. See AMI table b. Indicate the total number of beneficiaries you expect to serve with this program in each jurisdiction - regardless of income. Jurisdiction a. Number of low-income beneficiaries to be served per grant jurisdiction application. **Low-income** is 80% of Area Median Income or below. b. All beneficiaries to be served per grant jurisdiction application regardless of income Persons Households Persons Households Daly City 0 0 0 0 Redwood City 8 8 8 8 City of San Mateo 0 0 0 0 County of San Mateo 16 16 16 16 South San Francisco 13 13 13 13 Totals 37 37 37 37 19. Populations Served: Check the boxes below if they describe a significant population served by your program. These categories are not considered "presumed benefit" by HUD, and require income verification. Persons exiting incarceration Low-income youth Other homeless youth; emancipated foster youth 20. Affirmative Outreach: a. Use the demographics from your previous program year to provide an analysis of the population you serve relative to the demographics in the table. NOTE: If you are a new applicant please provide your best estimation. Race & Ethnicity South San Francisco Population South San Francisco % by Ethnicity Low Income by Ethnicity served by your Program Your Program % by Ethnicity Total 63,632 100%10 100% White and not Hispanic 23,760 37.34% 0 0.00% White and Hispanic 21,645 34.02% 4 40.00% 1/28/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8706&prop=1087 4/5 Asian 23,293 36.61% 2 20.00% African American 1,625 2.55% 3 30.00% Pacific Islander 1,111 1.75% 0 0.00% Native American 395 0.62% 0 0.00% Other 9,598 15.08% 1 10.00% b. Based on the percentages that you indicate your organization served describe your efforts to improve affirmative outreach to groups that may be underserved by your program and the result of your efforts: We use various strategies to ensure that we reach all ethnic backgrounds. This includes recruiting a diverse group of student and adult volunteers; actively recruiting for bilingual and Spanish-speaking volunteers; maintaining strong relationships with community-based workers; having materials available in Spanish as well as English; and maintaining an up-to-date list of Spanish-speaking referral resources so that clients can receive services in their own language. Many staff and volunteers are bilingual. We work with the Lifeline Spanish language network to meet their requirements for sharing Bay Area calls and having a dedicated Spanish line. We have served the community for the past 36 years by addressing issues that disproportionately affect the health and well-being of children, youth and families in the lower socioeconomic strata, those without insurance and those from communities of color. According to KidsData.org, the majority of children in San Mateo County’s foster care system identified as Latinx or African American, and the majority of those we served last fiscal year identified as one of those two ethnicities. 21. Leveraging: Describe your fundraising efforts and additional sources of revenue for this project and your organization. Please state whether any of these fund sources are already committed and in what amount. Our Youth Supportive Housing programs have been in existence for over 30 years and we would continue to sustain the program after funding from CDBG ends. StarVista is a large multi-service agency with a diversified funding base and we have over 37 years of experience in maintaining programs as grant sources change. We have had the opportunity to implement numerous grants over the years, allowing an array of creative and effective services, including receiving consecutive years of federal grants from the Family and Youth Services bureau. Staff List List below key staff members who work on this program Position Title Name of Staff Person Job Responsibilities Qualifications Interim Department Director Melissa Guariglia Supervise Program Manager; Ensure high quality programming; Evaluate program Doctorate in Clinical Psychology Program Manager Alyssa Canfield Supervise staff and counselors, program development, data collection and reporting; direct client care Bachelor's Degree in Criminal Justice PROPOSED PROGRAM BUDGET FOR FY 2020-21 South San Francisco Total Jurisdictions Budget Line Item Agency Total Pgm%Program Total %Requested Pgm%Requested Labor Total Staff $9,014,550 2% $157,586 6% $8,800 6%$8,800 Taxes/Benefits $1,893,059 2%$39,397 6% $2,200 6%$2,200 Supplies Program Supplies $58,541 12% $7,000 0% $0 0%$0 Materials Office Supplies $69,831 1% $1,000 0% $0 0%$0 Operations/Maintenance Client Costs $1,209,280 4% $49,920 0% $0 0%$0 Employee Related Expenses $139,793 4% $5,000 0% $0 0%$0 Facilities & Equipment: Office Rent, Maintenance, Utilities, Security $1,053,423 1% $15,000 0% $0 0%$0 Telephone, Postage, Printing $208,320 0% $0 0% $0 0%$0 Professional Services & Fees $147,750 0% $0 0% $0 0%$0 1/28/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8706&prop=1087 5/5 Other/Misc $97,698 0% $0 0% $0 0%$0 Administration $2,237,755 2%$46,733 0% $0 0% $0 TOTAL $16,130,000 2%$321,636 3%$11,000 3%$11,000 Number of Individual Beneficiaries 13 13 Cost per Individual $846.15 $846.15 Attachments 1. Resolution authorizing application and designation of signatory, by the Board of Directors Board_resolution_attachment_delay_SSF_CDBG_FYE21.pdf 2. Proof of 501(c)3 / tax-exempt status 3. By-laws 4. Articles of Incorporation 5. Board roster, including: Name, Company, Years on Board Meeting dates for previous 12 months Number of years allowed for each board term Board_Roster_-_External_List_ONLY_JAN2020.pdf Board_Member_Terms_-_01.09.2020.pdf Board_Meeting_Schedule_Last_12_Months.pdf 6. Organizational chart for entire organization StarVista_Org_Chart-JANUARY2020.pdf 7. Certified financial audit no more that 1 fiscal year old, prepared by a CPA, and: Management letters (if applicable) A-122 and A-133 Single Audit (for entities that receive more than $500,000 in federal funding) OR A letter from your Executive Director or Chief Financial Officer certifying that agency does not receive more than $500,000 in federal funds and is not subject to the Single Audit. StarVista_Audit_2018_not_password_protected.pdf StarVista_Single_Audit_2018_Not_Password_Protected.pdf 8. The following are required: Current (FY19-20) Agency Operating Budget Proposed (FY20-21) Agency Operating Budget StarVista_Operating_Budget_FY19-20_Updated_10-16- 19.pdf 2020-21_StarVista_Organizational_Budget_DRAFT.pdf 9. Mission Statement StarVista_Mission_and_Values_Signs_-_Final_1.pdf 10. Non-discrimination policy for Staff and Clients Non-Discrimination_Policy_2019.pdf 11. Reasonable Accommodations Policy for Staff and Clients Reasonable_Accommodation_Policy_2019.pdf 12. Conflict of Interest Policy. (If not available, please indicate when you will submit) Conflict_of_Interest_Policy_2019.pdf 13. Other - Download All Attachments Program Manager Signature Lauren Heminez Date Signed 01/13/2020 Initially submitted: Jan 13, 2020 - 15:24:48 1/28/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8766&prop=1099 1/8 Consolidated Community Funding Application Redwood City, San Mateo County, and S. San Francisco Application for New Funding for FY 2020-21 GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Organization Name: United Way Bay Area 2. Project Title: 2-1-1 We are applying for funding from: Redwood City City of San Mateo South San Francisco County of San Mateo Budget/Client Summary (Auto-populated from Budget, below) Jurisdictions receiving this application Amount Requested % of Program Budget Proposed # of Served % of Served Total $ Per Redwood City $16,800 2% 560 25% $30.00 City of San Mateo $18,000 2% 600 27% $30.00 County of San Mateo $25,000 3% 833 37% $30.01 South San Francisco $7,800 1% 260 12% $30.00 Total $67,600 9% 2,253 100% $30.00 Grant Funded Programs: We are applying for a Public Services Program CDBG National Objective Eligibility - How are you serving low income populations? Service to "presumed benefit" groups listed below (income verification not required, but verification of presumed benefit status is required): Abused children Homeless persons Victims of domestic violence Illiterate adults Elderly persons/seniors (age 62+) Persons living with AIDS Severely disabled adults Migrant farm workers Income Verification: Describe how you obtain, verify, and maintain proof of income and presumed benefit status. Third party documentation or client signatures on the certification forms must be available on file for review at all times. 211 is a free and confidential service. We do not track the caller’s income amount, nor do we require proof of income, in order to maintain confidentiality. We do, however, track their primary source of income. This approach has helped us to better determine if they are on disability benefits, unemployment, public assistance, childcare support, or have no income at all. We believe that this approach helps us to gather richer information without overstepping caller confidentiality. For this reason, while we assume that many of our callers can be classified under various low-income tiers, we are currently unable to accurately report on actual figures as well as projected target numbers of 211 users based on income level. Below is a breakdown of income source in our Fiscal Year 2019 for 1,941 callers that answered our demographic questions in San Mateo County. Approximately 40% of callers have a primary source of income that indicates that they are likely low-income or very low income. Of those callers,254 are on disability benefits, 357 have no income, and 166 are on public assistance. 3. Project Address: 550 Kearny Street, Suite 1000 City: San Francisco Zip: 94108-2524 4. Provide a one sentence project summary: 211 is a free, confidential, easy-to-remember phone number that connects Bay Area residents to food, shelter, mental health services, legal help for immigrants and their families, and more—vital community services that can keep people in their homes and support their other needs. Organization Address: 550 Kearny Street, Suite 1000 City: San Francisco Zip: 94108-2524 Organization Phone: 4158084396 Website: uwba.org Type of Applicant: Non-Profit Our agency serves: 5. Contact Person / Name: Madison Priest Title: Institutional Grants Associate Telephone: 4158084396 1/28/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8766&prop=1099 2/8 Project Administrator: Contact Email: mpriest@uwba.org Fax: 4155449823 6. Name of Agency Director: Anne Wilson 7. Fiscal Officer:Name: Kenneth Euwema Email: ken.euwema@uww.unitedway.orgTelephone: 7036837825 Fiscal Officer Address: 701 N. Fairfax Street City: Alexandria, VA Zip: 22314-2058 8. Authorized Signatory:Name: Kelly Batson Email: kbatson@uwba.org Telephone: 4158084315 Authorized Signatory Address: 550 Kearny St., Suite 1000 City: San Francisco Zip: 94108-2524 9. Please provide days and hours of regularly scheduled operation: 211 is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, in 150 languages. 10. DUNS Number: 068864560 Federal EIN/TIN Number: 94-1312348 11. HUD Activity: Choose the HUD activity that most closely matches your service: 05 - Public Services 12. Project Specific Narrative: Provide a narrative description of the specific activities to be carried out with the requested funds. This should also include program objectives and key priorities for each specific jurisdiction. 211 is an information and referral helpline that connects Bay Area residents to food, shelter, health care, and other local community services. Callers reach a trained specialist who assesses the full scope of their needs and refers them to appropriate local services. All calls are free and confidential. Users can also request live help via text or visit our guided search website at www.211bayarea.org. For 211 UWBA is focused on achieving the following key priorities in San Mateo county as well as the individual jurisdictions: 1) To provide high quality information and referral services to more than 2,000 San Mateo County residents, ensuring people in need have greater access to the services they need. Activities include answering calls and texts 24/7 and maintaining 211bayarea.org. 2) To build strategic outreach and partnership efforts in San Mateo County, including Redwood City, San Mateo, and South San Francisco. Our objective is to increase and strengthen our presence through outreach events, social media, material distribution, and strategic partnerships with community-based organizations in the county. 3) To maintain a comprehensive and high-quality database of health, human, and social services that is trusted by the community and responsive to resident’s current needs. Key activities will include understanding the services landscape in the county, making timely updates to the database, and using 211 user data and community level data to inf 13A. Assessment of Need - Redwood City: Briefly describe how you determined the need for your program for each specific jurisdiction that you are applying for funds. Identify target population(s) and area(s) served. Please state the source(s) and date(s) of information. Identify any similar programs in the community. The Bay Area is often described as a region of prosperity, yet a startling 1 in 3 Bay Area households lack the financial resources to cover their necessities, according to the Real Cost Measure Report from the United Ways of California, released in mid-2019. In San Mateo County, that amounts to 67,181 households. Redwood City is one of the poorest areas in the county, with a poverty rate of 19%. Redwood City, and specifically the 94061 zip code in the North Fair Oaks community, is primarily LatinX, with over 90% of the population trying to meet their needs on an income below $70,000/year. For reference, for a family four living in San Mateo County, $129,000 a year is required to meet basic needs. 211’s target population is any Bay Area resident who wants to learn more about or connect with local resources. People with various needs—economic, health, crisis, etc.—can call, text, or use the web to access 211 and get connected to the help they need. In FY19 (July 2018 – June 2019), the top need of callers across the Bay Area was housing. Other priorities included income support/financial assistance, legal services, food, and mental health services. While there are a handful of online resource directories, we are the only provider in the region of a call-in option coupled with a texting and online searchable database. Our database of local services and resources is unmatched. These strengths make 211 a unique and indispensable community resource. 13B. Assessment of Need - City of San Mateo: Briefly describe how you determined the need for your program for each specific jurisdiction that you are applying for funds. Identify target population(s) and area(s) served. Please state the source(s) and date(s) of information. Identify any similar programs in the community. 1/28/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8766&prop=1099 3/8 The Bay Area is often described as a region of prosperity, yet a startling 1 in 3 Bay Area households lack the financial resources to cover their necessities, according to the Real Cost Measure Report from the United Ways of California, released in mid-2019. In San Mateo County, that amounts to 67,181 households. The City of San Mateo is one of the poorest areas in the county, with a poverty rate of 12.4%. According to the American Community Survey, the City of San Mateo is over 20% LatinX and over 20% Asian. The median income is $103,000. For reference, for a family four living in San Mateo County, $129,000 a year is required to meet basic needs. 211’s target population is any Bay Area resident who wants to learn more about or connect with local resources. People with various needs—economic, health, crisis, etc.—can call, text, or use the web to access 211 and get connected to the help they need. In FY19 (July 2018 – June 2019), the top need of callers across the Bay Area was housing. Other priorities included income support/financial assistance, legal services, food, and mental health services. While there are a handful of online resource directories, we are the only provider in the region of a call-in option coupled with a texting and online searchable database. Our database of local services and resources is unmatched. These strengths make 211 a unique and indispensable community resource. 13C. Assessment of Need - County of San Mateo: Briefly describe how you determined the need for your program for each specific jurisdiction that you are applying for funds. Identify target population(s) and area(s) served. Please state the source(s) and date(s) of information. Identify any similar programs in the community. The Bay Area is often described as a region of prosperity, yet a startling 1 in 3 Bay Area households lack the financial resources to cover their necessities, according to the Real Cost Measure Report from the United Ways of California, released in mid-2019. In San Mateo County, that amounts to 67,181 households. The County has experienced a 49% increase in the cost of living between 2014 and 2018. While the county poverty rate may seem relatively low at 7.3%, high levels of poverty in certain areas are masked by wealthier areas in other parts of the county. The areas targeted by this funding application—including the coast, San Bruno and East Palo Alto—have the highest poverty rates in the county. 211’s target population is any Bay Area resident who wants to learn more about or connect with local resources. People with various needs—economic, health, crisis, etc.—can call, text, or use the web to access 211 and get connected to the help they need. In FY19 (July 2018 – June 2019), the top need of callers across the Bay Area was housing. Other priorities included income support/financial assistance, legal services, food, and mental health services. While there are a handful of online resource directories, we are the only provider in the region of a call-in option coupled with a texting and online searchable database. Our database of local services and resources is unmatched. These strengths make 211 a unique and indispensable community resource. 13D. Assessment of Need - South San Francisco: Briefly describe how you determined the need for your program for each specific jurisdiction that you are applying for funds. Identify target population(s) and area(s) served. Please state the source(s) and date(s) of information. Identify any similar programs in the community. The Bay Area is often described as a region of prosperity, yet a startling 1 in 3 Bay Area households lack the financial resources to cover their necessities, according to the Real Cost Measure Report from the United Ways of California, released in mid-2019. In San Mateo County, that amounts to 67,181 households. South San Francisco has a poverty rate of 7.3%. According to the American Community Survey, the City of South San Francisco is over 30% LatinX and over 30% Asian. The median income in South San Francisco is $92,074. For reference, for a family four living in San Mateo County, $129,000 a year is required to meet basic needs. 211’s target population is any Bay Area resident who wants to learn more about or connect with local resources. People with various needs—economic, health, crisis, etc.—can call, text, or use the web to access 211 and get connected to the help they need. In FY19 (July 2018 – June 2019), the top need of callers across the Bay Area was housing. Other priorities included income support/financial assistance, legal services, food, and mental health services. While there are a handful of online resource directories, we are the only provider in the region of a call-in option coupled with a texting and online searchable database. Our database of local services and resources is unmatched. These strengths make 211 a unique and indispensable community resource. 14. Timeline: Provide a brief timetable for project implementation and achievement of projected goals and how you plan to expend your funds in a timely manner by the end of the fiscal year. If we are awarded these funds, we expect to support our information and referral services via call, text and web; database improvements and maintenance; as well as outreach throughout the county. This grant will support the following activities throughout the fiscal year. The funds we are requesting with this application will be spent evenly throughout the fiscal year. Below is a high-level timeline for the grant activities: Every Quarter: - Answer calls & texts from users in need Quarter 1 Activities: - Assess resources in database to ensure services are complete and identify resource gaps - Identify community hubs throughout and begin partnership discussions, especially in target communities 1/28/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8766&prop=1099 4/8 Quarter 2 Activities: - Add resources to database as identified - Continue partnership development - Conduct outreach activities Quarter 3 and 4 Activities: - Continue to add resources to database - Continue outreach activities - Continue partnership development - Evaluate progress and impact in San Mateo County, Redwood City, City of San Mateo, and South San Francisco in order to identify lessons learned 15. Evaluation: Briefly describe how you will determine and measure the success of your program and whether or not program goals were met? If your program is currently receiving grant funds please describe accomplishments of goals to date. To measure success in meeting our priorities, we will monitor our progress against the following outcomes: - Calls and texts with 2,000 San Mateo County residents and the related referrals to local programs - Increase in visits to San Mateo county resource page on www.211bayarea.org - Increased number of outreach events in San Mateo County, Redwood City, City of San Mateo, and South San Francisco - 3 to 5 new partnerships for outreach or access points -15 to 20 new agencies or programs added to the 211 database Staff will use various tools to measure the proposed outcomes, such as the database reports, google analytics, outreach event logs, meeting notes, and possible partnership agreements. 16. Collaboration: Describe partnerships with other organizations/agencies, the nature of the partnership, and how it relates to the proposed project. Because 211 connects residents to services, we partner with several service agencies. Core Service Agencies are listed in our database. Online users as well as those who text or call can access their information. We met with the agencies and Human Services Agency in our last fiscal year to ensure they were listed correctly in our database and to update the Coordinated Entry process for San Mateo County. Our partnership with San Mateo County Human Services facilitated the meeting with Core Services Agency, as well as other improvements to the database around services for the county and the referral processes for specialized services. We have partnered with Second Harvest Food Bank to list of all their food resources sites in our database, and to ensure we receive timely updates about new and current food resources. This allows us to provide more accurate direct referrals to their food banks, summer meals, mobile food trucks, and family harvest program in lieu of referring callers to their food connection hotline. We are in the process of seeking to formalize the partnership with Office of Emergency Services in order to be ready to respond to a disaster in the county or the region. Additionally, we continue to partner with the free tax preparation coalition locations in the county, including College of San Mateo, Skyline College, Renaissance Entrepreneurship Center, and Project Read. 17. Impact: : Discuss any general trends and conditions that have affected or impacted your service levels or service populations. For New Applicants – describe what these funds would allow your agency to do that you may not be able to do now. For Continuing Applicants – describe how your program would be impacted without these funds. In the Bay Area, we are experiencing unprecedented levels of homelessness, lack of affordable housing and growing inequality. We are also at the home of technological innovation, with a wealth of information at our fingertips. Since the launch of 211 in the mid- 2000's, the way people seek health and human services information has dramatically changed. Because web searches and other alternatives such as chat tools are now more widely available, 211’s across the country have experienced a decline in the last several years in the number of standard 211 calls. However, the operation of a call center with trained specialists and the continued maintenance of a database of local resources remains a foundational component of our safety net. Funds from the County of San Mateo, South San Francisco, Redwood City and the City of San Mateo will allow us to provide core information and referral services via call, text and web to over 2,000 people in need; conduct outreach to our key target populations; and build integral partnerships in the county that will help us serve San Mateo County’s most vulnerable households. 18. Project Beneficiaries/Quantifiable Measurement: Indicate the expected number of beneficiaries to be served by the program. For each response below please indicate both the number of households and number of individuals. Refer to the San Mateo County Income Limits. a. Indicate the total number of low-income beneficiaries you expect to serve with this program for each jurisdiction application for funding. *Low-income is 80% of Area Median Income or below. See AMI table b. Indicate the total number of beneficiaries you expect to serve with this program in each jurisdiction - regardless of income. Jurisdiction a. Number of low-income beneficiaries to be served per grant jurisdiction b. All beneficiaries to be served per grant jurisdiction application 1/28/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8766&prop=1099 5/8 application. **Low-income** is 80% of Area Median Income or below. regardless of income Persons Households Persons Households Daly City 168 168 420 420 Redwood City 224 224 560 560 City of San Mateo 240 240 600 600 County of San Mateo 333 333 833 833 South San Francisco 104 104 260 260 Totals 1,069 1,069 2,673 2,673 19. Populations Served: Check the boxes below if they describe a significant population served by your program. These categories are not considered "presumed benefit" by HUD, and require income verification. Persons exiting incarceration Low-income youth Other 20. Affirmative Outreach: a. Use the demographics from your previous program year to provide an analysis of the population you serve relative to the demographics in the table. NOTE: If you are a new applicant please provide your best estimation. Race & Ethnicity Redwood City Population Redwood City % by Ethnicity Low Income by Ethnicity served by your Program Your Program % by Ethnicity Total 74,402 100%362 100% White and not Hispanic 40,656 54.64% 78 21.55% White and Hispanic 23,557 31.66% 151 41.71% Asian 6,715 9.03% 10 2.76% African American 1,916 2.58% 44 12.15% Pacific Islander 663 0.89% 8 2.21% Native American 384 0.52% 1 0.28% Other 1,511 2.03% 70 19.34% Race & Ethnicity City of San Mateo Population City of San Mateo % by Ethnicity Low Income by Ethnicity served by your Program Your Program % by Ethnicity Total 97,207 100%403 100% White and not Hispanic 45,240 46.54% 78 19.35% White and Hispanic 25,815 26.56% 141 34.99% Asian 18,153 18.67% 2 0.50% African American 2,099 2.16% 44 10.92% Pacific Islander 1,937 1.99% 15 3.72% Native American 140 0.14% 4 0.99% Other 3,823 3.93% 119 29.53% Race & Ethnicity South San Francisco Population South San Francisco % by Ethnicity Low Income by Ethnicity served by your Program Your Program % by Ethnicity Total 63,632 100%177 100% White and not Hispanic 23,760 37.34% 38 21.47% White and Hispanic 21,645 34.02% 68 38.42% Asian 23,293 36.61% 12 6.78% African American 1,625 2.55% 16 9.04% Pacific Islander 1,111 1.75% 9 5.08% Native American 395 0.62% 2 1.13% Other 9,598 15.08% 32 18.08% b. Based on the percentages that you indicate your organization served describe your efforts to improve affirmative outreach to groups that may be underserved by your program and the result of your efforts: Our outreach strategy is two-fold: 1) providing materials and information about 211 to local community hubs such as San Mateo County libraries, the Core Service Agencies, SparkPoint Centers, VITA (Volunteer Income Tax Assistance) Sites, and the Housing Authority’s Annual Resource Fair; and 2) ensuring local community agency staff trust the 211 data and referrals. The latter allows us to create either a referral pipeline from agency staff or a more formal partnership, such as our partnership with the Second Harvest Food Bank. By working directly with service providers in the underserved areas of San Mateo County, we plan to reach our target populations. Trusted messengers and positive experiences with 211 will improve outreach to underserved communities. It is clear that we are underserving the Asian and Pacific Islander Communities. With CDBG funds, we will build partnerships with agencies and programs serving these communities. 21. Leveraging: Describe your fundraising efforts and additional sources of revenue for this project and your organization. Please state whether any of these fund sources are already committed and in what amount. Additional institutional sources of revenue for the 211 program include the County of Santa Clara ($150,000, pending), City of San Jose ($75,000, pending), the City of Saratoga ($2,000, committed), Kaiser Permanente 1/28/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8766&prop=1099 6/8 ($95,000, committed). United Way Bay Area’s programs and operations are funded in part by several institutional grants, including Wells Fargo ($300,000, committed), First 5 Solano ($20,000, pending), and Silicon Valley Community Foundation ($100,000, committed). Staff List List below key staff members who work on this program Position Title Name of Staff Person Job Responsibilities Qualifications Senior Vice President, Community Impact Kelly Batson Oversees strategic partnerships and fundraising MPA with Nonprofit Management focus, SF State University 2-1-1 Program Manager Jay Hernandez Conducts analysis of caller data and ensures we fill any gaps in our database BA in Business Administration, University of Phoenix 2-1-1 Resource Specialist Gabriela Fuller Maintains and updates resource database and conducts outreach and marketing efforts. Early Childhood Education and Teaching, San Joaquin Delta College PROPOSED PROGRAM BUDGET FOR FY 2020-21 Redwood City City of San Mateo County of San Mateo South San Francisco Total Jurisdictions Budget Line Item Agency Total Pgm%Program Total %Requested %Requested %Requested %Requested Pgm%Requested Labor Salaries $6,209,729 1% $92,558 2% $2,067 2% $2,214 3% $3,075 1% $959 9%$8,315 Consultant Fees / Contact Center Vendor $1,553,008 25% $396,000 2% $8,842 2% $9,473 3% $13,157 1% $4,105 9%$35,577 Taxes/Benefits $2,174,544 1%$32,395 2% $724 2% $775 3% $1,076 1% $336 9%$2,911 Supplies Software Subscriptions, Licenses, and Database Fees $383,619 3% $10,500 2% $234 2% $251 3% $349 1% $109 9%$943 Materials Printing and Production Services $83,200 12% $10,000 2% $223 2% $239 3% $332 1% $104 9%$898 Operations/Maintenance Rent $798,359 3% $25,000 2% $558 2% $598 3% $831 1% $259 9%$2,246 Telephone and Land Line $110,826 4% $4,000 2% $89 2% $96 3% $133 1% $41 9%$359 Other Expenses $2,100,000 4% $84,000 2% $1,875 2% $2,009 3% $2,791 1% $871 9%$7,546 Grants to Partners $4,971,967 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0%$0 Administration $400,000 25%$98,017 2% $2,188 2% $2,345 3% $3,256 1% $1,016 9% $8,805 TOTAL $18,785,252 4%$752,470 2%$16,800 2%$18,000 3%$25,000 1%$7,800 9%$67,600 Number of Individual Beneficiaries 560 600 833 260 2,253 Cost per Individual $30.00 $30.00 $30.01 $30.00 $30.00 For the City of Redwood City ONLY, answer the following: 1. Funding Criteria: 3. Human Services: Basic Human Needs are activities that are vital for survival and not just an improvement to the quality of life, regardless of income. For example, emergency food programs are essential to survival. Coordination of a volunteer program is an improvement to the quality of life. 2. Marketing/Advertising a. Check all of the following methods your agency utilizes to promote and advertise your programs and services: Flyers/brochures Website CIP (Handbook/Database) 1/28/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8766&prop=1099 7/8 Outreach presentations to service providers Outreach presentations to public b. Which of the above marketing/advertising materials are available in multi-langual form and which languages are they available in? Our flyers include copy in six languages (English, Spanish, Chinese, Russian, Vietnamese, and Tagalog) and our business cards include four languages (English, Spanish, Chinese, and Vietnamese). Additionally, our website uses Google Translate, allowing us to translate the search and resource pages in addition to the actual services listed in our database. Social media ads and organic posts are primarily in English. Presentations are available in English and Spanish. 211 Bay Area also benefits from the promotion of 211 through special projects or partnerships such as the free tax preparation program, Earn It! Keep It! Save It! (EKS). EKS promotes 211 in four languages. Second Harvest Food Bank and First 5 have also created a “Potter the Otter” book and listed 211 as a resource. c. How and where are the materials distributed? Our materials are distributed at resource fairs, libraries, social service case workers fire departments (staff hand them out to people they serve as well as at resource events they attend), and various City offices or community centers. Our partners also include information about 211 via email and text. For example, the Office of Supportive Housing in Santa Clara County promotes 211 via text during inclement weather, directing people to warming shelters and other resources. It's also worth noting that, during inclement weather, the Offices of Supportive Housing sends out text alerts to their subscribers telling them to call 211 for cooling and warming shelters. 3. Program Outcomes: a. Please describe the accomplishments of program goals for FY/19. In FY19 (July 1, 2018 – June 30, 2019), 211 responded to 33,825 calls and texts in our Bay Area counties (San Francisco, Solano, Marin, Napa, San Mateo, and Santa Clara). This includes 3,088 calls and texts in San Mateo County. The importance of 211 as a community lifeline has been demonstrated by the ongoing demand for basic needs services. Last year, callers’ top five needs included access to affordable housing, food pantries, rent payment assistance, emergency shelter, and legal assistance. Regional highlights from FY19 include: 1) A data sharing partnership with the San Francisco Our Children Our Families program. They are using an API to import our 211 database tp their forthcoming website www.sffamilies.org--a directory with all programs and services for San Franciscans ages 0 to 24. This project is important as a test of data sharing for a county-specific project. 2) The Service Net by Benetech pilot: Six partners from across the Bay Area are sharing their resource data with Benetech’s Service Net platform to test the sharing of data to make data maintenance more effective and efficient. Partners include 211 Alameda, ShelterTech, Health Leads, SMC Connect and Law Help California. 3) the 211 team has been working alongside IBM to develop a chatbot for the 211 website. This chatbot will directly link with our database and allow users to ask questions and search for community resources. IBM is leading this project with college students on a pro-bono ba b. In what ways has your program made a difference in the lives of the people you serve? Please provide at least one concrete example from the people served in FY/19: We believe that the 'second question’ aspect that 211 provides is a value-add that other referral programs are not able to produce via technology, helping us to better determine the caller’s whole needs. In other words, while our call specialists provide referrals for the caller’s initial need, they also continue to ask clarifying questions to probe deeper into the caller's other potential needs, ensuring that all appropriate resources are identified and shared. In our last fiscal year, a 211 caller originally sought assistance for housing. Through our ‘second question’ information-gathering and assessment process, however, our call specialist discovered that the caller had a 10- year-old son who had been struggling in school. The caller--a mother--knew that her son might have special needs, but she was unaware of services that were available to her. Our call specialist not only provided the caller with relevant information for housing, but also with a referall to the Golden Gate Regional Center, an agency that provides support to individuals with developmental disabilities. Through our follow-up process, we learned that the mother had an upcoming in-home evaluation scheduled that day. She expressed a great deal of appreciation for the fact that she had received valuable information that went beyond her initial inquiry. In addition to the information she was provided about housing, she was also connected to a resource that could positively change her son’s li Attachments 1. Resolution authorizing application and designation of signatory, by the Board of Directors Executed_letter_-_Alex_Khojikian.pdf UWBA_501c3_letter_2014_-_Copy.pdf 1/28/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/app2020arc.pl?rpt=C8766&prop=1099 8/8 2. Proof of 501(c)3 / tax- exempt status 3. By-laws 122192308_8_UWW_-_UWBA_-_Exhibit_B_-_Restated_Bylaws_- _CLEAN_12.10.19.docx 4. Articles of Incorporation Articles-of-Incorporation-UWBA_-_Copy.pdf 5. Board roster, including: Name, Company, Years on Board Meeting dates for previous 12 months Number of years allowed for each board term Board_List_for_Board_Book_and_Reference_Guide_07.08.2019_rev_1.15.20.doc UWBA_Board_Meeting_Schedule__FY18-19.docx 6. Organizational chart for entire organization 01-01-2019_-_UWBA_Org_Chart_1_pg.pdf 7. Certified financial audit no more that 1 fiscal year old, prepared by a CPA, and: Management letters (if applicable) A-122 and A-133 Single Audit (for entities that receive more than $500,000 in federal funding) OR A letter from your Executive Director or Chief Financial Officer certifying that agency does not receive more than $500,000 in federal funds and is not subject to the Single Audit. United_Way_of_the_Bay_Area_-_6-30-19_Final_FS_-_12-5-19.pdf FY20_Redwood_City_Sutton_Certification_signed.pdf 8. The following are required: Current (FY19-20) Agency Operating Budget Proposed (FY20-21) Agency Operating Budget FY20_-_UWBA_Organizational_Budget_-_Approved_September_2019.pdf FY20_211_Program_Budget_-_UWBA.pdf 2020-2021_Preliminary_Budget_UWBA.pdf 9. Mission Statement UWBA_Mission_Statement.pdf 10. Non-discrimination policy for Staff and Clients UWBA_Nondiscrimination_Policy_2005.pdf 11. Reasonable Accommodations Policy for Staff and Clients ADA_and_FEHA_Policy_-_9.21.18.pdf 12. Conflict of Interest Policy. (If not available, please indicate when you will submit) ConflictofInterest_UWBA.pdf 13. Other - Download All Attachments Program Manager Signature Madison Priest Date Signed 01/16/2020 Initially submitted: Jan 16, 2020 - 16:49:01 1/29/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/happ2020arc.pl?rpt=C8787&prop=1103 1/6 South San Francisco Public Facilities Application for Funds FY 2020-21 Application Summary Project Title: Firehouse Live Project Address: 201 Baden Ave City: South San Francisco Zip: 94080-4714 Project APN: 012-335-100 Provide a one sentence project summary: Firehouse Live is a 5-story midrise construction project consisting of 24 affordable for sale condominiums at 201 Baden Avenue in South San Francisco. A. Funding request for this Public Facility Project is for: (check as many as applicable): Property Acquisition Rehabilitation/Physical Improvements Removal of architectural barriers New Construction Predevelopment Costs Relocation (of residential or commercial occupants) B. CDBG National Objective Determination Beneficiaries of the facility must be at least 51% low income persons. Which of the following benefit criterion best matches your request for funds? Low Income (General): Facility serves low income clients verified through income documentation. C. Income/Presumed Benefit Verification: Describe how you obtain, verify, and maintain proof of income and presumed benefit status. Third party documentation or client signatures on the certification forms must be available on file for review at all times. Applicants earning 60-80% (possibly up to 110%) San Mateo County AMI will be considered for ownership. HGSF requests income documents, including W2, 1099, and tax returns from the past 2 years, plus paystubs from the past 3 months. HGSF considers all income earners in the household. Applicants provide statements for the previous 3 months for all accounts, including checking, savings, and money market, plus retirement accounts such as 401k, 403(b), & IRA. HGSF requests award letters for additional income, such as social security and pension, and compares them directly with bank statements. Employment, pay rate, & YTD earnings are verified with previous/current employers. HGSF requests form 4506T be signed by applicant & submits it to the IRS, who provides tax return transcripts that HGSF compares to applicant-provided tax returns to verify accuracy & mitigate risk. HGSF consults with a third-party lender who reviews all documents. Project Details HOME Funds Requested: $0 CDBG Funds Requested: $100,000 Total Amount Requested under this NOFA: $100,000 Total Project Cost: $19,603,696 Previously Approved City Funding for this project: 0 Source: FY Application Details Applicant Name: Habitat for Humanity Greater San Francisco, Inc. Address: 500 Washington Street, Suite 250 City: San Francisco Zip: 94111-2947 Phone: 415-625-1000 Fax: 415-625-1815 Type of Applicant: Non-Profit Contact Person:Name: Ashley Spooner-Choi Title: Public Funding & DRE Manager Phone:415-625-1015 Contact Email: aspoonerchoi@habitatgsf.org Agency Director:Maureen Sedonaen Name & Title of Person Authorized to Execute Legal Documents with County for this Project (Should match 1/29/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/happ2020arc.pl?rpt=C8787&prop=1103 2/6 attachment 16): Name:Mareen Sedonaen Title: CEO DUNS Number: 94-3088881 Federal EIN/TIN Number: 79-418-2329 Client Inventory: In the table below, please indicate, in the second column, the total number of persons currently served/who will be served by your Program. Of the number of persons served, indicate the number of families/ households represented in the third column. Enter 0 if there were no beneficiaries prior to this funding. Clients Served # of Persons # of Households # of Clients Currently Served by Facility (prior to this funding):0 0 Additional Clients Proposed to be Served:106 24 Total # of Clients Proposed to be Served:106 24 Beneficiaries # of Persons # of Households # of Extremely Low Income* Persons/Households to be served:0 0 # of Very Low Income* Persons/Households to be served:0 0 # of Low Income* Persons/Households to be served:81 18 Total:81 1. Project Summary: Provide a brief narrative summary of the project. Description must include (a) program specific objectives; (b) target population; (c) geographic impact (d) Description of what the funds will be used for. What is the exact scope of services for which you plan to use requested funds? Centrally located on the site of a former firehouse in downtown South San Francisco, Firehouse Live will provide 24 homes to hardworking, first-time homeowners buyers. The typical Habitat program sells homes to families earning less than 80% of the average median income (AMI). Our team is working with the City of South San Francisco and partners to determine a final AMI program for the project. Our initial proforma assumes an average of 80% AMI for all of the units; this may include some of the units being priced at or below 70% and some of the units priced as high as 110% of AMI, consistent with the City’s current inclusionary program. The final AMI program will be developed in conjunction with the City and will be dependent in part on the amount of public subsidy obtained for the project. South San Francisco is a vibrant and growing community. There are many employers large and small present in and adjacent to downtown South San Francisco, just a short commute from the Firehouse project. The site is conveniently located near many shops, restaurants, grocery stores, hotels, parks, and public services like a library and fire station. There are three bus stops within 0.2 miles, one only 350 feet away, and the South San Francisco Caltrain stations is less than 0.5 miles away. Access to the Caltrain station will provide easy access to points along the peninsula, including employment centers to the north and the south. Planned improvements to the station make this site an important location to develop these permanently affordable homes. Firehouse Live will allow low income first-time homebuyers the opportunity of physical and financial stability in an increasingly expensive region. The project includes 24 condominiums housed within a five-story building. The total unit breakdown is nine (9) two- bedrooms and fifteen (15) three-bedrooms. The secured garage will include 20 parking spaces and 20 bicycle storage spaces. Site grading and offsite construction is projected to be completed in Summer of 2021, vertical construction will start shortly after with construction being compete by the end of 2023. To date, our funding stack includes $350,000 of Habitat’s internal capital to begin the pre-development and entitlement process. 2. Project History. Please briefly describe the project's history leading to this request. Include such information as when the site was acquired or will be acquired, if rehabilitating an existing structure include year that it was built, any previous requests for City funding, changes in the project since those requests were made, attempts made to secure other financing, how current project was estimated, and any other relevant information about the history of the project. Habitat for Humanity Greater San Francisco was originally approached by a market-rate developer to partner in the Firehouse Live project in early 2019. The market-rate developer subsequently decided the project was not viable and withdrew. At this point, Habitat took over the project and proposed a 100% affordable project to the City. The City agreed and an ENRA was put in place. In October 2019 Habitat executed an ENRA with the City of South San Francisco. This ENRA gives our organization the right to negotiate and enter into a Purchase and Sale Agreement (PSA) to acquire the property. The City may not offer up the property to any other entity while the PSA is being negotiated. We anticipate entering into a PSA by April of 2020. The city intends to donate the property to Habitat to help facilitate the development of affordable housing. We are currently doing pre-development work and looking to secure government subsidy to push the project forward. Consultants are preparing initial studies, including a Phase I & limited Phase II, which we can share in the coming weeks. We have met with city staff to develop an entitlement plan. This is our first application for CDBG funding. We will continue to apply for government subsidy over the next two years as funding becomes available. Due to the periodic nature of funding NOFA’s, securing pre-development 1/29/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/happ2020arc.pl?rpt=C8787&prop=1103 3/6 funding from the County at this early stage will be a boost in making the project more viable and assist in securing additional government subsidy. 3. Identification of Priorities: How did you determine the need for your Project? Identify the specific NOFA Objectives from the Funding Guidelines that your program/project meets. The Firehouse Live project will develop new homeownership opportunities for low income, first-time homebuyers primarily earning less than 80% of the Average Median Income (AMI). Some portion of the project will likely be set aside for families earning up to 110% of AMI, a key constituency of need in South San Francisco. Firehouse Live will allow low income first-time homebuyers the opportunity of physical and financial stability in an increasingly expensive region. This project is especially exciting given the location of the project. The site is in the heart of downtown South San Francisco and near major transit opportunities. This type of site is typically developed by for profit developers and target high income earners only. Our organization is excited to provide permanently affordable housing to hard working families in a highly desirable area. This will provide teachers, city and county employees, and service workers a chance to stay in the local community and not be price out of larger market. Firehouse Live specifically meets the County’s Strategic priority to develop new affordable housing units that serve low-income families. Habitat for Humanity Greater San Francisco remains the lone provider of homeownership opportunities to hard working families in San Mateo County. Housing is considered a regional issue due to the dynamic nature of employment, education, and other forces that impact the residents of a community. For this reason, communities must seek to accommodate housing demand by taking a regional approach. 4. Organizational Mission: Describe your overall organizational mission. Habitat for Humanity Greater San Francisco builds homes and sustains affordable homeownership opportunities for families in Marin, San Francisco and San Mateo counties. Habitat Greater San Francisco, a 501(c)(3) organization and one of approximately 1,300+ registered U.S. affiliates of Habitat for Humanity International, was formed in August 2008 through the merger of Peninsula Habitat for Humanity and Habitat for Humanity San Francisco. Prior to the merger, Peninsula Habitat had served the community since 1989 and Habitat San Francisco had served the community since 1992. 5. Project Details/Milestones: Do you have all necessary planning approvals? List all approvals required for your project and indicate the status and actual or projected approval dates. You may refer to timeline (Attachment 7) for details on project milestones. Habitat for Humanity Greater San Francisco is excited to have this opportunity to build a 100% affordable housing project in downtown South San Francisco. The project is currently early in the pre-development process. Our project team is working diligently to finalize the acquisition of the property and perfect entitlements. Below is a tentative development and construction schedule. Further detail can be provided as requested. • ENRA executed with city in October of 2019. • Due diligence and CEQA investigations and studies to be completed by end of January 2020. • Planning & Entitlement process started in October 2019 with a fully entitled project expected by October 2020 • Planning Pre-Application January 2020; currently underway. • Formal Planning Application March 2020 • Purchase and Sale Agreement with City April 2020 • Construction Documentation will begin in the Fall of 2020 • We anticipate an Offsite Improvement Permit and Building Permit in hand in the Spring of 2021 • Construction will begin onsite in the Summer of 2021 • We are projecting an 18-month construction schedule Please see our attached Project Timeline for further details. 6. Does your project require licensing? No 7. Are plans and specifications completed? No When do you anticipate completion? You may refer to timeline (Attachment 7) for details on project milestones. Construction documentation will begin in the Fall of 2020 and is anticipated to be complete in Spring 2021. 8. Green Building. Specify how you intend to incorporate Green Building elements and features to your program. All new Habitat homes are built with sustainability in mind – we aim to build homes that are healthy, feature low utility bills, & are durable for future homeowners. We are also looking to reduce our impact on the environment. Currently, our projects are typically GreenPoint Rated, reaching at least Gold level. To achieve this certification, a 3rd party inspector scores our homes on 5 categories, including energy & water conservation, indoor air quality, sustainable building materials, & community benefits such as proximity to public transportation. Sustainability features currently include: rooftop solar panels aiming to offset ≥75% of energy consumption, advanced insulation packages to reduce heating & cooling demands, an Energy Recovery Ventilation system that introduces constant fresh air into the home to ensure a healthy indoor air quality, low-emitting finishes that reduce pollutants in the home, durable materials that reduce long term replacement costs, LED lighting package to keep energy bills low, low-use water fixtures to help keep water utility bills low, & high performing windows. 1/29/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/happ2020arc.pl?rpt=C8787&prop=1103 4/6 Despite our tight budgets, our team is constantly looking for ways to reduce our impact on the environment. Starting with the two developments currently in our pipeline, HGSF is moving to decarbonize our homes by eliminating natural gas & building 100% electric when feasible. Benefits include less pollution, increased safety, better public health, & lower utility bills. 9. Federal Labor Standards Compliance: Projects requesting funds for actual hard costs of rehabilitation/new construction must meet the following requirements: Davis-Bacon requirements: The payment of prevailing wages to construction workers is required if: CDBG funds are part of a construction contract of (1) $2,000+ for non-housing activities; CDBG is used for rehabilitation of 8+ dwelling units in a project; Section 3: If the construction contract is greater than $100,000, you will need to use good faith efforts to offer construction-generated new jobs to qualified low income City residents and/or a portion of the contract (subcontract) to qualified low income subcontractors who are City residents. The employment opportunities may be construction or non-construction-related. The federal goal is offering 30% of NEW employment opportunities to Section 3 residents and 10% of construction contract to Section 3 businesses. MBE/WBE: the Project Developer must use good faith best efforts to contract with qualified MBEs and WBEs. Contracts of $10,000+, both construction and non-construction, that are offered to qualified minority/women business enterprises, will be reported to HUD. If you are using City funds under this NOFA for construction, please describe how you will meet the above federal requirements related to Davis-Bacon, Section 3, and/or MBE/WBE, if applicable. Funding for Firehouse Live will not trigger Davis-Bacon requirements. Federal funding, such as CDBG loans, will only be used for acquisition and pre-development. HOME funds will not be used. Firehouse Live will provide affordable first-time homeownership opportunities for 24 families and will not provide any services for these homeowners aside from educational workshops focused on understanding the home-buying process, financial planning, and home maintenance. Because Habitat provides self-help homeownership opportunities, we do not currently have a Section 3 plan; HUD funds and HUD requirements will not be applied to the physical construction of this project. 10. Collaboration. Describe how your agency collaborates with other service providers to meet the various needs of your targeted population/clientele. Because this project will feature condominium homes that will be sold to qualified applicants, an HOA is established who will in turn hire a management company to oversee the property. Our team does include trained staff that will manage owner pre-qualification, loan underwriting and origination, servicing, closings, warranty work, and homeowner education. 11. Relocation. If your project is expected to incur a relocation obligation, briefly explain the nature of the relocation: e.g. who is to be relocated; whether permanent of temporary; estimated cost per household/business; timeline, etc. (Include Relocation Plan as Attachment 8 if it is already completed or provide an estimated timeline when the Plan will be submitted.) The property is currently vacant and will not require relocation of commercial or residential tenants. A relocation plan is not applicable. 12. Other. Specify any other project issues that you feel should be considered in review of this application for funds. The project is early in pre-development process and many factors could affect the development timeline proposed here. Habitat will work to maintain an aggressive schedule and show continual progress in the project with the end goal of providing new homes to qualified homebuyers as soon as feasible. Our organization will work with the City and County to communicate our development schedule. The Project is being planned consistent with the SSF Downtown Station Area Specific Plan. As such, CEQA process will be streamlined as will the public hearing process. The Project will only require Planning Commission approval unless it is appealed, or the Council calls it up. Attachments A. Resolution authorizing application and designation of signatory, by the Board of Directors A_Resolution.pdf B. Certified financial audit no more that 1 fiscal year old, prepared by a CPA, and: Management letters (if applicable) A-122 and A-133 Single Audit (for entities that receive more than $500,000 in B_Certified_Financial_Audit.pdf 1/29/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/happ2020arc.pl?rpt=C8787&prop=1103 5/6 federal funding) OR A letter from your Executive Director or Corporate Financial Officer certifying that agency does not receive more than $500,000 in federal funds and is not subject to the Single Audit. C. Board roster, including: Name, Company, Years on Board Meeting dates for previous 12 months Number of years allowed for each board term C_Board_Roster_Calendars_FY19_FY20.pdf D. Proof of 501(c)3 / tax-exempt status D_Proof_Tax_Exempt_Status.pdf E. By-laws E_Nonprofit_Bylaws.pdf F. Articles of Incorporation F_Nonprofit_Articles_Incorporation_HHGSF.pdf G. Non-discrimination policy for Staff and Clients G_H_Nondiscrimination_Reasonable_Accommodations_Policy.pdf H. Reasonable Accommodations Policy for Staff and Clients G_H_Nondiscrimination_Reasonable_Accommodations_Policy.pdf I. Conflict of Interest Policy. (If not available, please indicate when you will submit) I_Conflict_Interest_Policy.pdf J. Other - K. Other - ATTACHMENT 1 - PROJECT TEAM Specify the names, experience, responsibilities and roles of each team member. Indicate whether they are full-time or part-time employees. 1_Project_Team.pdf ATTACHMENT 2 - SOURCES & USES BUDGET/NARRATIVE The total cost of your project, including construction costs, must be shown. Please indicate all anticipated sources and uses of funding in addition to City funds. Please indicate all anticipated funding sources separately. Provide a narrative explanation of each line item. 2_Sources_Uses_Proforma_Firehouse.xlsx ATTACHMENT 3 - CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE Provide copies of any construction bids/estimates obtained. If bids are not available, please explain how you arrived at estimated construction costs. 3_Construction_Estimate.pdf ATTACHMENT 4 - LABOR STANDARDS If the proposed activity triggers Davis Bacon prevailing wages, describe how you will meet the Davis Bacon requirements. 4_Labor_Standards_Firehouse.pdf ATTACHMENT 5 - OTHER FUNDS/LOCAL MATCH Provide evidence of other fund commitments or good faith efforts on your part to seek other funding. For all funding sources, attach documentation of funding commitments, if available. Indicate the status of funding requests if you do not have commitments. 5_Other_Funds.pdf ATTACHMENT 6 - AREA MAP/SITE PHOTO/SITE PLAN Provide an area map indicating location of the project, and a photograph of the project site, along with site plan. 6_Site_Location_Map_Firehouse.pdf ATTACHMENT 7 - EVIDENCE OF SITE CONTROL Provide evidence of site control (e.g. grant deed, sales agreement, option agreement, lease agreement, etc.) showing that you have or will have the authority to carry out the proposed project. If you do not currently have site control, submit a narrative explanation. If you lease the project site, please submit a letter or agreement from the owner/landlord or other documentation that you are permitted to make the proposed improvements to the premises. 7_Evidence_Site_Control_ENRA_Firehouse.pdf ATTACHMENT 8 - TITLE REPORT If you own or intend to take ownership of the real 8_Preliminary_Title_Report_Firehouse.pdf 1/29/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/happ2020arc.pl?rpt=C8787&prop=1103 6/6 property, please provide a copy of the most recent title policy, or title report (issued within the past 6 months). ATTACHMENT 9 - APPRAISAL If your project involves acquisition, even if you are not intending to use South San Francisco funds for this purpose, please provide a copy of the appraisal. If you do not yet have an appraisal, please indicate when you expect to obtain one. If you are requesting funds for acquisition, the appraisal must be submitted no later than 30 days after application due date. South San Francisco reserves the right to request an appraisal for all projects as determined by the staff. 9_12_Firehouse_Attachments_In_Progress.pdf ATTACHMENT 10 - PROJECT TIMELINE Provide a project schedule, designating specific work tasks, projected delays, accomplishments, escrow dates, projected dates to receive all required funding, construction start dates, and any other major milestones. Please indicate any specific dates or requirements for which South San Francisco funds will impact other funding sources or deadlines. 10_Project_Timeline_Firehouse.pdf ATTACHMENT 11 - RELOCATION PLAN If the proposed project will require relocation of residential or commercial tenants other than yourself, provide a copy of the written relocation plan. If you do not yet have a relocation plan, please indicate when you expect to provide one to City Staff. 11_Relocation_Plan_Firehouse.pdf ATTACHMENT 12 - PHASE I HAZARDOUS MATERIALS REPORT If a hazardous materials assessment has already been prepared for the proposed project, please submit a copy. Describe how you plan to address any findings of hazardous materials (e.g. lead, asbestos, mold) in your project. South San Francisco reserves the right to request a Hazardous Materials Assessment. 9_12_Firehouse_Attachments_In_Progress.pdf ATTACHMENT 13 - PROPERTY MANAGEMENT Indicate who will be responsible for on-going maintenance and operations of the facility. Provide Name, Address & Phone Number. 13_Property_Management_Firehouse.pdf This application was prepared by: Name: Ashley Spooner-Choi Title: Public Funding & DRE Manager Initially submitted: Jan 16, 2020 - 16:24:57 1/29/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/happ2020arc.pl?rpt=C8743&prop=1098 1/6 South San Francisco Public Facilities Application for Funds FY 2020-21 Application Summary Project Title: Irish Town Green Park Rehabilitation Project Address: 900 Linden Avenue City: South San Francisco Zip: 94080-1754 Project APN: 012102999 Provide a one sentence project summary: Safety, security, and accessibility rehabilitation at Irish Town Green park area A. Funding request for this Public Facility Project is for: (check as many as applicable): Property Acquisition Rehabilitation/Physical Improvements Removal of architectural barriers New Construction Predevelopment Costs Relocation (of residential or commercial occupants) B. CDBG National Objective Determination Beneficiaries of the facility must be at least 51% low income persons. Which of the following benefit criterion best matches your request for funds? Area Benefit Criteria: Service area qualifies if 51% or more of the population in the proposed location is low to moderate income (80% of Area Median Income or lower). The City of South San Francisco has identified the downtown area (census tracts 6021 and 6022) to be a local target area. This area meets the LMA national objective. However, there are other census block groups throughout the City that may meet the LMA national objectives. Use this link to determine census tract & block number for your project. Please specify low income area or specify Census Tracts/Block Groups: 6021 C. Income/Presumed Benefit Verification: Describe how you obtain, verify, and maintain proof of income and presumed benefit status. Third party documentation or client signatures on the certification forms must be available on file for review at all times. Income information and presumed benefit information was received from US Census data. Project Details HOME Funds Requested: $0 CDBG Funds Requested: $130,000 Total Amount Requested under this NOFA: $130,000 Total Project Cost: $130,000 Previously Approved City Funding for this project: 110,000 Source: General Fund FY 18-19 Application Details Applicant Name: City of South San Francisco Parks & Recreation Department - South San Francisco, CA Address: 550 N Canal St City: South San Francisco Zip: 94080-4691 Phone: 6508293837 Fax: joshua.richardson@ssf.net Type of Applicant: Public Agency Contact Person:Name: Joshua Richardson Title: Phone:6508293837 Contact Email: joshua.richardson@ssf.net Agency Director:Greg Mediati Name & Title of Person Authorized to Execute Legal Documents with County for this Project (Should match attachment 16): Name:Mike Futrell Title: City Manager DUNS Number: 80038730 Federal EIN/TIN Number: 946000435 1/29/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/happ2020arc.pl?rpt=C8743&prop=1098 2/6 Client Inventory: In the table below, please indicate, in the second column, the total number of persons currently served/who will be served by your Program. Of the number of persons served, indicate the number of families/ households represented in the third column. Enter 0 if there were no beneficiaries prior to this funding. Clients Served # of Persons # of Households # of Clients Currently Served by Facility (prior to this funding):0 0 Additional Clients Proposed to be Served:11,575 3,323 Total # of Clients Proposed to be Served:11,575 3,323 Beneficiaries # of Persons # of Households # of Extremely Low Income* Persons/Households to be served:1,208 # of Very Low Income* Persons/Households to be served:660 # of Low Income* Persons/Households to be served:781 Total:0 1. Project Summary: Provide a brief narrative summary of the project. Description must include (a) program specific objectives; (b) target population; (c) geographic impact (d) Description of what the funds will be used for. What is the exact scope of services for which you plan to use requested funds? The proposed project is located at the open lot on the on Airport Blvd. between Armour Ave. and Linden Ave. It will consist of installing 500' of new chain link fence fabric, replacing top bars, and vertical supports for the full length of this run. Addtionally, this project will install approximately 125' of new chain link fencing around drainage culvert for safety. There will also be a new 200' long by 6' wide 'granitecrete' ADA accessible pathway installed from an entrance on Armour Avenue to the sports field pathway.Currently, no accessible path of travel here exists. There will also be another 90' long by 6' wide ADA accessible pathway entering from Airport Blvd. and extending to the soccer field pathway. Lastly, this project will entail installing a new backflow for the current irrigation system as well as a second backflow that will run a potable line to a new water fountain. The objectives of this project are to complete the creation of an accessible, safe, user-friendly park and sporting field site, for the low-income neighborhoods that surround the area. The new fence will keep park users safe from traffic and the pathway will allow for all residents to be able to access this area. The site is encircled by the neighborhoods known as 'Old Town', 'Peck's Lot', and 'Paradise Valley'. The neighborhoods surrounding this project site have been identified as low-income; earning below 80% of the median income of the area. Additionally, the 'Old Town' neighborhood was also identified in the 2015 SSF Parks and Recreation Master Plan as having an inadequate amount of park acreage for the number of residents residing in the immediate area. The scope of work that these funds will be used for are as follows: Pathway from Armour Ave: 1. Grading and excavation of current site material; Average of 6 inches - 8 inches of depth 2. Installation of 6 inch steel edging; Approximately 350 linear feet 3. Installation and compaction of 4 inches - 6 inches of Class II recycled base rock; Approximately 20 cubic yards @ 6 inches deep 4. Installation and compaction of 4 inches - 6 inches of 'Granitecrete' pathway material; Approximately 20 cubic yards @ 6 inches deep Pathway from Airport Blvd: 1. Grading and excavation of pathway area; average of 6 inches - 8 inches of depth 2. Installation of 6 inch steel edging; Approximately 143' linear feet 3. Installation and compaction of 4 inches - 6 inches of Class II recycled base rock; Approximately 9 cubic yards @ 6 inches deep 4. Installation and compaction of 4 inches -6 inches of 'Granitecrete' pathway material; Approximately 9 cubic yards @ 6 inches deep Irrigation/plumbing 1. Installation of new 1.5 inch backflow 2. Installation and plumbing of copper pipe from meter for new 1 inch backflow 3. Installation of concrete pad 4. Installation of new 'bottle filling' water fountain Fencing 1. Removal of chain link fabric from approximately 500' of 4' high fencing 2. Straightening/replacing upright posts as needed. Replacing cross bars as needed. 3. Installing new galvanized chain link fence fabric for 500' at 4' high Safety Fencing 1. Install approximately 125' of 4' high, new chain link fencing around drainage ditch 2. Install approximately 150' of 4' high, new chain link fencing along South edge of pathway with entry points at each path intersection General Labor Costs for Pathway This number was produced by using estimate from previous job for installation of 156 yards of material and 1400 linear feet of steel edging. The new project would entail approximately 60 yards of material and approximately 500 linear feet of steel edging. 1/29/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/happ2020arc.pl?rpt=C8743&prop=1098 3/6 Additional 10% contingency 2. Project History. Please briefly describe the project's history leading to this request. Include such information as when the site was acquired or will be acquired, if rehabilitating an existing structure include year that it was built, any previous requests for City funding, changes in the project since those requests were made, attempts made to secure other financing, how current project was estimated, and any other relevant information about the history of the project. In 1997, the City and PG&E signed a long term lease for public use of the site. In approximately 2013, PG&E reclaimed the site and turned it into a lay down yard and truck storage for materials being used at nearby project sites. In July-August 2019 PG&E reinstated the lease, and reemphasized their intent to maintain this area as a public park, turning the property back over to the City of SSF. This work included grading, irrigation installation, and hydroseeding and was performed at the cost of approximately $160,000.00 paid for by PG&E. The City has since spent $110,000.00 on installing a pathway encircling the turf area and repairing/replacing the fence portion that was in the greatest disrepair along Linden Avenue. The pathway serves multiple purposes including designating a field of play, creating an accessible pathway for residents to access the field, and a path for maintenance vehicles to service the area. The current project has been estimated based off labor and material rates from the recent portions of the project that have been completed. This grant would be used as gap-funding to help complete the project and make the site fully accessible. 3. Identification of Priorities: How did you determine the need for your Project? Identify the specific NOFA Objectives from the Funding Guidelines that your program/project meets. Necessity of the project in this area was determined by a combination of the Park and Recreation Master Plan and by the map titled, 'Map of 51% or more Low and Middle Income Households in South San Francisco'. The P&R Master Plan identifies a benchmark for SSF of having soccer field facilities similar to the benchmarked cities of Milpitas, San Bruno, and Redwood City. These cities range from having twenty-two fields to three fields throughout their city. South San Francisco can only lay claim to owning one soccer field for the entire city. Furthermore, the P&R Masterplan analysis also finds that, 'the popularity of soccer, combined with the demographics of South San Francisco, suggests there would be a high level of participation if more soccer fields were available. As soccer is a favorite sport of many in the community, consideration of field development, maintenance, and year-round access should be considered.' The map that illustrates the 51% or more low or middle income areas of town, specifically the census tract designated as '6021' currently encompasses the project site. This neighborhood has been historically lacking in green space and sporting fields with the nearest city owned sports field being almost two miles away, and the nearest city owned open-space being Sign Hill at a half-mile away and not ADA accessible. This project satisfies the objective listed under, 'City Objectives and Outcomes for 2018-2023', item number 2 titled, 'Public Facilities and Capital Improvement Projects'. The funds in this grant would be used as gap funding to help complete our larger CIP that serves multiple neighborhoods that qualify under the description of 51% of households that fall under 80% area median income. This project will allow residents in these areas to recreate and enjoy open space that is desperately needed in the area. 4. Organizational Mission: Describe your overall organizational mission. The Parks and Recreation Department's mission is to provide opportunities for physical, cultural and social well being; protect and enhance the physical environment; and ensure the effective and efficient use of public facilities and open space. 5. Project Details/Milestones: Do you have all necessary planning approvals? List all approvals required for your project and indicate the status and actual or projected approval dates. You may refer to timeline (Attachment 7) for details on project milestones. All planning approvals are completed for this project. PG&E approved of this work when the lease was returned to the City (July 2019). PG&E has committed to keeping this area a park space into the future. 6. Does your project require licensing? No What is the status of the license? 7. Are plans and specifications completed? Yes 8. Green Building. Specify how you intend to incorporate Green Building elements and features to your program. The project site is planned to have native plant species planted throughout the park to act as a 'pollinator island' to help pollinators move across the city. This coincides with other plantings in our park and median areas that incorporate similar planting methods and design to create a 'pollinator corridor' throughout the city. All irrigation outside of turf watering will be drip irrigation in mulched beds to reduce water usage and increase water retention on site. Drainage areas will be planted with native grasses and shrubs that are water tolerant to help with trash 1/29/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/happ2020arc.pl?rpt=C8743&prop=1098 4/6 capture and slow down flow rates into drains. All planted areas will also have compost installed to help increase pore space within soil profile and water retention. 9. Federal Labor Standards Compliance: Projects requesting funds for actual hard costs of rehabilitation/new construction must meet the following requirements: Davis-Bacon requirements: The payment of prevailing wages to construction workers is required if: CDBG funds are part of a construction contract of (1) $2,000+ for non-housing activities; CDBG is used for rehabilitation of 8+ dwelling units in a project; Section 3: If the construction contract is greater than $100,000, you will need to use good faith efforts to offer construction-generated new jobs to qualified low income City residents and/or a portion of the contract (subcontract) to qualified low income subcontractors who are City residents. The employment opportunities may be construction or non-construction-related. The federal goal is offering 30% of NEW employment opportunities to Section 3 residents and 10% of construction contract to Section 3 businesses. MBE/WBE: the Project Developer must use good faith best efforts to contract with qualified MBEs and WBEs. Contracts of $10,000+, both construction and non-construction, that are offered to qualified minority/women business enterprises, will be reported to HUD. If you are using City funds under this NOFA for construction, please describe how you will meet the above federal requirements related to Davis-Bacon, Section 3, and/or MBE/WBE, if applicable. The project wages adhere to both California prevailing wage and Davis-Bacon prevailing wages. The City will conduct in-field interviews of employees and request pay-scales for employees working under contractors during this project. 10. Collaboration. Describe how your agency collaborates with other service providers to meet the various needs of your targeted population/clientele. Park and Recreation will coordinate with the local soccer leagues to program and utilize the field for U8 soccer teams. The soccer league has a significant need of additional fields within the city to accommodate the interest and participation that currently exists in SSF. The City also plans to use the site as an opportunity for community and volunteer engagement, as well as an environmental educational opportunity for a community that may not be extended these opportunities otherwise. Volunteers will be engaged by planting in the various planned planter areas and education will come in the form of learning about the benefits of native plants and a 'native garden' area that will identify and describe the plants that residents can find within the park. 11. Relocation. If your project is expected to incur a relocation obligation, briefly explain the nature of the relocation: e.g. who is to be relocated; whether permanent of temporary; estimated cost per household/business; timeline, etc. (Include Relocation Plan as Attachment 8 if it is already completed or provide an estimated timeline when the Plan will be submitted.) No relocation is required for the project 12. Other. Specify any other project issues that you feel should be considered in review of this application for funds. This funding is important gap-funding to help supplement the funds that the City has previously dedicated to complete this site. Without this funding, the project may extend into the future and keep this site closed until city funding is dedicated, which would push this project back to being completed in 2021 or later. Attachments A. Resolution authorizing application and designation of signatory, by the Board of Directors B. Certified financial audit no more that 1 fiscal year old, prepared by a CPA, and: Management letters (if applicable) A-122 and A-133 Single Audit (for entities that receive more than $500,000 in federal funding) OR A letter from your Executive Director or Corporate Financial Officer certifying that agency does not receive more than $500,000 in federal funds and is not subject to the Single Audit. G. Non-discrimination policy for Staff and Clients H. Reasonable Accommodations Policy for Staff and Clients I. Conflict of Interest Policy. (If not available, please indicate when you will submit) J. Other - K. Other - 1/29/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/happ2020arc.pl?rpt=C8743&prop=1098 5/6 ATTACHMENT 1 - PROJECT TEAM Specify the names, experience, responsibilities and roles of each team member. Indicate whether they are full-time or part-time employees. ATTACHMENT 2 - SOURCES & USES BUDGET/NARRATIVE The total cost of your project, including construction costs, must be shown. Please indicate all anticipated sources and uses of funding in addition to City funds. Please indicate all anticipated funding sources separately. Provide a narrative explanation of each line item. ATTACHMENT 3 - CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE Provide copies of any construction bids/estimates obtained. If bids are not available, please explain how you arrived at estimated construction costs. Fencing_Prices.docx Base_Rock_Prices.pdf Construction_Estimate_Justification.docx Granitecrete_Prices.pdf Install_Labor_Prices.pdf Steel_Edging_Prices.pdf ATTACHMENT 4 - LABOR STANDARDS If the proposed activity triggers Davis Bacon prevailing wages, describe how you will meet the Davis Bacon requirements. ATTACHMENT 5 - OTHER FUNDS/LOCAL MATCH Provide evidence of other fund commitments or good faith efforts on your part to seek other funding. For all funding sources, attach documentation of funding commitments, if available. Indicate the status of funding requests if you do not have commitments. ATTACHMENT 6 - AREA MAP/SITE PHOTO/SITE PLAN Provide an area map indicating location of the project, and a photograph of the project site, along with site plan. Irish_Town_Green_Site_Plan_5_6_18.pdf ATTACHMENT 7 - EVIDENCE OF SITE CONTROL Provide evidence of site control (e.g. grant deed, sales agreement, option agreement, lease agreement, etc.) showing that you have or will have the authority to carry out the proposed project. If you do not currently have site control, submit a narrative explanation. If you lease the project site, please submit a letter or agreement from the owner/landlord or other documentation that you are permitted to make the proposed improvements to the premises. ATTACHMENT 8 - TITLE REPORT If you own or intend to take ownership of the real property, please provide a copy of the most recent title policy, or title report (issued within the past 6 months). ATTACHMENT 9 - APPRAISAL If your project involves acquisition, even if you are not intending to use South San Francisco funds for this purpose, please provide a copy of the appraisal. If you do not yet have an appraisal, please indicate when you expect to obtain one. If you are requesting funds for acquisition, the appraisal must be submitted no later than 30 days after application due date. South San Francisco reserves the right to request an appraisal for all projects as determined by the staff. ATTACHMENT 10 - PROJECT TIMELINE Provide a project schedule, designating specific work tasks, projected delays, accomplishments, escrow dates, projected dates to receive all required funding, construction start dates, and any other major milestones. Please indicate any specific dates or requirements for which South San Francisco funds will impact other funding sources or deadlines. Project_Timeline.docx ATTACHMENT 11 - RELOCATION PLAN If the proposed project will require relocation of residential or commercial tenants other than yourself, provide a copy of the written relocation plan. If you do not yet have a relocation plan, please indicate when you expect to provide one to City Staff. ATTACHMENT 12 - PHASE I HAZARDOUS MATERIALS REPORT If a hazardous materials assessment has already been prepared for the proposed project, please submit a copy. Describe how you plan to address any findings of hazardous materials (e.g. lead, asbestos, mold) in your project. South San Francisco reserves the right to request a Hazardous Materials Assessment. ATTACHMENT 13 - PROPERTY MANAGEMENT Indicate who will be responsible for on-going maintenance and operations of the facility. Provide Name, Address & Phone Number. This application was prepared by: Name: Joshua Richardson Title: Parks Manager 1/29/2020 City Data Services - South San Francisco https://www.citydataservices.net/cities/smatca/happ2020arc.pl?rpt=C8743&prop=1098 6/6 Initially submitted: Jan 16, 2020 - 16:24:23 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:19-1037 Agenda Date:2/26/2020 Version:1 Item #:9. Report regarding a resolution to adopt the draft Urban Forest Master Plan.(Greg Mediati,Deputy Director, Parks and Recreation Department) RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution adopting the draft Urban Forest Master Plan. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION For many years,the City of South San Francisco has acted as responsible stewards of its urban forest of over 15,000 trees.In 1989,the City adopted a tree preservation ordinance,which recognized the value of the city’s public and private trees,and created guidelines for enforcement of tree preservation and tree care.This ordinance was subsequently updated in 2000 and 2016.Because of its dedication to tree maintenance and preservation,the City of South San Francisco has been distinguished as a Tree City USA by the National Arbor Day Foundation for 33 years. As part of the 2017/18 Capital Improvement Program,the City Council authorized funding for the creation of a citywide Urban Forest Master Plan.The purpose of an Urban Forest Master Plan is to develop a clear set of goals,policies and objectives that will provide direction for the development,improvement and enhancement of the City’s parks,neighborhood and street trees,which collectively serve as the city’s “urban forest.”The plan will serve as a tool to guide tree care and reforestation measures on an immediate,as well as long-term basis. The vision for the Urban Forest Master Plan includes goals for sustainability,species diversity,and greater canopy coverage. The City’s urban forest provides multiple environmental,economic and aesthetic benefits for residents, businesses and visitors.Trees provide shade and reduce energy consumption.They improve air and water quality, provide habitat, spur economic vitality, and impart a distinct character to our city. The City sought innovative methods and approaches to develop a city-wide,long term Urban Forest Master Plan that provides recommendations and actions the City can take in the short and long term.These recommendations and actions are intended to improve and enhance the City’s urban forest and respond to environmental and safety issues that can impact the City’s canopy, residents, and wildlife habitat. The scope of the analysis for this plan includes the following: 1.Ensure that the City and its residents has an accurate and complete picture of its urban forest, both on public and private lands.The plan incorporates information from the City’s tree inventory. 2.Establish the urban forest as a public resource in a meaningful way. 3.Conduct analysis of canopy coverage and recommend an achievable goal for future canopy coverage. 4.Establish the importance of sustainability in a meaningful way.The plan describes the need to City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/20/2020Page 1 of 2 powered by Legistar™ File #:19-1037 Agenda Date:2/26/2020 Version:1 Item #:9. 4.Establish the importance of sustainability in a meaningful way.The plan describes the need to create a more robust and climatically appropriate tree genera and updates the City’s preferred species list. 5.Provide a vision and strategic plan for effective and efficient management of the urban forest - employing best practices and technical standards that reflect the latest advancements in the field. 6.Review and incorporate resources (both within and external to the City),such as existing plans, the municipal code, and other professional resources. 7.Engage the community as stewards of the urban forest through education and encouragement. 8.Include a monitoring plan that will address the effectiveness of the plan. Staff issued a request for proposals for the creation of the Urban Forest Master Plan,and awarded the contract to Davey Resources Group,a subsidiary of Davey Tree Company.City Council authorized the agreement with Davey Resource Group at its regular meeting on April 25,2018.The contract’s value was $86,336,including contingency for additional work. Over the past two years,staff has worked closely with the consulting arborists to draft this plan.During the planning process,consultants reviewed the City’s tree inventory,forestry practices,and met with city stakeholders,including staff from various departments and a subcommittee of the Parks and Recreation Commission.The greater Parks and Recreation Commission also reviewed the plan at their November 2019 meeting,and their feedback was incorporated into the document.A public workshop and surveys were also organized to gather resident feedback, which is all summarized in the report. FISCAL IMPACT While invoices are still being processed,the full cost of this plan is within the budget authorized by City Council.The plan does not establish any additional on-going maintenance costs,but does outline maintenance standards that should be adopted.These standards would necessitate additional staffing or contract support to achieve,however,requests for these resources will not be recommended to City Council until departmental staffing is further studied. RELATIONSHIP TO STRATEGIC PLAN The Urban Forest Master Plan supports Strategic Plan Priority #2:Build and Maintain a Sustainable City by better informing the City’s urban forestry practices and maintenance standards.This will improve the health and volume of the City’s urban forest,which will in turn increase environmental benefits including water and carbon sequestration, providing shade and habitat, cleaning air, among countless others. CONCLUSION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution adopting the draft Urban Forest Master Plan. Attachments: 1 - Urban Forest Master Plan 2 - UFMP Presentation City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/20/2020Page 2 of 2 powered by Legistar™ CITY OFSouth San Francisco URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN Someone is sitting in the shade today because someone planted a tree a long time ago.” WARREN BUFFET Prepared by: DAVEY RESOURCE GROUP, INC. 1500 North Mantua Street, Kent, OH 44240 www.daveyresourcegroup.com CITY OF South San Francisco URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN Prepared for: CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 400 Grand Ave South San Francisco, CA 94080 Acknowledgements SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO CITY COUNCIL MAYOR: Rich Garbarino VICE MAYOR: Mark Addiego COUNCIL MEMBERS: Karyl Matsumoto, Mark Nagales, Buenaflor Nicolas PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION CITY STAFF AND DEPARTMENTS DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FIRE DAVEY RESOURCE GROUP, INC. THANKS FOR GUIDANCE FROM FRIENDS OF THE URBAN FOREST. SPECIAL THANKS TO COMMUNITY PARTICIPANTS. PHOTO CREDITS CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO DAVEY RESOURCE GROUP, INC. Table of Contents What do we want? 51 MANAGING PARTNERS 52 COMMUNITY MEETING 52 PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING 53 ONLINE SURVEY 58 FOCUS AREAS AND PLAN GOALS 58 Focus Area: Align urban forest management policy with community expectations and cost efficiency 59 Focus Area: Enhance community safety 59 Focus Area: Optimize the environmental, social, economic, and public health benefits of trees and canopy 60 Focus Area: Grow, maintain, preserve, and enhance a sustainable urban forest How do we get there? 62 Focus Area: Align urban forest management policy with community expectations and cost efficiency 68 Focus Area: Enhance community safety 72 Focus Area: Optimize the environmental, social, economic, and public health benefits of trees and canopy 81 Focus Area: Grow, maintain, preserve, and enhance a sustainable urban forest How are we doing? 86 MONITORING Annual Plan Review Resource Analysis Canopy Analysis Community Satisfaction 86 REPORTING State of the Community Forest Report Executive Summary 11 WHAT DO WE HAVE? 12 WHAT DO WE WANT? 12 HOW DO WE GET THERE? 12 HOW ARE WE DOING? Introduction 14 COMMUNITY South San Francisco History 15 VISION STATEMENT 16 TREE AND CANOPY BENEFITS Air Quality Improvements Carbon Dioxide Reductions Water Quality Improvements Energy Savings Health Benefits Wildlife Habitat Wind Protection Calculating Tree Benefits What Do We Have? 22 HISTORY OF URBAN FORESTRY IN SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 23 John and Tina Previti 24 MICROCLIMATES 25 CLIMATE CHANGE 31 URBAN FOREST RESOURCE Tree Canopy Priority Planting Community Tree Resource 35 URBAN FORESTRY OPERATIONS Services Tree Care Equipment Tree Inventory Management Pest Management Safety Community Engagement and Outreach Sign Hill Funding Interdepartmental Coordination Community Partnerships Development 47 POLICIES AND REGULATION Federal and State Law South San Francisco Municipal Code City Of South San Francisco General Plan City Of South San Francisco Climate Action Plan California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) 49 TREE CARE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY 49 CONCLUSIONS Table of Contents Figures 33 FIGURE 1: Most Prevalent Species In South San Francisco 44 FIGURE 2: South San Francisco 2018-2019 Budget 53 FIGURE 3: Responses to “Trees are important to the quality of life in South San Francisco”? 53 FIGURE 4: Responses to “Are there enough trees in South San Francisco”? 53 FIGURE 5: Responses to “Where would you like to see more trees planted”? 54 FIGURE 6: Responses to “What Canopy Goal Should South San Francisco Adopt”? 54 FIGURE 7: “Which benefits provided by trees do you value most? Please select the top three benefits”. 54 FIGURE 8: “Describe your awareness and/or interactions with South San Francisco’s urban forest program. Please check all that apply”. 54 FIGURE 9: “What level of care for public trees would you prefer”? 55 FIGURE 10: “Should the City require professional licensing for tree care providers”? 55 FIGURE 11: “Would you support a higher penalty for unpermitted removals”? 55 FIGURE 12: “What topic about trees interest you? Please select your top three (3)”? 55 FIGURE 13: “What education topics about trees interest you? Please select your top three (3)”. 56 FIGURE 14: “What volunteer/collaborative efforts interest you most? Please select all that apply”. 56 FIGURE 15: “What is your age”? 56 FIGURE 16: “What neighborhood do you live in”? Maps 24 MAP 1: Climate Zone Map 27 MAP 2: Land Cover Summary 28 MAP 3: South San Francisco Parks 29 MAP 4: South San Francisco Zones 30 MAP 5: Planting Priority 31 MAP 6: South San Francisco Inventoried Trees Tables 13 TABLE 1: Summary of Goals and Existing Policies of the Plan Appendices 87 APPENDIX A: Acronyms 89 APPENDIX B: References 91 APPENDIX C: Industry Standards 91 ANSI Z133 SAFETY STANDARD, 2017 91 ANSI A300 Best Management Practices (BMPs) 92 APPENDIX D: Online Community Survey Results 101 APPENDIX E: Soil Volume and Tree Stature 101 APPENDIX F: Alternative Planter Designs 104 APPENDIX G: Sustainable Urban Forest Indicators 108 APPENDIX H: South San Francisco Goals and Objective Gantt Chart Scope & Purpose The Urban Forest Master Plan (UFMP) serves as a guide for managing, enhancing, and growing South San Francisco’s urban forest and the community tree resource over the next 20 years. Whereas the urban forest includes all of the trees and woody shrubs in South San Francisco, the community tree resource is comprised of publicly managed trees along streets, in parks, and at City facilities. While the UFMP is primarily focused on the stewardship of the community tree resource, the Plan also considers private trees because they contribute significantly to South San Francisco’s livability and environmental quality. In summary, the UFMP aims to: • Recognize best management practices that promote tree health, maximum benefits, and community safety • Promote community outreach, engagement, and advocacy for the urban forest • Develop a more cohesive organizational structure to facilitate collaboration among all departments and staff who impact or affect the urban forest • Nurture an ethic of stewardship for the urban forest among City Staff, community organizations, businesses, and residents • Increase health and resiliency in the urban forest by improving species diversity, and by managing pests and invasive species • Identify baseline metrics and clear goals for urban forest managers The UFMP includes short-term actions and long-range planning goals to promote sustainability, species diversity, and greater canopy cover. The UFMP suggests reasonable time frames for achieving goals, based on available resources and community support. South San Francisco has been recognized as a Tree City USA for 32 years.” 8 Scope and Purpose 9 WHAT DO WE HAVE? HOW DO WE GET THERE? WHAT DO WE WANT? HOW ARE WE DOING? Executive Summary South San Francisco’s community urban forest includes an estimated 15,000 public-managed trees along streets and medians, in parks and open space, and around City facilities. Along with their aesthetic contribution, these trees provide valuable and critical services to the community including benefits to air quality, water quality, stormwater management, energy savings, wildlife habitat, and socioeconomics. The Urban Forest Master Plan (UFMP) is a road map which provides long-term management goals and timelines to effectively preserve and enhance the environmental benefits provided by this critical component of infrastructure. The UFMP’s structure is based on the understanding of what we have, what we want, how we get there, and how we are doing. This structure, known as adaptive management, is commonly used for resource planning and management (Miller, 1988) and provides a conceptual framework for the process of improving urban forest management. The plan development process for the UFMP involved a comprehensive review and assessment of the existing urban forest resource, which included composition, value, and environmental benefits. The process explored community values and vision, including those expressed in guiding documents such as the General Plan 2040, the Climate Action Plan, City Ordinance, state law, and other regulatory and policy documents. The process also evaluated funding and the current service levels for both in-house and contracted tree crews. In addition to Parks staff, there are multiple stakeholders, internal and external, who play a role in the planning, design, care, and advocacy of the urban forest. These stakeholders include City departments, utility providers, nonprofit organizations, Parks and Recreation commission, and community members. Each of these stakeholders played a role and provided input for the development of this plan. People don’t remember each tree in a park but all of us benefit from the trees.” YOKO ONO 10 Executive Summary WHAT DO WE HAVE? The review process identified challenges facing the urban forest, most notably, climate change. The predominate impact of climate change on the urban forest is the effect on tree species that historically have been successful in the region but now, with rising temperatures and more extreme periods of drought, may no longer thrive in the changing environment. In addition to climate change, the City is still recovering from a financial crisis in the late 2000s. The financial crisis prompted a hiring freeze, resulting in numerous vacant positions as staff retired or left the City. More specifically, the tree crews were reduced by a third. Currently, tree care is highly reactive, and as a result, not all trees are receiving adequate care. Despite challenges, the City has numerous opportunities to expand the urban forest. As identified by an Urban Tree Canopy Assessment, the City currently has 8.7% canopy cover, but has the potential to achieve 22.6%. With the support of (1) Council Members and the Parks and Recreation Commission; (2) an Urban Tree Canopy Assessment that includes GIS mapping of the location and extent of South San Francisco’s entire tree canopy (public and private); (3) a Tree Preservation Ordinance that promotes the protection of certain species and sizes of trees throughout the community; and (4) a well-trained and motivated Parks staff, South San Francisco has the tools and information necessary to make well-informed and effective management choices. These management choices will increase the environmental benefits and value from the City’s public trees. South San Francisco’s Urban Forest Benchmark Values Community Urban Forest (Public Tree Resource) Inventoried trees (2018)10,831 trees and 1,505 vacant sites Estimated non-inventoried trees 4,000 trees Species Diversity (Inventoried Trees, 2018) Total number of unique species 165 Prevalence of top ten species 60.4% Species exceeding recommended 10%1 Urban Tree Canopy Cover (Public and Private, 2016) Overall canopy cover 7.2% Overall canopy cover (excluding open water)8.7% Impervious surfaces 58.2% Canopy cover – Parks and Open Space 22.7% Canopy Benefits (Public and Private, 2016) Carbon stored to date 62,113 tons $2.2 million Annual Canopy Benefits (Public and Private, 2016) Annual carbon benefits 3,142 tons $110,772 Annual air quality benefits 39,822 pounds $20,119 11Executive Summary WHAT DO WE WANT? A primary emphasis for the UFMP is to identify adequate resources to ensure that critical tree care needs can be addressed in a timely, cost-effective, and efficient manner. This includes the proactive identification of risk and mitigation measures to promote public safety and reduce liability. The current inventory of City-owned trees does not include all City-trees and does not have a historic record of maintenance. Trees are living organisms, constantly changing and adapting to their environment and increasing in size over time. Because of this, trees have specific needs at various life stages, including training for proper structure when they are young and increased monitoring and proactive risk management when they become mature. Deferring maintenance can have a significant effect on the overall health, structure, value, and lifespan of a tree. In addition, deferred maintenance often results in higher costs and less beneficial results, including increased risk potential. As a result, the UFMP identifies goals for optimizing urban forest programming, existing funding, staffing, and urban forest policy. HOW DO WE GET THERE? The UFMP identifies four focus areas and 19 goals for preserving the health, value, services, and sustainability of South San Francisco’s community urban forest. Each of these goals is supported by comprehensive objectives and actions. Recognizing that community engagement is integral to success, the UFMP includes firm objectives for engaging the community and encouraging partnerships and collaboration. HOW ARE WE DOING? The long-term success of the UFMP will be measured through the realization of Plan goals and demonstrated through increased value and environmental services from the urban forest. The Plan identifies methods of measurement, priorities, potential partners, and estimated costs. Since the UFMP is intended to be a dynamic tool, it can and should be updated in response to available resources and opportunities. One of the greatest measures of success for the UFMP will be its level of success in meeting community expectations for the care and preservation of South San Francisco’s urban forest. Executive Summary 12 Executive Summary Executive Summary Table 1: Summary of Goals and Existing Policies of the Plan Focus Areas Align urban forest management policy with community expectations and cost efficiency. Enhance community safety.Optimize the environmental, social, economic, and public health benefits of trees and canopy. Grow, maintain, preserve, and enhance a sustainable urban forest. Goals and Existing Policies Goal 1: Promote excellent and efficient customer service. Goal 2: Increase uniformity between City policies, documents, and departments. Goal 3: Advance the role of Park Staff in City development projects. Goal 4: Increase collaboration with developers. Goal 5: Provide water to trees efficiently and cost-effectively. Goal 6: Promote a workplace culture of safety. Goal 7: Promote a safe urban forest. Goal 8: Reduce the risk of fire and mitigate damage caused by fire. Goal 9: Improve public safety. Goal 10: Plan for trees, before planting. Goal 11: Avoid removing trees whenever possible. Goal 12: Reach 22.6% canopy cover by 2040. Goal 13: Decrease tree mortality. Goal 14: Promote good maintenance practices for trees on private property. Goal 15: Review and update Municipal Code as needed and educate the public as changes occur. Goal 16: Increase support for the enhancement of the urban forest. Goal 17: Continue to distribute information about the urban forest to the community. Goal 18: Create a volunteer tree advocacy group. Goal 19: Continue to practice an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) approach when responding to pests and disease pathogens. Primary Objectives • Increase efficiency to respond in a timely manner to community concerns for trees. • Unify guiding documents to transcend departmental changes and address inefficiencies and reduce confusion. • Improve communication and coordination with other City departments. • Increase the role of Park Staff in design review. • Encourage the inclusion of trees in development projects to expand the tree canopy on public property. • Expand tree canopy through new development projects. • Provide water to trees to encourage establishment. • Implement policies and procedures that make that tree work as safe as possible. • Develop a risk management policy/ procedure. • Focus fire mitigation efforts on Sign Hill and other areas of vulnerability. • Maintain trees throughout their lifetimes to improve structure in maturity and reduce the likelihood of structural failures in the future. • Invest in trees for the long-term environmental benefits provided to the community. • Improve the diversity of the urban forest on public and private property, to create a more resilient urban forest. • Explore alternative designs instead of removals. • Discourage the removal of protected trees. • Improve everyday care of trees, to prevent future removals. • Expand canopy cover to increase environmental benefits. • Educate the community about property owner responsibilities for the care of City trees. • Reduce unethical and/or poor pruning practices and unnecessary removals on private property. • Meet the changing needs of the urban forest and the community through clear and concise and current policy. • Engage the community in urban forestry activities and educational events. • Provide sustainable and adequate resources to sustain the urban forest for future generations. • An educated community increases support and understanding of urban forestry policies and procedures. • Market urban forestry through a variety means to promote participation from all community members • Work with volunteer tree advocates to promote urban forestry events and distribute urban forestry educational materials. • Employ multiple tools and strategies to prevent and/or manage pests and pathogens. 13Executive Summary Introduction South San Francisco, also known as “South City” by locals, is in San Mateo County on the San Francisco Peninsula. A capital of biotechnology, South San Francisco has attracted various biotechnology companies to the area. South San Francisco experiences a Mediterranean climate with mild winters and dry cool summers, with an average high temperature of 65.9°F and an average low temperature of 50.6°F. The average annual precipitation is 20.6 inches, with most rainfall occurring between November and April (Climate South San Francisco−California, 2018). The City, like much of the peninsula, experiences fog in the mornings and evenings, with glimpses of sunshine throughout the afternoon. COMMUNITY South San Francisco History Separated from the greater San Francisco area by the San Bruno Mountain State and County Park, the City of South San Francisco is marked by the prominent Sign Hill to the north, noting South San Francisco as “The Industrial City,” and reflecting the City’s long history of industry. 1700s The Ohlone Tribe were the first to call the San Francisco Peninsula home, relying on the bay and surrounding hills for fish and game. The arrival of Spaniards in 1769 led to the decimation of the Ohlone. For the remainder of the century, the Mexican government controlled the area and awarded large land grants to its supporters. 1800s In 1835, Señor Don Jose Antonio Sanchez was granted the vast Rancho Buri Buri. Following his death, his children inherited the land. The land changed ownership numerous times, eventually leading to the introduction of ranching in the area (History of South San Francisco, 2017). In 1889, Gustavus F. Swift appointed Peter Iler of Omaha, Nebraska to find a location in California where a meat packing plant could be established. Swift formed South San Francisco Land and Improvement Company and the Western Meat Company (which later would be known as Swift & Co.). These companies attracted industries and workers to the area, thus increasing the area’s population. With the increased population, the area was incorporated in 1908. The area continued to grow during World War II. The growth led to the expansion of residential areas as well as creating a thriving shipbuilding industry. 1900s In 1968, Swift & Co. closed (Spangler, 1968). By 1978, a biotechnology company called Genentech established its headquarters in South San Francisco. Genentech attracted other biotechnology companies to the area and contributed to the City’s new identity, “The Birthplace of Biotechnology” (Genentech, 2018). 2000s Today, South San Francisco is home to the largest biotech cluster in the world. There are over 200 biotech companies making up 11.5-million square feet of biotech space on 500 acres (Biotech in South San Francisco, 2018). 14 Introduction MISSION STATEMENT The Parks and Recreation Department mission is to provide opportunities for physical, cultural and social well being; protect and enhance the physical environment; and ensure the effective and efficient use of public facilities and open space. 15Executive Summary Introduction Air Quality Improvements Trees improve air quality in five (5) fundamental ways: • Lessening particulate matter (e.g. dust and smoke) • Absorbing gaseous pollutants • Providing shade and transpiring • Reducing power plant emissions by decreasing energy demand among buildings • Increasing oxygen levels through photosynthesis Trees protect and improve air quality by intercepting particulate matter (PM₁₀), including dust, pollen, and smoke. The particulates are filtered and held in the tree canopy until precipitation rinses the particulates harmlessly to the ground. Trees absorb harmful gaseous pollutants like ozone (O₃), nitrogen dioxide (NO₂), and sulfur dioxide (SO₂). Shade and transpiration reduce the formation of O₃, which is created at higher temperatures. Scientists are now finding that some trees may absorb more volatile organic compounds (VOCs) than previously thought (Karl, 2010; McPherson and Simpson, 2010). VOCs are carbon-based particles emitted from automobile exhaust, lawnmowers, and other human activities. TREE AND CANOPY BENEFITS Trees in the urban forest work continuously to mitigate the effects of urbanization and development as well as protect and enhance lives within the community. Healthy trees are vigorous, producing more leaf surface and canopy cover area each year. The amount and distribution of leaf surface area are the driving forces behind the urban forest’s ability to produce services for the community (Clark et al, 1997). Services (i.e. benefits) include: • Air quality improvements • Carbon dioxide reductions • Water quality improvements • Aesthetics & socioeconomics enhancements • Energy savings • Health benefits • Wildlife habitat • Wind protection 16 Introduction Introduction Carbon Dioxide Reductions As environmental awareness increases, governments are paying attention to global warming and the effects of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. As energy from the sun (sunlight) strikes the Earth’s surface, it is reflected into space as infrared radiation (heat). Greenhouse gases absorb some of this infrared radiation and trap this heat in the atmosphere, increasing the temperature of the Earth’s surface. Many chemical compounds in the Earth’s atmosphere act as GHGs, including methane (CH₄), nitrous oxide (N₂O), carbon dioxide (CO₂), water vapor, and human-made gases/ aerosols. As GHGs increase, the amount of energy radiated back into space is reduced and more heat is trapped in the atmosphere. An increase in the average temperature of the earth may result in changes in weather, sea levels, and land use patterns, commonly referred to as “climate change.” In the last 150 years, since large- scale industrialization began, the levels of some GHGs, including CO₂, have increased by 25% (Greenhouse Gases’ Effect on the Climate, 2018). California’s Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32) passed in 2006 set the 2020 GHG emissions reduction goal into law. In December 2007, the California Air Resources Board (ARB) approved the 2020 emission limit of 427 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO₂). As of 2007, regulations require that the largest industrial sources of GHG must report and verify their emissions. In 2011, the ARB adopted the cap-and-trade regulation. Under a cap-and-trade system, an upper limit (or cap) is placed on GHG emissions. This cap can be applied to any source, industry, region, or other jurisdictional level (e.g., state, national, or global). Regulated entities are required to either reduce emissions to required limits or purchase (trade) emission offsets to meet the cap. In 2011, the ARB approved four (4) offset protocols for issuing carbon credits under cap-and-trade, including the Forest Offset Protocol (Compliance Offset Protocol Urban Forest Projects, 2011). This Protocol recognizes the key role forests play in fighting climate change. The USDA Forest Service Urban Ecosystems and Social Dynamics Program (EUP) recently led the development of an Urban Forest Project Reporting Protocol. The Protocol, which incorporates methods of the Kyoto Protocol and Voluntary Carbon Standard (VCS), establishes methods for calculating reductions, provides guidance for accounting and reporting, and assists urban forest managers in developing tree planting and stewardship projects that could be registered for GHG reduction credits (offsets). The Protocol can be applied to urban tree planting projects within municipalities, campuses, and utility service areas anywhere in the United States. Trees and forests reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide CO₂ in two ways: • Directly, through growth and carbon sequestration • Indirectly, by lowering the demand for energy Trees and forests directly reduce CO₂ in the atmosphere through growth and sequestration of CO₂ in woody and foliar biomass. Indirectly, trees and forests reduce CO₂ by lowering the demand for energy and reducing CO₂ emissions from the consumption of natural gas and the generation of electric power. 17Introduction Water Quality Improvements Trees and forests improve and protect the quality of surface waters, such as creeks and rivers, by reducing the impacts of stormwater runoff through: • Interception • Increased soil capacity and infiltration rate • Reduction in soil erosion Trees intercept rainfall in their canopy, which acts as a mini- reservoir (Xiao et al, 1998). During storm events, this interception reduces and slows runoff. In addition to catching stormwater, canopy interception lessens the impact of raindrops on barren soils. Root growth and decomposition increase the capacity and rate of soil infiltration by rainfall and snowmelt (Xiao et al, 1998). Each of these processes greatly reduces the flow and volume of stormwater runoff, avoiding erosion and preventing sediments and other pollutants from entering streams, rivers, and lakes. Urban stormwater runoff is a major source of pollution for surface waters and riparian areas, threatening aquatic and other wildlife as well as human populations. Requirements for stormwater management are becoming more stringent and costly. Reducing runoff and incorporating urban trees in stormwater management planning have the added benefit of reducing the cost of stormwater management, including the expense of constructing new facilities necessary to detain and control stormwater as well as the cost of treatment to remove sediment and other pollutants. Introduction It would be so nice to come home from the hustle and bustle and feel a sense of calm in a nicely wooded neighborhood.” ONLINE SURVEY RESPONDENT 18 Introduction Energy Savings Urban trees and forests modify climate and conserve energy in three (3) principal ways: • Producing shade for dwellings and hardscape reduces the energy needed to cool the building with air conditioning (Akbari et al, 1997) • Tree canopies engage in evapotranspiration, which leads to the release of water vapor from tree canopies and cools the air (Lyle, 1996) • Trees in dense arrangements may reduce mean wind speed and solar radiation below the top of the tree canopy by up to ~90% compared to open areas (Heisler and DeWalle, 1988) An urban heat island is an urban area or metropolitan area that is significantly warmer than its surrounding rural areas due to human activities. Trees reduce energy use in summer by cooling the surrounding areas. Shade from trees reduces the amount of radiant energy absorbed and stored by hardscapes and other impervious surfaces, thereby reducing the heat island effect. Transpiration releases water vapor from tree canopies, which cools the surrounding area. Evapotranspiration, alone or in combination with shading, can help reduce peak summer temperatures by 2 to 9°F (1 to 5°C) (Huang et al, 1990). The energy saving potential of trees and other landscape vegetation can mitigate urban heat islands directly by shading heat-absorbing surfaces, and indirectly through evapotranspiration cooling (McPherson, 1994). Individual trees through transpiration have a cooling effect equivalent to two (2) average household central air-conditioning units per day or 70 kWh for every 200 L of water transpired (Ellison et al, 2017). Studies on the heat island effect show that temperature differences of more than 9°F (5°C) have been observed between city centers without adequate canopy cover and more vegetated suburban areas (Akbari et al, 1997). Trees also reduce energy use in winter by mitigating heat loss, where they can reduce wind speeds by up to 50% and influence the movement of warm air and pollutants along streets and out of urban canyons. Urban canyons are streets flanked by dense blocks of buildings, affecting local conditions, such as temperature, wind, and air quality. By reducing air movement into buildings and against conductive surfaces (e.g., glass and metal siding), trees reduce conductive heat loss from buildings, translating into potential annual heating savings of 25% (Heisler, 1986). Three trees properly placed around the home can save $100- $250 annually in energy costs. Shade from trees significantly mitigates the urban heat island effect - tree canopies provide surface temperature reductions on wall and roof surfaces of buildings ranging from 20-45°F and temperatures inside parked cars can be reduced by 45°F. Reducing energy use has the added bonus of reducing carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions from fossil fuel power plants. Introduction 19Introduction Several studies have examined the relationship between urban forests and crime rates. Park-like surroundings increase neighborhood safety by relieving mental fatigue and feelings of violence and aggression that can occur as an outcome of fatigue (Planning the Urban Forest: Ecology, Economy, and Community Development, 2009). Research shows that the greener a building’s surroundings are, fewer total crimes occur. This is true for both property crimes and violent crimes. Landscape vegetation around buildings can mitigate irritability, inattentiveness, and decreased control over impulses, all of which are well established psychological precursors to violence. Residents who live near outdoor greenery tend to be more familiar with nearby neighbors, socialize more with them, and express greater feelings of community and safety than residents lacking nearby green spaces (American Planning Association, 2003). Public housing residents reported 25% fewer domestic crimes when landscapes and trees were planted near their homes (Kuo, 2001). Two studies (one in New Haven, CT and the other in Baltimore City and County, MD) found a correlation between increased tree coverage and decreased crime rates, even after adjusting for a number of other variables, such as median household income, level of education, and rented versus owner-occupied housing in the neighborhoods that were studied (Gilstad-Hayden et al, 2015; Troy et al, 2012). A 2010 study investigated the effects of exposure to green space at school on the academic success of students at 101 public high schools in southern Michigan (Matsuoka). The study found a positive correlation between exposure to nature and student success measured by standardized testing, graduation rate, percentage of student planning to go to college, and the rate of criminal behavior. This trend persisted after controlling for factors such as socioeconomic status and race or ethnicity. Conversely, views of buildings and landscapes that lacked natural features were negatively associated with student performance. Health Benefits Exposure to nature, including trees, has a positive impact on human health and wellness through improvements in mental and physical health, reductions in crime, and academic success. A study of individuals living in 28 identical high-rise apartment units found residents who live near green spaces had a stronger sense of community and improved mental health, coped better with stress and hardship, and managed problems more effectively than those living away from green space (Kuo, 2001). In a greener environment, people report fewer health complaints (including improved mental health) and more often rate themselves as being in good health (Sherer, 2003). Other research has revealed lower incidence of depressive symptoms in neighborhoods with greater access to green space (Jennings & Gaither, 2015). Trees shade impervious surfaces and prevent the sun’s rays from hitting them, thus reducing heat storage and later release, which contribute to the urban heat island effect. Tall trees that create a large shaded area are more useful than short vegetation. Trees also contribute to cooler temperatures through transpiration, increasing latent heat storage (the sun’s energy goes to convert water from its liquid to vapor form) rather than increasing air temperature (sensible heat). According to a study conducted by the Nature Conservancy, it is estimated that trees have the potential to reduce summer maximum air temperatures by 0.9 to 3.6° F. Trees help to address public health concerns for both heat and air quality. Globally, an annual investment of $100 million in planting and maintenance costs would give an additional 77 million people a 1° C (1.8° F) reduction in maximum temperatures on hot days (McDonald et al, 2016). Trees create a haven for relaxation and reflection. It is vital for our physical and emotional to be closer to nature.” ONLINE SURVEY RESPONDENT Introduction 20 Introduction Wildlife Habitat Trees provide important habitat for birds, insects (including bees), and other animal species. Their greatest contributions include: • Preservation and optimization of wildlife habitat • Natural corridors for increased movement and dispersal Furthermore, trees and forest lands provide critical habitat (for foraging, nesting, spawning, etc.) for mammals, birds, fish, and other aquatic species. Trees can offer pollinators a valuable source of flowering plants. With an array of flowering trees that provide pollen and nectar in the urban forest, bees are provided with additional food sources. Increasing tree species diversity and richness contributes to greater numbers of bird species among urban bird communities (Pena et al, 2017). Wooded streets potentially function as movement corridors, allowing certain species—particularly those feeding on the ground and breeding in trees or tree holes—to fare well by supporting alternative habitat for feeding and nesting (Fernandez-Juricic, 2001). Greater tree density also contributes to bat activity in urban environments and improves outcomes for both birds and bats (Threlfall et al, 2016). Restoration of urban riparian corridors and their linkages to surrounding natural areas has facilitated the movement of wildlife and dispersal of flora (Dwyer et al, 1992). Usually habitat creation and enhancement increase biodiversity and complement other beneficial functions of the urban forest. These findings indicate an urgent need for conservation and restoration measures to improve landscape connectivity, which will reduce extinction rates and help maintain ecosystem services (Haddad et al, 2015). Wind Protection Trees reduce wind speeds relative to their canopy size and height by up to 50%, and when in dense arrangements up to 90% (Heisler, 1990). When selecting trees for use in areas that frequently experience high winds, several tree attributes can optimize their success withstanding high winds, and therefore the wind reduction benefits they provide. Characteristics such as lower tree stature, dense foliage and wood, pyramidal structure, and branch flexibility lend to high wind resistance. Ensuring the root system and canopy are unimpeded to spread horizontally is also important (Gilman and Sadowski, 2007). An individual tree’s profile interplays with their proximity to other trees and city structures to decrease wind speeds. As there can be many complex variables when studying wind flow dynamics, trees are often a neglected. Nevertheless, trees are a contribute significantly to wind reduction. Recent work shows wind models are more accurate when trees are taken into consideration, and GIS data of city trees provides an opportunity to quantify the effects of trees on wind speeds (Salim et al. 2015). Calculating Tree Benefits Communities can calculate the benefits of their urban forest by using a complete inventory or sample data in conjunction with the USDA Forest Service i-Tree software tools. This state-of-the-art, peer-reviewed software suite considers regional environmental data and costs to quantify the ecosystem services unique to a given urban forest resource. Individuals can calculate the benefits of trees to their property by using i-Tree Design. (www.itreetools.org/design) Owls roosting in a palm tree in Orange Memorial Park. Introduction [Trees planted along sidewalks] would make our city look much more beautiful and give our wildlife a place to rest/live.” ONLINE SURVEY RESPONDENT 21Introduction What do we have? While Al passed away in 2006 his legacy of Sign Hill is still enjoyed by the community. However, due to growing concerns for fire hazards and wildlife habitat, tree planting on Sign Hill has ceased and Arbor Day activities now occur in City parks. Following concerns by the Historic Society about the removal of palms in Orange Memorial Park, a Tree Preservation Ordinance was adopted by the City Council in 1989. The palms were planted by John Previti, a City gardener, in remembrance of fallen military service members from South San Francisco. For 32 years, South San Francisco has been recognized as a Tree City USA. As part of meeting the standards for this recognition, the City has organized Arbor Day events that include community tree plantings. In 2008, in celebration of the City’s 100th birthday, 100 trees were planted. In more recent years, due to water restrictions brought on by extended periods of drought, tree plantings have not been as robust. However, in 2018 as a result of increased rainfall and recently lifted watering restrictions, the City set out to plant 100 trees but instead planted 250. Tree maintenance has always been the responsibility of the Parks Division. Over time, the Parks Division has shifted back and forth between the Departments of Public Works and Parks and Recreation. Currently, the Parks Division is under the Department of Parks and Recreation. The Division has a tree crew consisting of two tree trimmers and two ground workers. The crew is responsible for pruning (for clearance and visibility), structural pruning, utility pruning, removals, stump grinding, and emergency response. The City maintains contracts with tree care professionals to address pruning and removals of trees in areas that are difficult to access or a crane is needed. HISTORY OF URBAN FORESTRY IN SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Three hundred years ago, the landscape of South San Francisco and the surrounding area was quite different than it is today. Historically, the area was predominately grassland, dotted with oak chaparral shrublands. Therefore, most trees that exist in South San Francisco were likely planted by someone. Over time, South San Francisco’s urban forest has engendered the support of many advocates within the Parks and Recreation Department and the general community. One of the most notable volunteers is pharmacist Alphonse “Al” Suebert. For over 40 years beginning in the 1960’s, Al, along with the Beautification Committee, led the planting of trees on Sign Hill for annual Arbor Day celebrations (Wolfe, 2012). Al was a catalyst for developing the trail system throughout the open space and single-handedly planted an estimated 5,000 trees. In 1991, in recognition of Al Suebert’s life commitment to tree planting and conservation in the community, he was awarded the National Arbor Day Foundation Lawrence Enersen Award. When I was 10 and 11 years old Mr. E. De Monty was our teacher, we planted the trees on the hills...” ONLINE SURVEY RESPONDENT 22 What do we have? What do we have? JOHN AND TINA PREVITI In the 1940s, newlyweds John and Tina Previti moved from their hometown of Chicago to South San Francisco, where John landed a position as a gardener with the City’s Parks Department. Tina was disappointed that there were no rows of palm trees in the City, which she had heard was common in California. On a visit to Mission San José de Guadalupe, the couple admired the Canary Island date palms (Phoenix canariensis). John harvested some of the fallen dates from the Mission, sprouted them in paper cups, and nurtured the young seedlings. In 1946, John planted the young trees in a row along Tennis Drive and also gave seedlings to neighbors as gifts (S. Ranals, personal communication, August 8, 2018). It has been noted that the Canary Island palms reflect some of the residents’ Mediterranean heritage, where they had immigrated to South San Francisco. John’s intention with the planting on Tennis Drive was to create a living tribute to South San Francisco veterans who were killed in the line of duty (located near the war memorial at the corner of Tennis Drive and Orange Avenue). The stately and historic row of palms marks the main entrance to the City’s central park. 23What do we have? MICROCLIMATES Like much of California, South San Francisco experiences periods of drought. In addition to periodic drought, the geography has a strong influence over the local climate, with the San Francisco Bay to the east, the Pacific Ocean to the west, and San Bruno Mountain to the north. Elevations range from 250 feet to 1,314 feet at the summit (San Bruno Mountain Park Natural Features). It is challenging to grow trees in the City because of the dry Mediterranean climate with dominant westerly winds for most of the year along with moderate temperatures and year-round fog. Average hourly wind speeds in South San Francisco are nearly 9 miles per hour (Average Weather South San Francisco). In some parts of the City, there are persistent 20–40 mile per hour winds. Trees can help mitigate the effects of wind. However, individual trees in clusters (i.e., group plantings) can become more vulnerable to windthrow if adjacent trees are removed. The topography of the City also creates pockets of microclimates where some areas have persistent fog year-round, some parts of the City have fog for portions of the day, and other areas are hotter, drier, and windier than the surrounding terrain. Considering the climate variability across the City, the tree species that perform well in these areas can be highly variable and fog may increase the threat of certain pests and pathogens. The different climate zones, illustrated in Map 1, are defined as follows: • Zone 1 – persistent fog • Zone 2 – fog primarily through the afternoon • Zone 3 – fog primarily in the morning • Zone 4 – urban landscape that experiences more heat and high winds • Zone 5 – industrial landscape with bay influence and wind influence Map 1: Climate Zone Map What do we have? 24 What do we have? While these climate zones are a relatively short distance away from one another the types of trees that should be planted in each of these zones is highly variable and zone dependent. Zone 1 is characterized by persistent fog, therefore any sunlight that is present during the day is highly valued. It is important to factor lighting and canopy density when considering trees for this zone. Because sun light is a precious commodity to residents in these areas, tree species that do not block the sun are preferred. While Zones 2 and 3 both experience periods of fog, the time of day that the fog occurs influences the types of trees that are best suited to the area. Zone 3 experiences some fog in the morning, but the afternoon is sunny and has greater potential for warm temperatures. This area can benefit from taller trees with greater canopy density to improve shade and reduce afternoon temperatures. In contrast, Zone 2 has fog through the afternoon, and benefits more from the same tree species that are recommended for Zone 1 as well as species that can tolerate more sunlight. Zone 4 has additional challenges that are primarily derived from the urban environment. Highly urbanized areas generally have more compacted and poorly drained soils. These types of soils encourage the roots of some tree species to become more “aggressive” causing problems with hardscape (such as lifting sidewalks). Additionally, pollutants (air and soil) and other stressors (e.g., temperature and moisture extremes) are more prevalent in urban environments. As a result, careful species selection is especially important for Zone 4 as some trees are better able to withstand these extreme conditions than others. Moisture from the Bay creates a unique conflict for trees in Zone 5. Moisture in this microclimate creates an atmospheric salinity which is not tolerated by all tree species. CLIMATE CHANGE Bay Area’s Mediterranean-type climate and microclimates (areas impacted by regional topography, fog exposure, wind, and heavy urbanization) are important factors to include in climate change projections (Cayan & Peterson, 1993; Kottek et al, 2006). California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment identifies that the Bay Area is already experiencing symptoms of climate change, including: increased maximum temperatures from 1950–2005, less frequent coastal fog, sea level rise, historic El Niño influence, and drought (Ackerly et al, 2018). These symptoms are expected to get worse over the next century. Precipitation is predicted to be characterized by “booms and busts” with very wet and very dry periods (Ackerly et al, 2018). Along with increased temperatures, heat waves have the potential to be especially harmful as much of the Bay Area lacks cooling infrastructure (i.e., air conditioning) and much of the population has never had that exposure (Ackerly et al, 2018). With higher temperatures and heat waves, there will be a greater demand for electricity for cooling purposes, leading to increased energy costs. Because South San Francisco has historically enjoyed mild coastal temperatures year-round, residents might not always appreciate shading benefits of trees. Additionally, residents probably have not considered planting a tree in anticipation of the potential increases in temperatures that might result because of climate change. Recent historic fires in California have increased awareness about communities’ vulnerabilities to fire and how climate change and urban development are contributors to fire risk. In response to these dangers, the management of vegetation, planning, and building standards is critical to fire management. Trees have a role to play in response to climate change, where they can reduce air and surface temperatures by shading and evapotranspiration (Akbari et al, 1997). Strategically planting trees in proximity to buildings can reduce the need for air conditioning, in turn reducing energy usage, air pollution, and associated greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, trees can contribute to stormwater management strategies by reducing the surface area of hardscape as well as impacts from precipitation events. However, climate change also poses a risk for urban forests as many species of trees will be vulnerable to hotter temperatures and longer periods of drought. Some pests and pathogens are also expected to increase with warming temperatures. Increasing species diversity with an emphasis on species that are better adapted to warmer climates and low-water use is critical for maximizing the resiliency of the overall urban forest. What do we have? 25What do we have? URBAN FOREST RESOURCE The development of the UFMP included an assessment of the urban forest, including tree canopy (public and private) and analysis of the community tree inventory (public trees on streets, in parks, and at City facilities). Tree Canopy Tree canopy is the layer of leaves, branches, and stems of trees and other woody plants that cover the ground when viewed from above. Understanding the location and extent of tree canopy is critical to developing and implementing sound management strategies that will promote the smart growth and resiliency of South San Francisco's urban forest and the invaluable services it provides. A tree canopy assessment provides a bird’s-eye-view of the entire urban forest and includes consideration of tree canopy along with other primary land cover, including impervious surface, bare soils, and water. This information helps managers better understand tree canopy in relation to other geospatial data, including: • Distribution of tree canopy within the community • Geopolitical patterns in canopy distribution • Identification of potential planting areas The analysis does not distinguish between trees on public and private property since the benefits of trees extend beyond property lines. The information can be used by urban forest managers to explore tree canopy in conjunction with other available metrics, including geography, land use, and community demographics. This data also establishes a baseline for assessing future change. Land Cover Summary The City of South San Francisco encompasses 11 square miles (7,021 acres) with nearly 1,202 acres of open water. Excluding impervious surface (4,038 acres) and open water (1,204 acres), South San Francisco contains approximately 1,079 acres which have the potential to support tree canopy. The following characterizes land cover in South San Francisco: • 8.7% (508 acres) overall canopy cover (excluding open water), including trees and woody shrubs • 58.2% (4,038 acres) impervious surface, including roads, parking lots, and structures • 25.8% potential canopy cover (excluding open water) • 62,113 tons of stored carbon (CO₂) in woody foliar biomass • $167,686 total annual environmental benefits provided by both public and private trees What do we have? With all the new developments the city should require developers to plant a certain amount of trees with each development.” ONLINE SURVEY RESPONDENT 26 What do we have? Map 2: Land Cover Summary 27What do we have? Tree Canopy by Parks South San Francisco has 25 areas designated as parks, covering 156 acres. Among the top ten largest parks in the City, Sellick Park has the highest percent canopy cover at 50.8%, with a potential canopy cover of 87.8%, followed by Brentwood Park with a 49.7% canopy cover and a potential canopy cover of 84.2%. Both parks highlight an opportunity for additional planting in South San Francisco parks. Overall, tree canopy covers 22.7% of parks and open space areas. The assessment identified an additional 32.2 acres of potential planting sites, indicating that parks and open space areas have the potential to support 43.3% canopy cover. 1 1. Future plantings on Sign Hill are prohibited therefore, this park was not included in potential canopy cover calculation. Map 3: South San Francisco Parks What do we have? 28 What do we have? Tree Canopy by Zoning Zoning reflects a community’s plan for growth in specific areas. Canopy cover can vary significantly between different zones. Much of the City’s 7,021 acres is assigned a zoning designation, with the exception of seven acres. Low density residential zoned land (1,767 acres) encompasses the greatest area, followed by the Open Space designation (1,125 acres). Low density residential has the greatest amount of canopy at 189 acres (10.7%). Parks and Recreation has the highest canopy cover at 19.9% (45 acres). When open water is excluded, areas zoned as Open Space have the second highest tree canopy cover at 17.2% Map 4: South San Francisco Zones What do we have? 29What do we have? Priority Planting South San Francisco has an estimated 1,079 acres of public and private land where additional trees could be planted. Of the 1,079 acres, 376 are identified as high or very high priority planting areas where additional trees will provide the greatest return on investment. To identify potential planting areas, Davey Resource Group (DRG) evaluated areas with pervious surface and no existing tree canopy (i.e., turf, low-lying vegetation, and bare soils) identified by the land cover assessment. DRG then coordinated with City Staff to identify areas where additional trees are undesirable, including sports fields, cemeteries, golf courses, and other sites where tree planting is contrary to planned land use. The remaining areas where prioritized via GIS remote sensing and based on site design and environmental factors (proximity to hardscape, canopy fragmentation, soil permeability, slope, and soil erosion factors). It is important to note that this analysis provides a snapshot of current conditions and may not fully account for some existing young trees. Site visits are necessary to determine suitability as well as the actual number and location of planting sites. The potential canopy cover for South San Francisco is estimated to be 25.8%, which includes priority planting area (1,079 acres) and existing canopy (508 acres). Map 5: Planting Priority What do we have? 30 What do we have? COMMUNITY TREE RESOURCE Community trees (publicly managed trees along streets, in parks, and at City facilities) play a vital role in South San Francisco. They provide numerous tangible and intangible benefits to residents, visitors, and neighboring communities. The City recognizes that public trees are a valued resource, a vital component of the urban infrastructure, and part of the City’s identity. As of 2018, the public tree inventory included 10,831 trees. However, some public trees have not yet been inventoried (Staff estimates there are approximately 15,000 community trees). Structure A structural analysis is the first step towards understanding the benefits provided by these trees as well as their management needs. In 2018, South San Francisco’s community tree resource includes 10,831 trees and 165 unique species. Considering species composition and diversity, and relative age distribution (diameter at breast height, also known as DBH), DRG determined that the following information characterizes the community tree resource: • The most prevalent species in South San Francisco is Monterey pine (Pinus radiata, 15.8%), followed by Monterey cypress (Hesperocyparis macrocarpa, 8.4%), blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus, 6.8%), flowering pear (Pyrus calleryana, 6.4%), and Australian blackwood (Acacia melanoxylon, 6.2%) • 65.0% of the population are 12-inches or less in diameter • 10.9% of the population are 24-inches or greater in diameter Map 6: South San Francisco Inventoried Trees What do we have? 31What do we have? Species Diversity Maintaining species diversity in an urban forest is essential. Dominance of any single species or genus can have detrimental consequences in the event of storms, drought, disease, pests, or other stressors that can severely affect a public tree resource and the flow of benefits and costs over time. Catastrophic pathogens, such as Dutch elm disease (Ophiostoma ulmi), emerald ash borer (Agrilus planipennis), Asian long-horned beetle (Anoplophora glabripennis), invasive shot hole borer (Euwallacea sp.), and Sudden Oak Death (Phytophthora ramorum) are some examples of unexpected, devastating, and costly pests, as well as pathogens that highlight the importance of diversity and the balanced distribution of species and genera. In light of significant pests and diseases, many cities are opting to increase diversity to improve resilience. The widely used 10-20-30 rule of thumb states that an urban tree population should consist of no more than 10% of any one species, 20% of any one genus, and 30% of any one family (Clark et al, 1997). While this rule does ensure a minimum level of diversity, it may not encourage enough genetic diversity to adequately support resilience. Therefore the 10-20-30 rule should be considered a minimum goal. Managers should always strive to increase the range of representation among species and genera within an urban forest. The most prevalent species in South San Francisco is Monterey pine (Pinus radiata, 15.8%), followed by Monterey cypress (Hesperocyparis macrocarpa, 8.4%), blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus, 6.8%), flowering pear (Pyrus calleryana, 6.4%), and Australian blackwood (Acacia melanoxylon, 6.2%). The prevalence of Monterey pine exceeds the general rule that no single species should represent 10% of the urban forest resource. Only 23 of the 165 species in South San Francisco’s community tree resource represent greater than 1% of the overall population. However, the top five most prevalent species represent 43.6% of the overall population. Future tree planting should focus on increasing diversity and reducing reliance on overused species. As over-predominant species are removed and replaced, new species should be introduced when possible. New species should be resistant to the known pest issues that currently pose a threat to the region. In addition, consideration should be given to species that withstand higher temperatures and periods of drought. What do we have? [I] would like to see more deciduous trees planted in street medians and public spaces.” ONLINE SURVEY RESPONDENT 32 Age Distribution Age distribution can be approximated by considering the DBH range of the overall inventory and of individual species. Trees with smaller diameters tend to be younger. It is important to note that palms do not increase in diameter (DBH) over time, so they are not considered in this analysis. In palms, height more accurately correlates to age. The age distribution of the urban forest is a key indicator and driver of maintenance needs. The age distribution of South San Francisco’s public tree resource (excluding palms) reveals that 65.0% of trees are 12-inches or less diameter and 10.9% of trees are larger than 24-inches diameter. Trees greater than 24-inches diameter require more regular inspections and routine maintenance as they mature. Managers can gain a better understanding of the specific risks that individual mature trees pose with regular inspection and risk assessment. Many medium and large-stature tree species still have a lot of growing to do before they reach maturity, with 4,113 trees (38.7%) in the inventory less than six inches in diameter. Training, defined as the selective pruning of small branches to influence the future shape and structure of a young tree, is critical at this stage to prevent costly structural issues and branch failures as these young trees mature into their final size in the landscape. Intermediate aged trees, with a diameter between 7 and 24-inches, represent 48.7% of the inventory with 5,172 trees in total. Similarly, the younger trees would benefit from structural pruning. A high proportion of young, large and medium-stature tree species is a positive indicator for future benefits from the urban forest, since large shade trees typically provide more shade, pollutant uptake, carbon sequestration, and rainfall interception than small trees. Mature trees, trees with a diameter greater than 24-inches, represent 10.9% of the inventory 1,155 trees in total. When trees reach mature stature, they provide the greatest benefits. However, mature trees should be regularly assessed for health and risk factors as they approach or reach the end of their natural lifespan. They may have higher maintenance needs or require removal to reduce risk and liability. Figure 1: Most Prevalent Species in South San Francisco 33What do we have? URBAN FORESTRY OPERATIONS The Parks Division within the Department of Parks and Recreation is responsible for planting, maintenance, and protection of all trees within the public right-of-way, parks, and public places. The Division performs the following services: • Tree pruning • Tree removals • Tree planting • Tree irrigation • Tree protection and preservation • Community engagement and outreach Urban forestry operations are mainly led by a Parks Supervisor. At one time, the City had three tree crews consisting of six crew members in total. As a result of the 2008 financial crisis and subsequent funding reductions, staff reductions were also made. In 2019, four staff members (two crews) care for about 15,000 community trees. The tree crews also assist with every-day park maintenance activities approximately 2-3 weeks a year. On average, the Parks Division is able to respond to tree-related service requests within two weeks. Tree work is often scheduled daily on a reactive basis to address emergency and priority service requests. Tree crew schedules are typically organized around street sweeping schedules to avoid conflicts with parking, but not all streets have street sweeping signage. Therefore, managing traffic and parking around tree maintenance activities can be a challenge. In conjunction with the Two-County (San Mateo and Santa Clara) Regional Internship Program, the City of South San Francisco has created several paid internship opportunities. For the Parks Division, an Urban Forestry & Parks Operations Intern was added in 2019 to help maintain and update the City’s tree inventory, identify and record locations for future tree planting, assist with the development of tree pruning grid system maps and with applications for forestry related grant programs. Supplementary to Parks staff, contactors are primarily used for pruning and removal of trees in areas that are difficult to access or require the use of cranes. Contracted tree operations are generally funded through the Parks operating budget or the Common Greens Fund, depending on the location of the work. On-call agreements have improved response times and increased efficiency and coordination. What do we have? DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND RECREATION DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND RECREATION MANAGER OF PARKS AND RECREATION SUPERVISOR OF PARKS AND RECREATION ARBORIST TECHNICIAN TREE CREW II TREE CREW II TREE TRIMMER I TREE TRIMMER II 34 What do we have? SAFETY While tree care is dangerous, proper training and good safety practices can help make the work safer. The City uses a contractor to provide safety training and consulting for all City departments. However, to better address the specific needs for training in arboriculture and tree care operations, Parks staff also attend workshops and safety training through International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) and Western Chapter ISA sponsored events. Parks staff have been proactive in ensuring that tree crew members are trained thoroughly and are provided with all necessary personal protective equipment (PPE). However, there are currently no documented or formalized standard operating procedures (SOP) for safety practices. Climbing equipment (e.g., ropes, saddles, helmets, etc.) and tree pruning tools (e.g., pole saws, hand saws, and chainsaws) are inspected daily by tree crews. Tree crews assess all work sites for potential hazards, energy sources, and Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) prior to beginning work. During these “tailgates” and job site meetings, safety concerns are freely discussed, but there are no formal processes to record participation and understanding. TREE CARE EQUIPMENT The City’s Fleet Services Division is responsible for maintaining vehicles and heavy equipment, including determining the anticipated useful lifespan for all equipment. Because of heavy utilization, tree equipment has a shorter lifespan than regular equipment (especially aerial lifts and chippers). Often, there is not enough consideration for the workload or the hours of utilization of equipment used by the tree crew. For instance, the Parks Division has a front loader; however, it is nearing the end of its useful life. Currently, there is only one chipper with a winch that can only be used by one crew at a time (therefore productivity is reduced). Much of the equipment used regularly by tree crews is more than 25 years old and finding replacement parts can be challenging or impossible. In addition, outdated equipment does not always have the latest safety features. For instance, the City’s woodchipper has minimum safety features but does not include secondary safety features, such as feed control bars, bottom feed stops, and emergency pull ropes. In addition, the feeder tray requires two people to lift, while modern chipper feeder trays are light enough for one person to safely lift. What do we have? Internal decay in trees is not necessarily indicative of structural weakness, nor does it always warrant removal of the tree. In an effort to avoid removing trees solely on detection of internal decay, the City purchased a sonic tomographer and resistograph. These tool allows for the Parks staff to determine the extent of decay in the tree with colored imagery and scientifically based measurements on loss of strength. In combination with the mapping of the decay and external visual assessments of the tree, Parks staff are better able to assess the risk of a tree and take the necessary actions. When the structural integrity of large trees is unknown, a resistograph can be used to determine structural stability. The resistograph has a maximum drilling depth of 500mm and is paired with a Bluetooth printer that prints out the results so it can be taken into the field. It also holds the information within the unit and can then be downloaded to a computer for further analysis. In conjunction with the sonic tomographer, unnecessary removals of large trees can be avoided, as Parks staff have a better understanding of the internal structure of a tree. 35What do we have? SERVICES Tree Pruning In-house crews are responsible for most pruning, including utility pruning around secondary power lines. All tree crew members are required to have ACRT arborist training, line clearance/rescue certifications, or other equivalent training. In partnership with City GIS Staff, Parks staff have developed a grid pruning schedule that is connected to the City’s GIS mapping system. Currently, this schedule is in the beta testing stages and is intended to provide more efficient scheduling for tree maintenance activities. Some residents request annual pruning of their city trees, which is not always conducive of tree health. Ideally, City trees should be pruned on a five to seven-year maintenance cycle (using a grid system). However, with current tree crew workloads and limited capabilities of the current inventory management software, most grids are pruned partially and not on a predictable schedule. TREE INVENTORY MANAGEMENT The tree inventory for South San Francisco was updated in 2015 (initially conducted in 2010). The inventory does not include all neighborhoods within the City. It also does not include some trees in easements, tree wells, or park strips. The inventory also does not distinguish between City trees and privately managed trees, especially trees included in developer’s agreements. Tree Inventory Management Software The current tree inventory software has limited capabilities, particularly with maintenance histories. The software is incapable of being interconnected with city grids, making grid pruning scheduling difficult. What do we have? 36 What do we have? Tree Removals Preserving a healthy public tree is ideal. Yet, there are situations where a tree should be removed. Reasons for a removal may include but are not limited to concerns for public safety, disease, tree health, structural issues that cannot be corrected through pruning, internal decay, or inappropriate species selection for the site at planting. Residents can submit requests for tree removals by contacting the Parks Division. Staff inspects all trees and evaluates requested removals on a case-by-case basis. There are circumstances where a request for removal of a tree will be approved. However, if a tree is mature and in good health, that tree will be preserved to provide benefits to the community for as long as possible. Trees are not permitted to be removed due to leaf debris, nuisance fruit, tree root interference in aged clay sewage pipes, or blocked views. Wood Chips and Wood Reuse Wood chips from pruned or removed trees are utilized in landscape beds throughout the City, at public buildings, and parks. Some chips are diverted to a landfill, particularly if woodchips include Acacia species, which can be invasive. To divert biomass from the landfill, the City has utilized the wood from trees that are removed to construct benches, raised flower beds, and signs in parks. Staff plans to expand tree reuse opportunities by using an Alaskan mill to create lumber to build new items (benches, etc.). What do we have? Stump Grinding Following a tree removal, tree crews are scheduled to remove stumps with two stump grinders: a large tow-behind stump grinder and a smaller walk-along stump grinder. If a coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) were planted today in South San Francisco, over 20 years it will have sequestered 1,907 lbs pf carbon.” I-TREE PLANTING 37What do we have? TREE PLANTING Historically, the City has planted an average of 20 to 30 trees annually. Species selection and planting location have not always been considered when planting new trees. For instance, many streets have overhead utilities in the right-of-way over sidewalks and parking strips. Due to federal and state regulations, utilities must maintain clearance around high-voltage power lines. As a result, medium and large-stature trees that were planted below power lines are often heavily pruned and poorly structured. In many cases, these trees are eventually removed. Current policies focus on planting the right tree species in the right place to avoid problems in the future. Staff is also focusing on ways to improve species diversity. In 2018, more than 400 trees were planted (this is more than was planted in the last ten years). Parks staff provides recommendations to residents on selecting trees species. Additionally, residents may purchase trees at wholesale prices through the City’s vendors. When streets are narrow or parcel space is limited, trees often compete with hardscape and the demand for parking space. Municipal Code (Title 20 Zoning) specifies that maximum lot coverage by impervious surfaces shall not exceed 40% of the gross land area. However, enforcement of this requirement has been relaxed and in many neighborhoods planting sites for street trees have been paved over in favor of parking. In an effort to increase the number of street trees, Parks staff have begun reclaiming tree wells and removing concrete where appropriate and where American Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance allows. Memorial Tree Planting Program While currently on hold due to an extended period of drought, the Memorial Tree Program (established in 1982) provided residents with an opportunity to purchase a tree for the City in honor or in memory of loved ones. Plaques for the trees that were planted are displayed at the Municipal Services Building. In the past, the program was popular, having provided approximately 350 trees. The Memorial Tree Program was paused due to the drought, but Staff are looking to re-institute the program. What do we have? 38 What do we have? Circle 3.0 Through grant funding provided by California’s Initiative to Reduce Carbon and Limit Emissions, Circle 3.0 provided 200 15-gallon trees to Paradise Valley and Peck’s Lot Neighborhoods. This grant also provided another 200 5-gallon trees elsewhere in the City for the 2019 Arbor Day Celebration. Tree Irrigation Currently, two full-time staff members use a water truck to irrigate newly planted trees to aid in their establishment. Despite recent relief from a few relatively wet winters, California is still considerably dry and water is becoming more expensive. Additionally, the water truck used for irrigation requires the driver to hold a Class B driver’s license. This requires a full-time staff member to drive the truck, which increases the cost to irrigate trees. Approximately 500 trees are irrigated manually each week during dry months. Treegator® Treegator bags are slow release watering systems for newly planted trees. Easily installed and with no required tools, these green bags are placed at the base of newly planted trees and are refilled with water on a weekly basis. The bags slowly drip 15 gallons of water into the soil, allowing the water to percolate deeper into the soil profile. The City currently has 30-40 Treegator bags on-hand, with another 200 currently in use in the field. The use of Treegator bags have improved tree establishment and reduced mortality rates for newly planted trees. Water Cistern To reduce irrigation costs, there is a proposal to install a cistern under an existing ballfield in Orange Memorial Park. This project has the potential to provide an inexpensive water source for Parks staff to water trees. 39What do we have? When residents submit building permits, the Planning Division is responsible for the review and approval of applications. The Division uses a work-flow software, Track-it!, which provides an opportunity for other Departments to comment during plan review. Ideally, the Parks Department should review design plans for tree placement, species selection, and options for the retention of existing trees. However, while Parks Staff currently provide final inspection of newly installed trees and can request revisions prior to final sign-off, existing work-flow practices often do not allow for enough time or notice to illicit and implement comment from the Parks Department prior to plan approval. Going forward, Parks sees value in greater participation in plan review through the use of Track-it!. Parks staff are frequently called upon from Public Works to inspect tree and hardscape conflicts. Trees roots can lift sidewalks and create a need for sidewalk repairs. In some cases, trees that are causing problems with sidewalks are in poor condition and are removed. In other circumstances, Parks staff coordinates with Public Works Staff to make sidewalk repairs and avoid tree removal through root pruning. Similarly, to tree and sidewalk conflicts, Parks staff frequently respond to concerns about tree roots and sewage lines. Residents with old, cracked, clay sewer pipes often experience issues with tree roots exploiting existing cracks in sewer lines to get water. This occurrence can result in sewage back-ups into homes. While the tree roots can exacerbate the problem, in all cases trees are taking advantage of already corrupted lines, which need to be replaced. In such instances, Parks staff will not remove a healthy City tree that has impacted sewage lines. Root pruning will only be performed in instances where tree roots have crushed sewage lines. TREE PROTECTION AND PRESERVATION Tree removals are not uncommon in South San Francisco. Be that as it may, Parks staff strive to protect and preserve trees whenever possible. Through collaboration with other City Departments, Parks staff provide solutions to any tree-related conflicts with existing or future infrastructure. Parks staff are responsible for reviewing applications for tree permits. A permit is required to prune or remove any tree protected by the Tree Preservation Ordinance. However, not everyone is aware (or compliant) with the requirement to obtain a tree permit and trees are often illegally pruned or removed. For Capital Improvement Projects (CIP), Parks staff promote alternative solutions to the removal of healthy and well-established trees within project boundaries. Engineering uses a construction management software called e-Builder for real-time collaboration on active CIPs. When included, Parks staff have an opportunity to review designs and the ability to recommend design changes to protect such trees. If a tree is recommended by Parks staff for preservation, Tree Protection Zones (TPZ) can be added directly into the design specifications. As part of this process, Parks staff setup TPZ on CIP construction sites and regularly inspect compliance with the TPZ. For more information on Tree Protection Zones see Appendix F. What do we have? 40 What do we have? Pest Management Like any urban forest, South San Francisco has pest problems. With a changing climate, a highly mobile population and proximity to a large port of entry for international trade, South San Francisco has some characteristics that make the community especially vulnerable to potential introduced pests. As such, the Parks Supervisor is required to hold a Qualified Applicator Certificate to appropriately respond to pest problems. Additionally, Parks staff regularly consult a Pest Control Advisor (PCA), who is also an arborist, to get recommendations for pest management strategies. Although Polyphagous Shot Hole Borer is not currently a problem in South San Francisco, research suggests that there is potential for the pest to spread to northern California. As a result of a wide host-range, many species of trees in South San Francisco are vulnerable to this invasive pest (Mitchell, 2019). Similarly, citrus greening (Candidatus liberibacter asiaticus), a bacterial disease that causes bitter, hard fruit production, is among the most concerning pest as it threatens the viability of California’s citrus crop. While citrus species represent less than 1% of the public tree population, many residences in South San Francisco grow citrus trees. Due to quarantines in place to protect California’s citrus crop, infected trees must be destroyed and disposed of appropriately (Grafton- Cardwell et al, 2019). The result of either Polyphagous Shot Hole Borer or citrus greening would be significant losses to canopy on both public and private property. At this time, there are no major active threats to South San Francisco’s urban forest. Existing pests that require management to control include: Pocket Gophers As of late, South San Francisco has been contending with pocket gophers (Thomomys bottae) gnawing on tree roots which damages and kills trees. Gophers have extensive burrow systems that are characterized by crescent or horseshoe shaped mounds that can cover an area that is 200 to 2,000 square feet (Salmon, 2009). Parks staff have primarily managed this pest through trapping. Staff recently incorporated an integrated pest management (IPM) strategy including carbon monoxide fumigation and natural enemies, utilizing owls to reduce the pocket gopher population. Parks staff have assembled “owl houses” in Orange Memorial Park and in other parts of the City to encourage nesting of owls within the City. Pine Bark Beetles With recent periods of drought, Monterey pines (Pinus radiata) and other pine species in South San Francisco have been susceptible to native bark beetle species. Generally, native bark beetles attack only the most stressed pines; however, with higher population densities, they can attack and kill healthier trees (Swain, 2015). With continued dry conditions, these beetles have the potential to be even more destructive. There are few treatments for bark beetle infestations. Preventative maintenance practices are the best tools for combating these pests, including: removing trees as infestations are detected, pruning trees in the colder winter months when the insects are less active, and irrigating trees (Swain, 2015). Insecticides are available for highly valued, uninfected host trees, but Parks staff have not used this method (Seybold, 2011). Many of the pines in South San Francisco are also susceptible to pitch canker, caused by the fungus Fusarium circinatum. Myoporum Thrips Myoporum thrips (Klambothrips myopori) is an invasive species from New Zealand that has been a problem for Myoporum plants in South San Francisco (Bethke and Bates, 2013). Thrips feeding damage stunts, curls, and discolors leaves. Additionally, the new branch growth becomes distorted, typically folding downward. When thrips are persistent, death can occur even in well-established plants (Bethke and Bates, 2013). Parks staff have managed the pest primarily by avoiding planting Myoporum species and by pruning infested terminal shoots and removing and disposing of infected shoots. Sudden Oak Death Sudden oak death (Phytophthora ramorum) is a plant pathogen that infects susceptible trees, such as coast live oak (Querus agrifolia). While this pest is not currently a problem in South San Francisco, the presence of fog makes host species more susceptible to this pathogen as the moisture assists in the spread of the infection (Parke and Lucas, 2008). 41What do we have? COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND OUTREACH Community engagement opportunities are available during the annual Arbor Day celebration. At the events, Parks staff actively work with volunteers to plant trees properly and distribute educational information on trees. Important tree information can be accessed through the Parks Division Tree webpage. The site advertises tree planting events and other community engagement activities. Information on the Tree Preservation Ordinance is summarized on the webpage for ease of access. Links are also available with information on tree permit applications and definitions for pruning and trimming as defined by Title 13 of Municipal Code. The webpage also includes information to help guide residents about species of trees that are recommended for the local environment. Parks staff periodically update the webpage to include links to external education materials, including information about species selection, proper tree care, benefits of trees, and homeowner tree care accidents. In addition to the Parks Division webpage, Parks staff promote and share volunteer opportunities and other tree care information through social media, emails, and newsletters. Sign Hill Sign Hill, a historic sign and prominent landmark in South San Francisco, can be seen from most parts of the City and is important to community members. The sign is a nod to the history of industry in the community. Today, the hillside is a 66 acre open space, and a popular hiking destination with panoramic views of the San Francisco Bay and Peninsula. Although naturally the hill would have few trees and be dominated mostly by grasses, community members have planted an assortment of trees over the years on the hill, including citrus trees and an avocado tree. However, eucalyptus, cypress, pines, and acacia species dominate much of the hill side and are known to be particularly flammable. What do we have? 42 What do we have? With many introduced species, there are concerns about the impact on native grass species. To protect the habitat, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ordered tree planting to cease on the hill. Several neighborhoods border Sign Hill, which is concerning for Wildfire Urban Interface (WUI), the area where houses meet or intermingle with undeveloped wildland vegetation (Radeloff et al, 2005). With recent California fires, creating a defensible space around structures has been heavily discussed in communities that are near forested areas. There are active efforts to reduce ladder fuels, fuel that can carry a fire burning in low-growing vegetation to taller vegetation, in Sign Hill areas that are adjacent to homes (Menning and Stephens, 2007). Tree maintenance on hills is challenging to manage, as steep grades make moving tree removal equipment into project areas both difficult and expensive. To address some vegetation management in these areas, Parks has purchased a slope mower (a “Green Climber”) which can operate remotely and can better handle the open space’s steep slopes. While the green climber can assist with reducing some of the ladder fuels, larger dead trees will still need to be removed according to standard forestry maintenance practices. In an effort to be proactive City Staff contracted with Davey Resource Group Vegetation Management Services to formulate a Cooperative Forest Management Plan to address the specific management needs for the area. Parks staff identified management priorities and objectives for Sign Hill and Davey Resource Group identified corresponding management strategies to achieve Parks staff desired results. The primary objective for Sign Hill is to create defensible space around structures, such as the homes adjacent to the open space. As funding comes available, another objective is to reduce the fuel load. In the event of a fire, this strategy would allow for low- intensity fire that may be more easily managed to benefit the overall health of the forest and reduce risk to infrastructure. Along with creating defensible spaces around structures, Parks staff identified the creation of sheltered fuel breaks along roads and near trending ridgelines throughout the open space as an objective. Other secondary objectives are to create a healthier forest to improve and maintain watershed protection and recreational opportunities for the community, reduce susceptibility to bark beetles and other pests and diseases, and promote diverse habitat to promote wider wildlife diversity and browse material for deer and other species. To achieve management objectives, some important management measures should be implemented. Management Measures include 1) restore to a healthier and fire resilient state through fuel reduction, 2) remove competing vegetation to increase vertical and horizontal spacing, and 3) remove dead or dying trees and selectively thin forested areas. Specific strategies to employ to reduce fuels include 1) not removing healthy trees greater than 12-inches diameter, 2) removing dead or dying trees of any size class, 3) 50-70% of brush and slash shall be masticated or removed and chipped (achieve residual tree density of 50 to 100 trees per acre (20-foot spacing)), 4) dead surface fuel depth shall be less than three inches, 5) retaining standing dead trees for wildlife habitat and 6) retaining dominant and co-dominant trees except where removal of co- dominant trees is needed to improve forest health and fire safety and as determined by an RPF. Some considerations for vegetation management include: • Avoid ground-based equipment on slopes over 40% or on unstable ground. If such conditions exist material should be removed by hand and removed to areas with slopes less than 40% • Avoid use of equipment under saturated soil conditions • Use mulch to provide effective erosion control • Install erosion control structures along roadsides • Reduce fuels by removing small diameter trees and brush to create vertical and horizontal separation between the ground and lowest branches • Improve wildlife habitat through fuel reduction • Improve access to remote areas to improve overall aesthetics and recreation opportunities 43What do we have? Summary of Annual Funding The total 2018-2019 municipal budget for South San Francisco is approximately $105 million. The Parks and Recreation Department has a budget of over $16 million (of which approximately $462,134 is the annual budget for the tree crew). Park Impact Fee Developers are required to provide three acres of park space per 1,000 people. However, there is no current requirement to provide trees. Tree Permit Fees Tree permit application fees are $100. This money is set aside for tree plantings. In addition to the application fee, unreturned $350 tree replanting deposits are also allocated towards tree plantings. Tree removal permit fees are refunded when tree replanting requirements are met. FUNDING Stable and predictable funding is critical to effective and efficient management of the urban forest. Trees are living organisms, constantly growing and changing over time and in response to their environment. There are a number of factors that affect tree health and structure, including nutrition, available water, pests, disease, wind, and humidity. While it might seem like most changes to trees take a long time to occur, some specific maintenance is critical at certain stages of life. For instance, young trees benefit greatly from early structural pruning and training. Minor corrections that are simple can be applied with low costs when a tree is young. However, if left unattended they can evolve into very expensive structural issues and increase liability as trees mature (at which point it may be impossible to correct the issue without causing greater harm). Over-mature trees often require more frequent inspection and removal of dead or dying limbs to reduce the risk of unexpected failure. A stable budget allows urban forest managers to program the necessary tree care at the appropriate life stage when it is most beneficial and cost effective. What do we have? Figure 2: South San Francisco 2018-2019 Budget Economic & Community Development 9% City Manager 3% City Clerk 1% Library Department 6% Non-departmental 1% City Treasurer <1% Fire Department 26% Public Works Department 6% Human Resources 1% City Council <1% Police Department 28% Finance Department 3% City Attorney 1% Tree Crew <1% Parks & Recreation Department 15% TREE CREW <1% 44 What do we have? INTERDEPARTMENTAL COORDINATION All City departments can confirm with Parks staff if a tree is a city- owned tree, through the tree inventory database. This allows staff to identify which trees are City-owned. However, communication between departments is inconsistent and Parks staff have not always been included in construction and design discussions that involve trees or could potentially incorporate trees. This disconnect reduces the ability for Parks staff to provide effective input on issues that could affect the urban forest. Forestry operations could further benefit from increased access to heavy and specialty equipment. As a result of budget’s being specific to each City department, heavy equipment is most often assigned to a specific department. Interdepartmental collaboration and the establishment of equipment sharing protocols has the potential to increase Park’s ability to perform tree care operations more cost-effectively and efficiently. Planning The Planning Division is responsible for approving and inspecting development projects in the public right-of-way. The Division recommends trees for inclusion in plans as much as possible. Following project completion, Planning provides a post- construction inspection for compliance with design plans. If the requirements are met, the Planning Division will provide a “final sign-off” on the project. The inspection includes reviewing the location of trees that have been installed; however, it does not include a review of irrigation installation (and programming) or other landscape materials. Public Works The Public Works Department is responsible for maintaining and repairing sidewalks. Heaving sidewalks are common throughout the City, creating concerns for ADA compliance. In many instances, lifting sidewalks are a result of inappropriate tree species selection and tree wells that do not have adequate soil volume to support root growth. Public Works contacts Parks staff for repairs for sidewalks, sewers, and lighting that involve any cutting or removal of tree roots, branches, or entire trees. Engineering The Engineering Staff are responsible for maintaining the public infrastructure within the public right-of-way and for the oversight for Capital Improvement Projects (CIP). Engineering Staff work with Parks staff to address clearance for streets, sidewalks, lights and signage; visibility for pedestrians on walkways and around bulb outs; compliance with the ADA; and request input from Parks staff on CIP during joint coordination meetings. Prior to planting trees along streets and in center medians, Parks staff work with Engineering Staff to avoid line-of-sight issues, conflicts with lights and signage, and ADA compliance. Code Enforcement Code Enforcement is responsible for investigating concerns regarding compliance with the Municipal Code. Currently Code Enforcement is within the Department of Public Works. The most common complaints received about trees are overgrown trees and illegal removals of trees designated as protected under the Tree Preservation Ordinance, heaving sidewalks, fire concerns, and property boundary disputes. Code Enforcement generally responds to complaints within a range of 24-hours to 14 days. 45What do we have? South San Francisco Unified School District South San Francisco Parks and Recreation Department has a joint use agreement with South San Francisco Unified School District. The agreement outlines maintenance activities for portions of school property that provide benefit to the greater community (e.g., ballfields). Historically, the School District has not observed the Tree Preservation Ordinance even though local schools have removed high numbers of trees without replacing them. With a significant amount of acreage, trees on school property have the potential to provide benefits to more than just the children who attend those schools. Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) In California, all utility providers are subject to General Order 95; Rule 35 Vegetation Management (California Public Utilities Commission, revised 2012) and FAC-003-2 Transmission Vegetation Management (NERC) which outline requirements for vegetation management in utility easements. These requirements include clearance tolerances for trees and other vegetation growing in proximity to overhead utilities. Trees located under utility lines should be directionally pruned by trained, authorized line clearance personnel only to provide clearance and/or reduce height. Selecting small-stature tree species that are utility friendly for planting sites in utility right-of- way can minimize the need for these maintenance activities. PG&E shares responsibility with tree crews in pruning trees around secondary lines. In past projects, PG&E removed trees above gas lines and provided funding to mitigate (plant) trees in other areas. Bay Area Air Quality Management District In 1955, the California Legislature created the Air District as the first regional air pollution control agency in the country. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District has a 24-member Board of Directors composed of locally elected officials from each of the nine Bay Area counties who oversee policies and adopt regulations for the control of air pollution within the district. Bay Area Open Space Council The Bay Area Open Space Council is a regional network of 75 nonprofits, public agencies, businesses, and individuals that work to maintain thousands of miles of trails and steward over one million acres of publicly accessible parks. Cities in the Bay Area that are members include San Francisco, American Canyon, San Jose, San Ramon, and Walnut Creek. The Council also engages in advocacy for regional conservation funding. California Public Health Advocates California Public Health Advocates promote health and work to eliminate health disparities by transforming neighborhoods into places that nurture well-being through education, research, and policy recommendations. Change Lab Solutions Change Lab Solutions is a public health advocacy group that works to increase the interaction between public health officials, cities, and regional planning officials through education and the facilitation of roundtable discussions. COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS Design Review Board (DRB) Every project that is new or breaking the roofline of a structure and adds 50% or more to existing structure must go through the Design Review Board (DRB). The DRB includes two landscape architect appointees who review landscape plans. For the DRB to recommend project compliance, the project must meet development standards. The DRB reviews and recommends species of trees and the location of trees included in a project. Technical Advisory Group (TAG) The Technical Advisory Group (TAG) is an internal group that meets once a month to review applications. Representatives from each department provide input on design plans. Parks staff have an opportunity to help review tree species selection and placement. Parks and Recreation Commission The Parks and Recreation Commission consists of South San Francisco residents who are appointed by the City Council. Members serve as advocates for parks and recreation needs of the community, oversee programs and facilities, provide direction to staff, and serve as the appeal body for the City’s Tree Ordinance. Improving Public Places Group In partnership with the Parks and Recreation Department, the Improving Public Places Group hosts several cleanup days as well as flower and tree planting events throughout the year. The Improving Public Places group was founded by current City Council Member, Karyl Matsumoto. This group assists with planting, maintaining, cleaning litter, minor trimming, weeding, spreading mulch, and coordinating special event projects. What do we have? 46 What do we have? DEVELOPMENT Development brings new real estate and economic opportunities for communities. However, development sometimes comes at a cost to trees, either through removals or reduced space for potential future plantings. Like much of California, South San Francisco has experienced significant development, particularly with a growing number of biotechnology companies. Developers, through conditions of approval and developer agreements are responsible for landscaped areas with trees. For example, developers provide landscaping and trees for center medians and areas adjacent to city streets. Developer agreements are often unclear about the responsibility of the care of trees planted by developers in the public right-of- way, as well as species selection. Developers may not be aware of the important role they have in the expansion and preservation of the urban forest, benefiting the community outside of the footprint of the development project. Some potential opportunities for developers to help with the urban forest include payment of impact fees as part of developer agreements and providing volunteers and supplies for tree plantings. Additionally, another opportunity for developers would be for them to participate in a “adopt a park or street median” programs. POLICIES AND REGULATION City policies and regulations provide the foundation for the urban forestry program. They outline requirements and specifications for the planting, installation, and care of South San Francisco’s public trees and provide the regulatory framework for the protection and preservation of the urban forest assets as well as the enforcement of activities and issues that impact the community's trees. The development of South San Francisco's Urban Forest Master Plan included a comprehensive review of City policies, development and construction standards, ordinances and other regulations that apply to the urban forest. The following provides a summary of the review process and key findings. FEDERAL AND STATE LAW Endangered Species Act Signed in 1973, the Endangered Species Act provides for the conservation of species that are endangered or threatened throughout all or within a significant portion of their range, as well as the conservation of the ecosystems on which they depend. The listing of a species as endangered makes it illegal to "take" (i.e., harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, collect, or attempt to do these things) that species. Similar prohibitions usually extend to threatened species. Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) Passed by Congress in 1918, this Act defines that it is unlawful to pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill, possess, sell, purchase, barter, import, export, or transport any migratory bird, or any part, nest, or egg or any such bird, unless authorized under a permit issued by the Secretary of the Interior. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act can impact forestry operations during times when birds are nesting, which may delay work in order to avoid violating the MBTA. What do we have? California Urban Forestry Act Section 4799.06-4799.12 of the California Public Resources Code defines a chapter known as the California Urban Forestry Act. The Act defines trees as a “vital resource in the urban environment and as an important psychological link with nature for the urban dweller.” The Act also enumerates the many environmental, energy, economic, and health benefits that urban forests provide to communities. The purpose of the Act is to promote urban forest resources and minimize the decline of urban forests in the state of California. To this end, the Act facilitates the creation of permanent jobs related to urban forestry, encourages the coordination of state and local agencies, reduces or eliminates tree loss, and prevents the introduction and spread of pests. The Act grants the authority to create agencies and mandates that urban forestry departments shall provide technical assistance to urban areas across many disciplines (while also recommending numerous funding tools to achieve these goals). Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO) To promote the conservation and efficient use of water and to prevent the waste of water, a Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO) was adopted in 2009 and later revised in 2015. The Ordinance requires increases in water efficiency standards for new and retrofitted landscapes through the use of more efficient irrigation systems, greywater usage, and onsite stormwater capture. It also limits the portion of landscapes that can be covered in turf. 47What do we have? Title 8: Health and Welfare Prohibits dead, decayed, diseased or hazardous trees on private property that create an unsightly appearance or are dangerous to public safety and welfare or detrimental to neighboring property or property values. Title 10: Public Peace, Morals and Safety Prohibits the removal and vandalism of trees on park property and restricts the parking of bicycles against trees. Title 13: Public Improvements Defines protected trees and provides definitions for “pruning” and “trimming.” The Title restricts the abuse or mutilation of protected trees. Title 13 defines the responsibility of property owners to care for protected trees and authorizes the removal, pruning, or trimming of protected trees in emergencies. The Title authorizes the director or designee to make decisions on protected trees and requires the replacement of protected trees, including issuing fines for violations. The Title sets requirements for the planting and maintenance of trees for new developments and for property that is already developed. Title 13 establishes an appeal process and authorizes the use of penalties for violations. Title 14: Water and Sewage Authorizes enforcement officials to require the removal of dead trees to prevent pollutants from entering the City storm sewer system. The Title also requires the use of design strategies on-site to conserve natural areas, including existing trees. Title 15: Building and Construction Provides a definition for trees. Title 19: Subdivisions Provides a minimum number of trees per plot and spacing specification required by the street tree ordinance of the City. Requires the replacement of street trees for public improvement projects as a condition of the approval and acceptance of a project. Title 20: Zoning Title 20 establishes lot and development standards, including the use of trees in the landscape and limits the coverage of a lot by impervious surfaces. Landscape plans are required to accurately show existing trees and specify soil depth to achieve reasonable success of trees with a paved environment and the use of trees in tree screens in downtown and residential districts. The Title requires the practical preservation of existing trees. It also provides some standard for the protection of trees from construction vehicles and equipment and excavated soils under the canopy of any trees on a site which are to be preserved. Title 20 provides guidelines for pruning (for clearance and visibility of street trees) and prohibits the use of signs in the public right-of- way that harm street trees. California Solar Shade Control Act Passed in 1978, California’s Solar Shade Control Act supported alternative energy devices, such as solar collectors, and required specific and limited controls on trees and shrubs. Revised in 2009, the Act restricted the placement of trees or shrubs that cast a shadow greater than ten percent of an adjacent existing solar collector’s absorption area upon the solar collector surface at any one time between the hours of 10am and 2pm. The Act exempts trees or shrubs that were: • Planted prior to the installation of a solar collector • Trees or shrubs on land dedicated to commercial agricultural crops • Replacement trees or shrubs that were planted prior to the installation of a solar collector and subsequently died or were removed (for the protection of public health, safety, and the environment) after the installation of a solar collector • Trees or shrubs subject to City and county ordinance Public Park Preservation Act The Public Park Preservation Act of 1971 ensures that any public parkland converted to non-recreational uses is replaced to serve the same community. SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL CODE South San Francisco Municipal Code has eight titles that provide considerations for trees, including: Title 6, Title 8, Title 10, Title 13, Title 14, Title 15, Title 19, and Title 20. Title 6: Business Regulations Provides restrictions for the placement of news racks near trees. What do we have? 48 What do we have? CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN The South San Francisco General Plan is a document adopted by the City Council that provides the following: • A vision for South San Francisco’s long-range physical and economic development. • Strategies and specific implementing actions that will allow this vision to be accomplished. • A basis for judging whether specific development proposals and public projects are in harmony with Plan policies and standards. • Authorization for City departments, other public agencies, and private developers to design projects that will enhance the character of the community, preserve and enhance critical environmental resources, and minimize hazards. • The basis for establishing and setting priorities for detailed plans and implementing programs, such as the Zoning Code, the Capital Improvements Program, facilities plans, and redevelopment and specific plans. Chapter 3.1 Downtown recommends using emphatic street trees to help link the downtown area with the BART station. Chapter 4.3 Alternative Transportation Systems and Parking suggests the use of street trees as part of frontage improvements for new development and redevelopment projects. Chapter 7.1 Habitat and Biological Resources Conservation identifies threats to historic vegetation, including oak woodlands and significant stands of trees in South San Francisco, and provides guidelines for the conservation of these natural resources. Chapter 8.4 Fire Hazards specifically identifies strategies to mitigate fire hazards through tree maintenance. City of South San Francisco Climate Action Plan Chapter 5 of the City of South San Francisco Climate Action Plan defines and lists non-native species and shade trees with high water usage as favorable for reducing the impact of climate change, but unfavorable for adapting to climate change. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) CEQA requires state and local agencies to identify the significant environmental impacts of proposed projects that meet specific criteria and actions to avoid or mitigate those impacts where feasible. TREE CARE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY Private property owners can hire contractors to prune private trees. However, some tree care companies are not professionally licensed or may not be knowledgeable about tree physiology and best management practices (BMPs) for tree care (such as the consequences of topping trees). While superficially the topping of trees may be objectionable because of the aesthetic, the bigger concern with the practice is that it makes individual trees more vulnerable to pests and disease. In some cases, private trees that are infested with pests or pathogens pose a threat to the urban forest, including public trees. Trees that are topped can also become structurally unsafe when their crowns grow back. In addition to concerns about the maintenance of trees on private property, there are concerns about the decreased availability of planting space on private property as a result of property owners hardscaping their lots. While Title 20 of the Municipal Code restricts the percentage of impervious surface on private lots, violations are evident across the community. The Tree Preservation Ordinance provides protections for specific species and sizes. However, this ordinance is not enforceable on school property. As a result, trees on school property are frequently removed and never replaced. What do we have? CONCLUSIONS Considering an existing canopy cover of 8.7% (excluding open water) and a potential canopy cover of 22.6%, South San Francisco has ample room to grow the urban forest. Areas slated for development (residential and commercial) will eventually represent a mixture of land cover that includes both hardscape (impervious surface) and tree canopy. It is important to recognize that impervious surfaces and canopy cover can co-exist in many instances, especially with appropriate design standards. Canopy that extends over hardscape features, including parking lots, streets, and structures can add to the overall amount of canopy cover and reduce the ratio between canopy cover and impervious surfaces. In addition, shade provided by tree canopy can demonstrably extend the lifespan of materials used in the construction of hardscape features (McPherson et al, 2005). Another opportunity for expanding tree canopy cover is through collaboration with the South San Francisco Unified School District. Although many trees have been removed on school properties, there is a potential to plant new, more appropriate, tree species that will benefit students as well as the community. The City currently has an inventory of nearly 15,000 public trees. The Urban Forest Resource Assessment summarizes the composition of this community resource. The urban tree canopy assessment provides a landcover layer that identifies the location and extent of existing canopy (public and private), establishes a baseline for monitoring overall tree canopy cover throughout the community, and augments the City’s GIS database. Tree protection regulations promote the preservation and protection of some large or unique tree species. A well-trained and dedicated Parks staff can provide leadership and expertise to provide stewardship of the urban forest. All these factors listed above provide the foundation and tools necessary to make meaningful and effective management choices about the urban forest and illustrates the investment that South San Francisco has made in this resource. The information provides a basis for developing community goals and urban forest policies and establishes benchmarks for measuring the success of long-term planning objectives over time. 49What do we have? Increased interdepartmental coordination for planning and resource sharing will promote greater efficiencies for urban forestry operations. Improving standards for planting sites, including consideration of soil volume, minimum dimensions, and alternative designs, will improve environmental conditions for trees in support of community canopy goals. The urban forest is a living resource subject to environmental and cultural stressors, including pests, disease, extreme weather and climate change, pollution, and accidental damage. While it is impractical to protect and preserve every tree, actions and strategies that increase overall resilience can ensure that the community continues to receive a stable flow of benefits. Strategies that increase forest resilience include increasing species diversity, planting the right tree in the right location, regular inspection and maintenance, and management of pests and disease. A complete inventory of public trees and a comprehensive inventory management system are vital components for urban forest management. Ideally, inventory management software should provide a geospatial data interface to track the location, species, condition, size (DBH), and maintenance needs of every public tree. A system that allows managers to track tree history, create work orders, and create grid-based pruning cycles will improve program efficiency and provide information and support for budget requests and scheduling work for tree care. Requirements and standards for trees can be found in multiple chapters and sections of the Municipal Code and can be difficult to locate and interpret. Where confusion exists, codes should be revised to reduce ambiguity and subjectivity. Community support for the urban forest is critical for sustainable programming and the realization of long-term goals. Engaging community members through workshops, online resources, and volunteer projects builds an educated community that sees value in protecting this resource for future generations. South San Francisco’s Arbor Day celebration and other tree planting events are especially important for cultivating a greater sense of ownership and stewardship for the urban forest. Partnering with volunteer and nonprofit groups could help facilitate further community engagement and provide support for education and outreach event campaigns. The urban forest webpage should continue to provide important links and fact sheets that summarize key messages to increase community member’s knowledge-base about trees and the urban forest. For 32 years, South San Francisco has achieved Tree City USA status, reflecting the City’s commitment to responsibly care for trees through tree care ordinances, dedicated funding, and annual observances of Arbor Day. Beyond this recognition, Parks staff are motivated to improve the existing urban forestry program and ensure that the urban forest is preserved and protected for future generations. With a changing climate and an increasing risk of introduced pests and disease pathogens, Parks staff are acutely aware of the challenges and potential vulnerabilities that urban trees face. Because the urban forest is a dynamic, growing, and ever-changing resource, it requires sound and proactive management to fully realize its maximum potential. The urban forest is a public asset that has the potential to increase in value and provide benefits. Stakeholder interviews and a review of operations identified a number of opportunities and challenges facing South San Francisco’s urban forestry program over the next couple of decades, including maintaining adequate resources (staffing, funding, and equipment), increasing forest resiliency, climate fluctuations, inventory management, revisions to the Municipal Code, community engagement, and volunteer coordination. With limited staffing and equipment, the care of public trees is currently reactive. Care is focused on clearance pruning and response to hazardous and emergency situations. Urban trees are a living resource that benefit from timely maintenance to address health and safety needs and encourage strong structure. Proactive inspection and maintenance promotes tree longevity, maximizes benefits, and helps manage risk potential. Best management practices (BMPs) suggest a 5-7-year maintenance cycle for all public trees. Mature, over-mature, and trees in high-use locations (e.g., retail zones, parks, etc.) often require more frequent maintenance to maintain clearance and minimize risk. The Parks Division ensures that tree care staff follow BMPs and industry standards, including standards for safety and professional training. However, there is currently no documentation for operating procedures or standard policies for training, tailgates, and job-site safety briefings. Developing a policies and procedures manual will provide documentation of standard operating procedures and ensure that policies are clearly outlined for existing and future tree care staff. What do we have? 50 What do we have? To better understand how the community values urban forest resource and to provide residents and other stakeholders an opportunity to express their views about management policy and priorities, public input opportunities on the UFMP were provided. The UFMP development process included a community meeting and an online survey in addition to a presentation to the Parks and Recreation Commission. MANAGING PARTNERS While awareness may vary, many individuals and departments within the City share some level of responsibility for the community urban forest, including planning for, caring for, and/ or affecting the policy of urban forest assets. City partners were invited to participate in an interview and discussion about their role and perspective for the urban forest as well as their views, concerns, and ideas for the UFMP. These interviews provided important information about the current function of the Urban Forestry program and potential for improvement. Concerns, requests, and suggestions from all stakeholders were of primary interest and were provided full consideration in the development of the UFMP. Managing Partners • Department of Public Works • Engineering Division • Code Enforcement • Finance Department • Parks and Recreation Department • Parks Division • Parks and Recreation Commission • Improving Public Places Committee • Planning Division • Friends of the Urban Forest • Fire Department What do we want? Key concepts gathered through the stakeholder interview process include the following: 1. Community members often request maintenance that does not support tree health. Education on the benefits of trees and individual tree health will help foster greater community support for the urban forest and hopefully address violations of the Municipal Code. 2. Forestry has historically not been included in department communications that can potentially impact trees but can be included moving forward. 3. Trees are primarily valued for aesthetics; privacy screening, greening, and property value improvements. 4. Loss of canopy cover as a result of climate change, extended periods of drought, poor species selection, and development is the biggest challenge looking ahead to the future. 5. There is a strong desire to have an active and engaged community group whose goal is to preserve and protect the urban forest. 6. More interdepartmental coordination is needed as it pertains to trees, plantings, and removals, etc. 51What do we have? Most participants indicated support for a proactive management approach for caring for public trees. This approach would include cyclical maintenance with regular inspection and pruning of public trees. Participants indicated that they would need more information about any changes to the Municipal Code that would require professional licensing for tree care providers operating within the City. Community members did not support higher penalties for illegal removals. Questions posed to participants about the best methods of outreach and topics for education indicated that community members appreciate multiple methods of outreach and engagement and are interested in a wide range of educational topics. Among the collaborative efforts proposed to participants at the meeting, providing high school credits to improve youth engagement was well supported. Although participants were not asked directly about the benefits of trees that are valued most by the community, many expressed support for trees for noise abatement capabilities, since some homes are in close proximity to San Francisco International Airport. PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING On November 19, 2019, a Parks and Recreation Commission meeting was held at the City Council Chambers to discuss the Urban Forest Master Plan (UFMP) among other items. Commissioners were given time to review the document beforehand. Parks Staff presented a draft of the Urban Forest Master Plan to the Parks and Recreation Commission, explained the intent, importance, and future impacts the document would have on the community. After the Staff presentation, each Commissioner asked questions, and provided feedback. Their thoughts were incorporated into the UFMP whenever possible. COMMUNITY MEETING A community meeting was held on Tuesday, March 26, 2019, from 6:30 pm to 8:00 pm at the City Council Chambers. The meeting was advertised through social media, City emails, City website, and City newsletters. The meeting was attended by 22 community members, four of which were City Staff. The meeting included a presentation about the community’s urban forest and current program status. Following the presentation, attendees participated in a discussion and planning session to identify goals and objectives for the Plan. Attendees were asked to provide their expectations for public tree maintenance and locations for additional tree plantings. Participants were also asked to share their opinions on 1) effective education and outreach, 2) the best opportunities for providing educational materials and outreach activities, 3) the professional licensing requirement for tree care providers within the City, 4) higher penalties for unpermitted removals, and 5) collaboration opportunities. Community meeting participants overwhelmingly supported a canopy goal of 22.6% (potential canopy cover) and did not support a goal of a no net loss (to maintain the current level of 8.7% canopy cover). Similarly, the majority favored additional plantings along streets and in park strips, followed by additional plantings at schools, but did not support opting for no additional plantings of trees. What do we have? 52 What do we have? ONLINE SURVEY An online survey, available from March 26 to May 6, provided additional opportunity for public input into the UFMP development. The survey was available, via a link on the City of South San Francisco’s website, Parks and Recreation Department social media pages, and through City emails. The survey included a series of 18 questions, including questions about views on tree benefits, education and outreach, requiring licensing for tree care professionals, increasing penalties for unpermitted tree removals, and collaboration activities. Seventy-five people responded to the survey during a six-week period. The Buri Buri/Alta Loma and Avalon/Brentwood/Southwood neighborhoods had the most responses. The complete survey and results (including comments received) are presented in Appendix D. Over 89% of respondents identified “very true” when asked if trees are important to the quality of life in South San Francisco. What do we want? Figure 4: Responses to “Are there enough trees in South San Francisco”? When asked if there are enough trees in South San Francisco: RESPONSE 85.9% 9.9% 4.2%0.0% No, there are not enough trees Not sure Yes, there are enough trees There are too many trees 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%% OF RESPONDENTSFigure 3: Responses to “Trees are important to the quality of life in South San Francisco”? RESPONSE 89.3% 9.3% 1.3%<1%<1% Very true True Not sure Not true Definitely, not true 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%% OF RESPONDENTSRESPONSE Figure 5: Responses to “Where would you like to see more trees planted”? Survey respondents were asked to identify where they would like to see more trees planted: 52.1%50.7% 43.7%42.3%42.3% 32.4% 15.5% 7.0%4.2% 0.0%Streets and parking stripsCommercial areasMediansParks and open spaceNew developmentsPrivate propertyIndustrial areasOther (please specify)Green roofsNo additional trees0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%% OF RESPONDENTSStreets & parking stripsMediansNew developmentsIndustrial areasGreen roofsCommercial areasParks & open spacePrivate propertyOther (please specify)No additional trees53What do we want? Improved air qualityAestheticsReduced Greenhouse GasesShadeNoise bufferingOther (please specify)Bird, butterfly, other wildlife habitatImprove human healthIncreased property valuesPrivacy/ screeningEnergy savingsImproved water qualityReductions in stormwaterRESPONSE 70.7% 60.0% 42.7% 32.0% 22.7% 16.0%16.0%12.0%12.0% 4.0%4.0%2.7%1.3%Improved air qualityBird, butterfly, other wildlifehabitatAestheticsImproved human healthReduced Greenhouse GasesIncreased property valuesShadePrivacy/ScreeningNoise bufferingEnergy savingsOther (please specify)Improved water qualityReductions in stormwater0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%% OF RESPONDENTSFigure 8: “Describe your awareness and/or interactions with South San Francisco’s urban forest program. Please check all that apply”. To help gauge the public’s perception of urban forestry operations, respondents were asked to describe their awareness and/or interactions with South San Francisco’s urban forestry program: Francisco: Among respondents who selected “other” there was no commonality in opinions expressed. Figure 6: Responses to “What Canopy Goal Should South San Francisco Adopt”? When asked which canopy goal the City of South San Francisco should adopt: The respondent that selected “other” identified through the comment box “not sure”. The following summarizes common comments provided in the optional comment box for additional comments about canopy cover: 1) suggestions for increased canopy coverage along main thoroughfares and 2) concerns for removal of trees or lack of planting of trees on private property or in new development. 76.1% 19.7% 1.4%1.4%1.4% 22.6% (potential)15%10%No net-loss, maintain the current level of canopy cover 8.7% Other (please specify) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%% OF RESPONDENTSRESPONSE Figure 7: “Which benefits provided by trees do you value most? Please select the top three benefits”. Survey respondents were asked to choose the top three benefits that trees provide that they value most. Respondents that selected “other” identified the following categories: 1) all of the benefits are valued, 2) wind buffers, and 3) as play space for children. A comment box was provided to allow for additional comments on the benefits of trees. Comments primarily echoed the aesthetic benefits of trees but also included the category of trees wind buffering capabilities. Figure 9: “What level of care for public trees would you prefer”? A comment box was provided to allow for additional comments regarding the care of public trees. The following summarizes the most common comments: 1) additional staff to care for trees, 2) additional educational material, and 3) concerns for the level of care in neighborhoods and along specific streets. 66.2% 43.7% 36.6% 29.6%25.4%21.1% 7.0% I have seen City crews working on trees. I was aware that the City responds to tree emergencies. I did not know that the City had a program to care for trees. I have participated in Arbor Day and volunteer planting events. I have read about the program in City-wide newsletters. I have used the City website or called for tree information. Other (please specify) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%% OF RESPONDENTSI have seen City crews working on trees. I did not know that the City had a program to care for trees. I have read about the program in City-wide newsletters. I was aware that the City responds to tree emergencies. I have participated in Arbor Day and volunteer planting events. I have used the City website or called for tree information. Other (please specify) RESPONSE 52.1% 35.2% 11.3% 1.4% Proactive - cyclical maintenance, regular pruning/inspection Tree Health Care - optimal tree care to address structure, pests, disease, etc. Minimal/Reactive - prune for visibility, sidewalk/street clearance, addressing service requests and immediate hazards Other (please specify) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%% OF RESPONDENTSProactive – cyclical maintenance, regular pruning/inspection Tree Health Care – optimal tree care to address structure, pests, disease, etc. Minimal/Reactive – prune for visibility, sidewalk/street clearance, addressing service requests and immediate hazards Other (please specify) RESPONSE 54 What do we want? RESPONSE 49.3% 28.2% 22.5% Yes No Not sure 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%% OF RESPONDENTSFigure 12: “What methods for education/outreach do you prefer? Please select your top three (3).” Online survey participants were asked to identify which methods of outreach and education they prefer: Figure 10: “Should the City require professional licensing for tree care providers”? Online survey respondents were asked to provide their level of support for the City requiring professional licensing for tree care providers: 50.7% 25.4%23.9% Yes Not sure No 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%% OF RESPONDENTSRESPONSE Figure 11: “Would you support a higher penalty for unpermitted removals”? Respondents were also asked about their support of higher penalties for unpermitted removals: Figure 13: “What education topics about trees interest you? Please select your top three (3)?” To understand which educational topics the community is interested in, the survey requested that respondents indicate their top three (3) preferred educational topics: 66.7% 46.4% 40.6%40.6% 33.3%30.4%27.5% 0.0%Web or App-based (electronic)WorkshopsPublic tree plantings (Arbor Day, etc.)Engagement through schoolsFarmers Market (urban forestry infobooth)Pamphlets, Newsletters (hard copy)Self-guided tours or demonstrationgardensOther (please specify)0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%% OF RESPONDENTSWeb or App-based (electronic) Public tree plantings (Arbor Day, etc.) Farmers Market (urban forestry info booth) Workshops Engagement through schools Pamphlets, Newsletters (hard copy) Self-guided tours or demonstration gardens Other (please specify) RESPONSE 78.3% 65.2% 40.6% 33.3%31.9% 23.2% 2.9% Species selection Basic pruning for young/small trees Irrigation and watering Benefits of trees How to plant a tree How to water a tree during drought Other (please specify) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%% OF RESPONDENTSRESPONSE 55What do we want? Figure 16: “What neighborhood do you live in”? Community members were asked to provide which neighborhood they live in: The online survey provided a comment box at the end of the survey to allow for additional feedback. Comments primarily identified concerns over inappropriate past species selection, requests for additional plantings in specific areas, concerns for lack of trees in certain developments, and questions about appropriate placement of trees near buildings and hardscape. Figure 14: “What volunteer/collaborative efforts interest you most? Please select all that apply”. Participants who selected “other” indicated interest in collaborating with schools. 75.4% 53.6% 42.0% 4.4% Volunteer Opportunities Stewardship Program/Community Foresters Company Sponsorship's (Adopt a Park/Adopt a Median) Other (please specify) 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%% OF RESPONDENTSFigure 15: “What is your age”? Community members that participated in the online survey were asked to provide their age range: RESPONSE RESPONSE 36.2% 20.3%17.4%15.9% 8.7% 1.5%0.0% 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+25-34 18-24 Under 18 0% 20% 40% 60%% OF RESPONDENTS56 What do we want? ALIGN URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT POLICY WITH COMMUNITY EXPECTATIONS & COST EFFICIENCY Increasingly, there is more scientific data on the benefits that trees provide to communities. Increased knowledge on the benefits of trees promotes a greater appreciation for the urban forest. Optimization of urban forestry funding and programming allows the City to meet and exceed community expectations and increases cost-efficiency for managing the resource. Goals • Promote excellent and efficient customer service. • Increase uniformity between City policies, documents, and departments. • Advance the role of Park Staff in City development projects. • Increase collaboration with developers. • Provide water to trees efficiently and cost-effectively. ENHANCE COMMUNITY SAFETY Enhancing community safety related to trees should focus on two areas: 1) tree maintenance, and 2) worker safety. In general, the risk that trees pose to the public is minimal. However, tree care should always strive to make trees even safer to reduce risk to the community. Additionally, tree maintenance can also be dangerous. Therefore, the City should look for opportunities to improve the safety of staff responsible for caring for trees. Goals • Promote a workplace culture of safety. • Promote a safe urban forest. • Reduce the risk of wildfire. • Manage risk. OPTIMIZE THE ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND PUBLIC HEALTH BENEFITS OF TREES AND CANOPY Trees are a valuable community asset and an integral part of the infrastructure. The environmental, social, economic, and public health benefits provided by trees and canopy are directly related to the distribution of leaf surface and tree canopy. As trees mature, the benefits that are provided to the community increase. Goals • Plan for trees, before planting. • Avoid removing trees whenever possible. • Decrease tree mortality. • Promote good maintenance practices for trees on private property. • Review and update Municipal Code as needed. GROW, MAINTAIN, PRESERVE, AND ENHANCE A SUSTAINABLE URBAN FOREST The urban forest provides numerous benefits to the community. Although it might be tempting to plant as many trees as possible, it is prudent to grow and enhance the urban forest in a sustainable manner. It is important to ensure not only that trees are planted but also that they can be maintained throughout their lifetimes. Goals • Increase support for the enhancement of the urban forest. • Continue to distribute information about the urban forest to the community. • Create a volunteer tree advocacy group. • Continue to pursue an Integrated Pest Management approach when responding to pests and pathogens. What do we want? 57 What do we want? FOCUS AREAS AND PLAN GOALS Based upon a review of the current Urban Forestry program and resources (What Do We Have?) and input from the community and stakeholders, the Plan identifies 19 goals that are organized under four areas of focus. These goals represent the Community’s vision for the urban forest. The goals and actions are intended to adequately manage the City’s urban forest in a timely, cost- effective, and efficient manner. Through the collaborative stakeholder and community input process, the Plan identifies four major guiding principles (focus areas): 1. Align urban forest management policy with community expectations and cost efficiency 2. Enhance community safety 3. Optimize the environmental, social, economic, and public health benefits of trees and canopy 4. Grow, maintain, preserve, and enhance a sustainable urban forest FOCUS AREA: ALIGN URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT POLICY WITH COMMUNITY EXPECTATIONS AND COST EFFICIENCY Increasingly, there is more scientific data on the benefits that trees provide to communities. Increased knowledge on the benefits of trees promotes a greater appreciation for the urban forest. Optimization of urban forestry funding and programming allows the City to meet and exceed community expectations and increases cost-efficiency for managing the resource. Goal 1: Promote excellent and efficient customer service. Trees are a community asset. Parks staff are responsible for providing quality, efficient, and cost-effective services for public trees. It is also expected that they are responsive, courteous, and fair to community members. Goal 2: Increase uniformity between City policies, documents, and departments. Inconsistencies across City policies, documents, and departments creates confusion between departments and the community. Policy uniformity promotes strong and efficient policy that aligns with community expectations. Goal 3: Advance the role of Parks staff in City development projects. Parks staff are stewards for all urban trees that currently exist or have the potential to be planted in the City. Staff should be engaged in conversations about development projects that could affect or add trees. Goal 4: Increase collaboration with developers. New development provides an opportunity to expand the urban forest through the addition of trees at project sites. Increasing collaboration between Parks staff and developers creates the opportunity for Staff to educate developers on 1) the value of trees to projects and the community and 2) the importance of selecting appropriate species and providing the necessary care to maintain those trees over their lifetime. Goal 5: Provide water to trees efficiently and cost- effectively. All trees, especially newly planted ones, need some level of water to thrive. Identifying efficient and cost-effective means for watering trees is critical for their health. Additionally, achieving this goal is imperative for meeting community expectations regarding efficiently managing this community asset. 58 What do we want? FOCUS AREA: ENHANCE COMMUNITY SAFETY Enhancing community safety related to trees should focus on two areas: 1) tree maintenance, and 2) worker safety. In general, the risk that trees pose to the public is minimal. However, tree care should always strive to make trees even safer to reduce risk to the community. Additionally, tree maintenance can also be dangerous. Therefore, the City should look for opportunities to improve the safety of staff responsible for caring for trees. Goal 6: Promote a workplace culture of safety. When all City Staff share core values and behaviors that promote safety, everyone, including the community, is safer. Goal 7: Promote a safe urban forest. Tree-related incidences that result in damage to property or injury to persons occur infrequently but can happen. With regular inspection and maintenance, the risks that trees pose to the public are reduced, along with people’s anxieties about trees. When community members feel safe around trees, they are more likely to respect and desire their inclusion in the urban landscape. Goal 8: Reduce the risk of fire and mitigate damage caused by fire. In the last decade, California has experienced catastrophic losses as a result of wildfire. With prolonged periods of drought and a changing climate, wildfire is likely to continue to be a threat to communities that neighbor the wildland urban interface. The risk of living in these areas can be reduced through numerous wildfire mitigation strategies. Goal 9: Manage risk. When trees are well-maintained throughout their lifetimes, the risks trees pose to the public are reduced. FOCUS AREA: OPTIMIZE THE ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND PUBLIC HEALTH BENEFITS OF TREES AND CANOPY Trees are a valuable community asset and an integral part of the infrastructure. The environmental, social, economic, and public health benefits provided by trees and canopy are directly related to the distribution of leaf surface and tree canopy. As trees mature, the benefits that are provided to the community increase. Goal 10: Plan for trees, before planting. When proper consideration is given to planting trees, future removals can potentially be avoided. Selecting the right tree for the right place increases the ability for a tree to reach maturity and ensure that it has ample space for canopy and root growth. Goal 11: Avoid removing trees whenever possible. Trees take a long time to grow and the benefits that they provide increase as the mature. Therefore, tree removals should be avoided whenever possible to ensure all trees provide the maximum potential benefits. Trees that pose an unacceptable risk to public safety or the overall urban forest should be removed and replaced with a suitable species. Goal 12: Reach 22.6% canopy cover by 2040. South San Francisco has the potential to support a canopy cover of nearly 23%. Through a community survey and at community meetings, community members indicated support for a canopy goal of 23%. Goal 13: Decrease tree mortality. Like all living things, trees have a finite lifespan, though some are longer lived than others. Managers play an important role in reducing mortality rates through proactive tree maintenance practices, education, and discouraging the removal of existing trees. Goal 14: Promote good maintenance practices for trees on private property. Although the City is not directly responsible for the care of trees on private property, all trees are an important component of the urban forest. Education and outreach to encourage best management practices for trees on private property should be done to support the wellness and benefits of the overall urban forest. Goal 15: Review and update Municipal Code as needed and educate the public as changes occur. As a community grows, its needs can change. The Municipal Code should be periodically reviewed and revised to refine and identify requirements to support the urban forest and canopy cover goal. What do we want? 59What do we want? What do we want? FOCUS AREA: GROW, MAINTAIN, PRESERVE, AND ENHANCE A SUSTAINABLE URBAN FOREST The urban forest provides numerous benefits to the community. Although it might be tempting to plant as many trees as possible, it is prudent to grow and enhance the urban forest in a sustainable manner. It is important to ensure not only that trees are planted but also that they can be maintained throughout their lifetimes. Goal 16: Increase support for the enhancement of the urban forest. The urban forest is more likely to be preserved and maintained by a community that understands the benefits that the urban forest provides. Educating the community on urban forest benefits creates an environment for the community members to advocate for the urban forest. Goal 17: Continue to distribute information about the urban forest to the community. The Parks Division should continue to distribute educational material and educate the public on the urban forest and tree care. Goal 18: Create a volunteer tree advocacy group. Growing, maintaining, and educating the community about the benefits of the urban forest can be greatly enhanced when volunteers are engaged. Volunteers can serve as advocates for the urban forest. Goal 19: Continue to pursue an Integrated Pest Management approach when responding to pests and pathogens. Pests and disease will always be a threat to the urban forest. Having a pest management strategy will make the urban forest more resilient and able to withstand diseases and pest infestations. The strategy should incorporate the use of multiple tools for preventing pests and managing current pest problems. 60 What do we want? The goals and actions proposed by the Urban Forest Master Plan are organized by guiding principles: 1. Align urban forest management policy with community expectations and cost efficiency 2. Enhance community safety 3. Optimize the environmental, social, economic, and public health benefits of trees and canopy 4. Grow, maintain, preserve, and enhance a sustainable urban forest Each guiding principle is supported by measurable goals, existing policies, and specific actions that are intended to guide South San Francisco’s urban forest programming over the next 25 years, providing the foundation for annual work plans and budget forecasts. Many goals and actions support more than one focus area. For each action, the UFMP identifies a priority, a suggested timeframe for accomplishing the action, an estimated cost range, and potential partners. Priority is identified as: • High− An action that is critical to protecting existing community assets, reducing/managing risk, or requires minimal resources to accomplish • Medium− An action that further aligns programming and resource improvements that have been identified as desirable by the community, partners, and/or urban forest managers, but that may require additional investment and financial resources over and above existing levels • Low− An action that is visionary, represents an increase in current service levels, or requires significant investment The estimated cost is categorized in the following ranges: • $ = less than $25,000 • $$ = $25,000-$100,000 • $$$ = more than $100,000 The UFMP is intended to be a dynamic tool that can and should be adjusted in response to accomplishments, new information, changes in community expectations, and available resources. In addition to serving as a day-to-day guide for planning and policy making, the UFMP should be reviewed regularly for progress to ensure that the actions and sub actions are integrated into the annual work plan. How do we get there? 61How do we get there? Performance Measure: Known duration between maintenance activities for every tree in inventory. Rationale: Trees are an asset valued by the community. Holding Parks staff to a high standard elevates the level of care for trees on both public and private property. Risk: If the community is not satisfied with the level of service provided for public trees, then support for forestry programming is diminished. Benefit: When trees receive the highest standard of care in an efficient time frame, trees in the urban forest and the community are better served. Objective: Increase efficiency to respond in a timely manner to community concerns for trees. Actions: 1. Explore creating a position for a dedicated City arborist. 2. Continue to use interns to update inventory of City trees. 3. Explore water trucks that do not require CDL Class B Driver’s License to reduce the need for full-time staff to water newly planted trees. 4. Set pruning cycle based on maintenance and risk management needs. 5. Launch GIS Grid Pruning System. 6. Create a user-friendly interface to determine tree ownership (City tree/private tree). a. Use MyTreekeeper® or similar mobile application that identifies City trees. 7. Update tree inventory as maintenance occurs. a. Update inventory to include all trees that are the responsibility of the City. b. Conduct a Resource Analysis to quantify the benefits that City-owned trees are providing to the community. Cost:$ Priority:High Timeframe:Ongoing Focus Area: Align urban forest management policy with community expectations and cost efficiency Goal 1: Promote excellent and efficient customer service. How do we get there? $= less than $25,000 $$=$25,000-$100,000 $$$=more than $100,000 62 How do we get there? Cost:$ Priority:High Timeframe:1-5 Years Performance Measure: Number of policies, documents, and departments that cross- reference the UFMP. Rationale: Having a uniform policy reduces confusion between departments and community members and transcends departmental changes. Risk: When policies have inconsistencies, setting a high standard of care is difficult. Benefit: Uniformity promotes a strong and efficient policy that aligns with community expectations. Objective: Unify guiding documents to transcend departmental changes and address inefficiencies and reduce confusion. Actions: 1. Ensure that UFMP goals are considered in all overarching planning and visionary documents as revisions and updates occur. a. General Plan as it is revised. b. Climate Action Plan as it is revised. Objective: Improve communication and coordination with other City departments. Actions: 1. Share the Urban Forest Master Plan among City departments following completion. 2. Communicate internally to develop standards for all departments. 3. Participate in cross-training activities to create understanding of other departmental roles. 4. Increase communication with code enforcement to increase enforcement of tree preservation ordinance. a. Continue to follow current code enforcement model and facilitate discussions with Public Works to determine mitigation measures for tree complaints. b. Explore new code enforcement policies. 5. Coordinate with other departments to establish procedures for sharing equipment interdepartmentally. Focus Area: Align urban forest management policy with community expectations and cost efficiency Goal 2: Increase uniformity between City policies, documents, and departments. How do we get there? $= less than $25,000 $$=$25,000-$100,000 $$$=more than $100,000 63How do we get there? Objective: Increase the role of Parks staff in design review. Actions: 1. Provide recommended species list with corresponding climate zone map to the Design Review Board. 2. Develop conditions of approval for design plans. 3. Inspect tree installations at final inspections. 4. When permits are filed, check to see if 40% of the gross land is pervious and if not apply a condition of approval to amend this violation. 5. Use Track-it! to comment and create check-ins during the review of building permits. 6. Participate in design plan commenting periods, TAG meetings, and Track-it. 7. Provide final review of building permits to check compliance with design specifications for tree plantings. Performance Measure: Number of policies, documents, and departments that cross- reference the UFMP. Rationale: Having a uniform policy reduces confusion between departments and community members and transcends departmental changes. Risk: When policies have inconsistencies, setting a high standard of care is difficult. Benefit: Uniformity promotes a strong and efficient policy that aligns with community expectations. Cost:$ Priority:High Timeframe:1-3 Years Focus Area: Align urban forest management policy with community expectations and cost efficiency Goal 2 (continued): Increase uniformity between City policies, documents, and departments. How do we get there? $= less than $25,000 $$=$25,000-$100,000 $$$=more than $100,000 64 How do we get there? Performance Measure: Number of trees planted through City projects and increased survivability of trees planted in City projects. Rationale: City development projects offer another opportunity to improve public places through tree plantings. Risk: Potential planting sites could be lost without Parks staff input. Benefit: Adding trees to City projects increase the benefits provided to the community through public spaces. Objective: Encourage the inclusion of trees in development projects to expand the tree canopy on public property. Actions: 1. Participate in Technical Advisory Group meetings to advocate for the inclusion of trees in City development projects. 2. Participate in joint coordination meetings between Engineering and Parks and Recreation. 3. Determine if there is potential to include trees in all City and development projects. 4. Create a formal review process for project planning that includes consultation with forestry. Require sign-off at all steps during the review process, including when trees are installed. 5. Review Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) to ensure the inclusion of trees. Cost:$ Priority:High Timeframe:Ongoing Focus Area: Align urban forest management policy with community expectations and cost efficiency Goal 3: Advance the role of Parks staff in City development projects. How do we get there? $= less than $25,000 $$=$25,000-$100,000 $$$=more than $100,000 65How do we get there? Performance Measure: Increased canopy cover in new developments. Rationale: Development projects provide an opportunity to expand tree canopy. Risk: Parks staff may not collaborate with developers to create opportunities to incorporate trees into new developments. Benefit: Trees planted in new developments not only increase property values, but also increase the benefits provided by the urban forest to the overall community. Objective: Expand tree canopy through new development projects. Actions: 1. Explore the expansion of existing park impact fees to support tree plantings when new development projects occur. 2. Consider the creation of a tree impact fee, similar to the existing park impact fee, that would provide funding for trees based on number of constructed units. 3. Explore Adopt-a-Park or Adopt-a-Median program to partner with developers. 4. Identify processes for transfer of responsibility for the care of trees and requirements for that transfer to the City within developer agreements. 5. Expand developer agreements to include tree plantings that contribute positively to community benefits. Focus Area: Align urban forest management policy with community expectations and cost efficiency Goal 4: Increase collaboration with developers. How do we get there? $= less than $25,000 $$=$25,000-$100,000 $$$=more than $100,000 Cost:$ Priority:High Timeframe:1-5 Years 66 How do we get there? Performance Measure: Reduced staff hours in watering trees. Rationale: While water is becoming more scarce and costly, trees need water to survive. Continuing to look for more efficient cost-effective watering solutions which will help to ensure that young trees get established. Additionally, cost-effective watering solutions will ensure that the cost of caring for these young trees is not cost prohibitive, thus discouraging future plantings. Risk: Increased mortality rates in young trees. Benefit: Reduced mortality rates in young trees and reduced labor and water costs. Objective: Provide water to trees to encourage establishment. Actions: 1. Collaborate with the department responsible for flushing water lines, in order to utilize that water that otherwise goes down the storm drain. 2. Require separate valves for irrigated landscapes and trees. 3. Continue to use TreeGator® bags and other water efficient systems to water trees. 4. Continue to explore the potential for a water cistern in Orange Memorial Park. 5. Look for additional funding sources. 6. Partner with residents/property owners to assist with watering street trees. Focus Area: Align urban forest management policy with community expectations and cost efficiency Goal 5: Encourage the establishment of trees through efficient and sustainable irrigation solutions and programs. How do we get there? $= less than $25,000 $$=$25,000-$100,000 $$$=more than $100,000 Cost:$ Priority:High Timeframe:1-5 Years 67How do we get there? Performance Measure: Reduction in accidents and time for workers recovery from work related accidents. Rationale: Tree work is dangerous. Promoting a culture of safety results in reduced workplace accidents, less down-time, and greater productivity. With every staff member engaging in safe behaviors, everyone (even the community) is safer. Risk: Unsafe practices and lack of understanding of safety policies make even those who are complying with safety procedures vulnerable. Benefit: Fewer accidents and claims against the safety, as a result of improved public safety. Objective: Implement policies and procedures that make that tree work as safe as possible. Actions: 1. Develop a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) Manual for tree care operations. a. Include sections on safety training, tree removal policies, and tree maintenance. b. When crews go to a site, have a standard assessment or “tailgate” to identify hazards that exist for each job. c. As personnel are trained, require signoffs from supervisor to ensure understanding. d. Require that tree maintenance be performed according to best management practices and American National Standards Institute (ANSI) 300 standards. 2. Continue to support forestry worker safety. a. Seek out safety trainings provided by consultants that are familiar with Arboriculture. Focus Area: Enhance community safety Goal 6: Promote a workplace culture of safety. How do we get there? $= less than $25,000 $$=$25,000-$100,000 $$$=more than $100,000 Cost:$ Priority:High Timeframe:1-3 Years 68 How do we get there? Performance Measure: The number of claims against the City involving trees. To decrease the number of claims against the city. Rationale: Many different circumstances can result in tree failure. While not all tree failures can be prevented, many can be mitigated through proactive management and regular inspections. Risk: Injury to persons or damage to property is costly. When residents perceive trees as a risk to public safety, those residents are less likely to be supportive of including trees in the urban landscape. Therefore, fewer trees will be widely accepted by the community or many may be unnecessarily removed. Benefit: Community members feel safer around trees and want more included in the urban landscape. Objective: Develop a risk management policy/procedure. Actions: 1. Include inspection cycles, inspection protocols, and thresholds. 2. Set risk thresholds and prioritize removals or other maintenance based on safety. 3. Develop a protocol for regular inspection of equipment, including signoffs from supervisor. 4. Review all equipment to ensure they meet minimum safety standards. 5. Coordinate with fleet services to develop life cycles for arboriculture equipment. 6. Explore alternative equipment repair and replacement program. Focus Area: Enhance community safety Goal 7: Promote a safe urban forest. How do we get there? $= less than $25,000 $$=$25,000-$100,000 $$$=more than $100,000 Cost:$ Priority:High Timeframe:1-5 Years 69How do we get there? Performance Measure: Improved defensible spaces around structures and reduction in ladder fuels. Rationale: California has had historic fires over the last decade. Many of these fires were in urban areas. South San Francisco has identified areas that are vulnerable to fire. To reduce the risk of living in the wildland urban interface, the City is working to mitigate potential fire hazards. Risk: Given the right conditions and lack of premediated response to fire, fire is a risk to the community. Fire can result in devastating losses to property and life. Benefit: Reduced vulnerability to fire. Objective: Focus fire mitigation efforts on Sign Hill and other areas of vulnerability. Actions: 1. Adopt the City of South San Francisco California Cooperative Forest Management Plan. 2. Reduce ladder fuels and create defensible space in proximity to structures. 3. Plant trees to not interfere with emergency response, such as, planting too close to fire hydrants and too close to fire escapes. Focus Area: Enhance community safety Goal 8: Reduce the risk of fire and mitigate damage caused by fire. How do we get there? $= less than $25,000 $$=$25,000-$100,000 $$$=more than $100,000 Cost:$ Priority:High Timeframe:Ongoing 70 How do we get there? Performance Measure: Reduction in claims related to damage and injury caused by City trees. Rationale: Trees rarely cause injuries and damage property; however, the City has a responsibility to maintain trees to reduce the minimal risk that trees pose to the public. Risk: If trees fail, people can get hurt and property can be damaged. Benefit: Trees that are maintained on a regular cycle are often healthier and are less likely to fail and cause injury or damage to property. Objective: Maintain trees throughout their lifetimes to improve structure in maturity and reduce the likelihood of structural failures in the future. Actions: 1. Create a pruning cycle schedule and communicate this schedule to the community. 2. Identify and repair or remove trees that pose a threat to life and property on an ongoing basis. 3. Communicate planting designs with Engineering to ensure safety and avoid line-of-sight problems. Focus Area: Enhance community safety Goal 9: Goal 9: Improve public safety. How do we get there? $= less than $25,000 $$=$25,000-$100,000 $$$=more than $100,000 Cost:$ Priority:Moderate Timeframe:Ongoing 71How do we get there? Performance Measure: Greater health and longevity of individual trees and reduced mortality/tree removals. Rationale: Trees take a long time to grow and are a long-term investment. If a tree is planted in a space that is too small or too large for a space or is not well suited for the local climate and soil conditions, the potential benefits that that tree could have provided to the community are lost. Risk: Premature death of trees. Benefit: Fewer removal of trees and maximized community benefit. Objective: Invest in trees for the long-term environmental benefits provided to the community. Actions: 1. Set emphasis on right tree in the right place. a. Matching tree species to local microclimate. b. Reducing hardscape and utility conflicts. c. Matching tree species to soil and water conditions. d. Matching tree species to planter size and intended use. 2. As design standards are updated, include minimum tree well sizes. a. Require that planting sites are designed and constructed to provide the soil space requirement that will reasonably support the mature size of the tree species intended for the site. See Appendix F for soil volume and planter designs. b. Explore the use of strata-vaults, structural soils and other soil volume designs to increase space and healthy soils for trees. c. Formalize planting distances from water meters, fire hydrants, or other public utilities. 3. Explore expanding existing tree wells. a. Review impervious surface coverage at the parcel level. Reclaim pervious surface as appropriate. 4. Require that all plans include irrigation plans and planting specifications. 5. Revise Municipal Code 20.300. a. Include tree planting requirements for single-family homes and remodels. Focus Area: Optimize the environmental, social, economic, and public health benefits of trees and canopy Goal 10: Plan for trees, before planting. How do we get there? $= less than $25,000 $$=$25,000-$100,000 $$$=more than $100,000 Cost:$ Priority:High Timeframe:Ongoing 72 How do we get there? Performance Measure: Greater health and longevity of individual trees and reduced mortality/tree removals. Rationale: Trees take a long time to grow and are a long-term investment. If a tree is planted in a space that is too small or too large for a space or is not well suited for the local climate and soil conditions, the potential benefits that that tree could have provided to the community are lost. Risk: Premature death of trees. Benefit: Fewer removal of trees and maximized community benefit. Objective: Improve the diversity of the urban forest on public and private property, to create a more resilient urban forest. Actions: 1. Use “tree tags” to increase awareness of the value and benefits of trees. a. Consider including: 1. Species 2. Annual 3. Replacement value 2. Create a program to provide free or reduced cost trees for private property for single-family homes or duplexes. 3. Incentivize tree planting on private property, particularly in high and very high priority planting areas. Focus Area: Optimize the environmental, social, economic, and public health benefits of trees and canopy Goal 10 continued): Plan for trees, before planting. How do we get there? $= less than $25,000 $$=$25,000-$100,000 $$$=more than $100,000 Cost:$ Priority:High Timeframe:Ongoing 73How do we get there? Objective: Explore alternative designs instead of removals. Actions: 1. Explore alternative sidewalk designs to allow space for trees and compliance with ADA and avoid tree removal. a. Detour walkways around trees, ramping over roots, and grinding down displaced sidewalk panels to reduce tripping hazards without causing undue harm to critical roots. b. Use alternative sidewalk materials such as: 1. Crushed granite 2. Gravel sub-base and other structural soils 3. Other structural cells (Strata Cells or Silva Cells 4. Interlocking concrete paver products 5. Flexipave, a system similar to rubber sidewalks 6. Alternative tree grate structures 7. Polygrate, a recycled plastic form of tree grate 2. Revisit Municipal Code to include provisions for tree planting in development of single-family and duplex homes with additions. 3. Revisit zoning ordinance to include minimum standards of maintenance of landscaping and replanting requirements or allow for tree mitigation fees to provide a tree elsewhere in the City. 4. Standardize the use of Tree Protection Zones in all city development projects. a. See Appendix G 5. Protect valuable trees during construction. 6. Require a ratio of impervious surface to tree canopy cover in new developments. Performance Measure: Reduced number of removals. Rationale: Trees take a long time to grow. While the needs for land use change and sometimes trees are prohibitive of a desired use, considerations should be given to preserving trees for all projects. Risk: Removals that could have been avoided through alternative design solutions and repairs. Benefit: The potential for all trees to reach maturity and provide the optimal amount of benefits to a community. Focus Area: Optimize the environmental, social, economic, and public health benefits of trees and canopy Goal 11: Avoid removing trees whenever possible. How do we get there? $= less than $25,000 $$=$25,000-$100,000 $$$=more than $100,000 Cost:$ Priority:Moderate Timeframe:1–5 Years 74 How do we get there? Performance Measure: Reduced number of removals. Rationale: Trees take a long time to grow. While the needs for land use change and sometimes trees are prohibitive of a desired use, considerations should be given to preserving trees for all projects. Risk: Removals that could have been avoided through alternative design solutions and repairs. Benefit: The potential for all trees to reach maturity and provide the optimal amount of benefits to a community. Objective: Discourage the removal of protected trees. Actions: 1. Revise Municipal Code Title 13. a. Provide specific protections for publicly owned trees along streets and in parks. b. Clarify when tree permits are required. c. Redefine “pruning” consistent with ANSI 300 standards. d. Redefine “trimming” to define specific tasks that adjacent property owners are allowed to perform on protected trees. e. Review fee structure for violations to account for the replacement costs for mature trees. 2. Collaborate with the South San Francisco Unified School District to encourage the protection of existing trees and the replacement of trees that have been removed. a. While the South San Francisco Unified School District is exempt from the Tree Protection Ordinance, according to University of Illinois study of more than 400 children, visible access to trees and nature reduced student anxiety and symptoms of ADD/ADHD and improve test scores (2011). Focus Area: Optimize the environmental, social, economic, and public health benefits of trees and canopy Goal 11 (continued): Goal 11: Avoid removing trees whenever possible. How do we get there? $= less than $25,000 $$=$25,000-$100,000 $$$=more than $100,000 Cost:$ Priority:High Timeframe:Ongoing 75How do we get there? Objective: Improve everyday care of trees, to prevent future removals. Actions: 1. Revise Municipal Code Title 13. a. Clarify the responsibility of tree maintenance. 1. Set minimum irrigation standards for residents 2. Revise definition of trimming to avoid excessive pruning and to prohibit residents from using ladders to prune anything that cannot be reached from the ground b. Define a minimum standard of care for regular tree maintenance and replanting requirements. Performance Measure: Reduced number of removals. Rationale: Trees take a long time to grow. While the needs for land use change and sometimes trees are prohibitive of a desired use, considerations should be given to preserving trees for all projects. Risk: Removals that could have been avoided through alternative design solutions and repairs. Benefit: The potential for all trees to reach maturity and provide the optimal amount of benefits to a community. Focus Area: Optimize the environmental, social, economic, and public health benefits of trees and canopy Goal 11: Goal 11 (continued): Avoid removing trees whenever possible. How do we get there? $= less than $25,000 $$=$25,000-$100,000 $$$=more than $100,000 Cost:$-$$ Priority:Low Timeframe:10–15 Years 76 How do we get there? Performance Measure: Increased canopy cover. Rationale: The benefits that an urban forest provides to the community are directly related to the expanse of tree canopy cover and leaf surface area. The greater the tree canopy cover, the greater distribution of benefits to the community. Risk: No expansion or even loss of canopy cover may result in a reduction or stagnation in the benefits provided to the community by the urban forest. Benefit: Expansion of tree canopy increases the benefits provided by trees and can be realized by more areas of the community. Objective: Expand canopy cover to increase environmental benefits. Actions: 1. Create a planting plan, which identifies specific planting priorities for different areas of the City. a. Consider planting priority areas in planting plans. b. Consider planting priorities identified by the community. 2. Utilize best management practices for planting and maintaining trees. Focus Area: Optimize the environmental, social, economic, and public health benefits of trees and canopy Goal 12: Reach 22.6% canopy cover by 2040. How do we get there? $= less than $25,000 $$=$25,000-$100,000 $$$=more than $100,000 Cost:$ Priority:Low Timeframe:Ongoing 77How do we get there? Objective: Educate the community about property owner responsibilities for the care of City trees. Actions: 1. Complete the tree inventory to include all City-owned trees. a. Regularly update the inventory to include condition and address symptoms of stress whenever possible to reduce rapid decline and potential death of trees. b. Use an inventory management software to prioritize maintenance needs and prevent loss of trees that which are exhibiting symptoms of decline. 2. Increase education around watering trees (even during periods of drought). 3. Utilize the quarterly Parks and Recreation Guide to educate the public about forestry events and educational items. 4. Revisit mitigation fees for replacement of trees that have been illegally removed. a. Consider the use of the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers Guide for Plant Appraisal 10th Edition to design fee structure. Performance Measure: Reduced mortality rates. Rationale: Trees are a valuable component of the urban infrastructure, and when trees die prematurely, the investment in that infrastructure is lost. Risk: If efforts are not made to reduce tree mortality, the investment in the time and labor to plant and care for a tree is lost. Benefit: Reductions in tree mortality provide the opportunity for all trees to reach maturity and offer the most community benefits. Focus Area: Optimize the environmental, social, economic, and public health benefits of trees and canopy Goal 13: Decrease tree mortality. How do we get there? $= less than $25,000 $$=$25,000-$100,000 $$$=more than $100,000 Cost:$-$$ Priority:Low–Moderate Timeframe:Ongoing 78 How do we get there? Performance Measure: Expansion of tree canopy on private property. Rationale: Trees on private property are an important part of the urban forest. While the City does not care for these trees, Parks staff have an opportunity to educate private property owners about the benefits that trees provide directly to the property and to the community. Improvements in the care of trees on private land makes public trees less vulnerable to pests and pathogens. Risk: Loss in benefits provided to the community from privately owned and maintained trees. Benefit: Improved care of private trees and reductions in removals on private property make the urban forest more resilient to pests and better able to provide benefits to the whole community. Objective: Reduce unethical and/or poor pruning practices and unnecessary removals on private property. Actions: 1. Collaborate with the School District to improve forestry practices on school property. 2. Explore requiring tree care companies operating within City limits to have professional licensing. 3. Explore providing a list of tree care professionals to the community. Focus Area: Optimize the environmental, social, economic, and public health benefits of trees and canopy Goal 14: Promote good maintenance practices for trees on private property. How do we get there? $= less than $25,000 $$=$25,000-$100,000 $$$=more than $100,000 Cost:$ Priority:Low Timeframe:Ongoing 79How do we get there? Objective: Meet the changing needs of the urban forest and the community through clear and concise and current policy. Actions: 1. Explore the creation of an ordinance that defines responsibility when tree roots impact sewage pipes. 2. Unless tree roots are determined by the City Arborist to have crushed sewage pipes or lifted sewage pipes, the City is not responsible for sewage pipe repairs. 3. Revisit ordinance that identifies that sidewalk repairs are the responsibility of the City if the damage is caused by trees within the right-of-way. Performance Measure: Number of reviews and revisions. Rationale: Communities evolve and the rules and laws that govern the City should change to better meet community expectations. Risk: If the Municipal Code is not revised, outdated rules that to not protect the urban forest will leave the urban forest vulnerable. Benefit: Municipal Code changes can better protect, preserve, and enhance the urban forest. Focus Area: Optimize the environmental, social, economic, and public health benefits of trees and canopy Goal 15: Review and update Municipal Code as needed and educate the public as changes occur. How do we get there? $= less than $25,000 $$=$25,000-$100,000 $$$=more than $100,000 Cost:$ Priority:Low–Moderate Timeframe:Ongoing 80 How do we get there? Performance Measure: Participation in forestry programming. Rationale: An educated and engaged community is more likely to support and advocate on the behalf of the urban forest. Risk: Apathy towards the urban forest may result in loss in benefits provided by the urban forest to the community. Benefit: A community that supports the urban forest protects the urban forest and the benefits that it provides to the City. Objective: Engage the community in urban forestry activities and educational events. Actions: 1. Facilitate tree plantings with community groups on private property and in parks. 2. Develop a presence at local farmers markets. 3. Coordinate engagement activities with local schools. 4. Offer workshops on a variety of tree care topics. 5. Develop a relationship with local biotech companies to encourage biotech employee participation in tree planting events. 6. Maintain the City webpage to include tree educational materials. a. Provide downloadable fact sheets. b. Provide responses to Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ). c. Provide a summary of tree ordinances. Focus Area: Grow, maintain, preserve, and enhance a sustainable urban forest Goal 16: Increase support for the enhancement of the urban forest. How do we get there? $= less than $25,000 $$=$25,000-$100,000 $$$=more than $100,000 Cost:$ Priority:Low Timeframe:Ongoing 81How do we get there? Objective: Provide sustainable and adequate resources to sustain the urban forest for future generations. Actions: 1. Explore the use of a Park Bond to supplement existing General Fund appropriations available for tree maintenance activities. 2. Explore community support for Park District overlay that would provide dedicated funding to parks and urban forestry. 3. Consider the creation of a tree impact fee, similar to the existing park impact fee, that would provide funding for trees based on number of constructed units. Performance Measure: Participation in forestry programming. Rationale: An educated and engaged community is more likely to support and advocate on the behalf of the urban forest. Risk: Apathy towards the urban forest may result in loss in benefits provided by the urban forest to the community. Benefit: A community that supports the urban forest protects the urban forest and the benefits that it provides to the City. Focus Area: Grow, maintain, preserve, and enhance a sustainable urban forest Goal 16 (continued): Increase support for the enhancement of the urban forest. How do we get there? $= less than $25,000 $$=$25,000-$100,000 $$$=more than $100,000 Cost:$-$$ Priority:High Timeframe:1–5 Years 82 How do we get there? Performance Measure: Participation in forestry programming. Rationale: Reaching out to the community through a variety of avenues increases participation in forestry programming and advocacy for the urban forest. Risk: When people are unaware of forestry programming, they cannot participate in educational outreach activities. Benefit: A better-educated community will likely be more engaged in caring for the urban forest. Objective: An educated community increases support and understanding of urban forestry policies and procedures. Actions: 1. Continue to distribute information to the community through the quarterly Parks and Recreation Guide. 2. Continue to use social media to engage the community. Objective: Market urban forestry through a variety means to promote participation from all community members. Actions: 1. Continue to distribute information to the community through the quarterly Parks and Recreation Guide. a. Market the accomplishments of the program, i.e. Arbor Day events and other tree plantings. b. Continue to coordinate with Improving Public Places Group for volunteer recruitment. 2. Continue to use social media to engage the community. Focus Area: Grow, maintain, preserve, and enhance a sustainable urban forest Goal 17: Continue to distribute information about the urban forest to the community. How do we get there? $= less than $25,000 $$=$25,000-$100,000 $$$=more than $100,000 Cost:$ Priority:Moderate Timeframe:Ongoing Cost:$ Priority:Low Timeframe:Ongoing 83How do we get there? Objective: Work with volunteer tree advocates to promote urban forestry events and distribute urban forestry educational materials. Actions: 1. Collaborate with Improving Public Places (IPP) committee or other existing volunteer groups to create a community urban forest volunteer group. 2. Explore partnering with Friends of the Urban Forest. 3. Explore offering high school credits to incentivize participation from youth. Performance Measure: Participation in forestry programming. Rationale: A tree advocacy group allows for Parks staff to have a larger pool of volunteers to depend on for tree planting events and other educational and volunteer activities. Risk: Without a dedicated group of volunteer tree advocates, Parks staff may have difficulty managing the urban forest. Benefit: A dedicated group of volunteer tree advocates ensures that the urban forest has support from the community, increasing the protection and preservation of the benefits that the urban forest provides to the community. Focus Area: Grow, maintain, preserve, and enhance a sustainable urban forest Goal 18: Create a volunteer tree advocacy group. How do we get there? $= less than $25,000 $$=$25,000-$100,000 $$$=more than $100,000 Cost:$ Priority:Low–Moderate Timeframe:Ongoing 84 How do we get there? Performance Measure: Reduction in the loss of trees associated with pests and pathogens. Rationale: When managing pests there is not a “one size fits all” approach to management and prevention. The urban forest is more resilient to pests and disease, when multiple tools are used. Benefit: Using comprehensive information about pests in combination with pest control methods promotes economical management of pests and disease. Objective: Employ multiple tools and strategies to prevent and/or manage pests and pathogens. Actions: 1. Continue to diversify the urban forest. a. Continue to choose species that are better suited to the local climate. b. Continue to avoid planting species of trees that are susceptible hosts to pest problems. c. Continue to incorporate native species into planting palettes. d. Continue to use drought tolerant species. e. At a minimum, pursue species diversity goals that meet the 10-20-30 rule, but strive for even greater diversity among genera. 2. Continue the use of natural enemies (i.e. owls). 3. Continue monitoring and identifying pest issues. 4. Continue to respond to pests based on economic threats. Focus Area: Grow, maintain, preserve, and enhance a sustainable urban forest Goal 19: Continue to practice an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) approach when responding to pests and disease pathogens. How do we get there? $= less than $25,000 $$=$25,000-$100,000 $$$=more than $100,000 Cost:$ Priority:Moderate Timeframe:Ongoing 85How do we get there? How are we doing? With appropriate care and planning, the urban forest is an asset that has the potential to increase in value over time. As young trees mature and their leaf surface and canopy grow, so too will the overall benefits and value from the community’s urban forest. The objectives and strategies of the UFMP are intended to support this process in an appropriate manner that encourages the sustainable stewardship of community trees with consideration for safety, cost efficiency, and community values. The UFMP includes strategies for measuring the success of the Plan over time. MONITORING Through talking with community partners and those within the urban forestry program, a set of goals were created to meet the strong demand for protecting and enhancing the urban forest, as stated in the community vision. The success of these goals is largely dependent on creating objectives and strategies to meet the targets outlined in the UFMP as well as monitor the progress of these action steps. ANNUAL PLAN REVIEW The UFMP is an active tool that will guide management and planning decisions over the next 20 years. Its goals and actions will be reviewed annually for progress and integration into an internal work plan. The UFMP presents a long-range vision and target dates are intended to be flexible in response to emerging opportunities, available resources, and changes in community expectations. Therefore, each year, specific areas of focus should be identified, which can inform budget and time requirements for Urban Forest Managers. RESOURCE ANALYSIS With a Resource Analysis, South San Francisco can identify quantitatively the value of the composition of public trees, the annual benefit provided to the community, replacement value, and benefit versus investment ratios. With this information, South San Francisco can improve health (condition), species diversity, annual benefits, and overall resource value of its tree resource. When a resource analysis is conducted every five years, the City can illustrate progress and success towards Plan goals. A five-year Resource Analysis review is a possible way to monitor progress on efforts to increase diversity through a list of tree species appropriate for a variety of different spaces and landscapes. CANOPY ANALYSIS With the recent Urban Tree Canopy (UTC) assessment, South San Francisco has a baseline tree canopy for the entire urban forest, which allows for continued monitoring of trends in the canopy cover on private property. COMMUNITY SATISFACTION Plan results will be measurable through increased benefits and value in the community tree resource and the preservation and eventual increase in canopy cover over time. Attainment of the objectives and strategies will support better tree health, greater longevity, and a reduction in tree failures. However, one of the greatest measurements of success for the UFMP will be its level of success in meeting community expectations for the care and preservation of the community tree resource. Community satisfaction can be measured through surveys and will be evidenced by public support for realizing the objectives of the Plan. Community satisfaction can also be gauged by the level of engagement and support for forestry programs. REPORTING Completion of this Plan is the first step towards achieving the vision for South San Francisco’s urban forest. Continual monitoring, analysis, and revisions will help forest managers keep stakeholders informed and engaged. By organizing data into specific components (for example; Urban Forest Reports, Community Satisfaction Surveys), it will be possible to revise specific areas of weakness and buttress areas of strength. Revisions to the Plan should occur with major events, such as newly discovered pests or diseases, or significant policy and regulation changes. A complete formal revision should occur in unison with major municipal projects, such as the comprehensive Master Plan. It is important to remember that the South San Francisco Urban Forest Master Plan is a living document that should adapt to new conditions. STATE OF THE COMMUNITY FOREST REPORT The purpose of the report is to provide structural and functional information about the urban forest (including the municipal forest) and recommend strategies for its proactive management, protection, and growth. 86 How do we get there? Appendices APPENDIX A: TERMS AND DEFINITIONS AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARDS INSTITUTE (ANSI) A Federation of United States industry sectors (e.g. businesses, professional societies and trade associations, standards developers, government agencies, institutes, and consumer / labor interest groups) that coordinates the development of the voluntary consensus standards system. AMERICAN PUBLIC WORKS ASSOCIATION (APWA) An organization that supports professionals who operate, improve, or maintain public works infrastructure by advocating to increase awareness, and providing education, credentialing, as well as other professional development opportunities. ARBORICULTURE The science, art, technology, and business of tree care. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMP) Management practices and processes used when conducting forestry operations, implemented to promote environmental integrity. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS (CIP) Infrastructure projects and equipment purchases identified by a government in order to maintain or improve public resources. Projects such as (1) constructing a facility, (2) expanding, renovating, replacing, or rehabilitating an existing facility, or (3) purchasing major equipment are identified, and then purchasing plans and development schedules are developed. CLIMATE ACTION PLAN (CAP) Government lead initiatives to decrease greenhouse gas emissions and prepare for the impacts of climate change. COMMUNITY URBAN FOREST The collection of publicly owned trees within an urban area, including street trees and trees in parks and other public facilities. DUTCH ELM DISEASE (DED) A wilt disease of elm trees caused by plant pathogenic fungi. The disease is either spread by bark beetles or tree root grafts. EMERALD ASH BORER (EAB) The common name for Agrilus planipennis, an emerald green wood boring beetle native to northeastern Asia and invasive to North America. It feeds on all species of ash. GREENHOUSE GAS (GHG) A gas that traps heat in Earth’s atmosphere. GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM (GIS) Computer-based tools designed to increase the organization and understanding of spatial or geographic data. Many different kinds of data can be displayed on one map for visualization and interpretation. INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT (IPM) Using pest and environmental information to determine if pest control actions are warranted. Pest control methods (e.g. biological control, habitat manipulation, cultural control, plant resistance, and chemical control) are chosen based on economic and safety considerations. I-TREE A computer program with tools used to determine the costs and benefits of urban trees based on inventory data, operations costs, and other factors. INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY OF ARBORICULTURE (ISA) An international nonprofit organization that supports professionals in the field of arboriculture by providing professional development opportunities, disseminating applicable research findings, and promoting the profession. INVENTORIED TREES Includes all public trees collected in the inventory as well as trees that have since been collected by city staff. MAJOR MAINTENANCE Includes major trimming or pruning or cabling, and any other similar act, which promotes the life, growth, health or beauty of trees, excepting watering and minor pruning. MAJOR TRIMMING AND PRUNING The removal of branches of three inches in diameter or greater. MIGRATORY BIRD TREATY ACT (MBTA) A United States federal law adopted to protect migratory birds. NATURAL AREA A defined area where native trees and vegetation are allowed to grow and reproduce naturally with little or no management except for control of undesirable and invasive species. OAK WILT A tree disease caused by the fungus Ceratocystis fagacearum. It is spread by sap feeding beetles and tree root grafts. OPEN SPACE A defined area of undeveloped land that is open to the public. The land can include native or naturalized trees and vegetation. PLANT HEALTH CARE (PHC) A program that consists of (1) routinely monitoring landscape plant health and (2) individualized plant management recommendations in order to maintain or improve the vitality, appearance, and safety of trees and other plants. PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT (PPE) Equipment worn to enhance workplace safety and minimize the risk to physical hazards (e.g. gloves, hard harts, bodysuits, and foot, eye, or ear protection). PRIVATE TREE Any tree located on private property, including residential and commercial parcels. PROTECTED TREE Landmark, heritage, quality, or secondary trees. PUBLIC TREE Any tree located in the public ROW, city park, and/or city facility. 87Appendices RIGHT TREE RIGHT PLACE The practice of installing the optimal species for a particular planting site. Considerations include existing and planned utilities and other infrastructure, planter size, soil characteristics, water needs as well as the intended role and characteristics of the species. SPECIMEN TREE Any tree of interest because of size or unusual species, other than a heritage tree, which is of good quality in terms of health, vigor or growth and conformity to generally, accepted horticultural standards of shape for its species, as designated by the city council upon the recommendation of the tree commission. STREET TREE Any tree growing within the tree maintenance strip whether or not planted by the city. STRUCTURAL AND TRAINING PRUNING Pruning to develop a sound and desirable scaffold branch structure in a tree and to reduce the likelihood of branch failure. TREE Any live woody plant having one or more well-defined perennial stems with a diameter at maturity of six inches or more measured at fifty-four inches above ground level (breast height). TREE CANOPY The layer of leaves, branches, and stems of trees that cover the ground when viewed from above. TREE CITY USA A program through the Arbor Day Foundation that advocates for green urban areas through enhanced tree planting and care TREE RISK ASSESSMENT QUALIFIED (TRAQ) An International Society of Arboriculture qualification. Upon completion of this training, tree care professionals demonstrate proficiency in assessing tree risk. URBAN FOREST The collection of privately owned and publicly owned trees and woody shrubs that grow within an urban area. URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN (PLAN) A document that provides a comprehensive information, recommendations, and timelines to guide for the efficient and safe management of a city’s tree canopy. The Plan uses adaptive management model to provide reasoned and transparent calls to action from an inventory of existing resources. URBAN FORESTRY The cultivation and management of native or introduced trees and related vegetation in urban areas for their present and potential contribution to the economic, physiological, sociological, and ecological well-being of urban society. URBAN TREE CANOPY ASSESSMENT (UTC) A document based off of GIS mapping data that provides a birds-eye view of the entire urban forest and establishes a tree canopy baseline of known accuracy. The UTC helps managers understand the quantity and distribution of existing tree canopy, potential impacts of tree planting and removal, quantified annual benefits trees provide to the community, and benchmark canopy percent values. WILDFIRE URBAN INTERFACE (WUI) A transition zone where homes are located on the edge of fire prone areas, and are at an increased risk of personal injury or property damage resulting from a wildfire. Appendices 88 Appendices APPENDIX B: REFERENCES Ackerly, David, Andrew Jones, Mark Stacey, Bruce Riordan. (University of California, Berkeley). 2018. San Francisco Bay Area Summary Report. California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment. Publication number: CCCA4-SUM-2018-005. Akbari, H., D. Kurn, et al. 1997. Peak power and cooling energy savings of shade trees. Energy and Buildings 25:139–148. Average Weather in South San Francisco. Weather spark. Retrieved on May 15, 2019. Retrieved from: https://weatherspark.com/y/568/Average-Weather-in-South-San-Francisco-California-United-States- Year-Round Bethke, J.A. and L. Bates. 2013. Myoporum Thrips. How to Manage Pests: Pests in Gardens and Landscapes. UC IPM. Retrieved from: http://ipm.ucanr.edu/PMG/PESTNOTES/pn74165.html Biotech in South San Francisco. 2018. Retrieved from: http://www.ssf.net/our-city/biotech/biotech-in-ssf Cayan, D.R. & Peterson, D.H. 1993. Spring climate and salinity in the San Francisco Bay Estuary. Water Resource. Res., 29, 293–303. City of South San Francisco. Retrieved June 11, 2018, from http://www.ssf.net/our-city/biotech/ biotech-in-ssf Clark JR, Matheny NP, Cross G, Wake V. 1997. A Model of Urban Forest Sustainability. J Arbor 23(1):17-30. Climate South San Francisco–California. 2018. U.S. climate data. Retrieved from: https://www.usclimatedata.com/climate/south-san-francisco/california/united-states/usca1987 Compliance Offset Protocol Urban Forest Projects. 2011. California Environmental Protection Agency: Air Resources Board. Retrieved from: https://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2010/capandtrade10/ copurbanforestfin.pdf Dwyer, et al. Assessing the Benefits and Costs of the Urban Forest. Journal of Arboriculture 18(5): September 1992. Ellison, D. et al. 2017. Trees, forests and water: Cool insights for a hot world. Global Environmental Change. Volume 43. Pages 51-61. ISSN 0959-3780.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.01.002. Retrieved from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378017300134 Appendices Fernández-Juricic, Esteban. 2001. Avifaunal use of Wooded Streets in an Urban Landscape. Conservation Biology. Volume 14, Issue 2, pages 513-521. Retrieved from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley. com/doi/abs/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2000.98600.x Genentech. (2018). Choosing South City. Retrieved June 11, 2018, from https://www.gene.com/stories/ choosing-south-city Gilman, E. F., & Sadowski, L. 2007. choosing suitable trees for urban and suburban sites: site evaluation and species selection. University of Florida, IFAS Extension. https://hort.ifas.ufl.edu/woody/documents/ EP310.pdf Gilstad-Hayden et al. 2015. Greater tree canopy cover is associated with lower rates of both violent and property crime in New Haven, CT. Landscape and Urban Planning. Volume 143. Pages 248-253. ISSN 0169-2046. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.08.005. Retrieved from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169204615001607 Grafton-Cardwel, Dr., Daugherty, Dr., Jetter, Dr., & Johnson, R. 2019. ACP/HLB Distribution and Management. University of California, Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources. Retrieved from https://ucanr.edu/sites/ACP/ Greenhouse Gases’ Effect on the Climate. 2018. U.S. Energy Information Administration. Retrieved from: https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.php?page=environment_how_ghg_affect_climate Haddad, et al. 2015. Habitat fragmentation and its lasting impact on Earth ecosystems. Science Advances. 1. e1500052. 10.1126/sciadv.1500052. Heisler GM. 1986. Energy Savings with Trees. J Arbor 12(5):113–125. Heisler GM., and DeWalle, O.R. 1968. "Effects of windbreak structure on wind flow: Agriculture Ecosystems and Environments, 22123, pp. 41-69. Heisler, G. M. 1990. Mean wind speed below building height in residential neighborhoods with different tree densities. ASHRAE Transactions. 96 (1): 1389-1396., 96 (1), 1389-1396. https://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/jrnl/1990/nrs_1990_heisler_001.pdf History of South San Francisco. 2017. Retrieved from: http://www.ssf.net/home/showdocument?id=128 Jennings, V.; Gaither, C.J. Approaching Environmental Health Disparities and Green Spaces: An Ecosystem Services Perspective. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2015, 12, 1952-1968. Kottek, M., Grieser, J., Beck, C., Rudolf, B. & Rubel, F. 2006. World map of the Köppen-Geiger climate classification updated. Meteorol. Zeitschrift, 15, 259–263. 89Appendices Radeloff et al. 2005. The Wildland-Urban Interface in the United States. Ecological applications. 15(3). Pp. 799−805. Retrieved from: https://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/journals/pnw_2005_radeloff001.pdf Salim, M. H., Schlünzen, K. H., & Grawe, D. 2015. Including trees in the numerical simulations of the wind flow in urban areas: should we care?. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 144 ,84-95. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167610515001178 Salmon, T. P. 2009. http://ipm.ucanr.edu/PMG/PESTNOTES/pn7433.html San Bruno Mountain Park Natural Features. County of San Mateo Parks Department. Retrieved on 18 February 2019. Retrieved from: https://parks.smcgov.org/san-bruno-mountain-park-natural-features Sherer, P.M., 2006. The Benefits of Parks. San Francisco, CA: The Trust for Public Land. Spangler, R. 1968. Scheduled to Close: Swift & Co. Plant Was a Boon to SSF. Reproduced for Historical Society Newsletter: Industrial City Echos, September 2010. Retrieved from: http://www.ssf.net/home/ showdocument?id=156 Swain, Steven. 2015. Pines, Drought and Beetles. Pests in The Urban Landscape. Retrieved: https://ucanr.edu/blogs/blogcore/postdetail.cfm?postnum=18800 Threlfall, Caragh & Williams, Nicholas & Hahs, Amy & J. Livesley, Stephen. 2016. Approaches to urban vegetation management and the impacts on urban bird and bat assemblages. Landscape and Urban Planning. 153. 28-39. 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.04.011. Troy, Austin; Grove, J. Morgan; O'Neil-Dunne, Jarlath. 2012. The relationship between tree canopy and crime rates across an urban-rural gradient in the greater Baltimore region. Landscape and Urban Planning. 106: 262-270. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. (2011, September 19). For kids with ADHD, regular 'green time' is linked to milder symptoms. ScienceDaily. Retrieved October 9, 2019 from www.sciencedaily.com/ releases/2011/09/110915113749.htm Wolfe, Kamala Silva. 2012. “Peninsula Progress: Time to Preserve All of Sign Hill”. San Bruno Mountain Watch. Retrieved from: http://www.mountainwatch.org/news-clippings/2016/1/18/peninsula-progress- time-to-preserve-all-of-sign-hill Xiao, Q., McPherson, E.G., Simpson, J.R., Ustin, S.L. 1998. Rainfall Interception by South San Francisco's Urban Forest. Journal of Arboriculture. 24(4): 235-244. Appendices Kuo, F.E. and Sullivan, W.C., 2001. Environment and crime in the inner city: Does vegetation reduce crime? Environment and behavior, 33(3), pp.343-367. Lyle, J.T., 1996. Regenerative design for sustainable development. John Wiley & Sons. Matsuoka, Rodney. 2010. Student performance and high school landscapes: Examining the links. Landscape and Urban Planning. 97. 273-282. McDonald et al. 2016. Planting Healthy Air: A global analysis of the role of urban trees in addressing particulate matter pollution and extreme heat. The Nature Conservancy. Retrieved from: https://thought-leadership-production.s3.amazonaws.com/2016/10/28/17/17/50/0615788b-8eaf-4b4f- a02a-8819c68278ef/20160825_PHA_Report_FINAL.pdf McPherson, E. 1994. Cooling urban heat islands with sustainable landscapes. In R. Platt, r. Rowntree, & P. Muick (Eds.), The ecological city (pp. 151–171). Amherst; University of Massachusetts Press. McPherson, E. and J. R. Simpson. 2010. The tree BVOC index. Elsevier. Environmental Pollution. 159. 2088–2093. Retrieved from: https://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/mcpherson/psw_2011_ mcpherson006.pdf Menning and Stephens. 2007. Fire Climbing in the Forest: A Semiqualitative, Semiquantitative Approach to Assessing Ladder Fuel Hazards. Society of American Foresters. West. J. Appl. For 22(2). Retrieved from: https://nature.berkeley.edu/stephenslab/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Menning-Stephens-Ladder- fuels-WJAF-07.pdf Miller, R. W. 1988. Urban Forestry: Planning and Managing Urban Greenspaces. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Mitchell, Jessika. 2019. Shothole Borer. Davey Resource Group’s Treesources. Retrieved from: http://www.davey.com/environmental-consulting-services/resources-news/shothole-borer/ Parke, J. L., and S. Lucas. 2008. Sudden oak death and ramorum blight. The Plant Health Instructor. DOI: 10.1094/PHI-I-2008-0227-01 Pena JCdC, Martello F, Ribeiro MC, Armitage RA, Young RJ, et al. 2017 Street trees reduce the negative effects of urbanization on birds. PLOS ONE 12(3): e0174484. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0174484 Planning the Urban Forest: Ecology, Economy, and Community Development. 2009. American Planning Association. Edited by Schwab, James. Retrieved from: https://planning-org-uploaded-media.s3.amazonaws.com/legacy_resources/research/forestry/pdf/555.pdf 90 Appendices APPENDIX C: INDUSTRY STANDARDS ANSI Z133 SAFETY STANDARD, 2017 Reviews general safety, electrical hazards, use of vehicles and mobile equipment, portable power hand tools, hand tools and ladders, climbing, and work procedures. ANSI A300 ANSI A300 standards represent the industry consensus on performing tree care operations. The standards can be used to prepare tree care contract specifications. ANSI A300 Pruning Standard-Part 1, 2017 ANSI A300 Soil Management-Part 2, 2011 ANSI A300 Support Systems Standard-Part 3, 2013 ANSI A300 Construction Management Standard-Part 5, 2012 ANSI A300 Transplanting Standard-Part 6, 2012 ANSI A300 Integrated Vegetation Management Standard-Part 7, 2012 ANSI A300 Root Management Standard-Part 8, 2013 ANSI A300 Tree Risk Assessment Standard. Tree Failure-Part 9, 2017 ANSI A300 Integrated Pest Management-Part 10, 2016 Includes guidelines for implementing IPM programs, including standards for Integrated Pest Management, IPM Practices, tools and equipment, and definition. Appendices ROOT MANAGEMENT, LARRY COSTELLO, GARY WATSON, AND TOM SMILEY, 2017 Recommended practices for inspecting, pruning, and directing the roots of trees in urban environments to promote their longevity, while minimizing infrastructure conflicts. Special companion publication to the ANSI A300 Part 8: Tree, Shrub, and Other Woody Plant Management–Standard Practices (Root Management) TREE PLANTING, SECOND EDITION, GARY WATSON, 2014 Provides processes for tree planting, including site and species selection, planting practices, post-planting pruning, and early tree care. Other topics included are time of planting, nursery stock (types, selection, and handling), preparing the planting hole, planting practices, root loss and new root growth, redevelopment of root structure, pruning, palms, after planting, final inspection, and a glossary of terms. TREE INVENTORIES, SECOND EDITION, JERRY BOND, 2013 Provides considerations for managing large numbers of trees considered as individuals rather than groups and serves as guide for making informed decisions that align with inventory goals with needs and resources, including inventory goals and objectives, benefits and costs, types, work specifications, and maintaining inventory quality. TREE RISK ASSESSMENT, SECOND EDITION, E. THOMAS SMILEY, NELDA MATHENY, AND SHARON LILLY, 2017 A guide for assessing tree risk as accurately and consistently as possible, to evaluate that risk, and to recommend measures that achieve an acceptable level of risk, including topics such as: risk assessment basics, levels and scope of tree risk assessment, assessing targets, sites, and trees, tree risk categorization, risk mitigation (preventive and remedial actions), risk reporting, tree related conflicts that can be a source of risk, loads on trees, structural defects and conditions that affect likelihood of failure, response growth, and description of selected types of advanced tree risk assessments. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPS) INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT, SECOND EDITION, 2016 Provides a comprehensive overview of the basic definitions, concepts, and practices that pertain to landscape Integrated Pest Management (IPM). The publication provides specific information for designing, planning, and implementing an IPM program as part of a comprehensive Plant Health Care (PHC) management system, including topics such as: • IPM Concepts and Definitions • Action Thresholds • Monitoring Tools and Techniques • Preventive Tactics • Control Tactics • Documentation and Recordkeeping INTEGRATED VEGETATION MANAGEMENT, SECOND EDITION, RANDALL H. MILLER, 2014 A guide to the selection and application of methods and techniques for vegetation control for electric rights-of-way projects and gas pipeline rights-of-way. Topics included: safety, site evaluations, action thresholds, evaluation and selection of control methods, implementing control methods, monitoring treatment and quality assurance, environmental protection, tree pruning and removal, and a glossary of terms. MANAGING TREES DURING CONSTRUCTION, SECOND EDITION, KELBY FITE & E. THOMAS SMILEY, 2016 Describes tree conservation and preservation practices that help to protect selected trees throughout the construction planning and development process so that they will continue to provide benefits for decades after site disturbance, including planning phase, design phase, pre-construction phase, construction phase, and post- construction phase. 91Appendices Appendices TREE SHRUB FERTILIZATION, THIRD EDITION, E. THOMAS SMILEY, SHARON LILLY, AND PATRICK KELSEY, 2013 Aids in the selection and application of fertilizers for trees and shrubs, including essential elements, determining goals and objectives of fertilization, soil testing and plan analysis, fertilizer selection, timing, application, application area, rates, storage and handling of fertilizer, sample fertilizer contract for commercial/municipal clients. SOIL MANAGEMENT, BRYANT SCHARENBROCH, E. THOMAS SMILEY, AND WES KOCHER, 2014 Focuses on the protection and restoration of soil quality that support trees and shrubs in the urban environment, including goals of soil management, assessment, sampling, and analysis, modifications and amendments, tillage, conservation, and a glossary of terms. UTILITY PRUNING OF TREES Describes the current best practices in utility tree pruning based on scientific research and proven methodology for the safe and reliable delivery of utility services, while preventing unnecessary injury to trees. An overview of safety, tools and equipment, pruning methods and practices, and emergency restoration are included. APPENDIX D: ONLINE COMMUNITY SURVEY RESULTS SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO–COMMUNITY SURVEY Introduction–South San Francisco Urban Forest The trees planted throughout the City of South San Francisco, on both public and private property, are its “urban forest.” Scientists have found that urban forests provide many environmental and health benefits. The City of South San Francisco has contracted with Davey Resource Group, Inc. to develop an Urban Forest Master Plan (UFMP) to support the urban forest and the benefits that it provides to the community. The Plan will provide a vision for the future of the city's urban forest and goals for maintenance, planting, and management to be implemented over the next 20 years. Your response to the following questions will help us more clearly understand community values and will help guide the development of the UFMP. This survey should take you 5 to 10 minutes to complete. Thank you for your participation. 1. Trees are important to the quality of life in South San Francisco. Response %Response Count Very True 89.33%67 True 9.33%7 Not Sure 1.33%1 Not True 0.00%0 Definitely, not true 0.00%0 Total 75 Trees provide numerous benefits to the community and the environment. Understanding which benefits are most appreciated by residents can help guide long-term management strategies. 92 Appendices Appendices 2. Which benefits provided by trees do you value most? Please select the top three (3) benefits. Response %Response Count Improved air quality 70.67%53 Bird, butterfly, other wildlife habitat 60.00%45 Privacy/Screening 42.67%32 Energy savings 32.00%24 Increased property values 22.67%17 Reduced Greenhouse Gases 16.00%12 Improved human health 16.00%12 Reductions in stormwater 12.00%9 Improved water quality 12.00%9 Shade 4.00%3 Noise buffering 4.00%3 Aesthetics 2.67%2 Other (please specify)1.33%1 • All of the above • Good for kids to see, play hide & seek, & climb • Wind buffer Total 75 3. Optional. Use this space to provide additional comments on the benefits of South San Francisco’s trees. • Who is going to fix the sidewalks when the roots crack the concrete? • Trees create a haven for relaxation and reflection. It is vital for our physical and emotional to be closer to nature. I would love to see a door to door tree program in the Brentwood park neighborhood so we can truly make a literal neighborhood full of “woods” ( ie: rosewood, wildwood, Northwood). It would be so nice to come home from the hustle and bustle and feel a sense of calm in a nicely wooded neighborhood. • Taking the time now to plan for planting trees to off-set the air quality and pollution due to extensive new development and increased populations is an investment in our city for current and future generations. • They improve the aesthetics • I like to win the city would let you plant one at your home and they would do the maintenance on the tree • Stop building • When I was 10 and 11 years old Mr. E. De Monty was our teacher, we planted the trees on the hills to reprove the environment. • Sense of wellbeing, beauty • Get rid of the eucalyptus trees! • Look at google earth from a certain height and you notice our City looks grey and most other affluent City's look green. Tree lined streets can provide shade, and wind buffers. • Trees add a nice touch to the city. No eucalyptus trees please • The Sunshine Gardens neighborhood could especially use more trees, however long time residents who care little for aesthetics will unlikely be motivated to plant a tree in their front yard, especially if they think their water bill will increase. Will these "city trees" be watered by the city? Promoting the program requires careful targeting to these uninformed folks. • Trees add beauty • It will improve the beauty of the city. SSF. Is bleak compared to the test of the peninsula. Increase self worth of population, help block the wind in some cases. Increase property values. Might encourage residents to take care of outdoor space rather than parking on the lawns, might pick up garbage rather than toss in front of house • Will give residents more pride in their community 93Appendices Appendices Canopy Goals and Tree Planting Nearby communities have the following canopy cover: • City of Mountain View has 17.7% • City of San Jose has 15.4% • City of San Francisco has 13.7% • Daly City has 5% South San Francisco trees are providing 8.7% canopy cover. Considering impervious surface and open water, the potential for canopy in South San Francisco is 22.6%. Existing canopy cover in South San Francisco varies by zoning and land use: • Parks have an average 22.7% • Parks and Recreation zone has 19.9% • Open Space with 17.2% • Low-density residential areas have an average of 10.7% • Commercial designations have an average 5.4% 4. Are there enough trees in South San Francisco? Response %Response Count Yes, there are enough trees 4.23%3 No, there are not enough trees 85.92%61 There are too many trees 0.00%0 Not sure 9.86%7 Total 71 (4 skipped) • Large trees help diffuse the high winds we have. Should've been thought out better at Orange Park for example where the wind just whips through the playground. • We collect rainwater. We channel the water to storm drains, We pay the state to dump the water into the bay. If we cannot keep the rainwater where it falls by providing local reservoirs, why can't we at least use the water to keep our parks green? • Trees are therapeutic on many levels. • Trees along streets, property lines and open space must be maintained, trimmed, inspected annually • Trees not only add to well being of the city and its population they also increase the aesthetics of the city. Palo Alto, Redwood City and Burlingame are beautiful cities and their trees are 100% responsible for that beauty. • Increased trees in general can help improve our health, quality of life, slow traffic and increase overall well being of the community. Choosing native species and cultivars increases ecological benefits and bio diversity. • Improved quality of life to be able to walk tree lined streets. • N/A • It makes the city look friendlier and softer, not just buildings • Have always wanted my neighborhood to have tree’s planted on sidewalks. Live in Mayfair village area. Would make our city look much more beautiful and give our wildlife a place to rest/live. • So many neighborhoods seem to lack trees so I appreciate the city designing more trees into new and existing places • I'm sad that so many trees have fallen/have been cut down recently but I understand that people are nervous about big trees near their homes. I have one up the hill behind me that makes me nervous every time we have moderate winds and I don't know what to do about it since it's not my tree. • Beautify the surroundings • Help provide buffer from wind • Happy to see a future improved So. San Francisco. • I am saddened that it seems the city, in response to extended drought chose to the people that "brown is the new green" instead of encouraging drought resistant plants. 94 Appendices Appendices 5. Where would you like to see more trees planted? Select your top three (3). Response %Response Count Parks and open space 42.25 30 Medians 43.66 31 Industrial areas 15.49 11 Commercial areas 50.70 36 Private property 32.39 23 Green roofs 4.23 3 Streets and parking strips 52.11 37 New developments 42.25 30 No additional trees 0.00 0 Other (please specify) 7.04 5 • Brentwood shopping center • Schools (2 responses) • I would like to see those ugly pine trees on Junipero Serra cut down and that whole highway be redone. • On the hill and mountain Total 71 (4 skipped) 6. What canopy goal should South San Francisco adopt? Response %Response Count 22.6% (potential)76.06 54 15%19.72 14 10%1.41 1 No net-loss, maintain the current level of canopy cover 8.7% 1.41 1 Other (please specify)1.41 1 • Not sure Total 71 (4 skipped) 7. Optional. Please use this space for any additional comments about canopy cover in South San Francisco. • If you plant trees near the side walk the city should be responsible for the repairs. • 22.6% does not seem realistic, but increasing canopy coverage along main thoroughfares, such as along 101, South Airport, Westborough, Gellert, Hickey, Orange, El Camino etc would help with air pollution, aesthetics and overall health for residents. • No comment • Stop building • Empty lots owned by the city without development plans should be forested. • I wish there was a center where we can monitor and show the public about the improvements and benefits of air quality due to the addition and care of plants in our community. • Visit other communities in the Bay Area. Ask yourself why South San Francisco must always take a backseat to these other places. We are told that our residents are not the correct "demographics" for improvements. What does that mean? • Trees with blossoms • An area of concern is the current removal requirements for trees on private property, as well as annual maintenance of existing trees on city property, in residential areas. I cannot be responsible for costs associated with city trees that cause problems to sidewalks, injury to others and be coninuting responsible to notify you when there is a potential problem! • There is definitely not enough canopy cover in SSF. • I appreciate canopy cover but I hope the planners take into account the reality of earthquakes and the resulting potential damage if the "right" canopy is not selected. • N/A • The cities mentioned in the previous questions are south of SSF and get more sun and heat so I can see why people wouldn't require quite as many trees here--we never see the sun. • Junipero Serra pine trees got to go. What about dogwood trees or maples. That whole strip needs to be redone and refreshed. Look at how nice the trees are in Burlingame or Stanford. • For the protection of people especially when raining • Incentives for residents to plant trees would be great! Sunshine gardens has very few trees and could benefit from more! • Residents used to have to maintain some portion of "green space" in front of individual homes but it seems too many areas are being paved over or covered in rocks. 95Appendices Appendices 10. Describe your awareness and/or interactions with South San Francisco’s urban forest program. Please check all that apply. Response %Response Count I was aware that the City responds to tree emergencies. 43.66 31 I have seen City crews working on trees.66.23 47 I have used the City website or called for tree information. 21.13 15 I did not know that the City had a program to care for trees. 36.62 26 I have read about the program in City-wide newsletters. 25.35 18 I have participated in Arbor Day and volunteer planting events. 29.58 21 Other (please specify)7.04 5 • I just found out through recently about South city’s urban forest program, and would like to participate. • I called the tree department about a tree in my front yard that is threatening the street light electrical cord, and the woman I spoke with basically said that it was my responsibility to maintain the tree. I am confused about why she would decide for the city that damage to the wire isn’t a priority. I am disappointed that she refused to send someone to my house to prune the tree. I will be calling about this issue again • Never once has my request been responded to appropriately within two weeks! • On my street on Fairfax way the trees are overly pruned. It’s damaging to the trees, and the trees never get the opportunity to develop a canopy. Therefore, it’s not only visually unappealing, the trees provide no shade and can’t be used as homes for birds/wildlife. • I saw the adopt a tree info in newsletter Total 71 (4 skipped) Tree Protection Maintenance practices can impact tree health. Topping and other improper practices can harm trees, introduce pests, create safety issues, and prematurely kill trees. Proper tree care preserves tree health and structure and promotes greater benefits over time. City Ordinance No. 1271-2000 requires a permit for the removal of City trees and trees designated as "protected" on private property. Currently, the maximum penalty for an unpermitted removal is $1,000. However, this amount rarely covers the value of the tree and the cost for replacement. 8. Would you support a higher penalty for unpermitted removals? Response %Response Count Yes 49.30 35 No 28.17 20 Not sure 22.54 16 Total 71 (4 skipped) 9. Should the City require professional licensing for tree care providers? Response %Response Count Yes 50.70 36 No 23.94 17 Not sure 25.35 18 Total 71 (4 skipped) 96 Appendices Appendices 11. What level of care for public trees would you prefer? Response %Response Count Minimal/Reactive–prune for visibility, sidewalk/ street clearance, addressing service requests and immediate hazards Proactive–cyclical maintenance, regular pruning/ inspection 11.27 8 Tree Health Care–optimal tree care to address structure, pests, diseases, etc. 52.11 27 Other (please specify)35.21 25 • Get rid of the pine trees. They are a nuisance 1.41 1 Total 71 (4 skipped) 12. Optional. Please use this additional space for any comments about the care of trees. • I have seen other cities have interactive websites with information on trees that will grow well in the area, have information on tree maintenance resources, and even downloadable booklets. That may be worthwhile for South San Francisco. • No comment • Guidance on how homeowners and renters can maintain trees, including a rental program for tools. • Stop building • Hire more staff for the tree care! • I would appreciate more education on this subject. • As I said before I think the city has an obligation to maintain trees around electrical wires that are owned by the city, on residential/commercial/city property, it behooves the city to prune trees to avoid further electrical damage costs. • If we impose too many restrictions on private protection and removal of trees it will deter residents from planting • Tree selection is the key. • I hope that you are caring for the trees in the Westborough area. Lived there since 1971. Saw a tree grow up. Unfortunately, it covers the beautiful view I once had but appreciate its majesty. Concern - hope the City is caring for all trees' good health. If the tree in the green area behind my house dies, my house is in the line of its drop. • Please address the overly, unnecessary pruing of all the trees on Fairfax Way. • N/A • Why did all the trees along Juniper Serra median get cut down? They didn't hurt visibility. If anything, the new plantings are going to be a visibility problem. • Take a drive down Stanford or parts of Burlingame, Hillsborough and get some ideas about making south San Francisco aesthetically pleasing. Btw, the plants and trees on Junipero Serra and King across the street from that apartment complex are very nice. • Everyone should participate • I think the city should hire more employees to maintain our Urban Forest. 97Appendices Appendices 15. What volunteer/collaborative efforts interest you most? Please, select all that apply. Response %Response Count Volunteer Opportunities 75.36 52 Stewardship Program/Community Foresters 53.62 37 Company Sponsorship’s (Adopt a Park/Adopt a Median) 42.03 29 Other (please specify)4.35 3 • Collaborate more with the schools because they have large amounts of property to plant more trees on, and have a large community of parents, teachers, staff, and our next generations (the students). • A number if parents and I volunteer at Monte Verde Elementary. With proper training, we would be happy to share our knowledge through our gardening program. • not sure at this time Total 69 (6 skipped) About You 16. What is your age? Response %Response Count 35-44 36.23 25 45-54 20.29 14 55-64 17.39 12 65+15.94 11 25-34 8.70 6 18-24 1.45 1 Under 18 0 0 Total 69 (6 skipped) EDUCATION AND OUTREACH The City organizes annual Arbor Day events and other tree planting events. 13. What education topics about trees interest you? Please select your top three (3). Response %Response Count Species selection 78.26 54 Basic pruning for young/small trees 65.22 45 Irrigation and watering 40.58 28 Benefits of trees 33.33 23 How to plant a tree 31.88 22 How to water a tree during drought 23.19 16 • How to maintain mature trees, root growth that breaks pipes and sidewalks, how to move trees. 2.90 2 • How to care for trees Total 69 (6 skipped) 14. What methods for education/outreach do you prefer? Please select your top three (3). Response %Response Count Web or App-based (electronic)66.67 46 Workshops 46.38 32 Public tree plantings (Arbor Day, etc.)40.58 28 Engagement through schools 40.58 28 Farmers Market (urban forestry info booth)33.33 23 Pamphlets, Newsletters (hard copy)30.43 21 Self-guided tours or demonstration gardens 27.54 19 Other (please specify)0.00 0 Total 69 (6 skipped) 98 Appendices Appendices 17. What neighborhood do you live in? Buri Buri/Alta Loma Response %Response Count Avalon/Brentwood/Southwood 17.39%12 Westborough 17.39%12 Sign Hill/Stonegate 11.59%8 Other (please specify)8.70%6 • Lower Parkway Heights 8.70%6 • Old Town 7.25%5 • Magnolia avenue and tamarack, this is the stop place for all buses taking pictures of Sign Hill 5.80%4 • Chestnut and Miller 5.80%4 • B street 4.35%3 • Pecks lot 4.35%3 Serra Highlands 4.35%3 Paradise Valley/Hillside 1.45%1 Sunshine Gardens 1.45%1 Winston Manor/West Winston Manor 1.45%1 Downtown/Lindenville/Village Way/South Airport 0.00%0 Orange Park/Francisco Terrace 0.00%0 Terrabay 0.00%0 Baden/Commercial/Mayfair Village 0.00%0 Tanforan/Mayfair Village 0.00%0 East of 101 0.00%0 Parkway 0.00%0 Parkway Heights 0.00%0 El Camino/Treasure Island 0.00%0 Terrabay 0.00%0 Brentwood 0.00%0 Treasure Island 0.00%0 Alta Loma 0.00%0 Paradise Valley/Hillside 0.00%0 Old Town 0.00%0 South Airport 0.00%0 Stonegate 0.00%0 Village Way 0.00%0 Mater Delorosa 0.00%0 Mission Road 0.00%0 Brentwood 0.00%0 County Club 0.00%0 Southwood 0.00%0 Francisco Terrance 0.00%0 Los Cerritos South Linden South Maple San Francisco High School Oyster Point Marina Total 69 (6 skipped) 99Appendices Appendices Optional. Please provide any additional comments or feedback. • No comment • I have major allergies and know many cities want only Male trees planting to avoid the mess of flowering, fruiting and trees that drop onto cars, sidewalks and cars. I also would like help in dealing with mature trees that cross over property lines and drop sap and leaves onto neighbor property because of wind. Many property owners who rent homes refuse to maintain mature trees or repair fences that mature trees lean against to ruin. I want the City to provide clear rules and guidance that homeowners and tenants can abide by. • Stop building • Can the Eucalyptus trees in Orange park be replaced with other large species? San Bruno Park off of Crystal Springs has some beautiful trees but not sure their species. • Please add a park to Sunshine Gardens. • Are there free workshops currently offered for volunteers and the community? • Would like to see more deciduous trees planted in street medians and public spaces. Also a more overall professional landscaping job done in our public spaces and streets! • "Please let me know about any plans to promote residential trees in Sunshine Gardens. I will help if I can. Kathryn Van de Kamp 1041 Sunnyside drive 415-235-1777" • I used to be on the Beautification Committee and became more aware of urban beauty through the committee. • "An onsite workshop. Get a volunteer homeowner. Go to a treeless site, there are many to choose from, select location, show how to check for underground interference (pipes, sewer), select tree with particular emphasis on maximum size and height, maybe use chalk to mark, discuss wind issues,discuss debris issues so people know before selecting. Make one of those speeded up YouTube videos. • Return to site for hands on planting, staking. Monitor and show photo on website once per year through maturity. People can visualize what tree will be like in 5 to 10 years and select accordingly. • Another way would be to develop an experimental garden in Orange Park. Stake out a row for a species of tree or shrub. Plant one in the row each year or two for 5 or 10 years. Until the plant reaches maturity or decline. People can visualize what that cute little one gallon plant will look like in years (and maybe avoid planting it 12 inches from house or 6 inches from sidewalk!)" • Thank you for the opportunity to provide input • Mayfair could benefit with street trees as the original cherry blossoms planted in the 60's have all but died out. • N/A • Would love more trees in our neighborhood, feel neglected. • Please cut down the ugly pine trees on Junipero Serra between Hickey and Westborough and redo that whole median. Add a lane, new trees like maples or dogwoods, and even a walkway. Also a lot of the homes in south San Francisco don’t have trees because the city planners decades ago picked the wrong trees—obviously they were clueless. Hopefully, you guys can do a better job and plant trees in our neighborhood. • More privilege for those who volunteer • With all the new developments the city should require developers to plant a certain amount of trees with each development. • Old, existing and removed tree roots seem to be causing problems in our area because of the close proximity of our buildings. I would like to know some guidelines about planting near buildings. • Please give Randolph some much needed attention, the city is hiring outside companies for the care ,and it’s not good. 100 Appendices Appendices APPENDIX E: SOIL VOLUME AND TREE STATURE Tree growth is limited by soil volume. Larger stature trees require larger volumes of uncompacted soil to reach mature size and canopy spread (Casey Trees, 2008). APPENDIX F: ALTERNATIVE PLANTER DESIGNS Stormwater tree pits are designed to collect runoff from streets, parking lots, and other impervious areas. Stormwater is directed into scuppers that flow into below-grade planters that then allow stormwater to infiltrate soils to supplement irrigation. 101Appendices Appendices Structural soil is a highly porous, engineered aggregate mix, designed for use under asphalt and concrete as a load-bearing and leveling layer. Poor spaces allow for water infiltration and storage and also root growth. Bioswales are landscaped drainage areas with gently sloped sides designed to provide temporary storage while runoff infiltrates the soil. They reduce off-site runoff and trap pollutants and silt. 102 Appendices Appendices Sidewalks use pillars or structured cell systems to support reinforced concrete, increasing the volume of uncompacted soil in subsurface planting areas and enhancing both root growth and stormwater storage. Pervious pavements allow stormwater and oxygen to infiltrate the surface, promoting tree health and groundwater recharge 103Appendices Appendices X X X X X X X X XRegional Collaboration X X X X X X X X X Condition of Public Trees - Natural Areas Urban Tree Canopy Trees on Private Property Equitable Distribution Species Diversity Size/Age Distribution Suitability Condition of Public Trees - Streets, Parks Soil Volume Indicators of a Sustainable Urban Forest The TreesThe PlayersThe Management ApproachTree Inventory Utility Engagement Planting Program Canopy Assessment Developer Engagement Tree Protection Policy Management Plan Public Awareness City Staffing and Equipment Risk Management Program Funding Disaster Preparedness & Response Maintenance of Publicly-Owned Trees (ROWs) Maintenance of Publicly-Owned Trees Natural Areas Neighborhood Action Large Private & Institutional Landholder Involvement Green Industry Involvement City Department/Agency Cooperation Funder Engagement X X X X X X X X X X X Communications X Totals 3198 HighMediumLow Assessed Performance Level APPENDIX G: SUSTAINABLE URBAN FOREST INDICATORS 104 Urban Tree Canopy Achieve the desired tree canopy cover according to goals set for the entire city and neighborhoods. Alternatively, achieve 75% of the total canopy possible for the entire city and in each neighborhood.” Canopy is decreasing. - and/or - No canopy goals have been set. Canopy is not dropping, but not on a trajectory to achieve the established goal. Canopy goal is achieved, or well on the way to achievement. Space and Soil Volume Establish minimum street tree soil volume requirements to ensure there is adequate space and soil for street trees to thrive. Minimum soil volumes by mature size: 1000 cubic feet for large trees; 600 cubic feet for medium trees; 300 cubic feet for small trees. Minimum street tree soil volumes have not been established. Minimum street tree soil volume has been established based on mature size of tree. Minimum street tree soil volumes have been established and are required to be adhered to for all new street tree planting projects. HighMediumLow Indicators of a Sustainable Urban Forest Overall Objective or Industry Standard Performance Levels Age of Trees (Size and Age Distribution) Establish a diverse-aged population of public trees across the entire city and for each neighborhood. Ideal standard: 0-8”” DBH: 40% 9-17”” DBH: 30% 18-24”” DBH: 20% Over 24”” DBH: 10% No current information is available on size. - OR - Age distribution is not proportionally distributed across size classes at the city level. Size classes are evenly distributed at the city level, though unevenly distributed at the neighborhood level. Age distribution is generally aligned with the ideal standard diameter classes at the neighborhood level. Condition of Publicly-Owned Natural Areas (trees managed extensively) Possess a detailed understanding of the ecological structure and function of all publicly-owned natural areas (such as woodlands, ravines, stream corridors, etc.), as well as usage patterns. No current information is available on tree condition or risk. Publicly-owned natural areas are identified in a sample-based “natural areas survey” or similar data. Information from a current, GIS-based, 100% complete natural areas survey is utilized to document ecological structure and function, as well as usage patterns. Diversity Establish a genetically diverse population of publicly-owned trees across the entire city and for each neighborhood. Tree populations should be comprised of no more than 30% of any family, 20% of any genus, or 10% of any species. No current information is available on species. - OR - Fewer than five species dominate the entire tree population citywide. No species represents more than 20% of the entire tree population citywide. No species represents more than 10% of the entire tree population citywide. Location of Canopy (Equitable Distribution) Achieve low variation between tree canopy and equity factors citywide by neighborhood. Ensure that the benefits of tree canopy are available to all, especially for those most affected by these benefits. Tree planting and public outreach and education is not determined by tree canopy cover or benefits. Tree planting and public outreach and education is focused on neighborhoods with low tree canopy. Tree planting and public outreach and education is focused in neighborhoods with low tree canopy and a high need for tree benefits. Condition of Publicly Owned Trees (trees managed intensively) Possess a detailed understanding of tree condition and potential risk of all intensively-managed, publicly-owned trees. This information is used to direct maintenance actions. No current information is available on tree condition or risk. Information from a partial or sample or inventory is used to assess tree condition and risk. Information from a current, GIS-based, 100% complete public tree inventory is used to indicate tree condition and risk. Trees on Private Property Possess a solid understanding of the extent, location and general condition of trees on private lands. No data is available on private trees.Current tree canopy assessment reflects basic information (location) of both public and private canopy combined. Detailed information available on private trees. Ex. bottom-up sample-based assessment of trees. Climate Resilience/ Suitability Establish a tree population suited to the urban environment and adapted to the overall region. Suitable species are gauged by exposure to imminent threats, considering the “Right Tree for the Right Place” concept and invasive species. No current information is available on species suitability. - OR - Less than 50% of trees are considered suitable for the site. 50% to 75% of trees are considered suitable for the site. More than 75% of trees are considered suitable for the site. A Sustainable Urban Forest Indicators: The Trees 105Appendices Neighborhood Action Citizens understand, cooperate, and participate in urban forest management at the neighborhood level. Urban forestry is a neighborhood-scale issue. Little or no citizen involvement or neighborhood action. Some active groups are engaged in advancing urban forestry activity, but with no unified set of goals or priorities. The majority of all neighborhoods are organized, connected, and working towards a unified set of goals and priorities. Regional Collaboration Neighboring communities and regional groups are actively cooperating and interacting to advance the region’s stake in the city’s urban forest. Little or no interaction between neighboring communities and regional groups. Neighboring communities and regional groups share similar goals and policy vehicles related to trees and the urban forest. Regional urban forestry planning, coordination, and management is widespread. HighMediumLow Indicators of a Sustainable Urban Forest Overall Objective or Industry Standard Performance Levels Green Industry Involvement The green industry works together to advance citywide urban forest goals and objectives. The city and its partners capitalize on local green industry expertise and innovation. Little or no involvement from green industry leaders to advance local urban forestry goals. Some partnerships are in place to advance local urban forestry goals, but more often for the short-term. Long-term committed partnerships are working to advance local urban forestry goals. Funder Engagement Local funders are engaged and invested in urban forestry initiatives. Funding is adequate to implement citywide urban forest management plan. Little or no funders are engaged in urban forestry initiatives. Funders are engaged in urban forestry initiatives at minimal levels for short-term projects. Multiple funders are fully engaged and active in urban forestry initiatives for short-term projects and long-term goals. State Engagement State departments/agencies are aware of and vested in the urban forest and cooperates to advance citywide urban forest goals and objectives. State departments/agencies and City agencies act independently of urban forestry efforts. No coordination exists. State department/agencies and City agencies have engaged in dialogues about urban forestry efforts with respect to capital improvement and infrastructure projects. State departments/agencies, City agencies, and other stakeholders integrate and collaborate on all urban forestry efforts, including planning, site work, and outreach/ education. Large Private & Institutional Landholder Involvement Large, private, and institutional landholders embrace citywide goals and objectives through targeted resource management plans. Large private land holders are unaware of issues and potential influence in the urban forest. No large private land management plans are currently in place. Education materials and advice is available to large private landholders. Few large private landholders or institutions have management plans in place. Clear and concise goals are established for large private land holders through direct education and assistance programs. Key landholders and institutions have management plans in place. City Department and Agency Cooperation All city departments and agencies cooperate to advance citywide urban forestry goals and objectives. Conflicting goals and/or actions among city departments and agencies. Informal teams among departments and agencies are communicating and implementing common goals on a project- specific basis. Common goals and collaboration occur across all departments and agencies. City policy and actions are implemented by formal interdepartmental and interagency working teams on all city projects. Utility Engagement All utilities are aware of and vested in the urban forest and cooperates to advance citywide urban forest goals and objectives. Utilities and city agencies act independently of urban forestry efforts. No coordination exists. Utilities and city agencies have engaged in dialogues about urban forestry efforts with respect to capital improvement and infrastructure projects. Utilities, city agencies, and other stakeholders integrate and collaborate on all urban forestry efforts, including planning, site work, and outreach/education. Public Awareness The general public understands the benefits of trees and advocates for the role and importance of the urban forest. Trees are generally seen as a nuisance, and thus, a drain on city budgets and personal paychecks. Trees are generally recognized as important and beneficial. Trees are seen as valuable infrastructure and vital to the community’s well-being. The urban forest is recognized for the unique environmental, economic, and social services its provides to the community. A Sustainable Urban Forest Indicators: The Players 106 Appendices Tree Inventory Comprehensive, GIS-based, current inventory of all intensively-managed public trees to guide management, with mechanisms in place to keep data current and available for use. Data allows for analysis of age distribution, condition, risk, diversity, and suitability. No inventory or out-of-date inventory of publicly-owned trees. Partial or sample-based inventory of publicly- owned trees, inconsistently updated. Complete, GIS-based inventory of publicly-owned trees, updated on a regular, systematic basis. Management Plan Existence and buy-in of a comprehensive urban forest management plan to achieve city-wide goals. Re-evaluation is conducted every 5 to 10 years. No urban forest management plan exists. A plan for the publicly-owned forest resource exists but is limited in scope, acceptance, and implementation. A comprehensive plan for the publicly owned forest resource exists and is accepted and implemented. Maintenance Program of Publicly-Owned Trees (trees managed intensively) All intensively-managed, publicly-owned trees are well maintained for optimal health & condition in order to extend longevity & maximize benefits. A reasonable cyclical pruning program is in place, generally targeting 5–7 year cycles. Maintenance program is outlined in the management plan. Request-based, reactive system. No systematic pruning program is in place for publicly-owned trees. All publicly-owned trees are systematically maintained, but pruning cycle is inadequate. All publicly-owned trees are proactively and systematically maintained and adequately pruned on a cyclical basis. Planting Program Comprehensive and effective tree planting and establishment program is driven by canopy cover goals, equity considerations, and other priorities according to the plan. Tree planting and establishment is outlined in the management plan. Tree establishment is ad hoc.Tree establishment is consistently funded and occurs on an annual basis. Tree establishment is directed by needs derived from a tree inventory and other community plans and is sufficient in meeting canopy cover objectives. City Staffing and Equipment Adequate staff and access to the equipment and vehicles to implement the management plan. A high level urban forester or planning professional, strong operations staff, and solid certified arborist technicians. Insufficient staffing levels, insufficiently-trained staff, and/or inadequate equipment and vehicle availability. Certified arborists and professional urban foresters on staff have some professional development, but are lacking adequate staff levels or adequate equipment. Multi-disciplinary team within the urban forestry unit, including an urban forestry professional, operations manager, and arborist technicians. Vehicles and equipment are sufficient to complete required work. Canopy Assessment Accurate, high-resolution, and recent assessment of existing and potential city-wide tree canopy cover that is regularly updated and available for use across various departments, agencies, and/or disciplines. No tree canopy assessement.Sample-based canopy cover assessment, or dated (over 10 years old) high resolution canopy assessment. High-resolution tree canopy assessment using aerial photographs or satellite imagery. Risk Management Program All publicly-owned trees are managed for maximum public safety by way of maintaining a city-wide inventory, conducting proactive annual inspections, and eliminating hazards within a set timeframe based on risk level. Risk management program is outlined in the management plan. Request-based, reactive system. The condition of publicly-owned trees is unknown. There is some degree of risk abatement thanks to knowledge of condition of publicly-owned trees, though generally still managed as a request-based reactive system. There is a complete tree inventory with risk assessment data and a risk abatement program in effect. Hazards are eliminated within a set time period depending on the level of risk. Maintenance Program of Publicly-Owned Natural Areas (trees managed extensively) The ecological structure and function of all publicly-owned natural areas are protected and enhanced while accommodating public use where appropriate. No natural areas management plans are in effect. Only reactive management efforts to facilitate public use (risk abatement). Management plans are in place for each publicly- owned natural area focused on managing ecological structure and function and facilitating public use. Tree Protection Policy Comprehensive and regularly updated tree protection ordinance with enforcement ability is based on community goals. The benefits derived from trees on public and private property are ensured by the enforcement of existing policies. No tree protection policy.Policies are in place to protect trees, but the policies are not well-enforced or ineffective. Protections policies ensure the safety of trees on public and private land. The policies are enforced and supported by significant deterrents and shared ownership of city goals. Funding Appropriate funding in place to fully implement both proactive and reactive needs based on a comprehensive urban forest management plan. Funding comes from the public sector only, and covers only reactive work. Funding levels (public and private) generally cover mostly reactive work. Low levels of risk management and planting in place. Dynamic, active funding from engaged private partners and adequate public funding are used to proactively manage and expand the urban forest. Communication Effective avenues of two-way communication exist between the city departments and between city and its citizens. No avenues are in place. City departments and public determine on an ad-hoc basis the best messages and avenues to communicate. Avenues are in place, but used sporadically and without coordination or only on a one-way basis. Avenues are in place for two way communication, are well-used with targeted, coordinated messages. Disaster Preparedness & Response A disaster management plan is in place related to the city’s urban forest. The plan includes staff roles, contracts, response priorities, debris management and a crisis communication plan. Staff are regularly trained and/or updated. No disaster response plan is in place.A disaster plan is in place, but pieces are missing and/or staff are not regularly trained or updated. A robust disaster management plan is in place, regularly updated and staff is fully trained on roles and processes. HighMediumLow Indicators of a Sustainable Urban Forest Overall Objective or Industry Standard Performance Levels A Sustainable Urban Forest Indicators: The Management Approach 107Appendices $Ongoing High $Ongoing Low-Moderate Goal 10: Plan for trees, before planting. Objective 10.1: Invest in trees for the long-term environmental benefits provided to the community. Objective 10.2: Improve the diversity of the urban forest on public and private property to create a more resilient urban forest. $ = less than $25,000 $$ = $25,000-$100,000 $$$ = more than $100,000 Objective 1.1: Increase efficiency to respond in a timely manner to community concerns for trees.$Ongoing High Goal 1: Promote excellent and efficient customer service. Objective 4.1: Expand tree canopy through new development projects.$Ongoing High Goal 4: Increase collaboration with developers. Objective 7.1: Develop a risk management policy/procedure.$1–5 Years High Goal 7: Promote a safe urban forest. Objective 8.1: Focus fire mitigation efforts on Sign Hill and other areas of vulnerability. $Ongoing High Goal 8: Reduce the risk of fire and mitigate damage caused by fire. Objective 3.1: Encourage the inclusion of trees in development projects to expand the tree canopy on public property. $Ongoing High Goal 3: Advance the role of Parks Staff in City development projects. Objective 5.1: Encourage the establishment of trees through efficient and sustainable irrigation solutions and programs. $-$$Ongoing High Goal 5: Provide water to trees efficiently and cost-effectively. Objective 9.1: Maintain trees throughout their lifetimes to improve structure in maturity and reduce the likelihood of structural failures in the future. $Ongoing Moderate Goal 9: Improve public safety. $Ongoing High $Ongoing High $Ongoing High Goal 2: Increase uniformity between City policies, documents, and departments. Objective 2.1: Unify guiding documents to transcend departmental changes and address inefficiencies and reduce confusion. Objective 2.2: Improve communication and coordination with other City departments. Objective 2.3: Increase the role of Parks Staff in design review. 2030 – 20352022 2025 – 203020212020Cost 2035 – 20402023 PriorityTimeframe2024 Goals & Objectives City of South San Francisco Urban Forest Master Plan $Ongoing High $1-3 Years HighObjective 6.1: Implement policies and procedures that make tree work as safe as possible. Objective 6.2: Continue to support forestry worker safety. Goal 6: Promote a workplace culture of safety. APPENDIX H: SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GOALS AND OBJECTIVE GANTT CHART 108 Appendices $ $ 10-15 Years Low $ Ongoing High 1-5 Years Moderate Goal 11: Avoid removing trees whenever possible. Objective 11.1: Explore alternative designs instead of removals. Objective 11.2: Discourage the removal of protected trees. Objective 11.3: Improve everyday care of trees, to prevent future removals. Objective 12.1: Expand canopy cover to increase environmental benefits.$Ongoing Low Goal 12: Reach 22.6% canopy cover by 2040. Objective 13.1: Educate the community about property owner responsibilities for the care of City trees. $Ongoing Low-Moderate Goal 13: Decrease tree mortality. Objective 14.1: Reduce unethical and/or poor pruning practices and unnecessary removals on private property. $Ongoing Low Goal 14: Promote good maintenance practices for trees on private property. Objective 18. 1: Work with volunteer tree advocates to promote urban forestry events and distribute urban forestry educational materials. $Ongoing Low-Moderate Goal 18: Create a volunteer tree advocacy group. Objective 19.1: Employ multiple tools and strategies to prevent and/or manage pests and disease. $Ongoing Moderate Goal 19: Continue to practice an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) approach to responding to pests and disease pathogens. Objective 15.1: Meet the changing needs of the urban forest and the community through clear and concise and current policy. $Ongoing Low-Moderate Goal 15: Review and update Municipal Code as needed and educate the community as changes occur. $-$$1-5 Years Moderate-High $Ongoing Goal 16: Increase support for the enhancement of the urban forest. Objective 16.1: Engage the community in urban forestry activities and educational events. Objective 16.2: Provide sustainable and adequate resources to sustain the urban forest for future generations. $ = less than $25,000 $$ = $25,000-$100,000 $$$ = more than $100,000 $Ongoing Low $Ongoing Moderate Goal 17: Continue to distribute information about the urban forest to the community. Objective 17.1: Educate the community to increase support and understanding of urban forestry policies and procedures. Objective 17.2: Market urban forestry through a variety means to promote participation from all community members. 2030 – 20352022 2025 – 203020212020Cost 2035 – 20402023 PriorityTimeframe2024 Goals & Objectives City of South San Francisco Urban Forest Master Plan 109Appendices URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN 2020 February 26, 2020South San FranciscoUrbanForest Master PlanCity Council Meeting Urban Forest Master PlanExisting Conditions•15,000 city trees managed by Parks and Recreation Department•Overall canopy coverage of 8.7% (excluding open water)•Annual carbon benefits 3,142 tons $110,772•Annual air quality benefits 39,822 pounds $20,119 Urban Forest Master PlanProcess•Kickoff – June 2018 •Urban Forest Resource Assessment oLand coveroPublic Tree Resource •Background ReviewoGuiding and Regulatory DocsoOperations and Funding•Stakeholder Engagement•Community Meeting•Drafts (2)•Final UFMP Goals and ObjectivesOverview•4 Focus AreasoAlign urban forest management policy with community expectations and promote efficiency within the Parks DivisionoEnhance community safetyoOptimize the environmental, social, economic, and public health benefits of trees and canopyoGrow, maintain, preserve, and enhance a sustainable urban forest•18 Goals•Comprehensive Objectives Align urban forest management policy with community expectations and promote efficiency within the Parks Division•G1. Promote excellent and efficient customer service•G2. Increase uniformity between City policies, documents, and departments•G3. Advance the role of Park staff in City development projectsGoals and Objectives Align urban forest management policy with community expectations and promote efficiency within the Parks Division•G4. Increase collaboration with developers•G5. Provide water to trees efficiently and cost‐effectivelyGoals and Objectives Enhance Community Safety•G6. Promote a workplace culture of safety•G7. Promote a safe urban forest•G8. Reduce the risk of fire and mitigate damage caused by fire•G9. Improve public safetyGoals and Objectives Optimize the environmental, social, economic, and public health benefits of trees and canopy•G10. Plan for trees, before planting•G11. Avoid removing trees whenever possible•G12. Reach 22.6% canopy cover by 2040 Goals and Objectives Optimize the environmental, social, economic, and public health benefits of trees and canopy•G13. Decrease tree mortality•G14. Promote good maintenance practices for trees on private property•G15. Review and update Municipal Code as needed and educate the public as changes occurGoals and Objectives Grow, maintain, preserve, and enhance a sustainable urban forest•G16. Increase support for the enhancement of the urban forest•G17. Continue to distribute information about the urban forest to the communityGoals and Objectives Grow, maintain, preserve, and enhance a sustainable urban forest•G18. Create a volunteer tree advocacy group•G19. Continue to pursue an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) approach to responding to pests and pathogensGoals and Objectives Thank you for your time!Tina McKeand928‐246‐7048tina.mckeand@davey.comAllison Steere303‐921‐5641allison.steere@davey.com City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:20-147 Agenda Date:2/26/2020 Version:1 Item #:9a. Resolution approving and adopting the Urban Forest Master Plan for the City of South San Francisco. WHEREAS,the City of South San Francisco (“City”)acts as a responsible steward of its urban forest of over 15,000 trees; and WHEREAS,as part of the 2017/18 Capital Improvement Program,the City Council authorized funding for the creation of a citywide Urban Forest Master Plan; and WHEREAS,the City issued a request for proposals for the creation of the Urban Forest Master Plan,and awarded the contract to Davey Resources Group, a subsidiary of Davey Tree Company; and WHEREAS,the purpose of the Urban Forest Master Plan is to develop a clear set of goals,policies and objectives that will provide direction for the development,improvement and enhancement of the City’s parks, neighborhood and street trees, which collectively serve as the city’s “urban forest;” and WHEREAS,the plan will serve as a tool to guide tree care and reforestation measures on an immediate,as well as long-term basis. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby approves and adopts the Urban Forest Master Plan. ***** City of South San Francisco Printed on 5/4/2020Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:20-133 Agenda Date:2/26/2020 Version:1 Item #:10. Report regarding Emergency Rental Assistance Grant Program for South San Francisco residents facing one- time financial hardship (Kris Romasanta, Community Development Coordinator) RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the City Council receive this report regarding Emergency Rental Assistance,as follow-up to the Council’s direction given to staff at its annual retreat on January 18, 2020. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION On January 18,2020,at the City Council’s annual retreat,staff presented a report on Emergency Rental Assistance,which is a common strategy used to prevent homelessness.Emergency Rental Assistance provides one-time financial assistance to a local household that,due to a loss of job or family emergency,has temporarily become unable to cover their monthly rent. In South San Francisco,approximately 49%of renter households pay an excessive amount of rent (i.e.,more than 30%of their income);and 37%or renters live in single-family homes that are exempted from the State’s new rent cap legislation (AB 1482).In addition,a 2019 report by the Urban Institute concluded that 47%of City of San Francisco residents have less than $2,000 in savings.Due to these factors,a single family emergency -such as an emergency room visit,unexpected car repairs,or loss of job -can force an otherwise reliable tenant to fall behind on rent and risk eviction. San Mateo County administers its Emergency Rental Assistance program using “core agencies”that directly assist local residents.For South San Francisco,YMCA is the designated core agency.In 2019,YMCA distributed $260,138 in financial assistance to San Bruno,Brisbane,and South San Francisco residents that went toward housing,utility assistance,and car repair assistance.Of this assistance,84%went toward emergency housing,such as rent back payments and security deposits.On average,YMCA receives 10-15 requests per month from South San Francisco residents, ranging from $1,000 to $3,000. Under YMCA’s current guidelines,when a client requests financial assistance for back rent or a security deposit,the resident must provide a cause of delay in payment,whether emergency or financial hardship (not mismanagement of funds)and demonstrate sustainability beyond the financial assistance.If the client cannot satisfy these two items,YMCA refers the client to St.Vincent de Paul,a non-profit with more flexible rental assistance guidelines. In 2019, St. Vincent de Paul provided $26,553 for 23 South San Francisco residents. In assessing the current County system, staff concluded that: ·The County’s existing program (using YMCA and St.Vincent de Paul)works well overall and provides a critical service to local rent-burdened households. ·Current funding levels are not sufficient to meet the current,growing needs in South San Francisco, with funding typically running low in May-June and October-December. ·Many requests are denied because the household cannot meet the program requirements.For example, the household may be sub-leasing and not on the primary lease;they may not meet the income City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/20/2020Page 1 of 2 powered by Legistar™ File #:20-133 Agenda Date:2/26/2020 Version:1 Item #:10. the household may be sub-leasing and not on the primary lease;they may not meet the income requirements; or the landlord may refuse to sign a W-9 form. After deliberating on this issue at its annual retreat,the City Council directed staff to allocate a moderate amount of funding -$30,000 -from the City’s Housing Trust Fund to provide additional financial support for the County’s Emergency Rental Assistance program.The City’s funding would go to YMCA;it would be restricted to South San Francisco residents;and it would have fewer programmatic restrictions,thus allowing a greater number of South San Francisco residents to qualify for assistance. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Pursuant to the Council’s direction,staff has included $30,000 for Emergency Rental Assistance as part of the mid-term budget adjustment requests for Fiscal Year (FY)2019-2020.In addition,staff will seek $50,000 for FY 2020-2021 in the upcoming budget process. FISCAL IMPACT As noted above,staff has included $30,000 for Emergency Rental Assistance as part of the mid-term budget adjustment requests for FY 2019-2020.The requested $30,000 will be reallocated from Professional Services to Program Expenses in the City’s Housing Trust Fund. RELATIONSHIP TO STRATEGIC PLAN Renter protection measures address the following Strategic Plan area:Strategic Plan Priority Area #2 Quality of Life, Initiative 2.3 - Promote a balanced mix of housing options in South San Francisco. CONCLUSION Staff recommends that City Council receive this report regarding Emergency Rental Assistance Program. City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/20/2020Page 2 of 2 powered by Legistar™ Emergency Rental Assistance Programs City Council Meeting February 26, 2020 Description One-time financial assistance for individuals & families who face an emergency or financial hardship. Funds typically used for rent back payment or security deposit Intended to prevent homelessness 2 YCMA Designated by County as the core agency for SSF, Brisbane & San Bruno 10-15 requests/month from SSF residents Average SSF request: $1,000-$3,000 3 Process 1.YMCA provides SSF clients with support & referrals based on their needs and qualifications 2.Renter must provide: a.Cause for delay in payment – emergency or financial hardship b.Plan to pay for expenses in the future 3.Other cases referred to St. Vincent de Paul 4 Reasons for Denying Assistance Over income (for eligible funding source) Sub-lease, rather than renting from owner Landlord will not sign a W-9 form Mismanagement of funds and/or not able to demonstrate self-sustainability Core agency runs out of funds 5 Conclusions Current system (County-YMCA-SVDP) works well overall… however: Need has grown in SSF Current levels of funding tend to run low in May-June and Oct-Dec Many SSF requests denied due to strict program requirements (e.g., legal status, sub-lease, no sustainability plan) 6 Council Direction On January 18, 2020 at the Council retreat, Council directed staff to allocate $30,000 from the Housing Trust Fund to go towards Emergency Assistance 7 Proposed Program Guidelines Must be low-moderate income based on San Mateo County HUD Income guidelines Show late payment notice or insufficient funds demonstrating that tenant will not be able to make rent or deposit 8 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:20-17 Agenda Date:2/26/2020 Version:1 Item #:11. Report regarding a resolution accepting mid-year financial report and amending the Fiscal Year 2019-2020 adopted budget.(Janet Salisbury, Director of Finance) RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that City Council accept the Fiscal Year (FY)2019-20 mid-year budget at the February 26, 2020 Council meeting. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION On June 26,2019,Council adopted Resolution No.83-2019 approving the FY2019-21 Biennial Operating Budget for the City of South San Francisco. On February 24,2020 the Budget Standing Committee of the City Council was presented the FY 19-20 mid- year budget. This report summarizes the City’s financial analyses conducted by staff based upon actuals for the first half and projections for the latter half of FY 2019-20.In addition,it outlines the additional budget appropriations requests for FY 2019-20 from the various City Departments for the Council’s consideration.Overall,based on actual results from July 1,2019 through December 31,2019 and projections through year end,staff expects that total revenues are on track to meet budgeted (and additional proposed) expenditures. General Fund The General Fund is the City’s primary operating fund,serving as the major funding source for City Administration,Police,Fire,Library and Parks and Recreation services.Attachment 1 shows the General Fund Summary showing comparisons of FY2018-19 Actual Results,FY2019-20 Adopted Budget,FY2019-20 Amended Budget (which includes Council actions through January 31,2020),and FY2019-20 Actual Results (July 1, 2019 through December 31, 2019). Revenues.Council adopted FY2019-20 budget projected revenues of almost $113.9 million.Once prior year encumbrances (i.e.,purchase orders/contracts signed prior to July 1,2019)of approximately $11.9 million are taken into account,the total Council adopted FY2019-20 revenue budget is $125.8 million.Subsequent Council actions from July 2019 through January 2020 (e.g.,acceptance of grants and other funds)increased the budgeted revenues by approximately $1 million ($975,774,to be exact),making the total FY2019-20 budget $127.6 million.Staff is conservatively projecting that based upon actual revenue receipts through December 2019, City revenues are on track to meet that budgeted revenue target of $127.6 million. Note:Staff is closely monitoring the Transit Occupancy Tax (TOT)due to travel restrictions associated with the Coronavirus.The San Francisco International Airport is a hub for worldwide business travel,and local hotels have reported room cancellations by visitors from China.However,taking the potential impacts of the virus into consideration,TOT collections are on track to meet the adopted budget revenue projection of $16.9 million based upon 6-month actual results. Expenditures.The Council adopted budget expenditures for FY2019-20 was $111.6 million.Subsequent City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/21/2020Page 1 of 4 powered by Legistar™ File #:20-17 Agenda Date:2/26/2020 Version:1 Item #:11. Expenditures.The Council adopted budget expenditures for FY2019-20 was $111.6 million.Subsequent Council actions from 2019 through January 2020 (e.g.,acceptance of contracts and additional appropriation requests),along with the “carryover encumbrances”have increased the budgeted expenditures to $125.5 million.Staff is conservatively projecting that based upon actual expenditures through December 2020,City Departments are on track not to exceed their budgeted expenditures. Revenues vs.Expenditures Analysis.Based upon a review of mid-year results and accounting reconciliations, the General Fund surplus for FY 2019-20 at mid-year is approximately $2.2 million ($127,663,906 revenues minus $125,459,243 expenditures equals $2,174,663).This surplus is driven by reconciliations as it relates prior year encumbrances.Staff informed Council as part of year-end results for FY2018-19 that expenditure overages vs.budget in the Economic Community and Development Department ($1,874,616)and Public Works ($319,002)was a timing issue based upon encumbrances made in the prior fiscal year and that it would normalize in FY2019-20.The surplus being recognized is a result of these encumbrance reconciliations (along with other minor accounting clean-ups). Appropriations Request.City Departments have made several one-time appropriations requests as part of the mid-year budget review process. §Fire Department 1.Budget Neutral - $138,272 related to mutual aid deployments for the Kincaid wildfire in FY2019-20. This additional expenditure will be offset by equal additional revenues as it is reimbursable through Cal OES; this change is budget neutral. 2.$13,220 to purchase a stock of Meals Ready to Eat (MRE) and bottled water to have available during an activation of the Emergency Operations Center. §Public Works 1.$50,000 to replace the “Birthplace of Biotechnology” sign that was damaged by an auto collision. This funding was received from Genentech as a previous donation in the prior fiscal year and accepted into the City’s General Fund. 2.$1,500,000 for the Linden Avenue Complete Streets projects. These projects are partially funded with a $400,000 Transportation Development Act grant and an $868,000 Active Transportation Program grant, but the total cost for both projects is $5 million. An additional $1.5 million is necessary to fully fund the projects. §Non-Departmental 1.$425,000 for costs related to City’s 2020 Anti-Litter effort. On February 19th, 2020, staff presented to Council via a study session the estimated costs related to this project. §Transfer Out to Capital Improvement 1.$80,000 for traffic improvement studies, review and implementation 2.$75,000 for design of medians along El Camino Real between Spruce and Chestnut 3.Budget Neutral - $104,258 for costs associated with Gardiner Park project. This additional expenditure will be offset by salary savings within Parks and Recreation Department. General Fund Summary.Funding for these budget requests are available from the projected FY19-20 General Fund surplus of $2.1 million as noted above: City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/21/2020Page 2 of 4 powered by Legistar™ File #:20-17 Agenda Date:2/26/2020 Version:1 Item #:11. Projected General Fund Surplus $2,174,663 Projected Additional Net Expenditures $2,143,220 Difference $ 31,443 Other Funds The following outlines requested changes to other funds as part of the mid-year review.Attachment 2 shows the Fund Summaries for the following funds. §City Housing Fund 1.Budget Neutral -$30,000 to provide assistance to low-income South San Francisco residents experiencing financial distress and needing rent payment assistance via the YMCA’s rental assistance program.This is considered a homeless prevention tool,and the Economic and Community Development Department is requesting the re-appropriation of $30,000 from the City Housing Fund budget for this purpose.This action will result in a net zero budget impact on the General Fund. §Sewer Enterprise Fund 1.$75,000 for contract services related to the repair of City sewer main and laterals on South Maple and Spruce Avenues.Aging infrastructure is resulting in increased in repair related services and this project is necessary according to Public Works. §Storm Water Fund 1.$150,000 for contract services related to the repair of the deteriorated storm drain main that runs beneath the Central Concrete Supply Company,which is receiving storm water from South Linden Avenue.Currently,Public Works maintenance staff has a storm pump in place during wet weather season that is used to eliminate flooding;however,this is a temporary fix.Without these repairs,South Linden will continue to experience flooding and may sustain additional damage. It is important to note that the Storm Water Fund is not self-supporting and is subsidized by both the Gas Tax Fund and the General Fund.For FY 2019-20,Council adopted budgets that included $670,000 and $465,156 transfers out of the Gas Tax Fund and General Fund,respectively,to subsidize the shortfalls within the Storm Water Fund.This additional appropriation will not result in additional transfers out in this fiscal year,but will reduce the fund balance commensurately. §E101 Traffic Impact Fee 1.$125,000 for survey and design related to the East Grand Avenue Bicycle Gap.The City was awarded a Transportation Development Act grant and as such is required to meet deadlines as part of the grant requirements.The additional funds are needed so that staff can begin creating the plans, specifications and estimates to stay on schedule. 2.$150,000 to meet requirements to install improvements along South Airport Boulevard and Belle Aire Road as part of City’s role as a permittee of the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC).Failure to make these may result in potential enforcement and fines from BCDC. 3.$150,000 to make corrections to the Bay Trail access route that involves relocating existing street lights per BCDC request. City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/21/2020Page 3 of 4 powered by Legistar™ File #:20-17 Agenda Date:2/26/2020 Version:1 Item #:11. Staff will verify and document that these projects are eligible for East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee funds prior to the expenditures. FISCAL IMPACT It is anticipated that General Fund will end the fiscal year with an operating surplus of $2,174,665.Approval of the additional appropriations requests from the General Fund will result in a net expenditure budget adjustment of $2,143,220 million for FY 2019-20. In addition, there are appropriations requests in the following funds: §Sewer Enterprise Fund =$ 75,000 §Storm Water Fund =$150,000 §E101 Traffic Impact Fee Fund =$425,000 CONCLUSION The City’s operating budget at the mid-year point remains on target.The expected General Fund surplus revenues offset expenditure appropriations request without decreasing reserve levels and ultimately maintaining the City’s prudent financial position.Staff requests that Council accept the mid-year results and appropriate per the requested budget adjustments. Attachments: 1.General Fund Summary 2.Other Fund Summary 3.Mid-Year FY 19-20 Recommended Adjustments 4.Mid-Year Budget Presentation City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/21/2020Page 4 of 4 powered by Legistar™ ATTACHMENT 1: FY2019-20 GENERAL FUND SUMMARY GENERAL FUND SUMMARY Property Taxes 38,659,658$ 36,659,133$ 36,659,133$ 15,467,178$ Sales Tax 19,606,689 18,763,000 18,763,000 6,239,801 Transient Occupancy Tax 17,091,222 16,855,297 16,855,297 8,280,123 Commercial Parking Tax 2,882,732 3,979,573 3,979,573 1,116,458 Other Taxes 2,112,672 2,078,559 2,078,559 931,833 Franchise Fees 4,469,808 4,000,000 4,000,000 1,146,931 Licenses and Permits 15,381,415 12,131,018 12,131,018 6,515,805 Fines and Forfeitures 926,728 618,500 618,500 491,811 Revenue from Other Agencies 2,867,795 1,626,854 2,339,350 405,458 Charges for Services 11,563,754 10,417,837 10,417,837 5,530,241 Interest and Rent 6,078,798 5,309,459 5,309,459 1,650,092 Other Revenues 330,845 181,994 181,994 95,808 Transfers In 7,143,014$ 1,261,591$ 1,524,868$ 600,458$ Revenues 129,115,132$ 113,882,815$ 114,858,589$ 48,471,997$ Plus committed reserves from prior year 11,868,688 12,775,317 Total Revenues 129,115,132$ 125,751,504$ 127,633,906$ 48,471,997$ City Council 258,759$ 290,291$ 290,291$ 129,679$ City Clerk 770,987 1,056,761$ 1,091,061$ 503,740$ City Treasurer 123,504 143,137$ 143,137$ 65,793$ City Attorney 961,588 1,115,935$ 1,115,935$ 427,555$ City Manager 2,298,368 2,542,579$ 6,118,639$ 2,136,580$ Finance 2,789,191 3,294,240$ 3,679,026$ 1,600,814$ Non-Departmental 1,218,354 997,844$ 997,844$ 299,351$ Human Resources 1,621,404 1,794,862$ 1,919,065$ 867,434$ Economic & Community Development 8,433,295 9,925,951$ 13,936,637$ 4,012,323$ Fire 27,563,733 29,608,967$ 30,832,438$ 15,077,547$ Police 28,482,441 30,926,920$ 31,071,930$ 16,986,741$ Public Works 5,787,769 5,018,087$ 5,705,271$ 2,972,685$ Library 5,628,684 6,132,137$ 6,304,903$ 3,216,944$ Parks & Recreation 16,530,599 17,762,501$ 17,710,005$ 9,251,310$ CIP 1,553,574 200,001$ 3,789,608$ 820,263$ Transfers Out 4,098,258 753,453$ 753,453$ 1,183,890$ Total 108,120,507 111,563,667 125,459,243 59,552,649 Expenditures 108,120,507$ 111,563,667$ 125,459,243$ 59,552,649$ Plus committed reserves from prior year 11,868,688 Total Expenditures 119,989,195$ 111,563,667$ 125,459,243$ 59,552,649$ 2,174,663$ (1)Includes Council actions through January 2020 (2)Numbers do not reflect projected spend of prior year encumbrances Expenditures 2018-19 Actual Results 2019-20 Adopted Budget (2) Projected Surplus/ (Deficit) for FY 2019-20: 2019-20 Amended Budget 2019-20 6 Month Actual Results 2019-20 Amended Budget (1) 2019-20 6 Month Actual Results Revenues 2018-19 Actual Results 2019-20 Adopted Budget Attachment 1 ATTACHMENT 2: FUNDS SUMMARIES SEWER ENTERPRISE FUND SUMMARY CHARGES FOR SVCS 29,900,342$ 30,874,960$ 36,254,677$ 15,225,601$ 36,254,677$ USE OF MONEY & PROPERTY 488,429 110,000 110,000 360 110,000$ OTHER FINANCING SOURCES - - 44,548,262 5,673,079 44,548,262$ OTHER REVENUES 5,213 - - 25,923 -$ TRANSFERS 651,572 4,500,000 27,165,014 6,171,257 27,165,014$ TOTAL REVENUES 31,045,555$ 35,484,960$ 108,077,953$ 27,096,221$ -$ 108,077,953$ PAYROLL 10,940,416$ 9,375,475$ 8,962,029$ 5,072,020$ 8,962,029$ SUPPLIES & SERVICES 26,075,155 20,207,859 85,123,796 18,864,013 75,000 85,198,796$ CAPITAL OUTLAY (13,755,428) - - - -$ DEBT SERVICE 838,647 5,704,928 5,704,928 4,239,116 5,704,928$ INTERDEPARTMENTAL CHARGES 1,591,306 1,589,299 1,589,299 794,649 1,589,299$ TOTAL EXPENDITURES 25,690,096$ 36,877,561$ 101,380,052$ 28,969,799$ 75,000$ 101,455,052$ Surplus/ (Deficit)5,355,459$ (1,392,601)$ 6,697,901$ (1,873,578)$ (75,000)$ 6,622,901$ CASH BALANCE 24,338,039 22,945,438 29,643,339 29,568,339 2019-20 Requested 2019-20 Projected (Amended + Requested) 2019-20 YTD 2019-20 Requested 2019-20 Projected (Amended + Requested) 2019-20 Amended 2019-20 YTD Revenues 2018-19 Actual 2019-20 Adopted 2019-20 Amended Expenses 2018-19 Actual 2019-20 Adopted Attachment 2 STORM WATER FUND SUMMARY FINES & FORFEITURES 2,700$ 5,000$ 5,000$ 700$ 5,000$ INTERGOVERNMENTAL 752,849$ 8,500,000$ 8,728,298$ 393,227$ 8,728,298$ CHARGES FOR SVCS 410,600$ 405,000$ 405,000$ 215,951$ 405,000$ USE OF MONEY & PROPERTY 39,477$ 5,000$ 5,000$ -$ 5,000$ TRANSFERS 1,449,650$ 1,135,156$ 1,580,944$ 471,857$ 1,580,944$ TOTAL REVENUES 2,655,276$ 10,050,156$ 10,724,243$ 1,081,736$ -$ 10,724,243$ PAYROLL 704,852$ 739,471$ 773,216$ 412,729$ -$ 773,216$ SUPPLIES & SERVICES 1,342,307 9,017,669 9,807,817 570,968 150,000 9,957,817$ CAPITAL OUTLAY (936,473) - - - - -$ INTERDEPARTMENTAL CHARGES 70,425 51,282 51,282 25,641 - 51,282$ TOTAL EXPENDITURES 1,181,111$ 9,808,422$ 10,632,316$ 1,009,339$ 150,000$ 10,782,316$ Surplus/ (Deficit)1,474,165$ 241,734$ 91,927$ 72,397$ (150,000)$ (58,073)$ CASH BALANCE 1,680,440 1,922,174 2,014,101 1,864,101 2019-20 Amended 2019-20 YTD Revenues 2018-19 Actual 2019-20 Adopted 2019-20 Amended Expenses 2018-19 Actual 2019-20 Adopted 2019-20 Requested 2019-20 Projected (Amended + Requested) 2019-20 YTD 2019-20 Requested 2019-20 Projected (Amended + Requested) EAST OF 101 TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE FUND SUMMARY USE OF MONEY AND PROPERTY 533,381$ -$ -$ -$ -$ OTHER REVENUES 8,304,581.78 - - 323,848.00 -$ TOTAL REVENUES 8,837,962.78$ -$ -$ 323,848.00$ -$ -$ INTERDEPARTMENTAL 2,652$ 2,745$ 2,745$ 1,372$ 2,745$ TRANSFERS OUT 701,659 4,395,448 8,509,061 161,323 425,000 8,934,061$ TOTAL EXPENDITURES 704,311$ 4,398,193$ 8,511,806$ 162,695$ 425,000$ 8,936,806$ Surplus/ (Deficit)8,133,652$ (4,398,193)$ (8,511,806)$ 161,153$ (425,000)$ (8,936,806)$ FUND BALANCE 20,579,285.61$ 16,181,093$ 7,669,287$ 7,244,287$ 2019-20 Requested 2019-20 Projected (Amended + Requested) 2019-20 YTD 2019-20 Requested 2019-20 Projected (Amended + Requested) 2019-20 Amended 2019-20 YTD Expenditures 2018-19 Actual 2019-20 Adopted 2019-20 Amended Revenues 2018-19 Actual 2019-20 Adopted ] ATTACHMENT 3: RECOMMENDED FY19-20 MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS MID-YEAR REQUESTS Account Fund Department GL Code Adjustment +/(-)Account Type Description of Item/Service General Fund 100 Fire 100-11710-4101 138,272.01 Expense Wildfire OES Response General Fund 100 Fire 100-11710-34041 138,272.01 Revenue Wildfire OES Response General Fund 100 Fire 100-11310-5035 13,220.00 Expense Emergency Preparedness Water and Meals Ready to Eat (MRE). General Fund 100 Public Works 100-13410-5005 50,000.00 Expense Genentech sign replacement. General Fund 100 Public Works 100-99999-9510 1,097,045.27 Expense-CIP Linden Ave Complete Streets (California to Aspen), Pedestrian & Bike Safety Improvements (Phase 1/ST1601-Design). General Fund 100 Public Works 100-99999-9510 402,954.73 Expense-CIP Linden / Spruce Ave Traffic Calming Improvements (Phase 2 /ST1602-Design). General Fund 100 Public Works 100-99999-9510 75,000.00 Expense-CIP Design ECR Medians (ST1805-Design) General Fund 100 Public Works 100-99999-9510 80,000.00 Expense-CIP Misc Traffic Improvement - Misc Studies, TAC Reviews and implementation costs (TR1904-Design) plus ADA curb ramps. General Fund 100 Non-Departmental 100-07801-5001 30,000.00 Expense Improve Weed Abatement/Median Maintenance Contract. General Fund 100 Non-Departmental 100-07801-5001 25,000.00 Expense Increased enforcement of Community Preservation Standards. General Fund 100 Non-Departmental 100-07801-5001 100,000.00 Expense Painting & preservation of Downtown historic Poles, traffic signals, Controller cabinet, bike racks, and other street furnishings. General Fund 100 Non-Departmental 100-07801-5001 40,000.00 Expense Delivery, installation, and monthly leasing for 20 Big Belly trash/Recycle units. General Fund 100 Non-Departmental 100-07801-5001 150,000.00 Expense On call staff augmentation for additional maintenance service. General Fund 100 Non-Departmental 100-07801-5001 80,000.00 Expense 10 Surveillance cameras for equipment, licenses and installation. Sewer Enterprise Fund 710 Public Works 710-13315-5001 75,000.00 Expense Contract services repair of Sewer main/laterals. Storm Water Fund 740 Public Works 740-13820-5001 150,000.00 Expense Contract services for storm main repairs. East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee Fund 820 Public Works 820-99999-9510 125,000.00 Expense-CIP E.Grand Bike Gap (new ST2003-Design) East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee Fund 820 Public Works 820-99999-9510 150,000.00 Expense-CIP South Airport BCDC Improvements (New ST2004- Design) East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee Fund 820 Public Works 820-99999-9510 150,000.00 Expense-CIP North Access Road (ST1806-Const) FY 2019-2020 Mid-Year Budget Presentation to the City Council Janet Salisbury 26 FEBRUARY 2020 Attachment 4 AGENDA 1 Financial Highlights 2 General Fund Revenues 3 General Fund Expenditures 4 Mid-Year Budget Requests by Dept. 2 Financial Highlights *Excludes Measure W Sales Tax **Including previously committed reserves 1Financial Highlights •Anticipated annual $114.8 million* •Actual mid-year $ 48.4 million •Available General Fund Resources $127.6 million** Revenues •Anticipated annual $125.5 million •Actual mid-year $ 59.5 millionExpenditures •Projected General Fund Surplus $2,174,663 •Projected Additional Net Expenditures $2,143,220 •Difference $31,443 Revenue vs. Expenditures 3 Mid-Year FY19-20 General Fund Revenues 2General Fund Overview 4 $- $5,000,000.00 $10,000,000.00 $15,000,000.00 $20,000,000.00 $25,000,000.00 $30,000,000.00 $35,000,000.00 $40,000,000.00 FY18-19 Six Month Actual FY19-20 Six Month Actual FY19-20 Amended Budget General Fund Expenditures 5 3General Fund Overview $- $5,000,000.00 $10,000,000.00 $15,000,000.00 $20,000,000.00 $25,000,000.00 $30,000,000.00 $35,000,000.00 FY18-19 Six Month Actual FY19-20 Six Month Actual FY19-20 Amended Budget General Fund Mid-Year Budget Requests 6 4Mid-Year Budget Requests Fire Department Requests 1.Budget Neutral -$138,272 CAL OES reimbursable in-state mutual aid deployment to the 2019 Kincaid Fire 2.$13,220 Meals Ready to Eat (MRE) and bottled water for Emergency Operations Center Non-Departmental 1.$425,000 Clean Team 2020 General Fund Mid-Year Budget Requests (cont.) 7 4Mid-Year Budget Requests Public Works Department Requests 1.$50,000 Replacement of damaged ‘Birthplace of Biotechnology’ sign (Funds were generously donated to the City’s General Fund by Genentech) 2.$1,500,000 CIP Linden Avenue Complete Streets: Pedestrian, bike, and ADA improvements Transfers Out to Capital Improvement 1.$80,000 Traffic improvement study, review, and implementation 2.$75,000 Design of medians along El Camino Real between Spruce and Chestnut 3.Budget Neutral -$104,258 Gardiner Park update Other Funds Mid-Year Budget Requests 8 4Mid-Year Budget Requests City Housing Fund 1.Budget Neutral -$30,000 Homeless prevention via YMCA’s rent assistance program Sewer Enterprise Fund 1.$75,000 Repair of sewer main and laterals along S. Maple and Spruce Ave. Storm Water Fund 1.$150,000 Storm Water Fund -Long-term flood prevention measures near the end of San Bruno canal storm main owned and operated by the City E101 Traffic Impact Fee 1.$125,000 Fund Bay Trail required access route improvements 2.$150,000 Survey and design East Grand Ave. bicycle gap 3.$150,000 Improvements required by the BCDC along S. Airport Blvd. and Belle Aire Rd. QUESTIONS 9 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:20-155 Agenda Date:2/26/2020 Version:1 Item #:11a. Resolution accepting mid-year financial report and amending the Fiscal Year 2019-20 adopted budget. WHEREAS,on June 26,2019,the City Council of the City of South San Francisco (“City Council”)adopted Resolution No.83-2019 to establish the biennial budget for Fiscal Years 2019-2021; and WHEREAS,City Council has taken actions subsequent to biennial budget adoption to amend the Fiscal Year (“FY”) 2019-20 budget; and WHEREAS,the details of the Anti-Litter Campaign was presented to City Council via a Special City Council Meeting on February 19, 2020; and WHEREAS,the Fiscal Year (FY)2019-20 mid-year financial report was presented to the Budget Standing Committee on February 24, 2020; and WHEREAS,as outlined in the mid-year report,further City Council actions are requested by City Departments in terms of additional one-time appropriations. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that City Council accepts the Fiscal Year (“FY”)2019- 20 mid-year financial report; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that City Council hereby approves the one-time appropriations requests for FY 2019-20 and hereby appropriates the funds set forth as part of the mid-year financial report; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that should City Council change or reject any of the one-time appropriations requests for FY 2019-20 as set forth herein,City Council hereby approves and appropriates the necessary funds to reflect only those appropriation requests that are approved; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Director of Finance is authorized to increase budgeted revenues and expenses in departments for transactions that have a net zero impact such as donations and pass-through transactions.Said transactions will have no net impact on reserves, as revenue will offset expenses. City of South San Francisco Printed on 5/4/2020Page 1 of 2 powered by Legistar™ File #:20-155 Agenda Date:2/26/2020 Version:1 Item #:11a. ***** City of South San Francisco Printed on 5/4/2020Page 2 of 2 powered by Legistar™